A DISCOURSE Concerning the Authority, Stile, and Perfection OF THE BOOKS OF THE Old and New-Testament. WITH A Continued Illustration of several Difficult Texts of Scripture throughout the whole Work.  
By JOHN EDWARD'S, B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's College in CAMBRIDGE.  
LONDON: Printed; and Sold by Richard Wilkin at the King's-Head in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIII.   

Imprimatur.  


S. Blithe, Procan. Deput.  
Io. Beaumond, S. T. P.  
Io. Covell, S. T. P.  
C. Roderick, S. T. P.   Cantabr. April 13. 1693.   

TO THE Right Reverend Father in God, SIMON, Lord Bishop of ELY.  
MY LORD,  
YOUR Kind and Generous Acceptance of my former Undertake (which justly merits my most Thankful Acknowledgements, which I here render to Your Lordship) hath encouraged me to make this Offering of another little Treatise, and to request You to take both it and its worthless Author into Your Protection. Your Name alone is a sufficient Amulet against the Censures which these Papers may be exposed to by being made thus Public. None will venture to damn that Book which Your Lordship shall be pleased to Patronise. I am confident of the Goodness of the Cause which I have Espoused, but I am as sensible on the other hand of my great and manifold Defects in the managing it. However, I entertain good hopes of finding my Readers in some measure favourable to this Enterprise, when they shall behold Your Lordship's Name, which is the known Name of Learning and Piety, prefixed to it by,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Humble and Devoted Servant, john Edwards.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHAT I had prepared for the Public View concerning the Authority, Stile, and Perfection of Scripture I intended to have Published together in one Volume; but finding that the Present Age is not for Great Books, I am content to comply with it so f●r; especially perceiving the First Part of this my Undertaking to swell into a moderate Octavo, I am willing it should go into the World alon●▪ and accordingly I now Publish that First P●rt only, intending to treat of the Style and Perfection of Scripture either in one or two Volumes afterwards. The whole Attempt is of near Affinity with my fo●mer Undertaking, viz. of Criticising on several Texts of Scripture, especially such as are Difficult, and giving the Resolution of them. I have all along, whilst I have mentioned several Passages of Holy Writ (to which the Opinions or Practices of the Pagans refer) given an Explication generally of them; So that I am still in pursuit of my former Design, and I make it my Business to clear and illustrate the Sacred Writings, especially that part of them which is most Obscure and Difficult. But the more particular Design of these Papers is to a●●e●t the Truth and Authority of those Ancient and Divine Writings. and that from the Testimonies of our professed Adversaries, viz. Pagans and jews. It were folly to deny that divers of these things are mentioned in other Authors, and partly to the same purpose that I have produced them, (as indeed what useful Subject is there that hath escaped the Pens of the Learned?) but than it will be fitting (if not necessary) for me to add, in a just Vindication of my present Attempt, that so far as I have conversed with Writers, I never met with any that Traced this Noble Subject, both through the Old and New-Testament, which is the Design of this present Work. I know some have hinted at a few of these Remarks, and most commonly without insisting on the Reasons and Grounds of them, and without examining the particular Circumstances belonging to them. But I have not contented myself with this superficial way of delivering these things, but have endeavoured to Search into the true and genuine Original of them, which hath occasioned several Just Discourses, and enlarged Disquisitions on the various Matters which occur under those Heads. In brief, I have amply prosecuted this Argument by offering a vast number of Particulars from my own Enquiry and Observation: I have designedly Treated on this Theme, which scarce any have done: I have methodically digested my Materials according to the Histories, or other Passages in the Bible, to which they have reference in jewish or Pagan Writers: And Lastly, I have made the whole Serviceable to this excellent Purpose, viz. the attesting and confirming the Truth of the Sacred Scriptures.  
But the main of this Preface shall be spent in vindicating my Interpretation of 1 Cor. 15. 29. In my former Enquiry into that Text, where I maintained that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which our Translators rende● Baptised for the Dead) is according to the tru● and proper Signification of the Words in that place to be Translated Baptised on the Account, or by reason of, or for the sake of the Dead. Which Interpretation, I perceive, some are backward to entertain, because they doubt whether the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with a Genitive Case, be taken in that sense in Profane Authors. They grant it is Equivalent with the Latin causâ, gratiâ, or in gratiam, but they think that these, and consequently the Greek Preposition always refer to, and denote some Advantage or Benefit: Therefore according to these Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should rather be rendered for the benefit of the Dead, because this is the Acception of the Preposition in the Writings of all Profane Authors. But to this I might reply, and that with most justifiable Reason, that I am not obliged to prove that this Preposition is used in Pagan Writers in the same Sense that I assert it to be used in this place of St. Paul. Who knows not that some Authors have a particular and individual Sense of some Words appropriated to themselves, and it is in vain to look for the same Acception of them in other Writers? The Commentators on Homer, Aristophanes, Herodotus, or any other good Greek or Latin Author, take notice that such a Word or Phrase is used by these Writers in a Sense different from what is found in others; and this is Satisfactory to the Learned. But especially if they find that one of these Authors useth the same word more than once in this peculiar Sense, they are confirmed in the belief of this singular meaning of it. So it should be here; for this is certain, that the Authority of the New-Testament is every whit as good as that of the foremention'd Authors, or any other. Any fair Critic will readily grant, that if I produce two or three places in the New-Testament where the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the Signification which I affix to it, I perform my Task well enough. And this I have already done in my Enquiry into that Text, where more than the forenamed number of places is brought to confirm that particular Sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have propounded. I could have mentioned Gal. 1. 4. and 1 Pet. 3. 18. and other Texts made use of by Grotius, where he thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendered, [by reason of, or because of, or on the account of our Sins,] for our Sins were the proper Impulsive meritorious Cause of Christ's Death; though we must not exclude the Final Cause, because he suffered to take away our Sins. And Vossius goes something higher, who assures us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ob, propter, pro prefixed to Sins or Faults, and joined with Suffering or Punishing whether in Scripture or any other good Author always signifies the Antecedent or meritorious Cause, but never the Final: And I verily believe that Vossius was as good a Grammar-Scholar as Socinus, whom he opposeth in this particular. There are other Texts which I might have produced, as john 11. 4. this Sickness is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, or on the account of God's Glory; and 2 Thess. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which (viz. the Kingdom of God) ye suffer; in both which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes an impulsive Cause. And perhaps that place, 2 Phil. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood so. It is sufficient then to have proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in several places of the New-Testament in the Sense beforenamed, i. e. that it is as much as [on the account] or [because of] or [for the sake] that it signifies some Reason, Account, or Motive, why a Man should do such a thing. We need not search into other Authors to find whether this be the import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them; this is not requisite, for the New-Testament is able to vouch itself.  
But though to prove this Sense of the Preposition in Classical Authors be more than I need to do, yet for the Satisfaction of the Scrupulous, for Vindicating my Interpretation of that Text, and for the Establishing it beyond all Exceptions for the future, I will show that this very signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and that with a word in the Genitive Case) is not uncommon in the Pagan ●●ile; and particularly I will make it evident that it hath not always a reference to a Benefit, as some think. For Proof of this I might send you to Stephens' Thesaurus where in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he produces some Passages out of Herodian, Demonsthenes, and (as I remember) Plutarch, which do in some measure evince the foresaid Acception of the Preposition; and out of Homer's Sixth Iliad he hath a a plain place, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not rendered de te (as the common Ve●sion is) but causâ tuâ, or propter te, because of thee I hear ill of the Trojans. Accordingly the great admired Scholiast Eustathius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 'tis as much, he saith, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of thee, or on thy account. But whether this be the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place it is not so much material as that we need controvert it; but this is sufficient for my purpose that this famous Commentator who understood Greek so well, acquaints us, that the Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify or imply a Benefit, as is clear in this place; for these words of Hector cannot possibly be carried to any such Sense; that is undeniable. Wherefore their Fancy falls to the ground who think the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is [for the benefit or emolument of such a one].  
I have something yet more to prove, (and that even from Pagan Authority) which is this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently imports an impulsive Cause, and that directly and plainly, and that it ought to be translated [on the account, by reason of, because of] To evince this, I will choose out an Author against whom there can be no Exception, I mean Isocrates, whose Writings are famed for their Propriety of Phrase, and Clearness of Style. There he hath these Expressions, 
* Plataic.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight on account of the Leagues made between them, 
† Panegyr. & Plataic.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fight for, or on the account of their Liberty, 
‡ Plataic.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fight for, or because of their own safety. These are all Impelling Causes, the Consideration of their League, of their Liberty, and their Common Safety excited them to do what they did. As in a higher Sense I proved that many in the Apostles Times were excited to initiate themselves into the Church by Baptism by the Consideration of what the Holy Martyrs underwent for the Cause of jesus. They were Baptised on the account of, by reason of, for the sake of those dead Saints, those glorious Champions whom they saw die with so much Courage. To proceed in the same Author, he expresses himself thus, 
* Orat. 2. ad Nicocl.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to fight for Rewards, i. e. because of those Rewards which they expected: These effectually stirred them up to behave themselves with great bravery. So 
† Panegyr. Orat.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Translated famae gratiâ by Wolfius, to die on the account of that Fame and Glory which they knew they should purchase after Death. And of the same sort is that Passage, 
‖ Orat. ad Philip.  There are those, saith he, that would not change their Lives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on any other account whatsoever, yet are most willing to lose their Lives in the Wars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the account, or for the sake of getting a Name. This was the moving, the Impulsive Cause of their dying. And that other set of Phrases, 
‡ Panegyr. ad Philip. Epist. ad Philip. Epist. ad Mitylen.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
* Panegyr. Orat.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. To render Thanks for this or that, confirms that Interpretation which I have given, for those Favours and Kindnesses which they received, moved them to pay that tribute of Thanks. What we meet with in another place is to our purpose; 
† Plataic. Orat. 1.  Is it just, saith he, to inflict so unequal and severe Punishments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, or on the account of such Faults? And so 'tis used in the same Oration again, with reference to Punishment. And when he saith, 
‖ Orat. ad Philip.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quarum rerum metu perterritus, (as the foresaid Translator renders it) it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same import with because of, by reason of, and that he speaks of those things which excited Fear in them. Lastly, It may be observed in this famous Orator, that when he is about winding up a Cause, he uses these Words, 
* Panegyr. Orat. Plataic. Orat. bis.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his Interpreter rightly renders quare, quapropter, propterea, which is in English, on which account, or because of what hath been said. He moves them to do this or that on the Consideration of what he had propounded to them in the foregoing part of his Oration. I could produce many more Quotations out of the same Author, and several others, Demosthenes more especially, who no less than three times in 
† Olynth. 1.  one Oration uses the Word in this manner, and in 
‖ Philip. 1.  another place once or twice; but I think I have sufficiently established my Notion already by what I have produced. You see plainly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not absolutely a reference to a Benefit or Advantage, but that 'tis of a large import, and signifies in general on the account, or for the sake, and more especially that it denotes an Impulsive Cause, properly so called, and is used to express those things or Persons that put Men upon Action; which was the thing I undertook to make good, and I challenge any Man to disprove it. I have defended the Signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Classical Authors, that I might thereby obviate the Scruples of some Inquisitive Persons, and give some Satisfaction to the Curious, and make my Exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more clear and demonstrative, (when 'tis seen that it is founded on the Acception of that Preposition, not only in the New-Testament, but in Profane Authors) and, in a Word, that I may render my whole Undertaking on that Text the more acceptable to the Learned part of Mankind. To this rank of Persons I devote all my Endeavours of this kind; but that which I now offer to the World is more especially designed for the Use of younger Students in Sacred Learning, such as are Beginners and Candidates in Theology, though I am well satisfied that these Critical Researches will ●ot be useless to those of a higher Character.   

A CATALOGUE of the Difficult Chapters and Verses in Holy Scripture, which are Explained in this Book, (being set down in the same Order that they are there mentioned.)  

II. CHap. of Daniel, Concerning the Image whose Head was of Gold, etc. Page 9  
VII. Chap. of Daniel, Concerning the Four Beasts. p. 10  
VIII. Chap. of Daniel, Concerning the Ram and He-Goat. p. 13  
XI. Gen. 4. Let us make us a Name, lest we scattered abroad, etc. p. 127  
XXXVI. Gen. 24. This was that Anah that found the Mules in the Wilderness, etc. p. 147  
XV. Judg. 15, 16, 17, etc. Concerning the jawbone of the Ass wherewith Samson slew a thousand Men. p. 149  
XXXVIII. Isai. 8. The Sun returned Ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. p. 200  
XXXIII. Deut. 17. Where Joseph is compared to an Ox or Bullock, and why. p. 214  
II. Luke 1, 2. There went out a Decree from Caesar Augustus that all the World should be Taxed. p. 352  
II. Matth. 2. We have seen his Star in the East. Vers. 7. Herod enquired of them diligently what time the Star appeared. Vers. 9 The Star which they saw in the East went before them, etc. Vers. 16. Herod slew all the Children that were in Bethlehem, from two Years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the Wise Men. p. 360  
XXIV. Matth. The former part, which speaks of the Destruction of jerusalem; and the parallel Chapter of St. Luke, viz. the XXI. p. 394 
The Author's Vindication of his Interpretation of 1 Cor. 15. 29. Praef.     

ERRATA.  
PAge 18. l. 28. for Ahaz, read Hezekiah. p. 37. l. 15. for end r. err. p. 99 l. 8. deal not. p. 151. l. 15. deal not. p. 212. l. 30. r. with Ham. and l. 26, 27. correct the Hebrew words: And do the same in other places. p. 227. l. 21. r. unutterable. p. 238. l. 11. r. on. p. 241. l. 9 r. deus is. p. 248. l. 18. r. ex Aetheris, l. ult. for that r. at other times. p. 250. l. 17. r. Martinius. p. 255. l. 26. r. tornare. p. 334. Marg. Quotations misplaced. p. 349. Marg. 3 last lines, put Apolog. 2. add Senator after the Quotation, Sed cum, etc. And put (b) before Adu. Gent. p. 363. l. 33. r. other Pagans. p. 364. l. 26. r. Silver locks. p. 376. l. 11. deal citeth the same testimony, and. p. 411. l. 7 & 10. r. Cedrenus.  
What other Faults have escaped, the Reader is desired to Correct.   

Advertisement.  
AN 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 Edward's, B. D. In Two Volumes in Octavo. Sold by I. Robinson, I. Everingham, and I. Wyatt, in St. Paul's Churchyard, and Ludgate-street.   

OF THE Truth and Authority OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.  

CHAP. I.  
The Internal Testimonies or Arguments to evince the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, viz. 1. The Matter of them, that is, the Sublime Verities, the Holy Rules, the Accomplished Prophecies contained in them: Under which last Topick several particular Predictions, chiefly in the Book of Daniel, are explained, and showed to be fulfilled. Further, 'tis demonstrated that the foretelling of future Contingences of that nature, especially so long before they come to pass, could be from God only. 2. The Manner of these Writings, which is peculiar as to their Simplicity, Majesty, and their being immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost. 3. Their Harmony. 4. The particular Illumination of the Spirit.  
I HAVE chosen a very Noble and Important Subject to exercise my Pen, and to entertain both my own and the Reader's Thoughts and Contemplations with; for no Book under Heaven can possibly be the Rival of the Holy Bible, none in the World can pretend to the transcendent Worth and Excellency of these Sacred Writings. Here not only all Natural or Mor●● Religion, but that also which is Supernatural, is ful●ly and amply contained. Here is the Decalogue written by God himself, and transcribed out of the Law of Nature; besides that there are frequently interspersed in these Writings other choice Rul●● and Precepts of Morality. But Supernatural Religion being the chief, this is the main Subject of th●● Sacred Volume: and this you will find partly de●livered by the Inspired Prophets of the Old Testament; and partly by Christ jesus himself in per●son, and by the Evangelists and Apostles in the New Testament. Of these Holy Scriptures I am t● treat, which are the Standard of Truth, the infallible Rule of Faith and Holiness, and the Ground work of all Divinity: for this being the Doctrine which is according to the Word of God deliver'● in Sacred Writ, we must necessarily be acquainted with This, and know in the ●irst place that it i● True, and make it evident that it is so. If a●● Estate be given a Person by Will, he must fir●● prove that Instrument to be True and Authentic●● before he can challenge any Right to what is demised him in it. So it is here, God bequeathes us a● Inheritance, (i. e. Life and Salvation, and Eternal Happiness) and the Scriptures are as it were▪ the Will and Testament wherein this is plainly expressed and whereby it is conveyed to us. Especially th● Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles deserv● that Name, and thence are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Greek word, which in its Original Import signifies a disposing of something, is most commo●●ly applied to such a Disposal as is either by Coven●● or Testament. Hence it is sometimes rendered 〈◊〉 Covenant, and sometimes a Testament: especially among the Lawyers the latter Sense prevails; and accordingly you will find that a Last Will and Testament is expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Imperial Institutions, and other Law-Books translated into Greek. We may here join both Senses together; for what God hath agreed to by Covenant with Man, that Christ bequeathes and gives by Testament. Now we must prove both these, i. e. we must make it evident that the Covenant and Testament are True, before we can receive any Advantage and Benefit from them. There is a Necessity of evidencing the Truth of the Scriptures, which are this Covenant, and this Testament; otherwise we can build nothing upon them.  
Here then, 

I. I will evince the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, which is the great Basis of all Theology.  
II. After I have largely insisted on this, I will proceed to give you an account of the Nature of the Style and Phrase of these Holy Books.  
III. I will advance yet farther, and demonstrate the Excellency and Perfection of them.    
The Subject of our present Undertaking is the first of these: in handling of which I shall but briefly and concisely make use of those Arguments which are commonly insisted upon by Learned Writers, till I come to fix upon a Topick, which is not commonly, yea, which is very rarely and by the by used in this Cause; and this I will pursue very largely and fully, I hope with some Satisfaction to the Reader. There are many Arguments to demonstrate the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and show that they are worthy to be believed and embraced by us as the very Word of God. Some of these Arguments which are to prove the Truth of these Writings, are in common with those that prove the Truth of the Christian Religion, on which I shall have occasion to insist at another time: but my Design at present is to propound those which are more peculiarly and properly fitted to evince the Truth of the Scriptures. And these are either Internal or External. The Internal ones I call those which are either in the Scriptures themselves, or in Vs. The Characters of Divinity which the Scriptures have in Themselves, are either their Matter, or the Manner of the writing them.  
I begin with the first, the Matter of them: and here I will mention only these three Particulars.  
1. The Sublime Doctrines and Verities which are in Holy Writ. In reading this Book we meet with such things as cannot reasonably be thought to come from any but God himself. In other Writings which are most applauded, the choicest things which entertain our Minds, are the excellent Moral Notions and Precepts which they offer to us, which are all the Result of Improved Reason and Natural Religion. But here are (besides these) Notices of a peculiar Nature, and such as are above our natural Capacity and Invention, as the Creation of the World (in that Manner as is represented to us in these Writings), the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Decrees, the Incarnation of Christ the Son of God, the Redemption of the World by his Blood, the whole Method of Man's Salvation, the stupendous Providence of God over his Church in all Ages, the Coming of Christ to Judgement, and (in order to that) the raising of all Men out of their Ashes. These and several other Doctrines delivered in the Sacred Writings, cannot be imagined to come from any but God; they carry with them the Character of Divinity, as being no common and obvious Matters, but such as are towering and lofty, hidden and abstruse, and not likely to be the Product of Humane Wisdom. A God is plainly discovered in them, for the most Improved Creatures could never have reached to this pitch. Any serious and thinking Man cannot but discern the peculiar Turn and singular Contrivance of these Mysterious Doctrines, which argue them to be Divine. We may therefore believe the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles to be the Word of God, because of the wonderful Height and Sublimity of those Truths which are contained in them.  
2. The Exact Purity and Holiness both of Body and Soul, of Heart and Life, which are enjoined in these Writings, are another Testimony of their being Divinely Inspired. For though some other Books dictate Religion and Piety, yet this is certain, that all the true and just Measures of them were taken originally from this one Exact Standard, which was prior to them all, as I shall show afterwards. Besides, the Love and Charity, the Humility, Meekness, and all other Virtues which the Scriptures describe to us, far exceed the most advantageous Representations, the most exalted Ideas which the Heathen Moralists give of them. These therefore are emphatically and eminently called by St. Paul, the Holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15. because they breathe the most consummate Goodness and Piety, and that antecedently to all Writings whatsoever: because every thing in them advanceth Holiness, and that in Thought, Word and Actions. The End and Scope of them are to promote 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. in Protrept.  Sanctity of Life, to make us every way better, and even to render us * like God himself. The Holy Scripture was intended to set forth the Divine Perfections, to display the Heavenly Purity, and thereby to commend the Excellency of a holy Life. And it is certain, that if with sincere and humble Minds we peruse this Book of God, we shall find this blessed Result of it, it will marvellously instruct us in the Knowledge of the Divine Attributes, especially of God's Unspotted Holiness; it will tincture our Minds with Religion, it will pervade all our Faculties with a Spirit of Godliness, and it will thoroughly cleanse and sanctify both our Hearts and Lives, which proves it to be from God. But because I shall have occasion to say more of this, when I treat of the Perfection of the Scriptures, I will now dismiss it.  
3. To the Matter of Scripture we must refer the Prophecios and Predictions which are contained in it. These I reckon another Internal Argument, because they are drawn from what is comprehended in the very Scripture itself. What a vast number is there of Prophecies of the Old and New Testament, which we find fulfilled, and accordingly are Testimonies of the Truth of these Scriptures? Here I will a little enlarge: and first I will beg●n with that ancient Prophecy of Noah, 
† Gen. 9 27.  God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the Tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his Servant: Where are foretold things that happened above two thousand Years afterward; for the Posterity of japheth, viz. the Europeans, especially the Greeks and Romans, among other Conquests gained the possession of judea, and other Eastern Countries, which were the Portion of Shem. Again, it was fulfilled thus; by Christ's coming and preaching the Gospel, and by his Apostles propagating it, the Gentiles, who were of the Race of japheth, were admitted into the Church of God, which at first indeed consisted of those of the Posterity of Shem. 
* Deut. 28. 49, etc.  Moses foretold the besieging of jerusalem by the Assyrian Armies, and the Calamities and Miseries which attended it, which were very near a thousand Years after Moses' time. The Deliverance of the Israelites from the Oppression and Slavery which they underwent in Egypt, was promised to Abraham above four hundred Years before it happened. 
† 1 Kings 13. 2.  King josias was expressly named three hundred Years before his Birth; and consequently it was a longer time before he could demolish the Altars, and destroy Idolatry at Bethel, which was also particularly foretold by a Man of God. Cyrus, who first united the Kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and was the first Emperor of the Second Chief Monarchy, viz. the Persian, was honourably named and foretold by Isaiah to be the Deliverer of the Jews out of their Captivity, and the Restorer of their Temple, almost two hundred Years before he was born, and before that Deliverance was accomplished; Isa. 44. 28. and 45. 1— 5. This is that Cyrus who conquered Astyages the last King of the Medes, and translated the Empire to the Persians, and brought Asia and all the East under his Power. This is that Cyrus whose Life Xenophon wrote, saith Sir W. Raleigh: and from some things there related, especially his last Oration at his Death, we may probably gather that he received the Knowledge of the True God from Daniel when he governed Susa in Persia, and that he had read Isaiah's Prophecy wherein he was expressly named. And indeed 
* Antiqu. 1. 11. c. 1.  josephus tells us that he had so; and that when the Jews showed Cyrus that Place of Scripture which foretold his Wars and Victory, and likewise his Beneficence to the Jews, he admired the Divinity of the Book; and to make good what he read, he conferred many great Kindnesses on that People. It is no wonder therefore, saith a 
† Dr. Jackson.  Judicious Writer, that the History of Cyrus' Life wrote by the foresaid Historian, is thought by some to be a Fiction, he being so Extraordinary a Person, designed by God, and signally foretold beforehand. An extraordinary Spirit and Vigour actuated him, which makes that Historical Account of him look like a Romance. But notwithstanding what these Learned Men say, I am doubtful whether this famous Cyrus whom I am now speaking of, was he that this Historian gives us an account of; for that Cyrus whom he describes, died a Natural Death, and expired peaceably on his Bed, and among his Friends; but this Cyrus that set up the Persian Monarchy, died in the Wars, and was overcome by Tomyris Queen of the Scythians. Therefore 'tis thought by others, that the Life of Cyrus the Second is described by Xenophon. To proceed, the taking of Babylon, and its being brought under the Power of the Medes and Persians, were predicted by Isaiah many Years before they came to pass, Isa. 47. 1, etc. And this Noble Prophet hath deservedly gained the Title of Evangelical, because he so exactly sets down what happened several hundred Years afterwards upon the Arrival of Christ, and the Dispensation of the Gospel. jeremiah (another noted Prophet) prefixed the seventy Years of the Babylonian Captivity: And in other Prophets, who were Penmen of the Old Testament, there are very plain Predictions of future Events; and the Accomplishment of them hath proved them to be True. But the Spirit of Prophecy is most eminent and wonderful in Daniel, who hath foretold the State of the World from the time of the Captivity, wherein he lived, till the Coming of Christ in the Flesh, which was about five hundred Years after. The Succession of the most famous Empires or Monarchies of the World, is prophetically represented by him in his Interpretation of 
* Dan. 2.  Nebuchadnezzar's Dream. There (as St. jerom saith) he shows that he 
† Temporum conscius, & totius Mundi. Polyhistor. Epist. ad Paulin.  had knowledge of all Times, and was fore-acquainted with the various History of the whole World. There you will see the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman Monarchies deciphered by the four known Metals, Gold, Silver, Brass, and Iron. The Head of Gold is the Assyrian or Babylonian Empire, which was the First and Richest Monarchy, and was the Beginning and Head of the rest which were to follow. The Breast and Arms of Silver are the Medo-Persian Empire; which because it consisted of two People, it is therefore fitly set forth by two Arms. Belly and Thighs of Brass are the Greek Empire; which because it was chiefly divided into two Kingdoms of the Lagidae and Sel●●cidae, it is well expressed by two Thighs. Legs of Iron are the Roman Empire; which being 〈◊〉 into Eastern and Western, by occasion of Cons●●●tine's tines removing his Seat from Rome to Byzantium, is not unfitly set forth by two Legs. Its Feet are said to be partly Iron and partly Clay, because being divided, it was not all of a piece, but was of a different Nature: they could no more unite and cement, than Iron and Day. Then you read of a Stone cut out without Hands, i. e. the Lord Christ, not born after the ordinary and humane way. This Stone was first visible in the Days of those Kings, ver. 44. i. e. the Kings that make up the Roman Empire: for then Christ was born, than Christianity was first set up. This Stone shall become a great Mountain, and fill the whole Earth, ver. 35. and destroy the Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron, i. e. put an end to these Empires. Christ and his Church shall constitute another, viz. a Fifth Empire, much more Glorious and Renowned than the former ones. This famous Prophecy, of above two thousand Years date, was in a signal manner verified at the Coming of Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; and it shall have a further Completion when the Christian Religion shall be propagated anew in the remote Parts of the World, and at last shall become the Religion of the whole World, and a Glorious Church shall be established on the Earth.  
In the seventh Chapter of this Prophecy you have the Vision of the Four Beasts, which foretells the very same which was represented by the Four Metals, but more particularly and largely. First there is the Lion, i. e. the Assyrian Monarchy, which hath two Wings, which denote the two part of that Empire, Babylon and Assyria. They are said to be plucked, i. e. shattered and destroyed, as we read they were by Darius and Cyrus. This Lion is the same with the Golden Head in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream. Next comes the Bear, which is the Persian Monarchy set up by Cyrus, (as the former by Ninus) and expired in Darius, whom Alexander the Great slew in Battle. The three Ribs in its Mouth, are the three Chief Emperors or Kings of this Monarchy, namely, Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, who devoured much Flesh, i. e. added many Nations to their Monarchy. Or the three Ribs may signify the Persian Kingdom, which had united to it the Medes, and the Babylonian Power and People, and so was composed of three. This is the same with the Breast and Arms of Silver in the foregoing Dream. The next thing in the Vision is a Panther or Leopard, with four Wings and Heads; which signifies the Greek Empire, with the principal Kingdoms or Satrapies which after Alexander's Death arose out of that Monarchy, viz. those of Seleucus King of Syria, Antigonus King of the Lesser Asia, Cassander King of Greece, and Ptolemy King of Egypt. The four Wings also signify the Swiftness of Alexander's Conquests, and also the speedy Division of his Empire into four Kingdoms. This is the same with the Brazen Belly in the preceding Dream. Lastly there appears a Beast with ten Horns, which is the Roman Empire; though I know some interpret this Fourth Beast of the Asiatic Monarchy, called by Historians the Regnum Seleudarum, or those several lesser Kingdoms which set up upon the breaking of Alexander's Monarchy. The ten Horns are ten Kings, as is plain from the express Words in the 24th Verse; and these (say they) are Seleucus Nicanor, Antiochus Soter, Antiochus Theos, another Seleucus, Ptolomaeus Euergetes, a third Seleucus, Antiochus, Ptolomaeus Philopator, Seleucus Philopator, Antiochus Epiphanes. And the little Horn mentioned ver. 8. is, say they, the last of these ten. Others are of opinion that the little Horn that came up among the ten Horns, is the Mahometan or Turkish Empire, which grew out of the Roman Monarchy, or those Territories which were possessed by the Romans: and the three Horns it hath seized on, are three Parts of the Monarchy, viz. Asia, Egypt, Greece. But to unprejudiced Minds it will rather appear, that this part of the Vision which speaks of the Fourth Beast, and the Little Horn, belongs to the Roman Empire: for this Vision is but an enlarging on the Dream of the four Metals before spoken of. And yet I will grant that this Prophetic Vision may be taken with some Latitude, as many of the Prophecies of the Old and New Testament (as I shall show afterwards) are to be taken: and so Antiochus Epiphanes and Mahomet (the one the Scourge of the Jewish Church, the other of the Christian) may not be excluded here, but after a Prophetic manner implied; yet so as the Roman Empire, and what was to happen in the World in those Dominions, are chiefly and principally here meant. This is the Beast with ten Horns, which are the ten Members or Kingdoms belonging heretofore to the Roman Empire, viz. Asia, Africa, Syria, Egypt, Italy, Spain, Greece, Gallia, Germany, Britain. This Fourth Beast is the same with the Legs of Iron and Clay, spoken of before. It is easy and obvious to apply the Character of this last Beast to the Roman Empire. It was dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly: it had great Iron Teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the Residue with the Feet of it; and it was divers from all the Beasts that were before it, as you read in ver. 7. And again, ver. 23. The fourth Beast shall be the fourth Kingdom upon Earth, which shall be divers from all Kingdoms, and shall devour the whole Earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. This is a most Graphical Delineation of the Secular Power of Rome, and of the Slaughter and Ravage it hath made on the Earth. It is farther added, that there came up among the Horns another little Horn, ver. 8. that is, a Power distinct from those ten Powers or Kingdoms before mentioned. Here then perhaps is meant the Church or Hierarchy of Rome distinct from the Secular Power or ten Kings. This is Popery in the most proper Sense, the Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Dominion of Rome, as it is distinguished from the Civil or Temporal one: and it is the same with the False Prophet in Rev. 19 20. How naturally the Character of this Horn is appliable to this Purpose, may be seen in the following ver●es.  
The eighth Chapter reacheth not so far, but yet contains a very notable Prophecy, couched in the Vision of a Ram and a He-Goat. The 
* Ver. 2.  Ram with two Horns is (as is afterwards interpreted in express Words) the 
† Ver. 20.  Kingdom of Media and Persia. The He-Goat is the Greek Empire: the 
‖ Ver. 5.  notable Horn between his Eyes, is Alexander the Great, the first Greek Monarch, as you find it expressly expounded in ver. 21. The rough Goat is the King (or Kingdom) of Greece; and the great Horn that is between his Eyes, is the first King. It is said, 
* Ibid.  he touched not the Ground, i. e. he went on swiftly; for in twelve Years he did all his Work, and in three Battles he vanquished Darius, and succeeded in his Monarchy. Thus he smote the Ram, and broke his two Horns, and cast him to the Ground, ver. 7. It was above two hundred Years before this was accomplished that Daniel here foretold, and therefore it is a very considerable Prophecy, and a very remarkable Proof of the Authority of this Book. Hence it was that when Alexander the Great was on his march towards jerusalem to destroy it, jaddus the High Priest went out to meet him with the Book of Daniel in his Hand, which he opened and showed to that great Monarch, and let him see this Place wherein his mighty Achievements and Glory were foretold: Which very thing diverted him from doing that Harm to the Jews which he intended, and also made him confident in his Erterprises against Persia, the Conquest of which this Prophecy foretold. When this great Horn was broken, ●our other notable ones came up in its stead, v. 8. that is, on the Death of Alexander there sprang up these four Kingdoms, namely Macedonia, Asia, Syria, Egypt: These stood up, but not in his Power, ver. 22. i. e. Alexander's; they were much weaker and feebler, being divided. Out of one of these Horns came forth a little one, ver. 9 who is afterwards called a King of fierce Countenance, ver. 23. This is Antiochus Epiphanes, who came out of the Syrian Horn: by him the daily Sacrifice was taken away, and the Place of the Sanctuary was cast down, ver. 11. He destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practised, and destroyed the mighty and the holy People, ver. 24. This and much more which you read in this Chapter, can agree to no Person so well as to that Antiochus, who plagued and embarassed all Syria, and miserably shocked the Holy Land, and with unspeakable Rage and Fury persecuted the People of it, and deprived them of their Sacrifices, and defiled their Altars, and spoiled their Temple the celebrated Place of their Worship, and cruelly and barbarously put many to death that refused to violate the Law of Moses. At last it is said, he shall be broken without Hands; which plainly signifies the sudden and unexpected Catastrophe of him and his Army, which the Jewish History will particularly inform you of.  
I will not particularly insist on the eleventh Chapter of the same Prophet, in the beginning of which it is foretold concerning Xerxes, that by his Strength through his Riches he should stir up all against the Realm of Greece, ver. 2. which we read was punctually fulfilled, for he entered Greece with an Army that consisted of a Million of Men. And what is said concerning Alexander the Great, viz. that his Kingdom should be broken, and divided towards the four Winds of Heaven, and not to his Posterity, etc. ver. 4. we know was really accomplished. The rest of the Chapter is a Prophetical History of the Exploits of those several lesser Kings, among whom the Grecian Monarchy after Alexander's Death was divided, especially of Antiochus the Great, and of Antiochus Epiphanes. Here, as in the former Chapters, you may see many things foretold a long time before they were fulfilled; which is a certain and undeniable Argument of the Prophetic Spirit in the Scriptures.  
We might proceed to the Predictions and Prophecies of the New Testament, which we see also are performed in great measure. Here was foretold the wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, the Rejection of it by the Jews, the Receiving of it by the Gentiles, the Destruction of jerusalem, and all the Calamities of that Nation. These Predictions we know are accomplished. Besides, in the Writings of the New Testament we read that Christ foretold many things concerning himself and his Followers, as the Scandal which his Disciples, especially Peter, would give, Mat. 26. 31. Peter's triple Denial of him, Luke 22. 31. and yet at the same time he foretold that it should not be accompanied with a final falling away, ver. 32. He foretold that he should be betrayed, and that he should be mocked and scourged, and at last crucified; and that the third Day he should rise again, Mat. 20. 17, 18, 19 And as he predicted his own Death, the Place, Time and Kind of it, with the time of his Resurrection, (and I might have added also, of his Ascension, and of his sending the Holy Ghost;) so he did the same as to the manner of 
* John 21. 18.  Peter's Death: and he foretold 
† Ver. 22.  john the Evangelist's long Life. He told his Disciples what should befall them after his Departure, what Calamities and Sufferings they should meet with for their professing the Gospel, and owning his Cause. He acquainted them that the Gospel should be preached throughout the whole World, that Scandals and Heresies should come into the Church, that many should apostatise from the Faith, and desert Christianity, Mat. 24. And the Evangelists and Apostles, as well as our Saviour, from that Spirit of Prophecy which was in them, foretold sundry things which we see since are fulfilled. In their Writings are Predictions concerning the Calling of the Gentiles, the Conversion of the Jews, the State of the Christian Church, the Rise of Antichrist, his Character, his Progress, and his dreadful Downfall, a great part of which is already fulfilled. Much of the Fate of the World, which they foretold, God hath brought to pass; which gives us assurance that the rest will be accomplished in due time. Yea, there are at this day Prophecies fulfilled every hour, as that of the Blessed Virgin in her Magnificat, From henceforth all Generations shall call me Blessed, Luke 1. 48. The Memory of this holy Woman is daily celebrated in the Christian Church, and her Name is blessed throughout all the Assemblies of the Saints. They with one accord rejoice, that of her was born the Holy JESUS, who is Blessed for evermore. And so likewise what Simeon and Anna foretold of Christ, are every day accomplished: some part of their Prophecies is at this very instant made good. That is another Prophecy which is now fulfilling, 2 Tim. 3. 1. In the last Days perilous Times shall come, for etc. with several others that might be named, the Accomplishment of which no unprejudiced Man, and of common Ingenuity, will refuse to acknowledge. Now this wonderful Prophetic Spirit in Scripture, is a strong Argument that these Writings were inspired by God, and that the Matter of them is Divine. For the foreknowing or foretelling of things to come, is one Character of the True God, as you read in Isa. 41. 22, 23. From thence it is evident that none can predict them, unless he be immediately enlightened and taught of God. The certain and infallible Knowledge of future Contingences, which depend on free Causes, is from Him alone. Wherefore when we see (as in our present Case) that things were expressly foretold several hundreds of Years before they came to pass, and when we see that the Events exactly answered to the Predictions, we cannot but acknowledge that these Predictions were from God, and could not be from any else.  
If it be objected, That other Writings besides the Bible have Predictions in them, and that Men of Skill and Sagacity do sometimes foretell Futurities; yea, that those who have the least Converse with God, those who deal with Evil Spirits, have predicted things to come; and therefore this Argument is of no force. I answer, first, It is true that Natural Skill, especially improved by Art, by Reason and Philosophy, and the knowledge of the Laws of Nature, will give Men Insight into some Futurities. For God hath impressed a particular Quality on Natural Bodies, and they keep a constant Course. He hath fixed a way for his Creatures to act in, and they never go out of it of themselves. The Operations and Effects of Fire and Water, of Gravity and Levity in Bodies; the Motion of the Sun and Moon, and the Eclipses of either, and the several Aspects of the Heavens, may certainly be foretold: for they continually and unerringly keep their Progress, unless God pleaseth sometimes to cross their usual Course, as when the Waters of the Red-Sea stood up on a heap whilst the Israelites passed over; The Fire in Nebuchadnezzar's Furnace was restrained from doing any harm to those that were cast into it; the Sun stood still in Ioshua's time, and was retrograde in King 〈◊〉 And so there are monstrous and misshapen Creatures born into the World, which deviate from the common Procedure of Nature. But supposing that God suffers his Creatures to act according to the Laws of Nature, it is easy to make a Judgement of them, and to foretell what shall happen. But the things we are speaking of, and which are foretold in the Holy Writings, are of another kind; they are not fixed and determined by Nature: and therefore 'tis not in Man's power to predict their Events. Again, Physicians have their Prognostics whereby they foretell what will become of the Patient, whether the Disease will be hardly cured, or easily, or not at all. But because these Prognostics are founded on a great many Symptoms, and these are uncertain and dubious, it follows that those are so likewise: though 'tis certain an experienced Artist will see very far here. Then as to future Occurrences in Bodies Politic, a wise Man may by careful Observation and Remarks on the Affairs of the World, gain some Insight into these; by being long exercised in Business, by a large Experience of things, and by seeing what hath been heretofore, he may gather what shall be hereafter. A skilful Historian, who hath diligently perused the Transactions of former Ages, and digested the Methods of Government, and scanned the Manners and Customs of Countries, can do this. But this Foresight of things to come is Conjecture rather than Knowledge: for we can have no certain Foreknowledge of what depends on the Freewill of Man. Or if we will pretend to any Measure of it, we must deal only in Generals: as for Particular and Personal Events, they are far beyond our reach. And as for the particular Timing of them, especially if they be far off, there is no Prospect at all of it. Or where the Causes and Effects are Extraordinary and Preternatural, there we must confess our utter Blindness and Ignorance: they are no more to be discerned by us, than the Antarctic Pole is to be seen by us in our Hemisphere. We know not what such Events will be; we are not able to foretell them of ourselves, they can be discovered by Revelation only. And that is the Case which is now before us: the Predictions which we read in Scripture, are concerning those things which no humane Understanding or Foresight could possibly attain to. To foreknow and foretell things that should happen to the Jewish and Christian Church, two or three thousand Years before they came to pass; to predict the Deliverance of the Israelites from their Slavery in Egypt, four hundred Years before it happened; to mention jasias and his Religious Acts three hundred Years before he was born; to describe the future Monarchies of the World, and some of the most remarkable Passages belonging to them; to foretell almost two hundred Years beforehand, that there shall be such an Emperor as Cyrus, and to particularise his Actions; these are such things as no Wise Philosopher, no Learned Physician, no Pr●●dent Statesman, no Prying Historian is able to foresee and discover: for they are not general, bu● particular and personal Events; they were at a vast distance, and not near at hand: and the punctual Time of some of them was exactly assigned. If we respect second Causes, they were such Occurrences as depended on the free Agency of Man: and if we respect God, they were the mere Results of his Arbitrary Will and Pleasure; they were preternatural and unusual Events, and therefore it was not within the compass of Man's Apprehension to discover these things, the knowledge of them could not be had without Divine Assistance. To this alone then we must attribute the Prediction of them. The omniscient Eye of Heaven only could dive into these Secrets which were so far off; and thence it is that the Scriptures (which are by immediate Revelation) have recorded them.  
Secondly, It is said in the Objection, that Evil Spirits help some to the knowledge of future Events, and therefore we cannot prove the Divinity of the Scriptures from the Prophecies which are there, and which are since fulfilled. I grant indeed that the Devil helped his Followers, or pretended to help them to the knowledge of some future things. This commenced into an Art among the old Greek and Roman Pagans: Divination (which, as Tully defines it, is a 
* Earum rerum quae fo●●uitae putantur praedictio atque praesentio. De Divinat. l. 1.  Fore-sense and foretelling of fortuitous Events) was a Science among them: and that Men were very eager of knowing beforehand what should happen, appears from the several ways of Divining which they used. Their way of foretelling was by observing the flight and chattering, the sitting and feeding of Birds, by Inspection into the Entrails of these and other Animals that were sacrificed. Some from the Aspects of Stars pretended to presage what should happen: and the Professors of this Art were in great Esteem and Veneration. Dreams also were observed, and strange Remarks made upon them. Some consulted the Dead, calling up the departed Spirits, and ask them concerning future Affairs. The Oracles were another way of Divining, and were the most celebrated of all. And many other kinds of Divination and Soothsaying were in use with the Pagan World: for they being mightily desirous to be acquainted with things to come, and to look into Futurities, ransacked both Heaven and Earth, and made use of all things above and below to inform themselves about them. But all the Information they received by these different ways of Divining, was either Uncertain, or Casual, or directly Diabolical. It was Uncertain, because it was grounded on unsound Principles, on foolish and precarious Observances, and consequently the knowledge of Events was conjectural and fallible. Wherefore the wisest and soberest Men among the Pagans looked upon it as no other: and particularly 'tis worth our notice that Tully, who is full of Arguments for Divination in his first Book on that Subject, hath as many against it in his second. This Uncertainty was especially observable in their Oracles, which were the most famous way of Divining among the Gentiles: the Priests were forced to speak in ambiguous Terms, thinking to salve their Credit by that Obscurity and Ambiguity. But we find no such thing in the Sacred Oracles and Predictions of the Old and New Testament; these are plain and intelligible, clear and open: Or if some few of them may seem not to be so, yet there are great numbers of others that we cannot but acknowledge to be most evident and perspicuous; and in respect of the Issue and Event of them, we know and are assured that they are Certain and Infallible. Or secondly, their knowledge of future Events by those foresaid ways of Divining, was by mere Accident. Their Soothsayers by Chance told Truth, as Liars sometimes do: which appears from this, that they very rarely hit upon an Event that came to pass. Wherefore we may infer, that when they did, it was not by Skill, but Chance. But this cannot be said of the Predictions I have been treating of, for there is not one of them that hath failed; and I could have produced hundreds of Prophecies more, and showed the plain Accomplishment of them. Or thirdly, their knowledge of future Things was Diabolical, by which I mean this, that it was gained by that Communion and Correspondence which they held with Daemons or Evil Spirits. But here it will be demanded, How can these Spirits know future Events? And if they do know them, how is our former Assertion true, that the knowing and predicting of these things is from God alone? I answer briefly, That it is possible for the Infernal Spirits, and for Men by their Assistance, to attain to the knowledge of some future Occurrences: but those which we read are foretold in Scripture, are none of that number, but are of another and higher Kind. First then, we grant that these Daemons (as that very Name imports) are Knowing and Intelligent Creatures, and have a great Insight into the Nature of things, and are endued with a more than ordinary knowledge of Physical Causes and Effects: whence we may easily infer the possibility of their diving into some future Transactions which depend wholly on Natural Agents. In the next place, those Spirits have had long Experience of things, and are thereby grown very sagacious and cunning, and on that account are able to guests of things that are to come: for by observing what hath a long time happened in such and such Circumstances, they may not unsuccessfully sometimes conjecture what will be for the future. Moreover, those Nimble Intelligences travelling up and down the World, ranging and flying about, and visiting the remotest Regions of the Earth, and that with unspeakable Expedition, must needs inform themselves concerning the divers Occurrences abroad, and make very great Discoveries as to what shall be afterwards, from the Consults and Actions which they behold in the World. The Devil appearing in Samuel's Shape, told King Saul he should be with him the day following; for he might partly know the Event of the Battle, by what he knew concerning the Enemy's Strength, and the Anger of God against that forsaken Prince, etc. 
* Lib. 3. c. 8.  Diodorus the Sicilian relates, that the Chaldean Priests foretold the Death of Alexander the Great, and the dividing of the Empire among his Captains: which they might venture to do (and it seems their Prediction succeeded) by the Information they had from those Daemons they conversed with, who 'tis likely not only saw the debauched Life of that King, but the great Mischief which it did to his Body, and from thence the probability of his being dispatched by a violent Fever, (of which we read he died;) and they were not ignorant of the Ambition and Contentions of his Captains; nay, perhaps they were conscious to some Cabals which promoted those Events; and then 'tis not to be wondered that they could foretell them. But there was another way too of foreknowing these things, for they might be found predicted in Daniel's Prophecies, (of which we have spoken) which the Chaldean Priests had without doubt some knowledge of. There they found it written in express words, chap. 8. 8. The great Horn (which, as the preceding Verses will inform you, is meant of Alexander the Great) was broken, (i. e. in plain terms, he died) and for it came up four notable ones, (i. e. his four chief Commanders succeeded him in the Empire.) And this you will find repeated almost in the same words, in chap. 11. 4. that there might be no mistake about the Prophecy. But truly I am inclined to think that there is yet another Account to be given of this Passage in Diodorus, for (as I shall hereafter make it more evident) there are a great many References in the Pagan Historians to what is recorded in the Old Testament, though they are generally done with some Obscurity or Mistake. And I take this to be of that nature; for the Historian refers here not only to the Book of Daniel▪ (which questionless was very famous in those days) and particularly to those Prophetic Words before cited, but to Daniel himself: He was that Chaldean Priest; for though he was an Hebrew by Birth, yet Chaldea was the Country he lived in, and he was in high esteem with the Chaldean Kings. But when the Historian speaks in the Plural of Chaldean Priests, it is a pardonable Oversight, and such as is frequent in Writers. And he calls them Priests, because among the Chaldeans their Priests were the most knowing Men, and the Magis and these were Terms convertible sometimes. Or to call Daniel a Priest instead of a Prophet, is a Mistake both easy and excusable: wherefore notwithstanding this small Slip, there is reason to believe that the Historian refers to the Prophet Daniel, who once and again in very intelligible, though Prophetic Terms, foretells the Death of that Great Monarch, and the Division of his Kingdoms amongst his Captains. I might add likewise, that Evil Spirits are considerable Actors in the Affairs on Earth; and therefore 'tis no wonder that they are able to foretell what they themselves are designing to bring to pass. They could easily inform Spurina of julius Caesar's Fate, when they had been present at the Consults of the Senate, and were Instigators to take away his Life. St. Austin speaks of one that knew and could tell the Thoughts of Men, as when one thought of a Verse in Virgil, or the like. But 
* Colloqu. Mensal.  Luther said well, the Devil had before possessed his Thoughts with that Verse, and then it was not difficult to foretell what he did himself. Thus you see how far, and in what manner, Devils and wicked Men by their Means may foreknow Futurities. But now if we consider the things foretold in the Old and New Testament, we cannot apply any thing of all this to them: for the foreknowing that K. josias, Cyrus and Alexander should appear in the World so many Years afterwards, the predicting of the Succession of the three Great Monarchies, (for one of them was passed) the erecting of the Kingdom of Christ, the wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles, and the like, could not possibly be from the sagacious Insight into the Nature of things, which the Evil Spirits may attain to, nor from their Observation and Experience, which are only of things past or present; nor from any Acquaintance with the Affairs of the World, as being Actors in them: for some of these Events which we have mentioned out of the Sacred Writings, had no dependence on Common and Natural Causes, and therefore could not be penetrated into by the most subtle Enquirers into Nature, as we suppose Evil Angels to be: and besides, they were at so vast a distance in respect of Time, that it is impossible to imagine that these Spiritual Agents could have any Part then to act in them. No Man of Sense can prevail with himself to credit any such thing, but on the contrary he must be forced to acknowledge that it is wholly against the Nature of those Events, to be foreseen and discovered by any Diabolick Skill so long a time before they actually happened. Wherefore I conclude, that the foreknowing, and consequently the foretelling of them, was by particular Revelation from God. He was pleased by secret Inspiration to inform his Servants, and to give them a discovery of those things which no ●reated Understanding could discern. Lastly, This may suffice in answer to those who suppose that some Persons who converse with Diabolick Spirits, may have some Foresight of future Contingencies; this (I say) may suffice, that the Case we speak of, is far different: here can be nothing of the Devil, because these Prophecies, and all the other Writings to the Old and New Testament, tend to the promoting of Holiness and Godliness, and the destroying the Works of the Devil. Their main Design is to weaken, and even demolish Satan's Kingdom, and to set up that of Christ Jesus both in the Consciences and Lives of Men. It is ridiculous therefore to say, that these Prophecies are from the Devil. No Man of ordinary S●ns● can digest such a Proposition; it is impossible it should gain the Assent of any intelligent and sober Person. When we consider the Nature of these Prophecies, and what they aim at, we must needs own them to be from Him to whom all Future Things are Present, and who is the Cause as well as the Foreseer of them. And therefore when we observe that the things which the Writers of Holy Scripture have delivered, are actually come to pass, we may with reason conclude, that their Writings are not Forgeries; but on the contrary, that the Penmen of them were Inspired Persons; that they had the Gift of Prophecy, which is an infallible Testimony of their Authority. These things being thus foretold so long before, and being exactly verified since, it undeniably follows, that the Books which contain these Predictions, and are founded on them, are True and Certain. These Predictions coming from God, are an a● red Proof that these Writings were indicted him, they being so great a part of them. Thi● that which an ancient Father long since deliver●▪ 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. cont. Cel●. l. 6.  The foretelling of future things, saith he, 〈◊〉 Characteristic Note of the Divine Authority 〈◊〉 the Scriptures; for this is a thing that is abo●● humane Nature, and the Powers of it, and 〈◊〉 only ●e effected by the Virtue of the Divine ●●●rit. We may rely upon it, as an impregna● Maxim, that the Spirit of Prophecy, and the F● filling of Prophecies, are a Divine Proof of 〈◊〉 Truth of the Scriptures, and are a sufficient Grou● to us of believing them to be the Word of Go● Thus from the Matter of the Holy Scriptures, 〈◊〉 have undeniable Evidence of the Authority a● Truth of them.  
Again, the Manner of these Writings is another Proof of the Divine Authority of them. The● are not writ as others are wont to be: the Penmen of these Sacred Books do not speak after the ra●●● of other Writers. How admirable is the Simpl● city and Ingenuity of these Men all along? The● do not hide their own or others Failings, yea eve● when they are very gross and scandalous: thu● Moses recorded not only Noah's Drunkenness and Lot's Incest, but his own rash Anger and Unbelief▪ and David registers in the 51st Psalm, his own Murder and Adultery: jeremiah relates his own unbecoming Fears, Discontents and Murmurings, chap. 20. 7, 8, 14. The Writers of the New Testament conceal not the Infirmities and Defects, 〈◊〉 the gross Miscarriages of themselves, and of ●heir Brethren; as their cowardly leaving of Christ 〈◊〉 his Passion, John's falling at the Feet of an An●el to worship him, Thomas his Infidelity, Iohn ●nd james (the Sons of Zebedee) their unseasonable Ambition, Peter's denying of Christ even with perjury. This free and plain dealing of the Writers of the Old and New Testament, shows that ●hey are not the Writings of Men. A Man may ●ee that there is no worldly and sinister Design ●●rried on in them, but that the Glory of God is wholly intended by their impartial discovery of ●he Truth. Which was long since taken notice of ●y 
* Lib. 1.  Arnobius in answer to that Cavil of the Pagans, hat the History of the Gospel was writ by poor 〈◊〉 People, and in a simple Manner: Therefore, ●aith he, it is the more to be credited, because they write so indifferently and impartially, and out of Simplicity. This Impartiality and Sincerity of theirs are an irrefragable Argument of the Truth of their Writings.  
And here also you will find an excellent and admirable Composition of Simplicity and Majesty together. Though the Strain be High and Lofty, yet you may observe that at the same time it is Humble and Condescending. To which purpose a Learned Father saith well, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. Pelus. Ep. l. 5.  The Language of Divine Wisdom in the Scripture is Low, but the Sense is Sublime and Heavenly: whereas on the contrary, the Phrase of Heathen Writers is Splendid, but the things couched in them are Poor and Mean. The Scripture-Writers make it not their work to set off and commend th● Writings, by being Elaborate and Exact. H● are no set Discourses, no pointed Arguments, 〈◊〉 affected Strains of Logic. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just. Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph.  The Writers 〈◊〉 the Bible, saith another ancient Father, did 〈◊〉 make their Writings in a way of Demonstration these unquestionable Witnesses of the Truth being above all Demonstration. Nor shall y●● find here that the Writers strain for Elegancy and florid Expressions, as other Authors are won● here is no acquaint and curious Method, no form● Transitions, no courting of the Readers, no unnecessary Pageantry of Rhetoric to gain Admiration and Attention. Especially the Style of the Evangelists and Apostles is not tumid and affected but plain and simple, and scorns the Ornament and Embellishments of Fancy: for, as an 
† Arnob. lib. 1.  o● Christian said rightly, Truth needs no Fucus an● Artifice; and therefore the Sense, not Words, are minded in Scripture. All good Men ought to be pleased with this Simplicity and Plainness of the Holy Style: of which there is a memorable Instance in an 
‖ Sozom. l. 1. c. 11.  Ecclesiastical Historian, who tells us that Spiridion, a notable Confessor for the Christian Faith, reproved one Tryphilius an Eloquent Man and converted by him to Christianity some time before, because, speaking one time in the famous Council of Nice, he did, instead of those Word● of Christ, 
‖‖ Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 2. 9  Tolle grabatum tuum, say, Tolle lectum tuum humilem; he reproved him, (I say) and that very sharply, for disdaining to use the word which the Scripture itself useth. It is true, the Words of Scripture seem sometimes to be common and rude, and altogether ungraceful, (sometimes I say, for I shall show afterwards that Scripture is not destitute of its Graces of Speech;) but that seeming Commonness and Rudeness are great Tokens of the peculiar Excellency of the Style of Scripture. Gregory the Great excusing the Plainness and Rudeness of his Style in his Comments on job, professeth, that 
* Indignum vehementer exis●imo ut verba coelestis oraculi restringam sub regulas Donati. Epist. ad Leandrum.  he thought it unworthy of, and unbecoming the Heavenly Oracles, to restrain them to the nice Rules of Grammar. Surely the Writers of the Bible might say so with more reason; it became them not to stand upon those Niceties and Formalities of Speech which are so frequent in other Authors: for it is fitting there should be a difference between Humane Writings and Divine. I agree with a late Ingenious Author, who declares, that 
† Robert boil Esq of the Style of Scripture.  it fits not the Majesty of God, whose Book this is, to observe the humane Laws of Method, and Niceness of Art. Inspired Writings must not be like those of Men. The singular Grace of these is, that they are not Artificial and Studied, but Simple, Plain and Careless; and that their whole Frame and Contexture are not such as ours. An artificial Method is below the Majesty of that Spirit which dictated them. This would debase the Scriptures, and equal them with the Writings of Men. Wherefore the oftener I look into that Sacred Volume, and the more I observe it, the more I am convinced that the Pens of the Writers were wholly directed by a Divine Hand. For take any of the Books either Doctrinal or Historical, and you'll presently find that the way o● Expression in them is different from what the Authors of themselves would have used. If they had been left to their own Genius, they would have delivered things in another Method and Manner than you see them in. The Style of them therefore shows the Author. In short, had the Scriptures been written in the common way of other Writers, this would have disparaged them, and we should have had no reason to think that they were Divinely inspired, which is the thing I am now proving.  
Nay, I will adjoin this, that the very Words and Phrases of Scripture were dictated by the Spirit; the very particular Expressions and Modes of Speech were under the particular Guidance and Direction of the Holy Ghost. I know there are many of a contrary Judgement, among whom the worthy Writer whom I last quoted, is not the least confident, and positively asserts that the Style and Language of Scripture were not dictated by the Holy Ghost, but the Matter only. The Words, saith he, were left to the Writers themselves, who as Men of Sense could express their Minds in fit Terms. And to prove that the Words were not dictated by the Spirit, he urgeth this, that Christ and his Apostles quote Places out of the Old Testament as they are translated by the Seventy, which is not verbatim. Now, saith he, they would have cited the Passages in the very original Phrases and Words, if these had been from Divine Inspiration. It is evident therefore that they are not, because the Apostles use other Words and Terms, far different from those in the Hebrew. But this is no valid Argument, if you rightly consider it: for though the Apostles thought fit (for some Reasons which I shall have occasion afterwards to offer to you) to make use of the Septuagint Version, which is but a Paraphrase in many places on the Original Text, yet it doth not follow hence that the very Words of the Original were not dictated by the Holy Ghost. Neither our Saviour, nor the Evangelists and Apostles, do hereby declare that the Hebrew Text was not inspired, and that even as to the Phrase and Words: but all that we gather from their using of the Greek Translation, is this, that they found it convenient at that time (for Reasons which shall afterwards be alleged) to quote some Places as they are rendered by those Translators, and not exactly according to the Original. This doth not necessarily imply, much less prove that the Penmen of the Old Testament were not assisted by the Spirit in the very Words which they used. But the contrary is grounded on very good Reason, for these Sacred Writings being of a more excellent and transcendent Nature than all others in the World besides, it was meet that they should surpass them all in This, viz. the Divinity of the very Style. If you grant not this, you acknowledge these Writings, in one respect at least, and that no inconsiderable one, to be no better than the common Writings of other Men: which certainly cannot but be looked upon as a great vilifying of the Bible. Christ promised his Disciples, that when they should be brought before Governors and Kings for his Sake, it should be given them what they should speak: for (as he adds) it is not they that speak, but the Spirit of their Father that speaketh in them, Mat. 10. 19, 20. And is it not most reasonable to think that the same Spirit taught the Writers of the Old and New Testament what they should speak, and commit to writing, and gave them Words to that purpose? Especially if you consider that this was a Book which was to last to all Generations in the Church, an● was designed for the use of the Faithful, and for the confuting of their Adversaries to the World's End; and accordingly was to be produced upon all Occasions, and therefore was to be of an extraordinary Composure, and every Word and Syllable was to be from God, and the Direction of his Holy Spirit. St. Peter assures us, that the Writers of the Old Testament 
* 1 Pet. 1. 21.  spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost: their Speaking, and consequently their Writing (because this was according to that) was by the special Motion and Influence of the Infallible Spirit; therefore their very Words (for those are necessarily included in speaking) were dictated and directed by the same Spirit. And the other Great Apostle tells us indefinitely and absolutely, and without any restriction, that 
† 2 Tim. 3. 16.  〈◊〉 Scripture is given by Inspiration of God: Now if 〈◊〉 the Scripture be by Divine Inspiration, it follows that the very Words of it are; for the Words and Expressions and manner of Speech are a part of the Scripture: wherefore if we grant that the Whole is by Inspiration, we must necessarily grant likewise that the Parts of it are, for the Parts constitute the Whole. We have reason therefore to assert that every Word in Scripture is indicted by God, and that every Letter and Syllable of it is exact, and that there is nothing wanting, nothing superfluous, no Fault nor Blemish in the Style and Phraseology of it. I cannot but here take notice of the fond Presumption of some of the Iewi●● Rabbis and Masorites, who alter some Words and Expressions in Scripture, and put others into their place. They forsooth in a more modest way (as they pretend) read, instead of Urine, (in 2 Kings 18. 27. Isa. 36. 12.) the Water of the Feet; instead of Shagal they read Shacab in all Texts; for Gnapholim, Deut. 28. 27. 1 Sam. 5. 6. they read Techorim: so in other places where they think some Words are obscene, they substitute others in their room. These Men would be more modest than the Scripture, and more chaste than the Holy Ghost; and yet they herein contradict themselves, for some of them have said the Hebrew Tongue is called Holy, because it hath nothing obscence in it, nothing of that nature can be uttered and expressed in it. This we are certain of, that there cannot be better and fitter Words than what the Scripture hath, for the Spirit indicted them all; and therefore the Practice of the conceited Rabbis is to be exploded. 
* Chrysost. Homil. in Saul. tom. 8.  There is not one jota, or the least Apex in Scripture, which is put there to no purpose: And the same Father as truly saith in another place, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 18. i● Gen.  It speaks nothing in vain, nothing by chance. And the reason is, because All of it (Words no less than Matter) is dictated and delivered from above by an unerring Spirit.  
Yet I speak not this as if the Sacred Writers of the Bible were so tied up by the Spirit, that they cannot, or do not make use of their own natural or acquired Skill. Though the Words be dictated by the Spirit, yet the Penmen might write and speak according to the Improvements they had made in Speech. I do not by what I have said, exclude the peculiar Eloquence or Strain of the Writers, or their using the Helps of their Education, or their conforming to the Dialect of their Country: for these are consistent with That. Isaiah being a Courtier, and a Person of Quality, hath a neat and elegant Style; and yet so as he knows how to vary it according to the Matter he treats of: But generally he is Lofty and Eloquent, his Style being raised by his Education, which was suitable to his Noble Extraction, for he was of the Blood Royal. jeremiah and Amos being used to the Country, are mean and homely in their Language; the latter especially discovers his Condition and way of Life in his low and rural Strain. So in the New Testament, St. Luke, who had improved himself by Art and Study, is very observant of the Greek Elegancy, and avoids all improper and exotic Terms in his Gospel and in the Acts. Indeed the Style of the Sacred Penmen is very different, and that Difference is an Excellency in this Book of God. But that which I say is this, the Writers leave not off their peculiar Style, though they were moved by the Spirit. As this furnished them with new Expressions, so it let them make use of their own usual ones, but immediately directed and assisted them in the applying of them. So that at the same time when they used their Natural Style, they were Divinely helped to make it serviceable to that purpose which the Holy Ghost intended. Hence I conclude, that the Style, and Words, and Composure of the Sacred Writings are such as ought to be reckoned Divine. For this is one difference between this Book and others, that every thing of it is Divine. And therefore those Persons who dream of Solecis●● in Holy Scripture, are the greatest Solecisers themselves; but especially those who assert there are Mistakes and literal Falsities in the Holy Book, are utterly to be condemned. Such is 
* Institur. Theolog. lib. 4.  Episcopius, who dares affirm, That the Spirit left the Writers of the Holy Scripture to their own humane Frailty in delivering such things as belonged to Circumstances of a Fact. Their Knowledge and Memory were deficient and fallible. The Spirit did not tell St. john how many Furlongs Christ's Disciples went, chap. 6. 19 The same is to be asserted (he saith) as to some Names, and other Circumstances of Time and Place, which are not of the substance of the thing. And before this you are told by 
† Socinus and Erasmus.  ●●o others, that the Penmen of Scripture 〈◊〉 in some light things; not that they would falsity, but that they might forget some Passages. Melchior Canus is of the opinion, that there are some considerable Slips in Scripture from the weakness of the Evangelists and Apostles Memories. Yea, among the ancient Fathers there was 
‖ Hieronym. in Isai. 29, & 56. In Joel 11. In Mic. 5. Item in 1 Ep. ad Tim. Necnon in Epist. suâ 50.  one who more grossly held, that the Writers of the New Testament sometimes abused the Testimonies of the Prophets of the Old Testament; and that they applied them to their present purpose, although they were nothing to it. Thus St. Paul, he saith, quoteth the Old Testament in his Epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, only to serve his turn, and to confute the Jews his Adversaries. Read, saith he, these Epistles, wherein the Apostle is wholly on the Polemic part, and 
‖‖ Videbitis eum in testimoniis quae habet de Veteri Testamento, quam prudens, quam dissimulator sit ejus quod agit. Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufin.  you will see how prudently and dissemblingly he acts in those Texts which he citeth out of the Old Testament. And at other times this bold Man is not afraid to say that some of the Matters and Things in Scripture are set down wrong. This is no less than Profane and Blasphemous Doctrine: wherefore that Father is to be read with great Caution in such places as these. We on the contrary assert, that God was not only the Author of the Matter and Contents of Holy Writ, but also of the Words and Expressions; yea, even when those Writers express their Sense in their own Terms, i. e. according to the Way and Dialect which they were Masters of, and which was most familiar to them, even than they were immediately assisted 〈◊〉 the Spirit. Which was absolutely necessary, that this Book might have no Errors and Failings in it of any kind, but that it might transcend all other Writings whatsoever. If you do not hold this, you make no considerable difference between the Holy Scriptures and other Writings. Therefore I am thoroughly convinced that this is a Truth, and aught to be maintained, viz. that the Holy Spirit indicted the very Style of Scripture, that even this was by the immediate Inspiration of Heaven.  
To the Manner of its writing I may well annex its Harmony, and thence also prove it to be Divine. Though there are several seeming Repugnancies, (of which I shall treat afterwards in a Discourse of the Style of Scripture, and endeavour to clear them up to the Satisfaction of every sober and considerate Person) yet it cannot but be acknowledged that all the Parts of this Book do entirely agree, and are consistent with one another. This in other Books, which are composed and written by one Author, is not so admirable, (though in those Pieces we oftentimes meet with very palpable Disagreements and Contradictions;) but here we are able to remember, that notwithstanding these Books were written by different Persons, and those many in number, and disagreeing in Quality, and extremely distant as to Time and Place, yet their Writings contradict not one another, but there is an excellent Harmony in all their Parts, there is a perfect Concord and Consent among them all, such as is not to be found in any other Authors in the World, though of the same Sect and Party. Excellently to this purpose a very Wise and Judicious 
* judge Hale of the Knowledge of God, and of ourselves.  Man thus speaks: When several Men in several Ages, not brought up under the same Education, write, it is not possible to find Unity in their Tenants or Positions, because their Spirits, Judgements and Fancies are different: but where so many several Authors, speaking and writing at several times, agree not only in Matters Dogmatical, of sublime and difficult Natures, but also in Predictions of future and contingent Events, whereof it is impossible for humane Understanding to make a Discovery, without a superior Discovery made to it, I must needs conclude one and the same Divine Spirit declared the same Truths to these several Men. And as to the seeming Contrarieties of some Places of Scripture, this should not at all trouble us; for this is rather an Argument of the Truth and Authority of it: it is a sign the Writers did not combine together to cheat and delude us. If they had designed any such thing, we should not have met with any Difficult and seemingly Repugnant Places in these Writings. But seeing we do so, this (among other things) may confirm us in this Belief, that the Scriptures were not contrived by Men who had a design to impose upon us; for if they had had such a Design, they would have so ordered it, that not the least appearance of Contradiction and Difference should have been found. But truly there is no necessity of proceeding thus in this Discourse; for to an unprejudiced and industrious Enquirer, there is nothing in Scripture that looks like Inconsistent and Contradictory. Upon a diligent Search we shall discern a mutual Correspondence in the Style, Matter, and Design of these Writings; we shall find a happy Concurrence of Circumstances, and an admirable Consistency in the Doctrines and Discourses, in so much that we shall be forced to acknowledge, that upon this single Consideration it is reasonable to believe that these Writings were indicted by the Holy Spirit. This Harmony then of the Scriptures I may justly reckon among the Inward Notes of the Truth of Scripture, because it is adjoined to the Matter of it, which is of the very Intrinsic Nature of it. What justinian professes and promises concerning his Digests in his Preface to them, that there is nothing Clashing and Contradictory in them, but that they are all of a piece, is true only of the Sacred Laws, of the Evangelical Pandects, which contain in them nothing Dissonant and Repugnant. The Old and New Testament, the Prophets and Apostles are consonant to themselves, and to one another; which is a great Argument of the Truth of them. There is nothing in one Place of Scripture opposite to the true Meaning which the Holy Ghost hath revealed and asserted in another. The Contents of the whole Book, whether you look into the Doctrinal or Historical Part of it, have nothing contradictory in them: All the Authors of it agree in their Testimonies, and assert the same thing, and consent among themselves. It is the Nature of Lies and Forgeries, that they hang not together, as 
* Haec est Mendaciorum natura, ut cohaerere non possint. In●tit. l. 5. c. 3.  Lactantius on the like Occasion hath observed. Especially if you search very inquisitively and narrowly into them, you will perceive that they are 
† Tenue est Mendacium; perlucet, si diligenter inspexeris. Sen. Ep. 80.  thin and slight, and may easily be seen through. But the Contents of these Writings have been diligently inquired into, and with great Care and Industry examined by all sorts of Persons; and yet they are found to be every ways Consistent with themselves, and the Testimony of the Writers is known to be Concurrent and Agreeing. All wise and curious Observers must needs grant, that there is no Book under Heaven that parallels the Scriptures as to this: Which shows that they are more than Humane Writings, yea that they were Divinely inspired and dictated. And this I take to be the Sense of St. Peter, who assures us, that 
‖ 2 Pet. 1. 19  no Prophecy of the Scripture is of private Interpretation. He speaks of the first Rise of those Prophecies which are in Scripture: they are from God, they are not of private Interpretation; they are not from Man's Invention, they are not of his own Brain and Fancy, but they are to be esteemed to be (as they are) Divine and Heavenly Oracles. Thus 
‖ Alia omnia Dicta argumentis ac testibus egent; Dei autem Sermo ipse sibi testis est. Salvian. de Guber. l. 3.  the Word of God is Witness to itself, and stands in need of no others. The Scripture is sufficiently proved by what is in it, and is to be believed for its own sake. Which made an ancient Writer say, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. ●ib. 7.  We have complete Demonstrations out of the Scriptures themselves, and accordingly we are demonstratively assured by Faith concerning the Truth of the things therein delivered. Which cannot be said of any humane Writings in the World: for they carry no such Native Marks with them. But the very Inward Notes of the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, create in us a certain and unshaken Belief. They may be known from all other Writings whatsoever, by the Excellent, Transcendent, and Divine Matter contained in them, and by the peculiar Manner of delivering and publishing it. These I call Internal Proofs, because they are taken from the Books themselves, because they are something that we find there. These assure us that they were written not by Man, but by God.  
There is yet another Internal Testimony. I call it so, because it is within Us, though not in the Scriptures. As I have showed you that the Holy Spirit speaks in the Scriptures, and bears Testimony to the Truth of them, so now I add, that this Spirit speaks in Us, and works in our Hearts a Persuasion that the Scriptures are the Word of God. By this Spirit we are enabled to discern the Voice of the same Spirit, and of Christ in those Writings. This witnessing Power of the Spirit in the Souls of Believers, is asserted in Acts 5. 32. & 15. 7, 8. and in 1 john 5. 6. From these Places it is clear, that there is an Illumination of the Spirit joining with our Consciences and Persuasions; and this Spirit powerfully convinces all Believers of the Truth of the Scriptures. This Testimony follows immediately on our setting before us the Inward Excellencies of the Scripture, as I have represented them: for God makes use of those Evidences and Arguments to beget a Belief in us of the Divine Authority of Scripture. The Spirit enlightens and convinces men's Minds by those Means; but more especially he urges these Evidences on the Hearts of the Religious and Faithful, and thereby brings them to a firm Persuasion of the Scriptures being the Word of God. This is no Enthusiasm, because it is discovered to us by proper Means and Instruments; whereas that is without any, and is generally accompanied with the despising of them. But the Evidences and Notes in the Scripture are the Reasons and Motives of our Belief: only the Holy Spirit comes and prepares and sanctifies our Minds, and illuminates our Consciences, and causes those Arguments and Motives to make Impression upon us, and effectually to prevail with us, and to silence all Objections to the contrary. Thus the Truth of Scripture is attested by the Holy Spirit witnessing in us. But when I say the Testimony of the Spirit is a Proof of the Truth of the Scripture, I must adjoin this, that this Proof serves only for those that have this Spirit: it may establish them, but it cannot convince others. No other Man can be brought to be persuaded of the Truth of those Sacred Writings, by the Spirit's convincing me of the Truth of them. Besides, this Proof is not in all that really believe the Truth of these Books: some may be convinced of the Truth of them without this; but where this is, it is most Powerful and Convictive, and surpasses all other degre● of Persuasion whatsoever. There is no such c●tain knowledge of the Truth of these Holy W● things, as by the Testimony of the Sacred Spirit 〈◊〉 the Hearts of Men, produced there in a ration ● way, and in such a manner as is most suitable 〈◊〉 our Faculties.   

CHAP. II.  
External Proofs of the Truth of the Holy Scripture● Viz. the wonderful Preservation of them, and Universal Tradition. Which latter is defended against the Objections of those that talk of a New Character wherein the Old Testament is written. Th● jewish Masoreth attests the Authority of these Writings. The Hebrew Text is not corrupted. The Points or Vowels were coexistent with the Letters. F. Simon's Notion of Abbreviating the Historical Books of the Old Testament, rejected. The New Tement vouched by the unanimous Suffrage of the Primitive Church. The Reasons why the Apocryphal Writings are not received into the Canon of the Bible: with an Answer to the Objections made by the Romanists.  
SEcondly, I proceed to the External Testimonies of the Truth of the Scriptures: which being added to those Arguments which proved them to be True in Themselves, will exceedingly corroborate our Belief of the Divine Authority of those Books. And here I might mention the Testimony given to them by God in the wonderful Preservation of them through all Ages since they were first written. In all the Changes of Affairs, and the Overthrow of so many Cities and Kingdoms, that Incomparable Treasure hath not been lost. The Books of the Old Testament were kept untouched and inviolable at the sacking and burning of jerusalem, and all the time of the Captivity in Babylon, and of the Dispersion of the Jews. And ever since that time the Scriptures have been Unaltered in Words and Sense, notwithstanding the frequent Endeavours of Satan's busy Agents to corrupt them, yea utterly to destroy them. And next to God's Providence in preserving these Books through all Times and Ages, we might add the marvellous Success which hath attended the Holy Faith and Doctrine contained in these Writings. They have prevailed against the Power of Men and Devils, and to this very day they are maintained and upheld maugre the Attempts of both of them to root them out of the World.  
But I wave this, intending not to insist upon Divine, but Humane Testimony in this place. By External Testimony than I mean here no other than this, that Scripture is attested by Universal Tradition; and this Tradition is both of Jews and Christians. And what would a Man desire more in a humane way for attesting the Truth of these Writings? From the joint Attestation of these Witnesses I shall make it appear, that these Books which we now have, are the true Copies of the first Originals; that the same Books and Authors are faithfully delivered down to us, which were first of all delivered to the Jews, and to the Primitive Christians; and that there is nothing in these Writings, as we now have them, that is falsified or corrupted.  
First, to begin with the Books of the Old Testament, the Names of which are as follow; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ioshu● judges, Ruth, the 1st and 2d Books of Samuel, th● 1st and 2d Books of Kings, though 1st and 2d Books 〈◊〉 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, job, the Psalms Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, the fo●● Greater Prophets, and the twelve Lesser. These and none but these, were admitted into the Can● of the Holy Scriptures by the ancient Church o● the jews, whose Testimony is very Authentics here; yea, indeed we cannot have a better. They acquaint us, that these were the Only Writing● that were universally agreed by them to be extraordinarily Inspired: and they further tell us, that these Books which were writ by different Persons▪ and at divers Times, were first compiled and collected into One Body or Volume by Ezra, and the Assembly of Doctors for that purpose; and consequently that the Canon of Sacred Scripture of the Old Testament, (as it is at this time) was not constituted till Ezra's days by the Great Synagogue, as they call it. Upon his Return from the Captivity he undertook this good Work; he gathered together all those dispersed Books before. named; and after he had reviewed them, he publicly owned, and solemnly vouched the Authority of every one of them, that the Church for the future might not doubt of their being Authentic and True. But some add here, by way of Objection, that this holy Man caused these Books to be written over in a New Character, because the Jews had lost their knowledge of the former one, as well as of the Tongue; and consequently the Bible is not the same that it was at first. Eusebius and jerom are alleged for this, especially the latter, who seems to say that the Samaritan Character was the Old Hebrew Character in which the Bible was first writ, and that it was first changed by Ezrd after the Return from Babylon, he writing ●he Sacred Volume over in Assyrian or Chaldee Letters, and neglecting the Old Hebrew ones which were the same that the Samaritan are. And the reason of this was, they say, because the Jews were best acquainted with this Character at that time. And some 
* Bellarmin, Joseph Scaliger, Casaubon, Arias Montanus, Villalpandus, Drusius, Capellus, Morinus, Bochart, Vossius, Walton.  Modern Writers are gained over to this Opinion, who talk much of the Change of the Character, and endeavour to persuade us that the first and old Letters of the Hebrew Text were Samaritan, but that those which we now have are Assyrian, and of quite another sort. But upon an impartial Enquiry, I find little or no Foundation for this Opinion: It rather seems to me to be an Invention and Dream of those who design to disparage the Hebrew Bible. They would persuade us that the Authority of the Original is impaired, because we have it not now as it was at the beginning; for the Old Bible was in Samaritan Letters, these being the first and ancientest Hebrew Characters. This is like the Story of the Hebrew Points being invented five hundred Years after Christ, (of which afterwards) which tends to the same End, namely to discredit the Hebrew Text which we now have, and wholly to take away its Authority; for if the Letters were changed, it is probable some Words, and consequently the Sense of some Places are altered. But that this is groundless, and that the Hebrew Bible is written in the same Characters now that it was at first, you will find very largely and convincingly proved by the famous 
* Dissertat. de Lit. Hebr.  Buxtorf from the Authority of the Talmud, especially the Gemara, 〈◊〉 the Cabala, from the Suffrage of the most Not● Rabbins of old, and of the Learned Modern Je●● as Aben Ezra, R. Solomon, R. Ben Maimon, & ● who without doubt are very competent Judge's 〈◊〉 this Case. To these may be added several of 〈◊〉 Christian Persuasion, as Picus Mirandula, F. Iuni●▪ Skikkard, Postellus, with those three Eminent Persons of our own Country, Nic. Fuller, Brought●● Lightfoot. If you consult these, they will satisfy you that the Hebrew Letters which we have now in the Bible, were the Primitive ones, the very same that were of old. But to give you my Thoughts impartially in this Point, I do believ● from what I find asserted by Writers on both sides, that there were two sorts of Characters used by the Jews, as there were two sorts of Cubits and Shekels, the Sacred and Common: and I gather, that the Samaritan Letter was of the latter sort, that which was commonly used, and even sometimes in transcribing the Bible; but the Sacred Character in use among the Jews was this which we now have, and in which the Bible is at this day. This is the true Original Hebrew Letter, and was used from the beginning by them. This I think may reconcile the Disputes among Writers; for so far as I can perceive, the Quarrels arise from this, that there is frequent mention made in Jewish and other Authors, of the Bible's being written in an old Samaritan Character; whence it was inferred by some, that this was the Primitive Character wherein the Bible was written, and consequently that this which we now have is not the true Genuine Character. But I answer, this doth not follow; for this Samaritan Vulgar Character was not the first and ancientest, though it was sometimes in use: but the Sacred Character, now called the Hebrew Character, is really such, and is the true and most ancient Letter wherein this holy Book was written. This is the Authentic Letter which God himself graved the Law in, and thence had the Name of the Sacred Character: but the other called the Common and Vulgar, was not in that esteem, it being a Deviation from that Primitive one. And yet to speak freely, there was no great difference between these two Characters, the latter being only some Variation and Degeneracy from the former, which happened by length of Time. This is the real Truth of the Matter, and it solves the Controversy, and ends all the Disputes on both sides. And the Learned French Critic, who seemed to be of another Opinion, comes over at last to this, when 
* F. Simon's Crist▪ Hist: of the Bible.  he tells us, That there is no reason for Critics to dispute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Characters: for if we attentively consider and compare together the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters, we shall find that the difference between them is not so great, but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Origine. And he grants also, that 'tis from the Succession of so many Ages, (which is wont to produce some Alteration) that there hath been this Variation from their first Figure. But this is inconsiderable, so that both Characters may be said to be the same. We have no ground then to think that Ezra changed the Character, but that he only amended the Defects and Slips which he found in the Hebrew for by consulting and comparing the several Copies, he purged them from the Errors and Mistakes which were contracted in the time of th● Captivity. And after he had caused the Books 〈◊〉 be fairly written out, he put them into that Order in which now they are placed; and so he may b● said to be the Composer of the Old Testament into that Model we see it now in.  
And from his revising the Books, and mending them by comparing of Copies, was the first beginning of Keri and Chetib, as most of the Learne● Jews assert: for where the Copies disagreed, o● where two Readins were probable, there wer● made Variae Lectiones; the one was put into th● Margin, and is called 
* Lectio.  Keri; the other into th● Text, and is called 
† Scriptio.  Chetib. I know some ascribe these not to Ezra, but to the Doctors of Tiberias● but here, as before, I am willing to compromise the Quarrel; and therefore we may ascribe the● to both, they being begun by Ezra, and augmented by the others afterwards. This was one wa● to keep the Bible entire and uncorrupted; and b● the Favour of Divine Providence it has been transmitted so to us. At the same time also the Canon 〈◊〉 Scripture was digested into Partitions and Divisions▪ as now it is; and there was then laid the Foundation of the Masorah or Masoreth, which become afterwards part of the Jewish Cabala; which abou● the Year of our Lord 494, was committed to writing by some skilful Grammarians, and hath bee● very useful for preserving the Old Testament. There are three several Species of this Cabala, 〈◊〉 they tell us: the first is Gematria, (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a Mathematical Consideration of the Text of the Bible, the mystical numbering of the Letters, and an account of the Great and Little Letters in Words. The second is Notariaca, an Exposition of Scripture from certain Notes, Characters, Lines and Points belonging to the Hebrew Text. More particularly, Noteriekon (or Notaricon, or Notariaca, for I find that 'tis thus differently express d in Writers) is when one Letter stands for a whole Word. This way of Cabalizing gave the Name to judas Maccabaeus, who writ on his Standards and Ensigns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Abbreviature or first Letters of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 15. 11. and by putting Vowels to the Consonants, they read it Maccabi. The third is Temurah, Mutatio, which is made by the transposition of the same Letters, whence another Word ariseth which explains the Word that is transposed. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Terra, which contains the same Letters. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Noah is said to have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace, or Favour, Gen. 6. 8. The Letters are the same, but transposed. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Exod. 23. 23.) is by Metathesis expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Dan. 12. 1.) i. e. the Messias, say the Jewish Doctors. But the first and second way of Cabalizing, which obtain the Name of Masoreth, are the most considerable to our present Purpose. These Critical Observations on the Bible, made of old, and delivered from one to another, (whence they have their 
* From masar, trader●.  Denomination) treat of the Mysteries of Letters, why some Words are in Greater, others in Lesser Characters, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Great Vau, Levit. 11. 42. So they observe there is an open Man at the end of a Word in Neh. 2. 13. and a close Man in the middle in Isa. 9 7. The Masorites likewise have taken notice of the Likeness and Difference of Words, by Similitude o● Diversity of Letters and Points: they have mad● Remarks on irregular and extraordinary Pointings; they have observed the Variety of Accents and so criticized on all these in the several Place● of the Old Testament, that there cannot be 〈◊〉 Change made in the Hebrew Copies, but it mu●● be presently seen. In this Masoreth on the Hebre● Text, they have reckoned which Verse in th● Psalms is the middle one, and which Letter is th● middle Letter in that whole Book, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in th● word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psal. 80. 13. Yea, they hav● counted all the Verses and Words, all the Accent●● Letters and Vowels that are in every single Book● (from which critical Enumeration those Transcr●bers of the Bible were called by the Jews Sopheri● i e. Numberers) and at the bottom of every Volume they have set down the exact Number of 〈◊〉 these: and at last they reckon how many there a● in the whole Bible of the Old Testament. Fath●● Simon indeed saith, they mistake in their Accomp●● but that is more than he proves; and I do 〈◊〉 think he ever took the pains (as great a Critic●● on the Bible as he is) to cast them up. There 〈◊〉 good reason to believe that the jewish Critics 〈◊〉 the Old Testament are more to be credited in 〈◊〉 Particular, than the French one. However, fro● what hath been said it appears that the Jews we●● very careful and studious, very exact and curio●● in Scripture; by which means it happens that the● is an Impossibility of making any Alteration in 〈◊〉 without being discovered. That is the only Re●son of my alleging here the Masoretic Notes: 〈◊〉 I undertake not to defend the superstitious R●●marks and Criticisms of the Masorites; I applaud not their laborious Niceties, their childish Transmutations and shuflling of Letters and Syllables, their trifling Annotations on the Figure and Make of some Hebrew Letters. But I only take notice of God's Providence in making these Critical Men to be very serviceable towards the preserving the Bible of the Old Testament in its Purity. The Observations of these Masoretic Doctors, who were Persons of great Skill in the Language, and well acquainted with all the ancient Copies and Manuscripts, and who above a thousand Years ago exactly numbered all the Verses, Words, Letters, and even the minutest parts of the Hebrew Text, have been a great Security and Preservative to it; they have kept it undepraved and uncorrupt, and have made the Reading of it certain and unalterable. This is the reason why that Excellent and Noble Personage, the Learned Picus Mirandula, so highly extols the Hebrew Cabala; without doubt he saw this Usefulness and Excellency in it. Nay, before these Doctors of Tiberias drew up their Masoretic Notes, there was (it is probable) extant something of this nature. They had before this time some Account not only of all the Letters of the Bible, but of all the Apices of them; for to this our Saviour alludes in Mat. 5. 18. Not one jot, or one 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Tittle: which latter is meant of those little Horns, Pricks and Dots belonging to the Hebrew Letters. Not only the smallest Letters, as Iod, but the Cuttings of those Letters were diligently observed by the Masoretic Jews. And this their nice, and almost fond Criticism was serviceable to the keeping of the Hebrew Text entire and unchanged. Thus the Masoreth, as they express it, is a Hedge or Fence to the Law. The● critical Notes and Remarks of the old Jews hav● preserved the Text of the Bible from being corrupted and abused. So that we may from hen● gather, that we have in our hands the same He●brew Text which was at first given by God to 〈◊〉 People.  
But some tell us, that the Old Testament 〈◊〉 b●rnt at the same time when the Temple was, 〈◊〉 that Ezra after the Captivity dictated and writ 〈◊〉 over again, according to what we find record●● in 2 Esdras 14. 21, 23, 24. So there was some Recovery of the Law; but the Original Book bein● lost, it cannot be imagined but that there are many ●aults and Mistakes in This which we have 〈◊〉 present. I answer, Either this Passage in the A●pocryphal Writer speaks of some other Book distinct from that of the Mosaic Law, or it is to b● reckoned as fabulous and supposititious, and so 〈◊〉 Credit● is to be given to it: for in Nehem. 8. 2, 3. there is mention of the Book of the Law being brought before the Congregation, and its being read before 〈◊〉 Men and the Women; but not a Syllable of the Ma●t●r mentioned in Esdras, is hero to be found. Yes, 'tis implied that the Book of the Law was still the same; for you may observe that there is a particular Account of what the Chaldeans destroyed, and burnt, and carried away at the taking of Ierus●●em, but there is not a word of these holy Books; which most certainly would have been taken notice of, they being of so inestimable a Va●●●. Morcover, if we should suppose the Law was burnt in the Temple, yet there were many Copies of it among the Jews, which without doubt were preserved. We have no reason therefore to suspect that the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament is corrupted.  
But some of the Ancient Fathers in the Christian Church, as well as some Learned Moderns, have asserted that the Hebrew is corrupted. I answer, first, as to the Fathers; it is granted that justin Martyr declares himself to be of this Opinion. In his Dialogue with Trypho he confidently affirms, that the Jews erased many things out of the Bible; and he assigns particular Instances in the Psalms, Isaiah and jeremiah. And this they did, saith he, because they hated Christ and his Religion, and thought some of those Places favoured the Christian Cause too much. (Here by the by you may take notice of that great Mistake and Oversight in Bishop Ward's 
* Part 3.  Essays, where he peremptorily asserts, that [never any of the Ancient Fathers have in their greatest heat of Zeal against the jews, accused them of such Corruption] i. e. of the Scriptures.) But this is not the first time that justin Martyr hath suffered himself to be imposed upon in matter of Historical Truth. This, among others, is questionless a gross Mistake of that good Man; and his strong Averseness to the Jews, and his belief of their Willingness and Readiness to deprave the Scriptures for their own Ends, betrayed him to it. As for other Fathers, as Tertullian, Irenaecus, Origen, Eusebius, who, it is true, sometimes complain that the Scripture is corrupted by the Jews, they speak of their adulterating the Text rather as to the Sense than as to the Words; they mean that the Translations which the Jews used were false, for they generally adhered to Aquila's and Theodotion's Version, and preferred it before that of the Seventy. Whence their Interpretations of Scripture were unsound and erroneous, and thereby they sometimes set up Judaisme against Christianity. But this was done without corrupting th● Hebrew Copies of the Bible. And that the Jews had been guilty of no such thing, is expressly asserted and maintained by jerom and 
* Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 15. c. 11.  Augustine, two Ancient Fathers, of a great Fame for Learning and Piety as those before named. These worthy Persons refute that Suspicion and Rumour which it seems were then risen, namely, that th● Jews had adulterated the Hebrew Text. These Father's not only declare that they did no such thing, but they praise them for their Faithfulness in preserving the Bible pure and uncorrupt. Then as to some of the Moderns, who have asserted the Hebrew Copies to be faulty and depraved, it is easy to see what it was that prompted them to it. The Hebrew Text is corrupted, and so is that of the Septuagint, say the Romanists: but the old Vulgar Latin is uncorrupt and infallible, so determines the Tridentine Council. 
† Galatinus, Leo Cast Melchior Canus, Huntlaeus.  Several of that Communion have written against the Purity of the Hebrew Copies, and laboured to prove them corrupt: but 
‖ In Exercitat. & Diatribe.  Morinus hath showed himself more zealous than all of them in this Point; and he frankly confesseth this was his main Design in it, viz. to baffle the Protestants, who make the Scripture the Rule of their Faith and Manners. If the Originals of the Bible be lost, and the Transcripts be defective and erroneous, how can the Bible be a certain Rule? What will become then of the Religion of the Protestants, who found it solely on Scripture? This being uncertain, that must needs be so too. Wherefore the best and only way is to have recourse to Tradition and to the Church; these are the only Rule of what we are to believe and practise. Thus you see what the Romish Writers, who cry down the Hebrew Text, aim at. But most of the learnedst Men of that Church have not prosecuted their Aims and Designs this way. It is well known they have generally held the Hebrew Text to be uncorrupted. And the same is defended by the generality of 
‖ Muis and ●uxtorf abroad; Brought on, ●●●her, Light●oot, ●ocock at home.  learned Protestants who hav● handled this Subject. Isaac Vossius is the only Man of Note that holds the contrary, i. e. that the Hebrew Bible, as it is now, is corrupted by the Jews. But against him and all others (either Ancient or Modern) who are of this Opinion, I offer these following things to be considered. If the Jews corrupted the Hebrew Text, they did it either before or after Christ's time. That they did it not before, is evident; because first our Saviour never takes notice of any such thing, which certainly he would not have omitted at such times as he reproved the Scribes and Pharisees for their known Faults and Offences, especially relating to the Law; as when he taxed them for making the Law of God of none effect by their Traditions. Certainly he would have rebuked them for so gross a Fault, when he corrected them for some that were lesser. Nay, the Jews are not only not reproved for corrupting the Canon of Scripture, but on the contrary, their Care and Faithfulness in preserving it whole and entire, are particularly taken notice of, Luke 4. 16, 17. Acts 13. 27. & 15. 21. and commended, Rom. 3. 2. Besides, Christ ●end● his Auditor's to the Old Testament, to read it, and ●earch it, john 5. 39 Whereas, if they had corrupted it, he would without doubt have caution●● them against it. Again, he and his Apostles constantly proved their Doctrine, and confuted the Jews out of those very Writings; which is an Argument that in our Saviour's time those Books were not corrupted: else he and the Apostles would not have so frequently quoted them, and ●●ed the Testimony of almost every particular Book as Authentical, and of Divine Inspiration. And that the Hebrew Text was not corrupted by the Jews after our Saviour's time, is as manifest, because the Testimonies cited out of the Old Testament by those that succeeded Christ and hi● Apostles, are found to be the same in those Writings now, without the least Alteration. Likewise, it cannot be showed at what time after Chri●● the Corruption or Alteration of the Text began: though the Younger Vossius is pleased to say it was presently after the Destruction of jerusalem, which yet he hath no where proved. Farther, if you observe those Places in the Hebrew Text, which some allege as corrupted by the Jews, you'll find that there was no Occasion or Ground for so corrupting them. If they changed the Text, it was questionless for their own Ends, and to maintain some Error of theirs; the Alteration would especially have been in those Places which speak of Christ the true Messias, but you will not discover any such thing. If any object Psal. 22. 16. They pierced my Hands and my Feet, and say that the Jews have there purposely changed Caaru into Caari; I ask, why did the Masorites restore it to its right Reading? If it had been corrupted by the Circumcised Doctors on purpose, it would not have been taken notice of here by Men of the same Persuasion, but they would have let it remain without any Marginal Correction. But seeing they did not, it is a sign there was no Intention to corrupt the Text. This indeed they do, they add a Keri to the Ketib, i. e. instead of Carri sicut Leo in the Text, they write in the Margin Caaru foderunt, as much as to say that Caaru is the true and genuine Reading. This the Masoretic Note here testifies. Besides, it is evident that the Seventy did read it so, and accordingly translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and thus 'tis rendered in the Syriack, Arabic, Ethiopick and Latin. But the Place was by chance corrupted, because of the likeness of the two Vowels Iod and Vaughan, and not out of design; for then the Masorite Jews would not have supplied it in the Margin with that other word Caaru, they pierced; which agrees with the History of Christ's Sufferings. Yea, this Word is in some ancient Copies in the Text itself; which is not denied by the learned Father of the Oratory, who had it from Rabbi ben Hajim the great Restorer of the Masora; who acknowledgeth that in some of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible which he had seen, Caaru they pierced, or digged, was in the Text. Or, why may we not take in both the Words into the Text, and so reconcile the Textual and Marginal Reading? This we find done by the Chaldee Version, which renders the Place thus, They did bite or pierce like a Lion; as if the Original ran thus, Caaru caari, foderunt sicut Leo. This in my opinion may be a safe way of composing the Difference about this Text. However, not only from this, but what hath been said before, I think it is manifest that the Jews did not adulterate this Text. And among all those other Texts that are said to be changed and adulterated, you will scarcely find one that hath reference to that great Concern o● the Jews: whence we may conclude that the Old Testament remains altogether unaltered. I might farther add, that the Multitude of Copies was great everywhere both before and after Christ's time, so that it was impossible to corrupt them all. I know some have inferred the Corruption of the Original Hebrew from the great difference which is to be found between that and the Version of the Seventy: but I shall afterwards (when I come to speak of the Perfection of Scripture) give a large and full Account of the Reason of this Difference; whence I shall make it plain that this Difference proceeds not at all from the Depravation of the Original Hebrew. The short then is, that the Hebrew Bible is pure and uncorrupt; and after all the Disputes about the various Readins, it is undeniable, that there is no difference in the Hebrew Copies as to any thing considerable and of moment; it toucheth not any necessary Point of Religion, which we are bound to know and practise. In the several Copies the same Historical Passages are related, the same Miracles recorded, the same Prophecies and Predictions, the same Doctrines, Laws and Precepts set down, and that without any varying. So that we are certain of the Integrity of the Hebrew Bible. Notwithstanding what hath been suggested to the contrary, we are assured that we have the true Authentic Copies of the first Original Writings; and in a word, that the Hebrew Text is the same that it was, and is still in its original Purity.  
But here it is objected, That the Hebrew Copies of the Bible might easily be corrupted and altered, because they had no Points or Vowels at first. This could not but make the Reading very uncertain and doubtful, and almost arbitrary, especially in some Places: whence it is easy to imagine how great Alterations, and consequently great Corruptions, might creep into the Text. In answer to this you must know, that those only who are against the Purity of the Hebrew Bible, (as Morinus, Vossius, Simon, etc.) hold that the Points were of late Invention. And this they have picked up out of Elias Levita, who lived about a hundred Years ago, and was of opinion that the Vowels were invented by the Jewish and Masoretic Doctors of Tiberias, (a famous School for the Hebrew Tongue.) So that it was about ●ive hundred Years after Christ when the Hebrew Points were found out, and the Rabbins and Masorites of Tiberias were the first Authors of them. This is the Judgement of Elias the Levite, and he is the only jew of this Opinion. Nor is he followed by any Christians but those who have a design to vilify the Hebrew Bible, and to prefer and magnify the LXX, or some other Translation. Of this sort are the Writers before mentioned, who largely inveigh against the Authority of the Hebrew Edition. And to promote a Disesteem of it, 
* F. Simon's Crit. Hist. Of the Old Test▪  one of them tells us, that the Masorites of Tiberias, who (as he saith) were the first Inventors of the Hebrew Vowels, Points and Tittles, borrowed them from the Turks: the Bible, according to him, had these from the Alcoran. And 
† Is●ac Vossius de 70 Interpretib.  another tells us, that if Moses were alive, he would not know one Apex in the Jewish Books, for they have their Letters from the Chaldees, and their Points from the M●●soreths. Nay, he ventures to say, that if Ki●● David were alive again, and heard his Psalms read or sung in the Jews Synagogues, he woul● ask what Tongue they used: for the right Sou●● and Pronunciation of the Hebrew is quite lo● and no Man understands it (unless it be th●● Writer himself.) All this is Romance, and s●● on foot only to disparage the Bible, and to mak● us believe that the Old Testament is not the same that it was. To which end also the Hebrew Points or Vowels are condemned for their Novelty, and are said to be invented by the Talmudick Doctor and Masorites. Whereas there is mention made in several 
* ●uxtorf de Orig. Punct.  Jewish Writers, of the Points and Vowels long before the Doctors of Tiberias, which is said to be about the Year of our Lord 500 And from what we have observed already concerning the Masoretic Notes on the Bible, it is easy to prove that the Hebrew Vowels were before that time: for if the Masorites criticized on the Vowels, (as well as the other Letters and Accents, a● was said before) then 'tis not probable in the least that they invented them. We find that they take notice of the Irregularity of these Points in several places: whereas if they had made them themselves, they would have been all regular. It is Nonsense to think that they that made the one, viz. the Critical Notes, made the other, namely the Vowels and Points. Hear likewise what the Learned Pocock saith, 
† Comment on Hosea 10. 10.  It is an Argument that the Vowels were ancienter than the Masoretic Notes, in regard that they seem thereby to be governed in judging of the Consonants. And in some other place in his Commentary, he delivers his Judgement that the Vowels were not invented by the Masorites, but were long before them, yea were of the same Antiquity with the Letters or Consonants. It is well known that all the Jews (but him before named) hold the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points; yea, some of them carry them back as far as Adam, and vouch they were found out by him. Other Learned Men among them assert that these Vowels were given at the time of the delivering the Law on Mount Sinai; than it was that God writ the Decalogue with Points, and gave it to the Jews by the hands of Moses. And as to the rest of the Writings, and the whole Body of the Old Testament, the common Opinion of the Jews is, that Ezra was the Author of the Vowels which are annexed to them; and that he and the great Synagogue, of which he was Precedent, first invented them after the Captivity. Thus whether they commenced from Adam, or from Moses, or Ezra, they all agree in this, that they were very ancient, and in a manner coeval with the Letters and Words; and consequently that they are part of the Text, and of Divine Authority. This being so old and so recent an Opinion, it hath gained the Suffrage of the wisest and learnedst Christians in the World. You may particularly find it maintained in the Writings of Munster, Pagninus, Buxtorf, Usher, Cappellus, Broughton, Lightfoot, Walton, all of them singularly well skilled in Jewish Antiquity, and therefore fit Judges in this Cause. They have proved by undeniable Arguments, that the Hebrew Bible had Vowels or Pricks from the beginning, and that it was never without them. The Opinion then which the Objectors have espoused, is justly to be exploded. It is against the unanimous Testimony of the Jewish Church, th● the Points are but men's Invention. It is unsa●● and dangerous to assert, that these Vowels wer● added since the first writing of the Old Testament: for the Certainty of the Truth of thos● Writings, (and consequently of the Writings o● the New Testament, wherein those are so ofte● alleged) is shaken hereby. For no Man of Sens● can believe that the right reading of the Text could continue some thousands of Years wit●o●● the Points: this is an incredible Fiction. And then it is as impossible that the genuine Sense o● Scripture (which depends on the Words, as the●● upon the Vowels, as well as the Consonants) could have been preserved, unless the Bible had bee● Pointed. Whence it was said in the Jewish Ta●mud, that 
* L●b. Joma, c. 1.  Letters without Points are like a Body without a Soul. Hence was that Saying, 
† Zohar ex Midrash▪  H●● that reads without Points, is like a Man that rides without a Bridle. We therefore firmly maintain, and that with the approbation of Antiquity, that the Words of the Hebrew Text had Points added to them at the beginning; and that these Points which we now have, are the same with them. To this purpose we here appeal to the Testimony of the Jews, who will bear witness that the Books of the Old Testament, which we now receive, answer exactly to the Pointed Text which they hav● received, and always did. Nay, we may end the Controversy without an Appeal, for our own Eyes and Ears will satisfy us. If we compare our English, or Latin, or other Bibles, with the Hebrew one which is used among the Jews, and is daily put forth by the present Rabbis in the several parts of the World, we shall find that they agree; and we shall be convinced that they own the same Books with us.  
We need not stay to attend here to what a late Learned Writer (before named) hath with much Confidence, but slender Reason, suggested, viz. that the Bible of the Old Testament is an Abbreviated Collection from Ancient Records, which were much more large. He confesseth that the Canon of Scripture is taken out of Authentic Registeries; but the Authors who collected it, added and diminished as they pleased: especially he asserts this concerning the Historical Books, that they are Abridgements of larger Records, and Summaries of other larger Acts kept in the Jewish Archives: and these public Scribes who writ them out, took the liberty to alter Words as they saw occasion. So that in short, according to this Critic, here are only some broken Pieces and Scraps taken out of the first Authentic Writings▪ A bold and daring Assertion, and founded on no other Bottom than F. Simon's Brain. Who would expect this from one that is a Man of great Sense and Reason, one that is a great Master of Critical Learning, and hath presented the World with very choice Remarks on the History of the Bible? (for truly I am not of 
* Dr: Bright's Preface to Dr▪ Lightfoot's Works▪  his Opinion, who saith he sees not any thing in this Author's Writings bu● what is common.) It is to be lamented that a Person, otherwise so Judicious and Observing, hath given himself up here to his own Fancy and Conceit. He invents a new Office of public Registers that were Divinely inspired: he makes Notaries and Prophets the same. He gives no Proof and Demonstration of that Adding and Diminishing which the Scribes he talks of made: he hat● not one tolerable Argument to evince any of th● Books of Scripture to be Fragments of greater ones. Indeed I should mightily have wondered that so Ingenious, so Sagacious, so Learned a Man ha● broached such groundless Notions, if I did no● consider that this subtle Romanist designs here●● (as most of that Church generally do) to deprecia●●● the Bible, and to represent it as a Book of Fragments and Shreds; that so, when our Esteem 〈◊〉 the Authority of Scripture is weakened, yea taken away, we may wholly rest upon Tradition, an● found our Religion, as well as the Scriptures, 〈◊〉 that alone. This is that which he drives at in 〈◊〉 Critical History both of the Old and New Testament▪ But all sober and considerate Persons will beware of him, when they discover this Design. The● will easily see through his plausible Stories, fo●● Surmises, bold Conjectures, and seeming Arg●mentations; and they will have the greater Reverence for the Bible; because he and others hav● attacked it with so much Contempt and Rudeness and purposely bring its Authority into question▪ that they may set up something else above 〈◊〉▪ Notwithstanding then the Cavils and Objection of designing Men, we have reason to believe an● avouch the Authority of the Old Testament, and to be thoroughly persuaded that the Books are entirely transmitted to us without any Corruption, and are the same that ever they were, without and Diminution or Addition. We have them as they were written by the first Authors; we have them entire and perfect, and not (as some fond suggest) contracted, abbreviated, curtailed. Unto the jews, the ancient People of God, were committed his Oracles, as the Apostle speaks; and they showed themselves conscientious and diligent Conservators of them. The Jewish Nation, saith St. Augustin, have been as 'twere 
* Quid est aliud gens ipsa nisi quaedam scriniaria Christianorum, bajulans Legem & Prophetas? etc. Contra Faust. lib. 1●. cap. 23.  the Chest-keepers for the Christians; they have faithfully preserved that Sacred Depositum for them, they have safely kept that Ark wherein the Law and the Prophets were Locked up. God would have the Jews to be Librarii Christianorum, saith 
† Epist. 60.  Drusius, Keepers of those Sacred Volumes for us Christians: and it is certain they kept them with great Care, the like whereof is not to be found to have been taken in preserving any other sort of Writings under Heaven. And seeing they have so carefully handed the Old Testament down to us, we are concerned to receive it with a proportionable Thankfulness, and to reckon this their Delivering of those Writings down to us, as no mean Argument of their Truth and Certainty.  
Secondly, The Authority of the New Testament is confirmed by External Testimony or Tradition, no less than that of the Old Testament. We have the Authentic Suffrage of the Primitive Church, the Unanimous Consent of the Christians of the first Ages, that this Book is of Divine Inspiration, and that it is Pure and Uncorrupted. Some of the Fathers and first Writers give us a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, and they are the very same with those which we have at this day. Athanasius particularly enumerating those Books, sets down all those which we now embrace as Canonical, and no others. And many of the Fathers of the first Ages after Christ, as Irenaeus, justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, etc. quote the Places in the New Testament as they are now. If it be objected, that in the Fathers sometimes the Text of Scripture is not exactly what we find it, and read it at this day▪ This must be remembered, that they sometimes quoted the Meaning, not the very Words. At other times their Memories failed them as to the Words, and thence they changed them into others; and instead of those in the Text, used some that were like them. So when they were in haste, and not at leisure to consult the Text, they made use of such Words and Expressions as they thought came nearest to it. 
* In Prolegom. in Exercitas. Sac.  Heinsius shows this in a vast many places. Sometimes they contract the Word▪ of the Text, and give only the brief Sense of it▪ at other times they enlarge it, and present us with a Comment upon it: yea, sometimes (as they see occasion, and as their Matter leads them to it) they invert the Words, and misplace the Parts of the Text. But no Man ought hence to infer, that the Scriptures of the New Testament then and now are not the same. And as for the Number of the Sacred Writers and their Books, it hat● been always the same, i. e. the same Catalogue and Canon have been generally acknowledged and received by the Christian Church. It is true, some Particular Books have been questioned, but by a few only, and for a time: but the Church was at last fully satisfied about them; the Generality o● Christians agreed to own all those Books which are now owned by us. All the Eastern Churches held the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical, though the Latins (it is granted) were not so unanimous. This Epistle, and that of St. james, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. john, and the Epistle of St. jude, and the Apocalypse, were questioned in the first Century, saith 
* Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.  Eusebius; but he acquaints us withal, that they were afterwards by general Consent received into the Canon of Holy Scripture, for the Doubts were resolved upon mature Deliberation. So that the questioning of those Books is now a Con●●rmation of the Truth and Authority of them: they were once doubted of, that for the future they might be unquestionable. And to come down to latter Times; what if two or three Men of late, as Hemmingius, Baldwin, Eckard, think 
† Epistle to the Hebrews, St. James', St. Jude's, the Revelation.  some of the Books of the New Testament Apocryphal? And what if Luther himself seemed to say as much? What doth this signify in respect of the universal and concurrent Judgement of others? And as for the rest of the Books of the New Testament, they were never doubted of at all, but have the Approbation of the whole Church.  
And that the new Testament was first written in Greek, as we now receive it, is attested by the Universal Consent of the Ancients, who made enquiry into these things. Only two Books are excepted by some: for though many of the 
‖ Flacius Illyricus, Erasmus, Calvin, Chamier, Lightfoot.  Learned Moderns maintain that St. Matthew's Gospel was written originally in Greek, yet it is not to be denied that some of the 
* Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Augustine.  Fathers hold it was written first in Hebrew, for the sake of the believing Jews: and if you will believe St. 
† Catal. Scriptor. Ecclesiast.  jerom, the original Hebrew was extant in his time, and he translated the Gospel into Latin from that Copy. Who turned it into Greek is not certain; but it was either by St. Matthew himself, or by some Apostolical Person, inspired by the Holy Ghost; so that the Greek we now have, is from the same Spirit, and of the same Authority with the other. The Fathers likewise generally say that St. Pa●● writ the Epistle to the Hebrews in their own Tongue, and that St. Luke or St. Clement turned it into Greek. The contrary is held by some Moderns, particularly Cajetan among the Romanists, and by many of the Reformed-Way. But excepting (I say) these two Books, it is universally agreed that the whole New Testament was written in Greek; and one Reason might be, because so great a number of Jews lived among the Greeks, and used their Tongue; and therefore this part of the Bible was fitly writ in Greek, as the other was long before translated into that Tongue for the use of the Jews. For the sake of these dispersed Jews, (therefore called the dispersed among the Gentiles, or according to the Original, the Dispersion of the Greeks, John 7. 35.) who understood and spoke the Greek Language, the New Testament was put forth in that Tongue. Moreover, this was the most generally received Language at that time, and therefore the fittest for the propagating the Gospel. This is a very good Argument: for though I do not think the j●ws at jerusalem spoke no other than the Greek Tongue among themselves, as Isaac Vossius confidently holds, and is therein rightly blamed and confuted by the late French Critic; yet I am satisfied that the Greek Tongue was universally understood, and was with the Latin 
* Nu●c totus Graias Latiásque habet orbis Athenas. juvenal.  the Language of the Empire, and therefore was most proper for the communicating the Christian Religion to the World. 
* Graeca per orbem universum leguntur. Pro Arch. Poet.  Tully acquaints us that in all the Roman Empire Greek was vulgarly understood. It is no wonder therefore that the New Testament was writ in that Tongue, and that St. Paul writes not only to the Galatians, etc. but to the Romans in Greek, for they all understood it. It was the Modish and Courtly way of Speech at Rome, as the French is now with us. Their very Women affected to learn and speak Greek, for which they are jeered by the Satirist, who calls Rome the Greek City. In short, all the Eastern People spoke Greek, more or less, from the time that Alexander the Great and his Captains spread their Dominion in the East. The Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, and People of the Lesser Asia, were acquainted with that Language. The Jews of any considerable Quality understood Greek as well as their own Tongue: whence josephus, a Jewish Priest, (or of the Priestly Stock) writ his Books in Greek. The Evangelists and Apostles than might well write in the same Tongue, it being so common and every where understood. Especially it is no wonder on another account, that St. Paul writ in Greek; for it was his native Tongue, he being of Tarsus, which was a City of Greece. We may then very justly look upon the Greek Language as the Original Text of the New Testament.  
And it is generally agreed that these Greek Copies which we now have and use, are True and Authentic, though in some things they differ: and none are observed to oppose this but those who do it upon some Interest and Design, i. e. to maintain some peculiar Opinion which they have taken up. The Variety of Readins should not prejudice us: much less ought we to alter the Readins of the Copies, and to substitute new ones at our pleasure. Which is the Fault of Theodore Beza▪ though on other accounts an Excellent Person, and one that hath highly deserved of the Church of God: yet he is unsufferably bold in coining new Readins of the Text. When he cannot find the Sense of a Place, he presently questions the Truth of the Copy, and produceth a new Reading; which hath brought a great Scandal upon his Annotations on the New Testament, which otherwise are fraught with admirable Learning, and discover his profound Skill in Divine Criticism. It is certain that the Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he pretends to, are a Cheat: for questionless they would have been taken notice of in the first Ages of Christianity, if there had been any such thing. Therefore it is downright Imposture, and Beza was grossly deluded by it. Let us from his Miscarriage, learn to be cautious, and not to venture so boldly upon altering the Greek Copies. This is a very rash and unaccountable Undertaking, especially in a single Person, and much more when it is very usual and frequent.  
To speak next both of the Old and New Testament together. The Authority of them is established by considering this, that though Bellarmine and others of the Roman Communion (who are followed by Lewis Cappel, and some others that go under the Name of Protestants) cry out that the Bible is altered and corrupted by the Negligence of the Transcribers, and that the Text is uncertain by reason of the different Readins and Variety of Translations, (which is done out of design, viz. to debase the Authority of the holy Writings, and to make Men fly to Traditions, and rest wholly in the Authority of the Church, and (I wish I might not add) thereby to undermine some of the Foundations of Religion;) yet this is certain, that the various Readins of the Old and New Testament are not so many as are pretended; and all the various Copies in Hebrew and Greek, which are found in all Nations at this Day, do agree in all material Points; and the Scriptures being translated from those Copies into many Languages, concur in the same substantial things. Again, as to those various Readins which are produced, we may justly allege the Words of an 
* Bp of Cork's Discourse of the Authority of Scripture.  Excellent Man; They are not Arguments, saith he, of the Scriptures Corruption, but of God's Providence, and of Human Industry to preserve Scripture from Corruption. We may gather from this Diversity of Readins, that Men have been very inquisitive and careful in their comparing of Copies; but we cannot thence argue, that the Text is adulterated; yea rather we may infer that it is not: for from this comparing and vying of Copies, we come to know and be ascertained which is the True and Authentic one. And we may farther add, with the same excellent Author, That it is morally impossible, since our Saviour's time, and indeed for many hundred Years before that, that the Scriptures (particularly of the Old Testament) should have been corrupted: for the Multitude of Copies was then such, hath been since much more such, and so far dispersed, that neither one Man, nor one Body of Men could ever get them into their hands to corrupt them; and if some few or m●●●ny Copies had been corrupted, but not all, th●● sincere Number would have detected the corrupt. Again, let it be considered that the ancient Orthodox Writers of the Church do all ci●● these Scriptures as we now have them, in everything material: Yea, that most Heretics have pleaded these same Scriptures, and denied them not to be genuine. To establish us yet further, we must remember that these Writings have been openly read to the People in all their solemn Assemblies in the several Ages since Christianity began; and they being thus constantly used, could not possibly be altered and corrupted: Besides that, all private Christians were exhorted to read and use them in their Families; whereby they became so known and familiar, that whenever any Alteration was made, they could presently observe it. Lastly, notwithstanding the Author of a 
* Tractat. Theologico-Politic.  late Tractate hath brought divers Objections against the usual Tradition, that such and such Books of the Bible were wrote by the Authors whose Names they bear; and though Mr. Hobbs before him had done the same, yet neither of them have effected it with any Success. This is all they have done; they have only showed that they are not so civil to the holy Writings as they are to the profane ones: for it is every whit as clear that the Books of the Holy Scripture were written by the Persons under whose Names they go, as that any other Writings were put out by those whose Names they bear. Nor can these Men vouchsafe to show that Civility to these Sacred Books, which even jews and Gentiles have done: for when both ●hese opposed these Books, you will not find that they ever questioned the Authors, but the Doctrine only. We are therefore to look upon these Men, and such as take part with them, as acting with higher Prejudice than either Jews or Heathens did; and accordingly we are to slight what they say, unless it be thus far, that from their impotent and malicious Cavils we may be further confirmed in this Persuasion, that these Books of the Old and New Testament were indeed written by those Authors, under whose Names they are now received; that these Scriptures which we now have, are the same which the Primitive Church received from the Apostles; that the Copies we have of the Bible, are not corrupted; that God hath preserved the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, from all considerable Change and Depravation, (his Providence not suffering any such thing;) that the Canon of Scripture which is now received, is the very same that it was at first; and (which is the Sum of all) that the Truth and Authority of it are impregnable.  
It may be expected I should speak of the Apocryphal Books, which I have not reckoned among the Inspired Writings. For doing this I have good reason; for I find them excluded from the Canon of Scripture by those that are the best Judges of it, I mean the jews, who were the great Keepers of the Scripture. They never took these into the number of the Books of Holy Writ, and that for these two Reasons: First, because they were not writ by the Prophets. The Jews believed that the Spirit of Prophecy ceased among them as soon as Malachi had done prophesying. They owned no Divine Inspiration after his time, and accordingly received not the Apocryphal Books into the Canon of Scripture, i. e. Books Divinely inspired. 〈◊〉 was written after Malachi's time, who was 〈◊〉 last Prophet, was not Canonical, was not of 〈◊〉 Authority, and therefore is not emphatical called Scripture. For, as St. Paul informs us, 〈◊〉 Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 〈◊〉▪ That is the Mark and Criterion of Scripture. 〈◊〉 is backed by St. Peter, 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy Men 〈◊〉 God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 those Writings which were not by Inspiration 〈◊〉 God, nor from the immediate Motion of the 〈◊〉 Ghost, are not to be reckoned as Holy Scriptu●● and such are the Apocryphal Writings; they wer●● written after the cessation of Prophecy and Divi●● Inspiration, and so they are not of Divine Authority, and cannot be esteemed Canonical Scripturely▪ Secondly, the Jews received not the Apocrypha 〈◊〉 to their Canon, because it was written in Greek not in Hebrew, as all the Canonical Books are For God would not, they say, give them Scripture in an Unknown Tongue: The Oracles of Go● were to be committed to his People in the Authentic Language, which is that of the Jews. The Apocryphal Writings being not such, are rejected by them, and not taken into the Canon of Sacred Writ.  
And as they were not received by the Jewi● Church, so not by the Christian one. You cannot but observe that Christ and the Apostles, who frequently quote the Canonical Books, never quo●● any of the Apocryphal ones: which gives us to understand that they were not reputed as Inspired Writings: otherwise it is most reasonable to think that our Saviour, or his Apostles and Evangelists, would at one time or other have cited some one Passage at least out of these Books; it being their great Work (as you may see) to prove the Truth of what they delivered from the holy Scriptures, which were inspired by God in former Times. They embraced all Occasions of establishing Christianity upon the Writings of the Inspired Prophets who went before: therefore if the Apocryphal Writers had been of that number, they would certainly have been quoted by them; and because they are not, it is an Argument that they are not Inspired Writers. Again, the Christian Church, which immediately succeeded that which was in the Days of Christ and the Apostles, received not these Writings as Divinely inspired, and therefore excluded them from the Canon of Scripture. Look into the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church, (who without doubt made it their business to search into the Canon of Scripture, and to be satisfied which were the Divinely inspired Books) and there you will see that those of the Eastern Church received only the Jews Canon of Scripture as to the Old Testament. Thus 
* Cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. l. 6. 19  Origen recites the Canonical Books of it as they are now reckoned, viz. two and twenty, after the number of the Hebrew letters. And 
† Cateches. 4.  Cyril of jerusalem hath these express Words: Read these two and twenty Books, but have nothing to do with the Apocryphal ones. Study and meditate only on these Scriptures, which we confidently read in the Church. The Apostles and first Bishops were true Guides, and were more wise and religious than thou art; and these were the Men that delivered these Scriptures to us. Thou then being a Son of the Church, do not go beyond her Bounds and Orders, but acknowledge and study only the two and twenty Books of the Old ●●●stament. And other Fathers of the Chur●● as Melito Bishop of Sardis, Athanasius, Amphilo●●us, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, G●●gory the Great, Basil, Chrysostom, testify that 〈◊〉 Books, and no others, of the Old Testament which we receive now, were the Canonical Boo●● of old, and received so by the first Christi●●▪ Those eminent Lights of the Latin Church, R●t jerom, Hilary, disown as Uncanonical 〈◊〉 Books of Apocrypha. The two latter especially 〈◊〉 very positive: 
* Prologue. Galeat. Prologue. in lib. Salomonis ad paul. & Eustock  jerom expressly tells us, that 〈◊〉 Canonical Books of the Old Testament are but 〈◊〉 and twenty, just the number of the Hebrew Al●phabet, and no more; and he enumerates the particular Books which constitute the whole. 〈◊〉 saith indeed, that some make them four and tw●●ty, but 'tis the same Account, for they reck●● Ruth and Lamentations separately. But as for 〈◊〉 others, he saith they are not part of Inspired Scripture, and the Church doth not receive the● among the Canonical Writings. So 
† Prologue. in Psalm.  Hilary giv● us the just Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament, and peremptorily affirms that there 〈◊〉 but two and twenty Canonical Books of it in all▪ which are the same with the thirty nine according to the reckoning in our Bibles. To Father's w● might add Synods and Councils, as that antie●● one of Laodicea, convened A. D. 364. which drew up a Catalogue of the Books of Scripture, and makes mention only of these which we now receive, but leaves out the Apocryphal ones. This Canon was received afterwards, and confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, one of the first four General Councils. And the sixth General Council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 680. expressly ratified the Decrees of that old Laodicean Council, and particularly this, that the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were but two and twenty. There is another Reason also, besides the Universal Suffrage of the Christian Church, why the Apocryphal Books are ejected out of the Canon, viz. because some things in them are false, and contrary to the Canonical Scriptures, as in Ecclesiasticus 46. 20. 2 Esdras 6. 40. and some things are vicious, as in 2 Maccab. 14. 42.  
After all this it is easy to answer what the Romanists say on the other side. They quote the third Council of Carthage, which they tell us received the Apocryphal Books into the Canon. And among the Fathers, St. Augustin, they say, owns them: besides that two Popes, viz. Innocent the First and Gelasius, took those Books, which we style Apocryphal, into the Canon. As for the Council which they allege, it was but a Provincial one, and therefore is not to be set against those more Authentic and General Councils which I produced. Nor must that one single Father whom they name, stand out against that great number of Greek and Latin Fathers whom I mentioned. The Popes bear a great Name among our Adversaries, but they are but two, and must not be compared with those Councils, and that multitude of Fathers who are on our side. Or, if they lay such great stress on a Pope, I can name them one, and he one of the most eminent they ever had, viz. Pope Gregory the Great, who 
* Exposit. in Job. l. 19 c. 17.  declares that the Book of Maccabees (a main Piece of the Apocryphal Wr●●tings) is no part of the Canon of Scripture. W● may set this One Pope (for he is Great enough) against the other Two. Besides, their own 〈◊〉 are against them: the Apocryphal Books are 〈◊〉 received as part of holy Inspired Scripture by I●●dorus, Damascen, Nicephorus, Rabanus Maurus, H●go, Lyranus, Cajetan, and others, who are of gre●● Repute in the Church of Rome. We regard 〈◊〉 what the packed Council of Trent hath decreed viz. 
* Sess. 4.  That besides the two and twenty Books 〈◊〉 the Hebrew Canon, those also of Tobias, Iudit● the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabe●●●▪ Baruch, are to be received as Canonical; and th● they are of equal Authority with the Canon o● the Old and New Testament. What is this to the general Suffrage of the Primitive Councils▪ Fathers and Writers, who have rejected the Apocryphal Books, and received but twenty two into the Canon of Scripture belonging to the Old Testament? You see what Ground we have, no other than the Universal Church. We reject some Books as Apocryphal, because they were generally rejected by the ancient Primitive Church: and we receive the rest as Canonical, because they were believed and owned to be so by the universal Consent of the Church. See this admirably made good in Bishop Cousins' History of the Canon of Scripture. Yet a●ter all that hath been said, we count the Apocryphas Writings worthy to be read and perused. The there be some things amiss in them, yet we give great Deference and Respect to them, as containing many Historical Truths, and furnishing us wit● Matter of Jewish Antiquity; as likewise because there are many Doctrinal and Moral Truths in them, especially in the Books of Wisdom and Ec●lesiasticus. For this Reason, I say, we bear great Respect to them, and rank them next to the Holy Canon, and prefer them before all Profane Authors. This was done by the ancient Fathers, who frequently alleged them in their Sermons and Discourses: which is one Reason (I question not) why these Apocryphal Books came to be made Canonical by some of the Church of Rome; namely, because they were so often quoted by the Fathers, and in some Churches read publicly. But this is no Proof of their being Canonical, but only lets us know that these Books were in their Kind useful and profitable, as indeed they are. Therefore St. 
* Praefat. in libr. Proverb.  jerom saith, the Church receives not these Books into the Canon of Scripture, though she allows them to be read. And concerning these Writings our Church saith well, (quoting St. jerom for it) 
† Artic. 6.  She doth read them for Example of Life, and Instruction of Manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine. Which gives us an exact account of the Nature of these Books; namely, that they contain excellent Rules of Life, and are very serviceable to inform us of our Duty as to several weighty things: but they being not dictated by the Holy Ghost, as the other Books of Scripture are, they are not the infallible Standard of Divine Doctrine, and therefore are not to be applied and made use of to that purpose. This and the other Reasons before mentioned, may prevail with us to think that these Writings aught not to be numbered among the Books of Canonical Scripture.  
And thus we have argued from the Tradition, and the Testimony of the Church. And if this be done as it ought to be done, it is valid: for the Truth of the Copies, the Canonicalness of the Books, and the like, are not decidable by Scripture itself, but in the Way that all other Controversies of that nature are. As you would prove any other Book to be Authentic, so you must prove the Bible to be, viz. by sufficient and able Testimony. There is the same reason to believe the Sacred History, that there is to believe any other Historical Writings that are extant. Nay, the Testimonies on behalf of the Holy Scripture●, are more pregnant than any that are brought for other Writings. Besides all that can be said for the Sacred Volume of the Bible, which is wont to be said for other Writings, I have showed you that there are some things peculiar to this above a●● others. The main thing we have insisted upon is this, that the Books of the Old and New Testament have been faithfully conveyed to us; and that they are vouched by the constant and universal Tradition both of the Jewish and Christian Church; and that these Books, and no others, are of the Canon of Scripture: for to be of the Canon of Scripture, is no other than to be owned by the Universal Church for Divinely Inspired Writings▪ The Church witnesseth and confirmeth the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures; for she received them as Divine, and she delivers them to us as such Yet I do not say that the Church's Testifying these Books to be the Holy Scriptures, gives an Absolute and Entire Authority to them. A Clerk in the Parliament, or any other Court, writeth down and testi●ies that such an Act, or Decree, or Order, was passed by the King, Magistrate or People; and he witnesses that he hath faithfully kept these by him, and that they are the very same that at such a time were made by the foresaid Authority: but the Authority of this Act, Decree or Order, rests not in the Clerk, but wholly in the King, Magistrate or People. So the Church recordeth and keepeth the Sacred Writings of the Bible, and bears witness that they have been faithfully preserved, and that they are the Genuine Writings of those Persons whose Names are presixed to them: b●t the Divine Authority of the Scriptures depends not on the Church, but on the Books and Authors themselves, namely their being Inspired. And indeed this Authority of the Scriptures cannot depend on the Church, because the Church itself depends on the Scriptures. These must be proved before the Church can pretend to be any such thing as a Church. We cannot know the Church but by the Scriptures; therefore the Scriptures must be known before the Church. It follows then that the Papists are very unreasonable and absurd in making the Ultimate Resolution of Faith to be into the Testimony and Authority of the Church. This we disown as a great Falsity; but yet it is rational to hold that the Church's Testimony is one good Argument and Proof of the Truth of the Sacred Scripture: according to that known Saying of St. Augustine, I should not believe the Gospel, if the Authority of the Church did not move me. Not that he found'st the Gospel, i. e. the Doctrine of Christianity, and the Truth of it, on the Testimony of the Church; as the Papists are wont to infer from these Words, and frequently quote them to this purpose. No: the Father's meaning is this, that by the Testimony and Consent of the Church he believed the Book of the Gospel to be verily that Book which was written by the Evangelists. This is the Sense of the Place, as is plain from the Scope of it; for he speaks there of the Copies or Writings, not the Doctrine contained in them. The good Father relies on this, that so great a number of knowing and honest Persons as the Church was made up of, did assert the Evangelical Writings to be the Writings of such as were really inspired by the Holy Ghost; and that they were true and genuine, and not corrupted. And the whole Body of Sacred Scripture is attested by the same universal Suffrage of the Church, i. e. the unanimous Consent of the Apostles, and of the First Christians, and of those that immediately succeeded them; several of which laid down their Lives to vindicate the Truth of these Writings. This is the External Testimony given to the Holy Scriptures. It is the general Persuasion and Attestation of the Ancient Church, that these are the Scriptures of Truth; that they were penned by holy Prophets and Apostles, immediately directed by the Spirit, who therefore could not err. It was usual heretofore among the Pagan Lawgivers to attribute their Laws to some Deity, though they were of their own Invention; intending thereby to conciliate Reverence to them, and to commend them to the People. But here is no such Cheat put upon us: God himself is really the Author of the Holy Scriptures; these Sacred Laws come immediately from Him, they are of Divine Inspiration. There is no doubt to be made of the Divinity of the Scriptures, and consequently there is assurance of the Infallibility of them.   

CHAP. III.  
The Authority of the Bible manifested from the Testimonies of Enemies and Strangers, especially of Pagans. These confirm what the Old Testament saith concerning the Creation, the Production of Adam and Eve, their Fall, with the several Circumstances of it; Enoch's Translation, the Longevity of the Patriarches, the Giants in those Times, the Universal Flood, the building of the Tower of Babel.  
I Have propounded some of the chief Arguments which may induce us to believe the Truth and Certainty of the holy Writings of the Old and New Testament. I will now choose out another, for the sake chiefly of the Learned and Curious, which I purpose to enlarge upon; yea, to make the Subject of my whole ensuing Discourse. I consider then that we have in this Matter not only the Testimony of Friends, but of Enemies and Strangers: and it is a Maxim in the Civil Law, and vouched by all Men of Reason, that the Testimony of an Enemy is most considerable. The jewish and Christian Church, as I have showed already, give their Testimony to the Scriptures: but besides these Witnesses there are Others, there is the Attestation of Foreigners and Adversaries. These fully testify the Truth of what is delivered in the Holy Bible: we have the Approbation of Heathen Writers to confirm many of the things related in the Old Testament; and both Professed Heathens and jews (for we must now look upon these latter as professed Enemies, when we are to speak of the Christian Concern) attest sundry things of the New Testament, and vouch the Truth and Authority of them. Here than I will distinctly proceed, and first begin with the Old Testament, and let you see in several Particulars, that even the Pagan World gives Testimony to this Sacred Volume; that the Gentiles relate the very same things that this doth; that the Great Truths, and Notable Histories, Notions and Practices in the Books of the Old Testament, are to be met with in Profane Writings, but taken from these Sacred ones. The Heathens borrowed many of their Rites and Usages from Traditions which were founded in the Holy Scriptures. They derived many things in their Religion and Manners from these Sacred Fountains, though it is as true that they have laboured to pollute them. But I will make it clear and manifest that they fetched them thence; and I will abundantly prove that most of the chief things in the Old Testament have been attested both by the Fables, and the Serious History of the Pagans. There have been some High-fliers, I know, who have carried on this Notion to a ridiculous Extravagancy. Thus 
* 〈◊〉, pag. 216.  Zimmeranus speaks of an odd 
† Jacob. Boldu● d● Oggio Christiano.  Capuchin, who hath vented very wild things in prosecuting this Argument, viz. that the Gentile Mysteries were taken from the True God, and from the Scriptures inspired by him. And one Iacob● Hugo (in his Historia Romana) is quoted by the same Person as very extravagant in this kind: for he holds that the Roman Story was a Narrative of the History of the Gospel. Pious Aeneas was St. Peter; and his sailing from Troy to Latium, was the Story of St. Peter's leaving the Chair at Antioch, and going to Rome. Homer and Virgil's Heroic Poems are an account of St. Peter and the Church, and of the Shipwreck and Misfortunes which this latter meets with in the World. Ilium or Aelia is jerusalem; that was the Name which Aelius Adrianus gave it. The Acts of the Apostles, the Jewish War, and the Destruction of jerusalem, are contained in Homer's Iliads; and so are the Life and Death of Christ, and the whole Gospel. He tells us that Romulus and Remus signify the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, the Founders of the Roman Church. And more extravagantly yet he goes on, telling us that Diana signifies the Holy Trinity; Curtius on Horseback swallowed up in the Lake, is the Virgin Mary, whose Temple is seen there in the Marketplace at Rome with this Inscription, D. Virgins Templum à poenis inferni liberantis. And a great deal more of such Stuff this Hugo hath, which no Man of Consideration and Sense is able to bear. Indeed such wild and far-fetched Conceits may be justly entertained with Laughter and Contempt. Nor do I look upon some things which some others (of more composed Thoughts) mention as any real Testimonies given to the Scriptures. They strangely fancy an Affinity between Scripture and Paganism, between what they read in the one, and what they meet with in the other, though there be no Cognation at all. Thus the Greek Fable of Minerva's being the Offspring of Jove's Brain, took its Rise from the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Eternal and Ineffable Generation of the Son of God, saith a 
* Casp. Peucer. de Divinat. generib.  Learned Man: and Isis the Egyptian Goddess, is (saith he) Ishah, Mulier, or Virgo, i. e. the Virgin Mary, from a Tradition among them, that a Virgin shoul● bring forth a Son who was to be the Redeemer 〈◊〉 the World. And I could mention others who●● Names are better known, who have been too extravagant in this kind, carrying the Notion on to● far, and strongly fancying every thing almo●● which they meet with in Pagan Story, to hav● some reference to, and be taken from the hol● Scriptures. But I shall very industriously avo●● this Vanity and Folly, and only represent to the curious and critical Reader those Passages in Pag●● Writers, which with great Probability and Reaso● we may conclude to have been taken from the Books of the Old Testament. I shall endeavour to let you see the Sacred History of the Bible, eve● through the Fables and feigned Stories of the Heathens, and thereby confirm you in the belief of the Truth and Reality of that Sacred History whence they were taken.  
1. To begin first where all things began, the Creation: this, as it is particularly described i● the first Chapter of Genesis, is plainly to be found in Pagan Authors, who without doubt had it fro● this first Entrance of the Scripture. For though a Man by the Light of Nature may know that the World had a Beginning, yet this particular way of its beginning, as 'tis there set down, could not be attained to but by Divine Revelation: wherefore it is rationally to be asserted that the Paga●● took this Notion from God's Revealed Will in Scripture; and at the same time they do hereby attest the Truth of that holy Book. The gen●r●● Opinion of the ancient Gentiles was, that the World was made out of a preceding Chaos, which they represent to be a rude, disordered, and indigested Mass of Matter, reduced to no Shape and Form. Sanconiathon, the Phoenician Historian, so much praised by Porphyrius, the Philosopher in 
* Praepar. Evang. l. 1. c. 5.  Eusebius, makes mention of this Chaos, as the Source of all things, in his Fragments of Phoenician Theology. The ancient Poet Orpheus held that this Chaos was the first Principle of all things. And 
† Theogon.  Hesiod agrees with him, affirming that the Chaos was that out of which all Bodies were made. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is described by 
‖ Metamorph. lib. 1.  Ovid after this manner; 
Ante mare & terras, & quod tegit omnia Coelum,  
Vnus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,  
Quem dixere Chaos, etc.  Where in forty or ●ifty pair of good smooth Verses, he most excellently describes the Origine of all things, and makes the very Chaos beautiful. This is the same with Hyle, the first original Matter of all things, the Poets Demogorgon, which was borrowed from the shapeless Lump of the Chaos. And in the Phoenician Language we may find it in the very sound of the words Thoth and Bau, which are but a small Variation from Tohu and Bohu in the Hebrew Text, the same with Chaos among the Greeks and Latins. This is founded on those Words of Moses, Gen. 1. 2. The Earth was without form, and void; and Darkness was on the face of the Deep. This dark and formless Heap of Water and Earth mingled together, contained in it the fi● Elements of all things that were made afterwards hence sprang the World as it is now shaped 〈◊〉 modelled. From this Account which Moses giv● here of the Creation, the old Pagan Theologer i. e. the Pocts, made the Ocean to be the Origin of all Generation; which is no other than th● (if you give the plain meaning of it) that th● moist and fluid Matter gave beginning to all Bod● that are. Orpheus' owned this Hypothesis, calli●● the Ocean the Parent of all things, in one of 〈◊〉 Hymns: and out of some other Pieces of 〈◊〉 Works, the same might be proved. Homer 〈◊〉 the like, asserting the Ocean to be the Antiente of the Gods: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iliad. On which Words the Scholiast gives this Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. Water was held to 〈◊〉 the first Element, and from that the other three sprang. Which Opinion is taken from the Scripture account of the first Principles of the World, viz. from Moses' making the dark Deep or Water to be the Production of the first Day, and consequently to be the Source of all things that were framed afterwards. Hence it was that some of the Stoics held the Chaos to be no other than Water, as Philo informs us. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De mundi Incorruptib.  They think (saith he) that Water and the Chaos being the same, this latter hath its Denomination from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signisres flowing ● pouring out. Hence 
* Nat. Quaest l. 3. c. 13.  Sene●a declares it to be 〈◊〉 Opinion of this Sect of Philosophers, that 〈◊〉 is the first Principle of all things. The choliast upon Pindar, thinks that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alludes to this ancient Opinion; but I can't ●y any thing in defence of that. 
† In Thalete.  We are certain ●at the former Quotations are very plain and to ●he purpose: and now I will bring another as conderable as any, viz. of Thales, the Founder of ●he jonick Philosophy, and one of the first that ●ade Disquisitions on Nature: he expressly maintained that all things were produced of Water, as Diogenes Laertius, Tully, and others relate of ●im. Especially the Words of this latter conerning him are remarkable, 
‖ Aqua dixit esse initium rerum, Deum autent ●am Mentem quae ex aquâ ●ncta fingeret. De Nat. Deorum, l. 1. c. 25.  Thales affirm'd saith he) that Water was the beginning of Things, ●nd that God was that Mind which made all things of Water. Which seems more particularly and signally to refer to what Moses saith, speaking of the ●rst Original of the Universe, that the Spirit of God ●oved on the Face of the Waters, Gen. 1. 2. giving ●s to understand that Water and Slime were the Material Cause and First Principle of all things, ●nd that God was that Spirit or Mind who made ●he World out of those first Waters. And the Barbaric as well as Greek Philosophers held this, ●itness the brahmin's among the Indians; as Stra● ● quoted by Philo saith. And the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De vitâ Mosis.  Egyptians ●hought so too, and therefore worshipped this E●ment, as that Learned Jew observeth. Helmont (as well as Thales and other Philosophets of ● patronizes this Opinion, maintaining that all ● dies are from one Element; they are materie simple Water disguised into various Forms by 〈◊〉 Plastic Virtue of their Seeds. And an 
* Robert boil Esq.  Ho● rabble Person of late hath amazed several things ● gether for the maintaining this Hypothesis, and let the World see what may be said for it, tho● he is not peremptory himself. This without do● the Ancients borrowed from the Mosaical His● of the World, which acquaints us that at the 〈◊〉 Creation 
† Gen. 1. 2, 6, 9  all things were contained in Water and lay brooding there two days together; ● accordingly it makes Water to be the primiti● Matter or Vehicle of the Universe.  
To the Chaos and Water the Ancients added an● there concurrent Principle, namely Night. Th● the World had its Beginning from Night and ● os, was an universal Tradition of the Pagans, no only Poets, as 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Hymn,  Orpheus, Linus, Hesiod, Homer 〈◊〉 others, who frequently talk of Chaos and Nig● or Erebus, and tell us that all things were begotten by them; but Philosophers also, (if we must disti● guish between these and the Poets, who were Philosophers too) as Epicharmus, Thales, Plato, and ● the Greek Theologizers, who speak of those T● as the Original of all things in the World. 
‖‖ Metaphys. l. 14. c. 6.  A● stotle relates, that the Persons skilled in antie● Theology, believed all things were made of Nig● Which questionless is of Mosaic Extraction, and sprang first from those words in Gen. 1. 2. Darkness was on the Face of the Deep. The Deep is their Chaos, and the Darkness is their Night or Erebus; for the known and usual Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Caligo, Darkness. Or perhaps this may be borrowed from [Ereb] Vespera, the Evening, mentioned in Gen. 1. ●. as the first Beginning of Time from the Creation: whence the old Notion of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He siod. Theogon.  Aether and Day being begot by the Night. And hence the Pagans, who had seen something of these Writings, came to have this Sentiment, that Night and Darkness were the first Principles of the World. This is the same with what Moses here delivers, only 'tis expressed in different Terms.  
And so as to what is said in the Mosaic History concerning 
† Gen. 1. 4, 6, 7.  God's orderly dividing, separating, and digesting of this confused Chaos and dark Mass, the Old Philosophers have agreed to this likewise. Anaxagoras is reckoned commonly in the number of the ancient Atheists, but he little deserved that Name; for (as Plutarch saith of him) 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ etc.  he was the first that denied Fortune or Fate to be the Cause or Principle of the fair Order and Harmony of the Universe, and first set up a Pure and Immixed Spirit or Mind, who separated the homogeneous Parts from the whole Mass and confused Mixture of things. And Diogenes Laertius gives these as his very Words, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In A●axag.  All things were in a heap and jumble at first: afterwards came the Eternal Mind, and disposed and ordered them in an excellent Manner. This Aristotle meant, when he said, that 
† Lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in infinite Matter a Mind or Intelligence produced Motion, and separated the Parts: which Mind is called by Simplicius on the Place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 Mind which made the World. So 
* Materiae infinitae particulas simile, inter se, & minutas, primùm 〈◊〉, postea in ordinem adductas ● Mente Divi●● Tusc. Quaest l. 4.  Tully 〈◊〉 that those Particles of infinite Matter 〈◊〉 were alike in themselves, and were very small ● subtle, and at first very confused, were a 〈◊〉 wards brought into Order by the Divine 〈◊〉 This was the Work of God in the Creation. 〈◊〉 I ask, whence had they this Notion concer●●●● the Origine of the World? It is not a Princip●● in Philosophy; therefore they had it somewh●● else, which is the thing I am proving. 〈◊〉 Speculations and Theories concerning the Rise 〈◊〉 the World, were not their own, but were Transitional Principles, i. e. they received them 〈◊〉 the Ancients, and these had them conveyed 〈◊〉 them from the Bible. Thei● Philosophising 〈◊〉 this Matter was from that Divine Penman Mos●● the Sum of which was this, that God first of 〈◊〉 produced a Chaos, i. e. the rude Beginnings 〈◊〉 Earth, swallowed up and even overwhelmed wi●● the Watery Abyss; out of which dark, confused an● indigested Materials he made all things both 〈◊〉 Heaven and Earth as out of the first Matter, whic● by a Divine Skill and Power he separated and divided, till it arose to this excellent and comple●● Frame wherein it appears at this day. Thus the ancient Philosophy of the Gentiles was borrowed from Moses' Description of the Creation; thus the Writings of the first Heathen Philosophers bear witness to the first and ancientest Penmen of the Old Testament. And if you ask, how the Pagans came by this Information from the Holy Writings? be pleased to stay but till we come towards the Close of this Discourse, and then I hope 〈◊〉 shall give you a good and satisfactory Account of this Question, and let you see by what means the Pagan Writers arrived to a Knowledge (though ●ndeed dark and obscure) not only of these Particulars already named, but of a great number more which I shall now proceed to add.  
II. The Production of Adam and Eve is attested by the same Persons. That the First Man was made of the Earth, or the Clay of the Ground, is delivered by the most Authentic Authors among them. I will not insist upon the constant Opinion and Persuasion of the Athenians, who held they were sprung from the Ground they lived on, and were not descended from other Nations: Which perhaps arose, first, from the Tradition concerning the making the first Man out of the Earth. Plato, and several good ancient 
* Demost●enes in Epitaph. Isocrates in Panegyr. ● C●e. Ora●. pro Flacco.  Authors, testify that this People of Greece held themselves to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. born of the Earth: and in memory of this they wore Golden Grasshoppers, and were called from those Animals Tettigophori, because this sort of Creatures is thought and believed to have its Rise from the Earth. And there were said to be not only in Attica, but in Thessaly and Arcadia, some of these Autochthones, People that were begot out of the Soil. Yea, the old Britain's, our Ancestors, were said to be such, as Diodorus the Sicilian and Caesar tell us, nay seem to believe. They were Aborigines, i. e. they had their Original from the very Ground they lived on. Which Notion, as I conceive, was either from the Gia●● called Sons of the Earth, or from Adam and 〈◊〉 who we are certain were form out of the Ear●● These were the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ancient A●●rigines, born from their own Soil; the Earth w● their Parent. This Terrestrial Extraction of t● First Man is mentioned in 
* In his Protagoras, Critias, Menexenus, Politics.  several Places by Pl● And Empedocles (as Censorinus tell us) and 〈◊〉 Eleates (as 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Zen.  Laertius relates) held the sam● There is a Passage in Cornelius Tacitus, which I 〈◊〉 persuaded refers to this; for speaking of the Original of the Germans, he saith 'tis recorded ● their ancient Annals and Monuments, which a● in Verse, that 
‖ Celebrant carminibus antiquis (quod unum apud illos memoriae & annalium genus est) Tuitonem deum, terrâ editum & filium Mannum originem ge● 'tis conditoresque. De morib. Germ.  the God Tuit, and his Son Mannus born of the Earth, were the Founders of that Nation, Tuit, or Thuet, is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Mannus, or Man, is Adam the first Man, (for Man in the Germane Language is Vir) who was the Son of God; and the reason is here given, because he was made by him out of the Earth; (for I conceive there is a Transposition in the Words, i. e. et should be placed before terrâ editum; which Words belong to the next, viz. filium Mannum.) Hence it appears that this Notion of Man's Original from the Earth was among the old Germans. who derived it first from the Mosaic Records. I will at present omit several Quotations out of the Greek Poets▪ who were the first Divines and Philosophers among the Pagans, (as Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer) who testify this very thing. From these the Latins borrowed it, as juvenal, who speaking of the first and ancientest People of the World, describes their Original thus; Compositique luto, nullos habuere Parents. Which Words are a plain Reference to Adam's 〈◊〉 made of Clay, or Earth. But Ovid, who was ●ell acquainted with all the ancient Notions of the Gentiles, is more clear and open, and 
* Metamorph. lib. 1.  relates the 〈◊〉 Passages in the Mosaic Story concerning the Original of the World, and that in Words coming ●s near to Moses as may be. In the close he tells how Man was made after the Creation of all other things: 
Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius altae,  
Deerat adhuc, & quod dominari in caetera posset;  
Natus homo est.  This is Moses exactly. Deerat adhue answers to Gen. 2. 5. [there was not a Man.] Quod dominari in caetera posset, is the same with what we read in Gen. 1. 26, 28. that Man was made to have Domi●on over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that moveth on the Earth. Here are two of the chief things which ●re delivered in the beginning of that Sacred History in Genesis, viz. that Man was made last of all, and to have Rule and Dominion over all the Creatures. Sanctius animal excellently expresses that Man was made for Religion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 
† In Timaeo.  Plato calls him: or, he is styled Holy, because made after God's Likeness; which follows presently after, Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta Deorum. The word finxit here is the proper Version of th● Hebrew [jitzer] which is used in Gen. 2. 7. T● Lord God form Man. Deorum answers to Elob● in the plural Number; and so Moses introduce● God speaking, Let Us make Man, Us in the pl● ral. In effigiem Deorum, is the true Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Image of God, in which Man is said to be created, Gen. 1. 27. So that there is another grand Truth which the Pag● took from the Holy Writings, viz. that God created Man after his Likeness, or in his own Image Gen. 1. 26, 27.  
Thus you see this Interpreter of the antie● Theology agrees with Moses: yea, it is evident without any fanciful straining, that he not only took the Things themselves, but the very Word and Expressions from the Divine Writings. O● applies and attributes this Formation of Man ● Prometheus', the Name certainly of the Wise God: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Greeks (from whom ● borrowed this) is Sapiens, Providens, Sagax. A● this Prometheus form Men of Clay, which agree with the Formation of Adam recorded by the I● spired Writer. Wherefore both 
* I psum corpus nostrum quod de limo figulatum, etiam 〈◊〉 fabulas nationum Veritas transmisit; utrumque originis ●le●tum consite●●●●. De came Christ.  Tertullian an● 
† De hominis fictione 〈◊〉 quoque, quamvis corrupt, tamen non aliter 〈◊〉 nempe hominem de luto à Prometheo sactum esse dixerunt: ● eos non sesellit, s●d nomen artifieis. 〈◊〉. l. 2.  Lactantius think it reasonable to believe that th● first Formation and Origine of Man's Body, which the fabulous Poets speak of, was transmitted from the sacred and inspired Verity; and that the thing is the same in both, though disguised by the Poets in other Words and Names. And when Ovid adds, that he took Fire from Heaven to animate his lumpish Clay, you must pardon this innocent Addition; for, as you shall observe all along, it is the way of these Men to put in something of their own, to disguise the Sacred Stories with their own Inventions and Fables: though truly here we are no● able to interpret this very appositely, and to applaud the Poet, who knew that dull and inert Matter could not actuate and enliven itself, but that there was need of some Heavenly and Divine Principle to set it on work, some active Ray of Life from above to inspire it: And what is this but the Breath of Life mentioned in Gen. 2. 7. by which Man's Body was enlivened and envigorated? for when it is said there, that God form Man out of the Earth, it is immediately added, He breathed into his Nostrils the Breath of Life, and Man became a living Soul. From which manner of Expression, Nismath hajim, and that other in Gen. 7. 22. Nismath tuach hajim, the Breath of the Spirit of Life, the ancient Sages among the Gentiles (who were no strangers to this and other Texts, as I shall show afterwards) derived two Notions: the first whereof was this, that the Soul is Breath, and accordingly in Greek and Latin it hath its 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: spiritus, à spirando: animus & anima, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ventus.  Names from breathing. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Spiratulum vitae, (as the Vulgar Latin renders it) by which Man's Body was inspired, was the occasion, I guess, of these Denominations of the Soul from Breath, Wind or Air: and that of the Poet, Divina● particula aurae, (which is spoken of the Soul) seems to refer to this. Another Notion which they derived from this metaphorical Expression of Breathing or Asslation, was, that the Soul, the Rational Soul of Man, is a part of God: for as Breath is something that comes from within a Man, so Souls (that are set forth by Breath) are the Emanations of God; they come from him, and are Parts of him. The Soul, say the Platonists, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch. Platon. Quaest  ● not only the Work of God, but a Portion of him. Which it is likely was Plato's meaning, when he said the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the done.  Soul is a sharer of the Nature of God. But this was more especially the Stoics apprehension of Humane Souls; they are (saith the Royal Philosopher) 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antonin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a Part, a Piece, an Effluvium of the Godhead. With whom Arianus agrees, telling, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 1. cap. 14.  our Souls are so linked to God, that they are Particles of him, and as 'twere plucked from him. But he is very extravagant when he adds, in pursuance of this, that as to our Souls, we are not inferior to, or less than God himself. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epictetus himself, and 
‖ Dei pars. Epist. 92.  Seneca, prononnce the Soul to be a Piece, a Part of the Divine Essence. Cicery speaks like one of this Sect, (as he frequently doth) when he saith, 
* A nature divinâ 〈◊〉 animos & delibatos habemus.— Humanus animus 〈◊〉 ptus est ex ment divinâ. Tusc. lib●●  our Souls are taken out and plucked off from the Nature of God, and are certain Segments of the Divine Mind. And because it was hold by some Philosophers, that some of the Inferior Animals, as Bees, had Souls resembling those of Men, therefore they asserted that they likewise 
* Esse apibus partem divinae mentis.— Virg. Georg.  were parts of the Divinity. All this comes (if I mistake not) from that forenamed Passage in Moses' History concerning the Production of Man, God breathed into him the Breath ●f Life: which was interpreted as if humane Souls were partial Effluxes or Aporrhae's of the Divine Essence itself.  
The making of Eve out of Adam, was also obscurely intimated in what Plato saith in his Symposium, namely, that the first Man was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Mixture of both Sexes. Which Fable of his was from the Jewish Tradition, that the first Man was made an Hermaphrodite; that he had two Bodies joined together, one of a Male, another of a Female; and that God afterwards split him into two distinct Bodies, whence arose Man and Woman. If the Jewish Rabbis (who were better acquainted with Scripture) talked after this doting rate, Plato may well be excused, who perhaps had it only on Tradition, and had not the Means to correct his Mistakes which they had. But this is plain, that this Fable is a Corruption of the Sacred Story, which speaking of our First Parents, saith, 
† Gen. 5. 2.  God called their Name Adam; as if their having but One Name, signified they were but One Person: and again in the same Verse, Male and Female created he them; as if the first Man, who is spoken of in the Verse immediately foregoing, consisted of a double Sex. But it is evident that the Words relate to both; and the reason why the Name Adam is given to both, is because they were both of them from the Earth, one immediately, the other remotely: but afterwards we read that they had distinct Names, Adam being appropriated to the Man, and Eve to the Woman. And this ridiculous Fable which Plato had picked up, might be occasioned likewise from a misunderstanding of that Text, 
* Gen. 2. 21, 22.  God took one of the Man's Ribs, and out of it made he a Woman. Because the Woman was form out of the Man's Side, they inferred that Adam was at first both Man and Woman, and that the Woman at her first Make stuck to his Side. Which is a gross mistaking of the Text, but confirms the Truth and Antiquity of that Book of Moses, which assures us of Eve's Formation out of Adam, which was the thing that gave rise to this erroneous Tradition.  
May we not think that Adam's Dominion over the Beasts, which was accompanied with his Calling them, and giving them Names, was the Foundation of what the Poets talk of Orpheus' drawing the Beasts after him, and making them Tame, and causing them to stand still, and as it were answer to their Names? Or else it was a Representation of the Beasts and all sorts of Animals coming into the Ark at Noah's Call, which is a Confirmation of another known Passage in the Mosaic Writings. But I am not positive here, and in some suchlike Passages which occur in the Poets: though in others I shall heap up several plain and evident Circumstances, sufficient to convince the Reader that they have reference to something spoken of in Scripture. As to Adam's giving of Names to all things, mentioned Gen. 2. 19 it appears that Plato was not a stranger to it; for in his 
* Or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cratylus, where it is disputed whether Words signify by Institution or from Nature, he first denies the Language of his Grecians to have been the Original one, (as in 
† In Timaeo.  another place he calls his Countrymen the Greeks, Youths and Striplings of yesterday, and consequently their Language was not the ancientest) and then he hints that Hebrew was the Original Tongue; which is meant by what is said, Gen. 11. 1. that the whole Earth was of one Language, and of one Speech. And though he conceals the Name of the jews or Hebrews, yet when he expressly affirms in this Dialogue, that the right Doctrine of Names, and their Interpretation, are to be fetched from the 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Barbarians, as the more ancient, we are not to doubt that he means the jews or Hebrews: for all agree that they were called Barba●●●● by the Greeks (as these were so by them.) And hence I gather that Plato and other Heathens knew, and perhaps had read, that Adam gave Names, proper and significant Names, to all Creatures; which Moses particularly makes mention of, and must be the very thing that is here meant by Plato, when he acknowledgeth that the true Etymologies of Things, and the Interpretation of Names, are to be derived from the Barbarians.  
The First and Innocent State of Man (and that with some of the Circumstances of it which could be known only from the Book of Moses) is spoken of by the ancient Writers among the Heathens. Thus you will ●ind that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. v. 108, etc.  Hesiod gives us an admirable Description of it. In Plato's Atlanticus, or Critias, are plainly to be seen the Footsteps of the Old and Primeve State of Man, when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as he saith) prevailed, when the Diving 〈◊〉 Heavenly Nature was not corrupted by the 〈◊〉 And in his Politics (where he likewise speaks ● the Primitive and Pure State of Man) he tells ● that in those first Time's Man got his Living with ● out Trouble and Labour, that he fed only on ● Fruits of the Earth, and that Nakedness was ● Attendant of that first and Golden Age of ● World, alluding to Gen. 2. 25. They were both ● k, the Man and his Wife. So an 
* Diodor. Sic. l. 1.  Ancient Writer acquaints us, that the Egyptians find in t● old Writings, that the first Men and Women ● naked, which is according to what's read in t● place. In the Sibylline Verses, which are borrow from the Scripture, though same Allegories and D● scriptions are used in setting forth the happy A● of Man, that you find used in that holy Book. ● the Happiness of Paradise is obliquely described b● 
† Odyss. 10.  Homer, and the Felicity of the First Age by 
‖ Georg. lib. 1. ● neid. 8.  Vagil. And without question the Blessed State ● Paradise is referred to by 
* Metamorph. lib. 1.  Ovid in his descript● on of the Golden Age, or Saturn's Reign. The● we may see represented the Simplicity and Innocency of our First Parents, the Peace and Tras' quillity, the Contentment and Satisfaction which were peculiar to the State of Integrity. 〈◊〉 itself, the Seat of this Happiness, seems to have been known by the ancient Pagans: for it is probable their Writers understand this, when they te● us of the Elysian Fields; for Gardens (such as w● Paradise) and pleasant Fields are the same with them. These you may see described by Plato ● his Phaedo, where he tells us that they are blessed with a mild and gentle Air, pleasant Streams, a constant Spring, fragrant Flowers and Fruits ever growing. Of these Virgil speaks in his sixth Aenead. And they are the same with the Fortunate Islands which the Greeks write of, a Place of extraordinary Delight, and where none but Good and Virtuous Men inhabit. Or, if we must parallel it with a Garden so expressly called, we have Alcivous his Garden, or Orchard, in 
* Odyss. n.  Homer; which was taken from the description of Paradise, saith justin Martyr in his Oration against the Gentiles. Or, the Garden of Adonis, which is so celebrated, may refer to that of Eden, and is easily derived from it. Or, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Garden of jupiter, in Plato's Symposiacks, may enigmatically refer (as tha● Learned Father Origen deemeth) to that of Paradise. So likewise may the pleasant Orchards of the Hesperides, in which were Trees that bore Golden Apples: and it may be some confirmation of this Notion, that near the Fountain of the River Ti●gris (on which Paradise was seated) we read of a Place that bears the Name of Hispercitis and Hisperatis. It is not unlikely that these divers Gardens were transplanted from that in Eden. It is not unlikely that some or all of these Greek Fables were founded in Truth, and arose from what the Inspired Book tells us, that God placed Man in a Garden, the Garden of Eden, which signifies Pleasure or Delight: for it is added, that here grew every Tree that is pleasant to the Sight, and good for Food, Gen. 2. 9 And as this Garden was the Platform of those before mentioned, so the Tree of Life in this Garden gave rise to the Poet's Nectar and Ambrosia, brosia, which are no other than the Food and Repast of these Earthly Gods, these Divine Creatures that inhabit here. The former of these (according to 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suidas.  one Derivation of it) made the Drinkers of it ever youthful: and 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  another Etymology speaks this Drink to be such as suffers the● not to Die. These were the very Blessings of the Tree of Life; it had a property to keep off Old Age, and to preserve Man's Life a long time, The latter, namely 
‖ Qu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Ambrosia, had the same Virtue; it was said to keep those that ate it, free from Mortality. This therefore, no less than the other, seems to refer to, and be borrowed from the Tree of Life, which should have made the Eaters of it Immortal, and secured them in a State of Blessedness for ever. Thus the Production of Man, and sundry things referring to his Blessed State in Innocency, which are found in the Writings of the Heathens, were taken from the Sacred Fountains: and consequently the Writings of these Heathens do in some measure attest and confirm to us the Truth and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures.  
III. The Fall of Adam, and the several particular things relating to it, are to be found in these Pagan Records. First, the Forerunner of it, viz. the Degeneracy of the Angels, is plainly spoken of by that Ancient Philosopher Empedocles, as 
* Devitand. are alien.  Plutarch relates; for whom else could he mean by his Daemons, to whom he gives the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Heaven-fallen Creatures) than these Apostate Spirits, who were thrust down from the Regions of Happiness above, and became Devils by their own voluntary opposing of God, and declining his Government? Next, we have good Records among the Pagans of the Fall itself of Adam and Eve, especially of the latter, because she was first and most eminent in the Transgression, (as the Apostle speaks) and was the cause of the Man's defection from his Duty. She is represented by 
* Iliad. 1.  Homer's Ate, whom incensed jupiter thrust down from Heaven, threatening that she should never be restored to that Place again. Though some have thought that this might refer to the Apostate Angels (of whom before), because it is common with the Poets to imply Many when they mention but One Person; and so here, though One be said to be cast down from Heaven, yet it may intimate to us the Fall of all the cursed Crew of Wicked Angels. But it is more natural, I think, to apply this Story (it being of the Female Sex) to our Grandmother Eve: for what the Poets tell us of Ate, viz. that she was the firstborn Daughter of jupiter, and that she was that pernicious Woman that brought Mischief on the whole Race of Man, exactly agrees to her, so that there is no need of explaining it. It is not to be doubted that our first Parent Eve was also meant by Pandora, whom Hesiod and others of the Ancients mention, acquainting us, that out of her deadly Box which she gave to Epimetheus, flew all Evil into the World, and thereby she became the Original of all the miserable Occurrences that happen to Humane Kind. Eve was this Pandora who gave that fatal Gift of the Fruit of the Tree unto her Husband, as it is expressed in Gen. 3. 6. and he himself afterwards with unspeakable Regret, and too late an Insi●●● into his Condition, (whence he justly merits 〈◊〉 Title of Epimetheus) repeats the same, She 〈◊〉 me of it, ver. 13. and with it imparted all Evil 〈◊〉 Mankind. Wherefore from that Unhappy 〈◊〉 and from her General Bestowing of all Evils on 〈◊〉 World, she had the Name of Pandora among 〈◊〉 first Greek Poets, who had arrived to some not 〈…〉 of this Unfortunate Woman's Miscarriage, 〈◊〉 had from the Inspired Writings learned, that f●●● her sprang all the Miseries and Calamities of t●●● Life, and even Death itself.  
As for Original Sin, the early Corruption 〈◊〉 Depravation of Man's Nature, which was t●● Fruit of our first Parent's Transgression, we c●● not but observe that it is taken notice of by t●● Gentiles of old; who call it the. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sopater.  Congenite S 〈…〉 the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocl.  Domestic Evil of Mankind, the 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist●  not 〈…〉 Repugnancy of Man's Temper to Reason: and fo● Pythagoreans, quoted by jamblicus, style it a 
‖‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 a Mortal kind of Life, a many-headed Be●●● etc. The Moralists are full of such Notions, 〈◊〉 complain of the Infirmity of Nature, that it is very much vitiated and hurt; that the Fountain's a●● polluted, the Springs defiled; and that Man is propense to all Evil, and averse to what is good and virtuous. The Greek and Roman Philosophers do all complain of the low and degenerate Condition of Man: but this is chiefly done by the best of them, as the Stoics and Platonists. sen●●● (to mention no other of the first of these) f●●● quently in his Epistles and other Discourses, ●nowledges, and sadly reflects upon the Lapse of Man's Nature. And as for the other Sect of Philosopher's, they abundantly lament this degenerate state of Man. 
* Porphyrius de Abstin. Simplicius in Epicter. Hierocles in Pythag. Garm.  Three of them especially talk most passionately and feelingly of the Defect of a former Innocency, of the Departure of Souls from God, of the strong Propensities of Humane Nature to Evil, by a detrusion into terrestrial Bodies. I speak not this, as if I did not think they might partly have these Notions from the inward Sense they had of this Innate Evil; but from what I have suggested, (and shall afterwards) it seems probable to me that there was a Tradition among them concerning the First Cause and Author of this Evil. 
† In Politic.  Plato himself speaks very sensibly of this Loss of the first State of Purity and Happiness, and relates the Defection of Man from his Primitive Condition, from whence 
‖ In Atlantic.  he saith flowed all Mischiefs into the World. And I propound it to be thought of, whether his Doctrine of Preexistence was not a way used by him to disguise the Fall of Man. This Philosopher held that men's Souls were created Happy, and that afterwards they Apostatised; for which they were ever after imprisoned in Bodies. Now this I say, that from Moses's Writings (with which he was acquainted) he might learn the Story of Man's Fall, and then wrapped it up in this obscure manner, which was a ●sual way with him, as his Writings show. It was (as I conceive) his knowledge of the Apostasy of our first Parents, that gave rise to his Doctrine of the Preexistence of Souls: That is the thing which is couched in this Ingenious Hypothesis of his, which afterwards so prevailed among those of 〈◊〉 Sect. The meaning of his Opinion is, that M●● kind was fallen, and their Souls were become d●●generate, and that they were punished for wh●● Adam their Representative did long ago.  
If we inquire further, we shall find that 〈◊〉 Gentile World was not ignorant of the seve● 〈◊〉 Circumstances of Man's Fall; as first, that it was by the Devil's means. It was an ancient Tradition among the Pagans, that a sort of Malignant Spirits, Malicious Daemons, envied men's Happiness and did what they could to molest them, and 〈◊〉 hinder them of Felicity. The Pythagorean a●● Platonic Philosophers speak often of these Envio 〈◊〉 and Mischievous Spirits; the Original of which we can conceive to be no other than what Moses' History saith of the Devil's tempting our first Parents, Gen. 3. 1, etc. This is couched in another Opinion which prevailed among some of the Pagans, viz. the Notion of Two Principles, the one the Cause of all Good, the other of all Evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were styled by the Mani ●hees, who had it from Manes their Founder, a Persian; and he received this Opinion from his Countrymen the Persians, who were Gentiles. These two Opposite Principles, the one for conferring of Good, the other for procuring (as also the averting) of Evil, were called by that People Oromasdes and Arimanius, and were both worshipped by them, as 
* Proem. ad vir. Philo●.  Diogenes Laertius and others assure us But this was not only the Persuasion and Practice of the Magis, who were the Philosophers of Persia, but Plutarch shows the Antiquity, and almost Universality of this Opinion of Two Different Principles, among the rest of the Philosophic Tribe. It prevailed among the ancient Grecians, whose two distinct Principles were jupiter Olympius and Hades. The Egyptians too had their Typho, the Evil Principle, and Isis, or Osir●●, the Good one. The Chaldeans had the same Notion of a Contrary Cause of Good and Evil, holding some Planets (which were their Gods) to be productive of all the Good, others of all the Evil among them. This ancient Tradition of the Pagans so generally received, was, I suppose, derived from what is recorded in the first Entrance of the Bible, viz. that God was the bountiful Author of all Good to Man, not only creating him of nothing, and giving him his Being, but placing him in a State of Happiness, and conferring all Felicity upon him: but on the contrary, the Devil was the first Author of Evil, tempting our first Parents to Sin, whereby they lost all their Happiness, and fell under a Curse, and were expelled out of Paradise; and afterwards all Evils and Mischiefs came upon the World for their sake. Hence arose among the deluded Heathens that Twofold Principle God and Daemon, or rather Two Opposite Gods; for the true Tradition was corrupted into an absurd and irrational Opinion among the Gentiles of two Antigods.  
There was also this Circumstance of the History of Man's Fall among the Heathens, that the Devil appeared in the likeness of a Serpent. Preparatory to which is that which Plato saith, (as he is quoted by 
* Praepar. Evang. lib. 12, 14.  Euscbius) that in Saturn's days the Folks could talk and hold discourse with Beasts as well as Men; which is an Allusion to the noted Colloquy between Eve and the Serpent, and her Seduction by en●●●●taining Discourse with him. I should guests th●● Eve is disguised under the Fable of Pro●erpina, 〈◊〉 Daughter of jupiter, whom Plato stole away re-ravished, or as others tell us, whom jupiter 〈◊〉 in the form of a Serpent. The plain meaning 〈◊〉 which is, that Satan in the likeness of a Serpe●● deceived Eve. The Devil's taking the Shape 〈◊〉 this Animal, and his circumventing thereby 〈◊〉 first Parents, is intimated by the Heathens in th● obscure Writer Pherecydes, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is th● Title of that Great one who opposed Saturn. Th● Truth which lies at the bottom of that fabulo● Story, is, that the Apostate Angels or Devils o●●posed God at the beginning of the World: t●● Ringleader of which Cursed Spirits was he th●● in the shape of a Serpent assaulted our first Parents; this was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Demoniacal Serpen●▪ You will find 
* Cont. Celf. lib. 6.  Origen asserting that this was taken from Moses' relation concerning the Serpent i● Paradise; and not this from that, as Celsus, mo●● egregiously failing in Antiquity and Chronology, maintained. 
† De Prap, Evang. lib. ●. cap. 10.  Eusebius also is of the same Opinion, affirming that this Ophioneus refers to the Devil in the form of a Serpent; and adds (to make it probable) that Pherecydes was conversant with the Phoenicians, who worshipped their God under the form of a Serpent, the Devil affecting to be adored in that Shape which he first assumed. And not only in Phoenjoya, but in other Countries, Dragons, or Serpents, or Snakes, (for these are promiscuously used for one another) were reckoned among the Secret Mysteries of the Gentiles. These had so great a Veneration for Serpents or Dragons, that some of their Temples had their Denomination thence, and were styled Draconian, saith 
* Lib. 14.  Strabo. The Babylonians worshipped a Dragon, as the Apocryphal Writings relate. The Egyptians worshipped Opbioneus, as 
† Praep. Evang. lib. 1. cap. u●●.  Eusebius testifieth: and in their Hieroglyphics they ●hewed that they were wonderful Admirers of Serpents: for the Heads of their Gods were encircled with Serpents and Basilisks, saith Horus; the Crowns and Dia 〈◊〉 of their Kings were set with Asps and Suakes; Serpents being the Emblems of Dominion and Principality, yea of Immortality and Divinity, faith the same Author. And, which is yet more to our purpose, Eusebius observes that the Egyptians, as well as the Phoenicians, used to call Serpents 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. cap. 7.  Good Daemons: which is a plain Relic of the Devil's assuming the Form of some goodly Serpent, and appearing like a good Daemon or Angel of Light, when he accosted our Mother Eve, and laid siege to her Integrity. And to pass from Egypt to Greece, there were here also some Remembrances of this notable thing: for the Images of Serpents were set over the Gates of Temples and Consecrated Places; and generally they 
*— Pinge duos angues: sacer est locus; extra Meite.  Painted serpent's or Dragon's in all Holy Places, as the Ge●●●● of those Places: for they persuaded themselves that the Genius of the Place appeared in the shape of a Serpent. Among these Grecians the Devil was commonly worshipped in this Primitive Figure, ●ore especially at Delphos, whence (as a Learned critic hath remarked) Apollo is called Pythius, and Pytho, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Serpent. I might add wh●● 
* Pro●rept. seu Exhortat. ad Gent.  Clement of Alexandria reports, that the Heathe● at their Feasts of Bacchus were crowned with Se●●pents, and used to carry a Serpent in Procession and cry with a loud Voice, Eva, Eva; for Hev●● or Hivia (saith he) in the Hebrew signifies a Strepent. This latter was partly a Mistake of his, 〈◊〉 it is in the Chaldee that it signifies so, and is 〈◊〉 Word used by the Chaldee Translators in Gen. 〈◊〉 and other places, for a Serpent; and so we are then● informed what a Reverence was paid to Serpe●● by the Ancients. Or, what if I should offer t●●● Conjecture, that Eva, or Evia, or Hevia, are plain Remembrance of our Mother Eve, or H●●●● or, according to the Hebrew Termination, He●●● or Havah? Which is the more probable, bec●●●● the proclaiming of this Name is joined with t●● carrying of a Serpent, which we know that unh●●●py Woman was too well acquainted with. A●● perhaps the word Evantes, which is used by 
† Aeneid. 6.  V●●gil to signify those madding Frolicks, had its Or●●ginal hence. Thus there is a double Memorial i● that Pagan Festival Solemnity, to wit, of a R●●markable Person, and as Remarkable a Thing r●●corded in Sacred Story. Now I ask, whence ca● this Memorial of Serpents to be observed so ge●●●rally among the Pagans? Whence was it that t●● Old Heathens were such Adorers of these Cr●●●tures? How came it to pass that the Devil 〈◊〉 worshipped by them under this Form? Whe●● did this Custom prevail among the Phoenicians, ●●●bylonians, Egyptians and Grecians? Nay, 
‖ De Haeres. cap. 17.  S. ●●●gustin acquaints us, that some Heretic Christi●● made it a great part of their Religion to worship a Serpent. And if we should leave the Ancients, and come down to latter Ages, I might here allege what 
* Colloqu. Mensa●▪  Luther ●aith he heard a Merchant affirm, namely, that in the Indies he had ●een People worship a Great Snake with the highest Reverence and Honour imaginable. Of all this there cannot be a better Account given than that which I have already offered. It is questionless a remembrance of what happened in the beginning of the World, and is recorded in the Book of Genesis, that Satan, who had been a kind of God, a Glorious Angel, (and therefore passed for such a one still among the Ignorant Heathens) appeared in a Serpentine Figure to Adam and Eve in Paradise.  
And this reminds me of another Circumstance of Man's Fall, viz. the Place, which was Paradise, or the Garden of Eden; which (as I said before) seems to be represented by the famous Guerdon of the Hesperideses. This I know hath been a commonly received Notion; this Poetical Passage hath been usually applied to this purpose: but ●et us not think it the less true, because of the Commonness of it● If any Man seriously weigh what is reported of this Garden, he will think it not improbable that the Fall of Man is couched in this Poetic Fable▪ For this Garden yielded Golden Fruit, i. e. very choice and excellent Fruit, and such as was as tempting as Gold was afterwards; which plainly points to the Forbidden Fruit in Paradise, which was so desirable and delightful, so tempting and charming. And this Fruit, these Golden Apples, were kept and watched by a Dragon or Serpent; which plainly refers to the Devil in the form of a Serpent, who was always watching about the Tre● not to keep the Man and Woman from eating ● it, but to solicit and tempt them by all means 〈◊〉 do it. What they add of Herculeses staying 〈◊〉 Dragon, is an addition of their own Fancies, 〈◊〉 must always be expected in their representing 〈◊〉 these Stories, (as I have intimated before:) 〈◊〉 the Issue was, that the Golden Fruit was stolen a●●● that is, in plain Terms, our Parents did eat of 〈◊〉 Forbidden Fruit. This was a downright Stea●● or Robbery; for it was taking away that whi●● was not their own, and which they were strict●● commanded not to take away. Thus Paradise 〈◊〉 removed by the Poets out of Asia into Africa, 〈◊〉 whatever Place it was where the Hesperides 〈◊〉 their Garden. This Fiction of theirs was ma●● out of Genesis, which speaks of the Garden 〈◊〉 Eden, of the Serpent, and of the Forbidden Fr●●● which were the occasions of Man's being tempt●● and deceived. Whence it is clear that the 〈◊〉 Poets, Philosophers and Sages among the Heath●●● were not ignorant of the very things which Mo●●● the Inspired Writer gives us an account of. 〈◊〉 the first Transgression of Man, and the Orig●● of it; the Depravation of Mankind, and the ●●●serable Consequences and Effects of it, as the C●●sing of the Earth, and the Barrenness which e●s●●● upon it, with the Infirmities and Diseases that M●● Bodies were thereupon incident to, are to be 〈◊〉 described in the Writings of those Pagans, esp●●●●ally of that 
* Ovid Metamorph. lib. 1.  Renowned Poet before mention●● who was so thoroughly skilled in all the Pagan T●●●ology. And this proves what I designed, that 〈◊〉 most considerable Passages of the Sacred Hist●● of the Bible are asserted by the Writers among the Gentiles.  
IV. From the Fall of Man till after the Confusion and Dispersion at Babel, there are many considerable things spoken of by Pagans, which they could not have any notice of but from the Old Testament. Enoch's being taken up by God (together with the Translation of Elias afterwards) gave occasion to the Stories of their Heroes being Translated; of Astrea and others leaving the World, and ascending to Heaven alive, and being turned into Stars and Celestial Signs: as also the Apotheosis among the Gentiles might be founded on this. Again, the Testimony of the Pagans concerning the Long Lives of the People of the first Age of the World, was plainly, without any Disguise, taken from the Sacred History. All that have committed unto writing the Antiquities either of the Greeks or Barbarians, attest this Longevity of the Men before the Flood, saith 
* Antiqu. I. 1. c. 4.  josephus. And immediately he subjoins: Manetho the Egyptian Writer, Berosus the Chaldean, Mochus, Hestiaeus, jerom the Egyptian, who have treated of the Egyptian Affairs, agree with us in this. Also Hesiod, with Hecat●us, Hellanicus and Acusilaus, Ephorus and Nicolas, tell us that those People of old lived a thousand Years. Which is a Confirmation of the Truth of what we read so often in Moses' Account of the first People of the World, viz. that they commonly lived seven, eight, or nine hundred Years. The Greek and Latin Poets relate likewise that there were Giants in the first times of the World: which most probably was borrowed from Gen. 6. 4. where Moses▪ speaking of the Times before the Flood, tells us that there were Nephilim, Giants in the Earth in th●●● Days. And from what is said in the same Vers●▪ The Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Me● and they bare Children to them, arose the Fiction 〈◊〉 Orpheus, Hesiod, and other Greek Poets, that the●● Heroes were partly the Race of Gods; that t●● Giants were the Sons of Heaven and Earth; that is, according to the plain and intelligible Language of Scripture, they sprang from the Sons of God an● the Daughters of Men. This I verily think is the Foundation of what Poetic Writers tell us concerning the old Heroes especially, viz. that they were the By-blows of the Gods; that they were begot by some Deity upon a Woman, or were the Product of some Goddess and a Man.  
To proceed. Berosus the Chaldean Priest and Historian, relates how wicked and debauched the Old World was, how Noah told them of it, and of their approaching Ruin by the Universal Flood, which is the next thing to be spoken of. The Fame and Memory of this Deluge, and of Noah's Ar●, were among the Pagans everywhere. Not only the fore●aid Berosus (quoted by 
* Cont. Appion, I. 1.  josephus), but Nicolaus Damascenus (quoted by the same 
† Antiqu. Jud. I. 1. c. 4.  A●●hor), Abydenus the Assyrian (cited by 
‖ Praepar. Evang. l. 9  Eusebius), Alexander Polyhistor, Melo, Hieronymus Egypti●●, Apollodorus, and all the Barbarian Historians, as josephus saith, i. e. according to his way of speaking, all the Pagan Historians have made mention of Noah's Flood. If the Credit of these Writers now named be called in question, (as I confess they are by some) there is abundant mention of that Flood, and of several Circumstances belonging to it, in others, whose Writings are not suspected. In Lucian's Dea Syria are most of the Particulars which are recorded in the sixth and seventh Chapters of Genesis concerning that Deluge: as first, the Natural Cause of it, the excessive Rain or Fall of Waters from Heaven, and the opening of the Fountains below: then the Moral Cause of it, the Corruption and Wickedness of the World. The People at that time kept not their Oaths, entertained not Strangers, were hardhearted to those who were in Distress; they were every ways vicious and profligate, and thereby merited this great Judgement. Next, there is mentioned the Preservation of Noah and his Family, with the Manner of their being preserved, namely by sheltering themselves in a Great Ark; and thus he and his Wife and Children were reserved for a Second Generation. This befell Noah because of his great Prudence and singular Piety, as this Author adds. With him entered into the Ark two of every sort of Animals; and being shut up in that safe Custody, they all sailed together without any Harm, nay with a great Friendship and Concord. Lastly, Noah's erecting an Altar after he came out of the Ark, is expressly taken notice of. These are the things, saith he, which the Greeks relate out of their Archives of the Flood. All which you will find to be like the Narrative of Moses, only Deucalion is put instead of Noah. 
* De solert. animal.  Plutarch (another credible Writer) speaks of the sending of the Dove out of the Ark, as a sign of the abating of the Flood, or rather to discover whether the Waters were decreased: and he adds, that it returned 〈◊〉 to the Ark again. But this Author, as well as t●● former, disguiseth Noah under the Name of deucalion, it being the usual way of the Grecians 〈◊〉 affix new Names to Persons. From the Do●● bringing an Olive-branch, we find in all Age's 〈◊〉 this hath been ever the Symbol of Peace and 〈◊〉 cord, of Agreement and Friendship. 
* Lib. 30. cap. 36. & lib. 29. c. 16.  Livy 〈◊〉 us it was so among the Carthaginians, and am●● the Greeks. 
† Hist. lib. 3.  Polybius saith it was the same am●● the most Barbarous Nations: for when 〈◊〉 was passing the Alps, those People came and 〈◊〉 him with Olive-branches in their Hands; 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  T● (as he subjoins) being a Badge and Sign of Friendship among all those Barbarous People. Whe● more probably was this derived than from the ●●story of the Flood, written by Moses? From th● same Authentic Narrative we learn that ●●●sent forth a Raven (and that first of all indeed) out of the Ark; but it seems to be said that he returned not again, Gen. 8. 7. to which the following Fable of the ●aven or Crow seems to relat●● 
* Aelian. Hist. ●. 1. c. 47.  Apollo was pleased once upon a time to employ this Bird on an Errand, and send him out to fi●● fresh Water, and fetch it to him; but he returned not till after the time that Figs were ripe: an● he stayed, and sat on a certain Tree which he sp●●● till they ripened. 
† 
Immemor imperii sedisse sub arbore ●ertar,  
Dum fierent tardà dulcia poma morà.  Fast. l. 2.  Ovid tells us it was an Appletree: and others (as Aelian reports) say 〈◊〉 Messenger of Apollo made no ●aste, because he 〈◊〉 the Corn very fair, though not yet fit for Harve●● and this tempted him to neglect his Master's Com●●nds, and not mind what he sent him about: for which Apollo turned him into such a Black Bird as 〈◊〉 is. The Main of this Fable is the thing we are to look after, and that is, that the Crow was sent abroad to find and discover Water, and that he returned not again. This seems to be taken from the Sacred Story, even that of Noah's sending forth the Raven, or Crow, to discover the Fall or Increase of the Waters of the Deluge. To this purpose perhaps is that which 
* Servius.  one saith is observed of the Crows by the Ancients, that they are Forgetful Creatures, and oftentimes return not to their Nests. See this more fully illustrated and proved by a Learned Critic of this last Age, 
† De Corvo q●em ex arc● e●●i●t Noe.  Monsieur Rochart. Thus there are both plain and obscure Passages in Heathen Writers, which keep up the Memory of the Flood, and of several remarkable things which attend it. Only they have corrupted the True History, and the Chronology of it, by confounding the Names of Noah and Deucalion. Yea, they tell us of Ogyges' Flood (as well as that of Deucalion) which was in the time of Ogyges' King of At●ica, when Inachus reigned among the Argives, which was about the time of Abraham; and so they place it about five hundred Years after Noah's Flood, A. M. 2140. but others ●ay it was six hundred Years after it. This Ogygian Flood drowned the Country about Athens and Achaia in Peloponnesus: whereas the latter, viz. Deucalion's Flood, (which was in Greece likewise) happened in Thessaly where Deucalion reigned; and it drowned that Country, and some part of Italy; Deucation and his Wife Pyrrha securing themselves at the same time in a Vessel, and at 〈◊〉 landed safely on Parnassus. This some tell us 〈◊〉 about three hundred, others say four hundre● Years after the Flood in Ogyges' time. But th●● some have placed these Two Floods at such a di●stance from one another, and consequently hav● made them two distinct ones, yet others confounded them together, and make them one and the same And it is most probable that they were so, an that both have reference to Noah's Flood: for nothing is more usual with the Fabulous Poets, tha● to split one Story into two or more, and to confound the Truth with different and disguised Names. There is reason to believe that Ogyge● and Deucalion were but feigned Names of Noah▪ and that the Flood which is said to have happened in their days, was but a Representation of the Universal Deluge in Noah's time; and that Ararat, or Caucasus, is to be understood by Parnassus. They that know how common it is with the Greek Poets to alter the Names of Persons and Places, and to substitute others in their room, will not be backward to credit this. But it is easy to see thro' their Poetical Fictions and Disguises, and particularly here, that they had a notice of the History of the Flood, which the Holy Scripture hath given us a plain and true Account of. I might here observe what 
* Metamorph. lib. 1.  Ovid saith concerning Deucalion and his Wife, viz. that as soon as the Deluge ceased, they betook themselves to their Devotions, and solemnly worshipped the Gods: which questionless refers to what the Sacred Story relates, that 
† Gen. 8. 20. 21.  Noah erected an Altar (the first that we read of) to sacrifice to God, and to praise him for his Deliverance out of the raging Deluge. And I might observe here (in order to what I shall prove afterwards) that Parnassus, the place on which Deuca●●●● Ark rested, was a Mountain 
* Macrob. Saturn. l. l. c. 18.  dedicated to Bacchus, where he had his Rites performed to him: whence by the by it may be gathered, that Noah (who is the same with Deucalion) and Bacchus were the same Persons, which I shall make good in another place.  
It might be made appear from other Particulars, that the Tradition concerning Noah, the Flood, and the Ark, which was derived from the Holy Scriptures, hath been spread abroad among the Pagans. 
† Oedyp. Egypt.  Kircher thinks that Nisroch, 2 Kings 19 37. Isa. 37. 38. is as much as Numen Arcae, the Ark-Deity or Idol, and was the Image of No●●'s Ark, worshipped among the Assyrians. It may be it was an Idol in the shape of a Boat or Ship, and made perhaps of the Relics of the Ark. I could mention that janus, said to be the most ancient King of Italy, coined Money which had on it the Figure of a Ship: which it is very likely refers to the Matter in hand. The Impress of the Ship is a Memorial of the Ark, which was so noted among the Ancients: and janus is Noah, as you shall hear afterwards. We may plainly discern likewise, in another Name given to Noah by the Poetic Writers, how there is preserved the remembrance of the chief and most notable things which are recorded of him. He was called Prometheus, (not but that this same Name may be applied to some others; for this too must be observed, that the Greek Poets set forth different Persons by the same Name, as sometimes one Person by different Names, as you shall see in the quel of this Discourse;) he was, I say, called 〈◊〉 metheus by the Greek Poets: for according to th● description of this Person you cannot but ackno●●ledg, that Noah was covertly meant by him. F●● (1.) It is said the Flood was in Prometheus' ti●● which none will deny agrees to Noah. (2.) P●●● metheus is said to have repaired and restored Mankind: which is another plain Parallel, and nee● not to be insisted upon. (3.) Prometheus is said 〈◊〉 be the Son of japetus, i. e. of japheth: and it i 〈◊〉 no wonder that the Names of Father and Son an● confounded by the Poets. That they have hit s● near the Historical Truth, is a thing that is worthy of our Consideration. (4.) Even where th● Fiction runs higher, we still see some Footsteps 〈◊〉 Truth. They feign that Prometheus was by Iu●●ter's Order chained to Caucasus, where an Eagle, some say a Vulture, feeds upon his Entrails. Here is, according to the usual Mistake of the rambling Poets, one thing put for another: Mount Caucas●● is put for Mount Ararat, or the Gordiaean Hills, 〈◊〉 which Noah's Ark rested. And one Fowl is p●● for another: they change the Raven and Dove into an Eagle or Vulture. And as to the being chained and fed upon, that is purely Poetic Invention, and is not to be regarded. (5.) Prometheus had his Name from his excellent Wisdom and Foresight. This exactly agrees with Noah, he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. one that is wise before the Evil comes. Being warned of God, he foresaw the General Destruction which was approaching; and by preparing an Ark, he preserved himself and his Family from it. Judge now whether Noah was not the Heathen Prometheus, and whether this and other such Fables among the Gentiles had not their first rise from the History of the Bible. Berosus in his Chaldean Antiquities, speaks of Noah's three Sons; though it is true he adds others, as Tethys, Typhaeus, etc. japheth, one of his undoubted Sons, (whom only I shall mention at present) he is often mentioned among the Old Grecians; who refer their Original to japetus, or japhetus, making him the ancientest Man: thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas and Hesychius. Thus among the Pagans we find unquestionable Monuments of the Truth of the Bible.  
The next remarkable thing after the Flood, was the Attempting to build the Tower of Babel: and this is not omitted in Pagan Records. Berosus' Chaldee History mentions it, but with such Additions as these, (if I may call them Additions, seeing they have some kind of ground in the Sacred Story) That it was built by Giants, and those Giants were 
* Perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gigas, is a Corruption of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terrigena; so Giants are expressed, Prov. 9 18. where Rephaim is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Terrae filii, out of the Earth; and that they waged War against the Gods, and were at last dispersed, and that the Building was quite beaten down by a great Wind. The Erecting of this Tower of Babel is mentioned by Hestiaeus, and by one of the Sibyls, saith josephus in his 
† Lib. 1. cap. 5.  Antiquities; and by Abydenus and Eupolemus, as Eusebius testifieth in his Evangelical Preparation. It is likely that Belus' Tower, mentioned by Herodotus, is the Tower of Babel. That it was made of Brick and Slime, as you read in Gen. 11. 3. is attested by justin, Q. Curtius, Vitruvius, and others; for what these Writers say of the Walls of Babylon, is applicable to that. And as for the Poets, the History of the Babel-Builders is turned by them into t●● Fable of the Titans, whom they feign to ha●● heaped Mountain upon Mountain, to scale Heaven, and fight the Gods; and by name they m●●●tion 
* 
— Tum partu terra ne●ando  
Eoumque Japetumque create, saevumque Typhoen,  
Et conjuratos coelum rescindere ●ratres.  Ovid.  japheth, one of Noah's Sons, as a dough● Giant among them, (for they picked up any Na●● that they had by Tradition, and clapped it in Homer tells us they cast up three Hills on one ●●nother, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Odyss. ●  Ossa on Olympus, and shady Pelion 〈◊〉 Ossa, hoping thereby to make their way to t●● Heavens: but this proved successless, and the bo●● Invaders were scattered and broken by Thunder from jupiter. All this Grecian Fable of the Theomachy of the Giants, was derived from what the History of Moses relates in Gen. 11. 3, etc. that Nimrod, a great Hunter, a Giantlike Man, with his sturdy Fellows, attempted to build a City and Tower, whose Top should reach up to Heaven; which the Pagans interpreted to be Defying of the Gods, and making War with them. And truly they did not come short of the true Meaning of their grand Design; which was to defy Heaven, and to exalt and magnify themselves: Though I grant it was Hyperbolically spoken when they said, Let 〈◊〉 build us a City and Tower to reach up to Heaven; for they could not dream of performing this in reality, because they knew the Height of the late Flood (which lifted up the Ark fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains) was short of Heaven: besides, they would not have built on the Plain, (as they did) but on the highest Hills, if they had had any such Project in their Heads. Nor was it to be a Refuge from the Waters of another Flood; for they had God's Word for it that no such 〈◊〉 should ever be again, Gen. 9 15. But their Design is plainly set down, chap. 11. ver. 4. Let us make us a Name, lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole Earth; i. e. Let us go about this Work, that we may have here a Place to six in; that by erecting this vast City and Tower, we may have room enough, and live together in one Body; and make our Lusts our only Law, and act as we please, without the Control of others: and that afterward, when by reason of our great Numbers, and Increase, we must be forced to remove, we may by this famous Monument be known; and when we leave this World, we may hereby purchase a Name in future Ages, and even survive after Death. Thus their Intentions and Erterprises were profane and impious, and no less than an arrogant Contempt of God. But some of the Poet's interpreting the foresaid Words in a gross Manner, as if those daring Sinners did actually scale the Heavens, have presented us with their Conceits upon this remarkable Occurrence; but as to the main, it must be acknowledged that they confirm the Truth of the Sacred History. And even this last Particular, the making them a Name, seems to be transcribed into the Fable, when they tell us, that after the Giants, who were begot of the Earth, had fought the Gods, their Mother Earth (being incensed at the Defeat of her Sons) brought forth Fame: This was the Giants last Sister, according to that of the Poet; 
Illam terra parens irâ irritata Deorum,  
Extremam (ut perhibent) Caeo Encelad●que sororem  
Progenuit.  We read that when these Builders were hot 〈◊〉 their Work, God on a sudden defeated their Projects by confounding their Language, v. 7. and thereby scattered them abroad from thence upon the face 〈◊〉 all the Earth, v. 8. Of which Confusion or 〈◊〉 of Languages, there is this Remembrance 〈◊〉 the Greek Tongue, That in it Men are call●● 
*— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Iliad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉: which Epithet was given them, 〈◊〉 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eustath. in loc.  Eustathius, on the account of the Division 〈◊〉 Tongues which the World suffered at Babel; 〈◊〉 this (saith he) was the common Opinion of t●● ancient Christians. Then, as to the Division of 〈◊〉 Earth among the Sons of Noah, set down in the 〈◊〉 Chapter of Genesis, it is not to be doubted 〈◊〉 the Fiction of dividing the World among 〈◊〉 Brethren, the Sons of Saturn, was taken from 〈◊〉 So that there are some Remainders and Foot 〈◊〉 of the Sacred Truth to be observed, which way 〈◊〉 ever you look. This I might further show in t●● Account which Moses' History gives of the 〈◊〉 Plantations, upon the Division of the Earth among Noah's Sons, as in the Posterity of javan, whe●●● were the javans, or Greeks, called 〈…〉 But because I shall afterward have an occasion 〈◊〉 speak of this, namely, when I treat of the P●●fection of Scripture, showing it to be the most Ancient and Complete History in the World, I wi●● defer it till then, and at the same time let you 〈◊〉 that the Mosaic History gives us the best Account of those First Planters; and also that in several 〈◊〉 those Names, are to be read the Names of Coquetries and Nations, which we meet with in Pag●● Authors.   

CHAP. IU.  
Several things relating to the Patriarch Abraham, the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, the History of Joseph, the Pass-over, the Conducting the Israelites through the Red-Sea, their Travels in the Wilderness, the Brazen Serpent, attested by Heathens. An Enquiry into the rise of the Report concerning the jews worshipping an Ass' Head, and also their worshipping of Clouds.  
BEtween the Confusion of Tongues, and the Giving of the Law by Moses, there are many observable Passages in the Old Testament, which are also taken notice of, and attested (though in an obscure and oblique Manner) by Pagan Writers. The great Patriarch Abraham, is mentioned by Berosus, Heeataeus, Nicolas Damascenus, Eupolemus, Alex. Polyhistor, as josephus and Eusebius acquaint us in their Writings before named. The wise Men of Gr●●●● ask their Gods whence the Knowledge of Arts came, received this Answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where by the Chaldean it is not unlikely was meant Abraham, who was the great Father of Knowledge and Wisdom, and of whose Race were so many Wise and Learned Persons. In the name of this great Man, the Heathens used to perform their Conjurations and Magical Exploits: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, were words usually pronounced in their Charms and Spells, saith Origen. Nay, 
* Contra Cels. lib. 4.  he tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so frequently repeated in the Old Testament, gave occasion to the Pagans to think Abraham was some God. I find also that the Pagan Writings make mention of the same, or the like Custom that this Patriarch used ● making of Covenants, viz. the cutting or dividing of one or more Animals into two parts, and passing between them. Thus in Gen. 15. 9 when God made a Covenant with him, he commanded him to divide a Heifer, a Goat, and a Ram into pieces, and to pass between them. Whence afterward this Ceremony was made use of when a League or Covenant was entered into between Man and Man: and the Parties did as it were declare by that Action, that they wished to be cut asunder in that manner as the Beasts were, if they broke the Covenant which they made. Of this Custo● you likewise read in 1 Sam. 11. 7. jer. 34. 18, 19 And to this perhaps belongs what is recorded in Gen. 21. 28. Abraham took Sheep and Ox●●, and gave them unto Abimelech, (viz. to be dissected and divided, according to the foresaid Usage, and that in order to Sacrifice) and both of them made ● Covenant. Which gave rise to the like Practice among the Pagans when they were to make solemn Agreements and Covenants. 
* Lib. 2, & 5.  Dictys Cretensis relates this Custom used by the Grecians and Trojans in the time of the War between them. From 
† L. 40. c. 6.  Livy and 
‖ L. 10. c. 6.  Curtius we learn tha● the People of Macedon and Boeotia did the like, cutting a Dog in pieces. 
* In Tox●●i.  Lucian hath something concerning the Scythians to this purpose: and Suidas tells us this was the Federal Usage of the Molo●si. Thus these Gentiles borrowed their Way of Covenanting from the old Patriarches. It is not improbable that Abraham's Feasting the Angels, yea, the Son of God himself, (Gen. 18. 8.) gave occasion to the Poets to speak of the Gods being feasted by Mortals, as they tell us of Philemon and Baucis, their entertaining of jupiter and Mercury; which is but a corrupt Representation of Abraham and Sarah's Treating their Heavenly Guests. And here I might add, that from this and other Instances in the Old Testament, of the frequent and visible Appearing of God and Angels unto Men, as to Isaac, jacob, Moses, Gideon, Manoah, and several others; and from their assuming of Bodies of Humane Shape in order to that, there arose a Notion among the Pagans, that their Gods forsooth vouchsafed sometimes to come down and visit them in the likeness of Mortals. Thence Homer and other Poets so commonly talk of the Apparition of the Gods in sensible Shapes, and bring them in after that manner. Thence it was that the People of Lystra, in the lesser Asia, cried out that the Gods were come down to them in the likeness of Men, (Acts 14. 12.) and upon this Apprehension, they were preparing to offer Sacrifice to them, and had got the Priests ready with their Oxen and Garlands for that end. Nay, thence it was that some of the Poets made those mad Fables of the strange Metamorphosis of their Gods: as how Apollo took on him the Shape of a Hawk, of a Lion, and of a Shepherd; how Bacchus appeared like a Grape for Erigones sake; how Neptune changed himself into a Flying Horse for Medusa's Love, and into a Steer, a Ram, a Dolphin for others: How jupiter turned himself into a Shower of Gold (the most powerful Courtship) for Danae, into a Bull for Europa, into a Swan for Leda, into an Eagle for Ganymede, into a Satyr for Antiope, into a Flame for Aegina; besides other scandalous Transformations: yea, even 〈◊〉 len Saturn became a prancing Steed for 〈◊〉 the Daughter of Oceanus. All which wild and frolic Conceits of the Poetic Tribe concerning their Gods transfiguring themselves, and maki●● themselves visible in several Shapes and Fashion had their first foundation in those forementio●● Instances recorded in the Old Testament; wh●●● without doubt were known to the Neighbouring Nations, and were transmitted as wonder●●● things to others that were next to them. We are not to attend to the extravagant Addition which the hothead Poets made to the True Relations: But we are to observe the main thing o● which these fanciful Superstructures are built. They seem to me to be founded on the Holy Scripture; they seem to be borrowed from what we r●●● there, viz. that Angels, those Godlike Spirits, transformed themselves into Humane Likeness, and frequently visited and conversed with M●● here on Earth. This Sacred Truth lies veiled 〈◊〉 those Fabulous Histories; and though they 〈◊〉 added many things to it, viz. new and incredible Circumstances, yet we have no reason to disbelieve the Substance of the History because of t●●●● Additions.  
Again, Sacrificing of Men, especially of 〈◊〉 Sons, which some Pagan Stories relate, might h●●● its original from Abraham. It is recorded by 〈◊〉 phyrius, saith 
* Praepar. Evangel. l. 1. c. 9  Eusebius, that Saturnus an anti●●● King of Phoenicia, that he might appease the G●●● and save his Kingdom from imminent Danger, 〈◊〉 divert Evil and Ruin from his Country, offered his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Only Son on an Altar. This Saturn is the Ancient Patriarch Abraham, and his only Son is Isa●●; and Phoenicia was mistaken for Palestine. 〈◊〉 (saith Plutarch in his Life) was bid in a Vision to sacrifice a Virgin; but it so happened that a Mare-Colt came running through the Camp, whilst they were disputing whether the Vision should be obeyed, and by the advice of the Augur was taken and sacrificed instead of a Virgin. I only propound this; May we not conceive that this was done in imitation of what they had heard by Tradition, that when Isaac was to be offered, a Ram came in the way, and was sacrificed instead of the pious Youth destined to that Slaughter? And several other considerable Passages relating to the Patriarches, might be collected out of the Writings and Practices of the Heathens of old: but I proceed to other Matter.  
The History of the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is expressly attested by Abydenus and Nic. Damascenus, (as you will find in 
† De Verit. Christ. Relig.  Grotius, for that Learned Man disdains not their Testimony) and by more Authentic Authors, as Diodo●us Siculus, Strabo, Solinus, Tacitus, Pliny, who have preserved the Memory of this terrible Judgement of God on those Cities. All these Profane Writers testify that those Places were destroyed by Fire. But Solinus and Tacitus say it was particularly by Thunder and Lightning. And Strabo insinuates they were swallowed up by Subterraneous Fires breaking forth, and causing an Earthquake at the same time. They might be destroyed by ●oth these: for the latter is probable from this, that Eruptions, both of Fire and of Water, generally attend great Earthquakes: and we know that the Lake Asphalties was produced at th●● time; which shows that the Earth opened herself whence gushed out an Inundation of Water, th●● is here stagnated, and become a filthy Lake. And we are sure they were destroyed by the former, because the Sacred Writ, whence those Author took their Story, testifies as much: for I conce●● that is denoted by the raining of Fire and Brimst●● from the Lord out of Heaven, Gen. 19 24. Showers of Liquid Sulphur, (which by the by I guess came to have its Name at first among the Greeks from this so noted Accident; Sulphur was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, q●●òd à Deo sit, because it was from the Lord out of Heaven) continued Showers, I say, of this sulphureous Matter, accompanied the terrible Lightnings and Thunderclaps: and by this means Lot's Wise beoame a Pillar of Salt, ver. 26. i. e. being thus struck with Thunder and Lightning, her Body presently became Hard as a Statue. This sometimes is the Product of those dreadful Meteors: Thunder (say both Seneca and Cardan) makes the Bodies of those who are struck with it, Stiff and immovable. This was the surprising Effect upon this poor Woman: She turned her Head towards the smoking City, to see that strange Spectacle; and behold! she became a more wonderful Sight herself. 
— Stetit ipsa Sepulchrum,  
Ips●que Imago sibi.—  She became her own Monument and Statue; she stands a Pillar of Salt, of lasting and durable Remembrance, not only in the Sense that we read of a Covenant of Salt; Numb. 18. 9 i e. firm and perpetual, but in the most literal Sense, a Pillar of Real Salt, (into which her Body was turned by virtue of the Sulphureous Vapours and Steams) which dissolves not, but is so hard that it may serve even for Building; of which 
* Nat. Hist. l. 31. c. 7.  Pliny speaks. Therefore Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and the two ancient Christian Poets Prudentius and Sedulius, deliver it as their Opinion, that this Unhappy Woman was converted into a Mass or Solid Body of Hardened Salt, such as the Mineral one is. This being so remarkable a thing, it could not but be snatched up by the Inquisitive Poets among the Greeks; and accordingly they tell us of Niobe's being turned into a Stone for her refractory Contempt of some Goddess' Commands. This Fable, as may be conjectured, was taken from Lot's Wife turned into a hard, and as 'twere stony Pillar, for her disbelieving the threatenings of God to the Sodomites, and for despising the express Command of Angels, who bid her not look hehind her, ver. 17. And (now we are upon conjecturing) what think you of the Fable of Orpheus' Wife, his dear Eurydice? To fetch her back again to Life, he went to Hell; here he persuaded Pluto to give him her again, but upon this condition, that he should not look back to her all the while she was coming. But it seems the kind Man turned to look on his Wife as she was following him: whereupon she was remanded back to Hell. Here seems to be an Allusion to Lot's Wife, and to her looking back, and to the sad Effect of it. Orpheus is Lot, Eurydice is his Wife, Sodom is Hell, and the Fire and Brimstone there are a sufficient reason of that Appellation. But there is a changing of the 〈◊〉 in the Man's looking back instead of the Wo●●●● and in adding a great deal of other Poetic S●●● besides; which is either to fill up the Fable, or ● disguise the True Story, which is common am●● the Pagans, as hath been observed before. 〈◊〉 Wife turned into a Saline Pillar, was remaining ● 
* Antiqu. l. 15. c. 19  Iosephus's time, if he may be credited: and ● do not know any reason to the contrary. T●● we are certain of, upon the Faith even of Prof● History, that the Sulphureous Lake of Asp●altites ●●●mained in Strabo's, and afterwards in Pliny and 〈◊〉 citus' time, a Monument of the Divine Vengea●●● upon the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; God turtling those fruitful and pleasant Places into a sti●●●ing and almost poisonous Lake: which is parti●●●larly taken notice of by those and other Historians, who mention how bad the Fruits are th● grow about that Lake, and therein verify what ● referred to in Deut. 32. 32. Their Vine is of the V● of Sodom, and of the Field of Gomorrah. Whi●● is a further Proof to us of the Truth of the Holy Scripture, concerning the burning of Sodom and the neighbouring Cities.  
I proceed. It is not unlikely that the Vailing of the Bride in use among the Pagans, was tak●● from the ancient Usage of the Patriarches; for we read in Gen. 24. 65. that Rebekah was brought to Isaac covered with a Veil. Whence among the ●ews Marriage had the Name of Chupphah, from Chi●phah to cover. And hence this modest Practice passed into other Countries; and we are told by credible Authors, that among the Greeks and Romans the Wife was brought to the Husband Veiled. Some think that the Custom mentioned among ● Heathens, of erecting Stones and Pillars, came ● from Iacob's taking a Stone, and setting it up ● Pillar, Gen. 28. 18. and 35. 14. Yea, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lapides Boetulici, in use a●●●g them, had their Name from Bethel, the place where jacob erected the Stone. joseph Sca●● (that incomparable Critic) shows how they ●●●●mbled one another, these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being Con●● Stones, erected by the Pagans for some Ho●●. Purpose and Religious Remembrances. They ●●ed to anoint these Stones: wherefore such a one 〈◊〉 is called by 
* Contr. Gent. l. 1.  Arnobius, lubricatus Lapis, & ex●●● unguine irrigatus; and by 
† Strom. 7.  Clemens Alexan●●●●us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which confirms the former No●●on, that these were borrowed from that at Be●●; for it is expressly said, that jacob poured Oil upon the Top of it, Gen. 28. 18. Let it be queried whether the Gentile Custom of anointing Stones used for Landmarks, (of which Herodotus and others speak) was not grounded on the same Practice of the Patriarches.  
Some have thought the Sacred History's relating that Iacob's Sons came out of his Thigh, (for so it is according to the Hebrew in Gen. 46. 26.) gave occasion to the Fable, that Bacchus was born of Jove's Thigh: for though, according to the Idiom of the Eastern Speech, that Phrase [to come out of his Thigh] signifies no more than to be born of him, or to be his Son; yet the Greeks not understanding the Oriental manner of speaking, mistook the Place, and made a Fable out of it. There are two very 
‖ Mr. Mede, Mons. Bochart.  Learned Men who approve of this, and therefore I thought good to mention it; but I ● confess I look upon it only as an ingenious Fa●●● and therefore I am not ready to press this eq●● with some of the other Particulars I have off●● before.  
It will not seem improbable, I suppose, that ● Practice among the Heathens of closing or shut● the Eyes of the dying Person, and this by one ● was the most beloved of him, was derived 〈◊〉 Gen. 46. 4. Joseph shall put his Hand upon thine E●●● Accordingly we find this last Office of Friend●● spoken of in Homer, and other ancient Writ● both Greek and Latin.  
The Gentile Story of Busiris' sacrificing of 〈◊〉, hath a very solid Foundation; for we 〈◊〉 easily perceive that this arose from the true 〈◊〉 unquestionable History in Exodus, where we 〈◊〉 of a New King over Egypt, who set over the Is●●lites Taskmasters, to afflict them with their Burd●●● and who made their Lives bitter with hard Bond●● Exod. 1. 11, 14. and this was He that made 〈◊〉 Edict of drowning the Hebrew Children, ver. 22● This great Oppressor of Israel was that Bus●● whom the Gentiles speak of as a noted Tyrant 〈◊〉 Egypt; and several agree that that was his t●●● Name. The Israelites, who came out of Cana● into Egypt, were the Strangers, and are truly called so. The sacrificing of them is the cruel a●● bloody handling of them. That Egyptian Oppressor and Tyrant might rightly be said to sacrifice his Strangers, when he used the poor Hebr●● so inhumanely.  
Ioseph's Great Fortunes and Noble Acts in Egy● are celebrated by professed Historians, as well as Poets, among the Pagans; and therefore I need not mention these latter. And of the former s●●● is sufficient to name justin, who acquaints us that joseph was the youngest of his Brethren, and ● his excellent Wit and Parts were dreaded by 〈◊〉; which very thing moved them to sell him ●to Egypt, where in a short time he became a ●at Favourite of the King. He goes on and tells That this Brave Man was very skilful in doing Wonders, and was the first that found out the Meaning and Interpretation of Dreams. The Scarcity or Dearth which happened to Egypt, he foresaw many Years before it came. That Land had perished, if the King had not by his Advice laid up Corn in store. He was a kind of Divine Oracle, and consulted by the World, because of his infinite Sagacity, his transcendent Knowledge and Wisdom. Any 〈◊〉 that hath read the Sacred History, may see ●●at this Character was borrowed thence. And it ●s a very notable and illustrious Confirmation of the Truth of the Mosaic History, and in that of the whole Sacred Scripture. 
* Minimus inter fratres aetat● Josephus fuit, cujus excellens ingenium fratres veriti clam interceptum peregrin●● mercato●●bus vendiderunt. Hist. l. 36. c. 2.   
Next, I will mention this, that the Annual Custom of the Egyptians (which 
† In Haere●i Nazaraeorum.  Epiphanius speaks of) of marking their Trees and their Flocks with something of a Red Colour, as a kind of Preservative against any Harm and Mischief that might befall them, was from the Israelites Practice of old in Egypt, when they sprinkled the Lintels and Pos●s of the Doors with Blood, Exod. 12. 22. which preserved them from the last and worst Plague which befell the Egyptians. In remembrance of this, o● rather in a superstitious Imitation of it, the People of Egypt afterward set a red Mark on their Ho●● and Goods: And that this Custom was borrow thence, will appear the more probable by 〈◊〉dering that this was done by them at the entr● of the Vernal Equinox, as Epiphanius relates, w●●●● was the very time (as we learn from Exod. 12. ● when the Israelites distinguished their Houses that Bloody Token. Again, I might offer it ● enquired into by the Learned, whether the ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sacrifices for Passing, which we●● use among the Grecians, especially the Laced● nians, and are mentioned by Xenophon, Thucy●● and Plutarch, be not an Imitation of, or an A 〈◊〉 sion unto the famous Jewish Pesach, which is ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, transitus, the Pass-over, viz. when the ● stroying Angel passed over the Israelites Ho● and did the Inhabitants of them no harm. Mi●●●● not this give occasion first to those Grecian ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Passover-Sacrifices, especially considered that that Jewish Feast is called not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo, Cyril of Alexandria, ●● gory Nazianzen, and others?  
The Conducting of the Children of Israel ● of Egypt, and their miraculous Passing through 〈◊〉 Red-Sea, and the overthrow of the Egyptians ● it, could not but be famous among the Pag● though they endeavoured to stifle, or at least● mince it: whereof 
* Hist. lib. 30.  justin only tells us that t●● King of Egypt followed the Jews when they 〈◊〉 Egypt, but was forced to return back by reason ● a great Tempest which arose of a sudden. T●● Fame of Moses' dividing the Red-Sea, was kept ● among the Gentiles; as 
† Lib. 3.  D●odorus Siculus witn●●●seth: There is, saith he, a Report spread among the Ichthyophagi, a People inhabiting the Shore near the Arabian Gulf, (which is 〈◊〉 Name given to the Red-Sea among Geographers) namely, that all that Place where that Gulf is, was dried up, the Waters flying back: but after the Bottom had appeared for some time, the Place, by a reflux of the Sea, was ●●rn'd into its former Condition. So he. And ●●●●in he gives a most remarkable Testimony to ● Truth of those words in Exod. 14. 21. The 〈◊〉 caused the Sea to go back, and made the Sea dry 〈◊〉, and the Waters were divided; and in v. 27, ●▪ The Sea returned to its Strength, and the Waters ●red the Host of Pharaoh. It seems the Ichthyoid handed this Report to the Historian, not the Egyptians; though he had Converse with these a long time, and they had Correspondence with the ●yophagi: but the Egyptians were so cunning 〈◊〉 to conceal their Disgrace and Misfortune: and hence it is that there is so little said among the Pagans concerning this matter.  
As to the Red-Sea itself, Mare Erythr●um, there is in that Name a Remembrance of a known Person spoken of in the Old Testament, viz. Esau. For as to what hath been said by some, that this Sea had its Name from its Red Colour, proves an arrant Falsehood. Coral at the bottom of it, which some talk of, is not red enough to give it such a Colour. And the Weed which grows in it, whence 'tis called jam Suph, Mare algosum, (as junius and Tremellius always render it) or Mare junci, (as others, as if it were the Rush or Reed-Sea) cannot give it the Denomination of Red, because (whatever some say of this weedy Stuff at the bottom of it) the Water of this Sea is of the same Colour with other Seas, as all Travellers attest. Yea, though that be true which hath been lately 〈◊〉 gested by some inquisitive Persons, that this W●●● called Suph is a kind of Saffron, of which when 〈◊〉 taken out of the Sea, is made a red Colour call● Sufo by the Ethiopians, used for dying Cloth 〈◊〉 India and Ethiopia; yet seeing the Sea itself is 〈◊〉 died with it, but retains the Colour of other S●●● I cannot think it is called the Red merely beca●● of that Weed or Sedg used by Dyers. Oth● have said it hath this Epithet, because the Sto●● Cliffs, Banks, and Sands of it, by Reflection a● Repercussion of the Sun's Rays, give such a T●● cture or Colour to the Waters: but this also 〈◊〉 a mere Fancy, and hath been confuted by tho●● who have purposely writ of this Particular S●● (viz. that Part of the Ocean on the East whi●● strikes in with a Bay into the Arabian Shores, a●● parts Asia from Africa in those Places;) and ● those who have seen it, and tell us it differs not fro● other Seas. In brief, all impartial Writers agr●● that it can't be called so from its Red Colour, because it hath nothing of that to be seen in it. Why then did the Learned Seventy Elders of the Jews translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Red-Sea? The Reasons we may conceive to be these; because, first, the Hebrew word Suph gave some occasion for it, it being (as I said before) that kind of Seaweed which was used in dying of Cloth with a red Colour, and so may be translated red; as murex is purple, because murex is that Shell- 〈◊〉 of the Liquor whereof Purple is made. But the chief, and indeed the only proper Reason (for the other was but an Occasion) of this Version of the Seventy, is this, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath reference to One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Red, and this was no other than Edom or Esau; for in express words the Scripture saith, Esau is Edom, Gen. 36. 1. ●ow Edom in Hebrew is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ● Greek; whence Philostratus saith, Mare Ery●aeum was called so from Erythras: with whom ●gree Strabo, Curtius, and other Historians, who relate that it was named so from Erythraeus, a King of that Country, or Coast, where this Sea is. This ●rythras, or Erythraeus, was Esau, who was called Edom, (it signifying the very same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉); ●●d that for these two Reasons, (both which are ●●●igned in Scripture, and therefore we cannot ●●●stion the Truth of them); First, Because he ●as ruddy at his Nativity, he came out red, Gen. 25. 25. whence you read in the same Verse that ●e had his Name. Secondly, Because he was an excessive Admirer and Lover of Red Pottage: thus ●●is expressly said in the 30th verse, Therefore his Name was called Edom, because he was so eager 〈◊〉 be fed with that red Broth. This Edom gave Denomination to the Land where he was great and ●●led, and accordingly it was called the Land of Edom, Num. 21. 4. and is so in other places: and the Sea adjoining to this Land, received its Name from him too; therefore you find them both joined together in this place in the Book of Numbers, They journied by the way of the Red-Sea to compass the Land of Edom. As we know Seas are denominated from the Persons and People they belong to; as the British, the Germane, the Indian, the Ethiopian Sea; so it is here, the Red-Sea hath its name from Edom, (who is Esau) i. e. Red; who by the Greeks was accordingly styled Erythras or Erythraean, which signifies the same. Thus these Pagan Nomenclators have left us some Remains of Sacred History in this and other Names that they have imposed upon Persons and Things.  
The coming forth of the Israelites from E●● is attested by Berosus, Strabo, Numenius, and 〈◊〉 The last of these (whom we have quoted b●● as a substantial Witness to the Verity of the 〈◊〉 saick History) tells us, that 
* Dux exulum factus sacra Egyptiorum furto abstulit.  Moses, who led ● People out of Egypt, stole from the Natives of 〈◊〉 Country some of their sacred things: which any 〈◊〉 may see is founded upon what we read in E 〈…〉 31. 21. & 12. 25. They went not out empty, 〈◊〉 took with them Vessels of Gold and Silver, and G●●● ments. It is expressly attested by the same P 〈…〉 Historian, that the Jews travelled in the De●●●● of Arabia, and that Moses came to Mount Si●●● with other things relating to their Travels thro●●● that Place. All which are Authentic Evide●●● of the Truth of Scripture-History.  

† Lib. 2. cap. 75.  Herodotus' Relation of the fiery Flying-Serp●●● in Arabia, is a Confirmation of what we meet wi●● in Numb. 21. 6. where we are told that the Isr●●● elites were stung and tormented with Fiery serpent's in their Passage through the Wilderness As to the Brazen Serpent, mentioned in the sa●● Chapter, whereby the Israelites were healed, is may be no far-fetched Imagination to think th●● the Magical Images and Sculptures among th● Heathens, especially the Egyptians, which t●● Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Arabians (〈…〉 ruptly from the Greek) Talisman, were Imitations on's of this. They were certainly for the sa●● purpose, viz. to avert Evil and Mischief from P●●●●sons: therefore Gaffarel thinks these Talisman we●● the same with the Averrunci, among the old Romans: and some of the old Hebrew Doctors ha●● 〈◊〉 them the name of Scuta Davidis, on the same ●●ount. It is not improbable that the Images of 〈◊〉 and Mice, which the Philistian Magicians 〈◊〉 use of, were from the same Original, and 〈◊〉 the first and earliest Emulations of the Ne 〈◊〉 For as to what 
* Pandect. Turc. cap. 130.  Leunclavius saith con●●●ning the later Invention of the Talismans', viz. 〈◊〉 they were not till Apollonius Tyanaeus' time, 〈◊〉 that he was the Inventor of them, is founded ●●olly on their being called 
† Respons. ad Orthodox.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by justin Martyr; which (supposing 〈◊〉 wise the Author, out of whom he took it, not 〈◊〉 be spurious) imports only this, that they were ●●●pared and used by him, not that they were his ●vention. Some tell us that the Telesmatical egure of a Stork or Scorpion, made under a certain Configuration of the Heavens, hath driven ●way Storks and Scorpions, just as the Figure and similitude of a Serpent drove away the venomous ●iery Serpents, and cured those that were stung 〈◊〉 them. But I need not stay here to show the ●ast Dissimilitude between the one and the other: ●●r the Brazen Serpent, set up by Moses, was not a ●elesme, i. e. a Statue or Figure that hath its ●ower and Efficacy from the Influence of the Stars, ●●d the Shape of the Thing itself. It cured not 〈◊〉 Art or Nature, but by Divine Institution. It ●as erected by the immediate Appointment and Direction of God himself, and was moreover a Type and Representation of the Cruci●ied Jesus. ●●t the Telesmatical Images among the Pagans ●ere made on purpose to take the Influence of ●●e particular Stars, and operated (as they said) 〈◊〉 virtue of the Likeness of the Figures to the Things themselves. We may more truly say they were acted by some Evil Daemons that desig●●● both to amuse and deceive the World, and 〈◊〉 make these Telesmatical Preparations service●●●● (as generally they were) to superstitious and idolatrous Ends. But that which I am chiefly to ●●●serve here, is this, that it is probable these T●●mans of the Pagans were derived at first from th● Brazen Serpent. This is certain, that many of the●● Magical Rites were founded on the Religious Practices and Ceremonies which the Jews by God● Order observed.  
Some have thought that the Report among 〈◊〉 Pagans (which Plutarch, Tacitus, Apion mention) of the jews worshipping of Asses, had its Origin●● from what we read in the Old Testament, an● particularly from something which happened 〈◊〉 the Wilderness, (which makes me mention it in th●● place) viz. their worshipping a Calf, which is a sorry vile Creature as well as an Ass; and so the●● might be a Mistake of one for the other, as ha●● been usual in Reports of this nature. And what is said by Tacitus concerning the Asses, may be applied to the Calf, viz. 
* Effigiem animalis quo monstrante errorem s●timque d●●●●●rant penetrali sacraverunt. Hist. lib. 5.  that a Herd of the● showed the Israelites the Way to a Fountain, where they quenched their Thirst in the Wilderness▪ and thence the Effigies of the Animal, which mo●● particularly did them that Favour, was worshipp'● by them. Now this easily agrees to the Gol●● Calf: for the holy Book acquaints us that the israelites in the wide Wilderness were Wandere●● and Thirsty; wherefore they desired a Guide ● lead them, and Water to quench their Thir● Accordingly the Calf was designed by them to be t●●●r Conduct in their Journey: This would find ●●t Springs of Water, and lead them to it; this would be their Oracle, and standing Testimony of God's Presence with them. Hereupon therefore 〈◊〉 imagine the reproachful Imputation laid upon the Jews of adoring an Ass, had its Rise, there being only a Mistake of one Animal for another. And truly that is Mistake sufficient here, since we are able to give an account of this reproachful ●aunt, without substituting one Animal in the place of another. But before we do so, let us (seeing we are fallen into this Subject) take notice what other Opinions there are concerning this ancient Report of the jews worshipping an Ass. There are (besides that which I have named) several Apprehensions of the Learned about it. Some think that there being in Palestine a great many Asses, and those of very great account, for their very Princes rid on that sort of Animals, thence the Pagans, who hated that People, feigned that they worshipped their Asses. And a poor Fiction indeed it had been, if 'twere on that account: for if they had not rid upon them, but have kept them ●p, they might rather thence have gathered that they paid an Adoration to them. But I suppose few Readers will believe there is any Ground here, and therefore I let this pass. 
* N. Fuller. Miscellan▪  Another very busy Critic guesses this Report to have risen from Gen. 36. 24. This is that Anah that found the Mules ●he reads it eth hajamim, the Waters) in the Wilder●ss, as he fed the Asses of his Father Zibeon. Whence, ●●●th he, the Pagans tell us that Moses found out Waters by help of the Asses which he fed; and thence Asses were honoured. But neither is the●● here any Ground for such an Inference: for 〈◊〉, there is no probability that the Gentiles took notice of such an obscure Place of Scripture as 〈◊〉 2dly, Anah and Moses are here confounded: 〈◊〉 j●mim is put for jemim; And lastly, the wh● Sense and Import of the Text are perverted: 〈◊〉 Anah is mentioned in this place with Infamy, 〈◊〉 the Words are to be understood thus, This is Anah who was the first that caused and provok●● Horses to engender with She-Asses; whence a new Species against Nature is begot into the World● this is that base Man, of an incestuous Fancy, 〈◊〉 Inventor of this unnatural Brood of Animals. This I take to be the meaning of those words, 〈◊〉 is that Anah that found out the Mules in the Wilderness. There is 
* Tanaquil Faber. Epist. 6.  another Author who thinks th●● Pagan Fable is founded on an Allusion to a Word, as thus, A Jewish Temple was built in Egypt (〈◊〉 imitation of that at jerusalem) by Onias a Highpriest, as 
† Antiqu. Jud. l. 13. c. 6. & De bello Jud. l. 7.  josephus relates: now, the word 〈◊〉 being akin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Alexandrines and some merry Greeks, who hated the Jews, thought they were facetious, when they said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Ass, was worshipped in the Temple of the Jews. But here is contained nothing of the Circumstances (as the finding a Place of Water, and quenching their Th●●●, etc.) belonging to the Fable: besides that, a M●●● and an Ass are unhappily confounded by this Author. Briefly, this is a mere Strain of Fancy, an● can never find acceptance among Persons of 〈◊〉 and composed Thoughts. There is yet another Opinion which I have met with somewhere, viz. that the Gentiles thought the Jews worshipped an Ass because of that Law in Exod. 34. 20. concerning the redeeming the firstborn of an Ass. This Animal being exempted from Sacrifice, when Calves and Lambs and Kids were not, it might seem to be some excellent thing, and therefore was worshipped. But according to this way of inferring, the Pagans might have reported that the Jews worshipped a Dog, there being a particular Prohibition against offering it in Sacrifice. Besides, this Account (like that before mentioned) hath not any of the Circumstances with which the Fable is clothed in Pagan Writers, as that it was an Ass' Head that was worshipped, and that by means of it a Spring of Water was found out, etc. which we ought particularly to consider when we are giving an account of this Pagan Taunt against the Jews.  
Lastly then, to offer a Conjecture of my own, I am strongly inclined to think this Calumny of the Heathens against the Jews arose from the History of Samson, in which is particular mention of the jawbone of an Ass, and of the strange things done by it, judg. 15. 15, 16. Samson (as you shall hear anon) was famous among the Pagans, his Actions were noted and celebrated among them. And this particular Action and Exploit of the jawbone, wherewith he slew a thousand Men, being singular and wonderful, was well known to them; especially it came to be famous and talked of, when there was this surprising Miracle added to it, that when Samson was exceedingly tormented with Thirst, and like to die for want of something to quench it, God clavae a hollow Place that was in the jaw, and there came Water thereout; and when he had drunk, his Spirit came again, and he revived, ver. 18, 19 Here was the jawbone of an Ass, which was a considerable part of the Head of an Ass. The minding of this gave the first occasion to me to think that the Tradition among the Pagans was taken from this: for if you consult those Writers who make mention of it, you will find the Report was, that the Jews worshipped the Head of an Ass. So we read in a 
* Appion contr. Jud.  virulent Writer against the Jews, that that particular Part, and no other, was set up in the Temple of jerusalem, and Religiously venerated by that People; and that Antiochus took it down, and carried it away with him, (it being of Gold, as he would make us believe, and therefore worth the carrying) when he rifled the Temple▪ Minutius Felix takes notice of this particular Reproach of the Christians, (for you must know to a Heathen a jew and a Christian were the same; for the first Christians being Jews by Birth, the same Calumny was fixed on both) that they adored the 
† Turpissimae pecudis capur. ● Octavio.  Head of that most vile Beast. Which also Petronius 
‖ In Catalectis.  Arbiter testifies in those words; 
Iud●●us licèt & porcinum numen adoret,  
Et coeli sum●ias advocet auriculas.  From the first Verse it appears that the Gentiles thought the Jews worshipped Swine, perhaps because they abstained from eating their Flesh; for among the Gentiles, what they did not eat, was generally worshipped. And in the next Verse there is is a mistake of coeli for cilli, i. e. asini, (as some Critics have well observed) for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Doric word for an Ass: so that as before the Poet chargeth the Jews with worshipping of Swine, so here he alludes to that flying Story among the Pagans, that that Nation reverenced an Ass' Head; for auriculae is put here for caput, which could not stand in the Verse; the prominent and most conspicuous Parts of the Head are put for the Head itself. And if they worshipped the Ears, because a part of the Head, than they paid the same Honour to the Cheeks, to the Jaws, and to the Jawbone, which is a more solid Part. None of the Authors of the foregoing Opinions have attended to this, that it was the Head of an Ass, (not an Ass in general) that was said to be worshipped by the Jews; and thence arose their Mistakes. Let it 〈◊〉 be noted therefore, that this was the scurrilous Reflection of the Pagans on the Jews, that they gave Religious Honour to the Head of an Ass: and let it be observed at the same time, that it was an Ass' Head which Samson found, and so bravely managed, though it was one particular Part of it, viz. the jawbone, with which he did execution on his Enemies. Wherefore I offer it as a probable Assertion, that the Report concerning the Jewish People reverencing of an Ass' Head, took its rise from that prodigious Exploit of Samson, that strange Execution which he did with the jawbone of an Ass. This gave occasion to the Israelites to extol and magnify that marvellous Weapon, and at the same time the Providence of God in administering such an unexpected Engine to him, and enabling him to do such great things with it. The neighbouring Gentiles soon heard of this, and spread abroad this Rumour, that the Hebrews celebrated and worshipped the Ass' Head or Jaw; and it is likely they thought they really did so, because they themselves used to make any thing the Object of their Adoration: or because an Ass 〈◊〉 a contemptible Creature, they said this as a 〈◊〉 to the Jews, And then if you remember the 〈◊〉 son which is assigned by the foresaid Histori● 〈◊〉 why they worshipped an Ass, you will be forth confirmed in this Notion which I now tend● The Reason, as you have heard, was because t● Creature▪ (as they said) was instrumental in 〈◊〉 out a Fountain of Water, whereby they all●y● their Thirst in the Desert. They worshipped an 〈◊〉 saith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Symp●  Plutarch, because it directed them to a Sp● of Water. Which excellently agrees with 〈◊〉 the Inspired History tells us, that there was a 〈◊〉 Place in the jaw, whence Water came forth; 〈◊〉 therewith Samson quenched his Thirst. This 〈◊〉 the Pagan Story parallel with this in the Book 〈◊〉 judges, from whence it is most probable they 〈◊〉 borrowed it. And whereas 'tis said by some 〈◊〉 the forecited Authors, that this was done in t●● Wilderness, they may be well excused herein; 〈◊〉 it is only a mistake of the Place: (Yet by the by 〈◊〉 is a Pagan Confirmation that the Israelites 〈◊〉 once in the Wilderness, according as the Scripture relateth: yea and what Tacitus adds further concerning the Jews at that time, viz. 
† Nihil aeque quam inopia aq●ae satigabat. Hist. l. 5.  their want of Water in the Wilderness, one of the most remark-able things that happened to that People in their Travels, is yet a greater Proof and Confirmation of the Reality of the Sacred History.) I could add, that this happened not long after this People had been come out of the Wilderness, and so the● was no great mis-timing of the Story. Th●, whereas 'tis said by the Historian last named, 〈◊〉 th● J●ws dedicated this Animal to their Temple, 〈◊〉 is added perhaps of his own Head, which is 〈◊〉 ●●common Practice among the Gentiles, (as well Historians as Poets) when they are relating things concerning those whom they have no Kind●●ss for. This is the best Account I am able to give of this Gentile Tradition, which was of so ancient ● Date: for I question not but that the 
* Contr. Appion. l. 2.  Jewish Writer was overseen, when he saith Appion the Grammarian of Alexandria, was the first that raised this Lie. And Monsieur Bochart talks as vainly, when he tells us, that Appion had the occasion of this Fable from the mistake of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pi jao, (the Mouth, or Word of the Lord;) for 〈◊〉, asinus, in the Egyptian Tongue; for Appion, forsooth, was an Egyptian, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was anciently read jao. Supposing this latter to be true, yet ●e could not learn hence that an Ass' Head was placed in the Jewish Temple, and afterward removed by Antiochus. Wherefore I see no Dependence or Connection between these things, and consequently this great Critics Notion may be looked upon as groundless, as any one that is conversant in that ingenious Man's Writings, knows there are many such. The short is; we must take this old Obloquy against the Jews as it is represented by the Pagan Writers (with whom we have to do at present) with its proper Circumstances: and if we do so, I conceive we cannot refer it to any Passage in the Old Testament so pertinently as to this which I have propounded. If I am not mistaken, this ancient Calumny is derived from that part of the History of Samson which I have mentioned; which shows the Antiquity and Authority of the Sacred Writings, and that the scr●●pture-History is the Ground of the most of the globulous Passages and Reports in the Writings of 〈◊〉 Heathens.  
I could mention here also, that the Jews we● accused of Pagan Writers to have worshipped 〈◊〉 Clouds and the Heavens. 
* Juvenal. Sat. 14.  Nil praeter Nubes & Coeli numen adorant. Which the Satirist speaks of the Jews. A● 
† Lib. 16.  Strabo reports the same. Some have thought that the Coelicolae, the Heaven-worshippers, mentioned in that Title of the 
‖ Lib. 1. in Pa●atit. ad tit. 5.  Codex, De Iudaeis 〈◊〉 Coelicolis, hath relation to this Matter: but I thin● it is evident from the Title itself, that the Ie● and Coelicolae were not the same, but two different sort of People; else it would not have been [Of the jews and Coelicolae], but [of the jews or Coelicolae.] Moreover, he that looks into the 
* Lib. 16. Tit. 8.  Theodosian Code, from whence justinian took this, will be convinced that the Jews are not meant by Coelicolae; for there they are said to be an unheard-of Name, and a new Crime: whereas they had that Name in Augustus' time, according to Strabo. There have been different Opinions concerning the rise of this Pagan Contumely, viz. that the jews adored the Heavens and the Clouds. Some think it commenced from the superstitious and idolatrous Practice of that People in worshipping the Host of Heaven, as we read they did. But I cannot assent to this, because 'tis unreasonable to imagine that the Pagans would jeer the Jews for that ●hich they visibly practised themselves. Others ●ay this arose from the Devotion of the Jews, who used to look up towards Heaven when they made their Prayers to God. But this was in common to them with the Pagan Worshippers, who naturally had this Posture of Devotion, and cast up their Eyes, and spread out their Hands towards Heaven: therefore this could not be the occasion of this Imputation. But there is another Opinion which I find most applauded, and it is this, that this Obloquy of the Heathens proceeded from their mistaking the use of the word Shamajim, Heavens among the Hebrews, and even in the Scripture itself, where sometimes it signifies God himself. This is the Conjecture of the Learned 
* De D●s Syr. Syntag. 2. cap. 17.  Mr. Selden: hence, saith he, the Gentiles inferred that the Jews made Heaven a Deity. But I apprehend this Inference could not be made by them, because Shamajim is used in this sense but in one place in the Old Testament, viz. in Dan. 4. 26. the Heavens do rule, where the Heaven's import God himself. But I can't believe that the Pagans thought the Jews were Worshippers of the Heavens, because in this one single place, and no where else, God is called Heaven. And though I grant the Jewish Rabbis used the word Shamajim thus, making God and the Heavens Synonymous in some places of their Writings, yet they do it no where so as there might be occasion for this Mistake.  
Having thus told you what I conceive did not give rise to this Pagan Accusation, I will acquaint you what I take to be the true and only occasion of it. Here than you must observe that that which is the chief thing in the Jeer, is, that the Clouds were worshipped; Nil praeter Nubes, etc. 〈◊〉 adoring of these the Raillery arises, and the 〈◊〉 are but mentioned by the by, as being 〈◊〉 Place where these Clouds are. This being pr●●sed, I offer it as a probable Assertion, that 〈◊〉 Piece of Pagan Raillery was borrowed from 〈◊〉 we often read in Moses' History, that God led 〈◊〉 Israelites in their Journey from Egypt, and thro● the Wilderness, by a 
* Exod. 13. 21. Numb. 14. 14.  Cloud that went be● them. To this they often looked up; the Conduct of this they daily attended to with gr● Reverence: the Report of which, occasioned t● Charge of the Pagans against the Jews, that the● were Cloud-Worshippers. This is undeniable, 〈◊〉 that miraculous Leading of that People by a 〈◊〉 could not but be very famous among the Neighbouring Gentiles, who soon communicated 〈◊〉 news of it to others that were about them; and 〈◊〉 this Report came to be frequent in the Mouths 〈◊〉 most Pagans. And truly when they related th● the Cloud was adored by the Jews, they were 〈◊〉 mistaken; for it was no other than the Symbol 〈◊〉 God's Presence: it was a secondary and remo● Object of their Reverence and Devotion, as the Ark, and more especially the Mercy-Seat was. Only here they showed their gross Ignorance in concluding that if the Jews worshipped one Cloud, they might as well pay the same Respect to another, yea to all: whence we are told by the Poet that they worshipped nothing else but Clouds. Though truly I am willing to take this Author i● another Sense, and I will go yet further, and offer this to be considered, viz. whether the wonderful Fire, as well as the Cloud, which went before the Israelites in their Travels, be not here mentioned by this Poet, seeing Farnaby in his Notes, and others before him, acquaint us that this Verse in some Copies is read thus; Nil praeter Nubes, & Coeli lumen adorant. Where by Nubes we understand (as I have said before) the Pillar of the Cloud which was the Israelites Guide in the Daytime, and by Coeli lumen the Pillar of Fire or Light which conducted them in the Night. It is very likely that this latter reading of the Verse is the truest, and accordingly you have a plain and obvious Account of what we undertook to inquire into, viz. the Cloud which the Jews were said to worship, and of something more, namely, the Light of Heaven which this Writer saith they showed the same regard to; which is no other, I conceive, than that Fiery Pillar which continually appeared to the Israelites in the Night, and directed them in their way: and 'tis most appositely here called Coeli lumen, the Light of Heaven, according to the very stile of the Old Testament, where 'tis styled a Light of Fire, Psal. 7●. 14. and where we are informed it was set up in the Heavens on purpose by God to give them Light, Exod. 13. 21. This, I say, is the plain Account of this Poetic Passage, and I do not see any Objection that lies against it. Wherefore I take it to be as notable a Testimony as any we have ●rom the Pagan Writers of the Truth of the Mosaic History, and other Records of the Old Testament.   

CHAP. V.  
From the Writings and Practices of Strangers it is dividend that there were such Jewish Usages and C●●remonies as these, viz. The Observation of 〈◊〉 Seventh Day: Washings and Purifications: Pa●ing of First-fruits and Tithes: Abstaining from certain kinds of Food: Peculiar Garments for th● Priests: Bearing the Tabernacle and Ark: T● High-Priest's going once a Year into the Holy of H●lies: Sacrifices, with several things that belonged to them: The Mercy-Seat and Oracle: The Urim a●● Thummin: the Scape-Goat: the Water of jealousy: the Feast of Tabernacles: Nazaritism: Unleavened Bread: Circumcision: the Law of Cherem: Lots: Cities of Refuge: New-Moons: jubilee▪ Mysteries and Types. Ample Testimonies out of Profane Authors are added concerning Moses.  
VI THe Mosaic Ceremonies, and the prevailing of them (as very ancient) are vouched by the very Practice of the Pagan World. To instance in some, (for it would be too tedious to mention all) and first in the dividing of Time into Weeks or Seven Days, and the observing a Seventh Day as sacred: thus Hesiod called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Seventh Holy Day, because among the Gentiles this was a Day of Solemn Worship, set apart for Religious Offices. It is observed by 
* In Alexand. Severo.  Lampridi● of Severus the Emperor, that he used to go to the ●pitol, and frequent the Temples on this Day. Yea, the very word Sabbath was used by some of them: thus 
* In Tiberio, cap. 32.  Suetonius saith, Diogenes the Grammarian used to hold Disputations at Rhodes on the Sabbaths. And from 
† In Pseudolog.  Lucian, we learn that the Seventh Day was a Festival, and a Playday for Schoolboys. From these, and several other Instances which we may find in 
‖ Strom. l. 5.  Clemens Alexandrinus and 
* Praepar. Evang.  Eusebius, it might be proved that the more Solemn Services of Religion among the Gentiles, and their Cessations from Work, were on the Seventh Day of the Week. Now, no wise Man will assert that this Custom was founded on Nature; for no Light of Reason could dictate this Division of Days into just seven, and no more: therefore 'tis reasonable to think that the general Agreement of the World in this Arithmetic, was derived from the Jews, who were particularly signalised by their Observation of the Seventh-Day, which was enjoined them by God himself, as in Exod. 20. 9 Six Days shalt thou labour, and do all thy Work; but the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: In it thou shalt not do any Work, etc. And in other places the Institution and Observation of this Particular Day are mentioned. Or, I might have traced the Original of this yet higher, and found it dated from the very Creation, from the beginning of all things, when we read of God's resting on the Seventh Day, Gen. 2. 2. and his Blessing the Seventh Day, and Sanctifying it, v. 3. From whence, without doubt, the Custom among several Gentiles of observing some Seventh Day in the Week, had its first rise.  
Again, the Gentiles took their several 〈◊〉, Lustrations, and Purifications from the 〈◊〉 of which the Books of Moses treat. When 〈◊〉 Contents of these Writings, or the Practice of 〈◊〉 Jewish People came to be known to the Pa● they presently set themselves to imitate them, 〈◊〉 most of the Washings and Purifying used by 〈◊〉 Jews, came to be part of their Religion. The Jews Priests washed their Hands and Feet before th● went about their Sacred Office, before they sa●●ficed and touched Holy Things: and they had 〈◊〉 the Temple Lavers for that very purpose. Likewise they used Aspersion toward others, and we● enjoined to cleanse and purify them from th● Defilements which they had contracted. In a wo● every Thing and Person belonging to the Jews Service and Worship were hallowed and cleans 〈◊〉 by certain ways of Purification prescribed by 〈◊〉 Law. Hence we read of frequent Washings 〈◊〉 Sprinkling among the Pagans: 

* Virg. Aen. 6.  Idem ter socios purâ circumtulit undâ,  
Spargens rore levi, & ramo felicis olivae,  
Lustravitque viros.  And 
† Constat Diis superis sacra factarum corporis ablutione purgari: cum vero inferis litandum est satis 〈◊〉 si aspersio sol● contingat. Saturn. l. 3. c. 1.  Macrobius assures us that the Gentile De●tionists, when ever they addressed themselves 〈◊〉 their Gods, whether Celestial or Infernal, prepared themselves beforehand by using of Wat●● more or less. Hence it became a Maxim amo● them, that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. Halicarn. l. 7.  all Sacred Things must be sprinkled wi●● pure Water. And they had Vessels for this purpose▪ which contained that Consecrated Element. It might be proved from good Authors (as you may see in the Learned Dr. Spencer) that they for the most part sprinkled the Worshippers as they went into their Temples. The truth is, these Rites of Washing and Purifying, which were used both by jews and Gentiles, are so like one another, that we cannot but conclude either the Gentiles took them from the Jews, or these from them. The latter is in no wise probable, because it is unworthy of God, and of the Religion which he instituted among the Jews, to imagine that he would take Example from the Pagans, and make their Religion the Standard of that which he gave to his own People, (though it is true the Jews often imitated the Pagans in their Customs and Rites, but ne●er by the Command and Order of God, but absolutely against it:) therefore the former is most likely and reasonable, viz. that the Pagans in way of Imitation took their Ceremonies of Washing and Lustration from the Jews. The same Argument may be used in all the Particulars which we shall mention afterwards under this Head: by this we may prove that those Ceremonious Observances, commanded the Jews, were not originally from the Gentiles, but first of all were enjoined by the True God. But concerning these Purifications which we are now speaking of, see what was the judgement of justin Martyr of old; who producing the Prophet Isaiah's words, Wash ye, make ye ●●an, chap. 1. ver. 16. and commenting upon ●hem, adds this, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Apol. 2.  When the Devils heard of this Washing, spoken of by the Prophet, they caused this to be the effect of it, namely, whenever they go into their Temples, or approach near them, or are about to be employed in their Sacrifices and Offerings, they sprinkle Water 〈◊〉 themselves. This Learned Father was clearly of the Opinion that this Rite of Aspersion whic● the Gentiles used, was stolen from the Jewi●● Church, and not that this stole them from the Heathens. With whom agrees a late Learned Antiquary, who, speaking of the particular Mosaic Lustrations, or Purgations used by the Jewi●● Priests, viz. of Washing themselves before they entered into the Temple, saith thus, 
* Mr. sheringham in Cod. Jom. cap. 2●.  This kind of Purgation was taken from the Jews by the People of other Nations, who when they entry into their Temples, had their Lustrations and Rites of Washing in Imitation of the Jews.  
Thirdly, The Gentile Custom of offering First●fruits and Tenths was borrowed from the Jews, and the Old Testament. That it was a general Usage among the Pagan Worshippers to offer their First-fruits to some of their Deities, is amply testified by 
† De die Natal. 〈◊〉.  Censorinus. And that the Custom of paying Tithes was as general and ancient, might be proved from the respective Histories which speak of this Matter. This was a considerable Part of the old Romans Religion, who (as Plutarch writes) were wont to bestow a tenth Part of the Fruits which the Earth yielded them, and of other Goods and Profits, on their Sacred Feasts, Sacrifices and Temples, in honour of the Gods: but this was not every Year, or by any compulsive Law, but freely and out of Gratitude. He tells us that Camil● faithfully paid to Apollo the Tenth of his Boot● and Spoils taken from the Enemy; and that Lucullu● grew rich because he religiously practised that laudable Custom of paying Tithes to Hercules. That the Greeks also paid Tithes, appears from that Dictate of the Oracle to them,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and from that Delphic Inscription, 
* In Aeneid. 8▪  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: From whence Apollo was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Among the Persians also this Custom prevailed; for Cyrus (as Herodotus saith) offered Tithes to jupiter after a Victory obtained. And this might easily be proved of other Nations: it was grown into an universal and fixed Custom to offer the Tenths to some God or Goddess, post rem bene gestam, as 
* In Aeneid. 8▪  Servius speaks, after any considerable Success either at home or abroad. Insomuch, that at last it came to be an indispensible Part of the Gentile Religion; and thence (as Suidas observes) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks, was as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consecrare. Now this Sacred and Religious Rite of Dedicating just a tenth Part to their Gods, is no Law of Nature. Though this might put them upon offering part of their Increase to those from whom they thought they received the whole, yet this particular Quota is no Dictate of Nature. They were not bid by the Law of exact Reason to consecrate the Tithe of all to the Gods. It is as reasonable and accountable to give a ninth or eleventh Part to them as the Tenth: Therefore this must proceed from some positive Law and particular Institution. And hence I gather that the Pagans received this Rite and Custom from the jews, who were under a Law of Tithes by the special Command of God, as the Scripture informs us. And though a late 
* Dr. Spencer, de Leg. Hebr.  Author of great Learning, reckons Tithes to have had their Rise from the Pagan World, yet he cannot but be sensible that the contrary is universally embraced by the Learned. Selden particularly proves that the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and others, who were near Neighbours to the Jews, received that Custom from the Jewish Nation; and that afterwards it was transmitted from those neighbouring Heathens to others farther off, as the Greeks, Romans, etc. Or, if it could be found that some Heathens before the Jewish Dispensation offered Tithes, we might reasonably assert that some of the Patriarches before the Law gave occasion to the Heathens to do so. But this can no where be found; but on the contrary, the ancientest Instance of giving Tithes is that of Abraham: we read that after a great Victory he devoted the Tithes of all the Spoils to the Priest of the most High God. From this and the like Practice, the offering of Tithes among the Heathens took its beginning.  
Fourthly, Abstaining from certain kinds of Fo● among the Jews, caused (it is probable) the sam● Custom among other Nations. The Distinction 〈◊〉 Clean and unclean Meats was derived from the Jews to the Egyptians: thus 
† Lib. 2.  Herodotus and 
‖ Sympos. l. ●●  Plutarch report that these eat no Swine's Flesh; yea▪ if they do but touch it, they wash themselves. S● it is related concerning the Phoenicians, Cretian● and Syrians, that they abstained from this sort 〈◊〉 Flesh. These last also eat neither Fish nor Pigeons▪ Some of the Greek Philosophers observed this Difference of Meats very strictly, as Diogenes, Pythagoras, Apollonius, Tyanaeus; as Laertius, Plutarch and Philostratus assure us. The Old Pythagoreans abstained from several kinds of Food, especially they refrained from eating of Fish. What God tacitly forbade in Sacrifices, as the Brain and the Heart, (for neither of these are commanded to be sacrificed unto God) those Philosophers openly forbade at their Tables. And they derived from the Hebrews their not eating things that died of themselves, or that had Blood in them. In many other Usages it might be showed that the Pythagorean Way was an Imitation of Judaisme.  
Fifthly, The Heathen Priests Garments were in imitation of those which the Jewish Priests wore. The Pagan Pontiffs wore a Mitre on their Heads, as 
* Lib. 3.  Philostratus testifies: and a White Vest, or Linen Ephod, was the usual Apparel of their Priests in their Holy Service, as 
† Lib. 1. cap. 1.  Valerius Maximus and others inform us. A worthy 
‖ De Legib. Hebraeorum.  Writer before mentioned, asserts that the Priests Vestments of Linen were a Ceremony taken from the Egyptians, and quotes Authors to prove that the Egyptian Priests used such a sort of Vesture. But it is more probable that the Egyptians and other Nations had it from the Jews. I am not singular in this: it was the Sense of the Ancients (as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. 192. ] Photius intimates) that the Worshippers of Idols, in imitation of God's Priests, clothed theirs with a peculiar sort of Garments, which were after the fashion of the Ephod. With which agrees the Learned 
‖ In Comm. in Act. 7. 43.  Bochart: The Egyptians (saith he) being in many things followers of the Jews, permitted their Priests to wear no other Vestments but Linen ones. And again in the same Place he saith, Plutarch doth greatly philosophise concerning the Linen Garments which the Egyptians wore, but more subtilely th●n solidly, he being ignorant that many Rites and Usages of this nature were derived from the Jews to the Egyptians. And 
† Demonst. Evang.  Huetius is positive in this Notion, saying, The Priests of Is●, i. e. the Egyptian Priests, wore Linen, and therein imitated the Linen Garments of the Hebrew Priests.  
Sixthly, The carrying of the Heathen Gods in little Tabernacles, Tents, or portable Temples, (as you read of the Tabernacle of Moloch, Amos 5. 25. and Acts 7. 43.) was taken from the Jews carrying the Ark, which was the Symbol of God's Presence. So 
‖ In Comm. in Act. 7. 43.  Gaspar Sanctius: The Tabernacle (saith he) of Moloch was a certain Bier on which Moloch was carried about in solemn Pomp; whom the Jews, after the fashion of the Gentiles, carried with them, whithersoever they went, in a Religious Manner, and for Protection-sake, making him the Companion and Guide of their Travels: even as the Jews of old (observe that) carried the Ark, and in it the Divine Oracle, through the Wilderness. Thus Dr. 
* De animal. Sacr. Pars 1. lib. 2.  Godwin: The bearing or taking up of this Tabernacle ●ay seem to have its Original among the Heathens from an unwarrantable Imitation of Moses' Tabernacle, which was nothing else but a portable 
‖‖ Mos. & Aaron. l. 4. c. 2.  Temple, to be carried from place to place as need required: For (as he goes on) it cannot be denied that many Superstitions were derived unto the Heathen from the true Worship of God which he himself had prescribed unto his People. But the worthy Author aforecited is of another Opinion, telling us, That the Tabernacle of Moloch was the first Original of tho Tabernacle of God. God saw that the Pagans took up on their Shoulders the Tabernacle of Moloch, and thereupon made a Tabernacle for himself, and an Ark to be born upon Shoulders. Thus he. And if you would see the Parallel between Moloch's Tabernacles and God's Tabernacle, take it from that Learned Pen thus: 
* De Legibus Hebraeorum, Lib. 3. cap. 3. Dissertat. 1.  Moloch's Tabernacle was portable; therefore God's was so. Moloch's Tabernacle contained in it his Image: so the Tabernacle of Testimony had in it the Ark, and a pair of Images, viz. the Cherubims. In Moloch's Idolatrous Temple Moloch showed himself present by his Image, and by giving Answers thence: Accordingly in the Jewish Tabernacle the True God inhabited, and exhibited frequently a sensible Testimony of his Presence. The Idolatrous Tabernacle was called the Tabernacle of Moloch, i. e. the King: Semblably the Mosaic Tabernacle was accounted and held to be the Palace and Mansion of the Highest King, i. e. God. The Tabernacle dedicated to Moloch, represented the Sun placed in its Celestial Tabernacle: In imitation of this, Moses' Tabernacle was a Representation of the Heavens and the Stars, and the whole World. Seeing the Learned Author was pleased to publish this Parallel to the World, I hope it is no Offence to repeat it here, and with submission to so accomplished a Person, to deliver my Thoughts freely of it. He will not permit it to be said, that the Devil apes the Almighty: this he discards and brands as a 
* Lib. 3. cap. 2.  Vulgar Error. But I crave leave to ask this Question, Is not this more tolerable, yea more credible, than to say that the Cursed Fiend is imitated by God himself? Can we think that the True God is so careful and precise in following the Idolatrous Gentiles? Can we believe that he so exactly emulated every Point of Idolatry belonging to Moloch's Tabernacle? Surely this cannot be thought worthy of that Alwise Being, this cannot be consistent with what we read of him. Wherefore let us consult the Place in Amos; Have ye offered unto me Sacrifices and Offerings in the Wilderness, forty Years, O House of Israel? But ye have born the Tabernacle of your Moloch, and Chiun your Images, the Star of your God which ye made to yourselves; chap. 5. 25, 26. Here God reproves and upbraids the Israelites for their gross Idolatry, and particularly for bearing the Tabernacle of Moloch. Whatever Disputes there be about other things in these Words, this is undeniable, and beyond all Controversy, that bearing the Tabernacle of Moloch was a piece of Idolatrous Service, it being opposed here to offering Sacrifices and Offerings unto God. With this Idolatrous Worship of theirs Gods was provoked and incensed, and tells them in the next Verse, they shall go into Captivity for this very thing. Is it then probable that this bearing of the Tabernacle of Moloch was the Original of worshipping the True God in the Tabernacle? Is it reasonable to believe that he made this manner of Worship his Own, and instituted it as one of the chief and principal Parts of the Solemn Religion of the ●ews? Were all things to be done by the Jews in their Religious Service, according to the Pattern in ●●e Mount? How then can the bearing of the Tabernacle of Moloch among the Gentiles, be the First Pattern (as that Learned Author expressly saith) ●f Tabernacle-Worship among the Jews? God was 
* Psal. 95. 10.  grieved with the Generation of the jews in the Wilderness, as he saith himself; he was exceedingly displeased with them for this their Idolatrous Worship: but behold! he soon changed his Mind, and took a liking to this Way, and set it up among the Israelites, and caused it to be the Choicest and most Sacred Piece of Divine Worship. Thus God's Worship was a Transcript from Moloch, instead of being the First Original Pattern. I must needs confess I cannot prevail with myself to ●ntertain such Thoughts as these, and to frame such a Notion of God. I rather choose to embrace that Vulgar Error, (as he is pleased to style it) that a great part of the Ceremonies which the Pagans used in their Religion, was taken from the Worship prescribed by God himself in the Old Testament, and particularly that the Tabernacle of Moloch, i. e. the Seat in which he was carried up and down to be worshipped, the 
* 〈…〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Idol, (as St. 
† A●ts 7. 43.  Luke calls that of the God Remphan) was in imitation of the jewish Tabernacle, or portable Temple, wherein jehovah was present; and that from the Ark in that holy Place, the Gentile Worshippers borrowed their Chests, and Boxes, and little Houses, wherein they carried their Gods up and down. I shall afterwards have occasion to account with the Learned Author who oppon this, and the Doctrine which leads to it; th● fore I shall add no more here.  
Seventhly, The Heathens followed the U● of the Jews in some things which were done their Consecrated Places and Temples. It was a custom, saith an 
* Quaedam fana semel anno adire permittun●, quaedam 〈◊〉 toto nefas visere. Minut. Faelix.  ancient Writer, to go but on● Year into some of those Places, and it was 〈◊〉 unlawful to visit some of them at all. 
† In Baeoticis.  P●nias instances in particular Temples which 〈◊〉 opened but one Day in a Year: and of Or●us's 〈◊〉 saith, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eliac. 2do.  None was permitted to enter into it 〈◊〉 the Priest. This any Man may see was borro● from the Divine Constitution among God's People that the High Priest only was to go into the 〈◊〉 of Holies, and that but once in a whole Year. T● this likewise I may adjoin, that the Adyta a● Penetralia among the Pagans, were taken from t●● Holy of Holies among the Jews. Those Pla● (which were the same also with their Delu● were (as 
* Secreta Te●plorum. In Aen. 2.  Servius explains them) Secret R●cesses in their Temples; they were hidden a●● remote Apartments that were inaccessible to all 〈◊〉 their Priests, and therefore they had the name 〈◊〉 Adyta, as 
† Pergami in occultis & remo● Templi, qu● praeter Sacerdotes adire fas non est, quae Gr● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant. De Bell. Civ. l. 3.  Caesar observed. This is a pl● Imitation of the Sanctum Sanctorum, that In● Part of the Sanctuary among the Hebrews, w●● there (as hath been said) the Chief Minister 〈◊〉 Religion only could have access.  
Eighthly, The Pagan Sacrifices, and many Rites, Usages and Circumstances about them, were borrowed from the old Patriarches and Jews, of whom the Old Testament gives us the Rela●ion. The Sacrifices of the Gentiles are sacrilegious Imitations of the Hebrews, saith 
* Cont. Faust. l. 22. c. 17.  St. Austin peremptorily; and at several other times he professedly declares that many of their Religious Observances were from the Jews: I might observe that their Immolation, (so called from a Cake of Flower which the Priest, when he came to sacrifice, laid on the Head of the Beast) and their Libation, or Tasting the Wine, and Sprinkling it on the Beast's Head, and likewise their Eating and Drinking part of the things which were sacrificed, making merry with the Remains of what was offered, were plain Imitations of what the Hebrew Priests did. The using of Salt in Sacrifices is another thing which may be mentioned here; for this also was derived from the same Fountain. Hence Homer gives Salt the Epithet of 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Iliad. 1.  Divine: and Plato observes that Salt is well accommodated to sacred things; wherefore it is called by him 
‖ In Timaeo.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or, as 
* Sympos. l. 5.  Plutarch transcribes it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most acceptable to the Gods. Of what Authority and Worth Salt is, you may learn, saith 
† Maxima salis authoritas è sacris vete●m intelligitur. Nat. Hist. l. 31. c. 7.  Pliny, from its being constantly used in holy Things by the Ancients. Whence had they this Notion and Practice but from the Hebrews, among whom Moses, or rather God, ordered all things that were offered in Sacrifice 
‖ Leu. 2. 13.  to be seasoned with Salt: and thence it is called, in the same place, Salt of the Covenant, because they were bound as by Covenant to use it in all Sacrifices: to which our Saviour refers, (ap●plying it to another Sense) 
* Ma● 9 49.  Every Sacrifice 〈◊〉 be salted with Salt. To pass to some other Ci●●cumstances relating to the Gentile Sacrifices, 〈◊〉 which sprang from the Old Testament: In i●tation of the Perpetual Fire on the Altar among 〈◊〉 Jews, the Assyrians and Chaldeans kept a Fire 〈◊〉 ways burning, and accounted it a very sacred 〈◊〉 choice Treasure. This is Nergal which we 〈◊〉 mentioned in 2 Kings 17. 30. according to the o● pinion of a very 
† Mr. Selden, de Dis Syr. Syntag. 2. cap. ●.  excellent Man. And so● think this sacred Fire was kept in that City whi●● they called Vr, from Vr, ignis. The Persians 〈◊〉 had their Perpetual Fire, which they religiously 〈◊〉 kept, as 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 15.  Strabo relates. So it was ordered 〈◊〉 the Greeks, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be kept 〈◊〉 the Temple of Apollo at Delphos, and in that 〈◊〉 Minerva in Athens: this Fire was called by the● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence the Latin Vesta. And the Roman● as well as the Grecians observed this Customs a Continual Fire was kept in the Temple of Ves● at Rome, as Virgil, Ovid, Valerius Maximus, and several other of their Writers acquaint us. The Virgins (thence called Vestal Virgins) who had the care of it, suffered it not to go out, unless in time of Civil War: at all other times they continually attended and watched it, constantly repaired and recruited it. If by any strange Accident the Fire was extinguished, it was not to be rekindled by ordinary Fire, but by the Rays of the Sun; which was done by Instruments on purpose. This Sacred Fire thus perpetually kept burning, and which was in order to the Sacrifices, was in em●●●tion of God's express Command to his own People in Leu. 6. 13. The Fire shall ever be burning on the Altar: it shall never go out. And if you remember the Original of this Fire, namely, that it came down from Heaven, when Aaron the first time offered Sacrifice in the Desert, you will be farther confirmed that the Pagans had this Usage from the Jews: for herein also they imitated them, as was suggested before; they renewed this Fire from Heaven whenever it chanced to go out. The Vestal Fire was borrowed from Celestial Heat, not kindled by any Earthly Flame: which shows that the jews Heavenly Fire, which they kept always burning, and wherewith they set on fire their Sacrifices, gave occasion to this of the Heathens. And what if I should say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (of which Vesta is but a Corruption) is of Hebrew Original, and is as much as Esh jah, Ignis Domini, i. e. the sacred Fire of God's own appointing? Next, the making of Leagues and Covenants by Sacrifice and by Blood, which was an usual Custom among the Pagans, was derived from Scripture-practice, of which there is 
* Gen. 21. 27. Exod. 24. 6, 7, 8.  mention more than once. We read that among the old Romans their Solemn Compacts were both made and confirmed with the Ceremony of Striking, Killing and Cutting up the Sacrifice; whence perculere, ferire foedus, to strike a League, was no uncommon Phrase. More especially the Killing and Sacrificing of a Swine were most in use among them, as appears from 
† Decad. 1. lib. 1.  Livy and 
‖— Cae●● jungebant foedera porcâ. Aen. 8.  Virgil. And this Custom was in use among the Grecians, as is to be seen in Homer often; and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the word to signify not only the Ceremonial Libations at their Sacrifices, b● so the Compacts which were made at such a tim● and (as 
* In Iliad ●.  Eustathius observes) the Sacrifices 〈◊〉 the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Covenants given the● This Practice was in other Nations, (though 〈◊〉 a mixture of some other Ceremonies and proph● Usages): when they swore to one another, a●● made Bargains in a solemn Mann●r, they used 〈◊〉 slay some Animal and sacrifice it; and this w●● reckoned as a Testimony of their mutual Agreement. For as a Sacrifice was a Federal Oblation, whereby Men made a League and Cove●●●● with God, and entered into Communion a●d Friendship with him; so the same Ceremony wa● used as a Signification of Humane Friendship, as ● Token of Covenanting between Men and M●● And because Sacrificing was accompanied with ● friendly Eating and Drinking with one another, therefore also it hath been the Custom of all the World (of which it is unnecessary to produce Instances) to make Leagues of Friendship, and to contract Covenants in that sociable way. Eating and Drinking together have been not only a Sign, but a Pledge of Amity and good Agreement. Which you will find to be originally derived from the Practice of the Ancient Patriarches, and others in the Old Testament. Thus 
† Gen. 26. 30.  jacob and Lab●, 
‖ Gen. 31. 46.  Isaac and Abimelech, 
* 2 Sam. 3. 20.  David and Abner, entered into League and friendly Correspondence, and confirmed their Alliances with one another. To which I will only add this, that Salt, which was used in Sacrifices (as you heard before) was a Symbol of Friendship and Covenanting; and with ●eference to this (besides the Reason before na●●d) was call●d Salt of the Covenant: whence, a●ong the Pythagoreans, Salt was a Representative of amicable Correspondence; and the Dura●on and Lastingness of it was fitly signified by ●his, which is a Preservative against Putrefaction. 〈◊〉 short, among the Heathen Nations this was generally a Token of Friendship, and was used to express a Familiarity and Agreement among Persons. This we may conjecture was derived from the Jewish Practice, and particularly from Melach Be●rith, the Salt of the Covenant. Shall I add under this Head, that it may be the Greeks giving the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Gifts and Presents which were consecrated to their Gods in their Temples, had its rise from those Sacrifices and sacred Gifts called in the Old Testament Terumoth, Heave-Offerings; which had that Name because they were heaved or lifted up in honour of God, to whom they were brought? for those 
* From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sustollere, suspendere.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Imitation of these, were called so from being lifted and hung up on some high Place in their Temples to their Gods. It seems these Heathen Devotionists would have their Heave-Offerings, their Elevated Presents, their Exalted Gifts, which were borrowed from the Jews.  
Ninthly, The Heathen Oracles, and giving of Answers in difficult Cases, were of Jewish Extraction. They were borrowed from God's Holy Oracle in the inmost part of the Tabernacle, and afterward of the Temple. You may easily trace them to the Mercy-Seat, whence God gave Answers to the Highpriest. This we may learn from the Name which is given it, viz. Debir, 1 Kings 8. 6. Psal. 28. 2. which in Latin is Oraculum. This hints to us 〈◊〉 the Thing itself, as well as the Word, is tak● from the Jews. There is an 
* Dr. Dickinson 's Delphi Phoenicizantes.  Ingenious Man h● laboured to show that the particular Shape or fabric of Apollo's Temple at Delphos, and the 〈◊〉 of that Place, with the Ceremonies used there, 〈◊〉 from the Old Testament. Though he hath so 〈◊〉 things which may seem a little too fanciful, ye●● the main may be true and solid, viz. that the Pagan Oracles were fetched from the Divine Ones 〈◊〉 Scripture. Under this Head I will add, that 〈◊〉 not improbable that the Poetical Conceit of sphinx which used to utter Riddles and enigmatical Sayings, was taken from the Sacred Oracle of the Jews, and from the Cherubims which were over the Prspitiatiory whence Answers were given by God. For the Sphinx was (as the Poets feigned) a multiform Creature, but had a Humane Face, and moreover had Wings: and so likewise those Sphinxes which were placed without the Egyptian Temples, were pictured with Wings. This is exactly according to the Representation which hath been given of the Cherubims; they were of a mixed and various Shape; but 'tis generally agreed they had the Countenances of Men, and that they were winged: and 'tis well known that these Creatures hovered over the Mercy-Seat, which was the Place of the Holy Oracle. So that upon these accounts, it seems to me very likely that some part of the Sacred History, concerning the Oracle and Cherubims, lies disguised under these Poetical Fictions: but let every one think as he pleaseth.  
But the Devil especially brought in Oracles in imitation of the Ephod, and its Vrim and Thum●im, that great and celebrated Oracle among the Jews. This questionless was not unknown to the Gentiles; for a Proof of which, there are some allege what 
* Lib. 1.  Diodorus the Sicilian, and 
† Var. Hist. l. 14. c. 34.  Aelian deliver, viz. that the Chief Judge, or Lordchief Justice (who was also the Chief Priest) among the Egyptians, wore at his Neck an Image hanging at a golden Chain, and made of precious Stones, and the Name of it was Truth. The Egyptians ●●d this, say 
‖ De very. Christ. 〈◊〉 l. 1.  Grotius and 
* De 70 Interpretib.  Vossius, from the H●brews, as many other things; for Thummim is rendered Truth by the Septuagint: and thence it is likely the Image of Truth, which hung at the Neck of the Egyptian High-Priests, alludes to the Precious Stone, or rather that Set of them which hung at the Breast of the Jewish Highpriest, in which were the Vrim and Thummim. Indeed thus far I am willing to grant, that the Egyptians might borrow the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hence, and apply it to that excellent Jewel which was made of a True Right Saphir, and therefore they used the word Truth: but I cannot proceed, and say (with some) that there is any proof hence that the Thummim was an Image. I grant that the Egyptians might have heard of the Vrim and Thummim, and it may be fancied them to be some little Images made of Precious Stones, the Vrim and Thummim being ●●dged in the same place with the twelve famous Gems which the Highpriest wore; and from thence perhaps the Mistake was propagated a●ong the Gentiles, that those Oracles of the Jews were a sort of Images: I say it is probable that this false Notion concerning the Divine Oracles of the Hebrews, was propagated among the ●●●thens: and in pursuance of this, I will add 〈◊〉 Conjecture, viz. that the Ancilia among the Romans, which were said to be from Heaven, 〈◊〉 in which the Fates of the City were contained 〈◊〉 lodged, (which really were but one, though 〈◊〉 to be many) had some reference to the Jews 〈◊〉 and Thummim, that Divine and Heavenly 〈◊〉, on which the Fates of all Persons depen●●● who repaired unto it, and consulted it; and 〈◊〉 was indeed but one single Oracle, (as I have 〈◊〉 in another place) though by the different 〈◊〉 it seemed to be more. And these Ancilia 〈◊〉 from Heaven, being in the Shape of short 〈◊〉 or Bucklers that are to cover the Breast, seem on 〈◊〉 very account to have reference to the holy 〈◊〉 Plate; in which, you know, the Vrim and T●●●mim were deposited. And further, to 〈◊〉 this Notion, let it be remembered that those 〈◊〉 were always in the keeping of the Salii, a 〈◊〉 sort of Priests; and the Badge of their 〈◊〉 was a brass Plate or Covering on their Breasts, 〈◊〉 they wore over a rich Particoloured Vest: w 〈◊〉 latter seems to be in imitation of the jewish 〈◊〉 Priest's gaudy Vestment, as the former of the 〈◊〉 Plate, wherein the Vrim and Thummim were 〈◊〉.  
Thus, without any straining, it appears that 〈◊〉 Pagans had some notice of that Great Oracle of 〈◊〉 Hebrews, though they were very much 〈◊〉 in conceiting it to be some pretty Image, or 〈◊〉 strange thing sent from Heaven. Whereas 〈◊〉 most facile and obvious Account ●hat can be 〈◊〉 of the Vrim and Thummim, is, that they were not Things, but Words, i. e. they were those 〈◊〉 words, URIM and THUMMIM, written or ●●graven in some small Plate of Gold, and put into 〈◊〉 High Priest's Pectoral. And I am apt to think 〈◊〉 some of the more understanding Gentiles had 〈◊〉 apprehension of this, and that thence we read so often in Authors of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which 〈◊〉 an Imitation of the Hebrew Letters or Writing ●hich made up the Vrim and Thummim. From 〈◊〉 sacred Scripture in the Ephod those Ephesian 〈◊〉 were borrowed, which they used in Magi●●● Art, and whereby they did any thing that they 〈◊〉 a mind to do. In all Businesses they fled to 〈◊〉, and consulted them. so that they were a 〈◊〉 of Oracle unto them. This I conceive was 〈◊〉 Allusion to the Hebrew Oracle which consisted of 〈◊〉 or Writing.  
T●nthly, The Scape-Goat, (Gnazazel, from gnez 〈◊〉 Goat, and azal he w●nt, as much as to say the Windering Goat) dispatched into the Wilderness with 〈◊〉 Sins of the People, and repeated Curses on his Head, 〈◊〉 occasion for the like Practice among the Gen●●●●. Thus the Greeks used in a formal manner to dismiss some Animals with a Curse; whence 〈◊〉 devoted Creatures were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by them, because they were thus sent away. The ●●mans did the like sometimes upon occasion: so 〈◊〉 speaks of some Horses that Caesar 
* 〈◊〉 consecraverat, ac vagos & sine custode dimi●era●. 〈◊〉 jul. c. 81.  had ●●us dealt with when he passed the Rubicon. After 〈◊〉 same manner the ancient Arabians devoted to 〈◊〉 God's Sheep and Goats. But the Practice of 〈◊〉 egyptians is most remarkable of all, who (as 〈◊〉 relates) used to heap Execrations on the 〈◊〉 of a devoted Beast or Sacrifice selected for 〈◊〉 purpose, that if any Evil hung over them, it might be turned on the Head of that Sacrific 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Lib. 2. 〈◊〉  They curse, saith he, the Heads of the Sacri●●●● with these words, If any Mischief threaten the 〈◊〉 in particular, or all Egypt in general, let it 〈◊〉 light upon the Head of this Animal. And when 〈◊〉 had loaded him with all their Imprecations, 〈◊〉 used to hurry him headlong into the River 〈◊〉 be drowned, or they sold him to a Greek or 〈◊〉 other profane Man, to derive all those Maledictions from themselves to the Belly of that Per 〈◊〉 This Egyptian Expiation was taken from 〈◊〉 or the Scape-Goat, Leu. 16. 21, 22. where 〈◊〉 said, Aaron was to lay both his Hands upon it, 〈…〉 ●●●●rael, putting them on the Head of the Goat: and 〈◊〉 he was to send him away by the hand of a ●it Man 〈◊〉 the Wilderness: and the Goat was to bear upon him 〈◊〉 their Iniquities into a Land not inhabited. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by the LXX to express 〈◊〉 Hebrew word Azazel; and accordingly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that were thought to avert 〈◊〉, and the A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were 〈◊〉 offered by the Heathens to avert impendent 〈◊〉 are related to this.  
Eleventhly, From the Water of jealousy in 〈◊〉 among the Jews, (Numb. 5. 12, etc.) wherewith they tried the Honesty of a suspected Wife, 〈◊〉 like Custom came to be used by the Gentiles. 〈◊〉 
† Pausanias, lib. 7.  old Greeks tried their She-Priests, or Nuns, 〈◊〉 were suspected of Whoredom, with a 〈◊〉 which they tendered to them to drink; and if 〈◊〉 Party were guilty, she presently was struck 〈◊〉 They had also (as we learn from 
‖ Vit. Apollon. l. 1. c. 4.  〈◊〉 ●other Water, to try Perjury, which might be of the same Original.  
Twelfthly, We read in several Authors, (some of whom you will find quoted in 
* Lib▪ 7. c. 29.  Caelius Rhodigin●●) that Branches were used in the superstitious Rites of the Gentiles, and in the Worship of their Gods. Among the Athenians particularly there was a Festival which took its Name from Branches: and Plutarch and others tell us, that they went about with Boughs in their Hands in honour of Bacc●●●. If we compare this with what the Jews did in the Feast of Tabernacles, (as the 
† Leu. 23. 40.  Scripture testifieth, and as 
‖ Antiqu. l. 3. c. 10.  josephus relates) namely, that they sat under Booths which they shadowed with Branches; that they sacrificed to God, holding in their Hands Boughs of Myrtle and Palm; and that they went up and down many days with these in their hands, we may gather hence, that this Hebrew Rite was borrowed by the Gentiles, who were very apish; especially if we take notice that the Jews and Gentiles kept this sort of Feast at the same time of the Year. For the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated on the ●ifteenth Day of the Month Tirsi, i. e. about the beginning of our September: than it was that they feasted, and made merry, and expressed it by all signs of rejoicing; and than it was also that the Pagans kept their great Feast in honour of Bacchus. I know 
* Sympos. 4. 3.  Plutarch derives that from this, and so makes the Jews imitate the Gentiles, as some of late have done: but I hope I have suggested sufficient reason already (and may do more afterward) to antidote against this vain Conceit.  
I pass on to other Particulars: the 〈◊〉 'mong the jews nourished their Hair for a time, 〈◊〉 then dedicated it to God; which was done by cutti●● it off, and offering it in the Temple or Tabe●●●cle and then burning it with the Sacrifice, 〈◊〉 6. 18. That the Pagans imitated them in this 〈◊〉 evident: thus concerning the Greeks 
* In Theseo.  〈◊〉 testifies, that they dedicated the First-fruits 〈◊〉 their Hair to Apollo, Aesculapius, Hercules, 〈◊〉 and other Gods. The Romans likewise the 〈◊〉 time they shaved their Beards, and cut the Hair 〈◊〉 their Heads, offered them to some Deity, as 〈◊〉 be proved from 
† In Nerone.  Suetonius and other 〈◊〉 And not only the Greeks and Romans, but the Ass●●rians and several other Nations took up this O●stom, as you may satisfy yourselves abundantly fro● 
‖ Meursius in Graec. Ferial. l. 3. ●ipsii Comment. in Tacit. Montague against Selden 's Hist. of Tit●es. Casaubon in theophra. charact. Heinsius in Sil. Ital.  some Critics who have handled this Subject.  
Several other things I might mention, as the Jews putting away all Leaven at the Passover: whence perhaps Leavened Bread was not permitted to the Gentiles at some certain times; yea it was not lawful (saith Aulius Gellius) for Jupiter's Priests to touch Leaven. From the Jews the Custom of Circumcising went to several Nations, and not from them to the Jews, as 
* Lib. 〈◊〉 7.  Strabo, 
† Orig. contr. Cels. l. 1.  Celsus, and others conceited. But 
‖ Ibid.  Origen confutes this Mistake, and shows that God himself first instituted this Ceremony; that Abraham and his Race first practised it, and in imitation of them the People of the next neighbouring Countries took it up, as the Arabians and Egyptians. Of these latter, and the Ethiopians, the Persians, Phoenicians, the Tro●lodytae, and those of Colchos, 
* Lib. 2, & 3.  Herodotus, 
† Lib. 3. c. 32.  〈◊〉, 
‖ Lib. 16, & 17.  Strabo, testify that this Rite was used by them. Philostorgius relates the same of the ancient Arabians. Pythagoras was circumcised, saith 〈◊〉. However, this is certain that this Jewish Practice came into use among several Nations, and it was originally from Abraham (who was first circumcised) and his Stock, who were Jews. I might add here, that the Jews at circumcising the Child gave it a Name: thence the Pagans took up the same Custom of giving Names to their Infants. Hence Dies Nominalis went along with Dies Lustricus, and this was about the eighth or ninth Day among the Romans; which seems also to be in imitation of the Jews. Bigamy was forbidden to the 
* Liv. Decad. l. 1. 10.  Pagan Priests, as it was to the Jewish ones. So in compliance with the Mosaic Law, it was unlawful for their 
‖ Dio. Hist. lib. 54.  Priests to touch any dead Corpse. From the same Sacred Fountain was their Aqua Lustralis, used in sprinkling of Sepulchers, and to purify those who had touched them, or came near them. From the Law of Cherem, the Anathema, the Thing or Person devoted to Death, Leu. 27. 28, 29. seem to be derived the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Devota Capita. The neighbouring Gentiles heard of the devoting to utter Destruction certain Cities and their Inhabitants; and 'tis likely they heard that this was done by the special Command of God. Hence they apishly and superstitiously imitated this Usage, (as you have seen they do in other things) and devoted certain Men to Death and Destruction, to please and propitiate their Gods. And this is the more credible, because the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which was sometimes confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was used by the ancient Greeks to signify those miserable and execrable Wretches who were thus destined to the Infernal Ghosts. When any great Plague or Calamity broke in upon the Pagans, Men, as well as Beasts, were devoted to Slaughter, and given up as Propitiatory Offerings to their Deities: and these, I say, were by them termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Accursed, Devoted, Execrable Creatures, which answers to the Jewish Cherems, which were Things or Persons devoted to utter Destruction. This Pagan Usage was but a Transcript of the Hebrew one.  
Perhaps the use of Lots among the Gentiles had its Original from what the Sacred Writings relate of this Practice. In Leu. 16. 8. two Goats (in order to some Sacred Design) were chosen by Lot. joshuah found out Achan to be an Accursed Criminal by this means, josh. 7. 14, 18. The first Assignation of Portions in the Land of Canaan, was by casting Lots, Josh. 13. 2. Saul was chosen King of Israel thus, 1 Sam. 10. 21. By the same Method jonas was discovered to be the Cause of the Tempest, jonas 1. 7. From which ancient Instances of Lottery it is probable the Gentiles borrowed the like Usage, and made choice of their Military and Civil Officers, and transacted other Matters in this way. In 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Homer some of the Great Commanders are made after this fashion, as Eurylochus and others. Some of the Athenian Magistrates were annually called to their Places by Lot; whence they were stil●d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Particularly this was the manner of choosing Judges at Athens, as you may see in 
‖ Antiqu. Lect. lib. 22. c. 18.  Caelius Rhodiginus. Yea, some were chosen into the Priesthood with this Ceremony, and therefore had the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Aristotle tells us in the fourth Book of his Politics. They used Lottery on other accounts, as you may see in Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This also was in use among the Old Romans sometimes; and not only in the Election of Public Officers, but in other Affairs: more especially in their Divinations these Lots were made use of, as it were easy to prove. All which it is likely had its first Rise from the Old Testament, and the Practice of the Ancients recorded there.  
Is it not reasonable to think that the Cities of Refuge among some Pagan Nations, whither Offenders fled for Protection, had their Origine from those so expressly mentioned in Numb. 35. 13, 14, 15. Hence we read that Cadmus, when he built Thebes, founded a Place for all sorts of Criminals to repair to: and Romulus at the building of Rome erected a Sanctuary for Offenders to fly to. Further, I could observe that the New-Moons were celebrated by the Athenians and other Grecians. Concerning the first 
* Quaest Rom.  Plutarch is very positive: and as to the rest, that 
† Hesych.  Proverbial Saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in use among them, shows that they solemnly observed the first Day of the Month. The Romans likewise had the same Custom, as is manifest from that of 
‖ Fast. l. 1.  Ovid, Vendicat Ausonias junonis cura Calendas. And these New-Moon Festivals are referred to by Horace more than once, as you may see in 
* Advers. lib. 15. c. 19 & l. 24. c. 45.  Tur●●bus. All which is of Hebrew Extraction. I could take notice that the Latin jubilare, and jubilatio (which are found in Varro and other old Romans) which signify great Rejoicing and Shouting for Joy, are from the old Jewish Law of 
† ● evit. 25. 9, 10, 11.  jubilee, a Time of exceeding Gladness, being the Year when Servants and Debtors were restored to their Liberty and Possessions, which occasioned great Rejoicing. And I could propound more Instances yet to prove that several Customs among the Heathens were extracted from the Holy Scriptures, and that Heathen Worshippers shaped New, Strange, and Profane Rites, and Ways of Worship out of the Passages they ●ead or heard of there; and that most of the Heathen Usages are corrupt Imitations of the Jews.  
I will add to the several Particulars this one more, which though I will not confidently pronounce was borrowed from the Jews, yet I propose it as a thing very probable: It is this, that the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians were in imitation of that People; for they were brought up under Shadows, Types and Symbols, dark Representations, and mystical Rites: which might give occasion to the Egyptians to teach Religion and Morality by Hieroglyphic Figures. I am not positive here, (nor would I be any where else, unless I had good Grounds to go on) because I am not altogether certain that the Hieroglyphic Learning began after Moses. But there is great probability that it did, and consequently that it was derived from what they observed among the Jews. This is the Persuasion of the Inquisitive 
* Obelise. Pamph. lib. 2. c. 7.  Kircher, who without ●●y hesitation averreth, that the Symbolical and Hieroglyphic Learning was imbibed from the Hebrews. Nay, to go yet farther, now we are come thus far; there are those who conjecture that a great part of the Ancient Gentile Philosophy was collected from the Holy Book of Scripture. Among the ancient Persians the Mosaic Religion might be discovered in many Instances which might be given of their Principles: and an Ingenious 
† Huet. Demonst. Evang. P●op. 4.  French Author hath lately proved that their Zoroastres was the same with Moses. And as for the Pythag●rick and Platonic Philosophy, which consists much in Figures and Numbers, in Dark and Symbolical Precepts, it is evident that it was made up out of the▪ Sacred Hebrew Writings. The Platonists Books concerning God, the Genii, the Spirits and Souls of Men, though stuffed with many Errors and Superstitions, discover a great Resemblance and Affinity with those things which the Bible delivers about the Nature of God, Angels, and Humane Souls. Eusebius particularly insists on this, and derives the Platonic Doctrines from the Scriptures. Hence both he and Clement of Alexandria take notice of what Numenius, the Pythagorean Philosopher, said of Plato, namely, that he was 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. lib. 11. c. 6. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.  the Greek Moses. And indeed most of the ancient Sages and Philosophers were obscure and mystic in their Style, and way of delivering their Notions, as the Sacred Writers are observed to be very often. Hence it is said by the ancient Father whom I last quoted, That 
‖ ' O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.  the way of Philosophising among those Pagans, was after the manner of the Hebrews, that is, Enigmatical. But as to the Matter, as well as Style, the chiefest of the old Greek Poets and Philosophers, as Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Thales, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Empedocles, Democritus, Socrates, (besides Pythagoras and Plato before named) agree with Moses. We may say of them all, as an Historian saith of the first of them, (after he had set down several Particulars of sound Philosophy in his Poems) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cedr●●▪ Hist. Compend.  They have pronounced many things concerning God and Man, which are consonant to that Truth which we, who are taught by the Holy Writings, profess. This may give light to what an Egyptian Priest told Solon, 
† Plato in Tim●●o.  Yo● Grecians (saith he) are but of yesterday, and know nothing of the Rise and Antiquity of Arts: there is not one of you that is Old, and there is no Learning among you that is Antient. His meaning was, that all their Knowledge was borrowed, and that the Sacred Mosaic Philosophy and Theology were the oldest of all. From this the Heathens took theirs, though sometimes they express it in different Terms. Thus we have gone through the Mosaic Records, and in many Instances showed the Derivation of Gentile Philosophy, Principles, Practices and Usages, from those Sacred Writings; and consequently we have evinced the Truth and Antiquity of these Records.  
Before I leave this Head of my Discourse, I will here add the Testimony of Pagan and Profane Authors concerning this great Lawgiver Moses, the first Penman of Holy Scripture: which is still in prosecution of what I undertook, to show that the Writings of the Old Testament, and with them their Authors and Penmen, are attested by Profane Writers. It appears, first, from what these have said, that there was such a Person, and that he was what his Writings represent him to be. This is he that is called by Orpheus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alluding to his Name Mosheh, Exod. 2. 10. which was given him because he was drawn out of the Water. He is celebrated by Alexander Polyhistor, Philochorus, Thallus, Appion (cited by 
* Orat. contra Gent.  justin Martyr,) by Manethon and Numenius (alleged by 
† Contra Cels. lib. 4.  Origen and 
‖ Praepar. Evang. lib. 9 c. 6.  Eusebius,) by Lysimachus and Molon (quoted by 
‖‖ Cont. Appionem, l. I.  josephus,) by Chalcidius, Sanchoniathon, justin, Pliny in Porphyrius. Moses is placed by 
* Lib. I.  Dio●orus the Sicilian in the Front of his famous Lawgivers, only a little disguised under the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is there said to have received his Laws from Mercury. And why from Mercury? Perhaps because some Chronologers acquaint us that the Great Mercurius, styled Trismegistus, (the ancientest Philosopher among the Egyptians) was either contemporary with Moses, or is thought to have lived about his time. But St. Augustine tells us in his Noted Book de Civitate Dei, that this 〈◊〉 was Nephew to another M●r●urius, whose 〈◊〉 was Atlas the famous ginger; and he it was belike that flourished in Moses' time. Wh●●●● (if I may be suffered to give my Conjecture) 〈◊〉 Poets did very ●itly relate how Atlas bore up 〈◊〉 Heavons; when in the mean time they meant 〈◊〉 Moses, who giving us the Authentic Records 〈◊〉 the World's Creation, and beginning his History with the Production of the 〈◊〉, is the T●●● Atlas that supports the Spheres: nay, he may be rightly said not only to bear up the Heav●●s, 〈◊〉 the Earth, and to keep them from sinking into their first Chaos, by transmitting the Account and Memory of them to all Posterity. I question 〈◊〉 but that Moses was represented by He●●mes Trismegistus; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than a very Great, i. e. an Excellent Man; and such none ca● deny Moses to have been. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Interpreter, is appliable to none better than to Him, who was the first Sacred and Inspired Interpreter of the Mind of God in Writing. Letters were invented by this Hermes, saith 
* De Myster. Egyp●.  jamblichus from his Ma●●●● 
† In Phileb.  Plato. Moses being the first Writer, may well be said to be the first Inventor of Letters. Di●dorus also tells us that this Moses was the first that gave the Egyptians (he should have said jews, but those Mistakes are common with him and other Pagan Authors) 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Written Laws; and that ●e was 
* A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  a Man of a great Soul, and very powerful in his Life. And in another place he saith, he was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eclog.  one that excelled in Wisdom and Valour. 
† Geograph. lib. 16.  Strabo makes honourable mention of this Great ●●rsonage, yea speaks not only of him, but of the Religion established by him, with great Respect. He ranks him among the best Legislators, and highly praiseth his Laws, and gives them the Preeminence before all others. He reciteth some of his Sayings and Deeds, telling us that he left Egypt, and came into Syria, because he disliked the Egyptians for their making and worshipping of Corporeal Gods, of the Figure and Proportion of Brutes; and that Moses professed that God could not be represented by any Image or Likeness whatsoever. There are 
‖ Dionys. ●onginus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Trogus Pomp. & ex ●o Justin. lib. 36. Tacit. Hist. lib. 5.  other Gentiles who speak of Moses, and his Laws and Constitutions; and they would have been more favourable in their Testimonials concerning him, if their Heathen Principles had not biased them to a more undue Character. Which is taken notice of by Philo in the Life of Moses: Though (saith he) some Pagan Historians speak of him, yet they say but little, and that not truly neither. Out of Envy, it is likely, or because of the great Disagreement between his and the Laws of other Lawgivers, they vouchsafe not to remember him. But that Testimony which we have is sufficient, and we may thence be satisfied that Moses was the most Authentic Historian, and the Ancientest Lawgiver; and we may gather from what they say, that his Laws were the first, and gave beginning to all other●▪ The famous Lawgivers and Politicians among the Grecians, as Lycurgus and Solon, had the main of their Politics from Moses' Laws, whence afterwards the Romans took some of theirs. And as Moses received his Laws immediately from God, so in imitation of him the greatest Lawgivers said they had theirs from some Deity; as Numa from Aegeria, Minos from jupiter, Lycurgus from Apollo, Zabeucus from Minerva, etc. Still this establisheth our Notion, that the Writings and Practices of the Jews gave rise to many things among the Pagans, which I will yet farther pursue.   

CHAP. VI  
Profane Writers testify the Truth of these Particulars mentioned in the Old Testament. viz. The Gigantic Race of the Canaanites: The Sun's standing still: Jephthah's Sacrificing his Daughter: Sampson's loss of his Hair: The Foxes which he made use of against the Philistines: Elias' rapture to Heaven: Some passages relating to King Solomon, King Hiram, etc. The Sun's going back in King Hezekiah's time: Nebuchadnezzar's Transformation into a Beast: His Dream of an Image with a Golden Head, etc. Next, it is proved that the Heathens had their Deities from the Old Testament: Their Saturn was Adam: Their Minerva was Eve: Their Jupiter, Cain: Their Vulcan Tubal-Cain: Their Bacchus (as also their Saturn and Janus) Noah: Their Apis, Joseph: Their Mercury and Bacchus, Moses: Their Hercules, Joshua and Samson: Their Apollo, Jubal: Their Ganymed, Elias, etc.  
●venthly. SOme other things which the Old Testament acquaints us happened, after 〈◊〉 giving the Law by Moses, till the Babylonian 〈◊〉, are to be found among Profane Writers. We read, in Numb. 13. 33. of the Gigantic race of Canaanites, who are called the Sons of Anak, 〈◊〉, in Deut. 9 2. jos. 11. 〈◊〉. they are called Anakims. Is there not some prob 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 daridae, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and there were more than C●stor and Pollux that were called by that name, 
a De Nat. dear. lib. 3▪  Tully will inform you) who by the Greeks w●● called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as 
b Tull. ibid. Plu●arch. in Theseo. Theodor●t.  several Authors acquaint 〈◊〉 had their Name from those Great Men who w●●● the Offspring of Anak? These being driven Iosua● out of Palestine, when he overcame 〈◊〉 Country, it is likely went into Greece, and fro● them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Athens and Sparta descended and hence it was that the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was given, not only to the Tyndaridae, but all Great M●● and Princes. I will add, that 'tis probable th● word gave Origination to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signi●●● Great and Principal Men, such as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were.  
From that Miracle in jos. 10. 13. of the 〈◊〉 standing still, perhaps the Poet's Fiction arose, concerning the Night doubled or trebled by Iupit●● for Alcmena's sake. For (as hath been sugges●●● already) this sort of Men, when they get a Story by the end, make what they please of it, and turn it into quite another thing than it was at first. The rumour of that strange Accident had come to their Ears, and they presently turned it into a Fable. And who should stop the Course of the Su● but jupiter the Supreme God? And after the ra●● that they represented their Gods, that which is further added is apposite enough, for they are not ashamed to tell us that they are Lewd and Obscene, and indulge themselves in all Lustful Practices. Now, when the Sun stood still in one Hemisphere, the other wanted his presence and light, and ●o they had as it were a double Night, for the Sun's ●●aying here so long. But you shall have another fable shortly, that will speak to the same purpose.  
Porphyrius tells us, that Sanchoniathon had his Historical Narrations and Secrets from one jerombaal, Priest of the God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which shows that that Historian had his Matter from the Sacred Scriptures, the Hebrew Fountains of Truth, though he oftentimes corrupts them. And it is evident that they had partly learned the Name of the true God, from the Hebrews, or their Writings; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was jehovah the true God, whom the jews Worshipped, as I shall ●●●w more afterwards. Besides, from the same spring they had some knowledge of that Eminent ●●dge of Israel, Gideon; for jerombaal, who is the ●ame with jerubbaal (as Bochart hath proved) is Gi●on, as is expressly said in the 7th of judg. V. I. This was a Man of great Renown, and the Fame of his Noble Acts had reached to the Nations round about. He might pass with them for a Priest, as well as a great Warrior, seeing he built an Altar ●●to God, and Offered a Burnt-Sacrifice upon it, and ●t the same time thre● down the Altar of Baal, and ● down his Groves, judg. 6. 25, 26. which made a great noise (you may be sure) among the Heathens.  
Again, from Iephthah's Daughter's being Sacrifi●●● (which could not but be famed among the Neighbouring Gentiles, and afterwards spread itself ●●●ther) the Greek Poets made the Story of Iphi●●●●a's being Sacrificed by her Father Agamemnon. That this is taken from that, and is the same Story, (only with the alteration of the Names) is ●●●ar from this following Parallel. 1. The Chrono●●●● of jephthah and Agamemnon is the same. They were at the same time, i. e. when the Trojan W● was, or at least, when it is supposed to have b●●● for Dion, Chrysostom, and some others are bold 〈◊〉 say, there was no such Trojan War, no Sacks and Burning of that City, no Rape of a Gre●● Woman: But the whole Tale of it was the m●● Invention of the Greeks, the prime Fiction they 〈◊〉 up with. It was all from the Scripture, viz. 〈◊〉 History of Iephthah's Warring with the Ammonites and Ephraimites. But this is too high a flight, 〈◊〉 I am not ready to follow it. The Wars of T●●● as they are represented by the Poets, are too 〈◊〉 to be made out of so little a Story. Notwithstanding this, it is not improbable that the Story 〈◊〉 Agamemnon and his Daughter, are the same Relation with that of jephthah and his. It is the general agreement of Chronologers, that these were at the same time, yea, the beginning of the Trojan War falls exactly in the very entrance o● Iephthah's Government, saith a late 
a Horn. Ar●. No●.  Writ●●. Hence it was easy to mistake one for the other, o● rather one gave occasion for inventing the other. 2. jephthah and Agamemnon are both of them represented to be Great Captains, and Warriors, and so agree in that common Character. 3. Th●●● Daughters are said to be the only Daughters of their Parents. 4. They were both Virgins. 5. They were both of them devoted by their Father's whe● they were Warring against their Enemies. 6. One is said to wander up and down the Mountains with h●r Companions. The other is feigned to be turned into a Hind by Diana, and to range in the Woo●s, and Mountains. Or, some say Diana pitied t●●● Virgin, and not suffering her to be Sacrificed, sent her away to be a Priestess of hers. This is Poetic Fiction, but the main agreement here, is in the Reprieve granted after their being destined to Sacrifice. 7thly, and lastly, Iphigenia, the Name of Agamemnon's Daughter is no other than Iphthigenia, i. e. jephthigenia, or, in plain English, Iephthab's Daughter. So that the very Name hinteth to us that the bringing of Iphig●nia, Daughter of Agamemnon, a King of the Greeks, and General of their Armies, unto the Altar to be Sacrificed, for the saving of the Grecian Fleet, was borrowed from the Sacred Story of jephthah, a Judge or King of Israel, and Captain General of their Forces, his Sacrificing his Daughter, in pursuance of the solemn Vow which he made upon his return after his Conquests over his Enemies. And this in the close might be added, that whereas Humane Slaughters were grown commendable, and fashionable even among the better sort of Heathens, by the instigation of the Devil, it is not unlikely that some of them were imitations of this Great and notable Example of jephthah.  
From Sampson's being shaved, was the Fable 〈◊〉 the Fatal Hair of Nisus, King of the Megar●nses, which being cut o● by a desperate Lover, ruin befell that Nisus. The Story in brief is thus; Nisus (who all agree Reigned about the same time that Samson was Judge of Israel) had an ex●●llent Head of Hair, 

a Ovid's Metamorph. lib. 8. — Cui splendidus ost●o  
Crinis in●●re●at magni siducia regis.  Concerning which it was told him, that as long as he wore that, and kept it entire, he should pr●●sper, and be Victorious, and none should be 〈◊〉 to expel him out of his Kingdom. But his 〈◊〉 happy Daughter Scylla fell in Love with 〈◊〉 who was then his actual Enemy, and Warred against him: She to procure Minos' Love, takes 〈◊〉 Course the Poet speaks of there, — Fatali Nata Parentem Crine suum spoliat. She cuts off her Father's Hair when he was asleep, and gave it to Minos, who overcame her Father, and took his Kingdom from him. The very mentioning of this Story is sufficient to let you 〈◊〉 how it agrees with that of Samson, only there was a Wife, and here a Daughter in the ca●e, which is a mistake not unusual among the Poets▪ Samson vexed and injured by the Philistines, ti● Foxes (of which that Country afforded store) 〈◊〉 the Tails with Firebrands between them, judg. 15. 4. and sent them among their Corn, and thereby burned it down. Whence seems to be framed the Fable of the Carseolan Fox, which Ovid speaks of in his Fasti, Book 4.  
In Praetus' sending Letters by Bellephoron to I●batas, in which Bellephoron's Death was designed, and contrived, (of which 
a iliad.  Homer, and othery speak) there are perhaps to be seen the footsteps of the Story of Vriah's carrying the Letter of 〈◊〉 Death to jodb, 2 Sam. 11. 14. There is but little difference between jobatas, and joab.  
It was famed that Elias went up to Heaven i● a Fiery Chariot, with Horses, according to what 〈◊〉 read in the 
a 2 Kings, 2. 11.  Sacred Story; whence the Greeks mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (according to the Septuagint) or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and applied it to the Sun, and its Course through the Heavens. Those Fiery Horses and Chariots, they understood of those of the Sun, and accordingly they fancied there are really such things, and their Poets frequently talk of them. 
b Serm. 2. de Elia.  St. Chrysostom was the first mentioned this, and afterwards 
c In lib. Regum, quae●t. 28.  Venerable Bede. But let the Curious inquire whether there be sufficient ground for it from that Prophet's Flaming Vehicle, in which he was rapt up to Heaven.  
With Pagan Poets, let us all along mix their Historians, and from them we shall be sati●ied, that there were such Persons in being, and such things done in the World, as the Holy Scriptures speak of. Hirams Letters to one another (of whose Correspondence you read in ● King's, 5.) are to be seen in the Tyrian Annals, and at this day, saith 
d Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2. & contr: Ap. l. 1.  josephus, and Man may have the sight of them from the Keepers of those Public Writings. He sets down the words of Menander, who Translated those Chronicles out of the Phaenician into the Greek Tongue, which expressly mention the great Friendship of those two Kings, and the latter's sending Materials, and Workmen for the Temple. He quotes Dius, who wrote of the Phaenician Affairs, and attests the same thing of Solomon, and Hiram. 
e Antiq. l. 8. c. 7. l. 9 c. 14. l. 10. c. 1.  He tells us that Menander speaks of the great Famine and Elias' time; and that he speaks of Salmanesser King of As●yria, and that 
a In Eu'erpe.  Herodotus mentions Senacherib King of 〈◊〉 same Country, and his being discomfited. 
b Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11.  T● same Author takes notice that Nabuchadnezzar (specken of in Daniel) is mentioned in Berosus, in 〈◊〉 gasthenes (who writ of the Indian Affairs,) in D●ocles (who treats of the Persian) and in Philostr●●tus's History of the Phaenicians, and Indians.  
To proceed, it is Recorded that the Hezekiah's days, by the special Command of God, who (as you read in 2 King's 20. 11.) brought the shadow ten Degrees backward by which it had gone down on the Dial of Ab●● The Degrees in this Dial are to be understood ● those in the Heavens, say some: Others think the Degrees were Lines Engraved on the Dial. So many Hours, or so many Half-Hours, or so many Quarters are thought by others to be meant. The Miracle was here, saith a 
c Grot. in loc.  Learned Man, that the shadow on the Dial went back, not that the Sun itself did so. But this is a great mistaking of the Miracle; for it is expressly said, Isai. 38. 8. The Sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down: The Sun itself, as well as the shadow, moved backwards. Again, 'tis undeniable that this Glorious Luminary of Heaven really went back, and consequently that a very considerable duration of time; it may be ten hours were added to the ordinary day: for the King of Ba●ylon sent an Ambassador on purpose to jerusalem to inquire about this Prodigy, and to know what caused so long a Day, and such a Change of the Course of Nature, 2 Kings, 20. 12. This argues that those at Babylon saw this unusual Motion of the Sun, for as to the going back of the Shadow on that Dial, they could not see it. This shows it was a real thing, and consequently Miraculous, and Portentous, and that it was not the shadow only on the Dial that went backward so many Lines or Strokes, without the Sun's going back in the Heavens, as some have fancied. The Chaldean Astronomers could not but hear of, as well as see this Prodigious sight (for it was as sensible to them, as to the King of Babylon) but out of ill will and malice they laboured to suppress this Retrograde motion of the Sun: whence it is (as 
a Consent of Scripture.  Mr. Broughton hath observed) that though they reckon up several Eclipses which happened about this time, yet they say nothing of this Miraculous going back of the Sun. Yet (as a 
b Selden de Dis. Syr. Prol. cap. 3.  knowing Person hath observed) there is a Mystical Remembrance of the Shadow on Ahaz's Dial, and the length of that Day, among the Persian Priests, in their Religious Rites performed to Mithra. But what those other Pagans would conceal, their very Poets have delivered down to us in a Fable, telling us that the Sun being angry at Herculeses Birth, made the Night unusually long: For if the Sun make an extraordinary Day in one part of the World, it follows that there must be a Night of an extraordinary length in another part of it. We find also, that the foresaid Persians (in memory as it were of the Sun's prodigious going back in King Hezekiah's time) Celebrate a Triple Sun, viz. Going forward, returning back, and again going forward, as Tirinus observes out of Dion.  
Some have thought that the Pythagorean Metempsychosis had its Original from Nebuc●adnezz●●● Transformation into a Beast, which the Book of Daniel speaks of. That he was really turned into a Beast, as to shape, it is not improbable, for we read of People among the Scythians called Neuri, that were constantly every year for some days together turned into Wolves, and then returned to their former state again. 
a Lib. 4.  Herodotus, who relates this, saith it was confidently reported by the Scythians. The same happens every year to some People in Livonia (the Posterity of those Neuri) saith a 
b Casp. Peucer. de Divinat.  Credible Author, who made it his business to inquire narrowly into this matter: and he adds the like Examples in some other Countries. Wherefore it cannot be utterly disbelieved that Nabuchadnezzar was thus Bestialized, and remained seven years so, as the Sacred History informs us. Or, if by reason only of Melancholy he thought himself a Beast (as Physicians have reported that some have imagined themselves to be Wolves, others to be Dogs, others Cocks, and have really believed they Worried, Barked, and Crowed, which are the Actions proper to those species of Animals) this was foundation sufficient for the amazed Pagans to proceed upon, and to make some fanciful matter out of it. Hence therefore some of the Heathen Metamorphoses (which the Poets are frequently talking of) were coined; and hence, as I have said, the Pythagorean Transmigration, i. e. the passing of the Souls of Men into Brutes, had its birth. Which is the more credible from this consideration; that this Wonderful Transformation of that Great Monarch happened at, or about the same time that Pythagoras was at Babylon, whither ●e Travelled on purpose to gain the Eastern Learning. Hence he brought the Report fresh with him, and being of a fanciful Genius, thought the best way to solve that strange occurrence, was to assert the Metempsychosis; for the Corporal Transformation he thought argued also the Change of Souls.  
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream (Dan. 2.) of an Image with a Golden Head, Breast and Arms of Silver, Brazen Belly, and Legs of Iron, which represented the four Monarchies of the World, was the foundation of the Poetical Division of Time into four Ages, which they distinguish according to those four Metals; first the Golden-Age, which began with the beginning of the World, and lasted to Saturn's being turned out of his Kingdom. This signisies the happy State of our Forefathers in Paradise, for Saturn is Adam, as you shall hear afterwards. Secondly, there is the Silver-Age, which lasted from Saturn's Exile and being deposed, till Nimrod, or jupiter Belus, who is the same. In this Age all Arts were found out, they say, and this truly in part is testified by 
a Gen. 4.  Scripture. Thirdly, they tell us of the Brazen-Age, which began under Nimrod, or jupiter Belus, and lasted to the first year of the return of the Heraclidae. In this Age Tyranny grew up, and Wars began, and Slaughter was rife, as the Poets relate; and not untruly, for we find the same in Sacred History. The fourth Age is of Iron; it began from the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponesus, and lasts to these very times, and so 〈◊〉 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  He●iod, 
b Aen. 8.  Virgil, 
c M●tamorph. l. 1.  Ovid, and other Gree● and Latin Poets speak of these Four Ages, comparing them to those Four Metals, which without dispute was from Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, and Daniel's famed Interpretation of it. These were spread over all the East, and so it was easy for the Poets (as well as others) to light upon them, and to make thence their Comparison of the Four Ages to the Four Metals.  
Eighthly, The Heathens had their Gods from Scripture. I have partly showed already that some of the Patriarches, and other Persons in the Sacred Records, are described by the Poets under other Names than what the Holy Writ gives them. Now I will show that they are often represented under the Names of Gods by the Poets; especially it is evident to an inquisitive Eye, that the Book of Genesis afforded the Pagan World the greatest part of their Ancient Gods and Goddesses, First, to begin with Adam, he without doubt was Saturn, of whom the Poets relate that his Father was Coelus, and his Mother Tellus, that he Ruled over all the World, and was Supreme Sovereign; that under him was the Golden-Age, that afterwards he was expelled his Kingdom, and deposed from the Power and Dominion he had, and that he found out Agriculture. Answerably to which, Adam is called 
d 3. Luke 38.  the Son of God, which in the Language of the Poets is Son of Coelus: besides, he was form by God out of the Earth and so might be said to be both the Son of Go●, and of the Earth. Adam was the first Ruler and Sovereign Lord, under him was the Golden-Age, or happy State in Paradise, which all Men might have enjoyed if he had not fallen. But he fell, and lost his Empire, and was expelled that Blessed place. He was the first that Tilled the Ground, and taught Men Husbandry. Besides, I have this to add, that Saturn is the same with Time (for by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the change of a Letter is called 
a Es● idem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Macrob. Sa●ur●● I. 1. c. 12.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so they are Synonimous) and Adam well deserved that Name, being the Eldest of all Men, and because Time began from him. This is very plain, I think; and moreover the Name of Saturn might be given to Adam from Satar, latere, because after his fall from that happy state he had been in, he withdrew himself like a Guilty Malefactor, he fled for it, and hid himself in the Garden, Gen. 3. 10. Hence Saturnus is the same with Latius, as Vossius observes, and the Place which of old was called Saturnia, was afterwards called Latium, as Virgil and others testify. Thus the first Founder of Mankind, Adam, was the first and eldest Saturn, the top of all the Heathen Deities.  
And that Eve, the first of the Fair Sex, the Mistress of the World, and the Mother of all Mankind, was made a Goddess by the Pagan World, is not to be questioned, (yea, though she hath been represented by them (as hath been said before) in a far other Character, for I have often intimated that 'tis the way of the Poets to make a great many things out of one, and to represent the same Person after a different, if not a contrary manner▪) And yet I do not at present remember that Vossius, or Bochart, or any other Mythologist (which is something to be wondered at) assign her any Goddessship at all among th●● Pagan Divinities. Nay, Vossius, who maintains that Naama● (Gen. 4. 22.) an obscure Woman, the Daughter of Lamech, was Deified by the Heathens, omits our Mother Eve, the Empress of the World, the common Parent of all Mankind. I shall therefore do her the right to assign the Rank which I think she held, and the Name which was given her among the Heathen Goddesses. To know this, we need only inquire who among them was the Goddess of Wisdom, and of all the Arts, and who invented the things which were most proper for the Female Sex to find out. This (without any curious search) was Minerva, and no other, and therefore I doubt not but Eve was this Minerva. The three great Inventions attributed to the Goddess of this name, are Spinning, and Weaving, and the use of Oil; i. e. as I understand it, the use of it in preparing and ordering of Wool, for 'tis likely that those who worked in Wool of old, made use of Oil then as well as we do now. These are the staple Inventions of that Goddess; and as for the rest that the Poets talk of, they are mere fantastic Flourishes of Poetry, and are not to be minded.  
Now, considering what I have said, what Woman in the World can we more fitly imagine to be meant by Minerva, than Adam's Wife Eve, who questionless was endued by God with eminent Qualities and Excellencies for the good of the World, and especially with such as were most useful in one of her Sex, and who was the Mistress and Guide of all the rest. She was certainly Noted and Celebrated for some Art or other which she found out: And 'tis as certain that no Invention is more worthy of a Woman, than Spinning, and Weaving, and working of Wool, and making of Clothing; for this last comprehends the other two, and was the peculiar Invention of Minerva, as 
a Lib. 6. cap. 14.  Diodorus Si●ulus, and others assure us, when they mention the things found out by her. This is called 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apollon. l. 1.  Minerva's Work or Business. She was the first that invented the making of Apparel, saith another 
c Aristid. in Hymn. in Jou.  Ancient Author. It is true, all Artificial Works that were considerable, were ascribed by the Ancients, to this Goddess, but Spinning and Weaving were more eminently said to be from her. Our Mother Eve, who had the Wit and Skill to discover these, and to improve them by her living so long in the World, might well pass among her own Sex at least, for the wisest Woman that ever was, and might be entitled the Mistress of all Arts and Sciences, that is, in the Language of the Poets, the Goddess of Wisdom. Whence I conclude, that our first Parent Eve, was Minerva, the First and Original Spinster, from whom her Sex derive that commendable Title. Only I will add this, That when the Poets tell us, that Minerva was Born of Jupiter's Brain, and without a Mother, they seem to refer to Sacred History; which acquaints us, that Eve was not Born after the manner of other Women, but was taken out of Adam's side. He that knows how they are wont to mistake and adulterate the passages in Holy Writ, and to take one thing (and ●o one part of the Body) for another, will not be averse to credit this, and consequently that this is some confirmation of our present Notion, that Eve passed for a Goddess among the Gentiles, and was called Minerva by them, that is, (as Arnobius and some others interepret it) Meminerva, because she that had so good an Invention, had doubtless as good a Memory, which is so requisite to that.  
Cain, the Eldest Son of Adam, was the first Ancient jupiter: (for I deny not that there were other Younger jupiters' among the Pagans) This first and oldest jupiter, the Son of Saturn, is said, to have invented the founding of Cities; and we know, that the first City in the world, was built by Cain. This jupiter by the Athenians, was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Founder of Cities, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an encloser or strengthner of Cities, saith Pausanias; which well agrees to the First Builder. Besides, this Cain Married his own Sister, and so the same is said of jupiter; he Married Vesta, Saturn's Daughter, who was the Goddess of Architecture, and therefore was a proper Wife for him, who was the first Architect. Moreover, we are 
a Dio●or. Sic. l. 4. c. 25.  told, that jupiter Travelled over all the World, which, in other terms, is Cain's being a Vagabond. The Old Vulcan, the Smith of the Gods, was Tubal-Cain; for by a common Aphaeresis, and change of Letters, one of these Names is easily made the other. And here let me insert that which will be useful to observe in the like cases afterwards, viz. that the Greeks and Romans, when they take any Names from the jews, they do not always set them down according to the Hebrew Termination, nor with all the Letters of the words; they take the liberty to omit some, and to alter others. Thus it is here in the words before us, and thus we shall find it in others that are to be mentioned afterwards, as we have found it in some already. This Tubal-Cain, or Vulcan, may be said to have found out Fire, or rather the use of it in his Employment, as he was an Artificer in Brass, and Iron, Gen. 4. 22.  
Noah was famous of old, and if Gods were made of Men (as certainly they were) he could not miss of being made one; accordingly the most ancient Bacchus was Noah, who first Planted Vines, and taught the making of Wine, Gen. 9 20. I will not insist on the derivation of Bacchus from Noachus, which some Learned Men approve of, though 
a Theolog. Gentil. l. 1. cap. 19  Vossius will by no means allow of it, but thinks it too hard an Origination, because the Greeks did not pronounce (it is likely) Noah, but Noi, for the former was after the Points were brought in by the Masorites. But in answer to this Great Critic, I will say these three things; First, he goes upon a false supposition, that the Masorites invented the Hebrew Points, which I have already proved to be an Error. Secondly, as I have already noted, the Pagans are wont to change the Terminations of Hebrew words, and indeed to shape them after their own way, and as they please. Thirdly, harder Etymologies please him sometimes: to go no farther than the same Chapter, he there makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be qu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taking no notice of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they be considerable Consonants, and no Terminations neither. Notwithstanding then, the suggestion of this great Master of Criticism, we may subscribe to the common Opinion of Etymologists, that Bacch or Bacchus (with the change of a Letter or two, which is very usual, or perhaps with the mistaking of one Letter for another in the beginning of the word, Nun and Beth being somewhat like in shape) was derived from Noa●●, and that from this Old Patriarch's Planting of Vin●s presently after the Flood, and his unhappy feeling the strength and virtue of the Grape, arose the Poet's Tippling Deity, who is said by them to be — 
a Ovid.  Genialis consitor uvae, The first Planter of the Grape, and the Inventor of Wine. And for the same reason, those who think janus is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vinum, hold that Noah was represented by this janus another God among the Poets. This is true, that it is no unusual thing to set forth the same Person by different Names, as if they were different Gods. And that janus comes from jajin, and so is as much as Vinosus, and may have reference to Noah on that account is probable from this, that that part of Italy which janus possessed, and where he is said to be Worshipped was called OENOTRIA, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vinum. Of the Antiquity of janus that Old Writer Fabius Pictor gives this Testimony, which agrees well with Noah; 
b In Annalib.  In Ianus' time there was no Monarchy, for the desire of Ruling had not yet harboured in the breasts of Men: (accordingly we read that Nimrod afterwards was the first Monarch and Absolute Ruler:) He taught People first to Sacrifice Wine, and Meal. And the Epithet Bifrons, which is given to janus, intimates that he was Noah, for he might truly be said to have had two Faces, because he looked backwards, and forwards, he saw the times both before and after the Flood, he beheld the former and the latter World. God honoured him so far as to make him (as 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Abraham●.  Philo speaks) both the end and beginning of Mankind. Others more fancifully say he was called janus, à janua, from his opening a door as it were for the preservation of Mankind: And 
b Initium aedium dicitur janua, initium mensium dicitur januarius: sic Noachus erat in●●●um al●erium generis humani.  other such Conceits of the Name there are.  
Again, this Noah was represented by Saturn, and here you must not wonder that Saturn denotes both Adam, and Noah, for there is great resemblance between these two, the one being the Parent of the World before the Flood, the other of that after it; and for this Reason perhaps Noah is called by the Persians the second Adam. Besides, the Poets confound many in one, and to make amends, sometimes divide one into many. But that Noah was meant by Saturn, is the Opinion of some of the Learnedest Critics, as Goropius, Becanus, Vossius, and Boc●art, the last of which hath 
c Geograph. Sac. 1 part. l. 2. c. l.  offered about a dozen probable Arguments (as he deems them) to make it good. I will mention to you some of them: Saturn is said to be the Husband of Rhea, i. e. of the Earth: So Noah is said to be Ish haadamah, Gen. 9 20. Vir Terrae, which the Heathens might interpret to be a Husband of the Earth, and thence inserted this into their Fabulous description of Saturn. Or, if you mean by those words that Noah was a Humble Man, and led a mean Life, than the Saturnian Reign agrees with it, in which Men were strangers to Pride and Luxury, and lived a mean, but peaceable and contented Life. Or, take it as it is Translated, a Husbandman, one that looked after the Cultivating of the Earth, and so it fits both Noah, and Saturn, or rather shows these to be one and the same Person, who was employed about the Earth, and the Fruits of it, whereof the Vine was one of the chiefest. Saturn devoured his Children, i. e. saith this Author, Noah 
a Heb. 11. 7.  Condemned the World to perish by the Flood, whilst he himself escaped. Or, it may be applied to his shutting up his Children in the Ark, among the Beasts, as if he intended they should be devoured and destroyed. Saturn vomited up his Sons again, in like manner Noah restored his Sons to the Earth, after they had been shut up in the Ark, and kept so long on that other Element. Saturn was driven out of his Kingdom by his Son, after he had first cut off his Father's Genitals: which refers to Cursed Cham, Noah's Son, who saw his Father's Nakedness, and told it with derision to his Brethren, Gen. 9 22. The Pagans mistook this Text: for whereas the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he told or revealed, they perhaps read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cut, whence they report that Cham or Ham (whom they called jupiter) made an Eunuch of his Father. And truly, that jupiter Hammon was the same Ham, Noah's Son, may be gathered from the place where Ham and his posterity were Seated, namely in Africa. Here, in the Deserts of Lybia, was the Famous Oracle of jupiter Hammon, who had his Name from that Wicked Son of Noah, who in this place vented his Blasphemies (which passed for Oracles with some,) and thereby debauched the Minds of the generality of that Age; and in process of time he came to be Worshipped there under the Name of jupiter Ham, or Hammon. I know some have thought Hamon is Chamah Sol, because he is reckoned the same with the Sun: And others derive it from Hamon Multitudo (as Abraham's Name is Compounded of his former Name Abram, and Hamon, a Multitude, whence he is called a Father of many Nations, Gen. 17. 5. So that Abraham is but an abbreviature of Abrahammon.) But there is great reason to think that this Hammon is the same with Ham, Noah's Son, whose Posterity were Inhabitants of Africa, whence Egypt is called 
a Psal. 105. 23. 106. 22.  the Land of Ham. This African or Egyptian Hammon is mentioned (as Bochart thinks) in Ezek. 30. 15. I will cut off the Multitude of No, in the Hebrew, Hamon of No. And so in I●r. 46. 25. Amon of No, i. e. Amon the God of No: And in Nahum 3. 8. No of Amon: But the main Argument to prove Noah and Saturn to be the same is yet behind, which is this; that Saturn by the Heathens is said to have had three Sons, jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, and that he divided the World among them. This Fable of dividing the World among three Brethren, the Children of Saturn, did plainly arise from the dividing the Earth between the three Brethren, the Sons of Noah. Of these three was the whole Earth overspread, Gen. 9 19 By these were the Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood, Gen. 10. 32. The Hot Country of Africa was Cham's division, who might have his Name given him from a foresight of the place where he and his Race were to Inhabit, the Land of Cham, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluit: this is no unlikely derivation. Again, japhet (another of Noah's Sons) was Neptune, as Bochart endeavours to show, for the Isles and Peninsulae fell to his share, Gen. 10. 5. And Vossius is very positive in this, that the Ancientest Neptune (for there were Neptunes as well as Ioves many) was this japhet, to his Lot fell Europe, for▪ japetus or japhet, is reckoned the Parent of the Europeans: These are the true 
a Hor. lib. 1. Ode 3.  japeti genus. Shem was Pluto, and what may be said for it, you may see in the forenamed Writer. From the whole there is some reason to believe that Noah, the Father of those three Sons, among whom the World was divided, was one Person at least that was represented by the Heathen God Saturn.  
In the next place, it is not difficult to prove that the Egyptian God Apis, or Serapis, was no other than joseph, the Renowned Ruler in Egypt under King Pharaoh. This Person had abundantly merited of all Egypt, and infinitely obliged the whole Country, by laying up Corn in store, and thereby providing for them against the time of Scarcity and Famine. For this singular Benefit to them, they erected an Ox or Cow to preserve his Memory, for in that Figure Apis or Serapis appeared, and was Worshipped by the Egyptians. And under what Symbol more fitly than that of an Ox could joseph be represented? For not to mention the Fame he got by his Wonderful Interpreting Pharaoh's Dream of the Fat and Lean Kine, whence perhaps that sort of Animals was afterwards in great reverence and esteem on this account, as carrying with them some thing Mystical and Hieroglyphical, which made them the more acceptable to this People, who were then inclining to hearken to such things. Not to mention this, I say, joseph might most appositely be signified by that Animal which is made use of in Ploughing, in order to the Sowing and coming up of the Corn, that Creature which is serviceable to the treading out the Corn (for that was another great employment of the Ox in those days.) Therefore the Holy Spirit in Scripture seems to refer to this in Gen. 49. 6. which Text (speaking of Ioseph's brethren's wicked Design to kill him) calls him an 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ox, or Bull, according to the 70 Interpreters; and so according to the Hebrew, if you read it Shor, and not Shur. And, in Deut. 33. 17. joseph is compared by Moses to an Ox, or Bullock. Which manner of expression denotes him to be a Great and Eminent Person, as well as it hath reference to the particular thing I am now speaking of. Shor (which is the Word here, and is Synonimous with Alaph Bos) signifies a Prince, a Great Man, a Potentate, as knowing 
b Angelus Caninius in Instit. Ling Syr. ●●seph Scaliger in Euseb. Nor.  Critics have observed. Because an Ox is reputed the Prince and Head of Animals, you'll find that in a Metaphorical way Princes and Captains are so called in 
c Gen. 36. 19 Psal. 22. 12. 68 30.  Scripture. Whence among Profane Writers also they are thus named sometimes: for a Bull or Ox is a Symbol of Superiority, or Government, saith 
d Dion. Orat. 2.  Diogenes. On this account the Famous Patriarch joseph, who was Constituted by Pharaoh the Chief Ruler and Prince of Egypt, hath this Name given him. But there is something more particular intended here in this Title, for it hath respect to joseph as he was Grand Proveditor of that Country: for there could not be a better Symbol of Provision of Corn and Bread than this Creature. Hence is that of Solomon, 
a Prov. 14. 4.  much increase, (i. e. as the Hebrew imports, plenty of Corn and Grain) is by the strength of the Ox. And it may be to this which I am now insisting upon, viz. that joseph was represented by this sort of Animals, jer. 46. 20. refers, Egypt is like a fair Heifer. The Egyptian Serapis then in the form of a Cow or Ox, was a true Hieroglyphic of joseph, especially when we add, that a Bushel was placed on its head, as saith 
b Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 23.  Ruffinus, to signify that joseph was the giver out of Corn, that he caused it to be measured and proportioned according to the needs of those to whom he dispensed it. By this Wise as well as Liberal Act his Fame grew great among the Egyptians, and other adjoining Nations, and at length they Worshipped him as a God by the Symbol of an Ox, which they styled Serapis, as not only Ruffinus, Augustin, Suidas, julius Firmicus of old, but Vossius, Bonfrerius, Pierius, and Kircher of late have maintained. And I am inclined to think that the word Serapis was Originally Sorapis, a Compound of For an Ox, and Apis an Egyptian word perhaps of the same signification. And this is the more credible, because the word Apis alone is sometimes used for Serapis. Some have thought that Mercury was a Name given by the Pagans to this joseph, he being Hermes, an Interpreter, for it is particularly recorded that he Interpreted Dreams, Gen. 41. & 42, and was a Diviner, Gen. 44. 5. whence he was called Zaphnath Paaneah, i. e. a Revealer or Interpreter of Secrets, Gen. 41. 45. But I rather think these words are better rendered by St. jerom (who tells us he learned the meaning of them from some that well understood the Egyptian Tongue) Salvator Mundi, and so they refer to Ioseph's timely Saving that part of the World from perishing by Famine. In this sense he was a Saviour, and he was for this made a God. Thus the Ancient Patriarches were the Poet's Gods; the first Fathers whom the Bible speaks of were the Pagan Deities.  
To proceed, Moses also was the Person intended by Mercury, as is excellently well proved from a numerous company of Circumstances, and very naturally, and without any forcing, by a late 
a Huetius, in Demonstr. Evang.  Learned Frenchman, to whom I refer you. It hath no less ingenuously been proved by 
b De Theolog. Gent.  Vos●ius, and some others, that Moses was represented in Liber or Bacchus, for they show out of Pausa●as, how it was a Tradition, that as soon as Bacchus was Born he was shut up in an Ark, and exposed to the Waters, as Moses was. Liber was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so Moses, besides the Mother that bore him, had Pharaoh's Daughter, who took him and nourished him for her own Son, Exod. 2. 10. Acts 7. 21. Liber was Fair and Beautiful, and excelled others in Comeliness, as Diodorus saith, and as the 
c Candida formosi venerabimur ora Lyaei. Sen. in ●●dip.  Poets represent him: semblably Moses was noted for his singular Beauty, Exod. 2. 2. Acts 7. 20. and the jewish Historian tells us the King's Daughter Adopted him, because 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph. Antiq. l. 4. c. 5.  ●e was of Divine Shape, as well as of a Generous Mind. The very same is Recorded by a 
b Quem tormae Pulchritudo commenda●●r. Iu●tin. l. 36. c. 2.  Pagan Historian, which let me observe is a great Confirmation of the Sacred History. Orpheus styleth Liber 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answers to Moses' being Legistator: and he attributes to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the Two Tables of the Law. Moreover, Liber is called by the said Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by 
c In Bacchis.  Euripides he is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which may be occasioned by a mistaking of those words in Exod. 34. 29. Moses' Face shone, which is rendered by the Latin, cornuta erat facies sua, the Hebrew Karan, (whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cornu) being the ground of that mistake, and causing Moses to be Pictured with two Horns. Lastly, saith Vossius, though Moses found not out Wine, as Bacchus, yet in regard of This too he may have the Name of Liber, for he was the Conductor of the Israelites to a Land not only flowing with Milk and Honey, but abounding with Wine: and he it was that encouraged the faint-hearted Israelites by the sight of that Bunch of Grapes which was the burden of two Men, Numb. 13. 20, 23. This is the Sum of what Vossius saith. This Moses was so eminent and signal a Person, and his Actions so well known to the Pagan World, that Monsieur Huet thinks and endeavours to prove that he was represented not only by Mercury, and Bacchus, but by Apollo, Aesculapius, Pan, Priapus, Prometheus, janus, and by those Egyptian Deities especially, Osiris, Apis, Serapis, Orus, Anubis.  
The Neighbouring People of Phoenicia and Egypt could not but hear of josuah and his Acts, and thence made their Hercules out of him; and from them he was sent down to the Greeks, who you may be sure would augment the Stories which they heard. I say josua was the Pagans Hercules, for he fought with Giants, whose great Stature at first frighted the Israelites. In the Land of Canaan, which he Conquered, were the Sons of Anak, Men of a vast size, Numb. 13. 33, 34. Bashan more signally is called the Land of Giants, Deut. 3. 13. Whilst josua was fight with these Canaanitish Giants 
a Jos. 10. 11.  the Lord cast down great Stones from Heaven upon them: The remembrance of which (saith Vossius) is kept among the Gentiles, and applied to jove assisting Hercules in the very same sort when he grappled with Giants, and was put hard to it.  
Samson as well as josua was the Greeks Hercules, and from the one the History or rather Fable of the other is taken. First, as Vossius observes, the times of both agree: Hercules, and Samson were Contemporary, as appears from comparing the Greek and Jewish accounts of time. When these hit together, there is a presumption at least. Again, Hercules slew the Nemaean Lion, which answers to what we read of Samson, Judg. 14. 5, 6. A young Lion roared against him, and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rend him as he would have rend a Kid, and ●e ●ad nothing in his hand. Hercules' subdued many Tyrants, and Oppressors; that is the meaning of Hydra's, Centauris, Stymphalideses, etc. Thus Samson was raised up on purpose to suppress and vanq●li● those who had miserably oppressed and 〈◊〉 the Israelites. Hercules was sent Captive by jupiter to Eurysthaeus, and put to many Labours to 〈◊〉 deem his Freedom: so Samson served the F●●●listines, and undertook Great and Wonderful thi●●● for his and his country's Liberty. Hercules' w●● of great strength of Body, and that Samson was so, we have several remarkable Instances. Hercules was Effeminate, and most vilely served O●phale; our Samson was enslaved to a Woma●, and was undone by Dalilah. Hercules and Sams●● agree in their Deaths, for they were both of them Spontaneous and Voluntary. From such sho●● hints as these we may gather that the Fable o● Hercules, one of the Heathen-Gods, or Hero's a● least, was meant concerning Samson the Famous Judge of Israel.  
What think you of Ionas' being signified i● some Circumstances by Hercules, who when he returned from Col●his with the Argonauts, as Lycophron in his Cassandra tells us, was devoured by a great Fish, which the Scholiast on that place saith was a Whale? And Hercules lay three Days and three Nights without any considerable harm in the Belly of this Whale, whence he is called by that Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which the Scholiast gives the true reason, because (saith he) all that time it was as it were Evening with Hercules, the Belly of the Fish being Dark and Shady. Ph●vorinus gives the like account of the foresaid Epithet, telling us that all the while he was in the Caverns of the Whale it was Night. And both Cyril and Theophylact take notice of the likeness of this Greek Fable of Hercules, to the Story of jonah. I will only allege this one thing more, that those Argonauts before mentioned, are said ●o have Sailed in the Euxine-Sea, which was the very Sea according to 
a Antiq. l. 9 c. 11.  josephus, on whose ●hoar jonas was vomited up. This must be granted, that the Fame of what befell the Prophet jonah, namely, how he was swallowed by a Whale, and preserved three Days and three Nights in its Belly, and how he was after that cast upon the Land whole and sound, might easily be conveyed to the Grecians by the Phaenicians their Neighbours: thence they went to work after their old rate, and fixed it upon some body among themselves: and whom could they more fitly apply this History to than to Hercules, the great Adventurer by Sea as well as by Land, and who was made the Author of all Great and Wonderful things? The Fabulous Greek Poets catched up every Prodigious Occurrence and attributed it to him, but first they represented it with strange and uncouth Circumstances, and moulded it as they pleased. Thus the Gentiles framed new Gods and Heroes out of the Names and Persons they met with, or heard of out of the Scriptures. So it is, the Gods of the Pagans were made out of Men in Holy Writ. The Gentiles Worshipped these Famous Hebrews under other Names and Titles, which they were pleased to fasten on them. Behold! the Servants and Favourites of the true God were Deified by these Idolaters: Holy Men were Canonised and Worshipped by the very Heathen World.  
There are some other Particulars which mig●● be named under this Head, (though they are 〈◊〉 so plain and evident as these already mentioned as that the Ancientest Apollo was Moses' 〈◊〉 
a Gen. 4. 21.  who invented Music, that the Poets Gany●●● snatched up into Heaven by jupiter, and turned i●●● that Sign which is called Aquarius, refers to 〈◊〉 who was taken up to Heaven, and before that h●● command over the Waters of Heaven, keeping back the Rain for three years, and afterwards b● Prayer causing those Waters to descend: That the Story of Phaeton was grounded on this Prophet's Fiery Chariots, that Lucifer's fatal Defection is meant by Phaeton's proud Attempt, and Fall; that the Dissoluteness of the Pagan Gods, of which the Poets often speak, refers to the Degeneracy and Corruption of the Sons of God, complained of in Gen. 6. 2. And particularly that their Lewd and Wanton Gods might be from a misinterpreting the 4th v. the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men. Sometimes out of Things as well as Persons they coined Gods. The Poets observing the RainBow to be a Sign of the change of the Air and Wether, (either to be fair or foul) might make it the Messenger of the Gods, who was sent out by them when there was any Change of the present Affairs nigh at hand. But when I remember that observable Passage concerning the Rainbow, in Gen. 9 9 that it should be a Token of the Covenant between God and Man, I am inclined to think that this was not unknown to some of the inquisitive Heathens, who pried into the Sacred Writings of Moses, and thence looked upon that Remarkable Meteor as some Sacred and Divine thing, and according to their fanciful way advanced it to the Office of Internuntia Deorum, as they expressly called it, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Homer styles it, a Messenger between God and Men; particularly a Messenger of Peace and Reconciliation with the new World, ●n Angel of that Covenant. This is their Iris, which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or it is perhaps from the Chaldee It an Angel. Again, there are strange Fiery Apparitions mentioned in the Old Testament, as the Burning-Bush, and the FlamingChariots before spoken of; and we read that God appointed Holy-Fire to be kept always on the Altar. Hence perhaps it was that Fire was made ● God, and Worshipped by the Chaldeans and Persians, and was in such request among the Old Romans, that (as you have heard) they ordered the Vestal Virgins to keep it unextinguished. Thus the Heathens had their Gods and Goddesses from the Holy Book; which it may be that Sagacious Author of the Book of Maccabees meant, when he said, 
a 1 Mac. 3. 48.  From the Book of the Law the Heathens sought to Paint the likeness of their Images. We have found in this Discourse, that their Images or Gods have been made like to those things which they meet with in the Sacred Writings. I have showed you the Resemblance and Agreement between them in many Considerable Circumstances.   

CHAP. VII.  
From the Names of the True God the Gentil●● had the Names of their False ones; as jo●● and Jao, from J●hovah and Jah; 〈◊〉 from Adonai, Baal Berith and Sabazius fr●● Epithets given to the True God. Also, t●● Pagans giving the Title of Gods to the●● Kings, is derived from the Sacred Writings. Anchialum in Martial, hath reference to th● form of Swearing in the Old Testament. The Author's particular resolution of that mistakes word. The use of the word Horns in Profane Authors, is borrowed from the Sacred Style. Several other words, Phrases, and Forms of Speech, among the Pagans, are taken thence. There are some footsteps and relics of the Sacred History in the most remote Countries of the World. Objections against the foregoing Discourse answered.  
Ninthly. THE Heathens had the Names of 〈◊〉 Gods, and the pronunciation of th●● sometimes, from the Names and Titles of the True God. They seem to have derived something from what the jews practised, concerning the Great Tetragrammaton, which was called by them Hashem, the Name emphatically, the Name appropriate to God, the unexpressible Name; for the jews tell us, that this Name which we read Ie●ov●●, was pronounced by the High Priest only, and that but once a year, in the Temple, at the Fe●● of Propitiation, so that it was not known by the People how it was pronounced. When they met with it in their Bibles, instead of it they read Adonai, or Elohim. Hence a great many Conjectures have been about the right pronunciation of this Name. It was read jave or jahave by the Samaritans, but this is laid aside, and Mercer and Drusius read it jeheve. Some think that jehejeh Erit was the word used at first by the jews, and that afterwards it was corruptly changed into jeheveh, the Iod being turned into Vau. The true Punctation of the Proper Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was anciently jahavoh, saith the 
a Dr. Bright.  Learned Prefacer to the First Volume of Dr. Lightfoot's Works, but he is not pleased to give any Reason for it. Whether Galatinus was the first that read and pronounced it jehovah I will not here inquire; but this is certain he had it from the Masorites, according to whose Points it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and without question those Hebrew Critics had it from the best and ancientest Copies. This was the ●irst and truest reading, and some men's varying from it hath proceeded from their Belief of the jewish Conceit and Tradition, that their Forefathers knew not how to read or pronounce the Tetragrammaton. But though it is true they seldom or never spoke it, yet this did not proceed from their ignorance of the right pronunciation of it, but from a Superstitious Reverence and Fear of Profaning that word, by taking it into their Mouths. But the Holy Scripture itself warrants the Pronouncing of this Name, for in Gen. 22. 14. Abra●am calls the place where he would have Sacrificed Isaac, jehovah-jireh: now a Place can't be called by its Name, unless the Name be pronounced. So Gideon built an Altar, and called it Iehovah-S●alom, judg. 6. 24. Besides, the jews themselves, as precise and nice as they are in this matter, compound many Proper Names of it, though with some abbreviating of it, as jehochanan, jehonathan: whence it is evident that they knew how to pronounce this Name of God, but from the reverend esteem which they had of it they refused to do it. The Rabbis foolishly pretend Scripture for this, Isa. 45. 15. Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, applying these words to the concealing of his Name. And they corrupt another Text to maintain this their Superstitious Fancy and Practice, Exod. 3. 15. This is my Name, le gnolam, for ever: they read it legnalem, to be concealed. Now, I say, to this Practice of the jews, viz. their obscure and uncertain Pronouncing, or rather their not knowing how to pronounce the Name of the true God, the Heathens seem to refer, when they call him the Unknown, and the 
a Incerti Judaea D●i. Lucan. Ph●rsal. lib. 2. Inc●rtum N●●en, Trebel. Pol. in vitâ Claudianis.  Uncertain God, and 
b Inn●mi●atus deus. In vitâ Caligulae.  the God that is not to be named. Socrates exhorted the Athenians, saith justin Martyr, to the knowledge of the 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog. 1.  Unknown God, that is, the God of the jews. The Inscription on the Altar erected at Athens, To the Unknown God, shows that they gave the True God that Name, for the Apostle interprets it of Him, Acts 17. 23. Thence that in Lucian, 
d N● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I● P●ilopat.  By the Unknown God in Athens. And Hesychius tells us that there were a sort of Gods called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worshipped by these Athenians, and the Feasts kept in Honour of these strange Deities were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; especially the Hebrew God was numbered by them among the strange ones; therefore when the Gentiles were speaking of this God of the jews, they added, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dion. Hist. l. 36.  whosoever he be: as much as to say, he and his Name are not known. And in imitation of this, perhaps some of the Pagans would have their Gods to be Unknown. 
b S●tur●●. l. 3. ●. 9  Macrobius Acquaints us particularly concerning the People of Rome, that they would have their God, under whose protection the City was, concealed; and he pretends this reason for it, because if the Name of their Tutelar God were known, the Enemy would make use of it, and call him out by their Magic Art. But the true reason might be their fond imitating of the jews (whom in many other things they were wont to follow:) hence they were not to know the Name of the Tutelar God of Rome; he was 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Roman. Quaest  Unknown, and Unutterable, as Plutarch testifies.  
But as the jews pretended, out of a superstitious humour, that the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not unknown to them, when they knew well enough the right pronunciation of it; so the Gentiles, though they called the God of the jews the Unknown God▪ and seemed to be ignorant of his Names, yet it appears that they had some knowledge of them, and that they Entitled their Gods by the Names of the God of the jews. Which I prove thus; the Tetragrammaton was ●ot unknown to the Chaldeans, as is clear from 〈◊〉. 36. 15, 18, 20. where we read that the Idolatrous Rabshakeh (who at that time spoke in the jews Language, v. 13.) knew it, and often pronounced it. And this Name of God is found among the Grecians also, though altered and corrupted. From 
a Saturnal. I. 1. c. 18.  Macrobius we learn that jao was the Chief God of all among the Gentiles, for which he quoteth the Oracle of Apollo Clarius.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Know this, that the Supreme God of all is jao.  
A most Illustrious Attestation to the Holy Writ, and the Great Name of God contained therein. jehovah was corruptly pronounced jao, and Io was a contract of jao, as in the Songs and Hymns wherein they Sung Io Paean. This latter word (as 
b Rous's Archaelog. Attic. I. 2. c 2.  one conjectures) is from Panah to look, or behold: and so Io Paean is as much as jehovah Penoth, Lord look upon us. For it is probable that Io, jao, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for all these were in use) were abreviatures of jehovah, as jah among the jews was an Abridgement of this. Several of the 
c Irenaeus, Clem. Al●xandr. Eusebius, etc.  Ancient Fathers are positive that jehovah was written by the Greeks, who were not well acquainted with the pronunciation of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly, saith Porphyrius the Philosopher, cited by 
d P●aep. Evang. I. 1. c. 5.  Eusebius, Sanconiathon received the account he gives of the jews from a Priest of the God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is testified by 
e l. 5. c. 5.  Diodorus, that Moses received his Laws from the God that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Mistake arose from the ignorance of the Name jehovah. Whence it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with jah and jehovah, and that the former is but a mistaken pronunciation of these latter.  
I will add that Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, came from Moses' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exod. 3. 14. according to the Septuagint, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am, according to the Original. And the same Philosopher's To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answer to jehovah, which is a Name of Existence.  
Nay, that is more remarkable which we meet with in 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D●●●. & Osiris.  Plutarch, who affirms that the Inscription on the Temple of Minerva in Egypt was thus, I am all that is, and was, and shall be. Which is a plain reference to God's Name in Exodus. And he speaks of another Inscription of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Temple at Delphos, which he thus applies to the peculiar Essence and Existence of God, is the complete Appellation of God: in our answering and speaking to God, we say, Thou art, attributing to him this true, certain, and only Appellation, which agrees to him alone, which is called Being or Existing. And afterwards he expatiates concerning the uncertain, labile and flux Nature of Man, and all things in Comparison of God, who is most properly said to be, Eternally Existing. This is Ehejeh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am, of which Name of the True God these Gentiles had some notice, and that from the Hebrews, and imitated in the Names that they gave to their false Deities.  
jovis, the old Nominative Case for jupiter, (as Priscian saith, and so it is used by Ennius and Varro) is borrowed from this Name jehovah. jupiter is no other than jovis-piter, or jovis-pater, Father jove, or jehove, and so answers to jehovah, who hath the Name of Father given him often in Scripture. And it is likely that heretofore some contracted the word jehovah, and read or pronounced it jovah, as the jews pronounced judah for jehudah. Nay, jove or jova, the Abreviature of jehovah was perhaps used by Moses himself; which I gather from what josephus saith of the Name Written on the High-Priest's Mitre; viz. That it had four Vowels, and consisted of four Vowels alone: This seems to have been jova, which consists of just so many Vowels, though two of them are used as Consonants, unless you will say they pronounced I and V. as Vowels, thus, jova. We may then reasonably believe that the Name of the Heathens God jovis came from the corrupt pronouncing or contracting the word jehovah, or (which comes nearer to it) jehovih, for so you will find it Written in Deut. 3. 24. 9 26. And that jovis is of Hebrew Original, and derived from the Tetragrammaton, is confessed by Varro, who thought that jovis was first of all the God of the jews, as 
a Deum Judaeorum jovem putavit. De Consens. Evans. lib. 1.  St. Augustin quotes him. And though the Pagans altered the Name, and made it sometimes exceed, and at other times come short of four Letters, yet this did not extinguish the sense and notion among some of them, that the Original Name was a Tetragrammaton, For it is likely that the Pythagoreans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Number Four, by which they used to Swear, (especially they confirmed the most serious Truths with this Oath) was taken from the jews Tetragrammaton. The Excellent 
a Hierocl.  Commentator on Pythagoras' Golden Verses, and particularly on this passage in them, talks at large why God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaternarius, so that it seems the Pythagoreans applied it to God. Whence a 
b Selden de Dis. Syr.  Learned Antiquary of our own concludes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was jehovah, and he conceives that Pythagoras (who speaks of it in his Verses) had this Mystery of Quaternity from the Hebrews, who had in great veneration the Tetragrammaton, the Name of God of Four Letters. It was easy for this Philosopher, who conversed in his Travels (as is acknowledged) with Hebrews and Chaldees, to arrive to the knowledge of this Name.  
Let me suggest this in the next place, that since the Name jehovah was commonly pronounced Adonai by the superstitious jews, it might hence come to pass that this Adonai, with a very small change, gave the Name to one of the Poetic Gods among the Heathens, viz. Adonis. To confirm which, add what Hesychius saith, that 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Adonis is as much Lord among the Phaenicians. He mistakes the Phaenicians for the Hebrews here, as is very usual. Whence then can we with greater probability think that Name was given to a Pagan God, than from its being of so near affinity with Adonai, the Name of the True God among the jews? Again, Baal-Berith, i. e. the Lord of the Covenant, was the Name of a God or Idol of the Phaenicians, judg. 8. 33. Which seems to be an imitation of the Title of the True God, who as soon as the Deluge was passed 
a Gen. 9 9  made a Covenant with Mankind, and after that we find him 
b Gen. 17. 9  Covenanting with Abraham, and afterward 
c Ex. 34. 27.  with the whole People of the jews: and frequently in Scripture we see he is making a Covenant with his Servants, so that he is the true Baal-Berith, the Lord of the Covenant. The Phaenicians borrowed this out of the Jewish and Sacred Writings, and applied it to one of their Gods: whence it was propagated to other Nations, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Foederator, the Covenanter, was the Title of jupiter.  
Among the Names which the Gentiles give to their Gods, I may reckon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sabazius, (for it is sometimes Latinised) to be one. That this was the Name of jupiter especially, you read in Strabo, Valerius Maximus, Apuleius. That it was a Title also given to Bacchus is witnessed by 
d Aristophan. in Avib Diodor. Sic. lib. 36. Lucian. Concil. D●or.  others. In allusion to this, the word Sabos is often heard in the Orgia, i. e. the Sacred Rites of Liber, as 
e Sympos. 4.  Plutarch acquaints us. And from 
f In Vesp.  Aristophanes we learn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were words of Acclamation and Rejoicing among the Pagans, at their Great Solemnities, and Festivals. Now this Name seems to be of Hebrew Original, and refers to the judaic Sabbath, that Sacred Festival in which God was most solemnly Worshipped by that Nation: And this Plutarch was sensible of, viz. That there was an assinity between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (before mentioned, the word used in the Gentile Festivities, especially by those that kept the Bacchanalia) and the jewish Sabbath; only in this he erred, not knowing the derivation of the Hebrew word, that he thought this was taken from that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as he expressly saith. Or perhaps this Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was given to their false Gods, was taken from that of the true one; and jupiter Sabazius is as much as jehovah Zabaoth, which both 
a Ch. 48. v. 2. 51. 15. 54. 5.  Isaiah and 
b Chap. 10. 16. 31. 35. 50. 34.  jeremiah frequently repeat as the proper Name of God: jehovah Zabaoth, the Lord of Hosts is his Name. Some have thought the word Tzebaoth is placed here by way of Apposition, as if it should be rendered Dominus Sabaoth, and thence 
c Epist. 136. ad Marcellam.  jerom reckons Sabaoth among the Names of God. But questionless this word is in the Plural Number, & in regimine, and so the true rendering is Lord of Sabaoth, i. e. of Hosts. Yea, you will find the Hebrew word retained even 
d Lord of Sabaoth, ●●m. 9 29. jam. 5. 4.  in the Greek, as if there were something more than ordinarily remarkable in the Hebrew. The Pagans, who got the sound of this word (as very famous among the Hebrews) took it by itself for God's Name, and thence (it is likely) framed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This shall suffice in brief for a proof of what I undertook, that the Names of the God of Israel are applied by the Heathens to their Idol-Gods. The Pagans call their Deities by Titles which are given to the True God jehovah. This makes good what I aimed at, that the Heathens had these as well as other things from the Sacred Scriptures: and it is certain they could have them from these only; which is a proof of the verity and antiquity of those Holy Writings.  
Speaking here of the Heathen-Gods, and their Names as borrowed from Scripture, it may not be impertinent to observe, that even the Title of Gods given by the Pagans to their Kings and Princes, was derived from the same inspired Writings I grant that it partly proceeded from their sottish Opinion that they were Gods indeed: But it is as true, that it might be derived to Profane Writers, from the stile of the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, where Magistrates are called Gods. Thus in Exod. 22. 8. the Gods and the Rulers of the People are Synonimous. Moses was to Aar●● instead of a God, Ex. 4. 16. i e. according to the Chaldee and Arabic, a judge or Prince. God himself honours the Rulers of the Sanhedrim with the Title of Gods, Ps. 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods. So in Psalm 138. Gods in the 1st verse are Kings of the Earth in the 4th. It might be observed that Elohim and Adonai, the usual Names of God himself, are attributed to Great Men in the Sacred Writings. In short, as God is often called King in Scripture, so Kings are called Gods, and thence the expression is conveyed to the Pagans, and frequently used by them. Among the Eastern People Melech, Moloch, and Malcham, (for these words are indifferently used) signify both God and King. And perhaps it was in conformity or relation to this Notion, that they commonly inserted the Names of their Gods into those of their Princes, though it might be also as a good Omen, or for Honour's sake. From their Gods, I say, Princes compound their Names, as Belshazar, from Bel: Nabuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, and Nebonasser, from nebo an Assyrian God; Evilmerodach, from Merodach a Babylonian God● and many others. Among the Persians we read the Name of God was bestowed on their Emperors: Thus Xerxes was styled the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. Long. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Persian jupiter. One of the Antiochus' had the Surname of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We shall find likewise that other Nations complied with this Notion. What if I should say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mentioned by Pythagoras in his Golden Verses, are these Terrestrial Gods I am speaking of; viz. Great Princes, Celebrated Heroes, Wise Rulers, Divine Men, or Earthly Deities? Plato tells us in his Politics that a Good King is 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  like some God chosen out from amongst Men. Princes and Commanders are styled by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, born and bred of the Gods. But especially among the Romans this sort of Language was common. Rome was no less than Heaven, and the Emperor was God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to the first Caesar by 
b Lib. 4.  Strabo. The next (viz. Augustus) is called Deus Caesar by Propertius. Edictum Domini Deique nostri, is martials Language. At Rome the Royal Palace was reputed a Temple: the Mount Palatine was Sacred and Venerable, because the Emperor's Seat was there. 
c Magistra●●m pot●stas proximè adDeorum Immortalium numen accedit ●ro Rabirio.  The Sovereignty of Magistrates approaches next to the Majesty of Heaven, saith the Grave and Renowned Orator. And with him agrees the Pithy Moralist, who tells us that 
d Non alio nomine populus Rectorem 〈…〉 quam si Dii Immortales porestatem visendi sui patient. Senec. de Clement. l. 1.  the People are to look upon their Governors under no other Character, than as if the Gods were come down to visit them. We may say here, as the Philosopher in another Case, & hic Dii sunt, there is a kind of Divinity in Rulers, they are Earthly Numen's, they are Created and visible Deities: And being so styled first of all in Scripture, the Title hath come down to the Pagan World, but hath been infinitely abused.  
Having taken notice of several References in Profane Authors, to express Passages and Usages Recorded in the Old Testament, I will here superadd one which I meet with in martials Epigrams: And I will the rather insist upon it, because the place is obscure, and hath yielded matter of great Controversy among the Learned. The Epigrammatist writes to a jew, and tells him he will not credit what he saith, though he Swears by the Temple of jupiter, or of any other Deity: Wherefore he puts him upon Swearing by Anchialus.  

a In Verpum. lib. 11. Epigr. 94.  Ecce negas, juràsque mihi per templa Tonantis:  
Non credo; jura, Verpe, per Anchialum.  
There have been great disputes about this Anchialus, some thinking it to be Sardanapalus' Statue erected in Anchiala, a City of Cilicia, and there Worshipped: Of this Opinion is Dom. Calderinus: Some taking it for a Man or a Boy, some for a City or Town, and others for a Beast, as Vossius the Elder conceits it refers to the jews Worshipping an Ass, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Asinus. But he might as well have understood by this word a Horse, or a Man that carries Burdens, for that is the import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Besides, Angarius and Anchialus are too different in sound to be thought to be the same: Wherefore I dismiss this. The rest of the Modern Critics agree in this, that the Poet directing this Epigram to a jew, refers to something in use among that People, and particularly something mentioned in their Bible (for that would make the Jest the more biting, as he imagined) viz. The Form of Swearing by the True God which is used there. But these Authors differ about the Form. 
a De Emendat. Temp. in Prolegom.  joseph Scaliger derives it from the Hebrew Fountain 〈◊〉 i e. si vivit Deus, which was a form of Swearing with the Hebrews: hence, saith he, Martial was mistaken, and thought they swore by Ancbialus, whereas the Oath was Am chi alah, i. e. If God liveth. Our Learned Farnaby likes this Criticism very well, and hath inserted it into his Notes on this place. But by the leave of so Great a Critic, there is I conceive something faulty in it: For though I am most willing to grant, that there is in this place a reference to the Form of Swearing which was used by the jews in the Old Testament; yet I am not forward to assent to this interpretation of the word Anchialum, which this Noble Philologist presents us with, and that for these Reasons; first it is not Am but An that must answer to the beginning of the word Anchialum. However, this may be born with, being an easy change of a Letter. Secondly, there is no such Hebrew Word as am. There is in si, but than it should be Imchialum, not Anchialum. Thirdly, Ala is not an usual word for God among the jews, because it is an Arabic, not an Hebrew word, and 'twas never made use of in that Nation, and 'tis not once mentioned in the Holy Bible, wherefore I can't believe they solemnly Swore by it.  
For the same Reason I am apt to reject th●● other solution of this place in Martial, which a very 
a Petit. Var. Lection. l. 1.  Excellent and Choice Writer hath offered. Anchidlum or Anchialon, saith he, is composed of these three words [An] non, [Cha] vivit (and without the Vowel under it Chi, and perhaps they might vulgarly pronounce it so) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or [alone] deus: For this (saith he) is an Oath of a jew who denies the Crime which he is accused of, he Swears thus, An chi alone, i. e. Non: vivit deus. But I cannot on due Consideration think that this is a true account of this Passage; for first Alon was not a Name in use (nay perhaps not known) among the jews. This Author indeed saith it may be gathered out of Plautus, that God's Name was pronounced Alon, but we are not to consider what pronunciation the Name had among other People, i. e. Foreigners, but what was in constant use among the jewish People: for the Poet refers here to that. Wherefore there being no such Name among them, it could not be used by them in an Oath and consequently it is not here meant, when Martial is jesting with the Circumcised Poet. And as for the word Eljon, which 'tis true is often used in Scripture, and of which this Alon seems to be a corruption, it is an Epithet rather than a Name of God, and therefore was not (it is likely) put into a Formal Oath. Again, the word an, which this Author makes one of the ingredients of this word which the Poet useth, hath no such lignification as he pretends it hath. Indeed ajin, and the contraction of it in is non, but an hath no other signification but ubi, or quorsum, or quous 〈◊〉 as any Man may satisfy himself, by consult●●● the places where it occurs.  
But another 
a Seldeq de ●ur. Hired, Hebr.  Person of infinite Literature (who 〈◊〉 is of Opinion that it is an Oath, and a jewish 〈◊〉, that is here meant) tells us, that per Anchialum is a corruption of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. ulciseatur is qui vivit in aternum: For we read, saith he, that Chi olam is one of God's Great Names, Dan. 4. 31. and we read also of Swearing by this Name, Dan. 12. 17. wherefore martials Verse should have been written thus, Non credo: jura, verpe, iperan Chi olam. 〈◊〉 Let him who lives for ever (viz. God) take ●●●geance on me, viz. if I forswear myself. This is a Criticism worthy of so Learned an Antiquary. 〈◊〉 I have something considerable to object against a; as first this iperang which he here brings in is gestether redundant, for we read not that they ●●●d this word in Swearing, therefore there was 〈◊〉 reason to insert it here, and to make it part of the form of a jewish Oath. Moreover, Chi●●●● is mistaken for Chi gnolma in Dan. 4. 31. which will not come into the Verse. But chiefly I make bold to descent from this Worthy Person's Opinion, because I think I have an easier and 〈◊〉 to propound.  
That which I offer is this, that this word An●●●●● contains in it these three words, an, chi, 〈◊〉 The word an is an abreviature of 〈◊〉, which is an usual Interjection, sometimes translated now, Psal. 118. 25. and sometimes oh, (〈◊〉 exclamatory Syllable,) Ex. 32. 31. yea, in all or most of the places where we find it, it bear this last signification, or borders very near up●● it. It is a particle used among the Hebrews 〈◊〉 express the Affections and Emotions of the 〈◊〉 (as Mercer hath well observed) which are frequently accompanied with Exclamations. And by enquiring into the Texts where 'tis used, it will appear, that it is also an Interjection of Asseveration and is as much as sanè, profecto, certè. To th●● purpose it is rightly rendered truly, Ps. 116. 16. wherefore it is no wonder that it is used it Swearing. I find that this Passionate Expletive 〈◊〉 of the same signification in the beginning of Word or Sentence with [na] in the end of them whence perhaps the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Latin 〈◊〉 (both used in Oaths) are derived. This I have said to show the fitness of this first word in this place. The two others are Chi and Elohim, which being joined together are the same that [God liveth,] which you will find to be the very expre●● words which are used in the Old Testament whe● they Swore, as in 1 Sam. 2. 27. 1 Kings 17. 12▪ 18. 10. Chai Elohim, God liveth: but we rende● it [as God liveth] and perhaps very significantly because an Oath is generally expressed by a defective Speech: some word is left out, and our Translators supply it. This we are certain of, that 〈◊〉 is usual in the Old Testament to Swear by God Life, and in these very terms, The Lord live●● God liveth. Yea, God himself Swears by his Life Am. 6. 8. As I live, saith the Lord. Thence God in the Old Testament is called the Living God Which Epithet is so commonly given him, and was without doubt so frequently used by the jews, that it came by that means to be well known to the Gentiles, which I should guests gave rise 〈◊〉 the Greek Name of jupiter. The Heathens Named him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Living God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And I am apt to think that from the Nominative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is of the same Original) the Name Deus comes, for 'tis probable that heretofore it was pronounced as one Syllable, and so was as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for you see the is turned into in the three next Cases, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Therefore even Deus 15 the Living God. But to proceed, God's Life is himself, and therefore 'tis no wonder that God's People the jews Swore by it. Chi Elohim was the constant form of words which they used, and it was taken (as you have heard) out of the Holy Scriptures. So then An chi elohim is no other than Verily, truly the Lord liveth: the word an being presixed by the jews to express their affection and concern about the thing which they asserted or denied with a Solemn Oath. Now, when the jews pronounced this Oath in these words, those that were ignorant of the Tongue, thought it was all but one word or Name. Our Witty Poet who was not skilled in the Hebrew, was guilty of the same mistake, and put the jew upon Swearing by Anchialum, which was a misunderstanding of An chi Elohim: which words when they were pronounced fast and indistinctly, seemed unto those who were not skilled in the Hebrew Tongue to sound like Anchialum. Therefore Martial saith, jura, verpe, per Anchialum, i. e. per an chi Eloim, or with an usual Synalaepha, An ch' Eloim, which likewise is an instance of what I asserted before, that Transpositions, Abbreviatures, and Corruptions of words are very usual, and that their right Terminations are laid aside very often. Or, perhaps the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 El (which is also the usual Name of God in the Old Testament,) is here intended: For that also was used in Oaths, as appears from job 27. 2. Chai El. As God liveth. And without doubt it was used by the jews, as well as Eloah and Elohim, in Swearing: yea, some Hebritians have thought that these words are derived from the Verb Alah juravit, because they are used in Swearing. An chi El, Verily God liveth, was a common form of an Oath, no less than An chi Elohim, and thence the ignorant Hearers among the Pagan's thought that the Name of the jews God was Anchiel, or Anchial: And Martial here having occasion to use it in the Accusative Case, adds the usual termination to it, and makes it Anchialum. Swear to me, saith he to his Brother Poet, who was a jew, by a Jewish Oath, Swear by the most Solemn and Sacred Oath that you have in use among you, and that is, (as I have heard) Anchial or Anchiel, which is no other than An chi El, Verily God liveth. With great deference and respect to the judgements of the foresaid Learned Critics, I propound either of these to be the fairest and easiest solution of that controverted place of Martial. It is not Chi Alah, nor Chi Alon, nor Chi gnolam, but Chi Elohim, or Chi El (take which you please) that is referred to here by the Poet: for these are the very words used in Scripture, and we read that one of them especially is the express form of Swearing among the Hebrews. Which is the thing I alleged this passage for, viz. To let you see how Pagan Writers have frequent references to the Book of God, and particularly the Name of the True God, and to the Customs and Usages there spoken of, and thereby do in some measure give testimony to the Truth and Reality of those Writings.  
I would offer to the Learned another Notion in prosecution of the Subject I have been so long upon. I am of the Opinion that from The frequent mention of Horns in the Old Testament, the Heathens borrowed the like expression, and applied it in that very sense in which 'tis used in those Holy Writings. The Hebrew Keren (whence the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latin Cornu, and the Germane and English Horn,) signifies Might, Strength, Fortitude, as also joy, Safety, Prosperity; whence you read of the Horn of Salvation, 2 Sam. 22. 3. Psal. 18. 2. and the exalting, lifting up, and setting 〈◊〉 the Horn, 1 Sam. 2. 1. Ps. 75. 4, 10. Ps. 89. 17. Ps. 112. 9 Lam. 2. 17. Zach. 1. 21. On the contrary, cutting off the Horn, signifies debasing, degrading, a mournful, unsafe, afflicted Condition, 〈◊〉 is clear from Ps. 75, 10. jer. 48. 25. Lam. 2. 3. And defiling the Horn, is of the same import, 〈◊〉 16. 5. From the signification of the Verb Kuran, we may be partly confirmed in this sense of the Noun Keren, for 'tis said of Moses' Face that it shone, Ex. 34. 29. it was very Bright and Glorious. The vulgar Latin renders it, it was Horned, and thence (was said before) Moses is ●sually Pictured with Horns. But we must understand it spoken Metaphorically, viz. of those ●ays or Beams of Light which darted from his face, and which were as 'twere Horns of Light. So in Hab. 3. 4. by Horns is meant Brightness or Light, and it is so expressly interpreted in that rerse. The Radiency, the Splendour of Moses' Face was very great, and is rightly called by the Apostle, the Glory of his Countenance, 2 Cor. 3. 7. So that hence we may gather that the word imports Outward Glory. And as this word Keren signifies more generally Power, Grandeur, Ourward Glory, and Prosperity, so it more particularly denotes Kingly Power, Sovereign Dominiou and Empire, the Greatness and Splendour of Crowned Heads. (Whence, by the way, I propound it as probable, that from the Eastern words Karan and Keren are derived the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dominus, Imperator, and the Latin Corona.) Thus Horn is applied in 1 Sam. 2. 10. He shall give strength unto his King, and exalt the Horn of his Anointed. And in the Psalms you will find that this word hath particular reference to David as King, Ps. 89. 24. 91. 10. So in Ps. 132. 17. 'tis spoken of him as the Lord's Anointed, and 'tis joined with a Crown in the next verse. In the Book of Daniel this Language is very common, in the 7th and 8th Chapters a Horn and Horns signify Princely Dominion, and the Persons that exercised it: and in the latter of these Chapters those two Horned Beasts, a Ram, and a Goat, are Representatives of Kings, and Kingdoms. It is in express words said in two places, Horns are Kings, Dan. 7. 24. 8. 7. Now, from this particular stile and idiom of the Ancient Holy Book of the Scriptures, the Heathen Writers learned to speak after the same manner. Not only in a general way was the word Horn used by some of their Authors, to 
a Tunc pauper cornua sumit. Horat.  express Vigour, Spirit, Strength, and Power, but more especially and signally they mak● use of it to signify Supreme Power and Dignity, such as that of their Gods, and of their Kings. Thus 
b— S●●●t Corniger illis jupiter.— ●ucan. l. 9  Corniger was the Epithet of jupiter Hammon, and we may inform ourselves from several Writers that he was commonly pictured with Horns: which had its rise, I conceive, from the like representation of Great Ones in the Old Testament, as you have heard. I know other Reasons are alleged, as that of Servius, who thinks this jupiter had that Title, and was represented Horned, because of his Winding Oracles, because his Answers had as many crooked Turnings as a Ram's Horn. Macrobius, and some others tell us, that this Hammon, was no other than the Sun, whose Beams are Cornute, whose Rays are in the fashion of Horns. If the Moon had been meant, than I confess, the Epithet of Horned had been very Natural: But I don't think, that the Metaphorical Horns of the Sun (which are its Rays) were thought of here by the Ancients. Wherefore, I look upon these as mean and trifling Reasons. But the true occasion, if I mistake not, of their describing jupiter Hammon with Horns, and of representing other Gods, as Pan and Bacchus, after the same manner, was this, that they complied with the Style of the Sacred Writings, (as was an usual thing with them) which set forth Great Power, Magnificence and Glory, especially Kingly Power and Greatness, by the expression of Horns. This suited well with their Gods, who were Great Folks, and generally Deified Kings. We read, that a Ram and a Goat are Symbols of Regal Strength, in the Prophetic Writings; in imitation of which, it is probable, jupiter Hammon was worshipped in Afsrick, in the shape of an Image which had partly the proportions of a Ram, and partly of a Goat. And from the same Original, (viz. the Holy Scriptures) it was, that Anciently the Pagan Kings and Monarches were represented and styled Horned, as we may satisfy ourselves from several Authors. It is well known that Alexander the Great was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bicornis: of which some give this Reason, because (say they) of the amplitude of his Empire, which was extended to both the extreme Horns of the World, East and West. Others say, he would have been thought to be the Son of jupiter Hammon, who was Cornute, and accordingly they drew Alexander so. And there are other Reasons assigned by 
a Scaliger de emendat. Temp. Ho●●inger, L'Empereur.  Authors, why this Great Conqueror had the denomination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but they seem to be far fetched, and not to give us the true and genuine account of it, which I take to be this, viz. That this Title was derived to the Gentiles from the frequent Language and Phraseology of the Old Testament, which expresses Kingly Power by Horns, and more especially from the Prophecy of Daniel, where the Grecian Monarchy is described by a He Goat, an Horned Animal, and the first King of that third Monarchy, viz. Alexander the Great, is signified by Keren Chazuth, a Notable Horn, Dan. 8. 5. a Great and Visible Horn, as the Hebrew word properly signifies: And again, he is called in the same Chapter the Great Horn, v. 21. All Interpreters agree in this, that Alexander the Great is meant here, although they differ in expounding other parts of the Chapter. Hence this Mighty Monarch would in his Pictures and Coins be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, represented as Horned, yea, his choice Horse, which he most prized, is known by this Character. And from this Great Man his Successors learned to stamp their Coin with Horned Images and Impressions. Hence alexander is called Dulcarnain, in the Alcoran by Mabomet, which is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for that I suppose to be the meaning of that Eastern word: And till some others give a better Interpretation of Chaucer's [at Dulkernoon] I presume to say it signifies as much as to be in a ●aze, to be at ones wit's end, to be dilemmaed, to be pushed at on one side and the other, as 'twere with a double Horn. So much for that Name given to that Great Monarch, of which many Writers have disputed, and I have made bold to put in among the rest, and to offer my apprehensions concerning that Epithet. I refer it to the Old Testament, which was not unknown to some of the wisest of the Gentiles, who thence borrowed many Words and Phrases, and more Customs and Practices. Hence Horns came to be significative of Kingly Greatness and Power. Hence it was a Custom among the Persians to wear a 
a Ammian. Marcellin. l. 19  Ram's Head of Gold for a Diadem. Hence Attila, King of Hunns, was portrayed with Horns, as is to be seen in Ancient Medals. And that Horns were a Badge of Regality and Dominion, is clear from what we read in 
b Lib. 5.  Valerius Maximus, viz. That when on a sudden Horns were seen to appear on the head of Genitius Cippus, as he was going out at the door, the Response was, that he should be King, if he returned into the City.  
I have now almost finished my Task, I mean, so far as it respects the Old Testament. Let me only add this after all, That many things in Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Theognis, etc. may not only be reduced to, but seem to be borrowed from David's Psalms, Solomon's Proverbs, the Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, (which are but an imitation of these) and other parts, both of the Canonical and Apocryphal Writings. This hath been partly showed by 
a Mr. Gataker in Anto●in. Dr. Duport in Homer.  some of late, but might be carried on much further. I do not think every Saying that is like another in Scripture, was taken thence. That of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 9 (which he takes from Isai. 64. 4.) Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, neither hath it entered into the Heart of Man, is very like that passage in Empedocles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  but no Man can think there was any reference to it. I do not say, that Lucretus' 
Cedit item retro, de terrâ quod fuit ante,  
In terras: Et quod missum est Aetheris oris, etc.  was copied out of Solomon, Eccles. 12. 7. Toen, shall the dust return to the Earth as it was; and the Spirit shall return unto God who gave it. I know many Sentences may happen to be alike, yea the same in Sacred and Profane Writers: The Moral Subject they Treat upon might afford the like matter and words sometimes; but in comparing the Hagiographa, and those Writings, you will find, that that there is more than this; the Genius of the Style is the same, the manner of Expression, the forms of Speech, the particular Phrases and proverbial Sayings, which had their first rise among the Hebrews, are the very same. This is excellently showed by the Learned Hugh Grotius in his Annotations, and it plainly discovers whence the Pagan Writers had those things. Some of the Profane Poets, borrowed their strain of Lovesongs and Epithalamiums, from Solomon's Canticle: Especially Theocritus, (as 
a In Cantic. Solo●.  Sanctius hath observed), from whom the rest learned that way of Verse, hath not a few passages in his Idyllia, expressly taken out of that Sacred Song. And in that Dialogue of Plato, which he entitles Symposium or his Eroticks, there are several things, which you would guests are allusions to Solomon's Love-Dialogue, or Epithalamium. And to heap up several particulars together, it was said by Solon in his Discourse with Cra●sus, (as both Herodotus, and Diogenes Laertius report) that the 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodot. l. 1. c. 32. Laert. in Solone.  Term of Man's Life, is threescore years and ten, as if he had had it from the Pen of the Holy Psalmist, Psal. 90. 10. The Acclamation or Shout which was used among the Heathens in War, when there was an occasion of Joy and Thanksgiving, was 
c Aeschil. in Prometh.  〈◊〉; which you may easily conceive was a corruption of Allelujah. Some 
d Prov. 31. and the four first Chapters of the Lamentation.  Chapters and 
e Psalms 25. 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145.  Psalms of the Old Testament, are disposed in an Alphabetical Order; which gave rise to that sort of Verses, called Acrostics: Such are the Arguments of Plautus' Comedies, and the Elogium of Christ, in one of the Sibylls, which you will find also in Tully. This piece of Wit and Fancy, was borrowed from the Holy Writings, which were Indicted by the Sacred Spirit. And here, when I am speaking of the Pagans borrowing from the Hebrews, I might even observe to you, that the very Greek Alpbabet is taken from them; which the Grecians themselves in part confess, for they say they had their Letters from the phani●ians, who were near Neighbours to the Hebrews, and who indeed are usually mistaken for these.  
I will add in the last place, that the Old Testament, hath left some remains of it, in most remoto Countries of the World, as China, India, America, as our Modern Travellers will inform us. In all these parts, there are evident and apparent footsteps of the History of the Bible. Mastinius in his History of China acquaints us, that the Chineses have Records concerning the Universal Flood, and that there are among that People several Memorials of the Old Patriarches; and accordingly 
a Horn. Arca Noae.  one hath given us a brief account out of him of Cain, Enoch, and Noah. That in India, the footsteps of Mosaic Doctrine remain among the brahmin's, is proved by 
b Demonst. Evang. Prop. 4.  Huetius. The highest Mountain of Zeilan, an Isle in the East-Indies, is called by the Inhabitants 
c Ursin. Analect. lib. 4.  Adam's Top, and there is Adam's Cave, where he lamented himself after his Fall. The Ceremony of putting their Hands under one another's Thighs, when they solemnly Swear to one another, of which we read in Gen. 24. 2. 47. 29. is 
a Avenarius in verbo Jarek.  observed among some of the Indians at this day. The Americans, saith ●●osta, have Traditions of the Deluge, and make mention of it in their Discourses: And Huetius ●●eweth, that several Rites and Laws of Moses are observed by them. The Ancient Patriarches left behind them, remembrances of their Actions, even in these places; their Memory is still preserved and retained in many Names, Customs, and Practices, that are among them. The Name joseph is often found there, and Hallelujah is used in their Songs, as 
b De Orig. Americ.  Hornius observes. The People of Peru report, 
c Aug. Cara.  that all their Earth was overwhelmed with waters, and lay covered with them a long time, that Men and Women perished, excepting only a few, that betook themselves to some Vessels of wood, and so preserved themselves. Those of Mexico tell 
d 〈◊〉. Go●●  that there were five Suns heretofore, that gave light to the World, and that the first and oldest of them perished in the waters, and at the same time, the Men that were upon the Earth were drowned, and all things were destroyed. And several other such passages, the Inhabitants of the Newfoundland, received from their Forefathers, some of whom perhaps were jews, for 
e Spes Israelis.  Manasseh Ben Israel thinks the Ten Tribes who were carried Captive, came into the West-Indies, (as well as into some parts of China and Tartary) and there have left footsteps of old judaism. But whether these were Relics, or only Apeings of it, I will not stand to dispute.  
Thus I have abundantly made good, that the Heathens borrowed from Scripture and Inspired Men. Their Priests took their Religious Ceremonies, yea their very Gods: their Poets took their Fables; their Historians, their more serious Narratives; their Philosophers, their Notions and Opinions; their Common People, their Words and Phrases, their Usages and Customs, from the Writings of the Old Testament, and the Doctrine, Rites, and Practices of the jews therein Recorded. So that it is evident, that Pagans bear Testimony to the Contents of the Old Testament, and that Profane Writers attest the Truth and Authority of those Sacred Writings.  
If any Object, that I have showed myself arbitrary and lavish, in some of the Derivations of Words, which I have offered, and that there is not sufficient ground for the Etymological part of my Discourse; I briefly Answer, I have purposely and industriously all along, taken care to avoid this imputation. For I have sometimes taken notice of, and been ashamed of the great Extravaganc● of some Writers in this very point. Thus Calepine derives Canis à Canendo, as if Barking and Singing were the same thing. 
a Herm. Hugo de Scribendi Origine.  One derives Scribo from 〈◊〉 and labours to make it out. Such an Extravagant Etymologizer is Avenarius in his Hebrew Lexicon, who fetches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Mashal dominatus est, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Tsaniph, and Scorpio from Gnacrab, which is the Hebrew Name of that Animal. Yea, he deduces Turk from Kedar, by a Metathesis. And Monsieur Bochart is not far behind him, for he is oftentimes very bold and presuming in his Etymologies, he making it his business to fetch all from the Phaenician Tongue; which to accomplish, he makes any thing out of any thing. I have not ventured to Etymologize after the rate of these Men (though they are all of them very Learned Heads), but I have with singular care, throughout my whole undertaking, endeavoured to preserve the Honour of Grammar and Criticism, which so many have violated; and not to put off the Reader with far fetched Derivations of Words and Names, without observing the due Laws of deducing and forming them. I have never presumed to derive one word from another, where there was not a fair Grammatical Analogy between them, and some agreement in their sound, and some considerable probability of their being nearly allied to one another.  
In the next place, if any Object, that I have gathered many things from the mere sound and likeness of words, which is an uncertain and Arbitrary thing, and there is no conclusion to be made thence; I Answer, it is true, the sole Affinity of words is no firm and undeniable Argument of their Origination. The significations of words in different Languages, may sometimes be coincident, yet we are not certain thence of their Derivation. This I am most ready to grant; nay farther, that it is folly to derive one word from another, merely because of the likeness of them; as if, because the Pentateuch is divided into Parashah's, therefore we must derive Parishes from thence, they being such a part of a City or Town set out, as divided and separated from the rest: You may as well derive Montgomery from Gomer, and say it is the Montanous Country where Gomer Lived. Who thinks, that the English word Evil, comes from the Hebrew, Evil, a Fool? It would be ridiculously quibbling, to fetch the Proverbial Saying, As lean as a Rake, from the Hebrew, Ra●● tenuis, macer, gracilis fuit; or to make a bad one in English, to have assinity with Abaddon. It would be yet more intolerably ridiculous, and might be looked upon as a School-Boy's pun, to derive a High-Man, from one of the three Giants called Ahiman. Wherefore, I do not contend, that all accidental likenesses in words, are a foundation to ground Etymologies and Derivations upon. I know some are very foolish and trifling here; they find such and such words in different Tongues, agreeing in sound, and thence they infer they are akin, if they can but make out any kind of resemblance in their signification. If the Hebrew word bad, (which hath many significations) had one like the English (bad), they would presently say, that this came from that. If Siccus had been of the same signification with Aegrotus, we should have said the English word Sick was thence. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had signified any thing like Caelum, or Aether, we should have derived Sky thence. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been as much as imperare, gubernare, some would conclude regnum to be derived from it. And* several other words I could instance in, which you shall find in another place. I grant then, that there is a great deal of uncertainty in Etymologies, and we are not to lay any huge stress upon them. But though this be true, yet where we find there is agreat probability that words are related to one another, where there is good ground for it, we are to take notice of it. Though there be in Goropius B●chan●● and some others before mentioned, many frivolous Etymologies, and fanciful Derivations, yet this hath not made Wise Men disregard the Alliance and Cognation which are between words, especially between the Hebrew and other words. Thus it is most probable, that the following Greek, Latin, English, and French ones, are derived from the Hebrew. 

Greek,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mysterium.   

Lat.  
Uro.  
Mensura.  
Gibbosus.   

Engl.  
Fig.  
Dumb.  
Cable.   

French, Harasser, and English, Harasse.   From. 

Mister, idem.  
Ur, ignis.  
Mesurah, idem.  
Gibben, idem.  
Fag, ficus.  
Dum, siluit, obmutuit.  
Chebel, funis.  
Haras, diruit, destruxit.    
I cannot peremptorily aver, that these are of Hebrew Original, but no Man alive is able positively to assert the contrary. Yea, there are many words in the Derivation, of which all generally agree; few or none deny, or so much as doubt, that the Latin Gubernare, and the English 〈◊〉 Govern, are from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all of them from the Hebrew Gabar, Gubernavit, vicit: T●●er, from Turris, and both from Tur (Syriak) the same: Camel, and Camelus, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 the same: Tornace, to Turn, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that from Tor, ordo, cursus: Vinum, Wine, 〈◊〉 from jajin, the same. And it is granted by 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saccus, a Sack, come from the 〈◊〉 (Sak) of the same signification. And 〈◊〉 signifies the same in all Languages, and therefore it can't be denied that the Moders ones had it from the Learned ones, and that the Ancientest among these, which is the Hebrew, communicated it to the rest. Who questions whether these English and Latin words come from the Greek? Viz. 

Strangulare, to Strangle,  
Comere, to Comb,  
Discus, a Dish,  
Pix, Pitch.  
Anchora, Anchor,  
Linum, a Line, Linen,  
Chorda, Chord,  
P●na, Pain▪  
Tumba, a Tomb,  
Hora, an Hqur,  
Lampas, a Lamp.   from 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   And many other words there are whose derivation is plain and easy, and therefore is most readily acknowledged. There is reason then why we should inquire into the Original of words, and tract them to their fountain head. And this is that which I have done in the foregoing Enterprise: where there was a great likelihood that the Greek or Latin were derived from the Hebrew, I took notice of it, and improved it to my purpose. I have not offered any thing that is strained and forced: The Derivation of those words which I had occasion to look into in this Discourse is very plain and obvious, and such as any unprejudiced Man will not boggle at, as 

Thoth and Bau,  
Erebus,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Python,  
I●petus,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Iphigenia,  
Belus,  
Jerombaal,  
Jobatas,  
Hamon,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Jovis,  
Adonis,  
Anchialum,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,   From 

Tohu and Bohu.  
Ereb.  
Pathan.  
japhet,  
Anakim.  
Bethel.  
Iphthigenia, or jepthigenia.  
Bel, or Baal.  
jerubbaal.  
joab.  
Ham.  
jah, and jehovah.  
jehovah.  
Adonai.  
An chi Elohim.  
Allelujah.    
I appeal to any Impartial Critic, whether there be not ground for these Derivations. They are Natural, plain, and easy, and the main substantial Radical Letters on both sides are preserved: besides, there were always Concurrent Circumstances to determine me to believe this to be the true Origination, as that the Matter spoken of was alike, that the Gentiles had notice of these things or Persons. from the jews, and particularly that they had made many of their Gods from F●mous Men, and that those Hebrew Persons, whom we mentioned, were some of the most Famous in the whole World, and other things occurred to me of the like nature.  
And as for Bacchus and Noachus, or Bacch and Noach, though I am not very earnest in pressing the affinity between them, yet those who consider what a number of words is changed and corrupted by time, will not wonder that some Learned Writers have thought those words to be the same Originally. There are many Greek and Latin words which might be produced, wherein one or more Letters are put for others, and such alterations are made, that the words have lost their native sound, and s●em to be quite other words. I could render this the more credible, by instancing in many words in our own and other Modern Languages, which are corrupted in common Discourse, and are much unlike the words from whence they are derived: And yet we readily acknowledge that they are Corruptions of such and such words. And if there be these alterations in the same Tongue, you may imagine how much more it is in the transferring of words into other Tongues: You may conceive what a change of Letters and Syllables, what Transpositions, or Contractions, besides the altering of the Terminations, there must be to make an Oriental word become an European one.  
That Iphigenia should be as much as jephthigenia, that jova should be put for jehovah, that Vulcan should be from Tubal-Cain, and An●hialum from An chi Elohim, is no marvel at all, if you consider how common an Aph●resis and Syncope, i. e. the taking away a Letter or Syllable from the beginning or middle of a word, ●re.  
In my reading, and observation, I have met with these in the Eastern Tongues. 

Ammon,  
Hoshea,  
job,  
jezer,  
jemini,  
Ram,  
Dumah,  
Coniah,  
Siris,  
Apis,  
Belinus,  
Hamet,  
Mummy   For 

Ben-ammi, Gen. 19 38.  
Jehoshua, Numb. 13. 16.  
Jashub. Gen. 46. 13. Num. 26. 24.  
Abiezer, Num. 26. 30. jos. 17. 2.  
Benjemini, 2 Sam. 20. 1.  
Aram, 1 Chron. 2. 9 Mat. 1. 3.  
Edumah, or Edom. Isai. 21. 11.  
Jeconiah, jer. 22. 24.  
Osiris.  
Serapis.  
Abelion. Selden de Dis. Syris.  
Muhamet.  
Amomum. This being the Herb which they mingle with other Spices for Embalming.   So in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indolentia: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine carens: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stellio; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arena. In the Latin likewise, Amarum comes from the Hebrew Marar, or Marah, amarus fuit. Nomen comes from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Tego from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fallo from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Syria, from Assyria, (so called from Assur the Son of Shem,) Anatolia, from Anatolia, (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the East) the Name which Geographers gave to Asia the Le●s. In Plautus you read of Conia, for Ciconia, Rabo, for arrhabo. And in the Latin Italianized, Puglia, from Apulia, a Country in Italy; Rimini, from Ariminum, a City in the same place. And in the French, perhaps Galliard, a Dance, is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exsultare, and Gallant, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ornare, the first Letter being cut off. In our own Tongue also I have observed many words, of which I have given you an account in the end of this Work, * because I will not stay to interrupt you now. And all this I have done for the sake of the Objectors, to let them see there is good reason for the foregoing attempt, and that it was not unworthy of our Task to regard the sound of words, and to take notice of their likeness to one another, and to observe what Alterations and Corruptions they have undergone, and thereby to arrive at the first and Ancient signification of them (though it be something difficult to do so, because when words are abbreviated, or otherwise altered, 'tis not easy to tell what they 〈◊〉, and whence they came;) which thing I hope we have attained in part, in our endeavours to prove that the Heathens borrowed the Names of their Gods from the Holy Scripture, and that other Pagan words are of the same Original.  
Another Objection or Cavil is, that as I have showed a great deal of Arbitrariness in words, and in the derivation of them, so I have showed no less in the Things and Matters which I have been treating of Many of them are founded on mere imagination, and are altogether precarious. In answer to this, I must needs say, there are some who in this Theme show themselves too Curious, and Fanciful, they stretch things too far, and what they assert hath no other bottom than their own bold imagination. The Fathers are not altogether to be excused in th●● matter. Those that have impartially perused Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, Iustin Martyr's Exhortatory Orations to the Gentiles, Eusebius' Evangelical Preparation, and some other Writings of the Ancients, cannot but observe that they are something extravagant in this kind; and they have a conceit that several Verses in the Poets, and other Passages in the re 〈…〉 of the Heathen Authors, are taken out of the Bible, where there is little or no ground to believe any such thing. Some Persons fancy every thing to be borrowed from Scripture, these Men would vouch that the Story of Romulus and Remus' being cast into Tiber in a Basket of Osiers, and Faustulus' finding them, and bringing them to his Wife, who nourished them, refers to Moses' being exposed in an Ark of Bulrushes, and taken up and Educated by Pharaoh's Daughter. Had Orpheus' going to Hell been after Christ's time, they would have said it referred to Christ's Descending into Hell. I am as forward to blame such Men as the Objectors are, and it never entered into my thoughts, that every thing which hath a Resemblance to what we meet with in Scripture is therefore taken from it. But this must not prejudice ●ober enquiry, and true Improvement of this Notion which I offer. Because some foolishly think that all or most of the passages among the Poets relate to the Bible, shall we say therefore none were taken thence? Because some things are made out by mere invention and wit, shall we affirm that every thing is so? This is fond and ridiculous. Wherefore, I have been very Cautious in this Subject, and have kept myself within bounds. I have not promiscuously propounded things, but have used Choice, and pitched on those particulars only which carry some probability and likelihood with them. Some observing that the 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Incubare.  Hebrew word used by Moses in Gen. 1. 2. signifies to hatch, as a Bird doth her Eggs by sitting upon them, have thought that the Pagans had thence the notion of the World's being an Egg; and to this purpose some things are offered to show that they had ●uch an apprehension. And to pass by the Ancients, we are told by 
b Abraha. Roger. Janua, etc.  Late Writers, that some of the People in the Southern parts of the East-Indies have the same Notion of the Origine of the World. The 
c M. Mart. Hist. Sinens.  Chinoise say all things were from an Egg: yea, their 
d Nieuhof. Leg. Bat.  first Man had the same rise. But why might it not pass for an Egg in a plain Philosophical way, as at this day there are some Philosophers who tell us that all things are from an Egg, all Living Creatures at least are propagated by Eggs, ye● Man himself? Thus the World may be thought to be a Great Egg. But I rather think it was from the Oval or Round Figure of the World that they represented it by an Egg: and you must know it was believed that this sort of Figure had some perfection in it, and so on that account they took the more notice of it, and this Spherical shape of the Universe was much admired and Celebrated by them: yea, it was thought to be Sacred and Divine: so that by this means the World came to be a very Worshipful Egg. But I cannot satisfy myself that it was said to be so from the forecited place of Scripture, where 'tis said the Spirit of God moved on (or hovered over) the face of the Waters. I do not think that a single word used in a Metaphorical way is foundation enough for this Notion. Therefore I have not made use of it in the foregoing part of my Discourse, but I rather reckon it to be something akin to the fancy of that 
a Dr. Brown. Vulg. Errors.  Ingenuous Writer, who tells us, that the Generation of Castor and Pollux out of an Egg, was founded on this, that they were Born and brought up in an Upper-Room, according to the import of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which sometimes hath this signification. But, did not this Learned Man mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which indeed carries that sense with it?  
Some have thought that the Story of Darius Hystaspis being chosen King of Persia, by the Neighing of his Horse, was grounded in the History of Mord●cai, and the King's Horse which he road upon, for this Darius they take to be Ahasuerus. But I have omitted this (as well as several others) because it hath little or no foundation. Besides, that they greatly disparage Mordecai by such an application as this, for Darius got the Kingdom of Persia by his trusty Groom Oebares, rather than by his Horse, for he Communicated the Design to him over Night, who took effectual Care to have his Master chosen Emperor the next Day. And chosen he was; a jockey made him a Monarch. I have not had the confidence to say that 
a 〈◊〉  Homer's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, refers to the History of 
b judg. 3. 31.  Shamgar's Smiting the Philis●ines with an Ox-Goad, (which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) and doing such wonderful Execution with that Weapon: though 'tis the conjecture of no meaner a Man than 
c De Sa●r. Animal. pa●s prior. l. 2. c. 39  Bochart, that that Fable was borrowed from this real Truth. I have not pretended to affirm that the Story of Arion, (which Pliny and Ovid relate) viz. That he being cast into the Deep by the Seamen of the Ship wherein he was, struck up with his Harp, and the Dolphins presently came about him, and he mounted upon one of their backs, and so escaped; that this Story, I say, was taken from the Hi●●ory of jonas; though there is a very 
a Huet. Prepar. Evang.  considerable Writer, who makes no question of it, and to advance the belief of it, would have us observe, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both a Minstrel and a Prophet. If I had inserted into the Parallel of Samson and Hercules, that Herculeses Pillars, spoken of by Geographers, refer to the two Pillars, of the House, which Samson took hold of and pulled down, it might justly have been objected, that I stretched the Parallel too far; and yet I must tell you, that there are no contemptible Authors, (among whom Vossius is one) who have made one, a Reference to the other. I have purposely avoided such far-fetched Conceits, and have all along declined the suggestions of those Writers, who have let their imaginations run too high. This I considered, that among the Poets especially, there are many things which are the pure product of their Luxuriant Fancy, and have no ground at all in the things themselves. It is their way (as I have said before) to insert their own whimsies, to lard True Story with their own wild Conceits and Capriccios, which we must never mind; for they are only Poetic Flourishes, and therefore must not be thought to refer to any real thing. The fixing this on my mind, kept me from running into those Extravagancies, which some have been guilty of, whilst they imagined, that the Poets in all or most of the particulars, with which their Fables are stuffed, allude to so many express passages in True History. I attended to the main thing in their Writings, which I saw came so near to Scripture; the rest I passed by, as mere Poetic Flash and Foolery, and not to be taken notice of. In short, I have always trod where there is some tolerable ground and footing; and I have omitted several particulars which others insist upon, merely because they have so sandy a bottom. So little Reason have any to blame me for indulging of Fancy, in this present undertaking, where I have endeavoured in abundant instances to make it probable, that the Pagans borrowed from the Sacred Writings.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The Antiquity of the Writings of the Old Testament asserted. The way o● communicating Scriptural Truths and Historie● to the Pagans, viz. by the Commerce which the jews had with other Nations; by their being dispersed over all the World; by the Translation of the Bible into Greek; by the Travels of Philosophers and other Studious Men among the Heathens. How the Sacred Truths▪ but especially the Historical part of the Old Testament, came to be misunderstood and corrupted, viz. by the confusion of Tongues; by being Transmitted to Barbarous People; by length of time; by passing through many hands; by the Superstition and Idolatry of the Receivers; by the affectation of Mysteries and Abstrusities; by the Grecian Humour of Inventing and Romancing; by men's being Timorous; by Ignorance of the Jewish Religion and Affairs; by a● Averseness and Hatred to the Jews. It was thought by some dangerous, to insert the Holy Text into their Writings. What designs the Devil had in corrupting the Scripture, and mixing it with Falsities i● the Books of the Pagans.  
BUT not withstanding all I have said, there are some who will by no means entertain this Discourse, but with great earnestness and violence oppose it. I am obliged therefore in the next place, to fortify it by Reason. I will discover to you the Foundations on which my Opinion is built, and give you a Rational Account, how it comes to pass, that the Heathens bear witness to the Old Testament. This I will do, first, by showing you how they came by these Traditions and Truths: Secondly, whence, and how they disguised and corrupted them.  
For the First, It is not likely the Gentiles could light on these things by Natural Reason, for those discoveries concerning the Creation, and the Paradisiacal State of Man, and the particular mann●r of his Fall, and several other things which I mentioned, are beyond Nature's Ken, they are not such things as fall within the cognizance of Men, as they are Rational Creatures; therefore they must be particularly Revealed to Mankind: And the Authentic Body of Divine Revealed Truth being the Bible, we cannot but infer, that those things were borrowed from that Sacred Volume. And as for Matters of Fact, relating to the Old Patriarches, and other Eminent Men in former days, on which I have asserted, that many of the Pagan Stories and Fables depend, these were Recorded in those Sacred Books first of all, and therefore these Books are the Fountains from which the Heathens took these Relations. This Argument, I take to be unanswerable, namely, that the Old Testament is the First and Ancientest Book that ever was extant, and therefore, when the Pagan Writers mention things in this Book, they took them thence, or from those Persons who had them out of these Writings. Here than it is necessary, to insist a little on the Antiquity of this Holy Volume. That Moses's Writings were long before all others, is proved by several of the 
a Tatianus, Tertullian, Clem. Alexandr. Just. 〈◊〉. Euseb. Praep. Evan. lib. 8. & 10. Cyril Alexandr. 〈◊〉 Julianum, Jul. Africanus.  Fathers of the Christian Church. You may reckon the Date of his Books, to be about A. M. 2460, which was above 400 Years before the Trojan War, before which we do not hear of any Writers whatsoever: Yea, it was above a Thousand Years after it, that the Ancientest Historian (unless you will reckon those Fabulous ones, Dares Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis) appeared. Without controversy, Moses was the Oldest Historian either Natural or Ecclesiastical. The Antiquity of his Works is beyond all other Books; they all begin long after him. And as for some other Books of the Old Testament, they were before the Writings of any Heathens. To begin first with the Ancientest Egyptian Writers, some tell us, that in Moses' time flourished those Excellent Philosophers, Zoroastres, and Mercurius Trismegistus; but wh●n yo● come to Examine this, you find no less than four Zoroastres', and to which of these the Writings are to be attributed, and what date they bear, i● uncertain, so that we can conclude nothing there. There are also great Disputes about Her●os or Trismegistus, namely who he was, and when he Lived▪ and at what time the Writings that go under his Name were written, and whether they be genuine. Kircher holds them to be such, but Casa●bon attemp●● the contrary. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is quoted by 〈◊〉 martyr, Lactantius, and Augustin, and therefore 〈◊〉 Ancient: but his Antiquity cannot be proved 〈◊〉 be equal with that of the Holy Writers. Manetho, or Manethos, who writ the Egyptian History, lived but in Ptolomaeus Philadelphus' time. Then, for the Phaenician Antiquities, which San●athon writ in the Phaenician Tongue, and which Philo Biblius (who lived in Adrian's time) ●●rn'd into Greek, (of which Version Eusebius hath preserved us a Famous Fragment) though Scali●● hath laboured to prove them Supposititious, 〈◊〉 some others reckon them not as such, and particularly the Learned Bochart hath Comment●● upon them, as true and Genuine Writings. 〈◊〉 as for the Antiquity of this Phaenician Historian and Theologer, though it may be acknowledged to be great, yet without question he was ●oses's junior by many hundred years. And so was the Author of the Babylonian or Chaldean 〈◊〉; for Berosus, who is said to compile ●●●m, lived at the same time that Manetho did. And though perhaps Friar Annius hath imposed 〈◊〉 the World by the Name of this Author, as 
a Ludovicus Vive●, Melchior Can●s, Raphael V●lateranus.  some think, and accordingly bring several Arguments to prove this new Berosus a Cheat, 〈◊〉 it doth not follow that the old one, of ●hom both josephus, and Eusebius have preserved the fragments, was such. Some Greek Writers plead great Antiquity next; Orpheus, and Mu●●●s, the Ancientest of them all, are ●aid to have 
b Euseb. Chronic.  Lived in Gideon's days, which was about 200 years after Moses. And 200 years after this Lived Dares Phrygius, and Dictys Cretensis, who wrote the Trojan War. And 100 years after this, Homer wrote his Poem, who Flourished not till at least 150 years after David the Divine Poet. This is observable, that the Greeks, as soon as they had gained any knowledge of Letters, and Arts, fell to inventing of incredible Stories, and writing of mere Fictions. Whence 
a Praep. Evang. l. 10.  Eusebius complains, that there were nothing but mere Fables in the Greek Histories (if they may be called Histories) before the beginning of the Olympiads, that Famous Greek Epoch, or Computation, which began from the Instauration of the Olympic Games by Iphitus: but when this was, is not very clear, for some say it was in the time of Azariab King of judah, above two hundred years after the Death of Solomon, others say in the Reign of Vzziah King of judah, A. M. 3173. Others fix it A. M. 3189, eight years before the Birth of Romulus and Remus, four hundred and seven years after the Destruction of Troy. Others place the Olympiads lower, about A. M. 3228, others A. M. 3256, about seven hundred and fifty years before Christ. Varro's Division of Times into Unknown, Fabulous? and Historical, the last of which he begins not till the Greek Olympiads, proves this very thing. The most Ancient Greek Historians were Archilo●us, Aristeas, Proconnesius, Hecataeus Milesius, Charon Lampsacenus, etc. but nothing of their Writings is preserved. Herodotus is the Ancientest Greek Historian we have extant, and therefore is called the Father of History: but he begins his Historical Relations but a little before the Prophetic Histories of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel make an end.  
You will find this Argument prosecuted by 
a Strom. lib. 1.  Clemens Alexandrinus, who shows that the Learning and Knowledge of the Hebrews was before that of the Greeks, as much as the jewish Nation was before the Seven Wise Men, and the Sacred History before the Argolick. He shows that Thales, and Solon, two of their Wise Men, lived about the forty sixth, and the fiftieth Olympiad, and Pythagoras about the sixty second, than which the jews were much older by the confession of Philo Pythagoreus, Aristobulus Peripateticus, and Megasthenes. He compares the Age of Moses with Bacchus, the Seven Wise Men, and some of the Grecian Gods, and proves that he was above six hundred years before any of these. He demonstrates from Chronological Computations, that H●ggai a●d Zachary were Elder than Pythagoras, and that Solomon was much Seniour to the Wise Men. And all this is in order to this, that the Greeks, (as well as the Chaldeans and Egyptians) had their Knowledge from the Hebrews, and not these from them. Seeing then that the Ancientest Pagan Writers are short of the Holy Scriptures, seeing all Authors and Writers are after Moses (for he indeed was before all the Great things that are in Pagan History, 400 years before the Trojan War, which is the first starting of History with the Greek and Roman Authors. His Laws had the precedency of all others whatsoever, yea, the very name of Law was scarce extant at that time: in all Homer you can't find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had no written Rules to direct their Manners by, the will of their Princes was the only Law,) since these things are thus, the Transcendent Antiquity of the Writings of the Old Testament is hence undeniably proved. These are the ancientest Memorials in the World, these are the oldest Monuments of Truth, and consequently the jews were the first People that had these things set before them, and, as a consequent of that, all others took from them. From this comparing the Antiquity of Writers, it is clear that Moses' Laws and the Customs of the Patriarches were not borrowed from the Pagans (as some have imagined,) but that the Chaldeans, Phaenicians, and Egyptians, yea, that the Arabians and Persians (as might have been shown, and as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet, now a worthy Prelate of our Church, hath proved in his Admirable Discourse on this Subject) and that the Greeks and Latins have derived their Mysteries from the Hebrews, and that all the Gentile Theologers borrowed their Great Truths from the Books of the Old Testament: for these being the ancientest and first Records, it is most reasonable to believe that those that came after them took from them, and that these Sacred Writings yielded matter to those others. This is the first Reason to prove that the Pagan Historians, Philosophers, and Poets were beholding to the Scriptures.  
Secondly, I will prove it from the way of Communicating those Scriptural Truths and Histories to them. 1. This happened by reason of the Commerce which the jews had with the Neighbouring Nations, Chaldeans, Phaenicians, Egyptians, and others. Especially in King Solomon's time there was a great Commerce between the Hebrews, and these latter: and then it is probable the Egyptians learned many things of the jews. As Solomon Married a Wife thence, so it is likely they affected some of the Rites and Manners of his People, and espoused their Customs and Usages, together with their Notions and Opinions. It must be remembered also, that the Chaldeans, Phaenicians, and Egyptians were the Nations which Greece Traded with, and so this Country had an opportunity of receiving the jewish Traditions and Customs at the second hand: and hence it is that you have the footsteps of them so frequently in the Greek Authors, as well Poets as others. Nay, to speak more generally, judea was very well situated for the propagating of Laws and Usages to all other Nations, for it was placed in that Climate of the World which was fit for this purpose, viz. in the middle of the then Inhabited Earth: To which convenient situation perhaps the Psalmist refers, in Psal. 74. 12. God worketh Salvation in the midst of the Earth. And so that of Ezekiel concerning jerusalem, I have set it in the midst of the Nations, Ch. 5. v. 5.  
Secondly, A great part of the Hebrews being dispersed over all the World by Divine Providence, had an opportunity of Communicating these things to the Gentiles. The main Body of them were sent into Assyria, and Babylon by Nehuchadnezzar, where they had converse with those S●rangers seventy years: and a part of them were carried at the same time into Egypt with jeremiah. It is not to be doubted that they carried with them the Holy Writings which were then extant, and out of them they daily imparted the passages of the History of the Creation of the World, and Noah's Flood, and the Propagation of Mankind, and other the like particulars contained in those Books. Afterwards, when they were beaten by Pompey, and made Slaves, they were carried Captive into Egypt, Syria, Greece, Rome. Besides that, in the times of the Maccabees some had freely left their Country, and went into Egypt to make Proselytes there. When they were thus scattered into these Foreign Countries, it is no wonder that the People in these parts attained to some knowledge of the Sacred Books, and of the Traditions of the jews. They must needs hear and learn something of those Matters, Conversing familiarly with the jews.  
3. The jewish Notions and Customs might easily be Communicated to the Gentiles, seeing Moses' Writings were Translated into Greek in the time of the Persian Monarchy, if not before it (as 
a Praep. Evang. lib. 9 c. 3.  Eusebius reports from Megasibenes a Man well Skilled in History, and who lived with Seleucus, as Eusebius in the same place affirms:) seeing there was a Greek Translation of a considerable part of the Old Testament before Alexander the Great's time, as 
a Strom. lib. 1.  Clemens of Alexandria Testifieth. And accordingly Demetrius Phalereus, Library-Keeper to King Ptolomeo, Surnamed Philadelphus, in an Epistle to him, which 
b Praep. Evang. lib. 8. c. 3.  Eusebius citeth, saith, that before the Septuagint Version many things were Translated out of the Bible. But this is most certain, and agreed to by all, that upon Alexander the Great his Conquests, the jews and Greeks had converse with one another, and were no longer Strangers, being now United under the same Empire. And, as an effect of this, soon after Alexander the Great, all the Old Testament was entirely Translated into Greek by Seventy two jews, whom the foresaid King of Egypt appointed for that purpose. Hence the knowledge of those things contained in the Sacred Writings could not but be communicated to the Gentiles.  
4. This Communication was made by the Travels of Philosophers, and inquisitive Men among the Pagans. Of Pythagoras we are told by 
c In vit. Pythag.  Laertius, that when he was young, and being very desirous to Learn, he left his Country, and was initiated into all the Mysteries not only of the Greeks, but Barbarians. And particularly he testifies that he Travelled into Egypt, and Chaldea. Of the same Philosopher it is asserted by Origen, Clem●ns the Alexandrian, Porphyry, and others, that he went into Chaldea in the time of the Captivity, where he had the opportunity of conversing with the jews. Ludovicus Vives thinks that he Travelled also into Egypt, and was acquainted with joremiah there. Mr. Seldon likewise holds that he went and visited judea, and there Conversed with Ezekiel, with whom he was Contemporary, and learned the Tetragrammaton, and other Mysteries of him. Concerning Plato, it was believed by many, saith 
a De Civ. Dei. 1. 8. c. 11.  St. Augustin, that he took a journey into Egypt, and was there the Prophet Iere●niah's Auditor, and read the Prophetic Writings; and though this Father himself was not inclined (as he declares) to believe this, because he thinks that Philosopher was born after that time, yet he most readily assents to this, that he had many things from the Books of the Old Testament; and to prove this, 
b De Doctrine. Christ. 1. 2. c. 28.  he citeth several passages out of that Heathen Writer. It is most evident to all that have conversed with this Author's Writings, that there are sundry things in them above the strain of common Philosophy, as concerning the Creation of the World, the Formation of the First Man out of the Earth, the Innocent and Happy State of Mankind, the loss of that Primitive State, and the vile degeneracy of the Sons of Men, with many other Particulars which are fetched from the Sacred Writings. I might mention likewise how loftily he speaks of God, and his Nature, how admirably he Discourses of the Soul, how clearly he asserts a Future Life, and the Rewards and Punishments of another World, how feelingly he treats of Virtue and Goodness, how Divinely he writes concerning Religion, which he represents as Pure and Spiritual, and Purged from the Heathen Superstitions. This Sublime and Extraordinary Knowledge the Ancients think he gained by Travelling into Syria, judea, and Egypt, and holding converse with those that understood the inspired Writings. And it is their Opinion, that though he Conversed with some of the jewish Nation, and imbibed their Sentiments, yet he carefully avoids mentioning their Name, because they were odious to other Nations, and consequently those structures of true Theology which are in his Works would have fared the worse for it. But though he would not speak this out plainly, yet he seems to utter it in a disguised manner: Perhaps he hinteth that he received those Notions from the jews, when he mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Syrians and Phaenicians, who were the Neighbouring People to judea generally passed for jews. That other Great Philosophers, as Solon, Democritus, Heraclitus, etc. Travelled into Egypt, and Babylon, is testified by Diogenes Laertius in their Lives. The same is attested by 
a Lib. 2. Cap. ult.  Diodorus concerning Orpheus, Musaeus, Homer, Lycurgus, and other Wise Grecians, viz. That they went and visited those Foreign Parts, and thence came furnished with the Knowledge of those things which they had learned in those Countries. The like is confirmed by the testimony of some 
b Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 10. Cyril. Alexand. contra juliarum. 1.  Christian Fathers, who also add that those Chief Philosophers of Greece, when they sojourned among the Egyptians, learned many things of their Priests, which they had from the Tradition of the jews who had been among them: And there they perused the Mosaic Writings, which were of great account among some of them. Hence the Religion, Rites, and Practices Recorded in those Books were divulged and spread abroad in the World. Indeed it is very probable in the Nature of the thing itself that this would happen: for the jews being a People so Renowned for Religion, and their Fame and Glory being every where Celebrated, it could not be but that foreign People, especially the most Philosophical and Inquisitive among them, should be desirous to confer with the Bible, or jewish Authors, and to know their Laws, Ways, and Customs, and that whole Nations should be forward to imitate and make use of them. This is more than Prophetically intimated, in Deut. 4. 6. where 'tis said, that when the Nations shall hear all those Excellent Statutes given to the jews, They shall say, surely this great Nation is a wise and understanding People. If the Pagans should so admire and value the jewish Customs and Ceremonies, they would (as the consequent of that) imitate and practise them. Thus you have a Rational Account of the Consonancy of Pagan Writings and Customs to the Sacred Scriptures, you see how they were derived from these Fountains.  
In the next place, I am to inquire, how the Scriptural Stories and Truths came to be corrupted; whence it is, that they are mixed with Obscurity and Falsity in the Writings of the Pagans, how it comes to pass, that one thing is put for another, and that it is so hard oftentimes to understand what they deliver. I will give you an Account of this, in these following particulars,  
1. The confusion of Languages did not a little contribute to these Mistakes, Corruptions and Falsities. When the World was of one Tongue, the notices of things which were imparted by Speech, were very clear and intelligible; when they all joined in one Language, they could easily apprehend one another, and there could arise no mistakes, by Ambiguity in the variety of words. But upon confounding the first I anguage, and dividing it into many, there followed a great disorder among Mankind, for than it became difficult to understand one another. The Words being confused, the Conceptions and Things which were conveyed to Men by those words, were also confused, obscure, and uncertain. The variety and multiplicity of Words, begot mistakes and confusions; among so many millions of words, it was impossible, but that there should be a great many ambiguous and equivocal, and thence the Phrases, Sentences, and Speeches, must needs be so too. This is one Reason, why the Sacred Truths of Scripture were corrupted, when they came into the Hands of the Heathens. The Eastern words and forms of speaking, were misunderstood by the Grecians; the Hebrew Dialect and Idiom were mistaken by the People of another Language and Country: The Oriental Expressions were misinterpreted by the Europeans, who were Strangers to the literal and proper Sense of them. Hence arose Fables, Fancies, and groundless Conceits, which they mixed with the Spiritual Verities, and almost defaced and extinguished them.  
2. The Sacred History of Scripture, and the Traditions of the First Ages of the World, were easily corrupted, because they were Transmitted to Ignorant and Barbarous People. God was pleased not to vouchsafe that Light and Knowledge to the Gentiles, which he bestowed on his own People, but he thought fit to leave them in that darkness and blindness, which their gross Sins had brought them to, and which were now become the just Punishment of them. Many of them were so besotted, that when they heard of those Holy and Mysterious Truths, they were not able to bear them, they could not apprehend the true meaning and import of them. But because some of them, who were the most Contemplative, would be exercising themselves about them, they resolved to make something of them, or out of them: And accordingly, when they committed them to Writing, they applied them to some Person or Thing, which was known and famous among them; and thus an Historical passage in Holy Scripture, became a Story of their own, or a Divine Truth was turned into a Fable. By this means, the things which they borrowed from the Word of God, came to be Depraved and Disguised.  
3. The long tract of Time and diversity of years, have partly introduced this corruption and alteration. For length of time blotted out some of the former Accounts, and defaced the Memoirs of things. The Ancient Names of several Persons and Places are worn out, and others (quite different from them) are used in their stead. The true Original, Occasion, and Meaning of many things were forgotten, and in place of them, New, but False Relations, crept in. Then came to pass at last, (when the right Notions of things were worn out) that Men of Poetry and Invention, thrust upon silly People their own Fancies and Conceits, and persuaded them to accept of the most unlikely Stories for Truth.  
4. The Historical passages of Scripture, and the strange Events which happened among the jews, being spread abroad, and passing through many Hands, or rather Mouths, could not but for that Reason be corrupted. By the great diversity of Relators they were changed, some adding to them, and others diminishing them, so that at the last, they were quite different from what they were at first.  
5. As Superstition and Idolatry increased, the greater Corruptions there were of True History, Men making that to Administer to their Idolatrous Worship. So that in those Countries, especially where there were the fiercest Bigots for the Pagan Devotion, there was always a more plentiful coining of these Fables, under which were hid very useful Truths, taken out of the Old Testament.  
6. This must be added, that it was the Custom of the Ancient Pagans, to wrap up their Notions in obscure and dark Terms, and to represent them in an Enigmatical way. 
a Contr. Cels. lib. 4.  Origen thinks Plato in one of his pieces, hath something of that Paradise, which Moses in the beginning of his Writings speaks of, and he gives this Reason why he thinks so, viz. because it is Plato's usual way to describe things obscurely, and to disguise the greatest and most excellent Verities, under the vail of Mysteries and Fables. And this was the guise of others, besides Plato, especially of the Pagan Poets; they affected obscurity and difficulty of Style; whence sprang several of the Fabulous Histories of the Gods, and other odd passages in their Writings. And so, when they took some things of moment from Scripture, or from those who were acquainted with those Sacred Records, they clothed them with their dark and Mystical Expressions, in so much, that it was hard to know whence they had them.  
7. The Grecian Humour, was to Invent and Romance; their Poets especially (who were their first Writers) were famous for this. They abused, mangled, jumbled, and confounded the Stories in Holy Writ, they turned those Sacred Things, into Magical Pranks sometimes, and from the Names of Holy Persons spoken of in the Old Testament, they took occasion to invent new Deities, and shape new Gods. Their frequent practice was to piece out Scripture with their own Fancies, and to add something of their own heads. This is owing to the Greek Vanity, it is to be ascribed to the Levity and Capriciousness of these Fabulous Men, whose very Genius led them to affect Banter and Fictions. The Poets dealt with Sacred History, as the Legendaries do with the Lives of Saints; they have some general ground for what they say, but they make plentiful additions to it; there is perhaps something of Truth at bottom, but than you have their own Inventions besides. Thus the Grecian Writers counterfeited all along the shape of Real Truths, in most of their Fables, there was a medley of Falsehood and Truth together.  
8. This is also certain, that the Pagan Philosophers, did out of fear sometimes disguise the Notions of Truth, which they received from Scripture. Plato, saith justin the Martyr, had learned in Egypt the True Doctrine concerning God, One only God, with several other Sacred Truths, but, lest some Melitus or Anytus should Accuse him, he would not divulge them to the People: For fear of incurring Socrates' Misfortune, he either concealed or disguised all. He dreaded the Poisonous Cup, and so would not discover those Sacred Things, but rather chose to lap them up in Poetic Conceits and Fables, in Mysteries and Riddles, which his Writings are full of. And this it is likely was the Case of other Philosophers and Writers among the Gentiles, they were Timorous, and dared not Transgress the Public Laws, and incur the punishment due to Innovators in Religion; and therefore they spoke ambiguously and obscurely, and corrupted those Truths which they had received from the Holy Fountains.  
9 Some out of mere Ignorance of the jewish Religion and Affairs, misrepresent and corrupt those things. This is seen plainly in Strabo, and Diodorus the Sicilian, who (as was hinted afore) make the jews to be Egyptians, and 
a Lib. 16.  Strabo particularly saith of Moses, that he was an Egyptian Priest. So Herodotus, because the Hebrews had lived among the Egyptians, saith those things of the former, which belong to the latter, and so perhaps, vice versâ. I remember he particularly saith, that 
b Lib: 2. cap. 36. & 104.  Circumcision was first of all used among the Ethyopians and Egyptians, and from them went to the Phaenicians and Syrians, and thence some thought Abraham received this Rite, and commended it to his Posterity. It is as easy to observe, how grossly the Latin Writers were mistaken; it was a common thing with them to confound jews and Christians, and to make no distinction between them, as I have showed on another occasion. 
a Hist. lib. 5.  Tacitus' description of the Nation and Religion of the jews, together with the Original of them, shows that that Excellent Historian, was extremely ignorant of the Affairs of that People. They were at first called Idaei, faith he, from the Mount Ida, and afterward by an addition of a Letter, they had the Name of judaei. Their Sabbath was Consecrated to Saturn, he saith; and many such false and fabulous passages are to be found in the Account which he gives of them. So justin shamefully errs in several things belonging to the jewish History; he makes Abraham the third King of the jews, Israel the Fourth, joseph the Fifth, and Moses (whom he reckons to be Ioseph's Son) the Sixth. In his whole Thirty Sixth Book, where he describes the Original and Increase of the jewish Nation, he hath almost as many mistakes, as words. The rest of the Pagan Historians exceedingly mistake, when they Treat of that People, because they did not rightly inform themselves, and endeavour to have a perfect Account of the jewish Matters. Thus josephus himself excuses in part the Heathen Writers, when they speak of things done in judea, imputing their Errors to want of Knowledge and Information. Yea, he wonders not that the jewish Nation was not known to some of them, and that they write not a word of it; for the most diligent Historians, 
a Contr. Apionem. l. 1.  saith he, were ignorant of France and Spain; and he instances in Ephorus, who he observes had so little knowledge of Spain, that he took it for one single City, and no more. We might observe likewise, that little or nothing is mentioned of this our Isle of Britain, either by Greek or Roman Historians, before Casar's Commentaries. And in the same place he takes notice, that neither Herodotus nor Thucydides, nor any that were of that Age make mention of Rome, although it had been in great power a long time, and had waged so many Wars. He adds, that all Things of the Greeks are new, and of yesterday, giving this as one Reason, why the Greek Historians make no mention of the jewish Affairs. They were themselves but upstarts in respect of the jews. But though they knew but little of them, yet they feigned many things, and represented them as they pleased. Especially their Poets? who were very ignorant of the jewish Institution, and of the true meaning of the most things which they had from those of that Nation, or from their Books, yet took the liberty to invent and add, and to mingle their own Conceits and Fancies, with that little which they had heard or knew of them.  
10. Some, if not most of the Heathens, out of Averseness and Hatred to the jews, perverted those things which had any Relation to that People. This was a Nation that was separated from all others, and was different from, not to say contrary to, the rest of the World in many things; wherefore they grew odious and detestable, and the Pagans wilfully Misrepresented and Traduced them, and delighted to load them with all sorts of Calumnies. All Writers bandied against the jews and Christians, they were all in League against these, however they disagreed among themselves. Hence it is, that whenever they present their Readers with any thing concerning them, they generally show that Illwill which they bore to them. Thus Manethon the Egyptian Historian, though he hath many things that agree with what the Scripture saith of the jews, yet he misrepresents several particulars, and adds others in disgrace of Moses and the Israelites. And indeed from Egypt was the rise of those Malicious Calumnies against them, for the People of that Nation were sensible of, and retained in their Minds the many Plagues that were inflicted on them for their sakes, and the last Mortal Farewell in the Red-Sea, and they expressed their implacable prejudice against them, by reproaching them, and they taught others to do so too. Thus 
a Hist. lib. 36.  justin (or rather Trogus Pompeius, whom he Epitomizes) tells us, that the jews were expelled Egypt, because God had Revealed to the Egyptians, that the Plague which then raged among them, could by no other way be allayed, than by that Nation's being turned out. Diodorus the Sicilian, and 
a Hist. lib. 5.  Tacitus write, that the jews were thrust out of Egypt by the Inhabitants, because they were Scabby and Leprous. Apion, with a detestable Impudence, rails against this People, and, out of mere malice, invents and forges Lies to disgrace them. He not only repeats the foresaid Calumny, viz. That they were expelled out of that Country, because their Bodies were overrun with Leprosy, but he adds several others, and miserably perverts the History of Moses. 
b Nat. Hist. 1. 30. c. 1.  Pliny avoucheth, that Moses was a Magician; and 
c Lib. 16.  Strabo reckons him among Astrologers and Diviners. So joseph is said to have been skilled in 
d Justin. Hist. 1. 36. c. 2.  Magic Arts. Though perhaps it might proceed from Ignorance only, that some of the Pagan Historians reckon these in the number of Magicians, for they had heard of what wonderful things these Great Men had done in Egypt; the one, when he grappled with the Egyptian Sorcerers, the other, in Interpreting of Dreams, and they concluded they were effected by Magic; accordingly, they represented them as Persons of that Character. But even the mistakes of these Gentile Writers, concerning them and others, show, that they had heard of such Men, and the things they did, and they are a Testimony of the reality of the History in general. Then, as for the Pagan Poets, the same prejudice and Hatred reigned in them, and discovered themselves in Lies and Fictions about the jews, and what is related concerning them in the Old Testament. When they refer to any passage in the Sacred Story, they maliciously defile it with their own Inventions; they distort and falsely deliver the circumtances, and they blend it so with their own ridiculous Fancies, that they turn it into a Fable.  
Again, if we may give credit to 
a Joseph. Antiq. jud. 1. 12. c. 2.  Demetrius 〈◊〉 Phalereus, (Library-Keeper to King Ptolo 〈◊〉 and who was the Man that first excited him to promote that notable work, of Tran 〈◊〉 the Old Testament into Greek) there was this Notion among the Pagan Writers, that this Holy Book was not to be profanely handled, nor the Matters of it made common by every one that undertook to write; yea, that 〈◊〉 inserting of them into their Writings, was I gross Profaning of them, and had met with ● suitable punishment. Thus, one Theopompus, who had inserted some passages of the Bible into his Writings, was struck with Madness; and another named Theodectes, who made use of some place of Scripture, in a Tragedy of his, was almost deprived of his sight for it; but the former, when he was made sensible of his fault, was restored to a right mind again, and the latter, upon acknowledging the like Offence, recovered his Eyesight. This was related, saith josephus, to King Ptolomee by the foresaid Demetrius, a very serious Man, and it was assigned as a Reason, why the Contents of these Sacred Writings, which were so Divine and Admirable, were but rarely mentioned by the Historians and Poets. These Examples had struck a terror into some of them; having heard how some Prophaners of these Holy Things, were Animadverted upon, by a Divine Hand, they were afraid to Record any passages in the Old Testament. Therefore, some of them chose rather, to disguise the Sacred Stories, and to stuff them with Fabulous Narrations, that they might scarcely be known, to have been borrowed from that Holy Book.  
Lastly, the Devil hath a design in all this. Tert●lian's 
a Cmnia adversùs veritatem de ipsâ veritate construc● sunt, operan●ibus 〈◊〉 mulalionem istam spiritibus Erroris. Apolog cap. 47.  Words are remarkable; when he had said that the Things which are contrary to Truth, (i. e. the Heathen Fables, Rites and Usages) are made out of the Truth (i. e. the Holy Scriptures) he further adds, that this Imitating of the Truth, is wrought by the Spirits of Error, that is, the Devils, who affect sometimes to Ape God and what he doth. This is most apparent, that they are a Mimical fort of Creatures, and show themselves sometimes diligent Emulators of the most Holy P●rsons and Things. Their great Subtlety and Craft, are to be discerned here, for when they brought the Hebre● Rites and Ceremonies of Gods own appointment, into the 〈◊〉 Worship and Service, they did this to Profane them, and ●o make them contemptible and ridiculous. They did it, that those Divine and Sacred Things might be despised, and that they might be turned into Superstition and Idolatry. So likewise, they cunningly mixed something of sacred Truth with Fables, that thereby they might make the things that are True to be suspected. Satban is desirous to pervert and even erase the whole Sacred Scripture and Ancient Truth, but because he sees he cannot effect this, he therefore contrives how he may disguise the Scripture-Stories, he sets the Poets to work to make them into Fables, and thinks by that means to take off our Esteem of those Inspired Writings, and to diminish that Credit which we ought to give to those Sacred Truths. He pushed on those Grecian Wits, to obscure and deface the Old Names in Scripture, that the Original of them might not be known. He out of direct malice, moved those fanciful Men to invent Fables, to defame the Primitive Stories, to blemish the Sacred History, to obscure and pervert the Truth. The Poets turning the Scriptures into Fabulous Narrations, was the way to invalidate the Testimony of them, and to make them seem a mere Poetic Fiction, a Dream, a Fancy, that hath no real bottom. It is no wonder then, that the Devil imped their Fancies, and assisted their Inventions, and helped them to change the Truth into a Lie, that thereby he might rob God and the Scripture of their Honour. This, I say, might be a device of that Evil Spirit, (as he hath Devices and Wiles of all sorts) to elude the Authority of Sacred History, and to take away the Credit of Divine Truth.  
Again, as that Crasty Spirit designs by this means to disparage, yea, to null the Truth, so he thinks hereby to gain assent to Falsehood, and to promote the greatest Impiety imaginable; for when Truth is mixed with Falshood, he hopes that this latter will be entertained for the sake of the former. And when Lewd and Vicious Practices, are founded in those that are Innocent and Religious, he expects, that these should justify those. Perhaps, when he added the Sacred Ceremonies of the jews, to the profane Worship of the Gentiles, he thought thereby, to take away the difference between them, and to render them alike; so that Men should not be able to distinguish, between a True and False way of Worship.  
Thirdly, the Devil's Design in introducing several Sacred rites and Customs, into the practice of the Heathens, was to conciliate to himself a greater Authority and Esteem, a greater Glory and Repute among them. He commends those things to the Pagans which were Religiously used, and even by God's own People, and prescribed by God himself; this he doth to inveigle the Pagan World, and to bring them to Admire and Worship him.  
Wherefore, an Answer may easily be returned to that Objection, of a late Learned Writer, 
a Dr. Spencer, de Legib. Hebreorum. lib. 3. cap. 12. Dissert. 1.  What advantage can the Devil have by his imitating the Divine Worship? He ever Acts for some end that may be profitable to himself; but how can this prove so, seeing it would be more advantageous to him, to institute a Worship and Ceremonies, that are Diametnically contrary to those in the Divine Law, that by those, as by so many proper and peculiar Characters, his Herd might be distinguished from the Flock of the Shepherd of Israel. The Answer, I say, to this, is very easy and obvious, for there can be nothing more Advantageous to that Evil Spirit, than his emulating of Divine Worship, and appointing Ceremonies suitable to it, for by this means, his Kingdom is most sensibly advanced, and that with the greatest Artifice and Craft imaginable, because this Vile. Fiend is Adored, even whilst the Divine Worship of the True God seems to be earried on. It was the Subtlety of this Great Mimic, to approach as near to God and True Religion, as he could, to make use of those things, which by God's own express Command were used in his Worship. This is a cunning way of gaining Proselytes, and increasing the number of his Worshippers. Thus he Acts for some End, and that a very Profitable one too; certainly much more Profitable to him, than if he had Instituted Proper and Peculiar Ceremonies of Worship, for these would too palpably have distinguished his Herd, from the True Flock; whereas, those bring them into a kind of Rivalty with it. Besides, this fond Emulation in the Devil, is a gratifying of his first Proud Inclination, and aspiring to be like God. He is still Ambitious of Divine Honour, otherwise certainly, he would not have desired to be Worshipped by the Son of God himself. And he would be Worshipped in the same way, that God is, with the same Signs and Badges of Adoration. Hence most of those Sacred Rites enjoined by God himself, and made use of, in his Worship by the jewish Church, were transferred by Satan to his Idolatrous and Impious Worship. This is the effect of his Haughty Spirit, which thirsteth after Divine Honour, even such as is given to the only True God.  
Thus I have amply showed you, how it came to pass, that the Rites and Practices, and the greatest Truths contained in the Holy Scripture, were corrupted, disguised, misapplied, and abused by the Pagans. I have given you the Reasons and Arguments which may convince you of this, and render you an account of the manner of it.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Author's Assertions Confirmed by the ample Suffrage of the Ancients and Moderns. Consectaries drawn from the whole, viz. That we cannot with any show of Reason admit of the Opinion of those who hold that the Jews borrowed all or most of their Religious Rites from the Gentiles: That from what hath been premised, we may take notice of, and admire the singular Providence of Heaven: That we are ascertained of the Antiquity, Reasonableness, and Certainty of our Religion: That we are reconciled to the writings of Profane Authors: That we are assured of the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.  
I Will now add unto Reason and Evidence the Suffrage of the Learned and Wise, whether Ancients or Moderns. It was averred long since by Demetrius Phalereus, that Great Historian and Philosopher, in an Epistle of his to King Ptolomey, that the Gentile Philosophers took many things from the Holy Scriptures, as you will find him cited by Eusebius in his Evangelical Preparation. This is an early Testimony to the truth of what I have asserted: By this it appears, that the Notion which I have offered, is above two thousand years Old. 
a Contra Apionem.  josephus, the Learned jew, who lived about half a thousand years after, attests the same, and professedly proves that both Philosophers and Poets borrowed from the Sacred Fountains of Scripture. This is abundantly testified by the Christian Fathers, as Tatianus, who hath a set 
b Ad Gentiles.  Oration on this Subject, that what Learning the Greeks gloried in, was received all of it from the Barbarians, (as they called the jews) 
c Ad Autolyc. lib. 2.  T●eophilus Bishop of Antioch (who lived likewise in the Second Century) asserts this in defence of Christianity, proving that whatever the Pagan Poets writ of Hell, and the pains of it, and several other Subjects in Divinity, was stolen from the Writings of the inspired Prophets; and that the Christian doctrine, which is in a great part taken from them, is the Ancientest Religion. 
d Paraenes. ad Gracoes. Apolog. 2. pro. Christainis.  justin the Christian Philosopher and martyr speaks to the like purpose, and proves that all the true Notions in Theology among the Pagans, sprang from Moses, and the Holy Writings, and he instanceth in, and enlargeth on many Particulars, showing that Orpheus, Homer, and Plato, had several of their Words, Phrases, Opinions, Traditions, Descriptions from the Prophetic Writings. He maintains, that the Fables of Bacchus, Hercules, Aesculapius, etc. were made out of the depraved sense and meaning of the Holy Writ. At another time he pursueth the same Argument, and attempts to demonstrate, that all the Great and Brave things in the Philosophers and Poets Writings are from the Holy Book. Clement of Alexandria is very copious on this Theme: The Scope of the first Book of his Stromata, is to show, that the Philosophy of the Hebrews was many Generations older than that of the Gentiles; and in prosecution of this, he endeavours to evince 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the Opinions of the Greek Philosophers and others, were taken from Moses, and other Hebrews. And in the Second Book of his Stromata, he farther insisteth on this Subject, and proves, that the Greeks were Notorious 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plagiaries, and stole their Philosophy from the Barbarians: And so he goes on in the following Books to prove, that all the good Notions among the Greeks came from the Hebrews, that whatever Excellent Truths the former taught, th●y had from the latter, they Sacrilegiously took them from the Holy Patriarches and jews. This is the sense of the forty seventh Chapter of Tertullian's Apologetic, he there maintains that 
c Quis Poetarum, q●s Sophistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum foute potaverit?  both Poets and Philosophers were beholding to the Prophets, and derived all their best things from them. Yea, 
a Omnia adversùs veritatem de ipsâ veritate constructa sunt.  those very Arguments which the Pagans bring against the Christian Truth, are fetched from it, as I observed from him before. I have mentioned Origen already, but if you consult his Fourth Book against Celsus, you will find this more largely asserted, viz. That the Pagan Rites and Stories were taken from the Scriptures. Eusebius likewise hath been quoted before, but if the Reader think good to peruse the Author, he will see this Argument insisted on in 
b Praep Evang. lib. 9 10, 11, 12, & 13. partim.  four or five Books together, where he proves that the Greeks had some understanding of Moses' Theology, and followed the jewish Writers in several things, which he makes good by alleging several passages out of Theophrastus, Hecataeus, Porphyrius, Numenius, Megasthenes, etc. And afterwards he goes on, and more designedly clears this Proposition, that what is good in the Writings of the Gentile Philosophers, is all stolen from the Hebrews, and that the Wisdom of the Greeks especially came from the jews. I might add the Testimony of 
c De Doctr. Christian. lib. 2.  St. Augustin, who shows that the Platonists borrowed from the Scripture: And of 
d De Cur. Graec. affect. Serm. 2. de Principiis.  Theodoret who agrees with him in this, and farther proves that other Philosophers had their Theologick Notions from Moses, and the Prophets. Thus we see this is an Old and Received Truth.  
Nor doth it want the Suffrage of the most Learned Modern Writers, some of whom, without any order of time, I will briefly mention. Stuckius is very plain and peremptory, and speaks the Sum of what we have delivered in the preceding Discourse, 
a Tota gentium antiquarum religio profecta ●uit ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. De Sacrif. Gent.  The whole Religion of the Old Pagans (saith he) proceeded from a depraved, perverse, and preposterous kind of imitating that Ancient and truly Divine Religion which the Patriarches and their posterity the jews had such a reverence for, as being prescribed them by God himself.  
Villalpandus on the Pentateuch professedly declares, that the Sacrifices and other Usages among the Gentiles, came from the jews. Who can deny, saith 
b Natal. Comes, Mytholog. lib. ult.  another, that the Laws which were given to those Holy Men the Hebrews, came first to the Egyptians, and then out of Egypt went to Greece? The 
c De Theolog. Gentili.  Elder Vossius hath in almost innumerable places assorted this, that the Gentiles made a great number of their Fables out of the Histories which are in the Sacred Writings; 
d Geograph. Sacra. & De Animal S. Scripturae.  Bochart hath with great Wit and Learning traced and discovered the footsteps of Scripture-History among the Heathens in their Mythology. It is the Opinion of 
a Arca Noae.  Marcus Marinus, that the Theological Sentiments concerning Divine Things, were the same among all the Ancient Hebrews and Patriarches, but afterwards they were depraved by the Greeks, and Converted into Fables. 
b Diatribo de Voto Iepth●.  Lewis Capell hath these express words, In the Old Fables of the Greeks you may perceive some shadow and Image, some dark and flying footsteps as 'twere of several of the Histories in the Bible: Which might be demonstrated by a manifold induction of particulars. It is the declared judgement of 
c jacob. Tirinus' in Vet. & N. Test.  another, that the Gentiles were wont to transferr the more remarkable Histories of the Old Testament, and the Divine Miracles related therein, to their false Gods: And he instances in several. And because I have asserted in the foregoing Discourse, that the Sacred Mysteries and Rites of God's own appointment have been profaned and abused even to Magical purposes, I will adjoin here the Testimony of 
d De honesty disciplin●. 9 5.  Petrus Crinitus, who expressly tells us, that the Egyptians and others, made and invented Magical Ceremonies out of the Scacred Rites and Observances of the jews, and that they were wholly indebted to these for them.  
Kircher, and Isaac Vossius have done their part in this Subject, but Huetius in his Evan●●lical Demonstration hath outdone them, and ●ost that have writ on it. Among our own Countrymen, these deservedly are to be numbered, viz. Sir Walter Raleigh, who among several other passages hath these Remarkable ●ords; 
a History of the World, Chap. ●. Sect. 3.  The Heathens did greatly enrich their Inventions, by venting the stolen Treasures of Divine Letters, altered by Profane Additions, and disguised by Poetical Conversions, as if they had been conceived out of their own Speculations. Next to this Worthy Knight the Famous 
b De Dis Syr. Proleg.  Mr. Sel●●● may be mentioned, who avers, that the ●ost impious Customs among the Gentiles had ●●eir Original from Scripture-History, which 〈◊〉 confirms by several Examples. You will 〈◊〉 the Reverend 
c Diatrib. Anti-Bellar 〈…〉  Bishop Montague (though ●●is Author's Adversary in another point) agreeing with him in this. The Heathens saith he, of Old, made use of many things which were taken from the Divine Polity in the Old Testament, but were afterwards cloaked and disguised by the Malice and Fraud of the Devil. The Judicious Dr. 〈◊〉 hath two distinct Chapters of the Gentile Stories and Fictions being ●orrowed ●rom the Bible. I will mention a passage or two out of some other places of his Works, 
a Vol. 1. Book 1. Chap. 10.  If Moses (saith he) was forty days in the Mount to receive Laws from Gods own mouth, Minos will be Jupiter's Auditor in his Den or Cave for the same purpose. In emulation of Shiloh, or Kirjath-jearim, whilst the Ark of God remained there, the Heathens had Dodona: And for jerusalem they had Delphi, garnished with rich Donatives, as if it had been the intended parallel of the Holy City.  
And he hath these remarkable words in the same place, Any Judicious Man, from the continual and serious observation of this great Register of Truth (he means the Scriptures) may find out the Original of all the principal Heads, or Common places of Poetical Fictions, or Ancient Traditions, which cannot be imagined should ever have come into Man's fancy, unless from the imitation of the Historical Truth. A Worthy Prelate, whom I have already Named hath give● us his suffrage most freely in this cause, and hath undertaken to defend it in the close of his Origines Sacrae. I could produce half 〈◊〉 hundred more Authors of good Note an● Learning, but I forbear, because I have don● sufficiently. From these I have quoted, you may see that what I have maintained in this Discourse is no idle fancy, no notion taken up by shallow Heads, but that the deepest Judgements, the most Judicious and Impartial Pens have adopted it for a Truth. We have it upon the Authority of all these Excellent Persons, and many more in former, in later, and even in our present times, as well as upon the plain Evidences, Reasons, and Arguments before alleged, that the Ancient Philosophers and Poets borrowed from the Bible, that many of the Gentile Fables are founded on the most Sacred Verities, that the Scripture is the Source and Fountain from whence many of their Opinions, Customs, and Practices sprang, that most of the Gentile Theology arose from the mistaken and depraved sense of the Holy Writings of the Old Testament.  
From the whole let me offer these three or four Consectaries. 1▪ We cannot with any show of Reason admit of that Opinion which holds that the jews borrowed all or most of their Religious Rites and Ceremonies from the Gentiles. This, though it bids desiance to that Reason and Testimony which I have produced, hath had some Abettors and Patrons. Thus 
a Con. Cels. l. 4.  Origen acquaints us that Celsus stiffly maintained that the Mosaic History was borrowed from the Fables of Heathens. And with him other Heathens at that time concurred; and, to defend their Idolatrous Traditions and Usages, asserted that Scripture History was a corruption of some of their Fables. The Story of the Flood they said was taken from Deucalion, and Paradise from Alcinous's Gardens, and the Burning of Sodom and Gomorrah from Phaeton's setting the World on fire, etc. But Origen shows the absurdity of these allegations, from the Antiquity of those Relations in Sacred Scripture, and thence proves that the Greeks had these from the jews, and not on the contrary. He makes it evident that the jewish Nation had the Original Traditions, and that others were corrupted and changed from these by the Heathens. This Pagan Conceit, which was taken up on purpose as an evasion against Christianity, is revived by some Writers of late, but by none more designedly and industriously carried on and improved than by a late Learned Man of our own, who hath delivered such admirable and choice things on occasion of pursuing this subject, and hath snewed himself so Great a Master of all kinds of Literature, that we can scarcely be displeased with his Notion that 〈◊〉 at the head of all. I will not pretend t●enter the Lists with this Great Champion being conscious to my own inabilities, but this I will do, I will set some Great Men upon him (though I have partly done it already) and leave him to grapple with them▪ josephus the Learned jew, was a Competent Judge in this matter, viz. Whether the jews ●orrow'd their Sacred and Religious Rites from the Gentiles, or whether (on the contrary) these borrowed from them. Let us bear what he saith, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Cont. Apion. l. 2.  There hath been a long time, saith he, among most Nations a great Zeal and Emulation towards our way of Religion and Worship. There is not a City among the Greeks, or Barbarians, yea, not any Nation which hath not received from us the Custom of Resting on the Seventh day, and of Fasting, and of Lighting up of Candles. And several things which relate to Meats forbidden us by our Law, are also observed by Foreign Nations. Here this Knowing Person acquaints us that the Gentiles were followers of the jews, not these of them; and particularly mentions some ●ites which they received from them. With this agrees what two considerable 
b R. Himman, and R. So●●●●.  Rabbis have said, viz. Our Law is the Law of Truth, and all Nation's glory in it, and every one of them hath taken a Branch from our Law, and in it they glory: For the Laws that are among the Gentiles, are as it were Branches cut off from our Law. Whence it undeniably follows, that the jewish Laws and Ceremonies were not taken from ●hose of the Pagans.  
Christians agree in this with the jews Thus justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with a jew, expressly declares, that as Circumcision had its Original from Abraham, so the Sabbath, and Sacrifices, and Offerings, and Feasts had theirs from Moses, and not from the Gentiles. And Tertullian, speaking of the Devil's seducing and perverting of Heretics, tells us, that he doth the like also among the Pagans, for 
a— qui ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum in Idolorum mysteriis aemulatur. De Prescript.  he apes the most Sacred and Divine things even in the Idolatrous and Mysterious Worship of the Gentiles, and makes use of them therein to profane and impious purposes. This hath been the general sense of the Christian Church, whether Papists, or Protestants. Upon those words in Deut. 12. 30. Estius concludes (and all Understanding Men may do so too) that 
b Ex eo ●●xtu manifestum est ●●rem●nias Judaicas non esse petitas ex Gentilitate, sed ab ipso Deo institutas.  from thence it is manifest that the jewish Ceremonies were not taken from Gentilism, but Instituted by God himself. Among the Reformists you will see this more plainly attested 
c Consensus omnis inter Judaeorum & Gentilium ritus ortus est ex Diaboli study, qui pleraque depravavit, & in suam venerationem transtulit. P. Fag. in Num. 7. 89.  All that consent, saith one, which is between the jewish and Gentile Rites, ariseth from the Devil's study to deprave many things which are in the jewish Worship of God, and to transfer them to his own. And another thus, 
a Calvin in Ex. 25. 8.  It is a wicked and detestable thing to imagine that the Rites commanded in the Mosaic Law were as it were Play-games and Sports only in imitation of the Pagans. Therefore, that those Rites may have that honour and dignity which is due to them, we must hold this as an infallible Truth, that all the things in the jewish Worship were according to the Spiritual Pattern which was showed to Moses in the Mount. To which I add Cocceius' notable words, 
b In john 9 30.  I admit not that the jewish Law is an imitation of the Gentile Ceremonies: For on the contrary, it is certain that it was made to draw off the Israelites from many of the Pagan Rites, by those several Laws which were in it, contrary to those Rites. So it became a Hedge or Partition Wall between the jews and Gentiles, that they might not come near one another as to their Ceremonies, for from a likeness in these, there would have followed a mutual Converse and Communion, and consequently a Depravation. As to Particular Rites among the Gentiles, as that of Sacrifices, and using of Salt in them, Spanhemius refers the Original of them to the jewish Law, and the practice of God's People, adding that 
a Per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, à Daemone Dei simi●, id ipsum ad impios & idolololatricos cultus traductum videtur. Du●. Evang. Pars 3. Du●. 91.  This jewish Custom was by a fond imitation in the Devil, who sometimes is God's Ape, made use of in the impious and idolatrous services of the Pagans. So as to the Ark of the Testimony, which the Learned Dean saith was in imitation of the Heathens; the contrary is expressly vouched by 
b Riter ●●●. in Oppian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4.  another worthy Writer in such plain terms as these, Having thought of the whole matter (viz. the Arks or Chests, which he had said before were used in the Religious Mysteries of the Pagans,) my Opinion concerning them is this, that the Devil, as he was ever an Ape, and a Ludicrous imitator of God's Works and Institutions, so here particularly he had a mind to set up these his Arks against the Ark of the Covenant made by God. And hear what a late Learned Author, often commended by the Worthy Dean himself, saith 
c ●uet. Demonstr. Evang.  Chests or Arks used at the Greek and Egyptian Feasts, especially in the Eleusinian Solemnities, with the Toys shut up in them (of which Clement of Alexandria speaks) these were Images or Imitations of the Ark of the Covenant among the jews. All these Allegations and Testimonies (together with those before) are absolutely repugnant to the Learned Doctor's assertion, which he so often repeateth, that many of the Mosaical Laws about Religious Rites and Ceremonies were taken from the Rites and Usages among the Pagan Idolaters.  
But this Author is so Considerable and Worthy a Writer, that it may be thought his single Authority is able to counterpoise (if not outweigh) the joint Suffrage of the Persons before named: wherefore I will make bold to Combat his Notion with a plain Text of Scripture, which carries irresistible Authority with it. The express words of it are these (in Deut. 12. 30, 31, 32. Take heed to thyself, that thou be not snared by following them (i. e.) the Heathens,) and that thou inquire not after their Gods, saying, How did these Nations serve their Gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their Gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Observe here, the jews were forbid to follow the Customs and Rites of the Gentiles, and (in order to that) to enqui●●●●ter their Idolatrous Service, and the manner of it. They must by no means 〈◊〉 the true God, as the Nations served their false Gods and Idols. The Reason 〈◊〉 this is r●nd●ed, because every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, was done by them to their Gods. The Rites and Ceremonies which they used in Worshipping their Gods, were abominable to the God of Israel: Wherefore it is absurd to think that he would appoint his People such Religious Rites and Services as were abominable and hateful to him: unless you will say, that which was abominable in the Heathens, was not so in God's own People. But this increases the absurdity rather than takes it away. No Man of sober thoughts can talk after this rate; for if God disliked those things in the Idolatrous Worshippers, it is certain that he did much more so in the true ones. Wherefore he instituted such a Service as was most opposite to the Heathen way of Worship, and had not the least affinity with it. Hence it is added, what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; as much as to say, you must not follow the directions or example of those Pagaus in your Worshipping of me, you must do nothing in my Service but what I expressly Command you, neither adding thereto, nor diminishing from it. How then can any Man with Reason assert, that the jews borrowed their Rites in Religious Worship from the Gentiles? A Person of so bright an intellect, as our Learned Author is, cannot but see the force of this Text, and be convinced that it ruins his Hypothesis, which he was pleased to take up it may be only to give proof of his own Skill to the Learned World, and to try that of his Opponents. So much for the first Corollary from the preceding Discourse.  
2. From the Premises we may learn the Excellency of our Religion, viz. 1. That it is the Ancientest Religion in the World. We may plainly see the Footsteps of it in the oldest Times that were. The memory of it is among the most Celebrated Monuments of Antiquity. The Truths of it are to be read in the Histories of the First Ages, yea, in the Fables of the Old Poets, in the rusty and antique fragments of the Primitive Times of the World. 2. See the Reasonableness (which is another Excellency) of our Religion. Many of the Scripture-truths' were received by the Philosophers and Sages among the Gentiles, who had no other Conduct than that of their Rational Faculties. These Masters of Reason entertained some of the Grand Principles of our Religion, and approved of them, and acknowledged them as Rational. 3. See the Certainty of our Holy Religion. It is attested not only by Friends, but Enemies. It hath even the Approbation of Heathen Writers, who have▪ Recorded, and thereby confirmed some of the most remarkable things reported in the Sacred Writings, as the Creation of the World, our first Parent's Happiness, and afterwards their Fall, Noa●'s Flood, the long Lives of the first Persons, the Building of the Tower of Babel, the Confusion of Languages, the Renowned Acts of several of the Patriarches and first Worthies, etc. It is a great establishing of our Faith, that those Pagans derived so many things from Scripture. The Gentile Writers vouch a great part of our Religion. Wherefore we must needs embrace it when it is attested by such Disinteressed Persons.  
3. We ought to take notice of the Wonderful Providence of God in this matter. Behold, the Scripture is attested by those who never owned its Authority, yea, the very Enemies of these Holy Writings ratify the Truth and Certainty of them. The Heathen Poets, whilst they Corrupt Divine Truth, assert it. Their very Lies and Fictions bear witness to the Sacred Verities: their Fables confirm the Infallibility of the Bible. This is the Lord's doing; here the Great and overruling Wisdom of God is seen. Here his Almighty Power in ba●●ing Satan's Contrivances and Designs may be discerned. He (as was said before) intended the Corruption of the Scriptures, the silencing of the Truth, the Exalting of himself, and the Advancing of his Kingdom. But the Alwise and Powerful Moderator of the World disappointed his Designs, and made this thing we are speaking of serviceable and beneficial to Religion; he made it become an Argument of its Antiquity, Reasonableness, and Certainty, against the Cavils of Atheists, and Infidels.  
4. Henceforth we are reconciled to the Writings of Profane Authors. We have this considerable advantage by reading the Works of the Ancient Heathens, and by perusing their Stories and Fables, that we shall find some Greater Thing couched in them than the bare Narrative. For these Writers borrowed many things from the Holy Book; their broken Stories are oftentimes an imperfect account of Scripture Relations. Sundry things in their Writings are gathered out of the Divine Volume, but are strangely wrested, pervertrd, and obscured, by having new Names, and ●eigned Circumstances affixed to them. Almost all the Gentile Fables, and Theology, flowed from a depraved sense of the Sacred Writings. The Poet's disguise true Stories with many Fictions, and some Relics of Divine Truth are buried under their ingenuous Fancies, and Fabulous Narrations. Ovid Transcribed the Greek Theology from Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, and other Ancient Poets, and these had it from the Bible. The very Poetic Fictions refer unto real Story, and are drawn from the Divine Source of Truth. So that we are reading the Holy Scripture in a manner whilst we are turning over Pagan Writers. In these we meet with Truths Transplanted from the Sacred Book, we find many passages stolen from the Hebrew Fountains. It is not to be denied then that Scholars, and Students, yea, the very Candidates of Sacred Theology, may with great profit pry into these Writings of the Pagans, for here are the footsteps of Divine Verities. Profane and Sacred Learning are to be joined. The Gentile Monuments illustrate the inspired ones. We may, notwithstanding the disguise which Poets have put upon the Stories, see the foundation of them, and perceive that those vain Figments● are grounded on some Solid Truth, and that a Sacred Treasure lies hid under those confused Fables. For this is not to be denied, that Palestine afforded Greece matter of fancy, and invention; the Pagan Poets were befriended by the jews, Athens was indebted to jerusalem, Parnassus was beholding to Sinai, and Helicon to jordan. You see then the advantage we may reap by being acquainted with Profane Writers, whilst we look further than the outward shape which they have given to many things, and search into that Truth which lies hid under it, even the Sacred and undoubted History of the Old Testament. Thus we may make them serviceable to far higher and better ends than they are intended. This is the best improvement that can be made of them, to see the true Source of what is written by them, to understand whence they borrowed their matter, and to confirm ourselves in the belief of the Truth of the Sacred Writings, by perusing these which are Profane.  
5thly, and lastly then, See the Authority, Truth, and Certainty of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which is the main thing I have been aiming at. I had proved this before by several Arguments, and those perhaps on some accounts more Forcing and Convictive than this: but I thought good to add this to them, as no contemptible way of proving the Antiquity and Authority of the Sacred Book. The Truth of the Historical part of the Old Testament is evidenced from Heathen Writers, not only Historians, but Philosophers, and Poets. A Man may, by comparing these with the Sacred Volume, find out the Original of the Pagan Traditions, and Fictions, and observe the Lineaments of true and unquestionable History among them. Hence we shall have no reason to doubt that there were such Persons and Things in being, as are spoken of in the Old Testament, and that the Passages and Transactions there mentioned were real, and true. This admirably serves to evince the Authority of those Writings, this proves the Truth of the Records of Holy Writ, and that they ought to be received as the Oracles of God, i. e. as Infallible.   

CHAP. X.  
The Authority of the Books of the New-Testament, confirmed by Pagan and jewish Writers, who speak of a King or Lord that should come out of the East, and particularly out of Judaea. An Enumeration of the Opinions of the Learned concerning the Sibylls, with the particular Sentiment of the Author, viz. That the Contents of their Verses were harrowed from the Old-Testament, and that those Women were not Prophetesses, but only related what they found in the Inspired Writings, or heard of thence. A full Answer to the Objections of those who hold the Sibylline Writings to be Spurious.  
NExt I am to show how the Scriptures of the New-Testament are vouched and confirmed by an External Testimony, i. e. how professed Pagans ●nd jews, Enemies to Christianity, have related ●nd asserted the very same things that are set down ●n those Evangelical Writings. First, I will begin with that which is of a middle nature, between what I have been discoursing of before, and what ● am now to engage in, (which therefore may aptly serve as a Transition from one to the other,) I ●ean the belief and report recorded in Pagan Writers, that a King or Lord should come from the ●ast, and do great and mighty things. This was derived from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and 〈◊〉 belongs to the former Discourse: but because it is mentioned by Historians that were after Christ's time, and the Application is with all reason to be made to Him, (I rightly bring it in here.) It was, I say, a constant Report that prevailed about the time of our Saviour's Birth, and afterwards, that some eminent Person or Persons should rise out of those Eastern Nations, and be Lords of the World. We find 
* Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis Sacerdotum liter●● contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potirentur: quae ambages Vespasianum & Titum praedixerant. Hist. l. 5.  Tacitus asserting this, and that great Politician and Statesman would needs have it fulfilled in Vespasian and Titus, because they were called out of judea unto the Empire of Rome. Suetonius agrees with this Author, and tells us, that 
† Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus & constans opinio, ess● in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. I● Vespas. c. 4.  it was an ancient and constant Opinion among the Eastern People, that some should come out of judea about that time, and have the universal Sway, and Reign over the World. 
‖— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De bello Jud. l. 7. c. 12.  josephus the Jewish Historian relates the same, and acquaints us, that it was the common rumour and vogue among the jews that one of their own Country should be an Universal Emperor; which he, as well as the forecited Authors, applieth to Vespasian, because he conquered the jews, and with Titus came from judea in Triumph to Rome. Other jews thought this common Fame was meant of Herod, asserting him to be the Person foretell by the Prophets, and to be the expected Messias: These were the Herodians mentioned in Mat. 22. 16. Thus, though through Ignorance▪ they knew not how to fix this Rumour aright, yet out of Flattery, they could apply it to their Princes. But it is most evident that this Fame of an Universal Monarch arose from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which frequently speak of a great King and Ruler that should come out of the East, and particularly out of judea. Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall He come forth unto me that is to be the Ruler in Israel, Mic. 5. 2. Which is interpreted of the Messias by the jewish Sanhedrim, whom herod gathered together, demanding of them where Christ should be born, Mat. 2. 4, 5. That Prophecy of Micah speaks plainly of a jew, one that by birth ●as of judea, yea of Bethlehem; and therefore it was most falsely applied to those Roman Emperor's beforenamed, who came not out of judea, but ●ut of Italy; not from Bethlehem, but from Rome. And as for Herod, he was not a jew, but an Idu●ean; he was not born in Bethlehem, but in Ascalon. ●ut in our Blessed Saviour this remarkable Prophe●y is exactly accomplished, he being a jew by ●●rth, and of the City of David, and constituted ●y God a matchless King and Governor over his People. Behold, a King shall Reign in Righteousness, 〈◊〉 32. 1. And in several other places of this Prophecy Christ is represented as a King, and his Coming is expressed after that manner. There was ●iven him Dominion and Glory, and a Kingdom, that ●ll People, Nations and Languages should serve him. His Dominion is an everlasting Dominion, which shall 〈◊〉 pass away, and his Kingdom that which shall not 〈◊〉 destroyed, Dan 7. 14. Which is expressly applied to Christ by the Angel from Heaven, Luke 1. 33. And in many other places of Scripture this Divine Person, who was to come to redeem and save Mankind, is set forth as a King, or Great Lord and Prince, one that should ●ear Sway in the World, and wield his Sceptre over all Nations. Hence this Rumour was spread among the Eastern People, and especially about the time of Christ's birth, that a Great Lord or King should arise in those parts, and spread his Dominion over the World. Hence those Pagan and Jewish Writers before● mentioned, speak of this Great Ruler and Monarch, who is no other than our Lord Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This they had from the Prophecies of the Bible, where 'tis so often foretell that a King shall arise, and gain an Universal Empire over Mankind. To this we may refer that which 
* In Augusto Cap. 94.  Suetonius reports (and he quotes his Author for it,) that a few Months before Augustus was born there was this public Prodigy, viz. a Proclaiming of this, That 
† Regem populo Romano naturam parturire.  Nature was bringing forth a King to the Roman People. Whereupon the Senate being alarmed and frighted, made a strange Decree, That no one born that Year should be Educated. This Prodigy, without doubt, referred to Christ, whose Birth was in Augustus' Reign; this was the King that was to be born to all the World, which was then in a manner subject to the Roman Empire, and therefore might be called the Roman People.  
So the Sibylls Oracles or Prophecies are of a middle nature and Consideration, and therefore are justly to be treated of in this place: As they were borrowed from the Scriptures of the Old Testament they belong indeed to the former part of this Discourse; but as they attest the Truth of the mai● things in the New-Testament, they are reducible to this. I will consider them first as they are taken out of the Scriptures of the Old-Testament. This may seem to be strange at first, because the Opinions of Writers have run an other way; but after I have plainly laid the matter before you, I doubt not but the thing which I offer will easily gain your assent, and then it will rather seem strange that it was not taken notice of and embraced before. There have been these four Opinions among the Learned concerning the Sibyls Oracles or Verses.  
1. Some say they are Sergeant, yea, that some Christians (but Heretics) have imposed upon the World in this matter. This I will account for afterwards, because it will more pertinently be handled under the Second Consideration, viz. as they are used as an Attestation of the Truth of the New-Testament. Indeed this Opinion rudely takes away the Subject of the Question, and therefore must be considered in the last place: in the mean time we suppose the thing spoken of to be real, and not counterfeit.  
2ly. Then, some have asserted that the Sibylls were divinely Inspired, and consequently that their Verses are Sacred and Divine. justin Martyr, Ar●obius, Lactantius, and some other ancient Fathers cry them up as equal to the holiest Prophets. As God, say they, spoke by the Prophets to the jews concerning Christ before he came, so he foretold him to the Gentiles by the Sibylls, and the same Prophetic Spirit was in the latter that was in the former. Baronius, Bellarmine, and the Roman Doctors generally think the same of them, and therefore they use their Testimony as very Sacred, and altogether Irrefragable. By the way, I might observe, that they are sometimes quoted by these and others of the Church of Rome to assert and countenance some of their Popish Doctrines: (So that it seems Popery was a Religion before there were any thoughts of it in the World, and before it had a Being.) But here Authors are divided again, for some hold these Gentile Prophetesses were Good and Holy Person, others that they were not. The former Opinion is grounded on that Tenent of the jewish Doctors, that never any vicious and unhallowed Persons were honoured with the Prophetic Spirit, and that those Irradiations and extraordinary Impressions of the Holy Ghost were made only upon Men of holy Lives and innocent Behaviours. Besides, these Prophetic Women speak of One only True God, and they inveigh against the False Gods and their Altars; which is a sign they were good and religious People. Others have a contrary Opinion of them, and think they were Irreligious and Profane, for that Opinion of the Hebrew Doctors before spoken of is not always true, though it be generally so. We read of Baalam, the Sorcerer of Mesopotamia, that he prophesied concerning the future State of the jews, and concerning the Coming of Christ. Saul was a very bad Man, yet was endued with a prophetic Spirit. Caiphas, one of Christ's Judges, was stirred up by the Holy Ghost to prophesy concerning our Saviour's Death. And why might not God inspire Heathen Women, though they were Wicked, with a Spirit of Prophecy? And that they were such seems to appear from their Verses, wherein there are some things very Fond and Superstitious, (and so indeed they may be quoted by the Roman Catholics in defence of their Cause.) This shows that they were not possessors of true Virtue and Goodness. But then I ask this, can we think that the choicest Mysteries of Religion were revealed to them, if they were Wicked and Profane? Would God vouchsafe so great and peculiar a Privilege to the worst of Persons?  
3ly. Therefore, some hold that these Pagan Prophetesses spoke not by a good, but evil Spirit. The Devil revealed these things to them, saith 
* Comment. in 1. Epist. ad Corinth. 11. cap.  St. Ambrose, and helped them to foretell these future Events. And some have turned those foresaid Instances this way, telling us that Baalam, Saul and Caiphas, prophesied by the assistance of some Evil Daemon. So the Heathen Oracles spoke truth oftentimes, though their Answers came from the Infernal Spirits. That these Sibylls received their Skill from Satan may be discerned (say some) in the Errors and Superstitions which are in their Books, yea the Idolatries of the Gentiles are countenanced by them in some passages which occur in their Predictions. But then this may be said to baffle this Opinion, that the foretelling of such future Contingencies is not in the power of that Evil Spirit. Moreover, it is unlikely that these Gentiles (were they informed by a Divine Intelligencer, but especially when they were acted by a Diabolick one) should have as clear, nay a clearer foresight and discovery of Christ to come, than the jews, God's own People, and the holiest Men among them had.  
4ly. It is the Judgement of 
† De Orac. Si●yl.  the Learned Isaac Vossius, that the Sibylline Verses (so called) were made and collected by the jews. This he asserts only concerning those Writings of theirs which were extant before Christ's coming: for the jews being dispersed over the World, and knowing that Daniel's Seventy Weeks were expiring, were stirred up by God to compose these Verses, thereby to signify to the Gentiles the approaching of Christ. But of the other Works of the Sibylls, viz. those that were afterwards quoted by some of the Fathers, he hath not the same opinion and esteem, but thinks they were made and compiled, or in plain terms forged by some Christians, particularly the Gnostics. This is a very odd account of the Sibylls, and shows that the Learned Author of it was in a great straight: He was first willing to reject the Christians from being the Composers of those Writings (which some had asserted,) and yet it seems afterwards he retracts that Sentiment, and is not unwilling to believe that the Christians themselves forged and counterfeited these Sibylline Oracles. But if the jews were the Authors of some part of these Writings, than I ask, how came they to insert things savouring of Heathen Superstition and Idolatry? And if the Christians were Compilers of an other part of these Verses, how came they to insist in the steps of the former, and to add some things (as is said) in favour of those Pagan Corruptions? But I dismiss this as a divided and distracted Opinion: Besides that I can't see why the jews might not as well have produced the Bible to the Gentiles (for it had been translated into Greek, a Tongue intelligible to the Pagan World, a long time before our Saviour's Coming:) that had been more Authentic than any other Writings whatsoever of their own Composing.  
In the Fifth and Last place, I take leave to propound an other Opinion, which is this, I hold that these ancient Writings or Oracles were not made by jews, but Pagans, and particularly by those Women called Sibylls, who made them in no other sense than this, that they took them out of the Holy Scriptures of the Old-Testament, and turned them into Verse. This is that which I assert as most consonant to Reason; and it is a farther Proof of what I have been so long insisting upon, viz. that the Pagans borrowed from the Bible. I am not solicitous whether these Women were good or bad, whether they were moved by God or by an Evil Spirit. There are some Inconveniencies in asserting of either side. But there is a plain and easy way different from both, viz. that we are not to look upon them as Prophetic Persons, as if they had a Gift of foretelling all those things they speak of. No, they only extracted what they writ from the Scriptures, from the ancient Prophecies therein contained, especially from that of Isaiah. And so indeed in some sense their Writings may be said to be Divine and Inspired; for whatever these Pagans foretell was no other than what they took from the Inspired Prophets in holy Writ. They are Instances of the like nature, with those that I have so often produced in the foregoing Discourse, namely, Gentile Poets, that made use of several passages in the Sacred Volume, and inserted the main Substance of them into their Verses. And as those Heathen Poets mingled profane Notions and Fables with the Sacred Doctrine and History (which I showed before) so here it is as true that these Pagan Versifiers mixed some things that were Superstitious with their Prophecies of Christ and his Kingdom, which they derived from the Old-Testament. It is well known that there were Female Poets among the Pagans, as Sappho, etc. and therefore we need not scruple to believe that the Sibylls writ in Verse. Indeed the looseness and neglectfulness of the Style shows that it was done by some easy Poets. That they were Pagan Women is clear from the frequent Allegations of the Fathers, who represent them always as such, and produce the Writings of these Pagans as a proper Confutation of the Gentiles whom they dispute against. And the Heathens themselves acknowledged them to be such and no other, as is apparent from what you shall h●ar afterwards concerning Erythraea and the Cumaean Sibyl. Now, concerning these Poetic Pagan Women, I assert that they were no Prophetesses, no more than Hesiod and Ovid and other Pagan Writers beforementioned, and that they, like these, took some things out of the Old-Testament, (which also were much famed and talked of) and digested them into Numbers. It is undeniable that in their Verses there are very notable Testimonies concerning our Saviour; there are mentioned many considerable Circumstances of his Birth, Life, Miracles, Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and his coming to Judgement▪ but there is no more Reason to think that these were spoken by them from a Prophetic Spirit, than to believe that Orpheus and Homer were inspired when they refer to some things that are in the Books of Moses. If these had been Prophecies in a strict sense they would have been communicated by God to his peculiar People (to whom were committed his Oracles) rather than to common Pagans. It is certain that these were too Choice Secrets to be r●●eal'd to them. Wherefore it is reasonable to conclude they were taken out of the Prophecies of the Old-Testament, which were spread abroad among the Gentiles. The Sibylls only recite those Prophecies, but by no means are you to think that they were Prophecies of their own. It is true, the Pagans hearing of these Predictions, and not knowing the rise of them, attributed them to their Prophetesses the Sibylls; and so they passed for the Sibylls Oracles, as if those Women made and indicted them of their own Heads. But they are the Oracles of the Holy Prophets, and not of any Persons among the Pagans. The Sibylls are not the original Authors of them, but they were borrowed from the Sacred Volume of the Bible. This is the true Account of the Sibylls Writings, and by this we are rid of all the hard Consequences which may be drawn from the foregoing Assertions. We need not trouble ourselves to inquire whether they had these things by Divine A●●lation, or by the help of some evil Daemon. We need not dispute whether they could be endued with the Gift of Prophecy, and yet be Pagans in their Persuasions and vicious in their Lives; or whether, if they were acted by a Diabolick Spirit, they could foretell things of this sacred nature. For there is no necessity of maintaining either of these, because we can solve the matter before us without supposing any thing of this kind, viz. by holding that these Sibylls▪ as many others before them, took these things from the ancient Prophets in Holy Scripture, and dressed them up after their own fashion. All things agree very well with this Opinion, and we are pressed with no Absurdities, insomuch that I have wondered sometimes that this hath not been thought of by the Inquisitive. This is yet a farther Evidence of what I so largely pursued before, that the Gentiles insert into their Writings several particular● of the Old-Testament: and at the same time it's a Confirmation of the Truth and Certainty of the Evangelical Writings, which is the next thing I offered.  
Secondly then, I will consider the Sibylls Oracles and Verses, as they are a signal Attestation and Confirmation of the Authority of the New-Testament. Behold here the main things relating to our Blessed Saviour, plainly spoken of by these Pagans, whose witness in this case is very considerable. They declared in these Writings that there should be a great Change in the World, and that a New Governor or King should arise, and be very Eminent. Cic●ro frequently takes notice of this passage of the Sibylls, and the Roman Senate was mightily alarmed with it, and was afraid their Commonwealth would be turned into a Monarchy. Yea, Lentulus began to take heart from this Prophecy, (if you will believe Tully and Sallust) and fancied he was the King the Sibylls spoke of. And others afterwards imagined that julius Caesar, or Augustus, or (as some thought) Vespasian or Titus were intended: whereas the plain truth is, that the Sibylls had only divulged in their Verses the ancient Prophecies concerning the Coming of the Messias, which were found by them in the Holy Writings of the jews, and began to be known at that time to the World. If we had no more to allege but this, this were sufficient to prove the Authority of the Sibylls Writings. They tell us in their Mystic Verses that a Little Child should throw down Idolatry with his hand, and stop the Mouths of the Delphic Daemons: this was no other than the Ble●sed Babe jesus. It were endless to transcribe particular passages in these Writings, as concerning Christ's Miracles, 

* Lactant. Instit. l. 4. c. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Which is only a Paraphrase on that Prophecy concerning our Blessed Lord in Isai. 35. 5, 6. and many other Texts in the same Prophet, which speak of the miraculous Acts which he was to exert here upon Earth. So what is said of his Sufferings, 

* Idem l. 4. c. 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is borrowed from that Prediction in Isai. 5●. which is no other than a Description of the Messias' Sufferings. And that passage re●●ting to the Resurrection, and his coming to Judgement, 

† Idem l. 7. c. 20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  is founded on some peculiar Texts in the Old Testament which speak of the Messias' last Advent and glorious Reign. Certainly it is of great moment that these Persons attest these things, the very same which were predicted in the Old-Testament, and which are recorded in the Holy Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. This may be serviceable to refute the Objections and Cavils of the most professed Adversaries of Christianity. Accordingly the ancient Christians, especially the Fathers, made use of these Heathen Writings against the Heathens themselves, beating them with their own Weapon. Peruse Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch, and you will ●ind these women's Verses highly commended by them. Peruse 
* Orat. ad Gent. & alibi.  justin, and 
† Stromat. l. 6.  Clemens Alexandrinus, and you will see that they frequently quote those Writings, and rely on them in their disputes against the Pagans for Christianity. So doth Tertullian, so doth Origen, arguing out of these Pagan Books for the Religion which they had espoused. In Imitation of these Learned Fathers, Constantine the Great, in 
§ Ad Sanct. Caet. c. 18.  one of his Orations, speaks very reverently of the Sibylls Predictions, and vindicates them as no contemptible Proof of Christianity. 
‖ Instit. l. 4. c. 15. 18.  Lactantius and Arnobius allege them to prove the same. St. Augustin quotes the Acrostics of Sibylla Erythraea, and turns them into Latin. Thus the Fathers used to convince the Gentiles out of the Sibylline Oracles, and the Old Christians constantly read these Writings, and appealed to them in their Discourses with the Heathens. From which practice of theirs the Gentiles (as 
a De Civ. Dei. l. 18. c. 23. Cont. Faust. l. 13.  Origen testifies) styled the Christians Sibyllists; yea, the ancient Christians were so addicted to the reading these Books of the Sibylls, that they were strictly 
b Cont. Cel●. l. 5.  forbid by the Laws to do it for the future upon pain of Death. And 
c Justin Mart. Orat. ad Gentil.  we are told what was the Reason why the Emperors prohibited the reading of these Books, namely, because they thence fetched many things that made for their Cause. These Writings of Heathen Women were in those days reckoned to be a notable Testimony to the Truth of Christianity. Whence it appears that they were no Forgeries, for the Ancientest and Learnedest Fathers (as well as other Christian Brethren) would not have quoted them to confirm the Christian Religion if they had been such. But we see they did frequently allege them to that end, and especially in their Disputes with the Gentiles. As they made use of the Heathen Philosophers and Poets for attesting the Scriptures of the Old-Testament, (as hath been showed you) so they cited these Gentile Prophetesses (for such they supposed them to be) to assert the Writings of the New Testament. It may be said that it doth not absolutely and necessarily follow, that, because the Fathers used the Sibylls Verses to confute the Pagans, therefore they were true, for they might suppose them to be such, though they did not expressly declare it. In answer to which I return, that it cannot but be granted that there is a great probability of these Sibylline Writings being true, because they are quoted by the Fathers: For 1. Many of these knowing Persons use their Testimony. If one or two only did so, we could make no conclusion from thence; but since it is certain that great numbers of them (not only those before named, but others) expressly appealed to those Books, we cannot with any Reason slight their Allegations. 2. If these Books were quoted by the Fathers but seldom and rarely, there would not be so great a Motive to attend to them; but seeing we find them not only once, or twice, but very often made use of by them, it argues that they deliberately did it, and it invites us to give the greater attention and credit to them. 3. They quote them not as on Supposition only, but as True and Genuine, and such as may and aught to be depended on. 4. The Fathers were Persons that were Competent Judges in this Case. Many of them were Men of Sagacity and of a Critical Genius, and were not easily to be imposed upon. They had also time and leisure to examine these Writings, and to inquire whether they were forged or no; and we are sure it was their Concern to do it, for their Religion depended much upon it. Wherefore those who blast the Authority of the Fathers in this point, have little reason to do so. They were no credulous Fools, and such who took up any thing on trust; they were able to discern these Writings to be Counterfeit, (if they had been such) as well as any other Persons.  
But notwithstanding this, there have been of old, and are of late, several Men that reject the Sibylls Writings, as Spurious and Counterfeit. And who should forge them but Christians? Here than I am obliged to answer that Cavil, that the Writings which go under the name of the Sibylls were ●orged by Christian Heretics. This, it seems, was an old Objection, for Origen acquaints us that it was made by the Arch Pagan Celsus. And Lactantius after him, saith that this Objection was renewed against the Sibylls Books by some other Pagan Adversaries, viz. that they were forged by some Christians themselves. Behold also the Moderns concurring with the Pagans to defame the Sibylls. Scaliger is very warm against them, and holds that the Fathers were much deceived about them. 
* Exercitat. 1. ad Apparat. Annal. cap. 10.  Isaac Casaubon against Baronius, endeavours to prove the credit of the Sibylls to be suspected. Becman 
† Exercit. 14. cont. Photin.  is against the authority of these Writings, and saith they are Supposititious. David Blondel uses all ways to prove them to be Forgeries and Impostures: and he holds they were the Fictions of some busy Christians, who had the boldness to impose upon the World by these Cheats and Romances. As many of the ancient Christians and Fathers, saith he, received counterfeit Gospels, Acts and Epistles; so they were cheated and abused by ●hese spurious Pieces of the Sibylls. The Learned Dallé is of the same Opinion, and tells us that the Predictions concerning our Saviour and his Kingdom were put out under the names of the Sibylls ●y some Christians, who were fallen into Here●●e. They had a mind to use a kind of pious Fraud ●o establish some part of Religion, they thought it to cheat the World for their good, and so they ●●blish'd these Writings under the names of those prophetesses. 
* Histor. Literar. p. 33, 34▪  The Learned Dr. Cave, who is ●ot wont to dote on these Moderns, follows them 〈◊〉 this Opinion very closely, and leaves the ancient Fathers of the Church for their sake: He peremptorily tells us that the Sibylls Verses were made ●nd feigned on purpose by the Christians to up●old their Religion and Faith; and they are da●●d by him from the Year 130, in Adrian's Reign▪ 〈◊〉 is the first flight of them, he saith. But all ●●is is Suspicion and Prejudice, and bold Affirma●●ves, but no proof; which will evidently appear, 〈◊〉 you consider (besides what hath been said already) these following things: 1. Some of the Si●●lls Verses were extant before Christ's coming into the World, as is confessed by ancient Christians ●nd Pagans, and by all the Learned Antiquaries. The Acrostics, which are concerning the Last Judgement and the Consummation of the World, (of which I spoke before) which consist of so many Verses as there are Letters in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Verse beginning with Ι the second with Η, etc. these, I say, are mentioned by Tully in his Second Book of Divination, (and are in an other place inserted into his Works, as Eusebius testifies in the Life of Constantine, and saith they are translated into Latin Verse by him) where he adds that this is not a Poem of a mad and frentick Person, for the Composure and Contrivance of the Verse argues the contrary, and shows attention of Mind, Skill, and Diligence. These Sibylline Verses, the Initial Letters of which point at our Lord Christ, are mentioned not only by Tully, but by 
* De ling. Lat. lib. 5.  Varro, who also lived before our Saviour's time. If then they were extant and famous before Christ's Birth, it is impossible they could be invented by the Christians. Whence it is plain, that all the Writings of the Sibylls were not obtruded by Christians, unless you will say there were any such before Christ. Again, Virgil's Fourth Eclogue is not denied to be the same now that it was at first; and yet there he Comments on the Cumaean sibyl's Oracle, which is a clear Prediction of Christ. Accordingly, in Constantine's Oration, 
† 
Vltima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas:  
Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo:  
jam nova progenies Coelo demittitur alto,  
jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.   part of this Poem is applied to Christ, and looked on as a Prophecy of him, although the Poet makes use of it in a way of Panegyric to the Emperor Augustus, and to Asinius Pollio, his good Patron; yea, he ridiculously applies it to Pollio's Son, who was born that Year. He understands those words borrowed from the Sibylls Oracle [jam redit & Virgo] concerning Astraea; but the sense was much higher▪ there being a reference in those words to the Sign mentioned by the Evangelical Prophet, A Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, Isai. 7. 14. Of that golden Age which was to come, he saith,— Incipient magni procedere menses. What Magnitude is in Bodies, that Diuturnity or Length is in Time; and so here is intimated the duration of Christ's Reign, Whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and shall stand for ever, Dan. 2. 44. 7. 27. Or those Days and Months shall be Great, because they are the Lord's, to whom whatever appertaineth is Great; whence every thing that is in its kind the greatest is called God's. Several other things in that Eclogue are transcribed out of that sibyl's Verses, and were meant of Christ's Coming, and the happy state of the World which should accompany it, which are frequently spoken of in the Old-Testament, whence the Sibyl borrowed these Prophecies. No Man can have the face to say that These, made use of here by the Roman Poet, were obtruded on the World by Christians, seeing Christianity itself had its rise afterwards.  
I might go on still and show that the Sibylls Oracles (or some of them at least) were mentioned by Authors before our Saviour's time, as by Plato in his Phaedrus; by 
* Or the Author of the Book De Mirabilib. Auscultationib.  Aristotle, who particularly names the Cuman Sibyl; by 
† Lib. de Divinatione.  Chrysippus, who makes mention of her of Delphos, by 
* Lib. 4.  Diodorus the Sicilian Historian, and 
† In Phocaicis.  Pausanias, who speak of the same. Dionysius Halicarnass. takes notice of another, and Eratosthenes hath written of the Samian Sibyl; and Euripides quotes her of Lybia. Thus we are assured from the Testimony of these Writers, who lived before Christ's Nativity, that there were such Persons among the Heathens, noted for their Enthusiastic and Prophetic Genius, as they supposed. Now, what Man, in his Wits, dares say that the Christians forged the Verses of these Sibylls, when there were no Chrstians at that time?  
2. Let it be considered how signally it was ordered by God's Providence that some of these Books of the Sibylls should be evidenced to be true and genuine. Be●ore Christ's Coming the Verses of these Poetic Women were enquired into by the Gentiles; they were searched and compared with other Copies, and the Spurious ones were rejected, and the rest kept and safely laid up, so that the Christians might allege them (as they did) without suspicion of Imposture. These Books were first offered to Tarquin King of the Romans at that time, who bought some of them and deposited them in the Capitol, and appointed Officers on purpose to take care of them, as is related by several credible 
§ Dionys. Halicarn. Valer. Maximus, A. Gellius, Pliny, Lactantius.  Writers. In that place the Books continued till the Capitol was burnt, which was about fourscore Years before Christ's Birth. And after it was rebuilt, Messengers were dispatched by the Senate into Asia and Greece to search for these Sibylls Verses, and accordingly a thousand of were brought and laid up in the new Capitol. Others afterwards that were carefully collected were placed in golden Boxes in the Temple of Apollo; and when ever there was any great Affair on foot these Oracles were consulted, as appears from several good Historians. Both 
* Annal. lib. 5.  Tacitus and 
† In Augusto. c. 31.  Suetonius testify, that when these Writings had been sought out and fetched to Rome, they were by Augustus' command diligently examined and reviewed by the Senate, and by the Quindecemviri, that the true Copies might be known from the False. Wherefore there is not the least colour of Reason to think that these Books which were thus searched into, and examined so strictly, were Counterfeit; much less is there any possibility that these ancient Writings could be Figments of the Christians; for they could not feign them before they were in being.  
3. Nor is there any ground to think that the Volume of the Sibylls Verses, now extant, as to the main, is not the same with that which was before our Saviour's days, or that Heretical Christians corrupted it, and added to it. For first, if they did so, why is it not showed what Heresy, what ●alse Doctrine they upheld, and maintained by these Additions and Supplements of theirs? I see nothing of this made out by our Adversaries. Again, If these Writings had been the forgeries of Christians, the Heathens would have certainly, at one time or other, laid open this Cheat, and let the World know there were no such Verses. But none of them ever pretended to do any thing of this nature; wherefore no Man of consistent. Thoughts can imagine that these Writings were the mere Invention of some Christians. Nay, I could add from good Authors, that not only Heathens, but jews, made frequent use of these Celebrated Books, and several of them were brought to embrace the Christian Faith by reading the Contents of them; and truly when they saw many things fulfilled which are here spoken of and fore told, it could not but induce them to think well of Christianity. Whence it is plain, that they had no suspicion of these Writings; they had no such apprehension as some since have form▪ viz. that they were a Cheat, and that some Christians were the Authors of it. And then, as for using of Pious Frauds to vouch Christianity, there is as little ground for that; for seeing they had such a Cloud of Witnesses of all sorts to attest the Truth of the Christian Religion, it was altogether superfluous and unnecessary to counterfeit any. Or, if we should suppose any such thing, and grant that some ill-minded Christians inserted some things of their own into the Sibylls Writings, yet it doth not follow thence that all is Spurious and Counterfeit. I know some condemn all, and others allow every thing that goes under the name of the Sibylls Oracles But I know no cause for either, but the usual one, namely, that Writers must run directly counter to one an other. This is their practice generally, but it is no good one, and I have no Inclination to follow it. I take an other way, the middle one. I do not think that all the Verses that bear their names are theirs, and genuine; and I am far from thinking that all are Counterfeit. What if we grant that some things in the Collection of the Sibylls W●itings (as in many others) are altered and superadded? Can we conclude from thence that every thing in them is changed and corrupted? No surely. There were Counterfeit Gospels written, but these do not prejudice the others which are True: So there are many Pieces go under the names of the Fathers, which are Spurious, but we do not reject the rest of their Works because of them. Thus perhaps it may be here; some Christians might add a few things, they might insert some Verses that mention those individual Acts, and particular Works of our Saviour, with some Circumstances which are no where mentioned in the Prophecies of the Old Testament. This perhaps they might do; I cannot wholly deny it, but this is no Argument that the main of these Books was not composed before Christ's time, and is Genuine and Authentic. Nay, we are certain that the date of them was long before: I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated that; Therefore let us not condemn the whole for the sake of a small part. We are certain that many things quoted out of them by the Fathers, and which are the clearest Attestations of the Sacred Truths of the Bible, are not Supposititious and Forged. We are certain that some of their Writings were extant before there were any Christians to corrupt and adulterate them; and many of the particular Passages quoted by the Fathers in these Writings are now to be found, and are the very same that they were then, and consequently they are now as good a Testimony of the Truth of Christianity, as they were at that time.  
But it is also Objected, that the Number of the Sibylline Books is unknown, and we can neither tell how many the Sibylls or their Writings were; and as for their Quality and Condition of Life, these are uncertainly delivered. Nor do we well know their Names, as appears from this, that Cumaea in Virgil is put for Cumana, and other Mistakes there are. It is true, the Opinions were various concerning these things; their Names and Verses are often confounded, and it is hard to distinguish them from one another. This is granted, and even by 
* Baronius in Apparatu. Poslevinus, Montacut. Exercir. 4. in Appius rat. Baron Acts and Monuments. Chap. 3. Isaac Vossius de S●b●ll. O●●c  those who have with great Eagerness maintained the Credit and Authority of the Sibylls; they acknowledge that it is much controverted, What and how many these Prophetic Persons were, and in what Times they lived, and in what Countries they we●e bred Some say there was only One; they think it was with th● Sibylls as with th● jupiters' and Herculeses, and other Gods, who were many, and yet but One. 
† De Divinatione.  Boisardus is persuaded, that the same Sibyl traveled into divers Countries, and took her Name from the different places she le●t her Verses in. And so a lat● Author 
‡ Mr. Petit.  tells us there was but one Sibyl. There were two of these Prophetesses, saith Martianus Capella; three, saith 
§ N●t. H●●t. l. ●4. c. 5.  Pliny; four, saith Aelian; seven, saith 
‖ Plinian. Exercitat.  Salmasi●s. Lactamius out of Varro, (that great Roman Antiquary) concludes them to be Ten, and names them thus, The Delphic, (who was the Elder) the Erythraean, the Samian, the Cumane, the Cumaean the Hellespontiack or Trojan, the Lesbick or jabyck, the phrygian, the Tiburtine, the Persian or Chaldaean. 
a Isidorus, Suidas, O●up●rius de Sibyl.  Others add two more, viz. Epiro●i●k and Egyptian, and make them a complete Dozen. Thus the Reckoning is not alike; but this is no Argument against what we have asserted. It is not material how many the Sibylls or their Writings were; it is frivolous to insist upon this. They might all of them been put into one, if Authors pleased; or they might divide them into more, as the way at some Coffee Houses now is to deal out Pamphlets. Wherefore there is no reason to reject them on this account, seeing we have proved that their Books (were they more, or fewer) are owned as to the main by the Fathers and Primitive Christians to be true, and seeing they were frequently made use of by them as sufficient Witnesses to the Truth of a great part of the Christian Religion.  
And as for those Moderns, who have rejected these Witnesses, we may, with reference to them, take up that Lamentation of a late 
* Vossius de Sibyl. Orac. cap. 11.  Learned Writer, (who himself is partly guilty of the Fault he complains of) Verily the Christian Religion hath no Enemies more set against it than Christians themselves; for you may observe, that there is searcely any Prophecy or Testimony to be found concerning Christ among the Ancients, which many even of the most Learned Men have not endeavoured to weaken, yea utterly to destroy and annul. This is a very deplorable Thing, but it were easy to prove it most true in several Instances: You will meet with some of them in the following part of this Discourse, and more particularly in the Testimony concerning Christ which josephus gives. But this which is now before us, is as Signal a one as any that can be named; for the Sibylls Verses are very express Attestations concerning our Saviour and his Great Undertake. Yet how strangely do Christian Men endeavour to enfeeble, yea, to baffle and subvert these Testimonials concerning our Lord? They tell us they are the Forgeries of jews, and the Impostures of Heretical Christians, and all manner of Objections they invent against them; yea, a late 
* Servatius Gallaeus.  Writer pronounces these Sibylls to be mad and frentick People, and so there is no heed to be given to what they say. When it hath pleased God to afford us such a remarkable Confirmation of our Religion from the Mouths of Pagans, is it not unpardonable Ingratitude thus to vilify and reject it? Is it not an Argument of a vile and perverse Spirit to use all means, and those very shameful ones too, to disprove that plain Evidence which these Sibylls bring, and to shut their Ears to that repeated Testimony which they give to Christianity and the Blessed Author of it? In short, the Pagans had their Temples, and Priests, and Sacrifices, and Oblations, and Prayers; and they had also their Scriptures, i. e. the Sibylls Books. In these was discovered the Council of God; for the Sibylls, according to the import of their Name, were Interpreters of God's will to the Heathens. In these were expressly foretell the Birth of the Holy Jesus, and many other remarkable things relating to Him: By these Oracles the Gentiles were pre-admonished of Christ's Coming; it seemed good to God to prepare them for the Gospel, by these Forerunners and Messengers, as he did the jews by their extraordinary Prophets. And they are useful to Us as well as to the Gentiles; we may be fortified in the Belief of our holy Religion by what they delivered. They give a plain and clear suffrage for Christianity and the Founder of it. The ancient Christians thought their Writings to be Authentic Records, though now some are pleased to slight and vilify them. They looked upon them as good Evidences of the Christian Faith, and of the New-Testament which containeth it; and there is still the same Reason that we should esteem them as such, especially since the Objections to prove the falsity of these Books are very mean and weak. Therefore (to conclude) till they can produce better Reasons against these Testimonials, I think we may safely and reasonably make use of them.   

CHAP. XI.  
It is proved from particular unquestionable Testimonies of professed Enemies of Christ, that there was a Person of such a Name, and that all the great and eminent Circumstances of his Birth, Life, and Death, are really true. As to his Birth, they attest the particular time of it, the general Tax or Enrolling, the wonderful Star, the Murdering of the Infants of Bethlehem. Then, as to his Life and Actions, Abgarus' Letter to our Saviour, and our Saviour's Answer to it, are proved to be an Authentic Evidence. What the Emperor Augustus did in relation to Christ, is considered. The Defection of the Sun's Light, and the Earthquake at our Saviour's Passion, are not wholly passed over in silence by Heathen Writers.  
HAving thus premised those Particulars which are of a middle kind, between the former part of the Discourse and this; I will now wholly insist on such things as are more Appropriated to the Subject I am Treating of. This then, I will prove from Witness who are professed Enemies of Christ, (i. e. Pagans and jews,) that there was a Pe●son of such a Name, and that all the great and ●minent Circumstances of this Persons Birth Life, and Death are really true. First, The Pagan Historians present us with his Name. Tacitus, telling how the Christians suffered for the firing of Rome, which Nero laid to their Charge, saith, the Emperor inflicted the most exquisite Punishments on those Pe●sons, 
* Quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat; Auctor nominis ejus Christus. Annal. l. 15. c. 44.  who being detestable for their Villainies, were commonly called Christians, from the Author of that Name Christ. Here this Historian expressly sets down the Name that these Persons were known by, and His Name, f●om whom they took it. This was Christ; though, as we lea●n from 
† Sed exponenda hujus nominis ratio est, propter ignorantiam errorum, qui eum immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere. Institut. l. 4. c. 7.  Lactantius, this Name was sometimes a little altered, for by changing of a Letter they pronounced it Chrest. Thus we read in 
‖ judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultnantes, Claudius Roma expulit. In Claud. c. 25.  Suetonius, that Claudius banished the jews from Rome, because they were always raising Tumults by the Instigation of one Chrestus. The 
§ Annal. aer. Dom. Anno 54.  Learned Usher indeed is of Opinion, that here is not meant Christ our Lord, but some other whose true and right name was Chrestus. But (with Honour first paid to that great and justly admired Antiquary) it is more likely that Christ our Saviour is here meant, because Lactantius (as you have heard) tells us he was called Chrestus, and because it is clear from 
a Apolog. 2. add Senat.  Tertullian, that the Christians were called Chrestiani; and so 
b Sed cum perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis, Adu. Gent. c. 3.  justin Martyr informs us that the Christians were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yea, he seems to say that the Gentiles did not give them a wrong Name when they called them so, for they were truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very Good-natured, Sweet, and Benign Persons. But questionless it was a mistake in the Pagans, and the Historian abovementioned was guilty of it. Some think he mistook not only our Lord's Name, but the time of this Fact which he mentions, imagining that Christ lived in the Reign of Claudius; but this was too gross an ove● sight for so knowing an Historian, especially he, living so near our Saviour's Time. But to understand this Author a●ight, we must know, that it was common with the Pagan Writers to confound the Names of the jews and the Christians, and to say that of one which appertained to the other; (nor is it a Wonder that Christians for a time were called jews, because the first Christians were of the jewish Nation) Accordingly by the jews here (who he saith were expelled out of Rome) are meant Christians, who were looked upon by the Gentiles as Seditious and Tumultuous Persons, because their Master and Founder was reckoned such a one. And so when this Writer saith they raised Tumults impulsore Chresto, the meaning is, they were set on by His Example; He, though dead, had a great Influence upon them, and stirred them up to do what they did. Or, if you will understand jews here in the strictest Sense, viz. such as profess judaism, than it may refer to Theudas' Insurrection, who, though he was an Egyptian, as some gather from Acts 21. 38. yet he headed the Mutinous jews; which gave just occasion to the Emperor to banish all of that Nation and Religion from Rome. And because (as I have said) the name of jews and Christians was promiscuous among the Gentiles, thence Chrestus, i. e. Christ is said to be their Ringleader and Impulsor. Pliny the Younger mentions the Christians and Christ by name, for 
* Epist. 97. lib. 10.  he tells the Emperor that some that were brought before him upon Suspicion of being Christians, were found to be Persons of another Persuasion, for upon his Solicitation they refused not to Curse Christ. This was the Appellation he was known by to the Gentile Historians, and this is the very Title which the New-Testament so often giveth him. Thus far then the Pagans bear witness to the Gospel.  
But from the Name I pass to the Person and his Actions, and most of the great and notable Circumstances which accompanied his Birth, Life and Death. First, we will speak of those four remarkable things which attended his Birth. namely the Particular Time of it, the General Tax, the Wonderful Star, and the Murdering of the Infants of Bethlehem.  
First, Those known Adversaries of Christianity, the jews and Gentiles, testify that Christ was to come at that very Time when he came. It was the universally received Tradition of Elias, that after four Thousand Years the Messias should be born; for though that Celebrated Saying or Prophecy in the Talmud of Two thousand Years before the Law, and two Thousand after it, be not exactly true, for there were about Two Thousand five Hundred Years from the Creation to the Law, and from the giving of the Law to Christ there were not above Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years, yet the Prophecy may be made use of to convince the jews, that the Messias is come, and it is a plain Indication of the Time when he was expected by them, even that Time when he blessed the World with his Presence on Earth. Hence it is that (when Christ was brought to jerusalem to be offered in the Temple) as soon as Simeon beheld him, he forthwith acknowledged him, and cried, out Mine Eyes have seen thy Salvation. This is that Simeon to whom the jewish Doctors had reference, when they said, The Disciples of Hillel shall not fail till the Messias cometh; for this Simeon called the Just, was one of the chief of those Disciples. 
* In Sanhedrim.  Rabbi Hakiba, the Wisest of all the Talmudical Doctors, interprets those words of Haggai, 
† Chap. 2. v. 7.  The Desire of all Nations shall come, of the Messias; and it is confessed by all the Learned jews, that he was ardently desired and expected, not only by that People, but by all Nations, just at that time when our Saviour came; for this was the Great Lord of the World, who was then looked for by the Gentiles out of the East; this was that Universal Monarch, who was expected to rise out of jury, of whom I spoke before. This was no other than the Messias, the Christ, whom all the World longed for at that time by a general Consent; and that was the fullness of Time, spoken of by the Apostle, that blessed Time when the Son of God was born of a Woman. So that the holy Records of the Gospel, and those of Pagans agree in this.  
Another Circumstance of Christ's Birth, which the New Testament takes notice of, is the Tax that was made by the appointment of the Emperor Augustus; and this also is recorded by the Gentile Writers, which is a Confirmation of the Truth of the Evangelical History. It came to pass in those days, (saith 
§ Chap. 2. v. 1.  St. Luke) that there went out a Decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the World should 〈◊〉 Taxed, or Enrolled, as the Greek Word properly denoteth. This was no Mony-Tax, but only a setting down or Enrolling of every Person according to his Quality, Age, and Station in the Place where he was. It was a taking in Writing the Names of every individual Man, it was a numbering the People, and Registering the true value of their Estates, Incomes and Revenues, and way of getting their Livelihood. A late 
* Bynaeus de Natali J. Christi.  Writer 〈◊〉 of Opinion that the design of this Census was to know the number of Soldiers, and what ●ighting Men judaea afforded; whence it is, saith he, that Profane Writers say not any thing of it, it being not considerable. But he forgot that the Virgin Mary went to Bethlehem with her Babe to be Enrolled there. Or rather he did not forget this (for he makes mention of it afterwards) but he considered not that Women and Children are not ●sually listed for Soldiers. It is more agreeable ●hen to Reason and Truth to assert that this Decree of Augustus was for the purpose aforementioned, namely, that he might have a particular accounted of the Number and Quality of all his subjects. The Emperor had Precedents among the old Roman Kings for this, for Plutarch tells us, ●hat Numa Pompilius, and Florus relates how S●rvi●s Tullius took an Account of the Age, Family, Patrimony and Offices of the Romans, digesting them into particular Classes, and setting them down in the Censual Tables. Augustus, by such a Census as this, knew the Strength of his Empire, and what the Riches of the People werein the several Provinces, and so when there should be occasion for a Subsidy he could take his measures hence. For though this Tax, which St. Luke mentions, be not a Pecuniary one, yet it was in order to it. This Registering, this Enrolling of every Person was to this purpose, that they might more easily be taxed or sessed by the Head. And whereas it is said all the World was Taxed or Enrolled, it is to be restrained (though not to judaea only, as some imagine, yet) to the Roman Empire. All that were under the Dominion of the Roman Empire, at that time, were booked and registered to the purpose aforesaid. This being a thing so well known we may expect that the Pagan History, as well as that of the Gospel should take notice of it; and accordingly we find Dio, josephus, and Tacitus, making mention of it.  
I know some are unwilling to grant that it is the same Tax mentioned by St. Luke, because it is said, this Taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, Chap. 2. v. 2. Now it is Recorded by josephus and others, that Quintilius Varus (not Cyrenius) was Precedent of Syria at that time of Christ's Birth, and the same Authors relate that Augustus taxed the Empire in that President's time. How then can they speak of the same Taxing which St. Luke Records? And Moreover, as for Cyrenius, he was, according to 
* Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 1.  josephus, commissioned by the Emperor to make a Tax, not about the time of Christ's Birth, but a good while after. Whence it follows, that Augustus' Taxing of the World, or ordering Cyrenius to manage it, which is mentioned by the Evangelist, is different from that Tax which the foresaid Writers speak of. Some answer the first Difficulty thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyrenius for quintilius Varus, by the neglect and fault of the Transcriber. This is the Opinion of Steuberus in his Preface before Helvicus' Tables, and also of Ludovicus Capellus. But this is an ill way of solving the Difficulty, because it disparageth the Holy Text, and argueth it to be corrupted. If we admit of th●se oversights and mistakes of the Transcribers, we must impeach the S. Scriptures of Error. Therefore the true Answer is this, That Quintilius Varus was the ordinary Precedent of Syria, he was the Governor Residentiary, but Cyre●ius (or Quirinus, or Quirinius, as he is called by 
* Annal. lib. 3.  Tacitus and 
† In Tiber. c. 49.  Suetonius) was the Governor Extraordinary, that is, he was sent thither by Augu●stus to make a general Tax there. Not that he ●as the settled Ruler of that Province, but was on●y appointed, at that time, to take care of that bu●●ness; and afterwards (upon Varus' Death) he ●as made Precedent in ordinary of Syria. This, I conceive, is the true reconciling of this Passage of St. Luke, with what you read in Profane Authors. It is rightly said, that Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, because he went with extraordinary Power from the Emperor to govern and preside in that particular Affair. This amounts in a manner to what Drusius and Petavius say in this Case. viz. That Varus and Cyrenius were joined in the Work; or one began it, and the other carried it on and ●●nished it. And then, as to what is said concerning the disagreeing of St. Luke, and the jewish Historians, about the time of Cyrenius' Taxing, which the former saith was in the Year when Christ was born, but the latter nine Years after Herod's Death; in the Reign of Archelaus; I conceive this difference betwixt them is easily adjusted. Which is done not by Distinguishing between the Taxes; as 
* Beza, Sc●liger, Cas●ubon, Grotius.  some tell us long Stories of a twofold Tax, one under Augustus, without any Exaction of Tribute, the other, under the same Emperor, but with gathering of it; in the first, Christ was born, but the other was a considerable time after. St. Luke speaks of one, say they, and josephus of the other, and so they are different Taxes, and thus there is an end of the Controversy. I do not deny, that there were two Taxes under Augustus, for 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (t●e very word used by St. Luke,) Hist. lib. 20.  Dion, as well as 
§ A●tiqu. l. 18. c. 1.  josephus, affirms this; nay, Suetonius 
‡ In Augusto, Cap. 27.  l●ts us know that this Emperor caused a Census of the Roman Empire to be made thrice. That he did it more than once, is implied, in that the Evangelist calls this Taxing under Cyrenius the First; (for I do not attend to 
‖ Cloppenburg in Syntagm. Bynaeus. Jacobus Perizonius.  those who think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted by an Elipsis, so that it should be thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before he was Precedent or Governor; and then the meaning is, that this Tax was before Cyrenius was Precedent, which is a plain perverting of the Grammar and Sense of the words, and therefore not to be regarded. It is called the first, because it was the first that was under Cyrenius. That is plain; but this is that which I assert moreover, that they are not different Taxes which are spoken of by St. Luke, and the jewish Historian, but they are the same; only the Inspired Writer relates it barely, but the other with some additional Circumstances. They may seem to differ, because one is called an Enrolling, and the other is represented as a Mony-Tax; but if you consider, that one was in order to the other, that the taking men's Names was but a preparative to the actual levying of Tribute, you will soon apprehend the Mistake in the forementioned Historian, and see that he speaks of the very same thing. Nay, though he represents it in part, as a pecuniary Census, yet you will find it called by him 
* Joseph. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same word which the Evangelist useth. Or, if they seem to differ, as to time, yet they may be the same notwithstanding that; for it hath been observed by 
† Apparat.  Baronius, and several Learned Critics, that josephus is often faulty as to the Timing of things, and so he is here, and by that means confounds one thing with another; but to a considerate Enquirer, it is evident, that he and St. Luke do not disagree, but that the Relation which this latter gives us is confirmed by the former. Eusebius was clearly of this Opinion, and was not afraid to assert, that 
§ Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 9  the Taxing which josephus speaks of, is the same that St. Luke writes of. Nor are we to attend to a 
‖ Du Pin, Tom. 2 Cent. 4.  Learned Doctor of the Sorbon, when he charges this upon him as a mistake and falsehood, unless he had backed his charge with good reason.  
As for Tacitus' Testimony, that is denied by none, but it is granted, that he speaks of the first Tax, under which Christ was born. He gives this short Description of the Books of Taxes, which were made at that time, 
* Opens publicae eo continebantur, quantum civium sociorum▪ in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, & necessitates ac largitiones; quae omnia manu sua perscripserat Augustus, Lib. Annal. l. 1.  The Public Revenues (saith he) were contained in them, the number of the Citizens and their Fellows that were in Arms, how many Ships, Kingdoms and Provinces there were within the compass of the Roman Empire, was exactly set down, and consequently what Taxes and Impositions there should be, what was needful to be laid out, and what to be contributed in the several parts of the Empire: And all this Augustus writ over with his own hand. Thus the Roman and jewish History accords with the Sacred one in this matter; it confirms the Relation of St. Luke concerning Christ's being born under the first Census. Wherefore it is falsely said, that Augustus' Taxing all the World, i. e. all the People of the Roman Empire is not mentioned by any Historians, either Pagan or jewish. It is true, this is matter that seems more proper for the Diaries of the Emperors, than for the Ann●ls of History; which may be the reason why it is not taken notice of by many, nor insisted upon by them. But we see it is not forgotten by some, but particularly recorded by them, as is evident from what hath been propounded. The same may be farther evidenced from the Censual Tables at Rome, wherein all Persons that were subject to the Roman Empire were enroled according to Augustus' Decree. By reason of this universal Registering of Persons, it came to pass, (through the wonderful Providence of God) that the Holy Iesus' Name, with the Time of his Birth, and the Place of it, and his Stock and Lineage, were Recorded in these Public Rolls, as some of the Ancientest Fathers openly declared, and appealed to these Records at Rome for the proof of it. Tertullian testifieth, that this Tax under Cyrenius was set down in these Tables, and 
* Testem fidissimum Dominicae nativitatis Romana Archiva Custodiunt. Cont. Martion. l. 4. c. 7.  as a most faithful Witness of Christ's Birth was kept in the Roman Archieves in his time. justin Martyr doth the same in his public Defence of Christianity to Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate: There is a Town, saith he, called Bethlehem in the Land of Judaea, five and thirty Furlongs off of Jerusalem, where Christ was born, as you may learn out of the Censual Tables made for that Tax which was under Cyrenius your first Procurator in Judaea. So he, both 
† Cont. Julian, l. 6.  Cyril and 
‖ Romano censu statim ascriptus ut natus est, lib. 6. c. 22. Dicendus utique civis Romanus census professione Romani, Ibid.  Orosius take particular notice of this, namely, that our Blessed Lord and Saviour was registered as a Subject of Caesar, and as a Citizen of Rome. Moreover, that Women and Children, as well as Men, used to be Enrolled in the Census, is testified by Dyonisius Halicarn. (Lib. 1.) speaking of that which was in Servius Tullius' time. And Cicero (de Legib. lib. 3.) acquaints us that this was usual. To conclude then, this Taxing was a thing known and open, and the Heathens themselves (as Celsus, Porphyry, and julian) did not deny it. Thus the Public Records of Rome vouch the History of the Gospel. Therefore the Fathers appealed with great Confidence to these Authentic Tables, as knowing that these were a notable Confirmation of the Sacred Records, and particularly of what St. Luke delivers concerning the Tax which Augustus made.  
The Third remarkable Circumstance of Christ's Birth was the appearing of a wonderful Star, Mat. 2. 2. 7. 9 which is also taken notice of by Heathen Writers. There are great Disputes among the Learned about this Star, which appeared to the Magis when our Saviour was born. Some have said it was an Angel, some a fixed Star, others a Planet, and it hath been thought by some to be a Comet, or some lower Meteor. The true decision of the quarrel is this, That this strange Apparition was none of these, and yet it had something of all these in it. It is probable some glorious Angel presided, as an Intelligence, in this shining Body, and directed its Course and Motion. It might pass for a fixed Star or a Planet in respect of its height, if you consider at what distance it was seen. 
* Mat. 2. 2.  We have seen his Star in the East, said the Wise Men, i. e. they being in the East (in Chaldea, Persia, or Arabia, for 'tis questioned from which of th●se they came) saw his Star at Bedlam or jerusalem. Or if this Interprotation be not admitted, but that the meaning be thought to be this, that they saw that Star, it being then in the East, in those parts where they were, in those Eastern Countries where they lived, and that they came along by the conduct of it to judea, than this a●gues its orderly Motion from East to West, and so shows its resemblance to the ordinary Stars. It had also something of a Comet in this, that 
* Mat. 2. v. 9  it came and stood over where the young Child was, that is, as I conceive, it directly darted its Beams in a Line, as it were, upon that very place where the Holy Babe was; its glorious Train which came from it spread itself towards that quarter, and so this heavenly Light showed where the House was that was blessed with such a Guest. In this respect also it had the nature of a Meteor, that it was partly in the lower Region, and there hovered for a time. But if we strictly consider the nature of this Apparition, we shall find, that it really was none of these which I have named. It was not an Angel, (although guided by one) whatever some fanciful Men have imagined, for this is not the way of the Holy Spirit's speaking here, as you may see in this very Chapter, where that particular sort of Messenger is called in plain terms an Angel of the Lord, v. 13. and so again, v. 19 It could be neither fixed Star nor Planet, because both its Motion and Appearance were interrupted. They saw it when they were in the East, but it disappeared afterwards, or moved an other way when they came to jerusalem, otherwise they would not have asked (as they did) 
† Mat. 2. v. 2.  Where is he that is born King of the Jews? It is evident hence, that it did not show 'em where Christ was when they came at first to jerusalem; but afterwards it appeared again, and not only so, but conducted them to the place where the Blessed Babe lay. It was no Comet, for the length of its duration proves this, it being seen two Years before Christ's Birth. 
‖ Mat. 2. v. 16.  Herod sent forth and slew all the Children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the Coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise Men, that is, according to the time the Star had appeared, of which he was particularly informed by the Wise Men. H●nce a 
* Dr. Lightfoot.  Learned Man infers, that these Eastern Sages came not to visit Christ till two years after he was born. But this doth not follow thence, for the Star might appear a Year or two before Christ was born, and give those Sages an Intimation of some strange thing that was to come to pass; and 'tis likely that after it had appeared a good while, and they were throughly confirmed in their Persuasion, that some great thing was to happen, as signified by this new and unexpected Luminary in the Heavens, they set forwards towards judea, which they knew was the Scene of the greatest Wonders in the World, and they were a long time on their Journey from those remote parts which they left, (perhaps sometimes making a halt, or sometimes going back, accordingly as their Apprehensions and Surmises were concerning this new Phoenamenon in the Heavens,) two Years or thereabout might be spent from the time of the first appearing of this heavenly Light till their arrival at jerusalem. From this we gather that it was of great Continuance, such as is never known to be the duration of Comets.  
Some think this new Star appeared only to the Magis, because (say they) otherwise Herod would not have so diligently enquired of them concerning its appearing, for he might have learned that of his own Subjects. But to understand this aright, let us observe the words, 
† Mat. 2. v. 7.  Herod, when he had privily called the wise Men, enquired of them diligently what time the Star appeared, i. e. either first what was the time of its usual Rising, for it did not appear always, night and day: Or secondly, Perhaps the Inhabitants of jerusalem, and other jews, did not observe it, it being no great and large one; but these Magis, who were skilled in the Stars, and took notice when a new one showed itself, knew the time of its rising; therefore Herod enquired of them. Or thirdly, He enquired what was the time when the Star began first to appear. And that This is the true meaning, is evident from what is said in the Sixteenth Verse of this Chapter, viz. That Herod slew the Children from two Years old and under, according to the time which he had enquired. Where you see these two are joined together, and answer to one another, the Age of the Children, and the time since the appearing of the Star. Herod had been told by the Wise Men that this had appeared about Two Years; therefore he ordered all Children born within that time to be slain. Hence it is plain, that the time of the Stars first showing itself, which was in those Regions where the Wise Men inhabited, was the thing which Herod made enquiry about, and in which he could not be satisfied by his own Subjects. But it doth not follow from this that the Star was not seen by them at all, nor by Herod himself, because his enquiry was not about the present appearing of it, but only concerning the time of its first Appearance. Besides, if it was seen of none but the Magis, than it could not be expected it should be taken notice of in the Writings of ●●her Pagans; but we find that it is taken notice of, which is the chief thing I am concerned in at present. The Sibylls in their Verses prophetically speak of it, or rather (as I have showed before) borrow it from the Old-Testament, wherein is 
* There shall come a Star out of Jacob, Num. 24. 17.  Baalam's Prophecy concerning the Star, which though it is chiefly meant of Christ himself, yet it may not exclude this unusual Star which ushered him into the World. But Virgil, who Transcribes the Sibylls Verse, applies it in Court-flattery to the Emperor Augustus. 
† Eclog. 4.  Ecce Dionoei processit Caesaris astrum. After its Appearance it is mentioned by Chalcidius a Platonist in his Comment on Plato's Timaeus, where speaking of the wondrous Presages of Stars mentioned in Writers, he saith, 
‖ Est qucque alia fanctior & venerabilior Historia quae perhibet de ortu stellae, etc. Apud Marsil. Ficin. Tract, de stell.  There is another more Holy and Venerable History, which tells us of the appearing of a certain Star, which did not denounce Diseases and Death, but the descent of a God to converse with Mankind, which when the Chaldean Sages see they took it to be the forerunner of a Deity, and they forthwith sought him out and worshipped him. This Star is mentioned by 
* not Hist. l. 2. c. 25.  Pliny, under the name of a Comet, (So all extraordinary Stars were called) which appeared in the latter end of Augustus' Reign; and he adds, that that one Comet is adored and reverenced all the World over. But hear what he saith farther in the same place, speaking of the several Species of Comets, 
† Fit & candidus Comets, argenteo crine ita refulgens ut vix contueri liceat, specieque humana, Dei Effigiem in se ostendens.  There is a bright Comet hath appeared, which by reason of its Silver looks, was so refulgent, that it could scarcely be looked upon; it had the shape of a Man, and at the same time showed in it the Effigies of a God. He might mean the Star which appeared at Christ's Nativity, and which brought the Wise Men to visit him; for there might be (it is probable) a Rumour abroad in Pliny's days, that in Augustus' Reign a Comet appeared in judea, which had the Image of him whom the Christians called God Man. However, they are very strange words which this Writer utters, and deserve your Consideration. Macrobius, an Enemy of Christianity, speaks of the coming of the Magis from the East to jerusalem; and julian the Apostate confesseth the appearing of a new Star, though he trifleth about solving the manner of its appearing. This Testimony of our Adversaries is sufficient.  
Again, Herod's murdering the Babes of Bethlehem, is mentioned by Profane Writers, as well as by the holy Evangelist, Mat. 2. 16 Dion in the Life of Octavian Caesar hath left a brief Memorial of it. But you will find it recounted more particularly by Macrobius, who not only tells us of Herod's killing the Children of Bethlehem, but of slaying his own Son. It seems this bloody Man had put to death two of his Sons (Alexander and Aristobulus) before, and now his Son Antipater also is dispatched about the time of the slaughter of the Infants, and upon the same account and jealousy, to secure the Sovereignty of judea to his other Sons (who were born after he was King) for whom he designed it. He adds, that the Tidings of both (that is, Herod's killing the Infants of Bethlehem, and his own Son together with them) being brought to the Emperor Augustus, his witty remark or reply was this 
* Quum audisset Augustus inter Pueros, quos in Syria Rex Judaeorum intra bimatum jussit intersici, filium queque ejus occisum, ait, Melius est Herodis Porcum esse quam Filium, Saturnal. l. 2. c. 4.  It is better to be Herod' s Hog than Son, (because Herod being as to his Religion a jew, would not have killed his Hog.) Or; if it be granted, (and I shall not be very unwilling to do so) that Augustus could not hear of this, because Antipater was no Child, but grown up in years, and was not at Bethlehem when the slaughter of the Children was, but 
* Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 17. c. 10.  was slain five days before his Father's death, (which yet was not long after this) Admit this, I say, yet all that can be said is, that Macrobius represents not the Story aright as to all its Circumstances, especially the Time; but notwithstanding this, he gives Testimony to the main thing (which is, that we are to attend at present) viz. the slaughter of the Children by the Command of Herod, especially of such who were born 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 2. 16. Intra bimatum, Macrob.  within the space of two Years, which is the thing St. Matthew expressly records. Tertullian appeals to the Censual Tables and public Acts at Rome for the Truth of this, which shows it was a thing well known to those Pagans. Nor were the jews backward to assert this, as you will see in 
‖ In Breviario Temporum.  Philo, who relateth that Herod's Son was killed with the Children. If it be objected here that the famous jewish Historian saith nothing of this Massacre of the Innocents' at Bethlehem, I answer, 1. Nor is there any mention of it in the other three Evangelists. This is no uncommon thing for one Evangelist to record that which none of the others so much as make mention of. 2. Many things in the Old-Testament, and those of great Fame, are omitted by this Author, who designedly took upon him to give an Account of all the great Occurrences among the jews. He hath nothing of the History of job, nothing of the Golden Calf, and other matters worthy of our Observation; wherefore let us not wonder that this Historical Passage in the New-Testament concerning the Infants of Bethlehem is not mentioned by him. 3. It is sufficient, that this Murder of the Infants is testified by one of his own Nation, and by Heathen Men, as you have heard. It is probable that other Gentile Historians had delivered the same; for it had been recorded some where, as appears from Macrobius, who received it from those Authors.  
Secondly, after Christ's Birth we are to consider his Life, and some notable things which accompanied it, and to show that these also are attested by those that were professed Enemies of Christianity. That there was such a one as jesus who lived in judea in Tiberius' time, and did great and wonderful things, and was followed by many of the jews, and was acknowledged by them to be the Messias, and sent from God, and was famous for those Wonders and supernatural Effects which he wrought in the sight of the People, is not disowned by the greatest Adversaries of the Christian Religion. Hierocles freely confesseth it, as you may read in Eusebius. Celsus, julian and Porphyry, deny not the Miracles done by Christ and the Apostles, as several of the 
* Origen cont. Celsum. Cyril cont. Julianum. Augustin. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.  ancient Fathers assure us; they confess the matter of Fact, that he cured the Blind and Lame, etc. but they ascribe it to Magic. In short, they give assent and testimony to the chief Passages of the Evangelical History concerning our Saviour, (though they cavil at others, and strive to confute them) They frankly acknowledge that there was such a Person as jesus of Nazareth in the Reign of Tiberius, who declared himself to be the Messias, and sent from Heaven to Redeem and Save Mankind, and who Preached those Doctrines which are recorded in the Gospels, and acted those marvellous things which are set down there. This Testimony of the Pagans is irrefragable and undeniable. And such is that of the jewish Writers, who frequently make mention of Christ, and acknowledge there was such a Person, and that he lived at that time in which we say he did, and that his doings were no less than miraculous, and exceeding the power of Nature. This the jews, who then, or not long after lived, report concerning Him, as you may see in the 
* Talmud Hierosolym. Sanhedrin, cap. 7. Talm. Bab. Sanhedrin, Gem. 43. 1.  Talmuds. To this purpose Buxtorf in his Talmudick Lexicon may be consulted, and our Learned Lightfoot in his Harmony and Horae Hebraicae, where he hath abundant Proofs concerning the matters of Fact mentioned in the Evangelical Writings, even out of Talmudick Authors. This is an other Confirmation of the History of Christ the True Messias.  
Besides this, I will mention some things which happened among the Pagans at that time when Christ was on Earth, as an Assurance to us that there was such a Man, and that he did such and such things. Thus I might produce 
† Eutropius, Hist. Compend. Nicephor. I. 1. c. 40.  Publius Lentulus, the Roman Proconsul his Letter from jerusalem to the Senate of Rome, describing our Saviour as to the Colour, Shape, and Proportion of his Body. I do not know any reason why we should doubt of the Credit of this Testimony, unless it be his, that it is not taken notice of by any very ancient Writer. The Chronicles of Edessa I might ●ext mention, which tell us of Abgarus' or Ag●rus's Letter to Christ, and Christ's Answer to ●im. 
* Eccles. Hist. ● 1. c. 13.  Eusebius, who sets both down, acquaints is that he transcribed them out of the public Tables and Records of the City of Edessa, and that the Originals were extant at that time when he wrote his Ecclesiastical History. There is some probability of this from what the Evangelist saith, that 
† Mat. 4. 24.  Christ's Fame went throughout all Syria, and so Abgarus, who was a King in that Country, and whose Residence was in Edessa, might come to a knowledge of our Saviour, and be de●irous to hold a Communication with him by Writing. And what though the Evangelists are wholly silent about it? This is not to be wondered at, for they omitted abundance of Passages belonging to our Saviour's Life, as appears from john 20. 30. 21. 15. As for the Author of the foresaid Relation, his Authority is unquestionable in this matter, for he is universally acknowledged to be an honest and faithful Historian; and here he declares to the World that he saw the Originals of these Epistles in Syriack at Edessa, and translated them thence into Greek. It is indeed the peculiar Excellency of this Historian, that he produces the ancient Monuments for what he delivers. This makes him a Writer worthy to be credited: For what can be more desired than the citing of the Authors and unquestionable Witnesses from whence he had his Relations, and the inserting of Extracts faithfully taken out of them, as is usual with those that write Annals? Observe it, he took these Epistles out of the Syriack, in which they were writ; and that is the reason why other Authors and Writers before him speak nothing of them, they being ignorant of the Tongue; but he having Skill in it, found out this choice Piece of Antiquity. Afterwards these Letters are mentioned and appealed to by Darius Comes in an 
* Ep. 263.  Epistle of his to St. Augustine. And 
† Tom. 3. F. 1. Num. 4.  Ephrem, who was a Syrian himself, and was well skilled in the Syriack Writings, yea, and was a Deacon of that very Edessa where these Epistles were kept, makes mention of them particularly, and asserts the Authority of them. Therefore those excellent Men, 
‖ Exercitat. ad Baron. 13. cap. 31.  Casaubon and 
* Orig. Eccles. Tom. 1.  Montague, are strongly inclined to embrace them as true and genuine. A late worthy and industrious Writer, 
† Dr. Cave Histor. L●tera●.  looking upon them as such, reckons our Saviour and this Abgarus among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the First Age; and 
‖ In his Apostolici.  farther professeth, that upon a diligent enquiry into these Letters he cannot discern any flaw or falsehood in them, he cannot find any appearance of Fraud and Imposture; he sees nothing unworthy of our Blessed Lord in the stile or contexture of that Epistle which is attributed to him. Yea, next to the Bible he thinks these are the most remarkable and venerable piece of Antiquity that respects Christianity. As to those Objections which are started against the Authority of these Epistles by a 
* Da Pin Bibl. Patr. pag. 1.  Learned Divine of the Sorbon, it must be said that they are unworthy of him, for they are very frivolous and groundless, and he might have used the same Arguments ●gainst many parts of the Evangelical History, and the passages that occur there.  
But suppose, after all, that these Epistles were not really written by Christ and by Abgarus, yet (notwithstanding this) they are no mean Testimony for us. If we should only grant that Eusebius ●ound them among the Records of Edessa, this is ●ery considerable. Though, I think, there is good Evidence of the Truth of these Writings, yet I am not mightily concerned whether these Writings were real or feigned, that is, whether Abgarus did send such a Letter to Christ, and whether our Sa●●our returned an Answer to it. This is sufficient, that Eusebius, who translated them out of Syriack ●nto Greek, was wel● satisfied that there were such Records at that time in Edessa. Whether they were Spurious, or not, is not so material; for, whether they were such or not, they give a Testimony of the Person whom we speak of, they certify ●s of this Truth that such a one really was at that time when these Records bear date. For suppose the People of Edessa forged them, as being ambitious to retain the Memory of their Prince▪ and to celebrate it by this particular Memorial inserted into their Records, yet this makes not a little for our purpose; for though we should grant the Letters to be Supposititious, (as some Learned Men have concluded them to be) yet the Registering of such may be true; though they ●eigned these in a poletick Remembrance of one whose Name they intended to transmit to Posterity, yet the Recording of them is thus far an Attestation given to Christ, that hereby his Person and Worth were acknowledged by these Edessens so long ago▪ But I pass this by.  
I could relate here what was done by Pagans in Testimony of their acknowledging and approving of Christ. Thus the Emperor Augustus refused the Title of Lord, saith 
* Hist. Rom. lib. 55.  Dio; and it is not improbable that he did it on our Saviour's Account. 
† Paulus Orosius, lib. 6. cap. 20.  Some indeed tell us that it was upon another occasion, viz. when at a Play Dominus aequus & bonus was pronounced, and thereupon the People, as if the words were said of Augustus, with great signs of Joy showed their Approbation of them, the Emperor laboured by signs to stifle their Flattery, and the day after put forth an Edict, forbidding any to call him Lord. Such a thing as this might happen, and yet the first and truest Motive to his refusing that Title might be with reference to our Lord Christ, who was born not long before. The reason to believe it is this, that this Emperor was much changed after Christ's Birth, and after the Fame of him was spread abroad, he became a great favourer of the jews and their Religion, as Philo the jew acquaints us in the Account which he gives of his Embassy to Caius in behalf of his Countrymen of Alexandria. He there relateth several particular kindnesses which he showed to the jewish Nation; and all grant that Philo is a very credible Author in this case. And though 
‖ In Octavio. cap. 93.  Suetonius gives an Instance of his Aversion to the jews and to jerusalem itself, yet it is likely this was before the other, and so it inhanseth the Emperor's after-Esteem and Favour for that Nation and People. If you thus consider that he was now much altered, it is not hard to believe that his putting out the foresaid Edict was done in honour to Christ: He would not be called Lord after our Saviour was come into the World, who was Lord of Lords and King of Kings. And this may appear to be the more probable if that be true which is farther related of Augustus, that about the close of his Reign he inquired at Apollo's Oracle, who was to adminster the Affairs of the Empire after him, and received this Answer, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

A Hebrew Babe, a God himself, and King  
Of blessed Subjects bids me quit this place,  
And trudge again to Hell; wherefore, great Sir,  
From these our Altars silently be gone.   Whereupon the Emperor left off Sacrificing, and returning to Rome, built in the Capitol an Altar with this Inscription, Ara Primogeniti Dei. But because no very ancient Historian reports this, and 
* Nicephor. Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 17. Cedrenus, Suidas in verbo [Augustus]  those that do are thought to be sometimes fabulous, therefore I offer it not as if I much relied upon it. Nor do I on that other passage in 
† In verbo [jesus]  Suidas, viz. that one Theodosius a jew ascertained a Christian whom he discoursed with, that Christ was chosen one of the Priests of the Temple upon the death of another, and that they writ him down (as the Custom was to Register the Names of those that were elected Priests, and to assign also their Parents Names) The Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. The Book wherein this was recorded was kept in the Temple till the Destruction of jerusalem, and it was well known to the Priests and Rulers of the People. This is a remarkable Testimony, but because it wants evident Authority, I will not insist on it. That which I have said already may suffice towards the proving what I undertook, that Christ's Life is attested even by Pagan Witnesses  
Thirdly, his Death, with some of the most considerable attendants of it, is related by Persons of the same Character. Thus the great Roman Historian expressly voucheth this Article of our Chri-Christian Belief, 
* Tiberio imperitante per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. Tacit. Annal. l. 15. C. 44.  that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, and that in the Reign of Tiberius. Lucian, who was famed for his Taunts and Scoffs at the Christians, calls their Great Master and Founder, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De morte Peregrini.  The Man that was fastened to a Gibbet and hung up upon it in Palestine. And this is confessed by jews as well as Pagans; the particular manner of his Suffering, namely on the Cross, is acknowledged by the Talmudick Writers very often; and by the jews in Contempt and Scorn our Saviour is blasphemously called Talui, suspensus, He that was hanged. The Eclipse at Christ's Passion, mentioned by the Evangelists, and that as an 
‖ There was darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the whole Earth, Mark 15. 33. over all the Earth, Luke 23. 44. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 27. 45. should be rendered, and not (as it is) over all the Land, i. e. judea only.  Universal One, is left upon Record also by Heathens. Dionysius, an Athenian by Birth, before he was converted to the Faith, when he was a Student in Egypt, was an Eye-witness of this miraculous Eclipse, which he gives an Account of in an 
* Ad Polycarp. Epist. 7.  Epistle that he wrote, assuring us that it was seen, not only by himself, but by Apollophanes, who was at the same time with him at Heliopolis in Egypt. They were both greatly astonished, concluding some strange thing was happening to the World; but D●onysius 
† Suidas in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  said to have cried out in such Language as this, Either the God of Nature suffers, or the Frame of the World is like to be dissolved. This is that Dionysius who is called the Ar●opagite, Acts 17. 34. For returning home after his Travels, he was chosen into the Senate of Areopagus, and thence hath that Name, and was converted to the Christian Faith by St. Paul. 
‖ Cont. Cel●. lib. 2.  Origen, dealing with Celsus the Philosopher, proves this Eclipse at Christ's Passion out of Phlegon Trallianus, (one of Trajan's freed Men) who it seems was a great Chronologer; and 
* Chronicon. A. D. 33.  Eusebius mentions the same Author, and quotes his words, which are these; In the Fourth Year of the 202 Olympiad, there happened a great Defection of the Sun, such as was never known before. The Day at the Sixth Hour was so turned into dark Night that the Stars appeared in the Heavens. And he adds, There was an Earthquake at the same time in Bythinia, which over-turned several Houses in the City of Nice. Thus that Writer. What could be more Accurate seeing Christ's Passion was in the last Year of the 202 Olympiad, which was the 18th year of Tiberius' Reign? Or, if according to Scaliger, this be not very punctual, (for the Eclipse at our Saviour's Death, he saith; was in the beginning of the 203 d. Olympiad) yet it is granted that a Years difference here is of no great moment, especially when the time is so circumstantiated and fixed by what follows, for the Hour of the Day assigned by Phlegon, plainly shows that he relates the same thing which St. Mark doth, who expressly affirms the Eclipse to have happened at the Sixth Hour, Mark 15. 32. Besides the Earthquake, the Companion of the Eclipse, is said by this Phlegon to have been at the same time, which agrees with St. Matthew c. 27. v. 51. all which proves that this Pagan Writer refers to the very same Eclipse mentioned by the Evangelists. 
* Chronic. an. 33. Christi.  Eusebius ●citeth the same Testimony, and also adds the like suffrage of an other Gentile Writer, who (though not named by him) is 
† Apolog. ad gentes cap. 21.  Thallus, as Grotius proves from julius Africanus, who citeth this Author for this very purpose, and sets down his words; and the same Testimony you will find mentioned by Origen. Moreover, Tertullian appeals to the Roman Archives about this portentous Eclipse, and tells the Pagans that they had this recorded in those Authentic Tables, yea, that at the very moment when it happened it was inserted into those public Records. Lucian the Martyr appealed to the same public Acts of the Romans, as 
‖ Eccl. Hist. l. 9 c. 6.  Eusebius reports; he bids them consult their own Annals, and lets them know that those would certify them of the Truth of that Eclipse. Shall I add to all these what Adrianus Gressonius in his History of China saith, that those People have registered it in their Annals, that at that very time, about the Month of April, an extraordinary and irregular Eclipse of the Sun happened, at which strange and unusual thing Quam-vutius, the Emperor of China, was exceedingly troubled. Thus this Prodigy which was taken notice of at Christ's Suffering on the Cross is attested by Pagans, which is some accession to this Truth related by the Evangelists. And it is the more considerable, because we are certain that That Eclipse was not natural, being in the Opposition of the Moon, i. e. when the Moon was Full; for it was the day before the Passover, which fell on the 
* Ex. 12. 2, 6.  Fourteenth Day of the first Month, called Nisan, (which answers to our March,) when the Moon was Full, and opposite to the Sun. Now, it is known to be against the Rules of Astrology that the Sun should be eclipsed when the Moon is at the Full; whence we must conclude this Eclipse to have been Miraculous, and altogether against the course of Nature, and that it could be the Hand of God only, to testify Christ's Divinity. Lastly, We cannot but think that this wonderful Eclipse was seen and observed by the Enemies of Christianity, and acknowledged by them to be a real Prodigy when we consider that the Evangelists expose this Relation to those professed Enemies of the Christian Religion, who if such a thing had not happened could have presently confuted the Reporters of it. Can it enter into our Thoughts, that these Writers were so foolish as to imagine they could impose upon the Faith of Men in such a matter as this, which was publicly to be seen, and which every one might take notice of? This is an unreasonable and groundless Surmise.  
In the next place the Earthquake at Christ's Passion (which as you have heard, was attested by Phlegon) is now more distinctly to be considered. That Author indeed saith that it was in Bythinia, but it might be in other Countries likewise. He did not intend to relate how far it reached, but what he knew, and in what place it was most observed, he sets down. And this being joined with the Relation of the Eclipse, is an Argument, (as hath been hinted before) that it refers to the Earthquake at Christ's Passion, which not only shook the Land of judea, but other remote Countries, as the Lesser Asia, wherein this Bythinia was. For as the Eclipse was Universal, so was the Earthquake, it is probable, and the whole Earth felt the shock of it, though to some Places only it proved destructive, as to this in Asia particularly. With which concurs that of 
* Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 84.  Pliny, who tells us of an extraordinary Earthquake in Tiberius' Reign, which overturned Twelve Cities in Asia, to help and relieve which the Emperor remitted their Tribute, say 
† In Tiber. c. 48.  Suetonius and 
‖ Hist. lib. 57  Dion. Concerning that Earthquake at our Saviour's Passion, Eusebius quotes the Testimony of Thallus mentioned before; and the same is alleged as an Authentic Witness by 
* Apo. cap. 21.  Tertullian and 
† Cont. Cels. l. 2. & Tractat. 36 in Matth.  Origen.  
Some Learned Men are pleased to relate here, as appertaining to Christ's Passion, the Story they meet with in 
‖ De Defect. Oracul.  Plutarch, and quoted out of him by 
* De Praep. Evang. l. 5. c. 9  Eusebius, of the Death of Great Pan lamented by the Daemons. This falling out in the Reign of Tiberius, and about the time (as some conceive) when our Saviour Suffered, is applied by them to Him and his Death, and they think it is to be reckoned among the Pagan Testimonies. But I am not so well satisfied as to that, but rather think it may more pertinently be made use of to show how our Saviour dispossessed the Devils, and silenced the Pagan Oracles, which were given by them. Accordingly we find that Plutarch, from whom we have this Story, brings it in upon occasion of the Oracles ceasing, and he gives this as an Instance of it; The Daemons, saith he, that assisted at those Oracles are departed, a Proof whereof we have in this Pan.  
Lastly, Of the rending the Veil of the Temple, mentioned by 
* Mat. 27. 51. Mark 15. 38. Luke 23. 45.  Three of the Evangelists, the 
† Antiqu. l. 2.  jewish Historian expressly testifieth, and he is as good a Witness as we can desire in this Affair.   

CHAP. XII.  
After particular Testimonies, now more general ones are produced, as that of Pontius Pilate in his Letters to Tiberius. The respect which this Emperor and others bore to Christ. Josephus' famous Testimony concerning him, as also concerning others mentioned in the New-Testament. Attestations of Pagans concerning St. Paul, St. Peter, and the Truth of some Passages in the Acts. All Christ's Predictions about the Destruction of Jerusalem confirmed by Heathens and Jews. What Pliny and Trajan relate of the Christians. Mahomet bears Witness to Christ.  
THus you have particular Testimonies as to those Three great Things, our Saviour's Birth, Life, and Death. Now, in the next place, I have general Testimonies to produce. There are some Pagan and jewish Witnesses that confirm all these, yea, and more than what hath been hitherto testified, namely Christ's Resurrection. As other Governors and Deputies of Provinces used to send an Account to the Emperors and Senate of the most remarkable Things that happened in their Provinces, so Pontius Pilate, Procurator of judea, did the like, and his Relation is the more valuable, because it is the Testimony of a Person who Condemned our Saviour to death. His Letter, or Letters rather (there being two of them) to the Emperor Tiberius soon after Christ's Death, give an Account of his Life, Miracles, Crucifixion, and rising to life again. And as Public Acts were wont to be transmitted and reserved in the Imperial Archives, so these were kept there, whence the Christian Fathers had them. Hegesippus (an ancient Champion of the Christian Cause) made use of them against the Pagans, as we are informed from 
* Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 2.  Eusebius. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apol. Adu. Gentes.  justin Martyr tells the Roman Emperors, that as for the Death and Sufferings of Christ they were to be seen in the Acts of, or under Pontius Pilate, and refers them to those as satisfactory and undeniable. Tertullian with great boldness allegeth the same Records as a sufficient Confirmation of the History of Christ in his Apology, c. 5. & 21. Whereupon 
‖ Dr. Pearson, Epise. Cistr. Praecect. in Act. Apost.  one of the Learned'st Men of our Age concludes that this ancient Father found this among the Acts of the Roman Senate, where all things of this nature were set down. It is not to be questioned, saith he, that Pontius Pilate sent this Account to Tiberius; if we consider that this was the constant practice of all the Governors and Deputies of Provinces to transmit the Relation of every remarkable Occurrence to the Emperors by whom they were placed in those Stations for this purpose, viz. to inform them concerning the Affairs of those particular Places. Now, the Crucifying of our Saviour, and his Rising again, were certainly very considerable and remarkable Passages, and therefore 'tis not to be doubted, that Pilate, as Procurator of judea, sent the Emperor a Relation of them. On which account this Judicious Writer asserts the Authority of these Letters; and there are other Arguments which he useth to enforce the Truth of them, which are worth the consulting. Thus it plainly appears from the forementioned Fathers, that there were such Letters from Pilate to Tiberius, and that there was such an Account of our Saviour extant at that time; otherwise they would not have made their Appeals to them in their Apologies, otherwise they would not have called upon the Emperors to consult their own Records which testified of Christ and his Actions. Wherefore I look upon 
* Bib. Patr. 1. Cent.  Du Pin's Judgement as flat here, who saith, That though this Relation cannot be absolutely charged with falsehood, yet it is to be reckoned as doubtful. 
† Tiberius' annuntiatum sibi ex Syria, Palaestina, quae veritatem illius Divinitatis revelarat, detulit ad Senatum cum praerogativ● suffrag●● sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatusque periculum accusatoribus Christianorum, Apol. Ibid.  Tertullian adds, (and from him Eusebius) that Tiberius would have put Christ into the number of the Gods, upon Pilat's Writing such strange things to him concerning Him; he referred the Matter to the Senate, desiring them to rank Him among those that were Worshipped and Deified, but the Senate refused it, because they themselves did not first order and approve of it, for it was an old Roman Law, that no God should be set up by the Emperor unless first approved of by the Senate; for this reason only they rejected Christ from being admitted among the Gods. However, the Emperor still retained the same Reverence and Esteem of Christ, as a most Divine Person, and in Honour to him favoured the Christians, and by 
* Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. Chronic. ad annum 22 Tiberii.  Edict ordered that none should accuse and disturb them merely for their Religion, and the name of Christians, annexing a severe Penalty on such as dared to transgress this Edict. Nay, Tertullian and other Fathers assure us, that he had so great a Reverence for Christ, that he intended to erect a Temple to him. This was from that Information which Pilate sent him concerning our Saviour. I might mention the Kindnesses which other Emperors had for Christ, as no contemptible Testimony to that purpose which I design this Discourse for. 
† In Alex. Severo. cap. 43. & 51.  Lampridius reports that Alexander Severus Worshipped our Lord, and had his Picture in great Veneration, and that he had thoughts of erecting a Temple to him, and taking him into the number of the Gods. Which Adrian likewise, he saith, intended to have done, but was hindered from it by being told that all would turn Christians, and the Temples Consecrated to the other Gods would be forsaken. These are ample Attestations of Pagans concerning Christ, and (which is greater) they are their Approbations of him.  
Next, I produce the Testimony of a Famous jew, whom I have so often made mention of, who forty or fifty Years after some of the Evangelical Writings, gave an account of the jews Affairs, and of Christ, and of many things relating to Him. Among other Passages he hath this memorable one; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. lib. 18. c. 4.  At this time, saith he, there was one Jesus, a Wise Man, if I may call him a Man, for he did most wonderful Works, and was a Teacher of th●se who received the Truth with delight. He brought many to his Persuasion, both of the Jews and Gentiles. This was Christ, who though he was by the Instigation of some of the Chief of our Nation, and by Pilate ' s Doom hung on the Cross, yet those who loved him at first did not cease to do so, for he came to Life again the third day, and appeared to them, the Divine Prophets having foretell these and infinite other Wonders of him; and to this day remains that sort of Men, who have from Him the name of Christians. Both Eusebius and St. jerom allege this Famous Testimony of josephus concerning Christ, as an undeniable Confirmation of the Christian Religion. And the latter of these Writers places this jew among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Church, because he speaks of our Saviour with this great respect. A 
* Tanaquil Faber. Epist. 44.  late Writer hath a great many idle foolish Cavils against this so notable a Memorial of josephus concerning our blessed Lord. He thinks it strange that justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Clemens Alexandrinus writing against the jews make no use of this Testimony, especially that the first of these in his Dialogue with Trypho (where his design is to convert that jew to Christianity) omits it wholly. But to him that considers things aright this will not seem strange; for if he looks into these Fathers, he will find, that their grand enterprise and design were to convince the jews out of the Old-Testament, which they professed they heartily believed and embraced; and therefore those learned and pious Writers fixed here, and were not solicitous to go any farther. What need was there of flying to human Authors when this divine and inspired Volume furnished them with abundant Arguments and Proofs against judaism? It would have been unnecessary and superfluous to allege the Testimony of this Person, though never so credible, when they had so many infallible Authors to vouch them and the Religion which they had espoused. Again, this late Critic tells us that this Testimony is against Iosephus' mind, he being a jewish Priest, a legal Sacrificer, and most tenacious of the jewish Religion. He was of the Sect of the Pharisees, and one of the Princes of the Mosaic Church, therefore it is unlikely that he would leave any such thing upon record in his Writings. Those that know Iosephus' Sect and Life cannot believe, saith he, that these words were his. Yes, they very well may, for he doth not absolutely assert our Saviour to be the true Messias, but only that he was the Person who was called Christ, and that excellent Worth, and even Divinity appeared in him; and he farther bears witness that this excellent Person, who was of old prophesied of, was not treated according to his transcendent merits, but was barbarously put to death by his Countrymen, and yet that in a miraculous manner he was revived, and thereby gave an undeniable proof of his Innocency and Integrity. All this, though it be a most remarkable Attestation of our Saviour, yet might have been said (as really it was) by a jewish Sacrificer, by a strict Pharisee, by a tenacious asserter of the Mosaic Riligion. The whole Testimony is but the result of an unprejudiced and honest Mind, such as this Historian was Master of. And if it be true what this Criticizer mentions, and attempts to prove out of Origen, that josephus had before this writ against Christ, the Testimony thereby becomes the more remarkable, because it is a great argument of the irresistible power of the Truth, and that there was a wonderful change wrought in this Person. And truly this Objector himself mentions that which may induce us to believe it; for we read, saith he, in Iosephus' Book which he writ of his own Life, that he having gone through all the jewish Sects, was admitted at last into the discipline of Banus, a Disciple of john the Baptist. Thus this Author answers himself, and what he had before objected, namely, that this Historian wrote against his own mind, if these words of his were true. It is not likely that he spoke contrary to his Persuasion, if he was entered into the discipline of john Baptist, who had been Christ's forerunner, for thereby this Author imbibed a good opinion (to say no more) of the Founder of Christianity. What this Critic farther saith, that if this Testimony were Iosephus', he would have said a great deal more than he doth, is very frivolous, and not worth taking notice of. And so is that, that the Style plainly betrays the Cheat, it being frigid and lax, putrid and inert, (as he saith) whereas it is evident to any competent Judge, that the Language is nothing of this nature, but is like the rest of the Historian's Style. Lastly, we are beholding to him for finding out the Author of the Cheat, who he affirms is Eusebius, as if he had lived before or at the same time with josephus, that is, as if one of the Fourth Century was contemporary with him that flourished in the First. He peremptorily tells us that 
* Eccl. Hist. 1▪ I. c. 11.  Eusebius clapped in this Passage merely out of design, namely, to gratify a party of Christians, and to carry on the Cause. And that we may give credit to this, he falls very severely on this worthy Man, and both ignorantly and maliciously finds fault with him. This is the course that our angry Critic takes; but no sober and judicious Person can allow of it, for it may be plainly discerned that this Writer was resolved upon it to run down this Testimony of the jewish Historian by any kind of artifice whatsoever; but when we come to examine the Methods he takes, they are found to be of no force; what he offers for proof is groundless, precarious and inconsistent. After all that he hath said, this jewish Testimony, and the Credit of its Author, remain impregnable. What though we have granted that in some things he is faulty (and where is their an Historian that is not?) what though he omits some remarkable Occurrences, and mistakes the order of Time, of which he could not come to a certain knowledge? Notwithstanding this, his Testimony in this matter may be valid, nay, we have all the reason imaginable to believe it is such, for he was capable of attaining to a full knowledge of what he here writeth. There is then no ground to think that he imposed upon his Reader, or spoke against his Persuasion, but on the contrary it is reasonable to look upon him as one that freely uttered his mind, and showed himself to be Ingenuous, Faithful, and Impartial. Such was he esteemed to be by those 
* Eusebius, Jerom, Isidore Pelusiot-Sozomen. etc.  ancient Writers who had oceasion to make use of his Testimony, and such was his Character with all those Persons who have since used the same in Confirmation of the History of the Gospel. And truly it is a full and pregnant Ratification of it, an attesting no less than the Life, Death, and Resurrection of our Saviour. This latter especially being attested by a jewish Priest, is considerable. This Person knew nothing of that Cheat which the jews laboured at first to put upon some, and therewith to stifle the truth of Christ's rising from the dead, namely, that 
* Mat. 28. 13.  his Disciples came by night and stole him away. He tells us plainly and expressly, that Christ was restored to Life on the Third Day after he was put Death, which is exactly according to the Narrative in the Gospels. I will conclude then with the words which a Pious Father useth, after he had recited Iosephus' Testimony of Christ, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; ●●idor. Pelus. Ep●●t. l. 4.  If our very Enemies, saith he, dare not oppose the truth, who will show himself so obstinate as not to give credit to those things which are as clear as the Sun, yea, much clearer? If jews and Pagans bear witness to Christ, we Christians are obliged to listen to their Testimony, and to abominate the practice of those who endeavour (and that with no little art and pains) to enervate and destroy it.  
Again, josephus confirms the Truth of the Evangelical History, by relating several other things which are recorded there. Thus 
‖ Antiqu. Jud. I. 18. c. 7.  he speaks of the putting john the Baptist to death, whom he hugely extols, telling us that he was an excellent Man, and stirred up the Jews to piety and virtue, holiness and purity, both of Body and Soul; and that Herod caused him to be killed because he feared his Authority would hurt him, and occasion a defection among the People. He also relates how this Herod cast off his own Wife, and took Herodias, who was his Brother's Wife. This Author makes honourable mention of 
* Antiqu. l. 20. c. 8.  St. james, whom he calls the Brother of jesus Christ, and relates his Martyrdom, and declares that the taking away his Life was so flagitious a Sin, that it was in revenge of that that the jews were destroyed, their Temple and City burnt, and all other Evils befell that Nation. He fully agrees with St. Luke in mentioning 
† Antiqu. Jud. l. 19 c. 7.  Herod's Speech to the People, and their impious Flattery, and the immediate judgement of God upon this Wicked Man, by whose command that holy Apostle was put to death. It is true, josephus saith not that he was eaten up of Worms, but this is included in that he saith he was seized with a sudden pain and disease, and died in great torment of his Bowels, which without doubt, were gnawed and devoured by those Worms St. Luke specifieth. Because this Writer relates that Herod the Great, the Infant-slayer, 
‖ Antiqu. Jud. lib. 17. c. 8. De bello Jud. l. 1. c. 21.  was infested and plagued with noisome Vermin in his Body, therefore some say he is guilty of a great mistake here, and speaks that of this Herod which St. suke faith of the other, viz. Herod Agrippa. But I do not see any reason for this imputation of Gild, because Herod the Great as well as the other Herod, might die of that filthy disease, though it is not mentioned by St. Matthew or the other Evangelists. Wherefore we have no reason to think this Historian was mistaken, and disagrees with the holy Writers. As to the main you will find him concurring with them, not only in this, but in other matters recorded by them, and consequently you will find him attesting the verity of the History of the Gospel, and you will conclude that he is a very substantial Witness for the Christian Religion.  
Having produced these Testimonies concerning St. john and St. james, I might add somewhat relating to St. Paul. That Insurrection mentioned in Acts 21. 38. where you read that the Tribune of the People said to St. Paul, Art not thou that Egyptian who before these days didst raise a Tumult, and leadest into the Wilderness four thousand Men? That Insurrection, I say, is the same with that taken notice of by 
* Antiqu. l. 20. c. 6. De bello Jud. l. 2. c. 12.  josephus more than once, which was begun by an Egyptian, who pretending to be a Prophet, gathered together great numbers of jews, the attempt and issue of which are recorded by this Historian; and so it is a Confirmation of what St. Luke here records with reference to St. Paul. I will here add also a Pagan Testimony concerning this Apostle, viz. concerning his being caught up to the third Heaven, mentioned by himself in 2 Cor. 12. 2. This is referred to in one of 
† In Philopatr  Lucian's Dialogues, where one Triphon professeth himself to be Paul's Disciple, and would make Critias such a one, and convert him to the Christian Faith. Paul is there described thus, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That Baldpate, that Hawk-nosed Galilean, who mounts up through the Skies into the third Heaven, and thence fetcheth those goodly Notions which he preacheth to the World. He is called a Galilean, because that was the common name of a Christian, and he is said to be Bald, as that holy Man is 
‡ Nicephor. Hist.  reported to have been when he was old. His Hawk-nose alludes to his high flight, and mounting up into the Air like a Hawk, when he ascended to Heaven. And this ascending into the third Heaven, is a plain Description of him, because none of the Apostles, or other Christians, ever did so but he. And what is added next, that he learned there all his fine and goodly Notions, it may refer to what that Apostle saith in the same place, that 
* V. 4.  he heard unspeakable words, which it is not possible for any Man to utter. I could observe, that in the same Dialogue this Author bears testimony to the Faith received and professed by the Christians, whilst there he sco●●ingly brings in a Catechumen ask this question, By whom would you have me swear to● you? And then his Instructor answers thus, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  By that God who reigneth on high, who is Great, Immortal, Celestial, by the Son of the Father, by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, One of three, and Three of one. Thus from this Pagan Scoffer, (who could laugh and speak truth together) we are informed that the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity (which the New-Testament so expressly declares) was professed by the Primitive Christians.  
To this I might add the Inscription on the Athenian Altar, taken notice of by St. 
‖ I found an Altar with this Inscription, To the unknown God, Acts 17. 23.  Paul, and which wants not the Testimony of Profane Writers. This is mentioned by Pausanias in his Atticks, and hinted at by Lucian in his Philopatris. Thucydides saith there were no less than twelve Altars erected in the Marketplace in Athens with this Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In vit. Apollon,  Philostraius makes mention of the same. Laertius takes notice of the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Epimen●de.  nameless Altars at Athens, and particularly of one erected, To the unknown and strange God.  
To proceed, some have produced a Letter of Seneca (Nero's Tutor) to St. Paul, with St. Paul's Answer to it. This is mentioned by 
‖ De Scriptor. Ecclesiast.  jerom, who reckons Seneca in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, because of this Epistle to the Apostle; and 
‡ Epist. 14.  St. Augustin also takes notice of it. But I am not so fond as to take in all sorts of Testimonies, without any distinction; but I rather look upon those Epistles as Spurious, the stile plainly showing that one of them at least (that to Seneca,) is so. But because this Seneca was a grave and serious Philosopher, and was against the Superstitions of the Romans, and was far better than the Pagans of that time, hence some thought he was a Christian, and was so persuaded to be by St. Paul, and then it was easily believed that they conversed together, and had Correspondence by Letters.  
Concerning St. Peter likewise I will only leave this, and submit it to the censure of the Readers; his encountering that Arch-Sorcerer, Simon of Samaria, (who is spoken of in Acts 8.) and his dismounting him by his Prayers from his Chariot, though they are not mentioned in the infallible Records of the New-Testament, yet are registered by Clemens the Roman, Arnobius, and Epiphanius. For it seems, this Magician would needs be flying in the Air, and by such artifices bring credit to his false Doctrines; but St. Peter, by the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, and the Efficacy of his ardent Addresses to Heaven, baffled this soaring Magician, and brought him down from his heights, and laid him prostrate and dead on the Ground. Which very thing, I conceive, is attested by Suetonius, in whose Writings this Simon goes under the fabulous name of Icarus, the famous Flyer among the Poets. 
* Icarus primo statim ●conatu juxta cubiculum ejus decidit, ipsumque cruore respersit, In Nerone, cap. 12.  This Person, faith he, at his very first attempt fell down near the Emperor's Bedchamber, and besprinkled him with his Blood. The Representation of Icarus in that Play which Nero exposed to the People might be a mistaking of the true Story of Simon Magus, whose downfall happening at Rome in that Emperor's Reign in the sight of all the People, might well be remarked in his Life by this Historian. But this is propounded in way of Conjecture only. Thus I have briefly showed what some Heathen Witnesses testify concerning St. john, our Saviour's forerunner, and concerning those chieif Apostles St. james, Paul, and Peter, who are so often spoken of in the New-Testament. Which is a farther Confirmation of what I have undertaken to make good, viz. that the Truth of the holy Writings of the New-Testament is vouched by those who are the greatest Adversaries of them.  
I pass to another Historical matter recorded in these Sacred Writings, viz. the Universal Famine, foretell by Agabus, Acts 11. 28. which if you will credit Pagan Historians, happened in accordingly the fourth Year of Claudius' Reign, and was over all the World in the sixth Year. 
† Hist. lib. 60.  Dion Cassius, who had compiled his History out of the Fasti of Rome, through the several Years, speaks of this Famine under that Emperor, and mentions his great care of the City, that the Inhabitants might not be starved. So 
* In Claudio. cap. 18.  Suetonius commends him for his Diligence and Providence in furnishing the City with Provision. 
† Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2, & 3.  josephus also mentions this grievous Famine in Claudius' days, with some particular Circumstances and Accidents which agree with what is delivered by St. Luke concerning the relief which was sent at that time by the Disciples at Antioch, to the Brethren in judea, that being a Place where the Famine exceedingly raged. Thus we find that of Eusebius to be true, who speaking of this dreadful Famine recorded in the Acts, tells us, that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eccl. Hist▪ l. 2. c. 8.  even those Writers, who were averse from the Christian Religion, have delivered the same in their Histories.  
The next thing I undertake is to treat of Christ's Predictions concerning the Overthrow of jerusalem, and some things which were to follow upon it, and to show that they are expressly confirmed by Heathens and jews, In the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew, and the 21st of St. Luke, (which speak of the Destruction of jerusalem, both City and Temple, and the whole Nation, yea, with some remarkable Consequences of it; though I know these Chapters have been, and may be applied another way, viz. as a Description of the forerunners of the end of the World, and the day of Judgement, as I shall show elsewhere, there being a primary and secondary meaning of this Chapter, as well as of some other places of holy Scripture) there is, I say, first foretell, That many shall come in Christ's name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many, v. 5. And again, v. 11 Many false Prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many; i. e. they shall pretend to be Messiasses and Deliverers of the People, though indeed they are very Impostors. Of the truth of this 
† Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2. & 3, 6. 7. & de bell. Jud. 2. c. 11, 12.  josephus will inform you, who relates that there was a vast number of these Pretenders and Mock-saviours' that drew the People after them, particularly he tells us of a certain Egyptian in Felix's time, and of Theudas when Vadus was Procurator, and of judas the Gaulanite; which two last, some think, are not the Theudas and judas spoken of by Gamaliel, Acts 5. 36, 37. but others are of Opinion that these are the same with them, only that josephus mistakes a Gaulanite for a Galilean, and is also mistaken in the time, for he saith judas was in the the Reign of Archelaus. If so this Impostor cannot be meant in this 24th of St. Matthew. But I will not stand now to dispute whether there were two judasses' and two Theudasses', or whether St. Luke's and Iosephus' judas and Theudas are the same. It is sufficient for my purpose, that these and other Seducers and Disturbers arose, and stirred up the People to Sedition, and drew many after them in expectation of the Messias' coming, and partly pretended that they themselves were Herald So it was after the Destruction of jerusalem, there rose up jonathas Barchochebas; who being the most famous of those Impostors is taken notice of by 
* De bello Jud. lib. 7. c. 31.  josephus and others, as a great Ringleader of the jews in Adrian's time. He confidently professed himself the Messias, applying baalam's Prophecy to himself, Num. 24. 17. A Star shall rise out of Jacob: His name Barchochab, which signifies the Son of a Star, being not a little serviceable to this Imposture. He prevailed on a great number of People to adhere to him by his inviting Promises, and persuading them he was to be their Deliverer. Yea, he brought over a great part of the Learned'st jews to him, not only in judea, but in Greece, and Egypt; but he and his Party being vanquished by the Emperor, the jews no longer called him Barchochab, but changed his name into Barchozab the Son of a Lie, a false Prophet, a lying Impostor. Divers others in those days took upon them the name of Messias, and said they were to restore the jewish Nation, and to that end led People after them into the Deserts, for in such places the pretended Prophets and Leaders drew up their forces as the fittest rendesvouz for them, as josephus' faith in several places; which gives an Account of our Saviour's words in this Chapter, vers. 26. If they shall say unto you, behold he is in the Wilderness, go not forth to them.  
Again, Wars and rumours of Wars are foretell to be the forerunners and attendants of that fatal time which should befall jerusalem, v. 6. Of this we have plentiful mention in the Pagan and jewish History. Those were properly rumours of War when Caius threatened the jews, and offered to set up his Image in the Temple, of which Tacitus, josephus, and Philo speak, telling us in what Consternation the jews, both in Alexandria and judea were at that time. There were actual Wars when those slaughters were committed on the jews in Caius' time at Alexandria and Babylon, of which 
* Antiquitat. Jud. l. 18. c. 11, 12.  josephus makes mention. Likewise, when 
* Joseph de bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 13.  upon the cruelty of Cestius Florus the Precedent of judea, there was a Rebellion of the jews against the Romans in the Twelfth Year of Nero's Reign, and an open War followed that Rebellion, which was the first occasion of their final Overthrow by the Roman Armies, who came soon after, and sat down before their City. Or by Wars and Commotions (for so St. 
† Chap. 21. Vers. 9  Luke words it) are to be understood those Civil Wars and Intestine Broils among the jews themselves, of which we read in 
‖ De bell. Jud. lib. 5. c. 1, 2.  josephus and other jewish Records of those Times. There we may be informed concerning the Tumults of the Seditious and the Zealots; the former were those that endeavoured to cast off the Roman Yoke, and in order to that raised Tumults, and fostered Sedition and Faction, which produced mutual slaughters and bloodshed; the latter were a sort of Men that pretended to be Inspired with an extraordinary Zeal for their Religion and Country, but showed no other Effects of it but Rage, Rapine, and inhuman Slaughters. Besides the fury of these Zealots, (these jewish Rapparees and Assassins') and the Domestic Quarrels and Ravages caused by the Factious, there were also Foreign Assaults and Invasions from their Enemies abroad. 
‡ De bell Jud. l. 2. c. 23, 24.  josephus' records how the foresaid Cestius first of all approached their City, and drew a Line about it, but the main shock and fatal blow they received were from Titus' Armies which laid siege to them, of which you shall hear farther afterwards. The short of what is now to be said is this, that if any Man consults the jewish and Heathen Writings, which relate what was done about that time in judea by the Zealots▪ and the Factious, and by the Romans, he must say our Saviour's words concerning those days were true, Ye shall hear of Wars, and rumours of Wars; for Nation shall rise against Nation, and Kingdom against Kingdom, v. 6, 7. Not to mention ●hat History tells us that the Roman Empire was strangely alarmed with Wars about the latter end of Nero's Reign; Kingdoms rose against one another both in the East and West, and Blood and Slaughter began to be very rampant.  
In the same Verse he foretelleth there shall be Famines, and Pestilences, and Earthquakes; and so it happened. as josephus assures us, for he (as hath been said already on another account) mentions the great Famine in Claudius' Reign, (foretell in the Acts) 
* Antiq●. l. 20. c. 5.  and another after that in the same Emperor's time. But that long Famine, attended with Pestilence, in the time of the Siege of jerusalem, exceeded all the rest, the dread and horror of which were such, faith 
† De bell. Jud. l. 7. c. 7, & 8.  josephus, as were never known to Greeks or Barbarians. Among other dreadful passages, he relateth how a Noble Woman was forced by extremity of Hunger to eat her own Child that sucked her Breast. And hereby the words which our Saviour afterward speaks in this Chapter were verified, 
‖ Vers. 19  Woe to them that are with Child, and to them that give suck in those days, and those in Luke 23. 29. The days are coming in which they shall say, blessed are the Barren, and the Wombs that never bore, and the Paps which never gave suck. As to the Earthquakes which happened, they have been recorded by some of the Gentile Writers, and particularly that in Claudius' Reign, as 
‡ Chronicon.  Eusebius lets us know. Those horrible Earthquakes which were felt, and those Thunders (as I may so say) which were heard under Ground by the Inhabitants of Campania after the Siege of jerusalem, are accurately described by 
* Hist. lib. 66.  Dion Cassius, who also informs us that the Mount Vesuvius in that Province began first to burn about that time, to the great Horror of the neighbouring People. It follows v 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all Nations for my name sake. There is abundant testimony given to this by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, and other Profane Writers. The 
† Annal. l. 15. c. 44  former of these relates what exquisite Punishments, what severe Torments were inflicted on the Christians by Nero for their burning of Rome, though indeed he set it on fire himself. And the other ensuing Persecutions in his Reign, which the Christians underwent, are sufficiently testified by the Enemies of Christianity.  
Let us now approach towards Ierusalem's last fatal Siege, the immediate forerunner of its Overthrow. When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed wi●● Armies, then know that the Desolation thereof is nigh, Luke. 21. 20. And more particularly and distinctly this close besieging of jerusalem is expressed in Luk. 19 43. The days shall come upon thee, that thine Enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. Which 
‖ Hist. Roman. lib. 66.  Dion Cassius amply and particularly attesteth, saying, That Titus Vespasian cast a Trench round the City, and so closely kept them in with his Army that none could escape, no not through those Vaults under the City Walls, which were made for conveying Water into the City; for even those were stopped up by Titus. And from the 
* De bell. Jud. 1. 6, & 7.  jewish Historian (who was personally present at the Siege, and knew very well all the Occurrences of it) we learn that the Romans made three Trenches about jerusalem, and built a Wall or Rampire round about it in three days, so that none could pass in or out. The Army which shut them so close up is called the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place, v. 15. It is true, Chrysostom understands this of Titus' Statue set up in the Temple; but josephus (who is very full in Relations of this matter) saith nothing of it. Others understand it of the mad and abominable pranks of the Zealots, who seized the Temple, and acted strange and unaccountable things. But it is most probable that this Place is meant of the Pagan Idolatrous Roman Army, which stood in the ●uly place, i. e. environed jerusalem, ca●l'd the holy City, and at last made their way into it. That this is the true meaning, appears from comparing this Evangelist with another. What St. Matthew here faith, When you see the abomination of Desolation standing in the holy Place, is explained by St. Luke thus, 
† Chap. 21. Vers. 20.  When you see Jerusalem encompassed with Armies, i. e. the abominably Desolating Armies, the Armies consisting of Ethnic Idolaters, who were an Abomination to the jews, and who not only threatened but brought Desolation and Destruction on the City and Temple, the Roman Armies, whose Banners or Ensigns were in the shape of Eagles, 
‡ Job 39 29, 30.  rapacious devouring Creatures. In allusion perhaps to which our Saviour uttered those words, Wheresoever the Carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered together, v. 24. that is, wheresoever the jews, destined to slaughter and death, were to be found, wherever these walking Corpses, (these Carcases) were to be seen, thither the Roman Armies, as God's Executioners should fly, and like preying Eagles fall upon them, and devour them. Most remarkable is that which Christ farther saith in Luke 19 44. They shall lay thee even with the Ground, and shall not leave in thee one stone upon another. Which 
* De bell. Jud. l. 7. c. 18.  josephus will acquaint you was fulfilled by Titus' demolishing the whole Temple, and Walls (excepting a small part of these latter, which he ordered should remain: And particularly he commanded three Towers, besides part of the Wall, to be left standing, that Posterity might see by those Relics what stately and strong Place the Roman Army had taken, and partly also that these might be a Garrison for his Soldiers) and by laying level the whole compass of the City, as well as the Temple, that those who came thither should scarcely believe it was ever inhabited. To accomplish this more effectually he made his Soldiers pluck up the very Foundations of the City and Temple, that is, the uppermost parts of the Foundation which they could conveniently come at, and then tear up the Ground with a Plough: (for as it was a Custom among the Romans to make use of the Plough when they laid the Foundations of a City, so they dug up the Ground in the like manner when they destroyed it.) The jews themselves Record this; we find both in the Talmudick Chronicles, and in R. Ma●monides (as Dr. 
† Hor. Heb. in Matth.  Lightfoot assures us) that jerusalem was ploughed up after the Destruction of it. At which time there was a literal accomplishment of that Prophecy of Mica●, c. 3. v. 12. Zion shall be ploughed as a Field. Afterwards, in Adrian's Reign, the jews rebelling under the Conduct of Barchoc●ab, as hath been said, the Emperor caused all the remaining footsteps of the City and Temple to be defaced and demolished, and commanded the three Towers, which by Titus' Order were left standing, to be pulled down, and then strewed the City with Salt. Nay, the very name of the City was extinguished, for Adrian, after this total Desolation, causing the City to be built anew, (but much more contracted than before) called it by his own name, Aelia; and here he set up the Heathen Worship, and in de●iance and abhorrence of judaism, erected the Image of a Sow over one of the greatest Gates of the City. And after this, when julian out of that hatred and malice which he bore to the Christians and their Religion, set the jews on work to rebuild the Temple at jerusalem, 
* Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3.  lo a terrible Earthquake spoiled all, and those Stones of the Foundation which lay unmoved before were now thrown out of their places. Then were those words of Christ in the beginning of this Chapter exactly fulfilled, There shall not be left here. one Stone upon another that shall not be thrown down, v. 2. Lastly, I will add this, that this direful and tragical end of the holy City was ushered in with several strange Spectacles and Signs, according to our Saviour's Prediction, not only in this Chapter (v. 29.) but in Mark 13. 24. Luke 21. 25. And even these are particularly mentioned and described by jewish and Pagan Authors. jerusalem was compassed with Armies in the Sky as well as with those below. Of these strange Sights the chief Roman Historian speaketh, saying, 
* Visae per Coelum concurrere acies, rutilantia arma, & subito nubium igne collucere Templum, etc. Tacit. Hist. l. 5.  There were Armies seen in the Air encountering one another, that their Weapons were exceeding bright and glistering, and that the Temple seemed to be all of a Light by the continual flashings of the Clouds. And he proceeds to enumerate other prodigious Accidents which were the presages of jerusalem's Destruction. Thus the Twenty-fourth of St. Matthew, and the other parallel Chapter in St. Luke, which treat of the forerunners of jerusalem's Destruction, and the Destruction itself may be particularly made good out of mere Heathen Writers, who knew nothing of Christ's Predictions concerning it. But not only of these, but of all the other strange Apparitions, Voices, and portentous Events 
† De bello Jud. l. 7. c. 12.  josephus gives us a particular Account in an entire Chapter on this Subject. There you will find that the Prognostics of jerusalem's Destruction, the Signs and Tokens in Heaven or Earth, which the Evangelists speak of, are faithfully Recorded by that Jewish Historian.  
I have yet another Evidence to exhibit, and that is concerning Christ's Followers and Servants in the Age next after him; whence it will appear from the Relation given by a professed Heathen what the Christians were. And by a fair and rational Deduction, we may gather what manner of Persons they were at the very first, and consequently that the Evangelical History represents them aright. 
‖ Lib. 10. Epist. 97.  Pliny the younger, Writing to Trajan, gives an account of the Religion and Practice of these Persons; for he being Proconsul of Bythinia in that Emperor's time, and appointed by him to inspect the carriage of the Christians, he was careful to inform himself of that matter, thereby to gratify his Master who had employed him. Accordingly he tells how strangely that Religion increased and gathered strength every day in that Province, and that not only great Cities, but Towns and Villages were filled with the Professors of it, and in proportion to this, that the Pagan Worship daily decreased. He testifies how resolute and constant they were in their Profession, for he saith he had some Persons before him under Examination, who were accused of being Followers of Christ, but he presently found them to be no Christians, because they were so ready upon his Suggestion to adore the Emperor's Image, and even to curse Christ himself. Which was a sufficient Evidence to him, he saith, that they were not 
* Revera Christiani.  Christians indeed; for he had been imformed, (he tells the Emperor) that Persons of that Character could not possibly be forced to any thing of that nature, but that they were immovable and unshaken in their Religion. Lastly, he gives some account from their own Mouths and Confessions of their way of Religion, and how devoutly they served God, and that they worshipped Christ as such. Then there is also Trajan's Rescript to Pliny concerning the Christians, wherein he expresses it to be his pleasure, that these Persons should no longer be under the Inquisition, i. e. they shall not be sought for to be punished, notwithstanding their steadfastness and Pervicaciousness (as Pliny had represented it) in their Religion; for he was satisfied of their good moral Qualities, and that they were neither perjured Persons, nor Sacrilegious, nor Adulterers, nor Homicides, nor Malefactors of any sort. This Character and Account which were given at the beginning of the Second Century by the Emperor himself, and by Pliny, who had certain knowledge of the Christians, may create a Persuasion in us that they were at first the same holy and Innocent Persons, and that their Religion wonderfully increased and flourished, and that all the Severities which were used towards them, were not able either to stifle them or their Religion, and consequently may assure us that the History of the New-Testament rightly and truly describes them, and gives a faithful Account of Christianity, and the Author of it. After this ample Testimony, it would be needless to insist on what 
* In Epictet. l. 4. c. 7.  Arrianus and 
† De different. pulls. lib. 3.  Galen, and several other credible Writers have delivered concerning the manisold Sufferings of the first Christians; and that invincible Patience, Resolution and Constancy, wherewith they underwent them.  
After all that hath been said, I will conclude with the Testimony of that Arch Infidel Mahomet, who hath these express words in the Alcoran, 
‖ Azoar. 1.  The Spirit of God hath given Testimony to Christ the Son of Mary; a Divine Soul was put into him. He is the Messenger of the Spirit, and the Word of God. His Doctrine is perfect, etc. And again, 
‡ Azoar. 12.  the Gospel is called the Light and Confirmation of the Testament, and the right way to fear God. And moreover, 
† Azoar. 67.  he brings in God speaking and declaring thus, that he had sent Christ, the Son of Mary, and that he had given the Gospel to no other end but that they might obtain by it the love and grace of God, And in other places the Miracles of our Saviour are owned and confessed to be true. Thus even this Great Impostor, and Enemy to Christianity, bears Witness to the Blessed jesus; Thus the Alcoran acknowledgeth the Gospel to be Divine and True.   

CHAP. XIII.  
The Testimonies beforementioned briefly summed up. An Objection, viz. That some remarkable Passages relating to the History of Christ in the New-Testament, are not so much as mentioned by either Jewish or Gentile Historians, fully answered by considering that, I. A great part of our Saviour's Life was spent in privacy. 2. No Historians, either Jews or Heathens, take notice of all Occurrences. 3. They wilfully conceal or misrepresent some things out of Design: This showed in several Particulars. 4. Pagan Historians, out of mere Contempt, omit many things which the Gospel Records. 5. Yea, sometimes out of mere Hatred and Spite. 6. Some Pieces of Pagan History are lost. 7. Some of these that are extant are defective.  
THese are the Testimonies of professed Adversaries to Christianity, whereby the History of Christ and his Followers is abundantly confirmed. Even those who are averse to the Gospel attest, and sometimes approve of the chief things related in those holy Writings. Among the jews we have Philo, an excellent Platonist of Alexandria, who flourished soon after Christ, and lived in the times of the Apostles, We have josephus a Jewish Historian, some say a Priest, who writ about forty Years after, and had great opportunities of acquainting himself with the Christian as well as the Jewish Affairs. We have the Talmudick Doctors and Writers, some of which lived near those Times, and give their suffrage most freely to the matters of Fact recorded in the Gospel. Among Pagans we have their Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, Caius Caligula, Trajan, Adrian, Alexander Severus; we have their Deputies and Officers, Lentulus, Pilate, Pliny; we have their noted Historians, Philosophers and Learned Writers, as the aforesaid Pliny, the Proconsul in Asia, in his Epistles; his Uncle of the same name, (who flourished in Vespasian's time) in his natural History; Cornelius Tacitus, a famous Roman Orator and Historian, in his Books of History and Annals: Plutarch, a Priest of Apollo Pythius, loved by Trajan, and made Consul by him, in several of his Teatises; Lucian in his Dialogues, (all which four flourished in the Emperor Trajan's time,): Suetonius in his Caesars: Dion Cassius in his Roman History, the former of which lived in Adrian's time, whose Secretary he was, the latter in Alexander Severus', towards the middle of the Third Century. We have, besides all these, those four sworn Enemies of Christianity, julian, Celsus, Porphyrius, Hierocles, whose Writings attest the Truth of many things which the New-Testament speaks of. We have Macrobius (if we may reckon him an Heathen Author) in his Saturnalia, and Lampridius in his Lives of the Emperors. We have their Women also, the Sibylls, whose Testimony concerning Christ is not contemptible. Lastly, as we have the joint assent of jews and Gentiles, so of M●●omet himself, in the Azoara's of his Law, which give suffrage to the Evangelical Writings. Thus we have all the Witnesses that can be desired and expected; and we have all the Evidence and Proof that can be had.  
These things need not to have been insisted on, or so much as mentioned, if some Ill-minded Men, who pretend to knowledge in History, had not questioned several Relations in the New-Testament, because they say they are not to be found in the History either of Pagans or jews- To obviate the Cavils of these Men, I designedly undertook to show you the Concurrence of Scripture and Heathen Authors, to discover the Harmony between the History of the Gospel, and the Accounts which are given us in Jewish Story. In these you may meet with the most considerable Passages which you read in the Books of the New-Testament, viz. The Tax in Augustus' time, the appearing of the Star. Herod's putting to death the young Children at Bethlehem, the Account of our Saviour's Persons, Life, Actions, etc. all which have been particularly insisted upon. I have showed you that all these memorable things are related by the Enemies of Christianity, as well as by the Evangelists and Apostles themselves, who had so great love of it.  
But here it may be Objected thus, granting that these remarkable Passages related in the New-Testament, are mentioned in Pagan and Jewish Historians, yet others as remarkable are not. Now, if there were such things, and if they were publicly known, What was the reason they were not recorded by those who made it their business to transmit such Occurrences to Posterity? Why do not the Pagan Historians of that Age mention Christ's and the Apostles Miracles, and all the great and notable things mentioned in the New-Testament? This very thing disparageth the Evangelical Records, and causeth us to suspect that they are fabulous: for if they were not, other Historians, yea, all the Historians of those Times would make mention of them, as well as the Evangelists do. I will stifle this cavilling Objection, by offering these following things to your Consideration, which will fully satisfy you, that there is no ground at all for this which they allege.  
I. This is to be considered, that from the time soon after Christ's Nativity, till the Eighth Year of his Age, there could be no History expected concerning him, for he was all that time in Egypt; therefore you have not one word of him, for all that space of time, in the four Evangelists. And if these say nothing of him, there is no reason to expect that other Historians should. When he returned into judea, he lived retired from that time till he was Thirty Years old; only it is said that he went to jerusalem with his Parents, and disputed in the Temple with the Doctors; and then presently he came home to Nazareth, and there lived obscurely. Here was no matter for History thus far. And afterwards he was but three Years and a half employed in Action, so that 'tis no wonder the Pagan and Jewish Writers could afford to say but little of our Saviour and his Doings, there being so great a part of his Life spent in privacy.  
2. You must remember this, that there are many considerable Things and Persons, (besides those we have been speaking of) which some chief Historians among the jews and Heathens take no notice of; therefore you are not to marvel that some of those things before mentioned are not spoken of by them. That Obscurity of the Sun at julius Caesar's death, which lasted a whole Year, is not recorded by any but Ovid, Virgil, and Pliny; yet ten Historians or more in the after Age wrote Caesar's Life, and gave an Account of his fatal End, and of several things that followed. The like Prodigy Ced●enus reports to have happened in Iustinian's time; but there were almost twenty considerable Writers from Iustinian's time till Ced●enus that mention no such thing. Or, if these Examples be not Authentic (as truly I cannot say much for them) I will produce those that are so in all men's Judgements. You may observe, that those Writers who have undertaken to compile all the laudable things and Manners of divers Nations, and have even praised the brahmin's and Gymnosophists, and ransacked the most remote parts of the World, for things excellent and observable, yet have said nothing of the Essenes', who far outdid all of them, and were in the face of the World, most eminent and conspicuous. Neither Strabo, nor Tacitus, nor justin, nor Aristaeas, who have particularly spoken of the jews, say any thing of these. Nay, josephus a jew, and who, in his two Books against Apion hath heaped up all that is Great and Noble of that Nation, hath nothing there (though, as you shall hear anon, he hath something in his other Writings) of this famous Sect of Philosophers among them; shall we therefore be quarrelsome, and deny there were Essenes' before or in Christ's time? Again, I could observe to you that the Romans are not so much as mentioned either by Herodotus or Thucydides, or any other Greek Writers of that time, though they were in the same quarter of the World, and growing great and formidable. It is somewhat strange, but is very true, and is taken notice of by josephus against Apion, though this Author (as you have heard) was himself desective in the like case. Suetonius writ the Lives of the first twelve Roman Emperors; yet if you compare his Relations with the things set down in others, you will find, that he hath passed by many considerable things, he hath omitted sundry matters which were very obvious. Let us apply this to our present purpose: What if none of the Heathen Historians, who have related the Roman Acts, had spoken of that famous Census or Tax in Augustus' time? What though the Eclipse at Christ's Passion had not been taken notice of by Historians? (though both this and the other are recorded) yet it would not have followed thence that there were no such things; for you see 'tis not unusual with Historians to pass by some Persons and Things which are very remarkable, and worth recording. If then, some matters spoken of by the Evangelists be not mentioned in other Histories, we cannot with any Reason thence conclude that the Evangelists recorded that which is false. No such thing can be inferred, for even among Pagan Writers there are many peculiar historical Passages mentioned by some of them, which none else speak of. Tacitus and Valerius Maximus, and others, have Narrations which are not to be found in any others, and yet they are not suspected of falsehood. Why then may we not credit those things which the New Testament Records, although no Gentle Historians say a word of them? Nay, we have observed this before of the Evangelical Historians themselves, that they do not all Record the same things. Though all of them mention some Passages, yet there are others which are spoken of only by one or two of the Evangelists; and there are some Things or Persons which none of them make mention of, and yet they are as remarkable as some of those which they have committed to Writing. Thus the Gospels speak of the Pharisees and Sadducees, yea, of the Galileans and Herodians, and yet say not a word of the Essenes', who were a considerable Sect, as was noted before. We are not to be troubled then that some things occur in the New Testament, which are not to be met with in very approved Authors. No History, Sacred or Profane, relates every thing. The Evangelists themselves pretend not to this, you must not expect all Christ's doings in their Writings, for one of them, who wrote last of all, closeth his Gospel thus, 
* John 21. 25.  There are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the World itself could not contain the Books that should be written.  
3. We are to know this, that both Jewish and Pagan Historians concealed or misrepresented some things which relate to Christianity, and that wilfully and out of design. I begin with the first sort of Historians, and offer this Instance; we read in Philo and josephus the Character of the Essenes', (whom I mentioned before) viz. that they were the most Devout Men of all the Jewith Nation, that they were a retired People, and given to Husbandry, that they were famed for their mutual Love to one another, and that (as an effect of this) they had all things in common, like those Primitive Christians spoken of in the Acts, or like the Colidei or Culdees among the Scots in the first Ages; that though they were the devoutest Worshippers among the jews, yet they 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo. lib. quod omnis probus liber.  offered no Sacrifices, but composed their minds wholly to 2 severe Sanctity, that they were celebrated for their great Austerity of Life, for their Temperance, Chastity, and Self-denial; that 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph. de bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7.  their bare Word was of more force with them than an Oath, and that they avoided all Swearing, counting it far worse than Perjury; that they 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  were generous Despisers of all those things which affright and trouble others, and that they vanquished all Torments and Persecutions with Fortitude and Steadiness of mind. And as for Death, if it was to be undergone with honour and repute, they judged it ●o be better than Immortality. This is the true, but admirable Character of that People, and both these Authors tell us that they were jews. It is true, there were such People as jewish Essenes, and josephus neckons them as one of the three Sects of Philosophers among the jews. But it is probable that this excellent Character, or all of it at least, belongs not to These, but to the Christians of Alexandria at that time. Philo then in his Treatise of a Comtemplative Life, where he pretends to describe the Essenes', wri●eth in praise of these jewish Christians, who were under the Tuition and Conduct of St. Mark, Bishop of Alexandria; for this Evangelist Preaching the Gospel in Egypt settled a Church here. This was the Opinion of that Learned Father 
* Catalogue. Script. Ecclesia●t.  St. jerom; That Church, saith he, did at that time Judaize, and therefore Philo the jew thought it to be for the praise of his Nation to describe their excellent Order, Life and Institution. For this Reason this Author is numbered by that Father among the Ecclesiastical Writers, namely because he hath left an Encomium of these Christians, who lived thus religiously under St. Mark the Evangelist. 
† Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 16.  Eusebius is of the same Judgement, and saith what Philo writes of the Essenes' is to be understood of those Primitive Christians who were disciplined under St. Mark. Epiphanius and Chrysos●om were of this Persuasion, and so were some others of the Fathers▪ Baronius holds they were old Christian Monks, and a great number of Protestant Writers agree in this, that they were devout Christians bred up as Disciples under that holy Man. This is the more credible, because it is said of them that they used no Sacrifices; this plainly shows they were no jews as to their Religion, although Philo and josephus were willing to represent them as such, in honour of their Nation, they being so much admired for the Piety and Integrity of their Conversations. And the rest of the Character is a plain Description of the Primitive Christians, as they are represented in the History of the Gospel, i. e. as having for a time all things Common, as being Exemplary for their brotherly Love, as Persons of singular Moderation and Self-denial, as those who were bid not to Swear at all, as those who underwent the severest Persecutions with an undaunted Courage and Fortitude, and resisted even unto Blood, and loved not their Lives unto the Death. Now the Jewish Writers for Politic Ends, would not give this Account of them as Christians, but as jews, that the Credit of it might not redound to Christianity, but to their Own Religion and way of Worship.  
Then, for Pagan Historians, they also out of Design omit some things, and insert others that are very false. Thus, as 
* D● ass lib. 4.  Budaeus hath well observed, Pliny the Natural Historian, could not be ignorant of the Eclipse at Christ's Passion, it being recorded in the Roman Archives, and he being a diligent Searcher in those Acts; but he would not insert that into his Writings which he knew Princes were desirous should be concealed; for the Doctrine and Religion of jesus were to be as little plausible as could be among proud and voluptuous Men, whom the Christian Religion so much abhors and condemns. To have mentioned that Prodigy, might exalt that Religion too much, and the Eclipse might make it shine the brighter, and be more admired and reverenced by the World. For this Reason it is probable the Heathen Writers neglected to record this so prodigious an Accident, it making for a new Religion contrary to their own. I will give you another notable Instance, which is this, when M. Aurelius Antoninus' Army was in great straits, and wanted Water, they were suddenly and unexpectly supplied with Rain, but at the same time their Enemies against whom they fought were overwhelmed with Hail and Thunder. 
* Hist.  Dion, 
† In Marco Aurelio.  julius Capitolinus, 
‖ In Marco▪  Claudian, Lampridius report this thing, but say it was from the Emperor's own Prayers to jupiter, and from the Enchantments of the jewish Magicians. But the plain truth is, that the Christian Soldiers by their Prayers procured this extraordinary and unexpected Rain for the relief of their Thirst, and brought down Thunder and Storms upon their Enemies. The relating of this would have been too great an Honour to the Christians, and to their Religion, and the Master of it; wherefore the Pagan Historians out of Policy would not ascribe this Wonder to the Prayers of the Christians, but to those of the Emperor, and tell us the very words he used. But they have not wholly concealed the Truth, for (as you have heard) they impute this wonderful Accident partly to the Enchantments of the jewish Magicians. We know how common a thing it is with the Pagan Writers to mistake jews for Christians, and so the jewish Magicians here are no other than the Christians in that Army, who because they brought to pass such a wonderful and astonishing Thing, are said to be Enchanters and Magicians. These religious pious Christians were employed in the Expedition against the Germans and Sarmatians, and when the Army was ready to perish with Thirst, obtained and fetched down by their effectual Prayers great showers of Rain for themselves, and destructive Thunder and Lightning on their Enemy's Camp, and thereby procured a Victory over them, whence the Emperor got the Names of Germanicus and Sarma●icus. This is alleged and made use of in the Cause of Christianity by Apollinaris, in his Apology to the Emperor, as 
* Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 26.  Eusebius resti●ies. And this is mentioned by Tertullian, as a thing every where known in his Apology to the Senate; and he tells them there that the Emperor's own Letter to them, not long before sent to them out of Germany, acknowledged the same, viz, that God wrought a Miracle for the sake of the Christians who were in his Army, and he owed the Victory wholly to their pious Addresses to Heaven. This Father would never have said this to the Romans, if there had been any possibility of confuting it; yea, if it had not been a thing certainly known by them. This Story of the Thundering Legion you have also at large in 
† Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 5▪ & in C●ronico.  Eusebius, who assures us that this Name was given them for this very reason, because by their ardent Prayers they procured Thunder to fright and disperse their Enemies, and Rain to refresh themselves. And if what some have endeavoured to prove were true, viz. that this was the name of a Legion in Augustu●'s time, and was named so from the Tunderbolt which it carried in the Shield, yet I do not ●ee any reason to disbelieve this ancient Author; for why may not a Name be given on different accounts? Why may it not be called the Thundering Legion, for this reason which he mentions as well as for that which others Assign? I don't perceive that these are inconsistent. Eusebius goes on, and adds that the Emperor hereupon recalled his Edicts against the Christians, and by a new Decree appointed a severe Punishment to be inflicted on the Accusers of them. The Gentile Historians say nothing of this, and will not let us know that that miraculous Event was by means of the Christians. A Victory gained by the Prayers of Christians would sound ill. This would have been too signal a Testimony of the Truth and Prevalency of Christianity, therefore it is suppressed. For the same reason you may reckon Christ's Mriacles are omitted in Pagan Historians, if you suppose they came to their Ears. It is their cunning to write nothing of these, for hereby they would at the same time commend Christianity, and disparage their own Way. Besides, some of them were afraid to own the miraculous Acts of Christ and his Followers, for they saw that this sort of Men were persecuted and put to death; so that they dared not relate the Wonders they did, lest they should be suspected to favour Christianity, and by that means become liable to Capital Punishment. Or, if they feared not this, yet they were afraid to displease the great ones, as I said before. If they knew any thing would be ungrateful and unacceptable to their Masters they passed it by. Thus when it was given out by the Sibylline Oracle in the Year before our Saviour was born, that Nature did then bring forth a King to the World, the Roman Senate thereupon ordered that no Child born that Year should be brought up, as appears in 
* In Octavio cap. 49.  Suetonius. Which was sufficient to give check to the Roman Historians, and so 'tis not to be wondered (as the 
† De Orac. Sibyl.  Learned Vossius observes) that the kill of the Children of Bethlehem by Herod's command is not mentioned by any but the Evangelists, he might have said, unless by Macrobius; that act of his being somewhat akin to the Edict of the Roman Senate.  
4. I adjoin this, that the Christian Religion, and the Professors of it, were generally looked upon by Profane Writers as very contemptible, so that some of these scorned to record those things which had any relation to them. Hence it is that Christ's Miracles, and other things appertaining to Christianity, are not so much as mentioned. They would not vouchsafe to record such mean sorry things, and which indeed some of them took for Fables and mere Falsities. On this account likewise it cannot be expected that the Roman History should at any time particularise the Christian Affairs, unless when War and Tumults supposed by them to be caused by the Christians invited those Writers to it. Then the Roman Glory is concerned to let the Conquest be told, and to have an Account given of the Particulars. But other Things relating to Christianity are deemed low and mean, and are passed over in filence, as not of any Concern and Moment. The Pagan Historians do purposely omit the Acts of the Christians because they think them not worth the reciting.  
5. To speak more plainly, Prejudice, Hatred and Malice, may be assigned also as the Causes why some of the most remarkable Passages in the Evangelical History are not mentioned by Pagan or Jewish Writers. It is no wonder that Valerius Maximus, who hath made a Collection of the memorable Acts and Sayings of other Nations as well as Rome, and dedicated them to Tiberius, yet hath not a word of Jewish Acts, much less hath inserted any Christian ones. His Averseness to the Christian Religion may solve this very well, unless you will say that Christianity was but just risen at that time when he wrote, and the materials of History concerning it were not yet brought to him. But this cannot be said of Tacitus, who lived in the next Age, and who was a great Hater of the Christians, and was very 
* Per flagitia invisi.— Haud perinde in crimine in●end●● quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Annal. I. 15.  severe upon them in his Writings, on which account he cannot be thought to have related things impartially concerning them. Suetonius was 
† Genus hominum superstitionis novae & male●icae. In Nerone, cap. 16.  bitter against them, and who then can look for any ●air Account from him? The same may be said of Lucian and Pliny, who though they deliver some Truths (and not inconsiderable ones) concerning the Christians, yet their Averseness to them and their Religion (which by the latter of them is called 
‖ Epist. 79. lib. 10.  Pervicacia & inflexibilis obstinatio) would not permit them to speak what they knew of them. Plutarch, of all that lived and writ about that time, was the civilest to the Christian Religion; he no where jeers or slanders it, or makes any Reflections upon it, which made Theod●●●t think he was almost a Christian, and had a favour for their Religion. But the rest (some of whom I have named before) hated the Christians, yea their very name was odious to them; hence when they speak of Christians or Christianity they mingle Calumnies and Lies with what they say. Christians with them pass for fond and superstitious People, nay for flagitious and profligate, nay sometimes for Diabolical Impostors and Wizards, and the most execrable sort of Persons under heaven. I might here mention Zosimus, a fierce Pagan, and therefore shows it in his History when he speaks of the Christians. Being a great Hater of these Persons he doth upon all occasions speak ill of them, and particularly of Constantine the Great, because he was the first Emperor that threw off Heatheanism, and embraced Christianity. He tells us that he Murdered his Empress, his Son, and other near Relations, and that he was smitten with Leprosy for these unnatural and horrid Crimes; in brief, he relates the Particulars of this great Man's Life contrary to all ancient Historians that have written concerning him. The ground of which was no other than this, that he had entertained a particular Grudge and Prejudice against the Emperor, and bore a hatred to Christianity itself; so that whatever he wrote concerning them ●avor'd, of ill will and malice. It is not then to be marvelled at, that such Men misrepresent many Passages which relate to the Professors of Christianity, and fa●si●ie all reports concerning them. They can by no means speak well of a People that they hate. A Religion that they so abhor can have no Persons Good of it, they think. You must not expect they will relate Truths which they have a dislike of. This is one reason why Pagans are defective in their Historical Narrations; why many things spoken of by the Evangelists, are not mentioned by them, or are vilely misrepresented. This is the cause why so few of Christ's Actions, and the Affairs of Christians are taken notice of; and why thos● that are, are so miserably perverted. Prejudice and Envy, Spleen and Malice, are the Source of this Miscarriage.  
6. I add this, that many pieces of History are lost, as hath been acknowledged and complained of by the Learned; whence it is that many Occurrences which we meet with in the History of the Gospel are not to be found in the Writings of the Pagans. We have but a few of these left us in comparison of their number at first; and those that we have are but Relics of those Histories before written. Particularly the Stupendous Acts of our Saviour, and the Monuments of the bravest and noblest things done in that Age wherein He was born are now missing. All Dio's History from the Consulships of Antistius and Balbus unto the Consulships of Messala and Cinna, that is, for the space of Ten Years, Five Years before Christ's Birth, and Five after it, is quite lost, and so is Livy's History of that time. In vain therefore doth any Man think to find the remarkable Passages referring to Christ's Birth in these Writers; much more vain is it to look for these things in those Writers whose Histories are altogether missing at this day. Thus to instance only in the Universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which makes the greatest noise with the Objectors, that without doubt was set down by some Roman Historians, but their Writings either by Negligence, or by Fire, or by the Invasion of the Barbarous Nations into Italy, or by age and length of time are lost. It is clear that some did make mention of it; otherwise whence had 
* In verbo [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]  Suidas all that which he relates of the Twenty Persons that were sent to make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? God perhaps would in his Providence approve the loss of these, that holy History might be partly embraced by Faith, and not owe its Authority wholly to Human Testimony. But such as is remaining I have produced, and that is enough to satisfy any sober any confiderate Person.  
Lastly, I remark this in the close of all, that there are two of the most celebrated Roman Historians from whom we can expect nothing that hath Relation to Christ's Birth, or any great Occurrence that happened about that time. For Livy wrote but to Augustus' beginning, which was before Christ, and for that reason no Man can rationally think, that such Notable Concomitants of our Saviour's Nativity as the General Taxing, and the Appearing of the Star, could be recorded by this Historian. And as for Tacitus (who is the other Celebrated Historian) there is as little reason to expect any of these notorious Matters in his Writings, because he goes not back so far as Augustus. His Annals begin with Tiberius, and continue to the death of Nero: and his Books of History begin where his Annals left off, and go on to the end of Titus Vespasian's Expedition against the jews, and there have their Period. L. Florus is but an Abbreviator of Livy, and therefore we can look for nothing there. So Velleius Paterculus, though he goes something farther, is an Epitomiser, a Scantling of an Historian. As for justin, who flourished in the Emperor Antoninus Pius' time, he was but an Epitomiser of Trogus Pompeius, and goes no farther than he went; therefore we cannot expect any thing of him concerning the Christian Affairs. Thus you see what are the boundaries of these Chief Historians, and what you may look for (or rather not look for) from them, and also you have the Reasons given you why but few things which have reference to the History of the Gospel are found recorded in Pagan Writers. But all that could be rationally looked for, is recorded, as I have showed you, by the best Historians among the Pagans.  
These are the several Considerations which I undertook to offer, and I question not but that they will fully satisfy the Scruples and Objections before started, and abundantly clear up this Truth to us, that we have sufficient Testimony from Pagan and jewish Writers concerning the Gospel-History. This Proposition is evident, that the New-Testament is confirmed by Profane Writers, that the Evangelical Records are attested by the authority even of those who were without. These have transmitted to us many of those things which are registered by the holy Evangelists. The Memoirs of these things are in Profane Story, in the Writings of those that opposed the Christian Religion.  
Thus I have finished what I attempted, that is, I have proved the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures from the suffrage and attestation of Strangers. I have let you see that the Confession of our Adversaries agrees with that of our best Friends. We appeal to the jews, and to the Gentile-World; even these bear witness to the Sacred Writings. And their witness cannot be rejected by any reasonable Person, because 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chry●o●t. in Psal. 45.  a Testimony is least to be suspected when it comes from an Enemy, yea, because such a Testimony is reputed 
† Satis ●●mum te●timonium e● ad probandam veritatem quod ab ipsis prohibetur inimicis▪ Lactant. In●t. I. 4. c. 12.  firm and solid, because it is 
‖ A● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. M. hom de Nativ. Christ●.  worthy to be believed, b●cause 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyss. de Anim.  it is most valid for the Commendation and Establishment of the Truth. This then renders the Books of the Old and New-Testament, worthy of all Acceptation, viz. that they are vouched by Profess▪ d Adversaries. And this is that which I have been urging in this Discourse, viz. that jews and Pagans testify the same things which the Inspired Writers deliver. A great part of the memorable Passages set down in these Sacred Writings are left on Record in those others. This is a mighty Confirmation of the Truth of these holy Books, this is a clear Evidence that they are not forged and supposititious, but that the Matters contained in them are real and certain, that they give a just and faithful Account of the things they treat of; in brief, that they are the Word of Truth, and indicted by the Spirit of Truth. And thus much in pursuance of the First General Head concerning the Holy Scriptures, viz. the Truth and Authority of them.  
FINIS.    

ADDENDA  

Refer this to Page 261. Line 15.  
THe English jay, from the Hebrew Aja●, pica, cornix. To abash is taken from the Hebrew ●ush puduit. And from the Greek we borrow many words with the omission of a Letter or two in the beginning, as Licourice for Glicourice, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Emonies vulgarly so called, for Anemonies, from the Flower 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence the Latin Anemone. Sciatica for Ischiatica, ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Hip or Hucklebone: Scaroticks among Physicians for Escharoticks: Scarborow, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crusta cauterio in carne facta: Sol, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Rice from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oryza: Star, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Box, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Maur●s, a Moor, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obscurus: Tannie, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: To gaze from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, admiror, stupeo. Gay from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, elegans: and perhaps Trull from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laena. And I have taken notice of several Words from the Latin, with the first Letter, or more, cut off in the beginning, as Uncle from avunculus, qu. avuncle: Tills (as they are called in some Countries) from Lentils, Lenticula: Story from History, Historia: Bishop qu. Pischop, from Episcopus: Spain from Hispania: Asparagus for Asparagus: A Plaster from Emplastrum: Stum from mustum: Dropsy from Hydrops: Gipsy for Egypsy, of Latin original: Pouch for Capouch, (a Cowl or Hood, whence the Capuchin Friars have their Name) from Caputium, a Hood worn on the Head: Picked (i. e. sharp at the end) qu. spiked, from Spica an Ear of Corn: Or if it comes from a Pike, then that seems to come from Spiculum a Pike or Spear, and that is from Spica, it is likely: Sides men corruptly for Assisting-men, it being their Office to Assist the Churchwardens (unless you will rather understand by them Testes Synodales, Synods-Men, who were anciently joined with the Churchwardens.) There are other English Words derived after the same manner from the English, Saxon, and French: Thus Poppy, with the p left out in the beginning and middle, seems to give the denomination to Opium, (which is now a Word that may pass for English, and signifies the Juice of Poppy) as if Popium were the Word: Sterling for Easterling: Bour, or Bower, from Arbour: spital, or Spital, for Hospital: Valis for Avail: Vantage for Advantage: Say for Essay: Grease (Stairs) for Degrees: Cantle (in Heraldry) quasi Scantling: Apprentice vulgarly for Apprentice: Stover (for Cattle) from the French Estover: Squire for Esquire, à Gall. Es●uyer: Equerry, or Equerry, for Equerry, a Place, a Stable where Race-Horses are set: To Ply for Employ.  
Instead of Sacristan we corruptly say Sexton: For God be with you, we say, Good By: For Koningstable or Kingstable, we say, Constable, the Officer that is appointed and established by the King, or to conserve the King's Peace. We vulgarly a say Spice for a Specimen, Hogo for Haut-goust, Carfax for Quatre voix, the place were Four Ways meet in Oxford. Some have thought that Elphs and Goblins with which they frighted Children heretofore are derived from the famed and so ●alked of Feud between the Guelphs and Guibilines. Saragosa in Spain is most corruptly pronounced for Caesar Augusta. The Emperor of the Abyssines is called Prestor-Iohn, for Prestegian, or Protegian, as some think, but this is disputable. Maldon in Essex, by the Saxons called Malodune, is a Corruption of Camalodunum, the old Colony of the Romans here. Godmanchester in Huntingdon shire, is so written in stead of Gormonchester, from one Gormon a Danish Prince that had this part of the Country allotted to him. But Charter-House for Chartreuse, (the Covent heretofore of the Carthusians). and Shingles (the common word for St. Anthony's Fire, because it incompasses the Body like a Girdle) for Cingles; and Good Morrow for Good Morning are not so great Depravations of the Words.   

Refer this to Page 254. Line 25.  
If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified any such thing as furtum, we might perhaps think the English Felony came thence. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or stola, signified Sedile, we should be inclined to fetch Stool thence. We should have derived Smoke from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it had signified any thing like, fumus, and so a Spade from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Spado. Nay, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoted any thing like Placenta, or laganum, we then should have vouched even our English word of that sound to be derived from it.   
FINIS   

BOOKS Sold by Richard Wilkin at the King's-Head in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
THE Glorious Epiphany, with the Devout Christian's Love to it. The Second Edition. Octavo.  
Search the Scriptures. A Treatise showing that all Christians ought to Read the Holy Books; With Directions to them therein. Twelve.  
A Discourse concerning Prayer, especially of frequenting the Daily Public Prayers. Twelve▪ All Three by the Reverend Dr. Patrick, now Lord Bishop of Ely.  
The Old Religion demonstrated in the Principles, and described in the Life and Practice thereof. By I. Goodman, D. D. The Second Edition. Twelve.   

Imprimatur,  
April. 6. 1694. CAROLUS ALSTON, R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à sacris.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Authority, Stile, and Perfection OF THE BOOKS OF THE Old and New Testament.  
Vol. II.  
Wherein the Author's former Undertaking is further prosecuted, viz. an Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts which contain some Difficulty in them, with a Probable Resolution of them.  
By JOHN EDWARD'S, B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's College in Cambridge.  
LONDON, Printed by I. D. for jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion, and john Wyatt at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIV.   

Imprimatur,  
Cantab. Oct. 19 1693. 

Geo. Oxenden, LL. D. Procan.  
Jo. Beaumond, S. T. D. Regius Theologiae Professor.  
Nath. Coga, S. T. D. Aul. Pembr. Custos.  
Jo. Covell, S. T. D. Coll. Christi Praefect.     

TO THE Right Reverend Father in God SIMON Lord Bishop of ELY.  
My LORD,  
I Once more presume to prefix your Lordship's Name, which is so Great and Celebrated, to my Obscure Papers, thereby to create them some Credit, and to derive a Repute upon myself. Your Matchless Pen hath purchased You a lasting Renown, and Your Exemplarly Life and Practice have added a farther Glory to You. So that all the understanding World counts You worthy of dou●le Honour. If You had lived in the Primitive times, You would have been one of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church in those Days, as You have the Honour to be now in these. And Your Strict Life would have entitled You a Saint. You do all the Parts of an Excellent Man, and a Christian Bishop: You perform Great and Worthy things Yourself, and You countenance even the lower and meaner Attempts of others. In a word, all that are intelligent proclaim You the Chief Glory of our English Prelacy.  
My Lord, I do not apprehend that this can offend You, for He that is eminently Virtuous and Learned, provokes the World to speak his Worth: and they would be infinitely unblamable if they robbed him of his due Praise. Therefore I must confess I do not see the Reasonableness of those Writers that tell their Patrons they will not praise them, lest they should offend their Modesty. I would not dedicate my Labours (as mean as they are) to a Person of a mean Figure in the Learned World, or in the Accounts of the Religious. For the Design of the Dedication is to let the World know, that such a Person is really Praiseworthy, and t●at even to a Wonder; that he is one that ought to be extremely honoured and venerated for his Transcendent Excellencies, and that he is to be a Pattern to the rest of Mankind. And yet, my Lord, You see I do not enter on the Task of Enlarging on Your Lordship's Praises: the Reason is not because it is unlawful or unfit, but because it is too Great for me.  
Not to give Your Lordship any farther Trouble, if I have offended by this repeated Presumption, I have this to plead in my Excuse, that Your Merits as well as my Own Inclinations have made me Criminal. And seeing my Fault bears the Name of Duty, I despair not but that it will meet with a Pardon, and that Your Lordship will aceept of this poor Oblation from,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most Devoted Son and Servant, J. EDWARD'S.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHen I had by my long Forbearance satisfied the World that I was not fond of showing myself in Public, and offering any Discourses in Print, (at le●st with open Face) I at last prevailed with my s●lf to venture visibly to the Press. And truly I think I may appear now with the more Confidence, because I have a great while deliberated on what I have done in this Nature. Though I was very shy at first, yet now being entered into thi● employment, I believe I shall make a Practice of it▪ till, it may be, I shall be thought by some to run into another Extreme. But I shall not consult or attend to the Opinion of a few prejudiced or envious Folks, but go on with my Work which I designed. And if it be said that some of the Texts, and Other Subjects which I discourse upon, have been often treated of by others, my Answer is, that I ●m glad they have, for than it will appear what I have done; then the Reader will see, I hope, that I am no Filching Plagiary, no Apish Imitator, no Rash and Credulous Swearer unto other men's Opinions; that when I handle the same Matter which others have before me, I present the World with something beside Different Phrase and New Method; that by offering a fresh Critical Gloss upon several Dubious and Difficult Passages in the Old and New Testament, I have cleared up the S●●se of them; and in short, that I h●ve made some Remarkable Observations on the Best Book in the World. If I have not performed this, (which the judicious only can be judges of) I ●m sure I have endeavoured it, and have all along made it my grand Design and Business to ●elp my Readers to understand the Bible aright, which certainly is of the highest Concern next to the Religious Practice of it. In order to the pursuit of this I had sufficient Warrant to break out of my Retirement, to appear bare-faced, and to salute the Public. Besides, I thought myself obliged to give the World some Account of the spending of my Time, and to let it be seen that I have not wholly thrown away my Hours. Moreover, I have a great and passionate Desire to serve the Church, to vindicate our Holy Religion, to advance the Cause of Christianity, to demonstrate the transcendent Worth of the Holy Scriptures, (which are the Standard of all Excellent Notions and Regular Manners) and to promote and set forward the Glory of the ever Blessed Trinity.  
I am sensible what Multitudes of Writers there are already, how many Printed Discourses are published, that might well be spared (to say no worse). We are told that Tully's Offices w●● the first Book th●t was printed in Europe; which was a Good Specimen of that new-invented Art. It had been a happy thing if the Press had proceeded as well as it begun, if Books of use and Worth only had been handed into the World by it. But it is to be lamented that there is another Use too often made of this Invention, whilst too many Men that are Masters of no other Conceptions than those that are flat and useless, or else erroneous and pernicious, take the Pains to let the World know as much in Print. Others scribble to satisfy a certain Itch of Writing that they have got; and the Press seldom cures the Distemper, but rather increases it. Other mercenary Souls make their Pens wag for Bread, and they may generally be known by this Property, that the Front belies the Fabric, the Title doth not tell what is in the Book, but only sets it to sale: so that indeed it is a mere Pretence and Show, and stands as R. B's Sham-name is wont to do of late in the Title-Page. But none of these Miscarriages have discouraged me from appearing in Public, and pursuing those Good Ends I before mentioned, which alone are sufficient to legitimate the Press, and to Licence the Author's Undertake. And if the Question be, Why more Books still? the Answer is made by another Question, Why more Men still? As long as the World increases, Writing will do so too; for all Men are not alike, their Notions and Conceptions are not the same; wherefore for these different Readers there must be different Books. St. Augustin's arguing of old is useful and seasonable at this Day; 
* Vtile est libros plures à pluribus fieri, diverso stilo, non diversâ fide, etiam de quaestionibus iisdem; ut ad plurimos, ad 〈◊〉 sic, ad alios autem sic, res ipsa perveniat. De Tri●. l. 1. c. 3.  It is of great Advantage to the World, saith that Learned Father, that there should be many Books composed by many Men, in a different Style, though not a different Faith, about the same Questions and Subjects, that so hereby the thing itself, and the Truth enquired into, may the better be conveyed to the Readers, to some of them in one manner, to others in another. For this is certain, that all Persons are not convinced and wrought upon by the same Arguments: wherefore there is liberty to use all kinds of Topics. Thus the Excellent Grotius acquaints us that he picked out the Best and most Convictive Arguments (as he thought) to prove the Truth of Religion, and particularly the Christian; and yet some of them, as Signatures, Fire Ordeal, etc. are neglected by other Learned Men; for Evidences work more or less, according to the Diversity of men's Genius's and Dispositions. Hence the judicious Doctor Jackson, in his Preface to the Reader, before his First Volume, confesses that the Grounds an● Motives which he makes use of, and which most of all prevaited with him, may have little or no Operation upon others. Whereupon is founded the usefulness, yea Necessity of propounding divers sorts of Arguments, that if s●me of them prove not forcible and persuasive, others may▪ So is it in Illustrating and Commenting upon the Holy Text: the Diversity of Interpretations is requisite and useful; and it may be the Mind of the Holy Spirit cannot be penetrated into without these different ways of Enquiry. The Wise Man is a Physician of the Law, say the jewish Doctors, i. e. whereas the Unlearned and Unskilful corrupt the Text, and deprave the Sense of it, he comes and heals it by restoring it to its genuine and proper meaning. But in effecting this it is not necessary that he should tie himself to the same Methods and Arts of Cure which others have used before him. Some superstitiously confine themselves to one Man's Critical Determination on the Place; as Bishop Montague saith of Mr. Selden, they take a Grammarian for a God. They do so in the worst Sense, they deify Criticism, they idolise an Expositor, and fall down to his particular Interpretation. But we must be more Catholic and Generous if we are desirous to have right Apprehensions of the Sacred Text, and if we would be intimately acquainted with the Divine Truth contained in it.  
This justifies the Variety of Comments and Critical Researches into the Holy Scriptures: and this furnishes me with an Apology for thrusting myself in among the Writers of the Age. And being now of that Number, I have this 〈◊〉 say farther to the Reader, that though I am sensible of my own Defects, and particularly of the Miscarriages and Mistakes that may occur in this Work, it reaching to so great a Variety of Texts and Diversity of Matters; yet on the other hand, I hope I shall find him as sensible of the Arduousness of the Undertaking, and the Liableness of himself and others, to fall short in so Weighty and Difficult a Subject. In fine, in these and all other my Endeavours which I shall expose to the public View, I covet only the Approbation of the Candid and Wise; and I shall make it my Business (I will not say to merit, but) to purchase it.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 41. line 31. read there. P. 54. l. 4. r. purposed. P. 61. l. 4. r. Air instead of Fire. P. 67. l. 3. after Counsel, insert [So Theocritus,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 69. l. 2. r. an other. P. 94. l. 12. after as in, insert Exod. 20. 18. the People saw the Noise of the Trumpet. P. 145. l. 15. r. bony. P. 155. l. 2. r. Nephritick. P. 178. l. 15. deal by. P. 269. l. 32. r. have no. P. 278. l. 11. r. to be. P. 280. l. 17. after Belly, insert as it i● generally thought. P. 300. l. 1. after ordinary, insert or profane. P. 333. l. 8. after more, insert according to the different reading of them. P. 385. l. 1. r. it as. P. 402. l. 11. r. this. The H●br●w requires Correction, which is left to the Learned.   

A CATALOGUE of the Texts of Scripture which are expounded and resolved in the ensuing Discourse, according to the Author's PARTICULAR Judgement.  

GENESIS.  
CHAP. 15. ver. 7. I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees. Page 371.   

NUMBERS.  
Ch. 12. v. 1. He had married an Ethiopian Woman. p. 375.  
Ch. 23. v. 21. He hath not beheld Iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen Perverseness in Israel. p. 96.  
Ch. 25. v. 9 Those that died in the Plague were twenty and four thousand. p. 369.   

KINGS.  
Book 2. ch. 6. v. 25. The fourth Part of a Cab of Doves Dung was sold for five Pieces of Silver. p. 288.   

CHRONICLES.  
Book 2. ch. 14. v. 5. He took away out of all the Cities of Judah the High Places and the Images. p. 358.   

JOB.  
Ch. 1. v. 5. It may be my Sons have cursed God in their Hearts. p. 342.  
Ver. 11. He will curse thee to thy Face. ibid.  
Ch. 2. v. 9 Curse God and die. p. 337.  
Ch. 4. v. 18. His Angels he charged with Folly. p. 269.   

PSALMS.  
Psal. 120. v. 5. Woe is me that I sojourn in Meshec, and dwell in the Tents of Kedar. p. 115.  
Psal. 133. v. 3. As the Dew of Hermon, and as the Dew that descendeth upon the Mountains of Zion. p. 331.   

ECCLESIASTES.  
Ch. 12. v. 2. While the Sun, or the Light, or the Moon, or the Stars be not darkened, nor the Clouds return after the Rain, 

Ver. 4. And the Doors shall be shut in the Streets,— He shall rise up at the Voice of the Bird.  
Ver. 5. The Grasshopper shall be a Burden; and Desire shall fail.  
Ver. 6. Or ever the Golden Bowl be broken, or the Pitcher be broken at the Fountain, or the Wheel broken at the Cistern. p. 139.     

ISAIAH.  
Ch. 59 v. 19 The Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a Standard. p. 205.   

St. MATTHEW.  
Ch. 10. v. 14. Shake off the Dust of your Feet. p. 189 

Ver. 34. Think not that I am come to send Peace, etc. p. 363.    
Ch. 12. v. 40. Ionas was in the Whale's Belly, Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 281.  
Ch. 13. v. 32. Which indeed is the least of all Seeds. p. 117.  
Ch. 24. v. 34. This Generation shall not pass away till all these things are fulfilled. p. 391.  
Ch. 26. v. 64. The Son of Man. Why our Saviour is called so. p. 221.   

St. LUKE.  
Ch. 22. v. 36. But now he that hath a Purse, let him take it, and likewise his Scrip: he that hath no Sword, let him sell his Garment, and buy one. p. 126.   

St. JOHN.  
Ch. 20. v. 10. Then the Disciples went away again unto their own home, Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 82.   

ACTS.  
Ch. 7. v. 15. Jacob went down into Egypt and died, ●e and our Fathers. 

Ver. 16. And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the Sepul●●re that Abraham bought for a Sum of Money of the Sons of Emmor ●he Father of Sychem. p. 361.    
Ch. 13. v. 20. After that he gave them judges about the Space of four hundred and fifty Years, until Samuel the Prophet. p. 402.  
Ch. 23. v. 5. I wist not that he was the High Priest. p. 128.   

CORINTHIANS, 2d Epist.  
Ch. 2. v. 5. He hath not grieved me, but in part. p. 99   

COLOSSIANS.  
Ch. 1. v. 15. Who is the firstborn of every Creature. p. 215. 

Ver. 18. The firstborn from the Dead. p. 217.     

THESSALONIANS, 2d Epist.  
Ch. 3. v. 1. That the Word of the Lord may have free Course, and be glorified. And Other Texts which refer to the Olympic Games. p. 180.   

HEBREWS.  
Ch. 9 v. 4. Wherein was the Golden Pot that had Manna, and Aaron's Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant. p. 365.  
Ch. 12. v. 24. The Blood of Sprinkling, which speaks better things than that of Abel. p. 389.   

TIMOTHY, 1st Epist.  
Ch. 1. v. 8. The Law is not made for a righteous Man.  
Ch. 4. v. 8. Bodily Exercise profiteth little. p. 167.   

TIMOTHY, 2d Epist.  
Ch. 4. v. 13.— Especially the Parchments. p. 420.   

St. PETER, 2d Epist.  
Ch. 1. v. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation.  
The rest of the Texts are interpreted according to the Sense of Other Expositors.    

OF THE STYLE OF THE Holy Scriptures.  

CHAP. 1.  
There is a primary or literal, and a secondary or mystical Sense in the Sacred Writings. A brief Explication of both. Several Instances of them in the Old Testament. Episcopius' Opinion concerning the fulfilling of some Passages of the Old Testament by way of Accommodation, animadverted upon. Instances in the New Testament of the double Sense of Scripture. The Nature of Parables, especially of those that our Saviour useth, fully discussed. The several Reasons of this parabolical and mystical way of instructing the People. The Parable of the Ten Virgins particularly illustrated. A double historical Sense in the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew. The like in other Places asserted by Dr. Jackson. Whence the peculiar and transcendent Excellency of the inspired Writings is inferred. A just Censure of those Writers who vilify the Letter of Scripture, and mind nothing in it but the mystical Interpretation. Dr. Bufnet's allegorising, and at the same time ridiculing the 3d Chapter of Genesis, rebuked. The great Mischiefs of excluding the literal Sense of Scripture. The other Extreme, viz. of resting altogether in the literal meaning of the Bible, condemned. Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, taxed for this. Rules to be observed for knowing what Places are to be understood in a primary literal Sense, and what in a secondary or mystical.  
HAving in a former Discourse treated of the Authority of the Sacred Writings of the Old and New Testament, I am now obliged (according to what ● then undertook) to give a particular Account of their Style: By which (taking it in a large and extensive Notion) I understand the Sense and Import of the Holy Writ, as well as the Composition of the Words. The Style of Scripture comprehends the Divine Meaning no less than the Phraseology of it. Accordingly I will reduce all that I intent to say upon this Subject, to these ensuing Propositions:  
I. There is a mystical as well as a literal Sense of many Passages of these inspired Writings: and we are carefully to attend to both.  
II. The Style of Holy Scripture hath several things in it which are according to the Phrase and Strain of other applauded Writers: which therefore we ought to be acquainted with, that we may the more easily understand the sacred Penmen.  
III. As there are many things in the Style and Composure of the Bible common to it with other Authors, so there are some things peculiar and proper to it, which we are more especially concerned to take notice of, that the Singularity and Propriety of them may be rightly understood by us.  
IV. The Style and Expression of Scripture are such, that there are many Passages in it which are obscure and difficult. And here a particular, but full Account must be given of that Obscurity and Difficulty. And likewise I shall make it my Task to remove them by a particular Explication and Illustration of those Texts which shall be alleged.  
The first Proposition. This is to be laid down in the first Place, that there is both a literal and a mystical Sense in Scripture. The literal Sense is when the Words are taken as they originally and properly signify. The mystical one is when the Words are to be understood in a more sublime Sense than the bare Letter of them imports. This mystical or spiritual Sense of Scripture is according to some, threefold; 1. Tropological; when one thing delivered in Scripture signifies some other thing pertaining to the Conversation of Men. Thus those Texts of the Mosaic Law, wherein is forbidden the eating of certain Animals, have partly respect unto the Manners of Persons. Both Jewish and Christian Expositors have thought that it was designed in those Prohibitions, that some moral Instruction should be taught that People from the Consideration of the natural Inclinations and Qualities of those Creatures. 2. There is an Allegorical Sense, when things spoken of in the Old Testament are Figures of something in the New: or, when particularly they have a respect to Christ or the Church Militant; as the Rock, and the Manna mentioned in Moses' History of the Israelites. 3. An Anagogical Sense is said to be in some Places of Scripture; and this is when the things related are applicable to the Church Triumphant, or the Life everlasting: Thus the entering into Canaan, and the Holy of Holies in the Temple, in the highest Sense of them, are meant of Heaven and the State of Eternal Happiness. But because there is a great quarrelling about the applying of this triple Distinction to the several Passages in Scripture, which are said to bear a mystical meaning; and because some learned Divines of the Protestant Persuasion disallow of this Distribution of the mystical Sense of Scripture, I will avoid all wrangling, by assigning only those two general Senses of Scripture, viz. the literal and mystical; and by leaving it to every one's Liberty, either to omit the particular Subdivisions of the latter, or to apply them as they see occasion.  
Or rather, if I may be permitted to vary from this received Division of the Sense of Scripture, I would divide it thus, into a primary and a secondary Sense: the former is literal, the latter is mystical; and yet not so, but that sometimes (as you shall see afterwards) the secondary Sense is literal too: for there are two literal or historical Meanings in some Places; but the latter of them may be called mystical also, because it is not so plainly understood as the other. The literal Sense of Scripture is the main, and indeed the only Sense of the greatest part of it: for some particular Places only have a mystical Signification. This is the most genuine, proper and original meaning; and therefore I call it the first or primary one. But the mystical Sense is derivative, improper, indirect, and not that which was first and chiefly designed; and therefore I call it the secondary Sense. The former of these is that plain meaning of Scripture which the bare Letter and Words themselves denote to us: The latter is when some other thing is signified in the Words besides what the Letter of them seems to import. The one is obvious, and lies uppermost in the Text, and is the soon perceived: but the other is more remote, and lies deep, and is not so easily discovered, but is of great Use and Moment, yea generally of greater than the other more familiar and obvious meaning: wherefore it is our Concern to acquaint ourselves with it. The Bible, like that Book in Ezekiel, ch. 2. 10. is written within and without: it hath an inward, secret and mystical Signification, as well as one that is external, open and literal: and we can never arrive to a true Understanding of this Holy Book, unless we have some Insight into both.  
I will instance first in the Writings of the Old Testament, and show that there is a secondary or mystical Sense lodged in several Passages of them. Indeed the holy Language itself, in which these were wrote, is big with Mysteries. I have observed that there are more Words in this Tongue that signify to hide or conceal, than in any other Language whatsoever: There are a hundred synonymous Words at least for this one thing. Whether this Criticism have any Weight in it or no, I shall not be much concerned; but this is unquestionable, that many great Mysteries are wrapped up in this abstruse Tongue in the holy Volume. The Jews, who were conversant in these Writings, acknowledged there was not only a literal but a mystical Interpretation of them, which latter they called 
* A d●rash inquirere.  Midrash, because there was no attaining to it but by a diligent Inquisition. The Hebrew Doctors say in a proverbial manner, there is not a single Letter in the whole Law on which there do not depend great Mountains. Their meaning is, that there are vast Mysteries and profound Sense in every Word almost in the Sacred Writings: Which is the meaning of another Adage of theirs, viz. that 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Law hath seventy Faces. It hath many various Aspects, different Significations and Senses: for there are mystical as well as literal Interpretations of the holy Text. Thus the Entrance of the Bible, the Beginning of the Book of Genesis, though it be historical, and sets down Matter of Fact, as the wonderful Creation of the Heavens and Earth, and of Man, and the rest of the Inhabitants of this lower World, yet it was thought by the wisest Jews, that there was a farther Reach in it, and that both Moral and Divine Mysteries were couched in the several Particulars of that Narrative which Moses gives there of the Origine of the World; for which Reason this first Entrance into the Pentateuch was forhad to be read by the Jews till they were thirty Years of Age. It is agreed among the best Expositors, that in those Words in Gen. 3. 14, 15. The Lord said unto the Serpent, I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed: Besides the primary or literal Sense, viz. that there shall be an irreconcilable Enmity between Mankind and the Serpentine Brood, and that Man having an Antipathy against that Creature, shall labour to destroy it, by ●ruising his Head, because there his Venom lies whereby he doth harm; and the Head is to be first attacked if we would destroy this mischievous Creature, as josephus 
‖ Antiqu. l. 1. c. 2.  gives the Sense of this Place. Besides this (I say) there is another; for Satan is meant by the Serpent, as well as the Creature of that Name, (for Satan appeared in the Shape of a Serpent, or rather actuated a living Serpent;) and Christ is meant by the Seed of the Woman, for he is emphatically and exclusively called so, because he was not the Seed of Man, but was after an extraordinary manner born of a Virgin. So that this Text is justly styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Dawning of the Gospel, or the most early Promise concerning the blessed Messias, the Christ, the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World.  
So likewise we are certain from the Authority of the Apostle in Heb. 7. 1, etc. that what is said in Gen. 14. 18. of Melohisedek, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, is not only literally spoken, but aught to be understood in a higher and mystical Sense of Christ, who was the true Melchisedek, that is, King of Righteousness, and King of ●eace. This mystical Interpretation of that historical Passage is vouched by the inspired Penman, who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Again, 
* Gal. 4. 2●.  it is written, viz. in Gen. 16, & 21. that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bondmaid, the other by a Freewoman: This is the Letter or History. Now observe the figurative Interpretation of it; which things, saith the Apostle, are an Allegory, for these are the two Covenants: that is, these two Mothers, Hagar and Sarah, denote the two Covenants, the Law and the Gospel, the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to Bondage, which is Hagar; for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, in Arabia: that is, the Law was given on Mount Sinai, and brings Servitude and strict Observances with it; this is represented by Hagar; for the Name of Hagar signifies the Mount where the Law was given, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is; that is, the present State of the Jews. The Hagarens, i. e. the Arabians, and all that spring from Ishmael, (as Historians tell us, no less than the Apostle intimates here) are bound by their own Laws to be circumcised, and observe therein the Mosaical Law, like the jews; and so they, like Hagar their Mother, are in a servile Condition still, are in Bondage with their Children. But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the Mother of us all; that is, Sarah (which denotes the State of the Gospel, that new City which Christ brought with him from Heaven, of which all Christians are free Denizens) is a free Woman, and signifies that we Christians, Gentiles as well as Jews (for she is the Mother of us all) are free from all Moses's Rites, and are justified without them, Gal. 4. 22, 24, 25, 26. Thus it appears from the Apostle, that besides the historical Sense, there is a higher and nobler in the Old Testament, and particularly in that Place of Genesis, where the two Mothers, Sarah and Hagar; and the two Sons, Isaac and Ishmael, were designed to signify the different State of those in the Church of God: they respect the Law and the Gospel, the Mosaical and Christian Dispensation. There was this, besides the bare historical Sense. From the same Divine Writer, we learn that the Pillar of the Cloud, the passing through the red Sea, the Mannah, the Drink out of the Rock, and the Rock itself, which you read of in 
† Chap. 13. v. 21. ch. 14. 22. ch. 16. 15. ch. 17. 6.  Exodus, had a spiritual meaning; and therefore some of these especially are expressly called spiritual: they did eat the same spiritual Meat, and drink the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 1 c. 1, 2, 3, 4. Hence it is evident that this historical Part of the Book of Exodus is likewise symbolical, and capable of a spiritual Construction, though still the Truth and Reality of the History remain entire.  
So what we read in Numb. 22. 9 (viz. that Moses made a Serpent of Brass, and put it upon a Pole, that if any Man bitten with a Serpent beheld it, he might live, i. e. be cured of the venomous Biting) hath a secondary meaning in it, as our Saviour himself interprets it, namely, that the Son of Man should be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting Life, John 3. 14, 15. The lifting up of the brazen Serpent upon a Pole in the Wilderness, signified the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross, for the healing and saving of all that look up to him with an Eye of Faith. Thus when we read that God swore (in Numb. 14. 28.) that the murmuring and unbelieving lsraelites should not enter into Canaan, which the Psalmist calls their Rest, (Psal. 95. 11.) the primary historical Sense is well known; but besides this there is a secondary or spiritual one, which our Apostle hath acquainted us with in Heb. 4. 1, etc. Whence you may gather, that in the History of the Israelites entering into the Promised Land, and of the greatest Part of them that came out of Egypt being shut out, there is a secondary meaning included, viz. that Believers shall possess the Heavenly Canaan, they shall enter into their everlasting Rest, that 
* Heb. 4. 9  Rest which remains to the People of God: but Unbelievers shall 
‖ Ver. 1.  come short not only of the Promise whic● is left of entering into this Rest, but the Rest itself. Thus you will find that Place in Numbers interpreted by the infallible Apostle. Again, this mystical or secondary Sense is observable in those Places in the Mosaic Law which speak of the Rites and Services, and Levitical Priesthood, which the Jews were under, as you may infer from 
* Chap. 7, 8, 9  three Chapters together in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle applies those things in a higher Sense (viz. to Christ himself, and his offering himself upon the Cross) than ever was intended by the Letter.  
But this double Sense of Scripture is no where more remarkable than in the Book of Psalms. The 22d Psalms, though primarily it be meant of David when he was in great Distress, and forsaken of God, yet secondarily, i. e. mystically it is to be understood of our Blessed Saviour when he was in his Passion, and hung upon the Cross; and accordingly you will find the first Words of it applied by himself, Matt●. 27. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And other Passages of this Psalm, the 8th, 16th, 18th Verses are taken notice of by the Evangelist, as fulfilled at that time, Matth. 27. 35, 43. Now it is certain they could not be fulfilled unless they had been meant, in this mysterious Sense, of Christ. The latter Part of the 16t●. Psalm is spoken in David's Person, and is, without doubt, in the first and immediate Sense of it to be understood of him, and of his Hopes of rising after Death to an endless Life. But it is as clear from Acts▪ 2. 25, etc. that it was spoken of Christ the Son of David, and who was typified by that holy King and Prophet; for St. Peter saith there in his Sermon to the Jews, David speaketh concerning him, I foresa● the Lord always before my Face, for he is on my right Hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my Heart rejoice, and my Tongue was glad: Moreover also my Flesh shall rest in Hope. Because thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see Corruption. Thou wilt show me the Path of Life, etc. Which are the four last Verses of that Psalm beforenamed; and you may see in the following Words of this Chapter, what the mystical Interpretation of them is, according to that Apostle who had the Spirit to direct him to the utmost meaning of those Words. Part of the 68th Psalm, though it be David's Thanksgiving for the present Mercies he received, yet undoubtedly it is a Prophetic Praising of God for the glorious Ascension of Christ into Heaven, as it is expounded by that infallible Interpreter, Ephes. 4. 8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led Captivity captive, and gave Gifts unto Men: which refers to the abovesaid Psalm, but is applied to Christ's Ascension by the Apostle here. The 45th Psalm is originally a Song of Loves, an Epithalamium on the Nuptials of King Solomon and the King of Egypt's Daughter, but in a remote and mystical Sense it is meant of the Majesty and Glory of Christ's Kingdom, and the admirable Benefits which accrue to the Church in the Times of the Gospel. And many other Psalms might be produced, wherein the double Sense beforementioned is clearly to be discerned.  
To proceed; Though the whole Book of Canticles be in its literal Capacity no other than Solomon's Wedding-song, yet it is to be looked upon in the more sublime Acception of it as a Dialogue between Christ and his Church, setting forth all those divine Amours which are mutually experienced by them. And that this Part of Holy Scripture, called the Song of Solomon, is of a higher Strain than the bare Letter imports, and that it contains great Mysteries and Abstrusities in it, may be gathered from that extraordinary Reverence which the Jews paid to this Book: For 
* Praefat. in Cantic.  Origen tells us, that this (as well as the Beginning of Genesis) was not permitted to be read by them till they had attained to some Maturity of Years.  
I come next to the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah, who hath many things concerning Christ and his spiritual Kingdom or Church; but it is to be acknowledged that some of them in the first and literal Sense, may and aught to be interpreted otherwise. Yea, the learned Grotius and Hammond are of the Opinion, that that famous Prophecy in Isa. 7. 14. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call ●is Name Immanuel, hath a double Sense. The Words literally and primarily respect a strange and wonderful Birth in those very Days. Secondarily and mystically they are spoken of the Messias, who was to be born miraculously of a Virgin. Whether this Opinion be true or no, we are certain that there is a mystical Meaning to be added to the literal; or rather (as I said before) it might be more expressive to say, a secondary Meaning is added to the primary one, in sundry Passages which we meet with, not only in this Prophet, but in Ieremia● and Ezekiel. Concerning the former of these the Jewish Historian hath these Words; 
† Antiqu. l. 10. c. 6.  jeremiah (saith he) in his Book, foretold the Captivity which the Israelites were to undergo in Babylon, which was just then approaching; and also the Slaughter and Destruction which we of this Age have seen. There was a twofold Sense, according to this learned Writer, in some of this Prophet's Predictions: Yea, there was a double literal or historical Sense, which was the thing that I asserted before. Whence you see I had reason to make the Distinction of a first and a second Meaning of Scripture, rather than of a literal and a mystical, though I bring the mystical Meaning (when there is such an one) under the second. As to the latter of these Prophets, when we find him relating strange things acted in Visions and Dreams, which are things only imaginary, and represented to the Fancy, we must not think them true in a strict literal Sense, for they are only or most commonly done in Appearance, and many times will not admit of a real Performance as they are related and described: But we are to look upon them as Enigmatical Representations, and to fix only a mystical Sense upon them, that is, to understand them as significative of some greater and higher thing than they represent in themselves. Which may be one Reason why, among the Jews, those that had not arrived to some considerable Age 
* Hieronym. Prol. in Ezek.  were not allowed to read the Beginning and End of the Prophecy of Ezekiel, in which Parts chiefly those more mystical Visions are inserted.  
I might pass to the other Prophets, and mention some Places in which we must needs acknowledge a secondary Meaning, as in that of Daniel, chap. 9 27. For the overspreading of Abominations (or, with the Wing, or 
† Isa. 8. 8.  Army of Abominations) he shall make it desolate: which was meant without doubt of Antiochus' desolating Armies, which were so abominable to the Jews, and who, as we read, 
‖ 1▪ Macc. 1. 54.  set up the Abomination of Desolation upon the Altar. But yet our Saviour himself, the best Expositor of the Place, le's us know that this was meant also in a prophetical and secondary way of the Roman Armies that sat down before jerusalem, and after a long Siege made their way into the City and Temple, and so might be said to stand in the holy Place: 
* Matth. 24. 15.  When ye shall see the Abomination of Desolation, saith he, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy Place, then, etc. It is manifest therefore that Daniel spoke of both these destroying Armies. His Words are to be taken in a twofold Sense, a primary and secondary one: In the former they speak of what happened to the Jews when Antiochus' Army invaded them: In the latter they speak of what befell them when Titus Vespasian came against them, and destroyed their City and Nation. This is the double Sense, and therefore you may observe what our Saviour inserts, Whoso readeth, let him understand. As much as to say, when you read that Passage in the Prophet Daniel, you are to understand something more than ordinary in it, you must take notice of a hidden Sense in those Words: they speak not only of what was to come to pass in Antiochus', but in Vespasian's Reign, which was about 250 Years after. The abominable desolating Armies of both are here meant. You see then here is a double literal Sense; and that was the Reason why I chose rather the Division of the Scripture-Sense into primary and secondary, and of this latter into historical and mystical, than that received one of literal and mystical, because both the Sense sometimes may be literal. This aught to be carefully observed by all those who are desirous to attain to a right Understanding of the Holy Scriptures. And it is the want of attending to this that hath often hindered men's due Apprehensions of several Texts. We see here in the Instance before us, that the Letter of this Text in Daniel may be applied both to the Syrian and the Roman Armies. I might produce those Words in the Prophecy of Hosea, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, ch. 11. 1. Which are to be understood not only of the Patriarches of old (God's Children or Sons) being brought by God out of Egypt, but of Christ the Son of God, called out thence after the Death of Herod, Matth. 2. 15. This Place of Hosea must be understood of both.  
Hither may be referred some other Places of the Old Testament made use of in the New, where it is said, This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet; then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
† Matth. 13. 35. John 15. 25, etc. , and the like. The Places speak not primarily of those things which they are alleged for, but secondarily they do, and so are truly said to be fulfilled. I know Episcopius, and some others before him, tell us, that these Scriptures are said to be fulfilled when there happens something like them, when there is a Representation or Similitude of the things; when there may be a fair Accommodating of one Event to another, than this Phrase is used. But a judicious Writer saith well; 
‖ Dr. Iac●son, Vol. 2. Book 7. Sect. 2.  No Prophecy can be truly said to be fulfilled only by way of Accommodation or Allusion: for there is no allusive Sense of Scripture distinct from the literal and mystical ones. This then is a new way of fulfilling Predictions of the Old Testament, and was never heard of among the ancient Expositors of Scripture. They never dreamt of a way of Accommodation, but understood by those Words a strict Completion of those Texts in the Old Testament; for it is said, they were fulfilled. But how? Namely, there being a double Sense in those Texts, the Evangelists take notice, and leave upon Record that they were accomplished and fulfilled in the secondary or mystical Sense. And this I take to be the true Import of the Apostle's Words, 2. Pet. 1. 20. No Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation, though I know there is another Exposition generally given of them by those that comment on these Words: But freely and impartially scan them, and you will find this to be the genuine Sense of them; Scripture-Prophecies are not fulfilled according to the literal or proper Signification of them only; they frequently have a mystical Sense: with the literal is joined a typical one, or one literal one is added to another. This is the secondary, and, as 'twere, the improper Sense; but the other is the first and more proper one; for that is the word here used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of proper Interpretation. And if you consult the Greek of the Text, you'll see there is Reason to translate it thus, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Every Prophecy of Scripture is not of proper Interpretation; i. e. there are some Predictions that contain a secondary as well as a primary meaning in them: they are fulfilled according to both these, and therefore can't be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of proper Interpretation. This Exposition of the Place is confirmed by the Reason that follows, for the Prophecy came not of old time by the Will of Man, but holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; i. e. these Predictions were of an extraordinary Nature, there was a deeper and farther Meaning in them than is in the Writings of Men; they are not bounded by a single Sense, and therefore neither are they to be interpreted so. This might be made good from several Instances besides those a●ore alleged. Many other Places in the Old Testament might be mentioned to prove that the same Texts are to be taken in a different manner; that there is sometimes a double meaning in them; which is plain from the Quotations in the New Testament: for the Evangelists and Apostles quoting of them is a clear Proof that there is a primary and secondary Sense of those Texts, and that this latter is sometimes historical, and sometimes spiritual; for we see these inspired Writers of the New Testament take no notice of the first literal Sense of those Places, but understand them wholly in the secondary way.  
If we look into the Books themselves of the New Testament, we shall discover there likewise this double Meaning in several Places: Witness the many Parables which are used by our Saviour, and which are recorded by the Evangelists. It is true the Old Testament is not destitute of this ●ort of Enigmatical Instructions; but because those in the New are most numerous, and because our blessed Master himself hath thought fit to express himself in this parabolical way, therefore I choose to speak of it here. Parables, as the Greek Word signifies, are properly 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confer, comparare. 〈◊〉 Clce●o and other Rhetoricians a Parable is called Collatio, 〈◊〉 differen●ium inter se Colloca●io.  a comparing of things together; setting one against another; a making use of one Thing or Narrative to set forth and represent to us another of a higher Nature. Therefore in a Parable the Ancients used to observe two Parts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the former being the Groundwork and Plot, as it were; and it might be either true or feigned: and the latter was the Application; or, if you will, the Moral of the other. The 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hebrew Word used for a Parable will give us further Light into it. It signifies first any Sentence or Saying that is by way of Similitude or Comparison, and so answers to the Greek Word, and is rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint: for the Verb Mashal, from whence the Noun comes, signifies to compare, and lay things together, and li●en one to another. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is synonymous with Mashal, signifies any Comparison or Similitude, as in Matt●. 24. 32. Now learn a Parable of the Figtree: When his Branch is yet tender, and putteth forth Leaves, ye know that Summer is nigh. So likewise ye, etc. Here C●●ist explains the Etymology and Import of a Parable; in its first and more simple Signification it is only a Simile, as you see here in these Words; and so it is taken in several other Places of the New Testament. But this is not all; it signifies such a comparative Saying, Speech or Narration, as is obscure and intricate, and contains some greater and higher Meaning than the bare Words offer to us. Thus what is darkly and figuratively expressed is called a Parable, in Matth. 15. 15. And so the Rabbins call any Figure or Allegory 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the way of a Parable. But most properly and strictly a Parable is a feigned declaring of a thing, as if it were done, when indeed it is not really done, but something else is signified by what is so declared. Now put these things together, and a Parable may be defined thus: it is such an artificial Speech wherein one thing is compared and likened with another, but with some Obscurity and Intricateness; and we are to understand what is said, not according to the usual So●nd and literal Meaning of the Words, but with reference to some other thing thereby mystically signified, as ●s evident in the Parables of our Saviour If you ask why he so often delivered things, and consequently why Part of the Scripture is written in this mystical way: I answer;  
1. It had been the Custom and Use of the Ancients to express themselves after this manner; and our Saviour in this, as in some other things, was pleased to follow their Example. That the allegorical and mystical way of Teaching was ancient, and used not only by the Poets, but Philosophers of old, is sufficiently known. Orpheus' represented his Mysteries in a kind of Fables. Pythagoras by Numbers and Symbols. Plato by Emblems and Allegories: And Aesop (the famous moral Fabulist) is the ancientest Book in Prose that we have extant. H●raclitus gained the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the Obscurity of his Writings, by reason of his dark and enigmatical Representations of things. Only Epicurus took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his Motto, and pretended to great Plainness and Perspicuity. But generally all the ancientest Greek Sages were wont to ●et off their Opinions with a Mixture of Fable or Allegory. This Symbolic Way of Learning was in use among the Gymnosophists and Druids, as 
* In Pro●●m.  Laertius witnesses. 
† De ●na●. Deor. cap. slt.  Phornutus' faith the same of all the Ancients. Both Greeks and Barbarians used it, saith 
‖ Strom. 5.  Clemens of Alexandria. This was partly the Fashion of the old Egyptians: they used to wrap up the Mysteries of their Religion, and of their Civil Affairs likewise in Hieroglyphic Figures: as 
* Pier. Hieroglyph. Egypt.  God, who sees and sustains all things, was represented by an Eye and a Staff: the Periodical Revolution of the Year by a Serpent, with his Tail in his Mouth: a King by a Bee, which is noted for its Honey and its Sting, to tell us that Reward and Punishment are both necessary in Civil Government. When they would represent Erudition or Learning, they pictured the Heavens pouring down Dew, which perhaps was borrowed from Moses; Deut. 32. 2. My Doctrine shall drop as the Rain, my Speech shall distil as the Dew: For 'tis not improbable that the Egyptians had many of their mystical Symbols and Expressions from the Jews, as I have showed in another Place. The Parabolical Way is not unlike to this, it conveying the Notions of things to us by fit Representations, by apt Symbols. And our Saviour thought good to comport with this manner of Speech, which he knew had been in use with the greatest Masters of Learning; and he vouchsafed to imitate them, because he could so innocently do it; because (as you shall hear by and by) this was a very convenient and profitable way of imparting Truth to them.  
2. This Instructing by Parables and Allegories was used not only by the ancient Philosophers and Sages among the Gentiles, but (as a 
† Clem▪ Alexand. Strom. l. 5.  learned Father hath amply showed) by the holy Prophets and Men of God, and other eminent Persons among the Jews of old. There are interspersed in the Writings of the Old Testament several Parables and Speeches which are of a Parabolical Nature, as Iotham's Parable of the Trees that went forth on a time to anoixt a King over them, Judg. 9 8. This indeed is properly an Apologue, which in strictness of Speaking differs from a Parable in this, that the Similitude is taken from a thing that is not only false but impossible; for such is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this speaking of Trees, which is here represented. And such is that other Apologue, viz. of the Thistle's sending to the Cedar, 2 Chron. 25. 18. and an Overture of a Marriage between them, which is mere Fiction, and a bold attributing of humane Action to irrational and senseless things. There is not a third in all the Bible of this sort. But among the Parables used of old by God's People, we may reckon that Aenigme or Parabolical Riddle of Samson, which he put forth at his Marriage-Feast, Out of the Eater came forth Meat, and out of the Strong came forth Sweetness, Judg. 14. 14. Nathan's Parable of the Ewe-Lamb, 2 Sam. 12. is a very notable one, and is famous for the admirable Effect it had. In Isaiah's Prophecy we read the Parable of a Vineyard, ch. 5. 1, etc. and several Visions and Types in a Parabolical Manner. In jeremiah we have a great many Typical Representations and Parables, as of the Linen Girdle, and of the Bottles filled with Wine, ch. 13. of abstaining from Marriage, ch. 16. of a Potter, ch. 18. of a Potter's Vessel, ch. 19 of good and bad Figs, ch. 24. of a Cup of Wine, ch. 25. of Bonds and Yokes, ch. 27. In Ezekiel there is the like way of expressing great and important Truths, viz. in a Symbolical way: There you have the Types or Parables of a Siege, ch. 4. of a Barber's Razor, ch. 5. of a Chain, ch. 7. of Ezekiel's removing, and of the Vine-tree, ch. 15. of two Eagles and a Vine, ch. 17. of Lion's Whelps taken in a Pit, ch. 19 of a boiling Pot, ch. 24. Thus you see it was the ancient Custom of the Prophets and holy Men to deliver their Instructions in way of Parables. Yea, this was the Guise and Genius of the Country: the Eastern People used to wrap up their Observations on Nature and the Manners of Men in this mystical way. Our Saviour vouchsafed to comply with the Practice of his Countrymen, but especially he thought fit to conform himself to the manner of Speech and Delivery which the Prophets used, and with which the Jews were acquainted, Accordingly he delivered himself very often in a figurative and mystical Style, and uttered many excellent divine Truths in the dark way of Parables.  
3. He did this sometimes to hide his heavenly Matter from undeserving Persons, that Pearls might not be cast before Swine, nor Evangelical Truths be exposed to the wilful Despisers of the Gospel. This Account our Saviour himself gives in Matth. 13. 10. When the Disciptes had said unto him, Why speakes● thou unto them (i. e. to the Multitude) in Parables? He answered and said, Because it is given to you to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but unto them it is not given. And v. 13. Therefore speak I to them in Parables, because they seeing, see not; and bearing, they hear not, neither do they understand. Some Parables which our Saviour propounded were so dark and obscure, that none but the refined Minds of his Disciples could comprehend them. Others, who had wilfully blinded their Understandings, were not able to see into the inward meaning of them: Yea, our blessed Lord designed to hide his Mysteries from those profane Persons, and therefore disguised them in these dark Shadows.  
4. This artificial and allegorical Representation of things was to stir up our Diligence, and to make the Truths, when found out, more acceptable. If all Divine Veritles were propounded in an easy manner, so that upon the first Proposal they were obvious to us, this would nourish our Sloth and Idleness: but when we see that our Blessed Instructor delivers some things which can't be understood without Difficulty and Pains; this may invite us to be diligent in searching into the Mind of God, and to use all our Endeavours to attain to a Knowledge of it.  
5. This may be assigned as another Reason why Christ was pleased to Discourse in Parables, viz. that what he said might be the better fixed on their Memories; for so it is, that what comes in the way of Story or Narrative, doth dwell longer with Men than another sort of Discourse. As they listen to it with greater Attention, ●o generally it makes a greater Impression upon them, and consequently is remembered and retained the longer by them: which is one singular Advantage of delivering things in this Parabolical manner.  
6. Pa●ables are not only useful to fasten Divine Truths on the Memory, but to move the Affections, and to beget in us a Delight in those excellent Truths. For it is very entertaining and pleasant to hear the most Heavenly Matters expressed and set forth by those which are earthly and worldly; because hereby at once both our Minds and our corporeal Senses are gratisied. We are let into Celestial and Spiritual Mysteries by those Objects which are sensual and bodily: we attain to an Insight of those things which are supernatural and extraordinary, by a Representation of those which are merely natural and common. This certainly must be very delightful, and have a mighty Influence on the affectionate Part of Man: this must needs stir up his Desires and Love, his Joy and Satisfaction. For this Reason, among others, it is probable Christ made use of this pathetic and winning way of Discourse: He borrowed most of his Parables from very vulgar things, such as were well known to his Hearers, and which they had a very sensible notice and feeling of; that by that Means he might work the more powerfully on them; and by discoursing of worldly things bring them to an affectionate liking of the things of God, and the great Concerns of another Life: that by a wise and artificial representing the Objects which were daily before their Eyes, they might be able to discern and approve of the invisible Excellencies of a future State. Our Saviour was a very popular Preacher; he purposely made choice of that way of Discourse to the People, which he knew would be most taking and moving with them: And such was this his Preaching in Parables, which for the most Part consisted of familiar Comparisons and Similitudes, and set forth divine and spiritual things by those which were bodily and sensible, yea ordinary and vulgar, and which they daily conversed with. Such was his Parable of the ten Virgins, Matth 25. 1, etc. which is a plain Allusion to those things which were common at the jewish Marriages in those Days: for they at that time had borrowed many of the nuptial Rites from the Romans; as first of all the Use of Torches and Lamps, because they celebrated their Weddings at Night, at which time they prepared a solemn Supper, and brought home the Spouse, and carried her to that Entertainment at the Bridegroom's House. Again, the Custom of going forth to meet the Bridegroom (which is the most considerable Part of this Parable) was well known at that time: The Bridemaids used to go out with burning Lamps or Torches in their Hands to meet the Bridegroom, and to conduct him to the House where the Marriage was, and from whence they came with their Lights. To this that of the Comedian refers: 
* Plaut. in Casinâ.  Primùm omnium lucebis novae nuptae facem. And that of Claudian, on the nuptial Solemnities of Honorius and Martia; 

‖ De Nupt. Honor. — Alii, funalibus ordine ductis,  
Plurima venturae suspendunt lumina nocti.   
And who knows not that those Words of another Poet, 
† Virgil. Eclog. 8. — Novas incide faces, tibi ducitur uxor have reference to the Custom of bringing home the Spouse late at Night with Torches and Flambeaus? Nay, when a much ancienter Poet (and he an inspired one) compares the Sun's glorious rising to 
* Psal. 19 5.  a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, i. e. the ushering the Bridegroom out of his Chamber with Lights and Torches, (which is a very elegant Simile, and apposite to his Purpose) we may thence inform ourselves, that this Practice was of very ancient Date. Moreover, the tarrying of the Bridegroom (which this Parable mentions) was known and common in those Days: this happened generally by reason of the many Solemnities that were observed, and the leading about of the Bride, which took up much time; the young Maids or Virgins 'gins staying at the Marriage-house, expecting the Bridegroom and Bride; so that sometimes it happened when they sat up late, that they all slumbered and slept, However some of them used to keep their Lamps trimmed, whilst others suffered them to go out. Then when the Bridegroom and his Bride were solemnly brought home at Midnight, (as was usual) they that were ready with their Lamps, went in with them to the Marriage, i. e. the Nuptial ●east; but the Door was shut upon the rest: for it was the Custom, that when the Bridegroom and Bride returned, they presently went into their Chamber, and shut the Door with their Companions; and if any of the Bridemaids were never so urgent, and cried, Open to ●s, the Bridegroom gave Order to let none in, he knew them not, for they had forfeited their Right to enter into the Bridal Chamber by their Negligence and Drowsiness, by their not watching the exact Time of the new-married Couples Return home on the Wedding-night. Thus this Parablo was suited to the Customs of the Jews at that time: Nay, the very Number of the Virgins (mentioned by the Evangelist) that brought and lighted home the Bridegroom, hath reference to the particular Usage at those Weddings: for from that Passage in Statius, in his Epithalamium on Stella and Violantill●; 
— Procul ecce canoro  
Demigrant Helicone Deae, quati●ntque novenâ  
Lampade solennem thalamis coeuntibus ignem,   
We may gather that the Number of those Bridal Virgins was wont to be te● or eleven: And sometims five only (to which Number the Virgins are unhappily reduced in this Parable) attended the Nuptial Solemnities. Accordingly 
* Quast. Rom.  Plutarch lahours to give Reasons (such as they are) why no more were made use of for this Purpose. The whole Parable is made up of the Rites used by the Eastern as well as the Roman People at their Marriages: and all the particulars of it were such things as were commonly known to them, because every Day practised by some of them. In like manner the Parables of the Candle, Luke 8. 16. of the So●er and the Seed; of the Tares; of the Mustardseed; of the Loves; of Leaven; of the Net cast into the Sea; (all in one Chapter, Matth. 13.) of the Labourers in the Vineyard, ch. 20. I. of the Housholder that planted a Vineyard, and let it out to Husbandmen, ch. 21. 33. are Representations of usual and common Occurrences, and such as the Generality of our Saviour's Hearers were daily conversant with; and for that very Reason were made use of by him, as being most moving and affecting. 
† Coll●q. Mens.  Luther had an odd saying, (as he had many an one) that Esop's Fables: is the best Book next to the Bible. His meaning, I suppose, was, that that fort of instructing, viz. by way of Apologues, by annexing an useful Moral to a Feigned Story, was a very excellent and profitable manner of teaching, it being so familiar and delightful; and upon that account so conducible to enforce and illustrate any Moral or Religious Truth. This and much more is the Excellency of the Parables wh●ch our Blessed Master clothed his Divine Doctrine in: he chose this way of delivering things to them, on purpose to work the more powerfully on their Affections. A fit Parable moves the Mind with a wonderful Force and Efficacy, it representing Matters to us in their liveliest Colours and mo●t natural Shapes, and applying them to the particular Circumstances we are in▪ so that it seemeth to say in the final Close of it, as that Parabolical Prophet to David, T●ou art the Man. It comes up close to us, and with great Plainness and Freedom tells us our Case, and affects us proportionably. To have Dominion or Authority, and to speak in a Parabolical way, are expressed by the 
* Mashal.  same word in the Hebrew. This is most certain, that our Saviour reduced this Criticism into Practice, and by this moving way of Preaching let the World see, that 
† Mark I. 22.  he taught as one that had Authority. Thus I have briefly showed you the Nature of Parables, and given some Account of our Saviour's so frequently using them. I shall only add that useful Rule of St. Chrysostom, which is to be observed by us if we would rightly understand the Nature of the Style of Scripture in this mystical way of expressing itself: 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  We must not, saith he, over-curiously fifth every Word and Passage that we meet with in Parables, but our main Business must be to understand the Scope and Design at which they aim, and for which this sort of Discourse was composed; and having gathered this out, we ought to inquire no further, it is in vain to busy ourselves any longer. And that of Maldonate is a very good Rule; For the right interpreting of Parables we m●st know this, 
* In Matth. 11. 16.  that it is in vain to observe any Accuracy in comparing Persons with Persons, and to be curious in suiting particular things to things: but we are to look at the grand Matter, and as it lies before us in gross. So he. For this is to be remembered, that there are several Circumstances inserted into Parables, merely to adorn and set off the Matter, and to make the Representation and Similitude more graceful. Therefore we must not insist on every Particular, and think that an Argument may be drawn from all the Circumstances which we meet with in such Discourses. No; the main thing, which is the Design, is to be attended to in a Parable. If we observe this Rule, we shall gain a sufficient Knowledge of our Saviour's Meaning in his Parables: but otherwise we shall busy our Heads to little Purpose, and mistake the true Design and Intention of our Lord in this kind of Instructions.  
There are other Passages in the New Testament, wherein a secondary or mystical Sense is to be observed, as the 24th Chapter of St. Matthew; one part of which, according to most Expositors, speaks of the Forerunners of Ierusalem's Destruction; and the other Part of the Signs of Christ's Coming to Judgement. But if you look narrowly into the whole Chapter, you will observe that these Forerunners and Signs of both Sorts are intermixed, and so promiscuously placed, that it is difficult to tell precisely which precede the Destruction of jerusalem, and which the Day of Judgement. Which gave me this Hint first of all, that this whole Chapter, or the greatest part of it is to be understood (as those other Places of Scripture beforementioned) in a double Sense, viz. a primary and a secondary. In the former you must understand our Saviour speaking of those Prodigies and Calamities which should befall the Jews before the final Overthrow of their City and Temple. In the latter you must conceive him foretelling the dreadful Signs and Concomitants of the last Day, wherein not only Jews, but all the World are concerned. Here is a twofold Meaning of Chri●t's Words, here is a double literal or historical Sense: and the latter of them being not so obvious and evident as the other, (and that is the Reason why it hath not been found out) may be called the mystical Sense, for it is so indeed in comparison of the other. Whereas then Expositors are divided in interpreting this Chapter, some referring some Passages in it to the Devastation of jerusalem, and others interpreting other Parts wholly of the Day of Judgement, we may compromise the Matter, and reconcile the different Interpreters, by asserting, that both the Destruction of jerusalem, and the Calamities of the Last Day, are understood by both Parts of the Chapter, excepting only one or two particular Expressions, which may seem to refer altogether to one of these. In short, the Forerunners and Harbingers of the Ruin of the Jews, and of the last Coming of our Saviour are the same. So that while he speaks of one, he also foretells the other. This shows that there is a double meaning, a simple and a compound one, in the very same Words of this Chapter.  
When the Apostle in Eph. 5. had spoken of the married State, and of the Duties of Husband and Wife, and particularly of the Love of the one, and the Submission of the other, he tells us, in the Close, that this Part of his Epistle hath a higher Meaning than every ordinary Reader of it would find out: for besides the literal Import of the Words, there ●s a more sublime and spiritual one. This is a great Mystery, saith he, and I speak concerning Christ and the Church, v. 32. Those Words in Gen. 2. 24. mentioned immediately before, have a mystical as well as a literal Meaning: they are to be understood of the sacred Union of Chri●● and his Church, as well as of the conjugal Union of Man and Wife. For Marriage is an Emblem of the sacred and inviolable Tie between Christ and Believers; and accordingly whilst the Apostle discoursed in that Part of the Chapter concerning the Love and Submission of Husband and Wife, he lets us know, that it is to be understood in a secondary Sense of Christ's Love to his Church, and of the Church's Subjection unto Christ. And divers other Passages in St. Paul's Epistles have, besides their literal, a spiritual, inward and mysterious Acception. Even as to this the Apostle's Words are true, viz. that he speaks the Wisdom of God in a Mystery, I Cor. 2. 7.  
Thus I have abundantly proved the double Sense, which is to be found in many Places of the Sacred Writings; and it were easy to evince it from many more Instances, if it were requisite. I will only here in the Close produce the Words of a very profound and judicious Man, a worthy Light of our Church, that I may not be thought to be ●ingular in what I have asserted under this Head. 
* Dr. jackson, Vol. 2. Book 7. Sect. I.  Many Passages, saith he, as well in the Prophets as other Sacred Oracles, admit of Amphibologies and ambiguous Senses: and the same Prophecies are oftentimes fulfilled according to both Senses. And he instances in several. Again, a little after he hath these admirable Words: 
† Sect. 2.  Seeing our sacred Oracles were given many hundreds of Years before the Events foretold by them, and since exhibited, had any seminal Cause or observable Original out of which they were to grow; the greater the Variety of their Senses or Constructions is, the more admirable Proof doth their Accomplishment exhibit of that infinite Wisdom which did dictate them ●nto the Prophets. And he instances in such Prophecies as were fulfilled in a double Sense, and at two different times, as Isa. 9 23. jer. I. 6, 8. and others which had a first and second Accomplishment. This is the very thing which I have been asserting, and which I hope I have made sufficiently evident. The historical Books of the Old Testament are not bare Narratives and naked Stories of what is past, but in the largest and most comprehensive Construction of them they refer even to the Affairs of future Times. So that what Thucydides called his History, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a Possession, or Treasure that was to last for ever, a Monument to instruct all the Ages to come, we may most truly and justly apply to the historical Part of the Old Testament. It is of never-failing Use to the World: Whatever is recorded here concerning the Transactions of Divine Providence towards the Jews and other People, is typical and representative of what God now doth, and will always do to the End of the World. In the several Particulars of the sacred Story we may read the Condition and Lot of the Church in all succeeding Ages; for what is to come is but a Transcript of what we find here. And as for the Doctrinal Part, it is mysterious and allegorical in many Places: there is a hidden and invisible Treasure lies under the visible and outward Letter. Many of the Precepts, Prohibitions, threatenings and Promises reach a great deal farther than the Words simply and absolutely denote: and spiritual and heavenly Matters are couched in those Texts which primarily speak of earthly and temporal ones. Lastly, when you read a prophetic Passage in the Bible, the bare thing there literally expressed is not all that is intended, but there is oftentimes much more implied. As Ezekiel tells us of a Wheel within a Wheel; so 'tis as true there is a Prophecy within a Prophecy in the Holy Scriptures. One and the same Prediction there is to be fulfilled more than once. In short, the Bible is not like other Books: In the History, Doctrines and Prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, there are secret and hidden Meanings besides those which are plain and obvious, and which lie uppermost in the bare Letter. This is the peculiar and transcendent Excellency of the inspired Writings: This one thing alone may invite us to study this sacred Volume, and with incessant Labour penetrate into the inmost Sense of it, and acquaint ourselves not only with the literal Meaning which first comes to our View, but with that which is more remote and mysterious.  
Here than we must carefully avoid these two Extremes, viz. of laying the Letter of Scripture aside, and of resting altogether in the Letter. First, some despise the Letter of Scripture, and mind nothing in it but the Mystery. Of this sort were the Cabalistick jews, who depraved the most substantial Parts of the Old Testament, by interpreting them in a mystical Sense only. Some of the Christian Fathers were too guilty of this, especially Origen, the Prince of the Allegorists. St. Hilary in his Commentaries on St. Matthew, and on the Psalms, explains several Places in this mystical way, whereby he fastens on them a Sense very different from that which they naturally have. Indeed his Comments are generally taken from Origen. St. Ambrose, in his Exposition of the Scripture, is generally allegorical. Optatus, Bishop of Milevi, is too often faulty, as to this, in his Books against the Donatists. But it is to be observed, that none of these Fathers do utterly exclude the literal and historical Meaning. And as there have been Cabalists and Allegorists of Old, so some highflown Men of late have run all the Bible into moral and mystical Interpretations; and in the mean time have either disbelieved or slighted the historical and literal Sense. I cannot wholly condemn those who have endeavoured to present us with Mysteries in all the several Steps of the Creation, in the whole six Days Works, and in every particular Instance of the Mosaic Philosophy. For this, without doubt, is not wholly external, material and sensible, and to be interpreted only according to the most obvious Signification of the Words: it is most true even here, that Moses hath a Veil over his Face; and there are certain Mysteries and Allegories contained under the very History. But though we are not to be mere Sons of the Letter, yet we have no Reason to think that the Mosaic Philosophy or Hi●●ory are made up of Allusions and Metaphors, and are altogether mysterious. This were to soar aloft with our modern Chemists, to dote after the rate of a Rosy-crucian, whose Brains are so enchanted, that they turn all into Spectres, Dreams and Phantasims.  
But especially that Part of the Beginning of the Book of Genesis which gives an Account of the Fall of our first Parents, must not be turned into mere Mystery and Allegory: for it is sufficiently evident that Moses speaks of Matter of Fact. Wherefore a 
* Dr. ●u●net. Archaeolog. P●●●osoph. 1. 2. c. 7, 8, 9  late Writer cannot be enough rebuked for his Attempt of turning all the Mosaic History concerning Adam and Eve, the Serpent, Paradise, eating the forbidden Fruit, and all the Passages relating to them, into Parable, yea into Ridicule; for he makes himself hugely merry with the several Particulars recorded by Moses. Yea, his Fancy was so low and grovelling, that he picks up any vulgar Stuff to present the Reader with. Upon those Words, They sewed Fig-leaves, and made themselves Aprons, he triflingly cries out, Behold the first Rise of the Tailor's Trade! And then that trite and popular Cavil is fetched in to embellish his Book, Where had Adam and Eve Needle and Thread? And again, this he saith exceedingly troubles and puzzles his Brain, How the Woman's Body could be made of one single Rib. Such is the profound Wit and Philosophy of this Allegorical Gentleman! who, because the Scripture sometimes speaks (as I shall have occasion to show afterwards) after the manner of Men, and in compliance with their common (though mistaken) Apprehensions, he here stretches this too far, and extravagantly tells us, That all the Account given by Moses, not only of the Origine and Creation of the World, but of Adam, and the first Transgression, and the Serpent, and the cursing of the Earth, and other Matters relating to the Fall, is not true in itself, but only spoken popularly, to comply with the dull Israelites, lately slavish Brickmakers, and ●●elling strong of the Garlic and Onions of Egypt. To humour these ignorant Blockheads that were newly broke loose from the Egyptian Taskmasters, and had no Sense nor Reason in their thick Sculls, Moses talks after this rate; but not a Syllable of Truth is in all that he saith. This is very strange Language from a Reverend Divine, who thereby destroys the whole System of Theology, and of Christianity itself: for if there were none of those things before mentioned; if in a literal and historical Sense there was no such thing as that first Disobedience of Adam; if there be nothing true concerning the Temptation and the Apostasy of our first Parents, and the Evils and Misery that ensued upon it, than it will follow thence that Mankind had no need of a Saviour and Redeemer; then Christ's Coming in the Flesh was in vain; then all Christianity falls to the Ground; then when the Writings of the New Testament speak of 
* 1 Tim. 2. 14.  Eve's being deceived, and being in the Transgression; when they acquaint us that 
† 2 Cor. 11. 3.  the Serpent beguiled Eve through his Subtlety; and that 
‖ Rom. 5. 19  by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners; and that in 
* I Cor. 15. 22.  Adam all died: all is mere Romance and Fiction; there was nothing of these in Reality. And then likewise we have as good Reason to believe that the other Parts of the New Testament which speak of our Saviour and all his Undertake, are to be understood in the same manner, that is, they are but a cunningly devised Parable; they may have some moral meaning, as Esop's Fables have, but they contain nothing of real Fact. This is the natural Result of allegorising the 3d Chapter of Genesis. By dealing thus with this Part of the Bible he hath baffled all the rest, he hath wretchedly subverted the whole Scheme of our Religion; he hath spoiled the whole Fabric of Christianity; and he hath made the Scripture useless and insignificant. So that by this one Attempt of his he hath shaken, not to say overturned, the Foundations of Religion, he hath taken part with the known Despisers of all revealed Theology; he hath encouraged and patronised the wild Conceits of Sceptics; he hath strengthened the Hands of the Profane; he hath abundantly gratified the whole Tribe of Atheists and Deists; he hath won their Hearts for ever. And indeed we cannot but observe what fort of Men they are that applaud his Undertaking, viz. the Wits of the Town (as they are called) Men disposed to very ill Thoughts of Religion and the Scriptures, yea Men generally indulging themselves in Immorality and Debauchery. These are the Persons that promote his Notions, and cry up his Writings. This Theorist is become much more pleasing to them than Mr. Hobbs. This new Archaeologist is far more taking than the Leviathan, because he nips the Bible more closely, and also because he is not (as the other) a Layman, but a professed Divine, and that of the Church of England. This makes his Enterprise so acceptable to these Men; for now they have a Clergyman to vouch them; they have the Warranty of a Churchman. I will not question, or so much as suspect the Prudence of our Ecclesiastical Governors: but in my Judgement, if there be no public Censure passed upon such a daring Attempt as this, by a Member of our Church, Atheists will have just Ground to laugh at our Discipline, as well as they do at our Doctrine.  
To excuse himself, he saith, this way of speaking is used in the Writings of the New Testament, and confessed to be Metaphorical and Symbolical; and why not then in Genesis? I answer; Because though there are some Expressions of that Nature, as the Trumpet sounding, and the Books opened at the Day of Judgement, which are but metaphorical, it is likely; yet it is easy to discern it: And in other Places it is intimated, and sometimes plainly declared, that the Passages are metaphorical and my●●ical, as in the Parables of the Prophets and of our Saviour. But it is quite another thing which we are speaking of, viz. not an Expression or two, but a whole entire History delivered in plain Words, and with all its Circumstances as Matter of Fact; and there is not the least Intimation of any other Sense: yea many of the Particulars are mentioned in other Places of the Old and New Testament, as direct Matter of Fact. Wherefore when he attempts to solve his Undertaking by alleging some Passages in the New Testament of Christ and his Apostles, he cannot but see that it is very foreign to his Business. Again, in a short Appendix to his Book (where he seems to retract in a manner what he ●ad said, having been informed (he ●aith) that it was displeasing to pious and wife Men) he excuses himself by alleging the Fathers; who, 'tis true, present us with several allegorical Interpretations and Descants on some Places of Scripture, and particularly on the 3d Chapter of Genesis: but this is ●othing to his purpose, because those ancient Writers do not deny the literal Sense, which he doth. He is not content to allegorise that Chapter, but he wholly rejects the literal Meaning, and confidently avers that Moses all along tells a Story that ●ath nothing of Truth in it, and is not spoken according to the Nature of the things. So I grant, that some of the old jewish Do●t●rs moralised M●ses's History, but they did not slight, much less supersede and lay▪ aside the historical Sense. And moreover, he hath neither the Fathers nor the Rabbis as an Example of ridiouling the Mosaic History, which yet he doth throughout his whole Discourse on that Chapter, showing his little Talon of Jesting and Dro●ling. So that in brief, it might become Hudibras better than a Doctor of Divinity. I appeal to any that are acquainted with the ancient Monuments of the Church, whether he doth not perfectly tread in the Steps of the old Adversaries and Blasphemers of Christianity, julian, Celsus, etc. The former of these speaking of, and deriding what is said in Genesis concerning Adam and Paradise, and eating the forbidden Fruit, etc. positively declares that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. con●. Julian. lib. 3.  these are altogether fabulous. And again afterwards, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  What Difference is there, saith he, between these and the Fables of the Greeks? What Dr. Burnet saith amounts to the same; for when he expressly saith, Moses delivered nothing of the Physical Truth concerning the Creation of the World, etc. but wisely dissembles to accommodate himself to the People: and when he tells us, that Moses said these things only to conciliate Force and Authority to his Laws, (which are his own Words) he doth as good as say, that what he delivers is a Fable. He might in plain Terms have styled the Mosaic History a Fabulous Tradition, as 
‖ De Phys. Aud. 1. 8.  Simplicius calls the Account which Moses gives of the Creation. Yea, he might as well have spoken the Language of his Friend Celsus, who called the Mosaic Relation concerning Adam and Eve, 
* Origen. cont. Cels.  an old Wife's Fable. Thus we see what Examples he follows; some of the craftiest and subtlest (but yet the most malicious) Enemies of the Christians, who laughed at their Religion whilst others persecuted it, and did more harm by that deriding it, than others by violent oppressing it. But lo a remarkable Example of the Divine Justice! viz. on the bold Gentleman who lately englished that part of the Doctor's Book which derides the 3d Chapter of Genesis, and who committed it to the Press for the sake of some of the witty Folks of the Town, and to please the Atheistical Rabble. This signal Act of avenging Providence is well known to the World, and I wish the ingenious Theorist would seriously reflect upon it, and learn thence to make Sport with the Bible no more: And I request him not to be offended at my plain Dealing with him; for I assure him that I have said nothing out of any disrespect or ill Will to his Person, but wholly from a deep Sense of the great Mischief which is like to ensue upon this late Attempt of his. I abhor the treating of any learned Man's Writings with Contempt: yea, on the contrary I have always paid a due Respect and Deference to them, though they are not adjusted to the Notions which I have of things. But when I see the Holy Scriptures struck at, and Religion itself shocked and extremely hazarded, I cannot forbear from uttering my Sentiments, and chewing my just Indignation on such an Occasion. Christian Charity, which beareth all things, endureth all things, cannot by any Means brook this. And I must freely tell this learned Writer, that let his Character otherwise be never so fair, (and 'tis not my Design to disown it or blemish it in the least) it is certain that the better this is, the worse is his Enterprise; for he seems to come sober and demure to undermine the Bible, and destroy Christianity, as many a Cracovian Reasoner hath done before him. But truly there is little Sobriety in jesting and buffooning, in jeering and drolling away our Religion, and that under the Pretence of Philosophic Antiquity. Nay, let me tell him, (and I hope by this time his own Thoughts do so too) that to trifle and droll after the Rate that he doth on the inspired History concerning Adam and Eve, is a near Approach to Blasphemy. I heartily wish he may be apprehensive of his Delinquency in this kind, and that for the future he may guide himself by that wholesome Rule, viz. that we are not to quit the literal Interpretation in any Place of Scripture, unless there be a necessity of doing so. And 'tis certain there is none in the present Case; nay, there is an absolute Necessity of acknowledging the literal and historical Meaning, unless we will subvert the very Foundations of our Religion. He that makes this first Book of the Bible to be wholly mystical, doth not observe the Distance between Genesis and some Part of the Revelation. We must be careful that we follow not the Masters of abstruse Divinity so far, that we exclude the literal Sense of Scripture: for this will prove fatal to the Scriptures themselves, and to all Religion, especially Christianity. If we dote upon Allegories, and defy the Letter and History of the Bible, we quite null these Sacred Writings, because we thereby render them ambiguous and precarious, we authorise any wild Interpretations that can be made of them. If we may leave the literal Sense of Scripture when we please, and fly to metaphorical and mystical ones, than the Certainty of the Word of God will soon vanish: for than we cannot tell what is true or what is false; or if we know it, we can never confute any Error, or maintain any Truth from the Holy Writ. For by this Means the●●will be innumerable Explications of Scripture, and who can possibly determine which of them is to be made choice of? If you offer any Text to prove ●uch or such a Doctrine, it will easily be evaded if the Letter may not be our Guide; for it is but saying, The Place is not meant as the Words sound, but must be taken figuratively and mystically. Thus Scripture itself is▪ destroyed by cashiering the literal Acception of the Words. Yea, we destroy the whole Gospel, and pluck up the Foundations of Christianity; we deny Christ and all his blessed Undertake for our Redemption and Salvation: for these being Matter of Fact, are founded upon the literal Account we have of them, upon the historical Relation of them, which we have in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. Thus dangerous and fatal it is to let go the literal Sense of Scripture, and to catch at a mystical one only. By this wild Practice Men attempt to thrust Religion out of the World; or, which is the same thing, to present us with a metaphorical and allegorical Religion, instead of a true and real one. Therefore there is good Reason why we should not quit the literal Construction of Scripture.  
Secondly; The other Extreme which is to be avoided by us, is the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A●hanas. in Matth. 12. 31.  resting altogether in the outside, the looking no farther than the literal Meaning of Scripture. There is such a thing as mystical or symbolical Divinity; however some have mistaken and abused it: and this, if it be rightly used, is exceeding profitable, yea necessary; for it is no other than the Result of the mystical Sense of Scripture, which I have been speaking of. He is truly a Divine, he may deservedly be said to have Skill in Christian Theology, who contents not himself with the primary or literal Import of the Sacred Writings, but dives into the secondary but more abstruse Meaning of them, who penetrates into the hidden Mind of the Word of God. If there be a 〈◊〉 Sense in Scripture, as I have proved in several Instances, it must be reckoned a great Oversight (to say no worse) in the Expositors of this Holy Book, not to take notice of this Interpretation, but to acquiesce wholly in the literal Meaning. This is observable in the Expositions which some of the Rabbins give of the Bible: for as the Jewish Cabalists are too allegorical, (as we took notice before) so another Set of their Doctors is too much devoted to a literal Interpretation. This they stick to when there is no Reason for it, yea when the Words are plainly figurative, and must needs be taken so. Yet even then they interpret them according to the Letter, and thence are produced some of those foolish Propositions and childish Assertions, those groundless Fables and Legends; yea those gross Lies and Forgeries which are found in the Books of the Rabbins. Erasmus was faulty in this kind: his Readers may observe that he neglected the mystical Sense of Scripture, and resolutely adhered to the bare Letter. In which he is followed by Calvin, who generally leaves out the secondary and more sublime Sense of many Texts of Scripture, and satisfies himself with the literal one only. This he doth in his Comment on Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between, etc. which he interprets simply of the Antipathy between Men and Serpents, (which is the poor and lank Interpretation which josephus the Jew gives of it, as you have heard:) whereas those Words in the highest Meaning of them (as the ancientest and learnedest Fathers have suggested) are the first and grand Promise of the Messias made to our first Parents, and in them to all their Posterity. Those Places, Psal. 22. 16. They pierced my Hands and my Feet; And ver. 18. They part my Garments among them, and cast Lots upon my Vesture; Calvin is inclined to interpret simply, and not concerning Christ: he would have them to be only metaphorical Expressions of David's Calamities and Sufferings, notwithstanding it is expressly said by the Evangelist St. Matthew, that those things were done to Christ, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, Matth. 27. 35. And by the Evangelist St. john, This was done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, ch. 19 36, 37. And so as to that Text, jer. 31. 22. The Lord hath created a new thing in the Earth, a Woman shall compass a Man. The same Author will not have this Prophecy, (for such it is, though it seems to speak of a thing past, it being the Custom of prophetic Writers to signify the future Time by the past, as you shall hear afterwards) he will not, I say, have this Prediction refer in the least to Christ and the Virgin Mary: It is ridiculous, he saith, to understand it so. And some other Prophecies which are meant of Christ, he understands otherwise, confining himself to the bare Letter of the Words. Thus this excellent Person, out of an Affectation of Novelty, perverts those Scriptures which the ancient Fathers quoted as spoken of Christ; and he plainly tells us, that the Fathers abused those Places. But (which is far worse) he refuseth to expound some of those Texts of the Old Testament concerning Christ, notwithstanding the Evangelical Writers in the New Testament allege them as punctually fulfilled in him, and in what he suffered. For this Reason that renowned Man may be thought to incline to judaism or Arianism as much as Erasmus is thought by some; for you shall find the one as well as the other interpreting Places of Scripture, which speak of Christ, quite to another Sense. 
* Dr. jackson on the Creed.  One of the Worthies of our Church excuseth the former of these Persons after this manner, (and why may not the same Excuse serve for the latter?) It was, saith he, rather fear lest he should give Offence unto the Jews, than any Desire or Inclination to comply with them, which makes him sometimes give the same Interpretations of Scriptures which they do, without Search after farther Mysteries than the Letter itself doth administer. It was the Candour of this excellent Divine to apologise thus for that great Man; and the same Apology may serve for the other; yet certainly we ought to supply the Defect of their Expositions on those Places, by adding the secondary and mystical Sense to them; else we leave those Texts maimed and imperfect; yea we rob them of that which is most considerable and precious in them, that which is the Dabar Gadol, as the Jewish Masters call the mystical Sense, this being great in comparison of the literal one, which is called by them Dabar Katon, little and inconsiderable, viz. in respect of the other. This was the Fault of another great Man, great in Name as well as Worth: Herein he disdains not to tread in the Steps of Mr. Calvin, though in many other things he is very averse to his Expositions. We shall find that when he treats of the Texts in the Old Testament which speak concerning Christ, he generally interprets them in the first and literal Sense, contrary to the Practice of all Apostolical and Ancient Expositors, who constantly search into the mystical Sense of Scripture, as the choicest Treasure that is to be found in it. Gold and Diamonds, and the richest Gems, lie hid in the Bowels of the Earth. The richest and most precious Truths of Heaven are treasured up in the Entrails of this Holy Book, they are hid in the most inward Recesses of it. Demo●ritus could say, Truth lies hid in a deep Pit. This is most certain of Divine Truth contained in the Holy Scripture; besides what we meet with in the Letter and Surface of it, there is yet a more choice Discovery to be made by searching into the Depths of it, and by Discerning the spiritual Meaning, those deep things of God which lie covered under the Letter and History. It is a Rule that holds good concerning the Divine as well as Humane Laws▪ 
* Qui haeret in literâ, haeret in cortice.  He that confines himself to the Letter, sticks in the mere Bark and Outside, and can go no further: he reacheth not to the inward Sense, Pith and Mind of those Laws. We must needs fall short of the Truth of Scripture, that sacred Law given us by God, unless we endeavour to acquaint ourselves with both these, not only the historical, but the more sublime and mystical Sense of it. Both these jointly make up Divine Truth. Therefore that is a good Rule in interpreting Scripture, which was practised by Athanasius, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We (saith he) do not take away the Literal Sense to bring in the Spiritual one, but we maintain the more powerful Meaning of the Spirit by keeping up the literal Sense. These two must go together. If we lay aside the former, the Scripture is no longer Scripture, i. e. a written Law, made up of Letters: and if we lay aside the latter, we do Despite to the Spirit of Grace, who hath lodged a farther Meaning in the Holy Scriptures, (which were inspired by him) than that which is contained in the Letter. Wherefore to understand the Scriptures as we should do, we must be careful to find out the secondary or mystical Interpretation of the Words, as well as the primary or literal.  
And that we may know when the Sense is of the former, and not of the latter sort, it will be needful to observe these following Rules. The first is given us by 
* Comment. in D●calog.  R. Ben-Ezra, thus; If any Precept in Scripture be not consonant to Reason, it must not be taken in the simple or literal Sense, as that Place, Circumcise the Foreskin of your Hearts, Deut. 10. 16. We cannot suppose this to be understood literally, because (saith he) it is so unreasonable and absurd a thing; yea indeed it is utterly impossible, for there is no such thing as the Praeputium of the Heart. In these and the like Places a spiritual Sense must be searched for, otherwise we must assert that the Scripture enjoins us the doing of those things which cannot be done. Besides, if we understand it literally, i. e. of the circumcising or paring off any Part of the Heart, this is an inhuman and bloody thing: to do this is to be cruel to ourselves; yea, 'tis Self-murder: Therefore according to a second Rule, which I am to propound, this cannot be the Sense of the Place, and consequently the literal Meaning is not intended here. The Rule is this, That all Precepts or Prohibitions, which, as to their Sound, are wholly repugnant to the Moral Law, and the express Command of God there, contain in them some mystical or spiritual Sense. By this you may judge of the Meaning of those Places of Scripture, Prov. 23. 2. Put a Knife to thy Throat, if thou be a Man given to Appetite: And that of our Saviour▪ Matth. 5. 29, 30. If the right Eye offend thee, pluck it out: and if the right Hand offend thee, cut it off. To which I may add, Prov. 25. 21. Rom. 12. 20. Heap up Coals on your Enemy's Heads. When a Person is thus commanded in Scripture, to do some thing contrary to the express Law of God, we may conclude that Command is to be understood in a secondary or mystical Sense, and not according to the Letter. So when God bids Hosea take a Wife of Whoredoms, and Children of Whoredoms, ch. 1. 2. And when it is added that he went and took such an one, ver. 3. we must look upon it as a Parable, a mystical Saying. It was a Vision, saith St. 
* Prooem. in Host  jerom. So saith jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast; and 
† Mor. Nev. l. 2. c. 46.  Maimonides agrees with him. It is certain that this was done only in Show and Representation, but not actually and really, because it was contrary to that direct Prohibition in the Law, Leu. 21. 7. Thou shalt not take a Wife that is a Whore. The Meaning then of the foregoing Words is this, that seeing this People brag that they are my People, my Spouse, my Children; go and represent the true State they are in by a Parable, and let them know that they are as much my Wife and my Children, and no more, than if you should take a professed Whore with her spurious Brats, and say, that she is your lawful Wife, and they are your lawful Children, which is absolutely false. This I conceive is the plain Meaning of the Words. But that Command of God to Abraham, Gen. 22. 2. Take thy Son, the only Son Isaac, and offer him for a Burnt-offering, is of another kind; for that this is not to be understood mystically but literally, we can prove from the History itself, which is so related, that we may plainly see it was a Matter of Fact: and it is inserted among other Historical Passages concerning that Patriarch; whereas the Prophetical Books, such as that of Hosea, contain in them Visions and Representations of things spoken of as really done, although they are not. Besides, we are certain that Abraham's offering his Son Isaac, i. e. his binding him, and laying him upon the Altar, and undertaking to kill him, were real things, and actually performed, because we are ●old by the infallible Penmen of the New Testament, that they were so; for they allege this Matter of Fact, to prove and demonstrate the Doctrine which they deliver, Heb. 11. 17. jam. 2. 21. Wherefore we are sure it was a Reality, and consequently the Words in Genesis are to be understood in a plain Literal Sense. A third Rule, and the most useful, is this; See what Texts of Scripture are already interpreted in a Mystical Sense by the Evangelists and Apostles, and observe the Nature, Occasion and Circumstances of those Places, and thereby you will be able to Discern what other Places of Scripture are to be understood in the same manner: And accordingly you must interpret them not after the Bare Letter or History, but in a Spiritual Sense. And so much for the first thing which is to be taken notice of, in order to our having a right Understanding of the Style of Scripture, viz. that there are many Places in it that have a Double Sense.   

CHAP. II.  
The Scripture in many Places speaks not accurately, but according to the Vulgar Opinion▪ and Apprehensions of Men. Several Instances of this in the Old and New Testament: The Phrases, Expressions and Modes of Speaking used by the Inspired Writers, are the same with those that we find in the best Classic Authors. This largely proved from the Phraseology of the Old and New Testament. More particularly the Similitudes and Comparisons in both are alike. The Correspondence of Scripture-Phrase with the profane Style showed by Grotius, Pricaeus, Gataker, etc. There are in the Bible the same moral Notions, and expressed in the very same Style, that there are in Pagan Writers. In both Man's Life is a Way, a Pilgrimage, a Warfare. Other Ethick Notions, viz. that Good and Virtuous Men are Free; and that all Vicious Persons are Slaves: that Good Men are Wife, and all others are Fools; (to which latter the Author reduceth John 20. 10. though generally interpreted otherwise, and comments upon it:) that Good Men are the Friends of God; that Vicious Men are Dead; that Death is a Sleep. All which occur in the Sacred Writings as well as in Pagan Moralists.  
THE Second Proposition is this, that the Style of the Holy Scripture hath many things in it which are according to the usual Strain of other Writers and Authors. Take this in these Particulars;  
●. The Scripture in many Places speaks not accurately, but according to the vulgar Opinion and Apprehensions of Men. Thus it is a common Observation, (but I will not balk it here) that in the Mosaic History of the Creation of the World it is said, God made two great Lights, Gen. 1. 16. and the Moon is reckoned as one of them; whereas it is not to be doubted that the Sun, but especially the Moon, is but a little Light in comparison of some of the Fixed Stars. But this we may truly say, with an ancient Christian Writer, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philopon. in Hexaem.  It was not Moses' Purpose to act the Philosopher or Astronomer in the Book of Genesis. But because the Sun is nearer to us than those Fixed Lights are, and the Moon is much nearer than the Sun, therefore though they be less in themselves than those Remote Stars, yet they seem to our Sight to be the Biggest Lights that God hath set up in the Heavens: Wherefore they are emphatically, and by way of Eminency, called in the Hebrew, the Great Lights, though the least of the Stars be a greater Light than the Sun or Moon. So though it is said of the Almighty Creator and Preserver of the World, that he hangeth the Earth upon nothing, Job 26. 7. which is exactly and philosophically true; yet in another Place of this Book we read of the Pillars of the Earth, Job 9 6. which is a manner of Speech adapted to the Capacity of the Vulgar, who cannot conceive how so great and massy a Body as this Ball of Earth can hang hover in the Air, and be upheld without some Props. And several other such Expressions there are in Scripture which are spoken according to the popular Apprehensions, and the seeming Appearance of things, not the Exactness of the things themselves. Therefore their Attempts have been to little purpose, who would force a Philosophy out of the Bible, as if they had a mind to present us with a Body of Philosophy jure divino. As some Grammarians and Critics pretend to find all Arts and Sciences whatsoever in Homer's Poems, so these fond Men undertake to discover a Complete System of Natural Philosophy in the Sacred Writings. But this is a very vain Enterprise, because, though there is a great deal of excellent Philosophy in several Places of Holy Scripture, yet these Writings were never intended mainly for this End, but for one far higher and nobler. Hence it is that you hear the Holy Writers speaking sometimes not according to the very Nature of the things, but according to their Appearance, and the Opinion Men have of them. Yea, they oftentimes express themselves according to the received Opinions, although they be erroneous and false, as in the Instance before mentioned. Theodoret gives us the Reason of it in his first Interrogatory upon Genesis: he begins his Work with This, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Holy Script 〈◊〉 wont to suit its 〈◊〉 of Teaching to the 〈◊〉 of the Learne● 〈◊〉 d in another Place, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Qu●st 52. in Genef.  〈◊〉 like purpose, 〈◊〉 Scripture (saith he) 〈◊〉 as is most 〈◊〉 and fit for Men. The 〈◊〉 Ghost in it is pleased to condescend to their Capacities, and to adapt himself to their shallow Apprehensions. Thus frequently in the Scripture corporeal Properties are attributed to God: you read of his Face and Backparts, Exod. 33. 23. and that these latter were seen by Moses, which is spoken by way of Anthropopathy, as Divines commonly speak, i. e. after the manner of Men, in compliance with their weak Capacities. As when a Man's Face and Foreparts are seen, there is a considerable Discovery and Knowledge of his Person; but when he is seen behind only, it is imperfectly: so was it when God appeared to Moses, he showed himself to him not fully, but in part; as when a Man turns away his Face from another, and lets him see only his Backparts. And so in other Places of Scripture we read of God's Eyes, Ears, Hands, Feet, and other bodily Parts and Members; but we must not forget here the old Rule of Cyril of Alexandria, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ In John. 10. 34.  When Members and Parts are attributed to God, it is said after the manner of Men, but it is to be understood in a Sense suitable to the Divine Nature. And 
† Dialog. 1. de Trinit.  Athanasius hath the like Words on this Occasion. But the not attending to this gave Rise to the Sect of the Anthropomorphites, who pervesly understanding those Texts which ascribe these Parts to God, held him to be Corporeal, and of Humane Shape: T●ey 〈◊〉 not knowing, not rightly interpreting the 〈◊〉 which sometimes speak after the Guise of 〈◊〉 in condescension to 〈◊〉 shallow Understand●●● Thus Gen. 6. 6. It 〈…〉 Lord that he 〈◊〉 Man; and 1 Sam 〈◊〉 The Lord repented 〈◊〉 he made Saul King; are 〈◊〉, that is, as spoken in a vulgar manner, and after the way of Mortals, who when they repent, abandon their former Doings. So when God is said to repent, that which we are to understand by it is this, that he acts in a contrary manner to what he did before. As in the forementioned Places, it repented the Lord that he made Man, the meaning is, that he purposed to destroy Mankind, viz. with a Deluge; for so you find it explained in the next Verse, the Lord said, I will destroy Man whom I have created. And when 'tis said, The Lord repented that be made Saul King; the meaning is, that he ●●●●osed to depose him, and set up another, as you read he gave Order in the Words immediately following in the next Chapter. Therefore Theodoret saith well, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quaest 50. in Gen.  God's Repenting is no other than the changing of his Dispensation. And thus we are to interpret this Expression wherever it occurs in Holy Writ, (for in many other Places God is said to repent of what he did) as knowing that the Phrase of this Sacred Book is oftentimes fitted to the Apprehensions and Language of Men, and not the absolute Reality of the thing. That of St. Chrysostom is certainly true, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God accommodates himself sometimes to humane Infirmity when he speaks in Scripture. So those Words are to be understood in Gen. 11. 5. The Lord came down to see the City: And again, ver. 7. Let us go down: which are spoken in a vulgar manner, and with respect to the shallow Conceptions of Mankind. And the same Expression is used in Gen. 18. 20, 21. Exod. 3. 7, 8. Psal. 144. 5. Isa. 64. 1. God is here said to come down, which signifies God's taking more than ordinary Notice of the Actions of Men, and his designing to do some extraordinary thing. The Scripture calls the Angels that appeared to Abraham Men, because they seem'd to be such. The Man Gabriel you read of in Dan. 9 21 because he appeared in the Shape of Man. And so in the New Testament the Angles at our Saviour's Sepulchre are styled young Men, because as to outward Appearance they were such. Notwithstanding what some Commentators have said upon 1 Sam. 28. 15. Samuel said to Saul; and again, ver. 16. Then said Samuel; I am fully persuaded that those Words are spoken according to the Appearance, not the real Truth of the thing. The Name of Samuel is given to the Devil or Spectre that appeared, but we are not to think that Samuel himself in Body and Soul appeared; for 'tis ridiculous as well as impious to imagine that the departed Saints are at the Command and Disposal of a Necromantic Witch, a Cursed Sorceress, a Hellish Hag, as if she could fetch them down from the Celestial Regions when she pleaseth. But this she did, she raised a Spectre, or substituted some Person who resembled Samuel, whom she represented to Saul's Sight, as if he were the Prophet Samuel indeed. Thence we read in this Sacred History, that Samuel said to Saul, because he who appeared in Samuel's Likeness was thought to be Samuel, and thought to speak to Saul. Thus a Learned Father long since expounded this Passage of Scripture, and gives us this as the Reason of it; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyss. Epist. de Pythoni 〈…〉.  We find this (saith he) to be the Custom of Scripture, that oftentimes it relates that which is only in appearance instead of what is true and real. And with him agrees 
† Theodoret. in loc.  another of the learned Ancients; The Sacred History (saith he) calls the Apparition Samuel, because Saul believed it to be the real Samuel; for the Scripture speaks frequently according to other men's Belief and Notions. So it usually calls those Gods that are not really such; but because the false and feigned Deities of the Heathens were reputed True Gods by them, therefore the Name of Gods is given them often in the Old Testament, and sometimes in the New.  
But to confine myself to this latter, here we find several things delivered not according to the Reality of the Matter spoken of, but according to the Sense and Notion of others: So I understand our Saviour's Words, Matth. 12. 5. The Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, i. e. by killing of Beasts, and doing other laborious Work, they, according to you, profane that Holiday, according to the Notion which you Pharisees have of keeping and breaking the Sabbath, and according to which you condemn me and my Disciples, as Profaners of that Day. The Phrase used by St. Mark, ch. 1. 32. is according to a very vulgar Conceit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sun did dip: And the same Expression is in Luke 4. 40. for the Sun seems to dive or be drowned in the Sea when it goes down. This is the Apprehension of those that inhabit near the Sea. In such a Sense as this must the Apostle be understood when he saith, It pleased God by the Foolishness of Preaching to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 21. It is called Foolishness, not as if it were really such, but because it was commonly reputed so by those that were not competent Judges, because (as Theodoret excellently saith) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In loc.  it was by Fools called Foolishness. Especially it was denominated so by those who thought themselves great Masters of Wisdom: wherefore the Apostle explains himself afterwards, and saith, this Preaching was to the Greeks Foolishness, ver. 23. Nay, you read of the Foolishness of God, ver. 25. which can be meant in no other Sense than this, that this Excellent Dispensation of preaching the Gospel, which was of God's own Appointment, was reckoned as a weak and foolish Institution by those doughty Boasters and Pretenders to Wisdom. To them and such as they were it seemed to be Foolishness, but really it was no such thing, for the Apostle calls it the Wisdom of God, ver. 24. Thus the Scripture speaks sometimes according to the Opinion of others, though it be not true. So I apprehend those Expressions of the Apostle are to be understood, 2 Cor. 5. 13. Whether we be besides ourselves;— or whether we be sober: i. e. we seem to our Enemies to be besides ourselves, to be distracted when we commend ourselves; and then only they think us sober when we speak submissively and in a selfdenying Style. In the same Sense we are to take Chap. 11. 1, 16, 17. where he calls his necessary apologizing for himself Folly and speaking foolishly, not that 'twas so in itself, but because it was accounted so by some. In another Place he calls Epimenides the Cretian Poet 
* Tit. 1. 12.  a Prophet, because he was thought to be such an one by his Countrymen, not that he deserved that Name. Here likewise you will see that things are sometimes expressed in a popular way, and according to the vulgar Sense and Opinion; as when it is said, the Stars of Heaven fell unto the Earth, Rev. 6. 13. which cannot be really and philosophically true; for these Luminaries, by reason of their vast Magnitude, cannot fall upon the Earth; there is no room for them in so small a Compass. But perhaps by the falling of these heavenly Lights from their Stations, is meant some Great and Notable Defection in the World, a Mighty Confusion and Disorder; so that the Fabric of the Universe was as 'twere broken up and dissolved: Or by Stars here are meant Great Men and Magistrates, and their falling to the Earth signifies their being displaced from their high Station; and so 'tis a Metaphor, and belongs to another Place. And many other Passages there are which I will not now particularly enumerate. And indeed some of these are so common and obvious, that I should have forborn the mentioning of them, but that it was somewhat requisite to touch upon them, when I am representing to you the different and various Guises of the Scriptural Style. It is common also in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, to speak with reference to humane Properties and bodily Actions, even when God himself, and the most Divine things are treated of. So we often read of 
* Luke 22. 69. Col. 3. 1. Heb. 1. 3. & 8. 1.  Christ's sitting at the right Hand of God; whereas 'tis acknowledged, that a right Hand cannot properly be attributed to God; nor can our Saviour, in strictness of Speech, be said to sit at God's right Hand; for than he could not be said to stand there, Acts. 7. 56. Wherefore it is evident that these Expressions are used only in compliance with the common Language of Men, who generally prefer the right Hand before the left; and to sit or stand at one's Right Hand, denotes great Advancement and Honour. So that when those Modes of Speaking are applied to our Blessed Lord, the plain Meaning is, that after all his Labours and Sufferings, he is highly dignified by God, he is exalted to unspeakable Honour, he is advanced to such a Glorious State wherein he is invested with absolute Power and Sovereignty, and is able to protect, defend and reward his Church, and to confound their most powerful and malicious Adversaries: This is to sit at the right Hand of God. So he is said to be in the Bosom of the Father, John 1. 18. which bears the same Signification with Matth. 3. 17. This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; for whom we Love, we familiarly embrace and take into our Bosoms. So in the Gospel we find our Saviour setting forth many Divine and Spiritual things by those that are Humane and Carnal, herein comporting with our Infirmities, and delivering those Sacred things in such Language and Expression as are adequate to our imperfect Ideas of those things. It is a known Maxim among the Jews, and a very true one, The Law speaks in the Language of the Sons of the Men; that is, the Words of Scripture are accommodated to the Vulgar Speech, and in that to the meanest Apprehensions. And this holds good not only of the Old but New Testament. Wherefore it was unreasonably and maliciously 
* Origen. cont. Cels. l. 6. & Philocal. l. 1, & 4.  objected by Celsus against the Scriptures, that they were not politely and accurately writ. Origen in answer to this tells him, that this was purposely and designedly done, namely, that all Persons might profit by the Holy Writings, that the Vulgar and Illiterate, as well as the Learned, might be edified by them: We have (saith he, using the Apostle's Words) this Treasure in Earthen Vessels, that the Excellency of the Power may be of God, and not of Men.  
2. It may further be observed, that the Holy Scripture resembles the Phrases in Other Writers. If any Critic should dare to find fault with the Holy Style, it were easy to defend it by maintaining and proving that it speaks as the Best Authors and Writers do: the Phraseology in them is alike in sundry Places. Many Expressions of Heathens fall in exactly with the Terms of Scripture. To be at the Feet of one, in the Sacred Style signifies to follow, to be his Servant, 1 Sam. 25. 27. 2 Sam. 15. 16. 1 Kings 20. 10. I called him to my Feet, Deut. 33. 3. i e. I called him to follow me, to be my Servant: and in several other Places the Scripture speaks after this manner. The very same way of Speaking is not unusual among profane Authors: To stand at their Feet, was among the Romans, applied to Servants, in respect of their Masters, for they waited on them at Table, or as they lay on their Beds with their Feet stretched out: Whence that of Seneca, 
* De Benefic. l. 3.  Servus qui coenanti ad pedes steterat, etc. or this was said because they stood behind them, at their Heels. So in 
† In Galb●,  Suetonius, Ad pedes stantes, are Servants that attend on their Masters: And ad pedes, without any Addition, hath the like Signification in Martial. This is very frequent; and 
‖ In Cicerone, Martial. & aliis.  a● pedibus, is used in the same Sense. Thus the Holy and Profane Style agree; which I will next make good from those Texts where there is mention of Light as it signifies joy or Gladness; as in Psal. 97. 11. Light is sown for the Righteous; which is thus explained in the next Clause, and Gladness for the Upright in Heart. Esth. 8. 15. we read thus, The City of Shushan rejoiced: but junius and Tremellius very rightly, according to the Original, render it lucebat, it shined, or was enlightened: And the Words there immediately following are a Comment upon it; the jews had Light, and Gladness, and joy.. In conformity to this observe, that in Isa. 50. 10. the Forlorn and Distressed Person, who is void of all joy and Mirth, is said to walk in Darkness, and to have no Light. We often read of 
* Job 29. 24. Psal. 4. 6. & 44. 3. & 89. 15. & 90. 8. Prov. 16. 15.  the Light of the Countenance, which is no other than the Pleasant ●ire and Joyful Aspect of it, the same with a Cheerful Countenance, Prov. 15. 13. 
† Psal. 31. 16. & 67. 1. & 119. 135. Dan. 9 17.  The shining of the Face, which is often mentioned in the Sacred Writings, is of the same import, and is a farther Proof that Light and joy are synonymous. In Psal. 12. 〈◊〉 and Isa. 58. 8. Light is no other than joy.. So the Candla, or Lamp of the Wicked, Job 21. 17. is their joy and Prosperity; and the Phrase is again used in the same sense, ch. 2●: v. ●. And Prov. 21. 4. is pertinent here, if we translate it according to the 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Septnagint and the 
* Lucerna impiorum peccatum.  Vulgar Latin, The Light of the wicked is Sin; i. e. their rejoicing is Sin or Vanity, as that word sometimes signifies. And so this Text is of the same import with Prov. 13. 9 The Lamp of the Wicked shall be put out. I might take notice, that the Voice of Mirth, and the Voice of Gladness, and the Light of the Candle, are joined together, jer. 25. 10. And I might remind those that are critical, that the Hebrew word Samach is rendered laetus, bilaris suit, and also luxit, ●laruit, as in Prov. 13. 9 The Light of the Righteous rejoiceth; or, as that word will bear it, shineth. To be merry and to shine are expressed by that same Verb. So the Feast of Dedicaton, instituted by judas Maccabeus, was called the 
† Joseph. Antiq.  Feast of Lights, because a great Happiness and joy began then to shine as a Light, contrary to their Hopes. With the Holy Tongue and Stile agrees that of the Greek and Romans: thus among the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hilaris, is said by the Etymologists to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 luceo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies joy in the Prince of Poets,— 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he brought joy to his Companions: and thus it signifies in 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  another place in the same Poet. So 
‖ Odyss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an endearing Compellation, and is the same with my sweet Delight, my dear joy: And it must be confessed by those that have looked with any care into other Greek Authors, that this word is sometimes taken in that sense, and accordingly 'tis expounded 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesych.  so by the Learned Glossaries. And the Latins teach us to say in their kind and blandishing Salutation, Lux mea, as much as to say, my joy and Delight. Thus in the three Learned Language Light signifies joy, as Darkness denotes Calamity and Sorrow. And why may not our own Language be added to the rest, and be thought to resemble them in this Particular? which may be seen in the ancient English Metre of the first Verse of the 110th Psalm, In God the Lord be glad and light. And who knows not that lightsome and joyful are of the same Signification in our vulgar Speech at this day? And that it may appear that Grammar and Criticism are no Enemies to Philosophy, it is probable that Men have chosen to express and denote things that are joyful and pleasant by the Name of Light, because this of all things in the World is the most Cheering and Comfortable, according to the Suffrage of the Royal Preacher, and indeed of all Mankind, Truly the Light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the Eyes to behold the Sun. And again, Prov. 15. 30. The Light of the Eyes rejoiceth the Heart. It is both pleasant in itself, and renders all other things so too. It is an old Rabinnical Proverb, When the Sun ariseth, the sick ariseth; he finds himself better in the Day than in the Night: and ordinary Experience vouches this for Truth. Wherefore when the Sun is gone, Men labour to supply its Gladsome Presence by something that resembleth it. Here I might embellish this Notion by observing to you, that it was anciently the Usage in many Countries to testify their public Rejojoing by Illuminations. It is apparent from many Instances, that they were wont to set up Lights in their Windows and at their Gates for this very purpose. The Romans did this on their high Days, as 
* Sa●. 12.  juvenal testifies, 
Cuncta nitent, longos erexit janua ramos,  
Et matutinis operatur festa lucernis.  The Egyptians did the like on their Festivals, saith 
† Lib. 2.  Herodotus. And that the Jews used it on their Public Solemnities, we learn from Persius, who chastises the Romans for their Levity and Folly in imitating the Customs of that People, 
— At cum  
Herodis venere dies, unctâque fenestrâ  
Disposit●● pinguem nebulam vomuere lucernae.  When Antiochus was honourably received by the Jews, with a pretence of Mirth at least, 'tis said he was brought in with Torchlight and with great Shouting into the City, 2 Mac. 4. 22. This was the Practice at great Triumphs and public Reception of Princes, not only among the Jews but Christians, as we are acquainted by 
‖ Lib. 4. de Vitâ Constantini.  Eusebius. And Gregory Nazianzen tells us that Athanasius was received into the City with the like Pomp. And hither we may refer the Nuptial Torches which were wont to be carried at Marriages, as Tokens of Rejoi●●ng. Thus Illuminations of old were Expressions of joy, as they are even at this day. On the contrary, as Suidas observes, the Latin lugeo is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tenebr●, because they lighted up no Candles, but sat in the dark when they mourned. Silicernium the Funeral mournful Banquet is as much as S●luc●rnium, i. e. sine lucernâ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for (as you find it quoted by 
* Etymolog. Ling. Lat.  Vossius) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sum is, Darkness is grievous and doleful, productive of Sorrow and Sadness: but wherever the Light displays its Beauty, it gilds all things with Joy and Gladness; and thence we see that not only in the Style of Sacred Scripture, but among Profane Writers, Light and joy are expressive of one another.  
This Agreement and Concurrence of both in their Style may be observed in this, That the Outward and Inward Man, which St. Paul mentions, are no strange Language among some of the Classic Authors, for you read of Salus interioris hominis in one of 
† Asin. Act. 3. Scen. 3.  Plautus' Comedies; where interior homo is the Soul or Life, the better part of Man, in which sense the Apostle useth it. The very Phrase of a perfect Man in Ep●. 4. 13. is made use of by the great Moral Philosopher 
‖ Cap. 7●.  Epictetus, who opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect Man, i. e. a Man of ripe Years to a Youth, a Man of Growth and Maturity in Morals to one that is but a Novice or Beginner in them. Only whereas the Philosopher applies it to Morality, St. Paul doth it to Christianity. The same Apostle calls the Body a Vessel, 1 Thess. 4. 4. Let every one know how to possess his Vessel (i. e. his Body) in Sanctification and Honour. And so it is called by the great Roman Philosopher and Orator: 
* Corpus est quasi vas animi, aut aliquod receptaculum. Cic. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.  The Body, saith he, is as 'twere the Vessel of the Soul, or some such Receptacle of that noble part of Man. And Antoninus, in a very disparaging manner, styles it 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the worse sort of Vessel; which is an Expression not unlike to that of another Apostle, who calls a Woman 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 3. 7.  the weaker Vessel or Instrument, (for the word signifies both) an Utensil very infirm and frail in comparison of the other Sex, which is generally strong and robust. St. 
* 2 Cor. 5. 1, 4.  Paul calls his Body a Tabernacle, and so doth St. 
† 2 Pet. 1. 13, 14.  Peter style his: and when St. john applies the word 
‖ Joh. 1. 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our Saviour, telling us that he came and pitched his Tent with us for a time; the meaning is, that he assumed a Body, and dwelled here on Earth in it: which is the very Language of the Ancient Grecians, who called the Body of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Tent, a Tabernacle. Yea, the whole Man is expressed and described by St. Paul in a Tripartite Division after the same manner that he is by the Gentile Philosophers. This Apostle represents him as consisting of three main Parts, Spirit, Soul and Body, 1 Thess. 5. 23. which very Distribution is to be found in Antoninus, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lib. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in another place he divides Man after the same way, but in words that approach nearer to those of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and explains it thus, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to the Body belong the External Senses, to the Soul the Affections and Passions, to the Mind or Spirit the Judgement, and refined Thoughts and Reason. And in other Pagan Writings, especially those of Plato and his Followers, the same Division of Man is observed, and is exactly that of St. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is All that a Man is. And as this and other inspired Writers frequently use the word Flesh to signify the depraved Nature of Man, so it hath the same Interpretation in the Incomparable Antoninus, where you will find that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the corrupt part of Man, the Carnal and Sensual Inclinations, that part of the Soul which struggles with Reason, and on all occasions makes head against it. I could here in several Particulars show that Porphyrius comes very near to the Holy Style in many words which he uses. And it might be cleared by several Quotations out of Hierocles, that he imitates the Phraseology of the Scripture, especially of the New Testament.  
Are not the Similitudes, especially those that are plain and homely, which we meet with in the Bible, found in the best Ancient Writers? The crackling of Thorns under a Pot is made use of by 
* Eccles. 7. 6.  Solomon to set forth a Short and Fading Pleasure, (though it be accompanied with some Noise and Stir). And the very same is used by Virgil, 
— Magno veluti cum flamina sonore  
Virgea suggeritur costis undantis aheni.  Homer, the great Soul of Poetry, tells us in Commendation of Nestor's Speech, that it was 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iliad. ●▪  sweeter than Honey: by which plain wording he sets forth that Old Counsellor's Fluent and Elegant Language, his Excellent and Charming Art of delivering his Advice and Counsel. Which is the very Similitude that the Psalmist, the most Divine Poet, makes use of to express the Ravishing Sweetness of God's Law: It is, saith he, sweeter than Honey, and the Honeycomb, Psal. 19 10. and the same he repeats in Psal. 119. 103. His Royal Son makes use of the same homely Comparison, Pleasant Words (saith he) are as a Honeycomb, Prov. 16. 24. And in his Admirable and Transcendent Poem he disdains not this familiar Style, where he brings in the Sacred Bridegroom speaking thus to his Spouse, Thy Lips drop as an Honeycomb, Cant. 4. 11. And in this Book of the Canticles it might be particularly made good that the Description of the Beauty of the Bride, and the rest of the Amorous Passages and Expressions to set forth the Soft Passion, are such as you find in Authors that treat of that Subject, as Homer, Musaeus, Pindar, Theocritus, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Ausonius, Claudian, and others that have spoken of Love and Beauty. That plain and Country Simile used by our Blessed Master, 
* Ma●. 23. 37.  As a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings, is expressly in 
† Hercul. Fur.  Euripides, one of the delicatest Poets that Greece afforded, and who gave the liveliest Characters of Things: and in this very manner of speaking he is followed by Seneca the Tragedian. Certainly this was a very apposite Similitude, the Hen being, as the Arabians style her, Mater Congregationis, the kind Mother that gathers her young ones together, that by her loving Voice expresses her Affection and Care to her tender Brood, and invites them to a safe Refuge and Shelter in time of Danger. In brief, any Man that is conversant in Homer, Virgil, and other Ancient Authors of greatest Note and Repute, may observe that the Penmen of the Bible use the same Similitudes which those Writers frequently do; they have the same plain, trite and vulgar Comparisons which are in them.  
As for the other Passages, Phrases and Modes of speaking in the Holy Scripture, which resemble those that we find in other Authors, they are innumerable. Grotius, that Unparallelled Critic, in his Annotations on the Bible, shows everywhere almost the Correspondence of Scripture-Phrase with the Profane Style; he hath by a vast Collection let us see how the Sacred Dialect agrees with the Phrase of the Best Writers. Out of all sorts of Authors whatsoever he proves the Scripture-Stile to be Proper and Elegant, which no Man before him hath done so well and so largely. He compares all along as he goeth, the Holy Style with that of Herodotus, Plato, Demosihenes, Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates, Galen, and others who are the best and most elegant Hellenists. ●ea, he shows that the Wittiest Writers among the Greeks, as Sophocles, Aristophanes, Euripides, Lucian, have the very same Phrases and Expressions which we read in the Bible, and they have many more which very much resemble them. He shows the like Correspondence between the Scriptures and those La●in Writers who are the best Masters of that Language, and in several Instances demonstrates that the Sacred Writers speak as the best Authors in that Tongue do. All this he hath most learnedly performed, and upon this account alone (if there were no other) he is worth the perusal of all Ingenious Men, especially those who are more devoted to Polite and Critical Learning. This very same Task is excellently performed by a 
* Johan. Pricaeus.  Learned Foreign Critic, who hath abundantly made it good in his Commentaries on the Psalms and most of the New Testament, that the Style of Scripture is conformable to that of the best Writers, whether Jews or Heathens, whether Philosophers, Poets or Historians He hath elaborately showed that an innumerable company of Greek and Latin Authors, the most Elegant and Refined of both, have expressed themselves as the Holy Writers do: In a word, that Athens and Rome spoke as they do. If he had carried this on, and accomplished the like on the other parts of the Bible, it would have been an Unvaluable Work, and even beyond what the Belgic Annotator hath done. Something of this Nature is performed by 
† Mr. Bogan in his Homerus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. Gataker in Antonin. Dr. Duport Gnomolog. Homeric.  other Learned Men of our own, who insisting upon some Particular Authors among the Pagans, endeavour to evince that the Scriptures are in great measure agreeable to the Style and Phrase of those Writers. And the same might be undertaken as to other Heathen Writers, with regard both to the Old and New Testament. Nothing is more evident than this, that their Modes of Speech are the same, and that they agree in their Style, and consequently that the Style of Scripture is vouched by the best Classic Authors, and (as a Consequent of that) that he who carps at the Phrase and Dialect of the Scripture, and finds fault with the Style of the Bible, shows that he hath not conversed with the best Human Authors.  
But to prosecute and illustrate this Theme yet further, I will be more particular. I will show first that there are in the Bible the same moral Notions, and expressed in the very same Style, that there are in Pagan Writers. Secondly, I will show that there are the same Grammatical and Rhetorical Figures in the Holy Book that we meet with frequently in those Authors. First, I will observe to you, that the Phrases and Terms whereby some of the choicest Notions in Ethics are set forth to us, are alike in Divine and Humane Authors: As to begin with that common Expression, to wit, of calling our Course or State, or manner of Life in this World, a Way. The Hebrew Word Derek, Via, Semita, in almost innumerable Places in the Old Testament, signifies our manner of Life: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Testament (which answers to it) is commonly used in the same Sense. In this latter Part of the Bible the Life of Man is particularly expressed and represented as a double Way; for our Saviour hath told us, that there is 
* Matth. 7. 14.  a Narrow and a Broad Way. This is even the manner of speaking among the best Moralists: they not only call the Life, Actions, and Conversation of Men a Way, (which is usual in all Languages) but they designedly compare them to a Way, to a Path, and to walking in it. As in Walking, saith Epictetus, you take heed that you strike not your Foot against a Stone or a Nail, and wrench your Foot; so in leading your Life you are careful that you hurt not yourselves, or do any thing that may offend and be prejudicial to yourselves or others. And other Masters of Ethics are wont to pursue this Comparison. Yea moreover, they make use of the same manner of Speech which our Saviour doth, that is, they divide this Way into a Narrow and a Broad one. Thus in Cebes' Table the Way to true Learning (which is the same with Virtue and Goodness, and the Moralist means no other thing by it) is represented by him to be narrow and unfrequented. He calls it a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  little Gate; and he describes the Passage before it as very uncommon; he tells us, that very few go into it; and that it appears to be a difficult, rough and craggy Path. This is also well deciphered by Maximus Tyrius, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Dissertat. 23.  Imagine (saith he) this Life to be a Way, a Way full of Passengers, some of which are running, some are thrusting one another on; some labour, others rest; some lie down, others turn out of the way and wander, for there are many Byways and false Paths, (these are all but different Paths of the same Broad Way.) But there is 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  one Narrow Way, steep and rugged, and trod by very few, and this leads directly to the very End of the Journey: and this Journey some diligent and laborious Souls are endeavouring to perform with much Work and Difficulty, with great Pains and Sweat. Thus that Admirable Platonist. And I could show you how other Philosophers are delighted with this way of Expression and Similitude used by our Lord; but I will allege no others at present. It is enough to have showed that the Style of the Gentile Philosophers is not unlike that of our Blessed Jesus, our Infallible Teacher and Prophet, who thought it a fit way of setting forth the two kinds of Life which Men lead, and the different Places and Ends they tend to, by naming one of them the wide and broad Way; and the other, the narrow and straight one.  
And if the Life of Man be a Way, than he is a Traveller; which invites me to speak of another Moral Notion, viz. that we are all Travellers and Pilgrims in this World: we are upon our journey, and must behave ourselves as those that are so. Epictetus and Arrianus use this Metaphor, and apply it handsomely to the Life of Man, especially to the Life of a Good Man, which is a Journey from Earth to Heaven. We are told that Anaxagoras pointed with his Finger to Heaven, and cried out, 
* Laert. in Anaxag.  That is my Country. And Socrates professed himself to be a 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stob.  Citizen of the City above: and every Man is to reckon himself to be such, he said. Tully's Words are most admirable, 
‖ Ex hac vita itâ discedo tanquam ex hospitio, non tanquam ex domo: commorandi enim diversorium natura nobis, non habitandi dedit. Cic. de Senect.  I go out of this World as out of an Inn, not a Mansion-house; for Nature hath not given us here a Place of long Continuance, but of a short Diversion and transitory Entertainment. And he had arrived to this Notion, and expressed it most bravely when he said, 
* Erigamus in Coelum oculos tanquam in Patriam, in quam nobis aliquando redeundum est.  Let us lift up our Eyes to Heaven as to our Country, to which we must think of returning some time or other. And such kind of Language you meet with in Antoninus and other select Moralists. I will conclude with the Words of Seneca, 
† Peregrinatio est vita; multùm cum deambulaveris, domum redeundum est. De Remed. Fort.  Our Life is a Pilgrimage, (saith he;) when we have travelled and walked about a considerable time, we must return home. This is the very Language and Notion of the Sacred Writers, and of the Holy Men whose Lives they record. The Old Patriarches owned themselves to be Pilgrims; Gen. 47. 9 The Days of the Years of my Pilgrimage, etc. And that you may not think it is meant only of their travelling from Place to Place in those Days, you will find this was said by some of their Posterity after they were possessed of the Promised Land, and were no longer in the unsettled Condition of their Predecessors. We are Strangers before thee, and Sojourners, as were all our Fathers, saith the Pious King, 1 Chron. 29. 15. And in the next Words he lets us know what he means; Our Days on Earth are as a Shadow, and there is no abiding: so that the whole Race of Mankind are all equally Pilgrims and Sojourners in this World▪ they are 
* Psal. 39 12. Psal. 119. 19  Strangers in the Earth, as the same devout Man often acknowledgeth: and this World is styled by him 
† Psal. 119. 54.  the House of his Pilgrimage. After the same manner St. Peter speaks, calling this Life 
‖ 1 Pet. 1. 17.  the time of our sojourning here: and he exhorts the converted Jews, to whom he writes, to deport themselves as Strangers and Pilgrims, 1 Pet. 2. 11. which I confess may have a more particular Reference to their being expelled out of judea their native Country, and dwelling in a strange Place, (whence he styles them scattered Strangers, in the beginning of the Epistle) but notwithstanding this the Apostle might apply it to them in the more general Notion, and as they (with all other Christians) are Pilgrims travelling to another World. With respect to which the other great Apostle saith, Here we have no continuing City, but we seek one to come, Heb. 13. 14. We have no fixed Habitation; we have no settled Place of Abode; we (with other holy Men before us) must confess we are Pilgrims, Heb. 11. 13. We belong to another Country, we are Citizens of the jerusalem that is above; We look (as all the holy Pilgrims heretofore did) for a City which hath Foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God, Heb. 11. 10. We are passing through this World to that Heavenly Metropolis; we are travelling with our Caravan to that New jerusalem, that Holy Land; and our Thoughts, our Wishes, our Desires, our Conversation, are there already.  
Again, that it may appear that Heathen Writers and the Holy Scripture have the same way of Expression, I will show that they both agree to say, the Life of Man is a Warfare: Thus it is called in the ancient Book of job, ch. 7. 1. for the word Tsaba, though it be rendered by us an appointed time, is as capable (if not more) of being translated a Warfare: And so St. jerom renders it, The Life of Man is a Warfare on Earth. And again, cb. 14. 14. The Days of our Warfare are the Term of Man's Life. Such Holy job found it to be. The War was warm, the Service was hot, the Battle was furious, and he was set in the Front of it. Though this great Heroic Warrior fainted in the Conflict sometimes, yet his Valour was very eminent, and he fought it out resolutely, and won the Day, and was signally rewarded by the great Arbiter of Battle, the Lord of Hosts. It cannot escape our Observation, that several Military Expressions are used by the Holy Ghost in Scripture, to set forth the Duties and Offices of Man's Life, and to let us know that it is a continual Combat and Fight. Yea, Tsaba, militare, is applied to the Ecclesiastic Function and Ministry of the Levites in the Tabernacle: their Service or Waiting is called a Warfare, Numb. 8. 25. and in the Verse before, a warring a Warfare, if we render it exactly according to the Hebrew. Especially this way of Speaking is applicable to the troublesome and afflictive Part of Man's Life, which is rightly called by St. Paul, the Fight of Afflictions, Heb. 10. 32. And with regard to this, without doubt, those comfortable Words were spoken to jerusalem, Her War is accomplished, Isa. 40. 2. But more eminently in the New Testament this Mode of Speech is observable, where Christianity is represented as a Warfare, and the Christian Church as Militant here on Earth. St. Paul is pleased to style our Saviour, 
* Heb. 2. 10.  the Captain of our Salvation; and himself and all his Fellow-Christians 
† 2 Tim. 2. 3.  Soldiers; and those especially who were assistant to him in the sacred Ministry of the Gospel, his 
‖ Phil. 2 25. Philem. 2.  Fellow-soldiers: He exhorts Timothy 
* 1 Tim. 1. 18.  to war the good Warfare; and 
† Chap. 6. 12.  to fight the good Fight of Faith; and that in imitation of himself, who 
‖ 2 Tim. 4. 7.  had fought this good Fight; though these latter Expressions refer more peculiarly to the Olympic Combats, as you shall hear afterwards. You read of the 
‖‖ Rom. 6. 13.  Weapons of Righteousness, (as well as of Unrighteousness) belonging to this Spiritual War. And these Weapons (which are called the whole Armour of God) are particularly enumerated by the Apostle, Eph. 6. 13, 14. I could observe to you in that Exhortation of St. james, 
a Jam. 4. 7.  Submit yourselves to God; resist the Devil, and he will flee from you, that there are three Military Terms: 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be subject to your Commander, observe his Orders, look for the Signal of Battle from him, keep the Station that is set you, be obedient to the Discipline of War, in all things be ruled by your General; for (as St. Paul saith very appositely when he is speaking of the Christian Soldier) 
† 2 Tim. 2. 4.  He that warreth must concern himself in nothing else but the pleasing of him who hath chosen him to be a Soldier. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, withstand, oppose, engage the Enemy; be sure you give him Battle, make a resolute and vigorous Onset, charge through his whole Body, make a Lane through his thickest Troops. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall be put to Flight, he shall certainly be routed and defeated, and never be able to rally again; and so Victory at last crowns the Combat. But St. Paul more briefly tells us what is the Employment of a Christian Soldier, when he saith, 
‖ 2 Tim. 2. 3.  Endure Hardness as a good Soldier of jesus Christ: for in that one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he lets us understand that he is one that is to far hardly, that he is to be enured to Difficulties and Perils, to tedious Marches and continual Watchings, to Hunger and Thirst, and infinite Fatigues, and that he must converse with Dangers and Death: Every Battle of the Warrior is with confused Noise, and Garments rolled in Blood. The Life of a Christian Soldier is painful and laborious, because he is to be exercised in denying himself, in crossing his sensual Appetite, in submitting to the hardest Duties, and undergoing the greatest Sufferings, Temptations and Persecutions: He must be continually sweeting, toiling, striving, fight, grappling with Foes of all kinds, and encountering all sorts of Hardships. Thus a Christian is a Spiritual Soldier; thus Christianity is a Holy War; thus the Life of Man is a Warfare. And this is that which all the Great Masters of Morals inculcate in their Writings. One of the chiefest of them (who calls the Life of Man the Pilgrimage or Sojourning of a Stranger) gives it also the Denomination of a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antonin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Warfare. Arrianus very excellently descants on this Aphorism, that 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 3. cap. 24.  every Man's Life is a kind of Militia; and that we are with all Diligence and Faithfulness to discharge the Office of Soldiers, the chief Part of which is to do all that our Commander bids us. Another famous Moralist adorns this Subject with noble Reflections upon it; 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Max. Tyr. Dissert. 3.  Reckon upon this, saith he, that God is our Commander and Chief Captain, that this Life is a Military Expedition, that every Man is to be an Armed Soldier, etc. Seneca hath the same Conceptions of Humane Life, and once and again resembles it to 
* Vivere, militare est. Epist. 96.  the State of War, and the Exploits of Martial Men. As soon as we come into the World we open the Campagne, and in a short time after we draw into a Line of Battle, and we are continually making use of our Ammunition and Artillery, till at length Death raises the Camp, and discharges us from our Warfare. Several Passages might be produced out of other Pagan Writers, who frequently fall into this Comparison, and use this Excellent Metaphor, and very finely illustrate it: but what I have said is sufficient to show what I aim at, viz. that there are the same Phrases and Expressions in the Holy Scriptures that there are in other Authors.  
This I will further make good in another Excellent Notion and Maxim, viz. that Good and Virtuous Men are Free, but that all Vicious Persons are Slaves. The Style of Scripture runs this way, not only in the Old Testament, where David desires to be 
* Psal, 51. 12.  upheld by the free Spirit of God, i. e. by such a Divine and Generous Principle as would make him act with the greatest Freedom in the ways of Religion: and where Sinners and Ungodly Men are styled Prisoners and Captives once and again; as in Zech. 9 11. Isa. 42. 6, 7. ch. 49. 8, 9 ch. 61. 1. Nor is it to be doubted whether these Places speak of such Persons, seeing our Saviour himself alleges one of them (which is of the same Nature with the rest) to this Purpose, and tells us, it is his Office to proclaim Liberty to these Captives, Luke 4. 18. i e. to offer Pardon to Sinners. But in the New Testament also (and there chiefly) this is the Language of the Holy Ghost: the Freedom that accompanies Holiness, and the Servitude of Sin, are expressly declared in those Words of Christ, The Truth shall make you free, John 8. 32. Whosoever committeth Sin, is the Servant of Sin, ver. 34. If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed, ver. 36. The whole sixth Chapter to the Romans treats of this very thing, the Service of Sin, and the Freedom from it by Christ. The Servants of Sin mentioned here by St. Paul, are the same with 
† 1 Pet. 3. 19  the Spirits in Prison whom St. Peter speaks of, as I have proved in another Place, and have showed the Inconsistency of other Interpretations. Whilst Men continue in their Sins, and addict themselves to their Vices, their Spirits, their Souls are deservedly said to be in Prison; their Persons are in Custody; they live in Durance and Thraldom; they are continually in Bonds and Chains; they are fettered Slaves and Vassals: They may perhaps flatter themselves, and vaunt of Freedom, but they are Prisoners still; 
* 2 Pet. 2. 19  they promise Liberty, but are themselves Servants of Corruption. Whereas, on the contrary, True Religion enstates Men in a real and substantial Freedom; Christianity is 
† Jam. 1. 25.  the perfect Law of Liberty: 
‖ 2 Cor. 3. 17.  Where the Spirit of the Lord is, where Evangelical Sanctity is, there is Liberty. In short; no Man that loves to be vicious, and lives in the practice of Sin, can be said to be a Freeman; for he is wholly at the command of his Lusts: There is not a greater Slave in Algiers or Tripoli than such an one. This not only the Sacred Scriptures but Heathen Writers inculcate. Tully defends that Maxim, Quòd omnes sapientes, liberi; & stulti, servi: and enlarges on it most admirably. This Zeno and all the Stoics maintained, as we learn from 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Zenone.  Laertius: and Isocrates more than once in his Orations to Demonicus and Nicocles, speaks thus. So doth 
† Cap. 20.  Epictetus, who expressly asserts that Vice and Immorality are the greatest Drudgery and Slavery. So doth Arrianus, who tells us, that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 4. c. 1.  he is a Freeman who lives as he willeth, i. e. who makes the Rational Dictates of his Will the Rule of his Life; which none but a Good Man doth. Horace's admirable Character of a Freeman is worth the consulting; 
Quisnam igitur Liber? Sapiens, sibique imperiosus,  
Quem neque pauperies, neque mors, neque vincula terrent:  
Responsare cupidinibus, contemnere honores  
Fortis, & in seipso totus teres atque rotundus.  And more he hath to the same purpose, which acquaints us what Apprehensions the Moralists had of Freedom. 
* 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.   Freemen, saith Euripides, are very rare in the World; for there is scarcely a Man to be found who is not a Slave to his Wealth or Fortune, or some other thing. A Man that extremely loves his Money is 
† Stobae. Serm. 22.  a Golden Slave, in Socrates' Language. 
‖ Extrema est servitus cum animae humanae vitiis deditae, rationis propriae possessione ceciderunt. De Consolat. l. 5. c. 11.  That is the worst kind of Servitude, saith Boethius, when the Souls of Men are given up to Vice, and are fallen from the possession of their own Reason. 
* Nemo liber est qui corpori servit. Epist. 82.  There is no Man, saith Seneca, can be said to be Free, that is a Slave to his corporeal and sensual Part. 
† Vides quam malam & noxiam servitutem serviturus▪ sit, quem Voluptates & Dolores, incertissimae dominae impotentissimaeque alternis possidebunt. De vit. beat. cap. 5.  You see, saith he in another Place, what a base and pernicious Slavery that Man hath brought himself into, who suffers unlawful Pleasures and Sorrows, those unconstant and impotent Mistresses, to domineer over him by turns. Thus 'tis the Style of the Pagan as well as Inspired Writers, that Goodness is the true Freedom, and that Vice is real Bondage and Slavery.  
So that Other Notion, that Good Men are only Wise, and that Sinners are Fools, is the Language both of Scripture and Profane Writers. Moses assures the Israelites, that to keep and do God's Commandments is their Wisdom and Understanding, Deut. 4. 6. with which is parallel job 28. 28. The Fear of the Lord, that is Wisdom; and to depart from Evil is Understanding. But on the contrary, he that is destitute of the true and saving Knowledge and Fear of God, is a Fool, in the Style of Holy Writ; 
* Psal. 14. 1.  The Fool hath said in his Heart, There is no God. And the following Words acquaint us that this Fool is one of a Vicious and Corrupt Life; 
† Psal. 49. 13.  This their Way is their Folly, saith the same Pious King. And his Royal Son had learned to speak the same Language; whence in the Book of Proverbs Wicked Men and Fools are Synonymous, they are such 
‖ Prov. 14. 9  Fools as make a mock of Sin. So in the New Testament, the Man that studied nothing but his Unlawful Gain and Pleasure, is pronounced a 
* Luke 12. 20.  Fool by Him who throughly understood the right Measures of Wisdom and Folly. This is agreeable to the Language of the Moral Philosophers in their Writings, especially of the Stoics, whose Wise Man (it is well known) is no other than the Virtuous. In Cicero's Paradoxes this is expressly maintained and proved. Goodness and Integrity are 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dissert. 15.  a stable and solid Wisdom, saith Maximus Tyrius: and others of the Platonic School talk after that manner. 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocl.  He that lives as without God in the World; he that is irreligious and profane, is a Person void of Understanding, saith another Excellent Man. Nay, the Stoics went further, and pronounced all Vicious Men to be Mad. The Founder of that Sect was wont to say, as Diogenes Laertius informs us, that 
‖‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Zenone.  all Fools are Frentick, i. e. all Wicked Men are so. A Man given to Vice is compared by 
a Dissert. 28.  Maximus Tyrius to one whose Brain is disordered with Drunkenness or Madness: and though (as he saith) he hath his Intervals, and now and then makes use of his Reason, yet his Head is extremely disordered. And Horace, who hath as many Excellent Moral Axioms as any of the Ancients, speaks after this rate: 
— Quid avarus?  
Stultus & insanus.—  Which is the very Style of the Holy Scripture likewise: Madness is in in their Heart, Eccles. 9 3. which is explained in the words immediately foregoing, The Heart of the Sons of Men is full of Evil. And from the ensuing Texts you may see this made good, Eccles. 2. 2. jer. 50. 38. and 51. 7. Acts 26. 11. Where Excess of Wickedness bears the Name of Madness. Conformably to which it is said of the Debauched Son in the Parable, that he came to himself, Luke 15. 17. which manner of Expression lets us know that he that runs into Excess of Riot is besides himself, and that an extravagant Sinner is a Bedlam.  
And here I will make bold to interpret another Text to this purpose, (although all those Commentators upon it that I have seen are pleased to be of another Mind) john 20. 10. which in Greek is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hath this Translation in English, Then they went away again to their own home: but it seems not to be rightly translated: For first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not then but therefore, and gives a Reason of what went before. 2dly. There is not any word in the Text that denotes Home, and therefore we cannot put that word into the English Translation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Greek Word, signifies themselves, not their own Home. It should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it were to be translated they went to their home, as you find the Greek rendered in Mark 3. 19 Luke 15. 6. 3dly. We do not read that the Disciples or Apostles, of whom these words are spoken, went before to their Home, or that they came from thence: How then can it be said that they went again? Wherefore I render it thus, They therefore came again to themselves, i. e. were reduced to a sober Mind. It is the same Phrase with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is spoken of the Prodigal; he came to himself. For sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 venire as is clear from 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hujusmodi quaedam in mentem mihi veniunt ut eloquar. In Gorgiâ.  Plato and other Writers. And so here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to come to themselves, i. e. to be of a right and sound Mind. It is a way of speaking used by very good Authors: In 
† Comment. in Epictet. lib. 3. c. 1.  Arrianus and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bears the same sense. Yea, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redire, as we may inform ourselves from 
‖ In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Suidas, who tells us that T●ucydides takes the word in this sense. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers exactly to ad se redire, which is a Phrase among the 
* Cic. ●. Ver. Terent, in Adelph.  Latins that signifies to come to a right Mind or Understanding. Or if you take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for venire only, yet the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joined with it, directs us to this very sense which I offer; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, iterum ad se venire, is all one with ad se redire, to return to himself. So the Apostles Peter and john (of whom this Text speaks) returned to themselves, or came again to themselves, i. e. to a found Mind and Understanding, which they had lost for some time. For notwithstanding Christ had so frequently 
* Mat. 12. 40. & 16. 21. & 17. 23. Mar. 9 31. Luk. 9 22.  told them, when he was alive, that he would rise again after his Death, yea and had set the time of his Resurrection, viz. within three days; yet when they saw he was dead▪ they had no belief of any such thing, but utterly despaired of it. Herein they showed themselves very Discomposed Persons, this argued them to be besides themselves, and that Conduct of Reason and Faith which might have been expected from them. But when they went into the Sepulchre, and saw the Linen Clothes lie by themselves, v. 6, 7. which was a plain sign that the Body was not stolen away, for then the Clothes would have been taken away too, because they would not have stayed to strip the Body: When the Disciples saw this, they believed, v. 8. tho (as it follows) as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the Dead, v. 9 The meaning is, they were not induced to this Belief by considering the Prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ's Resurrection, but they believed because they saw. The sight of the Linen Clothes and the Napkin lest in the Sepulchre, cured them of their former Unbelief, and convinced them that Christ was really risen, and had thrown off those Ensigns of Mortality, and lest them behind him in the Sepulchre. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. therefore the Disciples came again to themselves. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gives a Reason of what is here spoken of from what is said before. St. Peter and St. john were healed of the former Distemper and Malady of their Minds which they laboured under, by descending into the Grave, and seeing what was there. Now their Ignorance and Infidelity vanish, now they are brought to a due Composure of Thoughts, which they wanted before. And indeed this is not the first time that these very Apostles were disordered in Mind. They knew not what they said (Mat. 9 6.) when they were on the Mount at Christ's Transfiguration: one or both of these discovered how disordered they were in their Practice as well as Notions, when they called for Fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, Luke 9 54. and at several other times they acted contrary to sober Reason and the right Apprehensions which they ought to have had of things. But they afterwards recovered themselves, and had better Notions of things, and acted more conformably to the Dictates of a Composed Intellect. Thus here, they recollected themselves, they came again to themselves. And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 
* De Somniis.  Philo. I conceive this may be the plain sense of the Evangelist's words: however I propound it only by way of Conjecture, and am willing in this (as in other things) to submit to the Arbitration of the Wise.  
I will mention another Instance of this Agreement of the Style of Pagan and Inspired Writers. It is usually among the former to honour a Good Man with the Title of the Friend of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usual in Homer; and among the Philosophers, Plato especially, it is very frequent. Who are the Friends of God, is excellently discoursed of by this brave Man in his fourth Book of Laws. A Religious Man is a Friend of God, saith 
† Dissert. 4.  Max. Tyrius, with whom concurs another 
‖ Plutar●h. contra Epicur.  Eminent Moralist, directly asserting that Good Men are the Friends of the Deity. Epictetus and Arrianus speak of God as a Friend, and the Best Friend. Ca●byses's Advice to his Son Cyrus was, Be thou the Friend of God, as 
* De Cyri Institut. l. 8.  Xenophon relates. In short, it was the common Style and Language of the best Moralists, as Socrates, Antoninus, Seneca, Plotinus, (besides those before named) to call a Virtuous Person a Fri●nd or one Beloved of God. Especially this Epithet was given him if he prospered in his virtuous Erterprises, if he found Success in his laudable Endeavours. Yea, Epictetus (that Excellent Stoic Philosopher, and Great Master of Ethics) was honoured with this 
†— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Title, as the highest that could be, when he left the World, as we learn from his Epitaph. The same Expression we meet with often in Scripture; the same honourable Epithet is vouchsafed there to Holy Men. Abraham the Father of the Faithful is particularly signalised by it, and that no less than thrice, 2 Chron. 20. 7. Isa. 41. 8. jam. 2. 23. Of Moses 'tis said, that God spoke to him as to his Friend, Exod. 33. 11. Solomon was named jedidiah, i. e. the Beloved of the Lord, 2 Sam. 13. 25. In that Mystical Book of the Canticles this Name is attributed to both those entire Lovers, Christ and the Church. 
‖ Cant 5. 1.  Eat O ye Friends, drink O Beloved, saith the former: 
* Ver. 16.  This is my Beloved, this is my Friend, saith the latter. In which places Rang and Dod are the like endearing Titles with Ob●b, which was the word used in the Texts beforementioned. And this further I could observe to you, that the words Obeb and Obebim, which are translated Friend and Friends in those places, might be rendered so in many 
† Deut. 5. 10. Neh. 1. 5. Psal. 122. 6. Psal. 145. 20. Prov. 〈◊〉. 17. D●●. 9 4.  others where our Translators english them him, or those that love God. In the Evangelical Writings the same Style is observable: thus those words in L●ke 12. 4. are spoken by our Saviour, particularly to his dear Companions and Disciples, where he calls them his Friends. And in three Verses together these his faithful Followers and Associates, and with them all True Believers and Holy Men are styled his Friends, Joh. 15. 13, 14, 15. And hear what an Honourable Epitaph our Saviour bestowed on La●arus, John 11. 11. Our Friend Lazarus sleepeth.  
What is more usual in the Language of the New Testament, than to say, a Wicked Man is dead? This my Son was dead, saith the Father of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15. 24. giving us to understand, that the Profligate and Debauched are morally dead. And so some think this Term is to be understood in the former part of those words, Let the Dead bury their Dead, Mat. 8. 22. Of the Widow gi●en to Luxury 'tis said, she is dead while she liveth, I Tim. 5. 6. And to be dead in Sin is in Scripture-Phraseology applied after the same manner, Ephes. 2. 1, 5. Col. 2. 13. And in several other places the like mode of Speech is observable. To which the Ancient Philosophers were no Strangers, in whose account Vicious Men were reputed as dead. Hence an 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Clem. Alex.  Ancient Writer of the Church observes that even in the Barbaric Philosophy they were wont to call those Dead who abandoned the right Sentiments of things which they had, and made their Souls slaves to the Animal Passions. Not only Pythagoras himself was wont to place a Coffin in the room of his outcast Scholars, as if they had been dead, but his Followers (and the Platonists in imitation of him) had the same Practice among them. For it was an acknowledged Notion that Virtue makes us live, and consequently that wicked Men do not properly live, but that in true Morality they are rightly said to be dead. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut.  There is wanting in them an inward Principle of Life, as the Spartan said after all his trials of erecting a dead Body into a living Posture. Hence Vice is deservedly styled 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocl.  the Death of the rational part of Man, and 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arrian. in Epictet.  the Mortality of the Soul. With relation to which guise of Speech intermortui mores are in Plautus, Corrupt and Vicious Manners. And the like Phrase is used by the Jews; the Wicked (say they) are Dead while they live: and again they tell us, that 
* Talm. Vaji●. ●ab.  a Dead Carcase is better than a Disciple that is void of Knowledge and true Wisdom. And other such like Expressions there are not only among the Hebrews but the Arabians.  
Once more I will observe how the Scripture speaks as the best Moralists do, viz. when it calls Death a Sleep. The Hebrew Verb Shacab signifies to lie down to sleep, Gen. 19 4. and likewise to die, ● Sam. 7. 12. Isa. 14. 8. whence to sleep with their Fathers is an usual Phrase in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Thence the Grave is called a Bed, Isa. 57 2. Gneres is both lectus and feretrum, the Bed of those that sleep, and the Bed or Bier of those that are dead, (as perhaps our Saxon word grave, or grab, as other Germans write it, is from grabatus.) The Psalmist mentions the Sleep of Death, Psal. 13. 3. And it seems this was the Style of the Ancient Arabs, as appears from job 7. 21. I shall sleep in the Dust. If we descend to the New Testament, we shall read there that Lazarus sleepeth, Joh. 11. 11. and of St. Stephen 'tis said that 
* Acts 7. 60.  he fell asleep, and of other holy Men that 
† 1 Thess. 4. 14.  they sleep in jesus, and 
‖ 1 Cor. 15. 6, 18.  are fallen asleep in Christ. When a good Man dies, he lays himself down to Rest, he betakes himself to his Repose: bidding the World good night, he shuts his Eyes, and opens them no more till the Morning of the Resurrection. The like Expression is in use among the Pagans: to sleep and to die are synonymous Terms with them. With the Prince of Poets Sleep is not only 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Il. 14.  the Brother of Death, but it is the very word to express 
†— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. 7.  Death itself. Nox est perpetuò una dormienda, saith Catullus. Perpetuus Sopor is Horace's Language: Nox perpetua is Propertius'; which is the same with Virgil's Nox aeterna. Alluding to which Phrase is that of 
‖ Tusc. 2. & Philip. 1.  Tully and other good Authors, decumbere to lie down, to betake himself to sleep, i. e. to die. Accordingly the Poets feign the Palace of Sleep to be bordering on the Infernal Regions of Hell and Death. Thus I have let you see in several Particulars (and many more might have been produced) that there are the very same Expressions in Scripture that we ●eet with in other Writers: and certainly it is some Satisfaction to intelligent Minds to observe the handsome Agreement between both.   

CHAP. III.  
There are in the Sacred Writ the same Grammatical Figures which are found in other Writers; as an Enallage of Person, of Number, of Time. One Bodily Sense is mentioned instead of another. There is an exchange of the Positive, Comparative and Superlative. A Negative is put for a Comparative: this showed in a great number of Instances in the Writings both of the Old and New Testament. An Hendyadis is usual in Scripture. So is a Prolepsis. And an Hysterosis. The reason which Monsieur Simon gives of this latter is refuted, 1. By proving the Antiquity of Parchment-scrolls used in writing. 2. By showing that they were well fastened together, so that they could not easily be misplaced and transposed, much less be lost, as this Writer imagines. Josephus' remarkable Testimony produced to confirm both these. The true reason and occasion of some Transpositions in the Old Testament assigned.  
IN the next place I will show you that there are in the Sacred Writ the same Grammatical and Rhetorical Figures which are found in Other Writers. It will be very useful to insist a while upon these, because we cannot attain to a right understanding of the Scriptures unless we have some insight into them; yea we shall sometimes miserably mistake the sense and meaning of this Holy Book if we are not acquainted with the nature of the Scripture-Stile as to this very thing. I know these Figures (some of them especially) are observed and taken notice of by 
* Glassius, Joach. Camerarius, Westhemerus, etc.  several Writers: but my chief Design is to give some Instances of them which are not taken notice of by Others, and yet are very necessary to be known in order to the right understanding the Holy Scriptures. There are several of these I shall produce. You must know then that those Grammatical Figures or Defective Modes of speaking which are found in the Bible, are such as these. First, there is an Enallage of the Person, i. e. it is usual to put one Person in Grammatical Construction for another. Thus we is instead of they, Psal. 66. 6. your Heart for their Heart, Psal. 22. 26. They for he, Eccles. 7. 29. they have sought out, which refers to Man in the preceding Clause. They instead of ye, Isa. 61. 7. They for she, as in 1 Tim. 2. 15. if they continue, i. e. if she, viz. the Woman spoken of before, continue in Faith, etc. and she is expressly mentioned in the Clause immediately foregoing. So in Gal. 6. 1. thyself should be themselves, for it refers to ye in the preceding words. But the Instances are almost numberless, wherein I might show you this Change of Persons. It is enough to have hinted this at present, that you may continually take notice of this in the Style of the Sacred Writers, and that you may direct yourselves in the understanding of some places, which cannot rightly be interpreted unless we observe this Grammatical Alteration, and thereby guide our Thoughts to the sense of the words. And this also might be suggested, that this way of Speech is used then generally, when there is a sudden Transition from one thing to another, or when there is a Distribution of the Matter treated of, and sometimes when there is a Familiar and Easy expressing of things yea at other times, when a near Concernedness of the Persons spoken of is to be taken notice of.  
Next you may observe the Change of Number; you will find it common in Scripture to express one Number by another, especially the Singular by the Plural. As 'tis said the Ark rested on the Mountains of Ararat, i. e. on one of those Mountains, Gen. 8. 4. for it could not rest on them all. The Graves are ready for me, Job 17. 1. instead of the Grave, and so in ch. 21. v. 32. according to the Hebrew, though not in our Translation. A single River is meant when Rivers are named, as you read of the Gates of the Rivers, when Tigris only is meant, Nah. 2. 6. That Sacrifices is put for a Sacrifice in Heb. 9 23. is plain; for the Apostle there speaks of the Sacrifice and Death of Christ. In these and many 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 12. 1. Luke 4. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 26. 64. Ma●. 10. 5.  other places the Plural Number supplies the room of the Singular. And in some other Texts the Singular is mentioned instead of the Plural, as in job 37. 6. Cloud for Clouds. Psal. 9 20. That the Nations may know themselves to be but Man (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) instead of Men. Isa. 3. 12. Child (for so you have it in the Original) for Children. Ezek. 31. 3. Branch (as the Hebrew hath it) for Branches. A Sheaf for Sheaves, Amos 2. 13. And the like is observable in the New Testament, that they may shave their Head, (so 'tis in the Greek) Acts 21. 24. for Heads: Loin for Loins, Heb. 7. 5. Body for Bodies, Phil. 3. 21. Heart for Hearts, Rom. 1. 21. and the same Enallage is in 1 Cor. 4. 2. Thus it is the usual way of the Sacred Writers (who in this, as in many other things are followed by the best Greek and Latin Authors) to exchange one Number for another▪ and it will be requisite for the Inquisitive Reader to observe this manner of speaking, because otherwise sometimes he will miss of the true Sense of the Place where this kind of Style is made use of.  
I pass to the Enallage of Time, which is very frequent in the Holy Writ. In the Prophetic Writers especially this is observable; there the Present, or rather the Preterperfect Tense (for the Hebrews have no Present Tense) is used very commonly for the Future, as in 1 Kings 13. 2. A Child is born (according to the Hebrew) for shall be born. Isa. 9 2. The People that walked in Darkness have seen a great Light, prophetically for shall see. Ch. 9 6. Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given, instead of shall be born, shall be given. So in the New Testament, in that Prophecy of Enoch quoted by St. jude, ver. 14. The Lord cometh (or hath come) with ten thousand of his Saints; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supplies the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I come unto you, John 14. 18. (for so 'tis in the Greek) should in Propriety of Speaking be, I will come unto you; and therefore it is so translated in our English Bibles. In such like Places things are spoken in the Present or Preterperfect Tense, to signify the Reality and Certainty of them, to let us know they shall as surely be fulfilled as if they were so already. And as the Present or Praeterit is put for the Future, so this is sometimes used instead of that, as in Exod. 3. 14. Ehjeh, ero, is instead of sum; and accordingly the 70 Interpreters render that Place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and we after them, I am that I am. The like Enallage you will find in Isa. 30. 32. And sometimes the Praeterit is used where the Present Time is understood, as in Rev. 3. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have stood, which therefore we rightly translate I stand. Nothing is more common than this way of speaking in the Old and New Testament, insomuch that I need not have taken notice of so frequent a thing, unless I had undertaken to give a short Specimen of all or most of the Observables relating to the Scripture-Stile.  
And as one Person, Number, and Tense, is put for another in the Holy Writings, so it might be remarked that one Bodily Sense is mentioned instead of another; especially the Use of the Sight is frequently put for Hearing, as in Isa. 2. 1. The Word that Isaiah the Son of Amos sa●, i. e. the Prophecy which he immediately heard from God's Month, and which he delivers in express Terms in the next Verse. To see the Voice, Rev. 1. 12. is to hear it, unless you will say, that seeing of the Person, whose Voice it was, is meant. Other Places might be produced where these two Senses are exchanged, but I will only here note, that this is common among Profane Writers: 

* Lucret. l. 4.  Sex etiam & septem loca vidi reddere voces  
Unam cum jaceres.  And another; 
† Virgil. Aen. 3. — Nec quae sonitum det causa videm●●. And visa loqui is instead of audita loqui in 
‖ In Rufin.  Claudian.  
Sometimes you will find a Change of the Comparative for the Positive, as in Matth. 18. 8. according to the Greek, It is good for thee, i. e. it is better thee to enter into Life h●lt and maimed, than having t●o Hands, etc. And in Mark 14. 21. Good i. e. Better were it for that Man if he had never been born. So in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a Good Degree, i. e. a Better or Greater Degree, viz. of a Fresbyter or Bishop. Sometimes the Positive or Comparative is mentioned when the Superlative is understood, as in Matth. 22. 36, 38. The great Commandment, i. e. the greatest; and is explained there by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first. Those Words in Luke 7. 28. are generally reduced by Expositors to this Head, and therefore our English Version is [He that is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he]: but I do not see any Reason to bring it under this way of speaking. For according to the Greek it should be, he that is lesser: and this is the true and natural Translation, the meaning of our Saviour's Words being this, I am lesser, i. e. in Age, I am Younger than john the Baptist, and am Lesser in the Estimation of the People than he is; but yet I am far Greater than he, for he was but my Forerunner, my Messenger, as he saith in the foregoing Verse. So Theophyla●● interprets the Words; and our own Translators in another Place favour this Exposition, when those Words in Rom. 9 12. which according to the Greek are [the greater shall serve the lesser] are rendr●d by them thus, the elder shall serve the younger. So that you see the lesser is interpreted the younger; and there seems to be good Ground to understand it so in this Place. And indeed this is according to the Style of the best Latin Authors, among whom, major and minor natu, are the elder and younger. Nay, 
* Se● video herilem filium minorem huc venire. Ter. in Eunuch.  minor, absolutely and without any Addition, is as much as junior▪ But in Phil. 1, 23. Having a Desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better, it is not to be questioned, I think, that the Superlative is changed for the Comparative; far better is instead of best of all. And so in Matth. 13. 32. the lesser of all Seeds (according to the Greek) for the least; and accordingly we translate it so. Other Examples of this you have in Luke 9 46. john 10. 29. These are the Grammatical Changes which are observable in the Holy Book; and any one that hath perused the Writings of Other Authors, especially of the Greek and Latin Poets, is not ignorant that the very same occur in them, and that very often; so that I thought it needless to present you with Parallels out of those Writers.  
But among the several Enallages, i. e. Change of one thing for another in the Style of Scripture, I will in the last Place mention this, viz. that a Negative oftentimes is put for a Comparative. The due observing of this will help us to reconcile many Places of Scripture, which seem to jar with some others. I will begin with Numb. 23. 21. He hath not beheld Iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen Perverseness in Israel: Which is a Text that the Antinomian Party lay great Stress upon; for hence they say 'tis evident that God sees not any Sin in his own People, and consequently that he is not displeased with them for it: whence it will follow that they need not be displeased neither; their Sins (be they never so great and flagitious) are not to be the matter of their Sorrow, seeing God is not offended with them: which Doctrine soon opens a Door to all Licentiousness and Profaneness: but it is easily shut again by applying this Rule, that Scripture oftentimes, and here particularly, speaks Absolutely, but is to be understood in a Comparative or Limited Sense. God beholds not Iniquity in Jacob, in his Chosen, as he doth in profligate Persons, and such as are given up to their Lusts; i e. he beholds it not so in them as to reject them utterly, and to punish them eternally for their Misdoing. Thus if we compare God's beholding Sin in the one, with his beholding it in the other, he may be said not to behold it in the former, i. e. in his own People and Servants. But God hates and punisheth Sin in both sorts of Persons, and more particularly in those that are his, according to what he declares in Amos 3. 2. You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth, therefore I will punish you for all your Iniquities. Thus God did not behold Iniquity, did not see Perverseness in Israel; for we are assured by the Prophet 
* Chap. ●. ver. 1●.  Habakkuk, that he is of purer Eyes than to behold Evil, and cannot look on Iniquity. He cannot look on it long without punishing it, as well as he hated it always. Why then do some confidently aver, that God neither punishes nor hates Sin in his People, nor is displeased with them for it? Thus by making use of the foregoing Rule, we see what is the plain and natural Meaning of the Words. In a Comparative Sense, not in an Absolute and Unrestrained one, it is said, He beholds not Iniquity in Jacob: which is so far from favouring the Antinomian Doctrine, that it clearly baffles and confutes it. I will pass to another Text, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, 1 Sam. 8. 7. They did reject Samuel from being Judge, in that they chose a King over them: yet God saith, They have not rejected thee, i. e. Comparatively they have not: they have not so much by this Action of despising Samuel their Judge, rejected him, as they have manifested their Rejection of Me, who am their Chief Judge and Ruler, and who set Samuel over them as my Deputy. They may be said to have rejected Me rather than him. The Psalmist faith, Against thee, thee only have I sinned, Psal. 51. 4. But though he speaks Exclusively, and in a manner Negatively, (for it is as much as if he had said, Against thee have I sinned, and not against any one besides) yet he is to be understood Comparatively, for it is certain that he sinned against Others, namely, against Uriah in a signal manner, whom he made drunk, and whose Blood he shed, and whose Bed he defiled; yea, as he was King, he notoriously sinned against all his Subjects and People: But because he Chiefly and Principally sinned against God who had raised him to the Throne, and done such wonderful things for him; because he had most of all offended God, he confesses that he had sinned against Him, and Him only, Him and none else. A Negative is used for a Comparative. And so it is in Host 6. 6. I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice; which is explained in the next Clause of that Verse, and the Knowledge of God more than Burnt-offerings. Not is interpreted by more. God values Acts of Mercy and Charity, and such indispensable Duties of the Moral Law, more than all the Performances of the Ceremonial one. So that the Antithesis here is but in way of Comparison, as we may see in 1 Sam. 15. 22. To obey is better than Sacrifice.  
The New Testament speaks after this manner, there you will frequently observe that our Saviour and his Apostles pronounce many things simply and absolutely, which yet we ought to understand and interpret with a Limitation. 
* Mark 5. 39  She is not dead, but sleepeth, faith Christ of Iairus' deceased Daughter. She was dead, that cannot be denied; therefore this Negative must be expounded so as to qualify the Sense: She rather sleepeth than is dead: Her Departure is a Sleep to her, and I will soon awaken her out of it, as you shall see. Thus our Saviour must be supposed to have spoken. Again, he faith, 
† Luke 14. 12.  When thou makest a Dinner or a Supper, call not thy Friends, nor thy Brethren, neither thy Kinsmen nor thy rich Neighbours; but call the Poor, the Maimed, the Lame, the Blind. The meaning is, rather call these than them; yea, rather wholly omit these Feasts and Invitations, than forget to be charitable to the Poor. If the Necessitous be not excluded from your Charity, you may feast your rich Friends and Relations: but you must not feast Them, and neglect These; yea, you must chiefly and most of all take care of these. So is that other Passage of our Saviour to be understood, Labour not for the Meat which perisheth, John 6. 27. i e. labour more for that Meat which endureth unto Everlasting Life (which he immediately after speaks of) than for this. You may labour for the perishing Meat, but let your greatest Care and Endeavour be for that which never perisheth. Still you see the Negative is to be explained by a Comparative. And so it is in john 16. 24. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my Name, i. e. ye have asked little, which is comparatively Nothing. Thus the Apostle is to be meant when he saith, 2 Cor. 2. 5. He hath not grieved me, that is, me only, as is clear from the following Words, but in part all, for so it should be rendered according to the Greek, and a Parenthesis should be made. In part (saith the Apostle) he hath brought Grief and Trouble to you all; I say, in part, that I may not overcharge him, that I may not aggravate his Fault too much. But, to speak Comparatively, and with respect to the whole Church, he hath not grieved me, because I am inconsiderable in comparison of all of you. The following Texts of St. Paul are to be explained thus: 2 Cor. 5. 4. We that are in this Tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we should be unclothed, i. e. not for that only, or Comparatively not for that. Charity seeketh not her own, 1 Cor. 13. 5. i e. not solely and chiefly. In respect of her generous Designs of Good for Others, she may be said not to seek her Own Good and Advantage. From which Sense of the Words we may know to interpret those other Texts; Let no Man seek his own, but every Man another's Wealth, 1 Cor. 10. 24. All seek their own, Phil. 2. 21. When this Apostle faith, We wrestle not against Flesh and Blood, but against Principalities, etc. Eph. 6. 12. the Sense certainly must be this, We wrestle not only or chiefly against those, but rather, yea most against these. Though we combat with ourselves and our corrupt Natures, and with evil Men, yet our main Conflict is with the Spirits of Darkness, the Apostate Angels, who are hourly tempting and soliciting us to Vice, that they may bring us into the same State of Condemnation with themselves. So when we are told that the Law is not made for a righteous Man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the Ungodly and for Sinners, etc. 1 Tim. 1. 8. we must not with an Antinomian Gloss upon the Words exempt righteous and godly Men from their Obligation to the Moral Law; for the Negative here hath not the Import of an Absolute Denial, but signifies only that the delivering of the Law, and especially the Commination of it, were not primarily and chiefly designed for the Righteous, for those that by the Grace of God observe the Precepts of it, but for those notorious. Offenders particularly enumerated in the following Words; the Comminatory Part belongs to them. Women are bid to adorn themselves not with broidered (it should be broided) Hair, or Gold, or Pearls, or costly Array, but with good Works, 1 Tim. 2. 9, 10. With which we may join that of another Apostle, Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the Hair, and of wearing of Gold, or of putting on of Apparel, but let it be the ●idden Man of the Heart, 1 Pet. 3. 3, 4. None can imagine that all outward adorning and wearing of Gold, or putting on Apparel or costly Array, are utterly unlawful, and consequently forbidden here; wherefore the Words are to be taken with some Restriction; they are spoken Comparatively, that is, the Inward Adorning is far better, and much more to be looked after than the Outward and Bodily one. Christian Women must adorn themselves rather with Humility and Sobriety than with these. They ought not to be so solicitous about Apparel, as about the Inward Ornaments of the Soul. Nay, whatever Apparel is light and vain, and any ways administers to Lust, or Pride, or Wantonness, is wholly to be laid aside, as sinful and unlawful. In the same Chapter of the forenamed Epistle to Timothy you read, that Adam was not deceived, but the Woman, ver. 14. We know that Adam was deceived, but yet in a Comparative way of speaking he was not, that is, his Deception was not so gross and inexcusable as that of the Woman. It is said of the faithful Patriarches, that they received not the Promise, Heb. 11. 39 i e. in comparison of what we have since received. They received it not in the full extent; else you cannot make sense of the following words, God ●aving provided, etc. In the foresaid Chapter of St. Peter 'tis said, Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God, ver. 21. This not seems to be Exclusive and Negative, and thence some have made use of this Text to null the sacred Ordinance of Baptism, which in Contempt they call Water-Baptism. But they err, not knowing the Scriptures, and particularly not attending to the sense of this place, where not is no Absolute Negative, but a Comparative. Not the putting away the Filth of the Flesh, i. e. not the Outward Baptism simply and only, or not that in Comparison of the other, viz. the Inward washing and purifying by the Spirit. And many other places it is impossible to understand aright, unless you make use of this Observation which I have here exemplified, namely that a Comparison is commonly in Scripture expressed by an Antithesis, or, which is all one, that a Negative is put for a Comparative.  
In the next place, I might observe to you that an Hendyadis is very usual in Scripture, that is, two things are put severally to signify but one, as Let the Lights be in the Firmament for Signs and for Seasons, Gen. 1. 14. i e. (as some Expositors think, though I am not satisfied about it) Let them be for Signs of the Seasons. And they who read Psal. 17. 13, 14. thus, Deliver my Soul from the Wicked by thy Sword, from Men by thy Hand, tell us here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sword and the Hand, for a Sword handled or drawn, as if the Psalmist called upon God here to be his Champion, and to deliver him by fight for him. That in Mat. 3. 11. is of the nature of an Hendyadis; for baptising with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, is the same with baptising with the Holy Ghost, who is as Fire; and so here One thing is expressed as if it were Two. Some think there is the same Figure in john 3. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Water and the Spirit, i. e. say they, the Spirit that is like Water, cleansing and purifying the Soul. But I conceive it may be doubted whether this and the former way of speaking be the same; for if Water in this place signifies Baptism, as the Ancients interpreted it, then 'tis not the same thing with the Spirit, but distinct from it, and consequently here are not two things put for one. But doubtless there are in Mat. 24. 31. He shall send his Angels with a Trumpet, and a great Sound, i. e. with a Trumpet that hath a great Sound, that makes a great Noise, or, as our Translators render it, with a great Sound of a Trumpet. To this way of speaking may be referred john 11. 33. He groaned in the Spirit and was troubled, i. e. he groaned in his troubled Spirit. And of this kind is Acts 14. 13. The Priest of Jupiter brought Oxen and Garlands, i. e. Oxen crowned with Garlands, as was usual when they sacrificed to jupiter. One thing is here intended, though 'tis expressed by two. To this Figure appertains Acts 15. 28. It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us, that is, to us directed, moved and guided by the Holy Ghost. I doubt not but an Hendyadis gives the best account of 1 Cor. 2. 4. My preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power, i. e. of the Spirit who was Powerful, and enabled me in an extraordinary manner to demonstrate the Truth of the Gospel, and to convince Gainsayers; and who also enabled me to work Miracles for the confirming of what I preached. This is the same with Rom. 15. 19 the Power of the Spirit of God, by which (as he there tells us) mighty Signs and Wonders were effected. The like mode of Speech is observable in the Apostle's words, in 1 Thess. 1. 5. Our Gospel came unto you in Power and in the Holy Ghost, i. e. the Holy Ghost showed himself Powerful in the Apostles Preaching and Miracles. Lastly, under this Head may be ranked Col. 2. 8. Philosophy and vain Deceit, that is, Philosophy which is both vain and deceitful.  
To proceed, a Prolepsis is another usual Figure in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament. Such is that in Gen. 4. 16. Cain went and dwelled in the Land of Nod, where it seems to be implied that Nod was the Name of that place which he went to, and that it was named so before he went to it: whereas it is most probable that that Place was not called by that Name at that time, for it had its Name of Nod given to it from Cain's going thither, who was a 
* Nad Gen. 4. 12. from Nud vagari, errare.  Vagabond. So there is a plain Prolepsis or Anticipation in Gen. 14. 7. They smote all the Country of the Amalekites, though at that time there were no Amalekites, and therefore the Country could not be named from them. In 1 Sam. 4. 1. it is said Israel pitched beside Eben-ezer, but there was no place of that Name then, for you will find it given afterwards. Those words in Gen. 29. 20. jacob served seven Years for Rachel, are spoken Proleptically, not as if he did not marry Rachel before the seven Years were expired. We read in Gen. 35. 19 and ch. 48. v. 7. that Rachel was buried in Bethlchem, but it is well known that that was not the Name of the Place till after Moses. So Hebron and some other Names of Cities are mentioned in the Pentateuch, and yet the Names were not given till after Moses' Death. In jos. 4. 19 the Israelites are said to encamp in Gilgal, but that place is called so by Anticipation, for it had that Name afterwards, ch. 5. v. 9 And other Instances there are of this nature in the Book of joshuah; the Names of several places mentioned in it are of a later Date than Ioshuah's time. The Jews conjecture is very probable that Ezra after the Captivity, (when he collected the several parts of the Bible, and set them in order) left out some of the ancient Names of Places, and inserted some modern ones; that is, he added the Names of Places which were unknown, and not used in the days of Moses or of others who writ those Books: whence it is that we now read of the Names of Places which were not given at that time when they are mentioned, but are only by way of Anticipation inserted into the History.  
Near of kin to this is Hysterosis, another Usual Figure in Scripture, which is when the proper and genuine Order of the Words is not kept. And this is observable either in some single Words and Verses, or in some Chapters. Of the former sort is Gen. 10. 1. where the Sons of Noah are reckoned in this order, Shem, Ham and japheth; yet japheth was the Eldest Brother. It is true Scaliger holds the very order of the Generation which this Verse sets down, and saith Shem was Noah's Firstborn, and japheth his youngest. But 'tis generally agreed on by the Learned that this is not the right order: for first, the Septuagint expressly say japheth was the Elder Brother of Shem, v. 21. Again, josephus in his 
* Lib. 1. cap. 7.  Jewish Antiquities reckons them thus, japheth the eldest Son, I'm the next, and She● the youngest of all. Moreover, according to the Chaldee Paraphrast, who is of good Repute, this is the true Order. Lastly, you will find it observed in the following Parts of this Chapter; the Generations begin first with japheth, then pass to Cham, and end with Shem. All which shows that there is a Transposition in the first Verse, and that the true ranking of them is not there kept. We read in Gen. 11. 26. that Terab begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; but the naming of Abram first of the three Brethren, doth not prove that he was eldest; but there is some Ground to believe that he was not. And as the true Order of Words in some Verses is not always exact, so neither is the true Series of History observed in some Chapters. Thus in Gen. 2. after God's resting on the seventh Day, v. 1. you read of God's forming Man and Woman, v. 7. & 18. which was the Sixth Day's Work, and therefore according to the True Order of things should have been part of the Contents of the First Chapter. So the Division of the Earth, which is the Subject of the 10th of Genesis, is set before the Confusion of Tongues, spoken of in the 11th Chapter, notwithstanding this was before that, and was the occasion of it. And some Instances of this Nature are in those Historical Books of Samuel, the Kings, and Chronicles. The seventh and eighth Chapters of Daniel are misplaced; they should of right have been inserted before, viz. immediately after the 4th Chapter; for they speak of what happened in Belshazzar's time, although the foregoing Chapter relates what was done by Darius after Belshazzar was slain, and the Kingdom of Babylon became his. And in many other Places of the Sacred Writings there is a Transposing of things, and sometimes that is placed first which was done last To which purpose the Hebrew Doctors have long since pronounced, that there is neither Before nor After in the Law. A 
‖‖ Mr. Simon Crit. Hist. Book 1.  late Author tells us that the Reason is, because the Books of the Pentateuch and some others were written upon little Scrolls or Sheets of Paper, not so well fastened together as our Books now are, and so the Order of these Scrolls was changed. But this is an upstart Invention of this Gentleman's Brain, and hath no Foundation but his own Fancy; for as he mistakes Paper for Parchment, (there being perhaps no such thing as the former in those Days) so he is mistaken in his Conceit about fastening those Parchment-writing together.  
First, I say, he proceeds upon a wrong Foundation, because he asserts the ancientest Books of the Bible to have been written on Paper, whereas it doth not appear that this Invention is so old: and on the other side, there are undeniable Proofs of the great Antiquity of Parchment, and that it was made use of for Books to write upon. That which hath occasioned some Learned Men (and 'tis likely our present Author, who is most justly ranked in the Number of the Learned) to think otherwise, was that Passage in Pliny's 
* Lib. 13. c. 11.  Natural History, where he reports that Ptolomee Philadelph, King of Egypt, forbade the exporting of the Papyrus (of which Paper was made at that time) out of his Territories. Whereupon Eumenes, King of Pergamus, found out another way of making Paper, of the inmost Skins of Beasts, which was called Pergamena, because 'twas invented in Pergamus first. But this was a great Oversight of Pliny, for that was not the first Use of them; they were much ancienter than that time. 
† Lib. 2.  Diodorus the Sicilian tells us, that the Persian Annals were writ in Parchment; which is a great Proof of its being very Antient. Salmuth, in his Commentary upon 
‖ De Chart●.  Pancirol, thinks the Antiquity of this Membrana is proved from jovis diphthera, the Skin of the Goat that suckled jupiter, in which the Ancientest Memorials of things in the World were thought to be written. And out of Herodotus, the great Father of History, he hath a very considerable Quotation, who relates that some of the Old Grecians made use of the Skins of Goats and Sheep to write in; and therefore 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Terpsichore.  they call their Books Skins. And he adds, that 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  many of the Barbarians write in such Skins. Now we know who they were that the Pagans used to call Barbarians, viz. the jews; and therefore it is probable these are meant here. It may have relation to their writing the Books of the Old Testament in Parchment. But if This, concerning the particular Reference of these Words to the jews, be a Conjecture only, yet the other things which have been suggested, are a clear and evident Proof of the Ancient Use of the Membrana, and we have no reason to question that the Bible itself was written in it. That it was so, we learn from josephus, who assures us, that Eleazar the High Priest sent away the 72 Elders or Interpreters to Ptolomee, with the Bible written in ●ine Parchment; and he tells us in 
‖ Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 2.  the same Place, (which is very remarkable, and to our purpose) that King Ptolomee was astonished to see the Parchments so fine and delicate, and to observe the whole Form of them so exactly joined together, that no one could possibly discern where the Seams were. From which Testimony of this Learned Jew it is evident, that there was Parchment found out and used in Writing before the time that Pliny talks of, i. e. before Eumenes' time. And as for this Eumenes, (who is by some Writers also called Attalus, for it appears plainly that 'tis the same Man, the same King of Pergamus) he was not the Person that invented it, nor was it in his time invented; he only procured a great Quantity of it to be made, and so it became common in Greece and Asia: whence some (and Pliny among the rest) thought he was the first Inventor of it. This was the Rise of the Mistake: But the Truth of the Matter is this, (which the Learnedest Men now agree to) that Parchments which were made of Sheepskins dressed, were long before the Emulation between Ptolomee and Eumenes, (who both at the same time were ambitious to procure an Universal Library;) but when this Quarrel arose, Ptolomee forbade Paper to be sent out of Egypt, whereupon Eumences caused Parchments to be made in greater Abundance than before, that so there might be no need of the Paper. Again, 'tis evident from this Testimony of josephus, that the Books of the Old Testament were written in Parchment. And seeing we have proved that Parchment was long before, it is credible that the Bible was copied out at first into it. That Proverbial Saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shows the great Antiquity of this sort of Writing-materials; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Membrana, and it is also a Book made of the same, which they of old used to write in. I might take notice of the ancient Practice of the Jews, viz. their wearing of Phylacteries, which were pieces of Scrolls of Parchment, whereon they wrote some part of the Law, and bound it to their Heads and Hands: whence we may probably gather, that the Books of the Old Testament were first of all Parchment-writing; for the Jews were strict Observers as well as Admirers of Antiquity, and therefore their writing some Sentences of the Law in Parchments shows that the Bible itself, from whence they were taken, had been usually and of old transcribed into those very Materials. Much more might be said, but I will only add, that the Jews Rolling up their Sacred Writings (whence their Books were called Megilloth, Volumina) is a plain Argument that they were not composed of Egyptian Paper, which was thin and weak, and consequently was not capable of this Rolling. But a Long and Broad Skin or Parchment would endure this without tearing, and therefore it is not to be doubted that this was made use of. The Sense of which (besides the common Report and Notion among the Jews) caused the Famous Rabbi jonathan to say in his Targum on Deut. 31. 24. that Moses writ the Law upon Parchment: Which shows, that it was the Opinion of the Learned Jews, that the Bible was originally written in Parchment, not on Paper. And the Talmud often mentions this Parchment-Writing as a known thing. It is rational then to believe and assert, that these Holy Records were written in Parchment: and though we are informed from sufficient Authors, that other Materials of old were used, as the Egyptian Papyrus, Leaves, as also the Inward Bark or Coat of Trees, etc. when they wrote but few Words, yet Parchment was the old and usual Matter on which they wrote when they had occasion to compose a whole Book: which confutes F. Simon's Notion, that the Old Testament was written in Paper; which, upon serious Reflection, so searching a Person as he is cannot but discern to be a Mistake: and he knows that Charta, Writing-Paper was not generally used till Alexander the Great's time, as 
* Nar. Hist, l. 13. c. 11.  Pliny himself acknowledges, who quotes Varro for this, that the first use of Paper, made of the Cortex of the Egyptian Papyrus, was found out in Egypt in that Monarch's Reign; and that before that time they wrote upon Leaves of Trees, on Wax, etc.  
Then in the next Place, it were easy to disprove this Ingenious Author's Conceit about the fastening, or, rather as he would have it, the not fastening of these Parchments together, whence he fancies it was that the Transposition and Misplacing of some Parts of the Bible happened. He tells us, that heretofore they wrote upon Sheets or Leaves rolled together one over another, round a piece of Wood: and these being not well joined together, there was sometimes a misplacing of what was written in them, because their Order was altered. This may be partly true, and I cannot deny that it so happened sometimes, that is, when there was no Care taken to sow, or other ways to fasten the Leaves or Sheets to the Stick of Wood about which they were rolled, or to one another. But it was not so in the present Case; for you may be sure that they took all the Care imaginable to secure the Order of the Sheets, and they were not destitute of a particular way of doing it; so that their Books were sufficiently fastened. But if he means that they were not bound as our Books are now a days, than his new Discovery is only this, that the Trade of Book-binding was not set up in Moses or Ezra's Days. Or, if he means that the written Sheets and Scrolls were loose, and not well tacked together, he wilfully speaks against his own knowledge of this Matter; for he knows very well that the Jews wrote in Rolls or continued Sheets or Skins, which were not liable to be separated, as our Writings are now. He is Antiquary enough to confute himself from what he hath read concerning their manner of making their Books or Volumes, their fixing the Sheets of Parchment at one end, by sowing or fastening the first Sheet between two Sticks or Pieces of Wood, their joining the several Sheets together, (as appears from the forecited Testimony of the Jewish Historian, who saith, the Parchments in which the Bible was written, were so closely and firmly joined together, that 'twas not possible to discern the Seams or Places where they were joined) their Rolling them up close, and their keeping them in safe Repositories, (for they had places on purpose for all Valuable Books) so that it was not likely▪ yea scarcely possible, that any of these Scrolls or Sheets (which were not little ones, as he suggests, but of a considerable size) should be put out of their places, much less lost: for he goes so far as to assert, that many of these Scrolls were embezzeled and lost, and thence the Scriptures of the Old Testament are so maimed and imperfect. But we know the Man and his Design, which is to depretiate and vilify the Scriptures, thereby to advance the Credit of Tradition, and by that means to exalt the Church of Rome (though this is not so forward to exalt him): This was it which made him give us this Specimen of his Wit and Invention (of which, it must be confessed, he hath no small Stock); this made him attempt by these Paper-Proofs to lessen the Authority of the Bible: Otherwise it is certain this Parisian Critic is a Person of great Worth and Learning; and it is his singular Commendation that he is no Furious Bigot, but is Moderate and Discreet in many things, and is one that dotes not on the Opinions and Assertions of the Catholic Doctors. But if you would know the true Reason or Occasion of that Transposition which you sometimes meet with in the Holy Writings, not only of the Old but New Testament, it is chiefly this as I conceive; The Holy Writers study not Exactness, they are more intent upon the Thing and Matter which they write, than upon the due Order and Marshalling of it: they are not Nice and Accurate in giving every Occurrence or Event its right Place; whence it is that you meet with some things in these Writings that are transposed and out of Order: and it is left to the Diligent and Inquisitive Reader to amend and reform tho●e Dislocations. Those who would see farther Reasons of that frequent Metathesis and Misplacing which are in the Sacred Books, may consult the Learned Dr. Lightfoot in his Chronicle of the Times of th● Old Testament.   

CHAP. IU.  
There are not only Grammatical but Rhetorical Figures in the Sacred Volume. The Psalmist's Words, Psal. 120. 5. are Hyperbolical, though not generally interpreted to be such. So are our Saviour's Words, Matth. 13. 32. though commonly expounded otherwise. Luke 19 44. rejected▪ form being Hyperbolical. John 21. 25. proved to be an Hyperbole. This way of speaking in Scripture is no Lie. Ironies are frequent in this Holy Book, of which several Examples are produced. Luke 22. 36: is showed to be of this sort. And so is Acts 23. 5. I wist not that he was the High Priest. This manner of speaking is not unworthy of the Sacred Penmen: Synecdoches frequent in Scripture; proved from several Instances; Metaphors also common. Solomon's Metaphorical Description of Old Age in Eccles. 12. expounded in all its Parts.  
THere are not only Grammatical but Rhetorical Figures in this Sacred Volume, the chief of which I will briefly speak of, not to say that I have mentioned some of them already. And though (as I said of the former) they have been observed by several Writers, yet one Reason why I mention them here is, because I shall have occasion to reduce some Texts to these Figures which have not been so interpreted by other Authors. First, Hyperboles are not unusual in these Holy Writings; these are such Speeches as seem to surpass the bare Truth, either by augmenting or diminishing it. Thus a Great Cauldron, one of the Vessels of the Temple that held a vast Quantity of Water, is called a Sea, a molten Sea, 1 Kings 7. 23. a brazen Sea, 2 Kings. 25. 13. It is said, that the Cities were walled up to Heaven, Deut. 1. 28. and that Solomon made. Silver in Jerusalem as Stones, 1 Kings 10. 27. and that at his being anointed King the People rejoiced with great joy, so that the Earth rend with the Sound of them, 1 Kings 1. 40. Upon which Places, and some others, the Jews found that Saying of theirs, The Law sometimes speaks Hyperbolically. The Description of Behemoth is full of this sort of Language; He moveth his Tail like a Cedar; his Bones are as strong pieces of Brass, and Bars of Iron; he drinketh up a River, he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his Mouth, Job 40. 17, etc. Xerxes' Army was said 
* Diodor. Sic. l. 11. Juvenal. Sat. 10.  to drink whole Rivers dry, in that Hyperbolical Sense in which this is spoken of Behemoth: which proves what I have asserted, that the Scripture symbolizeth with other Writers, or rather they with it. The like Hyperbolical Description you have of the Leviathan, Job 41. 18, to the end. And such is that of the Locusts, Joel 2. 2— 12. all which is indeed one Continued Hyperbole, wherein he elegantly and pathetically describes them as a well-formed Army, as Virgil in his Georgics loftily doth the Ants, It nigrum campis agmen. So all is Poetical and Hyperbolical in Psal. 18. 7— 16. As for Psal. 120. 5. Woe is me that I sojourn in Mesech, and dwell in the Tents of Kedar; few Expositors take it to be of this kind. Because Mesech signifies protracting or prolonging, some interpret the first Clause thus, I have a LONG time dwelled: and because Kedar signifies Blackness, they understand it of the Sadness of his Condition. Others would translate the pious King to those Places and Countries which bear the Name of Mesech and Kedar, thinking that he was for some time confined to those Places. And there are other Conjectures about the Words, but the true Import of them in my. Apprehension is this; David being banished from home, expresseth it as if he were among the barbarous Scythians, as if he were in the wild Deserts of Arabia. Or, if you take Mesech and Kedar to be both of them in Arabia, (as some do) then still the Sense is the same; I sojourn, I dwell, I inhabit among the inhospitable People of Arabia, called Scenitae, because they lived in Tents, or in that part of the Wilderness where the Israelites pitched in Tents when they travelled to the Land of Canaan: There is my Abode at present, I am no longer one of judea. This is an Hyperbolical Speech to set forth the Nature of those Inhuman and Malicious People into whose Hands he was fallen, and with whom he was forced to converse at that time. To this sort of Speech we may refer Psal. 97. 5. The Hills melted like Wax. Isa. 34. 3. The Mountains shall be melted with their Blood. Ezek. 32. 6. I will water with thy Blood, etc. I will mak● the Blood of the slain so abundant, that it shall reach upto the very Mountains, and all the Rivers shall be ●ill'd with Blood; which is to be looked upon as an Hyperbolical Description of Egypt's Destruction. So Ezek. 39 9, 10. [They shall burn the Weapons with ●ire seven Years; so that they shall take no Wood out of the Field, nor cut down any out of the Forests] is an elevated Strain of speaking, to express the Multitude of the Weapons and Spoils taken from the Enemy, and the vast Slaughter of them. At the first View those Words in Obadia●, ver. 4. Though thou set thy Nest among the Stars, must be acknowledged to be highly Hyperbolical.  
Neither is the New Testament without this kind of speaking; as to instance in Matth. 13. 32. which I grant is not reckoned by Writers among the Hyperboles of Scripture, but I appeal to the Learned, whether it ought not. Of the Mustardseed there in the Parable Christ saith, It is indeed the least of all Seeds; (for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Greek Word, yet (as hath been noted before) it is here put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is plain from its being joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it is rightly rendered the least of all Seeds:) but this is not exactly true, for the 
* Dr. Power.  Seeds of Sweet-marjoram and Wild Poppy are far less; and the Seeds of Tobacco are so small, that a thousand of them make not above one single Grain in Weight: but all must give place to the Seed of Moon-wort, which certainly is a Seed of the least size that is. And 
† Mr. Ray's Wisdom of God in the Creation, p. 100  another reckons among the smallest Seeds of Plants those of Reed-mace, and of Harts-tongue, and of some sorts of Mosses and Ferns. And of these latter I have read that some of them are so small, that they cannot be seen without the Help of a Microscope. But our Saviour, to set forth and magnify the wonderful Power of the Word of God, and the Increasing and Spreading of his Kingdom, though from very small Beginnings, compares them to a Grain of Mustardseed; and by a Lessening Hyperbole calls this the Least of all Seeds, though in exact speaking it be not so. But if this way of interpreting Christ's Words, which I now offer, be not approved of, than you may expound them thus, that this Seed is o●e of the least of all Seeds; or you may understand them spoken Respectively, that is, it is the Least of all such Seeds as extend to large Productions; no Seed so little sendeth forth Branches so wide, or bringeth forth its Fruit after that plentiful manner Thus you may understand the Words, but in my Judgement the resolving them into an Hyperbole is the best way, though it be not made use ●f by Expositors. And how indeed could it, when they took the Seed of Mustard to be Absolutely the least of all Grains whatsoever? That of our Saviour in Luke 19 44. They shall not leave in thee one Stone upon another; which is spoken of the Last and Final Devastation of jerusalem, is generally supposed to be an Hyperbolical Expression, and consequently not true in Strictness of Speech: for can we think, say some, that the Roman Armies had nothing else to do but to pick out all the Stones in the Foundations, and throw them away? Those who talk thus, do not remember what was done at several times towards the complete and total Destruction of that Place. This Passage of our Blessed Lord seems to refer particularly and signally to the digging up the Foundations of the City and Temple, and the very ploughing up the Ground by Titus' Command, (which the Jews themselves do not deny) and also to that Prodigious Earthquake in Iulian's time, whereby▪ the remaining Parts of the Foundations were wholly broken up and scattered abroad. Here was an Exact fulfilling of Christ's Prediction without any Hyperbole.  
As for that Close of St. John's Gospel, Even the Wo●ld itself could not contain the Books that should be written, chap. 21▪ 25. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Excl. His●●. 1. c. 3.  Eus●bius and St. A●gustin of old, and 
* Lyra, Tremellius.  others more lately understand it thus; The World, that is, the Men of the World could not contain, that is, conceive, comprehend and digest the Books that should be written concerning our Saviour's Deeds. Their Understandings are weak, and must needs have been oppressed with so many Books on that Subject. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word here used, is to be taken in Matth. 19 11. All Men cannot receive (or contain) this Saying: and in this Sense it is used by Philo, who, speaking of the Knowledge of the Nature of God, and how unsearchable it is, saith, that 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Monarch. l. 1.  neither Heaven nor Earth are able to contain, i. e. to comprehend it. But a 
‖ Heins. Exercit. Sacr.  modern Critic thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies to entertain and approve of; and accordingly his Gloss on the Words is this, The whole World would scorn, reject and slight all the Books which should be writ of Christ, it having despised these that are already writ. The World hath other Employment, it would not read and peruse such Writings. This seems to be the meaning of the Verb in 2 Cor. 7. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, receive, entertain, approve of us. And 
‖‖ 〈◊〉 8.  Dionys. Halicarn. uses the word thus, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the City admits not of, i. e. scorns good Men. But though this and the other be the meaning of the Word sometimes, yet it is very Rare and Unusual: besides that it is Improper and Metaphorical; and in such a case it is more reasonable to choose and embrace that Sense of the Word which is common and usual, as also genuine and proper; and then the meaning is, that the World, as capacious and wide as it is, is not able to hold o● contain all the Books that might have been written concerning Christ and his Works. But this cannot be the S●ns● here, you will say, because than our Saviour's Words would not be true; for the World is able, is wide enough to contain, to hold those Books, and many more besides. I answer, I grant this to be true in the strict way of speaking, but the Evangelist St. john had a mind to conclude his Book with some Great Word concerning his Dear Master and Saviour, and therefore expresseth himself thus in a High and Hyperbolical manner, The World itself could not contain the Books that should be written of him. As if he had said, Though I and other● have recorded the Sayings and Doings of the Blessed Jesus, yet this is nothing in comparison of what might be said on this vast Subject. The●e is unspeakably much more re●naining than hath been told you. What he said and did was so Great and so Admirable, that Innumerable Volumes might be filled with enlarging on that copious Matter. I may say to you, the Whole World, as wide and ample as it is, is not able to contain those Immense Treatises, those Infinite Discourses which might be written in relating all the Passages that concerned our Blessed Lord, and in commendation of them. Observ● it, the Evangelist saith, the World itself, i. e. this Material Local World, therefore it can't be understood of the Men of the world, as those of the former Opinions fancied. Besides, it is observable that he speaks not Absolutely here, but in a Qualified Manner; I suppose, I think, I conceive the World itself cannot contain, etc. which plainly shows that the Words cannot be meant in the former Senses. For what Sense can you make of this; I suppose, I think that all the Men in the World cannot comprehend the Books which should be written; or, I suppose all the Men in the World cannot entertain and approve of them? Whether he supposed it or not, it would be so: and this is a thing not to be supposed, but really believed and directly asserted, if it be true. But if you admit of the plain Sense of the Words, which I have propounded▪ than his supposing may be very pertinent and consistent here; for it is but a kind of a Supposition. not an Exact and Strict Truth which he here uttereth: it is a Lofty Strain or Hyperbole, which he shuts up his Gospel with; I think in a manner, ●aith he, that the Whole World itself cannot contain the Books that might be composed and written on this Glorious Theme, which is so Various, so Voluminous. Thus you see the Words must be understood in this way, for the others are not reconcilable to good Sense. And indeed this manner of Style is but parallel with other Passages in Scripture, as Gen. 13. 6. The Land was not able ●o bear them, viz. Lot and Abraham, and their Flocks; which expresses how exceeding Numerous they were. So some understand Luke 2. 1. There went out a Decree that all the World should be taxed: which sets forth the Largeness and Vast Extent of the Emperor's Dominions; not that all the World (strictly speaking) was to be taxed, for 'twas not all in his Power. It was said of our Saviour, The World is gone after him, John 12. 19 which only expresses the Vast Numbers of People that flocked to him wheresoever he went. Such is the Style here, The World itself cannot contain, etc. The Evangelists and Apostles must in a manner have filled the World with their Writings concerning Christ; the Books would have been so Numerous, that even the Whole World could scarcely have held them, that is, in plainer terms, there must have been an Incredible Number of Books to have contained all those Matters. There are many other Instances of this Hyperbolical Manner of speaking in the Holy Writings, but my Design is only to give you a Taste of these and the like Figurative Expressions, in order to your being better acquainted with the Style of Scripture. There is a 
‖ Paraeus in Comment. in Epist. ad Roman. & Corinth.  Learned Modern Divine, who thinks there is no such thing as an Hyperbole in Scripture; he will by no means grant that this way of speaking is to be found in the Sacred Writings, because it is a kind of Lie. But all that is to be said in answer to him, is this, that it is impossible to give any other Account of some of the forenamed Instances, and several others, than by resolving them into an Hyperbole; which is no Lie, nor a kind of one, because it is not contrary to the Mind of him that speaks it, nor is it spoken to impose upon them that hear it. Yet it is to be granted, that there is a Moderation to be observed by us, as there is in Scripture, in using this sort of speaking. You meet with but few Hyperboles in the Holy Writers; and as they are rarely and sparingly used, so it is done in a fit and convenient Subject; and where there is no likelihood of their degenerating into a Lie; and where the Story or other subject Matter is not thereby falsely misrepresented▪ But it is otherwise where Writers immoderately affect an Hyperbolic Strain, for they make use of it in Matters where it is not fit to be used, and where the Truth and Reality of the Subject are endangered, and where it administers to Falsehood, Thus it is in the Poems of that Historical Poet Lucan, who is a Prodigious and Unsufferable Hyperbolizer. And thus it is in Monsieur Balsac: An Extravagant Hyperbole goes all along through his Letters, though to the Greatest Persons, and Men of professed Gravity. A great Fault certainly it is in those Ingenious Pieces of his. But there is no such thing in the Sacred Writings, there is nothing there Romantic and Extravagant; the Hyperbole is seldom used, and when it is, it is Modest and Becoming, Fit and Convenient, and doth not in the least administer to Levity, or impair and endamage the Truth.  
Again; in this Holy Book, as well as in Other Writings, there is that sort of Speaking which is called an Irony, i. e. when something is said in way of Derision or Scoff, contrary to what is meant; as in that commonly observed Place, Gen. 3. 22. Behold! the Man is become as one of us, to know Good and Evil: which refers to Satan's Words to Adam, Ye shall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evil, ver. 5. And so Man is here upbraided with his Belief of the Devil before the God of Truth. Look you now, is not Man become a God? Yes, this mightily appears indeed from what hath befallen him; he hath lost the Divine Image wherein he was created, and is become a Wretched Sinner and Apostate. Is not this Creature then become as one of us? or, now 
* Hajah, suit.  he hath been as one of us; he hath already experienced what it is to be like God: Hath he not? Thus he is justly derided for his wilful Folly by the Sacred Trinity. And if they think fit to speak after this manner, it will not unbecome the Sons of Men. This Ironical way of speaking you meet with in 1 Kings 18. 27. Cry aloud, for he (that is, Baal) is a God: either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. Thus the Prophet Elijah mocks those deluded Priests of Baal, he makes himself pleasant with them. Even Grave and Austere Elijab laughs at the Baalites invoking of a Deaf Deity: he plays upon their serious but idolatrous Devotion. Whence I gather, that it is not light and unbecoming to scoff at Superstition, and jeer Idolatry. Those Words of the Prophet Micaiah to King Abab, 1 Kings 22. 15. Go and prosper, are a plain Ironical Concession. In this Sense those Wo●ds are to be understood, job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee: and to which of the Saints will thou turn? And chap. 12. 2. No doubt but ye are the People, and Wisdom shall die with you. And that of Solomon to the Youthful Sinner, Rejoice, O young Man, in thy Youth, etc. Eccles. 11. 9 Which manner of speaking is more particularly suited here to the Humour and Genius of the Young Man, whose Fashion is immoderately to scoff, and to entertain himself and others with Pleasantry and Drollery▪ But that he might see that this was intended as a Rebuke to him, and that he might be sure that Solomon was serious and in good earnest, notwithstanding this way of speaking, 'tis added in the Close of the Verse, Know that for all these things God will bring thee to judgement: And he that considers that will have no Reason to rejoice, i. e. to be loose and inordinate in his Mirth, but rather to be sober and retired, and to be preparing for Judgement, and to set about so great a Task betimes, and not fond presume on Health, and Length of Days. No Man need question whether those Words of Isaiah, ch. 8. 9 Associate yourselves, O ye People, be not spoken Ironically: (which are parallel with joel 3. 11. Assemble yourselves, and come all ye Heathen, and gather yourselves round about, etc.) And those in Isa. 50. 11. Walk in the Light of your Fire, and in the Sparks that you have kindled, i. e. trust in those things that cannot help you, Sparks that give a short Light, and soon vanish. That is a terrible Biting Taunt in jer. 22. 23. How gracious shalt thou be when Pangs come upon thee, the Pain as of a Woman in Travail? And so is that other, Lam. 4. 21: Rejoice and be glad, O Daughter of Edom, the Cup (viz. of Vengeance) shall pass through to thee. Who doubts whether Ezek. 20. 39 be not Sarcastical? Thus faith the Lord God, Go ye, serve ye every one his Idols. The like Command we read in Amos 4. 4, 5▪ Come to Bethel and transgress, at Gilgal multiply Transgression, etc. That also in Mic. 5. 1. must be reckoned as spoken Ironically; Now gather thyself in Troops, O Daughter of Troops, etc. i. e. O Assyrians, come and do your worst, with your joint Forces invade us, and most severely treat our Prince and People; yea, by all means destroy, extirpate, and even annihilate the Church of God: whereas the Prophet, who speaks this, intimates in the whole Chapter afterwards, that the Church shall flourish, and that it shall be impossible for its Enemies to do it harm. So that in Nah. 3. 14. Draw thee Waters for the Siege, fortify thy strong Holds, is said in way of Derision to Niniveh, whose unavoidable Ruin is foretold in that Chapter.  
And besides many such Sarcasms in the Old Testament, there are several in the New, as that of our Blessed Lord to his drowsy Disciples, Sleep on ●ow, and take your Rest, Matth. 26. 45. This is a downright Irony, because Christ here intends a different thing, nay contrary to what he saith: His meaning is, not that they should sleep, when both he and they were in so great Danger, but his Intention rather was, that they should watch and pray, as you read, ver. 41. By this way of speaking he corrects them for their unseasonable Drowsiness, that they could not watch at such a time as that, when he had just before foretold them that he was to be betrayed. That is another clear Text, Full well (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fairly, as Sir Nort. Knatchbull renders it) ye reject the Commandment of God, saith our Saviour to the Pharisees, Mark 7. 9 Ye do very well and laudably in preferring the Traditions and Constitutions of Men before the express Commands of God. This is a commendable piece of Religion indeed: Is it not? Do you think that this will be acceptable to God? There is another Passage of our Saviour which seems to me to be perfectly Ironical, though Commentators generally carry the Sense another way: But now (saith Christ) he that hath a Purse, let him take it, and likewise his Scrip: and be that hath no Sword, let him sell his Garment, and buy one, Luke 22. 36. Which is thought by Expositors to be a plain and direct Exhortation to the Apostles to furnish themselves with Money, Provision, and Swords. But this cannot be meant here, because, 1. Christ had declared against Fight, for he tells Pilate, (john 18. 36.) that if his Kingdom were of this World, then would his Servants (i. e. his Apostles and Disciples) fight, that he should not be delivered to the jews. Swords than were to no purpose. 2. When they brought two Swords to him, his Answer is observable, It is enough. If he had meant real Swords, he would not have said that two of them were enough, for those could serve but two Men: They should all of them be appointed with that sort of Weapons, and have stood on their Guard. When therefore he saith, It is enough, he doth as good as say, I do not mean Carnal Weapons: You mistake me, as you have often done, and dream of a Temporal Kingdom of the Messias. 3. It is evident that Christ meant not Swords in the usual Signification of the Word, because afterwards he sharply blamed Peter for making use of this Weapon, Matth. 26. 52. It appears that he had no Commission from our Saviour to draw his Sword. I cannot therefore subscribe to those who interpret these Words of our Lord in the direct and obvious Sense. But if we understand them to be spoken ironically, they are very intelligible, and are consistent with what Christ saith at other times. And let no Man wonder that our Blessed Master uses this sort of Style here, for I have showed you before, in two undeniable Instances, that he made use of it, yea even when he was approaching to Death, as when he said to his Apostles, Sleep on, and take your Rest. And so he speaks after the same manner here, upbraiding his Apostles, who he knew were afraid of Suffering, and had so often been talking of Christ's Kingdom on Earth, and of the Prosperous Times that were to accompany it. He now in a Sarcastic way chastises their fond and groundless Conceit, and bids them go and buy Swords, and lay in Provisions. If you are for a Temporal Reign, saith he, than sight for it. You are specially well skilled in your Weapons without doubt, you are excellent Swordmen. This I take to be the Sense of the Words: and truly a Man might gather it from that one Passage before mentioned; It is enough, said our Saviour to them, when they brought him a couple of Swords. This itself is an Ironic Quip; it is as if he had said, This is brave Armour indeed! Now you are well appointed surely. You are like to defend me and yourselves against all that come against us. Two Swords amongst you all are a very great Armoury▪ This plainly shows what our Saviour's meaning was, when he bid them buy Swords, he handsomely checked them for their Cowardice and Fear of Suffering. But yet I will not deny that something more may be included and comprised in these Words: he bids them make the best Provision they can against the Calamitous Times that were coming: he exhorts them to be provided with Spiritual Weapons, Faith and Patience, and th● Sword of the Spirit, yea with the Whole Armour of God. This higher and spiritual meaning may be contained in what Christ here uttereth. But if you take the Words as they sound, and in the more direct and literal Tendency of them, I do not see that they can be interpreted in a better way than I have offered.  
And as our Blessed Saviour himself, so the Apostle St. Paul sometimes uses this Figure which I am now speaking of. I am inclined to think that those Words in Acts 23. 5. I wist not that he was the High Priest, are to be taken in this Sense: He makes use of an Irony, and is to be understood as if he had said, Is this the High Priest? Alas, I did not know that this was that Reverend Gentleman. I should have showed myself more civil to him, if I had been acquainted that this was that Worshipful Man, that Gay Pontiff to whom you pay so great Veneration: But who would take this Person to be the High Priest, the Great Leading Officer of the Church, who is to be an Example of Mildness and Gentleness to all Men? His furious way of speaking and acting towards me, doth not discover him to be one of that High Character and Order: He doth not show himself to be a Spiritual Man: Surely this cannot be He: This Behaviour speaks him to be another Person. So it is spoken in a jtering way. Nor is this Sense of the Words (as ●●me may think) too light and jocular for the Apostle, though he was before the Sanhedrim, the most Grave and Solemn Council of that Nation: For in several of the Instances before mentioned, we see this way of speaking hath been made use of before very Great and Venerable Persons, and in Causes that were exceeding Serious and Weighty. And whereas the Apostle immediately adds, For it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People; which may make it seem incredible that St. Paul spoke in a Sarcastic way, which is speaking one thing, and meaning another: for is it likely he would back this with a serious Text of Scripture? I answer, It is likely, for hereby he lets them see, that there is Substantial and Real Truth at the bottom of this Sarcasm. He lets them know, that he is very Grave and in good earnest whilst he speaks to them after an Ironic rate: You are, saith he, very well versed in Scripture, I know; You are ready to quote that Place against me in Exodus, Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of the People. This it is, Sirs, to be so well skilled in the Law, you cannot but be very Good People certainly, and particularly you must be very Obedient to your Rulers, and are never heard to use any irreverent Language towards them. It is therefore an unpardonable Crime in me that I called your High Priest (your Painted Piece of Justice) a Whited Wall. Yea, 'tis an unsufferable Fault not to know that this Person (among all those that sit on this Reverend Bench) was the High Priest, especially when there are two of them at a time. O! by all means every Man and Woman is bound to know that this individual Person is the Jewish Pope, the Supreme and Infallible Head of your Church What a dull ignorant Creature was I that I wish not this? that I shoul● not know that this was the Prince of this Reverend Senate, even this Worthy Gentleman, this simoniacal Merchant that bought his Place of the Roman Governor? How should I understand that this Person is my judge at this time? This, I conceive, may be the meaning of the Apostle's Words: he prudently order them, and jirks his Adversaries, but with Safety to himself. And this Ironical way seems the rather to be that which the Apostle here chooseth, because you presently find (in the next Verses) that he pursues this prudential way of speaking, and cries out in the Council, Men and Brethren, I am a Pharisee, though he was none at that time; only he held the Doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Pharisees maintained, and so might be said to be of that Sect, if of any. But there is an Ironical Strain in it, and so his Discourse is all of a piece. This is the Apprehension which I have of these Words, but I am not very forward to urge it upon any; only I will say this, that I had not pitched upon this Interpretation, if some of those that are usually propounded had not displeased me. This Sense of the Words is certainly preferable to that of Oecumenius, who tells us in plain terms, that the Apostle 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Comment. in Acts 23. 5.  dissembled. And St. jerom blames him for his Conduct in this Business. Nor is there any Ground (so far as I see) for Dr. Lightfoot's Account of these Words, viz. that the meaning of them is either, 1. That St. Paul owns not Ananias for a lawful High Priest. Or, 2. He owns not any lawful High Priesthood now, Ananias being an Usurper, getting the Place by Money and ●raud. For though all this is true, yet it is utterly inconsistent with what follows; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak Evil of, etc. where there is an Acknowledgement of his being the Ruler of the People. Besides, I wist not, and I own him not to be the High Priest, are two different things: So that this cannot be the right Import of the Words. Others therefore say, the Apostle is to be understood in the most plain and obvious Signification, viz. that he really knew not that Ananias was the High Priest, because it is probable, say they, this Great Man appeared not at that time in his Pontifical Habit, coming to the Council perhaps in haste, which might incline the Apostle to think it was not He who sat there to judge him. But no Man can prove that the High Priest came to the Sanhedrim in haste, or that he was not in his Robes proper to his Office; and therefore this Answer is not satisfactory. But they tell us, that in those Days there were two High Priests, one bought the Place, and the other executed the Office; therefore it was no easy Matter to know which of the two was the High Priest indeed, which made St. Paul profess before the Council, that he wist not that the Person who commanded him to be smitten on the Mouth, was the High Priest. If he had known him (say they) to be Him, he would not have spoken as he did of this Great Ruler of the People. But granting there were two High Priests at that time, yet it is likely that one (who executed the Office) was distinguished from the other in some manner that was easily discernible: So that St. Paul could not pretend he had no notice of him. However, St. Paul knew that this very Person who ordered him to be smitten, was one of his judges, (for he expressly saith, that he sat there to judge him after the Law) and on that account was a Ruler, and consequently he was not to speak Evil of him, much less to curse him, for he was not to u●e Malediction towards any, as himself acknowledgeth, Rom. 12. 14. This Interpretation therefore is not to be admitted. But if the Sense which I have before offered be disliked, than I know no other but this, that when St. Paul saith, he wist not that he was the High Priest; the meaning is, that he remembered not, he considered not that he was such a Person, and so was unawares surprised and precipitated into Passion, and spoke unbecomingly of this Great Man. It was want of Considering and Attending that betrayed him to that passionate and unseemly Language: or, being moved and exasperated, ●e did not consider that he was before so Great a Person. This is no improbable Interpretation, if you can be sure that these two Words, to know and to consider, are sometimes equivalent in the Style of Scripture. But if you cannot satisfy yourselves as to this, I think you may safely recur to the first Interpretation, and look upon St. Paul's Words as an Ironical Speech, especially if you consider that his Style is very full of them.  
This I shall make good to you from several Instances in his Epistles; as that in 1 Co●. 11. 6. If the Woman be not covered, let her also be sh●●n: If she lays her Veil aside, and appears in the public Assemblies wihtout a Covering▪ than I say, let her also be shorn or shaved, let her Hair be cut close to the Skin, let her go like some of the Cropped Philosophers among the Stoics. Not that he would have her do so, but only by this Sarcastic way of speaking he signifie● that one is as decent as the other. It is as disgraceful to be Uncovered as to be shaved: for 'twas the l●●dable Custom then ●n the Christian Churches for the Women to bewailed, and it was disgraceful and reproachful for any of that Sex to appear barefaced in the time of Worship. Again, those Words in 2 Cor. 10. 12. We dare not make ourselves of the Number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves, etc. are spoken merely in Derision of the False Apostles and Teachers, who had gained upon the Corinthians and other Churches by their confident Boasting and vain Brags. I dare not presume, ●aith the Apostle▪ to think myself as worthy as they are, and so rank myself with th●se highflown Teachers. Yet we know he commends himself in the beginning of the 11th Chapter; and again in ch. 12. 11. which shows that these Words are said in an Ironical way. This is that which he seems to say in ch. 11. 17, etc. That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly in this Confidence of Boasting. Seeing many glory after the Flesh, (brag of their Parts and Attainments) I will glory also. For ye suffer Fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. Which is all of the same biting Strain, and is as much as if he had said, You that are so great Admirers of the false Apostles, and are Men of such wise Heads, and of so profound Capacities, I know it is below you to censure such a shallow Fool as I am, who cannot forbear prating of my Gifts and Abilities, of my great Feats and Exploits forsooth, which alas are nothing in comparison of what your famous Teachers and new Evangelists may glory in, and value themselves upon. But then in the following Verses he leaves off (and 'twas time to do so) this loser sort of Style, and in a plain and close manner vindicates his Reputation and Dignity by vying with those bragging Impostors, Are they Hebrews? so am I, etc.  
That is a plain downright Irony in 2 Cor. 11. 4. If he that cometh preacheth another jesus, ye might well (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fairly and honestly) bear with him. As if he had said, Yes indeed you Men of Corinth are a civil easy sort of People; if a new upstart Teacher should bring another Gospel to you, you would do very well to receive him and bid him welcome. Thus he in an Illusory kind of way rebukes their shameful Inconstancy and Levity. In the same Vein▪ is that in 2. Cor. 12. 13. Forgive me this wrong. He had told them in the same Verse, that they were inferior to no Churches in any thing, i. e. in any Privileges or Excellencies whatsoever, except it was in this, that he was not burdensome to them; that is, he put them to no Charges for his Preaching, he preached the Gospel gratis: For which great Wrong and Injury done to them he hopes, he saith, they will pardon him. A very smart and pleasant Irony. Thus it appears, that this Figurative way of Speech is frequent in the Holy Writings. Some perhaps would scarcely believe that there are so many Ironical Passages in this Holy Book; they may think it is below the Gravity of the Sacred Style to use Expressions of this kind: But herein they are mistaken, for the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures uses several different ways of dealing with Mankind, and suits himself to the various Dispositions, Genius's and Inclinations of Men: and therefore among other ways of Address and Application he disdains not This in particular, because it may be made serviceable to very good Ends, and be fitted to the Purposes of Religion. Even in the Holy Tongue 
* Lutz.  the same Word signifies to Deride and to Argue or Ratiocinate: Both these may go together when there is a fit occasion for them. A Man may use his Rational and Risible Faculty at once. 

* Horat. Serm. 1. — Ridentem dicere verum  
Quid vetat?  A Man may laugh and speak Truth at the same time. This Urbanity may sometimes be very useful. Very excellent things may be suggested in a Scommatick way. For this Reason it is not unworthy of the Holy Ghost, it is not unbecoming the Gravity and Seriousness of the Holy Prophets, Apostles, and even Christ himself, to use this nipping sort of Raillery sometimes.  
A Synecdoche is another common Figure in the Holy Writings, whereby the Whole is mentioned instead of a Part, and a Part instead of the Whole. Of the former, which is but rare, there are some Instances in Glassius, and such other Writers as treat of the Grammatical and Rhetorical Part of the Bible, which the Reader may consult if he please. Of the latter (which is most observable) there are various kinds, but it will be sufficient to mention these which follow. Sometimes the Soul, which is but one half of Man, is put for the whole Person: All the Souls that came with Jacob into Egypt were threescore and ten, Gen. 46. 26. i e. so many Men and Women came with him: And there are abundant Examples of this sort, both in the Old and New Testament. Sometimes the other Moiety, the Body, is expressive of the Whole Man, as Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies (i. e. yourselves) a living Sacrifice. And Phil. 1. 20. Christ shall be magnified in my Body, i. e. by me, my whole person. There is another Text which I will name, Luke 21. 34. wherein there is this kind of Synecdoche, though I find not that it is observed by those that comment on it: Take heed to yourselves lest at any time your Hearts be overcharged with Surfeiting and Drunkenness, and Cares of this Life; your Hearts, i. e. yourselves. It must be meant of the Whole Man, Body and Soul, because not only Surfeiting and Drunkenness (which belong to the Body only) but Cares of this life (which belong to the Soul and Mind) are expressly mentioned. Again, some Parts of the World are mentioned for the whole, as in Z●ch. 8. 7. I will save my People from the East Country, and from the West Country, i. e. from all Regions and Parts of the World. And in other Places two or three of the Cardinal Points stand for them all. To the Synecdochical way of speaking belongs the using of an Even Number for an Odd one; or a Round Number for one that is lesser or greater. So 
* Cunaeus, Jac. Capellus, Beroaldus, etc.  some think the Year of jubilee is called the Fiftieth Year, Leu. 25. 10. merely for the Evenness or Roundness of the Number, and not because full Fifty Years go to every Jubilee; for they hold that Forty nine Years make a Jubilee, or rather that the forty ninth Year is the Year of Jubilee. And truly it is adjusted to Reason and the Discovery we have concerning this Matter: for the Jubilee is the Great Sabbath of Years, and is composed of seven times seven Years, which is exactly forty nine, the last of which is the Jubilaean Year. Odd Numbers are not regarded sometimes. The Scripture is not so minute and critical as always to reckon precisely. It is not unusual to omit a small Number of Years in a greater and bigger one. In Numb. 11. 24. the Elders are said to be seventy, though two of the Number be wanting, as is plain from ver. 26. But others solve this by saying, the full Number of them was seventy two. It is recorded that the Persian King reigned over a hundred and twenty seven provinces, E●th. 1. 1. But in Dan. 6. 1. the odd Number seven is omitted, and so in other Places the imperfect Number is left out. Some Parts only of the Twelve Tribes are called the Twelve Tribes; Acts 26. 7. Our twelve Tribes instantly serving God Day and Night. And St. james directs his Epistle to the Twelve Tribes, whether there were that Number extant at that time or not. So a Round Number is used for an odd one in john 20. 24. where Thomas is called one of the Twelve: yet there were but Eleven Apostles then. But because the Number of the Apostles was twelve before Iudas' Apostasy; and afterwards, when Mathias was chosen in his room, the Number was filled up, therefore they are called the Twelve by the Evangelist, but 'tis in a way of Synecdoche. He was seen of the twelve, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 5. Yet there were not above Eleven at that time. The true Account of this is, that the Greatest Part hath the Name of the Whole. And sometimes an Uneven Number is put for an Even one, as in Mark 16. 14. He appeared to the eleven, when there were but ten present, for Thomas was not there, and judas had hanged himself. Thus the strict Number of Persons and Things is not made use of sometimes in Scripture. It was generally believed by the Ancients, that the seventy Disciples mentioned Luke 10. 1, 17. were in strict speaking seventy two: and indeed some Greek Copies have it 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so, and the Vulgar Latin renders it 
† Septuaginta duo.  accordingly. So the famous Interpreters of the Old Testament were seventy two, (six out of every Tribe) but are generally known by the Name of the Septuagint. This is not unfrequent in Profane Authors, and in our Common Discourse, as those that are called the Seven Stars are according to some Astronomers but Six. Yea, this was taken notice of long ago by 
* In Fast.  Ovid: Quae septem dici, sex tamen esse solent. So we call them the Cinque Ports, which are more in Number; for the Privileged Ports in England were three at first; afterwards two were added, and then they were called the Cinque Ports. Yet after that, when two more were added, still they retained the former Name: nay, another was added, which made eight, and yet they are to this Day called the Cinque Ports. And several other Instances there are of this sort of Synecdoche, but my Design is not to enumerate all of them, nor of any Others that belong to the rest of the Figures, but only to give you some few Examples of them, that you may thence know how to discern the rest, and by all together understand the Nature of the Scripture-Stile.  
But of all the Figurative ways of speaking in Sripture, there is none so common as the Metaphorical one, which is when the Words are translated from their proper and genuine Signification to another. Thus you read of trusting in the shadow (i. e. the Protection) of Egypt. Isa. 30. 3. Thus the Psalmist complains that the Plowers ploughed upon his Back, and made long their Furrows, Psal. 129. 3. i e. they exceedingly troubled, vexed and plagued him. So the Jews are called the threshing, and the Corn of the Floor, Isa. 21. 10. i e. a People that had been extremely harassed and persecuted by their Enemies. And that is another Metaphorical Description of Affliction; Psal. 42. 7. All thy Waves and thy Billows have gone over me. And a great Multitude of such like Expressions there are every where in the Old Testament. Sometimes there is a double Metaphor, as in Psal. 97. 11. Light is sown for the Righteous. The Joy, the Comfort which is promised to Good Men, is here in a borrowed Style called Light; and not only so, but Seed, precious Seed which is covered for a time, (hid under Ground) but shall in due Season sprout forth: and they that sow in Tears shall reap in joy; which is still a farther Instance of this kind of speaking. Sometimes there is a Continued Metaphor, as in Host 10. 12, etc. Sow to yourselves in Righteousness, reap in Mercy; break up your Fallow-ground: for it is time to seek the Lord, till he come and rain Righteousness upon you. Ye have ploughed Wickedness, ye have reaped Iniquity, ye have eaten the Fruit of Lies. Here is a Heap of Metaphors taken from the Field and Husbandry. Throughout the whole 23d Psalms, the Metaphor of a Shepherd is carried on with relation to all the Particulars of his Pastoral Charge, as I may have occasion to show at another time.  
But at present I will choose to insist upon that excellent Description of Old Age which Solomon gives in the 12th Chapter of Ecclesiastes, and which is made up all along of an admirable Chain of Metaphors. This is that Time of a Man's Life which is rightly called his 
* Aetes' mala. Plaut.  Evil Days, ver. 1. and that both in regard of his Mind and of his Body. The Wise Man here begins with the former, deciphering that black and dismal State of Mankind by such Expressions as these, The Sun, and the Light, and the Moon, and the Stars are darkened, ver. 2. That Noble and Illustrious Part of Man, the Soul, ●s the Glorious Sun and Light of this Little World: and the Meon and Stars fitly denote the several bright and shining Faculties of it, which are all darkened and clouded by Age. The Intellectual Part is miserably obscured and impaired by the Clouds of Ignorance, Prejudice, and Mistake, which insensibly increase upon those who are much declined in Years, especially if they had not laid in a considerable Stock of useful Notions before. The Memory becomes weak and faithless, so that they let slip many Notices and Observations which they were once Masters of, and they cannot Retain those which are now daily administered to them. The Imagination, another Radiant Power of the Soul, is corrupted: they are grown Conceited and Fantastic; they are (as the Philosopher observes of them) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. Eth.  suspicious of Evil, and backward to believe any Good. They nourish wrong Apprehensions, and have a false View of things. Notwithstanding this they are not desirous to correct their Errors and Misprisions, and to be better taught: 

† Horat. de Art. Poet.  Velure quia nil rectum nisi quod placuit sibi ducunt,  
Vel qui●●urpe putant parere minoribus, & quae  
Imberbes didicere, senes perdenda fateri.  Thence it was a kind of Proverb with Diogenes, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog, 〈◊〉▪ 1. 6.  To cure a Dead Man and instruct an Old one, are the ●ame. The Reason is▪ because their Wills (another Mental Endowment) are strangely perverted and distorted. Where the Divine Grac● hath not the Predominancy, they generally are wayward and testy, froward and stubborn; they are dispeased at what others (especially their Inferiors in Years) say or do, and nothing scarcely is acceptable but what they speak and act themselves, because they will it, and because they affect it▪ which reminds me of the gross Darkness which hath invaded another Faculty, viz. that of their Affections: This is wholly spent in Self-Love, in an Eager Desire of lengthening out their Days, and in an Extravagant. Doting on the things of this Life. They must soon die and leave the World, (which they detest. so much as to hear of) and yet they do as 'twere hug it the more. They are shortly to bid adieu to it, and therefore they more earnestly desire and pursue it, as we are most busy in saluting and embracing those Friends that we must part with presently. Though there is a Period to all their other Labours, yet 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pl●t.  they are not wearied with getting Gain. In nothing else but this do they seem to possess their Youthful Vigour again. In brief, all their former Passions are swallowed up in Avarice and Concernedness for the Profits and Advantages of this present World. The longer they are here, the more enamoured they are with it; for as 
† Lord Bacon's Essays.  One hath observed, The more a Man drinks of the World, the more it Intoxicate. Thus the Sun, and Moon, and Stars are darkened: Thus the Minds of Aged person's are vitiated and corrupted: These are the particular Defects and Failings which they are generally liable to, (and therefore are made part of their Character here) I mean when a Divine Principle and a Lively Sense of Virtue and Holiness do not actuate them, when Religion hath not had its due Operation on their Hearts, and their Lives are not reform by the Influence of the Holy Spirit. For otherwise it is certain that Years administer to Virtue, and are an excellent Help to Religion. The bravest and noblest Actions that have been achieved, have been from the Counsels and Directions of Men of Long Experience in the World; for now their Minds and Judgements are arrived to the utmost Maturity: like Old Wine, they are the more Generous and Refined. This Stage of Life (of all others) is most calculated for the serious Practice of Goodness and Piety, and the very Height and Perfection of all Virtues, when it is seasoned with Divine Grace, and assisted by the supernatural Aids of the Holy Ghost. But the Wise Man here speaks of it under another Capacity, and as this part of a Man's Life is generally and most commonly incident both to natural and moral Defects of th● Soul. This is the darkening of this glorious Sun: these are the unhappy Clouds that obscure its Light. Yea, (as it follows) the Clouds return after the Rain; for this belongs to what was said before, and so refers to the Soul, which so frequently in the Close of men's Days is overwhelmed with Ignorance, Dotage, Forgetfulness, Conceitedness, Wilfulness, Self-Love, and other Distempers which cast a Scum over this Sun, and hinder it from shining forth. And accordingly as the Unhealthful and Sickly Years of their Lives come faster upon them, these Clouds increase, and grow thicker and darker, and so the Sun is overspread at last. One Mental Evil succeeds another in this Concluding Stage of men's Pilgrimage: There is a Circle of these Maladies; as Clouds produce Rain, and Rain falling on the Earth begets new Vapours, and from these proceed Clouds again: So it is here, there is a continued Succession of Evils; thus the Clouds return after the Rain. Hitherto you have the Character of Old Age, as it hath respect to the Soul of Man, for so I understand it, though Expositors are pleased to go another way. But I would ask this, Is it not most unlikely that Solomon undertaking here the Description of Old Age, would give so lame and imperfect an Account of it, as to relate some Inconveniences and Defects which have reference to the Body, and wholly to pass by in silence those that appertain to the Other and more Considerable Part of Man? Again, I would ask whether there could be any Words in the World that are fitter and apt to express the Defects of the Mind, the Nobler and Brighter Moiety of Man, than these which the Wise Man here useth? Wherefore I doubt not but this first Part of his Character is to be understood as I have represented it to you. And indeed since my finishing this Part of my Discourse, I have found that some others, as 
* Rhetor. 1. 20.  Glassius, and an 
† Dr. Smith his P. of Old Age.  Ingenious Person of our own Nation, interpret Solomon's Words after this manner.  
From the Soul he passes to the Body and Outward Man: and that it may appear the better that this is a distinct Partition from what went before, he inserts these Words, [in the Day when] ver. 3. and doth not repeat them any more afterwards; which shows he begins a New Head, and that these Words are only to mark out here to us this Division which I am speaking of: which Commentators not attending to, have mistaken the Sense of the second Verse, (which I have been explaining) and hav● applied it to the Evils of the Body: Whereas Those are now in the next Place entered upon, and I will endeavour to give you a particular Account of them. First, he tells us, that the Keepers of the House tremble, ver. 3. where the Body is compared to a House; and what more fitly can be said to be the Keepers of it than (as Castalio and Grotius expound it) the active Hands and Arms, which were made on purpose to guard and defend the Body, and therefore on all Occasions officiously bestir themselves, and are lifted up or stretched forth to preserve it from harm, to keep and secure it from Danger? But even these Nimble Guards, these Stout and Brawny Keepers, shake at the Arrival of Old Age, and with a Paralytic Trembling confess their Inability to discharge their Office, to keep and defend the House (the Tabernacle of the Body) from Assaults and Injuries. Yea, these once-Trusty Guardians, who were wont to make use of Staves and other Weapons for their Defence, now use the former only for a Support. With this they knock at the Earth at every Step, as if they called on their Graves: Or, as the Spanish Proverb hath it, The Old Man's Staff is the Rapper at Death's Door. And the strong Man, i. e. according to Vatablus and Grotius, the Legs and Thighs, which are placed in another Extremity of the House, to be its Security, and which are particularly taken notice of for their Strength, Psal. 147. 10. and which Strong Men so much glory in, these bow themselves, i. e. become weak and feeble with Age; yea, they really bend and give way, they are so far from being able to support the Body they belong to, that they can hardly sustain themselves. These bow, these stoop towards the Place where they are shortly to take their R●st. Next, it is said, that the Grinners cease, because they are few; i. e. the Teeth with which we grind and chew our Meat fail us at last, and are not able to do their Office, because not only the Strength but the Number of them is diminished: yea, sometimes the Toothless Jaws (as well as other Defects) show that Aged Persons are a second time Children. It follows, those that look out of the Windows are darkened: for he had compared the Body to a House, and so here he continues that Metaphor, as well as goes on with several others. The Windows of this House are the Holes or Sockets wherein the Eyes are placed, (the two Bonny Cavities where these precious Lights are safely enclosed, to defend them from Hurt) which are said to look out of these Casements, i. e. there (as Drusius and Grotius well interpret it) they were appointed by Heaven to exert their Visive Faculty for the use of Mankind. But Length of Years impairs or hinders their looking out: the Visual Nerves and the Spirits which are derived to them decay; the Humours dry up, the Coats wear out, the Muscles flag, and so 'tis no wonder that the Sight is dim and imperfect, and that there is a necessity of using some Artificial Helps to amend it. Whence Gejerus and some others have fancied, that those that look out of the Windows are such as are forced to use Spectacles: but this Gloss, I think, will hardly be admitted till it be proved that there was such an Invention in Solomon's Days.  
The House of our Body hath a Door, and therefore 'tis said in the next Place, the Doors are shut in the Streets, ver. 4. And what can more properly be called the Door of this House than the Mouth, the Throat, the Windpipe, the Lungs, the Stomach, all those Vessels that are to let in Air or Food? These Doors are in the Street, that Great Passage and Hollowness in the Body which is like a Street or Highway, and by which there are other Passages into several Parts of the Body. These Doors are shut, when by reason of Age they are obstructed, when they are clogged with excessive Colds and Catarrhs, when the Jaws and Throat are inflamed, when the Muscles of them are swelled, whereby the Ways of Breathing and Swallowing are stopped; when the Lungs are impeded by Asthmas, and fail in their reciprocal Motion of Inspiration and Respiration; when the Chyle is not duly separated, and the Ferment of the Stomach is vitiated; and other the like Distempers, which the Aged are subject to, invade those Parts. But more especially and signally the Mouth is the Door of this House, which I confirm from what follows, when the Sound of the Grinding is low; that is, this Door is shut, or but seldom opened, when their great Weakness and Indisposition will not suffer them to take any Food, or but an inconsiderable Portion of it, than the Sound of the Grinding is low. And it is low, not only because of this Weakness of the Body, but because (as was said before) the Grinders are few, they have not a sufficient Number of Teeth for Mastication. Hence 'tis that there is none or little Grist brought to the Mill. I know some have thought, that the Doors being shut in the Street, signifies here, that those Persons who are of Great Age desire to keep up, and come not into Company, as before. The thing itself, I grant, is true; the Indispositions which some Aged Persons labour under, cause them to shut up their Doors, especially when the Winter approacheth, and they appear not till a very Warm Sun invites them to show themselves. Then they get to the next Sunny Bank, and there lie basking in the comfortable Rays which they feel. But if we consider that the Royal Preacher had been comparing the Body of Man to a House, assigning its Keepers, yea its Grinders, (the most necessary Office of old in a Family) its Windows, its Doors, we must needs look upon this Interpretation as foreign and impertinent, and especially when we take notice of the Design of this Inspired Writer, in this Chapter, which is to insist upon those Evils and Maladies which belong to such and such particular Parts of the Body, as will appear in the Sequel. Yea, by looking into the very next Words we shall find that this Clause, which I have been now speaking of, is to be understood in this Sense, and no other; for it is to be joined with those Words, (because of its Affinity with them) he shall rise up at the Voice of the Bird: which I interpret thus; his Appetite declining, and his Stomach nauseating Food, especially all coarse Fare, all common and vulgar Sustenance, he will yet be desirous of Dainties, some 
* Tsippor aviculam significat, nec de majoribus avibus dicitur. Mercer.  small Bird or Fowl; for Tsippor, which is the Word here used, signifies the lesser sort of Birds (and particularly a Sparrow) and also such as are 
† Tsippor, avis quae in deliciis est. Bochart. Hieroz: Par. 2. c. 22.  pleasant and delicious. This (if any thing) is most acceptable to his squeamish Stomach, he rises up at the Voice of the Bird, that is, at the very naming of it; for the Hebrew Word Kol (whence the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and our English Call) denot●s so much in this Place. Or at the very Word, the very Sound of that word Tsippor, the small delicate Bird, he rises up very cheerfully to eat it, or some part of it at least. The Hebrew Verb Kum, which is used here, most frequently signifies to stand up, or lift up one's self. This the sickly Old Man is observed to do when some Delicious Fare is set before him, when some choice Dish, some delightful and savoury Morsel is presented to him. This is part of the genuine Description which may be given of the Aged Persons Condition, and therefore 'tis no wonder that Solomon brings it in here. A little Food serves him, but he longs for that which is Uncommon, and may please his Taste, and provoke his Appetite at the same time: He rises up with Complacency at the very mentioning of some dainty Bird, some beloved Bit. This is my Conjecture on the Place, and I do not (I must needs say) see any Ground why it should be rejected for I have showed you that it is to the purpose which Solomon is speaking of; it exactly agrees with the preceding Words, but the Vulgar Exposition doth not so.  
To proceed, our Royal Author having represented the Defects of Old Age, as to the Weakness of the chief Limbs and joints, as to the Paucity of Teeth, Dimness of Eyes, and the Evils incident to those Parts which are called the Doors, he lets us know next, that this Portion of a Man's Life is as defective, in respect of Other Useful Organs of the Body, and particularly that of the Ear: all the Daughters of Music are brought low: that is, the Ears, which were made for Hearing, and particularly delighting themselves in excellent Notes of Music, whether Vocal or Instrumental, are now indisposed, and rendered uncapable of that Pleasure which before they were so charmed with: Now these Daughters of a Song are grown deaf, as the Vulgar Latin renders it. As Old Barzillai's Complaint was not only, 
* 1 Sam. 19 35.  Can I taste what I eat or drink? (which refers to the former Particular we just now spoke of) but likewise, Can I hear any more the Voice of singing Men and singing Women? Even these Daughters of Music are brought low, their most exquisite and ravishing Harmony is no longer delightful, they are vile and of no account: for the Youthful and Mercurial Spirit is exhausted: in this Foggy Cloudy Wether of Expiring Age the Quicksilver subsides in these Old Weather-Glasses, and will never ascend again. I might add also, that the Vessels and Organs that properly belong to the forming of the Voice, those Daughters of Singing, are by Age disabled and weakened. Next, it is said, ver. 5. They are afraid of that which is high: The plain meaning whereof is this, that Aged Persons dare not ascend any high or steep Place; their Breath is short, and therefore they avoid climbing. And when they tread on low Ground, and walk in a smooth Path, yet even than Fears are in the way, i. e. they are afraid of stumbling and falling, because their ●eet are infirm, and their Steps unsteady, which they therefore endeavour to fix with a Staff. To which the Hebrew Masters allude when they say, Two are better than three: that is, the Feet of Young Men are better to walk than those of the Old, though they are usually three. Another Member of this Description is, that the Almond-tree flourisheth, i. e. (as it is expounded by 
† Albes●i● caput sicut flores amyg●●li. In loc.  Grotius, and by the Generality of Commentators) Grey Hairs, which are the usual Badge of Decrepit Years, appear; the Head now grows white and hoary, like the Blossoms and Flowers of the Almond-tree, whose Fruit was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Head, saith Athenaeus, as if it had relation to this Part. Again, 'tis added, the Grasshopper is a Burden, i. e. the least, the lightest thing (say Expositors generally) seems to be heavy and burdensome to the Aged, because of their Faintness and Weakness: Or rather, I should interpret it thus, (with reference to what was said before, and is so noted and common an Indication of Declining Years) the Grasshopper, as little as it is, lies heavy on their Stomaches; for you will find in Leu. 11. 22. that the Grasshopper is reckoned among the Clean Meats, and was commonly eaten in those Days. And this here mentioned is of that very Species, as the using of the same Hebrew Word both here and there lets us know. Even this light kind of Food was a Burden to their weak Stomaches. What can be more obvious and plain than this Exposition of the Words? especially when it follows, Desire fails; as all other Inclinations that were vigorous in them in their juvenile Years do now flag, so this towards Food more signally doth so. And that this was thought to be the meaning of this Clause of the Words, is apparent from the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Version of the LXX and the 
† Capparis.  Vulgar Latin, both which express Desire by Capers, a known Fruit, whereby an Appetite is excited. So that this way of speaking is metaphorically used to denote the Defect of Appetite in Aged Men, whose Stomaches are depraved. And this is no wonder, because they go to their long Home, and the Mourners go about the Streets; they are hastening to the Grave, and shall in a short time be carried out by the Mourners to their Funerals.  
But yet before this Day arrives, they have farther Evils to undergo; For, saith the Wise Man, when this great Number of Years is gone over their Heads, they will find that the silver Cord is not lengthened, for so the Hebrew hath it; the word Rachak (which is here used) signifying elongari, longè esse: and then in the General this may be the Sense of this Clause, the Thread of Life (that is the Precious Cord or String of Silver) begins now to be cut short; they must not expect to stay many Days in the Land of the Living. But we may rather follow the Interpretation of 
* Mun●ter, Vatablus, Drusius, Grotlus.  those who apply this Passage to some particular Part of the Body, (as the other Members of this Verse seem also to be restrained) and so the silver Cord is loosed, (as we translate it) i. e. the Spinal Marrow, which is white like Silver, and lengthened out like a Cord or Rope, decays and grows loose: and then the Nerves, which are derived from it, and consequently the whole Body, feel the ill Effect of it in Palsies and Convulsions, and an universal Weakness. Thus it is when the Body is worn out with Age; when these evil Days come, all things portend Ruin and a final Period. The House, as the Body is said to be, is falling; and all things belonging to it are hastening to their Destruction. Not only the silver Cord is loosed, but the golden Bowl is broken; by which some think is here meant the Cranium, or Pan, in which that choice Vis●us of the Brain is contained and secured; or perhaps the Semicircular Membrane which is next to this Bowl, and is itself lined with a thinner Membranous Substance, is here designed. Vatablus and Drusius, and others, interpret the Words thus, and tell us, that these meanings are said to be of Gold, not only by reason of their Colour, but because of their great Worth and Value, in that they are a Guard and Covering to the noblest Part of Man's Body: Or the Brain itself may be here meant, the Seat and Throne of the Rational Soul, and the Origine of all the Nerves. And then observe here, that the Golden Bowl and the Silver Cord are fitly joined together by this Divine Writer, for the latter is but an Appendix of the former; the Marrow of the Backbone is but the Cerebrum extended, the Brain lengthened out; or it is according to Solomon's Style here a Rope, a Cord of Brains. But the Head and Beginning of that Medulla is that which is properly called the Brain, the Great and Only Laboratory of the Animal Spirits, from whence they are diffused by the Nerves into the several Members of the Body, in order to all the Functions and Operations of Life. This gullath hazahab, this Golden Bowl, this Lordly Dish, this roundish Mass of choice Matter is at last broken: which is as much as to say, this upper and nobler Part of the Body shares in the Ruins which Old Age makes: whence it is that the Clogging of the Passages of the animal Spirits with indigested Humours, the Obstructions or Relaxations of the Nerves, Pains in the Head, Melancholy, Giddiness, Drowsiness, yea Lethargies and Apoplexies (which impair or wholly destroy both Sense and Motion) are the dangerous Maladies of this Part of the Body, and are more especially the mischievous Companions of the Aged.  
And as the Animal, so the Vital Parts feel the Decays which a Long and Sickly Life brings with it, which the Wise Man means when he adjoins, the Pitcher is broken at the Fountain. The Pitchers (for the Plural is intended when the Singular is mentioned, as I have showed to be frequent in Scripture-Stile) are the Veins and Arteries, whose Office it is to carry and recarry Blood to and from the Heart, (that is the Fountain) as Pitchers or Buckets are first let down into the Well, and then convey Water thence. Through these Vessels the Blood continually passes, and that swiftly, beginning its Course from the right Cavity of the Heart, through the Arterious Vein, the Branches of which are dispersed through the whole Lungs, and joined to the Branches of the Veiny Artery, by which it passes from the Lungs into the left side of the Heart, and thence it flows into the Great Artery; the Branches of which being spread through all the Body, are united to those of the Hollow Vein, which carry the same Blood again into the right Ventricle of the Heart. But these Vessels by length of time become disordered and shattered, these Pitchers are broken at the Fountain; the Heart itself, as well as they, decaying and declining in its Office; whence proceed Faintings, Swoonings, Tremble, Palpitations, and other Distempers, which are the Product of an undue Sanguification.  
Last; 'tis said, the Wheel is broken at the Cistern, which an 
* J. Smith, M. D.  Ingenious Person understands of the Circulation of the Blood, (for that he thinks is intimated by the Wheel) and its being obstructed by the Indispositions of Old Age. But it is much to be questioned, whether Solomon, as Wise a Man as he was, knew any thing of the Circular Motion of the Blood throughout the whole Body. I have no stronger a Belief of his Knowledge in this kind, than that his Ships went to the East or West-Indies, though I find both of these asserted by different Writers. However, I conceive this Circulation is not meant in this place; for the word Borachia, Puteus, or Cisterna, baffles this Notion, for this Author makes the Cistern here to be the Left Ventricle of the Heart; whereas the Heart, with both its Ventricles, is rather a Fountain than a Cistern: yea, he had himself applied this Word to the Heart, in his Exposition of the former Clause of the Verse; and there was Reason for it, because the Waters do spring and flow in a Fountain, but they lie dead and moveless in a Cistern or Pit under Ground, which is the same thing. Wherefore I conclude that this Cistern must be something of another Nature; and what is that but the urinary Vessels, especially the Bladder? This, without any fanciful straining, must be acknowledged to be the Cistern of the Body, it being a Vessel situated beneath, on purpose to receive and keep the Water that comes from the Ureters. And here, as in those Receptacles in the Ground, the Water gathers a Sediment, and grows muddy; the evil Effects of which are too well known to Mankind. This Vesica then, which is made to gather and hold the Urine, is properly Borachia (the word in this Place) Puteus, Cisterna. And the Wheel is said to be broken at this Cistern, when those Vessels and Organs which were appointed for the Percolation of the Blood, that is, the separating the serous Humour from it, and for the transmitting it through the Emulgent Arteries into the Ureters, and thence carrying it to the proper Vessel (the Cistern) which is made to receive it; when (I say) these are put out of order, and disturbed, than they cease to perform their proper Administrations in the Body; whereupon immediately are produced, in these dark and narrow Passages the Painful Stone and Gravel in the Kidneys and Bladder, all other ●ephritick Distempers, Ulcers, Inflammations, the Strangury, and sometimes a total Suppression of the Urine, together with the undue Evacuations of it. Thus the Wheel is broken; thus the whole Periodical Series of Operation in those Parts is spoiled and destroyed. And perhaps this particular Phrase is here used by Solomon, because the great Work at Wells and Cisterns (or Pits for retaining of Water for a time) was performed by Wheels. So much for this excellent Delineation of Old Age, which is itself a Disease, a constant and inseparable Malady, and is attended with many more. And as the Bodies of the Aged are the Scene of Weakness and Infirmities, of Pains and Languishments; so their Souls are usually decayed and distempered. Of both these Solomon gives us a particular Account, (and perhaps too much from his own Experience, for 'tis probable that the Miscarriages of his Youth had enfeebled Nature; and we read, that towards the Close of his Days, he degenerated from his former Piety;) and so we have here a Full and Complete Description of the Defects, which too often accompany this Last Declension of Life, which are set forth by Variety of Metaphors, which I have made it my Business to explain to you.   

CHAP. V.  
The Writers of the New Testament are delighted with the Use of Metaphors. Here is sometimes a Complication of them. Ephes. 6. 13. etc. Take unto you the whole Armour of God, etc. largely insisted upon. The Olympic Games and Prizes administer religious Metaphors. The Antiquity, Names, Kind's, the Laws and Observances of these Grecian Combats, (before, in, and after them) the judges, the Rewards, and all other things appertaining to these Athletic Erterprises, distinctly considered; 'tis showed how they are all applied to Christianity in the Apostolic Writings. Hence is inferred the Gracefulness of the Sacred Style: Notwithstanding which some have vilified it, whose Character is represented. Proverbial Sayings used by other Writers, especially the Jews, are frequently mentioned by our Saviour in the New Testament. To which is reduced his bidding the Apostles shake off the Dust of their Feet, Mat. 10. 14. concerning which the Author adds his particular Sentiment.  
IF we pass to the New Testament, we shall there find that those Inspired Penmen are much delighted with the use of Metaphors. We have a Complication of them in john 15. 1, etc. I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman, etc. In 1 Tim. 6. 9, 10. the extreme Dangers which Men are exposed to by the Sin of Covetousness, are expressed by a Snare, by drowning, by piercing through, as with Thorns and Briars. In those Words, Eph. 5. 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the Dead, and Christ shall give thee Light, there are likewise three Metaphors together, for Sin is called a Sleep, Death, Darkness: yea, if we be exact, we shall find three more; for if Sin be a Sleep, than Grace or Conversion is Awakening out of that Sleep, (and this is expressly mentioned in the Place) if the one be Darkness and Death, the other is Light and Life, and Rising again. But as before I chose out a remarkable Place of the Old Testament, to enlarge upon under this Head, so I will now do the like in the New, and insist upon that choice Passage in Eph. 6. 13, to ver. 18. Take unto you the whole Armour of God, etc. which under that one Great and General Metaphor of Armour comprehends several other particular ones. Christians are represented as Soldiers in other Places by this Apostle, and here he lets us know what is their Armour, what Weapons they must fight with: which are thus metaphorically expressed.  
1. They must be careful to put on the Girdle of Truth, which some Expositors have thought is meant in opposition to Error and Heretical Persuasions: To be girt about with Truth, is the same, they think, with holding fast the Form of sound Words, or the embracing of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel. But this Exposition is not to be admitted, because it confounds this piece of Armour with another that is afterwards mentioned; it makes the Girdle and the Sword (which is the Word or Doctrine of God) the same. Therefore it is more reasonable to assert, that Truth here is synonymous with Faithfulness or Sincerity, and that it stands in opposition to Hypocrisy. Thus Sincerity and Truth are equivalent Terms, 1 Cor. 5. 8. and in several other Places. Wherefore when the Christian Soldier is commanded to have his Loins girt about with Truth; the plain Import of it is, that he ought to be established with Sincerity and Integrity of Conscience. Hypocrisy enervates and dissolves the Mind, renders it loose and unsettled; but Uprightness and Faithfulness keep it close and entire, make it firm and steady; yea, strengthen and confirm all the other Graces, as the Girdle of War was used to fasten their Clothes together, and to keep their Loins firm. It is not unlikely that this Place refers particularly to Isa. 11. 5. Faithfulness shall be the Girdle of his Reins. This Truth also implies Fortitude, Resolution and Constancy, that they will never revolt from the Captain of their Salvation, but fight under his Banner even unto Death; for he that is Sincere and Faithful will do so. This is the first Martial Accoutrement of the Christian Soldier, and 'tis of indispensable Use and Necessity in the Holy Warfare: as among the ancient Warriors there was no fight without the Military Girdle or Belt. Whence Cinctus, simply, without any Addition, is as much as 
* Marcell. de Test.  Miles. And we read that it was a 
† Alexand. ab Alex. l. 1. c. 20. Sueton. in Octavio.  Punishment inflicted on delinquent Soldiers to expose them without their Girdles, to make them stand Ungirt in some public Place. This piece of Warlike Furniture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was so considerable of old, that is was a word (as 
‖ In Baeotic.  ●ausanias testi●ies) to signify all sorts of Weapons for War. It is often mentioned by Homer Synecdochichally for the Whole Military Armour; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as to be completely Armed. The Girdle of Truth, which this Great Commander here enjoins us, is as requisite in the Christian Warfare: there is no Fight without it, because this fastens all the other Parts of our Spiritual Armour: a Sincere and Upright Heart is of universal Influence in the Life of a Christian.  
2. The next Accoutrement is the Breastplate of Righteousness, i. e. a Holy and Pious Conversation, Impartial and Universal Obedience to the Will of God. This guards the Breast against all Assaults, as we see in the Example of our Apostle, 2 Cor. 1. 12. for he had this as well as the foregoing piece of Armour on when he said, Our rejoicing is this, the Testimony of our Conscience, that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not with fleshly Wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Conversation in the World. And again, I have fought a good Fight, I have finished my Course, I have kept the Faith, 2 Tim. 4. 7. And in other Places he defends himself against the malicious Cavils of others, by appealing to his own Innocency, his Sanctity and Exemplary Life. This perhaps may have particular reference to Isa. 59 17. He put on Righteousness as a Breastplate. But this Breastplate of Righteousness must be covered with another, viz. that of our Blessed Redeemer, which is Complete and Perfect, and will amply protect and secure us from all Dangers. The Inherent Righteousness of the best of Men is exceedingly defective, and cannot shelter them from the Divine Wrath; this Breastplate is too narrow, too thin, too little, too mean to cover us; but that of the Meritorious Righteousness of Christ Jesus is great and large enough, and is able to hide all our Defects, and perfectly to defend us from the Anger of our offended God. This Evangelical Breastplate must be put on by Faith, of which afterwards.  
3. The Shoe of the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace is an Allusion to that Military Provision which the Infantry, among the ancient Warriors, made for their Feet, to defend them from what was offensive in their way. For the Armies heretofore (as appears both from Greek and Roman Authors) were wont to fix short Stakes, or cast Gall-traps in the way before their Enemies, to wound their Feet, and to cause them to fall. Wherefore it was usual to have Harness for their Legs and Feet: they wore a particular sort of Shoe or Boot to secure them from being hurt and galled. So the Christian Soldier ought to have his Feet shod, and that with the Preparation of the Goslpel, i. e. he must be sitted and prepared by the preaching of the Gospel for all Hardships and Distresses. I do not much like St. Augustin's way of proving this Interpretation, viz. by telling us, that by the Shoe the Preaching of the Gospel was meant when the Psalmist said, Over Edom will I cast out my 
* Cujus rei calceamentum nisi Evangelii? De Cons. Evang. l. 2. c. 30.  Shoe, Psal. 60. 8. which he labours to confirm from Isa. 52. 7. How beautiful are the Feet of him that bringeth good Tidings? And this Pious Writer is so fanciful as to say, that when our Saviour bid the Disciples be shod with Sandals, Mark 6. 9 he meant the open and free Preaching of the Gospel. But waving this weak sort of Proof, yet I am satisfied, that in this place, the Christians Military Shoe is the Gospel, and the Preaching of it: he is then shod with the Preparation of it, when he is enabled to make his way through all Hindrances and Difficulties whatsoever, by virtue of those Excellent Principles which the Gospel hath discovered to him, by virtue of those Extraordinary Helps which this affords him. And 'tis ●itly added, the Gospel of Peace, because the Consideration of that Peace and Reconciliation which the Gospel tenders through the Blood of Christ, mightily influences upon his Spirit, and gives Courage and Valour amidst all the Hardships he meets with in his Christian Warfare.  
4. The Shield of Faith is another necessary part of Spiritual Armour. And it is signally added, that we must take this above all, which it is probable is said with allusion to what was the sense of the Old Warriors, viz. That their Shield was their Principal Armour. This they prized above all the rest, and were most careful in keeping it: of which we have several Instances in Ancient History: and there was a Remarkable Punishment inflicted on those (saith 
* In Pelopid▪  Plutarch) who lost their Shields in Battle. Much more Valuable is this Evangelic Armour, our Faith, a Firm Assent to all Revealed Truths, a Steady Belief of the Promises of Eternal Life, through the blessed Undertake of our Lord, a Hearty Compliance with the Gracious Terms of the Gospel, which enjoins Universal Obedience to the Laws of Christ, a Well-grounded Trust and A●●iance in the Mercy and Goodness of God, a firm and unshaken Dependence on the Merits of our Redeemer and Saviour. This is that Hardened Shield wherewith we keep off and beat back all the furious Insults of the Evil Spirit, that Implacable Enemy whom we are to encounter with in our Spiritual Warfare. His Temptations are here called Darts, with allusion still to the antiet way of ●ighting, which was with Darts and Arrows. And they are called fiery Darts, with reference perhaps to the Heat which those Weapons acquired by their swift flying: or they may be said to be fiery, because they are sent in an Hostile manner▪ the word being as 'twere appropriated to Fight, as among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both fax or taeda, and pugna; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both arden's and pugnax: and among the Latins ardere is particularly applied to War and Battle: as in Virgil, Ardet in arma magis.— Instant ardentes Tyrii.— And besides, these Darts, these Suggestions, when they are very fierce and raging, do as 'twere inflame the Heart and Conscience, they set the distracted Soul on fire. But by Faith the Christian Soldier is able to quench them, as the Apostle excellently phraseth it; by a vigorous exerting of this Grace he defeats the malicious Attempts of Satan, he stifles all his hellish Darts; alluding to the known use of the Shield, which was to repel the Arrows shot by the Enemy. And these were sometimes Poisoned, and thereby became hot and inflaming, to which some have thought the Apostle here might have glanced when he speaks of fiery Darts. This is certain that a Shield is for Defence, and such is our Faith, whereby we defend ourselves from the inflamed Darts of the Wicked, which he flings at us with the utmost Indignation and Fury. We quench, we extinguish, we utterly frustrate all his Assaults by a firm Trust and Reliance on our Blessed Jesus, who baffled him himself, and will effectually teach us by the guidance of his Spirit to do the like. 
* 1 John 5. 4.  This is our Victory that overcometh the Devil (as well as the World) even our Faith.  
5. We are to take the Helmet of Salvation, i. e. (as St. Paul himself explains it) 
† 1 Thess. 5. 8.  the Hope of Salvation, the certain Expectation of the Everlasting Reward in another World, which is brought to light by the Gospel of Christ Jesus. The Christian Soldier is unspeakably animated by this: he hath the Triumph in his Eye: this makes him sight with undaunted Valour and Resolution. He is safe whilst he is covered with this Helmet: nothing can hurt him whiles he is inspired with this Victorious Hope. Having this Armour of Defence, he de●ies his insulting Adversaries, he fears not their Blows, he shrinks not at the Batteries of his fiercest Enemies. This also seems to be borrowed from Isai. 59 17. He put on an Helmet of Salvation on his Head.  
6. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is another part of the Christian Panoply, which every Spiritual Soldier ought to be appointed with. This is the two-edged Sword spoken of in Heb. 4. 12. and Rev. 1. 16. This our great Captain dexterously made use of when the Infernal Spirit assaulted him, Mat. 4. 4, 7, 10. And the same Weapon was brandished and managed by the whole Army of Martyrs and Confessors, by all the Servants of Christ in the several Ages of the Church. By this they have done great Execution, and put their Spiritual Enemies to flight. They have in their most pressing Straits repaired to the Holy Scriptures, and thence furnished themselves with those Divine Consolations, and applied those Sacred Promises, whereby they soon vanquished their Ghostly Assailants. And this is that Weapon which we must all of us in our Holy War learn to wield: but let us be careful to make use of it faithfully and sincerely, remembering that the first Piece of Armour and This last must be joined together, for the Warlike Girdle or Belt is in order to wearing the Sword, which is to hang at it.  
The last Weapon the Apostle mentions is Prayer, Praying always with all Prayer, etc. We must fight on our Knees, we must constantly invoke the Divine Aid, and with importunate Cries solicit the Eternal Father that he would teach our Hands to War, and our Fingers to Fight.  
These are the Spiritual Weapons, which are called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The whole Armour, because 'tis fitted for every part of the Christian Combatant. He is here armed at all Points, he is provided with Military Accoutrements for all Assaults. And you may observe, that the Spiritual Armour answers to the Bodily one, that is, it is both Defensive and Offensive. Our Weapons are both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as defend and preserve ourselves, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such whereby we beat off the Enemy▪ both which are expressed in those two Military words, Standing and Withstanding, ver. 13. The first sort are the Girdle of Truth, the Breastplate of Righteousness, the Shoe of the Preparation of the Gospel, the Shield of Faith, and the Helmet of Salvation: of the Second sort are the Sword of the Spirit, and Prayer, which two likewise are both for Defence and Offence, not only to guard ourselves, but to oppose our Enemies. This is the Panoply of the Gospel, the whole Armour of God which the Apostle here commends, and which I have briefly descanted upon in prosecution of what I propounded, viz. to give you some account of the Metaphorical Terms in Scripture.  
In other places the Olympic Games and Prizes administer to the Apostle very Religious and Devout Metaphors: those Grecian Combats being made use of by him to set forth the Laborious Life and Undertake of a Christian. I will in farther pursuit of this part of my Discourse concerning the Style of Scripture, let you see what Excellent and Divine things are comprised under those Agonistick Phrases. We must know then, that the Olympic Games were of very great Antiquity, being instituted (as it is said) by Hercules, and restored by Iphitus, who at the same time began the Account of the Olympiads, that famous Epoch of the Greeks which commenced A. M. 3173. in the time of Vzziah King of judah. They had their Name from Olympia, a City of Achaia, near to Elis, on the Plains whereof these Exercises were celebrated, and they were in honour of jupiter Olympius. And there were Sports of the like Nature in other parts of Greece, as those that were called the Isthmian, because they were begun in the Corinthian Isthmus: and as the Olympic Plays were dedicated to jupiter, so these were in honour of Melicerta; others say, of Palaemon. The like Exercises in other adjacent Towns of Greece were called Pythian, in memory of Apollo Pythius; and others Nemaean, (called so from the Nema●an Wood, near which they were) and these were in honour of Archemorus, the Son of Lycurgus. But all these were in imitation of the Olympic (as being the Ancientest) Combats; and because they were so like them, they sometimes go by that Name. Great Numbers of People flocked from all parts in Greece to these Solemn Diversions, either to try their Skill, or to be Spectators. And I question not but St. Paul, before his Conversion, had been present at these Exercises, and observed their Customs and Practices: whence it is that he so often in his Writings makes use of them. And these Games were very well known to the Corinthians particularly, as being celebrated in their Isthmus, not far from Corinth; whence it is that the Apostle speaking to these People, saith emphatically, Know ye not that they which run in a Race, etc. 1 Cor. 9 24. and therefore the frequent Metaphors taken from them by St. Paul, were the better understood by them. There were five sorts of these Gymnastick Entertainments in use among the Grecians, which 
* 11. Ψ.  Eustathius reckons up in this order, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 
† Jul. Poll. Onomastic. l. 3. c. 30.  Simonides comprehends them in this Verse, in the First Book of his Epigrams; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, 1. Leaping, or exercising the Legs and Arms by Jumping. 2. Running or Racing. 3. Coyting or hurling the Bar. 4. Casting the Dart, or throwing the Spear. 5. Wrestling: to which afterwards was added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pugilatus, Fisticuffs: and after that they struck with Battoons and Leaden Pellets. These five Grecian Exercises were called by one name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and he that was skilled in them all, or won the Prizes at them all, was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (though the Epithet is sometimes taken in another Sense, as when 'twas given to Democritus, because he was the Master of five noble Accomplishments). Of these several Olympic Conflicts, the chiefest and most renowned was their Running or Racing, for which the Grecians were so famous and eminent above all others; and therefore St. Paul, who had been a Spectator of their Races, principally borrows his Metaphors from this Manly as well as Applauded kind of Sport, as you may see in his Epistles, which abound with Expressions taken from this Athletic Exercise. But he sometimes alludes to Wrestling, and the other Agonistick Erterprises which the Grecians in those days were celebrated for. He frequently uses the Terms which are proper to these Undertake, as when he saith, 
* Acts 24. 16.  He herein exerciseth himself to have a Conscience, etc. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken from those Combats among the Gentiles, and is applied to Sacred things. The same may be observed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 2. 5. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 10. 32. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 6. 12. 2 Tim. 4. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is another Olympic word, and is used in very many places by our Apostle. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 12. 11. is an Athletic word, and properly signifies that Exercise which Wrestlers or the like Combatants are trained up to by long use and Discipline. And this occurs again in 1 Tim. 4 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exercise thyself unto Godliness, i. e. be as eager in pursuit of Piety, as those who are trained up to the Olympic Exercises, are in their Wrestling and other Strive for Victory. And therefore I am of opinion, that those next words, Bodily Exercise profiteth little, are to be understood of those Olympic Games, which I find Expositors do not take notice of, but interpret them of External and Bodily Religion, some outward Austerities and Acts of superstitious Worship. But the Apostle (as I conceive) refers here to the immediately foregoing Expression which he had used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he was apprehensive was taken from the Olympic Combats; and accordingly he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bodily Exercise profiteth a little, (for so I would translate it) i. e. as I apprehend the words, that Athletic Exercise of their Bodies is useful to some ends, they have some small advantage and profit by it, viz. as to Health, increasing their Strength and Courage, gaining Repute and Credit, winning the Prize: But alas (saith he) these are mean and inconsiderable Things in comparison of that Solid Profit which accrues by Godliness, for this is profitable to all things, procuring all Benefits not only to our Bodies but our Souls, advancing both the Temporal and Eternal Interest of those who study and practise it. There are three Agonistical terms together, in Rom. 9 30, 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to pursue or follow after; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to attain to; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be foremost in the Race, to come first to the Goal; but our Translators render it to attain. And in several other places the Gymnastick words are made use of; especially in 1 Cor. 9 24, to the End of the Chapter, and in Phil. 3. 12, to the 17. v. which are a Continuation of the Metaphor of the Grecian Exercises so much in use at that time. By these the Apostle sets forth the Laws and Rules of an Evangelical Life, by which all the Followers of Christ are to direct themselves.  
This than were are to take notice of, that there were certain Laws observed in the Agonisticks, there were peculiar Rules and Orders which they tied themselves to, which the Apostle means when he saith, If any Man strive for Masteries, he is not crowned except he strive lawfully, 2 Tim. 2. 5. i e. (as S. Chrysostom rightly explains it) except 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 4. in 2 Tim.  he observe all the Laws of the Striving, and omit nothing required of him. This was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and accordingly there was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Crier, a Officer on purpose to acquaint the Combatants with the Laws of the Place. So in the Exercise of a Christian Life we must strive lawfully, we must carefully act according to the Orders of our Holy Institution, for our Great Agonotheta hath prescribed us certain Laws which we are to follow with all exactness. And these we shall find expressed according to the Style of the Athleticks, who had Laws to direct them what they were to do before the Combat, what in the time of it, and what afterwards.  
First, They had certain Observances which related to their behaviour before the Combat, and they were such as these, as you may find them briefly summed up by Epictetus (who compares the Life of a Good Man to these Bodily Exercises) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cap. 35.  An Olympic Gamester, saith he, must order himself aright before the Contest, he must sometimes force himself to take food, at other times he must by force abstain from it, especially from what is dainty and delicious: he must use himself to his Exercises, though he finds himself unwilling; and this at a set and fixed time both in Summer and Winter: he must not be permitted to drink cool Liquor, or any Wine, as he thinks fit. In short, he must deliver up himself to the Master of Fences as to a Physician. Galen on the 18th Aphorism of Hypocrates very well describes this Abstinence of the Athleticks. And Tertullian gives this short account of their Austerities, 
† Athletae segregantur ad strictiorem disciplinam ut robori aedificando vacent: continentur à luxuriâ, cibis lautioribus, à potu jucundiore. Exhort. ad Martyr.  They are set apart, saith he, to a strict Discipline, that they may be at leisure to mind the building up of their Bodies (as 'twere) and to make them strong according to Art. To which purpose they are kept from all Luxury, they are forbid all delicate Meats, and all sweet Drinks. But the Apostle hath contracted this into fewer words, yet as full and significant, 1 Cor. 9 25. Every Man that striveth for the Mastery is temperate in all things; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he observes all the Laws of Abstinence and Continence which are prescribed him. And there was an Overseer for this purpose, one that took care of dieting them, and saw that they duly kept their other Rules. A Christian must herein imitate the Grecian Combatants and Racers, he must manage himself with great Caution and Circumspection, he must suffer himself to be ordered and disciplined, he must strictly observe the Laws of Sobriety and Temperance, and abstain from fleshly Lusts which war against both Soul and Body. Thus the Apostle pursues the Metaphor in the following words, v. 27. I keep under my Body, and bring it into subjection: i. e. I am careful to get a good Temper of Body as well as of Mind: as the Cuffers and Wrestler's labour to beat down and keep under their Antagonists Bodies, so I do with my own: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the word here used) is a known Metaphor taken from the practice of the Grecian Combatants, who beat their Adversaries down with their Fists, and sometimes with Clubs, and will not suffer them to rise. In the same manner, saith he, I beat down and keep under my Body, I severely chastise it by Temperance and Sobriety. I am as exact as those Combatants were, who before the Contest dieted themselves for certain days, that they might attain to a good habit of Body. Again, they took care to rid themselves of all Encumbrances whatsoever: they stripped themselves of their Clothes, and generally came naked to the Conflict, (whence they were called Gymnastae) that they might be the more nimble and agile. To which the Apostle plainly refers, and applies it, Heb. 12. 1. Let us lay aside every weight, and the Sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with Patience the Race that is set before us. In this our Christian Race, we must throw off whatever we know will be an Impediment to us in our course, especially we must discard those Vices which we have been most accustomed to, and which have had the greatest Ascendant over us. And it is to be observed, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which the Apostle here useth) is applied by Galen and other Greek Authors to the Corpulency, the weight of Flesh which the Olympic Strivers were to bring down and macerate.  
In the next place, we are to order and manage ourselves aright in the time of the Spiritual Combat: And here likewise the Apostle leads us by the same Metaphor. For,  
1. The Combatants were careful to act, to strive, to labour to the utmost. 
* Coguntur, cruciantur, fatigantur: quanto plùs in exercitationibus laboraverint, tanto plus de victoriâ sperant. Tertull. Exhort. ad Martyr.  There is a Force and Violence put upon them by themselves, they are cruciated and tormented, they are tired and worn out: and (as the same Author adds) the more they labour in their Combats, the greater is their hope of Victory. This Excessive Pains and Labour are expressed in the Writings of the Apostle by several terms, as following on (for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated, and not following after, that being a bad word in Racing) and reaching forth, and pressing on (or following on) for the Apostle uses the same Greek word again. These Agonistick terms, which are used particularly in Running, are in a Religious manner thus applied by St. Paul, that Eminent Christian Racer, 
* Phil. 3. 12, etc.  Not as though I had already attained, but I follow on: this one thing I do, for getting those things which are behind, (not looking back in the Race to see how much Ground I have ran already, but) reaching forth unto those things which are before, I still press on. The meaning of which is, that he was extremely Industrious and Laborious in his Christian course, he not only ran with Patience (Patience of Body and Mind) this Race that was set before him, (as he speaks in an 
† Heb. 12. 1.  other place) but he exerted all other V●rtues and Graces whatsoever, he lived in a diligent and faithful discharge of all Christian Duties. Or perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imports all the hardship he underwent in his Christian Race; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word applied to the Athletae, (as Peter Faber observes) and is expressive of all the Fatigues in that Exercise. So in their Wrestle and Fencing (two other great Employments of the Grecian Agonists) they acted to the height of their Art, to the utmost of their Strength. Their Blows were directed with the greatest Skill, and laid on with the most lively Vigour: to which the Apostle refers, when he saith, So fight I, not as one that b●ateth the air, 1 Cor. 9 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is a known word used among the Olympic Gamesters) I fight, I fence, I cuff, saith he, not as they that brandish their Weapons for Sport-sake, or to exercise their Limbs, or to divert the Spectators, as it seems was usual before they fell on in good earnest. Whence 
* Aen. lib. 5.  Virgil saith of Dares, a Great Fencer, 
— Alternaque jact at  
Br●●●ia protendens, & verber at ictibus aur as.  But I fight, saith the Apostle, as one that is actually entered into the Combat, and is used to the Olympic Combats, where there is no vain beating of the Air, but a serious falling on. The Champions there come not to flourish, but to fight with one another. Accordingly they were wont to cast Dust upon one another, that they might take the more sure Hold: and the Place was strewed with Sand, that they might stand the more steadily to their Work. This Place therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Station, as appears from 
† Var. Hist. l. 4. c. 1●.  Aelian. They stood here all the time they fought, and would not quit it whatever they endured. Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Epithets given by Phi●ostratus and Pausanias to the Athleta●. This was the particular Commendation of the Olympian Combatants, that they never ●linch'd from the Ground which they first stood upon, as Aelian tells us. To which it is most probable the Apostle alludes when he exhorts the Christians to stand, Eph. 6. 13. and so again, ver. 14. and to stand fast, and quit themselves like Men, and be strong, 1 Cor. 16. 13. and to stand fast,— striving together, Phil. 1. 27. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Agonick Term as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this latter is a very noted Word among those that write concerning the Olympic Concertations. Further, I might remark, that it was a Rule with them generally in these Encounters, not to leave off till they were wounded on one side or other: yea, 'twas looked upon as a shameful and base thing to yield before Many Wounds had been given and taken. This however was agreed upon among them, that they must draw Blood of each other: Whence that of the Apostle, Heb. 12. 4. Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood, striving against Sin: for both the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the Athletic Exercises.  
2. In their Running they minded the Mark that was before them, and distracted not themselves with taking notice of any thing else. This is referred to in Phil. 3. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I press towards the Mark, the Goal, where the Prize is set up to be seen: and in Heb. 12. 1. Let us run the Race that is set before us, looking unto jesus. And again, in the next Verse, Consider him, have an Eye to him, who himself looked unto the joy that was set before him. Gaze not on the World, and what is tempting and alluring in it, but with an intense and vigorous Aspect look on that Inheritance which Christ hath purchased for you, fix your Eye on the End of your Faith, even the Salvation of your Souls: and thus you will rightly perform your Christian Course.  
3. The Olympic Racers had certain Limits and Bounds set them, and these they very accurately observed. There was a particular Place where the Match was run, which was by those Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is so called by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render those that run in a Race, are those that run in a certain Plot of Ground set out for that purpose, for that is the proper Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 'tis a certain measure of Ground, shorter or longer, as they were pleased to appoint it. This Stadium was marked out with a Line, from the Place where they set forth, to the End: and of this the Apostle makes mention three or four times in 2 Cor. 10. 13, etc. We will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the Rule, or the Line, as 'tis rendered, ver. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is the Greek Word here used, and was a common Athletic Word, as appears from 
* Eliac. lib. 2.  Pausanias, and 
† Onomastic.  I. Pollux, and other Writers that speak of the Olympic Strive: and Linea is a Term used by Statius in the same Sense) was the White Line that bounded or marked out the Path where the Greek Racers run: in Allusion to which the Apostle's particular Province is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the measure of the Rule which God had distributed him. The Apostle had first converted the Corinthians, and therefore those he calls his Proper Line. And because each of the Racers had his particular Path chalked out to him, thence he speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 16. another Man's Line. And Phil. 3. 16. is an unquestionable Reference to this Grecian Custom, whereto we have already attained, (in as much as we have gotten the Start, for so the Greek Word signisies, and are before others, and have attained some Degrees of spiritual Proficiency) let us walk by the same Rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Line we are to run by, the same Path: for though there was but One Racer run in the same Track among the Grecians, yet 'tis supposed that many Christians run together in one and the same way. I question not but those Words in Heb. 12. 12. have a reference to what we are now speaking of, Lift up the Hands which hang down, and the feeble Knees, and make straight Paths to your Feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it rather be healed. The whole Period is perfectly Athletic; but more especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alludes to the Racers that ran right forward, a Line being drawn on both sides: so that their Paths were straight or direct.  
4. The Wrestlers and Racers were to continue in the Combat to the end; otherwise they had no Advantage of it: which the Apostle hath respect to when he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have fought a good Fight; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have finished my Course, 2 Tim. 4. 7. I have fully Completed my Race, I have with Constancy and Perseverance accomplished that great Work, that is, (as I conceive) through a very strong Faith he was assured that he should do so; for when he writ these Lines, he had not done it. And here also I could observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which the Apostle u●es here) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which he makes use of in other Places) are borrowed from the Athletic Exercises, as we learn from those Writers who have occasion to speak of them, and express them in their proper Terms. Thus I have mentioned some of the Chief Laws and Observances among those who strove for Masteries in the Grecian Plains. And with respect to all these our Divine Author saith, So run that ye may obtain, 1 Cor. 9 24. So, in such manner, and according to the Laws and Orders of that Exercise, see that you discharge this Duty.  
Having thus spoken of the Laws and Conditions of the Olympic Games, I will add something concerning the judges: for after the Combat was over, they proceeded to judge who had got the better. These Arbitrators, or Judges, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose Business was to determine whether the Agonists had observed the Laws, especially to order and appoint the Reward: which is taken notice of, and religiously applied in 2 Tim. 4. 8. where after St. Paul had with rejoicing professed that he had finished his Course, (which is, as hath been said, a palpable Allusion to the Athletic Erterprises) he adds, There is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness (of which I shall speak in the next Place) which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that Day; even that judge, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who gives the Prize to those faithful Christians who persevere in their Course to the End. In the last Place, than this Prize, this Reward is to be considered; which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 9 24. Phil. 3. 14. the very same Name that was given by the Grecians to the Recompense of the Victors after the Athletic Strive. This is called a Crown, 2 Tim. 2. 5. because the Olympic Conquerors were rewarded with Crowns or Garlands, made of the Leaves of Bays or Laurel, or sometimes of Flowers. Generally they were decked with Wreaths of Olive in the Olympics, of Pine in the Isthmian Games, of Palm-Branches or Oaken Boughs, or some such sorry thing in other Places; and yet (as the Roman Orator observes) 
* Cic. Tus●. Quaesl.  these Masters of Exercise reckoned one of these Prizes won at those Games, as honourable as the Roman Consulship was of old. These the Apostle well deciphereth when he tells us, that they that strive for the Mastery do it to obtain a Corruptible (a fading, withering) Crown, 1 Cor. 9 25. To which another Apostle opposeth a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away, 1 Pet. 5. 4. i e. such a Crown as is not made of these perishing Materials. This is the Crown of Life mentioned by St. james, ch. 1. 12. in contradistinction to the withered dead Crown of the Olympic Strivers. This is that Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous Judge, the Great Arbitrator of the Christian Combats, bestows at the great Day of Recompense, 2 Tim. 4. 8. This is that Prize which St. Paul pressed towards the Mark for, Phil. 3. 14. (alluding to the Crown, the Garland which hung over the Mark or Goal, and was given to the Victor by the Judges) and which he there calls the Prize of the High Calling of God in Christ jesus, i. e. the Heavenly Reward to which he was called from above by God, through Christ his Saviour. It is a plain Allusion to the judges of those Grecian Sports, who were placed on a high Seat to behold the Performance, and then 〈◊〉 the Crier or Herald, called the Combatants to appear before them, and receive their Sentence. And as soon as the Prize was adjudged to them, they used to snatch at it, and take it from the Place (where it was hung up) with their own Hands, as Aelian, Pollux and Cassiodorus testify. The 
* V●riar. lib. 11. c. 35.  last of these particularly saith, they did rapere praemid: which gives Light to ● Tim, 6. 12. Fight the good Fight of Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and lay hold on eternal Life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; imitate the Victors at the Olympic Games, who presently lay their Hands on the Crown, and take it, and wear it. The gaining of this Prize is called in 1 Cor. 9 24. Obtaining: and in Phil. 3. 12. Attaining or receiving, as 'tis in the Greek; and Apprehending, which is of the same Import, it being a laying hold on, or receiving the Reward: which all are Gymnastick and Agonick Terms.  
And lastly, I might observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is another Word used here on this Occasion, 1 Cor. 9 27. is ●o too: I keep under my Body, (saith he) I am always prepared for the Christian Combat, I run, I fight, I strive that I may not be a Castaway, a Reprobate, one that loseth the Prize: for he that ran, or wrestled, or performed any other Exercise at the Olympic Games, and upon trial was rejected; he that fell short of the Victory, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: As on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he that strives as he ought, and obtains the Victory. Accordingly St. james, speaking of the Blessed Man ●hat endureth Temptations, saith, when he is tried (when he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, approved of) he shall receive the Crown of Life; he shall have the Reward of a true Christian Combatant bestowed upon him, as the Olympic Strivers were rewarded with a Crown. Thus you see how this Sacred Author makes use of the Olympic Sports, to set forth the Life of a Christian, and the Eternal Rewards of it. A Good Man is styled by the Royal Philosopher, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antonin.  an Athletic that is exercised in the greatest Conflicts. 
† Di●●er●at. 35.  Maximus Tyrius resembles the Life of Man to these. And 
‖ Cap. 35.  Epictetus compares the Study of Philosophy to the Hardships of the Olympic Agonies: and Seneca makes all Virtuous Men of the Number of the Athletae, and that very frequently. And even St. Paul (as I have showed) resembles Christianity itself to these Encounters and Hardships, and calls the Christian Conflicts by the very same Names that are given to them. Yea, the Rewards laid up in Heaven for faithful Souls, after all their Pains and Labours here, are compared to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Garlands of those Grecian Combatants. And in the Close of all, to add one Place more, I am inclined to think, that that Passage in 2 Thess. 3. 1. [that the Word of the Lord may run and be glorified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] hath respect to the Applause, the Acclamation, the Glory, which were part of the Reward of those who got the Victory at the Olympic Exercises, and particularly the Racing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Gymnastick Word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by 
* In Anachar●.  Lucian to express that great Honour and Applause which was the Recompense of the Victors in those Combats. And Gloria is the word used by 
† In Scorpio.  Tertullian when he speaks of these things. It is peculiarly applied and appropriated, as 'twere, to this purpose by Classic Authors, as 
‖ Annal. lib. 12.  Tacitus and 
* Epist. 89.  Seneca. It is no wonder then that running and obtaining Glory are here joined together by the Apostle. The Word of the Lord, i. e. the Preaching of the Gospel, is said to run when it hath its free and undisturbed Passage; and it is glorified when it proves Prevalent and Victorious in the Hearts and Lives of Men. If I had been Curious in citing what those 
† Pausanias, Athenaeus, Plutarch, J. Pollux, Lucian, Philostratus, Aelian, Pindar, Virgil, Statius, Ovid, Lucan, Horac●.  Authors who have writ concerning the Agonisticks, have delivered on the several Particulars above mentioned, I might have enlarged this part of my Discourse. And it might have been beautified and adorned from what occurs in those 
‖ Dionys. Areop. Tertullian, Chrysostom, Greg. 〈◊〉. Ambro●e, Basil, Theodore●, Isidor▪ Pelu●.  Fathers who have spoken of the Olympic Exercises, and the Manners belonging to them. But I was rather desirous to be brief, and to suggest something of my own on this Subject, than to be beholden altogether to others. And in the whole I have endeavoured to avoid the Fault of that Learned Frenchman Peter Faber, and some others, who have stretched this Metaphor too far, and have persuaded themselves that the Apostles use it, when they never thought of it.  
But this is certain, that both in the Old and New Testament, the Metaphorick manner of speaking is very usual, as it is also among all Writers: for indeed we may observe, that words in their Primitive and Proper Signification, are not so much used by the best Writers, as they are in their Metaphorical and Improper Sense. Our Business only is to discern the way of their Speaking, and not to mistake an Improper for a Proper Signification. In the Holy Writings especially we ought to take notice of this, and to observe when words are to be understood in their Primitive and Genuine sense, and when not. And with the like Caution we should observe when the other forenamed Figures are used by the Inspired Writers, (which was the Design of my mentioning them here) that we may carefully distinguish between a Proper and a Figurative Speech, and that (as 
* Cavendum est n● figura●am locu●ionem ad l●●eram a●●●p●●s. De Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 5.  St. Augustin long since advised) we may not take one for the other.  
There are many Other Rhetorical Figures in the Sacred Volume (as Metonymies, Prosopopoeias, Epanorthoses, Aposiopeses, etc.) which likewise the Choicest Authors abound with: but it shall suffice to have mentioned the foregoing ones, the explaining of which is sufficient to give us an account of the Style of Scripture, so far as it is Figurative. And from what hath been said, we may gather that these Divine Writings come not short of the most Applauded Pieces of the Greek or Latin Orators; for here are those very Schemes and Modes of Speech which embellish those Author's Works; here are all the Graces and Elegancies which every and adorn them. Therefore in that place beforementioned, where Origen saith, the Scriptures are not written Politely; his meaning is, that that is not the Scope and Design of those Writings, and that it is not the thing that is pursued generally, there being a Greater and Higher Design; yet in many places there are very Excellent Strains of Oratory, there are very Artificial Periods and Sentences, there are Words, Phrases and Expressions in a very Rhetorical Dress. But where you find others that are, as you think, Inartificial, Uncouth, and no ways Graceful, you must remember this (to take off your prejudice against the S●ripture-Stile) that the Eastern Eloquence is vastly different from ours in the West. The Mode and Guise of their Oratory were unlike that of the Greeks and Romans, and of Ours at this Day, and therefore we are not to expect that they should be fitted to it. It is certain (though we perceive it not) that their Style was Graceful and Fashionable: which is clear from the considering the Persons that were the Penmen of some parts of Scripture; namely, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Men of great Improvements and Accomplishments, and Masters of the Language they spoke. Neither are the Scriptures in some parts of them Defective in the Western Oratory: they abound with the Choicest Schemes of Speech, with the Greatest Ornaments of Language, with the Chiefest Elegancies which Greece or Rome were famous for.  
Yet, notwithstanding this, there are those who have vilified the Style of Scripture. Some Pretenders to Criticism, but of debauched Minds, and loose Lives, have endeavoured to render it very Mean and Despicable. You have heard of the Canon of Flor●n●●, who preferred an Ode of Pindar before the Psalms of David: though he could not deny, as Caspar Peucer tells us, that there were Excellent Sentences, Histories, Examples, and Figures of Speech in this Divine Poem. Yet such was the Sottishness of Politian (for that was his Name) that he professed he never spent his time worse than in reading this and other parts of the Bible: and at last he desisted from reading any further, because of the Barbarity of the Style. But observe what Character 
* De verit. fid. l. 2.  Ludovicus Vives (a Man of his own Religion) gives him: he represents him as a Person, who, though he had more Polite Learning than was frequent in those Days, made but ill use of it, and employed it wholly in the worst sort of Criticism and Playing with words. It was this Busy but Idle Critic that spoke so contemptibly of the Bible; where, because he met with some things unsuitable to his Grammatical and Critical Genius, he censured and condemned all. Of the same Profane Disposition was Domitius Calderinus, who advised his Friends, especially those that were Youthful, not to read the Bible; for it would be of no use to them. But what it was that these two Persons were employed about, which wholly estranged their Minds from that Sacred Book, may be guessed from the 
† In laudem Praeposter●● Veneris.  Shameful Epigram which the former composed, and the 
‖ In Virgilii Priapaea.  Obscene Comment which the latter made, both which they published to the World. It is no wonder such Men disrelished the Sacred Truths contained in the Inspired Writings, and found fault with the Language and Style of them: this proceeded from their aversion to that Purity and Holiness which those Holy Writers urge upon the Practices of Men, and which these two Vile Italians knew were directly contrary to what they both loved and acted. Who would not think the better of this Holy Book, because it was despised and vilified by these Men? Who would not highly esteem those Writings which by such Dissolute Wretches as these were scorned and trampled under Feet? If it was an Argument that Christianity was Good because Nero persecuted it, than we may with as much reason infer, that the Bible is an Excellent Book, because this pair of Lewd Varlets disparaged it. This certainly was founded in the Wickedness and Profaneness of their Lives. They could not think or speak well of those Writings which contradicted their beloved Lusts and Vices. It was thus with jerom and Augustin, whilst they were wicked and unreclaimed Persons: the Scripture-Language seemed very harsh and unpleasant to them; so far were they from discerning any Elegancy in it. The former of these tells his Eustochium, that he used, when he awaked in the Night, and could not sleep, to read Plautus: and if after that he read the Prophets, as sometimes he did, their Speech seemed to be 
* Sermo horrebat incultus. Epist. 18. ad Eus●och.  horribly rough and unpolished, devoid of all Fineness and Eloquence. And the 
† Confess. lib. 3. cap. 5.  latter of these Persons freely confesseth, that before his Conversion, the Style of Scripture was deemed by him very Rude and Unstudied, and as having nothing Neat and Delicate in it. This is the apprehension which those Men have of it who are not Competent Judges: and they are not so, not because they have not Understanding enough, but because they have an Inward Abhorrence of the Sacred Verities which they find in that Book. This is the true Reason why so many in this Age, yea, within our own Borders, scoff at and ridicule the Language of the Bible. The Matter of this Volume makes them dislike the Style of it. Nothing can be Eloquent which speaks against their Vices. B●t let it offend none that this most Excellent Book is depretiated by some Vicious, or by some Half-witted Men, for there are no other that ever spoke against it. In the Style of this Book of God, there are no Blemishes but what are approved of in the Best Classical Authors, as those who were of the greatest Skill in Grammar and Rhetoric have fully demonstrated: therefore the Bible is not a Book to be disparaged, no, not by the greatest Grammarians and Rhetoricians. The Excellent and Choice Wording of the Scripture is commended by St. 
* Hom. 36. in Gen.  Chrysostom. When I read the Bible, saith St. 
† De doctr. Christ. l. ult. c. 6.  Augustin, I find that as nothing is more Wisely said, so nothing is more Eloquently spoken than there. And particularly, I have showed that it is beautified and enriched with many Figures. Thus I have largely proved, that the Style of Scripture is generally of the strain of Other Approved Writers as to its Phraseology, or manner of Expression. I proceed, and add,  
3dly. This Observation, that Proverbial Sayings and commonly received Adages used by other Writers, are mentioned also in the Holy Scriptures. This is abundantly proved by 
* Scottanus, Delrius, Drusius, etc.  those who have Purposely writ on this Subject. I will remit you to them, and at present only confine myself to the New Testament, and there to the jewish Proverbs only. Our Saviour in his excellent Sermon on the Mount, makes use of that Usual Saying among the jews, which was used in a Proverbial way, No Man can serve two Masters, Mat. 6. 24. which he applieth to a higher purpose than they designed it, Ye cannot, saith he, serve God and Mammon, it is impossible you should be Servants to these two Masters. No Man can devote himself to God's Service as he ought, and yet at the same time prosecute with the utmost Zeal and Concernedness the things of this World; especially the Riches or Profits of it: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other: he cannot serve both with equal care and zeal. Again, it was a Common Proverb among the Hebrews, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Measure against Measure; and in the Talmud more than once it is spoken by way of Adage, 
‖ Sanhedrim: & Sota.  With the Measure that a Man measureth, they measure to him again. Which is applied by our Blessed Teacher, to men's Censuring and Judging of others; With what judgement ye judge, saith he, ye shall be judged. With what Measure ye meet in this kind, it shall be measured to you again, Mat. 7. 2. If you be rash and unadvised in the Doom which you pass on your Neighbours, you may expect that the like Sentence may pass on you. And in Luke 6. 37. this very Proverb is spoken with reference to Giving and Forgiving; as much as to say, if you withhold your Charity from others, either in relieving their Wants, or passing by their Offences against you, you shall one time or other experience the same yourselves; you shall neither be relieved nor forgiven: thus with the very same Measure that ye meet withal, it shall be measured to you again. In this Sermon he useth again another Jewish Proverb, which was to this purpose, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tolle ab oculis tuis trabem. Talmud.  Pull the Beam out of thine Eye, v. 5. applying it to the former Subject of Judging others. Why beholdest thou the Mote that is in thy Brother's Eye, but considerest not the Beam that is in thy own Eye? Why art thou so Sharp-sighted abroad, why so quick in discerning the least Fault in others, when at the same time thou art Blind at home, and canst not see those gross Miscarriages which thou thyself art guilty of? This is too Evident an Argument of Hypocrisy; therefore Christ adds, Thou Hypocrite, first cast out the Ream out of thine own Eye, abandon those Visible Enormities which are in thy own Life, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy Brother's Eye, i. e. then thou shalt be more fit to judge of other men's Failings, and to correct them for them. Again, ver. 6. Christ useth this Common Saying which was usual among the Jews, Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, neither cast ye your Pearls before Swine: in which without doubt was included an Excellent Lesson, and such as was very seasonable at that time, viz. That his Disciples (for to them chiefly he speaks in this Sermon) should Prudently dispense the Gospel, and where they saw it was obstinately refused by any, there they should not expose themselves to Dangers, when they perceived that they could do no good among such Persons. They must not throw away Pearls among such Swine that would trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend them, as our Saviour adds there. It was an Old Hebrew Proverb, near of Kin to the former, It is not good to throw the children's Bread to Dogs: which you find made use of by our Saviour in Mat. 15. 26. When the Woman of Canaan besought him in behalf of her Daughter, who was grievously vexed with a Devil, he put her off, by telling her, That he was not sent but unto the lost Sheep of the House of Israel; and she being an Alien from the Commonwealth of Israel, had no right to the Privileges which were to be dispensed to these alone. It is not meet, saith he, to take the children's Bread, and cast it to Dogs. But this Woman would not be put off so, but wisely retorted his Proverb by another Common and Acknowledged Truth, that the Dogs eat of the Crumbs which fall from their Master's Table. If she might not have the children's Bread, she requested he would not deny her that Common Allowance which fell from his bountiful Hand, and which she firmly believed he would not keep from her. This great Faith of hers made her capable of receiving this, and a higher Blessing from our Compassionate Master. The Talmud uses that Proverbial Saying, An Elephant cannot go through the Eye of a Needle; but Christ instead of an Elephant (which was an Animal that few saw in that Country) mentions a Camel, which was a Creature well known; and he expresseth himself after a Proverbial manner thus, It is easier for a Camel to go through the Eye of a Needle, than for a rich Man to enter into the Kingdom of God, Mat. 19 24. which in plainer terms he had said in the Verse before, A rich Man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; which is explained further in another place, It is hard for them that trust in Riches to enter into the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 24. It is hard, yea, it is impossible, for you may as well draw a Camel through the Eye of a small Needle. Those are said to be Jewish Proverbs, The Disciple is not above his Master, nor the Servant above his Lord, Mat. 10. 24. They are blind Leaders of the Blind, Mat. 15. 14. Ye strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel, Mat. 23. 24. A Prophet hath no honour in his own Country, John 4. 44. These and many other Proverbial Speeches among the Jews, are applied by our Saviour, he being pleased to conform to the Language as well as the Rites and Usages of his Countrymen. Any one that hath read the Books of the Mishnah, where the several Sayings and Sentences of the Jewish Rabbis are recorded, knows how near they come to sundry Speeches and Expressions used by our Saviour. That was an Old Hebrew Proverb, (though used sometimes by Pagans) The Dog is returned to his Vomit again; and you find the same in St. Peter (1 Ep. 2. 22.) who had it originally from Solomon's Proverbs, Chap. 26. 11. where it is used to express a Fool's return to his Folly.  
To the Proverbial Sayings among the Jews, I may refer that of our Saviour's bidding the Apostles shake off the Dust of their Feet, Mat. 10. 14. or. under their Feet, Mark 6. 11. which I have reserved for this place, because I will more distinctly speak of it than I have of the rest. It was Christ's Injunction, that when they came into a House or City, and found not reception, they should behave themselves in this manner; and he further tells them what they must say, Luk. 10. 11. Even the very Dust of your City which cleaveth on u●, we do wipe off against you. Some imagine, that this shaking off the Dust of the Feet or Shoes hath assinity with the Jewish Rite of pulling off the Shoe, mentioned Deut. 25. 9 Ruth 4. 7. which was a Ceremony of Disgrace, performed by the Relict of the Deceased Brother to the Surviving one who refused to marry her. But this Opinion hath but few Abettors, and indeed, 'tis a wonder it hath had any, for there is a vast difference between the shaking off the Dust of the Feet, and the plucking off the Shoe. Others think this Practice is of the same Nature with shaking the Lap or Garment, which was an usage among the Hebrews; and they would by this sh●w that they wished or prayed that such an one might b● shak●n, removed, deprived of his Goods and Possession. Thus Nehemiah used this Rite against those that exacted Usury of their Brethren, Ne●. 5. 13. And this shaking of the Raiment was practised by St. Paul against the blaspheming Jews, Acts 18. 6. But this is a quite different thing from what we are speaking of, unless we can prove that Dust and Clothing are convertible. But 
* Hor. Hebr. in S. Matth. And the Harmony of the New Testament, on Acts 14.  Dr. Lightfoot refers this Passage to that particular Saying of the Jews, That the Dust of a Heathen Land defiles a Man and makes him Unclean. So that our Saviour bade the Apostles shake off the Dust from their Feet, to show how they reputed those People, viz. as Heathenish and Profane, and consequently they were not to be conversed with. The Apostles scorned to have any thing to do with them: and as a Sign of that, they would not carry away any thing that belonged to that Place, no not so much as the Dust of it. But, if I may be permitted to offer my Thoughts, there is something more in these Words than this. It is true, this is signified that they would not hold Correspondence with those unworthy Persons that rejected the Gospel, they would not suffer the very Dust of the Place to adhere to the Soles of their Feet: but that is not all. It is further and more particularly signified, that the Apostles were to leave the Place speedily. When they are commanded to shake off the Dust of their Feet, the more especial Meaning is, that they must stay no longer in the Place, but be gone from it with all the Expedition they can, and they must not carry so much as the Dust to burden them. It is something related (as I apprehend) to that other Counsel of our Saviour, in the very same Chapter; or rather, it seems to be the same, but mentioned again in other terms, (as is usual with our Lord) When they persecute you in one City, flee ye into another, ver. 23. with what Speed you can depart from the Place where you are so ill used. When you find that your Preaching is wholly despised, make no Delay, but hasten away, that you may be in a Capacity to do good in some other Places, where you may be kindly received. As soon as you see your Message is scorned and rejected, shake the Dust off your Feet, and be gone away immediately. This seems to be the genuine Tendency of the Words; for we must know that judea (some part of it especially) was a dry, hot and dusty Country, whence it was a Custom among them to have their Feet washed as soon as they came into a House: this was part of the Welcome which they looked for; and when this Ceremony was omitted, they gathered thence that they were Unacceptable Guests. Therefore, saith Christ, if you find not this Welcome, if your Feet are not washed, and the Dust wiped off by some of the House, do this part yourselves, (that thereby you may be somewhat refreshed) lightly shake off some of the Dust, and go your way, and leave the Habitation forthwith. So that these Words denote Haste and Expedition; which may be confirmed from that Saying of the Jews, which they used in Traffic, Whilst the Dust is on your Feet (before 'tis all wiped off) sell what you have, i. e. sell quickly. So Pie-Powder-Court among us, which is incident to every Fair and Market (as a Court Baron to a Manor) is that where Causes are tried cursorily and in haste. This Dusty-foot- Court is so called to signify the Quickness of Dispatch in it. Thus among the Greek Lawyers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (rendered by the Latins Pedaneus judex) was a sorry, mean, inferior Judge, a Pedant in Law, that judged standing on foot on the plain Ground, and had not a Chair or Tribunal: he judged, as it were, in transitu, passing, going on foot. He was a Judge of the Court of Pie Powder, pedis pulverisati, as our Lawyers call it, because they came to it in haste, and had no time to wipe off the Dirt which they contracted in their Travels. Thus there is some Analogy between this way of speaking, and that which I am now treating of. Our Saviour adviseth his Travelling Apostles to use Prudence, to be gone, as fast as they could, out of those Cities and Towns where the Inhabitants were wholly averse to the Preaching of the Gospel, and especially when they saw it would be attended with Persecution. And we read that the Apostles put this in practice when they were at Antioch, where they were severely handled, and saw they should be expelled out of those Coasts, they shook off the Dust of their Feet against them, and came to ●conium in all haste, Acts 13. 50, 51. This was a Sign of Speed: and so the Meaning of Christ's Injunction was, that when they perceived the Gospel was rejected, and themselves were in great Danger, they should presently depart from the Place, and stay no longer among such vile People. But withal, I deny not that this was to be for a Testimony against them, as 'tis said, Mark 6. 11. it was to bear witness against the Despisers of the Gospel, and the Persecutors of the holy Professors of it. And moreover, it was a Token of Contempt and Abhorrence, and (with reference to a Jewish Saying before mentioned) might be spoken in a Proverbial way. Lastly, it might be showed here, that many of Christ●s Parables (of which I have treated before) were borrowed from the jewish Doctors. That of Dives and Lazarus is cited in the Gemara on the Babylonian Talmud. The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard is mentioned in the same Place, in the Title Beracoth: and that of the five wise and five foolish Virgins is spoken of in the Book of the Sabbath: and some others might be instanced in, but I will add no more under this Head.   

CHAP. VI  
There is in Scripture a great and delightful Variety of Languages. Some Chapters and Verses of the Old Testament are in Chaldee. Here are Persian, African, Arabic, Syriac, Phoenician Words. In the New Testament there are some Hebrew and Persian, many Latin and Syriac Words. Hebraisms, i. e. Phrases proper to the Hebrews, are not only in the Old Testament, (where many Examples are produced) but in the New; where (besides many other Hebrew Modes of Speech) the Use of God's Name to augment and inhanse the Sense, the Use of the word Sons or Children, not only applied to Persons but Things; the Import of the word firstborn or first-begotten, and of those Expressions, the Son of Man, a Weight of Glory, are chiefly insisted upon. There are no Soloecisms in Scripture. St. Jerom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castellio, Dr. Hammond censured for asserting the contrary. Sir Norton Knatchbull salves the Grammatical Part of the New Testament, and olears it of Soloecisms. The same things which some call Soloecisms and undue Syntax, are found in the best Classical Authors. There are Chasms, Expletives, Repetitions, and at other times unexpected Brevity, seeming Inconsistencies and Incoherencies in the best Greek and Latin Authors. The Propriety and Excellency of the Sacred Style may be justified from the Writings of the most celebrated Moral Philosophers, Orators, Poets, etc.  
4thly. I Further offer this to your Observation, that there is in the Scriptures a great and delightful Variety of Tongues and Languages. There are in the Old Testament, besides the Hebrew, (of which it is composed) many Chapters written in Chaldee: as in Ezra, part of the 4th Chapter, all the 5th and 6th, with part of the 7th: in Daniel, the greatest part of the 2d Chapter, and all the rest that follow till the 8th: in jeremiah, one single Verse, viz. the 11th of the 10th Chapter. And besides these greater Portions, there are many Chaldee Words dispersed up and down in several Places, as Chartummim, Magicians, Astrologers, Gen. 41. 24. used also in Dan. 1. 20. ch. 2. 2. Nishtevan, an Epistle or Letter, Ezra 4. 7. Pithgam, a Word or Decree, Esther 1. 20. Sethav, Winter, Cant. 2. 11. Saga, to magnify, job 36. 24. Tiphsar, a Captain, jer. 51. 27. and some think Macha, Numb. 34. 11. is a chaldaic Verb. Other Words are of Persian Extraction, as pards and Pardesim, Eccles. 2. 5. Cant. 4. 13. Orchards or Gardens; whence the word Paradise; for so the Persians called their Orchards, Gardens and Parks, saith 
* In vitâ Apollonii.  Philostratus: and we read the like in 
† In Onomastico.  jul. Pollux. Partemim, Nobles or Princes, Esther 1. 3. is a Word borrowed from the Persians, and is proper to that Country. So is Pur, a Lot, Esther 3. 7. and Achashdarpanim, Lieutenants or Governors of Provinces, Esth. 3. 12. ch. 9 3. and Chiun, Amos 5. 26. passes for a Persian Name among some Learned Men. From Egypt (with which the Hebrews had great Commerce) several Words are borrowed, as Zaphnath Paaneah, Gen. 41. 45. the Title of Honour which King Pharaoh conferred on joseph, which some interpret a Revealer of Secrets, (as both jonathan and Onkelos render it, and most of the Rabbis) but others, with St. jerom, translate it the Saviour of the World. But whatever the meaning of it is, 'tis not to be doubted that 'tis Egyptian, for a Title given by an Egyptian King was certainly such. And some think the same of the word Abrech, Gen. 41. 43. the Term of Applause and Acclamation which the Egyptian People made use of when joseph was advanced to be the Second Man in the Kingdom, and rid in Royal State through the Streets. Zephardegnim, Frogs, Exod. 8. 3. and Zephardeang a Frog, Psal. 78. 45. are of Egyptian Race: and such is Ob an Enchanter, Deut. 18. 10. if we may credit the 
* Nomenclat. cap. 15.  Learned Kircher: and Manor a Weaver's Beam, 1 Sam. 17. 7. and Sarim an Eunuch, 2 Chron. 18. 8. and Sarisim Eunuches, 2 Kings 20. 18. and several other Words were brought with the Israelites out of Egypt, or were learned by Converse. Totaphoth, Frontlet's, Exod. 13. 16. Deut. 6. 8. is a compound Word (as 
† In Elec.  Scaliger thinks) from Tota and Photh; the first an Egyptian Word, the second used in some other part of Africa. Atad a Thorn, Psal. 58. 9 is also reckoned an African or Punic Word. From Arabia others are fetched, as Raphelingius and Golius, and other great Linguists have observed: especially in the Book of job they find several Arabic Words, for he was of that Country. Leviathan is of this fort, saith Bochart, and signifies a Dragon, and any Great Fish. Seranim, Lords, 1 Sam. 6. 18. and Cabul, 1 Kings 9 13. and many others, are looked upon as Phoenician. Zamzummim, Giants, Deut. 2. 20. is purely an Ammonitish Word. Gnerabon, a Pledge, Gen. 38. 17. is Syriac: and Sharbit a Sceptre, Esth. 4. 11. ch. 5. 2. (used here, and no where else) is such, rather than a pure Hebrew Word. The Names of the Months among the Hebrews (several of which occur in the Old Testament) are generally taken from other Languages. And many other foreign Words are brought into the Hebrew Tongue, and mixed with it, (which was caused by Correspondence with other Nations, of whom they were taught these Words, and particularly by Traffic and Importing of foreign Goods, as 
* Cum rebus exoticis vocabula etiam peregrina importantur. Heb. Lex.  Avenarius has observed, the Things and the Names being brought at the same time from foreign Parts) and accordingly we find them in the Writings of the Old Testament. Here that of the Rabbis is true, (though they applied it, as I have showed before, in another Sense) The Scripture oftentimes speaks in the Language of the Sons of Men; it hath Words which are used in other Tongues, and borrowed from other Nations.  
Thus likewise it is in the New Testament; there is a Variety of Languages in it. For though the main of it be Greek, yet there are sundry Words there of a different Original. Some Hebrew ones are made use of by the Holy Ghost, as Allelujah▪ Rev. 19 1, 3, 4, 6. Sabaoth, Rom. 9 29. jam. 5. 4. Amen, Rom. 1. 25. Eph. 3. 21. and in several other Places; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 14. 16. and often used in the Gospels; and in 1 Cor. 5. 7. Heb. 11. 28. is originally Hebrew. These Words were so much in use among the Faithful, that the Apostles thought fit not to translate them, but to retain them as they are. Again, some Words in this Part of the Bible are Persian, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 2. 7, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 8. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 5. 41. Mark 15. 41. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paradise, Luke 23. 43. 2 Cor. 12. 4. Rev. 2. 7. is of Persic Extract. Remphan, Acts 7. 43. is thought by some to be Egyptian. It is certain that there are a great many Latin Words Grecized, as Quadrants, Matth. 5. 26. Legio, Matth. 5. 9 ch. 26. 53. Census, Matth. 17. 25. Praetorium, Matth. 27. 27. Acts 23. 35. Phil. 1. 13. Custodia, Matth. 27. 65. ch. 28. 11. Spiculator, Mark 6. 27. Centurio, Mark 15. 45. Opsonium, Luke 3. 14. Rom. 6. 23. Modius, Luke 11. 33. Sudarium, Luke 19 20. Colonia, Acts 16. 12. Semicinctium, Acts 19 12. Sicarius, Acts 21. 38. Macellua, 1 Cor. 10. 25. Membrana, 2 Tim. 4. 13. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same Verse, is a Greek Word made out of the Latin one Penula, with a Metathesis. Which Words (and many more without doubt) came in with the Roman Conquest over the Jews, for Conquerors carry their Language with them; and hence it is not to be marvelled at that many Roman Words were in use among the Jews, and that some of them were inserted into the New Testament. There are likewise several Syriac Words used by the Evangelical Writers, and generally interpreted in the Places where they are: as Raka, Matth. 5. 22. Golgotha, Matth. 27. 33. Sabachthani, Mat. 27. 46. Boanerges, Mark 3. 17. Talitha cumi, Mark 5. 41. Corban, Mark 7. 11. Ephphatha, Mark 7. 43. Abba, Mark 14. 33. Rom. 8. 15. Mammon, Luke 16. 9 Cephas, John 1. 42. Gabbatha, John 19 13. Akeldama, Acts 1. 19 Tabytha, Acts 9 36. Maran-atha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 1. 14. 2 Cor. 1. 22. is also of Syriac Original. Nor is it a wonder that we find a great Number of these in the Greek Testament; for after the Return of the Jews from their Captivity in Babylon, their Language was mixed of the Hebrew and Chaldee, and named the Syriac Tongue, from the Regions where it was used. As for the Old Pure Hebrew, the Priests and the Learned Jews only understood it, but this mixed Tongue was that which was generally spoken and understood by all the Jewish Nation. Therefore in this Tongue Christ made all his Sermons to the People, and the Evangelists and Apostles preached the Gospel to them in it. Yea, because the Syriac succeeded in the place of the Hebrew, (the Jews having lost this, and taken up that) therefore that Tongue is sometimes called the Hebrew Tongue in the New Testament, as in john 19 13. where it is said, Pilate sat down in the judgment-seat, in a Place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha. This is a Syriac Word, or a Dialect of the Chaldee, (which is the same) but it is called Hebrew here, because Syriac was become the Vulgar Language of the Hebrews; yea, was their Mother-Tongue in our Saviour's time. So when 'tis said, that the Title on the Cross was written in Letters of Hebrew, Luke 23. 38. 'tis probable that the Syriac is meant, i. e. the Superscription was written in Syriac Words, though in Herew Letters.  
5thly. It is useful to observe what a considerable Number of Hebraisms, i. e. of Phrases proper to the Hebrews is made use of in these Holy Writings, not in those of the Old Testament only, but in the Greek Writings of the New. Indeed the Books of the Old and New Testament being written by Hebrews, we cannot expect but that they should use the Hebrew way of speaking. Such is that in Gen. 40. 13. Pharaoh shall lift up thy Head, To lift up the Head, is to Account or Reckon, for (as some tell us) they used to cast Accounts with Nails or Pins, stuck in a Table with Holes, and these Pins were called Heads: by the lifting them up, or removing them out of one Hole to another, they performed their Arithmetic. Therefore Moses expresses it thus, He lifted up the Head of the chief Butler and chief Baker, ver. 20. that is, he Reckoned with them, and then differently dealt with them, viz. according to their Deserts. The same Phrase is used in Exod. 30. 12. When thou takest the Sum of the Children of Israel, Hebr. When thou liftest up the Head: And so in Numb. 1. 2. take the Sum, Hebr. Lift up the Head. It is a peculiar Mode of Speech to signify to reckon, to gather the Sum of all; to which answer the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin recapitulare, to bring all to one, Head, which were borrowed from the Hebrew Style. To fill the Hand, Exod. 28. 41. ch. 29. 9 Numb. 3. 3. is a way of speaking proper to the Hebrews, and we fitly render it to consecrate, because, perhaps, when they Consecrated Persons, they delivered into their Hands the Badges and Instruments of their Office. Another peculiar Phrase is used in 2 Kings 10. 21. ch. 21. 16. Ezra 9 11. which, according to the Hebrew is, from Mouth to Mouth, or Mouth to Mouth, but it particularly denotes a Place to be full of People; and accordingly is so rendered, perhaps for this Reason, because when it is so, they stand close together, as it were Mouth to Mouth. To give the Hand to one, was heretofore a way of Expression proper to the Eastern Countries, the Hebrews especially; and it was as much as to submit or yield to one, 1 Chron. 29. 24. jer. 50. 15. Lam. 5. 6. and it is applied in a spiritual way, 2 Chron. 30. 8. give the Hand, or yield yourselves unto the Lord. The same Phrase is used by Gentile Authors: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dare manus, is to confess one's self to be overcome.  
The Form of Wishing among the Hebrews is singular, and not used by others, Who will give? Exod. 16. 3. which we translate would to God: So Numb. 11. 29. Deut. 28. 67. job 13. 5. O that ye would! Benjamin is called a Lad, Gen. 43. 8. though he was Four and twenty Years old, and had Children: the Idiom of the Hebrew Tongue solves it. To this peculiar manner of phrasing things may be referred Gen. 49. 10.— Nor a Lawgiver from between his Feet. For so the Hebrews modestly express the place of Generation, styling it Ragelim, the Feet: and so the word seems to be meant in Exod. 4. 25. Deut. 28. 57 Isa. 6. 2. and thus the Masorites, for the word which is used for Urine, read in the Margin the Water of the Feet, 2 Kings 18. 27. And sometimes instead of Feet, the Hebrews use the word Thigh, Gen. 46. 26. Exod. 1. 5. and Loins, Gen. 35. 11. and in a multitude of other places. Moreover, the peculiar way of using the word Sons among the Hebrews is remarkable; as in Prov. 31. 5. Sons of Affliction, i. e. the Afflicted: Sons of Destruction, ver. 8. Such as are appointed to be destroyed, as we render it: Sons of Oil, Zech. 4. 14. i e. the anointed ones. So we read of the Son of the Morning, Isa. 14. 12. and the Sons of Belial, Judg. 19 22. 2. Sam. 23. 6. And sometimes 'tis applied to Things as well as Persons, as in job 5. 7. [As the Sons of the burning Coal, i. e. the Sparks, fly upward.] Whatever is the part of a thing, or whoever belongs to any thing, or is partaker of it, is in the Hebrew Idiom called a Son.  
Again, the Name of God after the Hebrew manner, is wont to be added, to Magnify and Augment the Signification in several places of Scripture. There have been some Instances of this sort produced by Critical Writers on the Bible, but I will endeavour here (and afterwards) to make a considerable Addition to them. But first I will take notice of a place or two which have been brought under this Head, but in my judgement belong not to it. Such is that, Gen. 10. 9 He was a mighty Hunter before the Lord, where (saith 
* Drusius in Proverb. Hebraic. Class. 2.  One) the Name of the Lord is added to heighten the sense, as is frequent in the Hebrew Style. But two things I here urge to enervate this Interpretation: First, It is not the bare Name of God or Lord that is here added, as in other Texts. The exact rendering of Lipni jehovah (which are the words here) is ad facies, ad conspectum Domini, and is well translated before the Lord, which signifies the bold and impudent Usurpation and Tyranny of this first Monarch. This hardened Oppressor had no regard either to God or Man; yea, he committed his Violences and Ravages in defiance of the Great Lord and Sovereign of the World: this is to be a Hunter, a Persecutor, a Tyrant before the Lord: and so you see it is not that Hebraism we are now to treat of. Secondly, There was no need of that way of Speech here, for the Greatning and Heightening of the sense, were before expressed by the term Gibbor, mighty: wherefore there was no occasion to add the Name of God as a mark of Intention. If you observe the Instances which I shall afterward produce, you will find that God's Name is used when there was no word to express Greatness or Eminency in the preceding words. For these Reasons, I expunge this first Text out of the Number of the Instances which ought to be mentioned here. And after the same rate I must deal with that other, Prov. 20. 27. The Spirit of Man is the Candle of the Lord: where the last word is asserted by a late 
* Sir N. Knatchbull A mot at. on 2 Cor. 10.  Learned Critic to be added (in which he follows Drusius in his Hebrew Proverbs) as an Auxesis, that is, only to augment the sense: and therefore he saith, the Candle of the Lord is no more than a most Excellent Candle or Light. But if we consider the words aright, we shall not find such an Hebraism in them. The Text is easy and plain, without any thing of this Nature; for the Wise Man here acquaints us, that the Spirit of Man, his Nobler and Divine part, the Intellect especially, that Bright and Glorious Faculty was given to him by God, on purpose to be a Light and Guide to him, to make him capable of enquiring into and attaining a knowledge of the Profoundest Truths, the most remote and recondite Mysteries either in Nature or Religion: that is meant here by searching all the inward Parts of the Belly. Thus the Sagacious Mind of Man is the Candle or Lamp of the Lord; the word Lord here signifying to us the Author and Giver of this Noble Faculty. And therefore I something wonder at what this Learned Writer adds in the same place, viz. That our English Translation [the Spirit of Man is the Candle of the Lord] is an odd Expression, and somewhat difficult surely to make a good sense of; whereas the same Expression is used in the Scripture in other places, and bears a very good sense, as you have heard. Some have thought that Musical Instruments of God, 1 Chron. 16. 42. and Instruments of Music of the Lord, 2 Chron. 7. 6. denote the Loudness or Excellency of the Temple-Musick; but this Fancy arose from their not attending to the true Reason which is given in the latter of these places, where after Instruments of Music of the Lord is immediately added, which David the King had made to Praise the Lord; therefore they were so called. Nor can I be persuaded that a Man of God, which we often read of, imports only an Excellent Man, as some have suggested; but it speaks his more particular and peculiar Relation to God as a Prophet.  
I come now to offer some Examples where the Hebrew way of Speaking, by mentioning God to signify the Greatness or Excellency of a thing, is very apparent and unquestionable; as Gen. 30. 8. Wrestle of God, according to the Hebrew, i. e. great, strong and vehement Wrestle: 1 Sam. 14. 15. a Trembling of God, which we rightly translate a very great Trembling: 1 Sam. 10. 5. the Hill of God: Psal. 36. 6. the Mountains of God, i. e. the great Hills and Mountains. Cedars of God, Psal. 80. 10. rendered goodly: the Trees of the Lord, Psal. 104. 16. i e. exceeding great or high Trees. To which Texts (that are generally acknowledged to bear this sense) I will presume to add another, viz. Psal. 65. 9 the River of God, i. e. a Vast Great River. And what is that? The Clouds or Rain, which are poured down upon the Earth in great abundance. For if you read that part of the Psalm, you'll see it speaks of the great Blessing of Rain, Thou visitest the Earth, and waterest it, thou greatly enrichest it with the River of God, etc. to the end of the Psalm. This Vast Mass of Waters is according to the Hebrews styled a River of God: it is as 'twere a Great Excellent River flowing down from Heaven: Though I do not exclude the other sense contained in it, that 'tis from God, and that 'tis a singular Argument and Token of God's Care and Providence. Cant. 8. 6. is a place little taken notice of, the Flame of the Lord, i. e. (as we truly translate it) a most Vehement Flame. So the Voice of God, Ezek. 1. 24. & 10. 5. that is, a very loud and terrible Voice. The Breath of God, Job 37. 10. i e. a Vehement sharp Wind. And it is not unlikely that Isa. 59 19 is to be understood thus, Ruach jehovah, (not, as we translate it, the Spirit of the Lord, but) the Wind of the Lord, i. e. a great tempestuous Wind. I gather this to be the meaning from what went before, when the Enemy shall come in like a Flood, than (saith the Prophet) the Almighty Power of God, like some Great and Vehement Wind, shall drive it back, shall put it to flight, as we see great Waters and Floods are oftentimes beat back (as well as violently thrust forward) by mighty Winds. Another place which hath not been observed, is job 15. 11. Are the Consolations of God small with thee? which are Eliphaz's words wherewith he reproves job for undervaluing the Consolatory Arguments which had been offered to him by himself and his other Friends: and these Topics of Comfort were not mean and ordinary, but of a very peculiar Nature. Iob's Fault is aggravated from this, that he despised and slighted so Great Comforts when they were tendered to him: and Great they were, (as you read in the 9th and 10th Verses) because they were offered by Persons of great Understanding, Age, and Experience. And the Antithesis which is here, doth show this to be the sense of the place; Are these Great Consolations, saith he, Small with thee? Dost thou look for Greater and Stronger Arguments to support and cheer thee than these are? I am of opinion therefore that Tanchumoth El, the Consolations of God, are the same with Great Consolations. Jon. 3. 3. is a known Text, where it is said, Nine●eh was an Exceeding great City, Hebr. great to God. A Land of Darkness of the Lord, Jer. 2. 31. is as much as a Land of very great and signal Darkness; for Maphel is here compounded with jah, to express the Superlative Degree of Darkness. So in the words Er●l, Isa. 33. 7. Praevalidus, & Ariel, Leo fortis, 2 Sam. 23. 20. El the Name of God is added to inhanse the Signification. So jacob was Surnamed Israel, i. e. a Prince of God, which is equivalent with a Great Prince, one that mightily prevailed, even with God himself. Hither perhaps may be reduced the Sons of God, Gen. 6. 2. Great Men, of high Stature, the Giants mentioned ver. 4. but called here the Sons of God, according to the Idiom of the Hebrews, who set forth the Greatness and Largeness, as also the transcendent Worth and Excellency of Persons and Things by joining the Name of God to them. To this way of speaking, I refer Tardemah jehovah, 1 Sam. 26. 12. englished by our Translators, a deep Sleep from the Lord; but according to the Hebrew, it is a Sleep of the Lord, i. e. a Great Sleep, Sopor vehemens, as Arius Montanus renders it, a Profound Sleep, out of which a Person is not easily awaked. Therefore a deep Sleep, or a very deep Sleep will be sufficient, without adding from or of the Lord. To this also may be referred lechem abirim, Psal. 78. 25. the Bread or Food of Angels, i. e. Excellent Food: for what is Excellent, is said to be Angelical as well as Divine. And indeed these are the same here, for Abirim is of the same import with Elohim, and as the Name of God, is used to augment the sense. Whence the Pagan Writers have borrowed this manner of Speaking, as when by 
* Suet. in Nerone.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Food of the Gods, they, in a Proverbial way, mean very Choice and Exquisite Dainties: and by 
† Hor. 2 Serm. Sat. 6.  Deorum coenae, they express a very Sumptuous and Delicate Entertainment. Virgil and other Poets (yea, Cicero sometimes) by the Epithet of Divine, understand that which is Eminent, Remarkable, Excellent. Bordering on which is the use of the word Sacred sometimes, whereby that which is Great is expressed: Sacra anchora is the greater, and consequently the stronger and safer Anchor, the last and only hope of the Ship and Mariners. And some Critics have thought that Sacra fames is the same with ingens, insatiabilis; for those things which are Great are said to be Sacred, and to be of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks are sometimes magna: So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Morbus sonticus) is a Vehement Disease, of greater Malignity than ordinary, but more signally 'tis applied to the Epilepsy. Plutarch mentions an Old Physician who called his Choice Sovereign Medicines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in Galen there is Jupiter's Trochisk. They give these Names to their Medicaments to show the Excellency of them; for all Great and Excellent things were by the Ancients counted Holy, and sometimes they put the Name of God upon them. So among the later Physicians and Botanists, you may observe that they make use of the Name of 
‖ Allelujah.  God, of 
* Oculus, manus, palma, lachryma Christi.  Christ, of the 
† Unguentum Apostolorum,  Apostles and Saints, to set forth some things which they have a great Esteem of. They mention the most Sacred things to extol and magnify their Simples and their Medical Applications. All this seems to be derived from the ancient Style of the Hebrews, by whom that which is Greatest in its kind is called Divine, and accordingly (as R. D. Kimchi notes in his Comment on 1 Sam. 16.) the Sacred Scripture, when it would magnify a thing, joins with it God's Name.  
But it is endless to insist on the Old Testament: and therefore I will confine myself to the New, and briefly show you that this part of the Bible, though written in Greek, abounds with Hebraisms: (and yet here still I shall have occasion to refer to the Writings of the Old Testament all along.) The Reason why the Evangelists and Apostles writ in Greek, was, because this was the Tongue generally used by all sorts of Nations, but you will find that they accommodated it to the guise of the Hebrew Tongue; that is, they retained many of the Hebrew Idioms, and made use of them in the Greek Language. Thus to be called and to be are the same among the Hebrews, and this latter is frequently in 
* Isa. 60. 14, 18. Ch. 61. 3. Ch. 62. 12. Zech. 8. 3.  the Old Testament, expressed by the former. Accordingly these are oftentimes expressive one of another in the New Testament, as in Mat. 5. 9 they shall be called the Children of God: and ver. 19 he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. 1 Joh. 3. 1.— that we should be called the Sons of God. To be called here and in other places is really to be, and it is so expressed according to the Hebrew way of speaking. There is the like signification of the word [arise], as in 2 Sam. 11. 20. if the King's Wrath arise: Esth. 4. 14. Enlargement and Deliverance shall arise to the jews: Prov. 24. 22. their Calamity shall rise suddenly. In all which places the word [arise] signifies no other than actual Being or Existing, according to the Hebrew Idiom. And thence it is used so in the New Testament, as in Luke 24. 38. Why do Thoughts arise in your Hearts? i. e. why are they there? Mat. 24. 24. There shall arise false Christ's, i e. there shall actually be at that time such Persons, according to my Prediction. So [to be found] is among the Hebrews of the same import with the forementioned Expressions, and accordingly in the Old Testament one is put for the other, as in 1 Sam. 25. 28. Evil hath not been found in thee: 2 Chron. 19 3. Good things are found in thee: Isa. 51. 3. joy and Gladness shall be found therein: Dan. 5. 12. An Excellent Spirit was found in Daniel. In these and other Texts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inventus est, are as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit. As in the Writings of the Jewish Doctors you may observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ens. In imitation of this Hebraism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for sum or existo in the New Testament, as in Luke 17. 18. There are not found that returned to give Glory to God save this Stranger. Acts 5. 39— Lest haply ye be found to fight against God. 1 Cor. 4. 2.— that a Man be found Faithful. Phil. 2. 2. being found in fashion as a Man. Heb. 11. 5. Enoch was not found: which is the same with Enoch was not, as is evident from comparing this place with Gen. 5. 24. to which it refers. That of St. Peter, 1 Ep. 2. 22. Neither was Guile found in his Mouth, is taken from Isa. 53. 9 Neither was there any Deceit (or Guile) in his Mouth. From whence it appears, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this, as well as the other Texts beforenamed. Which manner of Speech is borrowed from the Hebrews, who use this way of expressing themselves, and from whom some Heathen Authors have derived it, as may be seen in some of their Writings. Next, we may take notice of that Hebraism in the New Testament, which I observed before to be in the Old one, viz. the using of God's Name to augment and inhanse a thing. Of this Nature seems to be that in Acts 7. 20. Moses was fair to God; for so 'tis according to the Greek, but is fitly rendered by our English Translators [exceeding fair:] for the Name of God being here adjoined advanceth the sense, and denotes to us that Moses was transcendently and superlatively Fair, he was a Child of Extraordinary Beauty, he was (as the French Version hath it) divinement beau, divinely beautiful, of most Astonishing and Divine Features. The like Expression, I conceive, is that of the Apostle, when he saith, The Lord shall descend from Heaven with a Shout, with the Voi●e of the Archangel, and with the Trumpet of God, 1 Thess. 4. 16. This Trumpet of God may be that kind of Hebraism whereby the Greatness and Wonderfulness of a thing are expressed, by adding the Name of God to it. And accordingly in Mat. 24. (which gives us an account of the Signs of the Day of Judgement) you read that the Son of Man shall send his Angels with a Great sound of a Trumpet, ver. 31. which is the same that the Apostle calls the Trumpet of God. Of this sort is 2 Cor. 10. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exceeding Powerful, as Sir N. Knatchbull rightly translates it: and 2 cor. 11. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am zealous toward you with a Zeal of God, i. e. ay exceedingly affect you, in an extraordinary manner I am Zealous for you. So the Harps of God, Rev. 15. 2. are Excellent Heavenly Music. And I will offer one Place more (which I think may be referred to this Head) john 6. 28, 29. the Works of God, i. e. Some Great and Eminent Works of Religion, which surpass all others. Thus you see that God's Name is used in the Sacred Style, as an Intensive Term, and to Aggrandise the thing which is spoken of.  
So in Conformity to the Hebrew Phrase in the Old Testament (mentioned before) we read of the Sons or Children of this or that: which signifies, according to the Hebrew Propriety of Speech, that they are Sharers or Partakers of such a thing, or that they are obnoxious and liable to it, or that they have great Inclination and Desire towards it, or are Conversant in it, or much given and addicted to it, or do in a special manner belong and appertain to it. In one or other of these Senses the following places are to be understood, the Children of the Bride-Chamber, Mat. 9 15 i e. those that belonged to it, and had the favour to be admitted into it; those that were invited to the Marriage, and were interested in the Bridegroom and Bride; the Children of Hell, Mat. 23. 15. i e. those that are liable to it, and shall partake of its Torments: or it is as much as the Children of the Devil, i. e. those who have given themselves to him by a voluntary addicting themselves to Vice: the Children of Wisdom, Luk. 7. 35. those that are conversant in it: the Sons of Peace, Luk. 10. 6. such who addict themselves to Peace, or who shall be sharers in the Blessing of Peace: the Children of this World, Luk. 16. 8. those whose Inclinations and Desires are chiefly after this World; to whom are opposed, in the same Verse, the Children of Light, they who despise this dark World here below, and breath and long after the Light and Glory of another State, of a future Life: the Children of the Resurrection, Luk. 20. 36. those who have a part, a share in the blessed Resurrection to Life everlasting: Children of Disobedience, Eph. 5. 6. Col. 3. 6. those that give themselves up wholly to Disobediencce, the same with Sons of Belial, beforementioned: the Sons of Perdition, John 17. 12. 2 Thess. 2. 3. those that are certainly liable to Perdition and Destruction: Children of Promise, Rom. 9 8. Gal. 4. 28. those who shall share in the Promise: Children of Wrath, Eph. 2. 3. those who are liable to God's Wrath. This is the Hebrew way of speaking: he is called the Son of this or that, who hath some special relation to it. That also savours of the Hebrew Idiom, Are ye able to drink of the Cup that I shall drink of? Mat. 20. 22. & Joh. 18. 11. The Cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? If it be possible, let this Cup pass from me, Mat. 26. 39 And you read of the Cup of the Wine of the fierceness of God's Wrath, Rev. 16. 19 And again, Chap. 14. 10. & Ch. 18. 6. The Cup signifies with the Hebrews any thing good or bad that befalls a Man: because those of the same Family or Table drink of the same Cup or Vessel; every one hath his part and share of it, better or worse, as the Drink is. And so the Phrase denotes either the Good or Evil that happens to us, but most commonly the latter. Or perhaps, the occasion of the Phrase was this; the Guests had anciently their certain Quantity and Measure of Drink and Meat appointed them at Feasts, by the Master or Governor of the Feast: from which Custom of distributing a certain Portion, God is said to Give or Distribute his Cup: and the Cup and Drinking are used for the Calamities and Sufferings which he is pleased to allot them. So our Saviour's Words are to be understood; the Cup which he was to drink, and which his Father gave him, was the Sufferings which he was to undergo. The Cup of the Wine of the Fierceness of God's Wrath, was no other than the Plagues and Judgements which were to be inflicted on Mystical Babylon. This manner of Speaking was taken from the Old Testament, where you read of the Cup of God's Fury, and the Cup of Trembling, Isa. 51. 17. and many such 
* Jer. 25. 15▪ 26▪ Ch. 51. 7. Lam. 4. 21. Ezek. 23. 33. Hab. 2. 16.  other Expressions there are in the Books of the Prophets. That of the Apostle in 1 Tim. 1. 17. is a pure Hebraism, Now to the King Eternal, or, as 'tis in the Original, to the King of Ages: which is an Expression to set forth Eternity. Accordingly the Psalmist saith, Thy Kingdom is a Kingdom of all Ages, which we rightly translate, an everlasting Kingdom, Psal. 145. 13. In the Lord jehovah is the Rock, or Strength, of Ages, Isa. 26. 4. which is truly rendered Everlasting Strength. And that in Isa. 9 6. the Father of the Age, or of Eternity, or the everlasting Father, (as we translate it) is something like it. Bread is the general word in the New Testament, to signify all Food and Provision for the sustaining of Man's Life, as in that Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples, Give us this Day our daily Bread, and in Mark 7. 2, 27. Luk. 7. 37. Ch. 9 3. Ch. 14. 1. 2 Thess. 3. 12. and in other places: which is according to the Idiom of the Hebrews, with whom all Food is called lechems, Bread, because this is the most Common and Universal Food, and the most necessary for the Life of Man: and this word with them denotes all the Necessaries and Conveniencies of Humane Life.  
According to the Hebrew Style, a Sword hath a Mouth, or the Edge of the Sword is called a Mouth: Luk. 21. 24. They shall fall by the Mouth (we rightly render it the Edge) of the Sword. Heb. 11. 34.— escaped the Edge of the Sword, in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mouth of the Sword. So you read of a Two-mouthed Sword, Heb. 4. 12. for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek. Which is the Hebrew Phraseology, as you may satisfy yourselves from judg. 3. 16. Psal. 149. 6. Prov. 5. 4. A Sword is said to have a Mouth because it Devours: So lacham is both to Fight and to Eat.  
As I observed before that Drinking was applied to Calamity or Suffering, so now I will remark that Eating and Drinking are sometimes meant of Holy Instruction, of Divine Grace, and the most Excellent things of Religion. Eat up the Book, Rev. 10. 9 i e. Study it diligently, understand the Contents of it. Our Saviour expresses his Holy Doctrines, his Gifts and Graces, the Favour of God, and all Spiritual Comforts, yea, Himself too by Meat and Drink. I have Meat to eat which ye know not of, saith he, john 4. 32. My Meat is to do the Will of him that sent me, ver. 34. He adviseth to labour for the Meat which endureth to Everlasting Life, John 6. 27. And in four Verses together in the same Chapter, he uses this Phrase, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me. Ver. 53, etc. And he promiseth his Apostles, that they shall eat and drink with him at his Table in his Kingdom, Luk. 22. 30. All which is according to the Language of the Ancient Hebrews, who by Eating and Drinking express things of a Spiritual and Divine Nature, as in Prov. 24. 13, 14. Chap. 25. 27. Isa. 55. 2. and other Texts. 
* In More Nevochim.  R. Ben. Maimon tells us, That this was the Style of the Jewish Doctors and Rabbis: in their Writings, saith he, Eating is to be understood of Divine Instruction and Wisdom. This is observed by Philo, who lets us know that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eating is a Representation of the Spiritual Nourishment.  
The using of the word Firstborn or First-begotten in the Writings of the Apostles, is conformable to the acception of it among the Hebrews. The due attending to which will lead us to a right understanding of some Texts which have been generally mistaken by Expositors. I shall consider it here only as it is applied to our Blessed Saviour, which is done no less than four times: first in Col. 1. 15. where he is called the Firstborn of every Creature. Erasmus read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first producer of all Creatures: and he had it from 
† Lib. 3. Epist. 31.  Isidore of Pelusium, who evaded the Arians Assaults by this means. But this is an undue Expedient, because it altars the received Accent of the Word without any warrant, and because in other places where this Word is, and is applied to Christ, this alteration is not admitted by those that make use of it here. Gregory Nazianzen and others, interpret the Firstborn of every Creature thus, He whom God the Father begot before he created any thing: He that existed before all Creatures. But this seems not to be the sense of the words, because to be begotten before all Creatures, and to be the Firstborn of them, are two different things. Others think the Firstborn here is Synonimous with the Beginner or Author, (which falls in with the Interpretation of St. Isidore before mentioned) and accordingly they quote that as a parallel Text, Rev. 3. 14. where Christ is called the beginning of the Creation of God, i. e. the Cause and Author of all Creatures, say they. But this (though it be very true) is not agreeable with the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is no where found to be taken thus. Nor is Grotius' Gloss to be allowed of, who expounds it thus, Christ is the first in the new Creation: for the Context shows that there is relation to no such thing. But if we consult the ancient acception of the Word among the Hebrew Writers of the Old Testament, we shall discover what the genuine meaning of it is in this place. The Firstborn is as much as Excellent, Choice, Beloved, as in jer. 31. 9 Ephraim is my Firstborn. The Chiefest and most Eminent of Persons and Things have this Name; thus the Firstborn of Death, job 18. 13. is the most signal and mortal Disease, or the cruelest kind of Death. The Firstborn of the Poor, Isa. 14. 30. is the poorest of all. I will make him my Firstborn, Psal. 89. 28. i e. I will make him a Great and Eminent Person, higher than the Kings of the Earth, as it is explained in the next words. Answerably to this sort of speaking, Christ is said here to be the Firstborn of every Creature, i. e. the Chief, the Prince, the Lord of all Creatures. For we must know that this manner of Expression refers to that Dignity and Pre-eminence which were claimed by the Firstborn under the Law. Primogeniture carried with it the Right of Superiority and Government. In allusion to which, our Saviour is called the Firstborn (that is the Lord) of every Creature: or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may better be rendered the whole Creation. He made, he created all things; and therefore is Lord of the whole Creation. Accordingly it immediately follows, For by him were all things created. This for gives us to understand, that this Verse is the reason and account of what went before: St. Paul had styled Christ the Firstborn of every Creature, and now he gives this satisfactory account of it, because by Him all things were created; because of this he is deservedly styled the Firstborn, the Lord and Sovereign of the Creation. You must either conclude that the Great St. Paul did not speak Logically and Argumentatively, or that this is the genuine Interpretation of the place. If the Apostle's Words were to the purpose, (as be sure they were) then this sense which I have offered is so too, which is as much as I can desire: And that this is the meaning of the word Firstborn, is evident from that other Text in this Chapter, ver. 18. where he is called the Firstborn from the Dead, not (as some think) because he is the Author of the Resurrection; or (as Grotius, with most of the Pontificians) because he was the first that rose to Immortal Life and Glory: or (as others) because he was the First that rose from the Dead, as 'tis said Acts 26. 23. viz. by his own Power: but because he was the Chiefest of all those that rose from the Dead, because he was the Head of them all, as it follows, that in all things he might have the Preeminence, that it might appear that he was Lord of all. This is to be the Firstborn of the Dead, or of the Number of the Dead; for so it should be rendered, the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying here so much. A third Text might be alleged, viz. Rom. 8. 29. that he might be the Firstborn among many Brethren, i. e. that he might be the Chief, the Supreme of all the Children of God; for he was Predestinated as well as they, he was set apart as the Firstborn among Men (who were the Choicest of all) were, who were more immediately destined and devoted to the Service of God, Ex●d. 1●. 2. And lastly, I will mention Rev. 1. 5. where Christ is called the First-begotten of the Dead, which hath the same import with those words in the Epistle to the Calossians before alleged, for it is explained to us by what follows in the next Clause [and the Prince of the Kings of the Earth:] to let us see that the word Firstborn or First-begotten, hath the Signification which I have offered, it being the use of the Hebrews to apply it to those Things or Persons that are the Chiefest and most Excellent. In which sense likewise First-fruits are taken in, jam. 1. 18. where the Saints are called the First-fruits of the Creatures of God, i. e. they are the Chief of the Creation, they are the Flower of Mankind, they are more signally and eminently designed to set forth the Glory of God in the World. So Christ is the First-fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. he is the Principal of all those that rose from the Dead. This way of Speaking is taken from the Jewish notion of First-fruits, which were the Choicest of all their Fruits and Incomes, and from the Hebrew manner of expressing themselves, that is, calling those things which are Chief and most Eligible First-fruits, Amos 6. 1. Mic. 7. 1.  
Moreover, I take that Expression which our Saviour so often useth concerning himself, viz. his styling himself the Son of Man, to be a way of Speech proper to the Hebrews, and therefore is to be explained by what we meet with in the Old Testament. A 
* Mr. Weemes ' s Exposition of the judicial Law.  Person well skilled in Hebrew Criticism tells us, that Ezekiel is very often (about a hundred times) called Son of Man, because of the extraordinary Visions and Revelations which he had, wherewith he was highly honoured above others: So that Son of Man is the same with an Excellent or Dignified Man. And that this is the frequent Language of the Psalmist, hath been very lately observed and amply proved by our 
* Dr. S. Patrick (now a Reverend Bishop) in his Paraphrase on the Psalms, and particularly in his Preface.  Incomparable Paraphrast on this Sacred Book. Besides several other Excellent Discoveries made by him in that Choice Work, (which will gain him an Immortal Honour among the Pious and Wise) he hath particularly set us into a right apprehension of This Expression so often used by the Holy Penman. From several places in this Book (as also from others which he produceth out of the Sacred Writings) he evidenceth that Son of Man is the same with an Eminent Person; and he is the first Writer I have met with that hath established and fully cleared this Notion. From this Discerning Author we may observe, that in Psal. 49. 2. there is a difference made between been adam and been is, the former signifying there Mean Inferior Persons, but the latter Men of Considerable Rank and Quality: wherefore our Translators give us the sense very fully in rendering it low and high. Or perhaps adam in this place is the same with adamah Earth, and so the Sons of Man are opposed to the Sons of the Earth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Seventy render it; terrigenae, according to the Vulgar Latin. In Psal. 4. 2. bene●ish, the Sons of Man, is applied to Princes and Rulers, for of such that place speaks. And I translate it the Sons of Man, not of Men, (as 'tis in our English Bibles) for so the Original hath it: and we ought to take notice of it, for there is a vast difference between the one and the other. Sons of Men in Scripture are all that are of the Race of Adam, but Son or Sons of Man, are Persons of some Dignity and Rule in the World. But sometimes indeed been adam, is the same with been is, and then they are opposed to enosh or ben enosh, as in Psal. 8. 4. What is Man— and the Son of Man? i. e. (as I conceive) what is the Lower and the Higher Rank of Men, that Thou visitest them, that Thou showest thyself so Bountiful to them? So Sons of Man, Psal. 58. 1. is meant of judges and Great Men, as is evident from the former words of that Verse. And in Psal. 80. 17. Son of Man is the same with the Man of the right Hand, and the Man that is made Strong. Again, in Psal. 146. 3. Princes and the Sons of Man are synonimous, for [in Princes, in the Son of Man] are by way of Apposition in the Hebrew, to acquaint us that they are identified. And further it is to be observed, that this Title of the Son of Man is particularly and by way of Eminency affixed to the Messias, as in that forementioned place, Psal. 8. 4. (for we shall find that in Heb. 2. 6. it is referred to him by the Apostle in the Secondary and Mystical sense) but more signally and directly in Dan. 7. 13. Behold, one like the Son of Man. On which words Rabbi Saadiah is very peremptory, and saith, This is the Messias our Righteousness. And Solomon jarchi, and other great Rabbis declare, that by the Son of Man is meant the Messias. There is reason therefore to assert, that when Christ so frequently gives himself this Title, he takes it from the Old Testament, where it signifies a Man of Eminency and Rule, and more especially from Daniel, who by this Epithet expresses the Messias, the Prince, the Lord of Heaven and Earth. And to any considerate Man it is evident that our Saviour particularly referred to that place in Daniel, [Behold, one like the Son of Man came with the Clouds of Heaven] when he pronounced those words, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the Clouds of Heaven, Mat. 26. 64. Neither would the High Priest have thought that our Saviour spoke Blasphemy, and thereupon rend his Clothes, if he had not apprehended that he referred to those words of Daniel, and consequently owned himself to be the Messias, who hath the Title of the Son of Man given him because of his Excellency, Preeminence, and Authority. And this is yet more clear from our Saviour's words, joh. 5. 27. where he assigns the Reason why the Judgement of the World is committed to him by the Father, He hath (saith he) given him Authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man, because he is Head and Ruler of the Church, because all Government and Authority in this lower World are devolved upon him, because he hath all Rule and Dominion put into his Hands. This is the true account, as I conceive, of the Expression; this Title was attributed to him to signify his Authority and Exaltation, and not (as is commonly said and believed, and as the Learned 
* Annotat. in S. Matth. 8. 20.  Grotius defends it) his Meanness, Condescension and Humility: though I will not exclude Other Reasons which may be consistent with this, as that he is called the Son of Man, to attest the reality of his Manhood, to ascertain us of the Truth of his Suffering in our Humane Nature, to assure us of his Sympathy with us, and that he is touched with the feeling of our Infirmities. I will only add this, That whereas it is generally said by Writers, and even by the Critical 
* Christus nunquam hoc modo nisi à seipso appellatur. Annot. in Mat. 8. 20.  〈◊〉 among the rest, that this Epithet is given to our Saviour by Himself only, and not by any other in the New Testament, this is a Mistake, for in Acts 7. 56. he is called by St. Stephen the Son of Man, and so he is twice by St. john, Rev. 1. 13. Chap. 14. 14. The Original of which must be fetched (as I have showed) from the Hebrew Style in the Old Testament.  
And so must that Expression which the Apostle uses 2 Cor. 4. 17. a Weight of Glory. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here answers to the Hebrew cabod, a Weight, and yet is rendered Glory, Gen. 31. 1. and the Tongue is called cabod, Glory, Psal. 57 8. So the Verb cabad signifies both to be weighty, and to be glorious or honourable, Isa. 66. 5. Prov. 13. 18. And the Adjective cabed approaches to this sense, as is clear from Gen. 13. 2. Thus it is with the word jakar, gravis fuit: but it is understood in a treble sense, as if there were a threefold Gravity, viz. of Weight, Price and Honour. Accordingly it signifies, 1. To be heavy, weighty. 2. To be precious, Isa. 43. 4. 3. To be in Honour and Glory, Job. 31. 26. as also to glorify and honour; and therefore the word is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Version of the 70. Thus you see that after the manner of the Hebrews, Glory or Greatness is expressed by words that denote Weight: and thence it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used by the Apostle to denote that Superlative Glory which is the attainment of the other World. And 'tis not improbable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Thess. 2. 6. is to be understood thus, and should not be rendered to be Burdensome, but 
† Honorabiles esse. Syr.  to be Honourable, or 
‖ In authoritate, in dignitate esse. Calvin, Erasmus.  to be in Authority or Dignity: which our English Translators were sensible of when they rendered it in the Margin to use Authority. This I take to be of Hebrew extraction, and in imitation of the use of the words sabad and jakar. And hence also in the Seventy's Translation of the Old Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports Grandeur or Glory, and is applied in several places to a Royal Train, and to a Mighty Host, 1 Kings 10. 2. 2 Kings 6. 14. Chap. 18. 7. 2 Chron. 9 1. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Weight or Burden, is equivalent with Honour or Splendour in 
* Hom. 32. Tom. 5.  one of St. Chrysostom's Homilies. I could remark that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gravis, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gloria, differ but in the Accents: and among the Latins honos and onus are not unlike: Vir gravis is used by the Latin Orator for a Person of Authority and Worth. And Graves viri in the old Roman way of Speaking, are Men of Authority and Eminency. And Baro (which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is used by 
† Ad Attic. lib. 5.  Tully as a Name of Dignity, and is as much as Patricius a Nobleman: though I know some Critics interpret the word in another sense. Thence our word Baron, a Lord, a Person of Greatness and Authority. And Grave answers to Baron, whence Palsgrave, Landgrave, Margrave, Burgrave: for Grave among the Germans signifies a Magistrate, a Ruler. And we in England heretofore used the word Grave or Greve in the same sense: thus Portgreve was the Name of the Chief Magistrate of the City of London till King John's time, who turned it into that of Mayor. These things I here mention only to intimate the Affinity that is to be observed in Languages, not only the Learned ones (as they are called) but others, and to show you the particular cognation betwixt Gravity and Honour or Authority, betwixt Weight and Glory, which it is probable was derived first of all from the Hebrews.  
The Writers of the New Testament sometimes make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same sense that the Hebrews use the word gnanah, respondere; that is, not to signify a Person's Answering or Replying to what another had said, but only to denote his going on with his Speech, his proceeding in what he had said before. Persons are said to Answer, though there be no Question put to them, though there be no Reply intended, as jesus answered, and said, Mat. 11. 25. Then answered Peter, and said, Mat. 17. 4. The Angel answered, and said, Mat. 28. 5. One of the Elders answered, saying, Rev. 7. 13. which is (as appears from the Context) no more than this, They spoke, and said; for this oftentimes is the acceptation of that word in the Hebrew Writings, and particularly in the Book of job, Chap. 3. ver. 2. Job answered, and said, though no body had spoke to him, or asked him any Question. The words therefore import no more than this, Job spoke, and said; and so our Translators render it. I might further observe, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament, hath by an Hebraism the force of all the Prepositions, it answering to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lastly, I am inclined to think that what is said of St. Paul in Acts 9 15. is spoken after the Hebrew manner: for the Hebrews call any thing that is Choice and Delectable 
* Nahum 2. 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vas desiderii; and the Rabbins accordingly call the Law by this Name▪ viz. a Desirable Vessel, or a Desirable Instrument or Utensil; for Cheli is of a vast Latitude, and signifies whatever is for the use of Man. Answerably to which St. Paul is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a chosen Vessel or Instrument. It is spoken after the Propriety of the Hebrews, with whom a Thing or Person that is made use of to some Excellent Purpose, is not only styled a Vessel, but, to denote yet further the Worth of it, is called a Vessel of Desire, which is of the like Signification with a Vessel of Choice; for what is desired is chosen. Thus in a few Instances I have showed, that the Evangelical Writers do Hebraize; and in many more I might have done the same: For though the New Testament hath not so many Hebraisms as is imagined by some Critics, yet it is not to be doubted that Christ and his Apostles used them very frequently. It is evident that a great part of the Phrases of the New Testament are according to the Hebrew Propriety; yea, sometimes they agree more especially with the Rabinical and Talmudick way of Writing, as 
* In Spicilegio.  Ludovicus Capellus, and others, have endeavoured to demonstrate. Thus the Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. 15. is the Title by which the Great Sanhedrim of the Jews was ordinarily styled▪ saith Dr Lighfoot. Raca, which is used▪ Matth. 5. 22. as a Word of Reproach, is common among the Talmudick Doctors, (for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the same with the Syriac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and signifies a vain empty Fellow. Christ follows the Language of the Rabbins and Talmud●sts when he uses the Word Heaven for God, as in Matth. 21. 25. he asked the Jews whether John's Baptism was from Heaven, i. e. from God, or of Men. I have sinned against Heaven, i. e. God, saith the Prodigal Son to his Father, Luke 15. 18. This was the Style of the Eastern People, and of the Jews particularly, as you find in Dan. 4. 23. 1 Macc. 3. 18. And this was the usual Language of their Rabbins, they used Shamajim instead of God. And in other Instances it might be showed, that the Sense of several Places in the New Testament is manifested and illustrated by the Knowledge of the Hebrew Phrase and Style. For which Reason it was necessary to say something of this Matter, having undertaken to discourse of the Style of Scripture. We must remember that there are frequent Hebraisms in these Greek Writings, the Authors themselves being Hebrews, and they likewise making use of the Style of the Old Testament, and fetching thence several Expressions which are purely Hebrew. Thus they must needs retain the Hebrew Idiom and way of Speaking: and thus the Old Testament and New agree the better; and the former gives constant Light towards the understanding of the latter.  
6thly. Though there is a Great Variety of Words and Phrases in the New Testament; and though this Part of the Bible was not written in Attic, but Hebrew Greek, yet this is to be asserted, that there are no Soloecisms in it. I add this here, because some of old, and others of late, have unadvisedly suggested the contrary, and have been so hardy and presumptuous, as to aver that the Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament, abounds with Soloecisms. This is particularly said 
* Paulus, qui Soloecismos facit in loquendo. Hieronym. in Psal. 81.  of St. Paul's Epistles by an Ancient Father, whose Unhappiness it was to speak several things too daringly and presumptuously: That 
† Coriarius Cilix. in Epist ad Ephes.  Cilician Currier, saith he, (for so he calls St. Paul) that sorry Tradesman, was skilled only in Hebrew, (which was as it were his Mother-Tongue to him) and therefore hath many Soloecisms and Barbarisms in Greek. And the same Author, in 
* In Epist. ad Algasiam.  another Place, speaks to the like purpose, and taxeth this Apostle for want of Grammar and Syntax. Among the Moderns you'll find Erasmus charging not only St. Paul, but the rest of the Apostles with this Defect in their Writings. There are many Soloecisms, 
† Annotat. in Act. 10.  saith he, in their Style, by reason of the frequent Hebraisms which are used by them. And those worthy Reformers, Luther and Calvin, were not afraid to talk after this rate. The former, after his bold manner, imputes false Grammar to the Evangelists and Apostles, as you may see in his 
‖ Tom. 3. p. 78.  Writings. And the latter expressly avoucheth, that 
‖‖ Institut. cap. 7. Sect. 12.  the Greek of the New Testament is Defective, and particularly he holds that St. Peter writ false Greek, as in 1 Epist. ch. 3. v. 20. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Dative for a Genitive Case: And he fastens this Grammatical Soloecism on him merely to evade the Doctrine of Purgatory, which cannot but greatly scandalise the Papists when they shall consider that this Great Reformer is not ashamed to disparage and vilify the Scriptures, that he may thereby evade a Popish Doctrine: yea, this must needs be offensive to all others likewise, who cannot but see that there was not the least Reason for his fancying the Change of one Case for another in this Place; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactly answers to, and agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been the Word here, it had indeed been false Greek: but now 'tis impossible for Calvin, or any Man else, to make it such. Beza follows his Master, and outdoth him, for he every where finds fault with the Greek of the New Testament, and holds that the Style is disturbed and corrupted; yea, that there are frequent Soloecisms in it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 12. 40. should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saith, and therefore he condemns it for naughty Grammar: Whereas any unprejudiced Man may see, that there is only an ordinary Ellipsis in the Words; the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood, as it is in several other Texts. But the unsufferable Boldness of this Writer is partly founded on that Persuasion of his, that the Spirit did not dictate Words to the Prophets and Apostles, but only the Matter, which I have showed before in another Discourse to be an incredible Assertion. Castellio, though of a different Judgement in other things from Calvin and Beza, agrees with them in this, that there are several Ungrammatical Passages in the Apostles Writings: Upon Rev. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he noteth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is a Soloecism, saith he, but such do often occur in St. Paul. Cannot this Author be content with the Credit and Reputation of having turned the Bible into neat Latin, unless he condemns the Apostles for their false Greek? And where, I pray, is this false Greek? Not in this Place which he mentions, and consequently it is not reasonable to believe that it is in any other. In this Place any impartial Eye may see that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one Relative for another, which is a common thing among Writers. I could show him forty Places in the Best Greek Authors, where the like Change is made: And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently left out in the most Approved Writers among the Grecians, cannot be denied by any Man that hath had any Acquaintance with them; yea, 'tis often left out in the New Testament, and no fault is found with the Style where it is so. Why therefore should we think it a strange thing that it is omitted in this Place? Here is Good Grammar, and no Shadow of Soloecising when this Divine Writer saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. One of our own Annotators hath picked up this false Notion concerning the Style of Scripture, viz. that it is not reconcileable with Grammatical Syntax in some Places: two especially he takes notice of, Eph. 4. 2. Col. 3. 16. In the former he observes that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, whereas it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Nominative being put instead of the Accusative. But by this Worthy Annotator's leave, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may, yea and certainly doth refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Verse; and so it is but inserting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then the Grammar is salved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I beseech you that you forbear one another. And if you say it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Verse, it is easily answered that the Apostle might express himself in the way of a Subjunctive as well as an Infinitive, seeing it could be done by either of them, as this Learned Critic cannot but acknowledge. In the latter Place alleged by this Learned Man, he takes notice that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is misplaced instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Nominative for a Dative Case, which is a great Flaw in Grammar. But this is soon taken off by referring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Verse, (as the Doctor doth) but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Verse just before; for to these it hath reference, and not to that, and so the Grammatical Concord is very ●ood and sound.  
In several other Places (where there have been the like Objections made) you will find the Sense rendered entire by the industrious Pen of that Learned Knight Sir Norton Knatchbull: Though, to speak freely and impartially, he sometimes represents the Style of the New Testament more perplexed and disturbed that I can believe it to be: and though he fancy's Trajections in some Places where there are none; yet, to the perpetual Honour of this Worthy Gentleman it must be said, that he hath discovered several Trajections or Transpositions, Parentheses, Transitions, Ellipses, and Changes of Numbers and Persons, with other Enallages, which were scarcely taken notice of before: he hath rectified some Commas and Stops, he hath set the Words and Periods right, he hath cleared the Syntax and Grammatical Construction, mended the Sense in several Places, removed the Difficulties, showed the Propriety and Emphasis of the Words, discovered the Coherence of the Texts: In short, he hath cleared the New Testament of Soloecisms, and particularly the Writings of the Great Apostle St. Paul. So that though Tarsus, the Apostle's Birth-place, was in the same Province with and a Neighbour to Solae, the Country of those that corrupted their Language, (whence came Soloecisms) yet it appears that there is no such thing in the Apostle's Style.  
But suppose these Texts above named could not have been reconciled to the exact Laws of Grammar, yet one would think the Transcribers might better have been blamed than the Writers themselves: the Greek Copy should have been found fault with rather than the Holy Ghost: the Mistake might have been imputed to the amanuensis, and not to the Apostles, I must profess to you plainly, that it is bordering upon Blasphemy, to say that the Holy Spirit, from whom was the Gift of Tongues, dictate Barbarisms and Soloecisms in these Sacred Writings, which were immediately inspired by him. Again, suppose, or rather grant that some Periods of the New Testament are not exactly adjusted to Grammar-Rules, yet this will not justify the Language of those Men who charge this Book with Soloecisms and Barbarisms; for they will be unwilling to grant that there are such things as these in Homer and Virgil, and such approved Authors. Or, if they will grant that there are such, than they have no Reason at all to find fault with the like in Holy Scripture. And this is that which I maintain, and which no knowing Person can deny, that the same things which some call Soloecisms and Undue Syntax in the New Testament, are to be found in the most Noted and Celebrated Authors among the Greeks and Latins. Critics have taken notice of several of these in Homer and Pindar especially among the Greek Poets, and in Herodotus and Thucydides among the best Historians that have writ in that Language, and in Demosthenes among the Noted Orators. These do not always observe Grammatick Laws; they lay them aside sometimes, and speak Irregularly, as 
* Heinsius in Prolegom, in Exercitat. Sacr.  one of the Greatest Critics of this last Age hath acknowledged. Profane Writers have Soloecistical Phrases, Botches, Fillings up, Repetitions. Lucian long since observed, that Epithets are not always used by Poets, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dialog.  because they are fit and convenient, and suitable to the purpose, but to help out the Matter, to fill up the Gaping, to prop up the Ruins of a Verse. And both Plutarch and Eustathius (who were mor● serious Men than the other) have taken notice of this in Good Authors. Sometimes the Poet is at a stand, and his Muse is restive: thus Virgil hath Broken and Half-verses, which the Critics excuse by saying that he had not time to finish his Book, or that he did it on purpose to stop his Readers in the Career, that they might stay and consider the thing he is speaking of. This Account they give of his Blanks and Chasms. But Homer suffers not his Muse to make a halt, but then (which is as bad) he fills up his Verses with such Expletives as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and besides these lesser Particles he useth entire Words and Phrases in many Places only to supply his Verse. We have nothing of this sort in the Sacred Writings, nothing that is really superfluous. But there are some Words indeed that are looked upon as Redundant, and not absolutely Necessary, especially in the Old Testament, which is Poetical in many places, The Lord reigned Brimstone and Fire from the Lord, Gen. 19 24. where the last Words [from the Lord] seem to be redundant. So it is in 2 Tim. 1. 18. The Lord grant unto him that be may find Mercy of the Lord in that Day. Thus in Psal. 90. 10. The Days of our Years are threescore Years and ten: We may look upon the first Word as an Expletive, for the Divine Poet means this only, that the ordinary Term of our Life extends to seventy Years: So that the word [Days] might have been left out. The same Pleonasm you read in 2 Sam. 19 34. How many Days are the Years of my Life? for so it is according to the Hebrew: and it is the Hebrew way of speaking, and therefore cannot be blamed. Yea, to speak strictly, there is nothing redundant in the Style of Scripture. All those Words which seem to be Expletives, are Significant, and sometimes very Emphatical. The Repetitions (which some think to be needless Tautologies) are very useful as well as elegant. What is more frequent in Homer, the Father of Poets? There you meet with Verses and Half-verses over and over again: and the Commentators on those Places tell us, that his frequent using the same Words is an Argument that his Style is Natural and Genuine, (as in common Discourse we are wont to say the same things again and again) and that it showeth the Intenseness and Earnestness of the Speaker, that it argues the Necessity of the Matter as well as the Certainty of it, that it is to conciliate Attention, and that sometimes it is a great Ornament and Elegancy, besides that it was the Mode of speaking then in use, and accordingly is to be found in all Good Authors, more or less.  
Why then should we not satisfy ourselves after the same manner, when we find the same things repeated in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and more particularly in the Books of Moses, which far exceed Homer in Antiquity? That Reiteration of the Words in Gen. 1. 27. God created Man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him, should not offend us: nor that in Moses' Song in Exod. 15. 16. Till thy People pass over, O Lord, till thy People pass over: nor those many Reduplications in the Song of Deborah and Barak, I will sing unto the Lord, I will sing unto the Lord God of Israel, Judg. 5. 3. The Mountains melted from before the Lord, from before the Lord God of Israel, ver. 5. The Inhabitants of the Villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a Mother in Israel, ver. 7. Awake, awake Deborah, awake, awake, ver. 12. The Kings came and fought; then fought the Kings, ver. 19 The River of Kishon swept them away, that ancient River, the River Kishon, v. 21. At her Feet he bowed, he fell and lay down: at her Feet he bowed, he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down dead, ver. 27. To Sisera a Prey of divers Colours, a Prey of divers Colours of Needlework, of divers Colours of Needlework of both sides, ver. 30. This Repeating and Reduplicating the Words, is so far from being any Blemish to this Ancient Song, that it is to be accounted a great Elegancy, and a singular Grace to it. This Anadiplosis is deemed a very becoming Figure (and might have been mentioned with those before) in the best Classical Writers: and there is no Reason why it should not be so here. If the repeating the same thing be in them a Sign of the Naturalness of the Style, and of the Seriousness and Fervour of the Speakers, of the Weightiness of the Subject, and the like, we cannot deny it to be the same in these Ancient Writings of the Bible. It is observable, that as in the Sacred History of this Book, so in Homer, the Messenger, whether he be sent from God or Man, relates his Errand verbatim, in the same Words and Syllables usually that it was delivered to him; so that he altars it not in the least. In this, as in several other things, that Ancient Poet comes near to the Simplicity of the Style of Scripture. I could remark unto you also, that that excellent Emperor Antoninus hath many things in his Book which are conformable to the Style of the Holy Writ, and seem to resemble it: His way of Writing is like an Emperor, Short, but Pithy and Sententious. Many things are not expressed, which must be supplied and understood. He sometimes useth Words and Phrases as he pleaseth, not as Other Writers are wont. He hath unusual ways of expressing himself, and sometimes he coins Words (as it was his Royal Prerogative to do so with Money.) He hath several abrupt and incoherent Periods; he is generally neglectful and not studied. This is some Resemblance of the Style of Holy Scripture, where there is a Princely Brevity, wherein more is contained than expressed: where are (as I shall show you anon) either New Words, or those which are usual are applied in a New and unheard of manner. The Style seems in sundry Places to be inconsistent and independent, and in most Places it is careless, and no ways elaborate. But as no Wife Critic ever defamed the Emperor for his particular Strain of Writing, so neither can any Man of Judgement disparage the Penmen of Holy Scripture, whom he doth as 'twere imitate. In brief, the Bible hath something in it of all manner of Styles, and partakes of the Excellencies of all Authors: and where you see any Defect in the strict Rules of Grammar, even there it is not unlike to Other Writers.  
This may satisfy us, amidst the Cavils of some Censurers of Scripture, that it hath in it the same Phrases and Modes of Speaking, and manner of using them, that are in the best Greek and Latin Writings. Let us come then to the Reading of Scripture, as we see Men do to Homer and Virgil. This is a fair Request, any Man will say, and it must needs be granted. Now, you see, that if any thing less Grammatical or Elegant occurs in those Writers, the Course which is taken is this, Lexicons and Dictionaries are consulted, the Masters of Grammar and Rhetoric are advised with, Interpreters are searched into, Other Authors are compared with these, and their Business is to reconcile them, and to make Sense of these Poets, and by all means to make them speak well. And shall we not do thus with the Sacred Writings? Shall we not endeavour by all those Ways to vindicate the Credit of them, and to justify the Propriety and Excellency of their Style, when we are able to do it by Great Examples from the Best and most Celebrated Writers among the Moral Philosophers, Orators, Poets, Historians? The Worthy Knight beforementined hath done his Part here very laudably; he hath salved the Grammar of the New Testament in many Places, and hath showed that its Style (where it seems to be strange and uncouth) is parallel with very Good and Approved Authors. And lastly, if any find fault with the Holy Writings because they are immethodical, because neither the Mosaic Law, nor other Parts of the Old Testament, nor the Christian Doctrine in the New, are reduced to Method and Artificial Order, the like Answer may be given, viz. that this was not the way of Other Writers in those Times. It is evident that it was not the old way of the jews; their Books of Religion and Morals were not Orderly disposed, but generally made up of Historical Passages, and Wise Aphorisms and Sentences. And as for the Gentiles, most of their Learning was not more accurate and reduced. You can descry nothing in their Writings of that Method and Order which have since been observed. But my Business here chiefly is not to consider whether the Scripture be Methodised, but to defend the Propriety of its Language. Or rather, it is not my Business now, because I have sufficiently dispatched it, I hope. I have let you see that those are no impartial Judges of Scripture-Stile, who cry out of its Barbarisms; but the Truth is, they betray both their Ignorance and Irreligion at once, in giving such a Judgement of it; their Ignorance, in that they show themselves unacquainted with the Best Authors, who are not always wont to bind themselves to the strict Observation of Grammatical Rules. To this purpose the Learned Henry Stephens' Animadversions and Appendix at the End of his Thesaurus Gr. L. are worthy of the Perusal of all Curious Persons that would be fully acquainted with the Genius of the Attic Phrase and Idiom; and the reading of these will abundantly satisfy them that the New Testament is like other Greek Writers, and that the most Classic Greek Authors speak in the same strain that this doth. This Accomplished Critic shows that there are pure Atticisms sometimes in these Holy Writings, and particularly that an Ellipsis, which is so frequent in them, is a common Atticism in the best Grecians. If those who raise Objections against the Style of the New Testament would converse with These, they might see that those Passages which seem not so proper or elegant in Scripture, and that whatever looks like Soloecisms, and favours of Rudeness or Defect of Language in these Holy Writings, may be parallelled with what they meet with in the most Applauded Authors. Their Irreligion likewise is discovered in this, that nothing pleaseth them in the Holy Book; and that what is not thought Improper or Rude in other Writings, is accounted such in These; yea, that what are Soloecisms in a Sacred Writer, are looked upon as Atticisms and Elegancies in a Profane One. Having hitherto been in pursuance of this, that the Holy Scripture hath many things in it according to the Strain of Other Writers, I am to pass to the next Proposition.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Scripture-Stile hath some things in it that are not in common with Other Writers, but are proper and peculiar to itself. The LXX's Greek Version and the New Testament, have words that are not extant in any other Authors. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 14. 3. was coined by the Evangelist: It's true Signification enquired into. Inward Goodness or Righteousness is expressed by Terms which are unknown to other Writers. Instances of several other Peculiar ways of Speaking. Some Profane Authors differ from the rest as to the use of some particular Words and Phrases. Ecclesiastical Writers have Words proper to themselves. The Difficulty of Scripture proceeds partly from the Different Acception of Words which we meet with there. Many Instances in the Old and New Testament. The various Significations of the Word Spirit enumerated, and reduced to distinct Heads. The Author confines himself to the Hebrew Verbs of the Old Testament, and shows how Different the Senses of the same words are, and endeavours to remove the Ambiguity of them in the several Texts which he citys, and to determine the Sense which is Proper to those particular Places. The like he attempts in those Texts where Hebrew Nouns of a different meaning occur.  
THE Third Proposition is, That the Scripture-Stile hath some things in it that are not in common with Other Writers, but are Proper and Peculiar to itself. For though it is true some Other Authors have words proper to themselves, which are not found in others, (thus in Pindar, Plato, Isocrates, Homer, Aristophanes, Hypocrates, etc. there are some particular Words and Phrases peculiar to them alone) yet the Bible hath Words and Expressions which are not to be met with in any of these, nor in any other Writers. The Original Hebrew hath greater choice of Words than any Book extant in that Language; it is the most Copious Vocabulary that is in the World, and all Hebrew Writers of note borrow from this. The Septuagint have words peculiar to themselves, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proper to them, and was made on purpose to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and the Writers of the New Testament took it from them. They also made the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cant. 4. 9 to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ex. 2. 5. is of their coining, and the Apostle thought fit to use it, Tit. 2. 14. And some have thought the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it signifies Sleep or Slumber, Isa. 29. 10. was made by them, as if it were from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This word is also used by the Apostle, Rom. 11. 8. The New Testament in Greek hath words never heard of before, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Lord's Prayer, a word which was first used by the Evangelists. And St. Luke's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Angel's Salutation of the Virgin Mary, Luk. 1. 28. is a new Greek word which the Evangelist himself made, 
* Beza & Caninius in locum.  as some have thought: but that is a Mistake, because the Apocryphal Writer had used it before, Eccles. 18. 17. Yet this is not to be denied that the word is no where to be found in any other Greek Author, i. e. any Profane one, but St. Paul useth it (viz. the Active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though not the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in Eph. 1. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Passive Voice have a peculiar Signification in Mat. 5. 24. Rom. 5. 10. 1 C●r. 11. 7. 2. Cor. 5. 20. which is in no other Writer, saith Grotius upon Mat. 5. 24. That likewise in Mark 14. 3. and john 12. 3. is scarcely used by any Writer whatsoever, and therefore the Grammarians and Critics know not well how to assign the meaning of it, some deriving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the word there used, and joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it denotes that Ointment to have been faithfully prepared and compounded, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (according to this Etymology) is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true, pure not adulterated, approved, it being rightly and faithfully made. This is according to the Syriac Version: and 'tis approved of by 
* In 〈◊〉. 26.  St. jerom and 
† In More. 14.  Theophylact. Others think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the vulgar Latin having it Spicata, and so it is translated Spikenard by us. Beza and Camerarius are of this Opinion, and think the Ointment had this Name, because it was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spicis nardi, that is, of the choicest part of Nard. A third fort (among whom Casaubon is Chief) tell us, that it is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, potabilis, à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so signifies such a Liquid Ointment as might be drank. And lastly, some have thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it were called so from a place, viz▪ Opis, a City not far from Babylon, whence the best Nard came.  
This is 
‖ Critie. Dec. 2. ●. 6.  Hartungus' Notion, but then the word should have been Opick, not Opistick. Thus the Etymology of the Word hath been disputed, but we are certain of the Thing, the Nard itself, or rather the Ointment which was made of it, which was very Precious, and in great Esteem of old. It was made of several Ingredients, (as we learn from 
* Na●. Hist. l. 1●. ●. 2.  Pliny, and other Writers) viz. the sweet Cane or Rush, Costum, Amomum, Myrrh, Balsam, and other Simples. When this Precious Compound, this Excellent Aromatic, which was very Costly, and used only by Rich and Wealthy Persons, was made up as it should be, it was then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●ides) sincerely and faithfully prepared, it had all its Ingredients, it was of the best sort. This seems to be the most eligible Derivation of the Word: but so far as we know it was of the Evangelist's making, for there is no such Greek Word in any other Authors.  
And as the New Testament hath its peculiar words, so you may observe it hath a peculiar way of using some words which yet are common in other Writers. Thus Inward Holiness or Inherent Righteousness are expressed by such terms as These, (which have no such Signification in any other Writers) Circumcision, Col. 2. 11. Crucifying, Rom. 6. 6. Gal. 6. 14. Mortifying, Rom. 8. 13. Col. 3. 5. Dying, Rom. 6. 2, 8. Col. 3. 3. Resurrection, Eph. 2. 6. Eph. 5. 14. Col. 2. 12. Regeneration, or being born again, John 3. 3. Tit. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 23. Renovation, Rom. 12. 2. Eph. 4. 23. the New Man, and New Creature, 2. Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. Eph. 4. 24. Washing, John 13. 8. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Rev. 7. 14. The way of using and applying these words is proper to the New Testament. There are other peculiar ways of speaking in this part of the Bible, which are altogether unknown to other Writers, as the Engrafted Word, Jam. 1. 21. Children of Light and of the Day, Luk. 16. 8. Eph. 5. 8. 1 Thess 5. 5. the Sword of the Spirit, Eph. 6. 17. the Savour of Death, 2 Cor. 2. 16. the Body of Sin, Rome, 6. 6. the Body of Death, Rom. 7. 24. the Law of Sin and Death, Rom. 8. 2. a Law in the Members, Rom. 7. 23. Who over met in any other Author with these Expressions, Conscience of an Idol, 1 Cor. 8. 7. the Earnest of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 5. 5. the Unction of the Spirit, 1 Joh. 2. 20, 27. Circumcision of the Heart, and of the Letter, Rom. 2. 29. a jew outwardly, and a jew inwardly, in the same Verse? Who ever read of the foolishness of God, and the weakness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 25? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Phrase proper to Scripture: and so are these, to mortify the Members on Earth, Col. 3. 5. to put off the Old Man, and put on the New Man, Eph. 4. 22. to sow to the Flesh, to reap of the Flesh; to sow to the Spirit, to reap of the Spirit, Gal. 5. 8. to walk after the Flesh, Rom. 8. 1, 4. Who ever spoke after the following rate, to eat and drink Damnation to himself, 1 Cor. 11. 29. to be justified by Faith, Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 16. to be clothed upon with an House from Heaven, 2 Cor. 5. 2? And what strange and unheardof Expressions are those, to be baptised or washed with Fire, Mat. 3. 2. to be salted with Fire, Mark 9 49?  
Thus the Sacred Penmen of Scripture differ from all others in their Style. And yet herein also they agree with them, for even some of those Writers differ from the rest, as to the use of some particular Words and Phrases. Some of them take a word or more in a sense that it is not taken in by any Others. There are words in Homer that are not in Aristophanes; and some in Lycophron, that are not in either of these; and there are some in these three which are not found in any other Writer whatsoever. Plato, (as 'tis 
* Diog, La●rt. in Platone.  observed of him) useth words in a way different from other Authors, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Simplex, and in other places for Pulcher, and sometimes for Parvus. And as the same word is used by him to denote several things, so he uses different words in the same sense and meaning, as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others. Nay, he brings in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the same Author observes) to express contrary things sometimes. There are some Ecclesiastic words (for they may be thus differenced from others, because they have a peculiar Interpretation as they are used by Ecclesiastical Writers) as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Synaxis, which among Christian Writers signify either the Sacred Meetings and Assemblies of the Faithful, or the Lord's Supper: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Temple among the same Writers, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same Signification sometimes: but they have no such sense in other Authors. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a Towel or Napkin, is used in some of the Greek Fathers, to denote the express Image or likeness of a Person. And from other Examples it might be made good that the Profane and Ecclesiastic use of a word are far different. There are Thousands of words otherwise taken in the Greek Fathers than in Classic Writers: and you in vain look for the meaning of them in Hesychius, Phavorinus, Suidas, in Scapula, Constantine, or Stephens. Yea, the words themselves which occur in Ecclesiastic Writers are not to be found in Profane ones: many of them are omitted in Lexicons, Onomasticks, Etymologicks, and Glossaries.  
And shall not the Inspired Writers have the same liberty, viz. to use peculiar Words and Phrases of their own? or to use Words in a singular meaning, and proper to themselves? If a Catachresis, the Abuse of Words, be reckoned by the Greek Orators an Embellishment of Speech, certainly we must account it no Disparagement, but rather an Ornament to the Language, when the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures altars the use of some Words. He may make use of what Words he pleaseth: He that bestowed the Gift of Tongues, knows how to apply them. Hence in these Writings you meet with some New words and Singular ways of Expression, as I have let you see in some Instances: and many more I might have added, wherein the peculiar Phraseology of this Sacred Book is observable. The very Words in the Holy Style are precious. Antiquaries and Critics spend much time in mere Phrases, but they never employ it so well as when they are searching into These. There are several Other things might be noted as to the Peculiar Style and Idiom of the New Testament, but this shall suffice at present. As I have ●hew'd before that the Style of Scripture is like that of Other Writers, so you see it is not inconsistent with what I have now asserted, that the Holy Style is not like that of Others; that is, the Scripture hath Words and Phrases proper to itself, it hath some things extraordinary, and which are unusual with the rest of Authors. But I will insist no longer on this here, because I may have occasion in my next Discourse (viz. concerning the Excellency and Perfection of Scripture) to suggest several things which will discover the Peculiar Strai● of the Bible.  
The Fourth proposition is, That there are som● things Obscure and Difficult in the Style of Scripture. I will give you an account of this in these following Particulars: 1. Obscurity and Difficulty may arise from the Different Signification of the same words in Scripture. 2. From the Contrariety of the same words as to their Signification. 3. From Other Causes relating to the Matter itself spoken of, and the Time, etc. Under which Heads I intent to prosecute that Design which I formerly was upon, viz. An Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts of the Holy Scripture which contain some Difficulty in them. I shall have occasion here to discover the Grounds of that Difficulty, and to show how it may be removed. And when the Sentiments of others are not satisfactory, I will make bold to interpose my own Judgement.  
First, Sometimes in Scripture there are Words of Different Signification, whence it comes to pass, that it is very hard to understand those places where these words are. And it is impossible to satisfy ourselves about the meaning of them in the Texts where we find them, unless we take pains to examine the particular Congruity of one Sense rather than another to that particular Thing or Person to which it is applied. Yea, sometimes when we meet with such a Doubtful Word, we shall find it reasonable to make use of both the Senses of it, that is, to propound them both, and to leave it free to Persons to make choice of which they please. I will give some Instances of this; as that in Gen. 39 1. Captain of the Guard, which may as rightly be translated (according to josephus, Antiq. l. 2. c. 3.) Chief of the Cooks, for the LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Hebrew Tabbach (the Plural whereof is here used) is a Cook, 1 Sam. 8. 13. Ch. 9 23, 24. and is so translated. The truth is, the genuine rendering of Tabbach is Mactator, a Slayer, and so is applicable either to a Cook or a Soldier. The double sense of the Word occasions some doubt about the Translation, but it is of no moment at all: for we are not to be concerned whether Potiphar was Pharao●'s Head-Cook (which without doubt was an Honourable Place) or the Captain of his Guard, or Army (as the Vulgar Latin gives it.) So in Gen. 41. 43. [they cried before him Abrek] the word Abrek may be differently rendered, viz. either according to Aben-Ezra, Aquila, the Vulgar Latin, and our own English Translation [bow the Knee] deriving it from barak, genu flexit: or according to Solomon jarchi, and the Paraphrases of Onkelos and jonathan [Father of the King] (for Rek in the Aramaean Tongue is ●ex, and thence perhaps this Latin word:) or according to the jerusalem Targum [Father of the King, and tender in Years], or according to Symmachus, [tender Father] (from Ab Pater, and reach tener sen delicatue,) because joseph was as to his Prudence a Father, as to his Age a Tender Youth. Thus this word being of a dubious Signification, according to the different Etymologies it hath, may be diversely translated, and every one is at liberty to choose which of these Senses he most approves of. I cannot see how the Doubtfulness of such words as this can be wholly taken away, and consequently the Scripture as to such words, must remain Dubious and Obscure, that is, as to the particular and close import of them. But 'tis sufficient that we have the general sense of them, as here, though we are ignorant of the right and only Derivation of the word Abroach (and after all the forementioned Surmises, it is most probable (as hath been said before) that 'tis an Egyptian word) yet this we are certain of, that it was a word of Acclamation and Honour that the People used toward joseph: and 'tis not requisite to know any more in order to the understanding of the Place.  
It is thus in the New Testament; it is said of judas that he went and hanged himself, Mat. 27. 5. So we translate it indeed, and very well, but the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a more general import, signifying that he was strangled or choked, which may be done either by a String (which is properly Hanging) or by Excessive Grief, which stifled his Spirits: and accordingly we may render the Word either of these ways, viz. Actively, [he hanged himself] i. e. he ended his Life with a Halter, or Passively, [he was Choked] namely, by a sudden stopping of his Breath, and Suffocation of his Spirits through Melancholy and Grief. Either of these Senses may be admitted, yea both of them, as I have showed in another place. Wherefore the best rendering of the words is, I conceive, this, Judas strangled himself, or was strangled, because this takes in both. It is said of the Pharisees, Mark 7. 3. Except they wash their Hands oft, they eat not: where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is translated [oft] hath different Significations, and accordingly may be rendered diversely. First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Fist or Hand closed, and so here is meant their way of Washing their Hands by thrusting the Fist into the Palm of the Hand. Secondly, The Greek word signifies also the Elbow, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as up to the Elbow, and denotes another particualar way of Washing among the Conceited Pharisees, by letting the Water drop from their Hands (being held up) to the very Elbows. Thirdly, The word may be rendered [diligently,] or according to the Syriack [accurately,] and so signifies to us that great Care and Exactness they used in their Ceremonious Washings. Lastly, Our Translators, according to another acception of the word, and following the Vulgar Latin, render it oft. Any of these four ways the word may be taken: and the Dubiousness of it should not in the least trouble us, because we understand the grand thing contained in the words, viz. That the Jews, but especially the Pharisees, were very superstitiously addicted to their Washings, and placed the greatest part of their Religion in that and the like External Observances. I could instance in 2 Tim. 2. 19 The Foundation of God standeth sure, having this Seal, etc. which Text may admit of this Translation also, The Covenant of God standeth sure, having this Inscription; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a Foundation, but a Covenant or Instrument of Contract: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Inscription as well as a Seal. There were two Parts of the Covenant, I will be your God, and ye shall be my People: So here in the following words, The Lord knoweth them that are his: And, Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from Iniquity. See further in Dr. Hammond.  
Next, I will mention that of the Apostle, Heb. 12. 1. The Sin which doth so easily beset us. So we translate it, and so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth: but it hath three other Significations, and according to them may be differently rendered. S. 
* Hom. 28. in Epist. ad Hebr.  Chrysostom gives the sen●e thus, [the Sin which may easily ●e avoided] for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence the word comes, hath 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, devita, Ti●. 3. 9  such a Signification: and then the meaning is, that not only the great and heavy Sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the weight) but lighter and lesser Sins must be declined, must be carefully avoided. There is another Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. That Sin which hath fair Arguments and Pretences for itself. 
* In Hesychio.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied when there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no favourable Circumstances, no plausible Reasons and Arguments to commend a thing: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than signifies that which hath Goodly Circumstances and Arguments to recommend it. Such have some Sins especially, as those that are accompanied with much Profit or Pleasure; against these therefore the Apostle exhorts us here to arm ourselves: he would have us in a more especial manner to beware of those Vices which are so Tempting. There is yet another rendering of the words according to 
† In Locum.  Theophylact; for he observes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Periculum, Discrimen: and indeed the Stoics generally use the word in this sense. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to Hesychius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it signifies Affliction, Necessity, Trouble. And the Fathers sometimes use it thus in their Writings. So that the Apostle adviseth us here to shun those Sins especially which bring us into great Dangers and Difficulties, those that are accompanied even with bodily Calamities and Judgements, as some kinds of Sins generally are. Those Vices that are thus circumstantiated, are to be avoided with singular Caution. But, I confess, I do not think this to be the meaning here, for the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather shows that the Circumstances are good. And of the other three Interpretations, I look upon the first to be the best, because it is according to the clearest and most obvious sense of the Greek word; and withal it agrees with the Mind of the Apostle in the whole Verse, where taking his Metaphor from the Olympic Races, he exhorts the Jewish Converts to run with Patience the Race that was set before them, and in order to that to lay aside every Weight or Encumbrance, as the Racers were wont to do, and the Sin which did so easily beset them, compass them about, hinder and retard them in their Christian Course, as Long or Heavy Garments are an hindrance to those that run; for any observing Eye may see that he continues the Metaphor. Thus you see words have Different Senses, and so may be translated differently; and hence the true Meaning is difficultly to be reached sometimes.  
I will mention one Instance more, which is to be found both in the Old and New Testament. There we often read of the Spirit: no word is more usual with the Sacred Writers than this, and it is as true that no word hath more Various Significations; whence sometimes doth arise no small Difficulty in interpreting some of those places where this word occurreth. Suffer me then to give a full and ample Account of the Different Significations of it, that it may not administer occasion of Obscurity in the Style of Scripture.  
First, The word Spirit is applied to God, and particularly to the Third Person in the Undivided Trinity, who is Emphatically called the Spirit in the Old Testament, as in Gen. 1. 2. Gen. 6. 3. and in almost iunumerable other places; and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, by way of Eminency in the New Testament, Mat. 3. 16. john 1. 32. Rom. 8. 14, etc.  
Secondly, It signifies the Gifts, Graces, Fruits, Effects, and Operations of the Holy Spirit; as 1. Any Signal Qualities or Endowments whatsoever, any Skill or Ability to do things well and laudably. Thus Bezaliel was filled with the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31. 3, 5.) to work in all manner of Workmanship. And Gifts of any sort are called the Spirit in other places. 2. The Saving Graces of the Holy Spirit, as in jude, ver. 19 having not the Spirit, and in several other places. 3. The Power of the Spirit to accomplish some very great and extraordinary thing: thus Caleb had another Spirit, Num. 14. 24. i e. he had Power to effect those things which he could not do before. joshuah was a Man in whom was the Spirit, Num. 27. 18. Thus the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Lord are said in Scripture to come upon, to fall upon, to be poured out, to be put upon Persons; that is, they had an unusual and extraordinary Power to do this or that. To be moved, and to be led by the Spirit are in the same Signification, viz. to be enabled to enterprise and achieve some Wonderful Thing. 4. Those Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts which were conferred on the Apostles and other Christians in the Infancy of the Gospel, as Healing all manner of Diseases, Speaking strange Languages. These are expressed by this Word in 1 Cor. 14. 12. Ye are zealous of Spirits, i. e. Spiritual Gifts, the Extraordinary Vouchsafements of the Spirit, whereby they were able to do things above Humane Power: Hence you read of Speaking in the Spirit, Praying with the Spirit, and Singing with the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14. 14, 15. And in the same Chapter there is mention of the Spirits of the Prophets, ver. 32. i. e. the Gifts of Prophecy which they were endued with, and enabled to exert in the Public Congregation. Before Christ's Ascension these Gifts were not bestowed in a very large and liberal manner, and that is the meaning of john 7. 39 the Holy Ghost was not yet given. And even after our Saviour's Ascension, the Ephesian Christians had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost, Acts 19 2. that is, they knew nothing of these Extraordinary Gifts bestowed on some in the Church. Wherefore we read there that by the Imposition of St. Paul's Hands the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with Tongues and prophesied, ver. 6. This latter Clause explains the former, letting us see that by the Holy Ghost, is here meant the Miraculous Endowments of the Spirit, such as speaking with strange Tongues, and Prophesying in an unusual manner. Of these chiefly the Apostle is to be understood in 1 Thess. 5. 19 Quench not the Spirit. 5. Extraordinary Revelations and Discoveries (whether under the Old or New Testament) are expressed by this Word. Thus 'tis said, there is a Spirit in Man, Job 32. 8. which is explained in the next Clause by the Inspiration of the Almighty. So David in Spirit, Mat. 22. 43. is David Inspired. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all Flesh, Acts 2. 17. (taken from joel 2. 28.) i. e. I will bestow the Gift of Prophecy and Revealing of Mysteries upon them, for of This it is principally understood, as you may learn from the following words, Your Sons and your Daughters shall prophecy; and ver. 18. On my Servants and on my Handmaids I will pour out of my Spirit, and they shall prophecy. So in Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit, is as much as if he had said, I had great Revelations imparted to me.  
Thirdly, The Dispensation and Preaching of the Gospel, especially as it is opposed to the Law, and as it contains the more hidden Mysteries of Christianity in it, is styled the Spirit. Thus the Evangelical Preachers are called Ministers not of the Letter, but Spirit, 2 Cor. 3, 6. i e. not of the Law, but of the Gospel, not of mere Externals of Religion, but of the Inward and Hidden Secrets of it.  
Fourthly, The Spiritual meaning of what Christ speaketh is called by this Name, as in john 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit, and they are Life. As if he had said, you must not understand me in a gross and carnal sense, when I tell you that you must eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, ver. 53, 54. My meaning is not that you should turn Cannibals, and feed upon Man's Flesh. No: this Eating and Drinking which I have spoken of to you, are to be interpreted in a Spiritual Sense, and in no other. My Words have an Abstruse and Mystical meaning, I am Spiritually to be Eaten and Drunk, that is, by a Lively Faith only. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, that enliveneth: that which is comprehended in the Spiritual import of my Words, is the thing that is most Active and Powerful in Religion, and in the Lives of Men.  
Fifthly, By Spirit is meant the Person that is Inspired, 1 john 4. 2. Every Spirit that confesseth that jesus is come in the Flesh, is of God. Nay,  
Sixthly, He that pretends to the Spirit, but really is not inspired by the Holy Ghost, is thus called: as in the next Verse, Every Spirit that confesseth not that jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God: and in the first Verse of that Chapter, Believe not every Spirit; but try the Spirits, i. e. Teachers that pretend to the Spirit and Inspiration, who are called False Prophets in the same place, and Seducing Spirits, 1 Tim. 4. 1. Therefore discerning of Spirits, 1 Cor. 12. 10. was that Gift in the Church whereby they knew who were truly Inspired, and who not; who were True, and who False Prophets. And as the Persons pretending to immediate Discoveries from the Spirit are thus styled, so the ●eigned Discoveries or Revelations themselves, which they boast of, are called Spirit, 2 Thess. 2. 2.  
Seventhly, The word Spirit in Scripture is meant of the Soul of Man, and its different Functions, Operations, Dispositions, Inclinations; and in short, the whole Frame and State of it. 1. I say that Distinct Part of Man which is called his Soul, hath the Denomination of Spirit, and that very justly, because it is a Spiritual or Immaterial Being. Into thy Hands I commit my Spirit, saith the Psalmist, Psal. 31. 5. i e. I trust thee with my Soul. It is called the Spirit of a Man, Prov. 18. 14. ch. 20. 27. Eccles. 3. 21. This is the Spirit that shall return to God, Eccles. 12. 7. Wherefore this was the Language of our dying Saviour, Into thy Hands I commend my Spirit, Luke 23. 46. and of that expiring Martyr, Acts 7. 59 Lord jesus, receive my Spirit. The Souls of the Saints are styled the Spirits of just Men made perfect, Heb. 12. 23. and those of the Wicked, the Spirits in Prison, 1 Pet. 3. 19 And hither is to be referred that of St. james, ch. 2. 26. the Body without the Spirit (i. e. without the Soul) is dead. 2. The Vital Principle, which is the immediate Operation of the Soul, is termed the Spirit, the Spirit of Life, Gen. 7. 22. especially the more Active and Vigorous Operation of the Soul and Body is so called, josh. 5. 1. Nor was there Spirit in them. Whence you read of the reviving and coming again of the Spirit, Gen. 45. 27. Judg. 15. 19 and of the Spirits being refreshed, 2 Cor. 7. 13. and giving Spirit, i. e. Life to the Image of the Beast, Rev. 13. 15. 3. The Understanding is often called the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Mind; and when you read of Soul and Spirit, this latter generally denoteth the Intellectual and Rational Part of Man, and the more exalted and refined Operations of it, as it respects Religion, Luke 1. 47. 1 Thess. 5. 23. Heb. 4. 12. 4. That Function of the Rational Soul which is called Conscience, hath this Name. A wounded Spirit who can bear? Prov. 18. 14. The Spirit (i. e. the Third Person in the Sacred Trinity) beareth witness with our Spirit, that is, with our Consciences, Rom. 8. 16. 5. The Will and Affections are commonly set forth by this Expression: Thus you read of ruling the Spirit, Prov. 16. 32. that is, subduing and well-ordering Those Faculties of the Mind especially: You read of a New Spirit, Ezek. 11. 19 ch. 18. 31. of a contrite and broken Spirit, Psal. 34. 18. Psal. 51. 17. a right Spirit, Psal. 51. 10. which are principally meant of the Will, the Passions and Desires of the Soul. And another Spirit, Numb. 14. 24. may be understood in this Sense as well as in that abovementioned. In the New Testament our Saviour pronounceth those Blessed that are poor in Spirit, Matth. 5. 3. He tells us, that we must worship the Father in Spirit, John 4. 23. St. Paul professeth, that he served God with his Spirit, Rom. 1. 9 and exhorts us all to be servant in Spirit, Rom. 12. 11. In all which Places the word Spirit signifies either the Will, or the Hearty Affections of the Soul, or both of them. 6. In a more general way it signifies the Nature and Temper of a Man: Ye know not of what Spirit ye are, Luke 9 55. And this Large and General Acception of the Word is very usual in the Holy Style. 7. More particularly and especially it denotes an Effectual and Operative Inclination, Power and Ability to some particular Good or Evil: Whence you read of the 
* Isa. 11. 2.  Spirit of Knowledge, 
† Isa. 11. 2.  Understanding, 
‖ Eph. 1. 17.  Wisdom, of 
* Gal. 6. 1.  Meekness, of 
† 2 Tim. 1. 7.  Fear: and on the contrary, of the 
‖ Rom. 11. 8.  Spirit of Slumber, of 
‖‖ Host 5. 4.  Whoredoms, of 
‖‖ 1 John 4. 3.  Antichrist, and of a 
* Isa. 19 14.  perverse Spirit. 8. The Rational and Regenerate Part of Man is emphatically styled the Spirit, and is opposed to the Flesh, which is the Sensual and Unregenerate Part of Man. The Spirit is willing, but the Flesh is weak, Matth. 26. 41. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, John 3. 6. The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh, Gal. 5. 7. This is the frequent Acception of the Word in the New Testament. Yea, 9 Not only the Holy and Godly Nature, the Renewed Disposition and Temper, but even that which is Unholy and Ungodly, the Old and Unregenerate Principle of Man, is also known by this Name. The Spirit, saith St. james, that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy, ch. 4. 5. where by Spirit is meant the Sensual and Carnal Part of Man. And so before we took notice of the Spirit of Slumber, of Whoredoms, and the like. Thus much of the word Spirit, as it hath reference to the Soul of Man and its Faculties. Only I will add this, that this Word applied either to the good or evil Operations of the Mind, signifies to us the Reality and Efficacy of them, and represents their great Vehemency; for they proceed from the Spirit of Man, which is vigorous and active. Though this Word likewise may refer to the Original and Source of these Actions, for there is in Men a Double Spirit, a Good and an Evil one, the Spirit of the World, and the Spirit which is of God, 1 Cor. 2. 12. Hence in the Style of Scripture good and evil Actions are frequently attributed to some Spirit; for they are Results either of the Good or Evil one that inhabits in them.  
Eighthly, Angels, both good and bad, are signified by this Word: First, the Good ones, Heb. 1. 7. He maketh his Angel's Spirits, which is taken from Psal. 104. 4. Are they not all ministering Spirits? Heb. 1. 14. Secondly, the Evil ones, who in the Old Testament are called Evil Spirits, and Lying Spirits; and in the New Testament, unclean, Foul, Familiar Spirits, Spirits of Divination. Rejoice not, saith our Saviour, that the Spirits (i. e. the Devils, as appears from ver. 17.) are subject unto you, Luke 10. 20. The Spirit that worketh in the Children of Disobedience, Eph. 2. 2. is no other than Satan. I question not but that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Eph. 6. 12. are no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spirits of Wickedness, which are said to be in high or Heavenly Places, because these Wicked Spirits are so hardy as to encounter often with the Good Angels; they labour to wrest the Souls of the Faithful out of their Hands, whilst they are conducting them through the Ethereal Regions, to the Mansions of Glory in the highest Heavens. And if they have the Confidence to grapple with those Blessed Spirits, certainly they will not fail to assault Us weak and sinful Creatures: Wherefore (as the Apostle adjoins in this Place) we must take unto us the whole Armour of God, that we may be able to wrestle against these spiritual Wickednesses, or rather wicked Spirits. So in Rev. 16. 14. Spirits of Devils are as much as Devilish Spirits, or Evil Angels.  
Ninthly, The same Word is used to express an Apparition or Seeming Shape of a Body without real Corporeity, as in Luke 24. 37. They supposed they had seen a Spirit. They had a Notion of a Spirit's appearing, though as a Spirit it was impossible to be seen of itself, for being void of Matter and Quantity, it could not be the Object of the Bodily Senses: which true Account of a Real Spirit our Saviour gives them in these Words, A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, ver. 39 i. e. it hath nothing Corporeal belonging to its Nature and Essence.  
Which brings me to the next, the Tenth Acception of the Word; and that is this, it signifies a Spiritual Immaterial Substance, wholly devoid of all Matter. John 4. 24. God is a Spirit, i. e. he is a Substance in which there is nothing of Body or Quantity; he is an Intelligent and Thinking Being: which high Privilege and Excellency no Material thing is capable of.  
Lastly, A Breath, a Wind, a Blast, are synonimous with Spirit in the Holy Style, as in Eccles. 11. 5. Thou knowest not what is the way of the Spirit, i. e. of the Wind, as is evident from the former Verse, where the word Ruach is so ●endred. And in Ezek. 37. 9 the four Spirits or Winds are the same: and so the word is used twice more in that Verse. Thus 'tis in the New Testament, in john 3. 8. The Wind bloweth where it listeth: The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is generally translated Spirit in the New Testament, is here translated Wind, and that very rightly, according to the Interpretation of several of the Ancient Fathers: Particularly the Air, the Wind or Breath, which is drawn in and sent forth by the Lungs, hath this Denomination: Thus in job 34. 14. Spirit and Breath are the same. And those Words in john 19 30. He gave up the Ghost, or Spirit, are expressed thus in another Evangelist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he expired, he yielded up his Breath, Luke 23. 46. To this refers 2. Thess. 2. 8. Whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit, i. e. the Breath of his Mouth: which is the same with Isa. 11. 4. With the Breath of his Mouth shall he stay the Wicked. To conclude, the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spiritus.  three Words in the three Learned Languages for Spirit signify Wind or Breath, and that in the first and original Sense of them. This alone is the Proper Signification of the Word: but as for all the other Acceptions of it beforementioned, they are secondary and improrper. The word Spirit is improperly applied to the Person, and to the Gifts or Graces of the Holy Ghost: it is improperly attributed to the Souls of Men and their Faculties, and Operations: it is improperly spoken of Angels or Devils, or of any of those other things ●fore-named, except the last. But these are the Different Acceptions of the Word in the Sacred Writings, according to that Observation which I have made of it at several times; and perhaps there are some Other Denotations of this Word, which I have not taken notice of. I instanced in This (whereas I might have instanced in many more) to let you see how Large and Extensive the Meaning of some Words in Scripture is, and thereby to give you some Account of the Difficulty and Perplexity of the Holy Style in some Places, which yet you see we may render very intelligible and plain by a diligent Enquiry into, and Comparing those Places where these dubious Words occur.  
But still to give you a farther Account of the Different Acceptions of Terms, I could sufficiently prosecute this, though I confined myself to the Hebrew Words of the Old Testament. It would most fully appear that the same words in this Holy Volume signify Different things. I shall only propound the several Particulars, and leave them to be distinctly applied upon occasion, by those that have leisure to do it. It is well known that Vaughan is a Conjunction Copulative, but it is of other Use in several Places, which indeed is common to it in part with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint Version, and in the New Testament. Sometimes it is Conversive, (as they call it) it changes the Tense: and sometimes it is Interrrogative: At other times it is Adversative, and is equivalent to but or although: Not unusually it hath the Force of an Adverb of Time, and is as much as when, then, now. It is also a Comparative Particle, and is the same with so. Oftentimes it is put for the Relative Pronoun asher, which. Sometimes it is Emphatical, (as the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is) and is of the like Signification with even in English. Again, it seems to be Redundant, as when it begins a Chapter or some New Matter, without reference to any thing before. Thus not only some of the Books of Moses, but those of Ezra and jonah, begin with a Vau. But it is certain that this Particle is not merely Expletive here, as the Learned Jews acknowledge. Lastly, Many times in the Hebrew Style it is not Copulative, but Disjunctive, and it is accordingly rendered or and nor, by our Translators, as in Gen. 26. 11. He that toucheth this Man or his Wife: and in Exod. 21. 15. He that smiteth his Father or his Mother: and in Exod. 1. 10. and in several other Places of Scripture the Hebrews acknowledge that the Conjunctive Particle is a Disjunctive; as the Aspect of Conjunction in the Sun is sometimes among Astronomers called Opposition. Thus this Vau is of great Latitude, which causes Variety of rendering many Places: but those that are very Observing and Curious (as it was intended by Providence that we should be in reading the Bible) will soon know how to make a Difference, and to discern the proper meaning of this Particle. Likewise the Hebrew Pra●positions are of various Signification, and one is put for another very often, which makes the Sense not a little difficult. Who sees not that these Praefixes or Praepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are differently used, and at one time are applied one way, and another another? And who knows not that sometimes they seem to be unnecessary, and to signify nothing at all? though even then without doubt they are of some Significancy and Use. But to know this aright is not easy: a great Learning in the Tongue is requisite to discover it.  
The Hebrew Verbs also are very Equivocal, and have very Different meanings. In their divers Conjugations, they have divers Significations, whence it proves a very hard thing sometimes to know which of them is meant. A word in Kal may bear one sense, in Piel another, in Hiphil a Third, etc. But if we apply ourselves with that Care and Industry to the searching into the Scriptures which are required of us, we shall either be able to discern which Particular Sense is meant in the places before us; or where we cannot attain to this, we shall find that our Ignorance is not prejudicial to us, because the Controversy is not about any thing which we ought necessarily to know. The Verb Chalal signifies to begin and to profane, according to its different Conjugations. Of the former Signification, there are Instances in Gen. 6. 1. Num. 17. 11. and many other places; Of the latter in Num 30. 3. Ezek. 39 7. and abundance of other Texts: whence there is some dispute about Gen. 4. 26. some rendering the word Huchal Men began, others Men profaned. Both the Chaldee Paraphrasts understand it in the latter sense, and so do the Hebrew Rabins generally. They take the meaning of the place to ●e this, Then the Name of God was profaned, than Religion began be corrupted; then they called on God's Name so as to dishonour and pollute it, viz. by their Oaths and Blasphemies. R. Soloman jarchi, 
* Lib. d● Cultu Stellar.  Maimonides, and other Jewish Doctors understand it of the rise of Idolatry: they tell us, that Moses gives us an account here of the first beginning of the setting up of New Gods. And from this Text 
† De Di● Syr. Proleg.  Mr. Selden, who always adheres to the Circumcised Doctors, endeavours to prove that Idolatry was in those days. But it is more reasonable to believe that this was not of so early a Date, and that there was no such Vile Defection at that time in the World. This is the Judgement of the famous 
‖ Antiqu. A 1. c. 4.  Jewish Historian and Antiquary: and most of the Ancient and Learned Fathers of the Christian Church give their Suffrage to it; and that with good reason, because if at this time that Generation had been guilty of this most Abominable Crime, it would certainly have been mentioned, and that plainly: as you see afterwards, that as soon as this Horrid Sin began to be practised in the World, the Holy Scriptures record it, and at the same time decry it. But it is not to be questioned that Impious Cain and his Party corrupted the True Religion and Worship of God, and laboured to bring in Universal Profaneness. Wherefore the Family of Holy Seth, and Godly Enoch and his Associates zealously resisted their Attempts, and took a course to suppress the prevailing Corruption. Accordingly now they began in a peculiar manner to meet together, and to join their Devotions mor solemnly, and to call upon God. They more especially exercised themselves in Prayer, that indispensible act of Divine Worship. They began more signally and openly to be Religious. Thus Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord, or (as it may be rendered) to call themselves by the Name of the Lord, to entitle themselves after the Name of jehovah, as we call ourselves Christians after Christ's Name. They professed themselves to be the People of God, and Worshippers of the Most High. Thus to call on the Name of the Lord, and to be called by his Name, amount to the same, and signify that at that particular time the Faithful invoked God, and worshipped and served him in a more solemn manner than before: and they publicly owned themselves to be the Sons of God, and the Servants of the Great jehovah. Thus Men began to call on God's Name, and thus Aben Ezra and other Modern Rabbis (who have better considered of it) understand this Text in the plain Sense of it. And it is likely it had never been otherwise understood, if the ambiguity of the Verb Chalal had not given occasion; for this in the Conjugation Niphal, signifies to profane, and to be profaned, but in Hiphil and Hophal (as here) to begin: which some took no notice of, and so mistook the Sense.  
To proceed, the Hebrew word Pathah signifies to enlarge and persuade, whence there is some difference in the Translation of Gen. 9 27. God shall enlarge; others read it, God shall persuade Japhet. But yet if you take either of the Readins with the following Words, the Sense is not varied, the meaning is the same; for the whole Verse contains God's Promise, that japheth should dwell in the Tents of Shem; that is, that the Gentiles, who sprang from japheth, should be converted to Judaisme, and that both they and the Jews, who came from Shem, should embrace Christianity; and this enlarging of Iapheth's Borders should be done by Persuasion, by the mild and gentle Methods of the Spirit, by the Persuasive Power of the Gospel preached to them. Thus I decide the quarrel among Grammarians and Critics about the Hebrew word, by joining both the Senses of it together. And this we shall find to be a good Expedient some other times. The Hebrew word Chush signifies to make haste, and to be ashamed, saith our Learned 
* Not. Miscell. in Port. Mos.  Pocock; and thence that place in Isa. 28. 16. he that believeth shall not make haste, is otherwise worded in Rom. 9 33. he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed. If there be this Different acception of the Verb, it is impossible without a Revelation (which we have no reason to expect) to tell which Sense is peculiarly designed by the Prophet, for we have no Light at all from the Context to help us. But seeing the Word is capable in this place of both Significations, let us (as before) unite them together: for it is certain, that he who believeth will neither make haste, nor be ashamed. Kaphatz is claudere, and also transilire, viz. è loco suo: whence you may read the word in job 24. 24. either thus, they are shut up, viz. in Destruction, or in the Grave; or, they are taken out of the way. The Subject Matter will permit both Translations. The Signification of Rad is both dominari and plangere, plorare: whence there may be a double Interpretation of that place. Gen. 27. 40. when thou shalt have the Dominion, or when thou shalt have Mourned: and both Sentences are applicable. Sacal is intelligere, & prosperum, felicem esse: therefore it is hard to determine whether the word in jos. 1. 7, 8. Isa. 52. 13. jer. 23. 5. be to be rendered in the first or the second Sense. But neither in this nor the foregoing Text is any Point of Faith concerned. The meaning of the word Shanah is not only mutare but errare, and accordingly it is no wonder that the word in Eccl. 8. 1. be differently rendered, and may be so in some other places. Dam or damam signifies either to be silent, or to wait and expect; consequently Psal. 62. 1. may be rendered my Soul is silent, or waiteth on God. Mahar is festinare, and dotare or donare; and therefore in Psal. 16. 4. Maharu may be either englished they hasten or they give Gifts, i. e. they bring Sacrifices and Oblations, viz. to another God. And we may suppose these zealous Idolaters hastened to bring these Gifts, these Sacrifices, and then both Senses are reconciled. Palal, according to the different Conjugations it is in, signifies to pray and to judge: thence Psal. 106. 30. is differently translated, viz. Then stood up Phineas and prayed, according to our Old Translation of the Psalms, or executed judgement, according to the later Version. We may join both the Senses, for it is probable this zealous Man joined Prayer with this eminent act of Justice. Ashar is to walk, and to pronounce blessed, (so discrepant are the meanings of some words;) whence Prov. 4. 14. may be englished either go not in the way of Evil Men (as we render it) or, bless not in the way of Evil Men, i. e. account not, pronounce not thyself Blessed or Happy whilst thou art in the way of Evil Men. And so Veasher in Prov. 23. 19 may be translated either dirige or beatifica. Either of these Versions yield us a good notion of the place. So because of the ambiguity of the word Tizachar, which may be rendered masculum ●ascetur or memorabitur, that Text Exod, 34. 19 may be differently translated. The double Signification of Puach is flare, spirare, & illaqueari: so that 'tis doubtful whether this word in Psal. 12. 5. should be rendered puffeth at him, or ensnareth him: but the Sense is not impaired by either. Chalam is not only somniavit, but sanus fuit, convaluit: which makes the Original Psal. 126. 1. to be capable of either of these Translations, we were like to them that dreamt, or we were like to them that are restored to health: both which Versions admit of a very good Sense.  
To instance in some words that have more than two Significations; Seeing the word Pharang signifies to be abandoned and lost, and likewise to be stripped naked, and moreover to rebel, as also to be idle, it is not to be wondered at that a Clause in Prov. 29. 18. be rendered by our English Translators the People perisheth, by others (as Coeceius) the People is made naked, by some (as Arias Montanus) the People is rebellious, and by others (as Pagnin) the People are, idle. In such variety of Significations, we cannot be Certain which to take sometimes. It is sufficient that we choose that which we find most agreeable to the place. Batzar in Kal is vindemiavit, in Niphil abruptus est, sublatus est; in Piel munivit, & arduum fecit. In these several Significations 'tis taken in Scripture, as it were easy to show out of the Hebrew Concordances. Bagnar according to its different Conjugations signifies to burn, to feed, to be furious, to be stupid or brutish, to take away or remove; and this cannot but occasion some difference in Translations. The Verb Pakad, and the Nouns that are derived from it, are of very dubious Signification in Scripture: which must needs cause sometimes a disagreement among Interpreters. Aman in Kal is nutrivit, educavit; in Niphal, verax fuit, fidelis fuit; in Hipbil, credidit: there are divers Examples of this in the Bible. Shur is canere, intueri, munera defer: from which triple Signification of the Word, I could show that some Texts are capable of different Versions. Tsalal is obumbrari, opacum reddi, Ezek. 31. 3. mergi, Ex. 15. 10. tinnire, palpitare, 1 Sam. 3. 11. Hab. 3. 16. Sacan is wonderfully diversified as to its Significations: Sometimes it signifies to help or profit, sometimes to attempt or make trial, sometimes to accustom one's self to a thing: whence there may arise some difference in translating some places; but in none of these is any Grand Point of Religion concerned. Nasa hath no less than Eight Significations in the Bible, as far, portare: auferre, tollere: elevare, attollere: accipere: honorare: consumere, comburere: condonare, remittere: pronuntaire, nominare, jurare. And many 
* See at the End of the Book.  Others Verbs there are in this Language which have more Senses than one, and therefore those Texts where they occur, are not so easy as others to understand. There is a great variety of Significations in the Greek Verbs, some whereof (as the Verb 
† It hath 4 Significations, urere, discere, dividere, convivic excipere.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) have strangely discrepant meanings, but they are not to be compared with the Hebrew ones, whether you respect the Multiplicity of them, or the Unlikeness and Inconsistency of the Significations among themselves. This therefore must be assigned as one reason why the Sense of some Texts is dubious.  
As it is with the Hebrew Verbs, so it is with the Nouns; there are many of them that have different Senses, and those such as have no Agreement or Affinity one with another, which oftentimes occasions Diversity of Readins in those Places where they are found. Not but that the Hebrew Tongue is copious, as is evident from that Variety of Names which is for one thing. There are seven Words for Gold, as St. jerom long since observed, Zahab, Phez or Paz or Ophaz, Charutz, Kethem, Ophir, Base, Segor; though some think that Kethem is the more general Name, and the rest are several kinds of Gold. There are six Words to express Giants, as Nephilim, (from falling or falling on) Emim, (because they are Terrible) Gibborim, (from their Strength) Anakim, Zamzummim, Rephaim. There are as many Words to signify a Lion, as 
* Lexicon. ex Talmud. in Sanhedrim.  Buxtorf reckons them up distinctly, with the Places of Scripture where they occur: Yea, Mercer adds a seventh. A Son in Hebrew is Ben, Nin, Manon, Bar, though indeed this last be rather a Chaldee or Syriac Word. Anger hath these Denominations, Aph, Charon, Zagnaph, Chagnas. Sleep is either Tarmedah, or Shenah, or Tenumah. Three Words there are for the Sun, as Cheres, Shemeth, Chammah; and as many for the Earth, Eretz, Tebel, Adamah. A Virgin is called Almah, (or Gnalma●) Naarah, Bethulah. To fear is expressed by three Verbs, viz. Gur, jare, Pachad. The same Hill is called Horeb and Sinai: and Zion and Hermon are two Names of another Hill: but of these afterwards. Thus the Hebrew Tongue hath many Synonimous Words.  
But that which is more usual and remarkable (and which we are concerned to observe at present) is that one Name or Word serves for Different. things, which often renders the Interpretation doubtful. Thus job 4. 18. we read thus, his Angels he charged with Folly; but it may as well be read, be put Light into his Angels; and so Tremellius and the gallic Version have it: for [Toholah] (which is the Word here used, and comes from a Hebrew Verb, which sometimes signifies to shine) denotes both Light and Folly. And accordingly Expositors (to whom I refer the Reader) labour to defend either of these Senses. But so far as I can discern the Meaning of this Place, the Hebrew Word hath a third Signification, which seems to be peculiarly designed here: For this Noun is derived from Halal, the primitive and known Signification of which is laudare, gloriari, and so Tohalah is as much as Tehillah, laus, gloriatio. Accordingly I render the foresaid Clause thus, Nec in Angelis suis ponet laudem seu gloriationem: for the Vau in this Place (as in several others, which I have hinted before) is Disjunctive, and is the same with nec. And you see the Words run this way, i. e. in the Negative, He putteth no Trust in his Servants, nor doth he put Praise or Boasting in his Angels; i. e. those Glorious Spirits who now inhabit the Celestial Regions, (for I do not think, as some do, that the Fallen Angels are here spoken of) even these in comparison of God, who is infinitely pure and perfect, are blame-worthy and guilty. So that this rendering of the Words amounts to the Sense of the English Version: but I do not see any Reason to translate the Hebrew word Folly; for the Verb from whence it comes directs us not to it, and we have Instance of it in Scripture. It is well known that the Noun Dabar signifies both a Thing or Action, and a Word, and for that reason the rendering of it in Scripture is sometimes uncertain. The like may be observed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Testament, which is applicable to Actions as well as Words, in imitation of the use of the word Dabar. But both in the Old and New Testament the Matter spoken of will direct us sufficiently unto the peculiar Acception of the Word. Shephattaim are either the Lots and Portions of a Man's Life, and especially his ill Lot and Misfortune; or the Word signifies those Pots, some say those Ranges which are used about the Fire, and are covered over with Dust and Smoke. Accordingly Psal. 68 13. may be translated thus, Though ye have lain in those evil Lots, i. e. though you have been in great Distress: or thus, Though ye have lain among the Pots or Ranges, which amounts to the same Sense with the former, and expresseth the Distressed Condition of the Persons spoken of. The word Belial (which is often used) is of a double Signification; for some derive it form Boli, non, and Guol, jugum, and then it denotes one without a Yoke, that is, impatient of Discipline, one that casts off all Laws and Restraints. Others deduce it from Beli, non, and jagnal, profuit; so that it should regularly be Belijagnal, but the middle Letter being struck out, it is Belial (which way of Contraction is not unusual, as we see in the word Hosanna, corruptly from Hosignanna: so Path is a Contraction of Pathah, frangere; Rab of Rabab, multiplicari; El of Ejal, potentia; jordan of jeordan, as some think from jeor a River, and Dan a City; because this River had its Rise about that Place: and there are almost innumerable Instances of this Abbreviating of Words, both in the Bible and 
* See Buxtorf de Abbreviat. Hebraic.  other Hebrew Authors.) If we thus shorten the word Belial, it is equivalent to Inutilis, homo nequam, nullius frugls: but both this and the former Derivation of the Word acquaint us, that it is well applied in the Scripture to very Lewd and Profligate Persons; yea, even to the Internal Spirit himself.  
Marphe in Prov. 14. 30. may be derived either from Rapha, sanare, or Raphah, lenem esse, and accordingly is both sanitas and lenitas; and so that Text may be read, a sound Heart, (a Healthful Constitution) or a mild Heart (a placid and sedate Temper) is the Life of the Flesh, is a Procurer of long Life to a Man. Both the Senses are coincident. Netseach signifies Victory and Eternity, (as the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also doth) and therefore Isa. 25. 8. admits of this double Version, He will swallow up Death in Victory, (he will conquer and bafflle its Force) or in Eternity, i. e. Death shall be absorped, destroyed for ever. The Sense is alike. The Signification of Bochal is probatio and munitio: thence Eben bochal, Isa. 28. 16. may be rendered a tried Stone, or Stone of Trial, or else a Stone of Fortification. Migreshoth may denote either Suburbs (as the word in the singular Number Migrash often doth in Scripture) or Waves: and therefore in Ezek. 27. 28. we cannot certainly tell which Word to render it by, nor is it material whether we do or no. Whether Hamon, Ezek. 7. 11. should be translated a Tumult or a Multitude, is not to be decided; because if the Word comes from Hamah, tumultuatus est, than the former Version is the genuine one; but if from Haman, multiplicavit, than the latter. Whether Chajil, Ezek. 37. 10. is to be translated an Army (as we english it) or People, cannot be determined, because the Word signifies both in several Places of Scripture. Because Zaba denotes both a determinate Time, and military Order, that of job 7. 1. may be rendered either thus, Is there not an appointed time to Man? or, Is there not a Warfare to Man? And so in ch. 14. 14. you may read it, All the Days of my appointed Time, or, all the Days of my Warfare. In all these Places there is no point of Religion endangered, if you take the Words in either Sense. There must needs be a double Reading in josh. 11. 20. because the word Techinnah signifies Grace or Favour, and likewise Prayer or Supplication: so that we may translate it either that there might be no Favour for them, or that there might be no Supplication for them. Both which Senses may be united thus, that there might be none to pray for Grace and Favour for them. And so both the Translations meet. There is a great deal of Difference between the Rain filleth the Pools, and the Teacher is filled or covered with Blessings; and yet Psal. 84. 6. (the latter part of the Verse) may be read either of these ways, because the word Moreh is pluvia and doctor, and Beracoth is both piscin● and benedictiones. These two have but little Affinity, [he hath given you the former Rain moderately] and [he hath given you a Teacher of Righteousness:] and yet the Hebrew Words in joel 2. 23. are capable of being rendered either ways, and accordingly our English Translators embrace the former, and the Vulgar Latin the latter Sense. The Reason is, because Moreh is a Teacher and Rain. The word beged is perfidia, jer. 12. 1. and also vestis in above a hundred Places. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Isle, Job 22. 30. a Region or Province, Isa. 20. 6. a Bird or other Animal that frequents Islands, Isa. 13. 22. Cir signifies a Laver, Exod. 20. 18. a Hearth, Zech. 12. 6. a Scaffold or Pulpit, 2 Chron. 6. 13. Chajah is the Soul, Life, a Beast, a Company, a Village: wherefore 'tis no wonder that the Word in these Places admits of different Constructions, Psal. 68 30. Psal. 74. 19 Isa. 57 10. but the Scope of the Texts will conduct a diligent Enquirer to the proper Denotation of the Word in each Place. Pagnam is a Blow, a Stroke, Judg. 5. 28. a Foot or Footstep, Psal. 85. 14. an Anvil, Isa. 41. 7. and moreover it hath the Force of the Latin vice, or hac vice, this once, 1 Sam. 26. 8.  
How vastly different are the Senses of the Word Tsir? viz. Grief, Isa. 13. 8. a Hinge, Prov. 26. 14. an Ambassador or Messenger, Prov. 25. 13. Idols, Isa. 45. 16. So the Word which we translate Frost, Psal. 78. 47. is of a large Import, and signifies not only Frost, but vehement Hail, and therefore in the Margin of our Bibles is rendered great Hailstones. Avenarius renders it Thunder or Thunderbolts: R. Chasen understands by it not a Meteor, but an Infect, and reads the Place thus, He destroyed their Sycomore Trees with the Locusts. Tzitz hath five distinct Rendring, a Flower, Isa. 28. 1. a Feather or Quill, or Wing, Jer. 48. 9 a Plate, Exod. 28. 36. a Fringe, Numb. 15. 38. a Lock of Hair, Ezek. 8. 3. The words Bad and Baddim signify Linen or Linen Cloth, Ezek. 9 3. Branches, Ezek. 19 14. Bars, Exod. 27. 6. Greatness or Strength, Job 18. 13. Members or joints, Job 41. 3. Liars and Lies, Jer. 50. 36. Isa. 44. 25. job 11. 3. Here are six different Senses of one Word, and there is not any Affinity or Resemblance between any of them. Basar (to which answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek) is subject, in the Sacred Writings, to as great a Multiplicity of Meanings, as might easily be proved. And to conclude, the word jad is of a vast Latitude; I know none that equals it as to its wonderful Variety of Senses. It is to be understood and applied at least twenty several ways in the Old Testament: but yet, though it is sometimes difficult, it is never impossible to distinguish the Senses, These Words and many 
* See at the end of the Book.  more are Proofs of what I at first asserted, that there is a great Number of Words in the Scripture of Different Significations, and that the Hebrew Tongue especially abounds with such. For the Hebrews have but few Words, very few in comparison of what there are in other Languages; but they make their small Stock go as far as it can, by making one Word serve for divers things, so that oftentimes the subject Matter must determine the Signification. I need say no more. Look but into the Margins of the English Bible, and there you may be fully satisfied from the Diversity of rendering the Texts, that many Nouns as well as Verbs have different and unlike Meanings, which we must needs apprehend to be the Cause why some Places are Obscure and Difficult.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Many Hebrew Nouns whereby the several sorts of Brute Animals are signified, admit of different Interpretations, which is one Reason why some Places of Scripture are obscure and difficult. The Great Fish, jon. 1. 17. which devoured Ionas, was a Whale, properly and strictly so called: but perhaps the Belly of this Fish is not to be understood in a strict Sense of the Abdomen or jower Venture, but of the Wide and Capacious Mouth of that Animal. The proper Names of some Birds and Infects are ambiguous. The Author's particular Opinion concerning Kirjonim, 2 Kings 6. 25. the Doves Dung that was sold at so dear a rate at the Siege of Samaria. What the Locusts were that John Baptist fed on in the Wilderness. The Names of Flowers, Trees, Plants, mentioned in the Bible, are somewhat uncertain. So are the Words for Minerals, Precious Stones, Musical Instruments. Yet this is so far from being a Blemish to the Sacred Writings, that it is a Commendation of them. The Hebrew Measures (whether of Longitude or Capacity) are another Instance of the Difficulty which arises from our being ignorant of the exact Significations of some Words in the Bible. The Words whereby the Hebrew Weights are expressed are something dubious. And so are those whereby the Jewish Coins are denoted. Likewise there is Uncertainty in the Greek and Roman Coins mentioned in the New Testament.  
IN farther Prosecution of this I will observe, that many Hebrew Words which signify Brute Animals (whether fourfooted Beasts and other Creatures on the Earth, or Fishes, and Birds, and Infects) admit of Different Interpretations, and may be applied to Animals of divers kinds. It is acknowledged both by the Ancient and Modern Jews themselves, that they have no certain Account of the Proper Names of divers of those Animals which are mentioned in the 11th Chapter of Leviticus, some of which were forbidden, others allowed to be eaten by that People. When they come to speak of some of them particularly, they exceedingly disagree about them, and variously determine what they are. Sus is the known Hebrew Word for a Horse, and yet it is the Word for a Crane in Isa. 38. 14. Reim or Reem, which we translate Unicorn, Numb. 23. 22. job 39 9 and Psal. 92. 10. and in other Places, is thought by 
* Vatablus, Munster, Drusius.  some to be the Monoceroes or Indian Ass: but 
† De Animal. sacr. l. 1.  Bochart dislikes it, and with great Industry endeavours to prove it to be another Beast, viz. an Oryx, a kind of wild Goat, with very sharp Horns. It is rendered a wild Bull, Deut. 33. 17. in our Margin, because perhaps the Text speaks of Horns in the Plural, which our Translators thought could not be attributed to the Unicorn. But when we read there of the Horns ' of an Unicorn, (for so ' 'tis in the Original, though 'tis translated unicorns) why may we not say that the Plural is put for the Singular, as is very usual? There is an Unicorn properly so called, if we may credit 
‖ Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 20. l. 18. c. 21. Solin. cap. 43, & 65. Strabo. Geogr. lib. 15. Aelian. Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 20.  Ancient Writers; and such an one was seen in the last Age, if Faith is to be given to 
‖‖ Sc●liger. Exercit. 205.  Modern Writers; An Unicorn, saith a late Traveller, is an African Creature, only known in the Province of Agaos, in the Kingdom of Damotes: though perhaps heretofore it was no Stranger in other Parts. I will not dispute here how the Unicorn and Rhinoceros differ, or whether they do at all, which Mr. Ray denies, and thinks he hath sufficient Ground for it from Modern Voyages: but 'tis enough for our understanding the foresaid Texts of Scripture, that it is the Name of a sierce strong Animal, famous for its Horn or Horns. If it be the Rhinoceros, its Horn ariseth out of its Trunk, and turns up: if it be the Monoceros or Unicorn, properly so called, the Horn is in the middle of its Forehead, and exalted. St. jerom sometimes renders it an Unicorn, and sometimes a Rhinoceros, and we may suppose it to be either.  
Very strangely different are the Significations which are assigned of that Name, which the Wise Man gives to an Animal that he commends for its going well, call it Zarzir Motnajim, Prov. 30. 31. which in express Terms in English is girt in or about the Loins; which our Translators render a Greyhound, according to R. David, and several other Hebrew Writers, who affirm that this Creature is here meant, because it is slender in the Loins, girt up as 'twere in those Parts. According to the Chaldee Paraphrase and Vulgar Latin, it is a Cock: according to R. Levi, a Leopard, that being a Beast that is slender and strong in the Loins. R. Aben Ezra, and some others, think it to be a Bee, that brisk and nimble Insect; and some fancy it to be a Starling. But junius and Tremellius and Buxtorf, who render it a Horse, seem to me to bid fairest for Truth here. Nay indeed, what fitter Epithet could there be to express this Animal than this Zarzir Motnajim, Girt about the Loins? It is a Creature of great Use and Service in Journeying, 〈◊〉 ●herefore oftentimes girt for that purpose: it is ●generous Beast, and useful in War, and therefore ● girt for riding. Which I take to be the meaning of a Horse tied (for it is in the Singular in the Hebrew) 2 Kings 7. 10. i e. girt for the Battle, for the● exit speaks of Warhorses. And then, going well (for which it hath particular Commendation here) is the known Property of this Animal for the most part: so that without any straining, we must acknowledge this to the Periphrasis of a Horse, a Girted Animal. jacmur in Deut. 14. 5. we translate a Fallow-Deer; but according to the LXX, St. jerom, and Pagnin, it is a Buffle or Wild Ox: it is a kind of a Goat, say R. Kimchi, and jonah, and Bochart: it is a Wild Ass, saith Forster. But what particular Species of Beasts it is, perhaps no Man can exactly tell, nor is it at all necessary that he should Our own Translation, which agrees with that o● junius and Tremellius, seems to be most eligible If Bochart may be credited, Cats (wild ones he means, not those that are tame) are spoken of i● Scripture: for though 'tis difficult, i● not impossible, to determine what sort of Creatures is meant by Zijim and Ijim, Isa. 13. 21. Ch. 34. 24. Jer● 50. 39 yet he by the former will needs have cati, feles, to be understood: but truly he might as well have assigned any other Wild Animal. Koach Leu. 11. 30. is translated a Chameleon, according to the Septuagint and Latin Version, but 'tis a ●izard according to Pagnin and Bochart. 
* Et nova velocem cingula laedat Eq●●●. Ovid de Remed.  Some think 'tis a Weasel, others a Frog or Toad, some a Snail: and thus they run divisions, when perhaps there's no ground for any of them; for the Name of Animals are very uncertain, and dubious, and therefore it's great folly to be very solicitous, especially to be peremptory about them. Moses' Rod was turned into a Crocodile, saith the Learned Lightfoot, for he holds, that that is the meaning of Nacash in Exod. 4. 3. The Leviathan described in job 41. is a Whale, say Interpreters generally, and very truly, I think: but Pagnin holds it to be a Sea-Serpent or Dragon: and Beza, and Bochart, and Deodate, say 'tis a Crocodile. And Behemoth is joined with the Leviathan, because (as one of these Writers thinks) it was its Fellow-fish and Companion in the same place. If the former was the Crocodile of Nile, this is (saith he) the Hippotamus or River-Horse there. But if we peruse the Description given of this Creature, we shall find that it belongs rather, if not only, to a Land-Animal; and therefore I take the part of the Old Interpreters, who by Behemoth understand the Elephant, the greatest that we know of Terrestrial Beasts. If it be not that Creature, it is not now known what it is.  
A Whale is generally believed to be that 
* Dag gadol. Jon. 1. 17.  Great Fish which swallowed up jonas: but the 
† Mr. Bochart, De Cero Jonae.  Author I last named, and Aldrovandus and some others hold that it was a Carcharias or Lamia, a sort of Dogfish which hath a vast Gullet, so that a Man may pass through it, and accordingly Men have been often found in the Bellies of this kind of Fish. But as for the Whale, it hath (as all Creatures that have Lungs, and do breathe) a narrow Gullet, 〈◊〉 a straight passage is more convenient to let out the Air, and draw it in with greater force and vehemency; and therefore (say they) this could not be the Fish that swallowed jonas. That this is the particular Make of this Fish I do not deny, for 
* Contra Cardan. de balaenis.  Scaliger affirms upon his own Inspection and Knowledge that a Whale hath a narrow Throat, scarce half a Foot in compass. Aldrovandus and other Natural Historians attest the straitness of these Parts. But as for the Inference which these Persons draw from such Premises, I cannot admit of it. Nor could these Learned Men have done so, if they had considered that Ionas' being swallowed up by this Fish was an Extraordinary thing, and such as was in the way of a Miracle. It is said, the Lord prepared this Fish to swallow up Ionas, ver. 7. God in an unusual and wonderful manner effected the Deliverance of the Prophet, by appointing this Whale to receive him, and rescue him from the raging Sea. He fitted and prepared him to take him down into the Caverns of his Belly 〈◊〉 he so framed his narrow Throat that he was able to swallow him down whole. The Parts were so stretched at that time, that a greater than jonas might have passed through. There is no reason then to object the Natural Frame and Make of the Fish. But we may rest in the Septuagint's rendering the word, who expressly call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Whale; and especially we may be satisfied with our Saviour's Determination, who hath limited the Signification of those words [a great Fish,] and hath expressly told us that jonas was in the Whale's Belly, Mat. 12. 40. Though the Book of jonas mentions not a Whale, yet here we 〈◊〉 assured that it was that very Fish which was made the happy means of the Prophet's preservation. And yet here may be some Uncertainty still, for a Whale perhaps may not be taken strictly in this place, but may only signify one of the Cetaceous Animals, among which those are reckoned that have Lungs, as the Dolphin, Seal or Sea-calf, Porpus, Priests or Saw-fish, Tuny. We may hold that some other Fish of the Nature of a Whale, but not of that particular Frame as to its Throat, is here meant, and so the former Objection vanisheth.  
But I think there is a way to reconcile this, and yet at the same time we may assert, that our Saviour means a Whale properly and strictly so called; that is, as 'tis credibly said to be, a Great Fish with a Little Throat, so little besure that a Man cannot have any passage through it, and consequently that jonas had not. If I may be allowed to offer my particular Opinion, I conceive that when 'tis said by the Prophet jonas concerning himself, that he was in the Belly of the Fish, Chap. 1. 17. and when it is said by our Saviour that he was in the Belly of the Whale, Mat. 12. 40. the word [Belly] is not to be understood in a strict Sense. The 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in visceribus.  Hebrew word in the former place is of a Large Extent, and denotes rather the Bowels than the Belly; i. e. it is oftentimes in the Sacred Writ understood of the Inward and Unseen Parts of any thing, which are called the Bowels. The Greek word in the latter place is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is of a larger Signification, and imports any middle, or any inward and deep place, as in john 7. 38. especially some remote hollow place; and so here we are to understand by it some hollow part 〈◊〉 the Fish's Body, and consequently it may denote to us not the Lowest Ventricle, which is usually called the Belly, but the Mouth, which is a Concave Part of the Body. And this is here most Emphatically applied to this particular Fish, because (as we are certainly informed) it hath a Mouth, (by which I mean all that large place on both sides and in the middle between the Lips or outward Mouth and the Passage down the Throat, all which is of a most Wonderful and Prodigious Magnitude) it hath, I say, a Mouth of so vast a Capacity, that it may rather be called a Belly than a Mouth, and therefore is not unfitly termed so, although in propriety and strictness of Speaking, it is not the Belly, but the Mouth. We must take notice then, that this is the Language and Idiom of the Sacred Writers: So beaten, venture, signifies not always the Belly properly, but the inward Parts in general, as in 1 Kings 7. 20. and Prov. 22. 18. which latter we translate within thee. Kereb likewise, which is another word for venture, is usually rendered medium, intimum, intestinum: the word is used as 
*— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Od. ●  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks, and as Vmbilicus among the Latins, for the middle of any thing. That Belly or Bowels are used to signify what is inmost and hidden, is clear from Psal. 40. 8. Thy Law is in the midst of my Bowels, shut up and reposited within my Heart: and so in job 15. 35. Ch. 30. 27. The Belly in the Style of Scripture, and in other Writers, is usually mentioned to express any Inward Receptacle or Place to receive and contain a thing. Among Anatomists it hath been made use of in the latitude of the word, to signify not only the 〈◊〉 properly so called, but the other Cavities of the Body, the Head and Breast. So in that Comparison which our Saviour made between himself and jonas, you may remember that 
† Ma●. 12. 40.  the Heart of the Earth answers to the Whale's Belly, to let you see that both these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same, and signify some dark and remote Receptacles, where Things or Persons are laid up for a time. As jonas was in the Whale's Belly, so Christ was in the Heart of the Earth; to acquaint us that as the word Heart is not understood here strictly and properly, so neither is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it signifies Belly. The Heart of the Earth was the Grave or Sepulchre where our Saviour lay, though 'twas not strictly speaking the Heart: so by the Whale's Belly is meant the place where jonas was held and imprisoned, though it was not the Belly in the strictness of Speech. But as the Grave is to the Earth, so is the Mouth to the Body: our Saviour was hidden in the one, jonas was preserved in the other, viz. in the Mouth of the Whale. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in job. 7. 38. to denote, not properly the Belly, (though we render it so) but the inward Part of Man. Out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of living Water, alluding to the Cisterns or Vessels of Stone, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called by the Seventy Interpreters, Prov. 5. 15. out of which by certain Pipes or Cocks they let out the Water in abundance. And further it might be observed, that those words which express these inward and invisible Parts have their Denomination from the hollowness of them, as Kebah, ventriculus, is from Kab or Kabab, cavavit: and so Kobah (of the same Signification) is from the same Root, and is so named from its Cavity, and that for this reason, because these inward Vessels and Parts are able to hold and contain things, and also are Channels and Passages to convey and transmit them. These are properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and are called so from their hollowness and capaciousness. Thus in the Matter before us, though we do not restrain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Abdomen, the Belly strictly so named, yet we take it in its proper and genuine Denotation, that is, as it signifies that Vast and Wide Cavity of the Whale which jonas was taken into; in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Capacious Hollowness was the distressed Prophet lodged three Days and three Nights. In this Belly of Hell (for so likewise he calls it, Chap. 2. 2. and by this Phrase we further see that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the word here used by the Septuagint, is not properly taken, but signifies some Dark Invisible Receptacle) he was both tormented and preserved: and at last, as we read in the Sequel of this History, when the Lord spoke unto this Fish, it vomited out Jonah on the dry Land, Chap. 2. 10. which (let me observe to you) further intimates to us the truth of this Notion which I have presented to you, for Vomiting is an Emission of something, not out of the Belly, but out of the Mouth or Stomach. If jonas had been in the Belly or Entrails of the Fish, he had been emitted another way, not by Vomition. Thus I have briefly given my Conceptions of that Text of Scripture, and from the whole it is evident that it speaks of a Whale properly so called, (for our Blessed Saviour positively and expressly determines it to be such) and of the Vast Cavity of its Mouth and jaws, which in respect of their huge extension, may deserve the Name of a Belly, rather than of those Parts. I know that the Almighty God, who made the Creature at first, could afterwards have framed and disposed its Throat, or any other Passages, as he pleased: With the greatest Reverence I acknowledge this. But if we can solve the Works of God and his Providence in a natural way, I think we are obliged to do it, and at the same time we adore the God of Nature. Although it must be confessed, that if we respect the Power and Sovereignty, the Providence and Will of God, it might be the Belly of this Fish properly so denominated, which was the Place where the Fugitive Prophet was lodged; yet seeing Naturalists have given us this Account of the Whale, that the Passage of its Throat is so straight, that a Man's Body cannot be conveyed through it; and seeing we are not sure that God altered the Frame and Disposition of this Part; and seeing likewise that the Word which the Holy Ghost useth is capable of a double Sense, we may be invited on these Considerations to think that it was the Vast Mouth of this Fish which is here meant. And truly the Wonderfulness of the Occurrence is not at all hereby abated; for to preserve jonas so long in the Whale's Mouth, was as great a Miracle (if we consider all things) as to preserve him in its Lower Belly.  
Then as for Fowls, Birds, and Infects, there is a great Ambiguity in the Old Testament, as to some of these. Tsippor is a common Name of all Fowls, as in Psal. 104. 17. and other Places: but sometimes it is more particularly taken for a Sparrow, as in Psal. 102. 7. So in Psal. 84. 3. some certain Species of Birds are signified, because the Swallow is mentioned in the same Place. Kore, 1 Sam. 26. 20. which we translate a Partridge, is a Night-raven, according to the 70 Interpreters: It is a Woodcock or Snipe, saith 
* Bochart. de Anim. Sacr.  One whom I have often quoted. Ajah, Leu. 11. 14. job 28: 7. is rendered in the Septuagint and Vulgar Version, and in ours, a Vulture: but according to Arias Montanus, it is varia a vis, i. e. a Pie: according to others it is a Crow; and 'tis thought by others to be a Kite: But we need not be solicitous to know which of these it is, for it is likely we can never attain it; or if we could, it would be of little Advantage to us, for the Sense of these Places of Scripture depends not on our knowing what sort of Animal this or that is. Deror, Psal. 84. 4. is in our English Translation a Swallow, but according to the Greek and Latin it is a Turtle, and so Bochart endeavours to prove. Kippod, which we translate a Bittern, Isa. 14. 23. ch. 34. 11. is according to R. Solomon a kind of Owl; but Luther will have it to be an Eagle. Yea, some rank it among other Species of Animals, for according to the Vulgar Latin and Pagnin it is a Hedgehog; according to R. Kimchi and R. joseph, a Snail; according to others, a Beaver. Avenarius comes nearest the Truth, who tells us it is the Name of a Fowl unknown to us in these Parts. But this we are certain of, (and we need not look any further) that it is some Fowl or other Animal that frequents desert and desolate Places, because of these the Text speaks. So when the Psalmist complains that he is like a Pelican in the Wilderness, and like an Owl of the Desert, Psal. 102. 6. we need not be inquisitive whether the former word Kaath be rightly translated, or whether it should be rendered a Bittern, as 'tis by jerom and Bochart; nor are we to care whether that latter word Kos certainly signifies that flying Creature which we call an Owl, or whether it be an Houp, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vpupa, according to Symmachus; or a Night-raven, according to the Seventy, and St. jerom; or a Falcon, according to R. Solomon and Pagnin; or a Pelican, according to some others. I. R. Kimchi was in the right, who saith, 'tis the Name of some unclean Bird not known to us. But this is enough, that it was some Solitary Creature of the feathered Order that kept in remote Places, because it is said to be an Inhabitant of the Desert; and so it is used here to set forth the present Solitude and mournful Condition of the Psalmist. Chasidah, which we translate a Stork, Psal. 104. 17. and jer. 8. 7. is, according to St. jerom, a Kite: but the same Word in job 39 13, is rendered by us an Ostrich; and so 'tis in the Vulgar Latin; which shows the Ambiguity of the Word. Tachmas, Leu. 11. 16. is translated by us a Night-hawk; by the Targum, the Seventy, St. jerom, and Arias Montanus, an Owl; by the Arabic and Avenarius, a Swallow; by Bochart, an Ostrich. The like Disagreement is there in rendering the word Tinshemeth, Leu. 11. 18. which we english, a Swan; but according to Arias Montanus, it is Porphyrio; according to R. Solomon, a Bat; according to Bochart, a Chameleon: Some say 'tis a Bittern; others an Owl; others a Daw. And to let you see the Uncertainty of the Word, in the very same Chapter it is reckoned among the Creeping things, ver. 30. and is rendre● a Mole. To add one more, viz. Anaphah, which we render a Heron, Leu. 11. 19 but according to the Seventy it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; according to the Vulgar Latin Charadrios, i. e. a Sea-bird, called by some Icterus. It is a Kite, say the Talmudists and Targum. It is a Ring-dove, a Pie, a Lapwing, a lesser sort of Owl, say others. It is a Bird called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Anopaea, (which perhaps comes from Anapha) saith Bochant. It is probable that this and several others of those Fowls (as well as other Animals) mentioned in Leu. 11. and Deut. 14. are not exactly rendered; but we cannot tell when they are, or when they are not. And I do not see there can be any help for this in the World, unless you can suppose that some Critics are infallible. This only we can do; after a diligent and impartial Search into the different Opinions concerning the Words, we may acquiesce in that which we think to be most reasonable.  
Here I will insert something concerning that Passage in 2 Kings 6. 25. The fourth part of a Cab of Doves Dung was sold for five pieces of Silver; which refers to a known sort of Fowls, but hath been much controverted by Critical Expositors. What is the true Import here of Kirjonim (which we translate Doves Dung) is not easy to determine; for some derive the former part of the Word from Charar, siccitas, calor, exustio: and others from Chur, which hath various Significations, as Whiteness, a Hole, or hollow Place, a Paunch, Dung. And the Talmudists read it Dibjonim, because forsooth 'tis a modester Word. Some think it to be Dung, properly so called, the Execrement of Pigeons; but then they much differ about the Use of it. Rabbi jonas, one of the chiefest of the Jewish Doctors, hath this Concelt, that in the time of the Siege they used Doves Dung dried to kindle their Fires: this served the People of Samaria instead of Sticks, which now were not to be had. But this seems to be an extravagant Fancy, because (besides that 'tis questionable whether this could be made serviceable for Fuel) the Text speaks of Scarcity and want of Food, not of Firing. The Famine was so great, that not only an Ass' Head, but this Kirjonim (which was some Edible) was sold at an excessive rate. Others say they used Doves Dung, in the time of the Siege, instead of Salt. But this is as groundless as the former Opinion, for (not to dispute whether the thing be practicable or no) Persons are not solicitous in a raging Famine for Salt, but for Meat. Another tells us, that it was to dung their Fields within the City, that they might have a Harvest at home the ensuing Year, if the Siege should last; and they were not permitted to go abroad. But this is no ways credible, for either they had much Ground within the City for that purpose, or they had but little. The former is wholly improbable, for in frequented Cities (such as Samaria was) their Habitations take up the greatest part of the Place; so that there is but little left for Arable. And if there was but little, it was not worth their Time and Pains to bestow Compost upon it. Moreover, 'tis reasonable to think that those distressed famished Creatures were eager about relieving their present Wants, but were not concerned to provide against the ensuing Year. Another of the Jewish Rabbis understands this Kirjonim, of that which was contained in the Crop or Maw of Pigeons, the Corn they had picked up in the Fields; this (saith he) was taken out when they returned back, and was eaten for want of better Food. But this Rabbi forgot that when the Famine was so grievous and pressing, it is likely the Pigeons were seized on in their Houses, and not suffered to fly abroad. Or supposing this latter, yet we are to remember that the Fields about Samaria were stripped of their Corn at that time, and therefore those Animals could not return home with that Prey. Others think the Guts and Entrails of Pigeons are meant here by this Word; but why they rather than the Garbage of Other Fowls should be mentioned, is not accountable. Monsieur Bochart, the Great Goliah-Critick, tells us, it signifies none of these, but he gives us an Invention of his own, viz. that this Kirjonim is a sort of Cicer, a Coarse kind of Food, but such as the Jews sometimes did eat. it is the same, he saith, with Kali, in 2 Sam. 17. 28. and this is the Name that the Arabians give it. But this Learned Author may receive a Confutation from that Text itself; for if this Kali had been any Coarse contemptible Food, 'tis not at all probable that the Persons there mentioned would have made a Present of it to King David. Questionless they brought of the best Provision to him, and this sufficiently appears from the other Gifts which are in the same Place enumerated. This Kali is rendered by the Vulgar Latin Polenta, and by our Translators parched Corn; perhaps parched and dried after it had been soaked in Water, and was a kind of an early Essay of Malt. But whatever it was, it is evident that it was some Choice Present, and therefore this last Interpretation is not to be allowed. But what is, is very hard to tell. I subscribe to this Learned Writer in this, that Grain or Corn is here meant. But it was not any one particular sort of them, nor could it be that Kali beforementioned. Wherefore, if I may have leave to give in my Conjecture, (after all that hath been said) it is this, that this Kirjonim was the Offals or Refuse of all sorts of Corn and Grain, which was wont to be given to Pigeons at such time of the Year, when they had nothing abroad to feed on. For the Jews tell us, that they anciently kept Pigeons in certain Houses and Places built on purpose for them, (as 'tis with us at this Day) and there relieved them with Food when there was occasion. This Refuse-Grain, this TailCorn, these Sweep of the Floor, these vile Remains, are here called Dung, by way of Contempt. This comports with the Style of Scripture, which uses the word 
* 2 Kings 9 37. Psal. 83. 10. Jer. 8. 2.  Dung to denote the Baseness and Vileness of a thing: and here it is joined with an Ass' Head, which was the Vilest sort of Food; and therefore both together do fully express the Extremity of the Famine at that time. And also this Vile Dross and Sift of all kind of Grain might be called Dung by them, because these being very gross, yielded abundant Matter for Excrements. This seems to me to be a very plain and obvious Interpretation of the Hebrew Word, but let the Reader be Judg. It is certain it can't be meant of Pigeons Dung, strictly so called, for neither humane Excrements, nor any others, are capable of being Food. If we meet with any thing to the contrary, as in Isa. 36. 12. 2 Kings 18. 27. it is spoken in an Hyperbolical Strain. But no more of this ungrateful Subject. Perhaps we have lost the true Meaning of Kirjonim. Such Words and Names of things as these, which are of no frequent Use, by reason of their great Antiquity, are forgot, and not known by us. And this is not peculiar to the Hebrew Tongue alone; the very same happens in other Languages, which are not so Ancient, as it were easy to demonstrate.  
Then as to infects, the Word which we render a Spider, Prov. 30. 28. is Stellio in the Old Latin Version: and the Inquisitive Bochart labours to make it probable, that that is the Creature there meant, viz. an Ewet, a little Spotted Animal like a Lizard. I will mention here the Locusts, Leu. 11. 22. (ranked with the Beetle and Grasshopper) which the Jews were allowed to eat: and I will take occasion thence to speak of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Locusts, which john Baptist fed upon in the Wilderness, Mat. 3. 4. Mark 1. 6. they being the very same sort of Food which are mentioned here in Leviticus among the Species of Creeping Fowls. I know there are other Opinions concerning them. The Ebionites of old, as 
* Contr. Haeref. l. 1.  Epiphanius relates, held that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Mistake for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Word is used Exod. 16. 31. and Numb. 11. 9 But this wild Interpretation hath no Bottom at all, and therefore hath been universally rejected. Some have thought, as 
† Druthmarus in loc.  One tells us, that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Sea-Fish, either Crabs or Lobsters: and why not Shrimps? But guess how likely 'twas that St. john should meet with Sea-Fish in the Wilderness; besides that these were a dainty sort of Food, and not so befitting this mortified Hermit. Others take these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be Sensitive Creatures, but Vegetables, which was the Sentiment of some of the Fathers. 
‖ In Matth. cap. 3.  Theophylact thought them to be a certain kind of Herb, some particular distinct Species of Plants. But 
* Clemens Alex. Chrysostom. Nicephorus, Hist. l. 1. c. 14. Isidor. l. 1. Epist. 5.  others of the Ancient Christian Writers took them to be Tops of Shrubs and Trees; and among the Moderns this is held by Theophrastus and Paracelsus. 
† Hieron. Montius de Tutela salubritatis.  One Author is very particular in giving his Judgement of this Word, for he saith it signifies, 1. Little Shoots and Tendrels of Trees. 2. Young Sprouts of Plants. 3. Asparagus. Baronius and Erasmus understand the Word of the uppermost Parts or Toppings of young Trees, which they think St. john cropped: and our Dr. Hammond favours this Opinion; but 
‖ Annotat. in. Matth. 3. 4.  Sir. N. Knatchbull very heartily defends it. But I see no Foundation at all for it, for the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have no such Signification in any Author whatsoever. It is true, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Plural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (used by Homer) signify the Tops of Mountains: but what is this to the purpose, unless they think the Baptist had such a Miraculous Stomach as first to remove the Tops of Mountains, and then to eat them? I can't imagine any other occasion of this Opinion than this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is summum, extremum, whence some fancied that the Word signified the Tops or Extremities of Plants. And besides, the Ancient Writers (from whom the later received the Notion) thought not of the Locusts, which were the ordinary Food of the Eastern People, (as is evident from the foresaid Place in Leviticus) and were much bigger in those Countries than in others. These are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark; these are the Locusts which the Holy Baptist made his Repast whilst he lived in the Desert: for that those of meaner Rank, and such especially in the Eastern Countries as conversed in the Fields and Deserts, fed on this sort of Meat, is sufficiently testified by Aristotle, Ae●ian, Solinus, Pliny, and other Natural Historians, who speak of this kind of Infects: also by Strabo and 
* Lib. 4. c. 3.  Diodorus Siculus, who report that some People were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they fed generally on this Food; and by the Learned Father 
† Advers. Jovinian.  St. jerom. But the most satisfactory Author on this Subject is Ludolphus, in his Ethiopic or Abyssine History, who proves that Locusts are an agreeable Food to the People of afric and the Southern Parts of Asia; and that they are of very great Bulk, and not like those in Europe: and in short, that they were the usual Sustenance of some People in the East. What then can be plainer than this, that St. john fed on these Animals in the Wilderness, it being a sort of Food that the Hebrew People were no Strangers to, and consequently that this is the true Interpretation of Mat. 3. 4.? But it must be acknowledged, that Other Texts are not so easily understood: there is a great Ambiguity in those words whereby Animals are expressed▪ and 'tis somewhat difficult to reach the true meaning of them, as may sufficiently appear from what Monsieur Bochart hath said of those Animals that are spoken of in Scripture: though truly I am of opinion, that that Great Man hath sometimes (if not often) raised Doubts about them when there was little or no Ground for it, as 'tis the fault of almost all Great Critics to render Words and Things dubious when there is no occasion for it.  
In the next place, I will observe that the Names of Flowers, Plants and Herbs among the Hebrews are scarcely known to us. Otherwise certainly the Hebrew word which in our English Bibles is rendered a Rose, Cant. 2. 1. Isa. 35. 1. would not have been translated a Flower in the former place, and a Lily in the latter by the Vulgar Interpreter. And 
* Lexic. Hebraic.  Buxtorf was so sensible of the ambiguous Sense of this word, that he tells us, it is either a Rose or a Lilly. The 
† Jon. 4. 6.  Plant which God prepared for jonas, to be a Shade to him, is rendered by some a kind of Vine, by others a Cucumber, by the Seventy Coloquintida, or the Bitter Gourd, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (called by the Botanists the Apple of Coloquintida, and the Gall of the Earth, and the Death of Plants) by the Vulgar Latin an Ivy, by others (as Mercer and Montanus) that Plant which we call Palma Christi, and by our English Translators (according to the Arabic) a Gourd. So discrepant are the Judgements of Interpreters about this Matter. And the Geneva, Helvetian and Danish Bibles retain the Hebrew word Kikaion, because they knew not what to make of it. Nor are Authors less divided about the Gopher-wood, Gen. 6. 14. of which the Ark was made, for no less than Seven or Eight sorts of Trees are mentioned by them on this occasion. Some say it is Square-Timber, because 'tis rendered by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: others think it to be Smooth-Timber, because in the Vulgar Latin it is Ligna levigata. According to the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and most of the Rabins, it is Cedar: according to Munster and the Geneva Translation, it is a Pinetree. junius thinks it is a middle sort between this and a Fir. Bochart and Fuller vote it to be a Cypress: and the 
* Miscell. l. 4. c. 5.  latter hath this fanciful notion concerning it, that among the Gentiles the Cypress was always held to be a Fatal Tree, and was used at Funerals, because the Ark at the Flood, in which Noah was shut up as in a Sepulchre, was made of this Wood Some take it for a Fir, and others for a Turpentine-Tree. And Pererius (that he might say something singular, and different from all the rest) fancies it was not the Wood of one sort of Tree, but that it was made of divers Kind's. But the Translators of the English Bible retain the Hebrew word itself, because they were not satisfied with any of these Significations. Eolah and allah and alon, Ezek. 6. 13. Josh. 24. 26. Isa. 6. 13. according to different Interpreters are rendered not only an Oak, but an Elm, an Alder-Tree, a Turpentine, a Lime, or Teil-Tree, a Pine, a Chestnut. What kind of Trees Algummim or Almuggim, 1 Kings 10. 11. 2 Chron. 2. 8. Chap. 9 10, 11. were, is not easy to tell: yea, the Hebrew Doctors think Coral (which we can't properly call a Tree) is meant by them. But 
* Annotat. in Exod. 3. 23.  Grotius hath warned us not to trust to the Rabins, especially the latter ones, in their Interpretations which they give of Herbs and Trees. What particular kind of Wood that is which is called Shittim, (of which you read so often in Exodu●) and is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, incorruptible Wood by the LXX, is not agreed among the Learned; some thinking it to be Cedar, others the Pitch-Tree, others Box: but jerom and Theodotion take it to be the White-Thorn, or a Tree very like it. The truth is, we are certain of nothing but this, that it was some very excellent and choice Wood which they found to be very Useful in Building. It is probable that it was denominated from the Place where it grew, and whence it was fetched, (for of Shittim we read in Numb. 25. 1. josh. 2. 1. and in other places) but what kind of Tree it was, is uncertain: for which reason both the Vulgar Latin and English Translators thought fit to retain the Hebrew word itself. For we are in the dark as to these things: and how can it be otherwise, seeing 'tis not to be doubted that they had Trees and Plants in the Eastern Countries which are not in these places? and therefore we know them not. So for Animals, of which we spoke before, there were some proper to those Regions: and because these Western Parts of the World have them not, we are ignorant of them. Wherefore 'tis no wonder that several Names of Sensitive and Vegetative Creatures mentioned in the Old Testament are unintelligible.  
Whether the Hebrew Bedolach, Bdellium, Gen. 2. 12. be a Tree or a Stone, or a Gum, or a Pearl, is disputed. Pliny and Diascorides mention Bdellium as Wood or a Tree, and junius (upon the place) is of the same Mind. Others, and particularly 
* Antiqu. l. 3. c. 1.  josephus, understand it to be an Aromatic Gum, or the Juice of some Odoriferous Tree. The Jews generally hold it to be a Precious Stone; but some of them think it is a Crystal, others a Jasper, and others of them a Carbuncle, it being 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so rendered by the Septuagint. Bochart and some other Moderns tell us that Bedolach is not Bdellium or any other Precious Stone, but a Margarite, a Pearl of the Sea, which is usually fetched up in that Maritime Part of Arabia which is called Havilah in the forementioned Text. And to corroborate this Opinion, he further adds, that Manna is said to be (Numb. 11. 7.) of the colour of Bdellium, i. e. white, which is the singular Ornament and Beauty of a Pearl. It might be observed here, that the words for Minerals and Precious Stones are very ambiguous. I will mention only one, viz. Nophek, the first Precious Stone in the second Order of those in the High Priest's Breastplate: this is rendered by St. jerom a Carbuncle, by Onkelos an Emerald, by some Interpreters a Topaz, and by others a Ruby. And there is almost the like difference in interpreting some of the other Words whereby other Stones are signified. For indeed, it is the Confession of the Hebrew Doctors, as Buxtorf and others tell us, that the Names of Precious Stones in Scripture are unknown to us. There is such a discrepancy, saith a 
‖ Paul. Fagius in Exod. 28. 20.  Learned Hebrician, about these among all Interpreters, whether Christians or Jews, that no Man is able to determine any thing certain.  
The same may be said of Musical Instruments mentioned in Scripture: which have employed many Critics and Grammarians, but with little Satisfaction. But I have said enough for my present purpose, viz. to show you that the Hebrew Names of divers things are not well understood, which sometimes begets a misunderstanding concerning the things themselves. There are indeed among the Greeks and Latins a great number of words of Different Senses, but the number is far greater in Hebrew, by reason of the paucity of words in this Tongue; for there being many Things, but few Words to express them, it will follow that sundry of them must be of various Significations, and consequently that it is no easy matter to distinguish between them. This may be the reason why the Septuagint have inserted several Hebrew words into their Version, namely, because they could not tell how to express them in Greek, their Signification being so Doubtful. Hence also some Proper Names are translated by these Interpreters as Appellatives; which is done also sometimes by the Vulgar Latin, because those Names are seemingly and as to their Sound no other than Appellatives: however, the Dubious meaning of them prompted the Translators to take them as such. Nor are we to think that this Ambiguity is any Blemish or Disparagement to the Bible, and that for this reason, because we find it no where but in those Matters which are Indifferent, and the Knowledge of which is not indispensably required of us. Nay, on the contrary, this Difficulty which we meet with in many Words and Passages in these Holy Writings, is so far from disparaging them, that it is an undeniable Proof of the Unparallelled Antiquity of them. We are assured hence, that they have the Priority of all other Books; we may rationally gather that a great part of this Volume at least was composed and written before any other Writings were extant. If this Sacred Book were of a later Date, we should have had few or none of those Difficult Terms that it abounds with now. We could not then have a more Convincing Argument of its being Exceeding Ancient, than its being Dark in some places. And therefore instead of complaining of the Obscurity of these Writings, let us reverence and admire its Matchless Antiquity, and congratulate our own Happiness, that the Divine Providence hath entrusted us with the First and Oldest Records of Truth in the World.  
I will go on then still with my present Undertaking, and show in other particulars the Dubious Import of some words in these Sacred Writings, and attempt▪ to clear some of them. I will here speak of the Measures, Weights, and Coins mentioned in Scripture, which are another Instance of the Difficulty which arises from our being ignorant of the exact Significations of some Words in the Sacred Volume. The Hebrew Measures are either of Application or of Capacity, i. e. such Measures as are applied and laid unto things, or such as hold and contain things. To the former sort belongs chiefly the Gubit, the famous Standing Measure of the Hebrews. But this is twofold, either Common or Sacred: the former is the length of the Arm from the Elbow to the end of the middle Finger, according to the Dimensions of Men of the greatest Stature; and it is generally agreed that this is a Foot and a half, or (which is the same) half a Yard. This was the Measure for ordinary things, as Ogg's Bedstead, which was 
* Deut. 3. 11.  in length nine Cubits, i. e. thirteen Foot and a half, or four Yards and a half, and in breadth four Cubits, i. e. six Foot, or two Yards: by which it appears, that he was such another Giant as Goliath was, 
† 1 Sam. 17. 4.  whose height was six Cubits and a Span, i. e. nine Foot and nine Inches, or three Yards and almost a Foot: for we must suppose that his Bedstead was a fourth part or thereabouts longer than his Body. But besides this ordinary Cubit, called the Cubit of a Man, Deut. 3. 11. i e. of a Man's Proportion, from the Elbow to the Finger's end, the Common Cubit, there was the Sacred one, which is as much again, viz. a Yard. By this were measured those things which were Extraordinary and Unusual, or which were Holy and Religious. Some think the length, breadth and height of the Ark is measured by this Cubit, Gen. 6. 15. otherwise they cannot make room for all the Creatures of every Kind that were to be lodged in it. Yea, two of the Ancient 
‖ Origen. Hom. 2. in Gen. Augustin. de Civ. Del, l. 15. c. 27.  Fathers think that the Cubit by which the Ark was built, was the Geometric one, which is six times longer than the Ordinary Cubit, i. e. it contains nine Foot: for they thought that the Ark otherwise could not hold all the Beasts. But the contrary is stiffly maintained by 
* But●o de Arc● Not. Kircher Arc. No●.  Others, who reject the Geometric Cubit, because there is no mention of it in Scripture, and because the Fabric of the Ark would have been of two vast a proportion if it had been measured by this. These Men with the Ordinary Cubit make that Vessel large enough to hold all the different Animals that were ordered to be preserved in it. Buteo more especially hath undertaken this, and performed it as well as the thing would bear. He insists that Moses speaks of the Cubit that was most in use in his time, which by consent of Writers contained a Foot and a half in length: and accordingly he endeavours to make the whole Business of the Fabric and Capacity of the Ark for receiving the several Creatures, to be accountable on this Hypothesis of the Common Cubit. When the Mosaic History relates that the Longitude of the Ark was three hundred Cubits, we must understand it, he saith, of four hundred fifty Foot in length: when it describes its Latitude to be fifty Cubits, there are meant seventy five Foot: and when the Altitude is said to be thirty Cubits, we must reckon forty five Foot. This was the Proportion of that Ancient Fabric, of that great Swimming Coffin, for its Figure agrees most with that Shape. But whereas we read that it consisted of three Stories, ver. 16. this Author assigns four, telling us, that the first (which he adds) is not mentioned, because it was a Sink or Sewer to receive all the Filth that came from the Stalls of the Animals: the next to this, was the place where the Terrestrial Animals were lodged: The Third was the Storehouse for Provision let down to the Creatures below through Racks: In the Fourth were the Men and Birds. And these Rooms and Apartments, with their Accommodations, are reduced by him to that number of Cubits which Noah assigns. So that the Cavils of Celsus, and of the Gnostics before him, against the incapacity of the Ark for so many Beasts, are silenced by the Undertaking of this Ingenious Writer, who hath proved that this Structure was able to hold very well all Speoys of Animals, i. e. of Creeping things, which according to Gesner and Aldrovandus, are not above thirty, and of fourfooted Beasts, which are a hundred and thirty, (for Antilopes begot between a Hart and a Goat, Mules the Product of an Horse and an Ass, jackals of whom a Wolf is the Sire, a Fox the Dam, and some other such Mongrel Creatures are not to be reckoned in the Number) and of Fowls of the Air about a hundred and fifty.  
As to the Tabernacle and Temple, it is granted that the Dimensions of them are taken by the Holy Cubit, which is as long again as the Common one. But then, whether the Utensils and Vessels, and other things belonging to the Temple are to be measured by the Common or the Sacred Cubit, is often disputed among those who have treated of this Matter. And it must needs be so, because the word Ammah, cubitus, is ambiguous; for though it never signifies in Scripture the Geometrical Cubit, which is three Yards, yet it is left uncertain in many places whether the Common or Sacred Cubit be meant.  
Measures of Capacity among the Hebrews are either of things that are Dry, or of those that are Liquid. Of the first sort are, 1. The Cab, 2 Kings 6. 25. the Least of Dry Measures used by the Jews, about a quarter of a Peck of our English Measure. 2. The Ephah, Leu. 5. 11. of the same Quantity with the Bath, (of which afterwards) only the one is for dry things, the other for wet. It may be called the Hebrew Bushel, because it is much about that Quantity; though some will have it to be much more, and others a considerable deal less, viz. half a Bushel and a Pottle. Some say it contains about seven Gallons, others nine. So that we cannot tell the precise Quantity of this Measure; which neither the Greek Interpreters knew, it is likely, though they were jews, for they render the word Ephah differently, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and at other times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. An Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chomer, Ezek. 45. 14. which is ten Baths or Ephahs, i. e. ten Bushels, say some: but others set it higher, making it fourteen Bushels; and others bring it lower, reducing it to about eight Bushels. Perhaps the English word Coumb or Coume, which now signifies but half as much, denoted a greater Quantity heretofore, and was originally taken from the Hebrew Chomer, but is since corrupted in the Pronunciation. Note that this is the Greatest (however the just and exact Quantity be disputed) of all Dry Measures. 4. An Omer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnomer, Vulgar Latin Gomor. It is true, some Writers (and of no mean Note) have confounded these two, Homer and Omer, and the Seventy Interpreters did so long before, call both of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but they are two Distinct Measures. For we are assured that an Omer is the tenth part of an Ephah, Exod. 16. 36. i e. the tenth part of a Bushel, or thereabouts; and therefore is called by the Jews Gnisharon, decima, a tenth-deal, Numb. 15. 4. whereas the Homer contained ten Ephahs or Baths, i. e. ten Bushels. But yet this is an Equivocal Word, as appears from Leu. 23. 10. Ye shall bring a Sheaf of the first Fruits of your Harvest unto the Priest. It is the word Omer which is here translated a Sheaf, (a far different thing from a Measure) and by the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Septuagint and Vulgar 
† Manipuli spicarum.  Latin Version a Maniple or handful, which indeed is a sort of Measure, but greatly disagreeing with the usual Signification of Omer. But in all other places the Hebrew Name itself is retained in the Greek and Latin Versions as well as in Ours; and I have told you what it is generally thought to signify. 5. The Cor, 1 Kings 4. 22. which is made by some a distinct Measure from those beforenamed: but you will find, that according to the Vulgar Latin, a Cor and an Homer are the same, Ezek. 45. 13, 14.  
The Measures for Liquids among the Hebrews were a Log, Leu. 14. 10. which contained about half a Pint: however, this is sure that it was the least of Liquid Measures. Next, a Hin, Numb. 15. 4. which was somewhat bigger than a Log: some say it held ten Logs, a Great Gallon I may call it. A Bath, Ezek. 45. 11. was yet bigger, and contained six Hins, i. e. about six Gallons: others say, four Gallons and an half. And yet it is said to be of the same Capacity with the Ephah, i. e. a Bushel, and consequently should hold eight Gallons. The Homer was also a Measure for Liquor, as well as for Grain, and it contained ten Baths, as is evident from Ezek. 45. 14. Ten Baths are an Homer. But because a Bath is more or less, according to the different Determinations of Writers, we cannot assign the exact Quantity of an Homer. A Cor (which I before mentioned as the same with the Chomer, and the greatest of Dry Measures) is also a Measure for Liquids', 1 Kings 5. 11. Ezek. 45. 14. But 'tis no wonder that we have not an exact Knowledge of these jewish Measures, for even those that are mentioned in Greek and Latin Authors, and very much fall short of the Antiquity of these, are but little known by us.  
Next, if we proceed to the Words whereby the Hebrew Weights are expressed in Scripture, which are the Shekel and the Talon, we shall find them something dubious and uncertain. The Shekel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (like the Cubit) is said to be either Common or Sacred, the Profane Shekel, or that of the Sanctuary. And here there is Dissension among Writers; but according to the most moderate Accounts, the former is said to be in Weight a quarter of an Ounce, the latter half an Ounce Troy. Others affirm, that there was no Profane Shekel, different from the Sacred one; but that the occasion of the Opinion was the Scripture's mentioning the Shekel of the Sanctuary, Leu. 27. 25. and Numb. 3. 47. which is so called, because the Weights which were laid up in the Sanctuary were the Standard of all Weights. The other Weights in use among the People were tried by These, and if they were found lighter, they were condemned. As for the contrary Opinion, it is looked upon by some (but I cannot subscribe to it) as an Invention of the Rabbis. The other Weight is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exod. 25. 39 1. Kings. 20. 39 rendered by the Greek and Latin Version (as well as Ours) a Talon; which is either Common or Sacred; the first, according to some of the Rabins, is fifty Pounds; others say, sixty; others, sixty two in weight. The second, according to some, is an hundred; according to others, an hundred and twenty; and in others Estimation, an hundred twenty five pounds' Weight, i. e. about as much again as the Common Talon. But it is difficult to tell in which particular Places of Scripture the Common Talon is meant, and in which the Sacred one. Only this we know, that a Talon was the greatest Weight among the Hebrews. And this we may rest in, as very probable, that there was a Difference of the same Weights among the Jews, as among us there is Troy Weight used by Gold Goldsiniths and Apothecaries, and 〈◊〉 by those who deal in grosser things.  
Then as to the Coins, these generally followed the Weights, because they weighed their Money for the most part: Hence the Shekel and the Talon were not only Weights but Coins among the Hebrews. The Shekel of the Sanctuary was in strict Value two Shillings four Pence of our Money, but is generally reckoned two Shillings six Pence, our Half-Crown: but the Ordinary S●ekel was but half as much, i. e. as to the most strict Value fourteen Pence, but more generally esteemed to be fifteen. This is to be understood of the Shekel of Silver; but then we must know there was another of Gold, which was of a much higher Value, fifteen Shillings at least. Now because the word Shekel is often mentioned without any Addition in Scripture, we may be mistaken as to the right Value of it, because we are uncertain which of the Shekels is to be understood, that of Silver or that of Gold. And sometimes it happens by reason of the Shekels being both a Weight and a Co●n, that the one is mistake for the other. As probably in 2 Sam. 14. 26. where 'tis said that Absalon at every Year's end polled his Head, because the Hair was heavy on him, and he weighed the Hair at two hundred Shekels; which is generally understood as if the Hair of his Head, being cut off every Year, weighed two hundred Shekels, i. e. fifty Ounces, which is four Pounds and two Ounces, if you reckon by the L●sser Shekel▪ but if you make your Computation by the Greater one, which was double in weight, his Hair weighed eight Pounds and four Ounces. But this cannot be, for though his Hair was heavy, (as the Text testifies) yet it is no ways credible that it was of this vast Weight. Two hundred Shekels of the lesser Weight are more ponderous than the Fleeces of two ordinary Sheep. You may imagine then what the Weight doubled will be, i. e. if you understand the Place of the Greater Shekels. Wherefore by Shekels here is meant Coin, and not Weight: the Meaning is this, that Absalom's Hair growing excessively, and being very heavy, he yearly cut it off; and when it was weighed, it was found to be worth two hundred Shekels, that is, according to the Common Shekel, twelve Pounds ten Shillings in our English Money, but much more according to the rate of the Greater Shekel. The Price or Value of his Hair, not the Weight of it, is here spoken of. So much Money he could have had for the yearly Loppings of his Hair, and so much and more they made of it to whom he gave it, viz. his Servants, who parted with it at a dear rate to the Ladies of jerusalem, who were ambitious of adorning their Heads with the Hair of the Beautiful Absalon, with the Locks of the King's Son; especially if what a 
* Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Hebraic.  Learned Man from the jerusalem-talmudists suggests hath any Truth in it, viz, that he was a Temporary Nazarite, (as some among the Jews were; yea, 'tis my Opinion that they were all at their Liberty) and let his Hair grow from Year to Year, because of his Vow: for then some of the better disposed Females might in a Religious way buy up these Relics of Nazaritism, and look upon them as Sacred. If this Interpretation of the Place be not admitted, than one of these two things must be granted, either that his Hair was of that Prodigious and Incredible Weight which we mentioned, (which will hardly be received) or else that we are mistaken in the true Value of a Shekel in this Place; and if so, we may be mistaken in others.  
We might likewise consider the Value of a Talon, which is either the Great or the Lesser: the Value of the former is two hundred thirty three Pounds Sterling; and of the latter one hundred seventy five Pounds Sterling, according to some good Authors. But others will have four hundred Pound Sterling to be the true Estimate of the Greater Talon, and they value the Lesser at half as much. Again, the Scripture speaks of a Talon of Silver, and a Talon of Gold, and these also are differently understood; for some value the former at one hundred eighty seven Pounds ten Shillings; others at three hundred seventy five Pounds: the latter is esteemed to be two thousand two hundred and fifty, by some; and four thousand five hundred by others. In short, (as 
* De Ass.  Budaeus hath observed) Talents are according to the Use and Value of several Countries, Babylonian, Syrian, Egyptian; yea, the Greeks, who first used this Value of Money, did vary themselves in their Talents, having some greater, and others lesser, some worth two hundred Pounds, others only one hundred Pounds Sterling with us. From 
† Lib. 9 c. 1●.  julius Pollux we briefly learn what a great Difference there was in Talents; The Attic Talon, saith he, made six thousand Attic Drachmas; the Babylonian Talon seven thousand; the Aeginaean ten thousand; the Syrian a thousand and five hundred. What we read in 2 Sam. 12. 30. concerning the King of the Ammonites Crown, that the Weight thereof was a Talon of Gold, is to be understood of a Talon, as it signifies Coin, not a Weight, for we can't imagine that that King, or David, (on whose Head it was afterwards set, as you read there) could wear a Crown that weighed a Talon. It is spoken therefore of the Value of the Crown: when 'tis said it weighed so much, the meaning is, that it was worth so much in Money, for they weighed their Money in those Days.  
If you look into the Roman and Greek Coins mentioned in the New Testament, you will find great Uncertainty there. The least piece of Money is a Mite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 12. 42. the seventh part of a piece of Brass Money among the Romans, say some; much less than the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Hebrews Gerah, Exod. 30. 13. Leu. 7. 25. (which might have been mentioned before.) It is vulgarly reckoned the eighth part of an English Penny, or half a Farthing, because it is said, two Mites make a Farthing, Mark 12. 42. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quadrants, is the word which we here render a Farthing, which is not one of our Farthings, but is the fourth part of an As, a small piece of Brass Coin among the Romans, a fourteenth part of a Denarius; others hold it to be the 
* Denarius, à denis aeris.  tenth part of it. But still we are not certain what it is, because we are not sure what the Denarius or Roman Penny is, which is the next Coin. This we read was the Days-wages for the Labourers in the Vineyard, Matth. 20. 9 They received every Man a Penny. The Aromatic Ointment of Spikenard might have been sold for more than three hundred of these Pence, Mark 14. 5. This was the Penny which was showed to Christ, as part of the Tribute-Money, Matth. 22. 19 But it is not easy to tell the exact Value of it, though we translate it a Penny; for the Roman D●narius was greater and less●●; the first was one Shilling Sterling, the second was six Pence or seven Pence, or seven Pence half Penny in our Coin. Others distinguish thus, there was either the Old Denarius, which was twelve Pence, or the Latter one, which was of the same Value with the Drachm, (of which next) or another between these, valued at eight Pence. Thus we are partly at a loss what a Mite, (that nummorum ●amulus among the Romans) or what a Farthing, or what a Penny was, that is, what we translate so really was.  
Nor is there greater Certainty in the Greek Coins, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 15. 8. the piece of Silver (for so 'tis translated) which the Woman lost, and afterwards found. This is said by most Writers to be seven, or seven Pence half Penny of our Money, being the same with a quarter of a Shekel, or with the Roman Denarius. But the true Value of these being doubtful, (as hath been said) this must needs be so too. And consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 17. 24. rendered by our Translators the Tribute-Money, (because they knew not how else to render it) cannot very well be defined; for if the just Value of a Single Drachma be not known, how can we tell what a Double one is? But the generally received and most approved Account is, that a Drachm is seven Pence half Penny, and consequently a Didrachm (which is the Word here) is fifteen Pence, i. e. a Common Shekel. This, saith the Learned Lightfoot, was a yearly Tax paid by the Jews towards repairing the Temple; but after the Jews became subject to the Romans, they paid it to the Emperor. And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 26. 15. Acts 19 19 which we translate Pieces of Silver, it is uncertain whether they are an Hebrew or Greek Coin. Some are of opinion, that when they are put absolutely, and without Addition, (either in the Old or New Testament) they signify Shekels, as in the former Place, They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of Silver, i. e. thirty Shekels, which after the rate of the Great Shekel is three Pounds fifteen Shillings in our Money. But the latter Place which speaks of the Value of those Books of curious Arts, which were brought forth and burnt, and saith, the Price of them was found to be fifty thousand pieces of Silver, cannot be understood of this Shekel, it being improbable that they amounted to so great a Sum as six thousand two hundred and fifty Pounds Sterling in our Money; for so much is contained in fifty thousand great Shekels or Half-Crowns. But it is more likely that this Place speaks of some Greek Coin of a lower Value, as the Drachma before mentioned. But as for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 17. 27. which we translate a piece of Money, (the same which was found in the Fish's Mouth) it was of the same Value with the Hebrew Great Shekel, and contained four Drachms, i. e. two Shillings six Pence in our Money. Wherefore you may observe that the Stater in the forenamed Place served to pay the Double Tax, for our Saviour and St. Peter: Take it, saith Christ, and give it to them (i. e. the Collectors) for me and thee; fifteen Pence for me, and fifteen Pence for thee. But than it must be remembered, that there was not only a Silver Stater, but a Golden one, the Value of which was thirteen, some say fifteen, others sixteen Shillings, others eighteen; for of this as well as of other Coins there were different sorts. Or if we could tell which of these kinds is here meant, yet it will be a hard Task to adjust it to the Value of our English Money. The same may be said of Other Coins, and also of Weights and Measures in use heretofore among the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, some whereof are mentioned in the Holy Writings: There is no little Difference among the 
* Georgius Agricola, Budaeus, Alciat, Por●ius, Glareanus, Fuschius, Waserus, Brerewood, Dr. Cumberland.  Learned Authors, who have purposely treated of them, especially when they endeavour to reduce them to the Modern Coins, Weights and Measures in use among us. In expressing things of this Nature (not in the Great and Weighty Matters of Religion) the very Words which are used in Scripture are uncertain and doubtful; which is one reason why some Places are not interpreted with the same Facility that others are.   

CHAP. IX.  
Two or three Different Names are given to the same Person in different places of Scripture, which may occasion Difficulty sometimes. Exemplified in several Texts, but more especially in Mat. 23. 35. Zacharias Son of Barachias. The Old Testament sometimes gives one Name to a Person, and Profane Writers another. Sometimes there is not properly Another Name attributed to the same Person in the Old Testament, but only a Name a little changed. In the New Testament also, the same Persons have Different Names, or somewhat Altered. Again, both in the Old and New Testament different Persons have sometimes the same Name. Further, sometimes the same Name is given to Persons of both Sexes. Moreover, one Name served for all the successive Kings of a Country, or at least for several of them. Lastly, the same Places which we read of in Scripture have different Appellations, which sometimes causes Obscurity. Or some Names of the same Place differ but a little, i. e. as to a Letter or two.  
IN the Prosecution of the foregoing Head, viz. the Different acception of words used in Scripture, I might here take notice that two or three Different Names are given to the same Person in different places of Scripture, which hath occasioned no little difficulty in understanding some Texts. But yet when we consider that this is a very usual thing in the Sacred Writings, the Difficulty must needs vanish. By comparing 2 Sam. 14. 27. with 1 Kings 15. 2. we find that the same Daughter of Absalon was named Tamar and Maacha. The Person who is called jozachar in 2 Kings 12. 21. is named Zabad in 2 Chron. 24. 26. Azariah and Vzziah are the Names of the same King of judah, 2 Kings 15. 1. Isa. 1. 1. 2 Kings 14. 21. compared with 2 Chron. 26. 1. The same King was called Zedekiah and Mattaniah, 2 Kings 24. 17. 1 Chron. 3. 15. Thus jehoiakim and jechoniah are the Names of the same King: which occasions that difficulty in Mat. 1. 11. josias begat jechonias; it appearing from 1 Chron. 3. 16. that josias begat jehoiakim. But if it were usual for the Kings and others among the Jews to have a double Name, than it is likely that jehoiakim had so too, and thus the Difficulty is salved: jehoiakim was called jechoniah. It is true, there is another way to reconcile this, by observing that in Christ's Genealogy (Of which we shall speak afterwards) sometimes a Person is said to beget another who is not properly his Son, but one at a distance from him, his Grandchild, or some of his Lineage farther off; and so the words in St. Matthew may refer to a jechonias that was afterwards, 1 Chron. 3. 16. But from the places before mentioned, and several others which I shall produce afterwards, it is evident that some of the Jewish Kings and Other Persons besides them had two Names.  
Which may give a Solution of that controverted place, Mat. 23. 35. That upon you may come all the righteous Blood shed upon the Earth, from the Blood of righteous Abel unto the Blood of Zacharias Son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the Altar. Our Saviour without doubt here refers to the Old Testament, but we find no express mention there of Zacharias the Son of Barachias 's being slain between the Temple and the Altar. Therefore some are of the opinion that the word Zacharias is crept into the Text, but should not be there. But this is an ill way of solving the Difficulty, because after this rate we may expunge what word we please out of the Bible, to make good our own Interpretation of the Place. Others think this Zacharias was the last but one of the Twelve Prophets, who is expressly said to be the Son of Barachias, Zech. 1. 1. But, 1. We read not in Scripture or any other History that this Prophet was slain by the Jews, and therefore there is no ground to believe that it was He who is spoken of here. 2. He could not be slain between the Temple and the Altar, for at that time, viz. the Return of the Jews from Babylon, neither the Temple nor Altar were erected. Or 3. Suppose they were, yet the Jews, so soon after their Captivity, were not arrived to that height of Wickedness to put their Prophets to Death. Again, Baronius endeavours to prove out of some of the Ancients, that this was john the Baptist's Father, whose Name we know was Zacharias, Luke 1. 59 and that he was slain by Herod because he refused to deliver up his Son the Baptist into his hands to be put to Death by him. But first, though this be mentioned by some Writers of old, yet we find them not forward in attesting and confirming this Narrative; because, without doubt, there was no Evidence of it. Besides, as I suggested before, our Saviour seems to refer to something recorded in the Old Testament. Moreover, if Zacharias had been put to Death by Herod, it is highly probable that the Evangelical History would have taken particular notice of it, and have related the Death of the Father, as well as of the Son. Lastly, There is not the least hint that this Zacharias was the Son of Barachias. Next, It is said by Dr. Hammond and others, that Christ speaks here of Zacharias the Son of Baruch, mentioned by 
* De bell. Jud. l. 4. c. 18.  josephus, who was killed a little before the final Overthrow of jerusalem: For the Words of Christ relate not to any one who had been slain already, but they are a Prophecy concerning the last of all the Martyrs of the Jews, who should be put to Death before the Destruction of the last Temple, and the Dissolution of that Nation. Such a Zachary, the Son of Baruch, was killed in the middle of the Temple, as the Jewish Historian assures us. But first it is plain that Christ speaks of something that had already happened, not of something that was to come. It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not a future but an aorist, and so denotes what hath been done before, not what shall be done afterwards. Therefore Christ's words are to be understood of one that had been in time passed killed by the Jews. Secondly, It is unquestionable that Christ speaks of some very Holy Man, whose violent Death is recorded in the Old Testament; for you find this Zacharias joined with Abel, of whom you read in Gen. 4. 8. and for that reason we may infer that this Baruch is not meant here. Thirdly, It is doubtful whether the Blood of this Person whom josephus speaks of, may be called righteous Blood, as this is here: for it was upon a Civil Account that that Son of Baruch was put to Death, viz. because he was thought to take part with the Romans, and so he cannot be well paralleled with Abel.  
You see how improbable the foresaid Opinions are: therefore I choose to embrace that of St. jerom and some 
* Grotius, Dr. Lightfoot.  Learned Men of late, who conceive that this Zacharias is he who is mentioned in 2 Chron. 24. 20. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada the Priest, who stood above the People, and said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Why, etc. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the Commandment of the King, in the Court of the House of the Lord. Thus Joash the King remembered not the Kindness which Jehoiada his Father had done to him, but slew his Son. This is the Person whom our Saviour speaks of, and the shedding of whose righteous Blood he imputeth to the Jews of that Age. Him ye slew, saith he; for though 'tis said, the King slew him, because he commanded him to be slain, yet 'tis said likewise, the People slew him, because they not only conspired against him (as you read) but actually stoned him. And this they did in the Court of the House of the Lord, which is the same with what our Saviour saith, between the Temple and the Altar. And his Blood may justly deserve the Epithet of Righteous, and he may justly be reckoned with Righteous Abel, because he lost his Life in a Righteous Cause, because with great Boldness and Zeal he reproved the People for their Sins, but especially for their Idolatry, and foretold them what Misery these would certainly bring upon them. For this zealous Freedom of his they took away his Life. This was a very Eminent Man among the Jews: There are in their Writings remarkable Stories concerning him, not only relating to his Life, but his Death. They killed him being both a Priest and a Prophet, and before the Temple, and on the day of Expiation; and from several other Circumstances his Murder is aggravated in the Talmud. This was Zach●ria● the Son of jehoiada, but called here the Son of Barachias, because it was common to have two Names among the Jews. His Father's Name being both jehoiada and Barachias, he is called in the Chronicles the Son of Jehoiada, and by our Saviour, the Son of Barachias. But in this it is likely Christ had reference to the words of Isaiah, Chap. 8. 2. [Zachariah the Son of Jereberechiah] or Barachiah, as the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin give it us. It appears hence, that Barachiah as well as Iehoiad● was his Father's Name, as our Christian Rabbi makes it clear. Thus our Saviour's words are reconciled with those in the Chronicles, by attending to what I before observed, viz. That it is usual in Scripture to affix two Names to the same Person: one is given him in one place, and another in the other.  
So that in Mark 2. 25, 26. may be understood, Have ye never read what David did when he had need, and was an hungered? how he went into the House of God in the days of Abiathar the Highpriest, and did eat the Shewbread? If you look into 1 Sam. 21. you will see that it was in the days of Ahimelech the Highpriest: which Ahimelech, it seems, was called also Abiathar, otherwise our Saviour would not have used that Name. Which I will yet further confirm to you by some other Instances. jerubbaal and Gideon are the same Man, judg. 6. 32. Ch. 7. 1. Achish and Abimelech are one Person, 1 Sam. 21. 11. and the Title of the 34th Psalm. So are Araunah and Ornan, 2 Sam. 24. 1 Chron. 21. Caleb and Carmi are the same, 1 Chron. 2. 18. Ch. 4. 1. So are joah and Etham, 1 Chron. 6. 21, 41. Amminadab and Izhar, 1 Chron. 6. 2, 22. joel and Vashni, 1 Sam. 8. 2. 1 Chron. 6. 28. The same is to be said of Daniel and Chileab, 1 Chron. 3. 1. 2. Sam. 3. 3. Of Ammiel and 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 11. 3. 1. Chron. 3. 5. Thus Ie●oiakim & Eliakim, 2 Kings 23. 34. 1 Chron. 3. 15. Ahaziah and Azariah are Names of the same Kings, 1 Chron, 3. 11. and 2 Chron. 22. 6. 〈◊〉 and Ishboshet● are the same Son of Saul, 2 Sam. 2. 8. 1 Chron, 8. 33. Mephibosheth and Meribbaal, are the same Son of jonathan, 2. Sam. 4. 4. 1 Chron. 8. 34. Zimri and Zabdi are one Man, 1 Chron. 2. 6. Jos. 7. 1. Esarhaddon and Asnappar are the same, Ezr. 4. 2, 10. So are Salmanassar and Shalman, 2 Kings 18. 34. Host 10. 14. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the same Person, Ezra 1. 8. compared with Ezra 5. 14. jehoahaz and Shallum are the Names of the same King, as appears from comparing 2 Kings 23. 30. with jer. 22. 11. The King of Assyria who is called Sennacherib, 2 Kings 18. 13. is called Sargon, Isa. 20. 1. Yea, we find three or four Names given to one, as Moses' Father-in-Law is called jethro, Exod. 3. 1. Ch. 4. 18. jothor by the Septuagint, Exod. 3. 1. Raguel by the same Interpreters, Exod. 2. 18. Revel in the same place, according to the Original: Hobab, Numb. 10. 29. And I remember 
* Antiqu. l. 2. c. 5.  josephus saith, his Name was jethlegé. Of Solomon the same is observable; besides that Name, he hath three others given him; for we find that he is called jedidiah, 2 Sam. 12. 25. Lemuel, Prov. 31. 1. Coheleth, Eccl. 1. 1. which last is rendered Ecclesiastes and Preacher; and a great deal of dispute there is why Solomon is called so, especially in the Feminine Gender: but if we take it to be his Proper Name, than all Questions of that nature are at an end; for neither the Derivation of the word, nor the Termination of it are to be insisted upon. Nay, some think Agur is a fourth Name given him, Prov. 30. 1. from the Participle agur, collectus, receptus; because he recovered himself after his Follies, and was received into God's Favour. And some have thought he is called in the same place the Son of Jakeh, i. e. of the Obedient, to express further his Repentance and Reformation.  
Here it might be observed, that the Old Testament gives one Name to Persons, and Profane Writers another. He that is called Nimrod in the former, is named Belus in the latter, it is likely. He that is Assur in Scripture, is Ninus in Gentile History; for 
* Gen. 10. 11,  he built Nineve, which bears his Name. This was the Chief Seat of the Assyrian Empire, called so from this Assur, Son of Shem. That Assyrian King that is called Belochus in Profane Story, is Pull in the Sacred one, 2 Kings 15. 19 And in other Instances it might be showed that 'tis common to have two Names, one in the Bible, the other in Heathen Writers. Artaxerxes is the same with Ahasuerus, Esth. 1. 1. according to the LXX's Version, and josephus: but whether this be true or no, 'tis certain that other Kings had different Names among Jews and Pagans. In Pagan Authors there is no mention of Salmanassar, Tiglath-Pileser, Sennacherib, Nabuchadnezzar: The Greek and Latin Historians have not the Names of these Assyrian Kings, who are celebrated in Scripture: but it may be they are represented under other Names in those Writers; for the Names of Kings vary according to the Language of different Countries: which occasions some disagreement between Profane and Sacred History.  
Further, I add that sometimes in the Old Testament there is not properly another Name given to the same Person, but only a Name a little Changed, by the Alteration or Addition of some one Letter or more; as that Great Captain who conducted the Israelites into Canaan is called josua, jehosua, Numb. 13. 16. Oshea, or Hoshea, Deut. 32. 44. (besides that in the New Testament he is called jesus, Acts 7. 45. Heb. 4. 9) Ahimelech, 2 Sam. 8. 17. (who is the same, as I said, with Abiathar) is called Abimelech, 1 Chron. 18. 10. jehosaphat, 1 Kings 15. 24. is josaphat, Matth. 1. 8. jehoram, 1 Kings 22. 50. is joram, Matth. 1. 8. Rehoboam, 1 Chron. 3. 10. is Roboam, Matth. 1. 7. So we read of Achar and Achan, Josh. 7. 18. 1 Chron. 2. 7. Ram and Aram, 1 Chron. 2. 10. Matth. 1. 3. Hamor and Emmor, Gen. 33. 19 Acts 7. 16. Caleb and Chelubai, 1 Chron. 2. 9, 18. Absalon, 2 Sam. 14. is Abishalom, 1 Kings 15. 1. Vzziah (who, as you have heard, was the same with Azariah) is called Vzzah, 2 Kings 21. 26. and Ozias, Matth. 1. 8. jehoiachim, 2 Kings 23. 24. is (with the altering of one Letter only) jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24. 8. jechoniah in contempt is named Coniah, Jer. 22. 24. He that is called Berodach in 2 Kings 20. 12. is the same with Merodach in Isa. 39 1. So Nebuchadrezzar (with the like literal Alteration) is written Nabuchadnezzar.  
If you look into the New Testament also, you'll see that the same Persons have Different Names: as he who was nominated for the Apostleship is called joseph, Barsabas, and justus, Acts 1. 23. And joses and Barnabas are Names of the same Apostle, Acts 4. 36. Yea, all the rest of the Apostles, except john, had more Names than one: But sometimes the Name is only somewhat altered, but can't be said to be another Name, as Simon and Simeon, 2 Pet. 1. 1. Acts 15. 14. Anna's the High Priest is called Ananias, Acts 23. 5. and is called so by josephus the Jewish Historian. Silvanus and Silas are the same Name, 1 Thess. 1. 1. Acts 15. 22. ch. 16. 19 ch. 17. 4, 15. So are Prisca and Priscilla, Acts 18. 2. Tib. 4. 19 and Epaphras is the same with Epaphroditus, Col. 1. 7. ch. 4. 12. Phil. 2. 25. ch. 4. 18. Shall I take notice likewise that sometimes the Names of the same Persons mentioned in the Old Testament and the New, differ only as to the Greek or some other Termination which is given them in the latter? As Hannah, Elkana●'s Wife, and Anna a Prophetess, Luke 2. 36. Miriam, Aaron's Sister; and Marry, or 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 1. 20. ch. 1●. 〈◊〉. Luke 1. 27. and several other times in the same Evangelist.  Mariam a frequent Name in the New Testament. Elisheba, Aaron's Wife, Exod. 6. 23. and Elizabeth the Wife of Zacharias, and St. john the Baptist's Mother. johanan, 1 Chron. 3. 15. and john. These four are New-Testament as well as Old-Testament-Names, but with a small Alteration. And to these may be added jacob and james, which are the same in the Greek. A varying as to some Letter in the beginning or ending of Names is observable also in Kish, 1 Sam. 9 1. and Cis, Acts 13. 21. Immanuel, Isa. 7. 14. and Emanuel, Matth. 1. 23. Hosea and Osee▪ Rom. 9 25. Noah and No, Luke 17. 26. Korah and Core, Judas 11. Elijah and Elias, Matth. 16. 14. Elisha and Elizéus, Luke 4. 27. jonah and jonas, Matth. 1●. 39  
But as we have before observed that the same Men have different Names, so it is not altogether unworthy the remarking that different Persons have the same Name in Scripture: for by taking notice of this we shall be invited to attend to their Particular Characters, and the Different Relations which they have to the Texts where they are mentioned, whereby we shall avoid confounding one with the other, when we peruse the Holy Writings. jehoram was the Name of two Kings of Israel and judah that reigned at the same time, 2 Kings 1. 17. jehu was a noted King, and jehu is a Prophet, 2 Chron. 20. 34. There were two Nehemiahs, he that was Chief of the Jews after the Captivity, Neh. 1. 1. and another, Neh. 3. 16. ch. 7. 5, 7. Mephibosheth is the Name not only of Ionathan's but Saul's Son, 2 Sam. 4. 4. 2 Sam. 21. 8. There is not only Daniel the Prophet, but David's Son by Abigail, 1 Chron. 3. 1. There is Abimelech King of Gerar, Gen. 20. 2. and one of the Israelites Judges, judg. 8. 31. and also a High Priest, 1 Chron. 18. 6. There is in the New Testament mention of three Herod's; 1. He that was surnamed the Great, and was the Son of Antipater the Idumaean; he was called the Ascalonite, from the particular Country where he was born. He was made King of the Jews in the tenth Year of Augustus' Empire, and reigned thirty seven Years. In his time our Blessed Saviour was born, Matth. 2. 1. and this was he that barbarously massacred the Infants of Bethlehem, Matth. 2. 16. 2. Herod surnamed Antipas, and called the Tetrarch, Matth. 4. 3. he murdered john Baptist, Matth. 14. 10. he set at nought and mocked our Saviour when he was brought before him to be judged, Luke 23. 11. and he scornfully sent him back to Pilate. 3. Herod Agrippa the Son of Aristobulus, and the Nephew of Herod the Great; he killed St. james, and imprisoned St. Peter, Acts 12. 2, 3. and was at last devoured by Worms, ver. 23. There was also another Agrippa, who was the Nephew of this Herod, and it is probable was called Herod, whose Incestuous Wife (for she was his Sister) is mentioned Acts 25. 13, 23. There was an Ananias who was struck dead, Acts 5. 5. There was another of that Name who was a Disciple at Damascus, and was sent to Saul, Acts 9 10. There was a third that was High Priest, Acts 23. 2. Besides Simeon the Patriarch in the Old Testament, there is in the New one of that Name who was a devout Man of jerusalem, and prophesied of Christ, Luke 2. 25. There is Simeon called Niger, a Teacher of the Christian Church at Antioch, Acts 13. 1. and Peter also is called by that Name, Acts 15. 14. There are six or seven Joseph's; he that was one of the Patriarches; one of those that had married strange Wives, Ezr. 10. 42. a Priest that went up with Zorobabel, Neh. 12. 14. the reputed Husband of Mary, the Virgin Mary: also a Wise Counsellor of Arimathaea, Matth. 27. 57 joseph called Barsabas, Acts 1. 23. besides two others that were obscure Persons, Numb. 13. 7. 1 Chron. 25. 2. Simon is a Name of yet a larger Extent, but is found only in the New Testament, where by this Name is called the Apostle Peter, Matth. 16. 17. Luke. 4. 38. and in many other Places: another Apostle called the Canaanite, Mat. 10. 4. and Zelotes, Luke 6. 15. also one that was a Leper, Matth. 26. 6. called a Pharisee in Luke 7. 36. likewise the Father of judas Iscariot, John 12. 4. ch. 13. 2. moreover, a Man of Cyrene, the same who bore Christ's Cross, Matth. 27. 32. and is called the Father of Alexander and Rufus, Mark 15. 21. Further, the Sorcerer of Samaria, Acts 8. 9 and lastly, a Tanner of joppa, in whose House St. Peter lodged a considerable time, Acts 9 43. There are four or five judases or judes' mentioned in the New Testament. 1. He that was the Good Apostle, the Brother of Simon Peter. 2. The Traitor called Iscariot. 3. One surnamed Barsabas, a Companion of Silas, Acts 15. 27. though some think this to be the Apostle. 4. The Mutineer, judas of Galilee, Acts 5. 37. 5. One in whose House St. Paul was, Acts 9 11. There were three Gaius', one of Derbe, Acts 20. 4. the other of Macedonia, Acts 19 29. the other of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 14.  
Of Women the same may be observed, viz. what different Persons of that Sex have the same Name, as that of Deborah is common to Rebecca's Nurse, Gen. 35. 8. and to the famous Prophetess and She-Judg, judg. 4. 4. Abigail is the Name of Nabal's Wife, 1 Sam. 25. 3. and David's Sister, 1 Chron. 2. 16. so that David had a Wife (for Abigail was married to him after the Death of Nabal) and a Sister of the same Name. By the Name of Tamar is called the Wife of Er, Iudah's incestuous Daughter, Gen. 38. 6. Ruth 4. 12. and inserted into our Saviour's Genealogy, Matth. 1. 3. so is named Absalom's fair Sister, ravished by Amnon, 2 Sam. 13. 1. likewise Absalom's fair and only Daughter, 2 Sam. 14. 27. There are more Maries than one in the New Testament, and to distinguish them aright is of very great Use. Besides Mary the Mother of John, whose Surname was Mark, Acts 12. 12. and another Marry, whom St. Paul greets, Rom. 16. 6. there are thought by some to be five more of that Name, viz. the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord: Marry the Sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luk 10. 39 Joh. 11. 1. Marry Magdalene, Mar. 15. 40. Marry the Mother of james and joses, Matth. 27. 56. Mar. 15. 40. Marry the Wife (or Daughter) of Cleophas, joh. 19 25. But others reduce these to three, for Cardinal Baronius and our Learned Rabbi Dr. Lightfoot, hold that Mary Magdalene was the same with Mary the Sister of Lazarus. And the most profound Dr. P●arson avers, that Mary the Mother of james and joses, and Mary the Wife of Cleophas, are the same: She had the former Denomination from her Sons, and the latter from her Husband john or Cleophas. These three mary's are particularly mentioned in john 19 25. There stood by the Cross of jesus his Mother, and his Mother's Sister Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. In the rest of the 
* Matth. 27. 56. Mark 15. 40.  Evangelists we find at the same place Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James and Joses: And again at the Sepulchre, 
† Matth. 27. 61.  Marry Magdalene and the other Marry. Wherefore, saith this Learned Writer, this other Mary, by the Conjunction of these Testimonies, appears to be Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and the Mother of james and joses: and thence he infers that james and joses who are said to be Christ's Brethren, were not the Sons of Mary his Mother, but of the other Marry, and are called his Brethren, according to the Language of the Jews, because the other Mary was the Sister of Christ's Mother, she was our Blessed Lord's Aunt on the Mother's side. And so the right understanding of these Places where the Maries are mentioned, may lead us to a true Notion of Christ's Brethren spoken of in the Evangelists, whereby we may know whether they were the Children of Mary the Blessed Virgin by joseph, or of the Virgin's Sister, or of some other Mother akin to her, and therefore called the Brethren of Christ, because they were his Kindred.  
Again, I could observe that sometimes the same Names in Scripture are given to Persons of both Sexes, as among us Francis and Philip, and some other Names are common to both Men and Women. Not to mention Gen. 5. 2. he called their Name Adam, whence it is evident that Adam was the Name of both our first Parents at the beginning, though afterwards the Woman had another Name given her by her Husband, and he took the Name Adam as proper to himself, Gen. 3. 20. There are other plainer Instances in Gen. 36. 2, 41. and in the same Chapter, ver. 12, 40. and 1 Chron. 1. 36. where you will see that Aholibamah was the Name both of a Man and of a Woman, and so was Timna. I find that Noah is the Name of a Woman, the Daughter of Zelophehad, Numb. 36. 11. but I confess the words differ in the Hebrew, one is Noach, the other Nognah. john and joanna, especially the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (Luk. 3. 27.) are in a manner the same Name, but belonging to different Sexes. And further, to let you see how differently the same Names are bestowed, I could observe that Michael is the Name both of a Man, 1 Chron. 7. 3. and of an Angel, Dan. 12. 1.  
Moreover, under this Head it might be more material to observe that One Name served for all the Successive Kings of a Country, or at least for several of them. All Historians agree in the Catalogue of the Kings of Persia, viz. Cyrus the First, Cambyses the Second, Darius Hystaspis the Third, Xerxes the Fourth, Artaxerxes Longimanus the Fifth, etc. Yet in the Book of Ezra we read, that These five were successively, viz. Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes. How is this to be reconciled? Both by saying that the same Persian Kings had different Names, and also that several of them had one Name, which are both very true. One of them was called Cambyses and Ahasuerus, another had the Name Darius and Artaxerxes, a third was called Xerxes and Darius. And besides this, they were all called by one General Name; that is, Artaxerxes was a common Name of the whole Race of the Persian Kings. Many of the 
* 〈◊〉 Solomon, Aben Ezra, etc.  Learnedest Jews were of this Opinion, and it is the more probable, because this hath been usual in other Kingdoms and Countries, as we learn from the Sacred Records. There we find that there was one Common Name for all the Kings of Philistia or Palestine, and that was Abimelech, as is clear from Gen. 20. 2. Ch. 26. 1, 4. Ch. 34. 1. 1 Sam. 21. 11. and also from the Title of the 34th Psalm it appears that this was the Universal Name of the Kings of the Philistines. So Agag was the Common Title of all the Kings of the Amalekites, as may be inferred from Numb. 24. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 8. It is probable that Hiram was the Catholic Name of the Kings of Tyre: but that Pharaoh was so of all the Egyptian Kings of old is undeniably clear from Gen. 12. 15. which speaks of a Pharaoh in Abraham's time: from Gen. 39 1, etc. where we read of another of that Name in Ioseph's days. And in Exodus there is frequent mention of that Pharaoh that enslaved the Israelites and ordered all their Male-childrens to be drowned, and of another whose Heart was hardened, and who was drowned in the Red Sea. There was a Pharaoh in Solomon's time, 1 Kings 3. 1. and in Iosias', 2 Kings 23. 29. In Isaiah we read of a King of Egypt of this Name, Ch. 19 11. Ch. 30. 2, 3. So in jeremiah, Ch. 25. 19 Ch. 44. 30. Ch. 46. 17. and in Ezekiel very often. That this was the constant Title of the Egyptian Kings is attested by Suidas, Eusebius, and josephus: yea, if we may believe this 
† Antiqu. l. 8. c. 6.  last, Pharaoh in the Egyptian Tongue signifies a King. Which seems truly to be confirmed from that passage in Gen. 41. 44. I am Pharaoh, which is as much as to say, I am King, I am Supreme Ruler, I will not part with this Name, i. e. I will not lose my Royal Dignity and Power. And accordingly he retained this Name himself, and gave joseph another, as you read in the next Verse. It might well then be the General Name of their Kings, it signifying Royal Authority and Rule. But after the time of Alexander the Great, the Kings of Egypt were generally called Ptolomees: and after the renouncing of the Greek Emperor they were a long time called Caliphs': for the General of the Saracens, whom the Egyptians took for their King, was named Caliph: whence the succeeding Kings were denominated after his Name. To proceed in this Subject, Attalus was a Standing Title to all the Kings of Pergamus, though it is true some of them had a particular peculiar Name besides; whence that King of Pergamus, who was thought to be the Inventor of Parchment to write upon, is called Attalus by Aelian and St. jerom, but Eumenes by others. Antiochus was generally the Name of the Syrian Kings, and Mithridates of those of Pontus. All the Kings or Dynasts of Edessa in Syria had the Name of Abgarus. Herod was the Name common to all the Successors of Herod the first; as we learn from the Gospels and the Acts. 
* Communi nomine Candacae appellatae sunt. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29.  Candace gave the Denomination to all the Queens of Ethiopia, or of one part at least of that Country: Arsaces to all the Kings of Parthia, Silvius to those of the Alban, i. e. the Latin Kings of the Trojan Race. Chagan was anciently the common word to express all the the Kings of the Hunns. Caesar was the Title for all the Roman Emperors after julius Caesar. Cos●oe or Kosroes was the Appellation of the Kings of Persia heretofore, (after that of Artaxerxes) as Sophi of late: and Sultan is the distinguishing Title of the Turkish Empire: and Miramolin or Miramomolin of all the Princes of Mauritania. Thus briefly I have showed, that it was usual for all the Kings of a Country to have the same Name, for a very considerable time at least. The observing of which may be of some use to us in reading the Sacred History, when it refers to any of those Kings whom I first named, and in reading Profane Authors who mention any of the others.  
Lastly, I could observe concerning Places in Scripture, the same that I have concerning Persons, viz. that sometimes they have different Names, which we ought carefully to heed in reading this Holy Book. One eminent Mountain in Palestine and the adjacent Parts, hath several Denominations; it is called Zion, Psal. 2. 6. and frequently in other Books of the Old Testament. It is also named Moriah, 2 Chron. 3. 1. the same Mount where Moses saw the Burning Bush not consumed, and where Isaac was offered, and where the Temple afterwards was built. This Name was so celebrated, that from this the Land of Canaan is called the Land of Moriah, Gen. 22. 2. The same Mountain is named Hermon, as is evident from those express words, Deut. 4. 48. Mount Zion, which is Hermon. It is also called Sirion, Deut. 3. 9 which Name was given it by the Sidonians. And in the same place it hath the Name of Shenir, which was given it by the Amorites. This Multiplicity of Names may, I conceive, be grounded on this, that Zion or Hermon (or call it by any of the other Names) is, properly speaking, a long Ledg of several Hills that go through Palestine and a great part of Arabia. Some add Gilead and Seir, and Lebanon (the famous Alps of the Holy Land, upon the North and East part of it, noted for its snowy tops, its lofty Cedars and other Trees, and its fragrant Herbs and Plants.) Some, I say, add these to the foregoing ones, and rightly determine that they were but one continued Mountain with divers Names: as Mount Taurus (though far greater) is a ridg of Hills that hath several Names according to the different Parts of it. Hence Psal. 133. 3. and some other places of Scripture mention some of those Names before spoken of, as if they belonged to different Mountains: and the reason is, because though they are the same Mountain, yet those Names refer to the different parts of the same great ridg of Hills, and so are accounted as it were different Hills: and accordingly the great Mass of Dew which was in part distilled on Mount Hermon (one division of that great Mountain) did partly also fall on Mount Zion (a neighbouring part of the same Mountain:) which I take to be the true and genuine meaning of those words of the Psalmist, which have exercised the Brains of so many Interpreters, As the Dew of Hermon that descended (as it is according to the Hebrew; or as we translate it, As the Dew of Hermon, and as the Dew that descended) upon the Mountains of Zion: both which Translations are reconciled by this Exposition, and the Sense is rendered entire and perfect. The Dew which descended on both these places was the same, for some of it fell on this part of the whole Mountain, and some on that; so that successively Hermon and Zion were partakers of this Blessing. Part of that Fructifying Moisture which came down upon the one, soon after came down upon the other.  
In the Deserts of Arabia, the Mountain whence God gave the Law to Moses is called Sinai, Exod. 19 18. and in other places: yet in Deut. 4. 10. and elsewhere, frequently Horeb is the Name of the same Mountain. Though St. jerom is of a contrary Opinion, and thinks they are two distinct Mountains, or at least two ridges of one Mountain. The like may be said of Mount Nebo, the Arabian Parnassus, which had two Tops, Pisgah and Hor: and by these Names as well as by the other it was called, Numb. 20. 23, 25. Ch. 27. 12. Deut. 34. 1. and it was named also Mount Abarim, Deut. 32. 49. Numb. 27. 12. It may not be improbable that Aaron and Moses died on the same Mount, though they are represented under different Names. But it is most apparent that a double or treble Name is given to several other places: thus the Salt-Sea, Gen. 14. 3. Numb. 34. 3. the Sea of the Desert, Deut. 3. 19 and the Sea of the Plain, Deut. 4. 49. signify one and the same place, viz. the Sea of Sodom, which is called by others the Dead Sea, the Lake Asphaltites, which was caused by the Destruction of Sodom. The Sea or Lake of Chinnereth, Numb. 34. 11. of Genesareth, Luke 5. 1. of Tiberias, John 21. 1. of Galilee, John 6. 1. are but one Lake. Who doubts that Assyria, Chaldea, and Babylon are sometimes promiscuously used for the same Region, and that Mesopotamia; Charan, Padan-Aram are one Country? So Galilee and Decapolis are the same: so are Sichem and Sychar, Gen. 33. 18. John 4. 5. And the like is to be said of Egypt and Sihor, Isa. 23. 3. Thus Places have more Names than one in the Holy Writings: which we ought carefully to attend to, lest we run into Mistakes, as some have done by this Diversity of Names given to the same Place. And this Difference of Names might be observed in other Instances, which are frequent in Gentile Writers, as Sparta and Lacedaemon, Troy and Ilium, Thra●ia and Romania, etc.  
And this likewise is to be noted, that some Names of the same Place differ but a little, i. e. as to a Letter or two, and no more, as Haran, Gen. 12. 5. and Charran, Acts 7. 2. are the same: so are Sechem, Shechem, and Sychem, Gen. 33. 18. Josh. 20. 7. Acts 7. 16. The same is to be said of Shiloah, Isa. 8. 6. Siloah, Neh. 3. 15. Siloam, John 9 7. Luk. 13. 4. all three the same: as Kidron, 2 Sam. 15. 23. and Cedron, John 18. 1. are the same Brook. So Zarephath, 1 Kings 17. 9 and Sarepta, Luk. 4. 26. are the same Town: Megiddo, 2 Kings 9 27. and Megiddon, Zech. 12. 11. the same Valley: Zin, Numb. 13. 21. Deut. 32. 51. and Sin, Exod. 16. 1. Numb. 33. 12. the same Wilderness: (though some have thought these two latter words denote different places.) Concerning some things mentioned in Scripture we should distinguish between them, though they differ not much in Writing and Pronunciation, especially when they are of the same Species, as Sardine, Rev. 4. 3. Sardius, the same precious Stone, Rev. 21. 20. but Sardonix is a Stone different from that, Rev. 21. 20. Though some Names differ a little, yet they signify the same thing, as Sycamine, Luk. 17. 6. and Sycamore, Ch. 19 4. But these are small things, and in which there is no great danger if there should be any mistake, and therefore I will not entertain you any longer with these, but hasten to more important Matter. But having spoken so largely of this First Head, I will be brief in that which followeth.   

CHAP. X.  
There are Words in the Hebrew Text which have not only Different but Contrary Significations: which is another cause of some Difficulty in Scripture. This exemplified in several Hebrew Nouns, more especially Tsagnir, Mic. 5. 2. which signifies both little and great, and accordingly this place is reconciled with Matth. 2. 6. Likewise Hebrew Verbs bear a Contrary Sense, of which sundry Instances are given. More particularly, the true import of the Verb Barak, job 2. 9 is narrowly searched into, and the Author's particular Sense concerning that Text is propounded and defended. Some Greek words in the New Testament signify Contrary things. And the like Discrepancy is observed in some words in other Greek Authors, and in some among the Latins.  
I Proceed in the second place to observe, That there are words in the Hebrew Text which have not only Different but Contrary Significations, which cannot but render some parts of the Scripture difficult. That is, they will be so till we have throughly examined the words, and found out the peculiar Signification which they have in the Texts that are before us. Thus Shethum is rendered open, as in Numb. 24. 3. [the Man whose Eyes are open:] and yet this Hebrew word signifies in all other places of Scripture (where it is) shutting of the Eyes. Chesed denotes Beneficence, Goodness, Piety, and the height of them, and also Cruelty, Malice, and all Excess of Evil, and whatever is Reproachful and Ignominious in the Life of Man: thence 
* R. Levi, Mercerus, Cocceius.  some render those words Vechesed leummim chattah, Prov. 14. 34. The Piety of Nations is Sin, because whilst they worship Idols they think they serve God; and others understand the place according to our Translation, Sin is the Reproach of any People: which is much to be preferred before the other Version, because it exactly answers to the former Clause. The word Cherem is both that which is consecrated to God, and that which is Accursed and devoted to the Devil, as I have showed in another place. An impure Catamite, a Sodomite is called Kadesh, from Kadash, ●acer fuit: and Kedeshah, which is no other than Sanctificata, is taken for a Common Prostitute. The word Tsagnir is both little and great, and accordingly Mich. 5. 2. may be rendered either Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, thou art little, or art great among the thousands of Judah. The not attending to this, hath occasioned no small trouble among Expositors, whilst they labour to reconcile this Text with Mat. 2. 6. where it is quoted by the Jewish Doctors and Priests, and Bethlehem is said to be not the least. But the Learned Dr. Pocock▪ on the place saith, that he had it from a very Understanding Jew, that the Hebrew word Tsagnir signifies both little and great, and others that have good Skill in that Tongue assert the same. It is to be understood in this place in the latter Sense, and so the words ought to be rendered thus, Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, thou art great among the Thousands (or among the Princes) of Judah; for the Principalities were divided into Chiliads or Thousands, judg. 6. 15. 1 Sam. 10. 19 Thus the Prophet Micah and the Evangelist Matthew agree, for great and not the least are here the same. And certainly it is a far better way of reconciling them, than that which a 
* Sir Norton Knatchbull 's Annotations on St. Matthew.  Late Writer propounds, viz. That whereas we read it Tsagnir, it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 progredere, go forth: for (besides that this somewhat mars the Sense of the place) if we go this way to work, we may alter a great many places in the Old Testament, and in the New too, and substitute one word for another when we please, and so we shall lose a great part of the Bible in a short time: this therefore is not to be allowed of by any means. There are other Nouns of a Contrary Signification, as Terugnah, which is both a joyful Shout, Psal. 33. 3. and a Mournful Cry, Jer. 20. 16. Chesel is not only Inconstancy or Levity, but Constancy or Steadfastness and Confidence. And there is a very great Discrepancy, if not Contrariety in the renderings of the word Deshen, which is sometimes Ashes and sometimes Fatness. But if we be mindful of the Subject Matter spoken of, we can't miss of the true Sense.  
But the Verbs which bear a Contrary Sense, are most remarkable: thus Sakal is lapidare, lapidibus obruere, commonly: also elapidare, lapides amovere, Isa. 62. 10. Chasar is consecrari, Psal. 18. 26. and execrari, Prov. 25. 10. Salah is aestimare, Job 28. 16, 19 and spernere, conculcare, Psal. 119. 118. Shub is reducere, convertere; and avertere, rebellare: both Senses are common in Scripture. japhang is to be bright and shining: yet it may seem to be taken in a contrary Signification, in job 10. 22. according to Pagnin's Translation, tenebrescit sicut caligo, and the Vulgar Latin favours it. Tamam or tam, hath a contrary Sense, for it signifies to perfect or finish, as in Dan. 9 24. to finish the Vision: and also to consume, as in Ezek. 22. 15. I will consume thy Filthiness out of thee. Kadash, in the usual Import of it, is to sanctify, but it is used in a quite opposite Sense in Deut. 22. 9 lest the Fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled. So for other Verbs, it is common to find them in Contrary Meanings; as jarash, to possess or inherit, commonly in Scripture; and to dispossess or disinherit, to expel, reject and impoverish, Gen. 45. 11. and in other Places; both which contrary Senses occur together in josh. 23. 5. He shall expel them from before you, and ye shall possess their Land. Expelling and Possessing are the same Hebrew Verb; though in different Conjugations. So Chata in Kal is to sin, but in Piel to expiate or take away Sin. There is no other way to know the proper Rendring of these and other Words beforementioned, but by a diligent attending to the Scope and Design of the Texts where they are. And thus we shall perceive which of the Senses is designed, though sometimes this is done with some Difficulty. I will make choice of a Text to enlarge upon to this purpose. The Instances are very usual in Scripture.  
Barak signifies both to bless and to curse, and in some Places it may seem not very easy to tell which of these is intended, as in those Words of Iob's Wife, job 2. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Vulgar Latin renders benedic Deo, bless God. Arias Montanus and Munster follow this Version, and so doth the Learned and Pious Mr. Perkins, and accordingly he renders the Verse thus, Dost thou still retain thine Integrity? bless God, and die; and makes this to be the Sense of it, Thou being now sorely afflicted by God, and brought even to Death's Door, begin now at length to cast away thy Conceitedness of thy own Righteousness, acknowledge God's Hand upon thee for thy Sins, confess those Sins before him, pray for the Pardon of them, and so end thy Days. This was good Counsel, (saith this Worthy Person) although the applying of it was mixed with Mistake and Folly; and therefore job told his Wife, that she spoke like one of the foolish Women. But the Septuagint seem to take the Words in Another and Contrary Sense, and render [Barek Elohim] by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speak some Word, or say something against the Lord, (for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify so) which approacheth towards Our Translation, Curse God: As if Iob's Wife had said to her Husband, Thou hast no reason to speak well of God, thou hast been undeservedly tormented by him; thou hast been an upright and righteous Man, and yet none hath met with such Calamities and Plagues as thou hast done; therefore my Advice to thee is, that thou wouldst even curse and blaspheme God himself, and then make an end of thy miserable Life, by laying violent Hands on thyself. In this Sense the word Barak is thought generally to be taken in 1 Kings 21. 13. Naboth did blaspheme God, though even there the Greek Interpreters render it, he blessed God; unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the Word used by them) be meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which very 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suidas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesych.  Good Authors tell us is the Sense of the Word sometimes by an Antiphrasis. Thus as the 
† Jam. 3. 9  Apostle saith, with the same Tongue, with the same Mouth, so with the same Word we both bless and curse: for the same Word both in Hebrew and Greek is used sometimes for both. But it is my Opinion that the Word in the former Place need not be rendered either bless or curse, but that there is a middle Signification of it there. That we may apprehend this the better, we must know what the first and original Sense of the Verb Barak is, which I perceive few have enquired into. It appears from the best Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers that I have met with, that this Word primitively signifies to salute, or greet; in which abstract Sense it is used twice in 2 Kings 4. 29. If thou meet any Man, salute him not: and if any salute thee, answer him not again. The Hebrew Word which we translate salute, is Barak. So in Gen. 47. 7. 10. this Word is used to express Iacob's solemn Saluting of Pharaoh at his coming before him, and at his going out of his Presence: jacob saluted (we render it blessed) Pharaoh. But because Kneeling was a Posture of Salutation, Barak signifies also to kneel, or to salute one with bowing the Knee. And thence Berek a Knee, and thence some have imagined the word Abrek comes, which we read was proclaimed before joseph when he rid forth in State, signifying (as they think) that the People ought to salute him most humbly, and even to bow the Knee to him. This is certain that 
* Significat vel genu vel sermonem flectere ad aliquem. alloqui cum geniculatione. Forster. Heb. Dict.  Barak is a general Word for Saluting (whether at meeting or parting) either by Word or Gesture, and is equivalent with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And because at such times they generally used to bow the Knee, it hath that particular Signification; as in 2 Chron. 16. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the LXX. So in Dan. 6. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in Gen. 24. 11. the Kneeling down of Camels to take up their Burden is expressed by it. Yea, the word Barak is sometimes transferred from its signification of Civil Respect and Kneeling, and applied unto Religious Worship, as in 2 Chron. 6. 13. Solomon (when he prayed) kneeled upon his Knees, etc. And in Psal. 95. 6. Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. The Word is here made use of to denote bending the Knee in Divine Worship, and prostrating themselves before God. So that this word Barak in the Original Denotation of it answers to the word Nashak, which signifies to salute in a lowly and humble manner, to submit and do Obeisance: and more particularly Kissing is expressed by it, which was a Token of Homage and Subjection of old, 1 Sam. 10. 1. But from this first and simple Import of the Word another ariseth, which is this, viz. to take leave of one, because Salutations and Greetings at last end in this. Men part and go their way after a short saluting and accosting one another. Thus the Word is taken in 2 Sam. 14. 22. Joab ●ell to the Ground on his Face, and bowed himself, and thanked the King: Hebr. Jeberek, he took his leave of him; he made that Salutation which was becoming at his going out of his Presence. In which Notion it likewise answers to Nashak, which (besides its former Sense) signifies to take leave of, to bid adieu to one, as in Gen. 31. 28. therefore that Valedictory Salutation of Kissing was called Neshikah Parashah, osculum separationis, the Kiss at parting or taking their leave of one another. And then there is another derivative Sense of the Word, which flows both from this and the former meaning of it, and that is twofold; for Persons are wont at Saluting and taking Leave, to wish well or ill to one another, and to express these by good or evil Words; whence it is that Barak is either benè or malè precari, it imports either to bless or to curse. This, as I take it, is the true and exact Account of the Word: and so you see what is the primary and more restrained Acception of it, and what is the secondary and more general Sense of it. Now that which I offer is this, that the Word in that Place of job is to be understood chiefly in the first and most proper Denotations of it, i. e. as it signifies humbly to salute, to bow down and do Obeisance: or, as it signifies, to take one's leave. According to the former Acception of the Word Iob's Wife speaks thus to him, Do not continue to retain thine Integrity, or to hold fast thy Perfection, (as it is in the Original) Do not justify thyself before God, as if thou wert void of all Gild, but with humble Reverence bow thyself before the Lord, adore and worship the most High, and submit thyself to him, and acknowledge thy Meanness and Sinfulness: Do thus, and then thou mayst die with Peace and Comfort. In this only she might incur the Imputation of speaking foolishly, because she (like Iob's Friends afterwards) had wrong Apprehensions of this Good Man, and imagined that he justified himself, and was in his own Thoughts a Sinless Person. Or else this was the Worse Language of that Woman, Take now thy leave of God, and die, i. e. seeing thou art in this miserable Condition, smote with fore Boils from the Sole of thy Foot to the Crown of thy Head, (ver. 7.) think not of living, but rather desire to quit this World, and to be gone: Bid God adieu, take your Farewell of him, and only beg this of him, that you may die as soon as may be. Or, you may suppose this Woman's Language, or Meaning rather, to be much worse yet, even after this sort, Take your last Val● of Heaven, utterly renounce God, (as well as your Integrity) shake him off, and have nothing to do with him, since he deals so severely with you; abandon him for ever, and hasten out of the World. Though this be not so harsh as downright Cursing of God, yet this was indeed speaking like one of the foolish sottish Women, as he roundly told her, v. 10. The Style was something too rough to say, Curse God. She would not speak after that rate to her Pious Comfort; but she impiously counsels him to take his Leave of God and Religion, and to bid an eternal Farewell to both. In three other Places in this Book the Word is taken in this latter Sense, (for it is most probable that in this particular Book the Word is always used in the same Meaning) as in ch. 1. 5. It may be my Sons have as 'twere taken their leave of (i. e. tacitly renounced) God in their Hearts, in the midst of their Pleasures and Entertainments: it may be they have had an Aversion to God, they have in some measure departed from him: for it is not likely that Iob's Children openly blasphemed, or (strictly speaking) cursed God. So that part of the 11th Verse of this Chapter, and of the 5th of the next, which we translate, he will curse thee to thy Face, seems to be too harsh a Representation (even from the Mouth of the Devil) of that Holy Man's Carriage; for though he cursed the Day of his Birth, he never cursed and blasphemed the Almighty, and that to his Face, i. e. openly and audaciously: but he might be said in some Degree to have forsaken and abandoned God, and to have turned himself from him, by indulging too much to Impatience and Murmuring. And not only these Places in job, but that in 1 King's beforementioned, which we translate thus, Naboth blasphemed or cursed God and the King, may be understood in this Sense. He by certain Actions discovered (as was pretended) that he had forsaken God, and revolted from his Duty to the King. But I submit this to the Judgement of the Learned. Thus you see that Words of Different, much more of Contrary Significations, occasion some Difficulty in interpreting the Texts where they are found. There are many 
* See in the End of the Book.  Other Hebrew Words in Scripture which signify Contrary things; the Sense sometimes as well as the Letters, must be read backwards.  
Nor is the Greek wholly destitute of such Words, as in Tit. 1. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered either slow or quick Bellies, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both piger and celer. The Cretians, of whom this is spoken, might be said to be Slow Bellies, because they were given to Idleness and Gluttony; or they might be called Quick Bellies, because they were Greedy and Fierce Eaters. Other Greek Words (some of which occur in the New Testament) might be taken notice of, which have both a good and a bad Sense, and so come under this Head: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a remarkable Word, beginning with three Alpha's) is valdènoxius and innoxius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Inflammatio and Pituita, a cold Humour: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bears a good Sense in its Primitive Acception, and is no more than any Likeness or Image: but it also (and that most frequently) signifies such an Image or Representation to which is given Religious Worship. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were at first used to signify only Curiosity, but afterwads they were taken in a worse Sense by some Authors, and particularly by St. Luke, Acts 19 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to have more than another; but withal, to have more than one ought to have, to defraud and circumvent: yea, to defraud and injure by Adultery, as St. Chrysostom and Dr. Hammond observe on 1 Thess. 4. 6. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is an honest Word, was applied heretofore to a bad sort of Women, little better than Concubines; yea, Harlots, as we read in 
* In Epist. ad Philem. v. 2.  Theodoret and 
† Haeres. 78.  Epiphanius. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was abused, as St. 
‖ Epist. 22. ad Eustoch.  jerom complains. The same is commonly said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was a good Word at first, and signified a King, but afterwards a Tyrant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a Professor of Wisdom, and one that excelled in any useful Science; but at last it signified a mere Pretender to Art. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a wholesome Medicine, and a deadly Poison. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it is well known it hath an ill Sense, yet 
* John 2. 10.  sometimes (like the Hebrew 
† Gen. 43. 34.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is no more than ubertim expleri. So among the Latins, the same Word sometimes hath a Contrary Meaning: thus Expers is one that hath not Experience or Skill, and one that hath. Religio is taken for downright Superstition and Bigotry, as well as the Due Worship of God. Sacer, by an usual Antiphrasis, is made to signify that Person or Thing which is so far from being Holy, that it is most Profane and Desecrate, most Cursed and Detestable, most Pernicious and Destructive. So ignis sacer is reckoned among the most Dangerous sorts of Ulcers by 
‖ Lib. 5.  Celsus: it is also the Name of the Erysipelas, called by 
‖‖ Lib. 26. c. 11.  Pliny Zoster, and was thought to be extremely pernicious and fatal when it encompassed the Part. And the sacer ignis in the Close of Virgil's third Book of Georgics is interpreted to be the same by some Commentators; by others the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and called sacer, because of its Great Malignity. Villanus was once an honest Rustic, (as Budaeus observes) but now is a Name of Infamy. So Missa, the Mass, was an innocent Word at first, and signified no other than the Service of the Church, but afterwards it degenerated into a very bad one, and is appropriated to the Idolatrous Worship of the Church of Rome. But enough of this.   

CHAP. XI.  
Some Difficulties in Scripture arise from the Matter or Manner of things delivered, wherein prejudiced Minds fancy some Repugnancy or Contradiction. The Cavils against Gen. 4. 14. largely and fully answered. Numb. 14. 30. reconciled with Josh. 14. 1. ch. 22. 13. The seeming Repugnancy of 1 Sam. 16. 22, 23, to chap. 17. ver. 55. removed. The Geometrical Scruple about the brazen Laver, 2 Chron. 4. 2. dispelled. Another Objection concerning it founded on 1 Kings 7. 26. compared with 1 Chron. 4. 5. answered. The Contradiction which some fancy in 2 Chron. 14. 5. compared with 1 Kings 15. 14. taken away. A satisfactory Reply to the Cavil against Matth. 27. 9 The double Repugnancy conceived by some to be in Acts 7. 15. plainly solved. John 5. 31. considered with ch. 8. ver. 14. showed to be void of Contradiction. The same proved concerning our Saviour's Words in Matth. 10. 34. Heb. 9 4. is not contrary to 1 Kings 8. 9  
IN the third Place I will show, that not only from the Different and Contrary Significations of Words, but from Other Causes, viz. relating to the Matter itself, or the Manner of what is spoken of, or the Reference of one Text to another, or the Duration of Time, or some other Circumstances, the Style of Scripture becomes Dark and Perplexed. Here I will produce some particular Scripture-Difficulties which arise on these Accounts; and I will endeavour to resolve them. First, There seem to be in the very Matter and Manner of things delivered in Scripture (for I will promiscuously speak of them both) very great Absurdities, Repugnances, and Contradictions. There seem, I say, i. e. to prejudiced and vitiated Minds there appear to be such; but no Man of deliberate Thoughts and an honest Heart will look upon them as so. I will not regard them so much as to insist long upon them, but a few I will mention, that they and the rest may not be thought Insuperable Difficulties. I will begin with Gen. 4. 14. which I find alleged by some as a great Blemish in Scripture, It shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me. I begin, I say, with this Passage of Holy Writ, not because it is really Difficult, but because it is represented such by some ill-minded Men, who thereby think to invalidate the Truth of the Sacred History. Mr. Hobbes, and others of the same temper, have taken notice of such Passages as these in the Bible, and endeavour by the exposing of them to diminish the Authority of the Scriptures, and at the same time to shake the Credit of the whole Body of the Inspired Writings. For thus they vent their Cavils against that place, How could Cain say, that Every one who found him would slay him when there was nobody at that time in the World but his Father and Mother, and his Wife? Had the World been peopled, then indeed the guilty Man (if we may call him so) might have had occasion to fear that some body would seek to revenge the Death of Abel. But there could be no ground of Fear when the World was so empty as we read it was: wherefore these words of Cain contradict the plain History of Moses. When he saith, Every one that finds me, etc. it is implied that there were a great many at that time in the World, which disagrees with what the same History delivers, viz. That there were no more than Adam and his Wife, and their Son Cain and his Wife then extant. To which I answer,  
1. It is with too much Confidence averred by these Objectors, that there were but four Persons at that time in being. For this is a thing which they can never prove: and the reason is, because Adam might have more Children than Cain and his Wife, though they are not mentioned; and these Children might have Sons and daughters: So that it is not improbable that Mankind was then considerably increased. He knows nothing of the Style of Scripture who knows not this, that some things are supposed, others are touched upon only, and there are others that are fully set down, and sometimes repeated. I am now speaking of the first sort of things: we must necessarily suppose them to be done, though there be no mention of them at all. A great many things (and those very considerable) as the Creation of Angels, the Covenant entered into between God and our First Parents, the celebrating of the Seventh Day, the instituting of Sacrifices, and such like are omitted in the Book of Genesis. And when you observe that Moses in the six first Chapters of this Book (and those but brief ones) compriseth the History of the World from the Creation to the Flood, i. e. the Transactions of Sixteen hundred Years and upward, you cannot but acknowledge that a vast num●er of Passages which happened in that time are wholly left out. This in part we may gather from the Writings of the New Testament, where some particular things are mentioned that refer to the Affairs of the Old Testament, but we find them not named there. As Enoch's Prophecy concerning the Last Judgement is spoken of by St. jude, ver. 14. but there's not a word of it in that place of Genesis which speaks of him. The particular Persons that withstood Moses, viz. jannes' and jambres, are mentioned in 2 Tim. 3. 8. but their Names are not set down in Exodus, which was the proper place for them. The famous Contrast of the Good and Evil Angels about the Body of Moses, i. e. the burying of it, is recorded by St. jude, ver. 9 but there is not a word of it in Deut. 34. where there is particular mention of his burying, ver. 6. Whence it appears, that many things were done in those times concerning which Moses wrote (or Whosoever it was that made a Supplement to his Writings) which are not recorded. Nor are we to find fault with the Sacred History for this, for if it be part of the Work of an Historian (as one who was such acquaints us) 
* Dionys. Halicarn.  to know what things are to be committed to History, and what things are to be passed in silence, to know from whence to take his beginning, and how far he is to go, certainly Moses, who was skilled in all other Learning as well as that of the Egyptians, and who moreover was an Inspired Person, knew what belonged to this part of an Historian, inserted into the Pentateuch those things only which the Holy Spirit thought fit to be committed to writing, and the rest (which were exceeding numerous) were passed by▪ But though they were so, yet we have no reason wholly to disbelieve them, but where they are fairly intimated or supposed in the Sacred History, we ought to credit them as if they were particularly and expressly mentioned. Thus, in the present case, though 'tis not expressly recorded in the Fourth Chapter of Genesis, that there were any more Persons at that time on the Earth than those four, yet it is reasonable to think that there was a greater number, because we know that the History of Moses is very short and contracted, and is wont to leave out several considerable things, which we of ourselves may gather and infer from what is in express terms set down. There might then be, and it is most probable that there were more People in the world at that time than those whose Names we meet with. Moses gives us but two Genealogies, one of Cain, the other of Seth, but it is likely there were some other Descents, whereby Adam's Race was increased and multiplied. Wherefore notwithstanding the samll number of Persons named by this Writer, it is rational to believe that there were many more living on the Earth. We read presently after, ver. 17. that Cain built a City, which would employ a considerable number of Men; yea, though we suppose it to consist of some rude and slight Structures, and walled perhaps with Mud. This makes it probable that the number of Persons was greater than the Objectors imagine. Besides, Cain and his Wife there might be many other Sons and Daughters of Adam; and there might be many Sons of Abel, who this Murderer might justly fear would avenge their Father's Blood. Wherefore Cain had reason to say, Every one that finds me shall slay me.  
But, S●condly, Not granting but only supposing that there were th●n no more Persons in the World than Adam and Eve, and their ungracious Son Cain and his Wife, yet it is not to be wondered that he cried out, Every one that finds m●, etc. for this is to be thought of, that his Guilty Conscience was able to make more Men in the World than there were. This Vile Murderer might be afraid of his Life, although w● should grant that there were none in the World to take it away. Th● inward Fears and Horror's of his own Mind could present those things to his Imagination which really were not, and then 'tis not strange if he fancied every where Assassins and Murderers, as the just Recompe●sers of that innocent and righteous Blood which he had most barbarously spilt. It is weakly said by some in behalf of Cain, that he did not intend to kill his ●●other, although he purposed to do him some har●, because (a● 
* Dr. Brown's Vulgar Errors.  One represents their Opinion) he did not know whether there was any such thing as Killing or no: he was ignorant of Mortality, having never seen an Example of it. But though he had not seen such an Example, yet it doth not follow thence that he understood not what Death or Killing was: for than it may as well be said that Adam know not the meaning of God's Words, when he said to him, Thou shalt die 〈◊〉 Death, b●caus● at that time he had no Example of it before his Eyes. Besides, it is not to be questioned that ●h●re were Examples of it, though not in his own kind; for 'tis likely he daily beheld his Father Adam slaying of Sheep or other Animals, in order to the sacrificing of them, (for Sacrificing was the first Worship in the World) and he saw his Brother Abel do the like, as is expressly recorded in this Chapter, where 'tis said, that he offered the Firstlings of his Flock, and of the fat thereof, ver. 4. which he could not do without killing them f●rst. So that Cain had an Example of Killing and Death just before he practised the same on his Brother. yea, perhaps ●he one suggested to him the other, and being enraged with Anger against his Brother, he resolved that he should fall a Sacrifice to his Fury. And this Bloody Fact of his can admit of no Excuse, because it was the product of perfect Malice, as appears from that account which an Inspired Writer hath given of it, telling us, that Cain was of that wicked one, viz. Satan, and therefore slew his Brother, because his own Works were Evil, and his Brother's Righteous, 1 John 3. 12. The grand Aggravations of his Murder were, that he killed his Own Brother, and that he killed him because he was Good and Righteous. Now, we may reasonably think that this Guilty Wretch, when he came to entertain serious Thoughts, and to reflect on his Execrable Parricide, grew very Black and Melancholic. Though God reprieved this Malefactor as to his Life, yet he severely animadverted upon him by that Terror and distraction of Mind, by that Horror of Conscience which he inflicted on him. He had Pashur's Doom of Magor Missabib, i. e. Fear round about, Jer. 20. 3. but especially (as it follows there) he was a Terror to himself. That this hath been the Fate of Murderers is evident from such Instances as these: Herod, who commanded john Baptist to be beheaded, was afterwards miserably tormented with the thoughts of it, and fancied that Holy Man was risen from the Dead, and was alive again, Mark 6. 16. Tacitus tells us of the Emperor Tiberius, who was a Man of Blood, and under whom our Blessed Lord was crucified, that he was so troubled and haunted, 
* Tiberium non fortunae, non solitudines protegebant quin pectoris tormenta suasque ipse poenas fateretur. Annal. c. ●▪  that neither his great Fortunes, nor the Retirement which he sometimes made trial of, could silence those Tortures which he felt in his Breast. Nero, that Bloody Villain, after he had put to Death his Cousin German, his Mother, his Wife, his Tutor, knew not what to do with himself; 
† Sueton. in Nerone, cap. 34.  he was affrighted with Spectres, beaten by Furies, and burning Torches were flung at him, especially he was molested and plagued with the Apparition of his Mother's Ghost, whom he had inhumanely and unnaturally murdered. Theodorick the King of Goths, was constantly haunted after the Murder of Symmachus and Boethius, and so ended his days in that torment of Mind. Charles the Ninth of France (as a 
‖ Thuanu●.  faithful Historian acquaints us) after the Parisian Massacre was a continual Terror to himself, though he used all Arts to divert his Thoughts, and when he awakened in the Nights, laboured to chase away his Affrightments by Music, which he constantly called for. These are some of the Transcripts which History affords us of that First Murderer's inward Terrors and Disquietudes. Mine Iniquity, saith he, is greater than can be forgiven, ver. 13. (for so the words may be rendered:) the Gild of that Horrid Crime which I have committed is unpardonable, I utterly despair of the Divine Mercy. And this Despair was not only his Sin but his Punishment: (wherefore some read it, My Punishment is greater than I can bear.) So that he anticipated the Miseries of the Damned, (of whom he was the first of Humane Kind) and was in Hell while he was here on Earth. Now it was that Dreadful Mormo's and Phantoms possessed his restless Brain, and he increased his Terrors by Imagination. He was afraid of his own Father and Mother, and of his Female-self; and his disordered Fancy represented many more Persons to him: for a Troubled Conscience fears where no Fear is, it fears Men where there are none in being. Whence such Language as this is very accountable, Every one that finds me shall slay me. This is a satisfactory Answer, upon Supposal (for I proceed only on that here) that there were no more Men in the World at that time than are expressly mentioned in Genesis. A Disturbed Mind hath a Creating Power, and can make more Inhabitants on the Earth than God hath made.  
Thirdly, Supposing still that the Number of Men was not greater than it is represented in the Sacred Records, yet this Speech of Cain is very accountable, for we may understand it of People that were not yet born, but to come afterwards. Observe therefore that 'tis spoken in the Future Tense, It shall come to pass, that every on● that findeth me shall slay me. Cain being reprieved, and suffered to wander up and down, and consequently to live some Years afterwards, it may be rational to think that he refers in these words to what should be in those days. When Mankind shall be propagated, and the World be peopled, th●n I shall go in fear of my Life, than every one that finds me will slay me. And unto this the nex● words may have relation, Whosoever slayeth C●in, Vengeance shall be taken of him sevenfold: And moreover, The Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him, ver. 15. Lest in aftertimes any one hearing of this bloody and cursed Fact of his should be excited to revenge it on his own Head, there was a Mark set upon this Vile Wanderer, to distinguish him from the rest of Mankind: but what it was we know not, though the Jews have many idle and foolish Conjectures about it. And a Penalty was threatened to be inflicted on the Person who should dare to kill him: he was to be punished sevenfold, ver. 15. or in the seventh Generation, as Munster and some others interpret it: which implies, that Cain was to be a Long-liver, to continue seven, i e. many Generations. So that we may look on these Words as having reference to the Times that were to come, and not to the present Season wherein they were spoke. It shall come to pass, saith he, that in future time, when the World is increased, every one who finds me shall be greedy to take away my Life, because I most inhumanely bereft my Brother of his. Thus there is no Contradiction or Inconsistency in the words, when 'tis said, Every one that findeth me, etc.  
But in the fourth and last place, it might be answered, (if what I have said already be not satisfactory) that this word Kol, every one, hath not reference to Men but to Beasts. Every one is every Wild Beast. He was afraid, saith 
* Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3.  josephus, lest while he wandered up and down in the Earth, (which was part of his Punishment) he should fall among some Beasts, and be slain by them. God bids him not fear any such thing, for he would set such a Mark on him, that the very Irrational Animals should be capable of knowing and discerning it. Every one is not necessarily to be understood of Men or Women, but may be meant of the Brutes which were then upon Earth, and might be Executioners of the Divine Vengeance on him who was so savage and brutish. It will be very hard for any Man to disprove this, and therefore it is sufficient to take off and null the Cavil of the Objectors. But, I confess, I rather think it is spoken not of this sort of Creatures, but of those Inhabitants of the Earth that were Intelligent. Thus you see there is no Absurdity or Inconsistency in those words which Cain uttered, and which are set down by the Sacred Historian, whether you understand them of the then instant time, or of that which was afterwards. Some Men of Profane and Atheistical Spirits, and who have studied to impair the Truth and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly of Moses' Writings, have exposed this Place as disagreeing with the rest of the Sacred Story concerning the first Rise and Propagation of the World. But this is a very shallow and vain Attempt, and grounded chiefly on Prejudice and Illwill against the Inspired Volume of Scripture. I have made it clear, that there is no Absurdity, or any thing that looks like it, in the words abovementioned: and I defy that Man who pretends to give any Satisfactory Answer to the Particulars which I have offered in defence of them.  
Again, 'tis said, That none save Caleb and Joshua should come into the Land of Canaan, Numb. 14. 30. and yet we read that Eleazar and others entered into that Land, jos. 14. 1. Chap. 22. 13. This is objected by some as a Passage in Scripture derogatory to the Truth of it. But if we will read the Holy Book with the same Candour and Ingenuity wherewith we read other Authors, we shall not be offended at this, or the like Passages. For nothing is more common in the most serious and considerate Writers, than to speak things by way of Restriction and Limitation, (as those words are spoken) and yet to leave them to be understood with some Latitude, which shall afterwards be expressed and explained when they speak of the same Matter. So here we read that none but Caleb and joshua entered into the Land of Promise, this being spoken of the Chief Leaders that had that Privilege and Honour; but then, if we consult other places where this thing is more particularly related, we shall find that a Larger meaning was not excluded. We cannot think that the Tribe of Levi were denied entrance into that blessed Land, because 'tis evident from the History, that they murmured not, and 'tis as evident that 'twas threatened to the Murmurers only, that they should not see the Land which God swore unto their Fathers, Numb. 14. 22, 23. therefore Eleazar and Phineas being Priests, are excepted. Again, it cannot be meant of those that at that time were gone to spy the Land of Canaan, for they were none of the Murmurers, and therefore that Threatening before cited doth not reach them, and consequently those words are consistent with what we read in other places relating to this matter.  
But That in 1 Sam. 16. 22, 23. is cried out against as an unanswerable Repugnancy to Chap. 17. 55. for in the former we are told, that David came to Court, and stood before King Saul, i. e. waited continually upon him, and played upon the Hart before him▪ and was greatly beloved of him, and became his Aymour-bearer: and yet in the latter we read that Saul did not know David▪ but asked who he was, Whose Son is this Youth? These seem to be very repugnant to one another, but there is really no such thing: all is clear and obvious▪ for in Chap. 17. 15. it is said, David went, and returned from Saul, to feed his Father's Sheep at Bethlehem. He stayed not long at Court, either because he liked not that manner of Life, or because Saul was weary of him. David then having been absent from Saul a considerable time, and following a Country-Life, and now appearing perhaps in his Shepherd's Weeds, it is no wonder that Saul did not well know him. This, I think is sufficient of itself, and clears the Text of all Contradiction: though I know there are other Solutions used by the Learned, as that of our English Rabbi, Saul (saith he) asked whose Son David was, not that he was ignorant who he was; but he only enquired who that was that had such a Son. The question is not of David's Person, but Parentage. So Lightfoot.  
Others are more Curious in their Objections, as thus, Whereas the Diameter in respect of the Circumference, is as seven to two and twenty, this is not observed in 2 Chron. 4. 2. speaking of the brazen Laver, and by consequence the Geometry of Scripture is faulty. In answer to these men who are such Well-willers to the Mathematics, I say first, That the Proportion of a Diameter to its Circle is not exactly as seven to two and twenty: therefore these Gentlemen are not exact themselves. Secondly, I say this, that the Scripture oftentimes speaks after the Vulgar manner, (as I have showed elsewhere) and it is likely it doth so here, and then we must not expect Accuracy of Words or Things. The Bible was not calculated for them only that can square a Circle, or that understand all the Mysteries of Algebra. Thirdly, If this doth not satisfy, I answer, that the Circumference of the brazen Sea was not exactly Round, but it may be towards an Oval Figure, which makes some alteration as to the Proportion of the Diameter. It was ten Cubits from brim to brim, and a Line of thirty Cubits did compass it round about, saith the Text: but if it had been quite orbicular, the Circumference must have been one and thirty Cubits. Or, perhaps in this place (as in several others) a round Number is expressed, and the remainder being so small and inconsiderable is omitted.  
But further 'tis Objected, that this Molten Sea or Laver is said to contain 2000 Baths, 1 Kings 7. 26. but in 1 Chron. 4. 5. we read that it received and held 3000 Baths; therefore some infer, that one of these places is faulty, and aught to be corrected. I answer, there is no need of it; because both these are consistent. The Laver was of that vast dimension, that it could hold 3000 Baths of Water, but it generally and usually contained but 2000 In a Synagogue of the Jews at Amsterdam, there is one of these Lavers, and thence we may solve the seeming difficulty: they fill it up to the Neck, but not higher: but if they would fill it higher, it would contain much more. The Neck is large and of another figure, and is capable of receiving a third part more.  
Another Place which they allege, cannot, they will tell you, be answered any of these ways, for it plainly Contradicts another place of Scripture It is said of Asa, 2 Chron. 14. 5. he took away the high Places; but in 1 Kings 15. 14. it is expressly recorded that the high Places were not removed by him. I answer first, there were two sorts of high Places, namely some where they worshipped Idols and False Gods, others where they worshipped the True God. The former were taken away, as is intimated to us when 'tis said, he took away the high Places and Images, i. e. the high Places where those Images were adored: but the latter were not taken away, the Reformation which he had set on foot had not gone so far. Besides, 'tis observable that he took away the high Places out of all the Cities of Judah; which signifies to us that he removed them out of all the Chief Places of his Kingdom, though he had not time to effect it in some other less considerable places; and so the meaning of those words [the high Places were not removed] may have reference only to these latter, and show that he had not expelled Idolatry out of every part of the Kingdom. The short is, this Good King took away very many, he removed most of the high Places, but not all. Where now is the Contradiction?  
But in the New Testament perhaps they will b● more successful. They are pleased to make or find there a great number of contrarieties, as in Mat. 27. 9 this Evangelist quotes jeremiah the Prophet, yet it was not jeremiah but Zechary that spoke the words which are there quoted. Some have answered this by saying, here is a Mistake of the Transcribers, they have writ jeremiah instead of Zechariah. But this is not to be allowed, seeing there is no need of flying to such a sorry Refuge as this. A Learned 
* Sir Norton K●atchbull on Mat. 27. 9  Critic of our own, tells us, that it is an oversight in the Evangelist, it is a slip of his Memory; but this is much worse than the former: and if we should once admit any such thing, the Truth and Authority of the Bible (as I have showed in a Former Discourse) are endangered. But one of these three Answers may remove the difficulty. 1. Grotius on the place salves it thus; many of the Old Prophet's Sayings were not written down, but preserved in Memory, and delivered down to those that came afterwards, of which he gives some Instances: so that it is probable Zechary makes use of one of these Sayings and Oracles of Ier●my: but when our Saviour quotes this Passage, he mentions the first Author of it, viz. the Prophet jeremy. The short is, though the words are in Zechary, yet he had them from jeremy, that is, there was a Tradition, it is likely, that they were his. Which is confirmed by that Saying of the Jews, that the Spirit of the Prophet Jeremy rested on Zechary. For this reason, those words of Zechary may be said to be spoken by Jeremy the Prophet. 2. Those words are jointly to be found in jeremy ad Zechary: but the former speaks only of buying the Field, jer. 32. 9 the latter makes mention of the Price, Zech. 11. 12. But neither are these the very words which are in Zechary's Prophecy, but are recited with some considerable alteration (as is not unusual in Scripture, as you shall hear afterwards.) If then the Substance of the words be taken out of both the Prophets, the Evangelist might quote one of them only without any Error and Mistake, and particularly jeremy might be named as the more known and eminent Prophet. 3. Dr. Lightfoot reconciles it another way, asserting, that there is no Mistake of Transcribers here, but that jeremy was the Name first used in this place by St. Matthew, and yet Zecharias is not excluded, but intended. This he makes good from the ordering and ranging of the Books of Scripture in use among the Jews, in which this Learned Author was well skilled. Ieremia● had the first Place among the Prophets, and he is mentioned above all the rest, because he stood first in the Volume of the Prophets: Therefore when St. Matthew produced a Text of Zechary under the name of jeremy, he citys the Words out of the Volume of the Prophets under his Name, who stood first in that Volume, that is the Prophet jeremiah. Any of these Answers may satisfy a Man whose Mind is not tainted with Prejudice against the Sacred Writings.  
Those Words of St. Stephen, Acts 7. 15. jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our Fathers, and were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the Sepulchre that Abraham bought for a Sum of Money of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, seem to have a double Repugnancy in them to what is recorded in the History of Moses; for first we read there, that not jacob but joseph was carried to Sichem: And secondly that Abraham bought the Sepulchre not of the sons of Emmor, but of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. 23. 17. ch. 49. 30. This latter is the greater Difficulty, and seems to be most inextricable, because 'tis so positively expressed, that Abraham purchased the Field of Ephron the Son of Zoar, and that jacob bought the Field of the Children of Emmor, Gen. 32. 19 josh. 24. 32. How therefore can it be said in the Acts, that Abraham bought the Field for a Sepulchre of the Children of Emmor? Grotius takes away this Repugnancy, by bidding us write Ephron for Emmor: but this way of answering the Scripture-Difficulties is not to be tolerated, as I have suggested already on the like occasion. Besides, this Alteration will not be sufficient to take away the Difficulty, because Ephron was not the Father of Sichem, which is here added. A late Sagacious Critic tells us, that those of whom St. Stephen here speaks, viz. the Patriarches, were part of them buried in Sichem, and part of them in the Field that was Ephron's. They were carried over into Sichem, i. e. saith he, our Fathers, not jacob, were carried thither. And the Sense of the next Words he thinks he salves by a Parenthesis thus, [and laid in the Sepulchre (which Abraham had bought for a Sum of Money) of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem.] So that this Place doth not say, the Fathers were laid in the Sepulchre which was bought by Abraham of the Sons of Emmor; no, for that contradicts the Sacred History, which assures us, that he bought it of Ephron the Hittite, but only they were laid in the Sepulchre of the Sons of Emmor. So Sir Norton Knatchbull. This doth in part satisfy the Scruple, but in my Judgement the best and shortest Solution of it is that which I have before suggested, and abundantly proved, that 'tis usual for Persons in Scripture to have two Names. So here, Abraham bought a Field for a Burial-place of Ephron the Son of Zohar, Gen. 23. 8, 9 and yet he bought it of the Son 〈◊〉 Sons of Emmor; for this Zohar and Emmor were the same Man, only with two different Names which he was called by, as was very common among the Hebrews. This is a plain and easy resolving of the Doubt. And if there seems to be any Repugnancy as to the Places of Burial, Sichem and Hebron, I offer this, that the Bodies of the Patriarches might be translated from the first Place, where they were deposited, to another, i. e. they might be entombed at Sichem the Sepulchre of the Sons of Emmor, and afterwards be carried to Hebron, and laid in a Sepulchre there. If we admit of this, than Moses' History concerning their Burial might refer to one Place, and St. Stephen's to another.  
Those Places also may seem to be Contradictory, If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, John 5. 31. and though I bear Record of myself, yet my Record is true, ch. 8. 14. But the Resolution is easy, Christ's Testimony concerning himself was not true, i. e. valid in the Opinion of the Cavilling Jews to whom he spoke, because their Law required two Witnesses: but his Testimony concerning himself was true, was authentic and valid, because he was an Extraordinary Person, even God Himself, and because likewise his Testimony concurred with that of his Father, and so there was a Double Witness. Thus he explains himself in john 8. 16. My judgement is true, for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. And again, ver. 18. I am one that bear witness of myself: and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Therefore it is plain that Christ doth not absolutely exclude his own Testimony concerning himself, and consequently the Texts above alleged do not oppose one another. This also may be referred to what we observed in the beginning of this Discourse, viz. a Negative is often put for a Comparative.  
And that of our Saviour, Think not that I am come to send Peace upon Earth, I came not to send Peace, but a Sword, Matth. 10. 34. may seem to be repugnant to other Texts of Scripture which represent Christ as a Man of Peace. But this ariseth from our misunderstanding his Words: his Meaning is, not that he directly intended, or primarily designed a Sword or Fire, (as 
* Luke 12. 49.  another Evangelist expresses it) i. e. Persecution and Division. But his Words are to be understood as those in john 9 39 I came into this World for judgement, i. e, Occasionally and by Accident his Coming would prove to be for Condemnation. But this was not his Design, as he saith, God sent not ●is Son into the World to condemn the World, John 3. 17. And again, I came not to judge the World, John 12. 47. You hear what our Saviour saith, he came for judgement, and he came not for judgement. In such a different Sense he came to send a Sword, and ●e came not to send a Sword: that is, it is Accidental, and not by Design that Slaughter and Contentions happen by Christ's Coming. These are not the natural Effect and Consequence of his Doctrine, and of Christianity itself, but they proceed from the corrupt Nature and evil Dispositions of Men, who will not entertain so harmless and innocent an Institution, but are resolved to oppose it. The Sword which Christ is here said to send, is managed and wielded by the Hands of Irreligious and Profane Men: the Fire is blown up and kindled by the Breath of Anger and Passion, the Fuel of it is our own wicked Nature, inordinate Lusts, and corrupt Manners. In a word, the Doctrine of Christ meeting with the Vices of Men, becomes an occasion of Quarrels, Divisions, Bloodshed and Persecution.  
When Christ sent forth his Apostles, he forbade them to provide Staves, Matth. 10. 10. yet in Mark 6. 8. he permits them to take these for their Journey. But this seeming Inconsistency is removed by remembering that there is a Necessary Staff, a Staff to support them in their Travels, and there is an Offensive Staff to encounter the Enemy with. The latter was not allowed them, because they were not to use any Violence, especially at this time, when he sent them forth. So in the foresaid Place of St. Mat●●ew, Christ forbids them the wearing of Shoes, yet in that of St. Mark he permits them Sandals. Some sort of Fence to their Feet they were not denied, but they must not be ●areful for the better sort of it; nay, they must not be solicitous about any, it becomes them not to be thoughtful for any kind of Provision; that is the plain Meaning of our Saviour's Words. But when he bed's them buy Swords, Luke 22. 36. which may seem to be contrary to Ma●t●. 26. 52. it is (as I have showed) an Ironical way of Speaking, and so there is no Repugnancy.  
That of the Apostle, He●. 9 4. is reckoned by some as a gross Mistake; for speaking of the A●k of the Convenant, he tells us, that there were in it the Golden Pot that ●ad Manna, and Aaron 's Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant: and yet we read that there was nothing in the Ark save the two Tables of Ston●, I Kings 8. 9 To which Theophylact, upon the Place, answers, that though there was at first nothing in the Ark but the two Tables, yet it may be afterwards the Pot of Manna and Aaron's Rod were put into it; and this perhaps the Apostle had by Tradition from the Jews, saith he. But Grotius tells us, that it was the Opinion of the Old Rabins, (in which he also acquiesces) that the Manna and the Rod were in the Ark in Moses' Days; but afterwards, lest they should be mouldy and putrify, they were taken out, and deposited in some subterraneous Vaults. But first thi● disagrees with the former Solution, and yet the Jewish Doctors are quoted for both. Again, I ask, were the Rabins sure that these Holy Relics were kept from moulding in those low Cells or Receptacles of the Earth? otherwise 'twas in vain to take them out of their old Place, and lodge them here. Therefore I look upon this as a mere Invention of the Rabinick Tribe, as 'tis well known they abound with such. Besides, we learn from the forecited Text in the Kings, that these Sacred things were not in the Ark, even in Solomon's time; and if they were not there then at all, it is not likely the Apostle would have said, Wherein (i. e. in the Ark) was the Golden Pot of Manna, and Aaron 's Rod; for who can think that he refers to some after-Practice of the Jews, and not to what is so plainly recorded to have been at that time? therefore I look upon these Answers as groundless. Another is wont to be given, and it is this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which doth fully assoil the Difficulty, if you can be persuaded that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath reference to a Word so far off, when there is another nearer to it, to which it may well agree. The Consideration of this made 
* Commentar. in Pentat●uch.  Drusius, who once rested in the foresaid Solution, to quit it afterwards, and to find out another, viz. that ● which is rendered by in, signifies here add, prope or juxta: so the meaning is, that near the Ark stood the Pot of Manna: But he checks himself for this afterwards, apprehending it to be forced and strained. Wherefore, to avoid all these Inconveniencies, I reconcile that Place in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with the former one in the Kings, thus, The Ark is taken strictly in that former Place, but largely in the latter one. In the first Sense, that is, as it signifies the Principal Part or Division of the Ark, it had nothing in it but the Tables, for the Chief Apartment was designed for these, and therefore 'tis observable that the Ark hath its Name from them, and is called the Ark of the Covenant; by which which is meant the Two Tables, as you'll see in 1 Kings 8 21. But as the Ark is taken largely, that is, as it signifies the Whole Body of the Ark, and all its Receptacles and Boxes, it contained in it other things besides the Tables, viz. the Pot of Manna, and Aaron's Rod. This I propound as a plain and easy Solution of the two forecited Texts. The Manna and the Rod were in the Ark, and they were not in it, viz. in different Respects: they were in it, if you understand by it the Whole Sacred Chest; but they were not in it, if you mean by it the Chief and Eminent Part of it, which oftentimes gave a Denomination to the Whole.   

CHAP. XII.  
Answers to Objections against the Arithmetic of Scripture, as Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten, compared with Acts 7. 14. where they are said to be threescore and fifteen Souls. Numb. 25. 9 saith, that those that died of the Plague were twenty and four thousand: but we read in 1 Cor. 10. 8. that there fell in one Day three and twenty thousand. David is his Father's eighth Son, 1 Sam. 16. 10. yet he is reckoned the seventh Son, 1 Chron. 2. 15. Other Numerical Difficulties in 2 Sam. 24. 9 1 Chron. 21. 15. and in 1 Kings 4. 26. 2 Chron. 9 25. cleared. A Resolution of several Geographical Scruples, as about the Place of Abraham's Nativity, Gen. 11. 28. ch. 24. 10. Joseph was sold to the Ismaelites, Gen. 37. 28. yet in the same Verse, and afterwards (ver. 36.) 'tis said, he was sold to the Midianites. Moses' Wife is called an Ethiopian, Numb. 12. 1. though she was of the Land of Midian, Exod. 2. 15, 16. Sh● that is called a Woman of Candan, Matth. 15. 22. is said to be a Syrophoenician, Mark 7. 26. The Chorography of the Scripture is sometimes different (i. e. it seems to be so) from that in Profane Authors, because several Places mentioned in Holy Writ have not the same Names which they are known by in other Writers. Whether the Queen of Sheba came from Arabia or Ethiopia is uncertain. Ophir is unknown to us: So is Ararat: But Tarshish is so named from Tarsus, a Noted Town on the Mediterranean. How East and West in Ezekiel are to be understood. Different Meanings in Scripture arise from the Relation which certain Words have in Texts to the adjoining Chapters and Verses. Some Instances of this largely prosecuted.  
BUT a great Cry there is that the Scripture is defective, or in plain Terms false in its Arithmetic: and here many Places are mustered up, as That in Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of Jacob which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. And again, Deut. 10. 22. they are said to be threescore and ten Persons: so many they were, reckoning jacob and joseph into the Number. But how doth this agree with St. Stephen's Account in Acts 7. 14. Joseph s●nt and called his Father Jacob to him, and all his Kindred, threescore and fifteen Souls? Here is an Addition of five to the former Number. But the Agreement of these Texts is not difficult, because we may say that Moses only reckons Iacob's Children and grandchildren, and not his Daughters in Law, the Wives of Iacob's Sons, which in all are seventy five. Or it may be said that St. Stephen reckons up how great the Number of Iacob's Family was before he came into Egypt, and so takes in Iacob's Wives and Iudab's Sons, although then dead: Or thus, that he reckons some into the Number who were begot before they came into Egypt, but born after their coming thither. There might be such a Tradition as this among the Jews, and Stephen here makes use of it. Any of these Answers is satisfactory in a Matter of this nature. But by no means must we approve of Grotius' shift, viz. that it was the Fault of the Transcriber; he inserted five more than he should have done.  
Again, some ask what Agreement there is between those two Places, viz. Numb. 25. 9 Those that died in the Plague were twenty and four thousand; and 1 Cor. 10. 8. (which speaks of the same thing) There fell in one Day three and twenty thousand. Here is a Thousand short of the former Account: But if you look into the Context, you'll soon reconcile these two different Numbers, by taking notice that there were two different Judgements or Plagues upon the People at that time. The Apostle numbers those only that were killed with the Plague from Heaven, but Moses reckons those also who were killed with the Sword, and hung up by the Levites, ver. 4, 5. Or, I conceive, the Difference between the Numbers may lie in this, that St. Paul speaks only of what was done in one Day: the Emphasis may be in those Words; and so here is not excluded the other thousand which fell at another time. Some are dissatisfied because they read in 1 Sam. 16. 10. that David was his Father's eighth Son: and again in 1 Sam. 17. 14. they find that he is called the youngest Son of eight: and yet in 1 Chron. 2. 15. he is reckoned the seventh Son. But the Answer is short and plain, namely, that in this latter Place, where there is a particular Enumeration of I●sse's Sons, one of them is omitted, and it concerns us not to know why. Only we know that s●ch Omissions are not unusual in Scripture.  
Another Numerical Difficulty is in 2 Sam. 24. 9 where the Sum of the Number of the People which Ioa● gave up, is said to be ●ight h●●dred thousa●d, viz. in Israel, and five ●undred thousand in 〈◊〉, in all thirteen hundred thousand fight Men: but look into the Account in 1 Chron. 21. 5. and you will find a vast Difference between it and the former. But why should this seem strange, ●●●ing there might be several Reasons why these Sums vary? I will mention one. joab had not finished his numbering of Israel, but left off, because the Anger of the Lord was kindled ●gainst Israel, and so brought David the Number only which is mentioned in Samuel. 
* A●tiqu. l. 7. c. 10.  josephus is more particular, and saith, that joab left out the Tribe of Benjamin, and the Tribe of Levi, which two he had not at that time reckoned: for David in the mean time (when this Number was taking) repented of what he did, and called back joab before he had finished the Sum: But the Captains who were ●et about this Work in the remoter Parts, numbered thre● hundred thousand besides, which being put to the eight hundred thousand in Israel, make up exactly the Number in the Chronicles: and the same may b● said of judab. T●at Place likewise is objected, Solomon had four thousand Stalls for Horses, 2 Chron▪ 9 25. whereas we are told that he had forty thousand, 1 Kings 4. 26. If we distinguish between Stalls and Stables, the Difficulty ceaseth; and w● have reason to do so, because there is a Diffe●enc● in the 
† Ur●●●h: Urajoth.  Hebrew Words used in these Places. latter signifies distinct Stalls for Horses, where they stood asunder by themselves, one single Horse in a Stall. But the former signifies Stables or Stalls, wherein ten Horses were placed: therefore there is a Iod, which is a Note of the number ten, inserted into this Word, to distinguish it from the other. There were half a score Horses in every one of these Stables, and so they amount to forty thousand. Abarbanel and some other Hebrew Doctors determine thus, that there were forty thousand Horses in four thousand Stables. Or if it were the very same Word in the Hebrew, yet it might be differently taken, and signify Stalls in one Place, and Stables in another, and so the Controversy is ended, i. e. every Stable or greater Place for Horses contained in it ten thousand distinct Stalls. We may say there were four thousand Great Stables which contained forty thousand Lesser ones. Thus far in answer to those that charge the Scripture with want of Truth as to Numbers.  
Others complain that it is erroneous and false in its Geography, that is, as to the Places and Countries that are mentioned in it. Thus we find that Ur of the Chaldees is called the Land of Haran, and consequently of Abraham's Nativity, Gen. 11. 28. And in Gen. 15. 7. God reminded him that he brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees: therefore that was the Country which he first dwelled in. But if we consult Gen. 24. 10. we shall see that Mesopotamia was Abraham's native Country: and in jos. 24. 2, 3. we read that he dwelled on the other side of the Flood, i. e. of Euphrates, (which is frequently called the Flood, by way of Eminency, in Scripture) and this parted Canaan, where Abraham afterwards dwelled, from Mesopotamia in Syria. This is the River which Abraham passed over, Gen. 31. 21. when he came into Canaan out of his own Country, and from which passing over he had his Name, as is thought by many of the Learned. So that when 'tis said he dwelled on the other side of the Flood, it appears thence that he came out of Mesopotamia, which was divided from Canaan by that Flood. But how are these two consistent, viz. that he was a Chaldean and a Mesopotamian, i. e. a Syrian, when these have reference to two distinct Countries, Chaldea and Syria? This hath puzzled Jews and Christians: But the Answer which most of them acquiesce in is this, that Mesopotamia (Aram Naharaim, (as 'tis called in the forementioned Place in Genesis, and in judg. 3. 8.) Syria fluviorum, because situated between two Rivers, Euphrates and Tigris, and called by the Ancient Latins Mediamna, which answers exactly to the Greek Word) is taken in Genesis and other Places in a large Sense, and comprehends Chaldea. So the Arabian Geographers also refer C●alde● to Mesopotamia, saith 
* Not. in Act.  Ludovicus de Dieu. And they might very well do so, for 
† Mesopotamia tota Assyriorum f●it, etc. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 6.  Pliny comprehends all Assyria under Mesopotamia: and in another Place tells us, that the 
‖ Reliqua pars Mesopotamiae Assyriaeque ●●bylonia appellata est.  whole Country of Mesopotamia belonged to the Assyrians, and in general speaking was part of Babylon. And truly this is no unusual thing to take the Names of Places sometimes in a stricter, sometimes i● a more lax Sense. Wherefore Mesopotamia in the general and large way of speaking (and 'tis likely in the Estimation of the Hebrews) took in some other Places which were not within the Rivers of Euphrates and Tigris. This is a true Answer, and a very good one: But I rather think this to be the plainest Solution of the Difficulty, viz. that Mesopotamia, as distinct from Chaldea, was Abraham's native Soil, and that Vr was a City or Town in that Country, (thus 
* Lib. 25.  Ammianus reckons it there, and not in Chaldea) and that this very City was the Birth-place of Abraham: and yet this Vr is said to be of the Chaldees, because it was possessed by the Chaldeans at that time. Persons have thought it was a part of Chaldea, and properly belonged to it, because they read it to be of the Chaldees: but this is a Mistake, for the true Import of this Addition to the Word is only this, that this part of Mesopotamia, as well as the rest of it, was under the Jurisdiction and Power of the Chaldeans, and was inhabited by them: as Hebron is called the Land of the Hebrews, Gen. 40. 15. because the Hebrews dwelled there. Besides, I might add, that this Place was defiled with the Idolatry of the Chaldeans, and therefore for that reason also is called Vr of the Chaldees. And from what hath ●een said, we may have a right understanding of those Words in Acts 7. 2, etc. The God of Glory appeared unto our Father Abraham▪ when he was in Mesopotami●, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy Country:— then came he out of the Land of the Chaldeans. It is plain that Mesopotamia and the Land of the Chaldeans (in a large Sense) are the same, which is according to what we find in the Old Testament, and particularly in the Places beforementioned: Yet Mesopotamia and Chaldea (strictly speaking) were not the same: but the former was under the Power of the Chaldean Kings, and for that reason was rightly called the Land of the Chaldeans. So that Grotius needed not to have go●● about to reconcile this Text, by telling us, th●t St. Luke's Memory failed him as to the exact De●ignation of the Place: which is as much a●●o say, that this Inspired Writer was mistaken, and in ● palpable Error; and that is as much as to say, 〈◊〉 was not Inspired; and so he contradicts himself, as well as defames the Holy Writings.  
Another Geographical Scruple arises from G●n. 37. 28. where we read that joseph was sold to the Ismaelites; and in the very same Verse, and afterwards, (ver. 36.) we are told that he was sold to the Midianites. How co●ld he be sold to both? Very well; for these are Names of the same people of Arabia, either the Desert or Stony, or both, for there is a Dispute about this. Or if there were some Difference between the Ismaelites and Midianites, (as 'tis not unlikely) yet they were near Neighbours, and so passed for the same People▪ thence the Kings of the Ismaelites are called Kings of Midian, Judg. 8. 24, 26. Thus in the Gospel the Gadarens, Luke 8. 37. and the Gergasens, Mat. 8. 28. are represented as the same People, because Gadara and Gergesa were neighbouring Towns, their Fields lay close together. Every one grants that the Inhabitants of Arabia had several Names according to the Places and Regions they were seated in: they are called Kenites, Numb. 24. 21. and frequently in other places Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Hagarens, (as in Psal. 83. 6.) from Hagar Sarah's Maidservant, the Mother of Ishmael▪ (which Name they have long since changed into that of Saracens, choosing to be called rather by the Name of the Mistress than of the Maid.) And here they are styled Ismaelites and Midianites, 〈◊〉 former inhabiting in one part of that Country, and the latter in another. joseph then may be truly said to be sold both to the Ismaelites and Midianites, because the Company of Merchants who bought him▪ consisted of both, it is probable: they were joint-Traders, and did traffic in common. Thus we see here is nothing inconsistent.  
Some object against the Geography of Scripture, because Zippora, Moses' Wife, is called an Ethiopian, N●mb. 12. 1. although she was of another Country, namely, the Land of Midian as appears from Exod▪ 2. 15, 16. In answer to which Ios●ph●s would persuade us that Moses had two Wives, one an Ethiopian, the other a Midianitess or Arabian: But there is no Foundation at all for this, and therefore some other Answer is to be given. Some are of opinion that Cushith, which is the Word used in the Book of Numbers, should not be translated an Ethiopian, but an Arabian Woman; for Arabia was called Cush, because the Seat of Cush, the eldest Son of Ham, was there, saith Sir W. Raleigh. Whence he concludes that Moses's Wife was not an Ethiopian, though a Woman of Cush, but an Arabian. And Bochart asserts the same, and on the same Ground, viz. because Cush was seated in Arabia, not in Et●iopia. But this Opinion hath found but little Reception among those who have further enquired into this Matter, and have found that sometimes the word Cush in the Old Testament must necessarily be understood of Et●iopia. Therefore it is more reasonable to adhere to those Authors who affirm that Cush is an ambiguous Word, and that not only Arabia but Ethiopia is expressed by that Name. Or rather, there is a double Et●iopia; one in Africa, beyond Egypt, under the Torrid Zone; the other in Asia, and particularly in some part of Arabia. And that there are both these Ethiopia's, is testified by Philostratus, Herodotus, and Pausanias. This latter, viz. the Asiatic Ethiopia, is meant in the forenamed Place, where 'tis said, Moses married a Cushite, an Ethiopian Woman: She was not of the African but the Asian Cush or Ethiopia; and so it well agrees with the other Text, where we are told she was a Midianite. Nor is this to be wondered at, that Cush is thus differently taken; for it might be proved from several Examples, that one and the same Name is given to two or three Countries. Thus there is Caesarea in Palestine and in the Lesser Asia: There is Antioch in Syria, in Pisidia, and in Caria: There is Babylon in Chaldea and Egypt: There is Thebes in Boeotia, in Egypt, and in Cilicia: There is Heliopolis in Egypt, in Coelosyria, and Cilicia: There is Albania in Greece and Armenia: And so in our neighbouring Countries there is Zealand in Denmark and in the Netherlands. And not only in France, but England, several Places have the same Name. But although this be very satisfactory, yet I am inclined to offer another Resolution of the Place, viz. that Midian was divided from Ethiopia only by the Red Sea, a short Passage, and by reason of this Nearness Midian is called in Soripture the Land of Cush or Ethiopia; and thence Zippora is called a Cushite; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Seventy Interpreters, an Ethiopian. She is called so, I say, because the Midianites dwelled near to the African Ethiopians, and thence sometimes had their Name communicated to them. Midian being a neighbouring Country, was called Ethiopia; and those other Parts of Asi● and Africa that lay about the Red Sea had the like Denomination; as at this Day, among Cosmographers, some Places that border on other Countries are sometimes said to belong to them, and to be Parts of them, and are called by their Name. Thus Tyre and Sidon, of old were reckoned both in Syria and Palestine. And in our modern Geography ●ome Places in the Netherlands and G●rmany are sometimes ranked among those of France. Some Geographers place Lorain in Germany, others in France. The Alps are divided among the Germans, Italians, French, and so are said to belong to all of them. Piedmont is reckoned both in France and Italy. So it is in the present Case; the Vicinity of the Place to some other, causes the Name to be communicated to both. The Midianites and other People, because they bordered on Ethiopia, were called Ethiopians: hence Cushan or Ethiopia, and the Land of Midian are joined together, Hab. 3. 7. Lastly, it is probable that Cush, the eldest Son of Cham, was seated not only in Ethiopia, but in those Parts of Arabia which were bordering upon it: and thence it comes to pass that a Cushite or a Woman of Cush is an Arabian as well as an Ethiopian properly so called.  
She that is called a Woman of Canaan, Mat. 15. 22. is called a Syrophoenician, Mark 7. 26. which some imagin● are inconsistent, and therefore they think the former Word should be Cana, which was a Town in Phoeni●ia, and was known by the Name of the Greater Cana, for there was a Lesser in the lower Galilee, where 
* John 2. 1.  Christ turned Water into Wine. But there is no Necessity of changing the Word, because Canaan and Phoenicia are but different Names for the same Region. Thus in Gen. 16. 35. the Land of Canaan is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX. and in Exod. 6. 15. a Canaani●●● Woman is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We must know then that the whole Country of Palestine is a part o● Syria, and Phoenicia is a part of Palestine; and Syro-Phoenicia as well as Phoenicia is the North Part of Canaan. But especially the People of this Country that lived on the Seacoasts were called Phoenicians, and that in a peculiar manner, as is evident from Stra●o, pliny and others. Yea, and those were properly and strictly of old c●ll'd Canaanites that dwelled at Tyre and Sidon, and inhabited near the Sea. The Canaanites dwell by the Sea, Numb. 13. 29. and some quote Isa. 23. 8. where the Tyrians are called Canaanim▪ So this Woman who came out of the Coasts of Tyre and Sidon (as is expressly said ver. 21.) is rightly styled both a Canaanite by St. Matthew, and a Phoenician or Syro-Phoenician by St. Mark; for the word Syrian is added (as Grotius well notes) only to distinguish the Asian Phoenicians from those of some Colonies in afric. Thus there is no Reason to find fault with the Chorography of the Bible.  
Here, for the better clearing some Passages in the Holy Writings, and the removing some Cavils which ill-disposed Men are wont to raise, I will further remark that the Chorography of the Scriptures is sometimes different from that in Profane Authors. Several Places mentioned in Holy Writ have not the same Names which they are known by in other Writers, (of which the Learned 
* De D●s Syr. Proleg. c. 1.  Mr. Selden hath taken notice) which may sometimes occasion Dispute about certain Places in Scripture. Bahylon is called Shinar, Gen. 11. 2. Egypt hath the Name of Ham, Psal. 78. 51. & 105. 23. and Ra●ab, Psal. 87. 4. & 89. 10. Of old On and Bethshemesh were the Names of that Place in Egypt, which since is called Heliopolis; Gen. 41. 45, 50. jer. 43. 13. Some gather from Gen. 2. 13. that Nile was at first called Gibon. Memphis had the Title of Noph, Isa. 19 13. Jer. 46. 14. The City of Alexandria (called so from Alexander the Great, who built it after it had been laid waste by the Chaldeans, and gave it that Name) was at first called No, Jer. 46. 25. Ezek. 30. 15. Nahum 3. 8. The ancient Name of Mesopotamia was Padan Aram, Gen. 25. 20. ch. 28. 6. Before Cyrus' time the Country which is now called Persia was known by no other Titles than Cuth and Elam, Ifa. 11. 11. oh. 22. 6. but afterwards it had that new Denomination from Paras a Horse, because the Persians were great Riders on Horseback. Canaan and the Holy Land are Terms in Scripture for that known Country which is styled Syria and judea by the Greek and Roman Writers. jerusalem was first called Salem, than jebus, then by putting both together 
* Joseph. Antiqu. 1. 1.  jebusalem; and afterwards, for better sound sake jerusalem. I might proceed, and observe this Change of Names in other Regions of the World, yea in our own: Thus Albion was the ancient Name of this Isle, than Britain, than England. This I mention to remind us that there is a great Alteration of Names as to several Places and Countries. Either by Conquest or otherwise it hath come to pass that the former ones by which they were known are worn off, and new ones are come in their room. Whence it happens sometimes that we have no Help from Profane Historians to understand many Places mentioned in the Bible; and we are not able to know to what Countries and Nations some of those Names refer which we meet with in these Ancient Records.  
This I will more largely insist upon in some few particular Instances: And first that in 1 Kings 10. 1. doth partly belong to this Place; there is mention of the Queen of Sheba, who is called the Queen of the South by our Saviour, Mat. 12. 42. but whether she came from Arabia or Ethiopia, both which Countries are South of judea, is as much controverted, as whether Moses' Wife was an Arabian or an Ethiopian. Monsieur Bochart and some others say she was the former, for there was a Saba or Seba (as 
* Lib. 16.  Strabo informs us) in that Country. Some tell us it is the Metropolis of Arabia Felix, now called Zibet, whence the Zivet-Cat hath its Name. The Inhabitants of this Place were anciently called 
† Virgil. Georg. 1, & 2.  Sabaei by the Latins. But for my part I cannot think that this was the Country whence this Royal Visitant came, and that for this one good Reason, because our Saviour himself hath informed us that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 12. 42.  She came from the utmost Parts of the Earth, which cannot be said of her if she came from Arabia, for that was near to judea. 
* Antiqu. 1. 2. c. 5.  josephus saith, he found the ancient Name of Meroe in Africa to be Saba, and thence he affirms that she was an African, viz. the Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia: and others more particularly vouch her to belong to the upper Ethiopia, i. e. the Kingdom of the Abyssines▪ and 'tis certain (as a late Inquisitive 
‖‖ Ludolph. Hist. Ethiop.  Writer hath informed us) that the Abassyne People challenge her for theirs. But now if we come to examine things, and to make some● Proof of this latter Opinion, viz. that the Queen who took a long Journey to visit King Solomon, and behold his Glory, was an Ethiopian, we are not able to effect any thing, for we cannot trust to the jewish Historian, who had little Skill in foreign Matters; and we cannot rely upon Pliny's 
* Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29.  Saba Aethiopica, or gather any thing certainly thence. And a more Authentic Writer tells us, that there was not only a 
† Psal. 72. 10.  Sheba but a Seba: so that that Saba might refer to this latter rather than to the former. We have then no ●ure footing, but all that we are able to say is this, that there was a Nation of this Name in some very distant part of the World in a Southerly Position from judea: but we have no Geographer to acquaint us what particular Region it was, and what the Name of it is at this Day; and consequently we cannot determine the Place whence that Brave Woman came. What the aforesaid 
‖ Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6.  Jewish Historian observed hath great Truth in it, that the Names of Nations have been changed by new Comers, who with new Manners brought a Language of a resembling Quality, and altered the former Names of Places.  
This we find true in another Instance, viz. Ophir, the Place that King Solomon's Navy went to, and form whence they furnished him with Plenty of Gold, 1 Kings 9 26, etc. ch. 10. 11. But in what part of the Earth this Ophir was is hotly disputed. Some say it was in that Region of it which we now call America. They think that the Phoenicians or Tyrians, (for 'tis said that Hiram, the King of Tyre, sent in the Navy his Servants, Shipmen, that had Knowledge of the Sea, with the Servants of Solomon, 1 Kings 9 27.) they think, I say, that these Tyrians (who were famous for their Skill in Navigation) failed to those remote Parts in Solomon's time, passing through the Mediterranean to this Ophir: which some imagine to have been in the P●●ei●ick Sea in the Southern Part of America, for there is an Island in that Sea▪ which the Spaniards called the Isle of Solomon, because they thought that was the Place which Solomon's Ships were sent to for Gold. 
* In Phaleg.  Arias Montanus, and some others, are persuaded that Ophir is the same with Peru: and indeed there are the same Radical Letters in both, only with a Metathesis. And from Peru is the dual Pa●vajim, 2 Cliron. 3. 6. as the foresaid Author thinks; which is a very Ingenious and Learned Conjecture, but is entertained but by few, because 'tis thought that Columbus was the first that found out the Western World. But whether that be true or no, it is not probable that they had Skill enough in Solomon's Days to conduct a Navy to the West-Indies. Navigation was not so perfect at that time, that they could find a safe Passage thither. Herculeses Pillars (which are now the Cape of Good Hope) were said to be the Limits of their Maritime Travels. Before the Use of the Compass it was impossible to havigate cross the Ocean; and consequently Solomon's Mariners could not find Peru, which is in America. Besides, some think that the Quality of some of the Commodities, viz. Wood and Ivory, which were brought home in the Ships, argues that they came not from that Western Quarter of the World. Again, 'tis added by some, that if Solomon had sent for Gold to the West-Indies, he would have set out his Fleet for that Voyage from some Port of the Mediterranean, and not of the Red Sea, as we read he did, 1 Kings 9 26. Others therefore say it was a Country in the East-Indies: Ophir was so called from Ophir the Son of 〈◊〉 Gen. 10. 29. who, as 
* Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2.  Ios●phus saith, inhabited in the East. Wherefore it is likely (saith this Jewish Aritiquary) that Solomon's Fleet sailed to these Parts, and particularly to the Golden Chersonese, and other Golden Regions there. It is an Island in the East-Indies, saith 
† In Phaleg.  Bochart, which is named Zeilan. But others of late are inclined to believe that it is that Island or Islands in this Eastern Part of the World, which are called the Molu●●d's; but the Reasons which they allege have no Cogency in them. 
‖ China illustrata.  Kircher is more general, and avers, that Ophir was India; for this is not, he saith, an Hebrew (as hath been thought) but an Egyptick or Coptick Word, and among the Egyptians of old was the Name for India: But we have only his Word for this, and no more. Others hold it to be neither in the East nor West-Indies, but in afric, which seems to me to be the most probable Persuasion. Ortelius and Purchas are of this Opinion, and they say it is an Island in the Aethiopic Sea, and is at this day called Sophala: But they might as well have assigned any other Place and Name in this Country, if they had pleased, for here is no firm Ground to go upon; we have no Chard to direct us. Ophir is a Name not known to any Geographers: no Pagan Writers make mention of it. This happens because several Places have changed their Names, they are not the same now that they were heretofore. And how is it possible then that we should arrive to a certain Knowledge of them? And what though we do not? There is no reason why we should be troubled at it, much less that we should be displeased with the Bible., Yea, rather we may make use of this to commend the Holy Writings, for this is an undeniable Argument of the unparallelled Antiquity of them, (as hath been suggested before) and of their Transcendent Worth and Excellency, in that they record those Names of Places as well as Things which other Writers say nothing at all of.  
To these Instances I will add one more, the Mountains of Ararat, Gen. 8. 4. on which the Ark rested. They are not mentioned under this Name by any Heathen Authors; and thence it is difficult to give an Account of them, i. e. to know where they were, and consequently where the Ark landed. The Hills of Armenia the Greater, called the Gordiaean Hills, are meant, say josephus, St. jerom, Bochart, Grotius: and before these Berosus held the same. But there is another Opinion maintained by Goropius Becanus, Sir W. Raleigh, and Dr. Heylin, viz. that the Ark rested on Mount Taurus, but especially on the Top of Mount Caucasus (which is a Part of it) in the Confines of Tartary, Persia, and India; which they think they prove from Gen. 11. 2. where we read that they who entered into the Valley of Shinar came from the East, i. e. from those Parts of Asia, on the South of Caucasus, which lie East from Shinar. And this is thought to be a sufficient Confutation of the former Opinion, for it is impossible they should come from the Mountains of Armenia, the Gordiaean Mountains, because those lie not only full North of Shinar, but many Degrees unto the West. This Caucasus was part of the Mountain Taurus, the biggest Mountain in the World; or rather (as hath been said in another Place before) a continual Ridg of Mountains crossing all Asia from East to West, and dividing it as the Equator doth the Globe, into North and South. So that in short, Ararat, which according to these Authors is the Scripture-word for Taurus, is no more One Mountain than any one Hill among those that divide Italy from France is called the Alps, or any one of those that part France from Spain is the Pyren●●n▪ But as these, being Continuations of many Hills, keep one Name in divers Countries, so all that long Ledg of Mountains (which Pliny calls by one Name Taurus) are of one general Name, and are called the Mountains of Ararat. These are the two different Opinions of the Learned about this Matter; but it is my Persuasion that a Man may easily compromise them: For, according to that Description which Sir. W. Raleigh gives us of this great Multiplicity of Hills, the Gordiaean ones may be taken in among those that make up Taurus, for this Learned Knight himself acknowledgeth that these Mountains (which go through so many divers Countries and Kingdoms) seem to take their Rise from Arm●nia, or thereabouts. So that it is probable the Gor●iaean Hills, and those of Taurus, are to be reckoned together. Thus we may moderate between these Dissenting Writers: but when all is done, it is impossible to define exactly what Mountains are meant by those of Ararat. This only is unquestionable that they were in the East; but as to their particular Situation, and whether they answer to the Gordi●ean Hills, or to Caucasus, we are wholly ignorant. And there is no Remedy for it, because Ararat is not a Name that we can find in any other Authors; and we are not certain that any other Denominations in Pagan Writers refer to it. Thus it must needs be, seeing the old Names of several Places are extinct, and others are introduced: so that on that Account we can't expect to know some of those Places that are mentioned in Scripture. Nor is it necessary that we should, for it is a Matter of small Moment, and not worth the contending about.  
Some dream of a great Geographical Difficulty in the word Tarshish, so often used in the Old Testament; but there is no reason for it, because it plainly refers to a known Place, and such as is expressly mentioned by Lucan and other Writers, besides those of the Bible, and that is Tarsus in Cilicia. The Sea which washed the Shores of this Cilicia, had its Name from this Metropolis of it, viz. Tarsus, and was usually called Tarshish. This is the first and more restrained Acception of the Word in the Old Testament, where we read that Solomon had a Navy of Tarshish, 1 Kings 10. 22. i e. a Navy that frequented the Mediterranean or African Sea, especially that part of it which was near Cilicia, and was so noted for its Merchandizing, Thus when 'tis said that Solomon's Ships went to Tarshish, 2 Chron. 9 21. 
* 〈◊〉 Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2.  josephus interprets it that they went to the Mediterranean Sea, where they trafficked, and for the Goods they exported brought Gold and Silver, etc. But we are to observe that it is said there, the King's Ships went to Tarshish with the Servants of Hiram, i. e. as I conceive, they went to those Ports which the Tyrian Navy (with whom they were to go to Ophir) resorted to, and those were in the Mediterranean. And that the Ships of T●rshish belong properly to Tyro, i● manifest from Isa. 23. 1. otherwise [Howl, 〈◊〉 Ships of Tarshish] could not be part of the Burden or Doom of that Place, as we find it is So 〈…〉 the Kings of Tarshish, Psal. 72. 10. are those Kings properly that were seated upon the Mediterranean, especially that Part which was over against Tarsus, or Cilicia, which it washed. Secondly, the word is taken more largely for the Sea in general: for the African or Mediterranean Sea being the only Noted Sea to the Hebrews. they called all other Seas, and the Ocean itself, Tarsis, as the Latins call any Sea Pontus▪ though that word be proper only to one particular Sea. Thus Tarshish is used in Psal. 48. 7. thou breakest the Ships of Tarshish, (i. e. of the Sea) with an East Win●: and in Isa. 2. 12, 16. The, Day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon all the Ships of Tarshish. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Seventy, And in several other Places it hath this large Signification; but not in jon. 1. 3. (as is said by many Interpreters) for Tarshish here is the City called Tarsus, a noted Place in Cilicia. Though Tarshish be a common Word in Scripture to signify the Sea, (as hath been said) yet here we must take it in the most restrained Sense of all, we must understand by it the Town of that Name; and from whence the Sea, but more particularly the Phoenician and Tyrian Sea, had the Denomination of Tarshish. The Reason which I give of this Interpretation is this, because in that Place of jonah, Tarshish and the Sea are expressly distinguished, and that not once. but often▪ as you may satisfy yourselves by perusing ver. 3. and the rest that follow in that Chapter, where you will see that Hajam the Sea, is mentioned nine or ten times in distinction from Tarshish: whence I gather that this latter Word is, not to be translated the Sea, but that it denotes. that known City Tarsus of Cilicia. To this Place the Timorous Prophet had a mind to flee, because it was sufficiently remote, and also because there was a safe Harbour to put into. There need not then be any Dispute about the word Tarshish, for wherever it is used in Scripture (except in this Place last mentioned) it signifies either the Sea in general, or more especially the Phoenician or African Sea, which the Tyrian Merchants were most used to: but it hath its Name from Tarsus or Tarsis, near to which was the most famous Port of all the East Country, from whence they took Ship for Africa and India, and the most remote Parts of the World.  
To close up all the Geographical Scruples, I will only adjoin this concerning the mentioning of East and West in the Old Testament, that these are generally to be understood according to the Situation of judea, more especially jerusalem, and as the Places spoken of had respect to these; but in the Prophecy of Ezekiel it is for the most part otherwise, because Ezekiel writ in Babylon; and thence it is that East and West are contrary here to what they are in other Prophets. This I thought fit to add to prevent Cavils against the Sacred Writ.  
I might in the next place take notice of the different Meanings which arise from the Relation which certain Words in some Texts have to the neighbouring Verses. Thus it is said, the Poor shall never cease out of the Land, Deut. 15. 11. yet it is implied, if not expressed, ver. 4. that there shall be no Poor among them. But the Answer is, that this 4th Verse refers to the releasing and forgiving their Debtors, ver. 2, 3. They must not by their exacting make their Neighbours poor; yea, they must do what lies in their power, that there may be no Poor: but as to the Event, there will be Poor, and always shall be.  
Their Strength is to sit still, saith the Prophet, Isa. 30. 7. which [their] if you refer to the Egyptians who are named in that Verse, than the Sense is, Their Strength, their Aid, their Assistance is to no purpose; they had as good sit still as help the Jews. But if you refer their to the jews, than the Interpretation is this, The Jews had best to sit still in their own Land, and not to require Aid from Egypt, for it shall not prosper. This is the true Sense of the Words, because their Proper Reference is to the jewish People; which we are sure of, because these are the subject Matter of this Part of the Chapter. The right fixing of the Relation of the Words, especially of the Pronoun their, leads us to the true meaning of the Place. And this is put out of all Controversy by ver. 15. In Returning and Rest ye shall be saved; in Quietness and Confidence shall be your Strength: which is a plain Comment on the former Words, and shows that we have pitched upon the true Reference.  
I interpret those Words in Heb. 12. 24. The Blood of Sprinkling, which speaks better things than that of Abel, by observing what they particularly refer to, viz. ver. 4. of the foregoing Chapter, By it he being dead yet speaketh. I conceive that this Speaking is referred to by the Apostle in the other Place; and so by searching into the true Meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he speaks, we shall be able to arrive to the true Sense of the other. This Word hath been variously interpreted; for Grotius seems to think it is meant, that he (i. e. Abel) speaks in the Book of Genesis, which speaks of him. But this is very dilute, because the Apostle mentions not here what Book speaks of Abel, but by what he himself speaks, viz. his Faith. Others say his Faith and Righteousness speak, i. e. call to us to imitate and practise them: but this might have been said of any of the other Worthies mentioned in this Chapter, and therefore is not peculiar to Abel alone. Others take the word in a Passive Sense, and expound it, he is yet spoken of, his eminent Faith and Innocency are to this Day (as in several Generations before) spoken of, celebrated, praised, remembered with Honour. But this (as well as the former) is common to all the other Holy Patriarches and Worthy Saints named in this Chapter, and therefore this doth not reach that particular and proper Meaning of the Place. Much less doth that odd Exposition of Sir N. Knatchbull, who reads it thus, For it (i. e. his Faith) he is yet said to be dead; for he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be inserted after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then the meaning is, As Abel suffered at first for his Faith, so he is still to this Day said to have died for his Faith. But besides the needless inserting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thereby making very bald Greek, he joins in Construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas according to the usual way of Trajection (which he so often takes notice of in other Places, though he overlooks it here) it belongs to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the Words are to run thus, By it he, though he be dead, yet speaks; that is, because of his Faith and Holiness he yet speaks aloud, or cries unto God for Vengeance against his Brother Cain, who inhumanly murdered him; for he barbarously and maliciously took away his Life, because he was a faithful and righteous Person. Thus I interpret the Words, because I discern that the Apostle alludes to Gen. 4. 10. The Voice of thy Brother's Blood crieth unto me from the Ground. Wherefore when he saith, Abel yet speaketh, it is as much as if he had said, his Blood speaketh or crieth. It spoke long ago, and it yet speaks, like the Souls under the Altar, Rev. 6. 10. How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our Blood? Now by this Text I expound that other in Heb. 12. 24. The Blood of Sprinkling that speaketh better things than Abel, for so it is in the Greek. The Apostle having said before, [Abel yet speaks] i. e. the Voice of his Blood speaketh or crieth to Heaven for Vengeance; he here with particular reference to that Passage assures us, that Christ's Blood speaks better things than Abel, or than the Blood of Abel, which was shed by his Brother: for whereas that spoke and cried for Punishment, this pleads for Mercy and Pardon. Christ's Oblation of himself on the Cross, by the Effusion of his Blood, speaks better things, doth more atone and appease the Wrath of God than the Blood of Abel (who was spitefully murdered) did incense and provoke it. Thus this is a good way of interpreting Scripture sometimes, by comparing one Text with another, and observing their mutual Relation. Many obscure and less intelligible Passages are cleared by this Means.  
I will content myself with mentioning one Place more, viz. Mat. 24. 34. This Generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled: Which remarkable Words of our Saviour may seem to have been mistaken by those Interpreters that I have met with, and merely because they have not minded the Reference of the Words. Some have taken this Generation for the Generation then in being in our Saviour's time; and so they apprehend him to speak of something that was soon after to be accomplished, not unlike some of St. John's Visions which 
* Rev. 1. 1.  were to come to pass in a short time; and consequently that those Signs of his Coming, which he had foretold in that Chapter, were to be every Day expected; and if they were meant of his General and Final Coming, then that the Overthrow of jerusalem, and of the World, should be about the same time. And that some of the Signs mentioned by Christ are to be understood properly and peculiarly of the jewish Nation, soems to be clear from that one Passage in ver. 20. Pray that your Flight be not on the Sabbath-day; which intimates that the jewish People were particularly concerned, who solemnly observed that Day. By this Generation than they understand the present Generation of the Jews which was at that time: and to confirm this, they observe that this Generation is applied by Christ to the Jews of that Age, Mark 8. 12. The Meaning then of [this Generation shall not pass, etc.] according to this Acception of the Word, is this, that whilst the Jews then living were upon the Earth, those things which our Saviour had foretold in that Chapter, yea all those things should be fulfilled. This were a very good Interpretation of the Words, if the thing itself could be proved, that is, that within so short a time all those Predictions of Christ were accomplished. But the contrary is very evident, for the Chapter speaks of the Day of Judgement as well as of the Devastation of jerusalem: wherefore all the things that our Lord spoke of were not fulfilled within the Compass of that Generation, and consequently that Period of Time could not be meant when it is said, This Generation shall, etc. Secondly, therefore others who are sensible of the Invalidity of this Interpretation, understand this Generation in a wider and larger Sense, and think that by it is meant the Evangelical Dispensation, the whole Series of Time from our Saviour's Days to the End of the World, the final Upshot of all things. And this is a good Exposition of the Text, and salves the Sense very well; only there is no Proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the last Age of the World. This Period of Time is called by 
* 1 John 2. 18.  St. john, the last time; by 
† 1 Pet. 4. 7.  St. Peter, the End of all things; and by 
‖ 1 Cor. 10. 11.  St. Paul, the Ends of the World; but I do not find that it is any where styled this Generation; therefore I do not see any good Ground to apply it here in that manner, as some Expositors have done: Wherefore I will offer another Interpretation, which I hope will not be unacceptable to the Learned; though I confess I do not expect it should be presently received, because it is wholly new and unheard of. But let Impartial Minds judge of it, who will not suffer the mere Novelty of an Exposition to hinder their embracing of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Generation of the Heaven and Earth, the Whole Creation of the World, this vast Mundane Fabric: So St. james uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 3. 6. making it the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Rom. 8. 19, 22. And even among Profane Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath sometimes the like Acception, and is rendered Seculum, the World. This shall not pass, i. e. be destroyed, till all these things be fulfilled: as if our Saviour had said, The World shall continue as it hath hitherto done, till all these things which I have foretold, but especially these concerning my Last Coming, be accomplished; but immediately after the fulfilling of them, this Generation of the Heavens and Earth, this Frame of the World shall be set on Fire, shall be consumed. And that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this Signification here, i. e. that it imports this System of Heaven and Earth, I gather from the Reference of this Verse to the immediately ensuing one, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away: where you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; This Generation of Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words (my Predictions concerning future things, which you have just now heard from my Mouth) shall not pass away. Which is as much as if he had said, This great Structure of the World shall perish at last, Heaven and Earth shall be destroyed by a general Conflagration; but new Heavens and a new Earth shall arise in their room, which shall be a Building not made with Hands, not of perishing Materials, but such as shall last eternally. And of this Nature is my Word and Promise, such are all my Predictions, and particularly this of the Signs of my Coming, it shall never be nulled and abolished. The applying of the words shall pass to the Heavens and Earth immediately after, shows that Christ means by this Generation the whole World, expressed by Heaven and Earth. You see then how fitly 'tis said here, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, it referring to this Generation's passing away, viz. at the End of the World, the final Close of all things, when there shall be new Heavens and a new Earth, as 
* 2 Epist. ch. 3. v. 13.  St. Peter informs us. Our Saviour here signifies the Time when the things he spoke of last (ver. 24, 25.) shall be accomplished. When this Generation, this present Creation of things shall be dissolved, then and not before all these things shall be fulfilled: Then shall be verified all those things which were said concerning the Dissolution of the World; yea, all the things mentioned in this Chapter: For we must know, that even the Predictions concerning the Destruction of jerusalem, shall be most signally fulfilled in the final Dissolution of Heaven and Earth, because that was designed to be a Type and Representation of this. And as for the word this, which is joined with Generation, if any cavil at it, I can prove out of 
* Mat. 26. 13. this Gospel: Acts 5. 20. this Life: and other Places. So that, Mat. 7. 22. 1 John 3. 12. and these, 1 Cor. 12. 2. 2. Tim. 1. 12. are prefixed, where there is no reference to any thing going before.  abundance of Texts, that it is sometimes of the same Import with the: and so you might read it the Generation, viz. of the Heavens and Earth. But here, as I conceive, it is an Emphatical Word, and refers to the things spoken of before, viz. the Sun, Moon, Stars, Earth and Sea, ver. 29. of this Chapter: and Luke 21. 26. which further confirms the Acception of this Word which I propound, viz. that it is meant of the Works of the Creation. Or perhaps our Saviour did cast his Eyes about, and intentively beheld the Heavens and the Earth, and then pronounced these Words, This Generation, this Fabric of the World which I now behold, and all the Works in it, shall not be dissolved till that very time, when these my Predictions shall be verified. The fulfilling of my Words, and the Period of all things, shall happen at the same time. And lastly, I will not conceal my Conjecture that these Words of Christ refer to what he had said in his Excellent Sermon on the Mount; and if so, than this Interpretation which I have offered, will be thereby exceedingly confirmed. His Words there are these, Verily I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one Tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled, Mat. 5. 18. And his Words here run thus, Verily I say unto you, this Generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled: Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away. By comparing which Texts it plainly appears, that there is the same Air and Aspect in them, the same Style and Mode of Expression are used, so that we are hereby invited to expound one by the other. First, they begin with the same solemn Preface, Verily I say unto you. Secondly, the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in both Places in the very same Signification, (for as Grotius observes on Mat. 5. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as interire, perire; and so it is here, it signifies to be destroyed, to perish, to be anul●d). Thirdly, that considerable Passage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till all be fulfilled, is in both Places, and refers to the very ●ame things, viz. the Law, or Words, or Predictions of our Saviour, what he had said, or what had been said of him. And, Fourthly, the Works of the Creation, the Fabric and System of the World, are spoken of in both Places, though under different Expressions; for in the former they are styled Heaven and Earth, in the latter the Generation. But that they are of the same Import, and express to us the same thing, is clear from this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly applied to both: for though we make some little Difference in our English Translation, rendering the Greek Word by passing in one Verse, and passing away in the other, yet the Verb itself is the same in the Original, and accordingly should (if we would be accurate) be rendered alike in both Verses. Whence it appears that the Generations passing, and the Heavens and Earth passing, are Synonymous, which is the thing I aimed at, and which puts a Key into our Hand to open these Words, viz. that this Generation in ver. 34. is the same with Heaven and Earth in ver. 35. and that their passing is the very same. If it be said that this Generation, in some other Place, is applied to that present Age and People of the Jews, and therefore it must be so understood here; the Consequence must be denied, and that with very good Reason, for (besides what hath been said already) in several Places we find that the same Words and Expressions are not used and applied after the same manner, and to the same purpose. He is a Stranger to the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, who knows not this. And therefore from the Identity of Words we cannot necessarily infer that the same thing is intended. But we are to examine the Ambiguity of Expressions, and to apply them as we see occasion. This we must do here, and if we have Respect to the Context, (as we ought to have) we shall apply this Generation after the aforesaid manner. And indeed the Connection of these two Verses was that which led me first to this Interpretation, for the mention of Heaven and Earth passing, in this latter Verse, suggested to my Thoughts, that it had some Cognation with the like Expressions in the foregoing Verse; which, upon farther Examination, I found to be so indeed. Christ proceeds in ver. 35. to speak of Heaven and Earth passing, because he had in ver. 34. been speaking of the same thing; which gives us Assurance of what I propounded, that this Generation's passing, and Heaven and Earth's passing, are exegetical of each other. This is the Exposition which I give of this Place, and I submit it to the Censure of the Considerate and Judicious. This I only say, that as 'tis a fair Construction, and contains nothing inconsistent in it, so I deem it to be the best Solution whereby we can cleverly avoid the Quarrels of Expositors about the Words, especially about the Meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which (as several other Places of Scripture) is misunderstood, because the due Reference of the Words is not attended to.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Chronological Difficulties fully reconciled, as Gen. 15. 13. Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred Years. Nay, thirty Years are added to this reckoning in Exod. 12. 40. whereas 'tis confessed by all, that the Israelites Bondage in Egypt did not last above two hundred and fifteen Years. It is said, Acts 13. 20. After that he gave them Judges about the Space of four hundred and fifty Years, until Samuel the Prophet: Yet, according to the usual Computation, there were but three hundred and thirty nine Years from the first judge till Samuel. God gave unto them Saul by the Space of forty Years, Acts 13. 21. yet no Man thinks that he reigned so long. This salves many Chronological Difficulties, that the Kings of Israel often made their Sons Kings, in their own Reign. Other Doubts in Chronology are cleared by Interregnums, by omitting the Years of Bad Kings, and of the Years of Oppression, Captivity, and Anarchy. The Difficulties in our Saviour's Genealogy in Mat. 1. & Luke 3. resolved, viz. how it can be said, Ozias begat Joatham. A Scruple about the three Tesseradecads. Another about Jechonias' begetting Salathiel. How Cainan came to be inserted▪ How either of the Genealogies in St. Mark or St. Luke can be said to be Christ's, when they both give an Account of Joseph's Pedigree. How one may be said to be Joseph's, and the other Mary's Genealogy. How Joseph can be the Son of Jacob and of Heli. Several Occasions (besides what have been mentioned before) of the Difficulties in Scripture, viz. it was writ by Different Persons: It refers to Ancient Practices now almost unknown or forgot, (where the Author's Conjecture about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Tim. 4. 13. is propounded). The Hebrew Text especially hath some things proper to itself, which render it obscure in some Places. It is the way of the Hebrews to express things briefly, concisely, abruptly. Their peculiar Idiom admits not of an exact Translation. Order and Time are not always observed. The Abstrusity of Scripture in some Places is an Argument of its Worth and Excellency.  
I Will now, according to my propounded Method, speak of those Difficulties which arise from the Duration of Time wherein such and such things were done, or came to pass. The first Chronological Doubt which I shall mention is that in Gen. 15. 13. Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred Years. So long the Israelites were to serve the Egyptians, and be afflicted by them: Which is confirmed in ver. 16. In the fourth Generation they shall come hither again, that is, after four hundred Years (mentioned before) the Israelites shall be delivered from their Slavery in Egypt, and shall return to Canaan. But it is well known and confessed by all Men, that the Israelites were not in Egypt so long a time, and consequently did not serve them, nor were afflicted by them so many years. It is generally acknowledged that their Bondage in Egypt did not last above two hundred and 15 Years at most: And so the 
* Antiqu. I. 2. c. 6.  Jewish Historian himself computes it. Here then seems to be a great Mistake as to Time: But really there is none, but those rather who think the forementioned Words are spoken wholly of the Time of the Israelites Servitude in Egypt are mistaken, which we shall the better apprehend if we take notice of the Text as it is quoted by St. Stephen in Acts. 7. 6. God spoke in this wise that his Seed should sojourn in a strange Land, and that they should bring them into Bondage, and entreat them evilly four hundred Years. The four hundred Years, as you may observe, refer not only to the latter but the former part of the Verse, viz. to the sojourning in a strange Land, which may be applied to Canaan as well as Egypt: so that this Term of four hundred Years includes all the Time from Abraham's leaving his own Country till the Departure out of Egypt. In all this space of Time Abraham's Seed were Sojourners and Pilgrims, were evilly entreated, and suffered Bondage and Persecution. But the Difficulty is renewed by what we meet with in Exod. 12. 40. The sojourning of the Children of Israel, who dwelled in Egypt (the last eminent Place of their sojourning) was four hundred and thirty Years. Here are thirty Years added to the former Reckoning: how shall we reconcile this? Very well, for this latter Account is precise and exact, but the former was not, which is no unusual thing in Holy Scripture, as well as in other Good Writers. The Years are not always precisely set down, the odd and lesser Numbers are omitted, and the great round Number only is mentioned. Thus in the forenamed Places the round Number of four hundred is put for four hundred and thirty, which latter is the whole time of the sojourning both of Abraham and his Seed in Canaan, and afterwards of their Posterity in Egypt. This Exact Number is mentioned by the Apostle, whose Words will give us farther Light into this Computation; The Covenant, saith he, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law (which was four hundred and thirty Years after) cannot disannul. It is certain that the Covenant he here speaks of, is that Covenant which God made with Abraham, (as the preceding Verses show) and the Law is that Body of Moral Precepts and Prohibitions which was given on Mount Sinai, in the very Year of the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Hence we plainly discover the beginning and ending of the four hundred and thirty Years: they began when Abraham left his own Country, (for then God entered into Covenant with him) and they ended when the Israelites left Egypt, and thereupon received the Law from Moses on the Mount. Though it be true then that the Israelites Servitude in Egypt was not above two hundred and odd Years, yet the full time of their whole Peregrination was four hundred and thirty, which is to be reckoned from the Calling of Abraham, and his coming out of Vr, until the Israelites leaving of Egypt under the Conduct of Moses. This is the full and exact Account, and the other beforementioned fell short of it, because the odd Numbers were omitted, as is frequent among the best Writers. And indeed a great many Difficulties in Chronology are answered by this, that a Great or Round Number is oftentimes used in Scripture for an Odd or Imperfect one, though it be more Exact. Thus it is threatened and foretold in Numb, 14. 33. that the Murmuring Israelites should wander in the Wilderness forty Years: yet if you compare Numb, 33. 3. with josh. 4. 19 you will see that some Days, if not Weeks, were wanting to make up the Number: But because forty Years was a round and complete Number; and because in so many Years a few Days were inconsiderable, therefore Moses delivers it in this manner. The like you may observe in judg. 11. 26. where you read that the Israelites dwelled in the Land of the Amorites three hundred Years; whereas from the first time that the Israelites began to enter upon the Land of Canaan (when joshua was made their Leader) to Iephthah's Reign, there were not above two hundred threescore and seven Years. But becave the other was a Round Number, and because was nearer to three hundred than to two hundred, it is thus expressed. And other Instances of this sort might be produced, (which I now wave) wherein the lesser and more imperfect Numbers are omitted; especially in very Great Sums the small Number is neglected, and comes not under any Account.  
There is another difficult Passage in Chronology, and that respects the time of the Judges, Acts 13. 20. After that he gave them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty Years, until Samuel the Prophet: yet, according to the usual Computation, it is generally said, that there were but three hundred and thirty nine Years from Othniel the first Judge, till the beginning of Samuel's Government, who was the last: So that hence it appears there are above a hundred Years too much in that Account. Beza and some others lay the Fault on the Amanuensis, telling us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, four hundred for three hundred. But this Expedient for taking away the Difficulty is not to be approved of, and I have given the Reason of it before. Some think to help it by insisting on the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Words, which signifies about, or as it were, and so implies a Latitude in the Chronology. It is true, this shows that the time is not punctually determined here: but then any Man may see that the vast Difference between four hundred and fifty, and three hundred thirty nine Years, is not decided by this. Grotius on this Place tells us, that the four hundred and fifty Years began from the going out of Egypt, and ended at the time when David expelled the Jebusites out of Zion; for so long it was before the Jews were settled in that Seat which God designed for them. But this doth not in the least clear the Doubt, for St. Stephen's Words are, After that, i. e. after the seven Nations were destroyed, and the Land was divided by Lot to the Israelites, as you read in the foregoing Verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after these things he gave them judges about the space of, etc. Therefore the Calculation cannot commence from the going out of Egypt. 
* Usher, Knatchbull.  Others, though of very great Learning, are yet more extravagant, for they refer these Words to those in ver. 17. of this Chapter, The God of this People of Israel chose our Fathers; which was about the Birth of Isaac, in whose Family the Covenant was to rest. And they proceed to compute thus; from Isaac's Birth to that of jacob sixty Years; from thence to their going into Egypt one hundred and thirty Years; from thence to their coming out two hundred and ten; from thence to their Entrance into the Land of Canaan forty; and from thence to the Division of the Land, and settling the Government by Judges, seven Years: in all four hundred and forty seven. But besides that this falls short three Years of the intended Number, viz. four hundred and fifty, this also is to be said, that it is nothing to the purpose, for the Text we are treating of speaks of the Time of the judges; but these Interpreters run back as far as Isaac's Birth, which was above four hundred Years before there were any Judges.  
In the next Place therefore, This and only this can reconcile the Difference, viz. that the Apostle follows the Ordinary and Vulgar Account in use among the Jewish People, who made the Number of Years from the coming out of Egypt till the building of the Temple to be about an hundred and twelve more than is expressed in 1 Kings 6. 1. as appears from josephus, who makes the Distance between the one and the other to be five hundred and ninety two Years; the which Enlarging of the Account arose from their computing the Years of the Oppressions of Israel between the times of the Judges, as distinct from the Years which are allowed to each particular Judg. The Apostle, who intended not Accuracy in Chronology, but spoke as the Vulgar, follows this Computation; and by putting the Sum of both these together, viz. the Years under the judges and under the Oppressors, he makes up the just Number of four hundred and fifty Years; particularly thus, he joins with the three hundred and thirty nine Years of the thirteen Judges, one hundred and eleven Years in which the Israelites were in Trouble and Servitude under several Enemies; which Years are numbered in the History by themselves, judg. 3. 8. & 3. 14. & 4. 3. & 6. 1. & 10. 8. & 13. 1. Now these being added to, or included in three hundred and thirty nine Years of the Judges, make up exactly four hundred and fifty Years.  
As to the forty Years Reign of Saul, which is mentioned by the Apostle in the next Verse, Acts 13. 21. God gave unto them Saul by the space of forty years, it may seem very hard to reconcile it with 1 Sam. 13. 1. where Saul's Reign seems to be terminated within three Years; some think within two Years. I answer, that Place is misunderstood, Saul reigned one Year, and when he had reigned two Years over Israel, he chose him three thousand Men, etc. Here is not assigned the full Term of Years in which Saul reigned; but all that is meant is this, that at that time when the Thunder in Harvest happened, (of which you read in the preceding Chapter, v. 18. and to which the beginning of this Chapter, refers) Saul had been King one Year, namely, since his first anointing by Samuel, to his second anointing; and that when he had reigned another Year, or two Years more, he chose him those three thousand Men to be his Guard. This is all that can be gathered from those Words, and therefore none can infer thence that Saul reigned but three Years in all. But still the greatest part of the Difficulty remains; for though Saul reigned more than three Years, yet it is impossible he should have reigned forty, which is the Space of time that the Apostle here assigneth him: for if he was King so long, it would certainly follow that there were almost five hundred Years from the Departure out of Egypt to the building of Solomon's Temple: neither could Saul be a young Man when he was elected King (as we read he was:) nay, it would follow that David was not born at that time when he is said to have vanquished Goliath: and other such Consequences might be drawn thence. How then did Saul reign forty Years? I answer, this may truly be said, because with Saul's Government Samuel's also is computed in this Place of the Apostle. How this forty Years is to be divided betwixt them is not agreed. 
* Antiq. Jud. l. 6. c. 15.  josephus comes pretty near to the space of Time mentioned here, asserting that Saul reigned eighteen Years with Samuel, and twenry Years afterwards. An 
* Mr. Abraham Cowley in his Davideis.  Ingenious Man of late hath so adjusted the time, that he concludes Saul to have reigned ten Years of this forty, and he allows the remaining thirty for the Government of Samuel. Others make up the forty Years between them in another manner. But all is Conjecture, and we know nothing certainly here. This only we may rest in as a very great Probability, that the times both of Samuel and Saul's Government are joined together in these forty years. Samuel was Judge of Israel, and being set over them by God, was their rightful Governor. They had no Authority to depose him, and to choose a King in his room, and therefore Samuel might be looked upon as their True and Lawful Governor as long as he lived. Yet this time of his Rule is made here a part of Saul's Reign, because he was forced at last to anoint him King, and because he suffered his own Government to be swallowed of his. Hence it is that the forty Years assigned to him by St. Paul do include Samuel's Judicature, that is, Samuel and Saul reigned forty Years together.  
This also will salve many Chronological Differences, that the Kings of Israel did often make their Sons Kings in their own Reign, to settle them in the Kingdom before their Death; and so the time of the Reign is sometimes set down as it respects the Father only, sometimes as it respects the Son, and sometimes as it includes both. jehoram is said to have reigned eight years in jerusalem, 2 Kings 8. 17. but by Collection out of the Text it is clear that either seven of those eight Years, or at least four, are to be reckoned in the Life of his Father jehosaphat; for jehoram reigned as Viceroy in his Father's time, or he reigned with his Father, and so his Father's Years and his are reckoned too. But when, upon the Death of his Father, he came to reign alone, then 'tis said, Jehoram his Son reigned in his stead, 2 Chron. 21. 1. So jotham reigned Sixteen Years, 2 Kings 15. 33. yet mention was made before of his twentieth year, ver. 30. which we reconcile thus, jotham reigned alone sixteen Years only, but with his Father Vzziah (who was a Leper, and therefore unfit for the sole Government) four Years before, which makes twenty. Thus we take away that seeming Repugnancy between 2 Kings 24. 8. Jehoiachin was eighteen Years old when he began to reign, and 2 Chron. 36. 9 He was eight Years old when he began to reign: that is, he was eight Years old when he began to reign with his Father, but he was eighteen when he began to reign by himself. It was common both with the Kings of judah and Israel to take their Sons into Partnership with them in the Throne. This is the way of resolving other Places of the like Nature in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Sometimes the Sons are made Kings with their Fathers, and the Years of their Joint Reign are put together: At other times they are spoken of as ruling separately; and hence it comes to pass that the Years vary. We are concerned then to take notice that in the foresaid Books the Reigns of some Kings are mentioned twice; first as they were Contemporary and Sharers with some others; and then as they ruled alone.  
We may sometimes solve the Doubts about the different Account which is given us of the Duration of some Kings Reigns by Interregnums or Vacancy of Kingly Government for few or more Years, which was not unusual. Thus of King Ahaziah, who succeeded jehoram in the Throne, it is recorded (2 Kings 8. 26.) that he was two and twenty Years old when he began to reign: but in 2 Chron. 22. 2. it is said, he was forty and two Years old when he began to reign. If this latter Account be true, then besides that it is a contradicting of the former, it will follow hence that the Son was two Years older than the Father; for of jehoram, who was his Father, it is said in 2 Chron. 21. 20. Thirty and two Years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight Years: whence it appears that he was forty Years old when he died: but of his Son who succeeded him in the Throne it is said, He was two and forty Years old when he began to reign, 2 Chron. 22. 1. This is thought to be so great a Difficulty, that Malvenda and others cry out, it is not to be solved. But why, I pray? Because, say they, according to this Relation the Father died at forty; and the Son, who immediately succeeded him, was above forty: so than jehoram begat his Son two Years before himself was born; which to assert, is as ridiculous as the thing is impossible. But those who talk after this manner make Difficulties, and then complain there is no possibility of answering them. They affirm that Ahaziah immediately succeeded jehoram; whereas they find not this asserted in the History. There might be an Interruption of the Royal Government, Ahaziah might be kept from the actual Possession of the Throne a long time. So than it is truly said, He was two and twenty Years old when he began to reign, if you reckon from his Father's Death, for then a King's Heir is said to begin his Reign. But if you compute from the time when he was peaceably settled in the Kingdom, he was two and forty Years old when he began to reign: for by that time he got securely to the Throne, twenty Years were expired: and after this he reigned but one Year, as we read in the same Place. Thus (besides that it might have been said, that Ahaziah reigned with his Father twenty two Years) the Difficulty is answered by supposing an Interregnum for several Years, which was very frequent in those Days: and there is Reason Sometimes to grant this Vacancy to have been, although it be not expressly mentioned in the Place; for many things of this kind are omitted in the Sacred History, and are left to be inferred from the Reasonableness of the thing itself, and from the Circumstances which attend it.  
Again, there are those who avoid some Scruples in Chronology, by holding that the Years of Bad Kings are sometimes omitted, as if they had not reigned at all. So some have interpreted that Place, 1 Sam. 13. 1. which speaks of the two Years Reign of Saul; not but that he reigned many more, which are not there reckoned, because of his evil Government. Thus Solomon, they say, reigned many more Years than are set down, for the time of his sinful and idolatrous Reign is suppressed. Lastly, it hath been observed (in order to the taking away those Doubts which arise about the different Assignation of Time in the Old Testament) that the Scripture gives us the Computation of the Times of the jewish Republic or Kingdom, but altogether omits the Spaces of Servitude, Oppression, Captivity, and Anarchy, excepting only the time of the Egyptian Bondage, which is reckoned by Moses. The Author of Seder Olam, and Other Jewish Writers, and the Learned Broughton, 
* Consent of Scripture. , from them give an Account of some Chronological Disputes by adhering to this Expedient. With whom agrees 
† The Chronicle of the Times of the Old Testament.  Dr. Lightfoot, who hath admirably performed this Task, adding several things of his own Observation, whereby the Differences in Chronology are fully reconciled. The Result then of what we have said is this, that if in some Places of Scripture the Years seem not to be rightly set down, we may recur to the foregoing Resolutions, and satisfy ourselves with them, but not condemn the Text as corrupted and falsified; nay, as if it had had Mistakes and Errors in it at the first. This latter is Mr. Hobbs' way, but we may plainly see that he makes it his Business to expose the Scripture, and to represent it as a Book fraught with many Inconsistencies and Falsities. If he had dealt thus with Virgil or some other Writer of that strain, if he had impeached that Poet's Chronology in making Aeneas and Dido contemporary, it had been tolerable, yea laudable, for some are of Opinion that Dido was not in being till above a hundred and fifty Years after Aeneas' Death. It was high Poetical Fiction to make that Queen fall in love with the fugitive Trojan so long a time after he was dead. But in the Sacred Writings there is nothing that looks like such Defect in Synchronism: both Time and Place are truly assigned, though sometimes by reason of the things before mentioned we cannot presently discover the Truth of it, and make it appear how it is.  
Lastly, I conclude all with those Genealogical Difficulties in Mat. 1. and Luke 3. I begin with our Saviour's Genealogy, as 'tis drawn up in the first Chapter of St. Matthew. Here some Heretic Christians of old, (as the Ebionites and Manichees) here some of the Notablest Pagans (as Celsus, julian, and Porphyrius) found Matter of Cavil; and some of late have thought that here are such Knots as are impossible to be dissolved. As first, the Genealogy runs thus in ver. 9 Ozias begat joatham; whereas 'tis clear from 1 Chron. 3. 11, 12. that joash, Amaziah, and Azariah, were between Ozias and joatham. The Answer is, that this Genealogist reckons sometimes per saltum: when he saith such a Person begat another, it is not always meant of Father and Son properly, but he is said to beget another from whom that Person or others proceed at a distance. An immediate Generation (such as the Father's is in respect of his Son) is not to be understood in this Place, nor indeed in some others in this Genealogy, where you cannot but observe that sundry Persons are wholly omitted. It is evident therefore that the Design of St. Matthew was not to be strict and accurate in this Pedigree, and to give us a complete Enumeration of Persons, but only to present us with a general and loose Draught of Christ's Descent. And this should teach us not to be overcurious in scanning the Parts of this Genealogy; for if the Evangelist was not Critical and Exact in composing it, why should we show ourselves so in examining it?  
Again, 'tis objected that the Genealogy is said to be divided into three Fourteens, and yet in one of them there are only thirteen Persons to be found. This is solved by some Manuscripts, which insert jachim into ver. 11. thus, Josias begat Jachim, and Jachim begat Jechoniah: and others interpose Abner in ver. 13. as thus, Eliakim begat Abner, and Abner begat Azor. But there is no need of flying to Other Copies in this case; for the plain Resolution of the Difficulty is this, that in ver. 11, 12. under one Name, viz. jechonias, two Persons, viz. the Father and the Son are understood: for that jechonias, mentioned in ver. 11. had two Names, and was called jehoiakim (as you read in 1 Chron. 3. 15, 16.) who was the Father of that jechonias mentioned in ver. 12. The first jechonias was the Son of josias, the second was the Father of Salathiel, and the Son of the former jechonias. Now if the former jechonias, the Father of the latter, be numbered in the second Tesseradecad; and if the latter jechonias, the Father of Salathiel, be inserted into the third Tesseradecad; or, which is the same thing, if the Father be meant in ver. 11. and the Son in ver. 12. the Difficulty vanisheth; for here are thrice fourteen Generations, according to this way which I have propounded. And the way is obvious and easy, and cannot seem strange to any Person who observes the manner of the Lineages in this Genealogy, which are not set down with Accuracy, but something is left to be supplied by us in the several Branches of it, and particularly in this which I last mentioned. But it is further Objected, how could jechonias beget Salathiel, (v. 12.) when 'tis said concerning him, Write ye this Man childless, Jer. 22. 30? If jechonias was childless, Salathiel could not be his Son. But I answer, 1 saint. [Childless] may import no other than this, that he should be bare, Solitary, desolate, distressed, as the Greek renders it, and as the next Words may be thought to explain it [a Man that shall not prosper in his Days]. Or, 2dly. the meaning is, that Iechonias' Children should be cut off, and not one of them succeed him in the Throne, as is said likewife in the following Words, [No Man of his Seed shall prosper, sitting upon the Throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. This is here to be childless: and so though jechoniah had a Son, viz. Salathiel, yet this Son was not his Successor in the Kingdom.  
Then, as to the Genealogy of Christ from joseph upwards, which we have in Luke 3. it is Objected, that Cainan is inserted between Arphaxad and Sala, ver. 36. but is not so in Gen. 11. 12. where these Generations are first recorded. I answer, Cainan is omitted by Moses for Brevity sake, and Arphaxad is said to beget Salah, that is, not immediately, but Cainan intervening. But what was left out in the Hebrew Text the Septuagint supplied, who in their Greek Version expressly mention Cainan: and St. Luke following this Version put Cainan into the Genealogy. And it was better to do so than to alter it according to the Hebrew Original, because the LXX's Version was in great Repute: and if he had altered it, it would have given Offence to the Weak. Besides, this might be by Tradition among the Jews, (as St. Paul's jannes' and jambres, 2 Tim. 3. 8.) and that gave farther Occasion to him of inserting it, though it was not in the Hebrew.  
But how can either of these Genealogies (in St. Matthew and St. Luke) be said to be Christ's, when they both give an Account only of the Lineage of joseph? To satisfy this Scruple we must know that the Virgin Mary's Genealogy is included in that of joseph, and consequently Christ's Descent is here set down because he sprang from the Virgin Mary. joseph being a Good Man, and an Observer of the Law, would not marry one that was not of his Tribe or Family; so that Mary's Genealogy is in a manner his, because she was of the same Family and Stock with him: which is partly intimated in the Close of that Genealogy which is in St. Matthew, ver. 16. Jacob begat Joseph the Husband of Mary; giving us to understand that Mary and joseph were of the same Family and Descent, viz. of the Stock and Lineage of David; for according to the Mosaic Law and Custom one Tribe and Generation did not mix with another, but they were to match together: wherefore in giving the Pedigree of one, that of the other also is given at the same time. Hence Christ is called the Son of David, Mat. 1. 1. and in other Places; not that he was so in respect of an Earthly Father, for he had none, but by reason of his Mother, who was of the House of David. So then the Genealogy of joseph and Mary is to be reckoned as the same, and that is the reason why one of them only, viz. joseph, is distinctly mentioned.  
And yet you may observe a very Great Difference in the Genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke; and one may be said to be Ioseph's and the other Mary's Genealogy; that is, those Persons from whom more immediately joseph descended, are mentioned by the former Evangelist, and those from whom more directly Mary descended, are mentioned by the latter. St. Matthew's Genealogy gives Ioseph's Pedigree from the House of Solomon, and St. Luke's gives the Blessed Virgin Mary's from the House of Nathan. The one, saith St. 
* Comment. in S. Matth.  Hilary, sets down the Royal Stock of Christ by Solomon; the other shows his Priestly Lineage by Nathan. Grotius speaks more consistently, telling us, that St. Matthew takes notice of the Right Succession in his Genealogy, but St. Luke hath regard to the Right of Consanguinity. The short is, we have Christ's Genealogy, not only as it respects his Reputed Father, but his Own Mother. Matthew being a Jew, doth, according to the Legal way, deduce the Line of joseph, the supposed Father of Jesus. Luke being a Gentile, follows the Law of Nature, and writeth Mary's Descent, from whom (being his Mother) Christ really came. And yet after all this, and much more which hath plausibly and probably been said by Writers on this Subject, we are certain of this, that both St. Matthew and St. Luke's Genealogy derive Christ's Line from joseph. We find that both of them terminate expressly in Him. jacob begat joseph, saith St. Matthew, ver. 16. and so ends the Descent. St. Luke, who reckons another way, yet makes the lineal Descent of Christ from joseph, jesus being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, Luke 3. 23. This we must assert, and we can't do otherwise, because the thing is so plain before us, that he that runs may read it in express terms. Moreover, this was according to the constant Custom of the Jews, who always deduced the Pedigree from the Father: and we know that joseph was our Saviour's reputed Father. But than you will say, if both the Genealogies belong to joseph, what is the reason that they differ so much? Whence is it that the same Names and Persons are not mentioned in one that are in the other, if they be the same Genealogy? This Query hath been warmly pursued, and divers Answers have been returned to it. But the true one is this, that where there were so many Names and Persons, the Evangelists might pitch on whom they pleased. It being their Design only to draw up a Pedigree in a desultory way, and not to mention all from whom our Saviour descended, it was in their choice to take who they thought fit, either Persons nearer or further off; they might insist on this or the other Stock as they saw convenient. It is no wonder then that the Names and Number of the Persons in the two Genealogies vary, for St. Matthew and St. Luke proceed in a different way, and derive the Pedigree from distinct Stocks. This is the true reason why there is so great a Difference in the two Genealogies; why the Persons whence the Lineage is drawn, are not the same in both the Evangelists. Yet it evidently appears from both ways of framing the lineal Descent, that our Lord sprang from the House of David, which was the main thing designed and aimed at in these Genealogies. Now, this is effectually done by propounding of Ioseph's Descent: for seeing no Genealogies were reckoned among the Jews by the Woman's side; and seeing the Pedigrees of Women were not wont to be recorded among them, (no more than their Age; whence the only Woman whose Years of her whole Life are recorded in Scripture is Sarah, Gen 23. 1.) it is manifest that when Ioseph's Lineage is set down, that also of his Wife, and consequently of her Son, is set down also: Which is grounded on what I said before viz. that the Jews generally married within their Tribes, that the Inheritances might be preserved in the same Tribe they were in, and not be translated to another. The Injunction was plain and positive, Numb. 36. 6. To the Family of the Tribe of their Father shall they marry: and though afterwards a Special Reason is given, viz. because the Inheritance should not be alienated, yet the Injunction was General, and concerned both Rich and Poor; and though there be some Examples of a contrary Practice in the Sacred History, yet we cannot thence argue that the Law was not General. Yea, the jewish Masters tell us, that the Woman, after the Contract of Marriage, though she was before by her Family of another Tribe and Lineage, different from her Husband, yet by virtue of that Contract she was adopted into the same Tribe with him to whom she was espoused, and so was ever after legally reckoned to be of that Tribe: and the Progeny which afterwards was born of this Woman, was accounted to be of the same Tribe. Thus it is plain that when Ioseph's Lineage is described by the Evangelists, that also of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of our Lord himself is determined. We have reason then to assert this Proposition, that the Pedigrees mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke, are both of them properly the Genealogies of joseph: Which I find most Writers on this Theme are loath to acknowledge; yea, they tell us positively, that one is Ioseph's, and the other is the Virgin's Genealogy. But if we will make use of our Eyes, and behold and read the Pedigrees themselves as they are delivered by the Evangelists, we must be forced to confess that joseph is in the beginning of the Genealogy in St. Luke, and in the end of that other in St. Matthew; only in this the one differs from the other, that the former reckons Ioseph's Lineage upward, and the latter downward. But this is common to them both, that in the Line of Progenitors which they set down, they skip over many Persons; and when this or the other Person was the Son of such an one, 'tis sometimes meant, that at a great Distance he was his Son, or rather his Kinsman, as the Hebrews use the word Son. If we take but this one thing along with us in our perusing of these Pedigrees, it will help us to go through most of the Difficulties we meet with in them: and this you will find made use of to this purpose by those that have travelled with great Industry in this Point, and have undertaken to solve the hard Passages in either of the Genealogies.  
If it be Objected in the last Place, How can joseph be the Son of jacob in one Genealogy, Mat. 1. 16. and the Son of Heli in the other, Luke 3. 23. it is answered by some, that because joseph married Mary, Heli's Daughter, therefore he is called his Son, i. e. his Son by Marriage of his Daughter. Others say, Heli and jacob were Brethren, and the former dying without Children, the latter married his Widow, as the Law in that case required: So that jacob was the Natural Father of joseph, and Heli was his Father-in-law. This is the Sentiment of several of the 
* Jul. African. Greg. Nazianz. Auguslin, Jerom, Eusebius, Ambrose.  Ancients and 
† Baronius, Jansenius, etc.  Moderns, and we have no Argument to confute it. This was a Tradition among the Jews themselves, as you may see in Grotius on Luke 3. Or if this be not satisfactory, we may quash the Difficulty by what I have formerly propounded, viz. that 'tis usual among the Jews to have two Names. It may be jacob and Heli are Names of the same Person; and St. Matthew makes use of one, and St. Luke of the other. To conclude, though we were not able to reconcile some Passages in the foresaid Genealogies, yet we have no reason to take occasion thence to question the Truth and Consistency of them, for 'tis ridiculous to think that St. Matthew would expose this Genealogy, and in the very Entrance of his Gospel, unless he knew it was true, and as to the main unexceptionable. And the very same we may say of St. Luke, who without doubt would not have offered to public View a Pedigree wherein the Chiefest of that Nation were concerned, if he had not been assured that it was impossible to confute it. And suppose we are not able to give an Account of some part of it, yet let that of Grotius be thought of, viz. that the Jews had a way of drawing up Genealogies, which is as to some things unknown to us: they reckoned the Generations in a manner that was different from what is now in use.  
So much touching the Difficulties of the Style of Holy Scripture, and the Occasions of them. No intelligent Person could expect but that it should contain in it some things hard to be understood, if he ever weighed the Particulars before specified in this Discourse, and if he consider moreover, that,  
1. The Scriptures are a Collection of Different Writers, some of which leave out those Passages which others put in, and upon that account there seems sometimes to be a Discrepancy among them, and one is thought to assert that which another seems to deny.  
2. We are ignorant of many Particulars relating to the Names of things, to Rites, Opinions, Customs, Proverbs and peculiar Circumstances of those Times of which the Holy Writings speak: and this is another Reason why several things in them are obscure and unintelligible. We read of the Synagogue of the Libertines, Acts 6. 9 but whether it was so called because 'twas built by jews that were made free of Rome, or from a Man or Men of that Name, or from a Country and People of that Denomination, or whether Libertine be corruptly for Labratheni, (because as 
* Academic. cap. 2.  Fr. junius observes, Labratha was the old Word for a Synagogue or School) no Man can tell: For we must needs be ignorant of the true occasion of Words and Things, if there be no particular Record concerning them. How were it possible to understand the Psalmist's Complaint, Psal. 119. 83. I am become like a Bottle in the Smoke, if we had not read that Anciently the Eastern People used to hang up the Skins, of which Bottles were made, in the Smoke, to dry and harden them? Besides, if they were long hung up in the Fire or Smoke, they were subject to be parched and shrivelled. I am dried up and withered like such a Bottle, saith he. We could not reach the Sense of those other Words of his, The Rod of the Wicked shall not rest on the Lot of the Righteous, Psal. 125. 3. which is an Allusion to the dividing of the Lands among the Jews, if we did not know that the Rod or Staff was used in Sortition, the assigning of Land or Ground by Lot. Again, let not the Reader be surprised when I add, that it may be when St. Paul order the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be brought to him from Troas, 2 Tim. 4. 13. he means the Skins which he was to make use of in his Trade of Tentmaking: For he was brought up to a Trade, (as was usual in those Days, and in those Eastern Countries) and particularly to this, as we read in Acts. 18. 3. And therefore when at other times he acquaints us that he laboured with his Hands, it is not to be questioned that he means his working in this Calling in which he was skilled, and was bred up to. And this questionless was a considerable Employment, and sufficiently gainful, because there was great use of Tents and Booths in those open and hot Countries: and they were much bought up by those whose Employment was in the Fields, especially they were useful for Soldiers. Now the great Materials which were used in this Occupation, were Skins or Hides of Beasts dressed. Accordingly we read that the Covering of the Tabernacle of Testimony was made of Skins, Exod. 35. 23. Yea, Skins are simply and absolutely put for Tents or Tabernacles in these following Places and others, 2 Sam. 7. 2. 1 Chron. 17. 1. Cant. 1. 5. Hab. 3. 7. jer. 10. 20. jerignah is constantly rendered Pellis by the Latin Interpreter, because the Tents were made of Skins. And that Tents and Pavilions were made of these, we may sufficiently inform ourselves from Pagan History. This we learn from Q. Curtius, who tells us, that 
* Soepe pellibus tabernaculi allevatis, ut conspiceres hostium ignes. Hist. lib. 7.  such kind of Membranous Tents were used in Alexander the Great's Camp. And 
† Tentoria militum erant ex pellibus, etc. De gest. Alex. M. l. 1.  Arrianus is very positive in this Matter. These Tents of Skins or Hides were not only among the Greeks but Romans, and both 
‖ Decad. 1. lib. 5.  Livy and 
* Lib. 1. cap 12.  Florus pretend to assign the Date of them. 
† De Bello Gall. l. 3. c. 4.  Caesar mentions this sort of Tents, and 
‖ Lib. 8. cap. 2.  Valerius Maximus tells us, that those Soldiers who behaved themselves amiss, had this as part of their Punishment, nè tentorium ex pellibus haberent, they were not suffered to lie in these Tents in the Field. Hence in Tully we shall find, that 
‖‖ 4 Acad.  sub pellibus esse, is to be safely entrenched, and lie secure in their Tents. It is probable that St. Paul sent to Timothy to bring or convey to him these Skins wherewith he made his Tents, and at that time especially when he was in Bonds at Rome, (the time of his writing this Epistle) and had no other way to gain a Livelihood, than by exercising himself in his Calling. Wherefore he writes to his beloved Timothy, to send him not only his Cloak and his Books, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chiefly, especially his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Skins for Tentmaking, which he most of all wanted at that time: for he was unwilling to be burdensome, and to rely wholly on the Charity of the Christian Brethren. These were some choice Skins which he had left behind him at Troas, when he wrought in this his Trade there. And if it be objected that Troas was a great way off, the Answer is, that they might as easily be brought to him as the Books he writ for, if these were of any considerable Number and Bigness. And this Notion is yet more probable, if you consider that St. Paul was in way of Contempt called by the Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Coriarius, because he cut out Hides and Skins in order to the making of Tents. Yea, some of the Christian Writers give him the foresaid Titles, thereby to magnify the Grace of God towards him. He is often styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 
* Therapeut.  Theodoret; and so he is by 
† Hom. 5. ●n 2 Tim.  Chrysostom. Coriarius Cilix is the Epithet given by 
‖ Comment. in Epist. ●d Eplies.  jerom. This makes it not improbable that the forementioned Text hath reference to the Practice of those times, the making of Tents, or the covering of Booths and Pavilions with Skins. These, it is likely, are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul speaks of. As he sends for his Cloak to defend himself from the Cold, so he sends for the Skins (which he left behind him) to make Tents to shelter and keep others warm. For though it is granted that one Signification of Membrana is Parchment, of which I had occasion to speak before; yet it also signifies the Uppermost Skin or Hide of any Creature, as appears from that of 
* Lib. 4.  Lucretius; Membranas mittunt vituli de corpore summo. And it hath its Denomination from Membrum, saith 
† Voss. Etymolog.  Priscian, because it covers the Limbs and other external Parts. Nay, you must note that this is the first and most proper Signification of the word Membrana in Tully, Pliny, and other Authors: whereas afterwards in a secondary Sense it came to signify Parchment. These things may render my Interpretation of this Place not improbable. However, I presumed to offer the Criticism on the Word, and let the Learned entertain it as they please. But this is not to be questioned, that the not attending to the Usages and Practices of old in the Countries to which some things spoken of in Scripture belong, is one Reason why we miss of the right Sense of some Places.  
3. The Hebrew Text (which is the greater part of the Bible) hath some things proper to itself, which render it perplexed and obscure in some Places, for in Hebrew there are no Moods in the Verbs but the Indicative and Insinitive: no Tenses but the Past and Future, Participles being made use of to express the Present Time, which oftentimes renders the Meaning obscure and intricate. Instead of an Interrogative Point the Hebrews make use of their Interrogative He; otherwise there are no Notes or Marks of Interrogation, which is another Cause (as might be showed) of misunderstanding the Text sometimes. There are frequent Parentheses in the Hebrew Bible, and if they be not diligently observed, they mar the Sense, as to instance but in one Place at present, Isa. 9 3, etc. The 3d, 4th and 5th Verses are a Parenthesis; you must join the 6th Verse to the 2d, and then you will see how the word for in the 6th Verse comes in, not otherwise. But there are no Marks or Characters whereby we may know when there is such a Parenthesis, which cannot but trouble the Sense very much, and confound the Meaning of the Place, unless it be with extraordinary Care taken notice of. And I might add, that the Pauses and Periods in the Hebrew Copies are not so distinct as might be wished. The greater ought our Care and Diligence to be in perusing and studying this Holy Book.  
4. It is the way of the Hebrews (and indeed of all the Eastern Writers) to express things in a brief and concise manner, which renders the Place sometimes dark and confused. In the second Psalm several Persons are introduced speaking, but it is not in the least intimated that there is this Change of Persons, but all is expressed in a short and promiscuous way. The whole Psalm is a Dialogue, wherein the Church speaks, ver. 1, 2. then the Enemies of the Church, v. 3. the Church again, V. 4, 5. then God, ver. 6. then Christ the Son of God, ver. 7, 8, 9 And lastly the Psalmist ends with his own Exhortation. All which Parts, if we do not take notice of, (though they are not distinguished for Brevity sake) the true Import and Scope of the Psalm are lost. It is common to recite Words which are said by Persons, and yet to bring them in abruptly, and not to signify that they are said or spoken by them. As in Psal. 22. 8. He trusted in the Lord, i. e. they said so: but this is not here expressed. Thus in Isa. 33. 14. Who among us, etc. i. e. the Sinners in Zion, mentioned in that Verse, said those Words. In v. 18. where is the Scribe? etc. to make the Sense perfect you must insert, thou shalt say. So in Isa. 49. 24. these Words [say the Enemies] must be inserted. In jer. 6. 4. these or such like Words are left out [the Enemy shall say]. The like is observable in jer. 22. 28. ch. 31. 20. In Host 5. 15. the word [saying] is necessarily implied, for the first Verse of the next Chapter contains the Words which were to be said. Sometimes this is supplied by the Translation, though it be not in the Hebrew, as in 2 Sam. 2. Isa. 64. 11. But in Obadiah, ver. 1. before Arise ye the word saying is to be supposed. In 1 Cor 15. 45. but is left out: otherwise you can't understand the Apostle. And many other Words are omitted in the Old and New Testament, and aught to be supplied by the diligent Reader, who on that account is obliged to be very Attentive when he reads these Sacred Writigs, for their short and contracted way of speaking makes them the less intelligible; whereas when Matters are amplified by Words, they become more clear and plain.  
5. There is in the Hebrew Language a certain Peculiar Idiom or Force of Signification, which when it comes to be translated into another Tongue, is wholly lost; at least a great part of its Vigour and Elegancy is taken away; and at the same time it is not so well understood, because it is a Strange Idiom, and no ways agreeable to our manner of expressing ourselves.  
6. Order and Time are not always observed in these Holy Writings, which too often begets Mistakes. Upon these several Accounts, and others, there must needs be some Obscurity and Difficulty in the Style of Holy Writ. But you may observe that this happens, through the Alwise Providence of God, in those Places where the Great and Momentous things of Religion are not concerned, where the Grand Truths of the Law and the Gospel are not in the least endangered. And when in other Parts of the Bible we meet with Hard and Dark Passages, we ought to be so far from blaming and disparaging this Divine Book, because of these, that we should rather reckon them an Ornament to it. The Dubiousness of Scripture in some things is part of its Excellency. It is a great Commendation of this Sacred Volume, that it is not destitute of Abs●rusities and Difficulties; that we are not wholly tied up and confined in our Interpretation of it; that there is a Freedom of Disquisition allowed us; that in several Places every Man is at his Liberty to embrace what Sense he pleaseth of the Words, so it be according to the Analogy of Faith, and the Tenor of the other Parts of this Inspired Book. This gives us an opportunity of exciting our Care, of exerting our Industry, of improving our Knowledge, of enlarging our Faculties by continual Researches and Examinations. Thus the Obscurity of some Parts of Scripture is of great and excellent Use. But then wherever the Indispensible and Necessary Points of Faith and Manners are treated of in these Writings, their Style is sufficiently clear and plain, and the Matter which is expressed by it is easy to be understood. In brief, the Scripture is plain where it should be so. But if in some other Places there be Controversy and Perplexity, if some Texts seem to oppose and clash with one another, let us remember this, that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and therefore there can be no real Oppositions or Repugnancies in them, because Truth cannot contradict itself. By impartial Study and Enquiry let us dive into the Meaning of these Ancient Writings, and by the Helps which I have tendered in the foregoing Discourse, endeavour to reconcile those Places which seem to differ: but let us never be so daring as to accuse the Scriptures, which were indicted by God himself, of Contradiction.  
FINIS.  
FINIS.    

ADDENDA  

Refer this to Page 267. Line 19.  
HEBREW Verbs of different Significations: 1. Those of two Significations; Anah in Kal, to grieve or mourn, Isa. 3. 26. ch. 19 8. in Piel to deliver up, Exod. 21. 13. Dabar in Kal to speak, in Piel to reduce into order. Chalatz in Piel to save, in Hiphil to arm. jaal in Hiphil to will or desire, in Niphal to be foolish or mad. Pala in Niphal to be admired, in Piel to separate. Alum in Niphal to be silent, in Piel to gather. Mashal in Kal to rule, in Niphal to be compared with or likened to any thing or Person. Sabar in Kal to consider, in Piel to expect, to hope for. Rakah in Kal to spit, in Hiphil to attenuate. Tanah in Kal and Niphil to hire, in Piel to discourse with. Gaal in Kal to redeem, in Piel to pollute. Bara in Kal to create, in Hiph. to make fat. Cacash in Kal to be lean, in Piel to tell a Lie. Lamad in Kal to learn, in Piel to teach. Cabad in Kal to be heavy, in Piel and Niph. to be honoured. Puk to stumble, to produce. Gnarak to ordain, to esteem. Saphak to suffice, to clap Hands. Shabar to break, to buy. Kut to loath or abominate, to contend. Katar to offer Incense, to bind. Kam or Kum to stand or rise, to be dim-sighted. Ragang to quiet, to break or cut asunder. Ramah to dart, to deceive. Shaal to request, to borrow. Panah to behold, to remove. Naka● to bore or make a Hole, to curse. Sama●h to rejoice, to shine. Pharash to separate, to interpret. Lutz to laugh, to argu● or dispute. Zachah to be innocent, to overcome. Lacham to eat, to fight. Gnatsam to strengthen, to shut. Gnatsab to disturb, to fashion or form. Gnaraph to cut the Throat, to distil. Gnathak to wax old, to be removed. 2. Those of three Significations, Rab or Rahab, (and so the Verb Rabah) to be many or much, to shoot Arrows, to educate. Ragal to search, to calumniate, to walk, or make to walk or go. Halal to praise, to shine, to be mad. Shalam to be peaceable, to be perfect, to recompense. Gnabar to pass, to be with Child, to be angry. Nasha● to forget, to let out Money upon Interest, to put out of joint. Gnur, to be watchful, to make blind, to make naked. Alaph to learn, to teach, to make or produce a thousand. Ruang to do Evil, to break or bruise, to make a great Noise. Charash to plough, to think, to be silent. Gnara● to be emptied or poured out, to make naked, to adhere. Mahar to make haste, to be liberal, to be foolish or inconsiderate. Gur to travel abroad, to gather together, to fear. Damah to be quiet, to be like to one, to consent. Pharang to be open or naked, to be free, to vindicate. Aphah to boil, to bake, to fry. Zur to abhor, to sneeze, to compress. Gnana● to answer, to humble, to commit Adultery. Shar to sing, to walk, to observe. Shalah to be quiet, to be fortunate, to err or be faulty. Kutz to rise or awake betimes, to be weary of, or nauseate, to summer, or spend the Summertime. Kara to call, to read, to meet one. 3. Verbs of four or more Significations; Natzah to bud forth, to fly, to fight, to overcome. Salad to strengthen, to warm or heat, to harden, to desire or beg. Kalal to be light or vile, to curse, to destroy, to polish. Shagnah to behold, to be astonished, to abstain or desist, to shut. Pathach to open, to engrave, to plough, to expose, to lose. Carah to open, to pierce, to dig, to prepare, to entertain one with a Feast, to traffic or merchandise. Chalal to begin, to profane, to bring forth Young, to wound, to mourn or grieve, to cut or bore, to leap. Lastly, no Verb in the Holy Tongue hath so many different Significations as Gnarab, the Import of which is to mingle, to negotiate, to be sweet or pleasant, to undertake for, or be Surety, to be dusky, as in the Evening, etc.   

Refer this to Page 274. Line 1.  
Hebrew Nouns of two Significations; Ed a Vapour, Calamity. Siach a Shrub, Speech. Tagnar a Whetstone, a Sheath. Goel a Redeemer, a Kinsman. Sheber Corn or any Food, interpreting or unriddling. Racham the Womb, a Girl, (so, Mother hath this double Signification with us). Lahat a Flame, the Edge of a Sword. Kesil a Fool, a certain Constellation. Aven Iniquity, Vanity. Nagnal a Shoe, a Glove. Nouns of three Significations; Nachal an Inheritance, a Flood or Torrent, a Valley. Alluph a Teacher, a Prince, a Bull or Ox. Keren a Horn, Strength, Splendour. Gevah Pride, Excellency, a Body. Nouns of four or more Significations; Chebel Corruption, Grief, a Rope or Cable, a Crowd or Multitude, besides other collateral ones, as an Inheritance, etc. Shebet a Rod, a Staff, a Sceptre, a Tribe, a Stroke or Plague, a Quill, a Writing-Pen. Charutz cut off, industrious, Gold, precious, a Ditch, a Flail, a Rake.   

Refer this to Page 343. Line 7.  
Hebrew Words that have Contrary Significations; Nacar to be known, to be unknown. Kalas in Piel to slight or disesteem, in Hithpael to praise or extol. Ragang to move and roll up and down, to rest or be quiet. Sharash to take root, to eradicate or extirpate. Taab to desire in Kal, to abominate in Piel. Gnuph to shine, to be obscure. Natzar to save, to destroy. Gnazab to desert, to help. Batzar to rob or prey, to defend one's self from ●obbers. Bara to make or create, also to remove or destroy. Salah to tread under foot, to esteem. Garaph to gather, to disperse. Asaph to gather or preserve, also to remove or destroy. Nacham to grieve or repent, to abandon Grief, or to be comforted. Chissed to consecrate, to desecrate.  
There are Instances of all or most of these (viz. the same Hebrew Verbs and Nouns, which have not only Different but Contrary Senses) in the Writings of the Old Testament, which the Reader may consider at his leisure, and thereby be helped to a distinct understanding of the Words in those Texts where they occur.    

BOOKS written by the Reverend Mr. JOHN EDWARD'S.  
AN Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts of the Old and New Testament, which contain some Difficulty in them, with a Probable Resolution of them: In two Volumes, 8ᵒ.  
A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, Vol. I. with a continued Illustration of several Difficult Texts throughout t●e whole Work, 8ᵒ.  
A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, Vol. II. wherein the Author's former Undertaking is further prosecuted, viz. An Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts which contain some Difficulty in them, 8ᵒ. All sold by jonathan Robinson, john Evering●am, and john Wyat.   

Imprimatur,  
jan. 10. 1694/ 5. CAROLUS ALSTON, R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à sacris.   

DISCOURSE Concerning the Authority, Stile, and Perfection OF THE BOOKS OF THE Old and New Testament.  
Vol. III.  
Treating of the Excellency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures.  
Wherein are also several Remarkable Texts interpreted according to the Author's Particular Judgement.  
By JOHN EDWARD'S, B. D. sometime Fellow of S. John's College in Cambridge.  
LONDON, Printed by I. D. for jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion, john Taylor at the Ship, and john Wyatt at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCV.   

Octob. 13. 1694.  
I judge the Reverend Author shall do well to print the following Discourse, wherein he hath Learnedly demonstrated the Excellency and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament:  
Io. Beaumond, D. D. The King's Professor of Divinity in Cambridge.   

TO THE Most Reverend Father in God, His Grace THOMAS Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate and Metropolitan of all England; and one of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council.  
May it please Your Grace;  
I Embrace this welcome Opportunity of congratulating Your late Access to the Highest Station in our Church, which all Wise and Good Men look upon as an Happy Omen of the future Felicity of these Realms. For in Your Grace conspire all those things which can render us, by the Divine Blessing, a Prosperous People, viz. Your unstained Faithfulness and Loyalty to his Majesty, Your most Ardent Love to Your Country, Your Great Ability for Public Counsels and Affairs, Your perfect Abhorrence of all Immorality and Debauchery, Your Zealous Concern for the Church of England, and in that for the whole Protestant Religion. Of this last You have afforded the World such an Illustrious Proof as will give an immortal Reputation to Your Name. For you have not only with Your Learned Pen encountered the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, and therein vindicated the Reformed Cause, but in all Your Actions You have demonstrated Your singular Care for this latter, and Your Detestation of the former. Especially, when in the late Reign this Idol began to be set up again, and too many fell down to it, You with the utmost Zeal, Vigour and Courage, remonstrated against this Practice. You bore the Insolences and Insults of the Enemy with an unimitable Bravery; You withstood their Boldness with a Confidence becoming the Goodness of Your Cause: You obviated their Folly and Madness with a profound Wisdom and Prudence: You defeated their Diligence by a more unwearied Industry: And, in brief, You were the Successful Maul and Scourge of the Hectoring Jesuits that lifted up their Heads in that Day. For this You were hated and defamed, and are so at this Hour, by all the sworn Friends to the Pontifician Interest, who look upon You (and that justly) as their most Dreadful Enemy. But this very thing deservedly makes Your Grace to be loved, admired and honoured by all Sincere Protestants and True English- mwn.  
I am one that glory in being of that Number, and accordingly I now attempt to express my infinite Regards and Veneration of Your Grace's Transcendent Undertake in behalf of our Religion and our Church, and of the Whole Nation. And, as a Testimony of my Resentments and Duty, I here offer to Your Grace a Discourse of the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, which was designed to be presented to Your Lordship before you were advanced to this Supreme See, to which Your Merits have called You. Wherefore I having then consecrated it to Your Name, I hold it unlawful now to alienate it; especially it being the Choicest and Noblest Subject that I have yet treated of, and therefore I hope not unworthy of Your Grace's Patronage. I submit the Work wholly to Your Grace's Judgement, and beg leave to have the Honour of professing myself to be  
Your Grace's most Humble and Obedient Son and Servant, JOHN EDWARDS.   

The PREFACE.  
I Now present the Reader with that Part of my Discourses concerning the Holy Scriptures, wherein I have attempted to display the matchless Worth and Perfection of those Divine Records. Besides the Great and Important Remarks which I have offered, I could have mentioned other things barely Critical; and which, though they be of an inferior Nature in comparison of those which I have insisted upon, are deemed to be Excellencies and Embellishments in other Authors of good Rank. Thus some Critics have observed concerning that of Virgil, Aen. 8. Quadrupedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula (campum; That in the very Sound of the Words the swift Career of the Horses beating and shaking the Ground with their Hoofs seems to s●rike the Ear. The Poetic Feet are so formed that they express those of the Steeds. And so in the same Writer, Aen. 5.— Procumbit humi bos, is thought to be a great Elegancy and Pulchritude, as if it represented in a lively manner the Dull and Heavy F●ll of that Creature. Both in this and the former Instance the very Noise of the Words, the very Composure of the Syllables, are justly applauded by the Admirers of that Poet. The like I could have observed in the Inspired Writings, especially those that are Poetical, among which I reckon the Book of Isaiah to be one; for though it be not in Verse, yet a Poetic Genius and Strain may be observed in most Parts of it. Those Words, ch. 21. v. 5. Prepare the Table, watch in the Watch-Tower, eat, drink, arise ye Princes, anoint the Shield, express the Speediness of the Preparations made for Babylon's Fall. They are so ordered that the Quickness of the Dispatch is signified by them. There are six Parts or Divisions in this Verse without a Copulative, merely to signify the Celerity of the Undertaking. And the Vision wherein this Speedy Ruin of that Nation is foretold is thus represented, v. 7. He saw a Chariot, a couple of Horsemen, a Chariot of Asses, a Chariot of Camels. There is Expedition in the very Words, there is no Conjunctive Particle to retard them. You may in the very Frame of the Words perceive the Chariots running speedily. But if we look into those Parts of the Bible which are strictly and properly Poetical, that is, which consist of certain Measures and Numbers, we shall find Examples of this sort very frequently. The Egyptians furious Pursuit after the Israelites is thus expressed in Moses' Song, Exod. 15. 9 I will pursue, I will overtake, etc. Where there are ●ix Verbs denoting Action and Expedition, and not one Conjunction between them. In the Conciseness and Roundness of the Words, especially if we consult the Original, which is more Emphatic, we may discern the Speediness of the thing itself spoken of. The like might be taken notice of in the Song of Deborah, judg. 5. and in several Places of the Psalms, and the Lamentations. Thus, if we would be very Curious, we might parallel the Inspired Poetry with that of the best Masters in that Art among the Gentiles.  
But because these things are but mean in respect of those Weightier ones wherein the Bible's Excellency doth appear, I have not inserted them, or any other Observations of the like Nature, into the ensuing Discourse; and the rather, because it was my Design to mention only those Particulars which are of Universal Use, and which may without Exception be acceptable to all Persons who have a due Esteem either of True Learning or Piety. Those who value the former, and are well acquainted with it, will most readily give their Suffrage here, and proclaim to the World that Scripture-Learning outvies all others, that the Original of most Arts and Sciences is to be fetched hence, that a Library without the Bible is an imperfect thing. Those who have a Sense of the latter will be as forward to assert the Pre-eminence of this Sacred Volume, for here is the Source of all Religion; and no Man can be Devout and Pious who is a Stranger to this. Wherefore when, with a becoming Regret, I saw that the Sense of Religion and Piety is generally lost among us at this Day, I apprehended that the best way to retrieve it, is to read and peruse the Scriptures: And that this may be done with Success I thought it requisite to set forth the Excellency and Perfection of this Holy Book, that thence Persons might be effectually invited to acquaint themselves with it. And I hope, how meanly soever I have performed this Task, some who light upon these Papers will from them be inspired with a hearty Regard and Reverence, an entire Love and Veneration of the Holy Writ, and be reminded from what is here suggested, to converse more intimately with it themselves, and to encourage others to follow their Example. This would in a short time make a great Change in the World, and the Bible itself would be read in the Lives and Behaviour of Mankind. Wherefore with great Seriousness and Importunity I request the Reader that he would entertain such Thoughts and Persuasions as these, that Bible-Learning is the Highest Accomplishment, that this Book is the most Valuable of any upon Earth, that here is a Library in on single Volume, that this alone is sufficient for us, though all the Libraries and Books in the World were destroyed. And this is the Grand Truth which I have laboured to demonstrate in the following Papers.   

A CATALOGUE of most of the Texts of Scripture which are interpreted in the following Discourse, according to the Author's Particular judgement.  

GENESIS.  
THE whole first Chapter. Page 3▪ ●  
Chap. 3. v. 7. They made themselves Aprons. What the word C●agoroth signifies. p. 235▪  
Ver. 21. Unto them the Lord God made Coats of Skins. Why so called. p. 237  
Ch. 4. v. 20. Jabal was the Father of such as dwell in Tents. p. 112  
Ch. 18. v. 7. He took the Calf which he had dressed, and set it before them. p. 117  
Ch. 24. v. 22. The Man took▪ a Golden Ear-ring. What is meant by Nezem zahab. p. 242  
Ch. 50. v. 2. Joseph commanded the Physicians [Rophim] to embalm his Father. The large Extent of that Word is fully showed. p. 187   

EXODUS.  
Ch. 21. v. 7. His Master shall boar his Ear through with an Awl, and he shall serve him for ever. p. 247   

NUMBERS.  
Ch. 21. v. 14.— The Book of the Wars of the Lord. Besides several other Texts from which some endeavour to infer that some part of the Writings belonging to the Bible is lost. p. 453   

JOSHUA.  
Ch. 2. v. 4. The Woman took the two Men, and hid them. p. 153  
Ch. 7. v. 26. They raised over him a great Heap of Stones. p. 280  
Ch. 23. v. 2. Joshua called for their Elders, and for their Heads, and for their judges, and their Officers. p. 85   

JUDGES.  
Ch. 20. v. 16. There were seven hundred chosen Men lefthanded, or shut of their right Hands. p. 212   

SAMUEL, Book I.  
Ch. 17. v. 6. He had a Target [Cidon] of Brass between his Shoulders. p. 204   

SAMUEL, Book II.  
Ch. 1. v. 21. There the Shield of the Mighty is vilely cast away: the Shield of Saul, as though he [rather, it] had not been anointed with Oil. p. 206, 207  
Ch. 3. v. 35. All the People came to cause David to eat Bread.   

KINGS, Book I.  
Ch. 9 v. 28. And they came to Ophir. In what Part of the World this is. p. 194   

CHRONICLES, Book II.  
Ch. 21. v. 19 His People made no Burning for him, like the Burning of his Fathers. p. 273   

JOB.  
Ch. 1. v. 21. Naked came I out of my Mother's Womb, and naked shall I return thither. p. 264   

PROVERBS.  
Ch. 1. v. 17. Surely in vain is the Net spread in the Sight of any Bird. p. 385   

JEREMIAH.  
Ch. 34. v. 5. He died with the Burnings of his Fathers. p. 272   

EZEKIEL.  
Ch. 24. v. 17. Bind the Tire of thy Head upon thee. p. 275   

AMOS.  
Ch. 2. v. 8. They lay themselves down upon Clothes. p. 134   

St. LUKE.  
Ch. 10. v. 42. Mary hath chosen the good Part. p. 141   

ACTS.  
Ch. 7. v. 22. He was mighty in Words and in Deeds. p. 312, etc.   

CORINTHIANS, 1 Epist.  
Ch. 5. v. 9 I wrote unto you in an Epistle. p. 467  
Ch. 7. v. 6. I speak this of Permission, and not of Command. p. 472  
Ver. 12. To the rest speak I, not the Lord. ibid.   

CORINTHIANS, 2 Epist.  
Ch. 3. v. 17. Now the Lord is that Spirit. p. 434  
Ch. 8. v. 8. I speak not by Commandment. p. 472  
Ch. 11. v. 6. Though I be rude in Speech. p. 437  
Ver. 17. I speak not after the Lord. p. 472   

St. JAMES.  
Ch. 4. v. 5, 6. Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain, The Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy? But he giveth more Grace. p. 463   

St. PETER, 2 Epist.  
Ch. 3. v. 5. This they are willingly ignorant of, that by the Word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth standing out of the Water, and in the Water. p. 62   

St. JOHN, 2 Epist.  
Ver. 12. I will not write with Paper, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 167   
Besides sundry Texts mentioned in that Part of the Discourse where the Emendation of the present English Version of the New Testament is attempted.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 30. line 1O. r. able fully to. P. 79. l. 29. r. who were. P. 104. l. 33. r. as. P. 11O. l. 5. r. Founder's. P. 117. l. 28. r. Greeks. P. 121. l. 33. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 139. l. 25. r. a●. P. 140. ●. 33. r. from its. P. 146. l. 27. r. require either of. P. 159. l. 15. r. recorded that the Letters of their Alphabet were. P. 188. l. 14 after Time's deal (,). l. 15. after these deal (,). P. 196. in the Margin r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 206. l. 20. r. this. P. 216. l. 1. r. which we read of in. P. 230. l. 15. r. Places. P. 244. l. 27. r. which we, and include the following words (which is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. rotulae, by the LXX) in a Parenthesis. P. 322. l. 33, 34. r. the former, and f. were r. was. P. 336. l. 30. r. might. P. 340. l. 3. r. the deadly. P. 361. l. ult. r. Lives. P. 432. l. 1. after thus insert (:). P. 433. l. 3. before but leave out (,). P. 491. l. 13. r. that. P. 493. l. 4. r. in the. P. 504. l. antepenult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 554. l. 32. del● all. P. 558. l. 9 r. they did. P. 562. l. 5. r. for one. P. 563. l. 30. r. mist. P. 565. l. 15. r. are. The Faults in the Hebrew are le●t to be corrected by the Learned.   

The CONTENTS of the Several CHAPTERS.  

CHAP. I.  
THE different Esteem and Sentiment of Persons concerning the Authors they make choice of to read. No Writings can equal the Bible. It hath been highly valued in all Ages by Men of the greatest Learning, Wit and Judgement. A Scheme of the following Discourse briefly propounded. The Holy Scriptures are the perfect Rule of Faith. They are the best Conduct of our Lives and Actions. They are the only Ground of solid Consolation, Joy and Happiness. This Perfection of Scripture is opposed by many of the Rabbins. An Account of their Cabala and Oral Law. The Papists by preferring their Traditions before the Scriptures, and by endeavouring to keep these latter in an unknown Tongue, deny the Perfection of them. So do Familists, Quakers, and all Enthusiasts. pag. 1▪   

CHAP. II.  
The Bible is furnished with all sorts of Humane (as well as Divine) Learning. Hebrew, wherein the Old Testament was written, is the Primitive Language of the World. The True Origine of the World is plainly recorded in no other Writings but these. The first Chapter of Genesis is a real History, and records Matter of fact. It is largely proved that the Mosaic History gives us a particular Account of the first Rise of the several Nations and People of the Earth, and of the Places of their Habitation. Also the true Knowledge of the Original of Civil Government, and the Increases of it, and the different Changes it underwent, is derived from these Writings. The Courts of Judicature, and the several kinds of Punishment among the Jews distinctly treated of. The Government among the Heathen Nations. The four Celebrated Monarchies or Empires of the World. p. 45   

CHAP. III.  
In these Sacred Writings we have the first and earliest Account of all useful Employments and Callings, viz. Gardening, Husbandry, feeding of Sheep, preparing of Food. The ancient manner of Threshing, Grinding of Corn, and making Bread is enquired into. What was the Primitive Drink. The Posture which they used at eating and drinking. Sitting preceded Discubation. The particular manner of placing themselves on their Beds. Eating in common not always used. Discalceation and Washing the Feet were the Attendants of Eating and Feasting. So was Anointing. They had a Master or Governor of their Feasts. Who were the first Inventors of Mechanic Arts. The first Examples of Architecture. Houses were built flat at top, and why. p. 111   

CHAP. IV.  
The first Original of Letters and Writing is recorded here. The several kinds of Materials they wrote upon of old. The Instruments with which they form their Letters or Characters. The Ancientest (as well as the most Excellent) History is in the Bible. So is the Ancientest and most Admired Poetry. The first Invention and Practice of Music, and on what Occasions it was wont to be made use of. The Rise of Natural Philosophy, and who were the first Founders of it. The Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures necessary in order to the due Study of Natural Philosophy. The first Instances of Anatomy, medics, Chirurgery, Embalming, and the Apothecary's Employment, are in the Old Testament. Here are the first Examples of Shipping and Navigation. An Enquiry into the Place whither Solomon's Navy went every three Years: A Conjecture concerning Ophir. Astronomy and Judiciary Astrology mentioned in Scripture. Of War and Skill in Arms. The Nature of those Military Weapons which are spoken of in Scripture, particularly and distinctly enquired into. The Antiquity of Martial Ensigns and Standards. The vast Numbers which the Armies of old consisted of. The Scripture is not silent concerning Sportive Diversions and Exercises: some of which, but especially Dancing, are considered. p. 157   

CHAP. V.  
We are furnished in the Bible with the Knowledge of the first Usages relating to Matrimony. Of Nuptial Feasts; and other Ancient Feasts. We have here the first Notices of Buying and Selling, and the Ancient use of Money. We learn hence what was the first Apparel, and what Additions there were afterwards. The chief Ornaments of Men and Women, viz. Crowns, Mitres, Frontal Jewels, Earrings, (the occasion of wearing these at first, and among what Persons and Nations, together with the Abuse of them) Chains, Bracelets, Finger-Rings and Signets. Changes of Garments. The Ancient Use of White Apparel. Fuller's Earth. Looking-Glasses. Rending of the Garments. P. 225   

CHAP. VI  
Here we are informed concerning the Primitive Institution of Burying. Graves and Sepulchers were generally in the Fields, and without the Walls of Cities. They usually embalmed the dead Bodies. Why they sometimes burnt them. Burning also signifies Embalming. There was a Difference between the Funeral Burning of the Jews and of the Heathens. The Manner and Time of Mourning for the Dead. Both Vocal and Instrumental Music used at Funerals. The Antiquity of Funeral Monuments. The old way of erecting great Heaps of Stones over the Dead. stonehenge is a Sepulchral Monument, and in imitation of it. Anah's Invention of Mules. Writers borrow from one another. The Bible only is the Book that is beholden to no other. Here is the Ancientest Learning in the World: and that of all Kind's. 'Tis common with Authors to contradict themselves, and one another: they are uncertain, lubricous, and fabulous. But the Divine Writers alone are certain and infallible. How strange and improbable soever some of the Contents of this Holy Book may seem to be, they justly command our firm Assent to them. p. 263   

CHAP. VII.  
A particular Distribution of the several Books of the Old Testament. Genesis (the first of them, together with the four following ones) being written by Moses, his ample Character or Panegyric is attempted, wherein there is a full Account of his Birth, Education, Flight from Court, retired Life, his Return to Egypt, his conducting of the Israelites thence, his immediate Converse with God in the Mount, his delivering the Law, his Divine Eloquence, his Humility and Meekness, his Sufferings, his Miracles, and his particular Fitness to write these Books. A Summary of the several Heads contained in Genesis: to which is added a brief but distinct View of the Six Days Works, wherein is explained the Mosaic Draught of the Origine of all things, and at the same time the bold Hypotheses of a late Writer (designed to confront the First Chapter of the Bible) are exposed and refuted. The Contents of the Book of Exodus: to which is adjoined a short Comment on the Ten Plagues of Egypt. A Rehearsal of the remarkable Particulars treated of in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. That Moses was the Penman and Author of the Pentateuch, notwithstanding what some have lately objected against it. p. 305   

CHAP. VIII.  
A short Survey of the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, (which is a Supplement to the History of the judges) Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, (which is a Continuation of the Chronicles) Nehemiah, Esther. The Author, Stile, Composure, Matter of the Book of Job discussed. An Enquiry into the Penmen, Subjects, Kind's, Titles, Poetic Meter and Rhythm of the Psalms. p. 350   

CHAP. IX.  
The Book of Proverbs, why so called. The transcendent Excellency of these Divine and Inspired Aphorisms. Some Instances of the Different Application of the Similitudes used by this Author. The Book of Ecclesiastes, why so entitled. The Admirable Subject of it succinctly displayed. The particular Nature of the Canticle or Mystical Song of Solomon briefly set forth. It is evinced from very cogent Arguments, that Solomon died in the Favour of God, and was saved. The Books of the Four Great Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with his Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, are described. So are those of the Twelve Lesser Prophets, Hosea, etc. p. 379   

CHAP. X.  
An Account of the Writings of the Four Evangelists▪ the peculiar Time, Order, Stile, Design of their Gospels. The Acts of the Apostles showed to be an Incomparable History of the Primitive Church. The Epistles of St. Paul particularly delineated. He is proved to be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. An Enquiry into the Nature of this Apostle's Style and manner of Writing. The excellent Matter and Design of the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Judas. An Historical Series or Order is not observed in the Book of the Revelation. p. 415   

CHAP. XI.  
None of the Books of the Holy Scripture are lost: Not the Book of the Covenant: Nor the Book of the Wars of the Lord: Nor the Book of jasher: Nor the Acts of Vzziah. An Account of the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, the Book of Iddo, the Books of Shemaiah, jehu, etc. What is to be thought concerning the Books of Solomon, mentioned 1 Kings 4. 32, 33. Objections drawn from Jam. 4. 5. from Luke 11. 49. from Acts 20. 35. from Judas v. 14. from 1 Cor. 5. 9 from Col. 4. 16. fully satisfied. Other Objections from 1 Cor. 7. 6, 12, 25. 2 Cor. 8. 8. & 11. 17. particularly answered. p. 451   

CHAP. XII.  
A short View of the Eastern Translations of the Old Testament, especially of the Targums. The several Greek Translations, more especially that of the LXX Jewish Elders. The impartial History of them, and their Version. Some immoderately extol it; others as excessively inveigh against it. The true Grounds of the Difference between the Hebrew Text and the Greek Translation of the Septuagint assigned, viz. One Hebrew Vowel is put for another: One Consonant for another, Sometimes both Vowels and Consonants are mistaken: The Difference of the Signification of some Hebrew Words is another Cause: sometimes the Sense rather than the Word itself is attended to: Some Faults are to be attributed to the Transcribers: Some, because the LXX are Paraphrasts rather than Translators; they take the liberty to insert Words and Passages of their own. The Greek Version hath been designedly corrupted in several Places. Why the Apostles in their Sermons and Writings made use of this Version, though it was faulty. Sometimes the Sacred Writers keep close to the Hebrew Text, and take no notice of the Seventy's Translation of the Words. At other times in their Quotations they confine themselves to neither, but use a Latitude. The Greek Version is to be read with Candour and Caution: and must always give way to the Hebrew Original. The chief Latin Translations of the Bible, especially the Vulgar, examined. Modern Latin Translations, and lastly our own English one, considered. p. 477   

CHAP. XIII.  
Our English Translation showed to be faulty and defective in some Places of the Old Testament. But more largely and fully this is performed in the several Books of the New Testament, where abundant Instances are produced of this Defect: and particular Emendations are all along offered, in order to the rendering our Translation more exact and complete. The Date of the Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses. p. 532   

CHAP. XIV.  
The Reader is invited to the Study of the Bible, as he values the Repute of a Scholar and a Learned Man. That he may successfully study this Holy Book, he must be furnished with Tongues, Arts, History, etc. It is necessary that he be very Inquisitive and Diligent in searching into the Mind and Design of the Sacred Writers: In examining the Coherence of the Words: In Comparing Places together: In observing and discovering the peculiar Grace and Elegancy, and sometimes the Verbal Allusions and Cadences of the Holy Scripture, of which several Instances are given. He must also be Morally qualified to read this Book, i. e. he ought to banish all Prejudice: He must be Modest and Humble: He must endeavour to free himself from the Love of all Vice: He must with great Earnestness implore the Assistance of the Holy Spirit. p. 532    

OF THE EXCELLENCY & PERFECTION OF THE Holy Scriptures.  

CHAP. I.  
The different Esteem and Sentiment of Persons concerning the Authors they make choice of to read. No Writings can equal the Bible. It hath been highly valued in all Ages by Men of the greatest Learning, Wit and Judgement. A Scheme of the following Discourse briefly propounded. The Holy Scriptures are the perfect Rule of Faith. They are the best Conduct of our Lives and Actions. They are the only Ground of solid Consolation, Joy and Happiness. This Perfection of Scripture is opposed by many of the Rabbins. An Account of their Cabala and Oral Law. The Papists by preferring their Traditions before the Scriptures, and by endeavouring to keep these latter in an unknown Tongue, deny the Perfection of them. So do Familists, Quakers, and all Enthusiasts.  
IT may be observed that the Minds of Men have been differently disposed as to the choice of the Authors they would read; and their Esteem and Value of them have been as various. It hath been usual for Persons to express a particular Kindness for one Writer above another. Thus Homer of old was excessively magnified by those famous Warriors Agesilaus and Alexander the Great: The former read him continually at home and in the Camp, and whenever he had any time to spare for Reading: The latter could not sleep without his Iliads under his Pillow. Scipio, surnamed the African, had a great Opinion of Xenophon's Institution of Cyrus, and was always consulting it, and valued it at a high rate. So among Christians, St. Cyprian was a great Admirer of Tertullian; and when he had a mind to read him, his usual Saying was, Give me my Master. Charles the Great was hugely taken with St. Augustine de Civitate Dei, and had it constantly read to him, yea even at Supper. King Alphonsus in all his Expeditions, and at all other times, carried julius Caesar's Commentaries, others say Livy's History, with him. Theodore Gaza gave his Vote for Plutarch's Works, and was so pleased with them, that he protested if he could have but one Man's Writings, he would certainly choose His before all others. Thomas Aquinas was no less in love with St. Chrysostom on St. Matthew, and expressed his high Esteem of him by saying, he preferred him before the goodly City of Paris. Charles the V th' gave a greater Deference to Comines than to any other Writer, and perpetually conversed with him. Scaliger would rather be the Author of the ninth Ode of Horace than be Emperor of Germany. And to come down yet lower, Grotius gives Cujacius the Preference to all the other Comm●ntators on the Imperial Laws. Salmasius admired no Divine so much as Calvin, and particularly preferred his Institutions. And the Reverend Mr. B. Oley tells us, if he were to be confined to one Author, he would choose Dr. Iackson's Works. Thus have men's Sentiments and Esteems been various about Books, ●ome preferring one Writer, and some another, according as their Genius or Studies led them.  
●ut when we mention the Bible, i. e. the Book of Books, we are certain there is no Comparison between This and any others whatsoever. This Sacred Volume is emphatically, and by way of Eminence, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if other Books in respect of This deserved not the Name. For in what other Writings can we descry tho●e Excellencies which we find in This? None of them can equal it in Antiquity, for the first Penman of the Sacred Scripture (who relates the Origine of the World, and whose Writings contain the Acts and Monuments of the Patriarches) hath the start of all Philosophers, Poets and Historians, and is absolutely the Ancientest Writer extant in the World. No Writings are equal to these of the Bible, if we mention only the stock of Humane Learning contained in them. Here Linguists and Philologists may find that which is to be found no where else. Here Rhetoricians and Orators may be entertained with a more lofty Eloquence, with a choicer Composure of Words, and with greater Variety of Style than any other Writers can afford them. Here is a Book where more is understood than expressed, where Words are few, but the Sense is full and redundant. No Books equal This in Authority, because 〈◊〉 is the Word of God himself, and dictated by an unerring Spirit. It excels all other Writings in the Excellency of its Matter, which is the Highest, Noblest, and Worthiest, and of the Greatest Concern to Mankind. Lastly, (to name no more at present, that I may not anticipate what is intended in the following Discourse) the Scriptures transcend all other Writings in their Power and Efficacy. This 
2 Psal. 19 8.  Word of God is pure, enlightening the Eyes, irradiating men's Minds with Supernatural Truth, affecting their Hearts and Consciences, subduing the Refracotriness of their Wills, transforming their Lives, and changing them into other Persons. Thence it is that all Men of well-disposed Souls find a plain Differene between their reading This and other Books. When they read those, it is true they are something affected and pleased, the Style or the Matter give them some Satisfaction; but if they read them often, and confine themselves to them, their former Pleasure and Satisfaction abate, and the Authors seem not to be so entertaining and acceptable as they were before, and at length they become burdensome and nauseous; and hence it is that some Writers grow out of fashion, and other New ones are called for. But it is far otherwise with this Holy Book: the Affection and Pleasure which you feel in the reading it are lasting and durable, because this Blessed Word sinks down into the Centre of the Soul, and is always present with it. Though you lay this Book aside, and afterwards take it up, and do so again and again, yea never so often, you will not ●ind it grow worse, but much better, i. e. it will yield you greater Delight and Satisfaction; and the oftener you converse with it, the more you will discern the Worth of it, yea the more pleasing will the very Words and Syllables of these Divine Writings be to you. For what the Great Critic observes of Homer's Poem▪ that there is a certain kind of Peculiar Easiness and Sliding in his Verse, which are not to be found in any other Poets, is eminently true of the Holy Scriptures, if compared with other Authors: there is a peculiar Sweetness, a matchless Softness and Pleasantness in the Style of these Holy Books; the Words as well as the Matter are Winning and Ravishing, and all pure and sanctified Minds have a clear Perception of this, yea the clearer, because they so frequently converse with these Inspired Writers. We may then on this Account, as well as on others, challenge the World to show us where there is any Book like this, where there is any Author comparable to it. In all Humane Writers there is something wanting, something imperfect; but in this Sacred Volume there are all things, and every thing here is complete. To the Holy Scriptures therefore all other Writings must veil, to this Best of Books they must all submit, and acknowledge their Meanness and Inferiority.  
Hence it was that the Wisest and Best Men (as we may observe) did always extol the Scriptures. 
3 Lib. advers. Hermogenem.  I adore the Plenitude of the Scripture, said Tertullian; and to him have echoed the rest of the Ancient Fathers, especially St. Cyprian, jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, who have highly magnified the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and have been very Rhetorical in their Panegyrics upon them. These and some other Brave Men in the first Ages of the Church signalised themselves by their Reverence and Esteem of the Scriptures; and 
4 Juvencus, Nazianzen, 〈◊〉, Sedulius, Prudentius, A●a●or, Rusticus Elpidius.  some of them consecrated their Wit and Poetry to this Noble Cause. Nor have these latter Ages been destitute of Persons of the most Celebrated Parts and Learning that have adored the Fullness and Perfection of the Scripture, and have used their Wit and Eloquence in setting forth its Praises 〈◊〉 ●icinus, that Great Philosophic Soul, and the Noble Pi●us Mirandula, who was the best Linguist and Scholar of his age, two as Learned Italians as that Nation ever bred, (and who may more than compound for those two other Italians mentioned in my former Discourse, who so impiously vilified the Sacred Writings) after they had read all good Authors, rested in the Bible as the only Book; and particularly it was pronounced by the latter of them, that now he had found the 〈◊〉 Eloquence and Wisdom. Yea, these last Times have produced Men of the Choicest Brains, of the Briskest Parts, of the Greatest Humane Learning, who have employed these excellent Talents in embellishing the Sacr●d Scriptures; witness Ca●●●llio, who hath turned the Whole Bible into Pur●, Terse, Elegant Latin, able to tempt us to read this Book: And ●rotius hath incomparably asserted the Propriety and Elegancy of the Sacred Style; and many Other exc●ll●●t Persons who have defended this Holy Book against the Insults and Cavils of profane Men. We could name 
5 D●-Bartas, B●chanan, Bishop Hall, Sir George Sandys, Dr. Donne, Mr. 〈◊〉, Mr. H●rb●r●, Dr. Beau●o●●, Mr. C●wley, Mr. Milton, Dr. More, Mr. Norris▪ Mr. W●o●ford, Dr. Patrick▪ Vida, Wes●●y.  Others of the most Sparkling Wit and Fancy, who have exercised their Poetic Genius in descanting either on the Sacred History of the Bible, or on those Divine Matters which are contained in it, and have thought their Pens, yea Poetry itself, ●nobled by such a Subject. We could mention others of the most Serious Thoughts and of the most Impartial Judgement, not only among those that are Pr●●essed Divines, and that have adorned the Sacred Scripture by their Learned Expositions, Comments, Annotations, Paraphrases, Lectures, Sermons, Discourses, but also among Persons of another Rank and Capacity, who have given the Bible the Pre-eminence of all Writings. I will at present mention only Mr. Selden and Judge Ha●e: the former was one of the greatest Scholars and Antiquaries of this Age and made a vast Amassment of Books and Manuscripts from all Parts of the World, a Library perhaps not to be equalled, o● all Accounts, in the Universe: This Man of Books and Learning holding some serious Conference with Archbishop Usher a little before he died, professed to him, that 
6 In his Li●e.  notwithstanding he had possessed himself of that vast Treasure of Books and Manuscripts in all ancient Subjects, yet he could rest his Soul on none but the Scriptures. And hear what the other Gentleman of the same Studies and Profession declares, 
7 judge Hale, in his Letter to one of his So●s.  I have been acquainted somewhat with Men and Books, and have had long Experience in Learning and in the World. There is no Book like the Bible for excellent Learning, Wisdom and Use: and it is want of Understanding in them that think or speak otherwise. This is sufficient to show that the most Noble and Refined Wits, the most Knowing and the most Judicious Heads, bear the greatest Regard and Esteem for the Holy Scriptures, and prefer them before all other Writings in the World. It may pass for a Certain Maxim, that the more learned any Man is, the more he prizeth the Bible, the greater Regard he hath for these Sacred Records. It was said of old, that 
8 Cic●ronem amâ●●e, pro●ecisse est. Q●intil.  it was a Sign of a great Proficiency in Good Letters to love Tully's Writings. It is much more a Sign of our Improvement in true Learning that we delight in the Holy Scriptures, and love them above all Writings whatsoever. We show our Proficiency by reverently esteeming the Bible, and preferring it before all other Authors. We discover that we have a Sense of True and Useful Knowledge, when we value this Book wherein it is contained, when we admire this Volume where all Excellencies meet together.  
To evince this, I will undertake these following things.  

I. To show the matchless Usefulness of the Bible in respect of Spiritual, Divine and Supernatural Matters.  
II. To demonstrate its Transcendent Excellency in regard of things Temporal and Secular, such as are for the Improvement of all kinds of Humane Learning, and for the Use of Life.  
III. To give a Proof of this Excellency and Perfection, by a particular displaying of the several Books contained in this Holy Volume.  
IV. To let you see that this Perfection is not impaired by what is objected and alleged.  
1. Concerning the Loss of some Books which had formerly been a part of the Old and New Testament. 2. Concerning the great Difference between the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek Translation of the Seventy. Where I will endeavour to discover the true Grounds and Foundations of those Mistakes that are in the LXX's Version, and show whence it arises that there is such a Discrepancy between that and the Original Verity.  
V. I will attempt an Emendation of the present English Version, which in several Places seems to me to be defective; that I may hereby restore the New Testament (for of that I shall chiefly speak) to its native Perfection and Lustre.  
Lastly, I will invite and solicit the Reader to the Study of the Bible, and direct him in so laudable and worthy an Employment.   
First, I will demonstratively prove the Transcendent Excellency of these Writings in respect of the things which are Divine, and have an immediate relation to Religion. Thus they are the only Canon of our Faith, the exact Standard of our Lives, and they mark us out the Way to solid Comfort, peace and Happiness. These are the three things I will insist upon.  
1. This Holy Book is the Absolute and Perfect Rule of our Faith. This comprises in it every thing that is the Object of our Belief, the Ma●●●r of our Assent. Here we are taught to believe● a God, an Immortal, Independent, All-sufficient, Self-subsisting Spirit; who is infinitely Wife, powerful, Just and Merciful: who though he was ineffably happy in the fruition of his own immense and transcendent Perfections; yet, that he might communicate his Goodness to others, was pleased to frame the World, with all the excellent Furniture which we behold in it. By the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made, and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth, Psal. 33. 6. He laid the Foundations of the Earth, and gave to the Sea his Decree, and set a Compass on the Face of the Deep, Psal. 104. 5. Prov. 8. 27, 29. We are assured from these Writings, that God's Providence governs the World, and all things in it, whether great or small, Psal. 147. 8, etc. Matth. 10. 29, 30, etc. And that he doth whatsoever he pleaseth both in Heaven and Earth, Psal. 115. 3. But more especially the Divine Oracles acquaint us, that this Divine and Benign Author, gave existence unto Man, the Choicest of all the Creatures of this lower World, whom he created in his own Image, after his Likeness, Gen. 1. 26, 27. that is, in Knowledge, Righteousness and true Holiness, Col. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24. And we are told in these Sacred Writings, how Man lost this Image, and miferably defaced and corrupted his Nature, viz. by listening to the Temptation of Satan, and by wilful disobeying the Divine Command. Here also we are informed, that all Flesh is defiled and polluted by this Transgression of our First Parents in Paradise, and that their Sin is become the Sin of All Mankind, Rom. 5. 12. Hence we learn moreover, that the Merciful Creator, out of his infinite and boundless Philanthropy, vouchsafed to promise, that the seed of the Woman, the Blessed jesus, who was to be born of a Virgin, should bruise Satan's Head, Gen. 3. 15. and save and redeem lost Mankind, and restore them to their former State of Happiness. Here is taught the Rise of Religion and the Church, which began with our Pe●tent First Parents, and their Children; of whom Abol was the Chief. Their first and early way of expressing their Devotion and Religion, was by Offerings and Sacrifices unto God, Gen. 4. 4. To which end, without doubt, they erected Altars, though these are not mentioned till after the Flood, Gen. 8. 20. We are told at what time there was established an Open and more Solemn worshipping of God, viz. in Seth's days; than it was that Men began to call upon the Name of the Lord, and to form a Visible Church, Gen. 4. 26. i e. an Orderly and Solemn Society of Men, gathered and chosen out as a peculiar People to serve God. For as Men increased, they began to embody themselves into Communions, and to worship God more signally and openly, and with a joint Consent. Here (and no where else) we have an Account of the Church's Progress and Increase, under the good Patriarches, Noah, Abraham, etc. Here we are informed what were the several Defections and Restorations of Religion in the first Ages. Here we have an Account of the Erection of the Levitical or Mosaic Service; the whole System of Religious Rites and Ceremonies, unto which the Jewish Church was obliged. This yields abundant Matter of Contemplation and Enquiry to the Studious, who will find that these Observances were instituted after the Israelites had been a while in the Wilderness, and had showed themselves inclinable to commit Idolatry. Then it was that God by Moses gave them these Laws, and prescribed them these Usages, which he knew would be the best Antidote against the Idolatrous Practices of the Nations that were round about them. And withal, if we look into these Ceremonies with a discerning Eye, we shall see that they had a farther End, and were Presignifications of the great and wonderful Transactions of the Evangelical Dispensation, that they obscurely pointed unto the Messias, and his Blessed Undertake for the Redemption of Mankind. They were Forerunners and Harbingers of the Blessed Child jesus, that Child that was to be born, that Son who was to be given, and on whose shoulders the Government was to be settled, Isa. 9 6. And we are ascertained that in the fullness of time, God actually sent forth this his Son, made of a Woman, Gal. 4. 4. that He so loved th● World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting Life, John 3. 16. All ●e like Sheep have gon● astr●y, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all, Isa. 53. 6. He bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, 1 Pe●. 2. 4. He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was ●ruised for our Iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed, Isa. 53. 5. The True Nature, the Admirable Method, and the Inestimable Worth of this Healing and Saving us, are the main Subject of these Inspired Writings: where we are taught likewise, that this Salvation is Free and Undeserved, and founded on the Mere Grace and Bounty of God, and is not the Acquist of any Merit and Worth in us. We are justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ jesus, whom God ●ath set forth to be a Propitiation for Sin, through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3. 24. And in the Evangelical History, we are told, that this Blessed Redeemer, who laid down his Life for us, took it up again, rising from the Grave by the irresistible Power of his Godhead, and after a few Days Ascended gloriously into Heaven; from whence He shall come at the last Day to call the whole World to an Account: for He hath appointed a Day in which he will judge the World in Righteousness. Then all the Dead shall hasten out of their Dormitories, and stand before that Great Tribunal, and receive Sentence according to their past Behaviour.  
These are some of the Grand Principles of our Faith, these are the Fundamental Verities of our Religion: and they are originally fetched from this Sacred Volume, and are established and confirmed there, by unanswerable Arguments and Demonstrations. Behold here the Eminency of Scripture-Notions, see the Transcendency of these Excellent Truths, which are contained in the Bible! Here are things of a higher Nature than any Moral Writings afford us. These say nothing of the Gracious Oeconomy of the Gospel, of the Incarnation of the Son of God, of Satisfaction made for Sins through the Blood of Christ, of Justification by his Righteousness, and other the like unparallelled Discoveries, which are to be learned out of Scripture only. In short, the Bible is the Standard of all Notions, Propositions and Articles in Religion: it is the Rule and Square of all our Opinions, Discourses and Arguments relating to Christianity; and all our Conceptions, though they seem never so sine and plausible, are of little worth and nse, unless they be regulated according to This. If there arise any Disputes and Controversies concerning Matters of Christian Faith, This is the Judge that we must have recourse to, or rather This is the Rule by which we are to judge: for every Man is to judge and choose, and the Rule whereby he is to guide his Judgement and Choice is the Scripture. It is true, Reason or Conscience is our Immediate Guide or Rule: but then we must have a Mediate Rule; that is, a Guide or Rule for our Reasons and Consciences, and That in all Sacred and Religious things is the Word of God, and That is the only Rule. By This, and This alone, all Controversies of Faith which are necessary to be decided, may, and aught to be decided. And it is the Excellency and Perfection of this Rule, that it is Infallible. This is that more sure Word of Prophecy, which St. Peter preferreth before Eye-Witnesses and Voices from Heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 16, etc. Yea, though an Angel from Heaven should preach any other Doctrine than what the Apostles preached, and afterwards committed to Writing, St. Paul pronounceth him accursed, Gal. 1. 8. These Infallible Records, these undoubted Oracles of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, are the standing Rule of Belief to all christians, even to the End of the World. On this they may rely with Confidence, as on an Unerring Guide; for it is not like other Books which are made by Men, and therefore are not void of Errors and Mistakes; but the Author of it is God, who is Truth itself, and can neither deceive, nor be deceived. Thus the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, are the Complete and Absolute Rule of our Belief, and of all Supernatural Truth.  
2. They are the Perfect Rule of Life and Manners: they contain all things to be Done as well as to be Believed. Here is the Decalogue, the Sum of all our Duty towards God and Man; and the Necessary Precepts of Life, comprised in it, are often repeated, enlarged upon, and explained, through the whole Sacred Book. To these are added the Evangelical Duties of Self-denial, Mortification, Poverty of Spirit, Purity of Heart, Brotherly Love, Heavenly-Mindedness, Circumspect Walking, Redeeming the Time, Abstaining from all appearance of Evil, Giving no Offence to any, and many others of the like Nature. The Writings of the Gospel forbid us to be Carnal, Sensual and Earthly, and call upon us to converse with Spiritual and Celestial Objects, to to set our Affections on things Above, and to work our Minds to such a Temper that we may desire to depart out of this Body, and to be with Christ, which is far better than grovelling here below. And Christianity promotes this Heavenly-mindedness by giving us a Power over Ourselves, by restoring us to a Government of our Bodily Appetites and Passions, so that the Soul thereby becomes Pure and Defecate, purged from all mundane Dross and Filth, fitted for Heavenly Joys, and therefore most earnestly breathes and longs after them. Here we learn, that Christianity is repugnant in all things to Satan's Kingdom, and designedly promotes the Kingdom of God; it bids us not seek ourselves, and aim chiefly at worldly Respects, but it enjoineth us to Humble and Debase ourselves, and to Glorify God in all, to advance his Honour in the World, and next to that, to look after the Salvation of our own and others immortal Souls These are the Noble and Worthy Designs of Christianity, and the Laws of it: their Business is to take us off from those low and mean Projects which Men of the World carry on, and to set the Soul of Man in a right Posture, and to fix it on right Ends. The Christian Precepts reach to the Hearts of Men, they restrain the secret Thoughts and inward Motions of the Mind, they kerb the inordinate Desires and Wishes, they temper the Affections and Passions, especially they forbid Revenge, Malice, Hatred; and they direct us to love God, and to bear Love to all Men for his Sake. The Christian Laws give Rules for our Words and Speeches, and will not allow them to be Idle and Vain, much less Profane and Impious; but they command our Discourse to be always with Grace, seasoned with Salt, to favour of Goodness and Piety, and to be for the Edifying of those we converse with. The Commandments of the Gospel do also govern the Outward Actions of our Lives, and bid us be Holy in all manner of Conversation: They enjoin Chastity and Continence, Temperance and Sobriety; they forbid Lust and Luxury, Pride and Sensuality: They teach Courtesy, Affability, Meekness, Candour, Gentleness towards our Brethren: They bid us be Kind and Charitable to all, and even to love our Enemies. Christianity is a Religion that is exactly Just, and gives the strictest Rules of dealing Honestly and Uprightly with our Neighbours. Even Morality, which is the very Foundation and Groundwork of All Religions, is most Illustrious here. Christianity hath the Impress of Reason, Civility, and all Acceptable Qualities. It forbids nothing that is Fitting and Decorous, it countenances all that is Manly and Generous, it is agreeable to the Law of Nature and the Reason of Mankind. In these Sacred Writings the Duty of Christians is set down not only as they are Single, but as they stand in relation to others, and as they are Members of the Community. There are Peculiar Lessons for Persons in every Condition, for Husbands and Wives, for Masters and Servants, for Parents and Children, for Superiors, Equals and Inferiors. They are all provided here with Instructions and Directions proper to that State they are in. They are very Remarkable Words which a 
1 Dr. jackson, Vol. 1. Book ●.  Reverend Divine of our Church uttered; Would Men apply their Minds (saith he) to study Scripture, and observe their own and others Course of Life, Experience would teach them that there is no Estate on Earth, nor humane Business in Christendom this Day on foot, but have a Ruled Cafe in Scripture for their Issue and Success. This is a Great Truth, and is no mean Demonstration of the Excellency of these Holy Writings which I am speaking of.  
Here are also the most Notable Instances of all those Virtues and Graces which adorn the Life of Man. Here is the Example of Abel's sincere and acceptable Devotion; of Enoch's walking with God; of Noah's untainted Faithfulness amidst the Temptations of the corrupt World; of Abraham's Faith and Self-denial, when he offered his only Son on the Altar; of Ioseph's Resolved Chastity, when he once and again resisted the lustful Solicitations of his Mistress. Here is the Example of Moses' Public Spirit, who desired his Name might be blotted out of the Book of Life rather than that Nation should perish. Here you read of Aaron's submissive Silence; of Reuben's fraternal Commiseration; of Rohab's Seasonable Wisdom, which was the Effect of her Faith, in concealing the Spies that were searched for. Here we may observe Phineas' Active Zeal; Eli's Entire Submission to the Divine Pleasure; Iob's Invincible Patience; Iosiah's Early Piety; his and Iehosaphats Care to reform the Church; Ionathan's entire Friendship; Manasses and Peter's Repentance; john Baptist's Austerity; the Centurion's Faith; Stephen's Charity to his Enemies at his Death. Briefly, here is commemorated the Religious and Holy Demeanour of all Ranks and Degrees of Persons, whether in Prosperity or Adversity; whether in Youth, Manhood, or Old Age, or in whatsoever Condition of Life they were placed. Where can we find such glorious Achievements as the Sacred History recounts unto us? Where are there such Perfect Patterns of Virtue? Where do you meet with such Noble Acts as some of the Holy Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles are celebrated for? The Great Heroes spoken of in the Writings of the Pagans are generally but Ideas of Virtue, and a kind of Harmless Romances to preach Goodness to Men. Virgil's Aeneas, Xenophon's Cyrus, Curtius' Alexander, Plinties Trajan, are rather Ingenious Portraitures and Images of Worthy Princes than Real Characters of them. They represent rather what they should be than what they are. They imitate some Limners who study not to draw the Face exactly like that of the Person they are to portray; so they make it Fair, they think it is enough. But the Sacred Writers have not done so, they have no ways flattered or misrepresented the Originals they drew. They have set them before us in their proper Features, native Lineaments, and genuine Colours. What we read of the Worthies mentioned in the Bible, is Certainly True, and Real Matter of Fact. Such was their Incomparable Spirit, that they did braver and greater Actions than Others ever thought of, witness the matchless Valour, Fortitude and Conduct of joshua, jephthah, Gideon, yea of those Masculine Women Deborah and jael; witness all the Other Eminent Instances of Heroic Undertake in the Sacred Records; witness those Exact Patterns, those Accurate Examples of the rest of the Virtues which we read of these. And to illustrate and set off these, there are added very Signal and Memorable Examples of all sorts of Vices, as of Cain's perfidious Murdering his Brother, Laban's Fraud and Ingratitude, Esau's unruly Appetite, Reuben and Iudah's Incest, Pharaoh's impious Obstinacy, Abimelech's unnatural Cruelty to his Brethren, Dinah's wanton gadding, Amnon's Rape, Achitophel's evil Policy, Shimei's Railing, Haman's revengeful Pride, Rabshakehs Blasphemy, Belshazzar's sacrilegious Debauchery. Potiphar's Wife is an Example of the Impudence and Outragiousness of Lust when it is repulsed; Eli is an Instance of Fond Indulgence to his Children; Absalon, Achitophel, Sheba and Zimri, of Treason and Rebellion; Samson and Solomon of an Undue Love of Women: And in the New Testament the Hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the Treachery of judas, the Timorous Compliance of Pilate, the Malice of the Jews against our Saviour, the Apostasy of Demas, the Ambition of Diotrephes, are notorious. And innumerable other Examples there are of all manner of Immorality and Wickedness.  
And with these are mixed the most Signal Instances of the Punishment of Vice, and the Reward of Virtue. Here are abundant Proofs of God's Extreme Severity and Vengeance against profligate Offenders; and here are as frequent Tokens and Assurances of the Divine Love and Kindness towards those that lead a holy and religious Life. Here are set before us the most Conspicuous Acts of God's Providence in reference both to Bad Men and Good, that by the former we may be discouraged, yea deterred from continuing in the ways of Vice, and that by the latter we may be encouraged, yea as 'twere bribed to be Virtuous and Good. Here we may observe and admire God's Wonderful Care of his Servants in all Ages of the World; and here we may take notice of the Variety of those Evils and Miseries which he inflicteth on those who wilfully decline his Service, and give themselves up to their Lusts. There are no where such Eminent Examples of this Nature to be found as these which we meet with in the Sacred Volume of the Bible. No other Writings can produce such Remarkable Discoveries of God's Will towards Men, and of his Dealings with them: Wherefore These must needs be the Best Conduct of our Lives and Actions, the Best Reformers of our Ways and Manners: Which is the Meaning of the Psalmist in Psa●. 1 19 9 Wherewith shall a young Man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto, according to thy Word, i. e. by making the Holy Scripture his Rule, and by adjusting all his Actions to it. If the Youthful and Passionate Sinner may be reclaimed and reform by attending to God's Word, and that only the Pentateuch or the Laws of Moses (for this was all the Inspired Scripture extant at that time, which we certainly know of) than we cannot despair of the Success and happy Influence of the whole Body of the Scriptures upon Others. It will throughly change and amend their Lives by making a full Discovery to them of all their Lusts and evil Affections, by representing Sin to them in its own native Desormity, and by setting before them the Beauties and Excellencies of a Religious Life, by being a Faithful Monitor and Guide to them whenever they undertake any thing, by showing them the true Boundaries of Good and Evil, and by directing them how to accomplish the one, and to avoid the other. The Sum of all is, that these Inspired Writings acquaint us with the Whole Will of God, whether it refers to our Belief or to our Practice, and consequently that not only our Faith, but our Manners are to be regulated by this Holy Book. Especially by the Principles and Laws of the New Testament they will more conspicuously be exalted, and all Righteousness and Godliness more visibly promoted in our Lives. For here is the most Perfect and Consummate Exemplar of Holiness; in the Evangelical Writings the Blessed jesus still speaks and lives: In these you may hear what he said, and see what he did, and know how you are to conform your Lives according to His. Whence you have Reason to infer, that as these Writings are the Complete Canon of our Faith, so they are the Adequate Rule of our Actions.  
Nay, although we should suppose some Mistakes in them by the Fault of Transcribers, (which yet no Man can certainly prove, nay it is not by any means to be allowed, and therefore it is the most culpable thing in Sir N. Knatchbull, that he is several times finding Faults in the Transcribers of the New Testament, which if we once grant, we bid farewell to the Certainty of Scripture: But if we should, I say, suppose some Slips in the Copying out of the Books, yet) still they retain the same Character, because those supposed Mistakes are not of Moment, and belong not to Faith or Manners. Neither do the Obscurity or Difficulty of Scripture hinder it from being our Rule, because all the Matters in it which relate to our Salvation, are clear and easy. For when I say it is an Adequate Rule of Faith and Manners, the Meaning is, that it is so as to such Matters of Faith and Manners as are Necessary to be believed and practised by us. Now nothing is Necessary but what is absolutely requisite to our Salvation. This then is the thing which we maintain, that the Scriptures contain in them either in express Terms, or by just Consequence, all things to be asserted and done by us in order to our being Saved. The Reason of which is evident, namely, because the End for which the Scriptures were written was this, to direct us how to be Saved. This is the grand Design of it, and therefore there must be in it all things that are requisite to this great End and Design. Which is expressed thus in the Words of Our Church, 
1 Article the 6th, viz. of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.  Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. And this is a sufficient and solid Proof of a thing's not being Necessary to Salvation, that it is not contained in Scripture. This than we assert, that these Writings are Plain and Perfect as to all Matters that are Necessary, and accordingly are able to put an End to all Controversies which relate to Salvation: And if Men will not end them with This Rule, they will never do it with any. This is the Chief Perfection of Scripture, that in it the whole Will of God, as to those things that have a necessary Tendency to our Happiness, and consequently are the only Necessary Things to be known and done by us, is plainly revealed. The New Testament particularly is the last Revelation of God's Will and Counsel, and nothing is to be added to it or taken from it, which makes it a Perfect Standard of Belief, and a Complete Rule of our Lives, in which there is nothing short and defective, nothing superfluous and redundant. Here are all the Principles of True Religion, and all the Measures of Holy Living: so that whilst we proceed according to this Perfect Canon, we are infallibly certain of the Truth of what we believe, and of the Rectitude and Lawfulness of what we act. On this sole Account the Holy Writ excels all Writings in the World besides.  
3. We are to adjoin this, that as it is a Light to our Understandings, and a Rule of our Lives, so it is the grand Procurer of our Comfort, joy and Tranquillity. Alas, they are Cold Topics of Consolation which the Writings of the Best Moralists afford us. When our outward Distresses and Miseries, much more when our inward and spiritual Maladies increase upon us, Epictetus and Seneca, with all their Spangled Sayings, are too mean Physicians to take us in Hand. The Great Cicero, when in the Close of his Life he was reduced to marvellous Difficulties, declared that his Learning and his Books, afforded him not any Considerable Arguments of Comfort; that the Disease of his Mind, which he lay under was 
1 Imbecillior est Medicina quam Morbus, Epist, 16. ad Attic. Lib. 10.  too great, and too strong to be cured by those Ordinary Medicines which Philosophy administered to him. There must be some greater Traumatick, some more powerful Application to these Wounds to work a perfect Cure. And this Divine Book is able to furnish us with it. This alone can remove our Pains and Languors, and restore us to an entire Health. 
2 Psal. 119. 50.  This, faith the Psalmist, is my Comfort in my Affliction, Thy Word hath quickened me: And again, 
3 v. 92.  Unless thy Law had been my Delight, I should then have perished in my Affliction. It was this which upheld and cheered him in his greatest Straits, and yielded him Light and Joy, when all things about him looked black and dismal. If but a small part of the Bible had this blessed Effect, how powerful and successful will All of it prove, if we duly consult it, seriously meditate upon it, and give it admittance into our Hearts? If the Apostle could say, 
1 Rom. 15. 4.  Whatsoever things were written asore time in this Book, were written for our Learning, that we through Patience and Comfort of the scriptures might have Hope, how much greater Hope must needs be administered to us, in all Conditions of Life, but more especially in the Day of Trouble and Calamity, when we have the Scriptures, not only of the Old but New Testament to repair unto? This latter especially will be a never-falling Spring of Contentment and Joy to us. In these Books we have a true and perfect Landscape and View of the World: Here is unmasked and laid open the Vanity of it. Here we are assured that many of the Gay things which it presents us with, and which fond Minds so dote upon, are but empty Bubbles, deceitful Phantoms and Apparitions, mere Conceits and Castles in the Air. Here we are informed that a Prosperous State is not really Good, that an Overplus of Riches and Worldly Abundance does frequently prove a Clog to virtuous Minds, and that Excess of Pleasures is too fulsome and luscious, and takes away that purer Relish of spiritual and heavenly Delights; yea, that Men generally find a worse Effect of them: for when they are gorged and clogged with them, they revolt from God; when they are waxen fat, they kick against Heaven. So their Worldly Plenty is turned into the worst of Punishments, and this Plethory is their Disease On the other side, we are taught in these Writings, that Crosses and Afflictions are not evil in themselves, yea, that they are Good and Medicinal, and advance our spiritual Health; that they are so far from being a hindrance to our Happiness, that they are a part of it, for otherwise the Afflicted would not be so often pronounced 
1 Job. 5. 17. Psal. 94. 12. Prov. 3. 11. Matth. 5. 10. 11. Acts 14. 22. R●m. 5. 3. & 8. 17. Jam. 1. 2, 12.  Blessed: That God's Afflicting a Man is 
2 Job 7. 17.  Magnifying of him, and setting his Heart upon him. It shows, that God is greatly concerned for his Good, and that the Almighty hath more care of him than he hath of himself. Here we are instructed that we have ground to suspect our Condition, if we be wholly exempted from the Distresses of this Life; and that not to be Chastised is a Mark of Bastardy. Here we learn the true use and end of all those Adverse Dispensations which we meet with, viz. that they were designed to try us, to make us know ourselves, and to inform us how evil and bitter a thing it is to offend the Divine Majesty; to awaken us out of our Sloth and Security; to hold us in Action, to keep us in Breath and Exercise, as Carthage was useful to rouse Rome's Valour; to abate our Pride and Haughtiness, and make us humble and submissive Creatures; to check our immoderate Passions and Pursuits after earthly things; to disentangle us from these Snares, to free us from these Charms, to keep us from being sucked in, and swallowed up in the powerful Circle and Eddy of this World; as who knows not that it is True Philosophy that the World is made up of Vortices? to cause us to look after Better Things when these are taken from us, to reclaim us from our evil Courses, and to reduce us unto Virtue and Goodness; to excite us to a Renunciation of all Trust and Confidence in ourselves, and the transitory Enjoyments of this World, and to depend upon God alone. It is this Book whence we are acquainted that our Sufferings make us conformable to Christ our Master, and therefore are Honourable Badges of Christianity: That the Curse which usually attends outward Crosses, is taken away by our Saviour's Death: That the Calamities of the Faithful are Chastisements, rather than Punishments: That no Adverse Accidents can do us any hurt, if we believe in Jesus, and abandon our Sins: That the Pressures of this Life are serviceable to make us pity those that are in Misery, to know and relish the Love of Christ in suffering for us, to inhanse the Comforts of a Good Conscience, to commend the Favour of God to us, to prepare us for Heaven, and to increase the Happiness of it. Thus the Scriptures reconcile our Minds to those Disappointments, Dangers and Calamities, which are our Allotment in this World; thus they alloy the evil Spirit of Discontent, they effectually cast out and vanquish those Legions of Impatient and Tumultuous Thoughts, which are the frequent Attendants of Adversity: They assure us that these Afflictive Dealings of Heaven towards us, are intended for our real Advantage; that they are the greatest Kindness and Favour that can be showed us; that they are undeniable Tokens of Divine Love; and in brief, that Good Men are happier in their worst Circumstances, than others are, or can be, in their greatest worldly Felicities. Upon these rational Grounds, the Holy Scriptures become the most effectual Anodynes to take away, or at least to mitigate all our Pains and Sorrows. They successfully remove all those Murmurings and Discontents which russle and imbroil the Soul, they quash and defeat all those troublesome Passions which embarass and plague the Mind. By the help of these Divine Instructions which the Holy Writ affords us, we are enabled to encounter the greatest Evils, with courage and bravery to receive the Shock, to weather the Storm, to bear all the Insolences and Insults of our Enemies, to break through all Difficulties, to have Peace within though we find none without, to keep a Sabbath in our own Breasts, to entertain ourselves with the Serenades of a Good Conscience. This is the Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures, and no Writings in the World can bless us with them but these.  
And indeed this necessarily follows from those foregoing Assertions, viz, that Scripture is a Perfect Rule of Faith, and also of Manners. As it is the former, it is a sure Basis for us to rest upon: we know whom we have believed, and so we are fixed and determined; which doth effectually contribute towards our Peace and Solace. As it is the latter also, we cannot but receive Comfort from it, because being a Certain and Unerring Guide in all our Actions, it must needs administer great Satisfaction and Joy to us through our whole Lives, when we consider that we have a Stable Rule to walk by, and that we cannot do amiss if we follow that; but especially, when we reflect on our Manners, and see that they are adjusted to this Canon, and that 
1 2 Cor. 1. 12.  we have in Simplicity and godly Sincerity had our Conversation in the World. This will be our Rejoicing and Exultation. Again, the Scripture yields an inconceivable Joy, by prescribing the Best Means for attaining Peace and Unity, which are Comfortable Blessings of this Life; by allowing us all Innocent and Harmless Delights, such as will neither destroy the Peace of our Souls, nor impair the Health of our Bodies; by throughly convincing us that Christianity in itself is most Satisfactory to our Minds, and is made to convey Joy and Peace into our Hearts; by teaching us Contentedness in all Conditions; by assuring us that Christianity provides for our greatest and most Important Wants, and supplies our most Urgent Necessities, and therefore we ought to acquiesce in it, and solace ourselves with it. Thus it administers the most Cheering Cordials: and so it doth by directing us to the Worthiest Ends, by setting before us the Strongest Motives, the most Powerful Persuasives to our Duty, whereby we are enabled not only to undertake it, but to discharge it with Cheerfulness and Delight; by propounding and presenting to us the Best Rewards, viz. Forgiveness of our Sins, Assurance of God's Love, and Eternal Life and Blessedness: For as a Great Man saith, 
1 judge Hale, in his Discourse of the Knowledge of God and of ourselves.  No Book in the World but this shows a Man the Adequate End of his Being, his Supreme Good, his Happiness, nor directs the Means of acquiring it. The Bible is the Great Instrument (as it was emphatically called by the Fathers) of our Salvation and Happiness. By these Writings we hold our Everlasting Inheritance: And these are the Great Deeds and Evidences whereby we prove our Title to it. In a word, as these sustain and support us in all Conditions of our Life, and give us a happy Prospect of a better State, so they render Death welcome and joyful to us, they enable us by virtue of those Sacred Truths contained in them, to expire our last Breath with Peace and Tranquillity. On all which Accounts we must acknowledge them to be the greatest Support and Relief of our Souls, yea the Only Source of Comfort and Content. Thus if you consider the Holy Scriptures as they dictate the Best Principles, as they beget in us the greatest Holiness and Purity, and as they are the Solace of our Lives, we must be forced to acknowledge their Incomparable Excellency.  
These three Particulars, wherein I have endeavoured to display the Perfection of Scripture, are to be found together in Psal. 19 7, 8. where These Properties are ascribed to the Law of God, namely, that it enlightens the Eyes, and so is a Director of our Faith; that it converts the Soul, and so is a Reformer of the Manners; and that it rejoiceth the Heart, and so is the Fountain of True Comfort. You find all these in conjunction in that other remarkable Place, 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture (whereby we may understand not only the Old Testament, but part of the New, viz. St. Matthew's Gospel, which was extant when Timothy, to whom the Apostle here speaks, was a child, V. 15.) is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness. It is not to be doubted that Doctrine refers to the Understanding and Belief, and Reproof and Instruction in Righteousness to the Will and Manners: and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rectifying, restoring, setting all straight again, (as the World imports) includes in it that Comforting and Cheering which I spoke of. These are the Main Contents of the Holy Scripture. First, it is a Body and System of the Best and most Consistent Notions: it regulates the Apprehensions, and presents us with True Conceptions of things. Here is nothing delivered that thwarts our rectified Understandings, or is a Contradiction to the most refined Faculties of our Minds. Moreover, it most successfully conducts us into the Ways of Piety and a Holy Life. The Design of it is to perfect humane Nature, to exalt Men to the highest Pitch their Condition is capable of, both by Moral and Revealed Truth, (the latter of which none but the Blessed Redeemer was able to communicate) to bring them to the Noblest improvement and Exaltation of Virtue which they can possibly arrive to on this side of Heaven: In brief, to make us act not only as Rational but as Divine Creatures, yea even to render us like God Himself. And lastly, it not only inspires us with Excellent Principles, and promotes the Practice of Holiness, but administers the greatest Matter of Joy imaginable. This raises our Spirits, and fills our Souls with Delight and Pleasure; this Strengthens and supports us under our heaviest Crosses, and makes our Life Happy, whatever befalls us. All which are undeniable Arguments of the Perfection of Scripture, whence we are enabled to Believe aright, to Live well, and to Rejoice. Thus these Holy Writings were indicted, that 
1 2. Tim. 3. 17.  we might be Perfect, throughly furnished unto all good Works. And thus Scripture must needs be Perfect, because its Design is to make us so. But I am sensible that several Devout and Practical Writers have enlarged on this Subject, and therefore I will say no more of it, because my present Discourse is designed to be chiefly Critical. Let it suffice that I have briefly asserted the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures as to the three forementioned Particulars, and that I have showed that this Perfection is not communicable to any Other Writings under Heaven. Such is the Peculiar Excellency of the Bible.  
Wherefore it behoveth us to take notice and beware of those Men who oppose, or rather deny this Excellency and Perfection. First, the Circumcised Doctors show themselves great Oppugners of it, whilst they excessively magnify their Traditions, and even prefer them before the Sacred Text. We must know then that the Jews talk much of their 
2 a kibbel accepit, quia à Majoribus accepta est.  Cabala, or (as that Word signifies) the Received Doctrine among them, which was propagated by Oral Tradition and Continual Succession. This their Cabala is twofold; First, that which deals in Mysterious Criticisms and Curiosities about Words and Letters, to which belongs the Masoreth, which (as I have showed in another Discourse) is serviceable for the Preservation of the Bible. Secondly, that which by them is called the Oral Law, or the Law delivered from one to another, as an Exposition on the Written Law. It may not be impertinent to give the Reader a short Account of this Oral Law which they so much boast of. This was either before Moses, and was the Doctrine of the Patriarches, propagated by Word of Mouth before the Law was committed to Writing; it consisted of the Seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah; of the Apothegms, Sentences and Paradoxes of the Wise Men in the first Ages; or it was in and after Moses' time, who is reckoned the Great Author of the Cabala, because he delivered it viva voce to the Jews, say the Rabbins, at the same time that he gave them the Decalogue and the Other Written Laws. This Torah gnal peh, (as they style it) this Oral Law is the Exposition of those Written Laws, and is meant, they say, in Deut. 4. 14. The Lord commanded me at that time to teach you Statutes and judgements. And for this they allege Deut. 12. 21. which they tell us refers to some Special Command of God about Killing; and seeing we read no such Special Command about it in the Written Law, it is reasonable to conclude that it is to be understood of the Oral one: that must be the Sense of those Words there, As I have commanded thee. That Moses received this Law on Mount Sinai, 
1 In Deuteron. cap. 34.  Rabbi Bechai proves by the same Token that he knew by this Law how long time he was upon that Mount; for when God taught him the Written Law, than he knew it was Day, (because he could not write in the Dark) but when God gave him the Oral Law, he knew then that it was Night. A most profound Answer to the Difficulty, how Moses could tell that he was 40 Days and Nights on the Mount. Well, God (they say) delivered this Law to Moses, Moses delivered it to joshua, joshua to the Seventy Elders, they to Ezra, who (some say) committed it to writing, for he was the Chiefest Cabalist next to Moses; but the Books which he composed of this Matter were lost, and so it went on after the old way again, viz. by Tradition, and came to the Prophets, of whom Zechary and Malachi were the last, and from them the Great Sanhedrim had it; and at last it was made into a Book, that it might not be lost by reason of the Dispersion of the Jews. He that compiled this Volume or Book was Rabbi judah, who for the singular Holiness of his Life was called Hakkadosh the Saint: He flourished in the Days of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, about a hundred and twenty Years after our Saviour's Passion. The Title which he gave to it was Mishnah, i. e. the Repetition of the Divine Law, or a Larger Explication of it given immediately to Moses by God, and by Tradition derived to the Jews. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Iterated or Second Law is divided by him into six general Sedarim, i. e. so many Heads or Subjects of which it treats: and every Sedar is divided into Books, every Book into Chapters or Pirka's. About a hundred Years after this famous Rabbi had reduced the Traditions of the Jews into one Volume, the Learned Doctors began to comment upon it; and first the jerusalem Talmud (called so because 'twas made for the Jews that lived in judea, especially in jerusalem) was finished by R. jochanan about A. D. 240. The Comment which he and the other Rabbis made on the Mishnah is called the Gemara, the Supplemental Exposition of that Volume of Jewish Traditions. Next, the Babylonick Talmud was put forth by the Learned Jews at Babylon, who gathered their Traditions into a more Complete and Exact Body (as they thought) for the Benefit of their Countrymen in those Parts of the World. It was compiled by Rabbi Ascanio and his Companions about A. D. 500 and consisteth (as the former Talmud) of the Mishnaioth and the Gemara: the one is the Text, the other is the Comment, or the Decisions of the Doctors on the Book of the Mishnah. So then the Oral Law, which the Jews so much boast of, and set so high a Value upon, is contained in the Two Talmuds, which are made up of the Mishnah and the Gemara: The Mishnah is that which R. judah compiled; the Gemara's are the Work of R. jochanan and Ascanio, and other Rabbis; and both are a Complete Body of the Civil and Canon Law of the Jews. Whoso nameth the Talmuds nameth all judaism, saith Lightfoot: These (as he adds) are the Jews Council of Trent, they are the last and fullest Determinations which they have about all their Religious Opinions, Rites and Usages. Thus I have exhibited a brief Account of the whole Talmudick System, wherein the Oral Law is comprised, explained, and descanted upon. And it is not to be denied that there may be a very excellent Use made of this Collection of Jewish Traditions, it may be serviceable in sundry Instances to expound the Mosaic Law, to acquaint us with the Jewish Antiquities, to illustrate several Places in the Old Testament, yea to interpret many Passages in the New, which have reference to the received Practices and Usages of the Jews.  
But the jews (who are the Persons whom I am now blaming) make very ill Use of it, because they immoderately extol these Traditions, calling them Torah shebegnal Peh, their Infallible Oracle, and esteeming the Authority of them equal with that of the Bible. For as the Canonical Scriptures were dictated by Divine Inspiration, so these Laws they hold were from God Himself, and are of the same Authority with those Scriptures. They make no difference between the Inspired Writings of the Old Testament and the Books of Mishnaioth or the Talmuds, which are in truth an Amassment only of the Traditions of the Jews, and of the Divers Decisions of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, of the Different Determinations of R. Akiba and R. Eliezer, of R. Simeon and R. joshua, etc. bandying against one another: or rather, if we speak plainer, they are a Rhapsody of Idle Dreams, Groundless Fables, Cursed Errors, Superstitious Rites and Practices, yea (if we should instance in the Babylonick Talmud) of Horrid Blasphemies against Christ, of Obloquys against the Mosaic Law itself, and of Contradictions even to the Law of Nature. These are part of the Books so highly prized by the Jewish Masters, these go along with their Oral Law, which was first given by God himself, and consequently is of the same Original with the Canon of Scripture. But they go yet higher; for they do not only equalise these Traditions with Scripture, but they prefer them before it. They do not only say in a Proverbial Manner, that 
1 Impossible est stare super Fundamento Legis scriptae nisi bene●icio Legis ore traditae.  they cannot stand upon the Foundation of the Written Law without the Help of the Unwritten one, i e. the Oral Law which they talk of; and that 
2 Verba Legis in loco proprio egena font, in alieno verò locupletissima.  the Words of the Law as they are found in the Text are poor and wanting, but as they are expounded by the Doctors have great Riches and abundance in them: And again, that 
3 Magni montes dependent à pilo.  very Great and Weighty Matters depend upon these Little Traditions which they contend for: but they are so bold and presumptuous as to proceed further, and give a far Greater Deference to these Traditions and Doctrines of their Wise Men (as they call them) than to the Holy Scriptures themselves. For they tell us, that 
4 Sapientes suis ipsorum verbis robur secerunt majus quam ipsis Legis verbis.  their Doctors have done more good (viz. as to strengthening and confirming of Religion) by their own Sayings than by the Words of this Holy Book itself. And accordingly their Advice is, 
5 Fili mi, attend magis ad verba Scribarum quam ad verba Legis.  My Son, attend more to what the Scribes say than to what is said by the Law, (though I know this may admit of another Sense, viz. that we ought to look more to the Sense of the Law than the bare Letter of it). But that in the Talmud is plain, and can have no other Meaning, 
1 Lib. dict. Bava Meziah, cap. 11.  To read the Holy Scripture, and to be studious in searching out the Sense of it is good, and not good, (i. e. it is not of any considerable Advantage) but to turn over the Mishnah Night and Day is a Virtue which will have a great Reward hereafter; and to learn the Gemara is an incomparable Virtue. Yea, the Jews blasphemously say that God himself studies in the Talmud every Day. Here you see they prefer their Delivered Law before the Written one: they make the Infallible Scriptures truckle to the Fabulous Traditions of the Mishnah. To this purpose it is a Noted Saying of the Hebrew Rabbis, that the Text of the Bible is like Water, the Mishnah like Wine, and the Six Books of the Talmud are like the Sweetest Honeyed Wine, Thus, to magnify the Traditions of their Fathers, they vilify the Scriptures. They are not content with the Rites and Injunctions written in the Law, which in way of Contempt they call 
2 〈…〉  the Precepts of the Law, but they admire those most which are taken from their Wise Men, which they call the Precepts of the Rabbins, and which are summarily contained in the Talmud: these they hold to be of greater Value than the other. The Persons that are skilled in these are sliled by them Tannaim, Profound Masters and Doctors: but they that study the Scriptures only are but Karaim, Poor Readers, and Men of the Letter. All this shows how these Men depretiate the Written Word of God, and exalt above it their Oral Law, which is a mere Fiction and Forgery, (as to the pretence of its being given to Moses by God) and therefore is not owned by the Karaint among them, who stick close to the Text, nor by some of their Perushim, their sobrest sort of Expositors, who think those Traditions are derogatory to the Holy Scriptures.  
Secondly, Papists as well as Ie●s disparage the Holy Scriptures, and deny its Perfection. (Nor, by the way, is this the only thing wherein they agree with the Jews, a great Part of their Religion being no other than Jewish Rites and Ceremonies.) These Modern Talmudists will not own the Sufficiency of the Sacred Writings, they have their Cabala, the Doctrine Received from their Ancestors: they are for their Oral Law delivered from one to another, they supply the defect of Scripture (so they are wont to speak) with their Traditions. They are of the same Mind with the Jews, that 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacite sepem Legi. Prov. Jud.  there must be a Fence made about the Law, that it must be hedged in with Traditions. The Scripture is not a Perfect Rule of Faith and Manners, say they: but the things which are necessary to Salvation, are partly contained in the Scripture, and partly in unwritten Traditions. A very absurd and wild Doctrine! because they have no way to prove any thing to be necessary to Salvation, but by proving it to be found in the Scripture. Whatever was or is necessary for the Universal Church is revealed in these Writings; and no New Doctrine necessary to Salvation, is delivered since to the Church or any particular Person. But notwithstanding the Absurdity of this Tenent, they hold it fast, and make it a Great Article of their Belief. For they are taught by an Ecumenical Council (as they repute it) that Unwritten Traditions are of equal Authority with the Scriptures, that they are to be received 
1 Pari pi●tatis a●●ectu & reverentiâ. Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.  with the same pious Affection and Reverence (those are the words) wherewith the Infallible Writings of the Prophets and Apostles are to be entertained, and consequently they are to be made a Rule of Faith equal with the Scriptures. But they rest not here; they not only equal Humane and Ecclesiastical Traditions with the Written Word of God, but following the Steps of the Old Talmudists, they proceed yet further, preferring Traditions before Scripture. Thus a Renowned Divine in their Church tells us plainly, that 
2 Est Tradi●io imprimis ad salutem Ecclesia necessaria, atque adeò magis quam ipsa Scriptura. Salmeron in Epist. St. Pauli, Disput. 8.  Traditions are exceeding necessary for the welfare of the Church, yea, that they are more requisite than the Scripture itself; and this he endeavours to make good. With him concur several others of their Writers, whom we find extolling Traditions, but at the same time speaking very meanly and slightly of the Holy Writ. Hence they blasphemously call it a Nose of Wax, and a Leaden Rule; and many such vilifying Terms are used by Pighius and Melchior Canus, and 
3 Tapperus, H●ntlaeus, Petrus a So●o, Bellarminu●, Cos●erus▪ etc.  other Great Doctors of that Church. We deny not the Usefulness, nay even the Necessity, nay the Perpetuity of Tradition, viz. That Tradition whereby the Doctrines which were entrusted in the Church's Hands by the Prophets and Apostles, shall by her be delivered over to her Children to the World's End, which way of Transmission is the great Prop of our Religion. Besides, the Apostle enjoins the 
1 2 Epist. Ch. 2. v. 15.  Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had been taught, whether by Word or his Epistle: for he had used two ways of delivering the Truth to them; namely, Preaching and Writing: and other Apostles committed the chief and necessary Heads of their Doctrine to Writing. So that the Traditions meant here, are the Revealed Truths of the Gospel delivered by the Apostles and Evangelists, and are no other than what Christ delivered to them, according to that of St. Paul, 
2 1 Cor.  I delivered to you that which also I received: whence they have the Name of Traditions, i. e. they are Evangelical Doctrines delivered to us from those that were taught them by Christ. And whether they were imparted by Word or by Epistle, by Preaching or Writing, they are the same, the same as to substance, the otherwise there may be some difference. But that which we condemn (and that most justly) the Papists for, is this, that they magnify and rely upon Traditions which have no affinity with the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, yea, which contradict it in many things; and yet they equalise these with the Word of God, and sometimes prefer them and the Authority of the Church, before that of the Sacred Writings of the Old and New Testament. Thus One saith, 
3 Ecclesia visa est aliquando facere contra Scripturas, aliquando praeter Scripturas: ergo ipsa est Regula eorum quae traduntur in Scriptures, ergo credimus Ecclesiae contra formam Scripturarum. Caranza.  The Church sometimes doth things contrary to the Scriptures, sometimes besides them: therefore the Church is the Rule and Standard of the things that are delivered in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe the Church, though she acts counter to the formal Decisions of the Scriptures. And an 
1 Stapleton Relect, Controvers. 4. qu. 1.  other Famous Doctor gives it for good Divinity, that the Decrees and Determinations of a Council are binding, though they be not confirmed by any probable Testimony of Scripture, nay though they be beyond and above the Determination of Scripture. Thus the Holy Writings of the Bible are most impiously disparaged and vilisied by the Pontificians. Whereas there is nothing defective or redundant, nothing wanting or superfluous in these Writings: they assert in the open face of the World that they are short and imperfect, and therefore have need of being supplied by Traditions, which in some things are of greater Value and Authority than they.  
Again, that the Church of Rome oppugneth or rather denieth the Perfection of the Scriptures, might be evinced from their constant care and endeavour to keep them in an Unknown Tongue. It is true they have translated them. But, 1. There was a kind of necessity of doing it, the Protestants having turned them into so many Tongues. By this means they were compelled as it wer● to let some of their people see what the Bible was in their own Language. But, 2. It is so corruptly translated that it is made to patronise several of their Superstitious Follies and Errors. And yet, 3. They dare not commit these Translations to common View. Although in all Countries where People were converted to Christianity, in elder times the Scripture was turned into their Language, and every one was permitted, yea exhorted to read it, (as is proved by many Writers, 
1 The Council of Trent examined, pag. 46, 47.  the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet particularly) yet the Church of Rome denieth the common People the Use of it, as a thing hurtful and pernicious. The Bible, as some Bad Book, is tolerated to be read with great Caution and Restriction, in some Countries only, and by some Persons. It is, like the Sibyls Prophecies of old among the Romans, not to be looked into without the permission and Authority of the Senate; none can read it without a Licence from their Superiors: so dangerous a thing is the Bible. From this Practice the People generally imbibe a strong Prejudice against the Scriptures, and believe they cannot be good for them, because the Pope and their Pastors tell them they are not. Wherefore, as 
2 W. H. M. Dr. in a Letter lately written by him.  one who was once of the Communion of the Church of ●ome, hath well observed, As soon as ever any Man embraces Popery, he presently throws the Bible out of his Hands as altogether useless (to say no worse). Which unreasonable and wicked Behaviour of theirs was one great Reason or Motive (as he professeth) of his returning to the Church of England again. For what Considerate Man can think That to be a True Church which teacheth its Members to slight and reject the Word of God, which is the Source of all Divine Truth, and without which we can neither believe nor practise aright, we can neither have Comfort here, nor arrive to Happiness hereafter? This indeed is not only to null ●●e Perfection of Scripture, but to abolish the whole Body of Scripture itself.  
A third sort of Persons that are Opposers of the Perfection of Scripture are Enthusiasts, and such who act out of a truly Fanatic Principle. Such were the Familists heretofore, whose Pretences to the Spirit were so high that they excluded and renounced the Letter of Scripture, which according to their Style 
1 Se●ast. Franc. Paradox.  was a dark Lantern, a liveless Carcase, a Book shut up and sealed with seven Seals, the Scabbard (not the Sword) of the Spirit: or, if it be a Sword, it is the Sword of Antichrist, wherewith he kills Christ. This was the impious Jargon of these Highflown Men, who made no other Use of the Bible than to Allegorise it, and to turn it all into Mystery. These have been followed by Others of a like Fanatic Spirit, who have made it a great part of their Religion to despise and reproach the Sacred Writ. A 
2 In ●is Tracta●. Th●ologico-Poll●icus.  late Enthusiast, or rather one that pretends to be such, but designs the Overthrow of all Religion, tells the World that the Bible is founded in Imagination, that God's Revelations in Scripture are ever according to the Fancy of the Prophets or other Persons he spoke to, and that all the Phrases and Speeches, all the Discoveries and Manifestations, yea all the Historical Passages in the Old and New Testament are adapted to these. The Quaker comes next, and refuseth to own the Scripture to be the Word of God, and the Perfect Rule by which we are to direct our Lives. It is a great Error and Falsity, (saith 
3 George Keith of Immediate R●●●lation.  one of the most considerable Persons of that Persuasion) that the Scriptures are a filled up Canon, and the only Rule of Faith and Obedience in all things, and that no more Scriptures are to be writ or given forth from the Spirit of the Lord. With whom agrees 
4 Barclay in his Apology, p. 59, 60.  another of as great Repute among that Tribe; I see no Necessity (saith he) of believing that the Canon of Scripture is filled up. And again, The Scriptures (saith he) are not to be esteemed the Principal Ground of all Truth and Knowledge, nor yet the Adequate Primary Rule of Faith and Manners, but they are only a Secondary Rule subordinate to the Spirit. And accordingly he adds, That the inward Inspirations and Revelations which Men have, are not to be subjected to the Examination of the outward Testimony of the Scriptures, but are above them. Thus these bold Men, out of a pretence of Inspiration, vilify the Sacred Volume of the Bible. Thus absurdly and irreligiously these deluded Persons, out of an Enthusiastic Heat, prefer their own private Spirit before the Holy Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures. The Men hold themselves to be Perfect, but the Scripture must by no means be so: it is weak and imperfect, and aught to give way to the Inward Impressions in their Minds, which, according to them, are that more sure Word of Prophecy, whereunto they think they do well to give heed as unto a Light shining in a dark Place: But we see that they are thereby led into gross Error and Darkness. And as to this particular Persuasion concerning the Meanness of the Scriptures, they therein (as in several other things) symbolise with the Church of Rome, whence they had their Original: They confound Natural Light or Reason with Revelation, they hold that Pagans are in as good a Condition as Christians; they make their private Dictates as Authentic as the Bible; yea they must needs hold that there is no Infallible Rule of Truth or Practice but their own Notions and Sentiments, which some of their Writers call Canonical.  
I might observe to you that besides jews, Papists and Enthusiasts, there are Others that deny the Excellency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, as Atheists and mere Politicians, who endeavour to persuade the World that all Religion is a Cheat, and that This Book is so too: Likewise the Generality of Heretics, Seducers and Impostors, who (it is no wonder) debase that which they design to pervert. But the bare mentioning of these Persons is sufficient to beget a Dislike of them with all that are Wise and Sober, and who are convinced of the Scriptures perfection from those Topics which I have propounded. It may be said of most Books as Martial said of his, 
5 Sun● bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, su●t mala mul●a.  There are some good, and some bad things in them, and some of a middle Nature. But in this Divine Book there are no such Allays; all is pure and uncorrupt, entire and unmixed: there are no Defects, no Mistakes in this Infallible Volume given us from Heaven. Shall the Turks then when they find a Leaf or any part of the Alcoran on the Ground, take it up and kiss it, and deposit it in some safe place, affirming it to be a great Sin to suffer that wherein the Mahomet's Laws are written, to be trodden under Feet? And shall not we Christians highly value and reverence the Sacred Volume of the Bible, the Writings of the Old and New Testament, which contain the Words of God Himself, and the Laws of the Blessed Jesus, which every us with that Sublime and Supernatural Learning which is the Rule of our Faith, the Conduct of our Manners, and the Comfort of our Lives?   

CHAP. II.  
The Bible is furnished with all sorts ofHumane (as well as Divine) Learning. Hebrew, wherein the Old Testament was written, is the Primitive Language of the World. The True Origine of the World is plainly recorded in no other Writings but these. The first Chapter of Genesis is a real History, and records Matter of ●act. It is largely proved that the Mosaic History gives us a particular Account of the first Rise of the several Nations and People of the Earth, and of the Places of their Habitation. Also the true Knowledge of the Original of Civil Government, and the Increases of it, and the different Changes it underwent is derived from these Writings. The Courts of Judicature, and the several kinds of Punishment among the Jews distinctly treated of. The Government among the Heathen Nations. The four Celebrated Monarchies or Empires of the World.  
I Proceed now to the Second General Head of my Discourse, viz. the Universal usefulness of the Bible as to things that are Temporal and Secular. Not only all Religious, Divine and Saving Knowledge is to be fetched hence, but that likewise which is Natural and Humane, and belongs to the World and Arts. Many believe the former, but can't be induced to credit the latter; for they think the Bible was writ only for the saving of men's Souls, but that all other Knowledge and Discoveries are to be derived wholly from other Writers. I have sometimes observed that Persons who have had a good Desire to Learning, and were greedy Devourers of all other Authors, yet have no regard to the Scriptures, and fond imagine there is no Improvement of men's Notions, no enlarging of their Understandings, no Grounds of Excellent Literature from the Sacred Writ. They persuade themselves that the Bible may serve well enough for the Use of those that study Divinity, or make Sermons, but that the Writings of Profane Authors must be wholly consulted for other things. But this is a gross Surmise, and possesses the unthinking Heads of those only that consider not the Matchless Antiquity of the Bible, or that on a worse Account refuse to acquaint themselves with these Writings, and care not for that Book which speaks so much of God and Religion, and checks the Disorders of men's Lives. All honest, industrious and impartial Enquirers into Learning know that the Scriptures are the Greatest Monument of Antiquity that is Extant in the whole World, and particularly that the First and Earliest Inventions of things are to be known only from the Old Testament, especially the five first Books of it. In vain do you look for these in the Writings of other Men; for though some of them relate very Ancient Occurrences, yet they are not so old as these: and as for those Writers who pretend to some Greater Antiquity, and have been so impudent as to think that they could impose upon the World, they have been exploded by all Persons of Sobriety and serious Thoughts. In Pagan Writers we have some wild Guesses at the Origine of things, and the First Inventors of Arts; but he that is desirous to have Certain and Infallible Information concerning these, must consult the Writings of Moses and other Books of the Old Testament. From these alone we learn what were the Ancientest Usages in the World, and what was the first Rise and Original of them. Wherefore I may safely pronounce that no Man can have the just Repute of a Scholar unless he hath read and studied the Bible: for in this one Book there is more Humane Learning than in all the Books of the World besides. And therefore here by the way I cannot but look upon it as a very Scandalous Mistake, that the knowledge and Study of the Holy Scriptures are for Divines only, as if these were not to be skilled in any Humane Learning. They that talk after this rate, understand not what the Study of Divinity and True Scholarship are: for there is no Complete Divine that is not well versed in Humane Literature, and there is no Complete Scholar that is not skilled in the Bible. Wherefore this is that which I intent very particularly and largely to insist upon, viz. that the Scriptures are the Ancientest Storehouse of Good Letters and Learning, and that here are All the Sorts of them, which I conceive will be a full Eviction of what I have undertaken, viz. to demonstrate the Pre-eminence of the Inspired Writings before all others whatsoever.  
First; I begin with the Language in which the greatest part of the Bible, that is, the Old Testament, was written, which is Hebrew, and was the First and Original Tongue of the World. This certainly inhanses the Worth of the Hebrew Text, and renders the Bible preferable to all other Books. It is true there are other Languages that pretend to Priority; but when we come to examine their claim, we discover it to be a mere Pretence indeed. We are told by 
1 ●ib. ●.  Herodotus, that Psamm●ticus King of Egypt had a mind to make an Experiment about this, and accordingly caused two Children to be nourished and bred up by two she-goats, and suffered none to speak a Word to them. At last they were heard to utter the word bec, which it seems signifies Bread in the Phrygian Dialect; whence it was concluded that that was the First Language. But upon Enquiry it was found that this Experiment was fruitless, for bec was an insignificant Pronunciation which the Children learned of their Goat-Nurses, to whom (and all other Animals of that Species) that Sound it seems was natural. 
2 Quaest ●9. in 〈◊〉  Theodoret thought Syr●ack was the First Tongue. Philo the Jew was of Opinion that Chaldee was the Primitive Language, and that what we call Hebrew is truly the Tongue which the Chaldean Abraham brought out of Chaldea. And Capellus in his Sacred Chronology seems to espouse this Assertion. But there is little Ground for it, if we consider that the Chaldee is borrowed from the Hebrew, and is a different Dialect of it. The Scythian is the Primitive Tongue, saith Boxhorn. Goropius Becanus fetches all Words from the Teutonick or High Dutch, and would persuade us that this is the Mother-Tongue of the World: but he hath given so slender Proof of it, that he hath gained but few Proselytes to his Opinion. The Learned Bochart derives all Words from the Phaenician Tongue; but any impartial Judge may discern that he is too extravagant in his Derivations▪ witness that of Phoenicia or Phoenix from ben Anak the Son of Anak, (making the Old Phaenicians his Posterity) or by Contraction Beanak, than Pheanak, and so Phoenix, and hundreds more of the like Nature; which straining to maintain his Opinion is unacceptable to wise Men. A late Author hath published an Historical Essay (as he is pleased to call it) of the Probability of the Language of China being the Primitive one, and among other Offers towards it he hath this, that the first Expression we make of Life at the instant Minute of our Birth is by uttering the Chinois Word Ya or Yah But by the same Reasoning I can prove that the first Tongue was Hebrew, because Yah (for so most Hebricians pronounce it) is one of the Hebrew Names of God: and how proper is it for Infants to mention and acknowledge their Maker as soon as they come into the World? I allow the Author to be very Ingenious, yet I believe he is so wise himself as not to think he hath brought any solid Proof for what he undertook. Such another Attempt is his, who commends the British or Welsh Tongue to us as the Ancientest of all. This Glory is due only to the Hebrew, which certainly was the Language that Adam spoke, and was that peculiar Form of Speech which was given to him by God, and which he taught his Children, and which lasted incorrupt (there being no other Tongue to be its Rival) till the Confusion of Tongues at Babel, and the Dispersion which was the Consequent of that. Of this those Words are meant, Gen. 11. 1. The whole Earth was of one language, and of one Speech, Viz. Hebrew: which without doubt was no small Benefit to Mankind; this identity of Speech having such an Influence on Society, and contributing to the Increase of their Friendship and Familiarity, whereas now we must ●e a long time learning to make those of other Countries understand what we say, we must go to school to be Friendly, and we can't be sociable without a Dictionary. But this Primitive Blessing was not of very great Duration, for the Infallible Records inform us that a notable Confusion of Languages happened to the World when it was yet in its Minority and Childhood, and had not long learned to speak, if we may reckon the Age of it from the Deluge. By the Fault of Man, and the Judgement of God, the One way of Speaking was changed into divers. But we are not to think that this Change introduced into every Colony or Plantation a Different Language, but only a particular and peculiar Dialect: For the Difference of the Idiom was sufficient to beget a not-understanding of one another, as we see at this day the Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, English, understand not one another when they speak, though they have not properly a Different Language, but only Several Dialects, for they all speak Teutonick. The Confusion of Tongues than was not New Tongues, but a considerable Variation from the Primitive one, viz. Hebrew. Hereupon the Babel-Builders (who before spoke and understood this Language, it being their native one, as it was of all the rest of Manking) were so confounded, that they were forced to lay aside their Tools, and leave off working. And that this Confusion was not an Introduction of really Distinct Tongues▪ (as some have thought) is evident hence, that there is a Great Affinity between Tongues, especially the Eastern ones (for as for others, they have had their Rise since, and we are not to imagine that at the Babylonick Confusion they spoke Italian, Spanish or French, or that afterwards there were any of the Plantations that understood English, Dutch or Irish). I speak then concerning the Eastern Languages, and assert them to be Different Dialects or Modes of the Hebrew Tongue: which is sufficiently proved from the Harmony and Cognation between them. I remit the Reader to Skickard, Hottinger and others, for the particular Eviction of this. He will from them be persuaded that Tongues were not Multiplied at Babel, but Divided; and that that One Language which had been in use ever since the beginning of the World, received there an Alteration and new Modification: the Diversity of which was the Cause, that Persons could not understand one another.  
Now that the First Tongue which Adam and Eve spoke, and was used before the Division of Languages, and was the Original from whence all the other Languages are but Variations, was Hebrew, is apparent from that foresaid Cognation between the Hebrew and other Oriental Tongues. We find that this One Language hath spread itself more or less into all others. We may discern in them some Words either purely Hebrew, or of near alliance with it. It is well known that the Chaldeans and Syrians have abundance of Hebrew words in their Tongue, only there is some difference in the inflection of them. The Arabic likewise hath great affinity with the Hebrew, and so have the Punic and Ethiopick, as the Learned Bochart hath demonstrated. And this you may observe (which confirms the thing I am establishing) that the nearer any People were to the Hebrews and their Country, the greater Number of Hebrew Words and Idioms they retained in their Languages: and on the contrary, the more remote any Nation was from them, the fewer Hebrew Words have they, and the greater Strangers are they to their manner and way of Speaking. But there are some Relics of that Primitive Tongue every where: all Languages have borrowed from this, as 
1 Lingua Hebraica omnium linguarum matrix. Commentar▪ in Sophon. C●p 3.  St. jerom long since observed; and Mercer and other Learned Moderns take notice, that Sac and some other Hebrew Words are to be found in all Languages, and thence argue that Hebrew is the Mother-Tongue of all. Again, where should we look for the Original Language, and where should we hope to find it, yea, where is it possible to find it but among the First People of the World, and the immediately succeeding Generations of Men before the Flood and Confusion of Tongues? Accordingly we discover that Hebrew was that Language which was in use with them. The Book of Genesis abundantly testifies this, where are the Names Adam, Ishah (Woman) Chavah or Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, and a Multitude of other Words of Hebrew Extraction, which are Arguments that Hebrew was the Language of those first People, and therefore the Primitive One. The Etymology and Derivation of these Words do irrefragably prove this, for there is no other Tongue that hath these Words from whence these Names are taken but the Hebrew; therefore this was the First Tongue. And this was it which Noah carried into the Ark with him: and if he did so, no Man questions that he brought it out with him, and that it was universally used till the Babel-Conspiracy. Otherwise it could not be said (as we have heard) that the whole Earth before that Confusion was of one Lip (or Language) and one Speech. This Text is peremptory, and therefore it is to be wondered that a 
2 J. Cleric. Disl. ● de Ling. Hebr.  Learned Man contents himself with saying, [There seems to have been One Tongue before the Flood till the building of Babel.] And in 
1 Commentar. in Gen. 11. 1.  another place he understands one Lip and one Speech, of their mutual Concord and Agreement: which Interpretation of his is refuted from what follows, Let us go down and confound their Lips, that they may not understand one another's Lip, v. 7. Where we see the Confusion of Lips is opposed to one Lip and one Speech before mentioned. It is evident then from this Text that there was only One Language in use at first: and that could be no other than Hebrew; for I have showed before that this Language was spoken, and therefore if there was but One Language on the whole Earth, This must be it: for there was no Alteration as to Language till the building of Babel: whence we infallibly gather that the Language which was used before the Flood and the Erecting of Babel, was Hebrew, and consequently, that the forementioned Writer who holds 
2 Prolegom. ad Commentar. in Ge●.  that the Hebrew Tongue is no more Primitive than any other Oriental Tongue, is under a Mistake; and that his Learned Countryman who asserts 
3 Huet. Demonstrate. Evangel. C. 13. Prop. 4.  that the Hebrew was one of the Tongues that arose out of the Confusion of Tongues at Babel, is grossly overseen. For it is a flat Contradicting of that plain Text above named, which acquaints us that there was One Universal Language in the World at that time, and no more; which from what I have suggested appears to be Hebrew. And as this was the Common Tongue of the World above seventeen hundred Years, (viz. from the Creation to the building the Tower of Babel) so we are to observe further, that the Curse of the Confusion of Tongues fell only or chiefly on those People that were at Rabel, and concerned in that Wicked Exploit, Viz. the Inhabitants of Shinar and the neighbouring Places, those impious Troops of Men that were the greatest Admirers and Flatterers of Nimrod and his Government. The Sons of God, the holy Posterity of Noah assisted not in the building of the Tower, and therefore among them and their Posterity, and those that learned it of them, was the Primitive Tongue preserved. Which some think had its denomination of Hebrew from Heber, who was none of the Babel-Builders, and therefore the Original Tongue was preserved entire in his Family. This is the general Opinion of the jewish Writers, and it hath been received by many Christians. More especially the 
1 Geograph. Sac. Pars 2.  Learned Bochart is of this Opinion, but is contradicted by some other Learned Pens, who tell us that the Hebrew Tongue was called so from Gneber Transiit, i. e. from Abraham the Traveller or Passenger, Gen. 14. 13. But Mr. Selden, whose Learning was equal to any of these, 
2 Affensum tamen retinemus▪ nam non lique●. De D●s Syr. Proleg. Cap. 2.  suspends his Judgement in this Controversy, though at the same time he declares that he is more prone to the Opinion of those who deduce it from Eber Transitus.  
This is a short Account of the Antiquity of the Hebrew Tongue, and we may rationally conclude from it, that it was the Primitive and Original Speech, and that from the corruption of this was the Generation and Production of other Tongues. And that Worthy Critic himself, who makes the Phaenician the First Tongue, agrees to what I here assert, though he seems to oppose it: for if we scan what he saith, we shall see that even according to him the Phaenician and Hebrew are the same, which appears from this, that he holds the Canaanites and Phaenicians to be the same People. 
1 Geogr. Sac. Canaan.  He proves that the Phaenicians or Punicks, or Syrians, or Sidonians, (for they were Known by all these Names) were formerly the Inhabitants of Cana●n, but being expelled thence by joshua when he subdued that Land, they carried Colonies into most parts of the World, and their Language is found in all Languages of other People, as he endeavours to show. This is the Hebrew Tongue he confesses, abating the Difference of Dialect; and therefore Hebrew (he saith) is called the Language of Canaan, Isa. 19 18. If then the Punic was in its first Purity Hebrew (as some others besides Bochart grant) it follows that in proving the former to be the Original Tongue, he doth in effect prove that the latter is so, because they are the same. And truly it is no hard task to evince the Language of the Canaanites to have been Hebrew, for all the Proper Names of Men and Places reckoned up in Scripture in those Nations are purely Hebrew, as Salem, jerusalem, Hebron, etc. To which a 
2 Weems.  Learned Scots-man gives his Suffrage, expressly vouching that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew, and that the Hebrew Tongue is called the Language of Canaan, because 'twas the native Language of those that possessed that Land: to prove which he produces the Names of Persons and Places among them, as Melchisedek, Abimelek, Kirjath-sepher, jericho, etc. and thence infers that Hebrew was the native Tongue of the Canaanites or Philistines. And if this be true, than the Great Selden, and with him many others are mistaken, who affirm, that 
1 De Dis Syr. Prolegom. C. 2.  the Hebrew Tongue remained pure in the Family and Posterity of Abraham only, and that Abraham brought that Tongue first into Canaan. The contrary appears, viz. that this Tongue was preserved even in Canaan. But Monsieur Bochart goes too far when he adds, that Hebrew was not retained in the Families of Heber and Abraham, but that this latter learned this Tongue of the Canaanites when he lived with them in Canaan. I do not see this cleared by him, and therefore I am inclined to believe that the Hebrew Tongue was both in Abraham's Family, and among the Canaanites. Though Abraham was a Chaldean, and Chaldee was the Language of the Country, yet by the singular Providence of God, the Hebrew might be kept up and spoken by him. Nor did this hinder his converse with the Chaldeans, because the Chaldee is a Dialect of the Hebrew. If it be objected that Canaan, and consequently the Canaanites were from Cham, who was a ●abel-Builder, and how then was the Primitive Hebrew among them? It may be hard to resolve this, and perhaps it is the only considerable Objection against Bochart's Opinion. I am not now obliged to show why it was so, but I am only concerned to attend to the Matter of Fact, Viz. that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew, and consequently kept their Tongue notwithstanding the Confusion at Babel. And (that I may not wholly dismiss it without giving a Reason of it) this might very well be, because the Canaanite speaking Hebrew was as much a Barbarian, and as little understood by another Family or Plantation, as if God had infused a new Language or Idiom. So that we need not wonder that Hebrew was the Language of the ungodly Canaanites. Though truly, if I may speak freely, I do not see that this is firmly built on that Text in Isaiah before cited; for 'tis manifest, that that is a Prophecy concerning the Conversion of the Gentiles, and particularly the Egyptians, to the True Religion and Worship, viz. that of the jews which was then in Being; and consequently This (and not the Ancient Speech and Dialect of Canaan) is here meant by the Language of Canaan. Or supposing the very Speech of that Country to be meant, yet we can't thence absolutely infer that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew, but only that Hebrew is called the Language of Canaan: which might be for this reason, because the Israelites who spoke Hebrew had possessed the Land of Canaan about eight hundred Years when this was said by Isaiah. But this doth not prove the Language of the Jews and the Old Canaanites to be the same. Yet, notwithstanding this, from what hath been before alleged, we have good reason to conclude (as several 
1 Scaliger, Capellus, Erpenius, Vossius, Grotius, Bochart.  Learned Writers have done) that the Hebrew Tongue was the same with the Language of Canaan, i. e. the Language which the Canaanites spoke.  
From all which, laid together and compared with what hath been said, we are confirmed in this Assertion, that Hebrew was the only Language that was in use before the Confusion of Babel, and so was the First Tongue, and the Mother of all other Eastern Tongues. This is so evident that it hath been the universal belief of the jews, who are very positive here; and it hath been held and defended by the Learnedest 
1 Mercer, Junius, Pererius, Bertram, Pagnin.  Christians who have treated on this Subject. This is the Language which God himself spoke, as is manifest from abundant Instances, some of which have been referred to; and there are many others, as God's changing of the Names of Abram, Sarai, jacob, etc. and several Names and Memorials in the forty Years abode of the Israelites in the Wilderness, testify this. This is the Ancient and Holy Tongue that was used by our First Parents; and without doubt it was immediately taught them by God: for he that bestowed upon them other excellent Benefits, denied them not Speech. Therefore this was a special Gift of the Creator: this was one of the first Donatives conferred on Adam and Eve. And it was enjoyed by them, and by all the Antediluvians, yea all Noah's Posterity, till the Confusion at Babel. In this first and ancientest Language was the Pentateuch, and even all the Old Testament written, and that in those very Hebrew Letters which we have at this day, for the Samaritan ones (which by some are cried up for the Ancientest) are but a corrupt Imitation of these. In this Holy Language and Characters (both of his own Institution) God would have the Sacred Mysteries of his Religion expressed and recorded. In this Book alone are the first Names of Men and Beasts in that Tongue, denoting their particular Natures and Qualities: which I might have mentioned before, to show the Antiquity of this Tongue. Nay, we are to remember this, that this first way of speaking among Mankind, is no where preserved but in these Writings: for after the Babylonian Captivity (which was about three thousand and four hundred years after the Creation) this Original Speech was no longer the Language of any particular Nation; for the Captive Jews lost this Tongue at Babylon, (a Place fatal to Hebrew, at first in the Confusion of Tongues, and afterwards in this People's forgetting their Language there) insomuch that at their Return home they could not understand the Book of their own Laws but by an Interpreter, Neh. 8. 7, 8. for they had changed their Hebrew into a Mixed Language (compounded partly of Hebrew and partly of Chaldee) which was afterwards called Syriack. But in the Old Testament the pure Hebrew is kept entire and uncorrupted, and is extant at this day in no Writings but these. If any Grammarians and Critics could say the like concerning the Greek or Latin Tongue, that there is One Book wherein either of these in its first Purity is wholly contained, they would be very lavish in their Encomiums of that Volume, and the Prelation of it to all others should not want setting forth. Behold here the Whole Hebrew Tongue, and that in its native Lustre, comprised in the Old Testament! In no one Book upon Earth besides this is there lodged a Whole Language; which should invite all Admirers and Lovers of Ancient Literature to prise it, and the Books written in it. Certainly this is a high Commendation of these Sacred Writings, and gives them the Preference to all others whatsoever.  
Secondly; They rightly claim this, because they acquaint us with the true Origine of the World, which we find recorded in no other Writings. For though the Beginning of all things, and some Circumstances which appertain to it, are obscurely intimated in some Pagan Historians and Poets, and thereby (as I have lately showed on another occasion) Testimony is given to the Authority of the Sacred Writings, yet none of them give us a plain and particular Account of this Beginning and Original of the Mundane Fabric. Yea, the very Philosophic Men among the Gentiles in a most wild and rambling manner talk of the Rise of all things, and at the same time ba●●le themselves. Thus the Epicureans tell us a senseless Story of the Eternal frisking of Atoms; which yet, if they were Eternal, had no Beginning or Ri●e at all. Pythagoras and his Disciples, and Plato and some of the Peripatetics held that Men were always, and that there was an Eternal Succession of them, and consequently no Original of them. Others who believed they had a Beginning, had strange and monstrous Fancies concerning it, as that Men were formed out of Fishes, which was Anaximander's Conceit: Others imagined they shooted out of Trees; some out of Eggs; others out of Wombs affixed to the Earth, as Epicurus and Lucretius: Others (as the fabulous Poets) conceited they were produced out of Stones: and 
1 De Legib. I. 1.  Cicero relates concerning some of the Philosophers, that they thought the Original of Mankind was from Seed falling from the Stars, and impregnating the Earth. This stumbling at the Threshold, these extravagant and groundless Notions concerning the very first Original of things, were too ominous a Presage that these Philosophers would grossly mistake about other Matters, and give us but a sorry Account of the other Works of Nature. But Moses confutes all these fond Surmises about the Nativity of the World, and of Mankind; he quashes all those wild Conjectures, by assuring us that Man had his Origine from the Earth, by God's peculiar framing him out of it; and that the World itself had its Being by Creation, i. e. by being made out of Nothing by the Infinite Power and Wisdom of God. Wherefore it was rightly said by an Understanding Person, 
2 Neiremberg, de orig. Script. I. 2. c. 7.  I am persuaded (saith he) that in the first Chapter of Genesis Moses taught more than all the pagan philosophers and Interpreters of Nature. And that this first Chapter of the Bible is an Historical or Physical Account of the Creation of the World, and is no Allegory, is not to be questioned by any Man of a sober Mind and consistent Reasoning. For thus I argue, It is highly fitting that the Doctrine of the ●irst Rise of the Universe, the Production of all things, should not be le●t doubtful, but be conveyed unto us in such a way as may best preserve the Memory of so weighty and considerable a Matter. For this is of such Concern that our Belief of Providence and the true Nature of God is comprised in it. Now a Thing of this Quality ought not to be so delivered that it may be liable to Imposture, or suspected of Falsehood or Uncertainty. As for private and personal Revelations (which some may here suppose) these can only satisfy the individual Persons to whom they are communicated: and as for Oral Tradition, it is not so certain but that it may leave some Scruples in men's Minds. Hence it is reasonable that the History of the World should be digested into such Records which may assure us of what is to be believed, and therefore it is sit that they should be Plain and Simple, and properly to be taken and understood, so that they may be reckoned as an Indubitable Account of the World's Production; therefore such is this Relation which Moses hath jest us, which is a Perfect Diary of th●● First Work of the Almighty.  
But I will attempt yet further to prove that thi● History deserves that Name, i. e. that it relates what was really done. If this be acknowledged by some Sacred and Inspired Author, I conceive that will be a fair Conviction to those who believe that Author to be inspired, and to deliver things that are really true. That St. Peter then in the third Chapter of his second Epistle (where he briefly describes the Make and Frame of this World, as it was form at the first Creation) refers to this Mosaic History, and also fully confirms it, will appear in the Perusal of that his Description, where you will find those very Terms which Moses in the first of Genesis makes use of. This they are willingly ignorant of, saith the Apostle, that the Heavens were of old, i. e. from the Beginning, which in the Verse before is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Beginning of the Creation, which agrees exactly with the first Words of Genesis. And these Heavens were by the Word of God, which is a reference to God said, which Moses expressly mentions, chap. 1. 6, 14. Next to the Heavens he makes mention of the Earth, (as Moses doth) telling us, that it Stood or consisted out of the Water and in the Water, which is the same Account of it which we have in Genesis, viz. that it was partly above Water and partly under, i. e. it was above the Seas, Fountains, Rivers, etc. but under the w●tyr Mass of Clouds. So that any Man of unprejudiced Thoughts cannot but see that those Words [the Earth standing out of the Water, and in the Water] plainly relate to the Mosaical History, where we are told that the Globe of Earth included in it a heap of Waters called the Deep, or the Abys●, which was afterwards gathered into one Receptacle or Channel. This is called the Water under the Firmament, i. e. under the Expansion of the Air, as the Water above the Earth, viz. the Clouds are called the Water above the Expansion, Gen. 1. 7. Thus you see all this is alleged and acknowledged by St. Peter as True History, and accordingly is made use of by him: Wherefore we are ascertained from his infallible Pen, that the Mosaic Account of the Creation is no Fiction, no strain of Poetic Fancy, but is perfectly Historical, and to be taken in a real, proper and literal Sense, which was the thing to be cleared. Wherefore Origen, and the rest of the Allegorists who despise the Letter of this Chapter, and rely chiefly on some Mystic and Symbolical Meanings, are confuted. And so likewise are they that adhere to the foolish Dreams of Philosophers concerning the Eternity of the World, or its being made by Chance, or the Existence of More Worlds. All these are inconsistent with Moses' Account of the Creation, besides that they affront other Principles established by the Holy Scriptures, and bid desiance to Reason and the greatest Evidence of things. So that it is to be wondered that any Person who pretends to own the Divine Authority of the Bible, should publicly disown Moses' Relation of the First Original of the World, and look upon this first Chapter of Genesis (as well as he doth on the third) as not True, i. e. not giving an Account of Matter of Fact. But there was a kind of Necessity upon him to form such Thoughts as these concerning this Entrance of Moses' Book, because he had in his Theory of the Earth run counter to that Relation of it which Moses gives. This is the bold Man that asse●ts the Primitive Earth to have been without Sea, and without Mountains, and the Airy Expansion to be without Clouds, which are a plain contradicting of Moses, who saith, the Waters were gathered together, and were called Seas, ver. 10. and informs us that there were other Waters above the Firmament or Air, ver. 7. and in another Place lets us know that all the high Hills and Mountains were covered by the Waters of the Deluge, Gen. 7. 19, 20. Thus it must needs be ill philosophising in defiance of Moses, the first of the Philosophic Order. This is Confutation enough of his Hypothesis; and herein I am satisfied that the Excepter against his Book is in the right. Now to support his own Opinion, and to run down Moses, he tells us, that instead of a History we are here presented with a Parable, with an Ethical Discourse in an obscure way. This Philosophic Romancer turns the Holy Scriptures into Aesop's Fables, and seems with his Friend Spinosa to hint that the Writings of the Prophets are only high Flights of Imagination. God forbid that I should fasten any such thing upon him, (or any the like Imputation on any other Man of Learning) or so much as suspect it unless there were some ground for it. I appeal therefore to all persons of correct Thoughts, whether his asserting that Moses the Prime and Leading Prophet is so fanciful that he presents us with mere Allegories and Parables, even when he seems to speak of the Creation of the World, and the Fall of our First Parents, whether (I say) this doth not argue that the rest of the Prophetic Writers (who could not do amiss in imitating so Great a Guide) are led wholly by Imagination, and dictate not things as they really are, but as they fancied them to be. Nay, he not only overthrows the Truth and Reality of Moses' Writings, but he blasts the Integrity of the Penman himself, telling us, that he was a Crafty Politician and Dissembler, one that did all to comply with the People, one that cheated the ignorant Jews with a thing like an History, merely to please them, whilst in the mean time it is nothing but a piece of Morality in an Allegorized way, and is to be understood so by us. Certainly Moses needed not to have been Inspired by the Holy Ghost (as I suppose most grant him to be) to have merited this Character. But I have animadverted on him with some Freedom in a former Discourse, and therrfore I will not say any more here. Nor should I have said any thing then, or now, if I had not been verily persuaded that the Credit of Moses, and of the Scriptures themselves, and consequently of our whole Religion, lay at stake: for if this 1st Chapter of Genesis, together with the rest which follow, which have all the Marks of History upon them, be not Literal and Historical, we know not what Judgement to make of any other Places of Scripture which recite Matter of Fact, we can't tell whether any Text bears a Literal Sense or no, and so we throw up the whole Bible into the Hands of Sceptics and Atheists.  
After all that I have said under this Head, I would not be thought to mean any such thing as this, that the Scripture was designed for Philosophy: No, there are Nobler things that it aims at. Yet this is most certain, that here is the Best Philosophy, both Moral and Natural. It is the latter I am now speaking of, viz. the Knowledge of the Works of Nature, God's creating of the World, which is the f●rst step to all Natural Philosophy. This is to be learned in the Beginning of this Holy Book, whose Excellency and Perfection I am treating of. Here the Birth and Original of all things are distinctly set down, which is a Subject that all the Philosophers are defective in. I grant wha● Cyril, speaking of Moses, saith, 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. cont. Julian.  that he designed not to play the Philosopher in a subtle and curious manner, and to be accurate in his Discourse of the First Principles of things: but notwithstanding this, it is an undeniable Truth that no Book in the World teacheth us the True Origine and Age of the World, the Epoch of the Universe, the Particular Order and Method of the Creation, and more especially the manner of the Production of Mankind, but This. By this alone we are fixed and determined in these Points, and we have no longer any Reason to doubt and waver. We may plainly discern from these Sacred Writings the Invalidity of those Notions which some Philosophic Heads have entertained, viz. the Eternity of the World, the Production of it by Chance, or the Mechanical Rise of it by virtue of mere Matter and Motion. All these fond Conceits are silenced by this Sacred Author; an Happiness which we could not have had if this most Ancient and Authentic Book were not extant.  
Thirdly; We have no Account of the first Rise of Nations and People in the World, but ●rom the Mosaic History. Here, and only here, we have an Exact Narrative of the dividing of the Earth among the Sons of Noah and their Posterity. It is in the Tenth Chapter of Genesis that we have the History of the First Plantations. A Choice Monument of Antiquity, and to be prized by all Lovers of Ancient Learning, those that delight to inquire into the First Originals of things. Here we are informed that japheth, the eldest Son of Noah, and his seven Sons, were the first that peopled that part of the World which is called Europe, with a part of Asia the Less. His Sons are reckoned up in this manner; 1. Gomer, whose Progeny seated themselves in the North-East part of that Le●●er Asia, which contains Phrygia, Pontus, Bythinia, and a great part of Galatia. These were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith josephus, called by the Latins Galatae; among whom is the City Comara, according to Pliny: and 
1 Lib. 1.  Mela speaks of the Comari. The People that dwelled in this Tract were (as Herodotus and other Ancient Historians testify) call●d Cimmerii, and had their Name from Gomer, if we may give Credit to some of the Learnedest Critics, such who are not wont to rest in fanciful Derivations. They tell us that Gomeri, Comeri, Cumeri, Cimbri, Cimmerii, are the same. The Old Germans are thought by them to have been a Colony of these Cimmerians or Gomerians, for German is but a Corruption of Gomerman. The Old Galls were another Colony of the Gomerians, (who by the Grecians were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and contractedly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Celtae) for it appears that the Cimbri or Cimmerii were the ancient Inhabitants of Old Gallia. And our Ancestors the Britain's were of the same stock; for that they descended from the Galls or Celtaes, who were the Gomeri or Cimbri of old, our own Learned Antiquary Mr. Cambden attempts to prove from their Religion, Manners, Language, etc. The Inhabitants of Cumberland (as he thinks) retain the Name still: they were the true Britain's, i e. Cimbri or Cumbri, or (as afterwards they were called) Cambri. But this latter Denomination was more especially applied to those of them that fled into the British Ci●●●ri● or Cambria, now called Wales, in the time that th● Saxons raged in the Southern Parts of this Isle▪ I will here particularly mention Gomer's three Sons, and take notice what Places are assigned to them To Ashkenaz belonged Troas, or P●rygia the Lesser where is the River Ascanius, and a Country called Ascania, which it is probable took their Name from him: and hence are the Ascanian Port, and the Ascanian Isles, in Pliny. And the Name Ascanius (as is observed) was much used in those Parts Riphath (the second Son) was seated in Pontus and Bythinia, especially in Paphlagonia, whence (as the Jewish Historian remarks) the Paphlagones' were called Riphathae, and afterwards by Contraction Riphaci: and in 
1 Lib. 1.  Mela there is mention of Riphaces, To Togarmah (another of Gomer's Sons) was allotted Phrygia the Greater, and part of Galatia. Thence the Phrygians were known by the Name of Tygrammines, saith josephus.  
But I proceed to speak of the Plantations of the other Sons of japheth. The second of them was Magog, from whom were the Scythians that dwelled on the East and North-East of the Euxine Sea; for Scythopolis and Hierapolis, which those Scythians took when they conquered Syria, were ever after called 
2 Caelosyria urbem habet Bambycen, quae alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris ver● Magog. Nat. Hòst. i. ● c. 23.  Magog, saith Pliny. And Ptolomee grants that the proper Name of that Place was Magog▪ 
3 Antiq. Jud. ●. 1. c. 7.  josephus confirms this, when he saith the Scythians were called Magogae by the Grecians, and thence infers that the Scythians had their Original from Magog the Son of japheth. The third Son was Madai, from whom were descended the Medes; for Madai is the Hebrew Word for Media, as is evident from Isa. 21. 2. and other Places. And another Seat of his Offspring was Macedonia, anciently called Aemathia or Aemadia, which is the same with Madia; for 'tis usual in the changing of a Name out of one Language into another, to Prefix a Vowel or Dipthong. And a People of this Place are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The fourth Son was javan, who 'tis likely came first into Greece, upon the Division of the Earth among Noah's Children, and then afterwards into the more Western Parts of Europe. From this javan (' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the LXX) the jones or jaones (as Homer and Strabo call them) the first and original Grecians were derived. 
1 Antiq. ●. 1. c. 7.  josephus is peremptory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from javan came jonia and all the Greeks. And Greece is expressly called javan, Dan. 10. 20. & 11. 2. So that there is no Reason to doubt that this Son of japheth was the Father of the Grecians. Moses goes on, and mentions the four Sons of javan: 1. Elisa, whose Portion was Achaia, and part of Peloponnesus, as some of great Learning have inferred from this, that in this Country they meet with Ellas, and the Elysian Fields, and the City Eleusis, and Elis a City of Peloponnesus, who took their Names from Elisa. Some also make him the Parent of the Aeolus in Greece. 2. Tarshish, from whom the Country that he inhabited is called Tarsis, on the Coast of which is the Great Sea or Mediterranean, whence Tarshish is the Word to signify the Sea. It is reasonable to think that the Place where this second Son of javan was seated is Cilicia, the chief City whereof was Tarsus, called so by his Name And it appears that the Cilicians of old were known by the Appellation of the People of Tarsus, 3. Kittim or Chittim, whose Dwelling is thought to have been Lycia and part of Pamphylia; for the Country Cetis and the People Cetii, the first mentioned by Ptolemy, the second by Homer, show that the Sons of Cittim or the Citteans inhabited there. That Chittim is meant of some parts of Greece is clear from Numb. 24. 24. Ships shall come from the Coasts of Chittim: By which are understood the Greeks and Seleucidae that crossed the Hellespont, and came against the Hebrews and Assyians. And in 1 Mac. 8. 5. the King of Macedon is called the King of Chittim. And because there were several Colonies of them sent into Cilicia, this bears the Name of the Land of Chittim, Isa. 23. 1. and Chittim, ver. 12. for thence Alexander the Great came to destroy Tyre, which is the Subject of that Chapter. 
1 Lib. 5.  Ptolomee tells us, that Cetis is a Region in Cilicia. Cyteum is in Crete, saith 
2 Lib. 4. c. 12.  Pliny. There is a Cittium in Cyprus, according to 
3 Lib. 14.  Strabo. And 
4 Antiq. ●. 1. c. 7.  Iosep●us relates that Cetios was the Greek Name of Cyprus itself: and thence he saith all the Greek isles were called Chittim from thence. Italy also was peopled by the Chittians, and therefore is sometimes understood by that term. The jerusalem-targum interprets the Word so in Gen. 10. 4. And when it is said, The Ships of Chittim Shall come against thee, i. e. against Antiochus, Dan. 11. 30. the Meaning is thought by some Learned Writers to be, that the Romans by Sea should disturb him. But I conceive that this may be true, and yet Chittim may in this Place (as before) signify Cilicia, for the Ships of the Romans commonly harboured in the Ports of Cilicia, to command the Mediterranean. The short is, from consulting and comparing the several Texts where Chittim is mentioned, I find Reason to determine, that some People both of Greece and Italy are comprehended in it: and accordingly there is Reason to believe that there were different Colonies of the Posterity of Chittim. (the Grandchild of japhet) planted in these Places. This puts an End to the Disputes and Quarrels of the Learned on both sides; some of whom contend that Greece, others that Rome is meant by Chittim. 4. Dodanim, whose Seat was Epirus and part of Peloponnesus. The Name is kept up in the City called Dodona, (which is in Epirus) near to which was Jupiter's Oracle, whence he was styled Dodonaeus. This jupiter was this Dodanim, the fourth Son of javan, who was the Grecian Saturn, for there were jupiters' many, and Satur's many.  
Iaphet's fifth Son was Tubal or Thubal, who took up his Habitation at first, it is probable, about the Southeast of the Euxine Sea, where dwelled the Albani, Chalybes, Iberi, who were anciently called Thobeli, saith the Jewish Antiquary, from this Thubal: and Ptolemy speaks of a City here named Thubilaca. From those Parts some of the Iberi were translated to Spain, which was thence called Iberia, and so the Spaniards are reckoned as the Posterity of Tubal. Meshech was Iapheth's Sixth Son, to whom fell Cappadocia, the Inhabitants whereof were the Meschini and Moschi, saith the foresaid Antiquary, who are also mentioned by Strabo, Mela, and Pliny. Some of his Posterity were placed in Scythia and the Regions adjacent, whence we find that Meshech and Tubal (which are constantly joined together in Scripture) are Words to express Scythia, Ezek. 32. 26. and Magog is joined with them, Ezek. 38. 2, 3. where Gog in the Land of Magog is said to be chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal. And it is moreover probable that the Muscovites are of the Race of Meshech or Moshech, (for the Word was pronounced differently, as Melech and Moloch) it being generally granted by the Learned that the Muscovites were originally from Scythia. To confirm which Opinion I will offer this Observation to the Reader, that the Seventy Interpreters render Meshech in Ezek. 38. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where Rhos gives the Denomination to the Russians, which is another Name of the Muscovites. The last Son of japheth is Tiras, who is uniursally agreed to be the Progenitor of the Thracians, Thrax having a near Cognation with Thiras. It is yet further remarkable in this Account which is given us of the First Plantations, that by these foresaid Sons of japheth the Isles of the Genciles were divided in their Lands, Gen. 10. 5. The Hebrews by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand not only those Regions which are encircled with the Sea, and are more properly and strictly called Islands, but all Countries divided from them by the Sea, or such as they could not come to but by the Sea. This is proved from several Texts of Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used: and the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in this large Sense sometimes. Accordingly there being no part of the World called by the Name of Christendom but what was divided from the Jews by Sea, we may gather how large and wide the Allotment of japheth and his Posterity was. The Isbes' of the Gentiles include not only all Europe, with all the I●bes adjoining and appertaining to it, but whatever Regions lie North and West of judea. Or, take it in 
1 Discourse the 47th.  Mr. Mede's Words, The Isles of the Gentiles are all Countries that lie above the Mediterranean, from the Mountain Amanus and the Hircane Sea Westward. So much concerning the Offspring of japhet, which was not unknown by Name to the Pagans, witness Horace's japeti Genus, and Lucian's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he Prourbially applies to that which is very Antient.  
The middle Son of Noah was Shem, whose Portion in the Division of the Earth was Palestine, and all the Eastern (which was the greatest) Part of Asia. His five Sons were these: 1. Elam, the Parent of the Elamites, i. e. the Persians, for that was the Primitive Name of those People, as we learn from Isa. 21. 2. & 22. 6. Dan. 8. 2. And because some Part of Media was a near Neighbour, Elam is the Word for the Land of the Medes, Ezek. 32. 24. 2. Ashur, from whom was peopled and named Assyria. He was Nimrod's immediate Successor, and is called Ninus by Profane Writers. 3. Arphaxad, whose Posterity was seated in Chaldea and Mesopotamia, and of whose Race Abra●am was. 4. Lud, whence the Lydians in Asia the Less. And by the Ludim are meant sometimes the Ethiopians, as 
2 Phaleg. L. 4. C. 26.  Bochart hath abundantly evinced. 5. Aram, whose abode was Aramea or Syria, for so 'tis called by the Greeks. Whence 
3 Lib. 1, 14, 16.  Strab● tells us that Aram was the old Word for Syria; and those that are now called Syrians, were heretofore known by the Name of Aramaeans. And I doubt not but Armenia had its Denomination from Aram, there being so great probability that his Race were Inhabitants of Syria and Armenia the Great, which is as much as Aramenia. Us, Arams Son, had the Land of Vz. There is mentioned also Heber, Arphaxad's Son, from whom some think the Hebrews had their Name, but that is disputable. Some Writers tell us that among the Divisions of the several Regions of the World, America or the West-Indies fell to the share of some of the Stock of Shem. This Part of the Earth was possessed and peopled, say Arias Montanus and Vatablus, by jobab and Ophir, two of the Sons of joctan. To confirm which Brerewood and others aver, that America is joined to the Continent of Asia, and so the Passage was easy, and Men and Beasts might go thither. Not only these Writers, but Genebrard and others declare it to be their Opinion, that Ophir, from whence Solomon fetched his Gold, had its Denomination from the latter of those Sons of joctan, and that this place was that which is now called Peru; which they think they partly prove from 2 Chron. 3. 6. Where the Gold which came from Ophir, is called Zahab Peruajim, which latter Word is the dual Number, they say, of Peru. If you inquire after the more particular Place, Vatablus will tell you that it is Hispaniola in the Western Ocean, lately found out by Columbus. But others tell us it was the Eastern India, that which was possessed by Shem's Posterity, viz. Ophir and Havilah the Sons of joctan. So say Rabanus Maurus and Lyranus, so Pererius, Massaeus, Tzeta, Lipcnius, but all in a different Manner, and placing it in different Regions of this part of the World. To these Indies, saith 
1 Antiq. L. 8. C. 2.  josephus, Solomon's Navy made a Voyage, to a Region called heretofore Sophyra, now the Golden Land. With him agrees 
1 De Ophyra Regione.  Varrerius, and adds that this Golden chersonese is the same with the Place that is at this Day called Malaca, and is in the Kingdom of Pegu, and borders on Somatra. But Mercator holds the Place to be japan. Acosta would persuade us it is Pegu, Siam, Sumatra. Here's a wide Difference (you will say) among Authors: the East and West-Indies are concerned in the Controversy: and it may be, after all, Ophir was in neither of them. It is Sophala in the Ethiopic Sea, and consequently belongs to Africa, say Volaterranus and Ortelius: but I rather think that Africa itself, or the African Shore is meant by it. Which seems to be confirmed from 2 Chron. 9 21. & 20. 36. (compared with 1 Kings 9 28. & 10. 22. & 22. 48.) where Ophir is called Tarshish. For though this Name belongs properly to the Cilician Port, which is on the other Side of Africa, yet (as I have showed in another Place) in a large Acception it comprehended all the Mediterranean Sea, and that Part especially which washed the African Shores: and hither it is probable Solomon's Fleet sailed, and the Merchants went up into the Country in pursuit of the Golden Mines: of which afterwards.  
Cham or Ham (the youngest Son of japheth) and the Families that descended from him, were first seated in this Country of afric, though some of them made Excursions also into Syria and Arabia. That he was seated in Egypt (the most considerable part of afric) is undeniable, since it is so often called 
2 Psal. 105, 23, 27.  the Land of Ham: and 
3 In Osiride.  Plutarch hath left it on record, that Chemia or Chamia was the ancient Name of that Place, which without doubt it had from Ham, or Cham, Iaphet's Son. That he or his Posterity launched out into some parts of Arabia, which bordered on afric, is rendered very Probable by Monsieur Bocbart. But that Chush, the eldest Son of Cham, was the Father of the Ethiopans, cannot be denied by any Man that well observes what the use of the Name Cushi or Cushim is in the Sacred Writings. Havilah, one of Cush's Sons, gave Name to Havilah, which Strabo places in the Confines of Arabia and Mesopotamia. Whether the Arabian or Ethiopian Saba or Saba be denominated from Sheba the Son of Cush, or another of that Name who was his Grandson, or from a Third Sheba, the Son of joctan, (whom also we find in this 10th Chapter of Genesis) it is to little purpose here to dispute. Mesraim, the second Son of Cham, was questionless the Founder of Egypt, for that is the known Name that it hath in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. From 
1 Antiqu. L. 1. C. 6.  josephus we learn that the Metropolis of this Province (by some called Memphis) had the Name of Mezzara given it by the Jews in his Time. And to this day Egypt is called Mizraim by the Jews and Arabians. Phut, a third Son, is believed by most Writers to have peopled Mauritania, Numidia, Lytia, Thence 
2 Nat. Hist. L. ●. C. 1.  Pliny makes mention of a River in Mauvitania called Phut: of which also St. jerom speaks, telling us that there was in his time a 
3 Phur, & juxta cum regio Phutensis usque in praesens dicitur. Trad, Hebr. in Gen.  Region in afric that had its Name from it. I doubt not but some part of Africa (if not the whole Country) is meant by Phut in Nah. 3. 9 And it can't be looked upon as an Extravagant Conjecture if I guess that Phetz or Fez, a Kingdom of Mauritania, is a Corruption of that Word. The fourth and last Son of Cham was Canaan, from whom sprang the Canaanites. His Sons were Sidon, Emori, jebuss, etc. from whom were the Sidonians (including the Tyrians) Amorites, Jebusites, etc. often spoken of in the Old Testament. All this Country of Palestine was (as I said before) part of Shem's Portion, but Canaan invaded it, and thence it bore his Name. The Learned Bocbart thinks this was the ancient and Primitive Phoenicia, it being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX. Exod. 16. 35. and she whom St. Matthew calls a Woman of Canaan, is said by St. Mark to be a Syro-Phoenician. It is this Great Critics persuasion that the Phoenicians were originally Canaanites, and that they fled out of Canaan, when joshua came and took Possession of their Country: then they went and seated themselves on the Sea-Coast of Palestine, called by them afterwards Phoenicia, as the Britain's upon the coming of the Saxons betook themselves to that part of the Country which is now known by the Name of Wales. This Excellent Person hath with great and manifold Arguments attempted the Establishment of this Assertion, and hath abundantly 
1 Bochart in Phaleg.  showed that there are several plain Footsteps of those first Planters in the Names in Geography. I might confirm this from a very remarkable Passage in St. Augustine, who assures us 
2 Exposit, in Epist. ad Rom.  that in his time the Peasants of Hippo, who were known to be of the Race of the Phaenicians, when they were asked who they were? used to answer they were Canaan's: which plainly shows that Canaan and Phoenicia were the same.  
But this I would add here, that Phoenicia is a larger and more extensive Term than Canaan, because I conceive the former takes in all those Countries that bordered on the Red Sea: for I am persuaded that Phoenicia had its Denomination from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of Esau or Edom turned into Greek. I had occasion heretofore to show that this Noted Person was called Erythras or Erythroeus by the Pagan Historians: which Name I am now to observe is of the like Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Rufus. So that Esau, Edom, Erythraeus, Phoenix are the same, and consequently the Phaenicians properly speaking, were all those People that lived near the Red Sea, (which is called so from Edom (the Hebrew of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) i. e. Red) and were under the Dominion of that Great Lord and Potentate Esau.  
This is the Division of the World among the Sons of Noah; thus 
1 Deut. 32. 8.  the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance, he separated the Sons of Adam, Iapheth's Possession was the Northern and Western Parts of the Earth: Shem had the East: and Cham had his lot between both. Moses reckons up in this Chapter fourteen Persons of the Posterity of japheth, six and twenty of the Race of Shem, and nine and twenty of that of Cham: who all with japheth, Shem and Cham themselves amount to seventy two: and just so many Languages (or rather Dialects) some think there were, and the very same number of Nations occasioned by the rise of those Languages. It is a most difficult Task to assign exactly the several Particular Regions and People derived from the Posterity of Noah, and their proper Seats and Habitations. Arias Montanus, Bochart, Raleigh, Heylin (besides others before them, who have writ of this Subject) seem to differ not a little, and yet they all agree in the main. Nay, where you see different Places and Regions assigned by them, they may all be true: for one may set down the first Seats of Noah's Offspring; another may mention the Colonies they sent forth, which lie it may be a great way off of the first Seats; and another may take notice of their Encroachments and Invasions. But whatever it is that is said by any Authentic Writer concerning this peopling of the several Parts of the Earth, it is all founded on the Mosaic History. Here we are told that the Parts of the World were divided by the Sons of Noah, every one after his Tongue, after their Families in their Nations, Gen. 10. 5. The Confusion of Tongues was that which divided Families: and yet by the Affinity of the Tongues there was an Union made, for those that agreed in the same Idiom joined together, and went and seated themselves together. And who these First Planters were, the Sacred History particularly acquaints us. As we have no Book but this that lets us know who were the first People in the World, who were before the Flood; so none but this tells us who the most Considerable Persons after it, and by whom the Several Nations of the World were first erected, and Colonies were sent forth into all the Parts of the Earth.  
Fourthly; The true Knowledge of the Original of Civil Government, and the Increases of it, and the Different Changes it underwent, is to be drawn from these Sacred Fountains. We may inform form ourselves here (and no where else) that the Primitive Government was Paternal, i. e. it was seated in Fathers of Families; as first in Adam and other Heads of Families, who then lived a very long Time. It is true, we are told by Aristotle, that 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Politic. L. 2, C. 8.  the Power of Parents over their Children was a Regal and Sovereign Dominion: the one (i. e. Parents) were the first Kings, the other (i. e. Children) were the first Subjects. But this the Philosopher could learn from no other Book but the Bible, or from those Traditions which were founded on these Ancient Records, because no other Writings give an Account of the Government which was first of all settled among the Sons of Men. Here, and only here, we are told that Adam and the other first Partriarches were Supreme Governors in their respective Tribes and Houses; that the Father of every Family was at the first the King of it, and reigned over his Children and Household as Sovereign; and that upon the Decease of the Father, the Eldest Son by a natural Right and Title was Successor, and inherited the Paternal Power and Dominion. Thus with the Paternal Rule went Primogeniture; i. e. the Firstborn Sons of Fathers of Families were Rulers, and there were many of these every where. And thus the Authority quietly and peaceably ran in this Channel, and 'tis not likely was interrupted till some years before the Flood, when there was a general Corruption of Mankind, and some affected extraordinary Dominion and Sway, and perverted the Primitive way of Government. After the Flood we find that the Authority was continued in the Heads and Firstborn of Families: and now by a more especial Commission the Magistrate's Authority is confirmed, Gen. 9 5. whoso sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed. The Ruler is authorized to punish Murder with Death, to require Blood for Blood. This is the first Formal Appointment of the Power of the Sword that we read of, this is the first Erection of a Tribunal of Life and Death. From some 
1 Gen. 8. 20. & 12. 2. & 35. 3.  Instances in the Records of this Time we may gather, that the Sacerdotal Dignity was joined to the Secular Power: they that were Magistrates were Priests. And so far as we are able to discover, these Offices were exerted by those who had the Paternal Right, or that of Priority of Birth. Thus it was in the first Patriarchal Oeconomy; this was the Government which lasted till after the Deluge in the Race of Shem. For as yet there was no one Person who usurped Authority over all the rest, (though those of Cham's Offspring had a Monarchy in the mean time, Nimrod being their King, of whom I shall speak afterwards) but the Patriarches kept up the first and original Laws of Paternity and Primogeniture all the time they lived at Liberty: there was no failure of this Government till they were brought under the Egyptian Yoke. And then afterwards, when the Jewish People were in the Deserts of Arabia, the Primogeniture more signally ceased in Moses, who was appointed by God himself to be Ruler over them. And so we are come to give an Account of the Civil Government of the jews, which we can learn from no other Writings under Heaven but These. Moses, I say, was their Ruler, and was the First of that kind that they had. He was not only their Captain and Leader, but their Civil Magistrate; yea he may be said to be their King, for even that Title is given to him, Deut. 33. 5. Moses was King in Jeshurun, i. e. in Israel. He was an Absolute King, say 
1 Devit. Mosis,  Philo, and the Jewish Doctors, and 
2 De Synedr. l. 2.  Mr. Selden, and some others. joshua was their next Ruler, Captain and King; who was succeeded by the judges, who were, like the Roman Dictator's, set up upon emergent Occasions to descend, protect and deliver the People. But all this time the Jews were under a Theocracy, i. e. they were governed in a more signal manner by God. They received their Laws from Him, and he appointed the Punishments for the Breach of those Laws: They went to War by His Advice and Direction, and they did nothing in Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs without consulting him. Thus God was their King; it was a Divine Government; and the judges were but God's Vicegerents, and held a Power under Him. That God himself exercised this Regal Power over the Jews, was expressly acknowledged by Gideon, Judg. 8. 23. I will not rule over you, (saith he to that People) neither shall my Son rule over you, the Lord shall rule over you. So Samuel told the People, that the Lord their God was their King, 1 Sam. 12. 12. And this is implied in what God said to Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not Reign over them, 1 Sam. 8. 7. This Kingdom of God among the jews began when he renewed the Covenant with them, Exod. 19 5, 6. Then they took God for their King and Governor; and accordingly the Jewish Government is styled a Theocracy, not only by 
3 Contr, Appion. l. 2.  josephus, but many of the Christian Writers. But this wanton People desired another King besides God; they would by no means be Singular, they would be Ruled as other Nations were; a King they must have, as Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Persia, and the rest of the Pagan World had. And a King they had according to their earnest Desire; for they chose Saul to be their King in desiance of God's Sovereignty over them: and now the Theocratical Dispensation ceased. Their Kingly Government lasted till the Captivity, when Zedekiah was their last King. After their Return from Assyria they were governed by the Chief Heads of their Tribes: Thus the Sacred Writings acquaint us that Zerobabel, a Prince of the Tribe of judah, was their Supreme Ruler. But the Canonical Scripture goes not on to tell us the great Variety of Governors over the Jews after the Captivity: Only in the New Testament we read of Herod, who was the first Stranger that was King of the Jews, but the last of all their Kings; for their that famous Prophecy of the Sceptre departing from judah was accomplished, and Shiloh, the Blessed Saviour, the Prince of Peace, came into the World.  
Having given you a short Survey of the Government among the jews, I will in the next Place speak of the Particular Exertments of it in their Courts of judicature. There was the judicatory of three Men; two of which were chosen by the Parties that were at Controversy, and those two chose a third. This sort of Courts was called the 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  judicature of Moneys, because it was conversant about Pecuniary Causes, i. e. wherein Life was not concerned, but only a Sum of Money to be paid for the Fault, viz. Thest, Trespasses, Defamation, Hurt and Damage, and all Private Injuries. In short, all Lesser Causes and Petty Actions were tried by these Triumvirs. I must add, that though this was usually called the judicature of Three, yet this Number was sometimes increased to five or seven. And this must be noted, that these three, five, or seven judges, or rather justices of the Peace, were settled in every City and considerable Town, and they tried the Causes, and decided the Controversies of the Inhabitants of their proper City and Town. Again, there was the judicatory of Three and Twenty Men, and sometimes it consisted of Four and twenty: This Court was styled the 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  judicatory of Souls, because Great and Capital Causes, such as concerned the Life of Men, were brought and tried here. This Court was also called the 
3 Sanedrim Katon.  Little Sanedrim, or Lesser Consistory: and whereas the former Judicature of Three was in every City, this Court was in every Tribe in Israel. All the Hebrew Writers of any Note, who designedly treat of the jewish Government, speak of these two Courts, and therefore it is not to be questioned that they were in use among that People. But it is also unquestionable that they were not made use of at first, i. e. either in Moses' time, or three or four Ages afterwards; otherwise we should have had them particularly mentioned in the Old Testament, which for my part I could never observe, though some pretend to do so. It being therefore our present Business to speak only of those things relating to the jewish Polity which are expressly mentioned in Scripture, I will proceed to recount those particular Models of Judicatures which are expressly taken notice of in these Sacred Writings, and they are these. First, there was in every Town a sufficient Number of Overseers of the People, who upon occasion met together to do them Right: for the Tribes were divided into Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, Ten, i e. into so many Families; and over each Division there presided Rulers of Thousands, Rulers of Hundreds, Rulers of Fifties, and Rulers of Ten, to judge the People at all Seasons, Exod. 18. 21, 25. And the same are called Captains over Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, Ten, Numb. 31. 14. Deut. 1. 15. 1 Sam. 8. 5. and their Business was to decide lesser Causes in these their respective Thousands, Hundreds, etc. Besides these Ministers of Justice in every particular Town, there were others of a larger Jurisdiction, who are called Princes and Heads of the Tribes, Numb. 13. 2. & 34. 18. Chief of the Tribes, Deut. 1. 15. Officers among the Tribes (in the same Place), and judges and Officers throughout the Tribes, Deut. 16. 18. There were Twelve of these, every Tribe having its distinct Head and Precedent over it; and these determined in Causes of a greater and higher Nature than the others. Moreover, there was a Senate of Seventy, chosen out of the two former Ranks of Persons; and they were designed at first to be Coadjutors to Moses Numb. 11. 16. You will find that these are mentioned together with the other two in jos. 23. 2. & 24. 1. for by the Elders in both these Places are meant, I conceive, the Seventy Seniors, and by the Heads of Israel we are to understand the Representatives and Governors of the Tribes; and by Officers and judges the Ordinary and Inferior Justices, viz. Captains of Thousands, etc.  
It was the first of these, namely, the Judicature of Seventy Men, which was most considerable, and therefore I will add a few Words concerning it: Because Moses was Precedent over it, the Jews called it the judicature of Seventy one; and others, adding Aaron to that Number, say, it consisted of Seventy two. This famous Council, which was at first appointed by Moses in the Wilderness, was afterwards a Settled Council for governing the People in the Land of Canaan, and was called the Sanedrim, (which is a 
4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek Word originally, but crept into the Hebrew, as other Greek Words have done) but to distinguish it from the Lesser one, it is called the 
5 Sanedrim Gedolah.  Great Sanedrim. The other Courts sat in every City and Tribe, but This was at jerusalem only, and could sit no where else. This Great Consistory judged of All Matters, whereas the Others took Cognizance only of Lesser ones. This was not only a Court of Common Pleas or Nisi Prius, where only Civil Causes were tried, but sometimes it determined both them and Criminal Actions. It was also a Chancery, or Court of Equity. But the more special and peculiar Work of this Court was to try the most Weighty Causes: these most commonly were brought before these Seventy Seniors: Matters of the Highest Nature, the most Important Affairs of the Kingdom, and such as belonged to the Safety of the Public, were tried here. This Great Senate was chosen out of all the Tribes, and consisted of Laymen, Priests and Levites. The King, or Chief Civil Magistrate, was the Head of it, as Moses was at first. This Assembly of the Seventy Senators was looked upon as the Chiefest and Highest Court of the Jews. The Supreme Power was thought to be seated here: accordingly all other Courts appealed to This, but from This was no Appeal. But some are of another Opinion, and add a Fourth Court of Justice, viz. the Public Council and Congregation of all the People. This some make to be the Highest Court, as in the Case of the Levitc's Wife that was cut into twelve Pieces. The Captains of Thousands, etc. the Seventy Seniors, and All the Chief of the People met together, made this Great Assembly, this Mikel Gemot, this Parliament. This is that (they say) which is called 
6 Kehal Jehovah, De●t. 23. 3.  the Congregation of the Lord, and 
7 Col Gnedeth lisra●l, Exod. 1. 3.  the Whole Assembly of Israel, and 
8 Ezra 10. 14.  the Whole Congregation, and 
9 Kahalah Gedolah, Neh. 5. 7.  the Great Congregation or Assembly. These were the several Courts of Judgement amongst the Jews. Whilst Moses lived, he judged and decided Controversies alone when he thought fit; or when any of These Councils met, he was the Prince and Head of them. So that the Jewish Government (so far as it respected These Courts) was partly Regal and Monarchical, as under Moses; and it was partly Aristocratical, as under the Captains of Thousands; and partly Democratical or Popular, under the Kahal of the People. We are beholden to the Sacred Records of the Old Testament for these excellent Discoveries relating to Government, which the most Civilised Nations in the World have taken for their Authentic Precedents.  
Having spoken of their Methods of Government, and Courts of Judicature, which are so justly admired and imitated by all Wise Governors, I will next of all show from these Ancient Writings how the jewish Governors chastised and corrected those that offended against their Laws. Their Lesser Punishments were such as these: 1. Retaliation; Exod. 21. 24. Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Hand for Hand, Foot for Foot. The plain Meaning of which was, that whoever bereft another Person of his Eye, Tooth, Hand or Foot, should be punished with the Loss of an Eye, a Tooth, etc. and sometimes this literal and rigorous Sense of the Law was put in practice. But generally it was not understood in the strict Sense, but he that put out another Man's Eye was to give him Satisfaction, i. e. as much as an Eye was thought to be worth. So the Targum of jonathan interprets Deut. 19 21. which is a Repetition of the foresaid Law of Talion: the Offender was to make a sufficient Recompense. And thus the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians, and the Lex Talionis among the Romans was understood, viz. not of an Identical, but an Analogical Compensation. An Equivalent was accepted, the Value of an Eye, a Tooth, etc. for the Eye or Tooth itself. 2. Restitution, the divers kinds of which are particularly set down in the beginning of Exod. 22. as first, when the same. thing that was taken away is returned to the Owner, ver. 12. or when the like thing is restored, v. 5. or when more is returned than was taken away, ver. 1, 4. viz. in the Case of Thest, where twofold, sometimes four or fivefold, (according as the Circumstances of the Fault were) Yea sevenfold sometimes was to be restored, Prov. 6. 31. or, when the Thief had nothing to make Satisfaction with, he was to be sold, and Restitution was to be made to the Owner with that Money, Exod. 22. 3. 3. Imprisonment, keeping the Body of the Man in Custody for his Fault. And thence this Place of Consinement is called the House of Custody, 2 Sam. 20. 3. and by the Chaldee Paraphrast the House of Detention, Isa. 24. 22. Thus King Asa clapped the Prophet Hanani into Prison for reproving him, 2 Chron. 16. 10. King Ahab commanded Micaiah to be sent to the like Place, because he prophesied against him, 1 Kings 22. 27. jeremiah was put into the Court of the Prison by King Zedekiah for the same Offence, jer. 37. 21. john the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, Mat. 4. 12. and so was St. Peter by another of that Name, Acts 12. 4. This also was anciently the Place to receive those that were in Debt, Mat. 18. 30. and such as had committed Murder, Luke 23. 19 We read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Common Prison, a Public Jail, Acts 5. 18. a Place of Durance and Consinement for the worst sort of Offenders. In their Prisons there was usually a Dungeon, Jer. 38. 6. or a Pit, as the Hebrew Word Borachia is rendered in other Places when it hath reference to a Prison, as in Isa. 24. 22. Zech. 9 11. And from this Word we gather what was the Nature of the Dungeon, viz. that it was a Place dug deep in the Ground so as to let in Water, (for that is imported by Borachia, Puteus, Fovea) whereby the Place became miry; and accordingly we read that jeremiah, who was cast into this worst and lowest part of the Prison, sunk in the Mire, Jer. 38. 6. It is no wonder therefore that the Hebrew Word is translated by the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (whence lacus) a Ditch, a Pit, a Lake. Among the Egyptians there was in their Prisons this kind of Tullianum or Dungeon, Gen. 41. 14. for Borachia is the Name of that lowest Place in the Prison into which joseph was cast. And this is afterwards called the House of the Pit or Well, (for so it is in the Hebrew) Exod. 12. 29. It might be observed out of those Authors who have given an Account of these Subterraneous Dungeons, that they were deep; and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Name of a deep noisome Durance in Cyzicum in the Propontis, as Beda relates out of Theodorus of Tarsus, into which perhaps St. Paul was cast when he passed from Troas to that City, as 
1 Annotat. on 2 Cor. 11. 25.  Dr. Hammond conjectures; which may be the meaning of his being a Night and a Day in the Deep, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Cor. 11. 25. It is not improbable that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fovea, a Pit, a Well, which is the frequent Word in the Old Testament for a Dungeon. And in conformity to this Style, as well as to the Nature of the thing itself, Puteus is the Word used by 
2 In Aulul. Act. 2. So. ●.  Plautus for the muddy dirty Vault or Dungeon into which the vilest Offenders were detruded.  
To Imprisonment belong the Stocks, not only because they are 
3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a kind of a Prison, (as the Scholiast on Aristophanes speaks) yea a real Prison for the Feet, but because they generally were made use of in Prisons; which I collect from two or three Places in the Old and New Testament. In jer. 29. 26. putting in Prison and in the Stocks are joined. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath much troubled Interpreters: Among these the Learned Buxtorf derives it from ●si navis and janak sugere, and thinks it originally and properly denotes that kind of Punishment mentioned by Plutarch in Artaxerxes' Life, viz. that a Man was immured between two Boats, and had Milk and Honey given to him, and whether he would or no poured down his Throat to keep him alive, etc. The Hebrews, as this Critic imagines, from the manner of Torture and Feeding, express the Punishment by the Ship of the Sucker; and by this they use to signify any Close Prison, and even that more particular Consinement of the Hands or Feet in Prison: Accordingly an Eminent Rabbin thinks it imports Hand-shackles; another, that it signifies Fetters for the Feet. That there was such an Ancient Punishment as the Stocks, is evident from job 13. 27. & 33. 11. where the Hebrew Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered in the former Place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The other Place which I allege is in the New Testament, Acts 16. 24. He thrust them into the inner Prison, and made their Feet fast in the Stocks. Where observe there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to distinguish this Place from the other Parts of the Prison: and this it is likely was the Dungeon, the Pit spoken of before; and here was placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for that is the Word here used) the Wooden Stocks; lignea custodia, as Plautus calls it; which was both to secure Offenders, and to put them to pain. I confess this Text speaks of the Prison at Philippi, but I suppose as to this there was little difference between the jewish and Grecian Jails, especially if you take notice of what the other Text before mentioned acquaints us with. There is another Word, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render the Stocks, Jer. 20. 2, 3. and seems to me to be some Uneasy Place in the Prison into which jeremiah was cast, and so it confirms the former Notion I offered. We read of the Correction of the Stocks, Prov. 7. 22. but what the Hebrew Word gnekes properly signifies is difficult to determine, only we know that it was some Exemplary Punishment to teach a Fool Wisdom: these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Seventy render it) were to bind him to his good Behaviour. 4. Scourging was another Penal Infliction, Deut. 25. 2. where we find that the Offender fender was to receive forty Stripes according to the Rigour of the Law, but thirty nine was the usual Tale, as all the Jewish Writers affirm, and as we may gather from 2 Cor. 11. 24. This Flagellation is called Bikkoreth, Leu. 19 20. from bakar bos, it being done with Scourges made of Bulls Hides or Ox-leather; which we also find confirmed by several Classic Authors. Our Blessed Saviour underwent this severe Penalty, Mat. 27. 26. and foretold his Disciples that it should be their Lot, Mat. 10. 17. & 23. 34. which was fulfilled, Acts 5. 40. & 22. 10. The most grievous sort of Scourging was with Scorpions, 1 Kings 12. 11. i e. with Whips, to which were fastened Pricks and sharp Thorns, to rend and tear the Body: and sometimes there were Plummets of Lead at the End of them, to bruise and batter the Flesh. Scourging was also a Roman Punishment, as is evident from Acts 22. 24. besides that the best Pagan Histories attest this: yet there was some Difference between this Penalty as it was inflicted by them and by the Jews; for the former used both Rods and Whips, but the latter chastised Offenders with Whips only, which were much more painful and grievous. St. Paul (who, as he confesses himself, used to beat in every Synagogue those that believed on jesus, Acts 22. 19) felt the Severity of both; Of the jews (saith he) received I forty Stripes save one, 2 Cor. 11. 24. Thrice was I beaten with Rods, ver. 25. which refers to this Punishment which was inflicted on him by the Gentiles, Acts 16. 23.  
These were the Lesser Punishments among the Jews: we are moreover informed from the Sacred Writ what the Capital ones were. These, as to the particular manner of executing them, and as to the Usages and Customs that attended them, are particularly spoken of in the Talmud, and are treated of by Maimonides, and by our Learned Dr. Godwin: but I am to consider them as they are mentioned in Scripture, for that is my Business at present. And though the Talmudists distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lesser Deaths, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are more Grievous; yet because I find that the Jewish Writers do not fully agree what particular Capital Punishments are to be referred to these two Heads, I will lay this Distinction aside, and proceed in this order. First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Killing with the Sword, or Beheading, was in use among them; and though I do not find it among their judicial Laws, yet there are some Examples of this sort of Death recorded. Ishbosheth was the first that was slain so, 2 Sam. 4. 7. though it is true this Execution was without Law, yet it shows what way of Death was used 
1 Leu. 20. 2, 27. & 24. 14. Dent. 13. 10. & 17. 5. & 21. 21. & 22. 21, 24.  among them in those days. We may observe that 'tis said, They smote him, and slew him, and then beheaded him: The severing the Head from the Body was a Consequent of some foregoing Violence, whereby his Life was taken away. Indeed, that it was usual to cut off the Head after the Person was slain, and to bring it in a way of Trophy, may be proved from many Instances, as that of Sisera, Judg. 5. 26. Goliath, 1 Sam. 17. 57 Saul, 1 Sam. 31. 9 Sheba, 2 Sam. 20. 22. And perhaps in those Days and afterwards the beheading of Persons alive was not the Practice among the Jews; but they rather took off their Heads (either by cutting them off with a Sword, or chopping them off on a Block with an Axe) after they had dispatched them by some other Means. For, as I apprehend, the Decollation was only for Pomp, and to expose the Malefactors. Nor in the Account that is given of the beheading john the Baptist, Mark 6. 24. (which is another Instance of this Punishment in the Holy Book) do I meet with any thing to disprove that his Life was first taken away by the Executioner whom Herod sent, and then his Head was cut off, to be brought in a Charger, to be shown in a way of Triumph. It is probable that when 'tis said St. James was killed with the Sword, Acts 12. 2. it is meant of that Killing which preceded Beheading, which, as some Ecclesiastical Writers tell us, was inflicted on that Apostle. I will only add, that the Hebrew Masters inform us, that this was the Deadly Penalty of Men-slayers, Murderers, such as apostatised to Idolatry, or that enticed others to it.  
Another Mortal Punishment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stoning, which was wont to be performed first by one of the Witnesses against the Malefactor, and then all the People followed him. This Lapidation was used ' towards Blasphemers, Idolaters, Incestuous Persons, Witches, Wizards, Prophaners of the Sabbath; those that inveigled others to Idolatry; Children that cursed their Parents, or rebelled against them. In the Old Testament the Examples of this Punishment are Achan, Josh. 7. 25. Adoram, Kings 12. 18. Naboth, I Kings 21. 10. Zechariah, 2 Chron. 24. 1. In the New Testament we read that they attempted to stone our Saviour, john 10. 31. and that they effectually did so to St. Stephen, Acts 7. 58. and that they exercised this Severity on St. Paul, but by the singular Providence of God he escaped with his Life, Acts 14. 19 This was the most General Punishment that was denounced in the Law against notorious Criminals; yea by those indesinite Terms of putting to Death, is sometimes meant this sort of Exemplary Animadversion, as in Leu. 20. 10. (compared with john 8. 5.) and other Places.  
Another severe Punishment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Burning, which was by the Mosaic Law executed on some sort of Incestuous Persons, viz. 
1 Leu. 20. 14.  those that vitiated their own Daughters, and 
2 Leu. 21. 19  on the Priest's Daughter that committed Whoredom, and on Offenders of a far different Nature, as appears from Achan's Example. Some think they were burnt alive, as some Criminals amongst us are: Others say, that before they were burnt they were strangled, and then melted Lead was poured down their Throats, and afterwards their whole Bodies were consumed in the Fire. This is certain, that Burning was a secondary Penalty, that is, it followed upon some other going before, as we may infer from what we read concerning this Punitive way of dealing with Achan and his Family; All Israel stoned him with Stones, and burned them with Fire after they had stoned them with Stones, Josh. 7. 25. I might observe further that this Penal Course was taken with Harlots and Prostitutes before the Judicial Law: Thus the Doom which judah pronounced against Tamar for her Whoredom was, Let her be burnt, Gen. 38. 24. And I propound it, whether it be not reasonable to think, that [She shall be utterly burnt with Fire] Rev. 18. 8. is an Allusion to this Ancient and Legal Punishment of Whoredom, seeing we find that Babylon (who is meant in those Words) is signally styled a Whore, and her Fornication is twice mentioned in the third Verse of that Chapter.  
Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hanging was in use among the Jews, Numb. 25. 4. Deut. 21. 22. but it was of a different Nature from that which is among us. For First, they were hanged up by the Hands, not by the Head or Neck. Secondly, this Suspension was not while they were alive, but after they were dead. Thirdly, it was seldom or never used alone, but in conjunction with one or other of those Punishments before (or after to be) mentioned. Some hold that it was used only after Stoning, and was the Recompense of Blasphemy and Idolatry. Others say, it was generally the Consequent of Strangling. This is not to be doubted that it was a Secondary Punishment, as well as that which I before mentioned. First they were dispatched, and then they were hung up upon a Tree, Gibbet, or Stake, to be seen and taken notice of, to be made Exemplary, and to be a Warning and Terror to others. Therefore when the Sun went down, i. e. when they could no longer be a Public Spectacle, they were taken down from the Place where they hung, Deut. 21. 23. And from josh. 10. 26. it appears that this was a Subsequent Punishment, for 'tis said, Joshua hanged five Kings on five Trees, but he first smote them and slew them. In the same manner 'tis likely he dealt with the King of Ai, Josh. 8. 29. whom he hanged. And the same may be thought of Saul's seven Sons, 2 Sam. 21. 9 This is particularly expressed in Numb. 25. 4, 5. where both hanging up and slaying are mentioned as the Punishment of some scandalous Sinners in the Wilderness: where by the way observe, that this was the Penalty of Whoredom as well as Blasphemy and Idolatry.  
I know Suffocation or Strangling (which is by the Jews called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is reckoned as a Capital Punishment among the Jews, but I do not find it expressly named, unless Machanak, which job saith, his Soul chose, ch. 7. 15. be a Reference to this sort of Death. But we are to remember that job was no Jew, and therefore 'tis improbable he speaks of a Jewish Punishment. But if we may credit R. Solomon and other Hebrew Doctors, this is often mentioned in the Mosaic Law; for they say this is meant in those Places of Leviticus, and other Parts of the Pentateuch, where 'tis commanded that the Criminal shall die, or be put to Death. So in Leu. 20. 10. The Adulterer and Adulteress shall surely be put to Death: the Targum of jonathan interprets it of Suffocation. And so it doth in Exod. 21. 15. Deut. 22. 22. This absolute way of speaking signifies this particular Species of putting Persons to Death, they say. But from what hath been suggested before, we may infer that this is not always true: however, it may be so generally and for the most part; and accordingly from the respective Texts we may gather, that the Offenders that were strangled were those that carnally knew the Priest's Daughter, or another Man's Wife, and those that struck their Father or Mother; and all Lying Prophets, or that prophesied in the Name of a false God. The way, they tell us, of Strangling was with a Towel, Napkin, or any Linen Cloth put about the Malefactor's Neck, and drawn by two Men with Force contrary ways.  
Another Punitive Infliction, though not specified in the Judicial Law, nor reckoned up by the Rabbinick Masters among the Jewish Punishments, was the Wheel, as we are acquainted from what Solomon faith, and without doubt concerning himself, A wise King bringeth the Wheel over the Wicked, Prov. 20. 26. This was used of old not only in Racking of Persons to make them confess, but to take away their Lives. They were tied unto it, or extended upon it, and so drawn and broken. That this was used by Antiochus toward the Jews, particularly the Macchabean Brethren, is attested in the Apocryphal Writings; and that the Pagan Emperors made use of it upon the Christian Martyrs, we learn from Ecclosiaitical History.  
Furthermore, Tebigna●, Submersion, of which we read in Mat. 18. 6. Mark 9 42. is reckoned by St. jerom on the former Place among the Punishments of the Jewish Nation: and so it is by Casaubon in his Notes. And 
1 Chald. Lexic.  Buxiorf hints that some were condemned to this Punishment among the jews, and were signally said to be Men adjudged to be drowned. But whether it was really so, or was a Punishment proper to the Gentiles I will not here dispute, but proceed to speak of Another which undoubtedly was jewish, and is oftener mentioned in the Old Testament, especially in Moses' Writings, where the Jewish Penalties are fixed, than any of those before named. It is being cut off from Israel, or the Soul's being cut off from among the People: concerning which there are as many various Opinions, as about any one thing that I know of this Nature. This Cheereth or Cutting off is thought by the Jewish Doctors to be peculiar to the Jewish Occonomy: but in this first Essay of their Sentiments about it they are mistaken, for this Penalty is expressly taken notice of before the Judicial Law, in Abraham's time, Gen. 17. 14. God saith of the uncircumcised Manchild, that that Soul shall be cut off from his People: therefore 'tis plain that this Infliction, whatever it was, was not peculiar to the Mosaic Dispensation. The Hebrew Expositors all agree in this, that by this Excision is meant a Divine Punishment, i. e. some Judgement immediately sent by God: but they agree not as to the particular kind of it. It signifies Sudden Death, saith R. Saadias', who expounds it by those Words, Psal. 55. 23. They shall not live out half their Days. Another of the Rabbis, Sol. jarchi, understands it of Barrenness or want of Children. When Persons are threatened to be cut off, their Seed, their Posterity is meant, he saith. Again, some of the Jews think that Eternal Torments in another World are here intended. Others think it is meant of the Excision of both Body and Soul: the former is cut off here by untimely Death, the latter by being separated from God and Happiness in the Life to come, saith Abarbanel. The famous Maimonides goes higher, and saith it signifies not only the shortening of Life here, but the utter Extinction and Annihilation of the Soul hereafter, so that a Man perishes like a Beast. Christians also (as well as jews) have different Opinions concerning this, for some of them understand it of some Capital Punishment to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate, such as Stoning, Burning, etc. according to the Nature and Demerit of the Offence. Others believe an Ecclesiastical Punishment is designed here, viz. Excommunication: This is the general persuasion of the Divines of Geneva. Some interpret it of Sudden and Immature Death, as L' Empereur and Grotius. Others think Eternal Damnation is meant. junius will have it to be both Excommunication and Damnation. Upon a View of the Whole, and weighing the several Places where this Cheereth is mentioned, I doubt not but I may most rationally determine that according to the Subject Matter of the Texts, this Punishment is to be differently under derstood. That is, where this Excision is threatened for such an Offence as was not punishable by the Jewish Laws, it is meant of some Divine Penalty, some Plague immediately to be inflicted by God himself. But where this Cutting off is denounced for a Sin which the Law of the Jews and their Courts of Justice took notice of and punished, it is likely it is then to be understood of such a kind of Punishment as the Law inflicted, as some kind of Bodily Death, or Excommunication. In this latter acception the Cheereth was used, when for some great Offence a Man was excluded from Ecclesiastical Communion, debarred the Congregation, cut off from being a Member of the Church. Thus the Cheereth is the same with Cherem, which was the middle sort of Excommunication among the Jews, between Nidui which was a Separation from Company and Converse, and Shammata which was a Devoting to Satan and utter Destruction. Thus you see what Course they took in those early Times to animadvert on those that were Faulty: and it is the more considerable because it was of God's own Appointment. Hence we conclude these Inflictions were appointed and executed with great Reason and Equity, with singular Wisdom and Prudence, and such as became the Divine Author of them, and the Alwise Governor of that People.  
It cannot be expected I should insist on the Particular Laws and Constitutions of their Civil Government, they being so Many and Various. These may be consulted in the Old Testament itself, which presents us with the most Complete Rules of Civil Polity, and such as to a great Part of them are sitted to the Governments of all Nations in the World. The Greeks were famous for their Laws, and so were the Old Romans, who borrowed a considerable Part of their Laws from them, and particularly caused those of the Twelve Tables (the first beginning of their Laws) to be fetched thence by their Decemviri: and we see they contain Excellent Things in them. And the Encomiums of the Learnedest Men are large on the Laws of the Empire: the Pandects are fraught with the Decisions and Responses of Wise and Experienced Lawyers, and the Code is famed for the Decrees and Constitutions of Emperors. Yea, how large and elaborate have the 
2 Fortescue de Laudibus Leg. Angl. Coke every where.  Great Sages of our Nation been in Commendation of the English Laws, telling us that they are 
3 Lex e●t summa ratio.  the Highest Reason, and nothing else but Reason; that they are so Reasonable that 
4 Nullum iniquum in jure praesumendum.  nothing that is Unjust can be so much as supposed to be in them, and therefore that 
5 Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus.  no Man must presume to be wiser than these Laws. If these be the Eulogiums of mere Humane Constitutions, of what transcendent Worth and Excellency must we needs allow Those Laws to be, which though calculated for Civil and Humane Government, were originally Divine and Heavenly, and framed by infinite Wisdom itself? Such were the Laws of the jews which in this Sacred Volume are transmitted to us, and consequently they far surpass, they infinitely surmount all others under Heaven. And no Laws whatsoever were prior to these, as josephus against Appion very clearly demonstrates. Moses was the Ancientest Lawgiver: and Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, and other Publishers of Laws, whom the Greeks boast of, were but Upstarts in respect of him. You do not so much as meet with the word Law in Homer, or Orpheus, or Mus●us, the Antientost Greek Authors, as 
1 De Repub. 1. 6. c. 6.  Bodinus observes. Indeed the Nations had no Written Laws at first. Tully, Livy, justin and other Historians acquaint us, that the Verbal Commands of Kings and Princes were their Laws. But afterward when they had Laws committed to writing, (such as could be read, whence they had the Name of Leges) they derived them from the Hebrews: more especially it might be proved, that the Ancientest Attic and Roman Laws were borrowed from Moses, and that other Wise Law givers and Rulers have taken some of their best Constitutions hence.  
Then in the next place, if we look abroad, and inquire into the Government of the Heathen Nations, we shall there also be assisted by the Anitent Records of the Bible: and as to many things that concern their Kings and Government, we cannot inform ourselves otherwise than from this Sacred History. Here we read of four Eastern Kings, (such as they were, for Melech is a large Word, and signifies any Ruler) the King of Shinar, the King of Ellasar, the King of Elam, the King of Nations; Gen. 14. 1, 2. Which were the first peepings out of the Kingdoms of Babylon, Assyria, Persia and Greece: for Shinar is Babylon (as all agree) Ellasar is Assyria, (some Region near to Euphrates, as may be gathered from Isa. 37. 12.) Elam is the usual Name of Persia, and by Nations is meant Greece, especially the Grecian Isles where there was a great Conflux of several Nations. But these Names are not to be taken in this Extent here, for we cannot suppose that Five Great Kings (and some of them of very distant Countries) would come to sight the King of Sodom a Petty Prince. Therefore the Places here named, must not be thought to be those Wide Regions which afterwards were known by those Names: and the Persons who are here called Kings must not be conceived to be any other than Governors or Magistrates of Cities, for so the Title of King is to be understood in some Texts of the Old Testament, and particularly in this History, where the five Kings of Canaan are mentioned. We read that Abimelech (which afterwards became the Name of the Kings of Palestine) was one of the first Kings of this Country, and that the particular Seat of his Government was Gerar, Gen. 20. 2. We are informed that about this time (which was about 400 Years after the Flood) there were Kings of Egypt, and that Pharaob was the Royal Name even then, Gen. 12. 15. No Book that we can trust to make mention of these Early Kingdoms, and Royal Thrones (such as they were) but Moses' History. Yea, here is a considerable Account of the Four Grand Monarchies or Empires of the World, as they are usually styled. We are told here that Nimrod was a Mighty One in the Earth, Gen. 10. 8. and a Mighty Hunter before the Lord, v. 9 by which Character, and what we may infer from it, it appears that he was the First that exercised an Imperial and Kingly Power in the World, though he hath not here the Title of King. The Word [Gibbor] which we render [Mighty] is in the Version of the Seventy a Giant, which expresseth not only the Greatness of his Stature, but the Exorbitancy of his Power which he exerted over others with an Unlimited Sway and Arbitrariness. And when 'tis said he was a Mighty Hunter, I grant it may set forth what Warlike Exercise he was given to, as Livy remarks of Romulus and Remus, that they were addicted to this Manly Recreation, and that it was a Sign of the Vigour of their Minds, and the Strength and Agility of their Bodies: and so Xenophon in the Life of Cyrus observes, that it is a Military Exercise, and becoming a Great Man. But I conceive there is something more intimated to us in his being represented as a Hunter and a Mighty Hunter, and before the Lord; for this may signify to us his Fierce Pursuit of Men as well as Beasts, his Tyrannising and usurping Dominion over the People, and that in desiance of God, before whom he was not ashamed to act thus wickedly. He was of the Race of Chush the Son of Cham, and was the Head and Ringleader of those Miscreants that built Babel or Babylon: which baffles the common Account of Pagan Historians, who tell us that Semiramis, Ninus' Queen, was the first Founder of that City, unless we understand by it that she finished the Work. He it was that with the Remains of the Babylonian Crew set up here the First Empire: which began soon after the Flood, viz. about 130 Years. This is the Date of the First Monarchy in the World, and Babel was the Place where it commenced. It is expressly said, The beginning of his Kingdom was Babel, Gen. 10. 10. This was the first Step to the Universal Empire of the Chaldeans or Assyrians, which afterwards spread itself to vast and almost unlimited Dimensions. This is he that by the Pagan Writers is called Belus, and said to be the Father of Ninus, as Eusebius, jerom, and other of the Learnedest among the Ancients agree: for this is observable (and I have proved from several Instances in another Place) that oftentimes the same Persons have not the same Names in Profane History that are given them in the Sacred one. Some read Gen. 10. 11. thus, He went out of the Land into Assyria, and thence gather, that though Nimrod was first seated at Babylon, and reigned in Chaldea, yet from thence he pierced into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, the Head City of the Assyrian Monarchy. But this is unquestionable that the Empire was translated into Assyria, and thence there is a Distinction between the Land of Assyria and the Land of Nimrod, Mic. 5. 6. The Sacred Writings also acquaint us, that as this Monarchy began at Babylon and Chaldea, and was translated into Assyria, so at last it returned to Babylon again, the Assyrian Dynasties being swallowed up of those of Chaldea. So the Assyrians laid the Foundation for the Chaldeans, they set up the Towers thereof, they raised up the Palaces thereof, Isa. 23. 13. And this Relapse or Reduction of the Assyrian Government to the Babylonians is again foretold in Ezek. 31. 11, 12, etc. I have delivered him into the Hand of the mighty One of the Heathens, he shall surely deal with him. King Nabuchadnezzar is that El gojim, that God of the Nations (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) who made them all bow down to him and worshi him, and he more especially made the Assyrians truckle to his Greatness and Sovereignty. This is very carefully to be heeded, because it gives Light to the whole History both Sacred and Profane, which relates the Affairs of those Kingdoms. The want of attending to this is the reason why several that have writ of these things have egregiously blundred, confounding one part of the Empire with another, making no difference between Babylonians and Assyrians, and thereby rendering all a mere Babel, a Confusion. But we are directed by what the Sacred History suggests, to distinguish between the two neighbouring Dynasties of Assyria and Chaldea, which alternately made up the First Monarchy. Sometimes the Babylonian Princes bore sway, and were Heads of the Empire; at other times those of the Assyrian Race climbed to this Honour. Babylon and Nineveh were the two Royal Seats belonging to each: when the Chaldean Kings prevailed, than the former was their Place of residence; when the Assyrian Monarches bare Rule, the latter was the Place where they kept their Court. The brief Scheme of the Successions is this: At first all Assyria was subject to Babylon or Chaldea: next the Babylonian Power gave way to the Assyrian: after this the Assyrians lost the Monarchy, it coming again to the Chaldeans, yet so that the Empire was then divided, for the Medes had a Part, though the greatest Share went to the Babylonians.  
Where by the way we may observe, that that which is called and reputed the First Monarchy may as well be said to be the Third: it may be counted Two at least. And thence it will follow that that which is vulgarly called the 2d Monarchy was the 3d or 4th; for before the Persian Monarchy there was the Babylonian, Assyrian and Median. Here, if the Reader would pardon the Digression, it might be further proved, that the common Division of the Monarchies into four, and no more, is imperfect and groundless: for there were several other Entire Dynasties or Kingdoms in the time of the Assyrian Monarches; there were the Kingdoms of the Old Germans, Egyptians, Argives, Athenians, Lacedæmonians, Tyrians, Romans, Jews. So the Greek Monarchy (which is reckoned the Third) was divided into four Kingdoms. Likewise, with the Roman Emperors were contemporary the Greek Emperors in the East. Besides, if we should come down lower, it would appear that Mabomet's Dove hath been as wonderful in the World as the Roman Eagle: the Turkish Monarchy hath grasped more than the Roman, and might challenge to be numbered among the most Celebrated Monarchies. For these reasons I am apt to be of 
1 Method. Hist. Cap. 1.  Bodinus' Mind, that we ought to reckon more Monarchies than Four. But I will not now contend, especially because it is likely the Interpretation of those Dreams and Visions in Daniel concerning the Four Beasts and the Four Metals, gave the first Occasion to this number of Four Monarchies, and no more. To return then to our former Matter, viz. The Difference which the Old Testament directs us to take notice of between the Assyrian and Chaldean Empires, which some have so shuffled together that they cannot distinctly be discerned. These Inspired Writings let us know that the First Captivity of the Jews was under the former, the Second under the latter; that the Kings of Assyria were those properly who reigned in Nineve, and that strictly speaking the Kings of Babylon were those that resided at Babylon: though 'tis true by reason of the Vicissitude of the Government of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, these are sometimes called the Kings of Assyria; and the King of Babylon and of Assyria is the same. It is from the Scripture-Records that we are informed that 
2 Kings 24. 12. Jer. 39 12.  Nabuchadnezzar in the eighth Year of his Reign, transported jehoiakin the King, and other of the Jews to Babylon, and that in his eighteenth Year he utterly destroyed jerusalem, and carried away Captive Zedekiah and the greatest Part of the Jews, from which time are to be numbered the Seventy Years of the Babylonian Captivity. This was Nabuchadnezzar the Great, he who brought that Monarchy to its highest Pitch, insomuch that some have reckoned him the First Absolute Monarch. Many other remarkable Passages relating to the whole Series of this Government, and those that presided in it from first to last, are set down in the Holy Writ. Several of the very individual Persons who were the Chief Monarches of this first and ancientest Empire, are here particularly mentioned, with the considerable Actions and Events appertaining to them: as Pull, 2 Kings 15. 19 Tiglath-Pileser, 1 Chron. 5. 26. Salmanassar, 2 Kings 17. 3. Host 10. 14. Senacherib, 2 Kings 18. 3. Esarhaddon, 2 Kings 19 37. Merodach-Baladan, 2 Kings 20. 20. Isa. 39 1. Nabuchadnezzar mentioned in the Books of the Kings, Chronicles, jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel: and lastly Belshazzar, Dan. 5. 22. in whom this Monarchy had its Period. And so these Sacred Writings acquaint us not only with the Rise but the Progress, Duration and End of this Empire; hence we learn that it lasted from Nimrod to the close of Belshazzar's Reign, i. e. from the year of the World 1717. to the Year 3419. which is in all 1702 Years; a much longer time than any of the other Monarchies endured.  
Again, in these Writings is recorded the Original of the Next, viz. the Persian (usually known by the Name of the Second) Monarchy. Here we read that Belshazzar, the last Chaldean Monarch, he that impiously carouzed in the Holy Vessels belonging to the Temple, was slain by Darius the Mcde, Dan. 5. 30, 31. who joined with Cyrus the Persian in the Expedition against Belshazzar; and they both had Right to the Babylonian Monarchy on that Account, and accordingly jointly ruled: so it was a Medo-Persian Monarchy. Darius is spoken of in the 6th and 9th Chapters of Daniel; but being aged before he came to the Throne, he lived but about two Years after; whereupon Cyrus reigned alone, and is generally reputed the First Founder of the Persian Monarchy. This famous Cyrus, surnamed the Great, was prophesied of long before he appeared in the World, Isa. 44. 28. & 45. 1. This is he that was the Happy Restorer of the Jews to their own Country, and was a great Favourer of the Pious of that Nation, Ezr. 1. And in the following Chapters, and in the Book of Nehemiah, is infallibly related what Persian Kings hindered the Building of the Temple, and who they were that promoted it. Besides, the Book of Esther, and a great part of Daniel, are a Narrative of what was done under the Kings of Persia. Next, it might be added, that Alexander the Great the First Founder of the Grecian Monarchy, is spoken of in these Sacred Writings, as in Dan. 2. 32, 39 & 7. 6. & 8. 5, 6, 7, 8. & 10. 20. & 11. 3, 4. whence 
1 Joseph, Antiq. Jud. 1. 11. c. 8.  jaddus the High Priest showed the Prophecy of Daniel to that Great Monarch, and particularly turned to that Place where his Conquering of the Persians, and the Translation of the Empire to him, are foretold. Here also the Division of the Empire among his Captains is predicted, Dan. 2. 33. & 7. 7, 19 & 8. 22. & 11. 5, 6, etc. Lastly, the History of the New Testament mentions the Author and Erecter of the Roman (which generally passes for the Fourth) Monarchy, and some of his Actions and Decrees. This was Augustus, for if we speak properly, this Empire began not ● julius C●sar, but in him when he vanquished ● Anthony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium, an● all Egypt became a Roman Province. Thus Ni● rod, Cyrus, Alexander, Augustus, the Founder ● those four renowned Monarchies, and many of th● most eminent and remarkable Passages in some of them, are recorded in the Sacred Scriptures; whereby the Truth of those things is confirmed, and some obscure Places in Pagan Writers are enlightened, and some Mistakes may be corrected. Indeed it is impossible to understand the Gentile History aright in sundry Matters relating to the First Kingdoms and Governments, unless we are acquainted with the Bible.   

CHAP. III  
In these Sacred Writings we have the first and earliest Account of all useful Employments and Callings, viz. Gardening, Husbandry, feeding of sheep, preparing of Food. The ancient manner of Threshing, Grinding of Corn, and making Bread is enquired into. What was the Primitive Drink. The Posture which they used at eating and drinking. Sitting preceded Discubation. The particular manner of placing themselves on their Beds. Eating in common not always used. Discalceation and Washing the Feet were the Attendants of Eating and Feasting. So was Anointing. They had a Master or Governor of their Feasts. Who were the first Inventors of Mechanic Arts. The first Examples of Architecture. Houses were built flat at top, and why.  
In the fifth Place, here and only here is to be learned the Original of all Employments, Callings, Oecupations, Professions, Mysteries, Trades, and of all Arts and Inventions whatsoever. First, here is the earliest Mention of Gardening, Husbandry Plougbing, keeping of Sheep, which are of ordinary Use, and for the necessary Support of Man's Life. God placing Adam in Paradise, a Garden of Delight, instructed him how to dress and keep it, Gen. 2. 15. 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to work and belabour the Ground, (for so it is according to the LXX.) to dig and delve with great Care and Art, to open the Earth to let in the Influences of Heaven, to prune the Trees and cherish the Plants, to preserve the Fruits from the Beasts and Fowls, which had Admittance into that Place, (as we read in Gen. 2. 19, 20.) and to keep all things in good order as a skilful Gardener and Husbandman; for both these made up the First Employment and Trade in the World. And when Man was ejected out of Paradise, he was still set about the same Work, Gen. 3. 23. for the Hebrew Word that is used here is the same with that in ver. 15. and is translated there to dress: but it is certain that gnamad (which is the Verb in both Places) is of a large Import, and signifies all Husbandly managing and improving of Ground. And truly there was more need of exercising that Art now than before, the Earth being not a little endamaged by the Curse which God denounced against it, and executed upon it; which was one Reason why Adam brought up his Son Cain to Husbandry and Tilling the Ground, Gen. 4. 2. for now it wanted Manuring and Cultivating. And as this his eldest Son was brought up to take care of the Fruits of the Earth, so his next was bred up to feeding of Sheep, which is the Second Employment or Calling that we read of in the World. Afterwards jabal advanced higher, and became the First Grazier; for so I understand those Words, Gen. 4. 20. He was the Father of such as have cattle, i. e. that have other cattle besides Sheep; for these, and the keeping or feeding of them, had been mentioned before. He lived upon Pasturage, and for that purpose was the Father of such as dwell in Tents, as it is said in the same Place: The Meaning of which is, that whereas others generally lived in one fixed Place and Habitation, he and others of his Calling went from one place to another feeding: They travelled as their cattle did, and for this Reason it was requisite to have Tents. Accordingly that they might look after their Flocks and Herds the better, he invented these, that they might lie out in the Fields all Night under this Shelter. Thus you see what was the Primitive State of things; Adain and his firstborn Son were Husbandmen, and his second Son a Shepherd; and others of his Race were busied in feeding of cattle. Such was the Employment of those that were the First Heirs of the World.  
And so for a long time after, in the first and most uncorrupted Ages, this was the Entertainment of the Greatest Persons. In those more innocent Times of the World the Wealthiest Men embraced this kind of Life (as mean as it is accounted now). Some of the Old Patriarches were plain honest Graziers, and the richest of them (as Abraham, Isaac and jacob) were busied in looking to their Grounds and their Flocks. Moses the Great Lawgiver was a Shepherd. Nabal and Absdlom were Sheep-masters. Elisah, when he was busy at the Psough with twelve Yoke of Oxen was called thence to the Prophetic Dignity and office: and Amos of a Herdsman became a Divine Messenger and Preacher. Shamgar was taken from the Herd to be a Judge in Israet, and with the same Goad that he drove his Oxen slew six hundred Men. Gideon's Seat of State and Justice was a Threshing-floor, and he had no other Mace than a Flail, judg. 6. 14. The renowned jair and jephthah kept Sheep, and were fetched from that Employment to be Judges. David the Son of jesse, a Worthy Parent in Israel, was took from the Sheepfolds, from following the Ewes great with young, to feed Jacob, to rule Israel, Psal. 78. 71. Thus the Pastoral Art hath been a Pre●●d●● to Empire and Government: the taking care of these tame Creatures hath made way for the presiding over the stubborn Flock of Mankind. We read that Crowned Heads have not disdained this Art. King Vzziah (or as he is called elsewhere Azariah, for I have showed in another Place that it was common with the Jews to have two Names) was a Lover of Husbandry, 2 Chron. 26. 10. And one of the Greatest Kings that ever swayed a Sceptre, acknowledgeth that as the Profit of the Earth (i. e. of Agriculture) 〈◊〉 for all, is of universal Advantage, so more especially the King himself is a Servant to the Field, Eccles. 5. 9 for so it is according to the Hebrew. It is worthy of his Royal Care and Study to support Tillage and Husbandry, which were heretofore the Employment of those of the highest Rank.  
And thus it was also among the Profane Nations of old. Knowledge and Skill in Rustic Affairs ushered in Rule and Command. The Gordian Knot was but Plough-tackling hampered in a Knot, and he that untied it was to be Monarch of the World. Araunah King of jebus condescended to be a Thresher, 2 Sam. 24. 18. 1 Chron. 21. 20. and (which is a● unparallelled Exaltation of this Primitive Husbandry) his Threshing-floor was the Spot of Ground which King David made choice of to build an Altar to God upon, 2 Sam. 24. 25. and this was the very Place where Solomon's Temple was afterwards erected, 2 Chron. 3. 1. Mesha King of Moab was a Sheep-master, 2 Kings 3. 4. Noked is the Hebrew Word, and it is simply and barely used for a Shepherd, Amos 1. 1. Spartacus, the dreaded Enemy of the Romans, was of the same Calling 
1 Aurel, Vict  Dioclesian the Emperor left his Throne, and turned Gardener: After he had laid down the Empire he took up Husbandry. 
1 Justin, 1. 6  Attalus abdicated his Kingly Government, and applied himself wholly to the same Employment. The Great Scipio left his Commands to exercise and enjoy the Pleasures of Agriculture. In the Old Roman History we read that the Chief Men among them studied and practised this, by the same Token that several of them were fetched from their Tillage to Arms, from their Country Carts to Triumph, from Harvest-work to the Senate, from the Field to the Camp, from the Plough to bear the high Offices of Consuls and Dictator's. They that were sent from the Roman Senate to desire Attilius to take upon him the Government, 
2 Val. Max. 1. 4. Tit. de Panpertate.  found him sowing in his Grounds. They tell us that Romulus the Founder of the Roman Empire, was bred up first to the Sheephook: and we know that the Riches of the Ancient Romans was Plenty of cattle. From the Country-Exercise of feeding of Beasts came the Surnames of the Families of the Vituli, Porcii, Tauri, Caprae, and others. (And here, by the by, let me insert, that it may be Eglon the Name of a Man, and so Rachel and Dorcas the Names of Women in Scripture, which sighnify a Calf, a Sheep, a Deer, were given at first on the like Account, Women as well as Men being employed of old in looking after cattle.) From their sowing of Beans, Pease, etc. arose the Names of the Fabii, Pisones, cicerones, Lentuli, etc. And it is not to be denied that the Exercises of Husbandry have been treated of and applauded by the Wisest Men, as Cato, Varro, Cicero, Pliny, Columella, Virgil. And when among the Pagans their very 
1— Habitarunt Di quoque sylvas. Virgil, Eclogue  Deities are represented as Lovers of a Country-Life, when Pan was said to be the God of Shepherds, and Mercury and Apol●● fed Sheep, and the last of these was cried up for the Chief Patron of this Calling, they intended to signify to us that this and the like Country-Employments are Princely and Divine. Which very thing we are assured of from the Word of Truth, the Infallible Records of the Bible, which tell us that these were the Early Business and Practice of the Greatest and the Best Men. The Greatest Princes heretofore were esteemed according to the Numbers of their cattle.  
Among the First and Necessary Employments and Advantages of humane Life may be justly reckoned the Preparing of Food; and the Scriptures alone can furnish us with the certain Knowledge of this. It is undeniable from those plain and express Words in Gen. 1. 29. that there was no Food allowed at first to Mankind but Plants and Herbs, Corn and all other Fruits of the Earth. I have wondered sometimes that any who believe the Sacred Text can question this, for the Words are positive and downright, utterly excluding all other kind of Sustenance but this. Yea, unless you can prove that Milk is no part of any Living Creature, but is a Fruit of the Earth, you have reason to think that they were debarred of this also. But after the Flood, which had much impaired the Virtue of the Earth, and exhausted somewhat of its Seminal Power, there was a Licence to eat Flesh; Every moving thing that liveth shall be Meat for you, Gen. 9 3. in which is included the Product of Flesh; Milk; which was denied to the Antediluvians. But now all are at liberty to feed on it; and that was not all, they were so skilful as to make it afford them Cheese and Butter; neither of which we read of before the Deluge. And questionless they that fed not on Milk knew not the Use of these; but among the Post-diluvians Charitze hachalab, 1 Sam. 17. 18. Cheeses of Milk were a common Food: which are, without doubt, meant by Shephoth bakar, 2 Sam. 17. 29. Coagulationes bovis, as Pagnine renders it, Cheeses of the Milk of Cows, according to the Targum: and they are called by the Hebrews, in their peculiar way of speaking, the Sons of Milk. And in job 10. 10. gebinah is the Word for Cheese. The other Product of their Milk, as well as of their Housewifery, was Chemeah, Butter, Gen. 18. 7. Deut. 32. 14. Judg. 5. 25. which was not known to some other Nations a long time. Among the Greeks there was no such thing, and no Word for it. Homer and the Ancient Writers mention Milk and Cheese, but of this nothing is said. Neither doth Aristotle in his History of Animals so much as name it, though he mentions those two forts of Food, and would certainly have made mention of this if there had been any such thing among them. Nor was it made use of among the Romans, as we understand from Pliny's Words 
1 Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 9 , è lacte fit butyrum, barbararum gentium laudatissimus cibus. The Barbarous are not Greek or Latins, but the Oriental People; and accordingly the ancient Use of this among the Easterns we learn only from Moses and such Inspired Writers. As to the ancient feeding on the Flesh of Animals, Abraham's entertaining his Guests with a Calf, Gen. 18. 7. (i. e. part of a Calf, a Joint of Veal; for it is not likely that he set a whole boiled or roasted, or otherwise dressed Calf before three Men, for Sarah was in her Tent, and Abraham sat not down with these Guests, neither did eat, as may be gathered from those Words, He stood by them, and they did eat) and many other Instances of making Repasts on other sorts of Creatures, as Kids, Sheep, Oxen, might be produced out of this Sacred History.  
But it appears that there was but little Art and Cookery used at first in dressing of Meat. There was no great Distinction in preparing it, as we may gather from the Hebrew Word Aphab, which signifies to boil, to bake, to fry; and so Bashal indisserently denotes Roasting and Boiling: But the particular Denotation of these Words in the Texts where they occur, is known only from the particular Matter spoken of there. Concerning the Paschal Lamb there is a strict Injunction not to boil, but roast it, Exod. 12. 8. Deut. 16. 7. which hath a secret and my sterious Meaning in it, it is likely; but concerning Common Eatings and Repasts, I do not find a Difference observed: yet this latter way of dressing hath had the Preference generally to the other. Accordingly it may be observed, that the Poots for the most part present their Heroes feeding on roast, and not on boiled Meat. All Homer's Dinners for his Great Captains and Worthies are of the former sort. And 
1 In Virgil. Aen. l. 1.  Servius (who was no mean Critic) tells us, that in the Times of the Heroes they were not fed with Boiled but Rost. We cannot but take notice that though at first the Preparing of Diet was simple and artless, yet at length it became a kind of Science, and much Time, Study and Cost, were bestowed upon it. Thence we have many Examples of Extravagant Feast in this Sacred History, on which several Critical Remarks might be made, to show what Customs were prevalent at eating in those Days. Cookery was grown to a great Height, and as great an Esteem: there was Sar Hatabbachim, Gen. 39 1. i e. according to the Version of the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prince of the Cooks: and there were Tabbachoth, Royal She-Cooks, 1 Sam. 8. 13. Much more might be said on these Particulars, but I designed only a Taste of them, to invite the Curious to study the Bible, for here is the Ancientest Learning in the World, and that of all Sorts.  
But the most Useful and Strengthening, as well as the most Common Food, was Bread made of Corn: concerning which it may be acceptable to the Inquisitive to know how in those first Ages it was beaten out of the Ear, how it was ground into Meal, and how it was made into Bread: which can be learned from these Ancient Books of Scripture only. And this I must needs say, if Varro and some other Authors before named be consulted, and prized by Lovers of Antiquity for what they have delivered concerning Country-Affairs and Husbandry, surely then much more are these Holy Writings to be esteemed seeing they far excel them in Antiquity: for Varro, Cato, Columella, or any others that have written de re Rustica, are Modern Authors in respect of the Sacred Penmen. First then, as to Threshing or beating the Grains of Corn out of the Ears, it was performed divers ways; as, 1. By drawing a loaded Cart with Weels over the Corn backwards and forwards, so that the Wheels running over it did forcibly shake out the Grain. Of this is express mention in Isa. 28. 27. where we read that Opban gnagalah the Cart-whell was truned about upon some sort of Corn. And this in the next Verse is called Gilgal gnagelah, which is the same, and therefore by the Vulgar Latin is rendered both here and in the former Place Rota Plaustri. To this bruising of their Corn with Loaded Carts, perhaps that Place, Amos 2. 13. refers, (although otherwise applied by Expositors generally) which may be rendered thus, I am pressed under you as a full Cart presseth the Sheaves, or Sheaf (for it is in the singular Number.) It sets forth the Manner of Threshing in those Days, which was by pressing the Ears of Corn with a Heavy Cart, and forcing out the Grain by bringing the Wheels often over it. 2. Another ancient way of Threshing was with a Wooden Slead or Dray without Wheels, full of Iron Nails or Teeth on the Side toward the Ground, and loaded with massy Iron, or some other heavy Weights at top to make it heavy: and this was drawn by Oxen over the Corn till the Ears were so pressed that the Grain flew out. This Instrument was commonly known (as the Hebr. Masters and Talmudists report) by the Name of Morag, and also of Charutz: and accordingly it hath these Names given it, in 2 Sam. 24. 22. and Isa. 28. 27. and both of them together we meet with in Isa. 41. 15. where it is translated by us a sharp Threshing-Instrument. And in the same Place it is said to have Teeth, which plainly refers to the foresaid make of it, viz. that this great wooden Plank was set at the Bottom with Iron Teeth or Pikes to cut the Sheaves, and make way for the Grain to come out. And to these Iron Nails or Teeth refers Amos 1. 4. where this sorst of Country Tackling is called Threshing-Insturments of Iron. Upon the whole, it appears that the Instrument wherewith Husbandmen at this Day break the Clods of Earth was used heretofore (when they had not attained to any great Skill in these Affairs) in Threshing the Corn; for by the Description that is given of it, it was a kind of Harrow. 3. They threshed with Oxen, who with their Hoofs (which for that purpose were generally shod with Iron or Brass) were wont to beat and tread out the Corn: and sometimes they brought in a whole Herd of Oxen to trample upon it. This way of Threshing is referred to, when they were forbid to muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn, Deut. 25. 4. And this is plainly alluded to in Host 10. 11. Ephraim is a Heifer that is taught, and loves to tread out the Corn: and in Mic. 4. 12, 13. He shall gather them as Sheaves into the Floor (viz. to be threshed): Arise and thresh— I will make thy Hoofs brass, and thou shalt beat in pieces, etc. 4. Another ancient way of Threshing was that which is in use with us, viz. with Flails. Some sort of Grain and Seeds were beaten out with these Flagella, (for this is the Word whence that English one comes) as is clear from Isa. 28. 27. The Fitches are beaten out with a Staff, and the cummin with a Rod. And generally Breadcorn was thus threshed, as we may gather from the 28th ver. Of this Nature was Gideon and Araunah's threshing of Wheat, judg. 6. 11. 1 Chron. 21. 20. for 'tis represented as their Personal Action, and those general Terms Chabat and Dash (the Words in those Places) favour this Sense: and in the former Text Threshing is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Septuagint's Version, which signifies beating with Staves, Sticks or Rods.  
After they had thus threshed their Corn, when they had ● Mind to makd use of it, they laid it open to the Sun to dry it, or they dried it by a Fire, or in a Furnace, to get off the Husk: and this dried or parched Corn itself (without any farther Preparation) was a great Food in those Eastern Countries, as we gather from Leu. 23. 14. Ruth 2. 14. 1 Sam. 17. 17. & 25. 18. And this 
1 From Kalah, torruit.  Kal● (for that is the Word for it) was, if we may credit the Rabbins and Jewish Expositors, first soaked in Water, and then dried as Barley is maulted among us at this Day: (where by the way observe the Antiquity of Maulting) But generally the Drying and Parching of the Corn were to make it more capable of being ground.  
The ancient Manner of their Grinding it (which is the next thing I am to consider) was twofold, either in Mortars or Mills. That both these were made use of, we may satisfy ourselves from Num. 11. 8. where you read both of Rechaim Mills, and Medocah a Mortar. In this latter they were wont pinserc (for from the Jews this Practice descended to the Romans) to pound or bray their Corn: whence Bakers, who did this in order to making their Bread, had their Name Pistores. That they used of old to beat and bruise their Wheat in a Mortar with a heavy Pestle, may be collected from Prov. 27. 22. where this hollow Vessel is called Mactesh. But Mills were chiefly made use of for this purpose in those early Times: and they were of such use and necessity, that Men were strictly forbid to take the nether or the upper Millstone to pledge, because (as 'tis added) this is taking a Man's Life (Hebr. his Soul) to pledge, Deut. 24. 6. as much as to say, hereby his Neighbour's Life would be endangered, this is the way to starve him. The grinding at mills was counted an inferior sort of Work, and therefore Prisoners and Captives were generally set to it: whence to take the Millstones, and grind Meal, is part of the Description of a Slave, Isa. 47. 2. And to this refers Samson's grinding in the Prisonhouse, Judg. 16. 21. For of old Time there were Mills in their Prisons, (whence Pistrinum is used both for a Mill and a Prison) and the Prisoners were wont by Grinding to earn their Living, and procure themselves Food. However, this was counted a very Laborious and Slavish Employment. And this was in use not only among the jews and Philistines but the Egyptians also, and thence there is mention of the Maid-Servant behind the Mill, i. e. thrusting it forward with her Arm, Exod. 11. 5. So among the Chaldeans the Young Men (viz. the Captives of judea) were taken by them to grind, Lam. 5. 13. But for the most part the Women-Servants were employed in this Drudgery, as is deducible from Mat. 24. 41. Women are said to be grinding at the Mill, whiles the Men are in the Field, i. e. at work abroad, as we read in the preceding Verse. Therefore 
1 Lex. Chald. p. 586.  Buxtorf observes that the Word for Grinders is Resoshoth, of the Feminine Gender, to note that Grinding was usually Woman's Work. These Mills which they used in those Days were Querns or Hand-mills, and therefore before the Invention of others that go with greater Force, they first dried the Corn (as I mentioned before) that they might grind with more Ease.  
The Corn being thus prepared and reduced to Meal or Flour, they moistened it, and made it into Doughty or Paste (Batzek, Exod. 12. 34. 39 Gnavisah, Numb. 15. 20.) and then baked it, and made Bread of it. This was either Cakes, or Loaves: the lighter kind of Bread was composed into Cakes, Gnuggoth, Gen. 18. 6. Exod. 12. 39 Numb. 11. 8. Ezek. 4. 12. Sometimes Magnog is the Word, 1 Kings 17. 12. at other Times Challah, Leu. 2. 4. & 24. 5. 2 Sam. 6. 19 The greater and heavier sort of Bread was Loaves: thence you read of Cicear Lechem, a Loaf of Bread, Exod. 29. 23. 1 Chron. 16. 3. (though in some other Places we render it a Piece of Bread, Prov. 6. 26. jer. 37. 21. which shows that the word Ciccar is uncertain.) But this we may depend upon, that Lechem Breads (in the Plural, for it is taken plurally in 1 Sam. 21. 3. 2 Sam. 16. 1. and in other Places) always signifies Loaves of Bread, in contradistinction to Cakes or lesser Portions of Bread. Then as to the ancient Manner of Baking, it was, 1. Upon the Hearth, under the hot Embers, and thence Gnuggoth are denominated. The first Instance in the World of this way of Baking, is that in Gen. 18. 6. where Gnuggoth are by all acknowledged to be Panes sutcineritii, and accordingly we render them Cakes upon the Hearth, i. e. such as were baked upon the hot Hearth, and covered over with Ashes. This was the ancient way of Baking among all the Eastern People: and it is in use among them at this Day. A late 
1 Thevenot. Lib. 2. C. 32.  Traveller assures us, that this sort of Bread is ordinarily used among the present Arabians: and he particularly and distinctly describes their making and ordering of these Cakes. 2. Upon burning Coals, something ('tis likely) like a Grate being laid between, 1 Kings 19 6. Isa. 44. 19 These were the two ways of Baking their Cakes, i. e. their lesser and finer Bread, which after they were sufficiently baked on one side were turned on the other: whence is that Comparison of a Cake not turned, Host 7. 3. They had Ovens, which were first used for Baking the Holy Bread, Leu. 2. 4. & 26. 26. but afterwards for that which is Common, viz. the greater and larger Bread. But (to conclude) we are not to think that Loaves of Bread, such as we have of a considerable Thickness and Height, which must needs be cut with a Knife, were in use among the jews or other Eastern People: but they made Broad Cakes, and these they broke with their Hands, whence we so often read of breaking Bread. If they were somewhat thick, they were generally called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Loaves of Bread, 1 Sam. 10. 3. but if they were very thin, or if they were of a finer sort of Flour, they had the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cakes, Leu. 7. 12, 13.  
From these Sacred Records we may also learn what was the Primitive Drink. Foo though 'tis not expressly said any where that they drank Water before the Flood, yet we may rationally gather so much, because this simple Element was most suitable to their simple and plain sort of Feeding, which is in direct Terms expressed. And that this was the general Beverage after the Flood also, we are assured from positive Texts, Gen. 21. 19 & 24. 14. job 22. 7. 1 Kings 13. 22. Prov. 25. 21. Likewise from these Authentic Writings we know that another Liquor (which was denied to the world before) was now granted them, viz. Milk, Gen. 18. 8. Deut. 32. 14. judg. 4. 19 Cant. 5. 1. Yea, Wine the choicest of all Liquors became the usual Drink of those Eastern Countries, which was occasioned thus, (the Knowledge of which can be known only from Scripture originally) God having granted an Indulgence to eat Flesh, Noah took it for a sufficient Intimation that they might change their Drink sometimes: wherefore he being a Man of Observation and Prudence, gathering from the goodness of Grdpes the virtue and benefit of Wine, (for even before the Flood they did eat Grapes, as all other Fruits of the Earth, but drank no Wine: unless we grant that the bold and luxurious Sinners of Cain's Offspring sometime before the Deluge knew this Liquor, and abused themselves with it, for 'tis said they drank, Luk. 17. 27. i e. they excessively gave themselves to some Strong and Intoxicating Liquor) Noah I say, understanding the benefit of Wine, and apprehending how seasonable and comfortable it would be at that time when the Flood had so chilled the Earth and Air, and made every thing look bleak and dismal, he began to be an Husbandman, ●●h Haadamah, a Man of the Earth, Gen. 9 20. and among other Instances of his Husbandry, he planted a Vineyard, he set Vines in that warm Country where he was seated, viz. Armenia: He chose this as a proper Soil for them; for Armenid is noted for an excellent Ground for Vines, and the Vines of that Place are celebrated by Historians. Others planted Vines before him, mixing them with other Trees, but Noah planted a Place of Vines only: this is properly Kerem, Vine●. Others had planted Vines in their Grounds, that they might eat the Grapes that grew on them, and perhaps some (as was hinted before) had preserved the Juico of them, and made themselves drunk with it: but Noah's Plantation of Vines, was purposely in order to make Wine of the Fruit of them. Thus he was the First that planted a Vineyard: the skilful ordering of that generous Fruit to this particular End, was first found out by him. And now when the Good Old Man had taken this Pains, and we may suppose was very weary and thirsty, he began to taste the Fruit of his Labours, which happened to be with ill Success: for he had chosen so excellent a Spot of Ground, and had so richly cultivated it, that the Product of it proved too potent; the Liquor of that noble Plant, which he too rashly made an Experiment of, and with some Greediness took down, was too strong for his Brain. But as he sinned once in this kind, so he never did the like again. Yea, as he found out Wine, so 'tis not improbable that he admonished Men from his Failing to use it soberly. What the Pagan●● Writings say of the first Inventor of Wine is little to be heeded, unless you refer it to this Noah, who is represented by their Bacchus and janus. They all agree, that 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diodor. Sic. lib. 5.  the former of these first planted Vines, and found out the Art of managing them, and made Wine of the Fruit of them; wherefore they confound him with the latter, viz. janus, who had his Name from jajin, Vinum. This was no other than Noah, the happy Author of this Boon to Mankind. And his Sons propagated this Art, he especially that went to inhabit in afric: whence (as was observed by an 
2 St. Augustin. de Civ. Dci, l. 18. c. 13.  Ancient Writer) the Poets feigned that Dionysius, in the Days of Deu●alion, discovered this Art of making Wine to the Person that entertained him in afric.  
They had anciently other Strong Liquors besides Wine, the general Word for which wa● 
1 From shacar, ebrius suit.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leu. 10. 9 Numb. 6. 3. judg. 1 3. 4, 7. & 29. 9 Isa. 5. 11. & 28. 7. Prov. 20. 1. rendered always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Seventy, except in two Placest (Psal. 69. 12. Prov. 31. 4.) where 'tis translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Greek Word is once mentioned in th● New Testament, viz. Luke 1. 15. and is rendred● by our Translators (as the word Shacar in the Old Testament) strong Drink. It is all Inebriating Drink▪ saith 
2 Hom. 7. in Leu.  Origen: So saith 
3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  another Greek Writer▪ with whom agrees a Learned Latin 
4 Omne quod inebriare potes● apud Hebraeos sic●ra dicitur. Hieronym. lib. d● Nom. Hebr.  Father. But others that have criticized on the Word, especially the Hebrew Doctors, tell us, that 'tis all Strong Drink except Wine. But 
5 ● soba, inebriatus ●uit.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Isa. 1. 22. Ho●▪ 4. 18. is a Word that signifies Wine properly so called, i. e. the Juice of the Grape, and also al● factitious Wines, i. e. strong Liquors made of Mulberries, Palms, Pine-nuts, Apples, Pears, and other Fruits. So that what we call Cider, Perry▪ etc. is that Drink which was by the Hebrews called Soba. A●d the Rabbins comprehend under this Term Ale, and tell us, there was such a sort of● Liquor of old in use among the Medes and Persians, the same which was anciently used in Egypt, and found out by Osiris one of the Kings of that Place: for 
6 Lib. 1. c. 2.  Diodorus the Sicilian relates that i● the Countries where there were no Vines, this King caused them to make a Drink of Water and Barley; which 
7 Lib. 2. c. 77.  Herodotus had before taken notice of, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Barley-wine, is mentioned by Athenaeus. I will only add here under this Head, that they used of old to dash and mingle their Wine with Water: whence a Cup of Mixture, Psal. 75. 8. is a Cup of Wine, and Wine is expressed by Mixture (according to the Hebrew) Prov. 23. 30.  
And since I have gone thus far, and have enquired into the First Eating and Drinking of the People of the World, I will proceed further on this Subject, and from the same unquestionable Records give some Account of the Posture which they used in Eating and Drinking. We may here inform ourselves that at first they sat at Meat, i. e. they either spread something on the Ground, and sat upon it, or they sat at a Table. Whatever some Critics have suggested concerning the Antiquity of another Position of Body, it is certain that this was the Ancientest of all: for in the Old Testament there are Examples of this, long before any of those that are alleged out of Profane Authors. The Old Hebrew Patriarches sat at Meat, as is plain from Iacob's Words to his Father, Sat and eat of my Venison, Gen. 27. 19 There are no Writers in the World that go so far back as this. And the next to this is Gen. 37. 25. They sat down to eat Bread. On which Words Drusius observes that the Old Hebrews sat at Meat. That this was the oldest Posture among the Jews, these Texts sufficiently testify; The People sat down to eat and drink, Exod. 32. 6. and the Apostle, according to the LXX, renders it so, 1 Cor. 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together, Judg. 19 6. I should not fail to sit down with the King at Meat, said David to jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. 5. And in ver. 24. it is expressly said, The King sat him down to Meat. And here by the way we may observe, that there was a certain Order and Precedency observed in their sitting in those times. They were seated every one according to their proper Rank and Quality: Thus Abner sat by Saul ' s side, ver. 25. And David had his peculiar Situation allotted him, which is signally styled his Seat, ver. 18. and his Place, ver. 25. That Sitting was the Eating Posture is further evident from 1 Kings 13. 20. It came to pass as they sat at Table. When tho● sittest to eat with a Ruler, saith Solomon, Prov. 23. 1. And many other Quotations to this purpose might be produced, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is always rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX) is the Word used. It is true, the first Paschal Lamb was eaten by the Jews standing; but that was an Extraordinary thing, because that particular ●esture was fittest for that occasion, it signifying their sudden Passage and Departure out of Egypt. Wherefore those who make use of this Instance to prove that Sitting at Meals was not the Primitive Posture, do it very impertinently, because there is no arguing from an Unusual Case to what is Common. They might as well argue that it was the Custom to eat with Staves in their Hands, because they did so at this solemn Occasion: whereas the true Account of this particular Circumstance wa● this, that the Passover was to be eaten in a Pilgrim's Guise, in remembrance of their travelling out of Egypt. This, as well as eating with their L●ins girt, and with Shoes on their Feet, was a Temporary Precept, and accordingly yo● will not find it mentioned among the Directions given about the Anniversary Passover afterwards. Others as vainly infer from the strict Command laid upon the Israelites to have 
2 Exod. 12. 11.  their Shoes on their Feet at the eating of the Passover, that they used to have them off at other times when they were eating, and consequently that Discubation was first used by the Jews; for it is alleged that they were barefooted, that they might not with their Shoes soil their Beds that they lay upon. This is a very palpable Mistake, for the true reason why they were commanded to eat the Paschal Supper with Sho●s on their Feet (as well as with their Loins girded) was, because they were to eat it in haste: they are the very Words in Exod. 12. 11. And therefore we cannot conclude from their eating the Passover with their Shoes on, that either they were barefooted at other times when they dined or supped, or that they lay down upon Beds. Besides, at other times generally within Doors, and therefore at their Meals, they used to wear Sandals or Slippers, a ●light and thin sort of covering for their Feet: in opposition to which they are now upon this solemn Occasion enjoined to have Shoes on, as much as to say, to be ready and prepared for their Journey. Or lastly, if I should say that it was the custom to put off their Shoes at Meals even when the Custom of Sitting prevailed, it were no hard Matter to prove it; for they washed their Feet even at that time, as appears from the Relation concerning Abraham's entertaining the Angels, so that they must put off their Shoes for that, and it is probable they put them not on again till they went out. Wherefore from their putting off their Shoes it doth not follow that Discumbiture was the Posture in those Days among the Jews, as some would persuade us.  
Then, as for Other Nations, the same Records assure us that they sat at Eating: thus according to the use of the Egyptians, Ioseph's Brethren were ordered to sit according to their Age, Gen. 43. 33. Whence 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Vitâ Politicâ.  Philo observes, that the Custom of Discumbiture was not yet received in those Days. And that this was the Posture of eating not only among the Jews and Egyptians, but the Assyrians and Chaldeans, may be proved from that one single Text, Ezek. 23. 41. where the Prophet speaking of that adulterous and luxurious Conversation which the Jews had with those Foreign Nations; describes it by sitting upon a stately Bed, and a Table prepared before it. Only here we may observe, that they began to decline from their first simple Usage, and to turn their ordinary Seats or Stools into Beds or Pallets. Conformably to these Eastern People, the Grecians behaved themselves, who (as 
2 Deipnosoph. l. 8, etc.  Athenaeus attests in several Places) sat at their Feasts. He takes notice that Lying along or Leaning is not once mentioned in Homer, but that he makes all his Guests sit at Table. And they were seated according to their Worth and Eminency; whence it is, that the Grecians showed their respect to Diomedes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by seating him first at the Ta●le, by placing him according to his Dignity, as well as by entertaining him with choice Meats and full Cups. So it was with the Old Romans, they feasted sitting. 
1 Virgil. Aen. 8.  Perpetuis soliti patres considere mensis. And that this was their Posture at first on their Tricliniary Beds, Servius remarks on Aeneid the 7th. From abundant Instances it is concluded by Athenaeus, that 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deipn. l. 1.  the Ancientest Heroes used Session, not Discumbiture, at their festival Entertainments. This without doubt was the first, and most received situation of their Bodies at such times. In the most Heroic Ages of the World they sat upright when they were at Meals.  
But afterwards this Posture was changed, for when Men gave themselves to ease and delicacy, and grew soft and effeminate, they lay down upon Beds at their Dinners and Suppers, and thence the Eating-Bed was called 
3 Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 11.  Discubitorius Lectus. Lying upon their left Sides, they upheld and rested the upper Part of their Bodies with their left Elbows (under which was wont to be a Cushion.) It is supposed they might sometimes (perhaps when they drank more freely) sit up a little, but for the most part they were in this leaning lolling Posture. This became a general Custom among the Greeks and Romans, as Authors relate: but the first Rise of it was from the Eastern People, and this we have first discovered to us from the Holy Scripture, which mentions Ahasuerus' Supper, and the Rich and Gaudy Beds used on that Occasion, Esther 1. 6. That the Persians lay on Beds at their Banquets, may be gathered from Esth. 7. 8. Haman was fallen on the Bed where Esther was. From these and other Oriental People, this wanton and effeminate Usage came to the jews. Those among them that were Luxurious Feeders lay along, with their Bodies stretched out at their Feasts. This seems to be intended in Amos 2. 8. they lay themselves down upon Clothes, belonging to Bedding at Feasts. But more expressly 'tis said of them, Ch. 6. v. 8. they lie upon Beds of Ivory, and stretch themselves upon their Couches. The next Words which particularly make mention of their Eating and Drinking, and the usual Attendants of them at high Festivals, viz. Vocal and Instrumental Music, and Odoriferous Ointments, show that it is meant of their lying on Beds at their Feasts. Wherefore I can by no means approve of what our 
1 Dr. Hammond ' s Annot. on March. 8. 11.  Learned English Annotator saith, that the Custom of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, accubitus, lying along at Meat, is not mentioned in the Old Testament. And afterwards these Dining Beds began to be a general Custom among the Jews, and the best and holiest Persons complied with this Practice, insomuch that leaning or lying upon them was the Posture used by our Bles●ed Saviour and his Apostles at the Passover, as well as at other times. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 
2 Matth. 14. 19 Joh. 13. 23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but especially 
3 Matth. 9 10. Mark. 16. 14. Luk. 22. 27. John. 6. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are used in the New Testament to express this particular disposing of their Bodies, although our Translators render it by sitting down to Meat, or sitting at Meat.  
And if we would know what was the Particular Manner of placing themselves in those Days at their Mensal Beds, this may be learned from several Passages in Scripture, as well (though not so largely) as from the Greek and Roman Writers: nay, here are Ancienter Instances of that way of disposing their Guests than in any other Authors whatsoever. A Room was generally spread with Three Beds, (therefore by the Romans called Triclinium) one of which was situated at one end of the Table, the other two at both Sides: and as for the other part or the end of the Table, it was left clear for the Waiters to serve up the Dishes. Generally three or four lay upon a Bed together: but this is to be understood of Men only, not of both Sexes. For it was not usual for the Women and Men to eat promiscuously at one Table on one Bed, because the Posture was not fit and decent for the former. These therefore usually had a Triclinium by themselves, and feasted apart: thus Ahasuerus feasted the Men, and Vashti the Women, Esther 1. 3, 9 So the Daughter of Herodias went to her Mother in another Room, feasting at the same time at another Table, Matth. 14. 2, 8. for she stepped thither to take her Mother's Instructions, and then came in straightway unto the King, Mark 6. 25. So it was with the Greeks generally, the Women did not dine and sup together with the Men. But it was otherwise with the Romans: yet this distinction at first was observed by them, that 
1 Foeminae cum viris cubantibus sedentes coenitabant. Val. Max. l. 2. c. 1.  the Men lay along at Meals, the Women sat: but afterwards in the degeneracy of Times, the same Posture was used by both Sexes.  
Again, we find that this Discumbiture (as well as the other Posture before spoken of) was not in a disorderly manner, but every one had his Place according to his Dignity. When thou art bidden of any Man to a Wedding, (i. e. to a Wedding-Feast) lie not, or lean not (for so it should be rendered according to 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Greek) in the highest Room, in the chief Place of Decumbiture, Luke 14. 8. for the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the last or lowest Place, ver. 10. The Invited did not take what Place they pleased, but the Worthiest were placed first; therefore the Pharisees, who thought themselves Persons of the greatest Worth, ambitiously sought after the highest Places, they loved the uppermost Rooms at Feasts, Mat. 23. 6 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for 'tis in the singular Number, though we render it as if it were plural) the dining Bed, which they knew was usually preferred before the rest, and the chief and most honourable Situation in that Bed, they also affected. The Order of placing was this; the Chief Guest did lie at the Head of the First Bed, with his Feet behind the back of him that lay next to him: so the second Man's Head rested in the first's Bosom, and his Feet were behind the Back of the third. To this Ancient Way of lying along at Eating, those Words in Cant. 2. 6. His left Hand is under my Head, and his right Hand doth embrace me, seem to refer (for this is supposed at a Feast, a Country-Banquet in a Garden or Orchard, ver. 4. 5. which was the ancient Usage; and thence we 
2 Cic. Offic. l. 3.  read that Canius a Roman Knight bought a Garden of Pythias, in order to invite his Friends, and feast them there). The Person, according to the Situation before named, might, if he pleased, lay his left Hand under the Head of him that lay next to him, and was in his Bosom; and he lay also conveniently to embrace him with his other Hand or Arm. Thus 'tis said, the Disciple whom jesus loved leaned on his Bosom, John 13. 23. And again, ver. 25. He lay on Iesus' Breast, which is a plain Proof of this Order of lying at their Suppers at that time. Our Saviour had the first and chiefest Place, john who was dearest to him lay next to him, and leaned his Head in Christ's Bosom. For this was the Custom of those times, their Favourites and Friends, and such as they loved most, were placed just below them, so that they could rest their Heads on their Breasts. That this was a Sign of Familiarity, Love and Respect, is evident from that of Pliny the Younger, 
3 Epist. ad Sophr. lib. 4.  Coenabat Imperator cum paucis Veiento proximus, atque etiam in sinu recumbebat. The Bride's proper Place at Supper was the Bridegroom's Bosom, according to that of the 
4 Juven. Sat. 11.  Poet; — Gremio jacuit nova nupta mariti. And those of either Sex that were intimate and dear to them had this Privilege, as we learn out of 
5 In Verr. 1.  Tully and 
6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zonara's de Heliogabalo.  others. Here than we may guests at the Manner of our Saviour's lying at Supper with his Apostles, who with him were thirteen in all. Three Beds being placed about the three Sides of the Table, there were four Persons in one, four in another, and five in a third; or else two Beds held five apiece, and one of them only three, who it is likely were our Saviour, St. john, and St. Peter; for as next to john he intimates that he should ask of Christ who was to be the Traitor. This Bed whereon our Blessed Master and these two Apostles lay was the Middle Bed, viz. that which was set at the End of the Table; but in respect of the Beds which were placed on the two Sides was the Middle one; for this was reckoned as the uppermost and most honourable. Christ lay at th● Head or upper End of this Bed, for this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Chief Place of Recumbency, and was always reserved for the Worthiest Persons; though I confess there was some Variation as to this among the Romans, (and so might be among the Jews their Imitators) among whom the other End of the Middle Bed was sometimes the uppermost and most valued. Moreover, we may gather from Mat. 26. 23. that the Table about which the Beds were placed was square and short, so that all of them could eat out of the same Dish. He that dippeth his Hand with me in the Dish, the same shall betray me, Mat. 26. 23. In which Words our Saviour points not at one particular Person, for all dipped their Hands in the Dish, they did eat all in common; for their Beds were close to the Table, and the Table was not broad, so that they could all conveniently reach to the Vessels in which the Meat was. They could all put (that is the Meaning of Dipping) their Hands into the same Dish; and among these that did so at this time, there was one that designed to betray our Blessed Lord.  
But though this was the Usage then, yet I must adjoin this, that at the Entertainment of some Special Guests, and to show a more than ordinary Kindness to them, there was another Custom anciently in use, that is, every one had his Portion apart at the Table. Homer makes all his Heroes eat after this fashion; particularly he tells us, that Ajax's Allotment (who 'tis likely was as good at eating as fight) was 
7— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Hom.  a Chine of Beef; for the more worthy and honourable the Guest was, the greater was his Allowance. But the Sacred History gives us the earliest Examples of this kind, as indeed it doth of all other sorts of Usages. Here we read that joseph, when he entertained his Brethren, took and sent Messes (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the LXX, particular Portions) unto them from before him, Gen. 43. 34. If it be said that the Egyptians ●ight not eat Bread with the Hebrews, for that was an Abomination to the Egyptians, ver. 32. and that was the Reason why they had particular Parts or Messes allotted them, and therefore it doth not follow thence that this was a Custom either among the Hebrews or Egyptians when they feasted asunder; I answer, the true Reason why the Hebrews and Egyptians did not sit and eat together at the same Table, was because the one eat Flesh, and the other did not, and on that Account their Different Customs were abominable to one another. But the dividing of the Meat, and distributing a Particular Portion to every one, had no reference at all to this, but was a General Custom in those times, and was (I conceive) partly founded upon this, that hereby they had no Opportunity of showing their particular Respects to the Guests according to their different Quality; for the greatest and choicest Portion of Viands was allotted to those whose Place and Dignity required more than ordinary Deference, or for whom they had the greatest Kindness and Love. Thus in the Relation here given us, Benjamin's Mess was five times so much as any of his Brethren. This was a Mark of singular Favour and Affection, for joseph was more nearly related to Benjamin than to any of the rest, who indeed were but his half-brethrens; but Benjamin was his Brother both by the Father's and the Mother's side. Hence it may be gathered that this Practice was not grounded on the Difference of Meats on which the Hebrews and Egyptians fed. And indeed from other Instances in this Divine Book it appears, that though Persons sat at the same Table, and differed not about the sort of Food, yet they had particular Messes or Portions distributed to them. So when Elkanah and his Family and Friends feasted together on a solemn Occasion, to show his more especial Love and Regard to Hannah, he gave to her a worthy Portion, 1 Sam. 1. 5. Manah aphajim (where aphajim is the same with panim, as is usual in the Holy Style) a Distribution of Faces, such a liberal share of Meat as showed a favourable Countenance, a particular Respect and Love; such a Portion as was usually given to the best and most beloved sort of Guests. Another Remarkable Example of this we have in 1 Sam. 9 23, 24. where we read that Samuel invited Saul to a Feast, and made him sit in the chiefest Place among them that were bidden, (for there was a Precedency in those times according to the Rank of the Persons that were invited) and he said unto the Cook, (whom he had spoken to before to prepare this Entertainment) Bring the Portion which I gave thee, of which I said unto thee, Set it by thee: (which I ordered thee to have in Readiness against the time that I called for it) And the Cook took up the Shoulder, (for that was the peculiar Joint of Meat which was designed for his Portion; and indeed it appears from being the Priest's particular Portion, Leu. 7. 32. that it was accounted the choicest part) and that which was upon it, (it may be some lesser and daintier Morsels which were served up in the same Dish) and set it before Saul. Whence it is evident that in old times they had a certain Measure and Quantity of Meat appointed them at Feasts by the Governor and Master of it. This is the appointed Portion, rendered by our Translators necessary Food, job 23. 12. and this is the Food of Allowance or Appointment, Prov. 30. 8. which we render Food convenient, attending to the Sense rather than the Original Word. The set Portions of Meat were called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the Name of the Servants or Waiters that distributed them to the Guests, according to the Order which they received from the Master of the Feast, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we may satisfy ourselves in Lucian and other Good Writers. And in this very Sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Mat. 20. 28. Mark 10. 45. Luke 12. 37. We read of the Ruler of the Household, whose Office was to give them their Portion of Meat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 12. 12. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which that Word is compounded, is a general Term for all Food, and so the Word signifies a certain Demensum, a Set Portion or Dividend of Meat that was allotted to every one at Meals. And I am mistaken if our Saviour's Words concerning Mary, she hath chosen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the good Part or Portion, Luke 10. 42. do not refer to this Distributing of the Food, and particularly Martha's being cumbered about much serving, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the way of providing for the Guests by allotting every one his Distinct Part. And it is not improbable, seeing the Dispenser's of the Gospel are compared to 
1 1 Cor. 4. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 10.  Stewards and 
2 Mat. 24. 45. Luke 12. 42. Ephes. 2. 19  Governors of Families, that the rightly dividing the Word of Truth, 2 Tim. ● 15. 
1 Haec Metaphora ● convivii apparatoribus & dapu●● instructooribus ducta est. Gerhard. Harm. Evang.  hath special Reference to this Custom of dispensing to every one his proper share at the Table; though (as I have suggested) this was not a perpetual Usage, and particularly at the Paschal Fea● our Saviour and his Apostles supped together 〈◊〉 common, and eat out of the same Dish.  
Furthermore, from what we read in the Evangelical History, Luke 7. 38. viz. that Mary Magdalen stood at Christ's Feet behind him, we may collect the Truth of what hath been suggested concerning their Posture at their Eating in those Days. Then Feet lay out behind the Backs of those that lay next to them, and so those that waited at the Table were properly said to stand at their Feet behind. Thence this is the Periphrasis of a Servi●or 〈◊〉 Waiter, according to 
2 De Benefic. l. 3.  Seneca, qui coenanti ad pe●●steterat. Likewise here we are acquainted that Putting off the Shoes, and Washing the Feet, were an usual Attendant at Eating and Feasting; and the one was in order to the other. I grant that the Ancients wore not Shoes at all times, yea their Captives and Slaves went always barefoot, as ● evident from Isa. 20. 4. Nay, some of the better sort of People among the Gentiles were put upon this Hardship by their severe Governors and Lawgivers: so Lycurgus enjoined the Spartans' to go without Shoes. But among the jews I find no such thing; even in the Wilderness (where they underwent the greatest Difficulties) their Feet were clad with Shoes, by the same token that they wa●ed not old, Deut. 20. 5. i e. by a particular Providence they were preserved from any considerable Decay a long time. And from Exod. 3. 5. josh. 5. 15. Deut. 25. 9 and several other Places, it may be proved that their Feet were armed with this Defence; yea, it was an Ornament as well as a Defence and is reckoned as such in Ezek. 16. 10. where we find that Shoes of the best and most fashionable sort were made of badger's Skins, viz. dressed and made into Leather. Now, when they came into a House as Guests to be entertained, they stripped themselves of this lower Apparel, and had their Feet washed and cleansed; and this was the usual Introduction to their sitting or lying down to eat. A very ancient Instance of this you have in judg. 19 21. They washed their Feet, and did eat and drink. And that this was afterwards a jewish Custom is clear from our Saviour's upbraiding of Simon in those Words, I entered into thy House, but thou gavest me no Water for my Feet, Luke 7. 44. which he would not have said if the Washing the Feet had not been a common Testimony of Civility and Friendly Entertainment. From 
1 Lib. 14.  Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks used this Custom at their Feasts; and many Authors attest the same concerning the Romans. And as to the Discalceation in order to it, 
2 Deposui soleas, etc. Epigr. lib. 5.  Martial and 
3 Accurrunt servi, soleas detrahunt, etc. Heautontim.  Terence, and several other Writers speak of it.  
Besides, the Sacred Writings inform us, that Anointing was of old an usual Entertainment at their Feasts. Thus the Penitent Magdalen bestowed a Box of Spikenard on Christ's 
4 Luke 7. 38. John 12. 3.  Feet while he was at Supper: and indeed, according to the Account before given of his Situation at that time, she had the Advantage to do it, his Feet being towards her, and bare; for (as was just now said) they put off their Shoes and lay barefoot on their Eating-Beds. At another time this Religious Woman refreshed and perfumed his Head with precious Ointment when he was at the Table, Mat. 26. 7. Mark 14. 3. And it is particularly recorded that this fragrant Ointment was in an Alabaster-Box: which is according to what Herodotus, Athenaeus, Plutarch and other ancient Authors relate, (whom you may see alleged in Dr. Hammond's Annotations on Mat. 26. 7.) that those particular Vessels, viz. Alabaster-Boxes, were commonly made use of for that purpose. It is said in the forementioned Place in St. Mark that she broke the Box of Spikenard, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to shake or knock, rather than to break; so that the meaning is this, she shook the Box, or knocked it against the Ground to make the Ointment come forth the better. This pouring of Odoriferous Oils on the Heads of their Guests at Feasts, is taken notice of in Psal. 23. 5. where with preparing a Table is joined anointing the Head with Oil. And in Eccl. 9 8, 9 Eat thy Bread with joy, and drink thy Wine with a merry Heart; and let thy Head lack no Ointment. And because it was used at these times of Mirth and Rejoicing, 'tis called the Oil of joy, Isa. 61. 3. Of this it is probable, the Parable in Luk. 16. speaks, where among the Steward's Expenses a hundred Measures of Oil are reckoned, which were used at Festivals. With the Holy Scriptures accord the Pagan Writers, who frequently make mention of this fragrant Unction. That it was used among the Greeks is manifest from the Example of Telemachus, who according to 
1 Odyss. ●.  Homer was not only washed but anointed before he supped. Martial bears witness concerning the Romans, 

2 Epigr. Lib. 3.  Vnguentum fat●or bonum dedisti  
Convivis, here.  But of this Anointing the Head with perfumed Liquors at Festivals, Dr. Hammond hath produced several Instances in his Annotations on Mat. 26. 7. and therefore I remit the Reader thither.  
Lastly, here is mentioned another remarkable Attendant of those Feasts, viz. the Master or Governor of them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Name given him, john 2. 8. and it was a known Name among the Grecians: from whom the Latins borrowed their Architriclinus. He was set over the Triclinium as an useful Officer, his Place being to order the Guests at the Feast, and to give Laws concerning the eating and drinking. And generally this Symposiarch, this Overseer and Controller of the Feast, was a Friend and Associate of the Person that made the Feast, and was acquainted with the Guests. Thus I have briefly from this Sacred Fountain of all Good Letters, showed the Manner and Order of the Discumbiture among the Ancients.  
Next, we are here acquainted who were the Inventors of Mechanic Arts. We find that Tubal-Cain was the first Instructor of every Artificer in Brass and Iron, Gen. 4. 22. Where by the way we may observe, that the late 
3 T. Burne● Theory of the Earth.  Philosopher is mistaken when he confidently asserts, that there were no Metals or Minerals in the Antediluvian Earth. If he can prove that Tubal-Cain was not before the Flood, (which will be one of the hardest Tasks he ever undertook) than he may effect something toward his Hypothesis; but to say that the Primitive Earth was without these Metals, and yet to acknowledge this Tubal-Cain to be an Antediluvian, is perfect Contradiction, for he could not deal i● Metals if there had been none at that time. Him than I take to be the First Smith and Brasier that ever was in the World. 
2 Theory of the Earth.  Yea, perhaps these Terms of Brass and Iron may be more large and comprehensive, and then here may be signified to us the general Skill of Improving all Metals for the Needs of Mankind. It is not improbable that the Art of Refining was found out by this Tubal-Cain▪ and that he taught Men the separation of Metals from their Dross. However that this Separating and Purifying them, to render them more useful were very Ancient, is plain from Psal. 12. 6. which mentions Silver tried in a Furnace of Earth, purified seven times: And we read, Mal. 3. 2. of a Refiner Fire. But this we are certainly informed of from the forenamed Text in Genesis, that Tubal-Cain was more especially skilled in the use of those Metals there mentioned, viz. Brass and Iron: he knew the particular and proper Use of them in all Trades and Employments that require them, as in that of a Carpenter, a Mason, etc. and most of the Laborious and Handicraft Trades.  
With Mechanics and Manual Arts we may join Architecture, which cannot be managed without Tools of either of these Metals. Where again we may observe the rash and groundless Assertion of the foresaid Writer, viz. that there were not of old any Instruments belonging to Building. This is confuted from what hath been said concerning Metals, for of these they could make Instruments that were serviceable in Building. Therefore when the Egyptians held that Vulcan was the Inventor of Architecture, it is probable they had reference to Tubal-Cain, (the first Founder of Metals which were so useful in Building) who was the Heathen Vulcan, as all Mythologists acknowledge. It is true, This, as all other Arts, was mean and low at first, for it began with making and fixing up of Tents (which I spoke of before.) The Father, i. e. the Inventor of which was jabal, who it is probable made them of Skins or Hides of Beasts; for our First Parents, and without doubt all others in imitation of them, were clothed with Skins (of which afterwards) which they found kept out Rain and Cold; and accordingly they learned to cloth their Tabernacles with the same Materials, and for the same End and Purpose: and to confirm this, we read in several Places afterwards that the Tents ●r Booths were made of Skins; in tacking and fastening of which it is likely they at length made use of some of Tubal's Hard Ware. This was the first Essay of Building, these were the first Houses. And from thence a Tabernacle and a House are convertible: thus job mentions his Tabernacle, Ch. 31. v. 31. not that he had not a House properly so called, he being the Greatest Man in the East: and that he had so, appears further from Ch. 21. v. 28. And his Children had such Houses, else the fall of the House, Chap. 1. v. 19 could not have killed them. But sometimes they retained the old Name of Tabernacles, which were first in use: therefore job calls his House or Palace a Tabernacle in the Place above cited. So in judg. 12. 8. his Tent is explained by adding his House: for as a 
1 Drusius.  Learned Critic saith well upon the Place, Because they of old dwelled in Tents, they afterwards called any House a Tent. And 'tis further observable that their Houses (for so 'tis in the Hebrew, though we translate it Households) and their Tents, Deut. 11. 6. is as much as their Houses, namely their Tents: for in the Desert they had only Tents or Booths, which were instead of Houses. And let me observe further, that Ohel a Tabernacle is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Seventy, in Gen. 9 21. & 24. 67. Num. 19 18. Deut. 16. 7. jos. 22. 4. job. 29. 4. and in several other Places. Yea, sometimes Ohel is rendered by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pellis, as in Exod. 3●. 15. which confirms what I said before concerning the Materials of Houses. Booths and these were alike, and thence perhaps arose the literal Cognation between Beth and Booth, the latter being an easy Corruption of the former. This is certain that the first Dwellings were Tabernacles▪ the Old Patriarches lived in these Movable Pavilions, especially those of them that kept Cattle and some of those were the most Considerable 〈◊〉 in the World. Some a long time after, as the 
2 Jer. 35. 7.  Rechabites, a sort of Votaries among the Jews (but not of the Stock of Abraham, but originally Kenites or Midianites) chose this ancient and simple way of living all their Days. But Architecture soon found an improvement, and the old Tent-dwelling was turned into another sort of Habitation. Of this Art of Building Cain is mentioned as the first Author: this Vagabond after all his Travels at last ●at down in a certain Place, and there built 
1 Joseph. Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3.  Nod, Gen. 4. 16. and afterwards he built a City, a walled City, and called it Enoch, after the Name of his Son, v. 17. (whence in succeeding times it was usual to give the Names of Men unto Cities and Countries, of which there are 
2 Places named of old from Persons; as Adam, jos. 3. 16. Abel, 2 Sam. 20. 18. Cain, jos. 15. 57 Sihon. Numb. 21. 34. So Haran, Jabesh, Salmon, ●ahab, Jezreel, Ephraim, etc.  many Instances in Scripture.) This first Murderer was the first Builder, for being haunted and tormented with a guilty Conscience, to divert it he fell a building: and perhaps he did it to environ himself with Walls, to keep himself safe. A City was made a Sanctuary, a Place of Refuge. And as Cain is recorded to be the First Builder before the Flood, so Nimrod was the first after it; for the City and the Tower which he and his Partisans built, are expressly mentioned Gen. 11. 5. And if you would know the chief Materials that these bold Architects made use of in this Work, the 3d Verse will acquaint you, they had Brick for Stone, and Slime had they for Mortar. Which intimates, that they would have made use of Stone to build the Tower, (for Stone was ever of greatest Esteem for that purpose, and the Great men's Houses were built of these, 1 Kings 7. 9, 11. Isa. 9 10. Am. 5. 11.) and would have cemented the building with Mortar, if the Place had afforded either. But it seems it did not, and therefore they used Brick instead of Stone, and a Bituminous Substance which that Soil furnished them with instead of Lime and Sand. Accordingly we are told by several 
3 Ovid, Lucan, Juvenal.  Pagan Writers that the Walls of Babylon were built of Brick: and Pliny and other Authors commend the Bitumen or Asphalt of that Country, a kind of Pitch which was serviceable in making of Cement.  
But besides Examples of Common and Profane Architecture, there are in these Ancient Writings others of a different Nature, which are worthy of the Study of all Curious Enquirers into Ancient Arts. Here is described the Famous Thebah, Gen. 6. 15. etc. the Ark which Noah and his Sons and thei● Assistants built by the particular Direction and Guidance of God himself. There were in this Habitation upon the Waters, this Floating House, three Principal Stories and Floors of an equal Length from one end of the Fabric to the other; in which were peculiar Kinnim, Nests, for that is the Metaphorical Word that is used by the Holy Ghost to express the sundry Mansions, the various Cells, Apartments and Divisions for the convenient lodging of Noah's Family and all sorts of Animals, and their different Foods. This Structure was six times longer than it was broad, and ten times longer than it was high, and so was exactly proportioned to the particular Symmetry of Man's Body at its full Extent: and as to several other things, the Admirable and Singular Contrivance of this Edifice, worthy of its Divine Author, hath been demonstrated by the 
1 Arias Montanus, Buteo, Hostus, Jacobus Capellus, Kir●cher, etc.  Learned. So that we have no cause to wonder at Clemens of Alexandria, when he propounds the Ark (as also the Mosaic Tabernacle, which I will mention next) as 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strom. 1.  an Eminent Exemplar of Geometric Art. Another famous Specimen of Ancient Architecture was the Tabernacle, that Portable Habitation of God, that Vehicle of the Divinity, that Ambulatory House of the Almighty, that Travelling Temple, that Appointed Place of Public Worship for the Israelites, that Visible Pledge of the Divine Presence among them. All the Materials of which, as Gold, Silver, Brass, died Wool, fine Linen, Goat's Hair, Rams and Badgers Skins, Shittim Wood, with all the sacred Utensils belonging to it, and the individual Shape and Formation of every one of them, were by the particular Order, Appointment and Designation of God himself, who extraordinarily inspired Bezaleel and Aholiah with Skill and Art about that Noble Work. Here likewise we have an Account of that most Celebrated Piece of Architecture, Solomon's Temple, wherein every thing is Great, August and Divine, and suitable to its Author. The whole Contrivance is so various, so artificial, that it hath been reckoned by some of the Wisest and most Judicious Men, as the Basis of the whole Art of Building. Villalpandus (who was a Good Judge in the Case) declares that 
1 〈◊〉 Ezekiel▪ Tom. 2. Par▪ ●. Lib. ●.  the whole Architectonick Art, which the Grecians communicated to the Romans, and which Vitruvius' Books present us with, was first derived from the Hebrew Proportions in this Sacred Building, and the Apartments that belong to it. But more especially it is the Idea and Pattern of all Great and Stately Structure whatsoever.  
As to the more ordinary way of Building, it is certain that the general Draught or Scheme of Erecting of Houses, as they are represented in the●● Sacred Writings, hath been taken for the Model of these Dwellings in all Countries ever since. And here I will choose out only one thing to speak of, because it may give Light to several Passages in Scripture. It was the Custom in Palestine to build their Houses flat at top; and they made a● much use of this as of any part of their Habitation. Here they walked, as may be partly gathered from Deut. 22. 8 but it is in express Terms said in 2. Sam. 11. 2 that David walked here in the Evening, the time when he saw the fair Bathsheba. Here they prayed, as is evident from Acts 10. 9 Peter went up upon the Housetop, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Word in the New Testament, that answers to Gag in the Old) to pray about the sixth Hour. For here the Jews had the Convenience of looking towards jerusalem, which they were commanded to do whenever they prayed in a Place distant from it, I Kings 8. 48. and this was St. Peter's Case here, wherefore he went up hither to offer his Prayers. Here they sacrificed sometimes: whence you read of burning Incense on the Roofs of Houses, Jer. 19 13. & 32. 29. and worshipping the Host of Heaven upon the Housetops, Zeph. 1. 5. This was also the place of Public Mourning and Lamenting, as is clearly deducible from jer. 48. 38. And in Isa. 22. 1 to go up to the Housetops, is to make an open Condolance and Lamentation. From these high and eminent Places they were wont to discover any Danger at a Distance; thence you read of the Watchman going up to the Roof, 2 Sam. 18. 24. They used to speak to the People from these Places as fittest for that purpose; whence that Proverbial kind of speaking used by our Saviour, Mat. 10. 27. to preach on the Housetops, is to make a thing known to all, to proclaim it to the World. Here they did eat, and drink, and sleep, especially in the Summer-Evenings; thus David rose from off his Bed, 2 Sam. 11. 2. (the Bed where he had supped, and it is probable had taken a short Nap afterwards) and from hence had his unfortunate Prospect. Again, this was usually among the Jews and other Eastern People, a Place of Employment and Business, of one kind or other: and therefore, by him which is on the Housetop, Mat, 24. 17. is meant, the Man that is about his Business or Work at Home, in contradistinction to the Man employed in the Field, v. 18. Lastly, from what hath been suggested, and from the very Nature of the Place, it must needs be gathered that it was open and exposed to the Sight of the World, and therefore Absalon purposely made choice of this to defile his Father's Concubines in, that it might be in the Sight of all Israel, 2 Sam. 16. 22.  
But then why were the Spies that were sent by joshua into the Land of Canaan lodged here by Rahab? ●os. 2. 4, 6. She brought them up hither to hide them: therefore it seems there was upon this Roof some Place that was private; otherwise she would not have disposed of them here. It might be answered, and that from the Context, that though it was an open Place, yet she knew that the green Stalks of Flax which lay there a drying would sufficiently cover those Persons, and keep them from being seen, especially in the Night-season. But I rather think that the Cunning of this good Woman lay in this, that she carried them up to a Place that was known to be open and frequented, and therefore it could not be imagined that she would, or that she could hide them in the openest Place of her House. Here was the Subtlety of this Female; she knew that 〈◊〉 Body would look for them in that Place, for ther● could not be the least suspicion of their being there: however, she had taken a Course to prevent their being discovered, if the busy Searchers should have had the groundless Curiosity of looking into that Place.  
Further, I might observe, that because Flat-roofed Houses were the way of Building in thos● Countries (and generally in all Asia) there was care taken to fence this Part about, that it might not be dangerous. Among the Jews this was by the particular Injunction of the Divine Architect, Deut. 22. 8. Thou shalt make a Battlement fo● thy Roof. And the reason of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Muru● per circuitum (as the Vulgar Latin renders it) is ad●ded, That thou bring not Blood upon thy House, if any Man fall from thence. The flat Roofs of their Houses were railed in, that none might slip off of them, and hazard their Lives. And here by the by, I may add, that this was the very Structure of the Temple; it was flat at top, and accordingly was encompassed round with a Peribolus, a ●ett of Rails or Battlements: and this we are to understand by the Pinnacle of the Temple, Mat. 4. 5. i e. some Part, Side or Wing (as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports) of the Battlements wherewith the Temple was surrounded at top, lest any ●hould fall down thence. And to confirm this Interpretation, I will produce that Passage of Hege●ippus (quoted by 
1 Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.  Eusebius) who relates that some of the Pharisees, and others of the unbelieving Jews, came and requested james the Just, the Brother of our Lord, and Bishop of jerusalem, to preach at the Passover, when the People came from all Parts to jerusalem: and that he might be both seen and heard of all, they desired him to stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on the Battlement of the Temple: and he further tells that he did so. It was a Place then that they might safely stand upon, otherwise St. james would not have consented to their request. Dr. Hamm●nd thinks this was the Top of the Battlement, and adds that it was broad enough to stand upon: but supposing it was, yet it was unsafe to trust their Feet there, lest they should slip, Therefore I rather think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Matthew, must not be taken as it is in the forementioned Story: in the one it signifies the Top of the Rails or Battlement, a dangerous Place to stand upon, and for that reason the Devil set our Saviour there: but in the other we are to understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Place within the Battlements, for the whole Space encompassed with these had that Denomination. However we are hence informed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Pinnacle or Spire, (for the Jewish Temple had no such thing, though some of our Churches have) but the exterior Circuit, which compassed the Top of the Temple, and was made to be an Ornament to it, as well as to prevent the Danger of falling down. This is the proper Notion of it among Grammarians (as 
1 Annot. on Ma●. 4. 5.  Dr. Hammond hath rightly noted:) and not only the Temple but every House had this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Battlement about it. This is the short Account which I thought fit to insert here of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as the Latins call them Solaria, (because they lay open to the Sun and Air) the Flat Roofs with which the Houses heretofore (especially in the Asiatic Regions) were built. And this is certain that there is not so Early an Account in any Writers whatsoever of the Structure of the Ancient Houses as this of the Sacred Penmen is.   

CHAP. IU.  
The first original of Letters and Writing is recorded here. The several kinds of Materials they wrote upon of Old. The Instruments with which they form their Letters or Characters. The Ancientest (as well as the most Excellent) History is in the Bible. So is the Ancientest and most Admired Poetry. The first Invention and Practice of Music, and on what Occasions it was wont to be made use of. The Rise of Natural Philosophy, and who were the first Founders of it. The Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures necessary in order to the due Study of Natural Philosophy. The first Instances of Anatomy, medics, Chirurgery, Embalming and the Apothecary's Employment, are in the Old Testament. Here are the first Examples of Shipping and Navigation. An Enquiry into the Place whither Solomon's Navy went every three Years: A Conjecture concerning Ophir. Astronomy and Judiciary Astrology mentioned in Scripture Of War and Skill in Arms. The Nature of those Military Weapons which are spoken of in Scripture, particularly and distinctly enquired into. The Antiquity of Martial Ensigns and Standards. The vast Numbers which the Armies of old consisted of. The Scripture is not silent concerning Sportive Diversions and Exercises: some of which, but especially Dancing, are considered.  
FROM Mechanical I proceed to Ingenious Arts and Sciences, or such as are approaching to them; and I am to show that the Sacred History relates the first Rise and Original of these. And what Liberal Art should I begin with but Grammar? what should this part of my Discourse commence with but Letters and Writing? Many have been very inquisitive about the First Author of these: and truly it is worth the Enquiry, it being the Foundation of all Learning in the World. The 
1 Pirk. Avoth. c. 9  Rabbins held that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Writing, and consequently Letters, were created among other things at the close of the sixth Day's Work of the Creation: but few that are sober will give Credit to this. They were found out before the Flood by Seth, ●aith the Jewish Antiquary; for according to 
2 Antiq. I. 1. c. 3.  him there were two Pillars, one of Stone, another of Brick, erected by that Godly Patriarch, on which he caused his Astrological Notions to be written. Afterwards (for we may suppose this Invention lost by the Flood, though the Pillars and Characters on them remained) Abraham retrieved the Art of Writing, yea in manner invented it anew, saith Philo. But there is no Proof at all of what he or josephus saith concerning this Matter, and therefore we may justly question the Truth of both. But supposing that Seth began this Art, and that Abraham improved it, we are certain of this, that Moses came and perfected it, having that mo●t Complete Copy before him to instruct and direct him, the Tables written with the Finger of God, Exod. 31. 18. We read of no Writing in Scripture till this writing or engraving the Law on the Two Tables, which is called in another Place the Writing of God, Deut. 32. 16. There is no mention, I say, of any such thing before: wherefore it is likely God was the First Inventor of Letters or Writing, and that Moses learned it of him, and communicated it to the Jews, from whom other Eastern People received it, and so Letters were imparted to the rest of the World. Eupolemus and Artapanus, two very Ancient Historians quoted by 
1 Strom. I. 1.  Clement of Alexandria, were of this Opinion, and asserted, that Letters had their original from Moses. This is favoured by Clement himself, by 
2 De Praepar. Evang. l. 9  Eusebius, by 
3 Lib. 7. cont. Julian.  Cyril of Alexandria: and 
4 De Civ. Dei, l. 18.  St. Augustin inclines to it.  
And this is confirmed from that general report of the Pagans, that from the Phoenicians all Letters were derived. Particularly concerning the Greeks, Herodotus and Plutarch testify, that they recorded the Letters of their Alphabet from the Phoenicians, and that therefore they were called 
5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plutarch. Sympos. l▪ 9 quaest. 3▪  the Phoenician Letters. Yea, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and by itself is, according to Hesychius, as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Lydians and jonians. 
6 Lib. 3.  Lucan makes the Phoenicians the first Inventors of Letters, 
Phoenices primi, famae si creditur, ausi  
Mansuram rudibus vocem signare figuris.  Now, when these are said to have first found out Letters, and when these Letters are signally styled Phoenician, it is as much as if they had called them Hebrew Letters, (so named from that Famous▪ Hebrew Moses, and the People of that Denomination) for it is acknowledged by all the Learned, that Phoenicians and Hebrews are ●●e same in several Authors. The old Distinction was this, 

1 Dionys. P●ri●g.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That is, those of Syria that inhabited the Continent had the name of Syrians, but those that bordered 〈◊〉 the Maritime Coasts, were called Phoenicians, w●● were the same with the Canaanites. When w● find Pliny professing, 
2 Nat. Hist. I. 7. c. 56.  Literas semper arbitror Assyri●● fuisse, we cannot but know that by Assyrian the Country of the Patriarches, and even the jewish Nuntion are pointed at. When therefore he saith he is of Opinion, and always was, that Lette●● were first of all Assyrian, it is certain that he co●●firms what I am now suggesting. And when th● Gentile Historians tell us that the Invention 〈◊〉 Letters was from Cadmus, it is to our present Purpose, to observe who this Cadmus was. He 〈◊〉 said to be a Tyrian or Phoenician, whence h● hath the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Syrophoeni●cian Traffiker, given him in Lucian's Council of th● Gods. This was he that brought the use of Letters to the Greeks: which shows that the Origininal of them was from Canaan, from the Hebrews who were styled Phoenicians. Besides, that the Greek Alphabet was taken from the Hebrew, not only the Names but the Order and Figure of most of the Letters do plainly show. And when it is said by Plato, Diodorus Siculus, Tully and others, that Mercurius and Thoth (who were the same Person) were the Inventors of Letters and Erudition, Moses is meant, for he is the true Mercurius, as I have had occasion to prove by very convincing Arguments in another Place. This seems to be referred to in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Muses, who are the celebrated Authors of Learning and all Ingenious Arts; for 
1 In Cratylo.  Plato (who was the greatest Searcher into Antiquity of all the Philosophers) acknowledgeth that this Word is borrowed from the Barbarians: and 'tis well known who are the Barbarians with the Greeks, viz. the Hebrews; which makes me think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Corruption of Moses, and that what is said of the Muses is to be understood of him, and consequently that he was the First Inventor of Letters and of Learning. Hence it is that the same Divine Philosopher in another Place expressly testifies, that 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Greeks received their Names and Letters from the Barbarians, who were elder than they. Lastly, I will mention that Notable Passage in 
3 De Isid. & Osir.  Plutarch, who speaking of the Egyptians saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they think that Hermes was the Inventor of Grammar: where by Grammar is meant all Good Letters, and by Hermes we are to understand Moses, who (as hath been said already) is universally owned to be the Ancient Hermes. To this Excellent Man it pleased God to reveal the Art of Writing, setting him an Illustrious Copy upon the two Tables with his own Hand; so that next unto God himself he was the first Inventor of Letters, or Written Characters: He who, when an Infant, was wrapped up in the Egyptian Papyrus, (as you shall hear afterwards) was most congruously the Principal Author of Writing on it, and adorning that and other Materials with Letters. The first Penman and Writer of the Bible had the Glory of this Discovery, viz. to be the first Author of Writing.  
These Sacred Records acquaint us also what were the First Ways of Writing or making Letters. They let us know what Materials they of old wrote upon, and what Instruments they wrote with. Here we learn that the first way of Writing was Sculpture or Carving, i. e. they cut their Letters in Sto●● or Wood, or some other hard and solid Matter. We read that Moses, or rather God himself, 〈◊〉 graved his Laws on Stone, Exod. 34. 1. Deut. 〈◊〉 and the People were commanded afterwards to write these very Laws after the same manner, Deut. 27. 3, 8. This is the First and Antient●● Way of Writing that we read of. Stones were their Books of old. On these they engraved the Characters which they had learned. The Egypti●●● did thus, saith 
1 De Myst. Egypt. I. 1. c. 2.  jamblichus, before their Invent●●● of Paper. The Babylonians writ their Laws 〈◊〉 stony sort of Substance, saith 
2 Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. ●6.  Pliny. Of such 〈◊〉 of Writing speaks 
3 〈◊〉 ●raniâ.  Herodotus. And all the 〈◊〉 Marble Monuments which Rome affords, and ar●●● this Day to be seen, witness the Antiquity of 〈◊〉 Engraving. On Wood and Trees it was usual to carve their Letters of old: Thus they writ the Names of the Tribes on twelve Rods, Numb. 17. ●. and Ezekiel was bid to write upon Sticks, sma●● Pieces of Wood, Ezek. 37. 16. Writing on a Table, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the LXX, super bu●●● according to the Vulgar Latin, Isa. 30. 8. may refer to this, I suppose. This Writing in Wood was not unusual among some of the Gentiles: So Shepherds and Lovers used to cut their Names on the Barks of Trees of old. This is called 

4 Virgil. Eclog. I0. — Teeneris incidere amores  
Arboribus—  Some of the old Roman Laws were written in 
5 Dionys. Halicar. 1. 3.  Tables of Oak: and from sufficient Testimonies in Authors it might be proved that they cut Letters in Wooden Tables, i. e. thin Slices of Wood, which were called Codices. But afterwards it was the Custom to cover these Tables with Wax, and so to cut their Characters on it: of which sort it is probable was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Writing-Table that Zacharias called for, Luke 1. 63. These Waxen Board's were in use in the time of the Trojan War, as appears from Homer, Il. 6. And that they were frequent among the Romans and others, is attested by 
6 Epist. l. 7, 27.  Pliny, 
7 Instit. l. 10. c. 3.  Quintilian, 
8 In Curcul.  Plautus, Martial, and most of the Latin Writers. Of engraving Letters in Gold there is an early Instance in Exod. 39 30. where we are told that Holiness to the Lord was written on a Golden Plate, and worn on the High Priest's Head. So 
9 Lib. 44.  Dio relates that they anciently made Letters in Gold, and wrote in Silver. The drawing of legible Characters on Lead, i. e. thin Leaves of that Metal, is recorded in job 19 24. of which there were afterwards Examples in Pagan Writers, as in 
1 In ●●otic.  Pausanias, who tell us, that Hesiod's Poems were thus written. And Public Records and Decrees, saith 
2 Plumbeis voluminibus monumenta publica fieri c●●pta sunt. N. Hist. ●. 13. c. 11.  the other Pliny, were wont to be transcribed into these Sheets of Lead, because they were accounted Lasting and Durable For the same Reason the Twelve Tables of the Ol● Roman Laws that were fixed up in public were written on Plates of Brass, as a great Number of good Latin Authors testify. And ●ome, to preserve what they writ, imprinted Characters on Slices of ivory, thence called Libri Elephantini in Tacitus and Flavius Vopiscus. Thus Sculpture was one ancient way of Writing among Men, of whi●● the First Instances are to be found in the Holy Scripture. And I doubt not but A●oliab, who w●● the Chief Master of 
3 Exod. 38. 23.  Engraving (and that by the particular Inspiration of Heaven) was the fi●●● Improver of this sort of Letters. This was 〈◊〉 Primitive Writing of Mankind: the First Lett●●● were cut and engraven, which indeed may be fou●● in the very Word; for to grave is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is thence derived without doubt.  
As hither to we have seen by Help of the Sacr●● Records that Sculpture or E●●r●tion was the ancientest sort of Characters, so These likewise in●o● us that Painting was the next, i. e. that Lett●●● were generally drawn and portrayed in some bla●● or ●able kind of colouring. And to this end, i●●stead of those Hard Materials which were mad● use of in writing before, there were others afterwards found out of a more tractable Nature. The Scripture doth not mention those that were 〈◊〉 seldom and little used, as Leav●s of Trees, espe●●●ally 
4 In palmarum foliis primùm scriptita●●● Plin. l. 13. c. 11.  Palms, which was the way ●f the 
5 Virgil. Aen. 3. Juvenal. Sat. ●.  Si●●● transmitting some of their Verses. And that of old they wrote sometimes on Leaves not only of Trees but Flowers, is more than once witnessed by Virgil and Ovid. Still to this Day we seem to retain the Memory of this ancient way of Writing when we say a Leaf of Paper, and Books in Folio. Nor are the thin Coats or Rinds which were between the Bark and Body of Trees, and were used in Writing of old, (as 
6 Cic. 2. ad Quint. fratr. Plin. I. 13. c. 11. Alexander ab Alexand. Gen. dier. I. 2. c. 30.  several relate) and from whence came the Name of Liber at first, mentioned by the Holy Writers, because their Use continued but a little time, and they were of little Service. Much less is there any thing said of writing in Linen, (which yet 
7 Lib. 4. dec. 1.  Livy, 
8 Lib. 18. c. 11.  Pliny, 
9 In Antonino.  Vopiscus, and others, take notice of) because this was used among the Indians and such remote People as the Sacred History had no occasion to speak of. But those Materials for writing which were of constant Use, and that among most Nations, as Papyr and Parchment, are either expressly mentioned or tacitly referred to. The former was made of broad Rushes and Flags, which grew in great abundance in Egypt: of which the Prophet Isaiah foretelling the Confusion of that Country speaketh, ch. 19 v. 6, 7. The Reeds and Flags shall wither: the Paper-Reeds by the Brooks shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. The Gnaroth, the Materials for Writing, which were so celebrated all the World over, and which were the peculiar Commodity of Egypt, and which brought in so great Revenues to that Nation, these, even these shall decay, the Traffic of them shall cease. Yea, when 'tis said that Moses was laid in an Ark of Bulrushes, Exod. 2. 3. a 
1 Grotius in loc.  Great Critic tells us, that the Papyrus is meant here; and for this he quotes 
2 Lib. 4.  Lucan, Conseritur bibulâ Memphitis cymba papyro. And before him St. jerom (the most Critical of all the Fathers) thought the Egyptian Rushes, of which the first Paper was made, are to be understood in this Place, and therefore Gome (which is the Word here used) is rendered by him Papyrus. And he it is likely had this from 
3 Antiq. l. 2. c. 5.  Iosep●us, who acquaints us that the Ark in which Moses was secured, was made of this great Flag growing on the Banks of Nile, of which they made Leaves to write on, and whence our Paper at this Day hath its Name. It was divided into thin Flakes, which were pressed and dried in the Sun, and so were made serviceable to write upon in some tolerable manner. Of this 
4 Papyrus est planta nasce●● in palustribus Aegypti, aut quiesc●ntibus Nili aquis. Lib. 23. c. 11.  Pliny and several other Writers speak; and thence Nile is called Papyriferus by 
5 Metamorph. l. 15.  Ovid.  
Parchment, which was made of Sheep Skins, or the thinner Skins of other Animals dressed, was another thing they writ upon. The best of this sort was made at Pergamus, and thence had its Name Pergamena but it was invented before Attalus King of Peragamus his time, (though the contrary hath been believed by some Men) and was in use at the same time that the Egyptian Papyrus was; only this was used for common Purposes, and the other for more choice Writing, and such as they designed should last a long time. Therefore it is most probable that the Books of the Mosaic Law, and the rest of the Old Testament, were transcribed into this. Moses writ the Words of the Law, gnal sepher, upon a Book, Deut. 31. 24. i e. on Parchment, saith jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast on the place; for so he and other Learned Jews understood the Text. This is meant by Megillah a Roll, Ezra 6. 2. and Megillah sepher a Roll of a Book, Jer. 36. 2. and Gillaion a Roll, Isa. 8. 1. and a Scroll rolled together, Isa. 34. 4. for it was Parchment (which is of some Consistency) not thin and weak Paper, that was capable of being thus rolled up. To this 
6 In Terpsichore.  Herodotus refers when he saith that writing on Skins was used by the Barbarians, meaning the Eastern People, especially the jews. And 
7 Antiq. l. 12. C. 2.  Iosep●us avoucheth that the Books of the Old Testament were written in Sheets of Parchment exactly joined and fastened together, of which Testimony of his I have spoken in another Place. It is the general Opinion of Interpreters, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are meant Writing- Parchments, 2 Tim. 4. 13. but I have heretofore proposed another Sense of that Word, and therefore I make no use of this Place here. It is likely that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Scroll rolled together, Rev. 6. 14. refers to this. And though I will not aver that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which our Translators render Paper) 2 joh. v. 12. is to be understood Parchment, yet it is not wholly improbable, for this was the usual Word to signify any thing that they writ upon, whether Egyptian Reeds, or Leaves of Lead, or Gold, or Stone, or Wood, or any of the other writing Materials before specified. The Matter, whatever it was, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Charta, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (and this from the Hebrew Charath seulpsit, exaravit) for this was a general Term, and signified any thing that had Characters engraven or written upon it.  
But the Scripture hath not only taken notice of the Materials on which they wrote of old, but of the Instruments with which they formed their Letters on them. I mean here such as were of common Use, and therefore we must not expect that it should say any thing of the Rubrica, (mentioned by 
8 Sa●. 5.  Persius and others) which served sometimes instead of Pen and Ink. With this they writ o● rather marked their Titles of Books; whence that of 
9 Sa●. 14.  juvenal, 
— P●rlege rubras  
Majorum leges—.  At other times they made use of Chalk, and of Coal, both which are mentioned by 
1 Sa●. 5.  Persius, Illa prius cretà, mox b●●c carbone notasti. But these were used only on special Occasions, and were not the ordinary manner of Writing, therefore 'tis no wonder that the Bible is wholly silent a● to this. But it mentions the Writing Instruments that were of common Use; as first those which were peculiar to the Harder Materials, those wherewith they made Incision into Stone, Wood, etc. Accordingly it tells us, that they used an Iron Pen or Style, and therewith cut what Characters they thought fit in them. Of this we have mention in job 19 24. where that holy Man wishes that his Complaints were written down and recorded, that future Ages might take notice of them; which Moses, or some other Inspired Person who digested and compiled this Book, thus expresset●, O that my Words were engraven with an Iron Pen and Led, with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Seventy) made of Iron, and with Lead, plumbi laminâ, (as the Vulgar Latin) a thin Sheet or Plate of Lead, on which they engraved Letters with this Iron Pen. And in the next Clause of this Verse he wisheth yet further, that his Words might be written in the Rock, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as the LXX render it) ut sculpantur in silice, the Vulgar Latin following the Septuagint, as it generally doth every where; which refers to the ancient manner of writing in those Days, which was by Engraving of Letters not only on Leaden Tables, but on Stone and Flint, with Iron Pens or Bodkins. These were the first Instruments used in writing in the World. And when jeremiah saith, 
2 Jer. 17. 1.  The Sin of Judah is written with a Pen of Iron, and graven upon the Table of their Hearts, it is an Allusion to this Practice: though here another Word is used, viz. Cheret (from Charath, sculpsit, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which is a graving Tool, and so is rendered, Exod. 32. 4. With this they made the Letters on Wood and Stone, and such like hard Substance, and in Wax-Tables.  
Next, the Scripture takes notice of the ancient Instrument which was proper to the other way of writing, viz. upon the softer Materials, as the Papyrus and Parchment. This is called Shebet (which Word in other Places is rendered a Sceptre): We read that the Tribe of Zebulon afforded some that handled the Pen of the Writer, Judg. 5. I4. such as were dexterous at this Instrument, such as knew how to wield this Shebet, this Writing-Scepter, with Art and Skill. In other Places it hath the same Names that were given to the Engraving Pen: thus it is styled Cheret, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Septuagint) Isa. 8. 1. the Pen of a Man, i. e. such a Pen as Men usually writ with in those Days when they wrote upon any soft and yielding Matter, and that was a Reed: which is confirmed to us by jer. 8. 8. where Gnet, the Pen of the Scribes, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Interpreters. And in Psal. 45. 1. where it is again called Gnet, the Pen of a ready Writer, the same Interpreters render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Vulgar Latin Calamus, which is the Word used by Martial and others for the Egyptian Reed, Which was the Writing Pen in their time; 
1 M●rt. Epigr. 38. lib. 14.  Dat chartis habiles calamos Memphitica tellus. And Aquila, a Learned Jew, who knew the genuine Meaning of the Hebrew Word in this Place, renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. juncus, arundo aquatica, wherewith they anciently writ. It appears then that Egypt afforded both Paper and Pens; the former was of that Rushy Plant before described, the latter were of a Reed growing in the same Place, viz. about the River Nile and the fenny Parts of Egypt, which being dried and hardened, and conveniently shaped, was the usual Instrument of writing before the Invention of Quills, It was so made, that it would contain and convey in it a black sort of Liquor, (which answers to our Ink which we use at this Day) into which they used to dip it. To this ancient writing with Ink or such like dark Substance some have thought Ezek. 9 2. hath reference, where we read of the Writers Inkhorn; but though the Hebrew Word be rendered Atramentarium by the Vulgar Latin, yet in its Original Signification it hath no reference to that particular thing, but may be translated a Pen-case, or a Writing-Table, as well as an Inkhorn. From the bare Sound of the English Word we cannot infer the thing itself. We may as well affirm the Art of Printing was found out and practised in Iob's Days, because he wisheth that his Words were printed in a Book, Job 19 23. But there is a Place to our purpose, and that is jer. 36. 18. I wrote them (i. e. the Words which jeremy spoke) with Ink in a Book. The Ancient way of writing appears from what Baruch here saith, that he wrote Ieremiah's Prophecy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atramento, which was the black and inky Matter (whatever it was) that was laid on by his Pen in writing. This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 2 Cor. 3. 3 2 Ep. john v. 12. and again 3 Epist. v. 13. where it is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which shows what was at that time the way of writing, viz. with Reed-Pens dipped in Ink, which (as we are told by Pliny and Persius) was variously prepared. The Greeks and Romans made it of Soot, saith the 
1 Nat. Hist. I. 35. c. 5.  former of these Writers: and from him and 
2 Sat. 3.  Persius we learn that the Africans used the dark Excrementitious Humour which the Sepia afforded them: and other black Juices served for Ink in other Countries. Thus the most Ancient as well as the most Authentic Memoirs concerning Letters and the Manner of Writing are in the Books of the Holy Penmen. Thus the Foundation of all Grammar, and the Root of all Learning is laid here.  
Next unto Grammar I might mention History, the first Father of which was Moses, whose Writings begin the Bible. All that I will say of him under this present Character is this, that we are solely indebted to him for our Knowledge of the Transactions of the First Ages of the World. As he wrote before all other Historians, so he gives us an Account of those things which none besides doth; wherefore his Books are the Key of all History. To him are added Others, who are not only of admired Antiquity, but aught to be prized as much for the Admirable and Various Matter they communicate. Here are Excellent Historical Passages of all sorts, Religious and Civil, Sacred and Profane, Foreign and Domestic, relating to Politics and Economics, to Public and Private Affairs. Yea, the 
1 Arcana Historiae.  Title of Procopius' History belongs only and properly to these Sacred Chronicles, for here the Secrets and Depths of all Ancient Occurrences are contained, and here are those Choice Materials which no other Histories furnish us with. But I should be endless if I should enlarge here by particularising; therefore I will not launch out, but only commend to the Reader the Learned Endeavours of Strigelius in his Commentaries on the Books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, where he will be amply convinced of the unparallelled Diversity, Multiplicity, and Peculiar Excellency of the Historical Examples in Scripture.  
The Ancientest Poetry is in the Old Testament: for as Moses was the first Historian, so he is the first Poet that is extant. A Proof of this we have in that Eucharistick Song which he composed upon his passing the Red Sea, and is recorded in Exod. 15. An Admirable Hymn it is, and in Hexameter Verse, if 
2 Antiq. l. 2. c. 14.  josephus may be Judge in this Matter, and if a Christian Father may be credited, who had more Hebrew than most of the Writers of the Church in his time, yea more than all of them except Origen. But whether this be true or no, this is without Controversy, that there is no Piece of Poetry in the World that hath the Priority of this of Moses: for Orpheus, who is reckoned by the Pagans as the First Poet, was, according to the most favourable Computation of some of their Historians, three hundred Years after Moses, and Homer was towards six hundred. Besides this Divine Hymn, there are other Ancient ones of the like nature recorded in the same Authentic Writings, viz. Deborah's Song, judg. 5. which hath many Noble Flights of Poetry; and that of Hannah; the Mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. 2. 1, etc. which hath Excellent Poetic Raptures. And here by the way I will offer this Conjecture, that perhaps from Miriam's bearing her part in Moses' Song, (Exod. 15● 20, 21.) and from these other women's Poetic Inspiration, which came to be celebrated among the neighbouring Nations, the Poets (who, as I have largely showed elsewhere, have frequent References to the Old Testament) took occasion to report that Poetry was of Female Extraction, and that Calliope, one of that Sex, was the Author of their Faculty. Other famous Instances there are here of this Sacred Art, as David's Incomparable Elegy on the Death of Saul and jonathan, 2 Sam. 1. 16, etc. that Gratulatory Hymn in the 12th Chapter of Isaiah; Hezekiah's Song of Praise in the 38th of the same Prophet; Habakkuk's Lofty Description of the Divine Majesty and Greatness in Poetic Numbers, chap. 3. the Style of which is far more sublime and majestic than any of Orpheus or Pindar's Odes. I appeal to any Man of Skill, and that hath a right Poetic Genius, whether this be not true. And as there are these single Hymns and Songs, so there are Just Poems, for of the Books of the Old Testament there are six that are composed and writ in Verse, viz. the Books of job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations. As to the Nature of the Hebrew Poesy, and the Kind's of Verses which are in the Bible, the Learned 
1 Quaest in cap. 4. Gen. v. 21.  Mersennus and others have given us some Account of them, but it is very short and mean, and much of it is mere Surmise, and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it. A late Writer hath attempted to prove that the Hebrew Verse or Poetry of the Old Testament is in Rhythm; which I believe is true in many Places: and if the Pronunciation and Sound were the very same now that they were when these Poetic Books were composed, we should observe the Cadence in them more frequently. But he goes too far in asserting that all the Hebrew Poesy in Scripture is Rhythmed, for they were not so exact at first: though the Verses end with the same Sound sometimes, yet generally they took a Liberty. Upon Examination we may find this to be true, and I may have occasion to say something further of it when I come to speak particularly of the Psalms. But the other Assertion, viz. that the Psalms and other Pieces of Hebrew Poetry are always Rhythmical, necessarily infers a great many Faults and Mistakes in the Scripture, it supposes several Places to be corrupted and mangled, (for we do not find all the Poetry of the Bible to be such at this day) and consequently subverts the Truth and Authority of the Bible, which is by no means to be allowed of. All that I will add under this Head is, that even among the Gentiles, the first and ancientest Writers, were Poets. 
2 Geogr. l. 1▪  Strabo undertakes to show that Poetry was before Prose, and that this is but an Imitation of that. It can't be denied that the First Philosophers writ in Verse, as Orpheus, parmenides, Empedocles, Theognis, Phocylides, etc. and thence (as 
1 Bishop Stillingfleet Origin. Sacr.  One of the Learnedest Men of our Age observes) the Moral Precepts of the Philosophers were called of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Carmina. The Grecian Oracles were delivered in Verse. Concerning the Agathyrsi we are told by Aristotle, that their Laws were all in Metre. Concerning the Old Germans, Tacitus relates that their very Records and Annals were in Verse. And all this, it is probable, was in Emulation of the First Sacred Writers, the Penmen of the Old Testament, in whose Writings there are several things dictated in Measure, and some entire Books are altogether Metrical; for it was the Design of the Holy Ghost to delight as well as profit.  
With Poetry let us join Music, it being of so near Affinity with it: and the First Inventor of this also is to be known only from the Scripture; which informs us, that jubal, the Son of Lamech the sixth from Adam, was the Father of such as handle the Harp and Organ, Gen. 4. 21. From whose Name some have thought the jubilee was called, because it was proclaimed with Music. The poets tell us, that Apollo and Mercury were the first Authors of it, by whom it is not improbable they meant Moses, who first gives an Account of the Original of this Art, and might well be represented by Apollo because of his Singular Wisdom, and by Mercury because he was the First Interpreter of the Divine Will in his Writings, and on other Accounts merited that Name, as I have evidenced in another Place. Perhaps the Story of Pythagoras' finding our Musical Notes from the Strokes of the Hammers upon the Smith's Anvil, was suggested from this, that the first Musical Instruments were made of Iron and Brass, the Metals of the Smith and Brasier. Or, if I should guess it a downright Mistake of Tu●al for jubal, (Sons of the same Father) a Smith for a Musician, or that it was suggested from the Music of their Name● (Tu●al and jubal having some affinity in the Sound) it would be hard to disprove it. But that which is certain is this, that as the First Inventors' o● other things are recorded in Scripture, so particularly is he that found out Music; and by the Harp and the Organ all other Musical Instruments are meant, whether Pulsative or Pneumatick. And it is not improbable that the same Person was the Author of Vocal Music, it being so natural and usual to join this with the other.  
These Inspired Writings are the first that te●● us on what Occasions these several forts of Mu●●● were used of old: as namely, first in a Religious Way. Harmony both Vocal and Instrumental was primitively consecrated to God, as we learn from Exod. 15. where 'tis said that they not only sang unto the Lord, v. 1. and that Alternately, (for Miriam ans●ored them, viz. the Persons that ●ung before: she repeated their Song, ●. 21. which s●ews the Antiquity of that Alternate way of Singing) but they made use of Timbrels, v. 20. And afterwards in David's Reign it more solemnly became a Religious Exercise, he so often making use of it in his own personal and private Devotions. For he was not only an Excellent Poet, and composed psalms and Hymns, (which by the by shows that Poetry is an Accomplishment worthy of a Prince, yea of a Saint) but he played with great Skill on Musical Instruments. Hence he mentions his Harp and other Instruments often in his Book of Psalms. And it appears from what we read in 1 Sam. 16. 19 that he was initiated into this Art betimes, and was very Eminent in it when he was a Young Man, otherwise he would not have been sent for to Court. But he not only made and played his Psalms, but he sung them, and was so famous for it, that he is by way of Eminency, styled 
1 a Sam. 23. 1.  the Sweet Psalmist, or Singer of Israel. Nor was Music his own Entertainment only, but it was by him constituted a part of the Public Worship. He being Poetical and Musical, indicted Hymns, and his skilful Musicians 
2 1 Chron. 25.  set them to grave and serious Tunes, and then they were devoted to the Church, and do still remain Patterns of Devotion, and so shall to all Ages. To the Religious Use of Music both of Voice and Instrument, those words in Psal. 68 25. refer; The Singers (Sharim, the Princes or Chief Masters of Singing) ●ent before, the Nogenim, the players on Instruments followed after: amongst them (or in the middle of them, according to the Hebrew, viz. between the Singing-men and Players) were the Damsels playing with Timbrels. So that both Sexes were wont to join in consort at the joyful bringing forth and procession of the Ark, which are here meant, and called the goings of God in the Sanctuary, v. 24. To this belongs 
2 Chron. 5. 12, 13.  Sam. 6. 5. David and all the House of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of Instruments, viz. at the removal of the Ark. And those Musical Instruments are particularly and distinctly mentioned in the next Words, Harps, Psalteries, Timbrels, Cornets, Cymbals. Afterwards, in Solomon's time when the Temple was erected, and Singing-men and divers Orders and Degrees of Musicians were appointed, some being Masters, others Scholars and Candidates, (as we may inform ourselves from 1 Chron. 15. 22. & 25. 7. Ne●. 12. 46.) Music was a considerable Part of Divine Service. And there was not only Singing of Psalms, but playing upon Instruments, of which some were 
1 Psal. 4. 1.  Neginoth, such as yielded a Sound by touch or stroke, others were 
2 Psal. 5. 1.  Nechiloth Wind-Instruments. This was the pompous Service of the Jewish Church, this was the Temple-Musick, which began not (as Dr. Lightfoot thinks) till the pouring out of the Drink-Offering, when the Cup of Salvation (as the Psalmist calls it) went about. And here also it might be observed, that the Religious and Prophetic Raptures of holy Men were attended with, and promoted by Music: thus a company of Prophets came down from the high Place (where they had been worshipping) with a psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and Harp before them, 1 Sam. 10. 5. praising God with Songs which the Holy Spirit dictated to them. Thus the famous Prophet Elisha called for a Minstrel, and when the Minstrel played, the Hand of the Lord came upon him, 2 Kings 3. 15. i e. he was stirred up thereby to undertake and accomplish great things for the Glory of God, of which you read in the ensuing Verses. It is no wonder therefore that Music was thought to be Divine, that it was (as Plato faith of it) the Invention 
3 De Leg. Lib. 2●  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though he spoke this of the Egyptian Music, yet all the Learned know that the Pagan Writers commonly call that Egyptian which is Hebrew, for they were wont to take the jews for Natives of Egypt: and then it is not to be doubted that the Sacred Use and Improvement of Music among the jews was referred to by this Philosopher. Thus Music was first dedicated to Religion and Divine Worship.  
But we read that upon other Occasions also it was made use of, viz. at all solemn times of Rejoicing. Hence Laban complimented jacob after this Manner, that if he had known of his Intentions of going away from him, he would have sent him away with Mirth and with Songs, with Tabret and with Harp, Gen. 31. 27. It seems this was the Ancient Entertainment at their Farewells. And the same was used at all great Festivals, the Harp and the Viol, the Tabret and Pipe (as well as Wine) are in their Feasts, Isa. 5. 12. They chant to the sound of the Viol, Am. 6. 5. And therefore to express the Cessation of these Feasts, it is said, the Mirth of Tabrets ceaseth, the joy of the Harp ceaseth, Isa. 24. 8. Yea, at the most Innocent Festivals this was not thought unlawful, as may be gathered from Luk. 15. 25. where at the solemn Eating and Drinking which were occasioned by the prodigal Son's return, there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Consort of many Voices and Instruments, as the Word properly imports. This (as multitudes of Authors acquaint us) was the general Usage among the old Greeks and Romans. And what if I should ●ay that this is meant by 
1 Odyss▪ r.  Homer's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? (Whence perhaps the Word Anthems) for Music was on● of the constant Attendants at their Feasts. This likewise was the manner of expressing their Mirth at Tidings of Victory, and the Triumphal Return of Generals and Captains: thus Iephthah's Daughter came out to meet him with Timbrels, Judg. 11. 34. When David and Saul returned from the Slaughter of the Philistines, the Women came out of all Cities of Israel singing and dancing, to meet them, with Tabrets, with joy, and with Instruments of Music●, 1 Sam. 18. 6. And 'tis added in the next Verse, The Women answered one another as they played: which is another Instance of Alternate Singing. This was the Custom at the Coronation of Kings, 2 Chron. 23. 13. All the People of the Land rejoiced, and ●ounded with Trumpets, also the Singers with Instruments of Music. And at all other Seasons of Mirth this was the wont Diversion and Entertainment. Yea, it was used on special Occasions to expel Melancholy, and to free Men of their Distempers both of Body and Mind: otherwise they would not have sought out a Man that was a cunning Player on a Harp, to allay the evil Spirit with which King Saul was troubled, 1 Sam. 16. 16. And we read how effectual this proved, ver. 23. It came to pass when the evil Spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a Harp, and played with his Hand: so Saul was refreshed and was well, and the evil Spirit departed from him. So powerful and charming are the Cheerful Airs of Music. Conformably to which we find in Pagan Story that Discases and Madness have been cured by these: so that Apollo was deservedly made by the Ancient Sages the God of medics as well as Music. By which Fiction they acquaint us that this Art is Medicinal and Healing. This reminds me of what our Chronicles attest, that St. Bartholomew's Hospital was founded by a Minstrel. How congruously do the Musical and Sanative Art meet together? Who hath not heard of the strange and wonderful Virtue of Harmony? Timotheus did what he would with Alexander the Great by playing on his Harp: he had such a Command over him by those powerful Strokes, that he could make him Fight or Drink, hasten to War or Banquets as he pleased. And not only Men, but Brutes have been capable of this Charm: several wild Beasts are catched, and Birds are enticed to the Net with Music. Nay we are told by the Poetic Tribe, that Senseless and Inanimate Creatures have felt the Force of it: which indeed is Romantic if you take it literally, but the intended Design of this Flourish was to express to us the Wonderful and Astonishing Virtue of this Delightful Art. Hence it is that the Noblest Minds have not disdained to be acquainted with it, the most serious Brains have been entertained and ravished with its agreeable Pleasures: so Plutarch reports of Plato; and concerning Socrates we are informed by another that even 
1 Socrates jam senex institui lyra non erubescebat. Quintil.  in his declining Years he was a Student and Practitioner in this Art. Lastly, Music was made use of of old at Funerals, of which afterwards.  
Again, The Rise of Philosophy (Which is so useful to Mankind) and the best Grounds of it are learned from this Divine Volume. Here we are told that Natural Philosophy was founded by Adam; for no less is comprehended in those words, Gen. 2. 19, 20. The Lord God brought every Beast of the Field, and every Fo●l of the Air unto Adam, to see what he ●ould call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living Creature, that was the Name thereof. And Adam gave Names to all cattle, and to the Fowl of the Air, and to every Beast of the Field. And 'tis reasonable to believe that he also gave Names to Plants, Trees, Herbs, and all Celestial and Terrestrial Creatures. Now, it is not to be questioned that their Names were bestowed upon them according to their particular Nature; for this Great Nomenclator was created perfect by God, and endued with the Knowledge of all natural and divine Things, and therefore in fixing certain Names on them, he thereby signified their peculiar natural Qualities. And that he really did so, is manifest from his giving a Name to his Female Companion; as soon as God brought her to him, he presently knew her by virtue of that excellent Instinct and Knowledge wherewith he was created, and said, This is now Bone of my Bones, and Flesh of my Flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man, Gen. 2. 23. We see here that the Name Ishah or Woman was imposed according to the nature and condition of the Person: and can any Man of deliberate Thoughts imagine that the same was not done in the naming of the Inferior Creatures? No certainly; especially if we take notice of the like manner of expressing this and the other Imposition of Names: for as 'tis said here, God brought the Woman to the Man, v. 22. whereupon he gave her her Denomination, so in the foregoing place it is said, God brought the Creatures unto Adam, viz. in order to their receiving their Names from him. Nay, this very thing is particularly expressed in that forecited Text, which speaks of this Action of Adam, (though Expositors are not pleased to take notice of it) God brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them. Where to see refers not to God (as generally Interpreters think) but to Adam. The Creatures were brought on purpose that he might see, i. e. that he might know by looking on them what their Nature was, and that accordingly he might know how to give Names to them. For it is not reasonable to think that this is spoken of God, as if he himself would see or know, etc. for this would argue imperfection in him, and would imply that he knew not at that time what they were to be called, or at lest what Adam would call them. Therefore this Interpretation which I give of the Words is rather to be embraced than the other. We are acquainted here with the End and Purpose for which all Living Things were summoned to appear before Adam, viz. that he might give them Names which denoted their Nature. Accordingly some of them that we meet with in Scripture give an Account of the Qualities they are endued with. And though it is true that some of them signify only their Outward and Visible Qualities, yet we are to remember that it was not easy to discover even These at the first View of the Creatures, and therefore Man's Sagacity was tried by it. And besides, the Primitive Significations of many Names (as all the Learned acknowledge) are lost, and by length of time are forgot; so that though some of these Words whereby Animals are expressed, seem not to set forth their Internal Nature and Disposition, yet we cannot thence peremptorily infer that they did not so at first, yea that they do not so now, though we do not comprehend it by reason of our being unacquainted with the Original Derivations of Words. I conclude then, that the Creatures were brought to Adam to give him an early Opportunity of exerting his Knowledge and Wisdom in fitly distinguishing the several sorts of Creatures by their particular Names: and accordingly, whatever he ●all'd them, that was their Name. Thus it is clear that this Nomenclatorship of Adam is a certain Argument of the Insight which he had into the Natures of these Animals: and all the jewish Rabbins and Commentators on the Place acknowledge as much. And thence is that Observation of 
1 In Cratylo.  Plato, that there is something extraordinary and Divine in the Ancient Names of things: they arose from a more than humane Power, he saith. It is not to be doubted then that Adam was the First Philosopher, and laid the Foundation of all Philosophic Notions. Next to him I will mention Moses, who (as I have partly showed already, and shall more fully afterwards, when I present the Reader with a Particular Comment on the first Chapter of Genesis) was well skilled in the true Principles of Nature, and perfectly understood the Right System of the World. It is said of this Great Man that he was learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7. 22. which comprehends not only Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, all Parts of Mathematics, Physics, of all which there are several remarkable Strictures in the Pentateuch, but Moral Philosophy, with which his Books are everywhere fraught. Solomon also was a most profound Philosopher, as those Words in 1 Kings 4. 29, &c, amply testify, God gave Solomon Wisdom and Understanding exceeding much. His Wisdom excelled the Wisdom of all the Children of the East-Country, and all the Wisdom of Egypt. He spoke of Trees, from the Cedar-tree that is in Lebanon, even to the Hyssop that springeth out of the Wall: he spoke also of B●asts, and of Fowl, and of creeping things, and of Fishes. And, as 
2 Antiq. ●. 8.  josephus adds, after the same manner he discoursed of All Terestrial Things: for he was ignorant of no natural Things, he passed by none of them unexamined, but philosophized concerning every one of them, and fully discussed the Properties and Nature of them. Thus he was certainly the Greatest Natural Historian that ever was: and his Book of Proverbs, and that which is entitled Ecclesiastes, abundantly inform us what skill he had in Ethics, Economics, Politics: so that we may justly style him an Universal Philosopher. Iob's skill in the choicest Parts of Physics is evident from his excellent Discourses and Disquisitions concerning Thunder, the Clouds, the Sea, Chap. 26. concerning Minerals and other Fossiles, and Fountains, Chap. 28. concerning Rain, Vapours, Snow, Hail, and other Meteors, Chap. 37. & 38. And several sorts of Animals, both wild and tame, with their chiefest Properties and Qualities, are discoursed of in Chapters 39, 40, 41.  
And here I must insert this, that the Knowledge and Study of the Bible are absolutely necessary in order to the Study of Natural Philosophy. It is a very good Thought of an Ingenious Man, 
1 Mr. Lock concerning Education.  The Doctrine of the Scriptures, saith he, is to be well imbibed before young Men be entered into Natural Philosophy; because Matter being a thing that all our Senses are constantly conversant with, it is so apt to possess the Mind, and exclude all other Being's but itself, that Prejudice grounded on such Principles often leaves no room for the admittance of Spirits, or the allowing any such things as immaterial Being's in the nature of things. Which shows the necessity of our conversing with the Inspired Writings, whe● we have abundant Proofs of the Existence and Operation of those Invisible Agents. No Book ● so fully and demonstratively convince us of their Being and Power as the Holy Scriptures. And the grand Reason, in my Opinion, why so many reject the Notion of Spirits, and run into wild and extravagant Notions, which are the Consequent of it▪ is, because they are unacquainted with, and (which is more) dislike this Book, which is the Basis of a●● Natural Philosophy, in that we have here an irrefragable Demonstration of those Incorporeal Being's. Whence it follows that no Man can be a Good Naturalist, if he be a Stranger to the Hol● Writings, much more if he slights and vilifi●● them. We shall perpetually fluctuate without an Adherence to these Infallible Records. The Cartesian, and indeed the whole Corpuscularian Philosophy depraves men's Minds, unless it be tempered by these. Nay, I may say, the Study of Nature, abstract from them, will lead us into Scepticism and Atheism: for many Substantial Notions as well as Phaenomena are utterly unaccountable without Help from this Book. But this rectifies our Apprehensions, and gives us a true Account of the State of Things, and of the Government of the World, which is managed chiefly by Spiritual and Immaterial Substances. This salves the most surprising Difficulties, by acquainting us with the Spring of the Generality of those Motions and Transactions which are observable in Natural Bodies. In short, this will season and qualify our Speculations concerning Nature and all its Operations: for when the Operations and Results of Matter are defective, here we are taught to have Recourse to a Higher Principle. Thus the Bible lays a Foundation for our Study of Philosophy, and is itself the Best Body of Philosophy, I mean on the foresaid Account, because it assures us of the Existence of Spirits, by whose Influence so many Works of Nature (and those of the greatest Importance in the World) are effected. This was known of old by the Name of the Barbaric Philosophy; and 'tis frequently called so by 
1 Stromat. l. 1, & 2.  Clement of Alexandria; and both he and 
2 Demonst. Evang.  Eusebius, and some 
3 Steuch. Eugub, de Perenni Philos. Theoph, Gale.  Modern Writers, have showed that the Grecian Philosophy was derived from this: Which indeed was the Confession of some Considerable Men among the Pagans; whence Diogenes Laertius tells us this was their Saying, 
4 In Pro●emio.  Philosophy had its Original from the Barbarians, i. e. the Hebrews; which is as much as to say, that all the true Notions about God and Providence, and the Souls of Men, and other great Doctrines in Philosophy, are taken from the Jewish Writings, the Sacred and Inspired Scriptures.  
In the next Place, the Antiquity of medics, Chirurgery, Anatomy, Embalming, is likewise discovered here: For joseph commanded the physicians to embalm his Father, and the physicians embalmed Israel, Gen. 50. 2. The Word here repeated is Rophim, and it is the proper Hebrew Word for Men skilled in medics, and there is no other. Wherefore Vatablus and some others are mistaken, who fancy this Place is not meant of Physicians properly so called, because this Term is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint, and because they are bid to embalm Jacob. Whence they infer that they were not Physicians in the Sense that we use the Word in at this day, viz. for such as take care of sick and diseased Persons, and endeavour by their Skill and Art to restore them to Health, but that they were only Embalmers, that is, that their sole Office and Employment was to take care of the dead Bodies, and to preserve them from putrifying. But this Misapprehension had its Rise from this, that they judged of Physicians and their Employments according to what they see now, according to the Practice of these Days, which no Man of due Consideration and unprejudiced Judgement ought to do. For of old the Physician was both Chirurgeon and Embalmer; yea, even in Hippocrates' time the Work of the Physician and Chirurgeon was not different, but the very same. In Ancienter times, much more these, Professions were united, and were the Employment of the same Person. It is no wonder therefore that Embalming was annexed to it, and constantly went along with it, for the Chirurgeon or Physician (call him which you will, or both) was the Man that had Skill to dissect Bodies in order to their Pollincture. He knew what Parts to take out, and how, being acquainted with the Situation of the Vessels: for Anatomy was first of all practised among the Egyptians, as we may gather from 
1 Nat. Hist. l. 19 c. 5.  Pliny and others, who attest that the Egyptian Kings used it to find out the Cause and Cure of Diseases. By the Egyptian Kings using it, is meant undoubtedly▪ their appointing and encouraging their Physicians to do it. These than knew how to handle the Anatomic Knife: And moreover, these Persons were skilful in Drugs, Balsams, Ointments, Aromaticks, and the Materials that were sittest for that Business of Embalming: wherefore this was their proper Work. As living Bodies were their Care, so were the dead ones; and what they could not cure, they dressed up for the Tomb: those whom they could not keep alive, they artificially preserved when dead. Thus it was heretofore, and thus particularly it was with the Physicians of Egypt, of whom this Text speaks, and who are the first of the Faculty that are mentioned in Sacred History. And with this agree the Records of the Ancientest Historians among the Pagans. Diodorus of Sicily relates that the first Invention of Medicines was from the Egyptians, and particularly that some of them said that Mercurius, others that Apis a King of Egypt was the first Inventor of Physic. Herodotus observes that the Egyptians had more Experiments in Natural Philosophy, and chiefly in medics, than any other Nation whatsoever. Strabo testifies that they were hugely addicted to this Art, and reckoned it among their Sacred Mysteries: Which is confirmed by what 
2 Lib. 29. C. 1.  Pliny faith, that they used to deposit and keep their choice Experiments of Physic in their Temples. To be brief, Anatomy, Chirurgery and Embalming, met together in these Ancient Artists. This was the triple Office and Work of the Rophim, the Physicians, besides the more general Work of Curing the Diseased. From what job faith concerning those that pretended to comfort him, we may collect that there were some of this Procession among the Old Arabians; for otherwise he would not have compared them to Persons of this Character, Ye are all Physicians, faith he, of no Value, job 13. 4. Ye deal with me just as unskilful Men in that Faculty do with their Patients, just as sorry Quacks and Empirics do with the Diseased: they understand not their Malady, and so make false Applications; their Medicines are good perhaps, (as your Counsel and Advice to me are in themselves) but they administer them in a wrong manner, and without any regard to the Constitution present Temper and Circumstances of those they have to do with. Thus you deal with me, and therefore are so far from curing my Distemper, that you enrage it, and make it much worse. Thi● Language is founded upon a Supposal of the Profession of medics in that Country.  
That there were such among the jews, may be gathered from Exod. 12. 19 He that smites and wounds a Man shall cause him to be throughly healed viz. by one who professedly took care of the Wounded, for so the Chaldee Paraphrast renders that Place, He shall pay the Physician. But that there was such an Order of Men among the jews, we are in more express and positive Words assured from 2 Chron. 16. 12. King Asa in his Disease seek not to the Lord, but to the Physicians. And it may be some of his Ancestors had been Medically dispose●▪ and were Students in this Art, whence they had their Name, for Asa is the Chaldee Word for Medicus; and perhaps for this Reason this King had the greater Esteem of those who were skilled in Medicinal Arts, and therefore put Confidence in them so as to neglect to apply himself to God the Sovereign Author and Giver of Health. And from those Words in jer. 8. 22. Is there no Balm in Gilead? is there no Physician there? it is manifest that there were Medicaments and Proper Persons to apply them, for else the Prophet could not by this Language set forth the incurable and deplorable State of the Jews at that time. This way of speaking implies that they had in that Country, in Gilead especially, such healing Balsams as they were wont to close up Wounds with, and that there were Physicians or Surgeons, (for the Word signifies both, and in this Place is to be taken in the latter Meaning) Artists that knew how to apply the Balsam with Skill. This also is implied and supposed in Lam. 2. 13. Who can heal thee? or according to the Chaldee, Who is the Physician [Asa] that can cure thee? And when we read of the Art of the Apothecary, and his Confections and Ointments, Exod. 30. 25, 35. we are to conceive of these as having some Reference to medics. The Holy Anointing Oil for the Use of the Tabernacle is appointed to be made according to Magnasheh rocheach, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (so the LXX, and the Vulgar Latin renders it opus unguentarii) the professed Art and Skill of the Maker of Odoriferous Ointments. Now this is the Man we are speaking of, viz. the Physician or Apothecary, (which is the same, for they made up all their Medicaments themselves heretofore) whose Business it was to make Artificial Unguents, Sweet Oils and Perfumes, for Health no less than Delight. This is Rocheach, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vnguentarius, Aromatarius, and by our English Translators not unfitly rendered Apothecary, not only here but in Eccles. 10. 1. where from the mentioning of Shemen Rocheach, Vnguen●um Pharmacopolae, (as the Tigurine Version hath it ●ightly) we are certified concerning the ancient Use of Aromatic Compositions and Confections, which were made use of for the promoting of the bodily Welfare. They were thought by Persons of those early times to be both Sanative and Cosmetick. On both which Considerations they belong to the Physicians, whose Task it is to take care ●ot only of the Health, but the Beauty, Cleanliness and Comely Plight of the Body; in order 〈◊〉 the latter of which Smegmaticks, Mundifiers▪ Cleansers, Adorners, are useful. Thus you see ho● large the Physician's Province was in those fir●● times: he was not only all that was said before but he was moreover an Anointer, a Perfumer, ● Beautifier; the Knowledge of all which we deriv● from the Sacred Fountains.  
Something, though not much, we have deriv●● to us from the Scriptures concerning the early Beginnings of Navigation and Shipping. God him●●●● instructed Noah to make the Ark, the first Ve●●●● we read of that swum on the Waters, Gen. 7. 〈◊〉 and it is not to be doubted but that God direct●● him to steer it aright, and that He from that Knowledge and Practice which he had in managing it 〈◊〉 long a time, whilst the whole World was Se● was able to instruct others in the Mari●●●● Art. It is true we read that Noah was 
1 Gen. 7. 16.  shut up in the Ark as in a Prison, but it is probable that this was not all the time the Ark was riding on the Waters. When these began to decrease, the happ● Prisoner looked abroad, and was taught how to direct his Course, and to bring his Vessel to Land, even to the particular Place where it rested: and no Man is able to prove that he was not furnished with Sails, or Oars, or Rudder to that purpose, and that he did not make use of them as soon as the Window of the Ark was opened, Gen. 8. 6. and the Covering of it removed, ver. 13. Hence arose the first Knowledge of Navigation, which is of so great Use in the Life of Man, and so necessary for Commerce and Traffic. Befor● this time there was no Use of Boats or Ships; otherwise the Men of that Age would have been sensible of Noab's Design when they saw him build the Ark, and would have suspected their own Danger, and they would have attempted to build one for their own Preservation: but our Saviour tells us, that they knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away, Mat. 24. 39 which shows that Shipping had not been practised before. Yea, even among the Egyptians many hundred Years afterwards, they were content to sail on the Red Sea and the River Nile in Vessels of Bulrushes, Isa. 18. 2. To which Profane Writers b●●r Testimony, as Herodotus, who expressly affirms that 
2 Lib. 2.  the Egyptians made their Ships of Reeds and Flags. And 
3 Lib. 17.  Strabo, 
4 Lib. 5. c. 9 I. 6. c. 22. I. 13. c. 11.  Pliny, 
5 Lib. 4. c. 9  theophra, certify ●s that these Rush-Boats or Paper-Vessels were used sequently by them and their Neighbours of Ethio●ia. And from that forecited Verse in Lucan, it appears that the Egyptian Boats were composed of the Papyrus. Afterwards they and others advanced ● little higher, and made their Marine Vessels of Barks of Trees: which very Name is still retained among us and the French, who call a little Ship or Hoy a Bark or Bark. But to proceed; Next to Noah, Zebulon, i. e. some of that Tribe, may be accounted the first Founders of Shipping and ●●ilers, who are mentioned to that purpose in the ●●●riarch Iacob's Benedictions, Gen. 49. 13. about 〈◊〉 hundred Years after the Flood; the Maritime Si●●ation of this Tribe (which was seated near the Sea of Galilee, and reached even to the Great Sea, the Mediterranean, which was noted for Ports and Havens; besides, that it was near to Tyre and Si●●, famed for Shipping) promoting this very thing. So Dan was seated on the Western Part of Palestine near the Mediterranean, and so trafficked by Ships, Judg. 5. 17. Afterwards the Naval Art increased, and arrived to a great Height in King Solomon's Days, who made a Navy of Ships, 1 Kings 9 26. and was therein much helped by Hiram King of Tyre, who sent him Shipmen that had Knowledge of the Sea, ver. 27. that were expert Navigators. And indeed among the Pagan Historians and Poets the Tyrians are said to be Eminent in Sea-Affairs▪ yea the first that ventured to Sea. Albertus Magnus thinks that the Use of the Loadstone in sailing was known to these Tyrians of old; and a 
1 Nic. Fuller. Misc. 1. 4. c. 19  Learned Writer of our own is of the same Persuasion. But it may be deservedly questioned whether they had in Solomon's time attained to this Knowledge. I have met with no Certain Proof of this Magnetics Invention in those Days: therefore I am forward to believe that when 'tis said King Solomon's Navy made a Voyage to Ophir, 1 Kings 9 28. neither of the Indies are meant, but (as was suggested before) some Place in A●rick that was at a considerable Distance from Ezion-geber, the Port (on the Shore of the Red Sea next to Palestine) whence that Navy s●t out, and therefore they made a Long Voyage of it in those Days (though it was not a three Years Voyage, as is generally thought, but was every three Years, for so once in three Years, 1 Kings 20. 22. ought to be interpreted) when their Naval Skill was but mean, and they generally coasted along the Shoar. Hither they might make a shift to reach without the Help of the Compass▪ but it is unreasonable and extravagant to think that they sailed to the East or West Indies if they were wholly destitute of that Skill. But as for the Mediterranean, they tolerably knew it, and I question whether they knew any other Sea properly so styled, for this is called the Sea emphatically, Psal. 80. 11. and the Great Sea, Numb. 34. 6. Josh. 1. 4. Nay, it is observable that it is called the Utmost Sea, Deut. 11. 24. & 34. 2. which we may understand of its being not only the farthest Boundary of the Land of Canaan on the West, but also of its being the farthest Sea that they had any notice of: Whereas if they had been acquainted with the Wide Ocean, the Main Sea through which they must necessarily pass to those remoter Parts of the World, the Midland Sea would not have been by way of Eminence called the Sea, yea the Great Sea, much less the Utmost Sea. But though it was but a small River in comparison of the Vast Ocean, it was a Great Sea in respect of the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee or Genesareth, and other such like Lakes which they were acquainted with, and which they improperly called Seas. Again, afric seems to be the Place rather than any other to which Solomon's Navy was sent for Gold, there being several Regions here (as is confessed by all) that abound with that Choice Metal. These Reasons (besides those offered in a former part of this Discourse, where I treated of the First Plantations) prevail with me to believe that the Royal Fleet before mentioned sailed no further than the Coasts of afric.  
And I crave leave here to propose this Conjecture, viz. that afric is meant by Ophir, to which that Fleet went. I offer it to the Learned to be considered whether there be not an exceeding great Affinity between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ophir and Apher, (for so this latter was anciently written, and 'tis known that f and ph are frequently convertible) or between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Aphrica; for the former, yo● see, is written with an Aleph, and so was perhaps anciently read Aphira: And that the Letter c is inserted into the Latin Word is not to be wondered at, for nothing is more ordinary than the Insertion of a Letter or two, especially when Words are transferred out of one Language into another, as I could show in abundant Instances. Besides, this Derivation of the Word is the more to be attended to, because the Common Etymologies that are given of Africa are very sorry and groundless. Wherefore though I have formerly asserted that Ophir is not mentioned by Geographers, (which is very true, if we speak of the Place under that formal Name) yet upon Search I verily believe it to be the same which hath been since called Afric●, from Auphir, which is the Arabic Pronunciation of Ophir. Before I quit this Particular, I desire it may be observed that it stands upon Record in 1 Kings 9 26. that King Solomon's Ships (the first Navy that we read of) were built on the Shore of the Red Sea in the Land of Edom, and thence launched and sent forth on their Voyage: whereon I guess is founded that of an Ancient Writer, that 
1 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Dionys. Alexandr.  the Erythraei (who are the same with the Inhabitants of the Land of Edom; for Edom or Esau, and Eryt'oraeus, are the same; and the Red Sea, which is known by the Name of Erythraeum, is denominated from him) were the first that invented Shipping. And I appeal to any judicious Man, whether this might not give occasion to that confused Passage in Pliny, viz. that 
1 Navem primus ex Egypto in Graeciam Danaus invexit: ante ratibus navigabatur, inventis in mari rubro, inter insulas, ● rege Erythr●. Lib. 7. c. 56.  the ancient Shipping was first brought out of Egypt, and that formerly slight Ships or Boats were made use of, which were invented in the Red Sea, among the Isles, by King Erythras. It is plain that Egypt and the Red Sea, and Erythras, have relation here to the Infallible Records, which tell us, that the Place of the first setting forth of any Considerable Ships was on the Coast of Egypt, in the Red Sea or Arabian Gulf, and in that Part of it that belonged to Edom or Erythras. Lastly, I offer it to be examined, whether the Report among the Heathens, that the 
2 Stat. Achilles. 1. Sil. Ital. Punic. l. 11. Manil. Astronom. l. 1.  first Ship that ever was, went to a Country in the Euxine Sea, to fetch thence the Golden Fleece, be not grounded on this part of the Sacred History, viz. that the first Shipping of any Note was this of Solomon, which went through the Mediterranean, of which the Euxine Sea is a Part of Arm, (and might be mistaken for the whole) to bring Gold from Ophir: And the Ship might justly be called Argos, because it sailed so slowly. This is not unlikely, if we remember how the Poets are wont to corrupt and mangle True History, and to affix New Names to Persons and Things: Besides, there is no very great Difference as to the Chronology of both these Expeditions.  
It is probable that Astronomy also was the Invention of those first Ages, (and was useful in both those which I last mentioned, Physic and Navigation) the Patriarches and other worthy Enquirers (of whom the Scriptures speak) living in those Eastern Countries where the Sky was Serene, and where upon high Mountains they had a peculiar Advantage of acquainting themselves with the Stars, and studying their Motions, Aspects and Influences. Accordingly 
1 An't ● Jud. l. 1. c. 3.  josephus' relates that Seth, an Antediluvian Patriarch, was skilled in this Celestial Art, and that his Pillars recorded the Doctrine of the Stars and Rules of Astronomy. And Abraham was well skilled in this Science, saith that 
2 Cap. 8. 9  same Writer, and was Public Professor of it. The Kings of the East and West came to learn this Art of him, saith Ra●●i Solomon. And the Talmudists quoted by 
3 Lex. Chald. p. 156.  Buxto●f would persuade us that he had extraordinary Sill in the Stars. Which is intimated perhaps in what God said to Abraham, Gen. 15. 5. Look now towards Heaven, and tell the Stars, etc. and in what he assured him of in other Places, viz. that he would multiply his Seed as the Stars of Heaven, Gen. 22. 17. & 26. 4. Which manner of Speech and Repeating it were, it may be, occasioned by this Holy Man's frequent Contemplating those Heavenly Bodies, and enquiring into their Nature and Operations. But because there is no clear ground for this, I dismiss it. Only this may be said, that Astronomy, like the Sun the chief Subject of it, had its Rise in the East: all Authors agree that it was first known and practised in Chaldea, whence a Chaldéan and an ginger were Terms convertible: and it is certain that the Patriarch Abraham was of that Country, and was eminently styled by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and was known and distinguished by that Name. But that job (a famous Arabian, and who lived, as 'tis thought by some, not long after Abraham's time) was Astronomically disposed, is very clear from his universal Skill inall Points of Natural Philosophy, which his Book is full of, and particularly from his mentioning of Arcturus, Orion and Pleiades, and the Chambers of the South, Chap. 9 v. 9 and from other Passages in 26 and 28 Chapters relating to the Sun and Stars, to the Heavens and their wonderful Operations and Influences. Judiciary Astrology, i. e. foretelling Futurities by insight into the Heavenly Bodies, was pretended to of old, as appears from the frequent Caveats against it, Deut. 18. 10, 11. jer. 10. 2. & 27. 9 Mich. 5. 12. The Chaldean. Professors of this Art are particularly mentioned in Isa. 47. 13. where they are styled Choberim Hashamajim, Viewers of the Heavens, Chozim Bachocabim, Stargazers. To this belong the Teraphim, Gen. 31. 19 and in other Places, i. e. Images and Consignations made according to the certain Position of such and such Constellations, whereby they divined concerning future Events. Thus we see the beginning of False and Counterfeit Arts as well as True Ones, may be learned from this Holy Book.  
I will not enlarge here upon Picture or Pourtraicture, strictly so called, i. e. the representing and drawing of things with Exactness and Life in divers Colours, of which there are notable Instances in jer. 22. 14. Ezek. 8. 10. & 23. 14. nor will I speak of Embroidery, Exod. 26. 1. & 28. 4. Ezek. 16. 10. & 27. 7. nor of all manner of Cunning Work so often mentioned in Exodus, for which Aholiab and Bezaleel were so famous, and on which several Critical Remarks might be made. But I will proceed to some other things.  
Among the First Arts and Inventions, we may reckon Skill in Arms and Warlike Feats: the first Instances whereof are registered in sacred Story. josephus thinks that Tubal, who was an Instructor of every Artificer in Brass and Iron, was the first Inventor of Arms and Military Weapons, they being made of those Metals. A late 
1 Dr. Burnet Theor. Tellur.  Writer was forgetful of this when he said, There were not of old any Instruments that belonged to War. And how could there be indeed, when he asserts that there were no Metals in the Earth before the Flood? Which is precariously said, and hath no Foundation at all to support it; yea, it is quite contrary to the express Testimony of Scripture, which assures us that there were Brass and Iron in those Days. It is not then wholly improbable that Weapons of Wa● were framed of these, and that the People of those times went forth to Battle, though in the whole History from Adam to Noah there is no mention of their Wars. Neither is there of some other things, which yet we cannot but suppose to have been, notwithstanding Moses is silent concerning them. If we consider what are the great Incentives to War, viz. Lust and Passion, we have no reason to disbelieve that there were Wars from the beginning, though they are not mentioned. It is likely they were but rare then, partly because they had not found out such expedite ways of managing their Feuds as have been since, and partly because the Numbers of Men were not so great as afterwards: the Earth could better hold them at that time than now, and consequently they had not occasion to quarrel about their Territories, and to strive how they should enlarge their Dominions. However, Hatred, Malice and desire of Revenge might push them on to fall out one with another, and to proceed to Acts of Hostility, and to bring Forces on either side into the Field to decide the Quarrel in Battle. But I grant there is no certainty of this, there is nothing expressly delivered concerning any Warlike Erterprises before the Deluge. The first that we read of after it, is the Battle of four Kings against five, four of Assyria and the adjoining Parts, against five of Sodom and the neighbouring Parts of Palestine, Gen. 14. 1, 2. etc. And presently after this was the Military Expedition of Abraham and his armed trained Servants, v. 14. whom he had instructed in Martial Affairs. This is the first War or Battle that we read of in the Sacred History, and is thought to have been about A. M. 2030. It is certainly the first that is to be read of in the World; for the Theban War, the most ancient that either Historians or Poets among the Gentiles write of, was about six hundred Years after this: and the Trojan War, that famous Expedition which Profane Writers talk so much of, and is one of the ancientest Subjects of Humane History, was not till A. M. 2760. or thereabouts. Afterwards we read in the Sacred Writings of the Wars of the jews before and after their coming into Canaan; which were as remarkable as those of the Old Romans, and much more just and lawful: they were indeed generally Holy Wars, and Battles of the Lord of Hosts. In Leviticus and Numbers we read of their Laws of Arms, and Councils of War, and in 
1 Jos. 8. 4. Judg. 7. 16. & 20. 38. 2 Sam. 5. 24.  other places of their Military Stratagems: and all along we are told what were the Martial Preparations not only of that Nation, but those they fought with.  
From this Ancient Register we are particularly informed what were the Warlike Weapons of old, both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Greeks distinguished them, 
1 Alia ad tegendum, alia ad nccendum. Cic. pro Caecin.  those that were to defend the Persons that wore them, and those that were to incommode and hurt the Enemy. Of the former sort were first a Helmet [Cobang] 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Seventy render it.)  to cover and defend the Head. This was part of the Military Provision which that warlike King V●ziah prepared for his vast Army, 2 Chron. 26. 14. And we read before this, that part of Saul's Armour was an Helmet of Brass, 1 Sam. 17. 38. It was used by the Philistines, as appears from 1 Sam. 17. 5. Goliath had a Helmet of Brass upon his Hea●. And this Martial Cap for the Head was worn by the Persians and Ethiopians when they fought, Ezek. 38. 5. Another Defensive Piece of Armour used in those early times, was a Breastplate or Corslet, Heb. Shirjon, by the LXX rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by the Vulgar Latin Lorica. Goliath was accoutred with this warlike Defence, 1 Sam. 17. ●. which we translate here a Coat of Mail. This is mentioned among the jewish Armoury, 2 Chron. 26. 14. and is englished an Habergeon. This was part of King Saul's warlike Furniture, 1 Sam. 17. 38. and is translated, as before in that Chapter, a Coat of Mail. Between the Joints of this Harness (for so we english it, 1 Kings 22. 34.) King A●ab was casually struck with a Dart. To this Species of Armour the Prophet alludes, Isa. 59 17. where the same Hebrew Word is used that is in the forementioned Texts, but is here rendered a Breastplate. And in jer. 46. 4. a Brigandine is our English Word for it. So that according to what may be gathered from this various rendering of it, it seems to me to answer to the Cuirasse or Corslet-Armour both for Back and Breast. It is likely that it was chiefly designed to defend this Latter, and thence had its Denomination. But some had it made so long as to come over all their other Clothes: which is the reason why in some Places (as you see) it is otherwise translated.  
Again, a Shield, to defend the whole Body in time of Battle, and to keep off the Enemies Insults, which was either Tsinna● the great Shield or Buckler, or Magen the lesser kind of this Weapon, was of great Service of Old. It was used by the Babylonians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Ezek. 23. 24. and by the Egyptians, Jer. 46. 3. in both which Places the two Hebrew Words aforesaid are made use of. It was frequent among the jews in their Wars, as is manifest from 2 Sam. 1. 21. and many other Places which are well known. Hence David, a Great Warrior, so often mentions Shield and Buckler in his Divine Poems, to set forth that Defence and Protection of Heaven which he expected, which he experienced, and which he wholly trusted in. And when he saith, God will with Favour compass the Righteous as with a Shield, Psal. 5. 12. he seems to allude to the Use of the Great Shield, Tsinnah, (which is the Word he uses) wherewith they were wont to cover and defend their whole Bodies. King Solomon caused those two different Sorts of Shields (the Tsinnah which answers to Clypeus among the Latins, such a Large Shield as the Infantry wore, and the Maginnim, s●uta, used by the Horsemen, which were of far less Size) to be made, 2 Chron. 9 15, 16. The former of these are here translated Targets, and are double in weight to the other. The Philistines came into the Field with this Defensive Weapon: so we find their Formidable Champion was appointed, 1 Sam. 17. 7. One bearing a Shield went before him, one whose proper Office it was to carry this and some other Weapons, wherewith he was to furnish his Master upon Occasion. It seems this was an Office among the jews as well as Philistines; for we read that David, when he was first called to Court, was made King Saul's Armour-bearer, 1 Sam. 1●. 21. And there is mention made of the young Man that bore Jon●than 's Armour, 1 Sam. 14. 1. By the Graecian this Officer was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and by the Latins (as 
1 In Casiuâ.  Plautus and 
2 Aeneid. 9  〈◊〉 testify) Armiger. The very same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ferens arma, in the Places above ●i●ed. But the bearing of the Shield was the most considerable Piece of Service, and was reputed most Honourable. The Longobards called this Military Attendant (as our 
3 Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour.  Great Antiquary acquaints us) Schilpor, i. e. a Shield-bearer: and Scutifer, Esc●ier, Esquire, became a fixed Title of Honour; and Escuage a particular Tenure or Service. The Original of it we see in the Example before us, the Great Philistian Warrior was waited upon into the Field by his Military Squire, one bearing a Shield. And besides this Tsinnah, this Great Massy Shield, he was furnished with a lesser One, which is not expressed by one of the foremention'd Words, but is called Cidon, which we render a Target, v. 6. and a Shield, v. 45. and was of a different Nature from the common Shields, and (as I conceive) was not only to hold in his Hand when he had occasion to use it, but could also conveniently at other times be hung about his Neck, and turned behind: wherefore 'tis added that it was between his Shoulders, v. 6. So I understand those Words, and truly I think it is a more genuine and unforced Interpretation of them, than what is usually given by the Jewish Writers, and some others. And this Target (as well as his Helmet, and some other Pieces of his Armour, of which anon) was of Brass, which was the usual Metal of which their Arms were made in those Days, and in the Times following, as Homer and Virgil testify, who mention Helmets, Shields, Swords, Spears of Brass. This is evident from Hesiod, and Alcaeus an old Poet quoted by Athenaeus. The like we learn from Statius in several Places. The Arms of the Massageta●, saith 
1 Lib. 1.  Herodotus, were of this Composure. Lucretius, speaking of the first Weapons that were used in War, tells us that they were of Brass, and afterwards of Iron, Et prior aeris erat quam ferri cognitus usus.  
Lastly, the Greek and Roman Warriors, and all Nations used this serviceable Weapon, to fence off the Blows of their Adversaries, and particularly to repulse their Arrows. The Grecians especially affected a very large sort of Shields, which we may gather from the Description of them in the Poets, and from what the Lacedaemonian Women, when they sent their Sons into the Wars, used to say to them at parting, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either return back with this Piece of Armour, or be carried to the Grave upon it. It seems by this that they were so broad and capacious, that they might serve them for Buyers, or Open Coffins. It was ●●●●nitely opprobrious among these Greek Warriors to lose this Weapon in Fight, insomuch that Pl●tarch relates that the Lacedæmonians banished Archicolus his Country, because he had said and written that it was better for a Man to throw away his Shield than himself, i. e. to perish in Battle. And from what the same Author saith of Epimanondas, that he asked when he was dying whether his Shield was safe, we may infer that nothing was so dear to them as this one Piece of Armour. And I can prove that it was thus among the Eastern, and particularly the jewish Warriors: the loss of this Weapon was excessively resented, as well as condoled by them. If you ask me on what I ground this, I answer, on 2 Sam. 1. 21. where it is a signal Ingredient of the Public Mourning, that the Shield of the Mighty was viley cast away. I apprehend this to be the meaning of the Words; David a Man of Arms, who composed his Funeral-Song, was sensible how disgraceful a Thing it was for Soldiers to quit their Shields in the Field: yet this was the sad and deplorable Case of the Jewish Soldiery in that unhappy Engagement with the Philistines, they fled away (1 Sam. 31. 7.) and left their Shields behind them: this vil● and dishonourable c●sting away of that principal Armour is the deserved Subject of this Losty Poet's Lamentation. I propound this Interpretation (or Conjecture, if you will call it so) as preferable to any that I have met with.  
And further, it may be useful to observe that their Shields were wont to be oiled, scoured and polished, as indeed it was the Custom to use the like Care towards their other Armour, as may be gathered from furbishing the Spears, Jer. 46. 4. and making bright the Arrows, Jer. 51. 11. But more especially their Shields (which were Weapons that they so highly valued and took a kind of Pride in, and on which they generally engraved their Names and Warlike Deeds, if they had achieved any; whereas those that had none of these, were called Blank Shields, and were thought to be disgraceful, according to that of Virgil,— Parmâque inglorius 〈◊〉) these Weapons, I say, were carefully polished with Oil, and made exceeding Bright. Whence two Places of Scripture may receive some Light: the former occurs in the Chapter before cited, where 'tis said, the Shield of the Mighty is vilely cast away, the Shield of Saul, as if it had not been anointed with Oil: for so I render that latter Clause, referring it to the Shield, and not to Saul; and the Hebrew Text bears this Version best. The meaning than is, the Shields were cast away and trod under Foot as if they had not been made bright with Oil, as if there had not been that care taken about them. And that other Passage, Isa. 21. 5. Anoint the Shield, is a plain Reference to this ancient Custom of polishing their Shields with Oil: and therefore the Import of these Words is this, Furbish and make ready that Weapon, and prepare for Battle. I could also observe that as they anointed their Shields to give them a Brightness and Lustre, (for Glittering Arms were in great esteem among Warriors) so they covered them with a Case when they used them not, to preserve them from being rusty and soiled: thence you read of uncovering the Shield, Isa. 22. 6. which signisies preparing for War, and having that Weapon especially in readiness.  
Another Defensive Provision in War was the Military Girdle; which was for a double End, first in order to the wearing the Sword, for this hung (as it doth at this Day) at the Soldiers Girdle or Belt. Secondly, it was requisite to gird their Clothes and Armour together: thus David girded his Sword upon his Armour, 1 Sam. 17. 39 This the Sacred Writings take some notice of, as a● Ancient Accoutrement of Military Men: for this is meant, it is probable, in Exod. 13. 18. jos. ●▪ 14. judg. 7. 11. where according to the Hebre● Idiom, Soldiers and Armed Men are called C●● mushim, accincti, girded. These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Seunty render it, are Armati according to the Vulg●● Latin Interpreter, and harnessed, armed according to our English Translators: for the Soldiers G●dle was a principal Part of his Arms. So it was among the Old Latins, Cincti and Accincti, were as much as Armati, and among the Greeks (as S●●das lets us know) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because Soldiers unless they were girt could not wear a Sword. But to con●ine o●● selves to the Scripture, here to Gird and to Arm are synonymous, 1 Kings 20. 11. Isa. 8. 9 And in 2 Kings 3. 21. those that were able to put on Armour, are, according to the Hebrew and Septuagint, girt with a Girdle. Hence girding to the Battle, 2 Sam. 22. 40. ● Psal. 18. 39 And there is express mention of this Warlike Girdle in 1 Sam. 18. 4. where 'tis recorded that jonathan, to assure David of his entire Love and Friendship by some visible Pledges, stripped himself not only of his usual Garments, but of his Military Habiliments, viz. his Sword, Bow and Girdle, and gave them to David. From the joining of these together, it is plain that Chagor here is the Sword-Girdle or Military Belt, wherewith they not only girt on their Swords, but made their Clothes and Armour sit close and fast about them.  
Boots were part of their Defensive Harness of Old, because it was the Custom to cast certain Obstacles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Impediments (so called because they did hurt and entangle the Feet) afterwards known by the Name of Gall-traps (which since in Heraldry are corruptly styled caltrop's) in the Way before the Enemy. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as 
1 Geogr. l. 10.  Strabo calls it) the Military Boot or Shoe was therefore necessary to guard the Legs and Feet from these Iron Stakes placed in the Way to gall and wound them. This gives an Account of Goliah's Greaveses of Brass upon his Legs, 1 Sam. 17. 6. which were his warlike Fence against any Mischief designed to those Parts of his Body. These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for so the LXX render them) were of the same Nature with 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉. ●.  those mentioned by the Prince of the Gentile Poets, and from which the Grecian Soldiers had the Epithet of ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea their Boots, their Martial Gambadoes were sometimes of Brass, as Goliah's were; whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forementioned Poet, whereby are signified not only those Grecian Soldiers that were clad in Brass Boots, but Synecdochically those that had Brass Arms, which was the old Grecian Fashion in War: but the first Tidings of this sort of Armour we have in the Sacred Records of the Bible.  
And not only Defensive but Offensive Weapons are mentioned here: and these are either such as they made use of when they came to a close Engagement, or when they were at a Distance. Of the former Sort were the Sword (Chereb) and Battle-ax (Mapheng.) The first of these is the ancientest Piece of Armour that we read of (except the Bow, of which afterwards.) In Gen. 34. 25. we ●ind it was treacherously handled by Iacob's Sons when they invaded the Sh●chemites: To which refers Gen. 49. 5. and is rendered by some Learned Jews thus, Instruments of Violence are their Swords, Mecheroth (for that is the Word here) the Plural of Mecherah, Gladius, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mach●ra. And in Exod. 32. 27. we find it was used by the Israelites in the Wilderness. If it be asked how they furnished themselves with this and other Weapons in that Place, seeing (as 'tis generally said) they left Egypt without taking any Arms with them, we need not answer (as some do) that the great Winds and Tide upon the return of the Red Sea beat the Egyptians Arms upon the Shore where the Israelites had pitched their Tents; for this is more tha● we can prove. And so indeed is their Supposal that the Israelites came unarmed out of Egypt, for the contrary is plainly asserted in Exod. 13. 18. The Children of Israel went up harnessed (Chamusim, girt, i. e. armed, as I said before) out of the Land of Egypt. And then 'tis no wonder that you read of their being Armed in the Wilderness. This may be meant when 'tis said, they borrowed of the Egyptians Raiment, Exod. 12. 35. in which may be included Military Habits. However, they are comprehended in what follows, The Lord gave the People favour in the Sight of the Egyptians, so that they ●ent unto them whatever they required: and they spoiled the Egyptians, v. 36. For the Israelites left Egypt with leave of the Inhabitants, yea, with their request to be gone, for the last Plague which slew all their Firstborn in one Night put them upon hastening away the Israelites: and to be rid of them they were willing to part with any thing, and accordingly they not only suffered them to take with them their own Goods and Cattle, but gave them a great deal of Gold and Silver, and all sorts of Rich Materials, Exod. 3. 22. with which afterwards they furnished the Tabernacle. And among other things they let them carry away as many Warlike Weapons as they pleased, for they that lent them jewels, would not deny them Armour.  
The Battle-ax mentioned in jer. 51. 20. was another Weapon which they anciently fought with when they came to a close Engagement. We have no particular Account of this Martial Club, but it is reasonable to believe that it was a weighty Weapon or Hammer (as 'tis called Chap. 50. v. 23.) made use of when there was occasion to break asu●●der any hard thing that stood in their way, and to beat down the Enemies, and lay them prostrate, and to bruise and batter their Armour. It is likely it was a sort of Pole-axe, but proper to the Cavalry, which I gather from the following Verse, which speaks of breaking in pieces with it the Horse and his Rider, the Chariot and his Rider.  
The Weapons Offensive to wound and hurt the Enemy at some distance, were, 1. The Spear or javelin, for so the Words Chanith and Romach are diversely rendered in Numb. 25. 7. 1 Sam. 13. 19 jer. 46. 4. These Weapons were of different Kind's according to their length and make. Some of them might be thrown or darted, 1 Sam. 18. 11. others were a sort of Long Swords, Numb. 25. 8. And from 2 Sam. 2. 23. we may gather that some of them were piked or pointed at both Ends. 2. A ●ling, Kelang, with which they slung Stones at the Enemy. This is reckoned as a Part of Warlike Provision, in 2 Chron. 26. 14. and in other Places. David made use of one of these to good Purpose Wh●n he came into the Field against the Giant of Gath, 1 Sam. 17. 49, 50. The Bejaminites (for so we should read the Word, and not call them Benjamites, as if they were derived not from Benjamin but Benjam) were famous in Battle, because they had attained to a great Skill and Accuracy in handling this Weapon, they could sling Stones a● an Hair's breadth, and not miss, Judg. 20. 16. And whereas it is said here that they were Lefthanded, it should be rather rendered Ambidexters, such as could use both Hands, as will appear from comparing this Place with 1 thron. 12. 2. which spea●● of these Benjaminites, and tells us that they could 〈◊〉 both the right Hand and the left. When therefore 'tis said in the former Place, that they were 〈◊〉 of their right Hand, (for so 'tis in the Hebrew) the meaning is that they did not constantly use their right Hand (as others did) when they shot Arrows or slung Stones, but they were so expert in these Military Exercises that they could perform them with their left Hand as well as with their right. This is the true Sense of this Expression, and therefore the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Vulgar Latin, ita sinistrâ ut dextrâ praeliantes. Which is said to express how skilful and exact Slingers they were, and of what great Use and Service this singular Way of managing this Weapon was ●o them. Fight with the Sling was afterwards used by the Baleares, as Diodorus the Sicilian testifies, and by other Nations, as 
1 Aen. 9  Virgil and 
2 Lib. 8. Dec. 4.  Livy relate: yea, 'tis generally known, saith 
3 De re military Lib. 1.  Vegetius, that in all the Battles of the Ancients this was the way of Fight. 3. Bow and Arrows [Kesheth and Chitzim] are of great Antiquity. Indeed no Weapon is mentioned so soon: take thy Weapons, thy Quiver and thy Bow, Gen. 27. 3. though it is true these are not spoken of here as used in War, but Hunting. And so they are supposed and implied before this, viz. in Gen. 21. 20. where 'tis said of Ishmael that he became an Archer, he used Bow and Arrows in shooting of wild Beasts. It is likely that the Military Art commenced from men's encountering with Brutes. They fought wiith wild Beasts, and for that purpose invented Arms, which afterwards they unhappily used against one another. Particularly, shooting with the Bow was first used in Hunting and Killing of Beasts, and then of Men. At last there was scarcely any Battle fought but it was decided by the Bow. It was so useful a Weapon that care was taken to train up the Hebrew Youth to it betimes. When David had in a solemn Manner lamented the Death of K. Saul, he immediately gave order for teaching the young Men the use of the Bow, 1 Sam. 1. 18. that they might be skilled in the Primitive Artillery of the World, that they might be as expert as the Philistines, by whose Bows and Arrows Saul and his Army were slain. So in 2 Chron. 26. 14. we read that these were part of the Military Ammunition: for in those times Bows were instead of Guns, and Arrows supplied the Place of Powder and Ball. From job 20. 24. I gather that the Warlike Bow was generally made of Steel, and consequently was very stiff, and hard to bend: wherefore they used their Foot in bending their Bows; and thence to tread the Bow, Jer. 50. 14. is to bend 〈◊〉; and Bows trodden, Isa. 5. 28. & 21. 15. are Bows ●●nt, as our Translators rightly render it: but the Hebrew Word which is used in these Places is darak, calcavit. In short, this Weapon was so requisite in War, that it is thence called Kesheth Mil chamah, the Bow of War, or Battel-Bow, Zech. 9 10. & 10. 4.  
Fourthly, You may observe that the Great Commanders and Chief Warriors not only among the Egyptians, Exod. 14. 6, 7. Canaanites and Philistines, Josh. 17. 16. Judg. 1. 19 & 4. 3. 1 Sam. 13. 5. Syrians, 2 Sam. 10. 18. 1 Kings 20. 21. Babylonians, Ezek. 23. 24. but among the jews; 2 Sam. 15. 1. 1 Kings 10. 26. fought in Open Chariots or War-Coaches. This was the ancient manner of Fight, and afterwards was used by other Nations, as Diodorus of Sicily reports. Hom●● acquaints us that these Military Chariots were in use among the Trojans. And that they were so among the Persians, 
1 Hist, lib. 4. c. 9  Quintus Curtius lets us know when he describes Darius' Army. 
2 De Cyri Institue. l. 6.  Xenophon attributes the Invention of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as he calls them) these Sithed Chariots to Cyrus. But from this (as many other things) we may discern the Defect of these Historians, and their failure in the Point of Antiquity. These great Iron Chariots for Battle were much older than that Monarch. We read of them in the Sacred History about a thousand Years before his time; for Pharaoh's Chariots without doubt were of this kind, which we may infer from the great Number of them, which was six hundred, and from the appointing of Captains over them, Exod. 14. 7. which shows they were no other than their Fight Chariots. And we read that about fifty Years afterwards the Canaanites had got this sort of Warlike Vehicle, and used them in that Champion Country, which struck Terror into the jews, and made them almost despair of conquering that part of the Nation, josh. 17. 16, 18. I might add that our Predecessors the Old Britain's (as both Caesar and Tacitus record) fought in these Chariots, which (as they describe them to us) were fanged at the Ends of the Axletrees with Iron Hooks or Scythes. With these fastened on both Sides, and standing out about a Yard in length, they cut down their Enemies that came in their way. I remember the Hebrew Word Ketzir is both Harvest and War, (Exod. 23. 16. Isa. 9) here we have too true an Account of it, for with these Sithe-Chariots they mowed Men down as some Corn at Harvest is wont to be.  
Fifthly, We learn from the Scriptures that when they were besieged of old, they made use of Engines on their Towers and Bulwarks to shoot Arrows and great Stones withal, 2 Chron. 26. 15. and when they sat down before a Place and resolved to besiege it, they dug Trenches, 2 Sam. 17. 20. they drew a Line of Circumvallation, Lam. 2. 8. they made Ramparts, they built Forts against it, and cast a Mount against it, and set the Camp also against it, and set battering Rams against it round about, Ezek. 4. 2. for though Carim in the last Place here mentioned signifies both Arietes and Deuces, and is taken in this latter Sense in Ezek. 21. 22. yet in this Place it seems to be restrained to the former denotation, viz. of Iron Engines wherewith they battered down the Walls of a Town. Of this sort is Mechi, Ezek. 26. 9 (whence perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Machina) an Engine of War (as we render it) which they made use of to set against the Walls (as you read there) to demolish them and lay them even with the Ground. It may be this is that Military Instrument with which they shot Stones into a City or besieged Place, which the● foremention'd Place in the Chronicles, and is perhaps the same with Sollelah, Jer. 6. 6. an Engine of Shot, as our Margin renders it. These were of a resembling Nature with the Balistae and Catapultae among the Romans, which were used for throwing Stones and Arrows, and were to them of old instead of Mortars and Carcases. Next I might observe that to give notice of an approaching Enemy, and to bring the despersed Inhabitants of the Country together to resist and repel him, they used to set up Beacons on the Tops of Mountains as a ●it Alarm on that Occasion, Isa. 30. 17. This perhaps is Maseth, Jer. 6. 1. which we translate a Sign of Fire lifted up, that those that were afar off might be warned of the Enemies coming. Nay, if I am not mistaken, this was of far greater Antiquity; for that great Flame with Smoke rising up out of the City, which was appointed as a Sign between the Men of Israel, and the Liars in wait, judg. 20. 38, 40. seems to be meant by this.  
And now when I am enumerating the Keel Mil●hamah, the Instruments or Utensils of War, (as the Prophet calls them, jer. 51. 20.) I might take notice that Trumpets were anciently used on this Occasion (as they are at this Day) Numb. 10. 5, 6, 7. 2 Sam. 2. 28. & 18. 16. I●r. 4. 21. & 6. 1. jer. 4. 2. 14. Zeph. 1. 16. So were Ensigns, Banners, Standards, Exod. 17. 15, 16. Psal. 74. 4. Cant. 6. 4. Isa. 13. 2. jer. 4. 6. & 51. 12. But the most eminent Place for this purpose (and which shows the Antiquity of this Military Usage, and will give us an Account of the first and most early Marshalling of Armies) is Numb. 2. 2. Every Man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by his own Standard, with the Ensign of their Father's House. For the explaining of which we must know that when Moses had received the Law and finished the Tabernacle, he mustered all the Tribes and Families of Israel, and disposed them for their March through the Wilderness. This Great Army (as this Chapter informs us) was divided into four Battalions or Squadrons, each of which contained three whole Tribes. The first contained the three Tribes of judah, Issachar, and Zebulon: and every Tribe being distinguished by his particular Standard, this Squadron marched under the Standard of judah. And it was peculiar to this Tribe to encamp always on the East Side of the Tabernacle, and to hold the first Place and lead the Vanguard. The second Battalion consisted of the Tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Gad: and Reuben's Standard was that which they were placed under. These had the second Place in the Army, and encamped on the South Side of the Tabernacle. The third Division marched under the Standard of Ephraim, to whom were joined the Regiments of Manasse and Benjamin, and they were situated always on the West Quarter. The fourth Squadron were ranked under the Standard of Dan, to whom belonged the Tribes of Naphthali and Asher. These were placed on the North Side of the Tabernacle, and always marched in the Rear. In every Standard or Banner there was a particular Ensign or Badge by which those of that Squadron were known. In that of judah which marched in the Van there was portrayed a Lion: in that of Reuben a Man: in that of Ephraim an Ox: and in that of Dan an Eagle. Where by the way we may observe here the Invention of Badges and Coats of Arms. The Tribes were distinguished by their different Scutcheons, which were of divers Figures, and ('tis not to be doubted) of different Colours. Though truly this Invention seems to have been begun first of all in Gen. 49. where the several Tribes have assigned them by jacob their particular Distinctive Ensigns and Armorial Cognisances, as judah a Lion, Dan a Serpent, Issachar an Ass, etc. which were certain Arms or Badges by which they were known and distinguished. In these and the forenamed Instances, Heraldry had its Original, hence it may fetch its Pedigree. Thus that Noble Camp was disposed and situated, thus the several Tribes and Princes of them were marshaled. Thus the Tabernacle was placed in the midst of the four Divisions of the Army, which pitched round about it, as a Guard to Defend and Protect it. But I should note withal, that the Tabernacle was more Immediately surrounded by the Priests and Levites. Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar and his Brethren were lodged on the East, at the Entrance of the Court of the Tabernacle: the Families of Cohath were placed on the South, the Families of Merari on the North, the Geshurites on the West: and all others that were dedicated to the Service and Attendance on the Tabernacle, were quartered near it. This was the Excellent Order that was observed, the Ecclesiastical Persons were placed next to the Tabernacle because of their Employment and Office: and to guard both them and the Tabernacle, the whole Host was drawn about them in a Circle. I might further take notice that there was not a fixed Distance of Ground from every part of the Camp to the Tabernacle, for it was necessary that some should be further off than others: but this was enjoined them, that the Limits of their travelling on the Sabbath-Day should not be above two thousand Cubits, josh. 3. 4. But by reason of the different Acception of the Cubit, it is not easy to determine exactly the Length of the Way which they were permitted to travel. If it was two thousand Paces; it amounted to two Miles: but most of the 
1 Buxtorf. Chald. Lex. p. 2583.  Rabbins agree that it was 2000 lesser Cubits, which make a large Mile. So far the furthest Part of the Israelites Camp was distant from the Tabernacle, according to the general Opinion of the Hebrew Doctors. This, whatever it is, is called a Sabbath-Day's journey, Acts 1. 12. i e. as much space of Ground as it was lawful for the Jews to go on a Sabbath-Day. This shall suffice to be said concerning the Ancient Situation of the Camp of Israel. A very Curious and Excellent Prospect it is, and worthy of our Observation, it being the First Platform of a Military Encamping.  
To close this Head, I will take notice of the Vast Numbers which some of the Armies mentioned in Scripture consisted of of old. That of the Jews in the Wilderness (which I last spoke of) according to the Muster-Roll in Numb. 1. contained no less than six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. There were enroled about a thousand thousand fight Men in Israel, and about half as many in judah when David numbered the People, 2 Sam. 24. 9 1 Chron. 21. 5. King Vzziah had an Host of three hundred thousand and seven thousand and five hundred, besides a choice Band of two thousand and six hundred, 2 Chron. 26. 12, 13. King Asa's military Force consisted of about six hundred thousand, 2 Chron. 14. 8. And against him came an Ethiopian Army of above a thousand thousand Chariots, 2 Chron. 14. 9 whence we must collect that the whole Force was much more Numerous, for the Chariots generally had more than one single Person in them. King jeroboam brought eight hundred thousand Men into the Field, of whom five hundred thousand were slain, 2 Chron. 13. 3, 17. And other vast Numbers we read of in the Books of Kings and Chronicles that were brought into the Field in those Days. Which I the rather mention because some have questioned the Truth of it, and have thought that it is by the Fault of Transcribers that the Arithmetic mounts so high. And I am sorry to find a Great Man, whom I will not name, inclining this way. I doubt not but if he had lived to revise his Writings, he would have expunged what seems to favour this; for so Great an Asserter of the Authentic Verity of the Scriptures (as well as of the Christian Religion) could not have done otherwise. But this I desire may be considered by those that think the Number of the Men in the forementioned Armies is mistaken by those who copied out the Bible, they setting down (as they imagine) one Arithmetical Figure instead of another; I desire (I say) this may be considered, that the Numbers in these Sacred Writings are set down in Words at length, and not in Figures, which these Objectors did not think of; and therefore those who transcribed the Bible did not mistake the Numbers by writing down one Figure for another, and consequently these men's Conceit is groundless. Again, we are to remember what is said in Numb. 1. 45. they numbered from twenty Years old and upward all that were able to go forth to War: and so afterward they trained up all that were able to bear Arms unto Martial Exercises and Military Discipline: which if we consider, it will not seem strange and incredible that the Number of those in their Armies was so great. Moreover, the Cavil will vanish if we consult Pagan Authors, and thence learn how numerous their Armies were of old. Ninus the third Assyrian Monarch, raised an Army of seventeen hundred thousand Foot, and two hundred thousand Horse, and ten thousand six hundred Chariots of War, and invaded Bactria with these Forces, as Diodorus Siculus and other Good Authors relate. Z●roaster the King of Bactria met him with four hundred thousand fight Men, say the same Historians. And the foresaid Diodorus tells us that Semiramis that celebrated Queen of Assyria, Ninus' Relict, carried an Army that consisted of three Millions of Men into India: and Staurobates the King of India encountered her with more numerous Forces, and vanquished her. It is universally acknowledged that Xerxes entered Greece with an Army of above a Million of fight Men. Thus Profane History may induce us to credit that which we meet with in the Sacred. When we find such vast Numbers mentioned in the former, we have no reason to wonder at the like in the latter. And though, it is true, there is a Disproportion between judea and those Countries which I have named, yet if it be remembered how Populous the one was in respect of the others, and likewise that in time of War every Man that could handle a Weapon turned Soldier, the great inequality which some imagine between this and the others will soon vanish. This is some Account of Martial Affairs which the Ancient Writings of the Bible give us: and though we read since the like things in other Authors, yet here we see the First and Earliest Instances of them.  
I might pass form Military Affairs to some Sportive Diversions and Exercises which the Scripture speaks of, and gives us the first notice of, as Hunting, which was the mighty Nimrod's Sport, Gen. 10. 9 (though, as was said before, under that Term likewise his Tyrannical and Arbitrary Rule is denoted to us) It is likely that he killed and destroyed the wild savage Beasts that grew numerous at that time, and became very troublesome and noxious: for upon that signal Dispersion of Mankind they remained not together in so great a Body as before, and thence the Beasts were more formidable; and therefore Hunting began to be necessary to preserve themselves. But this Great Man might follow this Employment also for Pleasure and Recreation. So the first Hunting was for private Delight, and public Profit. Esau afterwards is called a Cunning Hunter, Gen. 25. 27. and his Game is particularly specified, Gen. 27. 3, 5. And I have intimated b●fore that this Robust Exercise was a Specimen of Warlike Erterprises and Arms. Hunting and Fowling are joined together in Leu. 17. 13. and in order to the catching both Beasts and Birds; there is mention of 
1 Prov. 1. 17. Psal. 124. 7. Prov. 7. 23. Eccles▪ 〈…〉▪ Job 18. 8, 9, 10▪ Job 40. 24. Am. 3▪ 5.  Nets, Traps, Snares, 'Gins. Washing or Bathing (as it was a Recreative Exercise of the Female Sex) you will find mentioned Exod. 2. 5. where we read that Pharaoh's Daughter washed herself in the River Nile. It may be Ruth 3. 3. Wash thyself (after which immediately follows, anoint thee, which was the usual Attendant of Bathing) refers to this. Ruth's. Mother thought this not an improper Exercise before she went to engratiate herself with Boaz. Bathsheb● was bathing herself in a Garden in the Evening when David espied her, 2 Sam. 11. 2. This made way for Artificial Baths aftewards among the Jews in their Gardens and Orchards: which, if we may credit the Targum upon Ecclesiastes, are meant by the Delights of the Sons of Men, Eccl. 2. 7. This was the known Practice of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, and other Nations; but the Ancientest and most innocent Examples are in the Bible, viz. among the Egyptians and Hebrews. Other Recreating and Pleasurable Entertainments I had occasion to mention before, as Instrumental and Vocal Music, though I considered them chiefly as they were used on serious Occasions. I will now add Dancing, which also was sometimes on a Religious Account, as in Exod. 15. 20. where Miriam and her Females with Dances (as well as Timbrels) sang, and glorified God after the Deliverance from the Egyptians. This Miriam may pass for the true Terpsichore whom the Poets make the Inventor of Dancing, she being the first famous Instance of it. We read that David danced before the Ark, 2 Sam. 6. 16. But it is not the Sacred but Civil Use of this Exercise, which I am now to take notice of. It is certain that a pleasant and decent moving, a Graceful Agitation of the Body (helped by some innocent noise of Music) was one of the first and most natural expressions of Joy when there was some great occasion for it. This we learn, as from Reason, so from the sacred Monuments of Antiquity in the Scriptures. Here we are informed that this was an old Expression of Mirth at times of solemn Feasting, Judg. 21. 19, 21. There was not only Music but Dancing at the Festival of the returning Prodigal, Luke 15. 25. This was usual also after Victory, and in Public Triumphs, judg. 11. 34. 1 Sam. 18. 6. & 21. 11. and at all Seasons of Mirth and Rejoi●ing, Psal. 30. 11. Jer. 31. 4, 13. And still, so far as Dancing imports a Graceful Motion and Comely Deportment of the Body, I see no reason to declaim against it. But we read that this Usage oftentimes degenerated into inexcusable Extravagancy and Vice. The Idolatrous Jews made it part of their mad Worship which they paid to the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. 19 The Amalekites after their Victory used it to advance their Luxury and Debauchery, 1 Sam. 30. 16. job makes it part of the Character of the Prosperous Wicked, such as forget God and Religion, that their Children dance, job 21. 11. And what was the bloody and execrable Fruit of this sort of Lewd Frolic, the Evangelical History records, Mat. 14. 6, etc. where H●rodias's Daughter's Heels made the Baptist's Head fly off his Shoulders. And it cannot be denied that this is the frequent Companion of Luxury and Wantonness in these Days, in which so great Numbers (yea and of the inferior and ordinary Rank) immoderately affect and addict themselves to this Diversion. This Vanity seems to be part of the Temper and rooted Inclination of the gay People of this Age, as if the Punctum Saliens were yet in their Blood, and they were still made up of those Capering Particles, the first Rudiment of their Conception and Life. One would think the Scene changed from Naples to England, and that our People were stung with the Tarantula, and were (as we might hope) dancing and playing it away. But then, when we see that the Sting is rather increased than cured, and the Venom of Lust and Debauchery is daily more and more instilled by it, we have cause to lament the fashionable Folly and Levity of our Times.   

CHAP. V.  
We are furnished in the Bible with the Knowledge of the first Usages relating to Matrimony. Of Nuptial Feasts; and other Ancient Feasts. We have here the first Notices of Buying and Selling, and the Ancient use of Money. We learn hence what was the first Apparel, and what Additions there were afterwards. The chief Ornaments of Men and Women, viz. Crowns, Mitres, Frontal Jewels, Earrings, (the occasion of wearing these at first, and among what Persons and Nations, together with the Abuse of them) Chains, Bracelets, Finger-Rings and Signets. Changes of Garments. The Ancient use of White Apparel. Fuller's Earth. Looking-Glasses. Rending of the Garments.  
THAT the Scriptures contain the Knowledge of all the First and Ancientest Usages in the World, I will make good in the next Place by speaking of Marriage, and several things that have reference to it. Concerning which we have the best Notices from this Authentic Book. There we are told that Man was no sooner made but God extracted a Woman out of him: and when he had divided them, he presently joined them together, so that a Conjugal Life became the first and blessed State of Paradise, Gen. 2. 21, etc. The first Person that violated this primitive Law of Wedlock was Lamech, who took unto him two Wives, Gen. 4. 19 and if we may believe 
1 Antiqu. lib. 1. c. 3.  josephus, had 77 Children by them. The Example of this first Polygamist was afterwards drawn into practice by the jews, and Polygamy became frequent, and Divorcements were permitted in order to the marrying of other Wives. The first that kept Concubines was Abraham, Gen. 25. 6. whose Practice was followed afterwards by other Patriarches, not without some permission from God, but grew at last to a most Scandalous Excess in Solomon and Rehoboam's Days. That there were Prostitute Harlot's betimes we may gather from Gen. 34. 31. and Chap. 38. v. 14, 15. in which latter Place there are mentioned some Circumstances whereby those Mercenary Women were known in those times, as their Veil, their sitting in an open Place, etc. That they were veiled may be gathered from the Practice of Tamar, but it was with a proper and peculiar sort of Covering, by which they were known from others, for all the Sex generally in those Eastern Countries went veiled. It was not worn because those first Prostitutes were modest in respect of those since, (as some have thought) but because they were Distinguished by this from other Women. I know that Bochart and some others attempt to infer from Isa. 47. 3. and such like Places, that they were not veiled; but this, as I apprehend, is upon mistake, for those Words have no reference to Harlots, but to Slaves, and so the Learnedest Commentators agree. Their placing themselves by the way side or in some open Place, may be gathered from the foresaid Example of Tamar: and this was a long time afterwards the usage among Persons of that infamous Character, Prov. 7. 12. She is in the Streets, and lieth in wait at every Corner; where by the Corner are meant the chief and most eminent Places in the Streets, open and to be seen. Wherefore we find her Seat to be in the high Places of the City, Chap. 9 v. 14. To this impudent Practice refer those Passages, In the ways hast thou set for them, Jer. 3. 2. Thou hast made thee an high Place in every Street,— at every head of the way, Ezek. 16. 24, 25. So the Roman Strumpets were wont to sit in triviis, in the high Way where there was the greatest Resort of People, as from Catullus and others might be proved, if it were worth the while. But to return to our main Subject, that of Matrimony, we see what kind of Treaty there was about it, Gen. 34. 6, 12. what the Contract, Gen. 24. 50, 51, 57, 58. what the Solemnising of it, Gen. 24. 67. were in those early Days. We read not of any Formality in joining of Man and Woman. Mutual Consent made Marriage. Wilt thou go with this Man? And she said, I will go. Then when she was come to his House, he took her, and she became his Wife▪ To this some have thought those Words of the Prophet, Host 3. 3. refer, I bought her for an Homer of Barley, as if they alluded to the ancient Custom of Marriage solemnised per Confarreationem, by a Cake of Bread or some Corn put into the Bride's Hand (which here by the way I might observe was perhaps the Original of th● Bridecake which hath been the constant Attendant at Nuptials:) But though that be questionable, yet it is certain that these Words have respect to the Ancient Buying of Wives. The Bridal Purchase here spoken of by the Prophet, was partly with Corn and partly with Money; for he saith he bought her to him for fifteen Piece● of Silver, as well as for an Homer, etc. So that the Dower consisted in Money and Goods. But we have a much earlier Example of this Dowry or Gift, as it is called Exod. 34. 12. where it appears that there was wont to be given a certain Sum of Money to the Father of the Woman who was courted and designed for a Wife. And this may be gathered from 1 Sam. 18. 25. for when 'tis said the King desireth not any Dowry, it is implied that although Saul in Craft seemed to refuse a Dowry for his Daughter, yet it was usual in those Days to give it for a Wife. This is that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Great Father of Poets and of all Pagan Antiquities: and there is reference to this Practice in several Places of his Poems. Whence Aristotle speaking of the Usages of the Old Greeks, saith 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polit. l. 2. c. 8.  they bought their Wives. And this Conjugal Buying or Purchasing was reciprocal, i. e. it was performed by both Parties generally, Husband and Wife. It was the same Matrimonial Coemption or Mutual Purchasing which prevails at this Day: the Woman purchases the Man with her Portion or Jointure, and he her with his Estate, or part of it. The Simplicity of those first Ages was such that there were then no such Ceremonial Rites in their Nuptials as have been observed since. And indeed it became partly necessary to have a Public and Solemn Celebration of Marriage after the World was grown more numerous, to fix and ascertain the Legitimacy of Succession in Families, and to tie the Matrimonial Knot the faster in these slippery times.  
Yet this we may take notice of, that notwithstanding the Nuptial Bonds were entered into without Ceremony and Formality, yet they were always attended with a Feast. Which ever afterwards became fashionable among all Nations, but especially the Romans, of whom we have Examples in 
1 Ad Q. Fratrem, l. 2.  Tully, 
2 In Caligulâ, Cap. 25.  Suetonius, 
3 Satyr. 6.  juvenal and many others. We read of a Feast at jacob and Rachel's, or rather (as Latan ordered the Matter) Leah's Wedding, Gen. 29. 22. which lasted seven Days, as may be gathered from v. 27. Fulfil her Week, i. e. stay till the seven Days of the Wedding-Feast be over, for so you will find it explained in the next Verse. So Samson's Nuptials were accompanied with a Festival which continued a Week, judg. 14. 12. And this it seems was the usual Term not only of these but all other great and solemn Feasts, Esth. 1. 5, 10. And here I might observe, that it is peculiarly recorded that at Samson's Marriage-Feast he put forth a Riddle, and required the Bridal Companions to declare and expound it some time before the Days of that Solemnity were ended. This was one way of diverting and entertaining themselves at those times of Mirth, as other Writers testify. Herodotus and Plutarch mention these among the Ancients, telling us that they were wont to propound certain Acquaint Problems to be solved by the Company, and thereupon arose Battles of Wit. And from Athenaeus we may be informed that these Enigmatical Questions were used at their Compotations. Another famous Instance of Feasting on this account was that at the Royal Nuptials of Ahasuerus and Esther, Esth. 2. 18. signally styled Esther's Feast. Where by the way observe that a Feast was called by the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Drinking, for that is the Word here used; and the same you will find in judg. 14. 12. job 1. 4. Esther 5. 5, 6. in which Places the Seventy Interpreters render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Accordingly too drink, Esth. 3. 15. is to Feast, and so again, Chap. 7. v. 1. Thence in the New Testament the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 4. 3. is rendered very rightly Banquet. And the Feasts or Banquet among the Greeks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Compotations, drink together. Because the Wine generally bore the greatest part in those Meetings, the Denomination was thence. But to go back to what I was speaking of, the Mariage-Feasts are taken notice of in several Places in the New Testament, Mat. 9 10. & 22. 2. john 2. 1. which shows the frequent use of them in those Days. The Word to express them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in those forecited Texts, yea three or four times together in Mat. 22. is by our Translators rendered a Marriage; but that is not the proper Translation of the Word in these Place, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is a Marriage-Feast, and so it is in 
1 Odyss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Homer and other Authors, (as the Learned Dr. Hammond hath observed) and you may perceive from the Texts themselves that it must be so translated. Further, 'tis observable that of old there were Proper Vests made use of when they went to these Wedding-Feasts. They generally put on white Garments (which you shall hear afterwards were in great Request of old) upon this Occasion: however, 'tis certain they changed their Apparel, and were clad in a Vestment fit for that Solemnity. This is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Wedding-Garment, Matth. 22. 11. that distinct bridal Attire which was usually worn at such a time.  
And here I might take occasion to speak of Other Feasts, hesides the Nuptial Ones, mentioned in these Sacred Monuments. To say nothing of the Religious Feasts of the Jews, as the Passover, etc. which were particularly appointed by God, we read that there were some of Royalty and State, Estb. 1. 5, 9 some at the Weaning of Children, Gen. 21. 8. some at Sheepshearing, 1 Sam. 25. 36. 2 Sam. 13. 23. others at making of Leagues and Treaties, 2 Sam. 3. 20. others at finishing of them, and to render the Compact sure, Gen. 26. 30. some on occasion of Great and Public Deliverances, Esth. 9 17, 18. some at celebrating of Birth-days, as that of P●araoh, Gen. 40. 20. (the first Instance of this Nature that we can possibly produce) and that of Herod, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 6. 21. which we render a convenient Day: but our Learned Annotator translates it a Festival Day, it answering to the Hebrew jom Tob, a good Day, a merry Season: and such was the Anniversary of Herod's Birth, which was kept as a Festival. And among Other Nations there were usually Feasts on this Account. That there were so among the Persians and Grecians, 
1 Deipnosoph. l. 4. c. 6.  Athenaeus bears witness: and particularly concerning the Persian Kings 
2 In Calliop●.  Herodotus doth the like. From Suetonius and other Historians we learn that the Birth-days of julius Caesar, Augustus, Titus, Nerva, Antoninus, Gordian, were celebrated in the same manner. 
3 Epist. 64.  Sen●●● kept the Birth-days of Socrates, Plato, etc. for such he understands by Great Men. Maecenas and Virgil's Nativities were observed, as is evident from 
4 Lib. 4. Ode 11.  Horace and 
5 Lib. 3. Epist. 7.  Pliny the younger. But enough of this.  
I will next inquire what ancient Notices we have from the Scripture concerning Buying and Selling. We do not read that there was any Pecuniary Traffic before the Flood, but 'tis likely that Swapping or Bartering of one thing for another was the Practice of those times (as it is still among the most Barbarous Nations.) That the first way of trafficking was without Coin, was the Opinion of the Prince of Philosophers, 
1 Aristor. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Before the Invention of Money Exchanging (saith he) was in use. And even after the Flood this way of Commerce did not cease, as when there was a Dissension between Abraham's and Abimelech's Servants about the Well that Abraham dug, we read that he took Sheep and Oxen, and gave them to Abimelech, which perhaps may denote his Bartering for the Well, Gen. 21. 27. no less than furnishing him with Beasts for Sacrifice. Whence perhaps Kesitah, which signifies a Lamb, signifies also a Piece of Money, Gen. 33. 19 and is so translated: and the same Hebrew Word is used in job 42. 11. and is rendered by the Syriac and Chaldee, Greek and Vulgar Latin, a Lamb, because cattle heretofore (the chief Commodity they had) was instead of Money to them, and these they frequently changed for other Commodities. Though I know Grotius and some other Learned Interpreters think this Kesita was that Piece of Money which was of the Value of a Lamb, and for that Reason had the Figure of that Creature stamped on it. So 
2 Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 3.  Pliny tells us, that among the Romans Pecunia was so named, because the first Money was marked with the Figure of a Sheep or Ox, or some other cattle. 
3 De Re Rust. l. 2.  Varro gives the same Reason of the Name: And 
4 In Poplicolâ.  Plutarch confirms this, telling us, that they engraved on the Ancient Coins the Figure of a Cow, or a Sheep, or a Hog; though withal he acknowledges that it was the Opinion of some, that the Reason why Pecunia had its Name from Pecus, was ●ot because a Sheep or other Animal was engraven ●n their ancient Money, but because their chief Substance consisted in cattle heretofore, those were ●heir first Riches.  
But to wave this, this we are certain of, that when in process of Time Men saw that they had no need always of one another's Wares, and so could not change one thing for another, they invented Money, which might be given at any time instead of Commodities, and which was supposed to answer Exactly to the Value and Price of the things which they bought: For, as Aristotle saith, 
5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eth. l. 5. c. 8.  there was a necessity of having all things valued and estimated by a certain Price, that so by this Means there might be on all Occasions an equal and proportioned way of Changing, i. e. Money for Goods, and Goods for Money. Wherefore in the same Place he saith, 
6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  All things are measured and duly proportioned by the Invention of Money. And the Dictate of Reason, and the Necessities they were generally under, prompted them to make use of this way, because Goods and Wares could not so conveniently be carried up and down. The ancientest mention of Money or Coin is in Gen. 13. 2. Abraham was rich in Silver and Gold; for Keseph and Zabab are the Words used in 
7 Gen. 20. 16. & 23. 16. & 29. 9 & 43. 22. Deut. 2. 28. 2 Sam. 18. 11. Judg. 8. 26. 2 Kings 5. 5. 2 Chron. 9 16.  other Places for Money of Silver and Gold: But generally Keseph (which is properly Silver) is the Word that is rendered Money in the Holy Writings. That Money was used in Abraham's Days is evident from Gen. 17. 13. which makes mention of him (i. e. a Servant) that is bought with Money; him that is the Acquisition 〈◊〉 Silver (as the Hebrew hath it). And concerning this Patriarch 'tis said, He bought a Burying- 〈◊〉 with Money, as much Money as the Field was 〈◊〉 viz. four hundred Shekels of Silver, Gen. 23. 9, 〈◊〉. And 'tis observable, that this is called here curre●● Money with the Merchant: the Silver was 〈◊〉 such as passed to the Merchant or Trader, such 〈◊〉 he would take as well as give. It was good 〈◊〉 that would not be refused by merchandizing Men. This is a plain and undeniable Proof that Money, Silver Coin, was in use betimes, even in those fi●●● Ages of the Word. Yea, I gather that the use of Coined Money was frequent in those Days, for that is implied in its passing from one to another. And from this time we constantly read that things were purchased with Keseph, Money, properly Silv●●, and therefore rendered by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the Word for a Shekel in all those Te●●● where it is put absolutely, and alone by itself. It is generally translated a piece of Silver, but in Is●▪ 7. 23. a Silverling.  
Further, it might be observed that they weighed their Money in those Days, as appears from the Instance before mentioned in Gen. 23. 16. where 'tis said, that Abraham weighed unto Ephron four beddred She●els of Silver for the Field he bought of him. So you read of weighing of Money or Silver, Exod. 22. 17. job 28. 15. jer. 32. 9 Zech. 11. 12. Yea, their common Coin, a Shekel, had its Name from Shakal, to weigh. And this was in use among the Persians, for in Esth. 3. 9 to weigh is to pay. The Reason of which was because generally their Money was in Large Pieces, and very Heavy; and because in Moneys the Account went by Shekels among the Jews, and the common Pound-weight was fifteen Shekels, therefore some used Great Weights to weigh the Money which was paid to them for what they sold: And thence you may understand the Meaning of Amos 8. 5. where those are complained of that made the Shekel great, viz. for their own Advantage and Profit. It is not unlikely that the Old Romans had this Custom of Poising the Money which they paid, or received in Paiment; whence ●●●dere, expendere, appendere, are both to weigh and to pay. Likewise hence (as I suppose) what is very Valuable and Precious, what is Choice and Worthy, is said to be Weighty not only in the Idiom of the Hebrews, but among the Greeks and Latins: as on the contrary those things are said to be Light which are Vain, Vile, Little and of no Value. This way of speaking (of which I have largely treated in ●nother Place) had its Rise from the weighing of ●oney of old: Because their Coin went by Weight, therefore what is very Valuable (as Money is always reckoned to be) is signified by Weight. But we cannot hence infer that they did not tell their Money, (as some have thought) for the same Money that was weighed might be told, that there might be no Cheat, especially if it were a great Sum. We are not certain that the one did exclude the other: but the telling of their Money, as well as the weighing it, might be in use at the same time.  
Moreover, the First and Ancientest Apparel is to be known out of this Sacred Volume. Here we are informed that after Adam and Eve had transgressed the Divine Law, and thereby vitiated both Souls and Bodies, their Nakedness became shameful to them, and therefore to cover it they sewed Figleaves together, (which were broad and wide, and therefore fit for that purpose) and made themselves Aprons, Gen. 3. 7. These were the first Clothing; for I do not see any ground for the Interpretation of a 
8 J. Clerici Commentar. in Gen. 3. 7.  late Writer, who by Chagoroth (which we translate Aprons) understands some Booths or T●bernacles, which they dressed up with Fig-leaves that were broad and shadowy, to hide themselves. The Original Word hath never any such Sense, and therefore we cannot but look upon this Exposition as precarious. Besides, he might have satisfied himself from very credible Authors, that among some Nations, even at this Day, their Garments are made of Leaves of Trees: so that there is no Cause to wonder, much less to deny that the 〈◊〉 Apparel was of this kind. We are to understand by Chagoroth (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) such Garments wherewith they girded themselves about, and therefore in other Places the Word is rendered Girdles; 1 Sam. 18. 4. Prov. 31. 24. Ezek. 23. 15. They had 〈◊〉 Denomination because they were tied or girt abo●●, and on that Account are not unfitly translated Aprons; as also because they hung down before, it being the Design of that Covering of Fig-leaves to hide those Parts of the Body which by the Fall were become disgraceful and uncomely. And there is no need of supposing such Instruments in order to an artificial sewing of them, as a Late Author would suggest, and thereby would enervate the Truth and Reality of the Adamick History; for we may reasonably conceive them to be tacked and fastened together with sharp Stalks and small Twigs which the Garden of Eden afforded them. (As afterwards for a long time People sewed or pinned their Clothes together with Thorns; whence a Pin, as a 
9 Dr. Skinner.  Great Onomatologist tells us, is from the French Pingle or Espingle, Acicula, and that from Spina or Spinula.) Whence you see how frivolous and childish, how frigid and dilute that Cavil is; 
1 Archaeolog. Philos. cap. 7.  Where had they Needles when the Art of working Iron was not found out? and where had they Thread when the Thread-makers Trade was not invented? For indeed there was no Necessity of Needles or Thread: nay, 'tis certain that Leaves could better be fastened together with little Twigs, or something of that nature, than with those other Materials. Besides, this Gentleman shows himself as unacquainted with the Original Language as with the Ancient Usage and the Nature of the thing itself; for the Hebrew Word Taphar, which is here used, is of a large Signification, and denotes putting on, fitting together, or any kind of applying, as in job 16. 15. Ezek. 13. 18. So that he hath no ground hence to understand this Word of sewing in a strict and proper Sense. And the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is here made use of by the Seventy Interpreters, is also of great Latitude, and is rendered adapto, concinno, as well as suo. Thus our first Parents made themselves Garments, but afterwards God clothed them, Gen. 3. 21. They had not sufficiently covered themselves with their Fig-leaf Aprons; therefore unto them the Lord God made Coats of Skins, i. e. he taught them how to make them. These Garments are called Coats, because they were a Raiment that came over their Bodies, whereas the other covered a Part only, viz. from the Waste and Belly downwards. It is not improbable that they wore the former ones still, and so these latter may partly be called their Upper Garment. And they are called Coats of Skins, because they were made of the Hides of Beasts, which, it may be, were worn at first raw, and afterwards dressed and made 〈◊〉 Leather, and so were a Substantial Apparel▪ wh●●● as the Covering of Fig-leaves was very ●light, a●● deserved not the Name of Clothing. I will 〈◊〉 stay here to debate, as the Talmudists and 〈◊〉 other Jewish Writers do, what Beasts Skin 〈◊〉 Skins they were that these Coats were made 〈◊〉 Perhaps these Skins wherewith they were arrayed were Sheepskins, with the Inside (which was cool) towards them in Summertime, and with 〈◊〉 warm Fleece next to them in Winter (for they had their Summer and Winter in the Paradisical Earth, whatever this Archaeologist saith to the contrary). But I own this to be mere Conjecture, though the thing itself is not unworthy of the Divine Wisdom and Providence. But this is beyond Conjecture, that Cothnoth gnor (which we rightly translate Coats of Skin) doth not signify Taber●●cles made of, or covered with Skins to keep out the Heat, as the forecited Commentator on Genesis doth imagine; for it is said, God made them Coats of Skins, and clothed them, the latter being purposely added to explain to us the former. And we are sure of this, that Garments of the Skins of Animals were the ancientest Apparel: so that there was no Unlikelihood of the thing. Diodorus of S●cily expressly relates, that in the times of old they 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 〈◊〉  did use the Skins of wild Beasts to cover them: And that they lasted a long time among the Indian's, Persians, Scythians, and the Old Romans, we may inform ourselves from Profane History; which will tell us likewise that these Skins were the only Clothing that the Old Britain's (the first Inhabitants of our Country) were Masters of. This ●as all the Covering they and others had at first. We see then what was the Primitive Clothing, and ●hat it was made of. Our first Progenitors (as gay and trim as we go now) were clad in plain Leathern Coats; yea she of the softer Sex, and who was the Queen of the World, had no other Gown to wear. This plain rude Habit, which was to hide their Nakedness, and to defend them from the Injury and Inclemency of the Wether, not to adorn them, was the only Dress a long time: but their Posterity by degrees found out other Materials for Clothing, as Wool (taken off from the Skin) and Flax, and made of them woollen and Linen Garments, Leu. 13. 47. Prov. 31. 13. Ezek. 34. 3. The richer Sort, not content with this common Drapery, sought out for something more artificial and gay, more fine and delicate. Hence joseph, when he was made Viceroy of Egypt, was arrayed in Vestures of fine Linen, Gen. 41. 42. and afterwards this and Silk, and Purple, and Scar●et, and Crimson, i. e. Fine Linen or Silk died with those Colours, became the usual clothing of all Persons of Quality, judg. 8. 26. & 14. 12. 2 Sam. 1. 24. Prov. 31. 21, 22. jer. 4. 30.  
Though their Garments of old were but few, yet their Ornaments were many. I will not here trouble you with enquiring into Iezebel's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whence the Greek and Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fucus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (70) Stibium (Vulgar Latin) 2 Kings 9 30. or Esther's Tameruk, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (70) Esth. 2. 3, 9 which though they were Ornamental, yet belong not to Apparel. Nor will I rifle all the fantastic Gaieties of the ●anton and proud Dames of jewry, Isa. 3. 18, etc. but I will only take notice of some of the Chief ●●d most Usual Ornaments of Men and Women, and those which we most frequently find mention●● in Scripture, that thereby we may understa●● what we read, and that we may be confirmed in this Truth, (which I have so often urged) that the first Rise of the most Ancient things whatsoever is to be derived from the Writings of the Old Testament. The Head-Ornament known by the Name of a Crown [Gnatarah or Gnatereth] was not peculiar to Kings, but was made use of by others, as is to be inferred from Ezek. 16. 12. & 23. 42. where 'tis reckoned among the other usual Ornaments appertaining to Women. It was worn by them at solemn and extraordinary times only, and most of all on the Day of their Nuptials, as the Jewish Doctors inform us. The better sort of these Attires were gilded, the common ones were made of Flowers. And that they were a Piece of Gentile Pomp and Gaiety, might be proved from several Authors, but I forbear. But there was a Crown which was proper to Kings, and is frequently called not only Gnatere●● but Nezer, (which latter Name is never, as I remember, given to the other Crown) this was the peculiar Badge of Regal Authority among the Ammonites, 2 Sam. 12. 30. and Persians, Esth. 1. 11. & 2. 17. & 6. 8. (where the Word is Cether, and it is called the Crown of the Kingdom, or the Royal Crown, as we translate it) and among the Jews, 2 Sam. 1. 10. 2 Kings 11. 2. From Esth. 8. 15. Psal. 21. 3. Zech. 9 16. we may gather that this Royal Crown was made of Gold, and set with Precious Stones and jewels. The Tsaniph, another Capital Ornament, rendered sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX, and englished by our Translators a Mitre, and sometimes a Diadem, was worn by Great and Honourable Persons, and was a Badge of Authority and Eminency, as appears from job 29. 14. Isa. 62. 3. Zech. 3. 5. The Persian Kings and Priests were clad in this Cidaris, as 
1 Cidarim Persae capitis vocabant insigne. Hist lib. 6.  Curtius and other Historians acquaint us: and it is not to be doubted that they had it from the jewish High Priests and Priests, the former of which wore a Mitre, Mitsnepheth, Exod. 29. 6. & 39 28. and the latter Bonnets, Migbanoth, which were of of fine Linen, Exod. 29. 9 & 39 28. (as well as the Mitre) and are said to be bound upon their Heads, for that is the true Import of the Hebrew Word in the forecited Place in Exodus and in Leu. 8. 13. which plainly shows that these Mitres and Bonnets were of the Nature of Turbans, and so were the same with the Tsaniph, which was a Covering rolled up in Folds, and tied about the Head, from tsanaph, circumvolvere, circumligare. And indeed Tsaniph, if we exactly inquire into it, will be found to be the same Word with Mitsnepheth, only this latter is with a Man Heemantick in the beginning, and a Tau in the End of it. If I had time I could show that other Ornaments were borrowed from the Jews, and that what God himself enjoined the High Priests was afterwards used by the Eastern Princes.  
As to the ancient Head-Covering of Women, I had occasion given me to speak of it when I discoursed on 1 Cor. 15. 29. therefore now I shall only speak of what was mere Ornament: the most eminent of which sort was their Frontal jewel, which though it was fastened on their Foreheads, hung down lower, and thence is called Nezem Haaph, a Nose-Iewel, Isa. 3. 21. Gemma in front pendens, as the Vulgar Latin renders it: and St. 
2 Comment. in Ezek. 16.  jerom tells us that the Women in his time had Rings or Jewels hung from their Foreheads dangling over the Nose. Nor was this of old reputed an immodest and unbecoming Ornament, for we find that Rebekah was presented in the Name of her absent Lover with this Forehead-Pendant, as a Pledge of his Conjugal Faith and Love, Gen. 24. 22. For it is a Vulgar Error, yea 'tis a Mistake which I find hath prevailed among some Learned Writers, that Part of the Love-Token which was sent Rebekah was an Ear-Ring: there is no ground at all for it, for in express Terms it is said that the Nezem Zahab, the jewel of Gold (as 'tis called in this v. 22. which our Translators render a Golden Ear-ring) was put gnal Aphah, upon her Nose, v. 47. or, as our Translators themselves render it, upon her Face; for the Word Aph is largely taken sometimes for the Face. But we never find that it is taken for the Ear, and therefore this place can't be meant of an Ear-ring, yea our Translators themselves acknowledge as much when gnal Aphah is rendered by them upon her Face: wherefore there was no reason to render Nezem an Ear-ring at the same Time and in the same Place. Besides, the Women wore that sort of Ornament by Couples, and consequently we may gather thence that this Golden Nezem which was sent to Rebekah was no Ear-ring, but a Pendulous Jewel upon her Face or Forehead. Isaac had more of Generosity and Courtship in him than to make an offer to his Mistress of a Half-Present. The truth then of the Matter is this, they had of old Forehead-Ornaments, as well as those that they wore in their Ears. The plain and unquestionable Difference between these is observable in Ezek. 16. 12. I put a jewel on thy Forehead, and Earrings in thine Ears. The Nezem gnal Aph, the jewel on the Forehead, or on the Nose or Face, (for 'tis the same with Gen. 24. 47.) is distinguished from the Ear-Ornaments, the Rings and Pendants that hung at that part. Some have thought (and St. Augustin was of that number) that the Nezem before mentioned, Gen. 24. 22. and the Nose-Iewels mentioned Isa. 3. were Rings in their Nostrils; for, as this Father observes, there was 
1 Mos Maurorum est ut inaures etiam in nari●us hab●ant foe●●●●▪ etc. Quaest in Genes.  such a Custom among some of the African Women: and others since that time tell us the like of some of the Eastern People. Particularly a 
2 Thevenot, lib 3.  Modern Traveller informs us that at this Day not only in Persia, but other Oriental Regions, it is usual with the Women to boar their Nostrils, and wear Pendants there. But whatever may be the Custom at this Day, there is no Author that makes mention of it as practised of old by the People of the East, and particularly of Syria and judea. Therefore we may conclude that the Nezem Haaph was a Jewel for the Forehead, but had its Denomination from its hanging above or over the Nose. So much of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or Nose-Ornament) as Symmachus renders it, and very properly: whereas the LXX most absurdly translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that too in the forenamed Place in Ezekiel, where it is plainly distinguished from the Ear-Ornament. I thought therefore I was obliged to give you a true and exact Account of the Original Word. And truly if we observe what large Searches Eustathius and Servius make into a single Word in Homer and Virgil, and how busily and concernedly other Critical Commentators on Profane Authors dive into some dubious Expressions which occur in them, we cannot think this present Criticising or any other undertaken in this Discourse upon the Words in this Holy Book, to be superfluous and impertinent, unless we can persuade ourselves that the Terms which the Holy Ghost makes use of in this Sacred Volume, are not as well worth our enquiring into as those in other Authors.  
Another Ornamental Furniture which I will name, and which (of all others) is most frequently mentioned in the Books of the Old Testament, is that which is appropriated to the Ears. Concerning which these useful Remarks may be made: Fir●● we may take notice of the Words whereby this Pendulous Ornament is expressed. The Word Nezamim (the Plural of the former Word Nezem) is not only a general Term for Jewels, but it is particularly used concerning those which are wo●● in the Ears, Gen. 35. 4. Exod. 32. 2. and accordingly are rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Seventy Interpreters. Another Word is used in Isa. 3. 20. viz. Lechashim, from lacash to whisper or mutter, also to charm; because these are the Ornaments of that part (the Ear) which is most affected and wrought upon in Charms, and by which the Enchantment is received. But the more particular and restrained Word is Gnagil, Numb. 31. 50. Rotula, sphaerula, a round Ring, from Gnagol Circulus; and the Plural Gnagilim we read in Ezek. 16. 12. which is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. rotulae, by the LXX. Earrings had this Denomination because of their circular Figure: and the Jewels and Pearls which hung at th●m were known by this Name, because they hung at these Circles, these round Wires of Gold put into the Ears. These than are the Ear-Ornaments properly so called, being peculiar to this part alone, and no other. It seems they anciently chose the lower part of the Ear as the fittest Place to have little Incisions made in it, because it is spongy and flexible, and will safely admit of these soft Penetrations: and indeed it seems as it were to be made to receive some Ornament to hang there. Yea, it is itself a king of Pendant, in respect of the other parts of the Ear. Besides, this is a Part in view, where Ornaments may be seen, which was one design of wearing them. This might prompt them at first to bore holes in this fleshy Part, and hang Jewels in them. Likewise, the Ear is the Organ of Hearing, and the grand Medium of Instruction and Discipline; it is on this account the most Honourable Part of the Body, and therefore in the first and innocent Ages they endeavoured to adorn and honour it with placing Jewels there. This a 
1 Mr. Weems, of the Image of God.  Reverend and Learned Writer of a neighbouring Nation gives as the reason why they made these small Perforations in the Ear, and inserted Rings of Gold or Silver into them. He conjectures it to be done as a Sign of Honour to that noble Part, which is the Instrument of the chiefest and most useful Sense.  
Again, from the Sacred Writings we may satisfy ourselves what People and Nations wore this ancient Ornament. Here we read that those of Abraham's Race, particularly Iacob's Family, were decked with it, Gen. 35. 4. By this it appears that they retained the innocent Fashion of the Country whence they came, for it was customary with the Assyrians to make these Apertures in their Ears, and let the Light through them as it were, according to that of the Poet, 

2 Juvenal▪ Sat. 1.  Natus ad Euphraten, molles quòd in aure fenestrae  
Arguerint.—  And afterwards it became among the jews a way of adorning themselves, as is deducible from that manner of God's expressing his Kindness and Bounty to the Jewish People, I put Earrings in thin● Ears, Ezek. 16. 12. And that this ancient Bravery was not confined to one Sex only among them, is plain from Exod. 32. 2. where we read of golden Earrings in the Ears of their Wives, of their Sons and of their Daughters, yea of all the People, in the next Verse. That boring of the Ears, and admitting of Gold into them, was also in use among the ancient Arabs, we cannot but conclude from Iob's accepting of an Ear-ring as a Present from his Friends, job 42. 11. and wearing it for their sake; for Nezem is one of the Words (as you have heard) that is made use of to express that particular Ornament: and besides, it could not be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is sometimes signified by that Word) because this was proper only to Women. Further, this was the usual Ornament of that Country, as several Historians since acquaint us. We have a Proof of this in Num. 31. 50. where it is enumerated among those Ornaments of the Midianites, i. e. Arabians, which became a Prey to the Jews when they slew all the Males, and took the Women Captive. And there is another very notable Proof of this in judg. 8. 24. where 'tis recorded that the Ishmaelites (or Midianites, for they were the same) who were a People of Arabia, had golden Earrings; and 'tis added that they had so because they were Ishmaelites, because by this means they would take off the Imputation of Slavery, of being of the Race of the Bondwoman, which some might object to them. They all made Holes and Fissures in the tender Lobes of their Ears, and therein wore these Ornaments to signify they were Free; for this anciently was reckoned as a Token of Ingenious Breeding, and an Argument that the Persons who were decked with them, were of some considerable Rank and Station.  
But how then came it to be a Sign of Servitude among the jews, for we read that they bored their Servants Ears? I answer, this was not a Mark of their being Servants, but it was a Testimony of their Voluntary Subjection and Obedience to their Masters, and a Mark whereby they might be known to be Theirs. The Words of the Law are observable, If the Servant shall plainly say, I love my Master, than his Master shall bring him unto the judges, and he shall boar his Ear through with an Awl, and he shall serve him for ever, Exod. 21. 6, 7. His great Love to his Master made him continue in his Service, and this Loving Service (for it was such, and not a Constrained Servitude) was testified by the boring of the Ear. The Perforation of this Part was significant, in that the Ear (as hath been said before) is the Organ of Hearing, and consequently of Obedience. To hear and to obey are synonymous, to give ear and yield obedience are Terms convertible: therefore the Ear was submitted to the Threshold, and bored, to express the Person's submissive Obedience and Harkening to his Master. And it is probable that when the boring of the Ear was done, they put some Iron or Brass Ring into the Hole, for otherwise it would close up, and there would be no Mark: whereas the Design was to mark the Person, that he might be known to belong to such a one. So that piercing the Ear was in order to something else, viz. to have something put into it by the Master, perhaps sometimes a Ring of some value, if he had a great Esteem of him as a very faithful Servant. This as a Visible Memento was to hang at that Place, and he was distinguished by it from others of better Rank, because it was in one Ear only. This, as I apprehend, is the true Notion of that Jewish Usage: and it is the more likely and credible, because this Custom of boring the Ear was used towards those Servants who were so pleased with their Master and the Family, that they would not part from them, they would live with them continually, and be always in their Service. The Master had a proportionable Kindness and Love to such a Servant, and might reward him with an Ear-ring of Silver, or it may be of Gold. This Ornament was ever esteemed by the Ancients as a Mark of some Gentility, as a Badge of some Repute and Creditable Estate in the World. Whence the Arabians, who had no mean Opinion of themselves and of their Descent and Gallantry, were the most noted of all People heretofore for boring their Ears, as we learn from 
1 Pertunde aures ut imitemur Arabas.  Petronius and others. Yea indeed, it was an universal Practice (as 
2 In Oriente quidem & viris aurum gestare e● loci decus existimatur. Nat. H●●t. l. 11. c. 37.  Pliny observes) among the Eastern People both Men and Women, to punch the Lap of the Ear, and to hang some Ornament there. Concerning the Africans the same hath been observed by Authors, whence that Piece of Raillery in Plautus, 
3 In Poenulo, Act. 5. 〈◊〉. 2.  Digitos in manibus non habent: incedunt annulatis auribus. The Carthaginians, saith he, as if they had no Fingers, wear their Rings (which were wont to shine there) in their Ears. And we may take notice that this is spoken of the Servants of that Country: whence we gather that these as well as Freemen had their Ears bored, and wore Rings in them. As to the Romans, some even of the Men among them (but very few) had their Ears bored, and wore Jewels in them, or in one of them at least, as appears from one of Tully's Jests which 
7 Saturnal. I. 7. c. 3.  Macrobius relates. But a Multitude of Authors agree that 'twas the Mode of the other Sex among them, the Wealthy Matrons especially, to adorn that Part with Pearls and Precious Stones: and they purposely made their Incisions very large and wide for the Reception of Rings and Jewels of a great Magnitude, according to that of the Satirist; 
1 Juvenal. Sat. 1.  Auribus extensis magnos commisit Elenchos. The Females underwent those troublesome and uneasy Perfossions in the Lappets of their Ears, in assurance of having them loaded with some Rich Pendants as a Recompense. Those tender Women ventured to wound their Flesh, because these Wounds were to be filled up with Gold. They became at last so extravagantly lavish as to this Ornature, that (as 
2 Nec in aliâ parte ●oeminis majus impendium, margaritis dependentibus. Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 37.  Pliny observes either of these or some other Women) no part of them was so expensive and costly as their Ears. It was Seneca's Complaint, that 
3 Muliebris insania viros ita subjecit, ut bina ●ut terna Patrimonia auribus singulis suspenderent. De Benefic. ●. 7.  whole Patrimonies and more dangled at the Tips of Lady's Ears. And some of the Ancient Doctors of the Church were wont to lash this unsufferable Prodigality among the Christian Women, telling them, that they were so shamefully profuse, as to hang 
4 Graciles aurium cutes Kalendarium expendunt. Ter●ull▪ de hab. mulierum.  a whole Year's Revenue at this Part.  
Furthermore, I take occasion from Scripture to remark that this Ornament was heretofore used to Idolatrous Ends; for else we can't give any Account of the Patriarch Iacob's Injunction to his Servants and Household to put away the strange Gods that were in their Hand, and the Earrings that were in their Ears, Gen. 35. 2, 4. These two would not have been thus joined together, unless the latter had been made use of in a Superstitious and Idolatrous manner. Enchanted Rings were usual of old, as we are informed from several Passages in History besides that concerning Gyges. And this may be one Reason perhaps why those Rings that were peculiar to the Ears were called Lechashim, (as we heard before) viz. because they were wont to be made use of in Enchantments. Gold Rings were a sort of Talismans', and were used (as Petronius testifies) by the People of the Isle of Samothracia, in a Magical way, to drive away Diseases, and to do strange Feats; and they learned this from the Egyptians, he saith. An 
5 S. Augustin. de Doctr. Christian. l. 2.  Ecclesiastical Writer upon the Place before alleged tells us, that among the Gentiles their Earrings had in them the Effigies of their Deities, and that they were made by them the Phylacteries of their Gods. That they were used in way of Magic, is attested by the same Ancient Writer, who reproves and condemns the 
6 Execranda superstitio ligaturarum, in quibus etiam inaures virorum in summis ex un● parte auriculis suspensae deputantur, sed ad serviendum daemonibus adhibetur. Augustin. Epist. 73.  Execrable Superstition of Ligatures in those Days, which was performed by Earrings, which the Men wore in summis ex unâ parte auriculis. Whence a late Learned 
7 J. Clerk Comme●tar. in Gen. 35. 4.  Critic would infer, that the African Servants wore their Earrings (not as others did, but) on the top of their Ears. But I conceive there is no ground for this Inference from St. Augustine's Words; for if we consult the Place, we shall find that he speaks in general, and consequently not of Servants any more than others. And moreover, there may be another and more proper Construction of summae auriculae, for summae may be as much as extremae, and then not the upper part of the Ears, but the lowest, i. e. the Tips of them (where all Earrings are hung) are meant here. And ex unâ parte seems to me to signify their wearing their Earrings on one Side only, not in both Ears. This I conceive is the true and genuine Sense of that African Father's Words. But the main thing we observe from them is, that this sort of Ornament was employed heretofore to wicked and Diabolical Purposes; and thence were deservedly called by this Pious Writer, in the same Epistle, the Mark of the Devil. And this, it is probable, was derived from that more ancient Practice of some of Iacob's Household before cited. As the Pagans used to consecrated their Hair, their Clothes, and things of all kinds to their Demons, so here some of Iacob's Family engraved the Image of some Idol on their Earrings, and wore them in remembrance of the feigned Deities: Or perhaps the Good Patriarch saw some ground to fear that they would do thus, and therefore that these Ornaments might not be serviceable to Idolatry, or (as Grotius saith) left some Golden Calf should be made of their Earrings, he bids them cast them away; and when they had done so, he took them, and hid them under an Oak, ver. 4. buried them and their Gods together.  
It is to be lamented that the Number of those who dedicate their Ornaments to false Gods, and make them serviceable to some sort of Idolatry, is too great at this day. 
1 Lamprid, in Severo.  Indeed the fond Bigotry of the Emperor Severus was reprovable, who, when a pair of Pearls of inestimable Value was presented to his Lady, ordered them to be hung at the Ears of Venus: but there are those who wear the richest Jewels themselves, and at the same time devote them to this Goddess, i. e. they make them wholly subservient to Lust and Lewdness, to Wantonness and Luxury, and other vicious Purposes: and when 'tis thus, Iacob'S Injunction should be put in practice, the Choicest Ornaments are to be laid aside, it is time now to inter these Pernicious Idols. But those who know how to use their Ornaments in a right manner, that is, to subtract them from all vicious Principles and Ends, to suffer them not to administer to Levity and Vanity, to Softness and Effeminacy, to lewd Desires and Inclinations, to Pride and Vainglory; these, and only these, are the Persons to whom the using of them is lawful. And this must more particularly be applied to that kind of Ornament which I have been speaking of, which seems to be no effeminate one in itself, both because it was used by Men, and likewise because 'tis accompanied with some Hardship, and requires some Valour to endure the piercing of the Bodkin. They must bleed first before they wear it: and afterwards those little Wounds are continually kept gaping. And it cannot be thought unlawful and vicious in its own Nature, seeing the Israelites decked themselves with it, but are never reproved and checked for it. They are not blamed for wearing Earrings, but for making an Idol of them. The religious Rebekah, who wore the Frontal Jewel, did not boggle at the Auricular one; for questionless this is comprehended in the Keli Zahab, the jewels of Gold which she was presented with, Gen. 24. 53. Yea, Holy job, whose Spirit had been unspeakably broken and mortified by his Afflictions, yet refused not this Innocent Gift (which was of general Use in that Country) from the Hands of his Friends. So much of this Ornament, which was the Ancientest, the most Universal, the Simplest, and the most Unaffected of any that we read of in the Sacred Records: on which Accounts it hath the Precedence of all others. But this and other Adorn, in these licentious times, are abused by their Commonness: whereby that Distinction which ought to be made between the different Ranks of Persons is taken away; and that Money is lavished in a needless and unbecoming Dress, which should be laid out in Bread.  
Again, the Neck was not destitute of its proper Decking, viz. Chains. These in great Persons were Ensigns of Authority and Dignity (as they are in several Places at this Day): thus Pharaoh put a Gold Chain about Joseph ' s Neck, Gen. 41. 42. and Belshazzar did the same to Daniel, Dan. 5. 29. This was a general Ornament of the Midianites or Arabians, as appears from Numb. 31. 50. where it is mentioned with a great many others that were in fashion among that People. It was used by the jews, as we may gather from Prov. 1. 9 It was more especially the graceful Attire of the softer Sex, Cant. 1. 1O. Charuzim are Pearls on a String orderly disposed, as Buxtorf explains the Word. And these Necklaces of Pearl are, it is probable, meant by Gnanak, Cant. 4. 9 One Chain, i. e. one of those Strings of Pearl. And that this was a piece of Woman's Finery is plain from Ezek. 16. 11. where it is numbered among other Ornaments of that Sex, and is styled Rabid. Another sort of Neck-Ornaments (we may call them Counterpoints) much ancienter than these, is mentioned, judg. 5. 30. Needlework of divers Colours, wrought on both Sides, for the Necks (ad ornanda colla, as the Vulgar Latin hath it) of those that take the Spoil.  
The Arms or Wrists were wont of old to have their peculiar Adorning, viz. with Bracelets: Of which we read first of all in Gen. 24. 30. these as well as the Forehead-Pendants being presented to Rebekah by her Servant Isaac. We find it in the Catalogue of the Female Ornaments used by the jews, Ezek. 16. 11. And this was worn not only by Women but Men, viz. such as were of some considerable Figure in the World, as judah, Gen. 38. 18. and King Saul, 2 Sam. 1. 10. And from Exod. 35. 22. it may be concluded that both Sexes at first made use of them. As to the Nature of them, I shall not here inquire into it: only I remark this, that from the several Distinct Names given in Scripture to them, as Tsemidim, Petilim, Chach, Atsgnadah, we may infer, that there were several sorts and kinds of them. It is certain that the first mention of them is in the Bible: and afterwards we read of them in Profane Authors. These tell us, that even Men, yea Martial Men▪ did not disdain this Finery; of which we have a remarkable Instance in the Sabines, who inveigled Tarpeia to betray the Capitol to them, by promising to give her what they wore on their left Arms, by which she thought they meant their Bracelets; but they, both to keep their Word, and to punish the Treason, threw in their Bucklers to boo●, wherewith the poor faithless Maid was stifled and overwhelmed.  
We read of another Ornament, which was for the Hands and Fingers, viz. a Ring, Tabbagnath. This is reckoned among other Habiliments of the Midianites, Numb. 31. 50. and of the jewish Women, Isa. 3. 21. And that it was an Innocent Ornament among the Jews afterwards, we may gather from the Parable, where the kind Father put a Ring on the Hand of the returned Spendthrift, Luke I5. 22. And St. James' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ch. 2. v. 2. shows it was fashionable in those Days. Sometimes their Rings were garnished with Precious Stones, for we read of Gold Rings set with the Beryl, Cant. 5. 14. Some of them were anciently wont to be cut and engraved, and so were made use of as Seals. The first mention of this Chotham, this Sealing Ring, is in Gen,. 38. I8. judah gave his Daughter (whom he took to be another Female) a Signet, as a Pawn, to assure her of something of another nature. Perhaps some began then to betrothe Virgins with a Ring, and so this Pledge was a Symbol of Iudah's espousing Thamar. If this were so (which I think can't be disproved) the Wedding Ring is of greater Antiquity than is imagined. The Seal-Ring was worn on their right Hands, as appears from jer. 22. 24. It was of great Use, and much prized, and therefore carefully kept, as this Place and others, Cant. 8. 6. Hag. 2. 23. import. And not only jews but Persians frequently used this sort of Ring, Esth. 3. 12. & 8. 8. and it was a Badge of Authority among them, for Ahasuerus plucked off his Ring from his Finger, and bestowed it on Haman, Esth. 3. 10. and afterwards on Mordecai, Esth. 8. 2. to signify the Power and Honour he in●●sted them with. And the like Practice was long before among the Egyptians, Gen. 41. 42. Pharao● took off his Ring from his Hand, and put it on Joseph ' s. Where by the way we may observe, that 
1 Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 1.  Pliny is no good Antiquary when he saith the Egyptians knew not the Use of these Rings. And he further shows himself deficient in Antiquity, when he tells us, that they were not used in the Time of the Trojan War (because forsooth Homer doth not make mention of them): for this Instance was at least five hundred Years before that Trojan Expedition. And the other of judah was somewhat before this. So that it is clear that the first Discovery of things in the World is made in the Writings of the Old Testament: and afterwards Humane Authors derive their Relations from these, or speak of things that were in imitation of them, as 
2 Lib. 11.  Dionys. Halicarn. 
3 Hist. l. 3.  Livy, 
4 Na●. Hist. l. 33. c. 1.  Pliny, mention the Sabines and Romans wearing of Rings.  
Before I quit this Part of my Discourse concerning the Attire made mention of in Scripture, I will take notice that this was according to the Rank, Place and Dignity of the Persons, or according to the Occasion of Business they were employed about. Thus we read of Lebush Malkuth, Esth. 6. 8. The Royal Apparel which the King used to wear. And the Queens had their Royal Vestment proper to their Dignity, which is absolutely and barely styled Malkuth, Esth. 5. 1. She put on the Kingdom; so the Hebrew. To this belong the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the soft Apparel, fit for King's Houses, i. e. their Courts, Mat. 11. 8. Others, though not of so high a Rank, had their Caliphoth shemaloth, their Changes of Raiment, Gen. 45. 22. which are rendered by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, double Raiment; and in the same Verse again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, changeable Garments. Of these we read in judg. 14. 12. 2 Kings 5. 5, 22. Zech. 3. 4. These were their Different Habits which they put on, according to the Difference of Times, and the Employment they were about. These were an usual Present of old (as appears from some of the Texts which I have here alleged) that they customarily bestowed on their Friends as Tokens of Hospitality and Love. That this was an ancient Practice may be collected from Homer, by whom these Changes of Garments are called 
1 Odies. ●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And among other Gifts and Presents which Alcinous gave to Ulysses,— 
2 Odies. ●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are reckoned. That the same Persons had Different Suits of Clothes appears from Gen. 27. 15. which mentions Esau's goodly Raiment, which was very rich and fashionable, and which had been laid up by his Mother among those Aromatic Spices and Odours (as 'tis likely was the Custom then) which the Fields in those warm Countries supplied them with; whence we read of the Smell of his Raiment, ver. 27. This Perfumed Suit was fetched out and worn by him at solemn Seasons, as we may gather from the Occasion of Iacob's using it by his Mother's Order. So in succeeding times they were clad on Festival Days, and Times of Rejoicing, with a better sort of Apparel than they wore at other times. These are styled Garments of Beauty, Isa. 51. 1. and Garments of Praise, Isa. 61. 3. such as they put on at times of Rejoicing and praising God.  
Especially White Garments were then much in fashion: to which refers that of Ecclesiastes, ch. 9 ver. 7, 8. After he had said, Go thy way, eat th●● Bread with joy, and drink thy Wine with a merry Heart, he adds, Let thy Garments be always 〈◊〉 Of this particular sort of Garments used at Feasts among the Jews, Philo speaks in his Discourse of a Theoretic Life. And perhaps such a Linen Vesture or Ephod David wore at a solemn time of Rejoicing, 1 Chron. 15. 27. This is certain, that the richer sort of People among the Jews were wont to wear, especially in public, this White Clothing. Whence the Nobles and Great Men were styled Chorim, 1 Kings 21. 11. Neh. 13. 17. Eccles. 10. 17. Isa. 34▪ 12. jer. 27. 20. & 39 6. i e. Candidi, from the Colour of their Garments. This gives an Account of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bright Apparel, Jam. 2. 2. Whence it was that the Fuller's were an ancient Trade, and are more than once mentioned in Scripture, 2 Kings 18. 17. Mal. 3. 2. But by this Name are not meant those who deal about combing or plucking the Wool, but those that washed and whitened both woollen and Linen, and took out their Spots and Filth, which were soon contracted, and as easily seen in that White Raiment. It is probable that the Fuller's Field, Isa. 7. 3. was the Place where they dressed and dried their Cloth: and it is likely that it was made choice of by those Tradesmen, because it was so near the Pool (which they had occasion to use constantly) mentioned in the same Verse. The Fuller's Soap, Mal. 3. 2. was useful to this purpose: The Hebrew Word Bori●● is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, herba, by the Seventy, because they used some certain Plant or Herb of an abstersiv● and cleansing Nature, a kind of Sopewort. In th● New Testament likewise this Employment is spoke●● of; for the Evangelist, speaking of our Saviour's Garments at his Transfiguration, ●aith, they beca●● shining, exceeding white as Snow, such as no Fuller on Earth can white them, Mark 9 3. Where it is not improbable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render on Earth, should rather be englished with Earth, i. e. with Fullers-Earth; which, with other things, was so useful in scouring and cleansing their Garments, and reducing them to their former Whiteness: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theophrastus (whom the Learned Hammond quotes) signifies much of this Fullers-Earth; whence that Excellent Critic is inclined to think that that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here. And 'tis certain that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used in that manner which it is in this Place. The Use of White Garments was in great Esteem not only among the jews (of whom I have spoken already) but the Persians, as may be seen in Esth. 8. 5. But especially the Romans hugely affected to wear Clothes of this Colour, and that chiefly at their Feasts and on High Days: Then their bright Gowns were put on, which with their Eating and Drink they brought home soiled, and thence they had occasion for Fuller's very much, to cleanse their Gowns of Spots, and to make them white again. These Garments which they put on when they went out upon solemn Invitations to Suppers, were called vests accubitoriae, coenatoriae, cibarial;, togal; triclinares, and are often mentioned by Pliny, Martial, and other Writers. Among the Greeks this Habit was known by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and (as we learn from 
1 In vir. Adriani.  Xiphilin) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To these belongs the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of before, and perhaps that Linen Garment▪ (Mark 1 ● 51.) which a young Man had cast about him. This young Man (saith St. Ambrose) was john the Evangelist, who went with Christ from the Supper into the Garden, having on his Festival Garment still. I could observe also that Garments of divers Colours were in great Esteem of old: thus the Beloved joseph had his Phassim, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, LXX) Gen. 37. 3. And the Royal Ladies were thus apparelled, 2 Sam. 13. 18. This is called Rikmah in Judg. 5. 30. and Tsebagnim in the same Verse.  
To see themselves, and how their Apparel sat, they had of old no Looking-Glasses, properly so called, for we have no Word for Glass in the Old Testament, though in the New we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 4. 16. & 15. 2. & 21. 18, 21. and it is probable that the Artificial making and ordering of it was found out about that time, as we may gather from what 
1 Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 26.  Pliny saith of it. Their Speculums were not made of Glass, (as now) but of polished Brass, otherwise the Jewish Dames could not have contributed them towards the making of the Brazen Laver, Exod. 38. 8. These are the Miroth here spoken of, which are also expressed by other Words, as Rei, Job 38. 8. and Gilinim, Isa. 3. 23. all three from Hebrew Roots, which signify to see, to reveal or discover, because Objects appear and are seen in these Speculums. Of this sort of Mirrors, made of some bright Metal, and particularly of burnished Brass, 
2 Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 9  Pliny and 
3 De Architect. l. 7. c. 3.  Vitruvius speak. But before this Invention, yea and afterwards, among all the plainer sort of People, the Water, in Ponds and Rivers, when the Surface of them was smooth and even, was instead of Looking-Glasses to them: and that might be one Reason why they often of old went down to visit these Places, and after they had well viewed themselves in them, made use of them for Bathing. Men likewise at first used to look themselves in Fountains and Rivers: — 
4 In Bucolic.  Nuper me in littore vidi, saith the Shepherd in Virgil. Thence Speculum udum is the Periphrasis of a River in Apuleius. And from other Testimonies it might be proved, that they anciently looked their Faces in Waters. So that when the Burnished Looking-Glasses of the Hebrew Women were commuted into a Laver, they were thereby seasonably put in mind of the first Watery Speculums.  
Lastly, to put a Period to this Head of my Discourse, I will take notice of the rending of the Garments, so often spoken of in the Divine Writings. This they did either when some great Calamity befell them, or when some Enormous Fact was committed, or when some Impious and Blasphemous Words were uttered; and briefly it was a Sign of extraordinary Grief, Perturbation of Mind, Anger, great Displeasure, Detestation. Frequent Examples we have of it among the Hebrews, Gen. 37. 29. & 44. 23. Numb. 14. 6. josh. 7. 6. judg. 11. 35. 2 Sam. 1. 2. Mat. 26. 65. Acts 14. 14. And the Arabians expressed their doleful Resentments by this Ceremony, job 1. 20. & 2. 12. And so did the Persians, as may be rationally supposed from Mordecai's running in this mournful Posture through the Streets, where he would have been thought to be mad, if that People had not used the same way of testifying their Mourning, Esth. 4. 1. And indeed we are assured from 
5 Lib. 3.  Herodotus, 
6 De Cyri Institut. l. 3.  Xenophon, and 
7 De reb. gest. Alex. M. l. 5.  Q. Curtius, that the Persians were wont to rend their Clothes when they had any doleful Tidings brought them. In imitation of them the 
8 Musaeus in Erone.  Greeks did so, but very sparingly. And several 
9 Dio●ys. Halicarn. I. 3. c. 24. Herodian. I. 1. Dio I. 40.  Historians ascertain us, that the Romans used this Custom when they would show their excessive Sorrow and Trouble of Mind, especially at the Death and Funerals of their Friends.  
Which reminds me of the last Part of my Task, viz. to speak of the Scripture-Antiquities which relate to Burial and Funerals.   

CHAP. VI  
Here we are informed concerning the Primitive Institution of Burying. Graves and Sepulchers were generally in the Fields, and without the Walls of Cities. They usually embalmed the dead Bodies. Why they sometimes burnt them. Burning also signifies Embalming. There was a Difference between the Funeral Burning of the Jews and of the Heathens. The Manner and Time of Mourning for the Dead. Both Vocal and Instrumental Music used at Funerals. The Antiquity of Funeral Monuments. The old way of erecting great Heaps of Stones over the dead. stonehenge is a Sepulchral Monument, and in imitation of it. Anah's Invention of Mules. Writers borrow from one another. The Bible only is the Book that is beholden to no other. Here is the Ancientest Learning in the World: and that of all Kind's. 'Tis common with Authors to contradict themselves, and one another: they are uncertain, lubricous, and fabulous. But the Divine Writers alone are certain and infallible. How strange and improbable soever some of the Contents of this Holy Book may seem to be, they justly command our firm Assent to them.  
HERE, and only here, we ●ind the first Institution of Burying or Inhumation; the Antiquity of which is greater than is commonly thought. Man's Original and Interment are both joined together, Gen. 3. 19 for he is told by God himself, that he must return unto the Ground, because out of it he was taken: and that he may be assured of it, it is repeated in the same Place, Dust thou art, and to Dust thou shalt return. Man acts in a Circle, he goes back to his first Principle, to the same Point again, the Earth of which he was compounded. Here is the Primitive Law of Burial, i. e. of committing the Body to the Earth (which is properly Interring): this was instituted by God, and this is the most proper way of disposing of the dead Body. Of this the Pious Sufferer speaks, saying, Naked came I out of my Mother's Womb, and naked shall I return thither, Job 1. 21. Having in the former Clause mentioned his Mother's Womb▪ and the Earth being as it were his Mother, he saith, he shall return thither, as if he had mentioned the Earth. Therefore, according to Chrysostom and some other Expositors, his Mother's Womb is interpreted the Earth. But there is something more than this, which hath not been taken notice of by Interpreters: therefore the better to show the Tenor of the Words, I desire it may be observed, that it is in the immediately foregoing Verse said, Job fell down upon the Ground, grovelled upon the bar● Earth, and then he took occasion to utter these Words, Naked came I, etc. As if he had said, I am here laid low upon the Ground, which reminds me of my original Extraction: out of this I and all Mankind were first taken, as we were since out of our Mother's Wombs, and to the Ground we must return again, which is the Mother of all. This, as I conceive, is the true Meaning of the Words, which could not have been discovered without attending to the foregoing Verse, to which these have a plain Reference. This Notion hath been entertained by Pagan Writers when the Earth is called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but none of them mention (because they were ingnorant of) that first and original Order of Burial, Unto Dust thou shalt return, on which this is founded. Man by these Words is appointed to be laid in the Ground, to be buried in the Earth. In pursuance of which Order Men have been naturally inclined to take care of decent Burial, and to bestow the Bodies of the Dead in the Earth. Therefore the burying with the Burial of an Ass, which is properly no burying at all, is abhorred by Mankind, and is threatened as a Judgement from Heaven, jer. 22. 19 for I suppose few will attend to what 
1 Antiqu. l. 1●. c. 10.  josephus saith, that Nabuchadnezzar took jehoiakim (who is the Person to whom this is threatened) and killed him, and ripping up an Ass' Belly, buried him in it, which this Writer saith is the fulfilling of the Prophecy. It is rather to be understood of his being not buried at all, but exposed to the Air and Putrefaction above ground (as Beasts are) he being cast forth beyond the Gates of jerusalem, as it follows in the next Clause; and more expressly in jer. 36. 30. his dead Body was cast out in the Day to the Heat, and in the Night to the Frost.  
Though Burial was used from the beginning, yet the first Instance we meet of it is that in Gen. 23. 19 viz. of Abraham's burying Sarah, to which purpose he bought a Field with a Cave in it, wherein he lodged his beloved Wife, Gen. 23. 17, 18, 19 and there afterwards he was buried himself, Gen. 25. 8. and in the same Sepulchre were deposited the Corpse of Isaac and Rebekah, jacob and Leah, Gen. 49. 31. This than we are certain of, that Fields were the first Places of Burial, (I mean the first that we read of) and Caves the first particular Repositories of the Dead. And thus generally it was afterwards, so far as we have any Discoveries from these Holy Records. The Burying-Places were in the Fields, and not within Cities and walled Towns. Only here I must premise that there were some few Exceptions, as that in 1 Sam. 25. 1. they buried Samuel in his House at Ramah. There were at that time some Persons interred privately, and then their Corpse were not carried abroad. This was the Case of Samuel, who though he had been an eminent Person, yet chose an obscure Burial. Nay, it is likely that all Persons at first of a mean Figure and private Capacity, were lodged when they were dead, in the same Ground on which they dwelled when they were alive. Which is Servius' Remark on a Passage in Virgil, 
1 Apud majores omnes homines in suis domibus sepeliebantur. In 〈◊〉. 6.  Of old, saith he, all Men were buried in their Houses. And 
2 prius autem in domo suâ quisque sepeliebatur. Orig. 15. c. 11.  Isidore agrees with him. Another Instance of this private Interment was joab, who though he had been a Great Man, yet went off the Stage in very ill Circumstances, and was buried in his own House in the Wilderness, 1 Kings 2. 34. And King Manasses who had been so exorbitant an Offender, voluntarily chose a mean and humble Grave in the Garden of his own House, 2 Kings 21. 18. as thinking himself unworthy of the Royal Sepulchre of his Fathers, which was in the City of David. And here also is remarkable another Exception, viz. as to the Burial of some of the jewish Kings, who were not buried without the Walls, but in the City itself, viz. Zion, (the upper Part of jerusalem, where the Temple and the King's Palace were seated) the City of David, as we expressly read concerning the Burial of David, 1 Kings 2. 10. Solomon, 1 Kings 11. 43. jehoram, 2 Chron. 21. 20. and others. The rest had a Royal Burying-place without the City, and King Vzziah being a Leper, was not interred with some of the other Kings, but in the Field of the Burial which belonged to the Kings, 2 Chron. 26. 23. And in the Fields or Places separated from their Cities and great Towns, they generally disposed of their Dead heretofore. Rachel was buried in the way to Ephrath, i. e. Bethlehem, Gen. 35. 19 Not to speak of Moses' Burial in a Valley, Deut. 34. 6. which was of God's own disposal, we read that Aaron before him was buried on Mount Hor, Numb. 20. 28. Deut. 10. 6. and joshua after both these on Mount Ephraim on the Side of a Hill there, Josh. 24. 30. The Son of the Widow in Naim was carried to be buried without the Gates of the City, Luck. 7. 12. Lazarus' Grave was without the Town of Bethany, John 11. 30, 32. Ioseph's Sepulchre, where our Saviour was laid, was in a Garden without jerusalem, John 19 41. in the Place where he was crucified there was a Garden. And that the Graves of the Jews were without the Cities, is evident also from Mat. 27. 52, 53. The Graves were opened, and many Bodies of Saints which slept arose, and came out of the Graves, and went into the holy City. Thence the Devils are said to abide among the Tombs, Mat. 8. 28. these being Places of Solitude, remote from the City. Hence we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Graves that appear not: and the Men that walk over them (they being in the Fields and Highways) are not aware of them, Luk. 11. 44. To prevent which, they sometimes washed them over with White Lime, that Passengers might the better discern and discover them, and thereby avoid Desilement. These are the whited Sepulchers, Mat. 23. 27. to which our Saviour compares the Pharisees. These were situated in the Commo● Ways and Fields, at least some were in the suburbs. This was the Law and Practice of the Greeks, and from them the Romans borrowed this Custom, who (as several Author's witness) buried none within the City, but without the Gates in the Fields and Highway Sides: whence the Epitaphs were directed ad Viatores. Thus it was among the Christians of old: We bury our dead without the City, saith 
1 Homil. 89. ●om. 6.  Chrysostom, therein letting us know what was the ancient Custom of the Eastern Churches. But afterwards People were loath to lie in the wide and open Fields, and desired their dead Bodies might be taken into Cities, then into Churchyards, and Constantine the Great was peculiarly favoured to be interred in the Church-porch. Afterwards, when some presumed to bury their dead in Churches, there were 
2 Bibliothec. Jur. Can. Collect. Constitut. Eccles.  Canons made against it. But by degrees it became lawful to do it in most Countries where Christianity was received: and as to England, Bodies were first brought to be buried in Churches here, by the Means and Procurement of Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 758. The Turks at this Day refuse to bury in their Mosches or Temples, or within the Walls of their Cities, though (if you will believe it) their Prophet had the Privilege to be exempted from the common way of Burial, and was entombed at Mecca. I have this likewise to observe, that as Persons of great Rank had particular Apartments and Places set apart for the burying of themselves and their Family, (as is evident from what hath already been said, and may be confirmed from 2 Sam. 19 37. I Kings 13. 22, 31, 32. where these peculiar Repositories are called the Graves of their Fathers, and of their Mothers, and the Sepulchers of their Fathers) so the poor and meaner sort of Persons were buried in a common and promiscuous Place of Sepulture, jer. 7. 32. & 26. 23. the Graves of the Sons of the People.  
To Burying appertains Embalming, of which we have the first Instance in Gen. 50. 2. And the next is in the 26th ver. for joseph who had taken that care of his Father, was embalmed himself, and then put in a Co●●in, a Chest, as the word Aron signifies. No History, whatsoever goes so far back as this: though, 'tis true, we have these particular Passages of Moses' History confirmed by Pagan Historians, afterwards; for 
1 In Euterpe.  Herodotus tells us this was the Practice of the Egyptians, and fully describes the manner of it: yea he mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Coffins wherein the Corpse were deposited after the Embalming was finished. 
2 Nat. Hist. lib. 2. c. 27.  Pliny doth the like, showing us how they opened the Bodies, disbowelled them, and filled them with Aromaticks. Moses records that forty Days were fulfilled in Embalming, Gen. 50. 3. which agrees with what Herodotus and Diodore of Sicily say of this Egyptian Performance, viz. that it was done with great Curiosity and Art, and that Considerable Time was spent about it. And seeing there was required Skill to know and choose out the best Herbs, Drugs, Ointments and Spices, it is no wonder that this was (as you heard before) the Physicians work. From the Egyptians this was derived to other Nations, and particularly to the jews, who constantly used it more or less towards the Bodies of such as were of any Rank and Quality. Hence we read of the Embalming of King Asa, 2 Chron. 16. 4. of King Zedekiah, J●r. 34. 5. of which more anon. And it was used to our Saviour, as is particularly recorded, john 1●. 40. They took the Body of jesus, and wound it in li●e● Clothes, (which was a Custom generally observed by all other Nations, though the 
7 Plutarch. vita Ly●urg.  Lacedæmonians by a particular Order of Lycurgus buried all in Woollen, as we do at this Day) with the Spices, viz, a mixture of Myrrh and Aloes about a hundred Pound weight, (mentioned in the foregoing Verse) which Nicodemus liberally bestowed on Christ's Body for this Purpose. This they did, designing to preserve it entire and sound, and to keep it free from Putrefaction, not knowing or being persuaded of his Resurrection. And 'tis added here, that this Care of Embalming dead Bodies, was a Jewish Custom, As the Manner of the jews is to Embalm; for so we may truly read the Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Word here used, which is the same that the Seventy Interpreters express Embalming by in Gen. 50. 2. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mark 14. 8. may be rendered not to the burying, but to the embalming: for 'tis said, the pious Female 
8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  came aforehand in order to this; so that the now anticipated that Funeral Work which she and others of her Sex afterwards came to perform to their Dear Master, by bringing sweet Spices to his Sepulchre, Mark 16. 1.  
But though committing the Body to the Ground (in order to which Embalming was used) was the generally received Custom of the Jews, yet sometimes, but very rarely, another was practised by them, and that was Burning the dead Bodies, or some part of them at least. Thus they took the Bodies of Saul and of his Sons from the Place where the Philistines had hung them up, and came to Jabesh, and burned them there, 1 Sam. 31. 12. They laid the dead Bodies on a Pile of Wood, and consumed the Flesh of them to Ashes, but they buried their Bones (which were not consumed by the Fire) under a Tree at Jabesh, v. 13. But this was an extraordinary Case; for these Bodies had hung so long in the Air, that the Flesh was putrified and rotten, and partly eaten with Worms, so that the committing them to Fire was the best way of Funeration at that time. There is another Instance of this Funeral Conflagration in Amos 6. 9, 10. If there remain ten Men in one House, they shall die: and a Man's Uncle shall take him up, and he that burneth him, to bring out the Bones out of the House. But as we may easily perceive from the Words themselves and the Context, this was in the time of a great Pestilence, which raged so furiously, that there was scarcely a sufficient Number of Men left to bury the Dead, and it was unsafe at such a Time to go abroad, and carry the Corpse in solemn manner to the Grave, and perform the Rites of Funeral. In such extremity Burning was a good Expedient, because after the Carcase was reduced to Ashes, the Bones (which being hard and solid remained unburnt) might easily be carried out of the infected House, and laid in the Ground. Wherefore from this Place in Amos, and from the foregoing one in Samuel, I think it is evident that they burned the Corpse among the Jews sometimes, though very seldom. There in another Burning at Funerals which we cannot but take notice of: so concerning King Asa, 'tis said that they laid him in the Bed (the Funeral Bed, 2 Sam. 3. 31.) which was filled with sweet Odours, and divers kinds of Spices, prepared by the Apothecary's (or Physician's) Art, (for this King sought unto them, and is now come under their last Hands) and they made a very great Burning for him, 2 Chron. 16. 14. which cannot be meant of burning his Corpse, for 'tis expressly said before in the same Verse, they buried him in his own Sepulchre: wherefore this was not a burning his Body in the Fire, but only an usual Piece of State which was observed at the Funeral Solemnities of Kings and Great Personages. It was, it seems, the Custom not only to embalm the Bodies of such eminent Men, (for that is meant here by the sweet Odours and divers kinds of Spices prepared by the Apothecary's Art, Whose Employment it partly was to dress Men for their Funerals) but to set up a great Heap or Pile of this sort of Aromaticks, and make a Bonfire of them, as Triumphal Valediction to the departed. Some add that it was the Custom to burn the Clothes, Chariots, Armour, and other things belonging to the Dead, and that this was in Honour of their Memory. King Zedekiah, though he died a Captive, was not denied this last Honour and Obsequy, jer. 34. 5. He died with the Burnings of his Fathers, the former Kings that were before him: so they burned Odours for him, and lamented him. On which place Maimonides notes, that the Jews did not use to burn the dead Bodies, but that this is meant only of burning their Clothes, and some other things appertaining to them, with Frankincense and other Aromatic Drugs, in Honour of the deceased. But though it was no Jewish Custom to burn the dead Bodies, yet it is probable that they extracted the Entrails, (as was usual in Embalming, to which this and the former Texts do partly refer) and consumed them in the Fire with those Perfumes before spoken of. So that the Serephah, the Burning which you read of in the forenamed Place was not (as is imagined by Interpreters generally) for Royal State only, but it was in was of Pollincture.  
And this Opinion was first suggested to me from 2. Chron. 21. 18, 19 where the reason is assigned why the People of Israel refused to pay this Funeral Duty to K. jehoram, He was smote in the Bowels with an incurable Disease, and his Bowels fell out by reason of his Sickness, of which he died: and his People made no Burning for him, like the Burning of his Fathers. Observe it, his Bowels being rotten, and by that means loosened, fell out, and were immediately disposed of by reason of the Stench, and consequently these Parts could not be pompously laid on the Fire with sweet Odours, as was the Custom, and (as the Consequence of this) there could be no Funeral Burning for him. I know 'tis generally said by Expositors, that this Ceremony was omitted merely because this Iehoram was a wicked King: and Grotius goes along with them, and adds, that they paid a greater or lesser Honour to their Kings when they were dead according to the Merits of their Actions when they were alive, which he applauds as a Good Custom. But though this might be true, yet it is not the Reason that is here given (which we are now enquiring into) why there was no Burning for jehoram. The true Cause of this Omission was (as this Text acquaints us) the falling out of his ulcerated Bowels by reason of his Sickness, whereby it became impossible to have the usual Burning of his Fathers, whose Bowels were entire and sound, and so capable of being burnt in a solemn Manner with all sorts of Spices and Odours. This was a Concomitant of the Embalming, and so accordingly in the forenamed Instances of Asa and Zedekiah 'tis probable their Entrails were taken out (according to the Custom of Embalming) in order to have their dead Bodies replenished with odoriferous Compositions: and the Burning for them spoken of in the respective Places, is meant of the consuming of their Intestines in the Fire with sweet-smelling Gums and precious Ointments. But jehoram was wholly incapable, because of the unusual Malady whereof he died, of this Fragrant Burning, which was the Funeral Ceremony generally used at the Deaths of his Progenitors. This I take to be the genuine meaning of the Place: but however, I submit this to the Judgement of Learned and Impartial Critics, who (whether this Comment be true or conjectural only) will not disdain this free offer of my Sentiments on this Text. It appears from what hath been said that the Funeral Burning of the jews, and of the Heathens, was not of the same kind. The former was only a committing of the Bowels of the Dead to the Flames, the latter was a Burning of their whole Bodies. Besides, among the Jews their Conflagration was used to their Kings and Great Ones only, but among the Pagans to all. Rurying in the Ground, as 
1 Nat. Hist. I. 7. c. 54.  Pl●y acknowledeth, had the Priority among the Romans and others, of Burning the dead Bodies; for this latter had its Rise, he saith, from the barbarous and inhuman digging up of the Carcases by Enemies: to prevent which they consumed a great Part of them in their Funeral Pyres, and what what was remaining was preserved in Sepulchral Urns and Pitchers, and deposited so deep in the Earth that they were for the most part out of the Reach of the Adversary. This was the Custom of the Old Germans, as Tacitus reports: and from other Authors it appears that the Ancient Galls, Spaniards, and other Nations, were no Strangers to it. Yea, some Old Britain's took it up, and Polydore mentions particularly the Flaming, the Blazing Obsequies of Belinus' King of the Britain's. This Pagan Usage was first left off among the Romans in the Reigns of the Antonines. And when Christianity got a firmer Footing in the World, it was quite laid aside and extinct, and they returned to the old Primitive Institution of burying the dead Bodies in the Earth, from whence they had their Original.  
Of other things relating to Funeral Rites we have the ancientest Account in these Inspired Writings: as namely, that they used to mourn for the Dead in a solemn manner, rending their Garments, and putting on Sackcloth, as may be gathered from what jacob did, thinking his Son joseph was dead, Gen. 37. 34. and as may be made appear from more positive Texts, which make mention of exchanging their usual Habit for Haircloth, or some such corpse sort of Covering (known by the Name of Sac, not only among the Hebrews, but all other Nations) whereby they used to testify their Grief. This altering, the Habit and Wearing of Mourning Apparel at Funerals was afterwards practised among th● jews, 2 Sam. 14. 2. So was the Ceremony of covering the Face and Head, 2 Sam. 19 4. for in that manner David expressed his Mourning for the Death of his dear Absalon. Whence we may understand the Meaning of Leu. 10. 6. Uncover not your Heads, i. e. put not off your usual Head-attire to put on the Covering of Mourners: it is not God's Will that you should lament the Death of those wicked Men, Nadab and Abihu, And from this you may know how to interpret Ezek. 24. 17. Bind the Tire of thy Head upon thee, i. e. keep on thy ordinary Head-Apparel, and do not change it for a Mourning one, such as is used at Funerals. The Prophet is here forbid upon the Death of his Wife to use any such Funeral Ceremony. There was anciently a peculiar Space of Time allotted for lamenting the Deceased, which they called the Days of Mourning, Gen. 27. 41. & 50. 4. Thus the Egyptians, who reverenced the Patriarch jacob as a Prince and a Great Man, lamented his Death threescore and ten Days, Gen. 50. 3. which is confirmed by what 
1 Lib. I.  Diodorus the Sicilian saith, that the Egyptians mourned for their Kings, when they died, seventy two Days: wherein he is either guilty of a small Mistake of the Number, or those People afterwards added two Days more to the Time of Mourning. But it must needs be an Oversight in 
2 De Bel. Jud. I. 3. c. 15.  josephus, when he saith, the Time of Public Mourning among the Egyptians was forty Days. Which Mistake perhaps was grounded on what is said in the preceding Words of the forecited Place, forty Days were fulfilled for the embalming: so that it is likely he mistook the time of Embalming or making Preparations in order to the Funeral, for the time of Mourning, which was distinct from that, and was seventy Days. The Hebrews Term of Condoleance was far short of this, for joseph mourned for his Father but seven Days, Gen. 50. 10. And generally afterwards the Funeral Mourning was confined within a Week both among the jews, 1 Sam. 31. 13. and the Arabians, Job 2. 13. Thus the Time of Mourning was Proportionable to that of Feasting, which (as I have observed) lasted seven Days. Yet at some Times, and for extraordinary Reasons, it was lengthened out to a much longer Season: thus they mourned for the Death of Aaron thirty days, Numb. 20. 29. and so long a Time they lamented the Death of Moses, Deut. 34. 8. And this particular Period of Funeral Lamentation is mentioned in Deut. 21. 13.  
Mourning at Funerals was heretofore helped and advanced by Music, and that both of Voice and Instrument. Thence 'tis said that King Iosias' Death was lamented by all the singing Men and the singing Women, 2 Chron. 35. 25. And thence you read of the Mourning Women, Jer. 9 17. the same with those that were afterwards called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bewailers, Lamenters, of whom 
1 Lexic. Talmud.  Buxtorf speaks. The same with the Praeficae among the Romans, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks, who were hired at Funerals soften, and melt the Relations of the Deceased into Fits of dolorous Passion by their mournful Notes. Of this sort are the Mourners that go about the Streets, Eccl. 12. 5. that attend the Corpse to the Grave, the long Home, (as 'tis styled in that Verse) for the Chaldee Paraphrast expounds Beth Gnolam by the House of the Sepulture. The Forms used at these Funeral Lamentations and Outcries are mentioned in jer. 22. 18. Ah my Brother, ah my Sister, etc. and in Ch. 34. v. 5. To the mournful Music on such Occasions refer the Prophet's Words, jer. 48. 36. my Heart shall found like Pipes, i. e. with a Mourning-sound such as Minstrels made at Funerals, as a 
2 Sr. N. Knatchbull, in Mat. 9 23.  Modern Critic rightly guesses, though 
2 An●otat. in Mat. 9 23.  Dr. Hammond is positive that there is no mention of Instruments of Music at Funerals in the Old Testament. In the New Testament we read of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Players on the Pipe or Flute at the Houses of those who were deceased, Mat. 9 23. For this Music was used before the Dead were carried forth to Burial, but chiefly at the time of Interment. That this Custom was received among the Gentiles is clear from that of Ovid, 

1 Fast. l. 6.  Cantabis moestis tibia funeribus.  And again, 

2 Trist. l. 5.  Tibia funeribus convenit ist a meis.  And these hired Pipers served indifferently at Funerals, and at Weddings, or the like Occasions of rejoicing, as is deducible from Mat. 11. 17. Further, it is observable that after the Burial of the Dead, a Supper was wont to be made: a Feast of rejoicing succeeded the mournful Exequys. Thus after Abner's Funerals were over, all the People followed, or came to David (who was the Chief Mourner that Day, and it is probable had invited them to the Funeral Banquet) to eat Meat with him, 2 Sam. 3. 35. Of this Feasting and Rejoicing after the Burial of the dead, jeremiah speaks Ch. 16. v. 7. calling it Cos Tanchumim, the Cup of Consolation, which they drank for their Father or for their Mother, i. e. which they took to comfort and refresh them when their Relations were departed: and accordingly the Place where this Funeral Supper was made is called the House of Feasting in the next Verse. And no Man can be backward to think that this is intended by eating the Bread of Men, Ezek. 24. 17. if he seriously peruse the foregoing part of the Verse, which speaks wholly of the Funeral Customs. This is the Bread of Mourners, Host 9 4. Thus in compliance with the Jewish Custom (as 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  josephus saith) Archelaus mourned seven Days for his Father, and entertained the People with a costly Funeral Banquet, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And from the Hebrews these Sepulchral Feasts were derived to the Greeks and Romans, especially the latter, among whom 
2 Lib. 40.  Dio and 
3 Orat. pro Murenâ.  Tully and others take notice of this Usual Entertainment.  
Lastly, as for Funeral Monuments, we learn their great Antiquity from 1 Sam. 6. 18. where mention is made of the Great Stone of Abel, perhaps the Tombstone of that Holy Man and First Martyr, (for it may be that Proper Name was written sometimes with an Aleph, as well as with a He, in the beginning) who deservedly had this Sepulchral Monument erected for him in Palestine near Bethshemesh. This Eben Gedolah (for Eben is of the feminine as well as the masculine Gender, and so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) this Great-stone was mentioned before in v. 15. and here in this it is called Abel Hagedolah, the word Stone being here understood; or else the Stone is called Abel because it was his Memorial, as we call Statues and Pictures by the Names of those who are represented by them. If then I should assert that this is the Tombstone which Adam erected in Memory of his murdered Son Abel, and so was the first Funeral Monument in the World, I am sure there is none can disprove it. But because there is no certainty of this, and it may be Abel in this Place is no more than Ebel, luctus, (as that Hebrew Word signifies) and so relates to the remarkable Occasion of Mourning which we read of v. 19 therefore I shall dismiss it, and propound that which is plain, certain and undeniable. Such is Iacob's setting a Pillar on Rachel's Grave, Gen. 35. 20. He that had set up a Stone for a Pillar as a Memorial of the Covenant made between Laban and him, Gen. 31. 45, etc. and had at other times done the same upon Religious and Devout Occasions, Gen. 28. 18, 22. & 31. 45. erects here another Pillar as a Monument for his beloved Rachel, a visible Remembrance of that Virtuous Woman, and also a Testimony of his own Kindness and Love to her. This was known by the Name of Rachel's Sepulchre, and continued till the latter End (and 'tis likely a long Time after) of Samuel's Days, 1 Sam. 10. 2. that is, almost seven hundred Years from the first erection of it. Among the first and Ancient Tombs, or Monumental Sepulchers, we must reckon those that are said in Scripture to be composed of great Heaps of Stones. Such is that in josh. 7. 26. They raised over him (i. e. Achan) a great heap of Stones, which remains unto this Day. And the like Monument had the King of Ai, Josh. 8. 29. They took his Carease down from the Tree, and cast it at the entering of the Gate of the City, (there interring it, a little without the City) and raised thereon a great heap of Stones, that remaineth unto this Day. And a Sepulchral Structure of the very same Sort was set over the Body of Absalon, They took him and cast him into a great Pit in the Wood, and laid a very great heap of Stones upon him, 1 Sam. 18. 17.  
From which three Instances I observe, 1. That this sort of Monument was made for those whose Deaths were untimely and violent. Whence we might be apt to infer that these were Monuments of Infamy: and accordingly the Heap of Stones laid over Achan and his Sons, is called by josephus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But, we are not certain that this particular kind of Monuments was appropriated to this Rank of Persons. It might have been erected for the Good and Virtuous as well as others, though the Scripture affords us no Examples of the former. 2. I observe here the Nature of these Old Monuments, and that as to these two things; first, this great Mass of Stones was not merely to cover the dead Bodies, (for from the foregoing Instances we find that they were buried in the Earth before) there was an Edifice erected over them, which was built of these Stones, to be a lasting Remembrance to Posterity. This great heap of Stones was not confusedly cast upon them, but laid in some kind of Order by and upon one another: so that this was a Fabric, such as it was. This I gather from the Hebrew Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we find used in the forenamed Texts, and which signify to raise, set up, erect: wherefore these Stones were not cast or thrown upon, or laid over the dead Bodies disorderly, but were a real Building. But secondly, we may gather from their being called a great heap of Stones, that they were not disposed with any Curiosity or Skill, they were set up without hewing, shaping, polishing. This sort of Inartificial Building was sometimes without any Cement at all, at other times with a Careless Use of it, but such as rendered the Pile firm, solid and durable; otherwise it could not have lasted so long a Time as we have heard it did. This is the Notion that I form of these first Rude Sepul: cheers: and you see that the Terms in which they are exprel●s'd are a Confirmation of it. These let us know that they were an Edifice, but very Incondite and Artless: which could not be more ●itly expressed to us than by raising a great heap of Stones. And indeed this was the old Way of Entombing Great Men and Heroes among the Gentiles: they heaped up great and massy Stones upon one another, and seemed as it were to frame a Mountain rather than a Monument, according to that of the Poet, 
1 Lucan. Lib. 8.  Et regum cineres extructo monte quiescunt.  
Such a Monstrous Pile I take stonehenge on Salisbury Plains to be, which without doubt is a very Ancient Piece. I look upon it as a Sepulchral Monument of the primitive Order and Fashion, such as those I have been speaking of, viz. an Indigested, Artless, Formless Tomb. This Apprehension I prefer before any of the others which Writers have published concerning this Antique Structure. Some think they give a true Account of it when they tell us that it was made of Heaps of Sand and some Unctuous Matter that lay in that Part of the Plains, and by means of these two incorporating together this Pile of Stones was made. Mr. Cambden mentions this, and seems partly to approve of it, but the Examples which he produces to confirm it are not of the like Nature, but far different. And truly though we should suppose some such unwonted (though natural) Coagmentation of Sand and Gravel, yet what sober Man can imagine such High Heaps or Mountains of them in that Spot of Ground, and no where else? This therefore looks a little too Romantic. Others would persuade us that it is a Sea-Concretion, and to this Purpose they suppose that these Plains were once part of the Sea; but this is as Chimerical a Notion as the other, because of the great distance of this Place from the Sea, and because the shape of these Stones seems not to be natural but factitious. Others think it was no Work of Nature, but of Art: these affirm it to be a Temple either, 1. of the Tuscan Order (as 
1 Inigo Jones in his stonehenge Restored.  One not unskilled in Architecture suggests) and dedicated to Coelus, and therefore is without a Roof. He thinks it was built by the Romans when they were Masters of this Country. But supposing this was a Roman Temple without a Roof, yet who can believe that it was without Walls and Foundation? But such we must fancy this to be, for neither of these can be found here: wherefore there is no reason to believe that it was a Building of that kind. Or 2. it was (as 
2 See Spelman.  others think) a Temple of Herthus or Hertha, a God or Goddess of the Old Germans, and consequently of the Saxons our Ancestors here in Britain, who called this Deity Earth, the same with Vesta and Terra among the Romans. But what I said before will serve to confute this groundless Conjecture. Only here observe how far distant the Opinions of Writers are about it: some will have it to be a Place dedicated to Heaven, and others to the Earth. Or 3. (as 
3 Dr. Spencer de Leg. Hebr. l. 2. c. 6.  another surmises) this Structure was in imitation of those Temples of old among the Pagans which were wont to be built of unpolished Stone, and without Art, because these were thought to be most acceptable to the Gods. Of which he saith there were many Instances, but produceth none; for instead of Temples he mentions Altars and Statues made after this Fashion, as those sacred to Diana and the Sun spoken of by Herodian, and the Statue of Mars in Arnobius. But 'tis enough here to recur to my former Answer, which 'tis impossible to evade, viz. that here are no Marks or Footsteps of such a Building as a Temple. Or, if you should say that there were of old, but are now missing, it is spoken without Proof, and therefore we need not attend to it: and besides, you must tell us why all is not missing as well as some. These are the Absurdities wherewith those Authors are pressed who hold stonehenge to have been a Temple.  
But those in my Judgement are in the right, and are clogged with no such Inconveniences, who hold this Great Amassment of Stones to be a Funeral Monument in remembrance of some eminent Persons laid there. The particular Occasion is not well known, though the Common Opinion is that this Pile was erected in Memory of the British Lords perfidiously murdered by the Saxons here, upon an Interview in King Vortimer's Reign: for they tell us that Aurelius Ambrose, a Roman by Birth, but a great Lover of the Britain's, came over soon after this inhuman Slaughter to rescue them from the Insolency of the Saxons, and then he erected this Monument in the Place where those treacherous Villains slew the British Nobility, and interred them. Others say it was erected in Memory of Ambrose himself, who expired in this Plain, where he so valiantly fought against the tyrannising Saxons. But neither of these Opinions have any sure foundation. The latter is rendered very improbable by the Reasons which jones hath offered. Nor is the former (which prevails most) attested by Authors of very good Credit, unless we reckon Geoffery Monmouth and Polydore Virgil (the chiefest Writers that speak of this Structure) to be such. Whereupon our 
1 Cambden, in Britanniâ.  Judicious Antiquary deplores this Unhappiness, that the Founders and Authors of this Wonderful Structure are utterly forgotten. Perhaps it was set up in Honour of Boadicia a famous British Queen, who was killed with fourscore thousand in a battle against the Romans and Britain's Romanized, in Nero's Reign. This is the Conjecture of the Author of the History called New Caesar. But neither is this founded on any sure Basis: though 'tis true he quotes Dio and Xiphilin who say she was bur●ed very Magnificently by the Britain's. Dr. Charlton (who hath writ against jones) saith this Fabric was erected in the Reign of King Alfred by the Danes, who at that time domineered in the West of England: But I do not find that this Learned Man offers any convincing Proof of this, I rather think that this Ragged Pile was of much ancienter Date: and that is the Reason why we have no certain notice of the particular Occasion of it.  
But notwithstanding this Obscurity, we have good reason to assert that it is an Old Funeral Monument made after the first and ancient Fashion, i. e. Rude, Unpolished, Artless. Nay indeed, it seems to be a Triple Monument, for it is composed of three divisions of Stones at some distance from one another, and the Ditch or Pit in which they are situated, is the particular Place where the dead Bodies (for whose Sake this Memorial was erected) were laid. Not but that in other adjacent Places there were other Bodies deposited, and hence it is that men's Bones have been dug up here, as Mr. Cambden informs us: which is a farther Proof that this part of the Plains was a Place of Burial, and that this Great Stone-Pile hath relation to that, i. e. that it is a Sepulchre, and not a Temple. Nay, I could add that it is probable a great part of this spacious Plain was on occasion of some famous Slaughter turned into a Burying-Place, and not only Tombs of Stone were set up for the most Eminent Persons that lost their Lives, but others of Clods were raised for those of an inferior Degree: for there are many of these Turf-Monuments on Salisbury-Plain, which the neighbouring Inhabitants call Berries, Barrows, or Burrows, (whence perhaps the Towns fenced heretofore with Walls of Turf or Clods of Earth were called Burrows or Boroughs) which have their Denomination from the Saxon Byring or Buriging or Boroging, which we now call Burying, because the way of Interring dead Bodies among many of the Ancients (and among the Saxons themselves, with whom Beorg, the Original of the foregoing Words, signified an heap of Earth) was not in deep Graves, but under Clods or Turfs of Earth made into Hillocks.  
As to the fastening and joining together these Stones which we are speaking of, though this hath perplexed some men's Minds heretofore it seems, and occasioned them to report that they were transported whole from Ireland by Merlin's Enchantment, (as 'tis not unusual with the Vulgar, when they cannot give an Account of a Thing, to ascribe it to the Devil, or some Magic Art) I am not very solicitous to solve the manner of it: but this sufficeth me, that 1. It was usual among the Old Romans (as all skilful and knowing Men in Architecture confess) to lay great and vast Stones together by Tenons and Mortises without Mortar. And so it may be here, (which may induce us to think it was a Roman Structure) and therefore in vain do we endeavour to find where they are joined and fastened together. 2. I am satisfied that they had of old ways of Cementing Stones which are not known or practised at this Day: and they had an Art of making the Cement after that manner that it could not be distinguished from the Stones themselves which it joined together. Pliny speaks of Cisterns at Rome made of a sort of dug Sand and strong Lime, which could not be distinguished from Stone. It is not unlikely then that there was here used a kind of Mortar that hardened into Stone, and became of the same Consistency with it. Nor is it improbable that this petrified Coagmentation turned into the same Colour with the Stones which it joined together; and then how can we expect to discern the Difference between them? and then why should it be thought strange that they seem to be all of a Piece? Which puts me in mind of the Name which this Stony Fabric is commonly known by, an Account of which I will give somewhat different from what is usually received. If I should propound this Etymology, viz. that stonehenge is so called from the Stones which Ambrose is thought to have erected here, and from Hengist the Leader of the Saxons, at whose giving the Word they pulled out their Seaxes and killed the British Nobles, so that stonehenge is as much as Hengist-stone, (as this Country of Britain was by the Saxons called Hengist-land, as some Writers tell us) this Derivation cannot be looked upon as improper: Or if I should offer Mr. Cambden's Origination of the Word, viz. from the Stones of this Fabric hanging as 'twere in the Air, whence he calls it Pensile opus, this might be thought a fair Account of the Name. But in my opinion, and according to what I have already hinted, the plainest, simplest and most genuine Derivation of the Word is from the Stones hanging (not in the Air, but) together, each heap of them seeming to be all of a Piece. For this is the great wonder of th●● Structure, as is confessed by all; this is that which renders it a Fabric of a peculiar and unparallelled Nature. The Stones are closely joined together by an invisible Cement, they hang together as 〈◊〉 they were but one Stone. For this reason therefore I quit the other Derivations of the Word, an● of●er this as the most obvious and proper.  
But it is not the Name but the Thing that I am most concerned for, and I hope I have given a satisfactory Account of that, in asserting it to be an Old Sepulchral Pile, erected after the manner of tho●e Funeral Monuments spoken of in joshua and Samuel, where we find that the Ancient Entombing was raising a great heap of Stones over the dead Bodies. This is the best Solution I can give of our Western Wonder. It is, as the First Monuments were, without any Shape or Symmetry, 〈◊〉 is like the jewish Stone-henges (before mentioned) rough and unwrought, and may (as they) be called a heap of Stones for that reason. Whence by the way it may be worth the Observation of Critical Men that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both Acerv●● and Sepulchrum, a Heap and a Tomb, Job 21. 32, & 30. 24. Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the known Hebrew Word for a Grave; but in Isa. 14. 19 the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mountain, because Places of burial were elevated. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same double Sense, from Talal, instar tumuli aut cumuli elevare, erigere. So Tumulus among the Latins is both an heap of Earth, and a Sepulchre: whence it is plain that the Old Hebrews and Ancient Romans used to erect heaps of Earth or Stone in memory of the Dead. To conclude, whosoever they were that were buried in the foresaid Place in Wiltshire were entombed as Achan, as the Kings of Ai, and as Absalon were. Here was the first Draught of the Stony Tombs● these were the first Patterns of those Sepulchral monuments which were inartificial, shapeless and without Ornament. Afterwards they took more ●are in erecting their Houses of Sepulture. Stately and Lofty Tombs were made by Great men with much Art and Cost, which is called hewing out to themselves Sepulchers on high, Isa. 22. 16. Yea, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not only better built, but garnished and adorned, Mat. 23. 29.  
But I will add no more of this Subject, nor insist any longer on this Second General Head of my Discourse, wherein I have been evincing this Proposition, that the Scripture gives us the True Original of things, and consequently the Ancientest learning is stored up in this Sacred Volume. I have largely showed that here is the first commencing of Arts and all Ingenious discoveries: here is the first Rise of Trades, Mysteries, Occupations, Professions, Customs, Usages, Manners, Yea, the Holy Scripture disdains not to record the First In●entions of things though they be but mean and contemptible, to show that no sort of Learning and Knowledge is useless. Thus it is said, This is that Anah that found the Mules in the Wilderness, as ●e fed the Asses of his Father, Gen 3 6. 24. This ●s the Man (and let him be known to Posterity) that not by chance; but purposely and designedly, found this new way of Procreation, and thereby produced ● new Species of Animals. Some jewish Writers have thought this jemim was a Plant, but there is not the least ground for it. The Learned Bochars makes jemim to be the same with Emim; some Giant●y People; but this is a perverting of the Original Text, and therefore must not be allowed of: and the finding of them is, according to him, the Accidental meeting of them, but this is very flat. I hold therefore to the plain Interpretation of the pure Hebrew Text, which tells us that Anab found the Mules, etc. i. e. he caused the first Engendering of Horses and She-Asses together, whence 〈◊〉 that unnatural breed of Creatures called Mules. And, if you will believe the Rabbins, he was of a 〈◊〉 and incestuous Stock himself. Here by the way the Learned may inquire whether there be not some probability that Homer's Eneti, from whom came the Race of wild Mules, 
1 11. B.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not corruptly named from this Anah or 〈◊〉 for so the Seventy Interpreters express his Name. But this is the thing that I observe at present, 〈◊〉 the Sacred History takes notice even of small Occurrences, and thereby lets us see that it is very full and particular in giving an Account of the first Inventions of things. It is true, other Authors have attempted to discover this, and to 〈◊〉 us with the History of the Rise of Sciences, and the Founders of them. Herodotus, Diodorus 〈◊〉, Strabo, Plutarch, Porphyrius, Tully, Varro, 〈◊〉, give us some light into these things, but it is dark in respect of the clear Discoveries in the Old Testament. Out of these foresaid Writers Poly done Virgil hath given us a pitiful short Account of the Inventors of Arts, and other useful things among Men. Saturn, Ceres, Pallas, and other Gods and Goddesses among the Pagans are assigned the first Founders of them. All this is feigned Antiquity, unless so far as it hath some reference to the Holy Scriptures, and under those disguised Names points at the Persons who are mentioned in this Inspired Book. Hence, and from no other Writings, the first Original of things is to be had: and it must needs be so, because all the best and ancientest Authors have borrowed from the Old Testament. It is granted that Arts and Professions received their Improvement and Perfection afterwards, and therefore we cannot expect that these should be found in Scripture; but the first Rise of them was among the early Posterity of Adam and Noah, and therefore the first mention of them is found here, and no where else. Some of these are but little and mean things, I know, but yet 'tis certain they are as great as the Greatest Critics take notice of sometimes, and spend much time about in Other Authors. This moreover is to be said, that here we are Certain of what we read, we are Sure the thing is so, which we are not in Other Writers.  
But before I speak of that, let me insist a little upon This, that it is a singular Commendation of the Authors and Penmen of the Old Testament, but especially of Moses, that, being the First Writers, they borrow from none, but Other Writers are beholden to them. It may be observed, that Writers in all Faculties have showed themselves not backward in imitating others that writ before them, or, in 〈◊〉 terms, of Filching from them. This we may see in the Poets, all the Greek ones take many things out of Homer, and he himself was a Filcher no less than they, for you may descry Po●tick Theft in the very Entrance of his Iliads: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was stolen from an Ancienter Poet, Orpheus; besides that he borrowed the main things in that Poem from Dares the Phrygian, and Dic●ys the Cretian, who wrote before him of the Trojan War. Nay, Suidas tells us, that he took a great part of his Poem form Corinnus a Trojan Poet, Scholar of Palamedes. And as for Aristophanes, he borrows much from Euripides, as an observant Eye cannot but take notice. As for the Latin Poets, they have particular Authors in whose Steps they tread. Virgil in his Eclogues and Bucolics strives to resemble Theocritus, in his Goorgicks Hesiod and Aratus, and in his Aeneids Homer. Horace writes in imitation of the Greek Lyrics, and the he calls these Imitators servum pecus, yet he is pleased to follow Anacreon, and especially Pindar: Plau●us and Tcrence are Emulators of Epicharmus and Menander. In brief, AElian and others look upon all Poets after Homer to be but his Apes. Amongst Orators the chiefest of them think fit to borrow or steal from one another, as Tully from Demosthenes, and he from Pericles, and this last from Pisistratus. In Philosophy it were easy to observe the same, and Seneca frankly confesseth it; 
1 Quicquid bene dictum est ab ullo, meum est. Epist. 16.  If any of the Moralists, saith he, hath an Excellent Saying, I make it mine. Thus he speaks in excuse of himself for using several of Epicurus' Sentences, and that very frequently. Before him Plato stole from Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Socrates, saith Hesychius. And if we may believe 
2 Deipnosoph. li● 11.  Athenaeus, the greatest part of Plato's Dialogues was taken from Aristippus and Antislhenes. Among the Historians there is the same Trade carried on: justin is a downright Plagiary, taking all from Trogus Pompeius. Apion transcribes many entire Sentences and other considerable Passages out of Polybius, Plutarch, and others, and takes no notice of their belonging to those Persons, but sets them down as his own: for which Reason he is styled by Scaliger, alienorum laborum fucus, a Drone that lived upon others Labours. Solinus almost transcribes Pliny, his Polyhistor is but a Variation of the other's Natural History: and Pliny himself acknowledgeth that he gathered his Book out of a great Number of Authors Greek and Latin. So in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius took all or most of julius Africanus (an Excellent Writer, and the first Christian Chronologer) his Book de Temporibus into his Chronicon. In Canon Law Balsamon all along transcribes Zonaras on the Councils. In medics Avicenna borrows from Galen, and Galen from Hypocrates. So in Divinity, St. Hilary's Commentaries are for the most part taken out of Origen. Theophylact is a constant lmitator, or Transcriber rather, of Chrysostom; and O●cum●nius takes from him very largely. If we should descend to Modern Writers (and those very excellent ones too) we may espy the same thing practised by them. Tasso is beholden to Virgil for much of his Model and Characters. Galatinus stole all from Porchetus, a Franciscan from a Carthusian Monk. Isidore Clarius transcribes whole Pages out of Sebastian Munster; and we know of a Learned English Paraphrast and Annotator who hath often conferred Notes with a Belgic one: You will find Monsieur Le jay complaining that Bishop Walton stole from him his Polyglotts. Thus the best Authors are beholden to one another: and indeed there is very good Reason for it sometimes, and you cannot expect it should be otherwise; for they find it requisite to borrow of those who have treated of the same Argument, both because they have said those things which cannot be omitted on the Subject, and also sometimes because they are naturally inclined to embrace the very same Notions and Sentiments This then is an Epidemic Fault, and who is there that is not in part guilty?  
But we are speaking now of a Book and of Authors where nothing of this nature can happen, for the Old Testament (which is the Writings we speak of) was, as to a great part of it, extant before there were any Writers in the World, and so it was utterly impossible to borrow from Others This is the Peculiar Excellency of this Book, this is the Particular Commendation of these Writings that they were the First of all, and could not be taken from any else. These Holy Scriptures borrow from none, unless you will say they do so from Themselves; as the 18th Psalm is taken out of 2 Sam. 22. or this out of that. The Evangelists borrow from one another. The Virgin Mary's Magnificat refers in several Places of it to Hannab's Song, 1 Sam. 2, and St. Paul takes some things out of his Epistle to the Epbesians, and puts them into that which he wrote to the Colossians; and so st. jude may be said to borrow from St. Peter: but this is not the Plagiarism which Other Writers are guilty of, and which is an Argument of their Wants and Defects, whereas the Holy Spirit supplied the Penmen of the Bible both with Matter and Words. In the Old Testament especially, and more particularly in the Books of Moses, there is nothing at second hand: all is fresh and new; th● things there spoken of were never delivered by any Writer before. But most of the Profane Historians began when the Holy History was just ending. And Herodotus himself, the Father of History, writ not till Ezra and Nehemiah's time. The Gree● Historians go no further back than the Persjan E●pi●e: and most of the Roman History takes not its Rise so high. Indeed the Egyptians boasted that they had been ruled by Kings above ten thousand Years, (as Herodotus relates) and thence perhaps it was that one of their Pharaoh's (which was the common Name of all their Kings) bragged that he was the Son of ancient Kings, Isa. 19 11. The Chinoises pretend to give an Account of Passages almost three thousand Years before Christ: and we are told by Martinius (in his Atlas) that they preserve a continued History, compiled from their Annual Exploits, of four thousand and five hundred Years: yea they have (if we may credit the younger 
1 De Aetate Mundi.  Vossius) Writers ancienter than Moses. But these high Flights are exploded by all Considerate Men, and upon a View of whatever Pretences are made by Others, they conclude that Moses was the Ancientest Writer, and that the earliest Discovery of Transactions and Occurrences in the World is to be learned from him alone. Some of the Wisest Pagans had a hint of this, and travelled into the Eastern Countries to acquaint themselves with these Records. And it was observed long since by Plato, (as I took notice before) that the Oldest and most Barbarous Tongues (meaning the Hebrew and Chaldee) were very requisite for the finding out the first Beginnings of things: for the first Names of them, which are now grown obsolete by length of time, are preserved in those Languages, they being the ancientest of all. In the Hebrew especially are to be found the Primitive Origines of things: and most of the Pagan Historious have borrowed from these. And so have their Po●ts, Orators and Philosophers, as a great Number of the Christian Fathers (whom I have particularly quoted in another Place, to evince the Authority of the Scriptures) have largely proved. In a word, all other Ancient Writings refer to these, or suppose them, this Inspired Volume alone being the Fountain from whence either they or we can derive any Truth and Certainty.  
And as there is the Ancientest Learning, so there is All Learning (I speak now of that which is Humane, and is reckoned the Accomplishment of Rational Persons) and all the kinds of it in this Book of Books. Here is not only Prose but Verse: here are not only Poems but Histories, Annals, Chronicles. Here are things Profound and Mystical, and here are others that at the first sight are Intelligible and Clear: here are Prophecies, Visions, Revelations (for even in the Narratives which are given of These there are some things serviceable to promote the Study of Humanity): here are Proverbs, Adages, Emblems, Parables, Apologues, Paradoxes, Riddles: and here are also Plain Questions and Answers, Propositions, Discourses, Sermons, Orations, Letters, Epistles, Colloquies, Debates, Disputations. Here are Maxims of Law and Reason, Rules of justice and Equity, Examples of Keen Wit and Deep Politics, Matters of Church and State, Public and Private Affairs, and all manner of Subjects either treated of or referred unto. Thus the Bible is excellently sitted to entertain any Persons as they are Students and Scholars: for here is a Treasury of all Good Letters, here are laid up all things that conduce to Humane Knowledge. Porphyrius is said to have writ a Book 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suid.  of Homer's Philosophy, wherein he attempts to prove that he was as much a Philosopher as a Poet: and no less a Person than 
2 Dissert. 16.  Maximus Tyrius affirms him to be the Prince of Philosophers: and another 
1 Plutarch. de Homero, lib. 2.  Grave Author undertakes to show that the Seeds of all Arts are to be found in Homer's Works. This is said by his Admirers to inhanse his Credit and Repute; but far greater things, and more justly, may be pronounced concerning these Famous Records of Learning and Antiquity. With more Reason may we maintain that the chiefest Arts and Inventions are originally in the Sacred Volume, and that the Foundations of all Humane Learning and Science are laid here; for though these are not the chief things designed in this Book, (it being writ to higher Purposes) yet they are occasionally interspersed every where, and a Studious Enquirer cannot miss of them. It is rationally and undeniably to be inferred from the Particulars abovementioned, (though many more might have been added) that the Bible is the most Complete Book, and hath All Learning in it. This truly deserves the 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Name which Diodore the Sicilian gives his History, that is, it is indeed a Library, an Universal one, and contains All Books in it. As the Writers of it were Persons of Several Conditions, Kings, noblemans, Priests, Prophets, etc. so the Matters of it are Various and Different, and by reading and studying these Writings we may Commence in all Arts and Sciences, we may be accomplished Grammarians, Critics, Chronologers, Historians, Poets, Orators, Disputants, Lawyers, Statesmen, Preachers, Prophets. Many valuable Monuments of Learning have been lost. The famous Library of Alexandria, which contained six or seven hundred thousand Volumes, and that of Constantinople, which consisted of an hundred and twenty thousand, perished by Fire. And the Works of Varro, the Learnedest Man of all the Romans, are extinct. And many others might be reckoned up, besides those that Historians say nothing of. But having the Scripture, Hacatub, (as the Jews rightly called it by way of Eminence) the most Excellent Writings in the World, fraught with all manner of useful Literature, we may afford to be without the other: for this is a certain Verity, that if we have the Bible we want no Book.  
And more particularly I have made it appear, that the Choicest Antiquities are to be found here. A prying Antiquary may find more Work, and much more to his Advantage, in the Writings of the Old Testament, especially of the Five Books of Moses, than in all the Mouldy Manuscripts and Records in the whole World besides. Therefore you will find Mr. Selden (as Great an Antiquary as this last Age afforded) continually conversing with these Sacred Records, and presenting the World with the Noblest and most Useful Pieces of Antiquity from thence. Here we learn what they did in the Primitive Age of the World, how things went before and immediately after the Flood. The Scriptures give the Oldest Account and Discovery of things. All Curious Observations of the First Times, all Ancient Notions and Inventions are to be met with here. So that if you look upon the Bible but as an Ancient Book of Learning, we are invited to study it. We are furnished here with some of the most desirable Antiquities of the Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Arabians, Syrians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, and several other Nations. On which very Account alone the Bible is the best Book that a true Lover of Learning can take into his hand. Briefly, from the whole I make this Conclusion, that no Man can be a Consummate Scholar without reading the Scriptures, which are the Source even of all Humane Learning.  
But as the Antiquity and the Universal Learning contained in this Book, so the Certainty of it gives it the preference to all others. What we meet with here, we are sure is true: whatever is related as said or done in so many Ages past, we have reason to yield a full Assent to, because the Penmen of this Book were divinely inspired, and therefore could not err in what they delivered. This we cannot say of any other Writers, for we find them to be uncertain and lubricous, and they too often take up Stories on trust, or invent them as they please. As for the Writings of the Poets, the best of them are mere Fictions. Yea, One that knew the Nature of an Heroic Poem very well, tells us that Fable is the chief thing in it, it is the 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot.  very Soul and Life of it. Thus it is in Homer and Virgil's Poems: and generally the other Poetic Writers (as Orpheus, Hesiod, etc.) are fabulous Rhapsodists. Even the Father of Latin Poetry, whom I just now mentioned, brings Aeneas and Dido together, though he lived several Ages before her. And many such Historical Incongruities and fabulous Inconsistencies the Poets put us off with instead of true Relations. Yea, professed Historians are full of Uncertainties and Contradictions every where. Xenophon avers that Cyrus the first Persian Monarch died peaceably in his Bed: but Herodotus and justin say he was vanquished in Battle by Tomy●is Queen of Scyt●ia, who caused his Head to be cut off and thrown into a Vessel full of Blood. Some tell us that Alexander the Great died of Drunkenness, others that he was poisoned. Hannibal poisoned himself, saith justin: he was killed by his Servants, saith Plutarch: but this Author also acknowledges that he drank Bulls Blood, and thereby procured his Dissolution. The same Writer sets down the several Opinions concerning the Deaths of Romulus and Scipio Africanus, and makes this Observation, that the Deaths of Great Men are uncertainly reported. Athen●us saith of Plato, that he was eaten up of Lice by his frequent eating of Figs, which he so exceedingly loved, that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but this is contradicted by others. Some say Aristotle drowned himself in Euripus, because he could not find out the Cause of its ebbing and flowing: others would persuade us, that he poisoned himself: but some affirm he died a natural Death. There is scarce any Philosopher but dies twice or thrice in Laertius. Nor is there almost any Life in Plutarch without two or three Deaths, as a 
2 Dr. Brown Relig. Med.  Learned Man hath observed.  
To pass to other Historians, from whom we might think to have better and certainer Information, Antiochus in the Book of Maccabees died three several Deaths; 1 st. In his Bed at Babylon, 1 Mac. 6. 8, 16. 2dly. He was stoned in the Temple of Nanea, 2 Mac. 1. 15, 16. 3dly. He died on the Mountains by a Fall out of his Chariot, 2 Mac. 9 28. There were different Reports concerning Iulian's Death, but the respective Historians are confident in them all: He was killed by one of his own Soldiers, saith Socrates; by a Daemon, saith Callistus, who wrote in Verse of the War at that time with the Persians. It is probable that he died by a Stroke which a Christian Soldier gave him, according to Sozomen: but none knows whence that Stroke came, according to Theodoret. Eusebius and Zosimus speak diversely concerning the Life and Death of Constantine the Great. Procopius gives an Account of justinian contrary to what all other Historians do. And before this we find the Father's differing about the Character of Nicolas the Deacon: Clemens of Alexandria and Theodoret say he lived a chaste Life, but that being reprimanded by the Apostles for his Jealousy towards his Wife, he thereupon brought her out, and exposed her to any one. But Tertullian and Epiphanius affirm, that he allowed of and practised all Obscenity and Lewdness, and the promiscuous Use of Women. The Person who goes under the Name of St. George, was a Cappadocian Tribune, a great Hero, and at last a Martyr, say some: he was an Heretic, an Arian Bishop of Alexandria, say others: there was no such Man, say a third sort. If we should look into our own British Concerns, there we shall find History very dark and uncertain, nothing is tolerably related of this Country till julius Caesar's time: and then and afterwards we are involved in great Uncertainties, and we can look no where but things are diversely reported. Great Men die several Deaths, and the Lives and Actions of Persons are variously represented. King Edward, surnamed Ironsides, his Death is four or five ways related in our Chronicles, and so is King John's. Some Writers tell us that King Richard the Second died of Famine by Force; others, that he voluntarily famished himself. Some say he was killed with the Blow of a Pole-axe on his Head; others, that he escaped out of Prison, and led a solitary Life in Scotland, and there expired. Concerning King Henry the 5th, it is said by some, that he was poisoned; by others, that he died of a Pleurisy; by others, that a Palsy and Cramp took away his Life; and there are others that confidently report his Death was by St. Anthony's Fire. Yea, our Writers are often grossly mistaken about Matters of very late Occurrence, as Baker, Heylin, Fu●●er, (professed Historians) tell us, that Richard Sutton, a single Man, founded the Hospital at the Charterhouse, whereas his Christian Name was Thomas, and 〈◊〉 was a married Man. So Mr. Hooker died in holy Celibacy, say Gauden and Fuller, but the contrary is known to be too true. But I should be infinite if I should undertake to set before you the palpable Mistakes and Misreports in History both domestie● and foreign. All that are conversant in this way of Study complain, and that justly, of the erroneous Misrepresentations of Passages of all sorts among Historians, and of our Darkness and Ignorance by reason of these.  
But no such thing is to be feared, or so much as suspected in the Sacred History, because God himself speaks there: and therefore we have the sur●● ground for our Faith that we can desire. There is no Authority so firm as that which is Divine: there is no Testimony so strong and valid as that which is from the Holy Spirit. And such is that of the Holy Scriptures; and consequently it most justly challengeth, yea commandeth our Faith and Assent. This is the singular Pre-eminence and Advantage which this Book hath above all others, that the Penmen of it were directed by the unerring Spirit of God. This alone is sufficient to determine and six us, it being the most stable as well as the most proper Basis of our Belief, even where things that are very Improbable are propounded to us to be assented to. Besides, as to the seeming Improbability of some things that are related in the Historical Part of the Bible, this ought not to hinder us from giving Credit to them. Many Persons are wont to look upon these Passages and Stories as Strange and almost Incredible, which they observe are not suitable to the Manners, Customs, Arts, and Conversation of the World, as it is at present, and thence they are inclined to think that there were no such things heretofore. But these Men do not well consider, nor distinguish between those times and these, which are exceedingly Different. And moreover, if they suspend their Belief of some things which they read in the Old Testament, because they see other things now, things of a Different Nature, they may as well disbelieve all the Other Histories of the Ancients that are extant, which yet we see they are very backward to do. And they have good Reason on their Side, because the World is not now as it was then, and therefore we must not expect that the things which we read of in those times, should be fully conformable and agreeable to what occurs in these latter Days. For this Reason a very 
1 Dr. Jackson, Vol. 1. Book 1. chap. 11.  Solid and Judicious Writer hath defended the Ancient History of the Greeks and Latins, (whereof whatever is strange is in Herodotus and Pliny) showing, that (though some fabulous Narrations, and many gross Mistakes and Errors are intermingled) the Strangeness of some Passages which we meet with in them, proceeds from the Diversity of Times, the Posture of the World having much changed since those things happened. Let us make use of the same Reasoning in the present case, and when we find several Strange, Unusual and Surprising Matters in the Writings of the Old Testament, impute this to the Antientness of them, and the great Discrepancy between those Days and these we now live in. If we do so, there will be no Impediment to our steady Belief of the Truth of them. Nay, if we weigh things well, we shall see it is ridiculous to expect that the Guises and Manners of the World should be the same now that they were 4 or 5000 Years ago: for there must needs be new things when the Numbers of Persons are so vastly increased; when the Difference of Climes produces such Diversity of Dispositions; when Casualty, Necessity, Industry, Wit, etc. are the Occasions of so many new Occurrences. Let this be remembered and seriously thought of, and it will dispel our vain Scruples and Disbelief. Or, if there be any remaining, the former Consideration will throughly extirpate them, i. e. if we call to mind the Undoubted Certainty and Infallibility of the Scripture, which is its peculiar Prerogative and Excellency.   

CHAP. VII.  
A particular Distribution of the several Books of the Old Testament. Genesis (the first of them, together with the four following ones) being written by Moses, his ample Character or Panegyric is attompted, wherein there is a full Account of his Birth, Education, Flight from Court, retired Life, his Return to Egypt, his conducting of the Israelites thence, his immediate Converse with God in the Mount, his delivering the Law, his Divine Eloquence, his Humility and Meekness, his Sufferings, his Miracles, and his particular Fitness to write these Books. A Summary of the several Heads contained in Genesis: to which is added a brief but distinct View of the Six Days Works, wherein is explained the Mosaic Draught of the Origine of all things, and at the same time the bold Hypotheses of a late Writer (designed to confront the First Chapter of the Bible) are exposed and refuted. The Contents of the Book of Exodus: to which is adjoined a short Comment on the Ten Plagues of Egypt. A Rehearsal of the remarkable Particulars treated of in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. That Moses was the Penman and Author of the Pentateuch, notwithstanding what some have lately objected against it.  
To demonstrate yet further the Excellency of these Holy Writings I will enter upon the Third way of Proof which I proposed; that is, I will give you a Particular Account of the several Books contained in the Old and New Testament, and I will show all along the particular Usefulness and Excellency of them. I begin first with the Old Testament, which is divided by the Jews into three general Parts; first Torah the Law, which contains the five Books of Moses; then Nebiim the Prophets, which comprehends the Books of joshua, judges, first and second Book of Samuel, the first and second of the Kings, Isaiah, jeremiah, Ezekiel, the twelve Small Prophets; all which make the second Volume: then the Chetubim the Holy Writers, in which are included the Psalms, Proverbs, job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles; and these made the third Volume. The Books of this last Rank were written, say the Jewish Doctors, by the Inspiration of the Spirit, but the Writers were not admitted into the Degree of Prophets, because they had no Vision, but their Senses remained perfect and entire all the while: only the Holy Spirit stirred them up, and dictated such and such things to them, which they writ down. For you must know that the Old Jews thought nothing to be right Prophecy but what was conveyed in Dreams or Visions. But though this be a Rabbinical Conceit, and hereby they strike David and some others out of the Number of the Prophets, who were the Chief of them; yet the Partition of the Old Testament, as it may be rightly understood, is not altogether to be rejected, nay it seems to be allowed of by our Saviour himself, Luke 24. 44. where he tells his Apostles, that all things must be fulfilled which were written concerning him (in the whole Old Testament, viz.) in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, under these last comprising all the other Parts of the Hagiographa: Or you may divide the Books, as they stand in their order in the Septuagint and Latin Version, (and according to them in our English Bibles) into these three sorts, Historical, Doctrinal, and Prophetical. The Historical Books are Narratives of things done, and these are fifteen, whereof Genesis is the first, and job the last. Or if you reckon the two Parts of the History of Samuel, and the Kings, and those likewise of the Chronicles as distinct Books, than there are eighteen in all. The Doctrinal Books are such as purposely and wholly instruct us in our Devotion and a Holy Life: these are four, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song. The Prophetic Books are those which consist chiefly in Predictions concerning the Deliverance of the Church, the Punishment of its Enemies, and the Coming of Christ in the Flesh. These were written either by the Greater Propbets, as Isaiah, jeremiah, Ez●kiel, Daniel, to which also appertain the Lamentations of jeremiah; or by the Lesser, whereof the first is Hosea, and Malachi the last. Having thus given you a Distribution of the Several Books, I come now to a Particular Survey of them, the first whereof is  
Genesis, which together with the other Parts of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, who being the First Writer that we know of extant in the World, and being every ways so Remarkable and Admirable a Person, I think myself obliged (before I proceed any further) to present you with the Character of this Excellent Man, that in what we shall deliver concerning this One Penman of Scripture, you may guests how large we might be in commendation of the rest. But because we cannot have leisure to do so in all the others that follow, I will offer here a Specimen of it in this First Inspired Writer, whom we have occasion to mention. He was born (about the Year of the World 2370) in Egypt, of Hebrew Parents, who presently read in his Face 
1 Acts 7. 20.  extraordinary Marks of Divinity, and therefore were unwilling to discover his Birth to the Egyptians, that he might not, according to Pharaoh's Order, be hurried into Nile, and there drowned. However, in this River they resolve to expose him in an Ark of Bulrushes, and to commit both Him and the Care of this Little Vessel in which he was embarked to the Great Pilot of the World: And behold, it arrived at a safe Harbour, and no meaner a Person than the King's Daughter received the little Passenger into her Embraces, and caused him to be brought to Court, and bred up as her own Son. Here he became 
2 Ver. 22.  Learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, in all those Arts and Sciences wherein they used to instruct their Youth, which they chiefly designed for the Service of their Country, viz. in Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy; for these were Sciences that they thought were Natural to men's Minds, and were the first things taught not only by the Egyptians, but the rest of the Ancients in their Schools. Hence it was written in great Letters over the Entry of Plato's School, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, None must be admitted into this Place but such as have been initiated into Geometry, such as have had a taste of it at least. Therefore this and the forenamed Arts were termed Mathematics, i. e. Learning or Discipline, by way of Eminency. In all these was this young Courtier brought up, and skilled in all Philosophical Accomplishments and the Knowledge of Nature. Besides, he was more especially instructed in that Abstruse and Recondite Knowledge which the Egyptians were peculiarly Masters of, namely their Hieroglyphic Ciphers, their Mystical Symbols and Figures, whereby they represented the choicest Truths to men's Minds. This way of Symbolical Learning furnished them with all kinds of Notions that were serviceable in the Life of Man, they were taught hence the best Rules of Morality, the profoundest Maxims in Politics, and the most useful Sentiments in Theology. This was the Celebrated Wisdom of the Egyptians, in which Moses was educated, being sent by Pharaoh's Daughter to the best Academies and Schools of Learning, and committed to the best Tutors, and having moreover the Advantage of his own Excellent Parts and Quick Ingeny; for he who was so Eminent as to his Bodily Features and Proportions, had without doubt as Fair a Soul.  
But 'tis time now for Moses to leave the Court, and to add to all his other Accomplishments, that of Travelling. And truly he was neceslitated to this, for the Court could not bear him any longer, because He could not bear it: he every Day more and more disliked their Manners, contemned their Gay Follies, laughed at their empty Titles, and 
1 Heb. 11. 24.  Pharaoh's Daughter. He was now resolved to help and assist his oppressed Brethren, though by that Attempt he should lose the Favour of the King, and his Royal Patroness, and with that all Possibility of being Great, yea though he should incur the Danger of being Miserable above the degree of his former Happiness: 
2 Ver. 25, 26.  He chose rather to suffer Affliction with the People of God (his Hebrew Brethren) than to enjoy the Pleasures of Sin for a Season (in Pharaoh's Court): esteeming the Reproach of (or, for) Christ greater Riches than the Treasures in Egypt. In pursuance of this 
1 Acts 7. 23.  he visited his Brethren the Children of Israel, who now groaned under their extreme Bondage and Slavery in that Country, he boldly 
2 Ver. 24▪  defended them when ●e saw them suffering wrong, and avenged the Cause of the Oppressed, and smote the Egyptians. This made him taken notice of by the Egyptian Lords and Taskmasters, who presently went and represented his Carriage to the Court, and thereupon he was banished thence for his daring to take the part of any of those Hebrew Bondslaves. 
3 Ver. 29.  Then fled Moses into the Land of Midian, and was a Shepherd there 
4 Ver. 23, & 30  forty Years, just as many as he had been a Courtier. This was the sudden Change of his Condition, and he made it serviceable to the best Ends. He went out of the World, as it were, to come into it with the greater Vigour; for his Retired Life fitted him for Public Achievements afterwards, his Contemplative and Solitary way of living prepared him for Action, his Low and Mean Estate was the Forerunner of his being called to an High one. God bestows not on a Man Magnificence unless he first makes Trial of him in some Small thing, say the Rabbis; and they instance in Moses and David, who kept Sheep. Kings were anciently styled Shepherds, and sometimes were really such. God calls Cyrus his Shepherd, Isa. 44. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Epithet of a Prince in Homer: which ‛ Plato explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Feeder and Nourisher of the Flock of Mankind. The three Hebrew Verbs nahag, nahal, ragnah, signify to lead or feed Sheep, and to govern. So do the Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both a Palace, Luke 11. 21. John 18. 15. and a Sheepfold, John 10. 1. The Word 
6 Gen. 49. 10. Psal. 23. 4.  Shebet is both a Sceptre and a Pastoral Rod. The Shepherd's Employment, saith 
7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De vita Mosis.  Philo, (speaking of this very Matter) is a Prelude to Empire and Government. Yea he runs this too far, adding, that he is clearly of the Opinion (though he may be laughed at for it) that 
8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he only can be a Perfect Complete King who is well skilled in the Shepherd's Art, and by taking Care of lesser Animals hath learned how to preside over greater ones. But though this be extravagant, and not becoming that Learned Man, yet it is a Sober Truth that a Retired Contemplative Life (such as the Pastoral was in those Days) is a good Preparative to Public Action and Business.  
Accordingly Moses, when he had been forty Years a Shepherd, was appointed by God to feed Israel, and to spend the remaining forty Years in that Employment. To which purpose he was sent back by God into Egypt to be a Deliverer to that oppressed People, and to conduct them into the Promised Land. Being arrived there he delivered his Message to Pharaoh, and earnestly solicited him to attend to it, and to obey the Command of the King of Kings. Which when he (after several Offers of Compliance) at last refused, Moses with the Israelites 
9 Heb. 11. 27.  forsook Egypt, not fearing the Wrath of the King, who they knew would soon pursue them: and this their Valiant and Undaunted Captain by a Miraculous Hand led them safe over the Red Sea, and placed them out of all Danger of the Egyptians, whom presently after they saw lying dead upon the Shore. And this was the Man who was their Constant Leader in the Wilderness; here he is their only Guide, their Counsellor, their Oracle in all their Difficulties. By his Ardent Prayers he was wont to avert the Divine Vengeance when it was lighting on them, and by the same Fervent Breathe and Cry he procured them the Greatest Blessings they desired and stood in need of. This was the Person that was taken up by God into the Mount, and had the peculiar Favour and Honour of conversing most Familiarly and Intimately with him; and in that had the Prelieminence of all the Prophets that ever arose in Israel, for none of them were admitted to that singular Dignity vouchsafed to him, namely, 
1 Deut. 34. 9  to know God Face to Face. He was the Man employed by God to receive the Law for the Jews, which he delivered to them with great Care and Faithfulness, often Repeating and Explaining it, showing them the Reasonableness, Usefulness and Excellency of those Constitutions and Statutes which were given them by God, continually teaching them to understand these Laws aright, and encouraging them to practise them; insomuch that he hath gained among all Nations the Name of a Lawgiver, far surpassing that of Lycurgus among the Lacedæmonians, or of Solon among the Athenians, or of Numa among the Romans.  
Of this Admirable Person this short but comprehensive Character is given by St. Stephen, that 
2 Acts 7. 2●.  he was Mighty in Words and in Deeds. He that was 
3 Exod. 4. 1●.  not eloquent, not a Man of Words, (as 'tis in the Hebrew) he that was slou of Speech, and of a slow Tongue (for which Reason Aaron was his 
1 V. 16.  Mouth, i. e. his Spokesman to the People) was Mighty in Words. How can this be? Very well. A Man may want Eloquence, and yet be a Great Orator. Demosthenes had a natural Impediment in his Speech, and so had Tully, and neither of them could quite conquer it by their Art and Industry. Their Oratory lay more in the Matter, and their wise framing of it, than in the Words they spoke. So was it with this Great Man, (if I may compare him with them) he was mighty in Words, yet was no Graceful Speaker; he was Powerful in Speech, yet a Stammerer. This shows that there is a Rhetoric, and that very Potent, which consists not in Readiness of Language and Volubility of Words, but in speaking Great Reason and Excellent Sense, and in saying that which is to the Purpose. Especially the the Words are Mighty when they proceed from an Excellent Mind, and when Deeds follow. So that Diodorus Siculus may be thought to be a good Commentator on St. Stephen, for he gives this as part of Mose's Character, that 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 2. c. 5.  he was of a Great Soul, and very able and powerful in his Life. He did what he said, he acted according to what he spoke. The Israelites were directed to their Duty more by his Practice, than his Words. He effectually taught them to live well, chiefly by doing so Himself. He set them a Pattern of all Virtue's imaginable, and then commended them all by his Exemplary Condescension and Humility. Though he was one of the most transcendent Excellencies, (the Beauties of Body and Mind shining in him, as you have heard) yet he was the Humblest and 
1 Num. 12. 3.  Meekest Man on the Face of the Earth. He gave an undeniable Proof of this when 
2 Ibid.  he refused to contend with Miriam and Aaron about his Authority and Eminency, which God himself had enstated him in, but which they denied to own. He discovered this mild Spirit when he patiently bore all the unworthy Carriage of the People towards him. They knew well enough that he left the Egyptian Court and Honours for their Sake, that he might be their Leader and Deliverer: yet they forgot this his singular Affection to them, and often murmured against him, and slandered and reviled him, and would have none of his Conduct, yea and 
3 Exod. 17. 4.  were ready to stone him after all his Pains and Care for them. But notwithstanding all these Affronts, and Injuries, and offers of Violence, (which were almost perpetual) he went on contentedly in the Discharge of his Office, and forgot their ill Demeanour towards him, and studied nothing more than to oblige them. Or, his being Mighty in Deeds, may refer to the Astonishing Miracles which he wrought. He outdid all the Prophets in these, say the Jewish Doctors; for (if you'll believe their 
4 Manasse ben Israel Quaest in Deuteron.  Computation) there were but seventy four Miracles done by all of them from the Beginning of the World, till the Destruction of the first Temple, but Moses himself wrought seventy six Miracles: so that he did more than all the Prophets together. But this we are certain of from the infallible Records of Scripture, that he was Mighty in working of Miracles. The Sacred History, which he penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us a Particular of some of those Wonderful Things which he effected in Egypt, and at the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness; and many others are not mentioned, (as is usual in these brief Narratives of things) but all of them were the Operations of a Divine and Supernatural Power.  
Lastly, he was Mighty in Deeds relating to Government, and the Management of Public Affairs which respect either Peace or War. It was Plato's Judgement of old, and after him some Great Persons liked it so well that they made it theirs too, that it would never be well with the World till Philosophers had the Reins of Government put into their Hands, or till the Governors and Guides of People were become True Philosophers. There were notable Examples of this in Athens, where Aristides, Themistocles, Miltiades, Pericles, Photion, Alcibiades, and several others were as celebrated Philosphers as Commanders and Captains. They were renowned for their Great Wit and Judgement, and for as Great Valour and Conduct. As wife Men they knew how to regulate themselves and their own Manners; as skilful Rulers and Governors, they knew how to rectify the Behaviour of others. We are sure that Moses wanted not this double Advantage, being versed both in the Principles of the Best Philosophy, and the Wisest Government, and being able to act according to both. His Learning and Contemplation were reduced into Exercise: he by them not only understood but practised the Arts of War and well Governing. He knew how to give Laws to the People, and knew how to lead them into the Field: like Caesar afterwards, who was both Scholar and Soldier, the Master of Eloquence and of Arms. The great Variety of Life which he had gone through made him universally Knowing, and sitted him for all sorts of Actions. David is a like Instance in Scripture, and I know not another. He was, like Moses, a Shepherd, a Courtier, a King's Favourite, and afterwards out of Favour, a Fugitive, a Warrior, a Ruler, a Prophet, a Writer. This Difference of Scenes rendered both of them Complete Actors: this Diversity of States furnished them with Political Wisdom, which being added to that which was Divine, enabled them to act so laudably in those Public Stations to which they were advanced. And for this reason our Moses is the more Acceptable Historian, because he was one of such vast Knowledge and Wisdom, and had passed through so many and various Stages of Life, and especially because he was personally engaged in most of the things he writes.  
We count it a good Qualification in those that pen Histories, that they write things done in their own time, and that they bore a Part in what they describe. Thus Dictys Cretensis (if we may begin with him) writ the Trojan War, wherein he himself had served: Thucydides (as he tells us in the beginning of his History) was present at the things he wrote concerning the Peloponnesian War, and saw and knew much of it. Xenophon was both Historian and Captain, and knew many of the Things he transmits' to Posterity. Diodorus Siculus (as he acquaints us in the Entrance of his History) travelled a great Part of Asia and Europe, to inform himself of the Things he relateth, and that he might be an Eye-witness of most of them: and it appears from what he saith elsewhere, that he went into Africa. Iulius Caesar's Commentaries (which Name he was pleased out of Modesty to apply to the best History in the World of that sort) are an Account of the Military Acts of his own Army. He fought and writ: his Battles were transcribed into his Book: his Blood and his Ink were equally free, his Sword and his Pen were alike famous. josephus' accompanied Titus to the Siege of jerusalem, and knew himself the Acts done in the War he writes. Polybius travelled to most of the Parts which he describes, and saw those very things which he writes of. Procopius sets down what he knew, for he was present with Belisarius at the Wars which he treats of, and was Eye-witness of what he relates. Herodian writ the History of the Emperors of his own Time, and so had the exacter Knowledge of their Actions. Suetonius was Contemporary with the three last Emperors, whose Lives he writes. Among the Modern Historians, Comines, Guicciardine, Sleidan, Thuanus, are commendable on this account, they lived at the same time when most of the Things which they record were done, and they were themselves actually concerned in many of them. Now, if these who were interested in the Matters they delivered are thought to be well qualified on that Account for Historians, than we ought to have the greater Regard to our Divina Writer, who was engaged in so great a Part of the Things which he commits to Writing. He describes those Battles at which he was present, and records those Passages in which he had a Share, and that a very considerable one: so that having the Relation of these things from his Mouth, we do not only read them, but as 'twere see them. And here by the way we may see the unreasonableness of those men's Cavils, who think it a diminishing of the Authority of Moses' Writings that he so often records his Own Actions and Deportment, as if they did not sound well, nay could not be true from his own Mouth. But it is certain that this very Thing commends his Writings, and strengthens the Authority of them, especially when we know that he was a Person of Integrity, and would not tell a Lie. We think not the worse of Iosephus' Life, because 'twas writ with his own Hand; nor of the Emperor Antoninus' 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Books concerning Himself, nor of St. Austin's Confessions wherein he gives an Account of his own Actions, nor of Cardan, or junius, or Bp. Hall, who writ their Own Lives, nor of Montaign who in one Book more especially makes Himself the Subject, and relates his own Temper, Studies, Fortunes, etc. And shall we think the worse of Moses because he sets down the Passages of his own Life in the Books which he hath written? No: this rather advanceth their Credit among wise and understanding Men, who are satisfied that none was so fit to give an account of his own Actions as this Author himself, both because he knew them better than any Man, and because he was of that entire Faithfulness that he would relate nothing but what was exactly true. And that he was thus faithful and impartial, is evident from those Passages which relate to Himself, which are frequent in these Writings, where his own Infirmities, Imperfections and Follies are registered, where his unseemly Wrath and Passion, where his gross Unbelief and Distrusting of God (as at the Waters of Meribah especially) and several other Miscarriages of his Life are set down. This shows that he spared not Himself, and that he was not guilty of Partiality: this shows that he was devoted to Truth, and not led by Applause and Vain Glory. Whereas he might have composed his own Panegyric, and transmitted it to future Ages, you see he chose the contrary, and recorded his own Faults and Misdemeanours: whence it is rational to conclude that he would not falsify in the least in any other Part of his Writings. And as for that Aphorism of Machiavelli, He that writes an History must be of no Religion, it is here disproved and confuted: Moses was the most Absolute Historian, and yet the most Religious; and his being the latter, capacitated him to be the former. For no Man can so impartially deliver the Truth as he that speaks it from his own Breast, and especially (as in the present Case) hath a practical Sense of those Divine Things which he delivers. This is that Person who was the Author of the Pentateuch, that Excellent Philosopher, Lawgiver, Historian, that Captain, that Prince, that Prophet, that Man of God, who was the Inspired Writer of the five first Books of the Bible.  
The first of which (as I said before) is Genesis, which begins with the History of the Creation. And I call it a History, in opposition to the fond Conceit of those Men who read the Beginning of this Book with Cabalistick Spectacles only, and think there are nothing but Allegories and Mysteries in the whole Text. But the contrary is very evident to unprejudiced Minds: and to such as are not so, I have propounded Arguments in another Place (viz. when I treated of the Literal and Mystical Sense of Scripture) to take off their Prejudces and Mistakes. This I did, because it is necessary to be firmly persuaded of the Truth and Certainty of what we meet with here in our Entrance into the Bible. It is indispensably requisite that we believe Moses to have delivered these things as an Historian; and that he speaks real Matter of Fact, when he gives us a Narrative of the Beginning of all things, and particularly of the Original of Man, his Innocency and Happiness, and after that his Fall, which was the Source of all Sin, of the Devil's Tyranny, of Death, of Hell, and of all Evils whatsoever. The Knowledge and Belief of This are the Basis of all Religion, and that perhaps was the Meaning of 
1 Colloq. Mensal.  Luther's Saying, that the First Chapter of Genesis comprehends the whole scripture. Wherefore this is with great Wisdom premised in the Entrance of this Sacred Volume. To which afterwards are adjoined the Propagation of Mankind, the Rise of Religion and of the Church of God, the Invention of Arts, the General Defection and Corruption of the World, the Universal Del●ge which drowned all Mankind but Noah and his Family, the Restoration of the World, the Certain Distinction of Times before the Flood and partly after it, the Confusion of To●gues, and thereupon the Division of the Earth among the Sons of Men, the Plantation of Families, the Original of Nations and Kingdoms, as the Assyrian Monarchy (begun in Nimrod or Belus) and the Egyptian Dynasty; the History of the first Patriarches not only before but after the General Deluge, as of Noab the Preacher of Righteousness, of Abraham the Father of the Faithful, of Isaac the Seed in which all Nations were to be blessed, of jacob the Father of the twelve Tribes, of joseph whose Memorable Actions are here fully recorded, and with which this First Book of Moses ●nds; unless the Book of Genesis may be said to reach as far as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of that Promise contained in it concerning Serpent's Head, Viz. Christ the Redeemer made of a Woman, and sent to subdue the Devil, and to destroy Sin and Death.  
But because this First Book begins with the Creation of the World, and is therefore by the Rabbins called the Book of the Creation, I will here annex a brief View of the several Distinct Steps of this Great Work, as they are represented to us by this Inspired Writer and Divine Philosopher, who acquaints us that there were six Days spent in erecting this glorious Fabric of the World. And this will be a farther Proof of what I said before, viz. that in Scripture is the Truest Philosophy. When Moses saith, In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth, Ver. 1. he doth in these Words give us a summary Account of all that he intended to say afterwards in this Chapter: for Heaven and Earth comprehend the Whole Creation. This first Verse than is to be looked upon as a General Draught of the Production of all things: and the Particulars of it follow in the next Verses, where the several Days Works are distinctly set down. The Product of the first Day was twofold, viz. the Terraqueous Mass (called here the Earth) and Light. There was first of all created a Rude Confused Heap, (by Profane Writers called the Chaos) an Indigested Mass of Earth and Water mixed together, out of which God afterwards made all Corporeal things which belong to this lower World. For we must not (as some) imagine that the Celestial Bodies were composed out of the Earthly Chaos, that all the Vast Spaces of the Heavenly Mansions owe their Rise to this Mass below, and that the very Stars were the Offspring of the Earth. No; Moses gives us to understand that this Confused Lump was the Original only of the Lower World: for the Earth in this first Verse is mentioned as one Part of the new-created World, as distinct from Light the other Part of the Creation. As Light then (of which I shall speak next) was the Primordial Matter of the Ethereal, Celestial and Shining Bodies; so this Gross and Lumpish Heap was that of which all Dark and Heavy Bodies were compounded. This Unshapen Mass without Form, and void, is here, by a general Name, called the Earth, though it was not in a strict sense such; for the Earth, as a distinct Body from all others, was the Work of the third Day. In this Place therefore by Earth is meant Earth and Water blended together, which made one Great Bog or Universal Quagmire. This is the plainest and truest Conception we can have of the Primitive State of the World. And hence without doubt was derived the Opinion of Thales and some other Ancient Philosophers, that Water, or Slime, or Mud, (for they express it variously) was the Source of all Being's whatsoever. And certain it is that this Terraqueous Matter was the first Origine of all those material Being's beforementioned. Accordingly Sir W. Raleigh, in the Beginning of his History of the World, determines, that the Substance of the Waters, as mixed in the Body of the Earth, is by Moses understood in the word Earth. Hitherto, according to the Mosaic History, Nature is in her Night-clotheses, the World is overspread with Darkness, which is especially said to be on the face of the Deep, by which is meant either the whole Disordered Mass, which was an Abyss, or else (as is most probable) the Watery Part of it; for though this and the Earthy Parts were mixed together, yet these latter being lightest were generally uppermost, and floated above all, and appeared on the Surface of the Earth. Therefore that Learned Knight before mentioned observes that the Earth was not only mixed but covered with the Waters. But the Spirit of God (as Moses proceeds to tell us.) maved or hovered over this Dark Abyss, this mixed Chaos, especially the Waters, (as 'tis particularly said, because these were uppermost) and hereby the Rude Matter was prepared to receive its several Forms, and then the World began to throw off its Dark and Sable Mantle, and to appear in a Bright Dress.  
For the other Product of this first Day (and which indeed made it Day) was Light, i. e. some Lucid Body or Bodies: which yet cast but a Glimmering Splendour, a Faint Radiancy in comparison of what was afterwards on the fourth Day, when we are told in what certain Subjects the Light resided, and was as it were fixed. But now it was feeble and vagrant, and was the first Result of some ●iry and luminous Matter which the Divine Spirit by his powerful Moving and Incubation had engendered. This Bright and Glorious Matter was the Second General Source of all Being's, that is, out of it were made the pure Aether, the Sun and Stars, and whatever belongs to the superior Part of the World; but these appertain to the fourth Day's Work. Now we are only to take notice of this Light as it is here the Catholic Term for the First Rudiment of the whole Celestial Creation (as Earth was the word to express the First Matter of the Inferior Part of the World). And what is this Light but Fire or Flame, that subtle Matter which heats and enlightens the World? For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both lux and ignis, as also the Greek Word 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light, Mar. 17. 2. Fire, Mark 14. 54. Luke 22. 50.  imports. So Heat is put for Light, Psat. 19 6. And I could observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used not only in Isa. 18. 4. but in other Places to express the Hebrew Word for Heat. Which shows the Affinity, if not the Identity of these two. This Original Light then, which was the Second Principle in the Creation, is no other than those fine and brisk Particles of Matter whose Nature is to be in a Continual Agitation, and which by their restless Motion and Pressure communicate Warmth and Light, Vigour and Lustre wherever there is need of them in the Universe. Some refer the Creation of Angels to this first Day's Work, by reducing them to the word Heaven in the first Verse; but I have suggested already that that Verse is a General Account of the Whole Creation, and not of any Particular Day's Production, (or else by Heaven and Earth there is meant the First Matter or Rude Draught of both) therefore no such thing can be inferred thence. Nor are we to think that the Angelic Order is comprehended under Light, (as I find some imagine, because they read of an Angel of Light, 2 Cor. 11. 14.) for it is Material Light only that is the Product of the first Day's Work. I rather think that Moses designed not to include Angels in any Part of that Account which he gives of the Creation, for he makes it his Business to speak of those Works of God which were visible and sensible, and therefore 'tis no wonder that the Angelic Spirits are not mentioned, for they come not within the Compass of his Undertaking.  
Hitherto we have had a View of the Two Primitive Materials of all visible Being's in the World, viz. 1. The Formless Mass or Chaos (whence 'tis likely Aristotl● derived his First Matter, which is according to him neither this nor that, but mere passive Potentiality, yet susceptive of any Form). 2. The Active Light, which was made to envigorate the dull and inert Matter of the Chaos, and afterwards to be the Original of the Vast Luminaries of the Celestial Part of the World. These are the General Elements of the Mundane System; one gross and unactive, the other subtle and penetrating; the one the Matter of this inferior Part of the Universe, the other of those more spacious and extended Orbs above. This I take to be the true Account of the Origine of the World, though I have but few (if any) that concur with me in laying it down thus; for the Chaos is generally made the Universal Source of the World. But to me it seems to be but One Part of it, and that of this Lower Division only, which is very small in respect of the other. I have only this to add here, that it is this First Day's Work alone that in the most proper and strict Sense ought to be called the Creation, because now was made the First and Universal Substance out of which the Works of the other Days were produced; though it is true in a latitude of speaking, the Formation of the distinct Species of Being's was a Creation also. And of these I proceed now to speak according to the Mosaic Method, the same with that of the Creator.  
On the second Day was the Lower Heaven or Firmament made, called by this Divine Philosopher Rakiang, i. e. the Expansion, or according to the Seventy Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom the Vulgar Latin follows, and renders it Firmamentum. This was produced in the midst of the Waters, and the Design of it was to divide the Waters from the Waters, (v. 6.) i. e. (as it follows) the Waters under this Firmament from the Waters above it. The Meaning of which is, (after all the wild Comments on these Words) that whereas the Waters at first were heaped together very high above the Earth in some Places, the Alwise Disposer began this Day to make a Separation of them, and to frame an Expansion (for that is the simple and downright Import of the Hebrew Word) between the lower and the higher Parts of the Waters: so that now there was a Distance between them, which was caused by the Interposition of Air between these lower and higher Parts of the Waters. The Almighty Creator, by attenuating and rarifying these, transmuted them into an Aerial Body, which shall always continue so, i. e. shall remain really distinct from the crasser Subsistence of Water. Therefore in plain Terms this Expansum is the Whole Region of Air: and we cannot imagine any other Expansum or Out-spread Firmament which divides the superior from the inferior Waters, i. e. the Clouds from that vast Body and Mass of Waters which at first covered the Earth, and soon after (as you shall hear) were disposed of into particular Receptacles, and were denominated the Seas. But yet in a large way of speaking this Firmament here spoken of is all that Extended Space (for that, I say, is the proper Denotation of the Word) which reacheth from the Earth to the Place of the Stars, which was made afterwards. If it be asked why this Second Day's Work hath not the same Approbation that the rest have: I answer, the Reason is not because it was not good, but because it was but an Essay or Specimen of the two next Days Works; for the Waters were but now begun to be separated, which afterwards we find finished on the third Day: and this Firmament was but a Beginning or Preparative to the Production of a higher and nobler Expansum on the fourth Day. This we may conceive to be the Reason why the Epiphonema which is added to every Day's Work [God saw that it was good] is not adjoined here.  
On the third Day there was this fourfold Work; 1. A Complete Separating or dividing of the Waters. 2. A Gathering of them into one Place, which was then, and is since called the Sea. And it is most reasonable to believe that on the same Day that the Seas were made by depressing some Parts of the Earth for the Waters to run in, the Channels also of the Rivers were fixed, and the Currents of Water let into them. For if (as some imagine) Rivers were made afterwards by Men, the Banks of them (or one Side of them at least) would be higher than the rest of the Ground, by reason of the Earth dug out and cast up. 3. A Drying of the Land, which was a necessary Consequence of that collecting the Waters into certain Cavities and Channels in the Earth; for they being drained and sunk down into these, the Land became dry, and had the Denomination of Earth (properly so called) given to it. Virgil expresses it thus, (for he as well as other Poets, as I have showed in another Place, borrowed several things from the Sacred Records) 
Et durare solum, & discludere Nerea Ponto  
Coepit.—  And this was not only in order to render it a suitable Habitation for Men and Beasts afterwards, but to sit it immediately for Plants and Herbs, for Trees and Fruits, (and more especially for the Plantation of Paradise) which were the fourth and last Production of this Day.  
The next Day was employed in creating of an Etherial Heaven or Firmament, and furnishing it with Glorious Lights. As the former Firmament or Expanse was the Space between the Earth and Aether, so this is that vast Extension which comprehends the Aether, and all the Luminaries placed in it, and whatever is above it, even the Place of the Blessed, called the Heaven of Heavens. The Generality of Expositors, I grant, make the other Firmament and this the same, and think that the Firmament here spoken of is not mentioned as the Product of this Day's Creation, but that here is only a new mentioning of the preceding one. But this Mistake hath run them into great Absurdities, and hath made them unable to give any tolerable. Account of the Waters under the Firmament, and those above it. But if you quit the usual Road of Interpreters, and take the Firmament in the 14th Verse to be different from that in ver. 6, & 7. you solve all Difficulties whatsoever, and the Texts are clear and evident. Wherefore I distinguish between the Firmament of Air and that of Aether, i. e. that wherein the Clouds and Meteors are, and the other which contains the Luminaries of Heaven. And you may observe that this, in contradistinction to the former, is signally styled thrice the Firmament of Heaven, ver. 14, 15, 17. This Celestial Expansion being fixed, the next Work was to garnish and adorn it. To which purpose the Light made the first Day is now abundantly and almost infinitely augmented and refined, and disposed of into certain particular Orbs or Spheres, or Vortices, which are formed in this upper Part of the World. As all the formerly dispersed Light which was scattered over the whole Face of the Earth and Deep, was (as we expressly read, ver. 4.) divided from the Darkness, whereby one half of the Globe was enlightened, and the other was in the dark; (it was Day with one Hemisphere whilst it was Night with the other) so now on the third Day this Wand'ring Light is gathered into the Bodies of the Sun and Stars.  
This is the Mosaic Philosophy concerning the Earth and Heavens; and (if it were my Business here) I could show that upon true Principles of Reason it is more consistent than any Philosophical Hypotheses of another Strain, and especially more congruous to the Laws of Motion and the Operations of Nature than that of Monsieur Des Cartes, who tells us, that there were nothing but Suns and Stars at first, there were no Earth's nor Planet's, but in process of Time some of these Suns were overspread with Spots and Scum, and became opake, and being sucked in by their Neighbour-Vortices, turned into Planets or Earth. But truly, to give this worthy Person his due, he propounded this only as a Handsome Hypothesis, a neat Philosophic Fiction, which he thought might serve as a good Expedient to solve some Celestial Phaenomena. But he intended not that any Man should look upon it as a Reality, and thereby exclude the Mosaic Doctrine: For his own Words are these, 
1 Non dubium est quin Mundus ab initio fuerit creatus cum omni suâ perfectione, ita ut in co & Sol, etc. Cartes. Princip. Philos. Par. 3. Sect. 45.  It is not to be doubted that the World was at the very first created with all its Perfection, so that there were then existent the Sun, Earth and Moon. This the Christian Faith teacheth us, and even. natural Reason persuades us to think so: for when we attend to the Immense Power of God, we can't imagine that he ever made a thing which was not every ways entire and perfect. Thus he establisheth the Mosaic System, according to which the Earth was before, not after the Heavens; yea, as gross as it was, it was the Firstborn of the Creation, and consequently the Hypothesis about its being made by Absorption is a Fiction. So according to Moses the Earth was the Basis and Foundation of the World, and the Sun and other Luminaries were placed in the Firmament, which is said to be above the Earth; wherefore the System that makes the Earth the Centre, and not the Sun, is founded on this.  
Before I dismiss this Head, I might take notice how mightily concerned the Arc●aeologist is about the Inequality of the Days Works, and especially that of this Fourth Day, which 
1 Archaeolog. Philos. cap. 8.  he tells us exceeds all the other five, and therefore he cannot give Credit to Mo●es's Hexaëmeron. This is the wild Reasoning of this Philosophic Adventurer. Indeed both here and in other Places where he descants on the Mosaic History, he uses a most extravagant, and (to speak plainly) a most irreligious Liberty, confronting the Text with an unsufferable Boldness, and playing upon it with a most unbecoming Raillery. Is he to set the Almighty Creator his Tasks, and proportion them as he think fit? Must every Day's Work be equal, or else must it not be believed? Yea, is he able to tell what is equal or unequal with the Omnipotent Deity and most Wise Architect of the World? Surely this is not the Language of a Christian Man: Yea, (which perhaps will affect him more) 'tis as sure that he dot●▪ not talk like a Philosopher, for it is certain (and all Intelligent Men will acknowledge it) that Dull, Gross, heavy Matter, abo●t which the foregoing Days Works were conversant, is not (if we speak of the Nature of the thing) so soon moved, shaped and ordered as that which is Tenuious, Fluid, subtle and active. The Make of the Heavens and all the spacious Bodies of the Stars was quickly dispatched, because the Matter of them was Ethereal, light, tractable; and by reason of their ●iry and agile Nature they presently ran into that Shape which they now appear in. This should have been considered by this Cavilling Gentleman, and he ought to have made a Distinction between what in itself is Dull and what is Active, i. e. the T●o Different Principles of the Creation which I have before asserted. If he had done so, he would have seen that there is no Reason to complain of Inequality in the Six Days Works. But he mistook the System of the World which Moses describes, and thence was his Error. I wish it was not wilful and presumptuous, for from several bold Strokes in this Ingenious Man's Writings, one would be apt to think he inclined to Alphonsus' Humour, who declared that if he had been at the Creation of the World, he could have taught God to have form the System of it better. But I will retain a more charitable Opinion concerning this Author. And I expect that he should show his Charity (as I have mine) in not censuring this my free Descant upon what he hath published to the World: for I have as great a Regard as any Man to True and Sober Philosophy, and I own the Great Worth and Excellency of it; but I must needs protest that I abhor the Practice of those who exclude the Sacred Writings whilst they adhere to their own Hypothesis, who set up such Philosophical Principles and Conclusions as directly oppose and contradict the Revealed Truths of the Bible. And this is the Case now before us, or else I should not have troubled the Reader with any Reflections on what this Learned Author hath written. Let us have as much 〈◊〉 Philosophy as he pleases, but none that subverts our Old Religion.  
To proceed; on the fifth Day the Inhabitants of the Seas, and of the Lower Heaven were formed. For though the cheering and warming Light, before it was embodied and gathered together into certain Receptacles, was instrumental by the Divine Power to produce Vegetables, yet it was not vigorous enough to beget the Animal Life. But now this Noble and Cherishing Virtue being mightily increased by immense Accessions of Light and Heat made to it, and being more advantageously placed and fixed, we find the Effect of it in the Production of Fish and Feathered Animals: Now a Living or Sensitive Soul is first made, ver. 21.  
On the sixth and last Day the Earth brought forth all kinds of Beasts and Cattle, i. e. all Terrestrial Animals (as on the foregoing Day all Animals belonging to the Sea and Rivers, and to the Air, were created). And lastly Mun, the Top and Glory of the Creatures, the most Elaborate Piece of the whole Creation, was framed out of the Dust; and, in respect of his Diviner Part especially, made according to the Image of God himself. He is too Great and Noble a Being to be spoken of by the by, and therefore I shall not discourse of him here. Only I will observe the Unreasonableness of the Archaeologist, who positively avers that this last Day's Performance was not proportionable to the rest, and thence condemns the Mosaic History of the Creation. But this Disproportion is either in respect of more or of less done on this Day than on the others. If he complains that more was done, he shows himself inconsiderate, for hereby it appears that he takes no notice of the Creation's rising higher and higher towards the latter end; besides that he confines the Creator himself. But if he complains (as I suppose he doth) that less was done, he shows what low and unworthy Thoughts he hath of Man: as if Mud, Water, Earth, Clouds, Seas, Plants, Fish and Fowl, (the Productions of the former Days) were much better than Him whom God purposely reserved to be the Compliment and Perfection of all, Him to whom every Creature pays a Tribute, Him for whose Use and Benefit the whole World was made.  
These are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Primitive Works of God, and the Several Days in which they were made. For we are not to imagine (as 
1 Philo de Allegor. Leg. l. 1. Hilar. de Trin. I. 12. S. Augustin. in Gen. sec. literam.  some do) that this Division of the Creation into so many Parts is only set down for Order sake, but that really all was done at once and in a Moment: for then the Reason given in the Fourth Commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath Day, viz. because in six Days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh Day, is to no purpose, yea it is absolute Nonsense. Therefore we must necessarily own the Gradual Progress of the Creation. And let us not only do so, but observe the Wisdom and Providence of the Infinite Architect in the Order and Method which he used. He in creating began with the lowest and meanest Rank of Being's, and so ascended to higher and nobler. Simple Elements, as Earth, Water, Fire, (or Light) Air, were produced before the more mixed and concrete Bodies. Yea, these Elements were placed according to the Order and Degree of Gravity, first the Earth, subsiding in the lowest Place of all, (for the Great and Renowned Tycho disdains not this Hypothesis) than the Waters or Abyss placed immediately about the Earth: next the Air or Expansion, whose Position was above the Waters: lastly the Fire, called Light, which comprehends all the Ethereal and Heavenly Bodies, which are surmounted above all the rest. As for the Planets (which are so many Earth's, i e. if by Earth we mean an opake Body) they are to be accounted for at another time, and in another Place, where it will be most proper to speak of them. It is also observable, that things that were Inanimate were first brought into Existence, and afterwards such as had a Vegetative Life: then things that had Sense and Spontaneous Motion, and lastly Reasonable Creatures. Man was the concluding Work of the Creation, and his Soul was the last of all; to let us know that this sort of Being's is much more valuable than Bodies, to assure us from the Method of God's creating that Minds or Spirits surpass Ma●ter. Finally, when I say that the Creation ceased in Man, as in the most Perfect Work of the Divine Artificer, as in the End to which all the rest were designed, I do not exclude Angels, who are a Perfecter Classis of Creatures, and are not united to Bodies as the Souls of Men are, and for that very Reason are not taken notice of by Moses in this Account of the Visible Creation. I am inclined to believe that these Glorious Spirits were made presently after Man, they being an Order of Creatures superior to him. The Order of the Creation (so far as we certainly know any thing of it) invites me to embrace this Persuasion, for according to this those Excellent Being's should have the last Place. According to the Steps and Degrees of the Creation, I say, it was thus.  
Exodus is the next Book; which relates the Tyranny of Pharaoh, the Bondage of the Israelites under him in Egypt, and their Wonderful Deliverance from it. More particularly here are recorded the Prodigious Increase and multiplying of these oppressed Hebrews which were the Posterity of jacob, the Plagues inflicted on the Egyptian King and his People, because he refused to dismiss them; their Departure thence without his leave, though not without the People's; their Miraculous Passing through the Red Sea, or Arabian Gulf; the Overthrow of Pharaoh and his numerous Host; the Marvellous Securing and Protecting of the Israelites in the Arabian Deserts; the strange Miracles wrought for the sustaining and preserving of them: the Promulging of the Law to them on Mount Sinai, which consisted of Moral Precepts, Civil or Judicial Constitutions, and Ceremonial Rites: for the celebrating and performing of which latter, a Tabernacle was erected (as Rich and Stately as their present Condition would permit) by the particular Appointment and Direction of God. Briefly, this Book represents the Church of God, afflicted and preserved: it shows that he is pleased to suffer it to be reduced to the greatest Straits and Calamities, and that even than he guards it by his Providence, and in good time delivers it.  
But as before, when I mentioned the General Contents of the Book of Genesis, I particularly insisted on the Creation; so now having given a brief Scheme of this second Book, I will stay to enlarge upon a particular Subject of it, which is very Considerable and Remarkable, viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as 
1 Cedrens. Hist. Compend.  One calls it) the Tenfold Plague wherewith God testified his Wrath and Anger against the Egyptians. Ten times the Israelites were detained by Pharaoh, and so many times God inflicted Remarkable Judgements on him and his People. The first was a severe Infliction on their Waters, that Element which is so useful and necessary to Man. The Divine Displeasure began to exert itself here by turning all their Rivers, Ponds, Pools and Streams into Blood. The dreadful Consequences of which were these, (as you find them enumerated, Exod▪ 7. 21.) first, they had no Water to drink, and quench their Thirst with: Secondly, their Fish (their great and almost only Food) died; and Thirdly, the Rivers stank, by reason of the putrified Waters and dead Fish. So direful was this Plague on their Waters, which they honoured above all other Elements as the first Cause and Principle of all things in World, and especially their River Nile was gloried in, and worshipped as a God. This the Learned and Religious 
1 De vitâ Mosis.  Philo gives as the Reason of inflicting this Punishment. God sent a Curse on that which they most prized and valued. That which they excessively admired, proved a Plague to them. God punished them in that which was most regarded by them, and was indeed most serviceable to them. Again, this is to be observed that the Blood of the murdered Infants, who had been drowned by one of the Pharaoh's Command, is here represented by these Bloody Waters. Here the merciless Tyrant may see the just Retaliation of that Crime. The Rivers being changed into this Colour, accuse the Egyptians of the inhuman Slaughter of the innocent Babes, and let them know that their Plagues deservedly begun with these first of all. Yea, here we may take notice of an Horrible Omen: these Red Rivers were an unhappy but just Presage of the Fate which they should afterwards undergo in the Sea of that Denomination. If any Object here, How could the Magicians turn the Waters into Blood (v. 22.) after Moses and Aa●on had done so before them? I Answer, the Universal Terms used in this Relation are to be restrained▪ and understood with some Exception, (than which nothing is more common in Scripture) i. e. when 'tis said all the Rivers and other Waters were stained with Blood, the meaning is that very few Places were free from this Infection. The Magicians than might repeat this Plague in Goshen, and some certain Parts of Egypt where it had not taken effect before.  
When this First Plague was removed, God sent a Second, viz. Frogs. Which in part tormented the Egyptians after the same manner that the former did, for they were of an extraordinary Nature, (and so we must suppose all the other Creatures hereafter named to be) and infected the Waters which were lately healed and recovered, so that there was no drinking of them, or making use of them to any other Purpose. But whereas the former Plague was only on this Element, this present one was every where. No Place was exempted from this Croaking Vermin. They overspread their Fields, they crept into their Houses, they lodged themselves in their Beds. All Places were filled with them, all Meats and Drinks bred them. Certainly this must needs be a very Affrighting as well as a Noisome Punishment whilst these Animals were moving and living: and they were no less so ●fterwards, when they lay dead and putrifying all ●ver the Land.  
When this Plague was taken away, a Third succeeded in its room, an Innumerable Company of Lice, which miserably infested both Men and Beasts. What these Kinnim were we do not certainly know: we have no such Creature perhaps in these Countries. But this we know that these Loathsome Infects were such a peculiar Sort of Creatures that the Egyptian Sorcerers had not power to produce the like, and therefore they signally called them the Finger of God, Exod. 8. 19 This also we know that this Crawling Vermin was excessively troublesome, painful and tormenting: and lastly, from this kind of Punishment we know this is to be inferred, that God, whensoever he pleases, can give Commission even to the Least, the Vilest and most Despicable Animals to execute his Wrath on Offenders.  
As appears also by the Fourth Plague, viz. Swarms of Flies, with which he further vexed the Egyptians. Beelzebub was let loose among them, and his Buzzing Crew would not suffer them to be at ease. The Hebrew Word Gnarob is rendered by Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Dog-fly: but 'tis probable that the true genuine Word in the First Traslation was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence the Vulgar Latin renders it omne genus Muscarum, a Swarm of all manner of Flies. So according to Aquila's Version it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But 
3 Antiqu. l. 2. c. 5.  josephus stretches the Word further, and interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wild Beasts of all Sorts and Shapes; such as no man ever saw before, as he adds. Yea R. Solomon and some other Jewish Expositors think that all kinds of wild Beasts, especially Serpents and Scorpions, and such venomous Creatures, are meant. The Author of the Book of Wisdom understood the Word thus, as appears from what he saith, Ch. 11. v. 15, 16. For the foolish Devices of their Wickedness, wherewith being deceived they worshipped Serpents and vile Beasts, God sent a Multitude of Beasts upon them for Vengeance: that they might know that wherewithal a Man sinneth, by the same also shall he be punished. But the exactest Enquirers into the Original Word conclude, that it signifies a gathered Mixture of several Sorts of Infects or little flying Animals, such as Beetles, Hornets, Bees, Wasps, Gnats, and more especially ●lies. Perhaps Grotius is in the right, that Gnaro● is not of Hebrew Extraction, but is an Egyptian Word, (as was that whereby the Frogs were named) and signifies peculiarly with them a Heap or Swarm of Flies. The vast Number of these was sufficiently troublesome: but that was not all, these Multitudes of Infects were Infectious and Mortal by reason of their intolerable Stench and Filth, with which they filled the Air: whence 'tis said, the Land was corrupted with them, Exod. 8. 24. And this Corruption proved fatal to many, who without doubt would have taken up Domitian's Employment, and managed it better than he did, but they were not able, for instead of stabbing these Creatures they were dispatched themselves by a more poignant Stroke.  
The former Judgements having not produced any good Effect in this People, God sends a Fifth among them, viz. a Pestilence or Murrain, that destroyed their cattle, their Flocks and Herds of all Kind's: for when 'tis said All cattle died, it is not simply and absolutely to be understood (for some remained▪ as is clear in the Plague of Hail afterwards) but of▪ cattle of all Kind's. These, it seems, they kept and brought up for their Wool, and for Service, and to make a Gain of them by selling them to other Nations, although they made no use of them themselves for Food. Though the Egyptians themselves escape the fury of this Pestilential Distemper, yet God punisheth them in their Beasts. These are destroyed, to intimate to them what themselves deserved, who live and acted like Bru●e Beasts.  
And now in the next Place it is worth our observing, that this Plague is followed with the breaking out of Boils and Blains, Botches and Swell●ng-Sores both in Man and Beast; that is, the fifth Plague was cured by the coming of the Sixth: for the Venomous and Pestilential Humour which had seized on the Men, (as I gather from Psal. 78. 50. where this particular Punishment on the Egyptians i● recounted) and which had struck the cattle dead, was called forth into the extreme Parts of their Bodies, and so was thereby evacuated and exhausted. Whence I infer these two Things, 1. That God may think ●it to send or take away an Extraordinary Calamity in an ordinary and natural Way: and 2. That one Calamity or Plague may come in the Place of another, and even wholly remove that former Plague, and yet prove a very Great one itself. Thus it was with the Boils and Impostumes, they were a Remedy in a natural Way against the Pestilence, but they were likewise a Grievous and Painful Disease, and made them unfit for all Work and Business. I will only further remark under this Particular, that it is probable Trogus Pompeius (and from him justin the Historian) refers to these Botches and Boils, when he reports that the Egyptians (by whom he means the jews, for he and other Pagans thought they were originally Egyptians) were driven out of Egypt because they were infected with the Itch, and were overrun with Scabs and Sores. So 
1 Hist. l. 5.  Tacitus relates; that an Epidemic Leprosy or Scabby Disease plagued the Egyptians Bodies, whereupon the King consulting the Oracle, gave order to purge the Country of the Jews, and to send them into some other Place. It seems to be grounded on this, though he (as all other Profane Historians when they speak of the Jews) is guilty of mistaking and blundering in the way of delivering it.  
The Seventh Plague that these People felt was Hail, which was a very Prodigious thing in itself: for though it sometimes, but very seldom, reigned in Egypt, yet Hail was never seen before in that Country. But moreover this was Extraordinary, being attended with Fire and Storms, Lightning and Thunder, which slew all the Men and Beasts that were abroad and remained, and destroyed all Trees, Plants and Herbs.  
And because their Wheat and Rye were not at that time come forth out of the Ground, and other Fruits of the Earth were not grown up, and so received no harm by this Plague, therefore upon Pharaoh's continued Obstinacy another was soon after inflicted on them, that is, Troops of Locusts and Caterpillars, (for these latter are mentioned Psal. 78. 46. & 105. 34.) such as never were before in the World, nor afterwards ever shall be, (as 'tis expressly recorded) invaded them, and unsufferably molested them in their Houses and closest Retirements, and quickly devoured all the Fruits of the Ground which the Hail had not touched.  
When neither this nor the foregoing Judgement had any considerable Effect upon the Hardened Tyrant, a New one, viz. that of Darkness (which is the Ninth in Number) is sent among them. This was such a Darkness as put out all Fires and Lights, else they might have helped themselves by these: but 'tis plain they did not, for they kept within, neither rose any one from his Place for three Days, Exod. 10. 23. as much as to say, that their Attempts were frustrated when they undertook to kindle or light any Fire, and they were forced to desist from any such Undertaking, and to sit down again in their Places. This is said to be such a Thick Darkness that it might be felt: it was accompanied with such Gross Fogs and Mists, and those so pressing upon them, that they might be perceived by the Sense of Feeling. So this Sense was in an unusual manner exercised whilst that of Seeing was wholly taken from them. It is impossible fully to express this Horrid and Frightful Darkness of the Egyptians. He that consults the 17th and 18th Chapters of the Book of Wisdom will find an Admirable and most Elegant Description of it. I do not know any Profane Writer, any Classic Author, whether Orator or Poet, that hath paralleled that Excellent Piece. There the Worthy Penman acquaints us with the probable Reasons of their suffering in that kind, and he suggests how they were haunted with strange Apparitions in that Long and Dismal Night, that the Terrors of their Minds and Consciences were equal with the Affrightments of that Black Season, that these Dreadful Shades were but the Representation of that Eternal Blackness and Darkness into which they were to enter.  
The last Plague was the Death of the Firstborn both of Men and Beasts throughout the whole Land. There was not a House where there was not one dead; and therefore the Universality of the Slaughter made it the more deplorable and unsupportable. Accordingly Philo determines that 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De vitâ Mos.  the Tenth and Last Plague which befell the Egyptians, far surpassed all the others that went before. This fluctus decumanus was greater, and on some Account more terrible than all the former Waves and Billows that beat upon them: and indeed it was but an Introduction to their being swallowed up by those of the Red Sea, which was the Concluding Act of the whole Tragedy. Thus I have briefly set before you the Various and Gradual Judgements wherewith the Egyptians were exercised. And from the whole we cannot but infer that God hath Divers Ways of animadverting on obstinate Criminals. Their Sins shall find them out both at home and abroad, in their Houses and in the Fields, in their Bodies, in their Possessions, in their Relations. Yea, for their sakes the Brutes, the Vegetables, and even the Creatures void of all Life shall bear the Marks of God's Anger. I proceed now to the other Books of Moses, in which I shall be briefer.  
Leviticus hath its Name because it treats chiefly of the Offices of the Levites, and the whole Levitical Order. It gives us an Account of the jewish Service and Worship, of the particular Employments and Charges of the Ministers of the Jewish Church, of their several kinds of Sacrifices and Oblations, (viz. Burnt-Offerings, Meat-Offerings, Peace-Offerings, Sin-Offerings, Trespass-Offerings) of the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons to the Priesthood, of Laws about Clean and unclean things, and of Difference of Meats. Here they are forbid to eat Blood; here they are taught how to discern the Leprosy, and how to cleanse it. Here are Laws concerning Vows, and Things and Persons devoted▪ There are also other Ordinances and Injunctions concerning their Solemn Feasts, viz. the Sabbath of the seventh Year, the Passover, the Feasts of First-Fruits, of Pentecost, of Trumpets, of Expiation, of Tabernacles, and many the like Usages and Rites which were strictly commanded this People, on purpose to keep them from the Idolatrous and Superstitious Ceremonies of the Gentiles that were round about them, and would be enticing them to imitate their Practice. Besides, these Rites were designed by God to be Types and Representatives of things of a far higher Nature, even of Christ himself, and the great things which appertain to the Gospel. There is likewise a great Number of judicial Laws, as concerning the Year of Jubilee, about the Redemption of Lands and Houses, against taking of Usury of the Poor: as also concerning Servants and Bondmen. Here are Laws touching the Degrees of Affinity and Consanguinity, and consequently what Marriages are lawful, and what unlawful, may thence be inferred: and several other things belonging to the jews Civil Law. Furthermore, here are inserted several Moral Instructions, and Excellent Precepts of Natural Religion, respecting both God and Men. Lastly, towards the Close of all there are Blessings and Curses pronounced, the former to such as carefully observe these Laws, the latter on those that wilfully break them. These a●e the Admirable Things contained in this Book, and which have been the acceptable Entertainment of the Inquisitive and Religious, of the Wise and Good in all Ages since they have been extant.  
The Book of Numbers hath its Denomination from the Numbering of the Families of Israel, as we may collect from ch. 1. v. 3, 4. where we read that Moses and Aaron had a special Command from God to Muster the Tribes, and to take the Number of all that were fit for War, and to Order and Marshal the Army when it was once form. For now in their Passage through the Wilderness they were like to meet with many Enemies, and therefore 'twas convenient to take an Account of their Forces, and to put themselves into a Posture ready to engage. A great Part of this Book is Historical, relating several Remarkable Passages in the Israelites March through the Wilderness, as the Sedition of Aaron and Miriam, the Rebellion of Corah and his Companions, the Murmurings of the whole Body of the People, their being plagued with fiery Serpents, Baalam's Prophesying of the Happiness of Israel instead of Cursing them, the Miraculous Budding of Aaron's Rod. Hear also are distinctly related their Several Remove from Place to Place, their two and forty Stages or journeys through the Wilderness, and sundry other things which befell them, whereby we are instructed and confirmed in some of the weightiest Truths that have immediate Reference to God and his Providence in the World. But the greatest Part of the Book is spent in enumerating those Laws and Ordinances (whether Ceremonial or Civil) which were given by God, and were not mentioned before in the preceding Books, as some Particulars of the Levites Office, and the Number of them, the Trial of jealousy, the Rites to be observed by the Nazarites, the Renewing of the Passover, the making of Fringes on the Borders of their Garments, the Water of Separation to be used in purifying the Unclean, the Law of Inheritance, of Vows, of the Cities of Refuge, of the Cities for the Levites, and some other Constitutions either not inserted into the other Books of Moses, or not so distinctly and plainly set down. Thus this Book both in respect of the Historical Part of it, and of the Addition of Laws, (not spoken of in the foregoing Books) hath its peculiar Use and Excellency.  
Deuteronomy (which signifies a Second Law) is a Repetition of the Laws before delivered. It is the Canonic Mishnah, or New Rehearsal of the Divine Law: Which was necessary, because they that heard it before died in the Wilderness, and there being now sprung up another Generation of Men, the Law was to be promulged to them. The major Part of the People that were living at that time had not heard the Decalogue, or any other of the Laws openly proclaimed; or being young, they had neglected or forgot them. That is the Reason why Moses in this Book rehearseth them to this new People, and withal adds an Explication of them in many Places, yea and adjoins some New Laws, viz. the taking down of Malefactors from the Tree in the Evening, making of Battlements on the Roofs of their Houses, the Expiation of an unknown Murder, the Punishment to be inflicted on a Rebellious Son, the Distinction of the Sexes by Apparel, Marrying the Brother's Wife after his Decease: also Orders and Injunctions concerning Divorce, concerning Manstealers, concerning unjust Weights and Measures, concerning the Marrying of a captive Woman, concerning the Servant that deserts his Master's Service, and several other Laws not only Ecclesiastical and Civil, but Military. There are likewise inserted some New Actions and Passages which happened in the last Year of their Travels in the Wilderness. Moreover, Moses in this Part of the Pentateuch shows himself a True Father, Pastor and Guide to that People, a Hearty Lover of them and their Welfare in such manifest Instances as these, his often Inculcating upon them the many Obligations which they lay under from God, the Innumerable Favours they had received from him: his frequent and pathetic Exhortations to Obedience, and living answerably to the singular Mercies which were conferred upon them: his constant Reminding them of their former Miscarriages, their Murmurings and Rebellions against Heaven, and all their Unworthy Deportment towards their Matchless Benefactor: his compassionate Forewarning them of the Judgements of God, of the Various Plagues and Punishments which would certainly be the Consequence of their persisting in their Sins: Lastly, his Affectionate Encouraging them to Obedience from the Consideration of the endearing Promises which God had made to them, and which he would assuredly make good, if they did not frustrate his Designs of Mercy towards them by their own wilful Obstinacy. These are the Excellent Subjects of this Divine Book, and which render it so unvaluable a Treasury.  
Hitherto of the Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses. And that he was the Penman of them I think need not be questioned, though I find it is, yea flatly denied by Aben Ezra and Pererius, and lately by Hobbs and Spinosa. A very little Portion of them was writ by him, saith Monsieur Simon, who hath a new Notion of certain Public Scribes or Registers that penned this and other Parts of the Old Testament, (which sort of Abbreviating Notaries he borrows from the Egyptians, (as he confesses himself) because there were such Officers in the Egyptian Court who had a Privilege to add to or take away from, to amplify or abridge the Public Records, he thence groundlessly infers there were such among the jews who made what Alterations they pleased in the Sacred Writings): which Paradox of his I have considered, and made some Reflections upon in a former Treatise. This I may truly say, that it is not necessary that we should know who was the Particular Penman of this or any other Book of the Holy Scripture, because the Authority of them depends not on the Writers of them, but on the Holy Ghost who indicted them. They are the Books of God, that is their peculiar Character and Dignity, and that alone makes them Authentic after they have been delivered to us by the unanimous Consent of the Church, so that there is no absolute Necessity of our certain knowing who penned them. Yet this must be said, that it cannot with Reason be denied that the Authors of some of these Sacred Books are well known, and particularly there are very convincing Proofs that Moses wrote the Books which I have been giving an Account of. This may be evinced from our Saviour's Words, Luke 16. 31. & 24. 27. where by Moses (as is most evident) he means the Books of the Pentateuch, and consequently thereby lets us know that Moses was the Writer of them. And more expressly the Book of Exodus is called the Book of Moses by our same Infallible Master, Mark 12. 26. And St. Paul tells us, that when these Books are read, Moses is read, 2 Cor. 3. 19 And both our Saviour and this Apostle distinguish between Moses and the Prophets, Luke 16. 29. Acts 26. 22. plainly signifying that as those Books which pass under the Prophet's Names are theirs, so these that are said to be Moses' were written by him. I think this is very plain, and needs not to be further insisted on.  
As to the Objections of those Men before named against this, I forbear to produce them, and to return particular Answers to them, because this is so lately done by 
1 Prolegom. de Scriptore Pentateuchi.  Monsieur Clerk, and because another 
2 Mr. Abbadie, in 〈◊〉 Vindication of the Truth of the Christian Religion.  Learned Frenchman hath laudably performed this Task. Especially he hath with great Vigour, and as great Success, attacked Spinosa, a jew (as they tell us) by Birth, but neither jew nor Christian by Profession, but a Derider of both. We may also find his Arguments (which are generally borrowed from Aben Ezra) refuted with great Clearness by the 
3 Dr. Du Pin, i● his Preliminary Discourse to the Authors of the Books of the Bible.  Learned Professor of Divinity at Paris, who at the same time betakes himself to the Positive Part, and renders it unquestionable that Moses himself was the Author of the Five Books that go under his Name. Wherefore the particular Fancies of those few Objectors, and those no Friends to the Sacred Text, are not to be heeded by us. As to that common Scruple which is so much insisted upon, that in the last Book of the Pentateuch there is mention of Moses' Death, and some things that happened after it, whence they conclude that Moses wrote not those Books, or at least not the last of them; I take this to be a sufficient Answer, that Moses being a Prophet, might foresee, and have revealed to him a particular Account of his own Death, and so he committed it to writing by a Prophetic Spirit: wherefore none can from thence prove that he was not the Penman of all this Book. However, we will not contend here, for perhaps the Conclusion of this Book was affixed by joshua, or afterwards by Ezra, who was an Inspired Person likewise, and who revised the Books of the Old Testament, and inserted some things into them by the same Spirit that indicted the rest. Notwithstanding then the foresaid Objection, which refers only to a few Passages in the End of the Book of Deuteronomy, w● have Reason to assert that the whole Five Books (excepting that little Addition in the Close) were written by Moses; these are his Authentic Records, consisting chiefly of History (which compriseth in it the Occurrences of about 2400 Years) and Laws which were given by God Himself to his own People, and will be of use to the End of the World. Here is the Cabinet of the greatest Antiquity under Heaven, here are the First and Oldest Monuments of the World.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A short Survey of the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, (which is a Supplement to the History of the judges) Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, (which is a Continuation of the Chronicles) Nehemiah, Esther. The Author, Stile, Composure, Matter of the Book of Job discussed. An Enquiry into the Penmen, Subjects, Kind's, Titles, Poetic Meter and Rhythm of the Psalms.  
NExt unto this is that Excellent History written by joshua the Captain General of the Israelites, and Moses' famous Successor, whose very Name without doubt was as terrible to the Canaanites as those of Hunniades and Scanderbag were afterwards to the Turks. Here he admirably describes the Holy War, the Martial Achievements and Stratagems of the People of God against those Nations whose Lands they were to possess, and at length their Victory over them. Here are very particularly set down their Conquests over those Kings and Countries. This Book is the Fulfilling of the Promises which were made to them concerning the entering into Canaan, and enjoying that Land, which is a Type of the Heavenly Canaan, the everlasting Rest which remaineth to the People of God, Heb. 4. 9 Here is the Actual Possession of that Promised Inheritance, and the Division of it among the several Tribes by Lot. The short is, in the whole Book (which I must not now give you by retail) there are abundant Demonstrations of the Divine Providence, repeated Instances of the Infinite Kindness of God to his Servants, remarkable Examples of the Divine Vengeance on his Enemies, yea and visible Proofs of his Severe Dealings with his own People when they refuse to obey his Will, and when they act contrary to it. Here is, in the large Account which is given of joshua and his Actions, an Exact Character of a Worthy Prince, a Ruler, a General: who ought to signalise himself by his Exemplary Piety and Zeal for Religion; by his constant Sobriety, Justice and Charity; by his undaunted Courage, Valour and Prowess; by his deep Wisdom, Policy and Conduct. And his Great and Wonderful Success (which 
1 Ego existimo in summo Imperatore quatuor has resesse oportere, scilicet scientiam rei militaris, virtutem, authoritatem & ●elicitatem. Cic. Orat. de laude M. Pompeii. Imperatori res adversae minuunt authoritatem. Caesar de bell. Gall, l. 6.  is so much required in a General) crowned all. The Whole contains the History of the Jews from Moses' Death till the Death of their Great Commander joshua, in all about eighteen Years. And 'tis not to be wondered at, that the Age, Death and Burial of this latter are recorded in the last Chapter of this Book; for either (as we said before concerning Moses) they were written by him through a Prophetic Spirit that foresaw these things, or else they were added by some other Inspired Writer. So perhaps were those Words [unto this Day] ch. 4. v. 9 & ch. 5. v. 9 though it is not necessary at all to believe so▪ for joshua relating some Passages that happened a good while before he wrote this Book (which was a little before his Death) might speak after this manner very well. And some few other Words may seem to have been inserted after Ioshua's Death: but that the Main was written by Himself there is no ground of questioning.  
The History of the judges followeth, which relates the State of the jewish People in the Land of Canaan, in the time of the judges, from Ioshua's Death until Eli, that is, about three hundred Years. These judges were Men of Heroic Spirits, raised up by God out of the several Tribes to govern the People, and to deliver them from their present Dangers. They were Supreme Rulers, but Temporary; and some of them were Types of our Blessed Saviour and Deliverer. In the time of this peculiar Polity of the Israelites, there were very Notable Occurrences, which are faithfully recorded in this Book. Here we are acquainted with the gross Impiety and Wickedness of that new Generation which came up after Ioshua's Death; here are recorded, to their perpetual Infamy, their Intimate Converse with those Idolatrous People that were left remaining in that Land, their Approving of their Superstitious and Irreligious Customs, and their Serving their Gods. Here is a particular Account of the Corruption of their Manners, of their Profane and Scandalous Practices: which occasioned the very Heathens to open their Mouths against them, yea to blaspheme God, whose Name they were called by. Here also we have a brief View of the Different Dispensations of Heaven towards this People, sometimes Relieving and Delivering them, at other t●mes most severely Chastising them, and causing them to groan under Tyrants and Oppressors. Here are contained in this History most admirable Examples of God's Displeasure against Apostates and such as revolt from the True Religion; and here are on the contrary as memorable Instances of his Rewarding those that adhere to Him and his Cause, and hold fast their Integrity in the worst and most perilous Times. Here are most amply displayed his Love and Care of his Church, in stirring up so many Eminent Worthies and Champions to fight for her, and to push them on by no less than an Extraordinary Impulse of Spirit to enterprise and effect such Mighty Things for the welfare of his Chosen Servants. To conclude, here and in the Book of joshua occurs such a plenty of Ancient Rites, Customs and Practices relating both to Peace and War, to Civil and Religious Matters, as is able to stock an Antiquary of the first Size. We are not certain who was the Penman of this Book. It was written by Samuel, say the Talmudists: and it may be after one of the Books of Samuel, and then 'tis no wonder if some things are here mentioned or referred to, that are spoken of there. Others say it was not composed till Ezr●'s Time, by Ezra.  
The Book of Ruth is an Appendix to that of the judges, in whose time the Things were done that are here related. Particularly a little before Eli's Time they happened: than it was, that there being a Famine in Canaan, Elimelech and his Wife Naomi, and their Sons went into the Land of Moab; and there these latter were married, one to Ruth and the other to Orphah. After ten Years were expired Elimelech and his Sons died: whereupon Naomi and her Daughter-in-Law Ruth (for the other Daughter stayed behind) returned to their own Country, and coming to Bethlehem were kindly received by Boaz their Kinsman. The Particulars of this kind Reception and Entertainment are set down here, and the Close was, that he married Ruth, who bore to him Obed, who was the Grandfather of David. It is true, this is but a Private History: yet, as it is such, it contains in it many things worthy of our observation, viz. the Difference of Children in their Affection and Regards to their Parents; Orphah with great Ease and Willingness left Naomi, but Ruth clavae unto her: the Prudent Instructions and Wise Demeanour of that Excellent Matron towards her Daughter the young Widow: (Though I must needs add with reference to Ruth's Behaviour, that her Boldness and almost endangering of her Chastity, are not to be Examples to others: for Modesty and Shamefacedness are the proper Qualities of that Sex. Wedlock is not to be sought after by them with such peril. And therefore this daring Fact of this Venturous Widow is to be looked upon as an extraordinary Instance, and not to be imitated by other Females▪) Here is remarkable the Merciful Providence of God towards the Afflicted, the Widows, and Fatherless: the Reward of Constancy and Obedience; the Blessing of God upon those that fear him and trust in him. Besides, here are observable the Ancient Right of Kinsmen, and of Redemption, and the Manner of buying the Inheritance of the Deceased, with other Things of great Antiquity. Nay, this is more than Private History; as will appear if we consider that this Pious Woman Ruth was the Mother of Obed the Father of jesse, the Father of David, of whom our Lord Christ came, and therefore you find her inserted into his Genealogy by St. Matthew. Again, Ruth, a Moabitish Woman, of the Posterity of the Daughters of Lot, was a Type, or rather indeed an Eminent Instance of the Calling of the Gentiles into the Church, which is a Thing of no private Concern, but of the largest Extent imaginable.  
The Two Books of Samuel are Public Histories, the former whereof contains Things done under the two last judges, Eli and Samuel, and under the first King, who was Saul, as also the Acts of David whilst he lived under Saul. Here is a Narrative of the Change of the judges into Kings, of the Republic or Aristocracy of the jews into a Monarchy▪ and of the Great and Many Evils which they suffered as consequent upon it, all worthy of our serious Perusal and Consideration. Here is an Account of their New King's being deposed by God, viz. for his rash and profane Sacrificing, and his wilful disobeying the express Command of God concerning the total Destruction of the Amalekites, and whatever belonged to them. The latter Book ●s wholly spent in the History of King David's Reign, that is, his Acts after Saul's Death. These ●re either his Military Acts, his Troublesome and Dangerous, and sometimes Successful Erterprises in War, or his Political Acts, showed in the wise Administration of Civil Government; or his Ecclesiastical and Religious Undertake, which respect 〈◊〉 Church of God in those Days. With these are mixed the great Failings and Miscarriages of that King, (which are as particularly recorded as his other Acts) and as a Consequent of them, the many Disappointments and Crosses he met with, the various Judgements and Plagues which were inflicted on him and his People by God.  
The Books of the Kings are the History of the Kingdoms of Israel and judah under the Reigns of their several Kings. The first contains the latter Part of the Life of David, and his Death; the Glory and Prosperity of that Nation under Solomon who succeeded him; his erecting and consecrating of the Temple at jerusalem: his scandalous Defection from the true Religion: the sudden Decay of the Jewish Nation after his Death, when it was divided into two Kingdoms under Rehoboam, who reigned over the two Tribes of judah and Benjamin, and under jeroboam, who was King over the other ten Tribes that revolted from the House of David. The rest of it is spent in relating the Acts of four Kings of judah and eight of Israel. The second Book, which is a Continuation of the History of the Kings, is a Relation of the Memorable Acts of sixteen Kings of judah and twelve of Israel, and the End of both Kingdoms by the carrying of the Ten Tribes Captive into Assyria by Salmanasser, and the other two into Babylon by Nabuchadnezzar, the just Rewards of that People's Idolatry and Impenitency after so many Favours showed to them. This and the former Book together comprehend the History of about four hundred Years.  
The Chronicles or journals according to the Hebrew, are the filling up of those Parts of the History which are omitted in the Books of the Kings. And though we know not which of these Histories, viz. of the Kings or the Chronicles, (I speak as to the main Body of the Books, not one particular Passage, as that in the Close of the Second Book of Chronicles, where mention is made of the Deliverance of the jews by Cyrus, which might be added afterwards) were written first; for the Book of Kings refers to the Book of Chronicles, and this again sends the Reader to that, yet this we see that this of the Chronicles is more full and ample sometimes than that of the Kings: what was left out or not so fully set down in the one, is supplied in the other. And thence these Books are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Remains, Supplements, Additions by the Greek Interpreters. The first Book of Chronicles relates the Rise and Propagation of the People of Israel from Adam, (which is the entire Subject of the first Nine Chapters, which consist wholly of Genealogies) and then afterwards most punctually and accurately gives an Account of the Reign of David. The second Book as faithfully sets down the Progress and End of the Kingdom of judah, even to the Year of their return from the Captivity in Babylon.  
These Books of Chronicles, together with those of the Kings and Samuel, make up the Best and Choicest History in the World. Here we are abundantly furnished with such Useful Notices, Truths and Maxims as these (all confirmed by Noted and Illustrious Examples and such Instances as are Certain and Unquestionable.) Crowned Heads are encircled with Cares, and seldom find rest and repose: though their Lives are more Splendid, yet they are not less Calamitous than those of the Common People. Good Kings are rare, and the Number of them is inconsiderable in comparison of those that are Bad. The best Kings have their Faults, and some of them of a very scandalous Nature. There is little Piety in Princes Courts, and as little Integrity and Honesty. The People are easily induced to follow the Examples of their Governors: and Religion and Manners too often vary according to the Wills of Superiors. Good Kings are the greatest Blessing, and Wicked Ones are the greatest Curse to a Nation. Princes mistake their Measures when they either disobey God, or oppress their People. Tyrannical Princes procure their own Ruin. The Sins and Vices of Rulers prove fatal to their Subjects. Public Enormities are punished with Public and National Calamities. King's may be known by the Ministers they choose and make use of. Those Counsels that are founded in Religion are most successful. Evil Counselors contrive their own Destruction. Wars are the Effect and Consequence of fight against God. The Success of Arms depends upon the Divine Blessing. The Church is never more shocked than under Bad Princes. Religion and Reformation are never effectually promoted unless the Great Ones have a Hand in them. Divisions and Rents about Religion have immediate influence on Secular Affairs: and when the Church is divided, the State is so too. The Revolutions in both are by the particular Disposal of the Wise Over-ruler of the World. True Religion and Godliness are attended with Earthly Rewards and Blessings: and the contrary bring down the greatest Plagues even in this World. The worst Times afford some of the Best and most Holy, Religious and Zealous Men. Whatever Changes and Revolutions happen in the Kingdoms of the Earth, the Church of God remains secure. Though there are great and frequent Defections, yet there never is a total Extinction of it. In a Word, the Church is impregnable, this Rock is immovable. And many other Propositions and Maxims of the like Nature, which are of great Service in the Life of Man, are to be deduced from these Excellent Histories.  
Ezra is a Continuation of the aforesaid Book of Chronicles, and compriseth the History of the Jews from the time that Cyrus made the Edict for their Return until the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which was about a hundred Years. For the Jews return from Babylon was at two several Times, viz. first in the Days of Cyrus the first Per●●an Monarch, under the Conduct of Zerubbabel their Captain, and jeshua their High Priest. Here are recorded the Number of those that returned, Cyrus' Proclamation for the rebuilding of the Temple, the Laying of the Foundations of it, the Retarding of the Work under the Reign of two of the Kings of Persia, at last the Finishing of the Temple in Darius' Reign. The second Return of the Jews was in the Reign of Artaxerxes under the Conduct of Ezra a Priest, who had been a Courtier in the Persian Court, and was sent into judea by Artaxerxes in the seventh Year of his Reign (which was above eighty Years after the first Return in Cyrus' Time) to expedite the Building of jerusalem. This Pious Reformer observing the People's 〈◊〉 with Strangers and Infidel's, and their joining themselves to them in Marriage, proclaimed a solemn Fast, and Prayed, and Mourned, and Lamented their gross Miscarriages, and with great Earnestness and Zeal exhorted them to Reformation and Amendment of their Ways, that they might thereby avert God's Wrath, and conciliate his Favour and Pardon. This is that Ezra who was the Penman of this Book, and who was also a Restorer of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, and collected and methodised them into certain Order, and reviewed the Copies, and amended all Erratas that were contracted in the time of the Captivity.  
Nehemiah, who wrote the Book which bears his Name, was a Jew, Cupbearer to the King of Persia, and returned into judea thirteen Years after Ezra. There is another Nehemiah who came with those that returned at first from Babylon, Ezra 2. 2. but he whom we now speak of came afterwards by Artaxerxes' Leave, in the twentieth Year of his Reign, and went back to Persia again twelve Years after, Neh. 5. 14. This Writer begins where Ezra left of, and continues the History of the Building of jerusalem, and of the Deportment of the jews in those times, from the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes to the Reign of Darius, about fifty Years in all. As Ezra chiefly related the Restoring of Religion and Erecting the Temple, so this Author gives us an Account of the Building of the City, and the Reformation of the Religion which had been restored. In several Particulars he shows what were the Abuses and Corruptions of the People, and how they were redressed, even by his own Hand. He tells us what Methods he took of regulating both their Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs; in short, of Reforming both Church and State, which were even then so early corrupted. From the whole, both here and in the Book of Ezra, we are taught many useful Lessons, but This above all, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, that they shall never have Power to extinguish this Little Flock. Israel is not always a Captive in a strange Land. Babylon sends back her Prisoners and Bondmen. Her very Enemies, by an extraordinary Direction of Heaven, promote her Peace and Prosperity. For we are informed from this Part of Sacred History, that God stirred up even the Persian Monarches to restore his People to jerusalem; and, when they were there, to help and assist them, and to baffle all their Opposers.  
The Book of Esther is a Particular History of what happened to the Jews in their Captivity in the Reign of Ahasuerus, one of the Kings of Persia, whether he was Artaxerxes Longimanus, as 
1 Nicephorus, Zonaras, S●idas, Ludovicus Vives, Bellarmine, Cajetan, Sir W. Raleigh.  some think, or Artaxerxes Mnemon, as most Authors both Ancient and Modern say, or Artaxerxes Ochus, as Serarius holds, or Xerxes the fourth Persian Monarch, according to Scaliger, or Darius the Son of Hystaspes, or Cambyses, (for so various a●e the Opinions of Authors) I will not here dispute. Only we know that the Sacred Writings and the Profane intent the same Person sometimes, though they give different Names. The Story is this, Haman a great Favourite and Minion of the King, and advanced to great Honour by him, was highly incensed against Mordecai, one of the Captive Jews, because he refused to do him Reverence, and to Bow to him. Whereupon he resolved, for his sake, to compass the Destruction of all the jews in those Territories, and to that end gained a Decree from the King to put them all to the Sword. But this wicked Design was happily frustrated by means of Esther a Jewish Captive Virgin, who for her transcendent Beauty had a little time before been advanced to the Throne, and now prevailed with her Royal Husband to spare the Life of her dear Countrymen. In this manner Haman's cursed Conspiracy was defeated, he himself advanced to a Gibbet, and that of his own preparing, the Jews delivered from their Fears and Dangers, Mordecai who discovered this Bloody Design to Queen Esther, and who had before that discovered another Conspiracy, viz. against the King, which was recorded in the Chronicles, and about this time read to him, and was in a great measure serviceable by the Divine Providence to bring about this happy Frustration of Haman's Plot; this Mordecai (I say) was preferred unto the greatest Honours in the Kingdom, (and by the by let me suggest, that perhaps from his riding the King's Horse, and thereby being preferred to Kingly Dignity, the Story of Darius' being made King of Persia by the Neighing of his Horse had its Rise; for, as I have often had occasion in another Place to prove, the Gentile Historians mistook one Person for another) the Hearts and Mouths of all the Jews in the King's Provinces were filled with Joy, and an Annual Festival was appointed to be kept in all succeeding Generations in remembrance of this singular and unexpected Deliverance vouchsafed to them. This is the Sum of this Short History, in which there are many Admirable and Surprising Circumstances which (though they could not be particularly related here) commend it to the Reader. It is certainly a most Remarkable Instance of God's Singular Providence and Goodness to his Church, in discovering and defeating the Contrivances of her malicious and cruel Enemies, in delivering her in her greatest Extremities, and in bringing Vengeance and Ruin on the Heads of those who plot her Downfall. As to the Author of this Book, there is no Agreement among Writers; though one would be inclined to think that it was Mordecai's by reading ch. 9 v. 20. and ch. 12. of Apocryphal Esther, v. 4.  
The next Penman of the Old Testament is job, whose Book might have been placed next to the Pentateuch, if it be true (as is generally believed) that he lived about Moses' time: Though 
1 Origen, Jerom, Eusebius, Selden.  some are of opinion that he lived a considerable time before the Israelites came out of Egypt, and that he was before Moses. It was writ by himself, say Origen and Suidas: but the Rabbins generally pronounce Moses the Author. Others make Solomon the Author of this Book, discovering, as they think, his manner of speaking in it. The most probable Account is, that the Materials of this Book were drawn up first by Io● himself, or one or all of his Pious Friends that were concerned in the things spoken of here, and that they coming to Moses' Hands, (as some of the Jewish Masters tell us) or afterwards to Solomon's, were made up into Hebrew Verse, as we now find it. For the greatest Part of the Book is of this Composure, and indeed is the first Poetical Book we meet with in the Bible. Whence we may infer something concerning the Nature of it, viz. that (as 
2 Colloq. Mensal.  M. Luther well observed) job and his Friends spoke not all the very Words which are set down in this Book▪ for Men do not use to speak in Verse in their Discourse one with another, and especially in such a Lofty Style of Poetry as we read here sometimes. But this is true, that both their Thoughts and Words were exactly agreeable to what is here written, and Things actually and really happened as they are here represented: only the Whole Argument being clothed in Verse, the individual and express Words, which they all the time used, are not always written down, neither indeed could be. But we must by no means attend to the Talmudick Doctors, who tell us, that this Book is not a Relation of Matter of Fact, but writ in a Parabolical way to exhibit to the World an Eminent Example of Patience. Nor are the Words of the Parisaan 
3 Du Pin. Bibl. Patr.  Professor to be tolerated, who saith, the History is true, but the Circumstances of it are feigned. There is no Fiction in it, because it is as to the whole Matter of it Real, and relates what actually happened: only as to the Words and Style, it is Poetically composed. I might observe that this Historical Poem is in way of Dialogue, or rather is made up of feveral Dialogues and Colloquies. It is a Dramatic Piece, wherein Six Persons have their Parts; job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu, and GOD, who speaks in the Close of all. Nor is this unusual in some other Books of the Holy Scripture, where we find that some of David's Psalms are Dialogue-wise: and nothing is more evident, than that Solomon's Song is after that manner: besides that (as a 
4 M●. Boil of the Style of Scripture.  worthy Person hath observed) in some of the Other Writings of this Wise Man, and in many Places of St. Paul's Epistles a Tacit Dialogue is contained, whence it happens that that sometimes is taken by unskilful Readers for an Assertion or an Argument which is indeed a Question or an Objection. Indeed this Dialogizing way is of great Advantage, and carries a peculiar Excellency with it, and therefore was (as we may take notice) made use of by the Ancients. Drawing forth and pressing out the Truth by way of Dialogue was the Socratic Mode; which Plato also used, laying down his own Opinion in the Person of Socrates, Timaeus, etc. and other men's Opinions and Sentiments in the Person of Gorgias, etc. And Cicero dealt in this way in some of his Writings. The same likewise we find practised of old by some of the most Eminent Writers of the Christian Church, as justin Martyr, who sets forth the manner of his becoming a Christian in the Platonic way, i. e. of a Colloquy: and the whole Discourse with Trypho is no more perhaps than the Personating of a Christian and a Jew by way of Dialogue. Minutius Felix's Debate between Octavius and Caecilius, a Christian and a Gentile, is of the same Nature. It is probable that this Ancient Practise of delivering. Truth in this manner was derived from the Book of job, the Oldest Dialogue in the World; and which moreover is in way of a Disputation, where job is Respondent, his three Friends the Opponents; and Eli●u, yea and at last God himself the Moderator. And one thing by the by I would here observe, that it is said, ch. 31. v. 40. The Words of Job are ended: which we must understand with reference to this Contrast between him and his Friends; for otherwise job had not made an end of Speaking, as we find in some of the following Chapters. Therefore the Meaning is, that his Words in way of Contention and Controversy with those Men were ended: and thus the first Verse in the ensuing Chapter explains it [So these three Men ceased to answer Job.  
The whole affords us many Excellent Observations, viz. that the greatest Wealth and Riches are uncertain, that suddenly and unexpectedly they make themselves Wings, and fly away from the Possessors, and leave them in Want, Distress and Misery: that Integrity and Holiness of Life exempt no Man from this Changeableness of his Condition, are no Protection against the worst of outward Evils whatsoever, whether procured by Satan or by Evil Men. This is taught us in the Example of this Great Man, yea 
1 Job 1. 3.  the Greatest of all the Men in the East, i. e. in Arabia; and who was as Good as he was Great, for 
2 Ver. 1.  he was a Perfect and Upright Man, nay 
3 Ver. 8.  there was none like him in the Earth. This was the true Arabian Phoenix, there was none but he at that time. But this Person who was so famed for his Greatness and Goodness, came at last to be as noted for his Low and Mean Condition, his Troubles and Distresses of all kinds, and those too of the highest Degree; for he was bereft of all his Dear Children by the Fall of the House where they were, he was despoiled of all his Goods and Estate by the Chaldean and Sabean Freebooters; he was deprived of his Bodily Health, and smitten with Painful and Loathsome Diseases by the immediate Hand of the Malicious Demons; he was despised, scorned, derided by the vilest Race of People. Hence we are instructed that the worst of Temporal Evils do sometimes befall the most Upright Persons. And we are taught from Iob's Example also, that the Holiest Men have their Fits of Impatience: they are heard sometimes to complain and cry out under their Burden, they expostulate with God, and question the Reasonableness and Justice of his Dealings with them, they magnify their own Innocence at too high a rate, they are weary of their Lives, and passionately wish for a Period of them. This was Iob's Case, and may be of other Righteous Men: they may through humane Frailty be for a time subject to the same Disorder, and show themselves as uneasy under their Afflictions, especially when with this Holy Man they are wounded in Spirit, and buffeted by Satan, and lie under the Sense of God's Wrath, and have no Apprehension of his Grace and Favour. But (as the Hebrew Doctors say) 
1 Homo non capitur in hor● doloris fui. Talm.  a Man is not to be taken in the Hour of his Grief and Perplexity. It is not imputed to him if he utters things that are unfitting when he is in the Extremity of Pain and Anguish.  
But yet we are to observe likewise that this Good Man, even in the midst of his most pressing Calamities, was never quite run down by them, but at one time or other showed by his Words and Behaviour that he had got the Conquest of them. You have heard of the Patience of Job, saith St. 
2 Chap. 5 v. 11.  james; and this Patience was as eminent as his Disasters: for we hear him 
3 Job 1. 21.  blessing the Name of the Lord not only for what he gave, but for what he took away from him: we hear him protecting, that 
4 Ch. 13. v. 15.  though God should stay him, yet he would trust in him: we hear him expressing his Foresight, Persuasion and Assurance, that 
5 Ch. 19 v. 25.  his Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter Day upon the Earth; and though after his Skin Worms destroy his Body, yet in his Flesh he shall see God. All which are most evident Arguments of his Patience under his Crosses, of his Thankfulness to God for them, of his Strong Faith and Confidence in him that he should be delivered from them, and of his hearty Persuasion that nothing doth or can happen to Mankind without God's Good Pleasure, nothing can betid us without his Leave and Consent: which is the greatest Comfort and Refreshment, the highest Repose and Satisfaction to our Minds imaginable. This indeed is one grand Design of this Book to bring the Spirits of good Men to an even and placid Frame on this Consideration, that God hath the Government of the World, and doth what he thinks fit with his Creatures as to the outward Condition they are liable to in this Life; that the Providence of God order all the Actions and Erterprises either of Men or Devils, so that nothing can come to pass without the Divine Permission, Grant and Superintendence. This is that which is more especially aimed at in this Book: we are taught here not to quarrel with our Maker, not to find fault with Heaven. This doth not become us in the least; it is rather the Deportment of a Chinoise Priest, who hath so much Power over his Gods, that he is suffered to beat and whip them when they don't act (as he thinks) as he would have them.  
We have likewise the Wretched State of Wicked Men and Hypocrites most graphically set forth in these Dialogues. We have God's Infinite Justice and Unfearchable Wisdom fully asserted and vindicated. We have the Mighty Power of God in some of his Creatures described by Himself in a Style befitting his Majesty. In the Close of all we have the happy Period of Innocence and Integrity: The End of them is Peace. God oftentimes rewards good and upright Men in this Life with a great Plenty of outward Blessings and Favours: he is pleased to recompense them abundantly for all their past Calamities, by doubling upon them all those Mercies which he before deprived them of. 
1 Chap. 42▪ ver▪ 10, 12.  God blessed the latter End of Job more than his Beginning: He gave him twice as much as he had before. All Blessings flow in now upon him in abundance: first 
1 Ver. 9  God accepts him, and then he is caressed by his 
2 Ver. 11.  Kindred and Friends, by his Bretbren and Sisters, and Acquaintance; he is presented with 
3 Ver. 12.  Gifts, his Stock of Cattle (wherein the chief Wealth of those Countries consisted) is increased, and he is blessed with a desirable Number of 
4 Ver. 13, 15.  Children, the Sons wise, and the Daughters fair. Finally, after all the Storms were blown over, 
5 Ver. 16.  he lived an hundred and forty Years in Peace and Plenty in his Country, now Arabia the Happy: he enjoyed the Confluence of all kinds of Good Things relating both to himself and his Relations, and at length died in a good old Age, 
6 Ver. 17.  full of Days, and full of the Blessings of the Almighty. To conclude, this Ancient Book is infinitely worthy of the Studies of the Curious and Philosophical, of the Lovers of Learning and Antiquity, of those that value the Primitive Tongues, Arts and Customs: for here is an Excellent Mixture of all these, which cannot but be a grateful Entertainment to Inquisitive Spirits. Wherefore a Learned Gentleman of great and subtle Observation hath left us this Censure on the Book of job 
7 Sir W. Temple 's Miscell. 2d Part.  Whoever considers the Subject and Style of it, will hardly think it was written in an Age or Country that wanted either Books or Learning.  
The Psalms are the next Poetic Book, and they bear the Name of David, the Chief Author of them. 
8 Origen, Chrysostom, Augustin, Ambrose, Euthymius.  Some indeed of the Ancients held that he was the sole Author, but they can scarcely be credited in that, because the Title of the 90th Psalm and others tells us, that they were composed by Moses. Some of them, it is thought, were made by Asaph, Heman, Ethan, jeduthun, who were in David's time: but others think these were not Sacred Poets, but only skilful Musicians or Masters of the Choir, and did not indite these Psalms which bear their Names, but only set them to Tunes, and sung them. Though a 
1 Dr. Lightfoot.  Modern Writer is of the Opinion that Heman and Ethan lived in the time of the Egyptian Bondage, and penned the 88th and 89th Psalms on that occasion, in the former condoling their present Distress, in the latter prophesying of Deliverance. The 92d Psalms was made by Adam, saith the Targum and the Hebrew Doctors generally agree to it. It is evident, and scarcely denied by any, that the 137th Psalm was writ in the time of the Jews Captivity in Babylon, and therefore could not be made by David: and other Psalms seem to be made after their Return, the Authors of which are not known. And some, it is likely, were indicted by Solomen, as the 45th, which is a Song of Loves, (as the Title acquaints us) and is of the same Strain with his other Nuptial Song, inserted by itself into the Holy Scriptures. It may be concluded then that the Book of Psalms is not the Issue of One Inspired Brain only; but yet that the Greatest Part of it was indicted and written by David, who had an excellent Gift of Poetry and Psalmody, of composing, making, and singing of Pious Songs. Such are these Psalms, which, excepting a few of them, were the Work of this Holy Man, and therefore they are deservedly called David's Psalms, the Denomination being taken from the greater Part.  
They are divided into five Lesser Books, which you may know thus; where you find a Psalm ending with Amen, (as the 41st, 72d, 89th, 106th, and the last Psalm) there is the Period of the Book, and another begins. By this you may understand that Passage in Psal. 72. v. ult. The Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended; i. e. here is an End of the Second Book of David's Psalms: the rest that follow are other Collections of them. Of these some are Alphabetical, i. e. composed according to the Order of the Hebrew Letters: such is the 119th Psalm, and is styled by the Masora the Great Alphabet, the eight first Verses beginning with the first Hebrew Letter, the succeeding eight with the second, and so throughout the whole Number of the Hebrew Letters: and such are the 25th, 34th, 37th, 111th, 112th, 145th, all written in Alphabetic Order, the Holy Ghost even inspiring the Psalmist's Fancy in this Particular. It is likely the Acrostics, 〈◊〉 ancient way of Wit, used by one of the Sibylls, and others of old, the Initial Letters of which Verses made up certain Words, were partly in imitation of this. Some are styled Psalms of Degrees or Ascents, as those fifteen which immediately follow the 119th Psalm, either because the Voice was lifted up more than ordinarily when they were s●ng, or because of the Advantage of the Ground or Place where they were sung, viz. the Steps in Solomon's Temple, which were fifteen, and which those who were appointed to sing these Psalms were wont to ascend. Other Psalms are known by their Peculiar Titles, as Maschil, i. e. Psalms of Instruction; Michtam, i. e. Golden Psalms, called so (it is probable) because of the Precious Matter couched in them. And several other Distinctive Titles there are, which are not so well understood, as that of Psal. 22. A●ieleth ha shachar: which in the Margin is rendered the Hind of the Morning; perhaps referring to our Saviour, of whom this Psalm speaks, who is called a Hind or young Hart, Cant. 2. 9, 17. Others interpret it the Strength of the Morning, but they know not how to apply it. Other● the Morningstar: some the Instrument of Music on which this Psalm and others were played. And the like Obscure Words (as Shiggaion, Gittith, jeduthun, Altashith, Shushan eduth) are prefixed to many of these Sacred Hymns.  
There is the Word Selah often● used (seven●y times at least) in these Divine Poems: but 'tis not easy to assign the true and proper import of it. I cannot find the certain meaning of it, saith 
1 Lib. Radicum.  Av●narius, though I have consulted all the Comments of the Rabbis. The Chaldee Paraphrast renders it perpetuò, semper, and so several Rabbins expound it, but can assign no sufficient reason for it. Some take it for a Musical Note, of no significancy in itself, but a mere made Word to direct the Masters of Music in singing or playing. But then there is some difference among those of this Opinion: For some of the Hebrew Writers think it denotes the Elevation of the Voice, and that wherever this Word is in the Psalms, the Choristers were put in mind to lift up their Voices. Others of them believe it is a Note to signify a Pause, a Resting or Breathing for a time. And accordingly some of the Jewish Doctors say that they were admonished by this Word to begin another Sentence or Period. But another Classis of Interpreters look upon this Word not as a Note of Music, but of Observation or Remark, and are persuaded that it is affixed to some Sentences that are very Notable, and more especially worthy of our consideration. In my mind R. Kim●hi is in the right, who joins this and the former Expositions of the Word together, telling us that Selah is both a Musical Note, and a Note of Emphasis in the Sense, whereby we are bid to observe something more than usually remarkable. It is derived from sal or salal, exaltavit, and denotes the elevating of the Voice in singing, and at the same time the lifting up of the Heart, the serious considering and meditating upon the thing that is spoken. It is an Argument to me that this was of use in Music and sing, because it is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greek Interpreters, and (which is more considerable) because we meet with it in the Psalms only, and in Ha●akkuk, chap. 3. v. 3, 9, 13. which Chapter is a kind of Psalm or Canticle, as you'll see in the Title of it. And that it is also a Mark of Observation and Meditation, may be gathered from its being joined in Psal. 9 16. with Higgaion, which signifies Meditation; for the Word is from Hagah, meditatus fuit. And though in some Places Selah seems to be used where there is ●o Emphatic Word or Sense, yet we ought to consider that this must be referred and applied not only to the immediately preceding Word or Verse, but to the whole Set of Verses or Periods about which it is placed. If we thus apply it we shall see that it is used to good purpose, viz. to point out to us something very Observable and Notable: It calls upon us to revolve in our Minds with great Seriousness the Matter that is before us, and to give Glory to God: and to this purpose it may be observed, that Selah, in Psal. 46. 11. is rendered by the Seventy Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But it is the Excellent and Noble Matter which most of all commends these Divine Poems. Some of them are Historical, giving an Account of God's wonderful Dispensations in the foregoing Ages of the World, especially towards the jewish People, in their first Election out of the rest of the World, their Condition in Egypt, in the Wilderness, in C●naan, with a Rehearsal of the particular Mercies and Judgements showed towards them. Other Psalms are Didactic, fraught with most wholesome and useful Doctrine, with most solid and necessary Instruction What is there, saith 
1 Homil. 1. in Psalm.  Basil the Great, that we are not taught here? Are we not instructed here concerning all Moral Virtues, the Magnificence of Fortitude, the Exactness of Justice, the Gravity of Temperance, the Perfection of Prudence? Are we not informed hence concerning the manner of Repentance, the measure of Patience, and whatever other good and virtuous things we can name? Here is the Treasure of complete Theology, here is 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid.  the common Storehouse of all good Documents. Other Psalms are Prophetical, foreshowing the great and astonishing things which have happened since in the World, as the Coming of the Messias in the Flesh, his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and most of the considerable Circumstances appertaining to these, the Rejection of the Jewish Nation, the Conversion of the Gentiles, the Wonderful Propagation of the Gospel, and the Success of Christ's Kingdom upon Earth. Again, some of these Psalms are Petitory, begging with the highest Zeal and Devotion those things which are the proper Object of our Prayers, and thereby teaching us what we ought to implore of Heaven, and in what manner we should put up our Addresses. Others are Eucharistical, wherein the Psalmist discovers the Grateful Resentments of his Mind by an open Recognition of the Divine Bounty to him, and by sending up continual Praises unto the Author of all those Favours and Blessings daily heaped upon him: at the same time teaching us to pay the like Tribute of Devotion to the same Bountiful Hand, and to take all Occasions (as he doth) of testifying our Thankful Sense of the Divine Goodness. Of this sort more especially is the 113th Psalm with the five following ones, which are called by the Jews the Great Hallelujah, or rather (as Buxtorf saith) the Great Hymn, which they used at their three Chief Feasts, especially at the Passover. This, it is probable, is meant by the Hymn, (Mat. 26. 30.) which Christ with his Apostles sung after their eating of the Paschal Lamb. Some are Hortatory, with singular Earnestness inviting the World to acknowledge and obey the Lord of Heaven and Earth, pathetically calling upon wicked Men to abandon their sinful Ways, and to repent, and turn unto God; with a more special Love and Tenderness, beseeching the Servants of the most High to fear and reverence his Name, to trust at all times in him, and to be obedient unto his holy Laws and Statutes. Others are Consolatory, administering Peace and Joy to all that are upright in Heart and Life, breathing nothing but Heavenly Solace and Satisfaction to distressed Minds, such as never came from any Mouth but what was Inspired. Some of them are Penitential, (besides those 
1 Th● 6th, 31st, 37th, 51st, 101st, 129th, 141st.  Seven which are usually styled so) wherein the Holy Man with infinite Sorrow and Remorse of Soul declares his Abhorrence of his former Sins, and his firm Resolves and Purposes of relinquishing them for the future. Lastly, some of the Psalms are of a Mixed Nature, comprehending several of the foremention'd Heads in them▪ so that there is no Book of Devotion extant in the World that is made up of such Variety of Matter as this is, and therefore is not only the more delightful and entertaining, but is also the more useful and advantageous, the more suitable to the various Conditions and Occasions of Mankind, the more fitted for the several Purposes of the Devout, the more serviceable to all the great Ends of Religion and Godliness. For this and many other Reasons I may conclude, that there is not such another Excellent Collection of Devotions under Heaven as This of the Pious King and Prophet. Here are all things that are proper to beget Religion and Piety in us, here is every thing that is serviceable to nourish and sustain all our Virtues and Graces, and that in the utmost height of them.  
Before I pass to the next Book, I will add a few Words concerning the Nature of the Poetry here used. This is to be said with great Truth, that these Poetical Measures are far different from those which we have been acquainted with in Other Writers. But than it is not to be questioned, that though we are ignorant of the true Quality of these Poetic Numbers, yet they are very Melodious and Lofty, and not unworthy of the best Poets. It is not to be doubted that there is a certain Artificial Meter observed in this Book, which renders the several Odes and Hymns very delightful. The 
1 Animadyers▪ Euse●.  Younger Scaliger denies (and that with some Earnestness and Sharpness, otherwise he would not show himself his Father's own Son) that there is any thing like this in this Book; though at the same time he grants that the Proverbs, and almost all job, are Metrical. But josephus and Philo, two Learned Jews, and who may reasonably be thought to be Competent Judges in this Matter, attest the Meeter of these Psalms (as well as of the Books of job, etc.) So do Origen, Eusebius, jerom, and some of the most Judicious Critics among the Moderns. But then they confess that the Meeter is not so regular as that of succeeding Poets. And who sees not that even these exceedingly vary in their Measures? It is not denied that Sophocles and Euripides, Plautus and Terence, write in Verse: but they can scarcely be said to do so in comparison of Homer and Virgil. There are some Hexameters, iambics, Sapphics, and other known kinds of Verses in David's Psalms, but they are very rare, and seldom pure and unmixed: but notwithstanding this, it is easy to perceive (if we be observant and attentive) that there are several Verses together that are Matrical. The Arabian Critics tell us, that the Alcoran is written in a sort of Verse, and sometimes in Rythme, but every Reader cannot find this. No more can an ordinary Eye or Ear discern the Numbers in the Hebrew Verse: for the Hebrews way of measuring their Feet was different from that which is in use among the Greek and Latin Poets; yet so as we may oftentimes perceive a certain Harmony of Syllables. And as the Psalms are Metrical, so some of them are Rhythmical. This is clear in the very Entrance of these Divine Hymns; 
1 Psal. 1. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again, in Psal. 6. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is evident in Psal. 8. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is plain in Psal. 12. 4. & 51. 16. & 63. 3. & 116. 7. & 148. 1, 2. And in abundance of other Places there is not only a certain Orderly Number of Syllables, but the last Words of the Verses end alike in Sound.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Book of Proverbs, why so called. The transcendent Excellency of these Divine and Inspired Aphorisms. Some Instances of the Different Application of the Similitudes used by this Author. The Book of Ecclesiastes, why so entitled. The Admirable Subject of it succinctly displayed. The particular Nature of the Canticle or Mystical Song of Solomon briefly set forth. It is evinced from very cogent Arguments, that Solomon died in the Favour of God, and was saved. The Books of the Four Great Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with his Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, are described. So are those of the Twelve Lesser Prophets, Hosea, etc.  
WHO should succeed David but Solomon, as in the Throne, so in the Sacred Canon of the Bible? And He, like his Father, was a Divine Poet: his three Books, viz. the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and his Song being written in Hebrew Verse. The first of these Books is composed of Excellent Proverbs (whence it hath its Name.) By this word Mishle, which is here rendered Proverbs, sometimes are signified, I. Parables strictly so called, which are no other than Apologues or Artificial Fables, of which I have spoken under the Style of Scripture: but there are none such in this Book. 2. By this Word is meant any 
1 1 Sam. 10. 12. & 24. 13.  Trite and Commonly received Saying, any Vulgar Proverbial Speech, as that in ch. 26. v. 11. The Dog returneth to his Vomit. But there are few of this sort here. 3. Sarcastic Speeches, Gibes, Taunts, (as in 2 Chron. 7. 20. Psal. 69. 11.) are intended by this Expression: and this Book of Solomon is not wholly destitute of these. 4. The Hebrew Word denotes such Speeches as are by way of Similitude, Ezek. 18. 2. of which kind there are many in this Book, as that in ch. 11. 22. As a jewel of Gold in a Swine's Snout, so is a fair Woman without Discretion: and in ch. 25. 11. A Word fitly spoken is like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver. This we find to be the frequent manner of the Wise Man's speaking in this Book: he generally illustrates and amplifies his Doctrine by some fit Simile or Comparison, so that thereby it is as it were twice delivered. 5. Sayings that are mixed with some Obscurity and Intricacy, such Speeches as require Sharpness of Wit and Understanding both for propounding and conceiving them, are denoted by this Word in Scripture. Thus an Intricate Question or Problem [Mashal] is set down in Psal. 49. 4, 5. and in the rest of the Psalm there is an Answer to this Problem, a Resolution of this Difficult Point. Proverbial Sentences are sometimes 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Enigmatical, and have a Meaning far different from what the Words directly signify. Thus you'll find some Sayings that carry a Mystical Sense with them in this Book, as that in ch. 9 17. Stolen Waters are sweet: and in ch. 25. v. 27. It is not good to eat much Honey; and such like Allegorical and Allusive Speeches, which contain in them a higher Sense than the bare Words import. This Proverbial manner of Speaking and Writing was in great Use and Esteem among the Hebrews, and all the Eastern Countries: whence it was that the Queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard Questions, 1 Kings 10. 1. Parables according to the Chald●e, Problems, Riddles. These were the Chidoth which the propounded to be solved by him. Yea, this way of Speaking may generally be taken notice of in the Writings of most of the Wise Men of Ancient Times. Pythagoras and Plato were much addicted to this Abstruse way, and all their Followers were delighted in Mystical Representations of things. 6. By this Word we are to understand all Wise and Excellent Sayings, graviter dicta (as the Latins call them) Sentences of great Weight and Importance, but plain and easy to be understood. The Hebrews anciently called any Saying that had Graces and Wit in it Mashal; but especially any Eminent Speech or Smart Saying for the Use of Life and Direction of Manners went under that Name. A Moral or Religious Saying that was of singular Worth and Excellency was styled a Proverb: for this (as 
1 Mishle, ● mashal Praeesse, dominari.  the Hebrew Word denotes) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dominatrix sententia, a Speech that hath the Pre-eminence above others, a Saying of great Authority and Force, and therefore deserves to be highly esteemed by all.  
These Wise Moral Speeches were taken notice of, and held in great Repute of old. Homer was a Noted Master of this Excellency, and is applauded for it by the Learned. And indeed when I read in the skilfullest Accomptants of Times, that this Poet flourished not long after Solomon's Days, I am apt to credit Casaubon and Grotius, and a Famous Homerist of our own, who all agree in this, that Homer borrowed many of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Sage Sayings or Proverbs from our Royal Author; and they produce very fair Instances out of his Poems to prove it. After this Great Poet, I might mention those Minor ones Theognis and Phocylides, who are famed for their Excellent Moral Sentences▪ Pythagoras' is celebrated for his Golden Sayings or Verses, and so are some of his Scholars for their Worthy Speeches proper to their School: and truly if we remember that these Pythagoreans were enjoined by their Master a five Years Silence, we may well expect some Handsome Sentences from them at last, when they began to speak. I might add here the Set Sayings of the Stoics, such as Tully's Paradoxes. Yea, I might remind you that the Sages of all Schools and Sects had their Peculiar Mottoes and Devices. As in Theoretical Philosophy there are Axioms and Maxims, in medics there are Aphorisms, in Mathematics there are Theorems, among Rhetoricians there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Select Themes and Matters to declaim upon; so in Ethics there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pithy Short Sentences, Wise and Weighty Apophthegms, containing Great Morals in few Words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proverbs, Short but Studied Sayings of great and frequent Use in our Lives. This Book of Solomon is chiefly made up of this sort, and they outvie all that ever were extant before or since. The Queen of Sheba came to hear the Wisdom of this Matchless Prince, and to be benefited by his Divine Accomplishments; but we save ourselves the Labour of so long a Pilgrimage, he having visited us, and his Admirable Writings being brought home to us, fraught with the most desirable Treasures. Here is a great Number of Useful Maxims and Rules for our Practice in the several Occurrences of our Lives. Here are Faithful Sayings, and worthy of all Acceptation, as the Apostle speaks. Here are Smart and Quick, here are Grave and Sage Apophthegms. Here are Concise and Pithy Adages, the very Extracts and Essences of the Strongest Sense and most Precious Truth. Here you will find Solomon as a Father, and with a Paternal Affection, instructing his Readers and Hearers as his Sons, (whom therefore he calls by that affectionate Title more than once in this his Admirable Treatise of Morals) directing them in the various Passages and Affairs of this Life, and framing their Manners most becomingly and successfully in order to another.  
The whole Book is divisible into three main Parts; 1. The Inscription or Title of the Book, which contains the Use and Scope of it, The Proverbs of Solomon the Son of David, King of Israel, to know Wisdom, Instruction, to perceive the Words of Understanding, etc. (v. 1, 2, etc. to the 7th) that i▪ to make Men truly Wise and Understanding, or (which is the same thing) Holy and Religious. 2. The Preface or Introduction to the Book, which is a General Exhortatory to True Wisdom and Holiness. This is the Subject of the first Nine Chapters. 3. The Main Body of the Book (from the Beginning of the 10th Chapter to the Close of all) which comprehends in it several Excellent Precepts, Rules and Cautions of a mixed and various Nature, applicable to the different Circumstances, Cases, and Occasions of Persons. These are more signally called Mishlim the Proverbs, a Collection of Sacred Aphorisms, useful in the Lives of all Men, whether we look upon them in a Natural, Civil, or Religious Capacity, whether we consider them Alone or as Members of a Society, whether we speak of them as they are desirous to live happily here or hereafter, or rather as they desire both. To all these excellent Purposes they may be plentifully furnished by this Royal Author, this Great Master of the Sentences, this Divine Penman of the Proverbs.  
There is mention of the Words of Agur, ch. ●0. v. 1. who was the same with Solomon, say R. Levi among the jews, and several Christian Expositors. However, if he be not Solomon under that Name, but a different Person, yet the Words or Prophecy (for so they are al●o called) there contained, may be said to be Solomon's, because collected and preserved by him. So Bathsheba's Instructions to Solomon, ch. 31. 1.— 10. may be called his, because he had carefully recorded them, and in the greatest Part of his Life had observed them, But whether the Encomium of a Virtuous Woman, or a Good Wife, from v. 10. to the End, was penned by Solomon or his Mother is disputable: however, this we are sure of, that it was dictated by Divine Inspiration, as the rest of the Sacred Writ; and moreover it is observable that it is composed in Alphabetical Order, i. e. according to the Series of the Hebrew Letters, as several Psalms are, which I took notice of before.  
Before I dismiss this Book, it may not be improper here to observe concerning several of the Proverbs, that they may be applied several ways. Accordingly as we interpret the Similitude which is made use of in them, so we may form the Sense of the Place: and this ought not to offend any good or wise Man. To give an Instance or two: As he that bindeth a Stone in a Sling, so is he that giveth Honour to a Fool, Prov. 26. 8. The Meaning of which may be, that Honour conferred on an undeserving Person is thrown away and lost, like a Stone cast out of a Sling. Or thus, he that bestows Preferment and Dignity on such an one, doth as 'twere Arm him against himself; he helps to do himself a Mischief, because he puts him into a Capacity of doing it. Others have a different Notion of the word Margemah, (which is here translated a Sling) and by it understand a Heap of Stones, and they frame such an Interpretation as this; He that gives Respect and Honour to a Fool, to an unworthy vile Person, is like him that casts a Precious Stone (for so they limit the Sense of the word Eb●n▪ (as La●illi among the Latins, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Greeks, have that particular Signification sometimes) among common Pebbles. Others expound it thus, As one single Stone thrown into a great Heap is scarcely discerned, and makes no Accession to it▪ so by the Honour and Favour that are collated on a Fool there is no real Addition made to him, there's ●o Alteration, he is still the same Man. Some Learned Doctors among the Hebrews (as R. Kimc●i, Aben Ezra, Levi) produce another Meaning of the word Margemah, telling us it is the same with Argemon, Purpura, and then understand the Proverb thus, As he that laps up one of the Stones in the Street in a Purple Vest, so is he that gives Respect and Honour to a: Fool, a worthless Per●on. But the Sense is the same with what was propounded in one of the foregoing Interpretations. All these Expositions are congruous enough, and ●e need not be very solicitous which of them we adhere to. No Man can say of any one of them, This is the Interpretation, and there is no other ●●tended by the Penman. It is enough that the Sense we pitch upon is consistent with the Scope of the Place and the other Parts of God's Word.  
So those Words in Prov. 1. 17. where the Wise Man (having in the foregoing Verses spoken concerning the mischievous and bloody. Designs of wicked Men) uses this Simile, Surely in vain the Not is spread in sight of any Bird, admit of liver●● Interpretations, and all of them very ●it and apposite. First, some render the word [Chinnam] without Cause, (and so indeed it is englished in the 11th V●rse of this Chapter) and then the Sen●● is this, As the Fowler spreads Nets for the harmless Birds, that he may feed himself with their Flem, or make Pro●it of them by selling them to others, so Thiefs and bloody Men lay wait for the Innocent, those that never injured them, and merely to gratify their Covetousness, and to fill their Houses with Spoil. The same Simile is made use of in Tere●●e▪ 
Non rete a●●ipitri ●enditur, neque milvio,  
Qui ma●● faciunt nobis, illis qui nihil faciunt tendit●●  
Quia enim in illis ●ructus est, in istis opera luditur.  So that this Proverb may then be used when we see Snares laid for Men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as the LXX translate the Hebrew Word here) without Cause, when they are Innocent. And what Solomon expresses here by the Similioude of Birds is by the Prophet 〈◊〉 set forth by another Comparison from Fishes, Hab. 1. 13, 14. But the Generality of Interpreters ●ead the first Word as our Translators render it, viz. in vain, and then the Text is capable of several Senses; ●. Som● think that as some of the foregoing Verses, so this is spoken by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Language of Thiefs and Bloody Men, who entice others to their Company, and to partake with them in their Villainy, by laying before them the Hopes of Impunity; as if they had said, You need not fear and be solicito●s, we wil● cunningly carry our Business: though Justice seeks after us, and would bring us to Punishment, yet we have our Eyes about us, we shall be able to foresee their Snares, and to fly from them as Birds are wont to do from a Net spread wide before them. Quaeque nimis pandunt retia vitat avis. Or, 2. This may be spoken of those that are enticed by these Men, and fall under their Charms and Allurements. They could never do thus unless they were blinded and infatuated. It is in vain. to these besotted Creatures that they see the Net, that they know the Danger; for notwithstanding this they venture upon it, and wilfully run into it, as a Bird hasteneth to the Snare, as the same Author speaks, ch. 7. v. 23. Or, 3. if we take these Words as spoken concerning the Evil and Lewd Enticers themselves, than there is this different Interpretation from what was assigned before: either the Similitude runs thus, As foolish Birds being greedy of Food, and alured by the Balt, take no notice of the Net that is spread to catch them, and so delawares are taken in it, (and because the Not that is laid makes not the Birds more wary and cautious, but notwithstanding this they fly to the Bait, therefore in respect of these silly Creatures the Net may well be said to be spread in vain) so the Wicked Men whom the Royal Penman here speaks of, and whose Enticements he warns us to beware of, being led with desire of Pr●y, do not observe the Net laid to take them: or if they be forewarned, yet they are not frighted by the Danger, but are resolved to satisfy their greedy Appetite: and then, when they are most secure, they are suddenly surprised and overtaken by the Judgements of God. Or else (which I take to be the plainest and most obvious Meaning) we are to understand the Words thus, Although Villan●●●▪ Complotters think themselves sure of their Prey▪ yet they are no more certain of it than Fowlers are of catching those Birds which carefully observe the laying of the Net, and by beholding the Spreading of it are admonished to fly away from it. In vain is the Net spread in the Eyes of every one that hath Wings: so the Hebrew.  
Which may be applied first of all to these Flying Inhabitants of the Air, who have sometimes been in a wonderful manner employed to bring to Light the secret Perpetration of Murder and Bloodshed. A Bird of the Air hath carried the Voice, and that which hath Wings hath told the Matter, Eccles. 10. 20. In vain hath the Net been spread in the Sight of these winged Creatures. Secondly, 〈◊〉 Application of these Words may be made to thos● Innocent Persons whom these bloody Conspirat●●● intend to entrap. They oftentimes are extraordinarily furnished with Eyes and Wings: they are enabled to discern and foresee their Contrivances, and they have Power given them to avoid them. 
1 1 Sam. 19 2.  Saul seeks the Life of David; but his cursed Purposes are discovered to this latter by Iona●han▪ 
2 2 Kings 6. 12.  The secret Counsels and Plots of the King of Assyria are disclosed by Elisha. 
3 Acts 23. 15, 16.  The ●ews bind themselves with a Vow to murder St. Paul, but a Youth frustrates their Conspiracy. It may be applied also to the Angels, who are represented as 
4 Ezek. 1. 6.  Winged in Scripture, and 
5 Ezek. 1. 18. & 10. 12.  full of Eyes. These oftentimes discover and frustrate the bloody Designs of the Enemies of the Church. These Ministering Spirit● seasonably fly to the Succour of the Righteous; they kindly hover over them, hide and protect them with their Wings. And as Men and Angels, so God himself (who is All Eye) in a more signal and eminent manner discovers and defeats the Machinations of bloody Men against the Innocent. He is pleased to resemble himself to an Eagle, the Prince of Birds, that fluttereth over her Young, spreadeth abroad her Wings, taketh them, beareth them on her Wings, Deut. 32. 11. The Eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole Earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose Heart is perfect towards him, 2 Chron. 16. 9 And in all Ages of the World he hath raised up Instruments to help and succour his Servants. Thus in vain is the Net spread in the Sight of every one that is bagnal canaph, Master of the Wing, as the Original (if we will be exact in rendering it) expresses it. And if we interpret this Proverb in this Sense, it Exactly comports with the next Verse, They lay wait for their own Blood, they lurk privily for their own Life: Those that thus design Mischief against innocent Persons, bring Ruin upon themselves, and are frequently taken in that Net which they spread for others. This seems to be the most Genuine Exposition of the Words: but every one is left to his Liberty to choose any other Interpretation which is agreeable to the Context, and opposes no other Text of Holy Scripture. Which of all these Senses was at first designed by the Holy Ghost we cannot certainly tell. It may be in such Places as these (of which there is a considerable Number in this Book) there is a Latitude, and questionless it is best it ●●ould be so, that we may with the greater Freedom search into and descant upon these Sacred Writings, that we may understand the full Extent of these Excellent Moral Observations and Remarkable Sayings of this Wise King, which for the most part are short and concise, and therehy sometimes become somewhat difficult. But if, 〈◊〉 Im●eratoria brevital (as Tacitus calls it) was commendable, no wise Man surely will dislike it in Solomon, especially when such Divine and Admirable Truths are couched in it.  
His next Book is entitled Ecclesiastes; for the LXX, by whom the wor●● Kabal is generally rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do accordingly render Kobeleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is probable he penned it when 〈◊〉 was Old, and had passed the several Stages of Vanity. It is an open Disowning of his former Follies and Extravagancies, it is the Royal Preacher's Recantation-Sermon, wherein he tenders himself a Public Penitentiary. Which is the Meaning (as 
3 Dr. Light●oo●, in his Chronicle of the Times of the Old Test●min●.  One thinks) of that Title of this Book in the Hebrew, Kohel●th, or the Gathering Soul, because i● this Book he recollects himself, and gathers and r●duceth others that wander after Vanity. To this end he makes a clear and ample Discovery of the Vanity of all things under the Sun, i. e. in this Life, or in the whole World (a Phrase peculiar to Solomon, and in this Book only, where it is often used). Here the Wise Man convinceth us from his own Experience, that none of the Acquists of this World are able to satisfy the Immortal Spirit of Man, that the greatest Wit and Learning, the most exquisite Pleasures and Sensual Enjoyments, the vastest Confluence of Wealth and Riches, and the highest Seat of Honour, even the Royal Throne itself, are insufficient to make a Man Happy, and consequently that our Happiness must be ●ought for some where else. Here we are taught, that notwithstanding this World is Changeable and ambient to Vanity, though at one time or other all things come alike to all in it, yet the Steady and Un●rring Providence of God rules all Affairs and Events here below; and in the Conclusion of all, God will bring every Work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Here are particular Directions given us how we are to discharge our Duty, first with reference to ourselves, viz. that we ought very strictly to observe the Laws of Sobriety and Temperance, and to live i● a Thankful Use of the good things of this World, and to be Content with our Portion and Allotment in this Life, and to banish all Covetous Desires and Projects. As we must go to the House of Mourning, i. e. be very retired and solemn, very ●●●lous and composed, and banish all superfluous Mirth and Gaiety, so we must eat our Bread with joy, i. e. live in a comfortable Fruition of these earthly Blessings, and delight in these Enjoyments so far as they are lawful and innocent. Our Duty to Others is here also briefly prescribed us, viz. that we ought to pay a Profound Respect to Good Kings, and to keep their Commandments; yea, that our very Thoughts towards them ought to he Reverend. Then, as to those who are of an Equal Level with us, or inferior to us, that we show ourselves Just and Righteous to them in all our Converse and Dealings, and that when we see any of them reduced to Poverty and Straits, that we extend our Charity to them, that we cast our Bread upon these Waters, that we relieve their Wants and Necessities. Lastly, we are instructed in our Duty to God, we are taught to approach him with reverence and Devotion, to keep our Feet when we go to his House, to pay our Vows to him, to remember him our Creator and Preserver, to fear him and keep his Commandments: and we are assured that this is the whole of Man, his whole Duty and his whole Concern.  
The Canticles, or Solomon's Song, is another Piece of Hebrew Poetry, which he writ when he was Young, and in an Amorous Vein, and yet breathing most Divine and Heavenly Amours. If you take it according to the Letter only, it is King Solomon's Epithalamium or Wedding-Song, of the same Nature with the 45th Psalm, which is a Song on his Nuptials with the King of Egypt 's Daughter, but in a Spiritual Sense it sets forth the Glory of Christ and his Kingdom, and the Duty and Privileges of the Church, which is there called the King's Daughter. Such is this Dramatic Poem, wherein are brought in the Bridegroom, and Bride, and the Friends of both, alternately speaking: but we must not be so gross in our Apprehensions as to conceive this to be barely a Marriage-Song (as Castellio groundlessly fancieth, and therefore deems it to be Scripture not of the same Stamp with the rest). Besides the Literal Import of the Words in this Lovesong, there is a Mystical Sense couched in them. Carnal Love is here made to administer to Religion, the Flesh is subservient to the Spirit: and therefore by reason of this Mystery in this Love-Poem the jews were not permitted to read it till they were of Maturity of Years. If we take this Mystical Weddings Song in the highest Meaning of it, it is an Allegorical Description of the Spiritual Marriage and Communion between Christ and the Church, it i● a Representation of the Mystical Nuptials of th● Lord Christ Jesus and Believers. Their Mutu●● Affections and Loves are deciphered by the So● Passions and Amours of Solomon and his Royal Spouse. This (though the Name of God be not in it) makes it a most Divine Poem, and highly worthy of our most serious Perusal and Study. For here we see the Gospel anticipated, and the most Glorious Subject of the New Testament betimes inserted into the Old.  
Object. But is it not a great Disparagement to this and the other beforementioned Books of Solomon, that ●e was a Reprobate, and finally rejected by God? Are we not discouraged from receiving these Writings as Canonical Scripture when we know that the Author of them was a Damned Person? For what can He be else, who, towards his latter end, revolted from the True Religion, and went after Strange Gods and Strange Women? And we never read in Scripture that he repented either of his Idolatry or his Whoredoms. Is it likely that this Gross Apostate was inspired by the Holy Ghost? Is it probahle that he had the Honour of being one of the Penmen of Sacred Writ?  
Answ. It is true Solomon was as great a Reproach to the True Religion as ever any Person was, if we consider all his Circumstances: His Sins were of a very High Nature, his Faults were most Heinous and Scandalous; and that Man is half guilty of them that endeavours to excuse them. A most provoking Crime it was in him that had been so highly favoured of God to give himself up to his Lusts: a most horrid Offence it was, even in his old Age, in the close of his Life, (as if now his Years had made him Decrepit and Idolatrous too) to bow down to Idols. But shall we think that Solomon bowed so low that he could not rise again, that he fell and never recovered himself? I confess no meaner a Man than St. Augustin seems to be of this Opinion. This Hard Father of Infants was as harsh against Solomon, pronouncing him a Person wholly cast out of God's Favour, and never received to Mercy again: and some Other Fathers, as St Cyprian, and Prosper, question his Salvation. Bellarmin and Pererius positively conclude he was damned; but then we find 
1 Pineda, Salianus, Drexellius.  three others of that Communion and of the same Order peremptorily asserting the contrary. Maldonate declares he doth not know what to determine. Of which Mind it seems was that Archbishop of Toledo, who ●aus'd King Solomon to be painted on the Walls of his Chapel half in Hell and half in Heaven.  
But, to wave the Opinions and Censures of Particular Persons at present, it is generally the Judgement of the Christian Church, that Solomon repented, and was saved. And there are such Reasons as these to induce us to believe it; 1. There is no absolute concluding from the Greatness of his Sins that he repented not, and that he was damned; for we are assured that King Manasse● was a Greater Sinner than ever he was, for unto all manner of Idolatry he added the Diabolical Practices of Witchcraft and Enchantment, 2 Chron. 33. 3, etc. and yet his hearty Repentance and Turning unto God are recorded, v. 12, 13, 19 Yea, David, Solomon's own Parent, was a very Heinous Criminal if the Sins of Studied Murder (which we do not find his Son guilty of) and Adultery could make him such: and yet such was the Divine Goodness, that upon his humble Acknowledgement of these Crimes and reforming his Ways he was acquitted of these Offences. And why may not the same Mercy be showed to the Son? and what ground have we to exclude him from partaking of it upon his unfeigned Repentance? 2. That he did repent and was saved may be gathered from 2 Chron. 11. 17. where the walking in the Way of David and Solomon is mentioned as walking Holily, and so as is Acceptable to God. Upon which Passage a 
1 Dr. Lightfoo●, in his Chronicle of the Old Testament.  Judicious Writer hath these Words; This very Place and Passage (saith he) may resolve that Solomon was no more finally cast away for his Idolatry than David was for his Adultery and Murder. We see that David and Solomon are here joined together, their way of Walking is represented as the same, as much as to tell us, that as David was a Man after God's own Heart, excepting the Murder of Vriah, and Debauching his Wife, so was his Son Solomon, excepting the latter Part of his Life. 3. Solomon's Book of Ecclesiastes (as hath been suggested already) is a plain Testimony of his Repentance. Here he bewails his former Follies, here he makes a Public Retractation of them, and doth as it were Penance for them before all the World. We may therefore safely vote him a True Penitent, a Real Convert at last, and now a Saint in Heaven. 4. In express Words, according to the Septuagint, his Repentance is recorded, Prov. 24. 32. 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Afterwards (or at last) I repented. Or, if this Version be not admitted, and although we cannot produce an Express Text, (though that is not necessary, for it is not any where recorded that Lot repented of his Incest, or that some Others, whose Salvation we question not, were heartily sorry for their Miscarriages) yet there is ground to believe his Conversion not only from what hath been said, but from what we are able further to allege. 5. Therefore we must consider that this Inspired Secretary of the Holy Spirit was of the Number of the Prophets, concerning whom our Infallible Teacher saith, that they are all in the Kingdom of God, Luke 13. 28. It is not to be questioned but that those Prophets who were made use of by God in so Extraordinary a manner as to be Sacred Writers of the Bible, were all admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven, and are placed in the Mansions of Glory. Besides, such Persons as these, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, are pronounced Holy Men of God by St. Peter, 2 Ep, ch. 1. v. 21. None had that Honour but those who were of Real Sanctity, i. e. the Prophecy of Scripture (which he speaks of in that place) was vouchsafed to none but such. And therefore though Solomon's Repentance be not expressly recorded, yet when we know that he was one of the most Eminent Penmen of the Sacred Scripture, we have Reason to think, that notwithstanding God suffered him for a time to fall into those scandalous Sins, yet he returned afterwards to him by unfeigned Repentance, and was Renewed and Reformed, and died a Holy and Righteous Person. 6. This is evident from that Promise which God made to Solomon, 2 Sam. 7. 15. My Mercy shall not depart away from him. Which is commented upon by the wise Son of Sirach, (speaking of this King's Follies and Extravagancies, and the sad Events of them) The Lord, saith he, will never leave off his Mercy, neither shall any of his Works perish, neither will he abolish the Posterity of his Elect, and the Seed of him that loveth him he will not take away, Ecclesiastic. 47. 22. Whence we may rationally gather, that Solomon was not cast off by God, but still continued in his Favour.  
Some argue from his Name 
1 qu. Recollectus, Receptus, sc. in favorem Dei.  Agur, which they say implies his former Failings, and his being Reclaimed. Others think his Name jedidiah, Beloved of the Lord, is a good Intimation that he became a True Penitent, and was saved. And some conceive, that because he was a Type of the Blessed jesus, he could not miscarry. But, whether these have any Weight or no, I am confident no considerate Person can deny the Force of the Reasons before alleged. We may from them alone conclude, that Solomon was not finally rejected by God, yea that he was upon his hearty Repentance received into Favour, and is now in the Number of the Blessed. And this was the Judgement of those Ancient and Learned Writers of the Church, 
2 Cont. Jovin.  St. jerom, 
3 Lib. 2. Apol. Dau.  Ambrose, 
4 In Psal. 52.  Hilary, 
5 Cateches. 2.  Cyril. Let us then forget his Faults when we study his Books, wherein it is certain there are no Erratas, he being an Interpreter of the Holy Ghost unto us, and when he uttered these things being a Friend and Favourite of God. But suppose we knew certainly (which we do not, and cannot, but have sufficient ground for the contrary) that he was at last cast off, yet I do not see how this doth necessarily invalidate his Writings. God might, if he pleased, make use of a Bad Man to pen some Part of the Bible, as he thought fit to call judas to the Apostleship, and to be an Eminent Preacher of the Gospel. Therefore though we should grant that Solomon was an Apostate, yet this is no direct Argument against the Validity and Authority of his Writings. But there being such great Probability, not to say Reasons, on the other side, we need not fly to this Answer, but on good ground persuade ourselves that Solomon, who was once 〈◊〉 with Sacred Wisdom, never lo●t it wholly, and consequently that we ought not to be prejudiced against what he hath writ by reason of his gross Fall and Miscarriages.  
Next, we are to speak of the Books of the Prophets. Of those who prophesied after the Division of the ten Tribes from the other two, but before the Captivity of either, Isaiah is the first and most eminent. He was of the Blood Royal, his Father Amoz being Brother to Azariah King of Iud●●▪ He was an old Prophet, having been in that Employment under four Kings of judah (as 
1 Isa. 1▪ 1.  he tells us himself): and all this time (which was about threescore Years) he faithfully discharged the Part of a True Prophet in an impartial reproving of the Vices and Disorders of the Age he lived in, 〈◊〉 a free and open displaying the Judgements of God which were impendent on that Nation, (yet not forgetting to threaten and denounce Vengeance on those Foreign and Strange People, who were instrumental in in●●●cting these Judgements, and who for their crying Enormities deserved to be destroyed, viz. Aslyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, Arabians) in a most Pathetic Exhortation to Repentance, and in setting before them the Promises of Mercy and Deliverance. This last especially he is most famous for, clearly foretelling the Deliverance of the Jews from their Captivity in Babylon by the Hand of Cyrus' King of Persia; and this he expressly mentioned an hundred Years before it came to pass. But his Predictions concerning the Messias are the most remarkable of all: He in plain Terms foretells not only the Coming of Christ in the Flesh, but all the Great and Memorable Passages which belonged to him. He speaks as clearly and distinctly of these as if our Saviour had blessed the World with his Presence at that very time when he wrote his Prophecy. He seems to speak, saith St. 
1 Praefat. in Isai.  jerom, rather of things past than to come, and he may be called an Evangelist rather than ● Prophet. Which is the Reason without doubt of the so frequent Citations which are made of this Book in the New Testament: for you may observe that Christ himself, his Evangelists and Apostles, have quoted about threescore Places out of it. I● reading of this Book than we read the Gospel itself, we antedate the New Testament by the Writings of this Evangelical Prophet. I have intimated before that he is the most Eloquent of all the Prophets. He was the Hebrew Demosthenes, as 
2 Annot. in 2 Reg. 19 1.  Grotius rightly styles him; the Purity of Hebraism is to be seen in him, as in the other that of Atticism. He useth many Schemes and Figures, but none is more remarkable than (that for which that Athenian Orator was so applauded, saith Quintilian) his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Excellent Art of adding Gravity, Force and Vehemence to what he saith: he continually Exaggerates and Amplifies the Matter which he undertakes. He had (above other Prophets) an Advantage of improving his Style by reason of his Noble Descent, and conversing with Men of great Parts and Elocution. But the mai● thing wherein he excels the rest of the Prophets, is this, that he saith more of our Lord Christ than all of them put together. This is his Peculiar Excellency, that he makes so early a Discovery of the Advent of our Blessed Lord, and of the Great Mysteries of the Gospel.  
jeremiah was another Ancient Prophet, he beginning to prophecy in the thirteenth Year of King josiah, and continuing in that sacred Employment till the last Year of King Zedekiah. He saw the Captivity of the Kingdom of Samaria, and after that the total Destruction of the Kingdom of judah and of the Temple. Part of this famous Prophecy, yea most of it was after the Captivity of Israel, and before that of judah, (from chap. 1. to ch. 44.) and part of it was in the time of the latter Captivity, this Prophet being not carried captive with the other Jews, but remaining in judea, and afterwards carried into Egypt (from chap. 44▪ to the end). In the whole are comprised many things of great Worth and Moment: for here wefind this Divine Prophet laying open the Sins of the Kingdom of judah with an unparallelled Freedom and Boldness, and reminding them of the Severe Judgements which had befallen the ten Tribes for the very same Offences and Miscarriages. Here this Weeping Prophet, this jewish Heraclitus, most passionately laments the miserable Condition which they were plunging themselves into, and withal directs them how to prevent it, namely, by a speedy reforming of their Lives. But at last he more peremptorily proclaims God's Wrath and Vengeance against them, foreseeing and foretelling the Grievous Calamities which were approaching, particularly the Seventy Years Captivity in Chaldaea, which began (as some think) with the carrying away of those of judah. He also dissuades them from breaking Faith with the Chaldeans after they were conquered by them, and sheweth how unsuccessful th●y should be in their revolting from them to the Egyptians. But even then he foretells their happy Return and Deliverance, and likewise the Just Recompense which Babylon, Moab, the Philistines, and other Enemies of the Church should meet with in due time. Here are also several Intimations concerning Christ the Blessed Messias and Redeemer, and concerning his Kingdom and Government in the times of the Gospel. Here are many Remarkable Visions and Types, wherein are represented things of the highest Nature. And lastly, here are sundry Historical Passages of considerable Moment which relate to those times. So that the whole Book is of Inestimable Worth, and such as is not to be found any where but in the Sacred Volume.  
His Lamentations (which are in Hebrew Verse▪ and are so contrived, that in the four first Chapters every Verse, excepting one, begins with a Hebrew Letter in the Alphabetick Order) were written on the Death of that Religious Prince josiah: which appears from what is recorded in a Chron. 35. 25. Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing Men and the singing Women spoke of Josiah in their Lamentations to this Day, and made 〈◊〉 Ordinance in Israel, and behold they are written i● the Lamentations, even those which this Prophet composed. Which is also confirmed by the 
1 Joseph, Antiq. l. 10. c. 6,  Jewish Historian, who voucheth this Poem to be a Funeral Elegy on that Pious King. To which St. jerom adds, that this Prophet laments the Loss of josias as the beginning of those Galamities which afterwards ensued; and accordingly he proceeds to bewail the Miserable State of the jews, and particularly the Destruction of jerusalem, which was not then come to pass, but is prophetically foretold, it being not unusual with the Prophets to speak of things to come as if they were already past: Unless we should say (as some have) that part of this Mournful Song was indicted after the taking and sacking of jerusalem, and the carrying the People Captive, and is a Passionate Bewailing of the Destruction of the Temple, and the Horrid Consequences of it. In which also the Holy Man humbly confesseth the Sins of the People, and acknowledgeth the Divine Justice in all that be●el them: to which he adjoineth a Serious Exhortation to Repentance, and comforts them with Hopes of a Restoration. So that the whole is an Exact Pattern of Devotion in times of Great and National Calamities and Public Sufferings, and instructs us how to demean ourselves in such deplorable Circumstances.  
Ezekiel was carried captive into Babylon with those that went thither in the second Captivity▪ which was in the 8th Year of Nabuchadnezzar▪ Reign, about ten Years before the time of the last Captivity. He prophesied here at the same time that jeremiah did in judaea, and afterwards in Egypt▪ Many of the same things he foretold, more especially the Destruction of the Temple, and the fatal Issue of those that revolted from Babylon to Egypt, and at last the Happy Return of the Jews into their own Land. He distinctly foretells the Plagues which should certainly be inflicted on Other Nations who were professed Enemies of the Church, as the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Tyrians, and lastly the Assyrians and Babylonians. In figurative and mystical Expressions he predicts the Messias, and the flourishing Estate of his Kingdom, i. e. the Christian Church. Because the Prophet begins with Visions and Types, and ends with the Measuring of the Mystical Temple, therefore (by reason of these Abstrusities and Mysteries) the Beginning and End of this Book were forbid 
1 hieronym. Prologue. in Ezek.  to be read by the Jews before they came to thirty Years of Age. But the greatest ●art of this Prophecy is plain and easily intelligible, it having reference chiefly to the Manners of that degenerate Age; wherein the Prophet observes and severely animadverts upon the General Corruption which had invaded them in those Days, and which merited the severest Judgements that Heaven could send down upon them. He ex●ibits a Particular Catalogue of the Notorious Enormities which their Kings, their Priests, their Prophets, their People were infamous for; he labours to bring them to a Sense of these scandalous Practices, and to make them heartily Relent for them: finally, like a Trne Watchman (as he is styled) he ●●●●hfully warneth them of their Imminent Danger, and admonisheth them to prevent it (if possible) by abandoning their Evil Ways. This is the Inspired Man that penned this Book: and this is the ●ook which contains so many worthy and excellent ●●ings in it.  
Another of the Four Great Prophet's is Daniel (who was of the Progeny of the Kings of judah.) 〈◊〉 was contemporary with Ezekiol, and was a Cap●●●e in Babylon at the same time that he was. There he prophesied, and there he wrote▪ and ●his Book is the Result of both: the six first Chap●●●s of which are an History of the Kings of Baby●●●, and of what be●el some of the Captive Jews under them. Here we have Nebuchadnezzar's Remarkable Dreams interpreted, we have a Relation of the singular Courage of the three Hebrew Yo●●● Men that refused to fall down to his Image, with the miraculous Deliverance of them out of the Flames. Here is unfolded Belshazzar's Fatal Doo●, contained in the Mystical Handwriting on the Wall, with his Death that soon followed upon it, and the Succession of Darius to the Throne, and the Translation of the Monarchy to the Medes. It was under this Prince that our Noble Prophet was advanced to his greatest Height of Honour: 〈◊〉 whereas he had been a great Courtier and Favosrrite in Nebuchadnezzar's time, and in the close of Belshazzar's Reign was made the Third Ruler in the Kingdom, now he is made the First, being set 〈◊〉 all the Precedents and Princes of the Realm. This made him envied and hated, but he was hated and persecuted much more for his Religion by the Great Men of the Kingdom, and even by a Decree of the King's own signing committed to the Den of Lions, there to be devoured of them. But the Hand of Omnipotence immediately interposed, and he came out thence safe, and his Adversaries and Accusers were sent thither in his room, who fared not after the same rate that he did. After this he lived in great Esteem, Honour and Prosperity, not only in this King's Reign, but under Cyrus 〈◊〉 Monarch of the Persian Race. But as our Author in the former Part of this Book relates things pas● as an Historian, so in the six last Chapters he is al● together Prophetical, foretelling what shall befall th● Church in general, and particularly the jews: ye●● his Visions and Prophecies reach to future Events wherein even those that are out of the Church ar● concerned. What can be more valuable than h●● Dream or Vision of the Four Secular Monarchies of the World, and of the Fifth, which was to be Spiritual, viz. that of the Messias? What is more famous and celebrated than his Discovery (by the Angel Gabriel's Information) of the Seventy Weeks, viz. of Years, i. e. 490 Years, upon the expiring of which the Messias' Kingdom was to be set up? What plain and signal Prophecies doth this Book afford concerning that Renowned Conqueror Alexander the Great, and his subduing the Persian Empire, as also concerning the Fierce Wars among his Great Captains and Commanders who succeeded him; particularly how clearly and plainly are the Actions of Antiochus the Great, and Antiochus Epiphanes his Son, described by our Prophet long before these Persons were in being? And many other Notable Occurrences relating to the most public and famed Transactions on the Stage of the World, are prophetically foresignified and revealed by this Divine Seer: insomuch that we may justly style this Book the Apocalypse of the Old Testament; to which that Other of the New so often refers, and even borrows many things of great Moment. Lastly, we may particularly note concerning this Book, that a great Part of it is written in the Chaldean Tongue, viz. from the fourth Verse of the Second Chapter to the End of the Seventh: the Reason of ●hich may be this, because Daniel was now by his ●●ng Abode in that Country become as 'twere a Chaldean; and moreover, he thought fit to write ● the Chaldean Language, because he relates those ●●ings here which are proper to the Kings of Baby●●● and the Affairs of that Place, which could not 〈◊〉 better expressed than in this Tongue.  
The Twelve Lesser Prophets (so called because ●heir Writings are of a Smaller Bulk) are accounted by the Jews as 
1 Duodecem Prophetae in unius voluminis angustias coarctati. Hieron. Epist. ad Paulin. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphan. Haeres. 8. l. 4. c. 18.  One Book: and accordingly St. Stephen quoting a Passage out of Amos, saith, It is written in the Book of the Prophets, Amos 7. 42. The First of these Holy Seers was Hosea, who flourished, in the Kingdom of Israel in the Days of Vzziah, jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of judah, and of jaroboam King of Israel: so that he was Contemporary with Isaiah, as appears from the first Verses of both Prophecies. He directs his Prophecy wholly against the Kingdom of Israel, which consisted of the Ten Tribes, but is by him peculiarly styled sometimes joseph, sometimes Ephraim, at other times Samaria, Bethel, jacob, and Israel▪ as, on the other hand, the Kingdom of judah is called by him Benjamin, and sometimes jerusalem His main Design and Business through the whole Book is to set forth the gross Idolatry and other flagitious Practices of that degenerate People, and to denounce the Judgements of God against them, and particularly to foretell their Captivity in Assyria, and withal to excite them to a due Apprehension of this Severity of God towards them, and thereby to beget an unfeigned Remorse and Penitence in them, that they may obtain the Pardon of their Sins, and partake of the Divine Mercy and Favour. All which is done with a most ravishing Ardency, Affection and Zeal. As to the Stil● indeed, it may be observed, that as Ezekiel was the Obscurest of the Greater Prophets, so Hosea is of these Minour ones: but this Obscurity and Difficulty are countervailed by that Rich Treasure which are hid under them, and which will prove an Ample Reward to those who search into it, and acquaint themselves with the transcendent Excellency both of the Style and Matter of this Writer.  
joel prophesied in the Kingdom of judah before the time of the Captivity, though the particular Time is not (as in most of the other Prophets) mentioned. But 'tis probable he prophesied at the same time with Hosea, who is set immediately before him. So St. jerom, Theodoret, Augustine, and other Fathers think. He foretelleth the coming up of a Northern Army, viz. from Babylon, which is North of judea: Though some interpret it of an Army of Locusts and Caterpillars, and other such mischievous and devouring Infects mentioned ch. 1. v. 4, etc. and consequently the Prophet predicteth the horrid Devastation, Dearth and Famine in judea, which should be caused by them. I am for joining both these Interpretations together, for I see it is the usual way of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures (especially the Prophetic ones) to express two different Things and Occurrences by the same Words. Here is then a double Army spoken of, viz. that of the Chaldeans, which in a short time afterwards invaded judea, and laid it waste; and also that of Noxious Vermin, which was to be sent as a just Penalty and Infliction for their Abuse of the Fruits of the Earth, and the great Plenty which they had enjoyed. Whereupon he most warmly stirs them up to Repentance; and to that Purpose enjoineth a Fast, and urgeth them to a strict Observance of it from the Hopes of M●rcy and Forgiveness, and the Removal of all those judgements which they labour under, yea from the Expectation, or rather the Assurance of a Blessing upon the whole Church. This is briefly, but most admirably set forth by this Man of God. And as it refers to that direful Judgement of Famine and Destroying the Fruits of the Earth, it may be made use of as a Seasonable Form and Rule of Devotion and Behaviour in the time of such a Calamity.  
Amos, who in his Youth had been a Herdsman in Tekoa, (a little Country-Town a Mile and a half off of jerusalem) is now sent to the Kine of Bashan, the People of Samaria, the Kingdom of Israel, to reduce them to Repentance and Reformation of Life. To which end he boldly remonstrates against the Crying Sins which were visible among them, but especially against Idolatry, Oppression, Wantonness, and Incorrigibleness. He spares not those of judah, but frankly reproves them for their Carnal Security, Sensuality, Injustice, Confident Boasting. And he scares both of them with frequent threatenings and Menaces, and is not afraid to tell them that their persisting in their Sins will end at last in the Ruin of the Kingdoms of judah and Israel; which he confirms and illustrates by the Visions of a Plumb-line, and of a Basket of Summer-Fruit. It is further observable in this Prophecy, that as it begins with Denuntiations of Judgement and Destruction against the Syrians, the Philistines, the Tyrians, and other Enemies of the Church, so it concludes with comfortable Promises of restoring the Tabernacle of David, and erecting the Kingdom of Christ. He prophesied in the Days of Vzziah King of judah, and jeroboam the Son of joash (to distinguish him from the other of that Name, who was Son of Nebat): so that he flourished at the same time with Hosea and joel. But there is some Difference as to the time, for 'tis added, [two Years before the Earthquake] v. 1. that is, towards the latter End of King Vzziah's Reign.  
Obadiah's Prophecy is contained in one single Chapter, and is partly a Divine Invective against the merciless Edomites, who mocked and derided the Captive Israelites as they passed to Babylon, and who, with other Enemies (their Confederates) invaded and wronged these poor Strangers, and made a great Ravage, and divided the Spoil among them: and it is partly a Prediction of the Deliverance and Salvation of Israel, and of the Victory and Triumph of the whole Church over all her Enemies. Some think this Obadiah was he that was King Ahab's Steward, who hid the Prophets: then 'tis certain he was before these Other Prophets. But there is no Foundation for this. We may rather adhere to St. Ierom's Opinion, who goes upon this Rule, that when the time of the Prophecy is not mentioned, it is to be referred to the same time that the preceding Prophecy was writ in.  
Ionah's Prophecy was directed to the Ninevites, as Obadiahs to the Edomites, and relates how that Prophet being commanded by God to go to Nineveh, but disobediently travelling another way, was discovered by a sudden Tempest arising, and was cast into the Sea, and swallowed by a Whale, which, after it had lodged him three Nights and three Days in its Belly, disgorged him upon the dry Land. Whereupon being made sensible of his past Danger, and of his Miraculous Deliverance from it, he betook himself to that Journey and Embassy which were first appointed him; and arriving at that Great City, the Metropolis of all Assyria, he, according to his Commission, boldly laid open to the Inhabitants their manifold Sins and Miscarriages, and proclaimed their sudden Overthrow if they repented not. Upon which the whole City, by Prayer, and Fasting, and Humbling themselves, and by Turning from the Evil of their Ways most happily averted the Divine Vengeance, and prevented their Ruin. A most Admirable Instance of the Divine Mercy! A Rare Example of Universal Repentance, and that even in a Pagan Country! Happy had the Ninevites been if they had not relapsed afterwards. Nor is Ionab's unseasonable Repining at this Dispensation of Heaven omitted here by him, or by whoever it was that wrote this Remarkable History; wherein we see the Integrity of the Inspired Writers, which is such, that they are not backward to communicate to the World their own greatest Failings, or those which the best Men are incident to. jonah prophesied at the same time with the foregoing Prophets, as jerom concludes; and he is backed by other Fathers, as Clemens of Alexandria, Eus●bius, Augustine, Theophylact.  
Micah prophesied in the Kingdom of judah before the Captivity of Babylon, in the same Kings Reigns that the preceding Prophets did, as appears from the first Verse. He impartially reprehends the Great and Rampant Vices both of jerusalem and Samaria, and is terrible in his Denuntiations of judgements against both Kingdoms, but more particularly he foretells the approaching Destruction of jerusalem: Yet he leaves not the Church without Comfort, for he expressly foretells the Confusion of her Enemies, the Messias' blessed Arrival, and with him the Peace and Prosperity, the Increase and Advancement, the Glory and Triumphs of the Church. So that Micah seems to be Isaiah epitomised, giving us that in brief which the other more largely and amply insisted on. And it may be observed that these two Prophets are alike in their Style and manner of Speaking, which is very sublime and towering.  
Nahum prophesied after the carrying captive of the Ten Tribes, a little before the Captivity of the Kingdom of judah. His Prophecy is rightly called a Burden, that Word both in the Greater and Lesser Prophets importing the denouncing of some Grievous and Heavy judgement: and such is this which he here threatens to Ninev●h. For it seems this People returned to their former evil Ways after Ionah's Preaching; and for this Reason another Prophet is sent to foresignify their Overthrow by the Chaldeans upon this their Relapse into their former Sins. He useth no kind Invitations to Repentance, as the former Messenger did, but he absolutely and peremptorily proclaims their Ruin, and with a most passionate and melting Eloquence (such as is not to be paralleled in the most Celebrated Masters of Oratory) deciphers the horrid Nature of it.  
Habakkuk prophesied in King Ahaz and Hezekiah's Reigns, as Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others of the Ancients, probably determine; and not after the Captivity of the Two Tribes, as jerom thinks, for this was not passed when this Prophet writ, as is evident from chap. 1. v. 6. Lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, who shall march through the Breadth of the Land, etc. He complains of the Corrupt State of the jews in those times, predicting the Invasion of the Chaldeans as the just Recompense of their Misdoing. This is remarkable in this Prophecy (which we find not in any of the rest) that it is composed in way of a Dialogue. First, the Prophet speaks, chap. 1. v. 1, to the 4th: then God answereth, v. 5, to the 11th. The Prophet replies, v. 12, to the 17th: God's Answer is in chap. 2, to the End. Then follows the Prophet's Prayer. The Providence of God in suffering the Best Men to be miserably treated, and that by the Worst and Vilest, is here vindicated; and the Certainty of a Happy Revolution is assured. The Prophet also by propounding the Example of his own Singular Faith and Patience in the greatest Difficulties and Extremities, encourageth the Pious to wait on God, to rejoice in him, and to expect Deliverance from their Calamities, and Revenge on their Enemies in due time. The whole was designed to be a Support and Solace to the Faithful in the time of their Captivity.  
Zephaniah, who was employed in the Prophetic Office in King Ios●as's time, (as we read, v. 1.) a little after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes, and before that of judah, (so that he was Contemporary with jeremiah) freely and plainly tells the Jews what it was that incensed God's Wrath against them, viz. their Contempt of his Service, their Apostasy, their Treachery, their Idolatry, their Violence and Rapine, and other egregious Enormities which were observable in them and their Princes. Such high Provocations as these rendered their Destruction terrible, universal, unavoidable. And then (as most of the Prophets are wont) he mingles Exhortations to Repentance as the only Proper Concern in these Circumstances. He adds very severe Comminations against their Enemies, and presageth their Downfall. He likewise comforts the Godly with Promises of the certain Restoration of the Church, of a Release from all their former Pressures and Grievances, of a Cessation from all their Fears, of the Continuance of the Divine Presence and Blessing. So that this short Prophecy contains in it all the Others, and may justly be said to be an Abridgement of them.  
Haggai prophesied after the Return from the Captivity in Babylon, in the second Year of Darius' King of Persia, sharply reproving the Jews for their neglecting the Rebuilding the Temple, and vigorously exciting them to that Work both by threatenings and Promises, but chiefly by the latter, assuring them of the Divine Blessing and Assistance in so religious and worthy an Enterprise, and foretelling them of the Messias' Coming, and of the Glory of this Second Temple, which should far exceed that of the first, even in this respect, that the Messias himself should honour this Temple with his Presence.  
Zechariah entered on the Prophetic Office at the same time with Haggai, some time after the Release from the Captivity, and he was sent to the Jews on the same Message, i. e. to check them for their Backwardness in erecting the Temple, and restoring the Divine Worship, but especially for the Disorder of their Lives and Manners, which could not but derive a Curse upon them. Therefore he exhorts them to seek the Lord, and to turn from their evil Ways, and thereby to conciliate and obtain the Favour of God. By several Notable Visions and Types he endeavours to confirm their Faith, and establish their Assurance concerning God's Presence with them and Care of them, yea and of his Whole Church to the World's End: and as a Proof and Demonstration of this he intersperseth the most comfortable Promises of the Coming, the Kingdom, the Temple, the Priesthood, the Victory, the Glory of Christ the Branch. Nor doth he forget to assure them of the Ruin of Babylon, which had been their implacable Enemy. And here likewise is foretold the Great Number of Converts to the Christian Faith, the successful Spreading and Propagating of the Gospel, the wonderful Efficacy of the Holy Spirit in those Days, the Rejection of the Unbelieving Jews, the utter Destruction of their City, Temple, and whole Nation by the Romans, for their rejecting and crucifying the Messias, and other particular things belonging to the times of the Gospel, which none of the Lesser Prophets speak of but this.  
Malachi is the last of these Prophets, yea of all the Prophets of that Dispensation. After him ceased Vision and Prophecy in Israel until Christ's appearing, when Zachary, Simeon, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna, were illuminated with the Prophetic Spirit. He prophesied about 300 Years before our Saviour's time, reproving the Jews for their Ungrateful and Wicked Living after their Return from Babylon: particularly he chargeth them with Rebellion, Sacrilege, Adultery, Profaneness, Infidelity, but especially he reprehends the Priests for being Careless and Scandalous in their Ministry, which one thing was sufficient to give Authority to others to be Vicious. At the same time he forgets not to take notice of and encourage the Pious Remnant in that corrupted Age, who feared the Lord, and thought upon his Name▪ whose Godly Converse and Associating with one another in that debauched time, he assures them were registered in a Book of Remembrance by God himself. This Prophet, who had pointed before at the Messias to be exhibited, (for he expressly ●aith, He shall suddenly come to his Temple) now shuts up his Prophecy, and indeed all the Prophecies of the Old Testament, with an Exhortation to remember the Law, i. e. to live according to its holy Rules and Injunctions, and with a Promise of the Coming of the Lord, who was to be ushered in by Elijah the Prophet, i. e. by john the Baptist, who came in the Spirit and Power of Elias, Luke 1. 17. And so this Close of the Old Testament refers to the New, to which I now hasten:   

CHAP. X.  
An Account of the Writings of the Four Evangelists: the peculiar Time, Order, Stile, Design of their Gospels. The Act of the Apostles showed to be an Incomparable History of the Primitive Church. The Epistles of St. Paul particularly delineated. He is proved to be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. An Enquiry into the Nature of this Apostle's Style and manner of Writing. The excellent Matter and Design of the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Judas. An Historical Series or Order is not observed in the Book of the Revelation.  
NEXT follow the Sacred Books of the New Testament, the Evangelical Novels, the New Laws of Christianity, the True authentics, which present us with the actual Discoveries of the Glorious Light of the Gospel, and of the Blessed Author of it. These were writ in Greek for the same Reason that joseph the Jew chose to write his Books not in his own Language, but in this, because (as he saith himself in his Preface to the jewish War) he would have them read and understood by Greeks and Romans, and all Persons. So Aelian was a Roman, yet writ his Books of Animals, and Various History, etc. in Greek, because this was the Universal Language at that time. These Writings of the New Testament are either Histories or Epistles. The Histories are the Four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. As for the former, the Writings of the Four Evangelists, there were none of them extant whilst Christ was on Earth, for till his being taken up to Heaven, (which was the Consummation of all he had before done and suffered) they could not make the Evangelical History perfect. But afterwards some of the Apostles and Disciples resolving, according to their Master's 
1 Acts 1. 8.  Order, to go and preach in foreign Regions, and to disperse the Christian Religion over all the World, put forth the History of the Gospel in Writing before they went about this great Work. St. Matthew was the first Inspired Person that committed the Evangelical Transactions to Writing, which he did about eight Years after Christ's Passion, A. D. 42. He alone, of all the Evangelists, say St. 
2 Prologue. Ga'▪ an●e Evang.  jerom, 
3 Eccl▪ His●● 〈…〉  Eusebius, St. 
4 De Cons▪ Evang▪ l. 1.  Augustine, 
5 Homil. in Matlh▪  Chrysostom, and most of the Ancient Writers of the Church, wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew: which partly appears from this, that some of the Hebrew Words are explained by the Person who translated it into Greek; who it is probable was St. Matthew himself, as the Ancients generally agree: and so the Hebrew and Greek Copies are both of them▪ the Originals. Then St. Mark and St. Luke writ their Gospels, the one about ten (though others say twenty), the other about twenty (some say thirty) Years after our Saviour's Death; and there are some that invert the Order, and give the Priority to St. Luke▪ But all agree that St. john was the last of the Evangelists, and wrote towards the latter end of the first Century. But as for the Punctual Time when the Evangelists put forth the Gospels, it is doubtful; and I do not find any certain ground whereo● we may ●ix a satisfactory resolution of the Doubt●punc;  
This may be observed that St. Matthew and St. john were Eye-witnesses of what they wrote: 〈◊〉 St. Mark and St. Luke had what they wrote from the relation of others. Particularly St. Mark, who was St. Peter's Companion, composed his Gospel by his Order and Direction, and with his especial Approbation, saith Eusebius. Again, it is to be observed that though every Evangelist relates nothing but the Truth▪ yet no one of them relates the Whole Truth concerning Christ's Life and Actions. Tho the Substance of the Gospel be contained in every one of these Writers, yet some Particulars are found in one that do not occur in another: which makes it necessary to consult them all, and to compare them together. As for St. Matthew and St. Mark, we may take notice that they do not always observe the Order of Time, and the true Series of the Matter: especially the former of these is not curious in this particular. But as for th● other two Evangelists, they are very punctual, and inviolably observe the Order of things as they happened, excepting only that Parenthesis (for such it is) in Luke 3. 19, 20. concerning Herod. Of all the Evangelists St. Luke is the fullest, and gives the compleatest, mos● circumstantial and orderly Relation of things: which he himself takes notice of in his Preface to his Gospel, in those Words to Theophilus, It se●med good to me, having had perfect Understanding of all things, from the very first▪ to write unto thee in order. And yet, though his Gospel be ample, and more methodical in the Narrative or History than the rest, yet he is but brief in relating things that our Saviour did till the last Year of his Preaching, St. Matthew having been full in them: and in some other things he hath need of a supply from the rest of the Evangelists, and more especially from St. john, whose Gospel (from the Beginning of the 14th Chapter to the End of the 17th) contains those Excellent Discourses of our Saviour before his Passion, which were wholly omitted by the other Evangelists. Besides that, this Evangelist, in the Entrance into his Gospel, is more Sublime and Soaring than the rest, (and for that Reason is represented by an Eagle) asserting the Divinity of Christ against the bold Heretics of that time, who openly confronted that Doctrine. And in other Places of his Writings he hath a Peculiar Strain and Excellency, which 
1 Coll. Mensal.  Luther expresses thus, after his plain way, Every Word in John weigheth two Tuns. Concerning the Evangelists I may note this, that though they do not all of them set down the very individual Words that Christ or others spoke, (for we see that sometimes one represents them in Terms different from the rest) yet those that do not so, deliver always the Sense of what was said; and even that was dictated by the Holy Spirit, which is sufficient. And concerning St. john particularly I remark this, that seeing he was the last of all the Evangelists, i. e. he wrote his Gospel last, it is rational upon that Account to interpret the other Evangelists by him, namely, where any Doubt or Controversy arises: for he having perused the other Evangelists, and observed what Exceptions unbelieving Men had made against any Passages in their Writings, it is not to be doubted but that he expresses himself with greater Plainness and Perspicuity where those Matters are concerned. This the intelligent and observant Reader will find to be true if he consults the respective Places.  
It is endless to give a Particular and Distinct Survey of every one of the Evangelists Writings. This only can be said here, (in pursuance of our grand Undertaking) that these Books are the Choicest History that ever were committed to Writing, because they contain the Birth, the Life, the Actions, the Doctrine, the Miracles, the Sufferings, the Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension of our Lord JESUS Christ, our most Compassionate Saviour and Redeemer: All of which are the most Stupendous and Amazing, as well as the most Necessary Matters to be known in the whole World. If this brief and summary Account of the Gospels be not sufficient to recommend them to our Studies and Meditations, and to beget in us the utmost Esteem of them, nothing more largely said will ever be able to do it.  
To the Historical Part of the New Testament belong the Acts of the Apostles, wherein there is an Account given of what all the Apostles were concerned in, viz. their choosing Mathias into Iudas' room, their Meeting together on the Day of Pent●cost, at which time they were all inspired by the Holy Ghost (according to Christ's Promise) visibly descending upon them, their Determinations in the Council held at jerusalem, with their Letters which they sent to the Churches abroad, and several other things in which the Apostles were jointly interested. This Book contains also the History of the first Founding of the Christian Church, of its happy Progress and Success, especially among the Gentiles, of the Opposition and Persecution it encountered with, of the Undaunted Courage of the Apostles, of the Course of their Ministry, of their Disputations, Conferences, Apologies, Prayers, Sermons, Worship, Discipline, Church-Government, Miracles. Here we are informed what were the Usages of the first Apostolical Ages: In a word, here we may find the Primitive Church and Religion. All which are plain Evidences of the singular Usefulness, Worth and Excellency of this Book. But it is chiefly confined to the Acts and Achievements of those most Eminent Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul: and especially and most largely here are related the Conversion, Travels, Preaching, and Sufferings of the latter of these; for St. ●uke being St. Paul's Companion all along, and well acquainted with whatever he did, and whatsoever happened to him, gives us the fullest Narrative of this Apostle. The whole Book is a History of about forty Years, namely, from Christ's Ascensions to the second Year of St. Paul's Imprisonment at Rome.  
The New Testament consists likewise of several Epistles of the Apostles; which are Pious Discourses, occasionally written more fully to explain and apply the Holy Doctrine which they had delivered, to confute some growing Errors, to compose Differences and Schisms, to reform Abuses and Corruptions, to stir up the Christians to Holiness, and to encourage them against Persecutions. For the Apostles having converted several Nations to the Faith, when they could not visit them in Person, wrote to them, and so supplied their Presence by these Epistles.  
To begin with St. Paul's Epistles, they were written either to Whole Churches, viz. of Believing Gentiles, (i. e. the greatest Part of them were such, though some of jewish Race might be mixed among them) as the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians; or of Believing jews wholly, as the Epistle to the Hebrews: Or they were written to Particular Persons, as the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon.  
The Epistle to the Romans is made up of several Profound Discourses on such Subjects as these, the Prerogatives of the jews, their Rejection notwithstanding those Prerogatives, the Wonderful Dispensation of God towards the Gentiles, the Nature of the Law, Justification by Faith alone, Election and Free Grace, the Conflict between the Flesh and Spirit, Christian Liberty, Scandal, the Use of Indifferent Things, etc. But the chief thing which he designs in this Epistle, is to show, that neither the Gentiles by the Law of Nature, nor the jews by that of Moses, could attain to Righteousness and Justification, and consequently Salvation; but that these are to be obtained only by Faith in Christ Jesus, for whose Merits alone we are accounted righteous in the Sight of God. And then, to show that this Faith is not separated from Good Works, he addeth Exhortations to the Practice of Holiness, Obedience of Life, and a Religious Conversation. So that this Epistle is both Doctrinal and Practical, it directs us in our Notions and in our Manners. It decides some of the greatest Controversies, and withal it informs us about the most indispensable Offices of Christianity.  
The next Epistles are to the Church of Corinth, the chief City of Peloponne●us, which is now called the Morea. And Cenchrea (which you read of, Rom. 16. 1. Acts 19 18.) was the Station of Ships for this maritime City, but was a distinct Town from it. To the Converted Inhabitants of this great Metropolis, (famed for its Wealth, and therefore surnamed the Rich, as Thucydides saith) ●ea 
1 2 Cor. 1. 1.  to all the Saints in Achaia the Apostle here writes. His first Epistle to them is against the Unsound Persuasions and Vicious Practices which he observed among them at that time. His Design was to reform them as to their Schisms and Dissensions, their Idolatrous Communion, their Unseemly Habits, their Confusions and Disorders in their Assemblies, their Profaning the Lord's Supper, their Toleration of Incest, and the like scandalous Behaviour. Besides, there are other considerable Matters which he treats of, as Marriage, Divorce, Virginity, eating of Meats sacrificed to Idols, Christian Liberty, going to Law before Heathens, Church-Discipline, Minister's Maintenance, Spiritual Gifts, especially the Gift of Prophesying, &. Some particular Cases concerning which are resolved with great Plainness and Dexterity, and may be serviceable to determine our Judgements in all Cases of the like Nature. He also admirably descants on the Nature and Necessity of Charity, and he by multiplied Arguments asserts the Doctrine of the Resurrection.  
When the Corinthians had received this First Epistle, and as soon as the Apostle was informed by Titus what Reformation it had wrought in them, he writ a Second to them, in Defence of his Ministry and Apostleship, against some that laboured to bring him into Contempt among them. He threatens Offenders, he encourages the Obedient, he animates the Faint-hearted, he confounds his Antagonists, and that by a new way of Argument, viz. by boasting of his Sufferings, and giving a full Inventory of them. He displays his Calamities, he blazons his Crosses; and Victories and Triumphs do not more elevate others than these do him. He excellently discovers the hypocritical Pretences of False Prophets, he vindicates his own Person and Authority, he answers the Calumnies and Aspersions of Erroneous Teachers, he clears himself from the Imputation of Levity, Pride, Vainglory, Severity, and other things laid to his Charge: He asserts the Truth of his Doctrine, and the Laudableness of his Actions, and exhorts to all Holiness and Righteousness of Life. But the greatest Part of this Epistle is Apologetical: whence we learn, that it is not unseemly or unchristian to enlarge on one's own Actions and Sufferings when there is a necessary Occasion.  
The Epistle to the Galatians (i e. the Christian Brethren in Galatia, a Region in the Lesser Asia, called also Gallo-Graecia, because it was of old inhabited by gaul's and Greeks) is directed against the False Apostles among them, who mingled the Law with the Gospel, Legal Works with Faith, and made the former necessary to Justification Whereupon he again asserts the Doctrine of Justification by Faith; so that this Part of the Epistle is a brief Summary of the Epistle to the Romans. He proves, that these Gentile Converts need not become Proselytes of the jews, nor observe the Law of Circumcision, or any other Mosaic Rite. But he tells them the right Use of Circumcision and of the Law, and bids them stand fast in the Evangelical Liberty, and be careful that they do not abuse it, but walk in Love and Meekness, Humility, Modesty, and Charity, which are the Great and Noble Virtues that are to shine in the Lives of Christians. It is easily observable that the Apostle is more Warm and Vehement in this Epistle than in any of his others; the Reason of which is, because he saw his Galatians so greatly endangered by their listening to the perverse Reasonings of the Gnostics (as some think) or other judaizing Teachers that were crept in among them, and were persuading them to embrace another Gospel, to disown and reject the Principles which he had taught them, and to come off from Christianity to judaism. This kindles a holy Indignation in his Breast, and makes him with an unwonted Keenness and Severity cry out against them, and complain of their gross Folly, yea their wilful suffering themselves to be bewitched and infatuated by those Impostors.  
His Epistle to the Ephesians, i. e. the faithful Christians of Ephesus the Head-City of Asia the Less, (which was written from Rome when he was a Prisoner there) divinely sets forth the Great and Astonishing Mystery of our Redemption and Reconciliation, the Freeness and Riches of Grace in Christ Jesus, the Admirable Benefits and Privileges of the Gospel, the Marvellous Dispensation of God to the Gentiles in revealing Christ to them, the Excellency and Dignity of his Apostolic Charge. He adds most Pathetic Exhortations to Constancy in the Faith, notwithstanding the Calumnies of False Teachers, and the Peril of the Cross. He propounds the most Cogent Motives to Love and Unity: he urgeth the conscientious Performance of all the Duties of Religion, and gives Particular Rules and Precepts for the discharging of every Christian Office; so admirable, so Entire, so Comprehensive is this Part of the Apostle's Writings.  
The Epistle to the Philippians (i. e. the Christians of Philippi, a City of Macedonia, and a Roman Colony) was writ also when the Apostle was imprisoned at Rome: and in it he thanks them for their Liberality towards him in his Bonds, and for their sending Epaphroditus (their Minister) with a Supply of Money to him. This Epistle is chiefly writ to them in return to this seasonable Kindness of theirs, and (as that to the Galatians was the Sharpest, so this) is the Smoothest and Sweetest, the most Endearing and Pathetic of all St. Paul's Epistles, and is fullest of Paternal Affection. He here likewise takes notice of and extols their Proficiency in the Gospel, and then labours to confirm them in it: he exhorts them to Increase and Persevere in the Christian Faith, to bear their Persecutions with Patience and Constancy of Mind, to be Humble and Peaceable, and to be Loving to one another. He cautions them against Seducers and False Teachers, who bade them rely on the Righteousness of the Law; and on the contrary assures them. that their only Trust and Dependence ought to be on the Righteousness which is of God by Faith in Christ jesus. He earnestly beseecheth them to be Exemplary in their Conversations, and to live in the Practice of all Christian Duties. He lovingly and passionately Salutes them, and Prays for them: he is every where Obliging and Affectionate; in sum, the whole Epistle is written with a Pen dipped in Oil.  
In the Epistle to the Colossians (i. e. the People of Colosse, a City in Phrygia, not far from Laodieea and Hierapolis, in the Proconsular Asia, who were converted by the Preaching of Epaphras, whom St. Paul had sent to them, but now is his Fellow-Prisoner at Rome) the chief Design of the Apostle is to Reduce those that were led away by False Teachers, whether jews or Philosophers. The former introduced the Mosaic Ceremonies and Observations the latter brought in Unsound Notions and Speculations, and both of them perverted the Simplicity and Purity of the Gospel. Wherefore the Apostle endeavours to establish them in the true Evangelical Doctrine, in opposition to judaism and the Vain Deceits of Philosophy. He is earnest with them to adhere only to Christianity, and to persevere in the Practice of all those Excellent Precepts that belong to it. And accordingly first he mentions some General, and then some Particular Graces and Duties. This Epistle is of the same Tenor, Subject, and even the same Expression generally with that to the Ephesians: for the Apostle▪ about the same time that he wrote to the Ephesians▪ did so likewise to the Colossians, whilst the very same things were still fresh in his Memory: whence it is that he uses the same Words often to both.  
The first Epistle to the Thessalonians (or rather the Thessalonicians, for they were Inhabitants of Thessalonica, the chief City of Macedony, and converted by St. Paul, Silas, and Timothy) was writ on the Occasion of the Persecutions which those Christians felt from the jews: and in it the Apostle, after he had expressed his Joy for their Conversion and Sincerity of Faith, exhorts them to Constancy and Perseverance in his Doctrine, and not to be discouraged by their Sufferings, but to continue in the Practice of Holiness as well as in the Profession of the Gospel. To encourage them to which he reminds them of his Boldness, Faithfulness, Sincerity, Affectionateness in preaching the Gospel to them, and of his Present Care and Concernedness for them. He gives several Particular Precepts of Charity and Piety, and warns them of Christ's Second Coming, of which he adds a very Lively Description.  
In his Second Epistle he corrects some Misinterpretations which had been made by them of what he had said in the first: For it seems they mistake the Apostle concerning the Coming of Christ, as if it were presently to happen, whereas (as he acquaints them) there must first be a Visible Departure and Declension from the Faith; and the Man of Sin (whom he briefly delineates) must appear in the World before that Day cometh. He heartens and encourages them under their Sufferings, and admonisheth them to continue in their Duty, from the Consideration of the Certainty of Christ's Appearing: he prays most ardently and affectionately for them, and interchangeably craveth their Prayers for him. These are the Choice and Admirable Contents of these Epistles.  
In the first Epistle to Timothy there are many Remarkable things treated of, namely, the Right Use of the Law, Praying for all Mankind, women's modest Apparel, their Silence in the Churches, the Apostasy of the latter times, the Duty of Servants, the Gain of Godliness, the Mischief of Covetousness, besides several other Heads that are only glanced at. But the main thing insisted and enlarged upon is Timothy's Duty as he was a Bishop, where we have an Excellent and Complete Character of a Faithful Ruler or Overseer of the Church. Here he is directed how to behave himself in that High Calling, how to discharge all the Offices of that Sacred Function. Upon which Account this Epistle may justly be styled a Pastoral Letter, because it doth more immediately concern those Persons who have the Charge of Christ's Flock, and have the Honour to be Guides and Instructers of Souls. Here they may be taught all the Parts of their Ministerial Employment, here they may furnish themselves with Exact Rules of their Duty. This is the best Rubric and Canon for this Purpose. Nor are there wanting particular Instructions concerning the Deacons Office, and concerning Elders.  
And such is the Second Epistle, where in likewise are farther Directions about the Office and Behaviour of an Evangelical Bishop: and he is exhorted to all Vigilancy, Patience, Prudence, Faithfulness, Diligence and Constancy in the Ministerial Function, notwithstanding the Labours and Afflictions which accompany it, notwithstanding the Discouragements, Hardships and Sufferings which attend the conscientious Discharge of it. Besides many Other Things of great Moment there is inserted a Prophecy concerning the Impious Seducers that should come in the last Days, with a particular Description of them.  
The Epistle to Titus is of the same Nature with those former ones, (especially the first to Timothy) wherein he gives Directions how he ought to demean himself as a true Evangelical Bishop or Pastor, inserting the Lively Portraiture of such an Officer in the Church. For which Reason it is more peculiarly sitted for the Use of those who are invested with that High Character in the Ministry of the Church. But there are also Instructions belonging to those of another Rank, and to all Christians in general; for they are enjoined to be subject to Principalities and Powers, to live soberly, righteously and godlily, to maintain good Works, to avoid foolish Questions and Controversies, and (in brief) to behave themselves in their several Stations as it becometh the Followers of Christ: So full, so large, so pregnant is this Short Epistle.  
The Epistle to Philemon was written by the Apostle from Rome when he was in Prison, upon this particular Occasion; Philemon, one of St. Paul's Converts, and afterwards a Fellow-Labourer with him in the Gospel, had a Servant who defrauded him, and then ran away from him, and coming to Rome when St. Paul was Prisoner there, was converted by him; whereupon he sends him back again to his Master with this Epistle, wherein he desires Philemon to forgive his fugitive Servant, and to be reconciled to him, and to receive him again into his Service and Favour, and to look upon him as a Christian Brother rather than a Servant. This the Apostle pursues with Expressions of extraordinary Love and Compassion towards Onesimu●, whom he had begotten in his Bonds, and with great Tenderness and Affection to Philemon, who was also his son in the Lord; and in his Behaviour towards both he shows the Authority and Bowels of a Spiritual Father.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews (i e. to those Converted Jews whom St. Paul had known in judea and Syria, or who were dispersed in other Countries, and at that time being persecuted by the Unbelieving jews, began to fall off from the Christian Faith, and the Assemblies of the Faithful) was written to establish them in Christianity, to assert the Pre-eminence of Christ above Moses, and the Preference of the New Testament to the Old; to show that the Priesthood of Christ was prefigured by that of Melchisedec, and that it far surpassed the Aaronical or Levitical Priesthood; to evince the Excellency of the Evangelical Dispensation above that of the Law; to prove that the Mosaic Rites and Ceremonies were abolished, being all accomplished in jesus our High Priest, especially that all the Legal Sacrifices were fulfilled in his once offering up himself upon the Cross for us, and that this Offering was Satisfactory unto God the Father for the Sins of the World. This is managed with very strong Reasoning, with a very singular and close Application, and with such a peculiar Light and Spirit as this Divine Penman was Master of. This I may truly say, that this Part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the most illustrious Confutation of the Socinian Heresy that is in the whole New Testament. For here is plainly and fully asserted the Efficacy of Christ's offering himself as a Sacrifice on the Cross for the expiating the Sins of Mankind. In sundry Particulars this is most demonstratively proved, that a Complete and Full Satisfaction was made unto God by his Death: which for ever confounds that impious and blasphemous Doctrine of Socinus and his Followers, 
1 Quicquid passus est Christus, nullam majorem vim per se ha●ere potest quam si quilibet pu●us homo idem passus est. 〈◊〉 de Serva●. Par. 3. c. 4.  that the Sufferings of Christ had no more Virtue and Efficacy in them than the Sufferings of any mere Man whatsoever. After the Apostle had thus maintained the transcendent Worth and Virtue of our Saviour's Priesthood, and thence undeniably inferred that the Gospel is a most Admirable and Excellent Institution, he exhorts them to a constant Profession of it without wavering, and to a Holy Life and Conversation suitable to so excellent ● Doctrine: he with great Industry endeavours to convince them of the Danger of Apostasy, he confirms them in the Christian Doctrine amidst all the Persecutions and Difficulties they laboured under. And lastly, he is solicitous to prevent their revolting by setting before them the most Eminent Examples of Faith and Patience. These are the Momentous Themes which are observable in this Epistle.  
I know some have doubted whether this Incomparable Epistle be St. Paul's, and others have absolutely denied that it is his, yet still allowing that it was written by some Inspired Person, and belongs to the Canon of Holy Scripture. The Learned Grotius endeavours to prove that St. Luke wrote it. But for my Part I have no Inclination to believe that any other Person than St. Paul penned this Epistle: for this is most clear from that one Place, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Even as our beloved Brother Paul also, according to the Wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you. St. Peter here speaks to the jews, for to them this Epistle as well as the former was written, as appears from the Title of it, 
1 Chap. 1. v. 1.  To the Strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, i. e. the jews dispersed up and down the World, who by St. iames are called 
2 Jam. 1. 1.  the twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad. These, though they neither lived in Palestine, nor used the Hebrew Tongue, but lived among the Greeks, and spoke that Language generally, and used the Greek Bible, viz. the Translation of the Septuagint, in their Synagogues, and were commonly known by the Name of Hellenists, and consequently were not Hebrews or jews in the strictest and properest Sense, yet because they were of jewish Parentage, and professed, or had once professed the jewish Religion, they were still called jews or Hebrews, and accordingly have that Denomination here. So that St. Paul here, and St. Peter and St. james write their Epistles to the same Persons, that is, to the Converted jews that were dispersed abroad, especially in Greece: and, which is the Argument I make use of at present, St. Peter particularly takes notice of St. Paul's Writing to these Dispersed Jews. But how doth it appear that he writ to them? Thus all the Epistles of this Apostle which we have mentioned before (excepting this which we are now speaking of) were written either to the Churches of believing Gentiles, or to some Particular Persons (as hath been noted already): whence it follows, that seeing he wrote to the jews or Hebrews, (as St. Peter testifies) he was the Author of this remaining Epistle which is inscribed to them. We are certain that St. Paul writ to the jews, because St. Peter tells us so, that is, he tell● us that St. Paul wrote to those to whom he wrote▪ but St. Peter wrote to the jews or Hebrews both his Epistles, therefore St. Paul wrote to them likewise: and this Epistle to the Hebrews which we now have, must be that very Epistle, because th●r● is no other of his to them besides it. Wherefore it is an undeniable Consequence that the Epistle to the Hebrews was writ by St. Paul, and by none else▪ which was the thing to be proved. Again, I might further add that what the Apostle Peter saith concerning St. Paul's Epistles, (or concerning the Matters contained in them, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may refer rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) viz. that 
1 2 Pet. 3. 16.  there are in them some things hard to be understood, doth agree well to the Sublime Matter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein so many Prophecies, Types, Allegories and Mysteries, are treated of and applied: so that it may probably be inferred hence, that this Epistle is referred to in particular, and consequently that St. Paul was the Author of it. To corrobate this, we may subjoin the unanimous Testimony of the 
2 Justin Martyr, Clem. Alexandr. Origen, Eusebius, Concil. Nic. 1. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerus. Greg. Nyss. & Naz. Ba●il, Epiphanius, Chrysost. Cy●●● of Alexan●punc; Theodore●.  Greek Fathers, who generally attribute this Epistle to St. Paul: With whom agree the Schoolmen; and all the Writers of the Church of Rome, but Erasmus and Cajetan, and Ludovicus Vives, assert the same. Most of the Lutherans are of this Opinion, though herein they descent from their Master Luther; and the Reformed Churches (as distinct from the Lutherans) are of the same Persuasion, though Calvin be of another Mind; which shows that there are very Cogent Reasons for this Opinion, otherwise these Parties would not descent from their Masters. It may be added, that Our English Church in the Title calls it the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. As for the Reason of the Omission of his Name in the Beginning of this Epistle, (which is not to be observed in his Others) perhaps it was (as Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophilact, conjecture) because his Name was odious to most of the jews, he having been once a jews, but afterwards abandoned that Religion; wherefore he advisedly left out his Name that it might not prejudice what he writ, and that the Epistle might not be thrown away for the Author's sake. But whether this was the Reason why his Name is not inserted (as in the rest of his Epistles) I am not able to determine: only I am sufficiently convinced, from what St. Peter saith, that this Epistle was writ by St. Paul; that single Testimony is Proof enough.  
Here I might take occasion (having hitherto given you a brief Account of the Excellent Matter of this Apostle's Writings, which are so great a Part of the New Testament) to speak something concerning his Style, or rather to add to what I have already said of it in another Place, under this Proposition, There are no Solaecisms in the Holy Writings. This I am the more willing to do, because some have looked upon this Apostle as a Man of no Eloquence, yea scarcely of any Grammar and Consistency of Sense: which Imputation would argue a great Defect and Imperfection in Scripture, and therefore I am obliged to take notice of it. It is true, there are several things which render his Style somewhat dark and perplexed in sundry Places. He brings in Objections sometimes, but doth not intimate that the Words are spoken in that way, as in Rom. 3. 5, 6, 7. and other Places; which makes the Sense difficult to those that do not carefully examine the Context. In the 4th Chapter of that Epistle, ver. 1. a Negative is left out, viz. the Answer to the preceding Question, which should have been thus; No; he hath not found. And in ver. 8. the Note of Parenthesis is omitted, as 'tis in several other Places. Further, 'tis observable, that the Apostle hath sometimes references to Words and Things which he had mentioned before, but which he seemed to have quite laid aside in his Discourse. Thus he turns back again in 2 Cor. 3. 17. and refers to what was said before in ver. 6. for those Words in the latter Place [The Lord is that Spirit] refer to the former one, where he speaks of the Spirit, i. e. the Gospel and Spiritual Dispensation, in contradistinction to the Letter, i. e. the Dispensation, of the Law. The Words than I interpret thus, The Lord Christ is that Spirit, he is the Blessed Author and Instituter of that Evangelical and Spiritual Oeconomy which we are now under, and which brings true Liberty with it, as he adds. Many Expositors labour to tack this Text to the immediately foregoing one, but to little purpose: for they thereby make the Sense harsh and distorted, there being nothing there to which this Passage refers. But by reducing these Words to the 6th Verse (as 'tis not unusual with this Writer to allude to some certain Expression a● a considerable Distance) the Sense of the Place becomes very easy and intelligible, viz. that Christ Jesus our Blessed Lord is clearly exhibited in the Gospel, and gives Life and Spirit with this Evangelical Administration.  
Again, it is true St. Paul's Style is very full and running over sometimes: his Pen is frequently in a Career, and is not easily stopped. All that he saith from the first Verse of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians till you come to the fifteenth Verse, is but one single Period. And in some other Places he spins out his Subject into a Thread of almost the same Length. From this Fullness of Matter it proceeds that he makes so many Excursions in his Writings, which seem sometimes to Persons who take no notice of his sudden Transitions, to be very Incoherent. Thus when he was proving the Dignity of Christ's Priesthood, he undertakes to show that he was a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, of whom, saith he, we have many things to say, Heb. 5. 11. but yet he saith nothing of him till the seventh Chapter; the Remainder of the fifth Chapter, and the whole sixth being spent in a long Digression. But you may observe a far longer in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. 3. v. 1, 2. What Advantage hath the jew, o● what Profit is there in Circumcision? Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Where you see he begins to reckon up the Advantages and Privileges of the jews, (and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I conceive, should not be translated chiefly, but first) and yet here he names but One of them, for an Objection (which he undertakes to answer and enlarge upon) takes him off for many Chapters together, and he returns not again till ch. 9 v. 4. where he enumerates the rest of the Privileges. And several other Instances might be assigned of his launching out into Discourses which seem to be foreign to his purpose, which render his Style somewhat abrupt, and his Sense intricate. He had begun a Comparison, Rom. 5. 12. As by one Man Sin entered, etc. but then he strikes in with a Parenthesis in the next Verse, which hinders him from finishing what he began till the 18th Verse, Even so by the Righteousness of one, etc. Nay rather, he forsakes the Comparison, and riseth above it, finding the Grace in Christ jesus rise higher than the Condemnation that came by Adam. Whereas he began with an [as], and should have followed it with a [so], he turns this into a [much more] v. 15, 17. and then at last comes about to complete the Comparison as he had first begun it, v. 18. There is a plain Parenthesis from the 1st Verse to the 7th in the first Chapter to the Romans. There is another somewhat longer in 1 Cor. 11. which begins at v. 23. and lasts to the 33d. So in the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 3. when he had said, For this Cause I Paul the Prisoner of jesus Christ for you Gentiles, V. 1. he presently runs into a Parenthesis, which continues till the 14th Verse, where he leaves off his Digression and proceeds, For this Cause, etc. Thus the Redundancy of his Matter and Sense makes him interrupt himself, and lard his Discourse with frequent Digressions, and divert his Reader oftentimes from the present Subject he is upon. But notwithstanding this, no Man that is Master of any Eloquence himself, or understands the Laws of it in others, can ●asten any such thing as Illiterate, Blunt, Unfashioned Language upon the Apostle.  
It is true he terms himself rude in Speech, 2 Cor. 11. 6. whence 
1 Mr. Boil of the Style of Scripture.  One gathers that he was but a Bad Speaker; for we cannot think, saith he, that he told a Lie out of Humility. But I reply, we cannot only think, but we must know, that the Apostle debaseth himself here out of Christian Modesty, as when he styles himself the least of the Apostles, 1 Cor. 15. 9 yea, less th●n the least of all Saints, Eph. 3. 8. Will any one say that he tells a Lie here, though he was the Greatest Apostle, and one of the Greatest of Saints? Besides, he might not unjustly style himself rude in Speech in this respect, that he so frequently treats of Difficult and Abstruse Points, which are not easily expressed, but are and must be clothed in such Language as is harsh, uncouth, and unusual▪ When he discourses of Predestination, of Faith, of justification, of the Last Times, of the Son of Perdition, of the Day of Vengeance on the Enemies of Christianity, of the Time of the Coming of our Lord, (yea St. Peter tells us in that in all his Epistles there are some things hard to be understood) it is no wonder that his Speech is obscure, and that he seems to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Mysterious and Profound Subjects which he insists upon, and which cannot be spoken out plainly, cause him to be thought such. His Rudeness of Speech may be understood as the Foolishness of Preaching, i. e. that it seemed such to some Persons, though it was not really● so in itself. But though the Great Apostle was pleased to diminish himself, and to speak meanly of his way of Writing and Discourse, and though his Adversaries or Pretended Friends were wont to vili●y his manner of Speaking, yet let not us conceal or disguise his Excellent Gift of expressing himself in his Writings. He was certainly a Great Master of Language and Discourse: and indeed we could reasonably expect no other from his Education, which furnished him with all sorts of Learning; for as he was born at Tarsus, so it is likely he was brought up in the same Place, which was then an Academy, and thence sent to jerusalem, where he sat at the Feet of Gamaliel: so that he was Master both of Heathen and jewish Learning. It is a Mistake of some Learned Writers of very great Note, that St. Paul's Writings are full of Solaecisms, he being an Hebrew, and understanding little Greek. This, I say, is a Mistake, for he was a Graecian by Birth, for Cilicia was in Greece; and 
1 Strabo Geogr. l. 1●.  we read that the Inhabitants of Tarsus (his Birth-place) did strive to equal the Athenians in the Study of Good Letters and Humane Learning. We may then reasonably think that St. Paul, though he was an Hebrew by Parentage, was well skilled i● Greek, it being his native Tongue. Therefore a 
2 Salmas. de Hellenist. Pars 1. qu. 6.  Modern Critic of great Acuteness hath well observed, that the Greek Tongue was as familiar to him as Hebrew or Syriac. Shall any rational Ma● then think that he was not able to speak Properly and Grammatically? Nay, shall we not conclude from his Admirable Writings that he knew how to pla●e his Words, and to speak with a good Grace? St. jerom, who particularly takes notice that St▪ Pawles Writings are full of Parentheses, Transitions▪ Digressions, Concise and Abrupt Sayings, yet acknowledgeth that he was a most Astonishing peaker, and 
3— Quocunque respexeris fulmina sunt. Hieronym. Apol. pro lib. adv. ●ov.  Thundered as often as he spoke. Yea▪ tho on the 3d Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians he hints that St. Paul's Writings were destitute of Rhetoric, yet at 
4 Ad Pammach.  another time (to let us know that he said not this absolutely) he owns him to be flumen Eloquentiae, a Flood, or rather a Torrent of True Eloquence. Eusebius, who was a Good Judge of Eloquence, pronounceth St. Paul a 
5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 18.  most Powerful Spokesman, and one that was admirably skilled in the whole Parade and Furniture of Words, and could do more this way than the most Celebrated Orators among the Pagans. so that 
6 Coll. men's.  Luther was in the right when he said, One of St. Paul ' s Words containeth well three of Tully ' s Orations. In fine, no Tongue can express the Excellency of his Profound Writings, which not only comprise in them all the Depths and Mysteries of Christianity, and astonish us with their High and Heavenly Matter, but moreover do furnish us with many Elegancies and Embellishments of Oratory, with many Florid and well Composed Periods, and abound every where with a most Winning Eloquence, with the Charms of a most Melting and Affectionate Rhetoric; insomuch that in some of his Epistles his Warmest Blood seems to be the Ink he wrote with, and every Leaf is as it were the very Membrane of his Heart.  
Besides St. Paul's Epistles, which are fourteen in all, there are seven others, viz. one of St. james, two of St. Peter, three of St. john, and one of St. jude; all which (except the two latter of St. john) are called Catholic or General Epistles, because they were not directed to Particular Churches in one Place, but to the Dispersed Converts through a great Part of the World.  
St. James' Epistle was written to the Christian Jews that dwelled in other Regions besides judea, who consisted partly of the Ten Tribes carried captive by Salmanassar King of Assyria, who never, that we read of, returned again, and partly of the Two Tribes, many of which still remained in Exile: wherefore St. james sends this Epistle to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad. The two main things in it are first concerning the Afflictions and Persecutions which were to be undergone for Christ's sake; where he exhorts them to Patience under those great Trials. Secondly, concerning the Necessity of a Holy Life, where he shows them that Justifying Faith must ●e known and manifested by Good Works. Besides, many Excellent Caveats and Admonitions are intermingled touching Riches, Covetousness, Hearing the Word, Swearing, Unruliness of the Tongue, Envy, Wrath, Pride, Rash Judging of others, Self-Confidence, Forgetfulness of God's Sovereignty and Providence in the World, and sundry other things of very great Use in the Lives of Christians, especially of those that are in Affliction and Adversity. Wherefore this Epistle is chiefly calculated for such.  
St. Peter also (who was the Apostle of the Circumcision) writes to the Dispersed jews, (such as were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, (i. e. the Lesser) and Bythinia, five Provinces of the Roman Empire) those that voluntarily lived among the Gentiles ever since the Great Dispersion, and were now become Christians, and fared the worse among the Heathens and Obstinate Jews for being so. And perhaps here may be meant those likewise that by Persecution were driven from their Homes in judea, and therefore are called Strangers, 1 Epist, ch. 1. v. 1. To these distressed jews, or of what kind soever they were (for 
1 De Civ. D●i, I. 18. c. 28. contr. Fa● st. l. 22. c. 89.  St. Augustine and 
2 ●ede, Aquinas, Lyranus, Ribera.  some others think the Converted Gentiles in several Countries are not here excluded) he writeth his first Epistle, to confirm and strengthen them in the Doctrine of the Gospel, and in the Profession of the Christian Faith which they had hitherto made, and to exhort them to a Greater Proficiency in it, and to comfort them in their Persecutions against the Scandal of the Cross; and lastly, to stir them up to the Exercise of all Christian Graces and Duties, many of which, as Mutual Love, Patience, Watchfulness, Perseverance, Obedience to Magistrates, with the particular Duties of Servants to their Masters, of Husbands and Wives towards one another, of Spiritual Pastors towards their Flock, he most excellently (though briefly) describeth.  
His Second Epistle (for it is undoubtedly his, as well as the first, though Hugo Grotius, or he that published those Posthumous Annotations, labours to offer Arguments to the contrary, which are enervated by Dr. Hammond in his Notes on this Epistle) is of the same Nature with the first, exhorting the Believing Jews to a Life worthy of Christians, to add one Virtue to another, and to increase in all the Graces of the Holy Spirit. He asserts the Truth and Authority of the Gospel, he shows the Danger of Backstiding, he warns them against Heretical Teachers and Profane Scoffers that should come in the last Days, of whom he gives a very Lively Character in several remarkable Particulars. He voucheth the Certainty of Christ's Coming to Judgement, and the Conflagration of the World, and thence infers the Reasonableness of preparing themselves for that last Catastrophe by a blameless Life and Conversation. All which is expressed in most apt and choice Words, and with that Concernedness and Zeal which became so Eminent an Apostle.  
The first Epistle of St. John (which is called Catholic or General, as being written to all the Christian Jews wheresoever they were) is partly directed against Seducers and Impostors (whom he calls Antichrists) risen up in those Days, who subverted the Fundamentals of Religion, but more especially the Deity and Humanity of Christ, as the Simonians, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Ebioni●es▪ and others mentioned by 
1 In Panario.  Epiphanius and 
2 De Haeresib.  Austin▪ whence he adviseth the Christians to try the Spirits, and not to be too credulous and hasty in embracing every Doctrine that is offered them. He hath observable Notices concerning the grand Privilege of Adoption, concerning the Love of the World, concerning the Sin unto Death. But the main Design of this Epistle is to urge a Godly and Righteous Life, to convince those who are called by Christ's Name of the Necessity of their walking answerably to it. Indeed this Apostle was forced (as St. james before was) to write on this subject, to press Good Works and Outward Righteousness, because some in those Days turned the Grace of God into Licentiousness, making Faith exclude all External Acts and Works of Holiness. Wherefore he offers several Plain Marks and Tokens whereby they may certainly know whether they be Real Christians, truly Religious, and the Children of God. The Sum of all he propounds is this, that if they love God and their Brethren, and demonstrate this Love by the proper and genuine Fruits of it, than they may conclude they are Christians indeed; otherwise they are mere strangers to Christianty, and to all Religion, they deceive themselves, and there is no Truth in them. This the Beloved Disciple and Divine Amorist incul●ates with that Spirit, Warmth and Earnestness, which so Weighty a Subject deserves.  
His second Epistle is written to the Elect Lady and her Children, that is, saith St. 
1 Epist. 11. ad Agerach.  jerom, to some Eminent Select Church in Asia, and to all the Christians belonging to it; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Athenians, and Curia with the Romans, are of the same Import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Assembly. Perhaps Ephesus is meant, saith a 
2 Dr. Hammend in loc.  Learned Man, which was the Metropolis of Asia, and so may more signally be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it is the general Opinion of the Ancients and Moderns, that a person, not a Church, 〈◊〉 meant here; and that St. john (the Evangelist, not another Presbyter of that Name, as St. 
3 Cata●●●. Script. Eccles.  jerom thinks) writes to a Virtuous Lady, who was an 〈◊〉 Servant of Christ, a very Godly and Religion's Woman: or it may be her Proper Name was 
4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sine articulo. Pricaeus in An●●●▪ in loc.  Elect, as a Learned Critic hath conjectured: Which may seem the more probable, because the word hath no Article prefixed to it. It was usual with our Saviour himself (as the Evangelical Writings inform us) to make his Applications to those of this Sex, to cherish and commend their Virtues. It is particularly recorded, that 
5 Acts 17. 4.  of the Chief Women (afterwards called 
6 Ver. 12.  Honourable Women) not a few were St. Paul's Proselytes. And to descend lower, we read that St. jerom took great Pains in instructing the Roman Ladies, and in commending and encouraging their Study of the Holy Scriptures. Yea, many of his Writings were directed and dedicated to Noble Women, Widows and Virgins, as Paula, Eustochium, Salvina, Celantia, and several others that were Roman Ladies, and of noble Extraction. Such is our Elect here, who is the only Person of that Sex to whom an Inspired Epistle is written. She is commended for her virtuous bringing up her Children, she is exhorted to abide in the Doctrine of Christ, to perservere in the Truth, and to be careful to avoid all Delusions of False Teachers. But chiefly the Apostle beseecheth this Noble Matron to practise the great and indispensable Commandment of Christian Love and Charity.  
His third Epistle was writ to Gaius, a Converted jew, (or Gentile, as others think, because he hath a Roman Name) a Man of a fair Estate, and who had been very bountiful and hospitable to the Saints. The Design of the Epistle is to own and commend his Hospitality, especially his seasonable Beneficence and Charity to Strangers, to those that were Exiles for the Cause of Christianity, and to stir him up to continue in the Exercise of the same Charity and Liberality to the distressed Brethren. Demetrius is propounded as an eminent Example of this, for which and all other Virtues he had the good Report of all Men, yea and of the Truth itself; that is, as he was spoken well of by every one, so he really deserved it. On the other side, he complains of the Uncharitable, Insolent and Ambitious Diotrephes, a Prating Opposer not only of him and his Doctrine, but of all the true Servants of jesus.  
The General Epistle of jude or judas, as we render it in john 14. 22. (it being the same Name with that of the Traitor, for it is no unusual thing for good and bad Men to have the same Names; as in the Old Testament Eliab, jehu, Hananiah, etc. in the New Testament Simon, john, Ananias, are Instances of this). This Epistle, I say, of this Good Apostle with a Bad Man's Name was written to all Christian Churches, or at least to all the jewish Christians Dispersed; (the same to whom St. james and St. Peter wrote) wherein he exhorts them to contend for the Faith, against those Dreaming Heretics and Seducers that were at that time crept into the Church, whose Erroneous Tenants and Ungodly Practices he here particularly deciphers, and from the Examples of God's Vengeance on other Great Offenders infers the Certainty of these men's Ruin. In short, this Epistle hath all the Marks of a true Apostolic Spirit, and is of the same Argument with the second Epistle of St. Peter, and is a kind of Epitome of it: and therefore I need not be very Particular in rehearsing the Contents.  
The last Book of the New Testament is the Revelation of St. John the Divine, which Epithet is signally given to him here, because of the Divinity and Sublimity of his Raptures, because he (of all the Apostles) had the greatest Communications of Divine Mysteries. It may be referred either to the Historical Books or to the Epistles; to the former, because it is a Prophetic History of the State of the Church from the Apostles times to the end of the World: to the latter, because it is in the Form of an Epistle, (after the three first Verses, by way of Preface) viz. to the Seven Churches of Asia, at first planted by, and now under the Government of St. john: and as it begins, so it ends after the usual way of concluding Epistles, The Grace of our Lord jesus ●brist be with you all. Amm. Concerning the precise time when St. john received▪ and when he wrote this Revelation, there is some Dispute: but the most probable (if not the most generally received) Opinion is, that he being ●●nish'd into Patmos (an Isle in the Archipelago, situated about forty Miles from the Continent of Asia) by Domitian, (under whom was the Second persecution) this Revelation was delivered to him about the middle of the Emperor's Reign, (but at several times) and that he committed it to Writing about the latter end of it. As to the Visions themselves, I will not here particularly in●ist upon any of them; only in general it is commonly said and believed, that the Vision of the Seals sets forth the State of the Church under the Heathen Persecutions, from Nero to the end of Dioclesian's Persecution: the Vision of the Trumpets (which follows that) shows the Calamity of the Church by Heresies, Schisms and Persecutions afterwards, in the times succeeding the Pagan Roman Emperors, viz. under Papacy. And then the Vials tell what Vengeance befalls the Papal Antichrist, and all the Church's Enemies. So that the Seals, Trumpets and Vials give an Account of the three Grand Periods of the Church. There is great Probability of this: but I must add, (and I will offer it to the Reader as a thing necessary to be taken notice of in order to the right understanding of this Book) that the Order of Time and History is not always observed here: things are not related constantly in a certain continued Method and Series, nor are we to understand or take them as written so. A great and prevailing Mistake it hath been to think that the Course and Order of Time are duly and all along observed in these Writings. Whereas to a considerate Person it will appear that there is no such thing, and that the Chapters are not writ and disposed in any Method.  
This, because it may be looked upon and censured as a New Notion, I will make good thus; the Day of judgement is represented and described three or four times in these Visions and Revelations, as first at the opening of the Sixth Seal, ch. 6. v. 12, to the end: where the Description of the Last Day agrees exactly with others in the New Testament, especially that of our Saviour in Mat. 24. and therefore to allegorise it, where there is no Occasion for it, is unreasonable. If it be said, that the Disorder of the Sun, Moon and Stars (which is here spoken of) signifies sometimes temporal Judgements, as the Destruction of Babylon, Isa. 13. 10. and of Egypt, Ezek. 32. 7. I answer, that though it doth so, yet these Remarkable Judgements and Devastations were Figures and Representations of the Last and Terrible one, and were so designed by Heaven, and therefore this may well be set forth to us by the Holy Ghost in this manner: nay, the darkening of the Sun and Moon, and the like Expressions, are but Metaphorical in those former Instances, but here are Proper, Natural and Real, and therefore ought so to be understood in this Place. Again, St. john hath another Revelation of this Great Day, in the End of the 11th Chapter, from ver. 15, to the Close of the Chapter: but especially those plain Words in ver. 18. Thy Wrath is come, and the time of the Dead that they should be judged, place it beyond all doubt that the Final judgement of the last Day is here meant. Again, the Seventh Vial mentioned, Rev. 16. 17. which contains the Last Plague, is no other than the Indignation and Punishment of That Day, as appears from the Prodigies which accompany it, and particularly from what is said, ver. 20. Every Island fled away, and the Mountains were not found, which expresses the terrible Dissolution of the World at that time. Besides that it is observable in the Conclusion of the preceding Vial, which made way for this last, that Christ saith, I come as a Thief, v. 15. which manner of Expression is particularly applied and made use of when the Day of judgement is spoken of, Mat. 24. 43. 1 Thess. 5. 2, 4▪ 2 Pet. 3. 10. And lastly, in the 20th Chapter, from the 11th Verse to the end, there is another Vision of this Last and General Appearance of the World, as is universally acknowledged by Interpreters, and therefore we need not stand to clear it. Now from all this it is evident, that there is not observed in the Visions of this Book an Historical Order or Course of Time; for if there were, the General Day of Doom, which is the last thing of all, could not be represented here three or four times: This must have come in the shutting up of all, when all other things were passed, whereas now we see it is represented in the Beginning, in the Middle, and in the End of these Revelations: Which, if it be well attended to, is one admirable Key to open the Secrets of this Book, for hence we understand that this Prophecy is not (what it hath been thought to be) one Entire Historical Narration of what shall be, and that first one thing is foretold, and then what follows that in time is next set down, and so on in order. No; the Day of Judgement being thrice at least inserted, shows, that the Visions of this Book end, and then begin again, and then have a Period, and commence again, and after that the same or the like Scene is opened, and things of the same Nature are repeated. Which is a most evident Argument that this Book consists of Three or Four Grand Prophecies or Prophetic Representations of the Condition of Christ's Church from the time when this was ●●nned to the Consummation of all things. Here are represented by different Types, Prophetic Symbols and Visions, the most remarkable things which happen on the Stage of the World, and the● are these three, the Troubles and Persecutions which ●befal the Servants of the most High, the ●●liver●●de of them out of those Trials, and God's 〈◊〉 ●●●●shing of their Enemies. These you will 〈◊〉 set forth and illustrated by divers Schemes and Apparitions, by different and reiterated Representations. And the Reason why things, though the same, are diversely represented, i. e. in different Visions over and over again, and why they are expressed in different Terms and Words, the ●●●son (I say) why they are so often repeated, is, ●●●use they so often come to pass in the several Ages of the World by the wise Disposal of Provi●●no●. These Prophecies have been, and they ●●all be yet fulfilled: for the State of the Church, as to the Cruelty of its Enemies and Persecutors, and the Wonderful Deliverance from them, and Avenging their Cause upon their Heads, is the same in different Ages, until the time when Baby●●● shall fall, and never rise again. To use the Words of a most Eminent and Learned Bishop of our own; 
1 Dr. Patrick, Bishop of Ely, his Answer to the Touchstone, & ●.  One may easily see (saith he) that Rome is here intended; and not Pagan but Christian Rome, which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State. It is easy to see in the Book of the Revelation, that the Roman Church is doomed in due time to Destruction.  
You see then how Useful this Book is, you may be convinced of the Truth of what is said in the Beginning of it, Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the Words of this Propheoy, ch. 1. v. 3. Th● we cannot so clearly descny the Particular and 〈◊〉 dividual Things, times and Person● contained in t●● though this last Book of the Holy Scripture be in this Respect the Obscurest of them all, though in some Places there be 
1 Tot habet sacramenta quot verba. Hieron. Ep. ad Paulio. de lib. Apocalyps.  as many Mysteries as Words, yet thus far it is properly Revelation, that herein the State of the Christian Church, and the Particular Methods of God's Providence towards it in all times are plainly revealed and discovered to us plainly, I say, because they are so often repeated, that it is impossible to mistake them. As Phara●●'s Dream was doubled to show the Certainty of the things represented, Gen. 41. 32. so these Prophecies and Visions are doubled, and tribbled; yea more than so, to assure us of the Certain Truth and Reality of these Events, to confirm us in this Persuasion, that though the Church of Christ here on Earth be often troubled and persecuted, yet she hath her times of Restoration and Reviving, and there is a time of Vengeance and Recompense to her Enemies, even in this World, but more especially at the Close of it, when Christ shall come to Judgement.  
Thus I have attempted to evince the Perfection of Scripture by enumerating all the Books of both TESTAMENTS, and giving you a brief Account of them These Excellent and Incomparable Books are the True Pandects indeed, the Books that comprehend all, that treat of every thing that is necessary. They are the most Valuable Collection of Writings under Heaven, they are of all the Books in the World the most worthy of all Acceptation, because they are our Infallible Rule and Surest Guide to Wisdom, Holiness and Blessedness, to the Attainment of the most Desirable Things here, and of the most Eligible hereafter. If this and all that I have said before do not prove them to be Completes and Perfect, I despair of ever telling you what will.   

CHAP. XI.  
None of the Books of the Holy Scripture are lost: Not the Book of the Covenant: Nor the Book of the Wars of the Lord: Nor the Book of jasher: Nor the Acts of Vzziah. An Account of the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, the Book of Iddo, the Books of Shemaiah, jehu, etc. What is to be thought concerning the Books of Solomon, mentioned Kings 4. 32. 33. Objections drawn from Jam. 4. 5. from Luke 11. 49. from Acts 20. 35. from Judeu. 14. from 1 Cor. 5. 9 from Col. 4. 16. fully satisfied. Other Objections from 1 Cor. 7. 6, 12, 25 2 Cor. 8. 8. & 11. 17. particularly answered.  
But though this be a clear and demonstated Truth, yet it is questioned and doubted of by some. Wherefore the Fourth General Undertaking which I propounded was this, to clear the Point of those Objections, which are wont to be brought against it, and to show that notwithstanding these the Prefection of Scripture is unshaken.  
First, Some tell us that there is a considerable Number of Books mentioned or quoted in Scripture, as the Books of the Covenant, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of jasher, etc. which seem to have been once a Part of this Holy Volume, but now are lost. Among the Fathers 
1 Hom. 9 in Matth. & Hom. 7. in 1 Ep. ad Corinth.  St. Chrysostom (who is followed by Theophilact) is of this Opinion. Bellarmine and several of the Papists hold it. Yea, some Protestants acknowledge as much: Calvin and Musculus, and our Whitaker incline this way. And Drusius is very angry with any Man that denies that there any Books of Holy Scripture missing. Now, if this be true, there is ground to complain of a Defect and Imperfection in the Sacred Writings, by reason of the loss of these Books. That therefore which I am to undertake here, is to show that there are no Books mentioned in Scripture, as belonging to it, but what are now to be found in it, and are really a Part of it, and consequently that the Holy Writings are not Defective, that the Body of Sacred Scripture is not Maimed and Imperfect.  
First, As to the Book of the Covenant mentioned in Exod. 24. 7. which some fancy is lost, it is not any distinct Book from the Body of the jewish Laws. If we impartially weigh the Place, we shall find that it is no other than a Collection▪ or Volume of those several Injunctions and Institutions which we read in the foregoing Chapters (viz. 20, 21, 22, 23.) which God delivered to Moses on the Mount. It is the very same with the Book of the Law, De●t. 31. 9 That which hath caused a different Persuasion in some is this, that these Laws are called a Book: but I shall make it evident afterwards that this Appellation is of a great latitude, and is applied to any sort of Writing by the Hebrews.  
Secondly, As for the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14. which is thought to be now wanting, the Answer given by some is, that this was an Apocrypbal Author, and so cannot be said to belong to the Holy Scriptures, and consequently the loss of this Book doth not argue the Imperfection of the Bible. But though this way of Solution be tolerable, when made use of as to some Other Books hereafter mentioned, yet I think there is no need at all of using it here, because it is not unlikely, according to the Judgement of our 
1 Dr. Lightfoot's Chronicle of the Tines of the Old Test.  Learned English Rabbi, that Moses refers here to himself, and a Book of his own composing; for we read that upon the Discomfiture of Amalek God commanded Moses to write it for a Memorial in a Book, Exod. 17. 14. and (as it follows) to rehearse it in the Ears of Joshua. So that it may seem to have been some Book of Directions written by Moses for Ioshua's managing of the Wars after him. Thus this Learned Writer makes this Book only to be of private use, and dictated by an Ordinary, not a Divine Spirit: wherefore it cannot be one of the Books of the Bible. And if this be true, then though it be lost, yet no Canonical Scripture is lost hereby. But from what I shall propound, I think it will be found reasonable to believe that the Book in this Place mentioned is one of the received Books of the Old Testament, i. e. it is the Book of judges, which deservedly hath the Name of the Book of the Wars of the Lord, because it recounts those Warlike Erterprises which those Heroic Spirits stirred up by God in an extraordinary Manner were famous for. Or Milchamoth jehovah, the Wars of the Lord, are as much as the Great, Wonderful and Renowned Wars (for perhaps the Name of God is used here, as in several other Place, to augment the Sense, and to express the Greatness and Excellency of the Thing) fought by the Valiant jews. To any one that consults the Text together with the 26th v. of that Chapter, it will plainly appear that this Passage particularly refers to the 11th Chapter of judges, v. 15 16, 17. But if you ask how Moses, who was dead long before, could write this? I answer, though he undoubtedly writ the Book of Numbers, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, yet some few Passages in this and the other Books may reasonably be supposed to be inserted afterwards by some other Inspired Persons, as I have had Occasion to advertise before. Ezra, it is likely, revising this Book, added this of what God did in the Red Sea, and at the Brooks of Arnon. And to give yet more ample Satisfaction to this Scruple, I desire it may be observed, that though we translate the Text thus, It is said in the Book of the Wars, etc. yet in the Original the Verb is in the future Tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diceture, it shall be said: and so we may look upon it as a Prophecy of Moses. He here foretells that afterwards it shall be commemorated how God fought for his People. When there shall be at solemn Times a Rehearsal of the Jewish Wars, than this Passage shall be called to mind and made mention of. And then we must look upon these two Verses, not as cited out of the Book of judges, but proposed to be inserted there afterwards. The plain Answer then is, that the Book of the Wars of the Lord is the Book of judges, together with that of joshua, where are related the Particulars of the Holy War, i. e. the War of the Jews against the Infidels, and that in one of these it shall be particularly remembered and recorded what God did in the Red Sea, and in the Brooks of Arnon, etc. and accordingly we find it inserted in the forecited Place in judges. Thus you see it can't be proved hence that the Church hath lost any Part of the Book of God.  
Another Book said by some to be lost is the Book of jasher, mentioned in josh. 10. 13. & 2 Sam. 1. 18. But some of the most celebrated Hebrew Doctors say they have found it, telling us that it is the Book of Genesis, wherein are contained the Acts of Abraham, Isaac, jacob▪ and other Patriarches, who were by way of Excellence called jasherim, Recti, justi. But surely that Man is easily satisfied who can acquiesce in this. Dr. Lightfoot holds the Book of jasher to be the same with that which I asserted the Book of the Wars of God to be: But there is little Foundation for it, for though the particular Narrative of the Sun's standing still, be in the Book of jasher, (as we learn from the Text) yet there is no intimation that all Ioshua's Wars, or the Wars of the Israelites were registered there. This Book was according to the Excellent 
1 Annot. in 2 Sam. 1. 18.  Grotius an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Triumphal Poem, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was for the Verse sake contracted into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But though this be very Ingenious▪ yet it wants solidity, and it is not probable that the Word would be twice mentioned (i. e. both in the Book of joshua, and in the 2d Book of Samuel) in its Abbreviated Form. The Learned 
2 Antiqu. I. 5 c. ●.  jewish Historian seems to me to bid fairest for Truth, who ●aith by this Book are to be understood certain Records kept in some safe Place on purpose, and afterwards in the Temple, giving an Account of what happened among the Jews from Year to Year, and particularly the Prodigy of the Sun's standing still, and the Directions and Laws about the Use of the Bow, i. e. setting up of Archery, and maintaining Military Exercises. And if it be asked why the Title given to these Jewish Annals was the Book of jasher, i. e. Rects, this may be rendered as a probable Reason, viz. because it was by all Persons reckoned as a very Faithful and Authentic Account of all those Events and Occurrences which it recorded, it was composed with great Uprightness and Truth: Thence it was commonly known by the Name of Iasher's Book or Chronicle. And if you remember that jasher is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by th● Seventy in several Places of the Book of Io●, it will ●urther confirm what I say, and induce us to believe that Iasher's Book is as much as a True Book, a Book that is not counterfeited. It was not the Work of any Inspired Person, but was of the Nature of Common Civil Annals: and consequently we cannot infer hence that any Book properly belonging to the Holy Scripture, i. e. that was written by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is at this Day missing.  
Again, some reckon the Acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah the Prophet, 2 Chron. 26. 22. in the Catalogue of such Books of Scripture as are lost. But they have little reason to do so, for by tho●● Words is plainly meant that Part of the Life and History of that King which we now have in the Prophecy of Isaiah, for the first six Chapters are ● Relation of what was done in his Days. They give an Account of several Passages which belong to the Church and State in that King's Reign. And Isaiah is truly said in the forementioned Place in the Chronicles to have written his Acts first and last, because you will find that the Prophecy of Isaiah begins at the Days of Uzziah, v. 1. and the sixth Chapter relates what happened in the Year that King Uzziah died, v. 1. So that something of what was first and last in his Time is here recorded. This I look upon as a very substantial and satisfactory Answer to the Scruple about that Place.  
Also, some would infer from 1 Chron. 29. 29. that all the Canonical Books of the Bible are not extant at this Day, b●cause there is mention of the Book of Samuel the Seer, and the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer, in which it is said, all David ' s Acts were written. But no such Inference can rationally be made: only this we gather (which is the Solution of the Difficulty) that Nathan and Gad as well as Samuel compiled the History that goes under the Name of this last: and because it was made by them all three, therefore it is represented here as three different Books. But the true Account is that those two Books in the Old Testament which bear the Name of Samuel, were written partly by him (the greatest Part of the first Book relating things that happened in his time) and partly by Nathan, and partly by Gad, two eminent Prophets in those Days, and who survived Samuel.  
Then as to 2 Chron. 9 29. where we are told that Solomon's Acts were written not only in the Book (Hebr. Dibrim, the Words, as the Book of Chronicles is called the Words of Days) of Nathan, (of which before) but in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer, which last are called Midrash, the Story or Commentary of the Prophet Iddo, Chap. 13. v. 22. And as to 2 Chron. 12. 15. where we read also of this Book of Iddo the Seer, and of Shemaiah the Prophet, in which it is said, Rehoboam's Acts were written, the Answer which I give relating to these Books in brief is this, that few of them, if any, are different from those of the Kings, but are only a Part of them, though they are here spoken of as Distinct Books, and that for this reason, because that individual Part of the Story, viz. concerning Solomon and Rehoboam, is quoted, which these particular Persons here named wrote. You must know then that this Historical Part of the Old Testament was the Work of several Persons, it was a Collection made by sundry Prophets and Holy Men, as Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah; and the Books which they wrote are called the Books of Samuel, and the Books of the Kings, and are generally known by these Names; but when those Parts of them which were particucularly inserted and written by Samuel himself, or Nathan, etc. are quoted or referred to in the Books of the Chronicles, they are mentioned as Distinct Books: the meaning of which is, that they are Distinct Parts of such a History, and wrote by such Particular Persons, who altogether made up that Historical Part of the Bible. Those Books then (for so the Hebrews call any Writings) which those Author's abovenamed wrote are not lost, as some imagine▪ ●●t are still extant in the Bible, for they are Par● of the Books of Samuel and the Kings. This Answer is grounded on 1 Chron. 29. 29. The Acts of David the King first and last, behold, they are written in the Book (or History) of Samuel, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, etc. which shows that the foresaid Books were a Collection made by several Prophets, viz. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, etc. This I think is very plain, and the foresaid Objection is wholly removed by it.  
Then, as to the rest of those Books which are said to be lost, as the Sayings of the Seers, 2 Chron. 33. 19 and the Book of the Acts of Solomon, 1 Kings 11. 41. and the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani, 2 Chron. 20. 34. or any other which the Objectors mention, it is granted by some very Sober Writers (not only Foreigners but of our own Country) that these Books are really lost, but they deny that this is any Argument of the Imperfection of Scripture, because these Books were not absolutely necessary, neither are we certain that they were Divinely indicted. And this was the Opinion of the Ancients as well as the Moderns. Yea St. Chrysostom and some others of the Fathers who speak of these Books, say positively that they were not written by Inspiration from Heaven. To this Purpose St. Augustine hath this useful Distinction, 
1 Ali● sicut homines historicâ diligentiâ, alia sicut Prophet●e inspiratione divinâ▪ De Civ. Dei I. 28. c. 38.  the Penmen of the Sacred Scripture (saith he) write some things as they are Men with Historical Care and Diligence, other things they write as Prophets by Inspiration from God. This then may satisfy us that all that was written by the Prophets, and even by those Holy Men who were Authors of some Part of the Bible, was not Canonical and Divine; because they writ some things not as Inspired Persons, but as mere Historians. Some of this sort of Writings are referred to in the forecited Places; and though they be not extant now, yet the Scripture is not hereby rendered Imperfect, because these were not such Parts of it as were Essential to it, or were of Divine Inspiration. The like may be said when in the Book of Kings there is frequent reference to the Book of Chronicles; those of the Bible are not always meant, being not then penned: Besides that many things that are referred unto there are not found in these Books. Wherefore it is probable that these were Additional Writings, not belonging to the Body of the Canonical Scripture, nor written by Persons that were Inspired, and consequently though they are lost, yet the Canon of the Bible is not impaired. And indeed we find that those of the Protestant Persuasion (as Whitaker, Willet, etc. and among Foreigners, Calvin, Beza, etc.) who acknowledge the loss of these Books, do at the same time strongly assert the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures: which they very consistently may do, because they hold these Books to be no part of the Canon of the Bible.  
Again, if what we have said be not fully satisfactory, this may be further added, that the Complaint of the Loss of some Books of Holy Writ proceeds from the mistaking of the Word Sepher, which is translated a Book, but among the Hebrews is oftentimes no more than a Rehearsal or Commemoration of something, a brief Narrative or Memoir, a setting down any thing in Writing, as you'll find in these following Places, Num. 5. 23. josh. ●8. 9 1 Sam. 10. 25. Esth. 9 20. Isa. 30. 8. jer. 32. 12, 14. And sometimes it is nothing but a mere Genealogy, as Gen. 5. 1. The book of the Generations of Adam. So St. Matthew begins his Gospel, The Book of the Generation of jesus Christ, Mat. 1. 1. i e. his Genealogy or Pedigree, a brief Enumeration of the Persons he descended from, which is the proper Denotation of the Word Sepher, from Saphar, numerare, recensere, whence Siphra or Ciphra, a Word that is used in most Languages. Some not attending to this have fancied that a great many Books of the Sacred Writ are embezzled, because they do not find such Formal Books as those of jehu, or of the Acts of Solomon, etc. now belonging to the Bible. This arises from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew Word, which signifies generally any Short kind of Writing or Memorandum. This, with the Answer before given, will solve all Doubts concerning the Places afore alleged.  
As to the common Objection concerning the Loss of Solomon's Books, which are said to be mentioned in 1 Kings 4. 32, 33. I answer; 1. That when some call them Books, it is more than they can prove: it is not said that Solomon wrote, but that he Spoke of Trees, and spoke of Beasts, etc. i. e. he learnedly discoursed of these several Subjects upon occasion, and Spoke such a Number of Proverbs. Here can be no Loss of Books then. But, 2. Suppose he committed these Disquisitions and Discourses to Writing, and they are now lost, (it may be consumed when Nabuchadnezzar burned jerusalem, or by some other Means imbezzled afterwards) yet still this is nothing to the purpose, because they were no Part of Canonical Scripture. His Universal History of Vegetables, from the Cedar even to the Hyssop that grows out of the Wall, and his Books of the Nature of all Animals in the Sea, on the Land, and in the Air, appertained to Philosophy, and might indeed have served to have set up a Royal Society, and have been advantageous to the Men who are employed in the Study of Nature; for these questionless were full of Admirable Philosophy, according to that great and matchless Measure of Wisdom which God had endued him with. Thus far the Loss of those Writings is great, but none but Philosophers ought to bewail it. Tho I must suggest this by the way, that perhaps there is no ground of complaining for them neither; for it may be these Books of Plants and Animals were extant till Great's Days, and being perused and understood by Aristotle and Theophrastus, by the Help of an Interpreter, they were transcribed by them, and so set down as we find them in their Writings which have gained them so great Fame and Renown. This may be the more credible, especially as to Aristotle, because we read that he was a Great Plagiary, and burnt or otherwise made away those Writings from whence he borrowed his Notions. If this be true, it is likely we have these Books of Solomon extant still: in those forenamed Authors we read his Natural History concerning Vegetables and Animals. But as touching the three thousand Proverbs which he spoke, it is most reasonable to believe that most of them were only spoken, not written down: and as for those that were penned, we have them at this Day in the Book of Proverbs, which is Part of the Canon of Scripture. There we have those Proverbs which the Holy Ghost saw to be most profitable and necessary for the Church: That one would think should content us. So as to his Songs, which were a thousand and five, (as we read in the forementioned Place) there is but One of them that hath arrived at our Hands, and was thought worthy to be inserted into the Sacred Writings, unless we reckon the Forty fifth Psalms to be a Song of his. This then adds to the Excellency of these Writings of Solomon which we have, that they are Choice Pieces, selected even by the Holy Ghost, who was the Prime Author of them. This surely may satisfy us that the Books or Writings of this Wise Prince, which were most Excellent, and which were dictated by the Spirit, are transmitted to us, and are Part of the Bible. Thus there is nothing lost that belongs to the Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament.  
And whereas it is Objected that some Places are quoted in the New Testament as taken out of the Old, and yet are not to be found there, as Mat. 2. 23. james 4. 5. jude, v. 14. I answer as to the first, that from those Words, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene, no Man can gather that some of the Canonical Books of Scripture are missing; because if you take the Prophets here for Prophetic Men who spoke only, and did not write, than there were no Books of theirs to be lost. Or if by Prophets you understand the Penmen of the Bible, it may be showed that what they foretold is still extant in their Writings. For though those individual Words, He shall be called a Nazarene, are not found among the Prophecies of the Old Testament, yet the Purport and Sense of them are there, and the Places to which they have reference are very obvious, as I have showed in that particular Interpretation of the Words which I have offered to the Public in my Enquiry into some Remarkable Texts of the New Testament. Thence I hope it will appear that the Objectors have no ground for what they allege, and also that the jews Cavil against this Place of St. Matthew, where they say he quotes a Text out of the Prophets which is not to be found in any of them, is void of all Reason.  
Another Place which is wont to be mentioned on this Occasion is jam. 4. 5. Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain, The Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to Envy? Which Words are no where to be found in Scripture: therefore, say they, some Part of the Holy Writings is lost. And Sir N. Knatchbull seems to say, that this is Passage taken out of the Writings of the Prophets which ●re missing at this Day. In answer to this 
1 Gro●ius and Hammond.  some say that Gen. 6. 3. is the Place of Scripture here referred to; but after they have taken a great deal●of Pains to make this out, their labour is in vain▪ for surely no Man of free and unprejudiced Thoughts will be persuaded that those Word● [My Spirit shall not always strive with Man] are of the same Import with these [The Spirit that dwelle●● in us lusteth to Envy]. This Exposition is built upon a mistaken Notion of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contendet, (which our Translators▪ truly rend●● shall strive) some fancying that it is to be deriv●● from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sheath, and then forsooth the Soul or Spirit is a Sword. Lowis Chappel and some Others as groundlessly make these Words an Interrogation, Doth the Spirit that dwelleth in us lust to Envy? and think they refer to Numb. 11. 29. Enviest thou for my sake? The Question, say they, is a Negation, and is as much as if it had been said, Doth the Scripture and the Holy Spirit teach you to contend, to be envious and quarrelsome? No. But this likewise is forced and strained, and an impartial Eye cannot possibly see any Affinity between the two Places of Scripture; besides that there is one Interrogation to introduce another, which confounds the Style. The plain and unforced Answer is this, that St. james doth not here quote any Particular Place of Scripture, as if there were such express Words in the Old Testament as are here set down by him. He only tells us what is generally delivered in Scripture, viz. that Man's Nature is depraved and corrupted, that it is inclined to Envy as well as to other Lusts and Unlawful Affections. Or, If any ●ne Particular Place be referred to more than another, it is probable it is that of Gen. 6. 5. or ch. 8. v. 21. where we are told that the Imaginations, or the Purposes and Desires of men's Hearts are evil from their Youth, yea they are only evil, and that continually. The Words than are not to be understood of the Divine Spirit, but of that Corrupt Spirit which is in Men, not the Spirit which is of God, ●●t the Spirit of the World, as the Apostle Paul distinguisheth, 1 Cor. 2. 12. This Spirit lusteth to Envy, and prompts Men to all other Vices. And 〈◊〉 for the next Words [He giveth more Grace] they refer not to the Spirit here spoken of, but to God, who, though he be not named in this Verse, is twice in the immediately foregoing one. He giveth 〈◊〉 Grace; he, according to his good Pleasure, restrains men's Lusts and envious Desires, and te●cheth them Humility, Submission, and all other Divine Virtues. Or (according to a 
1 Sir N. K●atchbull.  late Worthy Critic) it, i. e. the Scripture, giveth more Grace, for that it saith, etc. In this Holy Book there are Examples of some Persons in whom this Spirit of Envy was restrained. When the Apostle then here saith, Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain? etc. we must not wonder that those very Words are not found in any Part of the Old Testament; for the Apostle only speaks here of what may be deduced from these Sacred Writings, or what is said in them to the same purpose, though in other Words. There are many Places of Scripture which speak of the Lusts of that corrupt Spirit which is in us, whereby we are stirred up to Envy and Strife. From several Texts we may gather that Man's Nature is prone to these and the like Passions. This I take to be the true Account of the Words.  
In the same manner we are to understand Lu●● 11. 49. Therefore said the Wisdom of God, I will send them Prophets and Apostles, etc. There is no particular Text that hath these Words, but there are several Prophecies to this Purpose. So Ephes. 5. 14. He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give the Light, is not mean●● of any such particular and individual Words, 〈◊〉 of the Spirit's speaking in the Gospel to that Effect▪ though I know Dr. Hammond and others refer i● 〈◊〉 Isa. 60. 1. and some Interpreters to Isa. 51. 9 〈◊〉 you will not find these or such Words in either of those Places. That Passage in Acts 20. 35. It 〈◊〉 more blessed to give than to receive, is recited as the Words of the Lord jesus; yet we find them not recorded in the Gospel. But our Blessed Master frequently uttered Words that were of the like Import▪ as is easy to prove: or rather (I conceive) we may truly say that he spoke this very Sentence, for it may be observed that what is here quoted is not only called the Words of the Lord jesus, but this is added, [how he said] to let us know that he said these very Words when he was upon Earth. And many the like Excellent Sayings and Aphorisms he prenounced, which (as well as innumerable Actions that he did) were kept in remembrance by the Apostles, but were not written down, of which St. john speaks, ch. 20. v. 30. & 21. 25. So that it is impossible to prove hence that any Book belonging to the Sacred Canon is lost.  
As for the Objection grounded on St. jude, v. 14. viz. that E●och's Book which is quoted by this Apostle (and if it had not been Canonical, it would not have been quoted by him) is lost; some (as Origen, jerom, Augustine) grant it to be so, but deny it to be Canonical, it being their Judgement that St. jude might, if he thought ●it, allege an Apocryphal Writer. But according to my Apprehension the brief and satisfactory Answer is, that there is no mention there of any Book or Writing of ●●och, and therefore none can infer thence that ●ny Book or Writing of his is lost. It is only said, He prophesied, saying, etc. which he might do, and questionless did, without penning down any of hi● Prophetical Sayings; but they were transmitted from Generation to Generation, and thence it was 〈◊〉 the Apostle jude inserted this into his Epistle▪ Nor are we to be concerned that a Book of Enooh is mentioned by some of the Ancient Writers of the Church, for 'tis well known that they had several Spurious Authors among them: and (as a 
1 Du Pin▪  Learned Doctor of the sorbon observes) all the Fathers, ex●●pt Ter●ullian, reckon this that went under the Name of Enoch as such.  
But are not some of the Writings of the New Testament wanting, seeing there was a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in order the first? I ●rote unto you in an Epistle not to keep Company with ●ornicators, 1 Cor. 5. 9 Therefore it appears hence that there was another before this which passes commonly for the first: But this is not extant, for we have now but two that bear the Name of that ●lessed Apostle. Answ. Nor were there ever any more, for when he saith he wrote to them in an Epistle, he means this very First Epistle he was now writing. He refers to what he had said b●fore in the former Part of that Chapter; and the meaning is, When I even now wrote unto you in this Epistle, ver. 2. not to keep Company with Fornicators, I do not mean the Fornicators of this World. Thus St. Chrysostom and Theophylact interpret the Place. But, if I may be permitted to vary from those Excellent Fathers, I would propound one of these two ways of understanding the Apostle's Words. First, it may be he hath reference here to what he saith afterwards in this Epistle, ch. 6▪ v. 13. and again, v. 18. & ch. 7. v. 2. where he writes to them to avoid Fornication. Wherefore upon reading over this Epistle, after he had finished it, he thought good to insert this, and to take notice here of what he saith afterwards; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have (saith he) written to y●● in this Epistle, viz. in some of the following Chapters against Fornication, and joining yourselves to Persons that are noted for that Vice. Or else I conceive the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the Preterite for the present Tense, of which there are very near an hundred Instances in the New Testament: and all Men versed in Criticism know that there is nothing more common). Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this very Epistle, ch. 9 v. 15. [Neither have I written these things] i. e. at this time, in this Epistle that I am now writing. This any Man, that consults the Context, will be forced to acknowledge to be the true Sense of the Place: whence it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So you will find the Word must be taken in the 1st Epistle of St. john, 2d Chapter: you will see and be throughly convinced that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 12, 13. is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 14, 21. And thus in the Text that is before us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I write unto you in this Epistle not to, etc. Which that it ought to be rendered so is evident from ver. 11. (which is but a Repetition or Reassumption of this) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now I write unto you: the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows that it is spoken of the Present Instant Time, though the Greek Verb be in the Praeterit. This than I offer as the plain Sense of the Text and Context, I write unto you, O Corinthians, in this my Letter, not to be mingled (so the Word properly denotes) with Fornicators, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or Idolaters, for than you must needs go out of the World (there being so great a Multitude of them): but this is that which I mean, that you should avoid the Company of a Brother (i. e. a Professed Christian) if he be given to Fornication, Covetousness, Extortion, or Idolatry. This is the Thing which I at this time write and signify to you. So that you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the simple and plain Tenor of the Words may convince any Man of it. And therefore the true and genuine Translation both of the former and latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I write: which makes the Apostle's Sense clear and perspicuous. I appeal to any Man of Judgement and Sagacity, whether this Account of the Words be not exactly adjusted to Grammar and Criticism, to the Scope of the Apostle, and the Design of the Context: besides that it is serviceable to the Business in hand, viz. utterly to overthrow the Surmise of an Epistle written to the Corinthians before this which the Apostle is here writing. If the Learned Drusius, or the Excellent Grotius had weighed these things which I have suggested, I doubt not but they would have changed their Minds, they would not have cried out that this Epistle here spoken of is lost.  
But it is further said, that the Apostle writ 〈◊〉 Epistle to the Laodiceans, as may be collected from C●l. 4. 16. which is wanting at this Day, that is, although i● be extant, and allowed of by som● Authors, yet it is not put into the Canon of the New Testament; wherefore the Canon is Imperfect. I answer, 1. It is true there is an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which goes under St. Paul's Name, but it is generally voted to be Spurious and Counterfeit. 2. The Apostle in that Place to the Colossians speaks not of an Epistle to the Laodiceans, bu● from Laodicea, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot conveniently be ●ran●●●ted otherwise. Yet I know 〈◊〉 how it comes to pass that so sharp a Critic as Sir N. K●a●chbull holds it was an Epistle written by the Apostle to the Laodiceans, and saith it is lost. Hi● Critical Genius failed him here, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carries no such Sense with it. As he himself illustrates the Phrase, it should be an Epistle not 〈◊〉 but of th● 〈◊〉, for he saith this way of speaking is frequent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some of the Synagogue; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some of the 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Stoics, or those that belonged in the Stoa. According to this Idiom whic●●his Learned Gentleman allegeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be an epistle of the Laodiceans, and then 'tis nothing to his purpose, unless he could have proved that of the Laodiceans or of Laodicea is the same with to Laodioea. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ●endred by the Old Latin ea qua est Laodicensiurn, which Version this Learned Man produces and applauds as if it were on his side: but I conceive the ●mport of the Latin is not what he represents it to be, viz. the Epistle which was written to the Laodiceans by the apostle. At least there is no necessity of making this Construction, for it may as well signify an Epistle written from Laodicea by the Apostle. If it be demanded, what Epistle this was? and consequently, what Epistle is here meant? The Answer is, that it is probable it is the first Epistle to Timothy, that being written from Laodi●ea, as you will find in the Close of it. Or, 3. if he speaks of an Epistle brought to the Colossians from Laodicea, it being wrote to the Christians of that Place by St. Paul, it may be the Epistle to the Ephesians, because Laodicea was a Church within the Circuit of the Ephesian Church, which was the Metropolitan of all Asia. And Ephesus being the chief City of this Proconsular Asia, this Epistle may refer to all the Province. As to the Ground and Occasion of producing an Epistle to the Laodiceans, perhaps it was this, St. Paul ordered that his Epistle to the Colossians should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans, which was near to Colosse, Col. 4. 16. And we must remember this, that though Colosse was a considerable City, yet Laodicea was more considerable in that Province. But it is likely there were more Christians in the former than in the latter; and that moved the Apostle to direct his Epistle to the Colossians; but withal he enjoins it to be read in the Church of Laodicea, the chief City. Now, it being read there, it was said to be an Epistle to the Laodiceans, whence in time some feigned this Epistle which is now extant. This I conceive may be the Cause of the Mistake and Forgery. Lastly, if after all we should suppose (though I see no Reason for it) that the Epistle which St. Paul here speaks of is lost, yet if the Substance of it be contained in the Other Epistles, or in the rest of the Books of the New Testament which we have, the Scripture is not maimed: and therefore the Objectors have no Reason to cavil against it as Imperfect and Defective.  
But an Objection of another Nature is shaped o●t of 1 Cor. 7. 6. I speak this of permission, and not of Commandment: And v. 12. To the rest speak I, n●● the Lord: And v. 25. I have no Commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgement: And 2 Cor. 8. 8. I speak not by Commandment: And again Chap. 11. v. 17. I speak not after the Lord. From all which Texts they gather that there is something in St. Paul's Epistles that is not divinely dictated. He acknowledgeth as much himself, say they, and we ought to give credit to him. And if it be thus, wherein doth this Part of Scripture excel any other Writings? I will return a distinct Answer to the several Quotations. The first speaks of the mutual rendering that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (v. 3.) required in the Conjugal State: and the Apostle shows the Extent of the Obligation of this Advice which he gives about it. I speak this, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in way of Permission, that is, I herein permit you to do as you shall see Occasion, as you shall find yourselves disposed. If you can refrain in those Circumstances I mention, then do so: but if not, I allow you to act otherwise. I speak to you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not of Commandment, i. e. in a peremptory way. I am not positive, I do not command you. I have no Absolute Injunction to lay upon you in this Matter. If you can forbear, you had best to do so, but I have no Authority to force it upon you. Thus the Apostle lets them see how far his Doctrine obliges, and what Authority it hath. And this he speaks as an Inspired Person: So that it is ridiculous to collect hence that he was not Inspired when he wrote this Passage in his Epistle.  
The Second Place speaks of Divorce or the Separation of married Persons in case of unequal Marriages, viz. between Christians and Infidels. These are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rest, which he now distinctly applies his Discourse to. To these, saith he, speak I, i e. I as an Apostle, I as a Person divinely enlightened declare this, that their best course is to live together, and not to think of parting. This is that which I say to those who are married to Unbelievers, and I say it by immediate Revelation ●rom God. That is the true Meaning of Speak I: And any considerate Man that well weighs the Words cannot but discern it. It follows, and not the Lord, i. e. God hath given us no express Command about this: We find nothing of it in Moses' Law which was from the Lord himself. The Apostle refers here to what he had said before in this Chapter about Married Persons, v. 2, 3. which was according to the Mosaic Law, Exod. 21. 10. and a Law before that, viz. in Genesis, ch. 2. v. 24. which obligeth the Married Couple to be faithful to one another. But here, saith he, in our present Case the Lord hath left no positive and Absolute Precept or Prohibition. Or, it may have respect also to Christ our Lord, and then the meaning of I speak, and not the Lord is this, what I now deliver to you is not from our B. Saviour directly: It is not expressly set down in the Gospel as spoken by Him when he was here on Earth, but I gather it from the general Doctrine of the Gospel, and I make this Collection and Inference by the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not of my own Head. Thus what I advise and direct you to is from the Lord, i. e. from the Holy Ghost, though not from the Lord in that other Sense, as if he had given any particular and express Command concerning it. So the Force of the Objection is quite taken of: And at the same time also, the Distinction of Evangelical Counsels and Precepts (which is so much talked of and mad● use of by the Romanists) appears to be frivolus an● impertinent.  
The third Quotation is to be interpreted in th● same Manner. He here speaks concerning Singl● Persons, such as were never married, and he acquaints them (as before) what Authority his Doctrine concerning these hath. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have not a Commandment of the Lord, i. e. I have no express Word of our Saviour concerning Virgins, as there was concerning the Divorce of Married Persons, of whom I spoke v. 10. for our Lord had positively determined what was to be done in that Case, Mat. 5. 32. & 19 9 Luk. 16▪ 18. Therefore there not I, but the Lord himself was properly said to command. But here no Absolute Precept of our Lord can be alleged; he hath no where peremptorily commanded to marry, or not to marry: And the more particular things relating to a Single Life (spoken of here by the Apostle) are not so much as mentioned by him. Yet, saith he, I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained Mercy of the Lord to be faithful, i. e. in an immediate and extraordinary Manner I have obtained this Favour, to deliver faithfully what is dictated to me in this Affair, though there be no express Word of our Lord about it. I am Divinely taught what to say, the Holy Spirit suggests to me what Counsel to give. And therefore with respect to this and whatever he said before, he concludes in the last Verse of this Chapter, that he hath the Spirit of God. And when he saith he thinks so, it doth not denote in the least, the Uncertainty of the thing, but the Humility of the Apostle. We are not then to imagine (as several Commentators, and of good Note too do) that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render. judgement, is meant the Apostle's ●●●vate Opinion and Sentiment in contradistinction to 〈◊〉 Dictate● of the Holy Ghost; but according to 〈◊〉 plain Interpretation which I have given, we ●ave reason to believe that both in this and his other Epistles he writes all by Divine Inspiration.  
Then, as to the next Place, where the Apostle ●●ith he speaks not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by command, this way of Expression is somewhat of the same Nature with the first: which is evident from the Subject-matter he treats of, and the particular Application of this Expression. For in this Chapter his Business is to excite the Corinthians effectually to a Charitable Contribution for the distressed Christians at jerusalem, and he requests that they would be very Liberal, and abound in this Excellent and Noble Work: which yet he saith he doth not speak to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a commanding Way, but ●e leaves them to their Liberty. He would have their Charity to be free, and therefore doth not command them. It is of the same Strain with Philem. 8, 9 Though I might be much bold in Christ, to enjoin that which is convenient, yet for Love's Sake I ●●●ber beseech. But this beseeching them, and this professing that he leaves them to their Freedom, is from the Lord, and from Divine Inspiration. Which ought necessarily to be added, to clear this and the other Texts: for I do not find that Commentators have fully interpreted and explained these Places. Only they tell us that the Apostle doth not command the things to be done, but leaves them at Liberty: whereby they intimate that what he saith is from himself, it is his Private Opinion. But we must not harbour any such Thoughts, because if all Scripture be indicted by the Holy Ghost, (as certainly it is) than we saned admit of any such thing here as mere Private Opinion.  
The last Place alleged is, I speak not after the Lord. Which some would interpret according to the foregoing S●nse of the Apostle in those Places I have spoken of, but they hugely mistake the Text, and miserably distort the Apostle's Meaning. Therefore my Apprehension of the Words is this, that as in several other Places, so here he speak● Ironically; The false Apostles, the deceitful Workers, saith he, whom some of you have such a Kindness for, exceedingly boast of their great Performances among you. I think I had best to do so too, for that it is the way to gain your good Opinion of me. I can brag and glory of my Achievements as much as any of them, yea much more. Therefore as a Fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. Seeing that many glory after the Flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer Fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are Wise. You and your new Teachers are Masters of great▪ Wisdom without doubt, and it cannot but be a very laudable Thing to imitate you, especially in your Boasting and Vaunting. And yet when I am forced to commend myself and vindicate my Actions, that which I speak thus, I speak it not after the Lord, no, by no means: I can neither say nor do any thing that is wise or good: I am (in the Esteem of some of you) a Fool and a confident Talker, as he immediately adds. This seems to be the clear Import of the Words, and it is not the only time that St. Paul hath addressed himself to the Corinthians in an Ironic Style, as I have showed in another Place. Thus I hope it is manifest that the Objectors have no Advantage from this Place of Scripture. And from all that hath been said, it is clear that the Sacred Writings are of Divine Inspiration, and therein excel all other Writings whatsoever.   

CHAP. XII.  
A short View of the Eastern Translations of the Old Testament, especially of the Targums. The several Greek Translations, more especially that of the LXX Jewish Elders. The impartial History of them, and their Version. Some immoderately extol it; others as excessively inveigh against it. The true Grounds of the Difference between the Hebrew Text and the Greek Translation of the Septuagint assigned, viz. One Hebrew Vowel is put for another: One Consonant for another, sometimes both Vowels and Consonants are mistaken: The Difference of the Signification of some Hebrew Words is another Cause: Sometimes the Sense rather than the Word itself is attended to: Some Faults are to be attributed to the Transcribers: Some, because the LXX are Paraphrasts rather than Translators; they take the Liberty to insert Words and Passages of their own. The Greek Version hath been designedly corrupted in several Places. Why the Apostles in their Sermons and Writings made use of this Version, though it was faulty. Sometimes the Sacred Writers keep close to the Hebrew Text, and take no notice of the Seventy's Translation of the Words. At other times in their Quotations they con●ine themselves to neither, but use a Latitude. The Greek Version is to be read with Candour and Caution: And must always give way to the Hebrew Original. The chief Latin Translations of the Bible, especially the Vulgar, examined. Modern Latin Translations, and lastly our own English one, considered.  
AGain, there are some that detract from 〈◊〉 Excellency and Perfection of the Holy W●●tings, because they observe a great Difference between the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the several Versions of it: And so as to the New Testament, they see the Original Greek and some of the Translations disagree; but more especially the Disagreement is seen between the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek Translation of it made by the Seventy Elders. This is improved into a kind of Argument thus; If those Versions of the Bible disagree with the Text, then either the Text itself or the Versions are erroneous and faulty: But it is probable, and it is asserted by some Learned Critics, that the Errors and Mistakes are in the former, i. e. in plain Terms that we have not now the Original or True Copies of the Bible, and consequently that the Bible itself is very Defective and Imperfect. To take off this seeming Argument it is necessary that we inquire into, and give some brief Account of the Tran●●●●tions of the Bible, but especially that we fix where the Grand Objection lies, viz. concerning the Discrepancy between the Hebrew Text and that of the LXX, which seems to give the greatest Shock of all to the Assertion which I have been maintaining.  
Those Translations which are in the Eastern Languages are these that follow; First, the Persic: But the Ancient Version is lo●t: And as for what is now extant, it is seldom made u●e of by the Learned. The Coptick (so called from Copt or Cophtus, the Name of a great City in Egypt, the Metropolis of Thebais, the Language of that Place being the Ancient Dialect of the Egyptians) and the Ethiopick are of great Antiquity, and were made and used by the Christians of Egypt and Ethiopia. The former (as those acquaint us who have insight into that Tongue) hath a great Affinity with the Hebrew Text: And the latter is wholly taken out of the former, and is a mere Translation of it. The Samaritan Pentateu●h was for the Use of the Samaritan jews, who used that Dialect, and acknowledged only the Books of Moses. It is ancient and of good Account, though not void of Errors and Corruptions, as Archbishop Usher and Hottinger have observed, and particularly enumerated the Faults: But yet, if we will show ourselves Candid, we cannot but grant that where it varies from the Hebrew, it is generally by way of Illustration or Paraphrase. The Syria● Version is of good Repute, and very conformable to the H●brew in most Places, notwithstanding what the Learned 
1 De Septuagi●t. Interpret.  Vossius hath enviously suggested. The Arabic follows the Seventy and its Faults, and is not so ancient as the Syriack, nor so exact, but is of good Use, and may serve to corroborate the Authority of the Hebrew Text. Concerning all these Eastern Translations, except the Syriack, it may be observed, that though they are generally taken out of the Greek Version of the Seventy, (for that only was the Authentic Scripture with the Churches of the East) and though they were made and writ at several times, yet they do very much agree with the Hebrew which we have at this Day: And whenever in any Place they vary from it, it is generally in some little things, wherein there is no prejudice to Truth, or the Variation is only as to the Paraphrastical Part, where we cannot expect an exact Rendering of the Original; and with any considerate and unbiased Man this will not pass for any Proof of the Corruption of the Original.  
But of all the Translations which are in the Oriental Tongues, the Chaldee is of the greatest Esteem and Reputation among the Learned. This is called the Targum from the root Targam interpretari, so that the Targum is the Interpreting or Translating the Bible into another Tongue; and because there was among the Jews of old no Translation but the chaldaic▪ that was by way of eminency called Targum. The Occasion of this Version was the Change of the Tongue among the Jews: They in the Time of the Captivity in Babylon, which lasted 70 Years, corrupted the Hebrew Tongue, that is, they mixed Hebrew (their own Tongue) and Chaldee (the Language of that Place where they were) together. Yea, though the Scribes and Learned Men had not forgot the Hebrew, yet the common People had, and being used wholly to the Speech of that Country, they understood only Chaldee. Wherefore that they might have the Bible in a Language which they understood, several Chaldean Targums were made on the Books of the Bible, indeed on all but Daniel, and Ezra (which were half Chaldee before) and the Paralipomend, which were explained in the Books of the Kings. These Targu●●im were made by different Authors, and at divers Times. First, there was that of R. jonathan, which was a Translation or Paraphrase rather on the Prophets and the Historical Books. He is said to be R. Hillel's Disciple, and to have lived a little before our Saviour's Nativity. Secondly, there was that of Onkelos●▪ which was only on the Pentateuch. This Author lived soon after Christ's Time: Though I know a very 
1 Mons. Simon Crit. Hist. l. 2.  Confident Writer tells us, that there is reason to doubt whether Onkelos and jonathan were the Authors of those two Chaldee Paraphrases, and he positively avoweth that the Time when they were made cannot be known. Moreover, it is asserted by 
1 Is. Vossius.  another of as great Confidence and Learning, that neither the Paraphrases of Onkelos nor jonathan are a thousand Years old, and particularly that that of Onkelos is not so much as mentioned by any Jew or Christian who was not after St. jerom some Ages. The same was said before by as 
2 Morin. Exercitat. Bibl. l. 2. Exercitat. 8.  Positive a Man, but was never proved, and therefore we have no reason to attend to it, much less to believe it, especially since we know the Design of the Man, which was to beat down the Credit and Value of all Translations of the Bible but the Latin one. It appears from sufficient Authors, that these two Chaldee Paraphrases are some of the ancientest of the Jewish Writings on the Bible, and it appears from these Targums themselves that they agree with the Hebrew Text which is extant at this Day. Thirdly, there was the jerusalem Targum, called so either from the peculiar Dialect of it, or from its being first published in that place. This was upon the Pentateuch only, and was written (as is generally thought) by R. jochanan after the Destruction of jerusalem. To these 3 Chaldee Paraphrases (which were of Greatest Authority among the Jews, and were read in their Synagogues) are wont to be added two others, viz. the Targum of jonathan (the Rabbi before mentioned) on the Pentateuch, and the Targum of joseph the Blind on the Psalms, job, Proverbs, Esther, Canticles. And there were other Versions of some other Books of the Bible which were made for the sake of the dispersed Jews in Chaldea, and were likewise called Targumim, all which are unanimously acknowledged by the Learnedest of the Ancients and Moderns to be faithful Translations of the Original; and none but prepossessed Minds can find any disagreement between them as to the Main. It is true these are Paraphrasts rather than Translators, and therefore it can't be expected that these Targumists should render the Hebrew Word for Word: It cannot rationally be thought that in this free way of giving the Sense of the Original they should be exact: They intended a Comment only in some places, and not an exact Version.  
To pass then from the Translations which have been made in the Oriental Tongues to some Others, I will in the next Place speak of the Greek Versions of the Bible, and more especially of that of the Septuagint. The Greek Translations of the Old Testament are either those that were made since our Saviour's Time, or that Celebrated One made before it. As for those that were made since Christ's Time, the Author of the first of them was Aquila, who lived under the Emperor Adrian, and was converted from Gentilism to Christianity, and then forsook Christianity and turned Jew, and translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek. He was a very Morose Interpreter, even to Superstition adhering to the Hebrew Letter, and altogether averse from the Seventy's Translation. The next Greek Version was that of Theodotion, in the Emperor Commodus' Time, who was an Ebionite or Judaizing Christian. A third was put out in the Emperor Severus' Reign by Symmachus, who was first a Jew of the Samaritan Sect, and afterwards a Christian, but an Ebionite or Judaizing Heretic, wherefore he is called Semi-christianus by St. jerom. These were the Authors of the three first Interpretations of the Old Testament that were composed after our Saviour's Days, and you hear what kind of Persons they were. One of these Translations was wholly Literal, the other took a Liberty and followed the Sense, and the third was of a middle Nature: But none of them were ever publicly received, and read by the Church. Wherefore there is no reason to quarrel with the Hebrew Text, and to accuse it of Corruption if we find that these vary from it: Though to speak impartially, the Translations of these foresaid Men (notwithstanding that they bear the Character of Apostates and Heretics) descent not from the Hebrew in any thing of considerable Moment. There are two other Translations mentioned, but we know not the Authors of them. These five with the LXX's Version made up Origen's Hexapla. As for the other Greek Interpretations of the Old Testament which were published afterwards, viz. that of Lucian the Martyr, and the other of Hesychius, they were not (properly speaking) New Versions, but only New and Correct Editions of the Septuagint Translation, which was purged from its Errors and Faults by these Worthy Undertakers. So much concerning the Greek Translations since Christ.  
Our main Business is with that which was before our Saviour's Days, that First Translation which was made of the Bible by the Jews, that most Famous Work of the Seventy Elders about 250, others say about 260 Years before Christ's Birth. It is true, before the LXX set about the Version of the whole Bible, some part of it was translated into Greek. viz. Moses' Writings in the time of the Persian Monarchy, if we may believe Megasthenes, who is quoted by 
1 Prap. Evang. l. 9 c. 3.  Eusebius. And 
2 Strom. l. 1.  Clement of Alexandria attests, that some part of the Old Testament was turned into Greek a little before Great's Time. Which is not improbable if we consider that from about the time that Alexander the Great transferred the Persian Monarchy to the Greeks, the Greek Tongue spread itself, and became the Universal Language, insomuch that the jews in Asia, Egypt and Greece forgot their Hebrew, and understood the Greek only. But this is not the Version which I am now to speak of, which is the Celebrated Translation of the Seventy jews, who rendered the whole Book of the Old Testament into Greek: And it seems (according to what hath been said) there was a kind of Necessity for it, because in the East the Hebrew was grown to be an unknown Tongue, and the very jews generally understood nothing but Greek. Some have observed a considerable Disagreement between the Hebrew Text and this Greek Version, and hereupon they undertake to form an Argument against the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures; for they argue thus, There is great reason to assert the Authority of this Translation, and to believe it is True and Genuine: Which, if it be granted, makes the Hebrew Text to be suspected, nay it will follow thence that it is faulty and defective, because there is so vast a Difference between the one and the other. If this of the Seventy be a True Version, than the Hebrew of the Bible which we have is not the True Original, but is corrupted and depraved, and consequently there is a sufficient Prooof of the Scripture's Imperfection.  
Now because this may seem to have something of Reason in it, and because the greatest Controversy is about This Translation, I will insist much larger on this than on any of the others, and endeavour from the whole to evince the Truth of this Proposition, that the Hebrew Text is not at all faulty, but that it remains still in its Original Purity and Perfection. Here first it will be necessary to inquire into the Occasion, and into the Authors of this famous Greek Version, and also into the Manner of their performing it, and from these to gather of what Authority it is. Ptolomee surnamed Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the Year of the World 3730. erected a vast Library at Alexandria, and furnished it with all the choicest Books he could procure: But notwithstanding this, he thought it imperfect till the Hebrew Bible was added to it. Accordingly by the Direction of Demetrius Phalereus, who was the Library-keeper, he caused this Excellent Monument of Learning to be deposited in it. But because he was ignorant of the Language in which it was written, he by Letters importuned the High Priest and the Rulers at jerusalem, to send him some Persons to translate it out of the Hebrew into the Greek. Whereupon they sent him Seventy or Seventy two Interpreters, in imitation perhaps of that Number of Elders which Moses was commanded to take with him when he went up to the Mount to receive the Law. And these Select Persons betook themselves to the Employment which the King set them about, and first translated the Pentateuch, and a while after the rest of the Old Testament into Greek. This is generally allowed by the most Exact Searchers into History to be real Matter of Fact, as being vouched by Writers of very good account, and whose joint Authority in this Case we have no reason to suspect.  
As for some Particular Circustances' which relate to this Matter, as the Place where they met, their Mavellous Consent in the Work, and the Time they dispatched it in, these may be doubted of, though for my part I see no solid ground of denying them altogether. The whole Translation was finished in 72 Days, saith Aristaeas (or Aristaeus, for his Name is written both Ways) one that was a great Favourite of King Ptolomee, and writ the History of this Greek Translation of the Jewish Elders: But this Author is thought to be spurious by 
1 De Histor. Graec.  Vossius, and by some other Learned Men before him. As to the Place, Philo the Jew, justin Martyr, and others tell us it was the Great Tower in the Isle of Pharos, which was set up to direct the Mariners in the dangerous Seas about Alexandria. Upon which a 
2 Mr. Gregory.  Great Critic turns Devout, and exerts his Fancy very piously, observing this to be a proper Place for such a Work, the Bible being truly a Light to lighten the Gentile World, a Light hung out to guide all doubting and troubled Souls in the Storms and Tempests they meet with. And there were Distinct Places (if you will credit some Jewish and Christian Writers) wherein these Interpreters separately performed the task which they were set about. They did the Work each of them in divers Rooms, say the Talmud and the Rabbins. They were put into 70 distinct Cells when they translated the Bible, saith justin Martyr in his Apology to the Roman Emperor: And moreover he adds that he was at Pharos, and saw what was left of those Cells▪ And with him agree Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Cyril of jerusalem, and Augustine. And further, though an Arabic Commentator on the Pentateuch (whom Mr. Gregory citys) reports that the 70 Seniors disagreed in their Translation the first time, and so were set to it again, yet these Fathers take notice of no such thing, but tell us that though these Translators were separated into distinct Places by themselves, yet they all agreed in the same very Words and Syllables. Which they borrowed, it is likely from 
1 De vit. Mos. l. 2.  Philo, who had expressly said they all exactly agreed on the same Names and Words to interpret the Chaldee by, (for he calls it the Chaldee instead of the Hebrew) as if some Person stood by them and invisibly dictated to them, although the Chaldee might be translated divers ways, the Greek Tongue being so copious. And he further adds that 
2 Ibid.  there was a Feast yearly in the Pharos, whither the jews went to solemnize it, and to see the Place where this Version was made. But how can this be reconciled with the 
3 Scalig. de Emen●. Temp.  Fast appointed to be kept by the jews on the 8th Day of Th●bet or December, because the Law of Moses was translated into the Greek Tongue by the Jews of Alexandria in Ptolomee's Time, at which time they say there was Darkness three Days together over the whole World? That therefore which Philo saith, seems rather to be said on purpose to inhanse the Credit of this Translation, for which reason we may justly question the Truth of it. josephus who purposely 
4 Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 2.  treats of the turning the Law into Greek by King Ptolomee's Order, saith nothing of the Different Cells, nor doth he represent the Interpreters as Inspired Persons. And St. jerom, who was a Searching Man, was the first of the Fathers that opposed and contradicted this Story, declaring that he could not believe any thing concerning these Distinct Rooms and Apartments, and the Miraculous Agreement of the Interpreters in these separated Cells, giving 
1 〈…〉 in Pentateuch.  this Reason for it, because neither Aristaeas nor josephus speak a Word of them.  
But some are not satisfied with this, but roundly tell us that jerom had made a New Translation of the Bible out of the Hebrew himself, wherein he very much differed from the LXX, and so he was obliged to disparage the Cells and the Translators, to make way for his own Translation. This is the uncharitable Censure which 
2 Mr. Gregory.  One gives of this Great Father. And as for Arist●as he comes off thus with him, it is no wonder that he saith nothing of the Cells; for this Aristaeas who is quoted by St. jerom, is not the genuine Author, but a spurious one, for the Fathers quote many things out of him which are not to be found in this Book. But 
3 F. Simon▪ Crit. Hist. l. 2.  Another tells us another Story, viz. that the Hellenist Jews, who read the Translation of the ●0 in their Synagogues, were the Inventors of this History of the Translators, and put it out in one Arist●us's Name. And the same Person moreover presents us with this New Conceit, that it was called the Translation of the Seventy, not from Seventy Translators who were the Authors of it, but from the Seventy judges, i. e. the Sanhedrim at jerusalem, who authorised and approved of it. Then, as for josephus, we are put off thus by Mr. Gregory, viz. that he is wont to comply with his Readers, and useth not to put Great and Wonderful things on their Belief if he can help it, as appears in his Relation of the Israelites passing the Red Sea, and Nebuchadnezzar's going to Grass, etc. so here he omits the Seventy Seniors their Consenting in that wonderful Manner in the Translating the Hebrew Bible, because it would have been incredible to the Gentiles, that Persons separated and shut up from one another should agree so exactly. To this effect you'll ●ind that Notable Critic speaking: But it will appear to be a very Sorry Evasion (as those of the other Persons before mentioned are) if any Man look narrowly into it; for upon the same ground that he gives here, that jewish Historian might have omitted most of the things he relates, because they are very Great and Wonderful, and far exceed the Belief of a Pagan.  
We are not then to attend to such poor Suggestions as these, and to swallow all that hath been related by Writers concerning the Seventy Interpreters. Neither is there reason to disbelieve all they have said, but in this (as in most Historical Relations) we ought to credit what is most Probable, and to reject the rest. We need not with Epiphanius and Augustine hold that the Seventy Interpreters were divinely inspired, and that their Translation of the Bible was done in a Miraculous Manner, and that it is of Divine Authority, which we may ●ind some Writers aiming at; but on the other hand there is no ground to affirm that all which Aristaeas and Aristobulus say concerning the Seventy's Version is Fable and Fiction, as the 
1 Du Pin.  Parisian Professor of Divinity pronounceth, but very rashly in my Judgement. We have no reason to deny the Chief and General things which are related concerning the Seventy Seniors who were employed in turning the Old Testament into Greek; we have no reason to question their Skill and Ability (as to the Main) to perform that Task, we have no reason to deny the Authority of their Version, i. e. that it was really Theirs, and that it is Genuine. We are certain that it was approved of by the Testimony of all the jews who flourished before the Destruction of jerusalem, viz. Aristaeas, Eupolemus, Aristobulus, both the Philo's, josephus, etc. We are certain that the Hellenist jews, i e. such as lived among the Grecians, and read the Scriptures in this Version, and prayed and performed all other Offices in Greek, esteemed it equally with the Original, and read it constantly in their Synagogues. We are certain that Christ and the Apostles followed this Translation generally: And we are sure that the Greek and Latin Church for 400 Years received and approved it, as the most Authentic of all the Greek Translations.  
But this, you will say, makes the Objection stronger: For if the LXX's Version be of such Authority, and yet differs from the Hebrew, than this shakes the Credit and Authority of the Hebrew, which is the Original Scripture. But I answer, we are giving the Greek Translation of the Seventy its due, but we do not intend hereby to wrong the Hebrew: Yea, our design is to give unto both what belongs to them; which I find several Learned Writers of late are unwilling to do. When I affirm that the Septuagint's Version was not only heretofore, but is to this Day of undoubted Authority, and is the most Authentic Greek Translation of the Old Testament that is extant, I do not say it is Faultless, and that it is to be equalled with the Hebrew; but I positively assert that it hath many Errors and Mistakes, many faulty Omissions and Additions, many Disorders and Corruptions in it, and yet that notwithstanding this it is the most Authentic and justly esteemed Version among all the Ancient ones, and is of great use in the Church. It was hotly disputed of Old which of these two, the Hebrew Bible or the Seventy's Translation, should have the Pre-eminence. Some in a very high Manner extolled the latter, and disparaged the former; then came jerom, and was not content to cry up this, but immoderately inveighed against the other, and cried it down as not to be suffered. And we have seen this Old Controversy newly started and revived by some of late: Some on one side applauding the Hebrew to the Height, that they wholly disregard the Greek Version of the 70 Elders; others on the other side crying up this with a vilifying of the Hebrew Text. Ludovicus Capellus goes this latter way, but he is outdone by Morinus, who shows himself a Sworn Enemy to the Hebrew Text, and at a high Rate defends the Greek Translation of the Seventy in all things: insomuch that a Man may plainly see he resolves to do it at a Venture, whether there be any reason for it or no. He is backed by Isaac Vossius, who pretending he saw the Hebrew Text magnified and adored by some Men, (Half-Iews he calls them) thereupon undertook to stand up for the Septuagint, and destroy the Authority of the Hebrew Original. It will not suffice this Gentleman to say the Greek Version of the Elders is Divine, but from his Discourse he would have us gather that the Hebrew Text is scarcely Humane, it being so disordered, so lame, so miserably corrupted. These are the Extremes which Men unadvisedly run into; that they may extol the Greek Version, they shamefully vilify the Hebrew Text. But I will take another Course, not endeavouring to oppose one of these to the other, but so far as it is sitting, reconcile them both: Which I will do by showing you what is the true Difference between these two, and whence it ariseth.  
First then, the Difference which we observe to be between the Hebrew Bible and this Greek Version, proceeds from the mistaking of one Hebrew Vowel for another. Though the 70 Interpreters were sufficiently skilled in the Hebrew, yet they sometimes translated it amiss because they did not make use of the Hebrew Vowels or Points, they translated by those Copies which had not the Points added to the Hebrew Text. Some indeed have alleged the Difference between the Hebrew and the Seventy Version, as an Argument to prove that Points were not anciently annexed to the Hebrew Bible; for hence it is, say they, that there is that Variety of Reading: The Bible was at that time without Vowels, and consequently a great many Words were capable of being read, and accordingly translated Diversely. But this is a Fallacy, for though the Mistakes in the Greek Version proceeded partly from the want of Points in the Hebrew Bibles, i. e. those Bibles which the 70 Interpreters used, yet it doth not follow thence that no Hebrew Bibles had Points. For so it was that all their Bibles were not written with Points, but some Persons, to expedite the writing them over, left them out. The short is that though these were from the beginning, (as hath been said in the Entrance of these Discourses on the Scriptures) yet they were not always used; and when they were used, they were not always carefully attended to: Whence happened many of those Mistakes which we may take notice of in the Version of the jewish Elders. They either had those Bibles which had been transcribed without Points, or they mistook the Points themselves out of Carelessness or something that is worse. The Instances of this kind are very numerous, but I will content myself with naming a few only.  
In Gen. 14. 5. Beham in Ham (i. e. the Land of Ham) was read by the LXX Behem in ipsis, and accordingly rendered by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Gen. 15. 11. the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, diffiavit, ●latu abegit, was read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consedit, they attending not to the Vowels but the Consonants only, and thence they translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sat by them, whereas according to the Original we rightly translate it, he drove them away. The Septuagint did not read it Ba Gad (two Words) Gen. 30. 11. but Begad, and accordingly translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in Gen. 47. 31. according to the Hebrew we read it Israel bowed himself upon the Bed's Head, but according to the Septuagint upon the Top or Head of his Staff; for these Interpreters in their unpricked Bibles mistook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. a Staff instead of a Bed, and accordingly translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Error proceeded hence, that those Hebrew Words have the same Letters, but the same Points do not belong to them. In Chap. 49. 6. Cabodi, my Glory, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Whence it is plain that they took Cabedi to be the Word. And in another Place the Mistake is quite contrary, as in Lam. 2. 11. Cabedi, my Liver, is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they read it Cabodi my Glory. Instead of Lachem Shegnarim, War in the Gates, Judg. 5. 8. the Seventy thought it was Lechem Segnorim, barley Bread, as it is in some Copies. In Judg. 7. 11. they mistook the Word Chamushim, armed Men, and read it Chamishim, and accordingly rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fifty Men. The Hebrew Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad oculum meum, in 2 Sam. 16. 12. but the 70 read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thence rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In 2 Kings 2. 24. they mistook hu for ho, and thereupon inserted a strange unintelligible Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into their Translation in that Place. They likewise read some Places in the Psalms with false Vowels, and by reason of that Mistake interpreted We el, & Deus, as if it had been We all, & non, Psal. 7. 17. and Sam, possuit, as if it had been Sh●● nomen, Psal. 40. 5. and Middeber, à peste, as if it had been Middabar, à verbo, Psal. 91. 3. So in Psal. 22. 29. it is plain that they read it Napshi instead of Naphsho, and consequently render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They overlooked a Vowel in Psal. 2. 9 for the Word is Terognem, thou shalt break them, but they thought it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shalt feed them, and so translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Their mistaking of Vowels may be seen in their translating of Isa. 6. 10. which they do thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Heart of this People was made fat; for they read it Hoshman in the Conjugation Hophal, whereas it should have been Hashmen in the Imperative of Hiphil. According to the Original we render Isa. 7. 20. a Razor that is hired: but the LXX render it that is made drunk, whence it is plain that they thought the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is here used, came from the Verb Shakar, in●bri●vit, whereas it is derived from Sakar, mercede conduxit. They read the Letter Shin with a dexter Point, whereas it should have been read with a sinister, In Isa. 9 8. it is evident that they mistook the Points in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum, and read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pestis, mors; and so instead of the Lord sent a W●rd into Jacob, the reading according to them is, the Lord sent Death into Jacob, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They translate Isa. 24. 23. thus, the Brick shall be melted, and the Wall shall fall; whereas according to the Hebrew 'tis thus, the Moon shall be confounded, and the Sun ashamed: and the Reason of this strange and palpable varying from the Original is this, (as St. 
1 Comment. in Isa.  jerom hath observed) because the Septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Brick instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Moon: and they mistook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Wall, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sun. Again, in Isa. 56. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they read it ragnim, mali, instead of rognim, pastors. The Seventy Interpreters render a Clause in jer. 3. 2. thus, as a Crow in the Wilderness, etc. which proceeds hence, that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Crow, hath the same radical Letters that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gnarabi hath, which signifies an Arabian: but the Mistake was in the Vowels. In jer. 46. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibi they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen, and accordingly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in igne, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faetor, and so render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Amos 4. 10. They translate Zech. 11. 17. thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposing the Hebrew Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pastors, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor. In Mal. 2. 3. Zerang, Seed, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Shoulder, for no other Reason than this, that Zeroang was mistaken for Zerang. And in many other Places the Seventy Interpreters mistook the Hebrew Words by not observing the Particular Punctations of them: which is one Cause of the Difference between the Greek Version and the Hebrew Text. The not attending to this hath made some, and 
2 Drusius, Ludovic. Capellus, Mede.  those of no mean Note, imagine that the Hebrew Copies which we now have vary in many things from the Ancient ones which the Seventy used when they translated the Bible. A very groundless Imagination certainly, for it is most evident that this Difference between the Seventy and the Hebrew proceeds not from the Corruption of this latter, but from the Mistake and Oversight of the former. Any Man that is willing to see what is before his Eyes may plainly discern that in all these Instances beforementioned one Word is taken for another, because the Pointing was wrong. This must needs be, otherwise those Greek Words which the LXX use would not so exactly answer to the Hebrew Words which we say they mistook for the true Original ones.  
2. The Difference sometimes proceeds from mistaking one Consonant for another: as in Gen. 6. 3. although jadon be from dun, contendere, and therefore we rightly render that Place, my Spirit shall not always strive, or contend; yet the Septuagint derive it from dur, habitare, permanere, and so translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Affinity of the Letter ● and ● occasioned this Mistake, the Transcribers of the Copies which the Septuagint used having, it is likely, put one Letter for another, they being so like in Shape. (Thus in many of our English Bible's instead of the word Bands, Isa. 28. 22. we find it printed Hands, h and b being like one another.) 
1 Comment. in Ezek. 27.  jerom observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Seventy's Translation of been Dedan, Ezek. 27. 15. for they read it Redan, not Dedan, mistaking Resh for Daleth, because those Letters are of a resembling Figure. So in other Places the Likeness of these two Letters is the Occasion of the LXX's wrong interpreting of Words: thus in job 32. 19 they thought the Word was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and accordingly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faber aerarius, (the singular for the plural) whereas the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 novi● In Isa. 16. 4. the Hebrew Word Sad, a Destroyer, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Word was Sar in the Seventy's Copy. And as Resh is taken for Dearth, so this is sometimes taken for that, as in Gen. 22. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, behind, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they thought the Word was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one. In Gen. 49. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, asinus, is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which could proceed from no other Cause but this, that they supposed the Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, desiderabile. How could they render Charash, fabri, in Exod. 35. 35. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they had not believed the Original to be Chadash, which is of Affinity with kadosh? In Psal. 109. 13. Achar is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but they read it Achad, una. And 〈◊〉 it not reasonable to think that a Daleth was in the Place of a Resh in Zeph. 3. 9 i e. that their Copies had it bedurah instead of berurah, electum, ●urum? and accordingly they rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they took it to be two distinct Words with a Prefix thus, be dur ah: otherwise it is impossible to imagine how they could translate it ●o. Sometimes the Likeness of Beth and Caph causes a Mistake, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall eat, Eccles. 5. 16. is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greek Interpreters, because they read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & luctu. In Psal. 29. 2. there can be no ground of their Version 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this, that they took a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in decore, they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in con●lavi. In Isa. 51. 18. there is a Mistake of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and likewise of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, otherwise they would not have rendered Menahel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consoldtor: It is evident that they read Menachem instead of Menahel. And sometimes where there is no Similitude in the Letters they take one Word for another. So they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ●pon that Mistake translated the Word by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is the known Word that signifies a Forehead, but in Ezek. 3. 8. it is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which I can give no other Account but this, that the Word in their Copies was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vi●●oria, a Nun for a Mem. I am apt to think, that whereas the Hebrew Word in Zeph. 2. 15 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desolatio, their Books had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corvus, and thence they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When I observed the Difference between the Original [there shall be a Fountain opened] Zech. 13. 1. and the Seventy's Version, [there shall be a Place opened] I soon found the Mistake in this latter, viz. their reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ locus, (whence they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sons. Lastly, I am persuaded that the Verb Barak was thought to be the Root in the latter Clause of v. 19 of 1 Sam. 2. and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word used by the LXX, but the right Word is bara● which is mistaking one Consonant for another, a Caph for an Aleph. But I submit my Thoughts concerning these Texts to the Judicious, who will either join with me, or candidly accept of my Conjectures. I mention not here any of those Instances which the foresaid Learned Father hath given, showing how the Seventy take one Letter in a Word for another, and so have made quite another Word of it, and accordingly have translated it. Hottinger also hath brought sundry Exampl●● to show that they erred as to Consonants, that they palpably mistook them from the Likeness of one to another, and so rendered the Text falsely: when●● there must needs be a Difference between the H●brew and the Greek Bible.  
3. They sometimes mistake both Vowels and Consonants: As in judg. 5. 10. the Word was thought by them to be Tsacharajim, and on that Supposal was translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but the right Word was Tsecharoth, candidae. In Isa. 26. 14. Rephaim, mortui, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Word was supposed to be Rophim, medici. In both which Instances not only Letters but Points are mistaken. That Place, Gen. 49. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which was the ancient Greek Version, as justin Martyr and Origen testify) is rendered so from their taking Shelo, ille cujus, or cui, for Shiloh. And in the same Verse instead of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congr●gatio, they took the Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expectavit, and thence they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expectatio. Again, in ● 22. of this Chapter instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incedebat, they read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minorennis, and accordingly the Greek Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They took a Daleth for a Resh, and moreover were mistaken as to the Points. So in 1 Sam. 6. 18. they read Eben for Abel, and so interpreted it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Mistake of a Nun for a Lamed, together with an Oversight as to the ●ricks. And in ch. 19 16. Kebir, pulvinar, would ●ot have been rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless the Word had seemed to them to be Cabed, jecur: so that it appears they failed not only in a Consonant but two Vowels. I doubt not but they thought the Word ●as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vivet, Job 8. 17. and accordingly they ●nder it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whenas the right Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●idebit. Can there be any Reason assigned why Be●●jeth is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in visione, Numb. ●6. 30. but this, that they read it Baroeth? Vaughan and jod are alike, and so were mistaken one for the other, and [●] instead of [:] in the beginning of the Word. Any observant Eye may perceive by the Seventy's Version, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Isa. 29. 3. that they took the Hebrew Word to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●hereas the true Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Caddur pila, 〈…〉. In Host 12. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 boves is according to the Greek Translators 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence one may ●●ess that Sharim was thought by them to be the Original Word. Lamnatseach is the Title of the fourth Psalm, and several others, but they thought it to be Lanetsach, and hence rendered it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Netsach is a very large Word, and both with and without Lamed before it, is sometimes adverbially taken, and is as much as in finom. Thus they erred both as to a Letter and the Vowels. And so they did in Psal. 22. 24. where the Word 〈◊〉 Mimmennu, but they read it Mimm●ani, as appears by their translating it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is worth observing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shal● be feared, (or, as Our Translators render it, thou mayst be feared) Psal. 130. 4. is strangely rendered by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for thy Name'● sake: which is a Fault of the Transcribers, the● writing those Words instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ for thy La●'s sake. This we may gather from the Vulgar Latin, which continually follows the LXX in the Translation of the Psalms, and renders 〈◊〉 propter legem tuam, and thence we may see how the Mistake arose, viz. from their reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fo● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or they derived the Word from jarah, which in Hiph●l signifies to teach, (whence Torah) wher●● the rigth Root or Theme is jara, timuit. The Sventy render jer. 16. 7. thus [they shall, not break Bread for them]; but according to the Hebrew 'tis [they shall not tear themselves for them]: whence it may be gathered, that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in Ezek. 34. 16. a Letter as well as a Vo●el is mistaken, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Vau for Iod: instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will destroy, they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will keep. The Hebrew in Host 14. ● is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Calves, but the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where it is evident that the Seventy read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fructus for purim, vituli. This certainly is a plainer and fairer Account of this Difference between the Hebre● and the LXX in this Place than what Dr. Pocock fancifully suggests, who tells us that the Seventy's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Word they use for an Holocaust, which being of young Bullocks (but we know that sort of Sacrifices was of other Animals as well as these) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of for ●alves, for these Sacrifices were like Fruit or Banquet after a Meal. But a Man would rather think they were the Meal itself, for these whole Burnt-Offerings, were the substantial Service of the Jews, even when there were no other Sacrifices besides at the same time. But we must give these Arabian Criicks' leave to propound their Conjectures as well as other Men. In Hab. 1. 5. they erroneously read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4. It happens that the Translation of the Seven●y differs from the Hebrew Original, because the same Words in Hebrew signify different things, and consequently the Rendering of them may be various, and sometimes seem to disagree with the Original Text. As in Isa. 58. 9 because the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both a Pot and a Thorn, the Seventy render the Plural Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thorns: before the Thorns feel the Briars, i. e. are entangled in one another, which is presently done. This seems to be the Sense they intended. What we according to the Hebrew render the Valley of Baca, or (in the Margin) Mulberry-trees, Psal. 8●. 6. is translated by the Septuagint the Valley 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of the Mourner, or Weeper, because the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be derived either from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Morus, or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
2 R. Jonah & R. Jehudah explicant per ●allem in qu● stilla● aqua 〈◊〉 Lachryma ab Oculis. Pagnin.  flere, plorarc, is equivocal, and so may be differently rendered. And in the same Verse, from the Ambiguity of the Word Moreh which is Doctor, Legislator, as well as Pluvia, the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isa. 28. 16. is truly translated by us, He that believeth shall not make haste, but according to the Seventy Seniors it is thus, He shall not be ashamed, which is a true Translation also, for the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both, as is 
1 Pocock Not. Miscell. in Port. Mos. c. 1. Dr. castle in Lexic. Heptaglot.  evident in the Writings of the Hebrews. The like is observable in jer. 31. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate I was a Husband: but the Seventy render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which by the way we may take notice is a Fault of the Transcribers, for it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as we learn from Heb. 8. 9 where this Place is alleged) I regarded not. The Ground of the different Version is this, the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath both these Significations, viz. to be a Husband, and to despise, or not have regard to. I have already on 
2 Discourse of the Style of Script. Chap. 7.  another Occasion set down the Different Significations of Hebrew Verbs, which the Reader may consult, and thence enlarge upon this Head. Indeed the Places are almost innumerable, wherein you may see this Particular exemplified. This therefore will in a great Measure solve the Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX's Version, viz. that one Word signifies two or more things, and thence may be differently rendered. Where there is a Variety of Significations in the Words, there may well be expected some Diversity in the translating of them.  
5. It is no wonder that the Translation of the 70 varies in many Places from the Hebrew, because these Interpreters do sometimes rather express the Sense of the Hebrew Words than exactly render them. Thus in Gen. 23. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word to express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sons of the People. By the Life of Pharaoh, Gen. 42. 15, 16. is in the LXX's Version 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. by the Health of Pharaoh, because this bears the same Sense with the other. So Shebet a Sceptre, Gen. 49. 10. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Ruler according to the Greek Translation. To be delivered from the Sword of Pharaoh according to the Hebrew, or from the Hand of Pharaoh, Exod. 18. 4. according to the Seventy, is the same. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of a Bull or Cow, Leu. 1. 5. is rightly according to the Sense rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Calf. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deut. 25. 2. a Son of Stripes, is according to the true meaning translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy of Stripes: Chereb the Sword is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 War, Leu. 26. 6, 36, 37. job 5. 15. and to fall by War, Numb. 14. 3. (as the Greek Interpreters render it) is the same as to fall by the Sword, as the Hebrew hath it. Bene Elohim, Deut. 32. 8. job 1. 6. & 38. 7. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the LXX, for by the Sons of God are meant Angels. jad is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, josh. 4. 24. because the Hand of the Lord and the Power of the Lord are equivalent. The Seventy make bold to turn Majim Water into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wine, 1 Sam. 25. 11. for as by Bread in this Place is meant all Manner of Food, so by Water we are to understand all Sorts of Drink, and consequently Wine itself, for the Text speaks of a Feast, yea such a one as was like the Feast of a King, v. 36. They do not fully render 1 King. 22. 5. 2 Chron. 18. 4. when they translate it inquire of the Lord to Day, for according to the Hebrew it should be inquire at the Word of the Lord to Day: but the meaning is the same. In Ne●. 4. 2. you read according to the Hebrew of reviving the Stones, for the Root is Chajah; but these Interpreters express it by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanare, because reviving or healing the Stones in this Place are synonymous. In 2 King. 20. 7. Host 6. 2. the same Hebrew Verb is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and in Gen. 47. 25. Prov. 15. 27. Ezek. 33. 12. and other Places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they being Words of the like import with Chajah. Dibre hajamim, Esth. 2. 23. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not amiss, but the Sense (not the Words) is attended to. In Prov. 11. 8. Mitsadah angustia is according to the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Venatio, Persecutio, which is a Word of the like, though not the very same Import. In the Close of Esth. 10. 3. the Hebrew Noun is Zarang, semen, but the Greek Word here used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it is of the same Signification in this Place, for to speak Peace to all his Seed or to all his Nation (which were of the same Seed and Race) are the same. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word that the Seventy make use of in job 6. 4. but Ruach is the Original: yet any observing Man cannot but discern the Congruity of the Greek Word, for the Blood is the Vehicle of the Spirits; and besides to drink up the Blood is an Elegant way of Expression. The Hebrew Word Keren a Horn, Job 16. 15. is not unfitly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strength, the Sense being minded, and not the Word. The Drops of Water, Job 36. 27. are explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drops of Rain. Keren happuk, Job 42. 14. is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, referring to the Greek Fable of Amalthea's Horn, which signifies all manner of Good things, and so comprehends in it the meaning of that Name given to one of Iob's Daughters. And in several other Places in this Book the Hebrew Terms are explained rather than translated. Bagnal Canaph, Prov. 1. 7. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Bagnal Aph, ch. 22. v. 24. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Bagnal Nephesh, ch. 23. v. 2. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all which Versions are Exegetical. So is that in Eccl. 10. 20. Bagnal Hakephanim, Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jathad a Nail, Isa. 22. 23. is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler, but the Sense is preserved; for that Promise that Eliakim should be a Nail fastened in a sure Place, imports his being advanced to Shebna's Office or Place of Rule, as the foregoing Verses as well as those that follow plainly show. The Daughter of Tarshish, Isa. 23. 10. is Carthage according to the Seventy, because they thought this Place was meant by those Words. They render Dibre Haberith, Jer. 34. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas it should be the Words of the Covenant according to the Original: but who sees not that it amounts to the same? What according to the Hebrew is the Mountain of the Lord, Mic. 4. 2. is the House of the Lord according to the Septuagint, but these two differ not in the Sense, because the Temple, the House of God, was built on Mount Zion. The Word Derek a Way, Jer. 23. 22. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in 1 Kings 22. 52. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in Ezek. 20. 30. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in 2 Chron. 13. 22. & 27. 7. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in job 34. 21. & 36. 23. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in Prov. 31. 3. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but in all these Places the true meaning of the Hebrew Word is maintained. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Chron. 2. 20. Ie●. 16. 14. Ezek. 2. 3. & 35. 5. & 37. 21. & 43. 7. is rendered by the Greek Translators 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in all these Texts you'll find the Sense of the Hebrew Word kept up. So jehovah Tsebaoth is rendered in above fifty Places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. should be translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but instead of it we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Sam. 15. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exod. 17. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Numb. 3. 16. So Lashon, which (exactly speaking) is the Tongue, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, job 15. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Isa. 54. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Esth. 8. 9 In accuracy and propriety of Translation Shaphah is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the general Signification of the Word is preserved when the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ezek. 24. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gen. 11. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prov. 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ezek. 36. 3. are used.  
I could add several hundreds more of the like Nature: but I will at present mention only a few Instances out of the Book of Psalms. That is a very remarkable one, Psal. 2. 12. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apprehendite disciplinam, is the rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 osculamini filium, the LXX not intending here barely to Translate, but taking the Liberty to render the Sense, not the Exact Words of the Original. When Heathen Kings and Governors are admonished to kiss the Son, i. e. to submit to the Government of Christ, the Meaning is, that they should accept of his Doctrine and Discipline, and live and act according to these. But others solve this Translation by telling us, that the word Bar had heretofore different Significations, and denoted both a Son and Discipline. If this could be made good, it belongs to the Fourth Particular, where we spoke of the Diversity of Significations which some Hebrew Words have. Again, in Psal. 18. 2. & 31. 3. they intended not an exact Version, but rather chose to give the Sense of the word Selang a Rock, when they expressed it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Place, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter. In Psal. 19 4. their Line, Cawam, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Sound or Voice, because it amounts to the same Sense and Intention of the Psalmist; unless you will say they read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then it is to be reduced to one of the former Particulars. The word Machol, Dancing, is not improperly rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psal. 30. 11. because it is of the very same Import. In Psal. 40. 6. the Sense of the Seventy is the same with that of the Hebrew Text, although the Translation be not Word for Word. Mine Ears hast thou opened, saith the Hebrew: a Body hast thou prepared me, say the LXX. Here is one meaning, though the Words differ: Christ is here introduced speaking of his Incarnation, when God the Father gave him a Body, and prepared and fitted it for the Cross, where it was to be nailed, as the Ear of that Servant who loved his Master, and would not depart from his Family, was fastened for a time to the Door-post; Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15. 17. on which Ground of Similitude the opening or boaring of the Ear is changed into preparing or framing a Body, ●itting it for that Work and Service to which it was designed. The Sense then (which is the main thing) is the same, viz. that Christ had a Body given him, that he assumed our Humane Nature, that thereby he might be Obedient, and perform the Part of a Servant. Nay, the Words themselves are not much different, for the Hebrew Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
1 Buxtors. Lexic. & Concordant.  signifies as well apparare or comparare as fodere, perforare, and therefore is well rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moreover, the Ear, which is the Organ of Obedience and Compliance, is Synechdochically put for the Body: nay, perhaps the Hebrew Word Ozen signifies a Body as well as an Ear, for 'tis well known how different Senses one Word hath among the Hebrews. I could observe to you, that it is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint, job 33. 16. (as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Place) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prov. 26. 17. which may convince us of the Ambiguity of the Word. Besides, we know the Latitude of the word Heezin, which signifies both to hear and to obey. It might be added, that as the Opening or Boaring the Ear signifies Voluntary Subjection or Obedience, and speaks a Willing Servant, (though not this only or altogether, as I have showed elsewhere) so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise denotes a Slave or Servile Person, Rev. 18. 13. Thus opening and preparing, the Ear and the Body agree: and the Sense of both put together is this, Thou hast made me Obedient. Thus the Hebrew and Greek do friendly accord, so that we need not say with Mr. Isaac Vossius, that the Jews have corrupted this Place to evade the Prophecy. So in Psal. 105. 28. the Sense was attended to, not the Express Words; for whereas in the Hebrew it is [they rebelled not against his Word], the Word [not] is left out in the Septuagint, they following (as they thought) the Meaning of the Place, for they supposed it had Respect to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who, when these Plagues (here spoken of) were upon them, rebelled against God's Word. The Negative Particle lo may here be taken Interrogatively, (as in other Places, Isa. 9 3. Host 4. 14.) and then the Words run thus, Did they not rebel against his Word? which is as much as to say, they did, therefore the LXX translated it Affirmatively, they rebelled, which is the same with our Old English Version, which we use in our Service, they were not obedient. But if we take [●●] here as a downright Negative, than the Place refers not to the Egyptians, but to Moses and Aaron, these rebelled not against his Word. Not of these, but of the others the Septuagint, it is likely, understood the Text, and accordingly rendered it. And in many other Places the Translation is not Literal, but follows the Sense. Which is observed by the Judicious Dr. Pearson in his Paraenetick Preface before the Cambridg Edition of the LXX's Bible, where St. Ierom's Exceptions against this Greek Version are answered and made void, by showing in several Instances that though we find not the same Words there that are in the Hebrew, yet we find the like Meaning. That is sufficient, because that was the thing the Seventy intended, for their Business was not to tie up themselves closely to the very Words and Phrases of the Hebrew: Which gives us some Account of the Difference between the Greek of the Old Testament and the Original.  
6. This sometimes proceeds from the Errors committed by the Transcribers of the Greek Copies. Their Carelessness in writing them over hath been partly the Cause of the Variation of the Readins in the Hebrew and the 70 Interpreters: as in Prov. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dominus creavit me, is, by the Fault of the amanuensis, put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, possedit me, which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not but that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may here admit of a good Interpretation, for we may understand it of the Eternal Generation of Christ. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly answerable to the Original, and is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Word used by Aquila in his Version of this Place. Wherefore we may justly impute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Negligence or Ignorance of the Scribes, as St. 
1 De Civ. Dei.  Augustine doth. And 
2 Epist. 28. ad Lucin.  jerom complains of this sort of Men, that they sometimes wrote not what they found, but what they understood. And without doubt upon a diligent Search we might ●ind that the LXX's Copy is faulty in other Places by reason of the Scribes, through whose Hands (and those not a few) it passed.  
7. The 70 Interpreters are wont to add many things by way of Paraphrase, and on that Account must needs seem to disagree with the Hebrew. Thus to explain Gen. 9 20. is haadamah, they in●ort the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Man, i. e. a Husbandman, of the Earth. Morigim is the Word for threshing Instruments, 2 Sam. 24. 22. Isa. 41. 15. the Nature of which is expressed to us by the Words which the LXX use here, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the manner of Threshing in those Days was with Cart-Wheels. In jer. 32. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Signification of Moloch is a King. In Ezek. 38. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to acquaint us that Rhos was another Name of Scythia, whence the Russians. But this short way of Commenting or Paraphrasing on the Hebrew is so usual and frequent with them, and so plain and obvious to be taken notice of, that I need not Particularise.  
8. They sometimes insert Words without any Ground or Occasion, Words which ought not to be inserted. Thus though the Hebrew Text saith, Gen. 8. 7. Noah ' s Raven went forth, going out and returning, yet the LXX say it returned not. Here is a flat Contradiction; though perhaps we may reconcile the Hebrew and Greek, by saying, Noa●'s Raven did return unto the Ark, but not into it, but was fed by him out of the Window. Or it is likely, say some, he hovered about the Ark, bringing his Prey (Carcases floating on the Water) and devouring them on the top of the Ark. But this is mere Conjecture. So the Seventy Interpreters put in Cainan as Arphaxad's Son, Gen. 10. 24. but the Hebrew omitteth him, and puts Salah in his stead; unless you will say with Bochart, that this and the former Interpolation were the Fault of the Transcribers of the Seventy's Copies, of which before. But further, the LXX usually add entire Sentences of their own, when there is no need of a Paraphrase or Comment: as in the 14th Psalm, ver. 3. they take several Passages out of Scripture, which are applicable (as they thought) to that Place, and there insert them, whence instead of seven Verses in this Psalm, according to our last English Translation (which follows the Hebrew) there are eleven it it, according to the Old one used in our Service, which follows the Septuagint. Thus in Prov. 6. after what is said there (v. 6, 7, 8.) of the Ant, they make bold to add something concerning the Bee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. So in Isaiah and jeremiah, and other Books, they take a great Liberty: there are several whole Sentences added that are not in the Hebrew, and many are left out that are in it. To instance at present only, in two of this latter sort, those Words in Prov. 22. 6. Train up a Child in the way he should go; and when ●e is old he will not depart from it, are wholly omitted; and the whole thirtieth Chapter of the Proverbs, and part of the one and thirtieth, are left out in this Translation. This is the Greatest Fault we have hitherto met with in the Greek Interpreters: but now cometh one which is much greater, and indeed unpardonable, if it be true.  
9 Then, It is thought by some that in many Places they have wilfully corrupted and perverted the Text. It is thought at least that they did not exactly translate some Places, because they were loath to expose the Bible to the Gentiles. This was too rich and precious a Treasure to be imparted to them. It would be a profaning and polluting of it to lay it open to all Men. It is 
1 De Arcan. Cathol. Ver.  Galatinus' Persuasion, that in their turning the Hebrew into Greek they altered several things, because the Ethnics were at that time unworthy of the Knowledge of those Divine Mysteries contained in the Bible: and this the Talmud itself witnesseth. The Pagan World was not able to bear several of those things: they would have seemed Absurd and Ridiculous to them if they had been translated as they were in the Original. Hence, saith he, the Seventy's Version is imperfect, and seems to differ, yea really doth differ from the Hebrew in many Places. And a 
3 Dr. Lightfoot.  Learned Doctor of our own tells us, That they translated the Bible unwillingly, they being loath to impart the Knowledge of the Scripture to Heathens: therefore, though being commanded by Ptolemy, they undertook this Work, yet going about it with unwilling Minds they did it Slightly and Perfunctorily, and it is likely Falsely in some Places. And this was long ago the Opinion of St. I●rom, who plainly declared, that 
4 U●icunque sacratum aliquid Scriptura testatur de Patre & Filio & Spiritu Sancto, aut aliter interpretati sunt, aut omnino tacuerunt, ut & Regi satisfacerent, arcanum fidei non vulgarent. Praefat. in Pentateuch.  wherever any thing occurred in the Old Testament concerning the Sacred Trinity, it was either misinterpreted or wholly concealed by these 70 Elders: and this, he saith, was done by them partly to please King Ptolomee, and partly because they had no mind to divulge the Mysteries of their Faith to the World. Thus, as 
5 In Proaemio super Quaest in Genes.  he observes 〈◊〉 Isa. 9 6. they left out five or 〈◊〉 Names of Christ, and put in the place of them [the Angel of the Great Caun●el]. They would not let it be known that That Child was God, lest they should be thought 10 worship another God; and therefore they purposely and ●allciously concealed those Glorious Titles attributed to Christ, and more especially That [the Mighty God]. But this Author is more candid and mild in his Censure of these 70 Elders when in other Places he tells us, that many of those Copies and Editions of the Greek Translation, which were then abroad, were corrupted by the Fault of the Transcribers, and that it was his Design in his Latin Version to correct them. Again, he imputes their Mistakes to their Ignorance, saying, 
6 Illi interpretati sunt ante adventum Christi, & quod nescieb●nt dubiis protulere sententiis.— Non damno, non reprehendo Septuaginta, sed considentes cunctis illis Apostolos praefero Praef. in Penta●euch.  they made this Translation before the coming of Christ, and so knew not what they rendered in many Places, and therefore did it obscurely and dubiously. Wherefore he professeth he condemns not the Seventy, but only prefers the Apostles before them, their Writings being nearer to the Hebrew Original.  
And truly I am not throughly convinced that the Interpreters themselves did wilfully corrupt the Translation, that they designedly misinterpreted the Hebrew Text, and falsified in the forementioned Place and several others: for the Messiah, the Christ, was not come then, and there was no Controversy about him; and therefore, according to my Apprehension of things, it was too early time of Day to misrepresent or corrupt the Bible where it speaks of him. I rather think this was done afterwards, namely, after our Saviour appeared in the World, and had been rejected by the Jews as an Impostor. Then these Places before mentioned, and several others, began to be perverted; then the Circumcised Doctors attempted to pair off some Passages, to make some Alterations in the Copies of the LXX which they got into their Hands. Then it was that they corrupted the Chronology of the Bible, which was of great Use to them. Hence it is that you find such a Difference between the Hebrew Copies and those of the Seventy, about the Age of the World. It is not to be questioned that the Jews made an Alteration in the Years mentioned in the Pentateuch, which relate to the Lives of the Patriarches, more especially those before the Flood, in that Catalogue in Gen. 5. According to the Hebrew Text there were 1656 Years from the Creation to the Flood, but according to the Greek there were about 2250. The younger 
1 Chronolog. Sacra.  Vossius is a smart Advocate for the Septuagint, and following their Computation tells us, that 4000 (wanting ●ive or six) Years were expired before Moses' Death, and that from thence to our Saviour's Coming were above 2000 Years, so that Christ was incarnate at the end of the Sixth Millenary, or the beginning of the Seventh. The Sum is, that according to Vossius and the LXX's Reckoning, the time of the World's Beginning anticipates the Vulgar Aera at least 1400 Years. This lengthening of the Account in the Greek Bible we owe to the Jews after the Coming of Christ, especially after the Destruction of jerusalem. They then out of their Hatred to Christians changed the Chronology of the Greek Interpreters, expunged the Contracted Aera, and introduced a larger one, i e. they added one thousand four hundred Years to these Books. And their Design in doing this was to confute the Opinion of the Messias' Coming. It would appear hence that the time was past, according to the general Sense of the Rabbis. For this Reason they made this Alteration in the Greek Translation, though they could not effect it in the Hebrew Copies. Hence arises the Difference between the Hebrew and Greek Computation. But we are assured that the Sacred Chronology delivered by Moses is certain, and the Calculation true and authentic, because the Hebrew Text is so, (which I have demonstrated in another Place) and consequently the Greek Version is to be corrected by this. But this Error of the Septuagint is not originally theirs, but is to be imputed to the latter Jews, (I mean those soon after our Saviour's Passion) who designedly and on purpose depraved the Greek Copies of the Bible. They were the Authors of several Interpolations, Additions, Omissions, Changes in the Order of the Words, and wherever they saw occasion to make such Alterations as they thought would be to their purpose. Accordingly we find that their Translation is depraved in five very considerable Prophecies, viz. Isa. 9 1. Host 11. 1. Zech. 9 9 & 12. 10. Mal. 4. 5. all of them relating to the Proof that jesus Christ is the True Messias. If any Man peruseth these Texts, and compares the Hebrew and the LXX's Version together, he will easily be induced to believe that this latter hath been corrupted by some Jews on purpose to serve their Infidelity and Averseness to jesus, and that they might not be urged by Christians at any time from the Testimonies in this Greek Translation.  
Object. But if the present Version of the LXX be so faulty and vicious, why is it quoted by Christ and his Apostles, why is it followed by them generally, as was before acknowledged? If the Evangelists and Apostles who were immediately directed by the Holy Ghost quoted this Translation, surely the Authority of it is unquestionable.  
Answ. It cannot be denied that the Writers of the New Testament often cite the Version of the Septuagint; yea, and I will grant moreover, that they follow this Translation when it differs from the Hebrew; thus St. Luke, ch. 3. v. 36. takes in Cainan into the Genealogy, because he found it in the LXX. St. Luke, Acts 13. 41. or rather St. Paul in his Sermon (recited by him) retains the corrupt Version of Hab. 1. 5. The same Apostle in Rom. 3. 13. follows this Version, though it takes in four or five Verses more than are in the Original. In Rom. 9 33. the same Apostle allegeth Isa. 28. 16. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed, which is not according to the Hebrew, but the Greek. In Rom. 11. 8. he quotes what Isaiah saith ch. 29. v. 10. but not according to the Original, but the Septuagint, though their Translation [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] be disagreeing with the Hebrew. In Phil. 2. 15. he uses the same Words and Orders that are in the LXX, although they invert the Order of the Words in the Hebrew, which is this in Deut. 32. 5. a perverse and crooked Generation; but they render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a crooked and perverse Generation. So in Heb. 10. 5. he produceth that Place abovementioned, [a Body hast thou prepared me] although these Words disagree with the Letter of the Hebrew, and are wholly conformable to the Septuagint. And lastly, (to name no more at present) when the Apostle tells us, that jacob worshipped leaning upon the top of his Staff, Heb. 11. 21. it is evident (as hath been already showed) that he follows the Seventy, who in their unpricked Bibles read [Matteh] a Rod or Staff for [Mittah] a Bed. Thus it is frankly acknowledged, that the Writers of the New Testament make use of the Greek Translation of the jewish Elders, even when they depart from the Original Text. And there was good Reason for it, because the Greek Version was at that time generally received and approved of by the jews: wherefore the Apostles being to deal with these Men, they prudently made use of it, and quoted it upon all Occasions. And it was better to do so than to give a stricter and exacter Translation of their own, because this might be liable to Scruple and Controversy, whereas the other was universally entertained and approved of. Besides, as a 
1 Dr. Light●oot, Hor. Hebraic.  Christian Rabbi observes, the jews who were to read this New Testament could not quarrel with the Quotations because they were taken out of the Book which was translated by those that were jews, and those very Eminent ones too. And then, as to the Gentiles also, there was a necessity of the Apostles using the LXX's Translation in their Writings, because these understood not the Hebrew Tongue: wherefore it was requisite to take their Quotations out of this Translation, lest otherwise the Gentiles, in whose Hands the Greek Bibles were, observing that what the Apostles cited was not according to These, should question the Truth of it, and of the New Testament itself. Thus there was a kind of Necessity of using this Translation oftentimes: but this is no Proof of its being faultless and void of all Mistakes and Errors. The Inspired Writers used this Version, not because they wholly approved of it, but because in their Circumstances they could not do otherwise. But further, I answer, that though the Evangelists and Apostles followed this Translation generally, yet it is as certain that they did not do it always. The Reader may see here several Places drawn up to his View, wherein this is apparent; and among them he will find those Five Prophecies beforementioned, and see that the Evangelists follow not the Seventy in their Translation of these Texts, they knowing that they were derogatory to the Messias, and to the whole Gospel.  
The Evangelists differ from the Seventy's Version in these following Places; Mat. 1. 23. taken from Isa. 7. 14. Mat. 2. 6. Mic. 5. 2. Mat. 2. 15. Host 11. 1. Mat. 4. 10. Deut. 6. 13. Mat. 4. 15. Isa. 9 1. Mat. 8. 17. Isa. 53. 4. Mark 1. 2. Mal. 3. 1. Mark 10. 19 Exod. 20. 12, 13, & ●. Luke 1. 16, 17. Mal. 4. 5, 6. Luke 2. 23. Exod. 13. 1. Luke 4. 4. Deut. 8. 3. Luke 4. 18. Isa. 61. 2. Luke 7. 27. Mal. 3. 1. Luke 10. 27. Deut. 6. 5. john 1. 23. Isa. 40. 3. john 6. 45. Isa. 54. 13. john 12. 15. Zech. 9 9 john 12. 40. Isa. 6. 10. john 19 36. Exod. 12. 36. john 19 37. Zech. 12. 10.  
I might have drawn up the like Catalogue of Places in the Epistles; I only direct your Eye at present to these ensuing one's, Rom. 4. 17. Gal. 3. 8. Gal. 4. 30. taken from Gen. 17. 4. & 12. 3. & 21. 10.  
More particularly I might observe to you (in pursuance of what I have asserted, that the Evangelists and Apostles do not always make use of the LXX's Translation) that when these Inspired Writers of the New Testament have occasion to quote the Old, they sometimes keep themselves to the Hebrew Text exactly, and have no regard at all to the Words of the Greek Interpreters. It was long since noted by St. 
1 De Script. Eccles.  jerom, that when either St. Matthew or our Saviour in his Gospel quotes the Old Testament, they follow not the LXX, but the Hebrew. Again, sometimes the Apostles follow neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint, but use some Words and Expressions of their own, and Paraphrase rather than Translate. This they do to bring the Texts they allege closer to the purpose, inserting such Words as give an Emphasis to them, and show the true Scope and Design of the Texts. Therefore we cannot, we must not hence infer that either the Hebrew Original or the Seventy's Version are corrupted; because it was not the Design of the Evangelists to quote the very Words, but they thought fit to use a Latitude, and to express the Text of the Old Testament not in exact Terms, but as to the Meaning and Import of it. So in the quoting that Text, Mic. 5. 2. Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel, the Evangelist doth it not verbatim, but sets it down thus, Mat. 2. 6. Thon Bethlehem, in the Land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes of Judah▪ for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my People Israel. Here are six or seven Words that are not in the Hebrew, neither are they in the Seventy's Version. Yea, there is a Negative put in the Place of an Affirmative; for whereas the Prophet saith, though thou be little, the Evangelist saith, thou art not little, or not lest, which shows that he minds the Sense and Scope of the Place, not the very Words: for though Bethlehem was little, considered in itself, as being a small Town, yet it was not little on another Account mentioned by the Prophet, viz. it's having the Honour of being the Birth-place of our Lord. Or if this inserting of a Negative may be solved another way, (as 
1 Vide The Style of Scripture, Pag. 335.  some have thought, and as I have showed in another Place) yet still it is evident that the Evangelist doth not recite the very Words of Micah, but changeth Ephratah for the Land of Judah, and thousands for Princes, and i● other Words and Particles varies both from the LXX and the Original. And in many other Texts I might show you, that the Writers of the New Testament do not tie themselves up to the very Words of the Old Testament, but choose rather to paraphrase, or give the Meaning in other Expressions. Thus we see the Translation of the LXX, though it be often, yet is not always followed in the New Testament. Likewise, although the Apostles in these Writings were immediately directed by the Holy Ghost, yet they confined not themselves to the express Words of the Spirit in the Original Hebrew: and we see that, though not always, yet often they followed the Septuagint, because it was generally received, and they thought it not fit to vary from the Translation which was used in the Church: and we see likewise, that when they vary from this Translation, it is no certain Argument that they did not allow and approve of it, for they intended not an Exact Translation themselves, but a Paraphrase, and a rendering the Sense rather than the Words.  
The Result then of all is this, that we ought to have that Respect and Esteem for the LXX's Version which it deserveth: (to which purpose the 
2 J. P. Prae●at. Paraenetic.  Judicious Examiner of it before mentioned is to be consulted, who shows how necessary it is for all Divines to be acquainted with it) we ought not to extol it (as some extravagantly have done) above the Hebrew, nor to depress and vilify it (as others have done) as if it were of no Worth or Authority. We ought thus to behave ourselves; we must not wholly reject it, because most of its Faults and Mistakes proceed from the mere mistaking of Vowels or Consonants, from the Ambiguity of Words, from the Liberty which they take of Paraphrasing, and from the Neglect of Transcribers. But on the other hand, we ought not wholly to embrace this Translation, because it hath fallen into ill Hands, and hath met with some designing Men (it is probable) who have endeavoured to deprave and corrupt it, yea and have actually done it in some Places. We are concerned therefore to read it with Candour and Caution; with the former, yea the Oldest Greek Translation of the Bible that is, because it hath been used by the Sacred Penmen of the New Testament, because it may be made use of by us for the better understanding and clearing the Sense of the Hebrew, and to other very good Purposes, and because the disagreement between it and the Hebrew may as to the Main admit of a Reconciliation, as I have partly showed, and you may further see in the Learned 
1 Mons. Simon. Crit. Hist. Book 2.  Critical Historian. With the latter also, i. e. with Caution we must consult this Version, because we know it hath justly merited the Censure of the Learned; not only of St. jerom the best Hebrician of all the Fathers, but of a great Number of other Observing and Inquisitive Writers, who find that this Translation doth frequently, and sometimes very grossly descent from the Hebrew, and for that Cause reprehend it with great Seriousness. For this they all agree upon, that where the Greek Version of the 70 is not conformable to the Hebrew either in Words or Sense, (as in divers Places it is not) it is perverted and corrupted; and where it is so, we must impeach This, and not the Hebrew of Error and Imperfection.  
That Assertion of the Younger Vossius, viz. that the 70 Interpreters had the Authentic Copy of the Hebrew Bible, and translated exactly by that, but that the Hebrew Bible which we now have is corrupted, is justly to be exploded as not only Bold but Pernicious: wherein he extremely grati●ies the Romanists, who contend that the Hebrew Text is depraved, that they may defend the Authority of the Vulgar Latin. But those that are not led by Prejudice discern that this is mere Design, and that the Business of those Men is to defend the Authority of their Church by what Artifices they can: Wherefore they give no heed to them, and particularly in this present Matter they despise their fond applauding of the Septuagint, and their groundless Cavils against the Hebrew Text, and notwithstanding their impertinent Suggestions find reason to adhere to this unshaken Truth, that the Hebrew Text only is void of all Faults, Errors, Mistakes, Blemishes, Defects, Depravations, and that it is this we must ultimately rely upon. Wherefore where there is a Difference between the Version of the 70 Seniors and the Hebrew, That is to give place to This, and not This to That. And lastly, which is the rational Conclusion from all that hath been said, there is no Proof of the Scripture's Imperfection from this Disagreement between the Hebrew and the Greek.  
Next, I will speak of the Latin Versions of the Bible, which even in St. Augustin's Time were so many that they could not be numbered, as 
1 Latini interprete nullo modo numerari possunt. De doctr. Christian●, l. 2. c. 11.  he saith himself. All the Latin Translations of the Old Testament before jerom were made out of the LXX's Version, and not out of the Hebrew Original, for generally the Fathers before jerom used and adhered to the Greek Version. But he attaining to great Skill in the Hebrew contented not himself with these Second-hand Versions, but undertook and finished a Translation of his own, wherein he followed the Hebrew Original. The Chiefest Latin Versions were these three, 1. that which was called Itala by St. Augustin, by St. jerom Vulgata, and by Gregory Vetus. This of all the Latin Editions was the most generally received and used, and was really the Ancientest of all the Latin Translations. But this was but a Translation of a Translation, viz. that of the 70, and must have undergone the same Censure with the Greek Version (of which I spoke before) if it had been now extant. But it is not, it is wholly lost: only the Psalms remain, and as much as is found quoted here and there in the Fathers and Ancient Writers. 2. St. Ierom's Version, for this Learned Father observing the Errors in the several Latin Versions (the Italian especially) which were in his time, did (as I said before) translate both the Old and New Testament himself: the first he wholly did by a New Translation out of the Hebrew Original; the second was rather a Correction and Emendation of the Old Latin or Italian Version than a New One. The Psalms, because they were daily sung in the Churches, and could not without offence to the People be changed, remained the same that they were in the Old Version. There is no occasion to add any Censure of Ours here concerning this Translation, because it agrees with the Original Hebrew. Only we will observe that when St. jerom had finished it, it was not presently received by the Latin Church, but many Bishops refused it, and St. Augustin particularly forbade it to be read in his Diocese, so greatly did they esteem the Greek Version of the LXX. Many that were ignorant in the Hebrew Tongue spoke against this Translation as a mere Innovation, and fell heavily upon the Author of it: But he with great earnestness defended his Work, and sometimes repaid the Invectives of his Adversaries with too much Bitterness. Though some Bishops and others disliked his Translation, yet it was authorized and approved of by Damasus (the then Bishop of Rome, by whose Command it was first undertaken) and a great Number of other understanding Persons, who saw its conformity to the Hebrew Text, and perceived it was void of those Mistakes which the other Latin Translations abounded with. whilst this Division jasted both the Translations were publicly read, i. e. they read some Books of the Bible in Ierom's Version, and others in the Italian: and this lasted till the time of Gregory the Great. At length another Translation prevailed, viz. 3. The Vulgar which we now have, which is made up of both the former, and is called by the Romanists Vetus & Vulgata. This by degrees got the better of all the others in the Roman Church, and was generally used by them, and is still Authentic there, and is the Vulgar Latin which they now so commend, yea, which 
1 Gregorius de Valenti●, Gre●serus, Titelmannus, etc.  some of the Church of Rome hold to be of Divine Inspiration, and consequently free from all Faults either in Words or Matter: and there are others of them, as Genebrard and Mariana, who extravagantly extol it, and they would persuade us that both the Italian and St. Ierom's Version and comprised in this one.  
But it is evident that this is not the Old Italian Translation which was used before jerom and Augustin's Time, for that was made out of the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters, whereas this differs from it in many Places. Nor is this Vulgar Latin of the Church of Rome St. Ierom's Version, because that was exactly according to the Hebrew Text; but this though it comes nearer to the Hebrew than to the 70 Interpreters, yet it often varies from the Hebrew, and adds many things to it, as in the Book of Kings especially, and in other Places: So that this Modern Vulgar Edition is not the Pure Version of jerom, but mixed of his Translation and of the old one which was in the Latin Church before his Time: And this is the Opinion even of those Great Romanists Baronius and Bellarmine. We know then what censure to give of this Latin Edition of the Bible, it is for the greatest Part of it very Ancient, and hath been used many Ages in the Church, and is justly reckoned to be a very Learned Translation, for which reason Fagius, who was well skilled in the Hebrew Tongue, and Drusius whom all acknowledge to be a Learned Critic, had a great Reverence for this Edition, and give a very high Character of it: and Beza and Grotius prefer it before all other Latin Translations. Yet this is certain, it hath many things faulty in it; it leaves the Hebrew very often, and follows the Septuagint or the Chaldee Paraphrase, or even some Rabbin. Luoas Brugensis took notice of above six hundred Faults in it: and Isidore Clarius a Spanish Abbot (and afterwards of the Council of Trent) observed eight thousand Erratas in it. Besides that it hath many Barbarous Words, the Sense in many Places is corrupted, and sometimes quite lost. Sometimes it runs directly contrary to the Original Text, as in Gen. 8. 7. non revertebatur instead of revertebatir: And in 1 Cor. 15. 51. Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur; whereas according to the Greek it should have been, Non omnes dormiemus, sed omnes mutabimur: And several Instances might be produced of the like Nature. So far is the Vulgar Latin from being absolutely Authentic, as the 
1 Sess. 4.  Council of Trent determined it to be even before that Edition was mended. But see how that Council baffles itself; it defines the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentic, and then order it to be Corrected, and printed again. Accordingly the Pope's set about the mending of it, first Sixtus the Fifth put forth a mended Copy, and tied all Persons to that: when he was dead Gregory the Fourteenth set about the correcting of that Edition: and afterwards Clement the Eighth amended Pope Gregory's in many Places. This was done after the Council of Trent had declared the Vulgar Latin to be the Authentic Copy: Which, with what we have suggested before, is a clear Proof that it deserves not that Epithet, but that there were and are still in it many Corruptions. In vain therefore doth the Church of Rome prefer this Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before the Hebrew and Greek Originals; unreasonably do the Doctors of that Church complain of the Defects and Errors of these, yea maliciously do they urge the Disagreement between these, especially the Hebrew and the Vulgar Latin, and thereby endeavour to accuse the Sacred Scriptures of Imperfection. The Sum is (notwithstanding what the Romanists and some others that are their Abettors, endeavour to impose upon the World) the latter, i. e. the Vulgar Latin is ever to be corrected by the former, viz. the Hebrewd, and not this by that.  
Besides these 3 Old Latin Versions there are others that may justly be called Modern; for soon after the Year of our Lord 1500, there arose several Learned Men well skilled in the Tongues, who seeing the Corruptions that were in the Latin Versions, and comparing these with the Originals, endeavoured to correct them by those Fountains. Hence after the Attempts of Ximenius Archbishop of Toledo in hi● Opus Biblicum Complutense, w●ich came out A. D. 1515. and was the first Polyglot Bible; and after the publishing of Psalterium Octoplum in a short time afterwards by justinian an Italian Bishop, there 
1 A. D. 1527.  appeared in the World the Translation of all the Hebrew Bible into Latin by Santes Pagninus a Dominican Friar. This Version was made Interlinear with the Hebrew Bible by A●ias Montanus; or rather, this Version which Pagni● had put out being not exactly Literal, Montanus supplied it, and fitted it to the very Hebrew Words, and then put out a New Edition: and many Years after this it was reprinted in the King of Spain's Great Bible which Montanus put forth. Cardinal Cajetan also turned the Old Testament out of He●brew into Latin. Isidorus Clarius cannot so properly be called a Translator, as a Corrector of the Vulgar Latin. Malvenda a Dominican rendered som● Books of the Old Testament into this Language The Renowned Erasmus (whom. F. Simon takes n● notice of in his Catalogue of Transta●o●s) tur●'● the New Testament into Latin.  
Hitherto I have mentioned Roman 〈◊〉 next follow Protestants and those of the 〈◊〉 Religion, the first whereof was Sebastian 〈…〉 German, who published his New Latin Version o● the Old Testament three Years before 〈…〉 came forth, and afterwards corrected it and put in out anew. He is a most exact Renderer of the 〈◊〉 Sense of the Hebrew Text. Leo juda a Zuinglian of Helvetia translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew, and it was published after his Death, about the Year 1543; the last Edition of which is usually called Va●ablus's Bible, because he added 〈◊〉 to it, or the Biblia Tigurina from the Place 〈◊〉 where the Translator was Pastor. He 〈◊〉 a kind of Paraphrase, to make the Sense 〈◊〉 easy and plain, whereas Munster more rigidly followed the very Words. Afterwards Castellio put forth a Latin Translation of the whole Bible, for which he is severely reproved both by Papists and Protestants, as if it were too light and florid, too acquaint and fanciful; but if we consider the Design of this Translator, which was to recommend the Holy Scriptures by presenting them in a Neat and Elegant Style, we shall see little reason to blame him. The New Testament was turned into the same Language by Theodore Beza. And last of all, janius and Tremellius did both of them jointly translate the Old Testament out of Hebrew, and Tremellius alone the New Testament out of Syriack: a Work which is mightily applauded by the Learned Buxtorf (who had Skill to judge of it) and is constantly made use of in his Lexicon. As to the Osi●●ders (Father and Son) though they be reckoned among the Modern Translators by F. Simon, yet I do not see that it can properly be done, because they only put forth the Ancient Latin Version Word for Word in the Old Edition, with some Corrections of their own in the Margin, not altering the Text at ●ll. These are the Latter Versions of the Bible, all which have more or less amended the Faults of the Vulgar Latin, and have brought us nearer to the Fountain. Upon the whole I conclude that these several Learned Translators are all of them in their kind very useful, some by keeping close to the Original, others by using a Latitude. They have presented us, but in a Different Style and Mode, with the true genuine meaning of the Original, ●nd none but Frivolous Objectors can complain of ●ny considerable Disagreement between these Ver●●ns and the Hebrew or Greek Text. The Differenc● that is between the Translations themelves is usually in the Diversity of Expressions used by the Translators, which causeth no Disagreement between them and the Originals. But if any other Difference be found, we know that the Latin must always give way to the Hebrew and Greek, and be regulated by them as the Clock by the Sun. Take this in the Words of a Great Man, even of the Roman Persuasion; Wheresoever, saith he, the Latin Translators disagree, or a reading is suspected to be corrupted, we must repair to the Original in which the Scriptures wears writ, as St. I●rom and Augustin and other Writers of the Church direct: so that the Truth and Sincerity of the Translations of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew Copies, and of the New by the Greek Ones. So Cardinal Ximenius in his Preface to Pope Leo.  
Having gone thus far, I will now proceed farther, and speak concerning Our Own Translation. Our Countryman Bede about 700 Years after Christ translated the Bible into Saxon. Wickliff about 600 Years afterwards translated it into the English Language, then understood and used by the People of this Place. Not long after this john Trevisa, a Cornish Divine, set forth the whole Bible in English. In the Year 1527, Tindal translated the Pentateuch and the New Testament: and afterwards both he and Coverdale joined in the Work, and finished the Translation of the whole Bible. Tunstal and Heath (both Bishops) translated it anew: and in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign Archbishop Parker and other Bishops made another more Correct Translation, which was called the Bishop's Translation, or Bible. In K. James' Time another came forth, which we make use of and read in our Churches at this Day. It is certain that this last English Translation of the Bible is in great repute among Foreigners, and is acknowledged by them to be the most exact that is extant. We have as great reason to own it to be such, especially if we take it with the Margin, where are set down the several Senses of many Original Words, whether Hebrew or Greek: so that where there is any doubt of the meaning of the Word which occurs, we may take our choice. Our English Bibles surpass all other Translations as to this, and hereby it comes to pass that the Holy Scriptures are faithfully and fully represented to our People, and they are laid before them in their native Purity and Perfection, so far as the Skill and Labours of those Translators attained to at that time. And yet I conceive it would be no Derogation to our English Bible if it were once more revised, and the Translation made more accurate and exact in some Places than it is. Which leads me to the Next General Part of my Undertaking, viz. the Emendation on of the present English Version.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Our English Translation showed to be faulty and defective in some Places of the Old Testament. But more largely and fully this is performed in the several Books of the New Testament, where abundant Instances are produced of this Defect: and particular Emendations are all along offered▪ in order to the rendering our Translation more exact and complete. The Date of the Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses.  
I Will now, according to what I propounded in the Entrance into this Discourse, attempt to show the Defect of the present English Translation, and at the same time to let you see how it is to be supplied and remedied; that so this Sacred Volume may be presented to the Readers in its Utmost Perfection. There is a great Number of Places both in the Old and New Testament which ought to be otherwise rendered, but I will chiefly confine myself to the New Testament at present. It is true the Margin of our Bibles doth give us another Sense or Version of the Words in many Places: but those I shall pass by, because they are already before the Reader's Eye. I shall take notice of those Words only which are not otherwise translated in the Margin. Many Corrections of the English Translation are attempted by that Excellent Knight Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his Annotations on the New Testament: but I have not inserted any of them here, because I design to mention those only which are of my own Observation, and which at several Readins of the Bible have occurred to me. I will instance in those Mistakes and Faults alone which are ●ot (that I know of) found out and observed ●y any other Persons. Nor am I in this Attempt endeavouring so much to discover a False Version as ●o render the present one (which is Good and Excellent) better; by laying aside some unfit Words and Modes of Speech▪ and by substituting others in their room, and by changing the ●rame and Disposition of some particular Periods.  
Those few Places of the Old Testamant which I offer to be amended are these; Gen. 27. 38. Hast ●●ou but one Blessing? where there is a Word left out, viz. that distinctive Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that according to the Hebrew it should be rendered thus, hast thou but that one Blessing? The Omission of [that] is a Fault in Our Translation, as well as in some others. In 2 Kings 5. 18. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thr●●e used▪ which signifies to bow▪ but we translate it to worship in one of the Places; which I reckon as faulty▪ because the same Words ought to be translated alike. I● Psal. 14. 2. the true Version is the Sons of Adam. In Psal. 104. 25. the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered Swimming, for that is the Denotation of the Word when 'tis applied to Fishes. In the Old English Translation of the Book of Psalms which is used in our Divine Service, there are many things that require Correction: but because it may be our Church retains it for the same Reason, that when St. jerom translated the Bible into Latin, he did not alter the former Version of the Psalms, but left it entire as it was, because these were sung in the Public Assemblies, and People generally had them by Heart; wherefore he was loath to discompose so settled a piece of Devotion; for this Reason I will say nothing here towards the Amendment of this Translation. In Isa. 1. 13. we read of vain Oblations, the new Moons and Sabbaths; but in the Hebrew these are in the singular Number, and therefore should be so translated: Particularly as to the word● [Chodesh] the new Moon, it will not be distinguished from Chodashim, new Moons, which you find in the next Verse, unless you observe the Distinction between the singular and plural. Isa. 2. 10. is translated thus, Hide thee in the Dust for fear of the Lord, but not rightly; for the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendered either in these Words [from the Face of the terrible Lord] or these, [from or because of the Presence of the Lord of Terror] or thus, [from the Presence of the Terror of the Lord], and so it must be translated in ver. 19 where the Words recur again. It may be some may look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an Expletive here, because it is so in many Places, but we know that in many other Places it is not; and seeing that Word here may bear a Positive Signification, there is Reason we should take it so. It is my Persuasion that the applying of the word Fury to God, in Leu. 26. 28. job 20. 23. Dan. 9 16. Mic. 5. 15. Zech. 8. 2. and above forty times in Isaiah, jeremiah, and Ezekiel, is very unblamable; for the Hebrew Words Aph, Charon, Chemah, Chamath, have no such ill Import; they only signify the Heat or Height of Anger, and are rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Seventy. But Fury is something of another Nature, and denotes Excess and Exorbitancy of Wrath, and even Madness itself. Therefore I apprehend our Translators have done ill (though I question not their innocent Meaning) in attributing such a Passion to God. Wherefore instead of Fury, let great Anger or great Wrath be used in the Translation. Again, i● I would be Curious I could blame our Translators for using the word Benjamite or Benjamites, judg. 3. 15. (and in half a score Places more) instead of Benjaminite or Benjaminites: for (as I have hinted before) the Word being used to signify the Children of Benjamin, or the Sons of jemini, (as 'tis in the Hebrew in some Places) it must needs have those two Letters more inserted into it, otherwise you cannot derive it from those Words: wherefore it must needs be Benjaminites, not Benjamites, as our English Translators have curtailed it. As to the Words Tyre and Tyrus, the former of which is to be found in Isaiah and joel, and the latter in jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Prophets, I conceive it were better to use one of these only, for why should not the Name of the same Place be expressed and written the same? Let it then be Tyre or Tyrus, but not both. Here also I might take notice of some Unfit and Obsolete Words, the changing of which for others that are more in use would render the English Version much better. Thus fet, 1 Kings 9 28. or ever, Eccles. 12. 6. Dan. 6. 24. chaws, Ezek. 29. 4. & 38. 4. grins, Psal. 140. 5. & 141. 9 taches, Exod. 26. 6. alien, Job 19 15. Psal. 69. 8. might be changed into fetched, before, jaws, Gins, (or Traps or Snares) Tacks, (or Clasps) alien, especially this last being the Word which is used in other Places both in the Old and New Testament. Instead of the word after in several Places, it were better to use according to. Who should be put in the Place of which, when there is reference to a Person, not a Thing; otherwise there is a Confusion and Misunderstanding in many Texts, unless we have Recourse to the Original.  
But they are the Defects in our English Translation of the New Testament which I principally designe● to insist upon: therefore those I h●sten to, which are as follow. In Mat. 3. 7. and so in ch. 23. v. 33. our Translators render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Generation, but it should be in the Plural. This Fault is amended in Luke 3. 7. in the marginal Reading, where there is added [Brood's]: and in Mat. 12. 34. in some English Bibles it is translated [Generations]. it should be so in this Place, and wherever else the Word is mentioned; for if we will be exact in our Translation, we must assign Plural Nouns a Plural Signification. This I think no Man will deny. In Mat. 5. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered thus, till all be fulfilled, but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Verse before, which we render to fulfil: therefore it is requisite in my Opinion that there should be another English Word for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that two different Words being placed so near together may not be translated alike. Let that Clause therefore be englished thus, till all ●e done, or til● all come to pass. In ch. 5. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very properly be rendered the Sanhedrim, both because that particular Council or Court of the Seventy two is meant, and because that Word is the Corruption. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In v. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be translated is of Evil, not cometh of Evil. In Mat. 8. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which we translate [let the Dead bury their Dead] is better turned into our Language thus, leave, or suffer, or permit the Dead to, etc. for so the Imperative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Person to whom Christ speaks, are clearly and distinctly denoted: suffer thou the Dead to bury their Dead, thou who art one of my Disciples, and hast other Work to do. In ch. 11. v. 27. 'tis improper to say, no Man knoweth the Son but the Father, as if the Father were included in Man: but indeed the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more general, and should be translated none, or not any one. The right Translation of Mat. 13. 21. is not [when Tribulation or Persecution ariseth] but it should be thus, [when there is Tribulation or Persecution] or [when Tribulation or Persecution happen]: but the former of these, viz. [is] best answers to the Original Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Mat. 14. 6, [danced before them] should be [danced in the midst] according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and you will find that thus it is translated in Acts 4. 7. In Mat. 14. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered [it is an Apparition] rather than [it is a Spirit]: for though a Spectrum or Angel (good or bad) appearing be vulgarly called a Spirit, and was so called of old, as is evident from Luke 24. 37, 39 yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being two distinct Words, we ought not to render them alike. The Translators were sensible of this when they exchanged the word Spirit for Phantasm in the Margin: but I conceive the word Apparition is to be preferred before that, because it is more in use, and more intelligible. He walked on the Water, saith our Translation, Mat. 14. 29. but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Waters, and therefore they mistake the singular for the plural. I offer it to Consideration, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 15. 9 may not be rendered thus, [teaching Doctrines which are the Commandments of Men] or by inserting of [and] which seems to be implied in this Place, thus, [teaching the Doctrines and Commandments of Men]. Commandments seems to be put after Doctrines by way of Apposition. In ver. 22. instead of those Coasts we read [the same Coasts], and for [cried, saying unto him] we read [cried unto him, saying] which are both of them disagreeing with the Greek. In the last Verse of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might be englished [he went into a Ship] rather than [he took Ship]; for though this latter Phrase be the vulgar way of speaking, yet the former is more agreeable to the Original. Mat. 16. 4. [there shall no Sign be given unto it] varies from the Greek, according to which it should be [a Sign shall not be given unto it]. Not and no are two different Parts of Speech. In the same Chapter, ver. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendered be it far from thee, but ●e favourable to thyself. In v. 23. we read [he turned and said] but 'tis in the Greek [he turning said]. In v. 27. there is a double Fault, for instead of [he shall render] 'tis said [he shall reward], and [according to his Works] (in the Plural) is put for [according to his Work] or his Doing. in ch. 17. v. 12. the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. they acknowledged him not; which is more than they knew him not, according to our Translation. In ch. 18. v. 10. the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered see (as it is in some other Places) and not take heed. In the same Chapter, v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be translated [to a certain King] but [to a Man that was a King]. See Luke 24. 19 In v. 28. the same Servant should be that Servant, for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 19 v. 11. the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all do not receive, whereas according to our Translation it is all Men cannot receive. In ch. 20. v. 2. grant that they may sit is not the right englishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but say that they shall sit is. In ch. 21. v. 33. he hedged it round about, should be rather thus, he set a Hedge about it, for in the Greek there is both a Verb▪ and a Substantive (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which are not expressed in our Translation. In ch. 22. v. 9 we render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the high Ways, but this doth not express the two Greek Words, which may be englished thus, the by-going out of the Ways, or the thorow-Passages of the Ways, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath both Significations. That is a palpable Error of our Translation in ch. 23. v. 13. ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men, whereas it should be before Men, or in the Sight of Men, for that is the known Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ver. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to strain a Gnat, not to strain at a Gnat. The jews were wont to strain all their Wine, lest any little infects should be mingled with it, that they might not swallow any such Unclean Animals as Gnats, or the like. To this our Saviour alludes here, he reminds them of their superstitious separating or straining the least Infects from the Liquor which they drank: and therefore our present Translation is amiss. In Mat. 24. 34, 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in both Verses, and seeing it is rendered pass away in the latter Verse, it should not be bare passing in the former, as if the word were not the very same. The plural is put instead of the singular in ch. 26. v. 44. saying the same Words, but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Likewife our English Translation is not exact in v. 73. thy Speech bewrayeth thee, but the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maketh thee manifest. I know these two are of the same Signification, but that is nothing to the purpose, for we are speaking of a Translation which supposes the Exact rendering of one or more Words into another Tongue, if it be capable of it: so that we are confined to Words (where it is possible and convenient) as well as Sense. Our Translators render ch. 27. v. 5. in this manner, He departed, and went and hanged himself, but I conceive it ought to be translated thus, He went apart, or aside (first), and (then) went, and strangled himself. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he retired, as the word is used, Mat. 14. 13. john 6. 15. and other Places. It would be a Tautology, if it were no more than he 〈◊〉, for that is the same with ●ent, which follows. I translate it he strangled himself, because this word ●akes in both strangling or choking himself with 〈◊〉 or Melancholy, and also with a Hal●er. In v. 9 of this Chapter there should in the Margin ●e added the Place of jeremiah which is referred to, viz. jer. 32. 9 as well as that of 〈◊〉. In ●. ●2. we read [the Graves were opened] but● it should rather be the Monuments or T●●bs▪ and so indeed our Translator● render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. ●0. The true rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 6●. ●s not ●s you can, but as you know▪ and then those Words there must not run thus, make it as su●e as you can, but make it sure, as you know▪ i. e. as you know how, as you know best. These are the Places in the Evangelist St. Matthew which I conceive are to be corrected in our Translation, because they are not conformable to the Original, but some of them especially seem to vary much from it. There is a Fault or two likewise which perhaps may be imputed to the Printer rather than the Translators, as that in Mat. 8. 14. [his Wives Mother] which should be [his Wife's Mother] for it is not plural but singular. So in Mat. 10. v. ul●. which speaks of a Cup of cold Water, you may observe, that Water is not in the Original, and therefore should be written or printed in another Letter, as those Words that are not in the Original generally are in the English Bible of the last Translation. I might take notice of the Omission of a notable Reference in Mat. 2. 23. As in other Places generally the Texts that are referred to either in the Old or New Testament are set down in the Margin, so here it would be convenient to do the like, i. e. to place Acts 24. 5. on the side of those Words, He shall be called a Na●●rene.  
I proceed to the Evangelist St. Mark, where I have but one or two Places to offer. Our Translators have not been exact in rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 1. v. 26. for they do not translate it a great Voi●e but a loud Voice, and the like they do in many 
1 Luke 1. 42. & 8. 28. & 17. 15. Acts 8. 7. & 14. 10. & 26. 24. Rev. 5. 2. & 8. 13.  other Places. But though a great Voice be a loud one, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and accordingly great and loud (or sonorous) are two different Words, and if we would be exact we must make a Difference between them in the Translation. Cry aloud, said Elijah, I Kings 18. 27. but according to the Original it is, cry with a great Voice, therefore these Words are clapped into the Margin to show what is the literal and truest rendering of the Words. And certainly, where it may well be done, it is best to keep close to the Letter, and accordingly in the forenamed Texts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Place of the Kings) is to be rendered a great Voice: and so you will find it englished in one Place, Rev. 16. 17. unto which all the rest are to be made conformable. In ch. 6. v. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Apparition, not a Spirit, and therefore that Word is to be preferred before this. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in ch. 7. v. 2. is rendered, that is to say: but the exact Translation is, that is. In v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated Washings, but we english it in the singular. In Mark 10. 46. there is a Word over-added in our Translation, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered by the way, or by the way side, therefore our English Version by the highway side hath something superfluous in it. If you consult ch. 15. v. 3. you will not find any Greek at all (in some of the best Copies) to answer to those Words, but he answered nothing. Some may think why is a redundant Word● in the 14th Verse of this Chapter: but it is an English Expletive, and fitly answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; why, what Evil hath he done?  
In St. Luke's Gospel I find several Passages that are translated amiss: as first in ch. 1. v. 3. having had perfect understanding of all things, which may more suitably to the Greek be changed thus, having had exact understanding in all things, for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 require this Alteration. Ver. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems not to be fully rendered [nothing]: and the word [impossible] here, and in ch. 18. v. 27. should be changed into [impossible], especially seeing that is the word in all other Places in our Translation. In ch. 2. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated [all these things], but in v. 51. 'tis rendered [all these sayings]: but there is no Reason that I can see for this Variation, wherefore the former and latter Place ought to be englished alike. In ch. 6. v. 29. the Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are thus interpreted, Him that taketh away— forbid not to take, etc. But this is defective, for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wholly left out: therefore the Words must be rendered thus according to the Greek, from him that taketh away— detain not: and this without doubt is the Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, for Critics have observed that this Verb denotes not only a forbidding by Words, but by Force and Violence. In v. 38. withal is superfluous, and should be left out, as you will see if you consult the Place. In ch. 7. v. 28. lest is put instead of less. In v. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as is not unusual among Authors) and accordingly it should be rendered not for, but therefore she loved much. Indeed you cannot make Sense of the immediately ensuing Words [but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little] unless you interpret the Word thus: and the Tenor of the Parable (especially v. 42, 43.) shows this to be the Meaning. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is like the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies therefore as well as for. In ch. 8. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated other, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst, as also this latter in ch. 10. v. 3. There is a misplacing of the Words in ch. 11. v. 36. the bright shining of a Candle, instead of a Candle by bright shining, for the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 12. v. 39 the good Man of the House is too vulgar an Expression, and may be changed into the Master of the House, which is the genuine Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Those Words in v. 46. at an Hour when he is not aware, may well be altered thus, in an Hour in which he knoweth not, for so it is according to the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 16. v. 8. the due rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not wiser in the Generation, (as 'tis rendered) but for or towards it. And besides, 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which ought to be translated for their own Generation. In ch. 17. v. 9 I trow not, may be changed for I think not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and it is best to leave out all Obsolete and Antiquated Words, as I wist, I wot, or ere, etc. and change them for those that are more in use. In v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular is wrongly translated Voices in the plural. In v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated [the same Day] but in the next Verse 'tis [in the Day when]; one of these, viz. the former, is not the right Translation: Neither is that in ch. 19 v. 44. one Stone upon another, for in the Original it is, a Stone upon a Stone. That is not an accurate Version in ch. 22. v. 22. as it was determined, for the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to what was determined. And that is not exact in ch. 23. v. 46. I commend my Spirit, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in the future Tense should be rendered [I will commend.] In ch. 24. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sad, but this is short and defective, and so the Translators thought when they rendered this very Word in Mat. 6. 16. [of a sad Countenance] which is the true import of the Greek Word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 38. of this Chapter should be rendered do ascend, or rise up, if we will express the full meaning of the Word.  
Some Texts of St. john are not so well translated as they might be, as chap. 1. v. 15. john bare witness of him, which being in the present Tense in the Greek should be rendered [beareth witness.] In ch. 3. v. 2. [the same] is not according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies this Man. In v. 8. [canst not tell] may be changed for [knowest not] which is more simple, and according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in 2 Cor. 12. 2. the like alteration may be made. In v. 16. [whosoever] is not the true English of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one. Our Translators in ch. 4. v. 23. turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus, he seeketh such to worship him; but query whether it will not be better thus, he seeketh such worshippers of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being put here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of whom he spoke in the former Clause of this Verse. In the last v. of this chap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Miracle, but than it would not be amiss to put the proper Signification of the Word, which is a Sign, in the Margin, at least. In ch. 6. v. 9 the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one is left out in the Translation. The 53d v. according to the Greek is thus, Ye have not Life in you, but in the English thus, Ye have no Life in you. In v. 63. it is better to use the Word [enliveneth] than the Word [quickeneth,] because this latter to those that understand not the Original, and consider not what follows in the Verse, is a dubious Word, and they may think that it signifies to make quick, agile, or nimble: wherefore 'tis better for the sake of some English Readers to lay aside the old Word [quickeneth] both here and in some 
1 Psalm. 119. often. And 'tis better to use the Word [alive] than [quick] in Num. 16. 30. Ps●l. 55. 15. & 124. 3.  other Places, and to use the Plainer Word [enliveneth] or [maketh alive.] Ch. 7. v. 17. is translated thus, If any Man will do his Will; but it is short of the 
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek, according to which the Words must run after this manner, if any one willeth (i e. desireth, purposeth or resolveth) to do his Will. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 26. is not exactly englished thus, this is the very Christ, but thus, this is verily or truly, or indeed the Christ. In ch. 8. v. 3. the Preter perfect Tense is mistaken for the Present Tense, brought for bring: this latter must be used here, especially because the Words go on in 
3 [They say unto him.]  the next Verse in the Present Tense, and are accordingly rendered by the Translators. The 14th v. of this Chap. [though I bear record of myself, my record is true] should be translated after the manner of ch. 5. v. 31. if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true] because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Words in both Places, and therefore it is fit in the same Book to render them alike, and not (as here) record in one Text, and witness in another; [bear record] in one Place, and [bear witness] in another. In v. 56. [to see my day] is not an exact rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but this rather [that he may see my Day.] In chap. 10. v. 10. for is redundant, and therefore may be omitted. Or else turn for into that he may, which is according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 11. v. 26. he shall never die is not the strict Version of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. he shall not for ever die. In ch. 12. v. 43. the Praise of Men and the Praise of God, should be the Glory of Men and the Glory of God, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Word in both Places. In ch. 13. v. 28. there is no mention in the Greek of a Table, though there be in the Translation: but however, if this must be mentioned here, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendered thus, none of those that sat or lay at the Table, not as it is now, no Man at the Table: See ch. 12. v. 2. In ch. 15. v. 22. the Word Cloak may be changed for Pretence, for the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our Translators make these Words in ch. 17. v. 2. [that he should give eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him] to be the English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the right rendering is this, [that he should give eternal Life to them, which is all that thou hast given to him for them,] or [that all which thou hast given to him, he may give unto them, namely eternal Life.] In ch. 19 v. 8. [that] should be [this] according to the Greek which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Query whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 20. v. 4. may not be better expressed than by that single Word [outrun.] In the 8th v. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore is forgot in our Translation, and aught to be supplied. Those Words in the 10th v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered thus, Therefore the Disciples came again (or returned) to themselves: of which Translation I have given a particular account in another Place. And here, before I quit the Evangelists, I might take notice of an undue rendering of the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occur in all of them, as Mat. 9 10. & 26. 7, 20. Mark 6. 22, 40. & 8. 6, 11. & 14. 18. & 16. 14. Luke 5. 29. & 22. 27. john 6. 10. & 12. 2. & 13. 12. and several other Places, where they are expressed in our English Translation by sitting or sitting down; but they properly signify lying down▪ leaning, lying along, or lying on one side, and so should be rendered.  
In the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 1. v. 12. the English Version is very deficient, for whereas it runs thus [which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath-day's journey,] in the Greek 'tis after this manner [which is near to Jerusalem, containing a Sabbath-day's journey.] Those two Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are omitted. In ch. 2. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered sweet Wine (i. e. the best and most generous Wine, which would soon intoxicate those who took a great Portion of it) as well as new Wine, which is generally sweet and luscious: at least the former rendering of the Word may be set in the Margin. In v. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is be ye saved, not (as we render it) save yourselves▪ though 'tis true some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In v. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to this Place, and is to be rendered the saved ones, not (as 'tis in our English Bibles) such as should be saved. In ch. 4. 14. we read [they could say nothing against it,] but according to the Greek it is [they had nothing to say against it.] The 32d v. is rendered thus, the Multitude of them that believed were of one Heart and of one Soul, but the Greek runs thus, the Heart and Soul of the Multitude of them that believed was one. The 9th v. of the 9th ch. cannot but be thought to require some Correction, for there is no Word in our Translation that answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: therefore thus the Verse should be rendered, And he preaching boldly (for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be rendered, and there is an Example of it, v. 27.) in the Name of the Lord jesus spoke and disputed against the Grecians. But in our English Version the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out untranslated. In ch. 10. v. 10. eaten is instead of tasted, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the latter import. In ch. 11. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be [who (not what) was I?] In ch. 12. v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered and Praying, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forgot. In ch. 13. v. 20. the direct rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is after these things, not after that. In v. 22. there is something redundant, and something wanting, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered [after my Heart,] not [after my own Heart,] and in the next Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have been translated [Wills] in the Plural. I might add also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might here be more plainly and simply rendered [he shall do] than [he shall fulfil.] Besides, not only in this Place, but in all others in the Old and New Testament [after] when it bears this Signification should be exchanged for [according to.] In v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered [because they knew him not,] whereas the plain Translation is [knowing him not, or having not known him.] In v. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered to be preached, but that is not the usual Translation of the Word in other Places, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be spoken and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be preached. In ch. 15. v. 20, 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be englished thus [from what is strangled,] and not as 'tis now in the Plural Number [from things strangled.] In ch. 16. v. 1▪ and in many 
1 Acts 16. 1. Rom. 16. 21. 1 Cor. 16. 10.  other Places [Timotheus] is in the English Translation, whereas this Word is expressed with some Variation elsewhere, and he is called Timothy. This is to be blamed, because (as hath been hinted more than once) the same Greek Word, especially a Proper Name, aught to be rendered the same in all Places. In ch. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Areopagus, v. 19 and Mars-hill, v. 22. as if ●t were not the same Word. This I here blame again, and shall afterwards animadvert upon, viz. the Un●itness of translating the same Word differently in the same Chapter or Book. Either one or the other Version is to be stuck to. In v. 21. there is no notice taken of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should be rendered [sojourning,] or [who sojourned there.] In ch. 19 v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is englished [fifty thousand Pieces of Silver,] but not rightly, for there is not the Word [fifty] in the Verse, but the true rendering of the Greek is [five Myriad, or five times ten thousand Pieces of Silver.] It is granted that this is the same with fifty thousand, but the Translation should be according to the Words in the Original, which are [five Myriad.] I dislike the rendering of v. 24, 25. for the reason beforementioned, viz. because the very same Word is differently translated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former Verse is rendered Gain, in the latter Craft, but without doubt it ought to be rendered alike in both: which will suggest unto us the True Translation of that Word. Demetrius the Silver-smith brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no small Trade (so I render it) to the Craftsmen, whom he called together, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this Trade (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated again) we have our Wealth. This I take to be the true rendering of the Words, for it is not probable in the least that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify two Different things in so short a Space. Besides, it is plain that it is meant here as I have represented it; for Demetrius here spoken of, was a Man of a very Great Trade, and had several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Artificers and Workmen (as they are here called) under him, and so is said to have brought them no small Work or Trade: wherefore he warmly stirred up these and their Fellows to cry up Diana and her Worship; otherwise their Trade (which is here translated their Craft) would fail, that Trade by which they had their Wealth. Thus the Signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same in both Places, as I conceive. In v. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought thus to be englished [to be impeached of Sedition for or concerning this Day,] i. e. for what we have done this Day. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ch. 21. v. 1. which we translate [were gotten from] might be expressed in the Margin thus [were snatched from] or [were plucked from,] for this is the known meaning of the Word. In v. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were better translated because of, than for, this latter being used here in an obsolete manner. The 22d v. of the 22 d ch. is imperfectly expressed in English thus, they gave him Audience unto this Word: The Word [unto] is not presently understood, and therefore should be changed for [until] which is more intelligible; [They heard him until this Speech] and no longer, that is the plain rendering of the Text. In ch. 23. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an Army (as 'tis translated) for the Context shows that so Great a Number is not meant, but we are to understand by this Word a certain Party of Soldiers, and therefore it were better to translate it the Soldiery or Soldiers, as we find it rendered in v. 10. In the 29th v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated [I perceived.] but the true English is [I found.] In ch. 24. v. 3. and ●n ch. 26. 25. it were better to change [most noble] ●●to [most excellent], both because of the true Import of the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and because it hath been so translated in Luke 1. 3. Acts 23. 26. In ch. 24. v. 11. according to the Greek we are to read the Words thus, there are not more than twelve Days, and not (as Our Translation hath it) there are yet but twelve Days: and in the latter Clause of this Verse [for] is superfluous. In ch. 25. v. 14. there is no regard to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore we ought to insert it thus in English, when they had tarried there many Days. The Translation of ch. 26. v. 8. [Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the Dead?] may be mended thus, What? is it judged a thing incredible with you if God raiseth the Dead? In v. 11. [strange Cities] should have been expressed thus in the Margin, [Cities that are without] according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The plain Version of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 26. is, I stand judged or arraigned, not I stand, and am judged. The true Import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 28. v. 2. is not little (as 'tis rendered) but common or vulgar Kindness. In v. 11. the Translators forgot to put [Jupiter's Twins] in the Margin, for neither the word Castor nor Pollux is in the Greek, only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We ●et, v. 13. is a Word now out of use.  
In the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 2. v. 2. [we are sure] in the Interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is no more than [we know], therefore the other is too high a Word. In v. 5. [against] is [in] in the Greek, and therefore we can do no less than mention it in the Margin. In ch. 3. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered first, not chiefly, for the Apostle is reckoning the Privileges of the Jews in order, Imprimis, saith he, to them were committed, etc. and after a long Digression he goes on, and enumerates the rest of the Privileges. In v. 4, 5. of this Chapter, and in several other Places in this Epistle, and in some other of his Epistles, he useth that Form of Speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answers to the Form of Detestation in the Old Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to the Latin absit, and signifies no other than let it not be; wherefore it is falsely translated [God forbid] in compliance with the vulgar Form of Speech. In v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered [is not God unrighteous?] for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Particle of Denying as well as of Interrogation; but according to Our Translation [not] is left out, which I would have in the Margin at least. That in Rom. 8. 37. we are more than Conquerors, is an ill Translation, because the Greek is a Verb. viz, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore should be rendered, we do more than conquer. There is a Defect in the Version of ch. 9 v. 3. I could wish that myself: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be no less than I myself. In v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better rendered might remain or abide than might stand. In ch. 11. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not fully rendered; there being two Words in the Greek, it should be translated with some Emphasis, [unto this very day]. In v. 25. [wise in your own Conceits] is not according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore the true Translation is [wise in your own selves.] In ch. 12. v. 9 it is according to the Greek [abhorring], not [abhor]; it is [cleaving], not [cleave]: and in v. 17. it is providing], not [provide]. In ch. 14. v. 11. [that] is left out before [every Knee]. In ch. 15. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated [minister], and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [ministering,] but they being two distinct Words I conceive there should be some Difference in the Translating them: therefore I apprehend that [administering] will be a good rendering of the latter, this Word showing that the Words in the Greek are not the same, and yet that their Difference is not great.  
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1. v. 7. coming should not be in the Text, and Revelation in the Margin; but if you will make any different Reading, let coming be placed in the Margin, and Revelation in the Text itself, because this is the very unquestionable rendering of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 4. v. 8. (as also in 2 Cor. 11. 1.) I would to God is a superfluous Version, for the Greek is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I wish, I would: and so 'tis barely translated in Gal. 5. 12. and Rev. 3. 15. and accordingly may as well be so here. In ch. 7. v. 18. the true rendering of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nè reducat, not attrahat, sc. praeputium: but because it is in a matter which requires modest and chaste Speech, I do not urge any Alteration in the English. In v. 25. I have no Commandment is not exactly according to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. I have not a Commandment. In ch. 10. v. 6, 11. you read Examples and Ensamples, but why is there any Variation at all in these Words when in both Places the Greek Word (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is the same? In ch. 11. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated I will, not I would: however, let this latter be set in the Margin. In v. 14. [a Shame] should have been translated [Dishonour], for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, and is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Verse, which intimates this rendering of the Word to be most proper. In v. 28. [that] and [that] should be changed into [the] and [the], or there should be an Asterisk pointing to the Margin, where must be set down what the Greek signifies. In v. 29. [judgement] should not stand in the Margin, but be taken into the Text, because besides the proper Denotation of the Greek Word, the Context absolutely proves it must be rendered judgement, and not Damnation; for the Apostle speaks of that Temporal Punishment which the Corinthians pulled down upon their Heads by their unworthy and profane celebrating of the Lord's Supper: for this Cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, v. 30. This is the judgement which they did eat and drink to themselves, and it is opposed to Condemnation with the World, v. 32. therefore it can't in this Place be translated Damnation. In ch. 12. v. 28. [Miracles] is [mighty Works] in the Margin, but falsely, for in the Greek it is [Powers], and so you will find it rendered in the Margin, which refers to the next Verse, where the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be rendered in ch. 14. v. 40. according to order, not in order, for this latter denotes only a Methodical Acting. In ch. 15. v. 58. the simple plain Version is best [knowing], according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In the second Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 2. v. 5. the Translation seems not to be sufficient unless there be added a Parenthesis to shut in those Words, that I may not overcharge you. But of this I have spoken in another Place; only I will add, that both in this Epistle, and in that to the Romans, and indeed in most of this Apostle's Writings, where there are frequent Parentheses, it would be convenient to give notice of this to the Reader, by inserting the usual Notes or Marks whereby they are expressed. In ch. 5. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not sufficiently expressed by we labour: I think it might be more fully translated, we ambitiously strive, or we studiously endeavour. In v. 10. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated, we must all be manifested, or made manifest. And so indeed the Word is rendered twice in v. 11. and I have often cautioned against the different translating of the same Word, where it will admit (as here) of the same Version. Indeed here is in this 11th Verse a plain reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing one: so that unless we translate it alike in both Places, we show that we do not take notice of the Apostle's reference. Besides, to appear before the judgement, etc. is thought by the mere English Reader to be only making our Appearance, i. e. to be present there. We do you to wit, ch. 8. v. 1. calls for an Emendation, it being an Obsolete Expression. The plain English of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is we make known unto you. In v. 21. of this Chapter our Translators render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [providing for], whereas in Rom. 12. 17. they render it [providing]: but I have often suggested that the same Words ought to be translated alike. In ch. 11. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [rude in Speech] had better be rendered [plain or unskilful in Speech], for in our English Idiom the word [rude] is as much as unmannerly, and therefore it is not well adapted to English Ears, which we are partly to consult in our Translation which we design for their Use. In v. 9 the Translation would be more exact if instead of [in all things] we read [in every thing], it being in the singular Number in the Greek, to which all Translations of the New Testament are to conform as far as they can.  
In the Epistle to the Galatians there is something that may be amended in the English Translation, as in ch. 1. v. 16. [that I might preach him] but in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I may preach the glad-tidings of him. In ch. 3. v. 7. [the same] should be [these], for the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In ch. 5. v. 20, 21. instead of Hatred, Variance, Wrath, Strife, Drunkenness, you must read them in the plural Number, because they are so in the Original. The true rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 23. is not there is no Law, but, the Law is not, i. e. it was not made, neither is it designed to condemn such things or such Persons as are there spoken of.  
In the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 1. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Remembrance as well as mention, wherefore the former should be put into the Margin: (See Phil. 1. 3. 2▪ Tim. 1. 3.) In ch. 2. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be rendered [which], but [by which], the Sense of the Apostle being this, God out of his infinite and inexhaustible Love hath from eternal Ages ordained and decreed to prepare all his Elect by good Works, to fit them by these for his Service, to enable them by th● performing of these to walk as becomes the Chosen of the Lord. Or, it is likely the Apostle by the full Extent of these Words lets us know, that Good Works are our Preparative ●ven for Heaven and Happiness, we are fitted by these for the Glory above. In ch. 5. v. 3. [once] is not in the Original, and therefore must be expunged the Translation. In ch. 6. v. 18. there can be no Reason assigned why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not rendered at all times or in every Season, seeing this is nearer to the Original than always. In the same Verse [thereunto] is not the full English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which must be rendered thus, [to this very thing.] I could also take notice of the false spelling, v. 16. [fiery] for [fury], which is to be found not only here but in other Places both in the Old and New Testament, and generally among all Writers whomsoever, as if it came from fire, not from fire.  
In Philip. 1. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be translated [meet], but [just]. In v. 23. [which is f●r better] comes short of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Vulgar Latin renders mult● magis melius, and we accordingly should english it [which is ●uch rather or far better] or [far the best], the Comparative perhaps being put for the Superlative. Besides, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out, which shows that this Clause is the Reason of what went before: for the Apostle desires to depart and to be with Christ, and gives this Account of his Desire, for this is 〈◊〉 better: so that his Desire is Rational and well-grounded. In ch. 2. v. 19 I trust is not the right rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but I hope: especially seeing I trust in v. 24. is the Version of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a different Word. I follow after is the rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3d Chapter of this Epistle, v. 12. but 'tis not a ●it Expression when it is spoken of running in a Race (as here): his great Endeavour was to forget those things that are behind, as he adds in the Words immediately ensuing: Therefore rather translate it I follow on, or I press towards, for so the Word is rendered in v. 14. In this and the next Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated to lay hold upon, for it is an Agonistick Word used to express the Combatants or Victors laying hold with their Hands on the Prize that was hung up. But apprehending (which is the Word that our Translators use) is more ambiguous, and doth not so plainly set forth the Metaphor. In v. 21. of this Chapter he shall change, is too low a Word for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which might rather be rendered he shall transform, or he shall change into another Form or Figure, especially seeing this Expression hath a Reference or Allusion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which may more exactly be rendered conformable to) immediately ensuing in that Verse.  
In the Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 1. v. 12. [God and] or [God even] should be inserted before the [Father], for you will find [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Original. In ch. 3. v. 5. I do not see why we need translate the single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by two Words [inordinate Affection]: that one word Passion will suffice. In ch. 4. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered [continue], but in Rom. 12. 12. it is [continue instant]. It is faulty, because (as hath been said) the same Words, when they are meant of the same thing, aught to be translated alike. Indeed this could not be expected, seeing the Bible was translated by different Persons, and perhaps did not compare their Translations together: but for the future this may be thought of and amended, if a New, or rather a more Correct Translation of the Bible be attempted.  
I pass to some Other Epistles: in 1 Thess. 2. 5. there is no need of rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Cloak of Covetousness, when the plain and genuine Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Pretence. In ch. 4. v. 4. [his Vessel] is not sufficient: but according to the Greek it must be [his own Vessel]. Seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Thess. 2. 6. is translated [what withholdeth] I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Verse ought to be rendered [he that withholdeth] not [he that letteth]. In the 1st Epistle to Timothy, ch. 2. v. 4. our Translation might be altered thus, [who willeth all Men to be saved, and to come unto the Acknowledgement or acknowledging of the Truth], for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be rendered otherwise than [willeth], and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Cognitio, Knowledge, but Agnitio, acknowledging, and so 'tis rendered, Tit. 1. 1▪ Again, in v. 9 of this Chapter there is a Mistake in the Printing, broidered for broided, (for so it is in Coverdale and Tindal, whence this Translation was borrowed) or braided, i. e. plaited. Here therefore must be an Amendment, for broidering is quite another thing; or the word plaited may be taken out of the Margin, and set in the Text. In ch. 4. v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be englished thus, is profitable (not profiteh▪ as if the Greek Word were a Verb) to or for a little (not barely little): for when we read it [bodily Exercise profiteth little] the Sense conveyed to us by those Words is, that there is little or no Profit accrues to us by it: but the true Meaning (as I conceive) of the Place is, that the bodily Exercises of the Athleticks (of which he often speaks in his Epistles) were, as to some things profitable, viz. in respect of their Health, Credit, Pleasure, etc. but Godliness is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon all Accounts advantageous; where you see that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore as that is rendered unto all things, so this should be unto a little, signifying that there is some Profit in those Agonistick Exercises. After those Words in the next Verse, this is a faithful Saying, and worthy of all Acceptation, there should be a full Period, whereas in our Bibles there is a Colon, as if it related to the next Words. But this Verse hath reference to the foregoing one, This, i. e. what was said in the Verse before, is a faithful Saying. Ver. 16. [unto thy Doctrine] is not according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; [Thy] is not there: Rather render the whole Clause thus, Take heed unto thyself, and unto teaching, the two main things which are required of a Minister of the Gospel, and comprehend his Whole Duty. In ch. 5. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered [to show Piety towards their own House or Family], whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not taken notice of in our Translation, which is thus, [to show Piety at home]. In v. 16. according to the Greek it should be thus rendered, if any believing (or faithful) Man, or believing (or faithful) Woman. [Believing] is twice in the Original, but in Our Translation but once. In ch. 6. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be rendered Strif●, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just before is translated Strife of Words. These being different should wholly differ in the Translation: therefore let Contention be the word for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is rendered in some other Places of the Apostle's Epistles. In v. 15. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken notice of in the Version, and accordingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be englished thus, in his own or proper times. In the second Epistle to Timothy, ch. 4. v. 3. the exact Version is [the time will be]: and in v. 14. [tender] should be the word instead of [reward]. In the Epistle to Titus, ch. 1. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be englished [in his own times]. In v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might in the Margin be rendered, according to its proper Signification, Deceivers of Minds. In ch. 3. v. 4. the word Pity is falsely put in the Margin, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies God's Love to Man, not Pity: therefore that Word should be left out.  
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 1. v. 3. if we would be exact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be rendered effecting the cleansing▪ or working the purging of our Sins, whereas 'tis barely translated purging our Sins. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,▪ v. 14. is to inherit Salvation, not to be Heirs of Salvation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 4. v. 12. had better be rendered living or lively than quick, because this is an ambiguous Word, and signifies not only Life, but sometimes Swiftness. Why should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 15. be plainly and simply rendered to sympathise with, or have Compassion on, rather than to be touched with a feeling? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch. 10. v. 8. is according to the Law, not by the Law. In ch. 10. v. 1●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should, for the expressing the Sense more clearly, be rendered the Lord saith, that it may not be thought that saith the Lord belongs to the foregoing Clause, but that it may appear it refers to the following one: For the Words run thus, After that the Holy Ghost, in the Scripture, had said before, This, etc. the Lord said, (viz. in the next Words) I will put my Laws, etc. In v. 23. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Confession or Profession of Hope, not of Faith, as our Bible's read it. Again, in v. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be misplaced in our Translation, and the Words should not be rendered [knowing in yourselves that ye have], but [knowing that ye have for yourselves], viz. laid up for yourselves in Heaven, etc. for the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will well bear this Signification here, it being in the New Testament of a very large Extent. However, this rendering of it, and the referring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be taken notice of in the Margin. In ch. 11. v. 12. as good as dead is but a vulgar way of speaking; and seeing the plain English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is [as to these things dead] I see no Reason for using this manner of Speech in this Place. In v. 23. our English Word proper (especially as 'tis now used) doth not express the Sense of the Greek Word, and cannot well be applied to Moses when he was an Infant. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should rather be rendered fair, as the Word is translated in Acts 7. 20. or goodly, as we render it in Exod. 2. 2. where the LXX use this Greek Word to express the Hebrew Tob. In v. 37. the English Version of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this, they were slain with the Sword, but it is very deficient, the true rendering of the Greek being this, they died by Slaughter of the Sword. No Man can translate it otherwise, therefore here is need of correcting our English Bibles. In ch. 12. v. 1. there is a palpable misplacing of the Words, which ought to be amended; [seeing we also are compassed about with so great a Cloud of Witnesses] must be altered thus according to the Greek [we having such a Cloud of Witnesses encompassing us]: and instead of [let us lay aside] read [let us, laying aside, etc.] In v. 16. one Morsel of Meat doth not answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should be rendered for one eating, or rather for one feeding, which comprehends both eating and drinking, for this Place refers to Gen. 25. 34. Jacob gave Esau Bread and Pottage, and he did eat and drink: Which shows that one Morsel doth not fully contain the Sense of the Words. In ch. 13. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so properly translated [be not forgetful to entertain Strangers] as thus [forget not the entertaining of Strangers, or the loving of Strangers, or Hospitality] (as 'tis rendered in Rom. 12. 13.) for this Translation shows which is the Verb, and which is the Noun. In v. 8. [is] is left out without Cause: for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks be sometimes omitted in such Propositions, yet 'tis always understood to make the Sentence entire: But in the English it ought to be expressed, and particularly here, jesus Christ is the same, or else nothing is affirmed, and so the Sense is left imperfect. Our Translators render v. 16. thus, [to do Good and to communicate forget not] but it is most exactly rendered in this manner, forget not doing of Good and communicating, for these latter are Substantives, not Verbs; and there should be a Distinction made between them in our Translation.  
In 1 Pet. 1. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered at the appearing, but in v. 13. at the Revelation. This latter is the true Word, and therefore let it be used in both Places. In ch. 3. v. 20. leave out a. In ch. 4. v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have been translated Prayers, not Prayer. Concerning 2 Pet. 1. 10. No Prophecy of Scripture is of any private Interpretation, I animadvert, 1. That any is not in the Greek, nor need it be in the English. 2. It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently should be rendered every Prophecy is, etc. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not private but proper, and so these Words, every Prophecy of Scripture is not of proper Interpretation, may be understood thus, Some Prophecies in Scripture have, besides the Proper and Primary Interpretation, a Secondary one: Or, the first and literal Signification of them is not the only Sense to be looked after in them, but there is a higher and greater (which is the second, and as 'twere the improper Sense) couched in them. In c●. 2. v. 16. [he was rebuked] is not according to the Greek, but it should be [he had a Rebuke] or Check. In v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [great swelling] may better be rendered [overswelling] and so in jude, v. 16.  
In 1 john 2. 20. you read an Unction, and v. 27. the anointing: but there is the same Greek Word, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherefore the rendering of it should be alike in both Places. In St. Iude's Epistle, v. 8. [filthy] should be left out, for there is no such Word in the Original. Our Margin indeed takes notice of it, but then the word [filthy] should have been in different Letters, as those Words that are not in the Greek usually are distinguished in the New Testament. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 13. is rendered the Blackness of Darkness, but the same Words are englished t●e midst of Darkness, 2 Pet. 2. 17. which seems to be the most proper Translation: however (as I have suggested on the like occasion) let one of them only be retained. In v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered (and most properly) [prophesied unto these], viz. denouncing Judgement against them, as you read in the next Verse.  
Lastly, in the Revelation I might observe that in ch. 3. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may most properly be translated [I have stood]: therefore let it be so englished in the Margin, if not in the Text. In ch. 4. v. 4. instead of Seats let Thrones be read, with the word [other] in different Characters before it. It is not sit that the same Word should have two divers Readins in the same Verse. In v. 6, 8, 9 let [living Creatures] be taken out of the Margin, and be set in the Text itself in the Place of [Beasts], which is not a sit Word for those that are represented by that Vision, especially when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word here) is the word which is rightly translated the Beast in this Book. In ch. 11. v. 17. those Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not rightly rendered, which art, and waste, and art to come, but thus, who is, and was, and is to come. In ch. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in v. 13. is translated [Wonders], in the 14th [Miracles], which ought to be corrected for the Reason so often given, viz. because the same Greek Word should be rendered by the same English one, if there be no apparent Cause for the contrary. In ch. 14. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendered with them: [their Works follow with them.] In ch. 16. v. 12. the way of the Kings who are from the Risings of the Sun, is the true and literal Version of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but in our present English Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is absorped.  
These are the several Places which I conceive aught to be altered, and translated more exactly. I say not this to impair or derogate from the Credit and Honour of our English Translation, much less to condemn the Present Edition, or to expose the Scriptures themselves; but my Design is to represent them in their native Excellency and Purity, and to contribute by this Critical Essay towards so worthy an End. For it is certain that nothing can more commend the Holy Writ than an Exact Translation, i. e. such a one as faithfully represents to us the Express Text of Scripture. Wherefore I humbly offer the forementioned Places to the Consideration of the Learned and Judicious, and leave the whole or part to be approved or rejected as they shall think fit. Perhaps when our Church-Affairs are settled, this will not seem unworthy of the Thoughts of a Convocation, who I question not will see that the Revising and Correcting of our English Translation of the Bible in all or in most of those Places (and in several others which I have not here propounded) is very requisite. It is my judgement that as out of the Vulgar Latin and the Modern Latin Versions, one entire one might be made in that Language that should be generally used in Quotations among the Orthodox Learned, so a New English Translation might be composed out of this Last Edition as to the main, but with such New Alterations and Amendments as should render the Style and Sense in many Places more accurate, and should make it acceptable to the most Curious English Readers. And here I advise that the Marginal Notes of the Present English Bible be often consulted, because the best and most genuine Translations of Words are frequently put there. But in the foregoing Animadversions I have taken no notice of those different Significations of Words which are placed there. I have only offered those that have not hitherto been observed.  
In the last Place I might add something concerning the Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses. It is not to be doubted that Moses, the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles writ their Books without any such Partition, and this was the way of all other Writers of old. But it appears that the Books of the Prophets were divided afterwards into Parashes, before our Saviour's Time, and this distribution of them is often mentioned in the Talmuds. This was done by the Jews for the more methodical reading of them in the Synagogues. Some of the 
1 Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. Clem. Alexand. Strom. l. 3.  Greek Fathers take notice of this Distribution, (and consequently it was made before their Time) for they mention the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament, which signify the same thing, and 
2 Praesat. in Daniel.  jerom speaks of a Pericope of jeremiah. Yea, if I mistake not, this sort of Sections or Parashes is mentioned in Acts 8. 32. and is called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Books of the Evanglists and Apostles were afterwards divided into certain Sections by some of the Primitive Bishops and Pastors, for the more convenient reading of them, herein imitating the jews who had done the same in the Old Testament. These are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the 
3 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. Athanal. Orat. 3. cont. Arian. Basil de Baptismo, l. 3. quaest. 4▪ Chrysost. hom. 3. de Lazaro.  Eastern Fathers, and Lectiones by the Latin Ones: They were the same that we call Chapters. Verses were also ancient, but not the same that are at present, nor were all the Books so divided. St. jerom tells us he distributed the Books of the Chronicles and that of Ezekiel into Verses. And some of th● Books of the New Testament were thus divided: particularly the Epistle to the Galatians was parted into these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Origen, as 
4 Prae●at. in Epist. ad Galat.  jerom informs us. But it is certain that all these Partitions, whether into Chapters or Verses, w●re very much different from what we have at this Day. To this purpose 'tis observable (as Heinsius and some other Critics out of Suidas relate) that the New Testament was divided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so far as I can gather from the Account which they give of these two, the former of these was the division of a Book into Chapters, and the latter into Verses or some such small Portion: though at this Day there is a quite different Sense of the Words, for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the greater division, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lesser. As to the Division of the whole Bible (consisting of 39 Books of the Old Testament, and 27 of the New) into distinct Chapters, as they are now among us, viz. 779 in the Old Testament and 260 in the New, it was made by Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury about the Year 1060: others say by Stephen Langton, who was Archbishop of the same See in K. John's Time, about the Year 1200. It is said by others that Cardinal Hugo twenty or thirty Years afterwards was the first that contrived the Distinction of Chapters of the Old Testament, for fitting the Hebrew Text to the Concordance of the Bible, which he was Author of. The dividing of Chapters into Verses was more lately, being the Work of the Industrious and Learned Robert Stephens about eightscore Years since. But whoever were the first Authors of this Division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses, it is certain that it is not rightly made. The beginning of the 10th Chap. of Isaiah should not be cut of from the 9th Chapter, for it belongs to it, and at the Close of the 5th v. of the 10th Chap. (which is so now) the 9th should end. And many other Chapters in the Old Testament are ill divided. But especially in the New Testament one may see that the distinction of Chapters and Verses now in use was drawn up in haste, whereby some Matters that should have been united are severed, and vice versâ. The 1st Verse of the 4th Chapter to the Colossians should have been joined to the third Chapter: and the Division of the Verses in many other Places ought to be corrected and altered, as Sir N. Knatchbull hath in several Instances showed. We may take junius and Tremellius for an Example, who have altered the Chapters sometimes in the Latin; and it might be as convenient to imitate them both in the Old and New Testament in English.  
Nor will this Changing or any other Alteration which I have before suggested, be any Argument at all of the Imperfection of Scripture. This remains entire in itself, and is not in the least changed. And the ●esign of my present Enterprise was to assert this, and to evince the Perfection of the Original Text, and to let us see that all Translations must be regulated by that. No Version of the Bible is so absolutely Authentic that we ought to adhere to that, and no other. 
1 Ut Veterum librorum fides de Hebraeis Voluminibus examinanda est, ita Novorum veritas Graeci Sermonis normam desiderat. Hieron. Epist. ad Lucin.  The Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New are the only Standard, and all must be examined and tried, altered and amended by this. It is granted there is some Variation in the Copies, but the Diligent and Unprejudiced may find out what is Genuine. Some have fancied that the carelessness of Transcribers hath caused some Literal Faults, but then they acknowledge that none of them are Material and Considerable, they relate not to Faith and Good Manners. This is the very Confession of Spinoza, who hath spoken so ill of the Bible; This I can certainly affirm, 
1 Tractat. Theolog. Polit. cap. 9  saith he, that I have not found any fault or variety of readings about the moral Documents, which may render them obscure and dubious. Wherefore our Assertion still remains impregnable and unshaken, that the Sacred Volume of the Scriptures is Complete and Perfect, and hath all things in it which can speak it a most Consummate Work.   

CHAP. XIV.  
The Reader is invited to the Study of the Bible, as he values the Repute of a Scholar and a Learned Man. That he may successfully study this Holy Book he must be furnished with Tongues, Arts, History, etc. It is necessary that he be very Inquisitive and Diligent in searching into the Mind and Design of the Sacred Writers: In examining the Coherence of the Words: In Comparing Places together: In observing and discovering the peculiar Grace and Elegancy, and sometimes the Verbal Allusions and Cadences of the Holy Scripture, of which several Instances are given. He must also be Morally qualified to read this Book, i. e. he ought to banish all Prejudice: He must be Modest and Humble: He must endeavour to free himself from the Love of all Vice: He must with great Earnestness implore the Assistance of the Holy Spirit.  
IT remains that I conclude with a serious Address and Invitation to the Reader, to admire and value this Book which is so transcendently Excellent and Complete, to prise it above all others whatsoever, constantly to read, peruse and study these Holy Writings. The Laws of that Vile Impostor Mahomet, are styled the Alcoran from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legit, as much as to say the Book is to be read. And shall we not think that that Sacred Volume which contains the Laws of our Heavenly Master and Infallible Teacher, deserves that Respect from us? For this reason the Hebrews call the Holy Scripture Mikra, i. e. lectionem, because it is to be read by all, because this Divine Book is to be universally perused, revolved and searched into. We are not forbid to be acquainted with Other Authors, such as may conduce to useful Knowledge whether secular or religious, especially such as may be someways helpful towards the understanding of the Scriptures. But there is a great Number of Writers that are trifling, vain and useless: others are dangerous and pernicious. Meddle with neither of these: or if you have, lay them out of your Hands forthwith, and take up the Bible, the only Book that is Worthy of your most serious perusal. Behold here the Book of God There are no Writings any where like these, none can afford any thing comparable to them. It may be observed that the Holy Spirit hath made use of divers Sorts of Persons in the penning of this Volume, Moses bred up in the Schools of the Egyptians, Daniel one of the chief of the Wise Men and Princes of the Persian Court, David and Solomon Kings, jeremy and Ezekiel Priests, Amos a Herdsman: in the New Testament Matthew a Converted Publican, Paul brought up at the Feet of Gamaliel, the rest of the Evangelists and Apostles Fithermen and Tradesmen: that hence Persons of all Ranks and Degrees may be admonished to converse with these Sacred Writings, that they may think themselves concerned in these Messages delivered by different Ambassadors. I have sometimes observed that some Men of no contemptible Learning and Reading, and who are acquainted with store of Good Authors, have no regard for this Excellent Book, and never think themselves obliged to look into it. But this argues a great defect of Judgement, (to say no worse now) for even in the Point of Scholarship they cannot be without the Knowledge of the Bible. So far as they are Ignorant of this, they are deficient in Learning: for (as I have demonstrated) this Book is fraught with all Humane Learning, and gives Instructions concerning the choicest Arts and Sciences. Upon which account it is of such universal use, t●at no sort of Persons can be ignorant of it without great Inconvenience and Damage. He is no Antiquary that is not skilled in these Writings which are of the greatest Antiquity: He is no Historian that is not acquainted with the Important Transactions of this Book: He is no Statesman or Politician who hath not insight into the Excellent Maxims and Laws which are found here: He is no right Natural Philosopher who is not acquainted with the Origin and Make of this Mundane System as they are represented in the Mosaic Physiology in the first Chapter of Genesis: He is no Accomplished Grammarian, Critic or Rhetorician who is ignorant of that Philological Learning which these Writings afford: And chiefly he is no Good Man or Christian who is a Stranger to those Admirable Rule which are here laid down. Wherefore it is the concern of all Persons to converse with the Scriptures, and to apply themselves with great diligence to the reading of them, and that daily and frequently. Let this Holy Book be seldom out of your Hands. Though you have often perused it, yet continue to do so still, 
1 Non est similis qui legit lectionem suam centies ei qui legit ●am centies & semel. Talm.  for you will thereby receive infinite Advantage. There is ever something gained by a fresh and repeated reading of it. Some new Matter is discovered, or the old is illustrated and confirmed: We either know more, or know better than we did before.  
That our Reading of the Holy Scriptures may be of this Nature, and that we may study and understand them aright, I propound these ensuing Rules and Directions. First, It is requisite that we furnish ourselves with other Learning to make ourselves capable of understanding the Bible. All Arts require a Master and Teacher, even the lowest and mechanical. All Trades and Sciences are to be learned: none presumes to meddle with them till they have been instructed in them. And yet we may observe that all degrees of Persons pretend to interpret the Scriptures, though they were never instructed, never prepared, as 
2 [Sola Scripturarum ars est quam sibi passim omnes vendicant. Hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc sophista verbo●us; hanc universi praesumunt, laeerant, docent, antequam discant.] Hieron. Epist. ad Paulin.  St. jerom complained of old. A great many imagine that the Weakest Brains can comprehend the Contents of this Book, and without all other knowledge attain to the meaning of them. But this is a gross Mistake, and is one cause of men's wresting and corrupting the Scriptures: They are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Pet. 3. 16. unlearned, and unwilling to be taught, (for so the Word imports) they neglect the means of Knowledge, they use not the proper Helps conducing to it. Or whatever they were in St. Peter's Time, we are sure that now a competent Measure of Humane Learning is required to understand these Writings: For though they surpass all Humane Wisdom, yet it is as true that they have strictures of all Arts and Sciences in them, and are written in the Learned Languages, and (as I have showed formerly) contain in them all sorts of Words, Phrases and Idioms: Wherefore there is a Necessity of the Arts and Tongues for understanding this Book. In the Writings of Moses and the Prophets, of the Apostles and Evangelists, there are the Rites, Customs, Manners, Opinions, Sayings, Proverbs, of almost all Nations in the World, especially of the Ancient Hebrews: Wherefore a Knowledge of their Writings and Ancient Monuments, a Converse with History and Antiquities, are absolutely requisite, especially for explaining the difficult Places. And to have a true Notion of several Passages in the Epistles of the Apostles, Ecclesiastical History in needful, which gives us nitice of the Heretics of that time, or of those concerning whom the Apostles prophetically speak. The Writings of the Fathers are to be consulted, and that with great application of Mind, that we may not mistake the Interpretations which those Learned and Pious Men give of the respective Places of Scripture, that we may be edified by their Religious Comments, but not imbibe any of their Errors. This which I now say principally concerns the Guides and Ministers of the Church, who are supposed to be Men of Learning and Scholarship: and truly a great Part of the Bible is more especially fitted for such. It is their province to expound and teach this Holy Book, which is itself a Library, and is of that Nature that it cannot be rightly understood and explained without acquaintance with the Ancient Writers of the Church, without skill in the Tongues, Rhetdrick, Logic, Philosophy, History, Criticism; for as it is furnished with all Literature, so it requires all to unfold it aright. As for the Apostles, though some of them had no knowledge in Arts and Sciences, yet that Defect was abundantly recompensed by the extraordinary Gifts and Endowments of the Holy Ghost. So most of the Primitive Christians in the Apostles Days, who were not Hebrews, understood the Language in which the Old Testament was written by their Gift of Tongues. And as for the Greek of the New Testament, it was universally known, and so was in a manner the native Tongue both to the Jews and others of that time. But Men are not now instructed in Strange Languages by the Spirit, nor are they born with Hebrew or Greek, neither are they Inspired with Arts and Humane Knowledge: and consequently Study and Reading and Long Exercise are indispensably requisite. 
1 S●rom● lib. 6.  Clement of Alexandria would have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. his Perfect and Complete Theologue, be skilled in Humane Literature and Philosophy. Inshort, to be a Consummate Divine, and thoroughly knowing in the Bible, it is necessary that he be a Man of Universal Learning.  
Secondly, that we may read and understand the Scriptures it is requisite that we be exceeding Attentive, Observing, Considerate; that we be very Inquisitive, Thoughtful and Diligent. This Rule may be explained in several Particulars;  
1. We must use great Thoughtfulness, Diligence and Care in penetrating into the Design and Sense of those Inspired Writings. St. Chrysostom delivers the Rule thus, 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. in cap. 1. ad Galat.  we must not only examine the mere naked Words, and insist upon them simply and absolutely considered, but we must chiefly attend to the Mind and Intent of the Writer. Sometimes instead of an Absolute meaning of the Words in Scripture, they are to be taken Comparatively, or with Limitation, they must be restrained to the Matter in Hand. As to Instance, No Man can say that jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 12. 3. i e. no Man can say so from his Heart. There is that Reserve implied. Where I am, ye eannot come, John 7. 34. i e. ye can't come yet, but afterwards you shall. All that came before me are Thiefs and Robbers, John 1 o. 8. i. e. all False Prophets (for he means them) are such. It is reported that there is such Fornication among you as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his Father's Wife, 1 Cor. 5. 1. This sort of Fornication was not only named but practised among the Gentiles, for there are several Examples in Pagan Story of marrying the Father's Wife, therefore here must be meant the more Sober Sort of Gentiles. And so in many other Places things which seem to be absolutely spoken are to be understood in a restrained Sense.  
2. It is necessary that we be very thoughtful and inquisitive about the Context, the Dependence, the Connection of those Places which we search into. We are to be exceeding mindful what the Words refer to, what Coherence they have with what went before and what follows. To Know the true Sense of them we must carefully observe the Subject-matter: for this is certain that Propositions are true or not true according to this. You will meet with several Instances of this in my former Discourses on the Holy Scriptures, and therefore I will forbear to mention any here. Only I offer this at present as a General Rule for guiding us to the true and genuine meaning of Scripture.  
3. This Attentiveness and Care must be exercised in Comparing one Place with another, or with divers others, if there be occasion. For (as an 
1 Mr. Herbert's Priest to the Temple.  Intelligent Person rightly suggests) all Truth being consonant to itself, and all being penned by one and the selfsame Spirit, it cannot be but that an industrious and judicious Comparing of Place with Place must be a singular help for the right understanding of the Scriptures. This One Rule, if well and duly observed, will carry us through most of the Difficulties of the Bible. For this we may depend upon that the Scripture is its own Interpreter, that the best Comment on this Book is itself. Wherefore let us not be hasty and giddy, but diligently compare the Scripture with itself: for there are certain Texts and Passages of the Bible that are allied to, and symbolise with one another. The observing of this will be of great Advantage to us. Thus Gen. 49. may be explained out of Deut. 32. The Blessings and Prophecies of jacob concerning the Tribes receive Light hence, and also from the particular Histories in joshua and judges concerning the Actions of the several Tribes. This aught to be remembered that Obscure and Difficult Places of Scripture are to be explained by those that are Clear and Easy. We must interpret those that are Uncertain by Texts that are undoubtedly certain and plain. So as for those that are Brief and Contracted, the best way is to expound them by those that are Large and Full. The Beatitudes in Luke 6. are the same, but epitomised, with those in Matth. 5. and therefore there is good reason to explain the former by the latter. That Text of Isaiah. ch. 6. v. 9 Hear ye indeed, but understand not, etc. is contracted in Mark 4. 12. Luke 8. 10. jobn 12. 40. but it is at large in Mat. 13. 14, 15. and accordingly thence the Sense appears best. And whilst we are expounding one Place by another, we must not forget to search diligently into all the Circumstances of either, and to consider distinctly by whom, of what particular thing, to whom, at what time, on what occasion they were spoken. If we be thus Industrious and Attentive, we shall be effectually directed to the right meaning of the Texts, and we shall find none of those Contradictions which Unthinking and Careless Readers through want of Collation of Texts imagine to be in Scripture.  
4. This Inquisitiveness and Observation will lead us to a discovery of the singular Elegancy and Beauty of the Sacred Style. There are peculiar Forms and Modes of Speech in several Nations, proper to them, and 'tis very hard to rende● them in another Tongue: or if you attempt it, the Elegancy vanisheth. Thus there is a particular Excellency and Lustre in the Phrase and manner of Expression which the Holy Ghost useth in this Book: it is such that it sometimes rises above the strain of the most Eloquent Orators of Greece or Rome. But this cannot be taken notice of by the generality of Readers, because it is impossible to discern it, unless with great sedulity they search into the Words themselves, and by being acquainted with the Original come to perceive the peculiar Grace of the Words and Phrases. Thus in the Greek of the New Testament there is in many Places a most Remarkable Choice of Words, and a Wonderful Accommodating them to the Matter spoken of. Many Words in this Language are so full and comprehensive that they cannot be expressed in English. We do not reach the pregnancy of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 6. 3. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tit. 1. 10. for in these Words is included not only deceiving but self-deceit, or deceiving and imposing upon a Man's own Mind. Yea the latter Word which is barely rendered Deceivers, may import the deceiving of the Minds or Souls of others. Our Translators are forced to use two Words to render that single one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jam. 5. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Pet. 4. 15. is translated by a Poriphrasis, six Words in English for one in Greek, but indeed this is a Compound or Double Word. There is more in the Original, Luke 21. 34. than can be expressed in the Translation: We render it thus, Take heed lest your Hearts be overcharged: But there is a Marvellous Elegancy in the Greek which ordinary Readers cannot perceive. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an equivocal Word, and signifies not only the Soul and its Faculties, but that noble Visous of the Heart well known by that Name, and also that Part of the Body which is the receptacle of Meat and Drink, viz. the Stomach. This is a Criticism not unworthy the taking notice of, and it much inhanses the Sense of our Saviour's Excellent Caveat here. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this latter Signification sometimes, is evident from the Name of that Distemper which Physicians give to the Pain in the upper Orifice of the Stomach, which being near to the Heart, affects that; whence the Distemper is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is vulgarly called Heartburning, which is indeed a Distemper of the upper Mouth of the Stomach, and should rather be called Stomach-burning, which is when this part of the Body is pained and disordered by reason of some sharp and noxious Humour. The Stomach and the Heart affecting one another by Consent, the former hath been called by the Greek Word which is given to the latter. Thus Galen testifies that the old Physicians used the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Sense, and accordingly the Cardiac Distemper was that of the Stomach. The affinity of these Words might also be showed in the Latin Stomachus and the English Stomach, which denote sometimes that Great Spirit and Stubborness which ●ave their Seat in the Heart. But it most manifestly appears (as I have shewed) in that Language wherein the New Testament is written; and St. Luke who was a Greek Physician, and well skilled in the Terms of the Art, did particularly refer to this, and notably uses a Word that signisies both the Stomach and Heart properly so called, because this fitly agrees to what our Saviour saith, that they should not be overcharged with Surfeiting and Drunkenness, wherein the Stomach is mainly concerned, nor with the Cares of this Life, wherein the Heart and Affections are most interested: Wherefore a Word that imports both is very elegant. A parallel Place is that Acts 14. 17.— filling our Hearts with Food and Gladness: where 'tis plain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an equivocal Term, and signifies something else besides Hearts: for if there were not this Ambiguity in the Word, filling their Hearts with Food would be a very odd and unaccountable Expression. But the Translators could not use both Senses, therefore they set down one, and left the other to be understood: But the Doubtful Word, according to the Subject matter, may be applied both ways, that is, their Stomaches were replenished with Food, and their Hearts (as that signifies the Soul and its Affections) with Gladness. And further to corroborate this Criticism, and to show the peculiar Excellency and Pregnancy of the Scripture-Stile, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is appropriated to the Stomach in jam. 5. 5. Ye have nourished your Hearts as in a Day of Slaughter: for here by a Day of Slaughter (as all Expositors of any Note grant) is meant a Day of Feasting, because on Great Festivals many Beasts were killed for Sacrifice, and a great part of them were eaten by the Sacrificers and their Friends, Prov. 7. 14. Isa. 22. 13. And consequently by Hearts we are to understand their Stomaches and whole Bodies, and by nourishing them is meant feeding and pampering of them. The Apostle rebukes the Gluttony and Intemperance of the Voluptuous Men of that Age, who made every Day a Day of Slaughter, a Day of Feasting and Revelling. I could parallel this with a Passage in the Old Testament, where leb hath the same ambiguous Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Comfort ye your Hearts, Gen. 18. 5. which is spoken of Abraham's entertaining the Angels, and refers to the Morsel of Bread there mentioned, for so he was pleased to call his Generous Provision which he made for his Guests. Stay, saith he, support, sustain (for so the word sagnad signifies) your Stomaches, and thereby refresh and comfort your Hearts with this Entertainment. So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in an equivocal Sense by Homer on the like occasion; for speaking of Mercury's 
1 lliad. ●.  being entertained by Calypso, he saith, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He supped, and stayed his Heart (or his Stomach) with Meat. Thence Bread is called Mishgnan, fulcrum, sustentaculum, I●a. 3. 1. a Stay, a Staff. And among the Old Hebrews Segnudah (i e. fulcimentum) was a Dinner: and so Food among us is known by the vulgar Name of Sustenance. I hope that from all these things which I have alleged, the Critical Notion which I offered is made very plain and obvious.  
And in several other Instances I could make it good that there are those Peculiar Graces of Speech in the Sacred Writings which the most Exquisite Translations cannot fully reach. I will particularly instance in one sort, which are usually called Paranomasia's, i e. Elegant Allusions and Cadences of Words. Thus there is a clear Allusion to Iapheth's Name in Gen. 9 27. japht lejepheth. There are no less than three of these in one Verse, Gen. 11. 3. Nilbenah lebenim, nisrephah lisrephah, hachemar lachomer. In Gen. 49. there are several of these Verbal Allusions, as jehudah joduka, v. 8. Dan jadin, v. 16. Gad gedud jegudennu, v. 19 which are plain References to the Names of judah, Dan and Gad. There is a Paranomasia in the word Chamor, Judg. 15. 16. which signifies both an Ass and a Heap, but this is quite lost in our Translation, Heaps upon Heaps, with the jawbone of an Ass. The Mount of Olives is in way of Contempt called the Mount of Corruption, Mashchith, 2 Kings 23. 13. alluding to Mishchah, anointing, for which the Oil of Olives was serviceable. In Psal. 39 11. the Psalmist alludes to the Names of Adam and Abel when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All Adam is Abel, or every Man is Vanity. And Selah is here added to denote the Emphatic Elegancy of this Passage. And again, Psal. 144. 4. Adam is like Abel: We render the Hebrew right enough, Man is like Vanity, but then the Nominal Allusion is not expressed. There is a great Number of Paranomasia's in Isaiah: as in ch. 1. v. 23. Sare sorerim, the Princes are rebellious. Ch. 5. v. 7. he looked for Mishphat, judgement, but behold Mishpah Oppression; for Tzedekah Righteousness, but behold Tzegnakah a Cry. Four of these pleasant Cadences you meet with together in ch. 24. v. 3, 4. Hibbok tibbok, hibboz tibboz, dibber dabar, oblab noblah. Ch. 32. v. 7. Chelai chelav, the Instruments of the Churl. Some observe the Likeness of Sound in the Hebrew Words for Bridegroom and decketh himself, and for Bride and jewels, ch. 61. v. 10. We may observe in jer. 6. 1. a plain Allusion to the word Tekoah in the Word preceding it. A remarkable Cadence is to be taken notice of in Mic. 1. 14. the Houses of Aczib (the Name of a Place) shall be Aczab a Lie: and the Learned Dr. Pocock observes, that the Prophet in the next Verses hath Allusions to the Names of those other Cities Mareshah and Adullam, in what he there saith of them. The like you find in Zeph. 2. 4. where the Destruction of Gaza and Ekron is foretold, but there are no Footsteps of it in the Translation. The last Place I will mention in the Old Testament is Zech. 9 3. Tyre built herself a strong-hold, Tzor built herself Matzor.  
This way of speaking is used also in the New Testament by our Saviour and his Apostles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Wind bloweth where it listeth: so is every one that is born 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Spirit, John 3. 8. The same Word signifying Wind and Spirit, Christ takes occasion thence to speak after this Allusive Manner, which no Translation can express. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 16. 18. cannot be discerned in the English Translation. St. Paul hath several Verbal Likenesses in his Epistles, as 1 Cor. 0. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philein. v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Thess. 3. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Henry Stephens hath expressed by the like Paranomasia in Latin, ●i●il agentes, sed curiosè satagentes. And several others of this kind there are in this Apostle's Writings which are more commonly taken notice of, and therefore I omit them. Grotius and some others think there are Allusions to the Names of the Seven Asiatic Churches in the things that are said of them in the Epistles to them, Rev. 2d and 3d Chapters: but perhaps that is too fanciful. This we are certain of, that this Mode of Speech was not unusual among the Oriental Writers, and so 'tis no wonder that it occurs sometimes in the Holy Scripture. Even among some of the best Roman Authors this is no unfrequent thing: thus Verres, the Avaricious and Extorting Praetor of Sicily, is by Tully called Verrens, Sweep-all. And many such Verbal jests this Grave Pleader hath in his Orations, and other Parts of his Writings; which shows it was thought to be a Pulchritude in their Style. So Martial played upon the idle Mariners; Non nautas puto, sed vos Argonautas. Horace begins his Epistle to one Albius, a Patron of his, thus; Albi nostrorum sermonum candide judex; Alluding in that Epithet to his Name: and he hath several other of these Charientisms. Which we cannot but sometimes observe likewise in other Ancient Writers of good Account. But that which I remark at present is, that even the Sacred and Inspired Style disdains not this manner of speaking; which none are capable of taking notice of but those that have some Knowledge of the Original Languages in which the Sacred Text is writ. And in several other Particulars it were easy to show the Gracefulness of the Holy Style, and that singular Turn and Peculiar Air in the Original which cannot be expressed in the Translation. There are many Words, Phrases and Sentences which must lose a great deal of their native Weight and Spirit by being done into another Language. Therefore on this, as well as on the other Accounts beforenamed, we must be very Considerate and Attentive when we read this Divine Book.  
Thirdly, There must be great Moral and Religious Qualifications likewise: for this is the Book of God, and therefore we must come to it with agreeable Inclinations, Wills and Affections. Men complain that there is a great Contention about the interpreting of Scripture, and Different Parties can't agree: whence they proceed to blame the Obscurity and Uncertainty of the Scripture itself. But herein these Persons themselves are very unblamable, for this Disagreement in the interpreting of Sacred Writ arises not wholly from the Obscurity of it, nor doth it proceed from the Uncertainty of it, (as some would suggest) but from men's Depraved Minds and Passions. Wherefore our main Care ought to be,  
1st. To free ourselves from all Wilful Prejudice and Perverseness, which have been the first and original Causes of misunderstanding the Scriptures. Thus the Infernal Spirit, when he tempted our Saviour, most perversely quoted Psal. 91. 11. and misapplied it to his purpose. And from him Heretics and Seducers have learned to cite and make use of Scripture to evil Designs, viz. to uphold some Error or Vice. What an Ancient Writer of the Church saith of one sort of Heretical Teachers, that 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 27.  they interpret the Sense of the Holy Writ according to their own Pleasure, is true of them all: their constant Practice is to strain and distort these Sacred Writings, to construe them according to their own Fancies, and to make them like an Echo, speak what they please. Their great Work in consulting and turning over this Volume is to find something they may misinterpret for their own Ends. Their Affection to a particular Cause makes them believe and assert any thing, though never so improbable: and then they allege Scripture to back it, though it be wholly foreign to the purpose. These Persons are of the Number of those Depravers of Truth, who (as 
2 Basil. M. Orat. 2. in Hexa●m.  One of the Ancient Fathers gives us their Character) do not accommodate their Minds to the Scripture, but pervert and draw the Mind of the Scripture to their own Wills. This glozing and expounding of the Bible, according to men's corrupt Fancies, is, as 
3 Colloqu Men●al.  M. Luther hath expressed it, like straining Milk through a Colesack: it blackens and defiles the pure Word of God, it depraves and falsifies the Mind of the Spirit. Those Men are to be abhorred that submit not their Thoughts and Conceptions to this Sacred Standard, who compel the Scripture to serve their Private Opinions, who make no conscience of putting a Text upon the Rack to make it speak what it intended not, of miserably torturing it, that they may force it to confess what it never meant. These Persons should be reminded how great a Sin it is to distort and deprave the Holy Writ, and designedly to draw it to another Sense than it naturally bears. And the Penalty is as grievous as the Crime; for, as the Apostle St. Peter informs us, this Generation of Men wrest the Scripture unto their own Destruction, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Wherefore let none presume to be guilty in this Nature, and dare to follow their own sinister Imagination's in the interpreting of the Inspired Writings, but let them attend to that Advice of a Pious and Learned Author, 
4 Mr. Mede Diatrib.  We should be more willing to take a Sense from Scripture than to bring one to it. Let us strive to know the naked and pure Meaning of the Spirit; and in order to that read the Bible with an Unprejudiced and Sincere Mind, which is an Excellent Interpreter. Whereas 'tis a certain Truth that Perverse Minds will pervert the Scriptures.  
2dly. We ought to read these Divine Writings with great Modesty and Humility. Let it not trouble us that some Parts of them are not levelly to our Understandings. And where we cannot solve some things, let us not arrogantly pretend to do it. It is no Disgrace to confess our Ignorance here. I can assure you this hath been done by the Learnedest Heads. There is a Learned Ignorance, as 
5 Epist. 121. cap. 15.  St. Augustin terms it, and we need not be ashamed to be Masters of it. These four things (mentioned in Eccles. 12. 6.) I understand not, saith Castellio. I scarcely understand the thousandth Part of this Book, saith he concerning the Apocalypse. And 'tis frequent with this Learned Man to say, I know not the Meaning of this Place. That Man is impudently rash who dares profess that he understands one single Book of the Bible in all its Parts, saith 
6 Opus in Psalmos.  Luther. I own it that I am so blind that I cannot see any thing at all in that dark Place of Scripture, Amos 5. 26. saith the 
3 De Dis Syr.  Great Selden. But the contrary Temper and Spirit have swelled some with proud Conceits of their understanding some Passages of this Book, when they have no true Apprehension of them in the least, and accordingly they have endeavoured in a supercilious manner to impose their crude Sense upon others, not craving but commanding Assent to what they have propounded. These bold Men forget what the Wise King saith. 
4 Prov. 25. 1.  It is the Glory of God to conceal a Matter, to speak sometimes in so dark and hidden a manner that there is need of great searching, studying and enquiring into the things that are said: and yet at last they remain abstruse and unintelligible. It hath pleased God, the Wise Governor of the World, that the Scripture should have Difficulties and Obscurities in it, that there should be some things hard to be understood. But as Socrates said of Heraclitus' Writings, What he understood of them was very good, and so he believed that to be which he understood not; the like may we with more Reason pronounce concerning the Sacred Scriptures. The Matters which we have Knowledge of (which are the main Body and Substance of the Book) are Excellent and Divine; and so there is Reason to conclude that those Parts of it which are hidden from us are of the same Nature. There is no occasion to find fault with the Sovereign Wisdom of God, but it is our apparent Duty to lay aside Pride, and to exercise Humility, which will capacitate us to understand even those Great Mysteries and Abstrusities when we have with much Diligence and frequent Study searched into them.  
3dly. We must think ourselves concerned to purge our Hearts and Lives from all De●ilements of Vice. For 'tis certain that a quick Brain, a subtle Head, and a nimble Wit, are not so much required to the understanding of Divine Truth as an Honest Mind and a Religious Practice. To Men of polluted Consciences and profane Manners the Scriptures seem dark and mysterious, but to those of sanctified Minds and holy Lives they are as to the most part plain and clear. These Qualifications render them as bright as a Sunbeam. What the Turks are said to write on the backside of the Alcoran, Let none touch this Book but he that is pure, may with great Reason and Justice be written on the Holy Book of Scripture, and that only: for a Pure Life is the best Commentator on these Writings, A wonderful measure of Knowledge and Insight into these Divine Truths which are here contained, is the Effect of observing and practising the Holy Precepts of this Book. This than we ought to urge upon ourselves, to come to the reading of Scripture with defecate and purged Minds, with Love to what it dictates, and with Obedience to it. This should be our principal Care, to live well, and to walk according to this Excellent Rule. All our Religion, and the whole Conduct of our Actions in this World depend upon the Scriptures: therefore let us be directed and governed by the Infallible Maxims, Precepts, Promises, and threatenings of this Book. We see Men live by Custom, by the Dictates of Others, or by their Own Opinions, which oftentimes prove erroneous, and lead them into unwarrantable Practices. But they would not be thus misguided if they consulted These Lively Oracles of God, this sure Word of Prophecy, if they regulated their Actions by this Exact Canon. And hereby we are certain to improve our Knowledge in this Holy Book: for by living according to it, we shall the better understand it; by minding the Practical Contents of it, we shall have a full Discovery of its Principles and Doctrines.  
Lastly, That we may attain to a right understanding of the Sense of Scripture, that we may have a due Perception of the Meaning of what is delivered here, let us most earnestly invoke the Divine Aid and Assistance. He that reads this Book without Prayer, can never expect to be blessed with a complete Knowledge of it. For it is the sole Work of the Divine Spirit to illuminate our Minds effectually. There is required the special Help of this Heavenly Instructor to direct us into Truth: wherefore he is called 
1 John 16. 13.  the Spirit of Truth, and 
2 1 John 2. 20.  the Unction from the Holy One, whereby we know all things. The same Spirit that indicted these Holy Writings must enlighten our Minds to understand them: Which I find thus expressed in the Words of our, Church, 
3 Second Homily of the Scripture.  The Revelation of the Holy Ghost inspireth the true meaning of the Scripture into us: in truth we cannot without it attain true Saving-knowledg. And a Learned and Pious Son of our Mother gives his Suffrage in these Words, 
4 Mr. Herbert's Priest to the Temple, or Country-Parson.  Wicked Men, however learned, do not know the Scriptures, because they feel them not, and because they are not understood but with the same Spirit that writ them. Seeing then a Spiritual Illumination is requisite in order to the comprehending of Scripture-truths', we ought with great Fervour and Zeal to request it, we ought with a singular Devotion to repair to this Infallible Teacher, and with mighty Importunity beseech him to 
5 Psal. ●19. 18.  open our Eyes that we may behold wondrous things out of the Divine Law, and to conduct our Reasons aright in our Enquiry into this Sacred Volume. And He that commands us to implore his Help, will certainly vouchsafe it to all sincere and devout Supplicants. The Eyes of our Understanding shall be irradiated with a Celestial Beam, and we shall feel an internal Operation of the Spirit on our Hearts, communicating Light and Wisdom. By the Assistance of this Blessed Guide we shall not miscarry in our Searches and Endeavours: This Divine Book shall be laid open to us, and we shall have its Mysteries and Depths disclosed to us so far as is convenient for us; and no rational Man ought to desire any more. Yea, as it is with some of those that have studied for the Philosophic Elixir, though they attain not to it, yet in their impetuous Search after it they find out many Excellent Things admirably useful for Mankind, which are a Recompense of their Labours; so though we may fall short of some Grand Secrets which are treasured up in this Inspired Volume, yet we shall not fa●l of some Choice Discoveries that will make us amends for our most laborious Inquiries. We shall mightily improve our Knowledge, and we shall likewise be under the special Benediction of Heaven. The Rabbins tell us, that when R. jonathan writ his Targum on the Bible, if at any time the least Fly lit upon his Paper, it was presently consumed with Fire from Heaven. But though this be Romantic, and after the rate of the Rabbins, yet it is a sober Trutl● that God will protect us in reading and studying the Holy Scriptures. Whilst we are thus employed, nothing shall disturb or hurt us; the Divine Arm will defend and prosper us, and we shall peruse this Book with that happy Success which we prayed for. In short, by continual conversing with this Book, which is the only one that hath no Erratas, we shall know how to correct all the Failures of our Notions and of our Lives: we shall enrich our Minds with a Stock of Excellent Principles, and we shall be throughly furnished unto all good Works: we shall be conducted to the highest Improvements of Knowledge and Sanctity in this Life, and to the most. Consummate Happiness in another.  
FINIS.    

Books written by the Reverend Mr. John Edward's.  
AN Enquiry into several 〈◊〉 Texts of the Old and New Testament, which contain some Difficulty in them, with a Probable Resolution of them. In two Volumes, in 8●.  
A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, Vol. I. with a Continued Illustration of several Difficult Texts throughout the whole Work.  
A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, Vol. II. wherein the Author's former Undertaking is further prosecuted, viz. An Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts which contain some Difficulty in them.  
A Discoeurs concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, Vol. III. treating of the Excellency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, and illustrating several difficult Texts occurring in this Undertaking.  
All sold by jonathan Robinson, john Taylor, and john Wyat.