The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

A SERMON Preached upon

2 SAMUEL XIX. 29.

I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land.

AND I think it is said very nobly and as became a David. A Prince of prudence and clemency. A Prince of faithfulness and justice, though I cannot tell who thinks so of these words but my self. I be∣lieve there are but few that have either commented upon these words, or that do read them but they have some hard thoughts of David, as if he dealt but somewhat hardly with poor Mephibosheth.

I am sensible what disadvantage I go upon, if I go about to plead for him, though I speak for the King: for it is much that a firstborn gloss or exposition upon a difficult place of Scripture doth gain by being firstborn. And the commonly and old received opinion upon these words, hath so got prepossession in the hearts of most by privilege of its birthright, that a younger interpretation will hard∣ly find entertainment because it is a younger brother.

The Jews do commonly speak their minds upon these words in this manner. I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land. At the same instant divine providence said, Then let Reho∣boam and Jeroboam divide the Kingdom. Accounting this action of David so horrid un∣just a thing, as that it deserved and brought that ••ore judgment of renting ten Tribes from Davids Kingdom. Christian expositors are no more favourable to him in their con∣struction, but lay the very same accusation to his charge, of harshness, rashness and in∣justice in this case: for giving away half Mephibosheths, innocent Mephibosheths land to his lying servant. Come let us reason together with him and with our selves a little.

I. And is thy kindness, O David, to thy old dear friend Jonathan, the man of thy love and the man of thy Covenant, to use his son so very hardly, yea though he had given thee some just offence? Thou once professedst with tears, Thy love to me, O Jona∣than, was wonderful passing the love of women. And now this unkindness of thine, O Da∣vid, were as wonderful passing the unkindness of an enemy.

II. Is David become so weak in Wisdom and Judgment, as to be so baffled and be∣foold by a cheating fellow and never to discover him; or is he become so easie and soft as to sit down with such a gull put upon him, and he never go about to ungul himself? Tis true indeed he was surprized with the lie when he was fleeing for his life, chafed with anxiety and vexation; but can we think David of so sleepy a conscience, as so rash∣ly to undo a poor man by giving away all his land upon a bare information, and never to take second thoughts, whether he had done the man wrong or no? And how easie was it for him before he here met with Mephibosheth to have informed himself of Mephibosheths behaviour, and of his innocency?

It is said in vers. 17. that a thousand men of Benjamin met him at Jordan when he was returning, and is it likely that he would not inquire of them about him, or that they could not or would not inform him of his demeanor, who was now the chief man of their Tribe? Had they so lost the love and remembrance of their old Master Saul and his good son Jonathan, as to see his son so undone by a cheat, and none of them to testifie his integrity.

III. His very beard and cloaths might bear witness for him, if no body else would: and these might give Ziba the lie, and satisfie David that the poor man was falsely accu∣sed: for he had neither trimmed his heard nor washed his cloaths since the Kings going away, until his return again, but had utterly neglected and been careless of himself, as shewing really, that he was really afflicted for the Kings affliction. And would not David think you believe such clear and evident testimonies as these?

IV. It is said 1 King. XV. 5. That David did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded all the days of his life, but only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Truly it might very well have been added, And in the matter of the wronged Mephibosheth: if he did so condemn him to the forfeiture of his land upon a false accusation.

V. And lastly, Can David be so ready as he was, to pardon Shimei who cursed him to his face, and be so hard to be reconciled to Mephibosheth who was only accused behind his back? And the Holy Ghost hath seemeth to hint this very thing, and observation to us. For who observeth not the dislocation of this story we are upon? That it is laid out of its proper place, and that it is placed before its proper time?

In the story immediately next before this you have David at Jordan, there speaking with Shimei, at vers. 23. And in the story immediately next after this, you have David still at Jordan there taking his leave of Barzillai, vers. 31. And yet in this story between you have David met with Mephibosheth at Jerusalem, vers. 25. This is not done at random and by any oversight, as if the Holy Ghost had forgot himself, as we poor fumbling creatures are many time lost in our tale; but the sacred Spirit hath purposely thus metho∣dized the story with such a dislocation, for our more narrow observation and clearer in∣struction. In the story before, you have Shimei and Ziba meeting David at Jordan: a very proper couple and fitly yoked together, like to like. The one of them had cursed the King to his face, and the other had cosened him to his face: the one had abused him with rough railing and the other had abused him with a smooth lie.

What past between David and Shimei the story tells you, but not a word of what pas∣sed twixt David and Ziba. That is comprehended in this story of what passed twixt David and Mephibosheth, because Ziba's business was Mephibosheths concernment.

The story tells that Shimei fell down before David and confest his fault and begged pardon: and if Ziba did not so too he was a fool, as well as he had been a knave before: for he might well conclude that his knavery either was already, or else would be disco∣vered. Well, whether he did or No, The Holy Ghost as soon as he hath related how Shimei had obtained his pardon, comes and relates this conference twixt David and Me∣phibosheth; as prompting us to think that if David were so readily reconciled to Shimei, who had been guilty of so great a crime, he would not be unreconcilable to Mephibo∣sheth who indeed was guilty of none. And if he had not given this hint by this strange placing of this story, our own reason might suggest such an argument to us. That cer∣tainly if he so easily was friends with Shimei, whose villany he himself was an eye and ear witness of, he cannot be so unexorable to Mephibosheth his dear Jonathans son, against whom he had only the accusation of a false tale. That if he would not hearken to Abi∣shai the son of Zerviah when he urged him for revenge upon Shimei, but puts him back with what have I to do with you ye sons of Zerviah, vers. 22. Certainly he would not be so harsh and inexorable to Mephibosheths fair and just Apology and vindication of himself.

Upon these reasons that I have mentioned, to spare more, I must crave leave to refuse the common and very generally received exposition and interpretation of these words of David, that tends not a little to his crimination and reproach: And let me crave your pa∣tience and pardon, if I take the humble boldness, to construe his words to a clear contra∣ry sense, and a construction that tends to his honour and vindication.

When David takes Mephibosheth first to his notice, friendship and Table, 2 Sam. IX. He hath these words first to Mephibosheth, at vers. 7. Fear not, Mephibosheth, for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy fathers sake. And this at vers. 3. he Phraseth, shewing the kindness of God. But surely it was neither kindness of God, nor kindness of man, if he should so unkindly at last take his land from him, and be so kind as give it to his servant. At vers. 10. he hath these words to Ziba, I have given to thy masters son all that partained to Saul and all his house. Thou therefore, and thy sons, and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits, that thy masters son may have food to eat: but Mephi∣bosheth thy masters son shall eat bread alway at my table. A piece of a riddle and who can unriddle it? Thy masters son shall always have food at my table, and yet thou must till the land that thy masters son may have his food to eat. We must plow with Samsons heifer to find out the riddle, and the twelfth verse is that that will help us. And Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all that dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants to Mephibosheth. And now upon this Text and this case let me ask these two questions.

First, Who was it that Ziba must till the land for that he might have food? It was for Micha; for Mephibosheth himself had food at the Kings Table. But,

Secondly, Whence must Mephibosheth have to maintain himself in clothes, and to main∣tain his port and retinue at the Court, according to his place and rank and quality? Did David find him these as he did find him meat and drink? Certainly when he took him to his Table, upon the restoring of Sauls land to him, we can little think, that he did it

because he would have him to live of mear alms, but he did it out of pure respect to him for his fathers sake. Not so much as if Mephibosheth had need to be at the Kings finding, when he had now all his grandfathers land, but that the King would honour him with the participation of his own table and friendship and because he would injoy his company.

So in this Chapter out of which the Text is taken, the King invites Barzillai to go and live with him at Jerusalem, and he would feed him at his own table, vers. 33. What? Would he have Barzillai to live purely upon his alms? No, that he knew he needed not, for the verse before tells, that Barzillai was a very great man, and that he had provided the King sustenance whilst he lay at Mahanaim. And because he had done so, the King invites him to his own table, not out of mear alms, but out of kindness and gratitude; and because he would injoy his good society.

Do you not by this time see how Mephibosheths land is divided twixt him and Ziba? Not to make Ziba a Proprietor, but a Tenant, or rather a Bailiff or Steward: He to till the land and to bring in the profits, and the one part to go to find Micha food and main∣tenance, and Zibas house, and the other part to go for Mephibosheths maintenance and the maintaining his retinue at the Court. And thus he and Ziba divide the land from the very first, and it was Davids own project from the very first, that it should be thus divi∣ded; Ziba to injoy half for the maintenance of Micha, and to pay rent for the other half for the maintenance of Mephibosheth.

And to this purpose is observable, that it is said, That all that dwelt in Ziba's house were servants to Mephibosheth: And how could they be so, when Mephibosheth and they lived so far a sunder, as he at the Court in Jerusalem, and Zibas house in the land of Benjamin's but that they were all servants to him in this sense, that they were all under him as chief Landlord, that they were Bailiffs for him upon his land and demesnes, for the mainte∣nances of his son, who was with them in the house, and Mephibosheth himself who was at the Kings table.

When David was surprized with Ziba's lie, then he said, Behold, thine is all that par∣taineth to Mephibosheth, Chap. XVI. 4. But did he mean withal, behold, thine is all that par∣taineth to Micha? That had been yet a more unjust act, than giving away Mephibosheths land; for he had no accusation against Micha, though he had against Mephibosheth: So that then it was at this point, Ziba and Micha divide the land, for poor Mephibosheth was clean shut out. But when David was come again to Jerusalem, and come again to him∣self then it is at this, Now Mephibosheth and Ziba divide the land, as it was in the first contrival and disposal. Ziba to have one part for Micha's maintenance, and Mephibosheth the other for his. And to this sense may his saying, I have said, be very well applied to Davids first determination about the land: though I know it may also be applicable to his present saying, why speakest thou any more of thy matters, I said fom the very first when I gave thee thy fathers land, and took thee to mine own table, that the land should be so divided twixt thee and Ziba, for the use of thy self and thy son Micha, and I hold to the same determination, and I say so still.

Thus have I laid before you with all humble submission to better Judgments, my thoughts and conceptions upon these words. And now what can I say more upon this Text?

To take up from it any observation or doctrine, either dogmatical or practical, I know not how. For I must either frame it according to the common sense given upon the words, which I refuse, and then I should lay the foundation of my building upon ground I like not. Or I must frame it according to mine own sense, that I have given, and then I shall lay the foundation of my building upon a ground which it may be you like not. Therefore I shall to avoid these rocks on either hand, steer a middle course, and speak to that, which the very ambiguity of the Text, and the dislocation of the story out of which it is taken, may justly call upon us to Observe, viz.

That the stile and difficulty of Scripture requireth all serious and sober study of the Scripture.

You see the stile here, and you see the difficulties here. The story laid out of its na∣tural and proper order: and the words of the Text capable of two and those even con∣trary senses. The former not done by heedlesness or at peradventure, the latter not as if the Scriptures were not of a fixed and steady sense: but both to stir up the more serious and sober study of Scripture.

It is our Saviours prescription, as our English reads it, Joh. V. 39. Search the Scriptures, and if you ask a reason he gives you two in that verse, and divers more may be given. Search and study the Scriptures, because it is the Scriptures, the writing of God, the dis∣covery of the mind of God, the witness of the Son of God, the revealing of the glory

of God. To be studied to make one wife, to be studied to make one holy, to make one happy.

But I shall not speak of these or of what other reasons of like kind might be alledged to very serious study of Scripture; but I shall bring my discourse to a closer and narrow∣er compass, to urge a reason only from its stile and difficulty, The stile and difficulty of Scripture requires all sober and serious study of it. The thing that I assert, will on the one hand please the Romanist, if he may limit it to his sense, but on the other hand it will not so very well please the Enthusiast. The one will tell you that the Scripture is so dif∣ficult indeed that it requires all serious study, but of the Clergy only, for it is too difficult for Laity to meddle withal: the other will tell you there is no difficulty at all in the Scripture to them that have the Spirit, but all things easie enough to understand and ex∣plicate, by revelation, without any study. So that here are two rocks more for us to sail, and hold a middle course between, lest we dash either upon the one or upon the other, and the card and compass I shall go by shall be the Scripture it self.

The Scripture it self tells us there is difficulties in it: and if it did not so in words, yet we might easily find it in deed. And I might need no other proof of this assertion, than such a one as he gave to prove motion, he rose out of his chair and moved up and down. Tolle, lege, take up the Bible and read presly, and that very thing will shew you that you had need to read presly, because of the difficulty.

Let me but observe in our entrance into this matter these two things to you.

I. That the difficulty of Scripture doth so much require study, that none but by seri∣ous study can perceive its difficulty. As the Philosopher could not so much as imagine how hard it was to define God, till he set seriously to study upon the matter and then he found it. The further you go in Ezekiels waters, Chap. XLVII. the deeper you go, and the more you study the Scriptures seriously, the more cause you will still find to study them seriously. And it is not the least cause of their error, that hold the explaining of Scripture is so very easie, that they have not attained to so much skill in the study of the Scriptures as to see their hardness. And I doubt not but I could shew them scores nay hundreds of very hard and obscure places, which they had never the eyes to see: and I doubt as little, that they would find as little eye-sight to resolve them, if they saw them.

II. The Holy Ghost hath purposely penned the Scriptures so as to challenge all serious study of them. Else what think you is the meaning of that, He that readeth let him un∣derstand, Matth. XXIV.

Peter tells us that there are divers things in Pauls Epistles hard to be understood, 2 Pet. III. 16. and why did the Holy Ghost dictate them so hard by Paul; and why did not Peter explain them who had the same Spirit? As that passage of Peter, you may very well remember the Parable of the wounded man twixt Jerusalem and Jericho. The Priest and Levite pass by, look on him, but afford him no help. And why does Peter so by those hard places, and afford them no explication? Because the Holy Ghost hath so penned Scripture so as to challenge all serious study: He could have penned all so plain that he that runneth might have read them, but he hath penned them in such a stile, that he that will read them must not run and read but sit down and study.

It were a very long task indeed to shew wherein the difficulty of Scripture doth con∣sist in every particular. I shall give you but a taste in two or three heads.

I. To begin with that which the difficulty of the Text may first hint to us, viz. that there are several passages in Scripture may be esteemed to a clean contrary construction, may be taken in two senses not only differing one from another, but directly contrary. I shall only instance in some that I cannot but deal withal as I have done with the words of the Text, viz. take them in a sense clean contrary to that sense that commonly is put upon them.

The first I shall offer you is that, Gen. IV. 7. If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. Who is there, that reading or explaining this doth not conclude it for a threatning? If thou do not well judgment is ready at doors to seize upon thee. I cannot but on the contrary construe it for a comfort; and that sin meaneth only a sin offering, as the word in the original is used an hundred times: and the very English word is so used once and again, as Hos. IV. 8. They eat up the sin of my people, that is, their sin offering; and 2 Cor. V. 21. He hath made him sin for us, i. e. a sacrifice for sin. And the sense to be for the raising of Cain from dejectedness and despair, If thou do well, there is undoubted ac∣ceptance; and if not, yet despair not, let not thy countenance fall for there is a sin of∣fering to be had that may heal all again lying at the door: and you know in the Law the sacrifice was to be brought to the Tabernacle door, Lev. I. 3. &c.

A second is that Exod. I. 19. The Midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew wo∣m•••• are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives ••••me in unto them. How many expounding that place do roundly conclude they told a

lie to save their stake; when, as I suppose, it were no hard thing to shew, that the thing they spake was most true, that the Hebrew women in travail were so miraculously vigo∣rous: and that their words are so far from a sneaking lie to save their lives, that they are a bold and holy confession of their faith and piety, to the hazard of their lives; that they saw so plain an evidence of the wonderful hand of God in that extraordinary vigor of the travail of the women, that do what Pharaoh would, they durst nor would not stand or strive against it, because they would not strive against God.

A third is that Exod. VIII. 19. Then the Magitians said unto Pharaoh, this is the finger of God. How many are there that read and comment upon those words, that without any scruple conceive, that they are a fair and ingenuous confession of the power and work of God; whereas, I suppose, it were no hard thing to shew, that they are an horrid blasphemy against the Lord, they ascribing the miracle wrought to their Elohim, their un∣known gods or Deity, in scorn and affronting of the true God, the Jehovah of the He∣brews. This is the finger of Elohim, this is not the finger of Jehovah.

Let a fourth and last be that Esa. IX. 1. Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such, as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphthali; and afterwards did most grievously afflict her by the way of the Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the Gentiles. Who but takes these words, the dimness or affliction shall not be such, to mean, it shall not be so great as was in her vexation, &c. where it were not hard to shew, that the meaning is, It shall be greater. I spare more; these with the Text are enough in this head to shew and confirm, That the stile and difficulty of Scripture re∣quires all sober and serious study of the Scripture.

II. A second head let be, passages in the New Testament directly contrary to the Old, as if the two Testaments were fallen out and were not at unity among themselves. I will give you but five instances of these as I did of the other.

• 1. Jechoniah, Matth. I. 12. is said to beget Salathiel, whereas Jer. XXII. 30. he is threat∣ned with a witness, (O! Earth, Earth, &c.) that he should be childless.
• 2. In Luke III. 36. you have a Cainan the father of Shelah or Sala and son of Arphaxad, whereas Gen. X. 24. Arphaxad is the father of Shelah, and there is no such man as Cai∣nan to be found at all.
• 3. In Act. VII. 14. Jacob goes into Egypt with seventy five, whereas in Exod. I. 5. you have them reckoned but seventy.
• 4. In the next verse but one you have dead Jacob carried over into Shechem to be bu∣ried, whereas in Gen. L. 13. you have him carried over to Machpelah before Mamre and Hebron, some scores of miles distant from Hebron.
• 5. And the same verse you have Abraham buying a burying place of the sons of Emor the father of Sichem, whereas in the same verse in Genesis and Chap. XXIII. you have him buying it of Ephron the Hittite.

I spare more again, these are enow in this head also to confirm what I say, and to shew, That the stile and difficulty of Scripture requires all sober and serious study of Scripture.

III. A third head let be the strange manner of accounting and reckoning of numbers even in the Old Testament different from it self, as if that were not constant and conso∣nant to it self. I shall give you some instances also of this head, a few amongst many.

• 1. In Josh. XIII. 3. The Text is reckoning five Lords of the Philistins, and it counts them, the Gazathites, Ashdodites, Askelonites, the Gittites, Ekronites, and Avites; it speaks of five but reckons six.
• 2. In 2 King. VIII. 26. Two and twenty years old is Ahaziah when he began to reign and reigned one year in Jerusalem; but in 2 Chron. XXII. 2. Two and forty years old was Aha∣ziah, when he began to reign, &c. And if you look well there and compare his fathers age in the latter end of the Chapter next before, you will find that he is made there two years older than his father.

Need I trouble you with any more instances to prove the difficulty of Scripture? I might give a thousand, some in Chronology, some in Chorography, some in Language, some in Sense. So that some have taken upon them to pick out some places in the Bible which they say are past all possibility of interpreting or understanding.

But •• may seem to have pleaded the Papists cause against the Scripture enough and too much. But I am far from making the consequence and conclusion from the difficulties of Scripture that they make. They say the Scriptures are hard, therefore let not the Laity and unlearned meddle with them or read them at all. I say the Scriptures are hard there∣fore let the Laity and unlearned read and study them the more. And I need not fetch a warrant of my argumentation from any rule of Aristotle, for behold a greater than Ari∣stotle is here, and sets me a copy, and that is the Holy Ghost in the mouth of Joshua. Josh. XXIV. 19. Ye cannot serve the Lord, saith Joshua, for he is an Holy God, he is a jea∣lous God, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. The Pontifical inference after

the rate they infer about the difficulties of Scripture would be this; therefore let the serving of God alone, and go not about to serve him at all; whereas the inference the Holy Ghost aims at it this is, Therefore give the more diligence and use the more care and indeavour to serve him as ye should. The parallel in the matter we are speaking of will speak it self.

I shall not enter into any deep Scholastick discourse for the making of this inference good, upon which so many Learned pens have made so many large discourses. I shall men∣tion only some few demonstrations which carry their own evidence in their forehead and speak it plain to the most vulgar and meanest understanding.

I. It became the Holy Ghost, the penner of Scripture, to write in a Majesty, that the* 1.1 wits and wisdom of all the men in the World should bow before it. As is the man so is his strength, do they say, Judg. VIII. 21. and as is the Writer so is his stile and strength of writing. If Pericles the Orator at Athens spoke Lightning and Thunder, as it was commonly said of him, because of the stateliness and awe of his Oratory, certainly it is no wonder if the great God of glory speak Thunder and Lightning out from Mount Sinai. If the Holy Ghost wrote the Scriptures, we must needs conclude that he wrote them like the Holy Ghost in a Divine Majesty. Nor is it enough that we give to the Scriptures, if we should think only they were written for the benefit of men, if we do not think and consider also that they were written in the demonstration of God. And how ever a blasphemous Jesuite durst be so daring as to take the Bible in his hand, and to say, Thou Spirit that, the Protestants say, breathest in these Scriptures, I defie thee; yet we have better learned the Scriptures: and cannot but tremble at such blasphemy, but are no whit moved by the boldness and confidence of it, the less to own and maintain that the Holy Ghost that gave the Scriptures, breathet•• in the Scriptures in Majesty and Power. In Power to convert Souls, and in Majesty to confound confidence in mans own Wisdom.

We should look upon the Majesty of Scriptures, viz. so as to bow to it, and not to make it bow to us. My meaning is not for any adoration to the book or papers wherein Scripture is written, as the Jews keep a great deal a do with the very book of the Law, little short of adoration; but to bow to that Divine Wisdom and Authority that shineth there.

That remarkable passage of the Apostle hath been observed by many, as it is very ob∣servable, Rom. VI. 17. You have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine whereto you were delivered; as the Original Greek carries it, and so some of your margins give inti∣mation: whereas in the Text it is, which was delivered to you. The Scripture is deliver∣ed to us so as we rather are delivered up to Scripture: much like the same Apostles ex∣pression in another place and another case, Phil. III. 12. I apprehend, but am apprehended▪ We are delivered up to the Scriptures as they are to be our Masters and not we theirs. As another Apostles expression is, We are to be doers of the Law and not Judges; to be students of the Scriptures, doers of the Scriptures, not their judgers.

You know who say, I will not believe the Scriptures for themselves, unless they could shew their own Authority: Let them shew me in Scripture where the Scripture tells, that all the books in the Bible are Scripture; where it said, such a book was written by such a pen-man, or else how should I believe that all the Bible is Scripture? How should I be∣lieve that the books were written by such and such pen-men? Let them chuse whether they will believe it or no, may God say, but at their own peril. He never intended to satisfie every mans curiosity and crosness and cavilling, but he hath given the Scripture in Authority and Majesty, and if men will bow and submit to it well and good, and if they will not, let them see how they will answer it another day. If a prisoner at the bar should not own the Authority of that venerable Peer to judge him, unless he should par∣ticularly fetch out his Commission and shew it him, what would you call such, peevish∣ness, madness, or impudency, or both, or worse. The application is easie enough.

II. Difficulties and things hard to be understood in Scripture, is one part of the ma∣jestickness* 1.2 of Scripture, and it is good to judge of such difficulties aright. One once reading the crabbed and most obscure Poet Persius and not being able with all his study and endeavour to make sense of him, he flung him away with this saying, quoniam non vis intelligi: because thou hast written so as if thou resolvedst not to be understood, I am re∣solved not to be at pains and study to understand thee. Are the difficulties of Scripture of this nature? Are they the resolved purposes and purposed resolutions of the Holy Ghost not to be understood? Did he write them intentionally that men should never come to know the meaning of them? If this were so, the inference of the Papists were eousque something reasonable; therefore meddle not with them, for they are insuperable: but it is no such thing, for the difficulties of Scripture are of another end and intention. And let us consider of them briefly in these two or three Particulars.

1. Though we say, There are difficulties in Scripture, yet we dare not say the Scrip∣tures are difficult. Peter saith, Some things in Pauls Epistles are hard to be understood: he will not say, Pauls Epistles are hard, 2 Pet. III. 16. The Holy Bible is like the Holy Land: some part indeed mountainous and rocky, and hard to be travailed over, but the greatest part pleasant, plain, champaigne, and valley. Like any clean beast or fowle that might be eaten, some bones but the far greatest part flesh: now it were but a mad kind of inference, never go about to eat the flesh because thou canst not eat the bones.

Men indeed have made an obscure Bible, but God never did. As Solomon speaks, God made man righteous, but they found out sundry inventions. So God made the Bible plain as to the main of it, but men have found out inventions of Allegorizing, Scepticizing, Ca∣villing, that would turn light into darkness, but that the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not. That which God hath sanctified do not thou call common, and that which God hath made plain, do not thou darken, nay do not thou say it is dark. How plain as to the general is the history in Scripture? How plain the commands, exhor∣tations, threatnings, promises, comforts, that are written there? Take a Sunbeam and write, and is it possible to write clearer? And what? Must not the Laiety and unlearn∣ed meddle with Scripture, because it is too obscure? I doubt their meaning indeed is, be∣cause it is too clear and will discover too much.

2. These difficulties that are in Scripture, which indeed are not a few, are not a noli me tangere to drive us from the study of the Scriptures, as the inference would be made, but they are of another kind of aim and tendency. They are not unriddleable riddles, and tyring-irons never to be untied▪ but they are divine and majestical sublimities, not to check our study of Scripture or of them, but to check our self confidence of our own wit or wisdom. They are not to drive us from the holy ground where God shines in Majesty in the flaming bush, but to teach us to put off our shoos at the holy ground; not to stand upon our own skill or wisdom, but to strike sail to the Divine Wisdom and mysteriousness that shineth there. Not to disharten us from study of the mysteries of God, but to teach us in all humility to study them the more. That obscure passage, Dan. IX. 27. about the abomination of desolation; is not, that for the obscurity we should cast away the book, not meddle with it, but that we might read and study the more presly that we may understand, Matth. XXIV. 15.

It is true, That God never intended that all men in the World should understand Scripture alike; nor that all men in the World should be able to study the Scriptures alike, or have opportunities to do it: yet these two things we may observe as to Gods will and disposing in this case.

I. That God would have all to study and meditate on the Scriptures according to their capacities: The Scriptures do so frequently and urgently call upon all to this purpose, that I suppose it is altogether needless to go about to prove it, Thou shalt meditate therein day and night: Thou shalt meditate therein when thou sittest down and risest up, when thou sittest in the house, when thou walkest in the way: and various such passages as these, re∣quire and ingage all sorts and conditions of people to this study and meditation, accor∣ding to their several capabilities and atcheivances.

In some important points of Divinity, some men have sometimes mistaken in stating them by mens benefit rather than by their duty. If you did so in this point, it would make one very good piece of an argument; study the Scriptures for you may benefit by study of them: But take the other and it argueth more strongly, study the Scripture for it is your duty: God calls for it, lays his command upon you to do it the best you can.

II. Therefore upon this we may make such another inference as Samsons mother doth, Judg. XIII. 23. If the Lord were pleased to kill us, he would not have accepted an offering, neither would he have shewed us all these things. If the Lord were pleased that the Scrip∣tures should not be understood, he would never have written them, he would never have charged all to study them. God never writ the difficulties of the Scripture only to be gazed upon and never understood: never gave them as a book sealed, and that could never be unsealed, that learned and unlearned alike might never see what is in them, but that they might be more seriously read, more carefully studied; that so being understood and practised they might become the means of Salvation unto all.

Notes

• * 1.1

  I.
• * 1.2

  II.