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 EXCELLENCY & PERFECTION OF THE Holy Scriptures.

CHAP. I.

The different Esteem and Sentiment of Persons concern∣ing the Authors they make choice of to read. No Writings can equal the Bible. It hath been highly valu••d in all Ages by Men of the greatest Learn∣ing, Wit and Judgment. A Scheme of the fol∣lowing Discourse briefly propounded. The Holy Scrip∣tures are the perfect Rule of Faith. They are the best Conduct of our Lives and Actions. They are the only Ground of solid Consolation, Joy and Happiness. This Perfection of Scripture is opposed by many of the Rabbins. An Account of their Ca∣bala and Oral Law. The Papists by preferring their Traditions before the Scriptures, and by indea∣vouring to keep these latter in an unknown Tongue, deny the Perfection of them. So do Familists, Quakers, and all Enthusiasts.

IT may be observed that the Minds of Men have been differently disposed as to the choice of the Authors they would read; and their Esteem and Value of them have been as vari∣ous. It hath been usual for Persons to express a

particular Kindness for one Writer above ano∣ther. Thus Homer of old was excessively magnifi∣ed by those famous Warriors Agesilaus and Alexan∣der the Great: The former read him continually at home and in the Camp, and whenever he had any time to spare for Reading: The latter could not sleep without his Iliads under his Pillow. Scipio, ••irnamed the African, had a great Opinion of Xe∣nophon's Institution of Cyrus, and was always con∣sulting it, and valued it at a high rate. So among Christians, St. Cyprian was a great Admirer of Ter∣tullian; and when he had a mind to read him, his usual Saying was, Give me my Master. Charles the Great was hugely taken with St. Augustine de Civitate Dei, and had it constantly read to him, yea even at Supper. King Alphonsus in all his Ex∣peditions, and at all other times, carried Iulius Caesar's Commentaries, others say Livy's History, with him. Theodore Gaza gave his Vote for Plu∣tarch's Works, and was so pleased with them, that he protested if he could have but one Man's Wri∣tings, he would certainly choose His before all others. Thomas Aquinas was no less in love with St. Chrysostom on St. Matthew, and expressed his high Esteem of him by saying, he preferr'd him before the goodly City of Paris. Charles the Vth gave a greater Deference to Comines than to any other Writer, and perpetually conversed with him. Scaliger would rather be the Author of the ninth Ode of Horace than be Emperor of Germany. And to come down yet lower, Grotius gives Cuja∣cius the Pref••rence to all the other Comm••ntators on the Imperial Laws. Salmasius admired no Divine so much as Calvin, and particularly preferred his Institutions. And the Reverend Mr. B. Oley tells us, if he were to be con••ined to one Author, he would

choose Dr. Iackson's Works. Thus have Mens Sen∣timents and Esteems been various about Books, ••ome preferring one Writer, and some another, according as their Genius or Studies led them.

••ut when we mention the Bible, i. e. the Book of Books, we are certain there is no Comparison between This and any others whatsoever. This Sacred Volume is emphatically, and by way of Eminence, call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if other Books in respect of This deserv'd not the Name. For in what other Writings can we de••cry tho••e Excellen∣cies which we find in This? None of them can equal it in Antiquity, for the first Penman of the Sacred Scripture (who relates the Origine of the World, and whose Writings contain the Acts and Monuments of the Patriarchs) hath the start of all Philosophers, Poets and Historians, and is ab••o∣lutely the Antientest Writer extant in the World. No Writings are equal to these of the Bible, if we mention only the stock of Humane Learning con∣tain'd in them. Here Linguists and Philologists may find that which is to be found no where else. Here R••etoricians and Orators may be entertained with a more lo••ty Eloquence, with a choicer Composure of Words, and with greater Variety of Stile than any other Writers can afford them. Here is a Book where more is understood than expressed, where Words are few, but the Sense is full and redun∣dant. No Books equal This in Authority, because 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the Word of God himself, and dictated by an unerring Spirit. It exc••ls all other Writings in the Excellency of its Matter, which is the Highest, Noblest, and Worthiest, and of the Greatest Con∣cern to Mankind. Lastly, (to name no more at present, that I may not anticipate what is intended in the following Discourse) the Scriptures tran∣scend

all other Writings in their Power and Efficacy. This2 1.1 Word of God is pure, enlightning the Eyes, ir∣radiating Mens Minds with Supernatural Truth, affecting their Hearts and Consciences, subduing the Refracotriness of their Wills, transforming their Lives, and changing them into other Per∣sons. Thence it is that all Men of well-disposed Souls find a plain Differene between their reading This and other Books. When they read those, it is true they are something affected and pleased, the Stile or the Matter give them some Satisfaction; but if they read them often, and confine themselves to them, their former Pleasure and Satisfaction abate, and the Authors seem not to be so entertain∣ing and acceptable as they were before, and at length they become burdensom and nauseous; and hence it is that some Writers grow out of fashion, and other New ones are called for. But it is far otherwise with this Holy Book: the Affection and Pleasure which you feel in the reading it are lasting and durable, because this Blessed Word sinks down into the Center of the Soul, and is always present with it. Though you lay this Book aside, and af∣terwards take it up, and do so again and again, yea never so often, you will not ••ind it grow worse, but much better, i. e. it will yield you greater De∣light and Satisfaction; and the oftner you converse with it, the more you will discern the Worth of it, yea the more pleasing will the very Words and Syllables of these Divine Writings be to you. For what the Great Critick observes of Homer's Poem▪ that there is a certain kind of Peculiar Easiness and Sliding in his Verse, which are not to be found in any other Poets, is eminently true of the Holy

Scriptures, if compared with other Authors: there is a peculiar Sweetness, a matchless Softness and Pleasantness in the Stile of these Holy Books; the Words as well as the Matter are Winning and Ra∣vishing, and all pure and sanctified Minds have a clear Perception of this, yea the clearer, because they so frequently converse with these Inspired Writers. We may then on this Account, as well as on others, challenge the World to shew us where there is any Book like this, where there is any Au∣thor comparable to it. In all Humane Writers there is something wanting, something imperfect; but in this Sacred Volume there are all things, and every thing here is compleat. To the Holy Scrip∣tures therefore all other Writings must vail, to this Best of Books they must all submit, and ac∣knowledg their Meanness and Inferiority.

Hence it was that the Wisest and Best Men (as we may observe) did always extol the Scriptures. 3 1.2 I adore the Plenitude of the Scripture, said Tertullian; and to him have ecchoed the rest of the Antient Fathers, especially St. Cyprian, Ierom, Augustine, Chrysostom, who have highly magnified the Wri∣tings of the Prophets and Apostles, and have been very Rhetorical in their Panegyricks upon them. These and some other Brave Men in the first Ages of the Church signalized themselves by their Re∣verence and Esteem of the Scriptures; and4 1.3 some of them consecrated their Wit and Poetry to this Noble Cause. Nor have thse latter Ages been destitute of Persons of the most Celebrated Parts and Learning that have adored the Fulness and Per∣fection of the Scripture, and have used their Wit

and Eloquence in setting forth its Prai••••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••icinus, that Great Philosophick Soul, and the Noble Pi••us Mirandula, who was the best Linguist and Scholar of his age, two as Learned Italians as that Nation ever bred,(and who may more than compound for those two other Italians mentioned in my former Discourse, who so impiously vilified the Sacred Writings) after they had read all good Authors, rested in the Bible as the only Book; and particularly it was pronounced by the latter of them, that now he had found the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eloque••••e and Wisdom. Yea, these last Times have produced Men of the Choicest Brains, of the Briskest Parts, of the Greate••t Humane Learning, who have employ∣••d these excellent Talents in embelishing the Sa∣cr••d Scriptures; witness Ca••••••llio, who hath turn∣ed the Whole Bible into Pur••, Terse, Elegant La∣tin, able to tempt us to read this Book: And ••ro∣tius hath incompa••ably asserted the Propriety and Elegancy of the Sacred Stile; and many Other ex∣c••ll••••t Persons who have defended this Holy Book against the Insults and Cavils of profane Men. We could name5 1.4 Others of the most Sparkling Wit and Fancy, who have exercised their Poetick Ge∣nius in descanting either on the Sacred Hi••tory of the Bible, or on those Divine Matters which are contained in it, and have thought their Pens, yea Poetry it self, ••nobled by such a Subject. We could mention others of the most Serious Thoughts and of the most Impartial Judgment, not only among those that are Pr••••essed Divines, and that have adorned the Sacred Scripture by their Learn∣ed

Expositions, Comments, Annotations, Paraphrases, Lectures, Sermons, Discourses, but also among Per∣sons of another Rank and Capacity, who have gi∣ven the Bible the Pre-eminence of all Writings. I will at present mention only Mr. Selden and Judg Ha••e: the former was one of the greatest Scholars and Antiquaries of this Age and made a vast Amassment of Books and Manuscripts from all Parts of the World, a Library perhaps not to be equall'd, o•• all Accounts, in the Universe: This Man of Books and Learning holding some serious Con∣ference with Archbishop Vsher a little before he died, professed to him, that6 1.5 notwithstanding he had po••••essed himself of that vast Treasure of Books and Manuscripts in all antient Subjects, yet he could rest his Soul on none but the Scriptures. And hear what the other Gentleman of the same Studies and Profession declares,7 1.6 I have been acquainted somewhat with Men and Books, and have had long Experience in Learning and in the World. There is no Book like the Bible for excellent Learning, Wisdom and Vse: and it is want of Vnderstanding in them that think or speak otherwise. This is sufficient to shew that the most Noble and Refined Wits, the most Knowing and the most Ju∣dicious Heads, bear the greatest Regard and Esteem for the Holy Scriptures, and prefer them before all other Writings in the World. It may pass for a Certain Maxim, that the more learned any Man is, the more he prizeth the Bible, the greater Re∣gard he hath for these Sacred Records. It was said of old, that8 1.7 it was a Sign of a great Profi∣ciency in Good Letters to love Tully's Writings. It is much more a Sign of our Improvement in true

Learning that we delight in the Holy Scriptures, and love them above all Writings whatsoever. We shew our Proficiency by reverently esteeming the Bible, and preferring it before all other Au∣thors. We discover that we have a Sense of True and Useful Knowledg, when we value this Book wherein it is contain'd, when we admire this Vo∣lume where all Excellencies meet together.

To evince this, I will undertake these following things.

• I. To shew the matchless Usefulness of the Bi∣ble in respect of Spiritual, Divine and Super∣natural Matters.
• II. To demonstrate its Transcendent Excellency in regard of things Temporal and Secular, such as are for the Improvement of all kinds of Humane Learning, and for the Use of Life.
• III. To give a Proof of this Excellency and Per∣fection, by a particular displaying of the seve∣ral Books contain'd in this Holy Volume.
• IV. To let you see that this Perfection is not impaired by what is objected and alledged.
• 1. Concerning the Loss of some Books which had formerly been a part of the Old and New Testament. 2. Concerning the great Diffe∣rence between the Hebrew of the Old Testa∣ment and the Greek Translation of the Seventy. Where I will endeavour to discover the true Grounds and Foundations of those Mistakes that are in the LXX's Version, and shew whence it arises that there is such a Discrepan∣cy between that and the Original Verity.
• V. I will attempt an Emendation of the present English Version, which in several Places seems

• to me to be defective; that I may hereby re∣store the New Testament (for of that I shall chiefly speak) to its native Perfection and Lustre.
• Lastly, I will invite and solicit the Reader to the Study of the Bible, and direct him in so lau∣dable and worthy an Employment.

First, I will demonstratively prove the Tran∣scendent Excellency of these Writings in respect of the things which are Divine, and have an im∣mediate relation to Religion. Thus they are the only Canon of our Faith, the exact Standard of our Lives, and they mark us out the Way to solid Com∣fort, peace and Happiness. These are the three things I will insist upon.

1. This Holy Book is the Absolute and Perfect Rule of our Faith. This comprises in it every thing that is the Object of our Belief, the Ma••••••r of our Assent. Here we are taught to believe•• a God, an Immortal, Independent, All-sufficient, Self-subsisting Spirit; who is infinitely Wife, pow∣erful, Just and Merciful: who though he was inef∣fably happy in the fruition of his own immense and transcendent Perfections; yet, that he might com∣municate his Goodness to others, was pleased to frame the World, with all the excellent Furniture which we behold in it. By the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made, and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth, Psal. 33. 6. He laid the Foun∣dations of the Earth, and gave to the Sea his Decree, and set a Compass on the Face of the Deep, Psal. 104. 5. Prov. 8. 27, 29. We are assured from these Wri∣tings, that God's Providence governs the World, and all things in it, whether great or small, Psal. 147. 8, &c. Matth. 10. 29, 30, &c. And that he doth

whatsoever he pleaseth both in Heaven and Earth, Psal. 115. 3. But more especially the Divine Oracles ac∣quaint us, that this Divine and Benign Author, gave existence unto Man, the Choicest of all the Creatures of this lower World, whom he created in his own Image, after his Likeness, Gen. 1. 26, 27. that is, in Knowledg, Righteousness and true Holiness, Col. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24. And we are told in these Sa∣cred Writings, how Man lost this Image, and mi∣ferably defaced and corrupted his Nature, viz. by listning to the Temptation of Satan, and by wilful disobeying the Divine Command. Here al∣so we are informed, that all Flesh is desiled and pol∣luted by this Transgression of our First Parents in Paradise, and that their Sin is become the Sin of All Mankind, Rom. 5. 12. Hence we learn more∣over, that the Merciful Creator, out of his infi∣nite and boundless Philanthropy, vouchsafed to promise, that the seed of the Woman, the Blessed Iesus, who was to be born of a Virgin, should bruise Satan's Head, Gen. 3. 15. and save and redeem lost Mankind, and restore them to their former State of Happiness. Here is taught the Rise of Religi∣on and the Church, which began with our Pe••∣tent First Parents, and their Children; of whom Abol was the Chief. Their first and early way of expressing their Devotion and Religion, was by Offerings and Sacrifices unto God, Gen. 4. 4. To which end, without doubt, they erected Altars, though these are not mentioned till after the Flood, Gen. 8. 20. We are told at what time there was established an Open and more Solemn worship∣ping of God, viz. in Seth's days; then it was that Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord, and to form a Visible Church, Gen. 4. 26. i. e. an Orderly and Solemn Society of Men, gather'd and

chosen out as a peculiar People to serve God. For as Men encreased, they began to embody themselves into Communions, and to worship God more signal∣ly and openly, and with a joint Consent. Here (and no where else) we have an Account of the Church's Progress and Increase, under the good Patriarchs, Noah, Abraham, &c. Here we are informed what were the several Defections and Re∣storations of Religion in the first Ages. Here we have an Account of the Erection of the Levitical or Mosaick Service; the whole System of Religi∣ous Rites and Ceremonies, unto which the Jew∣ish Church was obliged. This yields abundant Mat∣ter of Contemplation and Enquiry to the Studious, who will find that these Observances were institu∣ted after the Israelites had been a while in the Wilderness, and had shew'd themselves inclinable to commit Idolatry. Then it was that God by Moses gave them these Laws, and prescribed them these Usages, which he knew would be the best Antidote against the Idolatrous Practices of the Nations that were round about them. And withal, if we look into these Ceremonies with a discerning Eye, we shall see that they had a far∣ther End, and were Presignifications of the great and wonderful Transactions of the Evangelical Dispensation, that they obscurely pointed unto the Messias, and his Blessed Undertakings for the Re∣demption of Mankind. They were Forerunners and Harbingers of the Blessed Child Iesus, that Child that was to be born, that Son who was to be given, and on whose shoulders the Government was to be settled, Isa. 9. 6. And we are ascertained that in the fulness of time, God actually sent forth this his Son, made of a Woman, Gal. 4. 4. that He so loved th•• World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso∣ever

believeth in him should not perish, but have ever∣lasting Life, John 3. 16. All ••e like Sheep have gon•• astr••y, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all, Isa. 53. 6. He bare our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, 1 Pe••. 2. 4. He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was ••ruised for our Iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed, Isa. 53. 5. The True Nature, the Admirable Me∣thod, and the Inestimable Worth of this Healing and Saving us, are the main Subject of these In∣spired Writings: where we are taught likewise, that this Salvation is Free and Undeserved, and founded on the Meer Grace and Bounty of God, and is not the Acquist of any Merit and Worth in us. We are justified freely by his Grace, through the Re∣demption that is in Christ Iesus, whom God ••ath set forth to be a Propitiation for Sin, through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3. 24. And in the Evangelical History, we are told, that this Blessed Redeemer, who laid down his Life for us, took it up again, rising from the Grave by the irresistible Power of his God∣head, and after a few Days Ascended gloriously into Heaven; from whence He shall come at the last Day to call the whole World to an Account: for He hath appointed a Day in which he will judg the World in Righteousness. Then all the Dead shall hasten out of their Dormitories, and stand before that Great Tribunal, and receive Sentence accord∣ing to their past Behaviour.

These are some of the Grand Principles of our Faith, these are the Fundamental Verities of our Religion: and they are originally fetch'd from this Sacred Volume, and are established and con∣firmed there, by unanswerable Arguments and De∣monstrations. Behold here the Eminency of Scrip∣ture-Notions,

see the Transcendency of these Excellent Truths, which are contain'd in the Bi∣ble! Here are things of a higher Nature than any Moral Writings afford us. These say nothing of the Gracious Oeconomy of the Gospel, of the Incarnation of the Son of God, of Satisfaction made for Sins through the Blood of Christ, of Justification by his Righteousness, and other the like unparallell'd Discoveries, which are to be learn'd out of Scripture only. In short, the Bible is the Standard of all Notions, Propositions and Articles in Religion: it is the Rule and Square of all our Opinions, Discourses and Arguments re∣lating to Christianity; and all our Conceptions, though they seem never so sine and plausible, are of little worth and nse, unless they be regulated according to This. If there arise any Disputes and Controversies concerning Matters of Christian Faith, This is the Judg that we must have recourse to, or rather This is the Rule by which we are to judg: for every Man is to judg and choose, and the Rule whereby he is to guide his Judgment and Choice is the Scripture. It is true, Reason or Conscience is our Immediate Guide or Rule: but then we must have a Mediate Rule; that is, a Guide or Rule for our Reasons and Consciences, and That in all Sacred and Religious things is the Word of God, and That is the only Rule. By This, and This alone, all Controversies of Faith which are necessary to be decided, may, and ought to be decided. And it is the Excellency and Perfection of this Rule, that it is Infallible. This is that more sure Word of Prophecy, which St. Peter preferreth before Eye-Witnesses and Voices from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 16, &c. Yea, though an Angel from Heaven should preach any other Doctrine

than what the Apostles preach'd, and afterwards committed to Writing, St. Paul pronounceth him accursed, Gal. 1. 8. These Infallible Records, these undoubted Oracles of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, are the standing Rule of Belief to all christians, even to the End of the World. On this they may rely with Confidence, as on an Unerring Guide; for it is not like other Books which are made by Men, and therefore are not void of Errors and Mistakes; but the Author of it is God, who is Truth it self, and can neither deceive, nor be de∣ceived. Thus the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, are the Compleat and Ab∣solute Rule of our Belief, and of all Supernatural Truth.

2. They are the Perfect Rule of Life and Man∣ners: they contain all things to be Done as well as to be Believed. Here is the Decalogue, the Sum of all our Duty towards God and Man; and the Necessary Precepts of Life, comprised in it, are often repeated, enlarged upon, and explained, through the whole Sacred Book. To these are added the Evangelical Duties of Self-denial, Mor∣tification, Poverty of Spirit, Purity of Heart, Brotherly Love, Heavenly-Mindedness, Circum∣spect Walking, Redeeming the Time, Abstaining from all appearance of Evil, Giving no Offence to any, and many others of the like Nature. The Writings of the Gospel forbid us to be Carnal, Sensual and Earthly, and call upon us to converse with Spiritual and Celestial Objects, to to set our Affe∣ctions on things Above, and to work our Minds to such a Temper that we may desire to depart out of this Body, and to be with Christ, which is far better than groveling here below. And Christianity pro∣motes this Heavenly-mindedness by giving us a

Power over Our selves, by restoring us to a Go∣vernment of our Bodily Appetites and Passions, so that the Soul thereby becomes Pure and Defe∣cate, purged from all mundane Dross and Filth, fitted for Heavenly Joys, and therefore most ear∣nestly breathes and longs after them. Here we learn, that Christianity is repugnant in all things to Satan's Kingdom, and designedly promotes the Kingdom of God; it bids us not seek our selves, and aim chiefly at worldly Respects, but it enjoin∣eth us to Humble and Debase our selves, and to Glorify God in all, to advance his Honour in the World, and next to that, to look after the Salva∣tion of our own and others immortal Souls These are the Noble and Worthy Designs of Christianity, and the Laws of it: their Business is to take us off from those low and mean Pro∣jects which Men of the World carry on, and to set the Soul of Man in a right Posture, and to fix it on right Ends. The Christian Precepts reach to the Hearts of Men, they restrain the secret Thoughts and inward Motions of the Mind, they curb the inordinate Desires and Wishes, they temper the Affections and Passions, especially they forbid Revenge, Malice, Hatred; and they direct us to love God, and to bear Love to all Men for his Sake. The Christian Laws give Rules for our Words and Speeches, and will not allow them to be Idle and Vain, much less Prophane and Impi∣ous; but they command our Discourse to be al∣ways with Grace, season'd with Salt, to favour of Goodness and Piety, and to be for the Edifying of those we converse with. The Commandments of the Gospel do also govern the Outward Acti∣ons of our Lives, and bid us be Holy in all manner of Conversation: They enjoin Chastity and Con∣tinence,

Temperance and Sobriety; they forbid Lust and Luxury, Pride and Sensuality: They teach Courtesy, Affability, Meekness, Candour, Gentleness towards our Brethren: They bid us be Kind and Charitable to all, and even to love our Enemies. Christianity is a Religion that is exactly Just, and gives the strictest Rules of dealing Ho∣nestly and Uprightly with our Neighbours. Even Morality, which is the very Foundation and Ground-work of All Religions, is most Illustrious here. Christianity hath the Impress of Reason, Civility, and all Acceptable Qualities. It forbids nothing that is Fitting and Decorous, it counte∣nances all that is Manly and Generous, it is agree∣able to the Law of Nature and the Reason of Man∣kind. In these Sacred Writings the Duty of Christians is set down not only as they are Single, but as they stand in relation to others, and as they are Members of the Community. There are Pe∣culiar Lessons for Persons in every Condition, for Husbands and Wives, for Masters and Servants, for Parents and Children, for Superiours, Equals and Inferiours. They are all provided here with Instructions and Directions proper to that State they are in. They are very Remarkable Words which a1 1.8 Reverend Divine of our Church uttered;

Would Men apply their Minds (saith he) to stu∣dy Scripture, and observe their own and others Course of Life, Experience would teach them that there is no Estate on Earth, nor humane Business in Christendom this Day on foot, but have a Ruled Cafe in Scripture for their Issue and Success.

This is a Great Truth, and is no mean

Demonstration of the Excellency of these Holy Writings which I am speaking of.

Here are also the most Notable Instances of all those Vertues and Graces which adorn the Life of Man. Here is the Example of Abel's sincere and acceptable Devotion; of Enoch's walking with God; of Noah's untainted Faithfulness amidst the Temptations of the corrupt World; of Abraham's Faith and Self-denial, when he offered his only Son on the Altar; of Ioseph's Resolved Chastity, when he once and again resisted the lustful Solicitations of his Mistress. Here is the Example of Moses's Pub∣lick Spirit, who desired his Name might be blotted out of the Book of Life rather than that Nation should perish. Here you read of Aaron's submissive Silence; of Reuben's fraternal Commiseration; of Rohab's Seasonable Wisdom, which was the Effect of her Faith, in concealing the Spies that were search'd for. Here we may observe Phineas's Active Zeal; Eli's Entire Submission to the Divine Plea∣sure; Iob's Invincible Patience; Iosiah's Early Pie∣ty; his and Iehosaphat's Care to reform the Church; Ionathan's entire Friendship; Manasses and Peter's Repentance; Iohn Baptist's Austerity; the Centu∣rion's Faith; Stephen's Charity to his Enemies at his Death. Briefly, here is commemorated the Re∣ligious and Holy Demeanour of all Ranks and De∣grees of Persons, whether in Prosperity or Adver∣sity; whether in Youth, Manhood, or Old Age, or in whatsoever Condition of Life they were placed. Where can we find such glorious At∣chievements as the Sacred History recounts unto us? Where are there such Perfect Paterns of Ver∣tue? Where do you meet with such Noble Acts as some of the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets and Apo∣stles are celebrated for? The Great Heroes spoken

of in the Writings of the Pagans are generally but Ideas of Vertue, and a kind of Harmless Ro∣mances to preach Goodness to Men. Virgil's Aene∣as, Xenophon's Cyrus, Curtius's Alexander, Plinty's Trajan, are rather Ingenious Portraictures and Images of Worthy Princes than Real Characters of them. They represent rather what they should be than what they are. They imitate some Limners who study not to draw the Face exactly like that of the Person they are to pourtray; so they make it Fair, they think it is enough. But the Sacred Writers have not done so, they have no ways flat∣tered or misrepresented the Originals they drew. They have set them before us in their proper Fea∣tures, native Lineaments, and genuine Colours. What we read of the Worthies mention'd in the Bible, is Certainly True, and Real Matter of Fact. Such was their Incomparable Spirit, that they did braver and greater Actions than Others ever thought of, witness the matchless Valour, Fortitude and Conduct of Ioshua, Iephthah, Gideon, yea of those Masculine Women Deborah and Iael; wit∣ness all the Other Eminent Instances of Heroick Undertakings in the Sacred Records; witness those Exact Paterns, those Accurate Examples of the rest of the Vertues which we read of these. And to illustrate and set off these, there are added very Signal and Memorable Examples of all sorts of Vices, as of Cain's Persidious Murdering his Brother, Laban's Fraud and Ingratitude, Esau's unruly Appe∣tite, Reuben and Iudah's Incest, Pharaoh's impious Obstinacy, Abimelech's unnatural Cruelty to his Brethren, Dinah's wanton gadding, Amnon's Rape, Achitophel's evil Policy, Shimei's Railing, Haman's revengeful Pride, Rabshakeh's Blasphemy, Belshaz∣zar's sacrilegious Debauchery. Potiphar's Wife is

an Example of the Impudence and Outragiousness of Lust when it is repulsed; Eli is an Instance of Fond Indulgence to his Children; Absalom, Achi∣tophel, Sheba and Zimri, of Treason and Rebellion; Samson and Solomon of an Vndue Love of Women: And in the New Testament the Hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the Treachery of Iudas, the Timorous Compliance of Pilate, the Malice of the Jews against our Saviour, the Apostacy of Demas, the Ambition of Diotrephes, are notorious. And in∣numerable other Examples there are of all manner of Immorality and Wickedness.

And with these are mixed the most Signal In∣stances of the Punishment of Vice, and the Reward of Vertue. Here are abundant Proofs of God's Ex∣treme Severity and Vengeance against profligate Offenders; and here are as frequent Tokens and Assurances of the Divine Love and Kindness to∣wards those that lead a holy and religious Life. Here are set before us the most Conspicuous Acts of God's Providence in reference both to Bad Men and Good, that by the former we may be discou∣raged, yea deterred from continuing in the ways of Vice, and that by the latter we may be incou∣raged, yea as 'twere bribed to be Vertuous and Good. Here we may observe and admire God's Wonderful Care of his Servants in all Ages of the World; and here we may take notice of the Va∣riety of those Evils and Miseries which he inflicteth on those who wilfully decline his Service, and give themselves up to their Lusts. There are no where such Eminent Examples of this Nature to be found as these which we meet with in the Sacred Volume of the Bible. No other Writings can produce such Remarkable Discoveries of God's Will to∣wards Men, and of his Dealings with them:

Wherefore These must needs be the Best Conduct of our Lives and Actions, the Best Reformers of our Ways and Manners: Which is the Meaning of the Psalmist in Psa••. 1 19. 9. Wherewith shall a young Man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto, accord∣ing to thy Word, i. e. by making the Holy Scrip∣ture his Rule, and by adjusting all his Actions to it. If the Youthful and Passionate Sinner may be re∣claimed and reformed by attending to God's Word, and that only the Pentateuch or the Laws of Moses (for this was all the Inspired Scripture extant at that time, which we certainly know of) then we cannot despair of the Success and happy Influence of the whole Body of the Scriptures upon Others. It will throughly change and amend their Lives by making a full Discovery to them of all their Lusts and evil Affections, by representing Sin to them in its own native Desormity, and by setting before them the Beauties and Excellencies of a Religious Life, by being a Faithful Monitor and Guide to them whenever they undertake any thing, by shew∣ing them the true Boundaries of Good and Evil, and by directing them how to accomplish the one, and to avoid the other. The Sum of all is, that these Inspired Writings acquaint us with the Whole Will of God, whether it refers to our Be∣lief or to our Practice, and consequently that not only our Faith, but our Manners are to be regulated by this Holy Book. Especially by the Principles and Laws of the New Testament they will more conspicuously be exalted, and all Righteousness and Godliness more visibly promoted in our Lives. For here is the most Perfect and Consummate Ex∣emplar of Holiness; in the Evangelical Writings the Blessed Iesus still speaks and lives: In these you may hear what he said, and see what he did,

and know how you are to conform your Lives ac∣cording to His. Whence you have Reason to infer, that as these Writings are the Compleat Canon of our Faith, so they are the Adequate Rule of our Actions.

Nay, although we should suppose some Mistakes in them by the Fault of Transcribers,(which yet no Man can certainly prove, nay it is not by any means to be allowed, and therefore it is the most culpable thing in Sir N. Knatchbull, that he is seve∣ral times finding Faults in the Transcribers of the New Testament, which if we once grant, we bid farewel to the Certainty of Scripture: But if we should, I say, suppose some Slips in the Copying out of the Books, yet) still they retain the same Cha∣racter, because those supposed Mistakes are not of Moment, and belong not to Faith or Manners. Neither do the Obscurity or Difficulty of Scripture hinder it from being our Rule, because all the Matters in it which relate to our Salvation, are clear and easy. For when I say it is an Adequate Rule of Faith and Manners, the Meaning is, that it is so as to such Matters of Faith and Manners as are Necessary to be believed and practised by us. Now nothing is Necessary but what is absolutely requisite to our Salvation. This then is the thing which we maintain, that the Scriptures contain in them either in express Terms, or by just Consequence, all things to be asserted and done by us in order to our being Saved. The Reason of which is evi∣dent, namely, because the End for which the Scrip∣tures were written was this, to direct us how to be Saved. This is the grand Design of it, and therefore there must be in it all things that are requisite to this great End and Design. Which is expressed thus in the Words of Our

Church,1 1.9

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation.

And this is a sufficient and solid Proof of a thing's not being Necessary to Salvation, that it is not contain'd in Scripture. This then we assert, that these Wri∣tings are Plain and Perfect as to all Matters that are Necessary, and accordingly are able to put an End to all Controversies which relate to Salvation: And if Men will not end them with This Rule, they will never do it with any. This is the Chief Perfection of Scripture, that in it the whole Will of God, as to those things that have a necessary Tendency to our Happiness, and consequently are the only Necessary Things to be known and done by us, is plainly revealed. The New Testament particularly is the last Revelation of God's Will and Counsel, and nothing is to be added to it or taken from it, which makes it a Perfect Standard of Belief, and a Compleat Rule of our Lives, in which there is nothing short and defective, no∣thing superfluous and redundant. Here are all the Principles of True Religion, and all the Measures of Holy Living: so that whilst we proceed ac∣cording to this Perfect Canon, we are infallibly certain of the Truth of what we believe, and of the Rectitude and Lawfulness of what we act. On this sole Account the Holy Writ excels all Wri∣tings in the World besides.

3. We are to adjoin this, that as it is a Light to our Vnderstandings, and a Rule of our Lives, so it is the grand Procurer of our Comfort, Ioy and Tranquillity. Alas, they are Cold Topicks of Consolation which the Writings of the Best Mo∣ralists afford us. When our outward Distresses and Miseries, much more when our inward and spiritual Maladies increase upon us, Epictetus and Seneca, with all their Spangled Sayings, are too mean Physicians to take us in Hand. The Great Cicero, when in the Close of his Life he was redu∣ced to marvelous Difficulties, declared that his Learning and his Books, afforded him not any Considerable Arguments of Comfort; that the Disease of his Mind, which he lay under was1 1.10 too great, and too strong to be cured by those Ordi∣nary Medicines which Philosophy administred to him. There must be some greater Traumatick, some more powerful Application to these Wounds to work a perfect Cure. And this Divine Book is able to furnish us with it. This alone can re∣move our Pains and Languors, and restore us to an entire Health.2 1.11 This, faith the Psalmist, is my Comfort in my Affliction, Thy Word hath quick∣ned me: And again,3 1.12 Vnless thy Law had been my Delight, I should then have perished in my Affliction. It was this which upheld and chear'd him in his greatest Straits, and yielded him Light and Joy, when all things about him look'd black and dis∣mal. If but a small part of the Bible had this blessed Effect, how powerful and successful will All of it prove, if we duly consult it, seriously

meditate upon it, and give it admittance into our Hearts? If the Apostle could say,1 1.13 Whatsoever things were written asore time in this Book, were writ∣ten for our Learning, that we through Patience and Comfort of the scriptures might have Hope, how much greater Hope must needs be administred to us, in all Conditions of Life, but more especially in the Day of Trouble and Calamity, when we have the Scriptures, not only of the Old but New Testa∣ment to repair unto? This latter especially will be a never-falling Spring of Contentment and Joy to us. In these Books we have a true and per∣fect Landskip and View of the World: Here is unmask'd and laid open the Vanity of it. Here we are assured that many of the Gay things which it presents us with, and which fond Minds so dote upon, are but empty Bubbles, deceitful Phantoms and Apparitions, mere Conceits and Castles in the Air. Here we are inform'd that a Prosperous State is not really Good, that an Overplus of Riches and Worldly Abundance does frequently prove a Clog to vertuous Minds, and that Excess of Pleasures is too fulsom and luscious, and takes away that purer Relish of spiritual and heavenly Delights; yea, that Men generally find a worse Effect of them: for when they are gorged and clogg'd with them, they revolt from God; when they are waxen fat, they kick against Heaven. So their Worldly Plenty is turn'd into the worst of Punishments, and this Plethory is their Disease On the other side, we are taught in these Wri∣tings, that Crosses and Afflictions are not evil in themselves, yea, that they are Good and Medici∣nal, and advance our spiritual Health; that they

are so far from being a hindrance to our Happi∣ness, that they are a part of it, for otherwise the Afflicted would not be so often pronounced1 1.14 Bles∣sed: That God's Afflicting a Man is2 1.15 Magnifying of him, and setting his Heart upon him. It shews, that God is greatly concern'd for his Good, and that the Almighty hath more care of him than he hath of himself. Here we are instructed that we have ground to suspect our Condition, if we be wholly exempted from the Distresses of this Life; and that not to be Chastised is a Mark of Bastardy. Here we learn the true use and end of all those Adverse Dispensations which we meet with, viz. that they were designed to try us, to make us know our selves, and to inform us how evil and bitter a thing it is to offend the Divine Majesty; to awaken us out of our Sloth and Secu∣rity; to hold us in Action, to keep us in Breath and Exercise, as Carthage was useful to rouze Rome's Valour; to abate our Pride and Haughtiness, and make us humble and submissive Creatures; to check our immoderate Passions and Pursuits after earthly things; to disintangle us from these Snares, to free us from these Charms, to keep us from being suck'd in, and swallowed up in the powerful Circle and Eddy of this World; as who knows not that it is True Philosophy that the World is made up of Vortices? to cause us to look after Better Things when these are taken from us, to reclaim us from our evil Courses, and to reduce us unto Vertue and Goodness; to excite us to a Renunciation of all Trust and Confidence in our selves, and the transitory Enjoyments of this

World, and to depend upon God alone. It is this Book whence we are acquainted that our Suf∣ferings make us conformable to Christ our Master, and therefore are Honourable Badges of Christia∣nity: That the Curse which usually attends out∣ward Crosses, is taken away by our Saviour's Death: That the Calamities of the Faithful are Chastisements, rather than Punishments: That no Adverse Accidents can do us any hurt, if we believe in Jesus, and abandon our Sins: That the Pressures of this Life are serviceable to make us pity those that are in Misery, to know and relish the Love of Christ in suffering for us, to inhanse the Comforts of a Good Conscience, to commend the Favour of God to us, to prepare us for Hea∣ven, and to increase the Happiness of it. Thus the Scriptures reconcile our Minds to those Disap∣pointments, Dangers and Calamities, which are our Allotment in this World; thus they allay the evil Spirit of Discontent, they effectually cast out and vanquish those Legions of Impatient and Tumultuous Thoughts, which are the frequent Attendants of Adversity: They assure us that these Afflictive Dealings of Heaven towards us, are intended for our real Advantage; that they are the greatest Kindness and Favour that can be shew'd us; that they are undeniable Tokens of Divine Love; and in brief, that Good Men are happier in their worst Circumstances, than others are, or can be, in their greatest worldly Felici∣ties. Upon these rational Grounds, the Holy Scriptures become the most effectual Anodynes to take away, or at least to mitigate all our Pains and Sorrows. They successfully remove all those Mur∣murings and Discontents which russle and imbroil the Soul, they quash and defeat all those trouble∣some

Passions which embarass and plague the Mind. By the help of these Divine Instructions which the Holy Writ affords us, we are enabled to encounter the greatest Evils, with courage and bravery to receive the Shock, to weather the Storm, to bear all the Insolencies and Insults of our Enemies, to break through all Difficulties, to have Peace within though we find none without, to keep a Sabbath in our own Breasts, to enter∣tain our selves with the Serenades of a Good Con∣science. This is the Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures, and no Writings in the World can bless us with them but these.

And indeed this necessarily follows from those foregoing Assertions, viz, that Scripture is a Perfect Rule of Faith, and also of Manners. As it is the former, it is a sure Basis for us to rest upon: we know whom we have believed, and so we are fixed and determined; which doth effectually contri∣bute towards our Peace and Solace. As it is the latter also, we cannot but receive Comfort from it, because being a Certain and Unerring Guide in all our Actions, it must needs administer great Satis∣faction and Joy to us through our whole Lives, when we consider that we have a Stable Rule to walk by, and that we cannot do amiss if we fol∣low that; but especially, when we reflect on our Manners, and see that they are adjusted to this Ca∣non, and that1 1.16 we have in Simplicity and godly Since∣rity had our Conversation in the World. This will be our Rejoicing and Exultation. Again, the Scrip∣ture yields an inconceivable Joy, by prescribing the Best Means for attaining Peace and Unity, which are Comfortable Blessings of this Life; by

allowing us all Innocent and Harmless Delights, such as will neither destroy the Peace of our Souls, nor impair the Health of our Bodies; by through∣ly convincing us that Christianity in it self is most Satisfactory to our Minds, and is made to convey Joy and Peace into our Hearts; by teaching us Contentedness in all Conditions; by assuring us that Christianity provides for our greatest and most Important Wants, and supplies our most Urgent Necessities, and therefore we ought to acquiesce in it, and solace our selves with it. Thus it administers the most Chearing Cordials: and so it doth by directing us to the Worthiest Ends, by setting before us the Strongest Motives, the most Powerful Perswasives to our Duty, where∣by we are enabled not only to undertake it, but to discharge it with Chearfulness and Delight; by propounding and presenting to us the Best Rewards, viz. Forgiveness of our Sins, Assurance of God's Love, and Eternal Life and Blessedness: For as a Great Man saith,1 1.17 No Book in the World but this shews a Man the Adequate End of his Being, his Su∣preme Good, his Happiness, nor directs the Means of acquiring it. The Bible is the Great Instrument (as it was emphatically call'd by the Fathers) of our Salvation and Happiness. By these Writings we hold our Everlasting Inheritance: And these are the Great Deeds and Evidences whereby we prove our Title to it. In a word, as these sustain and support us in all Conditions of our Life, and give us a happy Prospect of a better State, so they render Death welcom and joyful to us, they enable us by virtue of those Sacred Truths con∣tained

in them, to expire our last Breath with Peace and Tranquillity. On all which Accounts we must acknowledg them to be the greatest Support and Relief of our Souls, yea the Only Source of Com∣fort and Content. Thus if you consider the Holy Scriptures as they dictate the Best Principles, as they beget in us the greatest Holiness and Purity, and as they are the Solace of our Lives, we must be forced to acknowledg their Incomparable Ex∣cellency.

These three Particulars, wherein I have endea∣voured to display the Perfection of Scripture, are to be found together in Psal. 19. 7, 8. where These Properties are ascribed to the Law of God, name∣ly, that it enlightens the Eyes, and so is a Director of our Faith; that it converts the Soul, and so is a Reformer of the Manners; and that it rejoiceth the Heart, and so is the Fountain of True Comfort. You find all these in conjunction in that other remarkable Place, 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture (whereby we may understand not only the Old Testament, but part of the New, viz. St. Mat∣thew's Gospel, which was extant when Timothy, to whom the Apostle here speaks, was a child, V. 15.) is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness. It is not to be doubted that Do∣ctrine refers to the Understanding and Belief, and Reproof and Instruction in Righteousness to the Will and Manners: and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rectifying, re∣storing, setting all streight again,(as the World im∣ports) includes in it that Comforting and Chear∣ing which I spoke of. These are the Main Con∣tents of the Holy Scripture. First, it is a Body and System of the Best and most Consistent Noti∣ons: it regulates the Apprehensions, and presents

us with True Conceptions of things. Here is no∣thing delivered that thwarts our rectified Under∣standings, or is a Contradiction to the most re∣fined Faculties of our Minds. Moreover, it most successfully conducts us into the Ways of Piety and a Holy Life. The Design of it is to perfect hu∣mane Nature, to exalt Men to the highest Pitch their Condition is capable of, both by Moral and Revealed Truth,(the latter of which none but the Blessed Redeemer was able to communicate) to bring them to the Noblest improvement and Exal∣tation of Vertue which they can possibly arrive to on this side of Heaven: In brief, to make us act not only as Rational but as Divine Creatures, yea even to render us like God Himself. And lastly, it not only inspires us with Excellent Principles, and promotes the Practice of Holiness, but admi∣nisters the greatest Matter of Joy imaginable. This raises our Spirits, and fills our Souls with De∣light and Pleasure; this Strengthens and supports us under our heaviest Crosses, and makes our Life Happy, whatever befals us. All which are unde∣niable Arguments of the Perfection of Scripture, whence we are enabled to Believe aright, to Live well, and to Rejoice. Thus these Holy Writings were endited, that1 1.18 we might be Perfect, throughly furnished unto all good Works. And thus Scripture must needs be Perfect, because its Design is to make us so. But I am sensible that several Devout and Practical Writers have enlarged on this Subject, and therefore I will say no more of it, because my present Discourse is designed to be chiefly Critical. Let it suffice that I have briefly asserted the Per∣fection of the Holy Scriptures as to the three fore∣mention'd

Particulars, and that I have shew'd that this Perfection is not communicable to any Other Writings under Heaven. Such is the Peculiar Ex∣cellency of the Bible.

Wherefore it behoveth us to take notice and be∣ware of those Men who oppose, or rather deny this Excellency and Perfection. First, the Circumcised Do∣ctors shew themselves great Oppugners of it, whilst they excessively magnify their Traditions, and even prefer them before the Sacred Text. We must know then that the Jews talk much of their2 1.19 Caba∣la, or (as that Word signifies) the Received Do∣ctrine among them, which was propagated by Oral Tradition and Continual Succession. This their Cabala is twofold; First, that which deals in Myste∣rious Criticisms and Curiosities about Words and Letters, to which belongs the Masoreth, which (as I have shew'd in another Discourse) is service∣able for the Preservation of the Bible. Secondly, that which by them is call'd the Oral Law, or the Law delivered from one to another, as an Exposi∣tion on the Written Law. It may not be imperti∣nent to give the Reader a short Account of this Oral Law which they so much boast of. This was either before Moses, and was the Doctrine of the Patriarchs, propagated by Word of Mouth before the Law was committed to Writing; it consisted of the Seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah; of the Apothegms, Sentences and Paradoxes of the Wise Men in the first Ages; or it was in and after Mo∣ses's time, who is reckon'd the Great Author of the Cabala, because he deliver'd it viva voce to the Jews, say the Rabbins, at the same time that he gave them the Decalogue and the Other Written

Laws. This Torah gnal peh,(as they stile it) this Oral Law is the Exposition of those Written Laws, and is meant, they say, in Deut. 4. 14. The Lord commanded me at that time to teach you Statutes and Iudgments. And for this they alledg Deut. 12. 21. which they tell us refers to some Special Command of God about Killing; and seeing we read no such Special Command about it in the Written Law, it is reasonable to conclude that it is to be understood of the Oral one: that must be the Sense of those Words there, As I have commanded thee. That Moses received this Law on Mount Sinai,1 1.20 Rabbi Be∣chai proves by the same Token that he knew by this Law how long time he was upon that Mount; for when God taught him the Written Law, then he knew it was Day, (because he could not write in the Dark) but when God gave him the Oral Law, he knew then that it was Night. A most profound Answer to the Difficulty, how Moses could tell that he was 40 Days and Nights on the Mount. Well, God (they say) delivered this Law to Moses, Moses delivered it to Ioshua, Ioshua to the Seventy Elders, they to Ezra, who (some say) committed it to writing, for he was the Chiefest Cabalist next to Moses; but the Books which he composed of this Matter were lost, and so it went on after the old way again, viz. by Tradition, and came to the Prophets, of whom Zechary and Malachi were the last, and from them the Great Sanhedrim had it; and at last it was made into a Book, that it might not be lost by reason of the Dispersion of the Jews. He that compiled this Volume or Book was Rabbi Iudah, who for the sin∣gular Holiness of his Life was call'd Hakkadosh the

Saint: He flourish'd in the Days of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, about a hundred and twenty Years after our Saviour's Passion. The Title which he gave to it was Mishnah, i. e. the Repetition of the Divine Law, or a Larger Explication of it given immediately to Moses by God, and by Tradition derived to the Jews. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Iterated or Second Law is divided by him into six general Sedarim, i. e. so many Heads or Subjects of which it treats: and every Sedar is divided into Books, every Book into Chapters or Pirka's. About a hundred Years after this famous Rabbi had reduced the Traditions of the Jews into one Volume, the Learned Doctors began to comment upon it; and first the Ierusalem Talmud(call'd so because 'twas made for the Jews that lived in Iudea, especially in Ierusalem) was finish'd by R. Iochanan about A. D. 240. The Comment which he and the other Rab∣bies made on the Mishnah is call'd the Gemara, the Supplemental Exposition of that Volume of Jewish Traditions. Next, the Babylonick Talmud was put forth by the Learned Jews at Babylon, who gather∣ed their Traditions into a more Compleat and Ex∣act Body (as they thought) for the Benefit of their Country-men in those Parts of the World. It was compiled by Rabbi Ase and his Companions about A. D. 500. and consisteth (as the former Talmud) of the Mishnaioth and the Gemara: the one is the Text, the other is the Comment, or the Decisions of the Doctors on the Book of the Mishnah. So then the Oral Law, which the Jews so much boast of, and set so high a Value upon, is contain'd in the Two Talmuds, which are made up of the Mishnah and the Gemara: The Mishnah is that which R. Iudah compiled; the Gemara's are the Work of R. Iochanan and Ase, and other Rabbies; and both are

a Compleat Body of the Civil and Canon Law of the Jews. Whoso nameth the Talmuds nameth all Iudaism, saith Lightfoot: These (as he adds) are the Jews Council of Trent, they are the last and fullest Determinations which they have about all their Religious Opinions, Rites and Usages. Thus I have exhibited a brief Account of the whole Talmudick System, wherein the Oral Law is com∣prized, explained, and descanted upon. And it is not to be denied that there may be a very excel∣lent Use made of this Collection of Jewish Traditi∣ons, it may be serviceable in sundry Instances to expound the Mosaick Law, to acquaint us with the Jewish Antiquities, to illustrate several Places in the Old Testament, yea to interpret many Passages in the New, which have reference to the received Practices and Usages of the Jews.

But the Iews(who are the Persons whom I am now blaming) make very ill Use of it, because they immoderately extol these Traditions, calling them Torah shebegnal Peh, their Infallible Oracle, and esteeming the Authority of them equal with that of the Bible. For as the Canonical Scriptures were dictated by Divine Inspiration, so these Laws they hold were from God Himself, and are of the same Authority with those Scriptures. They make no difference between the Inspired Writings of the Old Testament and the Books of Mishnaioth or the Talmuds, which are in truth an Amassment on∣ly of the Traditions of the Jews, and of the Di∣verse Decisions of the Schools of Hillel and Sham∣mai, of the Different Determinations of R. Akiba and R. Eliezer, of R. Simeon and R. Ioshua, &c. bandying against one another: or rather, if we speak plainer, they are a Rhapsody of Idle Dreams, Groundless Fables, Cursed Errors, Superstitious

Rites and Practices, yea (if we should instance in the Babylonick Talmud) of Horrid Blasphemies against Christ, of Obloquies against the Mosaick Law it self, and of Contradictions even to the Law of Nature. These are part of the Books so highly prized by the Jewish Masters, these go along with their Oral Law, which was first given by God him∣self, and consequently is of the same Original with the Canon of Scripture. But they go yet higher; for they do not only equalize these Traditions with Scripture, but they prefer them before it. They do not only say in a Proverbial Manner, that1 1.21 they cannot stand upon the Foundation of the Written Law without the Help of the Vnwritten one, i. e. the Oral Law which they talk of; and that2 1.22 the Words of the Law as they are found in the Text are poor and wanting, but as they are expounded by the Doctors have great Riches and abundance in them: And again, that 3 1.23 very Great and Weighty Matters depend upon these Little Traditions which they contend for: but they are so bold and presumptuous as to proceed fur∣ther, and give a far Greater Deference to these Traditions and Doctrines of their Wise Men (as they call them) than to the Holy Scriptures them∣selves. For they tell us, that4 1.24 their Doctors have done more good (viz. as to strengthning and con∣firming of Religion) by their own Sayings than by the Words of this Holy Book it self. And accordingly their Advice is,5 1.25 My Son, attend more to what the Scribes say than to what is said by the Law, (though I

know this may admit of another Sense, viz. that we ought to look more to the Sense of the Law than the bare Letter of it). But that in the Tal∣mud is plain, and can have no other Meaning, 1 1.26 To read the Holy Scripture, and to be studious in searching out the Sense of it is good, and not good, (i. e. it is not of any considerable Advantage) but to turn over the Mishnah Night and Day is a Vertue which will have a great Reward hereafter; and to learn the Gemara is an incomparable Vertue. Yea, the Jews blasphemously say that God himself studies in the Talmud every Day. Here you see they prefer their Delivered Law before the Written one: they make the Infallible Scriptures truckle to the Fabu∣lous Traditions of the Mishnah. To this purpose it is a Noted Saying of the Hebrew Rabbies, that the Text of the Bible is like Water, the Mishnah like Wine, and the Six Books of the Talmud are like the Sweetest Honey'd Wine, Thus, to mag∣nify the Traditions of their Fathers, they vilify the Scriptures. They are not content with the Rites and Injunctions written in the Law, which in way of Contempt they call2 1.27 the Precepts of the Law, but they admire those most which are taken from their Wise Men, which they call the Precepts of the Rabbins, and which are summarily contain'd in the Talmud: these they hold to be of greater Value than the other. The Persons that are skill'd in these are sliled by them Tannaim, Profound Ma∣sters and Doctors: but they that study the Scrip∣tures only are but Karaim, Poor Readers, and Men of the Letter. All this shews how these Men depretiate the Written Word of God, and exalt above it their Oral Law, which is a mere Fiction

and Forgery, (as to the pretence of its being gi∣ven to Moses by God) and therefore is not owned by the Karaint among them, who stick close to the Text, nor by some of their Perushim, their sobrest sort of Expositors, who think those Tra∣ditions are derogatory to the Holy Scriptures.

Secondly, Papists as well as Ie••s disparage the Holy Scriptures, and deny its Perfection.(Nor, by the way, is this the only thing wherein they agree with the Jews, a great Part of their Religi∣on being no other than Jewish Rites and Cere∣monies.) These Modern Talmudists will not own the Sufficiency of the Sacred Writings, they have their Cabala, the Doctrine Received from their An∣cestors: they are for their Oral Law delivered from one to another, they supply the defect of Scrip∣ture (so they are wont to speak) with their Tra∣ditions. They are of the same Mind with the Jews, that1 1.28 there must be a Fence made about the Law, that it must be hedged in with Traditions. The Scrip∣ture is not a Perfect Rule of Faith and Manners, say they: but the things which are necessary to Salvation, are partly contained in the Scripture, and partly in unwritten Traditions. A very ab∣surd and wild Doctrine! because they have no way to prove any thing to be necessary to Salvati∣on, but by proving it to be found in the Scripture. Whatever was or is necessary for the Universal Church is revealed in these Writings; and no New Doctrine necessary to Salvation, is delivered since to the Church or any particular Person. But not∣withstanding the Absurdity of this Tenent, they hold it fast, and make it a Great Article of their

Belief. For they are taught by an Oecumenical Council (as they repute it) that Unwritten Tradi∣tions are of equal Authority with the Scriptures, that they are to be received1 1.29 with the same pious Affection and Reverence(those are the words) wherewith the Infallible Writings of the Pro∣phets and Apostles are to be entertained, and con∣sequently they are to be made a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures. But they rest not here; they not only equal Humane and Ecclesiastical Traditions with the Written Word of God, but following the Steps of the Old Talmudists, they proceed yet further, preferring Traditions be∣fore Scripture. Thus a Renowned Divine in their Church tells us plainly, that2 1.30 Traditions are exceeding necessary for the welfare of the Church, yea, that they are more requisite than the Scrip∣ture it self; and this he endeavours to make good. With him concur several others of their Writers, whom we find extolling Traditions, but at the same time speaking very meanly and slightly of the Holy Writ. Hence they blasphemously call it a Nose of Wax, and a Leaden Rule; and many such vilifying Terms are used by Pighius and Mel∣chior Canus, and3 1.31 other Great Doctors of that Church. We deny not the Usefulness, nay even the Necessity, nay the Perpetuity of Tradition, viz. That Tradition whereby the Doctrines which were entrusted in the Church's Hands by the Prophets and Apostles, shall by her be deli∣ver'd

over to her Children to the World's End, which way of Transmission is the great Prop of our Religion. Besides, the Apostle enjoins the1 1.32 Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had been taught, whether by Word or his Epistle: for he had used two ways of delivering the Truth to them; namely, Preaching and Writing: and other Apostles committed the chief and necessary Heads of their Doctrine to Writing. So that the Traditions meant here, are the Revealed Truths of the Gospel delivered by the Apostles and Evange∣lists, and are no other than what Christ deliver'd to them, according to that of St. Paul,2 1.33 I delivered to you that which also I received: whence they have the Name of Traditions, i. e. they are Evangelical Do∣ctrines delivered to us from those that were taught them by Christ. And whether they were imparted by Word or by Epistle, by Preaching or Writing, they are the same, the same as to substance, the otherwise there may be some difference. But that which we condemn (and that most justly) the Papists for, is this, that they magnify and rely upon Traditions which have no affinity with the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, yea, which contradict it in many things; and yet they equalize these with the Word of God, and sometimes prefer them and the Authority of the Church, before that of the Sacred Writings of the Old and New Testa∣ment. Thus One saith,3 1.34

The Church sometimes doth things contrary to the Scriptures, some∣times besides them: therefore the Church is the

Rule and Standard of the things that are deli∣vered in the Scriptures, and therefore we be∣lieve the Church, though she acts counter to the formal Decisions of the Scriptures.

And an 1 1.35 other Famous Doctor gives it for good Divini∣ty, that the Decrees and Determinations of a Council are binding, though they be not confirm∣ed by any probable Testimony of Scripture, nay though they be beyond and above the Determina∣tion of Scripture. Thus the Holy Writings of the Bible are most impiously disparaged and vili∣sied by the Pontificians. Whereas there is nothing defective or redundant, nothing wanting or super∣fluous in these Writings: they assert in the open face of the World that they are short and imper∣fect, and therefore have need of being supplied by Traditions, which in some things are of greater Value and Authority than they.

Again, that the Church of Rome oppugneth or rather denieth the Perfection of the Scriptures, might be evinced from their constant care and en∣deavour to keep them in an Vnknown Tongue. It is true they have translated them. But, 1. There was a kind of necessity of doing it, the Protestants having turned them into so many Tongues. By this means they were compelled as it wer•• to let some of their people see what the Bible was in their own Language. But, 2. It is so corruptly translated that it is made to patronize several of their Su∣perstitious Follies and Errors. And yet, 3. They dare not commit these Translations to common View. Although in all Countries where People were converted to Christianity, in elder times the Scripture was turned into their Language, and

every one was permitted, yea exhorted to read it, (as is proved by many Writers,1 1.36 the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet particularly) yet the Church of Rome denieth the common People the Use of it, as a thing hurtful and pernicious. The Bible, as some Bad Book, is tolerated to be read with great Caution and Restriction, in some Countries only, and by some Persons. It is, like the Sibyls Pro∣phecies of old among the Romans, not to be look'd into without the permission and Authority of the Senate; none can read it without a Licence from their Superiours: so dangerous a thing is the Bible. From this Practice the People generally imbibe a strong Prejudice against the Scriptures, and be∣lieve they cannot be good for them, because the Pope and their Pastors tell them they are not. Wherefore, as2 1.37 one who was once of the Commu∣nion of the Church of ••ome, hath well observed, As soon as ever any Man imbraces Popery, he pre∣sently throws the Bible out of his Hands as alto∣gether useless (to say no worse). Which unrea∣sonable and wicked Behaviour of theirs was one great Reason or Motive (as he professeth) of his returning to the Church of England again. For what Considerate Man can think That to be a True Church which teacheth its Members to slight and reject the Word of God, which is the Source of all Divine Truth, and without which we can neither believe nor practise aright, we can neither have Comfort here, nor arrive to Happiness here∣after? This indeed is not only to null ••••e Perfection of Scripture, but to abolish the whole Body of Scrip∣ture it self.

A third sort of Persons that are Opposers of the Perfection of Scripture are Enthusiasts, and such who act out of a truly Fanatick Principle. Such were the Familists heretofore, whose Pre∣tences to the Spirit were so high that they ex∣cluded and renounced the Letter of Scripture, which according to their Stile1 1.38 was a dark Lanthorn, a liveless Carcass, a Book shut up and seal'd with se∣ven Seals, the Scabbard (not the Sword) of the Spirit: or, if it be a Sword, it is the Sword of Antichrist, wherewith he kills Christ. This was the impious Jar∣gon of these High-flown Men, who made no other Use of the Bible than to Allegorize it, and to turn it all into Mystery. These have been followed by Others of a like Fanatick Spirit, who have made it a great part of their Religion to despise and re∣proach the Sacred Writ. A2 1.39 late Enthusiast, or rather one that pretends to be such, but designs the Overthrow of all Religion, tells the World that the Bible is founded in Imagination, that God's Revelations in Scripture are ever according to the Fancy of the Prophets or other Persons he spoke to, and that all the Phrases and Speeches, all the Discoveries and Manifestations, yea all the Historical Passages in the Old and New Testament are adapted to these. The Quaker comes next, and refuseth to own the Scripture to be the Word of God, and the Perfect Rule by which we are to direct our Lives.

It is a great Error and Falsity, (saith3 1.40 one of the most considerable Persons of that Perswasion)

that the Scriptures are a filled up Canon, and the only Rule of Faith and Obe∣dience in all things, and that no more Scriptures are to be writ or given forth from the Spirit of

the Lord. With whom agrees4 1.41 another of as great Repute among that Tribe;

I see no Ne∣cessity (saith he) of believing that the Canon of Scripture is filled up. And again,

The Scrip∣tures (saith he) are not to be esteemed the Prin∣cipal Ground of all Truth and Knowledg, nor yet the Adequate Primary Rule of Faith and Manners, but they are only a Secondary Rule subordinate to the Spirit. And accordingly he adds,

That the inward Inspirations and Revela∣tions which Men have, are not to be subjected to the Examination of the outward Testimony of the Scriptures, but are above them.

Thus these bold Men, out of a pretence of Inspiration, vilify the Sacred Volume of the Bible. Thus absurdly and irreligiously these deluded Persons, out of an Enthusiastick Heat, prefer their own private Spi∣rit before the Holy Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures. The Men hold themselves to be Perfect, but the Scripture must by no means be so: it is weak and imperfect, and ought to give way to the In∣ward Impressions in their Minds, which, accord∣ing to them, are that more sure Word of Prophecy, whereunto they think they do well to give heed as unto a Light shining in a dark Place: But we see that they are thereby led into gross Error and Dark∣ness. And as to this particular Perswasion con∣cerning the Meanness of the Scriptures, they therein (as in several other things) symbolize with the Church of Rome, whence they had their Ori∣ginal: They confound Natural Light or Reason with Revelation, they hold that Pagans are in as good a Condition as Christians; they make their private Dictates as Authentick as the Bible; yea

they must needs hold that there is no Infallible Rule of Truth or Practice but their own Notions and Sentiments, which some of their Writers call Canonical.

I might observe to you that besides Iews, Pa∣pists and Enthusiasts, there are Others that deny the Excellency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, as Atheists and mere Politicians, who indeavour to perswade the World that all Religion is a Cheat, and that This Book is so too: Likewise the Gene∣rality of Hereticks, Seducers and Impostors, who (it is no wonder) debase that which they design to pervert. But the bare mentioning of these Per∣sons is sufficient to beget a Dislike of them with all that are Wise and Sober, and who are convinc'd of the Scriptures perfection from those Topicks which I have propounded. It may be said of most Books as Martial said of his,5 1.42 There are some good, and some bad things in them, and some of a middle Nature. But in this Divine Book there are no such Allays; all is pure and uncorrupt, en∣tire and unmixed: there are no Defects, no Mis∣takes in this Infallible Volume given us from Hea∣ven. Shall the Turks then when they find a Leaf or any part of the Alcoran on the Ground, take it up and kiss it, and deposite it in some safe place, affirming it to be a great Sin to suffer that wherein the Name of God and Mahomet's Laws are written, to be trodden under Feet? And shall not we Christians highly value and reverence the Sacred Volume of the Bible, the Writings of the Old and New Testa∣ment, which contain the Words of God Himself, and the Laws of the Blessed Jesus, which enrich us

with that Sublime and Supernatural Learning which is the Rule of our Faith, the Conduct of our Manners, and the Comfort of our Lives?

CHAP. II.

The Bible is furnish'd with all sorts ofHumane (as well as Divine) Learning. Hebrew, wherein the Old Testament was written, is the Primitive Language of the World. The True Origine of the World is plainly recorded in no other Writings but these. The first Chapter of Genesis is a real History, and records Matter of ••act. It is largely proved that the Mosa••ck History gives us a particular Account of the first Rise of the several Nations and People of the Earth, and of the Places of their Habitation. Also the true Knowledg of the Original of Civil Government, and the Increases of it, and the dif∣f••rent Changes it underwent is derived from these Writings. The Courts of Judicature, and the se∣veral kinds of Punishment among the Jews di∣stinctly treated of. The Government among the Hea∣then Nations. The four Celebrated Monarchies or Empires of the World.

I Proceed now to the Second General Head of my Discourse, viz. the Vniversal Vsefulness of the Bible as to things that are Temporal and Secu∣la••. Not only all Religious, Divine and Saving Knowledg is to be fetch'd hence, but that likewise which is Natural and Humane, and b••longs to the World and Arts. Many believe the former, but can't be induc'd to credit the latter; for they think the Bible was writ only for the saving of Mens Souls, but that all other Knowledg and Discove∣ries

are to be derived wholly from other Writers. I have sometimes observ'd that Persons who have had a good Desire to Learning, and were greedy Devourers of all other Authors, yet have no re∣gard to the Scriptures, and fondly imagine there is no Improvement of Mens Notions, no enlarging of their Understandings, no Grounds of Excellent Literature from the Sacred Writ. They perswade themselves that the Bible may serve well enough for the Use of those that study Divinity, or make Sermons, but that the Writings of Profane Au∣thors must be wholly consulted for other things. But this is a gross Surmise, and possesses the un∣thinking Heads of those only that consider not the Matchless Antiquity of the Bible, or that on a worse Account refuse to acquaint themselves with these Writings, and care not for that Book which speaks so much of God and Religion, and checks the Disorders of Mens Lives. All honest, in∣dustrious and impartial Enquirers into Learning know that the Scriptures are the Greatest Monu∣ment of Antiquity that is Extant in the whole World, and particularly that the First and Earli∣est Inventions of things are to be known only from the Old Testament, especially the five first Books of it. In vain do you look for these in the Wri∣tings of other Men; for though some of them re∣late very Antient Occurrences, yet they are not so old as these: and as for those Writers who pre∣tend to some Greater Antiquity, and have been so impudent as to think that they could impose upon the World, they have been exploded by all Per∣sons of Sobriety and serious Thoughts. In Pagan Writers we have some wild Guesses at the Origine of things, and the First Inventors of Arts; but he that is desirous to have Certain and Infallible In∣formation

concerning these, must consult the Wri∣tings of Moses and other Books of the Old Testa∣ment. From these alone we learn what were the Antientest Usages in the World, and what was the first Rise and Original of them. Wherefore I may safely pronounce that no Man can have the just Repute of a Scholar unless he hath read and studied the Bible: for in this one Book there is more Hu∣mane Learning than in all the Books of the World besides. And therefore here by the way I cannot but look upon it as a very Scandalous Mistake, that the knowledg and Study of the Holy Scriptures are for Divines only, as if these were not to be skill'd in any Humane Learning. They that talk after this rate, understand not what the Study of Divini∣ty and True Scholarship are: for there is no Com∣pleat Divine that is not well vers'd in Humane Li∣terature, and there is no Compleat Scholar that is not skill'd in the Bible. Wherefore this is that which I intend very particularly and largely to in∣sist upon, viz. that the Scriptures are the Anti∣entest Storehouse of Good Letters and Learning, and that here are All the Sorts of them, which I conceive will be a full Eviction of what I have un∣dertaken, viz. to demonstrate the Pre-eminence of the Inspired Writings before all others whatso∣ever.

First; I begin with the Language in which the greatest part of the Bible, that is, the Old Testa∣ment, was written, which is Hebrew, and was the First and Original Tongue of the World. This certainly inhanses the Worth of the Hebrew Text, and renders the Bible preferable to all other Books. It is true there are other Languages that pretend to Priority; but when we come to examine their claim, we discover it to be a mere Pretence in∣deed.

We are told by1 1.43 Herodotus, that Psamm••ti∣cus King of Egypt had a mind to make an Experi∣ment about this, and accordingly caus'd two Chil∣dren to be nourish'd and bred up by two she-goats, and suffered none to speak a Word to them. At last they were heard to utter the word bec, which it seems signifies Bread in the Phrygian Dialect; whence it was concluded that that was the First Language. But upon Enquiry it was found that this Experiment was fruitless, for bec was an insig∣nificant Pronuntiation which the Children learnt of their Goat-Nurses, to whom (and all other A∣nimals of that Species) that Sound it seems was na∣tural. 2 1.44 Theodoret thought Syr••ack was the First Tongue. Philo the Jew was of Opinion that Chal∣dee was the Primitive Language, and that what we call Hebrew is truly the Tongue which the Chaldean Abraham brought out of Chaldea. And Capellus in his Sacred Chronology seems to espouse this Asserti∣on. But there is little Ground for it, if we consi∣der that the Chaldee is borrowed from the Hebrew, and is a different Dialect of it. The Scythian is the Primitive Tongue, saith Boxhorn. Goropius Becanus fetches all Words from the Teutonick or High Dutch, and would perswade us that this is the Mother-Tongue of the World: but he hath given so slen∣der Proof of it, that he hath gain'd but few Prose∣lytes to his Opinion. The Learned Bochart derives all Words from the Phaenician Tongue; but any impartial Judg may discern that he is too extrava∣gant in his Derivations▪ witness that of Phaenicia or Phaenix from ben Anak the Son of Anak,(making the Old Phaenicians his Posterity) or by Contracti∣on Beanak, then Pheanak, and so Phaenix, and hun∣dreds

more of the like Nature; which straining to maintain his Opinion is unacceptable to wise Men. A late Author hath publish'd an Historical Essay (as he is pleased to call it) of the Probability of the Language of China being the Primitive one, and among other Offers towards it he hath this, that the first Expression we make of Life at the instant Minute of our Birth is by uttering the Chinois Word Ya or Yah But by the same Reasoning I can prove that the first Tongue was Hebrew, be∣cause Yah (for so most Hebricians pronounce it) is one of the Hebrew Names of God: and how pro∣per is it for Infants to mention and acknowledg their Maker as soon as they come into the World? I allow the Author to be very Ingenious, yet I be∣lieve he is so wise himself as not to think he hath brought any solid Proof for what he undertook. Such another Attempt is his, who commends the British or Welsh Tongue to us as the Antientest of all. This Glory is due only to the Hebrew, which certainly was the Language that Adam spoke, and was that peculiar Form of Speech which was given to him by God, and which he taught his Children, and which lasted incorrupt (there being no other Tongue to be its Rival) till the Confusion of Tongues at Babel, and the Dispersion which was the Consequent of that. Of this those Words are meant, Gen. 11. 1. The whole Earth was of one lan∣guage, and of one Speech, Viz. Hebrew: which with∣out doubt was no small Benefit to Mankind; this ••dentity of Speech having such an Influence on So∣••iety, and contributing to the Increase of their Friendship and Familiarity, whereas now we must ••e a long time learning to make those of other Countries understand what we say, we must go to ••chool to be Friendly, and we can't be sociable

without a Dictionary. But this Primitive Blessing was not of very great Duration, for the Infallible Records inform us that a notable Confusion of Lan∣guages happen'd to the World when it was yet in its Minority and Childhood, and had not long learnt to speak, if we may reckon the Age of it from the Deluge. By the Fault of Man, and the Judgment of God, the One way of Speaking was changed into diverse. But we are not to think that this Change introduced into every Colony or Plantation a Different Language, but only a parti∣cular and peculiar Dialect: For the Difference of the Idiom was sufficient to beget a not-understand∣ing of one another, as we see at this day the Ger∣mans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, En∣glish, understand not one another when they speak, though they have not properly a Different Lan∣guage, but only Several Dialects, for they all speak Teutonick. The Confusion of Tongues then was not New Tongues, but a considerable Variation from the Primitive one, viz. Hebrew. Hereupon the Babel-Builders (who before spoke and understood this Language, it being their native one, as it was of all the rest of Manking) were so confounded, that they were forced to lay aside their Tools, and leave off working. And that this Confusion was not an Introduction of really Distinct Tongues▪ (as some have thought) is evident hence, that there is a Great Affinity between Tongues, especially the Eastern ones (for as for others, they have had their Rise since, and we are not to imagine that at the Babylonick Confusion they spoke Italian, Spanish or French, or that afterwards there were any of the Plantations that understood English, Dutch or Irish). I speak then concerning the Eastern Lan∣guages, and assert them to be Different Dialects or

Modes of the Hebrew Tongue: which is sufficiently proved from the Harmony and Cognation between them. I remit the Reader to Skickard, Hottinger and others, for the particular Eviction of this. He will from them be perswaded that Tongues were not Multiplied at Babel, but Divided; and that that One Language which had been in use ever since the beginning of the World, received there an Alteration and new Modification: the Di∣versity of which was the Cause, that Persons could not understand one another.

Now that the First Tongue which Adam and Eve spake, and was used before the Division of Languages, and was the Original from whence all the other Languages are but Variations, was He∣brew, is apparent from that foresaid Cognation be∣tween the Hebrew and other Oriental Tongues. We find that this One Language hath spread it self more or less into all others. We may di∣scern in them some Words either purely Hebrew, or of near alliance with it. It is well known that the Chaldeans and Syrians have abundance of Hebrew words in their Tongue, only there is some diffe∣rence in the inflection of them. The Arabick likewise hath great affinity with the Hebrew, and so have the Punick and Ethiopick, as the Learn∣ed Bochart hath demonstrated. And this you may observe (which confirms the thing I am esta∣blishing) that the nearer any People were to the Hebrews and their Country, the greater Number of Hebrew Words and Idioms they retained in their Languages: and on the contrary, the more remote any Nation was from them, the fewer Hebrew Words have they, and the greater Strangers are they to their manner and way of Speaking. But there are some Reliques of that Primitive Tongue

every where: all Languages have borrowed from this, as1 1.45 St. Ierom long since observed; and Mercer and other Learned Moderns take notice, that Sac and some other Hebrew Words are to be found in all Languages, and thence argue that Hebrew is the Mother-Tongue of all. Again, where should we look for the Original Language, and where should we hope to find it, yea, where is it possible to find it but among the First People of the World, and the immediately succeeding Generations of Men before the Flood and Confusion of Tongues? Accordingly we discover that Hebrew was that Lan∣guage which was in use with them. The Book of Genesis abundantly testifies this, where are the Names Adam, Ishah (Woman) Chavah or Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, and a Multitude of other Words of Hebrew Extraction, which are Arguments that Hebrew was the Language of those first Peo∣ple, and therefore the Primitive One. The Ety∣mology and Derivation of these Words do irrefra∣gably prove this, for there is no other Tongue that hath these Words from whence these Names are taken but the Hebrew; therefore this was the First Tongue. And this was it which Noah car∣ried into the Ark with him: and if he did so, no Man questions that he brought it out with him, and that it was universally used till the Babel-Con∣spiracy. Otherwise it could not be said (as we have heard) that the whole Earth before that Con∣fusion was of one Lip (or Language) and one Speech. This Text is peremptory, and therefore it is to be wondred that a2 1.46 Learned Man contents himself with saying, [There seems to have been One

Tongue before the Flood till the building of Ba∣bel.] And in1 1.47 another place he understands one Lip and one Speech, of their mutual Concord and Agreement: which Interpretation of his is re∣futed from what follows, Let us go down and confound their Lips, that they may not understand one anothers Lip, v. 7. Where we see the Confusion of Lips is opposed to one Lip and one Speech before mentioned. It is evident then from this Text that there was only One Language in use at first: and that could be no other than Hebrew; for I have shew'd before that this Language was spoken, and therefore if there was but One Language on the whole Earth, This must be it: for there was no Alteration as to Language till the building of Babel: whence we infallibly gather that the Lan∣guage which was used before the Flood and the Erecting of Babel, was Hebrew, and consequently, that the forementioned Writer who holds2 1.48 that the Hebrew Tongue is no more Primitive than any other Oriental Tongue, is under a Mistake; and that his Learned Country-man who asserts3 1.49 that the Hebrew was one of the Tongues that arose out of the Confusion of Tongues at Babel, is grossly overseen. For it is a flat Contradicting of that plain Text above named, which acquaints us that there was One Universal Language in the World at that time, and no more; which from what I have suggested appears to be Hebrew. And as this was the Common Tongue of the World above seventeen hundred Years, (viz. from the Creation to the building the Tower of Babel) so we are to ob∣serve further, that the Curse of the Confusion of

Tongues fell only or chiefly on those People that were at Rabel, and concern'd in that Wicked Ex∣ploit, Viz. the Inhabitants of Shinar and the neigh∣bouring Places, those impious Troops of Men that were the greatest Admirers and Flatterers of Nimrod and his Government. The Sons of God, the holy Posterity of Noah assisted not in the build∣ing of the Tower, and therefore among them and their Posterity, and those that learn'd it of them, was the Primitive Tongue preserved. Which some think had its denomination of He∣brew from Heber, who was none of the Babel-Build∣ers, and therefore the Original Tongue was pre∣serv'd entire in his Family. This is the general Opi∣nion of the Iewish Writers, and it hath been re∣ceiv'd by many Christians. More especially the 1 1.50 Learned Bochart is of this Opinion, but is con∣tradicted by some other Learned Pens, who tell us that the Hebrew Tongue was call'd so from Gne∣ber Transiit, i. e. from Abraham the Traveller or Passenger, Gen. 14. 13. But Mr. Selden, whose Learning was equal to any of these,2 1.51 suspends his Judgment in this Controversy, though at the same time he declares that he is more prone to the Opinion of those who deduce it from Eber Transi∣tus.

This is a short Account of the A••tiquity of the Hebrew Tongue, and we may rationally conclude from it, that it was the Primitive and Original Speech, and that from the corruption of this was the Generation and Production of other Tongues. And that Worthy Critick himself, who makes the Phaenician the First Tongue, agrees to what I here

assert, though he seems to oppose it: for if we scan what he saith, we shall see that even accord∣ing to him the Phaenician and Hebrew are the same, which appears from this, that he holds the Ca∣naanites and Phaenicians to be the same People. 1 1.52 He proves that the Phaenicians or Punicks, or Syrians, or Sidonians, (for they were Known by all these Names) were formerly the Inhabitants of Cana••n, but being expell'd thence by Ioshua when he subdued that Land, they carried Colonies into most parts of the World, and their Language is found in all Languages of other People, as he endeavours to shew. This is the Hebrew Tongue he confesses, abating the Difference of Dialect; and therefore Hebrew (he saith) is call'd the Lan∣guage of Canaan, Isa. 19. 18. If then the Punick was in its first Purity Hebrew (as some others be∣sides Bochart grant) it follows that in proving the former to be the Original Tongue, he doth in effect prove that the latter is so, because they are the same. And truly it is no hard task to evince the Language of the Canaanites to have been He∣brew, for all the Proper Names of Men and Pla∣ces reckoned up in Scripture in those Nations are purely Hebrew, as Salem, Ierusalem, Hebron, &c. To which a2 1.53 Learned Scots-man gives his Suf∣frage, expresly vouching that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew, and that the Hebrew Tongue is call'd the Language of Canaan, because 'twas the native Language of those that possess'd that Land: to prove which he produces the Names of Persons and Places among them, as Melchisedek, Abimelek, Kirjath-sepher, Iericho, &c. and thence infers that Hebrew was the native Tongue of the Canaanites

or Philistines. And if this be true, then the Great Selden, and with him many others are mis∣taken, who affirm, that1 1.54 the Hebrew Tongue remained pure in the Family and Posterity of Abra∣ham only, and that Abraham brought that Tongue first into Canaan. The contrary appears, viz. that this Tongue was preserv'd even in Canaan. But Monsieur Bochart goes too far when he adds, that Hebrew was not retain'd in the Families of Heber and Abraham, but that this latter learn'd this Tongue of the Canaanites when he lived with them in Canaan. I do not see this clear'd by him, and therefore I am enclined to believe that the He∣brew Tongue was both in Abraham's Family, and among the Canaanites. Though Abraham was a Chaldean, and Chaldee was the Language of the Country, yet by the singular Providence of God, the Hebrew might be kept up and spoken by him. Nor did this hinder his converse with the Chalde∣ans, because the Chaldee is a Dialect of the He∣brew. If it be objected that Canaan, and conse∣quently the Canaanites were from Cham, who was a ••abel-Builder, and how then was the Primitive He∣brew among them? It may be hard to resolve this, and perhaps it is the only considerable Objection against Bochart's Opinion. I am not now obliged to shew why it was so, but I am only concern'd to attend to the Matter of Fact, Viz. that the Ca∣naanites spoke Hebrew, and consequently kept their Tongue notwithstanding the Confusion at Babel. And (that I may not wholly dismiss it without giving a Reason of it) this might very well be, because the Canaanite speaking Hebrew was as much a Barbarian, and as little understood

by another Family or Plantation, as if God had infused a new Language or Idiom. So that we need not wonder that Hebrew was the Language of the ungodly Canaanites. Though truly, if I may speak freely, I do not see that this is firmly built on that Text in Isaiah before cited; for 'tis ma∣nifest, that that is a Prophecy concerning the Con∣version of the Gentiles, and particularly the Egyp∣tians, to the True Religion and Worship, viz. that of the Iews which was then in Being; and conse∣quently This (and not the Antient Speech and Dia∣lect of Canaan) is here meant by the Language of Canaan. Or supposing the very Speech of that Country to be meant, yet we can't thence abso∣lutely infer that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew, but only that Hebrew is call'd the Language of Ca∣naan: which might be for this reason, because the Israelites who spoke Hebrew had possess'd the Land of Canaan about eight hundred Years when this was said by Isaiah. But this doth not prove the Language of the Jews and the Old Canaanites to be the same. Yet, notwithstanding this, from what hath been before alledg'd, we have good reason to conclude (as several1 1.55 Learned Writers have done) that the Hebrew Tongue was the same with the Language of Canaan, i. e. the Language which the Canaanites spoke.

From all which, laid together and compared with what hath been said, we are confirm'd in this Assertion, that Hebrew was the only Language that was in use before the Confusion of Babel, and so was the First Tongue, and the Mother of all other Eastern Tongues. This is so evident that it hath been the universal belief of the Iews, who are ve∣ry

positive here; and it hath been held and defend∣ed by the Learnedest1 1.56 Christians who have treated on this Subject. This is the Language which God himself spoke, as is manifest from abundant In∣stances, some of which have been referr'd to; and there are many others, as God's changing of the Names of Abram, Sarai, Iacob, &c. and several Names and Memorials in the forty Years abode of the Israelites in the Wilderness, testify this. This is the Antient and Holy Tongue that was used by our First Parents; and without doubt it was immediately taught them by God: for he that bestow'd upon them other excellent Benefits, de∣nied them not Speech. Therefore this was a spe∣cial Gift of the Creator: this was one of the first Donatives conferr'd on Adam and Eve. And it was enjoyed by them, and by all the Antediluvi∣ans, yea all Noah's Posterity, till the Confusion at Babel. In this first and antientest Language was the Pentateuch, and even all the Old Testa∣ment written, and that in those very Hebrew Let∣ters which we have at this day, for the Samaritan ones (which by some are cried up for the Anti∣entest) are but a corrupt Imitation of these. In this Holy Language and Characters (both of his own Institution) God would have the Sacred Mysteries of his Religion express'd and recorded. In this Book alone are the first Names of Men and Beasts in that Tongue, denoting their particular Natures and Qualities: which I might have mentioned be∣fore, to shew the Antiquity of this Tongue. Nay, we are to remember this, that this first way of speaking among Mankind, is no where preserved but in these Writings: for after the Babylonian

Captivity (which was about three thousand and four hundred years after the Creation) this Origi∣nal Speech was no longer the Language of any particular Nation; for the Captive Jews lost this Tongue at Babylon, (a Place fatal to Hebrew, at first in the Confusion of Tongues, and afterwards in this Peoples forgetting their Language there) in∣somuch that at their Return home they could not understand the Book of their own Laws but by an Interpreter, Neh. 8. 7, 8. for they had chang'd their Hebrew into a Mixt Language (compounded partly of Hebrew and partly of Chaldee) which was afterwards call'd Syriack. But in the Old Te∣stament the pure Hebrew is kept entire and uncor∣rupted, and is extant at this day in no Writings but these. If any Grammarians and Criticks could say the like concerning the Greek or Latin Tongue, that there is One Book wherein either of these in its first Purity is wholly contain'd, they would be very lavish in their Encomiums of that Volume, and the Prelation of it to all others should not want setting forth. Behold here the Whole Hebrew Tongue, and that in its native Lustre, comprised in the Old Testament! In no one Book upon Earth besides this is there lodged a Whole Language; which should invite all Admirers and Lovers of An∣tient Literature to prize it, and the Books written in it. Certainly this is a high Commendation of these Sacred Writings, and gives them the Prefe∣rence to all others whatsoever.

Secondly; They rightly claim this, because they acquaint us with the true Origine of the World, which we find recorded in no other Writings. For tho the Beginning of all things, and some Circumstances which appertain to it, are obscurely intimated in some Pagan Historians and Poets, and thereby

(as I have lately shew'd on another occasion) Testimony is given to the Authority of the Sacred Writings, yet none of them give us a plain and particular Account of this Beginning and Original of the Mundane Fabrick. Yea, the very Philoso∣phick Men among the Gentiles in a most wild and rambling manner talk of the Rise of all things, and at the same time ba••••le themselves. Thus the Epi∣cureans tell us a sensless Story of the Eternal frisking of Atoms; which yet, if they were Eternal, had no Beginning or Ri••e at all. Pythagoras and his Disciples, and Plato and some of the Peripateticks held that Men were always, and that there was an Eternal Succession of them, and consequently no Original of them. Others who believ'd they had a Beginning, had strange and monstrous Fancies concerning it, as that Men were form'd out of Fishes, which was Anaximander's Conceit: Others imagin'd they shooted out of Trees; some out of Eggs; others out of Wombs affix'd to the Earth, as Epicurus and Lucretius: Others (as the fabulous Poets) conceited they were produced out of Stones: and1 1.57 Cicero relates concerning some of the Philosophers, that they thought the Original of Mankind was from Seed falling from the Stars, and impregnating the Earth. This stumbling at the Threshold, these extravagant and groundless No∣tions conce••ning the very first Original of things, were too ominous a Presage that these Philosophers would grosly mistake about other Matters, and give us but a sorry Account of the other Works of Nature. But Moses confutes all these fond Sur∣mises about the Nativity of the World, and of Mankind; he quashes all those wild Conjectures, by

assuring us that Man had his Origine from the Earth, by God's peculiar framing him out of it; and that the World it self had its Being by Creation, i. e. by being made out of Nothing by the Infinite Pow∣er and Wisdom of God. Wherefore it was right∣ly said by an Understanding Person,2 1.58 I am per∣swaded (saith he) that in the first Chapter of Genesis Moses taught more than all the pagan philosophers and Interpreters of Nature. And that this first Chapter of the Bible is an Historical or Physical Account of the Creation of the World, and is no Allegory, is not to be question'd by any Man of a sober Mind and consistent Reasoning. For thus I argue, It is highly fitting that the Doctrine of the ••irst Rise of the Universe, the Production of all things, should not be le••t doubtful, but be convey'd unto us in such a way as may best preserve the Memory of so weighty and considerable a Matter. For this is of such Concern that our Belief of Providence and the true Nature of God is comprised in it. Now a Thing of this Quality ought not to be so deliver'd that it may be liable to Imposture, or suspected of Falshood or Uncertainty. As for private and perso∣nal Revelations (which some may here suppose) these can only satisfy the individual Persons to whom they are communicated: and as for Oral Tradition, it is not so certain but that it may leave some Scruples in Mens Minds. Hence it is reaso∣nable that the History of the World should be di∣gested into such Records which may assure us of what is to be believed, and therefore it is sit that they should be Plain and Simple, and properly to be taken and understood, so that they may be rec∣kon'd as an Indubitable Account of the World's

Production; therefore such is this Relation which Moses hath lest us, which is a Perfect Diary of th•••• First Work of the Almighty.

But I will attempt yet further to prove that thi•• History deserves that Name, i. e. that it relates what was really done. If this be acknowledged by some Sacred and Inspired Author, I conceive that will be a fair Conviction to those who believe that Author to be inspired, and to deliver things that are really true. That St. Peter then in the third Chapter of his second Epistle (where he briefly describes the Make and Frame of this World, as it was formed at the first Creation) refers to this Mosaick History, and also fully confirms it, will ap∣pear in the Perusal of that his Description, where you will find those very Terms which Moses in the first of Genesis makes use of. This they are willingly ignorant of, saith the Apostle, that the Heavens were of old, i. e. from the Beginning, which in the Verse before is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Beginning of the Creation, which agrees exactly with the first Words of Genesis. And these Heavens were by the Word of God, which is a reference to God said, which Moses expresly mentions, chap. 1. 6, 14. Next to the Heavens he makes mention of the Earth, (as Moses doth) telling us, that it Stood or consisted out of the Water and in the Water, which is the same Account of it which we have in Genesis, viz. that it was partly above Water and partly under, i. e. it was above the Seas, Fountains, Ri∣vers, &c. but under the w••tyr Mass of Clouds. So that any Man of unprejudiced Thoughts cannot but see that those Words [the Earth standing out of the Wa∣ter, and in the Water] plainly relate to the Mosaical History, where we are told that the Globe of Earth included in it a heap of Waters call'd the Deep, or

the Abys••, which was afterwards gathered into one Receptacle or Channel. This is call'd the Water un∣d••r the Firmament, i. e. under the Expansion of the Air, as the Water above the Earth, viz. the Clouds are call'd the Water above the Expansion, Gen. 1. 7. Thus you see all this is alledged and acknowledged by St. Peter as True History, and accordingly is made use of by him: Wherefore we are ascer∣tain'd from his infallible Pen, that the Mosaick Account of the Creation is no Fiction, no strain of Poetick Fancy, but is perfectly Historical, and to be taken in a real, proper and literal Sense, which was the thing to be clear'd. Wherefore Origen, and the rest of the Allegorists who despise the Let∣ter of this Chapter, and rely chiefly on some My∣stick and Symbolical Meanings, are confuted. And so likewise are they that adhere to the foolish Dreams of Philosophers concerning the Eternity of the World, or its being made by Chance, or the Existence of More Worlds. All these are incon∣sistent with Moses's Account of the Creation, be∣sides that they affront other Principles establish'd by the Holy Scriptures, and bid desiance to Rea∣son and the greatest Evidence of things. So that it is to be wondred that any Person who pretends to own the Divine Authority of the Bible, should publickly disown Moses's Relation of the First Ori∣ginal of the World, and look upon this first Chap∣ter of Genesis (as well as he doth on the third) as not True, i. e. not giving an Account of Matter of Fact. But there was a kind of Necessity upon him to form such Thoughts as these concerning this Entrance of Moses's Book, because he had in his Theory of the Earth run counter to that Relation of it which Moses gives. This is the bold Man that asse••ts the Primitive Earth to have been without

Sea, and without Mountains, and the Airy Expan∣sion to be without Clouds, which are a plain con∣tradicting of Moses, who saith, the Waters were ga∣ther'd together, and were called Seas, ver. 10. and in∣forms us that there were other Waters above the Fir∣mament or Air, ver. 7. and in another Place lets us know that all the high Hills and Mountains were co∣ver'd by the Waters of the Deluge, Gen. 7. 19, 20. Thus it must needs be ill philosophizing in defiance of Moses, the first of the Philosophick Order. This is Confutation enough of his Hypothesis; and herein I am satisfied that the Excepter against his Book is in the right. Now to support his own Opinion, and to run down Moses, he tells us, that instead of a History we are here presented with a Parable, with an Ethical Discourse in an obscure way. This Philosophick Romancer turns the Ho∣ly Scriptures into Aesop's Fables, and seems with his Friend Spinosa to hint that the Writings of the Prophets are only high Flights of Imagination. God forbid that I should fasten any such thing upon him, (or any the like Imputation on any other Man of Learning) or so much as suspect it unless there were some ground for it. I appeal therefore to all persons of correct Thoughts, whether his asserting that Moses the Prime and Leading Prophet is so fan∣ciful that he presents us with mere Allegories and Parables, even when he seems to speak of the Crea∣tion of the World, and the Fall of our First Pa∣rents, whether (I say) this doth not argue that the rest of the Prophetick Writers (who could not do amiss in imitating so Great a Guide) are led wholly by Imagination, and dictate not things as they really are, but as they fancied them to be. Nay, he not only overthrows the Truth and Rea∣lity of Moses's Writings, but he blasts the Integri∣ty

of the Penman himself, telling us, that he was a Crafty Politician and Dissembler, one that did all to comply with the People, one that cheated the ignorant Jews with a thing like an History, merely to please them, wh••lst in the mean time it is no∣thing but a piece of Morality in an Allegorized way, and is to be understood so by us. Certainly Moses needed not to have been Inspired by the Ho∣ly Ghost (as I suppose most grant him to be) to have merited this Character. But I have animad∣verted on him with some Freedom in a former Discourse, and therrfore I will not say any more here. Nor should I have said any thing then, or now, if I had not been verily perswaded that the Credit of Moses, and of the Scriptures themselves, and consequently of our whole Religion, lay at stake: for if this 1st Chapter of Genesis, together with the rest which follow, which have all the Marks of History upon them, be not Literal and Historical, we know not what Judgment to make of any other Places of Scripture which recite Mat∣ter of Fact, we can't tell whether any Text bears a Literal Sense or no, and so we throw up the whole Bible into the Hands of Scepticks and Atheists.

After all that I have said under this Head, I would not be thought to mean any such thing as this, that the Scripture was designed for Philosophy: No, there are Nobler things that it aims at. Yet this is most certain, that here is the Best Philoso∣phy, both Moral and Natural. It is the latter I am now speaking of, viz. the Knowledg of the Works of Nature, God's creating of the World, which is the f••rst ••tep to all Natural Philosophy. This is to be learnt in the Beginning of this Holy Book, whose Excellency and Perfection I am treat∣ing

of. Here the Birth and Original of all things are distinctly set down, which is a Subject that all the Philosophers are defective in. I grant wha•• Cyril, speaking of Moses, saith,1 1.59 that he design'd not to play the Philosopher in a subtile and curious manner, and to be accurate in his Discourse of the First Principles of things: but notwithstanding this, it is an undeniable Truth that no Book in the World teacheth us the True Origine and Age of the World, the Epoche of the Universe, the Par∣ticular Order and Method of the Creation, and more especially the manner of the Production of Mankind, but This. By this alone we are fixed and determined in these Points, and we have no longer any Reason to doubt and waver. We may plainly discern from these Sacred Writings the Invalidity of those Notions which some Philosophick Heads have entertain'd, viz. the Eternity of the World, the Production of it by Chance, or the Mechanical Rise of it by virtue of mere Matter and Motion. All these fond Conceits are silenced by this Sacred Author; an Happiness which we could not have had if this most Antient and Authentick Book were not extant.

Thirdly; We have no Account of the first Rise of Nations and People in the World, but ••rom the Mosaick History. Here, and only here, we have an Exact Narrative of the dividing of the Earth among the Sons of Noah and their Posterity. It is in the Tenth Chapter of Genesis that we have the History of the First Plantations. A Choice Monument of Antiquity, and to be priz'd by all Lovers of An∣tient Learning, those that delight to enquire into the First Originals of things. Here we are in∣form'd

that Iapheth, the eldest Son of Noah, and his seven Sons, were the first that peopled that part of the World which is call'd Europe, with a part of Asia the Less. His Sons are reckon'd up in this manner; 1. Gomer, whose Progeny seated themselves in the North-East part of that Le••••er Asia, which contains Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, and a great part of Galatia. These were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Iosephus, call'd by the Latins Galatae; among whom is the City Comara, according to Pli∣ny: and1 1.60 Mela speaks of the Comari. The Peo∣ple that dwelt in this Tract were (as Herodotus and other Antient Historians testify) call••d Cimmerii, and had their Name from Gomer, if we may give Credit to some of the Learnedest Criticks, such who are not wont to rest in fanciful Derivations. They tell us that Gomeri, Comeri, Cumeri, Cimbri, Cimmerii, are the same. The Old Germans are thought by them to have been a Colony of these Cimmerians or Gomerians, for German is but a Corruption of Gomerman. The Old Galls were another Colony of the Gomerians, (who by the Grecians were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and con∣tractedly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Celtae) for it appears that the Cimbri or Cimmerii were the antient Inhabitants of Old Gallia. And our Ancestors the Britains were of the same stock; for that they descended from the Galls or Celtae, who were the Gomeri or Cimbri of old, our own Learned Antiquary Mr. Cambden attempts to prove from their Religion, Manners, Language, &c. The Inhabitants of Cumberland (as he thinks) retain the Name still: they were the true Britains, i. e. Cimbri or Cumbri, or (as af∣terwards they were call'd) Cambri. But this lat∣ter

Denomination was more especially applied to those of them that fled into the British Ci••••••ri•• or Cambria, now call'd Wales, in the time that th•• Saxons raged in the Southern Parts of this Isle▪ I will here particularly mention Gomer's three Sons, and take notice what Places are assign'd to them To Ashkenaz belong'd Troas, or P••rygia the Lesser where is the River Ascanius, and a Country call'd Ascania, which it is probable took their Name from him: and hence are the Ascanian Port, and the Ascanian Isles, in Pliny. And the Name Asca∣nius (as is observ'd) was much used in those Parts Riphath (the second Son) was seated in Pontus and Bithynia, especially in Paphlagonia, whence (as the Jewish Historian remarks) the Paphlagones were call'd Riphathae, and afterwards by Contraction Ri∣phaci: and in1 1.61 Mela there is mention of Riphaces, To Togarmah (another of Gomer's Sons) was allot∣ted Phrygia the Greater, and part of Galatia. Thence the Phrygians were known by the Name of Tygrammines, saith Iosephus.

But I proceed to speak of the Plantations of the other Sons of Iapheth. The second of them was Magog, from whom were the Scythians that dwelt on the East and North-East of the Euxine Sea; for Scythopolis and Hierapolis, which those Scythians took when they conquer'd Syria, were ever after call'd2 1.62 Magog, saith Pliny. And Ptolomee grants that the proper Name of that Place was Magog▪ 3 1.63 Iosephus confirms this, when he saith the Scythians were call'd Magogae by the Grecians, and thence in∣fers that the Scythians had their Original from Ma∣gog

the Son of Iapheth. The third Son was Ma∣dai, from whom were descended the Medes; for Madai is the Hebrew Word for Media, as is evi∣dent from Isa. 21. 2. and other Places. And ano∣ther Seat of his Offspring was Macedonia, anti∣ently call'd Aemathia or Aemadia, which is the same with Madia; for 'tis usual in the changing of a Name out of one Language into another, to Prefix a Vowel or Dipthong. And a People of this Place are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The fourth Son was Iavan, who 'tis likely came first into Greece, upon the Division of the Earth among Noah's Children, and then afterwards into the more Western Parts of Europe. From this Iavan ('〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the LXX) the Iones or Iaones (as Homer and Strabo call them) the first and original Grecians were de∣rived. 1 1.64 Iosephus is peremptory, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Iavan came Ionia and all the Greeks. And Greece is expresly call'd Iavan, Dan. 10. 20. & 11. 2. So that there is no Reason to doubt that this Son of Iapheth was the Father of the Grecians. Moses goes on, and mentions the four Sons of Iavan: 1. Elisa, whose Portion was Achaia, and part of Peloponnesus, as some of great Learning have inferred from this, that in this Country they meet with Ellas, and the Elysian Fields, and the City Eleusis, and Elis a Ci∣ty of Peloponnesus, who took their Names from Elisa. Some also make him the Parent of the Aeo∣les in Greece. 2. Tarshish, from whom the Coun∣try that he inhabited is call'd Tarsis, on the Coast of which is the Great Sea or Mediterranean, whence Tarshish is the Word to signify the Sea. It is reasonable to think that the Place where this

second Son of Iavan was seated is Cilicia, the chief City whereof was Tarsus, call'd so by his Name And it appears that the Cilicians of old were known by the Appellation of the People of Tarsus, 3. Kittim or Chittim, whose Dwelling is thought to have been Lycia and part of Pamphylia; for the Country Cetis and the People Cetii, the first men∣tion'd by Ptolomy, the second by Homer, shew that the Sons of Cittim or the Citteans inhabited there. That Chittim is meant of some parts of Greece is clear from Numb. 24. 24. Ships shall come from the Coasts of Chittim: By which are understood the Greeks and Seleucidae that cross'd the Hellespont, and came against the Hebrews and Assyians. And in 1 Mac. 8. 5. the King of Macedon is call'd the King of Chittim. And because there were seve∣ral Colonies of them sent into Cilicia, this bears the Name of the Land of Chittim, Isa. 23. 1. and Chittim, ver. 12. for thence Alexander the Great came to destroy Tyre, which is the Subject of that Chapter.1 1.65 Ptolomee tells us, that Cetis is a Region in Cilicia. Cyteum is in Crete, saith2 1.66 Pliny. There is a Cittium in Cyprus, according to3 1.67 Strabo. And 4 1.68 Iosep••us relates that Cetios was the Greek Name of Cyprus it self: and thence he saith all the Greek ••sles were called Chittim from thence. Italy also was peopled by the Chittians, and therefore is some∣times understood by that term. The Ierusalem-Targum interprets the Word so in Gen. 10. 4. And when it is said, The Ships of Chittim Shall come against thee, i. e. against Antiochus, Dan. 11. 30. the Meaning is thought by some Learned Writers to be, that the Romans by Sea should disturb him. But I conceive that this may be true, and yet Chit∣tim

may in this Place (as before) signify Cilicia, for the Ships of the Romans commonly harboured in the Ports of Cilicia, to command the Mediter∣ranean. The short is, from consulting and com∣paring the several Texts where Chittim is men∣tioned, I find Reason to determine, that some Peo∣ple both of Greece and Italy are comprehended in it: and accordingly there is Reason to believe that there were different Colonies of the Posterity of Chittim. (the Grandchild of Iaphet) planted in these Places. This puts an End to the Disputes and Quarrels of the Learned on both sides; some of whom contend that Greece, others that Rome is meant by Chittim. 4. Dodanim, whose Seat was Epirus and part of Peloponnesus. The Name is kept up in the City call'd Dodona, (which is in Epirus) near to which was Iupiter's Oracle, whence he was stiled Dodonaeus. This Iupiter was this Dodanim, the fourth Son of Iavan, who was the Grecian Sa∣turn, for there were Iupiters many, and Saturns many.

Iaphet's fifth Son was Tubal or Thubal, who took up his Habitation at first, it is probable, about the South-East of the Euxine Sea, where dwelt the Albani, Chalybes, Iberi, who were antiently call'd Thobeli, saith the Jewish Antiquary, from this Thubal: and Ptolomy speaks of a City here named Thubilaca. From those Parts some of the Iberi were translated to Spain, which was thence called Iberia, and so the Spaniards are reckoned as the Posterity of Tubal. Meshech was Iapheth's Sixth Son, to whom fell Cappadocia, the Inhabitants whereof were the Meschini and Moschi, saith the foresaid Antiquary, who are also mentioned by Strabo, Me∣la, and Pliny. Some of his Posterity were placed in Scythia and the Regions adjacent, whence we

find that Meshech and Tubal (which are constantly joined together in Scripture) are Words to ex∣press Scythia, Ezek. 32. 26. and Magog is joined with them, Ezek. 38. 2, 3. where Gog in the Land of Magog is said to be chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal. And it is moreover probable that the Muscovites are of the Race of Meshech or Moshech, (for the Word was pronounced differently, as Me∣lech and Moloch) it being generally granted by the Learned that the Muscovites were originally from Scythia. To confirm which Opinion I will offer this Observation to the Reader, that the Seventy Interpreters render Meshech in Ezek. 38. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where Rhos gives the Denomination to the Russians, which is another Name of the Muscovites. The last Son of Iapheth is Tiras, who is univrsally agreed to be the Progenitor of the Thracians, Thrax having a near Cognation with Thiras. It is yet further remarkable in this Account which is given us of the First Plantations, that by these foresaid Sons of Iapheth the Isles of the Genciles were divided in their Lands, Gen. 10. 5. The Hebrews by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understand not only those Regions which are encircled with the Sea, and are more properly and strictly called Islands, but all Coun∣tries divided from them by the Sea, or such as they could not come to but by the Sea. This is proved from several Texts of Scripture where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used: and the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken in this large Sense sometimes. Accordingly there being no part of the World call'd by the Name of Christendom but what was divided from the Jews by Sea, we may gather how large and wide the Allotment of Iapheth and his Posterity was. The Isbes of the Gentiles include not only all Europe, with all the I••bes adjoining and appertain∣ing

to it, but whatever Regions lie North and West of Iudea. Or, take it in1 1.69 Mr. Mede's Words, The Isles of the Gentiles are all Countries that lie above the Mediterranean, from the Moun∣tain Amanus and the Hircane Sea Westward. So much concerning the Ofspring of Iaphet, which was not unknown by Name to the Pagans, wit∣ness Horace's Iapeti Genus, and Lucian's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he Provrbially applies to that which is very Antient.

The middle Son of Noah was Shem, whose Por∣tion in the Division of the Earth was Palestine, and all the Eastern (which was the greatest) Part of Asia. His five Sons were these: 1. Elam, the Parent of the Elamites, i. e. the Persians, for that was the Primitive Name of those People, as we learn from Isa. 21. 2. & 22. 6. Dan. 8. 2. And because some Part of Media was a near Neighbour, Elam is the Word for the Land of the Medes, Ezek. 32. 24. 2. Ashur, from whom was peopl'd and named Assyria. He was Nimrod's immediate Successor, and is call'd Ninus by Prophane Wri∣ters. 3. Arphaxad, whose Posterity was seated in Chaldea and Mesopotamia, and of whose Race Abra∣••am was. 4. Lud, whence the Lydians in Asia the Less. And by the Ludim are meant sometimes the Ethiopians, as2 1.70 Bochart hath abundantly evin∣ced. 5. Aram, whose abode was Aramea or Syria, for so 'tis call'd by the Greeks. Whence3 1.71 Strab•• tells us that Aram was the old Word for Syria; and those that are now call'd Syrians, were hereto∣fore known by the Name of Aramaeans. And I doubt not but Armenia had its Denomination from Aram, there being so great probability that his

Race were Inhabitants of Syria and Armenia the Great, which is as much as Aramenia. Vz, Aram's Son, had the Land of Vz. There is mention'd also Heber, Arphaxad's Son, from whom some think the Hebrews had their Name, but that is disputable. Some Writers tell us that among the Divisions of the several Regions of the World, America or the West-Indies fell to the share of some of the Stock of Shem. This Part of the Earth was possess'd and peopled, say Arias Montanus and Vatablus, by Iobab and Ophir, two of the Sons of Ioctan. To confirm which Brerewood and others aver, that America is join'd to the Continent of Asia, and so the Passage was easy, and Men and Beasts might go thither. Not only these Wri∣ters, but Genebrard and others declare it to be their Opinion, that Ophir, from whence Solomon fetch'd his Gold, had its Denomination from the latter of those Sons of Ioctan, and that this place was that which is now call'd Peru; which they think they partly prove from 2 Chron. 3. 6. Where the Gold which came from Ophir, is call'd Zahab Pe∣ruajim, which latter Word is the dual Number, they say, of Peru. If you enquire after the more particular Place, Vatablus will tell you that it is Hispaniola in the Western Ocean, lately found out by Columbus. But others tell us it was the Eastern India, that which was possess'd by Shem's Posterity, viz. Ophir and Havilah the Sons of Ioctan. So say Rabanus Maurus and Lyranus, so Pererius, Massae∣us, Tzeta, Lipcnius, but all in a different Manner, and placing it in different Regions of this part of the World. To these Indies, saith1 1.72 Iosephus, Solomon's Navy made a Voyage, to a Region call'd

heretofore Sophyra, now the Golden Land. With him agrees1 1.73 Varrerius, and adds that this Golden Chersonesse is the same with the Place that is at this Day call'd Malaca, and is in the Kingdom of Pe∣gu, and borders on Somatra. But Mercator holds the Place to be Iapan. Acosta would perswade us it is Pegu, Siam, Sumatra. Here's a wide Diffe∣rence (you will say) among Authors: the East and West-Indies are concern'd in the Controversy: and it may be, after all, Ophir was in neither of them. It is Sophala in the Ethiopick Sea, and con∣sequently belongs to Africa, say Volaterranus and Ortelius: but I rather think that Africa it self, or the African Shore is meant by it. Which seems to be confirmed from 2 Chron. 9. 21. & 20. 36. (compared with 1 Kings 9. 28. & 10. 22. & 22. 48.) where Ophir is call'd Tarshish. For though this Name belongs properly to the Cilician Port, which is on the other Side of Africa, yet (as I have shew'd in another Place) in a large Accepti∣on it comprehended all the Mediterranean Sea, and that Part especially which wash'd the African Shores: and hither it is probable Solomon's Fleet sailed, and the Merchants went up into the Coun∣try in pursuit of the Golden Mines: of which af∣terwards.

Cham or Ham (the youngest Son of Iapheth) and the Families that descended from him, were first seated in this Country of Africk, though some of them made Excursions also into Syria and Arabia. That he was seated in Egypt (the most considerable part of Africk) is undeniable, since it is so often call'd2 1.74 the Land of Ham: and3 1.75 Plutarch hath left

it on record, that Chemia or Chamia was the anti∣ent Name of that Place, which without doubt it had from Ham, or Cham, Iaphet's Son. That he or his Posterity lanch'd out into some parts of Arabia, which border'd on Africk, is render'd very Proba∣ble by Monsieur Bocbart. But that Chush, the el∣dest Son of Cham, was the Father of the Ethiop∣ans, cannot be denied by any Man that well observes what the use of the Name Cushi or Cushim is in the Sacred Writings. Havilah, one of Cush's Sons, gave Name to Havilah, which Strabo places in the Confines of Arabia and Mesopotamia. Whe∣ther the Arabian or Ethiopian Saba or Saba be de∣nominated from Sheba the Son of Cush, or another of that Name who was his Grandson, or from a Third Sheba, the Son of Ioctan, (whom also we find in this 10th Chapter of Genesis) it is to little purpose here to dispute. Mesraim, the second Son of Cham, was questionless the Founder of Egypt, for that is the known Name that it hath in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. From1 1.76 Iosephus we learn that the Metropolis of this Province (by some call'd Memphis) had the Name of Mezzara given it by the Jews in his Time. And to this day Egypt is call'd Mizraim by the Jews and Ara∣bians. Phut, a third Son, is believed by most Wri∣ters to have peopl'd Mauritania, Numidia, Lytia, Thence2 1.77 Pliny makes mention of a River in Mau∣vitania call'd Phut: of which also St. Ierom speaks, telling us that there was in his time a3 1.78 Region in Africk that had its Name from it. I doubt not but some part of Africa (if not the whole Coun∣trey)

is meant by Phut in Nah. 3. 9. And it can't be look'd upon as an Extravagant Conjecture if I guess that Phetz or Fez, a Kingdom of Mauritania, is a Corruption of that Word. The fourth and last Son of Cham was Canaan, from whom sprang the Canaanites. His Sons were Sidon, Emori, Ie∣buss, &c. from whom were the Sidonians (includ∣ing the Tyrians) Amorites, Jebusites, &c. often spoken of in the Old Testament. All this Coun∣try of Palestine was (as I said before) part of Shem's Portion, but Canaan invaded it, and thence it bore his Name. The Learned Bocbart thinks this was the antient and Primitive Phoenicia, it being call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the LXX. Exod. 16. 35. and she whom St. Matthew calls a Woman of Canaan, is said by St. Mark to be a Syro-Phoenician. It is this Great Critick's perswasion that the Phoenicians were originally Canaanites, and that they fled out of Canaan, when Ioshua came and took Possession of their Country: then they went and seated themselves on the Sea-Coast of Palestine, call'd by them afterwards Phoenicia, as the Britains upon the coming of the Saxons betook themselves to that part of the Country which is now known by the Name of Wales. This Excellent Person hath with great and manifold Arguments attempted the Establishment of this Assertion, and hath abun∣dantly 1 1.79 shew'd that there are several plain Foot∣steps of those first Planters in the Names in Geo∣graphy. I might confirm this from a very remar∣kable Passage in St. Augustine, who assures us2 1.80 that in his time the Peasants of Hippo, who were known to be of the Race of the Phaenicians, when they were ask'd who they were? used to answer they

were Canaans: which plainly shews that Canaan and Phoenicia were the same.

But this I would add here, that Phoenicia is a larger and more extensive Term than Canaan, be∣cause I conceive the former takes in all those Coun∣tries that border'd on the Red Sea: for I am per∣swaded that Phoenicia had its Denomination from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Name of Esau or Edom turned into Greek. I had occasion heretofore to shew that this Noted Person was call'd Erythras or Erythroeus by the Pagan Historians: which Name I am now to observe is of the like Signification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Rufus. So that Esau, Edom, Erythraeus, Phoe∣nix are the same, and consequently the Phaenici∣ans properly speaking, were all those People that lived near the Red Sea, (which is call'd so from Edom (the Hebrew of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) i. e. Red) and were under the Dominion of that Great Lord and Po∣tentate Esau.

This is the Division of the World among the Sons of Noah; thus1 1.81 the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance, he separated the Sons of Adam, he set Bounds to the People. Iapheth's Pos∣session was the Northern and Western Parts of the Earth: Shem had the East: and Cham had his lot between both. Moses reckons up in this Chap∣ter fourteen Persons of the Posterity of Iapheth, six and twenty of the Race of Shem, and nine and twenty of that of Cham: who all with Iapheth, Shem and Cham themselves amount to seventy two: and just so many Languages (or rather Dialects) some think there were, and the very same number of Nations occasion'd by the rise of those Langua∣ges. It is a most difficult Task to assign exactly

the several Particular Regions and People derived from the Posterity of Noah, and their proper Seats and Habitations. Arias Montanus, Bochart, Raleigh, Heylin (besides others before them, who have writ of this Subject) seem to differ not a lit∣tle, and yet they all agree in the main. Nay, where you see different Places and Regions assign∣ed by them, they may all be true: for one may set down the first Seats of Noah's Offspring; another may mention the Colonies they sent forth, which lie it may be a great way off of the first Seats; and another may take notice of their Encroach∣ments and Invasions. But whatever it is that is said by any Authentick Writer concerning this peopling of the several Parts of the Earth, it is all founded on the Mosaick History. Here we are told that the Parts of the World were divided by the Sons of Noah, every one after his Tongue, after their Families in their Nations, Gen. 10. 5. The Confusion of Tongues was that which divided Fa∣milies: and yet by the Affinity of the Tongues there was an Union made, for those that agreed in the same Idiom joined together, and went and seated themselves together. And who these First Planters were, the Sacred History particularly ac∣quaints us. As we have no Book but this that lets us know who were the first People in the World, who were before the Flood; so none but this tells us who the most Considerable Persons af∣ter it, and by whom the Several Nations of the World were first erected, and Colonies were sent forth into all the Parts of the Earth.

Fourthly; The true Knowledg of the Original of Civil Government, and the Increases of it, and the Different Changes it underwent, is to be drawn from these Sacred Fountains. We may in∣form

form our selves here (and no where else) that the Primitive Government was Paternal, i. e. it was seated in Fathers of Families; as first in Adam and other Heads of Families, who then lived a very long Time. It is true, we are told by Aristo∣tle, that1 1.82 the Power of Parents over their Chil∣dren was a Regal and Sovereign Dominion: the one (i. e. Parents) were the first Kings, the other (i. e. Children) were the first Subjects. But this the Philosopher could learn from no other Book but the Bible, or from those Traditions which were founded on these Antient Records, because no other Writings give an Account of the Govern∣ment which was first of all settled among the Sons of Men. Here, and only here, we are told that Adam and the other first Partriarchs were Supreme Governours in their respective Tribes and Hou∣ses; that the Father of every Family was at the first the King of it, and reigned over his Children and Houshold as Soveraign; and that upon the Decease of the Father, the Eldest Son by a natu∣ral Right and Title was Successor, and inherited the Paternal Power and Dominion. Thus with the Paternal Rule went Primogeniture; i. e. the First-born Sons of Fathers of Families were Ru∣lers, and there were many of these every where. And thus the Authority quietly and peaceably ran in this Channel, and 'tis not likely was interrupt∣ed till some years before the Flood, when there was a general Corruption of Mankind, and some af∣fected extraordinary Dominion and Sway, and perverted the Primitive way of Government. After the Flood we find that the Authority was continued in the Heads and First-born of Families:

and now by a more especial Commission the Ma∣gistrate's Authority is confirm'd, Gen. 9. 5. who∣so sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed. The Ruler is authorized to punish Murder with Death, to require Blood for Blood. This is the first Formal Appointment of the Power of the Sword that we read of, this is the first Erection of a Tribunal of Life and Death. From some1 1.83 In∣stances in the Records of this Time we may ga∣ther, that the Sacerdotal Dignity was joined to the Secular Power: they that were Magistrates were Priests. And so far as we are able to discover, these Offices were exerted by those who had the Paternal Right, or that of Priority of Birth. Thus it was in the first Patriarchal Oeconomy; this was the Government which lasted till after the Deluge in the Race of Shem. For as yet there was no one Person who usurped Authority over all the rest, (though those of Cham's Offspring had a Monar∣chy in the mean time, Nimrod being their King, of whom I shall speak afterwards) but the Patriarchs kept up the first and original Laws of Paternity and Primogeniture all the time they lived at Liber∣ty: there was no failure of this Government till they were brought under the Egyptian Yoke. And then afterwards, when the Jewish People were in the Desarts of Arabia, the Primogeniture more signally ceas'd in Moses, who was appointed by God himself to be Ruler over them. And so we are come to give an Account of the Civil Government of the Iews, which we can learn from no other Writings under Heaven but These. Mo∣ses, I say, was their Ruler, and was the First of that kind that they had. He was not only their Captain

and Leader, but their Civil Magistrate; yea he may be said to be their King, for even that Title is given to him, Deut. 33. 5. Moses was King in Je∣shurun, i. e. in Israel. He was an Absolute King, say1 1.84 Philo, and the Jewish Doctors, and2 1.85 Mr. Sel∣den, and some others. Ioshua was their next Ruler, Captain and King; who was succeeded by the Iudges, who were, like the Roman Dictators, set up upon emergent Occasions to desend, protect and deliver the People. But all this time the Jews were under a Theocracy, i. e. they were governed in a more signal manner by God. They received their Laws from Him, and he appointed the Pu∣nishments for the Breach of those Laws: They went to War by His Advice and Direction, and they did nothing in Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs without consulting him. Thus God was their King; it was a Divine Government; and the Iudges were but God's Vicegerents, and held a Power under Him. That God himself exercised this Regal Power over the Jews, was expresly acknowledged by Gideon, Judg. 8. 23. I will not rule over you, (saith he to that People) neither shall my Son rule over you, the Lord shall rule over you. So Samuel told the People, that the Lord their God was their King, 1 Sam. 12. 12. And this is implied in what God said to Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not Reign over them, 1 Sam. 8. 7. This Kingdom of God among the Iews began when he renewed the Covenant with them, Exod. 19. 5, 6. Then they took God for their King and Governour; and accordingly the Jewish Government is stiled a Theocracy, not only by3 1.86 Iosephus, but many of the Christian Writers.

But this wanton People desired another King be∣sides God; they would by no means be Singular, they would be Ruled as other Nations were; a King they must have, as Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Persia, and the rest of the Pagan World had. And a King they had according to their earnest Desire; for they chose Saul to be their King in de∣siance of God's Soveraignty over them: and now the Theocratical Dispensation ceased. Their Kingly Government lasted till the Captivity, when Zede∣kiah was their last King. After their Return from Assyria they were governed by the Chief Heads of their Tribes: Thus the Sacred Writings acquaint us that Zerobabel, a Prince of the Tribe of Iudah, was their Supreme Ruler. But the Canonical Scripture goes not on to tell us the great Variety of Governours over the Jews after the Captivity: Only in the New Testament we read of Herod, who was the first Stranger that was King of the Jews, but the last of all their Kings; for their that famous Prophecy of the Scepter departing from Iudah was accomplished, and Shiloh, the Blessed Saviour, the Prince of Peace, came into the World.

Having given you a short Survey of the Govern∣ment among the Iews, I will in the next Place speak of the Particular Exertments of it in their Courts of Iudicature. There was the Iudicatory of three Men; two of which were chosen by the Parties that were at Controversy, and those two chose a third. This sort of Courts was call'd the1 1.87 Iudica∣ture of Moneys, because it was conversant about Pe∣cuniary Causes, i. e. wherein Life was not con∣cerned,

but only a Sum of Money to be paid for the Fault, viz. Thest, Trespasses, Defamation, Hurt and Damage, and all Private Injuries. In short, all Lesser Causes and Petty Actions were tried by these Triumviri. I must add, that though this was usually call'd the Iudicature of Three, yet this Number was sometimes increased to five or seven. And this must be noted, that these three, five, or seven Iudges, or rather Iustices of the Peace, were settled in every City and considerable Town, and they tried the Causes, and decided the Contro∣versies of the Inhabitants of their proper City and Town. Again, there was the Iudicatory of Three and Twenty Men, and sometimes it consisted of Four and twenty: This Court was stiled the2 1.88 Iudicatory of Souls, because Great and Capital Causes, such as concern'd the Life of Men, were brought and tried here. This Court was also called the3 1.89 Little Sanedrim, or Lesser Consistory: and whereas the former Judicature of Three was in every City, this Court was in every Tribe in Israel. All the Hebrew Writers of any Note, who designedly treat of the Iewish Government, speak of these two Courts, and therefore it is not to be question'd that they were in use among that People. But it is also unquestionable that they were not made use of at first, i. e. either in Moses's time, or three or four Ages afterwards; otherwise we should have had them particularly mentioned in the Old Testa∣ment, which for my part I could never observe, though some pretend to do so. It being therefore our present Business to speak only of those things relating to the Iewish Polity which are expresly men∣tioned

in Scripture, I will proceed to recount those particular Models of Judicatures which are ex∣presly taken notice of in these Sacred Writings, and they are these. First, there was in every Town a sufficient Number of Overseers of the Peo∣ple, who upon occasion met together to do them Right: for the Tribes were divided into Thou∣sands, Hundreds, Fifties, Tens, i. e. into so ma∣ny Families; and over each Division there presided Rulers of Thousands, Rulers of Hundreds, Rulers of Fifties, and Rulers of Tens, to judg the People at all Seasons, Exod. 18. 21, 25. And the same are called Captains over Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, Tens, Numb. 31. 14. Deut. 1. 15. 1 Sam. 8. 5. and their Business was to decide lesser Causes in these their respective Thousands, Hundreds, &c. Besides these Ministers of Justice in every particular Town, there were others of a larger Jurisdiction, who are call'd Princes and Heads of the Tribes, Numb. 13. 2. & 34. 18. Chief of the Tribes, Deut. 1. 15. Officers among the Tribes (in the same Place), and Iudges and Offi∣cers throughout the Tribes, Deut. 16. 18. There were Twelve of these, every Tribe having its distinct Head and President over it; and these determin'd in Causes of a greater and higher Nature than the others. Moreover, there was a Senate of Seventy, chosen out of the two former Ranks of Persons; and they were designed at first to be Coadjutors to Moses Numb. 11. 16. You will find that these are mention'd together with the other two in Ios. 23. 2. & 24. 1. for by the Elders in both these Places are meant, I conceive, the Seventy Seniors, and by the Heads of Israel we are to understand the Representa∣tives and Governours of the Tribes; and by Officers and Iudges the Ordinary and Inferiour Justices, viz. Captains of Thousands, &c.

It was the first of these, namely, the Judicature of Seventy Men, which was most considerable, and therefore I will add a few Words concerning it: Because Moses was President over it, the Jews called it the Iudicature of Seventy one; and others, adding Aaron to that Number, say, it consisted of Seventy two. This famous Council, which was at first appointed by Moses in the Wilderness, was afterwards a Settled Council for governing the People in the Land of Canaan, and was called the Sanedrim, (which is a4 1.90 Greek Word originally, but crept into the Hebrew, as other Greek Words have done) but to distinguish it from the Lesser one, it is called the5 1.91 Great Sanedrim. The other Courts sat in every City and Tribe, but This was at Ierusalem only, and could sit no where else. This Great Consistory judged of All Matters, whereas the Others took Cognizance only of Lesser ones. This was not only a Court of Common Pleas or Nisi Prius, where only Civil Causes were tried, but sometimes it determin'd both them and Crimi∣nal Actions. It was also a Chancery, or Court of Equity. But the more special and peculiar Work of this Court was to try the most Weighty Causes: these most commonly were brought before these Seventy Seniors: Matters of the Highest Nature, the most Important Affairs of the Kingdom, and such as belong'd to the Safety of the Publick, were tried here. This Great Senate was chosen out of all the Tribes, and consisted of Lay-men, Priests and Levites. The King, or Chief Civil Magistrate, was the Head of it, as Moses was at first. This Assembly of the Seventy Senators was look'd upon as the Chiefest and Highest Court of the Jews. The

Supreme Power was thought to be seated here: ac∣cordingly all other Courts appeal'd to This, but from This was no Appeal. But some are of ano∣ther Opinion, and add a Fourth Court of Justice, viz. the Publick Council and Congregation of all the People. This some make to be the Highest Court, as in the Case of the Levitc's Wife that was cut in∣to twelve Pieces. The Captains of Thousands, &c. the Seventy Seniors, and All the Chief of the People met together, made this Great Assembly, this Mikel Gemot, this Parliament. This is that (they say) which is called6 1.92 the Congregation of the Lord, and7 1.93 the Whole Assembly of Israel, and8 1.94 the Whole Congregation, and9 1.95 the Great Congregation or Assembly. These were the several Courts of Judg∣ment amongst the Jews. Whilst Moses lived, he judged and decided Controversies alone when he thought fit; or when any of These Councils met, he was the Prince and Head of them. So that the Jewish Government (so far as it respected These Courts) was partly Regal and Monarchical, as un∣der Moses; and it was partly Aristocratical, as under the Captains of Thousands; and partly De∣mocratical or Popular, under the Kahal of the People. We are beholden to the Sacred Records of the Old Testament for these excellent Discove∣ries relating to Government, which the most Civi∣lized Nations in the World have taken for their Authentick Precedents.

Having spoken of their Methods of Govern∣ment, and Courts of Judicature, which are so just∣ly admired and imitated by all Wise Governours, I will next of all shew from these Antient Writings

how the Iewish Governours chastised and corrected those that offended against their Laws. Their Lesser Punishments were such as these: 1. Retalia∣tion; Exod. 21. 24. Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Hand for Hand, Foot for Foot. The plain Meaning of which was, that whoever bereft another Person of his Eye, Tooth, Hand or Foot, should be pu∣nish'd with the Loss of an Eye, a Tooth, &c. and sometimes this literal and rigorous Sense of the Law was put in practice. But generally it was not understood in the strict Sense, but he that put out another Man's Eye was to give him Satisfaction, i. e. as much as an Eye was thought to be worth. So the Targum of Ionathan interprets Deut. 19. 21. which is a Repetition of the foresaid Law of Tali∣on: the Offender was to make a sufficient Recom∣pence. And thus the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Grecians, and the Lex Talionis among the Romans was understood, viz. not of an Iden∣tical, but an Analogical Compensation. An Equi∣valent was accepted, the Value of an Eye, a Tooth, &c. for the Eye or Tooth it self. 2. Re∣stitution, the diverse kinds of which are particular∣ly set down in the beginning of Exod. 22. as first, when the same. thing that was taken away is re∣turned to the Owner, ver. 12. or when the like thing is restored, v. 5. or when more is returned than was taken away, ver. 1, 4. viz. in the Case of Thest, where twofold, sometimes four or five-fold, (according as the Circumstances of the Fault were) Yea seven-fold sometimes was to be restored, Prov. 6. 31. or, when the Thief had nothing to make Satisfaction with, he was to be sold, and Re∣stitution was to be made to the Owner with that Money, Exod. 22. 3. 3. Imprisonment, keeping the Body of the Man in Custody for his Fault. And

thence this Place of Consinement is called the House of Custody, 2 Sam. 20. 3. and by the Chaldee Pa∣raphrast the House of Detention, Isa. 24. 22. Thus King Asa clapp'd the Prophet Hanani into Prison for reproving him, 2 Chron. 16. 10. King Ahab commanded Micaiah to be sent to the like Place, because he prophesied against him, 1 Kings 22. 27. Ieremiah was put into the Court of the Prison by King Zedekiah for the same Offence, Ier. 37. 21. Iohn the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, Mat. 4. 12. and so was St. Peter by another of that Name, Acts 12. 4. This also was antiently the Place to receive those that were in Debt, Mat. 18. 30. and such as had committed Murder, Luke 23. 19. We read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Common Prison, a Publick Jail, Acts 5. 18. a Place of Durance and Consinement for the worst sort of Offenders. In their Prisons there was usually a Dungeon, Jer. 38. 6. or a Pit, as the Hebrew Word Bor is rendred in other Places when it hath reference to a Prison, as in Isa. 24. 22. Zech. 9. 11. And from this Word we gather what was the Nature of the Dungeon, viz. that it was a Place dug deep in the Ground so as to let in Wa∣ter, (for that is imported by Bor, Puteus, Fovea) whereby the Place became miry; and accordingly we read that Ieremiah, who was cast into this worst and lowest part of the Prison, sunk in the Mire, Jer. 38. 6. It is no wonder therefore that the Hebrew Word is translated by the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (whence lacus) a Ditch, a Pit, a Lake. A∣mong the Egyptians there was in their Prisons this kind of Tullianum or Dungeon, Gen. 41. 14. for Bor is the Name of that lowest Place in the Prison into which Ioseph was cast. And this is afterwards called the House of the Pit or Well, (for so it is in the Hebrew) Exod. 12. 29. It might be observed

out of those Authors who have given an Account of these Subterraneous Dungeons, that they were deep; and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the Name of a deep noisom Durance in Cyzicum in the Propontis, as Be∣da relates out of Theodorus of Tarsus, into which perhaps St. Paul was cast when he passed from Troas to that City, as1 1.96 Dr. Hammond conjectures; which may be the meaning of his being a Night and a Day in the Deep, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Cor. 11. 25. It is not improbable that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is synonymous with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fovea, a Pit, a Well, which is the frequent Word in the Old Testament for a Dungeon. And in con∣formity to this Stile, as well as to the Nature of the thing it self, Puteus is the Word used by2 1.97 Plautus for the muddy dirty Vault or Dungeon into which the vilest Offenders were detruded.

To Imprisonment belong the Stocks, not only be∣cause they are3 1.98 a kind of a Prison, (as the Scholiast on Aristophanes speaks) yea a real Prison for the Feet, but because they generally were made use of in Pri∣sons; which I collect from two or three Places in the Old and New Testament. In Ier. 29. 26. put∣ing in Prison and in the Stocks are joined. The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath much troubled Interpreters: Among these the Learned Buxtorf derives it from ••si navis and janak sugere, and thinks it originally and properly denotes that kind of Punishment men∣tion'd by Plutarch in Artaxerxes's Life, viz. that a Man was immured between two Boats, and had Milk and Honey given to him, and whether he would or no poured down his Throat to keep him alive, &c. The Hebrews, as this Critick ima∣gines, from the manner of Torture and Feeding, ex∣press

the Punishment by the Ship of the Sucker; and by this they use to signify any Close Prison, and even that more particular Consinement of the Hands or Feet in Prison: Accordingly an Eminent Rabbin thinks it imports Hand-shackles; another, that it signifies Fetters for the Feet. That there was such an Antient Punishment as the Stocks, is evident from Iob 13. 27. & 33. 11. where the Hebrew Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rendred in the former Place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the latter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The other Place which I alledg is in the New Testament, Acts 16. 24. He thrust them into the inner Prison, and made their Feet fast in the Stocks. Where observe there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to distinguish this Place from the other Parts of the Prison: and this it is likely was the Dun∣geon, the Pit spoken of before; and here was placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (for that is the Word here used) the Wooden Stocks; lignea custodia, as Plautus calls it; which was both to secure Offenders, and to put them to pain. I confess this Text speaks of the Prison at Philippi, but I suppose as to this there was little difference between the Iewish and Gre∣cian Jails, especially if you take notice of what the other Text before mentioned acquaints us with. There is another Word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render the Stocks, Jer. 20. 2, 3. and seems to me to be some Uneasy Place in the Prison into which Ieremiah was cast, and so it confirms the former Notion I offer'd. We read of the Correction of the Stocks, Prov. 7. 22. but what the Hebrew Word gnekes properly signifies is difficult to determine, only we know that it was some Exemplary Punish∣ment to teach a Fool Wisdom: these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the Seventy render it) were to bind him to his good Behaviour. 4. Scourging was another Penal Infliction, Deut. 25. 2. where we find that the Of∣fender

fender was to receive fourty Stripes according to the Rigour of the Law, but thirty nine was the usual Tale, as all the Jewish Writers affirm, and as we may gather from 2 Cor. 11. 24. This Fla∣gellation is called Bikkoreth, Lev. 19. 20. from bakar bos, it being done with Scourges made of Bulls Hides or Ox-leather; which we also find confirmed by several Classick Authors. Our Blessed Saviour underwent this severe Penalty, Mat. 27. 26. and foretold his Disciples that it should be their Lot, Mat. 10. 17. & 23. 34. which was fulfilled, Acts 5. 40. & 22. 10. The most grievous sort of Scourging was with Scorpions, 1 Kings 12. 11. i. e. with Whips, to which were fastned Pricks and sharp Thorns, to rend and tear the Body: and sometimes there were Plummets of Lead at the End of them, to bruise and batter the Flesh. Scourging was also a Roman Punishment, as is evident from Acts 22. 24. besides that the best Pagan Histories attest this: yet there was some Difference between this Penalty as it was inflicted by them and by the Jews; for the former used both Rods and Whips, but the latter chastised Offenders with Whips on∣ly, which were much more painful and grievous. St. Paul (who, as he confesses himself, used to beat in every Synagogue those that believed on Iesus, Acts 22. 19.) felt the Severity of both; Of the Iews (saith he) received I forty Stripes save one, 2 Cor. 11. 24. Thrice was I beaten with Rods, ver. 25. which refers to this Punishment which was inflicted on him by the Gentiles, Acts 16. 23.

These were the Lesser Punishments among the Jews: we are moreover informed from the Sacred Writ what the Capital ones were. These, as to the particular manner of executing them, and as to the Usages and Customs that attended them, are

particularly spoken of in the Talmud, and are treated of by Maimonides, and by our Learned Dr. Godwin: but I am to consider them as they are mention'd in Scripture, for that is my Business at present. And though the Talmudists distinguish be∣tween 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lesser Deaths, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that are more Grievous; yet because I find that the Jewish Writers do not fully agree what particular Capital Punishments are to be referr'd to these two Heads, I will lay this Distinction aside, and proceed in this order. First, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Killing with the Sword, or Beheading, was in use among them; and though I do not find it among their Iudicial Laws, yet there are some Examples of this sort of Death recorded. Ishbosheth was the first that was slain so, 2 Sam. 4. 7. though it is true this Execution was without Law, yet it shews what way of Death was used1 1.99 among them in those days. We may observe that 'tis said, They smote him, and slew him, and then beheaded him: The severing the Head from the Body was a Consequent of some foregoing Violence, whereby his Life was taken away. Indeed, that it was usual to cut off the Head after the Person was slain, and to bring it in a way of Trophy, may be proved from many Instances, as that of Sisera, Judg. 5. 26. Goliah, 1 Sam. 17. 57. Saul, 1 Sam. 31. 9. Sheba, 2 Sam. 20. 22. And perhaps in those Days and afterwards the beheading of Persons alive was not the Pra∣ctice among the Jews; but they rather took off their Heads (either by cutting them off with a Sword, or chopping them off on a Block with an Ax) after they had dispatch'd them by some other Means. For, as I apprehend, the Decollation was only for Pomp, and to expose the Malefactors. Nor in the Account that is given of the beheading

Iohn the Baptist, Mark 6. 24. (which is another In∣stance of this Punishment in the Holy Book) do I meet with any thing to disprove that his Life was first taken away by the Executioner whom Herod sent, and then his Head was cut off, to be brought in a Charger, to be shown in a way of Triumph. It is probable that when 'tis said St. James was killed with the Sword, Acts 12. 2. it is meant of that Killing which preceded Beheading, which, as some Ecclesiastical Writers tell us, was inflicted on that Apostle. I will only add, that the Hebrew Ma∣sters inform us, that this was the Deadly Penalty of Men-slayers, Murderers, such as apostatized to Idolatry, or that enticed others to it.

Another Mortal Punishment was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Stoning, which was wont to be performed first by one of the Witnesses against the Malefactor, and then all the People followed him. This Lapidation was used 'towards Blasphemers, Idolaters, Incestuous Persons, Witches, Wizards, Prophaners of the Sabbath; those that inveigled others to Idolatry; Children that cursed their Parents, or rebelled against them. In the Old Testament the Exam∣ples of this Punishment are Achan, Josh. 7. 25. Adoram, Kings 12. 18. Naboth, I Kings 21. 10. Zechariah, 2 Chron. 24. 1. In the New Testament we read that they attempted to stone our Saviour, Iohn 10. 31. and that they effectually did so to St. Stephen, Acts 7. 58. and that they exercised this Severity on St. Paul, but by the singular Providence of God he escaped with his Life, Acts 14. 19. This was the most General Punishment that was denounced in the Law against notorious Criminals;

yea by those indesinite Terms of putting to Death, is sometimes meant this sort of Exemplary Ani∣madversion, as in Lev. 20. 10. (compared with Iohn 8. 5.) and other Places.

Another severe Punishment was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Burn∣ing, which was by the Mosaick Law executed on some sort of Incestuous Persons, viz.1 1.100 those that vitiated their own Daughters, and2 1.101 on the Priest's Daughter that committed Whoredom, and on Of∣fenders of a far different Nature, as appears from Achan's Example. Some think they were burnt alive, as some Criminals amongst us are: Others say, that before they were burnt they were stran∣gled, and then melted Lead was poured down their Throats, and afterwards their whole Bodies were consumed in the Fire. This is certain, that Burn∣ing was a secondary Penalty, that is, it followed upon some other going before, as we may infer from what we read concerning this Punitive way of dealing with Achan and his Family; All Israel stoned him with Stones, and burned them with Fire after they had stoned them with Stones, Josh. 7. 25. I might observe further that this Penal Course was taken with Harlots and Prostitutes before the Judicial Law: Thus the Doom which Iudah pronounced against Tamar for her Whoredom was, Let her be burnt, Gen. 38. 24. And I propound it, whether it be not reasonable to think, that [She shall be ut∣terly burnt with Fire] Rev. 18. 8. is an Allusion to this Antient and Legal Punishment of Whoredom, seeing we find that Babylon (who is meant in those Words) is signally stiled a Whore, and her Fornica∣tion is twice mentioned in the third Verse of that Chapter.

Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hanging was in use among the Jews, Numb. 25. 4. Deut. 21. 22. but it was of a different Nature from that which is among us. For First, they were hang'd up by the Hands, not by the Head or Neck. Secondly, this Suspension was not while they were alive, but after they were dead. Thirdly, it was seldom or never used alone, but in conjunction with one or other of those Pu∣nishments before (or after to be) mention'd. Some hold that it was used only after Stoning, and was the Recompence of Blasphemy and Idolatry. O∣thers say, it was generally the Consequent of Stran∣gling. This is not to be doubted that it was a Se∣condary Punishment, as well as that which I before mentioned. First they were dispatch'd, and then they were hung up upon a Tree, Gibbet, or Stake, to be seen and taken notice of, to be made Exem∣plary, and to be a Warning and Terror to others. Therefore when the Sun went down, i. e. when they could no longer be a Publick Spectacle, they were taken down from the Place where they hung, Deut. 21. 23. And from Iosh. 10. 26. it appears that this was a Subsequent Punishment, for 'tis said, Joshua hang'd five Kings on five Trees, but he first smote them and slew them. In the same manner 'tis likely he dealt with the King of Ai, Josh. 8. 29. whom he hanged. And the same may be thought of Saul's seven Sons, 2 Sam. 21. 9. This is particular∣ly expressed in Numb. 25. 4, 5. where both hanging up and slaying are mentioned as the Punishment of some scandalous Sinners in the Wilderness: where by the way observe, that this was the Penalty of Whoredom as well as Blasphemy and Idolatry.

I know Suffocation or Strangling (which is by the Jews called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is reckoned as a Capital Punish∣ment among the Jews, but I do not find it expresly

named, unless Machanak, which Iob saith, his Soul chose, ch. 7. 15. be a Reference to this sort of Death. But we are to remember that Iob was no Jew, and therefore 'tis improbable he speaks of a Jewish Pu∣nishment. But if we may credit R. Solomon and other Hebrew Doctors, this is often mentioned in the Mosaick Law; for they say this is meant in those Places of Leviticus, and other Parts of the Penta∣teuch, where 'tis commanded that the Criminal shall die, or be put to Death. So in Lev. 20. 10. The Adulterer and Adulteress shall surely be put to Death: the Targum of Ionathan interprets it of Suffocation. And so it doth in Exod. 21. 15. Deut. 22. 22. This absolute way of speaking signifies this particular Species of putting Persons to Death, they say. But from what hath been suggested be∣fore, we may infer that this is not always true: however, it may be so generally and for the most part; and accordingly from the respective Texts we may gather, that the Offenders that were stran∣gled were those that carnally knew the Priest's Daughter, or another Man's Wife, and those that struck their Father or Mother; and all Lying Pro∣phets, or that prophesied in the Name of a false God. The way, they tell us, of Strangling was with a Towel, Napkin, or any Linen Cloth put about the Malefactor's Neck, and drawn by two Men with Force contrary ways.

Another Punitive Infliction, though not specified in the Judicial Law, nor reckon'd up by the Rabbi∣nick Masters among the Jewish Punishments, was the Wheel, as we are acquainted from what Solomon faith, and without doubt concerning himself, A wise King bringeth the Wheel over the Wicked, Prov. 20. 26. This was used of old not only in Rackings of Persons to make them confess, but to take away

their Lives. They were tied unto it, or extend∣ed upon it, and so drawn and broken. That this was used by Antiochus toward the Jews, particu∣larly the Macchabean Brethren, is attested in the Apochryphal Writings; and that the Pagan Empe∣rours made use of it upon the Christian Martyrs, we learn from Ecclosiaitical History.

Furthermore, Tebigna••, Submersion, of which we read in Mat. 18. 6. Mark 9. 42. is reckon'd by St. Ierom on the former Place among the Punish∣ments of the Jewish Nation: and so it is by Ca∣saubon in his Notes. And1 1.102 Buxiorf hints that some were condemned to this Punishment among the Iews, and were signally said to be Men adjudg∣ed to be drown'd. But whether it was really so, or was a Punishment proper to the Gentiles I will not here dispute, but proceed to speak of Another which undoubtedly was Iewish, and is oftner men∣tion'd in the Old Testament, especially in Moses's Writings, where the Jewish Penalties are fixed, than any of those before named. It is being cut off from Israel, or the Soul's being cut off from among the People: concerning which there are as many various Opinions, as about any one thing that I know of this Nature. This Chereth or Cutting off is thought by the Jewish Doctors to be peculiar to the Jewish Occonomy: but in this first Essay of their Sentiments about it they are mistaken, for this Penalty is expresly taken notice of before the Judicial Law, in Abraham's time, Gen. 17. 14. God saith of the uncircumcised Manchild, that that Soul shall be cut off from his People: therefore 'tis plain that this Infliction, whatever it was, was not peculiar to the Mosaick Dispensation. The Hebrew Expositors all agree in this, that by this

Excision is meant a Divine Punishment, i. e. some Judgment immediately sent by God: but they agree not as to the particular kind of it. It signi∣fies Sudden Death, saith R. Saadias, who expounds it by those Words, Psal. 55. 23. They shall not live out half their Days. Another of the Rabbies, Sol. Iarchi, understands it of Barreness or want of Children. When Persons are threatned to be cut off, their Seed, their Posterity is meant, he saith. Again, some of the Jews think that Eternal Tor∣ments in another World are here intended. O∣thers think it is meant of the Excision of both Body and Soul: the former is cut off here by un∣timely Death, the latter by being separated from God and Happiness in the Life to come, saith Abarbanel. The famous Maimonides goes higher, and saith it signifies not only the shortning of Life here, but the utter Extinction and Annihilation of the Soul hereafter, so that a Man perishes like a Beast. Christians also (as well as Iews) have dif∣ferent Opinions concerning this, for some of them understand it of some Capital Punishment to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate, such as Stoning, Burning, &c. according to the Nature and Deme∣rit of the Offence. Others believe an Ecclesiasti∣cal Punishment is designed here, viz. Excommu∣nication: This is the general perswasion of the Di∣vines of Geneva. Some interpret it of Sudden and Immature Death, as L' Empereur and Grotius. Others think Eternal Damnation is meant. Iuni∣us will have it to be both Excommunication and Damnation. Upon a View of the Whole, and weighing the several Places where this Chereth is mention'd, I doubt not but I may most rationally determine that according to the Subject Matter of the Texts, this Punishment is to be differently un∣der

derstood. That is, where this Excision is threat∣ned for such an Offence as was not punishable by the Jewish Laws, it is meant of some Divine Penal∣ty, some Plague immediately to be inflicted by God himself. But where this Cutting off is de∣nounced for a Sin which the Law of the Jews and their Courts of Justice took notice of and pu∣nish'd, it is likely it is then to be understood of such a kind of Punishment as the Law inflicted, as some kind of Bodily Death, or Excommunication. In this latter acception the Chereth was used, when for some great Offence a Man was excluded from Ecclesiastical Communion, debarr'd the Congregati∣on, cut off from being a Member of the Church. Thus the Chereth is the same with Cherem, which was the middle sort of Excommunication among the Jews, between Nidui which was a Separation from Company and Converse, and Shammata which was a Devoting to Satan and utter Destruction. Thus you see what Course they took in those early Times to animadvert on those that were Faulty: and it is the more considerable because it was of God's own Appointment. Hence we conclude these Inflictions were appointed and executed with great Reason and Equity, with singular Wisdom and Prudence, and such as became the Divine Author of them, and the All-Wise Governour of that People.

It cannot be expected I should insist on the Particular Laws and Constitutions of their Civil Government, they being so Many and Various. These may be consulted in the Old Testament it self, which presents us with the most Com∣pleat Rules of Civil Polity, and such as to a great Part of them are sitted to the Governments of all Nations in the World. The Greeks were famous for their Laws, and so were the Old Ro∣mans,

who borrowed a considerable Part of their Laws from them, and particularly caused those of the Twelve Tables (the first beginning of their Laws) to be fetch'd thence by their Decemviri: and we see they contain Excellent Things in them. And the Encomiums of the Learnedest Men are large on the Laws of the Empire: the Pandects are fraught with the Decisions and Responses of Wise and Experienced Lawyers, and the Code is famed for the Decrees and Constitutions of Emperours. Yea, how large and elaborate have the2 1.103 Great Sa∣ges of our Nation been in Commendation of the English Laws, telling us that they are3 1.104 the High∣est Reason, and nothing else but Reason; that they are so Reasonable that4 1.105 nothing that is Unjust can be so much as supposed to be in them, and there∣fore that5 1.106 no Man must presume to be wiser than these Laws. If these be the Elogiums of meer Humane Constitutions, of what transcendent Worth and Excellency must we needs allow Those Laws to be, which though calculated for Civil and Humane Government, were originally Divine and Heavenly, and framed by Insinite Wisdom it self? Such were the Laws of the Iews which in this Sa∣cred Volume are transmitted to us, and consequently they far surpass, they infinitely surmount all others under Heaven. And no Laws whatsoever were prior to these, as Iosephus against Appion very clear∣ly demonstrates. Moses was the Antientest Law∣giver: and Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, and other Publishers of Laws, whom the Greeks boast of, were but Upstarts in respect of him. You do not so much as meet with the word Law in Homer, or

Orpheus, or Mus••us, the Antientost Greek Au∣thors, as1 1.107 Bodinus observes. Indeed the Nations had no Written Laws at first. Tully, Livy, Iustin and other Historians acquaint us, that the Verbal Commands of Kings and Princes were their Laws. But afterward when they had Laws committed to writing, (such as could be read, whence they had the Name of Leges) they derived them from the Hebrews: more especially it might be proved, that the Antientest Attick and Roman Laws were borrowed from Moses, and that other Wise Law givers and Rulers have taken some of their best Constitutions hence.

Then in the next place, if we look abroad, and enquire into the Government of the Heathen Nati∣ons, we shall there also be assisted by the Anitent Records of the Bible: and as to many things that concern their Kings and Government, we cannot inform our selves otherwise than from this Sacred History. Here we read of four Eastern Kings, (such as they were, for Melech is a large Word, and signifies any Ruler) the King of Shinar, the King of Ellasar, the King of Elam, the King of Nations; Gen. 14. 1, 2. Which were the first peepings out of the Kingdoms of Babylon, Assyria, Persia and Greece: for Shinar is Babylon (as all agree) Ellasar is Assyria, (some Region near to Euphrates, as may be gather'd from Isa. 37. 12.) Elam is the usual Name of Persia, and by Nations is meant Greece, especially the Grecian Isles where there was a great Conflux of several Nations. But these Names are not to be taken in this Extent here, for we cannot suppose that Five Great Kings (and some of them of very distant Countries) would come to sight the King of Sodom a Petty Prince. There∣fore

the Places here nam'd, must not be thought to be those Wide Regions which afterwards were known by those Names: and the Persons who are here call'd Kings must not be conceived to be any other than Governours or Magistrates of Cities, for so the Title of King is to be understood in some Texts of the Old Testament, and particu∣larly in this History, where the five Kings of Ca∣naan are mention'd. We read that Abimelech (which afterwards became the Name of the Kings of Palestine) was one of the first Kings of this Countrey, and that the particular Seat of his Go∣vernment was Gerar, Gen. 20. 2. We are in∣formed that about this time (which was about 400 Years after the Flood) there were Kings of Egypt, and that Pharaob was the Royal Name even then, Gen. 12. 15. No Book that we can trust to make mention of these Early Kingdoms, and Royal Thrones (such as they were) but Mo∣ses's History. Yea, here is a considerable Account of the Four Grand Monarchies or Empires of the World, as they are usually stiled. We are told here that Nimrod was a Mighty One in the Earth, Gen. 10. 8. and a Mighty Hunter before the Lord, v. 9. by which Character, and what we may infer from it, it appears that he was the First that ex∣ercis'd an Imperial and Kingly Power in the World, though he hath not here the Title of King. The Word [Gibbor] which we render [Mighty] is in the Version of the Seventy a Giant, which expresseth not only the Greatnes of his Stature, but the Exorbitancy of his Power which he exerted over others with an Unlimited Sway and Arbitrariness. And when 'tis said he was a Mighty Hunter, I grant it may set forth what Warlike Exercise he was given to, as Livy remarks

of Romulus and Remus, that they were addicted to this Manly Recreation, and that it was a Sign of the Vigour of their Minds, and the Strength and Agility of their Bodies: and so Xenophon in the Life of Cyrus observes, that it is a Military Ex∣ercise, and becoming a Great Man. But I conceive there is something more intimated to us in his be∣ing represented as a Hunter and a Mighty Hunter, and before the Lord; for this may signify to us his Fierce Pursuit of Men as well as Beasts, his Ty∣rannizing and usurping Dominion over the People, and that in desiance of God, before whom he was not ashamed to act thus wickedly. He was of the Race of Chush the Son of Cham, and was the Head and Ringleader of those Miscreants that built Ba∣bel or Babylon: which baffles the common Account of Pagan Historians, who tell us that Semiramis, Ninus's Queen, was the first Founder of that Ci∣ty, unless we understand by it that she finish'd the Work. He it was that with the Remains of the Babylonian Crew set up here the First Empire: which began soon after the Flood, viz. about 130 Years. This is the Date of the First Monarchy in the World, and Babel was the Place where it commenced. It is expresly said, The beginning of his Kingdom was Babel, Gen. 10. 10. This was the first Step to the Universal Empire of the Chal∣deans or Assyrians, which afterwards spread it self to vast and almost unlimited Dimensions. This is he that by the Pagan Writers is call'd Belus, and said to be the Father of Ninus, as Eusebius, Ierom, and other of the Learnedest among the Antients agree: for this is observable (and I have proved from several Instances in another Place) that oftentimes the same Persons have not the same Names in Prophane History that are given them

in the Sacred one. Some read Gen. 10. 11. thus, He went out of the Land into Assyria, and thence ga∣ther, that though Nimrod was first seated at Ba∣bylon, and reign'd in Chaldea, yet from thence he pierced into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, the Head City of the Assyrian Monarchy. But this is unquestionable that the Empire was translated into Assyria, and thence there is a Distinction be∣tween the Land of Assyria and the Land of Nim∣rod, Mic. 5. 6. The Sacred Writings also acquaint us, that as this Monarchy began at Babylon and Chaldea, and was translated into Assyria, so at last it returned to Babylon again, the Assyrian Dy∣nasties being swallow'd up of those of Chaldea. So the Assyrians laid the Foundation for the Chaldeans, they set up the Towers thereof, they raised up the Pa∣laces thereof, Isa. 23. 13. And this Relapse or Re∣duction of the Assyrian Government to the Baby∣lonians is again foretold in Ezek. 31. 11, 12, &c. I have deliver'd him into the Hand of the mighty One of the Heathens, he shall surely deal with him. King Nebuchadnezzar is that El gojim, that God of the Na∣tions (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) who made them all bow down to him and worshi him, and he more especially made the Assyrians truckle to his Great∣ness and Soveraignty. This is very carefully to be heeded, because it gives Light to the whole History both Sacred and Prophane, which re∣lates the Affairs of those Kingdoms. The want of attending to this is the reason why several that have writ of these things have egregiously blun∣dred, confounding one part of the Empire with another, making no difference between Babylo∣nians and Assyrians, and thereby rendring all a mere Babel, a Confusion. But we are directed by what the Sacred History suggests, to distinguish be∣tween

the two neighbouring Dynasties of Assyria and Chaldea, which alternately made up the First Monarchy. Sometimes the Babylonian Princes bore sway, and were Heads of the Empire; at other times those of the Assyrian Race climb'd to this Honour. Babylon and Nineveh were the two Roy∣al Seats belonging to each: when the Chaldean Kings prevail'd, then the former was their Place of residence; when the Assyrian Monarchs bare Rule, the latter was the Place where they kept their Court. The brief Scheme of the Successions is this: At first all Assyria was subject to Babylon or Chaldea: next the Babylonian Power gave way to the Assyrian: after this the Assyrians lost the Monarchy, it coming again to the Chaldeans, yet so that the Empire was then divided, for the Medes had a Part, though the greatest Share went to the Babylonians.

Where by the way we may observe, that that which is call'd and reputed the First Monarchy may as well be said to be the Third: it may be counted Two at least. And thence it will follow that that which is vulgarly call'd the 2d Monarchy was the 3d or 4th; for before the Persian Monarchy there was the Babylonian, Assyrian and Median. Here, if the Reader would pardon the Digression, it might be further prov'd, that the common Division of the Monarchies into four, and no more, is imperfect and groundless: for there were several other En∣tire Dynasties or Kingdoms in the time of the As∣syrian Monarchs; there were the Kingdoms of the Old Germans, Egyptians, Argives, Athenians, Lacedemonians, Tyrians, Romans, Jews. So the Greek Monarchy (which is reckon'd the Third) was divided into four Kingdoms. Likewise, with the Roman Emperours were contemporary the

Greek Emperours in the East. Besides, if we should come down lower, it would appear that Mabomet's Dove hath been as wonderful in the World as the Roman Eagle: the Turkish Monarchy hath grasped more than the Roman, and might challenge to be numbred among the most Celebrated Monarchies. For these reasons I am apt to be of 1 1.108 Bodinus's Mind, that we ought to reckon more Mo∣narchies than Four. But I will not now contend, especially because it is likely the Interpretation of those Dreams and Visions in Daniel concerning the Four Beasts and the Four Metals, gave the first Oc∣casion to this number of Four Monarchies, and no more. To return then to our former Matter, viz. The Difference which the Old Testament directs us to take notice of between the Assyrian and Chal∣dean Empires, which some have so shuffled toge∣ther that they cannot distinctly be discern'd. These Inspired Writings let us know that the First Cap∣tivity of the Jews was under the former, the Se∣cond under the latter; that the Kings of Assyria were those properly who reign'd in Nineve, and that strictly speaking the Kings of Babylon were those that resided at Babylon: though 'tis true by reason of the Vicissitude of the Government of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, these are sometimes call'd the Kings of Assyria; and the King of Babylon and of Assyria is the same. It is from the Scrip∣ture-Records that we are informed that2 1.109 Nebuchad∣nezzar in the eighth Year of his Reign, transport∣ed Iehoiakin the King, and other of the Jews to Babylon, and that in his eighteenth Year he utter∣ly destroyed Ierusalem, and carried away Captive Zedekiah and the greatest Part of the Jews, from

which time are to be numbred the Seventy Years of the Babylonian Captivity. This was Nebuchad∣nezzar the Great, he who brought that Monarchy to its highest Pitch, insomuch that some have rec∣kon'd him the First Absolute Monarch. Many other remarkable Passages relating to the whole Series of this Government, and those that presided in it from first to last, are set down in the Holy Writ. Several of the very individual Persons who were the Chief Monarchs of this first and antientest Empire, are here particularly mention'd, with the considerable Actions and Events appertaining to them: as Pul, 2 Kings 15. 19. Tiglath-Pileser, 1 Chron. 5. 26. Salmanassar, 2 Kings 17. 3. Hos. 10. 14. Senacherib, 2 Kings 18. 3. Esarhad∣don, 2 Kings 19. 37. Merodach-Baladan, 2 Kings 20. 20. Isa. 39. 1. Nebuchadnezzar mention'd in the Books of the Kings, Chronicles, Ieremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel: and lastly Belshazzar, Dan. 5. 22. in whom this Monarchy had its Period. And so these Sacred Writings acquaint us not only with the Rise but the Progress, Duration and End of this Empire; hence we learn that it lasted from Nimrod to the close of Belshazzar's Reign, i. e. from the year of the World 1717. to the Year 3419. which is in all 1702 Years; a much longer time than any of the other Monarchies endured.

Again, in these Writings is recorded the Origi∣nal of the Next, viz. the Persian (usually known by the Name of the Second) Monarchy. Here we read that Belshazzar, the last Chaldean Monarch, he that impiously carouzed in the Holy Vessels be∣longing to the Temple, was slain by Darius the Mcde, Dan. 5. 30, 31. who joined with Cyrus the Persian in the Expedition against Belshazzar; and they both had Right to the Babylonian Monarchy

on that Account, and accordingly jointly ruled: so it was a Medo-Persian Monarchy. Darius is spoken of in the 6th and 9th Chapters of Daniel; but being aged before he came to the Throne, he lived but about two Years after; whereupon Cyrus reigned alone, and is generally reputed the First Founder of the Persian Monarchy. This famous Cyrus, sirnamed the Great, was prophesied of long before he appeared in the World, Isa. 44. 28. & 45. 1. This is he that was the Happy Restorer of the Jews to their own Country, and was a great Favourer of the Pious of that Nation, Ezr. 1. And in the following Chapters, and in the Book of Ne∣hemiah, is infallibly related what Persian Kings hin∣dred the Building of the Temple, and who they were that promoted it. Besides, the Book of Esther, and a great part of Daniel, are a Narrative of what was done under the Kings of Persia. Next, it might be added, that Alexander the Great the First Founder of the Grecian Monarchy, is spoken of in these Sacred Writings, as in Dan. 2. 32, 39. & 7. 6. & 8. 5, 6, 7, 8. & 10. 20. & 11. 3, 4. whence1 1.110 Iaddus the High Priest shewed the Pro∣phecy of Daniel to that Great Monarch, and par∣ticularly turned to that Place where his Conquer∣ing of the Persians, and the Translation of the Empire to him, are foretold. Here also the Divi∣sion of the Empire among his Captains is predicted, Dan. 2. 33. & 7. 7, 19. & 8. 22. & 11. 5, 6, &c. Lastly, the History of the New Testament mentions the Author and Erecter of the Roman (which ge∣nerally passes for the Fourth) Monarchy, and some of his Actions and Decrees. This was Augustus, for

if we speak properly, this Empire began not •• Iulius C••sar, but in him when he vanquished •• Anthony and Cleopatra in the Battel of Actium, an•• all Egypt became a Roman Province. Thus Ni•• rod, Cyrus, Alexander, Augustus, the Founder •• those four renowned Monarchies, and many of th•• most eminent and remarkable Passages in some of them, are recorded in the Sacred Scriptures; whereby the Truth of those things is confirmed, and some obscure Places in Pagan Writers are en∣lightned, and some Mistakes may be corrected. Indeed it is impossible to understand the Gentile History aright in sundry Matters relating to the First Kingdoms and Governments, unless we are acquainted with the Bible.

CHAP. III

In these Sacred Writings we have the first and earliest Account of all useful Employments and Callings, viz. Gardening, Husbandry, feeding of sheep, preparing of Food. The antient manner of Threshing, Grinding of Corn, and making Bread is enquired into. What was the Primitive Drink. The Posture which they used at eating and drinking. Sitting preceded Discubation. The particular man∣ner of placing themselves on their Beds. Eating in common not always used. Discalceation and Washing the Feet were the Att••ndan••s of Eating and Feasting. So was Anointing. They had a Master or Governour of their Feasts. Who were the first Inventers of Mechanick Arts. The first Examples of Architecture. Houses were built flat at top, and why.

In the fifth Place, here and only here is to be learned the Original of all Employments, Cal∣lings, Oecupations, Professions, Mysteries, Trades, and of all Arts and Inventions whatsoever. First, here is the earliest Mention of Gardening, Husban∣dry Plougbing, keeping of Sheep, which are of or∣dinary Use, and for the necessary Support of Man's Life. God placing Adam in Paradise, a Garden of Delight, instructed him how to dress and keep it, Gen. 2. 15.1 1.111 to work and belabour the Ground, (for so it is according to the LXX.) to dig and delve with great Care and Art, to open the Earth to let in the Influences of Heaven, to prune the Trees

and cherish the Plants, to preserve the Fruits from the Beasts and Fowls, which had Admittance into that Place, (as we read in Gen. 2. 19, 20.) and to keep all things in good order as a skilful Gardiner and Husbandman; for both these made up the First Employment and Trade in the World. And when Man was ejected out of Paradise, he was still set about the same Work, Gen. 3. 23. for the He∣brew Word that is used here is the same with that in ver. 15. and is translated there to dress: but it is certain that gnamad (which is the Verb in both Places) is of a large Import, and signifies all Hus∣bandly managing and improving of Ground. And truly there was more need of exercising that Art now than before, the Earth being not a little enda∣maged by the Curse which God denounced against it, and executed upon it; which was one Reason why Adam brought up his Son Cain to Husbandry and Tilling the Ground, Gen. 4. 2. for now it want∣ed Manuring and Cultivating. And as this his el∣dest Son was brought up to take care of the Fruits of the Earth, so his next was bred up to feeding of Sheep, which is the Second Employment or Calling that we read of in the World. Afterwards Iabal advanced higher, and became the First Grasier; for so I understand those Words, Gen. 4. 20. He was the Father of such as have Cattel, i. e. that have other Cattel besides Sheep; for these, and the keep∣ing or feeding of them, had been mention'd before. He lived upon Pasturage, and for that purpose was the Father of such as dwell in Tents, as it is said in the same Place: The Meaning of which is, that where∣as others generally lived in one fix'd Place and Ha∣bitation, he and others of his Calling went from one place to another feeding: They travell'd as their Cattel did, and for this Reason it was requi∣site

to have Tents. Accordingly that they might look after their Flocks and Herds the better, he in∣vented these, that they might lie out in the Fields all Night under this Shelter. Thus you see what was the Primitive State of things; Adain and his first-born Son were Husbandmen, and his second Son a Shepherd; and others of his Race were bu∣sied in feeding of Cattel. Such was the Employ∣ment of those that were the First Heirs of the World.

And so for a long time after, in the first and most uncorrupted Ages, this was the Entertain∣ment of the Greatest Persons. In those more in∣nocent Times of the World the Wealthiest Men imbraced this kind of Life (as mean as it is ac∣counted now). Some of the Old Patriarchs were plain honest Grasiers, and the richest of them (as Abraham, Isaac and Iacob) were busied in looking to their Grounds and their Flocks. Moses the Great Law-giver was a Shepherd. Nabal and Ab∣sdlom were Sheep-masters. Elisah, when he was busy at the Psough with twelve Yoke of Oxen was call'd thence to the Prophetick Dignity and office: and Amos of a Herdsman became a Divine Messenger and Preacher. Shamgar was taken from the Herd to be a Judg in Israet, and with the same Goad that he drove his Oxen slew six hundred Men. Gideon's Seat of State and Justice was a Threshing∣floor, and he had no other Mace than a Flail, Iudg. 6. 14. The renowned Iair and Iephthah kept Sheep, and were fetch'd from that Employment to be Judges. David the Son of Iesse, a Worthy Parent in Israel, was took from the Sheep-folds, from following the Ewes great with young, to feed Jacob, to rule Israel, Psal. 78. 71. Thus the Pastoral Art hath been a Pre••••d•••• to Empire and Govern∣ment:

the taking care of these tame Creatures hath made way for the presiding over the stubborn Flock of Mankind. We read that Crowned Heads have not disdained this Art. King Vzziah (or as he is call'd elsewhere Azariah, for I have shewed in another Place that it was common with the Jews to have two Names) was a Lover of Husbandry, 2 Chron. 26. 10. And one of the Greatest Kings that ever swayed a Scepter, acknowledgeth that as the Profit of the Earth (i. e. of Agriculture) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for all, is of universal Advantage, so more especially the King himself is a Servant to the Field, Eccles. 5. 9. for so it is according to the Hebrew. It is worthy of his Royal Care and Study to support Tillage and Husbandry, which were heretofore the Em∣ployment of those of the highest Rank.

And thus it was also among the Profane Nations of old. Knowledg and Skill in Rustick Affairs ushered in Rule and Command. The Gordian Knot was but Plough-tackling hamper'd in a Knot, and he that untied it was to be Monarch of the World. Araunah King of Iebus condescended to be a Thresher, 2 Sam. 24. 18. 1 Chron. 21. 20. and (which is a•• unparallell'd Exaltation of this Primitive Husbandry) his Threshing-floor was the Spot of Ground which King David made choice of to build an Altar to God upon, 2 Sam. 24. 25. and this was the very Place where Solomon's Temple was afterwards erected, 2 Chron. 3. 1. Mesha King of Moab was a Sheep-master, 2 Kings 3. 4. Noked is the Hebrew Word, and it is simply and barely used for a Shepherd, Amos 1. 1. Spartacus, the dreaded Enemy of the Romans, was of the same Calling 1 1.112 Dioclesian the Emperor left his Throne, and turn∣ed

Gardiner: After he had laid down the Empire he took up Husbandry.1 1.113 Attalus abdicated his Kingly Government, and applied himself wholly to the same Employment. The Great Scipio left his Commands to exercise and enjoy the Pleasures of Agriculture. In the Old Roman History we read that the Chief Men among them studied and practised this, by the same Token that several of them were fetch'd from their Tillage to Arms, from their Country Carts to Triumph, from Har∣vest-work to the Senate, from the Field to the Camp, from the Plough to bear the high Offices of Consuls and Dictators. They that were sent from the Roman Senate to desire Attilius to take upon him the Government,2 1.114 found him sowing in his Grounds. They tell us that Romulus the Foun∣der of the Roman Empire, was bred up first to the Sheep-hook: and we know that the Riches of the Antient Romans was Plenty of Cattel. From the Country-Exercise of feeding of Beasts came the Sirnames of the Families of the Vituli, Porcii, Tau∣ri, Caprae, and others. (And here, by the by, let me insert, that it may be Eglon the Name of a Man, and so Rachel and Dorcas the Names of Women in Scripture, which sighnify a Calf, a Sheep, a Deer, were given at first on the like Account, Women as well as Men being imployed of old in looking af∣ter Cattel.) From their sowing of Beans, Pease, &c. arose the Names of the Fabii, Pisones, ••••cerones, Lentuli, &c. And it is not to be denied that the Exercises of Husbandry have been treated of and applauded by the Wisest Men, as Cato, Varro, Ci∣cero, Pliny, Columella, Virgil. And when among

the Pagans their very1 1.115 Deities are represented as Lovers of a Country-Life, when Pan was said to be the God of Shepherds, and Mercury and Apol•••• fed Sheep, and the last of these was cried up for the Chief Patron of this Calling, they intended to signify to us that this and the like Country-Em∣ployments are Princely and Divine. Which very thing we are assured of from the Word of Truth, the Infallible Records of the Bible, which tell us that these were the Early Business and Practice of the Greatest and the Best Men. The Greatest Princes heretofore were esteemed according to the Numbers of their Cattel.

Among the First and Necessary Employments and Advantages of humane Life may be justly reckon'd the Preparing of Food; and the Scriptures alone can furnish us with the certain Knowledg of this. It is undeniable from those plain and express Words in Gen. 1. 29. that there was no Food allow'd at first to Mankind but Plants and Herbs, Corn and all other Fruits of the Earth. I have wondred sometimes that any who believe the Sacred Text can question this, for the Words are positive and downright, utterly excluding all other kind of Sustenance but this. Yea, unless you can prove that Milk is no part of any Living Creature, but is a Fruit of the Earth, you have reason to think that they were debarr'd of this also. But after the Flood, which had much impaired the Virtue of the Earth, and exhausted somewhat of its Seminal Power, there was a Licence to eat Flesh; Every moving thing that liveth shall be Meat for you, Gen. 9. 3. in which is included the Product of Flesh; Milk; which was denied to the Antediluvians. But

now all are at liberty to feed on it; and that was not all, they were so skilful as to make it afford them Cheese and Butter; neither of which we read of before the Deluge. And questionless they that fed not on Milk knew not the Use of these; but among the Post-diluvians Charitze hachalab, 1 Sam. 17. 18. Cheeses of Milk were a common Food: which are, without doubt, meant by Shephoth bakar, 2 Sam. 17. 29. Coagulationes bovis, as Pagnine ren∣ders it, Cheeses of the Milk of Cows, according to the Targum: and they are called by the Hebrews, in their peculiar way of speaking, the Sons of Milk. And in Iob 10. 10. gebinah is the Word for Cheese. The other Product of their Milk, as well as of their Housewifery, was Chemeah, Butter, Gen. 18. 7. Deut. 32. 14. Judg. 5. 25. which was not known to some other Nations a long time. Among the Greeks there was no such thing, and no Word for it. Homer and the Antient Writers mention Milk and Cheese, but of this nothing is said. Neither doth Aristotle in his History of Animals so much as name it, though he mentions those two forts of Food, and would certainly have made mention of this if there had been any such thing among them. Nor was it made use of among the Romans, as we understand from Pliny's Words1 1.116, è lacte fit buty∣rum, barbararum gentium laudatissimus cibus. The Barbarous are not Greek or Latins, but the Oriental People; and accordingly the antient Use of this among the Easterns we learn only from Moses and such Inspired Writers. As to the antient feeding on the Flesh of Animals, Abraham's entertaining his Guests with a Calf, Gen. 18. 7. (i. e. part of a Calf, a Joint of Veal; for it is not likely that he

set a whole boil'd or rosted, or otherwise dress'd Calf before three Men, for Sarah was in her Tent, and Abraham sat not down with these Guests, nei∣ther did eat, as may be gathered from those Words, He stood by them, and they did eat) and many other Instances of making Repasts on other sorts of Creatures, as Kids, Sheep, Oxen, might be produced out of this Sacred History.

But it appears that there was but little Art and Cookery used at first in dressing of Meat. There was no great Distinction in preparing it, as we may gather from the Hebrew Word Aphab, which signifies to boil, to bake, to fry; and so Bashal in∣disserently denotes Rosting and Boiling: But the particular Denotation of these Words in the Texts where they occur, is known only from the particu∣lar Matter spoken of there. Concerning the Pas∣chal Lamb there is a strict Injunction not to boil, but rost it, Exod. 12. 8. Deut. 16. 7. which hath a se∣cret and my sterious Meaning in it, it is likely; but concerning Common Eatings and Repasts, I do not find a Difference observed: yet this latter way of dressing hath had the Preference generally to the other. Accordingly it may be observed, that the Poots for the most part present their Heroes feed∣ing on rost, and not on boil'd Meat. All Homer's Dinners for his Great Captains and Worthies are of the former sort. And1 1.117 Servius (who was no mean Critick) tells us, that in the Times of the Heroes they were not fed with Boil'd but Rost. We cannot but take notice that though at first the Preparing of Diet was simple and artless, yet at length it became a kind of Science, and much Time, Study and Cost, were bestowed upon it.

Thence we have many Examples of Extravagant Feastings in this Sacred History, on which several Critical Remarks might be made, to shew what Customs were prevalent at eating in those Days. Cookery was grown to a great Height, and as great an Esteem: there was Sar Hatabbachim, Gen. 39. 1. i. e. according to the Version of the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Prince of the Cooks: and there were Tabbachoth, Royal She-Cooks, 1 Sam. 8. 13. Much more might be said on these Particulars, but I design'd only a Taste of them, to invite the Curious to study the Bible, for here is the Antientest Learning in the World, and that of all Sorts.

But the most Useful and Strengthning, as well as the most Common Food, was Bread made of Corn: concerning which it may be acceptable to the In∣quisitive to know how in those first Ages it was beaten out of the Ear, how it was ground into Meal, and how it was made into Bread: which can be learnt from these Antient Books of Scrip∣ture only. And this I must needs say, if Varro and some other Authors before named be consult∣ed, and prized by Lovers of Antiquity for what they have deliver'd concerning Country-Affairs and Husbandry, surely then much more are these Holy Writings to be esteem'd seeing they far ex∣cel them in Antiquity: for Varro, Cato, Columella, or any others that have written de re Rustica, are Modern Authors in respect of the Sacred Pen∣men. First then, as to Threshing or beating the Grains of Corn out of the Ears, it was performed divers ways; as, 1. By drawing a loaded Cart with Weels over the Corn backwards and for∣wards, so that the Wheels running over it did forcibly shake out the Grain. Of this is express

mention in Isa. 28. 27. where we read that Opban gnagalah the Cart-whell was trun'd about upon some sort of Corn. And this in the next Verse is call'd Gilgal gnagelah, which is the same, and therefore by the Vulgar Latin is rendred both here and in the former Place Rota Plaustri. To this bruising of their Corn with Loaded Carts, perhaps that Place, Amos 2. 13. refers, (although otherwise applied by Expositors generally) which may be rendred thus, I am pressed under you as a full Cart presseth the Sheaves, or Sheaf (for it is in the singular Number.) It sets forth the Manner of Threshing in those Days, which was by pressing the Ears of Corn with a Heavy Cart, and forcing out the Grain by bringing the Wheels often over it. 2. A∣nother antient way of Threshing was with a Wood∣en Slead or Dray without Wheels, full of Iron Nails or Teeth on the Side toward the Ground, and loaded with massy Iron, or some other heavy Weights at top to make it heavy: and this was drawn by Oxen over the Corn till the Ears were so pressed that the Grain flew out. This Instrument was commonly known (as the Hebr. Masters and Talmudists report) by the Name of Morag, and also of Charutz: and accordingly it hath these Names given it, in 2 Sam. 24. 22. and Isa. 28. 27. and both of them together we meet with in Isa. 41. 15. where it is translated by us a sharp Threshing-In∣strument. And in the same Place it is said to have Teeth, which plainly refers to the foresaid make of it, viz. that this great wooden Plank was set at the Bottom with Iron Teeth or Pikes to cut the Sheaves, and make way for the Grain to come out. And to these Iron Nails or Teeth refers Amos 1. 4. where this sorst of Country Tackling is call'd Threshing-Insturments of Iron. Upon the

whole, it appears that the Instrument wherewith Husbandmen at this Day break the Clods of Earth was used heretofore (when they had not attain'd to any great Skill in these Affairs) in Threshing the Corn; for by the Description that is given of it, it was a kind of Harrow. 3. They thresh'd with Oxen, who with their Hoofs (which for that purpose were generally shod with Iron or Brass) were wont to beat and tread out the Corn: and sometimes they brought in a whole Herd of Oxen to trample upon it. This way of Threshing is re∣ferr'd to, when they were forbid to muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn, Deut. 25. 4. And this is plainly alluded to in Hos. 10. 11. Ephraim is a Heifer that is taught, and loves to tread out the Corn: and in Mic. 4. 12, 13. He shall gather them as Sheaves into the Floor (viz. to be thresh'd): Arise and thresh—I will make thy Hoofs brass, and thou shalt beat in pieces, &c. 4. Another antient way of Threshing was that which is in use with us, viz. with Flails. Some sort of Grain and Seeds were beaten out with these Flagella, (for this is the Word whence that English one comes) as is clear from Isa. 28. 27. The Fitches are beaten out with a Staff, and the cummin with a Rod. And ge∣nerally Bread-Corn was thus thresh'd, as we may gather from the 28th ver. Of this Nature was Gi∣deon and Araunah's threshing of Wheat, Iudg. 6. 11. 1 Chron. 21. 20. for 'tis represented as their Personal Action, and those general Terms Chabat and Dash (the Words in those Places) favour this Sense: and in the former Text Threshing is ren∣dred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Septuagint's Version, which signifies beating with Staves, Sticks or Rods.

After they had thus thresh'd their Corn, when they had •• Mind to makd use of it, they laid it open to the Sun to dry it, or they dried it by a Fire, or in a Furnace, to get off the Husk: and this dried or parched Corn it self (without any far∣ther Preparation) was a great Food in those Eastern Countries, as we gather from Lev. 23. 14. Ruth 2. 14. 1 Sam. 17. 17. & 25. 18. And this1 1.118 Kal•• (for that is the Word for it) was, if we may cre∣dit the Rabbins and Jewish Expositors, first soked in Water, and then dried as Barly is maulted among us at this Day: (where by the way observe the Antiquity of Maulting) But generally the Drying and Parching of the Corn were to make it more capable of being ground.

The antient Manner of their Grinding it (which is the next thing I am to consider) was two-fold, either in Mortars or Mills. That both these were made use of, we may satisfy our Selves from Num. 11. 8. where you read both of Rechaim Mills, and Medocah a Mortar. In this latter they were wont pinserc (for from the Jews this Practice de∣scended to the Romans) to pound or bray their Corn: whence Bakers, who did this in order to making their Bread, had their Name Pistores. That they used of old to beat and bruise their Wheat in a Mortar with a heavy Pestle, may be collected from Prov. 27. 22. where this hollow Vessel is call'd Mactesh. But Mills were chiefly made use of for this purpose in those early Times: and they were of such use and necessity, that Men were strictly forbid to take the nether or the upper Milstone to pledg, because (as 'tis added) this is taking a Man's Life (Hebr. his Soul) to pledg, Deut. 24.

6. as much as to say, hereby his Neighbour's Life would be endangered, this is the way to starve him. The grinding at mills was counted an inferior sort of Work, and therefore Prisoners and Captives were generally set to it: whence to take the Milstones, and grind Meal, is part of the Description of a Slave, Isa. 47. 2. And to this refers Samson's grinding in the Prison-House, Judg. 16. 21. For of old Time there were Mills in their Prisons, (whence Pistrinum is used both for a Mill and a Prison) and the Prisoners were wont by Grinding to earn their Living, and procure them∣selves Food. However, this was counted a very Laborious and Slavish Employment. And this was in use not only among the Iews and Philistines but the Egyptians also, and thence there is menti∣on of the Maid-Servant behind the Mill, i. e. thrust∣ing it forward with her Arm, Exod. 11. 5. So among the Chaldeans the Young Men (viz. the Captives of Iudea) were taken by them to grind, Lam. 5. 13. But for the most part the Women-Ser∣vants were employed in this Drudgery, as is de∣ducible from Mat. 24. 41. Women are said to be grinding at the Mill, whiles the Men are in the Field, i. e. at work abroad, as we read in the pre∣ceding Verse. Therefore1 1.119 Buxtorf observes that the Word for Grinders is Resoshoth, of the Feminine Gender, to note that Grinding was usually Wo∣men's Work. These Mills which they used in those Days were Querns or Hand-mills, and there∣fore before the Invention of others that go with greater Force, they first dried the Corn (as I men∣tion'd before) that they might grind with more Ease.

The Corn being thus prepared and reduced to Meal or Flour, they moistned it, and made it in∣to Dough or Paste (Batzek, Exod. 12. 34. 39. Gna∣visah, Numb. 15. 20.) and then baked it, and made Bread of it. This was either Cakes, or Loaves: the lighter kind of Bread was composed into Cakes, Gnuggoth, Gen. 18. 6. Exod. 12. 39. Numb. 11. 8. Ezek. 4. 12. Sometimes Magnog is the Word, 1 Kings 17. 12. at other Times Chal∣lah, Lev. 2. 4. & 24. 5. 2 Sam. 6. 19. The greater and heavier sort of Bread was Loaves: thence you read of Cicear Lechem, a Loaf of Bread, Exod. 29. 23. 1 Chron. 16. 3. (tho in some other Places we render it a Piece of Bread, Prov. 6. 26. Ier. 37. 21. which shews that the word Ciccar is uncer∣tain.) But this we may depend upon, that Lechem Breads (in the Plural, for it is taken plurally in 1 Sam. 21. 3. 2 Sam. 16. 1. and in other Places) always signifies Loaves of Bread, in contradistinction to Cakes or lesser Portions of Bread. Then as to the antient Manner of Baking, it was, 1. Upon the Hearth, under the hot Embers, and thence Gnuggoth are denominated. The first Instance in the World of this way of Baking, is that in Gen. 18. 6. where Gnuggoth are by all acknowledg'd to be Panes sutcineritii, and accordingly we render them Cakes upon the Hearth, i. e. such as were ba∣ked upon the hot Hearth, and cover'd over with Ashes. This was the antient way of Baking among all the Eastern People: and it is in use among them at this Day. A late1 1.120 Traveller assures us, that this sort of Bread is ordinarily used among the pre∣sent Arabians: and he particularly and distinctly describes their making and ordering of these Cakes.

2. Upon burning Coles, something ('tis likely) like a Grate being laid between, 1 Kings 19. 6. Isa. 44. 19. These were the two ways of Baking their Cakes, i. e. their lesser and siner Bread, which af∣ter they were sufficiently baked on one side were turn'd on the other: whence is that Comparison of a Cake not turned, Hos. 7. 3. They had Ovens, which were first used for Baking the Holy Bread, Lev. 2. 4. & 26. 26. but afterwards for that which is Common, viz. the greater and larger Bread. But (to conclude) we are not to think that Loaves of Bread, such as we have of a conside∣rable Thickness and Height, which must needs be cut with a Knife, were in use among the Iews or other Eastern People: but they made Broad Cakes, and these they broke with their Hands, whence we so often read of breaking Bread. If they were somewhat thick, they were generally call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Loaves of Bread, 1 Sam. 10. 3. but if they were very thin, or if they were of a si∣ner sort of Flour, they had the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cakes, Lev. 7. 12, 13.

From these Sacred Records we may also learn what was the Primitive Drink. Foo though 'tis not expresly said any where that they drank Water before the Flood, yet we may rationally gather so much, because this simple Element was most su∣table to their simple and plain sort of Feeding, which is in direct Terms express'd. And that this was the general Beverage after the Flood al∣so, we are assured from positive Texts, Gen. 21. 19. & 24. 14. Iob 22. 7. 1 Kings 13. 22. Prov. 25. 21. Likewise from these Authentick Writings we know that another Liquor (which was denied to the world before) was now granted them, viz. Milk, Gen. 18. 8. Deut. 32. 14. Iudg. 4. 19. Cant.

5. 1. Yea, Wine the choicest of all Liquors be∣came the usual Drink of those Eastern Countries, which was occasion'd thus, (the Knowledg of which can be known only from Scripture original∣ly) God having granted an Indulgence to eat Flesh, Noah took it for a sufficient Intimation that they might change their Drink sometimes: wherefore he being a Man of Observation and Prudence, ga∣thering from the goodness of Grdpes the virtue and benefit of Wine, (for even before the Flood they did eat Grapes, as all other Fruits of the Earth, but drank no Wine: unless we grant that the bold and luxurious Sinners of Cain's Offspring sometime before the Deluge knew this Liquor, and abused themselves with it, for 'tis said they drank, Luk. 17. 27. i. e. they excessively gave themselves to some Strong and Intoxicating Liquor) Noah I say, understanding the benefit of Wine, and apprehending how seasonable and comfortable it would be at that time when the Flood had so chill'd the Earth and Air, and made every thing look bleak and dismal, he began to be an Husband∣man, ••••h Haadamah, a Man of the Earth, Gen. 9. 20. and among other Instances of his Husbandry, he planted a Vineyard, he set Vines in that warm Country where he was seated, viz. Armenia: He chose this as a proper Soil for them; for Armenid is noted for an excellent Ground for Vines, and the Vines of that Place are celebrated by Historians. Others planted Vines before him, mixing them with other Trees, but Noah planted a Place of Vines only: this is properly Kerem, Vine••. Others had planted Vines in their Grounds, that they might eat the Grapes that grew on them, and per∣haps some (as was hinted before) had preserv'd the Juico of them, and made themseves drunk

with it: but Noah's Plantation of Vines, was pur∣posely in order to make Wine of the Fruit of them. Thus he was the First that planted a Vineyard: the skilful ordering of that generous Fruit to this particular End, was first found out by him. And now when the Good Old Man had taken this Pains, and we may suppose was very weary and thirsty, he began to taste the Fruit of his Labours, which happen'd to be with ill Success: for he had chosen so excellent a Spot of Ground, and had so richly cultivated it, that the Product of it proved too pot••nt; the Liquor of that noble Plant, which he too rashly made an Experiment of, and with some Greediness took down, was too strong for his Brain. But as he sinned once in this kind, so he never did the like again. Yea, as he found out Wine, so 'tis not improbable that he admonish'd Men from his Failing to use it soberly. What the Pagan•••• Writings say of the first Inventer of Wine is little to be heeded, unless you refer it to this Noah, who is represented by their Bacchus and Ia∣nus. They all agree, that1 1.121 the former of these first planted Vines, and found out the Art of ma∣naging them, and made Wine of the Fruit of them; wherefore they confound him with the lat∣ter, viz. Ianus, who had his Name from Iajin, Vinum. This was no other than Noah, the happy Author of this Boon to Mankind. And his Sons propagated this Art, he especially that went to in∣habit in Africk: whence (as was observed by an 2 1.122 Antient Writer) the Poets feigned that Dionysius, in the Days of Deu••alion, discovered this Art of

making Wine to the Person that entertained him in Africk.

They had antiently other Strong Liquors be∣sides Wine, the general Word for which wa•• 1 1.123 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lev. 10. 9. Numb. 6. 3. Iudg. 1 3. 4, 7. & 29. 9. Isa. 5. 11. & 28. 7. Prov. 20. 1. rendred al∣ways 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy, except in two Places•• (Psal. 69. 12. Prov. 31. 4.) where 'tis translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Greek Word is once mentioned in th•• New Testament, viz. Luke 1. 15. and is rendred•• by our Translators (as the word Shacar in the Old Testament) strong Drink. It is all Inebriating Drink▪ saith2 1.124 Origen: So saith3 1.125 another Greek Writer▪ with whom agrees a Learned Latine4 1.126 Father. But others that have criticized on the Word, especially the Hebrew Doctors, tell us, that 'tis all Strong Drink except Wine. But5 1.127〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Isa. 1. 22. Ho••▪ 4. 18. is a Word that signifies Wine properly so called, i. e. the Juice of the Grape, and also al•• factitious Wines, i. e. strong Liquors made of Mul∣berries, Palms, Pine-nuts, Apples, Pears, and o∣ther Fruits. So that what we call Sider, Perry▪ &c. is that Drink which was by the Hebrews call'd Soba. A••d the Rabbins comprehend under this Term Ale, and tell us, there was such a sort of•• Liquor of old in use among the Medes and Persi∣ans, the same which was antiently used in Egypt, and found out by Osiris one of the Kings of that Place: for6 1.128 Diodorus the Sicilian relates that i•• the Countries where there were no Vines, this King caused them to make a Drink of Water and Barley; which7 1.129 Herodotus had before taken notice

of, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Barley-wine, is mentioned by Athenaeus. I will only add here under this Head, that they used of old to dash and mingle their Wine with Water: whence a Cup of Mixture, Psal. 75. 8. is a Cup of Wine, and Wine is ex∣pressed by Mixture (according to the Hebrew) Prov. 23. 30.

And since I have gone thus far, and have enqui∣red into the First Eating and Drinking of the Peo∣ple of the World, I will proceed further on this Subject, and from the same unquestionable Records give some Account of the Posture which they used in Eating and Drinking. We may here inform our selves that at first they sat at Meat, i. e. they either spread something on the Ground, and sat upon it, or they sat at a Table. Whatever some Criticks have suggested concerning the Antiquity of another Position of Body, it is certain that this was the Antientest of all: for in the Old Testa∣ment there are Examples of this, long before any of those that are alledged out of Profane Authors. The Old Hebrew Patriarchs sat at Meat, as is plain from Iacob's Words to his Father, Sit and eat of my Venison, Gen. 27. 19. There are no Writers in the World that go so far back as this. And the next to this is Gen. 37. 25. They sat down to eat Bread. On which Words Drusius observes that the Old Hebrews sat at Meat. That this was the oldest Posture among the Jews, these Texts sufficiently testify; The People sat down to eat and drink, Exod. 32. 6. and the Apostle, according to the LXX, renders it so, 1 Cor. 10. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together, Judg. 19. 6. I should not fail to sit down with the King at Meat, said David to Ionathan, 1 Sam. 20. 5. And

in ver. 24. it is expresly said, The King sat him down to Meat. And here by the way we may ob∣serve, that there was a certain Order and Precedency observed in their sitting in those times. They were seated every one according to their proper Rank and Quality: Thus Abner sat by Saul's side, ver. 25. And David had his peculiar Situation al∣lotted him, which is signally stiled his Seat, ver. 18. and his Place, ver. 25. That Sitting was the Eat∣ing Posture is further evident from 1 Kings 13. 20. It came to pass as they sat at Table. When tho•• sittest to eat with a Ruler, saith Solomon, Prov. 23. 1. And many other Quotations to this purpose might be produced, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is always ren∣dred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the LXX) is the Word used. It is true, the first Paschal Lamb was eaten by the Jews standing; but that was an Extraordinary thing, because that particular ••e∣sture was fittest for that occasion, it signifying their sudden Passage and Departure out of Egypt. Wherefore those who make use of this Instance to prove that Sitting at Meals was not the Primitive Posture, do it very impertinently, because there is no arguing from an Unusual Case to what is Com∣mon. They might as well argue that it was the Custom to eat with Staves in their Hands, because they did so at this solemn Occasion: whereas the true Account of this particular Circumstance wa•• this, that the Passover was to be eaten in a Pilgrim's Guise, in remembrance of their tra∣velling out of Egypt. This, as well as eating with their L••ins girt, and with Shoes on their Feet, was a Temporary Precept, and accordingly yo•• will not find it mentioned among the Directi∣ons given about the Anniversary Passover after∣wards. Others as vainly infer from the strict

Command laid upon the Israelites to have2 1.130 their Shoes on their Feet at the eating of the Passover, that they used to have them off at other times when they were eating, and consequently that Discubati∣on was first used by the Jews; for it is alledg'd that they were barefooted, that they might not with their Shoes soil their Beds that they lay upon. This is a very palpable Mistake, for the true rea∣son why they were commanded to eat the Paschal Supper with Sho••s on their Feet (as well as with their Loins girded) was, because they were to eat it in haste: they are the very Words in Exod. 12. 11. And therefore we cannot conclude from their eating the Passover with their Shoes on, that either they were bare-footed at other times when they dined or supped, or that they lay down upon Beds. Besides, at other times gene∣rally within Doors, and therefore at their Meals, they used to wear Sandals or Slippers, a ••light and thin sort of covering for their Feet: in opposi∣tion to which they are now upon this solemn Oc∣casion enjoin'd to have Shoes on, as much as to say, to be ready and prepared for their Journy. Or lastly, if I should say that it was the custom to put off their Shoes at Meals even when the Cu∣stom of Sitting prevail'd, it were no hard Matter to prove it; for they washed their Feet even at that time, as appears from the Relation concerning Abraham's entertaining the Angels, so that they must put off their Shoes for that, and it is pro∣bable they put them not on again till they went out. Wherefore from their putting off their Shoes it doth not follow that Discumbiture was

the Posture in those Days among the Jews, as some would perswade us.

Then, as for Other Nations, the same Records assure us that they sat at Eating: thus according to the use of the Egyptians, Ioseph's Brethren were order'd to sit according to their Age, Gen. 43. 33. Whence1 1.131 Philo observes, that the Custom of Discumbiture was not yet receiv'd in those Days. And that this was the Posture of eating not only among the Jews and Egyptians, but the Assyrians and Chaldeans, may be proved from that one single Text, Ezek. 23. 41. where the Prophet speaking of that adulterous and luxurious Conversation which the Jews had with those Foreign Nations; describes it by sitting upon a stately Bed, and a Ta∣ble prepared before it. Only here we may observe, that they began to decline from their first simple Usage, and to turn their ordinary Seats or Stools into Beds or Pallets. Conformably to these Eastern People, the Grecians behaved themselves, who (as2 1.132 Athenaeus attests in several Places) sat at their Feasts. He takes notice that Lying along or Lean∣ing is not once mention'd in Homer, but that he makes all his Guests sit at Table. And they were seated according to their Worth and Eminency; whence it is, that the Grecians shew'd their respect to Diomedes,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

by seating him first at the Ta••le, by placing him ac∣cording to his Dignity, as well as by entertaining him

with choice Meats and full Cups. So it was with the Old Romans, they feasted sitting.

1 1.133 Perpetuis soliti patres considere mensis.

And that this was their Posture at first on their Tricliniary Beds, Servius remarks on Aeneid the 7th. From abundant Instances it is concluded by Athenaeus, that2 1.134 the Antientest Heroes used Session, not Discumbiture, at their festival Entertainments. This without doubt was the first, and most re∣ceiv'd situation of their Bodies at such times. In the most Heroick Ages of the World they sat up∣right when they were at Meals.

But afterwards this Posture was changed, for when Men gave themselves to ease and delicacy, and grew soft and effeminate, they lay down upon Beds at their Dinners and Suppers, and thence the Eating-Bed was call'd3 1.135 Discubitorius Lectus. Lying upon their left Sides, they upheld and rested the upper Part of their Bodies with their left El∣bows (under which was wont to be a Cushion.) It is supposed they might sometimes (perhaps when they drank more freely) sit up a little, but for the most part they were in this leaning lolling Posture. This became a general Custom among the Greeks and Romans, as Authors relate: but the first Rise of it was from the Eastern People, and this we have first discover'd to us from the Holy Scripture, which mentions Ahasuerus's Supper, and the Rich and Gaudy Beds used on that Occasion, Esther 1. 6. That the Persians lay on Beds at their Banquets, may be

gather'd from Esth. 7. 8. Haman was fallen on the Bed where Esther was. From these and other Orien∣tal People, this wanton and effeminate Usage came to the Iews. Those among them that were Luxu∣rious Feeders lay along, with their Bodies stretch∣ed out at their Feasts. This seems to be intended in Amos 2. 8. they lay themselves down upon Clothes, belonging to Bedding at Feasts. But more expres∣ly 'tis said of them, Ch. 6. v. 8. they lie upon Beds of Ivory, and stretch themselves upon their Couches. The next Words which particularly make mention of their Eating and Drinking, and the usual Atten∣dants of them at high Festivals, viz. Vocal and Instrumental Musick, and Odoriferous Ointments, shew that it is meant of their lying on Beds at their Feasts. Wherefore I can by no means approve of what our1 1.136 Learned English Annotator saith, that the Custom of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accubitus, lying along at Meat, is not mention'd in the Old Testament. And afterwards these Dining Beds began to be a general Custom among the Jews, and the best and holiest Persons complied with this Practice, insomuch that leaning or lying upon them was the Posture used by our Bles••ed Saviour and his Apostles at the Passover, as well as at other times. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and2 1.137 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but especially3 1.138 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are used in the New Testament to express this parti∣cular disposing of their Bodies, although our Translators render it by sitting down to Meat, or sit∣ting at Meat.

And if we would know what was the Particular Manner of placing themselves in those Days at

their Mensal Beds, this may be learn'd from seve∣ral Passages in Scripture, as well (though not so largely) as from the Greek and Roman Writers: nay, here are Antienter Instances of that way of disposing their Guests than in any other Authors whatsoever. A Room was generally spread with Three Beds, (therefore by the Romans call'd Tri∣clinium) one of which was situated at one end of the Table, the other two at both Sides: and as for the other part or the end of the Table, it was left clear for the Waiters to serve up the Dishes. Generally three or four lay upon a Bed together: but this is to be understood of Men only, not of both Sexes. For it was not usual for the Women and Men to eat promiscuously at one Table on one Bed, because the Posture was not fit and decent for the former. These therefore usually had a Triclinium by themselves, and feasted apart: thus Ahasuerus feasted the Men, and Vashti the Women, Esther 1. 3, 9. So the Daughter of Herodias went to her Mother in another Room, feasting at the same time at another Table, Matth. 14. 2, 8. for she stept thither to take her Mother's Instru∣ctions, and then came in straightway unto the King, Mark 6. 25. So it was with the Greeks generally, the Women did not dine and sup together with the Men. But it was otherwise with the Romans: yet this distinction at first was observ'd by them, that1 1.139 the Men lay along at Meals, the Women sat: but afterwards in the degeneracy of Times, the same Posture was used by both Sexes.

Again, we find that this Discumbiture (as well as the other Posture before spoken of) was not in

a disorderly manner, but every one had his Place according to his Dignity. When thou art bidden of any Man to a Wedding,(i. e. to a Wedding-Feast) lie not, or lean not (for so it should be rendred ac∣cording to1 1.140 the Greek) in the highest Room, in the chief Place of Decumbiture, Luke 14. 8. for the Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to which is opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the last or lowest Place, ver. 10. The In∣vited did not take what Place they pleased, but the Worthiest were placed first; therefore the Phari∣sees, who thought themselves Persons of the great∣est Worth, ambitiously sought after the highest Places, they loved the uppermost Rooms at Feasts, Mat. 23. 6 The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (for 'tis in the sin∣gular Number, though we render it as if it were plural) the dining Bed, which they knew was usu∣ally preferred before the rest, and the chief and most honourable Situation in that Bed, they also affected. The Order of placing was this; the Chief Guest did lie at the Head of the First Bed, with his Feet behind the back of him that lay next to him: so the second Man's Head rested in the first's Bosom, and his Feet were behind the Back of the third. To this Antient Way of lying along at Eating, those Words in Cant. 2. 6. His left Hand is under my Head, and his right Hand doth imbrace me, seem to refer (for this is supposed at a Feast, a Country-Banquet in a Garden or Orchard, ver. 4. 5. which was the antient Usage; and thence we 2 1.141 read that Canius a Roman Knight bought a Gar∣den of Pythias, in order to invite his Friends, and feast them there). The Person, according to the Situation before named, might, if he pleased, lay his left Hand under the Head of him that lay next

to him, and was in his Bosom; and he lay also conveniently to imbrace him with his other Hand or Arm. Thus 'tis said, the Disciple whom Iesus loved leaned on his Bosom, John 13. 23. And again, ver. 25. He lay on Iesus's Breast, which is a plain Proof of this Order of lying at their Suppers at that time. Our Saviour had the first and chiefest Place, Iohn who was dearest to him lay next to him, and lean'd his Head in Christ's Bosom. For this was the Custom of those times, their Favou∣rites and Friends, and such as they loved most, were placed just below them, so that they could rest their Heads on their Breasts. That this was a Sign of Familiarity, Love and Respect, is evident from that of Pliny the Younger,3 1.142 Coenabat Impera∣tor cum paucis Veiento proximus, atque etiam in sinu recumbebat. The Bride's proper Place at Supper was the Bridegroom's Bosom, according to that of the4 1.143 Poet;

—Gremio jacuit nova nupta mariti.

And those of either Sex that were intimate and dear to them had this Privilege, as we learn out of 5 1.144 Tully and6 1.145 others. Here then we may guess at the Manner of our Saviour's lying at Supper with his Apostles, who with him were thirteen in all. Three Beds being placed about the three Sides of the Table, there were four Persons in one, four in another, and five in a third; or else two Beds held five apiece, and one of them only three, who it is likely were our Saviour, St. Iohn, and St. Pe∣ter; for as next to Iohn he intimates that he should ask of Christ who was to be the Traitor. This

Bed whereon our Blessed Master and these two Apostles lay was the Middle Bed, viz. that which was set at the End of the Table; but in respect of the Beds which were placed on the two Sides was the Middle one; for this was reckon'd as the up∣permost and most honourable. Christ lay at th•• Head or upper End of this Bed, for this was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Chief Place of Recumbency, and was always reserv'd for the Worthiest Persons; though I confess there was some Variation as to this among the Romans, (and so might be among the Jews their Imitators) among whom the other End of the Middle Bed was sometimes the uppermost and most valued. Moreover, we may gather from Mat. 26. 23. that the Table about which the Beds were placed was square and short, so that all of them could eat out of the same Dish. He that dip∣peth his Hand with me in the Dish, the same shall be∣tray me, Mat. 26. 23. In which Words our Saviour points not at one particular Person, for all dipp'd their Hands in the Dish, they did eat all in com∣mon; for their Beds were close to the Table, and the Table was not broad, so that they could all conveniently reach to the Vessels in which the Meat was. They could all put (that is the Meaning of Dipping) their Hands into the same Dish; and among these that did so at this time, there was one that designed to betray our Blessed Lord.

But though this was the Usage then, yet I must adjoin this, that at the Entertainment of some Spe∣cial Guests, and to shew a more than ordinary Kindness to them, there was another Custom anti∣ently in use, that is, every one had his Portion apart at the Table. Homer makes all his Heroes eat after this fashion; particularly he tells us, that Ajax's Allotment (who 'tis likely was as good at

eating as fighting) was7 1.146 a Chine of Beef; for the more worthy and honourable the Guest was, the greater was his Allowance. But the Sacred Histo∣ry gives us the earliest Examples of this kind, as indeed it doth of all other sorts of Usages. Here we read that Ioseph, when he entertained his Bre∣thren, took and sent Messes (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the LXX, particular Portions) unto them from before him, Gen. 43. 34. If it be said that the Egyptians ••ight not eat Bread with the Hebrews, for that was an Abomination to the Egyptians, ver. 32. and that was the Reason why they had particular Parts or Messes allotted them, and therefore it doth not follow thence that this was a Custom either among the Hebrews or Egyptians when they feasted asunder; I answer, the true Reason why the Hebrews and Egyptians did not sit and eat together at the same Table, was because the one eat Flesh, and the other did not, and on that Account their Different Customs were abominable to one another. But the dividing of the Meat, and distributing a Particular Portion to every one, had no reference at all to this, but was a General Custom in those times, and was (I conceive) partly founded upon this, that hereby they had no Opportunity of shewing their particular Respects to the Guests according to their different Quality; for the greatest and choicest Portion of Viands was allotted to those whose Place and Dignity required more than ordinary Defe∣rence, or for whom they had the greatest Kind∣ness and Love. Thus in the Relation here given us, Benjamin's Mess was five times so much as any of his Brethren. This was a Mark of singular Favour and Affection, for Ioseph was more nearly related

to Benjamin than to any of the rest, who indeed were but his half-Brethren; but Benjamin was his Brother both by the Father's and the Mother's side. Hence it may be gather'd that this Practice was not grounded on the Difference of Meats on which the Hebrews and Egyptians fed. And in∣deed from other Instances in this Divine Book it appears, that though Persons sat at the same Table, and differ'd not about the sort of Food, yet they had particular Messes or Portions distributed to them. So when Elkanah and his Family and Friends feasted together on a solemn Occasion, to shew his more especial Love and Regard to Hannah, he gave to her a worthy Portion, 1 Sam. 1. 5. Manah aphajim (where aphajim is the same with panim, as is usual in the Holy Stile) a Distribution of Faces, such a li∣beral share of Meat as shew'd a favourable Counte∣nance, a particular Respect and Love; such a Por∣tion as was usually given to the best and most be∣loved sort of Guests. Another Remarkable Ex∣ample of this we have in 1 Sam. 9. 23, 24. where we read that Samuel invited Saul to a Feast, and made him sit in the chiefest Place among them that were bidden, (for there was a Precedency in those times according to the Rank of the Persons that were invited) and he said unto the Cook, (whom he had spoken to before to prepare this Entertain∣ment) Bring the Portion which I gave thee, of which I said unto thee, Set it by thee: (which I ordered thee to have in Readiness against the time that I call'd for it) And the Cook took up the Shoulder,(for that was the peculiar Joint of Meat which was de∣sign'd for his Portion; and indeed it appears from being the Priest's particular Portion, Lev. 7. 32. that it was accounted the choicest part) and that which was upon it, (it may be some lesser and dain∣tier

Morsels which were serv'd up in the same Dish) and set it before Saul. Whence it is evident that in old times they had a certain Measure and Quantity of Meat appointed them at Feasts by the Gover∣nour and Master of it. This is the appointed Por∣tion, rendred by our Translators necessary Food, Iob 23. 12. and this is the Food of Allowance or Ap∣pointment, Prov. 30. 8. which we render Food con∣venient, attending to the Sense rather than the Original Word. The set Portions of Meat were called by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the Name of the Servants or Waiters that distri∣buted them to the Guests, according to the Order which they received from the Master of the Feast, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as we may satisfy our selves in Lucian and other Good Writers. And in this very Sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken in Mat. 20. 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 12. 37. We read of the Ruler of the Houshold, whose Office was to give them their Portion of Meat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 12. 12. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which that Word is compounded, is a general Term for all Food, and so the Word signifies a certain De∣mensum, a Set Portion or Dividend of Meat that was allotted to every one at Meals. And I am mistaken if our Saviour's Words concerning Mary, she hath chosen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the good Part or Portion, Luke 10. 42. do not refer to this Distri∣buting of the Food, and particularly Martha's being cumbred about much serving, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the way of providing for the Guests by allotting every one his Distinct Part. And it is not impro∣bable, seeing the Dispensers of the Gospel are compared to1 1.147 Stewards and2 1.148 Governours of Families,

that the rightly dividing the Word of Truth, 2 Tim.•• 15.1 1.149 hath special Reference to this Custom of dis∣pensing to every one his proper share at the Table; though (as I have suggested) this was not a perpe∣tual U••age, and particularly at the Paschal Fea•• our Saviour and his Apostles supped together 〈◊〉〈◊〉 common, and eat out of the same Dish.

Furthermore, from what we read in the Evan∣gelical History, Luke 7. 38. viz. that Mary Magda∣len stood at Christ's Feet behind him, we may collect the Truth of what hath been suggested concerning their Posture at their Eatings in those Days. Then Feet lay out behind the Backs of those that lay next to them, and so those that waited at the Ta∣ble were properly said to stand at their Feet behind. Thence this is the Periphrasis of a Servi••or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Waiter, according to2 1.150 Seneca, qui coenanti ad pe••••∣steterat. Likewise here we are acquainted that Put∣ting off the Shoes, and Washing the Feet, were an usual Attendant at Eating and Feasting; and the one was in order to the other. I grant that the Antients wore not Shoes at all times, yea their Captives and Slaves went always bare-foot, as •• evident from Isa. 20. 4. Nay, some of the better sort of People among the Gentiles were put upon this Hardship by their severe Governours and Law-givers: so Lycurgus enjoined the Spartans to go without Shoes. But among the Iews I find no such thing; even in the Wilderness (where they underwent the greatest Difficulties) their Feet were clad with Shoes, by the same token that they wa••∣ed not old, Deut. 20. 5. i. e. by a particular Provi∣dence they were preserv'd from any considerable

Decay a long time. And from Exod. 3. 5. Iosh. 5. 15. Deut. 25. 9. and several other Places, it may be proved that their Feet were armed with this Defence; yea, it was an Ornament as well as a De∣fence and is reckon'd as such in Ezek. 16. 10. where we find that Shoes of the best and most fashionable sort were made of Badgers Skins, viz. dress'd and made into Leather. Now, when they came into a House as Guests to be entertain'd, they stripp'd themselves of this lower Apparel, and had their Feet wash'd and cleans'd; and this was the usual Introduction to their sitting or lying down to eat. A very antient Instance of this you have in Iudg. 19. 21. They washed their Feet, and did eat and drink. And that this was afterwards a Iewish Custom is clear from our Saviour's upbraid∣ing of Simon in those Words, I enter'd into thy House, but thou gavest me no Water for my Feet, Luke 7. 44. which he would not have said if the Washing the Feet had not been a common Testimony of Civi∣lity and Friendly Entertainment. From1 1.151 Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks used this Custom at their Feasts; and many Authors attest the same concern∣ing the Romans. And as to the Discalceation in or∣der to it,2 1.152 Martial and3 1.153 Terence, and several other Writers speak of it.

Besides, the Sacred Writings inform us, that Anointing was of old an usual Entertainment at their Feasts. Thus the Penitent Magdalen bestow'd a Box of Spikenard on Christ's4 1.154 Feet while he was at Supper: and indeed, according to the Account

before given of his Situation at that time, she had the Advantage to do it, his Feet being towards her, and bare; for (as was just now said) they put off their Shoes and lay barefoot on their Eating-Beds. At another time this Religious Woman refresh'd and perfumed his Head with precious Ointment when he was at the Table, Mat. 26. 7. Mark 14. 3. And it is particularly recorded that this fragrant Ointment was in an Alabaster-Box: which is according to what Hero∣dotus, Athenaeus, Plutarch and other antient Au∣thors relate, (whom you may see alledg'd in Dr. Hammond's Annotations on Mat. 26. 7.) that those particular Vessels, viz. Alabaster-Boxes, were commonly made use of for that purpose. It is said in the foremention'd Place in St. Mark that she brake the Box of Spikenard, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to shake or knock, rather than to break; so that the meaning is this, she shook the Box, or knock'd it against the Ground to make the Oint∣ment come forth the better. This pouring of Odoriferous Oils on the Heads of their Guests at Feasts, is taken notice of in Psal. 23. 5. where with preparing a Table is join'd anointing the Head with Oil. And in Eccl. 9. 8, 9. Eat thy Bread with joy, and drink thy Wine with a merry Heart; and let thy Head lack no Ointment. And because it was used at these times of Mirth and Rejoicing, 'tis call'd the Oil of Ioy, Isa. 61. 3. Of this it is probable, the Parable in Luk. 16. speaks, where among the Steward's Expences a hundred Measures of Oil are reckon'd, which were used at Festivals. With the Holy Scriptures accord the Pagan Wri∣ters, who frequently make mention of this fragrant Unction. That it was used among the Greeks is manifest from the Example of Telemachus, who ac∣cording

to1 1.155 Homer was not only wash'd but anoint∣ed before he supp'd. Martial bears witness con∣cerning the Romans,

2 1.156 Vnguentum fat••or bonum dedisti Convivis, here.

But of this Anointing the Head with perfumed Liquors at Festivals, Dr. Hammond hath produc'd several Instances in his Annotations on Mat. 26. 7. and therefore I remit the Reader thither.

Lastly, here is mention'd another remarkable Attendant of those Feasts, viz. the Master or Go∣vernour of them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Name gi∣ven him, Iohn 2. 8. and it was a known Name among the Grecians: from whom the Latins bor∣row'd their Architriclinus. He was set over the Triclinium as an useful Officer, his Place being to order the Guests at the Feast, and to give Laws concerning the eating and drinking. And generally this Symposiarch, this Overseer and Controller of the Feast, was a Friend and Associate of the Person that made the Feast, and was acquainted with the Guests. Thus I have briefly from this Sacred Fountain of all Good Letters, shew'd the Manner and Order of the Discumbiture among the Antients.

Next, we are here acquainted who were the Inventers of Mechanick Arts. We find that Tubal-Cain was the first Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron, Gen. 4. 22. Where by the way we may observe, that the late3 1.157 Philosopher is mista∣ken when he confidently asserts, that there were no Metals or Minerals in the Antediluvian Earth. If

he can prove that Tubal-Cain was not before the Flood, (which will be one of the hardest Tasks he ever undertook) then he may effect something to∣ward his Hypothesis; but to say that the Primitive Earth was without these Metals, and yet to ac∣knowledg this Tubal-Cain to be an Antediluvian, is perfect Contradiction, for he could not deal i•• Metals if there had been none at that time. Him then I take to be the First Smith and Brasier that ever was in the World.2 1.158 Yea, perhaps these Terms of Brass and Iron may be more large and comprehensive, and then here may be signified to us the general Skill of Improving all Metals for the Needs of Mankind. It is not improbable that the Art of Refining was found out by this Tubal-Cain▪ and that he taught Men the separation of Metal•• from their Dross. However that this Separating and Purifying them, to render them more useful were very Antient, is plain from Psal. 12. 6. which mentions Silver tried in a Furnace of Earth, purified seven times: And we read, Mal. 3. 2. of a Refiner Fire. But this we are certainly informed of from the forenamed Text in Genesis, that Tubal-Cain was more especially skill'd in the use of those Metals there mention'd, viz. Brass and Iron: he knew the particular and proper Use of them in all Trades and Employments that require them, as in that of a Carpenter, a Mason, &c. and most of the Laborious and Handicraft Trades.

With Mechanicks and Manual Arts we may join Architecture, which cannot be managed without Tools of either of these Metals. Where again we may observe the rash and groundless Assertion of the foresaid Writer, viz. that there were not of old

any Instruments belonging to Building. This is con∣futed from what hath been said concerning Metals, for of these they could make Instruments that were serviceable in Building. Therefore when the Egyptians held that Vulcan was the Inventer of Architecture, it is probable they had reference to Tubal-Cain, (the first Founder of Metals which were so useful in Building) who was the Heathen Vulcan, as all Mythologists acknowledg. It is true, This, as all other Arts, was mean and low at first, for it began with making and fixing up of Tents (which I spake of before.) The Father, i. e. the Inventer of which was Iabal, who it is probable made them of Skins or Hides of Beasts; for our First Parents, and without doubt all others in imitation of them, were clothed with Skins (of which afterwards) which they found kept out Rain and Cold; and accordingly they learn'd to clothe their Tabernacles with the same Materials, and for the same End and Purpose: and to confirm this, we read in several Places afterwards that the Tents ••r Booths were made of Skins; in tacking and fastning of which it is likely they at length made use of some of Tubal's Hard Ware. This was the first Essay of Building, these were the first Houses. And from thence a Tabernacle and a House are con∣vertible: thus Iob mentions his Tabernacle, Ch. 31. v. 31. not that he had not a House properly so call'd, he being the Greatest Man in the East: and that he had so, appears further from Ch. 21. v. 28. And his Children had such Houses, else the fall of the House, Chap. 1. v. 19. could not have kill'd them. But sometimes they retain'd the old Name of Tabernacles, which were first in use: therefore Iob calls his House or Palace a Tabernacle in the Place above cited. So in Iudg. 12. 8. his Tent is

explain'd by adding his House: for as a1 1.159 Learned Critick saith well upon the Place, Because they of old dwelt in Tents, they afterwards call'd any House a Tent. And 'tis further observable that their Houses (for so 'tis in the Hebrew, though we translate it Housholds) and their Tents, Deut. 11. 6. is as much as their Houses, namely their Tents: for in the Desart they had only Tents or Booths, which were instead of Houses. And let me observe fur∣ther, that Ohel a Tabernacle is rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy, in Gen. 9. 21. & 24. 67. Num. 19. 18. Deut. 16. 7. Ios. 22. 4. Iob. 29. 4. and in seve∣ral other Places. Yea, sometimes Ohel is ren∣dered by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Pellis, as in Exod. 3••. 15. which confirms what I said before concern∣ing the Materials of Houses. Booths and these were alike, and thence perhaps arose the literal Cognation between Beth and Booth, the latter be∣ing an easy Corruption of the former. This is certain that the first Dwellings were Tabernacles▪ the Old Patriarchs lived in these Moveable Pavili∣ons, especially those of them that kept Cattle and some of those were the most Considerable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the World. Some a long time after, as the 2 1.160 Rechabites, a sort of Votaries among the Jews (but not of the Stock of Abraham, but originally Kenites or Midianites) chose this antient and sim∣ple way of living all their Days. But Architecture soon found an improvement, and the old Tent-dwelling was turn'd into another sort of Habita∣tion. Of this Art of Building Cain is mention'd as the first Author: this Vagabond after all his Tra∣vels at last ••at down in a certain Place, and there

built1 1.161 Nod, Gen. 4. 16. and afterwards he built a City, a walled City, and call'd it Enoch, after the Name of his Son, v. 17.(whence in succeeding times it was usual to give the Names of Men unto Cities and Countries, of which there are2 1.162 many Instances in Scripture.) This first Murderer was the first Builder, for being haunted and torment∣ed with a guilty Conscience, to divert it he fell a building: and perhaps he did it to environ him∣self with Walls, to keep himself safe. A City was made a Sanctuary, a Place of Refuge. And as Cain is recorded to be the First Builder before the Flood, so Nimrod was the first after it; for the City and the Tower which he and his Partisans built, are expresly mention'd Gen. 11. 5. And if you would know the chief Materials that these bold Architects made use of in this Work, the 3d Verse will acquaint you, they had Brick for Stone, and Slime had they for Mortar. Which intimates, that they would have made use of Stone to build the Tower, (for Stone was ever of greatest Esteem for that purpose, and the Great Mens Houses were built of these, 1 Kings 7. 9, 11. Isa. 9. 10. Am. 5. 11.) and would have cemented the building with Mortar, if the Place had afforded either. But it seems it did not, and therefore they used Brick instead of Stone, and a Bituminous Substance which that Soil furnish'd them with instead of Lime and Sand. Accordingly we are told by se∣veral 3 1.163 Pagan Writers that the Walls of Babylon

were built of Brick: and Pliny and other Authors commend the Bitumen or Asphalt of that Country, a kind of Pitch which was serviceable in making of Cement.

But besides Examples of Common and Prophan•• Architecture, there are in these Antient Writings others of a different Nature, which are worthy of the Study of all Curious Enquirers into Antient Arts. Here is described the Famous Thebah, Gen. 6. 15. &c. the Ark which Noah and his Sons and thei•• Assistants built by the particular Direction and Gui∣dance of God himself. There were in this Habi∣tation upon the Waters, this Floating House, three Principal Stories and Floors of an equal Length from one end of the Fabrick to the other; in which were peculiar Kinnim, Nests, for that is the Metaphorical Word that is used by the Holy Ghost to express the sundry Mansions, the various Cells, Apartments and Divisions for the convenient lodg∣ing of Noah's Family and all sorts of Animals, and their different Foods. This Structure was six times longer than it was broad, and ten times longer than it was high, and so was exactly pro∣portion'd to the particular Symmetry of Man's Body at its full Extent: and as to several other things, the Admirable and Singular Contrivance of this Edifice, worthy of its Divine Author, hath been demonstrated by the1 1.164 Learned. So that we have no cause to wonder at Clemens of Alexandria, when he propounds the Ark(as also the Mosaick Tabernacle, which I will mention next) as2 1.165 an Emi∣nent

Exemplar of Geometrick Art. Another fa∣mous Specimen of Antient Architecture was the Tabernacle, that Portable Habitation of God, that Vehicle of the Divinity, that Ambulatory House of the Almighty, that Travelling Temple, that Appointed Place of Publick Worship for the Israe∣lites, that Visible Pledg of the Divine Presence among them. All the Materials of which, as Gold, Silver, Brass, dyed Wool, fine Linen, Goats Hair, Rams and Badgers Skins, Shittim Wood, with all the sacred Utensils belonging to it, and the individual Shape and Formation of every one of them, were by the particular Order, Ap∣pointment and Designation of God himself, who extraordinarily inspired Bezaleel and Aholiah with Skill and Art about that Noble Work. Here likewise we have an Account of that most Celebra∣ted Piece of Architecture, Solomon's Temple, where∣in every thing is Great, August and Divine, and su∣table to its Author. The whole Contrivance is so various, so artificial, that it hath been reckon'd by some of the Wisest and most Judicious Men, as the Basis of the whole Art of Building. Villal∣pandus (who was a Good Judg in the Case) de∣clares that

1 1.166 the whole Architectonick Art, which the Grecians communicated to the Romans, and which Vitruvius's Books present us with, was first derived from the Hebrew Proportions in this Sacred Building, and the Apartments that belong to it.

But more especially it is the Idea and Pattern of all Great and Stately Structure whatsoever.

As to the more ordinary way of Building, it is certain that the general Draught or Scheme of

Erecting of Houses, as they are represented in the•••• Sacred Writings, hath been taken for the Model of these Dwellings in all Countries ever since. And here I will choose out only one thing to speak of, because it may give Light to several Passages in Scripture. It was the Custom in Palestine to build their Houses flat at top; and they made a•• much use of this as of any part of their Habitati∣on. Here they walked, as may be partly gather'd from Deut. 22. 8 but it is in express Terms said in 2. Sam. 11. 2 that David walked here in the Even∣ing, the time when he saw the fair Bathsheba. Here they pray'd, as is evident from Acts 10. 9. Peter went up upon the House-top,(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the Word in the New Testament, that answers to Gag in the Old) to pray about the sixth Hour. For here the Jews had the Convenience of looking towards Ierusalem, which they were commanded to do whenever they pray'd in a Place distant from it, I Kings 8. 48. and this was St. Peter's Case here, wherefore he went up hither to offer his Prayers. Here they sacrific'd sometimes: whence you read of burning Incense on the Roofs of Houses, Jer. 19. 13. & 32. 29. and worshipping the Host of Heaven upon the House-tops, Zeph. 1. 5. This was also the place of Publick Mourning and Lamenting, as is clearly deducible from Ier. 48. 38. And in Isa. 22. 1 to go up to the House-tops, is to make an open Condolance and Lamentation. From these high and eminent Places they were wont to discover any Danger at a Distance; thence you read of the Watchman going up to the Roof, 2 Sam. 18. 24. They used to speak to the People from these Places as fittest for that purpose; whence that Proverbial kind of speaking used by our Saviour, Mat. 10. 27. to preach on the House-tops, is to make a thing

known to all, to proclaim it to the World. Here they did eat, and drink, and sleep, especially in the Summer-Evenings; thus David rose from off his Bed, 2 Sam. 11. 2. (the Bed where he had supped, and it is probable had taken a short Nap after∣wards) and from hence had his unfortunate Pro∣spect. Again, this was usually among the Jews and other Eastern People, a Place of Employment and Business, of one kind or other: and therefore, by him which is on the House-top, Mat, 24. 17. is meant, the Man that is about his Business or Work at Home, in contradistinction to the Man employ'd in the Field, v. 18. Lastly, from what hath been suggested, and from the very Nature of the Place, it must needs be gather'd that it was open and ex∣posed to the Sight of the World, and therefore Absalom purposely made choice of this to defile his Father's Concubines in, that it might be in the Sight of all Israel, 2 Sam. 16. 22.

But then why were the Spies that were sent by Ioshua into the Land of Canaan lodged here by Rahab? ••os. 2. 4, 6. She brought them up hither to hide them: therefore it seems there was upon this Roof some Place that was private; otherwise she would not have disposed of them here. It might be answer'd, and that from the Context, that though it was an open Place, yet she knew that the green Stalks of Flax which lay there a drying would sufficiently cover those Persons, and keep them from being seen, especially in the Night-season. But I rather think that the Cun∣ning of this good Woman lay in this, that she carried them up to a Place that was known to be open and frequented, and therefore it could not be imagined that she would, or that she could hide them in the openest Place of her House. Here

was the Subtlety of this Female; she knew that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Body would look for them in that Place, for ther•• could not be the least suspition of their being there: however, she had taken a Course to pre∣vent their being discover'd, if the busy Searchers should have had the groundless Curiosity of looking into that Place.

Further, I might observe, that because Flat-roof∣ed Houses were the way of Building in thos•• Countries (and generally in all Asia) there was care taken to fence this Part about, that it might not be dangerous. Among the Jews this was by the particular Injunction of the Divine Archi∣tect, Deut. 22. 8. Thou shalt make a Battlement fo•• thy Roof. And the reason of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Muru•• per circuitum(as the Vulgar Latin renders it) is ad••ded, That thou bring not Blood upon thy House, if any Man fall from thence. The flat Roofs of their Houses were rail'd in, that none might slip off of them, and hazard their Lives. And here by the by, I may add, that this was the very Structure of the Temple; it was flat at top, and accord∣ingly was encompassed round with a Peribolus, a ••ett of Rails or Battlements: and this we are to un∣••erstand by the Pinnacle of the Temple, Mat. 4. 5. i. e. some Part, Side or Wing(as the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports) of the Battlements where∣with the Temple was surrounded at top, lest any ••hould fall down thence. And to confirm this In∣terpretation, I willl produce that Passage of Hege∣••ippus (quoted by1 1.167 Eusebius) who relates that some of the Pharisees, and others of the unbelieving Jews, came and requested Iames the Iust, the Bro∣ther of our Lord, and Bishop of Ierusalem, to

preach at the Passover, when the People came from all Parts to Ierusalem: and that he might be both seen and heard of all, they de••ired him to stand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on the Battlement of the Temple: and he further tells that he did so. It was a Place then that they might safely stand upon, otherwise St. Iames would not have consented to their request. Dr. Ham∣m••nd thinks this was the Top of the Battle∣ment, and adds that it was broad enough to stand upon: but supposing it was, yet it was unsafe to trust their Feet there, lest they should slip, Therefore I rather think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in St. Matthew, must not be taken as it is in the foremention'd Story: in the one it signifies the Top of the Rails or Battlement, a dangerous Place to stand upon, and for that reason the De∣vil set our Saviour there: but in the other we are to understand by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Place with∣in the Battlements, for the whole Space en∣compass'd with these had that Denomination. However we are hence inform'd that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not a Pinnacle or Spire, (for the Jewish Temple had no such thing, though some of our Church∣es have) but the exterior Circuit, which com∣passed the Top of the Temple, and was made to be an Ornament to it, as well as to prevent the Danger of falling down. This is the proper Notion of it among Grammarians (as1 1.168 Dr. Ham∣mond hath rightly noted:) and not only the Tem∣ple but every House had this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Battlement about it. This is the short Ac∣count which I thought fit to insert here of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as the Latins call them Solaria, (be∣cause

they lay open to the Sun and Air) the Flat Roofs with which the Houses heretofore (especially in the Asiatick Regions) were built. And this is certain that there is not so Early an Account in any Writers whatsoever of the Stru∣cture of the Antient Houses as this of the Sacred Penmen is.

CHAP. IV.

The first original of Letters and Writing is recorded here. The several kinds of Materials they wrote upon of Old. The Instruments with which they formed their Letters or Characters. The Antientest (as well as the most Excellent) History is in the Bi∣ble. So is the Antientest and most Admired Poetry. The first Invention and Practice of Musick, and on what Occasions it was wont to be made use of. The Rise of Natural Philosophy, and who were the first Founders of it. The Knowledg of the Holy Scriptures necessary in order to the due Study of Natural Philosophy. The first Instances of Anatomy, Medicks, Chirurgery, Embalm∣ing and the Apothecaries Employment, are in the Old Testament. Here are the first Examples of Shipping and Navigation. An Enquiry into the Place whither Solomon's Navy went every three Years: A Conjecture concerning Ophir. Astro∣nomy and Judiciary Astrology mention'd in Scrip∣ture Of War and Skill in Arms. The Nature of those Military Weapons which are spoken of in Scripture, particularly and distinctly enquir'd into. The Antiquity of Martial Ensigns and Standards. The vast Numbers which the Armies of old consisted of. The Scripture is not silent concerning Sportive Di∣versions and Exercises: some of which, but especially Dancing, are considered.

FROM Mechanical I proceed to Ingenious Arts and Sciences, or such as are approach∣ing to them; and I am to shew that the Sa∣cred History relates the first Rise and Original of

these. And what Liberal Art should I begin with but Grammar? what should this part of my Discourse commence with but Letters and Writing? Many have been very inquisitive about the First Author of these: and truly it is worth the En∣quiry, it being the Foundation of all Learning in the World. The1 1.169 Rabbins held that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Writing, and consequently Letters, were created among other things at the close of the sixth Day's Work of the Creation: but few that are sober will give Credit to this. They were found out before the Flood by Seth, ••aith the Jewish Antiquary; for according to2 1.170 him there were two Pillars, one of Stone, another of Brick, erected by that Godly Patriarch, on which he caused his Astrological Notions to be written. Afterwards (for we may suppose this Invention lost by the Flood, though the Pillars and Characters on them remain'd) Abra∣ham retrieved the Art of Writing, yea in manner invented it anew, saith Philo. But there is no Proof at all of what he or Iosephus saith concern∣ing this Matter, and therefore we may justly question the Truth of both. But supposing that Seth began this Art, and that Abraham improved it, we are certain of this, that Moses came and perfected it, having that mo••t Compleat Copy before him to instruct and direct him, the Tables written with the Finger of God, Exod. 31. 18. We read of no Writing in Scripture till this writing or engraving the Law on the Two Tables, which is call'd in another Place the Writing of God, Deut. 32. 16. There is no mention, I say, of any such thing before: wherefore it is likely God was the First Inventer of Letters or Writing, and that Mo∣ses

learnt it of him, and communicated it to the Jews, from whom other Eastern People received it, and so Letters were imparted to the rest of the World. Eupolemus and Artapanus, two very Antient Historians quoted by1 1.171 Clement of Alex∣andria, were of this Opinion, and asserted, that Letters had their original from Moses. This is favour'd by Clement himself, by2 1.172 Eusebius, by 3 1.173 Cyril of Alexandria: and4 1.174 St. Augustin inclines to it.

And this is confirmed from that general report of the Pagans, that from the Phoenicians all Let∣ters were derived. Particularly concerning the Greeks, Herodotus and Plutarch testify, that they recorded the Letters of their Alphabet from the Phoenicians, and that therefore they were call'd 5 1.175 the Phoenician Letters. Yea, the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 absolutely and by it self is, according to Hesychius, as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Lydians and Io∣nians. 6 1.176 Lucan makes the Phoenicians the first In∣venters of Letters,

Phoenices primi, famae si creditur, ausi Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris.

Now, when these are said to have first found out Letters, and when these Letters are signally sti∣led Phoenician, it is as much as if they had cal∣led them Hebrew Letters, (so named from that Fa∣mous▪ Hebrew Moses, and the People of that De∣nomination) for it is acknowledg'd by all the

Learned, that Phoenicians and Hebrews are ••••e same in several Authors. The old Distinctio•• was this,

1 1.177 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That is, those of Syria that inhabited the Contine•••• had the name of Syrians, but those that border'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Maritime Coasts, were call'd Phoenicians, w•••• were the same with the Canaanites. When w•• find Pliny professing,2 1.178 Literas semper arbitror Assyri•••• fuisse, we cannot but know that by Assyrian the Country of the Patriar••hs, and even the Iewish N••••tion are pointed at. When therefore he saith he is of Opinion, and always was, that Lette•••• were first of all Assyrian, it is certain that he co••••firms what I am now suggesting. And when th•• Gentile Historians tell us that the Invention 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Letters was from Cadmus, it is to our presen•• Purpose, to observe who this Cadmus was. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said to be a Tyrian or Phoenician, whence h•• hath the Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Syrophoeni••cian Traffiker, given him in Lucian's Council of th•• Gods. This was he that brought the use of Let∣ters to the Greeks: which shews that the Origini∣nal of them was from Canaan, from the Hebrews who were stiled Phoenicians. Besides, that the Greek Alphabet was taken from the Hebrew, not only the Names but the Order and Figure of most of the Letters do plainly shew. And when it is said by Plato, Diodorus Siculus, Tully and others, that Mercurius and Thoth (who were the same Person) were the Inventers of Letters and Erudition,

Moses is meant, for he is the true Mercurius, as I have had occasion to prove by very convincing Ar∣guments in another Place. This seems to be re∣ferred to in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Muses, who are the celebrated Authors of Learning and all Inge∣nious Arts; for1 1.179 Plato (who was the greatest Searcher into Antiquity of all the Philosophers) acknowledgeth that this Word is borrowed from the Barbarians: and 'tis well known who are the Barbarians with the Greeks, viz. the Hebrews; which makes me think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Corruption of Moses, and that what is said of the Muses is to be understood of him, and consequently that he was the First Inventer of Letters and of Learning. Hence it is that the same Divine Philosopher in another Place expresly testifies, that2 1.180 the Greeks received their Names and Letters from the Barbarians, who were elder than they. Lastly, I will mention that Notable Passage in3 1.181 Plutarch, who speaking of the Egyptians saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they think that Hermes was the Inven∣tor of Grammar: where by Grammar is meant all Good Letters, and by Hermes we are to understand Moses, who (as hath been said already) is univer∣sally own'd to be the Antient Hermes. To this Ex∣cellent Man it pleased God to reveal the Art of Writing, setting him an Illustrious Copy upon the two Tables with his own Hand; so that next unto God himself he was the first Inventer of Letters, or Written Characters: He who, when an Infant, was wrapp'd up in the Egyptian Papyrus, (as you shall hear afterwards) was most congruously the Principal Author of Writing on it, and adorning

that and other Materials with Letters. The first Penman and Writer of the Bible had the Glory of this Discovery, viz. to be the first Author of Wri∣ting.

These Sacred Records acquaint us also what were the First Ways of Writing or making Letters. They let us know what Materials they of old wrote upon, and what Instruments they wrote with. Here we learn that the first way of Writing was Sculp∣ture or Carving, i. e. they cut their Letters in Sto•••• or Wood, or some other hard and solid Matter. We read that Moses, or rather God himself, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 graved his Laws on Stone, Exod. 34. 1. Deut. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the People were commanded afterwards to write these very Laws after the same manner, Deut. 27. 3, 8. This is the First and Antient•••• Way of Writing that we read of. Stones were their Books of old. On these they engraved the Characters which they had learn'd. The Egypti•••••• did thus, saith1 1.182 Iamblichus, before their Invent•••••• of Paper. The Babylonians writ their Laws 〈◊〉〈◊〉 stony sort of Substance, saith2 1.183 Pliny. Of such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Writing speaks3 1.184 Herodotus. And all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Marble Monuments which Rome affords, and ar•••••• this Day to be seen, witness the Antiquity of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Engraving. On Wood and Trees it was usual to carve their Letters of old: Thus they writ the Names of the Tribes on twelve Rods, Numb. 17. ••. and Ezekiel was bid to write upon Sticks, sma•••• Pieces of Wood, Ezek. 37. 16. Writing on a T••∣ble, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the LXX, super bu•••••• according to the Vulgar Latin, Isa. 30. 8. may re∣fer to this, I suppose. This Writing in Wood was

not unusual among some of the Gentiles: So Shep∣herds and Lovers used to cut their Names on the Barks of Trees of old. This is called

4 1.185—Teeneris incidere amores Arboribus—

Some of the old Roman Laws were written in5 1.186 Ta∣bles of Oak: and from sufficient Testimonies in Au∣thors it might be proved that they cut Letters in Wooden Tables, i. e. thin Slices of Wood, which were call'd Codices. But afterwards it was the Custom to cover these Tables with Wax, and so to cut their Characters on it: of which sort it is pro∣bable was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Writing-Table that Zacharias call'd for, Luke 1. 63. These Waxen Boards were in use in the time of the Trojan War, as appears from Homer, Il. 6. And that they were frequent among the Romans and others, is attested by6 1.187 Pliny,7 1.188 Quintilian,8 1.189 Plautus, Martial, and most of the Latin Writers. Of engraving Letters in Gold there is an early Instance in Exod. 39. 30. where we are told that Holiness to the Lord was written on a Golden Plate, and worn on the High Priest's Head. So9 1.190 Dio relates that they antiently made Letters in Gold, and wrote in Silver. The drawing of legible Characters on Lead, i. e. thin Leaves of that Metal, is recorded in Iob 19. 24. of which there were afterwards Examples in Pa∣gan Writers, as in1 1.191 Pausanias, who tell us, that Hesiod's Poems were thus written. And Publick Records and Decrees, saith2 1.192 the other Pliny, were

wont to be transcribed into these Sheets of Lead, because they were accounted Lasting and Durable For the same Reason the Twelve Tables of the Ol•• Roman Laws that were fix'd up in publick were written on Plates of Brass, as a great Number of good Latin Authors testify. And ••ome, to pre∣serve what they writ, imprinted Characters on Slices of Iv••ry, thence call'd Libri Elephantini in Tacitus and Flavius Vopiscus. Thus Sculpture was one antient way of Writing among Men, of whi•••• the First Instances are to be found in the Holy Scripture. And I doubt not but A••oliab, who w•••• the Chief Master of3 1.193 Engraving (and that by the particular Inspiration of Heaven) was the fi•••••• Improver of this sort of Letters. This was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Primitive Writing of Mankind: the First Lett•••••• were cut and engraven, which indeed may be fou•••• in the very Word; for to grave is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is thence derived without doubt.

As hither to we have seen by Help of the Sacr•••• Records that Sculpture or E••••r••tion was the an•••• entest sort of Characters, so These likewise in••o•• us that Painting was the next, i. e. that Lett•••••• were generally drawn and pou••trayed in some bla•••• or ••able kind of ••olouring. And to this end, i••••stead of those Hard Materials which were mad•• use of in writing before, there were others a••ter∣wards found out of a more tractable Nature. The Scripture doth not mention those that were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seldom and little used, as Leav••s of Trees, espe••••••ally 4 1.194 Palms, which was the way ••f the5 1.195 Si•••••• transmitting some of their Verses. And that of old they wrote sometimes on Leaves not only of

Trees but Flowers, is more than once witnessed by Virgil and Ovid. Still to this Day we seem to re∣tain the Memory of this antient way of Writing when we say a Leaf of Paper, and Books in Folio. Nor are the thin Coats or Rinds which were between the Bark and Body of Trees, and were used in Writing of old, (as6 1.196 several relate) and from whence came the Name of Liber at first, mention'd by the Holy Writers, because their Use continued but a little time, and they were of little Service. Much less is there any thing said of writing in Li∣nen, (which yet7 1.197 Livy,8 1.198 Pliny,9 1.199 Vopiscus, and others, take notice of) because this was used among the Indians and such remote People as the Sacred History had no occasion to speak of. But those Materials for writing which were of constant Use, and that among most Nations, as Papyr and Parchment, are either expresly mention'd or tacite∣ly referr'd to. The former was made of broad Rushes and Flags, which grew in great abundance in Egypt: of which the Prophet Isaiah foretelling the Confusion of that Country speaketh, ch. 19. v. 6, 7. The Reeds and Flags shall wither: the Paper∣Reeds by the Brooks shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. The Gnaroth, the Materials for Wri∣ting, which were so celebrated all the World over, and which were the peculiar Commodity of Egypt, and which brought in so great Revenues to that Nation, these, even these shall decay, the Traffick of them shall cease. Yea, when 'tis said that Moses was laid in an Ark of Bull-rushes, Exod. 2. 3. a1 1.200 Great Critick tells us, that the Papyrus is

meant here; and for this he quotes2 1.201 Lucan,

Conseritur bibulâ Memphitis cymba papyro.

And before him St. Ierom (the most Critical of all the Fathers) thought the Egyptian Rushes, of which the first Paper was made, are to be under∣stood in this Place, and therefore Gome (which is the Word here used) is rendred by him Papyr••••. And he it is likely had this from3 1.202 Iosep••us, who ac∣quaints us that the Ark in which Moses was secured, was made of this great Flag growing on the Banks of Nile, of which they made Leaves to write on, and whence our Paper at this Day hath its Name. It was divided into thin Flakes, which were press'd and dried in the Sun, and so were made service∣able to write upon in some tolerable manner. Of this4 1.203 Pliny and several other Writers speak; and thence Nile is call'd Papyriferus by5 1.204 Ovid.

Parchment, which was made of Sheep Skins, or the thinner Skins of other Animals dress'd, was another thing they writ upon. The best of this sort was made at Pergamus, and thence had its Name Pergamena but it was invented before Atta∣lus King of Peragamus his time, (though the con∣trary hath been believ'd by some Men) and was in use at the same time that the Egyptian Papyrus was; only this was used for common Purposes, and the other for more choice Writing, and such as they designed should last a long time. Therefore it is most probable that the Books of the Mosaick Law, and the rest of the Old Testament, were tran∣scrib'd into this. Moses writ the Words of the Law,

gnal sepher, upon a Book, Deut. 31. 24. i. e. on Parchment, saith Ionathan the Chaldee Paraphrast on the place; for so he and other Learned Jews un∣derstood the Text. This is meant by Megillah a Roll, Ezra 6. 2. and Megillah sepher a Roll of a Book, Jer. 36. 2. and Gillaion a Roll, Isa. 8. 1. and a Scroll rolled together, Isa. 34. 4. for it was Parchment (which is of some Consistency) not thin and weak Paper, that was capable of being thus rolled up. To this6 1.205 Herodotus refers when he saith that writing on Skins was used by the Barbarians, meaning the Eastern People, especially the Iews. And7 1.206 Iose∣p••us avoucheth that the Books of the Old Testa∣ment were written in Sheets of Parchment exactly joined and fastned together, of which Testimony of his I have spoken in another Place. It is the gene∣ral Opinion of Interpreters, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are meant Writing- Parchments, 2 Tim. 4. 13. but I have heretofore proposed another Sense of that Word, and therefore I make no use of this Place here. It is likely that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Scroll rolled together, Rev. 6. 14. refers to this. And though I will not aver that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which our Translators render Pa∣per) 2 Ioh. v. 12. is to be understood Parchment, yet it is not wholly improbable, for this was the usual Word to signify any thing that they writ upon, whether Egyptian Reeds, or Leaves of Lead, or Gold, or Stone, or Wood, or any of the other writing Materials before specified. The Matter, whatever it was, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Charta, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (and this from the Hebrew Charath seulpsit, exaravit) for this was a general Term, and signified any thing that had Characters engraven or written upon it.

But the Scripture hath not only taken notice of the Materials on which they wrote of old, but of the Instruments with which they form'd their Let∣ters on them. I mean here such as were of com∣mon Use, and therefore we must not expect that it should say any thing of the Rubrica, (mention'd by8 1.207 Persius and others) which serv'd sometimes instead of Pen and Ink. With this they writ o•• rather mark'd their Titles of Books; whence that of9 1.208 Iuvenal,

—P••rlege rubras Majorum leges —.

At other times they made use of Chalk, and of Coal, both which are mention'd by1 1.209 Persius,

Illa priùs cretà, mox b••••c carbone notasti.

But these were used only on special Occasions, and were not the ordinary manner of Writing, there∣fore 'tis no wonder that the Bible is wholly silent a•• to this. But it mentions the Writing Instruments that were of common Use; as first those which were peculiar to the Harder Materials, those wherewith they made Incision into Stone, Wood, &c. Accordingly it tells us, that they used an Iron Pen or Style, and therewith cut what Cha∣racters they thought fit in them. Of this we have mention in Iob 19. 24. where that holy Man wis••∣••th that his Complaints were written down and recorded, that future Ages might take notice of them; which Moses, or some other Inspired Person who digested and compiled this Book, thus ex∣presset••, O that my Words were engraven with an Iron Pen and Lead, with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Seventy) made of Iron, and with Lead,

plumbi laminâ, (as the Vulgar Latin) a thin Sheet or Plate of Lead, on which they engraved Letters with this Iron Pen. And in the next Clause of this Verse he wisheth yet further, that his Words might be written in the Rock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as the LXX render it) ut sculpantur in silice, the Vulgar Latin following the Septuagint, as it generally doth every where; which refers to the antient manner of writing in those Days, which was by Engraving of Letters not only on Leaden Tables, but on Stone and Flint, with Iron Pens or Bodkins. These were the first Instruments used in writing in the World. And when Ieremiah saith,2 1.210 The Sin of Judah is written with a Pen of Iron, and graven upon the Table of their Hearts, it is an Allusion to this Practice: though here another Word is used, viz. Cheret (from Charath, sculpsit, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which is a graving Tool, and so is rendred, Exod. 32. 4. With this they made the Letters on Wood and Stone, and such like hard Substance, and in Wax-Tables.

Next, the Scripture takes notice of the antient Instrument which was proper to the other way of writing, viz. upon the softer Materials, as the Papyrus and Parchment. This is called Shebet (which Word in other Places is rendred a Scepter): We read that the Tribe of Zebulon afforded some that handled the Pen of the Writer, Judg. 5. I4. such as were dexterous at this Instrument, such as knew how to wield this Shebet, this Writing-Scepter, with Art and Skill. In other Places it hath the same Names that were given to the Engraving Pen: thus it is stiled Cheret, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Sep∣tuagint) Isa. 8. 1. the Pen of a Man, i. e. such a

Pen as Men usually writ with in those Days when they wrote upon any soft and yielding Matter, and that was a Reed: which is confirm'd to us by Ier. 8. 8. where Gnet, the Pen of the Scribes, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek Interpreters. And in Psal. 45. 1. where it is again call'd Gnet, the Pen of a ready Wri∣ter, the same Interpreters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Vulgar Latin Calamus, which is the Word used by Martial and others for the Egyp∣tian Reed, Which was the Writing Pen in their time;

1 1.211 Dat chartis habiles calamos Memphitica tellus.

And Aquila, a Learned Jew, who knew the genuine Meaning of the Hebrew Word in this Place, ren∣ders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. juncus, arundo aquatica, where∣with they antiently writ. It appears then that Egypt afforded both Paper and Pens; the former was of that Rushy Plant before described, the lat∣ter were of a Reed growing in the same Place, viz. about the River Nile and the fenny Parts of Egypt, which being dried and hardned, and conveniently shaped, was the usual Instrument of writing before the Invention of Quills, It was so made, that it would contain and convey in it a black sort of Li∣quor, (which answers to our Ink which we use at this Day) into which they used to dip it. To this antient writing with Ink or such like dark Substance some have thought Ezek. 9. 2. hath reference, where we read of the Writers Inkhorn; but though the Hebrew Word be rendred Atramentarium by the Vulgar Latin, yet in its Original Signification it hath no reference to that particular thing, but may be translated a Pen-case, or a Writing-Table,

as well as an Inkhorn. From the bare Sound of the English Word we cannot infer the thing it self. We may as well affirm the Art of Printing was found out and practised in Iob's Days, because he wisheth that his Words were printed in a Book, Job 19. 23. But there is a Place to our purpose, and that is Ier. 36. 18. I wrote them (i. e. the Words which Ieremy spoke) with Ink in a Book. The An∣tient way of writing appears from what Baruch here saith, that he wrote Ieremiah's Prophecy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 atramento, which was the black and inky Mat∣ter (whatever it was) that was laid on by his Pen in writing. This is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mention'd 2 Cor. 3. 3 2 Ep. Iohn v. 12. and again 3 Epist. v. 13. where it is joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Which shews what was at that time the way of writing, viz. with Reed-Pens dipp'd in Ink, which (as we are told by Pliny and Persius) was variously prepared. The Greeks and Romans made it of Soot, saith the1 1.212 former of these Writers: and from him and2 1.213 Persius we learn that the Africans used the dark Excrementitious Hu∣mour which the Sepia afforded them: and other black Juices serv'd for Ink in other Countries. Thus the most Antient as well as the most Authen∣tick Memoirs concerning Letters and the Manner of Writing are in the Books of the Holy Penmen. Thus the Foundation of all Grammar, and the Root of all Learning is laid here.

Next unto Grammar I might mention History, the first Father of which was Moses, whose Wri∣tings begin the Bible. All that I will say of him under this present Character is this, that we are solely indebted to him for our Knowledg of the Transactions of the First Ages of the World. As

he wrote before all other Historians, so he gives us an Account of those things which none besides doth; wherefore his Books are the Key of all Hi∣story. To him are added Others, who are not only of admired Antiquity, but ought to be prized as much for the Admirable and Various Matter they communicate. Here are Excellent Historical Passages of all sorts, Religious and Civil, Sacred and Profane, Foreign and Domestick, relating to Politicks and Oeconomicks, to Publick and Pri∣vate Affairs. Yea, the1 1.214 Title of Procopius's Histo∣ry belongs only and properly to these Sacred Chro∣nicles, for here the Secrets and Depths of all An∣tient Occurrences are contain'd, and here are those Choice Materials which no other Histories furnish us with. But I should be endless if I should enlarge here by particularizing; therefore I will not launch out, but only commend to the Reader the Learned Endeavours of Strigelius in his Commentaries on the Books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, where he will be amply convinc'd of the unparallell'd Diver∣sity, Multiplicity, and Peculiar Excellency of the Historical Examples in Scripture.

The Antientest Poetry is in the Old Testament: for as Moses was the first Historian, so he is the first Poet that is ••xtant. A Proof of this we have in that Eucharistick Song which he composed upon his passing the Red Sea, and is recorded in Exod. 15. An Admirable Hymn it is, and in Hexameter Verse, if2 1.215 Iosephus may be Judg in this Matter, and if a Christian Father may be credited, who had more Hebrew than most of the Writers of the Church in his time, yea more than all of them ex∣cept Origen. But whether this be true or no, this

is without Controversy, that there is no Piece of Poetry in the World that hath the Priority of this of Moses: for Orpheus, who is reckon'd by the Pagans as the First Poet, was, according to the most favourable Computation of some of their Historians, three hundred Years after Moses, and Homer was towards six hundred. Besides this Di∣vine Hymn, there are other Antient ones of the like nature recorded in the same Authentick Wri∣tings, viz. Deborah's Song, Iudg. 5. which hath many Noble Flights of Poetry; and that of Han∣nah; the Mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. 2. 1, &c. which hath Excellent Poetick Raptures. And here by the way I will offer this Conjecture, that perhaps from Miriam's bearing her part in Moses's Song, (Exod. 15•• 20, 21.) and from these other Womens Poetick Inspiration, which came to be celebrated among the neighbouring Nations, the Poets (who, as I have largely shew'd elsewhere, have frequent Re∣ferences to the Old Testament) took occasion to report that Poetry was of Female Extraction, and that Calliope, one of that Sex, was the Author of their Faculty. Other famous Instances there are here of this Sacred Art, as David's Incomparable Elegy on the Death of Saul and Ionathan, 2 Sam. 1. 16, &c. that Gratulatory Hymn in the 12th Chapter of Isaiah; Hezekiah's Song of Praise in the 38th of the same Prophet; Habakkuk's Lofty Description of the Divine Majesty and Greatness in Poetick Num∣bers, chap. 3. the Stile of which is far more sub∣lime and majestick than any of Orpheus or Pindar's Odes. I appeal to any Man of Skill, and that hath a right Poetick Genius, whether this be not true. And as there are these single Hymns and Songs, so there are Just Poems, for of the Books of the Old Testament there are six that are com∣posed

and writ in Verse, viz. the Books of Iob, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamen∣tations. As to the Nature of the Hebrew Poesy, and the Kinds of Verses which are in the Bible, the Learned1 1.216 Mersennus and others have given us some Account of them, but it is very short and mean, and much of it is mere Surmise, and there∣fore I will not trouble the Reader with it. A late Writer hath attempted to prove that the Hebrew Verse or Poetry of the Old Testament is in Rhythm; which I believe is true in many Places: and if the Pronuntiation and Sound were the very same now that they were when these Poetick Books were composed, we should observe the Cadence in them more frequently. But he goes too far in asserting that all the Hebrew Poesy in Scripture is Rhythm∣ed, for they were not so exact at first: though the Verses end with the same Sound sometimes, yet generally they took a Liberty. Upon Examination we may find this to be true, and I may have occa∣sion to say something further of it when I come to speak particularly of the Psalms. But the other Assertion, viz. that the Psalms and other Pieces of Hebrew Poetry are always Rhythmical, necessarily infers a great many Faults and Mistakes in the Scripture, it supposes several Places to be cor∣rupted and mangled, (for we do not find all the Poetry of the Bible to be such at this day) and consequently subverts the Truth and Authority of the Bible, which is by no means to be allowed of. All that I will add under this Head is, that even among the Gentiles, the first and antientest Wri∣ters, were Poets.2 1.217 Strabo undertakes to shew that Poetry was before Prose, and that this is but an

Imitation of that. It can't be denied that the First Philosophers writ in Verse, as Orpheus, par∣menides, Empedocles, Theognis, Phocylides, &c. and thence (as1 1.218 One of the Learnedest Men of our Age observes) the Moral Precepts of the Philoso∣phers were call'd of old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Carmina. The Grecian Oracles were delivered in Verse. Concerning the Agathyrsi we are told by Aristotle, that their Laws were all in Metre. Concerning the Old Germans, Tacitus relates that their very Re∣cords and Annals were in Verse. And all this, it is probable, was in Emulation of the First Sacred Writers, the Penmen of the Old Testament, in whose Writings there are several things dictated in Measure, and some entire Books are altogether Metrical; for it was the Design of the Holy Ghost to delight as well as profit.

With Poetry let us join Musick, it being of so near Affinity with it: and the First Inventer of this also is to be known only from the Scripture; which informs us, that Iubal, the Son of Lamech the sixth from Adam, was the Father of such as han∣dle the Harp and Organ, Gen. 4. 21. From whose Name some have thought the Iubilee was called, because it was proclaim'd with Musick. The po∣ets tell us, that Apollo and Mercury were the first Authors of it, by whom it is not improbable they meant Moses, who first gives an Account of the Original of this Art, and might well be repre∣sented by Apollo because of his Singular Wisdom, and by Mercury because he was the First Interpreter of the Divine Will in his Writings, and on other Accounts merited that Name, as I have evidenc'd in another Place. Perhaps the Story of Pythago∣ras's

finding our Musical Notes from the Strokes of the Hammers upon the Smith's Anvil, was sugge∣sted from this, that the first Musical Instrume•••••• were made of Iron and Brass, the Metals of the Smith and Brasier. Or, if I should guess•• it a downright Mistake of Tu••al for Iubal, (Sons of the same Father) a Smith for a Musician, or that it was suggested from the Musick of their Name•• (Tu••al and Iubal having some affinity in the Sound) it would be hard to disprove it. But that which is certain is this, that as the First Inventers o•• other things are recorded in Scripture, so parti∣cularly is he that found out Musick; and by the Harp and the Organ all other Musical In••trument•• are meant, whether Pulsative or Pneumatick. And it is not improbable that the same Person was the Author of Vocal Musick, it being so natural and usual to join this with the other.

These Inspired Writings are the first that te•••• us on what Occasions these several forts of Mu•••••• were used of old: as namely, first in a Religious Way. Harmony both Vocal and Instrumental was primitively consecrated to God, as we learn from Exod. 15. where 'tis said that they not only sang unto the Lord, v. 1. and that Alternately, (for Miriam ans••ored them, viz. the Persons that ••ung before: she repeated their Song, ••. 21. which s••ews the Antiquity of that Alternate way of Sing∣ing) but they made use of Timbrels, v. 20. And afterwards in David's Reign it more solemnly be∣came a Religious Exercise, he so often making use of it in his own personal and private Devoti∣ons. For he was not only an Excellent Poet, and compos'd psalms and Hymns, (which by the by shews that Poetry is an Accomplishment worthy of a Prince, yea of a Saint) but he plaid with great Skill

on Musical Instruments. Hence he mentions his Harp and other Instruments often in his Book of Psalms. And it appears from what we read in 1 Sam. 16. 19. that he was initiated into this Art betimes, and was very Eminent in it when he was a Young Man, otherwise he would not have been sent for to Court. But he not only made and plai'd his Psalms, but he sung them, and was so famous for it, that he is by way of Eminency, stiled1 1.219 the Sweet Psalmist, or Singer of Israel. Nor was Musick his own Entertainment only, but it was by him constituted a part of the Publick Worship. He being Poetical and Musical, endited Hymns, and his skilful Musitians2 1.220 set them to grave and serious Tunes, and then they were devoted to the Church, and do still remain Patterns of Devotion, and so shall to all Ages. To the Religious Use of Musick both of Voice and Instrument, those words in Psal. 68. 25. refer; The Singers (Sharim, the Prin∣ces or Chief Masters of Singing) ••ent before, the Nogenim, the players on Instruments follow'd after: amongst them (or in the middle of them, according to the Hebrew, viz. between the Singing-men and Players) were the Damsels playing with Timbrels. So that both Sexes were wont to join in consort at the joyful bringing forth and procession of the Ark, which are here meant, and called the goings of God in the Sanctuary, v. 24. To this belongs2 1.221 Sam. 6. 5. David and all the House of Israel play'd before the Lord on all manner of Instruments, viz. at the removal of the Ark. And those Musical Instru∣ments are particularly and distinctly mention'd in the next Words, Harps, Psalteries, Timbrels, Cornets, Cymbals. Afterwards, in Solomon's time

when the Temple was erected, and Singing-men and diverse Orders and Degrees of Musicians were appointed, some being Masters, others Scho∣lars and Candidates, (as we may inform our selves from 1 Chron. 15. 22. & 25. 7. Ne••. 12. 46.) Musick was a considerable Part of Divine Service. And there was not only Singing of Psalms, but playing upon Instruments, of which some were 1 1.222 Neginoth, such as yielded a Sound by touch or stroak, others were2 1.223 Nechiloth Wind-Instruments. This was the pompous Service of the Jewish Church, this was the Temple-Musick, which began not (as Dr. Lightfoot thinks) till the pouring out of the Drink-Offering, when the Cup of Salvation (as the Psalmist calls it) went about. And here also it might be observ'd, that the Religious and Prophe∣tick Raptures of holy Men were attended with, and promoted by Musick: thus a company of Prophets came down from the high Place (where they had been worshipping) with a psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and Harp before them, 1 Sam. 10. 5. praising God with Songs which the Holy Spirit dictated to them. Thus the famous Prophet Elisha call'd for a Minstrel, and when the Minstrel play'd, the Hand of the Lord came upon him, 2 Kings 3. 15. i. e. he was stirr'd up thereby to undertake and accomplish great things for the Glory of God, of which you read in the ensuing Verses. It is no wonder there∣fore that Musick was thought to be Divine, that it was (as Plato faith of it) the Invention3 1.224 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And though he spoke this of the Egyp∣tian Musick, yet all the Learned know that the Pa∣gan Writers commonly call that Egyptian which is Hebrew, for they were wont to take the Iews

for Natives of Egypt: and then it is not to be doubted that the Sacred Use and Improvement of Musick among the Iews was referr'd to by this Phi∣losopher. Thus Musick was first dedicated to Re∣ligion and Divine Worship.

But we read that upon other Occasions also it was made use of, viz. at all solemn times of Rejoi∣cing. Hence Laban complimented Iacob after this Manner, that if he had known of his Intentions of going away from him, he would have sent him away with Mirth and with Songs, with Tabret and with Harp, Gen. 31. 27. It seems this was the Antient Entertainment at their Farewels. And the same was used at all great Festivals, the Harp and the Viol, the Tabret and Pipe (as well as Wine) are in their Feasts, Isa. 5. 12. They chaunt to the sound of the Viol, Am. 6. 5. And therefore to express the Cessation of these Feasts, it is said, the Mirth of Tabrets ceaseth, the Ioy of the Harp ceaseth, Isa. 24. 8. Yea, at the most Innocent Festivals this was not thought unlawful, as may be gather'd from Luk. 15. 25. where at the solemn Eating and Drinking which were occasion'd by the prodigal Son's re∣turn, there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Consort of many Voi∣ces and Instruments, as the Word properly im∣ports. This (as multitudes of Authors acquaint us) was the general Usage among the old Greeks and Romans. And what if I should ••ay that this is meant by1 1.225 Homer's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? (Whence perhaps the Word Anthems) for Musick was on•• of the constant Attendants at their Feasts. This likewise was the manner of expressing their Mirth at Tidings of Victory, and the Triumphal Return of Generals and Captains: thus Iephthah's Daugh∣ter

came out to meet him with Timbrels, Judg. 11. 34. When David and Saul returned from the Slaughter of the Philistines, the Women came out of all Cities of Israel singing and dancing, to meet them, with Tabrets, with Ioy, and with Instruments of Music••, 1 Sam. 18. 6. And 'tis added in the next Verse, The Women answered one another as they plaid: which is another Instance of Alternate Singing. This was the Custom at the Coronation of Kings, 2 Chron. 23. 13. All the People of the Land rejoiced, and ••ounded with Trumpets, also the Singers with Instru∣ments of Musick. And at all other Seasons of Mirth this was the wonted Diversion and Entertainment. Yea, it was used on special Occasions to expel Melancholy, and to free Men of their Distem∣pers both of Body and Mind: otherwise they would not have sought out a Man that was a cunning Player on a Harp, to allay the evil Spirit with which King Saul was troubled, 1 Sam. 16. 16. And we read how effectual this proved, ver. 23. It came to pass when the evil Spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a Harp, and plaid with his Hand: so Saul was refreshed and was well, and the evil Spirit departed from him. So powerful and charming are the Chearful Airs of Musick. Con∣formably to which we find in Pagan Story that Dis∣cases and Madness have been cured by these: so that Apollo was deservedly made by the Antient Sages the God of Medicks as well as Musick. By which Fiction they acquaint us that this Art is Medicinal and Healing. This reminds me of what our Chronicles attest, that St. Bartholomew's Hospi∣tal was founded by a Minstrel. How congruously do the Musi••al and Sanative Art meet together? Who hath not heard of the strange and wonder∣ful Virtue of Harmony? Timotheus did what he

would with Alexander the Great by playing on his Harp: he had such a Command over him by those powerful Strokes, that he could make him Fight or Drink, hasten to War or Banquets as he pleas'd. And not only Men, but Brutes have been capable of this Charm: several wild Beasts are catch'd, and Birds are enticed to the Net with Musick. Nay we are told by the Poetick Tribe, that Senseless and Inanimate Creatures have felt the Force of it: which indeed is Roman∣tick if you take it literally, but the intended De∣sign of this Flourish was to express to us the Won∣derful and Astonishing Virtue of this Delight∣ful Art. Hence it is that the Noblest Minds have not disdained to be acquainted with it, the most serious Brains have been entertain'd and ravish'd with its agreeable Pleasures: so Plutarch reports of Plato; and concerning Socrates we are inform'd by another that even1 1.226 in his declining Years he was a Student and Practitioner in this Art. Lastly, Mu∣sick was made use of of old at Funerals, of which afterwards.

Again, The Rise of Philosophy (Which is so use∣ful to Mankind) and the best Grounds of it are learnt from this Divine Volume. Here we are told that Natural Philosophy was founded by Adam; for no less is comprehended in those words, Gen. 2. 19, 20. The Lord God brought every Beast of the Field, and every Fo••l of the Air unto Adam, to see what he ••ould call them: and whatsoever Adam call'd every living Creature, that was the Name thereof. And Adam gave Names to all Cattel, and to the Fowl of the Air, and to every Beast of the Field. And 'tis reasonable to believe that he also gave Names to

Plants, Trees, Herbs, and all Celestial and Ter∣restrial Creatures. Now, it is not to be questi∣on'd that their Names were bestow'd upon them according to their particular Nature; for this Great Nomenclator was created perfect by God, and endued with the Knowledg of all natural and divine Things, and therefore in fixing certain Names on them, he thereby signified their pecu∣liar natural Qualities. And that he really did so, is manifest from his giving a Name to his Fe∣male Companion; as soon as God brought her to him, he presently knew her by virtue of that ex∣cellent Instinct and Knowledg wherewith he was created, and said, This is now Bone of my Bones, and Flesh of my Flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man, Gen. 2. 23. We see here that the Name Ishah or Woman was impos'd accord∣ing to the nature and condition of the Person: and can any Man of deliberate Thoughts imagine that the same was not done in the naming of the Inferior Creatures? No certainly; especial∣ly if we take notice of the like manner of expres∣sing this and the other Imposition of Names: for as 'tis said here, God brought the Woman to the Man, v. 22. whereupon he gave her her Denominati∣on, so in the foregoing place it is said, God brought the Creatures unto Adam, viz. in order to their receiving their Names from him. Nay, this very thing is particularly express'd in that forecited Text, which speaks of this Action of Adam, (tho Expositors are not pleas'd to take notice of it) God brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them. Where to see refers not to God (as general∣ly Interpreters think) but to Adam. The Crea∣tures were brought on purpose that he might see, i. e. that he might know by looking on them what

their Nature was, and that accordingly he might know how to give Names to them. For it is not reasonable to think that this is spoken of God, as if he himself would see or know, &c. for this would argue imperfection in him, and would im∣ply that he knew not at that time what they were to be called, or at least what Adam would call them. Therefore this Interpretation which I give of the Words is rather to be embraced than the other. We are acquainted here with the End and Purpose for which all Living Things were sum∣mon'd to appear before Adam, viz. that he might give them Names which denoted their Nature. Accordingly some of them that we meet with in Scripture give an Account of the Qualities they are endued with. And though it is true that some of them signify only their Outward and Visible Qualities, yet we are to remember that it was not easy to discover even These at the first View of the Creatures, and therefore Man's Sagacity was tried by it. And besides, the Primitive Significations of many Names (as all the Learned acknowledg) are lost, and by length of time are forgot; so that though some of these Words whereby Animals are express'd, seem not to set forth their Internal Na∣ture and Disposition, yet we cannot thence pe∣remptorily infer that they did not so at first, yea that they do not so now, though we do not com∣prehend it by reason of our being unacquainted with the Original Derivations of Words. I con∣clude then, that the Creatures were brought to Adam to give him an early Opportunity of exert∣ing his Knowledg and Wisdom in fitly distin∣guishing the several sorts of Creatures by their particular Names: and accordingly, whatever he ••all'd them, that was their Name. Thus it is clear

that this Nomenclatorship of Adam is a certain Ar∣gument of the Insight which he had into the Na∣tures of these Animals: and all the Iewish Rabbins and Commentators on the Place acknowledg as much. And thence is that Observation of1 1.227 Plato, that there is something extraordinary and Divine in the Antient Names of things: they arose from a more than humane Power, he saith. It is not to be doubted then that Adam was the First Philosopher, and laid the Foundation of all Philosophick Noti∣ons. Next to him I will mention Moses, who (as I have partly shew'd already, and shall more fully afterwards, when I present the Reader with a Par∣ticular Comment on the first Chapter of Genesis) was well skill'd in the true Principles of Nature, and perfectly understood the Right System of the World. It is said of this Great Man that he was learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7. 22. which comprehends not only Arithmetick, Geo∣metry, Astronomy, all Parts of Mathematicks, Phy∣sicks, of all which there are several remarkable Strictures in the Pentateuch, but Moral Philosophy, with which his Books are every-where fraught. Solomon also was a most profound Philosopher, as those Words in 1 Kings 4. 29, &c, amply testify, God gave Solomon Wisdom and Vnderstanding ex∣ceeding much. His Wisdom excell'd the Wisdom of all the Children of the East-Country, and all the Wis∣dom of Egypt. He spake of Trees, from the Cedar-tree that is in Lebanon, even to the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall: he spake also of B••asts, and of Fowl, and of creeping things, and of Fishes. And, as2 1.228 Iosephus adds,

after the same manner he

discours'd of All Terestrial Things: for he was ignorant of no natural Things, he pass'd by none of them unexamin'd, but philosophized con∣cerning every one of them, and fully discuss'd the Properties and Nature of them.

Thus he was certainly the Greatest Natural Historian that ever was: and his Book of Proverbs, and that which is entituled Ecclesiastes, abundantly inform us what skill he had in Ethicks, Oeconomicks, Politicks: so that we may justly stile him an Vniversal Philo∣sopher. Iob's skill in the choicest Parts of Physicks is evident from his excellent Discourses and Dis∣quisitions concerning Thunder, the Clouds, the Sea, Chap. 26. concerning Minerals and other Fossiles, and Fountains, Chap. 28. concerning Rain, Va∣pours, Snow, Hail, and other Meteors, Chap. 37. & 38. And several sorts of Animals, both wild and tame, with their chiefest Properties and Qua∣lities, are discours'd of in Chapters 39, 40, 41.

And here I must insert this, that the Knowledg and Study of the Bible are absolutely necessary in order to the Study of Natural Philosophy. It is a very good Thought of an Ingenious Man,1 1.229

The Doctrine of the Scriptures, saith he, is to be well imbi••ed before young Men be enter'd into Natural Philosophy; because Matter being a thing that all our Senses are constantly conver∣sant with, it is so apt to possess the Mind, and exclude all other Beings but it self, that Preju∣dice grounded on such Principles often leaves no room for the admittance of Spirits, or the allow∣ing any such things as immaterial Beings in the nature of things.

Which shews the neces••ity of

our conversing with the Inspired Writings, whe•• we have abundant Proofs of the Existence and O∣peration of those Invisible Agents. No Book •• so fully and demonstratively convince us of their Being and Power as the Holy Scriptures. And the grand Reason, in my Opinion, why so many reject the Notion of Spirits, and run into wild and extra∣vagant Notions, which are the Consequent of it▪ is, because they are unacquainted with, and (which is more) dislike this Book, which is the Basis of a•••• Natural Philosophy, in that we have here an irre∣fragable Demonstration of those Incorporeal Be∣ings. Whence it follows that no Man can be a Good Naturalist, if he be a Stranger to the Hol•• Writings, much more if he slights and vilifi•••• them. We shall perpetually fluctuate without an Adherence to these Infallible Records. The Car∣tesian, and indeed the whole Corpuscularian Philoso∣phy depraves Mens Minds, unless it be temper'd by these. Nay, I may say, the Study of Nature, ab∣stract from them, will lead us into Scepticism and Atheism: for many Substantial Notions as well as Phaenomena are utterly unaccountable without Help from this Book. But this rectifies our Appre∣hensions, and gives us a true Account of the State of Things, and of the Government of the World, which is managed chiefly by Spiritual and Immate∣rial Substances. This salves the most surprizing Difficulties, by acquainting us with the Spring of the Generality of those Motions and Transactions which are observable in Natural Bodies. In short, this will season and qualify our Speculations con∣cerning Nature and all its Operations: for when the Operations and Results of Matter are defective, here we are taught to have Recourse to a Higher Principle. Thus the Bible lays a Foundation for

our Study of Philosophy, and is it self the Best Bo∣dy of Philosophy, I mean on the foresaid Account, because it assures us of the Existence of Spirits, by whose Influence so many Works of Nature (and those of the greatest Importance in the World) are effected. This was known of old by the Name of the Barbarick Philosophy; and 'tis frequently call'd so by1 1.230 Clement of Alexandria; and both he and2 1.231 Eusebius, and some3 1.232 Modern Writers, have shew'd that the Grecian Philosophy was derived from this: Which indeed was the Confession of some Considerable Men among the Pagans; whence Dio∣genes Laertius tells us this was their Saying,4 1.233 Philo∣sophy had its Original from the Barbarians, i. e. the Hebrews; which is as much as to say, that all the true Notions about God and Providence, and the Souls of Men, and other great Doctrines in Philo∣sophy, are taken from the Jewish Writings, the Sa∣cred and Inspired Scriptures.

In the next Place, the Antiquity of Medicks, Chirurgery, Anatomy, Embalming, is likewise disco∣ver'd here: For Ioseph commanded the physicians to embalm his Father, and the physicians embalmed Is∣rael, Gen. 50. 2. The Word here repeated is Ro∣phim, and it is the proper Hebrew Word for Men skill'd in Medicks, and there is no other. Where∣fore Vatablus and some others are mistaken, who fancy this Place is not meant of Physicians properly so called, because this Term is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Septuagint, and because they are bid to embalm Jacob. Whence they infer that they were not Physicians in the Sense that we use the Word in at this day, viz. for such as take care of sick and

diseased Persons, and endeavour by their Skill and Art to restore them to Health, but that they were only Embalmers, that is, that their sole Office and Employment was to take care of the dead Bodies, and to preserve them from putrifying. But this Misapprehension had its Rise from this, that they judged of Physicians and their Employments ac∣cording to what they see now, according to the Practice of these Days, which no Man of due Co••∣sideration and unprejudiced Judgment ought to do. For of old the Physician was both Chirurgeon and Embalmer; yea, even in Hippocrates's time the Work of the Physician and Chirurgion was not different, but the very same. In Antienter times, much more these, Professions were united, and were the Employment of the same Person. It is no wonder therefore that Embalming was annex'd to it, and constantly went along with it, for the Chirurgion or Physician (call him which you will, or both) was the Man that had Skill to dissect Bo∣dies in order to their Pollincture. He knew what Parts to take out, and how, being acquainted with the Situation of the Vessels: for Anatomy was first of all practised among the Egyptians, as we may gather from1 1.234 Pliny and others, who attest that the Egyptian Kings used it to find out the Cause and Cure of Diseases. By the Egyptian Kings using it, is meant undoubtedly▪ their appointing and encou∣raging their Physicians to do it. These then knew how to handle the Anatomick Knife: And more∣over, these Persons were skilful in Drugs, Bal∣sams, Ointments, Aromaticks, and the Materials that were sittest for that Business of Embalming: wherefore this was their proper Work. As living

Bodies were their Care, so were the dead ones; and what they could not cure, they dress'd up for the Tomb: those whom they could not keep alive, they artificially preserv'd when dead. Thus it was heretofore, and thus particularly it was with the Physicians of Egypt, of whom this Text speaks, and who are the first of the Faculty that are men∣tion'd in Sacred History. And with this agree the Records of the Antientest Historians among the Pagans. Diodorus of Sicily relates that the first In∣vention of Medicines was from the Egyptians, and particularly that some of them said that Mer∣curius, others that Apis a King of Egypt was the first Inventer of Physick. Herodotus observes that the Egyptians had more Experiments in Natural Phi∣losophy, and chiefly in Medicks, than any other Nation whatsoever. Strabo testifies that they were hugely addicted to this Art, and reckon'd it among their Sacred Mysteries: Which is confirmed by what2 1.235 Pliny faith, that they used to deposite and keep their choice Experiments of Physick in their Temples. To be brief, Anatomy, Chirurgery and Embalming, met together in these Antient Artists. This was the triple Office and Work of the Rophim, the Physicians, besides the more general Work of Curing the Diseased. From what Iob faith con∣cerning those that pretended to comfort him, we may collect that there were some of this Prosession among the Old Arabians; for otherwise he would not have compared them to Persons of this Cha∣racter, Ye are all Physicians, faith he, of no Value, Iob 13. 4. Ye deal with me just as unskilful Men in that Faculty do with their Patients, just as sorry Quacks and Empiricks do with the Diseased: they

understand not their Malady, and so make false Applications; their Medicines are good perhaps, (as your Counsel and Advice to me are in them∣selves) but they administer them in a wrong man∣ner, and without any regard to the Constitution present Temper and Circumstances of those they have to do with. Thus you deal with me, and therefore are so far from curing my Distemper, that you enrage it, and make it much worse. Thi•• Language is founded upon a Supposal of the Pro∣fession of Medicks in that Country.

That there were such among the Iews, may be gathered from Exod. 12. 19. He that smites and wounds a Man shall cause him to be throughly healed viz. by one who professedly took care of the Wounded, for so the Chaldee Paraphrast renders that Place, He shall pay the Physician. But that there was such an Order of Men among the Iews, we are in more express and positive Words assured from 2 Chron. 16. 12. King Asa in his Disease sough not to the Lord, but to the Physicians. And it may be some of his Ancestors had been Medically dispose••▪ and were Students in this Art, whence they had their Name, for Asa is the Chaldee Word for Me∣dicus; and perhaps for this Reason this King had the greater Esteem of those who were skill'd in Medicinal Arts, and therefore put Confidence in them so as to neglect to apply himself to God the Sovereign Author and Giver of Health. And from those Words in Ier. 8. 22. Is there no Balm in Gilead? is there no Physician there? it is manifest that there were Medicaments and Proper Persons to apply them, for else the Prophet could not by this Language set forth the incurable and deplora∣ble State of the Jews at that time. This way of speaking implies that they had in that Country, in

Gilead especially, such healing Balsams as they were wont to close up Wounds with, and that there were Physicians or Chirurgions, (for the Word sig∣nifies both, and in this Place is to be taken in the latter Meaning) Artists that knew how to apply the Balsam with Skill. This also is implied and supposed in Lam. 2. 13. Who can heal thee? or ac∣cording to the Chaldee, Who is the Physician [Asa] that can cure thee? And when we read of the Art of the Apothecary, and his Confections and Ointments, Exod. 30. 25, 35. we are to conceive of these as having some Reference to Medicks. The Holy A∣nointing Oil for the Use of the Tabernacle is ap∣pointed to be made according to Magnasheh ro∣cheach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (so the LXX, and the Vul∣gar Latin renders it opus unguentarii) the professed Art and Skill of the Maker of Odoriferous Oint∣ments. Now this is the Man we are speaking of, viz. the Physician or Apothecary, (which is the same, for they made up all their Medicaments themselves heretofore) whose Business it was to make Arti••i∣cial Unguents, Sweet Oils and Perfumes, for Health no less than Delight. This is Rocheach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vnguentarius, Aromatarius, and by our English Translators not unfitly rendred Apo∣••••ecary, not only here but in Eccles. 10. 1. where from the mentioning of Shemen Rocheach, Vnguen∣••um Pharmacopolae, (as the Tigurine Version hath it ••ightly) we are certified concerning the antient Use of Aromatick Compositions and Confections, which were made use of for the promoting of the bodily Welfare. They were thought by Persons of those early times to be both Sanative and Cos∣metick. On both which Considerations they be∣long to the Physicians, whose Task it is to take care ••ot only of the Health, but the Beauty, Cleanli∣ness

and Comely Plight of the Body; in order 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the latter of which Smegmaticks, Mundifiers▪ Cleansers, Adorners, are useful. Thus you see ho•• large the Physician's Province was in those fir•••• times: he was not only all that was said before but he was moreover an Anointer, a Perfumer, •• Beautifier; the Knowledg of all which we deriv•• from the Sacred Fountains.

Something, though not much, we have deriv•••• to us from the Scriptures concerning the early Be∣ginnings of Navigation and Shipping. God him•••••••• instructed Noah to make the Ark, the first Ve•••••••• we read of that swam on the Waters, Gen. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and it is not to be doubted but that God direct•••• him to steer it aright, and that He from that Know∣ledg and Practice which he had in managing it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 long a time, whilst the whole World was Se•• was able to instruct others in the Mari•••••••• Art. It is true we read that Noah was1 1.236 shut up in the Ark as in a Prison, but it is probable that this was not all the time the Ark was riding on the Wa∣ters. When these began to decrease, the happ•• Prisoner look'd abroad, and was taught how to di∣rect his Course, and to bring his Vessel to Land, even to the particular Place where it rested: and no Man is able to prove that he was not furnish'd with Sails, or Oars, or Rudder to that purpose, and that he did not make use of them as soon as the Window of the Ark was opened, Gen. 8. 6. and the Covering of it removed, ver. 13. Hence arose the first Knowledg of Navigation, which is of so great Use in the Life of Man, and so necessary for Com∣merce and Traffick. Befor•• this time there was no Use of Boats or Ships; otherwise the Men of that

Age would have been sensible of Noab's Design when they saw him build the Ark, and would have suspected their own Danger, and they would have attempted to build one for their own Preservation: but our Saviour tells us, that they knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away, Mat. 24. 39. which shews that Shipping had not been practised before. Yea, even among the Egyptians many hundred Years afterwards, they were content to sail on the Red Sea and the River Nile in Vessels of B••••••ushes, Isa. 18. 2. To which Profane Writers b••••r Testimony, as Herodotus, who expresly affirms that2 1.237 the Egyptians made their Ships of Reeds and Flags. And3 1.238 Strabo,4 1.239 Pliny,5 1.240 Theophrast, certify ••s that these Rush-Boats or Paper-Vessels were used ••equently by them and their Neighbours of Ethio∣••ia. And from that forecited Verse in Lucan, it appears that the Egyptian Boats were composed of the Papyrus. Afterwards they and others advanc'd •• little higher, and made their Marine Vessels of Barks of Trees: which very Name is still retain'd among us and the French, who call a little Ship or Hoy a Bark or Barque. But to proceed; Next to Noah, Zebulon, i. e. some of that Tribe, may be accounted the first Founders of Shipping and ••••ilers, who are mention'd to that purpose in the ••••••riarch Iacob's Benedictions, Gen. 49. 13. about 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hundred Years after the Flood; the Maritime Si••••ation of this Tribe (which was seated near the Sea of Galilee, and reached even to the Great Sea, the Mediterranean, which was noted for Ports and Havens; besides, that it was near to Tyre and Si∣••••, famed for Shipping) promoting this very

thing. So Dan was seated on the Western Part of Palestine near the Mediterranean, and so traffick'd by Ships, Judg. 5. 17. Afterwards the Naval Art increased, and arrived to a great Height in King Solomon's Days, who made a Navy of Ships, 1 Kings 9. 26. and was therein much help'd by Hiram King of Tyre, who sent him Shipmen that had Knowledg of the Sea, ver. 27. that were expert Navigators. And indeed among the Pagan Historians and Poets the Tyrians are said to be Eminent in Sea-Affairs▪ yea the first that ventured to Sea. Albertus Mag∣nus thinks that the Use of the Load-stone in sailing was known to these Tyrians of old; and a1 1.241 Learn∣ed Writer of our own is of the same Perswasion. But it may be deservedly question'd whether they had in Solomon's time attain'd to this Knowledg. I have met with no Certain Proof of this Magnetic•• Invention in those Days: therefore I am forward to believe that when 'tis said King Solomon's Navy made a Voyage to Ophir, 1 Kings 9. 28. neither of the Indies are meant, but (as was suggested before) some Place in A••rick that was at a considerable Distance from Ezion-geber, the Port (on the Shore of the Red Sea next to Palestine) whence that Navy s••t out, and therefore they made a Long Voyage of it in those Days (though it was not a three Years Voyage, as is generally thought, but was every three Years, for so once in three Years, 1 Kings 20. 22. ought to be interpreted) when their Naval Skill was but mean, and they generally coasted along the Shoar. Hither they might make a shift to reach without the Help of the Compass▪ but it is unreasonable and extravagant to think that they sail'd to the East or West Indies if they were wholly

destitute of that Skill. But as for the Mediterra∣nean, they tolerably knew it, and I question whe∣ther they knew any other Sea properly so stiled, for this is call'd the Sea emphatically, Psal. 80. 11. and the Great Sea, Numb. 34. 6. Josh. 1. 4. Nay, it is observable that it is call'd the Vtmost Sea, Deut. 11. 24. & 34. 2. which we may understand of its being not only the farthest Boundary of the Land of Canaan on the West, but also of its being the farthest Sea that they had any notice of: Whereas if they had been acquainted with the Wide Ocean, the Main Sea through which they must necessarily pass to those remoter Parts of the World, the Midland Sea would not have been by way of Eminence called the Sea, yea the Great Sea, much less the Vtmost Sea. But though it was but a small River in comparison of the Vast Ocean, it was a Great Sea in respect of the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee or Genesareth, and other such like Lakes which they were acquainted with, and which they improperly call'd Seas. Again, Africk seems to be the Place rather than any other to which Solomon's Navy was sent for Gold, there being several Regi∣ons here (as is confess'd by all) that abound with that Choice Metal. These Reasons (besides those offer'd in a former part of this Discourse, where I treated of the First Plantations) prevail with me to believe that the Royal Fleet before mention'd sail'd no further than the Coasts of Africk.

And I crave leave here to propose this Con∣jecture, viz. that Africk is meant by Ophir, to which that Fleet went. I offer it to the Learned to be consider'd whether there be not an exceeding great Affinity betwen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ophir and Apher, (for so this latter was antiently written, and 'tis known that f and ph are frequently convertible) or be∣tween

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Aphrica; for the former, yo•• see, is written with an Aleph, and so was perhaps antiently read Aphira: And that the Letter c is i••∣serted into the Latin Word is not to be wondred at, for nothing is more ordinary than the Insertion of a Letter or two, especially when Words are transferred out of one Language into another, as I could shew in abundant Instances. Besides, this Derivation of the Word is the more to be attend∣ed to, because the Common Etymologies that are given of Africa are very sorry and groundless. Wherefore though I have formerly asserted that Ophir is not mention'd by Geographers, (which is very true, if we speak of the Place under that for∣mal Name) yet upon Search I verily believe it to be the same which hath been since call'd Afric••, from Auphir, which is the Arabick Pronuntiation of Ophir. Before I quit this Particular, I desire it may be observed that it stands upon Record in 1 Kings 9. 26. that King Solomon's Ships (the first Navy that we read of) were built on the Shore of the Red Sea in the Land of Edom, and thence launched and sent forth on their Voyage: whereon I guess is founded that of an Antient Writer, that1 1.242 the Erythraei (who are the same with the Inhabitants of the Land of Edom; for Edom or Esau, and Ery∣t'oraeus, are the same; and the Red Sea, which is known by the Name of Erythraeum, is denomi∣nated from him) were the first that invented Shipping. And I appeal to any judicious Man, whether this might not give occasion to that

confused Passage in Pliny, viz. that1 1.243 the antient Shipping was first brought out of Egypt, and that for∣merly slight Ships or Boats were made use of, which were invented in the Red Sea, among the Isles, by King Erythras. It is plain that Egypt and the Red Sea, and Erythras, have relation here to the Infallible Records, which tell us, that the Place of the first setting forth of any Considerable Ships was on the Coast of Egypt, in the Red Sea or Arabian Gulf, and in that Part of it that belong'd to Edom or Erythras. Lastly, I offer it to be examin'd, whe∣ther the Report among the Heathens, that the 2 1.244 first Ship that ever was, went to a Country in the Euxine Sea, to fetch thence the Golden Fleece, be not grounded on this part of the Sacred History, viz. that the first Shipping of any Note was this of Solomon, which went through the Mediterranean, of which the Euxine Sea is a Part of Arm, (and might be mistaken for the whole) to bring Gold from Ophir: And the Ship might justly be call'd Argos, because it sail'd so slowly. This is not un∣likely, if we remember how the Poets are wont to corrupt and mangle True History, and to affix New Names to Persons and Things: Besides, there is no very great Difference as to the Chronology of both these Expeditions.

It is probable that Astronomy also was the Inven∣tion of those first Ages, (and was useful in both those which I last mention'd, Physick and Naviga∣tion) the Patriarchs and other worthy Enquirers (of whom the Scriptures speak) living in those

Eastern Countries where the Sky was Serene, and where upon high Mountains they had a peculiar Advantage of acquainting themselves with the Stars, and studying their Motions, Aspects and Influences. Accordingly1 1.245 Iosephus relates that Seth, an Antediluvian Patriarch, was skill'd in this Celestial Art, and that his Pillars r••corded the Doctrine of the Stars and Rules of Astronomy. And Abraham was well skill'd in this Science, saith that2 1.246 same Writer, and was Publick Pro∣fessor of it. The Kings of the East and West came to learn this Art of him, saith Ra••••i Solomon. And the Talmudists quoted by3 1.247 Bux∣to••f would perswade us that he had extraordinary Sill in the Stars. Which is intimated perhaps in what God said to Abraham, Gen. 15. 5. Look now towards Heaven, and tell the Stars, &c. and in what he assured him of in other Places, viz. that he would multiply his Seed as the Stars of Heaven, Gen. 22. 17. & 26. 4. Which manner of Speech and Repeating it were, it may be, occasion'd by this Holy Man's frequent Contemplating those Hea∣venly Bodies, and enquiring into their Nature and Operations. But because there is no clear ground for this, I dismiss it. Only this may be said, that Astronomy, like the Sun the chief Subject of it, had its Rise in the East: all Authors agree that it was first known and practis'd in Chaldea, whence a Chaldéan and an Astrologer were Terms converti∣ble: and it is certain that the Patriarch Abraham was of that Country, and was eminently stiled by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and was known and distinguish'd by that Name. But that Iob (a fa∣mous Arabian, and who lived, as 'tis thought by

some, not long after Abraham's time) was Astro∣nomically disposed, is very clear from his univer∣sal Skill inall Points of Natural Philosophy, which his Book is full of, and particularly from his men∣tioning of Arcturus, Orion and Pleiades, and the Chambers of the South, Chap. 9. v. 9. and from other Passages in 26 and 28 Chapters relating to the Sun and Stars, to the Heavens and their wonderful O∣perations and Influences. Judiciary Astrology, i. e. foretelling Futurities by insight into the Hea∣venly Bodies, was pretended to of old, as appears from the frequent Caveats against it, Deut. 18. 10, 11. Ier. 10. 2. & 27. 9. Mich. 5. 12. The Chal∣dean. Professors of this Art are particularly menti∣on'd in Isa. 47. 13. where they are stiled Choberim Hashamajim, Viewers of the Heavens, Chozim Bacho∣cabim, Star-gazers. To this belong the Teraphim, Gen. 31. 19. and in other Places, i. e. Images and Consignations made according to the certain Positi∣on of such and such Constellations, whereby they divined concerning future Events. Thus we see the beginning of False and Counterfeit Arts as well as True Ones, may be learnt from this Holy Book.

I will not enlarge here upon Picture or Pour∣traicture, strictly so called, i. e. the representing and drawing of things with Exactness and Life in diverse Colours, of which there are notable In∣stances in Ier. 22. 14. Ezek. 8. 10. & 23. 14. nor will I speak of Embroidery, Exod. 26. 1. & 28. 4. Ezek. 16. 10. & 27. 7. nor of all manner of Cun∣ning Work so often mention'd in Exodus, for which Aholiab and Bezaleel were so famous, and on which several Critical Remarks might be made. But I will proceed to some other things.

Among the First Arts and Inventions, we may reckon Skill in Arms and Warlike Feats: the first

Instances whereof are registred in sacred Story. Io∣sephus thinks that Tubal, who was an Instructer of every Artificer in Brass and Iron, was the first Inventer of Arms and Military Weapons, they being made of those Metals. A late1 1.248 Writer was forgetful of this when he said, There were not of old any Instru∣ments that belonged to War. And how could there be indeed, when he asserts that there were no Metals in the Earth before the Flood? Which is precariously said, and hath no Foundation at all to support it; yea, it is quite contrary to the express Testimony of Scripture, which assures us that there were Brass and Iron in those Days. It is not then wholly improbable that Weapons of Wa•• were framed of these, and that the People of those times went forth to Battel, though in the whole History from Adam to Noah there is no mention of their Wars. Neither is there of some other things, which yet we cannot but suppose to have been, notwithstanding Moses is silent concerning them. If we consider what are the great Incen∣tives to War, viz. Lust and Passion, we have no reason to disbelieve that there were Wars from the beginning, tho they are not mention'd. It is likely they were but rare then, partly because they had not found out such expedite ways of managing their Feuds as have been since, and partly because the Numbers of Men were not so great as afterwards: the Earth could bet∣ter hold them at that time than now, and con∣sequently they had not occasion to quarrel about their Territories, and to strive how they should enlarge their Dominions. However, Hatred, Ma∣lice and desire of Revenge might push them on to fall out one with another, and to proceed to

Acts of Hostility, and to bring Forces on either side into the Field to decide the Quarrel in Battel. But I grant there is no certainty of this, there is nothing expresly deliver'd concerning any War∣like Enterprizes before the Deluge. The first that we read of after it, is the Battel of four Kings against five, four of Assyria and the adjoining Parts, against five of Sodom and the neighbouring Parts of Palestine, Gen. 14. 1, 2. &c. And pre∣sently after this was the Military Expedition of Abraham and his armed trained Servants, v. 14. whom he had instructed in Martial Affairs. This is the first War or Battel that we read of in the Sa∣cred History, and is thought to have been about A. M. 2030. It is certainly the first that is to be read of in the World; for the Theban War, the most antient that either Historians or Poets among the Gentiles write of, was about six hundred Years after this: and the Trojan War, that famous Ex∣pedition which Prophane Writers talk so much of, and is one of the antientest Subjects of Humane Hi∣story, was not till A. M. 2760. or thereabouts. Afterwards we read in the Sacred Writings of the Wars of the Iews before and after their coming in∣to Canaan; which were as remarkable as those of the Old Romans, and much more just and law∣ful: they were indeed generally Holy Wars, and Battels of the Lord of Hosts. In Leviticus and Numbers we read of their Laws of Arms, and Councils of War, and in1 1.249 other places of their Military Stratagems: and all along we are told what were the Martial Preparations not only of that Nation, but those they fought with.

From this Antient Register we are particularly inform'd what were the Warlike Weapons of old,

both the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Greeks distinguish'd them,1 1.250 those that were to defend the Persons that wore them, and those that were to incommode and hurt the Enemy. Of the for∣mer sort were first a Helmet [Cobang]2 1.251 to co∣ver and defend the Head. This was part of the Military Provision which that warlike King V••∣ziah prepar'd for his vast Army, 2 Chron. 26. 14. And we read before this, that part of Saul's Ar∣mour was an Helmet of Brass, 1 Sam. 17. 38. It was used by the Philistines, as appears from 1 Sam. 17. 5. Goliah had a Helmet of Brass upon his Hea••. And this Martial Cap for the Head was worn by the Persians and Ethiopians when they fought, Ezek. 38. 5. Another Defensive Piece of Armour used in those early times, was a Breast-plate or Corslet, Heb. Shirjon, by the LXX rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by the Vulgar Latin Lorica. Goliah was ac∣coutred with this warlike Defence, 1 Sam. 17. ••. which we translate here a Coat of Mail. This is mention'd among the Iewish Armoury, 2 Chron. 26. 14. and is english'd an Habergeon. This was part of King Saul's warlike Furniture, 1 Sam. 17. 38. and is translated, as before in that Chapter, a Coat of Mail. Between the Joints of this Harness (for so we english it, 1 Kings 22. 34.) King A••ab was casually struck with a Dart. To this Species of Armour the Prophet alludes, Isa. 59. 17. where the same Hebrew Word is used that is in the fore∣mention'd Texts, but is here rendered a Breast-Plate. And in Ier. 46. 4. a Brigandine is our En∣glish Word for it. So that according to what may be gather'd from this various rendring of it, it

seems to me to answer to the Cuirasse or Corslet-Ar∣mour both for Back and Breast. It is likely that it was chiefly designed to defend this Latter, and thence had its Denomination. But some had it made so long as to come over all their other Clothes: which is the reason why in some Places (as you see) it is otherwise translated.

Again, a Shield, to defend the whole Body in time of Battel, and to keep off the Enemies Insults, which was either Tsinna•• the great Shield or Buck∣ler, or Magen the lesser kind of this Weapon, was of great Service of Old. It was used by the Ba∣bylonians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Ezek. 23. 24. and by the Egyptians, Jer. 46. 3. in both which Places the two Hebrew Words aforesaid are made use of. It was frequent among the Iews in their Wars, as is manifest from 2 Sam. 1. 21. and many other Places which are well known. Hence David, a Great Warriour, so often mentions Shield and Buckler in his Divine Poems, to set forth that Defence and Protection of Heaven which he expected, which he experienced, and which he wholly trusted in. And when he saith, God will with Favour com∣pass the Righteous as with a Shield, Psal. 5. 12. he seems to allude to the Use of the Great Shield, Tsinnah, (which is the Word he uses) wherewith they were wont to cover and defend their whole Bodies. King Solomon caus'd those two different Sorts of Shields (the Tsinnah which answers to Cly∣••••us among the Latins, such a Large Shield as the Infantry wore, and the Maginnim, s••uta, used by the Horse-men, which were of far less Size) to be made, 2 Chron. 9. 15, 16. The former of these are here translated Targets, and are double in weight to the other. The Philistines came into the Field with this Defensive We••pon: so we find their Formi∣dable

Champion was appointed, 1 Sam. 17. 7. One bearing a Shield went before him, one whose proper Office it was to carry this and some other Wea∣pons, wherewith he was to furnish his Master upon Occasion. It seems this was an Office among the Iews as well as Philistines; for we read that David, when he was first call'd to Court, was made King Saul's Armour-bearer, 1 Sam. 1••. 21. And there is mention made of the young Man that bore Jon••∣than's Armour, 1 Sam. 14. 1. By the Grecia•• this Officer was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and by the Latins (as1 1.252 Plautus and 2 1.253 〈◊〉〈◊〉 testify) Armiger. The very same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ferens arma, in the Places above ••i••ed. But the bearing of the Shield was the most conside∣rable Piece of Service, and was reputed most Ho∣nourable. The Longobards call'd this Military Attendant (as our3 1.254 Great Antiquary acquaints us) Schilpor, i. e. a Shield-bearer: and Scutifer, Esc••∣ier, Esquire, became a fix'd Title of Honour; and Escuage a particular Tenure or Service. The Origi∣nal of it we see in the Example before us, the Great Philistian Warriour was waited upon into the Field by his Military Squire, one bearing a Shield. And besides this Tsinnah, this Great Massy Shield, he was furnish'd with a lesser One, which is not express'd by one of the foremention'd Words, but is call'd Cidon, which we render a Target, v. 6. and a Shield, v. 45. and was of a different Nature from the common Shields, and (as I conceive) was not only to hold in his Hand when he had occasion to use it, but could also conveniently at other times

be hung about his Neck, and turn'd behind: where∣fore 'tis added that it was between his Shoulders, v. 6. So I understand those Words, and truly I think it is a more genuine and unforced Interpretation of them, than what is usually given by the Jewish Writers, and some others. And this Target (as well as his Helmet, and some other Pieces of his Ar∣mour, of which anon) was of Brass, which was the usual Metal of which their Arms were made in those Days, and in the Times following, as Homer and Virgil testify, who mention Helmets, Shields, Swords, Spears of Brass. This is evident from Hesiod, and Alcaeus an old Poet quoted by Athe∣naeus. The like we learn from Statius in several Places. The Arms of the Massageta••, saith1 1.255 He∣rodotus, were of this Composure. Lucretius, speaking of the first Weapons that were used in War, tells us that they were of Brass, and after∣wards of Iron,

Et prior aeris erat quam ferri cognitus usus.

Lastly, the Greek and Roman Warriours, and all Nations used this serviceable Weapon, to fence off the Blows of their Adversaries, and particularly to repulse their Arrows. The Grecians especially affected a very large sort of Shields, which we may gather from the Description of them in the Poets, and from what the Lacedemonian Women, when they sent their Sons into the Wars, used to say to them at parting, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either return back with this Piece of Armour, or be car∣ried to the Grave upon it. It seems by this that they were so broad and capacious, that they might

serve them for Biers, or Open Coffins. It was ••••••••∣nitely opprobrious among these Greek Warriour•• to lose this Weapon in Fight, insomuch that Pl••∣tarch relates that the Lacedemonians banish'd Ar∣chicolus his Country, because he had said and writ∣ten that it was better for a Man to throw away his Shield than himself, i. e. to perish in Battel. And from what the same Author saith of Epimanondas, that he asked when he was dying whether his Shield was safe, we may infer that nothing was so dear to them as this one Piece of Armour. And I can prove that it was thus among the Eastern, and particu∣larly the Iewish Warriours: the loss of this Wea∣pon was excessively resented, as well as condoled by them. If you ask me on what I ground this, I answer, on 2 Sam. 1. 21. where it is a signal Ingre∣dient of the Publick Mourning, that the Shield of the Mighty was viley cast away. I apprehend this to be the meaning of the Words; David a Man of Arms, who composed his Funeral-Song, was sensible how disgraceful a Thing it was for Souldiers to quit their Shields in the Field: yet this was the sad and deplorable Case of the Jewish Souldiery in that unhappy Engagement with the Philistines, they fled away (1 Sam. 31. 7.) and left their Shields behind them: this vil•• and dishonorable c••sting away of that principal Armour is the deserved Subject of this Losty Po••t's Lamentation. I propound this Interpretation (or Conjecture, if you will call it so) as preferable to any that I have met with.

And further, it may be useful to observe that their Shields were wont to be oiled, scoured and polish'd, as indeed it was the Custom to use the like Care towards their other Armour, as may be ga∣ther'd from furbishing the Spears, Jer. 46. 4. and

making bright the Arrows, Jer. 51. 11. But more especially their Shields (which were Weapons that they so highly valued and took a kind of Pride in, and on which they generally engraved their Names and Warlike Deeds, if they had atchieved any; where∣as those that had none of these, were call'd Blank Shields, and were thought to be disgraceful, ac∣cording to that of Virgil,—Parmâque inglo∣rius 〈◊〉〈◊〉) these Weapons, I say, were careful∣ly polish'd with Oil, and made exceeding Bright. Whence two Places of Scripture may receive some Light: the former occurs in the Chapter before cited, where 'tis said, the Shield of the Mighty is vilely cast away, the Shield of Saul, as if it had not been anoin••ed with Oil: for so I render that latter Clause, referring it to the Shield, and not to Saul; and the Hebrew Text bears this Version best. The meaning then is, the Shields were cast away and trod under Foot as if they had not been made bright with Oil, as if there had not been that care taken about them. And that other Passage, Isa. 21. 5. Anoint the Shield, is a plain Reference to this antient Custom of polishing their Shields with Oil: and therefore the Import of these Words is this, Fur∣bish and make ready that Weapon, and prepare for Battel. I could also observe that as they anoint∣ed their Shields to give them a Brightness and Lu∣stre, (for Glittering Arms were in great esteem among Warriours) so they cover'd them with a Case when they used them not, to preserve them from being rusty and soil'd: thence you read of uncovering the Shield, Isa. 22. 6. which signisies preparing for War, and having that Weapon especially in readiness.

Another Defensive Provision in War was the Military Girdle; which was for a double End, first

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

in order to the wearing the Sword, for this hung (as it doth at this Day) at the Souldier's Girdle or Belt. Secondly, it was requisite to gird their Clothes and Armour together: thus David girded his Sword upon his Armour, 1 Sam. 17. 39. This the Sacred Writings take some notice of, as a•• Antient Accoutrement of Military Men: for this is meant, it is probable, in Exod. 13. 18. Ios. ••▪ 14. Iudg. 7. 11. where according to the Hebre•• Idiom, Souldiers and Armed Men are call'd C•••• mushim, accincti, girded. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Sev∣nty render it, are Armati according to the Vulg•••• Latin Interpreter, and harnessed, armed according to our English Translators: for the Souldier's G••∣dle was a principal Part of his Arms. So it was among the Old Latins, Cincti and Accincti, were as much as Armati, and among the Greeks (as S••••∣das lets us know) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because Souldiers unless they were girt could not wear a Sword. But to con••ine o•••• selves to the Scripture, here to Gird and to Arm are synonymous, 1 Kings 20. 11. Isa. 8. 9. And in 2 Kings 3. 21. those that were able to put on Armour, are, according to the Hebrew and Septuagint, girt with a Girdle. Hence girding to the Battel, 2 Sam. 22. 40. •• Psal. 18. 39. And there is express mention of this Warlike Girdle in 1 Sam. 18. 4. where 'tis recorded that Ionathan, to assure David of his en∣tire Love and Friendship by some visible Pledges, stript himself not only of his usual Garments, but of his Military Habiliments, viz. his Sword, Bow and Girdle, and gave them to David. From the join∣ing of these together, it is plain that Chagor here is the Sword-Girdle or Military Belt, wherewith they not only girt on their Swords, but made their Clothes and Armour sit close and fast about them.

Boots were part of their Defensive Harness of Old, because it was the Custom to cast certain Obstacles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Impediments (so call'd because they did hurt and entangle the Feet) afterwards known by the Name of Gall-traps (which since in Heraldry are corruptly stiled Caltrops) in the Way before the Enemy. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as1 1.256 Stra∣bo calls it) the Military Boot or Shoe was therefore necessary to guard the Legs and Feet from these Iron Stakes placed in the Way to gall and wound them. This gives an Account of Goliah's Greaves of Brass upon his Legs, 1 Sam. 17. 6. which were his warlike Fence against any Mischief design'd to those Parts of his Body. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for so the LXX render them) were of the same Nature with 2 1.257 those mention'd by the Prince of the Gentile Poets, and from which the Grecian Souldiers had the Epithet of '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yea their Boots, their Martial Gambadoes were sometimes of Brass, as Goliah's were; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the fore∣mention'd Poet, whereby are signified not only those Grecian Souldiers that were clad in Brass Boots, but Synecdochically those that had Brass Arms, which was the old Grecian Fashion in War: but the first Tidings of this sort of Armour we have in the Sacred Records of the Bible.

And not only Defensive but Offensive Weapons are mention'd here: and these are either such as they made use of when they came to a close En∣gagement, or when they were at a Distance. Of the former Sort were the Sword (Chereb) and Bat∣tel-Ax (Mapheng.) The first of these is the an∣tientest Piece of Armour that we read of (except the Bow, of which afterwards.) In Gen. 34. 25.

we ••ind it was treacherously handled by Iacob's Sons when they invaded the Sh••chemites: To which re∣fers Gen. 49. 5. and is rendred by some Learn∣ed Jews thus, Instruments of Violence are their Swords, Mecheroth (for that is the Word here) the Plural of Mecherah, Gladius, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Mach••∣ra. And in Exod. 32. 27. we find it was used by the Israelites in the Wilderness. If it be ask'd how they furnish'd themselves with this and other Weapons in that Place, seeing (as 'tis generally said) they left Egypt without taking any Arms with them, we need not answer (as some do) that the great Winds and Tide upon the return of the Red Sea beat the Egyptians Arms upon the Shore where the Isra••∣lites had pitch'd their Tents; for this is more tha•• we can prove. And so indeed is their Supposal that the Israelites came unarmed out of Egypt, for the contrary is plainly asserted in Exod. 13. 18. The Children of Israel went up harnassed (Chamusim, girt, i. e. armed, as I said before) out of the Land of Egypt. And then 'tis no wonder that you read of their being Armed in the Wilderness. This may be meant when 'tis said, they borrow'd of the Egypti∣ans Rayment, Exod. 12. 35. in which may be in∣cluded Military Habits. However, they are com∣prehended in what follows, The Lord gave the People favour in the Sight of the Egyptians, so that they ••ent unto them whatever they required: and they spoiled the Egyptians, v. 36. For the Israelites left Egypt with leave of the Inhabitants, yea, with their request to be gone, for the last Plague which slew all their First-born in one Night put them upon hastning away the Israelites: and to be rid of them they were willing to part with any thing, and accordingly they not only suffer'd them to take with them their own Goods and Cattle, but gave

them a great deal of Gold and Silver, and all sorts of Rich Materials, Exod. 3. 22. with which after∣wards they furnish'd the Tabernacle. And among other things they let them carry away as many Warlike Weapons as they pleas'd, for they that lent them Iewels, would not deny them Ar∣mour.

The Battel-Ax mention'd in Ier. 51. 20. was another Weapon which they antiently fought with when they came to a close Engagement. We have no particular Account of this Martial Club, but it is reasonable to believe that it was a weighty Wea∣pon or Hammer (as 'tis call'd Chap. 50. v. 23.) made use of when there was occasion to break asu••••der any hard thing that stood in their way, and to beat down the Enemies, and lay them prostrate, and to bruise and batter their Armour. It is likely it was a sort of Poll-Ax, but proper to the Cavalry, which I gather from the following Verse, which speaks of breaking in pieces with it the Horse and his Rider, the Chariot and his Rider.

The Weapons Offensive to wound and hurt the Enemy at some distance, were, 1. The Spear or Iave∣lin, for so the Words Chanith and Romach are di∣versly rendred in Numb. 25. 7. 1 Sam. 13. 19. Ier. 46. 4. These Weapons were of different Kinds according to their length and make. Some of them might be thrown or darted, 1 Sam. 18. 11. others were a sort of Long Swords, Numb. 25. 8. And from 2 Sam. 2. 23. we may gather that some of them were piked or pointed at both Ends. 2. A ••ling, Kelang, with which they slung Stones at the Enemy. This is reckon'd as a Part of Warlike Provision, in 2 Chron. 26. 14. and in other Places. David made use of one of these to good Purpose Wh••n he came into the Field against the Giant of

Gath, 1 Sam. 17. 49, 50. The Bejaminites (for so we should read the Word, and not call them Benjamites, as if they were derived not from Ben∣jamin but Benjam) were famous in Battel, because they had attained to a great Skill and Accuracy in handling this Weapon, they could sling Stones a•• an Hair's breadth, and not miss, Judg. 20. 16. And whereas it is said here that they were Left-handed, it should be rather rendred Ambidexters, such as could use both Hands, as will appear from compa∣ring this Place with 1 ••hron. 12. 2. which spea•••• of these Benjaminites, and tells us that they could 〈◊〉〈◊〉 both the right Hand and the left. When therefore 'tis said in the former Place, that they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their right Hand, (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) the meaning is that they did not constantly use their right Hand (as others did) when they shot Ar∣rows or slung Stones, but they were so expert in these Military Exercises that they could perform them with their left Hand as well as with their right. This is the true Sense of this Expression, and there∣fore the S••ptu••gint render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Vulgar Latin, ita sinistrâ ut dextrâ praeliantes. Which is said to express how skilful and exact Slingers they were, and of what great Use and Service this singular Way of managing this Wea∣pon was ••o them. Fighting with the Sling was afterwards used by the Baleares, as Diodorus the Sicilian testifies, and by other Nations, as1 1.258 Vir∣gil and2 1.259 Livy relate: yea, 'tis generally known, saith3 1.260 Vegetius, that in all the Battels of the Antients this was the way of Fighting. 3. Bow

and Arrows [Kesheth and Chitzim] are of great Antiquity. Indeed no Weapon is mention'd so soon: take thy Weapons, thy Quiver and thy Bow, Gen. 27. 3. though it is true these are not spoken of here as used in War, but Hunting. And so they are supposed and implied before this, viz. in Gen. 21. 20. where 'tis said of Ishmael that he be∣came an Archer, he used Bow and Arrows in shoot∣ing of wild Beasts. It is likely that the Military Art commenced from Mens encount••ring with Brutes. They fought wiith wild Beasts, and for that purpose invented Arms, which afterwards they unhappily used against one another. Particularly, shooting with the Bow was first used in Hunting and Killing of Beasts, and then of Men. At last there was scarcely any Battel fought but it was decided by the Bow. It was so useful a Weapon that care was taken to train up the Hebrew Youth to it be∣times. When David had in a solemn Manner la∣mented the Death of K. Saul, he immediately gave order for teaching the young Men the use of the Bow, 1 Sam. 1. 18. that they might be skill'd in the Primi∣tive Artillery of the World, that they might be as ex∣pert as the Philistines, by whose Bows and Arrows Saul and his Army were slain. So in 2 Chron. 26. 14. we read that these were part of the Military Am∣munition: for in those times Bows were instead of Guns, and Arrows supplied the Place of Powder and Ball. From Iob 20. 24. I gather that the War∣like Bow was generally made of Steel, and conse∣quently was very stiff, and hard to bend: where∣fore they used their Foot in bending their Bows; and thence to tread the Bow, Jer. 50. 14. is to bend 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and Bows trodden, Isa. 5. 28. & 21. 15. are Bows ••••nt, as our Translators rightly render it: but the Hebrew Word which is used in these Places is da∣rak,

calcavit. In short, this Weapon was so re¦quisite in War, that it is thence call'd Kesheth Mil chamah, the Bow of War, or Battel-Bow, Zech. 9. 10. & 10. 4.

Fourthly, You may observe that the Great Com∣manders and Chief Warriours not only among the Egyptians, Exod. 14. 6, 7. Canaanites and Phili∣stines, Josh. 17. 16. Judg. 1. 19. & 4. 3. 1 Sam. 13. 5. Syrians, 2 Sam. 10. 18. 1 Kings 20. 21. Babylonians, Ezek. 23. 24. but among the Iews; 2 Sam. 15. 1. 1 Kings 10. 26. fought in Open Chariots or War-Coaches. This was the antient manner of Fighting, and afterwards was used by other Nations, as Diodorus of Sicily reports. Hom•••• acquaints us that these Military Chariots were in use among the Trojans. And that they were so among the Persians,1 1.261 Quintus Curtius lets us know when he describes Darius's Army.2 1.262 Xenophon attributes the Invention of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as he calls them) these Sithed Chariots to Cyrus. But from this (as many other things) we may discern the Defect of these Historians, and their failure in the Point of Antiquity. These great Iron Chariots for Battel were much older than that Monarch. We read of them in the Sacred History about a thousand Years before his time; for Pharaoh's Cha∣riots without doubt were of this kind, which we may infer from the great Number of them, which was six hundred, and from the appointing of Captains over them, Exod. 14. 7. which shews they were no other than their Fighting Chariots. And we read that about fifty Years afterwards the Canaanites had got this sort of Warlike Vehicle, and used them in that Champian Country, which struck Terror into the

Iews, and made them almost despair of conquering that part of the Nation, Iosh. 17. 16, 18. I might add that our Predecessors the Old Britains (as both Caesar and Tacitus record) fought in these Chariots, which (as they describe them to us) were fang'd at the Ends of the Axle-trees with Iron Hooks or Sithes. With these fastned on both Sides, and standing out about a Yard in length, they cut down their Enemies that came in their way. I remember the Hebrew Word Ketzir is both Harvest and War, (Exod. 23. 16. Isa. 9.) here we have too true an Account of it, for with these Sithe-Chariots they mowed Men down as some Corn at Harvest is wont to be.

Fifthly, We learn from the Scriptures that when they were besieged of old, they made use of Engines on their Towers and Bulwarks to shoot Arrows and great Stones withal, 2 Chron. 26. 15. and when they sat down before a Place and resolv'd to besiege it, they dug Trenches, 2 Sam. 17. 20. they drew a Line of Circumvallation, Lam. 2. 8. they made Ramparts, they built Forts against it, and cast a Mount against it, and set the Camp also against it, and set battering Rams against it round about, Ezek. 4. 2. for though Carim in the last Place here mention'd signi••ies both Arie∣tes and Duces, and is taken in this latter Sense in Ezek. 21. 22. yet in this Place it seems to be re∣strained to the former denotation, viz. of Iron Engines wherewith they batter'd down the Walls of a Town. Of this sort is Mechi, Ezek. 26. 9. (whence perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Machina) an Engine of War (as we render it) which they made use of to set against the Walls (as you read there) to demo∣lish them and lay them even with the Ground. It may be this is that Military Instrument with which they shot Stones into a City or besieged Place,

which•• the•• foremention'd Place in the Chronicles, and is perhaps the same with Sollelah, Jer. 6. 6. an Engine of Shot, as our Margin renders it. These were of a resembling Nature with the Balistae and Catapultae among the Romans, which were used for throwing Stones and Arrows, and were to them of old instead of Mortars and Carcases. Next I might observe that to give notice of an ap∣proaching Enemy, and to bring the despersed In∣habitants of the Country together to resist and re∣pel him, they used to set up Beacons on the Tops of Mountains as a ••it Alarm on that Occasion, Isa. 30. 17. This perhaps is Maseth, Jer. 6. 1. which we translate a Sign of Fire lifted up, that those that were afar off might be warned of the Enemies coming. Nay, if I am not mistaken, this was of far greater Antiquity; for that great Flame with Smoke rising up out of the City, which was appointed as a Sign between the Men of Israel, and the Liers in wait, Iudg. 20. 38, 40. seems to be meant by this.

And now when I am enumerating the Kele Mil∣••hamah, the Instruments or Vtensils of War, (as the Prophet calls them, Ier. 51. 20.) I might take no∣tice that Trumpets were antiently used on this Oc∣casion (as they are at this Day) Numb. 10. 5, 6, 7. 2 Sam. 2. 28. & 18. 16. I••r. 4. 21. & 6. 1. Ier. 4. 2. 14. Zeph. 1. 16. So were Ensigns, Banners, Standards, Exod. 17. 15, 16. Psal. 74. 4. Cant. 6. 4. Isa. 13. 2. Ier. 4. 6. & 51. 12. But the most emi∣nent Place for this purpose (and which shews the Antiquity of this Military Usage, and will give us an Account of the first and most early Marshalling of Armies) is Numb. 2. 2. Every Man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by his own Standard, with the En∣sign of their Fathers House. For the explaining of which we must know that when Moses had received

the Law and finish'd the Tabernacle, he mustered all the Tribes and Families of Israel, and disposed them for their March through the Wilderness. This Great Army (as this Chapter informs us) was divided into four Battalions or Squadrons, each of which contain'd three whole Tribes. The first contain'd the three Tribes of Iudah, Issachar, and Zebulon: and every Tribe being distinguish'd by his particular Standard, this Squadron marched un∣der the Standard of Iudah. And it was peculiar to this Tribe to encamp always on the East Side of the Tabernacle, and to hold the first Place and lead the Vanguard. The second Battalion consist∣ed of the Tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Gad: and Reuben's Standard was that which they were placed under. These had the second Place in the Army, and encamped on the South Side of the Taberna∣cle. The third Division marched under the Stan∣dard of Ephraim, to whom were joined the Regi∣ments of Manasse and Benjamin, and they were si∣tuated always on the West Quarter. The fourth Squadron were rank'd under the Standard of Dan, to whom belonged the Tribes of Naphthali and Asher. These were placed on the North Side of the Tabernacle, and always march'd in the Reer. In every Standard or Banner there was a particular Ensign or Badg by which those of that Squadron were known. In that of Iudah which march'd in the Van there was pourtrayed a Lion: in that of Reuben a Man: in that of Ephraim an Ox: and in that of Dan an Eagle. Where by the way we may observe here the Invention of Badges and Coats of Arms. The Tribes were distinguish'd by their dif∣ferent Scutcheons, which were of diverse Figures, and ('tis not to be doubted) of different Colours. Though truly this Invention seems to have been be∣gun

first of all in Gen. 49. where the several Tribes have assigned them by Iacob their particular Distin∣ctive Ensigns and Armorial Cognizances, as Iudah a Lion, Dan a Serpent, Issachar an Ass, &c. which were certain Arms or Badges by which they were known and distinguish'd. In these and the forenam∣ed Instances, Heraldry had its Original, hence it may fetch its Pedigree. Thus that Noble Camp was dispo∣sed and situated, thus the several Tribes and Princes of them were marshall'd. Thus the Tabernacle was placed in the midst of the four Divisions of the Ar∣my, which pitched round about it, as a Guard to Defend and Protect it. But I should note withal, that the Tabernacle was more Immediately sur∣rounded by the Priests and Levites. Moses and Aa∣ron, and Eleazar and his Brethren were lodg'd on the East, at the Entrance of the Court of the Ta∣bernacle: the Families of Cohath were placed on the South, the Families of Merari on the North, the Geshurites on the West: and all others that were dedicated to the Service and Attendance on the Tabernacle, were quartered near it. This was the Excellent Order that was observ'd, the Ec∣clesiastical Persons were placed next to the Taber∣nacle because of their Employment and Office: and to guard both them and the Tabernacle, the whole Host was drawn about them in a Circle. I might further take notice that there was not a fixed Di∣stance of Ground from every part of the Camp to the Tabernacle, for it was necessary that some should be further off than others: but this was en∣joined them, that the Limits of their travelling on the Sabbath-Day should not be above two thousand Cubits, Iosh. 3. 4. But by reason of the diffe∣rent Acception of the Cubit, it is not easy to de∣termine exactly the Length of the Way which

they were permitted to travel. If it was two thousand Paces; it amounted to two Miles: but most of the1 1.263 Rabbins agree that it was 2000 lesser Cubits, which make a large Mile. So far the fur∣thest Part of the Israelites Camp was distant from the Tabernacle, according to the general Opinion of the Hebrew Doctors. This, whatever it is, is call'd a Sabbath-Day's Iourney, Acts 1. 12. i. e. as much space of Ground as it was lawful for the Jews to go on a Sabbath-Day. This shall suffice to be said concerning the Antient Situation of the Camp of Israel. A very Curious and Excellent Prospect it is, and worthy of our Observation, it being the First Platform of a Military Encamping.

To close this Head, I will take notice of the Vast Numbers which some of the Armies mention'd in Scripture consisted of of old. That of the Jews in the Wilderness (which I last spoke of) accord∣ing to the Muster-Roll in Numb. 1. contain'd no less than six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. There were enrolled about a thou∣sand thousand fighting Men in Israel, and about half as many in Iudah when David numbred the People, 2 Sam. 24. 9. 1 Chron. 21. 5. King Vzziah had an Host of three hundred thousand and seven thou∣sand and five hundred, besides a choice Band of two thousand and six hundred, 2 Chron. 26. 12, 13. King Asa's military Force consisted of about six hundred thousand, 2 Chron. 14. 8. And against him came an Ethiopian Army of above a thousand thousand Chariots, 2 Chron. 14. 9. whence we must collect that the whole Force was much more Nu∣merous, for the Chariots generally had more than one single Person in them. King Ieroboam brought

eight hundred thousand Men into the Field, of whom five hundred thousand were slain, 2 Chron. 13. 3, 17. And other vast Numbers we read of in the Books of Kings and Chronicles that were brought into the Field in those Days. Which I the rather mention because some have questioned the Truth of it, and have thought that it is by the Fault of Transcribers that the Arithmetick mounts so high. And I am sorry to find a Great Man, whom I will not name, enclining this way. I doubt not but if he had lived to revise his Writ∣ings, he would have expung'd what seems to favour this; for so Great an Asserter of the Authentick Verity of the Scriptures (as well as of the Christi∣an Religion) could not have done otherwise. But this I desire may be considered by those that think the Number of the Men in the foremention'd Armies is mistaken by those who copied out the Bible, they setting down (as they imagine) one Arithmetical Figure instead of another; I desire (I say) this may be consider'd, that the Numbers in these Sacred Writings are set down in Words at length, and not in Figures, which these Objectors did not think of; and therefore those who transcrib'd the Bible did not mistake the Numbers by writing down one Fi∣gure for another, and consequently these Mens Conceit is groundless. Again, we are to remem∣ber what is said in Numb. 1. 45. they numbred from twenty Years old and upward all that were able to go forth to War: and so afterward they train'd up all that were able to bear Arms unto Martial Exerci∣ses and Military Discipline: which if we consider, it will not seem strange and incredible that the Num∣ber of those in their Armies was so great. More∣over, the Cavil will vanish if we consult Pagan Authors, and thence learn how numerous their

Armies were of old. Ninus the third Assyrian Monarch, rais'd an Army of seventeen hundred thousand Foot, and two hundred thousand Horse, and ten thousand six hundred Chariots of War, and invaded Bactria with these Forces, as Diodorus Siculus and other Good Authors relate. Z••roas∣ter the King of Bactria met him with four hundred thousand fighting Men, say the same Historians. And the foresaid Diodorus tells us that Semiramis that celebrated Queen of Assyria, Ninus's Relict, carried an Army that consisted of three Millions of Men into India: and Staurobates the King of India encountred her with more numerous Forces, and vanquish'd her. It is universally acknowledg'd that Xerxes entred Greece with an Army of above a Million of fighting Men. Thus Prophane History may induce us to credit that which we meet with in the Sacred. When we find such vast Numbers mention'd in the former, we have no reason to wonder at the like in the latter. And though, it is true, there is a Disproportion between Iudea and those Countries which I have named, yet if it be remembred how Populous the one was in respect of the others, and likewise that in time of War eve∣ry Man that could handle a Weapon turn'd Soul∣dier, the great inequality which some imagine be∣tween this and the others will soon vanish. This is some Account of Martial Affairs which the Antient Writings of the Bible give us: and though we read since the like things in other Authors, yet here we see the First and Earliest Instances of them.

I might pass form Military Affairs to some Spor∣tive Diversions and Exercises which the Scripture speaks of, and gives us the first notice of, as Hunt∣ing, which was the mighty Nimrod's Sport, Gen.

10. 9. (though, as was said before, under that Term likewise his Tyrannical and Arbitrary Rule is denoted to us) It is likely that he kill'd and de∣stroy'd the wild savage Beasts that grew numerous at that time, and became very troublesom and noxious: for upon that signal Dispersion of Man∣kind they remain'd not together in so great a Body as before, and thence the Beasts were more formi∣dable; and therefore Hunting began to be necessa∣ry to preserve themselves. But this Great Man might follow this Employment also for Pleasure and Recreation. So the first Hunting was for private Delight, and publick Profit. Esau afterwards is call'd a Cunning Hunter, Gen. 25. 27. and his Game is particularly specified, Gen. 27. 3, 5. And I have intimated b••fore that this Robust Exercise was a Specimen of Warlike Enterprizes and Arms. Hunt∣ing and Fowling are joined together in Lev. 17. 13. and in order to the catching both Beasts and Birds; there is mention of1 1.264 Nets, Traps, Snares, Ginns. Washing or Bathing (as it was a Recreative Exer∣cise of the Female Sex) you will find mention'd Exod. 2. 5. where we read that Pharaoh's Daughter washed her self in the River Nile. It may be Ruth 3. 3. Wash thy self (after which immediately follows, anoint thee, which was the usual Atten∣dant of Bathing) refers to this. Ruth's. Mother thought this not an improper Exercise before she went to engratiate her self with Boaz. Bathsheb•• was bathing her self in a Garden in the Evening when David espied her, 2 Sam. 11. 2. This made way for Artificial Baths aftewards among the Jews

in their Gardens and Orchards: which, if we may credit the Targum upon Ecclesiastes, are meant by the Delights of the Sons of Men, Eccl. 2. 7. This was the known Practice of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, and other Nations; but the An∣tientest and most innocent Examples are in the Bi∣ble, viz. among the Egyptians and Hebrews. O∣ther Recreating and Pleasurable Entertainments I had occasion to mention before, as Instrumental and Vocal Musick, though I consider'd them chiefly as they were used on serious Occasions. I will now add Dancing, which also was sometimes on a Religi∣ous Account, as in Exod. 15. 20. where Miriam and her Females with Dances (as well as Timbrels) sang, and glorified God after the Deliverance from the Egyptians. This Miriam may pass for the true Terpsichore whom the Poets make the In∣venter of Dancing, she being the first famous In∣stance of it. We read that David danced before the Ark, 2 Sam. 6. 16. But it is not the Sacred but Civil Use of this Exercise, which I am now to take notice of. It is certain that a pleasant and decent moving, a Graceful Agitation of the Body (help'd by some innocent noise of Musick) was one of the first and most natural expressions of Joy when there was some great occasion for it. This we learn, as from Reason, so from the sacred Mo∣numents of Antiquity in the Scriptures. Here we are inform'd that this was an old Expression of Mirth at times of solemn Feasting, Judg. 21. 19, 21. There was not only Musick but Dancing at the Festival of the returning Prodigal, Luke 15. 25. This was usual also after Victory, and in Publick Triumphs, Iudg. 11. 34. 1 Sam. 18. 6. & 21. 11. and at all Seasons of Mirth and Rejoi∣••ing, Psal. 30. 11. Jer. 31. 4, 13. And still, so

far as Dancing imports a Graceful Motion and Comely Deportment of the Body, I see no reason to declame against it. But we read that this Usage oftentimes degenerated into inexcusable Extrava∣gancy and Vice. The Idolatrous Jews made it part of their mad Worship which they paid to the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. 19. The Amalekites af∣ter their Victory used it to advance their Luxury and Debauchery, 1 Sam. 30. 16. Iob makes it part of the Character of the Prosperous Wicked, such as forget God and Religion, that their Children dance, Iob 21. 11. And what was the bloody and execra∣ble Fruit of this sort of Lewd Frolick, the Evange∣lical History records, Mat. 14. 6, &c. where H••∣rodias's Daughter's Heels made the Baptist's Head fly off his Shoulders. And it cannot be denied that this is the frequent Companion of Luxury and Wantoness in these Days, in which so great Num∣bers (yea and of the inferiour and ordinary Rank) immoderately affect and addict themselves to this Diversion. This Vanity seems to be part of the Temper and rooted Inclination of the gay People of this Age, as if the Punctum Saliens were yet in their Blood, and they were still made up of those Capering Particles, the first Rudiment of their Conception and Life. One would think the Scene chang'd from Naples to England, and that our Peo∣ple were stung with the Tarantula, and were (as we might hope) dancing and playing it away. But then, when we see that the Sting is rather encreased than cured, and the Venom of Lust and Debau∣chery is daily more and more instill'd by it, we have cause to lament the fashionable Folly and Levity of our Times.

CHAP. V.

We are furnish'd in the Bible with the Knowledg of the first Vsages relating to Matrimony. Of Nuptial Feasts; and other Antient Feasts. We have here the first Notices of Buying and Selling, and the Antient use of Money. We learn hence what was the first Apparel, and what Additions there were afterwards. The chief Ornaments of Men and Women, viz. Crowns, Mitres, Frontal Jewels, Ear-rings, (the occasion of wearing these at first, and among what Persons and Nations, together with the Abuse of them) Chains, Bracelets, Finger-Rings and Signets. Changes of Garments. The Antient use of White Apparel. Fullers Earth. Looking-Glasses. Rending of the Gar∣ments.

THAT the Scriptures contain the Knowledg of all the First and Antientest Usages in the World, I will make good in the next Place by speaking of Marriage, and several things that have reference to it. Concerning which we have the best Notices from this Authentick Book. There we are told that Man was no sooner made but God extracted a Woman out of him: and when he had divided them, he presently joined them together, so that a Conjugal Life became the first and blessed State of Paradise, Gen. 2. 21, &c. The first Per∣son that violated this primitive Law of Wedlock was Lamech, who took unto him two Wives, Gen. 4. 19. and if we may believe1 1.265 Iosephus, had 77

Children by them. The Example of this first Po∣lygamist was afterwards drawn into practice by the Iews, and Polygamy became frequent, and Divorce∣ments were permitted in order to the marrying of other Wives. The first that kept Concubines was Abraham, Gen. 25. 6. whose Practice was followed afterwards by other Patriarchs, not without some permission from God, but grew at last to a most Scandalous Excess in Solomon and Rehoboam's Days. That there were Prostitute Harl••ts betimes we may gather from Gen. 34. 31. and Chap. 38. v. 14, 15. in which latter Place there are mention'd some Circumstances whereby those Mercenary Women were known in those times, as their Vail, their sitting in an open Place, &c. That they were vail'd may be gather'd from the Practice of Tamar, but it was with a proper and peculiar sort of Covering, by which they were known from others, for all the Sex generally in those Eastern Countries went vail'd. It was not worn because those first Prosti∣tutes were modest in respect of those since, (as some have thought) but because they were Distinguish'd by this from other Women. I know that Bochart and some others attempt to infer from Isa. 47. 3. and such like Places, that they were not vail'd; but this, as I apprehend, is upon mistake, for those Words have no reference to Harlots, but to Slaves, and so the Learnedest Commentators agree. Their placing themselves by the way side or in some open Place, may be gather'd from the foresaid Example of Tamar: and this was a long time afterwards the usage among Persons of that infamous Character, Prov. 7. 12. She is in the Streets, and lieth in wait at every Corner; where by the Corner are meant the chief and most eminent Places in the Streets, open and to be seen. Wherefore we find her Seat to

be in the high Places of the City, Chap. 9. v. 14. To this impudent Practice refer those Passages, In the ways hast thou set for them, Jer. 3. 2. Thou hast made thee an high Place in every Street,—at every head of the way, Ezek. 16. 24, 25. So the Roman Strumpets were wont to sit in triviis, in the high Way where there was the greatest Resort of People, as from Catullus and others might be proved, if it were worth the while. But to re∣turn to our main Subject, that of Matrimony, we see what kind of Treaty there was about it, Gen. 34. 6, 12. what the Contract, Gen. 24. 50, 51, 57, 58. what the Solemnizing of it, Gen. 24. 67. were in those early Days. We read not of any Formali∣ty in joining of Man and Woman. Mutual Con∣sent made Marriage. Wilt thou go with this Man? And she said, I will go. Then when she was come to his House, he took her, and she became his Wife▪ To this some have thought those Words of the Prophet, Hos. 3. 3. refer, I bought her for an Ho∣mer of Barly, as if they alluded to the antient Cu∣stom of Marriage solemnized per Confarreationem, by a Cake of Bread or some Corn put into the Bride's Hand (which here by the way I might ob∣serve was perhaps the Original of th•• Bride-Cake which hath been the constant Attendant at Nup∣tials:) But though that be questionable, yet it is cer∣tain that these Words have respect to the Antient Buying of Wives. The Bridal Purchase here spoken of by the Prophet, was partly with Corn and part∣ly with Money; for he saith he bought her to him for fifteen Piece•• of Silver, as well as for an Homer, &c. So that the Dower consisted in Money and Goods. But we have a much earlier Example of this Dowry or Gift, as it is call'd Exod. 34. 12. where it appears that there was wont to be given a certain Sum of

Money to the Father of the Woman who was courted and designed for a Wife. And this may be gather'd from 1 Sam. 18. 25. for when 'tis said the King desireth not any Dowry, it is implied that although Saul in Craft seem'd to refuse a Dowry for his Daughter, yet it was usual in those Days to give it for a Wife. This is that which is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Great Father of Poets and of all Pa∣gan Antiquities: and there is reference to this Practice in several Places of his Poems. Whence Aristotle speaking of the Usages of the Old Greeks, saith1 1.266 they bought their Wives. And this Conjugal Buying or Purchasing was reciprocal, i. e. it was performed by both Parties generally, Husband and Wife. It was the same Matrimonial Coemption or Mutual Purchasing which prevails at this Day: the Woman purchases the Man with her Portion or Jointure, and he her with his Estate, or part of it. The Simplicity of those first Ages was such that there were then no such Ceremonial Rites in their Nuptials as have been observ'd since. And in∣deed it became partly necessary to have a Publick and Solemn Celebration of Marriage after the World was grown more numerous, to fix and a••certain the Legitimacy of Succession in Families, and to tie the Matrimonial Knot the faster in these slippery times.

Yet this we may take notice of, that notwith∣standing the Nuptial Bonds were entered into without Ceremony and Formality, yet they were always attended with a Feast. Which ever afterwards became fashionable among all Na∣tions, but especially the Romans, of whom we

have Examples in1 1.267 Tully,2 1.268 Suetonius,3 1.269 Iuvenal and many others. We read of a Feast at Iacob and Rachel's, or rather (as Latan order'd the Mat∣ter) Leah's Wedding, Gen. 29. 22. which lasted seven Days, as may be gather'd from v. 27. Fulfil her Week, i. e. stay till the seven Days of the Wed∣ding-Feast be over, for so you will find it explain'd in the next Verse. So Samson's Nuptials were ac∣companied with a Festival which continued a Week, Iudg. 14. 12. And this it seems was the usual Term not only of these but all other great and solemn Feasts, Esth. 1. 5, 10. And here I might observe, that it is peculiarly recorded that at Samson's Marriage-Feast he put forth a Riddle, and required the Bridal Companions to declare and expound it some time before the Days of that Solem∣nity were ended. This was one way of diverting and entertaining themselves at those times of Mirth, as other Writers testify. Herodotus and Plutarch mention these among the Antients, telling us that they were wont to propound certain Quaint Pro∣blems to be solved by the Company, and there∣upon arose Battels of Wit. And from Athenaeus we may be informed that these Enigmatical Que∣stions were used at their Compotations. Another famous Instance of Feasting on this account was that at the Royal Nuptials of Ahasuerus and Esther, Esth. 2. 18. signally stiled Esther's Feast. Where by the way observe that a Feast was called by the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Drinking, for that is the Word here used; and the same you will find in Iudg. 14. 12. Iob 1. 4. Esther 5. 5, 6. in which Places the Seventy Interpreters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Accord∣ingly to drink, Esth. 3. 15. is to Feast, and so again,

Chap. 7. v. 1. Thence in the New Testament the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Pet. 4. 3. is render'd very rightly Banquetings. And the Feasts or Banquetings among the Greeks were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Compotations, drinkings together. Because the Wine generally bore the greatest part in those Meetings, the Denomi∣nation was thence. But to go back to what I was speaking of, the Mariage-Feasts are taken notice of in several Places in the New Testament, Mat. 9. 10. & 22. 2. Iohn 2. 1. which shews the frequent use of them in those Days. The Word to express them is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in those forecited Texts, yea three or four times together in Mat. 22. is by our Translators render'd a Marriage; but that is not the proper Translation of the Word in these Pla∣ce, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is a Marriage-Feast, and so it is in1 1.270 Homer and other Authors, (as the Learned Dr. Hammond hath observ'd) and you may per∣ceive from the Texts themselves that it must be so translated. Further, 'tis observable that of old there were Proper Vests made use of when they went to these Wedding-Feasts. They generally put on white Garments (which you shall hear af∣terwards were in great Request of old) upon this Occasion: however, 'tis certain they chang'd their Apparel, and were clad in a Vestment fit for that Solemnity. This is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Wed∣ding-Garment, Matth. 22. 11. that distinct bridal Attire which was usually worn at such a time.

And here I might take occasion to speak of Other Feasts, hesides the Nuptial Ones, mention'd in these Sacred Monuments. To say nothing of the Religious Feasts of the Jews, as the Passover, &c. which were particularly appointed by God, we

read that there were some of Royalty and State, Estb. 1. 5, 9. some at the Weaning of Children, Gen. 21. 8. some at Sheep-shearing, 1 Sam. 25. 36. 2 Sam. 13. 23. others at making of Leagues and Treaties, 2 Sam. 3. 20. others at finishing of them, and to ren∣der the Compact sure, Gen. 26. 30. some on occa∣sion of Great and Publick Deliverances, Esth. 9. 17, 18. some at celebrating of Birth-days, as that of P••araoh, Gen. 40. 20. (the first Instance of this Na∣ture that we can possibly produce) and that of He∣rod, which is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 6. 21. which we render a convenient Day: but our Learn∣ed Annotator translates it a Festival Day, it an∣swering to the Hebrew Iom Tob, a good Day, a merry Season: and such was the Anniversary of Herod's Birth, which was kept as a Festival. And among Other Nations there were usually Feasts on this Account. That there were so among the Per∣sians and Grecians,1 1.271 Athenaeus bears witness: and particularly concerning the Persian Kings2 1.272 Herodo∣tus doth the like. From Suetonius and other Histo∣rians we learn that the Birth-days of Iulius Caesar, Augustus, Titus, Nerva, Antoninus, Gordian, were celebrated in the same manner.3 1.273 Sen•••••• kept the Birth-days of Socrates, Plato, &c. for such he un∣derstands by Great Men. Mecaenas and Virgil's Nativities were observed, as is evident from4 1.274 Ho∣race and5 1.275 Pliny the younger. But enough of this.

I will next enquire what antient Notices we have from the Scripture concerning Buying and Selling. We do not read that there was any Pecuniary Traf∣fick before the Flood, but 'tis likely that Swapping or Bartering of one thing for another was the

Practice of those times (as it is still among the most Barbarous Nations.) That the first way of traffick∣ing was without Coin, was the Opinion of the Prince of Philosophers,1 1.276 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Before the Invention of Money Exchanging (saith he) was in use. And even after the Flood this way of Commerce did not cease, as when there was a Dissention between Abraham's and Abimelech's Ser∣vants about the Well that Abraham dug, we read that he took Sheep and Oxen, and gave them to Abi∣melech, which perhaps may denote his Bartering for the Well, Gen. 21. 27. no less than furnishing him with Beasts for Sacrifice. Whence perhaps Kesitah, which signifies a Lamb, signifies also a Piece of Money, Gen. 33. 19. and is so translated: and the same Hebrew Word is used in Iob 42. 11. and is rendred by the Syriac and Chaldee, Greek and Vulgar Latin, a Lamb, because Cattel hereto∣fore (the chief Commodity they had) was instead of Money to them, and these they frequently chang'd for other Commodities. Though I know Grotius and some other Learned Interpreters think this Kesita was that Piece of Money which was of the Value of a Lamb, and for that Reason had the Figure of that Creature stamp'd on it. So2 1.277 Pliny tells us, that among the Romans Pecunia was so named, because the first Money was mark'd with the Figure of a Sheep or Ox, or some other Cat∣tel. 3 1.278 Varro gives the same Reason of the Name: And4 1.279 Plutarch confirms this, telling us, that they engraved on the Antient Coins the Figure of a Cow, or a Sheep, or a Hog; though withal he acknow∣ledges that it was the Opinion of some, that the

Reason why Pecunia had its Name from Pecus, was ••ot because a Sheep or other Animal was engraven ••n their antient Money, but because their chief Substance consisted in Cattel heretofore, those were ••heir first Riches.

But to wave this, this we are certain of, that when in process of Time Men saw that they had no need always of one another's Wares, and so could not change one thing for another, they invented Money, which might be given at any time instead of Commodities, and which was supposed to an∣swer Exactly to the Value and Price of the things which they bought: For, as Aristotle saith,5 1.280 there was a necessity of having all things valued and esti∣mated by a certain Price, that so by this Means there might be on all Occasions an equal and pro∣portion'd way of Changing, i. e. Money for Goods, and Goods for Money. Wherefore in the same Place he saith,6 1.281 All things are measured and duly proportion'd by the Invention of Money. And the Dictate of Reason, and the Necessities they were generally under, prompted them to make use of this way, because Goods and Wares could not so con∣veniently be carried up and down. The antientest mention of Money or Coin is in Gen. 13. 2. Abra∣ham was rich in Silver and Gold; for Keseph and Za∣bab are the Words used in7 1.282 other Places for Money of Silver and Gold: But generally Keseph (which is properly Silver) is the Word that is rendred Money in the Holy Writings. That Money was used in Abraham's Days is evident from Gen. 17. 13. which makes mention of him (i. e. a Servant) that

is bought with Money; him that is the Acquisition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Silver (as the Hebrew hath it). And concerni•••• this Patriarch 'tis said, He bought a Burying-〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Money, as much Money as the Field was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 viz. four hundred Shekels of Silver, Gen. 23. 9, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And 'tis observable, that this is call'd here curre•••• Money with the Merchant: the Silver was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such as passed to the Merchant or Trader, such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he would take as well as give. It was good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that would not be refused by merchandizing Men. This is a plain and undeniable Proof that Money, Silver Coin, was in use betimes, even in those fi•••••• Ages of the Word. Yea, I gather that the use of Coined Money was frequent in those Days, for that is implied in its passing from one to another. And from this time we constantly read that things were purchased with Keseph, Money, properly Silv••••, and therefore rendred by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is the Word for a Shekel in all those Te•••••• where it is put absolutely, and alone by it self. It is generally translated a piece of Silver, but in Is••▪ 7. 23. a Silverling.

Further, it might be observed that they weighed their Money in those Days, as appears from the In∣stance before mention'd in Gen. 23. 16. where 'tis said, that Abraham weighed unto Ephron four b••••∣dred She••els of Silver for the Field he bought of him. So you read of weighing of Money or Silver, Exod. 22. 17. Iob 28. 15. Ier. 32. 9. Zech. 11. 12. Yea, their common Coin, a Shekel, had its Name from Shakal, to weigh. And this was in use among the Persians, for in Esth. 3. 9. to weigh is to pay. The Reason of which was because generally their Money was in Large Pieces, and very Heavy; and because in Moneys the Accompt went by Shekels among the Jews, and the common Pound-weight was fifteen

Shekels, therefore some used Great Weights to weigh the Money which was paid to them for what they sold: And the••ce you may understand the Meaning of Amos 8. 5. where those are complain'd of that made the Shekel great, viz. for their own Advan∣tage and Profit. It is not unlikely that the Old Romans had this Custom of Poyzing the Money which they paid, or received in Paiment; whence ••••••dere, expendere, appendere, are both to weigh and to pay. Likewise hence (as I suppose) what is ve∣ry Valuable and Precious, what is Choice and Worthy, is said to be Weighty not only in the Idiom of the Hebrews, but among the Greeks and Latins: as on the contrary those things are said to be Light which are Vain, Vile, Little and of no Value. This way of speaking (of which I have largely treated in ••nother Place) had its Rise from the weighing of ••oney of old: Because their Coin went by Weight, therefore what is very Valuable (as Money is always reckon'd to be) is signified by Weight. But we cannot hence infer that they did not tell their Mo∣ney, (as some have thought) for the same Money that was weighed might be told, that there might be no Cheat, especially if it were a great Sum. We are not certain that the one did exclude the other: but the telling of their Money, as well as the weighing it, might be in use at the same time.

Moreover, the First and Antientest Apparel is to be known out of this Sacred Volume. Here we are informed that after Adam and Eve had transgressed the Divine Law, and thereby vitiated both Souls and Bodies, their Nakedness became shameful to them, and therefore to cover it they sewed Fig-l••••ves together, (which were broad and wide, and therefore fit for that purpose) and made themselves Aprons, Gen. 3. 7. These were the first Clothing;

for I do not see any ground for the Interpretation of a8 1.283 late Writer, who by Chagoroth (which we translate Aprons) understands some Booths or T••∣bernacles, which they dress'd up with Fig-leaves that were broad and shadowy, to hide themselves. The Original Word hath never any such Sense, and therefore we cannot but look upon this Exposition as precarious. Besides, he might have satisfied himself from very credible Authors, that among some Nations, even at this Day, their Garments are made of Leaves of Trees: so that there is no Cause to wonder, much less to deny that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apparel was of this kind. We are to understand by Chagoroth (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) such Garments where∣with they girded themselves about, and therefore in other Places the Word is rendred Girdles; 1 Sam. 18. 4. Prov. 31. 24. Ezek. 23. 15. They had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Denomination because they were tied or girt abo••••, and on that Account are not unfitly translated A∣prons; as also because they hung down before, it being the Design of that Covering of Fig-leaves to hide those Parts of the Body which by the Fall were become disgraceful and uncomely. And there is no need of supposing such Instruments in order to an artificial sewing of them, as a Late Au∣thor would suggest, and thereby would enervate the Truth and Reality of the Adamick History; for we may reasonably conceive them to be tack'd and fastned together with sharp Stalks and small Twigs which the Garden of Eden afforded them. (As afterwards for a long time People sew'd or pinn'd their Clothes together with Thorns; whence a Pin, as a9 1.284 Great Onomatologist tells us, is from the French Pingle or Espingle, Acicula, and that

from Spina or Spinula.) Whence you see how fri∣volous and childish, how frigid and dilute that Ca∣vil is;1 1.285 Where had they Needles when the Art of work∣ing Iron was not found out? and where had they Thread when the Thread-makers Trade was not invented? For indeed there was no Necessity of Needles or Thread: nay, 'tis certain that Leaves could better be fastned together with little Twigs, or something of that nature, than with those other Materials. Besides, this Gentleman shews himself as unacquainted with the Original Language as with the Antient Usage and the Nature of the thing it self; for the He∣brew Word Taphar, which is here used, is of a large Signification, and denotes putting on, fitting together, or any kind of applying, as in Iob 16. 15. Ezek. 13. 18. So that he hath no ground hence to understand this Word of sewing in a strict and pro∣per Sense. And the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is here made use of by the Seventy Interpreters, is also of great Latitude, and is rendred adapto, concinno, as well as suo. Thus our first Parents made them∣selves Garments, but afterwards God clothed them, Gen. 3. 21. They had not sufficiently cover'd themselves with their Fig-leaf Aprons; therefore unto them the Lord God made Coats of Skins, i. e. he taught them how to make them. These Garments are call'd Coats, because they were a Rayment that came over their Bodies, whereas the other covered a Part only, viz. from the Waste and Belly down∣wards. It is not improbable that they wore the former ones still, and so these latter may partly be call'd their Upper Garment. And they are call'd Coats of Skins, because they were made of the Hides of Beasts, which, it may be, were worn

at first raw, and afterwards dress'd and made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leather, and so were a Substantial Apparel▪ wh•••••• as the Covering of Fig-leaves was very ••light, a•••• deserv'd not the Name of Clothing. I will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 stay here to debate, as the Talmudists and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other Jewish Writers do, what Beasts Skin 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Skins they were that these Coats were made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Perhaps these Skins wherewith they were array'd were Sheep-Skins, with the Inside (which was cool) towards them in Summer-time, and with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 warm Fle••ce next to them in Winter (for they had their Summer and Winter in the Paradisi•••••• Earth, whatever this Archaeologist saith to the contrary). But I own this to be mere Conjecture, though the thing it self is not unworthy of the Di∣vine Wisdom and Providence. But this is beyo•••• Conjecture, that Cothnoth gnor (which we rightly translate Coats of Skin) doth not signify Taber••••∣cles made of, or covered with Skins to keep out the Heat, as the forecited Commentator on Genesis doth imagine; for it is said, God made them Coats of Skins, and clothed them, the latter being purposely added to explain to us the former. And we are sure of this, that Garments of the Skins of Ani∣mals were the antientest Apparel: so that there was no Unlikelihood of the thing. Diodorus of S••∣cily expresly relates, that in the times of old they 2 1.286 did use the Skins of wild Beasts to cover them: And that they lasted a long time among the Ind••∣ans, Persians, Scythians, and the Old Romans, we may inform our selves from Profane History; which will tell us likewise that these Skins were the only Clothing that the Old Britains (the first Inha∣••itants

of our Country) were Masters of. This ••as all the Covering they and others had at first. We see then what was the Primitive Clothing, and ••hat it was made of. Our first Progenitors (as gay and trim as we go now) were clad in plain Leathern Coats; yea she of the softer Sex, and who was the Queen of the World, had no other Gown to wear. This plain rude Habit, which was to hide their Nakedness, and to defend them from the Injury and Inclemency of the Weather, not to adorn them, was the only Dress a long time: but their Posterity by degrees found out other Ma∣terials for Clothing, as Wool (taken off from the Skin) and Flax, and made of them Woolen and Linen Garments, Lev. 13. 47. Prov. 31. 13. Ezek. 34. 3. The richer Sort, not content with this common Drapery, sought out for something more artificial and gay, more fine and delicate. Hence Ioseph, when he was made Vice-roy of Egypt, was arrayed in Vestures of fine Linen, Gen. 41. 42. and afterwards this and Silk, and Purple, and Scar••et, and Crimson, i. e. Fine Linen or Silk dyed with those Colours, became the usual clothing of all Per∣sons of Quality, Iudg. 8. 26. & 14. 12. 2 Sam. 1. 24. Prov. 31. 21, 22. Ier. 4. 30.

Though their Garments of old were but few, yet their Ornaments were many. I will not here trou∣ble you with inquiring into Iezebel's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whence the Greek and Latin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and fucus) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (70) Stibium (Vulgar Latin) 2 Kings 9. 30. or Esther's Tameruk, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (70) Esth. 2. 3, 9. which though they were Ornamental, yet belong not to Apparel. Nor will I rifle all the fantastick Gaieties of the ••anton and proud Dames of Iewry, Isa. 3. 18, &c. but I will only take notice of some of the Chief ••••d most Usual Ornaments of Men and Women,

and those which we most frequently find mention•••• in Scripture, that thereby we may understa•••• what we read, and that we may be confirm'd in this Truth, (which I have so often urged) that the first Rise of the most Antient things whatsoever is to be derived from the Writings of the Old Testa∣ment. The Head-Ornament known by the Name of a Crown [Gnatarah or Gnatereth] was not pe∣culiar to Kings, but was made use of by others, as is to be inferr'd from Ezek. 16. 12. & 23. 42. where 'tis reckon'd among the other usual Ornaments appertaining to Women. It was worn by them at solemn and extraordinary times only, and most of all on the Day of their Nuptials, as the Jewish Do∣ctors inform us. The better sort of these Attires were gilt, the common ones were made of Flowers. And that they were a Piece of Gentile Pomp and Gaiety, might be proved from several Authors, but I forbear. But there was a Crown which was proper to Kings, and is frequently call'd not only Gnatere•••• but Nezer, (which latter Name is never, as I re∣member, given to the other Crown) this was the pe∣culiar Badg of Regal Authority among the Ammo∣nites, 2 Sam. 12. 30. and Persians, Esth. 1. 11. & 2. 17. & 6. 8. (where the Word is Cether, and it is call'd the Crown of the Kingdom, or the Royal Crown, as we translate it) and among the Jews, 2 Sam. 1. 10. 2 Kings 11. 2. From Esth. 8. 15. Psal. 21. 3. Zech. 9. 16. we may gather that this Royal Crown was made of Gold, and set with Precious Stones and Iewels. The Tsaniph, another Capital Ornament, ren∣dered sometime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the LXX, and english'd by our Translators a Mitre, and sometimes a Dia∣dem, was worn by Great and Honourable Persons, and was a Badg of Authority and Eminency, as ap∣pears from Iob 29. 14. Isa. 62. 3. Zech. 3. 5. The

Persian Kings and Priests were clad in this Cidaris, as1 1.287 Curtius and other Historians acquaint us: and it is not to be doubted that they had it from the Iew∣ish High Priests and Priests, the former of which wore a Mitre, Mitsnepheth, Exod. 29. 6. & 39. 28. and the latter Bonnets, Migbanoth, which were of of fine Linen, Exod. 29. 9. & 39. 28. (as well as the Mitre) and are said to be bound upon their Heads, for that is the true Import of the Hebrew Word in the forecited Place in Exodus and in Lev. 8. 13. which plainly shews that these Mitres and Bonnets were of the Nature of Turbants, and so were the same with the Tsaniph, which was a Covering rol∣led up in Folds, and tied about the Head, from tsanaph, circumvolvere, circumligare. And indeed Tsaniph, if we exactly enquire into it, will be found to be the same Word with Mitsnepheth, only this lat∣ter is with a Mem Heemantick in the beginning, and a Tau in the End of it. If I had time I could shew that other Ornaments were borrow'd from the Jews, and that what God himself enjoined the High Priests was afterwards used by the Eastern Princes.

As to the antient Head-Covering of Women, I had occasion given me to speak of it when I dis∣cours'd on 1 Cor. 15. 29. therefore now I shall on∣ly speak of what was meer Ornament: the most eminent of which sort was their Frontal Iewel, which though it was fastned on their Foreheads, hung down lower, and thence is call'd Nezem Ha∣aph, a Nose-Iewel, Isa. 3. 21. Gemma in fronte pen∣dens, as the Vulgar Latin renders it: and St.2 1.288 Ie∣rom tells us that the Women in his time had Rings

or Jewels hung from their Foreheads dangling over the Nose. Nor was this of old reputed an immo∣dest and unbecoming Ornament, for we find that Rebekah was presented in the Name of her absent Lover with this Forehead-Pendant, as a Pledg of his Conjugal Faith and Love, Gen. 24. 22. For it is a Vulgar Errour, yea 'tis a Mistake which I find hath prevail'd among some Learned Writers, that Part of the Love-Token which was sent Rebekah was an Ear-Ring: there is no ground at all for it, for in express Terms it is said that the Nezem Zahab, the Iewel of Gold (as 'tis call'd in this v. 22. which our Translators render a Golden Ear-ring) was put gnal Aphah, upon her Nose, v. 47. or, as our Transla∣tors themselves render it, upon her Face; for the Word Aph is largely taken sometimes for the Face. But we never find that it is taken for the Ear, and therefore this place can't be meant of an Ear-ring, yea our Translators themselves acknowledg as much when gnal Aphah is rendered by them upon her Face: wherefore there was no reason to render Nezem an Ear-ring at the same Time and in the same Place. Besides, the Women wore that sort of Ornament by Couples, and consequently we may gather thence that this Golden Nezem which was sent to Rebekah was no Ear-ring, but a Pendulous Jewel upon her Face or Forehead. Isaac had more of Generosity and Courtship in him than to make an offer to his Mi∣stress of a Half-Present. The truth then of the Matter is this, they had of old Forehead-Orna∣ments, as well as those that they wore in their Ears. The plain and unquestionable Difference between these is observable in Ezek. 16. 12. I put a Iewel on thy Forehead, and Ear-rings in thine Ears. The Ne∣zem gnal Aph, the Iewel on the Forehead, or on the Nose or Face, (for 'tis the same with Gen. 24. 47.)

is distinguish'd from the Ear-Ornaments, the Rings and Pendants that hung at that part. Some have thought (and St. Augustin was of that number) that the Nezem before mention'd, Gen. 24. 22. and the Nose-Iewels mention'd Isa. 3. were Rings in their Nostrils; for, as this Father observes, there was1 1.289 such a Custom among some of the Afri∣can Women: and others since that time tell us the like of some of the Eastern People. Particularly a2 1.290 Modern Traveller informs us that at this Day not only in Persia, but other Oriental Regions, it is usual with the Women to bore their Nostrils, and wear Pendants there. But whatever may be the Custom at this Day, there is no Author that makes mention of it as practis'd of old by the Peo∣ple of the East, and particularly of Syria and Iu∣dea. Therefore we may conclude that the Nezem Haaph was a Jewel for the Forehead, but had its De∣nomination from its hanging above or over the Nose. So much of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or Nose-Orna∣ment) as Symmachus renders it, and very properly: whereas the LXX most absurdly translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that too in the forenamed Place in Ezekiel, where it is plainly distinguish'd from the Ear-Or∣nament. I thought therefore I was obliged to give you a true and exact Account of the Original Word. And truly if we observe what large Searches Eustathius and Servius make into a single Word in Homer and Virgil, and how busily and concernedly other Critical Commentators on Pro∣phane Authors dive into some dubious Expressions which occur in them, we cannot think this present Criticizing or any other undertaken in this Dis∣course

upon the Words in this Holy Book, to be superfluous and impertinent, unless we can per∣swade our selves that the Terms which the Holy Ghost makes use of in this Sacred Volume, are not as well worth our enquiring into as those in other Authors.

Another Ornamental Furniture which I will name, and which (of all others) is most frequently mention'd in the Books of the Old Testament, is that which is appropriated to the Ears. Concern∣ing which these useful Remarks may be made: Fir•••• we may take notice of the Words whereby this Pendulous Ornament is express'd. The Word Nezamim (the Plural of the former Word Nezem) is not only a general Term for Jewels, but it is particularly used concerning those which are wo•••• in the Ears, Gen. 35. 4. Exod. 32. 2. and accord∣ingly are render'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy Interpre∣ters. Another Word is used in Isa. 3. 20. viz. Le∣chashim, from lacash to whisper or mutter, also to charm; because these are the Ornaments of that part (the Ear) which is most affected and wrought upon in Charms, and by which the Inchantment is receiv'd. But the more particular and restrained Word is Gnagil, Numb. 31. 50. Rotula, sphaerula, a round Ring, from Gnagol Circulus; and the Plural Gnagilim we read in Ezek. 16. 12. which is ren∣der'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. rotulae, by the LXX. Ear-rings had this Denomination because of their circular Figure: and the Jewels and Pearls which hung at th••m were known by this Name, because they hung at these Circles, these round Wires of Gold put into the Ears. These then are the Ear-Ornaments properly so call'd, being peculiar to this part alone, and no other. It seems they antiently chose the lower part of the Ear as the fittest Place to have

little Incisions made in it, because it is spungy and flexible, and will safely admit of these soft Pe∣netrations: and indeed it seems as it were to be made to receive some Ornament to hang there. Yea, it is it self a king of Pendant, in respect of the other parts of the Ear. Besides, this is a Part in view, where Ornaments may be seen, which was one design of wearing them. This might prompt them at first to bore holes in this fleshy Part, and hang Jewels in them. Likewise, the Ear is the Or∣gan of Hearing, and the grand Medium of Instru∣ction and Discipline; it is on this account the most Honourable Part of the Body, and therefore in the first and innocent Ages they endeavour'd to adorn and honour it with placing Jewels there. This a1 1.291 Reverend and Learned Writer of a neigh∣bouring Nation gives as the reason why they made these small Perforations in the Ear, and inserted Rings of Gold or Silver into them. He conje∣ctures it to be done as a Sign of Honour to that no∣ble Part, which is the Instrument of the chiefest and most useful Sense.

Again, from the Sacred Writings we may sa∣tisfy our selves what People and Nations wore this antient Ornament. Here we read that those of Abraham's Race, particularly Iacob's Family, were decked with it, Gen. 35. 4. By this it appears that they retain'd the innocent Fashion of the Coun∣try whence they came, for it was customary with the Assyrians to make these Apertures in their Ears, and let the Light through them as it were, according to that of the Poet,

2 1.292 Natus ad Euphraten, molles quòd in aure fenestrae Arguerint.—

And afterwards it became among the Iews a way of adorning themselves, as is deducible from that manner of God's expressing his Kindness and Boun∣ty to the Jewish People, I put Ear-rings in thin•• Ears, Ezek. 16. 12. And that this antient Brave∣ry was not confined to one Sex only among them, is plain from Exod. 32. 2. where we read of golden Ear-rings in the Ears of their Wives, of their Sons and of their Daughters, yea of all the People, in the next Verse. That boring of the Ears, and ad∣mitting of Gold into them, was also in use among the antient Arabs, we cannot but conclude from Iob's accepting of an Ear-ring as a Present from his Friends, Iob 42. 11. and wearing it for their sake; for Nezem is one of the Words (as you have heard) that is made use of to express that particular Or∣nament: and besides, it could not be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is sometimes signified by that Word) because this was proper only to Women. Fur∣ther, this was the usual Ornament of that Coun∣trey, as several Historians since acquaint us. We have a Proof of this in Num. 31. 50. where it is enumerated among those Ornaments of the Midia∣nites, i. e. Arabians, which became a Prey to the Jews when they slew all the Males, and took the Women Captive. And there is another very notable Proof of this in Iudg. 8. 24. where 'tis recorded that the Ishmaelites (or Midianites, for they were the same) who were a People of Arabia, had golden Ear-rings; and 'tis added that they had so because they were Ishmaelites, because by this means they would take off the Imputation of Slave∣ry, of being of the Race of the Bondwoman, which some might object to them. They all made Holes and Fissures in the tender Lobes of their Ears, and therein wore these Ornaments to signify they were

Free; for this antiently was reckon'd as a Token of Ingenious Breeding, and an Argument that the Persons who were deck'd with them, were of some considerable Rank and Station.

But how then came it to be a Sign of Servitude among the Iews, for we read that they bored their Servants Ears? I answer, this was not a Mark of their being Servants, but it was a Testimony of their Voluntary Subjection and Obedience to their Masters, and a Mark whereby they might be known to be Theirs. The Words of the Law are obser∣vable, If the Servant shall plainly say, I love my Ma∣ster, then his Master shall bring him unto the Iudges, and he shall bore his Ear through with an Awl, and he shall serve him for ever, Exod. 21. 6, 7. His great Love to his Master made him continue in his Service, and this Loving Service (for it was such, and not a Constrain'd Servitude) was testified by the boring of the Ear. The Perforation of this Part was signi∣ficant, in that the Ear (as hath been said before) is the Organ of Hearing, and consequently of Obe∣dience. To hear and to obey are synonymous, to give ear and yield obedience are Terms convertible: therefore the Ear was submitted to the Threshold, and bored, to express the Person's submissive Obedi∣ence and Hearkning to his Master. And it is pro∣bable that when the boring of the Ear was done, they put some Iron or Brass Ring into the Hole, for otherwise it would close up, and there would be no Mark: whereas the Design was to mark the Person, that he might be known to belong to such a one. So that piercing the Ear was in order to something else, viz. to have something put into it by the Master, perhaps sometimes a Ring of some value, if he had a great Esteem of him as a ve∣ry faithful Servant. This as a Visible Memento was

to hang at that Place, and he was distinguish'd by it from others of better Rank, because it was in one Ear only. This, as I apprehend, is the true No∣tion of that Jewish Usage: and it is the more like∣ly and credible, because this Custom of boring the Ear was used towards those Servants who were so pleas'd with their Master and the Family, that they would not part from them, they would live with them continually, and be always in their Service. The Master had a proportionable Kindness and Love to such a Servant, and might reward him with an Ear-ring of Silver, or it may be of Gold. This Ornament was ever esteemed by the Antients as a Mark of some Gentility, as a Badg of some Re∣pute and Creditable Estate in the World. Whence the Arabians, who had no mean Opinion of them∣selves and of their Descent and Gallantry, were the most noted of all People heretofore for boring their Ears, as we learn from1 1.293 Petronius and others. Yea indeed, it was an universal Practice (as2 1.294 Pli∣ny observes) among the Eastern People both Men and Women, to punch the Lap of the Ear, and to hang some Ornament there. Concerning the Afri∣cans the same hath been observ'd by Authors, whence that Piece of Raillery in Plautus,3 1.295 Digitos in mani∣bus non habent: incedunt annulatis auribus. The Carthaginians, saith he, as if they had no Fingers, wear their Rings (which were wont to shine there) in their Ears. And we may take notice that this is spoken of the Servants of that Countrey: whence we gather that these as well as Freemen had their Ears bored, and wore Rings in them. As to the

Romans, some even of the Men among them (but very few) had their Ears bored, and wore Jewels in them, or in one of them at least, as appears from one of Tully's Jests which7 1.296 Macrobius relates. But a Multitude of Authors agree that 'twas the Mode of the other Sex among them, the Wealthy Matrons especially, to adorn that Part with Pearls and Precious Stones: and they purposely made their Incisions very large and wide for the Recep∣tion of Rings and Jewels of a great Magnitude, according to that of the Satyrist;

1 1.297 Auribus extensis magnos commisit Elenchos.

The Females underwent those troublesome and un∣easy Perfossions in the Lappets of their Ears, in assurance of having them loaded with some Rich Pendants as a Recompence. Those tender Wo∣men ventur'd to wound their Flesh, because these Wounds were to be fill'd up with Gold. They be∣came at last so extravagantly lavish as to this Orna∣ture, that (as2 1.298 Pliny observes either of these or some other Women) no part of them was so ex∣pensive and costly as their Ears. It was Seneca's Complaint, that3 1.299 whole Patrimonies and more dangled at the Tips of Ladies Ears. And some of the Antient Doctors of the Church were wont to lash this unsufferable Prodigality among the Chri∣stian Women, telling them, that they were so shamefully profuse, as to hang4 1.300 a whole Year's Re∣venue at this Part.

Furthermore, I take occasion from Scripture to remark that this Ornament was heretofore used to Idolatrous Ends; for else we can't give any Account of the Patriarch Iacob's Injunction to his Servants and Houshold to put away the strange Gods that were in their Hand, and the Ear-rings that were in their Ears, Gen. 35. 2, 4. These two would not have been thus join'd together, unless the latter had been made use of in a Superstitious and Idolatrous manner. Enchanted Rings were usual of old, as we are informed from several Passages in History besides that concerning Gyges. And this may be one Reason perhaps why those Rings that were pe∣culiar to the Ears were call'd Lechashim, (as we heard before) viz. because they were wont to be made use of in Enchantments. Gold Rings were a sort of Talismans, and were used (as Petronius testi∣fies) by the People of the Isle of Samothracia, in a Magical way, to drive away Diseases, and to do strange Feats; and they learn'd this from the Egyptians, he saith. An5 1.301 Ecclesiastical Writer upon the Place before alledged tells us, that among the Gentiles their Ear-rings had in them the Effigies of their Deities, and that they were made by them the Phylacteries of their Gods. That they were used in way of Magick, is attested by the same Antient Writer, who reproves and condemns the6 1.302 Exe∣crable Superstition of Ligatures in those Days, which was performed by Ear-rings, which the Men wore in summis ex unâ parte auriculis. Whence a late Learned7 1.303 Critick would infer, that the Afri∣can

Servants wore their Ear-rings (not as others did, but) on the top of their Ears. But I conceive there is no ground for this Inference from St. Au∣gustine's Words; for if we consult the Place, we shall find that he speaks in general, and consequent∣ly not of Servants any more than others. And moreover, there may be another and more proper Construction of summae auriculae, for summae may be as much as extremae, and then not the upper part of the Ears, but the lowest, i. e. the Tips of them (where all Ear-rings are hung) are meant here. And ex unâ parte seems to me to signify their wear∣ing their Ear-rings on one Side only, not in both Ears. This I conceive is the true and genuine Sense of that African Father's Words. But the main thing we observe from them is, that this sort of Ornament was employed heretofore to wicked and Diabolical Purposes; and thence were deservedly call'd by this Pious Writer, in the same Epistle, the Mark of the Devil. And this, it is probable, was derived from that more antient Practice of some of Iacob's Houshold before cited. As the Pa∣gans used to conse••rate their Hair, their Clothes, and things of all kinds to their Demons, so here some of Iacob's Family engraved the Image of some Idol on their Ear-rings, and wore them in remem∣brance of the feigned Deities: Or perhaps the Good Patriarch saw some ground to fear that they would do thus, and therefore that these Ornaments might not be serviceable to Idolatry, or (as Grotius saith) left some Golden Calf should be made of their Ear-rings, he bids them cast them away; and when they had done so, he took them, and hid them under an Oak, ver. 4. buried them and their Gods together.

It is to be lamented that the Number of those who dedicate their Ornaments to false Gods, and make them serviceable to some sort of Idolatry, is too great at this day.1 1.304 Indeed the fond Bigotry of the Emperor Severus was reprovable, who, when a pair of Pearls of inestimable Value was pre∣sented to his Lady, order'd them to be hung at the Ears of Venus: but there are those who wear the richest Jewels themselves, and at the same time devote them to this Goddess, i. e. they make them wholly subservient to Lust and Lewdness, to Wan∣tonness and Luxury, and other vitious Purposes: and when 'tis thus, Iacob'S Injunction should be put in practice, the Choicest Ornaments are to be laid aside, it is time now to inter these Pernicious Idols. But those who know how to use their Ornaments in a right manner, that is, to substract them from all vicious Principles and Ends, to suffer them not to administer to Levity and Vanity, to Softness and Effeminacy, to lewd Desires and Inclinations, to Pride and Vain-glory; these, and only these, are the Persons to whom the using of them is lawful. And this must more particularly be applied to that kind of Ornament which I have been speaking of, which seems to be no effeminate one in it self, both because it was used by Men, and likewise because 'tis accompanied with some Hardship, and requires some Valour to endure the piercing of the Bodkin. They must bleed first before they wear it: and af∣terwards those little Wounds are continually kept gaping. And it cannot be thought unlawful and vicious in its own Nature, seeing the Israelites deck'd themselves with it, but are never reproved and check'd for it. They are not blamed for wearing

Ear-rings, but for making an Idol of them. The religious Rebekah, who wore the Frontal Jewel, did not boggle at the Auricular one; for questionless this is comprehended in the Keli Zahab, the Iewels of Gold which she was presented with, Gen. 24. 53. Yea, Holy Iob, whose Spirit had been unspeakably broken and mortified by his Afflictions, yet refused not this Innocent Gift (which was of general Use in that Country) from the Hands of his Friends. So much of this Ornament, which was the Anti∣entest, the most Universal, the Simplest, and the most Unaffected of any that we read of in the Sa∣cred Records: on which Accounts it hath the Pre∣cedence of all others. But this and other Ador∣nings, in these licentious times, are abused by their Commonness: whereby that Distinction which ought to be made between the different Ranks of Persons is taken away; and that Money is lavish'd in a needless and unbecoming Dress, which should be laid out in Bread.

Again, the Neck was not destitute of its proper Decking, viz. Chains. These in great Persons were Ensigns of Authority and Dignity (as they are in several Places at this Day): thus Pharaoh put a Gold Chain about Joseph's Neck, Gen. 41. 42. and Belshazzar did the same to Daniel, Dan. 5. 29. This was a general Ornament of the Midianites or Ara∣bians, as appears from Numb. 31. 50. where it is mention'd with a great many others that were in fashion among that People. It was used by the Iews, as we may gather from Prov. 1. 9. It was more especially the graceful Attire of the softer Sex, Cant. 1. 1O. Charuzim are Pearls on a String orderly disposed, as Buxtorf explains the Word. And these Necklaces of Pearl are, it is probable, meant by Gnanak, Cant. 4. 9. One Chain, i. e. one

of those Strings of Pearl. And that this was a piece of Woman's Finery is plain from Ezek. 16. 11. where it is numbred among other Ornaments of that Sex, and is stiled R••bid. Another sort of Neck-Ornaments (we may call them Counter-points) much antienter than these, is mention'd, Iudg. 5. 30. Needlework of divers Colours, wrought on both Sides, for the Necks (ad ornanda colla, as the Vulgar Latin hath it) of those that take the Spoil.

The Arms or Wrists were wont of old to have their peculiar Adorning, viz. with Bracelets: Of which we read first of all in Gen. 24. 30. these as well as the Forehead-Pendants being presented to Rebekah by her Servant Isaac. We find it in the Catalogue of the Female Ornaments used by the Iews, Ezek. 16. 11. And this was worn not only by Women but Men, viz. such as were of some considerable Figure in the World, as Iudah, Gen. 38. 18. and King Saul, 2 Sam. 1. 10. And from Exod. 35. 22. it may be concluded that both Sexes at first made use of them. As to the Nature of them, I shall not here enquire into it: only I re∣mark this, that from the several Distinct Names given in Scripture to them, as Tsemidim, Petilim, Chach, Atsgnadah, we may infer, that there were several sorts and kinds of them. It is certain that the first mention of them is in the Bible: and af∣terwards we read of them in Profane Authors. These tell us, that even Men, yea Martial Men▪ did not disdain this Finery; of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Sabines, who inveigled Tarpeia to betray the Capitol to them, by promi∣sing to give her what they wore on their left Arms, by which she thought they meant their Br••celets; but they, both to keep their Word, and to punish the Treason, threw in their Bucklers to boo••,

wherewith the poor faithless Maid was stifled and overwhelmed.

We read of another Ornament, which was for the Hands and Fingers, viz. a Ring, Tabbagnath. This is reckon'd among other Habiliments of the Midianites, Numb. 31. 50. and of the Iewish Wo∣men, Isa. 3. 21. And that it was an Innocent Or∣nament among the Jews afterwards, we may ga∣ther from the Parable, where the kind Father put a Ring on the Hand of the returned Spendthrift, Luke I5. 22. And St. Iames's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ch. 2. v. 2. shews it was fashionable in those Days. Sometimes their Rings were garnished with Preci∣ous Stones, for we read of Gold Rings set with the Be∣ryl, Cant. 5. 14. Some of them were antiently wont to be cut and engraved, and so were made use of as Seals. The first mention of this Chotham, this Sealing Ring, is in Gen,. 38. I8. Iudah gave his Daughter (whom he took to be another Female) a Signet, as a Pawn, to assure her of something of another nature. Perhaps some began then to be∣troth Virgins with a Ring, and so this Pledg was a Symbol of Iudah's espousing Thamar. If this were so (which I think can't be disproved) the Wedding Ring is of greater Antiquity than is imagined. The Seal-Ring was worn on their right Hands, as ap∣pears from Ier. 22. 24. It was of great Use, and much prized, and therefore carefully kept, as this Place and others, Cant. 8. 6. Hag. 2. 23. import. And not only Iews but Persians frequently used this sort of Ring, Esth. 3. 12. & 8. 8. and it was a Badg of Authority among them, for Ahasuerus pluck'd off his Ring from his Finger, and bestowed it on Haman, Esth. 3. 10. and afterwards on Mordecai, Esth. 8. 2. to signify the Power and Honour he in∣••••sted them with. And the like Practice was long

before among the Egyptians, Gen. 41. 42. Pharao•• took off his Ring from his Hand, and put it on Joseph's. Where by the way we may observe, that1 1.305 Pliny is no good Antiquary when he saith the Egyptians knew not the Use of these Rings. And he further shews himself deficient in Antiquity, when he tells us, that they were not used in the Time of the Trojan War (because forsooth Homer doth not make mention of them): for this Instance was at least five hundred Years before that Trojan Expe∣dition. And the other of Iudah was somewhat before this. So that it is clear that the first Disco∣very of things in the World is made in the Wri∣tings of the Old Testament: and afterwards Hu∣mane Authors derive their Relations from these, or speak of things that were in imitation of them, as2 1.306 Dionys. Halicarn.3 1.307 Livy,4 1.308 Pliny, mention the Sabines and Romans wearing of Rings.

Before I quit this Part of my Discourse concern∣ing the Attire made mention of in Scripture, I will take notice that this was according to the Rank, Place and Dignity of the Persons, or according to the Occasion of Business they were employed about. Thus we read of Lebush Malkuth, Esth. 6. 8. The Royal Apparel which the King used to wear. And the Queens had their Royal Vestment proper to their Dignity, which is absolutely and barely stiled Mal∣kuth, Esth. 5. 1. She put on the Kingdom; so the He∣brew. To this belong the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the soft Apparel, fit for Kings Houses, i. e. their Courts, Mat. 11. 8. Others, though not of so high a Rank, had their Caliphoth shemaloth, their Changes of Rai∣ment, Gen. 45. 22. which are rendred by the Greek

Interpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, double Raiment; and in the same Verse again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, change∣able Garments. Of these we read in Iudg. 14. 12. 2 Kings 5. 5, 22. Zech. 3. 4. These were their Dif∣ferent Habits which they put on, according to the Difference of Times, and the Employment they were about. These were an usual Present of old (as appears from some of the Texts which I have here alledg'd) that they customarily bestow'd on their Friends as Tokens of Hospitality and Love. That this was an antient Practice may be collected from Homer, by whom these Changes of Garments are call'd1 1.309〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And among other Gifts and Presents which Alcinous gave to Vlysses, —2 1.310〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are reckon'd. That the same Persons had Different Sutes of Clothes ap∣pears from Gen. 27. 15. which mentions Esau's goodly Raiment, which was very rich and fashiona∣ble, and which had been laid up by his Mother among those Aromatick Spices and Odours (as 'tis likely was the Custom then) which the Fi••lds in those warm Countries supplied them with; whence we read of the Smell of his Raiment, ver. 27. This Perfumed Sute was fetched out and worn by him at solemn Seasons, as we may gather from the Occa∣sion of Iacob's using it by his Mother's Order. So in succeeding times they were clad on Festival Days, and Times of Rejoicing, with a better sort of Apparel than they wore at other times. These are stiled Garments of Beauty, Isa. 51. 1. and Gar∣ments of Praise, Isa. 61. 3. such as they put on at times of Rejoicing and praising God.

Especially White Garments were then much in fashion: to which refers that of Ecclesiastes, ch. 9.

ver. 7, 8. After he had said, Go thy way, eat th•••• Bread with Ioy, and drink thy Wine with a merry Heart, he adds, Let thy Garments be always 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Of this particular sort of Garments used at Feasts among the Jews, Philo speaks in his Discourse of a Theoretick Life. And perhaps such a Linen Vesture or Ephod David wore at a solemn time of Rejoicing, 1 Chron. 15. 27. This is certain, that the richer sort of People among the Jews were wont to wear, especially in publick, this White Clothing. Whence the Nobles and Great Men were stiled Chorim, 1 Kings 21. 11. Neh. 13. 17. Eccles. 10. 17. Isa. 34▪ 12. Ier. 27. 20. & 39. 6. i. e. Candidi, from the Colour of their Garments. This gives an Account of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the bright Apparel, Jam. 2. 2. Whence it was that the Fullers were an antient Trade, and are more than once mention'd in Scrip∣ture, 2 Kings 18. 17. Mal. 3. 2. But by this Name are not meant those who deal about combing or plucking the Wool, but those that wash'd and whi∣ten'd both Woolen and Linen, and took out their Spots and Filth, which were soon contracted, and as easily seen in that White Raiment. It is proba∣ble that the Fullers Field, Isa. 7. 3. was the Place where they dress'd and dried their Cloth: and it is likely that it was made choice of by those Tradesmen, because it was so near the Pool (which they had occasion to use constantly) mention'd in the same Verse. The Fullers Sope, Mal. 3. 2. was useful to this purpose: The Hebrew Word Bori•••• is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, herba, by the Seventy, because they used some certai•• Plant or Herb of an abstersiv•• and cleansing Nature, a kind of Sope-wort. In th•• New Testament likewise this Employment is spoke•••• of; for the Evangelist, speaking of our Saviou•••• Garments at his Trans••iguration, ••aith, they beca••••

shining, exceeding white as Snow, such as no Fuller on Earth can white them, Mark 9. 3. Where it is not improbable that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render on Earth, should rather be english'd with Earth, i. e. with Fullers-Earth; which, with other things, was so useful in scouring and cleansing their Garments, and reducing them to their former Whiteness: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Theophrastus (whom the Learned Ham∣mond quotes) signifies much of this Fullers-Earth; whence that Excellent Critick is enclined to think that that is the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here. And 'tis cer∣tain that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes used in that manner which it is in this Place. The Use of White Garments was in great Esteem not only among the Iews (of whom I have spoken already) but the Persians, as may be seen in Esth. 8. 5. But especi∣ally the Romans hugely affected to wear Clothes of this Colour, and that chiefly at their Feasts and on High Days: Then their bright Gowns were put on, which with their Eatings and Drinkings they brought home soil'd, and thence they had occasion for Fullers very much, to cleanse their Gowns of Spots, and to make them white again. These Garments which they put on when they went out upon solemn Invitations to Suppers, were called vests accubitoriae, coenatoriae, cibarial;, togal; triclina∣res, and are often mention'd by Pliny, Martial, and other Writers. Among the Greeks this Habit was known by the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and (as we learn from1 1.311 Xiphilin) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To these belongs the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spoken of before, and perhaps that Linen Garment▪ (Mark 1 •• 51.) which a young Man had cast about him. This young Man (saith St. Ambrose) was Iohn the Evangelist,

who went with Christ from the Supper into the Garden, having on his Festival Garment still. I could observe also that Garments of diverse Colours were in great Esteem of old: thus the Beloved Io∣seph had his Phassim, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, LXX) Gen. 37. 3. And the Royal Ladies were thus apparell'd, 2 Sam. 13. 18. This is call'd Rikmah in Judg. 5. 30. and Tsebagnim in the same Verse.

To see themselves, and how their Apparel sat, they had of old no Looking-Glasses, properly so call'd, for we have no Word for Glass in the Old Testament, though in the New we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rev. 4. 16. & 15. 2. & 21. 18, 21. and it is probable that the Artificial making and ordering of it was found out about that time, as we may ga∣ther from what1 1.312 Pliny saith of it. Their Speculums were not made of Glass, (as now) but of polished Brass, otherwise the Jewish Dames could not have contributed them towards the making of the Bra∣zen Laver, Exod. 38. 8. These are the Miroth here spoken of, which are also expressed by other Words, as Rei, Job 38. 8. and Gilinim, Isa. 3. 23. all three from Hebrew Roots, which signify to see, to reveal or discover, because Objects appear and are seen in these Speculums. Of this sort of Mirrors, made of some bright Metal, and particularly of burnish'd Brass,2 1.313 Pliny and3 1.314 Vitruvius speak. But before this Invention, yea and afterwards, among all the plainer sort of People, the Water, in Ponds and Rivers, when the Surface of them was smooth and even, was instead of Looking-Glasses to them: and that might be one Reason why they often of old went down to visit these Places, and after they

had well viewed themselves in them, made use of them for Bathing. Men likewise at first used to look themselves in Fountains and Rivers:

—4 1.315 Nuper me in littore vidi,

saith the Shepherd in Virgil. Thence Speculum udum is the Periphrasis of a River in Apuleius. And from other Testimonies it might be proved, that they antiently look'd their Faces in Waters. So that when the Burnish'd Looking-Glasses of the Hebrew Women were commuted into a Laver, they were thereby seasonably put in mind of the first Watry Speculums.

Lastly, to put a Period to this Head of my Dis∣course, I will take notice of the rending of the Gar∣ments, so often spoken of in the Divine Writings. This they did either when some great Calamity befel them, or when some Enormous Fact was com∣mitted, or when some Impious and Blasphemous Words were uttered; and briefly it was a Sign of extraordinary Grief, Perturbation of Mind, An∣ger, great Displeasure, Detestation. Frequent Examples we have of it among the Hebrews, Gen. 37. 29. & 44. 23. Numb. 14. 6. Iosh. 7. 6. Iudg. 11. 35. 2 Sam. 1. 2. Mat. 26. 65. Acts 14. 14. And the Arabians express'd their doleful Resent∣ments by this Ceremony, Iob 1. 20. & 2. 12. And so did the Persians, as may be rationally supposed from Mordecai's running in this mourn••ul Posture through the Streets, where he would have been thought to be mad, if that People had not used the same way of testifying their Mourning, Esth. 4. 1. And indeed we are assured from5 1.316 Herodotus,6 1.317 Xe∣nophon,

and7 1.318 Q. Curtius, that the Persians were wont to rend their Clothes when they had any doleful Tidings brought them. In imitation of them the8 1.319 Greeks did so, but very sparingly. And several9 1.320 Historians ascertain us, that the Romans used this Custom when they would shew their ex∣cessive Sorrow and Trouble of Mind, especially at the Death and Funerals of their Friends.

Which reminds me of the last Part of my Task, viz. to speak of the Scripture-Antiquities which re∣late to Burial and Funerals.

CHAP. VI.

Here we are informed concerning the Primitive Institu∣tion of Burying. Graves and Sepulchres were ge∣nerally in the Fields, and without the Walls of Cities. They usually embalmed the dead Bodies. Why they sometimes burnt them. Burning also signifies Em∣balming. There was a Difference between the Fune∣ral Burning of the Jews and of the Heathens. The Manner and Time of Mourning for the Dead. Both Vocal and Instrumental Musick used at Fune∣rals. The Antiquity of Funeral Monuments. The old way of erecting great Heaps of Stones over the dead. Stone-heng is a Sepulchral Monument, and in imitation of it. Anah's Invention of Mules. Writers borrow from one another. The Bible only is the Book that is beholden to no other. Here is the Antientest Learning in the World: and that of all Kinds. 'Tis common with Authors to contradict themselves, and one another: they are uncertain, lu∣bricous, and fabulous. But the Divine Writers alone are certain and infallible. How strange and impro∣bable soever some of the Contents of this Holy Book may seem to be, they justly command our firm Assent to them.

HERE, and only here, we ••ind the first Institu∣tion of Burying or Inhumation; the Antiqui∣ty of which is greater than is commonly thought. Man's Original and Interment are both joined together, Gen. 3. 19. for he is told by God himself, that he must return unto the Ground, because out of it he was taken: and that he may be assured of it, it is repeated in the same Place, Dust thou art,

and to Dust thou shalt return. Man acts in a Circle, he goes back to his first Principle, to the same Point again, the Earth of which he was compound∣ed. Here is the Primitive Law of Burial, i. e. of committing the Body to the Earth (which is pro∣perly Interring): this was instituted by God, and this is the most proper way of disposing of the dead Body. Of this the Pious Sufferer speaks, saying, Naked came I out of my Mother's Womb, and naked shall I return thither, Job 1. 21. Having in the for∣mer Clause mention'd his Mother's Womb▪ and the Earth being as it were his Mother, he saith, he shall return thither, as if he had mention'd the Earth. Therefore, according to Chrysostom and some other Expositors, his Mother's Womb is interpreted the Earth. But there is something more than this, which hath not been taken notice of by Interpre∣ters: therefore the better to shew the Tenour of the Words, I desire it may be observed, that it is in the immediately foregoing Verse said, Job fell down upon the Ground, grovell'd upon the bar•• Earth, and then he took occasion to utter these Words, Naked came I, &c. As if he had said, I am here laid low upon the Ground, which reminds me of my original Extraction: out of this I and all Mankind were first taken, as we were since out of our Mothers Wombs, and to the Ground we must return again, which is the Mother of all. This, as I conceive, is the true Meaning of the Words, which could not have been discover'd without at∣tending to the foregoing Verse, to which these have a plain Reference. This Notion hath been entertained by Pagan Writers when the Earth is called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but none of them mention (because they were ingnorant of) that first and original Order of Burial, Vnto Dust

thou shalt return, on which this is founded. Man by these Words is appointed to be laid in the Ground, to be buried in the Earth. In pursuance of which Order Men have been naturally enclined to take care of decent Burial, and to bestow the Bodies of the Dead in the Earth. Therefore the burying with the Burial of an Ass, which is pro∣perly no burying at all, is abhorr'd by Mankind, and is threatned as a Judgment from Heaven, Ier. 22. 19. for I suppose few will attend to what 1 1.321 Iosephus saith, that Nebuchadnezzar took Iehoiakim (who is the Person to whom this is threatned) and kill'd him, and ripping up an Asses Belly, buried him in it, which this Writer saith is the fulfilling of the Prophecy. It is rather to be understood of his being not buried at all, but expos'd to the Air and Putrefaction above ground (as Beasts are) he being cast forth beyond the Gates of Ierusalem, as it follows in the next Clause; and more expresly in Ier. 36. 30. his dead Body was cast out in the Day to the Heat, and in the Night to the Frost.

Though Burial was used from the beginning, yet the first Instance we meet of it is that in Gen. 23. 19. viz. of Abraham's burying Sarah, to which purpose he bought a Field with a Cave in it, wherein he lodg'd his beloved Wife, Gen. 23. 17, 18, 19. and there afterwards he was buried himself, Gen. 25. 8. and in the same Sepulchre were deposited the Corps of Isaac and Rebekah, Iacob and Leah, Gen. 49. 31. This then we are certain of, that Fields were the first Places of Burial, (I mean the first that we read of) and Caves the first particu∣lar Repositories of the Dead. And thus general∣ly it was afterwards, so far as we have any Disco∣veries

from these Holy Records. The Burying-Pla∣ces were in the Fields, and not within Cities and wall'd Towns. Only here I must premise that there were some few Exceptions, as that in 1 Sam. 25. 1. they buried Samuel in his House at Ramah. There were at that time some Persons interr'd pri∣vately, and then their Corps were not carried abroad. This was the Case of Samuel, who though he had been an eminent Person, yet chose an ob∣scure Burial. Nay, it is likely that all Persons at first of a mean Figure and private Capacity, were lodg'd when they were dead, in the same Ground on which they dwelt when they were alive. Which is Servius's Remark on a Passage in Virgil, 1 1.322 Of old, saith he, all Men were buried in their Hou∣ses. And2 1.323 Isidore agrees with him. Another In∣stance of this private Interment was Ioab, who though he had been a Great Man, yet went off the Stage in very ill Circumstances, and was buried in his own House in the Wilderness, 1 Kings 2. 34. And King Manasses who had been so exorbitant an Offen∣der, voluntarily chose a mean and humble Grave in the Garden of his own House, 2 Kings 21. 18. as think∣ing himself unworthy of the Royal Sepulchre of his Fathers, which was in the City of David. And here also is remarkable another Exception, viz. as to the Burial of some of the Iewish Kings, who were not buried without the Walls, but in the Ci∣ty it self, viz. Zion, (the upper Part of Ierusalem, where the Temple and the King's Palace were seat∣ed) the City of David, as we expresly read con∣cerning the Burial of David, 1 Kings 2. 10. Solo∣mon,

1 Kings 11. 43. Iehoram, 2 Chron. 21. 20. and others. The rest had a Royal Burying-place without the City, and King Vzziah being a Leper, was not interred with some of the other Kings, but in the Field of the Burial which belong'd to the Kings, 2 Chron. 26. 23. And in the Fields or Places sepa∣rated from their Cities and great Towns, they ge∣nerally disposed of their Dead heretofore. Rachel was buried in the way to Ephrath, i. e. Bethlehem, Gen. 35. 19. Not to speak of Moses's Burial in a Valley, Deut. 34. 6. which was of God's own dispo∣sal, we read that Aaron before him was buried on Mount Hor, Numb. 20. 28. Deut. 10. 6. and Io∣shua after both these on Mount Ephraim on the Side of a Hill there, Josh. 24. 30. The Son of the Wi∣dow in Naim was carried to be buried without the Gates of the City, Luck. 7. 12. Lazarus's Grave was without the Town of Bethany, John 11. 30, 32. Ioseph's Sepulchre, where our Saviour was laid, was in a Garden without Ierusalem, John 19. 41. in the Place where he was crucified there was a Garden. And that the Graves of the Jews were without the Ci∣ties, is evident also from Mat. 27. 52, 53. The Graves were opened, and many Bodies of Saints which slept arose, and came out of the Graves, and went into the holy City. Thence the Devils are said to abide among the Tombs, Mat. 8. 28. these being Places of Solitude, remote from the City. Hence we read of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Graves that appear not: and the Men that walk over them (they being in the Fields and High-ways) are not aware of them, Luk. 11. 44. To prevent which, they sometimes wash'd them over with White Lime, that Passengers might the better discern and discover them, and there∣by avoid Desilement. These are the whited Sepul∣chres, Mat. 23. 27. to which our Saviour compares

the Pharisees. These were situated in the Commo•• Ways and Fields, at least some were in the sub∣urbs. This was the Law and Practice of the Greeks, and from them the Romans borrow'd this Custom, who (as several Authors witness) buried none within the City, but without the Gates in the Fields and High-way Sides: whence the Epitaphs were directed ad Viatores. Thus it was among the Chri∣stians of old: We bury our dead without the City, saith 1 1.324 Chrysostom, therein letting us know what was the antient Custom of the Eastern Churches. But after∣wards People were loth to lie in the wide and open Fields, and desired their dead Bodies might be taken into Cities, then into Church-yards, and Constantine the Great was peculiarly favour'd to be interr'd in the Church-porch. Afterwards, when some presum'd to bury their dead in Churches, there were2 1.325 Canons made against it. But by degrees it became lawful to do it in most Countries where Christianity was received: and as to England, Bo∣dies were first brought to be buried in Churches here, by the Means and Procurement of Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 758. The Turks at this Day refuse to bury in their Mosches or Temples, or within the Walls of their Cities, though (if you will believe it) their Prophet had the Privilege to be exempted from the common way of Burial, and was entomb'd at Mecca. I have this likewise to observe, that as Persons of great Rank had particular Apartments and Pla∣ces set apart for the burying of themselves and their Family, (as is evident from what hath already been said, and may be confirmed from 2 Sam. 19. 37.

I Kings 13. 22, 31, 32. where these peculiar Repo∣sitories are call'd the Graves of their Fathers, and of their Mothers, and the Sepulchers of their Fathers) so the poor and meaner sort of Persons were bu∣ried in a common and promiscuous Place of Sepul∣ture, Ier. 7. 32. & 26. 23. the Graves of the Sons of the People.

To Burying appertains Embalming, of which we have the first Instance in Gen. 50. 2. And the next is in the 26th ver. for Ioseph who had taken that care of his Father, was embalmed himself, and then put in a Co••••in, a Chest, as the word Aron signifies. No History, whatsoever goes so far back as this: though, 'tis true, we have these particular Passages of Moses's History confirmed by Pagan Historians, afterwards; for1 1.326 Herodotus tells us this was the Practice of the Egyptians, and fully describes the manner of it: yea he mentions the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Coffins wherein the Corps were deposited after the Embalming was finish'd.2 1.327 Pliny doth the like, shewing us how they open'd the Bodies, disbowell'd them, and fill'd them with Aromaticks. Moses records that forty Days were fulfill'd in Embalming, Gen. 50. 3. which agrees with what Herodotus and Diodore of Sicily say of this Egyptian Performance, viz. that it was done with great Curiosity and Art, and that Considerable Time was spent about it. And seeing there was required Skill to know and choose out the best Herbs, Drugs, Ointments and Spices, it is no wonder that this was (as you heard before) the Physicians work. From the Egyptians this was derived to other Nations, and particu∣larly to the Iews, who constantly used it more or less towards the Bodies of such as were of any Rank

and Quality. Hence we read of the Embalming of King Asa, 2 Chron. 16. 4. of King Zedekiah, J••r. 34. 5. of which more anon. And it was used to our Saviour, as is particularly recorded, Iohn 1••. 40. They took the Body of Iesus, and wound it in li••e•• Clothes, (which was a Custom generally observ'd by all other Nations, though the7 1.328 Lacedemonians by a particular Order of Lycurgus buried all in Woollen, as we do at this Day) with the Spices, viz, a mix∣ture of Myrrh and Aloes about a hundred Pound weight, (mention'd in the foregoing Verse) which Nicode∣mus liberally bestow'd on Christ's Body for this Pur∣pose. This they did, designing to preserve it en∣tire and sound, and to keep it free from Putrefa∣ction, not knowing or being perswaded of his Re∣surrection. And 'tis added here, that this Care of Embalming dead Bodies, was a Jewish Custom, As the Manner of the Iews is to Embalm; for so we may truly read the Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being the Word here used, which is the same that the Seventy Inter∣preters express Embalming by in Gen. 50. 2. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 14. 8. may be rendred not to the burying, but to the embalming: for 'tis said, the pious Female8 1.329 came afore-hand in order to this; so that the now anticipated that Fu∣neral Work which she and others of her Sex after∣wards came to perform to their Dear Master, by bringing sweet Spices to his Sepulchre, Mark 16. 1.

But though committing the Body to the Ground (in order to which Embalming was used) was the generally received Custom of the Jews, yet some∣times, but very rarely, another was practis'd by them, and that was Burning the dead Bodies, or some part of them at least. Thus they took the Bo∣dies

of Saul and of his Sons from the Place where the Philistines had hung them up, and came to Ja∣besh, and burnt them there, 1 Sam. 31. 12. They laid the dead Bodies on a Pile of Wood, and consumed the Flesh of them to Ashes, but they buried their Bones (which were not consumed by the Fire) under a Tree at Jabesh, v. 13. But this was an extraor∣dinary Case; for these Bodies had hung so long in the Air, that the Flesh was putrified and rotted, and partly eaten with Worms, so that the commit∣ting them to Fire was the best way of Funera∣tion at that time. There is another Instance of this Funeral Conflagration in Amos 6. 9, 10. If there re∣main ten Men in one House, they shall die: and a Man's Vncle shall take him up, and he that burneth him, to bring out the Bones out of the House. But as we may easily perceive from the Words themselves and the Context, this was in the time of a great Pestilence, which raged so furiously, that there was scarcely a sufficient Number of Men left to bury the Dead, and it was unsafe at such a Time to go abroad, and carry the Corps in solemn manner to the Grave, and perform the Rites of Funeral. In such extre∣mity Burning was a good Expedient, because after the Carcase was reduced to Ashes, the Bones (which being hard and solid remain'd unburnt) might ea∣sily be carried out of the infected House, and laid in the Ground. Wherefore from this Place in Amos, and from the foregoing one in Samuel, I think it is evident that they burnt the Corps among the Jews sometimes, though very seldom. There in another Burning at Funerals which we cannot but take notice of: so concerning King Asa, 'tis said that they laid him in the Bed (the Funeral Bed, 2 Sam. 3. 31.) which was filled with sweet Odours, and divers kinds of Spices, prepared by the Apothecary's (or Phy∣sician's)

Art, (for this King sought unto them, and is now come under their last Hands) and they made a very great Burning for him, 2 Chron. 16. 14. which cannot be meant of burning his Corps, for 'tis ex∣presly said before in the same Verse, they buried him in his own Sepulchre: wherefore this was not a burn∣ing his Body in the Fire, but only an usual Piece of State which was observ'd at the Funeral Solemni∣ties of Kings and Great Personages. It was, it seems, the Custom not only to embalm the Bodies of such eminent Men, (for that is meant here by the sweet Odours and divers kinds of Spices prepared by the Apothecary's Art, Whose Employment it partly was to dress Men for their Funerals) but to set up a great Heap or Pile of this sort of Aromaticks, and make a Bon••ire of them, as Triumphal Valedi∣ction to the departed. Some add that it was the Custom to burn the Clothes, Chariots, Armour, and other things belonging to the Dead, and that this was in Honour of their Memory. King Zede∣kiah, though he died a Captive, was not denied this last Honour and Obsequy, Ier. 34. 5. He died with the Burnings of his Fathers, the former Kings that were before him: so they burnt Odours for him, and la∣mented him. On which place Maimonides notes, that the Jews did not use to burn the dead Bodies, but that this is meant only of burning their Clothes, and some other things appertaining to them, with Frankincense and other Aromatick Drugs, in Ho∣nour of the deceased. But though it was no Jewish Custom to burn the dead Bodies, yet it is proba∣ble that they extracted the Entrails, (as was usual in Embalming, to which this and the former Texts do partly refer) and consumed them in the Fire with those Perfumes before spoken of. So that the Se∣rephah, the Burning which you read of in the fore∣named

Place was not (as is imagined by Interpre∣ters generally) for Royal State only, but it was in was of Pollincture.

And this Opinion was first suggested to me from 2. Chron. 21. 18, 19. where the reason is assigned why the People of Israel refused to pay this Funeral Duty to K. Iehoram, He was smote in the Bowels with an incurable Disease, and his Bowels fell out by reason of his Sickness, of which he died: and his People made no Burning for him, like the Burning of his Fa∣thers. Observe it, his Bowels being rotted, and by that means loosned, fell out, and were immediately disposed of by reason of the Stench, and conse∣quently these Parts could not be pompously laid on the Fire with sweet Odours, as was the Custom, and (as the Consequence of this) there could be no Funeral Burning for him. I know 'tis generally said by Expositors, that this Ceremony was omitted meerly because this Iehoram was a wicked King: and Grotius goes along with them, and adds, that they paid a greater or lesser Honour to their Kings when they were dead according to the Merits of their Actions when they were alive, which he ap∣plauds as a Good Custom. But though this might be true, yet it is not the Reason that is here given (which we are now enquiring into) why there was no Burning for Iehoram. The true Cause of this Omi••sion was (as this Text acquaints us) the falling out of his ulcerated Bowels by reason of his Sickness, where∣by it became impossible to have the usual Burning of his Fathers, whose Bowels were entire and sound, and so capable of being burnt in a solemn Manner with all sorts of Spices and Odours. This was a Concomitant of the Embalming, and so accord∣ingly in the forenamed Instances of Asa and Zede∣kiah 'tis probable their Entrails were taken out

(according to the Custom of Embalming) in order to have their dead Bodies replenish'd with odorife∣rous Compositions: and the Burning for them spoken of in the respective Places, is meant of the con••u∣ming of their Intestines in the Fire with sweet-smel∣ling Gums and precious Ointments. But Iehoram was wholly incapable, because of the unusual Ma∣lady whereof he died, of this Fragrant Burning, which was the Funeral Ceremony generally used at the Deaths of his Progenitors. This I take to be the genuine meaning of the Place: but however, I submit this to the Judgment of Learned and Im∣partial Criticks, who (whether this Comment be true or conjectural only) will not disdain this free offer of my Sentiments on this Text. It appears from what hath been said that the Funeral Burning of the Iews, and of the Heathens, was not of the same kind. The former was only a committing of the Bowels of the Dead to the Flames, the latter was a Burning of their whole Bodies. Besides, among the Jews their Conflagration was used to their Kings and Great Ones only, but among the Pagans to all. Rurying in the Ground, as1 1.330 Pl••y acknowledeth, had the Priority among the Romans and others, of Burning the dead Bodies; for this lat∣ter had its Rise, he saith, from the barbarous and inhumane digging up of the Carcases by Enemies: to prevent which they consumed a great Part of them in their Funeral Pyres, and what what was remain∣ing was preserv'd in Sepulchral Urns and Pitchers, and deposited so deep in the Earth that they were for the most part out of the Reach of the Adver∣sary. This was the Custom of the Old Germans, as Tacitus reports: and from other Authors it ap∣pears

that the Antient Galls, Spaniards, and other Nations, were no Strangers to it. Yea, some Old Britains took it up, and Polydore mentions particu∣larly the Flaming, the Blazing Obsequies of Beli∣nus King of the Britains. This Pagan Usage was first left off among the Romans in the Reigns of the Antonines. And when Christianity got a firmer Footing in the World, it was quite laid aside and extinct, and they return'd to the old Primitive In∣stitution of burying the dead Bodies in the Earth, from whence they had their Original.

Of other things relating to Funeral Rites we have the antientest Account in these Inspired Writings: as namely, that they used to mourn for the Dead in a solemn manner, rending their Garments, and putting on Sackcloth, as may be gathered from what Iacob did, thinking his Son Ioseph was dead, Gen. 37. 34. and as may be made appear from more po∣sitive Texts, which make mention of exchanging their usual Habit for Hair-cloth, or some such coarse sort of Covering (known by the Name of Sac, not only among the Hebrews, but all other Nations) whereby they used to testify their Grief. This al∣tering, the Habit and Wearing of Mourning Appa∣rel at Funerals was afterwards practised among th•• Iews, 2 Sam. 14. 2. So was the Ceremony of co∣vering the Face and Head, 2 Sam. 19. 4. for in that manner David express'd his Mourning for the Death of his dear Absalom. Whence we may un∣derstand the Meaning of Lev. 10. 6. Vncover not your Heads, i. e. put not off your usual Head-A••∣tire to put on the Covering of Mourners: it is not God's Will that you should lament the Death of those wicked Men, Nadab and Abihu, And from this you may know how to interpret Ezek. 24. 17. Bind the Tire of thy Head upon thee, i. e. keep on thy

ordinary Head-Apparel, and do not change it for a Mourning one, such as is u••ed at Funerals. The Prophet is here forbid upon the Death of his Wife to use any such Funeral Ceremony. There was antiently a peculiar Space of Time allotted for la∣menting the Deceased, which they call'd the Days of Mourning, Gen. 27. 41. & 50. 4. Thus the Egyptians, who reverenced the Patriarch Iacob as a Prince and a Great Man, lamented his Death threescore and ten Days, Gen. 50. 3. which is con∣firmed by what1 1.331 Diodorus the Sicilian saith, that the Egyptians mourned for their Kings, when they died, seventy two Days: wherein he is either guilty of a small Mistake of the Number, or those People afterwards added two Days more to the Time of Mourning. But it must needs be an Over∣sight in2 1.332 Iosephus, when he saith, the Time of Pub∣lick Mourning among the Egyptians was forty Days. Which Mistake perhaps was grounded on what is said in the preceding Words of the fore∣cited Place, forty Days were fulfilled for the embalm∣ing: so that it is likely he mistook the time of Em∣balming or making Preparations in order to the Fu∣neral, for the time of Mourning, which was distinct from that, and was seventy Days. The Hebrews Term of Condoleance was far short of this, for Ioseph mourned for his Father but seven Days, Gen. 50. 10. And generally afterwards the Funeral Mourning was confined within a Week both among the Iews, 1 Sam. 31. 13. and the Arabians, Job 2. 13. Thus the Time of Mourning was Proportio∣nable to that of Feasting, which (as I have ob∣served) lasted seven Days. Yet at some Times, and for extraordinary Reasons, it was lengthned

out to a much longer Season: thus they mourned for the Death of Aaron thirty days, Numb. 20. 29. and so long a Time they lamented the Death of Moses, Deut. 34. 8. And this particular Period of Funeral Lamentation is mention'd in Deut. 21. 13.

Mourning at Funerals was heretofore help'd and advanced by Musick, and that both of Voice and Instrument. Thence 'tis said that King Iosias's Death was lamented by all the singing Men and the singing Women, 2 Chron. 35. 25. And thence you read of the Mourning Women, Jer. 9. 17. the same with those that were afterwards call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be∣wailers, Lamenters, of whom1 1.333 Buxtorf speaks. The same with the Praeficae among the Romans, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks, who were hired at Fune∣rals soften, and melt the Relations of the De∣ceased into Fits of dolorous Passion by their mourn∣ful Notes. Of this sort are the Mourners that go about the Streets, Eccl. 12. 5. that attend the Corps to the Grave, the long Home, (as 'tis stiled in that Verse) for the Chaldee Paraphrast expounds Beth Gnolam by the House of the Sepulture. The Forms used at these Funeral Lamentations and Outcries are mention'd in Ier. 22. 18. Ah my Brother, ah my Sister, &c. and in Ch. 34. v. 5. To the mournful Mu∣sick on such Occasions refer the Prophet's Words, Ier. 48. 36. my Heart shall found like Pipes, i. e. with a Mourning-sound such as Minstrels made at Fune∣rals, as a2 1.334 Modern Critick rightly guesses, tho 2 1.335 Dr. Hammond is positive that there is no mention of Instruments of Musick at Funerals in the Old Testament. In the New Testament we read of

the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Players on the Pipe or Flute at the Houses of those who were deceased, Mat. 9. 23. For this Musick was used before the Dead were carried forth to Burial, but chiefly at the time of Inter∣ment. That this Custom was received among the Gentiles is clear from that of Ovid,

1 1.336 Cantabis moestis tibia funeribus. And again, 2 1.337 Tibia funeribus convenit ist a meis.

And these hired Pipers served indifferently at Fune∣rals, and at Weddings, or the like Occasions of re∣joicing, as is deducible from Mat. 11. 17. Fur∣ther, it is observable that after the Burial of the Dead, a Supper was wont to be made: a Feast of re∣joicing succeeded the mournful Exequies. Thus af∣ter Abner's Funerals were over, all the People follow'd, or came to David (who was the Chief Mourner that Day, and it is probable had invited them to the Funeral Banquet) to eat Meat with him, 2 Sam. 3. 35. Of this Feasting and Rejoicing after the Bu∣rial of the dead, Ieremiah speaks Ch. 16. v. 7. calling it Cos Tanchumim, the Cup of Consolation, which they drank for their Father or for their Mother, i. e. which they took to comfort and refresh them when their Relations were departed: and accordingly the Place where this Funeral Supper was made is cal∣led the House of Feasting in the next Verse. And no Man can be backward to think that this is in∣tended by eating the Bread of Men, Ezek. 24. 17. if he seriously peruse the foregoing part of the Verse, which speaks wholly of the Funeral Cu∣stoms. This is the Bread of Mourners, Hos. 9. 4.

Thus in compliance with the Jewish Custom (as1 1.338 Io∣sephus saith) Archelaus mourned seven Days for his Father, and entertained the People with a costly Funeral Banquet, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And from the Hebrews these Sepulchral Feasts were derived to the Greeks and Romans, especially the latter, among whom2 1.339 Dio and3 1.340 Tully and others take notice of this Usual Entertainment.

Lastly, as for Funeral Monuments, we learn their great Antiquity from 1 Sam. 6. 18. where menti∣on is made of the Great Stone of Abel, perhaps the Tomb-stone of that Holy Man and First Martyr, (for it may be that Proper Name was written some∣times with an Aleph, as well as with a He, in the be∣ginning) who deservedly had this Sepulchral Mo∣nument erected for him in Palestine near Bethshe∣mesh. This Eben Gedolah (for Eben is of the femi∣nine as well as the masculine Gender, and so is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) this Great-stone was mention'd before in v. 15. and here in this it is call'd Abel Hagedolah, the word Stone being here understood; or else the Stone is call'd Abel because it was his Memorial, as we call Statues and Pictures by the Names of those who are represented by them. If then I should assert that this is the Tomb-stone which Adam erected in Me∣mory of his murder'd Son Abel, and so was the first Funeral Monument in the World, I am sure there is none can disprove it. But because there is no certainty of this, and it may be Abel in this Place is no more than Ebel, luctus, (as that Hebrew Word signifies) and so relates to the remarkable Occasi∣on of Mourning which we read of v. 19. therefore I shall dismiss it, and propound that which is plain, certain and undeniable. Such is Iacob's setting a

Pillar on Rachel's Grave, Gen. 35. 20. He that had set up a Stone for a Pillar as a Memorial of the Covenant made between Laban and him, Gen. 31. 45, &c. and had at other times done the same upon Religious and Devout Occasions, Gen. 28. 18, 22. & 31. 45. erects here another Pillar as a Monument for his beloved Rachel, a visible Remembrance of that Vertuous Woman, and also a Testimony of his own Kindness and Love to her. This was known by the Name of Rachel's Sepulcher, and conti∣nued till the latter End (and 'tis likely a long Time after) of Samuel's Days, 1 Sam. 10. 2. that is, al∣most seven hundred Years from the first erection of it. Among the first and Antient Tombs, or Mo∣numental Sepulchers, we must reckon those that are said in Scripture to be composed of great Heaps of Stones. Such is that in Iosh. 7. 26. They raised over him (i. e. Achan) a great heap of Stones, which re∣mains unto this Day. And the like Monument had the King of Ai, Josh. 8. 29. They took his Carease down from the Tree, and cast it at the entring of the Gate of the City, (there interring it, a little without the City) and raised thereon a great heap of Stones, that remaineth unto this Day. And a Sepulchral Structure of the very same Sort was set over the Bo∣dy of Absalom, They took him and cast him into a great Pit in the Wood, and laid a very great heap of Stones upon him, 1 Sam. 18. 17.

From which three Instances I observe, 1. That this sort of Monument was made for those whose Deaths were untimely and violent. Whence we might be apt to infer that these were Monuments of Infamy: and accordingly the Heap of Stones laid over Achan and his Sons, is call'd by Iosephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But, we are not certain that this particular kind of Monuments was appropriated to

this Rank of Persons. It might have been erected for the Good and Vertuous as well as others, tho the Scripture affords us no Examples of the former. 2. I observe here the Nature of these Old Monu∣ments, and that as to these two things; first, this great Mass of Stones was not meerly to cover the dead Bodies, (for from the foregoing Instances we find that they were buried in the Earth before) there was an Edi••ice erected over them, which was built of these Stones, to be a lasting Remem∣brance to Posterity. This great heap of Stones was not confusedly cast upon them, but laid in some kind of Order by and upon one another: so that this was a Fabrick, such as it was. This I gather from the Hebrew Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we find used in the forenamed Texts, and which sig∣nify to raise, set up, erect: wherefore these Stones were not cast or thrown upon, or laid over the dead Bodies disorderly, but were a real Building. But secondly, we may gather from their being call'd a great heap of Stones, that they were not di∣sposed with any Curiosity or Skill, they were set up without hewing, shaping, polishing. This sort of Inartificial Building was sometimes without any Cement at ali, at other times with a Careless Use of it, but such as render'd the Pile firm, so∣lid and durable; otherwise it could not have last∣ed so long a Time as we have heard it did. This is the Notion that I form of these first Rude Sepul: chers: and you see that the Terms in which they are exprel••s'd are a Confirmation of it. These let us know that they were an Edifice, but very In∣condite and Artless: which could not be more ••it∣ly express'd to us than by raising a great heap of Stones. And indeed this was the old Way of En∣tombing Great Men and Heroes among the Gentiles:

they heap'd up great and massy Stones upon one another, and seem'd as it were to frame a Moun∣tain rather than a Monument, according to that of the Poet,

1 1.341 Et regum cineres extructo monte quiescunt.

Such a Monstrous Pile I take Stone-heng on Salis∣bury Plains to be, which without doubt is a very Antient Piece. I look upon it as a Sepulchral Mo∣nument of the primitive Order and Fashion, such as those I have been speaking of, viz. an Indige∣sted, Artless, Formless Tomb. This Apprehen∣sion I prefer before any of the others which Wri∣ters have publish'd concerning this Antique Stru∣cture. Some think they give a true Account of it when they tell us that it was made of Heaps of Sand and some Unctuous Matter that lay in that Part of the Plains, and by means of these two in∣corporating together this Pile of Stones was made. Mr. Cambden mentions this, and seems partly to ap∣prove of it, but the Examples which he produces to confirm it are not of the like Nature, but far different. And truly though we should suppose some such unwonted (though natural) Coagmen∣tation of Sand and Gravel, yet what sober Man can imagine such High Heaps or Mountains of them in that Spot of Ground, and no where else? This therefore looks a little too Romantick. O∣thers would perswade us that it is a Sea-Concretion, and to this Purpose they suppose that these Plains were once part of the Sea; but this is as Chimeri∣cal a Notion as the other, because of the great di∣stance of this Place from the Sea, and because the

shape of these Stones seems not to be natural but factitious. Others think it was no Work of Na∣ture, but of Art: these affirm it to be a Temple ei∣ther, 1. of the Tuscan Order (as1 1.342 One not unskill'd in Architecture suggests) and dedicated to Coelus, and therefore is without a Roof. He thinks it was built by the Romans when they were Masters of this Countrey. But supposing this was a Roman Temple without a Roof, yet who can believe that it was without Walls and Foundation? But such we must fancy this to be, for neither of these can be found here: wherefore there is no reason to believe that it was a Building of that kind. Or 2. it was (as 2 1.343 others think) a Temple of Herthus or Hertha, a God or Goddess of the Old Germans, and consequently of the Saxons our Ancestors here in Britain, who call'd this Deity Earth, the same with Vesta and Terra among the Romans. But what I said before will serve to confute this groundless Conjecture. Only here observe how far distant the Opinions of Writers are about it: some will have it to be a Place dedicated to Heaven, and others to the Earth. Or 3. (as3 1.344 another surmises) this Structure was in imitation of those Temples of old among the Pa∣gans which were wont to be built of unpolish'd Stone, and without Art, because these were thought to be most acceptable to the Gods. Of which he saith there were many Instances, but pro∣duceth none; for instead of Temples he mentions Altars and Statues made after this Fashion, as those sacred to Diana and the Sun spoken of by Herodian, and the Statue of Mars in Arnobius. But 'tis enough here to recur to my former Answer, which 'tis

impossible to evade, viz. that here are no Marks or Footsteps of such a Building as a Temple. Or, if you should say that there were of old, but are now missing, it is spoken without Proof, and there∣fore we need not attend to it: and besides, you must tell us why all is not missing as well as some. These are the Absurdities wherewith those Authors are press'd who hold Stone-heng to have been a Temple.

But those in my Judgment are in the right, and are clogg'd with no such Inconveniences, who hold this Great Amassment of Stones to be a Fu∣neral Monument in remembrance of some eminent Persons laid there. The particular Occasion is not well known, though the Common Opinion is that this Pile was erected in Memory of the British Lords perfidiously murder'd by the Saxons here, upon an Interview in King Vortimer's Reign: for they tell us that Aurelius Ambrosius, a Roman by Birth, but a great Lover of the Britains, came over soon after this inhumane Slaughter to rescue them from the Insolency of the Saxons, and then he erected this Monument in the Place where those treacherous Villains slew the British Nobility, and interr'd them. Others say it was erected in Me∣mory of Ambrosius himself, who expired in this Plain, where he so valiantly fought against the tyrannizing Saxons. But neither of these Opinions have any sure Fonndation. The latter is rendred very improbable by the Reasons which Iones hath offer'd. Nor is the former (which prevails most) attested by Authors of very good Credit, unless we reckon Geoffery Monmouth and Polydore Virgil (the chiefest Writers that speak of this Structure) to be such. Whereupon our1 1.345 Judicious Antiquary

deplores this Unhappiness, that the Founders and Authors of this Wonderful Structure are utterly forgotten. Perhaps it was set up in Honour of Boadicia a famous British Queen, who was kill'd with fourscore thousand in a Batttel against the Ro∣mans and Britains Romaniz'd, in Nero's Reign. This is the Conjecture of the Author of the Histo∣ry call'd New Caesar. But neither is this founded on any sure Basis: though 'tis true he quotes Dio and Xiphilin who say she was bur••ed very Magnificently by the Britains. Dr. Charlton (who hath writ against Iones) saith this Fabrick was erected in the Reign of King Alfred by the Danes, who at that time domineer'd in the West of England: But I do not find that this Learned Man offers any convincing Proof of this, I rather think that this Ragged Pile was of much antienter Date: and that is the Reason why we have no certain notice of the par∣ticular Occasion of it.

But notwithstanding this Obscurity, we have good reason to assert that it is an Old Funeral Monument made after the first and antient Fashion, i. e. Rude, Unpolish'd, Artles. Nay indeed, it seems to be a Triple Monument, for it is composed of three divi∣sions of Stones at some distance from one another, and the Ditch or Pit in which they are situated, is the particular Place where the dead Bodies (for whose Sake this Memorial was erected) were laid. Not but that in other adjacent Places there were other Bodies deposited, and hence it is that Mens Bones have been dug up here, as Mr. Cambden in∣forms us: which is a farther Proof that this part of the Plains was a Place of Burial, and that this Great Stone-Pile hath relation to that, i. e. that it is a Sepulcher, and not a Temple. Nay, I could add that it is probable a great part of this spacious Plain was

on occasion of some famous Slaughter turn'd into a Burying-Place, and not only Tombs of Stone were set up for the most Eminent Persons that lost their Lives, but others of Clods were raised for those of an inferiour Degree: for there are many of these Turf-Monuments on Salisbury-Plain, which the neighbouring Inhabitants call Berries, Barrows, or Burrows, (whence perhaps the Towns fenced here∣tofore with Walls of Turf or Clods of Earth were call'd Burrows or Boroughs) which have their De∣nomination from the Saxon Byring or Buriging or Boroging, which we now call Burying, because the way of Interring dead Bodies among many of the Antients (and among the Saxons themselves, with whom Beorg, the Original of the foregoing Words, signified an heap of Earth) was not in deep Graves, but under Clods or Turfs of Earth made into Hillocks.

As to the fastning and joining together these Stones which we are speaking of, though this hath perplexed some Mens Minds heretofore it seems, and occasion'd them to report that they were transported whole from Ireland by Merlin's In∣chantment, (as 'tis not unusual with the Vulgar, when they cannot give an Account of a Thing, to ascribe it to the Devil, or some Magick Art) I am not very solicitous to solve the manner of it: but this sufficeth me, that 1. It was usual among the Old Romans (as all skilful and knowing Men in Architecture confess) to lay great and vast Stones together by Tenons and Mortises without Morter. And so it may be here, (which may induce us to think it was a Roman Structure) and therefore in vain do we endeavour to find where they are join∣ed and fastned together. 2. I am satisfied that they had of old ways of Cementing Stones which

are not known or practis'd at this Day: and they had an Art of making the Cement after that manner that it could not be distinguish'd from the Stones themselves which it joined together. Pli∣ny speaks of Cisterns at Rome made of a sort of dug Sand and strong Lime, which could not be distin∣guish'd from Stone. It is not unlikely then that there was here used a kind of Morter that hardned into Stone, and became of the same Consistency with it. Nor is it improbable that this petrified Coag∣mentation turn'd into the same Colour with the Stones which it joined together; and then how can we expect to discern the Difference between them? and then why should it be thought strange that they seem to be all of a Piece? Which puts me in mind of the Name which this Stony Fabrick is common∣ly known by, an Account of which I will give somewhat different from what is usually received. If I should propound this Etymology, viz. that Stone-heng is so call'd from the Stones which Am∣brosius is thought to have erected here, and from Hengist the Leader of the Saxons, at whose giving the Word they pull'd out their Seaxes and kill'd the British Nobles, so that Stone-heng is as much as Hengist-stone, (as this Countrey of Britain was by the Saxons call'd Hengist-land, as some Writers tell us) this Derivation cannot be look'd upon as improper: Or if I should offer Mr. Cambden's Ori∣gination of the Word, viz. from the Stones of this Fabrick hanging as 'twere in the Air, whence he calls it Pensile opus, this might be thought a fair Account of the Name. But in my opinion, and according to what I have already hinted, the plain∣est, simplest and most genuine Derivation of the Word is from the Stones hanging (not in the Air, but) together, each heap of them seeming to be

all of a Piece. For this is the great wonder of th•••• Structure, as is confess'd by all; this is that which renders it a Fabrick of a peculiar and unparallell'd Nature. The Stones are closely join'd together by an invisible Cement, they hang together as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they were but one Stone. For this reason therefor•• I quit the other Derivations of the Word, an•• of••er this as the most obvious and proper.

But it is not the Name but the Thing that I am most concern'd for, and I hope I have given a sa∣tisfactory Account of that, in asserting it to be an Old Sepulchral Pile, erected after the manner of tho••e Funeral Monuments spoken of in Ioshua and Sa∣muel, where we find that the Antient Entombing was raising a great heap of Stones over the dead Bo∣dies. This is the best Solution I can give of our Western Wonder. It is, as the First Monu∣ments were, without any Shape or Symmetry, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is like the Iewish Stone-henges (before mention'd) rough and unwrought, and may (as they) be call'd a heap of Stones for that reason. Whence by the way it may be worth the Observation of Critical Men that the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both Acerv•••• and Sepulchrum, a Heap and a Tomb, Job 21. 32, & 30. 24. Also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the known Hebrew Word for a Grave; but in Isa. 14. 19. the Seventy render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Mountain, because Places of burial were ele∣vated. The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the same double Sense, from Talal, instar tumuli aut cumuli elevare, erigere. So Tumulus among the Latins is both an heap of Earth, and a Sepulcher: whence it is plain that the Old He∣brews and Antient Romans used to erect heaps of Earth or Stone in memory of the Dead. To con∣clude, whosoever they were that were buried in the foresaid Place in Wiltshire were entombed as Achan, as the Kings of Ai, and as Absalom were.

Here was the first Draught of the Stony Tombs•• these were the first Patterns of those Sepulchral ••onuments which were inartificial, shapeless and without Ornament. Afterwards they took more ••are in erecting their Houses of Sepulture. Stately and Lofty Tombs were made by Great men with much Art and Cost, which is call'd hewing out to themselves Sepulchers on high, Isa. 22. 16. Yea, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were not only better built, but garnish'd and adorned, Mat. 23. 29.

But I will add no more of this Subject, nor in∣sist any longer on this Second General Head of my Discourse, wherein I have been evincing this Pro∣position, that the Scripture gives us the True Ori∣ginal of things, and consequently the Antientest learning is stored up in this Sacred Volume. I have largely shew'd that here is the first commen∣cing of Arts and all Ingenious discoveries: here is the first Rise of Trades, Mysteries, Occupations, Professions, Customs, Vsages, Manners, Yea, the Holy Scripture disdains not to record the First In∣••entions of things though they be but mean and contemptible, to shew that no sort of Learning and Knowledg is useless. Thus it is said, This is that Anah that found the Mules in the Wilderness, as ••e fed the Asses of his Father, Gen 3 6. 24. This ••s the Man (and let him be known to Posterity) that not by chance; but purposely and designedly, found this new way of Procreation, and thereby produced •• new Species of Animals. Some Iewish Writers have thought this Iemim was a Plant, but there is not the least ground for it. The Learned Bochars makes Iemim to be the same with Emim; some Giant∣••y People; but this is a perverting of the Original Text, and therefore must not be allow'd of: and the finding of them is, according to him, the Acci∣dental

meeting of them, but this is very flat. I hold therefore to the plain Interpretation of the pure Hebrew Text, which tells us that Anab found the Mules, &c. i. e. he caused the first Engendring of Horses and She-Asses together, whence 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that unnatural breed of Creatures call'd Mules. And, if you will believe the Rabbins, he was of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and incestuous Stock himself. Here by the way the Learned may enquire whether there be not some probability that Homer's Eneti, from whom came the Race of wild Mules,1 1.346

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

be not corruptly named from this Anah or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for so the Seventy Interpreters express his Name. But this is the thing that I observe at present, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sacred History takes notice even of small Oc∣currences, and thereby lets us see that it is very full and particular in giving an Account of the first Inventions of things. It is true, other Authors have attempted to discover this, and to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 us with the History of the Rise of Sciences, and the Founders of them. Herodotus, Diodorus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Strabo, Plutarch, Porphyrius, Tully, Varro, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, give us some light into these things, but it is dark in respect of the clear Discoveries in the Old Te∣stament. Out of these foresaid Writers Poly done Virgil hath given us a pitiful short Account of the Inventers of Arts, and other useful things among Men. Saturn, Ceres, Pallas, and other Gods and Goddesses among the Pagans are assigned the first Founders of them. All this is feigned Antiquity, unless so far as it hath some reference to the Holy

Scriptures, and under those disguised Names points at the Persons who are mention'd in this Inspired Book. Hence, and from no other Writings, the first Original of things is to be had: and it must needs be so, because all the best and antientest Au∣thors have borrow'd from the Old Testament. It is granted that Arts and Professions received their Improvement and Perfection afterwards, and there∣fore we cannot expect that these should be found in Scripture; but the first Rise of them was among the early Posterity of Adam and Noah, and there∣fore the first mention of them is found here, and no where else. Some of these are but little and mean things, I know, but yet 'tis certain they are as great as the Greatest Criticks take notice of sometimes, and spend much time about in Other Authors. This moreover is to be said, that here we are Certain of what we read, we are Sure the thing is so, which we are not in Other Writers.

But before I speak of that, let me insist a little upon This, that it is a singular Commendation of the Authors and Penmen of the Old Testament, but especially of Moses, that, being the First Wri∣ters, they borrow from none, but Other Writers are beholden to them. It may be observ'd, that Writers in all Faculties have shewed themselves not backward in imitating others that writ before them, or, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 terms, of Filching from them. This we may see in the Poets, all the Greek ones take many things out of Homer, and he himself was a Filcher no less than they, for you may descry Po••tick Theft in the very Entrance of his Iliads: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was stolen from an Antienter Po∣et, Orpheus; besides that he borrowed the main things in that Poem from Dares the Phrygian, and Dic••ys the Cretian, who wrote before him of the

Trojan War. Nay, Suidas tells us, that he took a great part of his Poem form Corinnus a Trojan Po∣et, Scholar of Palamedes. And as for Aristophanes, he borrows much from Euripides, as an observant Eye cannot but take notice. As for the Latin Po∣ets, they have particular Authors in whose Steps they tread. Virgil in his Eclogues and Bucolicks strives to resemble Theocritus, in his Goorgicks Hesi∣od and Aratus, and in his Aeneids Homer. Horace writes in imitation of the Greek Lyricks, and the he calls these Imitators servum pecus, yet he is pleas'd to follow Anacreon, and especially Pindar: Plau••us and Tcrence are Emulators of Epicharmus and Me∣nander. In brief, AElian and others look upon all Poets after Homer to be but his Apes. Amongst Orators the chiefest of them think fit to borrow or steal from one another, as Tully from Demosthenes, and he from Pericles, and this last from Pisistratus. In Philosophy it were easy to observe the same, and Seneca frankly confesseth it;1 1.347 If any of the Mora∣••ists, saith he, hath an Excellent Saying, I make it mine. Thus he speaks in excuse of himself for using several of Epicurus's Sentences, and that very frequently. Before him Plato stole from Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Socrates, saith Hesychius. And if we may believe2 1.348 Athenaeus, the greatest part of Plato's Dialogues was taken from Aristippus and An∣tislhenes. Among the Historians there is the same Trade carried on: Iustin is a downright Plagiary, taking all from Trogus Pompeius. Apion transcribes many entire Sentences and other considerable Pas∣sages out of Polybius, Plutarch, and others, and takes no notice of their belonging to those Persons,

but sets them down as his own: for which Reason he is stiled by Scaliger, alienorum laborum fucus, a Drone that lived upon others Labours. Solinus al∣most transcribes Pliny, his Polyhistor is but a Varia∣tion of the other's Natural History: and Pliny him∣self acknowledgeth that he gather'd his Book out of a great Number of Authors Greek and Latin. So in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius took all or most of Iulius Africanus (an Excellent Writer, and the first Christian Chronologer) his Book de Tempori∣bus into his Chronicon. In Canon Law Balsamon all along transcribes Zonaras on the Councils. In Me∣dicks Avicenna borrows from Galen, and Galen from Hippocrates. So in Divinity, St. Hilary's Commen∣taries are for the most part taken out of Origen. Theophylact is a constant lmitator, or Transcriber rather, of Chrysostom; and O••cum••nius takes from him very largely. If we should descend to Modern Writers (and those very excellent ones too) we may espy the same thing practised by them. Tasso is beholden to Virgil for much of his Model and Characters. Galatinus stole all from Porchetus, a Franciscan from a Carthusian Monk. Isidore Clari∣us transcribes whole Pages out of Sebastian Mun∣ster; and we know of a Learned English Paraphrast and Annotator who hath often conferr'd Notes with a Belgick one: You will find Monsieur Le Iay com∣plaining that Bishop Walton stole from him his Po∣lyglotts. Thus the best Authors are beholden to one another: and indeed there is very good Rea∣son for it sometimes, and you cannot expect it should be otherwise; for they find it requisite to borrow of those who have treated of the same Ar∣gument, both because they have said those things which cannot be omitted on the Subject, and also sometimes because they are naturally inclined to

imbrace the very same Notions and Sentiment•• This then is an Epidemick Fault, and who is there that is not in part guilty?

But we are speaking now of a Book and of Au∣thors where nothing of this nature can happen, for the Old Testament (which is the Writings we speak of) was, as to a great part of it, extant before there were any Writers in the World, and so it was utterly impossible to borrow from Others This is the Peculiar Excellency of this Book, this is the Particular Commendation of these Writings that they were the First of all, and could not be taken from any else. These Holy Scriptures bor∣row from none, unless you will say they do so from Themselves; as the 18th Psalm is taken out of 2 Sam. 22. or this out of that. The Evangelists borrow from one another. The Virgin Mary's Magnificat refers in several Places of it to Hannab's Song, 1 Sam. 2, and St. Paul takes some things out of his Epistle to the Epbesians, and puts them into that which he wrote to the Colossians; and so st. Iude may be said to borrow from St. Peter: but this is not the Plagiarism which Other Writers are guilty of, and which is an Argument of their Wants and Defects, whereas the Holy Spirit sup∣plied the Penmen of the Bible both with Matter and Words. In the Old Testament especially, and more particularly in the Books of Moses, there is no∣thing at second hand: all is fresh and new; th•• things there spoken of were never delivered by any Writer before. But most of the Profane Histori∣ans began when the Holy History was just ending. And Herodotus himself, the Father of History, writ not till Ezra and Nehemiah's time. The Gree•• Hi∣storians go no further back than the Persjan E••∣pi••e: and most of the Roman History takes not

its Rise so high. Indeed the Egyptians boasted that they had been ruled by Kings above ten thou∣sand Years, (as Herodotus relates) and thence per∣haps it was that one of their Pharaoh's (which was the common Name of all their Kings) bragg'd that he was the Son of antient Kings, Isa. 19. 11. The Chinoises pretend to give an Account of Passages almost three thousand Years before Christ: and we are told by Martinius (in his Atlas) that they pre∣serve a continued History, compiled from their Annual Exploits, of four thousand and five hun∣dred Years: yea they have (if we may credit the younger1 1.349 Vossius) Writers antienter than Moses. But these high Flights are exploded by all Conside∣rate Men, and upon a View of whatever Pretences are made by Others, they conclude that Moses was the Antientest Writer, and that the earliest Dis∣covery of Transactions and Occurrences in the World is to be learnt from him alone. Some of the Wisest Pagans had a hint of this, and travell'd into the Eastern Countries to acquaint themselves with these Records. And it was observ'd long since by Plato, (as I took notice before) that the Oldest and most Barbarous Tongues (meaning the Hebrew and Chaldee) were very requisite for the finding out the first Beginnings of things: for the first Names of them, which are now grown obso∣lete by length of time, are preserved in those Lan∣guages, they being the antientest of all. In the Hebrew especially are to be found the Primitive Origines of things: and most of the Pagan Histori∣••••s have borrowed from these. And so have their Po••ts, Orators and Philosophers, as a great Number of the Christian Fathers (whom I have particular∣ly

quoted in another Place, to evince the Authority of the Scriptures) have largely proved. In a word, all other Antient Writings refer to these, or sup∣pose them, this Inspired Volume alone being the Fountain from whence either they or we can derive any Truth and Certainty.

And as there is the Antientest Learning, so there is All Learning (I speak now of that which is Hu∣mane, and is reckon'd the Accomplishment of Ra∣tional Persons) and all the kinds of it in this Book of Books. Here is not only Prose but Verse: here are not only Poems but Histories, Annals, Chronicles. Here are things Profound and Mystical, and here are others that at the first sight are Intelligible and Clear: here are Prophecies, Visions, Revelations (for even in the Narratives which are given of These there are some things serviceable to promote the Study of Humanity): here are Proverbs, Adagies, Emblems, Parables, Apologues, Paradoxes, Riddles: and here are also Plain Questions and Answers, Pro∣positions, Discourses, Sermons, Orations, Letters, E∣pistles, Colloquies, Debates, Disputations. Here are Maxims of Law and Reason, Rules of Iustice and Equity, Examples of Keen Wit and Deep Politicks, Matters of Church and State, Publick and Private Af∣fairs, and all manner of Subjects either treated of or referr'd unto. Thus the Bible is excellently sitted to entertain any Persons as they are Students and Scholars: for here is a Treasury of all Good Let∣ters, here are laid up all things that conduce to Humane Knowledg. Porphyrius is said to have writ a Book1 1.350 of Homer's Philosophy, wherein he attempts to prove that he was as much a Philosopher as a Poet: and no less a Person than2 1.351 Maximus Tyrius

affirms him to be the Prince of Philosophers: and another1 1.352 Grave Author undertakes to shew that the Seeds of all Arts are to be found in Homer's Works. This is said by his Admirers to inhanse his Credit and Repute; but far greater things, and more justly, may be pronounced concerning these Famous Records of Learning and Antiquity. With more Reason may we maintain that the chiefest Arts and Inventions are originally in the Sacred Volume, and that the Foundations of all Humane Learning and Science are laid here; for though these are not the chief things designed in this Book, (it being writ to higher Purposes) yet they are occasionally interspersed every where, and a Studious Enquirer cannot miss of them. It is rationally and undenia∣bly to be inferr'd from the Particulars above-men∣tion'd, (though many more might have been added) that the Bible is the most Compleat Book, and hath All Learning in it. This truly deserves the2 1.353 Name which Diodore the Sicilian gives his History, that is, it is indeed a Library, an Universal one, and contains All Books in it. As the Writers of it were Persons of Several Conditions, Kings, Noblemen, Priests, Prophets, &c. so the Matters of it are Va∣rious and Different, and by reading and studying these Writings we may Commence in all Arts and Sciences, we may be accomplish'd Grammarians, Criticks, Chronologers, Historians, Poets, Ora∣tors, Disputants, Lawyers, Statesmen, Preachers, Prophets. Many valuable Monuments of Learning have been lost. The famous Library of Alexan∣dria, which contain'd six or seven hundred thousand Volumes, and that of Constantinople, which con∣sisted of an hundred and twenty thousand, perished

by Fire. And the Works of Varro, the Learneds•• Man of all the Romans, are extinct. And many others might be reckon'd up, besides those that Historians say nothing of. But having the Scri••∣ture, Hacatub, (as the Jews rightly call'd it by way of Eminence) the most Excellent Writings in the World, fraught with all manner of useful Litera∣ture, we may afford to be without the other: for this is a certain Verity, that if we have the Bible we want no Book.

And more particularly I have made it appear, that the Choicest Antiquities are to be found here. A prying Antiquary may find more Work, and much more to his Advantage, in the Writings of the Old Testament, especially of the Five Books of Moses, than in all the Mouldy Manuscripts and Re∣cords in the whole World besides. Therefore you will find Mr. Selden (as Great an Antiquary as this last Age afforded) continually conversing with these Sacred Records, and presenting the World with the Noblest and most Useful Pieces of Anti∣quity from thence. Here we learn what they did in the Primitive Age of the World, how things went before and immediately after the Flood. The Scriptures give the Oldest Account and Discovery of things. All Curious Observations of the First Times, all Antient Notions and Inventions are to be met with here. So that if you look upon the Bible but as an Antient Book of Learning, we are invited to study it. We are furnish'd here with some of the most desirable Antiquities of the Ba∣bylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Arabians, Syri∣ans, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Jews, Greeks, Ro∣mans, and several other Nations. On which very Account alone the Bible is the best Book that a true Lover of Learning can take into his hand.

Briefly, from the whole I make this Conclusion, that no Man can be a Consummate Scholar without reading the Scriptures, which are the Source even of all Humane Learning.

But as the Antiquity and the Vniversal Learning contain'd in this Book, so the Certainty of it gives it the preference to all others. What we meet with here, we are sure is true: whatever is related as said or done in so many Ages past, we have rea∣son to yield a full Assent to, because the Penmen of this Book were divinely inspired, and there∣fore could not err in what they deliver'd. This we cannot say of any other Writers, for we find them to be uncertain and lubricous, and they too often take up Stories on trust, or invent them as they please. As for the Writings of the Poets, the best of them are mere Fictions. Yea, One that knew the Nature of an Heroick Poem very well, tells us that Fable is the chief thing in it, it is the 1 1.354 very Soul and Life of it. Thus it is in Homer and Virgil's Poems: and generally the other Poetick Writers (as Orpheus, Hesiod, &c.) are fabulous Rhapsodists. Even the Father of Latin Poetry, whom I just now mention'd, brings Eneas and Di∣do together, though he lived several Ages before her. And many such Historical Incongruities and fabulous Inconsistencies the Poets put us off with in∣stead of true Relations. Yea, professed Historians are full of Uncertainties and Contradictions every where. Xenophon avers that Cyrus the first Persian Monarch died peaceably in his Bed: but Herodotus and Iustin say he was vanquish'd in Battel by To∣my••is Queen of Scyt••ia, who caused his Head to be cut off and thrown into a Vessel full of Blood.

Some tell us that Alexander the Great died of Drun∣kenness, others that he was poisoned. Hannibal poi∣son'd himself, saith Iustin: he was kill'd by his Servants, saith Plutarch: but this Author also ac∣knowledges that he drank Bulls Blood, and thereby procured his Dissolution. The same Writer sets down the several Opinions concerning the Deaths of Romulus and Scipio Africanus, and makes this Obser∣vation, that the Deaths of Great Men are uncertain∣ly reported. Athen••us saith of Plato, that he was ea∣ten up of Lice by his frequent eating of Figs, which he so exceedingly loved, that he was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but this is contradicted by others. Some say Aristotle drowned himself in Euripus, because he could not find out the Cause of its ebbing and flowing: others would perswade us, that he poisoned himself: but some affirm he died a natural Death. There is scarce any Philosopher but dies twice or thrice in Laerti∣us. Nor is there almost any Life in Plutarch with∣out two or three Deaths, as a2 1.355 Learned Man hath observed.

To pass to other Historians, from whom we might think to have better and certainer Informa∣tion, Antiochus in the Book of Maccabees died three several Deaths; 1 st. In his Bed at Babylon, 1 Mac. 6. 8, 16. 2dly. He was stoned in the Temple of Nanea, 2 Mac. 1. 15, 16. 3dly. He died on the Mountains by a Fall out of his Chariot, 2 Mac. 9. 28. There were different Reports concerning Iu∣lian's Death, but the respective Historians are con∣sident in them all: He was killed by one of his own Souldiers, saith Socrates; by a Demon, saith Callistus, who wrote in Verse of the War at that time with the Persians. It is probable that he died

by a Stroke which a Christian Souldier gave him, according to Sozomen: but none knows whence that Stroke came, according to Theodoret. Eusebi∣us and Zosimus speak diversly concerning the Life and Death of Constantine the Great. Procopius gives an Account of Iustinian contrary to what all other Historians do. And before this we find the Fathers differing about the Character of Nicolas the Deacon: Clemens of Alexandria and Theodoret say he lived a chaste Life, but that being reprimanded by the Apostles for his Jealousy towards his Wife, he thereupon brought her out, and exposed her to any one. But Tertullian and Epiphanius affirm, that he allowed of and practised all Obscenity and Lewd∣ness, and the promiscuous Use of Women. The Person who goes under the Name of St. George, was a Cappadocian Tribune, a great Hero, and at last a Martyr, say some: he was an Heretick, an Arian Bishop of Alexandria, say others: there was no such Man, say a third sort. If we should look into our own British Concerns, there we shall find History very dark and uncertain, nothing is tole∣rably related of this Country till Iulius Caesar's time: and then and afterwards we are involv'd in great Uncertainties, and we can look no where but things are diversly reported. Great Men die se∣veral Deaths, and the Lives and Actions of Per∣sons are variously represented. King Edward, sir∣named Ironsides, his Death is four or five ways re∣lated in our Chronicles, and so is King Iohn's. Some Writers tell us that King Richard the Second died of Famine by Force; others, that he volunta∣rily famish'd himself. Some say he was kill'd with the Blow of a Poll-Ax on his Head; others, that he escaped out of Prison, and led a solitary Life in Scotland, and there expired. Concerning King

Henry the 5th, it is said by some, that he was po••∣soned; by others, that he died of a Pleurisy; by others, that a Palsey and Cramp took away his Life; and there are others that considently report his Death was by St. Anthony's Fire. Yea, our Writers are often grosly mistaken about Matters of very late Occurrence, as Baker, Heylin, Fu••••er, (professed Historians) tell us, that Richard Sutton, a single Man, founded the Hospital at the Charterhouse, whereas his Christian Name was Thomas, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was a married Man. So Mr. Hooker died in holy Ce∣libacy, say Gauden and Fuller, but the contrary is known to be too true. But I should be infinite if I should undertake to set before you the palpable Mistakes and Misreports in History both domestie•• and foreign. All that are conversant in this way of Study complain, and that justly, of the erro∣neous Misrepresentations of Passages of all sorts among Historians, and of our Darkness and Igno∣rance by reason of these.

But no such thing is to be fear'd, or so much as suspected in the Sacred History, because God him∣self speaks there: and therefore we have the sur•••• ground for our Faith that we can desire. There is no Authority so firm as that which is Divine: there is no Testimony so strong and valid as that which is from the Holy Spirit. And such is that of the Holy Scriptures; and consequently it most justly challengeth, yea commandeth our Faith and As∣sent. This is the singular Pre-eminence and Ad∣vantage which this Book hath above all others, that the Penmen of it were directed by the uner∣ring Spirit of God. This alone is sufficient to de∣termine and six us, it being the most stable as well as the most proper Basis of our Belief, even where things that are very Improbable are propounded to

us to be assented to. Besides, as to the seeming Improbability of some things that are related in the Historical Part of the Bible, this ought not to hin∣der us from giving Credit to them. Many Persons are wont to look upon these Passages and Stories as Strange and almost Incredible, which they observe are not sutable to the Manners, Customs, Arts, and Conversation of the World, as it is at present, and thence they are enclined to think that there were no such things heretofore. But these Men do not well consider, nor distinguish between those times and these, which are exceedingly Different. And moreover, if they suspend their Belief of some things which they read in the Old Testament, be∣cause they see other things now, things of a Diffe∣rent Nature, they may as well disbelieve all the Other Histories of the Antients that are extant, which yet we see they are very backward to do. And they have good Reason on their Side, because the World is not now as it was then, and therefore we must not expect that the things which we read of in those times, should be fully conformable and agreeable to what occurs in these latter Days. For this Reason a very1 1.356 Solid and Judicious Writer hath defended the Antient History of the Greeks and Latins, (whereof whatever is strange is in He∣rodotus and Pliny) shewing, that (though some fa∣bulous Narrations, and many gross Mistakes and Errors are intermingled) the Strangeness of some Passages which we meet with in them, proceeds from the Diversity of Times, the Posture of the World having much changed since those things happened. Let us make use of the same Reasoning

in the present case, and when we find several Strange, Unusual and Surprizing Matters in the Writings of the Old Testament, impute this to the Antientness of them, and the great Discrepancy be∣tween those Days and these we now live in. If we do so, there will be no Impediment to our stea∣dy Belief of the Truth of them. Nay, if we weigh things well, we shall see it is ridiculous to expect that the Guises and Manners of the World should be the same now that they were 4 or 5000 Years ago: for there must needs be new things when the Numbers of Persons are so vastly increased; when the Difference of Climes produces such Di∣versity of Dispositions; when Casualty, Necessity, Industry, Wit, &c. are the Occasions of so many new Occurrences. Let this be remembred and se∣riously thought of, and it will dispel our vain Scru∣ples and Disbelief. Or, if there be any remain∣ing, the former Consideration will throughly ex∣tirpate them, i. e. if we call to mind the Un∣doubted Certainty and Infallibility of the Scripture, which is its peculiar Prerogative and Excellency.

CHAP. VII.

A particular Distribution of the several Books of the Old Testament. Genesis (the first of them, toge∣ther with the four following ones) being written by Moses, his ample Character or Panegyrick is at∣tompted, wherein there is a full Account of his Birth, Education, Flight from Court, retired Life, his Re∣turn to Egypt, his conducting of the Israelites thence, his immediate Converse with God in the Mount, his delivering the Law, his Divine Eloquence, his Hu∣mility and Meekness, his Sufferings, his Miracles, and his particular Fitness to write these Books. A Summary of the several Heads contain'd in Genesis: to which is added a brief but distinct View of the Six Days Works, wherein is explained the Mosaick Draught of the Origine of all things, and at the same time the bold Hypotheses of a late Writer (designed to confront the First Chapter of the Bible) are ex∣posed and refuted. The Contents of the Book of Exo∣dus: to which is adjoined a short Comment on the Ten Plagues of Egypt. A Rehearsal of the re∣markable Particulars treated of in Leviticus, Num∣bers, Deuteronomy. That Moses was the Pen∣man and Author of the Pentateuch, notwithstanding what some have lately objected against it.

To demonstrate yet further the Excellency of these Holy Writings I will enter upon the Third way of Proof which I proposed; that is, I will give you a Particular Account of the several Books contained in the Old and New Testament, and I will shew all along the particu∣lar Usefulness and Excellency of them. I begin

first with the Old Testament, which is divided by the Jews into three general Parts; first Torah the Law, which contains the five Books of Moses; then Nebiim the Prophets, which comprehends the Books of Ioshua, Iudges, first and second Book of Samu∣el, the first and second of the Kings, Isaiah, Iere∣miah, Ezekiel, the twelve Small Prophets; all which make the second Volume: then the Chetu∣bim the Holy Writers, in which are included the Psalms, Proverbs, Iob, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentati∣ons, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles; and these made the third Volume. The Books of this last Rank were written, say the Jewish Doctors, by the Inspiration of the Spirit, but the Writers were not admitted into the De∣gree of Prophets, because they had no Vision, but their Senses remained perfect and entire all the while: only the Holy Spirit stirr'd them up, and dictated such and such things to them, which they writ down. For you must know that the Old Jews thought nothing to be right Prophecy but what was conveyed in Dreams or Visions. But though this be a Rabbinical Conceit, and hereby they strike Da∣vid and some others out of the Number of the Prophets, who were the Chief of them; yet the Partition of the Old Testament, as it may be rightly understood, is not altogether to be rejected, nay it seems to be allowed of by our Saviour himself, Luke 24. 44. where he tells his Apostles, that all things must be fulfilled which were written concerning him (in the whole Old Testament, viz.) in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, un∣der these last comprising all the other Parts of the Hagiographa: Or you may divide the Books, as they stand in their order in the Septuagint and Latin Version, (and according to them in our English Bi∣bles)

into these three sorts, Historical, Doctrinal, and Prophetical. The Historical Books are Narra∣tives of things done, and these are fifteen, where∣of Genesis is the first, and Iob the last. Or if you reckon the two Parts of the History of Samuel, and the Kings, and those likewise of the Chronicles as distinct Books, then there are eighteen in all. The Doctrinal Books are such as purposely and wholly instruct us in our Devotion and a Holy Life: these are four, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesia∣stes, and Solomon's Song. The Prophetick Books are those which consist chiefly in Predictions concern∣ing the Deliverance of the Church, the Punishment of its Enemies, and the Coming of Christ in the Flesh. These were written either by the Greater Propbets, as Isaiah, Ieremiah, Ez••kiel, Daniel, to which also appertain the Lamentations of Ieremiah; or by the Lesser, whereof the first is Hosea, and Malachi the last. Having thus given you a Distri∣bution of the Several Books, I come now to a Par∣ticular Survey of them, the first whereof is

Genesis, which together with the other Parts of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, who being the First Writer that we know of extant in the World, and being every ways so Remarkable and Admira∣ble a Person, I think my self obliged (before I proceed any further) to present you with the Cha∣racter of this Excellent Man, that in what we shall deliver concerning this One Penman of Scripture, you may guess how large we might be in commen∣dation of the rest. But because we cannot have leisure to do so in all the others that follow, I will offer here a Specimen of it in this First Inspired Writer, whom we have occasion to mention. He was born (about the Year of the World 2370) in Egypt, of Hebrew Parents, who presently read

in his Face1 1.357 extraordinary Marks of Divinity, and therefore were unwilling to discover his Birth to the Egyptians, that he might not, according to Pharaoh's Order, be hurried into Nile, and there drowned. However, in this River they resolve to expose him in an Ark of Bull-rushes, and to com∣mit both Him and the Care of this Little Vessel in which he was embarked to the Great Pilot of the World: And behold, it arrived at a safe Harbour, and no meaner a Person than the King's Daughter received the little Passenger into her Embraces, and caused him to be brought to Court, and bred up as her own Son. Here he became2 1.358 Learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, in all those Arts and Sci∣ences wherein they used to instruct their Youth, which they chiefly designed for the Service of their Country, viz. in Arithmetick, Geometry, Mu∣sick, Astronomy; for these were Sciences that they thought were Natural to Mens Minds, and were the first things taught not only by the Egypti∣ans, but the rest of the Antients in their Schools. Hence it was written in great Letters over the En∣try of Plato's School, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, None must be admitted into this Place but such as have been initiated into Geometry, such as have had a taste of it at least. Therefore this and the forenamed Arts were termed Mathematicks, i. e. Learning or Discipline, by way of Eminency. In all these was this young Courtier brought up, and skilled in all Philosophical Accomplishments and the Knowledg of Nature. Besides, he was more especially instructed in that Abstruse and Recon∣dite Knowledg which the Egyptians were peculiarly

Masters of, namely their Hieroglyphick Cyphers, their Mystical Symbols and Figures, whereby they represented the choicest Truths to Mens Minds. This way of Symbolical Learning furnish'd them with all kinds of Notions that were serviceable in the Life of Man, they were taught hence the best Rules of Morality, the profoundest Maxims in Po∣liticks, and the most useful Sentiments in Theolo∣gy. This was the Celebrated Wisdom of the Egyp∣tians, in which Moses was educated, being sent by Pharaoh's Daughter to the best Academies and Schools of Learning, and committed to the best Tutors, and having moreover the Advantage of his own Excellent Parts and Quick Ingeny; for he who was so Eminent as to his Bodily Features and Proportions, had without doubt as Fair a Soul.

But 'tis time now for Moses to leave the Court, and to add to all his other Accomplishments, that of Travelling. And truly he was neceslitated to this, for the Court could not bear him any longer, be∣cause He could not bear it: he every Day more and more disliked their Manners, contemned their Gay Follies, laugh'd at their empty Titles, and1 1.359 refused to be call'd the Son of Pharaoh's Daughter. He was now resolv'd to help and assist his oppressed Bre∣thren, though by that Attempt he should lose the Favour of the King, and his Royal Patroness, and with that all Possibility of being Great, yea though he should incur the Danger of being Miserable above the degree of his former Happiness:2 1.360 He chose ra∣ther to suffer Affliction with the People of God (his He∣brew Brethren) than to enjoy the Pleasures of Sin for a Season (in Pharaoh's Court): esteeming the Re∣proach of (or, for) Christ greater Riches than the

Treasures in Egypt. In pursuance of this1 1.361 he vi∣sited his Brethren the Children of Israel, who now groaned under their extreme Bondage and Slavery in that Country, he boldly2 1.362 defended them when ••e saw them suffering wrong, and avenged the Cause of the Oppressed, and smote the Egyptians. This made him taken notice of by the Egyptian Lords and Taskmasters, who presently went and represented his Carriage to the Court, and thereupon he was banished thence for his daring to take the part of any of those Hebrew Bondslaves.3 1.363 Then fled Mo∣ses into the Land of Midian, and was a Shepherd there4 1.364 forty Years, just as many as he had been a Courtier. This was the sudden Change of his Condition, and he made it serviceable to the best Ends. He went out of the World, as it were, to come into it with the greater Vigour; for his Re∣tired Life fitted him for Publick Atchievements af∣terwards, his Contemplative and Solitary way of living prepared him for Action, his Low and Mean Estate was the Forerunner of his being call'd to an High one. God bestows not on a Man Magnifi∣cence unless he first makes Trial of him in some Small thing, say the Rabbies; and they instance in Moses and David, who kept Sheep. Kings were antient∣ly stiled Shepherds, and sometimes were really such. God calls Cyrus his Shepherd, Isa. 44. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Epithet of a Prince in Homer: which 'Plato explains by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Feeder and Nourisher of the Flock of Man∣kind. The three Hebrew Verbs nahag, nahal, ragnah, signify to lead or feed Sheep, and to govern. So do the Greek Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

is both a Palace, Luke 11. 21. John 18. 15. and a Sheepfold, John 10. 1. The Word6 1.365 Shebet is both a Scepter and a Pastoral Rod. The Shepherd's Em∣ployment, saith7 1.366 Philo, (speaking of this very Mat∣ter) is a Prelude to Empire and Government. Yea he runs this too far, adding, that he is clearly of the Opinion (though he may be laugh'd at for it) that8 1.367 he only can be a Perfect Compleat King who is well skill'd in the Shepherd's Art, and by taking Care of lesser Animals hath learnt how to preside over greater ones. But though this be ex∣travagant, and not becoming that Learned Man, yet it is a Sober Truth that a Retired Contempla∣tive Life (such as the Pastoral was in those Days) is a good Preparative to Publick Action and Busi∣ness.

Accordingly Moses, when he had been forty Years a Shepherd, was appointed by God to feed Israel, and to spend the remaining forty Years in that Employment. To which purpose he was sent back by God into Egypt to be a Deliverer to that oppressed People, and to conduct them into the Promised Land. Being arrived there he delivered his Message to Pharaoh, and earnestly solicited him to attend to it, and to obey the Command of the King of Kings. Which when he (after several Offers of Compliance) at last refused, Moses with the Israelites9 1.368 forsook Egypt, not fearing the Wrath of the King, who they knew would soon pursue them: and this their Valiant and Undaunted Cap∣tain by a Miraculous Hand led them safe over the

Red Sea, and placed them out of all Danger of the Egyptians, whom presently after they saw lying dead upon the Shore. And this was the Man who was their Constant Leader in the Wilderness; here he is their only Guide, their Counsellor, their Oracle in all their Difficulties. By his Ardent Prayers he was wont to avert the Divine Venge∣ance when it was lighting on them, and by the same Fervent Breathings and Cryings he procured them the Greatest Blessings they desired and stood in need of. This was the Person that was taken up by God into the Mount, and had the peculiar Favour and Honour of conversing most Familiarly and Intimately with him; and in that had the Pre∣lieminence of all the Prophets that ever arose in Israel, for none of them were admitted to that sin∣gular Dignity vouchsafed to him, namely,1 1.369 to know God Face to Face. He was the Man employed by God to receive the Law for the Jews, which he delivered to them with great Care and Faithful∣ness, often Repeating and Explaining it, shewing them the Reasonableness, Usefulness and Excellen∣cy of those Constitutions and Statutes which were given them by God, continually teaching them to understand these Laws aright, and encouraging them to practise them; insomuch that he hath gain'd among all Nations the Name of a Law∣giver, far surpassing that of Lycurgus among the Lacedemonians, or of Solon among the Athenians, or of Numa among the Romans.

Of this Admirable Person this short but com∣prehensive Character is given by St. Stephen, that 2 1.370 he was Mighty in Words and in Deeds. He that was 3 1.371 not eloquent, not a Man of Words, (as 'tis in the He∣brew)

he that was slou of Speech, and of a slow Tongue (for which Reason Aaron was his1 1.372 Mouth, i. e. his Spokesman to the People) was Mighty in Words. How can this be? Very well. A Man may want Elo∣quence, and yet be a Great Orator. Demosthenes had a natural Impediment in his Speech, and so had Tully, and neither of them could quite conquer it by their Art and Industry. Their Oratory lay more in the Matter, and their wise framing of it, than in the Words they spoke. So was it with this Great Man, (if I may compare him with them) he was mighty in Words, yet was no Graceful Spea∣ker; he was Powerful in Speech, yet a Stamme∣rer. This shews that there is a Rhetorick, and that very Potent, which consists not in Readiness of Language and Volubility of Words, but in speak∣ing Great Reason and Excellent Sense, and in say∣ing that which is to the Purpose. Especially the the Words are Mighty when they proceed from an Excellent Mind, and when Deeds follow. So that Diodorus Siculus may be thought to be a good Com∣mentator on St. Stephen, for he gives this as part of Mose's Character, that2 1.373 he was of a Great Soul, and very able and powerful in his Life. He did what he said, he acted according to what he spoke. The Israelites were directed to their Duty more by his Practice, than his Words. He effectually taught them to live well, chiefly by doing so Himself. He set them a Pattern of all Vertues imaginable, and then commended them all by his Exemplary Con∣descension and Humility. Though he was one of the most transcendent Excellencies, (the Beauties of Body and Mind shining in him, as you have

heard) yet he was the Humblest and1 1.374 Meekest Man on the Face of the Earth. He gave an undeniable Proof of this when2 1.375 he refused to contend with Mi∣riam and Aaron about his Authority and Eminency, which God himself had enstated him in, but which they denied to own. He discover'd this mild Spirit when he patiently bore all the unworthy Carriage of the People towards him. They knew well enough that he left the Egyptian Court and Ho∣nours for their Sake, that he might be their Leader and Deliverer: yet they forgot this his singular Af∣fection to them, and often murmured against him, and slandered and reviled him, and would have none of his Conduct, yea and3 1.376 were ready to stone him after all his Pains and Care for them. But not∣withstanding all these Affronts, and Injuries, and offers of Violence, (which were almost perpetual) he went on contentedly in the Discharge of his Of∣fice, and forgat their ill Demeanour towards him, and studied nothing more than to oblige them. Or, his being Mighty in Deeds, may refer to the Astonishing Miracles which he wrought. He out∣did all the Prophets in these, say the Jewish Do∣ctors; for (if you'l believe their4 1.377 Computation) there were but seventy four Miracles done by all of them from the Beginning of the World, till the Destruction of the first Temple, but Moses himself wrought seventy six Miracles: so that he did more than all the Prophets together. But this we are certain of from the infallible Records of Scripture, that he was Mighty in working of Miracles. The Sacred History, which he penn'd by the Inspira∣tion of the Holy Spirit, gives us a Particular of

some of those Wonderful Things which he effect∣ed in Egypt, and at the Red Sea, and in the Wilder∣ness; and many others are not mention'd, (as is usual in these brief Narratives of things) but all of them were the Operations of a Divine and Su∣pernatural Power.

Lastly, he was Mighty in Deeds relating to Go∣vernment, and the Management of Publick Affairs which respect either Peace or War. It was Pla∣to's Judgment of old, and after him some Great Persons liked it so well that they made it theirs too, that it would never be well with the World till Philosophers had the Reins of Government put into their Hands, or till the Governours and Guides of People were become True Philosophers. There were notable Examples of this in Athens, where Aristides, Themistocles, Miltiades, Pericles, Pho∣cion, Alcibiades, and several others were as celebrat∣ed Philosphers as Commanders and Captains. They were renowned for their Great Wit and Judgment, and for as Great Valour and Conduct. As wife Men they knew how to regulate themselves and their own Manners; as skilful Rulers and Governours, they knew how to rectify the Behaviour of others. We are sure that Moses wanted not this double Advantage, being versed both in the Principles of the Best Philosophy, and the Wisest Government, and being able to act according to both. His Learn∣ing and Contemplation were reduced into Exer∣cise: he by them not only understood but practis'd the Arts of War and well Governing. He knew how to give Laws to the People, and knew how to lead them into the Field: like Caesar after∣wards, who was both Scholar and Souldier, the Master of Eloquence and of Arms. The great Variety of Life which he had gone through made

him universally Knowing, and sitted him for all sorts of Actions. David is a like Instance in Scrip∣ture, and I know not another. He was, like Mo∣ses, a Shepherd, a Courtier, a King's Favourite, and afterwards out of Favour, a Fugitive, a War∣riour, a Ruler, a Prophet, a Writer. This Dif∣ference of Scenes rendered both of them Compleat Actors: this Diversity of States furnish'd them with Political Wisdom, which being added to that which was Divine, enabled them to act so laudably in those Publick Stations to which they were advanced. And for this reason our Moses is the more Accep∣table Historian, because he was one of such vast Knowledg and Wisdom, and had pass'd through so many and various Stages of Life, and especially be∣cause he was personally engaged in most of the things he writes.

We count it a good Qualification in those that pen Histories, that they write things done in their own time, and that they bore a Part in what they describe. Thus Dictys Cretensis (if we may be∣gin with him) writ the Trojan War, wherein he himself had served: Thucidides (as he tells us in the beginning of his History) was present at the things he wrote concerning the Peloponnesian War, and saw and knew much of it. Xenophon was both Hi∣storian and Captain, and knew many of the Things he transmits to Posterity. Diodorus Siculus (as he ac∣quaints us in the Entrance of his History) travell'd a great Part of Asia and Europe, to inform himself of the Things he relateth, and that he might be an Eye-witness of most of them: and it appears from what he saith elsewhere, that he went into A∣frica. Iulius Caesar's Commentaries (which Name he was pleas'd out of Modesty to apply to the best History in the World of that sort) are an Account of

the Military Acts of his own Army. He fought and writ: his Battels were transcribed into his Book: his Blood and his Ink were equally free, his Sword and his Pen were alike famous. Iosephus accompanied Titus to the Siege of Ierusalem, and knew himself the Acts done in the War he writes. Polybius tra∣vell'd to most of the Parts which he describes, and saw those very things which he writes of. Procopi∣us sets down what he knew, for he was present with Belisarius at the Wars which he treats of, and was Eye-witness of what he relates. Herodian writ the History of the Emperors of his own Time, and so had the exacter Knowledg of their Actions. Suetonius was Contemporary with the three last Emperors, whose Lives he writes. Among the Mo∣dern Historians, Comines, Guicciardine, Sleidan, Thu∣anus, are commendable on this account, they lived at the same time when most of the Things which they record were done, and they were themselves actually concern'd in many of them. Now, if these who were interested in the Matters they de∣liver'd are thought to be well qualified on that Ac∣count for Historians, then we ought to have the greater Regard to our Divina Writer, who was en∣gaged in so great a Part of the Things which he commits to Writing. He describes those Battels at which he was present, and records those Passages in which he had a Share, and that a very considera∣ble one: so that having the Relation of these things from his Mouth, we do not only read them, but as 'twere see them. And here by the way we may see the unreasonableness of those Mens Cavils, who think it a diminishing of the Authority of Moses's Writings that he so often records his Own Acti∣ons and Deportment, as if they did not sound well, nay could not be true from his own Mouth. But

it is certain that this very Thing commends his Writings, and strengthens the Authority of them, especially when we know that he was a Person of Integrity, and would not tell a Lie. We think not the worse of Iosephus's Life, because 'twas writ with his own Hand; nor of the Emperor Antoninus's 1 1.378 Books concerning Himself, nor of St. Austin's Con∣fessions wherein he gives an Account of his own Actions, nor of Cardan, or Iunius, or Bp. Hall, who writ their Own Lives, nor of Montaign who in one Book more especially makes Himself the Subject, and relates his own Temper, Studies, For∣tunes, &c. And shall we think the worse of Moses because he sets down the Passages of his own Life in the Books which he hath written? No: this rather advanceth their Credit among wise and under∣standing Men, who are satisfied that none was so fit to give an account of his own Actions as this Author himself, both because he knew them better than any Man, and because he was of that entire Faithfulness that he would relate nothing but what was exactly true. And that he was thus faithful and impartial, is evident from those Passages which relate to Himself, which are frequent in these Writings, where his own Infirmities, Imperfecti∣ons and Follies are registred, where his unseemly Wrath and Passion, where his gross Unbelief and Distrusting of God (as at the Waters of Meribah especially) and several other Miscarriages of his Life are set down. This shews that he spared not Himself, and that he was not guilty of Partiality: this shews that he was devoted to Truth, and not led by Applause and Vain Glory. Whereas he might have composed his own Panegyrick, and

transmitted it to future Ages, you see he chose the contrary, and recorded his own Faults and Misde∣meanours: whence it is rational to conclude that he would not falsify in the least in any other Part of his Writings. And as for that Aphorism of Machiavel, He that writes an History must be of no Religion, it is here disproved and consuted: Moses was the most Absolute Historian, and yet the most Religious; and his being the latter, capacitated him to be the former. For no Man can so impartially deliver the Truth as he that speaks it from his own Breast, and especially (as in the present Case) hath a practical Sense of those Divine Things which he delivers. This is that Person who was the Author of the Pentateuch, that Excellent Philosopher, Law∣giver, Historian, that Captain, that Prince, that Prophet, that Man of God, who was the Inspired Writer of the five first Books of the Bible.

The first of which (as I said before) is Genesis, which begins with the History of the Creation. And I call it a History, in opposition to the fond Con∣ceit of those Men who read the Beginning of this Book with Cabalistick Spectacles only, and think there are nothing but Allegories and Mysteries in the whole Text. But the contrary is very evident to unprejudiced Minds: and to such as are not so, I have propounded Arguments in another Place (viz. when I treated of the Literal and Mystical Sense of Scripture) to take off their Prejudces and Mistakes. This I did, because it is necessary to be firmly per∣swaded of the Truth and Certainty of what we meet with here in our Entrance into the Bible. It is indispensably requisite that we believe Moses to have delivered these things as an Historian; and that he speaks real Matter of Fact, when he gives us a Narrative of the Beginning of all things, and

particularly of the Original of Man, his Innocency and Happiness, and after that his Fall, which was the Source of all Sin, of the Devil's Tyranny, of Death, of Hell, and of all Evils whatsoever. The Knowledg and Belief of This are the Basis of all Religion, and that perhaps was the Meaning of 1 1.379 Luther's Saying, that the First Chapter of Genesis comprehends the whole scripture. Wherefore this is with great Wisdom premised in the En∣trance of this Sacred Volume. To which after∣wards are adjoined the Propagation of Mankind, the Rise of Religion and of the Church of God, the Invention of Arts, the General Defection and Corruption of the World, the Universal Del••ge which drown'd all Mankind but Noah and his Fami∣ly, the Restoration of the World, the Certain Distinction of Times before the Flood and partly after it, the Confusion of To••gues, and thereupon the Division of the Earth among the Sons of Men, the Plantation of Families, the Original of Nati∣ons and Kingdoms, as the Assyrian Mon••••chy (begun in Nimrod or Belus) and the Egyptian Dynasty; the History of the first Patriarchs not only before but after the General Deluge, as of Noab the Preacher of Righteousness, of Abraham the Father of the Faithful, of Isaac the Seed in which all Nations were to be blessed, of Iacob the Father of the twelve Tribes, of Ioseph whose Memorable Acti∣ons are here fully recorded, and with which this First Book of Moses ••nds; unless the Book of Gene∣sis may be said to reach as far as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because of that Promise contain'd in it concerning the Seed of the Woman that was to break the Serpent's Head, Viz. Christ the Redeemer made of a Wo∣man,

and sent to subdue the Devil, and to destroy Sin and Death.

But because this First Book begins with the Crea∣tion of the World, and is therefore by the Rabbins call'd the Book of the Creation, I will here annex a brief View of the several Distinct Steps of this Great Work, as they are represented to us by this Inspired Writer and Divine Philosopher, who ac∣quaints us that there were six Days spent in erect∣ing this glorious Fabrick of the World. And this will be a farther Proof of what I said before, viz. that in Scripture is the Truest Philosophy. When Moses saith, In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth, Ver. 1. he doth in these Words give us a summary Account of all that he intended to say afterwards in this Chapter: for Heaven and Earth comprehend the Whole Creation. This first Verse then is to be look'd upon as a General Draught of the Production of all things: and the Particulars of it follow in the next Verses, where the several Days Works are distinctly set down. The Product of the first Day was two-fold, viz. the Terraqueous Mass (call'd here the Earth) and Light. There was first of all created a Rude Con∣fused Heap, (by Profane Writers call'd the Chaos) an Indigested Mass of Earth and Water mix'd to∣gether, out of which God afterwards made all Corporeal things which belong to this lower World. For we must not (as some) imagine that the Celestial Bodies were composed out of the Earthly Chaos, that all the Vast Spaces of the Hea∣venly Mansions owe their Rise to this Mass below, and that the very Stars were the Offspring of the Earth. No; Moses gives us to understand that this Confused Lump was the Original only of the Low∣er World: for the Earth in this first Verse is men∣tion'd

as one Part of the new-created World, as distinct from Light the other Part of the Creation. As Light then (of which I shall speak next) was the Primordial Matter of the Ethereal, Celestial and Shining Bodies; so this Gross and Lumpish Heap was that of which all Dark and Heavy Bodies were compounded. This Unshapen Mass without Form, and void, is here, by a general Name, call'd the Earth, though it was not in a strict sense such; for the Earth, as a distinct Body from all others, was the Work of the third Day. In this Place there∣fore by Earth is meant Earth and Water blended together, which made one Great Bog or Universal Quagmire. This is the plainest and truest Concep∣tion we can have of the Primitive State of the World. And hence without doubt was derived the Opinion of Thales and some other Antient Phi∣losophers, that Water, or Slime, or Mud, (for they express it variously) was the Source of all Be∣ings whatsoever. And certain it is that this Ter∣raqueous Matter was the first Origine of all those material Beings before-mention'd. Accordingly Sir W. Raleigh, in the Beginning of his History of the World, determines, that the Substance of the Waters, as mix'd in the Body of the Earth, is by Mo∣ses understood in the word Earth. Hitherto, accord∣ing to the Mosaick History, Nature is in her Night∣clothes, the World is overspread with Darkness, which is especially said to be on the face of the Deep, by which is meant either the whole Disorder'd Mass, which was an Abyss, or else (as is most pro∣bable) the Watry Part of it; for though this and the Earthy Parts were mix'd together, yet these latter being lightest were generally uppermost, and floted above all, and appear'd on the Surface of the Earth. Therefore that Learned Knight before

mention'd observes that the Earth was not only mix'd but cover'd with the Waters. But the Spirit of God (as Moses proceeds to tell us.) maved or hover'd over this Dark Abyss, this Mix'd Chaos, especially the Waters, (as 'tis particularly said, because these were uppermost) and hereby the Rude Matter was prepared to receive its several Forms, and then the World began to throw off its Dark and Sable Mantle, and to appear in a Bright Dress.

For the other Product of this first Day (and which indeed made it Day) was Light, i. e. some Lucid Body or Bodies: which yet cast but a Glim∣mering Splendor, a Faint Radiancy in comparison of what was afterwards on the fourth Day, when we are told in what certain Subjects the Light re∣sided, and was as it were fix'd. But now it was feeble and vagrant, and was the first Result of some ••iry and luminous Matter which the Divine Spirit by his powerful Moving and Incubation had engender'd. This Bright and Glorious Matter was the Second General Source of all Beings, that is, out of it were made the pure Aether, the Sun and Stars, and whatever belongs to the superiour Part of the World; but these appertain to the fourth Day's Work. Now we are only to take notice of this Light as it is here the Catholick Term for the First Rudiment of the whole Celestial Creation (as Earth was the word to express the First Matter of the Inferiour Part of the World). And what is this Light but Fire or Flame, that sub∣tile Matter which heats and enlightens the World? For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both lux and ignis, as also the Greek Word1 1.380 imports. So Heat is put for Light, Psat. 19. 6. And I could observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used

not only in Isa. 18. 4. but in other Places to express the Hebrew Word for Heat. Which shews the Affinity, if not the Identity of these two. This Original Light then, which was the Second Prin∣ciple in the Creation, is no other than those fine and brisk Particles of Matter whose Nature is to be in a Continual Agitation, and which by their rest∣less Motion and Pressure communicate Warmth and Light, Vigour and Lustre where-ever there is need of them in the Universe. Some refer the Creation of Angels to this first Day's Work, by reducing them to the word Heaven in the first Verse; but I have suggested already that that Verse is a General Account of the Whole Creation, and not of any Particular Day's Production, (or else by Heaven and Earth there is meant the First Matter or Rude Draught of both) therefore no such thing can be inferr'd thence. Nor are we to think that the An∣gelick Order is comprehended under Light, (as I find some imagine, because they read of an Angel of Light, 2 Cor. 11. 14.) for it is Material Light only that is the Product of the first Day's Work. I ra∣ther think that Moses designed not to include An∣gels in any Part of that Account which he gives of the Creation, for he makes it his Business to speak of those Works of God which were visible and sen∣sible, and therefore 'tis no wonder that the Ange∣lick Spirits are not mention'd, for they come not within the Compass of his Undertaking.

Hitherto we have had a View of the Two Pri∣mitive Materials of all visible Beings in the World, viz. 1. The Formless Mass or Chaos (whence 'tis likely Aristotl•• derived his First Matter, which is according to him neither this nor that, but mere passive Potentiality, yet susceptive of any Form). 2. The Active Light, which was made to envigorate

the dull and inert Matter of the Chaos, and after∣wards to be the Original of the Vast Luminaries of the Celestial Part of the World. These are the General Elements of the Mundane System; one gross and unactive, the other subtile and penetra∣ting; the one the Matter of this inferiour Part of the Universe, the other of those more spacious and extended Orbs above. This I take to be the true Account of the Origine of the World, though I have but few (if any) that concur with me in laying it down thus; for the Chaos is generally made the Universal Source of the World. But to me it seems to be but One Part of it, and that of this Lower Division only, which is very small in re∣spect of the other. I have only this to add here, that it is this First Day's Work alone that in the most proper and strict Sense ought to be call'd the Creation, because now was made the First and Uni∣versal Substance out of which the Works of the other Days were produced; though it is true in a latitude of speaking, the Formation of the distinct Species of Beings was a Creation also. And of these I proceed now to speak according to the Mosaick Method, the same with that of the Creator.

On the second Day was the Lower Heaven or Fir∣mament made, call'd by this Divine Philosopher Rakiang, i. e. the Expansion, or according to the Seventy Interpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom the Vulgar La∣tin follows, and renders it Firmamentum. This was produced in the midst of the Waters, and the De∣sign of it was to divide the Waters from the Waters, (v. 6.) i. e. (as it follows) the Waters under this Firmament from the Waters above it. The Mean∣ing of which is, (after all the wild Comments on these Words) that whereas the Waters at first were heap'd together very high above the Earth in

some Places, the All-wise Disposer began this Day to make a Separation of them, and to frame an Ex∣pansion (for that is the simple and downright Im∣port of the Hebrew Word) between the lower and the higher Parts of the Waters: so that now there was a Distance between them, which was caused by the Interposition of Air between these lower and higher Parts of the Waters. The Al∣mighty Creator, by attenuating and rarifying these, transmuted them into an Aerial Body, which shall always continue so, i. e. shall remain really distinct from the crasser Subsistence of Water. Therefore in plain Terms this Expansum is the Whole Region of Air: and we cannot imagine any other Expan∣sum or Out-spread Firmament which divides the su∣periour from the inferiour Waters, i. e. the Clouds from that vast Body and Mass of Waters which at first cover'd the Earth, and soon after (as you shall hear) were disposed of into particular Recepta∣cles, and were denominated the Seas. But yet in a large way of speaking this Firmament here spoken of is all that Extended Space (for that, I say, is the proper Denotation of the Word) which reacheth from the Earth to the Place of the Stars, which was made afterwards. If it be asked why this Se∣cond Day's Work hath not the same Approbation that the rest have: I answer, the Reason is not be∣cause it was not good, but because it was but an Essay or Specimen of the two next Days Works; for the Waters were but now begun to be separated, which afterwards we find finish'd on the third Day: and this Firmament was but a Beginning or Preparative to the Production of a higher and nobler Expansum on the fourth Day. This we may conceive to be the Reason why the Epiphonema which is added to every Day's Work

[God saw that it was good] is not adjoined here.

On the third Day there was this fourfold Work; 1. A Compleat Separating or dividing of the Wa∣ters. 2. A Gathering of them into one Place, which was then, and is since call'd the Sea. And it is most reasonable to believe that on the same Day that the Seas were made by depressing some Parts of the Earth for the Waters to run in, the Channels also of the Rivers were fix'd, and the Cur∣rents of Water let into them. For if (as some imagine) Rivers were made afterwards by Men, the Banks of them (or one Side of them at least) would be higher than the rest of the Ground, by reason of the Earth dug out and cast up. 3. A Drying of the Land, which was a necessary Conse∣quence of that collecting the Waters into certain Cavities and Channels in the Earth; for they being drain'd and sunk down into these, the Land be∣came dry, and had the Denomination of Earth (properly so call'd) given to it. Virgil expresses it thus, (for he as well as other Poets, as I have shew'd in another Place, borrowed several things from the Sacred Records)

Et durare solum, & discludere Nerea Ponto Coepit.—

And this was not only in order to render it a suta∣ble Habitation for Men and Beasts afterwards, but to sit it immediately for Plants and Herbs, for Trees and Fruits, (and more especially for the Plantation of Paradise) which were the fourth and last Pro∣duction of this Day.

The next Day was employ'd in creating of an Etherial Heaven or Firmament, and furnishing it with Glorious Lights. As the former Firmament

or Expanse was the Space between the Earth and Aether, so this is that vast Extension which com∣prehends the Aether, and all the Luminaries placed in it, and whatever is above it, even the Place of the Blessed, call'd the Heaven of Heavens. The Generality of Expositors, I grant, make the other Firmament and this the same, and think that the Firmament here spoken of is not mention'd as the Product of this Day's Creation, but that here is only a new mentioning of the preceding one. But this Mistake hath run them into great Absurdities, and hath made them unable to give any tolerable. Account of the Waters under the Firmament, and those above it. But if you quit the usual Road of Interpreters, and take the Firmament in the 14th Verse to be different from that in ver. 6, & 7. you solve all Difficulties whatsoever, and the Texts are clear and evident. Wherefore I distinguish be∣tween the Firmament of Air and that of Aether, i. e. that wherein the Clouds and Meteors are, and the other which contains the Luminaries of Heaven. And you may observe that this, in contradistincti∣on to the former, is signally stiled thrice the Firma∣ment of Heaven, ver. 14, 15, 17. This Celestial Ex∣pansion being fix'd, the next Work was to garnish and adorn it. To which purpose the Light made the first Day is now abundantly and almost infinite∣ly augmented and refined, and disposed of into cer∣tain particular Orbs or Spheres, or Vortices, which are form'd in this upper Part of the World. As all the formerly dispersed Light which was scat∣ter'd over the whole Face of the Earth and Deep, was (as we expresly read, ver. 4.) divided from the Darkness, whereby one half of the Globe was en∣lightned, and the other was in the dark; (it was Day with one Hemisphere whilest it was Night with the

other) so now on the third Day this Wandring Light is gather'd into the Bodies of the Sun and Stars.

This is the Mosaick Philosophy concerning the Earth and Heavens; and (if it were my Business here) I could shew that upon true Principles of Reason it is more consistent than any Philosophical Hypotheses of another Strain, and especially more congruous to the Laws of Motion and the Opera∣tions of Nature than that of Monsieur Des Cartes, who tells us, that there were nothing but Suns and Stars at first, there were no Earths nor Planets, but in process of Time some of these Suns were overspread with Spots and Scum, and became opake, and being suck'd in by their Neighbour-Vortices, turn'd into Planets or Earth. But truly, to give this worthy Person his due, he propounded this on∣ly as a Handsome Hypothesis, a neat Philosophick Fiction, which he thought might serve as a good Expedient to solve some Celestial Phaenomena. But he intended not that any Man should look upon it as a Reality, and thereby exclude the Mosaick Do∣ctrine: For his own Words are these,1 1.381

It is not to be doubted that the World was at the very first created with all its Perfection, so that there were then existent the Sun, Earth and Moon. This the Christian Faith teacheth us, and even. natural Reason perswades us to think so: for when we attend to the Immense Power of God, we can't imagine that he ever made a thing which was not every ways entire and perfect.

Thus he establisheth the Mosaick System, accord∣ing

to which the Earth was before, not after the Heavens; yea, as gross as it was, it was the First∣born of the Creation, and consequently the Hypo∣thesis about its being made by Absorption is a Ficti∣on. So according to Moses the Earth was the Basis and Foundation of the World, and the Sun and other Luminaries were placed in the Firmament, which is said to be above the Earth; wherefore the System that makes the Earth the Center, and not the Sun, is founded on this.

Before I dismiss this Head, I might take notice how mightily concern'd the Arc••aeologist is about the Inequality of the Days Works, and especially that of this Fourth Day, which1 1.382 he tells us exceeds all the other five, and therefore he cannot give Cre∣dit to Mo••es's Hexaëmeron. This is the wild Rea∣soning of this Philosophick Adventurer. Indeed both here and in other Places where he descants on the Mosaick History, he uses a most extravagant, and (to speak plainly) a most irreligious Liberty, confronting the Text with an unsufferable Bold∣ness, and playing upon it with a most unbecoming Raillery. Is he to set the Almighty Creator his Tasks, and proportion them as he think fit? Must every Day's Work be equal, or else must it not be believed? Yea, is he able to tell what is equal or unequal with the Omnipotent Deity and most Wise Architect of the World? Surely this is not the Language of a Christian Man: Yea, (which per∣haps will affect him more) 'tis as sure that he dot••▪ not talk like a Philosop••er, for it is certain (and all Intelligent Men will acknowledg it) that Dull, Gross, heavy Matter, abo••t which the foregoing Days Works were conversant, is not (if we speak

of the Nature of the thing) so soon moved, shaped and order'd as that which is Tenuious, Fluid, sub∣tile and active. The Make of the Heavens and all the spatious Bodies of the Stars was quickly dis∣patch'd, because the Matter of them was Ethereal, light, tractable; and by reason of their ••iry and agile Nature they presently ran into that Shape which they now appear in. This should have been consider'd by this Cavilling Gentleman, and he ought to have made a Distinction between what in it self is Dull and what is Active, i. e. the T••o Different Principles of the Creation which I have be∣fore asserted. If he had done so, he would have seen that there is no Reason to complain of Inequali∣ty in the Six Days Works. But he mistook the System of the World which Moses describes, and thence was his Error. I wish it was not wilful and presumptuous, for from several bold Strokes in this Ingenious Man's Writings, one would be apt to think he enclined to Alphonsus's Humour, who de∣clared that if he had been at the Creation of the World, he could have taught God to have formed the System of it better. But I will retain a more charitable Opinion concerning this Author. And I expect that he shoud shew his Charity (as I have mine) in not censuring this my free Descant upon what he hath publish'd to the World: for I have as great a Regard as any Man to True and Sober Phi∣losophy, and I own the Great Worth and Excellen∣cy of it; but I must needs protest that I abhor the Practice of those who exclude the Sacred Writings whilest they adhere to their own Hypothesis, who set up such Philosophical Principles and Conclusions as directly oppose and contradict the Revealed Truths of the Bible. And this is the Case now before us, or else I should not have troubled the

Reader with any Reflections on what this Learned Author hath written. Let us have as much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Philosophy as he pleases, but none that subverts our Old Religion.

To proceed; on the fifth Day the Inhabitants of the Seas, and of the Lower Heaven were form'd. For though the chearing and warming Light, be∣fore it was embodied and gather'd together into certain Receptacles, was instrumental by the Di∣vine Power to produce Vegetables, yet it was not vigorous enough to beget the Animal Life. But now this Noble and Cherishing Virtue being migh∣tily increas'd by immense Accessions of Light and Heat made to it, and being more advantagiously placed and fix'd, we find the Effect of it in the Pro∣duction of Fish and Feather'd Animals: Now a Li∣ving or Sensitive Soul is first made, ver. 21.

On the sixth and last Day the Earth brought forth all kinds of Beasts and Cattle, i. e. all T••rre∣strial Animals (as on the foregoing Day all Ani∣mals belonging to the Sea and Rivers, and to the Air, were created). And lastly Mun, the Top and Glory of the Creatures, the most Elaborate Piece of the whole Creation, was framed out of the Dust; and, in respect of his Diviner Part es∣pecially, made according to the Image of God himself. He is too Great and Noble a Being to be spoken of by the by, and therefore I shall not dis∣course of him here. Only I will observe the Un∣reasonableness of the Archaeologist, who positively avers that this last Day's Performance was not pro∣portionable to the rest, and thence condemns the Mosaick History of the Creation. But this Dispro∣portion is either in respect of more or of less done on this Day than on the others. If he complains that more was done, he shews himself incon••ide∣rate,

for hereby it appears that he takes no notice of the Creation's rising higher and higher towards the latter end; besides that he confines the Creator himself. But if he complains (as I suppose he doth) that less was done, he shews what low and unwor∣thy Thoughts he hath of Man: as if Mud, Water, Earth, Clouds, Seas, Plants, Fish and Fowl, (the Pro∣ductions of the former Days) were much better than Him whom God purposely reserv'd to be the Complement and Perfection of all, Him to whom every Creature pays a Tribute, Him for whose Use and Benefit the whole World was made.

These are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Primitive Works of God, and the Several Days in which they were made. For we are not to imagine (as1 1.383 some do) that this Division of the Creation into so many Parts is only set down for Order sake, but that really all was done at once and in a Moment: for then the Reason given in the Fourth Commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath Day, viz. because in six Days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh Day, is to no purpose, yea it is absolute Nonsense. There∣fore we must necessarily own the Gradual Progress of the Creation. And let us not only do so, but observe the Wisdom and Providence of the Infinite Architect in the Order and Method which he used. He in creating began with the lowest and meanest Rank of Beings, and so ascended to higher and nobler. Simple Elements, as Earth, Water, Fire, (or Light) Air, were produced before the more mixt and concrete Bodies. Yea, these Elements were placed according to the Order and Degree of

Gravity, first the Earth, subsiding in the lowest Place of all, (for the Great and Renowned Tycho disdains not this Hypothesis) then the Waters or Abyss placed immediately about the Earth: next the Air or Expansion, whose Position was above the Waters: lastly the Fire, call'd Light, which com∣prehends all the Ethereal and Heavenly Bodies, which are surmounted above all the rest. As for the Planets (which are so many Earths, i. e. if by Earth we mean an opake Body) they are to be ac∣counted for at another time, and in another Place, where it will be most proper to speak of them. It is also observable, that things that were Inani∣mate were first brought into Existence, and after∣wards such as had a Vegetative Life: then things that had Sense and Spontaneous Motion, and lastly Reasonable Creatures. Man was the concluding Work of the Creation, and his Soul was the last of all; to let us know that this sort of Beings is much more valuable than Bodies, to assure us from the Method of God's creating that Minds or Spirits sur∣pass Ma••ter. Finally, when I say that the Creation ceased in Man, as in the most Perfect Work of the Divine Artificer, as in the End to which all the rest were designed, I do not exclude Angels, who are a Perfecter Classis of Creatures, and are not united to Bodies as the Souls of Men are, and for that very Reason are not taken notice of by Moses in this Account of the Visible Creation. I am en∣clin'd to believe that these Glorious Spirits were made presently after Man, they being an Order of Creatures superiour to him. The Order of the Creation (so far as we certainly know any thing of it) invites me to embrace this Perswasion, for according to this those Excellent Beings should have the last Place. According to the Steps and De∣grees

of the Creation, I say, it was thus.

Exodus is the next Book; which relates the Ty∣ranny of Pharaoh, the Bondage of the Isra••lites under him in Egypt, and their Wonderful Deliverance from it. More particularly here are recorded the Pro∣digious Increase and multiplying of these oppressed Hebrews which were the Posterity of Iacob, the Plagues inflicted on the Egyptian King and his Peo∣ple, because he refused to dismiss them; their De∣parture thence without his leave, though not with∣out the Peoples; their Miraculous Passing through the Red Sea, or Arabian Gulf; the Overthrow of Pharaoh and his numerous Host; the Marvelous Se∣curing and Protecting of the Israelites in the Arabian Desarts; the strange Miracles wrought for the su∣staining and preserving of them: the Promulging of the Law to them on Mount Sinai, which consi∣sted of Moral Precepts, Civil or Judicial Constitu∣tions, and Ceremonial Rites: for the celebrating and performing of which latter, a Tabernacle was erected (as Rich and Stately as their present Con∣dition would permit) by the particular Appoint∣ment and Direction of God. Briefly, this Book represents the Church of God, afflicted and preser∣ved: it shews that he is pleas'd to suffer it to be reduced to the greatest Straits and Calamities, and that even then he guards it by his Providence, and in good time delivers it.

But as before, when I mention'd the General Contents of the Book of Genesis, I particularly insisted on the Creation; so now having given a brief Scheme of this second Book, I will stay to enlarge upon a particular Subject of it, which is very Considera∣ble and Remarkable, viz. the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as 1 1.384 One calls it) the Tenfold Plague wherewith God

testified his Wrath and Anger against the Egypti∣ans. Ten times the Israelites were detained by Pharaoh, and so many times God inflicted Remarka∣ble Judgments on him and his People. The first was a severe Infliction on their Waters, that Ele∣ment which is so useful and necessary to Man. The Divine Displeasure began to exert it self here by turning all their Rivers, Ponds, Pools and Streams into Blood. The dreadful Consequences of which were these, (as you find them enumerated, Exod▪ 7. 21.) first, they had no Water to drink, and quench their Thirst with: Secondly, their Fish (their great and almost only Food) died; and Thirdly, the Rivers stank, by reason of the pu∣trified Waters and dead Fish. So direful was this Plague on their Waters, which they honour'd above all other Elements as the first Cause and Principle of all things in World, and especially their River Nile was gloried in, and worship'd as a God. This the Learned and Religious1 1.385 Philo gives as the Rea∣son of inflicting this Punishment. God sent a Curse on that which they most prized and valued. That which they excessively admired, proved a Plague to them. God punish'd them in that which was most regarded by them, and was indeed most ser∣viceable to them. Again, this is to be observed that the Blood of the murder'd Infants, who had been drown'd by one of the Pharaoh's Command, is here represented by these Bloody Waters. Here the merciless Tyrant may see the just Retaliation of that Crime. The Rivers being chang'd into this Colour, accuse the Egyptians of the inhumane Slaughter of the innocent Babes, and let them know that their Plagues deservedly begun with these first

of all. Yea, here we may take notice of an Hor∣rible Omen: these Red Rivers were an unhappy but just Presage of the Fate which they should after∣wards undergo in the Sea of that Denomination. If any Object here, How could the Magicians turn the Waters into Blood (v. 22.) after Moses and Aa••on had done so before them? I Answer, the Univer∣sal Terms used in this Relation are to be restrained▪ and understood with some Exception, (than which nothing is more common in Scripture) i. e. when 'tis said all the Rivers and other Waters were stain∣ed with Blood, the meaning is that very few Places were free from this Infection. The Magicians then might repeat this Plague in Goshen, and some cer∣tain Parts of Egypt where it had not taken effect before.

When this First Plague was removed, God sent a Second, viz. Frogs. Which in part tormented the Egyptians after the same manner that the for∣mer did, for they were of an extraordinary Na∣ture, (and so we must suppose all the other Crea∣tures hereafter named to be) and infected the Wa∣ters which were lately healed and recovered, so that there was no drinking of them, or making use of them to any other Purpose. But whereas the former Plague was only on this Element, this present one was every where. No Place was ex∣empted from this Croaking Vermin. They over∣spread their Fields, they crept into their Houses, they lodg'd themselves in their Beds. All Places were filled with them, all Meats and Drinks bred them. Certainly this must needs be a very Affrighting as well as a Noisom Punishment whilst these Animals were moving and living: and they were no less so ••fterwards, when they lay dead and putrifying all ••ver the Land.

When this Plague was taken away, a Third succeeded in its room, an Innumerable Company of Lice, which miserably infested both Men and Beasts. What these Kinnim were we do not cer∣tainly know: we have no such Creature perhaps in these Countries. But this we know that these Loathsom Insects were such a peculiar Sort of Crea∣tures that the Egyptian Sorcerers had not power to produce the like, and therefore they signally call'd them the Finger of God, Exod. 8. 19. This also we know that this Crawling Vermin was excessively troublesom, painful and tormenting: and lastly, from this kind of Punishment we know this is to be infer∣red, that God, whensoever he pleases, can give Com∣mission even to the Least, the Vilest and most De∣spicable Animals to execute his Wrath on Offenders.

As appears also by the Fourth Plague, viz. Swarm•• of Flies, with which he further vex'd the Egypti∣ans. Beelzebub was let loose among them, and his Buzzing Crew would not suffer them to be at ease. The Hebrew Word Gnarob is rendered by Greek In∣terpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Dog-fly: but 'tis probable that the true genuine Word in the First Traslation was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence the Vulgar Latin renders it omne genus Muscarum, a Swarm of all manner of Flies. So according to Aquila's Version it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But3 1.386 Iosephus stretches the Word further, and in∣terprets it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wild Beasts of all Sorts and Shapes; such as no man ever saw be∣fore, as he adds. Yea R. Solomon and some other Jewish Expositors think that all kinds of wild Beasts, especially Serpents and Scorpions, and such veno∣mous Creatures, are meant. The Author of the Book of Wisdom understood the Word thus, as ap∣pears

from what he saith, Ch. 11. v. 15, 16. For the foolish Devices of their Wickedness, wherewith being deceived they worshipp'd Serpents and vile Beasts, God sent a Multitude of Beasts upon them for Vengeance: that they might know that wherewithal a Man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punish'd. But the exact∣est Enquirers into the Original Word conclude, that it signifies a gather'd Mixture of several Sorts of Insects or little flying Animals, such as Beetles, Hornets, Bees, Wasps, Gnats, and more especial∣ly ••lies. Perhaps Grotius is in the right, that Gna∣ro•• is not of Hebrew Extraction, but is an Egyptian Word, (as was that whereby the Frogs were named) and signifies peculiarly with them a Heap or Swarm of Flies. The vast Number of these was suffici∣ently troublesome: but that was not all, these Mul∣titudes of Insects were Infectious and Mortal by rea∣son of their intolerable Stench and Filth, with which they filled the Air: whence 'tis said, the Land was corrupted with them, Exod. 8. 24. And this Corruption proved fatal to many, who without doubt would have taken up Domitian's Emploiment, and managed it better than he did, but they were not able, for instead of stabbing these Creatures they were dispatch'd themselves by a more poinant Stroke.

The former Judgments having not produced any good Effect in this People, God sends a Fifth among them, viz. a Pestilence or Murrain, that destroy'd their Cattel, their Flocks and Herds of all Kinds: for when 'tis said All Cattel died, it is not simply and absolutely to be understood (for some remained▪ as is clear in the Plague of Hail afterwards) but of▪ Cattel of all Kinds. These, it seems, they kept and brought up for their Wool, and for Service, and to make a Gain of them by selling them to other

Nations, although they made no use of them them∣selves for Food. Though the Egyptians themselves escape the fury of this Pestilential Distemper, yet God punisheth them in their Beasts. These are destroy'd, to intimate to them what them∣selves deserv'd, who live and acted like Bru••e Beasts.

And now in the next Place it is worth our ob∣serving, that this Plague is follow'd with the break∣ing out of Boils and Blains, Botches and Swell••ng-Sores both in Man and Beast; that is, the fifth Plague was cured by the coming of the Sixth: for the Venomous and Pestilential Humour which had seized on the Men, (as I gather from Psal. 78. 50. where this particular Punishment on the Egyptians i•• recounted) and which had struck the Cattel dead, was call'd forth into the extream Parts of their Bodies, and so was thereby evacuated and exhau∣sted. Whence I infer these two Things, 1. That God may think ••it to send or take away an Extra∣ordinary Calamity in an ordinary and natural Way: and 2. That one Calamity or Plague may come in the Place of another, and even wholly remove that former Plague, and yet prove a very Great one it self. Thus it was with the Boils and Impostumes, they were a Remedy in a natural Way against the Pestilence, but they were likewise a Grievous and Painful Disease, and made them unfit for all Work and Business. I will only further remark under this Particular, that it is probable Trogus Pompeius (and from him Iustin the Historian) refers to these Bot∣ches and Boils, when he reports that the Egyptians (by whom he means the Iews, for he and other Pa∣gans thought they were originally Egyptians) were driven out of Egypt because they were infected with the Itch, and were overrun with Scabs and Sores.

So1 1.387 Tacitus relates; that an Epidemick Leprosy or Scabby Disease plagued the Egyptians Bodies, whereupon the King consulting the Oracle, gave order to purge the Country of the Jews, and to send them into some other Place. It seems to be grounded on this, though he (as all other Profane Historians when they speak of the Jews) is guilty of mistaking and blundering in the way of deli∣vering it.

The Seventh Plague that these People felt was Hail, which was a very Prodigious thing in it self: for though it sometimes, but very seldom, rain'd in Egypt, yet Hail was never seen before in that Country. But moreover this was Extraordinary, being attended with Fire and Storms, Lightning and Thunder, which slew all the Men and Beasts that were abroad and remain'd, and destroy'd all Trees, Plants and Herbs.

And because their Wheat and Rye were not at that time come forth out of the Ground, and other Fruits of the Earth were not grown up, and so re∣ceived no harm by this Plague, therefore upon Pharaoh's continued Obstinacy another was soon af∣ter inflicted on them, that is, Troops of Locusts and Caterpillars, (for these latter are mention'd Psal. 78. 46. & 105. 34.) such as never were before in the World, nor afterwards ever shall be, (as 'tis expresly recorded) invaded them, and unsuffera∣bly molested them in their Houses and closest Re∣tirements, and quickly devoured all the Fruits of the Ground which the Hail had not touched.

When neither this nor the foregoing Judgment had any considerable Effect upon the Hardned Ty∣rant, a New one, viz. that of Darkness (which is

the Ninth in Number) is sent among them. This was such a Darkness as put out all Fires and Lights, else they might have help'd themselves by these: but 'tis plain they did not, for they kept within, nei∣ther rose any one from his Place for three Days, Exod. 10. 23. as much as to say, that their Attempts were frustrated when they undertook to kindle or light any Fire, and they were forced to desist from any such Undertaking, and to sit down again in their Places. This is said to be such a Thick Dark∣ness that it might be felt: it was accompanied with such Gross Fogs and Mists, and those so pressing up∣on them, that they might be perceived by the Sense of Feeling. So this Sense was in an unusual manner exercised whilest that of Seeing was wholly taken from them. It is impossible fully to express this Horrid and Frightful Darkness of the Egyptian••. He that consults the 17th and 18th Chapters of the Book of Wisdom will find an Admirable and most Elegant Description of it. I do not know any Profane Writer, any Classick Author, whether Orator or Poet, that hath parallell'd that Excellent Piece. There the Worthy Penman acquaints us with the probable Reasons of their suffering in that kind, and he suggests how they were haunted with strange Apparitions in that Long and Dismal Night, that the Terrors of their Minds and Con∣sciences were equal with the Affrightments of that Black Season, that these Dreadful Shades were but the Representation of that Eternal Blackness and Darkness into which they were to enter.

The last Plague was the Death of the First-born both of Men and Beasts throughout the whole Land. There was not a House where there was not one dead; and therefore the Universality of the Slaughter made it the more deplorable and unsupportable.

Accordingly Philo determines that1 1.388 the Tenth and Last Plague which befel the Egyptians, far surpass'd all the others that went before. This fluctus decu∣manus was greater, and on some Account more terrible than all the former Waves and Billows that beat upon them: and indeed it was but an In∣troduction to their being swallow'd up by those of the Red Sea, which was the Concluding Act of the whole Tragedy. Thus I have briefly set before you the Various and Gradual Judgments wherewith the Egyptians were exercised. And from the whole we cannot but infer that God hath Divers Ways of animadverting on obstinate Criminals. Their Sins shall find them out both at home and abroad, in their Houses and in the Fields, in their Bodies, in their Possessions, in their Relations. Yea, for their sakes the Brutes, the Vegetables, and even the Creatures void of all Life shall bear the Marks of God's Anger. I proceed now to the other Books of Moses, in which I shall be briefer.

Leviticus hath its Name because it treats chiefly of the Offices of the Levites, and the whole Levi∣tical Order. It gives us an Account of the Iewish Service and Worship, of the particular Employ∣ments and Charges of the Ministers of the Jewish Church, of their several kinds of Sacrifices and Oblations, (viz. Burnt-Offerings, Meat-Offerings, Peace-Offerings, Sin-Offerings, Trespass-Offerings) of the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons to the Priest∣hood, of Laws about Clean and Vnclean things, and of Difference of Meats. Here they are forbid to eat Blood; here they are taught how to discern the Leprosy, and how to cleanse it. Here are Laws

concerning Vows, and Things and Persons devoted▪ There are also other Ordinances and Injunctions concerning their Solemn Feasts, viz. the Sabbath of the seventh Year, the Passover, the Feasts of First-Fruits, of Pentecost, of Trumpets, of Expiation, of Tabernacles, and many the like Usages and Rites which were strictly commanded this People, on purpose to keep them from the Idolatrous and Superstitious Ceremonies of the Gentiles that were round about them, and would be enticing them to imitate their Practice. Besides, these Rites were design'd by God to be Types and Representatives of things of a far higher Nature, even of Christ himself, and the great things which appertain to the Gospel. There is likewise a great Number of Iudicial Laws, as concerning the Year of Jubilee, about the Redemption of Lands and Houses, against taking of Usury of the Poor: as also con∣cerning Servants and Bondmen. Here are Laws touching the Degrees of Affinity and Consanguinity, and consequently what Marriages are lawful, and what unlawful, may thence be inferr'd: and several other things belonging to the Iews Civil Law. Fur∣thermore, here are inserted several Moral Instructi∣ons, and Excellent Precepts of Natural Religion, respecting both God and Men. Lastly, towards the Close of all there are Blessings and Curses pro∣nounced, the former to such as carefully observe these Laws, the latter on those that wilfully break them. These a••e the Admirable Things contain'd in this Book, and which have been the acceptable Entertainment of the Inquisitive and Religious, of the Wise and Good in all Ages since they have been extant.

The Book of Numbers hath its Denomination from the Numbring of the Families of Israel, as

we may collect from ch. 1. v. 3, 4. where we read that Moses and Aaron had a special Command from God to Muster the Tribes, and to take the Num∣ber of all that were fit for War, and to Order and Marshal the Army when it was once formed. For now in their Passage through the Wilderness they were like to meet with many Enemies, and there∣fore 'twas convenient to take an Account of their Forces, and to put themselves into a Posture ready to engage. A great Part of this Book is Histori∣cal, relating several Remarkable Passages in the Israelites March through the Wilderness, as the Sedition of Aaron and Miriam, the Rebellion of Co∣rah and his Companions, the Murmurings of the whole Body of the People, their being plagued with firy Serpents, Baalam's Prophesying of the Happiness of Israel instead of Cursing them, the Miraculous Budding of Aaron's Rod. Here also are distinctly related their Several Removings from Place to Place, their two and forty Stages or Iourneys through the Wilderness, and sundry other things which befel them, whereby we are instructed and con∣firmed in some of the weightiest Truths that have immediate Reference to God and his Providence in the World. But the greatest Part of the Book is spent in enumerating those Laws and Ordinances (whether Ceremonial or Civil) which were given by God, and were not mention'd before in the pre∣ceding Books, as some Particulars of the Levites Office, and the Number of them, the Trial of Iea∣lousy, the Rites to be observ'd by the Nazarites, the Renewing of the Passover, the making of Fringes on the Borders of their Garments, the Water of Separation to be used in purifying the Unclean, the Law of Inheritance, of Vows, of the Cities of Re∣fuge, of the Cities for the Levites, and some other

Constitutions either not inserted into the other Books of Moses, or not so distinctly and plainly set down. Thus this Book both in respect of the Historical Part of it, and of the Addition of Laws, (not spoken of in the foregoing Books) hath its peculiar Use and Excellency.

Deuteronomy (which signifies a Second Law) is a Repetition of the Laws before delivered. It is the Canonick Mishnah, or New Rehearsal of the Divine Law: Which was necessary, because they that heard it before died in the Wilderness, and there being now sprung up another Generation of Men, the Law was to be promulged to them. The ma∣jor Part of the People that were living at that time had not heard the Decalogue, or any other of the Laws openly proclaimed; or being young, they had neglected or forgot them. That is the Reason why Moses in this Book rehearseth them to this new People, and withal adds an Explication of them in many Places, yea and adjoins some New Laws, viz. the taking down of Malefactors from the Tree in the Evening, making of Battlements on the Roofs of their Houses, the Expiation of an unknown Murder, the Punishment to be inflicted on a Rebellious Son, the Distinction of the Sexes by Apparel, Marrying the Brother's Wife after his De∣cease: also Orders and Injunctions concerning Di∣vorce, concerning Man-stealers, concerning Vnjust Weights and Measures, concerning the Marrying of a captive Woman, concerning the Servant that de∣serts his Master's Service, and several other Laws not only Ecclesiastical and Civil, but Military. There are likewise inserted some New Actions and Passages which happened in the last Year of their Travels in the Wilderness. Moreover, Moses in this Part of the Pentateuch shews himself a True Fa∣ther,

Pastor and Guide to that People, a Hearty Lover of them and their Welfare in such manifest Instances as these, his often Inculcating upon them the many Obligations which they lay under from God, the Innumerable Favours they had received from him: his frequent and pathetick Exhortations to Obedience, and living answerably to the singular Mercies which were conferr'd upon them: his con∣stant Reminding them of their former Miscarri∣ages, their Murmurings and Rebellions against Heaven, and all their Unworthy Deportment to∣wards their Matchless Benefactor: his compassio∣nate Forewarning them of the Judgments of God, of the Various Plagues and Punishments which would certainly be the Consequence of their per∣sisting in their Sins: Lastly, his Affectionate En∣couraging them to Obedience from the Considera∣tion of the endearing Promises which God had made to them, and which he would assuredly make good, if they did not frustrate his Designs of Mercy towards them by their own wilful Obstinacy. These are the Excellent Subjects of this Divine Book, and which render it so unvaluable a Treasu∣ry.

Hitherto of the Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses. And that he was the Penman of them I think need not be question'd, though I find it is, yea flatly denied by Aben Ezra and Pererius, and lately by Hobbs and Spinosa. A very little Portion of them was writ by him, saith Monsieur Simon, who hath a new Notion of certain Publick Scribes or Registers that penn'd this and other Parts of the Old Testament, (which sort of Abbreviating Nota∣ries he borrows from the Egyptians, (as he con∣fes••es himself) because there were such Officers in the Egyptian Court who had a Privilege to add to

or take away from, to amplify or abridg the Pub∣lick Records, he thence groundlesly infers there were such among the Iews who made what Alte∣rations they pleased in the Sacred Writings): which Paradox of his I have consider'd, and made some Reflections upon in a former Treatise. This I may truly say, that it is not necessary that we should know who was the Particular Penman of this or any other Book of the Holy Scripture, because the Au∣thority of them depends not on the Writers of them, but on the Holy Ghost who endited them. They are the Books of God, that is their peculiar Character and Dignity, and that alone makes them Authentick after they have been delivered to us by the unanimous Consent of the Church, so that there is no absolute Necessity of our certain know∣ing who penn'd them. Yet this must be said, that it cannot with Reason be denied that the Authors of some of these Sacred Books are well known, and particularly there are very convincing Proofs that Moses wrote the Books which I have been giving an Account of. This may be evinc'd from our Savi∣our's Words, Luke 16. 31. & 24. 27. where by Moses (as is most evident) he means the Books of the Pentateuch, and consequently thereby lets us know that Moses was the Writer of them. And more expresly the Book of Exodus is call'd the Book of Moses by our same Infallible Master, Mark 12. 26. And St. Paul tells us, that when these Books are read, Moses is read, 2 Cor. 3. 19. And both our Saviour and this Apostle distinguish between Moses and the Prophets, Luke 16. 29. Acts 26. 22. plain∣ly signifying that as those Books which pass under the Prophets Names are theirs, so these that are said to be Moses's were written by him. I think this is very plain, and needs not to be further insisted on.

As to the Objections of those Men before named against this, I forbear to produce them, and to return particular Answers to them, because this is so lately done by1 1.389 Monsieur Clerk, and because another2 1.390 Learned Frenchman hath laudably per∣formed this Task. Especially he hath with great Vigour, and as great Success, attack'd Spinosa, a Iew (as they tell us) by Birth, but neither Iew nor Christian by Profession, but a Derider of both. We may also find his Arguments (which are ge∣nerally borrow'd from Aben Ezra) refuted with great Clearness by the3 1.391 Learned Professor of Di∣••inity at Paris, who at the same time betakes him∣self to the Positive Part, and renders it unquestio∣nable that Moses himself was the Author of the Five Books that go under his Name. Wherefore the particular Fancies of those few Objectors, and those no Friends to the Sacred Text, are not to be heeded by us. As to that common Scruple which is so much insisted upon, that in the last Book of the Pentateuch there is mention of Moses's Death, and some things that happen'd after it, whence they conclude that Moses wrote not those Books, or at least not the last of them; I take this to be a sufficient Answer, that Moses being a Pro∣phet, might foresee, and have revealed to him a par∣ticular Account of his own Death, and so he com∣mitted it to writing by a Prophetick Spirit: where∣fore none can from thence prove that he was not the Penman of all this Book. However, we will not contend here, for perhaps the Conclusion of this Book was affixed by Ioshua, or afterwards by

Ezra, who was an Inspired Person likewise, and who revised the Books of the Old Testament, and inserted some things into them by the same Spirit that endited the rest. Notwithstanding then the foresaid Objection, which refers only to a few Pas∣sages in the End of the Book of Deuteronomy, w•• have Reason to assert that the whole Five Books (excepting that little Addition in the Close) were written by Moses; these are his Authentick Re∣cords, consisting chiefly of History (which com∣priseth in it the Occurrences of about 2400 Years) and Laws which were given by God Himself to his own People, and will be of use to the End of the World. Here is the Cabinet of the greatest Antiquity under Heaven, here are the First and Oldest Monuments of the World.

CHAP. VIII.

A short Survey of the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, (which is a Supplement to the History of the Iudges) Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, (which is a Continuation of the Chronicles) Nehemiah, Esther. The Author, Stile, Composure, Matter of the Book of Job discuss'd. An Enquiry into the Penmen, Subjects, Kinds, Titles, Poetick Meter and Rhythm of the Psalms.

NExt unto this is that Excellent History writ∣ten by Ioshua the Captain General of the Israelites, and Moses's famous Successor, whose very Name without doubt was as terrible to the Canaanites as those of Hunniades and Scanderbeg were afterwards to the Turks. Here he admirably describes the Holy War, the Martial Atchievements

and Stratagems of the People of God against those Nations whose Lands they were to possess, and at length their Victory over them. Here are very par∣ticularly set down their Conquests over those Kings and Countries. This Book is the Fulfilling of the Promises which were made to them concerning the entring into Canaan, and enjoying that Land, which is a Type of the Heavenly Canaan, the ever∣lasting Rest which remaineth to the People of God, Heb. 4. 9. Here is the Actual Possession of that Promi∣sed Inheritance, and the Division of it among the several Tribes by Lot. The short is, in the whole Book (which I must not now give you by retail) there are abundant Demonstrations of the Divine Providence, repeated Instances of the Infinite Kind∣ness of God to his Servants, remarkable Examples of the Divine Vengeance on his Enemies, yea and visible Proofs of his Severe Dealings with his own People when they refuse to obey his Will, and when they act contrary to it. Here is, in the large Account which is given of Ioshua and his Actions, an Exact Character of a Worthy Prince, a Ruler, a General: who ought to signalize himself by his Exemplary Piety and Zeal for Religion; by his constant Sobriety, Justice and Charity; by his un∣daunted Courage, Valour and Prowess; by his deep Wisdom, Policy and Conduct. And his Great and Wonderful Success (which1 1.392 is so much required in a General) crowned all. The Whole contains the History of the Jews from Moses's Death till the Death of their Great Commander Ioshua,

in all about eighteen Years. And 'tis not to be wondered at, that the Age, Death and Burial of this latter are recorded in the last Chapter of this Book; for either (as we said before concerning Moses) they were written by him through a Prophetick Spirit that foresaw these things, or else they were added by some other Inspired Writer. So perhaps were those Words [unto this Day] ch. 4. v. 9. & ch. 5. v. 9. though it is not necessary at all to believe so▪ for Ioshua relating some Passages that happen'd a good while before he wrote this Book (which was a little before his Death) might speak after this manner very well. And some few other Words may seem to have been inserted after Ioshua's Death: but that the Main was written by Himself there is no ground of questioning.

The History of the Iudges followeth, which re∣lates the State of the Iewish People in the Land of Canaan, in the time of the Iudges, from Ioshua's Death until Eli, that is, about three hundred Years. These Iudges were Men of Heroick Spi∣rits, raised up by God out of the several Tribes to govern the People, and to deliver them from their present Dangers. They were Supream Ru∣lers, but Temporary; and some of them were Types of our Blessed Saviour and Deliverer. In the time of this peculiar Polity of the Israelites, there were very Notable Occurrences, which are faith∣fully recorded in this Book. Here we are acquaint∣ed with the gross Impiety and Wickedness of that new Generation which came up after Ioshua's Death; here are recorded, to their perpetual In∣famy, their Intimate Converse with those Idola∣trous People that were left remaining in that Land, their Approving of their Superstitious and Irreli∣gious Customs, and their Serving their Gods.

Here is a particular Account of the Corruption of their Manners, of their Prophane and Scandalous Practices: which occasion'd the very Heathens to open their Mouths against them, yea to blaspheme God, whose Name they were call'd by. Here also we have a brief View of the Different Dispensa∣tions of Heaven towards this People, sometimes Relieving and Delivering them, at other t••mes most severely Chastising them, and causing them to groan under Tyrants and Oppressors. Here are contain'd in this History most admirable Ex∣amples of God's Displeasure against Apostates and such as revolt from the True Religion; and here are on the contrary as memorable Instances of his Rewarding those that adhere to Him and his Cause, and hold fast their Integrity in the worst and most perillous Times. Here are most amply displayed his Love and Care of his Church, in stirring up so many Eminent Worthies and Champions to fight for her, and to push them on by no less than an Ex∣traordinary Impulse of Spirit to enterprize and effect such Mighty Things for the welfare of his Cho∣sen Servants. To conclude, here and in the Book of Ioshua occurs such a plenty of Antient Rites, Customs and Practices relating both to Peace and War, to Civil and Religious Matters, as is able to stock an Antiquary of the first Size. We are not certain who was the Penman of this Book. It was written by Samuel, say the Talmudists: and it may be after one of the Books of Samuel, and then 'tis no wonder if some things are here mention'd or referr'd to, that are spoken of there. Others say it was not composed till Ezr••'s Time, by Ezra.

The Book of Ruth is an Appendix to that of the Iudges, in whose time the Things were done that

are here related. Particularly a little before Eli's Time they happen'd: then it was, that there being a Famine in Canaan, Elimelech and his Wife Naomi, and their Sons went into the Land of Moab; and there these latter were married, one to Ruth and the other to Orphah. After ten Years were expi∣red Elimelech and his Sons died: whereupon Nao∣mi and her Daughter-in-Law Ruth (for the other Daughter stay'd behind) returned to their own Country, and coming to Bethlehem were kindly received by Boaz their Kinsman. The Particulars of this kind Reception and Entertainment are set down here, and the Close was, that he married Ruth, who bare to him Obed, who was the Grand-father of David. It is true, this is but a Private History: yet, as it is such, it contains in it many things worthy of our observation, viz. the Diffe∣rence of Children in their Affection and Regards to their Parents; Orphah with great Ease and Willing∣ness left Naomi, but Ruth clave unto her: the Prudent Instructions and Wise Demeanour of that Excellent Matron towards her Daughter the young Widow: (Though I must needs add with reference to Ruth's Behaviour, that her Boldness and almost endangering of her Chastity, are not to be Examples to others: for Modesty and Shamefacedness are the proper Qualities of that Sex. Wedlock is not to be sought after by them with such peril. And therefore this daring Fact of this Venturous Wi∣dow is to be look'd upon as an extraordinary In∣stance, and not to be imitated by other Females▪) Here is remarkable the Merciful Providence of God towards the Afflicted, the Widows, and Fa∣therless: the Reward of Constancy and Obedience; the Blessing of God upon those that fear him and trust in him. Besides, here are observable the

Antient Right of Kinsmen, and of Redemption, and the Manner of buying the Inheritance of the Deceased, with other Things of great Antiquity. Nay, this is more than Private History; as will appear if we consider that this Pious Woman Ruth was the Mo∣ther of Obed the Father of Iesse, the Father of David, of whom our Lord Christ came, and therefore you find her inserted into his Genealogy by St. Matthew. Again, Ruth, a Moabitish Woman, of the Poste∣rity of the Daughters of Lot, was a Type, or ra∣ther indeed an Eminent Instance of the Calling of the Gentiles into the Church, which is a Thing of no pri∣vate Concern, but of the largest Extent imaginable.

The Two Books of Samuel are Publick Histories, the former whereof contains Things done under the two last Iudges, Eli and Samuel, and under the first King, who was Saul, as also the Acts of David whilest he lived under Saul. Here is a Narrative of the Change of the Iudges into Kings, of the Re∣publick or Aristocracy of the Iews into a Monarchy▪ and of the Great and Many Evils which they suffer'd as consequent upon it, all worthy of our serious Perusal and Consideration. Here is an Account of their New King's being deposed by God, viz. for his rash and prophane Sacrificing, and his wil∣ful disobeying the express Command of God con∣cerning the total Destruction of the Amalekites, and whatever belonged to them. The latter Book ••s wholly spent in the History of King David's Reign, that is, his Acts after Saul's Death. These ••re either his Military Acts, his Troublesom and Dangerous, and sometimes Successful Enterprizes in War, or his Political Acts, shew'd in the wise Ad∣ministration of Civil Government; or his Ecclesi∣••••tical and Religious Undertakings, which respect 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church of God in those Days. With these

are mixed the great Failings and Miscarriages of that King, (which are as particularly recorded as his other Acts) and as a Consequent of them, the many Disappointments and Crosses he met with, the various Judgments and Plagues which were in∣flicted on him and his People by God.

The Books of the Kings are the History of the Kingdoms of Israel and Iudah under the Reigns of their several Kings. The first contains the latter Part of the Life of David, and his Death; the Glo∣ry and Prosperity of that Nation under Solomon who succeeded him; his erecting and consecrating of the Temple at Ierusalem: his scandalous Defection from the true Religion: the sudden Decay of the Jewish Nation after his Death, when it was divi∣ded into two Kingdoms under Rehoboam, who reign'd over the two Tribes of Iudah and Ben∣jamin, and under Ieroboam, who was King over the other ten Tribes that revolted from the House of David. The rest of it is spent in relating the Acts of four Kings of Iudah and eight of Israel. The second Book, which is a Con∣tinuation of the History of the Kings, is a Relati∣on of the Memorable Acts of sixteen Kings of Iu∣dah and twelve of Israel, and the End of both Kingdoms by the carrying of the Ten Tribes Cap∣tive into Assyria by Salmanasser, and the other two into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the just Rewards of that People's Idolatry and Impenitency after so many Favours shew'd to them. This and the for∣mer Book together comprehend the History of about four hundred Years.

The Chronicles or Iournals according to the He∣brew, are the filling up of those Parts of the Hi∣story which are omitted in the Books of the Kings. And though we know not which of these Histories,

viz. of the Kings or the Chronicles, (I speak as to the main Body of the Books, not one particular Passage, as that in the Close of the Second Book of Chronicles, where mention is made of the Delive∣rance of the Iews by Cyrus, which might be added afterwards) were written first; for the Book of Kings refers to the Book of Chronicles, and this again sends the Reader to that, yet this we see that this of the Chronicles is more full and ample sometimes than that of the Kings: what was left out or not so fully set down in the one, is supplied in the other. And thence these Books are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Remains, Supple∣ments, Additions by the Greek Interpreters. The first Book of Chronicles relates the Rise and Propa∣gation of the People of Israel from Adam, (which is the entire Subject of the first Nine Chapters, which consist wholly of Genealogies) and then after∣wards most punctually and accurately gives an Ac∣count of the Reign of David. The second Book as faithfully sets down the Progress and End of the Kingdom of Iudah, even to the Year of their re∣turn from the Captivity in Babylon.

These Books of Chronicles, together with those of the Kings and Samuel, make up the Best and Choi∣cest History in the World. Here we are abundant∣ly furnish'd with such Useful Notices, Truths and Maxims as these (all confirmed by Noted and Il∣lustrious Examples and such Instances as are Certain and Unquestionable.) Crowned Heads are encir∣cled with Cares, and seldom find rest and repose: though their Lives are more Splendid, yet they are not less Calamitous than those of the Common People. Good Kings are rare, and the Num∣ber of them is inconsiderable in comparison of those that are Bad. The best Kings have their

Faults, and some of them of a very scandalous Na∣ture. There is little Piety in Princes Courts, and as little Integrity and Honesty. The People are easily induced to follow the Examples of their Go∣vernours: and Religion and Manners too often va∣ry according to the Wills of Superiours. Good Kings are the greatest Blessing, and Wicked Ones are the greatest Curse to a Nation. Princes mis∣take their Measures when they either disobey God, or oppress their People. Tyrannical Princes pro∣cure their own Ruine. The Sins and Vices of Ru∣lers prove fatal to their Subjects. Publick Enor∣mities are punish'd with Publick and National Ca∣lamities. Kings may be known by the Ministers they choose and make use of. Those Counsels that are founded in Religion are most successful. Evil Counsellours contrive their own Destruction. Wars are the Effect and Consequence of fighting against God. The Success of Arms depends upon the Divine Blessing. The Church is never more shock'd than under Bad Princes. Religion and Re∣formation are never effectually promoted unless the Great Ones have a Hand in them. Divisions and Rents about Religion have immediate influence on Secular Affairs: and when the Church is divided, the State is so too. The Revolutions in both are by the particular Disposal of the Wise Over-ruler of the World. True Religion and Godliness are attended with Earthly Rewards and Blessings: and the contrary bring down the greatest Plagues even in this World. The worst Times afford some of the Best and most Holy, Religious and Zealous Men. Whatever Changes and Revolutions hap∣pen in the Kingdoms of the Earth, the Church of God remains secure. Though there are great and frequent Defections, yet there never is a total Ex∣tinction

of it. In a Word, the Church is impreg∣nable, this Rock is immoveable. And many other Propositions and Maxims of the like Nature, which are of great Service in the Life of Man, are to be deduced from these Excellent Histories.

Ezra is a Continuation of the aforesaid Book of Chronicles, and compriseth the History of the Jews from the time that Cyrus made the Edict for their Return until the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which was about a hundred Years. For the Jews return from Babylon was at two seve∣ral Times, viz. first in the Days of Cyrus the first Per••••an Monarch, under the Conduct of Zerubbabel their Captain, and Ieshua their High Priest. Here are recorded the Number of those that returned, Cyrus's Proclamation for the rebuilding of the Tem∣ple, the Laying of the Foundations of it, the Re∣tarding of the Work under the Reign of two of the Kings of Persia, at last the Finishing of the Temple in Darius's Reign. The second Return of the Jews was in the Reign of Artaxerxes under the Conduct of Ezra a Priest, who had been a Courtier in the Persian Court, and was sent into Iudea by Artaxerxes in the seventh Year of his Reign (which was above eighty Years after the first Return in Cyrus's Time) to expedite the Building of Ierusa∣lem. This Pious Reformer observing the Peoples 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Strangers and In••idels, and their join∣ing themselves to them in Marriage, proclaim'd a ••olemn Fast, and Pray'd, and Mourn'd, and La∣mented their gross Miscarriages, and with great Earnestness and Zeal exhorted them to Reformati∣on and Amendment of their Ways, that they might thereby avert God's Wrath, and conciliate his Favour and Pardon. This is that Ezra who was the Penman of this Book, and who was also a Re∣storer

of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, and collected and methodized them into certain Order, and reviewed the Copies, and amended all Errata's that were contracted in the time of the Captivity.

Nehemiah, who wrote the Book which bears his Name, was a Jew, Cup-bearer to the King of Per∣sia, and return'd into Iudea thirteen Years after Ezra. There is another Nehemiah who came with those that returned at first from Babylon, Ezra 2. 2. but he whom we now speak of came afterwards by Artaxerxes's Leave, in the twentieth Year of his Reign, and went back to Persia again twelve Years after, Neh. 5. 14. This Writer begins where Ez∣ra left of, and continues the History of the Building of Ierusalem, and of the Deportment of the Iews in those times, from the twentieth Year of Artax∣erxes to the Reign of Darius, about fifty Years in all. As Ezra chiefly related the Restoring of Re∣ligion and Erecting the Temple, so this Author gives us an Account of the Building of the City, and the Reformation of the Religion which had been restored. In several Particulars he shews what were the Abuses and Corruptions of the Peo∣ple, and how they were redressed, even by his own Hand. He tells us what Methods he took of regulating both their Ecclesiastical and Civil Af∣fairs; in short, of Reforming both Church and State, which were even then so early corrupted. From the whole, both here and in the Book of Ezra, we are taught many useful Lessons, but This above all, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, that they shall never have Pow∣er to extinguish this Little Flock. Israel is not al∣ways a Captive in a strange Land. Babylon sends back her Prisoners and Bondmen. Her very Ene∣mies,

by an extraordinary Direction of Heaven, promote her Peace and Prosperity. For we are in∣formed from this Part of Sacred History, that God stirr'd up even the Persian Monarchs to restore his People to Ierusalem; and, when they were there, to help and assist them, and to baffle all their Opposers.

The Book of Esther is a Particular History of what happen'd to the Jews in their Captivity in the Reign of Ahasuerus, one of the Kings of Persia, whether he was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as1 1.393 some think, or Artaxerxes Mnemon, as most Authors both Antient and Modern say, or Artaxerxes Ochus, as Serarius holds, or Xerxes the fourth Per∣sian Monarch, according to Scaliger, or Darius the Son of Hystaspes, or Cambyses, (for so various a••e the Opinions of Authors) I will not here dispute. Only we know that the Sacred Writings and the Profane intend the same Person sometimes, though they give different Names. The Story is this, Haman a great Favourite and Minion of the King, and advanced to great Honour by him, was highly incens'd against Mordecai, one of the Captive Jews, because he refused to do him Reverence, and to Bow to him. Whereupon he resolv'd, for his sake, to compass the Destruction of all the Iews in those Territories, and to that end gain'd a Decree from the King to put them all to the Sword. But this wicked Design was happily frustrated by means of Esther a Jewish Captive Virgin, who for her transcendent Beauty had a little time before been advanced to the Throne, and now prevail'd with her Royal Husband to spare the Life of her dear

Countrymen. In this manner Haman's cursed Conspiracy was defeated, he himself advanced to a Gibbet, and that of his own preparing, the Jews delivered from their Fears and Dangers, Mordecai who discover'd this Bloody Design to Queen Esther, and who had before that discover'd another Con∣spiracy, viz. against the King, which was record∣ed in the Chronicles, and about this time read to him, and was in a great measure serviceable by the Divine Providence to bring about this happy Fru∣stration of Haman's Plot; this Mordecai (I say) was preferr'd unto the greatest Honours in the Kingdom, (and by the by let me suggest, that per∣haps from his riding the King's Horse, and there∣by being preferr'd to Kingly Dignity, the Story of Darius's being made King of Persia by the Neigh∣ing of his Horse had its Rise; for, as I have often had occasion in another Place to prove, the Gentile Historians mistook one Person for another) the Hearts and Mouths of all the Jews in the King's Provinces were filled with Joy, and an Annual Festival was appointed to be kept in all succeeding Generations in remembrance of this singular and unexpected Deliverance vouchsafed to them. This is the Sum of this Short History, in which there are many Admirable and Surprizing Circumstances which (though they could not be particularly re∣lated here) commend it to the Reader. It is cer∣tainly a most Remarkable Instance of God's Singu∣lar Providence and Goodness to his Church, in dis∣covering and defeating the Contrivances of her malicious and cruel Enemies, in delivering her in her greatest Extremities, and in bringing Venge∣ance and Ruine on the Heads of those who plot her Downfal. As to the Author of this Book, there is no Agreement among Writers; though

one would be enclined to think that it was Morde∣cai's by reading ch. 9. v. 20. and ch. 12. of Apocry∣phal Esther, v. 4.

The next Penman of the Old Testament is Iob, whose Book might have been placed next to the Pentateuch, if it be true (as is generally believ'd) that he lived about Moses's time: Though1 1.394 some are of opinion that he lived a considerable time be∣fore the Israelites came out of Egypt, and that he was before Moses. It was writ by himself, say Origen and Suidas: but the Rabbins generally pro∣nounce Moses the Author. Others make Solomon the Author of this Book, discovering, as they think, his manner of speaking in it. The most probable Account is, that the Materials of this Book were drawn up first by Io•• himself, or one or all of his Pious Friends that were concern'd in the things spoken of here, and that they coming to Moses's Hands, (as some of the Jewish Masters tell us) or afterwards to Solomon's, were made up into Hebrew Verse, as we now find it. For the greatest Part of the Book is of this Composure, and indeed is the first Poetical Book we meet with in the Bible. Whence we may infer something concerning the Nature of it, viz. that (as2 1.395 M. Luther well observ'd) Iob and his Friends spake not all the very Words which are set down in this Book▪ for Men do not use to speak in Verse in their Discourse one with another, and especially in such a Lofty Stile of Poetry as we read here some∣times. But this is true, that both their Thoughts and Words were exactly agreeable to what is here written, and Things actually and really happen'd as they are here represented: only the Whole Ar∣gument

being clothed in Verse, the individual and express Words, which they all the time used, are not always written down, neither indeed could be. But we must by no means attend to the Tal∣mudick Doctors, who tell us, that this Book is not a Relation of Matter of Fact, but writ in a Para∣bolical way to exhibit to the World an Eminent Example of Patience. Nor are the Words of the Parisaan3 1.396 Professor to be tolerated, who saith, the History is true, but the Circumstances of it are feigned. There is no Fiction in it, because it is as to the whole Matter of it Real, and relates what actually happen'd: only as to the Words and Stile, it is Poetically composed. I might observe that this Historical Poem is in way of Dialogue, or rather is made up of feveral Dialogues and Colloquies. It is a Dramatick Piece, wherein Six Persons have their Parts; Iob, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu, and GOD, who speaks in the Close of all. Nor is this unusual in some other Books of the Holy Scrip∣ture, where we find that some of David's Psalms are Dialogue-wise: and nothing is more evident, than that Solomon's Song is after that manner: be∣sides that (as a4 1.397 worthy Person hath observ'd) in some of the Other Writings of this Wise Man, and in many Places of St. Paul's Epistles a Tacit Dialogue is contain'd, whence it happens that that sometimes is taken by unskilful Readers for an As∣sertion or an Argument which is indeed a Question or an Objection. Indeed this Dialogizing way is of great Advantage, and carries a peculiar Excellen∣cy with it, and therefore was (as we may take no∣tice) made use of by the Antients. Drawing forth and pressing out the Truth by way of Dialogue was

the Socratick Mode; which Plato also used, laying down his own Opinion in the Person of Socrates, Timaeus, &c. and other Mens Opinions and Senti∣ments in the Person of Gorgias, &c. And Cicero dealt in this way in some of his Writings. The same likewise we find practised of old by some of the most Eminent Writers of the Christian Church, as Iustin Martyr, who sets forth the manner of his becoming a Christian in the Platonick way, i. e. of a Colloquy: and the whole Discourse with Trypho is no more perhaps than the Personating of a Chri∣stian and a Jew by way of Dialogue. Minutius Fe∣lix's Debate between Octavius and Caecilius, a Chri∣stian and a Gentile, is of the same Nature. It is probable that this Antient Pract••ce of delivering. Truth in this manner was derived from the Book of Iob, the Oldest Dialogue in the World; and which moreover is in way of a Disputation, where Iob is Respondent, his three Friends the Opponents; and Eli••u, yea and at last God himself the Modera∣tor. And one thing by the by I would here observe, that it is said, ch. 31. v. 40. The Words of Job are ended: which we must understand with reference to this Contrast between him and his Friends; for otherwise Iob had not made an end of Speaking, as we find in some of the following Chapters. Therefore the Meaning is, that his Words in way of Contention and Controversy with those Men were ended: and thus the first Verse in the ensuing Chapter explains it [So these three Men ceased to an∣swer Job.

The whole affords us many Excellent Observati∣ons, viz. that the greatest Wealth and Riches are uncertain, that suddenly and unexpectedly they make themselves Wings, and fly away from the Possessors, and leave them in Want, Distress and

Misery: that Integrity and Holiness of Life exempt no Man from this Changeableness of his Condition, are no Protection against the worst of outward Evils whatsoever, whether procured by Satan or by Evil Men. This is taught us in the Example of this Great Man, yea1 1.398 the Greatest of all the Men in the East, i. e. in Arabia; and who was as Good as he was Great, for2 1.399 he was a Perfect and Vpright Man, nay3 1.400 there was none like him in the Earth. This was the true Arabian Phoenix, there was none but he at that time. But this Person who was so famed for his Greatness and Goodness, came at last to be as noted for his Low and Mean Condition, his Troubles and Distresses of all kinds, and those too of the highest Degree; for he was bereft of all his Dear Children by the Fall of the House where they were, he was despoiled of all his Goods and Estate by the Chaldean and Sabean Free-booters; he was deprived of his Bodily Health, and smitten with Painful and Loathsom Diseases by the imme∣diate Hand of the Malicious Demons; he was de∣spised, scorn'd, derided by the vilest Race of Peo∣ple. Hence we are instructed that the worst of Temporal Evils do sometimes befal the most Up∣right Persons. And we are taught from Iob's Ex∣ample also, that the Holiest Men have their Fits of Impatience: they are heard sometimes to complain and cry out under their Burden, they expostulate with God, and question the Reasonableness and Justice of his Dealings with them, they magnify their own Innocence at too high a rate, they are weary of their Lives, and passionately wish for a Period of them. This was Iob's Case, and may be of other Righteous Men: they may through hu∣mane

Frailty be for a time subject to the same Dis∣order, and shew themselves as uneasy under their Afflictions, especially when with this Holy Man they are wounded in Spirit, and buffeted by Satan, and lie under the Sense of God's Wrath, and have no Apprehension of his Grace and Favour. But (as the Hebrew Doctors say)1 1.401 a Man is not to be taken in the Hour of his Grief and Perplexity. It is not imputed to him if he utters things that are un∣fitting when he is in the Extremity of Pain and Anguish.

But yet we are to observe likewise that this Good Man, even in the midst of his most pressing Cala∣mities, was never quite run down by them, but at one time or other shew'd by his Words and Beha∣viour that he had got the Conquest of them. You have heard of the Patience of Job, saith St.2 1.402 Iames; and this Patience was as eminent as his Disasters: for we hear him3 1.403 blessing the Name of the Lord not only for what he gave, but for what he took away from him: we hear him protecting, that4 1.404 though God should stay him, yet he would trust in him: we hear him expressing his Foresight, Perswasion and Assurance, that5 1.405 his Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter Day upon the Earth; and tho after his Skin Worms destroy his Body, yet in his Flesh he shall see God. All which are most evident Ar∣guments of his Patience under his Crosses, of his Thankfulness to God for them, of his Strong Faith and Confidence in him that he should be delivered from them, and of his hearty Perswasion that no∣thing doth or can happen to Mankind without God's Good Pleasure, nothing can betide us with∣out

his Leave and Consent: which is the greatest Comfort and Refreshment, the highest Repose and Satisfaction to our Minds imaginable. This indeed is one grand Design of this Book to bring the Spi∣rits of good Men to an even and placid Frame on this Consideration, that God hath the Govern∣ment of the World, and doth what he thinks fit with his Creatures as to the outward Condition they are liable to in this Life; that the Providence of God orders all the Actions and Enterprizes ei∣ther of Men or Devils, so that nothing can come to pass without the Divine Permission, Grant and Superintendence. This is that which is more espe∣cially aimed at in this Book: we are taught here not to quarrel with our Maker, not to find fault with Heaven. This doth not become us in the least; it is rather the Deportment of a Chinoise Priest, who hath so much Power over his Gods, that he is suffer'd to beat and whip them when they don't act (as he thinks) as he would have them.

We have likewise the Wretched State of Wicked Men and Hypocrites most graphically set forth in these Dialogues. We have God's Infinite Justice and Unfearchable Wisdom fully asserted and vin∣dicated. We have the Mighty Power of God in some of his Creatures described by Himself in a Stile befitting his Majesty. In the Close of all we have the happy Period of Innocence and Integrity: The End of them is Peace. God oftentimes re∣wards good and upright Men in this Life with a great Plenty of outward Blessings and Favours: he is pleased to recompense them abundantly for all their past Calamities, by doubling upon them all those Mercies which he before deprived them of.1 1.406 God

blessed the latter End of Job more than his Beginning: He gave him twice as much as he had before. All Blessings flow in now upon him in abundance: first 1 1.407 God accepts him, and then he is caressed by his 2 1.408 Kindred and Friends, by his Bretbren and Sisters, and Acquaintance; he is presented with3 1.409 Gifts, his Stock of Cattle (wherein the chief Wealth of those Countries consisted) is increas'd, and he is blessed with a desirable Number of4 1.410 Children, the Sons wise, and the Daughters fair. Finally, after all the Storms were blown over,5 1.411 he lived an hundred and forty Years in Peace and Plenty in his Country, now Arabia the Happy: he enjoy'd the Confluence of all kinds of Good Things relating both to him∣self and his Relations, and at length died in a good old Age,6 1.412 full of Days, and full of the Blessings of the Almighty. To conclude, this Antient Book is infinitely worthy of the Studies of the Curious and Philosophical, of the Lovers of Learning and Antiquity, of those that value the Primitive Tongues, Arts and Customs: for here is an Excel∣lent Mixture of all these, which cannot but be a grateful Entertainment to Inquisitive Spirits. Wherefore a Learned Gentleman of great and sub∣tile Observation hath left us this Censure on the Book of Iob7 1.413 Whoever considers the Subject and Stile of it, will hardly think it was written in an Age or Country that wanted either Books or Learning.

The Psalms are the next Poetick Book, and they bear the Name of David, the Chief Author of them.8 1.414 Some indeed of the Antients held that he was the sole Author, but they can scarcely be

credited in that, because the Title of the 90th Psalm and others tells us, that they were composed by Moses. Some of them, it is thought, were made by Asaph, Heman, Ethan, Ieduthun, who were in David's time: but others think these were not Sacred Poets, but only skilful Musicians or Ma∣sters of the Quire, and did not endite these Psalms which bear their Names, but only set them to Tunes, and sung them. Though a1 1.415 Modern Wri∣ter is of the Opinion that Heman and Ethan liv'd in the time of the Egyptian Bondage, and penn'd the 88th and 89th Psalms on that occasion, in the former condoling their present Distress, in the latter prophesying of Deliverance. The 92d Psalm was made by Adam, saith the Targum and the Hebrew Doctors generally agree to it. It is evi∣dent, and scarcely denied by any, that the 137th Psalm was writ in the time of the Jews Captivity in Babylon, and therefore could not be made by David: and other Psalms seem to be made after their Return, the Authors of which are not known. And some, it is likely, were endited by Solomen, as the 45th, which is a Song of Loves, (as the Title acquaints us) and is of the same Strain with his other Nuptial Song, inserted by it self into the Holy Scriptures. It may be concluded then that the Book of Psalms is not the Issue of One Inspired Brain only; but yet that the Greatest Part of it was endited and written by David, who had an ex∣cellent Gift of Poetry and Psalmody, of composing, making, and singing of Pious Songs. Such are these Psalms, which, excepting a few of them, were the Work of this Holy Man, and therefore they are deservedly called David's Psalms, the

Denomination being taken from the greater Part.

They are divided into five Lesser Books, which you may know thus; where you find a Psalm end∣ing with Amen, (as the 41st, 72d, 89th, 106th, and the last Psalm) there is the Period of the Book, and another begins. By this you may understand that Passage in Psal. 72. v. ult. The Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended; i. e. here is an End of the Se∣cond Book of David's Psalms: the rest that follow are other Collections of them. Of these some are Alphabetical, i. e. composed according to the Or∣der of the Hebrew Letters: such is the 119th Psalm, and is stiled by the Masora the Great Alpha∣bet, the eight first Verses beginning with the first Hebrew Letter, the succeeding eight with the se∣cond, and so throughout the whole Number of the Hebrew Letters: and such are the 25th, 34th, 37th, 111th, 112th, 145th, all written in Alphabetic Or∣der, the Holy Ghost even inspiring the Psalmist's Fancy in this Particular. It is likely the Acrosticks, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 antient way of Wit, used by one of the Sibylls, and others of old, the Initial Letters of which Verses made up certain Words, were partly in imi∣tation of this. Some are stiled Psalms of Degrees or Ascents, as those fifteen which immediately fol∣low the 119th Psalm, either because the Voice was lifted up more than ordinarily when they were s••ng, or because of the Advantage of the Ground or Place where they were sung, viz. the Steps in Solomon's Temple, which were fifteen, and which those who were appointed to sing these Psalms were wont to ascend. Other Psalms are known by their Peculiar Titles, as Maschil, i. e. Psalms of Instru∣ction; Michtam, i. e. Golden Psalms, call'd so (it is probable) because of the Precious Matter couched in them. And several other Distinctive Titles

there are, which are not so well understood, as that of Psal. 22. A••ieleth ha shachar: which in the Margin is rendred the Hind of the Morning; perhaps referring to our Saviour, of whom this Psalm speaks, who is call'd a Hind or young Hart, Cant. 2. 9, 17. Others interpret it the Strength of the Mor∣ning, but they know not how to apply it. Other•• the Morning-Star: some the Instrument of Mus••ck on which this Psalm and others were plaid. And the like Obscure Words (as Shiggaion, Gittith, Ie∣duthun, Altashith, Shushan eduth) are prefix'd to many of these Sacred Hymns.

There is the Word Selah often•• used (seven••y times at least) in these Divine Poems: but 'tis not easy to assign the true and proper import of it. I cannot find the certain meaning of it, saith1 1.416 Av••∣narius, though I have consulted all the Comments of the Rabbies. The Chaldee Paraphrast renders it perpetuò, semper, and so several Rabbins expound it, but can assign no sufficient reason for it. Some take it for a Musical Note, of no signi••icancy in it self, but a meer made Word to direct the Ma∣sters of Musick in singing or playing. But then there is some difference among those of this Opi∣nion: For some of the Hebrew Writers think it denotes the Elevation of the Voice, and that where∣ever this Word is in the Psalms, the Choristers were put in mind to lift up their Voices. Others of them believe it is a Note to signify a Pause, a Resting or Breathing for a time. And accordingly some of the Jewish Doctors say that they were admo∣nish'd by this Word to begin another Sentence or Period. But another Classis of Interpreters look upon this Word not as a Note of Musick, but of

Observation or Remark, and are perswaded that it is affix'd to some Sentences that are very Notable, and more especially worthy of our consideration. In my mind R. Kim••hi is in the right, who joins this and the former Expositions of the Word toge∣there, telling us that Selah is both a Musical Note, and a Note of Emphasis in the Sense, whereby we are bid to observe something more than usually re∣markable. It is derived from sal or salal, exaltavit, and denotes the elevating of the Voice in singing, and at the same time the lifting up of the Heart, the serious considering and meditating upon the thing that is spoken. It is an Argument to me that this was of use in Musick and Singing, because it is ren∣dred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Greek Interpreters, and (which is more considerable) because we meet with it in the Psalms only, and in Ha••akkuk, chap. 3. v. 3, 9, 13. which Chapter is a kind of Psalm or Canti∣cle, as you'l see in the Title of it. And that it is also a Mark of Observation and Meditation, may be gather'd from its being join'd in Psal. 9. 16. with Higgaion, which signifies Meditation; for the Word is from Hagah, meditatus fuit. And though in some Places Selah seems to be used where there is ••o Emphatick Word or Sense, yet we ought to consider that this must be referr'd and applied not only to the immediately preceding Word or Verse, but to the whole Set of Verses or Periods about which it is placed. If we thus apply it we shall see that it is used to good purpose, viz. to point out to us something very Observable and No∣table: It calls upon us to revolve in our Minds with great Seriousness the Matter that is before us, and to give Glory to God: and to this purpose it may be observ'd, that Selah, in Psal. 46. 11. is ren∣dred by the Seventy Interpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But it is the Excellent and Noble Matter which most of all commends these Divine Poems. Some of them are Historical, giving an Account of God's wonderful Dispensations in the foregoing Ages of the World, especially towards the Iewish People, in their first Election out of the rest of the World, their Condition in Egypt, in the Wilderness, in C••∣naan, with a Rehearsal of the particular Mercies and Judgments shew'd towards them. Other Psalms are Didactick, fraught with most wholesom and useful Doctrine, with most solid and necessary Instruction

What is there, saith1 1.417 Basil the Great, that we are not taught here? Are we not instructed here concerning all Moral Ver∣tues, the Magnificence of Fortitude, the Exact∣ness of Justice, the Gravity of Temperance, the Perfection of Prudence? Are we not i••∣form'd hence concerning the manner of Repen∣tance, the measure of Patience, and whatever other good and vertuous things we can name? Here is the Treasure of compleat Theology, here is2 1.418 the common Store-house of all good Do∣cuments.

Other Psalms are Prophetical, fore∣shewing the great and astonishing things which have happen'd since in the World, as the Coming of the Messias in the Flesh, his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and most of the conside∣rable Circumstances appertaining to these, the Re∣jection of the Jewish Nation, the Conversion of the Gentiles, the Wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, and the Success of Christ's Kingdom upon Earth. Again, some of these Psalms are Petitory, begging with the highest Zeal and Devotion those things which are the proper Object of our Prayers,

and thereby teaching us what we ought to implore of Heaven, and in what manner we should put up our Addresses. Others are Eucharistical, wherein the Psalmist discovers the Grateful Resentments of his Mind by an open Recognition of the Divine Bounty to him, and by sending up continual Praises unto the Author of all those Favours and Blessings daily heaped upon him: at the same time teaching us to pay the like Tribute of Devotion to the same Bountiful Hand, and to take all Occasions (as he doth) of testifying our Thankful Sense of the Di∣vine Goodness. Of this sort more especially is the 113th Psalm with the five following ones, which are call'd by the Jews the Great Hallelujah, or ra∣ther (as Buxtorf saith) the Great Hymn, which they used at their three Chief Feasts, especially at the Passover. This, it is probable, is meant by the Hymn, (Mat. 26. 30.) which Christ with his Apo∣••tles sung after their eating of the Paschal Lamb. Some are Hortatory, with singular Earnestness in∣viting the World to acknowledg and obey the Lord of Heaven and Earth, pathetically calling up∣on wicked Men to abandon their sinful Ways, and to repent, and turn unto God; with a more spe∣cial Love and Tenderness, beseeching the Servants of the most High to fear and reverence his Name, to trust at all times in him, and to be obedient un∣to his holy Laws and Statutes. Others are Conso∣latory, administring Peace and Joy to all that are upright in Heart and Life, breathing nothing but Heavenly Solace and Satisfaction to distressed Minds, such as never came from any Mouth but what was Inspired. Some of them are Penitential, (besides those1 1.419 Seven which are usually stiled so)

wherein the Holy Man with infinite Sorrow and Remorse of Soul declares his Abhorrence of his former Sins, and his firm Resolves and Purposes of relinquishing them for the future. Lastly, some of the Psalms are of a Mixt Nature, comprehend∣ing several of the foremention'd Heads in them▪ so that there is no Book of Devotion extant in the World that is made up of such Variety of Matter as this is, and therefore is not only the more de∣lightful and entertaining, but is also the more use∣ful and advantageous, the more sutable to the va∣rious Conditions and Occasions of Mankind, the more fitted for the several Purposes of the Devout, the more serviceable to all the great Ends of Reli∣gion and Godliness. For this and many other Rea∣sons I may conclude, that there is not such ano∣ther Excellent Collection of Devotions under Hea∣ven as This of the Pious King and Prophet. Here are all things that are proper to beget Religion and Piety in us, here is every thing that is serviceable to nourish and sustain all our Vertues and Graces, and that in the utmost height of them.

Before I pass to the next Book, I will add a few Words concerning the Nature of the Poetry here used. This is to be said with great Truth, that these Poetical Measures are far different from those which we have been acquainted with in Other Wri∣ters. But then it is not to be question'd, that tho we are ignorant of the true Quality of these Poetick Numbers, yet they are very Melodious and Lofty, and not unworthy of the best Poets. It is not to be doubted that there is a certain Artificial Meter ob∣serv'd in this Book, which renders the several Odes and Hymns very delightful. The1 1.420 Younger Scali∣ger

denies (and that with some Earnestness and Sharpness, otherwise he would not shew himself his Father's own Son) that there is any thing like this in this Book; though at the same time he grants that the Proverbs, and almost all Iob, are Metrical. But Iosephus and Philo, two Learned Jews, and who may reasonably be thought to be Competent Judges in this Matter, attest the Meter of these Psalms (as well as of the Books of Iob, &c.) So do Origen, Eusebius, Ierom, and some of the most Judicious Criticks among the Moderns. But then they confess that the Meter is not so re∣gular as that of succeeding Poets. And who sees not that even these exceedingly vary in their Mea∣sures? It is not denied that Sophocles and Euripides, Plautus and Terence, write in Verse: but they can scarcely be said to do so in comparison of Homer and Virgil. There are some Hexameters, Iam∣bicks, Saphicks, and other known kinds of Verses in David's Psalms, but they are very rare, and sel∣dom pure and unmix'd: but notwithstanding this, it is easy to perceive (if we be observant and at∣tentive) that there are several Verses together that are Matrical. The Arabian Criticks tell us, that the Alcoran is written in a sort of Verse, and sometimes in Rythme, but every Reader can∣not find this. No more can an ordinary Eye or Ear discern the Numbers in the Hebrew Verse: for the Hebrews way of measuring their Feet was diffe∣rent from that which is in use among the Greek and Latin Poets; yet so as we may oftentimes per∣ceive a certain Harmony of Syllables. And as the Psalms are Metrical, so some of them are Rhythmical. This is clear in the very Entrance of these Divine Hymns;

1 1.421 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Again, in Psal. 6. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is evident in Psal. 8. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is plain in Psal. 12. 4. & 51. 16. & 63. 3. & 116. 7. & 148. 1, 2. And in abundance of other Places there is not only a certain Orderly Number of Syllables, but the last Words of the Verses end alike in Sound.

CHAP. IX.

The Book of Proverbs, why so call'd. The transcen∣dent Excellency of these Divine and Inspired Apho∣risms. Some Instances of the Different Application of the Similitudes used by this Author. The Book of Ecclesiastes, why so entituled. The Admirable Sub∣ject of it succinctly displayed. The particular Na∣ture of the Canticle or Mystical Song of Solomon briefly set forth. It is evinc'd from very cogent Ar∣guments, that Solomon died in the Favour of God, and was saved. The Books of the Four Great Pro∣phets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with his Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, are described. So are those of the Twelve Lesser Prophets, Hosea, &c.

WHO should succeed David but Solomon, as in the Throne, so in the Sacred Canon of the Bible? And He, like his Father, was a Divine Poet: his three Books, viz. the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and his Song being written in Hebrew Verse. The first of these Books is composed of Excellent Proverbs (whence it hath its Name.) By this word Mishle, which is here rendred Pro∣verbs, sometimes are signified, I. Parables strictly so call'd, which are no other than Apologues or Ar∣tificial Fables, of which I have spoken under the Stile of Scripture: but there are none such in this Book. 2. By this Word is meant any1 1.422 Trite and Commonly received Saying, any Vulgar Proverbial Speech, as that in ch. 26. v. 11. The Dog returneth to his Vomit. But there are few of this sort here.

3. Sarcastick Speeches, Gibes, Taunts, (as in 2 Chron. 7. 20. Psal. 69. 11.) are intended by this Expressi∣on: and this Book of Solomon is not wholly desti∣tute of these. 4. The Hebrew Word denotes such Speeches as are by way of Similitude, Ezek. 18. 2. of which kind there are many in this Book, as that in ch. 11. 22. As a Iewel of Gold in a Swine's Snout, so is a fair Woman without Discretion: and in ch. 25. 11. A Word fitly spoken is like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver. This we find to be the frequent manner of the Wise Man's speaking in this Book: he generally illustrates and amplifies his Doctrine by some fit Simily or Comparison, so that thereby it is as it were twice deliver'd. 5. Sayings that are mixed with some Obscurity and Intricacy, such Speeches as require Sharpness of Wit and Under∣standing both for propounding and conceiving them, are denoted by this Word in Scripture. Thus an Intricate Question or Problem [Mashal] is set down in Psal. 49. 4, 5. and in the rest of the Psalm there is an Answer to this Problem, a Reso∣lution of this Difficult Point. Proverbial Sentences are sometimes1 1.423 Enigmatical, and have a Meaning far different from what the Words directly signi∣fy. Thus you'l find some Sayings that carry a Mystical Sense with them in this Book, as that in ch. 9. 17. Stolen Waters are sweet: and in ch. 25. v. 27. It is not good to eat much Honey; and such like Allegorical and Allusive Speeches, which contain in them a higher Sense than the bare Words import. This Proverbial manner of Speaking and Writing was in great Use and Esteem among the Hebrews, and all the Eastern Countries: whence it was that the Queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard

Questions, 1 Kings 10. 1. Parables according to the Chald••e, Problems, Riddles. These were the Chi∣doth which the propounded to be solv'd by him. Yea, this way of Speaking may generally be taken notice of in the Writings of most of the Wise Men of Antient Times. Pythagoras and Plato were much addicted to this Abstruse way, and all their Followers were delighted in Mystical Representa∣tions of things. 6. By this Word we are to un∣derstand all Wise and Excellent Sayings, graviter dicta (as the Latins call them) Sentences of great Weight and Importance, but plain and easy to be understood. The Hebrews antiently call'd any Say∣ing that had Graces and Wit in it Mashal; but especially any Eminent Speech or Smart Saying for the Use of Life and Direction of Manners went under that Name. A Moral or Religious Saying that was of singular Worth and Excellency was stiled a Proverb: for this (as1 1.424 the Hebrew Word denotes) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dominatrix sententia, a Speech that hath the Preheminence above others, a Saying of great Authority and Force, and there∣fore deserves to be highly esteemed by all.

These Wise Moral Speeches were taken notice of, and held in great Repute of old. Homer was a Noted Master of this Excellency, and is applaud∣ed for it by the Learned. And indeed when I read in the skilfullest Accomptants of Times, that this Poet flourish'd not long after Solomon's Days, I am apt to credit Casaubon and Grotius, and a Fa∣mous Homerist of our own, who all agree in this, that Homer borrow'd many of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Sage Sayings or Proverbs from our Royal Author; and they produce very fair Instances out of his Poems

to prove it. After this Great Poet, I might men∣tion those Minor ones Theognis and Phocylides, who are famed for their Excellent Moral Sentences▪ Pythagoras is celebrated for his Golden Sayings or Verses, and so are some of his Scholars for their Worthy Speeches proper to their School: and tru∣ly if we remember that these Pythagoreans were en∣joined by their Master a five Years Silence, we may well expect some Handsome Sentences from them at last, when they began to speak. I might add here the Set Sayings of the Stoicks, such as Tully's Paradoxes. Yea, I might remind you that the Sages of all Schools and Sects had their Peculiar Motto's and Devices. As in Theoretical Philoso∣phy there are Axioms and Maxims, in Medicks there are Aphorisms, in Mathematicks there are Theorems, among Rhetoricians there are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Select Themes and Matters to declaim upon; so in Ethicks there are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pithy Short Sentences, Wise and Weighty Apophthegms, containing Great Morals in few Words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Proverbs, Short but Studied Sayings of great and frequent Use in our Lives. This Book of Solomon is chiefly made up of this sort, and they outvy all that ever were extant before or since. The Queen of Sheba came to hear the Wisdom of this Matchless Prince, and to be benefited by his Divine Accomplishments; but we save our selves the Labour of so long a Pil∣grimage, he having visited us, and his Admirable Writings being brought home to us, fraught with the most desirable Treasures. Here is a great Number of Useful Maxims and Rules for our Pra∣ctice in the several Occurrences of our Lives. Here are Faithful Sayings, and wort••y of all Acceptation, as the Apostle speaks. Here are Smart and Quick, here are Grave and Sage Apophthegms. Here are

Concise and Pithy Adagies, the very Extracts and Essences of the Strongest Sense and most Precious Truth. Here you will find Solomon as a Father, and with a Paternal Affection, instructing his Rea∣ders and Hearers as his Sons, (whom therefore he calls by that affectionate Title more than once in this his Admirable Treatise of Morals) directing them in the various Passages and Affairs of this Life, and framing their Manners most becomingly and successfully in order to another.

The whole Book is divisible into three main Parts; 1. The Inscription or Title of the Book, which contains the Use and Scope of it, The Pro∣verbs of Solomon the Son of David, King of Israel, to know Wisdom, Instruction, to perceive the Words of Vnderstanding, &c. (v. 1, 2, &c. to the 7th) that i▪ to make Men truly Wise and Understanding, or (which is the same thing) Holy and Religious. 2. The Preface or Introduction to the Book, which is a General Exhortatory to True Wisdom and Ho∣liness. This is the Subject of the first Nine Chap∣ters. 3. The Main Body of the Book (from the Beginning of the 10th Chapter to the Close of all) which comprehends in it several Excellent Pre∣cepts, Rules and Cautions of a mixt and various Nature, applicable to the different Circumstances, Cases, and Occasions of Persons. These are more signally called Mishlim the Proverbs, a Collection of S••cred Aphorisms, useful in the Lives of all Men, whether we look upon them in a Natural, Civil, or Religious Capacity, whether we consider them Alone or as Members of a Society, whether we speak of them as they are desirous to live happily here or hereafter, or rather as they desire both. To all these excellent Purposes they may be plenti∣fully furnished by this Royal Author, this Great

Master of the Sentences, this Divine Penman of the Proverbs.

There is mention of the Words of Agur, ch. ••0. v. 1. who was the same with Solomon, say R. Levi among the Iews, and several Christian Expositors. However, if he be not Solomon under that Name, but a different Person, yet the Words or Prophecy (for so they are al••o call'd) there contain'd, may be said to be Solomon's, because collected and pre∣served by him. So Bathsheba's Instructions to Solo∣mon, ch. 31. 1.—10. may be call'd his, because he had carefully recorded them, and in the greatest Part of his Life had observ'd them, But whether the Encomium of a Vertuous Woman, or a Good Wife, from v. 10. to the End, was penn'd by Solo∣mon or his Mother is disputable: however, this we are sure of, that it was dictated by Divine Inspira∣tion, as the rest of the Sacred Writ; and more∣over it is observable that it is composed in Alpha∣betical Order, i. e. according to the Series of the Hebrew Letters, as ••everal Psalms are, which I took notice of before.

Before I dismiss this Book, it may not be impro∣per here to observe concerning several of the Proverbs, that they may be applied several ways. Accordingly as we interpret the Similitude which is made use of in them, so we may form the Sense of the Place: and this ought not to offend any good or wise Man. To give an Instance or two: As he that bindeth a Stone in a Sling, so is he that giveth Ho∣nou•• to a Fool, Prov. 26. 8. The Meaning of which may be, that Honour conferr'd on an undeserving Person is thrown away and lost, like a Stone cast out of a Sling. Or thus, he that bestows Prefer∣ment and Dignity on such an one, doth as 'twere Arm him against himself; he helps to do himself a

Mischief, because he puts him into a Capacity of doing it. Others have a different Notion of the word Margemah, (which is here translated a Sling) and by it understand a Heap of Stones, and they frame such an Interpretation as this; He that gives Respect and Honour to a Fool, to an unworthy vile Person, is like him that casts a Pretious Stone (for so they limit the Sense of the word Eb••n▪ (as La∣••illi among the Latins, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the Greeks, have that particular Signification sometimes) among common Pebbles. Others expound it thus, As one single Stone thrown into a great Heap is scarcely discern'd, and makes no Accession to it▪ so by the Honour and Favour that are collated on a Fool there is no real Addition made to him, there's ••o Alteration, he is still the same Man. Some Learned Doctors among the Hebrews (as R. Kim∣c••i, Aben Ezra, Levi) produce another Meaning of the word Margemah, telling us it is the same with Argemon, Purpura, and then understand the Proverb thus, As he that laps up one of the Stones in the Street in a Purple Vest, so is he that gives Respect and Honour to a: Fool, a wo••thless Per∣••on. But the Sense is the same with what was pro∣••ounded in one of the foregoing Interpretations. All these Expositions are congr••ous enough, and ••e need not be very solicitous which of them we ••dhere to. No Man can say of any one of them, This is the Interpretation, and there is no other ••••tended by the Penman. It is enough that the Sense we pitch upon is consistent with the Scope of the Place and the other Parts of God's Word.

So those Words in Prov. 1. 17. where the Wise Man (having in the foregoing Verses spoken con∣••erning the mischievous and bloody. Designs of wicked Men) uses this Simily, Surely in vain the

Not is spread in sight of any Bird, admit of liver•••• Interpretations, and all of them very ••it and appo∣site. First, some render the word [Chinnam] without Cause, (and so indeed it is englished in the 11th V••rse of this Chapter) and then the Sen•••• is this, As the Fowler spreads Nets for the harmle••s Birds, that he may feed himself with their Flem, or make Pro••it of them by selling them to others, so Thieves and bloody Men lay wait for the Inno∣cent, those that never injured them, and merely to gratify their Covetousness, and to fill their Houses with Spoil. The same Simily is made use of in Tere••••e▪

Non rete a••••ipitri ••enditur, neque milvio, Qui ma•••• faciunt nobis, illis qui nihil faciunt tendit•••• Quia enim in illis ••ructus est, in istis opera luditur.

So that this Proverb may then be used when we see Snares laid for Men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as the LXX translate the Hebrew Word here) without Cause, when they are Innocent. And what Solomon expresses here by the Similioude of Birds is by the Prophet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 set forth by another Comparison from Fishes, Hab. 1. 13, 14. But the Generality of Interpreters ••ead the first Word as our Translators render it, viz. in vain, and then the Text is capable of se∣veral Senses; ••. Som•• think that as some of the foregoing Verses, so this is spoken by way of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Language of Thieves and Bloody Men, who entice others to their Company, and to partake with them in their Villany, by laying be∣fore them the Hopes of Impunity; as if they had said, You need not fear and be solicito••s, we wil•• cunningly carry our Business: though Justice seeks after us, and would bring us to Punishment, yet

we have our Eyes about us, we shall be able to fore∣see their Snares, and to fly from them as Birds are wont to do from a Net spread wide before them.

Quaeque nimis pandunt retia vitat avis.

Or, 2. This may be spoken of those that are en∣ticed by these Men, and fall under their Charm•• and Allurements. They could never do thus un∣less they were blinded and infatuated. It is in vain. to these besotted Creatures that they see the Net, that they know the Danger; for notwithstanding this they venture upon it, and wilfully run into it, as a Bird hastneth to the Snare, as the same Author speaks, ch. 7. v. 23. Or, 3. if we take these Words as spoken concerning the Evil and Lewd Enticers themselves, then there is this different Interpreta∣tion from what was assigned before: either the Si∣militude runs thus, As foolish Birds being greedy of Food, and allured by the Balt, take no notice of the Net that is spread to catch them, and so ••••••awares are taken in it, (and because the Not that is laid makes not the Birds more wary and cau∣••••ous, but notwithstanding this they fly to the Bait, therefore in respect of these silly Creatures the Net may well be said to be spread in vain) so the Wicked Men whom the Royal Penman here speaks of, and whose Enticements he warns us to beware of, being led with desire of Pr••y, do not obs••rve the Net laid to take them: or if they be fore∣warned, yet they are not frighted by the Danger, but are resolv'd to satisfy their greedy Appetite: and then, when they are most secure, they are suddenly surprized and overtaken by the Judg∣ments of God. Or else (which I take to be the plainest and most obvious Meaning) we are to un∣derstand

the Words thus, Although Villan••••••▪ Complotters think themselves sure of their Prey▪ yet they are no more certain of it than Fowlers are of catching those Birds which carefully observe the laying of the Net, and by beholding the Spread∣ing of it are admonish'd to fly away from it. In vain is the Net spread in the Eyes of every one that hath Wings: so the Hebrew.

Which may be applied first of all to these Fly∣ing Inhabitants of the Air, who have sometim•••• been in a wonderful manner employed to bring to Light the secret Perpetration of Murder and Blood∣shed. A Bird of the Air hath carried the Voice, and that which hath Wings hath told the Matter, Eccles. 10. 20. In vain hath the Net been spread in the Sight of these winged Creatures. Secondly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Application of these Words may be made to thos•• Innocent Persons whom these bloody Conspirat•••••• intend to entrap. They oftentimes are extraordi∣narily furnish'd with Eyes and Wings: they are en••∣bled to discern and foresee their Contrivances, and they have Power given them to avoid them. 1 1.425 Saul seeks the Life of David; but his cursed Pur∣poses are discover'd to this latter by Iona••han▪ 2 1.426 The secret Counsels and Plots of the King of As∣syria are disclosed by Elisha.3 1.427 The ••ews bind them∣selves with a Vow to murder St. Paul, but a Youth frustrates their Conspiracy. It may be applied al∣so to the Angels, who are represented as4 1.428 Winged in Scripture, and5 1.429 full of Eyes. These oftentimes discover and frustrate the bloody Designs of the Enemies of the Church. These Ministring Spirit•• seasonably fly to the Succour of the Righteous;

they kindly hover over them, hide and protect them with their Wings. And as Men and Angels, so God himself (who is All Eye) in a more signal and eminent manner discovers and defeats the Ma∣chinations of bloody Men against the Innocent. He is pleased to resemble himself to an Eagle, the Prince of Birds, that fluttereth over her Young, spreadeth abroad her Wings, taketh them, beareth them on her Wings, Deut. 32. 11. The Eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole Earth, to shew him∣self strong in the behalf of them whose Heart is perfect towards him, 2 Chron. 16. 9. And in all Ages of the World he hath rais'd up Instruments to help and succour his Servants. Thus in vain is the Net spread in the Sight of every one that is bagnal canaph, Master of the Wing, as the Original (if we will be exact in rendring it) expresses it. And if we in∣terpret this Proverb in this Sense, it Exactly com∣ports with the next Verse, They lay wait for their own Blood, they lurk privily for their own Life: Those that thus design Mischief against innocent Persons, bring Ruine upon themselves, and are frequently taken in that Net which they spread for others. This seems to be the most Genuine Exposition of the Words: but every one is left to his Liberty to choose any other Interpretation which is agreeable to the Context, and opposes no other Text of Holy Scripture. Which of all these Senses was at first design'd by the Holy Ghost we cannot cer∣tainly tell. It may be in such Places as these (of which there is a considerable Number in this Book) there is a Latitude, and questionless it is best it ••••ould be so, that we may with the greater Free∣dom search into and descant upon these Sacred Writings, that we may understand the full Extent of these Excellent Moral Observations and Remar∣kable

Sayings of this Wise King, which for the most part are short and concise, and therehy some∣times become somewhat difficult. But if, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Im••eratoria brevital (as Tacitus calls it) was com∣mendable, no wise Man surely will dislike it in So∣lomon, especially when such Divine and Admirable Truths are couched in it.

His next Book is entituled Ecclesiastes; for the LXX, by whom the wor•••• Kabal is generally ren∣dred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do accordingly render Kobeleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is probable he penn'd it when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Old, and had pass'd the several Stages of Va∣nity. It is an open Disowning of his former Fo∣lies and Extravagancies, it is the Royal Preacher's Recantation-Sermon, wherein he tenders himself a Publick Penitentiary. Which is the Meaning (as 3 1.430 One thinks) of that Title of this Book in the He∣brew, Kohel••th, or the Gathering Soul, because i•• this Book he recollects himself, and gathers and r••∣duceth others that wander after Vanity. To this end he makes a clear and ample Discovery of the Vanity of all things under the Sun, i. e. in this Life, or in the whole World (a Phrase peculiar to Solo∣mon, and in this Book only, where it is often used). Here the Wise Man convinceth us from his own Experience, that none of the Acquists of this World are able to satisfy the Immortal Spirit of Man, that the greatest Wit and Learning, the most exquisite Pleasures and Sensual Enjoyments, the vastest Confluence of Wealth and Riches, and the highest Seat of Honour, even the Royal Throne it self, are insufficient to make a Man Hap∣py, and consequently that our Happiness must be

••ought for some where else. Here we are taught, that notwithstanding this World is Changeable and ••••bie••t to Vanity, though at one time or other all things come alike to all in it, yet the Steady and Un∣••rring Providence of God rules all Affairs and Events here below; and in the Conclusion of all, God will bring every Work into Iudgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Here are ••articular Directions given us how we are to discharge our Duty, first with reference to our selves, viz. that we ought very strictly to observe the Laws of Sobriety and Temperance, and to live i•• a Thankful Use of the good things of this World, and to be Content with our Portion and Allotment in this Life, and to banish all Covetous Desires and Projects. As we must go to the House of Mourning, i. e. be very retired and solemn, very ••••••lous and composed, and banish all superfluous Mirth and Gaiety, so we must eat our Bread with Ioy, i. e. live in a comfortable Fruition of these earthly Blessings, and delight in these Enjoyments so far as they are lawful and innocent. Our Duty to Others is here also briefly prescribed us, viz. that we ought to pay a Profound Respect to Good Kings, and to keep their Commandments; yea, that our very Thoughts towards them ought to he Reve∣rent. Then, as to those who are of an Equal Le∣vel with us, or inferiour to us, that we shew our selves Just and Righteous to them in all our Con∣verse and Dealings, and that when we see any of them reduced to Poverty and Straits, that we extend our Charity to them, that we cast our Bread upon these Waters, that we relieve their Wants and Necessities. Lastly, we are instructed in our Duty to God, we are taught to approach him with ••everence and Devotion, to keep our Feet when we

go to his House, to pay our Vows to him, to remember him our Creator and Preserver, to fear him and keep his Commandments: and we are assured that this is the whole of Man, his whole Duty and his whole Concern.

The Canticles, or Solomon's Song, is another Piece of Hebrew Poetry, which he writ when he was Young, and in an Amorous Vein, and yet breathing most Divine and Heavenly Amours. If you take it according to the Letter only, it is King Solomon's Epithalamium or Wedding-Song, of the same Na∣ture with the 45th Psalm, which is a Song on his Nuptials with the King of Egypt's Daughter, but in a Spiritual Sense it sets forth the Glory of Christ and his Kingdom, and the Duty and Privileges of the Church, which is there called the King's Daughter. Such is this Dramatick Poem, wherein are brought in the Bridegroom, and Bride, and the Friends of both, alternately speaking: but we must not be so gross in our Apprehensions as to conceive this to be barely a Marriage-Song (as Castellio groundlesly fan∣cieth, and therefore deems it to be Scripture not of the same Stamp with the rest). Besides the Lite∣ral Import of the Words in this Love-Song, there is a Mystical Sense couched in them. Carnal Love is here made to administer to Religion, the Flesh is subservient to the Spirit: and therefore by reason of this Mystery in this Love-Poem the Iews were not permitted to read it till they were of Maturity of Years. If we take this Mystical Wedding•• Song in the highest Meaning of it, it is an Allego∣rical Description of the Spiritual Marriage and Communion between Christ and the Church, it i•• a Representation of the Mystical Nuptials of th•• Lord Christ Jesus and Believers. Their Mutu•••• Affections and Loves are deciphered by the So••

Passions and Amours of Solomon and his Royal Spouse. This (though the Name of God be not in it) makes it a most Divine Poem, and highly wor∣thy of our most serious Perusal and Study. For here we see the Gospel anticipated, and the most Glorious Subject of the New Testament betimes in∣serted into the Old.

Object. But is it not a great Disparagement to this and the other before-mentioned Books of Solomon, that ••e was a Reprobate, and finally rejected by God? Are we not discouraged from receiving these Writings as Canonical Scripture when we know that the Author of them was a Damned Person? For what can He be else, who, towards his latter end, revolted from the True Re∣ligion, and went after Strange Gods and Strange Wo∣men? And we never read in Scripture that he repented either of his Idolatry or his Whoredoms. Is it likely that this Gross Apostate was inspired by the Holy Ghost? Is it probahle that he had the Honour of being one of the Penmen of Sacred Writ?

Answ. It is true Solomon was as great a Reproach to the True Religion as ever any Person was, if we consider all his Circumstances: His Sins were of a very High Nature, his Faults were most Hei∣nous and Scandalous; and that Man is half guilty of them that endeavours to excuse them. A most provoking Crime it was in him that had been so highly favour'd of God to give himself up to his Lusts: a most horrid Offence it was, even in his old Age, in the close of his Life, (as if now his Years had made him Decrepid and Idolatrous too) to bow down to Idols. But shall we think that Solo∣mon bowed so low that he could not rise again, that he fell and never recovered himself? I confess no meaner a Man than St. Augustin seems to be of

this Opinion. This Hard Father of Infants was as harsh against Solomon, pronouncing him a Per∣son wholly cast out of God's Favour, and never received to Mercy again: and some Other Fathers, as St Cyprian, and Prosper, question his Salvation. Bellarmin and Pererius positively conclude he was damned; but then we find1 1.431 three others of that Communion and of the same Order peremptorily asserting the contrary. Maldonate declares he doth not know what to determine. Of which Mind it seems was that Archbishop of Toledo, who ••aus'd King Solomon to be painted on the Walls of his Chappel half in Hell and half in Heaven.

But, to wave the Opinions and Censures of Par∣ticular Persons at present, it is generally the Judg∣ment of the Christian Church, that Solomon repent∣ed, and was saved. And there are such Reasons as these to induce us to believe it; 1. There is no absolute concluding from the Greatness of his Sins that he repented not, and that he was damned; for we are assured that King Manasse•• was a Greater Sinner than ever he was, for unto all manner of Idolatry he added the Diabolical Practices of Witch∣craft and Inchantment, 2 Chron. 33. 3, &c. and yet his hearty Repentance and Turning unto God are recorded, v. 12, 13, 19. Yea, David, Solomon's own Parent, was a very Heinous Criminal if the Sins of Studied Murder (which we do not find his Son guilty of) and Adultery could make him such: and yet such was the Divine Goodness, that upon his humble Acknowledgment of these Crimes and reforming his Ways he was acquitted of these Of∣fences. And why may not the same Mercy be shew'd to the Son? and what ground have we to

exclude him from partaking of it upon his unfeign∣ed Repentance? 2. That he did repent and was saved may be gather'd from 2 Chron. 11. 17. where the walking in the Way of David and Solomon is men∣tion'd as walking Holily, and so as is Acceptable to God. Upon which Passage a1 1.432 Judicious Writer hath these Words;

This very Place and Passage (saith he) may resolve that Solomon was no more finally cast away for his Idolatry than David was for his Adultery and Murder.

We see that Da∣vid and Solomon are here joined together, their way of Walking is represented as the same, as much as to tell us, that as David was a Man after God's own Heart, excepting the Murder of Vriah, and Debauching his Wife, so was his Son Solomon, excepting the latter Part of his Life. 3. Solomon's Book of Ecclesiastes (as hath been suggested alrea∣dy) is a plain Testimony of his Repentance. Here he bewails his former Follies, here he makes a Publick Retractation of them, and doth as it were Penance for them before all the World. We may therefore s••fely vote him a True Penitent, a Real Convert at last, and now a Saint in Heaven. 4. In express Words, according to the Septuagint, his Repentance is recorded, Prov. 24. 32.2 1.433 Afterwards (or at last) I repented. Or, if this Version be not admitted, and although we cannot produce an Ex∣press Text, (though that is not necessary, for it is not any where recorded that Lot repented of his Incest, or that some Others, whose Salvation we question not, were heartily sorry for their Miscar∣riages) yet there is ground to believe his Conver∣sion not only from what hath been said, but from

what we are able further to alledg. 5. Therefore we must consider that this Inspired Secretary of the Holy Spirit was of the Number of the Prophets, concerning whom our Infallible Teacher saith, that they are all in the Kingdom of God, Luke 13. 28. It is not to be question'd but that those Prophets who were made use of by God in so Extraordinary a manner as to be Sacred Writers of the Bible, were all admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven, and are placed in the Mansions of Glory. Besides, such Persons as these, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, are pronounced Holy Men of God by St. Peter, 2 Ep, ch. 1. v. 21. None had that Honour but those who were of Real Sa••ctity, i. e. the Pro∣phecy of Scripture (which he speaks of in that place) was vouchsafed to none but such. And therefore though Solomon's Repentance be not expresly re∣corded, yet when we know that he was one of the most Eminent Penmen of the Sacred Scripture, we have Reason to think, that notwithstanding God suffer'd him for a time to fall into those scandalous Sins, yet he return'd afterwards to him by un∣feigned Repentance, and was Renewed and Re∣formed, and died a Holy and Righteous Person. 6. This is evident from that Promise which God made to Solomon, 2 Sam. 7. 15. My Mercy shall not depart away from him. Which is commented upon by the wise Son of Sirach, (speaking of this King's Follies and Extravagancies, and the sad Events of them) The Lord, saith he, will never leave off his Mercy, neither shall any of his Works perish, neither will he abolish the Posterity of his Elect, and the Seed of him that loveth him he will not take away, Ecclesiastic. 47. 22. Whence we may rationally gather, that So∣lomon was not cast off by God, but still continued in his Favour.

Some argue from his Name1 1.434 Agur, which they say implies his former Failings, and his being Re∣claimed. Others think his Name Iedidiah, Beloved of the Lord, is a good Intimation that he became a True Penitent, and was saved. And some con∣ceive, that because he was a Type of the Blessed Iesus, he could not miscarry. But, whether these have any Weight or no, I am confident no conside∣rate Person can deny the Force of the Reasons be∣fore alledged. We may from them alone con∣clude, that Solomon was not finally rejected by God, yea that he was upon his hearty Repentance re∣ceived into Favour, and is now in the Number of the Blessed. And this was the Judgment of those Antient and Learned Writers of the Church, 2 1.435 St. Ierom,3 1.436 Ambrose,4 1.437 Hilary,5 1.438 Cyril. Let us then forget his Faults when we study his Books, wherein it is certain there are no Errata's, he be∣ing an Interpreter of the Holy Ghost unto us, and when he utter'd these things being a Friend and Favourite of God. But suppose we knew certain∣ly (which we do not, and cannot, but have suffi∣cient ground for the contrary) that he was at last cast off, yet I do not see how this doth necessarily invalidate his Writings. God might, if he pleas'd, make use of a Bad Man to pen some Part of the Bible, as he thought fit to call Iudas to the Apo∣stleship, and to be an Eminent Preacher of the Go∣spel. Therefore though we should grant that So∣lomon was an Apostate, yet this is no direct Argu∣ment against the Validity and Authority of his Writings. But there being such great Probability, not to say Reasons, on the other side, we need not

fly to this Answer, but on good ground perswade our selves that Solomon, who was once 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Sacred Wisdom, never lo••t it wholly, and consequently that we ought not to be prejudiced against what he hath writ by reason of his gross Fallings and Miscarriages.

Next, we are to speak of the Books of the Pro∣phets. Of those who prophe••••ed after the Divi••ion of the ten Tribes from the other two, but before the Captivity of either, Isaiah is the first and most eminent. He was of the Blood Royal, his Father Amoz being Brother to Azariah King of Iud••••▪ He was an old Prophet, having been in that Em∣ployment under four Kings of Iudah (as1 1.439 he tells us himself): and all this time (which was about threescore Years) he faithfully discharged the Part of a True Prophet in an impartial reproving of the Vices and Disorders of the Age he lived in, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a free and open displaying the Judgments of God which were impendent on that Nation, (yet not forgetting to threaten and denounce Vengeance on those Foreign and Strange People, who were in∣strumental in in••••••cting these Judgments, and who for their crying Enormities deserv'd to be de∣stroy'd, viz. Aslyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, Arabians) in a most Pathetick Exhortation to Repentance, and in set∣ting before them the Promises of Mercy and D••li∣verance. This last especially he is most famous for, clearly foretelling the Deliverance of the Jews from their Captivity in Babylon by the Hand of Cyrus King of Persia; and this he expresly men∣tion'd an hundred Years before it came to pass. But his Predictions concerning the Messias are the

most remarkable of all: He in plain Terms ••ore∣tels not only the Coming of Christ in the Flesh, but all the Great and Memorable Passages which belonged to him. He speaks as clearly and di∣stinctly of these as if our Saviour had blessed the World with his Presence at that very time when he wrote his Prophecy. He seems to speak, saith St.1 1.440 Ierom, rather of things past than to come, and he may be call'd an Evangelist rather than •• Prophet. Which is the Reason without doubt of the so frequent Citations which are made of this Book in the New Testament: for you may observe that Christ himself, his Evangelists and Apostles, have quoted about threescore Places out of it. I•• reading of this Book then we read the Gospel it self, we antedate the New Testament by the Wri∣tings of this Evangelical Prophet. I have inti∣mated before that he is the most Eloquent of all the Prophets. He was the Hebrew Demosthenes, as 2 1.441 Grotius rightly stiles him; the Purity of Hebraism is to be seen in him, as in the other that of Atti∣cism. He useth many Schemes and Figures, but none is more remarkable than (that for which that Athenian Orator was so applauded, saith Quinti∣lian) his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Excellent Art of adding Gra∣vity, Force and Vehemence to what he saith: he continually Exaggerates and Amplifies the Matter which he undertakes. He had (above other Pro∣phets) an Advantage of improving his Stile by reason of his Noble Descent, and conversing with Men of great Parts and Elocution. But the mai•• thing wherein he excels the rest of the Prophets, is this, that he saith more of our Lord Christ than all of them put together. This is his Pec••liar Ex∣cellency,

that he makes so early a Discovery of the Advent of our Blessed Lord, and of the Great My∣steries of the Gospel.

Ieremiah was another Antient Prophet, he be∣ginning to prophesy in the thirteenth Year of King Iosiah, and continuing in that sacred Employment till the last Year of King Zedekiah. He saw the Captivity of the Kingdom of Samaria, and after that the total Destruction of the Kingdom of Iu∣dah and of the Temple. Part of this famous Pro∣phecy, yea most of it was after the Captivity of Israel, and before that of Iudah, (from chap. 1. to ch. 44.) and part of it was in the time of the lat∣ter Captivity, this Prophet being not carried cap∣tive with the other Jews, but remaining in Iudea, and afterwards carried into Egypt (from chap. 44▪ to the end). In the whole are comprized many things of great Worth and Moment: for here wefind this Divine Prophet laying open the Sins of the Kingdom of Iudah with an unparallell'd Free∣dom and Boldness, and reminding them of the Se∣vere Judgments which had befallen the ten Tribes for the very same Offences and Miscarriages. Here this Weeping Prophet, this Iewish Heraclitus, most passionately laments the miserable Condition which they were plunging themselves into, and withal directs them how to prevent it, namely, by a spee∣dy reforming of their Lives. But at last he more peremptorily proclaims God's Wrath and Venge∣ance against them, foreseeing and foretelling the Grievous Calamities which were approaching, par∣ticularly the Seventy Years Captivity in Chaldaea, which began (as some think) with the carrying away of those of Iudah. He also disswades them from breaking Faith with the Chaldeans after they were conquered by them, and sheweth how un∣successful

th••y should be in their revolting from them to the Egyptians. But even then he foretels their happy Return and Deliverance, and likewise the Just Recompence which Babylon, Moab, the Philistines, and other Enemies of the Church should meet with in due time. Here are also several In∣timations concerning Christ the Blessed Messias and Redeemer, and concerning his Kingdom and Go∣vernment in the times of the Gospel. Here are many Remarkable Visions and Types, wherein are represented things of the highest Nature. And lastly, here are sundry Historical Passages of consi∣derable Moment which relate to those times. So that the whole Book is of Inestimable Worth, and such as is not to be found any where but in the Sa∣cred Volume.

His Lamentations (which are in Hebrew Verse▪ and are so contrived, that in the four first Chap∣ters every Verse, excepting one, begins with a Hebrew Letter in the Alphabetick Order) were written on the Death of that Religious Prince Io∣siah: which appears from what is recorded in a Chron. 35. 25. Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing Men and the singing Women spake of Josiah in their Lamentations to this Day, and made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ordinance in Israel, and behold they are written i•• the Lamentations, even those which this Prophet composed. Which is also confirmed by the1 1.442 Jew∣ish Historian, who voucheth this Poem to be a Fu∣••••ral Elegy on that Pious King. To which St. Ie∣rom adds, that this Prophet laments the Loss of Iosias as the beginning of those Galamities which afterwards ensued; and accordingly he proceeds to ••ewail the Miserable State of the Iews, and parti∣cularly

the Destruction of Ierusalem, which was not then come to pass, but is prophetically fore∣told, it being not unusual with the Prophets to speak of things to come as if they were already past: Unless we should say (as some have) that part of this Mournful Song was endited after the taking and sacking of Ierusalem, and the carrying the People Captive, and is a Passionate Bewailing of the Destruction of the Temple, and the Horrid Consequences of it. In which also the Holy Man humbly confesseth the Sins of the People, and ac∣knowledgeth the Divine Justice in all that be••el them: to which he adjoineth a Serious Exhorta∣tion to Repentance, and comforts them with Hopes of a Restoration. So that the whole is an Exact Pattern of Devotion in times of Great and Na∣tional Calamities and Publick Sufferings, and in∣structs us how to demean our selves in such deplo∣rable Circumstances.

Ezekiel was carried captive into Babylon with those that went thither in the second Captivity▪ which was in the 8th Year of Nebuchadnezzar▪ Reign, about ten Years before the time of the last Captivity. He prophesied here at the same time that Ieremiah did in Iudaea, and afterwards in Egypt▪ Many of the same things he foretold, more espe∣cially the Destruction of the Temple, and the fa∣tal Issue of those that revolted from Babylon to Egypt, and at last the Happy Return of the Jew•• into their own Land. He distinctly foretels the Plagues which should certainly be in••••icted on Other Nations who were profes'd Enemies of the Church, as the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, E∣gyptians, Tyrians, and lastly the Assyrians and Ba∣bylonians. In figurative and mystical Expressions he predicts the Messias, and the flourishing Estate

of his Kingdom, i. e. the Christian Church. Be∣cause the Prophet begins with Visions and Types, and ends with the Measuring of the Mystical Tem∣ple, therefore (by reason of these Abstrusities and Mysteries) the Beginning and End of this Book were forbid1 1.443 to be read by the Jews before they came to thirty Years of Age. But the greatest ••art of this Prophecy is plain and easily intelligi∣ble, it having reference chiefly to the Manners of that degenerate Age; wherein the Prophet ob∣serves and severely animadverts upon the General Corruption which had invaded them in those Days, and which merited the severest Judgments that Heaven could send down upon them. He ex∣••ibits a Particular Catalogue of the Notorious Enor∣m••ties which their Kings, their Priests, their Pro∣phets, their People were infamous for; he labours to bring them to a Sense of these scandalous Pra∣ctices, and to make them heartily Relent for them: ••inally, like a Trne Watchman (as he is stiled) he ••••••••hfully warneth them of their Imminent Danger, and admonisheth them to prevent it (if possible) by abandoning their Evil Ways. This is the In∣spired Man that penn'd this Book: and this is the ••ook which contains so many worthy and excellent ••••ings in it.

Another of the Four Great Proph••ts is Daniel (who was of the Progeny of the Kings of Iudah.) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was contemporary with Ezekiol, and was a Cap∣••••••e in Babylon at the same time that he was. There he prophesied, and there he wrote▪ and ••his Book is the Result of both: the six first Chap∣••••••s of which are an History of the Kings of Baby∣••••••, and of what be••el some of the Captive Jews

under them. Here we have Nebuchadnezzar's R••∣markable Dreams interpreted, we have a Relatio•• of the singular Courage of the three Hebrew Yo•••••• Men that refused to fall down to his Image, with the miraculous Deliverance of them out of the Flames. Here is unfolded Belshazzar's Fatal Doo••, contain'd in the Mystical Hand-writing on the Wall, with his Death that soon follow'd upon it, and the Succession of Darius to the Throne, and the Tran∣slation of the Monarchy to the Medes. It was un∣der this Prince that our Noble Prophet was ad∣vanced to his greatest Height of Honour: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whereas he had been a great Courtier and Favosr∣rite in Nebuchadnezzar's time, and in the close of Belshazzar's Reign was made the Third Ruler in the Kingdom, now he is made the First, being set 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the Presidents and Princes of the Realm. This made him envied and hated, but he was hated and per∣secuted much more for his Religion by the Great Men of the Kingdom, and even by a Decree of the King's own signing committed to the Den of Lions, there to be devoured of them. But the Hand of Omnipotence immediately interposed, and he came out thence safe, and his Adversaries and Ac∣cusers were sent thither in his room, who fared not after the same rate that he did. After this he lived in great Esteem, Honour and Prosperity, not only in this King's Reign, but under Cyrus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monarch of the Persian Race. But as our Autho•• in the former Part of this Book relates things pas•• as an Historian, so in the six last Chapters he is al•• together Prophetical, foretelling what shall befal th•• Church in general, and particularly the Iews: ye•••• his Visions and Prophecies reach to future Event•• wherein even those that are out of the Church ar•• concerned. What can be more valuable than h••••

Dream or Vision of the Four Secular Monarchies of the World, and of the Fifth, which was to be Spi∣ritual, viz. that of the Messias? What is more fa∣mous and celebrated than his Discovery (by the Angel Gabriel's Information) of the Seventy Weeks, viz. of Years, i. e. 490 Years, upon the expiring of which the Messias's Kingdom was to be set up? What plain and signal Prophecies doth this Book afford concerning that Renowned Conqueror Alex∣ander the Great, and his subduing the Persian Em∣pire, as also concerning the Fierce Wars among his Great Captains and Commanders who succeeded him; particularly how clearly and plainly are the Actions of Antiochus the Great, and Antiochus Epi∣phanes his Son, described by our Prophet long be∣fore these Persons were in being? And many other Notable Occurrences relating to the most publick and famed Transactions on the Stage of the World, are prophetically fore-signified and revealed by this Divine Seer: insomuch that we may justly stile this Book the Apocalypse of the Old Testament; to which that Other of the New so often refers, and even borrows many things of great Moment. Lastly, we may particularly note concerning this Book, that a great Part of it is written in the Chaldean Tongue, viz. from the fourth Verse of the Second Chapter to the End of the Seventh: the Reason of ••hich may be this, because Daniel was now by his ••••ng Abode in that Country become as 'twere a Chaldean; and moreover, he thought fit to write •• the Chaldean Language, because he relates those ••••ings here which are proper to the Kings of Baby∣•••••• and the Affairs of that Place, which could not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 better express'd than in this Tongue.

The Twelve Lesser Prophets (so call'd because ••heir Writings are of a Smaller Bulk) are account∣ed

by the Jews as1 1.444 One Book: and accordingly St. Stephen quoting a Passage out of Amos, saith, It is written in the Book of the Prophets, Amos 7. 42. The First of these Holy Seers was Hosea, who flourished, in the Kingdom of Israel in the Days of Vzziah, Iotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Iudah, and of Iaroboam King of Israel: so that he was Con∣temporary with Isaiah, as appears from the first Verses of both Prophecies. He directs his Pro∣phecy wholly against the Kingdom of Israel, which consisted of the Ten Tribes, but is by him peculi∣arly stiled sometimes Ioseph, sometimes Ephraim, at other times Samaria, Bethel, Iacob, and Israel▪ as, on the other hand, the Kingdom of Iudah is call'd by him Benjamin, and sometimes Ierusalem His main Design and Business through the whole Book is to set forth the gross Idolatry and other flagitious Practices of that degenerate People, and to denounce the Judgments of God against them, and particularly to foretel their Captivity in Assy∣ria, and withal to excite them to a due Apprehen∣sion of this Severity of God towards them, and thereby to beget an unfeigned Remorse and Peni∣tence in them, that they may obtain the Pardon of their Sins, and partake of the Divine Mercy and Favour. All which is done with a most ravishing Ardency, Affection and Zeal. As to the Stil•• indeed, it may be observ'd, that as Ezekiel was the Obscurest of the Greater Prophets, so Hosea is of these Minour ones: but this Obscurity and Difficul∣ty are countervailed by that Rich Treasure which are hid under them, and which will prove an Am∣ple

Reward to those who search into it, and ac∣quaint themselves with the transcendent Excellency both of the Stile and Matter of this Writer.

Ioel prophesied in the Kingdom of Iudah before the time of the Captivity, though the particular Time is not (as in most of the other Prophets) mentioned. But 'tis probable he prophesied at the same time with Hosea, who is set immediately be∣fore him. So St. Ierom, Theodoret, Augustine, and other Fathers think. He foretelleth the coming up of a Northern Army, viz. from Babylon, which is North of Iudea: Though some interpret it of an Army of Locusts and Caterpillars, and other such mischievous and devouring Insects mentioned ch. 1. v. 4, &c. and consequently the Prophet predicteth the horrid Devastation, Dearth and Famine in Iudea, which should be caused by them. I am for joining both these Interpretations together, for I see it is the usual way of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures (especially the Prophetick ones) to express two dif∣ferent Things and Occurrences by the same Words. Here is then a double Army spoken of, viz. that of the Chaldeans, which in a short time afterwards invaded Iudea, and laid it waste; and also that of Noxious Vermin, which was to be sent as a just Pe∣nalty and Infliction for their Abuse of the Fruits of the Earth, and the great Plenty which they had enjoy'd. Whereupon he most warmly stirs them up to Repentance; and to that Purpose enjoineth a Fast, and urgeth them to a strict Observance of it from the Hopes of M••rcy and Forgiveness, and the Removal of all those Iudgments which they labour under, yea from the Expectation, or rather the Assurance of a Blessing upon the whole Church. This is briefly, but most admirably set forth by this Man of God. And as it refers to that direful

Judgment of Famine and Destroying the Fruits of the Earth, it may be made use of as a Seasonable Form and Rule of Devotion and Behaviour in the time of such a Calamity.

Amos, who in his Youth had been a Herdsman in Tekoa, (a little Country-Town a Mile and a half off of Ierusalem) is now sent to the Kine of Bashan, the People of Samaria, the Kingdom of Israel, to reduce them to Repentance and Reformation of Life. To which end he boldly remonstrates against the Crying Sins which were visible among them, but especially against Idolatry, Oppression, Wanton∣ness, and Incorrigibleness. He spares not those of Iudah, but frankly reproves them for their Carnal Security, Sensuality, Injustice, Confident Boasting. And he scares both of them with frequent Threat∣nings and Menaces, and is not afraid to tell them that their persisting in their Sins will end at last in the Ruine of the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel; which he confirms and illustrates by the Visions of a Plumb-line, and of a Basket of Summer-Fruit. It is further observable in this Prophecy, that as it begins with Denuntiations of Judgment and De∣struction against the Syrians, the Philistines, the Ty∣rians, and other Enemies of the Church, so it con∣cludes with comfortable Promises of restoring the Tabernacle of David, and erecting the Kingdom of Christ. He prophesied in the Days of Vzziah King of Iudah, and Ieroboam the Son of Ioash (to distinguish him from the other of that Name, who was Son of Nebat): so that he flourish'd at the same time with Hosea and Ioel. But there is some Diffe∣rence as to the time, for 'tis added, [two Years be∣fore the Earthquake] v. 1. that is, towards the lat∣ter End of King Vzziah's Reign.

Obadiah's Prophecy is contain'd in one single Chapter, and is partly a Divine Invective against the merciless Edomites, who mocked and derided the Captive Israelites as they passed to Babylon, and who, with other Enemies (their Confederates) in∣vaded and wronged these poor Strangers, and made a great Ravage, and divided the Spoil among them: and it is partly a Prediction of the Delive∣rance and Salvation of Israel, and of the Victory and Triumph of the whole Church over all her Enemies. Some think this Obadiah was he that was King Ahab's Steward, who hid the Prophets: then 'tis certain he was before these Other Prophets. But there is no Foundation for this. We may rather adhere to St. Ierom's Opinion, who goes upon this Rule, that when the time of the Prophecy is not mention'd, it is to be referr'd to the same time that the preceding Prophecy was writ in.

Ionah's Prophecy was directed to the Ninevites, as Obadiah's to the Edomites, and relates how that Prophet being commanded by God to go to Nine∣veh, but disobediently travelling another way, was discover'd by a sudden Tempest arising, and was cast into the Sea, and swallowed by a Whale, which, after it had lodged him three Nights and three Days in its Belly, disgorged him upon the dry Land. Whereupon being made sensible of his past Danger, and of his Miraculous Deliverance from it, he betook himself to that Journey and Embassy which were first appointed him; and arri∣ving at that Great City, the Metropolis of all Assy∣ria, he, according to his Commission, boldly laid open to the Inhabitants their manifold Sins and Miscarriages, and proclaim'd their sudden Over∣throw if they repented not. Upon which the whole City, by Prayer, and Fasting, and Humbling

themselves, and by Turning from the Evil of their Ways most happily averted the Divine Vengeance, and prevented their Ruine. A most Admirable Instance of the Divine Mercy! A Rare Example of Universal Repentance, and that even in a Pa∣gan Country! Happy had the Ninevites been if they had not relapsed afterwards. Nor is Ionab's unseasonable Repining at this Dispensation of Hea∣ven omitted here by him, or by whoever it was that wrote this Remarkable History; wherein we see the Integrity of the Inspired Writers, which is such, that they are not backward to communi∣cate to the World their own greatest Failings, or those which the best Men are incident to. Ionah prophesied at the same time with the foregoing Prophets, as Ierom concludes; and he is back'd by other Fathers, as Clemens of Alexandria, Eus••bius, Augustine, Theophylact.

Micah prophesied in the Kingdom of Iudah be∣fore the Captivity of Babylon, in the same Kings Reigns that the preceding Prophets did, as appears from the first Verse. He impartially reprehends the Great and Rampant Vices both of Ierusalem and Samaria, and is terrible in his Denuntiations of Iudgments against both Kingdoms, but more particularly he foretels the approaching Destructi∣on of Ierusalem: Yet he leaves not the Church without Comfort, for he expresly foretels the Con∣fusion of her Enemies, the Messias's blessed Arri∣val, and with him the Peace and Prosperity, the Increase and Advancement, the Glory and Tri∣umphs of the Church. So that Micah seems to be Isaiah epitomized, giving us that in brief which the other more largely and amply insisted on. And it may be observ'd that these two Prophets are alike in their Stile and manner of Speaking, which is ve∣ry sublime and towering.

Nahum prophesied after the carrying captive of the Ten Tribes, a little before the Captivity of the Kingdom of Iudah. His Prophecy is rightly call'd a Burden, that Word both in the Greater and Lesser Prophets importing the denouncing of some Grievous and Heavy Iudgment: and such is this which he here threatens to Ninev••h. For it seems this People returned to their former evil Ways af∣ter Ionah's Preaching; and for this Reason another Prophet is sent to foresignify their Overthrow by the Chaldeans upon this their Relapse into their former Sins. He useth no kind Invitations to Re∣pentance, as the former Messenger did, but he ab∣solutely and peremptorily proclaims their Ruine, and with a most passionate and melting Eloquence (such as is not to be parallell'd in the most Cele∣brated Masters of Oratory) deciphers the horrid Nature of it.

Habakkuk prophesied in King Ahaz and Hezekiah's Reigns, as Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others of the Antients, probably determine; and not after the Captivity of the Two Tribes, as Ierom thinks, for this was not past when this Prophet writ, as is evi∣dent from chap. 1. v. 6. Lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, who shall march through the Breadth of the Land, &c. He complains of the Corrupt State of the Iews in those times, predicting the Invasion of the Chalde∣ans as the just Recompence of their Misdoings. This is remarkable in this Prophecy (which we find not in any of the rest) that it is composed in way of a Dialogue. First, the Prophet speaks, chap. 1. v. 1, to the 4th: then God answereth, v. 5, to the 11th. The Prophet replies, v. 12, to the 17th: God's Answer is in chap. 2, to the End. Then follows the Prophet's Prayer. The Providence of God in suffering the Best Men to be miserably

treated, and that by the Worst and Vilest, is here vindicated; and the Certainty of a Happy Revolu∣tion is assured. The Prophet also by propounding the Example of his own Singular Faith and Pati∣ence in the greatest Difficulties and Extremities, en∣courageth the Pious to wait on God, to rejoice in him, and to expect Deliverance from their Cala∣mities, and Revenge on their Enemies in due time. The whole was designed to be a Support and So∣lace to the Faithful in the time of their Captivity.

Zephaniah, who was employed in the Prophetick Office in King Ios••as's time, (as we read, v. 1.) a little after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes, and before that of Iudah, (so that he was Contempo∣rary with Ieremiah) freely and plainly tells the Jews what it was that incensed God's Wrath against them, viz. their Contempt of his Service, their Apostacy, their Treachery, their Idolatry, their Violence and Rapine, and other egregious Enormi∣ties which were observable in them and their Princes. Such high Provocations as these rendred their Destruction terrible, universal, unavoidable. And then (as most of the Prophets are wont) he mingles Exhortations to Repentance as the only Proper Concern in these Circumstances. He adds very severe Comminations against their Enemies, and presageth their Downfal. He likewise com∣forts the Godly with Promises of the certain Re∣storation of the Church, of a Release from all their former Pressures and Grievances, of a Cessation from all their Fears, of the Continuance of the Di∣vine Presence and Blessing. So that this short Pro∣phecy contains in it all the Others, and may justly be said to be an Abridgment of them.

Haggai prophesied after the Return from the Captivity in Babylon, in the second Year of Darius

King of Persia, sharply reproving the Jews for their neglecting the Rebuilding the Temple, and vigo∣rously exciting them to that Work both by Threat∣nings and Promises, but chiefly by the latter, assu∣ring them of the Divine Blessing and Assistance in so religious and worthy an Enterprize, and fore∣telling them of the Messias's Coming, and of the Glory of this Second Temple, which should far ex∣ceed that of the first, even in this respect, that the Messias himself should honour this Temple with his Presence.

Zechariah enter'd on the Prophetick Office at the same time with Haggai, some time after the Re∣lease from the Captivity, and he was sent to the Jews on the same Message, i. e. to check them for their Backwardness in erecting the Temple, and restoring the Divine Worship, but especially for the Disorder of their Lives and Manners, which could not but derive a Curse upon them. There∣fore he exhorts them to seek the Lord, and to turn from their evil Ways, and thereby to conciliate and obtain the Favour of God. By several Nota∣ble Visions and Types he endeavours to confirm their Faith, and establish their Assurance concerning God's Presence with them and Care of them, yea and of his Whole Church to the World's End: and as a Proof and Demonstration of this he inter∣sperseth the most comfortable Promises of the Coming, the Kingdom, the Temple, the Priesthood, the Victory, the Glory of Christ the Branch. Nor doth he forget to assure them of the Ruine of Baby∣lon, which had been their implacable Enemy. And here likewise is foretold the Great Number of Con∣verts to the Christian Faith, the successful Spread∣ing and Propagating of the Gospel, the wonderful Efficacy of the Holy Spirit in those Days, the Re∣jection

of the Unbelieving Jews, the utter De∣struction of their City, Temple, and whole Nati∣on by the Romans, for their rejecting and crucify∣ing the Messias, and other particular things be∣longing to the times of the Gospel, which none of the Lesser Prophets speak of but this.

Malachi is the last of these Prophets, yea of all the Prophets of that Dispensation. After him ceased Vision and Prophecy in Israel until Christ's ap∣pearing, when Zachary, Simeon, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, were illuminated with the Prophetick Spirit. He prophesied about 300 Years before our Saviour's time, reproving the Jews for their Ungrateful and Wicked Living after their Return from Babylon: particularly he chargeth them with Rebellion, Sacri∣lege, Adultery, Profaneness, Infidelity, but especi∣ally he reprehends the Priests for being Careless and Scandalous in their Ministry, which one thing was sufficient to give Authority to others to be Vicious. At the same time he forgets not to take notice of and incourage the Pious Remn••nt in that corrupted Age, who feared the Lord, and thought upon his Name▪ whose Godly Converse and Associating with one another in that debauched time, he assures them were registred in a Book of Remembrance by God him∣self. This Prophet, who had pointed before at the Messias to be exhibited, (for he expresly ••aith, He shall suddenly come to his Temple) now shuts up his Prophecy, and indeed all the Prophecies of the Old Testament, with an Exhortation to remember the Law, i. e. to live according to its holy Rules and In∣junctions, and with a Promise of the Coming of the Lord, who was to be usher'd in by Elijah the Pro∣phet, i. e. by Iohn the Baptist, who came in the Spi∣rit and Power of Elias, Luke 1. 17. And so this Close of the Old Testament refers to the New, to which I now hasten:

CHAP. X.

An Account of the Writings of the Four Evangelists: the peculiar Time, Order, Stile, Design of their Go∣spels. The Act of the Apostles shew'd to be an Incomparable History of the Primitive Church. The Epistles of St. Paul particularly delineated. He is proved to be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. An Enquiry into the Nature of this Apostle's Stile and manner of Writing. The excellent Matter and Design of the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Jude. An Historical Series or Order is not observ'd in the Book of the Revelation.

NEXT follow the Sacred Books of the New Testament, the Evangelical Novels, the New Laws of Christianity, the True Authenticks, which present us with the actual Discoveries of the Glorious Light of the Gospel, and of the Blessed Author of it. These were writ in Greek for the same Reason that Ioseph the Jew chose to write his Books not in his own Language, but in this, be∣cause (as he saith himself in his Preface to the Iewish War) he would have them read and understood by Greeks and Romans, and all Persons. So Aelian was a Roman, yet writ his Books of Animals, and Various History, &c. in Greek, because this was the Universal Language at that time. These Wri∣tings of the New Testament are either Histories or Epistles. The Histories are the Four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. As for the former, the Writings of the Four Evangelists, there were none of them extant whilest Christ was on Earth, for till his being taken up to Heaven, (which was the

Consummation of all he had before done and suf∣fer'd) they could not make the Evangelical Histo∣ry perfect. But afterwards some of the Apostles and Disciples resolving, according to their Master's 1 1.445 Order, to go and preach in foreign Regions, and to disperse the Christian Religion over all the World, put forth the History of the Gospel in Writing before they went about this great Work. St. Matthew was the first Inspired Person that com∣mitted the Evangelical Transactions to Writing, which he did about eight Years after Christ's Passi∣on, A. D. 42. He alone, of all the Evangelists, say St.2 1.446 Ierom,3 1.447 Eusebius, St.4 1.448 Augustine,5 1.449 Chry∣sostom, and most of the Antient Writers of the Church, wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew: which partly appears from this, that some of the Hebrew Words are explained by the Person who translated it into Greek; who it is probable was St. Matthew himself, as the Antients generally agree: and so the Hebrew and Greek Copies are both of them▪ the Originals. Then St. Mark and St. Luke writ their Gospels, the one about ten (tho others say twenty), the other about twenty (some say thirty) Years af∣ter our Saviour's Death; and there are some that invert the Order, and give the Priority to St. Luke▪ But all agree that St. Iohn was the last of the Evan∣gelists, and wrote towards the latter end of the first Century. But as for the Punctual Time when the Evangelists put forth the Gospels, it is doubt∣ful; and I do not find any certain ground whereo•• we may ••ix a satisfactory resolution of the Doubt••punc;

This may be observ'd that St. Matthew and St. Iohn were Eye-witnesses of what they wrote: 〈◊〉〈◊〉

St. Mark and St. Luke had what they wrote from the relation of others. Particularly St. Mark, who was St. Peter's Companion, composed his Gospel by his Order and Direction, and with his especial Approbation, saith Eusebius. Again, it is to be observ'd that tho every Evangelist relates nothing but the Truth▪ yet no one of them relates the Whole Truth concerning Christ's Life and Actions. Tho the Substance of the Gospel be contain'd in every one of these Writers, yet some Particulars are found in one that do not occur in another: which makes it necessary to consult them all, and to compare them together. As for St. Matthew and St. Mark, we may take notice that they do not always observe the Order of Time, and the true S••ries of the Matter: especially the former of these is not curious in this particular. But as for th•• other two Evangelists, they are very punctual, and inviolably observe the Order of things as they hap∣pen'd, excepting only that Parenthesis (for such it is) in Luke 3. 19, 20. concerning Herod. Of all the Evangelists St. Luke is the fullest, and gives the compleatest, mos•• circumstantial and orderly Re∣lation of things: which he himself takes notice of in his Preface to his Gospel, in those Words to Theophilus, It se••med good to me, having had perfect Vnderstanding of all things, from the very first▪ to write unto thee in order. And yet, though his Go∣spel be ample, and more methodical in the Narra∣tive or History than the rest, yet he is but brief in relating things that our Saviour did till the last Year of his Preaching, St. Matthew having been full in them: and in some other things he hath need of a supply from the rest of the Evangelists, and more especially from St. Iohn, whose Gospel (from the Beginning of the 14th Chapter to the

End of the 17th) contains those Excellent Dis∣courses of our Saviour before his Passion, which were wholly omitted by the other Evangelists. Be∣sides that, this Evangelist, in the Entrance into his Gospel, is more Sublime and Soaring than the rest, (and for that Reason is represented by an Eagle) asserting the Divinity of Christ against the bold Hereticks of that time, who openly confronted that Doctrine. And in other Places of his Wri∣tings he hath a Peculiar Strain and Excellency, which1 1.450 Luther expresses thus, after his plain way, Every Word in John weigheth two Tuns. Concerning the Evangelists I may note this, that though they do not all of them set down the very individual Words that Christ or others spake, (for we see that sometimes one represents them in Terms different from the rest) yet those that do not so, deliver al∣ways the Sense of what was said; and even that was dictated by the Holy Spirit, which is sufficient. And concerning St. Iohn particularly I remark this, that seeing he was the last of all the Evange∣lists, i. e. he wrote his Gospel last, it is rational upon that Account to interpret the other Evange∣lists by him, namely, where any Doubt or Contro∣versy arises: for he having perused the other Evan∣gelists, and observ'd what Exceptions unbelieving Men had made against any Passages in their Wri∣tings, it is not to be doubted but that he expresses himself with greater Plainness and Perspicuity where those Matters are concern'd. This the in∣telligent and observant Reader will find to be true if he consults the respective Places.

It is endless to give a Particular and Distinct Sur∣vey of every one of the Evangelists Writings. This

only can be said here, (in pursuance of our grand Undertaking) that these Books are the Choicest History that ever were committed to Writing, be∣cause they contain the Birth, the Life, the Actions, the Doctrine, the Miracles, the Sufferings, the Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension of our Lord IESVS Christ, our most Compassionate Saviour and Re∣deemer: All of which are the most Stupendous and Amazing, as well as the most Necessary Mat∣ters to be known in the whole World. If this brief and summary Account of the Gospels be not sufficient to recommend them to our Studies and Meditations, and to beget in us the utmost Esteem of them, nothing more largely said will ever be able to do it.

To the Historical Part of the New Testament belong the Acts of the Apostles, wherein there is an Account given of what all the Apostles were con∣cern'd in, viz. their choosing Matthias into Iudas's room, their Meeting together on the Day of Pen∣t••cost, at which time they were all inspired by the Holy Ghost (according to Christ's Promise) visibly descending upon them, their Determinations in the Council held at Ierusalem, with their Letters which they sent to the Churches abroad, and several other things in which the Apostles were jointly in∣terested. This Book contains also the History of the first Founding of the Christian Church, of its hap∣py Progress and Success, especially among the Gen∣tiles, of the Opposition and Persecution it encountred with, of the Undaunted Courage of the Apostles, of the Course of their Ministry, of their Disputa∣tions, Conferences, Apologies, Prayers, Sermons, Wor∣ship, Discipline, Church-Government, Miracles. Here we are informed what were the Vsages of the first Apostolical Ages: In a word, here we may find

the Primitive Church and Religion. All which are plain Evidences of the singular Usefulness, Worth and Excellency of this Book. But it is chiefly con∣fined to the Acts and Atchievements of those most Eminent Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul: and espe∣cially and most largely here are related the Conver∣sion, Travels, Preaching, and Sufferings of the lat∣ter of these; for St. ••uke being St. Paul's Compa∣nion all along, and well acquainted with whatever he did, and whatsoever happen'd to him, gives us the fullest Narrative of this Apostle. The whole Book is a History of about forty Years, namely, from Christ's Ascension•• to the second Year of St. Paul's Imprisonment at Rome.

The New Testament consists likewise of several Epistles of the Apostles; which are Pious Discourses, occasionally written more fully to explain and ap∣ply the Holy Doctrine which they had delivered, to confute some growing Errors, to compose Dif∣ferences and Schisms, to reform Abuses and Cor∣ruptions, to stir up the Christians to Holiness, and to incourage them against Persecutions. For the Apostles having converted several Nations to the Faith, when they could not visit them in Person, wrote to them, and so supplied their Presence by these Epistles.

To begin with St. Paul's Epistles, they were writ∣ten either to Whole Churches, viz. of Believing Gen∣tiles, (i. e. the greatest Part of them were such, tho some of Iewish Race might be mix'd among them) as the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessa∣lonians; or of Believing Iews wholly, as the Epistle to the Hebrews: Or they were written to Particular Persons, as the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Phile∣mon.

The Epistle to the Romans is made up of several Profound Discourses on such Subjects as these, the Prerogatives of the Iews, their Rejection notwith∣standing those Prerogatives, the Wonderful Dis∣pensation of God towards the Gentiles, the Nature of the Law, Justification by Faith alone, Election and Free Grace, the Conflict between the Flesh and Spirit, Christian Liberty, Scandal, the Use of In∣different Things, &c. But the chief thing which he designs in this Epistle, is to shew, that neither the Gentiles by the Law of Nature, nor the Iews by that of Moses, could attain to Righteousness and Justification, and consequently Salvation; but that these are to be obtained only by Faith in Christ Je∣sus, for whose Merits alone we are accounted righ∣teous in the Sight of God. And then, to shew that this Faith is not separated from Good Works, he addeth Exhortations to the Practice of Holiness, Obedience of Life, and a Religious Conversation. So that this Epistle is both Doctrinal and Practi∣cal, it directs us in our Notions and in our Man∣ners. It decides some of the greatest Controver∣sies, and withal it informs us about the most indis∣pensable Offices of Christianity.

The next Epistles are to the Church of Corinth, the chief City of Peloponne••us, which is now call'd the Morea. And Cenchrea (which you read of, Rom. 16. 1. Acts 19. 18.) was the Station of Ships for this maritime City, but was a distinct Town from it. To the Converted Inhabitants of this great Metropolis, (famed for its Wealth, and therefore sirnamed the Rich, as Thucydides saith) ••ea1 1.451 to all the Saints in Achaia the Apostle here writes. His first Epistle to them is against the Un∣sound

Perswasions and Vicious Practices which he observ'd among them at that time. His Design was to reform them as to their Schisms and Dissen∣sions, their Idolatrous Communion, their Unseem∣ly Habits, their Confusions and Disorders in their Assemblies, their Prophaning the Lord's Supper, their Toleration of Incest, and the like scandalous Behaviour. Besides, there are other considerable Matters which he treats of, as Marriage, Divorce, Virginity, eating of Meats sacrificed to Idols, Christian Liberty, going to Law before Heathens, Church-Discipline, Ministers Maintenance, Spiri∣tual Gifts, especially the Gift of Prophesying, &. Some particular Cases concerning which are re∣solved with great Plainness and Dexterity, and may be serviceable to determine our Judgments in all Cases of the like Nature. He also admirably de∣scants on the Nature and Necessity of Charity, and he by multiplied Arguments asserts the Doctrine of the Resurrection.

When the Corinthians had received this First Epi∣stle, and as soon as the Apostle was informed by Titus what Reformation it had wrought in them, he writ a Second to them, in Defence of his Mini∣stry and Apostleship, against some that labour'd to bring him into Contempt among them. He threatens Offenders, he encourages the Obedient, he animates the Faint-hearted, he confounds his Antagonists, and that by a new way of Argument, viz. by boasting of his Sufferings, and giving a full Inventory of them. He displays his Calamities, he blazons his Crosses; and Victories and Tri∣umphs do not more elevate others than these do him. He excellently discovers the hypocritical Pretences of False Prophets, he vindicates his own Person and Authority, he answers the Calumnies

and Aspersions of Erroneous Teachers, he clears himself from the Imputation of Levity, Pride, Vain-Glory, Severity, and other things laid to his Charge: He asserts the Truth of his Doctrine, and the Laudableness of his Actions, and exhorts to all Holiness and Righteousness of Life. But the great∣est Part of this Epistle is Apologetical: whence we learn, that it is not unseemly or unchristian to en∣large on one's own Actions and Sufferings when there is a necessary Occasion.

The Epistle to the Galatians (i. e. the Christian Brethren in Galatia, a Region in the Lesser Asia, call'd also Gallo-Graecia, because it was of old inha∣bited by Gauls and Greeks) is directed against the False Apostles among them, who mingled the Law with the Gospel, Legal Works with Faith, and made the former necessary to Justification Where∣upon he again asserts the Doctrine of Justification by Faith; so that this Part of the Epistle is a brief Summary of the Epistle to the Romans. He proves, that these Gentile Converts need not become Pro∣selytes of the Iews, nor observe the Law of Cir∣cumcision, or any other Mosaick Rite. But he tells them the right Use of Circumcision and of the Law, and bids them stand fast in the Evangelical Liberty, and be careful that they do not abuse it, but walk in Love and Meekness, Humility, Mode∣sty, and Charity, which are the Great and Noble Vertues that are to shine in the Lives of Christians. It is easily observable that the Apostle is more Warm and Vehement in this Epistle than in any of his others; the Reason of which is, because he saw his Galatians so greatly endanger'd by their listning to the perverse Reasonings of the Gnosticks (as some think) or other Iudaizing Teachers that were crept in among them, and were perswading them

to imbrace another Gospel, to di••own and reject the Principles which he had taught them, and to come off from Christianity to Iudaism. This kindles a holy Indignation in his Breast, and makes him with an unwonted Keenness and Severity cry out against them, and complain of their gross Folly, yea their wilful suffering themselves to be bewitched and infa∣tuated by those Impostors.

His Epistle to the Ephesians, i. e. the faithful Christians of Ephesus the Head-City of Asia the Less, (which was written from Rome when he was a Prisoner there) divinely sets forth the Great and Astonishing Mystery of our Redemption and Re∣conciliation, the Freeness and Riches of Grace in Christ Jesus, the Admirable Benefits and Privileges of the Gospel, the Marvelous Dispensation of God to the Gentiles in revealing Christ to them, the Excellency and Dignity of his Apostolick Charge. He adds most Pathetick Exhortations to Constancy in the Faith, notwithstanding the Calumnies of False Teachers, and the Peril of the Cross. He propounds the most Cogent Motives to Love and Unity: he urgeth the conscientious Performance of all the Duties of Religion, and gives Particular Rules and Precepts for the discharging of every Christian Office; so admirable, so Entire, so Com∣prehensive is this Part of the Apostle's Writings.

The Epistle to the Philippians (i. e. the Christians of Philippi, a City of Macedonia, and a Roman Co∣lony) was writ also when the Apostle was impri∣soned at Rome: and in it he thanks them for their Liberality towards him in his Bonds, and for their sending Epaphroditus (their Minister) with a Sup∣ply of Money to him. This Epistle is chiefly writ to them in return to this seasonable Kindness of theirs, and (as that to the Galatians was the Sharp∣est,

so this) is the Smoothest and Sweetest, the most Endearing and Pathetick of all St. Paul's Epi∣stles, and is fullest of Paternal Affection. He here likewise takes notice of and extols their Profici∣ency in the Gospel, and then labours to confirm them in it: he exhorts them to Increase and Perse∣vere in the Christian Faith, to bear their Persecu∣tions with Patience and Constancy of Mind, to be Humble and Peaceable, and to be Loving to one another. He cautions them against Seducers and False Teachers, who bad them rely on the Righte∣••••sness of the Law; and on the contrary assures them. that their only Trust and Dependance ought to be on the Righteousness which is of God by Faith in Christ Iesus. He earnestly beseecheth them to be Exem∣plary in their Conversations, and to live in the Practice of all Christian Duties. He lovingly and passionately Salutes them, and Prays for them: he is every where Obliging and Affectionate; in sum, the whole Epistle is written with a Pen dipp'd in Oil.

In the Epistle to the Colossians (i. e. the People of Colosse, a City in Phrygia, not far from Laodi∣eea and Hierapolis, in the Proconsular Asia, who were converted by the Preaching of Epaphras, whom St. Paul had sent to them, but now is his Fellow-Prisoner at Rome) the chief Design of the Apostle is to Reduce those that were led away by False Teachers, whether Iews or Philosophers. The former introduced the Mosaick Ceremonies and Observations the latter brought in Unsound No∣tions and Speculations, and both of them pervert∣ed the Simplicity and Purity of the Gospel. Where∣fore the Apostle endeavours to establish them in the true Evangelical Doctrine, in opposition to Iu∣daism and the Vain Deceits of Philosophy. He is ear∣nest

with them to adhere only to Christianity, and to persevere in the Practice of all those Excellent Precepts that belong to it. And accordingly first he mentions some General, and then some Particu∣lar Graces and Duties. This Epistle is of the same Tenour, Subject, and even the same Expression gene∣rally with that to the Ephesians: for the Apostle▪ about the same time that he wrote to the Ephesians▪ did so likewise to the Colossians, whilest the very same things were still fresh in his Memory: whence it is that he uses the same Words often to both.

The first Epistle to the Thessalonians (or rather the Thessalonicians, for they were Inhabitants of Thessalonica, the chief City of Macedony, and con∣verted by St. Paul, Silas, and Timothy) was writ on the Occasion of the Persecutions which those Christians felt from the Iews: and in it the Apo∣stle, after he had expressed his Joy for their Con∣version and Sincerity of Faith, exhorts them to Constancy and Perseverance in his Doctrine, and not to be discouraged by their Sufferings, but to continue in the Practice of Holiness as well as in the Profession of the Gospel. To encourage them to which he reminds them of his Boldness, Faith∣fulness, Sincerity, Affectionateness in preaching the Gospel to them, and of his Present Care and Concernedness for them. He gives several Parti∣cular Precepts of Charity and Piety, and warns them of Christ's Second Coming, of which he adds a very Lively Description.

In his Second Epistle he corrects some Misinter∣pretations which had been made by them of what he had said in the first: For it seems they mistook the Apostle concerning the Coming of Christ, as if it were presently to happen, whereas (as he ac∣quaints them) there must first be a Visible Depar∣ture

and Declension from the Faith; and the Man of Sin (whom he briefly delineates) must appear in the World before that Day cometh. He heartens and encourages them under their Sufferings, and admonisheth them to continue in their Duty, from the Consideration of the Certainty of Christ's Ap∣pearing: he prays most ardently and affectionately for them, and interchangeably craveth their Pray∣ers for him. These are the Choice and Admirable Contents of these Epistles.

In the first Epistle to Timothy there are many Re∣markable things treated of, namely, the Right Use of the Law, Praying for all Mankind, Wo∣mens modest Apparel, their Silence in the Churches, the Apostacy of the latter times, the Duty of Servants, the Gain of Godliness, the Mischief of Covetousness, besides several other Heads that are only glanced at. But the main thing insisted and enlarged upon is Timothy's Duty as he was a Bishop, where we have an Excellent and Compleat Character of a Faithful Ruler or Over∣seer of the Church. Here he is directed how to behave himself in that High Calling, how to dis∣charge all the Offices of that Sacred Function. Up∣on which Account this Epistle may justly be stiled a Pastoral Letter, because it doth more immediately concern those Persons who have the Charge of Christ's Flock, and have the Honour to be Guides and Instructers of Souls. Here they may be taught all the Parts of their Ministerial Employment, here they may furnish themselves with Exact Rules of their Duty. This is the best Rubrick and Canon for this Purpose. Nor are there wanting particular Instructions concerning the Deacons Office, and concerning Elders.

And such is the Second Epistle, where in likewise are farther Directions about the Office and Beha∣viour of an Evangelical Bishop: and he is exhorted to all Vigilancy, Patience, Prudence, Faithfulness, Diligence and Constancy in the Ministerial Functi∣on, notwithstanding the Labours and Afflictions which accompany it, notwithstandi••g the Discou∣ragements, Hardships and Sufferings which attend the conscientious Discharge of it. Besides many Other Things of great Moment there is inserted a Prophecy concerning the Impious Seducers that should come in the last Days, with a particular De∣scription of them.

The Epistle to Titus is of the same Nature with those former ones, (especially the first to Timothy) wherein he gives Directions how he ought to de∣mean himself as a true Evangelical Bishop or Pa∣stor, inserting the Lively Pourtraiture of such an Officer in the Church. For which Reason it is more peculiarly sitted for the Use of those who are in∣vested with that High Character in the Ministry of the Church. But there are also Instructions be∣longing to those of another Rank, and to all Chri∣stians in general; for they are enjoined to be sub∣ject to Principalities and Powers, to live soberly, righ∣teously and godlily, to maintain good Works, to avoid foolish Questions and Controversies, and (in brief) to behave themselves in their several Stations as it becometh the Followers of Christ: So full, so large, so pregnant is this Short Epistle.

The Epistle to Philemon was written by the Apo∣stle from Rome when he was in Prison, upon this particular Occasion; Philemon, one of St. Paul's Converts, and afterwards a Fellow-Labourer with him in the Gospel, had a Servant who defrauded him, and then ran away from him, and coming to

Rome when St. Paul was Prisoner there, was con∣verted by him; whereupon he sends him back again to his Master with this Epistle, wherein he desires Philemon to forgive his fugitive Servant, and to be reconciled to him, and to receive him again into his Service and Favour, and to look up∣on him as a Christian Brother rather than a Servant. This the Apostle pursues with Expressions of ex∣traordinary Love and Compassion towards Onesi∣mu••, whom he had begotten in his Bonds, and with great Tenderness and Affection to Philemon, who was also his son in the Lord; and in his Behaviour towards both he shews the Authority and Bowels of a Spiritual Father.

The Epistle to the Hebrews (i. e. to those Con∣verted Jews whom St. Paul had known in Iudea and Syria, or who were dispersed in other Coun∣tries, and at that time being persecuted by the Unbelieving Iews, began to fall off from the Chri∣stian Faith, and the Assemblies of the Faithful) was written to establish them in Christianity, to assert the Preh••minence of Christ above Moses, and the Preference of the New Testament to the Old; to shew that the Priesthood of Christ was pre••i∣gured by that of Melchisedec, and that it far ••ur∣passed the Aaronical or Levitical Priesthood; to evince the Excellency of the Evangelical Dispen∣sation above that of the Law; to prove that the Mosaick Rites and Ceremonies were abolished, be∣ing all accomplish'd in Iesus our High Priest, espe∣cially that all the Legal Sacrifices were fulfill'd in his once offering up himself upon the Cross for us, and that this Offering was Satisfactory unto God the Father for the Sins of the World. This is ma∣naged with very strong Reasoning, with a very sin∣gular and close Application, and with such a pe∣culiar

Light and Spirit as this Divine Penman was Master of. This I may truly say, that this Part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the most illustrious Confutation of the Socinian Heresy that is in the whole New Testament. For here is plainly and fully asserted the Efficacy of Christ's offering him∣self as a Sacrifice on the Cross for the expiating the Sins of Mankind. In sundry Particulars this is most demonstratively proved, that a Compleat and Full Satisfaction was made unto God by his Death: which for ever confounds that impious and blasphe∣mous Doctrine of Socinus and his Followers,1 1.452 that the Sufferings of Christ had no more Virtue and Efficacy in them than the Sufferings of any mere Man whatsoever. After the Apostle had thus maintain'd the transcendent Worth and Virtue of our Saviour's Priesthood, and thence undeniably in∣ferr'd that the Gospel is a most Admirable and Ex∣cellent Institution, he exhorts them to a constant Profession of it without wavering, and to a Holy Life and Conversation sutable to so excellent •• Doctrine: he with great Industry endeavours to convince them of the Danger of Apostacy, he con∣firms them in the Christian Doctrine amidst all the Persecutions and Difficulties they labour'd under. And lastly, he is solicitous to prevent their re∣volting by setting before them the most Eminent Examples of Faith and Patience. These are the Momentous Themes which are observable in this Epistle.

I know some have doubted whether this Incom∣parable Epistle be St. Paul's, and others have ab∣solutely

denied that it is his, yet still allowing that it was written by some Inspired Person, and be∣longs to the Canon of Holy Scripture. The Learned Grotius endeavours to prove that St. Luke wrote it. But for my Part I have no Inclination to believe that any other Person than St. Paul penn'd this Epistle: for this is most clear from that one Place, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Even as our beloved Brother Paul also, according to the Wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you. St. Peter here speaks to the Iews, for to them this Epistle as well as the former was writ∣ten, as appears from the Title of it,1 1.453 To the Stran∣gers scatter'd throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, i. e. the Iews dispersed up and down the World, who by St. iames are call'd2 1.454 the twelve Tribes which are scatter'd abroad. These, tho they neither lived in Palestine, nor used the He∣brew Tongue, but lived among the Greeks, and spoke that Language generally, and used the Greek Bible, viz. the Translation of the Septuagint, in their Synagogues, and were commonly known by the Name of Hellenists, and consequently were not Hebrews or Iews in the strictest and properest Sense, yet because they were of Iewish Parentage, and professed, or had once professed the Iewish Reli∣gion, they were still call'd Iews or Hebrews, and accordingly have that Denomination here. So that St. Paul here, and St. Peter and St. Iames write their Epistles to the same Persons, that is, to the Converted Iews that were dispersed abroad, especially in Greece: and, which is the Argument I make use of at present, St. Peter particularly takes notice of St. Paul's Writing to these Dis∣persed Jews. But how doth it appear that he writ

to them? Thus all the Epistles of this Apostle which we have mentioned before (excepting this which we are now speaking of) were written ei∣ther to the Churches of believing Gentiles, or to some Particular Persons (as hath been noted already): whence it follows, that seeing he wrote to the Iews or Hebrews, (as St. Peter testifies) he was the Au∣thor of this remaining Epistle which is inscribed to them. We are certain that St. Paul writ to the Iews, because St. Peter tells us so, that is, he tell•• us that St. Paul wrote to those to whom he wrote▪ but St. Peter wrote to the Iews or Hebrews both his Epistles, therefore St. Paul wrote to them like∣wise: and this Epistle to the Hebrews which we now have, must be that very Epistle, because th••r•• is no other of his to them besides it. Wherefore it is an undeniable Consequence that the Epistle to the Hebrews was writ by St. Paul, and by none else▪ which was the thing to be proved. Again, I might further add that what the Apostle Peter saith con∣cerning St. Paul's Epistles, (or concerning the Mat∣ters contain'd in them, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may refer rather to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) viz. that1 1.455 there are in them some things hard to be un∣derstood, doth agree well to the Sublime Matter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein so many Pro∣phecies, Types, Allegories and Mysteries, are treated of and applied: so that it may probably be inferr'd hence, that this Epistle is referr'd to in particular, and consequently that St. Paul was the Author of it. To corrobate this, we may subjoin the unani∣mous Testimony of the2 1.456 Greek Fathers, who gene∣rally

attribute this Epistle to St. Paul: With whom agree the Schoolmen; and all the Writers of the Church of Rome, but Erasmus and Cajetan, and Lu∣dovicus Vives, assert the same. Most of the Luthe∣rans are of this Opinion, though herein they dis∣sent from their Master Luther; and the Reformed Churches (as distinct from the Lutherans) are of the same Perswasion, though Calvin be of another Mind; which shews that there are very Cogent Reasons for this Opinion, otherwise these Parties would not dissent from their Masters. It may be added, that Our English Church in the Title calls it the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. As for the Reason of the Omission of his Name in the Be∣ginning of this Epistle, (which is not to be observ'd in his Others) perhaps it was (as Clement of Alex∣andria, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophilact, con∣jecture) because his Name was odious to most of the Iews, he having been once a Iews, but after∣wards abandon'd that Religion; wherefore he ad∣visedly left out his Name that it might not preju∣dice what he writ, and that the Epistle might not be thrown away for the Author's sake. But whe∣ther this was the Reason why his Name is not in∣serted (as in the rest of his Epistles) I am not able to determine: only I am sufficiently convinced, from what St. Peter saith, that this Epistle was writ by St. Paul; that single Testimony is Proof enough.

Here I might take occasion (having hitherto gi∣ven you a brief Account of the Excellent Matter of this Apostle's Writings, which are so great a Part of the New Testament) to speak something con∣cerning his Stile, or rather to add to what I have already said of it in another Place, under this Pro∣position, There are no Solaecisms in the Holy Writings. This I am the more willing to do, because some

have look'd upon this Apostle as a Man of no Elo∣quence, yea scarcely of any Grammar and Consi∣stency of Sense: which Imputation would argue a great Defect and Imperfection in Scripture, and therefore I am obliged to take notice of it. It is true, there are several things which render his Stile somewhat dark and perplexed in sundry Places. He brings in Objections sometimes, but doth not intimate that the Words are spoken in that way, as in Rom. 3. 5, 6, 7. and other Places; which makes the Sense difficult to those that do not carefully examine the Context. In the 4th Chap∣ter of that Epistle, ver. 1. a Negative is left out, viz. the Answer to the preceding Question, which should have been thus; No; he hath not found. And in ver. 8. the Note of Parenthesis is omitted, as 'tis in several other Places. Further, 'tis observable, that the Apostle hath sometimes references to Words and Things which he had mention'd be∣fore, but which he seem'd to have quite laid aside in his Discourse. Thus he turns back again in 2 Cor. 3. 17. and refers to what was said before in ver. 6. for those Words in the latter Place [The Lord is that Spirit] refer to the former one, where he speaks of the Spirit, i. e. the Gospel and Spiri∣tual Dispensation, in contradistinction to the Let∣ter, i. e. the Dispensation, of the Law. The Words then I interpret thus, The Lord Christ is that Spirit, he is the Blessed Author and Instituter of that Evan∣gelical and Spiritual Oeconomy which we are now under, and which brings true Liberty with it, as he adds. Many Expositors labour to tack this Text to the immediately foregoing one, but to little purpose: for they thereby make the Sense harsh and distorted, there being nothing there to which this Passage refers. But by reducing these

Words to the 6th Verse (as 'tis not unusual with this Writer to allude to some certain Expression a•• a considerable Distance) the Sense of the Place be∣comes very easy and intelligible, viz. that Christ Jesus our Blessed Lord is clearly exhibited in the Gospel, and gives Life and Spirit with this Evange∣lical Administration.

Again, it is true St. Paul's Stile is very full and running over sometimes: his Pen is frequently in a Career, and is not easily stopped. All that he saith from the first Verse of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians till you come to the fif∣teenth Verse, is but one single Period. And in some other Places he spins out his Subject into a Thread of almost the same Length. From this Fulness of Matter it proceeds that he makes so ma∣ny Excursions in his Writings, which seem some∣times to Persons who take no notice of his sudden Transitions, to be very Incoherent. Thus when he was proving the Dignity of Christ's Priesthood, he undertakes to shew that he was a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, of whom, saith he, we have many things to say, Heb. 5. 11. but yet he saith no∣thing of him till the seventh Chapter; the Re∣mainder of the fifth Chapter, and the whole sixth being spent in a long Digression. But you may ob∣serve a far longer in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. 3. v. 1, 2. What Advantage hath the Iew, o•• what Profit is there in Circumcision? Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the Ora∣cles of God. Where you see he begins to reckon up the Advantages and Privileges of the Iews, (and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I conceive, should not be translated chiefly, but first) and yet here he names but One of them, for an Objection (which he un∣dertakes to answer and enlarge upon) takes him off

for many Chapters together, and he returns not again till ch. 9. v. 4. where he enumerates the rest of the Privileges. And several other Instances might be assigned of his launching out into Discourses which seem to be foreign to his purpose, which render his Stile somewhat abrupt, and his Sense in∣tricate. He had begun a Comparison, Rom. 5. 12. As by one Man Sin entred, &c. but then he strikes in with a Parenthesis in the next Verse, which hin∣ders him from finishing what he began till the 18th Verse, Even so by the Righteousness of one, &c. Nay rather, he forsakes the Comparison, and riseth above it, finding the Grace in Christ Iesus rise high∣er than the Condemnation that came by Adam. Whereas he began with an [as], and should have followed it with a [so], he turns this into a [much more] v. 15, 17. and then at last comes about to compleat the Comparison as he had first begun it, v. 18. There is a plain Parenthesis from the 1st Verse to the 7th in the first Chapter to the Romans. There is another somewhat longer in 1 Cor. 11. which begins at v. 23. and lasts to the 33d. So in the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 3. when he had said, For this Cause I Paul the Prisoner of Iesus Christ for you Gentiles, V. 1. he presently runs into a Paren∣thesis, which continues till the 14th Verse, where he leaves off his Digression and proceeds, For this Cause, &c. Thus the Redundancy of his Matter and Sense makes him interrupt himself, and lard his Discourse with frequent Digressions, and divert his Reader oftentimes from the present Subject he is upon. But notwithstanding this, no Man that is Master of any Eloquence himself, or understands the Laws of it in others, can ••asten any such thing as Illiterate, Blunt, Vnfashion'd Language upon the Apostle.

It is true he terms himself rude in Speech, 2 Cor. 11. 6. whence1 1.457 One gathers that he was but a Bad Speaker; for we cannot think, saith he, that he told a Lie out of Humility. But I reply, we cannot on∣ly think, but we must know, that the Apostle de∣baseth himself here out of Christian Modesty, as when he stiles himself the least of the Apostles, 1 Cor. 15. 9. yea, less th••n the least of all Saints, Eph. 3. 8. Will any one say that he tells a Lie here, though he was the Greatest Apostle, and one of the Great∣est of Saints? Besides, he might not unjustly stile himself rude in Speech in this respect, that he so fre∣quently treats of Difficult and Abstruse Points, which are not easily express'd, but are and must be clothed in such Language as is harsh, uncouth, and unusual▪ When he discourses of Predestination, of Faith, of Iustification, of the Last Times, of the Son of Perdition, of the Day of Vengeance on the E∣nemies of Christianity, of the Time of the Coming of our Lord, (yea St. Peter tells us in that in all his Epistles there are some things hard to be understood) it is no wonder that his Speech is obscure, and that he seems to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Mysterious and Profound Subjects which he insists upon, and which cannot be spoken out plainly, cause him to be thought such. His Rudeness of Speech may be understood as the Foolishness of Preaching, i. e. that it seemed such to some Persons, though it was not really•• so in it self. But though the Great Apostle was pleas'd to diminish himself, and to speak mean∣ly of his way of Writing and Discourse, and tho his Adversaries or Pretended Friends were wont to vili••y his manner of Speaking, yet let not us conceal or disguise his Excellent Gift of expressing

himself in his Writings. He was certainly a Great Master of Language and Discourse: and indeed we could reasonably expect no other from his Educa∣tion, which furnish'd him with all sorts of Learn∣ing; for as he was born at Tarsus, so it is likely he was brought up in the same Place, which was then an Academy, and thence sent to Ierusalem, where he sat at the Feet of Gamaliel: so that he was Master both of Heathen and Iewish Learning. It is a Mistake of some Learned Writers of very great Note, that St. Paul's Writings are full of Solaecisms, he being an Hebrew, and understanding little Greek. This, I say, is a Mistake, for he was a Gr••cian by Birth, for Cilicia was in Greece; and 1 1.458 we read that the Inhabitants of Tarsus (his Birth-place) did strive to equal the Athenians in the Stu∣dy of Good Letters and Humane Learning. We may then reasonably think that St. Paul, tho he was an Hebrew by Parentage, was well skill'd i•• Greek, it being his native Tongue. Therefore a 2 1.459 Mode••n Critick of great Acuteness hath well ob∣serv'd, that the Greek Tongue was as familiar to him as Hebrew or Syriac. Shall any rational Ma•• then think that he was not able to speak Properly and Grammatically? Nay, shall we not conclud•• from his Admirable Writings that he knew how to pla••e his Words, and to speak with a good Grace? St. Ierom, who particularly takes notice that St▪ Paul's Writings are full of Parentheses, Transitions▪ Digressions, Concise and Abrupt Sayings, yet ac∣knowledgeth that he was a most Astonishing peaker, and3 1.460 Thundered as often as he spoke. Yea▪ tho on the 3d Chapter of the Epistle to the

Ephesians he hints that St. Paul's Writings were destitute of Rhetorick, yet at4 1.461 another time (to let us know that he said not this absolutely) he owns him to be flumen Eloquentiae, a Flood, or ra∣ther a Torrent of True Eloquence. Eusebius, who was a Good Judg of Eloquence, pronounceth St. Paul a5 1.462 most Powerful Spokesman, and one that was admirably skill'd in the whole Parade and Fur∣niture of Words, and could do more this way than the most Celebrated Orators among the Pagans. so that6 1.463 Luther was in the right when he said, One of St. Paul's Words containeth well three of Tully's Ora∣tions. In fine, no Tongue can express the Excel∣lency of his Profound Writings, which not only comprise in them all the Depths and Mysteries of Christianity, and astonish us with their High and Heavenly Matter, but moreover do furnish us with many Elegancies and Embellishments of Oratory, with many Florid and well Composed Periods, and abound every where with a most Winning Elo∣quence, with the Charms of a most Melting and Affectionate Rhetorick; insomuch that in some of his Epistles his Warmest Blood seems to be the Ink he wrote with, and every Leaf is as it were the very Membrane of his Heart.

Besides St. Paul's Epistles, which are fourteen in all, there are seven others, viz. one of St. Iames, two of St. Peter, three of St. Iohn, and one of St. Iude; all which (except the two latter of St. Iohn) are call'd Catholick or General Epistles, because they were not directed to Particular Churches in one Place, but to the Dispersed Converts through a great Part of the World.

St. Iames's Epistle was written to the Christian Jews that dwelt in other Regions besides Iudea, who consisted partly of the Ten Tribes carried cap∣tive by Salmanassar King of Assyria, who never, that we read of, return'd again, and partly of the Two Tribes, many of which still remain'd in Exile: wherefore St. Iames sends this Epistle to the Twelve Tribes scatter'd abroad. The two main things in it are first concerning the Affictions and Persecutions which were to be undergone for Christ's sake; where he exhorts them to Patience under those great Trials. Secondly, concerning the Necessity of a Holy Life, where he shews them that Justifying Faith must ••e known and manifested by Good Works. Besides, many Excellent Caveats and Admonitions are intermingled touching Riches, Covetousness, Hearing the Word, Swearing, Un∣ruliness of the Tongue, Envy, Wrath, Pride, Rash Judging of others, Self-Confidence, Forget∣fulness of God's Soveraignty and Providence in the World, and sundry other things of very great Use in the Lives of Christians, especially of those that are in Affliction and Adversity. Wherefore this Epistle is chiefly calculated for such.

St. Peter also (who was the Apostle of the Circum∣••ision) writes to the Dispersed Iews, (such as were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, (i. e. the Lesser) and Bithynia, five Provinces of the Roman Empire) those that voluntarily lived among the Gentiles ever since the Great Dispersion, and were now become Christians, and fared the worse among the Heathens and Obstinate Jews for being so. And perhaps here may be meant those likewise that by Persecution were driven from their Homes in Iudea, and therefore are called Strangers, 1 Epist, ch. 1. v. 1. To these distressed Iews, or of

what kind soever they were (for1 1.464 St. Augustine and 2 1.465 some others think the Converted Gentiles in seve∣ral Countries are not here excluded) he writeth his first Epistle, to confirm and strengthen them in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and in the Profession of the Christian Faith which they had hitherto made, and to exhort them to a Greater Pro••iciency in it, and to comfort them in their Persecutions against the Scandal of the Cross; and lastly, to stir them up to the Exercise of all Christian Graces and Duties, many of which, as Mutual Love, Pa∣tience, Watchfulness, Perseverance, Obedience to Magistrates, with the particular Duties of Ser∣vants to their Masters, of Husbands and Wives to∣wards one another, of Spiritual Pastors towards their Flock, he most excellently (though briefly) describeth.

His Second Epistle (for it is undoubtedly his, as well as the first, though Hugo Grotius, or he that publish'd those Posthumous Annotations, labours to offer Arguments to the contrary, which are ener∣vated by Dr. Hammond in his Notes on this Epistle) is of the same Nature with the first, exhorting the Believing Jews to a Life worthy of Christians, to add one Vertue to another, and to increase in all the Graces of the Holy Spirit. He asserts the Truth and Authority of the Gospel, he shews the Danger of Backstiding, he warns them against He∣retical Teachers and Profane Scoffers that should come in the last Days, of whom he gives a very Lively Character in several remarkable Particulars. He voucheth the Certainty of Christ's Coming to Judgment, and the Conflagration of the World,

and thence infers the Reasonableness of preparing themselves for that last Catastrophe by a blameless Life and Conversation. All which is express'd in most apt and choice Words, and with that Con∣cernedness and Zeal which became so Eminent an Apostle.

The first Epistle of St. John (which is called Ca∣tholick or General, as being written to all the Chri∣stian Jews wheresoever they were) is partly direct∣ed against Seducers and Impostors (whom he calls Antichrists) risen up in those Days, who subverted the Fundamentals of Religion, but more especially the Deity and Humanity of Christ, as the Simoni∣ans, Gnosticks, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Ebioni••es▪ and others mention'd by1 1.466 Epiphanius and2 1.467 Austin▪ whence he adviseth the Christians to try the Spirits, and not to be too credulous and hasty in imbracing every Doctrine that is offer'd them. He hath ob∣••ervable Notices concerning the grand Privilege of Adoption, concerning the Love of the World, concerning the Sin unto Death. But the main De∣sign of this Epistle is to urge a Godly and Righte∣ous Life, to convince those who are called by Christ's Name of the Necessity of their walking answerably to it. Indeed this Apostle was forced (as St. Iames before was) to write on this subject, to press Good Works and Outward Righteousness, because some in those Days turned the Grace of God into Licentiousness, making Faith exclude all External Acts and Works of Holiness. Where∣fore he offers several Plain Marks and Tokens whereby they may certainly know whether they be Real Christians, truly Religious, and the Chil∣dren of God. The Sum of all he propounds is

this, that if they love God and their Brethren, and demonstrate this Love by the proper and ge∣••••ine Fruits of it, then they may conclude they are Christians indeed; otherwise they are mere strangers to Christianty, and to all Religion, they deceive themselves, and there is no Truth in them. This the Beloved Disciple and Divine Amorist in∣cul••ates with that Spirit, Warmth and Earnest∣ness, which so Weighty a Subject deserves.

His second Epistle is written to the Elect Lady and her Children, that is, saith St.1 1.468 Ierom, to some Emi∣nent Select Church in Asia, and to all the Christi∣ans belonging to it; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Athenians, and Curia with the Romans, are of the same Import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Assembly. Perhaps Ephesus is meant, saith a2 1.469 Learned Man, which was the Me∣tropolis of Asia, and so may more signally be call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it is the general Opinion of the Antients and Moderns, that a person, not a Church, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meant here; and that St. Iohn (the Evangelist, not another Presbyter of that Name, as St.3 1.470 Ierom thinks) writes to a Vertuous Lady, who was an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Servant of Christ, a very Godly and Religi∣ons Woman: or it may be her Proper Name was 4 1.471 Elect, as a Learned Critick hath conjectured: Which may seem the more probable, because the word hath no Article prefix'd to it. It was usual with our Saviour himself (as the Evangelical Wri∣tings inform us) to make his Applications to those of this Sex, to cherish and commend their Vertues. It is particularly recorded, that5 1.472 of the Chief Wo∣men (afterwards call'd6 1.473 Honourable Women) not a

few were St. Paul's Proselytes. And to descend lower, we read that St. Ierom took great Pains in instructing the Roman Ladies, and in commending and incouraging their Study of the Holy Scrip∣tures. Yea, many of his Writings were directed and dedicated to Noble Women, Widows and Virgins, as Paula, Eustochium, Salvina, Celantia, and several others that were Roman Ladies, and of noble Extraction. Such is our Elect here, who is the only Person of that Sex to whom an Inspired Epistle is written. She is commended for her ver∣tuous bringing up her Children, she is exhorted to abide in the Doctrine of Christ, to perservere in the Truth, and to be careful to avoid all Delusions of False Teachers. But chiefly the Apostle be∣seecheth this Noble Matron to practise the great and indispensable Commandment of Christian Love and Charity.

His third Epistle was writ to Gaius, a Converted Iew, (or Gentile, as others think, because he hath a Roman Name) a Man of a fair Estate, and who had been very bountiful and hospitable to the Saints. The Design of the Epistle is to own and commend his Hospitality, especially his seasonable Bene••icence and Charity to Strangers, to those that were Exiles for the Cause of Christianity, and to stir him up to continue in the Exercise of the same Charity and Liberality to the distressed Bre∣thren. Demetrius is propounded as an eminent Example of this, for which and all other Vertues he had the good Report of all Men, yea and of the Truth it self; that is, as he was spoken well of by every one, so he really deserv'd it. On the other side, he complains of the Uncharitable, Insolent and Am∣bitious Diotrephes, a Prating Opposer not only of him and his Doctrine, but of all the true Servants of Iesus.

The General Epistle of Iude or Iudas, as we ren∣der it in Iohn 14. 22. (it being the same Name with that of the Traitor, for it is no unusual thing for good and bad Men to have the same Names; as in the Old Testament Eliab, Iehu, Hananiah, &c. in the New Testament Simon, Iohn, Ananias, are Instances of this). This Epistle, I say, of this Good Apostle with a Bad Man's Name was written to all Christian Churches, or at least to all the Iew∣ish Christians Dispersed; (the same to whom St. Iames and St. Peter wrote) wherein he exhorts them to contend for the Faith, against those Dream∣ing Hereticks and Seducers that were at that time crept into the Church, whose Erroneous Tenents and Ungodly Practices he here particularly deci∣phers, and from the Examples of God's Venge∣ance on other Great Offenders infers the Certain∣ty of these Mens Ruine. In short, this Epistle hath all the Marks of a true Apostolick Spirit, and is of the same Argument with the second Epistle of St. Peter, and is a kind of Epitome of it: and there∣fore I need not be very Particular in rehearsing the Contents.

The last Book of the New Testament is the Reve∣lation of St. John the Divine, which Epithet is sig∣nally given to him here, because of the Divinity and Sublimity of his Raptures, because he (of all the Apostles) had the greatest Communications of Divine Mysteries. It may be referr'd either to the Historical Books or to the Epistles; to the for∣mer, because it is a Prophetick History of the State of the Church from the Apostles times to the end of the World: to the latter, because it is in the Form of an Epistle, (after the three first Verses, by way of Preface) viz. to the Seven Churches of Asia, at first planted by, and now under the Go∣vernment

of St. Iohn: and as it begins, so it ends after the usual way of concluding Epistles, The Grace of our Lord Iesus ••brist be with you all. Amm. Concerning the precise time when St. Iohn receiv'd▪ and when he wrote this Revelation, there is some Dispute: but the most probable (if not the most generally received) Opinion is, that he being ••••∣nish'd into Patmos (an Isle in the Archipelago, si∣tuated about forty Miles from the Continent of Asia) by Domitian, (under whom was the Second persecution) this Revelation was deliver'd to him about the middle of the Emperor's Reign, (but at several times) and that he committed it to Wri∣ting about the latter end of it. As to the Visions themselves, I will not here particularly in••ist upon any of them; only in general it is commonly said and believed, that the Vision of the Seals sets forth the State of the Church under the Heathen Persec••∣tions, from Nero to the end of Dioclesian's Persec••∣tion: the Vision of the Trumpets (which follows that) shews the Calamity of the Church by Her••∣sies, Schisms and Persecutions afterwards, in the times succeeding the Pagan Roman Emperors, viz. under Papacy. And then the Vials tell what Ven∣geance befals the Papal Antichrist, and all the Churches Enemies. So that the Seals, Trumpets and Vials give an Account of the three Grand Pe∣riods of the Church. There is great Probability of this: but I must add, (and I will offer it to the Reader as a thing necessary to be taken notice of in order to the right understanding of this Book) that the Order of Time and History is not always observ'd here: things are not related constantly in a certain continued Method and Series, nor are we to understand or take them as written so. A great and prevailing Mistake it hath been to think

that the Course and Order of Time are duly and all along observ'd in these Writings. Whereas to a considerate Person it will appear that there is no such thing, and that the Chapters are not writ and disposed in any Method.

This, because it may be look'd upon and cen∣sured as a New Notion, I will make good thus; the Day of Iudgment is represented and described three or four times in these Visions and Revelati∣ons, as first at the opening of the Sixth Seal, ch. 6. v. 12, to the end: where the Description of the Last Day agrees exactly with others in the New Testament, especially that of our Saviour in Mat. 24. and therefore to allegorize it, where there is no Occasion for it, is unreasonable. If it be said, that the Disorder of the Sun, Moon and Stars (which is here spoken of) signifies sometimes tem∣poral Judgments, as the Destruction of Babylon, Isa. 13. 10. and of Egypt, Ezek. 32. 7. I answer, that though it doth so, yet these Remarkable Judgments and Devastations were Figures and Re∣presentations of the Last and Terrible one, and were so design'd by Heaven, and therefore this may well be set forth to us by the Holy Ghost in this manner: nay, the darkning of the Sun and Moon, and the like Expressions, are but Metaphori∣cal in those former Instances, but here are Proper, Natural and Real, and therefore ought so to be understood in this Place. Again, St. Iohn hath another Revelation of this Great Day, in the End of the 11th Chapter, from ver. 15, to the Close of the Chapter: but especially those plain Words in ver. 18. Thy Wrath is come, and the time of the Dead that they should be judged, place it beyond all doubt that the Final Iudgment of the last Day is here meant. Again, the Seventh Vial mention'd, Rev. 16. 17.

which contains the Last Plague, is no other than the Indignation and Punishment of That Day, as appears from the Prodigies which accompany it, and particularly from what is said, ver. 20. Every Island fled away, and the Mountains were not found, which expresses the terrible Dissolution of the World at that time. Besides that it is observable in the Conclusion of the preceding Vial, which made way for this last, that Christ saith, I come as a Thief, v. 15. which manner of Expression is par∣ticularly applied and made use of when the Day of Iudgment is spoken of, Mat. 24. 43. 1 Thess. 5. 2, 4▪ 2 Pet. 3. 10. And lastly, in the 20th Chapter, from the 11th Verse to the end, there is another Vi∣sion of this Last and General Appearance of the World, as is universally acknowledg'd by Inter∣preters, and therefore we need not stand to clear it. Now from all this it is evident, that there is not observed in the Visions of this Book an Histori∣cal Order or Course of Time; for if there were, the General Day of Doom, which is the last thing of all, could not be represented here three or four times: This must have come in the shutting up of all, when all other things were past, whereas now we see it is represented in the Beginning, in the Middle, and in the End of these Revelations: Which, if it be well attended to, is one admira∣ble Key to open the Secrets of this Book, for hence we understand that this Prophecy is not (what it hath been thought to be) one Entire Historical Narration of what shall be, and that first one thing is foretold, and then what follows that in time is next set down, and so on in order. No; the Day of Judgement being thrice at least inserted, shews, that the Visions of this Book end, and then begin again, and then have a Period, and commence

again, and after that the same or the like Scene is opened, and things of the same Nature are repeat∣ed. Which is a most evident Argument that this Book consists of Three or Four Grand Prophecies or Prophetick Representations of the Condition of Christ's Church from the time when this was ••••nned to the Consummation of all things. Here are represented by different Types, Prophetick Symbols and Visions, the most remarkable things which happen on the Stage of the World, and the•• are these three, the Troubles and Persecutions which ••befal the Servants of the most High, the ••••liver••••de of them out of those Trials, and God's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••••shing of their Enemies. These you will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 set forth and illustrated by diverse Schemes and Apparitions, by different and reiterated Re∣••••esentations. And the Reason why things, tho the same, are diversly represented, i. e. in diffe∣••••nt Visions over and over again, and why they are express'd in different Terms and Words, the ••••••son (I say) why they are so often repeated, is, ••••••use they so often come to pass in the several Ages of the World by the wise Disposal of Provi∣••••no••. These Prophecies have been, and they ••••all be yet fulfilled: for the State of the Church, as to the Cruelty of its Enemies and Persecutors, and the Wonderful Deliverance from them, and Avenging their Cause upon their Heads, is the same in different Ages, until the time when Baby∣•••••• shall fall, and never rise again. To use the Words of a most Eminent and Learned Bishop of our own;

1 1.474One may easily see (saith he) that Rome is here intended; and not Pagan but Chri∣stian Rome, which is degenerated into an Ido∣latrous

and Tyrannical State. It is easy to see in the Book of the Revelation, that the Roman Church is doomed in due time to Destruction.

You see then how Useful this Book is, you may be convinc'd of the Truth of what is said in the Beginning of it, Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the Words of this Propheoy, ch. 1. v. 3. Th•• we cannot so clearly descny the Particular and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dividual Things, times and Person•• contain'd in t•••• tho this last Book of the Holy Scripture be in this Respect the Obscurest of them all, tho in some Places there be1 1.475 as many Mysteries as Words, yet thus far it is properly Revelation, that herein the State of the Christian Church, and the Particular Methods of God's Providence towards it in all times are plainly revealed and discovered to us plainly, I say, because they are so often repeated, that it is impossible to mistake them. As Phara••••'s Dream was doubled to shew the Certainty of the things represented, Gen. 41. 32. so these Prophe∣cies and Visions are doubled, and tribbled; yea more than so, to assure us of the Certain Truth and Reality of these Events, to confirm us in this Perswasion, that tho the Church of Christ here on Earth be often troubled and persecuted, yet she hath her times of Restoration and Reviving, and there is a time of Vengeance and Recompence to her Enemies, even in this World, but more especially at the Close of it, when Christ shall come to Judgment.

Thus I have attempted to evince the Perfection of Scripture by enumerating all the Books of both TESTA∣MENTS, and giving you a brief Account of them These Excellent and Incomparable Books are the

True Pandects indeed, the Books that comprehend all, that treat of every thing that is necessary. They are the most Valuable Collection of Writings under Heaven, they are of all the Books in the World the most worthy of all Acceptation, because they are our Infallible Rule and Surest Guide to Wisdom, Holiness and Blessedness, to the Attain∣ment of the most Desirable Things here, and of the most Eligible hereafter. If this and all that I have said before do not prove them to be Compleats and Perfect, I despair of ever telling you what will.

CHAP. XI.

None of the Books of the Holy Scripture are lost: Not the Book of the Covenant: Nor the Book of the Wars of the Lord: Nor the Book of Iasher: Nor the Acts of Vzziah. An Account of the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Pro∣phet, the Book of Gad the Seer, the Book of Iddo, the Books of Shemaiah, Iehu, &c. What is to be thought concerning the Books of Solomon, men∣tion'd Kings 4. 32. 33. Objections drawn from Jam. 4. 5. from Luke 11. 49. from Acts 20. 35. from Judev. 14. from 1 Cor. 5. 9. from Col. 4. 16. fully satisfied. Other Objections from 1 Cor. 7. 6, 12, 25 2 Cor. 8. 8. & 11. 17. particularly an∣swer'd.

But tho this be a clear and demonstated Truth, yet it is question'd and doubted of by some. Wherefore the Fourth General Undertaking which I propounded was this, to clear the Point of those Objections, which are wont to be brought

against it, and to shew that notwithstanding these the Prefection of Scripture is unshaken.

First, Some tell us that there is a considerable Number of Books mention'd or quoted in Scrip∣ture, as the Books of the Covenant, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Iasher, &c. which seem to have been once a Part of this Holy Volume, but now are lost. Among the Fathers1 1.476 St. Chry∣sostom (who is followed by Theophilact) is of this Opinion. Bellarmine and several of the Papists hold it. Yea, some Protestants acknowledg as much: Calvin and Musculus, and our Whitaker en∣cline this way. And Drusius is very angry with any Man that denies that there any Books of Holy Scripture missing. Now, if this be true, there is ground to complain of a Defect and Imperfection in the Sacred Writings, by reason of the loss of these Books. That therefore which I am to under∣take here, is to shew that there are no Books men∣tioned in Scripture, as belonging to it, but what are now to be found in it, and are really a Part of it, and consequently that the Holy Writings are not Defective, that the Body of Sacred Scripture is not Maimed and Imperfect.

First, As to the Book of the Covenant mention'd in Exod. 24. 7. which some fancy is lost, it is not any distinct Book from the Body of the Iewish Laws. If we impartially weigh the Place, we shall find that it is no other than a Collection▪ or Volume of those several Injunctions and Institutions which we read in the foregoing Chapters (viz. 20, 21, 22, 23.) which God delivered to Moses on the Mount. It is the very same with the Book of the Law, De••t. 31. 9. That which hath caused a different Per∣swasion

in some is this, that these Laws are call'd a Book: but I shall make it evident afterwards that this Appellation is of a great latitude, and is ap∣plied to any sort of Writing by the Hebrews.

Secondly, As for the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14. which is thought to be now wanting, the Answer given by some is, that this was an Apo∣crypbal Author, and so cannot be said to belong to the Holy Scriptures, and consequently the loss of this Book doth not argue the Imperfection of the Bible. But tho this way of Solution be tolerable, when made use of as to some Other Books hereaf∣ter mentioned, yet I think there is no need at all of using it here, because it is not unlikely, accor∣ding to the Judgment of our1 1.477 Learned English Rab∣••i, that Moses refers here to himself, and a Book of his own composing; for we read that upon the Discomfiture of Amalek God commanded Moses to write it for a Memorial in a Book, Exod. 17. 14. and (as it follows) to rehearse it in the Ears of Jo∣shua. So that it may seem to have been some Book of Directions written by Moses for Ioshua's managing of the Wars after him. Thus this Learned Writer makes this Book only to be of pri∣vate use, and dictated by an Ordinary, not a Di∣vine Spirit: wherefore it cannot be one of the Books of the Bible. And if this be true, then though it be lost, yet no Canonical Scripture is lost hereby. But from what I shall propound, I think it will be found reasonable to believe that the Book in this Place mention'd is one of the received Books of the Old Testament, i. e. it is the Book of Iudges, which deservedly hath the Name of the Book of the Wars of the Lord, because it recounts

those Warlike Enterprizes which those Hero••ck Spirits stirr'd up by God in an extraordinary Man∣ner were famous for. Or Milchamoth Iehovah, the Wars of the Lord, are as much as the Great, Wonderful and Renowned Wars (for perhaps the Name of God is used here, as in several other Pla∣ce, to augment the Sense, and to express the Greatness and Excellency of the Thing) fought by the Valiant Iews. To any one that consults the Text together with the 26th v. of that Chapter, it will plainly appear that this Passage particular∣ly refers to the 11th Chapter of Iudges, v. 15 16, 17. But if you ask how Moses, who was dead long before, could write this? I answer, though he undoubtedly writ the Book of Numbers, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, yet some few Passa∣ges in this and the other Books may reasonably be supposed to be inserted afterwards by some other Inspired Persons, as I have had Occasion to adver∣tise before. Ezra, it is likely, revising this Book, added this of what God did in the Red Sea, and at the Brooks of Arnon. And to give yet more ample Sa∣tisfaction to this Scruple, I desire it may be obser∣ved, that though we translate the Text thus, It is said in the Book of the Wars, &c. yet in the Origi∣nal the Verb is in the future Tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dice∣ture, it shall be said: and so we may look upon it as a Prophecy of Moses. He here foretels that after∣wards it shall be commemorated how God fought for his People. When there shall be at solemn Times a Rehearsal of the Jewish Wars, then this Passage shall be call'd to mind and made mention of. And then we must look upon these two Verses, not as cited out of the Book of Iudges, but proposed to be inserted there afterwards. The plain An∣swer then is, that the Book of the Wars of the Lord

is the Book of Iudges, together with that of Ioshua, where are related the Particulars of the Holy War, i. e. the War of the Jews against the Infidels, and that in one of these it shall be particularly remem∣bred and recorded what God did in the Red Sea, and in the Brooks of Arnon, &c. and accordingly we find it inserted in the forecited Place in Iudges. Thus you see it can't be proved hence that the Church hath lost any Part of the Book of God.

Another Book said by some to be lost is the Book of Iasher, mention'd in Iosh. 10. 13. & 2 Sam. 1. 18. But some of the most celebrated Hebrew Doctors say they have found it, telling us that it is the Book of Genesis, wherein are contain'd the Acts of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob▪ and other Patri∣archs, who were by way of Excellence call'd Ia∣sherim, Recti, Iusti. But surely that Man is easi∣ly satisfied who can acquiesce in this. Dr. Light∣foot holds the Book of Iasher to be the same with that which I asserted the Book of the Wars of God to be: But there is little Foundation for it, for though the particular Narrative of the Sun's stand∣ing still, be in the Book of Iasher, (as we learn from the Text) yet there is no intimation that all Io∣shua's Wars, or the Wars of the Israelites were re∣gistred there. This Book was according to the Excellent1 1.478 Grotius an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Triumphal Poem, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was for the Verse sake contracted into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But though this be very Ingenious▪ yet it wants solidity, and it is not probable that the Word would be twice mention'd (i. e. both in the Book of Ioshua, and in the 2d Book of Samuel) in its Abbreviated Form. The Learned2 1.479 Iewish Historian seems to me to bid fairest for Truth, who

••aith by this Book are to be understood certain Re∣cords kept in some safe Place on purpose, and af∣terwards in the Temple, giving an Account of what happen'd among the Jews from Year to Year, and particularly the Prodigy of the Sun's standing still, and the Directions and Laws about the Vse of the Bow, i. e. setting up of Archery, and maintai••∣ing Military Exercises. And if it be ask'd why the Title given to these Jewish Annals was the Book of Iasher, i. e. Rects, this may be rendered as a pro∣bable Reason, viz. because it was by all Persons reckon'd as a very Faithful and Authentick Account of all those Events and Occurrences which it re∣corded, it was composed with great Vprightnes•• and Truth: Thenc•• it was commonly known by the Name of Iasher's Book or Chronicle. And if you remember that Iasher is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by th•• Seventy in several Places of the Book of Io••, it will ••urther confirm what I say, and induce us to be∣lieve that Iasher's Book is as much as a True Book, a Book that is not counterfeited. It was not the Work of any Inspired Person, but was of the Na∣ture of Common Civil Annals: and consequently we cannot infer hence that any Book properly be∣longing to the Holy Scripture, i. e. that was written by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is at this Day missing.

Again, some reckon the Acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah the Prophet, 2 Chron. 26. 22. in the Cata∣••ogue of such Books of Scripture as are lost. But they have little reason to do so, for by tho•••• Words is plainly meant that Part of the Life and History of that King which we now have in the Prophecy of Isaiah, for the first six Chapters are •• Relation of what was done in his Days. They give an Account of several Passages which belong

to the Church and State in that King's Reign. And Isaiah is truly said in the foremention'd Place in the Chronicles to have written his Acts first and last, because you will find that the Prophecy of Isaiah begins at the Days of Uzziah, v. 1. and the sixth Chapter relates what happen'd in the Year that King Uzziah died, v. 1. So that something of what was first and last in his Time is here recor∣ded. This I look upon as a very substantial and satisfactory Answer to the Scruple about that Place.

Also, some would infer from 1 Chron. 29. 29. that all the Canonical Books of the Bible are not extant at this Day, b••cause there is mention of the Book of Samuel the Seer, and the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer, in which it is said, all David's Acts were written. But no such Inference can rationally be made: only this we ga∣ther (which is the Solution of the Difficulty) that Nathan and Gad as well as Samuel compiled the History that goes under the Name of this last: and because it was made by them all three, there∣fore it is represented here as three different Books. But the true Account is that those two Books in the Old Testament which bear the Name of Samuel, were written partly by him (the greatest Part of the first Book relating things that happen'd in his time) and partly by Nathan, and partly by Gad, two eminent Prophets in those Days, and who sur∣vived Samuel.

Then as to 2 Chron. 9. 29. where we are told that Solomon's Acts were written not only in the Book (Hebr. Dibrim, the Words, as the Book of Chronicles is call'd the Words of Days) of Nathan, (of which before) but in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer, which last are

call'd Midrash, the Story or Commentary of the Pro∣phet Iddo, Chap. 13. v. 22. And as to 2 Chron. 12. 15. where we read also of this Book of Iddo the Seer, and of Shemaiah the Prophet, in which it is said, Rehoboam's Acts were written, the Answer which I give relating to these Books in brief is this, that few of them, if any, are different from those of the Kings, but are only a Part of them, though they are here spoken of as Distinct Books, and that for this reason, because that individual Part of the Story, viz. concerning Solomon and Rehoboam, is quoted, which these particular Persons here nam∣ed wrote. You must know then that this Histori∣cal Part of the Old Testament was the Work of several Persons, it was a Collection made by sundry Prophets and Holy Men, as Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah; and the Books which they wrote are called the Books of Samuel, and the Books of the Kings, and are generally known by these Names; but when those Parts of them which were particu∣cularly inserted and written by Samuel himself, or Nathan, &c. are quoted or referr'd to in the Books of the Chronicles, they are mentioned as Distinct Books: the meaning of which is, that they are Di∣stinct Parts of such a History, and wrote by such Particular Persons, who altogether made up that Historical Part of the Bible. Those Books then (for so the Hebrews call any Writings) which those Authors above-named wrote are not lost, as some imagine▪ ••••t are still extant in the Bible, for they are Par•• of the Books of Samuel and the Kings. This Answer is grounded on 1 Chron. 29. 29. The Acts of David the King first and last, behold, they are written in the Book (or History) of Samuel, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, &c. which shews that the foresaid Books were a Collection made by

several Prophets, viz. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, &c. This I think is very plain, and the foresaid Obje∣ction is wholly removed by it.

Then, as to the rest of those Books which are said to be lost, as the Sayings of the Seers, 2 Chron. 33. 19. and the Book of the Acts of Solomon, 1 Kings 11. 41. and the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani, 2 Chron. 20. 34. or any other which the Objectors mention, it is granted by some very Sober Writers (not only Foreigners but of our own Country) that these Books are really lost, but they deny that this is any Argument of the Imperfection of Scrip∣ture, because these Books were not absolutely ne∣cessary, neither are we certain that they were Di∣vinely endited. And this was the Opinion of the Antients as well as the Moderns. Yea St. Chrysostom and some others of the Fathers who speak of these Books, say positively that they were not written by Inspiration from Heaven. To this Purpose St. Au∣gustine hath this useful Distinction,1 1.480 the Penmen of the Sacred Scripture (saith he) write some things as they are Men with Historical Care and Dili∣gence, other things they write as Prophets by In∣spiration from God. This then may satisfy us that all that was written by the Prophets, and even by those Holy Men who were Authors of some Part of the Bible, was not Canonical and Divine; because they writ some things not as Inspired Persons, but as meer Historians. Some of this sort of Writings are referr'd to in the forecited Places; and though they be not extant now, yet the Scripture is not hereby rendered Imperfect, because these were not

such Parts of it as were Essential to it, or were of Divine Inspiration. The like may be said when in the Book of Kings there is frequent reference to the Book of Chronicles; those of the Bible are not always meant, being not then penned: Besides that many things that are referr'd unto there are not found in these Books. Wherefore it is probable that these were Additional Writings, not belonging to the Body of the Canonical Scripture, nor writ∣ten by Persons that were Inspired, and consequent∣ly though they are lost, yet the Canon of the Bible is not impaired. And indeed we find that those of the Protestant Perswasion (as Whitaker, Willet, &c. and among Foreigners, Calvin, Beza, &c.) who acknowledg the loss of these Books, do at the same time strongly assert the Perfection of the Holy Scrip∣tures: which they very consistently may do, be∣cause they hold these Books to be no part of the Canon of the Bible.

Again, if what we have said be not fully satisfa∣ctory, this may be further added, that the Com∣plaint of the Loss of some Books of Holy Writ pro∣ceeds from the mistaking of the Word Sepher, which is translated a Book, but among the Hebrews is oftentimes no more than a Rehearsal or Comme∣moration of something, a brief Narrative or Me∣moir, a setting down any thing in Writing, as you'l find in these following Places, Num. 5. 23. Iosh. ••8. 9. 1 Sam. 10. 25. Esth. 9. 20. Isa. 30. 8. Ier. 32. 12, 14. And sometimes it is nothing but a meer Genealogy, as Gen. 5. 1. The book of the Generations of Adam. So St. Matthew begins his Gospel, The Book of the Generation of Iesus Christ, Mat. 1. 1. i. e. his Genealogy or Pedigree, a brief Enumeration of the Persons he descended from, which is the proper Denotation of the Word Se∣pher,

from Saphar, numerare, recensere, whence Si∣phra or Ciphra, a Word that is used in most Lan∣guages. Some not attending to this have fancied that a great many Books of the Sacred Writ are embezzled, because they do not find such Formal Books as those of Iehu, or of the Acts of Solomon, &c. now belonging to the Bible. This arises from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew Word, which sig∣nifies generally any Short kind of Writing or Me∣morandum. This, with the Answer before given, will solve all Doubts concerning the Places afore alledged.

As to the common Objection concerning the Loss of Solomon's Books, which are said to be men∣tioned in 1 Kings 4. 32, 33. I answer; 1. That when some call them Books, it is more than they can prove: it is not said that Solomon wrote, but that he Spake of Trees, and spake of Beasts, &c. i. e. he learnedly discoursed of these several Subjects upon occasion, and Spake such a Number of Pro∣verbs. Here can be no Loss of Books then. But, 2. Suppose he committed these Disquisitions and Discourses to Writing, and they are now lost, (it may be consumed when Nebuchadnezzar burnt Ierusalem, or by some other Means imbezzled af∣terwards) yet still this is nothing to the purpose, because they were no Part of Canonical Scripture. His Universal History of Vegetables, from the Cedar even to the Hysop that grows out of the Wall, and his Books of the Nature of all Animals in the Sea, on the Land, and in the Air, appertained to Philo∣sophy, and might indeed have serv'd to have set up a Royal Society, and have been advantageous to the Men who are employ'd in the Study of Nature; for these questionless were full of Admirable Philoso∣phy, according to that great and matchless Mea∣sure

of Wisdom which God had endued him with. Thus far the Loss of those Writings is great, but none but Philosophers ought to bewail it. Tho I must suggest this by the way, that perhaps there is no ground of complaining for them neither; for it may be these Books of Plants and Animals were extant till Alexander the Great's Days, and being perused and understood by Aristotle and Theophra∣stus, by the Help of an Interpreter, they were transcribed by them, and so set down as we find them in their Writings which have gain'd them so great Fame and Renown. This may be the more credible, especially as to Aristotle, because we read that he was a Great Plagiary, and burnt or other∣wise made away those Writings from whence he borrowed his Notions. If this be true, it is like∣ly we have these Books of Solomon extant still: in those forenamed Authors we read his Natural Hi∣story concerning Vegetables and Animals. But as touching the three thousand Proverbs which he spake, it is most reasonable to believe that most of them were only spoken, not written down: and as for those that were penn'd, we have them at this Day in the Book of Proverbs, which is Part of the Canon of Scripture. There we have those Proverbs which the Holy Ghost saw to be most profitable and ne∣cessary for the Church: That one would think should content us. So as to his Songs, which were a thousand and five, (as we read in the fore-menti∣oned Place) there is but One of them that hath arrived at our Hands, and was thought worthy to be inserted into the Sacred Writings, unless we reckon the Forty fifth Psalm to be a Song of his. This then adds to the Excellency of these Wri∣tings of Solomon which we have, that they are Choice Pieces, selected even by the Holy Ghost,

who was the Prime Author of them. This surely may satisfy us that the Books or Writings of this Wise Prince, which were most Excellent, and which were dictated by the Spirit, are transmitted to us, and are Part of the Bible. Thus there is nothing lost that belongs to the Canonical Scrip∣ture of the Old Testament.

And whereas it is Objected that some Places are quoted in the New Testament as taken out of the Old, and yet are not to be found there, as Mat. 2. 23. Iames 4. 5. Iude, v. 14. I answer as to the first, that from those Words, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene, no Man can gather that some of the Ca∣nonical Books of Scripture are missing; because if you take the Prophets here for Prophetick Men who spoke only, and did not write, then there were no Books of theirs to be lost. Or if by Prophets you understand the Penmen of the Bible, it may be shew'd that what they foretold is still extant in their Writings. For though those individual Words, He shall be call'd a Nazarene, are not found among the Prophecies of the Old Testament, yet the Purport and Sense of them are there, and the Places to which they have reference are very obvi∣ous, as I have shewed in that particular Interpreta∣tion of the Words which I have offered to the Publick in my Enquiry into some Remarkable Texts of the New Testament. Thence I hope it will appear that the Objectors have no ground for what they alledg, and also that the Iews Cavil against this Place of St. Matthew, where they say he quotes a Text out of the Prophets which is not to be found in any of them, is void of all Reason.

Another Place which is wont to be mention'd on this Occasion is Iam. 4. 5. Do you think that the

S••ripture saith in vain, The Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy? Which Words are no where to be found in Scripture: therefore, say they, some Part of the Holy Writings is lost. And Sir N. Knatchbull seems to say, that this is Passage taken out of the Writings of the Prophets which ••re missing at this Day. In answer to this1 1.481 some say that Gen. 6. 3. is the Place of Scripture here re∣ferr'd to; but after they have taken a great deal••of Pains to make this out, their labour is in vain▪ for surely no Man of free and unprejudiced Thoughts will be perswaded that those Word•• [My Spirit shall not always strive with Man] are of the same Import with these [The Spirit that dwelle•••• in us lusteth to Envy]. This Exposition is built up∣on a mistaken Notion of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contendet, (which our Translators▪ truly rend•••• shall strive) some fancying that it is to be deriv•••• from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Sheath, and then forsooth the Soul or Spirit is a Sword. Lowis Chappel and some Others as groundlesly make these Words an Interrogation, Doth the Spirit that dwelleth in us lust to Envy? and think they refer to Numb. 11. 29. Enviest thou for my sake? The Question, say they, is a Neg••tion, and is as much as if it had been said, Doth the Scrip∣ture and the Holy Spirit teach you to contend, to be en∣vious and quarrelsom? No. But this likewise is forced and strained, and an impartial Eye cannot possibly see any Affinity between the two Places of Scripture; besides that there is one Interrogation to introduce another, which confounds the Stile. The plain and unforced Answer is this, that St. Iames doth not here quote any Particular Place of Scripture, as if there were such express Words in

the Old Testament as are here set down by him. He only tells us what is generally deliver'd in Scrip∣ture, viz. that Man's Nature is depraved and cor∣rupted, that it is enclined to Envy as well as to other Lusts and Unlawful Affections. Or, If any ••ne Particular Place be referr'd to more than ano∣ther, it is probable it is that of Gen. 6. 5. or ch. 8. v. 21. where we are told that the Imaginations, or the Purposes and Desires of Mens Hearts are evil from their Youth, yea they are only evil, and that con∣ti••ually. The Words then are not to be under∣stood of the Divine Spirit, but of that Corrupt Spirit which is in Men, not the Spirit which is of God, ••••t the Spirit of the World, as the Apostle Paul di∣stinguisheth, 1 Cor. 2. 12. This Spirit lusteth to Envy, and prompts Men to all other Vices. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the next Words [He giveth more Grace] they refer not to the Spirit here spoken of, but to God, who, though he be not named in this Verse, is twice in the immediately foregoing one. He giveth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Grace; he, according to his good Pleasure, restrains Mens Lusts and envious Desires, and te••cheth them Humility, Submission, and all other Divine Vertues. Or (according to a1 1.482 late Wor∣thy Critick) it, i. e. the Scripture, giveth more Grace, for that it saith, &c. In this Holy Book there are Examples of some Persons in whom this Spirit of Envy was restrained. When the Apostle then here saith, Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain? &c. we must not wonder that those very Words are not found in any Part of the Old Testa∣ment; for the Apostle only speaks here of what may be deduced from these Sacred Writings, or what is said in them to the same purpose, though

in other Words. There are many Places of Scrip∣ture which speak of the Lusts of that corrupt Spirit which is in us, whereby we are stirr'd up to Envy and Strife. From several Texts we may gather that Man's Nature is prone to these and the like Passions. This I take to be the true Account of the Words.

In the same manner we are to understand Lu•••• 11. 49. Therefore said the Wisdom of God, I will send them Prophets and Apostles, &c. There is no part••∣cular Text that hath these Words, but there are several Prophecies to this Purpose. So Ephes. 5. 14. He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give the Light, is not mean•••• of any such particular and individual Words, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Spirit's speaking in the Gospel to that Effect▪ though I know Dr. Hammond and others refer i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Isa. 60. 1. and some Interpreters to Isa. 51. 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you will not find these or such Words in either of those Places. That Passage in Acts 20. 35. It 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more blessed to give than to receive, is recited as the Words of the Lord Iesus; yet we find them not re∣corded in the Gospel. But our Blessed Master fre∣q••ently utter'd Words that were of the like Import▪ as is easy to prove: or rather (I conceive) we may truly say that he spoke this very Sentence, for it may be observ'd that what is here quoted is not on∣ly call'd the Words of the Lord Iesus, but this is ad∣ded, [how he said] to let us know that he said these very Words when he was upon Earth. And many the like Excellent Sayings and Aphorisms he pre∣nounced, which (as well as innumerable Actions that he did) were kept in remembrance by the A∣postles, but were not written down, of which St. Iohn speaks, ch. 20. v. 30. & 21. 25. So that it is impossible to prove hence that any Book belonging to the Sacred Canon is lost.

As for the Objection grounded on St. Iude, v. 14. viz. that E••och's Book which is quoted by this Apo∣stle (and if it had not been Canonical, it would not have been quoted by him) is lost; some (as Origen, Ierom, Augustine) grant it to be so, but deny it to be Canonical, it being their Judgment that St. Iude might, if he thought ••it, alledg an Apocryphal Writer. But according to my Appre∣hension the brief and satisfactory Answer is, that there is no mention there of any Book or Writing of ••••och, and therefore none can infer thence that ••ny Book or Writing of his is lost. It is only said, He prophesied, saying, &c. which he might do, and questionless did, without penning down any of hi•• Prophetical Sayings; but they were transmitted from Generation to Generation, and thence it was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostle Iude inserted this into his Epistle▪ Nor are we to be concern'd that a Book of Enooh is mention'd by some of the Antient Writers of the Church, for 'tis well known that they had several Sp••rious Authors among them: and (as a1 1.483 Learned Doctor of the sorbon observes) all the Fathers, ex∣••••pt Ter••ullian, reckon this that went under the Name of Enoch as such.

But are not some of the Writings of the New Te••••ament wanting, seeing there was a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in order the first? I ••rote unto you in an Epistle not to keep Company with ••ornicators, 1 Cor. 5. 9. Therefore it appears hence that there was another before this which passes commonly for the first: But this is not extant, for we have now but two that bear the Name of that ••lessed Apostle. Answ. Nor were there ever any more, for when he saith he wrote to them in an Epi∣stle,

he means this very First Epistle he was now writing. He refers to what he had said b••fore in the former Part of that Chapter; and the mean∣ing is, When I even now wrote unto you in this Epistle, ver. 2. not to keep Company with Fornicators, I do not mean the Fornicators of this World. Thus St. Chrysostom and Theophylact interpret the Place. But, if I may be permitted to vary from those Excellent Fathers, I would propound one of these two ways of understanding the Apostle's Words. First, it may be he hath reference here to what he saith afterwards in this Epistle, ch. 6▪ v. 13. and again, v. 18. & ch. 7. v. 2. where he writes to them to avoid Fornication. Wherefore upon reading over this Epistle, after he had finish'd it, he thought good to insert this, and to take no∣tice here of what he saith afterwards; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have (saith he) written to y•••• in this Epistle, viz. in some of the following Chap∣ters against Fornication, and joining your selves to Persons that are noted for that Vice. Or else I conceive the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the Preterit for the present Tense, of which there are very near an hundred Instances in the New Testa∣ment: and all Men vers'd in Criticism know that there is nothing more common). Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in this very Epistle, ch. 9. v. 15. [Neither have I written these things] i. e. at this time, in this Epistle that I am now writing. This any Man, that consults the Context, will be forc'd to acknowledg to be the true Sense of the Place: whence it appears that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is equivalent with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So you will find the Word must be taken in the 1st Epistle of St. Iohn, 2d Chapter: you will see and be throughly convinced that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 12, 13. is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 14,

21. And thus in the Text that is before us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. I write unto you in this Epistle not to, &c. Which that it ought to be rendred so is evident from ver. 11. (which is but a Repetition or Reassumption of this) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, now I write unto you: the Adverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shews that it is spoken of the Present Instant Time, though the Greek Verb be in the Praeterit. This then I offer as the plain Sense of the Text and Context, I write unto you, O Corinthians, in this my Letter, not to be mingled (so the Word properly de∣notes) with Fornicators, or with the Covetous, or Ex∣tortioners, or Idolaters, for then you must needs go out of the World (there being so great a Multitude of them): but this is that which I mean, that you should avoid the Company of a Brother (i. e. a Professed Christian) if he be given to Fornication, Covetousness, Extortion, or Idolatry. This is the Thing which I at this time write and signify to you. So that you see 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the simple and plain Tenour of the Words may convince any Man of it. And therefore the true and genuine Transla∣tion both of the former and latter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is I write: which makes the Apostle's Sense clear and perspicuous. I appeal to any Man of Judgment and Sagacity, whether this Account of the Words be not exactly adjusted to Grammar and Criticism, to the Scope of the Apostle, and the Design of the Context: besides that it is serviceable to the Busi∣ness in hand, viz. utterly to overthrow the Sur∣mise of an Epistle written to the Corinthians be∣fore this which the Apostle is here writing. If the Learned Drusius, or the Excellent Grotius had weighed these things which I have suggested, I doubt not but they would have chang'd their Minds, they would not have cried out that this Epistle here spoken of is lost.

But it is further said, that the Apostle writ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epi••••le to the L••odicea••s, as may be collected from C••l. 4. 16. which is wanting at this Day, that is, although i•• be extant, and allowed of by som•• Authors, yet it is not put into the Canon of the New Testament; wherefore the Canon is Imperfect. I answer, 1. It is true there is an Epistle to the La∣odic••ans, which goes under St. Paul's Name, but it is generally voted to be Sp••rio••s and Counter∣feit. 2. The Apostle in that Place to the Colossi∣ans speaks not of an Epistle to the Laodiceans, bu•• from Laodicea, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot conveni∣ently be ••ran••••••ted otherwise. Yet I know 〈◊〉〈◊〉 how it comes to pass that so sharp a Critick as Sir N. K••a••chbull holds it was an Epistle written by the Apostle to the Laodic••ans, and saith it is lost. Hi•• Critical Genius fail'd him here, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 carries no such Sense with it. As he himself il∣lustrates the Phrase, it should be an Epistle not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but of th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for he saith this way of speaking is frequent, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some of the Synagogue; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Stoicks, or those that ••elong'd in the Stoa. According to this Idiom whic•• ••his Learned Gentleman alledgeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be an ••pistle of the Laodiceans, and then 'tis nothing to his purpose, unless he could have proved that of the Laodiceans or of Laodicea is the same with to Laodioea. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ••endred by the Old Latin ea qua est Laodicensiurn, which Version this Learned Man produces and ap∣plauds as if it were on his side: but I conceive the ••mport of the Latin is not what he represents it to be, viz. the Epistle which was written to the Laodice∣ans by the apostle. At least there is no necessity of making this Construction, for it may as well signi∣fy

an Epistle written from Laodicea by the Apostle. If it be demanded, what Epistle this was? and con∣••••quently, what Epistle is here meant? The An∣swer is, that it is probable it is the first Epistle to Timothy, that being written from Laodi••ea, as you will find in the Close of it. Or, 3. if he speaks of an Epistle brought to the Colossians from Laodi∣cea, it being wrote to the Christians of that Place by St. Paul, it may be the Epistle to the Ephesians, because Laodicea was a Church within the Circuit of the Ephesian Church, which was the Metropolitan of all Asia. And Ephesus being the chief City of this Proconsular Asia, this Epistle may refer to all the Province. As to the Ground and Occasion of producing an Epistle to the Laodiceans, perhaps it was this, St. Paul order'd that his Epistle to the Co∣lossians should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans, which was near to Colosse, Col. 4. 16. And we must remember this, that though Colosse was a con∣siderable City, yet Laodicea was more considerable in that Province. But it is likely there were more Christians in the former than in the latter; and that moved the Apostle to direct his Epistle to the Colossians; but withal he enjoins it to be read in the Church of Laodicea, the chief City. Now, it being read there, it was said to be an Epistle to the Laodiceans, whence in time some feigned this Epi∣stle which is now extant. This I conceive may be the Cause of the Mistake and Forgery. Lastly, if after all we should suppose (though I see no Rea∣son for it) that the Epistle which St. Paul here speaks of is lost, yet if the Substance of it be con∣tain'd in the Other Epistles, or in the rest of the Books of the New Testament which we have, the Scripture is not maimed: and therefore the Obje∣ctors have no Reason to cavil against it as Imperfect and Defective.

But an Objection of another Nature is shaped o••t of 1 Cor. 7. 6. I speak this of permission, and not of Commandment: And v. 12. To the rest speak I, n•••• the Lord: And v. 25. I have no Commandment of the Lord, yet I give my Iudgment: And 2 Cor. 8. 8. I speak not by Commandment: And again Chap. 11. v. 17. I speak not after the Lord. From all which Texts they gather that there is something in St. Paul's Epistles that is not divinely dictated. He acknowledgeth as much himself, say they, and we ought to give credit to him. And if it be thus, wherein doth this Part of Scripture excel any other Writings? I will return a distinct Answer to the several Quotations. The first speaks of the mu∣tual rendering that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (v. 3.) requi∣red in the Conjugal State: and the Apostle shews the Extent of the Obligation of this Advice which he gives about it. I speak this, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in way of Permission, that is, I herein permit you to do as you shall see Occasion, as you shall find your selves disposed. If you can refrain in those Circumstances I mention, then do so: but if not, I allow you to act otherwise. I speak to you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not of Commandment, i. e. in a peremp∣tory way. I am not positive, I do not command you. I have no Absolute Injunction to lay upon you in this Matter. If you can forbear, you had best to do so, but I have no Authority to force it upon you. Thus the Apostle lets them see how far his Doctrine obliges, and what Authority it hath. And this he speaks as an Inspired Person: So that it is ridiculous to collect hence that he was not Inspired when he wrote this Passage in his E∣pistle.

The Second Place speaks of Divorce or the Se∣paration of married Persons in case of unequal

Marriages, viz. between Christians and Infidels. These are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Rest, which he now distinct∣ly applies his Discourse to. To these, saith he, speak I, i. e. I as an Apostle, I as a Person divinely enlightn'd declare this, that their best course is to live together, and not to think of parting. This is that which I say to those who are married to Unbe∣lievers, and I say it by immediate Revelation ••rom God. That is the true Meaning of Speak I: And any considerate Man that well weighs the Words cannot but discern it. It follows, and not the Lord, i. e. God hath given us no express Command about this: We find nothing of it in Moses's Law which was from the Lord himself. The Apostle refers here to what he had said before in this Chapter about Married Persons, v. 2, 3. which was accord∣ing to the Mosaick Law, Exod. 21. 10. and a Law before that, viz. in Genesis, ch. 2. v. 24. which obligeth the Married Couple to be faithful to one another. But here, saith he, in our present Case the Lord hath left no positive and Absolute Pre∣cept or Prohibition. Or, it may have respect also to Christ our Lord, and then the meaning of I speak, and not the Lord is this, what I now deliver to you is not from our B. Saviour directly: It is not expresly set down in the Gospel as spoken by Him when he was here on Earth, but I gather it from the gene∣ral Doctrine of the Gospel, and I make this Col∣lection and Inference by the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not of my own Head. Thus what I advise and direct you to is from the Lord, i. e. from the Holy Ghost, though not from the Lord in that other Sense, as if he had given any particular and express Command concerning it. So the Force of the Objection is quite taken of: And at the same time also, the Distinction of Evangelical Counsels

and Precepts (which is so much talk'd of and mad•• use of by the Romanists) appears to be frivolus an•• impertinent.

The third Quotation is to be interpreted in th•• same Manner. He here speaks concerning Singl•• Persons, such as were never married, and he ac∣quaints them (as before) what Authority his Do∣ctrine concerning these hath. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have not a Commandment of the Lord, i. e. I have no express Word of our Saviour concerning Virgins, as there was concerning the Divorce of Married Persons, of whom I spake v. 10. for our Lord had positively determin'd what was to be done in that Case, Mat. 5. 32. & 19. 9. Luk. 16▪ 18. Therefore there not I, but the Lord himself was properly said to command. But here no Absolut•• Precept of our Lord can be alledg'd; he hath no where peremptorily commanded to marry, or not to marry: And the more particular things re∣lating to a Single Life (spoken of here by the Apo∣stle) are not so much as mention'd by him. Yet, saith he, I give my Iudgment, as one that hath ob∣tained Mercy of the Lord to be faithful, i. e. in an immediate and extraordinary Manner I have ob∣tained this Favour, to deliver faithfully what is dictated to me in this Affair, though there be no express Word of our Lord about it. I am Divine∣ly taught what to say, the Holy Spirit suggests to me what Counsel to give. And therefore with respect to this and whatever he said before, he con∣cludes in the last Verse of this Chapter, that he hath the Spirit of God. And when he saith he thinks so, it doth not denote in the least, the Uncertain∣ty of the thing, but the Humility of the Apostle. We are not then to imagine (as several Commenta∣tors, and of good Note too do) that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

which we render. Iudgment, is meant the Apostle's ••••••vate Opinion and Sentiment in contradistinction to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dictate•• of the Holy Ghost; but according to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 plain Interpretation which I have given, we ••ave reason to believe that both in this and his other Epistles he writes all by Divine Inspiration.

Then, as to the next Place, where the Apostle ••••ith he speaks not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by command, this way of Expression is somewhat of the same Nature with the first: which is evident from the Subject••matter he treats of, and the particular Application of this Expression. For in this Chapter his Busi∣ness is to excite the Corinthians effectually to a Charitable Contribution for the distressed Christi∣••••s at Ierusalem, and he requests that they would be very Liberal, and abound in this Excellent and Noble Work: which yet he saith he doth not speak to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a commanding Way, but ••e leaves them to their Liberty. He would have their Charity to be free, and therefore doth not command them. It is of the same Strain with Philem. 8, 9. Though I might be much bold in Christ, to enjoin that which is convenient, yet for Love's Sake I ••••••ber beseech. But this beseeching them, and this professing that he leaves them to their Freedom, is from the Lord, and from Divine Inspiration. Which ought necessarily to be added, to clear this and the other Texts: for I do not find that Com∣mentators have fully interpreted and explain'd these Places. Only they tell us that the Apostle doth not command the things to be done, but leaves them at Liberty: whereby they intimate that what he saith is from himself, it is his Private Opi∣nion. But we must not harbour any such Thoughts, because if all Scripture be endited by the Holy Ghost, (as certainly it is) then we san't admit

of any such thing here as meer Private Opinion.

The last Place alledged is, I speak not after the Lord. Which some would interpret according to the foregoing S••nse of the Apostle in those Places I have spoken of, but they hugely mistake the Text, and miserably distort the Apostle's Meaning. Therefore my Apprehension of the Words is this, that as in several other Places, so here he speak•• Ironically;

The false Apostles, the deceitful Wor∣kers, saith he, whom some of you have such a Kindness for, exceedingly boast of their great Performances among you. I think I had best to do so too, for that it is the way to gain your good Opinion of me. I can brag and glory of my Atchievements as much as any of them, yea much more. Therefore as a Fool receive me, that I may boast my self a little. Seeing that many glory after the Flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer Fools gladly, seeing ye your selves are Wise. You and your new Teachers are Masters of great▪ Wis∣dom without doubt, and it cannot but be a very laudable Thing to imitate you, especially in your Boasting and Vaunting. And yet when I am forced to commend my self and vindicate my Actions, that which I speak thus, I speak it not after the Lord, no, by no means: I can neither say nor do any thing that is wise or good: I am (in the Esteem of some of you) a Fool and a confident Talker, as he immediately adds.

This seems to be the clear Import of the Words, and it is not the only time that St. Paul hath addressed himself to the Corinthians in an Ironick Stile, as I have shew'd in another Place. Thus I hope it is manifest that the Objectors have no Advantage from this Place of Scripture. And from all that hath been said, it is clear that the Sacred Writings are of

Divine Inspiration, and therein excel all other Writings whatsoever.

CHAP. XII.

A short View of the Eastern Translations of the Old Testament, especially of the Targums. The several Greek Translations, more especially that of the LXX Jewish Elders. The impartial History of them, and their Version. Some ••mmoderately extol it; others as excessively inveigh against it. The true Grounds of the Difference between the Hebrew Text and the Greek Translation of the Septuagint assigned, viz. One Hebrew Vowel is put for another: One Con∣sonant for another, sometimes both Vowels and Consonants are mistaken: The Difference of the Sig∣nification of some Hebrew Words is another Cause: Sometimes the Sense rather than the Word it self is attended to: Some Faults are to be attributed to the Transcribers: Some, because the LXX are Para∣phrasts rather than Translators; they take the Liberty to insert Words and Passages of their own. The Greek Version hath been designedly corrupted in several Places. Why the Apostles in their Sermons and Writings made use of this Version, though it was faulty. Sometimes the Sacred Writers keep close to the Hebrew Text, and take no notice of the Seventy's Translation of the Words. At other times in their Quotations they con••ine themselves to neither, but use a Latitude. The Greek Version is to be read with Candour and Caution: And must always give way to the Hebrew Original. The chief Latin Translations of the Bible, especially the Vulgar, examined. Modern Latin Translations, and lastly our own English one, consi∣der'd.

AGain, there are some that detract from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Excellency and Perfection of the Holy W••••tings, because they observe a great Diffe∣rence between the Hebrew Text of the Old Testa∣ment, and the several Versions of it: And so as to the New Testament, they see the Original Greek and some of the Translations disagree; but more espe∣cially the Disagreement is seen bet••een the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek Translation of it made by the Seventy Elders. This is improved into a kind of Argument thus; If those Versions of the Bible disagree with the Text, then either the Text it self or the Versions are erroneous and f••ul∣ty: But it is probable, and it is asserted by some Learned Criticks, that the Errors and Mistakes are in the former, i. e. in plain Terms that we have not now the Original or True Copi••s of the Bible, and consequently that the Bible it self is very De∣fective and Imperfect. To take off this seeming Argument it is necessary that we enquire into, and give some brief Account of the Tran••••••••tions of the Bible, but especially that we fix where the Grand Objection lies, viz. concerning the Discr••pancy between the Hebrew Text and that of the LXX, which seems to give the greatest Shock of all to the Assertion which I have been maintaining.

Those Translations which are in the Eastern Lan∣guages are these that follow; First, the Per••ick: But the Antient Version is lo••t: And as for what is now extant, it is seldom made u••e of by the Learn∣ed. The Coptick (so call'd from Copt or Coph∣tus, the Name of a great City in Egypt, the Metropolis of Thebais, the Language of that Place being the Antient Dialect of the Egypti••ns) and the Ethiopick are of great Antiquity, and were made and used by the Christians of Egypt and Ethi∣opia.

The former (as those acquaint us who have insight into that Tongue) hath a great Affinity with the Hebrew Text: And the latter is wholly taken out of the former, and is a meer Translation of it. The Samaritan Pentateu••h was for the Use of the Samaritan Iews, who used that Dialect, and acknowledg'd only the Books of Moses. It is an∣tient and of good Account, though not void of Er∣rors and Corruptions, as Archbishop Vsher and Hot∣tinger have observed, and particularly enumerated the Faults: But yet, if we will shew our selves Can∣did, we cannot but grant that where it varies from the Hebrew, it is generally by way of Illustration or Paraphrase. The Syria•• Version is of good Repute, and very conformable to the H••brew in most Places, notwithstanding what the Learned1 1.484 Vossius hath en∣viously suggested. The Arabick follows the Seven∣ty and its Faults, and is not so antient as the Sy∣riack, nor so exact, but is of good Use, and may serve to corroborate the Authority of the Hebrew Text. Concerning all these Eastern Translations, ex∣cept the Syriack, it may be observ'd, that though they are generally taken out of the Greek Version of the Seventy, (for that only was the Authentick Scripture with the Churches of the East) and though they were made and writ at several times, yet they do very much agree with the Hebrew which we have at this Day: And whenever in any Place they vary from it, it is generally in some little things, wherein there is no prejudice to Truth, or the Variation is only as to the Paraphrastical Part, where we cannot expect an exact Rendring of the Original; and with any considerate and unbiassed Man this will not pass for any Proof of the Corrup∣tion of the Original.

But of all the Translations which are in the Ori∣ental Tongues, the Chaldee is of the greatest Esteem and Reputation among the Learned. This is called the Targum from the root Targam interpretari, so that the Targum is the Int••rpreting or Translating the Bible into another Tongue; and because there was among the Jews of old no Translation but the Chaldaick▪ that was by way of eminency call'd Targum. The Oc∣casion of this Version was the Change of the Tongue among the Jews: They in the Time of the Capti∣vity in Babylon, which lasted 70 Years, corrupted the Hebrew Tongue, that is, they mixed Hebrew (their own Tongue) and Chaldee (the Language of that Place where they were) together. Yea, tho the Scribes and Learned Men had not forgot the Hebrew, yet the common People had, and being ••∣sed wholly to the Speech of that Countrey, they understood only Chaldee. Wherefore that they might have the Bible in a Language which they understood, several Chaldean Targums were made on the Books of the Bible, indeed on all but Da∣niel, and Ezra (which were half Chaldee before) and the Paralipomend, which were explain'd in the Books of the Kings. These Targu••••im were made by different Authors, and at diverse Times. First, there was that of R. Ionathan, which was a Tra••∣slation or Paraphrase rather on the Prophets and the Historical Books. He is said to be R. Hillel's Dis∣ciple, and to have lived a little before our Saviour's Nativity. Secondly, there was that of Onkelos••▪ which was only on the Pentateuch. This Author lived soon after Christ's Time: Though I know a very1 1.485 Confident Writer tells us, that there is rea∣son to doubt whether Onkelos and Ionathan were

the Authors of those two Chaldee Paraphrases, and he positively avoweth that the Time when they were made cannot be known. Moreover, it is as∣serted by1 1.486 another of as great Confidence and Learning, that neither the Paraphrases of Onkelos nor Ionathan are a thousand Years old, and particular∣ly that that of Onkelos is not so much as mentioned by any Jew or Christian who was not after St. Ie∣rom some Ages. The same was said before by as 2 1.487 Positive a Man, but was never proved, and there∣fore we have no reason to attend to it, much less to believe it, especially since we know the Design of the Man, which was to beat down the Credit and Value of all Translations of the Bible but the Latin one. It appears from sufficient Authors, that these two Chaldee Paraphrases are some of the an∣tientest of the Jewish Writings on the Bible, and it appears from these Targums themselves that they agree with the Hebrew Text which is extant at this Day. Thirdly, there was the Ierusalem Targum, call'd so either from the peculiar Dialect of it, or from its being first published in that place. This was upon the Pentateuch only, and was written (as is generally thought) by R. Iochanan after the De∣struction of Ierusalem. To these 3 Chaldee Para∣phrases (which were of Greatest Authority among the Jews, and were read in their Synagogues) are wont to be added two others, viz. the Targum of Ionathan (the Rabbi before mention'd) on the Pen∣tateuch, and the Targum of Ioseph the Blind on the Psalms, Iob, Proverbs, Esther, Canticles. And there were other Versions of some other Books of the Bible which were made for the sake of the di∣spersed Jews in Chaldea, and were likewise call'd

Targumim, all which are unanimously acknowledg'd by the Learnedest of the Antients and Moderns to be faithful Translations of the Original; and none but prepossessed Minds can find any disagreement between them as to the Main. It is true these are Paraphrasts rather than Translators, and therefore it can't be expected that these Targumists should ren∣der the Hebrew Word for Word: It cannot rati∣onally be thought that in this free way of giving the Sense of the Original they should be exact: They intended a Comment only in some places, and not an exact Version.

To pass then from the Translations which have been made in the Oriental Tongues to some Others, I will in the next Place speak of the Greek Versi∣ons of the Bible, and more especially of that of the Septuagint. The Greek Translations of the Old Testament are either those that were made since our Saviour's Time, or that Celebrated One made before it. As for those that were made since Christ's Time, the Author of the first of them was Aquila, who lived under the Emperor Adrian, and was converted from Gentilism to Christianity, and then forsook Christianity and turned Jew, and translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek. He was a very Morose Interpreter, even to Superstition adhering to the Hebrew Letter, and altogether averse from the Seventy's Transla∣tion. The next Greek Version was that of Theodo∣tion, in the Emperor Commodus's Time, who was an Ebionite or Judaizing Christian. A third was put out in the Emperor Severus's Reign by Symma∣chus, who was first a Jew of the Samaritan Sect, and afterwards a Christian, but an E••ionite or Ju∣daizing Heretick, wherefore he is call'd Semi-chri∣stianus by St. Ierom. These were the Authors of

the three first Interpretations of the Old Testa∣ment that were composed after our Saviour's Days, and you hear what kind of Persons they were. One of these Translations was wholly Literal, the other took a Liberty and followed the Sense, and the third was of a middle Nature: But none of them were ever publickly received, and read by the Church. Wherefore there is no reason to quar∣rel with the Hebrew Text, and to accuse it of Cor∣ruption if we find that these vary from it: Though to speak impartially, the Translations of these foresaid Men (notwithstanding that they bear the Chracter of Apostates and Hereticks) dissent not from the Hebrew in any thing of considerable Mo∣ment. There are two other Translations mentio∣ned, but we know not the Authors of them. These five with the LXX's Version made up Origen's Hexapla. As for the other Greek Interpretations of the Old Testament which were publish'd after∣wards, viz. that of Lucian the Martyr, and the other of Hesychius, they were not (properly speak∣ing) New Versions, but only New and Correct Edi∣tions of the Septuagint Translation, which was purged from its Errors and Faults by these Worthy Undertakers. So much concerning the Greek Tran∣slations since Christ.

Our main Business is with that which was before our Saviour's Days, that First Translation which was made of the Bible by the Jews, that most Fa∣mous Work of the Seventy Elders about 250, o∣thers say about 260 Years before Christ's Birth. It is true, before the LXX set about the Version of the whole Bible, some part of it was translated in∣to Greek. viz. Moses's Writings in the time of the Persian Monarchy, if we may believe Megasthenes,

who is quoted by1 1.488 Eusebius. And2 1.489 Clement of Alexandria attests, that some part of the Old Testa∣ment was turn'd into Greek a little before Alexan∣der the Great's Time. Which is not improbable if we consider that from about the time that Alexan∣der the Great transferr'd the Persian Monarchy to the Greeks, the Greek Tongue spread it self, and became the Universal Language, insomuch that the Iews in Asia, Egypt and Greece forgot their Hebrew, and un∣derstood the Greek only. But this is not the Ver∣sion which I am now to speak of, which is the Ce∣lebrated Translation of the Seventy Iews, who ren∣dred the whole Book of the Old Testament into Greek: And it seems (according to what hath been said) there was a kind of Necessity for it, because in the East the Hebrew was grown to be an unknown Tongue, and the very Iews generally understood nothing but Greek. Some have observ'd a consi∣derable Disagreement between the Hebrew Text and this Greek Version, and hereupon they under∣take to form an Argument against the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures; for they argue thus, There is great reason to assert the Authority of this Tran∣slation, and to believe it is True and Genuine: Which, if it be granted, makes the Hebrew Text to be suspected, nay it will follow thence that it is faulty and defective, because there is so vast a Dif∣ference between the one and the other. If this of the Seventy be a True Version, then the Hebrew of the Bible which we have is not the True Original, but is corrupted and depraved, and consequently there is a sufficient Prooof of the Scripture's Imper∣fection.

Now because this may seem to have something of

Reason in it, and because the greatest Controver∣sy is about This Translation, I will insist much lar∣ger on this than on any of the others, and endea∣vour from the whole to evince the Truth of this Proposition, that the Hebrew Text is not at all faul∣ty, but that it remains still in its Original Purity and Perfection. Here first it will be necessary to enquire into the Occasion, and into the Authors of this famous Greek Version, and also into the Man∣ner of their performing it, and from these to ga∣ther of what Authority it is. Ptolomee surnamed Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the Year of the World 3730. erected a vast Library at Alex∣andria, and furnish'd it with all the choicest Books he could procure: But notwithstanding this, he thought it imperfect till the Hebrew Bible was ad∣ded to it. Accordingly by the Direction of De∣metrius Phalereus, who was the Library-keeper, he caused this Excellent Monument of Learning to be deposited in it. But because he was ignorant of the Language in which it was written, he by Let∣ters importuned the High Priest and the Rulers at Ierusalem, to send him some Persons to translate it out of the Hebrew into the Greek. Whereupon they sent him Seventy or Seventy two Interpreters, in imitation perhaps of that Number of Elders which Moses was commanded to take with him when he went up to the Mount to receive the Law. And these Select Persons betook themselves to the Em∣ployment which the King set them about, and first translated the Pentateuch, and a while after the rest of the Old Testament into Greek. This is gene∣rally allowed by the most Exact Searchers into Hi∣story to be real Matter of Fact, as being vouched by Writers of very good account, and whose joint Authority in this Case we have no reason to suspect.

As for some Particular Circustances which relate to this Matter, as the Place where they met, their Mavellous Consent in the Work, and the Time they dispatched it in, these may be doubted of, though for my part I see no solid ground of denying them altogether. The whole Translation was finish'd in 72 Days, saith Aristaeas (or Aristaeus, for his Name is written both Ways) one that was a great Favourite of King Ptolomee, and writ the History of this Greek Translation of the Jewish Elders: But this Author is thought to be spurious by1 1.490 Vossi∣us, and by some other Learned Men before him. As to the Place, Philo the Jew, Iustin Martyr, and others tell us it was the Great Tower in the Isle of Pharos, which was set up to direct the Mariners in the dangerous Seas about Alexandria. Upon which a 2 1.491 Great Critick turns Devout, and exerts his Fancy very piously, observing this to be a proper Place for such a Work, the Bible being truly a Light to lighten the Gentile World, a Light hung out to guide all doubting and troubled Souls in the Storms and Tempests they meet with. And there were Distinct Places (if you will credit some Jewish and Chri∣stian Writers) wherein these Interpreters separate∣ly performed the task which they were set about. They did the Work each of them in diverse Rooms, say the Talmud and the Rabbins. They were put in∣to 70 distinct Cells when they translated the Bible, saith Iustin Martyr in his Apology to the Roman Emperor: And moreover he adds that he was at Pharos, and saw what was left of those Cells▪ And with him agree Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexan∣dria, Epiphanius, Cyril of Ierusalem, and Augu∣stine. And further, though an Arabick Commen∣tator

on the Pentateuch (whom Mr. Gregory cites) reports that the 70 Seniors disagreed in their Translation the first time, and so were set to it again, yet these Fathers take notice of no such thing, but tell us that though these Translators were separated into distinct Places by themselves, yet they all agreed in the same very Words and Syllables. Which they borrowed, it is likely from1 1.492 Philo, who had expresly said they all exactly agreed on the same Names and Words to interpret the Chaldee by, (for he calls it the Chaldee instead of the Hebrew) as if some Person stood by them and invisibly dictated to them, although the Chaldee might be translated diverse ways, the Greek Tongue being so copious. And he fur∣ther adds that2 1.493 there was a Feast yearly in the Pharos, whither the Iews went to solemnize it, and to see the Place where this Version was made. But how can this be re∣conciled with the3 1.494 Fast appointed to be kept by the Iews on the 8th Day of Th••bet or December, because the Law of Moses was translated into the Greek Tongue by the Jews of Alexandria in Ptolomee's Time, at which time they say there was Darkness three Days together over the whole World? That therefore which Philo saith, seems rather to be said on purpose to inhanse the Credit of this Translati∣on, for which reason we may justly question the Truth of it. Iosephus who purposely4 1.495 treats of the turning the Law into Greek by King Ptolomee's Order, saith nothing of the Different Cells, nor doth he represent the Interpreters as Inspired Per∣sons. And St. Ierom, who was a Searching Man, was the first of the Fathers that opposed and con∣tradicted this Story, declaring that he could not be∣lieve

any thing concerning these Distinct Rooms and Apartments, and the Miraculous Agreement of the Interpreters in these separated Cells, giving 1 1.496 this Reason for it, because neither Aristaeas nor Iosephus speak a Word of them.

But some are not satisfied with this, but roundly tell us that Ierom had made a New Translation of the Bible out of the Hebrew himself, wherein he very much differ'd from the LXX, and so he was ob∣liged to disparage the Cells and the Translators, to make way for his own Translation. This is the uncharitable Censure which2 1.497 One gives of this Great Father. And as for Arist••as he comes off thus with him, it is no wonder that he saith no∣thing of the Cells; for this Aristaeas who is quoted by St. Ierom, is not the genuine Author, but a spurious one, for the Fathers quote many things out of him which are not to be found in this Book. But3 1.498 Another tells us another Story, viz. that the Hellenist Jews, who read the Translation of the ••0 in their Synagogues, were the Inventers of this History of the Translators, and put it out in one Arist••us's Name. And the same Person moreover presents us with this New Conceit, that it was call'd the Translation of the Seventy, not from Se∣venty Translators who were the Authors of it, but from the Seventy Iudges, i. e. the Sanhedrim at Ierusalem, who authorized and approved of it. Then, as for Iosephus, we are put off thus by Mr. Gregory, viz. that he is wont to comply with his Readers, and useth not to put Great and Wonder∣ful things on their Belief if he can help it, as appears in his Relation of the Israelites passing the Red Sea,

and Nebuchadnezzar's going to Grass, &c. so here he omits the Seventy Seniours their Consenting in that wonderful Manner in the Translating the He∣brew Bible, because it would have been incredible to the Gentiles, that Persons separated and shut up from one another should agree so exactly. To this effect you'l ••ind that Notable Critick speaking: But it will appear to be a very Sorry Evasion (as those of the other Persons before mention'd are) if any Man look narrowly into it; for upon the same ground that he gives here, that Iewish Historian might have omitted most of the things he relates, because they are very Great and Wonderful, and far exceed the Belief of a Pagan.

We are not then to attend to such poor Suggesti∣ons as these, and to swallow all that hath been rela∣ted by Writers concerning the Seventy Interpreters. Neither is there reason to disbelieve all they have said, but in this (as in most Historical Relations) we ought to credit what is most Probable, and to reject the rest. We need not with Epiphanius and Augustine hold that the Seventy Interpreters were divinely inspired, and that their Translation of the Bible was done in a Miraculous Manner, and that it is of Divine Authority, which we may ••ind some Writers aiming at; but on the other hand there is no ground to affirm that all which Aristaeas and Aristobulus say concerning the Seventy's Version is Fable and Fiction, as the1 1.499 Parisian Professor of Di∣vinity pronounceth, but very rashly in my Judg∣ment. We have no reason to deny the Chief and General things which are related concerning the Seventy Seniours who were employed in turning the Old Testament into Greek; we have no rea∣son

to question their Skill and Ability (as to the Main) to perform that Task, we have no reason to deny the Authority of their Version, i. e. that it was really Theirs, and that it is Genuine. We are certain that it was approved of by the Testi∣mony of all the Iews who flourish'd before the De∣struction of Ierusalem, viz. Aristaeas, Eupolemus, Aristobulus, both the Philo's, Iosephus, &c. We are certain that the Hellenist Iews, i. e. such as lived among the Grecians, and read the Scriptures in this Version, and pray'd and performed all other Offi∣ces in Greek, esteemed it equally with the Original, and read it constantly in their Synagogues. We are certain that Christ and the Apostles followed this Translation generally: And we are sure that the Greek and Latin Church for 400 Years received and approved it, as the most Authentick of all the Greek Translations.

But this, you will say, makes the Objection stron∣ger: For if the LXX's Version be of such Authori∣ty, and yet differs from the Hebrew, then this shakes the Credit and Authority of the Hebrew, which is the Original Scripture. But I answer, we are giving the Greek Translation of the Seventy its due, but we do not intend hereby to wrong the Hebrew: Yea, our design is to give unto both what belongs to them; which I find several Learned Writers of late are unwilling to do. When I af∣firm that the Septuagint's Version was not only here∣tofore, but is to this Day of undoubted Authority, and is the most Authentick Greek Translation of the Old Testament that is extant, I do not say it is Faultless, and that it is to be equall'd with the He∣brew; but I positively assert that it hath many Er∣rors and Mistakes, many faulty Omissions and Ad∣ditions, many Disorders and Corruptions in it,

and yet that nowithstanding this it is the most Au∣thentick and justly esteemed Version among all the Antient ones, and is of great use in the Church. It was hotly disputed of Old which of these two, the Hebrew Bible or the Seventy's Translation, should have the Preheminence. Some in a very high Man∣ner extoll'd the latter, and disparaged the former; then came Ierom, and was not content to cry up this, but immoderately inveigh'd against the other, and cried it down as not to be suffered. And we have seen this Old Controversy newly started and revived by some of late: Some on one side applau∣ding the Hebrew to the Height, that they wholly dis∣regard the Greek Version of the 70 Elders; others on the other side crying up this with a vilifying of the Hebrew Text. Ludovicus Capellus goes this latter way, but he is outdone by Morinus, who shews himself a Sworn Enemy to the Hebrew Text, and at a high Rate defends the Greek Translation of the Seventy in all things: insomuch that a Man may plainly see he resolves to do it at a Venture, whether there be any reason for it or no. He is back'd by Isaac Vossius, who pretending he saw the Hebrew Text magnified and adored by some Men, (Half-Iews he calls them) thereupon undertook to stand up for the Septuagint, and destroy the Autho∣rity of the Hebrew Original. It will not suffice this Gentleman to say the Greek Version of the Elders is Divine, but from his Discourse he would have us gather that the Hebrew Text is scarcely Hu∣mane, it being so disorder'd, so lame, so misera∣bly corrupted. These are the Extreams which Men unadvisedly run into; that they may extol the Greek Version, they shamefully vilify the Hebrew Text. But I will take another Course, not endea∣vouring to oppose one of these to the other, but so

far as it is sitting, reconcile them both: Which I will do by shewing you what is the true Difference between these two, and whence it ariseth.

First then, the Difference which we observe to be between the Hebrew Bible and this Greek Version, proceeds from the mistaking of one Hebrew Vowel for another. Though the 70 Interpreters were sufficiently skill'd in the Hebrew, yet they some∣times translated it amiss because they did not make use of the Hebrew Vowels or Points, they translated by those Copies which had not the Points added to the Hebrew Text. Some indeed have alledged the Difference between the Hebrew and the Seventy Version, as an Argument to prove that Points were not antiently annexed to the Hebrew Bible; for hence it is, say they, that there is that Variety of Reading: The Bible was at that time without Vow∣els, and consequently a great many Words were capable of being read, and accordingly translated Diversly. But this is a Fallacy, for though the Mistakes in the Greek Version proceeded partly from the want of Points in the Hebrew Bibles, i. e. those Bibles which the 70 Interpreters used, yet it doth not follow thence that no Hebrew Bibles had Points. For so it was that all their Bibles were not written with Points, but some Persons, to ex∣pedite the writing them over, left them out. The short is that though these were from the beginning, (as hath been said in the Entrance of these Discour∣ses on the Scriptures) yet they were not always used; and when they were used, they were not al∣ways carefully attended to: Whence happen'd ma∣ny of those Mistakes which we may take notice of in the Version of the Iewish Elders. They either had those Bibles which had been transcribed with∣out Points, or they mistook the Points themselves

out of Carelessness or something that is worse. The Instances of this kind are very numerous, but I will content my self with naming a few only.

In Gen. 14. 5. Beham in Ham (i. e. the Land of Ham) was read by the LXX Behem in ipsis, and accordingly rendred by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Gen. 15. 11. the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diffiavit, ••latu abegit, was read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consedit, they attending not to the Vow∣els but the Consonants only, and thence they tran∣slated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he sat by them, whereas accord∣ing to the Original we rightly translate it, he drove them away. The Septuagint did not read it Ba Gad (two Words) Gen. 30. 11. but Begad, and ac∣cordingly translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So in Gen. 47. 31. according to the Hebrew we read it Israel bowed himself upon the Bed's Head, but according to the Septuagint upon the Top or Head of his Staff; for these Interpreters in their unpricked Bibles mistook 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. a Staff instead of a Bed, and accordingly translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Errror proceeded hence, that those Hebrew Words have the same Letters, but the same Points do not be∣long to them. In Chap. 49. 6. Cabodi, my Glory, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Whence it is plain that they took Cabedi to be the Word. And in ano∣ther Place the Mistake is quite contrary, as in Lam. 2. 11. Cabedi, my Liver, is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they read it Cabodi my Glory. Instead of Lachem Shegnarim, War in the Gates, Judg. 5. 8. the Se∣venty thought it was Lechem Segnorim, barly Bread, as it is in some Copies. In Judg. 7. 11. they mis∣took the Word Chamushim, armed Men, and read it Chamishim, and accordingly rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fifty Men. The Hebrew Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad ocu∣lum meum, in 2 Sam. 16. 12. but the 70 read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and thence rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In

2 Kings 2. 24. they mistook hu for ho, and there∣upon inserted a strange unintelligible Word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into their Translation in that Place. They likewise read some Places in the Psalms with false Vowels, and by reason of that Mistake interpreted Ve el, & Deus, as if it had been Ve al, & non, Psal. 7. 17. and Sam, possuit, as if it had been Sh•••• nomen, Psal. 40. 5. and Middeber, à peste, as if it had been Middabar, à verbo, Psal. 91. 3. So in Psal. 22. 29. it is plain that they read it Napshi instead of Naphsho, and consequently render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They overlook'd a Vowel in Psal. 2. 9. for the Word is Terognem, thou shalt break them, but they thought it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou shalt feed them, and so translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Their mistaking of Vowels may be seen in their translating of Isa. 6. 10. which they do thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Heart of this People was made fat; for they read it Hoshman in the Conjugation Hophal, where∣as it should have been Hashmen in the Imperative of Hiphil. According to the Original we render Isa. 7. 20. a Razour that is hired: but the LXX render it that is made drunk, whence it is plain that they thought the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is here used, came from the Verb Shakar, in••bri••vit, whereas it is derived from Sakar, mercede conduxit. They read the Letter Shin with a dexter Point, whereas it should have been read with a sinister, In Isa. 9. 8. it is evident that they mistook the Points in the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 verbum, and read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pestis, mors; and so instead of the Lord sent a W••rd into Jacob, the reading according to them is, the Lord sent Death into Jacob, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They translate Isa. 24. 23. thus, the Brick shall be melted, and the Wall shall fall; whereas according to the Hebrew 'tis thus, the Moon shall be confounded, and

the Sun ashamed: and the Reason of this strange and palpable varying from the Original is this, (as St.1 1.500 Ierom hath observ'd) because the Septuagint read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Brick instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Moon: and they mistook 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Wall, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sun. Again, in Isa. 56. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they read it ragnim, mali, instead of rognim, Pa∣stores. The Seventy Interpreters render a Clause in Ier. 3. 2. thus, as a Crow in the Wilderness, &c. which proceeds hence, that the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Crow, hath the same radical Letters that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Gnarabi hath, which signifies an Arabian: but the Mistake was in the Vowels. In Ier. 46. 17. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ibi they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nomen, and accordingly render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in igne, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 faetor, and so render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Amos 4. 10. They translate Zech. 11. 17. thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, supposing the Hebrew Word to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pastores, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pastor. In Mal. 2. 3. Zerang, Seed, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Shoulder, for no other Reason than this, that Zeroang was mistaken for Zerang. And in many other Places the Seventy Interpreters mistook the Hebrew Words by not observing the Particular Punctations of them: which is one Cause of the Difference between the Greek Version and the Hebrew Text. The not at∣tending to this hath made some, and2 1.501 those of no mean Note, imagine that the Hebrew Copies which we now have vary in many things from the Antient ones which the Seventy used when they translated the Bible. A very groundless Imagination cer∣tainly, for it is most evident that this Difference between the Seventy and the Hebrew proceeds not from the Corruption of this latter, but from the

Mistake and Oversight of the former. Any Man that is willing to see what is before his Eyes may plainly discern that in all these Instances before∣mention'd one Word is taken for another, because the Pointing was wrong. This must needs be, otherwise those Greek Words which the LXX use would not so exactly answer to the Hebrew Words which we say they mistook for the true Original ones.

2. The Difference sometimes proceeds from mistaking one Consonant for another: as in Gen. 6. 3. although jadon be from dun, contendere, and there∣fore we rightly render that Place, my Spirit shall not always strive, or contend; yet the Septuagint de∣rive it from dur, habitare, permanere, and so tran∣slate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Affinity of the Let∣ter •• and •• occasion'd this Mistake, the Transcri∣bers of the Copies which the Septuagint used ha∣ving, it is likely, put one Letter for another, they being so like in Shape. (Thus in many of our English Bibles instead of the word Bands, Isa. 28. 22. we find it printed Hands, h and b being like one another.)1 1.502 Ierom observes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Seventy's Translation of bene Dedan, Ezek. 27. 15. for they read it Redan, not Dedan, mistaking Resh for Daleth, because those Letters are of a re∣sembling Figure. So in other Places the Likeness of these two Letters is the Occasion of the LXX's wrong interpreting of Words: thus in Iob 32. 19. they thought the Word was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and accord∣ingly render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, faber aerarius, (the singular for the plural) whereas the Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 novi•• In Isa. 16. 4. the Hebrew Word Sad, a Destroyer, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the Word was Sar in

the Seventy's Copy. And as Resh is taken for Da∣••th, so this is sometimes taken for that, as in Gen. 22. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, behind, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they thought the Word was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one. In Gen. 49. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asinus, is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which could proceed from no other Cause but this, that they supposed the Word to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, desiderabile. How could they render Charash, fabri, in Exod. 35. 35. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if they had not believ'd the Original to be Chadash, which is of Affinity with kadosh? In Psal. 109. 13. Achar is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but they read it Achad, una. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it not reasonable to think that a Daleth was in the Place of a Resh in Zeph. 3. 9. i. e. that their Copies had it bedurah instead of berurah, electum, ••urum? and accordingly they rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for they took it to be two distinct Words with a Prefix thus, be dur ah: otherwise it is impossible to imagine how they could translate it ••o. Sometimes the Likeness of Beth and Caph causes a Mistake, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he shall eat, Eccles. 5. 16. is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Greek Interpreters, because they read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & luctu. In Psal. 29. 2. there can be no ground of their Version 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this, that they took a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in decore, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in con∣••lavi. In Isa. 51. 18. there is a Mistake of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and likewise of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, otherwise they would not have rendred Menahel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consoldtor: It is evident that they read Menachem instead of Menahel. And sometimes where there is no Simi∣litude in the Letters they take one Word for ano∣••••er. So they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and ••pon that Mistake translated the Word by the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. is the known Word that sig∣nifies a Forehead, but in Ezek. 3. 8. it is rendred

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which I can give no other Account but this, that the Word in their Copies was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vi••••o∣ria, a Nun for a Mem. I am apt to think, that whereas the Hebrew Word in Zeph. 2. 15 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desolatio, their Books had it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, corvus, and thence they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. When I observ'd the Diffe∣rence between the Original [there shall be a Foun∣tain opened] Zech. 13. 1. and the Seventy's Versi∣on, [there shall be a Place opened] I soon found the Mistake in this latter, viz. their reading of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ locus, (whence they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sons. Lastly, I am perswaded that the Verb Barak was thought to be the Root in the latter Clause of v. 19. of 1 Sam. 2. and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Word used by the LXX, but the right Word is bara•• which is mistaking one Consonant for another, a Caph for an Aleph. But I submit my Thoughts con∣cerning these Texts to the Judicious, who will ei∣ther join with me, or candidly accept of my Con∣jectures. I mention not here any of those In∣stances which the foresaid Learned Father hath given, shewing how the Seventy take one Letter in a Word for another, and so have made quite ano∣ther Word of it, and accordingly have translated it. Hottinger also hath brought sundry Exampl•••• to shew that they erred as to Consonants, that they palpably mistook them from the Likeness of one to another, and so rendred the Text falsly: when•••• there must needs be a Difference between the H••∣brew and the Greek Bible.

3. They sometimes mistake both Vowels and Con∣sonants: As in Iudg. 5. 10. the Word was thought by them to be Tsacharajim, and on that Supposal was translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but the right Word was Tsecharoth, candidae. In Isa. 26. 14. Rephaim, mortui, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the Word was

supposed to be Rophim, medici. In both which In∣stances not only Letters but Points are mistaken. That Place, Gen. 49. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which was the antient Greek Version, as Iustin Martyr and Origen testify) is rendred so from their taking Shelo, ille cujus, or cui, for Shiloh. And in the same Verse instead of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Congr••gatio, they took the Word to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 expectavit, and thence they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 expectatio. Again, in •• 22. of this Chapter instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incedebat, they read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 minorennis, and accordingly the Greek Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They took a Daleth for a Resh, and moreover were mistaken as to the Points. So in 1 Sam. 6. 18. they read Eben for Abel, and so interpreted it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mistake of a Nun for a Lamed, together with an Oversight as to the ••ricks. And in ch. 19. 16. Kebir, pulvinar, would ••ot have been rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unless the Word had seemed to them to be Cabed, jecur: so that it ap∣pears they fail'd not only in a Consonant but two Vowels. I doubt not but they thought the Word ••as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vivet, Job 8. 17. and accordingly they ••nder it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whenas the right Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••idebit. Can there be any Reason assign'd why Be∣••••jeth is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in visione, Numb. ••6. 30. but this, that they read it Baroeth? Vau and Iod are alike, and so were mistaken one for the other, and [••] instead of [:] in the beginning of the Word. Any observant Eye may perceive by the Seventy's Version, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Isa. 29. 3. that they took the Hebrew Word to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••hereas the true Word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Caddur pila, 〈…〉〈…〉. In Hos. 12. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 boves is according to the Greek Translators 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence one may ••••ess that Sharim was thought by them to be the

Original Word. Lamnatseach is the Title of the fourth Psalm, and several others, but they thought it to be Lanetsach, and hence rendred it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for Netsach is a very large Word, and both with and without Lamed before it, is sometimes adve••∣bially taken, and is as much as in finom. Thus they err'd both as to a Letter and the Vowels. And so they did in Psal. 22. 24. where the Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mimmennu, but they read it Mimm••ani, as ap∣pears by their translating it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is worth observing that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thou shal•• be feared, (or, as Our Translators render it, thou mayst be feared) Psal. 130. 4. is strangely rendred by the Greek In∣terpreters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for thy Name'•• sake: which is a Fault of the Transcribers, the•• writing those Words instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ for thy La••'s sake. This we may gather from the Vulgar Latin, which continually follows the LXX in the Translation of the Psal••s, and renders 〈◊〉〈◊〉 propter legem tuam, and thence we may see how the Mistake arose, viz. from their reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fo•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or they derived the Word from Iarah, which in Hiph••l signifies to teach, (whence Torah) wher•••• the rigth Root or Theme is jara, timuit. The Sventy render Ier. 16. 7. thus [they shall, not break Bread for them]; but according to the Hebrew 'tis [they shall not tear themselves for them]: whence it may be gather'd, that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So in Ezek. 34. 16. a Letter as well as a Vo••∣el is mistaken, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Vau for Iod: in∣stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will destroy, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will keep. The Hebrew in Hos. 14. •• is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Calves, but the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: where it is evident that the Seventy read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fructus for p••∣rim, vituli. This certainly is a plainer and fairer Account of this Difference between the Hebre••

and the LXX in this Place than what Dr. Pocock fancifully suggests, who tells us that the Seventy's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the Word they use for an Holocaust, which being of young Bullocks (but we know that sort of Sacrifices was of other Animals as well as these) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is made use of for ••alves, for these Sacrifices were like Fruit or Banquet after a Meal. But a Man would rather think they were the Meal it self, for these whole Burnt-Offerings, were the substantial Service of the Jews, even when there were no other Sacri∣fices besides at the same time. But we must give these Arabian Criicks leave to propound their Con∣jectures as well as other Men. In Hab. 1. 5. they erroneously read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so transla∣ted it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

4. It happens that the Translation of the Seven∣••y differs from the Hebrew Original, because the same Words in Hebrew signify different things, and consequently the Rendring of them may be va∣••ious, and sometimes seem to disagree with the Original Text. As in Isa. 58. 9. because the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both a Pot and a Thorn, the Se∣venty render the Plural Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thorns: be∣fore the Thorns feel the Briars, i. e. are entangled in one another, which is presently done. This seems to be the Sense they intended. What we accord∣ing to the Hebrew render the Vally of Baca, or (in the Margent) Mulberry-trees, Psal. 8••. 6. is tran∣slated by the Septuagint the Valley1 1.503 of the Mourner, or Weeper, because the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which may be derived either from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Morus, or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 1.504 flere, plorarc, is equivocal, and so may be diffe∣rently

rendred. And in the same Verse, from the Ambiguity of the Word Moreh which is Doctor, Legislator, as well as Pluvia, the Seventy render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Isa. 28. 16. is truly translated by us, He that believeth shall not make haste, but according to the Seventy Seniours it is thus, He shall not be ashamed, which is a true Translation also, for the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both, as is 1 1.505 evident in the Writings of the Hebrews. The like is observable in Ier. 31. 32.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate I was a Husband: but the Seventy render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(which by the way we may take notice is a Fault of the Transcribers, for it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as we learn from Heb. 8. 9. where this Place is alledged) I regarded not. The Ground of the different Version is this, the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath both these Significations, viz. to be a Husband, and to despise, or not have regard to. I have already on 2 1.506 another Occasion set down the Different Significa∣tions of Hebrew Verbs, which the Reader may con∣sult, and thence enlarge upon this Head. Indeed the Places are almost innumerable, wherein you may see this Particular exemplified. This therefore will in a great Measure solve the Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX's Version, viz. that one Word signifies two or more things, and thence may be differently rendred. Where there is a Vari∣ety of Significations in the Words, there may well be expected some Diversity in the translating of them.

5. It is no wonder that the Translation of the 70 varies in many Places from the Hebrew, because these Interpreters do sometimes rather express the Sense of the Hebrew Words than exactly render them.

Thus in Gen. 23. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Word to ex∣press 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Sons of the People. By the Life of Pharaoh, Gen. 42. 15, 16. is in the LXX's Version 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. by the Health of Pharaoh, because this bears the same Sense with the other. So Shebet a Scepter, Gen. 49. 10. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a Prince or Ruler according to the Greek Translation. To be deliver'd from the Sword of Pharaoh according to the Hebrew, or from the Hand of Pharaoh, Exod. 18. 4. according to the Seventy, is the same. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Son of a Bull or Cow, Lev. 1. 5. is rightly ac∣cording to the Sense rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a Calf. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deut. 25. 2. a Son of Stripes, is according to the true meaning translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉worthy of Stripes: Chereb the Sword is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 War, Lev. 26. 6, 36, 37. Iob 5. 15. and to fall by War, Numb. 14. 3. (as the Greek Interpreters render it) is the same as to fall by the Sword, as the Hebrew hath it. Bene Elohim, Deut. 32. 8. Iob 1. 6. & 38. 7. are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the LXX, for by the Sons of God are meant Angels. Iad is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iosh. 4. 24. because the Hand of the Lord and the Power of the Lord are equivalent. The Seventy make bold to turn Majim Water into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Wine, 1 Sam. 25. 11. for as by Bread in this Place is meant all Manner of Food, so by Water we are to understand all Sorts of Drink, and consequently Wine it self, for the Text speaks of a Feast, yea such a one as was like the Feast of a King, v. 36. They do not fully render 1 King. 22. 5. 2 Chron. 18. 4. when they translate it en∣quire of the Lord to Day, for according to the He∣brew it should be enquire at the Word of the Lord to Day: but the meaning is the same. In Ne••. 4. 2. you read according to the Hebrew of reviving the Stones, for the Root is Chajah; but these Interpre∣ters express it by the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sanare, because

reviving or healing the Stones in this Place are syno∣nymous. In 2 King. 20. 7. Hos. 6. 2. the same Hebrew Verb is express'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and in Gen. 47. 25. Prov. 15. 27. Ezek. 33. 12. and other Pla∣ces by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they being Words of the like import with Chajah. Dibre hajamim, Esth. 2. 23. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not amiss, but the Sense (not the Words) is attended to. In Prov. 11. 8. Mitsadah angustia is according to the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ve∣natio, Persecutio, which is a Word of the like, tho not the very same Import. In the Close of Esth. 10. 3. the Hebrew Noun is Zarang, semen, but the Greek Word here used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it is of the same Signification in this Place, for to speak Peace to all his Seed or to all his Nation (which were of the same Seed and Race) are the same. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Word that the Seventy make use of in Iob 6. 4. but Ruach is the Original: yet any observing Man can∣not but discern the Congruity of the Greek Word, for the Blood is the Vehicle of the Spirits; and be∣sides to drink up the Blood is an Elegant way of Ex∣pression. The Hebrew Word Keren a Horn, Job 16. 15. is not un••itly translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Strength, the Sense being minded, and not the Word. The Drops of Water, Job 36. 27. are explain'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Drops of Rain. Keren happuk, Job 42. 14. is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, referring to the Greek Fable of Amalthea's Horn, which signifies all man∣ner of Good things, and so comprehends in it the meaning of that Name given to one of Iob's Daughters. And in several other Places in this Book the Hebrew Terms are explain'd rather than translated. Bagnal Canaph, Prov. 1. 7. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Bagnal Aph, ch. 22. v. 24. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Bag∣nal Nephesh, ch. 23. v. 2. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all which Versions are Exegetical. So is that in Eccl. 10. 20.

Bagnal Hakephanim, Gr.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ia∣thad a Nail, Isa. 22. 23. is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a Ruler, but the Sense is preserved; for that Promise that Eliakim should be a Nail fastned in a sure Place, im∣ports his being advanced to Shebna's Office or Place of Rule, as the foregoing Verses as well as those that follow plainly shew. The Daughter of Tarshish, Isa. 23. 10. is Carthage according to the Seventy, be∣cause they thought this Place was meant by those Words. They render Dibre Haberith, Jer. 34. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas it should be the Words of the Cove∣••ant according to the Original: but who sees not that it amounts to the same? What according to the Hebrew is the Mountain of the Lord, Mic. 4. 2. is the House of the Lord according to the Septuagint, but these two differ not in the Sense, because the Temple, the House of God, was built on Mount Sion. The Word Derek a Way, Jer. 23. 22. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in 1 Kings 22. 52. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in Ezek. 20. 30. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in 2 Chron. 13. 22. & 27. 7. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in Iob 34. 21. & 36. 23. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in Prov. 31. 3. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but in all these Places the true meaning of the Hebrew Word is maintain'd. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 1 Chron. 2. 20. Ie••. 16. 14. Ezek. 2. 3. & 35. 5. & 37. 21. & 43. 7. is rendred by the Greek Translators 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but in all these Texts you'l find the Sense of the Hebrew Word kept up. So Iehovah Tsebaoth is rendred in above fifty Places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. should be translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but instead of it we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Sam. 15. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exod. 17. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Numb. 3. 16. So Lashon, which (exactly speaking) is the Tongue, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iob 15. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Isa. 54. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Esth. 8. 9. In accuracy and propriety of Transla∣tion Shaphah is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the general Significati∣on of the Word is preserv'd when the Word

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ezek. 24. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gen. 11. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prov. 16. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ezek. 36. 3. are used.

I could add several hundreds more of the like Nature: but I will at present mention only a few Instances out of the Book of Psalms. That is a ve∣ry remarkable one, Psal. 2. 12. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apprehendite disciplinam, is the rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉osculamini filium, the LXX not intend∣ing here barely to Translate, but taking the Liber∣ty to render the Sense, not the Exact Words of the Original. When Heathen Kings and Governours are admonished to kiss the Son, i. e. to submit to the Government of Christ, the Meaning is, that they should accept of his Doctrine and Discipline, and live and act according to these. But others solve this Translation by telling us, that the word Bar had heretofore different Significations, and denoted both a Son and Discipline. If this could be made good, it belongs to the Fourth Particular, where we spoke of the Diversity of Significations which some Hebrew Words have. Again, in Psal. 18. 2. & 31. 3. they intended not an exact Version, but rather chose to give the Sense of the word Selang a Rock, when they express'd it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the former Place, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the latter. In Psal. 19. 4. their Line, Cavvam, is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Sound or Voice, because it amounts to the same Sense and Intention of the Psalmist; unless you will say they read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then it is to be reduced to one of the former Particulars. The word Machol, Dancing, is not improperly rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Psal. 30. 11. because it is of the very same Import. In Psal. 40. 6. the Sense of the Seventy is the same with that of the Hebrew Text, although the Transla∣tion be not Word for Word. Mine Ears hast thou

••pened, saith the Hebrew: a Body hast thou prepared me, say the LXX. Here is one meaning, though the Words differ: Christ is here introduced speak∣ing of his Incarnation, when God the Father gave him a Body, and prepared and fitted it for the Cross, where it was to be nailed, as the Ear of that Ser∣vant who loved his Master, and would not depart from his Family, was fastned for a time to the Door-post; Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15. 17. on which Ground of Similitude the opening or boaring of the Ear is changed into preparing or framing a Body, ••itting it for that Work and Service to which it was designed. The Sense then (which is the main thing) is the same, viz. that Christ had a Body given him, that he assumed our Humane Nature, that thereby he might be Obedient, and perform the Part of a Servant. Nay, the Words themselves are not much different, for the Hebrew Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 1.507 signifies as well apparare or comparare as fodere, per∣forare, and therefore is well rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Moreover, the Ear, which is the Organ of Obedience and Compliance, is Synechdochically put for the Body: nay, perhaps the Hebrew Word Ozen signifies a Body as well as an Ear, for 'tis well known how different Senses one Word hath among the Hebrews. I could observe to you, that it is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Septuagint, Iob 33. 16. (as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this Place) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Prov. 26. 17. which may convince us of the Ambiguity of the Word. Besides, we know the Latitude of the word Heezin, which signifies both to hear and to obey. It might be added, that as the Opening or Boaring the Ear signifies Voluntary Subjection or Obe∣dience, and speaks a Willing Servant, (though not

this only or altogether, as I have shew'd elsewhere) so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 likewise denotes a Slave or Ser∣vile Person, Rev. 18. 13. Thus opening and prepa∣ring, the Ear and the Body agree: and the Sense of both put together is this, Thou hast made me Obedi∣ent. Thus the Hebrew and Greek do friendly ac∣cord, so that we need not say with Mr. Isaac Vossi∣us, that the Jews have corrupted this Place to evade the Prophecy. So in Psal. 105. 28. the Sense was attended to, not the Express Words; for whereas in the Hebrew it is [they rebelled not against his Word], the Word [not] is left out in the Sep∣tuagint, they following (as they thought) the Meaning of the Place, for they supposed it had Re∣spect to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who, when these Plagues (here spoken of) were upon them, rebelled against God's Word. The Negative Particle lo may here be taken Interrogatively, (as in other Places, Isa. 9. 3. Hos. 4. 14.) and then the Words run thus, Did they not rebel against his Word? which is as much as to say, they did, therefore the LXX translated it Affirmatively, they rebelled, which is the same with our Old English Version, which we use in our Service, they were not obedient. But if we take [••••] here as a downright Negative, then the Place refers not to the Egyptians, but to Moses and Aaron, these rebelled not against his Word. Not of these, but of the others the Septuagint, it is likely, understood the Text, and accordingly rendred it. And in many other Places the Translation is not Literal, but follows the Sense. Which is observ'd by the Judicious Dr. Pearson in his Paraenetick Pre∣face before the Cambridg Edition of the LXX's Bi∣ble, where St. Ierom's Exceptions against this Greek Version are answer'd and made void, by shew∣ing in several Instances that though we find not the

same Words there that are in the Hebrew, yet we find the like Meaning. That is sufficient, because that was the thing the Seventy intended, for their Business was not to tie up themselves closely to the very Words and Phrases of the Hebrew: Which gives us some Account of the Difference between the Greek of the Old Testament and the Original.

6. This sometimes proceeds from the Errors committed by the Transcribers of the Greek Copies. Their Carelessness in writing them over hath been partly the Cause of the Variation of the Readings in the Hebrew and the 70 Interpreters: as in Prov. 8. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dominus creavit me, is, by the Fault of the Amanuenses, put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, possedit me, which answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not but that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may here admit of a good Interpretation, for we may understand it of the Eternal Generation of Christ. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ex∣actly answerable to the Original, and is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the Word used by Aquila in his Version of this Place. Wherefore we may justly impute 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Negligence or Ignorance of the Scribes, as St.1 1.508 Augustine doth. And2 1.509 Ie∣rom complains of this sort of Men, that they some∣times wrote not what they found, but what they understood. And without doubt upon a diligent Search we might ••ind that the LXX's Copy is faul∣ty in other Places by reason of the Scribes, through whose Hands (and those not a few) it passed.

7. The 70 Interpreters are wont to add many things by way of Paraphrase, and on that Account must needs seem to disagree with the Hebrew. Thus to explain Gen. 9. 20. ish haadamah, they in∣••ort the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

a Man, i. e. a Husbandman, of the Earth. Mo∣rigim is the Word for threshing Instruments, 2 Sam. 24. 22. Isa. 41. 15. the Nature of which is ex∣press'd to us by the Words which the LXX use here, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the man∣ner of Threshing in those Days was with Cart-Wheels. In Ier. 32. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added to ex∣plain the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the Signification of Moloch is a King. In Ezek. 38. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is prefix'd to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to acquaint us that Rhos was another Name of Scythia, whence the Russians. But this short way of Commenting or Paraphrasing on the Hebrew is so usual and frequent with them, and so plain and obvious to be taken notice of, that I need not Particularize.

8. They sometimes insert Words without any Ground or Occasion, Words which ought not to be inserted. Thus though the Hebrew Text saith, Gen. 8. 7. Noah's Raven went forth, going out and re∣turning, yet the LXX say it returned not. Here is a flat Contradiction; though perhaps we may re∣concile the Hebrew and Greek, by saying, Noa••'s Raven did return unto the Ark, but not into it, but was fed by him out of the Window. Or it is like∣ly, say some, he hovered about the Ark, bringing his Prey (Carcases floating on the Water) and de∣vouring them on the top of the Ark. But this is mere Conjecture. So the Seventy Interpreters put in Cainan as Arphaxad's Son, Gen. 10. 24. but the Hebrew omitteth him, and puts Salah in his stead; unless you will say with Bochart, that this and the former Interpolation were the Fault of the Tran∣scribers of the Seventy's Copies, of which before. But further, the LXX usually add entire Sentences of their own, when there is no need of a Para∣phrase or Comment: as in the 14th Psalm, ver. 3.

they take several Passages out of Scripture, which are applicable (as they thought) to that Place, and there insert them, whence instead of seven Verses in this Psalm, according to our last English Translation (which follows the Hebrew) there are eleven it it, according to the Old one used in our Service, which follows the Septuagint. Thus in Prov. 6. after what is said there (v. 6, 7, 8.) of the Ant, they make bold to add something concerning the Bee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. So in Isaiah and Ieremiah, and other Books, they take a great Liberty: there are several whole Sentences added that are not in the Hebrew, and many are left out that are in it. To instance at present only, in two of this latter sort, those Words in Prov. 22. 6. Train up a Child in the way he should go; and when ••e is old he will not depart from it, are wholly omitted; and the whole thirtieth Chapter of the Proverbs, and part of the one and thirtieth, are left out in this Translation. This is the Greatest Fault we have hitherto met with in the Greek Interpreters: but now cometh one which is much greater, and indeed unpardonable, if it be true.

9. Then, It is thought by some that in many Places they have wilfully corrupted and perverted the Text. It is thought at least that they did not exactly translate some Places, because they were loth to expose the Bible to the Gentiles. This was too rich and precious a Treasure to be imparted to them. It would be a profaning and polluting of it to lay it open to all Men. It is1 1.510 Galatinus's Per∣swasion, that in their turning the Hebrew into Greek they alter'd several things, because the Eth∣nicks

were at that time unworthy of the Knowledg of those Divine Mysteries contain'd in the Bible: and this the Talmud it self witnesseth. The Pagan World was not able to bear several of those things: they would have seem'd Absurd and Ridiculous to them if they had been translated as they were in the Original. Hence, saith he, the Seventy's Ver∣sion is imperfect, and seems to differ, yea really doth differ from the Hebrew in many Places. And a3 1.511 Learned Doctor of our own tells us,

That they translated the Bible unwillingly, they be∣ing loth to impart the Knowledg of the Scrip∣ture to Heathens: therefore, though being commanded by Ptolomy, they undertook this Work, yet going about it with unwilling Minds they did it Slightly and Perfunctorily, and it is likely Falsly in some Places.

And this was long ago the Opinion of St. I••rom, who plainly declared, that4 1.512 where-ever any thing occurred in the Old Testament concerning the Sacred Trinity, it was either misinterpreted or wholly concealed by these 70 Elders: and this, he saith, was done by them partly to please King Ptolomee, and partly beca••se they had no mind to divulge the Mysteries of their Faith to the World. Thus, as5 1.513 he observes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Isa. 9. 6. they left out five or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Names of Christ, and put in the place of them [the Angel of the Great Caun••el]. They would not let it be known that That Child was God, lest they should be thought 10 worship another God; and therefore they pur∣posely

and ••allciously concealed those Glorious Titles attributed to Christ, and more especially That [the Mighty God]. But this Author is more candid and mild in his Censure of these 70 Elders when in other Places he tells us, that many of those Copies and Editions of the Greek Translation, which were then abroad, were corrupted by the Fault of the Transcribers, and that it was his De∣sign in his Latin Version to correct them. Again, he imputes their Mistakes to their Ignorance, say∣ing,6 1.514 they made this Translation before the coming of Christ, and so knew not what they rendred in many Places, and therefore did it obscurely and dubiously. Wherefore he professeth he condemns not the Seventy, but only prefers the Apostles be∣fore them, their Writings being nearer to the He∣brew Original.

And truly I am not throughly convinced that the Interpreters themselves did wilfully corrupt the Translation, that they designedly misinterpreted the Hebrew Text, and fals••••ied in the forementi∣oned Place and several others: for the Messiah, the Christ, was not come then, and there was no Con∣troversy about him; and therefore, according to my Apprehension of things, it was too early time of Day to misrepresent or corrupt the Bible where it speaks of him. I rather think this was done af∣terwards, namely, after our Saviour appear'd in the World, and had been rejected by the Jews as an Impostor. Then these Places before mention∣ed, and several others, began to be perverted;

then the Circumcised Doctors attempted to pare off some Passages, to make some Alterations in the Copies of the LXX which they got into their Hands. Then it was that they corrupted the Chro∣nology of the Bible, which was of great Use to them. Hence it is that you find such a Difference between the Hebrew Copies and those of the Se∣venty, about the Age of the World. It is not to be question'd that the Jews made an Alteration in the Years mention'd in the Pentateuch, which re∣late to the Lives of the Patriarchs, more especially those before the Flood, in that Catalogue in Gen. 5. According to the Hebrew Text there were 1656 Years from the Creation to the Flood, but according to the Greek there were about 2250. The younger 1 1.515 Vossius is a smart Advocate for the Septuagint, and following their Computation tells us, that 4000 (wanting ••ive or six) Years were expired before Moses's Death, and that from thence to our Saviour's Coming were above 2000 Years, so that Christ was incarnate at the end of the Sixth Mille∣nary, or the beginning of the Seventh. The Sum is, that according to Vossius and the LXX's Reckon∣ing, the time of the World's Beginning anticipates the Vulgar Aera at least 1400 Years. This length∣ning of the Accompt in the Greek Bible we owe to the Jews after the Coming of Christ, especially after the Destruction of Ierusalem. They then out of their Hatred to Christians changed the Chronolo∣gy of the Greek Interpreters, expunged the Con∣tracted Aera, and introduced a larger one, i. e. they added one thousand four hundred Years to these Books. And their Design in doing this was to confute the Opinion of the Messias's Coming.

It would appear hence that the time was past, ac∣cording to the general Sense of the Rabbies. For this Reason they made this Alteration in the Greek Translation, though they could not effect it in the Hebrew Copies. Hence arises the Difference be∣tween the Hebrew and Greek Computation. But we are assured that the Sacred Chronology deli∣ver'd by Moses is certain, and the Calculation true and authentick, because the Hebrew Text is so, (which I have demonstrated in another Place) and consequently the Greek Version is to be corrected by this. But this Error of the Septuagint is not originally theirs, but is to be imputed to the latter Jews, (I mean those soon after our Saviour's Passi∣on) who designedly and on purpose depraved the Greek Copies of the Bible. They were the Au∣thors of several Interpolations, Additions, Omissi∣ons, Changes in the Order of the Words, and where-ever they saw occasion to make such Altera∣tions as they thought would be to their purpose. Accordingly we find that their Translation is de∣praved in five very considerable Prophecies, viz. Isa. 9. 1. Hos. 11. 1. Zech. 9. 9. & 12. 10. Mal. 4. 5. all of them relating to the Proof that Iesus Christ is the True Messias. If any Man peruseth these Texts, and compares the Hebrew and the LXX's Version together, he will easily be induced to be∣lieve that this latter hath been corrupted by some Jews on purpose to serve their In••idelity and A∣verseness to Iesus, and that they might not be urged by Christians at any time from the Testimonies in this Greek Translation.

Object. But if the present Version of the LXX be so faulty and vicious, why is it quoted by Christ and his Apostles, why is it followed by them generally, as was

before acknowledged? If the Evangelists and Apostles who were immediately directed by the Holy Ghost quoted this Translation, surely the Authority of it is unquestio∣nable.

Answ. It cannot be denied that the Writers of the New Testament often cite the Version of the Septua∣gint; yea, and I will grant moreover, that they follow this Translation when it differs from the Hebrew; thus St. Luke, ch. 3. v. 36. takes in Cai∣nan into the Genealogy, because he found it in the LXX. St. Luke, Acts 13. 41. or rather St. Paul in his Sermon (recited by him) retains the corrupt Version of Hab. 1. 5. The same Apostle in Rom. 3. 13. follows this Version, though it takes in four or five Verses more than are in the Original. In Rom. 9. 33. the same Apostle alledgeth Isa. 28. 16. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed, which is not according to the Hebrew, but the Greek. In Rom. 11. 8. he quotes what Isaiah saith ch. 29. v. 10. but not according to the Original, but the Septuagint, though their Translation [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] be disagreeing with the Hebrew. In Phil. 2. 15. he uses the same Words and Order that are in the LXX, although they invert the Or∣der of the Words in the Hebrew, which is this in Deut. 32. 5. a perverse and crooked Generation; but they render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a crooked and perverse Generation. So in Heb. 10. 5. he pro∣duceth that Place above-mentioned, [a Body hast thou prepared me] although these Words disagree with the Letter of the Hebrew, and are wholly conformable to the Septuagint. And lastly, (to name no more at present) when the Apostle tells us, that Iacob worshipped leaning upon the top of his Staff, Heb. 11. 21. it is evident (as hath been al∣ready shewed) that he follows the Seventy, who

in their unpricked Bibles read [Matteh] a Rod or Staff for [Mittah] a Bed. Thus it is frankly ac∣knowledged, that the Writers of the New Testa∣ment make use of the Greek Translation of the Iewish Elders, even when they depart from the Ori∣ginal Text. And there was good Reason for it, because the Greek Version was at that time gene∣rally received and approved of by the Iews: where∣fore the Apostles being to deal with these Men, they prudently made use of it, and quoted it upon all Occasions. And it was better to do so than to give a stricter and exacter Translation of their own, because this might be liable to Scruple and Controversy, whereas the other was universally en∣tertain'd and approved of. Besides, as a1 1.516 Christian Rabbi observes, the Iews who were to read this New Testament could not quarrel with the Quota∣tions because they were taken out of the Book which was translated by those that were Iews, and those very Eminent ones too. And then, as to the Gentiles also, there was a necessity of the Apo∣stles using the LXX's Translation in their Wri∣tings, because these understood not the Hebrew Tongue: wherefore it was requisite to take their Quotations out of this Translation, lest otherwise the Gentiles, in whose Hands the Greek Bibles were, observing that what the Apostles cited was not according to These, should question the Truth of it, and of the New Testament it self. Thus there was a kind of Necessity of using this Transla∣tion oftentimes: but this is no Proof of its being faultless and void of all Mistakes and Errors. The Inspired Writers used this Version, not because they wholly approved of it, but because in their

Circumstances they could not do otherwise. But further, I answer, that though the Evangelists and Apostles followed this Translation generally, yet it is as certain that they did not do it always. The Reader may see here several Places drawn up to his View, wherein this is apparent; and among them he will find those Five Prophecies before-mentioned, and see that the Evangelists follow not the Seventy in their Translation of these Texts, they knowing that they were derogatory to the Messias, and to the whole Gospel.

The Evangelists differ from the Seventy's Ver∣sion in these following Places;

Mat. 1. 23.	taken from	Isa. 7. 14.
Mat. 2. 6.	Mic. 5. 2.
Mat. 2. 15.	Hos. 11. 1.
Mat. 4. 10.	Deut. 6. 13.
Mat. 4. 15.	Isa. 9. 1.
Mat. 8. 17.	Isa. 53. 4.
Mark 1. 2.	Mal. 3. 1.
Mark 10. 19.	Exod. 20. 12, 13, &••.
Luke 1. 16, 17.	Mal. 4. 5, 6.
Luke 2. 23.	Exod. 13. 1.
Luke 4. 4.	Deut. 8. 3.
Luke 4. 18.	Isa. 61. 2.
Luke 7. 27.	Mal. 3. 1.
Luke 10. 27.	Deut. 6. 5.
Iohn 1. 23.	Isa. 40. 3.
Iohn 6. 45.	Isa. 54. 13.
Iohn 12. 15.	Zech. 9. 9.
Iohn 12. 40.	Isa. 6. 10.
Iohn 19. 36.	Exod. 12. 36.
Iohn 19. 37.	Zech. 12. 10.

I might have drawn up the like Catalogue of Places in the Epistles; I only direct your Eye at present to these ensuing ones, Rom. 4. 17. Gal. 3. 8. Gal. 4. 30. taken from Gen. 17. 4. & 12. 3. & 21. 10.

More particularly I might observe to you (in pursuance of what I have asserted, that the Evan∣gelists and Apostles do not always make use of the LXX's Translation) that when these Inspired Wri∣ters of the New Testament have occasion to quote the Old, they sometimes keep themselves to the Hebrew Text exactly, and have no regard at all to the Words of the Greek Interpreters. It was long since noted by St.1 1.517 Ierom, that when either St. Matthew or our Saviour in his Gospel quotes the Old Testament, they follow not the LXX, but the Hebrew. Again, sometimes the Apostles follow neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint, but use some Words and Expressions of their own, and Para∣phrase rather than Translate. This they do to bring the Texts they alledg closer to the purpose, inserting such Words as give an Emphasis to them, and shew the true Scope and Design of the Texts. Therefore we cannot, we must not hence infe•• that either the Hebrew Original or the Seventy's Ver∣sion are corrupted; because it was not the Design of the Evangelists to quote the very Words, but they thought fit to use a Latitude, and to express the Text of the Old Testament not in exact Terms, but as to the Meaning and Import of it. So in the quoting that Text, Mic. 5. 2. Thou Beth∣lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thou∣sands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, the Evangelist

doth it not verbatim, but sets it down thus, Mat. 2. 6. Thon Bethlehem, in the Land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes of Judah▪ for out of thee shall come a Governour that shall rule my People Israel. Here are six or seven Words that are not in the He∣brew, neither are they in the Seventy's Version. Yea, there is a Negative put in the Place of an A••••irmative; for whereas the Prophet saith, though thou be little, the Evangelist saith, thou art not lit∣tle, or not least, which shews that he minds the Sense and Scope of the Place, not the very Words: for though Bethlehem was little, consider'd in it self, as being a small Town, yet it was not little on ano∣ther Account mention'd by the Prophet, viz. its having the Honour of being the Birth-place of our Lord. Or if this inserting of a Negative may be solved another way, (as1 1.518 some have thought, and as I have shew'd in another Place) yet still it is evi∣dent that the Evangelist doth not recite the very Words of Micah, but changeth Ephratah for the Land of Judah, and thousands for Princes, and i•• other Words and Particles varies both from the LXX and the Original. And in many other Texts I might shew you, that the Writers of the New Testament do not tie themselves up to the very Words of the Old Testament, but choose rather to paraphrase, or give the Meaning in other Ex∣pressions. Thus we see the Translation of the LXX, though it be often, yet is not always followed in the New Testament. Likewise, although the A∣postles in these Writings were immediately direct∣ed by the Holy Ghost, yet they confined not them∣selves to the express Words of the Spirit in the Original Hebrew: and we see that, though not

••lways, yet often they followed the Septuagint, be∣cause it was generally received, and they thought it not fit to vary from the Translation which was used in the Church: and we see likewise, that when they vary from this Translation, it is no certain Argument that they did not allow and approve of it, for they intended not an Exact Translation themselves, but a Paraphrase, and a rendring the Sense rather than the Words.

The Result then of all is this, that we ought to have that Respect and Esteem for the LXX's Version which it deserveth: (to which purpose the2 1.519 Judi∣cious Examiner of it before mention'd is to be con∣sulted, who shews how necessary it is for all Di∣vines to be acquainted with it) we ought not to extol it (as some extravagantly have done) above the Hebrew, nor to depress and vilify it (as others have done) as if it were of no Worth or Authori∣ty. We ought thus to behave our selves; we must not wholly reject it, because most of its Faults and Mistakes proceed from the mere mistaking of Vow∣••ls or Consonants, from the Ambiguity of Words, from the Liberty which they take of Paraphrasing, and from the Neglect of Transcribers. But on the other hand, we ought not wholly to embrace this Translation, because it hath fallen into ill Hands, and hath met with some designing Men (it is pro∣bable) who have endeavour'd to deprave and cor∣rupt it, yea and have actually done it in some Places. We are concerned therefore to read it with Candour and Caution; with the former, yea the Oldest Greek Translation of the Bible that is, because it hath been used by the Sacred Penmen of

the New Testame••t, because it may be made use of by us for the better understanding and clearing the Sense of the Hebrew, and to other very good Purposes, and because the disagreement between it and the Hebrew may as to the Main admit of a Re∣conciliation, as I have partly shew'd, and you may further see in the Learned1 1.520 Critical Historian. With the latter also, i. e. with Caution we must con∣sult this Version, because we know it hath justly me∣rited the Censure of the Learned; not only of St. Ierom the best Hebrician of all the Fathers, but of a great Number of other Observing and Inqui∣sitive Writers, who find that this Translation doth frequently, and sometimes very grosly dissent from the Hebrew, and for that Cause reprehend it with great Seriousness. For this they all agree upon, that where the Greek Version of the 70 is not confor∣mable to the Hebrew either in Words or Sense, (as in diverse Places it is not) it is perverted and cor∣rupted; and where it is so, we must impeach This, and not the Hebrew of Error and Imperfection.

That Assertion of the Younger Vossius, viz. that the 70 Interpreters had the Authentick Copy of the Hebrew Bible, and translated exactly by that, but that the Hebrew Bible which we now have is corrupted, is justly to be exploded as not only Bold but Pernicious: wherein he extreamly gra∣ti••ies the Romanists, who contend that the Hebrew Text is depraved, that they may defend the Au∣thority of the Vulgar Latin. But those that are not led by Prejudice discern that this is meer De∣sign, and that the Business of those Men is to de∣fend the Authority of their Church by what Ar∣tifices they can: Wherefore they give no heed to

them, and particularly in this present Matter they despise their fond applauding of the Septuagint, and their groundless Cavils against the Hebrew Text, and notwithstanding their impertinent Sug∣gestions find reason to adhere to this unshaken Truth, that the Hebrew Text only is void of all Faults, Errors, Mistakes, Blemishes, Defects, De∣pravations, and that it is this we must ultimately rely upon. Wherefore where there is a Diffe∣rence between the Version of the 70 Seniours and the Hebrew, That is to give place to This, and not This to That. And lastly, which is the rational Conclusion from all that hath been said, there is no Proof of the Scripture's Imperfection from this Disagreement between the Hebrew and the Greek.

Next, I will speak of the Latin Versions of the Bible, which even in St. Augustin's Time were so many that they could not be numbred, as1 1.521 he saith himself. All the Latin Translations of the Old Testament before Ierom were made out of the LXX's Version, and not out of the Hebrew Origi∣nal, for generally the Fathers before Ierom used and adhered to the Greek Version. But he attain∣ing to great Skill in the Hebrew contented not himself with these Second-hand Versions, but un∣dertook and finish'd a Translation of his own, wherein he followed the Hebrew Original. The Chiefest Latin Versions were these three, 1. that which was call'd Itala by St. Augustin, by St. Ierom Vulgata, and by Gregory Vetus. This of all the Latin Editions was the most generally received and used, and was really the Antientest of all the Latin

Translations. But this was but a Translation of a Translation, viz. that of the 70, and must have undergone the same Censure with the Greek Ver∣sion (of which I spoke before) if it had been now extant. But it is not, it is wholly lost: only the Psalms remain, and as much as is found quoted here and there in the Fathers and Antient Writers. 2. St. Ierom's Version, for this Learned Father ob∣serving the Errors in the several Latin Versions (the Italian especially) which were in his time, did (as I said before) translate both the Old and New Testament himself: the first he wholly did by a New Translation out of the Hebrew Original; the second was rather a Correction and Emendation of the Old Latin or Italian Version than a New One. The Psalms, because they were daily sung in the Churches, and could not without offence to the People be changed, remained the same that they were in the Old Version. There is no occasion to add any Censure of Ours here concerning this Tran∣slation, because it agrees with the Original Hebrew. Only we will observe that when St. Ierom had fini∣shed it, it was not presently received by the Latin Church, but many Bishops refused it, and St. Augu∣stin particularly forbad it to be read in his Diocess, so greatly did they esteem the Greek Version of the LXX. Many that were ignorant in the Hebrew Tongue spoke against this Translation as a meer In∣novation, and fell heavily upon the Author of it: But he with great earnestness defended his Work, and sometimes repaid the Invectives of his Adver∣saries with too much Bitterness. Though some Bishops and others disliked his Translation, yet it was authorized and approved of by Damasus (the then Bishop of Rome, by whose Command it was first undertaken) and a great Number of other un∣derstanding

Persons, who saw its conformity to the Hebrew Text, and perceived it was void of those Mistakes which the other Latin Translations aboun∣ded with. whilst this Division Iasted both the Tran∣slations were publickly read, i. e. they read some Books of the Bible in Ierom's Version, and others in the Italian: and this lasted till the time of Gregory the Great. At length another Translation prevail'd, viz. 3. The Vulgar which we now have, which is made up of both the former, and is call'd by the Romanists Vetus & Vulgata. This by degrees got the better of all the others in the Roman Church, and was generally used by them, and is still Au∣thentick there, and is the Vulgar Latin which they now so commend, yea, which1 1.522 some of the Church of Rome hold to be of Divine Inspiration, and con∣sequently free from all Faults either in Words or Matter: and there are others of them, as Genebrard and Mariana, who extravagantly extol it, and they would perswade us that both the Italian and St. Ie∣rom's Version and comprised in this one.

But it is evident that this is not the Old Italian Translation which was used before Ierom and Au∣gustin's Time, for that was made out of the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters, whereas this differs from it in many Places. Nor is this Vulgar Latin of the Church of Rome St. Ierom's Version, because that was exactly according to the Hebrew Text; but this though it comes nearer to the Hebrew than to the 70 Interpreters, yet it often varies from the Hebrew, and adds many things to it, as in the Book of Kings especially, and in other Places: So that this Modern Vulgar Edition is not the Pure Ver∣sion of Ierom, but mixt of his Translation and of

the old one which was in the Latin Church before his Time: And this is the Opinion even of those Great Romanists Baronius and Bellarmine. We know then what censure to give of this Latin Edi∣tion of the Bible, it is for the greatest Part of it very Antient, and hath been used many Ages in the Church, and is justly reckon'd to be a very Learn∣ed Translation, for which reason Fagius, who was well skill'd in the Hebrew Tongue, and Drusius whom all acknowledg to be a Learned Critick, had a great Reverence for this Edition, and give a ve∣ry high Character of it: and Beza and Grotius prefer it before all other Latin Translations. Yet this is certain, it hath many things faulty in it; it leaves the Hebrew very often, and follows the Septuagint or the Chaldee Paraphrase, or even some Rabbin. Lu∣oas Brugensis took notice of above six hundred Faults in it: and Isidore Clarius a Spanish Abbot (and af∣terwards of the Council of Trent) observed eight thousand Errata's in it. Besides that it hath many Barbarous Words, the Sense in many Places is cor∣rupted, and sometimes quite lost. Sometimes it runs directly contrary to the Original Text, as in Gen. 8. 7. non revertebatur instead of revertebatir: And in 1 Cor. 15. 51. Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur; whereas according to the Greek it should have been, Non omnes dormie∣mus, sed omnes mutabimur: And several Instances might be produced of the like Nature. So far is the Vulgar Latin from being absolutely Authen∣tick, as the1 1.523 Council of Trent determined it to be even before that Edition was mended. But see how that Council baffles it self; it defines the Vul∣gar Latin to be the Authentick, and then orders it

to be Corrected, and printed again. Accordingly the Popes set about the mending of it, first Sixtus the Fifth put forth a mended Copy, and tied all Per∣sons to that: when he was dead Gregory the Four∣teenth set about the correcting of that Edition: and afterwards Clement the Eighth amended Pope Grego∣ry's in many Places. This was done after the Coun∣cil of Trent had declared the Vulgar Latin to be the Auth••ntick Copy: Which, with what we have sug∣gested before, is a clear Proof that it deserves not that Epithet, but that there were and are still in it many Corruptions. In vain therefore doth the Church of Rome prefer this Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before the Hebrew and Greek Originals; unreasonably do the Doctors of that Church com∣plain of the Defects and Errors of these, yea mali∣ciously do they urge the Disagreement between these, especially the Hebrew and the Vulgar Latin, and thereby endeavour to accuse the Sacred Scrip∣tures of Imperfection. The Sum is (notwithstan∣ding what the Romanists and some others that are their Abettors, endeavour to impose upon the World) the latter, i. e. the Vulgar Latin is ever to be corrected by the former, viz. the Hebrewd, and not this by that.

Besides these 3 Old Latin Versions there are others that may justly be called Modern; for soon after the Year of our Lord 1500, there arose several Learned Men well skill'd in the Tongues, who see∣ing the Corruptions that were in the Latin Versions, and comparing these with the Originals, endea∣voured to correct them by those Fountains. Hence after the Attempts of Ximenius Archbishop of To∣ledo in hi•• Opus Biblicum Complutense, w••ich came out A. D. 1515. and was the first Polyglot Bi∣ble; and after the publishing of Psalterium Octo∣plum

in a short time afterwards by Iustinian an Ita∣lian Bishop, there1 1.524 appear'd in the World the Translation of all the Hebrew Bible into Latin by Santes Pagninus a Dominican Friar. This Version was made Interlinear with the Hebrew Bible by A••i∣as Montanus; or rather, this Version which Pagni•• had put out being not exactly Literal, Montanus supplied it, and fitted it to the very Hebrew Words, and then put out a New Edition: and many Years after this it was reprinted in the King of Spain's Great Bible which Montanus put forth. Cardinal Cajetan also turned the Old Testament out of He••brew into Latin. Isidorus Clarius cannot so pro∣perly be call'd a Translator, as a Corrector of the V••••∣gar Latin. Malvenda a Dominican rendred som•• Books of the Old Testament into this Languag•• The Renowned Erasmus (whom. F. Simon takes n•• notice of in his Catalogue of Transta••o••s) tur••'•• the New Testament into Latin.

Hitherto I have mention'd Roman 〈◊〉〈◊〉 next follow Protestants and those of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religion, the first whereof was Sebastian 〈…〉〈…〉 German, who publish'd his New Latin Version o•• the Old Testament three Years before 〈…〉〈…〉 came forth, and afterwards corrected it and put in out anew. He is a most exact Renderer of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sense of the Hebrew Text. Leo Iuda a Zuinglian of Helvetia translated the Old Testament out of He∣brew, and it was published after his Death, about the Year 1543; the last Edition of which is usual∣ly call'd Va••ablus's Bible, because he added 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to it, or the Biblia Tigurina from the Place 〈◊〉〈◊〉 where the Translator was Pastor. He 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a kind of Paraphrase, to make the Sense 〈◊〉〈◊〉

easy and plain, whereas Munster more rigidly fol∣low'd the very Words. Afterwards Castellio put forth a Latin Translation of the whole Bible, for which he is severely reproved both by Papists and Protestants, as if it were too light and florid, too quaint and fanciful; but if we consider the Design of this Translator, which was to recommend the Holy Scriptures by presenting them in a Neat and Elegant Stile, we shall see little reason to blame him. The New Testament was turn'd into the same Language by Theodore Beza. And last of all, Ianius and Tremellius did both of them jointly tran∣slate the Old Testament out of Hebrew, and Tre∣mellius alone the New Testament out of Syriack: a Work which is mightily applauded by the Learn∣ed Buxtorf (who had Skill to judg of it) and is con∣stantly made use of in his Lexicon. As to the Osi∣••••ders (Father and Son) though they be reckon'd among the Modern Translators by F. Simon, yet I do not see that it can properly be done, because they only put forth the Antient Latin Version Word for Word in the Old Edition, with some Corrections of their own in the Margin, not altering the Text at ••ll. These are the Latter Versions of the Bible, all which have more or less amended the Faults of the Vulgar Latin, and have brought us nearer to the Fountain. Upon the whole I conclude that these several Learned Translators are all of them in their kind very useful, some by keeping close to the Ori∣ginal, others by using a Latitude. They have presented us, but in a Different Stile and Mode, with the true genuine meaning of the Original, ••nd none but Frivolous Objectors can complain of ••ny considerable Disagreement between these Ver∣••••ns and the Hebrew or Greek Text. The Diffe∣renc•• that is between the Translations themelves

is usually in the Diversity of Expressions used by the Translators, which causeth no Disagreement between them and the Originals. But if any other Difference be found, we know that the Latin must always give way to the Hebrew and Greek, and be regulated by them as the Clock by the Sun. Take this in the Words of a Great Man, even of the Roman Perswasion;

Wheresoever, saith he, the Latin Translators disagree, or a reading is sus∣pected to be corrupted, we must repair to the Original in which the Scriptures weres writ, as St. I••rom and Augustin and other Writers of the Church direct: so that the Truth and Sincerity of the Translations of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew Copies, and of the New by the Greek Ones.

So Cardinal Ximenius in his Preface to Pope Leo.

Having gone thus far, I will now proceed farther, and speak concerning Our Own Translation. Our Countrey-man Bede about 700 Years after Christ translated the Bible into Saxon. Wickliff about 600 Years afterwards translated it into the English Language, then understood and used by the People of this Place. Not long after this Iohn Trevisa, a Cornish Divine, set forth the whole Bible in En∣glish. In the Year 1527, Tindal translated the Pentateuch and the New Testament: and afterwards both he and Coverdale joined in the Work, and fi∣nish'd the Translation of the whole Bible. Tunstal and Heath (both Bishops) translated it anew: and in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign Archbishop Parker and other Bishops made another more Cor∣rect Translation, which was call'd the Bishop's Tran∣slation, or Bible. In K. Iames's Time another came forth, which we make use of and read in our Churches at this Day. It is certain that this last

English Translation of the Bible is in great repute among Foreigners, and is acknowledged by them to be the most exact that is extant. We have as great reason to own it to be such, especially if we take it with the Margin, where are set down the several Senses of many Original Words, whether Hebrew or Greek: so that where there is any doubt of the meaning of the Word which oc∣curs, we may take our choice. Our English Bibles surpass all other Translations as to this, and here∣by it comes to pass that the Holy Scriptures are faithfully and fully represented to our People, and they are laid before them in their native Purity and Perfection, so far as the Skill and Labours of those Translators attain'd to at that time. And yet I conceive it would be no Derogation to our English Bible if it were once more revised, and the Translation made more accurate and exact in some Places than it is. Which leads me to the Next Ge∣neral Part of my Undertaking, viz. the Emendati∣on on of the present English Version.

CHAP. XIII.

Our English Translation shew'd to be faulty and de∣fective in some Places of the Old Testament. But more largely and fully this is performed in the seve∣ral Books of the New Testament, where abundant Instances are produced of this Defect: and particu∣lar Emendations are all along offer'd▪ in order to the rendring our Translation more exact and com∣pleat. The Date of the Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses.

I Will now, according to what I propounded in the Entrance into this Discourse, attempt to shew the Defect of the present English Transla∣tion, and at the same time to let you see how it is to be supplied and remedied; that so this Sacred Volume may be presented to the Readers in its Vtmost Perfection. There is a great Number of Places both in the Old and New Testament which ought to be otherwise rendred, but I will chiefly confine my self to the New Testament at present. It is true the Margin of our Bibles doth give us ano∣ther Sense or Version of the Words in many Places: but those I shall pass by, because they are already before the Reader's Eye. I shall take notice of those Words only which are not otherwise transla∣ted in the Margin. Many Corrections of the English Translation are attempted by that Excellent Knight Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his Annotations on the New Testament: but I have not inserted any of them here, because I design to mention those only which are of my own Observation, and which at several Readings of the Bible have occurred to

me. I will instance in those Mistakes and Faults alone which are ••ot (that I know of) found out and observed ••y any other Persons. Nor am I in this Attempt endeavouring so much to discover a False Version as ••o render the present one (which is Good and Excellent) b••tter; by laying aside some unfit Words and Modes of Speech▪ and by substi∣••••••••ng others in their room, and by changing the ••rame and Disposition of some particular Periods.

Those few Places of the Old Testamant which I offer to be amended are these; Gen. 27. 38. Hast ••••ou but one Blessing? where there is a Word left out, viz. that distinctive Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so that ac∣cording to the Hebrew it should be rendred thus, hast thou but that one Blessing? The Omission of [that] is a Fault in Our Translation, as well as in some others. In 2 Kings 5. 18. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is thr••••e used▪ which signifies to bow▪ but we translate it to worship in one of the Places; which I reckon as faulty▪ because the same Words ought to be translated alike. I•• Psal. 14. 2. the true Version is the Sons of Adam. In Psal. 104. 25. the Hebrew Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred Swimming, for that is the Denotation of the Word when 'tis applied to Fishes. In the Old English Translation of the Book of Psalms which is used in our Divine Service, there are many things that require Correction: but because it may be our Church retains it for the same Reason, that when St. Ierom translated the Bible into Latin, he did not alter the former Ver∣sion of the Psalms, but left it entire as it was, be∣cause these were sung in the Publick Assemblies, and People generally had them by Heart; where∣fore he was loth to discompose so settled a piece of Devotion; for this Reason I will say nothing here towards the Amendment of this Translation. In

Isa. 1. 13. we read of vain Oblations, the new Moons and Sabbaths; but in the Hebrew these are in the singular Number, and therefore should be so tran∣slated: Particularly as to the word•• [Chodesh] the new Moon, it will not be distinguish'd from Choda∣shim, new Moons, which you find in the next Verse, unless you observe the Distinction between the sin∣gular and plural. Isa. 2. 10. is translated thus, Hide thee in the Dust for fear of the Lord, but not rightly; for the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendred either in these Words [from the Face of the terrible Lord] or these, [from or because of the Presence of the Lord of Terror] or thus, [from the Presence of the Terror of the Lord], and so it must be translated in ver. 19. where the Words recur again. It may be some may look upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as an Expletive here, because it is so in many Places, but we know that in many other Places it is not; and seeing that Word here may bear a Positive Signification, there is Reason we should take it so. It is my Perswasion that the ap∣plying of the word Fury to God, in Lev. 26. 28. Iob 20. 23. Dan. 9. 16. Mic. 5. 15. Zech. 8. 2. and above forty times in Isaiah, Ieremiah, and Ezekiel, is very blameable; for the Hebrew Words Aph, Charon, Chemah, Chamath, have no such ill Im∣port; they only signify the Heat or Height of An∣ger, and are rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Seventy. But Fury is something of another Nature, and denotes Excess and Exorbitancy of Wrath, and even Mad∣ness it self. Therefore I apprehend our Transla∣tors have done ill (though I question not their in∣nocent Meaning) in attributing such a Passion to God. Wherefore instead of Fury, let great Anger or great Wrath be used in the Translation. Again, i•• I would be Curious I could blame our Transla∣tors

for using the word Benjamite or Benjamites, Iudg. 3. 15. (and in half a score Places more) in∣stead of Benjaminite or Benjaminites: for (as I have hinted before) the Word being used to signi∣fy the Children of Benjamin, or the Sons of Iemini, (as 'tis in the Hebrew in some Places) it must needs have those two Letters more inserted into it, other∣wise you cannot derive it from those Words: wherefore it must needs be Benjaminites, not Ben∣jamites, as our English Translators have curtail'd it. As to the Words Tyre and Tyrus, the former of which is to be found in Isaiah and Ioel, and the latter in Ieremiah, Ezekiel, and other Prophets, I conceive it were better to use one of these only, for why should not the Name of the same Place be express'd and written the same? Let it then be Tyre or Tyrus, but not both. Here also I might take notice of some Unfit and Obsolete Words, the changing of which for others that are more in use would render the English Version much better. Thus fet, 1 Kings 9. 28. or ever, Eccles. 12. 6. Dan. 6. 24. chaws, Ezek. 29. 4. & 38. 4. grins, Psal. 140. 5. & 141. 9. taches, Exod. 26. 6. aliant, Job 19. 15. Psal. 69. 8. might be chang'd into fetch'd, before, Iaws, Gins, (or Traps or Snares) Tacks, (or Clasps) alien, especially this last being the Word which is used in other Places both in the Old and New Testament. Instead of the word after in several Places, it were better to use according to. Who should be put in the Place of which, when there is reference to a Person, not a Thing; otherwise there is a Confusion and Misunderstanding in many Texts, unless we have Recourse to the Original.

But they are the Defects in our English Transla∣tion of the New Testament which I principally de∣signe•• to insist upon: therefore those I h••sten to,

which are as follow. In Mat. 3. 7. and so in ch. 23. v. 33. our Translators render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Genera∣tion, but it should be in the Plural. This Fault is amended in Luke 3. 7. in the marginal Reading, where there is added [Broods]: and in Mat. 12. 34. in some English Bibles it is translated [Generations]. it should be so in this Place, and where-ever else the Word is mentioned; for if we will be exact in our Translation, we must assign Plural Nouns a Plural Signification. This I think no Man will de∣ny. In Mat. 5. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ren∣dred thus, till all be fulfilled, but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Verse before, which we render to ful∣fil: therefore it is requisite in my Opinion that there should be another English Word for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that two different Words being placed so near toge∣ther may not be translated alike. Let that Clause therefore be english'd thus, till all ••e done, or til•• all come to pass. In ch. 5. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may very properly be rendred the Sanhedrim, both because that particular Council or Court of the Seventy two is meant, and because that Word is the Corruption. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In v. 37. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should be translated is of Evil, not cometh of Evil. In Mat. 8. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. which we tran∣slate [let the Dead bury their Dead] is better turn'd into our Language thus, leave, or suffer, or permit the Dead to, &c. for so the Imperative 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Person to whom Christ speaks, are clearly and distinctly denoted: suffer thou the Dead to bury their Dead, thou who art one of my Disciples, and hast other Work to do. In ch. 11. v. 27. 'tis im∣proper to say, no Man knoweth the Son but the Fa∣ther, as if the Father were included in Man: but indeed the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is more general, and should be translated none, or not any one. The

right Translation of Mat. 13. 21. is not [when Tri∣bulation or Persecution ariseth] but it should be thus, [when there is Tribulation or Persecution] or [when Tribulation or Persecution happen]: but the former of these, viz. [is] best answers to the Original Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Mat. 14. 6, [danced before them] should be [danced in the midst] according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and you will find that thus it is translated in Acts 4. 7. In Mat. 14. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred [it is an Apparition] rather than [it is a Spirit]: for though a Spectrum or Angel (good or bad) appearing be vulgarly call'd a Spirit, and was so call'd of old, as is evi∣dent from Luke 24. 37, 39. yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being two distinct Words, we ought not to render them alike. The Translators were sen∣sible of this when they exchanged the word Spirit for Phantasm in the Margent: but I conceive the word Apparition is to be preferred before that, be∣cause it is more in use, and more intelligible. He walked on the Water, saith our Translation, Mat. 14. 29. but in the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Waters, and therefore they mistake the singular for the plural. I offer it to Consideration, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 15. 9. may not be rendred thus, [teaching Doctrines which are the Commandments of Men] or by inserting of [and] which•• seems to be implied in this Place, thus, [teaching the Doctrines and Commandments of Men]. Commandments seems to be put after Doctrines by way of Apposition. In ver. 22. instead of those Coasts we read [the same Coasts], and for [cried, saying unto him] we read [cried unto him, saying] which are both of them disagreeing with the Greek. In the last Verse of this Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might be englished [he went into a Ship] rather than

[he took Ship]; for though this latter Phrase be the vulgar way of speaking, yet the former is more agreeable to the Original. Mat. 16. 4. [there shall no Sign be given unto it] varies from the Greek, according to which it should be [a Sign shall not be given unto it]. Not and no are two different Parts of Speech. In the same Chapter, ver. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to be rendred be it far from thee, but ••e favourable to thy self. In v. 23. we read [he turned and said] but 'tis in the Greek [he turning said]. In v. 27. there is a double Fault, for in∣stead of [he shall render] 'tis said [he shall reward], and [according to his Works] (in the Plural) is put for [according to his Work] or his Doing. in ch. 17. v. 12. the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. they acknowledg'd him not; which is more than they knew him not, according to our Translation. In ch. 18. v. 10. the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred see (as it is in some other Places) and not take heed. In the same Chapter, v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be translated [to a certain King] but [to a Man that was a King]. See Luke 24. 19. In v. 28. the same Servant should be that Servant, for the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 19. v. 11. the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all do not receive, whereas according to our Translation it is all Men cannot receive. In ch. 20. v. 2. grant that they may sit is not the right en∣glishing of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but say that they shall sit is. In ch. 21. v. 33. he hedged it round about, should be rather thus, he set a Hedg about it, for in the Greek there is both a Verb▪ and a Substantive (viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which are not express'd in our Translation. In ch. 22. v. 9. we render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the high Ways, but this doth not express the two Greek Words, which may be en∣glished thus, the by-goings out of the Ways, or the

thorow-Passages of the Ways, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath both Sig∣nifications. That is a palpable Error of our Tran∣slation in ch. 23. v. 13. ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men, whereas it should be before Men, or in the Sight of Men, for that is the known Signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ver. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to strain a Gnat, not to strain at a Gnat. The Iews were wont to strain all their Wine, lest any little insects should be mingled with it, that they might not swallow any such Unclean Animals as Gnats, or the like. To this our Saviour alludes here, he reminds them of their superstitious sepa∣rating or straining the least Insects from the Li∣quor which they drank: and therefore our present Translation is amiss. In Mat. 24. 34, 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word in both Verses, and seeing it is rendred pass away in the latter Verse, it should not be bare passing in the former, as if the word were not the very same. The plural is put instead of the singular in ch. 26. v. 44. saying the same Words, but in the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Likewife our English Translation is not exact in v. 73. thy Speech bewrayeth thee, but the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, maketh thee manifest. I know these two are of the same Signification, but that is nothing to the purpose, for we are speaking of a Translation which sup∣poses the Exact rendring of one or more Words into another Tongue, if it be capable of it: so that we are confined to Words (where it is possi∣ble and convenient) as well as Sense. Our Tran∣slators render ch. 27. v. 5. in this manner, He de∣parted, and went and hang'd himself, but I conceive it ought to be translated thus, He went apart, or aside (first), and (then) went, and strangled himself. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he retired, as the word is used, Mat. 14. 13. Iohn 6. 15. and other Places. It would be

a Ta••tology, if it were no more than he 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for that is the same with ••ent, which follows. I translate it he strangled himself, because this word ••akes in both strangling or choaking himself with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Melancholy, and also with a Hal••er. In v. 9. of this Chapter there should in the Margin ••e added the Place of Ieremiah which is referr'd to, viz. Ier. 32. 9. as well as that of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. In ••. ••2. we read [the Graves were opened] but•• it should rather be the Monuments or T••••bs▪ and so indeed our Translator•• render the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. ••0. The true rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in v. 6••. ••s not ••s you can, but as you know▪ and then those Words there must not run thus, make it as su••e as you can, but make it sure, as you know▪ i. e. as you know how, as you know best. These are the Places in the Evangelist St. Matthew which I con∣ceive are to be corrected in our Translation, be∣cause they are not conformable to the Original, but some of them especially seem to vary much from it. There is a Fault or two likewise which perhaps may be imputed to the Printer rather than the Translators, as that in Mat. 8. 14. [his Wives Mother] which should be [his Wife's Mother] for it is not plural but singular. So in Mat. 10. v. ul••. which speaks of a Cup of cold Water, you may ob∣serve, that Water is not in the Original, and there∣fore should be written or printed in another Letter, as those Words that are not in the Original gene∣rally are in the English Bible of the last Transla∣tion. I might take notice of the Omission of a notable Reference in Mat. 2. 23. As in other Places generally the Texts that are referr'd to ei∣ther in the Old or New Testament are set down in the Margin, so here it would be convenient to do the like, i. e. to place Acts 24. 5. on the side of

those Words, He shall be call'd a Na••••rene.

I proceed to the Evangelist St. Mark, where I have but one or two Places to offer. Our Transla∣tors have not been exact in rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 1. v. 26. for they do not translate it a great Voi••e but a loud Voice, and the like they do in many 1 1.525 other Places. But though a great Voice be a loud one, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and ac∣cordingly great and loud (or sonorous) are two dif∣ferent Words, and if we would be exact we must make a Difference between them in the Transla∣tion. Cry aloud, said Elijah, I Kings 18. 27. but according to the Original it is, cry with a great Voice, therefore these Words are clapp'd into the Margin to shew what is the literal and truest ren∣dring of the Words. And certainly, where it may well be done, it is best to keep close to the Letter, and accordingly in the forenamed Texts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Place of the Kings) is to be rendred a great Voice: and so you will find it englished in one Place, Rev. 16. 17. unto which all the rest are to be made con∣formable. In ch. 6. v. 49. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Appa∣rition, not a Spirit, and therefore that Word is to be preferr'd before this. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in ch. 7. v. 2. is rendred, that is to say: but the exact Translation is, that is. In v. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated Washings, but we english it in the singular. In Mark 10. 46. there is a Word over-added in our Translation, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is well rendred by the way, or by the way side, therefore our English Version by the high-way side hath something super∣fluous in it. If you consult ch. 15. v. 3. you will

not find any Greek at all (in some of the best Co∣pies) to answer to those Words, but he answered nothing. Some may think why is a redundant Word•• in the 14th Verse of this Chapter: but it is an En∣glish Expletive, and fitly answers to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this Place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; why, what Evil hath he done?

In St. Luke's Gospel I find several Passages that are translated amiss: as first in ch. 1. v. 3. having had perfect understanding of all things, which may more sutably to the Greek be changed thus, having had exact understanding in all things, for the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 require this Alteration. Ver. 37. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems not to be fully rendred [no∣thing]: and the word [unpossible] here, and in ch. 18. v. 27. should be chang'd into [impossible], espe∣cially seeing that is the word in all other Places in our Translation. In ch. 2. v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated [all these things], but in v. 51. 'tis rendred [all these sayings]: but there is no Reason that I can see for this Variation, wherefore the for∣mer and latter Place ought to be englished alike. In ch. 6. v. 29. the Greek Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are thus interpreted, Him that taketh away—forbid not to take, &c. But this is de∣fective, for the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is wholly left out: therefore the Words must be rendred thus ac∣cording to the Greek, from him that taketh away —detain not: and this without doubt is the Signi∣fication of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, for Criticks have observ'd that this Verb denotes not only a forbidding by Words, but by Force and Violence. In v. 38. withal is superfluous, and should be left out, as you will see if you consult the Place. In ch. 7. v. 28. least is put instead of less. In v. 47. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as is not unusual among Authors) and ac∣cordingly

it should be rendred not for, but therefore she loved much. Indeed you cannot make Sense of the immediately ensuing Words [but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little] unless you interpret the Word thus: and the Tenour of the Parable (especially v. 42, 43.) shews this to be the Meaning. Wherefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is like the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies therefore as well as for. In ch. 8. v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated other, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the midst, as also this latter in ch. 10. v. 3. There is a misplacing of the Words in ch. 11. v. 36. the bright shining of a Candle, instead of a Candle by bright shining, for the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 12. v. 39. the good Man of the House is too vulgar an Expression, and may be chang'd into the Master of the House, which is the genuine Significa∣tion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Those Words in v. 46. at an Hour when he is not aware, may well be altered thus, in an Hour in which he knoweth not, for so it is according to the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 16. v. 8. the due rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not wiser in the Generation, (as 'tis rendred) but for or towards it. And besides, 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which ought to be transla∣ted for their own Generation. In ch. 17. v. 9. I trow not, may be changed for I think not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and it is best to leave out all Obsolete and Antiquated Words, as I wist, I wot, or ere, &c. and change them for those that are more in use. In v. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the singular is wrongly translated Voices in the plural. In v. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is trans••ated [the same Day] but in the next Verse 'tis [in the Day when]; one of these, viz. the former, is not the right Translation: Neither is that in ch. 19. v. 44. one Stone upon another, for in the Original it is, a Stone upon a Stone. That is not an accurate Version

in ch. 22. v. 22. as it was determined, for the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to what was determi∣ned. And that is not exact in ch. 23. v. 46. I com∣mend my Spirit, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being in the fu∣ture Tense should be rendred [I will commend.] In ch. 24. v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sad, but this is short and defective, and so the Translators thought when they rendred this very Word in Mat. 6. 16. [of a sad Countenance] which is the true import of the Greek Word. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in v. 38. of this Chap∣ter should be rendred do ascend, or rise up, if we will express the full meaning of the Word.

Some Texts of St. Iohn are not so well transla∣ted as they might be, as chap. 1. v. 15. Iohn bare witness of him, which being in the present Tense in the Greek should be rendred [beareth witness.] In ch. 3. v. 2. [the same] is not according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies this Man. In v. 8. [canst not tell] may be changed for [knowest not] which is more simple, and according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So in 2 Cor. 12. 2. the like alteration may be made. In v. 16. [whosoever] is not the true English of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every one. Our Translators in ch. 4. v. 23. turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus, he seeketh such to worship him; but query whe∣ther it will not be better thus, he seeketh such wor∣shippers of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being put here for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of whom he spake in the former Clause of this Verse. In the last v. of this chap. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated Miracle, but then it would not be amiss to put the proper Signification of the Word, which is a Sign, in the Margin, at least. In ch. 6. v. 9. the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one is left out in the Translation. The 53d v. according to the Greek is thus, Ye have not Life in you, but in the English thus, Ye have no Life in you. In v. 63. it is better

to use the Word [enliveneth] than the Word [quickneth,] because this latter to those that under∣stand not the Original, and consider not what fol∣lows in the Verse, is a dubious Word, and they may think that it signifies to make quick, agile, or nimble: wherefore 'tis better for the sake of some English Readers to lay aside the old Word [quickneth] both here and in some1 1.526 other Places, and to use the Plainer Word [enliveneth] or [maketh alive.] Ch. 7. v. 17. is translated thus, If any Man will do his Will; but it is short of the2 1.527 Greek, according to which the Words must run after this manner, if any one willeth (i. e. desireth, purposeth or resol∣veth) to do his Will. Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 26. is not exactly english'd thus, this is the very Christ, but thus, this is verily or truly, or in∣deed the Christ. In ch. 8. v. 3. the Preter perfect Tense is mistaken for the Present Tense, brought for bring: this latter must be used here, especially be∣cause the Words go on in3 1.528 the next Verse in the Present Tense, and are accordingly rendred by the Translators. The 14th v. of this Chap. [though I bear record of my self, my record is true] should be translated after the manner of ch. 5. v. 31. if I bear witness of my self, my witness is not true] because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the Words in both Places, and therefore it is fit in the same Book to render them alike, and not (as here) record in one Text, and witness in another; [bear record] in one Place, and [bear witness] in another. In v. 56. [to see my day] is not an exact rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but this rather [that he may see my

Day.] In chap. 10. v. 10. for is redundant, and therefore may be omitted. Or else turn for into that he may, which is according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 11. v. 26. he shall never die is not the strict Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. he shall not for ever die. In ch. 12. v. 43. the Praise of Men and the Praise of God, should be the Glory of Men and the Glory of God, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Word in both Pla∣ces. In ch. 13. v. 28. there is no mention in the Greek of a Table, though there be in the Transla∣tion: but however, if this must be mentioned here, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendred thus, none of those that sat or lay at the Table, not as it is now, no Man at the Table: See ch. 12. v. 2. In ch. 15. v. 22. the Word Cloke may be chang'd for Pretence, for the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Our Tran∣slators make these Words in ch. 17. v. 2. [that he should give eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him] to be the English of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but the right rendring is this, [that he should give eternal Life to them, which is all that thou hast given to him for them,] or [that all which thou hast given to him, he may give unto them, name∣ly eternal Life.] In ch. 19. v. 8. [that] should be [this] according to the Greek which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Que∣ry whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 20. v. 4. may not be better exprest than by that single Word [outrun.] In the 8th v. of this Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore is forgot in our Translation, and ought to be sup∣plied. Those Words in the 10th v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred thus, Therefore the Disciples came again (or returned) to themselves: of which Translation I have given a particular account in another Place. And here, before I quit the Evangelists, I might take notice of an undue rendring of the Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

which occur in all of them, as Mat. 9. 10. & 26. 7, 20. Mark 6. 22, 40. & 8. 6, 11. & 14. 18. & 16. 14. Luke 5. 29. & 22. 27. Iohn 6. 10. & 12. 2. & 13. 12. and several other Places, where they are express'd in our English Translation by sitting or sitting down; but they properly signify lying down▪ leaning, lying along, or lying on one side, and so should be rendred.

In the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 1. v. 12. the Eng∣lish Version is very deficient, for whereas it runs thus [which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath-day's Iour∣ney,] in the Greek 'tis after this manner [which is near to Jerusalem, containing a Sabbath-day's Iourney.] Those two Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are omitted. In ch. 2. v. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred sweet Wine (i. e. the best and most generous Wine, which would soon intoxicate those who took a great Portion of it) as well as new Wine, which is generally sweet and luscious: at least the former rendring of the Word may be set in the Margin. In v. 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is be ye saved, not (as we render it) save your selves▪ though 'tis true some Copies read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In v. 47. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refers to this Place, and is to be rendred the saved ones, not (as 'tis in our English Bibles) such as should be saved. In ch. 4. 14. we read [they could say nothing against it,] but accord∣ing to the Greek it is [they had nothing to say against it.] The 32d v. is rendred thus, the Multitude of them that believed were of one Heart and of one Soul, but the Greek runs thus, the Heart and Soul of the Mul∣titude of them that believed was one. The 9th v. of the 9th ch. cannot but be thought to require some Correction, for there is no Word in our Translati∣on that answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: therefore thus the Verse should be rendred, And he preaching boldly (for

so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be rendred, and there is an Example of it, v. 27.) in the Name of the Lord Iesus spake and disputed against the Grecians. But in our English Version the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is left out untranslated. In ch. 10. v. 10. eaten is instead of tasted, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the latter import. In ch. 11. v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be [who (not what) was I?] In ch. 12. v. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred and Praying, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is forgot. In ch. 13. v. 20. the direct rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is after these things, not after that. In v. 22. there is something redundant, and something wanting, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred [after my H••art,] not [after my own Heart,] and in the next Clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have been translated [Wills] in the Plural. I might add also that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might here be more plainly and simply rendred [he shall do] than [he shall fulfil.] Besides, not only in this Place, but in all others in the Old and New Te∣stament [after] when it bears this Signification should be exchanged for [according to.] In v. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred [because they knew him not,] whereas the plain Translation is [knowing him not, or having not known him.] In v. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred to be preached, but that is not the u∣sual Translation of the Word in other Places, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be spoken and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be preach∣ed. In ch. 15. v. 20, 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be englished thus [from what is strangled,] and not as 'tis now in the Plural Number [from things strangled.] In ch. 16. v. 1▪ and in many1 1.529 other Places [Timotheus] is in the English Translation, whereas this Word is express'd with some Variati∣on elsewhere, and he is call'd Timothy. This is to be

blamed, because (as hath been hinted more than once) the same Greek Word, especially a Proper Name, ought to be rendred the same in all Places. In ch. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated Areopagus, v. 19. and Mars-hill, v. 22. as if ••t were not the same Word. This I here blame again, and shall afterwards animadvert upon, viz. the Un••itness of translating the same Word differently in the same Chapter or Book. Either one or the other Version is to be stuck to. In v. 21. there is no no∣tice taken of the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which should be rendred [sojourning,] or [who sojourned there.] In ch. 19. v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is english∣ed [fifty thousand Pieces of Silver,] but not rightly, for there is not the Word [fifty] in the Verse, but the true rendring of the Greek is [five Myri∣ads, or five times ten thousand Pieces of Silver.] It is granted that this is the same with fifty thousand, but the Translation should be according to the Words in the Original, which are [five Myri∣ads.] I dislike the rendring of v. 24, 25. for the reason before-mention'd, viz. because the very same Word is differently translated. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the former Verse is rendred Gain, in the latter Craf••, but without doubt it ought to be rendred alike in both: which will suggest unto us the True Translation of that Word. Demetrius the Silver∣smith brought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no small Trade (so I render it) to the Craftsmen, whom he called together, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this Trade (so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be translated again) we have our Wealth. This I take to be the true rendring of the Words, for it is not probable in the least that the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signify two Different things in so short a Space. Besides, it is plain that it is meant here as I have represented it; for Demetrius here

spoken of, was a Man of a very Great Trade, and had several 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Artificers and Workmen (as they are here call'd) under him, and so is said to have brought them no small Work or Trade: wherefore he warmly stirr'd up these and their Fellows to cry up Diana and her Worship; otherwise their Trade (which is here translated their Craft) would fail, that Trade by which they had their Wealth. Thus the Signification of the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same in both Places, as I conceive. In v. 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought thus to be english'd [to be impeach'd of Sedition for or con∣cerning this Day,] i. e. for what we have done this Day. The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ch. 21. v. 1. which we translate [were gotten from] might be ex∣press'd in the Margin thus [were snatched from] or [were plucked from,] for this is the known mean∣ing of the Word. In v. 35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were better tran∣slated because of, than for, this latter being used here in an obsolete manner. The 22d v. of the 22 d ch. is imperfectly express'd in English thus, they gave him Audience unto this Word: The Word [unto] is not presently understood, and therefore should be changed for [until] which is more intelligible; [They heard him until this Speech] and no longer, that is the plain rendring of the Text. In ch. 23. v. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not an Ar∣my (as 'tis translated) for the Context shews that so Great a Number is not meant, but we are to un∣derstand by this Word a certain Party of Souldiers, and therefore it were better to translate it the Soul∣diery or Souldiers, as we find it rendred in v. 10. In the 29th v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated [I perceived.] but the true English is [I found.] In ch. 24. v. 3. and ••n ch. 26. 25. it were better to change [most noble] ••••to [most excellent], both because of the true Im∣port

of the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and because it hath been so translated in Luke 1. 3. Acts 23. 26. In ch. 24. v. 11. according to the Greek we are to read the Words thus, there are not more than twelve Days, and not (as Our Translation hath it) there are yet but twelve Days: and in the latter Clause of this Verse [for] is superfluous. In ch. 25. v. 14. there is no regard to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore we ought to insert it thus in English, when they had tarried there many Days. The Translation of ch. 26. v. 8. [Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the Dead?] may be mended thus, What? is it judged a thing incredible with you if God raiseth the Dead? In v. 11. [strange Cities] should have been express'd thus in the Margin, [Cities that are without] according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The plain Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 26. is, I stand judged or arraigned, not I stand, and am judged. The true Import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 28. v. 2. is not little (as 'tis rendred) but common or vulgar Kindness. In v. 11. the Translators forgot to put [Iupiter's Twins] in the Margin, for neither the word Castor nor Pollux is in the Greek, only the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We ••et, v. 13. is a Word now out of use.

In the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 2. v. 2. [we are sure] in the Interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is no more than [we know], therefore the other is too high a Word. In v. 5. [against] is [in] in the Greek, and therefore we can do no less than men∣tion it in the Margin. In ch. 3. v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred first, not chiefly, for the Apostle is rec∣koning the Privileges of the Jews in order, Im∣primis, saith he, to them were committed, &c. and after a long Digression he goes on, and enumerates the rest of the Privileges. In v. 4, 5. of this Chap∣ter,

and in several other Places in this Epistle, and in some other of his Epistles, he useth that Form of Speech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which answers to the Form of Detestation in the Old Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to the Latin absit, and signifies no other than let it not be; wherefore it is falsly translated [God for∣bid] in compliance with the vulgar Form of Speech. In v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred [is not God unrighteous?] for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Particle of Denying as well as of Interrogation; but according to Our Translation [not] is left out, which I would have in the Margin at least. That in Rom. 8. 37. we are more than Conquerors, is an ill Translation, because the Greek is a Verb. viz, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore should be rendred, we do more than conquer. There is a Defect in the Version of ch. 9. v. 3. I could wish that my self: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can be no less than I my self. In v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is better rendred might remain or abide than might stand. In ch. 11. v. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not fully rendred; there being two Words in the Greek, it should be translated with some Emphasis, [unto this very day]. In v. 25. [wise in your own Conceits] is not according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and therefore the true Tran∣slation is [wise in your own selves.] In ch. 12. v. 9. it is according to the Greek [abhorring], not [ab∣hor]; it is [cleaving], not [cleave]: and in v. 17. it is providing], not [provide]. In ch. 14. v. 11. [that] is left out before [every Knee]. In ch. 15. v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is translated [minister], and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ministring,] but they being two distinct Words I conceive there should be some Difference in the Translating them: therefore I apprehend that [administring] will be a good rendring of the lat∣ter, this Word shewing that the Words in the Greek are not the same, and yet that their Diffe∣rence is not great.

In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1. v. 7. coming should not be in the Text, and Revelation in the Margin; but if you will make any different Reading, let coming be placed in the Margin, and Revelation in the Text it self, because this is the very unquestionable rendring of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 4. v. 8. (as also in 2 Cor. 11. 1.) I would to God is a superfluous Version, for the Greek is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I wish, I would: and so 'tis barely translated in Gal. 5. 12. and Rev. 3. 15. and accordingly may as well be so here. In ch. 7. v. 18. the true rendring of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is nè reducat, not attrahat, sc. praeputium: but be∣cause it is in a matter which requires modest and chaste Speech, I do not urge any Alteration in the English. In v. 25. I have no Commandment is not exactly according to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. I have not a Commandment. In ch. 10. v. 6, 11. you read Examples and Ensamples, but why is there any Va∣riation at all in these Words when in both Places the Greek Word (viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is the same? In ch. 11. v. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated I will, not I would: however, let this latter be set in the Mar∣gin. In v. 14. [a Shame] should have been tran∣slated [Dishonour], for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, and is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the next Verse, which intimates this rendring of the Word to be most proper. In v. 28. [that] and [that] should be changed into [the] and [the], or there should be an Asterisk pointing to the Margin, where must be set down what the Greek signifies. In v. 29. [Iudg∣ment] should not stand in the Margin, but be taken into the Text, because besides the proper Denota∣tion of the Greek Word, the Context absolutely proves it must be rendred Iudgment, and not Dam∣nation; for the Apostle speaks of that Temporal

Punishment which the Corinthians pull'd down up∣on their Heads by their unworthy and profane ce∣lebrating of the Lord's Supper: for this Cause ma∣ny are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, v. 30. This is the Iudgment which they did eat and drink to themselves, and it is opposed to Condem∣nation with the World, v. 32. therefore it can't in this Place be translated Damnation. In ch. 12. v. 28. [Miracles] is [mighty Works] in the Margin, but falsly, for in the Greek it is [Powers], and so you will find it rendred in the Margin, which refers to the next Verse, where the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oc∣curs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be rendred in ch. 14. v. 40. according to order, not in order, for this lat∣ter denotes only a Methodical Acting. In ch. 15. v. 58. the simple plain Version is best [knowing], according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In the second Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 2. v. 5. the Translation seems not to be sufficient unless there be added a Parenthesis to shut in those Words, that I may not overcharge you. But of this I have spoken in another Place; only I will add, that both in this Epistle, and in that to the Romans, and in∣deed in most of this Apostle's Writings, where there are frequent Parentheses, it would be conve∣nient to give notice of this to the Reader, by in∣serting the usual Notes or Marks whereby they are express'd. In ch. 5. v. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not suf∣ficiently express'd by we labour: I think it might be more fully translated, we ambitiously strive, or we studiously endeavour. In v. 10. of this Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated, we must all be manifested, or made manifest. And so indeed the Word is rendred twice in v. 11. and I have often caution'd against the different translating of the same Word, where it will admit (as here) of the

same Version. Indeed here is in this 11th Verse a plain reference to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the foregoing one: so that unless we translate it alike in both Places, we shew that we do not take notice of the Apostle's reference. Besides, to appear before the Iudgment, &c. is thought by the mere English Rea∣der to be only making our Appearance, i. e. to be present there. We do you to wit, ch. 8. v. 1. calls for an Emendation, it being an Obsolete Expressi∣on. The plain English of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is we make known unto you. In v. 21. of this Chapter our Translators render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [providing for], whereas in Rom. 12. 17. they render it [providing]: but I have often suggested that the same Words ought to be translated alike. In ch. 11. v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [rude in Speech] had better be rendred [plain or unskilful in Speech], for in our English Idiom the word [rude] is as much as unmannerly, and there∣fore it is not well adapted to English Ears, which we are partly to consult in our Translation which we design for their Use. In v. 9. the Translation would•• be more exact if instead of [in all things] we read [in every thing], it being in the singular Number in the Greek, to which all Translations of the New Testament are to conform as far as they can.

In the Epistle to the Galatians there is something that may be amended in the English Translation, as in ch. 1. v. 16. [that I might preach him] but in the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that I may preach the glad-tidings of him. In ch. 3. v. 7. [the same] should be [these], for the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In ch. 5. v. 20, 21. instead of Hatred, Variance, Wrath, Strife, Drunkenness, you must read them in the plural Number, because they are so in the Ori∣ginal. The true rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 23.

is not there is no Law, but, the Law is not, i. e. it was not made, neither is it design'd to condemn such things or such Persons as are there spoken of.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 1. v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Remembrance as well as mention, wherefore the former should be put into the Margin: (See Phil. 1. 3. 2▪ Tim. 1. 3.) In ch. 2. v. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be rendred [which], but [by which], the Sense of the Apostle being this, God out of his infinite and inexhaustible Love hath from eternal Ages or∣dain'd and decreed to prepare all his Elect by good Works, to fit them by these for his Service, to ena∣ble them by th•• performing of these to walk as be∣comes the Chosen of the Lord. Or, it is likely the Apostle by the full Extent of these Words lets us know, that Good Works are our Preparative ••ven for Heaven and Happiness, we are fitted by these for the Glory above. In ch. 5. v. 3. [once] is not in the Original, and therefore must be ex∣punged the Translation. In ch. 6. v. 18. there can be no Reason assigned why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not rendred at all times or in every Season, seeing this is nearer to the Original than always. In the same Verse [thereunto] is not the full English of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which must be rendred thus, [to this very thing.] I could also take notice of the false spel∣ling, v. 16. [fiery] for [fury], which is to be found not only here but in other Places both in the Old and New Testament, and generally among all Writers whomsoever, as if it came from fier, not from fire.

In Philip. 1. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be translated [meet], but [just]. In v. 23. [which is f••r better] comes short of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Vulgar Latin renders mult•• magis melius, and we accordingly should english it [which is ••uch

rather or far better] or [far the best], the Compa∣rative perhaps being put for the Superlative. Be∣sides, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is left out, which shews that this Clause is the Reason of what went before: for the Apostle desires to depart and to be with Christ, and gives this Account of his Desire, for this is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 better: so that his Desire is Rational and well-grounded. In ch. 2. v. 19. I trust is not the right rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but I hope: especially seeing I trust in v. 24. is the Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a diffe∣rent Word. I follow after is the rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 3d Chapter of this Epistle, v. 12. but 'tis not a ••it Expression when it is spoken of running in a Race (as here): his great Endeavour was to forget those things that are behind, as he adds in the Words immediately ensuing: Therefore rather translate it I follow on, or I press towards, for so the Word is rendred in v. 14. In this and the next Verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be translated to lay hold upon, for it is an Agonistick Word used to express the Com∣batants or Victors laying hold with their Hands on the Prize that was hung up. But apprehending (which is the Word that our Translators use) is more ambiguous, and doth not so plainly set forth the Metaphor. In v. 21. of this Chapter he shall change, is too low a Word for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which might rather be rendred he shall transform, or he shall change into another Form or Figure, especially seeing this Expression hath a Reference or Allusion to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which may more exactly be rendred conformable to) immediately ensuing in that Verse.

In the Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 1. v. 12. [God and] or [God even] should be inserted be∣fore the [Father], for you will find [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the Original. In ch. 3. v. 5. I do not see why we need translate the single word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by two

Words [inordinate Affection]: that one word Passi∣on will suffice. In ch. 4. v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred [continue], but in Rom. 12. 12. it is [con∣tinue instant]. It is faulty, because (as hath been said) the same Words, when they are meant of the same thing, ought to be translated alike. In∣deed this could not be expected, seeing the Bible was translated by different Persons, and perhaps did not compare their Translations together: but for the future this may be thought of and amended, if a New, or rather a more Correct Translation of the Bible be attempted.

I pass to some Other Epistles: in 1 Thess. 2. 5. there is no need of rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Cloak of Covetousness, when the plain and genu∣ine Signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Pretence. In ch. 4. v. 4. [his Vessel] is not sufficient: but ac∣cording to the Greek it must be [his own Vessel]. Seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Thess. 2. 6. is translated [what with-holdeth] I think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the next Verse ought to be rendred [he that with-holdeth] not [he that letteth]. In the 1st Epistle to Timothy, ch. 2. v. 4. our Translation might be altered thus, [who willeth all Men to be saved, and to come unto the Acknowledgment or acknowledging of the Truth], for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot be rendred otherwise than [willeth], and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not Cognitio, Knowledg, but Agni∣tio, acknowledging, and so 'tis rendred, Tit. 1. 1▪ Again, in v. 9. of this Chapter there is a Mistake in the Printing, broidered for broided, (for so it is in Coverdale and Tindal, whence this Translation was borrow'd) or braided, i. e. plaited. Here therefore must be an Amendment, for broidering is quite another thing; or the word plaited may be taken out of the Margin, and set in the Text. In ch. 4. v. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be

english'd thus, is profitable (not profiteh▪ as if the Greek Word were a Verb) to or for a little (not barely little): for when we read it [bodily Exercise profiteth little] the Sense convey'd to us by those Words is, that there is little or no Profit accrues to us by it: but the true Meaning (as I conceive) of the Place is, that the bodily Exercises of the Athleticks (of which he often speaks in his Epistles) were, as to some things profitable, viz. in respect of their Health, Credit, Pleasure, &c. but Godliness is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon all Accounts advan∣tageous; where you see that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is op∣posed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and therefore as that is ren∣dred unto all things, so this should be unto a little, signifying that there is some Profit in those Agoni∣stick Exercises. After those Words in the next Verse, this is a faithful Saying, and worthy of all Ac∣ceptation, there should be a full Period, whereas in our Bibles there is a Colon, as if it related to the next Words. But this Verse hath reference to the foregoing one, This, i. e. what was said in the Verse before, is a faithful Saying. Ver. 16. [unto thy Doctrine] is not according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; [Thy] is not there: Rather render the whole Clause thus, Take heed unto thy self, and unto teaching, the two main things which are required of a Minister of the Gospel, and comprehend his Whole Duty. In ch. 5. v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred [to shew Piety towards their own House or Family], whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not taken notice of in our Translation, which is thus, [to shew Piety at home]. In v. 16. according to the Greek it should be thus rendred, if any believing (or faith∣ful) Man, or believing (or faithful) Woman. [Be∣lieving] is twice in the Original, but in Our Tran∣slation but once. In ch. 6. v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be

rendred Strif••, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 just before is translated Strife of Words. These being different should wholly differ in the Translation: therefore let Contention be the word for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is rendred in some other Places of the Apostle's Epistles. In v. 15. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be taken notice of in the Version, and accordingly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be english'd thus, in his own or proper times. In the second Epistle to Timothy, ch. 4. v. 3. the exact Ver∣sion is [the time will be]: and in v. 14. [render] should be the word instead of [reward]. In the E∣pistle to Titus, ch. 1. v. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be englished [in his own times]. In v. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might in the Margin be rendred, according to its proper Signification, Deceivers of Minds. In ch. 3. v. 4. the word Pity is falsly put in the Mar∣gin, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies God's Love to Man, not Pity: therefore that Word should be left out.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 1. v. 3. if we would be exact, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should be rendred effecting the cleansing▪ or working the purging of our Sins, whereas 'tis bare∣ly translated purging our Sins. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,▪ v. 14. is to inherit Salvation, not to be Heirs of Sal∣vation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 4. v. 12. had better be rendred living or lively than quick, because this is an ambi∣guous Word, and signifies not only Life, but some∣times Swiftness. Why should not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 15. be plainly and simply rendred to sympathize with, or have Compassion on, rather than to be touched with a feeling? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ch. 10. v. 8. is ac∣cording to the Law, not by the Law. In ch. 10. v. 1••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should, for the expressing the Sense more clearly, be rendred the Lord saith, that it may not be thought that saith the Lord belongs to the foregoing Clause, but that it may appear it re∣fers

to the following one: For the Words run thus, After that the Holy Ghost, in the Scripture, had said before, This, &c. the Lord said, (viz. in the next Words) I will put my Laws, &c. In v. 23. of this Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Confession or Profession of Hope, not of Faith, as our Bibles read it. Again, in v. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to be misplaced in our Translation, and the Words should not be rendred [knowing in your selves that ye have], but [knowing that ye have for your selves], viz. laid up for your selves in Heaven, &c. for the Greek Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will well bear this Signifi∣cation here, it being in the New Testament of a very large Extent. However, this rendring of it, and the referring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be taken notice of in the Margin. In ch. 11. v. 12. as good as dead is but a vulgar way of speaking; and seeing the plain English of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is [as to these things dead] I see no Rea∣son for using this manner of Speech in this Place. In v. 23. our English Word proper (especially as 'tis now used) doth not express the Sense of the Greek Word, and cannot well be applied to Moses when he was an Infant. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should rather be rendred fair, as the Word is translated in Acts 7. 20. or goodly, as we render it in Exod. 2. 2. where the LXX use this Greek Word to ex∣press the Hebrew Tob. In v. 37. the English Ver∣sion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is this, they were slain with the Sword, but it is very deficient, the true rendring of the Greek being this, they died by Slaughter of the Sword. No Man can translate it otherwise, therefore here is need of correcting our English Bibles. In ch. 12. v. 1. there is a palpable misplacing of the Words, which ought to be amended; [seeing we also are compassed about with so

great a Cloud of Witnesses] must be altered thus ac∣cording to the Greek [we having such a Cloud of Witnesses encompassing us]: and instead of [let us lay aside] read [let us, laying aside, &c.] In v. 16. one Morsel of Meat doth not answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which should be rendred for one eating, or rather for one feeding, which comprehends both eating and drinking, for this Place refers to Gen. 25. 34. Jacob gave Esau Bread and Pottage, and he did eat and drink: Which shews that one Morsel doth not fully contain the Sense of the Words. In ch. 13. v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not so properly translated [be not forgetful to enter∣tain Strangers] as thus [forget not the entertaining of Strangers, or the loving of Strangers, or Hospitality] (as 'tis rendred in Rom. 12. 13.) for this Transla∣tion shews which is the Verb, and which is the Noun. In v. 8. [is] is left out without Cause: for though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks be sometimes omitted in such Propositions, yet 'tis always understood to make the Sentence entire: But in the English it ought to be express'd, and particularly here, Iesus Christ is the same, or else nothing is affirmed, and so the Sense is left imperfect. Our Translators render v. 16. thus, [to do Good and to communicat•• forget not] but it is most exactly rendred in this manner, forget not doing of Good and communicating, for these latter are Substantives, not Verbs; and there should be a Distinction made between them in our Translation.

In 1 Pet. 1. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred at the ap∣pearing, but in v. 13. at the Revelation. This latter is the true Word, and therefore let it be used in both Places. In ch. 3. v. 20. leave out a. In ch. 4. v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have been translated Prayers, not Prayer. Concerning 2 Pet. 1. 10. No Prophecy

of Scripture is of any private Interpretation, I ani∣madvert, 1. That any is not in the Greek, nor need it be in the English. 2. It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and consequently should be rendred every Prophecy is, &c. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not private but proper, and so these Words, every Prophecy of Scripture is not of proper Interpretation, may be understood thus, Some Prophecies in Scripture have, besides the Proper and Primary Interpretation, a Secondary one: Or, the first and literal Signification of them is not the only Sense to be look'd after in them, but there is a higher and greater (which is the second, and as 'twere the improper Sense) couched in them. In c••. 2. v. 16. [he was rebuked] is not according to the Greek, but it should be [he had a Rebuke] or Check. In v. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [great swelling] may better be rendred [over-swelling] and so in Iude, v. 16.

In 1 Iohn 2. 20. you read an Vnction, and v. 27. the anointing: but there is the same Greek Word, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherefore the rendring of it should be alike in both Places. In St. Iude's Epistle, v. 8. [filthy] should be left out, for there is no such Word in the Original. Our Margin indeed takes notice of it, but then the word [filthy] should have been in different Letters, as those Words that are not in the Greek usually are distinguish'd in the New Testament. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 13. is rendred the Blackness of Darkness, but the same Words are english'd t••e midst of Darkness, 2 Pet. 2. 17. which seems to be the most proper Transla∣tion: however (as I have suggested on the like oc∣casion) let one of them only be retain'd. In v. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred (and most pro∣perly) [prophesied unto these], viz. denouncing Judg∣ment against them, as you read in the next Verse.

Lastly, in the Revelation I might observe that in ch. 3. v. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may most properly be translated [I have stood]: therefore let it be so englished in the Margin, if not in the Text. In ch. 4. v. 4. instead of Seats let Thrones be read, with the word [other] in different Characters before it. It is not sit that the same Word should have two diverse Readings in the same Verse. In v. 6, 8, 9. let [li∣ving Creatures] be taken out of the Margin, and be set in the Text it self in the Place of [Beasts], which is not a sit Word for those that are repre∣sented by that Vision, especially when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word here) is the word which is rightly translated the Beast in this Book. In ch. 11. v. 17. those Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are not rightly rendred, which art, and wast, and art to come, but thus, who is, and was, and is to come. In ch. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in v. 13. is translated [Won∣ders], in the 14th [Miracles], which ought to be corrected for the Reason so often given, viz. be∣cause the same Greek Word should be rendred by the same English one, if there be no apparent Cause for the contrary. In ch. 14. v. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rendred with them: [their Works follow with them.] In ch. 16. v. 12. the way of the Kings who are from the Risings of the Sun, is the true and literal Version of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but in our present English Translation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is absorp'd.

These are the several Places which I conceive ought to be altered, and translated more exactly. I say not this to impair or derogate from the Cre∣dit and Honour of our English Translation, much less to condemn the Present Edition, or to expose the Scriptures themselves; but my Design is to re∣present them in their native Excellency and Purity,

and to contribute by this Critical Essay towards so worthy an End. For it is certain that nothing can more commend the Holy Writ than an Exact Tran∣slation, i. e. such a one as faithfully represents to us the Express Text of Scripture. Wherefore I hum∣bly offer the forementioned Places to the Conside∣ration of the Learned and Judicious, and leave the whole or part to be approved or rejected as they shall think fit. Perhaps when our Church-Affairs are settled, this will not seem unworthy of the Thoughts of a Convocation, who I question not will see that the Revising and Correcting of our English Translation of the Bible in all or in most of those Places (and in several others which I have not here propounded) is very requisite. It is my judgment that as out of the Vulgar Latin and the Modern Latin Versions, one entire one might be made in that Lan∣guage that should be generally used in Quotations among the Orthodox Learned, so a New English Translation might be composed out of this Last Edi∣tion as to the main, but with such New Alterations and Amendments as should render the Stile and Sense in many Places more accurate, and should make it acceptable to the most Curious English Readers. And here I advise that the Marginal Notes of the Present English Bible be often consulted, because the best and most genuine Translations of Words are frequently put there. But in the foregoing A∣nimadversions I have taken no notice of those dif∣ferent Significations of Words which are placed there. I have only offer'd those that have not hi∣therto been observed.

In the last Place I might add something concer∣ning the Division of the Bible into Chapters and Ver∣ses. It is not to be doubted that Moses, the Pro∣phets, Evangelists and Apostles writ their Books

without any such Partition, and this was the way of all other Writers of old. But it appears that the Books of the Prophets were divided afterwards in∣to Parashes, before our Saviour's Time, and this distribution of them is often mention'd in the Tal∣muds. This was done by the Jews for the more methodical reading of them in the Synagogues. Some of the1 1.530 Greek Fathers take notice of this Di∣stribution, (and consequently it was made before their Time) for they mention the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testament, which signify the same thing, and 2 1.531 Ierom speaks of a Pericope of Ieremiah. Yea, if I mistake not, this sort of Sections or Parashes is mention'd in Acts 8. 32. and is call'd there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Books of the Evanglists and Apostles were after∣wards divided into certain Sections by some of the Primitive Bishops and Pastors, for the more con∣venient reading of them, herein imitating the Iews who had done the same in the Old Testa∣ment. These are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the3 1.532 Ea∣stern Fathers, and Lectiones by the Latin Ones: They were the same that we call Chapters. Verses were also antient, but not the same that are at pre∣sent, nor were all the Books so divided. St. Ierom tells us he distributed the Books of the Chronicles and that of Ezekiel into Verses. And some of th•• Books of the New Testament were thus divided: particularly the Epistle to the Galatians was parted into these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Origen, as4 1.533 Ierom informs us. But it is certain that all these Partitions, whether into Chapters or Verses, w••re very much different

from what we have at this Day. To this purpose 'tis observable (as Heinsius and some other Criticks out of Suidas relate) that the New Testament was di∣vided into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and so far as I can gather from the Account which they give of these two, the former of these was the division of a Book into Chapters, and the latter into Verses or some such small Portion: though at this Day there is a quite different Sense of the Words, for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the greater division, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the lesser. As to the Division of the whole Bible (consisting of 39 Books of the Old Testament, and 27 of the New) into distinct Chapters, as they are now a∣mong us, viz. 779 in the Old Testament and 260 in the New, it was made by Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury about the Year 1060: others say by Stephen Langton, who was Archbishop of the same See in K. Iohn's Time, about the Year 1200. It is said by others that Cardinal Hugo twenty or thir∣ty Years afterwards was the first that contrived the Distinction of Chapters of the Old Testament, for fitting the Hebrew Text to the Concordance of the Bible, which he was Author of. The dividing of Chapters into Verses was more lately, being the Work of the Industrious and Learned Robert Stephens about eightscore Years since. But whoe∣ver were the first Authors of this Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses, it is certain that it is not rightly made. The beginning of the 10th Chap. of Isaiah should not be cut of from the 9th Chapter, for it belongs to it, and at the Close of the 5th v. of the 10th Chap. (which is so now) the 9th should end. And many other Chapters in the Old Testament are ill divided. But especially in the New Testament one may see that the distin∣ction of Chapters and Verses now in use was drawn

up in haste, whereby some Matters that should have been united are severed, and vice versâ. The 1st Verse of the 4th Chapter to the Colossians should have been joined to the third Chapter: and the Di∣vision of the Verses in many other Places ought to be corrected and altered, as Sir N. Knatchbull hath in several Instances shew'd. We may take Iunius and Tremellius for an Example, who have alter'd the Chapters sometimes in the Latin; and it might be as convenient to imitate them both in the Old and New Testament in English.

Nor will this Changing or any other Alteration which I have before suggested, be any Argument at all of the Imperfection of Scripture. This remains entire in it self, and is not in the least changed. And the ••esign of my present Enterprize was to assert this, and to evince the Perfection of the Ori∣ginal Text, and to let us see that all Translations must be regulated by that. No Version of the Bi∣ble is so absolutely Authentick that we ought to ad∣here to that, and no other.1 1.534 The Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New are the only Standard, and all must be examined and tried, altered and amended by this. It is granted there is some Variation in the Copies, but the Diligent and Unprejudiced may find out what is Genuine. Some have fancied that the carelessness of Transcri∣bers hath caused some Literal Faults, but then they acknowledg that none of them are Material and Considerable, they relate not to Faith and Good Manners. This is the very Confession of Spinoza, who hath spoken so ill of the Bible; This I can cer∣tainly

affirm,1 1.535 saith he, that I have not found any fault or variety of readings about the moral Documents, which may render them obscure and dubious. Where∣fore our Assertion still remains impregnable and unshaken, that the Sacred Volume of the Scriptures is Compleat and Perfect, and hath all things in it which can speak it a most Consummate Work.

CHAP. XIV.

The Reader is invited to the Study of the Bible, as he values the Repute of a Scholar and a Learned Man. That he may successfully study this Holy Book he must be furnish'd with Tongues, Arts, Hi∣story, &c. It is necessary that he be very Inquisi∣tive and Diligent in searching into the Mind and Design of the Sacred Writers: In examining the Coherence of the Words: In Comparing Places together: In observing and discovering the peculiar Grace and Elegancy, and sometimes the Verbal Allusions and Cadences of the Holy Scripture, of which several Instances are given. He must al∣so be Morally qualified to read this Book, i. e. he ought to banish all Prejudice: He must be Modest and Humble: He must endeavour to free himself from the Love of all Vice: He must with great Earnestness implore the Assistance of the Holy Spi∣rit.

IT remains that I conclude with a serious Ad∣dress and Invitation to the Reader, to admire and value this Book which is so transcendently Excellent and Compleat, to prize it above all o∣thers

whatsoever, constantly to read, peruse and study these Holy Writings. The Laws of that Vile Impostor Mahomet, are stiled the Alcoran from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 legit, as much as to say the Book is to be read. And shall we not think that that Sacred Volume which contains the Laws of our Heavenly Master and Infallible Teacher, deserves that Respect from us? For this reason the Hebrews call the Holy Scripture Mikra, i. e. lectionem, because it is to be read by all, because this Divine Book is to be uni∣versally perused, revolved and searched into. We are not forbid to be acquainted with Other Au∣thors, such as may conduce to u••eful Knowledg whether secular or religious, especially such as may be someways helpful towards the understanding of the Scriptures. But there is a great Number of Writers that are trifling, vain and useless: others are dangerous and pernicious. Meddle with nei∣ther of these: or if you have, lay them out of your Hands forthwith, and take up the Bible, the only Book that is Worthy of your most serious perusal. Behold here the Book of God! There are no Writings any where like these, none can afford any thing comparable to them. It may be observed that the Holy Spirit hath made use of di∣vers Sorts of Persons in the penning of this Vo∣lume, Moses bred up in the Schools of the Egypti∣ans, Daniel one of the chief of the Wise Men and Princes of the Persian Court, David and Solomon Kings, Ieremy and Ezekiel Priests, Amos a Herds∣man: in the New Testament Matthew a Converted Publican, Paul bro••ght up at the Feet of Gamaliel, the rest of the Evangelists and Apostles Fithermen and Tradesmen: that hence Persons of all Ranks and Degrees may be admonish'd to converse with these Sacred Writings, that they may think them∣selves

concern'd in these Messages deliver'd by dif∣ferent Embassadors. I have sometimes observed that some Men of no contemptible Learning and Reading, and who are acquainted with store of Good Authors, have no regard for this Excellent Book, and never think themselves obliged to look into it. But this argues a great defect of Judgment, (to say no worse now) for even in the Point of Scholarship they cannot be without the Know∣ledg of the Bible. So far as they are Ignorant of this, they are deficient in Learning: for (as I have demonstrated) this Book is fraught with all Humane Learning, and gives Instructions concern∣ing the choicest Arts and Sciences. Upon which account it is of such universal use, t••at no sort of Persons can be ignorant of it without great Incon∣venience and Damage. He is no Antiquary that is not skill'd in these Writings which are of the greatest Antiquity: He is no Historian that is not acquainted with the Important Transactions of this Book: He is no Statesman or Politician who hath not insight into the Excellent Maxims and Laws which are found here: He is no right Natural Phi∣losopher who is not acquainted with the Origin and Make of this Mundane System as they are represen∣ted in the Mosaick Physiology in the first Chapter of Genesis: He is no Accomplish'd Grammarian, Cri∣tick or Rhetorician who is ignorant of that Philo∣logical Learning which these Writings afford: And chiefly he is no Good Man or Christian who is a Stranger to those Admirable Rule which are here laid down. Wherefore it is the concern of all Persons to converse with the Scriptures, and to ap∣ply themselves with great diligence to the reading of them, and that daily and frequently. Let this Holy Book be seldom out of your Hands. Though

you have often perused it, yet continue to do so still,1 1.536 for you will thereby receive infinite Advan∣tage. There is ever something gain'd by a fresh and repeated reading of it. Some new Matter is discover'd, or the old is illustrated and confirm'd: We either know more, or know better than we did before.

That our Reading of the Holy Scriptures may be of this Nature, and that we may study and under∣stand them aright, I propound these ensuing Rules and Directions. First, It is requisite that we furnish our selves with other Learning to make our selves capable of understanding the Bible. All Arts re∣quire a Master and Teacher, even the lowest and mechanical. All Trades and Sciences are to be learn'd: none presumes to meddle with them till they have been instructed in them. And yet we may observe that all degrees of Persons pretend to interpret the Scriptures, though they were never instructed, never prepared, as2 1.537 St. Ierom com∣plain'd of old. A great many imagine that the Weakest Brains can comprehend the Contents of this Book, and without all other knowledg attain to the meaning of them. But this is a gross Mis∣take, and is one cause of Mens wresting and cor∣rupting the Scriptures: They are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Pet. 3. 16. unlearned, and unwilling to be taught, (for so the Word imports) they neglect the means of Know∣ledg, they use not the proper Helps conducing to it. Or whatever they were in St. Peter's Time, we are

sure that now a competent Measure of Humane Learning is required to understand these Writings: For though they surpass all Humane Wisdom, yet it is as true that they have strictures of all Arts and Sciences in them, and are written in the Learned Languages, and (as I have shew'd formerly) con∣tain in them all sorts of Words, Phrases and Idioms: Wherefore there is a Necessity of the Arts and Tongues for understanding this Book. In the Wri∣tings of Moses and the Prophets, of the Apostles and Evangelists, there are the Rites, Customs, Man∣ners, Opinions, Sayings, Proverbs, of almost all Nations in the World, especially of the Antient Hebrews: Wherefore a Knowledg of their Writings and An∣tient Monuments, a Converse with History and An∣tiquities, are absolutely requisite, especially for ex∣plaining the difficult Places. And to have a true Notion of several Passages in the Epistles of the Apostles, Ecclesiastical History in needful, which gives us nitice of the Hereticks of that time, or of those concerning whom the Apostles prophetically speak. The Writings of the Fathers are to be consulted, and that with great application of Mind, that we may not mistake the Interpretati∣ons which those Learned and Pious Men give of the respective Places of Scripture, that we may be edi••ied by their Religious Comments, but not imbibe any of their Errors. This which I now say principally concerns the Guides and Ministers of the Church, who are supposed to be Men of Learning and Scholarship: and truly a great Part of the Bible is more especially fitted for such. It is their province to expound and teach this Holy Book, which is it self a Library, and is of that Nature that it cannot be rightly understood and explain'd without acquaintance with the Antient Writers of

the Church, without skill in the Tongues, Rhetd∣rick, Logick, Philosophy, History, Criticism; for as it is furnish'd with all Literature, so it requires all to unfold it aright. As for the Apostles, tho some of them had no knowledg in Arts and Scien∣ces, yet that Defect was abundantly recompensed by the extraordinary Gifts and Endowments of the Holy Ghost. So most of the Primitive Christians in the Apostles Days, who were not Hebrews, un∣derstood the Language in which the Old Testa∣ment was written by their Gift of Tongues. And as for the Greek of the New Testament, it was uni∣versally known, and so was in a manner the native Tongue both to the Jews and others of that time. But Men are not now instructed in Strange Langua∣ges by the Spirit, nor are they born with Hebrew or Greek, neither are they Inspired with Arts and Humane Knowledg: and consequently Study and Reading and Long Exercise are indispensably requi∣site. 1 1.538 Clement of Alexandria would have his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. his Perfect and Compleat Theologu••, be skill'd in Humane Literature and Philosophy. In¦short, to be a Consummate Divine, and thorowly knowing in the Bible, it is necessary that he be a Man of Universal Learning.

Secondly, that we may read and understand the Scriptures it is requisite that we be exceeding At∣tentive, Observing, Considerate; that we be very In∣quisitive, Thoughtful and Diligent. This Rule may be explain'd in several Particulars;

1. We must use great Thoughtfulness, Dili∣gence and Care in penetrating into the Design and Sense of those Inspired Writings. St. Chrysostom de∣livers

the Rule thus,1 1.539 we must not only examine the meer naked Words, and insist upon them simply and absolutely consider'd, but we must chiefly at∣tend to the Mind and Intent of the Writer. Some∣times instead of an Absolute meaning of the Words in Scripture, they are to be taken Comparatively, or with Limitation, they must be restrain'd to the Matter in Hand. As to Instance, No Man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 12. 3. i. e. no Man can say so from his Heart. There is that Reserve implied. Where I am, ye eannot come, John 7. 34. i. e. ye can't come yet, but afterwards you shall. All that came before me are Thieves and Robbers, John 1 o. 8. i. e. all False Prophets (for he means them) are such. It is re∣ported that there is such Fornication among you as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his Father's Wife, 1 Cor. 5. 1. This sort of For∣nication was not only named but practis'd among the Gentiles, for there are several Examples in Pa∣gan Story of marrying the Father's Wife, therefore here must be meant the more Sober Sort of Gen∣tiles. And so in many other Places things which seem to be absolutely spoken are to be understood in a restrained Sense.

2. It is necessary that we be very thoughtful and inquisitive about the Context, the Dependance, the Connection of those Places which we search into. We are to be exceeding mindful what the Words refer to, what Coherence they have with what went before and what follows. To Know the true Sense of them we must carefully observe the Sub∣ject-matter: for this is certain that Propositions are true or not true according to this. You will

meet with several Instances of this in my former Discourses on the Holy Scriptures, and therefore I will forbear to mention any here. Only I offer this at present as a General Rule for guiding us to the true and genuine meaning of Scripture.

3. This Attentiveness and Care must be exer∣cis'd in Comparing one Place with another, or with divers others, if there be occasion. For (as an 1 1.540 Intelligent Person rightly suggests) all Truth being consonant to it self, and all being penn'd by one and the self-same Spirit, it cannot be but that an industrious and judicious Comparing of Place with Place must be a singu∣lar help for the right understanding of the Scriptures. This One Rule, if well and duly observ'd, will car∣ry us through most of the Difficulties of the Bible. For this we may depend upon that the Scripture is its own Interpreter, that the best Comment on this Book is it self. Wherefore let us not be hasty and giddy, but diligently compare the Scripture with it self: for there are certain Texts and Passages of the Bible that are allied to, and symbolize with one another. The observing of this will be of great Advantage to us. Thus Gen. 49. may be ex∣plain'd out of Deut. 32. The Blessings and Pro∣phecies of Iacob concerning the Tribes receive Light hence, and also from the particular Histories in Ioshua and Iudges concerning the Actions of the several Tribes. This ought to be remembred that Obscure and Difficult Places of Scripture are to be explain'd by those that are Clear and Easy. We must interpret those that are Uncertain by Texts that are undoubtedly certain and plain. So as for those that are Brief and Contracted, the best way is to expound them by those that are Large and Full.

The Beatitudes in Luke 6. are the same, but epito∣mized, with those in Matth. 5. and therefore there is good reason to explain the former by the latter. That Text of Isaiah. ch. 6. v. 9. Hear ye indeed, but understand not, &c. is contracted in Mark 4. 12. Luke 8. 10. Iobn 12. 40. but it is at large in Mat. 13. 14, 15. and accordingly thence the Sense ap∣pears best. And whilest we are expounding one Place by another, we must not forget to search di∣ligently into all the Circumstances of either, and to consider distinctly by whom, of what particular thing, to whom, at what time, on what occasion they were spoken. If we be thus Industrious and Attentive, we shall be effectually directed to the right meaning of the Texts, and we shall find none of those Contradictions which Unthinking and Careless Readers through want of Collation of Texts imagine to be in Scripture.

4. This Inquis••tiveness and Observation will lead us to a discovery of the singular Elegancy and Beauty of the Sacred Stile. There are peculiar Forms and Modes of Speech in several Nations, pro∣per to them, and 'tis very hard to rende•• them in another Tongue: or if you attempt it, the Ele∣gancy vanisheth. Thus there is a particular Ex∣cellency and Lustre in the Phrase and manner of Expression which the Holy Ghost useth in this Book: it is such that it sometimes rises above the strain of the most Eloquent Orators of Greece or Rome. But this cannot be taken notice of by the generality of Readers, because it is impossible to discern it, unless with great sedulity they search in∣to the Words themselves, and by being acquainted with the Original come to perceive the peculiar Grace of the Words and Phrases. Thus in the Greek of the New Testament there is in many Pla∣ces

a most Remarkable Choice of Words, and a Wonderful Accommodating them to the Matter spoken of. Many Words in this Language are so full and comprehensive that they cannot be express'd in English. We do not reach the pregnancy of the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gal. 6. 3. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tit. 1. 10. for in these Words is included not only deceiving but self-deceit, or deceiving and imposing upon a Man's own Mind. Yea the latter Word which is barely rendred Deceivers, may import the deceiving of the Minds or Souls of others. Our Translators are forced to use two Words to render that single one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iam. 5. 16.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1. Pet. 4. 15. is translated by a Pori∣phrasis, six Words in English for one in Greek, but indeed this is a Compound or Double Word. There is more in the Original, Luke 21. 34. than can be express'd in the Translation: We render it thus, Take heed lest your Hearts be overcharged: But there is a Marvellous Elegancy in the Greek which ordinary Readers cannot perceive. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an equivocal Word, and signifies not only the Soul and its Faculties, but that noble Visous of the Heart well known by that Name, and also that Part of the Body which is the receptacle of Meat and Drink, viz. the Stomach. This is a Criticism not unworthy the taking notice of, and it much inhanses the Sense of our Saviour's Excellent Caveat here. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath this latter Signification sometimes, is evident from the Name of that Distemper which Physicians give to the Pain in the upper Ori••ice of the Stomach, which being near to the Heart, affects that; whence the Distemper is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is vulgarly call'd Heart-burning, which is indeed a Distemper of the upper Mouth of the Stomach, and should rather be call'd Stomach-burning, which is

when this part of the Body is pained and disordered by reason of some sharp and noxious Humour. The Stomach and the Heart affecting one another by Con∣sent, the former hath been call'd by the Greek Word which is given to the latter. Thus Galen testifies that the old Physicians used the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this Sense, and accordingly the Cardiac Dis∣temper was that of the Stomach. The affinity of these Words might also be shew'd in the Latin Sto∣machus and the English Stomach, which denote some∣times that Great Spirit and Stubborness which ••ave their Seat in the Heart. But it most manifestly ap∣pears (as I have shew••d) in that Language where∣in the New Testament is written; and St. Luke who was a Greek Physician, and well skill'd in the Terms of the Art, did particularly refer to this, and no∣tably uses a Word that signisies both the Stomach and Heart properly so call'd, because this fitly a∣grees to what our Saviour saith, that they should not be overcharg'd with Surfeiting and Drunkenness, wherein the Stomach is mainly concern'd, nor with the Cares of this Life, wherein the Heart and Affecti∣ons are most interested: Wherefore a Word that imports both is very elegant. A parallel Place is that Acts 14. 17.—filling our Hearts with Food and Gladness: where 'tis plain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an equi∣vocal Term, and signifies something else besides Hearts: for if there were not this Ambiguity in the Word, filling their Hearts with Food would be a very odd and unaccountable Expression. But the Translators could not use both Senses, therefore they set down one, and left the other to be understood: But the Doubtful Word, according to the Subject matter, may be applied both ways, that is, their Stomachs were replenished with Food, and their Hearts (as that signifies the Soul and its Affections)

with Gladness. And further to corroborate this Criticism, and to shew the peculiar Excellency and Pregnancy of the Scripture-Stile, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is appropriated to the Stomach in Iam. 5. 5. Ye have nourish'd your Hearts as in a Day of Slaughter: for here by a Day of Slaughter (as all Expositors of any Note grant) is meant a Day of Feasting, because on Great Festivals many Beasts were kill'd for Sacri∣fice, and a great part of them were eaten by the Sa∣crificers and their Friends, Prov. 7. 14. Isa. 22. 13. And consequently by Hearts we are to understand their Stomachs and whole Bodies, and by nourishing them is meant feeding and pampering of them. The Apostle rebukes the Gluttony and Intemperance of the Voluptuous Men of that Age, who made every Day a Day of Slaughter, a Day of Feasting and Re∣velling. I could parallel this with a Passage in the Old Testament, where leb hath the same ambigu∣ous Signification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Comfort ye your Hearts, Gen. 18. 5. which is spoken of Abraham's entertaining the Angels, and refers to the Morsel of Bread there mention'd, for so he was pleas'd to call his Generous Provision which he made for his Guests. Stay, saith he, support, sustain (for so the word sagnad signifies) your Stomachs, and thereby refresh and comfort your Hearts with this Entertain∣ment. So the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used in an equivocal Sense by Homer on the like occasion; for speaking of Mercury's1 1.541 being entertain'd by Calypso, he saith,

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

He supp'd, and stay'd his Heart (or his Stomach) with Meat. Thence Bread is call'd Mishgnan, fulcrum, sustentaculum, I••a. 3. 1. a Stay, a Staff. And among

the Old Hebrews Segnudah (i. e. fulcimentum) was a Dinner: and so Food among us is known by the vul∣gar Name of Sustenance. I hope that from all these things which I have alledged, the Critical Notion which I offer'd is made very plain and obvious.

And in several other Instances I could make it good that there are those Peculiar Graces of Speech in the Sacred Writings which the most Exquisite Translations cannot fully reach. I will particular∣ly instance in one sort, which are usually call'd Pa∣ranomasia's, i. e. Elegant Allusions and Cadences of Words. Thus there is a clear Allusion to Ia∣pheth's Name in Gen. 9. 27. Iapht lejepheth. There are no less than three of these in one Verse, Gen. 11. 3. Nilbenah lebenim, nisrephah lisrephah, hachemar lachomer. In Gen. 49. there are several of these Verbal Allusions, as Iehudah joduka, v. 8. Dan ja∣din, v. 16. Gad gedud jegudennu, v. 19. which are plain References to the Names of Iudah, Dan and Gad. There is a Paranomasia in the word Cha∣mor, Judg. 15. 16. which signifies both an Ass and a Heap, but this is quite lost in our Translation, Heaps upon Heaps, with the Iaw-bone of an Ass. The Mount of Olives is in way of Contempt call'd the Mount of Corruption, Mashchith, 2 Kings 23. 13. alluding to Mishchah, anointing, for which the Oil of Olives was serviceable. In Psal. 39. 11. the P••almist alludes to the Names of Adam and Abel when he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All Adam is Abel, or every Man is Vanity. And Selah is here added to denote the Emphatick Elegancy of this Passage. And again, Psal. 144. 4. Adam is like Abel: We render the Hebrew right enough, Man is like Vani∣ty, but then the Nominal Allusion is not express'd. There is a great Number of Paranomasia's in Isaiah: as in ch. 1. v. 23. Sare sorerim, the Princes are rebelli∣ous.

Ch. 5. v. 7. he looked for Mishphat, Iudgment, but behold Mishpah Oppression; for Tzedekah Righte∣ousness, but behold Tzegnakah a Cry. Four of these pleasant Cadences you meet with together in ch. 24. v. 3, 4. Hibbok tibbok, hibboz tibboz, dibber dabar, ob∣lab noblah. Ch. 32. v. 7. Chelai chelav, the Instru∣ments of the Churl. Some observe the Likeness of Sound in the Hebrew Words for Bridegroom and decketh himself, and for Bride and Iewels, ch. 61. v. 10. We may observe in Ier. 6. 1. a plain Allusion to the word Tekoah in the Word preceding it. A re∣markable Cadence is to be taken notice of in Mic. 1. 14. the Houses of Aczib (the Name of a Place) shall be Aczab a Lie: and the Learned Dr. Pocock observes, that the Prophet in the next Verses hath Allusions to the Names of those other Cities Mare∣shah and Adullam, in what he there saith of them. The like you find in Zeph. 2. 4. where the Destructi∣on of Gaza and Ekron is foretold, but there are no Footsteps of it in the Translation. The last Place I will mention in the Old Testament is Zech. 9. 3. Tyre built her self a strong-hold, Tzor built her self Matzor.

This way of speaking is used also in the New Testament by our Saviour and his Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Wind bloweth where it listeth: so is every one that is born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Spirit, John 3. 8. The same Word signifying Wind and Spirit, Christ takes occasion thence to speak after this Allusive Manner, which no Translation can express. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 16. 18. cannot be discern'd in the English Translation. St. Paul hath several Verbal Like∣nesses in his Epistles, as 1 Cor. 0. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Cor. 5. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philein. v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Thess.

3. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Henry Stephens hath express'd by the like Pa∣ranomasy in Latin, ••i••il agentes, sed curiosè satagen∣tes. And several others of this kind there are in this Apostle's Writings which are more commonly taken notice of, and therefore I omit them. Gro∣tius and some others think there are Allusions to the Names of the Seven Asiatick Churches in the things that are said of them in the Epistles to them, Rev. 2d and 3d Chapters: but perhaps that is too fanciful. This we are certain of, that this Mode of Speech was not unusual among the Oriental Wri∣ters, and so 'tis no wonder that it occurs some∣times in the Holy Scripture. Even among some of the best Roman Authors this is no unfrequent thing: thus Verres, the Avaritious and Extorting Pretor of Sicily, is by Tully call'd Verrens, Sweep-all. And many such Verbal Iests this Grave Pleader hath in his Orations, and other Parts of his Writings; which shews it was thought to be a Pulchritude in their Stile. So Martial plaid upon the idle Mari∣ners;

Non nautas puto, sed vos Argonautas.

Horace begins his Epistle to one Albius, a Patron of his, thus;

Albi nostrorum sermonum candide judex;

Alluding in that Epithet to his Name: and he hath several other of these Charientisms. Which we can∣not but sometimes observe likewise in other Anti∣ent Writers of good Account. But that which I remark at present is, that even the Sacred and In∣spired Stile disdains not this manner of speaking; which none are capable of taking notice of but those that have some Knowledg of the Original

Languages in which the Sacred Text is writ. And in several other Particulars it were easy to shew the Gracefulness of the Holy Stile, and that singu∣lar Turn and Peculiar Air in the Original which cannot be express'd in the Translation. There are many Words, Phrases and Sentences which must lose a great deal of their native Weight and Spirit by being done into another Language. Therefore on this, as well as on the other Accounts before-named, we must be very Considerate and Atten∣tive when we read this Divine Book.

Thirdly, There must be great Moral and Religious Qualifications likewise: for this is the Book of God, and therefore we must come to it with agreeable In∣clinations, Wills and Affections. Men complain that there is a great Contention about the interpreting of Scripture, and Different Parties can't agree: whence they proceed to blame the Obscurity and Uncertainty of the Scripture it self. But herein these Persons themselves are very blameable, for this Disagreement in the interpreting of Sacred Writ arises not wholly from the Obscurity of it, nor doth it proceed from the Uncertainty of it, (as some would suggest) but from Mens Depraved Minds and Passions. Wherefore our main Care ought to be,

1st. To free our selves from all Wilful Prejudice and Perverseness, which have been the first and ori∣ginal Causes of misunderstanding the Scriptures. Thus the Infernal Spirit, when he tempted our Sa∣viour, most perversly quoted Psal. 91. 11. and mis∣applied it to his purpose. And from him Hereticks and Seducers have learnt to cite and make use of Scripture to evil Designs, viz. to uphold some Er∣ror or Vice. What an Antient Writer of the Church saith of one sort of Heretical Teachers,

that1 1.542 they interpret the Sense of the Holy Writ according to their own Pleasure, is true of them all: their constant Practice is to strain and distort these Sacred Writings, to construe them accord∣ing to their own Fancies, and to make them like an Echo, speak what they please. Their great Work in consulting and turning over this Volume is to find something they may misinterpret for their own Ends. Their Affection to a particular Cause makes them believe and assert any thing, though never so improbable: and then they alledg Scripture to back it, though it be wholly foreign to the pur∣pose. These Persons are of the Number of those Depravers of Truth, who (as2 1.543 One of the Anti∣ent Fathers gives us their Character) do not accom∣modate their Minds to the Scripture, but pervert and draw the Mind of the Scripture to their own Wills. This glossing and expounding of the Bible, ac∣cording to Mens corrupt Fancies, is, as3 1.544 M. Luther hath expressed it, like straining Milk through a Cole∣sack: it blackens and de••iles the pure Word of God, it depraves and falsifies the Mind of the Spi∣rit. Those Men are to be abhorr'd that submit not their Thoughts and Conceptions to this Sacred Standard, who compel the Scripture to serve their Private Opinions, who make no conscience of put∣ting a Text upon the Rack to make it speak what it intended not, of miserably torturing it, that they may force it to confess what it never meant. These Persons should be reminded how great a Sin it is to distort and deprave the Holy Writ, and de∣signedly to draw it to another Sense than it natural∣ly

bears. And the Penalty is as grievous as the Crime; for, as the Apostle St. Peter informs us, this Generation of Men wrest the Scripture unto their own Destruction, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Wherefore let none presume to be guilty in this Nature, and dare to follow their own sinister Imagi••ations in the inter∣preting of the Inspired Writings, but let them at∣tend to that Advice of a Pious and Learned Au∣thor, 4 1.545 We should be more willing to take a Sense from Scripture than to bring one to it. Let us strive to know the naked and pure Meaning of the Spirit; and in order to that read the Bible with an Unprejudiced and Sincere Mind, which is an Excellent Interpreter. Whereas 'tis a certain Truth that Perverse Minds will pervert the Scriptures.

2dly. We ought to read these Divine Writings with great Modesty and Humility. Let it not trou∣ble us that some Parts of them are not level to our Understandings. And where we cannot solve some things, let us not arrogantly pretend to do it. It is no Disgrace to confess our Ignorance here. I can assure you this hath been done by the Learnedest Heads. There is a Learned Ignorance, as5 1.546 St. Au∣gustin terms it, and we need not be ashamed to be Masters of it. These four things (mention'd in Ec∣cles. 12. 6.) I understand not, saith Castellio. I scarce∣ly understand the thousandth Part of this Book, saith he concerning the Apocalypse. And 'tis frequent with this Learned Man to say, I know not the Mean∣ing of this Place. That Man is impudently rash who dares profess that he understands one single Book of the Bible in all its Parts, saith6 1.547 Luther. I own it that I am so blind that I cannot see any thing at all in that

dark Place of Scripture, Amos 5. 26. saith the3 1.548 Great Selden. But the contrary Temper and Spirit have swell'd some with proud Conceits of their under∣standing some Passages of this Book, when they have no true Apprehension of them in the least, and ac∣cordingly they have endeavour'd in a supercilious manner to impose their crude Sense upon others, not craving but commanding Assent to what they have propounded. These bold Men forget what the Wise King saith.4 1.549 It is the Glory of God to con∣ceal a Matter, to speak sometimes in so dark and hidden a manner that there is need of great search∣ing, studying and enquiring into the things that are said: and yet at last they remain abstruse and unintelligible. It hath pleased God, the Wise Go∣vernour of the World, that the Scripture should have Difficulties and Obscurities in it, that there should be some things hard to be understood. But as So∣crates said of Heraclitus's Writings, What he under∣stood of them was very good, and so he believed that to be which he understood not; the like may we with more Reason pronounce concerning the Sacred Scriptures. The Matters which we have Know∣ledg of (which are the main Body and Substance of the Book) are Excellent and Divine; and so there is Reason to conclude that those Parts of it which are hidden from us are of the same Nature. There is no occasion to find fault with the Sovereign Wis∣dom of God, but it is our apparent Duty to lay aside Pride, and to exercise Humility, which will capacitate us to understand even those Great My∣steries and Abstrusities when we have with much Diligence and frequent Study search'd into them.

3dly. We must think our selves concern'd to purge our Hearts and Lives from all De••ilements of Vice. For 'tis certain that a quick Brain, a subtile Head, and a nimble Wit, are not so much required to the understanding of Divine Truth as an Honest Mind and a Religious Practice. To Men of pol∣luted Consciences and profane Manners the Scrip∣tures seem dark and mysterious, but to those of sanctified Minds and holy Lives they are as to the most part plain and clear. These Qualifications render them as bright as a Sun-beam. What the Turks are said to write on the back-side of the Alco∣ran, Let none touch this Book but he that is pure, may with great Reason and Justice be written on the Holy Book of Scripture, and that only: for a Pure Life is the best Commentator on these Writings, A wonderful measure of Knowledg and Insight in∣to these Divine Truths which are here contain'd, is the Effect of observing and practising the Holy Precepts of this Book. This then we ought to urge upon our selves, to come to the reading of Scripture with defecate and purged Minds, with Love to what it dictates, and with Obedience to it. This should be our principal Care, to live well, and to walk according to this Excellent Rule. All our Religion, and the whole Conduct of our Actions in this World depend upon the Scriptures: therefore let us be directed and govern'd by the In∣fallible Maxims, Precepts, Promises, and Threat∣nings of this Book. We see Men live by Custom, by the Dictates of Others, or by their Own Opini∣ons, which oftentimes prove erroneous, and lead them into unwarrantable Practices. But they would not be thus misguided if they consulted These Live∣ly Oracles of God, this sure Word of Prophecy, if they

regulated their Actions by this Exact Canon. And hereby we are certain to improve our Knowledg in this Holy Book: for by living according to it, we shall the better understand it; by minding the Practical Contents of it, we shall have a full Disco∣very of its Principles and Doctrines.

Lastly, That we may attain to a right under∣standing of the Sense of Scripture, that we may have a due Perception of the Meaning of what is deliver'd here, let us most earnestly invoke the Di∣vine Aid and Assistance. He that reads this Book without Prayer, can never expect to be bless'd with a compleat Knowledg of it. For it is the sole Work of the Divine Spirit to illuminate our Minds effectually. There is required the special Help of this Heavenly Instructor to direct us into Truth: wherefore he is call'd1 1.550 the Spirit of Truth, and2 1.551 the Vnction from the Holy One, whereby we know all things. The same Spirit that endited these Holy Writings must enlighten our Minds to understand them: Which I find thus expressed in the Words of our, Church,3 1.552 The Revelation of the Holy Ghost inspireth the true meaning of the Scripture into us: in truth we cannot without it attain true Saving-knowledg. And a Learned and Pious Son of our Mother gives his Suf∣frage in these Words,4 1.553 Wicked Men, however learn∣ed, do not know the Scriptures, because they feel them not, and because they are not understood but with the same Spirit that writ them. Seeing then a Spiritual Illumination is requisite in order to the compre∣hending of Scripture-Truths, we ought with great Fervour and Zeal to request it, we ought with a

singular Devotion to repair to this Infallible Teacher, and with mighty Importunity beseech him to5 1.554 open our Eyes that we may behold wondrous things out of the Divine Law, and to conduct our Reasons aright in our Enquiry into this Sacred Vo∣lume. And He that commands us to implore his Help, will certainly vouchsafe it to all sincere and devout Supplicants. The Eyes of our Understand∣ing shall be irradiated with a Celestial Beam, and we shall feel an internal Operation of the Spirit on our Hearts, communicating Light and Wisdom. By the Assistance of this Blessed Guide we shall not miscarry in our Searches and Endeavours: This Divine Book shall be laid open to us, and we shall have its Mysteries and Depths disclosed to us so far as is convenient for us; and no rational Man ought to desire any more. Yea, as it is with some of those that have studied for the Ph••losophick Elixar, though they attain not to it, yet in their impetuous Search after it they find out many Excellent Things admirably useful for Mankind, which are a Re∣compence of their Labours; so though we may fall short of some Grand Secrets which are treasured up in this Inspired Volume, yet we shall not fa••l of some Choice Discoveries that will make us amends for our most laborious Enquiries. We shall mighti∣ly improve our Knowledg, and we shall likewise be under the special Benediction of Heaven. The Rabbins tell us, that when R. Ionathan writ his Tar∣gum on the Bible, if at any time the least Fly lit up∣on his Paper, it was presently consumed with Fire from Heaven. But though this be Romantick, and after the rate of the Rabbins, yet it is a sober Trutl•• that God will protect us in reading and studying

the Holy Scriptures. Whilest we are thus employ∣ed, nothing shall disturb or hurt us; the Divine Arm will defend and prosper us, and we shall per∣use this Book with that happy Success which we pray'd for. In short, by continual conversing with this Book, which is the only one that hath no Erra∣ta's, we shall know how to correct all the Failures of our Notions and of our Lives: we shall enrich our Minds with a Stock of Excellent Principles, and we shall be throughly furnish'd unto all good Works: we shall be conducted to the highest Improvements of Knowledg and Sanctity in this Life, and to the most. Con••••mmate Happiness in another.

FINIS.

Notes

• 2 1.1

  Psal. 19. 8.
• 3 1.2

  Lib. advers. Hermogenem.
• 4 1.3

  Juvencus, Nazianzen, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Sedulius, Prudentius, A••a••or, Rusticus Elpidius.
• 5 1.4

  D••-Bartas, B••chanan, Bishop Hall, Sir George Sandys, Dr. Donne, Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Mr. H••rb••r••, Dr. Beau••o••••, Mr. C••wley, Mr. Milton, Dr. More, Mr. Norris▪ Mr. W••o••ford, Dr. Patrick▪ Vida, Wes••••y.
• 6 1.5

  In his Li••e.
• 7 1.6

  Iudg Hale, in his Letter to one of his So••s.
• 8 1.7

  Cic••ronem amâ••••e, pro••ecisse est. Q••intil.
• 1 1.8

  Dr. Iackson, Vol. 1. Book ••.
• 1 1.9

  Article the 6th, viz. of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
• 1 1.10

  Imbecillior est Medicina quam Morbus, Epist, 16. ad Attic. Lib. 10.
• 2 1.11

  Psal. 119. 50.
• 3 1.12

  v. 92.
• 1 1.13

  Rom. 15. 4.
• 1 1.14

  Job. 5. 17. Psal. 94. 12. Prov. 3. 11. Matth. 5. 10. 11. Acts 14. 22. R••m. 5. 3. & 8. 17. Jam. 1. 2, 12.
• 2 1.15

  Job 7. 17.
• 1 1.16

  2 Cor. 1. 12.
• 1 1.17

  Iudg Hale, in his Discourse of the Knowledg of God and of our Selves.
• 1 1.18

  2. Tim. 3. 17.
• 2 1.19

  a kibbel accepit, quia à Majoribus accepta est.
• 1 1.20

  In Deuteron. cap. 34.
• 1 1.21

  Impossible est stare super Fundamento Legis scriptae nisi bene••icio Legis ore traditae.
• 2 1.22

  Verba Legis in loco proprio ege∣na funt, in alieno verò locupletissima.
• 3 1.23

  Magni montes depen∣dent à pilo.
• 4 1.24

  Sapientes suis ipsorum verbis robur secerunt ma∣jus quàm ipsis Legis verbis.
• 5 1.25

  Fili mi, attende magis ad verba Scribarum quàm ad verba Legis.
• 1 1.26

  Lib. dict. Bava Meziah, cap. 11.
• 2 1.27

  〈…〉〈…〉
• 1 1.28

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sacite sepem Legi. Prov. Jud.
• 1 1.29

  Pari pi••tatis a••••ectu & reverentiâ. Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.
• 2 1.30

  Est Tradi••io imprimis ad salutem Ecclesia necessaria, atque adeò magis quam ipsa Scriptura. Salmeron in Epist. St. Pauli, Dis∣put. 8.
• 3 1.31

  Tapperus, H••ntlaeus, Petrus a So••o, Bellarminu••, Cos••erus▪ &c.
• 1 1.32

  2 Epist. Ch. 2. v. 15.
• 2 1.33

  1 Cor.
• 3 1.34

  Ecclesia visa est ali∣quando facere contra Scripturas, aliquando praeter Scripturas: ergo ipsa est Regula eorum quae traduntur in Scripturis, ergo credimus Ecclesiae contra formam Scripturarum. Caranza.
• 1 1.35

  Stapleton Relect, Controvers. 4. qu. 1.
• 1 1.36

  The Council of Trent examined, pag. 46, 47.
• 2 1.37

  W. H. M. Dr. in a Letter lately written by him.
• 1 1.38

  Se••ast. Franc. Paradox.
• 2 1.39

  In ••is Tracta••. Th••ologico-Poll∣••icus.
• 3 1.40

  George Keith of Immedi••te R••••••lation.
• 4 1.41

  Barclay in his Apology, p. 59, 60.
• 5 1.42

  Sun•• bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, su••t mala mul••a.
• 1 1.43

  ••ib. ••.
• 2 1.44

  Quaest. ••9. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• 1 1.45

  Lingua Hebraica omnium linguarum matrix. Commentar▪ in Sophon. C••p 3.
• 2 1.46

  J. Cleric. Disl. •• de Ling. Hebr.
• 1 1.47

  Commentar. in Gen. 11. 1.
• 2 1.48

  Prolegom. ad Commentar. in Ge••.
• 3 1.49

  Huet. Demon••••rat. Evangel. C. 13. Prop. 4.
• 1 1.50

  Geograph. Sac. Pars 2.
• 2 1.51

  Affensum tamen retinemus▪ nam non lique••. De D••s Syr. Proleg. Cap. 2.
• 1 1.52

  Geogr. Sac. Canaan.
• 2 1.53

  Weems.
• 1 1.54

  De Dis Syr. Prolegom. C. 2.
• 1 1.55

  Scaliger, Capellus, Erpenius, Vossius, Grotius, Bochart.
• 1 1.56

  Mercer, Junius, Pererius, Bertram, Pagnin.
• 1 1.57

  De Legib. I. 1.
• 2 1.58

  Neiremberg, de orig. Script. I. 2. c. 7.
• 1 1.59

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. cont. Julian.
• 1 1.60

  Lib. 1.
• 1 1.61

  Lib. 1.
• 2 1.62

  Caelosyria urbem habet Bambycen, quae alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris ver•• Magog. Nat. Hòst. i. •• c. 23.
• 3 1.63

  Antiq. Jud. ••. 1. c. 7.
• 1 1.64

  Antiq. ••. 1. c. 7.
• 1 1.65

  Lib. 5.
• 2 1.66

  Lib. 4. c. 12.
• 3 1.67

  Lib. 14.
• 4 1.68

  Antiq. ••. 1. c. 7.
• 1 1.69

  Discourse the 47th.
• 2 1.70

  Phaleg. L. 4. C. 26.
• 3 1.71

  Lib. 1, 14, 16.
• 1 1.72

  Antiq. L. 8. C. 2.
• 1 1.73

  De Ophyra Regione.
• 2 1.74

  Psal. 105, 23, 27.
• 3 1.75

  In Osiride.
• 1 1.76

  Antiqu. L. 1. C. 6.
• 2 1.77

  Nat. Hist. L. ••. C. 1.
• 3 1.78

  Phur, & juxta cum regio Phutensis usque in praesens dicitur. Trad, Hebr. in Gen.
• 1 1.79

  Bochart in Phaleg.
• 2 1.80

  Exposit, in Epist. ad Rom.
• 1 1.81

  Deut. 32. 8.
• 1 1.82

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Politic. L. 2, C. 8.
• 1 1.83

  Gen. 8. 20. & 12. 2. & 35. 3.
• 1 1.84

  Devit. Mosis,
• 2 1.85

  De Synedr. l. 2.
• 3 1.86

  Contr, Appion. l. 2.
• 1 1.87

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 1.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 1.89

  Sanedrim Katon.
• 4 1.90

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 5 1.91

  Sanedrim Gedolah.
• 6 1.92

  Kehal Jehovah, De••t. 23. 3.
• 7 1.93

  Col Gnedeth lisra••l, Exod. 1. 3.
• 8 1.94

  Ezra 10. 14.
• 9 1.95

  Kahalah Gedolah, Neh. 5. 7.
• 1 1.96

  Annotat. on 2 Cor. 11. 25.
• 2 1.97

  In Aulul. Act. 2. So. ••.
• 3 1.98

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 1 1.99

  Lev. 20. 2, 27. & 24. 14. Dent. 13. 10. & 17. 5. & 21. 21. & 22. 21, 24.
• 1 1.100

  Lev. 20. 14.
• 2 1.101

  Lev. 21. 19.
• 1 1.102

  Chald. Lexic.
• 2 1.103

  Fortescue de Laudibus Leg. Angl. Coke every where.
• 3 1.104

  Lex e••t summa ratio.
• 4 1.105

  Nullum iniquum in jure praesumendum.
• 5 1.106

  Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus.
• 1 1.107

  De Repub. 1. 6. c. 6.
• 1 1.108

  Method. Hist. Cap. 1.
• 2 1.109

  Kings 24. 12. Jer. 39. 12.
• 1 1.110

  Joseph, Antiq. Jud. 1. 11. c. 8.
• 1 1.111

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 1 1.112

  Aurel, Vict
• 1 1.113

  Justin, 1. 6
• 2 1.114

  Val. Max. 1. 4. Tit. de Panpertate.
• 1 1.115

  —Habitarunt Di quoque sylvas. Virgil, Eclog••••
• 1 1.116

  Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 9.
• 1 1.117

  In Virgil. Aen. l. 1.
• 1 1.118

  From Kalah, torruit.
• 1 1.119

  Lex. Chald. p. 586.
• 1 1.120

  Thevenot. Lib. 2. C. 32.
• 1 1.121

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diodor. Sic. lib. 5.
• 2 1.122

  St. Augustin. de Civ. Dci, l. 18. c. 13.
• 1 1.123

  From shacar, ebrius suit.
• 2 1.124

  Hom. 7. in Lev.
• 3 1.125

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 4 1.126

  Omne quod inebriare potes•• apud Hebraeos sic••ra dicitur. Hieronym. lib. d•• Nom. Hebr.
• 5 1.127

  •• soba, inebriatus ••uit.
• 6 1.128

  Lib. 1. c. 2.
• 7 1.129

  Lib. 2. c. 77.
• 2 1.130

  Exod. 12. 11.
• 1 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Vitâ Politicâ.
• 2 1.132

  Deipnosoph. l. 8, &c.
• 1 1.133

  Virgil. Aen. 8.
• 2 1.134

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Deipn. l. 1.
• 3 1.135

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 11.
• 1 1.136

  Dr. Hammond's Annot. on March. 8. 11.
• 2 1.137

  Matth. 14. 19. Joh. 13. 23.
• 3 1.138

  Matth. 9. 10. Mark. 16. 14. Luk. 22. 27. John. 6. 11.
• 1 1.139

  Foeminae cum viris cubantibus sedentes coenitabant. Val. Max. l. 2. c. 1.
• 1 1.140

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 1.141

  Cic. Offic. l. 3.
• 3 1.142

  Epist. ad Sophr. lib. 4.
• 4 1.143

  Juven. Sat. 11.
• 5 1.144

  In Verr. 1.
• 6 1.145

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Zonaras de Heliogabalo.
• 7 1.146

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—Hom.
• 1 1.147

  1 Cor. 4. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 10.
• 2 1.148

  Mat. 24. 45. Luke 12. 42. Ephes. 2. 19.
• 1 1.149

  Haec Metaphora •• convivii apparatoribus & dapu•••• instructo∣oribus ducta est. Gerhard. Harm. Evang.
• 2 1.150

  De Benefic. l. 3.
• 1 1.151

  Lib. 14.
• 2 1.152

  Deposui soleas, &c. Epigr. lib. 5.
• 3 1.153

  Accur∣runt servi, soleas detrahunt, &c. Heautontim.
• 4 1.154

  Luke 7. 38. John 12. 3.
• 1 1.155

  Odyss.••.
• 2 1.156

  Epigr. Lib. 3.
• 3 1.157

  T. Burne•• Theory of the Earth.
• 2 1.158

  Theory of the Earth.
• 1 1.159

  Drusius.
• 2 1.160

  Jer. 35. 7.
• 1 1.161

  Joseph. Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3.
• 2 1.162

  Places named of old from Per∣sons; as Adam, Ios. 3. 16. Abel, 2 Sam. 20. 18. Cain, Ios. 15. 57. Sihon. Numb. 21. 34. So Haran, Jabesh, Sal∣mon, ••ahab, Jezreel, Ephraim, &c.
• 3 1.163

  Ovid, Lucan, Ju∣venal.
• 1 1.164

  Arias Montanus, Buteo, Hostus, Jacobus Capellus, Kir••cher, &c.
• 2 1.165

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strom. 1.
• 1 1.166

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ezekiel▪ Tom. 2. Par▪ ••. Lib.••.
• 1 1.167

  Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.
• 1 1.168

  Annot. on Ma••. 4. 5.
• 1 1.169

  Pirk. Avoth. c. 9.
• 2 1.170

  Antiq. I. 1. c. 3.
• 1 1.171

  Strom. I. 1.
• 2 1.172

  De Praepar. Evang. l. 9.
• 3 1.173

  Lib. 7. cont. Julian.
• 4 1.174

  De Civ. Dei, l. 18.
• 5 1.175

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plutarch. Sympos. l▪ 9. quaest. 3▪
• 6 1.176

  Lib. 3.
• 1 1.177

  Dionys. P••ri••g.
• 2 1.178

  Nat. Hist. I. 7. c. 56.
• 1 1.179

  In Cratylo.
• 2 1.180

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 3 1.181

  De Isid. & Osir.
• 1 1.182

  De Myst. Aegypt. I. 1. c. 2.
• 2 1.183

  Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. ••6.
• 3 1.184

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••raniâ.
• 4 1.185

  Virgil. Eclog. I0.
• 5 1.186

  Dionys. Halicar. 1. 3.
• 6 1.187

  Epist. l. 7, 27.
• 7 1.188

  Instit. l. 10. c. 3.
• 8 1.189

  In Curcul.
• 9 1.190

  Lib. 44.
• 1 1.191

  In ••••otic.
• 2 1.192

  Plumbeis voluminibus monumenta publica fieri c••••pta sunt. N. Hist. ••. 13. c. 11.
• 3 1.193

  Exod. 38. 23.
• 4 1.194

  In palmarum foliis primùm scriptita•••••• Plin. l. 13. c. 11.
• 5 1.195

  Virgil. Aen. 3. Juvenal. Sat. ••.
• 6 1.196

  Cic. 2. ad Quint. fratr. Plin. I. 13. c. 11. Alexander ab Alexand. Gen. dier. I. 2. c. 30.
• 7 1.197

  Lib. 4. dec. 1.
• 8 1.198

  Lib. 18. c. 11.
• 9 1.199

  In Antonino.
• 1 1.200

  Grotius in loc.
• 2 1.201

  Lib. 4.
• 3 1.202

  Antiq. l. 2. c. 5.
• 4 1.203

  Papyrus est planta nasce•••• in palustribus Aegypti, aut quiesc••ntibus Nili aquis. Lib. 23. c. 11.
• 5 1.204

  Metamorph. l. 15.
• 6 1.205

  In Terpsichore.
• 7 1.206

  Antiq. l. 12. C. 2.
• 8 1.207

  Sa••. 5.
• 9 1.208

  Sa••. 14.
• 1 1.209

  Sa••. 5.
• 2 1.210

  Jer. 17. 1.
• 1 1.211

  M••rt. Epigr. 38. lib. 14.
• 1 1.212

  Nat. Hist. I. 35. c. 5.
• 2 1.213

  Sat. 3.
• 1 1.214

  Arcana Historiae.
• 2 1.215

  Antiq. l. 2. c. 14.
• 1 1.216

  Quaest. in cap. 4. Gen. v. 21.
• 2 1.217

  Geogr. l. 1▪
• 1 1.218

  Bishop Stillingfleet Origin. Sacr.
• 1 1.219

  a Sam. 23. 1.
• 2 1.220

  1 Chron. 25.
• 2 1.221

  Chron. 5. 12, 13.
• 1 1.222

  Psal. 4. 1.
• 2 1.223

  Psal. 5. 1.
• 3 1.224

  De Leg. Lib. 2••
• 1 1.225

  Odyss▪ r.
• 1 1.226

  Socrates jam senex institui lyra non erubescebat. Quintil.
• 1 1.227

  In Cratylo.
• 2 1.228

  Antiq. ••. 8.
• 1 1.229

  Mr. Lock concerning Education.
• 1 1.230

  Stromat. l. 1, & 2.
• 2 1.231

  Demonst. Evang.
• 3 1.232

  Steuch. Eugub, de Perenni Philos. Theoph, Gale.
• 4 1.233

  In Pro••emio.
• 1 1.234

  Nat. Hist. l. 19. c. 5.
• 2 1.235

  Lib. 29. C. 1.
• 1 1.236

  Gen. 7. 16.
• 2 1.237

  Lib. 2.
• 3 1.238

  Lib. 17.
• 4 1.239

  Lib. 5. c. 9. I. 6. c. 22. I. 13. c. 11.
• 5 1.240

  Lib. 4. c. 9.
• 1 1.241

  Nic. Fuller. Misc. 1. 4. c. 19.
• 1 1.242

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dionys. Alexandr.
• 1 1.243

  Navem primus ex Egypto in Graeciam Danaus invexit: an∣te ratibus navigabatur, inventis in mari rubro, inter insulas, •• rege Erythr••. Lib. 7. c. 56.
• 2 1.244

  Stat. Achill. 1. Sil. Ital. Punic. l. 11. Manil. Astronom. l. 1.
• 1 1.245

  Ant •• Jud. l. 1. c. 3.
• 2 1.246

  Cap. 8. 9.
• 3 1.247

  Lex. Chald. p. 156.
• 1 1.248

  Dr. Burnet Theor. Tellur.
• 1 1.249

  Jos. 8. 4. Judg. 7. 16. & 20. 38. 2 Sam. 5. 24.
• 1 1.250

  Alia ad tegendum, alia ad nccendum. Cic. pro Caecin.
• 2 1.251

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the Seventy render it.)
• 1 1.252

  In Casiuâ.
• 2 1.253

  Aeneid. 9.
• 3 1.254

  Mr. Selden's Titles of Ho∣nour.
• 1 1.255

  Lib. 1.
• 1 1.256

  Geogr. l. 10.
• 2 1.257

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••.
• 1 1.258

  Aen. 9.
• 2 1.259

  Lib. 8. Dec. 4.
• 3 1.260

  De re mili••ar•• Lib. 1.
• 1 1.261

  Hist, lib. 4. c. 9.
• 2 1.262

  De Cyri Institu••. l. 6.
• 1 1.263

  Buxtorf. Chald. Lex. p. 2583.
• 1 1.264

  Prov. 1. 17. Psal. 124. 7. Prov. 7. 23. Eccles▪ 〈…〉〈…〉▪ Job 18. 8, 9, 10▪ Job 40. 24. Am. 3▪ 5.
• 1 1.265

  Antiqu. lib. 1. c. 3.
• 1 1.266

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Polit. l. 2. c. 8.
• 1 1.267

  Ad Q. Fratrem, l. 2.
• 2 1.268

  In Caligulâ, Cap. 25.
• 3 1.269

  Satyr. 6.
• 1 1.270

  Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.271

  Deipnosoph. l. 4. c. 6.
• 2 1.272

  In Calliop••.
• 3 1.273

  Epist. 64.
• 4 1.274

  Lib. 4. Ode 11.
• 5 1.275

  Lib. 3. Epist. 7.
• 1 1.276

  Aristor. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 8.
• 2 1.277

  Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 3.
• 3 1.278

  De Re Rust. l. 2.
• 4 1.279

  In Poplicolâ.
• 5 1.280

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eth. l. 5. c. 8.
• 6 1.281

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 7 1.282

  Gen. 20. 16. & 23. 16. & 29. 9. & 43. 22. Deut. 2. 28. 2 Sam. 18. 11. Judg. 8. 26. 2 Kings 5. 5. 2 Chron. 9. 16.
• 8 1.283

  J. Clerici Commentar. in Gen. 3. 7.
• 9 1.284

  Dr. Skinner.
• 1 1.285

  Archaeolog. Philos. cap. 7.
• 2 1.286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• 1 1.287

  Cidarim Persae capitis vocabant insigne. Hist lib. 6.
• 2 1.288

  Com∣ment. in Ezek. 16.
• 1 1.289

  Mos Maurorum est ut inaures etiam in nari••us hab••ant foe∣••••••••▪ &c. Quaest. in Genes.
• 2 1.290

  Thevenot, lib 3.
• 1 1.291

  Mr. Weems, of the Image of God.
• 2 1.292

  Juvenal▪ Sat. 1.
• 1 1.293

  Pertunde aures ut imitemur Arabas.
• 2 1.294

  In Oriente qui∣dem & viris aurum gestare e•• loci decus existimatur. Nat. H••••t. l. 11. c. 37.
• 3 1.295

  In Poenulo, Act. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.
• 7 1.296

  Saturnal. I. 7. c. 3.
• 1 1.297

  Juvenal. Sat. 1.
• 2 1.298

  Nec in aliâ parte ••oeminis majus impendium, margaritis dependentibus. Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 37.
• 3 1.299

  Muliebris insania viros ita subjecit, ut bina ••ut terna Patrimonia auribus singulis suspenderent. De Benefic. ••. 7.
• 4 1.300

  Graciles aurium cutes Kalendarium expendunt. Ter∣••ull▪ de hab. mulierum.
• 5 1.301

  S. Augustin. de Doctr. Christian. l. 2.
• 6 1.302

  Execranda super∣stitio ligaturarum, in quibus etiam inaures virorum in summis ex un•• parte auriculis suspensae deputantur, sed ad serviendum dae∣monibus adhibetur. Augustin. Epist. 73.
• 7 1.303

  J. Clerk Comme••∣tar. in Gen. 35. 4.
• 1 1.304

  Lamprid, in Severo.
• 1 1.305

  Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 1.
• 2 1.306

  Lib. 11.
• 3 1.307

  Hist. l. 3.
• 4 1.308

  Na••. Hist. l. 33. c. 1.
• 1 1.309

  Odys. ••.
• 2 1.310

  Odys. ••.
• 1 1.311

  In vir. Adriani.
• 1 1.312

  Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 26.
• 2 1.313

  Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 9.
• 3 1.314

  De Ar∣chitect. l. 7. c. 3.
• 4 1.315

  In Bucolic.
• 5 1.316

  Lib. 3.
• 6 1.317

  De Cyri Institut. l. 3.
• 7 1.318

  De reb. gest. Alex. M. l. 5.
• 8 1.319

  Musaeus in Erone.
• 9 1.320

  Dio∣••ys. Halicarn. I. 3. c. 24. Herodian. I. 1. Dio I. 40.
• 1 1.321

  Antiqu. l. 1••. c. 10.
• 1 1.322

  Apud majores omnes homines in suis domibus sepeliebantur. In 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 6.
• 2 1.323

  Priùs autem in domo suâ quisque sepeliebatur. Orig. 15. c. 11.
• 1 1.324

  Homil. 89. ••om. 6.
• 2 1.325

  Bibliothec. Jur. Can. Collect. Con∣stitut. Eccles.
• 1 1.326

  In Euterpe.
• 2 1.327

  Nat. Hist. lib. 2. c. 27.
• 7 1.328

  Plutarch. vita Ly••urg.
• 8 1.329

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.330

  Nat. Hist. I. 7. c. 54.
• 1 1.331

  Lib. I.
• 2 1.332

  De Bel. Jud. I. 3. c. 15.
• 1 1.333

  Lexic. Talmud.
• 2 1.334

  Sr. N. Knatchbull, in Mat. 9. 23.
• 2 1.335

  An∣••otat. in Mat. 9. 23.
• 1 1.336

  Fast. l. 6.
• 2 1.337

  Trist. l. 5.
• 1 1.338

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 1.339

  Lib. 40.
• 3 1.340

  Orat. pro Murenâ.
• 1 1.341

  Lucan. Lib. 8.
• 1 1.342

  Inigo Jones in his Stone-heng Restored.
• 2 1.343

  See Spelman.
• 3 1.344

  Dr. Spencer de Leg. Hebr. l. 2. c. 6.
• 1 1.345

  Cambden, in Britanniâ.
• 1 1.346

  11. B.
• 1 1.347

  Quicquid bene dictum est ab ullo, meum est. Epist. 16.
• 2 1.348

  Deipnosoph. li•• 11.
• 1 1.349

  De Aetate Mundi.
• 1 1.350

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suid.
• 2 1.351

  Dissert. 16.
• 1 1.352

  Plutarch. de Homero, lib. 2.
• 2 1.353

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.354

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristot.
• 2 1.355

  Dr. Brown Relig. Med.
• 1 1.356

  Dr. Jackson, Vol. 1. Book 1. chap. 11.
• 1 1.357

  Acts 7. 20.
• 2 1.358

  Ver. 22.
• 1 1.359

  Heb. 11. 24.
• 2 1.360

  Ver. 25, 26.
• 1 1.361

  Acts 7. 23.
• 2 1.362

  Ver. 24▪
• 3 1.363

  Ver. 29.
• 4 1.364

  Ver. 23, & 30
• 6 1.365

  Gen. 49. 10. Psal. 23. 4.
• 7 1.366

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De vita Mosis.
• 8 1.367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 9 1.368

  Heb. 11. 27.
• 1 1.369

  Deut. 34. 9.
• 2 1.370

  Acts 7. 2••.
• 3 1.371

  Exod. 4. 1••.
• 1 1.372

  V. 16.
• 2 1.373

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 2. c. 5.
• 1 1.374

  Num. 12. 3.
• 2 1.375

  Ibid.
• 3 1.376

  Exod. 17. 4.
• 4 1.377

  Manasse ben Israel Quaest. in Deuteron.
• 1 1.378

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.379

  Colloq. Mensal.
• 1 1.380

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Light, Mar. 17. 2. Fire, Mark 14. 54. Luke 22. 50.
• 1 1.381

  Non dubium est quin Mundus ab initio fuerit creatus cum omni suâ perfectione, ita ut in co & Sol, &c. Cartes. Princip. Philos. Par. 3. Sect. 45.
• 1 1.382

  Archaeolog. Philos. cap. 8.
• 1 1.383

  Philo de Allegor. Leg. l. 1. Hilar. de Trin. I. 12. S. Augu∣stin. in Gen. sec. literam.
• 1 1.384

  Cedren. Hist. Compend.
• 1 1.385

  De vitâ Mosis.
• 3 1.386

  Antiqu. l. 2. c. 5.
• 1 1.387

  Hist. l. 5.
• 1 1.388

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De vitâ Mos.
• 1 1.389

  Prolegom. de Scriptore Pentateuchi.
• 2 1.390

  Mr. Abbadie, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vindication of the Truth of the Christian Religion.
• 3 1.391

  Dr. Du Pin, i•• his Preliminary Discourse to the Authors of the Books of the Bible.
• 1 1.392

  Ego existimo in summo Imperatore quatuor has resesse opor∣tere, scilicet scientiam rei militaris, virtutem, authoritatem & ••elicitatem. Cic. Orat. de laude M. Pompeii. Imperatori res adversae minuunt authoritatem. Caesar de bell. Gall, l. 6.
• 1 1.393

  Nicephorus, Zonaras, S••idas, Ludovicus Vives, Bellarmine, Cajetan, Sir W. Raleigh.
• 1 1.394

  Origen, Jerom, Eusebius, Selden.
• 2 1.395

  Colloq. Mensal.
• 3 1.396

  Du Pin. Bibl. Patr.
• 4 1.397

  M••. Boyle of the Stile of Scripture.
• 1 1.398

  Job 1. 3.
• 2 1.399

  Ver. 1.
• 3 1.400

  Ver. 8.
• 1 1.401

  Homo non capitur in hor•• doloris fui. Talm.
• 2 1.402

  Chap. 5 v. 11.
• 3 1.403

  Job 1. 21.
• 4 1.404

  Ch. 13. v. 15.
• 5 1.405

  Ch. 19. v. 25.
• 1 1.406

  Chap. 42▪ ver▪ 10, 12.
• 1 1.407

  Ver. 9.
• 2 1.408

  Ver. 11.
• 3 1.409

  Ver. 12.
• 4 1.410

  Ver. 13, 15.
• 5 1.411

  Ver. 16.
• 6 1.412

  Ver. 17.
• 7 1.413

  Sir W. Temple's Miscell. 2d Part.
• 8 1.414

  Origen, Chry∣sostom, Augustin, Ambrose, Euthymius.
• 1 1.415

  Dr. Lightfoot.
• 1 1.416

  Lib. Radicum.
• 1 1.417

  Homil. 1. in Psalm.
• 2 1.418

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ibid.
• 1 1.419

  Th•• 6th, 31st, 37th, 51st, 101st, 129th, 141st.
• 1 1.420

  Animadyers▪ Euse••.
• 1 1.421

  Psal. 1. 1.
• 1 1.422

  1 Sam. 10. 12. & 24. 13.
• 1 1.423

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.424

  Mishle, •• mashal Praeesse, dominari.
• 1 1.425

  1 Sam. 19. 2.
• 2 1.426

  2 Kings 6. 12.
• 3 1.427

  Acts 23. 15, 16.
• 4 1.428

  Ezek. 1. 6.
• 5 1.429

  Ezek. 1. 18. & 10. 12.
• 3 1.430

  Dr. Light••oo••, in his Chronicle of the Times of the Old Test••∣min••.
• 1 1.431

  Pineda, Salianus, Drexellius.
• 1 1.432

  Dr. Lightfoo••, in his Chronicle of the Old Testament.
• 2 1.433

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.434

  qu. Recollectus, Receptus, sc. in favorem Dei.
• 2 1.435

  Cont. Jovin.
• 3 1.436

  Lib. 2. Apol. Dav.
• 4 1.437

  In Psal. 52.
• 5 1.438

  Cateches. 2.
• 1 1.439

  Isa. 1▪ 1.
• 1 1.440

  Praefat. in Isai.
• 2 1.441

  Annot. in 2 Reg. 19. 1.
• 1 1.442

  Joseph, Antiq. l. 10. c. 6,
• 1 1.443

  ••••eronym. Prolog. in Ezek.
• 1 1.444

  Duodecem Prophetae in unius voluminis angustias coarcta∣ti. Hieron. Epist. ad Paulin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiphan. Haeres. 8. l. 4. c. 18.
• 1 1.445

  Acts 1. 8.
• 2 1.446

  Prolog. Ga▪ an••e Evang.
• 3 1.447

  Eccl▪ His•••• 〈…〉〈…〉
• 4 1.448

  De Cons▪ Evang▪ l. 1.
• 5 1.449

  Homil. in Matlh▪
• 1 1.450

  Coll. Mensal.
• 1 1.451

  2 Cor. 1. 1.
• 1 1.452

  Quicquid passus est Christus, nullam majorem vim per se ha••ere potest quam si quilibet pu••us homo idem passus est. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Serva••. Par. 3. c. 4.
• 1 1.453

  Chap. 1. v. 1.
• 2 1.454

  Jam. 1. 1.
• 1 1.455

  2 Pet. 3. 16.
• 2 1.456

  Justin Martyr, Clem. Alexandr. Origen, Eusebius, Concil. Nic. 1. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerus. Greg. Nyss. & Naz. Ba••il, Epiphanius, Chrysost. Cy•••••• of Alexan••punc; Theodore••.
• 1 1.457

  Mr. Boyle of the Stile of Scri••ture.
• 1 1.458

  Strabo Geogr. l. 1••.
• 2 1.459

  Salmas. de Hellenist. Pars 1. qu. 6.
• 3 1.460

  —Quocun{que} respexeris fulmina sunt. Hieronym. Apol. pro lib. adv. ••ov.
• 4 1.461

  Ad Pammach.
• 5 1.462

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18.
• 6 1.463

  Coll. Mens.
• 1 1.464

  De Civ. D••i, I. 18. c. 28. contr. Fa•• st. l. 22. c. 89.
• 2 1.465

  ••ede, Aquinas, Lyranus, Ribera.
• 1 1.466

  In Panario.
• 2 1.467

  De Haeresib.
• 1 1.468

  Epist. 11. ad Agerach.
• 2 1.469

  Dr. Hammend in loc.
• 3 1.470

  Cata∣••••••. Script. Eccles.
• 4 1.471

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sine articulo. Pricaeus in An∣••••••▪ in loc.
• 5 1.472

  Acts 17. 4.
• 6 1.473

  Ver. 12.
• 1 1.474

  Dr. Patrick, Bishop of Ely, his Answer to the Touchstone, &••.
• 1 1.475

  Tot habet sacramenta quot verba. Hieron. Ep. ad Paulio. de lib. Apocalyps.
• 1 1.476

  Hom. 9. in Matth. & Hom. 7. in 1 Ep. ad Corinth.
• 1 1.477

  Dr. Lightfoot's Chronicle of the Tines of the Old Test.
• 1 1.478

  Annot. in 2 Sam. 1. 18.
• 2 1.479

  Antiqu. I. 5 c. ••.
• 1 1.480

  Ali•• sicut homines historicâ diligentiâ, alia sicut Prophet••e inspiratione divinâ▪ De Civ. Dei I. 28. c. 38.
• 1 1.481

  Gro••ius and Hammond.
• 1 1.482

  Sir N. K••atchbull.
• 1 1.483

  Du Pin▪
• 1 1.484

  De Septuagi••t. Interpre••.
• 1 1.485

  Mons. Simon Crit. Hist. l. 2.
• 1 1.486

  Is. Vossius.
• 2 1.487

  Morin. Exercitat. Bibl. l. 2. Exercitat. 8.
• 1 1.488

  Prap. Evang. l. 9. c. 3.
• 2 1.489

  Strom. l. 1.
• 1 1.490

  De Histor. Graec.
• 2 1.491

  Mr. Gregory.
• 1 1.492

  De vit. Mos. l. 2.
• 2 1.493

  Ibid.
• 3 1.494

  Scalig. de Emen••. Temp.
• 4 1.495

  Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 2.
• 1 1.496

  〈…〉〈…〉 in Pentateuch.
• 2 1.497

  Mr. Gregory.
• 3 1.498

  F. Si∣mon▪ Crit. Hist. l. 2.
• 1 1.499

  Du Pin.
• 1 1.500

  Comment. in Isa.
• 2 1.501

  Drusius, Ludovic. Capellus, Mede.
• 1 1.502

  Comment. in Ezek. 27.
• 1 1.503

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 1.504

  R. Jonah & R. Jehudah explicant per ••allem in qu•• stilla•• aqua 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lachryma ab Oculis. Pagnin.
• 1 1.505

  Pocock Not. Miscell. in Port. Mos. c. 1. Dr. Castel in Lex∣ic. Heptaglot.
• 2 1.506

  Discourse of the Stile of Script. Chap. 7.
• 1 1.507

  Buxtors. Lexic. & Concordant.
• 1 1.508

  De Civ. Dei.
• 2 1.509

  Epist. 28. ad Lucin.
• 1 1.510

  De Arcan. Cathol. Ver.
• 3 1.511

  Dr. Lightfoot.
• 4 1.512

  U••icunque sacratum aliquid Scriptura testatur de Patre & Filio & Spiritu Sancto, aut aliter interpre∣tati sunt, aut omnino tacuerunt, ut & Regi satisfacerent, arca∣num fidei non vulgarent. Praefat. in Pentateuch.
• 5 1.513

  In Proaemio super Quaest. in Genes.
• 6 1.514

  Illi interpretati sunt ante adventum Christi, & quod nescie∣b••nt dubiis protulere sententiis.—Non damno, non reprehendo Septuaginta, sed considentes cunctis illis Apostolos praefero Praef. in Penta••euch.
• 1 1.515

  Chronolog. Sacra.
• 1 1.516

  Dr. Light••oot, Hor. Hebraic.
• 1 1.517

  De Script. Eccles.
• 1 1.518

  Vide The Stile of Scripture, Pag. 335.
• 2 1.519

  J. P. Prae••at. Paraenetic.
• 1 1.520

  Mons. Simon. Crit. Hist. Book 2.
• 1 1.521

  Latini interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt. De doctr. Christian••, l. 2. c. 11.
• 1 1.522

  Gregorius de Valenti••, Gre••serus, Titelmannus, &c.
• 1 1.523

  Sess. 4.
• 1 1.524

  A. D. 1527.
• 1 1.525

  Luke 1. 42. & 8. 28. & 17. 15. Acts 8. 7. & 14. 10. & 26. 24. Rev. 5. 2. & 8. 13.
• 1 1.526

  Psalm. 119. often. And 'tis better to use the Word [alive] than [quick] in Num. 16. 30. Ps••l. 55. 15. & 124. 3.
• 2 1.527

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 3 1.528

  [They say unto him.]
• 1 1.529

  Acts 16. 1. Rom. 16. 21. 1 Cor. 16. 10.
• 1 1.530

  Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. Clem. Alexand. Strom. l. 3.
• 2 1.531

  Praesat. in Daniel.
• 3 1.532

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. Atha∣nal. Orat. 3. cont. Arian. Basil de Baptismo, l. 3. quaest. 4▪ Chrysost. hom. 3. de Lazaro.
• 4 1.533

  Prae••at. in Epist. ad Galat.
• 1 1.534

  Ut Veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis Voluminibus exami∣nanda est, ita Novorum veritas Graeci Sermonis normam deside∣rat. Hieron. Epist. ad Lucin.
• 1 1.535

  Tractat. Theolog. Polit. cap. 9.
• 1 1.536

  Non est similis qui legit lectionem suam centies ei qui legit ••am centies & semel. Talm.
• 2 1.537

  [Sola Scripturarum ars est quam sibi passim omnes vendicant. Hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc sophista verbo••us; hanc universi praesu∣munt, laeerant, docent, antequam discant.] Hieron. Epist. ad Paulin.
• 1 1.538

  S••rom•• lib. 6.
• 1 1.539

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. in cap. 1. ad Galat.
• 1 1.540

  Mr. Herbert's Priest to the Temple.
• 1 1.541

  lliad. ••.
• 1 1.542

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 27.
• 2 1.543

  Basil. M. Orat. 2. in Hexa••m.
• 3 1.544

  Col∣loqu Men••al.
• 4 1.545

  Mr. Mede Diatrib.
• 5 1.546

  Epist. 121. cap. 15.
• 6 1.547

  Opus in Psalmos.
• 3 1.548

  De Dis Syr.
• 4 1.549

  Prov. 25. 1.
• 1 1.550

  John 16. 13.
• 2 1.551

  1 John 2. 20.
• 3 1.552

  Second Homily of the Scrip∣ture.
• 4 1.553

  Mr. Herbert's Priest to the Temple, or Country-Parson.
• 5 1.554

  Psal. ••19. 18.