A farther enquiry into several remarkable texts of the Old and New Testament which contain some difficulty in them with a probable resolution of them / by John Edwards ...

AN ENQUIRY INTO Several Remarkable TEXTS OF THE Old and New Testament, &c.

The first Text Enquired into, viz. Gen. XLIX. 10.

The Scepter shall not depart from Ju∣dah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.

I Begin with this Famous Prophesie concerning the Time of our Blessed Saviour's coming into the World: And my Design is, briefly to re∣present the general Glosses of the Learned upon this Verse, with short Reflection's

on some of them; but more especially to choose out such an Interpretation of the word Shiloh, the celebrated Title of the Messias, as I conceive to be most genuine and proper; which I will some∣what largely insist upon by shewing the great Agreeableness and Reasonable∣ness of it; and consequently the Pre∣ference of it to all other Interpretations. This noble Prediction is no other than the remarkable words of the Patriarch Iacob Blessing his Children; and among the rest his Son Iudah a little before his Death. He intimates that the Primo∣geniture, and with it the Ruling Power was taken from Reuben, when he saith of him, He shall not excel, v. 4. And from Reuben this Dominion is trans∣ferred to Iudah; for it is said, His Fa∣thers Children (of whom Reuben was the chief of them) shall bow down before him, v. 8. i. e. The Kingdom and Govern∣ment shall commence here, and so re∣main among the Jews many Genera∣tions, even until a certain Period ap∣pointed by God, viz. The Arrival of the Messias, who is here called Shiloh. Till that time the Jewish Government and Polity shall be kept up, The Scepter shall not depart: But upon the coming of

the Messias, who is Christ, their Ruling Power shall cease, their State and Go∣vernment shall be abolished, and in a little time after there shall be no Foot∣steps left of their Kingdom and Domi∣nion. Let us take this Prophesie asun∣der, and Comment on the several words, and then set them together again, and shew you how signal a Proof they are of Christ's being come.

First, The Hebrew word which we translate the Scepter, hath different sig∣nifications, and accordingly is some∣times rendred a* 1.1 Rod or Staff, some∣times a† 1.2 Stroke, Plague or Punishment, and at other times a* 1.3 Quill or Pen to write with. I meet with no Exposito••s that think any of these to be the Ac∣ception of the word in this place. But there are two other Acceptions which bid fair for it: The word sometimes signifies a Tribe, and that in this Chapter v. 28. and the reason why the same word signifies a Rod and a Tribe, may be because the Tribes of Israel were di∣stinguished by Rods or Wands, Num. 17. 2, 3. Accordingly Iulius and Tremellius render this place thus, The Tribe shall not depart from Judah: And they make the Sense of the whole Text to be this,

Iudah shall not cease to be a Tribe till the coming of Christ, but then it shall. And so indeed it did; for when Christ came, and was rejected by the Jews, the Romans by Gods just Judgment scattered them abroad, and the Tribe of Iudah could not be distinguished from the other Tribes. This Interpre∣tation confirms the Truth of this Pro∣phesie, and sufficiently baffles and con∣founds the Jews. But there is yet be∣hind another more eminent Acception of the word, for you will find that it often signifies a Scepter. And that the same word which before signified a Rod, should also denote a Scepter, is not to be wondred at, because a Rod or Staff was the Ancient Ensign of Royalty and Do∣minion, Amos 1. 5. This was born by Kings, as a Badge of their Power and Authority. By the Scepter then is meant here Kingly Power and Authority, or the Supreme Government of what Name or Form soever. This signification of the word in this place, is owned and approved of by the Iewish Doctors and Rabbins themselves, and the three Tar∣gums agree in it, and it is acknowledged and allowed of by the Ancient Greek Versions of the Seventy, who render

it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Prince or Governor. This Prince or Governor, this Government or Scepter, shall not depart (which are the next words) i. e. There shall be a continual Succession of Kings and Rulers, the Civil Power and Polity shall con∣stantly remain, these shall not be re∣moved, shall not wholly be destroyed; they may for a time be clouded and eclipsed, they may be interrupted for a while, but there shall not be a Final and Total Cessation of them. The Scep∣ter shall not quite depart, it shall* 1.4 not be taken away from Iudah.

But what is meant by Iudah here? First, It is not to be taken in a Re∣strained Sense for the Patriarch Iudah, but for the Tribe of Iudah. As the Priesthood was consigned to Levi, i. e. not his Person, but his Tribe and Po∣sterity; so Iudah had the Scepter, the Government conferred on him, not his Person (for he had no Rule) but his Tribe, as distinct from the other Tribes. The meaning then is, that there shall be some of that Tribe who shall Reign till Christ cometh, and no longer: For as the Kingdom and Government shall begin in this Tribe (as it did in David) and be continued in it, so it shall end

with it. When that Tribe affords no more Kings, then Kingship shall cease among the Jews; though Foreigners may be set up, yet they shall have no more Kings of their own; which shall be a certain Indication of the Coming of the Messias. Secondly, Iudah must be taken comprehensively for the Twelve Tribes, for the State, Government and Polity of the whole Nation called Iews, from the Patriarch Iudah. Some shrink this Prophesie into a narrow compass; but I think it ought to be taken largely, and to be applied to Iudah, not only as it signifies a particular Tribe of that name, but as it takes in all the Jewish People, the whole Body of the Jews. For these Prophetical Blessings which Iacob here uttereth, are of a large Ex∣tent; and this especially relating to a higher matter than any of the rest, is not to be confined and restrained to a Person or Tribe; but it is most reason∣able to believe, that it reacheth to the whole Nation and Polity of the Jews, who are here called Iudah, as they are 〈…〉〈…〉 innumerable places of Scrip∣••••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉

〈…〉〈…〉 [nor a Law-giver from be∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is feet,] this Mechokek is the same

with Shebet, the Law-giver is of the same Importance with the Scepter or Kingly Power; for this and making Laws went together, the Regal and Judicial or Le∣gislative Authority did reside in the Jewish Kings. And this Prince or Law-giver is said to be from between Judah's feet; which some learned Men have thought is an Allusion to the Custom of Courts, where the Scribe or Lawyer used to sit at the Feet of the Judge or Governor, and there take his Opinion. But this is a Mistake, and ariseth from the want of considering the difference between those two Expressions at the feet and from between the feet. These have no Affinity with one another: As to the latter then, from between his feet, i. e. the Feet of Iudah; it is as much as, of the Seed or Race of Judah (as you will find those words signifie in Deut. 28. 57.) and brought up by him (as Chil∣dren are said to be brought up upon their Parents Knees, Gen. 50. 23.) This is the plain and unforced meaning of this Hebrew Phrase or Expression; when it is said then, that a Law-giver from be∣tween his feet, shall not depart from him; the meaning is, that there shall always be some who shall be born of the Posterity

and Race of Judah, and brought up and educated by them that shall sway the Scep∣ter, and give Laws in Israel. This shall last till Shiloh come, which is the next and main thing to be explain'd. There are various Interpretations of this word given by Expositors, but they all agree in this, that it refers to the Messias.

I. Some think that the Seventy In∣terpreters did read it not Shilo but Shello, as if it were an Abbreviature of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ille cujus or cui, like the Ara∣bick Allah, from the Article Al, ••, and the Pronoun lah, ei or cui, for God is He of whom, and through whom, and to whom, and for whom are all things, Rom. 11. 36. Heb. 2. 10. So here the Messi••s, of whom Iacob Prophesies, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ille cujus, which is rendred by the Sept••agint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he for whom is laid up, namely the Kingdom: Or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the things that are laid up for him: Or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for whom they are laid up: For there is this Variety of Read∣ings in different Copies. And a* 1.5 learn∣ed Critick hath lately attempted to give us the reason why Shello comes to be read Shiloh, because (saith he) before Points were used in the Hebrew Text, the Letter Iod served instead of the

Vowels I and E, but after the finding out of the Points, the Transcribers of the Bible still kept in the letter Iod in the Text, which hath made the Sense of this place difficult, saith he. But this account (as ingenious as it is, and like its Author) falls to the ground, and is of no value at all, if the Hebrew Points were co-existent with the Letters, which will appear to be the most probable opinion to those who impartially weigh the Arguments brought for it, but espe∣cially that of the Truth and Certainty of the Scriptures of the Old Testament which depend upon it. And as for the Version of the Seventy, which seems to favour those who think Shelo to be the true Original word; I wonder that wise Men will rely upon this Greek Translation, which it is evident is in in∣numerable places false and ••orrupted, that is, it was either so at first, by rea∣son of the Mistakes which the Seventy Interpreters committed, or else it was depraved afterwards, whether willfully (to disguise the Truth) or through ne∣gligence, or by the fault of the Copies they then had, I will not stand to dis∣pute. This corrupting of Scripture, and particularly the altering of this Text in

the Greek, was long ago objected to Trypho against his Brethren the Jews by Iustin Martyr. But that the Seventy Elders read the Hebrew amiss in this place, and that this was the cause of their mistake, is very likely, it being (as I have suggested, and as all impar∣tial Men will acknowledge) their com∣mon practice, and therefore not to be wondred at here.

And yet I am not so positive here, as I find some Writers are, for there is a way of salving this Greek Translation, without charging them with mistaking the Hebrew; for I conceive the Seventy might read it Shiloh, as we have it now; but they took it to be as much as asher lo, ille cujus or cui, He for whom the Scepter, mentioned just before, was laid up, or to whom it belonged, and thence they rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So that al∣though the Jewish Interpreters mistake the Hebrew words in other places (as it is certain they do) yet there is no necessity of asserting that they do so here. Perhaps they did read it right, though they mistook the true meaning of the word (of which I shall give you an account afterwards) and instead of understanding it to be the Name of the

Messias, thought the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••o be a Pronoun, and so they concluded that Shilo was of the same signification with Shelo. But this is a sorry Interpretation of the word, and the very Iews themselves (except∣ing * 1.6 one single Rabby) are ashamed of it; for it unnecessarily confounds and jumbles two words together, and at the same time mangles one of them, and sub∣stitutes a Van in the place of a He, and strikes out a Iod, and after all this leaves the sense of the Prophesie lame and im∣perfect, uncertain and arbitrary, for these words [he to whom] assert and de∣termine nothing at all.

II. The Vulgar Latin Version furnisheth us with another Interpretation of this word, rendring it qui mittendus est; for it seems these Translators read it not Shiloh but Shiloah or Shilluach, i. e. missus, which here is as much as mittendus, the Praeterit being put for the Future, after the manner of the Prophetick Writers. Some think that this is one of the Messias's Names in Isa. 8. 6. and that this Text which we are now treat∣ing of, was, among several others, cor∣rupted by the Jews, they changing Shiloah into Shiloh: But there is not the

least shew of reason to assert either of these, for in that place in Isaiah, Shiloah barely signifies a Fountain or Spring of that name, which rose at the foot of Mount Sion: And it is a mistake that the Jews corrupted this Text by turning Shiloah into Shiloh, for it was to no pur∣pose to do it, the word Shiloh (as you shall hear anon) being as expressive, yea much more, of the Messi••s, than that other could be. Without all Contro∣versie, the Text is entire and uncor∣rupted; and as for these Surmises, they arise only from attending to the Vulgar Latin Version. The short is, the Authors of this Interpretation mistook a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they might easily do, by reason of the likeness of these L••tters: And besides, in the Hebrew Copy which they ••sed, the Pathah under the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was omitted, and so they thought the word was Shiloach, and not Shiloh. There ne••ds no more to be said than this, for the Refutation of this Exposition of the word.

III. Others tell us that Shiloh is de∣rived from Shil, which signifies the Se∣cundine, the Membrane which the In∣fant is wrapt in when it comes into the World. And because this accompanieth

the Child, it is taken for it, as in Deut. 28. 57. and by a Metonymy signifies as much as foetus, filius; and consequently (say they) Shiloh is the same with Beno, filius ejus, his Son or Off-spring, viz. Iu∣dah's. But though this be the Inter∣pretation of some of the noted* 1.7 Iewish Rabbies, and though these he followed by several‖ 1.8 Writers of the Christian Persuasion, yet there is good reason to question, yea to reject this opinion, for there is no such Hebrew word as Shil in the Bible, nor any where else. These Writers have deceived themselves one after another, by trusting to what a cir∣cumcised Doctor had told them. They read in R. Kimchi, that Shil is secundina or fo••tus in the forementioned place in Deuteronomy; but if we consult it, we shall find that it is Shiljah, not Shil. However, they made Shil out of Shiljah, and then fancied that Shil was compre∣hended in the word Shiloh, and that this hath the like signification with that. B••t we must remember that there is no such word as Shil; and as for the word Shiljah, it is once taken in a strained sense for proles or filius; but who can thence gather, that this is the Acception of the word Shiloh? No Man certainly that

knows how to make rational Dedu∣ctions from things. Moreover, they add a Vau to Shil to make it Shilo, which is extravagantly done to no purpose, for it is Shiloh, not Shilo in the Original. They throw away the Letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as su∣perfluous and redundant, as a useless Affix to the word; but we must re∣mind them that the He is not of that nature, but that it is a substantial and radical Letter belonging to the word, for the word is the proper Name of the Messias, as I shall now proceed to shew.

IV.* 1.9 Others of great Learning and Judgment▪ derive Shiloh from the Verb Shalah: And this I take to be the most genuine Derivation of the word, the three radical Letters of the Verb Shala•• being in it. What can be said or de∣sired more? Some hundreds of Deri∣vative words have but two, and yet none questions their Production from the Root. Much less then can we do••bt of the Extraction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it hath the full number of Letters belonging to the Radix. And as for the Iod in the Derivative, it is common and frequent to insert that between the Radical Letters, as the Learned very

well know. So that in short, Shiloh from Shalah is d••duced without the least strain upon the word. But I do not find that any of those learned Persons, whose Names you see in the Margin, have taken notice of, and represented to us the Wonderful Suitableness of this Appella∣tion. I never met with any Writer that hath shewed the peculiar Contrivance of this word, and how 'tis particularly framed, to express the Glorious Nature and Attributes of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the World. That there∣fore is the thing which I will now under∣take, and consequently I shall demon∣strate, that there is no Name imagina∣ble that can be more properly and fitly applied to him than this. We must take notice then, that there are three Significations of the word Shalah whence Shiloh comes. First, Shalah is* 1.10 salvavit, salvus fuit, as is clear from Job 3. 26. where this word is used in this sense. It imports Safety or Salva∣vation, and so Shiloh,‖ 1.11 which is derived from this Verb, is as much as Saviour. Secondly, Shalah is of the same signification with Shalam quievit, pacificavit; qui••••us, pacifi••us fuit,

Psalm 122. 6.* 1.12 which is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frequently by the Septuagint. It denotes Peace, and consequently Shi∣loh is the same with Peaceable. The third and next Denotation of the word Sha∣lah (which also follows naturally from the two former significations) is* 1.13 feli∣cem, fortunatum, prosperum esse, and ac∣cordingly is rendred by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prospero successu uti. Therefore Shiloh is as much as the Happy, the For∣tunate, the Prosperer.

Here then you cannot but see already the great Mystery contained, and also discovered in this Remarkable Word. It hath its undoubted and immediate Ori∣ginal from a Verb which signifies to save, and also to be at Peace, and (because these are the Blessings which conduce to the Felicity of Man) to be Happy. Whence we cannot but acknowledge that this Title Shiloh is most s••itably applied here to the Messias, who is Iesus, i. e. a Saviour and Deliverer, who is also our great Peace-maker, and who is the Au∣thor of all our Happiness both in this World and in another. This admira∣ble and singular Make of the Wo••d, is little less than an Assurance and Demon∣stration to me, that I have pitch'd upon

the right and only true Derivation of it. Therefore this invites me to stay here a while, and to ponder the Vertue and Weight of this Marvelous Name given to the Messias. Indeed these great things com∣prehended in this glorious Title, are worthy to be insisted upon, that we may thereby be throughly convinced, how fit an Epithet this is for our Blessed Lord: And I shall do this the rather, because (as I have inti∣mated already) I have not found the Exten∣sive Meaning of this Glorious Name display'd by those who have purposely undertaken to explain and comment upon this antient Pro∣phesie concerning the Coming of Christ.

I. This Title contains in it the welcome notice of that most Ravishing Name JESUS, the Name given him by the particular di∣rection of an Angel from Heaven, Matt. 1. 21. and which being interpreted, is no other than a Saviour. Wherefore you find both joyned together by St. Paul, Acts 13. 23, a Saviour, Iesus, the one being expressive of the other. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Apo∣stle here useth, is of mighty sense and im∣port, and accordingly Tully tells us, that * 1.14 this word cannot be expressed by any single one in Latin. It is certain that Servator (which was a word then in use) came short of it; therefore Salvator hath been used by the Latin Fathers as a suller word, and this hath generally ob∣tained in the Church.* 1.15 Tertullian is pleased

to render it Salu••ificator, thinking this to be a more significant word. But* 1.16 Grotius comes and produceth another word, and makes bold to correct Tully (as good a judge of Latin as he was) and averreth that the single word Sospitator is of the same im∣port with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is as full. I think truly this great Man hath outdone the Orator in his own Tongue: For from Tully's own account of the word* 1.17 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we may gather that this Latin word fully answers to that Greek one, which implies not only a Saving or Preserving from being de∣stroyed but a Restoring to that Safety which was lost: So that it is a conferring of some positive Benefit on a Person. This is the very import of Sospitator, it properly re∣lates to those things or Persons that were lost and undone. It respects the Condition of Men in Mis••ry, and it signifies a restoring them to their former ha••py State, and so is exactly applicable to the Redemption wrought for us by Jesus Christ. Thus the Ti••le of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saviour, is very expressive and emphatical. But to come to p••rticulars beho••d how our Shiloh, our Saviour, merits that name by all the ways imaginable. He was a Bodily Saviour, miraculously rescuing distressed People from their Diseases and Pains which they laboured under, com∣passionately preserving many Thousands from perishing by Hunger, powerfully eject∣ing the evil Spirit out of those that were possessed and tormented by him. Yea, he

was infinitely beneficial and advantagious to the whole Race of Mankind, by con∣ferring on them all Temporal, and offering all Spiritual Mercies to them, so that he is most truly called* 1.18 the Saviour of all Men. But especially of those that believe in him, and conform their Lives to his Holy Laws, He is a Saviour, and that in a more eminent manner, viz.* 1.19 To save them from their sins, which is the grand reason assigned why this Name was given him.* 1.20 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance and Forgiveness of sins, to save us from the Prince of Darkness, and to bruise Satan under our feet: For this Shiloh is the Seed of the Woman foretold in Gen. 3. 15. that was to break the Serpents head. This Blessed Shiloh* 1.21 delivers us from the Wrath to come, and frees us fom eternal Death, which is the just Wages of sin. And lastly, he actually confers all Good upon us both here and hereafter. He freely purchaseth for us the Favour of God, he bestoweth Life and Happiness, and is* 1.22 the Author of eternal Sal∣vation unto all them that obey him.

Thus he merits the Name of Shiloh or Saviour, and therefore most justly ought we to value and reverence this Name. The Iews indeed call our Lord by the Name Iesus, but with some Diminution of it; for (as we are informed by* 1.23 one that was well acquainted with the Jewi••h Writers) instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they stile him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which curtailing of the word, they let us under∣stand

that they do not own him (as the Christians do) for a Saviour. But let us be sensible that this is the True Iesus, the Saviour, and that there is none else; let us adore him as a Compleat and Perfect Saviour. It is true, we read in the‖ 1.24 Greek Poets and* 1.25 others, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was Iupiter's Epithet: And the Temple of Iupiter Servator is mentioned by‖ 1.26 Pliny. Bacchus likewise had this Title, for Pausanias mentions an Altar to him with this Inscription. And the Dioscuri were particularly called† 1.27 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause they were thought to deliver and save Men in Tempests at Sea. And not only the Gods, but great Men and Bene∣factors were honoured with this Appella∣tion. Thus‖ 1.28 Ahashuerus (whom Iosephus names Artaxerxes) caused Mordecai the Iew, who had detected the Conspiracy of the Eunuchs against him, to be proclaimed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Saviour and Deliverer. So Antiochus Epiphanes had this Title given him in Flattery by the Samaritans, saith the* 1.29 same Author. And this very Name was bestowed upon Demetrius one of the Grecian Monarchs. But to go back to the times long before, † 1.30 Zaphnath Paaneah, Saviour of the World, (as St. Ierom interprets it, who had been in Egypt, and had, it is likely, learnt the In∣terpretation of that Egyptian Name) was the Title conferred on Ioseph by Pharaoh, because he had saved not only Egypt, but other Countries from perishing by Famine. But it is our Iesus, our Shiloh alone that i••

worthy of that Name in the full extent of it, and accordingly he is stiled the Saviour of the World, 1 Iohn 4. 14. And you may observe, that this Appellative is given him by the Samaritans that came to him, Iohn 4. 42, We know, say they, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the World: Which Title they had learnt, I conceive, from this very Prophesie concerning the Messias, where he is called Shiloh. For the Sama∣ritans owned the Pentateuch, in which this Prediction of the Holy Patriarch Iacob was very eminent, and much observed by them: Wherefore they could not but enquire into the true meaning of this Name, and they found it to signifie a Saviour, and thence knew and were assured that Christ was the Saviour of the World. Thus you see the reason why this good Patriarch gave the N••me Shiloh to the Messias, viz. Because it is of the same import with JESUS or Saviour. But,

II. This Title of the Messias signifies not only Salvation, but Peace. And indeed these two are nearly allied to one another, and accordingly are joyned together by the Apo∣stle, Rom. 5. 8, &c. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us: Much more being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: Much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his Life. These two, Sal∣vation and Reconciliation, are inseparable,

and they are both purchased by the Blood of Iesus, who is our Shiloh, i. e. both our Saviour and our Peace-maker. Hear how the meaning of this Blessed Name was pro∣claimed by the Inspi••ed Writers of Old. ‖ 1.31 He shall make Reconciliation for Iniquity, saith the Prophet Daniel: And others fore∣tell, that* 1.32 This Man shall be the Peace, and that‖ 1.33 The Council of Peace shall be between them both, viz. Between the Lord and the Branch spoken of in the foregoing Verse: For an Eternal Council was held between the Father and the Son, concerning the Re∣demption and Salvation of Mankind, and this was a Council of Peace, i. e. of Recon∣ciliation towards lost▪ Sinners. This was the Effect of that Blessed Consult from Eter∣nity: The Son of God was to be an Expia∣tory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World, and thereby to pacifie the Divine Justice, and so to become our Shiloh. But this was more especially the Glorious Theme of the New Testament, where we are abundantly assured, that‖ 1.34 he made Peace through the Blood of his C••oss, and that the great Design and End of his being Incarnate, was to make Peace between God and Man, to re∣concile Heaven and Earth.† 1.35 He is ou•• Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the mid••le wall of Partition be∣tween us, having abolished in his fl••sh the Enmity, so making Peace; and that he might reco••cile both unto God in one Body by the Cross, having slain the Enmity thereby: An••

came and preached Peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh, i. e. both to Gentiles and Iews. This‖ 1.36 is the Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Iesus, that Middle Person who interposed between us and the Offended Majesty, and by his powerful Mediation reconciled us unto God. Therefore even the Hebrew Masters and Cabalists called the Messias* 1.37 a Man between, one who undertakes to appease the diffe∣rence between God and Man. Iacob's Shi∣loh is the same with this Mediator, this Re∣conciler, this Peace-maker. This was his Office, and his Name is suitable to it.

Again, Aben Ezra and other Rabbies grant, that this Name Shiloh is given to the Messias, because he is Peaceable, and the Au∣thor of Peace to Mankind. This is the very Character of our JESUS, our Saviour; and this (viz. Peaceableness) is the very Ge∣nius and proper Nature of that Holy Reli∣gion which he founded and established in the World. The Principles of Christianity do most effectually conduce to the promoting of Peace among Men, it strictly command∣ing them to forgive them that trespass against them, to put away all Bitterness, and Wrath, and Anger, to choose in some cases to take wrong without looking for Redress, to study to be quiet, and to follow peace with all Men. And to commend and encourage this ex∣cellent Temper our Lord hath pronounced the Peace-makers Blessed. If there be Quar∣rels and Dissentions, Animosities and Per∣secutions

amongst Christians (and who sees not that these too frequently abound?) they are not the fault of Christianity, but of the Evil Dispositions, Lusts and Corrupti∣ons of Men. Christ is not the Author of these, neither is Christianity it self to be blamed, that any such thing happens in the World; for the design of Christ's Kingdom was Peace, as the Prophet sets forth the times of the Gospel,‖ 1.38 They shall beat their Swords into Plow-shares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up Sword against Nation, neither shall they learn War any more. It is one grand end of the Evan∣gelical Institution, to remove all quarrel∣some Distinctions and Antipathies between the different People of the Earth, that in Christ Iesus there may be neither Iew nor Gentile▪ neither Greek nor Barbarian, nei∣ther Bond nor Free, but that all may become one in Christ Iesus; and that a ••eriod being put to all their former Grudges and Dissen∣tions, they may be perfectly joyned toge∣ther in brotherly Affection, that universal Peace and Amity may take place, and that the Royal Law of Love may prevail in the World. This is the design and work of our Shiloh, our Peaceable Messias; he hath purchased the means conducing to it, and we may be in possession of it if we will. Farther, to evince the Truth and Efficacy of this Name, let us reflect on the remark∣able time of our Saviour's visiting the World, which was a Time of Universal Peace.

I grant this is a common Observation, and generally known; but here in our present Subject it is very considerable, and more than ordinarily to be taken notice of and applied, because it will let us into the true Notion of this great and comprehensive Name Shiloh. The noise of Wars and Battles was ceased, all was calm and hush'd, a Catholick Peace possessed the World at Christ's appearing in it; for he was born in the Reign of a Mild and Peaceable Prince, who after five Civil Wars, and after infinite Slaughter and Bloodshed accompanying them all, reigned peaceably many Years. At this time it was, that the Parthians, and several Nations which before had continually in∣fested the Roman Empire with their Arms, came and humbly besought its Friendship, and tamely restored those Banners and other Ensigns of War which they had formerly taken from the Romans in Battle, and laid them down at Augustus's Feet. When thus this Emperor had vanquish'd the World, and settled the Nations, and all Kingdoms were brought under his Dominion, when he as well as the whole Earth was at Peace (of which the shutting of the Gates of Ia∣nus's Temple, as it were shutting up Peace there, was a visible Token, and whereof there was very rarely an Example, as‖ 1.39 Plu∣tarch observes, till this time) then, and not till then, our Saviour chose to bless the World with his presence, to make it ap∣pear, that he was indeed the Shiloh, the

Prince of Peace, (as the‖ 1.40 Evangelical Prophet had stiled him) the True Solomon, the Paci∣fick King, who brought Peace with him into the World, and brought a Religion with him which is the greatest Friend and Advancer of Peace.

III. This Appellation given to the Messias by the antient Prophet Iacob, denotes not only Salvation and Peace, but Prosperity. ‖ 1.41 Shiloh is as much as Prosperous, Happy, Tri∣umphant; which is yet a farther Accession to the Glory of this Name. Therefore it immediately follows after the mentioning of Shiloh in this Prophesie, Unto him shall the gathering of the People be, all Nations shall own his Authority and Power, and submit to his Empire: The People shall be obedient unto him, as Onkelos's Targum renders it: All the Kings of the Earth shall be subject to him, as the Ierusalem-Paraphrase hath it. And from both we are acquainted, that this is a fit Epithet of the Messias, who is* 1.42 the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, and‖ 1.43 shall be great, and shall reign for ever, and of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. This is the King foretold in, Ier. 23. 5. that shall reign and prosper, that shall be Victorious and Triumphant, that shall be both a Saviour and a Conqueror. And therefore to this purpose that is very observable which we read, concerning our Saviour's‖ 1.44 riding in state into Jerusalem upon an Ass, for in Pale∣stine even their* 1.45 Princes and Nobles rid upon As••es. It is said the officious People

‖ 1.46 spread their Garments in the way, which was a Testimony of Subjection to Kings, 2 Kings 9. 13. There was the like Custom used among the Gentiles, as their* 1.47 Writers assure us. And some of this transported Multitude† 1.48 cut down branches from the Trees, and strowed them in the way: And other Branches without doubt they carried in their hands, as an Emblem of Victory and Triumph, for this was an usual Practice among several Nations. The Evangelist St. Iohn relating this passage, tells us, That they took Branches of Palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, ch. 12. v. 13. For it was the Custom on such an Occasion, to make use especially of the Boughs of this parti∣cular Tree, because it was generally held to be a Symbol of Victory, of which† 1.49 Au∣lus Gellius and‖ 1.50 Plutarch pretended to give the reasons, viz. Because this is a firm and durable Tree, and had Leaves always green (whence you read of* 1.51 flourishing like the Palm-tree) and from a Vulgar Error that prevail'd about this Tree, i. e. That the more weights are laid on it, the higher it riseth. Whence Palma among the Latins signifies Victory and the Reward of it: And 'tis certain that the Branches of this Tree were used in Triumphs both among the Greeks and Romans, and were the Recom∣pense of Conquerors. Accordingly the Iews here (who in many things followed the Usages of other Nations) to express their Triumphal Joy at the Arrival of the Blessed

Iesus, took Branches of Palm-trees, and went forth to welcome him to Ierusalem. Yea, 'tis no wonder that the Iews in parti∣cular, who were used to this Solemnity, and did yearly carry and hold up Boughs of Trees ‖ 1.52 on their Feast of Tabernacles; 'tis no won∣der, I say, that these Iews, when they saw Iesus coming, made use of this Ceremony, and cried Hosanna to him (as you read they did) for at that Feast they used to sing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for shortness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ho∣sanna: And the Talmud informs us, that these very Boughs and Branches of Trees which they lifted up, were called Hosanna's by them. Here then 'tis worth our obser∣ving, that at our Saviour's Triumphal C••∣valcade through the Streets of Ierusalem, they received him with this particular Ac∣clamation and Applause, and that they bore their Hosanna's in their Hands, and brought them to the Son of David, and acknow∣ledged him by this Gratulation to be their Messias and Saviour, for the English of Ho∣sanna is Save us now. And thus this Gratu∣latory Acclamation exactly agrees to him who is the Iesus, the Saviour, the Deliverer, and who is the Shiloh, the Prosperous, the Triumphant. Therefore I take it to have been by a particular Direction of Heaven, that our Blessed Lord, at his entrance into Ierusalem in Triumph, was received with re∣peated Hosanna's from the People; for Saving and Triumphing go together. I find the con∣currence of these two in Zechary's Prediction

of our Saviour in ch. 9. v. 9. (a Prophetical Passage which all the antient Jews under∣stood of the Messias, but it is needless to produce their words or give you their names, this being so amply and satisfactorily per∣formed by a‖ 1.53 worthy Writer of this last Age) Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having Salvation, lowly (meek in him∣self, but) riding upon an Ass, and upon a Colt the Foal of an Ass, as a King in Joy and Triumph. Thus he was a Saviour and a Triumphant King; and if he had not been the former, it was impossible he should have been the latter.

It is true, he was pleased to submit to Death, and the Horrours of the Grave, but he soon rescued himself from them, and ascended Triumphantly to Heaven.‖ 1.54 God made that same Iesus who was crucified, both Lord and Christ, and† 1.55 hath set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all Principality and Power, and Might, and Do∣minion, and every name that is named, not only in this World, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church. We might here also recount the wonderful Success of the Christian Religion in the World, how it was planted and pro∣pagated even against the powerful Inclina∣tions and most inveterate Customs of Man∣kind, how it broke all their Measures, and made its way through all Difficulties; how it thrived and flourished when it was most

opposed and persecuted: In a word, how it miraculously prevailed maugre all the Force and Power, all the Wit and Policy of its malicious Adversaries. From this one Con∣sideration alone we might demonstrate the Vertue of this Name Shiloh, and give unde∣niable proofs, that our Lord most deservedly had this Title, i. e. That he was Prosperous and Successful. And when at last he shall take to himself his most Absolute Power and So∣veraignty, and reign in the Christian Church as‖ 1.56 King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, when in those Halcyon days▪ in that Glorious Ju∣bilee of the World,‖ 1.57 The Kingdoms of the Earth shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ▪ then we shall with rejoycing and Exaltation proclaim, admire and extol this Name Shiloh; we shall then with glad∣some Experience acknowledge that He and his Cause alone prosper upon the Earth; we shall confess that all his Blessed Enterprizes for his Church are Succes••ful: Briefly, we shall adore him as our Compleat Shiloh, our Saviour, our Peace-maker, our Prosperous Messias.

Thus I have been large in interpreting and explaining this Antient Name of the Messias, and you see what an Illustrious and Glorious Title it is. I have this yet farther to ob∣serve, that in some of the most notable and eminent Prophesies in the Old Testament concerning Christ, these three things which are comprehended in the Name Shiloh, are particularly and distinctly mentioned and are

all found together. Thus in Psalm 72. which is a clear Prediction concerning the Messias, (as the Hebrew Scholiast upon it, and some of the old Rabbins acknowledge, and as the Application of some passages in this Psalm to Christ, in the Writings of the New Te∣stament plainly sheweth.) This Name Shi∣loh is as it were commented upon. For you find him here first represented as a Saviour, He shall ••ave the Children of the needy, v. 4. He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the Poor and Needy, and shall save the Souls of the Needy, v. 12, 13. Nothing could be more expressive than this of the Salvation wrought by Christ Iesus for poor, distressed, helpless Sinners. Secondly, He is described as a Peace-maker, The Mountains (those places which used to be haunted with Robbers and wild Beasts) shall bring Peace to the People, v. 3. This Blessing shall be con∣ferred on those places where it was wholly a Stranger before, and therefore shall be the more welcome. And in v. 7. you read of abundance of Peace in his days; and the Dura∣tion of it is answerable to its Plenty, for it ••hall last till there be no Moon, (as the Hebrew hath it) till the Heavens and Earth, and the whole Fabrick of the World be dissolved. In the third place, to compleat his Character, it is added, that he shall be Prosperous and Happy, He shall break in pieces the Oppressor, v. 4. He shall be a great Victor, and Tri∣umph over all his Enemies, especially over

Satan the Great and Unsufferable Oppressor of Mankind. This is also signified in that Metaphorical Language, v. 6. He shall come down like rain upon the mowen Grass, as showers that water the Earth: i. e. in plainer terms, The Subjects of his Kingdom shall grow and increase, thrive and flourish: Therefore it follows immediately, In his days shall the Righteous flourish, v. 7. And then in several Verses together you have the Prosperity and Happiness of his Kingdom de∣cyphered, He shall have Dominion from Sea to Sea: They that dwell in the Wilderness shall bow before him, and his Enemies shall lick the Dust. All Kings shall fall down before him: All Nations shall serve him. And he shall live, i. e. (according to the‖ 1.58 Eastern stile) he shall prosper; and Men shall be blessed in him: All Nations shall call him blessed.

Likewise in that other noted and famous Prediction concerning Christ, in the 53 Chapter of Isaiah, all these three significa∣tions of the word Shiloh meet together. The Prophet recounting the admirable Be∣nefits and Advantages of our Saviours Passion (for that it is spoken of Him is evident from Matt. 8. 17. and Acts 8. 32, 35.) tells us, That he hath born our Griefs and carried our Sorrows, v. 4. i. e. He underwent the Punishment which we should have suffered which is farther expressed in the next Verse, He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was bruised for our Iniquities. Whereas we should have been wounded and bruised, punished

and tormented for our Sins, He was pleased, out of infinite Kindness, to take the Recom∣pense of our Sins upon himself, and to bear them on the Cross, and thereby to free us not only from the Guilt of Sin, but from all the Miseries which were consequent upon it. What is this but to be a Saviour? Where∣fore it is added, With his stripes we are healed, v. 5. By the Sufferings of Christ‖ 1.59 we are made whole, and saved. Thus he was a Saviour. But the same Inspired Prophet acquaints us in the same Verse, that he was a Peace-maker, the Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, i. e. by his Meritorious Suffer∣ings our Peace with God was purchased, our Reconciliation with the incensed Ma∣jesty of Heaven was procured. Yea, it is not unworthy of our notice, that the He∣brew word which we render Peace, is in the plural Number, to intimate to u••, that whatever Pleas and Accusations are against us, they are all (though never so many) silenced by Christ our Advocate, our Me∣diator, our Reconciler, our Peace-maker. Farther, the Peaceable Nature of Christ is set forth in those words, As a Sheep before her Shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth, v. 7. He bore all Hardships, Re∣proaches, Injuries, yea and the Cross it self, with a humble Silence and Submission.‖ 1.60 He did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his Voice to be heard in the Street. This is the Character of the Mild, the Gentle, the Peaceable Iesus. In the next place, he is represented as Pro∣sperous,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

When thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for sin, he shall see his Seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, v. 10. That is, his whole Design and Undertaking for the Sal∣vation and Redemption of Mankind (for this is the Pleasure of the Lord) shall be Successful: There shall be a Happy Effect and Issue of all that he hath done and suffered, he shall see and rejoyce in his Seed, that numerous Race of Holy Converts, of Believers and Regenerate Persons who are added to the Church. He shall see of the Travel of his Soul, and shall be satisfied, v. 11. He shall delight himself in the Blessed Effect of his Labours, he shall acquiesce in the Fruit of his Suffer∣ings, viz. The Salvation of his Chosen. Therefore will I divide him a Portion with the great, &c. v. 12. Which is a Comparison taken from the Practice of Great Conque∣r••rs, who after the Victory is over, share in the Rich Spoil: So that this expresseth the Compleat Victory and Triumph of Christ over all his Enemies. Thus he is every ways the True Shiloh; for Salvation, Peace and Prosperity (which are all contained in that Appellation) belong to him.

Whence we may gather, that this One Title comprehends in it All the Glorious Names that are given to Christ, either in the Old or New Testament, together with all his 〈…〉〈…〉, and all the Admirable Effects 〈…〉〈…〉 his Passion. These all center in this One Name, which the Holy

Ghost hath made choice of on purpose, as the most Comprehensive Word to express the Glorious Nature and Properties of the Messias. Yea, I doubt not but the Holy Patriarch Iacob had this Name revealed unto him from Heaven, and being immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, he divulged it to the World. You see then that I had great reason to prefer this Derivation of the word Shiloh (viz. from Shalah) before any others, and to commend it as the True and Native Signification. And because the Ex∣tent and Latitude of this word have not been observed by Expositors, there was a necessity of my insisting and enlarging upon it, that I might thereby display the full Import of the word designed here by the Holy Spirit, and that it might plainly appear, that this Name which God hath given his Son, is a Name above every Name.

But after all that I have said, concerning this so remarkable E••ymology and Denota∣tion of the word, I leave every one to his liberty. It may be some do not apprehend the Singularity and Fitness of this Deriva∣tion which I have offered. However, it is sufficient for my general Purpose in this Discourse, that the Ti••••e Shiloh▪ (whether we embrace this or the other Derivations) is agreeable to the Messias, and belongs to Him and none other. This is the unanimous Opinion and Suffrage of the most Learned Iews themselves, I say of the most Learned, for though there be some Iews, who by Shiloh

understand Ne••uchadnezzar, others Iero∣boam, others David, and some the City Shiloh, where Saul was elected King; and though there be some other wild and fanci∣ful Opinions of the Rabbies concerning the Interpretation of this word; yet all the wise and sober Writers among the Jews, all those who are of greatest Learning and Judgment, deride these Conjectures, and in∣genuously profess that Shiloh is the Messias's Name. The three Chala••ee Paraphrases in∣terpret the word thus, and so R. Solomon, and all the ancient Rabbies understand the place. In several places of the‖ 1.61 Talmud it is clear, that the Hebrew Doctors thought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was one of the Names of the Messias, and they quote this Text for it. The Au∣thor of Bereshith Rabba (an antient Piece) asserts the same in express terms, viz. Shiloh is the Messias. Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Bechai, later Doctors hold the same. Still, though there be different Derivations of the word, they all agree in this, that it is meant of the M••ssias. If then all the Antient, and some of the Moder•• Hebrews of the greatest Note and Learning acknowledge Shiloh to be the Name of the Messias or Christ, I think no Man of the Christian Perswasion will be averse from acknowledging it, but will rather admire and magnifie the Divine Providence in affording such a clear and notable Testimony from the Mouths and Pens of our professed Adversaries.

It being thus universally agreed, who is meant by Shiloh in this famous Prophesie, let us now summ up the plain meaning of the whole▪ The Scepter shall not depart, &c. that is, the Government of the ••ewish Na∣tion shall ever reside in the Posterity of Iudah till a greater Governour cometh, till He that was the Desire of all Nations, He that is the MESSIAS, the Deliverer and Saviour, the Peaceable, the Prosperous, blesseth the World with his arrival. ••hen, and not before, the Jewish Government shall depart, and so depart, that it shall never return again. This is the meaning of 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and this we must carefully observ•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••he expounding of this Proph••••••••. For I find that most Authors have stretched this Pro∣phesie too far, and have thereby made them∣selves justly liable to the Objections of the Iews. And indeed they can never main∣tain this Prediction against them upon the grounds on which they proceed, viz. That the Scepter is to be taken in these words precisely for the Kingly Power, and that the departing of this Scepter from Iudah is meant of any departing, though it were but for a little time. This cannot be the meaning of the words, for then the Scepter may be said to have departed from Iudah, when the Jewish Nation was carried Captive into Ba∣bylon, when the Dignity of the Kingly Ma∣jesty was taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, about five hundred years before Christ▪ And after it, under the Kings of Persia, and

after the Ruin of that Empire, under Alex∣ander's Successors there was a kind of depart∣ing of the Scepter. But it was not properly a Departing; it was rather an Interruption, and a Cessation for a time, but that is not the thing spoken of in this Prophesie. The Text is not meant of a Departing for a Time, of an Interregnum, or partial Failing, but of a full and total Departure; which happened not in the foresaid Instances. Nay, it is cer∣tain that all that while the Administration of the Jewish Commonwealth remained in those who were of the Line of Iudah, viz. the Seventy Elders, who had the Power in their hands: These (as the Iews tell us) failed not to be of the Race of Iudah and David. But the Asmonaei, who were the last Set of Go∣vernours among the Iews, were no•• of the Tribe of Iudah, but of Levi, they being Priests. Wherefore we must freely acknow∣ledge that the Iewish Government was not tied to the Tribe of Iudah, and consequently we must not restrain this Prophesie as some do, as if the Scepter should not in the least be removed from the Tribe of Iudah before Christ came. For 'tis certain that the Scepter did not continue in this Tribe all the while, and therefore in my opinion Helvicus might have saved all his pains in endeavouring to demonstrate that there was a Continuation of the Scepter in Iudah's Tribe: Which thing indeed he hath with great Learning and Skill in History, attempted to make good, and he hath said as much towards the proof

of it as any Man upon Earth could have done; but still all of it falls short of what he undertook, because the matter it self would not bear it, and he went upon a wrong Hy∣pothesis, viz. That the word Iudah in this Prophesie is to be restrained to the Particular Tribe of Iudah. Whereas it is to be taken in a larger Sense, (as is most frequent in Scrip∣ture) i. e. for the Iewish Race or People. The Scepter, the Supreme Power and Authority, continued in the Race and Line of the Jewish People, till the Coming of Christ. And even in those times when the Scepter, or Royal Dignity, failed for a Season; yet the Law-giver (if we will take it in the strictest Sense) never failed at all; for the Iews had their own Laws and Customs. And neither the Scepter nor Law departed wholly from the Jewish Na∣tion in any of those Times before mentioned: It departed not in Zedekiah, the last King of the House of David, nor in Zorobabel, nor in the Failure of the Maccabean Family: I say, it departed not wholly, though 'tis granted, that for a time, and in some part, it was taken away. Yea, when Iehoiakim broke his Oath and Covenant, and rebelled against the King of Babylon, the Scepter departed from Iudah for a time, as Ezekiel observes on that Event, so that Judah hath no strong rod to be a Scepter to rule, ch. 19. l. v. But when Shiloh the Messias came, it remained no longer, it was wholly cut off and ceased, so as not to be any more. Now was the Determinate Time come; for that is implied in these words

[till Shiloh come] which signifie a Set Period of time.

It remains then, that I shew you that This was the Time of our Saviour's Coming, and that it was the Precise Time. The Scepter, i. e. the Jewish Government was not totally abolished till Christ our Blessed Lord came; but at that very time when he came, i. e. when he was born, the Jewish Polity was utterly destroy'd and null'd, so as never to be reco∣vered again. Yet this we are to note, that the departing of the Scepter was by degrees; it began some time before our Saviour's Birth, and was in a short time compleated. I say, before Christ's coming in the Flesh the de∣parting of the Jewish Government had its Be∣ginning: For it is evident from unquestion∣able Writers, that Antipater, an Idumaean, was set over the Iews by Iulius Caesar, and Antigonus (who was the last of the Jewish Kings, and of Jewish Race) was deposed. Now it might be said that the Scepter departed from Judah, viz. when a Person, not by Birth a Jew, but a mere Alien, was forced upon them, and usurped the Jewish Government. Till this time their Governours were always Iews, but now ever afterwards all the rest were Strangers and Gentiles. This was the first step of the Total Departure of the Scepter, but it more signally and eminently departed quite from that Nation, when Herod, the Son of this Antipater, was set over them: For he, upon the Death of Caesar, hastened to Rome, a••d by complaining to the Roman Senate,

and by Anthony's means (whom he had bribed) was made King of Iudea. Whereupon, at his return, he indeavoured to ex••i••pate all the Blood Royal, he put to death 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Hircanus, the right Heirs of the Crown, he kill'd all of the Tribe of Iudah, and of the Family of the Asmonaei, whom he fear'd might contend with him for the Kingdom, and he reigned at Ierusalem as King of Iudea, but without the Iews consent. He was a con∣siderable time a great Scourge and Plague to the Iews, who would by no means acknow∣ledge a Stranger for their King. But he, to oblige and win them, embraced their Reli∣gion, and rebuilt their Temple; which had this Effect upon them, that at last they vo∣luntarily resigned the Right of the Kingdom to him, and owned him for their King, and swore Fealty to him. This was in the two and thirtieth Year of his Reign; in which Year likewise Christ was born. So that the Prophesie was exactly fulfilled; when the Jewish Kingdom had changed its True Owner, and the Scepter was actually departed from Iudah, and that with the Consent of the Iews (which never was before) then Christ came. This was in the Two and fortieth Year of Augustus, when Cyrenius was the Prefect of Syria, Luke 2. 2. And that it may appear that the Scepter was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from Ju∣dah, it is signally recorded that Augustus taxed Iudea, 1, 3, 4, Verses of that Chapter. Herod paid Tribute to Caesar, the whole Land was subject to the Empire, and the Iews had

no Dominion of their own. Thus, till this Herod the Great's time, the Kingly Govern∣ment continued in the Tribe of Iudah, and the Royal Scepter did not depart till this Stran∣ger reigned over them, for he was the first Jewish King of strange Blood and Descent.

It is unreasonable to attend to what‖ 1.62 some alledge, that he was not an Alien, but one of the Israelitish Nation, and a Iew by Birth. Which mistake they have run into because they read that Herod was a Iew, and was cir∣cumcised; which was only to please the Iews, and to settle himself in the Kingdom; but this proves not that he was a Iew by Birth. The contrary appears from the best‖ 1.63 Re∣cords: Yea, Iosephus the Iew tells us expresly, that he was by his Father an Idumean, and by his Mother an Arabian. Africanus and others derive his Pedegre otherwise, but all make him a Foreigner and Stranger: And they all agree, that the Iews owned him for their King, and that he was the first Stranger whom they admitted to sway the Scepter over them, and consequently that in Him this Divine Oracle began to be fulfilled, viz. That the Scepter should depart from Judah. And when our Saviour conversed here on Earth, this Prophesie was still accomplished more and more: For we find that the Iewish San∣hedrim had lost their Judicial Power of Life and Death, and in all things truckled to the Roman Governours that were set over them. And at last, at the Destruction of Ierusalem, their whole Power was quite Extinct, and

the Scepter and Law-giver totally and finally departed from them. Then the Government of every sort, the Priesthood and the Magi∣stracy, the Making of Laws, and the Exe∣cuting them, the State and Religion, the Com∣monwealth and the Church, were destroyed together, and so this Sacred Prediction was compleatly fulfilled. You see then that there were Degrees of it, and therefore 'tis Vain and Idle to interpret this Prophesie of a Mo∣ment of time. A punctual Designation of a certain Minute Season is unreasonable, for the Government and Authority of the Iews decayed gradually, till there was at length a final departing of them.

This then is the Grand thing represented in this Prophesie, that at or about Christ's Coming, the Scepter departed from the Nation of the Iews. Which is as much as we desire, to prove the Real Ful∣filling of this Antient Prediction, and from thence the Truth of Christianity. For thus we argue, the Jewish Scepter was to depart when Christ came: It is manifest and unde∣niable, that that Scepter is departed; there∣fore Christ is come. The Overthrow of the Jewish Polity, Magistracy and Government, is a certain Sign, Proof and Demonstration, that our Iesus is the Christ, and that this Christ is come. It is true, there was here∣tofore an Interruption of the Scepter, but the Iews returned to their Land and Rule again: But now for above Sixteen hundred Years, there hath been no shew at all of a Scepter

and Kingdom; which is an undeniable Argu∣ment, that the Scepter is quite departed. Therefore the Talmud often saith, that this Prediction refers to the Particular Case of the Iews; so that when Magistracy ceased in Ierusal••m, and the Kingdom and Jurisdiction were cast off, they ought presently to expect the Messiah. And those are Remarkable words of R. David Kimchi on Hos. 3. 4, The Children of Israel shall abide many days with∣out a King, and without a Prince, and without a Sacrifice, &c.

These (saith he) are the times of Exile in which we are at this day, we have neither a King, nor a Prince of the Stock of Israel, but we are under the Power of the Gentiles, and under the Power of the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles.

Which is as much as to confess, that this Prophesie which I have been commenting upon, is accomplished, That the Scepter is departed from Judah, and that the Messias, who is the Blessed Iesus, the True Shiloh, (the Saviour, the Peace-maker, the Prosperer) is come.

The second Text enquired into, viz.Exod. XXVIII. 30.

Thou shalt put in the Breast-plate of Iudgment the Urim and the Thum∣mim.

THis Renowned Oracle of the Iews, hath employed the Thoughts and Studies of many Learned Persons, both Iews and Christians, but the Result of their Enquiries hath been very different. For some after all their Searches have brought in an Ignoramus: Thus R. David Kimchi ex∣presly averreth,‖ 1.64 It is not known to us what the Urim and Thummim are: And several other Writers (as you shall hear afterwards) speak the same despairing Language on this Theme.

‖ 1.65 Others seem to be Allegorical, and by the Urim and Thummim understand that Spiritual Light and Knowledge, that Divine Truth and Wisdom, with which God inspired the Heart or Breast of the High Priest, as aften as he wore the Rationale on that part. But after this rate, a Man may Allegorize away half the Bible; and then when the Literal or Histo∣rical Sense is wholly swallowed up of the Mystical, we may give up our Reason and

Religion together, and profess we know not what either of them means. Besides, it is im∣pertinent and ridiculous to interpret these words of any thing that God infused into the High Priests Heart, because they are spoken to Moses, as appears from the first Verse of the Chapter: So that it is evident they men∣tion not what God, but what Moses was to do. It is He that is here commanded to put the Urim and Thummim into Aaron's Breast-plate, and therefore it is unreasonable and absurd to understand these words of Gods infusing Light or Wisdom into Aaron's Heart. This be sure is not the Primary and Literal Sense, though (as I shall shew in the close of this Discourse) it may be contained in the Mysti∣cal and Highest Meaning of the Words.

I might in the next place mention (and truly it is enough barely to mention) the wild Fancy of the Brethren of the Rosie Cross, who pretend to make and prepare the Urim and Thummim, and therefore would perswade us that they know very well what it is, viz. That it is an Artificial or Chymical Preparation of Light, answerable to the Subterranean Lamps, or it is such a Splendor made by Art, as Noah prepared for the Ark, Gen. 6. 16. for by what we translate a Window, there is meant, say they, some Greater thing: And what is that but this Spagyrick Splendor, the True Urim and Thummim of the World? But leaving these Fanciful Urim and Thummim-makers, I proceed to acquaint you with the Senti∣ments of the more Sober.

I. Some of these hold that the Name of God was written, and put into the Breast-plate, and that this was the Urim and Thummim. ‖ 1.66 R. Selomoh Iarchi saith expresly, that it was the Name Iehovah inserted into the Fold∣ings of the High Priest's Pectoral. This is also avouched by Eugubinus, Vatablus, and P. Fagius, the last whereof hath these words,‖ 1.67 The Writing which contained the Name of God with four Letters, was called the Urim and Thummim. And Avenarius is partly of this Opinion; for though he holds that the Urim and Thummim are the Twelve Precious Stones shining in the Breast-plate, yet he joyns to them the Shem Hamphorash, as the Jewish Doctors stile the Name Iehovah. But for my part I cannot conceive how these Persons came to take up this Opinion, there being no Foundation at all for this Particular Word or Name. They might as well have assigned any other Name of God, yea any other Word whatsoever that was reputed Sacred and Ve∣nerable. Wherefore others take another course, and understand by the Urim and Thummim something of a far different Na∣ture, viz. some Curious Piece of Work, either framed by the Hand of some Skillful Artist, or immediately wrought by God himself, and given by him to Moses when he was on the Mount. Accordingly,

II. Some are of opinion, that the Urim and Thummim were the Precious Stones in the High Priest's Breast-plate, those Twelve Stones on which the Names of the Tribes

were engraven. This is the received Doctrin of the Talmudists, and the Generality of the Jewish Doctors, to whom our Learned Light∣foot, and several other Christian Writers ad∣here. And they labour to prove this Assertion from Exod. 39. 8, &c. where the making of the Breast-plate, with all its Ornaments, is set down, and yet the Urim and Thummim are not expresly mentioned there: Whence they conclude, that these Stones are the Urim and Thummim, and that Moses mentioning those, did as good as mention these. These, there∣fore, say they, are nothing else but those Stones. But this is confuted from this Exod. 28. where Aaron's Garments and Habiliments are most distinctly set down: Here you read of the Breast-plate with Twelve Precious Stones, v. 15, &c. and then in v. 30. the Urim and Thummim are mentioned by themselves, Thou shalt put, &c. Therefore These are things really different from the Stones which were distinctly named before, and particularly de∣scribed from v. 15. to 22. This I think is very plain and convincing; and as for the place before produced, the answer is, that the mentioning of the Urim and Thummim is omitted there, where the Design was parti∣cularly to insist upon those Habiliments which were Rich and Costly, and required great Art and Preparation, but the Urim and Thummim are not of that nature, but a plain easie thing, as I shall shew afterwards. The Talmudical Doctors go on, and tell us, that by the Stones shining more than ordinarily Answer was given

to what was asked by the Holy Priest. Which also is asserted by some Late Writers, who confidently tell us, that the Stones in the Breast-plate were called Urim, because they sent forth a light in great abundance, and espe∣cially that a Pair of these Gemms shone forth with extraordinary Brightness, when the An∣swer of God was Acceptable and Welcome; but when it was not, they look'd very Dim and Dull. But some say (and with as much reason as the former) that the Answer was given, not by the Unusual Lustre of the Stones, but by the Letters of the Names Ingra∣ven in them, which raised themselves higher, and stood more out, and so made up certain Words out of the Alphabet, contain'd in the Names of the Twelve Tribes. When any one came to enquire at this O••acle, the High Priest look'd on the Letters which were Ingraven on the Stones of his Breast-plate, and there read what God's Pleasure was. But this is a mere Conjecture: Besides, we are certain that Long Answers (and such there were sometimes) could not be given in this way.‖ 1.68 Iosephus affirms, that the Stones in the High Priest's Breast-plate, fore signified what was to be by the Change of their Colour. Others have other Fancies, as Suidas quotes an Author, who a∣verred that the Stones turned Red if there was any Answer of War, and that they turn'd Black if Death was denounced, and other Divinati∣ons and Answers were signified by other Co∣lours: All which is mere Surmise and Conceit: Wherefore 'tis needless to insist upon the Re∣futation of it.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

III. Others hold that the Urim and Thum∣mim were Two Precious Stones given by God to Moses, distinct from the Twelve Gemms or Stones before mentioned. I find that Procopius of old inclined to this Opinion, and among the Moderns Arias Montanus asserts it. But because they merely assert it, and assign no reason or ground of it (as indeed it is impossible they should) I will take no farther notice of it, but pass to the next Opinion.

IV. Others will have the Urim and Thum∣mim to be a sort of Small Images belonging to the Breast-plate. But there is a Disagreement among those that are of this Opinion, for some hold that the Urim and Thummim are one and the same thing, others that they are two diffe∣rent things.

Those that hold the Urim and Thummim were the Same thing, tell us, That they were two Little Images finely wrought, which the High Priest wore within the Fouldings of his Pectoral, and by these God gave Answer when there was occasion. This is the Opinion of Christopherus à Castr••, who adds also, That they are the same with the Teraphim, which were Statues, Figures, or Images used in Divin∣ing: The Talisman were of the like nature. So * 1.69 Mr. Selden thinks, and addeth, That the Tera∣phim, among the Idolaters, answered to the Urim and Thummim among the Jews. The Learned Mr. Gregory agrees with him, and saith likewise, That the Teraphim were Pup∣pets made of Wax in shape of a Man, and that they were framed under a certain Constella∣tion,

and thence had power to foretel future things. But in another place he saith, They were the Heads of First-born Males cut off, and Magically ordered, and then being Con∣sulted, they spoke.

There are others, who assert that the Urim and Thummim were things of Different Na∣tures. To such I would propound that passage in Numb. 27. 21. Eleazar the Priest shall ask Counsel for him (i. e. Ioshua) after the Iudgment of Urim before the Lord. Here is no mention of Thummim, but Urim alone is put for both, or rather it is implied, that they are the same. So we read in 1 Sam. 28. 6. That when Saul en∣quired of the Lord, he answered him not, neither by Dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets: Whence it seems to be evident, that Urim in∣cludeth the Thummim, and consequently the difference which some Persons make between them is taken away; they are the same Ora∣cle, though not the same Words. Mr. Mede seems to be of another Opinion, and makes them two Distinct Oracles: By Urim (saith he) the Jews were ascertained of the Council and Will of God, by Thummim of his Favour and Good Acceptance. The Learned Dr. Spen∣cer likewise hath in a whole Treatise attempt∣ed to prove, that the Urim is a quite different thing from the Thummim, and that it was to another end and purpose. As to his Notion concerning the Urim, it is the same in the main, with that of Christopherus à Castro, but he with Great Wit and Extraordinary Learning hath embellished and improved it. The Urim,

saith he, was one or two, or more Little Images, or Hollow Instruments which the High Priest had in the Foldings of his Breast-plate. They were the same with Teraphim, of∣ten mentioned in the Old Testament. And Teraphim, by an usual change of S into T is for Seraphim, which Hebrew word signifies Uren∣tes: So that Urim and Teraphim agree in the Name, for Urim properly signifies Ignes. Now Seraphim is a word in the Old Testament to signifie Angels, Isa. 6. 6. it was the first and anti∣entest Name for those Glorious Messengers of Heaven. And they often appearing in the first Ages of the World, and God holding Corres∣pondence with Mankind by them, it was grown into a Custom to make Little Images and Representations of them in Wax; and at last the Images were called by their Names; as the Images of Angels in the Holy of Holies were called Cherubim, so the Images of Angels which the High Priest had in his Rationale were called Seraphim or Teraphim, and Urim. This Oracle was from the High Priest's Breast, as the Oracle in the Temple was from the Ark, and from between the Cherubims, which were of the same Nature. In short, the Urim were of Pagan Extraction, they being the same with the Teraphim, which are taken in Scripture in a good and a bad Sense, for they might be used lawfully or unlawfully, Devils and Impure Spirits might give answer by these as well as Good Spirits. The Teraphim then, which were a piece of Gentile Supersti∣tion at first, were by Gods leave tolerated

among the Jews, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, and to comply with their obsti∣nate Temper. Accordingly God ordered those to be placed within the doubling of the High Priest's Breast-plate, and thence he gave an∣swers by them. This is the Learned Doctor's Notion of the Urim, and he quotes Philo the Jew and Aben Ezra as the Patrons of it.

But I presume to offer one thing against this Excellent Person's Opinion, and more parti∣cularly against the Foundation of it, which is this, that the word Teraphim is of a middle Sig∣nification in Scripture and is taken sometimes in a good, and other times in a bad Sense; sometimes for Cherubims and other Lawful Representations, and at other times for Un∣lawful Images and Idols. This I conceive is a mistake, for I find that the word Teraphim is always to be understood in the latter Sense. Thus Laban had these Teraphim, Gen. 31. 19. which the generality of Learned Expositors interpret concerning Magical and Telesmatical Images, by which it was usual among the Gen∣tiles to foresee and foretell future Events. Therefore Rachel took them from her Father, that he might not, by consulting them, know which way she travelled: Or, it may be she retain'd something of his Superstition, and took these Tutelar Gods with her to direct her in her Journey. So we read that Micah had got him a House of Gods and a Teraphim, Judg. 17. 5. but whether these were Lawful Imple∣ments, and becoming True Worshippers, you may gather from the next Verse, In those days

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

there was no King in Israel, but every Man did that which was right in his own eye. And even when the Israelites had a King, and a more composed Government, this corrupt Practice was not soon worn off, for Michal, David's Wife, kept this piece of Idolatry in her House, to consult with upon occasion, 1 Sam. 19. 13. But when a Reformation was set on foot in good earnest, these Idolatrous Images immedi∣ately vanish'd: Thus we read that when King Iosiah reformed Israel, he put away from among them the workers with familiar Spirits, and the Wizards, and the Images (or Teraphim, as 'tis in the Original) and the Idols, and all the Abomi∣nations that were spied in the land. I think it will not be questioned whether Teraphim are to be taken here in a bad Sense. And that these were noted Instruments of Idolatry is clear from Ezek. 21. 21. where we read that the King of Babylon being about to use Divina∣tion consulted with the Teraphim, which shews plainly what they were. But it may be objected that the Ephod and Teraphim go to∣gether, as in the forenamed place, Iudg. 17. 5. where 'tis said Micah made an Ephod and a Teraphim: And in Hos. 3. 4. it is prophesied that the Israelites should be without an Ephod and a Teraphim, whence some infer that the former being a thing Lawful, the latter is so too; the Ephod belonged to the True Wor∣shippers, therefore the Teraphim did. I answer first, it may be both of these were Unlawful and Idolatrous, for it was the Custom of False Worshippers to imitate the True ones in

some things: And because God appointed his Priests an Ephod, they likewise aped that Holy Garment, and had a certain Vestment not un∣like to it, which they used in their Idolatrous Services. This went along with their Teraphim which was a Device of their own, and had no reference (that we know of) to any thing made use of by Gods People. If we consult Iudges 8. 27, we shall see a proof of this: Ephod is not here meant of a Holy Garment, but of Gideon's Idolatrous Vestment, in imi∣tation of the High Priest's Ephod. So in Iudg. 18. 14. an Ephod and Teraphim are joyned to∣gether as things of the same Quality and Kind, i. e. as Idolatrous, yea and thrice more they are mentioned together, viz. in v. 17, 18, 20. In all which places you may observe, that either molten or graven Images are joyned with them, to convince us yet farther of what nature they are.

Or Secondly, Suppose that by Ephod in the latter place, viz. in Hosea, be meant a Lawful Garment, even the same which the High Priest wore by Gods Appointment, yet it doth not follow from this that the other thing mentioned with it, viz. the Teraphim was law∣ful. For in these words of Hosea this double thing is foretold, namely, That the time will come when God will take away from the Jews, not only the True Worship but the Ido∣latrous one, which used to be so delightful to them. The Prophet tells them, That they shall not only be without an Ephod, i. e. The Mo∣saick Priesthood and Service, but they shall

be without an Image, i. e. a Standing Image or Statue (as the word signifies) such as the Gol∣den Calf, or the Calves in Dan and Bethel, and that they shall be without Teraphim, i. e. Images for Divination: They shall be de∣barred the Prophane and Idolatrous way of Worshipping, which was so dear to them. And this is the very case of that People at this day, they neither worship the True God after the Mosaick Appointment (for they are out of a Capacity of doing it in their present Cir∣cumstances) nor do they serve Idols and fall down to Images. They have no Ephod, and they have no Teraphim, they are without the Mosaick Worship, and also without the Ido∣latrous and Superstitious Rites to which they were heretofore accustomed, and in which they took so great delight. This seems to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Words, and any Man may see how directly it Con∣fronts the Learned Doctor's Opinion.

I might add, that it is improbable God would make use of the Teraphim (which are the same with the Urim according to this Worthy Person) as a Divine Oracle, seeing they are originally Superstitious and Idola∣trous things, and no other than the common Instruments of Divination among the Pagans. I know this Learned Author salves the Im∣probability of this, by adding that this was done wholly in Compliance with the peevish and hard-hearted Jews, who were to be hu∣moured and pleased at that time. But I crave leave to dissent from this Learned Man here,

because I question whether it was worthy of God to indulge the Israelites in these Hea∣then Superstitions. I refer the Reader to Ar∣guments of another sort in a very‖ 1.70 Learned Writer, who hath largely confuted this mi∣stake of the Teraphim being the same with the Urim.

I pass now to this Reverend Author's No∣tion of Thummim, which he holds to be a thing really different from the Urim. He hath this particular and singular Apprehension of it, that as Urim was fetch'd from Serapis an Egyptian Image, so Thummim is of the like Original, for it was an Image made of Precious Stones, which the High Priests of Egypt wore about their Necks, having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written on it, and therefore it was called Truth, as Diodo∣rus Siculus, Aelian, and others relate. Accor∣dingly the Jewish Thummim is stiled Truth by the Septuagint. Against which most ingenious and plausible Conjecture, which the Author of it hath adorned with infinite Reading and Criticism, I make bold to offer a few things, begging first his pardon for daring to shake so admirably contrived a Notion. And truly I am apt to think my self already absolved by a Person of that famed Ingenuity and Can∣dor, who as he hath thought fit to depart from other Writers on this Subject, and hath wor∣thily established a Sentiment of his own, so he will forgive the Freedom of this Critical Essay which ventures to dissent from that so Celebrated Hypothesis of his. Briefly then, whereas he parallels the Thummim with the

Egyptian Ornament, because, like that, it hung down by a Golden Chain, I humbly conceive that Text which is alledged in favour of it, is no positive Proof, viz. Exod. 28. 22, &c. for though it appears thence that the Breast-plate of the Jewish High Priest was fastened to the Shoulder-pieces of the Ephod by Chains and Rings of Gold, yet there is not a word of the Thummim being fastned to or hanging by any thing; but 'tis only said in that Chapter that Moses shall put in the Breast-plate the Thum∣mim. And this likewise I offer from these ex∣press words, if the Thummim was put in the Breast-plate, and lapt up within it, how could it be a Pendent Image, and how could it be seen hanging without? Then besides, if this Image or Jewel called Thummim hung dang∣ling on the High Priest's Breast, it could not but cover (in part at least) the Rich Gemms in the Rationale, and hinder them and their Curious Engravings from being seen. I only modestly query whether this be allowable. And this too is to be thought of, that if the Thummim hung down by a Chain, there is the same reason to assert that the Urim did so too, for the Text speaks of both alike, and so the Images which were supposed to be shut up in the warm Folding of the Pectoral must be taken out, and exposed to the Air, and both they and the Egyptian Image must hang to∣gether on the High Priest's Breast.

Lastly, If this Excellent Writer will give me leave to utter my thoughts freely, This is another reason why I dissent from him, viz.

because his Assertion concerning the Thum∣mim (as well as the Urim) supposes that God himself imitated the Idolatrous Nations; for the most Sacred Thummim, according to him, was borrow'd from the Egyptians, and parti∣cularly from their Priests; which to me seems to be not only unworthy of the Divine Ma∣jesty, but of his High Priest, and of the Reli∣gion instituted by him. Therefore the Admi∣rable Grotius declares that it is most likely that the Egyptians in this (as in other things) imitated the Iews. And the Learned Isaac Vossius acknowledgeth that the Egyptians took this Ornament and the Name of it from the Hebrews, as they did many other things. And he adds that the Egyptians consulted this Pre∣cious Stone of the High Priest as an Oracle, wherein also they emulated the Hebrews. But the contrary, viz. That the Jews, nay that God himself, and in a Matter so Solemn and Sacred, followed the Example of the Ido∣latrous Egyptians seems to me very impro∣bable. We read in the Infallible History, that the Israelites borrowed of the Egyptians Iewels of Silver and Gold, and Rayment; but that the High Priest of Israel borrowed his Pontifical and particularly his Oracular Habit from them I find no where attested: But I read that God strictly forbad the Jews to use the Rites of the Pagan Nations, and to follow their Customs, After the doings of the Land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: And after the doings of the Land of Canaan, whi∣ther I bring you, ye shall not do, neither shall ye

walk in their Ordinances, Lev. 18. 3. And it is the Confession of one of the most Under∣standing Rabbies, even that Moses of whom the Jews say, that from Moses the Great Law∣giver to this Moses there never was such another of that Name: (I say) 'tis his Con∣fession and Acknowledgment, That the Iewish Rites prescribed that People by God were not in imitation of the Pagan Rites, but were in ab∣solute opposition to them. Thus the Famous Rambam, who was celebrated for his pro∣found Skill in the Jewish Laws and Consti∣tutions. This is all that I have at present to offer in way of Exception to the Learned Doctor's Opinion. But though I cannot yield to be his Proselyte in this Point, yet I deny not that Others of great Sagacity and Judgment may see farther into and acquiesce in so Noble a Discovery: And as for my own part, I acknowledge most frankly that I pay a great Veneration to this Excellent Person, who hath with so great an Amasse∣ment of Learning and Variety of Reading, framed so Delicate a Notion. I admire the Incomparable Artificer, though I cannot altogether subscribe to his Work.

You see what have been the Different Opinions of Writers concerning the Urim and Thummim: I will now after all propound that which I conceive is more eligible than any of those already named. The High Priest, the Chief Minister of the Jewish Church, had eight distinct Garments where∣with he was adorned, whence he was called

the Priest* 1.71 of many Garments, to distinguish him from the other Priests. But of all these Vestments the Ephod was the most consi∣derable, and was worn over all the rest: This had a hole or opening in the fore-part of it, where was fastned a piece of Cloth of the same work with the Ephod, very richly embroidered and mixed with Gold. This Cloth being doubled was Four-square; it was a Span in length, and of the same Di∣mension in breadth, Exod. 28. 15, &c. This Quadrangular Piece is called the High Priests Pectoral or Breast-plate, and it was set with four Rows of Precious Stones, three in a Row, i. e. twelve Stones in all; and on each of these Stones was engraved one of the Names of the Sons of Israel, from whom the Twelve Tribes took their Denominations. And this Square Breast-plate, this Rich Stomacher of the High Priest was Famous not only for these Precious Stones and the Ingravings on them, but also for the Urim and Thummim which were placed here also. Now (to come to the matter) these were no such Fine and Rare things as some talk of: Nay, let me add, they were no Things at all, but only Words. I take them to be no other than these two bare words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written or engraven upon the Breast plate. After all the various Sentiments, Disputes, Opi∣nions and Conjectures about this so Famous and so much Controverted Oracle, I appre∣hend this to be the short, plain and easie account of it. It was only these two Hebrew

Dissyllables URIM and THUMMIM (of great Significancy and Importance, as you shall hear afterwards) placed upon the High Priests Pectoral. This was all. And that this Account of the Urim and Thummim is as Probable and Reasonable as it is Plain, I will make appear from these following Particulars.

1. There was no room for a pair of Images or more in the Breast-plate, for it was but a Span in length and breadth, so that you cannot conveniently lodge these little Flying Seraphims in so narrow a com∣pass, you will indanger their Wings, or hurt some of their Tender Members by trussing them up in so Contracted a Room. Besides, we must remember, that accor∣ding to the foresaid Opinion the Urim were Images of Wax: Now, it was not safe to lodge these little Waxen Tools in that Close Folding next the warm and zealous Breast of the Priest; for by this means there might be danger of dissolving these Little Cherubims. But this is prevented by our Assertion that the Urim and Thum∣mim were not Things but Words.

2. The Terms whereby it is expressed in Scripture will bear this Interpretation very well; for concerning the Urim and Thummim it is said, Thou shalt put them in the Breast-plate; or according to the Version of the Seventy,‖ 1.72 Thou shalt put them upon it. And when Moses had cloathed Aaron with the Ephod and Breast-plate, it is said

he‖ 1.73 put upon the Rationale or Breast-plate the Urim and Thummim, Lev. 8. 8. Now this without the least Straining may signifie to us the Writing of these words Urim and Thummim upon the Breast-plate. It is a general Term, and so may include that Par∣ticular way and manner of Putting those words upon the Pectoral, viz by Writing or Ingraving them. Nay, if we go to the Original, we shall find that that is as fair for us, for Thou shalt give in the Breast-plate, &c. (which is the Exact Version according to the Hebrew) may as well be understood of Writing as any other way. Nay, you may observe that the word giving is used with reference to Writing, in Esther 3. 14. The Copy of the Writing for a Commandment to be given is as much this,‖ 1.74 The Summ of the Writing was, that there should be written such a Command or Decree. Given is of the same import here with written, or engrossed. Another place I will produce, to confirm this Notion which I offer, viz. Ier. 31. 33. I will put (or according to the Hebrew) I will give my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their Heart: Where you see Nathan and Katab are the same: I will give or put, and I will write, are Synonimous Terms; and so in the Greek of the Seventy, and the* 1.75 New Testament (where this place of Ieremiah is quoted) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus you see that ac∣cording to the Idiom of the Holy Language putting or giving is understood and inter∣preted

of Writing. To farther this Notion, I could add, that Giving hath the same Acception in other Tongues, as in the Greek (besides what hath been said already) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is equivalent to Scribere according to that of Demosthenes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to prefer a Bill or Writing against one. And in the Latin 'tis well known that dare literas is meant of writing Epistles or Letters: And in our own Language dated or given is the same with written. However, 'tis certain that the Hebrew word Nathan is of a very large Extent in Scripture, and is no less applicable to Writing than to many other things. Thus in the Text, Thou shalt give in the Breast-plate the Urim and Thummim, may well be rendred, Thou shalt write them in the Breast-plate, this being one way of giving; for in Writing there is something put or given into the Writing-Table, Paper, or Book, or whatever else the Writing is in.

3. We read that This very thing was done in the Pontifical Habiliments: Certain Words were Written or Put upon some part of the Holy Garments, Exod. 28. 36, Thou shalt make a plate of pure Gold, and grave upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD. Observe here, These words HOLINESS TO THE LORD were writ on a Plate, and put on Aaron's Forehead. Why then might not these words URIM and THUMMIM be written on some∣thing, and put in the Breast-plate of Aaron?

One Writing is a Pattern of the other; the words URIM and THUMMIM in the Breast-plate answered to Those HOLINESS TO THE LORD in the Head-plate or Mitre. And though they are not said to be Graven, yet it is said they were Put upon, which is a large term, and comprehends the other.

4. We have a Parallel place in Zach. 14. 20, In that day shall there be upon the Bells of the Horses HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD. The Prophet here speaks of the Glorious days of the Gospel, when True Holiness (which was shadowed forth by the Mosaick Purifications and Clean∣sings) shall take place in the Church, when Men shall universally turn to God, and dedicate themselves wholly to Him and his Service. True Sanctity shall then be the Ornament and Lustre of their Lives: Yea, their very secular and inferior Im∣ployments shall be devoted and made Ser∣viceable to Holiness. In that day shall there be upon the Bells or the Bridles (so the Hebrew word signifies likewise) of the very Horse, Holiness unto the Lord: Instead of their Curious Harness and Trappings, there shall as it were be written or In∣graven upon them these words, Holiness unto the Lord, the very words which were commanded to be written in the Front of the High Priest's Mitre. This shall be their Ornament and Bravery. I do not think (nor doth any Man else, I suppose) that

these words shall be really written on the Horses Bells or Bridles, but I alledge this place for this, that 'tis spoken and expressed as if such words were written, because they were so in effect. The manner of expressing the thing is that which I observe here as pertinent to our purpose. Mark! It is not said there shall be written or ingraven, but there shall be upon the Bells of the Horses: And it is not said there shall be these words, but plainly and simply there shall be Holiness to the Lord. So here it is not said, thou shalt write, but thou shalt put; and it is not said, thou shalt put these words, but thou shalt put the Urim and Thummim. Yet as in the former place Writing and Ingraving is un∣derstood, so it is here: These Individual Words Urim and Thummim are to be writ∣ten or Ingraven on the High Priests Breast-plate as the words Kodesh Laihovah (i. e. Holiness to the Lord) were to be seen in effect written or ingraven on the Trappings of the Horses.

5. There is another place of Scripture to illustrate this, and to let us see that it is pro∣bable the words Urim and Thummim were to be Written, though it is not said so in express terms. The King of Babylon stood at the parting of the way to use Divination, he consulted with‖ 1.76 Images; at his right hand was the Divination for Jerusalem, Ezek. 21. 21, 22. The Preposition [for] is not in the Hebrew Text, but only Ierusalem; for here is described the Pagan way of Di••ination,

and particularly how the King of Babylon undertook by his Heathen Art to prede∣stine the Slaughter and Destruction of Ieru∣salem; namely, as Haman cast Lots in his Divining way, to know what days were fittest and best for the Slaughter of the Iews. He commanded Pur (i. e. the Lot) to be cast from day to day, Esther 3. 7. This sort of Divining Lottery is used here by the King of Babylon, who had a Scheme before him (as was the Custom in these cases) of what he intended to enquire about, and accor∣dingly in his right hand was the Divination Ierusalem (so it is in the Hebrew) i. e. Ieru∣salem was the Word which was written on that part of the Lots. The meaning then is, that the Magical Divination or Lottery went clearly against Ierusalem, that City was to be destroy'd. This is the short way of Scripture Expression, At his right hand was the Divi∣nation, Jerusalem, which more largely should have been expressed thus, At his right hand was the Divination which respected Jerusalem, and to distinguish it from the rest, the word [Jerusalem] was written upon it. So here, the like Abbreviating stile is used, Thou shalt put the Urim and Thummim in the Breast-plate, i. e. Thou shalt distinctly write down these two words Urim and Thummim, and then place them conveniently in that part of the Ephod.

6. Let this be considered, That the In∣spired Pen-man of the Book of Exodus, is very Exact and Particular about all the Habi∣liments

and Ornaments of the High Priest, in the 28th Chapter. How Punctual is he about the two Great Onyx stones on the Shoulders of the Ephod, from the ninth to the thirteenth Verse? And the setting of the twelve Precious Stones in the Breast-plate is precisely described from the seventeenth to the thir••ieth Verse. But when he comes to speak of the Urim and Thummim, he uses no Description at all, but only mentions the Bare Names Urim and Thummim; whence any Observing Man may perceive that these were some Easie and Plain thing, which needed no Explaining and Inlarging. If it were not so, we should have the manner of the putting of the Urim and Thummim into the Rationale, particularly set down, as you see other things in that Chapter are punctually described. He that hath any Ingenuity must needs acknowledge that this makes exceed∣ingly for my Assertion.

Let me add this, That you read not of any Directions for preparing the Urim and Thum∣mim, which is another Argument that they were mere Names or Words, that they were something Written only. If they had been to be made with Art, viz. by Ingraving or Carving, or some other way (as Authors have supposed) we should have had the Ma∣terials and the Manner of it set down, at least in the general, as we read of the Manner of preparing several things belonging to the Ta∣bernacle and the Mosaick Worship. But we read of no such thing relating to the Urim

and Thummim: There is no more said than barely this, Thou shalt put them in the Breast-plate. What reason then is there to fancy any other thing than the mere Writing of them?

8. I offer this to be considered, That Iose∣phus hath not a word of Urim and Thummim, though he hath a whole Chapter (viz. The Eighth in his Third Book of Antiquities) of the Priests and High Priests Garments. His business was in this place to describe the Pontifical and Sacerdotal Ornaments, and therefore if this had been any Great and Con∣siderable thing, he would not have passed i••▪ by in silence, especially throughout a whole Chapter, which is one of the longest he hath in the Book. Nay afterwards, when in the next Chapter he falls upon mentioning a cer∣tain Miracle of the Stones on the High Priest's Breast; he saith not a Syllable of this Matter, but only relates how Answer was given (as he thought) by the extraor∣dinary shining of those Stones. Nay further, this Author had a fair Opportunity again to mention the Urim and Thummim if they had been any Notable thing, for in his sixth Book of the Iewish War, chap. 6. he particularly and distinctly enumerates all the Garments of the High Priest, and more especially the Rich Gemms in his Breast-plate; but he saith no∣thing at all of Urim and Thummim, yea he doth not so much as name them. Whence 'tis to be presumed that these were rather Words than Things, i. e. That they were these two

words written, and nothing else. If the Urim and Thummim had been some Great and Wondrous thing, or if they had been like any of those things which have been pre∣sented to us before, this Excellent Man as a Faithful Historian would not have omitted it, and as he was a Iew would not have passed it by for the Glory of the Nation, and much more as a Priest he would not have done it for the Honour of his Order.

9. From the Learned Dr. Spencer's Notion of Thummim I may confirm my own, though a contrary one. He maintains that the Jewish Thummim was borrowed from the Egyptian High Priest who had a rich Saphire hanging by a Golden Chain at his Breast, and because the word Truth was Ingraven on it, therefore the Image it self was called Truth. This gives a fair hint of what I assert, that the Thummim (as well as the Urim) was something written, especially if we invert what that Worthy Person saith, and with Mr. Selden and others hold, That the Egyptians borrowed this Or∣nament from the Iews. Hence we may learn the true Nature and Quality of it▪ for their imitating the Iews in this matter acquaints us that the Thummim was only a written or ingraved word: This usage of the Egyptian High Priest, viz. of wearing a Jewel at his Breast, in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was written, shews plainly that the Jewish High Priest (from whom this usage was taken) wore in the same place something written or ingraven. And this was the Hebrew word Thummim

(together with the other word Urim) which was thought to signifie Truth, and accor∣dingly the Seventy Interpreters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus we may partly gather what the Nature of the Thummim among the Iews was, from the Egyptian imitation of it. Their having the word Truth written and made use of by their Chief Minister of Re∣ligion, lets us know that it was but a Copy of the Hebrew Original, and that the Thum∣mim was no other than that very word in∣scribed in the Breast-plate.

10. The probability of this Opinion is confirmed from what was said in the en∣trance into this Discourse, viz. That several of the most Learned and Inquisitive Writers have professed their Ignorance as to the matter which is before us. This seems to me to be no contemptible Consideration, but to be something towards a proof of what I assert. Besides R. Kimchi before mentioned, there are other Hebrew Doctors that declare they cannot tell what the Urim and Thummim are.‖ 1.77 Aben Ezra is of this mind, and so is R. Abraham Seba, and if I had leisure to search into Writers upon this Subject, I might produce others among the Circumcised Doctors. These are followed by many of the Christian Profession, as Car∣dinal Cajetan, a Man of great Search and Curiosity, who ingenuously professeth he knoweth nothing of the Urim and Thum∣mim. ‖ 1.78 Munster acknowledgeth the same, and so doth* 1.79 Buxtorf, and a‖ 1.80 Learned Man

of our own hath these words, To define what the Urim and Thummim were is none of my business, nor indeed dare I attempt that which hath puzzled all the Learned Men in the W••rld. This makes for my Opinion, for 'tis plain that these Learned Writers were not able to make any Considerable Matter of the Urim and Thummim. If they could, it is cer∣tain they would have told us of it; If These had been any Great Thing, they would not have been silent, but would have laid it open before us. But in the mean time they over∣look'd that which was Plain and Obvious, they would not take notice of that which was a mere Writing, and no more, as 'tis most probable these Urim and Thummim were. These very Words were written, and put upon or into the Breast-plate, and that was all, if I mistake not.

11. That they were something written hath been a Notion not unacceptable to some Un∣derstanding Men, both Iews and Christians, as you have already heard: And particularly they thought the Tetragrammaton was the Name that was written; but there is no reason given why that Name should be called the Urim and Thummim. However, thus far I will make use of it, to let you see it was not thought Improbable and Unreasonable, that some Writing was here meant; otherwise they would not have talk'd of the Tetragrammaton. This is a good Foundation for my Hypothesis, which I conceive I have built upon with Pro∣bable Arguments already, and am proceeding to add more.

12. That passage of Cyril Bishop of Alex∣andria is very remarkable, who speaking of the Urim and Thummim mentioned by Moses, hath these words,* 1.81

He (i. e. Moses) hath not plainly shew'd whether they were Stones, or whether he commanded that Inscription to be made as it were in a small Table.

Again he saith,‖ 1.82

Whether they were Stones, or whether those Words were written down as it were in a Golden Table, I will not be too Curious in en∣quiring after.

You see the Learned Father was inclinable to believe that the Vrim and Thummim were only those two words written in some small Table, and so deposited with∣in the Breast plate. And the words of this Pious Writer are the more Considerable, because he is wont to be very Sagacious in finding out of Mysteries in the Holy Bible, and if he had thought the Vrim and Thum∣mim had been any Mystical and Wonderful thing, he would certainly have inlarged upon it; whereas you see he is not averse to the Assertion I am maintaining, that These Bare Words were committed to Writing, and lodged in the Square-piece of the Ephod (when there was occasion to consult them as an Oracle; otherwise they were not put into it) and that is all.

13. This Opinion was hinted of old by ‖ 1.83 St. Augustine; it was obscurely glanced at by* 1.84 Procopius, and by‖ 1.85 Philo the Iew; and I find that others of late, as Salianus, Bel∣larmine, Haye, somewhat incline this way, though they are loth to speak out. But ••or∣nelius à Lapide seems to be the most positive, though he saith very little in defence of the Opinion. He in a manner stands alone in this Cause, and that without Supporters: Wherefore I have in this Discourse en∣deavoured to hold him up, of the Success of which, let the Reader judge.

Lastly, This Opinion may justly merit our Reception upon this account, That hereby are avoided all the Inconveniencies, Absur∣dities, Incongruities, Inconsistencies, which accompany some of the Opinions which I have named, and which are commonly re∣ceived.

Now, if it be said that the Hebrew Do∣ctors and Talmudists are the best Judges in this Controversie, and that they maintain quite another thing, the Answer is ready, viz. That some of them maintain nothing at all in this matter (as you have heard) but pro∣claim their Ignorance concerning it: And as for the rest, we have no reason to look upon them as Able Judges in this Affair, for any one that hath conversed with the Rabbies, knows full well that they are the most Fan∣ciful Creatures in Nature. Though as to some peculiar things they may be profitably consulted, yet in most they are very Deceit∣ful,

and betray Men to gross Errors and Falsehoods. Maimonides was the only Man among the Jewish Rabbins that began to leave off trif••ng and playing the Fool, saith a ‖ 1.86 Great Admirer of Jewish Learning, and * 1.87 others had said it before him. It is certain that the Generality of this Tribe are the most Fabulous, Conceited and Superstitious Writers under Heaven. Their way is to in∣vent and feign, and to impose upon the World: And besides, they monstrously affect Obscurities, and doat on Mysteries, and indeed care not for any thing that is Plain: So that their Opinion is not to be relied upon.

If any shall blast the former Assertion as Novel, it must be remembred that Antiquity is not always a Badge of Truth. Besides, you may perceive by what I have said, that some of the Antients, both Christians and Jews, were in a fair way to receive this Opi∣nion; but the commonly received Notion did so biass them, that they became averse to the espousing of This which is more Proba∣ble and Accountable. Interpreters and Com∣mentators on this place have been always busie to discover some Great and Wonderful things in these words, they (as was sug∣gested before) look'd for some Strange and Mysterious Matter here, and that made them pass by this Plain and Ordinary thing, viz. That these bare words Vrim and Thummim were written and deposited in the Breast∣plate, which is a true account of the thing,

though there were no Antiquity to vouch it.

Now, if you ask how these words Vrim and Thummim were witten, whether upon two Precious Stones distinct from the Twelve, or on a little Table of thin Gold, or some other matter, and whether they were placed in the middle or sides of the Rationale, I declare I have nothing to say to these Que∣ries, I pretend not to decide them. It is suf∣ficient that there was room enough for them in that place. And if you ask how the Answers were made by these written Words, how Affirmative or Negative Responses were given by them, I am not Solicitous to resolve you. The Learned Dr. Spencer hath not told you how the Little Images gave Answer, or how the Greater Pendant-Image did its work: As to the Manner of the Responses he leaves it Uncertain. And I may be excused if I un∣dertake not to acquaint you, How by these Written Words God gave Answer to those who asked Counsel of him. We are sure He did give Answer by them, and let that suffice.

But I have not done yet; I am now to shew you what These Hebrew Words Vrim and Thummim signifie; and here we shall find something worthy of our Remark. The Chaldee Paraphrase and the Samaritan retain These Original Words; so do Iunius and Tremellius, the French Bible, and our Last English Translation. The Syriac Verson ren∣ders them Lucid and Perfect, the Arabick Dilucidations and Certitudes, the Septuagint

‖ 1.88 Manifestation and Truth, St. Ierom and the Vulgar Latin Doctrin and Truth, Castellio Clearness and Integrity, Coverdale Light and Perfectness. The Syriac Version and these two last give us the Trust Meaning of the words Urim and Thummim; but the Most Exact rendring of all is that of Pagnine, Illu∣minations and Perfections, for the Hebrew words are in the Plural Number. First, The proper Signification of‖ 1.89 Vrim is Lights or Illuminations. Now Light is in the Sacred Scripture put for Knowledge, and therefore God is called the Father of Lights, because Reason and Understanding, and the Product of these Knowledge (as well as other good and Perfect Gifts) come down from Him. The Soul is illuminated with Divine Knowledge, the Will of God is taught and manifested by this, and so this is reconcilable both with the Septuagint and Vulgar Version, [Manifesta∣tion and Doctrin] for this Light manifesteth and teacheth. Secondly, The most proper and genuine rendring of Thummim (being in the Plural also) is Perfections or Integrities; for both these meet in one, and are denoted by that Original Word, as the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both Perfect and Vpright. This is the True account of the Hebrew words Vrim and Thummim.

Now let us see what these relate to: It is certain that there is a Spiritual Meaning in most of the Mosaical Appointments and Rites. Is there not Reason then to think that These Words which were commanded to be

put into the High Priests Breast-plate, that these Sacred Characters which were written at first with Gods own hand (it is probable) as the Moral Law was, represent unto us something that is Spiritual and Mystical? First then, These relate to the High Priest and the Holy Function of the Ministry. Those who are appointed to this Office are the Lights of the World: And they must be (as it was said of Iohn the Baptist) Burning and Shining† 1.90 Lights. They must with Zeal In∣form and Instruct the People, they must En∣lighten, and at the same time Warm Mens Minds. And the Thummim must be the indi∣vidual Companion of Vrim, i. e. They must be Men of Integrity and Vprightness, Faithful∣ness and Sincerity, which are also called Truth, and so the Translation of the Seventy is very Agreeable, who render Thummim Truth. The short is, That those who are employ'd in the Sacred Ministry, must speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4. 11. They must deliver Gods Word Plainly, Impartially, Faithfully, Truly, and they must add Integrity of Life and Man∣ners, which make them in some measure Per∣fect. Secondly, These words relate to the Law of God, which is so often called a Light. Thy word (saith the Psalmist) is a Lamp to my feet, and a Light unto my path, Psal. 119. 105. The Commandment is a Lamp, and the Law is Light, saith Solomon, Prov. 6. 23. Therefore it is said, The Commandment of the Lord enlightens the Eyes, Psal. 19. 8. And in Psal. 119. 130. It giveth Light. The same Inspired Person tells us, That

the Law of the Lord is Perfect, Psal. 19. 7. And it is This Divine Law which the Psalmist calls the Truth, Psal. 119. 142. So that you see the Urim and Thummim may relate to This. Yea, as they refer to this Law or Will of God, the Revelation of it may be signified by Light, and the Effecting and Accomplishing of it may be signified by Perfection. Thirdly, They have respect to a Higher Matter, they represent and set forth Christ Iesus our High Priest. He is the True Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World, John 1. 9. and there∣fore he calls himself The Light of the World, John 8. 12. When this arose the Shadows fled away, Darkness and Night vanished, and all became Clear and Bright. This Sacred Oracle, which was represented by That in Aaron's Pectoral, did not speak Ambiguously, but Plainly and Distinctly, we are by it taught what we must believe, and what we must do. He is Truth it self as well as Light; he is of such Faithfulness and Integrity that he will not deceive us. In this Infallible Oracle Doctrin and Truth, Light and Integrity, Illumination and Perfection meet together. The Jewish Vrim and Thummim were lost at the Captivity of Babylon, and wanting at the Peoples Return, Ezra 2. 63. neither do we find that God an∣swered by them any more. But Christ, the Word, is a Never••failing Oracle, and shall indure for ever. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily: And we also are com∣pleat in him who is the head, Col. 2. 9, 10. Thus the Vrim and Thummim were a Type

of our Lord Iesus Christ the Great High Priest, who is truly our Light and our Perfection.

You see then how Significant these Two Words are, and by consequence how wor∣thy they were to be written by the Finger of God himself, and placed on the High Priest's Heart. It was impossible to couch more in two single words than you see is here com∣prehended. Whence we may conclude, That the Writing or Ingraving of these was all that Moses here meant, and consequently that those Writers have mistaken the Text, who have imagined that some Precious Stones or Images, or some such things were put into the High Priest Pectoral, and that they are here called Urim and Thummim.

Thus I have given you an Account of the Different Opinions of the Learned concern∣ing this Extraordinary way of Revelation stiled Urim and Thummim: And I have pre∣sented you with my Own Thoughts, which (as I conceive) are the most plain, natural and simple account of this Divine Oracle: I have likewise indeavoured to inform you what was the Higher and Spiritual Meaning intended by the Holy Ghost.

The third Text enquired into, viz.Judges XI. 30, 31.

And Jephthah vowed a Vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt with∣out fail deliver the Children of Ammon into my hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, when I return in Peace from the Children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering.

THis Remarkable Vow of Iephthah, and the Manner of the performing of it, have frequently employed the Thoughts and Pens of the Learned, who ac∣cording to their different Apprehensions of the Words, have decided this Controversie in a different manner. Some confidently assert, that Iephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter, but others on the contrary main∣tain that he did. And besides this, there is

another Question on supposal that he did Sacrifice her, viz. Whether it was well done of him or no? These are the Particulars which will fall under our Enquiry at present, but especially I shall entertain the Reader with the latter of them, and there endeavour to shew what was the Rise of this Inhumane and Extravagant Action, and what Reason may be given why this Generous Comman∣der, this Noble Warrior was so eager of shedding the Blood even of his own Daughter, yea when it was so absolutely contrary to the Law which this Great Man could scarcely be ignorant of. Here I hope to give some light to this Controverted Cause, by assign∣ing the True Spring of that Strange Action, and by discovering what was the Over-ruling Design of Providence in it, which hath not been enquired into by others (that I have met with) on this Subject.

But first, Let us hear what those say who embrace the Negative, viz. That Iephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter. To make this good, they hold that there are two di∣stinct parts of the Vow: 1. Whatsoever com∣eth forth of the doors of my House to meet me, shall surely be the Lords. 2. I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering. And they put them to∣gether thus, Whatsoever cometh, &c. shall sure∣ly be the Lords, or I will offer it up, &c. They read Or instead of And, for the Copulative Vau (they say) is sometimes Disjunctive in Scripture, and so it is here in this Vow, the Hebrew Particle which is here translated

and should be rendred or; for Iephtha's words are to be taken Disjunctively, and his Vow was no other than this, Whatever I first meet with coming out of my House, shall either be dedicated to the Lord, or I will Sacrifice it for a Burnt-offering. It was a Conditional Vow, i. e. If it were a thing fit to be Sacrificed he would Sacrifice it, other∣wise not, he would Dedicate and Consecrate it to God, or something in the lieu of it. If a Dog or an Ass had been first met by him, he was not ingaged to Sacrifice them. Neither if he met with a Man or a Woman, was he bound to offer them in Sacrifice; but only he was to act according as the Creature was which he met with. Now Iephthah, they say, performed the first part of his Vow, and that was sufficient. He offered and Consecrated his Daughter to the Lord, he devoted her to a Virgin-State all her Life, which appears from the Connection of those words, He did according to his Vow; and she knew not a Man, v. 39. One is Exegetical of the other; which sheweth that Iephthah kept his Vow in separating his Daughter to a single Life for ever. She was not Properly, but Metaphorically Offered and Slain, i. e. she was to keep her Virginity perpetually. This Civil Death passed upon her. Which is confirmed by what you read in v. 40. The Daughters of Israel went yearly to‖ 1.91 lament (or, as others render it, to* 1.92 talk with) the Daughter of Jephthah.

Whence they gather that Iephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter, but only made her a kind of a Nun; in some solitary place he secluded her from all Society, excepting that the Daughters of Israel were permitted to go and spend three or four days in a Year in Lamenting and Condoling her perpetual Virginity, and in Talking and Conferring with her, and in Comforting her concerning her Solitary Condition, and her being kept from Marriage. Thus her Life was spared, she fell not a Sacrifice, but was Consecrated to God and his Service, she was devoted to a single Life, and was to remain a Recluse all her days. This was the opinion of R. Kimchi and some other Jewish Expositors; and they are followed not only by some of the‖ 1.93 Pontificians (who perhaps might think of Celibacy and a Nuns Life) but by* 1.94 several of the Reformed Churches.

Secondly, Others, and with more reason, are for the Affirmative, viz. That Iephthah really sacrificed his Daughter. For what is, or can be more plain, than that in v. 39. He did with her according to his Vow which he had vowed? What was this Vow? There is all the Difficulty. And yet, if you enquire narrowly into it, you will find that the Difficulty vanisheth; for the Vow is very plain and intelligible, Whatsoever com∣eth forth of the doors of my House to meet me, shall surely be the Lords, and I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering. He saith whatsoever, which shews that it was no Conditional Vow,

(as those of the other side pretend) but an Absolute one. He unadvisedly made a Vow to Sacrifice whatsoever he met in his return from the Battle, if he proved a Vi∣ctor. When the Vow is thus Large and General, it is ridiculous to think or say the contrary, viz. That it was a Conditional Vow, and it is as irrational to distinguish between a Copulative and a Disjunctive Vau in this place; though 'tis granted that in some other Texts it is allowable, because the very Sense and Meaning of the words direct us, yea constrain us to it; but here is no occasion for it in the least. Wherefore this nice distinguishing between one Vau and the other, and between Offering to the Lord and Sacri∣ficing, is altogether groundless, and you may see it cashiered by what is expresly menti∣oned in the following Narrative in this Hi∣story, for 'tis positively said, that Iephthah upon his return home and meeting his Daughter* 1.95 Rent his Cloaths. What was the reason of this? If his Vow had been Conditional or Disjunctive, (as some would have it) there was no ground at all for this his Behaviour; there was no occasion of Sorrow and Distraction if the Sacrificing his Daughter were not included in his Vow, if it were in his choice to offer her to the Lord (i. e. to dedicate her to him) or to Sacrifice her on the A••••ar; yea if he were at liberty by vertue of his Vow to kill a Beast instead of his own Child. If the case was thus, he had no reason to la∣ment

and rend his Cloaths, to vex and mor∣tifie himself, which we find him doing here. But it is plain by this Action of his, that things were otherwise with him, and that he had some Dreadful and Fatal Tidings to impart to his Daughter which were real matrer of Lamentation, and that the Con∣tents of his Vow which so nearly concerned her Life, were the cause of his Trouble and Sorrow. This appears from what fol∣lows, * 1.96 Alas, my Daughter (saith he) thou hast brought me very low, and thou are one of them that trouble me: And then he commu∣nicates the direful News to her, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. It happeneth indeed to be a very Sad and Deplorable Vow which I made, but I am ingaged to keep it, and I am fully resolved that I will. Whereupon his Sub∣missive Child uttered these words,* 1.97 My Father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth: Seeing thou are returned in Safety, and with Victory over thy Enemies, I am willing to be offered a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving to the God of Hea∣ven, who mercifully covered thy Head in the day of Battle, and delivered thy Ene∣mies into thy hand. But this Obedient Da∣mosel had one thing to request of her Father before she left the World.* 1.98 Let this be done for me (saith she) let me alone t••o months, that I may go up and down upon the Mountains, and bewail my Virginity, I and

my Fellows. As much as if she had said, Seeing thou, O my Father, hast determined that I shall be offered up unto the Lord for a Burnt-offering according to the Tenor of the Vow which thou madest in the day of the Distress, I beg but this one thing of thee, that thou wouldest vouchsafe to re∣spite me for a little time, I desire only that I may be permitted to retire with a few of my Female Acquaintance into some Solitary place, that I and they may joyn together in Mourning, and lament this unhappy Allot∣ment of mine, viz. That I must not live to be acquainted with the Joys of a Conjugal State, nor be a Joyful Mother of Children, (as I have sometimes wished, because Bar∣renness is accounted a Curse) but that I must Expire a Virgin, and die Ingloriously, and leave no Off-spring behind me. Iephthah, as soon as she made known this her request to him, most willingly granted it, and wished with all his heart he could have granted her more.* 1.99 He said, Go, and he sent her away for two Months: And she went with her Com∣panions, and bewailed her Virginity on the Mountains. And then the History imme∣diately after this tells us, That* 1.100 at the end of two Months she returned to her Father, who did with her according to his Vow which he had vowed: That is, he of••ered her up unto the Lord for a Burnt-offering, for that was his Vow.

One would think now that there should be no Dispute whether Iephthah Sacrificed

his Daughter; for what reason can Men have to oppose the express words of the Text? These are so plain that it cannot but create some wonder, why Expositors should vary in the Interpretation of th••m. Or, suppose there be some Ambiguous Words in the Relation, which seem to disagree with what is here said; yet for that very reason, because they are Doubtful and Am∣biguous, we are not to make use of them to confront a Plain Text. It is true, it is added in the last mentioned Verse, She knew no Man: And indeed how could she when she was taken out of the Land of the Living? Observe the Connection, He did with his Daughter according to his Vow, and she knew no Man: That is, She was so Unhappy as to leave the World in her Youth before she had the Knowledge of a Man. Hereupon it immediately follows, (which verifies and confirms this Interpretation) It was a custom in Israel, that the Daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the Daughter of Jephthah four days in a year. This doth not imply that she was Alive, and that they went duly to give her a Visit in the Mountains. No, These words plainly relate the Behaviour of her Surviving Companions; they brought it into a Custom and Constant Practice among the Daughters of Israel, to go yearly and lament her Memory in that very place where she chose to bewail her Condition before her Death. Or, if they went to talk and confer (as it may be rendred according to the

Acception of the Hebrew word) the Sense is the same, for the meaning is not that they talked with Her, but with one another; they discoursed among themselves of that Deplorable Matter, of that Unfortunate Occurrence. I joyn both the Senses of the word together thus, At that Anniversary Meeting they talked of and lamented, they lamented and talked of the Sad Fate of that Royal Virgin, who was snatched away in her Prime, and denied the Blessing of Mar∣riage, and of bearing Children. This was the Compliment of Condoleance which was per∣formed upon her Death. This is the plain History without wresting it; and nothing is more clear from the whole than this, that Iephthah slew his Daughter, and offered her for a Burnt-offering, and that it was the True and Real Import of his Vow that he would do so. He vowed that he would Sacrifice to the Lord whatsoever he met coming out of his House: He met his Daughter, and accordingly he did with her according to his Vow, i. e. he Sacrificed her. The Famous‖ 1.101 Jewish Historian gives his Suffrage to this, and all the Old Iews were of the same Opinion, expresly asserting that Iephthah vowed to Sacrifice his Daughter, and that he did so. This is the general Per∣swasion of the* 1.102 Antient Fathers both Greek and Latin, and their Agreement herein is

very considerable. A numerous Company of ‖ 1.103 Moderns of great Learning and Judgment, both of the Roman and Protestant Perswa∣sion hold the same: And our* 1.104 Great Chri∣stian Rabbi, who had been once of another mind, was induced by a farther Enquiry into the Reasons of this Opinion, to change his thoughts, and to declare expresly that Ieph∣thah's performing of his Vow, is to be under∣stood in the plain and literal meaning of it, viz. The real and actual Sacrificing of his Daughter.

The next Question is, Whether Iephthah did well or ill in so doing: Or, which amounts to the same, Whether it was lawful to Sacrifice his Daughter? Some think (and what will not they think?) that it was a Good and Lawful Deed, and to this purpose they alledge Lev. 27. 28, 29. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord, of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed: but shall surely be put to death. Iephthah's Vow, say they, was of this sort, and he could not possibly Redeem his Daughter, but was ne∣cessitated to Sacrifice her. That known Critick* 1.105 Lewis Cappel runs altogether upon this, viz. That it was lawful by the Law of Cherem to Sacrifice this Innocent Maid: But this Learned Man was never so overseen and mistaken as in this Cause, for 'tis certain that

Cherem, which is the word here used, always signifies either Persons devoted to Slaughter, destined to Death for their Execrable Wick∣edness (as the Amalekites, and those other People and Nations which the Israelites were commanded to put to death) or it signifies Things destined to utter Destruction, as Iericho and Ai, &c. with all the Substance that was found in them, excepting some particular things which God ordered to be spared. And these Things were thus de∣stined for the sake of the Persons to whom they appertained, who were extreamly Wicked and Abominable in the Eyes of God. This is the true Notion of Cherem (of which I shall give you a farther account in a follow∣ing Discourse.) And as for the Law of Cherem, which is set down in that forecited place in Leviticus, it speaks only of that Irre∣vocable Vow of Destining Persons or Cities to utter Destruction (as in Numb. 21. 32. Deut. 13. 15. 25. 19. Iosh. 6. 17, 18. 1 Sam. 15. 3.) for their horrid Crimes, and because indeed there was the particular command of God for it. Now let any Man judge whether this hath any reference to Iephthah's Innocent and Harmless Daughter. The Law saith, no Person or thing devoted of Men (i. e. by Men) shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to Death, or be destroyed. But then let it be remembred that no Men can devote any Persons to Death, unless they deserve it for their Excessive Impiety; nor can they devote any Thing to Destru∣ction,

unless it be on the account of such Persons. This therefore doth no ways con∣cern our present Business. Iephthah could not lawfully Vow the Death of any one who deserved not to be put to death. There∣fore his Daughter was no Cherem, no Exe∣cration, no Devoted Wretch. This Law of Cherem or Anathema gave the Jews no Li∣cense to turn Assassines and Cut-throats, and to take away the Lives of their own Children: Of which* 1.106 Mr. Selden and other Learned Men were so convinced, that upon this very account they assert (and think they prove) that Iephthah did not offer up his Devoted Daughter in Sacrifice. But, by their leave, all that they prove hence is this, that he should not have done it. Besides, this sort of Vows called Cherems, was to be made by particular Warrant from God, who is Lord and Disposer of Life and Death, and can Sentence and Devote to D••struction whom and what he pleaseth: But we read of no Warrant that Iephthah had to Vow the Death of his Daughter, much less to pro∣ceed to Execution; therefore it was direct Murder to put her to Death. And parti∣cularly as to Sacrificing her, that was a most Inhumane, Horrid and Barbarous Act, and expresly forbid of God, and hated by him. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not burn thy Sons and thy Daughters in the fire, as the Heathens used to do to their Gods: For every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done, Deut. 12. 31.

For Iephthah then to Vow the Sacrificing of his Daughter, was so far from being accor∣ding to the Law, and Acceptable to God, that it was an Abomination to him.

Yea, some of the very Pagans themselves thought such-an Act as this to be Unlawful: Thus* 1.107 Plutarch tells us that Agesilaus being commanded in a Dream to Sacrifice his Daughter, refused to do it; and that when Pelopidas in a Vision was bid to Sacrifice a Virgin, he look'd on it as a Severe and Impious Command. Agamemnon, it is true, Sacrificed his own Daughter, but even a Prophane and Atheistical Poet could blame him for it, crying out against his* 1.108 Supersti∣tious Religion, as the ill Motive which prompted him to so vile a Practice. Yea it is probable that This is the very Instance which I am now treating of: Iphigenia was Iephthah's Daughter, for the Greeks mistook Iphigenia for Iephthigenia, which plainly sig∣nifies the Daughter of Jephthah: And Aga∣memnon was mistaken for Iephthah, for he being a known Man in the Trojan Wars, which were in Iephthah's time (as the Ma∣sters of Chronology have agreed) it was easie for the Poets to take one Warlike∣man or Great Captain for another, and to represent the History of Iephthah under the Name of Agamemnon (as I shall shew at an∣other time, it was the common use of the Poets, to disguise Passages of Sacred Hi∣story with Fables and Prophane Names,) particularly as for this Sacrificing of his

Daughter, it being so Remarkable but yet so Infamous an Act, it is certain that it was spread abroad and known among the Na∣tions, and could not but be abhorred by all Persons of Sobriety and Reason: So far is it from being allowed by a Particular Law of God, as some pretend.

Again, There are Others, who that they may effectually prove the Lawfulness of this Fact, tell us, it was done by the particular Instinct of the Holy Spirit, that Iephthah was immediately stirred up by God to At∣chieve this singular Enterprize, which in others would have been unlawful.* 1.109 St. Ierom of old seem'd to be of this mind and Peter Martyr afterwards was enclined to think the same, but he presently corrected himself. And truly no less could be expected from him, for it is a very near approach to Blas∣phemy, to say that so Wicked a Perpetra∣tion was by favourable Instinct from God himself, especially when he hath so particu∣larly forbidden it, as you heard in the for∣mer particular. Indeed from what I deli∣vered there, this Bold Opinion is sufficiently confuted, for if Sacrificing his Daughter was downright Murther, and was a Breach of Moses's Law, and of the Law of Nature, then it is intolerable Folly and Presumption to plead for the Lawfulness of it. More∣over, if there had been here a Divine Im∣pulse, or a Particular Command from Hea∣ven (as in the Example of Abraham, who was bid to do what he did, and that for

Trial only) he would not have rent his Cloaths and been troubled, but he would have likewise check'd his Daughters Sorrow (as well as his own) by declaring that his Reso∣lution to Sacrifice her was from a particular Dictate which he received from Heaven: Thus we have reason to reject the Opinion of those Men who hold that Iephthah sinned not in Sacrificing his Daughter, for neither of the Arguments which they alledge have any Truth and Reality in them; there was no Express Law of God, nor any Divine Instinct in the case. Wherefore we may safely and confidently aver with the Great Iewish Antiquary before cited, That* 1.110 the Sacrifice which ••ephthah offered was not law∣ful, nor acceptable to God, but that on the contrary it was Unlawful and Sinful. And so most of the Antient Fathers of the Church, who have spoken of this, do assert.

But here we may be thought to be re∣duced to a great streight in maintaining this Post; for if all Humane Slaughter was forbid by God, and is against Nature, and is utterly Unlawful and Vicious, how came Iephthah to commit this Fact? What made him act so Strangely? What could be the Motive to so Horrid an Enterprize? If it was so Gross an Enormity, how can we think this Great Man, this Judge with his High Priest and Priests about him, yea and the whole Sanhedrim to advise him, could be guilty of such a Vile and Notorious Crime as this?

Here then I am to give an Account why and whence it was that Iephthah acted thus Extravagantly and (as it may seem) profli∣gately; and I hope it will not be offensive, if I take liberty to dissent from the gene∣rality of Writers in this matter: For though I agree with those who hold that Iephthah sacrificed his Daughter, and that he did very ill in it, yet I differ from them in the Ground and Occasion of it; which is the thing I will now insist upon, and for which I chiefly designed this Discourse.

They attribute it to the Corruption of that Age, telling us that very Strange and Exor∣bitant things were done in those days, as the Book of Iudges expresly relates. And moreover they add that Iephthah herein followed the Examples that had been be∣fore him, for Humane Sacrifices were com∣monly offered by the Heathens that dwelt in Palestine, Deut. 12. 31. Their Sons and their Daughters they burned in the fire to their Gods, and particularly we read that the Ammonites offered their Children to Moloch in the Flames. Nay it cannot be denied that this Horrid and Bloody Idolatry was practised by some of the Israelites a little before Iephthah's time, Iudges 1. 21. com∣pared with Psalm 106. 37. Much less can it be denied, that afterwards there were fre∣quent Examples of this Effusion of Humane Blood, and Sacrificing of Men and Women, of which I shall speak in another place. But though Example is strong, and hath a

very great Empire over our Minds, yet I cannot be induced to believe that this was the Ground of Iephthah's Sacrificing his Daughter. This Good and Vertuous Man (for he is signally represented to future Ages as such by St. Paul) would not be led to this Flagitious Action by the Example of some Wild Insidels, or a few Besotted Israelites, who were forsaken of God, and became professed Votaries to the Infernal Daemons, and having given Themselves, proceeded to offer their Children (who were parts of them) to these Hellish Ghosts. I cannot think therefore that this was the reason of Iephthah's committing this worst kind of Homicide: This was not, this could not be Motive strong enough to prevail upon this Worthy Man, this Noble Hero; he would easily have baffled such a Scandalous and Horrid Temptation as this. As bad as those times were, as degenerate as Israel was in those days, it is not credible that such a Person, and in such Circumstances (which could not but make him willing to be dis∣engaged from his Vow, if it were possible) would tamely follow the Example of the most Accursed Idolaters, of the worst and vilest Miscreants in the World, and inhu∣manely Massacre his only Child. This must not, this cannot enter into our thoughts, unless at the same time we banish thence all sober Reason.

But they likewise impute it to the Igno∣norance of that Age. The Priests, say they,

were Strangers to their own Law, and knew it not. Hence it was that they thought that by the Law in Lev. 27. 28. Iephthah's Daughter was a devoted Person, and so could not be redeemed, but must be put to Death. I do not wholly exclude the Ignorance of that Age, which was an attendant (if not a Cause in part) of their General Corruption: But it is highly improbable that none of the Sacred Function should understand this Case that was before them, as Dr. Lightfoot re∣presents it, The Sanhedrim was now sitting, and there was the Priesthood attending on the Ark at Shiloh, and yet is Israel now so little acquainted with the Law, that neither the Sanhedrim nor the Priests can resolve Jeph∣thah that his Vow might have been redeemed. I cannot perswade my self that they could All of them err so grosly, and that in so plain a Matter, wherein they were directed not only by the Positive Law of God, but by that of Nature and Reason. But I rather think that there was more of Neglience than Ignorance in the present Miscarriage: The Priests of that degenerate Age were grown Careless and Unconcerned: They were not Solicitous to instruct this Prince aright, and to conduct his Conscience by right and steady Measures in this present Case of the Vow which he had made. They could not (as I conceive) be ignorant of the Unlawfulness of this Vow, and of the Greater Unlawf••lness of putting his Daughter to Death: But herein they were

most shamefully defective, that they neg∣lected to inform this Doubting and Mis∣guided Man, and to convince him of the Unreasonableness of his too forward Zeal.

Which brings me to that which I intend more largely to insist upon, viz. The True Source and Original of this Extravagant and Bloody Act of our Renowned Ieph∣thah. It was, as I apprehend, his too For∣ward Zeal that pushed him on to this un∣happy Undertaking. To make good this Assertion, I must tell you that I have this Idea of-him, That he was a Man of a very Religious and Pious Disposition; which mani∣fested it self at his first publick appearing for his Country-men; for I observe that he then applied himself to ask Council of God, Iudges 10. 17. 11. 11. When he undertook to fight their Battles, this was the first thing he did. He opened the Campagne well, for he began with God. Likewise I take no∣tice that he shewed himself very Conscien∣tious in his Treaty with and offers of Peace to the Ammonites before he proceeded to any Acts of Hostility, Chap. 11. 12, &c. He was pleased to give them some account of his marching against them, though he needed not have done it: He laboured to convince them that it was a Just and Lawful War which he was undertaking, and ac∣cordingly he sacredly appeals to the Lord as Iudge in this Quarrel, v. 27. When he had thus quitted himself like a Religious and Iust Man, it is expresly said, The Spirit of

the Lord came upon him, v. 29. That is, he was extraordinarily stir'd up by God, and animated to engage the Enemy, and to re∣duce them to Obedience and Submission. A Person of so Holy and Pious Inclinations was assisted and blessed by God in a signal and eminent manner. But behold yet an∣other Argument and Demonstration of his Godly Mind, viz. His Solemn Vow that he made; for this proceeded purely from a Good and Religious Heart, from an ardent Desire and Intention of giving Honour to God upon his obtaining a Victory. All these Instances are Proofs of what I asserted, That this Mighty Man of War (as he is * 1.111 called) was a Man of as great Religion and Goodness. Which is farther confirmed by the Testimony of the Infallible‖ 1.112 Apo∣stle, who reckons this Iephthah among the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets and Eminent Ser∣vants of God, whose Faith had made them known and Famous in the World.

Having thus laid my Foundation (which is grounded on the History of Iephthah both in the Old and New Testament) I am to raise my Superstructure, which is this, This Conscientious and Good Man having with a Pious Intention made a Vow, but having been Rash and Indiscreet in the Wording and Framing of it, was unhappily drawn into a Snare, and his own Religious Temper and Active Zeal hastned him into it: And this I take to be the true Spring and Motive of his strange Acting, i. e. Of

his bereaving his Daughter of her Life. He being a Person of a very Sensible Con∣science, of a Soft and Tender Spirit, thought verily that he ought to perform his Vow, and accordingly did so. In this he shewed a very Singular Zeal, but not according to knowledge: So that we have reason to con∣clude, that he sinned out of Blind Zeal to perform his Promise and Vow which he had solemnly made to God. This was a great Fault, an heinous Error, but it was one on the right hand, and therefore the more ex∣cusable. This invites me to mention his Name and Memory with Honour, and to remember that he was one of those who are righteous overmuch (as the Wise Man speaks:) He was too Zealous in pursuit of his Vow, although it was a Rash and unad∣vised one as to the manner of it, and here∣upon his Innocent Daughter became a Victim, viz. for the sake of his Vow. In∣deed his case was to be pitied and lamented, for his Fault was the product of his Well∣meaning, and of his Great Care to keep a Good Conscience. He saw it was usual with Good Men to* 1.113 make Vows, and in a mistaken Imitation of them he turned a Solemn Votary, and in the sight and hear∣ing of all Persons that were about him, as well as before the All seeing God, promised the Sacrificing of his Daughter, for it was so in effect, she being included in whatso∣ever cometh forth of the doors of his House to meet him. The Sense of this most Solemn

Act of Religion (for such a Vow is, which is a Promissory Oath made unto God) was so vigorous on his mind, that he could not possibly divert the thoughts of it, nor per∣swade himself that he could any ways be excused from acting according to what he had vowed. This is to be imputed to the Reverence of an Oath, which hath ever been very Great and Awful.

We see in that Noted Instance of the Gibeonites what was thought concerning this kind of Obligation, though it was by Craft and Imposture: We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: Now therefore we may not touch them, Joshua 9. 19. It is not improbable that Iephthah bore this very In∣stance in his mind, and indiscreetly made use of it on this occasion which I am now speaking of: He thence confirmed himself in the Apprehensions he had of that Invio∣lable Tye he was under by reason of his Vow. He thought it was so far from being a Sin to keep his Promise made to God, that he reckoned it his indispensable Duty: And this false Perswasion hurried him on to this vile Act. So in other Examples in the Sacred History, we see what a Regard and Reverence Men had of an Oath or Vow, yea though it was in it self unlawful: Thus Saul having rashly but solemnly vowed in the day of Battle, that the Person should die who tasted any Food before the Pursuit was quite over; his own Son Ionathan, who had so signalized his Valour at that

time, by vanquishing Threescore thousand Philistines, had like to have been a Sacrifice (as Iephthah's Daughter here) after the Vi∣ctory, because Saul was so Religious and Austere (for so he would be thought to be) in observing his Oath, notwithstanding he was so plainly excused from the Obligation of it, as to his Son Ionathan, by reason of his known Circumstances, which were his Ignorance of his Fathers Oath, and the Ne∣cessity which he then lay under of taking some small Portion of Food to support him when he was so Faint and Hungry. The like Erroneous and Superstitious Conceit of an Oath, the Iews, but especially the Pharisees, had in our Saviour's time, who therefore sharply reproves them, Mark 7. 11. They imagined that their Vow of Corban ex∣tinguished their Obligation to other Com∣mands, as Honouring their Parents, and the like. So we read that Herod, by a lavish Oath, promised Herodias to grant her what∣ever she would ask, and therefore forsooth * 1.114 for his Oaths sake he must needs kill St. Iohn. This, though it was a mere Pretence in Herod, shews that a Vow or Oath hath always been held Sacred; else he could not have made use of this Pretence, viz. That he was bound by his Oath, and there∣fore could not be loosed from it. This hath in all Ages been held a most Sacred Tye; especially Vows, which are Oaths more immediately made to God, have been esteemed such. Whence we find that the

Best and Holiest Men have always been very observant of the Religious Obligation of a Vow, and have been exceeding careful to pay God their Vows which their Lips have uttered. It is no wonder then that Ieph∣thah, a Person so Religiously disposed was very careful, yea even to an Excess, to do the same. He had read in the Law,* 1.115 When thou shalt vow a Vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: And he was sensible that the willful Neglect of this is a Crime of a very heinous Nature, and that God is a severe Exactor of Vows, and is wont to avenge the Breach of them, by inflicting the greatest Judgments and Plagues imaginable. He knew that the Violation of Vows was no other than a Mocking of God, a Dissembling with Heaven, and an Act of Injustice and Un∣faithfulness towards our Maker.

Wherefore it is likely he thus argued with himself, though I know that the per∣forming of my Vow will be accompanied with Murther: Yet I consider likewise, that the not performing it will be attended with down-right Perjury. Seeing then there is a Necessity of Sinning one way or other, I resolve to choose the former, for though that be an Injury to my Daugh∣ter, yet the latter is a plain Affront to God. My Child is dear to me, but my God, my Father, is much more dear: Therefore 'tis be••••er to be Cruel than Im∣pious, to be Guilty of blood••••ed, than to

be Perjured and False to the Lord of Heaven and Earth. I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back, I must not reverse, I dare not revoke the Sacred Promise which I have made to the Al∣mighty, but my firm and unshaken purpose is to perform it. Thus the mistaken Sense of the Indissoluble Obligation which his Vow had laid upon him, ran him upon this fatal Rock. Iephthah could not but know, if he had seriously considered, that no Vow is Obligatory where the matter of it is unlawful; that what we Vow must be Honest, and in our Power, whereas this of killing his Daughter was neither; That the Force of that Obligation which goes along with a Vow or Oath, is from the Lawfulness of that thing which is vowed or Sworn; and therefore that he could not oblige himself to lay violent Hands on his Dear Relative, but that he having vowed it, and it being Unlawful in it self, he was obliged not to perform the Vow; besides that the Law of Natural Reason and Equity was a prior Obligation upon him. He should have considered that an Unlawful thing cannot possibly be made Lawful by the Interposition of a Vow; yea That it is a Double Sin to act unlawfully by vertue of a Vow, for there is not only the Sinful Vow, but the Sinful Act that follows it. But so blind and partial is good Mens Zeal sometimes, that they are not in a Capacity to attend to, at least not to

regulate themselves by the most Rational Principles that are offered ••••em. This was the Lot of our Unhappy Prince and Warrior, he had conquered the Ammonites, but could not vanquish his own Erroneous Conceptions, his Mistaken Zeal, his Mis∣guided Conscience. He knew that the Law forbad Humane Sacrifices, but he was so deluded as to believe that the Re∣ligion of a Vow superseded that Prohibition. Wherefore he goes on perversely in the Prosecution of his Rash Oath, and com∣mands the Poor Reprieved Virgin to be brought to the Altar, and there be offered up a Burnt-offering to the Lord.

Yea, I am enclined to believe he Sa∣crificed her with his own Hand; for it is not probable that the Priests would comply with him in so Extravagant and Inhumane a Demand as this, of Sacrificing his Daugh∣ter: And besides, he that was so Precise to keep his Vow according to the very Exact Wording of it, would not think himself excused from acting this part himself, see∣ing he had expresly vowed the doing of it in his own Person, if you rigorously inter∣pret the Words: I will offer it up, saith he, for a Burnt-Sacrifice. By which Words this Curious Man might really think he was obliged to be the Sacrificer himself. Which could not but be a great Aggra∣vation of his Fault, because he was a Fa∣ther, and so acted Unnaturally; becau••e she was his Daughter, nay, because he had

* 1.116 no other Child but her, which made it yet more Unnatural and Cruel, because he was a Layman, and so plainly usurped on the Office of the Priest. But mention none of these things to me, saith he, say not I am her Father, and she my Child, say not I am no Priest, and that I invade the Sacred Function: I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, I have Sacredly en∣gaged to offer up for a Burnt-offering what∣soever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, and lo! this my Daughter met me, and therefore must be offered up by my hand. Who knows not that the Regal and Priestly Power have resided in the same Person? As I am a Ruler and Ma∣gistrate, I have Authority to use the Sword: And why may I not make use of it to slay a Sacrifice as well as to cut off Offenders, especially when I have sacredly promised to do the former? My Vow makes me a Priest: I need no other Ordination than this: This alone Capacitates me, nay Necessitates me to discharge this part of the Sacerdotal Office. Thus our well∣meaning Bigot is Punctual in pursuing his Solemn Vow, this he urgeth and insisteth upon, and the thoughts of it are so Ram∣pant in his Breast, that he will not be beaten off from it. Though he had‖ 1.117 two months time to consider of this Case, yet he remained inflexible, and would by no means be prevailed with to call back his Rash Vow, but he broke through all to

keep it. The Cause of it was no other than what I have often suggested, namely, too Nice and Curious a Conscience: This thrust him on to act against the undeni∣able Laws of his Religion. Lest he should violate his Sacred Promise to God, he puts off the Nature and Pity of a Man. To make good his single Vow, he disre∣garded all the other Obligations of Reason and Religion. Such, such is the impetuous Force of a Misguided Mind, of a Disordered Zeal.

Having thus discovered the True Spring and Motive of Iephthah's Sacrificing his Daughter, I will offer something con∣cerning the Design of Providence, which ruled in this, as in all other Events and Actions, seem they never so Strange; and I will suggest what I think is the Proper Use that is to be made of this Extraordinary and Surprizing Occurrence. Though this Great Judge and Prince of Israel behaved himself thus unworthily, and no ways suitably to his Character, yet God was pleased to suffer this for Ends not unworthy of his Divine Wis∣dom and Holiness. For by this Remark∣able Example he thought fit to admonish us concerning our making of Vows, that if at any time we enter upon this Solemn Act of Religion, we be careful to do it with great Circumspection and Considera∣tion. God permitted Iephthah's Daughter to be Sacrificed, saith an Antient Pious

Father,* 1.118 To teach Men for the future, not to make Vows to God indefinitely, as you re∣member Iephthah's Vow ran. These Large, Unlimited and General Vows are dangerous, and prove a Snare unto us: Wherefore in this respect we ought to use great Caution and Prudence. With this agrees that of Theodoret, God (saith he) to remind others to be careful of their Vows, and to teach them to make them Discreetly, hindred not Jephthah from putting his Daugh∣ter to death. By this Notable Instance in Sacred Story, he would condemn all Pre∣cipitancy and Temerity in Vowing and Swearing, and in making Solemn Promises before him: And he would warn the future Ages of the World to perform these Acts of Religion with previous Con∣sultation and serious Premeditation. For here he sheweth us what is the Punishment of Rash Oaths, and Undue and Unlawful Vows, that we may learn to avoid them. Here we see that the Fault of Iephthah's Rash Vowing was punished in the Untimely Death of his Daughter.

And as we are by this Example taught to avoid all Rash and Unlawful Oaths and Vows, so, when we have made them, not to keep them. There is a great deal of Iephthah's Blind Zeal in the World, too Nice a Conscience in some things, and too Rash and Bold in others. Nothing is

more Sacred than an Oath, and yet there may be a Superstitious and Undue Re∣verence of it. This appears plainly in Mens fondly pretending the indispensible Obli∣gation of some Oaths, whilst at the same time they have no regard to others which are certainly Obligatory to them. They speak the same Language that Iephthah did, telling us that they have opened their mouths unto the Lord, and they cannot go back, i. e. They plead the Force of their Solemn Engagements and Tyes, and refuse to unbind themselves (though it be in their Power) and thereby plunge them∣selves into Mischief, and endanger not only their own, but (with our Resolute, yet Nice Iephthah) other Persons Lives and Fortunes. This Rash Iuror speaks to us all to take warning by his Fatal Cir∣cumstances, and to be at great Pains to enlighten our Minds, but especially to in∣voke the Divine Light and Aid: He calls to us not to Debauch our Consciences by entertaining False Notions and Conceptions of a Vow. He remains an Example on Record of an Imprudent and Unlawful Votary, and likewise of the Dismal Effects of his being so. He not only reminds us that we ought to be extreamly careful not to make any Rash Vows or Unlawful Oaths, but that we ought not to think our selves tyed by them when we have made them. He is a constant Monitor to teach Men that their Unlawful Oaths and Promises

oblige them only to break them, and that this is acceptable to God, and just and equita∣ble in it self.

Lastly, This Notable Instance informs us that Real Vertue and Goodness do not always exempt Men from doing some very ill things. Sometimes we shall see Ver∣tuous Persons undertake and pursue with great Warmness what their Misinformed Consciences have put them upon, though it contradicts the Laws of God and Men. What Iephthah did was out of Simplicity and an Honest Mind, and therefore it was not inconsistent with Faith, which we find him praised for in the Catalogue of the Antient and Famous Worthies by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: And truly there are other Great Offenders besides our Iephthah mentioned in that Panegyrick. So it is, the Sacred History acquaints us by enumerating sundry Instances that Persons beloved of God, and of the greatest Integrity, have been guilty of the most heinous Miscarriages. Especially it may be observed of those that are very Active and Warm in their Religion, that they sometimes are subject to some Un∣warrantable Bigotry, which unhappily leads or rather drives them to something worse. Particularly we see this in the Example before us, and let us mind the Design of Heaven in it. This Renowned Warrior and Judge was suffered by the most Wise Disposer of all Events to c••mmit this great

Folly, that we may be convinced of the In∣sufficiency of Humane Strength, that we may see that the Best Men egregiously offend in some things, that they are a Compound of Spirit and Flesh, half Angel and half Brute, and that it may appear to the World that there is no Perfect and Consummate Vertue in this Life. This is the Conception I have of Iephthah's Case; but every one is left to his Liberty to frame what other Notions of it he pleaseth.

The fourth Text enquired into, viz.Dan. IX. 24, 25.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, to finish the Transgression, &c.

THIS is another Famous Prophesie concerning the Time of our Lords Coming, but more especially (as I shall shew in the sequel of this Exerci∣tation) concerning the Time of his Passion and leaving the World. My design in treating on these Words is to offer what I conceive is most Observable in them, to assign what is most proper and perti∣nent towards the leading us into the true Meaning of this Noble Prediction, to remove the Difficulties and Obscurities that lie either in the Text or Context, to correct the Mistakes of some Writers upon both, to render the Words Clear, Plain and Intelligible (as to which most Expositors have been Deficient,) to pre∣sent you with a Particular Computation, or Chronological Calculation of the Years contained in the Seventy Weeks, and in the whole Attempt to let you see that this

Prophesie was spoken of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ, the True Messias, that it is really fulfilled, and that this fulfilling of it is a Demonstration of Christ's being come, and consequently of the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Religion.

In this Chapter you read that the Holy Prophet Daniel foreseeing* 1.119 in the first Year of Darius, that the Seventy Years Captivity was now coming to an end, ‖ 1.120 prayed for the Restauration of Ierusalem: And whilst he was directing his Prayers to Heaven,* 1.121 the Angel Gabriel (the same Divine Messenger, as you may observe, who appeared afterwards to the Virgin Mary, and told her that the Time of the Messias's Coming was accomplished) came and informed him concerning that Impor∣tant Matter, and told him, That as the Israelites had been Captives Seventy Years, and were now to be delivered, so within Seventy Weeks of Years the M••ssias should come, and be a Deliverer and Saviour. This I conceive is the reason of this Mysti∣cal way of speaking, and describing the Time: It alludes to the Captivity of Ba∣bylon, which was to last Seventy Years. That was the determinate Space of the Captivity, after which they were to be delivered, and to return back to their own Land. So in like manner the time of the Administration of things until the Re∣demption from the Captivity of Sin and Satan's Tyranny in the World, is circum∣scribed

in a Number that answers to that, viz. Seventy Weeks of Years, instead of Se∣venty Years. Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, to finish the Transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make Reconciliation for Iniquity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness, and to seal up the vision and Prophesie, and to anoint the most Holy. It hath been intimated already that by Seventy Weeks here are to be under∣stood not Seventy Weeks of days, but of Years; each day for a Year; which Seventy being multiplied by Seven (every Week con∣sisting of Seven days) make 490. Now that it is usual in Scripture to signifie Years by Days, I need not be very laborious in proving. Life is measured by Days; Years are meant when Days are expressed, as in Gen. 5. 5. All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty Years: And so of Seth, v. 8. and Enos, v. II. and Gainan, v. 14. and Enoch, v. 2••. And that a Day is put for a Year, and conse∣quently that a Week is taken for a Sep••enary of Years, or the space of Seven Years, is most evident from Lev. 25. 8. Thou shalt number Seven Sabbaths (or Weeks) of years unto thee, i. e. Forty nine Years. So in Gen. 29. 27. a Week is interpreted Seven years in the same Verse. But we need not be very S••licitous here, because as to this there is no Controversie between us and the Iews, who are the Persons we are concerned with in this Prophesie. * 1.122 They willingly grant that Weeks not of Days or Months, but of Years are here

meant, and that the Seventy Weeks are seven times Seventy Years, that is, 490 Years.

It is said, Seventy weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, i. e. There is a Certain Determinate Time set, viz. Four hundred and ninety Years, within which Pe∣riod the Jewish People and Nation, and the City of Ierusalem in a special manner shall experience very Strange Alterations: Within that space of time the M••ssias shall come, and the Wonderful Effects and Fruits of his Coming shall be such as These: 1. There shall be the finis••ing of Transgression, and the making an end of sins: By the Light of the Gospel which shall be preached at his Com∣ing, Men shall see the Error of their ways, and be convinced of their Sins, and shall leave off their former Evil Courses. 2. There shall be a making of Reconciliation for Iniquity: The Blood of Christ shall make an Atone∣ment for the Sins of the World. 3. Everlast∣ing Righteousness shall be brought in: The Legal and Mosaical Services shall cease, and a more Pure and Spiritual Worship shall take place, and continue for ever. 4. There shall be the Sealing (or the finishing, for '••is the same Hebrew word which was used be∣fore in this Verse, and was translated making an end of) the Vision and Prophesie, i. e. When these things before mentioned shall come to pass, there shall be a Fulfilling and Accom∣plishing of the Prophesies concerning the Messias and his Kingdom: Then it shall appear to the World, that they are Ratified

and Verified: The Seal is set upon them. 5. There shall be the anointing of the most Holy: Then shall be set up an Eternal Priest∣hood, excelling that of the Law, then Christ Jesus shall be the High Priest, and he shall be solemnly Appointed and Consecrated to that work and Office. The Messiah, the Anointed One is meant here, and that by the Confession of the Iews themselves. Thus far, I think, we have made all very plain.

It follows v. 25, 26, 27. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the Com∣mandment to restore and to build Jeru••alem unto the Messiah, the Prince shall be Seventy weeks: And threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and t••o weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: And the People of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a Flood: And unto the end of the War Desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one week▪ and in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sa∣crifice and the Oblation to cease, and for the over∣spreading of Abominations he shall make it de∣solate, even until the Consummation, and that de∣termined shall be poured on the desolate. Here, be∣fore I Paraphrase on these words, I am to ob∣serve to you that the Angel divides the Se∣venty weeks into three parts, viz. Seven weeks, and sixty two weeks, and one week; which he doth to give a more Distinct Account of what was to happen in that Period of time.

The Seven weeks of Years (i. e. 49 Years) were fulfilled when the Building of the City of Ierusalem was compleated: The Sixty two weeks of Years were fulfilled in the space of time between the finishing of the City and Christ's Manifestation at his Baptism: In the one Week, viz. The last Week of the Seventy Christ was put to Death. Thus the Time is reckoned by Parts, as it is usual among the Hebrews to express a Number by parts which might be done altogether in whole: Twenty Shekels, five and twenty Shekels, and fifteen She∣kels shall be your Maneh (or Mina) Ezek. 45. 12. So here in the Weeks of Daniel, the Seventy Weeks or former Summ of 490 Years, is di∣vided into Seven weeks (i. e. 49 Years) and into Sixty two Weeks (i. e. 434 Years) and into one week (i. e. Seven Years) in all Seventy Weeks or 490 Years. Having premised this, I will briefly descant on the words, From the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build ••erusalem, i. e. From the going forth of the Word of God, or of the Edict of the Per∣sian Princes concerning the rebuilding of Ie∣rusalem, and the Finishing of it unto the Messias the Prince (i. e. To the time when Christ will manifest himself, and shew himself to be the Prince, Lord, and Head of the Church) the Saviour and Redeemer of the World by his Dying for it, shall be seven weeks (i. e. Forty nine Years, in which time the Jews rebuilded their City and Temple peaceably: For to this must those words in this Verse be referred; The street shall be built again, and the wall, even

in troublesome times) and threescore and two weeks (which make in all 69 Weeks, or 483 Years.) And after the threescore and two Weeks (which immediately succeeded the Seven Weeks; that is, after 69 Weeks, viz. in the Seventieth Week, being 484 after the Restoring of the Temple) shall the Messiah be cut off, (he shall suffer Death upon the Cross) but not for himself (which Clause plainly te∣stifies that this is spoken of Christ, who suf∣fered and died not on his own account, but for us, that he might deliver us from Death and Damnation.) And the People of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City, &c. Which is a brief Description of the miserable con∣dition of the Jews, when Titus Vespasian the Roman Prince came with his terrible Army and besieged Ierusalem, and took it, and utter∣ly destroyed it: Which was the Fruit of their putting to Death the Lord of Life. And he shall confirm the Covenant (the new Cove∣nant spoken of by the Prophet Ieremiah) with many, even with all true Israelites who believe in him. And this he shall do for one Week, or in one Week, viz. in the remaining Week, which is the Seventieth in Number. Then in a more signal manner the Gospel-Covenant shall be ratified and confirmed. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease, i. e. In the last Week, and in the fourth Year of that Week (which may be called the middle of it) all Sacrifices and Oblations shall be abolished and nulled by Christ his once Offering up Himself on the

Cross, for in the midst of this last Prophe∣tick Week Christ made the Oblation of himself. And in the next words, For the over∣spreading of Abominations he shall make it ••••e∣solate, &c. There is set forth (as in the former Verse) the dismal Cons••quence of the Jews putting Christ to Death, viz. The Besieging and Sacking of Ierusalem by the Roman Armies which were Abominable and De∣testable, and are called by our Saviour (with Allusion to this place without doubt) the Abomination of Desolation, Matt. 24. 15.

This is a brief and plain Exposition of the Text and Context. And from the several par∣ticulars here mentioned, any unprejudiced Man may see that Christ, and none else is meant here. It is impossible with any shew of reason to apply the words to any other, though some Jewish Writers have attempted it, but in a very sorry and ridiculous manner, as you may briefly see in* 1.123 Huetius. It is cer∣tain that this Prophesie directly points at Christ, and his Coming and Manifestation, and lets us know that there shall be Four hundred and ninety Years between the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Ierusalem, and his full Manifestation in the World.

But now Great Disputes arise about the True and Exact Beginning and Ending of these 490 Years, which for the Satisfaction of the Curious, I will undertake to give some account of. The Greatest Dispute is about the Beginning; for there were several Orders and Commands about building Ierusalem;

hence it is Difficult to tell from which of them we must date our Account. We know that the Seventy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 begin from the going forth of the Commandment (or Word) to re∣store or build Jerusalem. But the Word or Com∣mandment concerning that matter was both Divine and Humane, from God and from the Persian Kings. Which of these is meant here? As for the Word of God touching the building of Ierusalem, That was at several and very different times. You have the Divine Pro∣mise about it from the Mouth of Isaiah, ch. 44. 26. and 45. 13. and of Baruch the second and fourth Chapters, and of Ieremiah 25. 12. and 29. 10, &c. From this latter Promise espe∣cially * 1.124 some have dated the Seventy Weeks, but therein are much mistaken, for they go back too far. Baruch and Ieremiah prophesied six hundred, and Isaiah above seven hundred Years before Christ; so that it cannot be that the Seventy Weeks should begin from their Prophesies, because these were long be∣fore that Time can be fixed. Therefore it is impossible these Divine Predictions and Pro∣mises should be meant here. Others look to that Divine Word from the Mouth of the Angel to Daniel, At the beginning of thy Sup∣plications the Commandment came forth, Dan. 9. 23. These Supplications were made in the * 1.125 first Year of Darius the King of Babylon: Therefore the Commandment went forth in the first Year of this Darius, which was just about the end of the Captivity, and conse∣quently the Seventy Weeks began at the end of

the Seventy Years Captivity, when the An∣gel brought that Message to Daniel in the en∣trance of Darius's Reign. Hence Calvin con∣fide••tly averreth, That those Seventy Years and the Seventy Weeks are joyned together. If we interpret the going forth of the Com∣mandment concerning a Divine Word, this is a very probable Opinion; but if you compare Verse 23 and 25. you will find that they speak of two Different things. The Commandment that came forth, in the former place, is not the same with the going forth of the Command••ent to restore and to build Jerusalem, in the latter place. The first only signifies that a Word or Message from God came to the Angel, and that He was to discover it to Daniel, as it follows in that Verse, I am come to shew thee, I am come to tell thee that Word and Com∣mandment which I have from God. But the second speaks of something which was to be afterwards, in pursuance of the foregoing Message. There should be within the com∣pass of a few Years a Formal Command or Decree for the re-edifying of Ierusalem, and from that time (and that only) the Seventy Weeks were to take their Rise. It is probable then that the Word of Man, i. e. The Com∣mand or Edict of some Prince is here to be understood by the going forth of the Command∣ment. Now there were several Edicts of Princes which went forth for the restoring of Ierusalem, and that at different Times. There are no less than four Edicts mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah; we will enquire to

which of these the Inchoation of the Seventy Weeks belongs.

The first Edict we read of, is that of Cyrus, the first Emperour of the second Monarchy, in the first Year of his Reign, when he set forth a Proclamation for the ••ews Return under their Commanders Zorobabel and Io••hua, 2 Chron. 36. 22, 23. 1 Ezra 1, 2, &c. 5. 13. 6. 3. which is confirmed by the Apocryphal Writings of 1 Ezra 2. 2, 3, 4. Accordingly * 1.126 some begin the Edict, or Going forth of the Commandment, from the first Year of Cyrus, i. e. of his Reign in Babylon, for he had reign∣ed near Thirty Years before in Persia. But the beginning of his Reign in Babylon was contemporary with the end of the Seventy Years Captivity. The second Edict was made by Darius, in the second Year of his Reign, Ezra 6. 1, 2, &c. Hag. 1. 1. For Cyrus being employed abroad in the Wars, and at last treacherously out off by the Scythians (against whom he then warred) and the Enemies of the Church being very vigorous at home, the Work was stopped for a time: But this King renewed it, and set it forward by his Decree; therefore† 1.127 some begin the Num∣ber of Daniel's Weeks from this. But here it is disputed by some, whether this Darius was Darius Hystaspis or Darius Nothus:* 1.128 Some hold it was the former, and‖ 1.129 some contend it was the latter. For there is a great Con∣troversie among Historians, about the placing of these Persian Kings, their Names being so often confounded by those that write of them.

But the former of these Opinions bids fairest for the Truth. Yea indeed it will be found upon a strict Search, that Darius called No∣thus was not Emperor of Persia till a consi∣derable time after, for there were 140 Years from Cyrus to this Darius, whereas the Tem∣ple was built in less than a third part of that time: Whence we may conclude, that this Darius spoken of by Ezra, was not, nay could not be Darius Nothus. The third Edict or Decree was of Artaxerxes, in the seventh Year of his Reign. This is the Subject of the whole seventh Chapter of Ezra; therefore some are of the Opinion that the Computa∣tion of Daniel's Weeks commenceth from this time. There is some Dispute whether this Artaxerxes was Artaxerxes Mnemon or Longimanus, but it goes generally among the * 1.130 Learned for the latter, and there is good reason for it, because this Artaxerxes Mne∣mon did not reign till several Years after∣wards. The fourth and last Edict went forth in the Twentieth Year of the Reign of this Artaxerxes Longimanus, when he gave Nebe∣miah a Commission to build and repair Ieru∣salem with Gates and Walls, Nehem. 2. 1. to v. 9. Accordingly* 1.131 some take the begin∣ning of the Calculation of the Seventy Weeks from the twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.

Now of these four Opinions concerning the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks or 490 Years, this last seems to be the most probable, yea 'tis more than probable, for this is the

thing which I offer here to be noted, that the Rise of the Seventy Weeks is to be taken pre∣cisely from that Royal Decree, and no other, wherein 'twas ordered that the City Ieru∣salem should be built. This one thing being attended to, will lead us to a right under∣standing of the true and only Epoche of Da∣niel's Weeks. Indeed the main reason why the Expositors, who have undertaken to give an account of these Prophetick Weeks have been mistaken, is because they overlook'd this. They saw they were to take their be∣ginning from the going forth of the Command∣ment, but they were not solicitous to observe which of the Commandments or Decrees it was. They did not take notice that the Se∣venty Weeks were to begin from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. As for the other Decrees, viz. In the Reign of Cyrus and Darius, and in the seventh Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, they were for rebuilding the Temple only, not the City, and therefore cannot be meant here. Consult the Book of Ezra, and you will find that the first Edict of Cyrus, was only for the Jews to go back, and to build the House of the Lord. And afterwards Darius renewed the Grant for building the Temple only, and no more. And it is said expresly, That Artax∣erxes in his seventh Year gave leave to the Jews to take care of whatsoever was needful for the House of their God, Ezra 7. 20. There is not a word in these three Commissions, concerning the building of the City, the

Street and the Wall: Therfore I infer that the last Commission is meant here, which was expresly for rebuilding the City, and the Walls, and Gates. Accordingly Nehemiah, to whom the Commission was given, raised the Walls, and set up Gates, and so finished the Building of the City, which was in the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes. This hath not been taken no∣tice of by several Learned Men, and hath caused them to mistake the True Aera of this Prophesie. But certainly this is a very useful and necessary Key for the opening of the Text. You see plainly that the Prohesie begins from that time when Nehemiah was sent to effect this, and not before; for there was not before this Time any License or Power given to the Jews to restore and build the City. Artaxerxes, and he only, was the Prince that did this; he gave order in the Twentieth Year of his Reign, for the Re∣storing and Re-edifying of Ierusalem, and setting up the very Walls of it, which was the last thing to be done: Therefore in the Twentieth Year of this Artaxerxes was the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. I think this matter is very evident in it self. And besides, as to the forementioned Edicts, the first of them, viz. That of Cyrus cannot be the beginning of the Seventy Weeks, be∣cause there are above 560 Years from Cyrus to Christ's Death; for Cyrus's Edict was about the Sixtieth O••ympiad, and Christ's Death was about 202 Olympiad. And the three other Epoches are also too much back∣ward

to be thought to be the times when the Seventy Weeks began.

There are* 1.132 some that hold they com∣menced from the Compleating and Finishing of the Building of Ierusalem, which was in the Three and twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Nehemiah made a Feast of Dedication of the New City, Ne••em. 12. 27, &c. which is called the Sacrifice of Dedication and of Finishing the Temple, 2 Macc. 2. 9. That this was in the Three and twentieth Year of Artaxerxes may be gathered also from Iosephus in his* 1.133 Anti∣quities. At that time all was compleated, the Work was at an end; and to this pur∣pose the Authors of this Opinion understand the going forth of the Commandment in a Sense far different from what was represented in the foregoing Opinions. They maintain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 25. is the going out or ending of the word, and accordingly is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Septuagint, and by the Vulgar Latin Exitus, and so signifieth the Fulfilling and Accomplishing of the Commandment or Edict concerning Building Ierusalem: Or this Motza d••bar is Exitus rei, the finishing of the Thing (for a word instead of a thing, is an usual Idiom in the Hebrew and in other Oriental Languages) and so the meaning is, that from the Actual and Real Compleating of the Building of the City unto the Messias shall be Seventy Weeks; therefore from that time the Weeks begin. But this is but a Critical Noti••n, and hath no considerable

weight in it, especially if you remember that this Phrase [the going forth of the Command∣ment] was used once or twice before in this Chapter. I ask then the Authors of this Opinion, whether it is to be understood so then as well as now: If they say not, then they must give a reason why it should be understood so here, and not before; which I believe they are not able to give an account of, neither did they think of this when they espoused the former Notion. But if it be understood here as before, then there is this palpable Absurdity to be granted, that the thing was finished in the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes's Reign, and yet that it was not finished till the Twenty third Year of his Reign, whereas there can be but one finishing. To which I add, That it is evident from other places of Scripture, that Motza dabar is no other than the Promulgation of the Command or Decree, for so this going forth signifies in Dan. 2. 13. and Esther 1. 19. When the Edict is published and made known, then 'tis said to go forth. Wherefore the fore∣said Opinion is a mere straining and per∣verting of the Hebrew Phrase. So much for the Beginning of Daniel's Seventy Weeks: It is most clear and evident that they began from the Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the Twentieth Year of his Reign. For this must be rembred, That the Edict here spoken of, is meant of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the Streets and the Walls, but mentions not the rebuilding of

the Temple. I grant that the City was begun to be built before this Edict came forth, as may be gathered from Ezra 4. 12. but there was no Royal Command and Autho∣rity for this; only the Jews were necessi∣tated to build some part of the City, that they might have a Habitation and Shelter to be in whilst they were erecting the Tem∣ple. But afterwards Nehemiah came with Authority from Artaxerxes, and with a parti∣cular Order and Express Command to build what was wanting in Ierusalem▪ to erect the Walls, and effectually to finish the whole Work. There was no Edict for doing this, but this Particular one in the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes's Reign.

In the next place I am to speak of the End and Period of these Weeks. Hippolytus the Ma••tyr placed it in the Birth of Christ, others in his Bap••ism, and some in his Preaching, but* 1.134 most terminate the Seventy Weeks in his Death; for then those things were fulfilled which the Prophesie men∣tions, viz. Finishing the Transgression, making Reconciliation for Iniquity, &c. These were the proper Fruits of the Passion and Death of Christ, and therefore it is most reason∣able to believe that the Seventy Weeks or Four hundred and ninety Years expired with our Saviour on the Cross. But though this in the Latitude of speaking be very true, yet if we would be Exact, we must say that the Four hundred and ninety Years ended not just at Christ's Death, but Three

Years and a half or thereabouts after it. This I will make evident to you thus, The Angel expresly saith, That after the Three∣score and two Weeks, joyn••d to the Seven mentioned immediately before (which to∣gether make Threescore and nine Weeks) shall Messiah be cut off: Whence it is plain, that Christ's Death falls within the Seven∣tieth Week, for if it be after the Three∣score and nine Weeks, it must necessarily be in the Seventieth Week, when there are no more reckoned beyond that, as is the present case. This Seventieth or last Week, may be divided into three parts; and we have ground for this Division in the Prophesie it self, which mentions the midst of the Week. If there be a Middle, there is also a Beginning and an End. In the beginning of this Prophetick Week (which you know consists of Seven Years) the Messias confirmed the Covenant, i. e. The New Testament by his Holy Doctrine, Life, Laws and Miracles, and now his Apo∣stles preached the Covenant of the Gospel. The Week began with his Baptism, Three Years and a half before his Passion, in the fifteenth Year of Tiberius; at which time Sixty nine Weeks, or Four hundred and eighty three Years were accomplished, and the Seventieth Week succeeded. The Be∣ginning or Former part of this Week con∣sisted of above Three Years, and it is distinguished into four Passovers. The first Passover of Christ's Publick Ministry

is mentioned in Iohn 2. 13. from whence begins the first Year of the Seventieth and last Hebdomade of Daniel: The second Passover you find in Iohn 5. 1. compared with Iohn 4. 35. Here begins the second Year of the Seventieth Week. The third Passover, whence the third Year of Da∣niel's last Week takes its Rise, is in Iohn 6. 4. The fourth Passover, when Christ our Passover was slain, about three Years and a half after his Baptism, produced the fourth Year of the last of Daniel's Weeks. This is that which is called the Midst of the Week (as you have heard,) in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacri∣fices and Oblations to cease. This was verified when the Messias by his Death abolished the Old Law and Covenant, when the Sacri∣fices ceased by this High Priests making an Oblation of himself on the Altar of the Cross. Though the Middle in the Stile of Scripture be not always properly and exactly taken, yet here in this Pro∣phesie it is to be understood in the Strict and most Proper Sense, for Christ Suffered and Died in the fourth Year of this Pro∣phetick Week, which is the very Middle of Seven, yea in the Middle of that fourth Year, which is yet more Exact and Precise. Now if Christ was put to Death in the Middle of the last Week (as the Angel fore∣told) then the Seventy Weeks cannot be terminated in Christ's Death, because there were but Sixty nine Weeks and a half

compleated at that time. And if there was half a Week behind (for the Middle part of the Week was but short, Christ's Death taking up but little time) then the Latter part or End of the Week must con∣tain in it Three Years and a half, or there∣abouts, and consequently the Seventy Weeks or Four hundred and ninety Years ended not just at our Saviour's Death, but about Three Years and a half after it; which was the thing to be proved. This is the most Exact Account that I can offer to you.

I know there are* 1.135 Learned Writers and Chronologers who extend the Period of the Seventy Weeks to the Destruction of Ierusalem by Titus Vespasian, but they were unwarily drawn into this Opinion by fixing their Minds on those words in the Pro∣phesie, The People of the Prince that shall come, shall dest••oy the City and Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a Flood, and unto the end of the War Desolations are de∣termined: And again, For the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it desolate: Which without doubt are a Prediction of the Overthrow of the Temple and City of Ierusalem by the Roman Armies: And be∣cause this is joyned with the Seventy Weeks, those Persons think that the Weeks end at this time. But this is no necessary Con∣sequence, because here is only mentioned what shall follow upon the expiring of the Seventy Weeks, the direful Recompense

of the Jews cutting off the Messias is fore∣told. This horrible Devastation shall happen not long after the 490 Years are com∣pleated; but you cannot conclude thence that these Years were just fulfilled at the Devastation and Ruin of Ierusalem in the second Year of Vespasian.

It remains now that I give you the Parti∣cular and Distinct Computation of these 490 Years; which yet it is something difficult to do, by reason of the Uncertainty in Chronology, as must be confessed by all Persons that have consulted variety of Au∣thors, (and those that have not done so are no Competent Judges here) but the Dis∣agreement among these Writers is not so great, as wholly to discourage us. I have laid their Calculations together, and have duly compared them, and upon an impartial ballancing of the whole difference among Chronologers in computing these Years, I settle the Accompt thus, The Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes's Reign was in the Year of the Worlds Creation 3497, at the end of the 81 Olympiad; and the time of Christ's Passion was in the Year of the World 3983, at the beginning of the 203 Olympiad, and consequently the fourth Year after Christ's Passion was A. M. 3987, and the beginning of 204 Olympiad. This Calculation is in∣differently fixed, and will be agreed to by all Parties that are moderate. Now, if you reckon the Years that were between these two Periods, viz. between 3497 and 3987,

you will satisfie your selves that they were just 490 Years, and no more, which is the very Number that the Seventy Weeks amount to; and consequently from the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes to the time of our Saviour's Passion were no more, nor no less than 490 Years. This might be particularly made good from the Distinct Aera's between these Great Periods, and which are of note among Chronologers; but I think it is superfluous to undertake this, seeing in Helvicus and other Chrono∣logical Tables they are very plain.

But I will go another way to work for the satisfaction of the Reader, I will trace these 490 Years through the several Reigns of the Kings that were in those times, and thence I will demonstrate, that from the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes's Reign (at which time the Decree came forth for the Rebuilding of Ierusalem, as hath been suffi∣ciently proved) to our Saviour's Passion were 490 Years, or according to Daniel's Sacred Arithmetick Seventy Weeks. Take it thus, Artaxerxes reigned Twenty Years after his sending Nehemiah to build the City and Walls: Then succeeded Xerxes and Sogdianus▪ two Brethren, Artaxerxes his Sons, but it seems they were of no ac∣count at all, and are therefore omitted by some Historians; but others own them, and say they reigned a very short time: We may allow them (as Writers generally do) a Year. After these Darius Nothus

sat on the Throne Twenty three Years, then Artaxerxes Mnemon reigned fifty Years. Some say more, but I imbrace their Opinion who say he reigned but fifty, because I have before exceeded some Mens Accompt when I set down Twenty three Years for Darius Nothus, whereas some assign him but Nine∣teen. Then reigned Darius Ochus Twenty six Years, Arses or Arsanes Four, and Darius Codomannus Six: So that the whole time of the Reign of these Persian Kings was 130 Years from the time of the Decree to rebuild Ierusalem. Upon the Death of Darius (the last Persian Monarch) Alexander the Great succeeded in the Monarchy, and reigned six Years: After whose Death reigned the Ptolomees or Lagidae in Egypt (for I will trace the remaining Years by this Line, and not by that of the Kings of Syria or Ma∣cedon, these being more intricate) in this order, Ptolomaeus Lagi Forty Years, Ptolo∣maeus Philadelphus Thirty four, Ptolomaeus Euergetes Twenty five, Ptolomaeus Philapator Sixteen, Ptolomaeus Epiphanes Twenty four, Ptolomaeus Philometor Thirty five, Ptolomaeus Eurgetes Twenty nine, Ptolomaeus Physcon Seventeen, another Ptolomee Ten, another called Soter Eight, Ptolom. Dionysius Thirty, Cleopatra Twenty two, at which time the Greek Monarchy ended, after it had held out 296 Years. After her Death Augustus (who was properly the first Emperor of Rome, and began the Roman Monarchy) reigned 43 Years, whom succeeded Tiberius,

in whose Eighteenth Year our Blessed Lord suffered; which two Numbers, viz. Eighteen and Forty three put together make Sixty one Years. Now then, reckon all these Summs, viz. 130 Years of the Persian Kings Reigns, 296 Years of the Successors of Alexander, 61 Years of Augustus and Tiberius, and you will find that they amount to 487 Years, which wants Three Years of the Compleat Summ, viz. 490 Years or Seventy Weeks. Wherefore to supply this, we must remem∣ber that Christ suffered (as the Prophesie expresly saith) in the midst of the last Week, and so by adding Three Years we shall make the 490 Years compleat.

I cannot say this Calculation of the Years of the Kings is Exact, nor can any Man say that any other is; for there is no little Ob∣scurity in the History relating to those Mo∣narchs, and the right Order and Succession, the true Number and Names of them, and the time of their Reign. Wherefore the Accompt must be taken and fixed with some Latitude, and we must be content with this, because we can attain to no other. But from what I have offered, we are as to the main certain of the Truth of this Prophesie, and we cannot doubt of the Evidence of the Accompt in general. It is most plain that the Seventy Weeks are to be reckoned from the Twen∣tieth Year of the Reign of King Artaxerxes Lo••gimanus, in which Year (and not be∣fore) the Royal Decree came forth to re∣store

and build the City, and to finish the Temple which Zerobabel had begun; and it is as plain that these Seventy Weeks had their Expiration about the time of our Saviour's Passion and Death: Or if we ex∣actly and precisely make the Computation, we must say that his Death fell in the middle of the last Week.

After all this, I must freely declare that we need not be Dogmatical and Punctual in the Interpreting this Prophesie. Though I offer that Calculation before specified, as the most Probable; yet this is certain, that if you take the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks according to some of those other Opinions, and fix them to their respective Endings, you will find that they do not fall much amiss; they do not considerably come short of Seventy Weeks of Years, nor are they much redundant. Which truly is as much as we can rationally expect in the Present Case, considering that the Chro∣nology of that time is Difficult and Intri∣cate, and Historians hugely differ in the Account of the Years of those Monarchs. Therefore* 1.136 some of the Antient Fathers shun the Question about the Beginning and Ending of the Seventy Weeks, and hold it too Difficult to solve. Yea, a Modern Father of the Protestant Churches abroad declares, that here is place only for‖ 1.137 Con∣jecture, and accordingly he propounds his. But this is too Loose and Lavish. And much more is that of another† 1.138 Writer,

who absurdly imagines that the Seventy Weeks are to be taken indefinitely, as if a certain Number were here put for an Un∣certain one. This no Man of deliberate Thoughts can swallow down, because this great Number is afterwards divided into lesser and more distinct Portions, as much as to assure us that a Determinate Number was meant, for if the parts of the Number be definite and determined, if they be fixed for such particular Transactions, then it must undeniably follow, that the whole Number is definite and fixed also. But yet it must be acknowledged that it is very Difficult to determine the Exact Beginning and Punctual Ending of these Prophetick Weeks. I have (after the Attempts of many others) pro∣pounded that way which seems to me most probable, and I submit it to the Censure and Judgment of the Reader. Some take the beginning of the Calculation from one thing, and others from another, but the general Reason of them all is the same, for at that Time they think the word went forth for the Restauration of Ierusalem. But I having fixed the going forth of the word, i. e. The Royal Commandment or Decree, I having by unquestionable Arguments de∣termined this, I hope there is no farther occasion of disputing about the True Be∣ginning or Epoche of the Seventy Weeks. And having gained this Point, we have secured the next also, for the End of these Weeks depends upon their Beginning, and

must be regulated and determined by it; when we know one, we are not to seek for the other.

However, though some place the End of this Computation at one time, and some at another, yet they all agree in the Main, that is, they all confess that the Seventy Weeks are placed in some Period between the Re∣turn from Babylon and the last Overthrow of Ierusalem: And consequently they agree in this, that these Seventy Weeks are long since past and gone.

And that our Saviour is meant by Messiah in this Prophesie, no Man can have any rea∣son to doubt in the least; for who can these Descriptions and Characters which you meet with here agree to but to Christ? The Messiah was to be cut off for the sins of others, which can be understood only of Christ Iesus, who was the Lamb of God that came to take away the sins of the World. So like∣wise the making of Reconciliation for Iniquity is the alone Office of Christ, our Messias: And therefore the Old Jews used to say the Messias should be Ish caphar a Man of Pro∣pitiation, a Man that should make Atone∣ment and Satisfaction for Sin. To Christ alone belong the bringing in and confirming the Covenant, the New Law and Religion of the Gospel. And the causing the Sacrifices to cease, i. e. The Abolishing of all the Mo∣saick Rites and Ceremonies can be meant of none but Him. Particularly as to the last of these, it is plain that Christ was to

come whilst the Iewish Temple stood, and whilst Sacrifices were offered, for he could not make them to cease unless they were in being. Now then the Sacrifices being ceased, it follows that the Messias is come. This is an unanswerable Conclusion, and this is the grand thing I urge, viz▪ That from this Prophesie of the Seventy Weeks it is undeni∣ably evident that the time of the Messias's Coming is past. Yea, whensoever you be∣gin these Seventy Weeks, it is plain that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expired. That is enough to Baffle and Confute the Jews: That is enough to prove that the Prophesie is fulfilled, which is the Principal thing I designed.

The fifth Text enquired into, viz.Matthew XXVII. 5.

He departed, and went and hanged himself.

Compared with Acts I. 18.

Falling head-long, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his Bowels gushed out.

WHen I take notice of the Dimen∣sions of Iudas's Sin and Guilt, when I consider what he was, and what he did, I am apt to think that his Punishment was answerable to his Horrid Fact. Of all the Great and Notorious Sin∣ners mentioned in the Bible or in any other History from the beginning of the World to this time there is none like him, and therefore I am enclined to believe that as his Crime was unparallelled, so the Recom∣pense of it was of a resembling Nature. Iudas the worst and vilest of Traytors be∣came his own Executioner, but not in a

way that was Usual and Ordinary, but such as was as Remarkable as his Damnable Trea∣chery. The Consideration of this hath in∣vited me to enquire into the Manner of his Death, and to find out of what Particular Kind it was; whereby I hope to Reconcile these two places of Scripture, which have not a little exercised the Brains of Interpreters, because they seem to be Different, if not Contrary Relations of the Fatal Exit of this Cursed Traytor and Apostate. From St. Mat∣thew we are ascertained that he went and hang∣ed himself: By St. Luke we are no less assured that he falling head-long, burst asunder in the midst, and all his Bowels gushed out. Both these passages I will examine, and compare toge∣ther, that by this means we may the better understand what Kind, or rather Kinds of Death justly happened to this Execrable Wretch, and also that hereby the Inconsistency of the Relations concerning the Death of Iudas, may not be alledged (among other things) by Atheistical Men to disparage the Holy Scripture, and the Authority of it.

First, The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie to us that he choaked and stifled himself with immo∣derate Grief and Anguish of Mind, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 denotes among the Best and most Authentick Wri••ers; and there is the same signification of the simple Verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from whence the La••in ango is derived, and both of them from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suspiravit, gemuit cum angore cordis, with which the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strangulavit, suffocavit

hath Affinity. Here then in the first place we are told by the Evangelist, that this Vile Wretch went and macerated himself with Grief and Melancholy, which was partly mentioned before in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 3. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is post factum angi, to be very much grieved and troubled in mind for what is done; and the Devil, who had entred into him, followed this close, and made it a Prologue to something more Tragical. For though it was his own Act, yet he was hur∣ried to it by the special Instigation of the Devil, who was now become his intimate Guest. Such a Devilish Distemper, but not in so great an Excess, King Saul laboured under, saith* 1.139 Origen, when he was forsaken of God. This was the Evil Spirit that came upon him, and strangely disturbed him in his Body, insomuch that he seemed, saith† 1.140 Io sephus, to be choaked and strangled.‖ 1.141 Hein∣sius (with whom agree Grotius and Ham mond) understands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this sudden Suffocation: Iudas was choaked or strangled, i. e. saith he, He was struck with a sudden Disease in his Throat, he died of an Angina Squinancy, or some such Violent Distemper that unavoidably stop'd his Breath; so that being swell'd within by the Air or Spirits shut up, he fell down, and broke his Belly, and the Bowels gushed out. So this Excellent Critick, He thinks Iudas expired, as* 1.142 Achi∣tophel is said by some of the Jews to have done, viz. Of some Suffocating Disease that was bred by some great Grief of Mind,

which is implied (say they) in the word Cha∣nak which is there used. This Suffocation or Stifling of the Spirits, is that Machanac which the Hebrew Doctors talk of, viz. That sudden stopping of the Breath which is caused by an inward Oppression of the Mind, that sudden Death which Iob was tempted to wish for, Iob 7. 15. My Soul, saith he, chooseth strangling, i. e. In the heighth of my Temptations I could even desire to be utterly bereaved of Breath and Life by this Suffocating Melancholy which my Miseries bring me into. This was Iudas's Distem∣per at present, when he had reflected on what he had done, he was swallowed up of Sorrow and Remorse, he was oppressed with the Load of Guilt, he laboured under the Pangs and Horrors of Conscience, he was terrified with the Dismal Apprehen∣sions of the Divine Nemesis, and thereby his Spirits even stifled, his Breath obstructed, and himself in a manner* 1.143 Strangled and Suffocated. I subscribe then to those Learned Criticks thus far, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is meant of a Melancholy Suffocation, but I cannot go with them so far as to grant that this only is here meant, and tha: Iudas died of this Suffocation, which is ••he thing that Hein∣sius and Grotius assert; for as for our Learn∣ed Annotator he leaves them here, and is inclinable to attribu••e Iudas's Death to something else, as you shall hear presently. And truly Grotius likewise, though he follows Heinsius in his Interpretation, that

by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is meant Grief of Mind, adds this of his own, that Iudas had a sudden dangerous Fall, and therewith burst him self. I grant that this Suffocation was a Preparatory Death, this made way for the Halter and all that follow'd it: But that which I assert here is, That this Suffocation here spoken of, was not to that Ex∣cess that he immediately died of it; for it is Idle to think that this Suffocating Grief alone was the cause of his Death, when we read of his falling down head-long, and of all his Bowels gushing out. These are never known to be Concomitants of that Distemper; no History gives us any Instance of this Nature. And therefore it is fond and groundless to imagine that this Suffocating Passion was his Fatal End, that this was it which dispatched him.

What then did? You will say. I answer, his hanging himself, i. e. His Strangling him∣self with a Halter or some such thing, and his falling head-long from the place where he hung, and thereby bursting asunder. Some indee•• tell us, That that which dispatched him was his fall from a Precipice; for being Melancholick and Vexed, he took the Course which such Persons are commonly wont to do, i. e. He threw himself down from a Rock, or some such place, and so ended his Life; and upon this fall his Bowels gushed out. The Criticks who run this way (the chief whereof are Pricaeus, Vossius and Dr. Hammond) indeavour to prove our of several Writers, that Persons overwhelmed with Grief and Despair chose this way of Dying,

viz. Casting themselves down from some Precipice. This is freely granted, and moreover no Man, I believe, will question that upon this precipitating themselves their Bowels were broken. This is no Wonder, but it would be one indeed, if their Mem∣bers were not broken and shattered with such a Descent. Well, but then what shall we do with the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? How could Iudas go and hang himself, and also throw himself down from a Rock, or craggy Hill, or some place of this kind? I suppose no Man will say he did this before he hanged himself: And I scarcely think any Man will say he did it after; neither was it possible for him to do it at the very time when he cast himself down: Therefore I conclude that he did it not at all. But the abovesaid Criticks evade this by under∣standing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in another Sense wholly; one of them interprets it of Melancholy Suffocation only, as you have heard; and the other tells us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as mori cupere or mori velle, to be w••••ry of Life, and from a consciousness of Guilt to be restless till we are rid of it. But this Great and Worthy Writer assigns a Sense of this word which was never heard of before, and he doth not so much as attempt to shew, that this word is taken so in any Author. A great Oversight certainly! To say the Truth, these Professed and Resolved Criticks have all of them at one time or other this-Fate, they deliver things with∣out any ground; being warm in the Notion

they have taken up, and having a great Opinion of their own Authority, they think 'tis enough to vouch the matter; or being in Prosecution of father Notions depending on it, they wholly forget to establish what they have asserted.

As for the Rise of this Mistake in these Learned Men, I conceive it was from this, That they found in Authors (whom they plentifully quote to this purpose) that it was usual with Discontented and Melan∣cholick Persons, to put an end to their Days by throwing themselves down from Precipices, and they taking Iudas to be such a one in the highest degree, conclude that he dispatched himself after this man∣ner, and that this is the meaning of his falling head-long mentioned by St. Luke. Especially when they read that all his Bowels gushed out, they think there is good reason to affirm, That this was caused by his fall∣ing from some high place. But all this is mere Conjecture, and hath no ground to support it, for if Iudas had procured his Death by throwing himself down from a Precipice, as Melancholists have been wont to do, then surely instead of bursting asunder, and his Bowels gushing out, we should rather hear of broken Bones and Limbs, which are the most usual Consequences and natu∣ral Effects of such a Precipitation (for these Commentators speak only of such.) So ‖ 1.144 Sophocles expresseth Lichas's throwing himself from a Rock into the Sea, and

so Precipitation is generally described in Authors. Wherefore seeing we read of something else, which is not commonly mentioned as the Effect of a Great Fall, we may be induced to infer that some other thing is intended and meant. Besides, there is nothing here mentioned, nay there is nothing implied or hinted concerning Iudas's dispatching himself from a Precipice, unless it be in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But it is well observed by Heinsius (for we must make use of one Critick to confute another) that Praeceps is not the genuine or primary Import of this word, but that it ought ra∣ther to be interpreted Pronus. However, this is sufficient to invalidate the aforesaid Opinion, that we cannot infer from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a volutnary Precipitation, which is the thing that Author contends for. But on the contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being joyned here with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shews that Iudas did not throw himself down, but that he was alto∣gether Passive as to this thing, and conse∣quently that this place of St. Luke is not to be understood of a willfull flinging himself down from the brow of a Hill, or the top of a Rock, as the old Melancholick Despe∣radoes used to do.

The Truth is, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of an ambiguous use, and may be rendred not only praeceps but pronus (and 'tis likely this Latin word came from that Greek one) and so we may take it here; for I am for interpreting words in their greatest Latitude,

because by this means we shall find out the full Sense of the Scripture. Though Iudas did not cast himself from a Precipice, yet he was precipitated, and he was in a prone po∣sture: Both these, but the latter especially, seem to be signified here by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: being in a prone posture leaning forward, bending downward (that is the primary De∣notation of the word) he fell to the Earth, and this declining Posture that he was in contributed to it. This word then gives us some light into the manner of his Death; it fairly intimates to us, that (after he had immersed himself in most profound Grief and Anguish of Mind, whereby he choaked and stifled his Spiri••s) he hanged himself, i. e. he willfully intercepted his Breath by Strangling himself. For this prone Situation, this bending of his Head and Face, and this pressing down of his whole Body were caused by this way of dispatching himself. This gives us sufficient ground to believe that this perplexed and despairing Wretch ended his Life with a Halter, for this was the very Posture which his Hanging him∣self put him into. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being with his Face downward or forward, stooping and declining with his Head, was as fitly and properly said of such a Person, viz. One that hanged himself, as could have been, and accordingly 'tis very observable, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred sus••ensus by the Vulgar Latin; which Version, although it doth not take in the full Extent and Lati∣tude

of the words, yet it confirms the In∣rerpretation which I am now insisting upon, viz. That Hanging, and not voluntary Pre∣cipitaition, is here meant.

For the Proof of this we need only alledge the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by St. Mat∣thew, which signifies this particular way of Dying, and answers to the Hebrew Chanak, which is to kill with Strangling, and is used after the same manner that Talah suspendere is, which is rendred by the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is acknowledged by * 1.145 Grotius, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word com∣monly used in Greek Authors, to signifie a Persons Killing himself by Hanging himself. And the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are of the same import, from whence cometh our English word to Hang. It is true, this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bears another Sense likewise, as I have said before, but that doth not exclude this, but is very consistent with it, which is the thing that I desire may be observed here. It seems good therefore to the Holy Ghost, in this place to make use of an Am∣biguous word, which may be taken either or both ways. Our Translation is very well, he hanged himself; but the word in the Greek is of a larger meaning, and signifies Strangling or Choaking, which may be either by a Mans being Stifled and Choaked with Grief, or by his Hanging himself, in the more strict way of speaking. Let it not then be wondred at, that I take the word in both Senses in this place: I am induced to

do so by the different signification of the word which the Evangelist useth; and therefore I advise that it be translated thus, He strangled himself, for this takes in both Senses of the Greek word. For in this, as in several other things, the Holy Scripture differs from other Writers, it hath some∣times a double Sense couched in it, yea a double literal Sense; such is the Pregnancy of the Sacred Stile above all others. Therefore seeing this Inspired Writer hath here used such a word, I see no reason why I may not interpret it in the double meaning which it carrieth: And accordingly I understand by it, that this Vile Despairing Traytor first choaked his Vitals with Grief, and then to ease himself of that intolerable Pressure, wholly stifled them by hanging himself. This latter Sense is that which I am now treating of, and you will find it acknowledged and imbraced by several* 1.146 Antient Fathers, and other Writers of the Church. An‖ 1.147 Eminent Pri∣mitive Martyr is very positive in it: And St. Ierom (from whom the Vulgar Latin hath it) renders the Greek word thus, Laqueo se suspendit. These thought it reasonable to under∣stand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this Sense, viz. for Suffocation by Suspension, and thence con∣clude that Iudas laid violent hands on him∣self, and strangled himself with a Ro••e or Halter, or something that was 〈◊〉〈◊〉

that purpose. If you ask what Tree he hung himself upon,* 1.148 Iuvencus will tell you that it was a Fig-tree; but the more Vulgar Tradition is, that this was done on an Eldern••tree•• whence the† 1.149 Excrescencies about the Root of it bear the Name of Iews or Iudas's ••ars, and are a Vulgar Medicine against Squinancies and Sore Throats, as if it had some reference to that Traytor's Strangling himself in that part. But this we may allow to have little weight in it, and no more able to evince that he hanged himself on that Tree than Veniat illi laqueus in Psalm 35. 8. (which some make use of) proves the manner of his Death before spoken of. But this use may be made of this Fabulous Report (as some account it) that we may thence gather it was the general Belief of old, that Iudas hanged himself, (for why should they talk of a Tree and a certain Tree, on which he did it, if he did not do it at all?) which questionless was grounded on this Record of the Evangelist concerning him, [he went and hanged himself.] For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both among* 1.150 Historians and† 1.151 Poets (as well as other Writers) commonly signifies the applying a String or some such thing to the Neck, and therewith compressing that part, and stop∣ping the Breath.

But how shall we reconcile this with his falling headlong, and bursting asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushing out? How

are these consistent with his Fatal Suspen∣sion? If he fastned himself to a Beam, or a Tree (or whatever else it was I am not solicitous) how came he to fall thence, and upon that Fall to break in pieces? The answer is easie, it was the Will of Heaven that the Punishment of this Noto∣rious Varlet should be Remarkable, and that we might see in the Strangeness of his Death the Extraordinary Judgment of God upon him. He thought to deprive himself of his weary Life by Hanging him∣self: But it happened, and that by Divine Disposal, that the Fatal String wherewith he did this, was not strong enough to hold him any considerable time, and thereupon his cursed Body fell to the Ground. This is a plain and easie Resolution, and with∣out this it is impossible (whatever some have enterprized) to reconcile St. Matthew and St. Luke, the first who saith Iudas hanged himself, the latter who tells us that falling head-long he burst asunder, &c. Nor is this without good Authority; Oecume∣nius acquaints us that it was received as a true Narrative from Papias and others that lived near the Apostles times that Iudas hanged himself, and that the String or Cord with which he did that Execution broke asunder, and so he dropped down, and was run over by a Cart or Wagon that came by at that time, which crush'd his Guts out of their place. And you'll find Theophylact also asserting his Suspen∣sion,

only with some Variation as to Cir∣cum••tances, for he is of opinion that the Tree whereon he hung did bend or break, and thence this Cur••ed Man fell to the Ground. I cannot be positive here, only this I suggest, that either the Fatal Instru∣ment of his Execution, or that on which it was fastned might slip, or break, or some other ways be loosned; and then he falling upon a Stone, or a sharp piece of Timber (as we may suppose) unless we will admit of the other Conjecture before named, it is not to be admired that his swollen Belly did burst, and that his Entrails came forth. Here is nothing difficult or improbable, nothing harsh or strained. We may easily assent to what I here offer, without the least Violence to our Faculties. The Pro∣posal is reasonable in it self, and it hath the Suffrage and Approbation of those Writers who have treated of the Parti∣cular Manner of Iudas's Death. Nor must we think it strange that some Writers of the Church are silent as to this, for they did not concern themselves in the giving a particular Relation of this Fact, and the Manner and Events of it. And what though Papias and others lard the Story of Iudas's hanging himself with several Fictions, as that of the Cart, and his Hydro∣pick Swelling, &c. These we are to ••light and disregard, but the plain Truth we must retain, viz. That he ended his Life by that Fall which was occasioned by the

breaking of the String or Noose with which he had thought to dispatch himself. This hath been believed by the Antients (as we have said) and is embraced by several of the* 1.152 Moderns; though of late some have gone another way, and have invented new Opinions of their own.

So then the full Meaning of both the Texts put together is this (as I conceive) Iu∣das, after he had thrown down his Mony, the Cursed Reward of his Treachery departed and went (both which words are very ob∣servable but are not sufficiently distinguished by our Translators) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he retired into some solitary place (for so the word is used in Matt. 14. 13. Iohn 6. 15. and in other places, and it is the frequent Denotation of the word in Prophane Authors) thus he departed, or rather (as it should be rendred) went apart, he betook himself to Solitariness, as is the Custom of deep Melancholists; and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is added to signifie his Wicked Design, he went, i. e. he went away with a Design and Purpose of putting a Period to his Life, and accordingly first he pined himself with Excessive Grief and Melancholy, and thereby fell into such Fits of Suffocation as had like to have proved Mortal to him. In the next place he betook himself to a Halter, as an infallible Remedy of his Grief and Anguish; but the Load and Pressure of his swell'd Body soon gave him a Release from his Noose, and he fell head∣long to the Ground, or rather on something

that lay between that and him: And thus his remaining Breath was quite beaten out of his Body by its violent dashing on that which lay in the way; and at the same time by that wide Rupture whereby his Entrails were poured forth, his wretched Soul made its way, that it might go to its own place, i. e. To the Infernal Regions of the Damned, and there have its Portion without Hope and Possibility of a Redress: For I think there is no Man in his Wits will give heed to what is mentioned by* 1.153 some, that Iudas knowing Christ would shortly descend into Hell, and deliver all Persons thence, went and hanged himself before our Saviour's Death, that he might be sure to be in Hell when he came thither, and thereby have the Benefit of being saved by him.

This is the Compleat Interpretation of the words which I offer, wherein I not only take in the full Sense of both Texts (which I see most Expositors are Defective in) but I put an end to most of the Disputes that have been raised about the Interpreting of these words. For it hath been warmly con∣troverted, whether Iudas's Death was by Grief, or Suspension, or by a Precipice: Some have held the first, some the second only, and others defend the last as most accountable. But I maintaining that his Death was pro∣cured by all these three, (for in the way that I have explained them, they are all three very consistent) I do hereby silence the particular Quarrels and Pretences of Criticks against

one another on these places of Scripture. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which St. Matthew useth, having a double meaning, hath rendred the Manner of Iudas's Death uncertain among these Authors, but I have made use of the Ambiguity of that word to another end, viz. To suggest to me that the double Sense of the word is to be attended to here, i. e. We are hereby informed that this Wretched Caitiff was first suffocated with Fits of De∣spairing Sorrow, and soon after attempted to end his days with a Halter: But as he hung and pressed himself down, this crack'd or otherwise was unfastned, and so he came tumbling from his heighth. Then, to this Suffocation, Suspension and Precipitation (for it may be called so, though it was not that Pre∣cipitation which some, as you have heard, fancied he expired of) was added a Rupture and Effusion of his Bowels (the last Act of this Tragedy) for by being thrown down he so wounded and tore his Body, that these En∣trails soon found a passage by which they came forth. This is the Exposition which I give of the words, and you see it is consistent with it self (which cannot be said of some of the Interpretations which have been men∣tioned) and it is fully adjusted to the Gram∣mar and Criticism of the words; it is also comprehensive of the full meaning of the Relation which we have of Iudas's Death, and is effectual to the silencing of those Quarrels that are among Inter∣preters. But chiefly it may merit the

Preference to all other Interpretations: Because,

1. Hereby, and not by any other way St. Matthew and St. Luke (or St. Peter rather, for 'tis he that gives that Relation in the Acts concerning Iudas) are thoroughly reconciled. For the first saith he hanged himself, i. e. by an inward Grief and an outward Application he strangled himself: The second saith he fell head-long, and burst asunder, i. e. His swollen Corps by its mighty Pressure and Gravity got loose from the place where it was tru••••ed up, and by its violent fall broke asunder. Here is nothing contradictory in both these Passages, for in the one is set down what Iudas willfully attempted and did to∣wards the procuring of his Death: The other acquaints us what was the direful Sequel of it: The former relates the beginning of this Fatal Tragedy, the latter the end and Cata∣strophe of it. Thus both these Inspired Au∣thors agree: But if you understand the words either wholly of Precipitation properly so called, or of Melancholick Suffocation, you set these Writers at Variance, and you will never be able to bring them to an Agreement: Yea, you make them say that which was never so much as thought of. For as for Iudas's flinging himself from a Precipice, there is not a single Syllable in the Relation given by these Holy Men that looks that way, or gives the least Hint of it. Besides, hanging himself is expresly mentioned in one of the Texts, and we are sure that this is inconsistent with casting him∣self

down from a Precipice. And as for Me∣lancholy Suffocation, it was never heard that this alone produced a Total Rupture of the Body, and an Exclusion of all the Bowels: These must undoubtedly be the Effect of another Cause. That* 1.154 Physician who pre∣tended to solve this by the Instance of a Bur••ten Child, whose Malady is caused by keeping in the Breath, whereby the Dia∣phragm is born down, and so by that vio∣lent Depression the Entrails are broken and displaced, was as wide from the purpose as Bath is from Ierusalem. What is this to the bursting asunder in the midst, and all the Bowels gushing out, and that by falling head long? Was it ever known that the stopping of the Breath, the mere hindring of Respiration procured such an Effect as this, viz. A total Exenteration? No. It is to be ascribed to another Cause, and I have assigned what it is. Thus the seemingly different Accounts of Iudas's Death are reconciled, which could not possibly be done in that way which Ex∣positors generally have taken.

2. This Exposition which I have pre∣sented you with is an undeniable Proof and Demonstration of that which I suggested in the entrance into this Discourse, viz. The Remar••ab••eness and Singularity of this Exe∣crable Traytor's End. Of all the Criminals Recorded either in Sacred or Prophane Story, there is none equal to this Iudas, and there∣fore it was fitting that the Recompense of his black and foul Demerit should be as

Matchless as that it self: And this we see accomplish'd in the Wonderful Manner of his Death. Or rather, it was not a Single Death, but a Complicated one, which is the thing that makes it so Strange and Observable. The first thing he attempted, was to abandon himself to excessive Melancholy. When he reflected on his Fact, he was overwhelmed with Vexati∣on and Despair. It is impossible to relate, or to imagine the Horrours of his Soul, and the Tor∣tures of his Conscience, which he underwent on this occasion. This only we can say, That this Load was so Great and Pressing, that it even choak'd and smother'd his Vitals, it stran∣gled and stifled his Spirits, and almost bereav'd him of Life. To compleat this fully, he pro∣ceeded yet farther, and willfully hanged him∣self, that he might be freed from his present Misery, although this did but let him into greater. The Memory of this more effectual Strangling of himself (the everlasting Badge, and Infamous Memorial of his Guilt) re∣mains still in his Name* 1.155 Iscariot, which was given him (as our Learned English Rabbi thinks) after his Death, or (as others Con∣jecture) before it, with a Prospect of this direful Fact.

It is farther remarkable in this Singular Instance of Gods Vengeance, that this Tray∣tor's hanging himself, was not, as he intended it, his last Punishment: This Miserable Cri∣minal fell head-long, before he was altoge∣ther deprived of Life and Sense, from the place of his Suspension, and his almost Breath∣less

Carcass shook out his loathed Soul and his Bowels together by a Fall. This Eviscera∣tion is very remarkable, for 'tis emphatically said, his Bowels, yea all his Bowels gushed out. St. Luke speaks here like a Physician, as he was, and means by* 1.156 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the usual Acception of that word among those of that Faculty, all the Viscera of the middle and lower Ventricles, the Heart and all the other Inwards belonging to both these. This sets forth the Rarity and Wonderfulness of this Judgment, this calls upon us to take special notice of i••. Let me observe to you, that in his being thus wholly disbowelled, we may plainly read the Punishment of a Traytor: For not only with us, but other Nations, Eviscerating hath been part of the just Penalty inflicted on such Male∣factors.

Moreover, I might take notice of St. Luke's other word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which we have not fully translated when we English it [he burst asunder] for it properly sig∣nifies such a Rupture as is accompanied with a Noise, and therefore in the Vulgar Latin Version 'tis rightly rendred crepuit. This Terrible Crack which attended Iu∣das's Fall, was so loud, that it was heard at a great distance: And accordingly we read in the next Verse, That this was known unto all the Dwellers in Jerusalem. It is no wonder, saith our* 1.157 Christian Rabbi, that this sudden and violent Ex∣plosion

of all his Entrails, made such a mighty and horrid Sound, for the Devil, who had entred Bodily into him, and had inhabited there three days, now broke forth: And upon this violent Eruption of that Evil Spirit, a great and amazing Noise was heard, such as must needs affright the Neighborhood. For though •• do not approve of the Learned Doctor's Inter∣pretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he takes in a Passive Signification wholly, and tells us that Iudas was snatch'd up by the Devil into the Air, and there strangled by him, (whereas 'tis expresly said he went, which is an Active word, and shews that what immediately follows, was a proper act of his own; whence I have reason to gather, that he strangled and hanged himself, that he was a Felon of himself, that he willfully procured his own Death) yet I do verily be∣lieve that the other Act of the Tragedy was immediately by the Devil's Procurement. This Infernal Daemon struck him down to the Earth and Hell together, whither his Body was enclining. And truly he might justly have his last and fatal end from the Devil's own Hand, who was immediately stirred up by this Diabolick Spirit to commit that cursed Fact.

Thus all the Circumstances of this Miser∣able Caitiff's End make it Stupendious; that we may be convinced of this Great Truth, that this was a Notorious and Exemplary Pu∣nishment,

and designed by God to be Peculiar and Remarkable. Here were several Deaths met together in this One Horrid Example, that we may be invited to observe and ad∣mire the Extraordinary Hand of Providence in it, and that we may take notice how God hath inflicted a Judgment worthy of such a Miscreant, that this Unusual and Unheard of Manner of his Death, may appear to be the just Desert of his unparallelled Villany, name∣ly, his Betraying of Innocent Blood, even that of the Lord of Life and Glory. One way of Death was not thought sufficient for him, and therefore his cursed Life was torn from him by many, viz. by Macerating Grief, by Vio∣lent Hanging and Strangling himself, by a sudden Precipitation, by a Disruption of his whole Body, and by an Effusion of all his Entrails.

As to what is suggested by a* 1.158 late Wri∣ter, that he was not buried but cast into the place destined for the Carkasses of Beasts and all manner of Filth and Dung, and that the throwing his Dead Body into this Bara∣thrum, where he was burst asunder, is meant by his falling head long, I cannot apprehend any ground for this Conjecture, and there∣fore I cannot insert it as a Remarkable At∣tendant of his Death, and as part of that Severe Judgment which befell him here. I have gone as far as the words of the Evan∣gelists have authorized me, in explaining of which, I have fully set forth the Tragical

End of this Hypocritical Actor in Religion, this Mock-Disciple, this Apostle in Masque∣rade, this Execrable Deserter and Vile Be∣trayer of his Master.

But I have not yet done, for I am to add, that as the Just Judgment of God upon him here, was Signal and Remarkable, so the same Divine Vengeance pursued him to another World, and made his Fate there as Singular and Observable. This is that which I conceive is the true meaning of those words in Verse 25. of the first Chap∣ter of the Acts, That he might go to his own place. I know some interpret this of Death or the Grave, but very impro∣perly, for this is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a proper place, but a Common one, and therefore is rightly called so by* 1.159 Plautus, and Dying is going to that place which is Common to all, which is the Recepta••le of all Man∣kind. Others understand this place of Hell, that being (say they) Iudas his own place: But, so far as I apprehend, this Acception of the word for Hell in a general Notion is not the meaning of the Text, because Hell was not so Iudas's own place, as that it was proper to him alone, and none else, for Hell is the Common place for all the Damned. But though I am ready to grant that Hell is meant here, yet I take leave to understand it in a more Empha∣tick way than it is usually taken: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his own place is his peculiar

place, the place in Hell proper to him, and no other. This I am perswaded is the true and full Import of the words. Iudas went to his own place, i. e. That Individual Pe∣culiar Place in the Regions of Hell, which was particularly allotted for him, and him alone. All Impenitent Sinners have their Portion in that Infernal Lake, but this Cursed Traytor and Apostate was con••ined to his own Apartment to his pro∣per and peculiar place in that Universal Receptacle of the Damned. To establish this Opinion, and to confirm the Sense of the words on which I ground it, I de∣sire it may be considered, that as 'tis ge∣nerally acknowledged by Divines, that there are Degrees of Happiness in Hea∣ven, so 'tis also granted, that there are Degrees of Torment in Hell. This is the general Ground and Foundation of my interpreting these words in this Sense. In the Kingdom of Heaven are* 1.160 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 many Mansions, and in the Infern••l King∣dom are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proper distinct places, singular and peculiar Torments according to the Quality of Sinners, and conse∣quently Iudas was consigned to his; he had, and he hath, and shall ever have a Peculiar Proper Punishment, distinct from that of other Sinners. Again, I find that there is a Particular Individual Wo•• denounced against that Man by whom the Son of Man was betrayed, Matt. 26. 24.

Iud••s is* 1.161 that Man, remarkably set forth, and distinguished from all other Men, by that inimitable Fact of his, the Betray∣ing the Son of Man, which assures us of the Peculiarity of the Woful Curse here affixed to him. This is as proper to him as his Crime. Moreover, to strengthen this Assertion, I might take notice that he is emphatically stiled the Son of Per∣dition by our Lord, Iohn 17. 12. which signifies not only that he is inevitably Lost and Damned, for this is true of every profligate Man that dies in his Sins, but it must necessarily include something else in it, something Greater and Higher, viz. That he is Lost and Damned, and consequently that he is the Son of Perdi∣tion in a Sense different from all other Persons, that his Punishment in Hell is Singular, his Place or State of Torment is his own, it is proper to him, and diffe∣rent from that of all others. Lastly, I desire you to observe the particular word∣ing of this Text: St. Luke saith not that he went 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as* 1.162 Baalam is said to do,) but he useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to let us know that this place which he went to was so his, that it was no Bodies else: For this is the true import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nor doth this su••∣fice, he inserts here the Demonstrative Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: twice, he went 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which remarkable Duplication of the Ar∣ticle

fixes and appropriates the Sense, and undeniably proves that the place and State allotted to this Arch-Traytor in the Regions of the Damned, were his in a peculiar manner, i. e. They were so his, that they were not common to any others. This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And thus I have given you the Reasons of my Exposition of these words in that way which I have propounded. I do not find that Commen∣tators interpret them in this Sense, but yet I think that from what I have of∣fered, it is evident that this is the true and genuine Acception of that Expression. All the Criminals recorded in the Old and New Testament, are but Puny Sin∣ners, if compared with Iudas, especially if we consider that he was placed in so high a Rank, and was so highly favoured by his Lord, that he was one of the Sacred College of Apostles, and Blessed with Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts, and admitted to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the rest of his Brethren. It will not seem Strange and Wonderful, that this Ungrateful and Per••idious Parricide, who acted so contrary to his Profession and Privileges, and betrayed his Master with a Faithless Kiss, was rewarded with a proper place of Torment, a peculiar State of Damnation, not common to him with others. It was ••itting that his Fu∣ture Penalty should be answerable to

that here, (of which we have sully treated in this Discourse) namely, That it should be Singular and Unparallelled, and dif∣fering from all others. It was ••itting that as no Man ever committed such a Crime, so no Man should have the same Punishment with him, either in this or in the other World.

The sixth Text enquired into, viz.I Cor. XVI. 22.

If any Man love not the Lord Iesus Christ, let him be Anat••ema Maran∣atha.

THE Task which I set my self at pre∣sent, is to make enquiry into the true Sense and Signi••ication of the word Anathema, that understanding the right im∣port of it, we may grasp the meaning of this Dread••ul Execration of the Apo••••le, Let him be Anathema: For as for the ensuin•• word, or rather words Maran-atha, I shall offer but little about them, which shall be in the close of all. That we may have a true N••tion of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I must in the first place take ••otice of a great Mistake among some A••∣••hors, which is this, They are wont to con∣••ound these two words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas they are really distinct, and of diffe∣••ent Significations. This we are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 observe ••efore we proceed any farther, that we may form right Apprehensions of the word, as well as of the thing which is before us. The former of these, which is the word in the Te••e, is al∣••ays taken in a bad Sense, but the lat••••er is generally understood in a good and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one, and simply and 〈…〉〈…〉

any thing that is set apart, dedicated to a Deity, devoted to the Honour of God, or of the Gods, for this word is used by Prophane as well as Sacred Writers. As this is the Ac∣ception of the word in the best Classical Au∣thors, (which none will deny that are ac∣quainted with them) so this is the use of it in St. Luke 21. 5. Some spake of the Temple, how it was adorned with goodly Stones and Gifts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. with Presents and Oblations brought to that Holy Building, and there be∣stowed toward the Beautifying and Enriching of it, not without some Relation certainly of Devotion and Reverence to the Lord of that House. And all Gifts and Presents whatsoever that are consecrated to God, are called by this name, and accordingly the usual rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is donarium or donum, a Gift con∣secrated to God; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is reponere, sursum ponere, attollere, suspendere, and thence is very appositely applied to these Sacred Gifts, which being* 1.163 offered to God were laid up, and hung up in the Temple for the Service and Honour of the Numen to which they were dedicated.

And here let me have leave to offer my Conjecture, which is this, That the Greeks giving that name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to those Gifts which were thus Consecrated, is an Allusion to the Hebrew name which that kind of Holy Presents hath in the Old Testament, and which was given to it by God himself, as in many things it might be proved, that the Pro phane Grecians borrowed from the Sacred

Book. This sort of Gifts was stiled Terumah, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 elevatus, exaltatus fuit, which we translate an* 1.164 Heave-offering, because it was heaved or lifted up before the Lord. And with this is joyned Tenuphah, another Holy Oblation which owes its Original to the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies to shake and move to and fro, as well as to elevate, and thence that sort of Present is called a* 1.165 Wave-offering, it being the particular usage it seems at the tendring of it, not only to lift it up (which was the main thing) but to wave it. Now, to this lift∣ing up (whence Terumah more signally had its name, and was properly an Oblation lifted up) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Greeks exactly answers, and according to the forementioned Theme whence 'tis derived, may be rightly rendred donum elevatum or suspensum. In the Pagan Devotions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were such Presents as were bestowed on the Gods, and set up on some high and eminent place, as generally up∣on the Walls and Pillars of their Temples. This is well observed by a† 1.166 Learned Critick who tells us that Not all those Gifts which were dedicated to the Gods were called by the Greci∣ans 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but those only which could be hung up, or set upon some high and conspicuous place. And this is the true and simple Acception of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is different from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with an Epsilon, although you'll find that several Writers observe not this diffe∣rence. But 'tis certain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of a quite contrary signification to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this latter denoting a Holy, the former an Unholy

thing or Person; this signifying some thing or Person Consecrated to God, that on the contrary some thing or Person Gursed of God and Man, and destined to be destroyed, yea sometimes it signifies the very Cursing it self, as you shall hear afterwards.

But here it is objected that the Septuagint use the word in a good sense, to signifie that which is Holy to God, and dedicated to his Ser∣vice, as in Lev. 27. 28. where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or de∣voted thing is said to be Holy unto the Lord. So in Ios. 6. 19. we read that all the Silver and Gold, and Vessels of Brass and Iron that the Is∣raelites should find in Iericho, when they took it, were to be consecrated, or as 'tis in the Ori∣ginal) to be Holiness unto the Lord, which very things have the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 given them in v. 18. whence some infer that the word with an •• as well as with an •• is taken in a good sense, and signifies a Sacred Gift offered to God. But this is a palpable Mistake, for if you consult the place in Leviticus, you will find that it speaks of the Cherem properly so called, the thing or Person that was devoted to utter Destruction, and therefore could not be redeemed, as you read there. How then could this be a Gift to God, how could it be an Offering consecrated to God, and separated to Sacred Uses when it was utt••rly destroy'd? But yet it may be said to be Holy to God in this sense, viz. That the Destruction of it, which was appointed and commanded by God himself, was for his Glory and Honour. The cursing of the Canaanites, the devoting

them to Ruin, yea and the actual Destroying of them redounded to the Honour of God, whilst thereby he shewed himself the Sove∣reign and Absolute Disposer of the World, and at the same time gave undeniable proof of his irreconcilable Hatred of all Idolatry and Idolaters. Thus the Persons and things de∣voted to Destruction were Holy to the Lord. This is the true and genuine meaning of this place, and no Man that looks into it and con∣siders it well, can interpret it otherwise. And hence perhaps it is, that in a remote Sense the Verb Charam (and consequently the Noun Cherem) may be taken, as in Mic. 4. 13. to sig∣nifie Consecrating or Holy Dedication. Not that the word hath any such genuine signification, for it is not Charam but Kadash that is the word constantly used to denote Sanctifying or Consecrating, i. e. setting a thing or Person apart to a Pious use, to Gods peculiar Honour and Service. I say Kadash is the proper word for this every where in the Old Testament; yet because even Cursing of things or Persons is to Gods Glory, and so may be said to be Holy to the Lord, hence Charam and Cherem, and ac∣cordingly Anathema come to have that Sense sometimes, but in a very improper and forced manner.

The other Text in Ioshua speaks not of things that were to be destroyed, but to be pre∣served, and therefore it is added there, they shall come into the Treasury of the Lord, and consequently they are said to be Holiness unto the Lord. But this is Foreign to the present

Business, for we are speaking now of the Pri∣mary and Proper Meaning of the world, not of any Improper and Secondary one. I grant that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is improperly and as it were at a di∣stance applied to the things which are conse∣crated to God, and are reserved for his parti∣cular Use and Service: But thence to infer that this is the First, Genuine, and Native Sig∣nification of the word is Unreasonable and Illogical. The things spoken of in the fore∣named place, viz. The City Iericho, and all that was in it, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Seventy's Translation, not because they were to be re∣served for the use of the Temple, or because they were consecrated to the Lord: No, this is another Consideration of the things, and is nothing at all to the true import of the word, for this consecrating to the Lord, refers to some particular individual things only, and not to the rest spoken of in that place. For observe what is there said, v. 17. The City shall be (Ana∣thema) accursed, even it, and all that are therein, all things as well as Persons, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 takes in both, and the Seventy Interpreters particu∣larly restrain it to things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Now, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or being accursed to the Lord, is meant here that they shall be destroyed to the Glory of God, is evident from the words immediately ensuing, Only Rahab the Harlot shall live, she, and all that are with her in the House. These particularly are excepted from the general Anathema or Curse which was to end in Destruction: Therefore it is undenia∣bly true, that all other Persons and things were

cursed by God, and destined to Destruction. The whole City, and every Person and thing in it, were thus an Anathema, yet so as God was pleased to spare the Silver and Gold, the Brass and Iron for the Service of the Taber∣nacle. But still these are included in the gene∣ral Notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Accursed things, and so are called in v. 18. because they did belong to that accursed City Iericho, and should have been involved in the actual Curse and Destru∣ction, if God had not in a peculiar manner ex∣empted them, and thought good to reserve them for Holy and Religious Uses, and thereby to cut off as it were the Curse en∣tailed upon them. But if we consider the things in themselves, i. e. as they appertain'd to that City, which was devoted by God to Perdition, they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Accursed things, and are so stiled, as you have heard. The words in v. 18. run thus, Keep your selves from the ac∣cursed thing (viz. The Gold and Silver, &c. men∣tioned in the next Verse) lest you make your selves accursed when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the Camp of Israel a Curse. Or, you may read it according to the Septuagint thus, Keep your selves from the Anathema, lest you make your selves Anathema, when ye take of the Anathema, and make the Camp of Israel an Ana∣thema. Here is you see nothing contained in the Primitive and Genuine Sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but a Curse, and a devoting or being devoted to Mischief and Perdition, for there is no colour at all of reason to take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in contrary Senses, but all Men must acknow∣ledge,

that the general Sense is the same in every Clause of this Verse, or else 'tis im∣possible to make any Sense of it. Which shews us what is the true import of the word, viz. A being set apart and destined by a Solemn Curse to Destruction, and consequently that the word is not to be taken in a good Sense, but the contrary, viz. for something Execrable and Detestable, and (as the consequent of this) that it is far different from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yea is another word, which is the thing I was to prove.

But notwithstanding this, we shall find that some Writers are very defective here, and mistake one word for another, and thence they tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are things dedicated to God. Thus* 1.167 Iustin Martyr confounds the words, and so doth‖ 1.168 Chrysostom, whatever a late† 1.169 Writer suggests to the contrary. Nor do* 1.170 Theodoret or‖ 1.171 Oecumenius distinguish be∣tween them, as appears from some part of their Writings. And Balsamon and Zonaras often confound the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in their Comments on the Councils. The same is done by some Modern Commenta∣tors, as† 1.172 Cotterius,* 1.173 Gomarus, and others. But you may observe that all the Exact Masters of Grammar and Criticism make a real Dis∣crimination between these two: Thus ac∣cording to Hesychius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, maledictus, excommunicatus: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 donarium, ornamentum templi. The like Distinction is made by Suidas and Pollux, and other Grammarians.† 1.174 Bud••eus, a sufficient Judge in this case, asserts this diffe∣rence,

and by no means suffers them to be con∣founded. * 1.175 Estius, that Judicious Commenta∣tor, tells us that it is most certain the Antient Greeks made a Distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.176 Heinsius wonders that any have asserted the promiscuous use of these words, for they are (saith he) not only diverse but contrary. The Learned† 1.177 Salmasius agrees with him, and makes a real difference between these words. So Hofman in his* 1.178 Universal Lexicon carefully fixes the Distinction be∣tween them.

If it be asked what was the reason, or oc∣casion rather of the forementioned Mistake about these words, whence was it that the forenamed Authors, and several others whom I might have produced, confound these two, I answer I conceive this is the ground of it, namely because Offerings and Gifts are some∣times consecrated to God with the addition of a Curse: As Darius's Decree for Building and Dedicating the Temple ends with an Ex∣ecration, Ezra 6. 12. Thence perhaps Ana∣thema hath been used to signifie a Gift dedi∣cated to a Temple, and an Accursed thing, or such a one as hath a Curse laid on it, viz. a Curse to him that shall meddle with it to alienate it. Thence Anathemata were said to be those Gifts that were consecrated to God, and which 'twas not lawful to convert to another use, because the Consecration was under pain of a Curse to those that alter'd the Property of them. And it is indeed generally said by the Iewish Doctors, that one sort of their Cherems were so set apart from common use, that

there was implied, and sometimes expressed a Cursing of them who ••hould attemp•• to alie∣nate them. I conjecture it is on this account (viz. because of this Execration annex'd to the Donation) that these words have had a pro∣miscuous use, and have been thought by some to signifie things consecrated to Holy uses, and also those that are destined to Destruction. Hence, as I suppose, Anathema, with a little Variation in the Writing, and sometimes without it, is of an ambiguous meaning, and hath been taken by some in a good and a bad Sense, namely for the Gifts and Offerings which Religious Votaries present to the Deity, and appropriate to Sacred Uses, and likewise for such things and Persons as are wholly aliena••ed from God, and are devoted to Destruction by him. But the former Ac∣ception is secondar•• and improper, and the Rise of that Promiscuousness of the words which we have obferved, is only from that Curse which is sometimes annexed to the Con••ecration. Hence it is that the Primitive mea••ing of the wor••s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is perverted; as we see there are many In∣stances of the like na••ure. For there are some good words (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) which afterward are used in a bad Sense, and on the con••rary some words of ill meaning (••s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. become good sometim••s. Thus it is here in the words before us, they are distorted from their proper Sense and Primitive use, and one is made to signifie the same with the other, whereas they really differ in themselves, and are of a contrary Signification.

Having thus cleared the way to what I in∣tended, by shewing the Difference between these two words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I come now to speak particularly of this latter, and to offer a more distinct account of the genuine meaning of it. We must know then that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath its original from the same Greek word that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had, yet with this difference, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies here separare, removere, auferre, as also renun∣tiare, rejicere (for these are the known signifi∣cations of the Greek word in good* 1.179 Classick Authors.) And consequently as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pro∣perly signifies that which is kept or laid up in some eminent place, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly denotes that which is separated, removed, taken away and rejected: Briefly, as the former signifies the Preserving of a thing, so this latter imports the utter Destroying and Consuming of it. But not to rely wholly upon the Etymology (which I know generally is but an uncertain proof,) I will make this good from other Considerations, and offer the reasons why I fix this Interpretation on the word. First, Let it be remembred that our Apostle often alludes and refers to the Old Testament, and makes use of several Words, Phrases and Ex∣pressions which he finds there. Those that are conversant in the Stile of this Hebraizing Writer will not shew any Averseness to ac∣knowledge this, and therefore I need not insist upon it. Now, it is probable that he doth the like here, i. e. That he refers to that noted word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so often mentioned in the Old Testa∣ment, which hath this very Signification, and

is applied in the same manner that this word is: So that any discerning Person may per∣ceive that this Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew Cherem, and that the Apostle hath respect to it in this place. Se∣condly, This is made more probable from the Famous Version of the Seventy Interpreters, who constantly render the word Cherem by this word which the Apostle here useth, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and from them without doubt this word was taken by this Sacred Writer, who in above a hundred places (as might easily be shew'd) hath borrow'd words from those Greek Interpreters, and applied them in the same Sense and Meaning that they do. Where∣fore it is reasonable to think that he doth the like here. Thirdly and lastly, This may be call'd an Ecclesiastick word, because it is most used by the Fathers and Church-Writers, and from their rendring and explaining of the word, we may infer that it runs parallel with Cherem.

Here then we are concerned to look into the true import of this word Cherem, because upon this depends the right understanding of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. First, we shall find that the more general significations of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence this Noun cometh, is separavit, ex∣communicavit, and con••equently Cherem is a * 1.180 Separation, or the Sentence of Excommunica∣tion whereby Persons are separated and cut off from Holy Communion. This is the usual meaning of the word in Iewish Writers, they understand by it an Ecclesiastical Punishment, or a Solemn Interdiction or Proscription whereby Contumacious Offenders are forbid

the use of Holy things, and debar'd the Com∣munion of the Church, and the Benefits of it. But in the next place, the more particular im∣port of the word is Separating with a Curse. For devovere, execrari is the usual signification of the Verb Charam in Scripture, as in 1 Kings 20. 42. Isa. 34. 5. and other places; whence Che∣rem is not only a Cursed thing or Person, but the Cursing of them. This is that which is threatned by God to the Jews, if they reject the Messias, and is the Conclusion of the Old Testament, That he will come and smite them with a Curse, Mal. 4. 6. Cherem is the word, and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is frequently used to denote a Curse, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in Acts 23. 12. signifie to Curse, or to Swear with the Addition of a Curse. It is a Separating and Devoting of things or Persons by a Solemn Execration; it is a Vowing, Wishing and Pro∣nouncing their Destruction and Perdition. Therefore thirdly, Charam among the Hebrews is desolavit, destruxit; and Cherem is desolatio, de∣structio, perditio omnimoda. As to the Verb, 'tis acknowledged by all, that there are great Numbers of Texts, wherein it signifies to de∣stroy utterly, as in Ex. 22. 20. Deut. 2. 34. where the word can have no other Sense than this, and therefore is rendred by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So in Isa. 11. 15. it cannot possibly signifie any thing else (as is plain from the words themselves, and from the Context) and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 devastare, desolare is the Version of the Septuagint. Again, in Ier. 51. 3. and Dan. 11. 44. it cannot be understood otherwise than thus, and accor∣dingly

it is rendred in both places 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, abolere. And I question not but this is the meaning of the word in Ezra 10. 8. though we transla••e it to forfeit; but the plain Sense and rendring of it is this, [his Substance shall be de∣stroyed,] as in the case of Achan; wherefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word used here by the Greek Interpreters, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to Cherem, the proper meaning of which word is Destruction.

And we may farther learn and be ascer∣tained of the true and genuine meaning of this word from the Law of Cherem, set down in Lev. 27. 28, 29. which there signifies a thing or Person devoted to Destruction, and also from the particular Instances of this Cherem, as those Idolatrous Cities mention'd in Deut. 13. 15, 16. Which were to be utterly destroy'd, and all that was in them. Neither Inhabitants nor Cattle were to be spared, nay all the Spoil of them was to be gathered into the midst of their Streets, and both City and Spoil to be burnt to A••hes. The Cities shall be a heap for ever, they shall never be built again, and there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing (the Anathema) to thy hand, v. 17. Iericho was a Cherem, Cursed and Destined to Destruction: So A••alek was devoted to be a Cherem, 1 Sam. 15. 3. Utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but s••ay both Man and Woman, &c. Charam and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the words here used. And hence perhaps were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Devota capita among the Greeks and Romans: For (as I have said before) it was not unusual with the Gentiles to borrow some Practices from the Iews. They had a report

among them, it is likely, of this Remarkable Usage, viz. The Devoting of certain Cities, and the Inhabitants of them, to Slaughter and Destruction, and that this was executed by the special Command of God: Whence it is not improbable that in an Apish and Superstitious manner they took up such a Practice as this, and devoted certain Men to Death and De∣struction, to please their Gods. And this is the more probable, because the very word* 1.181 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used by the Antient Greeks to sig∣nifie those Execrable Wretches who were cho∣sen out to be put to Death, and to be devoted to the Infernal Demons. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an∣swer to the Iewish Cherem, i. e. Things or Per∣sons devoted to utter Destruction, for the word Cherem retains the Sense of the Verb Charam, which signifies utterly to destroy, and that with∣out Mercy: Whence the Critical Hebrews tell us, that Charam is directly opposite to the Verb Racham misereri.

From Charam the word Chormah derives its Pedegree, and so should be translated De∣struction in Numb. 14. 45. though you find it otherwise, for the Vulgar Latin keeps the He∣brew word it self, and our English Translators follow it, rendring the place thus, The Amale∣kite discomfited them even unto Hormah, where∣as I conceive Hormah or Chormah denotes not a place, but Death and Destruction, and the words should be rendred thus, The Amalekite discomfited, or* 1.182 pursued them even unto utter de∣struction, i. e. Death. Those Pagan Victors pu••h'd on their Conquest even to the utmo••t Ex••re∣mity, according to what Moses had foretold,

v. 43. that the Israelites should fall by the Sword. Thus they were destroyed, as you expresly read in Deut. 1. 44. where this same passage is re∣lated again. And from such a Fatal Event as this (but upon the contrary Party, the Israelites afterwards overthrowing the Canaanites) the place where the Execution was done was called Hormah, and not before. Numb. 21. 3. They utterly destroyed them (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word used by the Septuagint) and their Cities, and called the name of the place Chormah, or (ac∣cording to the Greek Translation) Anathema: So it is as much as Cherem, you see. But in the other Text before mentioned Hormah is no Proper Name, but an Appellative; which is farther evident from this, that there is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before it, whereas there are no Prefixes to Pro∣per Names. I am enclined to think that Har∣mageddon, Rev. 16. 16. (a word that hath much exercised the Critical Wits) is of the same Derivation, Charmah denoting Destruction, and Gad or Geddon an Army, and so it signifies the Destruction and Fatal Overthrow of that Army of Antichrist which was to Rendezvouze in that place: It takes its name from the Event which you read in v. 19. This I conceive is pre∣ferable to the other Derivations that are usu∣ally assigned of the word Harmageddon.

I will also observe to you, that this word Cherem in a Metaphorical way signifies a Net, in which Fishes are taken to be killed and eaten, i. e. destroyed, Ezek. 32. 3. Mic. 7. 2. Hab. 1. 15. All which I alledge, to shew you that Che∣rem, if you respect the word from whence it is extracted, or the words that are of near Cog∣nation

with it, denotes killing and destroying. This is the proper signification of it (for as to the Catechrestick Acception of it, I have no∣thing to do with it here,) yea, this is its* 1.183 First and Original signification. By Cherem we are principally to understand Utter Destruction and Perdition, Final Extirpation and Excision, and withall the Wishing, Vowing and Denouncing of these. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testa∣ment is borrowed from Cherem in the Old, and answers exactly to it. I know some Au∣thors have taken notice of the Reference of the one to the other, but I thought fit to su∣peradd a full and distinct account of the Re∣markable Agreement that is between them, and this I have done by laying open the Ori∣gination of the words, and the particular use of them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let him be a Cherem, that is to say in the full mean∣ing of it, Let him be a Person separated, cursed, destroyed.

So that by this I have conducted you to the true and compleat meaning of the Apostle's words: Here is a Triple Iudgment denounc'd against those that love not the Lord Iesus Christ, those who are so far from loving him, that they disown and deny him. For 'tis certain here is a Meiosis, less is expressed than is in∣tended; by not loving is meant hating and re∣nouncing of the Lord Iesus Christ. Let him that is guilty of this horrid Sin be Anathema, saith the Apostle, that is,

1. Let him be separated. In which these two things are included; First, That he be separated from Christ's Church, that he be excluded from

being a Member of that Body. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an∣swering to Cherem, is rightly understood, as that was, of Excommunication, which is a Pro∣hibition of Communion with the Church, and a cutting a Person off from the Benefits which accrue from it. Thus our Apostle in Holy Zeal for the Jews his Country-men and Kinsmen, professes he could be content to be for their sakes* 1.184 an Anathema from Christ, i. e. to be separated from Christ's Church, and the Communion of Saints: He could even wish himself excommu••icated from the Assem∣blies of the Faithful, if this might any ways re∣dound to the good of his Brethren. So here, the least Punishment that can be inflicted on him who loves not the Lord Iesus Christ, is that he be depriv'd of the Fellowship of the Church, of which he professed himself to be a Member. As he renounceth Christ, so it is but just he should be cast off by the Church, and debar'd of all Society with it. So St. Chrysostom understands this place, Let him be Anathema, that is, saith he, * 1.185 Let him be separated from all, let him be estran∣ged from all,‖ 1.186 Let him be a stranger to the com∣mon Body of the Church, saith Theodoret.† 1.187 Ana∣thema is Separation or Alienation, saith Theo∣phylact. And indeed among Christian and Ec∣clesiastical Writers it hath this peculiar Deno∣tation, and is used to signifie Excommunication. And as he deserves to be separated from the Church, so likewise from Christ Himself. Se∣condly therefore Let him be Anathema, i. e. Let him be separated from Christ, let him have no part in Iesus. So indeed the Apostle's words before mentioned m••y be farther meant, I

could wish that my self were Anathema from Christ, i. e. separated from Christ himself. If it were p••ssible (for it is but a Supposition, and a strain of passionate Love and Indearment,) if it might any ways promote my Brethrens Welfare, I could willingly be excluded from all Benefit by our Lord ••esus Christ. I could methinks endure any loss, part with Gods Fa∣vour and my own Bliss for their sakes. But what the Apostle here utters only in a high strain of Affection to express his Great Con∣cern for his Kindred (for you must look upon it as no o••her,) he most truly and directly wisheth and denounceth against all those that willfully and obstinately renounce Christ, that fall from the Faith they once professed, and abjure the Holy Jesus. Let such a one never in this World enjoy his Favour, or share in any Advantage by his Blessed Undertakings for Mankind.

2. Let him be a Person Accursed of God and Men, for that (as I have shewed) is contained in the Notion of Cherem, and consequently of Anathema; and thence among the Writers of the Church, to Anathematize is to Curse, or to denounce Accursed. If any Man love not, i. e. hate the Lord Iesus Christ, it is a most equal Recom∣pense of that his Hatred, that he himself be detested and abhorred, and that he be Cursed upon Earth. If he calls Christ Anathema (1 Cor. 12. 3) i. e. looks upon him and speaks of him as an Abominable Execrable Person, he certain∣ly himself ought to be an Anathema, an Exe∣cration, a Malediction. As he is justly banish'd from the Communion of the Church (which

we spoke of before,) so moreover he is to be delivered to Satan, which in the Apostles times accompanied Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. This is a farther Punishment of the Apostate here spoken of. He is to be ac∣counted a Devoted Person, he is to be con∣signed over to the Evil Spirit as a most De∣testable and Cursed Wretch, forsaken of God, and destined to Destruction. Which is the

Third thing contained in this word. Let him be Anathema, i. e. let him be destroyed; for that also is comprehended in the Notion of Cherem, yea is the primary import of it, as we have fully proved. Now, this Destruction in∣cludes in it both the Temporal and Eternal Punishment which are entailed on these cursed Miscreants, the Haters of Christ. First, it is probable the Apostle means here those Temporal Inflictions, as Sicknesses, Diseases and Torments of Body which attended Ex∣communication and Delivering to Satan in those days, and which are called the Destructi∣on of the Flesh, 1 Cor. 5. 5. which also may be in∣cluded in the Apostle's Wish before menti∣oned, That himself were an Anathema from Christ, i. e. That (besides what hath been said before) he might feel all those Corporal Pu∣nishments which usually were inflicted on Sin∣ners when they were delivered to Satan. I could be content, saith he, out of his Excess of Affection and Kindness, to undergo all those Severities and outward Hardships of Body, on condition that I might be really Beneficial to the Souls of my Brethren, and reclaim them from their Unbelief and Impenitence. This the

Learned Dr. Hammond (as well as G••otius) takes to be the Anathema of the Text which is before us; it refers to the Primitive Disci∣pline of Anathematizing or Excommunicat∣ing, which was followed with most dismal Effects, particularly with remarkable Judg∣ments on their outward Man, which are call'd by Ignatius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Plagues which the Devil inflicted. Let these Execrable Sinners, who renounce their Lord and Saviour be plagued with all those bodily Maladies; being thrown out of the Communion of the Church, and debar'd of Spiritual Benefits, let them suffer all the Temporal Evils and Cala∣mities of this Life.

Secondly, A future Eternal Punishment in another World is here implied; which makes this Denunciation of the Apostle to be most Astonishing and Dreadful. If any Man love not the Lord Iesus Christ, and persists in this vile Temper and Practice, let a Curse pursue him into the next World to his Everlasting Per∣dition and Confusion. This is the highest Sense of this Anathema, this Cherem, this is a devoting to Death and utter and final Destruction. So then in brief the meaning of the words in their full Latitude is this, If any Man love not the Lord Iesus Christ, so as not to confess him, but to renounce and deny him, especially in time of Persecution (as some at that time, the Gnosticks saith our Annotator, affirmed it law∣ful to do) if any Man hate and vilifie the Lord Jesus Christ, and disown and reject that Faith which he once embraced, let his Reward be to be separated and cut off from Christ Jesus the

Head, and from his Body the Church, let him be Accursed in Body and Soul, and be given up to the Prince of Darkness, and suffer all Evils in this World and in the next, let him be destined to Eternal Misery, and perish Everlastingly without remedy.

Thus Spiritual, Temporal and Eternal Evils, but more especially these last, are compre∣hended in this Apostolical Execration; there∣fore to this Anathema the Apostle adds Ma∣ran-atha, which is thought by some to answer to the Third kind of Excommunication among the Jews, the Severest and Dreadfullest of all, which they stiled Shammatha, a final S••para∣tion from the Church without hopes of re∣turning. And some that embrace this Opinion tell us that Maran atha is a Talmudick word, and frequent in the Rabbies, and that the great∣est and most fearful Excommunication a∣mong the Jews was called by this name from the first words of the Writing or Instrument of Excommunication. But our great Christi••n Rabbi gains••ys this,* 1.188

That this (sa••th he) is a Form of the highest Excommunication, and is the same wi••h Shammatha (which some assert) is utterly without the Warrant of any Jewi••h Antiquity at all. Nay, the words Maran-atha are not to be met with in the Jewish Writings.

I believe we may take it upon the Doctor's word (who knew as well as any Man) tha•• they are not there. However, this is certain that if we look into both those words [Shammatha and Maran∣atha] we shall find that they are of the same signification, for Sham or Shem is nomen, which

in ordinary Speech among the Jews signifies God, and atha is venit, and so the compound word is to be resolved into this, God cometh; which is the same with Maran-atha, for Ma∣ran in the Syriack and other Eastern Tongues signifies Dominus (and thence, as Grotius ob∣serves, the Syrian Maronites have their name, because they call Christ Marani, i. e. our Lord) and atha, as was said before, is rendred venit, he cometh; and so both Shammata and Maran-atha exactly answer to that direful Menace of Enoch,* 1.189 The Lord cometh, which was a Prophesie as well as an Execration, that was very Famous in the Church of the Jews, and from this (it is very probable) those Forms of Execration were taken. Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute Iudgment upon all, especially on such wicked and profligate Sinners that deny the Lord who bought them, and shamefully renounce the Christian Faith and Profession. These are they that love not the Lord Iesus Christ.

Here then all that I will remark is this, that this Dreadful Execration which the Apostle here useth, hath peculiar reference to Gods Final Iudging the World, and his executing Eternal Vengeance on the Wicked. For though we may grant with the Learned Light∣foot, that the Apostle here primarily speaks to the Unbelieving Iews, and accordingly ex∣presseth himself in the very Language which they used at that time, viz. Syriack, (whereas in Hebrew it should have been Adonenu ba, not Maran-atha, which,* 1.190 saith he, evidently sheweth that this Speech refers more especi∣ally

to the Iewish Nation) and though we may grant that the words have some reference to our Lords coming to destroy Ierusalem and the Jewish Polity, yet (as this Worthy Doctor afterwards acknowledgeth) they may have a larger Sense, as many other passages in Scrip∣ture have, and be understood more signally and eminently of the Last Doom and Curse which shall be pronounced not only against the Un∣believing Jews, but all those that love not the Lord Jesus Christ of what Nation soever. This shall be at the General Iudgment of the World, which (we know) is by way of emi∣nence called the Lords coming in the Sacred Stile of the New Testament: And we read that in that day Go ye Cursed is the particular Language used towards those miserable Crea∣tures. To this therefore I am of opinion that St. Paul's Execration in the Text doth more particularly and especially refer. The short is, those that love not the Lord Iesus Christ, those who willfully hate and oppose him and his Laws, are Accu••sed Persons in this Life, and are devoted to Destruction; and likewise when our Lord shall come to judge the World, they shall be Cursed more openly and solemnly; when they shall stand before that Impartial Judge of the World, they shall receive from his infallible Mouth a Final Malediction, an Irreversible Execration, which shall immedi∣ately be succeeded with the Eternal Punish∣ment of Hell.

The Seventh Text enquired into, VIZ.Coloss. II. 8.

Beware lest any Man spoil you through Philosophy and vain Deceit, after the Tradition of Men, after the Ru∣diments of the World, and not after Christ.

THough this whole Verse requires an Explication, which I shall briefly offer; yet the main thing which seems difficult in it is this, This St. Paul here enters a Caveat against Philosophy, and joins it with vain Deceit, whereas he that is acquainted with the Apo∣stle's Education and Accomplishments cannot imagine he would speak any thing to the Disparagement of true and s••und Philosophy, which is the Guide of our Faculties, the great Improver of our Reason, the main Conduct of all rational and considerate Minds, and that which teacheth us the right Know∣ledg of God as it arises from the Nature of things in the World. To Moses's Honour it

is recorded by St. Luke, and related by the ho∣ly Martyr St. Stephen, (in which he was directed by the Holy Ghost▪ that he was* 1.191 learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, bred up in their Mystick Hieroglyphicks, and acquainted with the natural Magick of their wife Men. And therefore tho it is one of the Documents of a Jewish Rabbi to his Disciples,† 1.192 Suffer not your Children to learn Logick: and tho some of the* 1.193 Christian Fathers have spoken freely against Logick and Philosophy, (and particularly St. Ambrose on the 118th Psalm is taken no∣tice of for his nihil nobis cum Philosophiâ) be∣cause they observ'd that a sophistical way of Reasoning and Logick was made use of by Hereticks, and because the Study of Philo∣sophy had introduced innumerable Conten∣tions and Quarrels, as also because it some∣times medled with and incroached upon Di∣vinity, (for which cause a‖ 1.194 Learned Father gives no better name to Philosophy, than that of Egyptian Plagues, and* 1.195 another calls them the Egyptian Frogs that have crept into the Church;) tho, I say, for these Reasons the Fathers sometimes thus inveighed against Lo∣gick and Philosophy, yet at other times they shew the Usefulness and Necessity of both; and that the Sophistries of Hereticks cannot be confuted without them. Clemens of Alex∣andria † 1.196 proves that Philosophy and Human Arts are from God, and are useful in Divinity. ‖ 1.197 It is not absurd (he saith) to assert that

Philosophy is the Gift of Divine Providence, and was designed to prepare Men for the perfect Doctrine of the Gospel. According∣ly he tells us that Philosophy was given to the Greeks to be the Foundation of Christia∣nity. As the Law and the Prophets were to the Jews, so (saith he) was Philosophy to the Greeks, viz. to fit and dispose them for the preaching of the Gospel,* 1.198 to purge and prepare their Souls for the Reception of the Christian Faith. A Proof of this we have in that great and learned Platonist, Iustin Martyr, who (in his Apology for the Chri∣stians) acquaints us, that by reading a Sentence in Plato's Works he was excited to leave Pa∣ganism, and to embrace Christianity. Theo∣doret, another Greek Father, in that known Treatise of his wherein he addresses himself to the Grecians, makes it evident to them that the Evangelical Truth is consonant to and may be confirmed by the Gentile Philo∣sophy in some parts of it. St. Ierome, a Latin Father, altho once in a Dream he thought he was beaten for reading Tully and such like Authors, yet in his Epistle to Magnus a Ro∣man Orator, after he had shew'd what Allow∣ance Human Learning hath in Sacred Scrip∣ture, sets down in order the Fathers who made use of the Writings of the Gentiles in confuting their Errors: and in his 84th Epi∣stle he gives an account why he himself in his Writings made use of secular Learning. And as I related before, how Iustin was guided to Christianity by a Sentence in his

Master Plato, so you may be certified from St. Augustin himself,† 1.199 that he was very much helped forward toward imbracing the Christi∣an Faith, by reading one of Tully (that great Philosopher) his Dialogues, which is put out in Hortensius his Name.

These things thus alledged represent to us the Usefulness and Serviceableness of true and sober Philosophy. This certainly is a great Help to Religion, yea, a part of it. For a Philosopher (as Tully defines him▪ and not amiss)

‖ 1.200 Is one that enquires into, and is ac∣quainted with the Nature and Causes of all things relating to God and Man, (i. e. so far as Natural Reason will con∣duct him) and he is one that both knows and pursues all the ways of living well.

Or take the Description of the rectified Phi∣losophy in the words of Maxi∣mus Tyrius,* 1.201

It is (saith he) such an accurate knowledg of Divine and Human Things, as leads to Vertue, and condu∣ceth to excellent Reasonings, and causes a Melody and apt Proportion in a Man's Life, and teacheth us Moderation and Right Conduct of our Manners.

Hierocles is short, but very full, † 1.202

Philosophy is the Purgation and Perfecti∣on of Man's Life. This clears the Mind of Pollution, this enlightens and consum∣mates Human Nature: This I may call the

Vrim and Thummim of the Heathen Mora∣lists, the Light and Perfection which they attained to.

Philo's Definition of Philoso∣phy agrees with this, but advanceth it yet higher,‖ 1.203

It is that (saith he) by which Man, tho he be mortal, attains to Immortality.

And that is a high Flight of Cicero, who, as it were, speaking to Philosophy, saith thus,

* 1.204 One single day well spent in the Observance of thy Dictates and Rules, is to be preferred before an Eternity of living after the vicious way of the World.

But if we should speak moderately, certainly what the Apostle saith of the Law, is the least that can be said of true Philosophy, viz. It is good if a Man use it law∣fully. It may be serviceable to excellent Ends and Purposes if it be rightly made use of, and in a way subordinate to the revealed Truth of Scripture. We may be assured thereof, that St. Paul here condemns not Phi∣losophy and Human Learning as they are con∣sidered in themselves, but only with respect to the Abuse and Corruption of them. St. Paul himself was bred up first at Tarsus, a noted School of Learning, and afterwards sat at the feet of a famous Doctor of the Law, who was Nephew of Hillel Prince of the Sanhedrim, and was (if we may credit our learned Antiquary) created by him a Jewish Elder, and a Member of that vene∣rable Council. He was the greatest Master of Logick and Reason of all the Apostles, a profound and accurate Disputant, and one no less seen in the Syriack, Greek, and Latin

Tongues, than in the Hebrew Traditions and Jewish Constitutions. His citing of the Greek Poets▪ assures us of his Skill in that sort of Learning. And who now will believe that he wholly neglected the Philosophers? none surely who considers that he was signally called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and that he chiefly repaired to those Countries where there was the greatest number of these, (as St. Peter most of all applied himself to the Iews) our Apostle being the fittest Person to preach to them who were Professors of Reason, and Lovers of Arts and Ingenuity: Among these he would by no means inveigh against Philoso∣phy as it was pure and innocent; but finding it to be miserably corrupted and perverted, and to have espoused many fond and absurd Prin∣ciples, and to have abetted many undue Practices, there was Reason he should de∣clare against it. And indeed this Corrup∣tion had been of a long date, insomuch that in the days of the Asmonaeans† 1.205 it was decreed, That that Parent should be pronounced ac∣cursed, who taught his Son the Philosophy of the Greeks. Now if the Jews thought it would corrupt and debauch their Children, it is no wonder that St. Paul saw it would be injurious to the Christian Proselytes, and undermine the Principles of the Gospel. Yea, it is very probable, that at this time when the Apostle writ to the Colossians, the Christians began to mix their Christian Di∣vinity with the Subtilties of Philosophy, and so to corrupt the Mysteries of Christianity

with those Sophistries, and by that means to bring in Heresies. Thereupon the Apostle remonstrates against this Abuse of Philoso∣phy, as a thing of very dangerous Conse∣quence, such as would pervert the Minds of Christians, and prove hazardous even to Chri∣stianity it self. Wherefore he warns his Christi∣an Converts of Coloss against this corrupt way of Philosophizing. Beware (saith he) lest any Man spoil you through Philosophy and vain Deceit.

Observe the Apostle's manner of expressing himself, Lest any Man spoil you. The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Military Term, and some∣times is used in the Imperial Laws, particu∣larly concerning Reprisals. More generally it signifies Praedam abigere, to carry off the Prey or Booty, either at Land or Sea. The Apo∣stle then doth very emphatically express his meaning, when he saith, Beware lest any one spoil you, i. e. take from you by Force, prey up∣on you, make a Prize of you, rob you of your Christianity through Philosophy and vain Deceit, i. e. through the vain deceit of Phi∣losophy, or the Philosophy which is both vain and deceitful. This is a common Figure, not only used by our Apostle, but by other ac∣curate W••iters. The Apostle proceeds in the latter part of the Text, to tell us the Rise of the Grecian Philosophy, which was so vain and deceitful. It is after the Tradition of Men, i. e. it is the result of Humane Wit on∣ly, it is the meer Institution of Man, and hath nothing Divine and Heavenly (i. e. of supernatural Revelation) in it: And there∣fore

this Clause cannot be understood (as it is by most Expositors) of the Legal and Mosai∣cal Ceremonies, which we know were institu∣ted by God himself. The Apostle adds, that it is after the Rudiments of the World, i. e. it is a meer do••ing on the Custom and Prescrip∣tion of the Men of the World: It is an ad∣hering to the Opinions of the chief part of Mankind, who are pleas'd with the Philoso∣phy as well as the Religion of their Country. It is true, the Rudiments of the World, in 2 Cor. 2. 20. and in Gal. 4. 3. are the Ceremonial Law, which was as the first Rudiments or Alphabet in which the World was instructed at first, and train'd up, and taught a Religion, which was to make way for a more perfect One. Or the Jew∣ish Rites and Ceremonies are call'd the Ele∣ments, or Rudiments of the World, saith* 1.206 Grotius, because the chief of those Ceremonies, viz. Temples, Altars, Sacrifices, First-Fruits, &c. were common to all the World. But though the Rudiments of the World are to be understood in those fore-named places of the Iewish Cere∣monies, yet it doth not follow thence that those Expressions are to be understood so here; for the same words may be diversly taken, ac∣cording to the different Matter they are ap∣plied to. It is probable that the Rudiments of the World, mention'd in the 20 and 22 Verses of this Chapter wherein this Text is, are meant of the upstart Doctrines of some He∣retical Christians. If ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, (i. e. if you have no regard to Errors and false Opinions,

which worldly Men hold in opposition to Christ's true Doctrine) Why do ye dogmatize (so it is in the Greek) after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men? The Mosaical Ordinan∣ces seem not to be intended here, (as our Translators import) for the things which the Apostle speaks of are* 1.207 Doctrines of Men. This cannot be applied to the Ordinances and Rites appointed by God from Heaven, as the Judaical Ceremonies were. Therefore the Rudiments of the World here, are the Inventions of worldly-minded Hereticks, who were at that time crept into the Church; and the Apostle smartly demands of the Colossians, Why some among them did so stifly and dog∣matically adhere to the Opinions of those Seducers, who bid them touch not, taste not, han∣dle not? i. e. superstitiously forbad them to eat certain Meats, and perswaded them to ab∣stain from Marriage as a thing unlawful.

And as Heretical Opinions are referr'd to in this place, so something else may be meant by these words in another, and particularly in the Text, where it is plain, that the Rudiments or Elements of the World, refer to the Philosophy just before mentioned, the Apostle seeming to allude to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the four Elements of the World, those simple Bodies of which all mundane Things consist, and which are generally the Subject of Philosophers. And thus the wo••d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken in Wisd. 7. 17. where you read that Wisdom teacheth Men the knowledg of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Composition of the

World, and the Operation of the Elements. It is likely then that the Apostle hath an Eye here to the Mundane Philosophy, or to the Phi∣losophers who doted on the several Elements (as Thales on Water, another on Fire, and the rest on the other Elements) as the first Principles of all things. Thus you see how reasonable it is to apply the Rudiments of the World to the Philosophy here spoken of, and not to the Mosaical Ceremonies, as Expositors ge∣nerally have done. So that Ancient and Lear∣ned Father Clemens Alexandrinus declares that Philosophy, and the Rudiments of the World, are in this place the same. But he gives this Reason why the Apostle* 1.208 calls it the Elements of the World, viz. because it teacheth the First Elements, and is but a preparatory Discipline to Truth. These first Rudiments and Elements are weak and beggarly, as the† 1.209 Apostle saith of the Jewish Institutions; they are weak, be∣cause they cannot throughly purge the Soul of Vice, and teach it to master its evil Habits: they ar•• poor and beggarly, because they cannot enrich the Soul with any of those Graces which are requisite to Eternal Happiness. In this respect they are not after Christ, (as 'tis said here) i. e. they are not like the Excellent Doctrine of Christ which was from Heaven, and is ever accompanied with extraordinary Efficacy.

The Apostle goes on in the Verses after the Text to give the Reason of his Caution against Philosophy.* 1.210 For in Him (i. e. in Christ) (saith he) dwelleth all the Fulness of

the Godhead bodily. As if he had said, Let no Man impose upon you by a lame and imper∣fect Philosophy, for now there is introduced an absolute and compleat Doctrine, namely, that of our Lord Jesus, who hath the Fulness of all Wisdom incorporated into him. Or, the dwelling of the Fulness of the Godhead bo∣dily in him, may signify the perfect Glory and Majesty of the Divine Nature display'd in the Flesh, when the Word became Incar∣nate, when God was made Man. Bodily de∣notes the Hypostatical Union, whereby the Divine Nature is united to the Humane, and both concur to make up one Person. The Godhead dwells in Christ, not only Spiritual∣ly, (as in all Saints and Believers) but so that the Divine and Humane Nature are joined by a Personal Vnion. Or, you may consider that of our* 1.211 Learned Annotator, who tells us that the word† 1.212 Gnetzem, which is the He∣brew word for Body, signifies oftentimes no more than Being or Essence, and imports the Existence and Reality of the thing spoken of. And accordingly he saith, that the Body of Sin, and the Body of Death, mention'd in the New Testament, are no more than Sin and Death; the real Being▪ of them is denoted, and nothing else. Thus here also the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Hebrew one, and is a kind of Expletive, for nothing but the real Being of the thing here spoken of is to be understood by it. But I conceive there is something more than this meant by the word Bodily, for it signi••ies not only the Real, but Substan∣tial

and Solid Fulness of Christ. The greatest Masters of Humane Wisdom attain'd to the Shadow▪ only, but he is the Body, the Sub∣stance.

And so it follows,* 1.213 Ye are compleat in him, saith the Apostle, you have all Things by Christ; there is nothing wanting and defe∣ctive in the Christian Doctrine, it is an exact Model of Moral and Divine Wisdom. But the Philosophy which is now in vogue in the World, is another kind of thing; it is weak and imperfect, short and deficient; and as it is at this time abused and corrupted, hath no∣thing of solidity and substance in it. St. Paul had often caution'd against the Legal and Iewish Institution, and bid the Christians be∣ware that none spoil them by that.

Now he comes to direct his Caveat against the Impostors of Philosophy. He had without doubt repeated and inculcated that of our Sa∣viour, Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, (the most exact Observers of the Mosaick Law) ye can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now he thinks fit to urge this upon them al∣so, That unless they go beyond the Bounds of the most improved Wisdom among the Gen∣tiles, they are never like to arrive at that place of Happiness. Neither the Ceremonious Precepts of the Iews, nor the Dogma's of Philosophers, were able to conduct them thither. All the Men of Tradition could not effect it, the numerous Rabbies, and the Families of Hillel and Shammeai were defective, notwith∣standing

all their peculiar Dictates and Will-worships. And here and elsewhere, the Sons of Reason, the great Searchers into the Law of Nature, are charged by the Apostle with the same Deficiency. Their Philosophy, which they brag so much of, and value themselves so much upon, if it be rightly scanned, is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Philosophy and vain Deceit, are but Terms convertible. As Christianity outdoth the Law of Moses, so it outstrips that of Nature and Morality, especially as it is depraved and corrupted by the Grecian Phi∣losophers and others, as it is made up of Fal∣lacies and seeming shews of Arguing, but re∣ally void of solid Reason.

Against these the Christians of Ephesus were warned, Let no Man deceive you (saith the A∣postle) with vain words, Chap. 5. v. 6. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exactly answer to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and they both strike at the fallacious and de∣ceitful Mode of Philosophizing in St. Paul's days, who was the first that planted the Go∣spel at Ephesus, (the Metropolis of all Asia) but it seems, in his absence from that place, some attempted to pervert his Converts, by pressing upon them the Jewish Rites; and others endeavoured to debauch them by Phi∣losophy, either that of Heraclit••s who was an Ephesian, or of Pythagoras who had many Fol∣lowers there. This coming to St. Paul's ear, who was then in Bonds at Rome, he presently dispatched away his Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein he undertaketh to shew them, that the Gospel far exceeds both Judaism and Phi∣losophy,

and that Christ's Doctrine is more Sublime and Heavenly, more Powerful and Efficacious than eit••er of them. In most Di∣vine and exalted Language he extolls the E∣vangelical Doctrine, and convinces them, that all Learning and Wisdom are mean and vile in comparison of it. And this Epistle to the Colossians was written, it is likely, at the same time with that to the Ephesians, even whilst the things he wrote to them were fresh in his Memory: for you will find that it is of the same strain and tenour with that, and the ve∣ry Phrase and Expression are the same, as I might shew you in several Particulars besides that in these words. The Argument and De∣sign is the same in both, viz. to oppose the Gospel-Wisdom not only to the Jewish Di∣spensation, but to the Accomplishments of the Gentile Knowledg so celebrated at that time in Greece and Asia. Of this latter it is that St. Paul speaks in the Text, and in that parallel place to the Corinthians, 1 Epist. 3. Ch. 18. v. (and it is well known that Corinth was famous for Philosophy, one* 1.214 of the seven Wise Men fell to their share, and Diogenes li∣ved and conversed there. Let us hear then what the Apostle saith to these Men of Co∣rinth); Let no Man deceive himself, (where the deceitfulness of Humane Philosophy is no less asserted than it is in the Text) upon which Grotius makes this Gloss,† 1.215 All Humane Phi∣losophy which is repugnant to the Doctrine of Christ in the Gospel, is a meer Cheat and Delusion. Let therefore no Man deceive and

gull himself with it. But (as it followeth) if any Man seem to be wise in this World, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. according to the Wisdom of this World; if he thinks himself to be a great Philosopher) let him become a Fool (re∣nounce those deceitful Principles, and im∣brace the Gospel, which is accounted Folly) that he may be Wise, (really so, i. e. wise to Salvation); for the Wisdom of this World (i. e. Humane Reason and Philosophy abstracted from Revelation) is Foolishness with God, i. e. it is reckon'd by God, what it is really in it self, a weak and shallow Thing, blind and imperfect, and unable to conduct a Man to Bliss and Happiness. Mark here how the Pretenders to Wisdom are shamefully baffled, and their perverse Judgment is here justly re∣taliated. As the Gospel is no other than Foo∣lishness in the Accounts of the Men of the World, so their Wisdom is esteemed no bet∣ter than Folly by God. And this it must needs be likewise in the esteem of all truly wise Men, who, with St. Paul, making a right Judgment of Things, discern that Va∣nity and Deceit are entail'd upon it.

And these are the two Heads that will in∣gross my Discourses on these words: 1. The common Philosophy of the Greeks and others then in request in the Apostles days, was Vain and Empty. 2. It was Fallacious and Deceitful. It was Vain, because it profited nothing to Piety, and making them better. It was De∣ceitful, because it hazarded their Souls, and robbed them of Happiness. The Philo∣sophy

at that time in force had these bad Qua∣lities. It was in all things short and imper∣fect; in many erroneous and vitious. It was not only defective, but corrupted; whereas the sacred and inspired Doctrine of the Apo∣stles was compleat and sound, fraught with infallible Truth, and the exactest Rules of living well.

I betake my self to the first Part of the Task propounded, i. e. to shew you that the Philosophy of which St. Paul here speaks, was Vain and Empty. Which I shall evince, by letting you see that it was, 1. Vncertain. 2. (Which was the Effect of the former) Quarrelsome. And, 3. (which made it yet vainer) it was Trifling.

1. The Pagan Philosophy was dark and Vncertain. The Title which Aristophanes gives his Comedy, wherein he lasheth the Philoso∣phers, may agree to the Philosophy it self. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be prefixed to it, it was meer Clouds and Obscurity. The Philosophers spoke as doubtfully and ambiguously as their Del∣phick Oracles. The Ephesian Philosopher was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and it might as well be fixed on some others of the Philosophick Tribe, for they are wonderfully dark and du∣bious. It is confess'd, they light upon many things true and excellent, but they only guess'd at them; and their Conclusions of them were fickle and unsteady. A short per∣usal of Stobaeus, and of Plutarch's Treatise of the Placits of Philosophy, or Diogenes Laertius of their Lives, are sufficient, I think, to satisfy

any Man of the Uncertainty, both of their Physicks and Ethicks. It fares with Philoso∣phers, as it did with those Mutineirs at Ephe∣sus, some cry one thing, and some another. Varro reckons 188 Opinions of the Summum Bonum, or the chief Good of Man: and their Opini∣ons of other things labour'd under vast Un∣certainties. The World surely had very mis∣taken and disorder'd Conceptions of things, when every thing was a God with them when (as the Apostle observes of that strange way of Metamorphosis which their Idolatrous Fancy led them to)* 1.216 they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God, into an Image made like to Corruptible Man, and to Birds, and four footed Beasts, and creeping things, and any thing else which their wild Imagination suggested. The Learned may satisfy themselves how uncertain Notions they had of their Gods, from the di∣vers Accounts which Plutarch (who was one of the most intelligent Persons among them) gives of the Egyptian Deities Isis and Osiris. And if they were in the Dark about their Gods, it is no wonder they had so little Light in other things. This made Hermias, the old Christian Philosopher (in his Piece which he Intituled the† 1.217 Irrision of the Gentile Philosophers) cry out at last,‖ 1.218

Truth hath left the World, and the so much Ce∣lebrated Philosophy hunts rather after Shadows, than lays hold on any true knowled•• of things.

And

again thus, (in very fine words)

* 1.219 All this that the Philoso∣phers talk of, is but the Darkness of Ignorance, and black Fraud, and endless Error, and imperfect Ima∣gination, and incomprehen∣sible Ignorance.

Indeed the first and best Enquirers into the Knowledg of things were sensible of this; particularly Pythagoras, not∣withstanding the seven Celebrated Men of Greece went under the Name of Wise Men, assumed to himself only the Name of a Lover of Wisdom. To him the Philosophers owe that Modest Name, whereby they tell the World that they are only Well-willers to Wisdom, not perfect Masters of it. And Socrates (who was voted by the Oracle the wisest Man of his Age) was yet more self-denying, when he sincerely professed (for why should we take it as a Complement?) that all that he knew was this, that he knew Nothing.

The Reasons of this Ignorance and Dark∣ness in Philosophy, I take to be these two especially; 1. Because Humane Reason was corrupted and vitiated, loaded with Prejudi∣ces and Prepossessions, darkned with Sensua∣lity, and perverted in many by a constant course of Sinning. Hence it was disabled from framing right Apprehensions of things, and from directing Men into a certain know∣ledg of God, and of Themselves, and of their Duty. 2. Because they wanted Super∣natural Revelation, which is absolutely ne∣cessary

to give Men a clear Discovery of the Nature of God, and a full Representation of all the Offices of Religion. This was ano∣ther Reason of Philosophick Darkness and Uncertainty. And on the contrary, that which renders the Christian Laws so certain and indubitable is this, that they are derived from the immediate Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; this is the Foundation of that Institution which we are honoured with. This makes our Religion unquestionable and infallible, and such as we can confidently rely upon. For Divine Testimony commandeth Assent, and forceth an Acknowledgment, and will not suffer our Minds to hang in uncertain Doubt∣ings and Hesitations: This is the Excellency of Christianity. Whereas the corrupted Phi∣losophy of the Gentiles discovered its Vanity in its great Obscurity and Vncertainty.

2. Another Instance of the Emptiness and Vnsatisfactoriness of the Gentile Wisdom is, that it was intolerably quarrelsome and vexa∣tious. And this is the Result of the former; for it was Vncertainty among the Philosophers which made so many Sects among them. The two capital ones were* 1.220 the Italick and Ionick; of the former Pythagoras (who after his Tra∣vels philosophized in Italy) is recknoned the chief, and next to him Democritus and Epicurus. Of the latter Thales was the first Author and Institutor; and this was divided into several Sects, as, 1. The Socratick, of which Socra∣tes was the Head. 2. The Platonick, which took its Rise as well as Name from Plato;

tho the Retainers to it were also called Aca∣demicks. 3. The Peripatetick, of which Aristotle was the Founder. 4. That of the Cynicks, of whom Antisthenes was the Father. 5. That of the Stoicks, which was set up by Zeno and Chrysippus. And to these we may add the Scepticks (if they may be thought to deserve the Name of Philosophers who que∣stioned, and in a manner denied all Philoso∣phy) who were also called Aporeticks, i. e. Doubters, and Zeteticks, or Seekers, of whom Pyrrho was the Head. I am not now to speak of and relate the Opinions of the Barbarick Philosophers, as the Magi among the Persians, the Chasdim, or Chaldees among the Assyrians, the Gymnosophists among the Indians, the Druides among the old Galls and Celtae, for (besides that the account of these is imperfect and dark) it is certain, that all that was eminent in their Philosophy was translated into that of the Greeks, and reduced into some form, and made more intelligible, for which reason, I suppose, it is concluded by Laertius in his Proem to the Lives of the Philosophers, that Philosophy had its beginning from the Greeks, and not from the Barbarians. Wherefore I will wholly speak of the former, only I will make bold to insert the Epicureans (named so from their Master Epicurus) tho their Phi∣losophy most properly belongs to the Italick: but even this may be called part of the Greek Philosophy, because the Founders of it were Grecians.

These were the several Sects of the Greek Philosophy, which as they differed in Names, so in Opinions. Nay, they fought with them∣selves as well as with one another. Tully is observed to be sometimes of one Sect, and another time of another: He often delights in the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but when he speaks his own Mind, he defends Plato's Opi∣nions; yet so that he favours the Peripate∣ticks, and he is also a Friend of the Stoicks when he pleaseth, witness his Paradoxes. There was a perpetual squabling among these Philosophers about their divers Placits and Opinions; they grew angry and waspish, they made it their business to brawl and wrangle, to cavil and scuffle, to start Ob∣jections, and to make everlasting Repartees. Socrates, who was one of the best of them, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that acted a part, that dissembled and prevaricated. He affected all his Life Ironical Dissimulation. This was his way of Rhetorick, and his Philosophy was tain∣ted with it, for you may observe that his disputing was in the way of Dialogue, or Inter∣rogations, which savoured of a Mind disposed to bickering and contending. The old Acade∣micks, who imitated Plato and Socrates, their first Founders, used a Problematick way of philosophizing, and made a Trade of disputing Pro and Con, and were unsufferably litigious: so that Socrates's Philosophy seem'd to bear the Character of his Xantippe, i. e. to be cla∣morous and brawling. The Stoicks and Cynicks (who were the stiffest and most peremptory

sort of Men, yet) were given to snarling and contradicting. It was observed of the Stoicks by a* 1.221 grave Man, that they were so given to Contradiction, that they exercised it on them∣selves, they oftentimes ran from their own Notions. And he writ a† 1.222 Treatise on pur∣pose to shew the Repugnancies of these men; especially his Work there is to run through all Chrysippus's Writings (which were many) and to shew how he confutes himself, and speaks Contradictories. Who knoweth not that the Writings of the Stoicks are full of singular Strains, Wonders, Nice Sayings, and Riddles? (and Lucian very wittily jears them on this account). It was a sign they affected to maintain Paradoxes, to weather out Diffi∣cult Cases, and to dissent from the rest of Mankind.

But the Aristotelians (of which Tribe there was plenty in Greece) were the most Disputing People of all, they were never at a Non-plus, but had always something to say. The great Stagirite, who was the Founder of them, set up in the World by refuting the Doctrine of all that went before him: Like one of the Race of the Ottomans, he thought he could not reign safely except in the first place he slew all his Brethren Philosophers. And he could not but look for the same fate himself, and so it happen'd, for he was dealt with after the same rate that he treated his Predecessors and Competitors. And as for the New Acade∣micks▪ they disputed of course, and were for and against all things; nay, they held an uni∣versal

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Incomprehension; or, as some of them stiled it, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an utter Suspension, which is as much as to say, they held nothing. So that it seems Dubitation was the first Principle of their Philosophy, as of Des Cartes his. This was called by others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which according to Sextus Empiricus is an* 1.223 Equilibrum between believing and dissenting. Falshood and Truth were equally probable; for which Lucian deservedly de∣rides the Philosophers in his Ballance, where he brings them in weighing Truth and Falshood, and making them of equal Poize. At last out of the different Disputes and Contentions of Phi∣losophers sprung up the Scepticks, those Schis∣maticks in Philosophy, who held no Com∣munion at all with the Assemblies of Philo∣sophers, but doubted of, or denied whatever they said. Indeed these Scepticks were but a bolder sort of Academicks, or we may say, these set up first the Doctrine of Indifferen∣cy and Acatalepsy, and the others improved it. Their Assertion was that nothing can be defined and determined concerning any Ob∣ject, that to encline to one part or other, or to affirm or deny any thing, is unphilosophi∣cal, and that all is meer Appearance only. Pyrrhonism was a Calumny to the whole Pro∣fession of Philosophers, a baffling of all Sci∣ence and Argument. They professed a Li∣berty of Enquiry, and, as they thought fit, rejected the Arguments of all Men by virtue of that Liberty. Some of these Pretenders to Philosophick Modesty and Self-denial

reason'd themselves out of their Senses. Some Philosophers denied Motion whilst their Tongues wagg'd. Nay, there was an odd Fellow (Anaxagoras they call'd him) who professedly gave the Lie to any one who said Snow was white, for he was pleased to maintain that it was as black as Soot. Now certainly Tully's words prove true,* 1.224 that there is nothing so absurd but one Philoso∣pher or other asserted it. And that brief Character which Tertullian gave of the Phi∣losophers is verified, that† 1.225 they had a Gift of setting up or pulling down what they pleased. This was the best of it, seeing no∣thing was asserted by any of them but some one would stand and oppose it, by this means Falshood was opposed as well as Truth. But this was not to be attributed to any good design in them, but it proceeded wholly from their love of dispute and quarelling. This is that which an observing Historian takes notice of concerning the Philosophy of the Grecians,‖ 1.226

If any one (says he) examines the most famous Sects of Philosophers, he shall find that they very much disagree with one ano∣ther, and in the greatest Points are clearly contradictory.

This Theodoret expresseth in few words, saying,* 1.227

Among the Greek Philosophers was al∣ways a great Contention and an implacable fight of words.

And he that will consult the 14th and 15th Books of Eusebius's Evangelick Preparation, shall find this abundantly proved, viz. that the Gentile Philosophers all fight with one another, and there is no Consent and Har∣mony amongst them. But if we had all the Books and Writings of the Philosophers which Diogenes Laertius particularly mentions, we should see this much more evidenced.

But see now how Christianity runs counter to all this. It openly declares against Disputes and Wranglings, and enjoineth us to speak all the same things (i. e. to agree in all matters of Faith) and that there be no Schisms and Divi∣sions in the Church, but that all be perfectly joined together in the same Mind and in the same Iudgment, i. e. that we believe, approve of, and profess the same necessary Truths. The same Apostle bids us avoid foolish and unlearned Questions, knowing that they gender Strife; and the Servant of the Lord must not strive. Some have observed that when the Pharisees sought out our Saviour to wrangle and con∣tend with him about what he had done, * he slipp'd aside in the Throng, and purposely e∣vaded them. † The design of the Gospel is to put a period to Contests and Debates, which it happily effecteth by taking away the occasion of all Uncertainty. The Apostle assigns this to be the end of Christ's ascending to Heaven and giving Gifts to Men, and constituting Pastors and Teachers in the Church,* 1.228 that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every

Wind of Doctrine, by the ••light of Men and cunning Craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to de∣ceive (to which belongs the Vain Deceit in the Text) but speaking the Truth in Love (i. e. agreeing together unanimously to profess and maintain the same things) we may grow up unto him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ. This is the Noble Design of the Evangelical Dispensation, it aims at Agree∣ment and Concord, it banisheth fruitless Disputes and Controversies, it is void of Sophistical wrangling and caviling. This is the true and natural, the real and proper Effect of Christianity considered in it self, and in its excellent Principles: but if we see something else in Christendom (as with great Regret we may) it is not to be attri∣buted to the Nature and Genius of the Gospel, or of those that are the true and genuine Professors of it. Whereas the Phi∣losophers were naturally contentious and braw∣ling; they delighted to amuze and puzzle the World, they dealt in Sophistry and Fal∣lacies, and were conversant in Shiftings and Windings, like those sort of Combatants in the Roman Spectacles, whose aim was to catch their Adversaries in a N••t. These Men too studied to intangle; which was no small Ar∣gument of the Vanity and Emptiness of their Philosophy.

3. Their Philosophy was Idle and Trifling. Had their Controversies been about great and weighty Matters, they might have met with some Excuse; but that which stigma∣tizeth

them for foolish and vain Persons was this, that they jangled about mean and worthless Propositions, they were at Daggers-drawing about idle and useless things, and such as were not for the real Profit of the World, conducing nothing to the bettering their Minds or Manners, to the advancing any solid Truth, or the reforming of Mens Lives. The Apostle observes of them that they* 1.229 became vain in their Imaginations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in their Reasons and Arguings (so it may be rendred). These were of no use, their Discourses were childish and foolish, they were conceited and capricious, they affected Curiosities and Niceties, they pursued Sha∣dows, and neglected substantial and useful Inquisitions. This Humour of the Gnosticks, who were considerable Retainers to Philoso∣phy, was charged upon them by St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Ch. 6. v. 4. where he deciphers them to be proud, knowing nothing (tho they so much affected to be esteemed knowing Men, and accordingly had their Name from their monopolizing of Know∣ledg and Wisdom to themselves) doting about Questions and strifes of Words (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they were sick about Questions, as the Greek word imports, they were not well till they were disputing) whereof cometh Envy, Strife, Railings, perverse Disputings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. was the word to express their† 1.230 Philosophical Exercitations: And the perverse and sinister use of those Disputes and Exercises is signified by the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They had un∣worthy

Conflicts and Scuffles among their Dissertations: therefore the Apostle gives them their own Word with a little altering, to denote the perverse fondness of their Di∣sputes, which in the same Chapter he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vain Bablings, which is part of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text, the vain and trifling way wherein they pursued their Delusions. An Ancient Author had made this Remark betimes of the Greek Philosophy,* 1.231 It is, saith he, but a meer noise and clatter of Words. This was it which Lucian in his † 1.232 Sale of the Philosophers, (where he sets them to be sold) jears all the Philosophers for. And not only scoffing Lucian, who had a Pique against them, derides them for this Folly, but the serious Plutarch.‖ 1.233 Cicero ob∣served it of the Stoicks, (who were the gravest and manliest Sect) that the greatest part of their Disputes was spent about meer Names and Words. Their Philosophy was a Heap of Impertinencies. In pursuance of this Hierocles writ a Book of Philosophical Jests, where he gives a Catalogue of Philo∣sophical Bulls, or Absurdities, and lashes them for it. They were contemptible and ridiculous for this at last; and a Philosopher (as Epictetus saith) was* 1.234 a Creature that all Men laugh'd at. Of these was true what my Lord Bacon saith of the Schoolmen, that by their petty and childish Questions, they marred the solidity of all Sciences. Their Philosophy was made up of idle and useless Disquisitions, of verbal Contests, of unedifying Disputes,

They puzled their Auditors, and perplexed themselves with unnecessary Subtilties and vain Curiosities: they contented themselves with dry and sapless Notio••s, with jejune and frigid Speculations.

But these are unworthy of a Christian, whose Religion forbids all foolish Bickerings and Degladiations about Mean and Inconside∣rable Matters. This Laborious Idleness, this Solemn Trifling becomes him not. We are blessed under the Christian Dispensation with solid and substantial Truths, we are enter∣tained with things that are Material and Weighty, and which are worthy of a Rational Enquiry. All the Evangelical Discoveries are useful and profitable, of vast Concern and Necessity. We are not put off with Trifles, but are invited to study and converse with se∣rious and manly Doctrines, such as are fraught with Great Sense, with High Matter, with Discoveries of vast Moment and Importance: which cannot be said of the Philosophy which the Apostle speaks of, which I have proved to be Light and Vain, as well as Uncertain and Quarrelsom.

The second Part of the Task I undertake is to convince you of the Deceitfulness of the Gentile Philosophy; for the Apostle acquaints us, that it is not only Vain, but that there is a Deceit in it also. I will make it appear then that the Pagan Philosophers deceived and deluded Men, by instilling into their Minds Erroneous Principles, and by promoting Vi∣cious Practices in their Lives. Error and

Vice, Unsound Maxims and Evil Manners, Fal∣sity and Immorality were the issue of that Philosophy which our Apostle here cautions the Colossions against. And, that I may touch at the Particular Sects which he here intends, I shall ransack the Principles, 1. Of the Py∣thagoreans and Platonists, whom the Gnosticks affected. 2. Of the Epicureans. 3. Of the Stoicks. 4. Of these and other Philosophers together: For after I have enquired into these distinctly and separately, I will consider them all jointly.

First, I begin with the Philosophy of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which was at that time taken up by the Gnosticks, who by the con∣fession of all were Philosophically disposed, and gave no small Trouble on that account to our Apostle and others to convince and re∣fute them. And indeed the Learned Ham∣mond understands the Text wholly of the corrupt Doctrine of Simon Magus, the Simo∣nians and ••nosticks, who borrowed their Wild Notions from the Pythagorean Philosophy, and withal Judaized in imposing the Obser∣vation of the Mosaick Law, which that Lear∣ned Person thinks is meant by the Rudiments of the World. They made a Medley of Philoso∣phy and Divinity, a strange Rhapsody of the Iewish Cabala, and the Platonical and Pythago∣rean Conceits. They affected to introduce the Theology of Orpheus and Hesiod into Christianity. But a Particular Instance of the Deceit of their Philosophy is mentioned in the 18th Verse of this Chapter. Let no

Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility, (or, more exactly according to the Greek, pleasing himself in Humility) and wor∣shipping of Angels. For it seems these Gnosticks were disposed to worship Angels, and thought it no little Specimen of their Humility and Modesty to do so. They would not be so bold as to offer Prayers to God immediately, but they begg'd of the Angels to present them to him. It is certain that Celsus, and other Pagan Philosophers used to defend their Polytheism this way. And 'tis plain that it was a spice of Gentilism, because the Heathens had their Dii Medioxumi, Spirits that were Mediators between the Supream Deity and Men, whose Office was to offer the Prayers and Oblations of Mortals to the Gods. To this questionless the Apostle re∣fers in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshipping of Angels. This part of the Gentiles Theology concerning Demons or inferior Deities, whose Office was to Mediate between the Sovereign Gods and Mortal Men, is that Philosophy which the Apostle admonisheth the Colossians to take heed of. To this purpose Mr. Mede interprets that Prophecy in 1 Tim. 4. 1. The Spirit speaketh expresly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils. By these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doctrines of De∣vils are not meant, (saith* 1.235 he) such Doctrines as sprang from the Devil, or from Devilish Teachers and Impostors, but the Doctrines a∣bout Demons or deceased Spirits. And he ex∣plains

this by a like Speech, in Acts 13. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Doctrine of the Lord, i. e. the Doctrine about the Lord. So that, ac∣cording to this Learned Man, here is meant that Paganish and Idolatrous Doctrine of worshipping Demons or departed Heroes. And this part of the Gentile Theology the Apostle foretells shall creep into the Church, and be received among Christians, i. e. wor∣shipping and invocating of Saints (who an∣swer to the Pagan Heroes) shall be practis'd among some of them, (as it was by the Gno∣sticks): And that it is in use among the Papists is evident to all the World, and there are few of that Church that are very sollicitous to de∣ny it. This worshipping of Saints and An∣gels, though it was reckoned a piece of Mo∣desty, was (as the Apostle tells us in the next words) a singular Instance of Boldness and Impudence; for the Man who worship∣peth them intrudes into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly Mind. He sawcily presumes to determine of Matters not known; he peremptorily asserts what he pleaseth of the Orders and Ranks of Angels, whose Oeconomy is not discovered to us be∣low. His Humility therefore which he talks of is but a Pretence: as meager and lank as he seems to be, he is really swell'd and pufft up: Whiles he pretends Humility, he hath nothing of it; or if he hath any such thing, he is proud even of that. The Gnostick Phi∣losophy then is deservedly stiled Knowledg falsly so call'd, it makes a shew of being Humble,

and at the same time dictates the highest Ar∣rogance. Their Disputes therefore are cal∣led prophane Ianglings, because they savour on∣ly of their own insolent Humour, and pro∣ceed without any ground of Revelation. For this is it we are to rely upon in this Matter, namely, That there is but one Mediator between God and Man, even the Man Christ Iesus. In∣vocation and Worship are proper to God on∣ly, and Christ is the only Intercessor to the Father, and therefore to apply our Addresses to Saints or Angels, is an absolute dishonour to the Merits and Intercession of our Savi∣our. From whence you may take notice how abominable the Doctrine and Practice of the Papists are. They blaspheme whilst they pre∣tend to Worship, they are grosly Idolatrous in attributing that to the Creature, which is due only to the Creator.

And thus you see how the Gnosticks, (from whom the Church of Rome borrowed her Do∣ctrine as to this Particular) by Pretences to a higher and sublimer Knowledg than others had attained to, corrupted and spoiled Mens Minds, and by their bold and daring Notions adulterated the Simplicity of the Gospel. Of which the Apostle was justly Jealous, when he said, I fear lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so their Minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, 2 Cor. 11. 3. And this is that which, it is likely, the Apostle speaks of in his Epi∣stles to Timothy and Titus, where, by Fables and endless Genealogies he means the idle and fa∣bulous

Pedegrees of Angels, which under the Name of Aeones the Gnosticks talk'd so much of, which they partly borrowed from the Platonists and Pythagoreans, of which you may read a particular Account in Irenaeus, Tertul∣lian and Epiphanius. They will satisfy you, that the Gnostick Hereticks received these things from those Philosophers who were A∣dorers of Demons and Angels, and made them Mediators between God and Man. I will quote only one Passage out of Plato for the satisfaction of the Learned, * 1.236

God (saith he) is not ming∣led with Man, (i. e. hath no converse and intercourse with him): therefore by these is held all that Communica∣tion and Intercourse which is between God and Men, these carry Mens Prayers to God, and God's Commands to Men.

There∣fore Plutarch representing this Philosopher's Opinions, tells us, that he held it to be the Office of De∣mons, i. e. Angels† 1.237 to convey Mens Petitions to Heaven.

And here by the by it might be observed, that many Old Heresies rose from Philosophy, especially from the Platonick Philosophy in the three first Centuries, as the Heresies of Si∣mon Magus, and of the Valentinians, and of the Marcionites, and of the Manichees, as the Fathers who confute these Hereticks let us see, and complain of it often. Tertullian‖ 1.238 particularly sheweth, that many Heresies in Christianity

came from Philosophy, particularly the Do∣ctrine of the Aeones and Forms came from Valentinus who was a Platonist▪ and so other Errors from Marcion who was a Stoick, and others from the Epicureans, &c.

All these (saith he) are made up of the Fables and Fan∣cies of Philosophers Athens and Ierusalem were blended, the Academy and the Church were unhappily mixed: there was a Stoi∣cal and Platonical Christianity.

Hence he saith that† 1.239 Hereticks are begot of the Seed of Philosophers, and that‖ 1.240 Philosophers are the Pa∣triarchs of Hereticks. Nay I might farther re∣mark, that not only the Theology of some of the Hereticks, but likewise of some of the learnedest Fathers was almost spoiled by Phi∣losophy, and particularly by that of the Pla∣tonists. I might instance in Origen, Iustin, Mar∣tyr, and Clemen•• Alexandrinus, about the Do∣ctrine of the Eternal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: they spoke as Heraclitus, Plato and Socrates did, and there∣by gave scope for the Arian Heresy. More especially it may be observed, that Origen borrowed his Divinity from Plato, and that corrupted him, as Ga••d••ntius proves in several Particulars. It was from his following of Plato that he propagated the Opinion of the ceasing of Hell Torments. Though this, I must say, we learn rather from other Fathers than from the Works of Origen himself: but we have no reason to disbelieve so many Fa∣thers, and to think that they represent him falsly, especially when we know that Origen was a great Platonist, and in other things fol∣lowed

his steps. So likewise he borrowed the preexistence of Souls from Plato's School, and therefore one said rightly,* 1.241 He taught according to the Greeks (meaning the Pla∣tonists) that Souls did exist before their Bo∣dies. The Reason of this is well known, Origen, Iustin, Clemens, and other Fathers, were Platonick Philosophers before they were converted to Christianity, and there∣fore 'tis no wonder that they brought some of their Philosophical Errors into Christianity. I need not tell you that the Church in its first Times explain'd and defended its Principles of Religion by the way of Plato's Philoso∣phy: besides that I might suggest this (which is a great Truth) that Platonism of all the Sects of Philosophy, came nearest to Chri∣stianity. Hence the Platonist who read the first Verses of the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel said that Barbarian had stollen from his Master. Yea, I could add what Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata tells us, that they made the Christian Divinity as like Gentile Philosophy as they well could, and they caus'd the Holy Doctrine of Christ to ap∣proach to the received Notions of Philoso∣phers, and made the Holy Scriptures speak Platonism, that they might by that means gain Proselytes to the Christian Religion. I ap∣peal to you now upon these things, whether these good Men were not in danger of being spoiled through Philosophy.

Secondly, Leaving the Platonists, I come to examine the false and pernicious Principles

of the Epicureans, with whom we are* 1.242 in∣formed our Apostle encountred. Their Phi∣losophical Deceits were such as these.

1. They held that Chance and Fortune were the Rise of this World, and of all things in it: That the World was not made or created by an Understanding Being, but commenc'd by a strong Juncto of Atoms, which clubb'd together (though without Counsel and In∣telligence) to erect this great and stately Fa∣brick. These Men had no Notion at all of a Creation, for their old Saw was, † 1.243 Nothing is made of Nothing: and therefore (according to their Masters, Democritus and Epieurus) they agreed to give the World its Date from those capering‖ 1.244 Atoms, as if that would solve the Business. But indeed according to their Hy∣pothesis it had no Date at all, for all this Atomick Bustle was from Eterni∣ty. As the Platonists held the World was Eternal by Necessity, so the Epicureans asser∣ted its Eternity, but said it was by Chance. The World, according to them, was a strange By-blow of Nature, begot by meer Fortune. These were the wild Conceits they took up, rather than they would be beholden to God for the production of the World; that is, ra∣ther than they would acknowledg a Wise Omnipotent Being that was the Author of it, rather then they would own the Principle of the World's Beginning, and that by a Power

Divine. As for their Notion, it is so poor and precarious, that no Man of any consi∣stency of Thoughts can give credit to it. So excellent Order and Composition as we see in the World and all the Parts of it, could never arise from a fortuitous Confluence, from a casual jumble of Matter and Motion without any Guide, but must needs be con∣cluded to be the Contrivance of Infinite and Superlative Wisdom. That thin and subtile Particles blindly tilting against one another, (without any Mover to set them on work) should at last jump into so exact an Order, is an Assertion unworthy even of a Rational Pagan, and fit only for such a Christian Phi∣losopher as he of Malmsbury. Not to speak of the monstrous Absurdities which follow upon asserting the Eternal Existence of Matter▪ Nay, not to speak of the utter Impossibility of the thing it self; for what is made cannot be from Eternity, i. e. can't be without a be∣ginning, for its being made, necessarily sup∣poses one that made it to have been before it; and if he was before it, then it was not from Eternity, for there is nothing hath the priority of Eternity. But it is enough that this Epicurean Doctrine is confronted by the Christian Philosophy. Through Faith we un∣derstand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of ••od, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear, Heb. 11. 3. And, as the same inspi••ed Author argues in another place, Every House is built by some Ma••, but he that built all things is God, Heb. 3. ••▪

As much as to say, there is as great Reason, nay greater, to be perswaded that this vast Structure of the Universe was built and e∣rected by a Divine Hand, than that we should believe that the stately Habitations and Pa∣laces which we see, were made by some Artists. The World is the Fabrick of Di∣vinity, the Temple of God,

—Mundi magnum & versatile Templum.

So far Lucretius went, but we may go farther. It is a wonderful System contrived by an All-wise and Omnipotent Being. It is a TEMPLE made by GOD, and dedicated to him. As the World had a Beginning, so it had its Beginning of existing from God. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth: in the Beginning, therefore the World was not from Eternity; God created, there∣fore it was not by Chance.

2. As the Epicureans affirmed the World was by chance, so (consistently enough with that Principle) they held it was left to shift for it self. And truly this was no absurd Con∣sequence from the former Assertion: for if the World made it self, it might as well be thought to look after it self. These Men in their most sober Determinations would not suffer God to intermeddle with the Govern∣ment of the World: they complemented the Godhead out of its Jurisdiction over Mankind and things here below, by saying he should not give himself the Trouble of

having any Resentments of things on Earth, and taking care of Human Affairs. Epicurus his God

(as* 1.245 Seneca describes him) was reserved and careless, he turned his Back on the World, and took no notice of it; he ei∣ther did something else, or was wholly idle.

And therefore he afterwards calls such Gods as these† 1.246 deaf Deities, Gods of no Virtue and Power. Thus Tully tells us of those Philoso∣phers who‖ 1.247 held, that God had nothing to do himself, and that he set no others on work. Not unlike to these were those ab∣surd Atheistical People in Zech. 1. 12. who said, The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil. The Reason of this was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Epicureans say is in God; he is at quiet in himself, and it would * 1.248 disturb him to provide for the World. The Being which is happy (say they)† 1.249 hath no Employ of its own, and it creates no Business to others; for Business and Care would distract, and render unhappy. They yet more blasphemously add, that‖ 1.250 such a busy God would cause perpetual Dread in the Minds of Men, and they must always stand in awe of him if he constantly took no∣tice of them and their Acti∣ons. These were the vile Blas∣phemies of the Epicurcan Philosophy. But Christianity hath rendred it clear and un∣deniable,

that God hath an Inspection into all Human Actions, and disposes and directs all Occurrences to his own Glory. At his Beck and Command are all Men and Devils, glo∣rified Angles and departed Souls: nothing comes to pass in Heaven or Earth, or Hell it self, without his Cognizance and Controul. Like a prudent Master of a Family he suffers nothing to be done by any Member of it withaut his License or Permission. Provi∣dence is spread as wide as the Universe; nor is there any thing, be it never so little and mean, exempted from its Tuition, no not the fall of a Sparrow, nor of a Hair of the Head, as our Great and Infallible Instructor hath ascertain'd us. Well therefore doth Octavius (who represents the Christian in Minutius Felix) in answer to Caeciliu's Ob∣jection against Providence (viz. that God is in Heaven, and cannot see all things below) well doth he assert,

That * 1.251 all things are full of God; that he is not only most near to us, but in••used into us: we not only act under him, but live with him; we are not only in his Eye, but in his Bosom.

This was the rate of the old Christianity, as it was derived from the Prophets and holy Men, and parti∣cularly from our Apostle, who excellently asserts the Providence of God, saying, He is not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our ••eing, as he tells the

Athenian Philosophers, Acts 17. 27. intend∣ing thereby directly to confront the Doctrine of the Epicureans, with whom he encountred at that time. All that I will add under this Head is this, that the Epicureans exempting God from all Employment and Administra∣tion of things was sutable enough to their known Hypothesis of an idle, lazy and plea∣surable Life. They thought it a happy thing to be free from Cares and Business, and to in∣dulge themselves in all Pleasure; and ac∣cordingly they attributed the same Happi∣ness to God which they desired and liked themselves. And this reminds me of the

3d Deceitful Opinion of the Epic••reans, which was this, That Happiness consisted in Pleasure. Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of these words, Beware lest any Man spoil you through ••hilosophy, saith, the Apostle meant them of the Epicurean Philosophy, and especi∣ally, that part of it which denies Providence, and deifies Pleasure. These Men's avowed Principle was, that sensual Delight is* 1.252 the source of all Good, and the Soveraign Blessed∣ness of Mankind. Tho I must needs say, it is very strange, yea even prodigious, that there should be such a Sect, that any Men pretending to Philsophy, or the study and love of Wisdom, should espouse such a monstrous Opinion, that Persons of Reason and Knowledg should make the Body, which is the worst part of Man, his best and only part; and that the Animal and Sensual Life, which is so base and groveling in comparison

of the Rational one, should be thought to be the chief and leading Principle of Man. There are not transmitted to us the Names of many that held this wild Opinion. As for Epicurus himself,† 1.253 he that gives us an account of his Life, tells us, that some re∣presented him a very abstinent and mortified Man, others as great a Glutton and Drun∣kard. But from what he farther adds (when he distinctly sets down his Principles and Perswasions) it is evident that this Philosopher placed not Happiness in bodily Pleasure, i. e. not in that only, for his a∣vowed Opinion was, that‖ 1.254 Hap∣piness consisted both in Mind and Body, in the Peace and Tranquillity of the former, and in the Ease and Health of the latter. H•• held, that the Pleasure which arises from both these is the beginning and end of a Happy Life. But that he might not be misconstrued, he adds farther,* 1.255

When we say (saith he) that Pleasure is the End and Happiness of a Man, we do not mean the Pleasures of the luxurious, and such as are placed in the fruition of Worldly Delights (as some ignorantly or maliciously interpret our words) but we say this Pleasure consists in an absence of bodily Pain and Perturbation of Mind.

Nay, he goes on fur∣ther, and declares, That† 1.256 Ver∣tue alone, abstracted from bo∣dily Pleasure, is never separa∣ted

from Pleasure. And many other Excel∣lent Notions he hath, which discover him to have been a Good Man, considering he was but a Heathen. Which may induce us to think, that some of those other things, which he is reported to have held, are not a just Repre∣sentation of his own Opinions, but rather of what some of his deluded Followers took up. But if I may guess at the Reason of his being thus misrepresented, I conceive it was this, because he was singular and diffe∣rent from the rest of the Philosophers, as to his School or place of philosophizing, which was a pleasant Garden. Some might think that this had some Influence on his Studies and Opinions, and that he was a light Airy Man, addicted to bodily Pleasure, and that he placed Man's Happiness in it, especially when it was his real Opinion and Profession, that Happiness consisted in Pleasure. This Philoso∣pher's case methinks was like that of Nicolas the Deacon, who though he was himself of a pure and blameless Life, yet from him the filthy and dissolute Nicolaitans took their Name. So though Epicurus himself might be a Man of Abstinence and Sobriety, yet it is cer∣tain that his Followers, i. e. those who call'd themselves after his Name, did roundly main∣tain, that sensual and bo••ily Pleasure was the only Good to be sought after, and passionate∣ly prosecuted by all Men. By Brutes they should have said, for Corporeal Pleasure is all the Happiness that those Creatures are capa∣ble of, or concern themselves for. But Man's

chief part is his Soul, which was made and designed for nobler Pleasures, and cannot find any solid Satisfaction but in them, and therefore God hath provided him such to be his Chief Entertainment. The Apostle takes notice of that Epicurean Strain* 1.257 [Let us eat, and drink, for to morrow we die] and replies to it, 1. With an Intimation of the vain De∣ceit of these Swinish Philosophers, Be not deceived. 2. With a sober Check borrowed from one of their Poets, Evil Communications corrupt good Manners. And 3dly, He answers yet more Apostolically in the words follow∣ing, Awake to Righteousness and sin not, for some have not the Knowledg of God. These Men (saith he) are downright Atheists, devoid of the true Knowledg and Sense of a Deity, and of another Life. Which brings me to the

4th Pernicious Opinion of the Epicureans, viz. That there is no Life after this, that there is no future Existence or State of Souls to be expected. And herein again these Men are consistent with themselves; this is a na∣tural Consequence of their former Assertion. If sensual and bodily Pleasure be all the Hap∣piness which is the Portion of Mankind, then there can be little or no Entertainment for the Soul if it should be separated from the Body, and therefore it is fit to believe that the Soul perisheth with the Body, and there is no future State after this.† 1.258 Plutarch testifies concerning Epicurus, that he asserted all human Souls to be mortal. And another

assures us that it was his Opinion, that Men vainly trouble themselves with the fear of some* 1.259 terrible thing in another and ever∣lasting State, as if there were any thing after Death. Therefore when the Resurrection was preached to the Epicureans by St. Paul, which implies a future Life, they were startled at it, and looked upon it as a new and strange Doctrine, Acts 17. 19. All is concluded, said they, in this World, and therefore they made much of themselves whilst they were here, and lived as they listed, not looking at all for any Punishments or Rewards hereafter. But this is so diametrically opposite to the natural No∣tions and Dictates of rectified Minds, which are not debauched with Prejudice and Sen∣suality, and so fully baffled by the Principles of the Christian Religion, that it will be but lost Labour to offer at the Confutation of it. I shall only desire you to reflect upon this and the other dangerous Sentiments of the Epicurean Philosophy, and to consider how reasonable and necessary it was that the Apo∣stle should caution his Followers against it, and intimate to them that this was a Philosophy by which they would certainly be spoiled and ruined if they adhered to it.

Thirdly; I will present to your view the Deceitful Ethicks of the Stoicks, who were ano∣ther sort of Antagonists our† 1.260 Apostle grap∣pled with. From what Topicks he disputed with them may be gathered from the Know∣ledg of those things which that Sect was most considerable for. And we read they were noted for the Notion of Fatal Necessity,

for their Proud and Conceited Humour, and for their Doctrine of Apathy.

Their First beloved Notion was that of Fatality; they held that God and all things are tied up by Fate, that the same irrevocable Necessity hampers all Beings, Divine and Hu∣man, and that particularly Men are so re∣strain'd by the Destinies that they cannot act freely, but all their Actions, whether internal or external, are forced. Yea, Chrysippus openly professed that* 1.261 there is no Intemperance, no Fraud, no Sin whatsoever of which I••piter is not the Architect. All comes from him of Necessity, without any Design or Intention. All Events are to be attributed to the Necessa∣ry Make and Constitution of the World. Hence it is that God distribut••s Poverty and Adversity to good Men, and Prosperity to the bad. It must be so, saith Seneca, for† 1.262 the great Artificer cannot change the Matter he works upon; and therefore things must needs be thus, and he cannot help it. This was the Opinion of the severest sort of Stoicks, which cramps all Religion, and enervates all the Attempts and Enterprizes of Vertue, and robs Man of his Rational Nature, and indeed makes him a Stock rather than a Man, and therefore is a Doctrine unworthy of Man∣kind, and consequently of the Christian In∣stitution, which is no ways repugnant to the Reasonable Nature of Man. Why therefore may not this be thought to be part of this Deceitful Philosophy which the Apostle speaks against? But to do the Stoicks Right, this was the Sentiment but of some of them, and as

for the more Intelligent and Sober sort of them, they were of another Perswasion: or rather, to speak more impartially, they ran counter to their own Perswasions. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no less than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were cried up by them. Seneca, Antoninus, Epicte∣tus, who every-where inculcate Fate, yet de∣fend the Liberty of the Will, And* 1.263 Lipsius (who was well acquainted with those Mens Writings and Notions) declares that the Sto∣icks Fate is no more than the Immutability of the Divine Decrees, which takes not away the Freedom of Man's Will, or the Contingency of Events as to Us. Thus Fate and Freedom were Reconciled, and there was no Hurt done to Christia∣nity. And by the by, this Doctrine of the Stoicks Fatal Necessity and Free-Will be∣ing Consistent, may teach us to Moderate our Disputes, and to Reconcile the Di∣vine Decree with the Freedom of Man. It was no Absurd Doctrine among them, and I do not see why it should be among Us at this Day. But I cannot so easily ac∣quit the Stoicks of the

Second Thing they were Noted for, viz. Their Pride and Arrogance, their insuffera∣ble Insolence and Ostentation. Three Instan∣ces, among others, I will give of their Proud and Haughty Spirit, (reserving the Phi∣losophical Pride to be spoken of more ge∣nerally afterwards, but now I will con∣fine my self to the Stoic••s Pride.) Their Morality exceedingly administred to This

Vice, and this was it which made these Men, of all Sects, the most averse to the Christian Religion, which is Humble, and Meek, and Self-denying.

1. They held that their Wise Man was not indebted to God for any Vertue or worthy Accomplishment which he was Master of, but that he was furnish'd out of his own Stock. He was beholden to himself only that he was Good and Vertuous. The Sto∣icks Wise Man was Upright and Just of him∣self, and stood not in need of others Helps: his Happiness was all from what he had by his own Power and Will. Let us observe a little how he boasteth and vaunteth:

—Sapiens uno minor est Iove, Dives, Liber, Honoratus, Pulcher, Rex deni{que} regum.

Their Wise Man is the only Possessor of Riches, Freedom, Honour, Beauty: he is a Prince Paramount, and Commands all the Kings and Monarchs of the Earth: he is in∣ferior only to Iupiter. But this Description of the Poet is Low and Groveling, and a mere Degrading of the Stoick. For Seneca in Severe Prose tells you concerning himself, that* 1.264 This is the thing which is promised him by Philosophy, to be made Equal to God. Which though I am very willing to understand in the Best Sense, as if he meant no more than this, that he expected to be made Like unto God by the Principles of Moral Philosophy, yet I find that he explaineth himself in ano∣ther

Meaning in an Epistle of his where he hath these words, † 1.265 The Gods and Good Men are Fellows. And in an‖ 1.266 other place he tells his Wise and Happy Man that he is a Companion of the Gods, not a Suitor to them. But other Stoicks indulged this way of Talk∣ing, this vain Rhodomontade. It is quoted by* 1.267 Stobeus and† 1.268 Plutarch as a Saying of Chrysippus, (a Man that was in High Esteem among that Sect of Philosophers, as be∣ing one of their Founders) ‖ 1.269 Jupiter did not exceed Dion (a Wise Man of theirs) in Vertue, (which is yet better and more smartly expressed with an Equivoke in the Greek;) yea, Ju∣piter and he were equally helpful to one another. And that of Epictetus is some∣thing like it;* 1.270 If thou art a Wise Man, thou art not inferior to the Gods in point of Vnder∣standing and Reason. And Seneca relates the like Huff, among others, of a Chief Man of that Perswasion, (and of whose Wri∣tings, I remember, he saith somewhere, Vivit, vi∣get, Liber est, supra hominem est). It was a usual saying of Sextius, saith he, (that was his Name) † 1.271 Jupiter cannot do more than a Good Man. Jupiter excells a Good Man only in this, that his Good∣ness is of a Longer Date and Du∣ration. And Seneca himself is

as Presmuptuous and Daring, as may be gathered from that Passage of his,‖ 1.272 A Good Man differs from God only as to Time. And again, God surpasses not a Wis•• Man in Happiness,* 1.273 though he doth in Age. Which amounts to this Blas∣phemy, that God hath Prehe∣minence of Man only as to his Existence before him. This is also asserted by Cicero* 1.274, who not only in his Paradoxes, but in other Places of his Writings, is pleased to play the Sto∣ick. But the Demure Stoick, before cited, blasphemes at a higher rate, when he saith, † 1.275 There is something wherein a Wise Man excels God: God is Wise by Nature, and cannot help it, but the other is so by his own Power and Industry. What think you now of Seneca, doth he not shew himself a right Spa∣niard? Or rather, hath not that Haughty Na∣tion learn'd to speak big, to huff, to rant, and blasphem•• from this their Haughty Country∣man? What think you now of these Stoicks? Can there be more manifest proof of their unmeasurable Arrogance and Elation of Mind? Are not they as well as the Epicureans horri∣bly prophane and blasphemous, though in a different way? The one denies a God and Providence, the other makes his God to come short of his Wise Man; or, which is the

same, he makes his Wise Man much better than his God. Some indeed have thought that Seneca retracts what he said, when he tells us that* 1.276 No Man is vertuous without God: But perhaps by God he means the Conscience, for this he calls a God in another† 1.277 place; and 'tis usual with the Stoicks and Platonists to stile‖ 1.278 the Mind a God. We have no reason then to think that Seneca corrected himself, but rather to be per∣swaded that this was the inseparable Genius of that Sect, viz. to be guilty of those Im∣pious Boastings, and to break out into horrid and impudent Blasphemies. You see there∣fore how reasonable it was that our Apostle should caution against this Sect of Philoso∣phy, lest the Minds of Men should be per∣verted by it. This is the Philosophy that will spoil a Man, or else there is none in the World that will do it. The Christian Religion there∣••ore is in direct opposition to it. Those Ar∣rogant and Blasphemous Boastings are repug∣nant to the Christian Simplicity and the Te∣nour of the Gospel, which every-where beateth down all High and Lofty Thoughts, and bids us Pray and Intreat, and Humbly Sue for the Divine Assistance, and be through∣ly Sensible of our own Weakness and Disabi∣lity. This acquaints us that every good and per∣fect Gift is from Above, and that there is nothing which we have that was not received thence, that

we cannot think, nor speak, much less act any thing that is Good without the Assistance of the Divine Power; that we are constantly beholden to God; that we depend upon him for all things, especially as to Grace and Goodness. These are wholly derived from him, and we are ever to acknowledg that he is the Author and Finisher of them in us. The Contrary Doctrine to this I have the more largely shewed to be the Sentiment of the Stoicks, because this is the Chiefest and most Dangerous Indication of their Pride and Arrogance. I will be the more brief in the other Instances of it.

2. They held that it was below a Man to do any Good Act, with any respect to a Reward to be received for the doing of it. These Soaring Souls would needs maintain that Ver∣tue is to be loved, and Good to be done merely for its own sake: they declared that the foresight of a Recompence did not influ∣ence upon them at all in what they Did or Suffer'd: and that no Good Man ought to make any thing a Motive to Vertue and Goodness, but these themselves. Seneca, Epictetus, Arianus, Antoninus and other Sto∣icks will furnish you with Passages to this purpose. But Christianity (which is the Sub∣limest Doctrine in the World) is not of this strain, if we may credit one of the greatest Professors of it, who freely declares, that if in this Life only we have hope,* 1.279 we are of all Men most miserable. From whence it appears that there must be an expectation of another Life,

there must be the assurance of a Future Re∣compence join'd with the Pleasure and Intrin∣sick Goodness of a Holy Life. It is true, it is Servile to fix the Eye altogether on the Wages: but it is Disingenuous and Ungrate∣ful not to take notice of the Reward which God hath purposely set before us. True Love is destroyed if God and Holiness be not imbraced for themselves: But then on the other hand Christian Hope (which is also an Emiment Grace) is annulled if the Opinion of the Stoicks be valid. It is clear therefore that their Doctrine is False and Erroneous, and is the Result of their Vain Thoughts of Them∣selves, and of a counterfeit Zeal to Vertue, and a mere shew and ostentation of it. For if we could examine things truly and fully, it may be there would be found no such thing under Heaven as a Vertue wholly and per∣fectly Disinteressed, such as hath no Advan∣tage, no Benefit, no Emolument belonging to it, or so much as supposed to be consequent of it. Therefore when these Men tell us that* 1.280 no Reward is to be look'd after, when like the Love-Pharisees (call'd so in the† 1.281 Tal∣mud) they pretend to obey the Law merely and only out of Love of Vertue, without the least respect to a Future State, we may reasonably conclude that in this, as in other things, they affect Chimaera's and Fictions, and are ready on all Occasions to give proof of their Self-Conceit and Haughty Imagina∣tions.

3. To give another Instance of these Mens unsufferable Pride, they grew up to such a pitch of it, that they were inclined to throw off Magistracy and Government, and to with∣draw themselves and others from the Juris∣diction of the Powers they lived under. Their Wise Man was a King, nay King of Kings (as you heard before), and thence they would infer that he was Above all Al∣legiance and Subjection to Authority. This Notion made them so Domineering and Im∣perious, that they broke out into Tumults and Seditions, as Tacitus observes of them in his Annals. It went against the Philosophick Grain to be Subjects and Servants. But this is contrary to St. Paul's Politicks, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers; and to his Oeconomicks, Art thou call'd a Servant? mind it not, i. e. do not think that That Condition renders thee the worse in the sight of God: serve God and thy Master at once, and there∣in thou wilt shew thy self a Good Christian. So much of the Stoicks Pride.

The Third Thing they were taken Notice of for, and which was a piece of Singularity in these Philosophers, was their Apathy, as* 1.282 La∣ertius acquaints us. And we are told by† 1.283 a∣nother that Diogenes the Cynick (for you must know the Cynicks were but over-grown Stoicks) was a great Maintainer of it. This put an unnecessary Restraint and Violence up∣on the Natural Affections of Mankind, and would not allow Humane Nature either to laugh or weep. Their Wise Man that they

made was but a Statue, (and so indeed he was as good as some of their Gods): he was stu∣pid and sensless upon occasion: he was not permitted to resent the Occurrences of the World, were they never so surprizing and admirable. He was to be silent upon the Rack; and when the Stone or Gout tortured him, he was to force a Smile: and it was a Mortal Sin (for you must remember all Sins were alike with these Gentlemen) to wax pale at the sight or feeling of the Incision-Knife. He was to Play with Torments, and to Sport with Pain and Misery. Thus they believed the Sense of Morality was to devour all Sense of Humanity. But this was the Doctrine of some only of that Rigid Sect. The Soberest of them did neither speak nor think thus: the Apathy or Indolency which they maintain'd was a very Laudable and In∣nocent thing. Let Seneca speak for them,* 1.284 I do not (saith he) draw out a Wise Man from amongst Mankind, and place him out of the Num∣ber of Men; for he that is Sensless is no Man. And this Philosopher's Practice was sutable to this Principle, for we find him in his Writings often resenting the Evils which befel the World, Himself, or his Relations. So Antoninus Sirnamed the Philosopher, shed Tears upon occasion of a Friend's Death; and his Father Antoninus Pius (for he was his Son by Adoption) excused him, saying, Permit him to be a Man. Arian••s ‖ 1.285 prosessedly declares against that Apathy which takes away Natural Affection.

It becomes a Man (saith he) not to be Sensless and

Immoveable, but to keep and preserve his Natural and Acquired Affections and Re∣lations, as a Father, a Son, a Brother, a Citizen.

The Affections are not to be Eradicated and Expelled, but the best way is‖ 1.286 to Change them and Turn about, and Fit them for our Purpose, and so make them Easy and Advantagious to us. Reason, and Nature, and Christianity approve of the Emotions of our Affections so far as they are Instrumental to Vertue, and are restrained within their Due Limits. The Passions are not wholly to be Rooted up, but to be Di∣verted; they are not to be Banished, but to be Curbed and kept under. These Gibeonites are not to be Kill'd, but to be made Service∣able, and kept in Obedience. Iesus wep•• over the Grave of his Friend, and thereby for ever Hallowed all Tears, and Consecrated all Natural and Humane Affections. It is certain that the Passions are of great use in Religion, and may be subservient to the noblest Ends and Purposes of it. Therefore our Apostle might justly enter his Caveat here against those Hard and Flinty Philosophers, who talk'd of an utter Dispassion, and would make Men to be Iron and Stones.

Thus I have acquainted you what were the Opinions and Practices of the Epicurean and Stoick Philosophers with whom St. Paul grappled. Thence you may guess what the Apostle and they disputed about, and thence you may gather likewise what the Apostle means when he warns the Christian Colossians

that they be not spoled through Philosophy and Vain Deceit. I will only make this Remark or Reflection in the Close, that these Epicu∣reans and Stoicks among the Pagans Answer to the Sadduces and Pharisees among the Iews. There is a Great Affinity between these two sorts of Antagonists. The Epicureans, like the Sadduces, placed all their Hopes in this Life, and therefore would be very Merry and Frolick: The Stoicks, like the Pharisees, were Demure, and great pretenders to Au∣sterity and Sublime Vertues, though they came but little short of the others in point of True Morality. And this indeed might be observed further, that when Men are not Masters of True and Solid Vertue, when they are not really Changed and Mended in their Minds, they pretend to greater things than usual, to make Men admire and applaud them, to be thought Singular Proficients in Religion: they pretend to do more than others, when they are Conscious to them∣selves that they do not so much. This is the very Guise of our Quak••rs, (those Modern Stoicks and Pharisees) they make as if they were exceeding great Observers of Morality, and had attain'd to a Higher and more Spiri∣tual way of Christianity than Others, yet these People, of all the Sects that we know, are the most Defective in Religion, and have run the farthest off from the Principles of Morality and Christianity.

I have hitherto shewed the Deceitful Opi∣nions which were peculiar and proper to those

particular Sects of Philosopers I have na∣med. Now in the next place, I will set before you those gross and mistaken Notions, which for the most part were common to them all. I will discover the Deceitfulness of the Pagan Philosophy, by instancing in some Principles and Practices which were not only maintained by the particular Sects above named, but also by all the rest of the Philo∣sophers. I will reduce them to these two Heads, 1. Their deceitful Opinions and Practices relating to some particular Vices and Vertues. 2. Their false Sentiments concern∣ing Happiness.

In pursuance of the first, I shall present you with their Pride, their Revenge, their Self-Murder, their Lewdeness, and other Mistakes in their Morals.

1. Pride was the Catholick Blemish, the general Stain of all the Philosophers: Yea, it seemed even to be congenial to them to be immoderately proud of their Attainments. There could not be a more visible Discovery of this than their desire of Applause and Acclamations. By their Subtilty and Sophi∣stry they thought to conciliate a great Fame and Honour, than which nothing was dearer to them, even when they seem'd to shun them. Excellently to this purpose Plutarch ob∣serves that the Author of that Saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, live retiredly and unknown, would not lie hid himself: He would be known by that Motto; whilst he affected an Obscurity, he reached at Fame.

Those that give such

Precepts (saith he)* 1.287 follow after Glory, and yet at the same time seem to turn away from it: Whilst they look full at it, they pretend to look another way. Some of them, even whilst they writ against Glory, ambitioned it.

Our own Philoso∣phers (saith Tully)† 1.288 set their Names to those Books which treat of despising of Glory. And the same Observation you meet with in Valerius Maximu••,

‖ 1.289 Glory is not despis••d▪ no not of those who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to introduce the Contem•••• of it; for we see they 〈…〉〈…〉 careful to affix their Names to their very Books that they put forth.

A P••ilosopher, saith Tertullian, is a* 1.290 vain glo∣rious Animal; and St▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith the very same of him, and addeth, that he is a† 1.291 Mercenary Slave of Applause. Tertullian, speaking of the Philosophers in another place, saith they were* 1.292 Traders for Fame, and this was the Commodity they were most eager to purchase. Another time he saith they † 1.293 were Men that lusted after Glory, and made Fame their Mistress. This was the noted Badg of the best of them, to hunt after Glo∣ry with too great an Impatience; and they would do any base and servile thing to get a

Name. We may truly say of them that they lived upon Applause; and if Fame did not trumpet them, they could not breath. But to instance in the arrogant Humour of those who were thought the modestest and most Self-denying Philosophers, viz. the Cynicks, their daily business was to decry the Pride of others. But whilst they did so, and profess'd to be Masters of the greatest Humility, they were the boldest and proudest Fellows ima∣ginable: Tho they were the greatest Censors of Pride, yet they were certainly most haugh∣ty, and under the very Garb of Humility there lurked an intolerable Arrogance. They were rudely clothed, to witness outwardly a Contempt of the World; but yet if a Man looked narrowly into them, he might ob∣serve they were very proud of what they wore, tho 'twas never so coarse. Their Beards and their sullen Looks, their affected Gestures and Grimaces were Ensigns not of their Gravity, but Singularity. This made them harden their Bodies against all Injuries of Weather, this made some of them beg of Statues, and provoke common Women to rail with them, which were Instances of Affectation, not Humility. Diogenes in a frosty Morning stood naked in the Market∣place, to shew (as he pretended) his Pati∣ence; it happened that Plato passed by at that time, and knowing his vain-glorious Humour, spoke to the People that came about him to leave him alone, and then my Cynick would soon retire, for he was buoyed up only by

the Peoples Applause. Diog••nes another time thought to be even with Plato for this, (for you must know th••y understood one another well enough, tho they deceived the People) and trampled upon a Neat Couch, or some such Trim Furniture which Plato had in his House, and cried out, I trample on Plato's Pride; to which Plato adjoyned, but with greater Pride. Thus they were conscious to themselves of the Dis••e••••er which they so much laboured under. As for the Academicks, who openly pro••e••••ed they knew nothing; it is too evident from their Carriage and wild Contrasts that they were conceited they had an Insight into all things; for those that undertake to dispute against every one, do thereby proclaim their Universal Knowledg. The supercilious Temper of the Stoicks I have partly given you an acco••nt of before, and I might here further do it by shewing you how they (above all Sects) delighted in high Strains and Paradoxes, which is an an Argument that their Philosophy was starch'd and formal, that it was more for Shew and Ostentation, than to cherish in Mens Minds sound and profitable Truths.

The Arrogant and Vain-glorious Spirit of the rest of the Philosophers, and of all the Men of Parts and Worth among the Gen∣tiles, is sufficiently obvious.—Volito vivus per ora virûm, is Ennius's Rant. D••mosthenes declared himself mightily pleased with what he heard from an Ordinary Woman, a Tankard∣bearer, as he passed by her, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

There goes the great Demosthenes, said she. And his Brother Orator and Philoso∣pher may seem to have been a great Aff••ctor of popular Glory, when* 1.294 he claimed Kindred with Servi••s T••llius, the sixth King of Rome; he calls him his Cousin meerly because he was his Name-sake, but he was nothing a-kin to him. The famous Pliny, who was a Philo∣sophical Man, and a grave Magistrate and Consul in Trajan's days, hath left a whole † 1.295 Epistle to tell the World that he was in∣finitely transported with Applause; particu∣larly (among other Instances which he there mentions) when one pointed at him, and said, That is Pliny, he professes he was never so well pleased in his Life. After these Grave Men 'tis no wonder to hear of Martial's

Sed toto l••gor orbe frequens, & dicitur Hic est.

And in another place, his

Ille ego sum nulli, &c.

And of Ovid's

Iam{que} opus ex••gi, &c.

And Horace his

Exegi monumentum aere perennius,

And his

—Monstror digito praeter••untium Romanae fidicen lyrae.

All which shew that they were tickled with Applause, and impatiently thirsted after Fame and Repute. But Christianity allows not of this, it permits us not to gasp insatiably after the Acclamations of Men. I do not say it is simply unlawful and against the Rules of Christianity to desire or accept of Honour and Praise; for 'tis certain that he who doth vertuously, cannot hate the Reward of doing so. But to look after these chiefly, and in the first place, and to make them the great End of our Actions, is altogether blamable and vitious. To love the Praise of Men more than the Praise of God; to do good Acts not for the Acts sake, but only for the Applause that follows them, is immoral as well as unchristian. Our chief End must be to contribute towards the Honour and Glory of God in the World, to be beneficial to Mankind, and to promote the design of our Master upon Earth. If whilst we are doing this, Repute and a Good Name accrue to us, it becomes us not to be averse to them, but to receive them as the due Attendant of Vertue; yea as that Re∣ward of it which God himself hath pleased to annex to it. Moreover, Christianity acquaints us that it is a sign of a mean and vulgar Spirit to act only out of a desire to be commended, and that it is truly noble and generous to despise the World, and to glory in the Cross, and to look for the Euge's of Angels, and the Applause of Heaven: This is a worthy Ambition. The Advice of our Apostle is, Let nothing be done through vain Glory: and

again, Be not desirous of vain Glory. Christia∣nity leads Men to a true Knowledg of them∣selves, and that is the only Spring of Humi∣lity, and of sober and becoming Thoughts. Whereas it is the nature of all other Know∣ledg (as the Apostle observes) to puff up them that are Possessors of it, to swell them into high Conceits of themselves. And this was the very case of the philosophizing Gen∣tiles, they grew big, and were ready to burst with this Tumour, or rather this Poison. Their Carriage was observed to be most absurdly proud and lo••ty: Fame and vain Glory principled all of them, and the ag∣grandizing their Names was the main thing they look'd after.

2. Their insatiable desire of Revenge, and their Aversness to forgive Injuries, was ano∣ther deceitful and unsound Principle that they had imbibed. Their very Philosophers too often spoke the Language of the Poet,

—No•• haec patiemur inulti?

Must we suffer such Affronts, must we undergo such Wrongs, and yet not revenge our selves? Vim vi repellere, was accounted good Morality: But it was held the Mark of a low Spirit to pass by Injuries and Wrongs.

It is a servile and slavish thing, when we are used contumeliously, to suffer it without making Returns.

* 1.296 This was the Sense of Aristotle. And that Tully, the great Master of Moral Offices, placeth not Forgiveness amongst

them, and that he reckons it not among na∣tural Dictates, Grotius† 1.297 will inform you in three or four Quotations out of that Philo∣sopher, tho certainly it is a Dictate of right and unbiass'd Reason. Nay, you will find that this famous Moralist‖ 1.298 reckons Revenge in the number of those things which belong to the Law of Nature. He doth but invite Persons to the commission of a new Offence, who passeth by an old one, was a* 1.299 Pagan Maxim. It was thought the best way to de∣fend themselves against Injuries for the fu∣ture, to take Revenge on those that were past. And hear what a great Moralist saith,† 1.300 Think it as base a thing to be out-done by thy Enemi••s in ill turns, as by thy Friends in good ones. I know this is not the constant Language of the Pagan Philosophers; they have better Apprehensions of this thing at other times, and speak very laudably. But you see how easily their Sentiments are altered and per∣verted, and to what corrupt Maxims their unstable Philosophy betray'd them. But Christianity on the contrary inculcates nothing more than Patience and Self-denial, and a free forgiving of Injuries. We are bid by Christ to‖ 1.301 forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven, i. e. to make it our constant and usual Practice to forgive Offences. We are enjoin'd by the Christian Morals to over∣come our Enemies with Patience, or (which is more heroical) by Obligations and Cour∣tesies.

* 1.302 When they hunger, we are bid to feed them, and when they thirst, to give them Drink; that by so doing we may heap Coals of Fire on their Heads; that we may, if it be possible, soften and melt them, tame and charm them by our Tenderness and Benevolence; that we may by the Flames of Charity in our own Breasts, kindle a resembling one in theirs. Our Master hath commanded us to† 1.303 forgive, that we may be forgiven; to pardon others, as we hope to find Pardon and Mercy at the Hands of our offended God. It is truly Christian to imitate Him, who makes his Sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth. Rain on the just and on the unjust; who lets the greatest Delin∣quents share in his Favour, and communicates his Mercies and Blessings to the vilest Sinners. In short, it is the excellent and generous Nature of Christianity, to forgive Offences when the Criminal acknowledges them: i•• is yet a greater degree and height of it to take no notice of them, where the Commu∣nity is not concerned, but to pass them by as not worth our observing: but the greatest and highest Glory of it, is to love our Ene∣mies, to pray for them that persecute us, to return Good for their Evil, and to be kind and obliging even to the worst of Men.

3. Self-Murder (which is a Notorious Af∣front and Injury to Humane Nature) was de∣fended by the Chiefest Philosophers of them all. They held that a Man need not ask Leave before he went out of the World, that when they saw themselves in Danger, they

might be as cruel to themselves as the Gods were, yea that it was Religious to dispatch that Life which the Gods were resolved to destroy. It was determined by the Stoicks, that a Man might Kill himself rather than en∣dure Servitude, Reproach, or Long and Grie∣vous Diseases: And this Cato defends, if Tully doth not belie him, as we have no rea∣son to think he doth. That Stoick it seems was a Severe Common-wealth's Man, and could not fit himself to the Turn of the Times. The Gods must give him a Reason why Caesar vanquish'd Pompey: and because they would not, he fell upon his own Sword, and dispatch'd himself. This the Great Ro∣man Philosopher approves of, and thinks it was not without God's Leave that he depar∣ted hence. He expresly saith,* 1.304 God gave him a just Occasion of dying, as he d••d Socrates: and he reckons him among those who are discharg'd and dismiss'd by God. Some others of the most Philosophical Men, either di∣rectly slew themselves, or were wilfully ac∣cessary to their own Deaths. Thus Lycurgus, the Great and Renowned Lawgiver of Sparta, pined himself to death; which Fact† 1.305 Plu∣tarch approves and applauds with a Jest, viz. that he made an end of himself by a total ab∣stinence from Meat, to teach his Country∣men Temperance.‖ 1.306 Cleombrotus a Platonist, having read Plato's Ph••do, where Socrates be∣ing about to die, discourses of the Immorta∣lity of the Soul, went and threw himself down headlong into the Sea. And other

Great Men of Morals, as Empedocles, De∣mosthenes, Anaxagoras, Chrysippus, yea and Ze∣no the Father of Stoicism, were Felons of themselves. Those who pretended to be great Despisers of Pains and Sufferings, ran away from them as soon as they felt the An∣guish of them. Observe it, the very Stoicks, who were such Unpassionate and Immove∣able Moralists, were for leaving the World before their Time. This they call'd With∣drawing themselves, and a fair Retiring out of the World. And the Famous Seneca, in no fewer than Four Epistles, maintains this Practice. In one of which he plainly tells us, (whatever he had said at other times concerning the Great Extremities which might put a Man upon killing himself) that* 1.307 his Wise Man need not stay till Extreme Necessity urgeth him to such a violent Action, but as soon as his Fortune begins to be suspected, as soon as he perceives there is some likelyhood of his being brought into ill Circumstances, he may prevent them all by going aside. He hath this leave given him by the Stoicks, as well as by the Platonists and other Philosophers.

But Reason and Christianity (and some of the Philosophers too in a better Mood) op∣pose it as a Rash and Foolish Attempt, nay as a vile and wicked Enterprize. It is an usurping on God's proper Right and Autho∣rity, who only hath Power to dispose of Man's Life. When God calls for our Lives, then we are to part with them submissively and willingly, but not before. In the mean

time we must entertain Poverty, Sickness, Disgrace, or whatever Crosses befal us, with invincible Patience and Resolution. We must not shamefully relinguish our Stations, and like imprudent Pilots quit the Guidance of the Vessel in the midst of a Storm. We must bear up undauntedly against the briskest Assaults, and resolve to grapple with all sorts of Hazards and Extremities. We must prepare our selves to look new Dangers in the face, and by the Divine Assistance make way through the thickest Troops of Opposition. When we are assaulted with Sufferings, we must not crouch and sneak, and fly like Cowards, but we must resolve to maintain our Post, and weather out our Miseries with a Courage becoming Christia∣nity. Be the Way we pass through rough or smooth, difficult or easy, 'tis the Divine Ap∣pointment, and God hath not made any Ca∣lamity insupportable; it may soon wear off of it self, however Time will take it away. But we must be careful that we do not by any means put an end to it by doing so to our Lives. This is a high Offence against God, against the Community (of which we are a part) and against our selves, and Humane Nature it self. This is a manifest token of base Fear and Cowardice, and Abjection of Mind; it argues unmanly Precipitancy and Unadvisedness, a distrust of Providence, a defect of Faith, and Hope, and Christian Courage, and even black Despair it self. But how brave and noble is it, after all our hard

Service to go off honourably, with the Com∣fort of having fought a good Fight, and fi∣nished our Course, and kept the Faith, and of having persevered in our Duty to the end, maugre all Discouragements and Hardships? This is true Christian Philosophy.

4. Lewdness, i. e. Immodest and Obscene Speeches, Ribaldry and loose Talk, with Lascivious Gesture and Behaviour, with Lewd and Filthy Practice, were countenanced by the greatest Pretenders to Deep Notions and Morality; yea, and were not thought contrary to the Principles of Philosophy. As for the Stoicks, they professedly held that there is no Obscenity in Words. And Chry∣sippus more particularly is named by Sextus Empiricus as the chief Assertor of this: Chry∣sippus, who was the very Prop and Buttress of the Stoicks Porch (as Tully tells us) was a Great Defender of this Opinion, and propagated it among his Disciples. They were wont (as the same Author saith)* 1.308 to call every thing by its Name, hereby excusing and pallia∣ting their Obscenity; and he seems to take their part,† 1.309 calling this Lewdness of Speech Libertatem loquendi, a Liberty of speaking. From tolerating of Obscene Words they pro∣ceeded to license the Lewdest Actions, and there∣in were justified by the concurrent Practice of other Philosophers. He that rifles Plato's Politicks, shall find that Plurality of Wives, and even a Community of Women are allowed by him. The wisest Philosopher shews him∣self here most absurd, for thus he argueth:

‖ 1.310 Because all things in a Common-wealth are to relate to the Common Good and Publick Advantage, therefore to have all things in common doth so, yea, to have the promiscu∣ous use of Women. We are* 1.311 told that Diogenes, Zeno and Chrysippus (topping Men a∣mong their Parties) were of the same Mind. Adultery was allowed† 1.312 the Lacedemònians by the sober Lycurgus. Common Whores were permitted‖ 1.313 to the Athenians by the wise Solon. We are told that the Cynicks blush'd not to act openly the most uncomely and lewd things.

Yea, Sodomy was approved of and practi∣sed by the greatest Pretenders to Wisdom among the Pagans.* 1.314 Orpheus, who was the Head and Prince of them all, taught the Thra∣cians this: and Socrates is taxed of this unnatural Vice, not only by Iuvenal and others in Railery, but by Authors of Great Gravity and Good Cre∣dit, as Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Minutius Felix,† 1.315 Tertullian,‖ 1.316 Athenaeus. I know some are inclined to think that this Charge against Socrates is a Slander, and that he was clear and innocent as to this matter, and that these Au∣thors were too rash in borrowing such a Report from some Poets and light Heads. And truly I am not averse to think so too, since I have made some Enquiry into the Business. I conceive this may be given as the fairest and truest Account of this B••ave Man, that he was taken with the Society of ingenious

and sweet-natur'd Young Men. Their In∣tellectual Beauty was that which was cour∣ted and loved by him; and this is that Man∣ly Beauty which some of his Dialogues (as Philaebus and Phaedo) commend. He having made choice of the Spritliest Youths he could meet with, took great Pains with them to ripen and improve those Seeds of Vertue which he saw in them, and to fit them for the Service of their Country. Among many o∣thers, an Example of this was Alcibiades, a Young Nobleman of Athens, who was shaped and formed in his Manners by this Philoso∣pher, and owed the Excellent Conduct of his whole Life to the Early Instructions of so wise a Master. Hence some took occasion to tax him as guilty of Unnatural Lust to∣ward this and other Young Men, and of corrupting (in the worst sense that can be thought) the Youth of Athens. Some were conscious to themselves of their own Guilt, and knew that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the Vice of the Country; and therefore concluded Socrates to be like themselves, and that he made no other use of Young Mens Company than they did. Aristophanes was the Chief Man that set this on foot, who wrote his Comedy called the Clouds, only to abuse Socrates: You must know then (as the True Ground of this) that Socrates inveighed against the So∣phists and Mock-Philosophers of that Age, Men who had nothing in them of True and Sober Philosophy, but were a Disgrace and Reproach to it. Hereupon these Men got

him jeared by Aristophanes in that Play of his before-named. Besides, Socrates had disob∣liged all the Poetick Tribe by that part of the Model of his Common-wealth, wherein he would have all Poets banished: Whence it is no wonder that the Poets were set against him. Indeed they were these who had the greatest hand in the Impeachment of Socrates, especially the Comedians, because Socrates had a more particular Dislike of the Comick Poetry: for he being grave and composed, disrelished that Light Humour of the Stage, which was Vain and Drolling, but at that time most taking. Yea, Socrates was sometimes present at, and applauded the Tragedies of Euripides, but would not honour with his Presence Aristophanes's Comedies. Whereupon this Poet-Laureat of that Age conceived a Dis∣pleasure against the Philosopher, and seeing he would not approve of the Comick Way, he must fall under its Lash, to make the People Sport. Now Socrates is every-where laugh'd at; now Virulent Tongues say any thing of him; now they report he used the Company of Young Men to Vicious and Lewd Purposes. But that would not suffice; a Formal Indictment was drawn up against him. The Poets take to them Melitus and Anytus, and other Conspirators, who, be∣cause out of Extream Hatred to the Philo∣sopher, they sought his Death; insisted not much on the former Accusation, as not Cri∣minal enough, but accused him for perver∣ting the Laws, by introducing new Gods and

a New Religion. If you look into the* 1.317 Story, you will find that Socrates had the Honour to be impeached upon the same Athenian Law that St.† 1.318 Paul was when he was convented before the Areopagites, viz. that the Ancient Gods were to be wor∣shipped, and no new ones to be introduced contrary to the Custom of the Country. It was the break∣ing of this Law which procured his Death; he had discovered the Unreasonableness of the Pagan Idolatry, and the Shameful Deities which were set up among the Athenians. This proved fatal to him, though to make him doubly guilty, they inserted the‖ 1.319 Accusation before-mentioned, which no Man believed, who knew either Socrates, or his Enemies Ma∣lice. It was this which at last bereaved him of his Life, after they had robb'd him of his good Name by fixing the Crime of Unnatural Lust upon him.

But tho Socrates for the Reasons above alledged, may be thought not to be guilty of that Foul Vice, yet some other Philosophers of Great Name cannot be so cleared. I am loth to think that Plato was one of that num∣ber, but Diogenes Laertius saith he was, and that he disguised this Vice, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristotle, the Prince of the Peripateticks, was guilty, saith Athe∣naeus, so was Zeno the Father of the Stoicks, who, as both Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius testify, had a Male Sweet-heart whose Name

was Cremonides: And this was so frequent a∣mong the Philosophers, that* 1.320 L••cian would have this Love of Boys left wholly to that sort of Men. But Graver Authors may be alledged (besides those already mentioned) as † 1.321 Sextus Empiricus, who proves that this Fil∣thy Practice was look'd upon as a thing law∣ful, at least indifferent, among the Men of the greatest Philosophy. Theodoret‖ 1.322 saith it was approved of by Lycurgus's Laws: tho I know some are of Opinion that Sparta was not stained with this Foul Enormity. But the Truth is this, there was at one time a Law* 1.323 against this Lewd Practice, but this was soon abrogated by common Consent. Thus there was a Time when there was a Law† 1.324 at Athens against prostituting of Boys if they were free, and against hiring them to filthy Purposes. But it is not to be doubted that the Athenians afterwards (as well as before) were generally guilty in this kind, and the Law of that place allowed it. This is ex∣presly testified by Plutarch, who was well ac∣quainted with the Laws and Constitutions of that Country. He‖ 1.325 reports that Solon, their Great Lawgiver, tolerated by Law that Unnatural kind of Lust, that he indulged it to all but Slaves; as much as to say, it was fit only for Free-Men, and those of Quality. Yea, this Plutarch himself (as Grave an Au∣thor as he is, and fam'd for his Moral Wri∣tings)

hath writ shamefully* 1.326 on this Sub∣ject. And in his Piece of the Education of Children, he seems to allow of it in Plato and other Philosophers. Other Credible Au∣thors vouch this† 1.327 for a known Truth, that the Laws of most Cities in Greece did not sup∣press that Libidinous Usage. And St. Paul's Testimony may be added to all these, in Rom. 1. 27. The Men, leaving the natural use of the Woman, burned in their Lust one toward another, Men with Men, working that which is unseemly. Which words are meant of that Filthy and Preposterous Lust, and are spoken of the Wise Men and Philosophers among the Pa∣gans: which is a farther Proof and Confir∣mation of this Head of my Discourse, that the Gentile Philosophy patroniz'd Obsceni∣ty and Lewdness, and even Unnatural Acts of Lusts. Thus I am glad I have rid my Hands of this Ill Subject, which yet it was requisite to stay a while upon in pursu••nce of my Undertaking on these Words, which was to shew the Corruption of the Pagan Philosophy, together with that of Philoso∣phical Men. And you see the Apostle him∣self thought fit to make particular mention of this flagitious Usage among them, and at the same time to reprove and condemn it, as he doth likewise in 1 Cor. 6. 9. For our most Holy Religion forbids even the least Tendencies to Lewdness, and the least Indi∣cations of it;‖ 1.328 In••rdinate Affection, Evil Con∣cupiscence,

Lascivious Thoughts and Desires are criminal by the Evangelical Laws. We are ascertain'd by our Saviour himself, that an Unchaste Eye, a* 1.329 Lustful Look is Adulte∣ry. All Words and Speeches that savour of Lust, all† 1.330 Corrupt Communications and Discourse are condemned by the Apostle. And the same Inspired Writer, who knew very well what was Vice, and what was Vertue, and who fully understood the nature of the Christian Religion, and what it allows, and what it forbids, strictly commands us that we‖ 1.331 abstain from fleshly Lusts, that we * 1.332 make not Provision for the Flesh, to fulfil the Lusts thereof; that† 1.333 we flee Fornication; assu∣ring us of the Everlasting Penalty which is to be awarded against those that act con∣trary to these Prohibitions;‖ 1.334 Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg. Those Wanton and Lascivious Flames shall certainly end in those that are Eternal.

I might proceed, and instance in other Allowances incorporated into the Body of those Morals which are left us by Phi∣losophers, as the destroying of the Child in the Mother's Womb (if it be safe and possible for her) when she thinks she hath had a full and sufficient number of Children; this you will find suggested by* 1.335 Aristotle. And the exposing of Children is another Allow∣ance. Plato would have this done when∣ever Parents have exceeded the Bounds of getting Children, and when they grow too numerous. Aristotle is of Opinion

† 1.336 that a Child which is lame or blind, or any ways deform'd, may be cast out, and without Pity or Care exposed to the wide World: And he saith it would be well if there were a Law to forbid the bringing up of Children that are any way maimed and imperfect. Thus two of the greatest Philosophers that ever were, taught People to be cruel to the Fruit of their own Loins, to be brutish and unnatu∣ral to their own Flesh (nay, the worst of Brutes are seldom found to do so). The Practice of the Pagans was according to this Doctrine, as several Writers inform us. Thus Philo‖ 1.337 the Jew tells us, That exposing of Infants was usually among many Nations. Herodotus relates* 1.338 that the Parents in some Countries were not bound to bring up their Children if they did not like it. The Indian Brachmans, tho great Pretenders to Philoso∣phy, cast off their Children if they did not like their Humours and Conditions. It was lawful according to the Athenian Laws† 1.339, for Parents to expose their new-born Infants, to cast them out of the Family, and to deny them Food. Hence among the Greeks and Latin Comedians,‖ 1.340 when they represent the Manners of the Athenians, the exposing of Infants is commonly brought in. This Custom hath spread it self into many Regions of the World, insomuch that the People of Madagascar throw off, and never have to do with any of their Children that are born on

a Friday. Nay, this exposing was heretofore accompanied with downright Murder; for the Lacedemonians had an Unnatural Custom (and it was by the Decree of Lycurgus)* 1.341 that if Children were deform'd and unhealth∣ful, they should be cast into a deep Cavern of the Earth near the Mountain Taygetus. This People (who were the Civilest of all Greece) erected an Office on purpose for this; they appointed so many Searchers, whose business it was to examine every Infant as soon as it was born, to see its Limbs, whe∣ther they are strong and firm, to make In∣spection into the several Parts, and to satisfy themselves whether there was any Lameness, Blindness, or any other Deformity. If there was, they presently ordered them to be thrown into the Barathrum before-mentioned; or else those Children that were at a very great distance from that place, were to be carried and left in Woods, or exposed on Rivers in Baskets, and so to be left to the Providence of Heaven. And Plutarch who relateth this, approves of this their mu••de••ing their In∣fants; for he saith (in the close of their Constitutions and Laws which he sets down) that he doth not see any thing amiss in them. I could observe to you also, that Theft was approved of by that wise Lawgiver Lycurg••s, who allowed it to the Spartans on condition they could keep it close. It was tolerated (saith the fore-named Author) yea† 1.342 en∣joined by the Law to Steal, but it was looked on as a base and dishonest thing to be found

guilty of it: The being taken was criminal, the not stealing cunningly was the thing that was faulty. Lastly, Lying had the Approba∣tion of the Chief Philosopher among the Pagans. It is lawful to Lie for the Good of the Common-wealth, saith Socrates, as he is quoted by his Scholar* 1.343 Plato. Thus you see what were the Corrupt Ethicks of the Heathen World: for tho many of these things which I have mentioned are repug∣nant to True Philosophy, yet being maintain'd, and sometimes practised by the Masters of Philosophy, they are justly reckoned among the Deceits of Philosophy. However, if these latter Instances be not so home to the pur∣pose, it is certain that no Man can pronounce so concerning the others before-mentioned, which were some of the chief Ingredients and Principles of the Gentile Philosophy.

But tho I have given you this Large Ac∣count of their Mistakes in Morality, yet I will pursue this Matter a little farther, and (according to what I propounded) shew you in the next place, that the Philosophy the Apo∣stle speaks of was Deceitful, in that it was grosly mistaken about the Happiness of Man. It was mistaken, and consequently deceived Men as to this Grand Point. 1. By not assu∣ring them of a Future Life. 2. By giving no notice of the Eternal Duration of it. 3. By not determining wherein True Hap∣piness consists. 4. By not directing them to the Right Way to it.

1. It deceived them by not assuring them

of a Future Life. The Future Existence of the Soul (tho it was a Notion dictated by the Light of Nature and Reason, and some∣times positively and plainly asserted by some of the Philosophers, yet it) was disputed and doubted of among them at other times by reason of false Principles which they had wilfully taken up, and thereby clouded their Reasons and the Natural Dictates of their Minds, as also because of Interest and Sensual Pleasure which stifled the Rational Actings of their Souls. Upon these ac∣counts a Future State was hardly believed by some of the Philsophers, and wholly opposed by others. The Epicureans (as you have heard) flatly denied it: And it is no won∣der, seeing their Language was after this rate,* 1.344 We can have no Notion of an Incorporeal Thing, unless it be a Vacuum:† 1.345 They therefore that say the Soul is In∣corporeal, talk vainly and idlely. ‖ 1.346 Plutarch attests that Democritus held the Soul to be corruptible, and that it perished together with the Body. It is true, the Pythagor••ans and Platonists asser∣ted that the Soul went on Pilgrimage, and flitted from one Man to another: Yea, they held, that Mens Souls passed into Brutes as well as into other Men; and he that was a Man a while ago, is now an Ass, a Wolf, a Dog, or some other Animal: But this is vain Philosophy indeed, and all that we can build upon it (if it were true) is this, That

the same Man is often begot, and as often born, and dieth: Indeed Plato* 1.347 brings in Socrates before his Death, treating of the Immortality of the Soul; he makes him speak some things that are Admirable, Excellent, and Divine, but other things are Poor, Mean and Frigid; he presents him as du∣bious and uncertain, wavering, and incon∣sistent with himself. That Socrates doubted of a Future State and the Soul's Immortality, may be gathered from that Passage of his, which Plato inserts,† 1.348 If these things we speak of be true. Again, Socrates saith,‖ 1.349 One of these two is absolutely necessary, either Death ut∣terly deprives us of all Sense, or we pass from hence to another place. It seems he looked upon Death either as a Sound Sleep, or a Long Journey, but he could not certainly tell which. Plutarch* 1.350 had this very Noti∣on of it, and on that account concludes that Death is not Evil. After this wavering manner speaks the Great Ro∣man Philosopher,† 1.351

If the day of Death be accompa∣nied with the Change of Place only, and not an ut∣ter Extinction, What can be more desirable than Death? Or, if it makes an end of us, and quite annihilates us, What is better than when we are wearied with the Labours of this Life, to fall asleep, and never to wake again?

In like manner

Seneca,‖ 1.352

Death doth either consume, or sends us out of this World into another: if the latter be true, there are better things remain for us when we are sent out hence, and have laid aside our Terrestrial Clog and Burden; but if the former be true, then there is nothing remaining for us, being utterly consumed, and consequently no Hurt can befal us; that is our Comfort.

Again, he thus faintly and am∣biguously talks,* 1.353 Perhaps if the Report of Wise Men be true, and if there be any such thing as a place hereafter to receive us, &c. Thus Antonine (the Royal Philosopher) can∣not tell whether Death be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Extinction, or a Translation; whe∣ther it be an Annihilation, or a Change of our Condition. And many † 1.354 others have thus expressed their Doubtfulness about ano∣ther Life. But most remarka∣ble is that Passage of Xenophon in the Life of Cyrus, whom that Wise Historian represents as a Great Hero, and Singular Pattern of Vertue. We must expect therefore that he will make him speak like a Brave Prince, furnished with true and sound Notions of things. He tells us that this Great Man lying on his Death-bed, and having certain Presages of his approaching Departure out of the World, commanded his Courtiers to come to him,

and called his Sons and Friends together, and spoke to them to this pur∣pose, ‖ 1.355

You ought not to think you know certainly that I shall be nothing after I cease to live here. For let me tell you, the Soul whilst it is in this Mortal Body, doth not live, tho it gives Life to the Body; but when it leaves the Body, then it proper∣ly lives, then it acts, and is truly knowing and wise. The Tortures and Punishments inflicted on Murderers by Souls thrust out of their Bodies, and the Honour and Re∣wards of Good and Innocent Minds, prove that Souls still subsist. When Man is dis∣solved, it is not probable that all things belonging to him go to their particular Kind except the Soul only. You may ob∣serve that nothing is more like Death than Sleep: but even in Sleep the Soul disco∣vers its Divinity, and never more than then, for it hath a prospect of things to come, the Soul being at that time more free than ever. If these things be so, reverence my Soul when I am dead, and do according to my Commands. But if these things be not so, but the Soul perisheth with the Body, yet reverence the Gods who are Immortal. And a little after, he saith, Call all the Persians and my Fellow-Soul∣diers to my Funerals, that they may con∣gratulate with me* 1.356 that I am got to a sa••e Place and State, wherein no Evil can befal

me, whether it shall be my lot to be with God, or whether to be reduced to nothing.

A fair Speech indeed! This was the faint Result of all the Knowledg which his Wise Tutor could let him have of another State. He had not determined whether after Death he should be taken to the Gods, or be anni∣hilated. Thus Philosophy, as it was corrupted and depraved, was unsteady and doubtful about a Future Life and Happiness. Much less,

2. Had they any notice of the Eternal Duration of them. Those of them who held that the Soul was long-lived, had no firm Apprehension of its being Immortal. But especially the Stoicks failed here; Zeno, the Master of that Sect,† 1.357 expresly asserted that the Soul remains a••ter Death, but at length is corrupted. The Generality of this Sect went so far as to say, the Soul survives the Body a good while. But if you ask, How long? They tell you 'tis only till the Confla∣gration of the World. Yet here they were divided, for there were some among them who held, that the weaker sort of Souls (viz. of the unlearned) perish with the Bo∣dy; but the stronger ones (viz. of Wise Men) hold out till the Conflagration. And with this agrees that Account which‖ 1.358 Cicero gives of them; and Seneca relates the very same of this Sect of Philosophers. But the certain Knowledg and Assurance of the End∣less Duration of Souls, and the Eternal Reward of Vertue, is the Purchase only of Christ's

Appearing, who hath brought Life and Immor∣tality, i. e. Immortal Life, to light by the Gospel. There was but a faint shadow of it before; the Discoveries were dark and obscure, but by the arising of the Sun of Righteousness, this Darkness is dispelled, and we have gain'd a clear Manifestation of the Everlasting Subsistence of our Spirits in another World. For Christ Jesus, whose Soul was of the same nature with ours, commended his into God's Hands, and so did the Holy Martyr St. Ste∣phen in imitation of Him; which assures us that the Souls of the Righteous are taken into God's Custody at their departure out of the Body. This, together with the Resurrecti∣on of▪ our Saviour and his ascending into Hea∣ven, gives us an absolute Assurance and De∣monstration of our rising again, and living immortally in another World.

3. Their Philosophy proved Deceitful in not determining wherein the True Happiness of Man consisteth. The Different Notions of the di∣verse Schools of Philosophy about the Chief Good, proclaim aloud that they only guessed at it, and were not able to tell wherein it was plac'd. Their Mistakes were never so numerous and (which is worse) so dangerous as here. It is of infinite Consequence to understand what is the Chief Felicity of Man, what is the perfect State of Bliss, what is the Principal and Last End of Man, wherein there remains nothing further to be desired. Now, He only can acquaint us with our True Happiness who is the Author of it, the

Lord of Bliss and Glory, who purchased Im∣mortal Life for us, and is Himself the True, Soveraign, Chief Good, the Ultimate Ob∣ject of our Wishes and Desires, Studies and Endeavours, the only Rest and Center of our Minds. This is Life Eternal to know, and in knowing to enjoy the only True God, and Iesus Christ whom he hath sent. It is the Utmost Happiness of Man to have, in the discharge of his proper Duty, the Favour of God, to know and love him, and to be loved of him. This is the highest Felicity our Nature is ca∣pable of, and it is no where fully discovered but in the Holy Scriptures.

4. Philosophy was mistaken, and thereby proved Deceitful in not discovering the True Certain Way to this Happiness. And indeed how could it? It was impossible for the Phi∣losophers to know how to regain the Favour of Heaven whilst they understood not how they lost it. They could not come to the full understanding of the true Cause of the Degenerate Condition of Mankind. Whence should they know that Man was at first created pure and holy, spotless and innocent, able to serve God with an unwearied Obe∣dience, and that he voluntarily abused his Power and Freedom, and disobeyed the Command of his Maker, and so by an Act of his own Will apostatized from God, and plunged himself into unspeakable Misery? They could not reach this by their Natural Light and Moral Reason. The most Philo∣sophical and Inquisitive Brains, tho they have

made some guesses about the Corruption of Mankind, were not able to arrive to a clear account of this matter. They were appre∣hensive that Nature was vitiated; they per∣ceived a strange Disorder, a horrible Shatter, but they were ignorant of the Original Spring and Source of it. And thus not knowing the Cause of Human Corruption and Depravation, it is no wonder that they light not on the Right Remedy of them. In the Gospel alone is set forth the Way for the recovery of lapsed and degenerate Souls; here is discovered the certain Method of ob∣taining the Pardon of our Sins, and the Assu∣rance of God's Favour, and our Everlasting Welfare. The Contrivance of Man's Re∣demption by the Blood of Jesus was too high a Flight for the most improved Reason, and Light of Nature. And when it was re∣vealed to some of the most knowing Pagans, they were loth to truckle to so low and mean a Dispensation as the Gospel, which teacheth us to trust and rely upon another's Merits. They all agreed in this,* 1.359 that there is this one good thing which is the Cause and Foundation of Happiness, viz. a Man's trusting to himself, and resting upon what he can do by his own Power. These lofty Sons of Reason counted it absurd to be beholden to another's Undertakings for their Felicity; especially it sounded as the most ridiculous thing ever heard of, to hope for Life and Happiness by the Death of another. St. Augustin's Com∣plaint of Tully's Works may be the ••ust Im∣peachment

of all the voluminous Discourses of Philosophers, that the Name of Christ is not to be found there. There is nothing in them of the exalted Morals of our Great and Perfect Lawgiver, of the great Mystery of Godliness manifested by a Redeemer, and of the Knowledg of Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Yea, in the account which the Philosophers give of the ordinary Moral Vertues and Vices, they are very wavering and uncertain. He that is acquainted with the Writings of the Chief Moralists among them, knows that they frequently confute themselves: their way is to set up their Wise Man, and then soon after to pull him down; which made an understanding Person declare that the Stoicks Wise Man† 1.360 is no where to be found upon Earth; yea, and that he never was in being. He is a Chimera, a Fiction, made up wholly of Paradoxes, Riddles and Impossibilities; so that there is nothing real in their Description of him but their Pride and Conceit. The false and erroneous Con∣ceptions which these and other Moralists had concerning Vertue and Vice, we have in se∣veral Particulars laid open in the preceding part of this Discourse; and it is that which ‖ 1.361 Lactantius long ago hath very largely proved, viz. that the Philosophers mistook Vertue for Vice, and Vice for Vertue. I remem∣ber the excellent* 1.362 Des Cartes compares the Moral Writings of the Heathens to Splendid and Magnificent Palaces built upon Mud and Sand. They extol, saith he, Vertue to the Skies,

and prefer it before all other things, but do not sufficiently explain to us the True Na∣ture of it, or lay the ground of it right: nay, oftentimes that which is called Vertue by them, ought rather to be stiled Vice. Now, these ill Foundations cannot but be followed with as bad Superstructures; and both of them will promote vitious Practices in Mens Lives. So that upon this account we might conclude the Pagan Philosophers were very de∣fective in shewing the way to Happiness; for how could they do this, so long as they were not able to build Men up in True Godliness, and to make them really better?

But their greatest Blemish was that which I have already mentioned, viz. their Ignorance of the way of Life and Salvation by Iesus Christ. They knew not that there is no other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby they must be saved. They understood not that in the great and universal Deluge of Man∣kind, this is the only Ark we can be safe in. They were unacquainted with the Mystery of Faith and Justification, and the absolute ne∣cessity of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, and other such Divine and Saving Truths, the Discovery of which is peculiar to the Christi∣an Religion, which is the only true Philosophy. For this Name you may observe it bears in the Writings of the Antient Fathers: Thus Iustin Martyr, speaking of the Christian In∣stitution, hath these words concerning it,

† 1.363 Philosophy truly is the greatest Good and most acceptable to God, it being that

alone which leads us and commends us to him: and they are really holy, who apply their Minds to this Philosophy.

And he tells us that he found this to be‖ 1.364 the only certain and useful Philosophy. So the Barbarous Philosophy with Clemens Alexandrinus, is the Christian Religion, or the New Testament composed by those whom the Greeks stiled Barbarians. This according to Isidore is* 1.365 the New and Evangelical Philosophy; and some∣times it is called by him the† 1.366 Heavenly Philosophy. And in several other Fathers this is the word for Christianity; and the Doctors and Eminent Professors of the Christian Church are stiled‖ 1.367 Philosophers, in opposition without doubt to those among the Pagans who boasted of this Title.

Thus I have attempted to shew how the Apostle's words are to be understood; I have let you see what those things are which were blameable in the Greek Philosophy, and why the Apostle cautions against it. I have par∣ticularly discovered how this Philosophy was abused of old, and thereby became most prejudicial to Christianity, and how the Pro∣fessors of it did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the word here used) forcibly carry away, and make a Prey and Booty of too great a part of the World by it. Whence it is that the Apostle here couples Philosophy and Vain-Deceit to∣gether.

A Discourse on 1 S. Iohn Ch. 3. v. 8.

—For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might de∣stroy the Works of the Devil.

Wherein is shewed what the Works of the Devil are.

I Will enquire into these words, not that they contain any Difficulty in them, but because I would lay open the full and compleat Meaning of them: for though I grant that by the Devil's Works is in the gene∣ral meant all Sin and Vice, (as is evident from the foregoing Verse, He that committeth Sin is of the Devil) yet I conceive there is something more Particular intended here by these words. Some Particular Works are to be understood, wherein the Power, Subtilty, or Malice of that Evil Spirit are more signal∣ly exerted, and therefore are Emphatically here call'd the Works of the Devil. And this is that which I now design to offer; and I

will be the larger in insisting on it, because it is of very Great Moment, and is not like some other Subjects which I have treated of be∣fore, (that are Controversial and Disputa∣ble) and likewise because I see this is not ta∣ken notice of by Commentators.

First, Superstition is a remarkable Work of the Devil, and without doubt is meant here. This is a Reverencing and Adoring at a ven∣ture, as those Religionists at Athens did, who erected an Altar to an Vnknown God: It is a yielding of unreasonable and groundless Ho∣mage, and (to define it more generally) it is attributing in a religious way, more than is due to Things or Persons. It is in this large sense, a vain and groundless Fear where no Fear (i. e. no true cause of Fear) is. And on the other hand, it is a fond and unwar∣rantable Expectation of those things from created Beings which they cannot afford us, and which they were never designed for. The Evil Spirit took care to employ the Minds of Pagans about these Matters, that he might thereby divert them from Objects of a better Nature, and take off their Thoughts from True Religion, and the Di∣vine Author of it, and that he might hold them in a constant dependance on himself, whilst he perswaded them that these Foolish Fears and Hopes should be of singular use and advantage to them. Hence of Old they had their Lucky and Vnlucky Days, on which they made superstitious and fond Remarks. The Observer of Times mentioned by Moses,

Deut. 18. 10. and join'd with him that useth Divination was, I conceive, of this sort: his proper Talent was to tell what Days were Fortunate and what Unfortunate, what Events should happen on such Seasons, and what on others, and which of them should be Successful. And thus R. David Kimchi un∣derstands the place. The Persians of old had this Notion of the distinction of Days, as ap∣pears from their casting Lot from Day to Day, and from Month to Month, (Esth. 3. 7.) when the Design was on foot of Massacring the Jews. They were sollicitous to enquire what Lucky Days and Months of the Year would happen to favour that Bloody Conspiracy. From those first Ages of the World, this Superstitious Practice was derived to the Greeks and Romans; the former of whom (as Hes••od, Pythagoras, and others acquaint us) were very Great Observers of Days, criti∣cally dividing them into Good and Bad ones, and calling one kind of them* 1.368 Mothers, and the other Stepdames. Hence we have Hesiod's Days, which he stiles so, because he treats there of the Difference of Days, some whereof are Good, others Bad, and a third sort of a middle Nature. And the latter (i. e. the Ro∣mans) outdid the ••recians in this vain Obser∣vation of Days, marking the Lucky ones (as they took them to be) with White Cha∣racters, and the Unlucky ones with Black, to signify the different Nature of them. They grew at last so observant of these Di∣stinct Times, that (as Macrobius and others

relate) they dared not keep Court, or engage in Battel, or so much as invite their Friends to Supper, or do any thing else in the course of their Lives, upon those Times which they had fondly mark'd out as Unfortunate.

To this were added many other Supersti∣tious Usages, as Ariolation, Omens, Auguries, and a vast number of other kinds of South-sayings and Divinations. A very remarkable and ancient Instance we have of these in King Nebuchadnezzar, who when he would be de∣termined whether he should go against the Iews or the Ammonites, and be prosperous in either Expedition, betook himself to the known and usual practice of Divination, (for they generally used before the Wars to divine about the Manner of it: they writ down the Names of the Countries or Cities which they designed to invade and make War against; and according as the Divination di∣rected them, they fell upon such a particular place):* 1.369 The King of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways to use Divination: he made his Arrows bright, he consulted with Images, he look'd in the Liver. Where we see that (according to what we read in Prophane Authors, who speak of the manner of Divination and Inchantment) he is careful of that Circumstance so much ob∣served by that sort of Men, viz. to chuse a place where two or three ways meet, and there to go about their Business, for they thought this was very advantageous to their Designs. Having thus made choice of a convenient Post,

he falls to the work of Divining; and that he may be sure to speed well, he uses three sorts of Divination, that by one of them at least (if the other two should fail) he might arrive to a fore-knowledg of the future Oc∣curence he was prying into. First, He made his Arrows bright: from whence some would gather, that the Chaldean Kings had a way of exercising their Magick Skill upon their Wea∣pons before they went out to Battel, to give them Edg and Force when they came to fight. But this is a gross Mistake, because this place in Ezekiel represents only the Chaldeans way of Divining, and therefore the Arrows are not mention'd here with any respect to the Battel, but only they are used in order to Divination: Which was thus, according to St. Ierom on the place; They put several Arrows into a Quiver written with the Names of those things which they consulted about, and that Arrow which was taken out first, was the Lot; and they determined by this which City to Be∣siege or Invade. Which comes near the Di∣vination in use among the* 1.370 Romans, by cer∣tain Letters and by Rods. But I rather think that the Chaldee Version affords us a better In∣terpretation, which renders that Clause thus, Iacet Sagittas, he casts, he throws, he shoots hi•• Arrows up into the Air, (where they are seen bright and glittering, and therefore are said to be made bright, which the other Account, gi∣ven by St. Ierom, takes no notice of) to see which way they would fall, and thence to know which way to lead his Army. This

I take to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by Nebu∣chadnezzar before he went out to War: He stood in bivio, at the parting of the two Ways, (as was the custom of Diviners) intently ob∣serving towards which of them the Arrows fell, that he might know thereby whether the Ammonites or the Iews were to be fought with good Success. This was the very same mode of Divination which was used by the Greeks and Romans, this was the very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the divining by a Rod or Staff, so fre∣quent, of old, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a large Word and Sign; a Rod of Iron or Steel, or Wood, or any such slender thing like a Wand, or Staff, or Arrow. The Iews (who at one time or other imitated all the Pagan Follies in the World) took up this Soothsaying, Their Staff declared unto them, Hos. 4. 12. i. e. they made use of this Rhabdomancy which was so frequent among the Pagans, and thereby they prognosticated concerning things to come. The Arabians of old (as Christophe∣rus à Castro tells us) consulted their Gods by Arrows or Staves: and (if I may be permit∣ted to offer my Conjecture) this practice a∣mong them and others was borrowed, either from the Egyptian Magicians Rods, Exod. 7. 12. or from the Rods mention'd Numb. 17. where the Israelites were commanded to write the Names of the Princes of their Tribes. The Gentiles it may be, in a fond imitation of this Ceremony, (which without doubt was grown famous, and spread abroad in the World) made use of Rods or Staves

in Divination. This I propound in way of Conjecture and Probability, it being unde∣niable that the Gentiles aped the Israelites in several things, as I shall have occasion at another time to make good in abundance of Instances, and those perhaps not hitherto ta∣ken notice of.

Secondly, He consulted with Images, or (as 'tis in the Hebrew) with Teraphim, so often spoken of in the Old Testament, which are no other than Images for Divination, to fore∣tel future Events. These were a sort of Ma∣gical Images (for you must know that Divi∣nation (of which I am now speaking) and Magick (of which afterwards) generally went together) used by the Gentiles; the Egyptians and Arabians especially, called by these latter Talisman* 1.371, made at a certain time when they knew such Stars and Con∣stellations were most active. The Diabolick Spirits entred at such a time into these Images, these Teraphim, and possessed them as they used to take possession of Humane Bodies, and by them and in them they spoke, and moved and acted, and did strange Feats, and gave Answers to those that enquired of them, so that they may be said to be the Devil's Oracles. These Images were very early in the World, if we may credit the† 1.372 Jewish Writers, who tell us that they were used by the profligate Sinners that lived about the time of the Flood, and afterwards by the Ba∣bel-builders. But this we are sure of, that these Magical Instruments were made use of

by the King of Babylon, and that they were con∣sulted by him in the way of Divination, under which Notion I have considered them at present.

Thirdly, He looked into the Liver, or the Heart, (for the word Cabed signifies both) and thence this sort of Augur is stiled Roeh baccabed by the Jewish Masters, an Inspector into those parts of Animals: whereby we are to understand that common kind of Divination used by all the Pagans, especially the Romans, (who perhaps had it from the Chaldeans) viz. the looking in∣to the Entrails of Beasts that were to be sacri∣ficed, and from that Critical Inspection, guessing at what should come to pass.

These were the three sorts of Divination which Nebuchadnezzar applied himself to upon so great an Emergency; and besides these, there was an incredible number more which the Pagan Nations (i. e. almost all the World) addicted themselves to. But indeed the Divination by the Fowls of the Air was of the greatest account, for it was believ'd by the Vul∣gar, that* 1.373 these were well ac∣quainted with the Gods, and knew their Minds better than other Creatures, by reason of their greater nearness to them. I will produce some particular Instances of this their Superstition, which consisted in Augu∣ries and Auspicies, i. e. (taking those words strictly) divining by Birds, foretelling by the flying, or sitting, or feeding, or by the Voi∣ces of these Creatures, things that should hap∣pen

afterwards. Thus* 1.374 Calchas from the number of Sparrows which he saw, foretold how many Years the Trojan War was to last. The Swallows that were seen by Darius when he was in his Expedition against the Scythians, were look'd upon as an Unlucky Auspice, and presaged his Death. Alexander the Great was assured by his Augur of a Victory be∣fore the Battel from the flight of an Eagle. † 1.375 Vectius (a famous Augur) from the Vultures that appeared to Romulus, gathered, that the Roman Empire should last twelve hundred Years.‖ 1.376 The crowing of Cocks was Au∣spicious, and presaged Victory to the Boetii against the Lacedemonians. So likewise The∣mistocles's Army were assured of Conquest by the fortunate Crowing of those Animals. But the fightings of Cocks, it seems, were an ill Omen, and* 1.377 foretold Seditions and Civil Wars. The Bees that were seen on the Al∣tar before the Fight at Pharsalia, were rec∣kon'd Unfortunate, and portended Pompey's fatal Overthrow. Several other Signs and Omens, Good and Bad (as they accounted them, and verily believed them to be) were frequent among the Heathens and they were strangely affrighted or encouraged by them, both in their Journeys, and at Home. Augu∣stus Caesar was a Great Observer of these, as a† 1.378 Credible Author informs us, and there∣fore I will mention one pretty Passage that concerns him:‖ 1.379 When he was upon his March to Actium, and prepar'd to engage the Enemy, there met him an Ass with the

Owner of it: the Name of the former (for it seems Asses had their Names then) was Nicon, which signified a Conqueror; and the latter's Name was Eutychus, the import of which was Fortunate. Hereupon the Empe∣ror took the Omen to be good, and promis'd himself Victory; and after the Victory he call'd the Place Nicopolis, and the Image of an Ass was set up in the Temple there in re∣membrance of the Happy Omen.

I might add that Sneezing was accounted a Sa∣cred Sign, and was call'd so by some of the* 1.380 best Pagan Writers, and that it was held one of the Greatest Omens (either for Good or Evil, ac∣cording to its Circumstances) by the genera∣lity of the deluded World. Thus forsooth Sneezing† 1.381 in the Morning was held Un∣lucky, but at Noon or afterwards it was thought to be of another Nature. If it was heard from the left hand, it was doom'd Un∣fortunate, but not so on the Right: where∣fore from this latter it was that Themistocles and Xenophon, two great Warriors, took their Omen of Success; the‖ 1.382 one was encouraged by it to fight the Enemy, the* 1.383 other was chosen Commander of the Army by it.

To speak more generally, viz. of the whole Set of Pagan Divinations and Augu∣ries, they were look'd upon as Certain and Undoubted Prognosticks of Future Occur∣rences. Whenever they busied themselves about the flight, and chattering, and the pecking of Birds, and made inquiry into the Intrails of slain Beasts, or used any other

way of Divining, they were so besotted as to think, that they could thence infallibly foretel Futurities. To which purpose there was a particular Office and College of Au∣gurs, who (though their Name be from one Species only) were skilful in the whole Art of Divination, and interpreted all the Signs of the Gods, as they call'd them. So great Reverence was paid to this Art, that* 1.384 nothing was done at Home or Abroad without it. The old Romans could nei∣ther create Magistrates, nor make Laws without the Pre∣sence and Approbation of the Augurs, as is clear from Tully's Books of Laws. Ave sinistrâ populi magister esto, was a Law of the Twelve Tables, by virtue of which all Offices and Places were disposed by Augury. Hence we are told that some† 1.385 Magistrates were reputed and stiled Greater, and some Lesser, because the one was created with Greater, and the other with Lesser Auguries. We read likewise that the Lacedemonian Kings admitted Augurs into their Councils, and constantly advised with them. Yea, among the Persians and Parthians of old, their Kings and Greatest Princes were skill'd in Augury, for they thought it was a neces∣sary Qualification of a King to Divine. The noblest and choicest Citizens of Rome, were preferr'd to this Priesthood, (for so it was sti∣led by them); of the Authority and Digni∣ty of which Tully discourseth in his Books of

Divination, and therefore in the beginning prefaceth to them in excuse of what he was to say, because he was an Augur himself. There he reckons up the several sorts of Di∣vination used by the Gentiles, some of which I have rehearsed here: And from the whole we may observe, (which is the thing design'd by me in mustering up these Pagan Follies) that Satan bore a great sway in the Minds of Men, and deluded them after a strange man∣ner, to that purpose making use of all sorts of Creatures (as well as the Serpent of old) to deceive Mankind. Satan, I say, did this, for I suppose the Conceit of those Persons who think he had no hand in these things, will be exploded by Considerate and Wise Men, who cannot but see how greatly his Cause is promoted by these Pagan Supersti∣tions. It is evident that whilst the Minds of the Gentiles were detain'd and busied with these gross Vanities, a Habit of Super∣stition was contracted, the Great Disposer and Over-ruler of all Occurrences and Events was forgotten, Divine Providence was ba∣nished out of the World, groundless Fears and Jealousies were created, and all the true and ••ound Principles of Religion were de∣stroyed. Whence it is reasonable to con∣clude, that the Hellish Damo••s had a hand in all this, and that from them these Auguries had their Original, (as* 1.386 St. Augustin long since determined); and, in a word, that these were the Noted and Signal Works of the Devil. He took care to have these spread

over the whole World, that his Dominion and Power might be thereby enlarged. Eve∣ry where it was the custom to consult their Gods, as they call'd it, i. e. in plainer and truer terms, to enquire of the Devil, by ap∣plying themselves to the Arts of Divination and Soothsaying. This is re∣presented by* 1.387 Xenophon as the general practice of the Pagan World; and so it is by† 1.388 Tully. In all Places (as hath been sug∣gested already) Auguries were used when-ever any thing of Consequence was to be under∣taken and done, that thereby they might know (as they fancied) whether it should prove Successful. And as for the rest of the Omens and Signs stiled Lucky and Unlucky; the use of them was as Catholick, and (which is worse yet) they were in esteem even among some Persons of no mean Un∣derstanding. Thus‖ 1.389 Plutarch, as serious a Man as he was, is of Opinion that there were really Good and Evil Auguries: And* 1.390 Pliny asserts (which is very strange, if we consider the Genius of the Man) such Divinations to be valid. And we shall find that Caras, Or∣pheus, Amphiaraus, Tiresias, Amphiction, Me∣lampus, and others, were the Great Authors and Promoters of all sorts of Omens among the Credulous Gentiles.

Yet we may take notice of this also, that the most Noble and Generous Spirits, though

not enlightned with Christianity, slighted these things, and look'd upon them as Delu∣sions. Thus we read how the Gallant Hector answer'd Polydamas, who was enclined to put off the Battel, because of some Ill Omen he had receiv'd from the Augurs; he plainly told him. That* 1.391 the only best Augury, and that which was of Divine Authority, was to fight va∣liantly for his Country. It was a memorable Speech of M. Varro, a most Wise Roman, who, perceiving the Errors and Forgeries of the Augurs Divinations, from their inspection into the Entrails of Beasts, freely said upon this Occasion, That the Gods were both Idle and Sordid, in lapping up their Counsels in the unsa∣vory Bowels of Brutes, to be raked out thence by the mad Priests. Eusebius relates out of Heca∣taeus, an old Greek Historian, that when one Mossolanus, (or as others, Mysonianus) a Great and Notable Captain under Alexander the Great, and Eminent for his Skill in discharg∣ing the Warlike Bow, advanced with the Army near the Red Sea; a Soothsayer bid him stop, and make an Halt: Whereupon the Captain made bold to ask him, What was the Matter? and why they were not suf∣fered to March? The Officious Augur pre∣sently pointed at a Bird on the Way, and told them, It was necessary to consult that Animal, and to see which way it would fly, that so they might follow her flight by march∣ing that way; or if she flew back, that they might return too. The Warrier being thus hindred on his March by the Augur's trifling

stay, to divine about the Success of the War by that Fowl that sat on the Way, silently drew his Bow and shot it dead upon the spot; and when he had done so, he uttered such words as these, How was it possible that silly Creature could read us our Fortune, when (you see) she could not foretel her own? How could that Animal which foresaw no∣thing of the Arrow, foretel us any thing of our Journey? If she had known Futurities, she had not come in the way to be kill'd by Mysonianus. And so he marched on, and we do not read that he was e're the less successful for this Attempt. In relation to this, I re∣member Q. Curtius, in the Life of Alexander the Great, condemns that Prince for his Va∣nity, in minding the Superstitious Observa∣tions and Omens of the Augurs. The Senti∣ment of Cato in this Matter is well known; It was a Wonder to him if one Soothsayer did not fall a laughing when he saw another, they being all of them such a Cheating Tribe, and designing purposely to abuse the People. Cicero, who was an Augur himself, and one of the chief of that Worshipful College, sometimes seriously con••utes the Follies of these Divinations, and at other times makes himself merry with them, and laughs at those fond Men who direct their Lives by the chat∣tering of a Crow, by the Entrails of a Sheep, by Oracles, by Dreams, by Lots, and by Fantastick Prodigies: This is the Task of that Great Wit, in his Second Book of Divi∣nation. Thus among the Wisest Men, the

Folly of Sooth-saying was despised and re∣jected, and the Augurs themselves were look'd upon no other than Impostors; and many of the other Pagan Superstitions be∣gan to be disesteemed and laid aside.

Now, if this was done by those that made free use of their Reasons and Judgments, it is no wonder that it was back'd by the Au∣thor of the Christian Religion, whose Design it was to rectify and improve those Faculties. We cannot but observe therefore, that what was hitherto said and done, was far short of what was afterwards effected towards the Time of our Saviour's Coming into the World. This Day-Star from on High, even before it actually visited us, and blessed our Horizon, darted such a Light into the World, that they were inabled to discern, tho in an imperfect manner, the gross Fooleries of that Superstitious Religion which was among them. And when the Glorious Light of a Saviour and Redeemer shined forth unto a perfect Day, when the Son of God manifested himself in the Flesh, then the dark and dismal Night of Superstition wholly vanished in many parts of the World, and the Follies which they once embraced, grew odious and abominable. And it is most certain that the Principles and Maxims of Christianity do eminently over∣throw the fond Surmises and frightful Obser∣vations of Superstitious Men. Nothing in∣deed could do it so effectually as the Gospel: for now under the Evangelical Oeconomy and Christian Dispensation, our Adoration

is confined and determined, and we know whom we Worship; and therefore the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Gentiles can have no footing here. And as for the Dread of Future Occurren∣ces, Christianity hath utterly removed it by the Right Apprehensions of things which it blesseth us with, and by teaching us to place Religion in that which is truly Religion. It effectually extirpates all Superstition, by sti∣fling the Principles of Enthusiasm and Fana∣ticism, by suppressing False Fears, and Chil∣dish and Groundless Terrors, by superseding all Fantastick Devotion, by putting an end to all Foolish Rites and Idle Ceremonies, all Superfluous and Needless Observances, which proceed from a Causless Timorousness in Re∣ligion, and from False Representations of God and his Worship. All this we owe to the Truth and Doctrine revealed by Iesus Christ: For though considerable Discoveries were made by some Wise and Serious Per∣sons among the Heathens, as well as Jews, yet this was nothing in comparison of what followed, when the Laws of Christ prevailed in the World. And particularly as for Di∣vinations and Sooth-sayings, (wherein a great part of the Gentile Religion consisted) as they were reckon'd to be Fanciful and Groundless things, and not founded on any True Reason and Bottom, even by some of the Pagans themselves, (as you have heard) so they are much more rejected, confuted and ba∣fled by Christianity which is our Reasonable Ser∣vice, and requires nothing of us but what is

just and accountable, and every way corre∣spondent to the Dictates of our Rational Na∣ture. This acquaints us, that all those Super∣stitious Omens are really what some of them were called by the Pagans themselves, Bruta Fulmina, Insignificant Flashes, meer Mormoes to fright Children and Fools, things that have no other Existence than Imagination, actua∣ted by the Devil the Author of Delusion, especially of all Superstitious Cheats, which Christ Iesus came to discover and destroy.

Secondly, It is reasonable to understand by the Works of the Devil, the Pagan Oracles which were so famous of old at Delphos, and in other parts of Greece, as the Trophonian Ora∣cles at Thebes and Lebadia, (both in Boeotia); and those other more remote ones in Lybia and Egypt, and other Countries, where were these Habitations of the Devils, those Dens of Satan, who loved to be enquired of and courted by the ignorant and besotted Pagans. I know there are some who think there was nothing of the Diabolical Spirit in these Ora∣cles, but that they were only for Gain. Cae∣lius Rhodiginus professeth himself to be of this Opinion; but yet before he ends the Chap∣ter (where he asserts it) he ingenuously con∣fesseth, That* 1.392 this Business was not altogether managed without some correspondence with and help from the Devil. And there is a* 1.393 Gentle∣man of late very much concern'd and moved, because we attribute it to him: The setting up of Oracles, saith he, was merely for the Interest

of the Priests, and that was all. They were a Iuggle to get Money and Repute, especially among the reat Men and Princes: Therefore he con∣cludes, That they are Superstitious Christians who think they were from the Devil. But who sees not the Vanity of such an Inference as this, as if the Oracles could not be from the Devil, and yet for the Priests Interest too? These are no ways inconsistent, and there∣fore whilst this Gentleman makes one exclude the other, he uses a Fallacy, but no Argu∣ment. I deny not but there was Interest in the case, yea, double Interest, that of the Devil, as well as the other of the Priests. I grant him that Oracles were a Iuggle, but a devilish one; and he must acknowledg the same, if he pleases to remember that there were sometimes such things foretold by them as could not possibly be foreseen and known by Humane Skill. But the Knowledg and Sagacity of the Evil Angels might reach them; because these Invisible and Active Spirits can fly up and down the World with infinite swiftness, and inform themselves of all Oc∣currences whatsoever, and are present at the most private Consults, and have learn'd, by long Experience and Observation, to dive in∣to the Designs of Men, and to see the very Disposition and Tendency of Causes before they begin to act: Besides that, they are al∣ways caballing together, and holding Cor∣respondence with one another, so that it is probable what one of them knows, the whole Herd of them is acquainted with, and

that in a few Moments time. Hence, hence it is that the Oracles spoke such shrewd things sometimes, which it is impossible to give an account of, unless we assert that this Office was set up and maintain'd by those Invisible Demons: for 'tis certain, that the most Cun∣ning and Subtilest Priest of them all could never have foretold those things. Again, there is ground to believe that these Ill Spi∣rits were Managers here, because we are as∣certain'd from those who describe the Man∣ner and Circumstances of the delivery of the Oracles, that there was something more than Man in it. The Place was fill'd with ama∣zing Noise and Horrour, loud Shrieks and Howlings were heard, and sometimes the Temples were torn with Thunder-claps; the Earth trembled and quaked, and so did the Priests: these now appeared with erected Hair, with distorted Eyes, with foaming Mouths, and unusual but frightful Voices; they beat and knock'd their Breasts with an Inhumane Fury; they raged and raved, and ran about like possessed Persons, as indeed they were. The Subterraneous Demons, whom they consulted and dealt with, put both the Earth and their Bodies into this Mo∣tion and Disorder. This looks like the truest Cause of them, and therefore we have good reason to assert, that those Pagan Priests were acted by those Evil Spirits, who generally brought them their Intelligence, and help'd them to give Answers. And this was done (if I may be permitted to offer my Conje∣cture)

in imitation of the Celebrated Oracle of Vrim and Thummim, and of the Divine In∣spirations and true Prophetick Spirit which the Holy Scripture speaks of: for 'tis certain that the Infernal Spirits did in many Particulars emulate the things and practices which were in use among the People of God the Jews, and which are recorded in the Sacred W••i∣tings.

From what hath been said, I think we may cross the Learned Gentleman's Assertion, and with Confidence, as well as Reason aver, That they are no Superstitious Christi••ns, who think the Pagan Oracles were from the Devil: For we find apparent Marks and Signs of his acting in them, we see those things done which we cannot impute to any other Cause, and therefore here is no reason to cry out of Superstition. But on the other side, we may suspect there is something worse, and that those who so briskly oppose the Devil's act∣ing in the Heathen Oracles, are perswaded there are no such Beings as Devils. How∣ever, 'tis certain, that these Persons shew themselves ignorant of the Devices of these Diabolical Spirits, whose Business it is, by all Arts and Methods imaginable, to hurt and mischief Mankind: and this of their Oracles was none of the least effectual to this pur∣pose. For hereby they eclipsed the Glo∣••y of the Divine Maje••••y, setting up an In∣fallibility to con••ront 〈◊〉〈◊〉, out of a proud and ••a••cy Emulation of the True God, and an insolent Ambition of being like him: They

obscured the Knowledg of the True Religi∣on, they erected a False Worship in the World, they confirmed Men in their Er••o••s and Superstitious Perswasions, they ex••in∣guish'd the Sense and Remembrance of their Duty, by nourishing in them False Fears and Fond Credulity, yea, a Diffidence in God's Providence, and a Trusting in the Enemy of Mankind. Hereby likewise (as hath been intimated) they abused and prophaned the most Sacred Things of Divine Institution and Appointment, viz. by an impious and pro∣phane aping of the Holy Oracles, the Reve∣lations, Visions and Dreams which were vouchsafed to God's own peculiar and chosen People. Thus it appears that the Design of the Pagan Oracles, was not wholly for the Interest of their Priests, but that the Devil got much more by them than they. I see reason therefore to subscribe to Lactantius and other Pious Fathers, who expresly tell us that they were the Invention of Satan. And indeed this was not only the belief of Christians, but of Pagans themselves.* 1.394 Por∣phyrius (who was a very Inquisitive Man, and had diligently searched into the Nature of the Oracles) ingenuously confesses that the Daemons were the Authors of them. And the same is a••knowledged by† 1.395 Iamblicus. And though (it is true) some of the greatest Philosophers among the Gentiles had not at∣tain'd to this Notice, (or if they had, they would not let the Vulgar know it); yet I wonder that any Man who understands the

true Nature of Things by the Light of the Gospel, where the Designs of the Malicious Spirits of Darkness are so fully discovered, can be a Stranger to this, and publickly tell the World that the Oracles were Cheats of the Priests, and not of the Devil. This I have endeavoured to disprove, and to shew that the Cursed Daemons made use of these on purpose to deceive and delude Mankind, to uphold their own Kingdom, and to wea∣ken and destroy that of the Lord Jesus.

Having thus made it evident that the Pa∣gan Oracles were the Works of the Devil, (which it was necessary for me to undertake in the first place under this Head) I proceed now to prove that our Saviour destroy'd those im∣pious Works. This he effectually did, by curbing and lessening the Power of this In∣fernal Spirit, by detecting his Cheats and Forgeries, by silencing his Priests, and by striking the Devil himself dumb. It is true, even before Christ's Birth, the Histories of those Times tell us, that the O••acular Spi••••ts did not make Answer, but began to faulter, and could not play their accustomed Pranks. The Oracles did not presently cease just at our Saviour's Coming; for that they did de∣cay before that time, is plain from those words of* 1.396 Tully;

What is the meaning of the Cessation of the Delphick O••acles, not only in our Time, but a good while a∣g••, insomuch that nothing

is more contemptible now than they are?

Neither is it denied that even after Christ's Death some Oracles were enquired of, and returned Answers, if Su••tonius in the Life of Caligula may be credited. And Plutarch speaking of the Ceasing of Oracles in Greece, excepteth that of I ••badia. And other Hi∣stories, I know, mention some kind of Ora∣cling in force till Iulian's Time. But it is undeniable, that about the time of Christ's arrival in the World, and when he was ar∣rived, and soon after upon the preaching of the Gospel, m••st of the Heathen Oracles were struck speechless, and delivered no An∣swers to those that came to enquire of them. This is testified by * 1.397 Lucan who lived in Nero's Time; and by† 1.398 Iuvenal who flourished in Domitian's Reign. These and other Writers com∣plain that Apollo's Oracles were ceas'd, and would tell them then Fortunes no more; that the Daemons were all pack'd away; that the Forlorn Spirits had quitted their Beloved Territories, and with horrid Groans resigned up their former Mansions. And this is it which was foretold by one of the Sibyls in her Mystick Verses, that a Little Child, even the Blessed Babe Iesus, should throw down Idolatry with his Hand, and stop the Mouths of the Delphick Devils. And here by the way I appeal to you, whe∣ther it was not a wonderful Fore-••unner and

Presage of what should afterward be effected by Christ in this Matter, that one of the S••∣byls was of Delphos, and prophesied con∣cerning our Saviour there, in the City where the Oracle of Apollo was, whence she bears the Name of the Delphick S••byl, because she had her chief Seat at Delpho••, and there de∣livered her Oracles several Years before the Trojan Wars. This was a h••ppy Prognostick of the Blessed Change which was to be made, i. e. that Christ Iesus should be preached, and the Prophecies concerning Him and the Go∣spel be fulfilled, in those very Places where Paganism and Idolatry so mightily prevailed. But we need not fly to the Poets: It is evident from other Writers, that upon Christ's manifesting himself to the World, yea, sometime before he actually appeared, the Oracles were generally suppressed and quashed. I will mention only Plutarch, a Grave Historian and Philosopher, who lived in Trajan's Reign, and w••it two Treatises, wherein he positively attests the Cessation of the O••acles in those Days, and purposely searcheth into the Causes of it: What a strange Account doth ••e give there of it? You will find th••t he is hard put to it, and utters many Ridiculous and Absurd Things. But he is to be excused, because he could give no other, he being so unhappy as not to own the Author of Christianity, who was the Cause of this and G••••••ter Wonders in that Age. This Writer will have the Ces∣sation of Oracles to be the Eff••ct of Natu∣ral

Causes; much after the rate of Tully in his Book of Divination, who imputes it to the Earth become Old, so that the Fatidick Virtue was worn out through length of Time; As we see, saith he, many Rivers are dried up and turn'd into another Course for the same Cause. Just so Plutarch Philosophizeth; The Oracles (saith he) depended upon the Nature of the Soil, that is, a particular sort of Ground in those Parts, sent up a particular sort of Va∣pours and Exhalations, which with their Steam affected the Priests Brains and Spi∣rits, and so moved them to prophesy, and made them capable of giving Answers con∣cerning Future Events, to those that came to consult them: But after a long time, this pe∣culiar Quality and Temperament of the Earth vanished, and could not any longer supply the Priests with such a sort of Vapours as would cause Predictions; and so farewel Oracles. A very goodly Account, you'l say, especially from one of Great Learning. This is Vain Philosophy indeed; but let us not upbraid Him, but bless God in behalf of our selves, that we have attained to greater Light and Knowledg, and are acquainted with the True Causes of things, and are assured that those Oracles were Cheats and Delusions of the Prince of Darkness; and in plain terms, that they were the Works of the Devil, and therefore it was no wonder that they were destroyed by Him, who was manifested for that very Purpose. But that which I alledg this Writer for is this, that you may be satisfied

from him of the Matter of Fact, and be throughly convinced that things did really happen according to our Saviour's Design, and that these Works of the Devil were de∣stroyed. Accordingly therefore this Author tells us, that in his Time the Oracles general∣ly were cashier'd. Indeed the Pythian Oracle would now and then tattle a little, but very sorry Stuff it was, he saith, and it was* 1.399 in Prose. The Oracular Daemons could not afford, it seems, to versify as they had done before; the Vein of Poetry flagg'd. And in Boeotia, a Country which before swarm'd with Ora∣cles, there was (he saith) but a single One left. Those that would be farther satisfied in this Matter, may consult† 1.400 Eusebius, who hath fully treated of this Theme, shewing not only the Vanity and Falshood of the Ora∣cles, but particularly relating how they ceas'd at Christ's Coming: this being so largely handled by him, I remit the Reader thi∣ther.

And now I might observe concerning these Oracles, (as I did before of the Superstitious Divinations) that many of the bravest and wisest Heathens cared not for them, but mani∣festly slighted and jeer'd them, as‖ 1.401 Demosthenes could say the Delphick Oracle did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had learn••d to favour Phi••ip King of Ma∣cedon; that is as much as to say, they were Arrant Cheats, (for the Devil could Cheat and Flatter as well as the Priests) they could be corrupted with Gold, and take what p••rt they pleas'd. The People began at last to

see through these Impostures, and conse∣quently their regard to them was considerably abated. They arrived to this Notion, (which Minutius Felix insists upon) that the Obser∣vers of these Oracles were not successful, and the Despisers of them prospered. They found out at length the Reason why Apollo gave such Dark and Ambiguous Answers, why they were deliver'd by the Priests muttering∣ly and with a low Voice, so as not to be perfectly heard, namely, because by this means they could best salve their Cheating, and the Enquirers should not be able to know whether they spoke Truth or Falshood. For these Reasons Apollo was Sirnamed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause he oftentimes put them off with Oblique and Doubtful Responses: for the Devil in these Oracles of Old professedly Equivocated, and plaid the Iesuit betimes. I could set be∣fore you what the brave Cato thought of these Oracles, as he is represented in Lucan. I might transcribe a great part of Tully's se∣cond Book of Divination, which discovers the Vanities of these Responses, and proves them to be meer Gulls. But you know my Business at present is to evince, (and I hope I have done it sufficiently) that these Lying Oracles were confuted at last by a Greater than Cato or Tully, even Christ Iesus our Lord. It is a known, but remarkable Pas∣sage in Plutarch, that the Daemons complain'd aloud that their Great God Pan was dead: That was the lamentable Voice which was heard in the Grecian Sea in Tiberius's Reign,

when our Saviour was Crucified. Then Christ through Death destroyed him who had the Power of Death, the Devil: then the Prince of this World was judged: then our Saviour, ha∣ving spoiled Principalities and Powers on the Cross, triumphed over them in it. No wonder then that the Cursed Daemons howled and la∣mented, when they saw their Kingdom was shaken, and began to fail; when they expe∣rimentally found that He who cried with a loud Voice on the Cross, had drowned the Noise of their Juggling Oracles. And in a short time, as Other Writers will inform us, this Diabolical Trade was clearly put down in the most considerable Countries of the World, which we must attribute to the sole Power and Soveraignty of that Jesus who came to destroy the Works of the Devil.

Thirdly, I understand by these Works the Diabolical Obsessions of Mens Bodies, which our Savi••ur did actually defeat and destroy, when he ejected the Evil Spirits out of those poor Wretches who were thus possessed by them. It is evident that at the time when Christ was on Ea••th, g••eat Numbers of Persons laboured under this grievous Calamity, and we do not read that at any other Seas••n such nume••ous Legions of them molested Mankind. But the Evangelists acquaint us, that our Lord did frequently rescue the Bodies of the Pos∣sessed from the Power and Dominion of those F••ul Fiends. For though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so often used in the Gospels, may

perhaps not be understood in the rigour of it in every place, (for Lunaticks and Epileptick Persons, when they were extraordinarily distempered, were said by the Iews to be possessed with an Evil Spirit; and in this kind was Saul troubled, say the Jewish Doctors); yet the Relation which those Inspired Pen∣men give of the Formal and Solemn Cast∣ing out of Devils by our Saviour, is a suf∣ficient Proof to any observing Person, that, if not all, yet most of those who are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were really Possessed. For tho that Man who is stiled a Demoniack in Luke 9. 39. is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be a Lunatick, in Matth. 17. 15. yet all that can be ga∣thered thence is, that this Man, and those others that were possess'd with the Devil, had Periodical Fits, that they were either Epilep∣ticks, or Distracted at certain times; and that, as it is usual with such Persons, they were worse when the Moon increas'd. Therefore the Arabick Version of the forenamed Place in St. Matthew is very remarkable; He hath a Devil, and he is exceedingly vexed in the begin∣nings of the Full Moon: as much as to say, the Devil and the Disease met together, and the former was the Author of the latter. Or, we may say, the Impure Spirits chose to en∣ter into those crazy and Diseased Bodies, when they were most disposed to Illness by the powerful Influence of the Moon. This is no Argument that they were not really possessed with the Devil; but it is a plain Proof of the contrary, and of something

else, viz. that Satan doubled his Malice, vex∣ing and tormenting them at a time when they were least able to bear it. As for the Reasons why such vast Numbers of Men were thus visited when our Saviour was on Earth, these may justly be assigned; it was an Age much given to Magick and Inchantments, and the calling up of Spirits was a frequent thing in those Days: Besides, Divine Providence might so order it at that very juncture of Time for an Occasion of the more Glorious Cures. It might happen by the Particular Disposal of the Almighty, that thereby it might appear to the World, that Christ had Power over the Devils, and could, when he pleased, dislodg those Mischievous Spirits, and rescue Mankind from their Tortures. The Reality and Greatness of his Soveraign∣ty over those Infernal Powers, were to be demonstrated by those Atchievments. More∣over, it may rationally be thought that the Devils would be most busy then when Christ came into the World, and would be more in∣teressed to disturb and torment Mankind, be∣cause they saw their Kingdom was going down, and Christianity was to be exalted in the World. Now therefore it was time for the Messias to exert his Miraculous Power; and behold, as an effect of it, the Devils sub∣mitted to him, and at his Command pre∣sently quitted the Bodies which they had ta∣ken possession of. One Person among the rest was a famous Instance of this sort, out of whom a Legion of Devils was ejected by

Christ's Holy Exorcism: With one Word he vanquish'd whole Regiments of the King∣dom of Darkness; he routed Armies of In∣fernal Daemons. I remit you to the Evan∣gelical Records, where you have abundant proof of the casting out of these Hellish Spi∣rits, not only by our Saviour himself, but by his Disciples, who (as you read) came to him with these words in their Mouths, * 1.402 Lord, the Devils are subject to us: this be∣ing an Effect of that Mighty Power which Christ had invested his Followers with, Luke 9. 1. And therefore† 1.403 Origen rationally in∣fers, that Christ's Power was ••ivine, because at his Name the Devils left the Bodies of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And this was a thing not unusual in those very Days in which this Father lived, as well as before. We are ascertain'd that the ordi∣nary Christians, merely by their Prayers and Invocations, ejected those Spirits, and made them confess what they were. That they had this Power in Iustin Martyr's Days, who flourish'd in the middle of the Second Cen∣tury, appears in his known Dialogue with Trypho, where he expresly saith, The Devils tremble at the Name of Christ, and being adjured by that sacred Name, they become subject to us. That they did the same in Irenaeus's Time, which was some few Years after, is cleer ••rom his* 1.404 Writings. And the same Mira∣culous Gift continued till Tertullian, at the end of the second Century, as is evident both from his Apology and his Book to Scapula.

And St.* 1.405 Cy••rian testifies the like of his Time, about the middle of the 3^d Century. So Minutius Felix and Lactantius relate how the Christians controuled the Evil Spirits, and tell us, that not only their Words and Com∣mands, but their bare Presence shut the Mouths of the Possessed, and made the mi∣serable Ghosts quake and tremble. Yea, Gregory Nazianzen in the next Age gives this Testimony;† 1.406 The very Devils at this time tremble when Christ is call'd upon; neither is the Power and Virtue of that Name diminish'd and impaired by our Sins. And if I designed to ex∣patiate, I could derive it lower, and also shew you that these and other Christian Writers commonly appeal to the Pagans concerning the Truth of these things, and alledg this Ejection of Devils as a great and undeniable Proof of the Authority of the Christian Religion, as certainly it was. But I add no more, having said enough for my purpose, which was, to make it appear, that among other Works of the Devil, Christ destroyed This in particular.

Fou••thly, Is there not reason to think that St. Iohn refers here to what Christ did, when by his Coming he rooted out Magick and Sorcery, Dealing with the Devil, either by Pra∣ctising Witchcraft, or Consulting with those that did, and the like Works of the Black Art, which the Cursed Spirit taught the World? These were the Devil's Opera which he shewed of old, and got so much by,

whereby he pleas'd and gratified, and at the same time bubled the easily deluded People. Not to attend to the perverse Folly of those mere Matter-Men who disown Spirits, and consequently deny a God as well as Devils, (for they will rather profess Atheism, than acknowledg any such Rank of Beings.) Not to gratify these Gross Atheists so far as to take notice in this place of what they are wont to say in Defence of their Mad Opini∣on; I shall take it for granted, that Magical Operations (properly so call'd) are the Works of the Devil, and that he was the first Foun∣der of them, designing and endeavouring thereby to bring Men under his Dominion, and (so far as he can effect it in the Minds of Men) to exclude God and his Providence out of the World. This questionless was his Design, and was never doubted by the Ancient Christians, as appears not only from* 1.407 Arnobius, but several other Primitive Wri∣ters, though some of late so extraordinarily civil to him, that they will not impute the Pra∣ctice of Magick to his Assi∣stance. Good Men! they are afraid to slander the Devil. But from the History of several Ages, we are certainly informed that there was nothing more usual th••n to make a Compact with Satan; which the M••gicians and Wiz••rds effected with ma∣••y direful C••remonies. And when there was not a Fo••m••l League with the Devil,

yet there was a Communication with him, because the Persons gave themselves into his Hands by their immoderate Curiosity, by their affecting to know more than was fit∣ting, or by an impatient coveting after Wealth and Riches, or by a greedy desire of having an Ability and Opportunity to satisfy their Revenge. From that infallible and inspi∣red Testimony in Deut. 18. 10, 11. we are assured that there were Enchanters, Witches, Charmers, Consulters with Familiar Spirits, Wizards and Necromancers: for these Persons, and their Practices, would not have been condemned and pronounced an Abomination, (as they are there) unless there had been really such. This I think is very plain and unanswerable. And truly I am apt to believe, that the Holy Ghost makes use of so many different Words here, on purpose to obviate and refute the vain Cavils of the Men of our Days, who are Infidels as to the Point of Witchcraft, and with great Confidence tell us, that there is no such thing, and that the Foundation of it, viz. a Compact with Evil Spirits, is a mere Forge∣ry. Here are six Words to press and inculcate the same thing, (though if we be Critical, there may be found some difference, because one word may be more expressive of a parti∣cular Act of that Cursed Art than another; but I speak now of the General Notion and Import of them) that we may be thereby convinced of the Truth and Reality of the Thing, viz. that there were and are Enchan∣ters, Witches, &c. Persons holding Corre∣spondence

with Infernal Agents, and by their Help and Assistance effecting strange things in the World. The last in Moses••s Cata∣logue, are Necromancers, such who by Magick Inchantment raised the Souls of the De••d, or the Devil rather to represent those Souls, and then consulted with him, and enquired con∣cerning some Future Events which they were exceeding desirous to know. Of this we have an Ancient and Famous Instance in the Sacred Records, viz. the Witch of Endor, who by this Devilish Art caused the Ap∣pearance of Samuel, i. e. of some Evil Spi∣rit in his Shape. And of these Hellish Ne∣cromancers, perhaps that of I••b (Ch. 3. v. 8.) is to be understood, they curse the Day, (for the Night is the time proper for their Black Work) and raise up ••eviathan, i. e. the De∣vil, who most fitly is compa∣red to* 1.408 the Leviathan. Or, in a more li••eral sense, to raise up the Leviathan, may signify, to charm and tame that Sea-Mon∣ster, and so it sets forth the Great, bu•• Devilish Power of Magick and Incantation. As Plutarch saith of the Egyptian Priests, that by Art Magick they could tame the Crocodile, so as to make him come to their Hand. This Necromantick Practice is spoken of in Isa. 8. 19. and is cal∣led, Seeking unto them that have Familiar Spirits, and unto Wizards that peep and mutter. To which is added, a Reprehension with a Di∣••ection; Should not a People seek unto their

God? Yes surely; for the Living to the Dead should they go? No certainly, that is abo∣minable and execrable. And I question not but the Idolatrous Jews, who used Necroman∣cy, are meant by those who remain among the Graves, and lodg in the Monuments, Isa. 65. 4. This, and the other parts of this Science, were very frequent in the World heretofore; espe∣cially they made use of it to enquire before∣hand what Success they should have in their Affairs: and thus the practice of Divination and Magick was often coincident. But their Charms and Spells, and Mystical Characters, were the most frequent of all, whereby they helped and eased People in case of Sick∣ness, Bodily Pains,* 1.409 Luxation of Members, and all outward Calamities that befel them: whereby also they were able to inflict Diseases, and all man∣ner of Bodily Evils, and (in brief) to pro∣duce very surprizing and astonishing Opera∣tions.

I am very ready to grant, notwithstanding what I have said, that many things have been ascribed to the Devil which he was never guilty of, or was any ways concerned in. I question not but many things have pass'd for Magick of the worst sort with vulgar and unthinking People, which were the mere Ef∣fects of Natural Philosophy improved and set forth by Art. The Times have been such, that a Mathematician and a Magician have been esteemed the same. But though

we pity the Mistakes of the Ignorant, yet we are not to attend to the Dictates of the Perverse, who avouch there is no Diabolick Magick, and therein destroy the Faith of all History, both Divine and Humane.

The Ancient Great Masters in this Impi∣pious Art and Practice, who are mention'd in the Sacred Story, were the Egyptian Sorce∣rers, (of whom Iannes and Iambres were the chief, and accordingly they are call'd in the Talmud the Princes of the Magicians) Gen. 41. 8. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Baalam the Mesopotamian Soothsayer, Numb. 22. 5. the Casdim or Chal∣dean Magi, Dan. 2. 2. And the Antient Pra∣ctisers in this Art mention'd in Prophane Writers, were Zabulus, Zamolxis, Abbaris, Zoroaster, Pasetes, Pancrates and Zachlas, (both of them Egyptian Magicians, spoken of by Lucian and Apuleius) Numa Pompilius, &c. Py∣thagoras may be taken into the Number, for from several Circumstances of his Life (as well as from the Precept,* 1.410 to worship the In∣fernal Gods) he may be thought to be a Ma∣gician: And perhaps in this Travels into E∣gypt and Chaldea, he pick'd up this Ill Art; for 'tis certain that from those Countries the Magical Practices had their Rise. Yea, ma∣ny of the Iews, the Chief Men especially, were given to Magick; and even the Elders of the Sanhedrim studied this Art, saith our † 1.411 Learned Lightfoot: And he farther observes, that the nearer the Jewish State approach'd to its ruine, the more were they addicted to it.

Thus have I given you a brief Account of this Cursed Art, of the main Limbs of it, of the Authors that supported it, and of its spreading and prevailing in the World. But (which is the next thing I am to make good) by the Coming of our Lord these Wicked Practices began to decay, Sorcery and Witch∣craft lost their Power. Christ by his Ap∣pearing, and afterwards by his Apostles and Followers, defeated such Hellish Works. At what time, saith* 1.412 Athanasius, did the Magick Arts and their Schools begin to be trodden down, but when God the Word appear'd among Men? It seemed to be an early Presage of Christ's Power in this kind, that the Eastern Magi came to him, and prostrated themselves at his Feet in his very Infancy: for I could pro∣duce the Testimonies of Ignatius and Iustin Martyr, of Origen and Tertullian, of Ierom and Basil, and other Greek and Latin Fathers, to prove that these Wise Men (as our Translati∣on renders it) were no other than Sorcerers and Inchanters, the worst sort of Magicians, who dealt with the Devil. These submitted to the Babe Jesus, and owned him to be the Lord and Soveraign of the World. Though the Pharisees were so malicious, impudent and b••asphemous as to represent our Saviour himself as a Magitian, as one that did his Miraculous Works by help of the Devil; yet nothing is more clear, than that in all his Dis∣courses and Practices, his Design was to de∣feat the Devil's Projects, to ruine his Inte∣rest, and to destroy his Works, and consequent∣ly

This which is the grossest of all. So for Necromancy, raising the Dead, and enquiring of them, he came to destroy this Work, and did it effectually, by informing Men aright concerning the State of the deceased, by fix∣ing and determining the Place of their A∣bode after this Life, by sending us to Moses and the Prophets, and bidding us consult and believe them, and not expect any Tidings from the Dead. The Acts of the Apostles ac∣quaint us, that Simon the Sorcerer, who bewitch∣ed the People of Samaria, was soon reclaimed by Philip's preaching the Gospel there, and that he believed and was baptized, Acts 8. 9, 13. And another Noted Sorcerer, was not only rebuked by St. Paul after this severe manner, Thou Child of the Devil, (a fit accost to such a one as He, for Magick is properly the Devil's Work) thou Enemy of all Righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right Ways of the Lord? Acts 13. 10. but he was struck blind by the fame Miraculous Hand, and disabled to pur∣sue his impious Practices. St. Peter likewise undertook the former of these Hellish Practi∣tioners, and in the midst of his Magick At∣tempts and Adventures, brought him down headlong and defeated him, as we are in∣formed from very Ancient Writers. When St. Paul preach'd at Ephesus, where several of the Inhabitants were given to this Vile Art, he as it were, by more Holy Charms and Spells, made them throw away their Books of Curious Arts, that is, of Inchantment,

and then bring them forth, and burn them, Acts 19. 19.

Because this is so famous an Instance of the destroying these Works of the Devil, and be∣cause it may be enquired how the using of Cu∣rious Arts is the same with practising of Magick, I will examine the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which St. Luke here makes use of, and let you see how fitly it is here applied. This word being no where to be found in the New Testament but in this place and in one other, we must consult other Writers, and observe how 'tis taken in them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is reckon'd by* 1.413 Quintilian among the Faults of Speech, namely when Persons are too nice about it, and take too much Care in the ordering of it; and thence perhaps Apion had the Epithet given him of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most Curious and Quaint Grammarian. This Over-curiousness in speaking, leads to Adulation and Fawning, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is defined thus by Theophrastus in his Characters of Morals;† 1.414 It is a kind of a dis∣sembling in Words and Actions, joined with a Pre∣tence of Benevolence: And according to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an Officious Flatterer, and one that doth act that Part with much Affectation and Fol∣ly. The word refers to Actions as well as Speeches, for Talkative Persons generally are Pragmatical; therefore we render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Busy-Bodies, 1 Tim. 5. 13. who there are joined with, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tatlers, those that exceed in Words, as the other in Doing. So it seems that Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this Composition,

imports that which is too much, that which is Superfluous and Unnecessary. And this Un∣necessary and Pragmatical Over-doing, doth easily tend unto and end in Superstition; which indeed, according to the true Denotation of the Word, is an Over-doing; and the Bigotry of Superstition commonly ends in Vnlawful Arts, and degenerates into Magick. Where∣fore it was well observed by an Historian, concerning one of the Roman Emperors,* 1.415 that being given to a Foolish and Immoderate Curiosity, he was enclined not only to search into all those Occult Things which relate to Men, but he was very busy in prying into those Secrets which are Divine, yea, and those which are Diabolical and Ma∣gical. Thus you see the Connection between these two, Curiosity and Magick, and why the using of Curious Arts here is to be understood of Magical Practices, viz. because Mens Un∣lawful Curiosity leads them to these Wicked Enterprizes. Having discovered the true Origine of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and thereby settled the meaning of it in this place of the Acts, it remains that I farther establish this by letting you see that this is the meaning of the word, both in Ecclesiastical and Prophane Writers. Thus an† 1.416 Ancient Father speak∣ing of the Simonians, a sort of Hereticks that took their Name from Simon the Sorcerer, and who also were vers'd in his Art, saith of them, that the Eroticks, (or Phil••res) the Ago∣gima,

the Paredri and Oniropompi, and whatever other Perierga there are, (i. e. whatever other Magick Tricks there are) are studiously pra∣ctised by these Persons. And another Anci∣ent Writer of the Church useth the word Cu∣riositas, which answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for* 1.417 the Magick Art, and particularly for the Un∣lawful Divination by the Stars. To which we may add that Sanction of the Emperor Con∣stantius against these Evil Pra∣ctices which is inserted into the Imperi∣al Law, and is express'd thus;* 1.418 Sileat omnibus perpetuò divinandi curiositas, &c. Among Prophane Authors,† 1.419 Porphyrius may be cited, who tells us, that the Philo∣sophers used to give this Name to Magical Operations, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was of the same import with them that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were. In* 1.420 Catullus and† 1.421 Horace we shall find that Curio∣sus (which answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is the E∣pithet from him that pries into the Magick Secrets, or rather is the same with a Magician. Thus you see what ground there is from the denotation of the word it self, and from the use of it among Writers, to fix that sense upon it which we have done. But besides this, if we take notice of the particular Place and Persons that St. ••uke here refers to, we shall be yet farther confirmed in this meaning. We may observe, that the Scene of this Action is Ephesus, as is clear from the

1st and 17 verses of this Chapter. They are the Ephesian Converts whom this Text speaks of, these are they that had heretofore used Curious Arts. By minding of this (especi∣ally after what hath been said already) we may certainly gather what these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are, for Ephesus before all other Cities was ad∣dicted to these Impious Studies. Not only * 1.422 Plutarch, but other very credible Writers (whom the Reader may consult) particularly take notice that the People of this Place were in a more than ordinary manner encli∣ned to, and conversant in these Arts. This was so common and notorious, that it be∣came a Poverb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used as a known expression to signify Magick Lear∣ning, as several† 1.423 Antient Writers testify. From this old Proverbial way of speaking, we may gather what St. Luke here means by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz. those Ephesian Characters or Charms, those Magical Notes and Rites, which that People were so famed for, and by which they did such great Feats, or seem'd to do so at least. The Ephesians had a certain set of Letters and Words which they used in Enchantments, and they never failed; so greatly were they befriended by the Author of them. The Christians call'd these Diabolical, but St. Luke here useth the word, which perhaps was receiv'd at Ephesus as well as in other Places; and he tells us that many of them who used these Curious Arts, were now weary of them, and brought their Books together, and burned them before all Men. When

they came to be acquainted with the* 1.424 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they soon disliked those Ephesian Letters, and in a pious Revenge, used them in the like manner that Books of that sort used to be dealt with: for from the† 1.425 Roman Writers and others, we are informed, that the Punishment which was wont to be exe∣cuted on Books of such a Nature, was Burn∣ing of them: so that the very Penalty here voluntarily inflicted on these Books, ac∣quaints us of what kind they were. That which particularly and signally shews the Efficacy of the Gospel in destroying these Diabolical Works, is this, that these Ephesians, who were so addicted to Devilish Practices, and were Magical even to a Proverb, that these (I say) were reclaimed from these damnable Studies by the Preaching of St. Paul among them, and presently gave a demonstration of their hearty Repentance for their past E∣normities, by producing their Books of In∣chantment, and committing them to the Flames. And that which makes this yet more remarkable is, that these Books which they thus consumed to Ashes, were of so great a Price, no less than five Myriads of Silver, (for so 'tis in the Greek, and I do not know why it should not be rendred so by us. This Translation is more exact than [fifty thousand Pieces of Silver]). These Ephesians shew'd the Truth and Sincerity of their Conversion by this one generous Instance, by parting with that which cost them so dear, and by which they could have gain'd so much.

So much for this Notable Passage in the Acts, which is as great and Convincing a Proof of the Matter in Hand as could be offer'd, and therefore I thought good to in∣sist upon it. I might go on, and let you see out of Ecclesiastical History, that Conjurers were not able to play their Magical Pranks in the presence of Holy Christians. Tertullian and Lactantius agree, that the Heathen Gods, or rather their Priests, complained that their Rites could not be performed so long as any Christians were in their Temples, or present at their Sacrifices. The Astrologers and Soothsayers of Alexandria cried out, that they could do little or nothing in their Wicked Art till Athanasius, that Good Fa∣ther, was removed out of the City. And 'tis the Universal Testimony of Writers, that when Christianity waxed Great in the World, Magick dwindled, and grew less and less. It will, I think, be confessed by all Men, that the Transactions of the Devil, with Witches and Persons of a resembling Quality, are neither so frequent nor so powerful as they have been heretofore. The Light of the Gospel dispels these Works of Darkness. This we find foretold by the Prophet Micah concerning the Messias, and his appearing in the Flesh, I will cut off Witch∣crafts out of thy Hand, Ch. 5. ver. 12. And it follows in the next Verse, Thy graven Images also will I cut off, and thy standing Images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more wor∣ship the Work of thy Hands. Which re∣minds

me of the next thing contained in the words.

Fifthly, By the Works of the Devil, we must needs understand Idolatry and Polytheism; than which there was nothing more serviceable to∣wards the promoting his Kingdom in the World. I grant, that the Pagan Priests were no Losers by Idolatry, yea, that they were Gainers by it; but 'tis absurd to infer thence, (as I have shewed before in the like Case) that it was not the Work of the Devil, that it was not set up and managed by him to advance his Interest in the World. There∣fore you may know how to judg of that Gen∣tleman's Doctrine, who saith, That* 1.426 the setting up many Gods among the Gentiles was only for the Priests Gain, because the Sacrifices and Worship done to them were so profitable to them; whereas the Worship of one God would not have brought in so much Gain. This was the sole Cause of Idolatry, saith he. Still he is wonderfully civil and obliging, extreamly courteous and friendly to the Great Enemy of Mankind, and will not harbour any ill Thoughts of him, either as to the Pagan Oracles, and I suppose as to Sorcery and Magick, and we are sure as to Idolatry. He is perswaded, (but hold there, I do not know that, for it may be he speaks not his inward Sense, I may rather say he tells us) that those most Cursed In∣ventions and Designs of that Hellish Impo∣stor were none of his, and that they were only contrived by the Covetous Priests to get

a Penny. I see the Devil is a very Innocent and Harmless Creature, according to some Persons; it will be well for them if they find him so. But we have more reason to be∣lieve that he is very Spightful, Malicious and Destructive, and that he not only seeks for, but makes use of all Occurrences and Op∣portunities to endamage Mankind, and that he is pregnant in his Inventions to that pur∣pose. And such we may justly reckon these to be which I have mentioned, and therefore I take them to be from another Spring than what some imagine. It is evident that they are properly the Devil's Works, and carry his Mark upon them: particularly as to Idolatry or Polytheism, it is plain that it is of his set∣ting up. Ye shall be as Gods, was the early Insinuation and Suggestion of that Evil Spi∣rit to our first Parents in Paradise: The No∣tion of being Gods strangely wrought upon them, and procured our Misery. This was the first Temptation of Satan▪ and is the first step to Idolatry, which of all his Works may justly be stiled his Chief Master-piece. It is true, the wisest of the Pagans asserted One God, and knew that there were not Diffe∣rent Deities, but the generality of them thought and believed otherwise; and the Philosophers themselves complied with these Vain Worshippers, and so confirmed the People in their Error. Nothing is more evi∣dent, than that the greater part of the World heretofore declared for a Multiplicity of Gods. The Idea of God, like some great

Mirror, was broken in pieces by the Hea∣thens, and in every one of these they saw a Deity, or fancied they did so. Every At∣tribute of God, was a Distinct God. But this was more pardonable; they proceeded to worship the Heavenly Bodies, and ascrib'd Life and Divinity to them. Nay, they ran∣sack'd for Gods and Goddesses below, as well as above: they found them in the Earth, and in the Deep, as well as in the Heavens. The Number of these Deities had reached to thirty thousand in* 1.427 Hesiod's Time; and they were almost as many more afterwards; for, if Varro's Computation be right, there were above that Number of Gods and Goddesses worshipp'd by the Europeans alone. Nor would one way of worshipping them serve their turn. There were as many various Rites and different Sacrifices, as there were Deities; the Solemnities which were per∣formed to one, would not suffice another. Nothing forsooth would please Ceres but a Sow, nothing would serve Aesculapius but a Cock, and the most acceptable Offering to Neptune was a Bull. The Pagans fancied that one God delighted in this Oblation, and ano∣ther in that; and therefore to be sure to please them they had Particular Services and Diversities of Worship for them. Egypt was the most fruitful Soil for this; it furnish'd the rest of the World with Gods. The Grecians (who afterwards stock'd the Romans) took the Names of their Gods, their Temples, their Altars, their Images, and most of their

Superstitious Ceremonies from that Coun∣try, as* 1.428 Herodotus testifieth. And with him agrees† 1.429 Ammianus Marc••llinus, who positive∣ly tells us, that all Idolatry came from Egypt. And‖ 1.430 Strabo and others acquaint us, that All sorts of Living Creatures were worshipped by the Inhabitants of that place. That Sheep, and such-like Animals, had Divine Re∣spect paid to them, is attested by the most Ancient and Undoubted Annals of Holy Scripture: for it is said, in Gen. 46. 34. that a Shepherd is an Abomination to an Egyptian, viz. because the Egyptians did not kill or eat Sheep, or such-like Animals, but look'd up∣on them as Sacred. Hence Moses saith, * 1.431 Shall we sacrifice the Abomination of the Egyp∣tians before their Eyes, and will they not stone us? i. e. If we sacrifice Sheep or Oxen, Crea∣tures that they worship, and abominably ido∣lize, they will be incensed against us. They abhorred the I••ws, because they were gene∣rally Shepherds, and fed upon that sort of A∣nimals, and used them in Sac••ifice. And this, it is probable, was the reason why, when Ioseph entertain••d his Brethren at Dinner▪ they did eat asunder, because it was an Abo∣mination to the Egyptians to eat Bread with th•• Hebrews, Gen. 43. 32. For (as O••kelas here adds) the Hebrews eat those Animals which the ••gyptians worship. And for this Cau••e the Is∣raelites lived apart in the Land of Gosh••n And besides, they were not permitted to Sa∣crifice all the time they were in Egypt, as ap∣pears from those words of God to Moses

Exod. 9. 13. Let the People go that they may serve me; i. e. that they may Sacrifice unto me, as appears from Ch. 10. 25. which implies, that they were not permitted to Sacrifice before; and the Rea∣son was, because the Egyptians would not let them kill, and offer in the Fire those A∣nimals which they had so great a regard for, and even Deified. So besotted were these Gentile Adorers, that not only Irrational but Inanimate Creatures were deified by them. You might have seen the Greatest Men, to whom others bowed and did lowly obei∣sance, prostrate themselves to Stocks and Stones, to Wood, and Brass, and Iron, sha∣ped into Gods; and by the Art of Masons, Carpenters and Smiths, made Deities. This was the Idolatry which obtain'd so much in the World, this was the Capital Enormity of Mankind, this was the Main Guilt which they were polluted with, as* 1.432 Tertullian call'd it. Our Learned Dr. Hammond thinks this is meant by the Apostle in Rom. 8. 20. The Crea∣ture was made subject to Vanity; for he takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Gentile World, and Vanity for Ido∣latry, as this is called very frequently in the Old Testament. The Heathen World was every where enslaved, subjected to this Vile Sin, though not willingly, i. e. as this Author expounds it; the Devil forced them to it, o∣therwise he would not be appeased.

But this gross Folly and Madness was soon disgraced and discountenanced by the introducing of Christianity, and even in Egypt, the Mother and Nurse of all Idolatry, where

Garlicks and Onions (no very fragrant Deities) had Veneration paid them, and Cats and Crocodiles were good fashionable Gods; where they worship'd all things in Nature, where every thing living or dead was a Deity, even here this Prodigious Idolatry was destroy'd by Christ's Coming; for up∣on on St. Mark's preaching there, and at Alex∣andria especially, Images were soon demo∣lished, the Counterfeit Gods were thrown away, and the only True God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost were worshipp'd with an unanimous Veneration. At Rome it self, and even in Nero's Palace, and in all the Terri∣tories belonging to the Roman Emperours, there were some to be found who discover'd their hatred and detestation of Idols, and adored the True God in Spirit and in Truth. But the Pagan Worship had got such deep rooting in the Hearts of Men, and had by long Custom and Prescription so gained their good Will and Approbation, that almost four Centuries of Years had passed after Christ's Incarnation, before it could be uni∣versally extirpated, and the True Worship of God become the Religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great made the first remarkable and generous Essay towards this Glorious Work; in his Reign it was that Idolatry received its greatest mortificati∣on: and he was succeeded by many Wor∣thies that imitated him. Let all the Images be pluck'd up from their Seats, was* 1.433 Honorius's Constitution; and by the Edict of Theodo∣sius

and Valentinian, the Idol Temples were all demolished, and Idolatry every where in their Dominions destroyed, and all False Gods discarded. Thus the Blessed Work went on with great Life and Vigour, being set forward by Royal Hands, and those Hands being strengthned by the Son of God. Therefore the Pious Father said well,* 1.434 When the Madness of Idolatry and Impiety pos∣sessed the World, and the Knowledg of the True God was banish'd, to whom did it belong to in∣struct the World aright concerning the true worship of the Father, but to the Son? And in the same place he farther sets forth the vast spreading of Idolatry over the World, and Christians more powerful destroying of it. And you shall find, that this Glorious Atchievement of Christ in crushing Idolatry, which was grown so prevalent every where, is made the great Proof and Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, and is in∣sisted upon with mighty Force and Reason by all the Antient Apologists for Christia∣nity. And that this was one Great Design of our Saviour's manifesting himself in the World, is evident from many Promises and Prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Messias and his Kingdom; as that of the Evangelical Prophets* 1.435 They shall cast their Idols of Silver, and their Idols of Gold, to the Batts, and to the Moles, (to the Moles, fit company you will say for them that have Eyes and see not, as Idols are described by the Psalmist).

The meaning of this Prophetick Writer is, that the enlightned and converted Gentiles shall renounce their Beloved Idolatry, and with indignation throw their Idols and Ima∣ges into the dark Corners of the Earth. Whereas before they placed them in the Light, and set them up to be seen, now they shall be ashamed of them, and being ashamed of them shall hide them, and cast them into those obscure Holes where Bats and Moles lie hid under Ground. To the same pu••pose is that of the Prophet* 1.436 Ieremiah, The Gentiles shall come unto thee from the Ends of the Earth, and shall say, Our Fathers inheri∣ted Li••s and Vanities, (which are terms in the * 1.437 Scripture-stile to express False Gods) but we will reject them, for shall a Man make Gods to himself that are no Gods? And in se∣veral places, both Isaiah and this Prophet in∣sist upon this, that the Messias should bring the Gentiles out of the Darkness of Idolatry to the Light of the Gospel, and the Ac∣knowledgment of the True God. In Ezek. 37. 23. there is another Prediction of the like Nature, Israel shall not defile themselv•••• any ••ore with Idols, nor with their Detestable Things: which latter Clause is but an Ex∣plication of the fo••me••, for Shikku••zim and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which are the words in the Original and the Septuagint) are frequently used to signify Idols, which are Detestable in the Eyes of God. And Zephaniah foretels, that * 1.438 the Lord will famish all the Gods of the Earth:

which is a very remarkable Passage, and alludes to the fond Conceit of the Pagans, which is mentioned in Deut. 32. 38. that their Gods did eat the Fat of their Sacrifices, and drank the Wine of their Drink-offerings. To which it is probable God himself was pleas'd to allude in Psal. 50. 13. Will I eat the Flesh of Bulls, or drink the Bloud of Goats? And in Isa. 43. 24. Neither hast thou filled me with the Fat of thy Sacrifices. It was a Notion among the Heathen Worship∣pers, that the God's were nourish'd with the Steam of the Sacrifices; and in relation to that the Prophet's Prediction is, that those Gods shall be famished: they shall not, ac∣cording to the fond Notion of the Gentile World, be any longer ••ed from the Altars, they shall be starved when Christianity takes place amongst Men, for the Pagan Sacrifices shall then be laid aside, and Idolatry cashier'd. All these P••ophecies were plainly accom∣plished, when our Saviour came and com∣missioned his Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole World. This threw down the Idolatrous Images, and in many places the very Idols themselves ••ell down pro∣strate on the Ground, and, as it were, wor∣ship'd the Holy Jesus.

But as Christ gave a fatal Blow to Idol••∣trous Worship, so I am more particularly to prove (under this Head) th••t he did con∣••ound the Worshipping of Devils, which had been a thing very fashionable in the World before Christ came into it. I say, the Wor∣shipping

of Devils, the highest Strain of Ido∣latry, was confounded by our Saviour's ap∣pearing: for it seems the Devil could not be content to cheat the World with his O∣racles, to enter into Mens Bodies, and to make Leagues and Contracts with Persons, but (as an Effort above all these) he affected to be worshipped and adored as a God. This is confess'd by Porphyrius in his Book of Abstinence from Animals: and Eusebius and St. Augustin, and other Fathers make use of what he saith there against the Pagans, whom they undertake to confute. That the Gods whom the Gentiles sometimes worship'd, were Devils, is also the acknowledgment of Trismegistus in his Asclepius. And it is owned by all the Wise and Understanding Heads among them that the Service paid to ma∣ny of their Gods was a kind of Adoring the Devil. It is well known that these Worshippers could, by certain Magick Spells make these Infernal Fiends come to their Images when they pleas'd: and when they had brought them thither, they worship'd these Wicked Ghosts to appease their Fury, and that they might do them no harm. Be∣sides, the Particulars which I insisted on be∣fore, do sufficiently evince the present Point; for the consulting the Devil when he spake in Oracles, and dealing with him by practi∣sing Witchcraft and Sorcery, were a palpable forsaking of the True God, and setting up the Devil for a God. These were giving

Divine Honour to the Prince of Darkness. And, which is most convincing, do not the infallible Oracles of Scripture expresly tell us, that the Idolatrous Jews sacrificed unto Devils, not to God? Deut. 32. 17. which (to confirm the Truth and Certainty of it) is repeated in Psal. 106. 37. They sacrificed their Sons and Daughters unto Devils. And if I be not mistaken, the Psalmist had before refer'd to this abominable Practice, ver. 28. They ate the Sacrifices of the Dead, i. e. (as I con∣ceive) the Sacrifices that were offer'd to the Manes, and to the Stygian Iupiter or Pluto the God of the Dead: these are meant here by Zibche methim, the Sacrifices of the Dead. I know some Writers have lessen'd and minc'd this Idolatry, as well as that before spoken of, and tell us that the Pagans all along worship'd God, though under a false Repre∣sentation. It is partly true, that the best of the Heathens did so, but others did not: and as for those that defend the contrary, they are confuted by downright Authority from Scripture, which acquaints us, that they worship'd even Devils: for sacrificing to them, is worshipping them. If they can evade this, let them. I could add, that the Hebrew Masters were of Opinion that some of the Jews worship'd the Devil in shape of a Goat in Woods and Deserts, because the word Sagnir is both Daemon and Hircus, Lev. 17. 7. 2 Chron. 11. 15. Isa. 13. 21. & 34. 14. And 'tis likely this worshipping of Satyrs was a piece of Devilish Idolatry which

they learnt and brought from* 1.439 Egypt, where 'twas practis'd. But this we are certain of from a more sure word, (as you heard) that the Devils themselves were adored by them. And concerning the Gentiles Worship, the Apostle is peremptory, 1 Cor. 10. 20. The things which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacri∣ficed to Devils, and not to God. Whereas the Greeks used to call the Victims or Beasts which they offer'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Apostle on the contrary plainly stiles them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things sacrificed to Idols, 1 Cor. 8. 1, 4, 7. & 10. 19, 28. In which places Idols are no other than Diabolick Spirits which inhabited in those Idols.

But Christ by his coming soon put a Pe∣riod to this Hellish Usage. When the De∣vil was so impudent as to make that offer to him, All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me, he presently re∣buked the bold Spirit, by alledging what was written, not only in the Law, but in all Mens Hearts, that they should worship the Lord their God, and serve him only. And by the whole System of his Heavenly Doctrine he built up this Truth, and pull'd down the Contrary, and all the least Tendencies to it. After our Saviour left this Earth, his Apo∣stles and Followers managed the same Work, and endeavour'd by all means to run down this Cursed Project of the Devil, viz. of his being worship'd. As a particular Effect of their Care to baffle this Design, we read, that the Primitive Christians solemnly

vowed at their Baptism to renounce the Devil and all his Works. By which,* 1.440 saith Tertul∣lian, is principally meant Idolatry, yea, and the worst kind of Idolatry, a giving Divine Honour and Worship to those that are De∣vils, and not Gods, a Sin very common at Christ's Coming into the World, the greatest part of it at that time living in this Vile Pra∣ctice: therefore, ••aith this Father, this was made a chief part of the Baptismal Vow, that the Proselytes and Converts to Christia∣nity, should in a solemn manner bid Defiance to that detestable Enormity of the Heathens. Conformably to this our Learned† 1.441 Catechist in reply to that Question, What is meant by the Devil and all his Works? answers thus, Certain∣ly the principal thing here renounced, is the False Gods, i. e. Devils, which the Heathen World did worship so universally before Christ's Time, and a∣gainst which the Catechists (who prepared all for Baptism) did first labour to fortify their Disci∣ples, and are for that Cause called in the Ancient Church Exorcists, as those that cast out these Devils. Very near a-kin to This, is that which is added next in the Solemn Vow at Baptism, viz. The renouncing the Vain Pomp and Glory of the World: For that word Pomp in its Original meaning, refers to the Idolatrous Shews of the Heathens, it properly signifying sending of some thing, and carrying it up and down to be seen and exposed: so that here∣by are denoted those Splendid Sights and Stately Processions in use of old among the Heathens; at which Solemn Times the Ima∣ges,

the Thrones, the Ornaments, and all the Habiliments, as also the Oblations and Sacrifices which were to be offer'd to their Gods, were carried openly through the Streets, and Honour was done to these false Deities. The Ancient Fathers of the Church very strictly caution'd their Flock against these Devilish Customs; and particularly when they admitted Converts into the Church by Baptism, they took care to for∣tify them against them. Hence may be ob∣served the Antiquity of the Form and Office of Baptism, which our Church makes use of at this Day. The solemn Renuntiation of the Devil and his Works, and of the Pomp and Vani∣ty of the World, is as old as Primitive Chri∣stianity. Yea, some Learned Men have thought, that the Apostle St. Peter alludes to it, in his 1 Epist. Chap. 3. v. 21. and that the Answer of a good Conscience there, refers to the manner of Interrogation and Answer used in Baptism. But this by the by. That which you are chiefly to take notice of is, that whereas the Wicked Ghosts and Daemons were ambitious of Divine Adoration, it pleased God so to bless and succeed the Chri∣stian Religion, that in a short time this wicked Usage wore away, this cursed Work of the Devil came to nought, the Christian Faith being, by the wonderful Providence of Heaven, ••••opagated so universally through the World.

Sixthly, I conceive, that by the Works of the Devil are meant here especially those Sins which have most of his Image upon them, and wherein Men more immediately and direct∣ly resemble that Accursed Spirit; those Works which the Devil chiefly tempts Men to, and which he himself is observed to pra∣ctise most. As first, Malice and Envy are the proper Guise and Character of Devils; for these lapsed Spirits being irrecoverably damned themselves, are fired with Revenge and Malice against all Mankind; being thrust down from Heaven, they endeavour to hin∣der us from coming thither. Wherefore Envy (which is a Grieving at the Good and Welfare of others) Sporting with Mens In∣firmities, Exposing them to Obloquy and Disgrace, Delighting in the Miseries of those we affect not, Rejoicing at the Evils which befal others; these have all an Impress of the Devilish Spirit on them. Our Saviour pro∣nounced concerning the Pharisees, whom he found to be Envious and Malicious, that the Works of their Father they would do, plainly giving us to understand, that these Vices are more eminently Diabolical. But the Laws of Christianity strictly enjoin us,* 1.442 to lay aside all Malice and Envy, and command us to † 1.443 rejoice with them that rejoice, to weep with them that weep, and‖ 1.444 to be kindly affectioned one to∣wards another, and to delight in the Welfare and Happiness of our Brethren. Again, Rage and Passion, Bitter Strife and Contention

may be justly ranked among the Devil's Works. Schism and Faction are from him, who was the first Mutineer and Rebel against Heaven, and ever since delights in Wars and Tumults, and loves to ruffle and embroil the World, and raise Tempests and Storms in it. But Christ Jesus, our Blessed Peace-maker and Reconciler, came to remove all Grounds of Difference, and to introduce Universal Love and Charity. And Christianity it self is fur∣nish'd with Peaceable and Healing Principles, and offers all the Motives and Incentives to it imaginable. The Laws of Christ are ful∣ly set against all undue Passion and Choler, and there are in no Institution whatsoever so severe Prohibitions of this Diabolical Tem∣per; * 1.445 Let all Bitterness, and Wrath, and An∣ger, be put away from you.† 1.446 Let not the Sun go down on your Wrath; neither give place to the Devil. Where we learn, that the Fire of Hell burns in Angry Breasts; the Brimstone of the Bottomless Pit may be smelt there. He that is overcome of Passion, gives place to the De∣vil.

I add in the next place, that Pride is per∣fectly Diabolical. It was this which first in∣fected Lucifer and his Fellow-Angels, and thrust them down from their Heavenly Dig∣nity, and made them (what they now are) Devils. But our Saviour on the contrary throws down Pride, and exalts Humility, and commends it to all his Followers from his own Example, Learn of me, for I am Meek and Lowly. This is a right Christian

Temper, and is Heavenly and God-like, and whoso fosters it in his Breast is beloved of God, and all Good Men. Reproaching and Reviling are no less the Devil's Works, and thence he hath his Name given him in the Greek: A Devil and a Reviler are terms con∣vertible. It is the Office and Employ of the Evil Spirit, first to raise, and then to keep up Slanders and Contumelious Reports. But behold, our Blessed Master hath left us Rules diametrically opposite to these Practices. * 1.447 We must put away from us all Evil-s••••ak∣ing. We are not suffer'd to revile, though we be reviled: Yea, we are to be possessors of that Charity which† 1.448 thinketh no Evil.

To proceed, Lying and Falshood, Craft and Treachery, most sensibly discover the Devilish Nature. These Windings and Crooked Courses are the Goings of the Serpent. We are told, that the Devil put it into Judas's Heart to betray Christ, that we may thence in∣fer, that Treachery and Perfidiousness are more immediately from that False Spirit: And for this Reason chiefly our Saviour doth once and again call this Mock-Apostle‖ 1.449 a Devil. But certainly nothing is more oppo∣site to Christianity, than this base and sor∣did Vice. And Christ and his Apostles, both by Precept and Example, commend Fideli∣ty, Truth and Sincerity, and disallow of all Guile and Hypocrisy, and herein shew them∣selves opposite to the Wicked Spirit, who is a Liar, and the Father of Lies, John 8. 44.

In the same place it is said, He was a Mur∣derer from the beginning; which suggests to us another Particular. He began betimes to ex∣ert his Cruel Nature: in the first setting out of Mankind, he stir'd up Cain to kill his Bro∣ther; and ever since this Savage and Bloody Spirit hath shew'd it self in the World. It is the inseparable Property of the Roaring Lion to seek whom he may devour. He is the De∣stroyer, * 1.450 Apollyon is his Name, and he acts agreeably to it. As for his Violence and Cruelty towards Mens Bodies, in continual haunting and worrying the Possessed, I have said something already in this Discourse; but it is another sort of Cruelty which I am now to speak of, of which I will propound these two notable Instances: First, The Humane Sa∣crifices which were offered in most parts of the World. Secondly, The Bloody Prizes of the Gladiators, which prevail'd in great Ci∣ties, chiefly at Rome, the Mistress and Go∣verness of the World: And I will briefly hint to you how the Christian Religion de∣stroy'd these Works of Satan.

First, I say, Humane Slaughter and Sacrifi∣ces were no unusual things in the World. The Evil Spirit taught Parents to make a Burnt-Offering of their Children unto Mo∣loch, to Sacrifice them alive in the Valley of Hinnom; so that the Name of Hell, Gehenna, takes its denomination ••rom that bloody Usage. This Moloch was the God of the Ammonites; but it appears from Ier. 7. 31. and Psal. 106. 37. that even the Iews, God's

Select People, burnt their Sons and Daugh∣ters to this Idol, nay, although they had been particularly cautioned against it by an early Prohibition, Levit. 18. 21. I know some of the* 1.451 Rabbins hold, that the Children were not burnt or killed, but that two Fires being made, the Priests drew them between both, and that was all. But this is a Rabbinical Fancy, for 'tis clear from that place in the fore-mentioned Psalm, that the Children who were offered to Moloch, were slain and burnt. They sacrificed their Sons and Daugh∣ters: Iisbechu, Mactarunt, they killed them: And therefore it immediately follows, They shed Innocent Blood, even the Blood of their Sons, and of their Daughters; and the Land was pol∣luted with Blood. Hereupon these Idolatrous Rites are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wisd. 14. 23. i. e. Ceremonies that were accompa∣nied with the Slaughter and Death of their Children. But I think I can guess at the Reason why some of the Rabbins conceited that this passing through the Fire was not at∣tended with the Death of the Persons, but was rather Purgative than Mortal. The Oc∣casion of this Opinion might be this; There was a very old Custom of passing through the Fire without Killing: for those that swore to clear themselves of a supposed Guilt, un∣dertook likewise to purge themselves, and clear their Innocence, by going through, or over, or between certain Fires, or hot glowing Coals, or Irons; and if they came off un∣hurt, they were believ'd to be Guiltless.

The Grecians of old used to swear and purge themselves from Crimes, by creeping on their Hands through some Fire, or by hold-a red hot Iron in their Hands: for thus one in* 1.452 Sophocles's Antigona offer'd to swear and clear himself. St.† 1.453 Cyril treats of this old Piece of Superstition: and our own Histo∣ries tell us, that our Ancestors in this Island were no strangers to such a kind of Ordeal. This perhaps might give some Jewish Wri∣ters occasion to imagine, that this kind of Fiery Trial is spoken of, when the Scripture saith, The Children pass'd through the Fire to Moloch; and to think it was only a Conse∣crating or Initiating the Persons into the Pa∣gan Rites, a Previous Purgation or Februa∣tion, as‖ 1.454 Vossius calls it, (for he holds they were not burnt, but only pass'd between two Fires; though in another place he is of ano∣ther opinion). But this is a gross Mistake, for the fore-named Text informs us, that it was a Bloody Rite; and accordingly Philo, a Learned and Sagacious Jew, as well as Eu∣sebius and other Christian Fathers, assert it to be of that Nature, and explode the con∣trary Opinion.

But who hath not read of the barbarous Effusion of Humane Blood on the Altars of the Painims? The Iews, it is probable, had it from them, and particularly from the Canaanites, who (as we are ascertain'd from Deut. 12. 31.) were in••ected with this Cruel∣ty: Thei•• Sons and their Daughters they burnt in the Fire to their Gods. And an impious Ex∣ample

of this we have in 2 Kings 3. 27. where we read, that the King of Moab offer'd up the King of Edom's Son (the Heir of the Kingdom) for a Burnt-Offering. These Heathens were not content with Sacrificing of Beasts, but they must needs offer Humane Sacrifices to their Daemons. And it is strange to see how this Vile Usage spread it self, and prevail'd among all Nations. That it did so among the Old Grecians, is testi∣fied by several Authors* 1.455 Pro∣phane and† 1.456 Ecclesiastical: Par∣ticularly we are told by‖ 1.457 Por∣phyrius, that the Lacedemonians used this Cruelty, and sacrifi∣ced a Living Man to Mars. The rest of the * 1.458 Grecians did the same, or the like: Yea, this Practice was Authorized by the Oracle it self, which ordered the Greeks to Sacrifice Agamemnon's Daughter to Diana, to appease her Goddessship. The Persons thus Sacrifi∣ced, were call'ed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Purgatory or Expiatory Oblations; to which some Cri∣ticks have thought the Apostle alludes, in 1 Cor. 4. 13. where he saith, that himself, and the rest of the Christians of that Time, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,, Devoted, Accursed, Abo∣minable in the Eyes of the World, and de∣stined for Slaughter. Among the Trojans likewise Sacrificing of Humane Blood was in use, as we learn from Homer and Virgil. So among the Persians Men and Women were usually kill'd in Sacrifice to Mithra. How∣ever,

ever, great †* 1.459 Torments were to be under∣gone by all that were entred into the Rites of their Worship: No less than fourscore kinds of Punishments they were to suffer first. That the Africans, and particularly the Carthagenians, sacrificed Children to their Gods, is attested by sufficient * 1.460 Writers: Nay,† 1.461 Plutarch tells us, that those amongst them that had no Children, bought some of poor People to Sacrifice them. This was the Practice of the* 1.462 Ethiopi∣ans, † 1.463 Saracens,‖ 1.464 Scythians, * 1.465 Phoenicians and† 1.466 Tyrians. Our Neighbours, the Ancient Gauls and Germans (as Casar de Bello Gall. l. 6. relates) were guilty of this Bloody Folly. Nor were the Old Inhabi∣tants of this Island, where we live free from this Wild and Extravagant Practice. The Briti••h Druids held, that the Wrath of their Gods could not be appeased in some Cases but with the Life of Man; and accordingly (as* 1.467 Dio Cassius and† 1.468 Tacitus report) the People of this Isle, led on by their Priests, frequently offer'd these Barbarous Sacrifices. Thus you may be satisfied from divers Au∣thors, and many more than I have named, (for this I own to be a brief Collection made from them, as I see* 1.469 Others have done before me) that the Custom of Sacri••icing Men

did almost universally obtain in the World. Nothing was more common with them, than to offer up an Innocent Person to the Gods in time of some Imminent Danger, to paci∣fy their Wrath, and remove the Publick Calamity. This Example of Devilish Cru∣elty was very frequent among the Pagans before our Saviour's Coming, and a while after: But as soon as Christianity had got any footing in the World, it began to disap∣pear. After Christ had offer'd himself a Sa∣crifice on the Cross, and his Holy Religion was propagated, this Custom of Sacrificing Men ceased in a great part of the World. It is true, this Cruel and Tyrannical Sway of the Evil Spirit is not yet wholly destroyed. The Sacrificing of Children to the* 1.470 Devil, was in use not long ago among the Americans. We read of the Dreadful and Astonishing Apparitions of Satan to the People of Flo∣rida and Brasil, and other Countries where Paganism is still in its Meridian. These Devil-Worshippers complain, that he cuts and tears their Flesh, and miserably torments their poor Carcasses. Indeed those that give an Account of the Americans and Indians, (as Acosta and others) do constantly take notice, that flashing and cutting their Bodies are usual in their Worship. But it is to be hoped, that this and all other Acts of Cru∣elty will at last be abandoned, when the Christian Faith shall arrive among those Bloody Men. We are to bless God, that

there are any Effects of it already in those parts of the World, and to pray that there may be yet a larger and more vigorous Influ∣ence of the Laws of Christianity, which are against nothing more than Cruelty and Bloodshed.

Secondly, The Bloody Spectacles of the Gla∣diators were no small Instance of the De∣vil's Empire in the Pagan World, which de∣lighted in Slaughter, and made it one of their Publick Sports to see Men kill one a∣nother upon the Theater. It was usual not only to expose Men to fight with Beasts, and at last to be torn by them, but they kept others to fight with their own Kind, and to dispatch one another. Of the for∣mer of these speaks that Pious Bishop Salvian;* 1.471

In those Spectacles, saith he, the main thing that pleased them was, to feast their Eyes with the slaughter of Men, and to see Wild Beasts gorge themselves with Humane Flesh, and that with an incredible Satisfaction and Delight.

This was the Lot of some Condem∣ned Malefactors, and of some that were taken Captive in War. These who had fought with Men, were now compell'd to fight with Beasts, and so to lose their Lives. And some think that the Blessed St. Paul was put upon this sharp

Service at Ephesus, for they take that to be the meaning of his words, when he saith, He fought with Beasts at Ephesus, 1 Cor. 15. 32. i. e. not with Wicked Men (as it is ge∣nerally interpreted) who are Irrational and Savage Creatures, and Men only in Shape, but really with Wild Beasts, with whom he was condemned to fight for his Life, this be∣ing the Punishment inflicted on him. This is the Interpretation which St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose give of the words: and it will not seem strange, if we duly consider these fol∣lowing things.

1. When there is a plain and express place of Scripture, 'tis not safe to evade it by flying to Metaphors. Which is the Case here: St. Paul saith, he fought with Beasts; and we may very well understand it in the plain and obvious Sense of the Words; wherefore we are to chuse this Literal Sense before a Metaphorical one: Especially if we consider.

2. That this was in those Times and after∣wards an usual Punishment inflicted on the Christians.* 1.472 Christianos ad Leones, was the Peoples Cry: though, I grant, that merely to be thrown to the Beasts was another thing; there was no fighting then, they were thrown to them to be torn in pieces presently, and to be devoured, as that Glorious M••rtyr† 1.473 Ig∣natins was. But Others were exposed to fight with them, and that on the Publick Thea∣ters; and they were armed for that purpose,

and if they could get the mastery of the Beasts (of which the Instances are very rare) they were set free: which known Custom and Practice it is likely the Apostle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the forenamed place, may be well applied.

3. It is remarkably said [at Ephesus]; for in this Celebrated Place, that Bloody sort of Prizes was very usual, as we are informed by ‖ 1.474 Artemidorus and others.

4. What you read to have been the Con∣sequent of the great Vproar against St. Paul at Ephesus, the dragging his Companions into the Theater, Acts 19. 29, 31. seems to have a particular relation to this very thing.

5. Those words in 1 Cor. 4. 9. We are made a Spectacle (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) unto the World, may be thought to be an Allusion to this his fight∣ing on the Publick Stage; especially if you mind the words immediately following, God hath set forth us as 'twere appointed to Death, design'd by our Adversaries to that Fatal Combate.

6. This is more than intimated to the Co∣rinthians, 2 Cor. 1. 8. where he acquaints them with his Trouble which came to him in Asia, (of which Ephesus was the Chief Ci∣ty) how he was press'd out of measure above strength, in so much that he despair'd even of Life: And in the next Verse he tells them, that he had the Sentence of Death in himself: And then in the next words he thankfully acknowledgeth God's Hand in delivering him

from so great a Death. All which Passages seem to refer very plainly to this Deadly En∣counter with the Beasts at Ephesus: Or at least it appears hence, (as the Learned Dr. Ham∣mond and Dr. Lightfoot acknowledg) that St. Paul was designed, appointed by the Mul∣titude to this Punishment, although God dis∣appointed their Bloody Designs. If it be objected, that the Apostle makes no men∣tion of this among his Dangerous and Bloody Adventures which he particularly recounts in 2 Cor. 11. 23, &c. This Answer may suffice, that the Apostle underwent more than he particularly sets down; but in those general words [in Deaths oft] he comprehends all: Yea, these very words may particularly re∣fer to his fighting with Wild Beasts, which certainly had been attended with Death, un∣less the Divine Providence had in an extra∣ordinary manner interposed. So that this Objection is of no Force, and cannot hinder us from taking the words in their proper meaning. In brief, I will say this, although perhaps none of these forementioned Texts singly taken, may be thought sufficient to in∣duce us to a belief of what I have propound∣ed; yet if we consider them altogether, I think they will not fail to render it very probable. This is all I suggest, leaving every one to determine as they please. Though St. Paul was deliver'd from so great and im∣minet a Death, and that by no less than a Miracle perhaps, yet in these Bloody Com∣bates

the Beasts generally got the better: yea, sometimes one Lion was hard enough for* 1.475 two hundred Men; and when this happen'd, it was a Worthy and Noble Prize indeed, for they always esteemed these Games according to the Number of the Persons that were dispatched by the Beasts: when the most Men were killed upon the Spot, the Sport was at the highest, which shews how Devilish it was.

But the latter sort of Prizes, viz. where Men fought with their own Kind, was the worst. In these Bloody and Inhu∣mane Matches, they first brought Slaves on the Theater to combate one another, and afterwards others of better Quality. Besides, some were hired to undertake this Employment, and some were bred up and disciplined to it. It grew an Art to Diet, to Arm, to fit them for this Purpose. Nor can it be express'd how † 1.476 the People were taken with this Sport, and how they flock'd to it. No Entertain∣ment pleas'd them like this Bloody Fencing. Here they could kill Men at their plea∣sure; by turning up the Thumb they could at any time adjudg the Com∣batants to continue the Fight, and they had Power to keep them Fighting till they died on the Place: And when any of them did so, others were presently fetched and

placed in their room, to fight with the Vi∣ctor, till one of them fell dead on the Spot. Lactantius hath well ex∣pressed it thus;‖ 1.477

They shew themselves very an∣gry, and grow enraged, un∣less one of the Combatants be slain very speedily: and as if they thirsted after Hu∣mane Blood, they hate all Delays, and call for other fresh Fighters that are not weary and faint, but will briskly fall on, and thereby satiate the Eyes of the Spe∣ctators.

From these Passages we may be informed how mad the World was upon Slaughter and Bloodshed: We see what strange Immora∣lities these Civilized People admitted among them, what Barbarous and Outragious Usa∣ges were approved of by them. This I might well mention as one Instance of the Devil's working among them. But the Chri∣stians continually declamed against those Bloody Games, they Preach'd and wrote a∣gainst these Inhumane Combates; and at last* 1.478 the Christian Emperors strictly forbad them. You may read in the Antient Apo∣logists, how these Unlawful and Mad Shews are struck at, and how the Christians are particularly warned against them. A Chri∣stian was not permitted to be a Spectator of them, but by his Profession and Cha∣racter,

he was obliged to declare against them, and draw off others (if he could) from being present at them. Hear the words of one of the most Learned Apologizers for the Christian Religion against the Pagans;

We,† 1.479 saith he, abstain from, and are a∣verse to these Spectacles of the Sword-Players, being perswaded that there is no great difference between being a Spectator of these Bloody Prizes, and an Author of the Bloodshed there committed.

Thus the Primitive Christians shew'd their Abhor∣rence of these Entertainments, and so at length they came to be wholly laid aside, and accounted utterly unlawful. Thus this Work of the Devil was destroyed: which we cannot but attribute to the Manifestation of the Son of God upon the Earth, and to his Holy In∣stitution, which promotes Tender-hearted∣ness and Pity, and condemns whatever is Sa∣vage and Bloody.

But the Slaughter and Murder of Souls are the worst and highest Cruelty, the Main Work and Business of that Implacable Enemy of Mankind. Those Cursed Spirits being fallen themselves from God, indeavour the Apostacy of all Mankind; and this they do, by draw∣ing Men into Error, and by tempting them to Sin and Wickedness. They are as busy in debauching Mens Minds by Erroneous O∣pinions and False Doctrines, as they are in any other Design; and they get as much by it: for by corrupting Mens Understandings

and Notions, they prepare the way for all other Mischiefs to ensue. Heresies are of the Devil, and lead to him; and therefore Poly∣carp knew what he said, when he call'd Mar∣cion (that Arch-Heretick) the first-born of Satan. But the inveigling to Practical Er∣ror, which is no other than Vice, gives him chiefly his Denomination of Tempter; and consequently those who allure others to Vice, those who entice them to Evil Cour∣ses, are to be call'd by no softer Terms, than those of Murderers and Devils; for Tempting, i. e. drawing others to Sin, is properly the Work of the Devil; this is that which he constantly practiseth, and takes so much de∣light in. But the Blessed Founder of Chri∣stianity is a Saviour and Lover of Souls, who thus expostulated when he was on Earth; What is a Man profited, if he shall gain the whole World, and lose his own Soul? or what shall a Man give in exchange for his Soul? This Je∣sus was Loving and Kind-hearted, and sub∣mitted to a painful and ignominious Death, to give an undeniable Demonstration of his Compassion to the Souls of Men. He as∣cended the Cross, and shed his Blood there, to convince the World how Tender he was of their Immortal Concerns, and Everlast∣ing Welfare: And let me speak a Great Word, He would even now leave all his Glo∣ries, and die once more for Man, if it were necessary for the procuring of his Happi∣ness.

Lastly, Carnality, Lewdness and Vncleanness, may fitly be stiled the Devil's Works. It is well known, that these prevailed even in the most Solemn Rites and Devotions of the Pagans. As the Poets represent the Gods Lewd and Lascivious, so the most Serious Authors tell us of the Impure and Filthy Sacrifices, the Villanous and Beastly Rites performed to them. They relate the Obscene Feasts of Bacchus and Priapus, of Flora and Venus, and acquaint us that they kept their Lupercalia, or Festivals of Pan, in running up and down na∣ked, behaving themselves in that lewd man∣ner which cannot be named without injuring chaste and modest Ears. Of the Eleusinian So∣lemnities, in Honour of Ceres and Proserpina, we have some Account from* 1.480 Tertullian: and the Religious Ceremonies of Isis were as lewd and obscene, saith† 1.481 Plutarch. It is certain that Lewdness and Wantonness were the very Ingredients of their Worship, and their very Temples were Stews. Arnobius makes it his Business in his fifth Book, to shew how obscene and unchaste, how immo∣dest and shameless their Rites and Ceremonies, their Stories and Relations of their Gods were. In brief, Vncleanness hath been so eminently confirmed to be the Work of the Devil, that the Foul Fiends have sometimes assumed Bo∣dies to act it in, as‖ 1.482 some have thought. But Christ coming in the Flesh, destroyed even the Deeds of the Flesh: he chose to be born of a Pure Virgin, that he might give a Pattern

of Spotless Purity in the World; and the De∣sign of his Holy Institution, was to Sanctify Mens Bodies and Souls, and to fit them for the unstained Pleasures of another Life. Thus I have finish'd my Task, having largely and particularly shew'd you what the Works of the Devil are, either such Works as are done by that Evil Spirit, or such Vices and Practices in Men, as more nearly approach to the De∣vilish Nature and Temper; and I have at the same time proved that our Saviour and his Religion, do overthrow and destroy these Works of the Infernal Spirit.

I will only add a Critical Remark on that manner of Expression in the Text, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that he may loose (our English Word, it is likely, coming from thence) or dissolve, &c. for that is the exact rendring of the Word. This supposes Bonds and Fetters: We were in Durance and Captivity, we were shut and lock'd up* 1.483 in the Prison-house, we were un∣der the Power of Satan and Dominion of Sin: but the Merciful Iesus came to rescue and re∣deem Mankind, to knock off their Fetters, and to set them at Liberty. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, and for this only. He came not (as the Iews fondly imagined concerning their Messias) to be a Great Earth∣ly Monarch, to wage War, and to beat the Romans out of Iudea, and to make his People Rich and Wealthy, and to promote them to great Honours. This alas was a poor Design, and not worthy of the Messias: but he came

to effect a thing of greater Moment, even of Universal Concern, and that which is more Noble and Glorious than all Worldly Empire and Soveraignty. He came to free his People from the Tyranny of Satan, to vanquish the Prince of Darkness who had enslaved all Mankind.

Or, this Word gives us a true Notion of our Saviour's Design, thus: The Devil had corrupted Man, had been the great Instrument at first of depraving his very Nature, and ever since he hath made it his Work to debauch Mens Minds and Manners, and by all ways imaginable, to render them like unto him∣self. Hereupon the Son of God was sent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he might dissolve, defeat, undo these Works of the Devil. This is the short and plain Account of the Grand End of Christ's being manifested in the World, of his Incarnation, Doctrine, Life, Sufferings, Death, and all his Undertakings whatsoever; it was no other than this, to undo, to annul all that the Devil had done in the World. Christ's task was to pull down what Satan had built up, to untie, to untwist all his Knots and Intri∣gues, to baffle all his Plots and Contrivances, to unravel the Inchantments of the Evil Spi∣rit, to break the Snares of Satan, and to de∣stroy the Destroyer.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lev. 27. 32. Ps. 2. 9.
• † 1.2

  Ps. 31. 13.
• * 1.3

  Iudges 5. 14.
• * 1.4

  Non aufe∣retur. Vulg. Lat.
• * 1.5

  Simon. Critic. Hist. l▪ 2.
• * 1.6

  R. Solo∣mon.
• * 1.7

  ••. D. Ki••∣chi, Aben Ezra, R. ••••∣chai.
• ‖ 1.8

  Gala••i••••s, Calvin, ••••∣nius & Tre∣••elli••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.9

  Vatablus, Fagius, Ca∣stalio, Shin∣dler, Ave∣narius, Hot∣ger, Mede.
• * 1.10

  Th••nce Merce•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 A••e••arius, ••nd other E••••∣••ologists, d••rive this L••∣tin word Salvare fr••m the H••brew Verb Sh••la••, or the Noun Shal••ah.
• ‖ 1.11

  Lo Shala••••i, I was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sa••ety.
• * 1.12

  I••shlaiu, ••••ieti er••nt Mon••an.
• * 1.13

  Psal. 30. 6. Ier. 1••. 1. Lam. 1. 5.
• * 1.14

  Hoc quantum est? ita mag∣num ut Latino un•• verbo ex primi non possit, l. 4. contra Verrem.
• * 1.15

  De Resur∣rect. carn. c. 47. Adv. Mar••ion. l. ••
• * 1.16

  In Matt. 1. 21.
• * 1.17

  Is est ni∣mirum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qui sa∣lutem dedit. ibid.
• * 1.18

  1 Tim. 4. 10.
• * 1.19

  Mat. 1. 21.
• * 1.20

  Acts 5. 31.
• * 1.21

  1 Thess. 1. 10.
• * 1.22

  Heb. 5. 9.
• * 1.23

  Elias Le∣••i••a Thi••b.
• ‖ 1.24

  In Pinda ro, Sophocle, Aeschilo.
• * 1.25

  Iul. Poll. Onom••st. l. 6 c. 16. Atbe∣nae. l. 45. c. 20.
• ‖ 1.26

  Nat. Hist. ••. 34.
• † 1.27

  Aelian. var. Hist. l. 1. c. 36.
• ‖ 1.28

  Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 11. c. 6.
• * 1.29

  Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 12. c. 7.
• † 1.30

  Gen. 41. 49
• ‖ 1.31

  Dan. 9. 24
• * 1.32

  Mic. 5. 5.
• ‖ 1.33

  Zech. 6. 13
• ‖ 1.34

  Col. 1. 20.
• † 1.35

  Eph. 2. 14.
• ‖ 1.36

  1 Ti••. 2 5.
• * 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.38

  Isa. 2. 4, 5.
• ‖ 1.39

  In vit. Nu••ae.
• ‖ 1.40

  Isa, 9. 6.
• ‖ 1.41

  Shiloh, h. e. Ille fortu∣natus. Ave∣••••••. Lexic.
• * 1.42

  Rev. 1. 5.
• ‖ 1.43

  Luke 1. 32, 33.
• ‖ 1.44

  Matt. 21.
• * 1.45

  Iudg. 10. 4
• ‖ 1.46

  Mat. 21. 8.
• * 1.47

  Plutarch. in Catone Vtic. Aes∣chil. in Aga∣memn.
• † 1.48

  V. 9.
• † 1.49

  L. 3. c. 6.
• ‖ 1.50

  Sympos. l. 8. c. 5.
• * 1.51

  Ps. 92. 12.
• ‖ 1.52

  Neh. 8. 15
• ‖ 1.53

  Bochart. de Animal. Sacr. l. 2. c. 17.
• ‖ 1.54

  Acts 2. 36.
• † 1.55

  Eph. 1. ••0, &c.
• ‖ 1.56

  Rev. 19. 16.
• ‖ 1.57

  Rev. 11. 15.
• ‖ 1.58

  2 Sam. 16. 16. 1 Kings 1. 31.
• ‖ 1.59

  Sanati su∣mus. Vulg. Lat.
• ‖ 1.60

  Isa. 42. 2.
• ‖ 1.61

  Sanhedr. c. 11. Neda∣rim. c. 4. Pesachim. c. 3.
• ‖ 1.62

  Scaliger, Casaubon.
• ‖ 1.63

  St. Ierom, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers.
• ‖ 1.64

  In libr. Radic.
• ‖ 1.65

  Origen in Ex. 21. Hom. 9. Cy∣••il. Alex▪ de Adorat. in Spir & ••e∣rit. l. 11.
• ‖ 1.66

  In locum.
• ‖ 1.67

  In locum.
• ‖ 1.68

  Antiq. Iud. l. 3. c. 9.
• * 1.69

  De Dis Syr. Syntag. 1.
• ‖ 1.70

  Dr. Po∣cock Com∣ment. on Hos. 3. 4.
• * 1.71

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 1.72

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.73

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

  Summa Epistola∣rum h••c fuit. Vulg. Lat.
• * 1.75

  Heb. 8. 10. 10. 16.
• ‖ 1.76

  Teraphim. Hebr.
• ‖ 1.77

  In locum.
• ‖ 1.78

  Quales fu∣erint resne∣minimorta∣liu•••• con∣stat. In Ex. 28. 30.
• * 1.79

  Exercitat. cap. 2.
• ‖ 1.80

  Dr. Gellon Lev. 8. 8.
• * 1.81

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 11. de Adorat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Spir. & verit.
• ‖ 1.82

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• ‖ 1.83

  Quaest. 117 in Exod.
• * 1.84

  In Isai.
• ‖ 1.85

  De vita Mos. l. 3.
• ‖ 1.86

  Selden de Dis Syr. Syntag. 2.
• * 1.87

  Scaliger & Causabon
• ‖ 1.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.89

  from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illuxit.
• † 1.90

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 uro, luceo.
• ‖ 1.91

  Letannoth, ad lament an∣dum, à tanan lamentari, R. Iarchi & Chald. Paraphr.
• * 1.92

  Ad confabulandum, à tanah narrare, confab••l••ri. R. ••im∣chi, Iun. & Trem. Buxto••s.
• ‖ 1.93

  Arias Mon∣tanus, Pag∣nin, Vata∣bl••s, Estius.
• * 1.94

  Iunius, Lud. de Di∣eu, Brough∣ton, Perkins Drusius, Grotius, Heinsius, Selden.
• * 1.95

  V. 35.
• * 1.96

  V. 35.
• * 1.97

  V. 36.
• * 1.98

  V. 37.
• * 1.99

  V. 38.
• * 1.100

  V. 39.
• ‖ 1.101

  Ioseph. Ant. Iud. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.102

  Iustin Mart. Quaest. 99. Tertull. cont. Marc. 3. 4. Hieronym. Epist. 34. ad Iulian. chrysost. hom. de Iephthâ. Ambros. de Offic. Nazian••. Orat. 6. de Maccab. Augustin. de civ. Dei. l. 1. c. 21.
• ‖ 1.103

  Luther, Peter Mar∣••r, Salia∣nus, Serari∣us, Menochi∣us, à Lapide, Lud. Cap∣pellus, &c.
• * 1.104

  Dr. Light∣••oot in his Chronicle of the T••nes of the Old Testament.
• * 1.105

  Diatrib. de Voto Iepht.
• * 1.106

  De Iure Nat. & Gent. l. 4. c. 11.
• * 1.107

  In vit. Pelopidae.
• * 1.108

  Tantum religio po∣tuit suade∣re malorum Lucret. l. 1.
• * 1.109

  Epist. ad Iulian.
• * 1.110

  Antiq. Iud. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.111

  Ch. 11. 1.
• ‖ 1.112

  Heb. 11. 32
• * 1.113

  Gen. 28. 20. Num. ••••. 2.
• * 1.114

  Mat. 14. 9.
• * 1.115

  Deut. 23. 21.
• * 1.116

  V. 34.
• ‖ 1.117

  V. 38. 39.
• * 1.118

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Just. Mart. Quaest. & Resp. ad Or∣thod.
• * 1.119

  V. 1, 2.
• ‖ 1.120

  V. 16.
• * 1.121

  V. 20, 21.
• * 1.122

  Seder O∣lam, R. Solo∣mon in cap. 9. Dan.
• * 1.123

  Demon∣strat. E∣vang. Prop. 9.
• * 1.124

  Lyranus, Vatablus, Galatinus, and many of the He∣brews.
• * 1.125

  Dan. 9. 1▪
• * 1.126

  Origen, Cl••me••s A∣lexandri∣nus, Tertul∣lian, Cal∣vin, L' Em∣per••ur, Bero∣aldus, Broughton, Will••t, Light••oot.
• † 1.127

  S••ali••••r, Per••rius, Petavius, Mede.
• * 1.128

  Eusebius, Cyril of Ie∣rusal••m, Pe∣rerius, Pe∣taviu••, Li••••ly, Vsher.
• ‖ 1.129

  Severus Sulpitius, Scaliger, Helvicus, Dr••sius, Iunius, Mede.
• * 1.130

  E••sebius, ••osil, Fune∣ci••s, a Lapide, Ludo∣••icus Ca∣pillus, &c.
• * 1.131

  Chrysosto••, Theodoret, ••ulius A. fricanus, Zonaras, Bede, Salia∣nus, Vorsti∣us, Pererius, •• Lapide, Bishop Montague, Pe avius, Bish▪ V••her.
• * 1.132

  Isaac Vos∣sius, De la Haye.
• * 1.133

  Lib. 11. c. ••
• * 1.134

  Asri••anas, Bede, L••r••, Burg••nsis, M••rcator, Funccius, Bucboltz••r, Lansb••rgi∣us, Pererius, Beroaldus, ••acob. & Lud. Capel∣lus, Erough∣ton, Will••t, Lightfoot.
• * 1.135

  Tr••ullian, Chrysostom, Sulp••tius Se••••ru••, Drusius, Sc••liger, Calvisius.
• * 1.136

  Hi••ronym, in loc. Au∣gustin. de Civ. Dei, l. 18.
• ‖ 1.137

  Co••jectu••â utendum e••t. Calvin.
• † 1.138

  Reinold. Praelect. 1••8.
• * 1.139

  Philocal.
• † 1.140

  Autiq. ••••d. l. 6. ••. 9
• ‖ 1.141

  Exercitat. Sacr. in M••t. 27.
• * 1.142

  A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sep∣••uagint. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2 Sam. 17 23.
• * 1.143

  Strangu∣lat inclusus dolor—Ovid.
• ‖ 1.144

  I•• Trachin.
• * 1.145

  In locum.
• * 1.146

  Origen, contr. Cels. l. 2. Epiphanius contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 38. Chrys••stom. Au∣gustine, Bede, Sed••••ius, Iu∣vencus, Arator.
• ‖ 1.147

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ignat. Epist. ad Philipp.
• * 1.148

  Hist. E∣vangl. l. 4.
• † 1.149

  Fungus S••mbucinus Auricula Iudae.
• * 1.150

  Herodot. T••••••ydid. Pausa••. Ae∣••ian, P••ly∣bius.
• † 1.151

  A••i••••••h. T••••o••rit. E••igram.
• * 1.152

  Isaac Ca∣saubon. Ger∣hard. Ca∣lixt. Di••t••∣ric. &c.
• * 1.153

  〈…〉〈…〉 ••rigen in ••tt. tract. Theophy∣•••• in Mat. 27. Theo∣phan. homil. 27. Zonar. Epist. 56.
• * 1.154

  Tho. G••i∣dot, M. D.
• * 1.155

  From Is∣carab Stran∣gulatio. Lud. de Dieu in Matt. 10. 4. Dr. Light∣foot, Hor. Hebraic. in eund. loc.
• * 1.156

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Hesych.
• * 1.157

  H••••. H••b••, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.158

  Gronov. Exercit. Academ.
• * 1.159

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.160

  Iohn 14. 2
• * 1.161

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.162

  Num. 24. 25. 70 In∣terpr.
• * 1.163

  Inde apud Platon. Po∣lit. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & apud He∣rodian. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.164

  Numb. 15. 19. 18. 24.
• * 1.165

  Lev. 7. 30. 8. 27.
• † 1.166

  Salmas. in Solinum.
• * 1.167

  Resp. 21. ad Ort••od.
• ‖ 1.168

  Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Rom.
• † 1.169

  Suicer. T••esaur. Eccles.
• * 1.170

  In cap. 13. Esai. & in cap. 9. a•• Rom••n.
• ‖ 1.171

  In 23 cap. Act.
• † 1.172

  In Rev. 22. 3.
• * 1.173

  In Gal. 1. 8.
• † 1.174

  Annota•• in Pande••t.
• * 1.175

  In Rom. 9. 3.
• * 1.176

  Exercitat. Sac. in cap. 4. ad Rom.
• † 1.177

  Exercitat. in Solin. p. 1089.
• * 1.178

  In Verbo Anathema p. 99.
• * 1.179

  See Con∣stantine's Lexicon, which in many pla∣ces outdo∣eth all others.
• * 1.180

  Cherem, privatio vel separa∣tio plenaria. Avenar. lib. Radic.
• * 1.181

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ho∣mines quo∣rum ca••ita di••s in••eris devota ••unt. Constant••n. Lexic. & B••daeus.
• * 1.182

  P••rsecutus st. Vu••g. Lat.
• * 1.183

  Brixia••. Thesaur. Linguae S. Avenar. lib. Radic.
• * 1.184

  Rom. 9. 3.
• * 1.185

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ho∣••il 16 in E∣p••st ••d Rom
• ‖ 1.186

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

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I•• Rom. 9 3.
• * 1.188

  Hor. He∣braic.
• * 1.189

  Jud. v. 14.
• * 1.190

  Hor. Hebr.
• * 1.191

  Act. 7. 22.
• † 1.192

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 R. Iudah Ben. Behera.
• * 1.193

  Tert••llian, Augustin, Greg. Nyssen & Nazian∣zen, Basil.
• ‖ 1.194

  Greg. Naz. Orat. de modo in disput.
• * 1.195

  Augustin. de conv. decem Praecept. c. 2.
• † 1.196

  Strom. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.197

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strom. l▪ 6.
• * 1.198

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Strom. l. 7.
• † 1.199

  Confes∣sion. l. 8. c. 7.
• ‖ 1.200

  Philosophus is est qui omnium rerum di∣vinarum at{que} humanarum naturam causas{que} noscit, & omnem bene vivendi rationem tenet ac prose∣quitur. De Oratore 1.
• * 1.201

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Disserta••. 15.
• † 1.202

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Opi••. Mundi.
• * 1.204

  Est unus dies bene & ex prae∣ceptis tuis actus, pec∣ca••ti im∣mortalita∣ti antepo∣nendus. Tusc. qu. 2.
• † 1.205

  Grotius in locum.
• * 1.206

  In Galat. 4. 3.
• * 1.207

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.208

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

  Gal. 4. 9.
• * 1.210

  V. 9.
• * 1.211

  Dr. Ha••∣mond.
• † 1.212

  Essentia, substantia, res ipsa, idem ipse, identitas.
• * 1.213

  Ver. 10.
• * 1.214

  Periander.
• † 1.215

  Omnis Philoso∣phia hu∣mana E∣vangelio repugnans Deceptio est. I•• loc.
• * 1.216

  Rom. 1▪ 22, 23.
• † 1.217

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.218

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.219

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

  Diog. La∣ert. in Pro∣aemio.
• * 1.221

  Plutarch. adv. Stoi∣cos.
• † 1.222

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.223

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.224

  Nihil tam absur∣dum quod non dixe∣rit aliquis Philoso∣phorum. De Nat. Deor. l. 3.
• † 1.225

  Quidvis struere ac destruere eruditi. De Anim. c. 3.
• ‖ 1.226

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diodor. Sic. l. 2.
• * 1.227

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 De Cur. Graec. Aff••ct. Serm. 1.
• * 1.228

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.229

  Rom. 1. 21.
• † 1.230

  Diog. La∣••rt. in Ari∣stippo.
• * 1.231

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tri••∣megist.
• † 1.232

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖ 1.233

  Maxima pars S••oi∣carum dis∣putatio∣num circa Nomina consumi∣••ur.
• * 1.234

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arrian. ••issert.
• * 1.235

  In his A∣postacy of the latter Times.
• * 1.236

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sympos.
• † 1.237

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Osir. & Isid.
• ‖ 1.238

  De Prae∣script. Hae∣retic.
• † 1.239

  Apol. c. 47.
• ‖ 1.240

  Adv. Her∣mogen. c. 8.
• * 1.241

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Har∣menopul. de Sect. 9.
• * 1.242

  Acts 17. 18.
• † 1.243

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Laert. in Epi∣curo.
• ‖ 1.244

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Laert. in Democrito.
• * 1.245

  De Be∣nefic. l. 4.
• † 1.246

  Surda numina, inefficaces D••os.
• ‖ 1.247

  Qui De∣um nihil habere ne∣gotii di∣cunt, & ni∣hil exhi∣••••re alte∣ri.
• * 1.248

  Si in ipso Mundo ••••∣us inest aliquis qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qui gubernet,—nae ille est implicatus molestis ne∣gotiis & operosis. Cic. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nat. deor. l. 1.
• † 1.249

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Laert. in Epicuro.
• ‖ 1.250

  Quis non timeat om∣nia providentem, & cogi∣tantem, & animadverten∣tem, & ommia ad se per∣tinere putantem, curiosum, & plenum negotii Deum? Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1.
• * 1.251

  Ubi{que} non tantùm nobis proximus, sed infu∣sus est; non tantùm su•• illo agimus sed cum illo (ut prope dixerim) vi∣vivimus.—Non so••um in oculis ejus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & in Sinu vivimus.
• * 1.252

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athenae. Deipno∣soph. 1.
• † 1.253

  Diog. La∣ert. in Epi∣curo.
• ‖ 1.254

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.255

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• † 1.256

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.257

  1 Cor. 15. 32.
• † 1.258

  De Pla∣cit. Philos. l. 4.
• * 1.259

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. L••ert. in Epicuro.
• † 1.260

  Certain Philoso∣phers of the Epicureans and of the Stoicks in∣countred ••im. Acts 17. 18.
• * 1.261

  Pl••t. de Contra∣dict. Stoic.
• † 1.262

  Non po∣test Arti∣fex mutare materiam. ••e Provid. ca••. 5.
• * 1.263

  Phys. Stoic. l. 1. Dissertat. 12.
• * 1.264

  Hoc est quod Phi∣losophia mihi pro∣mittit ut me parem Deo faciat. Epist. 49.
• † 1.265

  Sapiens cum Diis ex pari vivit. Epist. 59.
• ‖ 1.266

  Hoc est Summum Bo∣num, quod si occupas, in∣cipis Deorum socius esse, non supplex. Epist. 31.
• * 1.267

  Eclog. Physic.
• † 1.268

  De com∣mun. No∣tionib.
• ‖ 1.269

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.270

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arian. Dis∣sertat. 1. cap. 12.
• † 1.271

  Solebat Sextius di∣cere, ••ovem plus non pos∣se qu••m bonum virum. Jupiter quò antecedit bo∣num virum? Diutiùs bo∣nus est. Epist. 73.
• ‖ 1.272

  Bonus Tempore tan∣tùm à Deo differt. De Provid. c. 1.
• * 1.273

  Deus non vincit Sapien∣tem felicitate, etiamsi vin∣cat aetate. Ibid. Epist. 73.
• * 1.274

  E virtutibus vita be∣ata existit, pa•• & similis Deorum, nullâ re nisi Im∣mortalitate, quae nihil ad bene vivendum pertinet, cedens Coelestibus. De Nat. Deor. I. 2.
• † 1.275

  Est aliquid quo Sa∣piens antecedat Deum. Il∣le naturae beneficio, non suo, sapiens est. Epist. 53.
• * 1.276

  Bonus vir sine Deo nemo est. Epist. 41.
• † 1.277

  Deus in humano cor∣pore hospitans. Epist. 31.
• ‖ 1.278

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathemat.
• * 1.279

  1 Cor. 15. 19.
• * 1.280

  Virtutum Omnium pretium in ipsis est. Sen. Epist 81.
• † 1.281

  Sota. c. 1.
• * 1.282

  In Zeno∣ne.
• † 1.283

  Plin. lib. 7. c. 19.
• * 1.284

  Non edu∣co saplen∣tem ex ho∣minum nu∣mero, &c. Epist. 71.
• ‖ 1.285

  L. 3. c. 2.
• ‖ 1.286

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. de Curios.
• * 1.287

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut. de occult•• videndo.
• † 1.288

  Tusc. Quaest.
• ‖ 1.289

  Gloria nè ab his qui∣dem qui contemptum e∣jus introducere conantur, negligitur: quoniam qui∣dem ipsis voluminibus no∣mina sua diligenter adji∣ciunt. lib. 8. c. 14.
• * 1.290

  Animal Gloriae. De Animâ cap. 1.
• † 1.291

  Gloriae Animal, & ve∣nale rumorum mancipi∣um. Epist. ad Pammach.

  Popularis aurae vile man∣cipium. Epist. ad Iulian.
• * 1.292

  Negotiatores famae. Apolog. cap. 46.
• † 1.293

  Homines Gloriae libi∣dinosi.
• * 1.294

  Tusc. Quaest.
• † 1.295

  Epist. 23. lib. 9.
• * 1.296

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ad Nico∣mach. l. 4. c. 2.
• † 1.297

  De Ve∣rit. Christ. Relig.
• ‖ 1.298

  De In∣vent. 2.
• * 1.299

  Veterem ferendo injuriam invitas no∣vam. Te∣rent.
• † 1.300

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Isocrat.
• ‖ 1.301

  Luke 17. 4.
• * 1.302

  Rom. 12. 20.
• † 1.303

  Luke 6. 37.
• * 1.304

  Tusc. Quaest.
• † 1.305

  In vitâ Lycurg.
• ‖ 1.306

  Cic. Tusc. Quest. l. 1.
• * 1.307

  Nec hoc tanti••m in necessitate ultimâ fa∣cit, sed cum pri∣mum illi coeperit suspecta esse fortu∣na, &c. Epist. 70.
• * 1.308

  Suo quam{que} rem nomi∣ne appel∣lare. Cic. Epist. l. 9. Ep. 22.
• † 1.309

  Ibid.
• ‖ 1.310

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sue de Repub∣lic••, l. 5.
• * 1.311

  Laert. in Zenone.
• † 1.312

  Plutarch. in vit. Ly∣curgi.
• ‖ 1.313

  Idem in vit. Solon.
• * 1.314

  Ille etiam Thracum Populis fuit auctor, amorem In teneros trans••••rre mares.

  Ovid. Metam. l. 10.
• † 1.315

  Apolog. c. 46.
• ‖ 1.316

  Deipno∣soph. I. 13.
• * 1.317

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Laert. in So∣crate.
• † 1.318

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Acts 17. 18.
• ‖ 1.319

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Laert. in Socr.
• * 1.320

  Dialog. Amor.
• † 1.321

  Pyrrh. Hyp. I. 3. c. 24.
• ‖ 1.322

  De Cur. Graec. Af∣fect. I. 9.
• * 1.323

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.324

  Aeschin. Orat. contr. Timarchum. Demosthenes & Lysias, in Orationibus.
• ‖ 1.325

  In vit. Solon. Aes∣chin. Orat. contr. Ti∣march.
• * 1.326

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.327

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Xenoph. de Repub. Lacedaem.
• ‖ 1.328

  Col. 3. 5.
• * 1.329

  Mat. 5. 28.
• † 1.330

  Ephes. 4. 29.
• ‖ 1.331

  1 Pet. 2. 11.
• * 1.332

  Rom. 13. 14.
• † 1.333

  1 Cor. 6. 18.
• ‖ 1.334

  Heb. 13. 4.
• * 1.335

  Polit. l. 7. c. 16.
• † 1.336

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• ‖ 1.337

  De Le∣gib. Speci∣alib.
• * 1.338

  L. 2. c. 35.
• † 1.339

  Petit. in Leges A••∣tic••s.
• ‖ 1.340

  Teren••. Heauton∣tim. Act. 4. Scen. 1. Aristo∣phan, Ra∣nae.
• * 1.341

  Plutarch. vit. Lycur∣gi.
• † 1.342

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plut.
• * 1.343

  De Re∣pub. l. 2.
• * 1.344

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. La••rt. in Epicuro.
• † 1.345

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• ‖ 1.346

  De Placit. Philosoph. l. 4.
• * 1.347

  In Phae∣done, seu de Animo.
• † 1.348

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plat. Apo∣logia So∣cratis.
• ‖ 1.349

  Ibid.
• * 1.350

  De Con∣solatione ad Apol∣lon.
• † 1.351

  Si supremus ille di∣es non extincti••nem, sed commutationem a••••ert lo∣ci, quid optabilius? Si au∣tem perimit ac delet om∣nino, quid melius quàm in mediis vitae laboribus obdormiscere, & i••a con∣niventem somno consopiri sempiterno? Cic. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.352

  Mors nos aut consumit aut emittit: emissis meli∣ora restant, onere detra∣cto; consumptis nihil re∣stat. Epist. 24.
• * 1.353

  Fortasse si modò sa∣pientum vera fama est, recipit{que} nos locus aliquis. Epist. 63.
• † 1.354

  —Siquis modò extinctis sensus inest. Val. Max. l. 4. c. 6.
• ‖ 1.355

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Instit. Cyr. l. 8.
• * 1.356

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.357

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diog. Laert▪ in Zenone.
• ‖ 1.358

  Diu mansuros aiunt ani∣mos; sem∣per, ne∣gant. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.
• * 1.359

  Unum bonum est, quod beatae vi∣tae causa & firma∣mentum est, sibi fidere. Sen. Epist. 31.
• † 1.360

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plutarch. de Contra∣dict. S••oi∣corum.
• ‖ 1.361

  De vero cultu, cap. 17.
• * 1.362

  Praefat. ad Ethic.
• † 1.363

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dialog. cū Tryph.
• ‖ 1.364

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• * 1.365

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. l. 4.
• † 1.366

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epist. l. 5.
• ‖ 1.367

  Sozo∣men. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 12.
• * 1.368

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hesiod. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.369

  E••ek. 21. 21.
• * 1.370

  Liv. lib. 1.
• * 1.371

  Selden de Dis Syr. 1. Syntag.
• † 1.372

  Zoar▪ &c.
• * 1.373

  —Nam Dîs, ut proxima quaeque, Nunc pennâ veros, nunc datis ore sonos.

  Ovid. Fast. l. 5.
• * 1.374

  Homer. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• † 1.375

  Varro, Ennius.
• ‖ 1.376

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 21.
• * 1.377

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ar∣temidor. l. 3. c. 5.
• † 1.378

  Sue••on. in O••tavio, cap. 92.
• ‖ 1.379

  Idem. cap. 96.
• * 1.380

  Hom. Odyss. 6. Aristot. de Hist. Nat. Plutarch. vit. Home∣ri.
• † 1.381

  Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.
• ‖ 1.382

  Plut. in vitaâ The∣mistoel.
• * 1.383

  Xenoph. Hist. l. 6.
• * 1.384

  Nè quid inauguratò faciunto. Lex Papir. Au∣spiciis hanc urbem con∣ditam esse, auspiciis bello ac pace, domi militiae{que} omnia geri, quis est qui ignoret? Liv. lib. 6. c. 41.
• † 1.385

  A. Gell. l. 13. c. 14.
• * 1.386

  De D••ct. Christian. l. ••.
• * 1.387

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sympos.
• † 1.388

  Quae est autem gens, aut quae civitas quae non aut extis pecudum, aut augurum, aut ••or••ium prae∣dictione moveatur? De Divina••. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.389

  In Pro∣blem.
• * 1.390

  Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.
• * 1.391

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.392

  Lect. An∣tiq. l. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.393

  Sir Tho. P. B's Es∣says.
• * 1.394

  Lib. de Daemoni∣bus.
• † 1.395

  Lib. de Mysteriis, cap. 21.
• * 1.396

  Cur isto modo jam O••acula D••lphis non e∣d••n••••r, non modo nostrâ a••ta••e, fed 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ••t ni∣hil possit e••••e contemp∣tius?
• * 1.397

  Excessere omnes adytis, aris{que} relictis Dii quibus imperium hoc steterat, &c.
• † 1.398

  —Delphis oracula 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Et g••nus humanum dam∣nat caligo 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.399

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.400

  Praepar. Evang. lib. 4 & 5.
• ‖ 1.401

  Plutarch. de Hero∣doto.
• * 1.402

  Luk. 10. 17.
• † 1.403

  Contr. Cels. l. 3.
• * 1.404

  Lib. 2. cap. 58.
• * 1.405

  De vanit. Idolorum.
• † 1.406

  Orat. A∣pologe••.
• * 1.407

  Magi non tantum sci∣unt daemo••es, sed etiam quicquid miraculi edunt, per daemones faciunt: il∣lis aspirantibus & infun∣dentibus praestigias edunt, &c. Adv. Gentes.
• * 1.408

  No less Persons than Gr••gory the Great, Hugo 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and M. Luther, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leviathan to be the Devil, or rather apply what 〈…〉〈…〉 of him to the Devil.
• * 1.409

  Cato de re rustic. cap. 160. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.

  Cato prodidit luxatis membris carmen auxiliari.
• * 1.410

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.411

  Hor. Hebr. in Ma••. 24. 24.
• * 1.412

  Orat. de Incarnat. Verbi.
• * 1.413

  Instit. Orat. l. 8. c. 3.
• † 1.414

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cap. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.415

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hero∣dian. l. 4. de Antonino.
• † 1.416

  Irenaeus adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 24.
• * 1.417

  Incantationum vires promulgaverant, & om∣nem curiositatem us{que} ad stellarum interpretatio∣nem designaverant. Ter∣tul. de hab. mulier. c. 2.
• * 1.418

  In Lege cont. Ma∣leficos.
• † 1.419

  De Ab∣stinent. lib. 2.
• * 1.420

  Epi∣gram. 7.
• † 1.421

  Epod. Ode 17.
• * 1.422

  In Alex∣andro.
• † 1.423

  Plutarch. Athenaeus, Hesychius, Suidas, A∣lexander ab Alex∣andro, &c.
• * 1.424

  2 Tim. 3. 15.
• † 1.425

  Liv. lib. 39. Sueton. in Augusto.
• * 1.426

  Sir Tho. P. B's Es∣says.
• * 1.427

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.428

  In Eu∣terpe.
• † 1.429

  Lib. 22. c. 43.
• ‖ 1.430

  Lib. 17.
• * 1.431

  Ex. 8. 26.
• * 1.432

  Principa∣le crimen generis humani, summus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rea∣sons. De Idololar. cap. 1.
• * 1.433

  In Cod. Theodos. l. 16. Tit. 11.
• * 1.434

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Lib. de Incarnat. Verbi Dei.
• * 1.435

  Is••. 2. ••0.
• * 1.436

  Jer. 16. 19, 20.
• * 1.437

  Isa. 28. 15 & 44. 20. Jer. 13. 25. Ho••. ••. 1. Am. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 25.
• * 1.438

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. ••••.
• * 1.439

  Diodor. Sic. l. 1.
• * 1.440

  De Spe∣ctac. c. 4.
• † 1.441

  Dr. Ham∣mond, Pract. Cat. l. 6. Sect. 3. P. 375.
• * 1.442

  1 Pet. 2. 1.
• † 1.443

  Rom. 12. 15.
• ‖ 1.444

  —V. 10.
• * 1.445

  Ephes. 4. 31.
• † 1.446

  V. 26, 27.
• * 1.447

  Ephes. 4. 31.
• † 1.448

  1 Cor. 13. 5.
• ‖ 1.449

  John 6. 70. & 8. 44.
• * 1.450

  Rev. 9. 11
• * 1.451

  Solomon Jarchi, D. Kimchi, Maimoni∣des.
• * 1.452

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• † 1.453

  Cont. Julian. I. 10.
• ‖ 1.454

  De Ido∣lolat. I. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.455

  Virgil. Aeneid. 2. Dio∣dor. Sicul.
• † 1.456

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. lib. 6.
• ‖ 1.457

  De Abstin. lib. 2.
• * 1.458

  Suid. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.459

  J. Mart. Apol. 2. Tertul. de Praescript. Suidas in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.460

  Diodor. Siculus, Ju∣stin. Tertul. Apol. c. 4. Minutius Felix, Lactanti∣us, lib. 1. c. 21. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4.
• † 1.461

  In vit•• Pelopidae.
• * 1.462

  Heliodor. l. 9.
• † 1.463

  Evag. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 33.
• ‖ 1.464

  Mela l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.465

  Porphyr. de Abstin.
• † 1.466

  Curt. Hist. l. 4.
• * 1.467

  In Ne∣rone.
• † 1.468

  Annal. 14.
• * 1.469

  Vossius de Idololat. l. 2. c. 5. Selden de Dis Syr. Syntag. 1. c. 6. Grotius de Satisfact. And in Deut. 18. 10. Dr. Stillingfleet of Christ's Satisfaction.
• * 1.470

  Hacklui••, Purchas, and others.
• * 1.471

  In Spectaculis pri∣mum deliciarum genus est mori homines, impleri se∣rarum alvos humanis car∣nibus, cum circumstanti∣um voluptate & conspi∣cientium laetitiâ. De Gu∣bernat. lib. 6.
• * 1.472

  Tertul. Apol. c. 40.
• † 1.473

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 33.
• ‖ 1.474

  Oneiro∣crit. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.475

  Praeclara aedilitas! unus Leo, ducenti bestiarii. Cic. Orat. pro Ses••.
• † 1.476

  Id autem spectaculi genus erat quod omni fre∣quentiâ at{que} omni gene∣re hominum celebratur, quo multitudo maximè delectatur. Cic. Orat. pro Sestio.
• ‖ 1.477

  Irascuntur etiam pug∣nantibus, nisi celeriter alter è duobus occisus est: & tanquam humanum san∣guinem sitiant, oderunt moras, alios illis compa∣res dari poscunt recentio∣res, ut quamprimum o∣culos suos satient. Lib. 6. c. 20.
• * 1.478

  Euseb. in vit. Con∣stant. M. l. 4.
• † 1.479

  Athena∣goras, in Legat. pro Christian.
• * 1.480

  Adv. Va∣lentin.
• † 1.481

  De Isid. & Osir. l. 1.
• ‖ 1.482

  S. Augu∣stin. de civ. Dei. lib. 15. Bodin. contr. Wier.
• * 1.483

  Isa. 42. 7.