A Farther ENQUIRY INTO Several Remarkable TEXTS OF THE Old and New TESTAMENT Which contain Some Difficulty in them: WITH A Probable Resolution of them.  
By john Edwards B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's College in Cambridge.  
1 Cor. 13. 9 We know in part, and we Prophesy in part.  
LONDON, Printed for I. Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard, I. Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-street, and I. Wyatt at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1692.   

Cantabrigiae, julii 21. 1692.  
Imprimatur.  

Academi●● Can●abrigiensis Liber   


Gabr. Quadring, Procan.  
Io. Beaumond.  
S. Blithe.  
Io. Covel.  
C. Roderick.     

TO THE Right Reverend Father in God SIMON Lord Bishop of ELY.  
My Lord,  
WHEN I was lately venturing a little Book into the World, I fully designed to make choice of no other Person than Your Lordship for my Patron: But I soon found myself unable to pursue my Resolves, and I let fall my Design on this single thought, that I being a Stranger to your Lordship, my Application would be deemed Rude and Impertinent. But I have since conquered that Modesty, and am grown up to a greater Confidence; and now having another Piece ready (●f the like nature with the former) I here lay myself and that at your Lordship's Feet. It is Presumption to offer such a mean Present to a Person of your Worth; and a greater Presumption it is to expose these Papers to so Severe a Critic, so Judicious and Celebrated a Writer, so Classic an Author as your Lordship. But I take Courage by considering that your Candour is as eminent as your Judgement, and that I may have the Happiness to share in it as well as others. Besides, I have hereby an Opportunity of Expressing my Sense and Esteem of your Known Worth, which is the Universal Theme of the World. Why should not I join with the rest of Mankind in acknowledging and declaring that by your Excellent Discourses and Writings you have enlightened the Christian World, and that by your Unreprovable Example you have most effectually commended to it the Practice of Virtue and Religion? Likewise, I take here the welcome occasion of congratulating your Lordship's Accession to the Episcopal Dignity in our Church, which your Merits alone have exalted you to.  
That your Lordship may Rule in this High Station with inflamed Zeal for God's Glory and the Church's Welfare, and with a perpetual Blessing from the Chief Shepherd and Bishop of Souls, is the Hearty Prayer of,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Dutiful Son and Servant john Edward's.   

THE PREFACE.  
LET me not incur the Imputation of Arrogance, if I tell the Reader, that when I presented my former Critical Essay to the View and Censure of a Great Man, (who for his Profound Knowledge and Profession of Divinity embellished with an Unparallelled Eloquence, hath most justly been esteemed above four Lustres of Years the Oracle of the Schools, the Glory of the Chair, the Life and Soul of the University, and the Astonishment of the whole Learned World,) He, after he had vouchsafed to express his Approbation of it in such favourable Terms which it becomes me not to impart, was pleased to encourage me to a Second Attempt of the like nature. Which I being animated by so Great (but so Candid) a judge, have now finished, and here offer to the Public, and submit to the Censure of the Learned.  
I will not present the Reader with the Particulars of my Undertaking (as I did in the Entrance to my former Exercitations,) but I shall only acquaint him with this in general, that I have for the most part observed this Course in these Papers, viz. I have first propounded the Opinions embraced by the Learned: And I have fairly represented them, letting all Men see what may be said for them. Secondly, I have showed how far they are Defective, and for what Reasons I recede from them; for I never leave any received Opinion without some just Cause. Thirdly, I offer some more Probable Account of my own, and I make it my work to establish my Hypothesis as well as I can. In all these three I have been very Sincere and Impartial: And I have not studied to Amuse, but to Satisfy the Reader. Whilst I have endeavoured to refute an Opinion, I have taken care not to reproach the Owner: And whilst I have propounded my own, I have not excluded the Sentiments of more judicious Enquirers.  
I must needs confess that I accustom myself to a Freedom of Thoughts, and I like it in others as well as I practise it myself: Wherefore as I have taken the liberty to reflect on the Assertions of others, so any Man is welcome to examine mine with the same Freedom. I know some Men are wont even in these Critical Subjects to write very Imperiously, as if (according to the different Acception of the 
* Shebe●, Penna Scribarum, Jud. 5. 14. Sceptrum, Gen. 49. 10  Hebrew word) their Pens were Sceptres, and they must needs Domineer when they writ. But I have laboured to avoid this Excess, by not affecting to be Categorical and Positive in every Notion I propound: I do not in those matters which relate merely to Criticism, determine any thing Peremptorily, but I only desire to be heard as well as others, and crave leave I may offer my Conjectures; and then I sit down, and submit myself to the more mature judgements of the Learned.  
This I must needs say, I have all along endeavoured to avoid Obscurity, and to express myself in such easy and intelligible Terms, that I am sure I shall not deserve the Character and Censure which St. Jerom bestowed on some Expositors, viz. 
* Epist. 139 ad Cypr.  That it was more difficult to understand their Expositions, than the Texts which they undertook to explain. I have been careful to deliver my thoughts and meaning very plainly, that, whatever other entertainment they may meet with, they may at least be rightly understood, and that I may not be mistaken and misrepresented in what I say.  
I have only this to add, that whereas I once intended to publish a Third Part of these Critical Remarks and Observations on places of Holy Scripture (of which I have a considerable number by me,) I have altered my purpose, and do intent to insert them into some other Treatises and Discourses, where I shall have occasion to consider those Texts, and examine the meaning of them. The greatest part of them I reserve to be made use of in a Discourse of the Authority, Stile, etc. of the Holy Scriptures, which I shall hereafter expose to the view of the World, and therein offer my Interpretation of those places which I think have been mistaken by Expositors.   

An Account of the Texts enquired into and resolved in the following Exercitations.  

Gen. 49. 10.  
THE Sceptre shall not departed from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come. Page 1   

Exod. 28. 30.  
Thou shalt put in the Breastplate of judgement the Vrim and Thummim. P. 45   

Judges 11. 30, 31.  
Jephthah vowed a Vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt, etc. P. 81   

Dan. 9 24, 25.  
Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy holy City, etc. P. 113   

Matt. 27. 5.  
Judas departed, and went and hanged himself. Compared with Acts 1. 18. P. 141   

1 Cor. 16. 22.  
If any Man love not the Lord jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maran-atha. P. 169   

Col. 2. 8.  
Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, etc. P. 193   

To which is added,  
A Discourse on 1 john 3. 8. wherein is showed what are the works of the Devil P. 285    

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

The first Text Enquired into, viz. Gen. XLIX. 10. The Sceptre shall not departed from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.  
I Begin with this Famous Prophecy concerning the Time of our Blessed Saviour's coming into the World: And my Design is, briefly to represent the general Glosses of the Learned upon this Verse, with short Reflection's on some of them; but more especially to choose out such an Interpretation of the word Shiloh, the celebrated Title of the Messiah, as I conceive to be most genuine and proper; which I will somewhat largely insist upon by showing the great Agreeableness and Reasonableness of it; and consequently the Preference of it to all other Interpretations. This noble Prediction is no other than the remarkable words of the Patriarch jacob Blessing his Children; and among the rest his Son judah a little before his Death. He intimates that the Primogeniture, and with it the Ruling Power was taken from Reuben, when he saith of him, He shall not excel, v. 4. And from Reuben this Dominion is transferred to judah; for it is said, His Father's Children (of whom Reuben was the chief of them) shall bow down before him, v. 8. i. e. The Kingdom and Government shall commence here, and so remain among the Jews many Generations, even until a certain Period appointed by God, viz. The Arrival of the Messiah, who is here called Shiloh. Till that time the Jewish Government and Polity shall be kept up, The Sceptre shall not departed: But upon the coming of the Messiah, who is Christ, their Ruling Power shall cease, their State and Government shall be abolished, and in a little time after there shall be no Footsteps left of their Kingdom and Dominion. Let us take this Prophecy asunder, and Comment on the several words, and then set them together again, and show you how signal a Proof they are of Christ's being come.  
First, The Hebrew word which we translate the Sceptre, hath different significations, and accordingly is sometimes rendered a 
* Leu. 27. 32. Ps. 2. 9  Rod or Staff, sometimes a 
† Ps. 31. 13.  Stroke, Plague or Punishment, and at other times a 
* judges 5. 14.  Quill or Pen to write with. I meet with no Expositors that think any of these to be the Acception of the word in this place. But there are two other Acceptions which bid fair for it: The word sometimes signifies a Tribe, and that in this Chapter v. 28. and the reason why the same word signifies a Rod and a Tribe, may be because the Tribes of Israel were distinguished by Rods or Wands, Num. 17. 2, 3. Accordingly julius and Tremellius render this place thus, The Tribe shall not departed from Judah: And they make the Sense of the whole Text to be this, judah shall not cease to be a Tribe till the coming of Christ, but than it shall. And so indeed it did; for when Christ came, and was rejected by the Jews, the Romans by God's just Judgement scattered them abroad, and the Tribe of judah could not be distinguished from the other Tribes. This Interpretation confirms the Truth of this Prophecy, and sufficiently baffles and confounds the Jews. But there is yet behind another more eminent Acception of the word, for you will find that it often signifies a Sceptre. And that the same word which before signified a Rod, should also denote a Sceptre, is not to be wondered at, because a Rod or Staff was the Ancient Ensign of Royalty and Dominion, Amos 1. 5. This was born by Kings, as a Badge of their Power and Authority. By the Sceptre than is meant here Kingly Power and Authority, or the Supreme Government of what Name or Form soever. This signification of the word in this place, is owned and approved of by the jewish Doctors and Rabbins themselves, and the three Targums agree in it, and it is acknowledged and allowed of by the Ancient Greek Versions of the Seventy, who render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prince or Governor. This Prince or Governor, this Government or Sceptre, shall not departed (which are the next words) i. e. There shall be a continual Succession of Kings and Rulers, the Civil Power and Polity shall constantly remain, these shall not be removed, shall not wholly be destroyed; they may for a time be clouded and eclipsed, they may be interrupted for a while, but there shall not be a Final and Total Cessation of them. The Sceptre shall not quite departed, it shall 
* Non auferetur. Vulg. Lat.  not be taken away from judah.  
But what is meant by judah here? First, It is not to be taken in a Restrained Sense for the Patriarch judah, but for the Tribe of judah. As the Priesthood was consigned to Levi, i. e. not his Person, but his Tribe and Posterity; so judah had the Sceptre, the Government conferred on him, not his Person (for he had no Rule) but his Tribe, as distinct from the other Tribes. The meaning than is, that there shall be some of that Tribe who shall Reign till Christ cometh, and no longer: For as the Kingdom and Government shall begin in this Tribe (as it did in David) and be continued in it, so it shall end with it. When that Tribe affords no more Kings, than Kingship shall cease among the Jews; though Foreigners may be set up, yet they shall have no more Kings of their own; which shall be a certain Indication of the Coming of the Messiah. Secondly, judah must be taken comprehensively for the Twelve Tribes, for the State, Government and Polity of the whole Nation called jews, from the Patriarch judah. Some shrink this Prophecy into a narrow compass; but I think it ought to be taken largely, and to be applied to judah, not only as it signifies a particular Tribe of that name, but as it takes in all the Jewish People, the whole Body of the Jews. For these Prophetical Blessings which jacob here uttereth, are of a large Extent; and this especially relating to a higher matter than any of the rest, is not to be confined and restrained to a Person or Tribe; but it is most reasonable to believe, that it reacheth to the whole Nation and Polity of the Jews, who are here called judah, as they are 〈…〉 innumerable places of Scrip●●●. 〈◊〉  
〈…〉 [nor a Lawgiver from be●●●● 〈◊〉 is feet,] this Mechokek is the same with Shebet, the Lawgiver is of the same Importance with the Sceptre or Kingly Power; for this and making Laws went together, the Regal and Judicial or Legislative Authority did reside in the Jewish Kings. And this Prince or Lawgiver is said to be from between Judah ' s feet; which some learned Men have thought is an Allusion to the Custom of Courts, where the Scribe or Lawyer used to sit at the Feet of the Judge or Governor, and there take his Opinion. But this is a Mistake, and ariseth from the want of considering the difference between those two Expressions at the feet and from between the feet. These have no Affinity with one another: As to the latter then, from between his feet, i. e. the Feet of judah; it is as much as, of the Seed or Race of Judah (as you will find those words signify in Deut. 28. 57) and brought up by him (as Children are said to be brought up upon their Parents Knees, Gen. 50. 23.) This is the plain and unforced meaning of this Hebrew Phrase or Expression; when it is said then, that a Lawgiver from between his feet, shall not departed from him; the meaning is, that there shall always be some who shall be born of the Posterity and Race of Judah, and brought up and educated by them that shall sway the Sceptre, and give Laws in Israel. This shall last till Shiloh come, which is the next and main thing to be explained. There are various Interpretations of this word given by Expositors, but they all agree in this, that it refers to the Messiah.  
I. Some think that the Seventy Interpreters did read it not Shilo but Shello, as if it were an Abbreviature of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille cujus or cui, like the Arabic Allah, from the Article Al, ●, and the Pronoun lah, ei or cui, for God is He of whom, and through whom, and to whom, and for whom are all things, Rom. 11. 36. Heb. 2. 10. So here the Messi●s, of whom jacob Prophecies, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ille cujus, which is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he for whom is laid up, namely the Kingdom: Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things that are laid up for him: Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for whom they are laid up: For there is this Variety of Readins in different Copies. And a 
* Simon. Critic. Hist. l▪ 2.  learned Critic hath lately attempted to give us the reason why Shello comes to be read Shiloh, because (saith he) before Points were used in the Hebrew Text, the Letter jod served instead of the Vowels I and E, but after the finding out of the Points, the Transcribers of the Bible still kept in the letter Iod in the Text, which hath made the Sense of this place difficult, saith he. But this account (as ingenious as it is, and like its Author) falls to the ground, and is of no value at all, if the Hebrew Points were co-existent with the Letters, which will appear to be the most probable opinion to those who impartially weigh the Arguments brought for it, but especially that of the Truth and Certainty of the Scriptures of the Old Testament which depend upon it. And as for the Version of the Seventy, which seems to favour those who think Shelo to be the true Original word; I wonder that wise Men will rely upon this Greek Translation, which it is evident is in innumerable places false and corrupted, that is, it was either so at first, by reason of the Mistakes which the Seventy Interpreters committed, or else it was depraved afterwards, whether wilfully (to disguise the Truth) or through negligence, or by the fault of the Copies they then had, I will not stand to dispute. This corrupting of Scripture, and particularly the altering of this Text in the Greek, was long ago objected to Trypho against his Brethren the Jews by justin Martyr. But that the Seventy Elders read the Hebrew amiss in this place, and that this was the cause of their mistake, is very likely, it being (as I have suggested, and as all impartial Men will acknowledge) their common practice, and therefore not to be wondered at here.  
And yet I am not so positive here, as I find some Writers are, for there is a way of salving this Greek Translation, without charging them with mistaking the Hebrew; for I conceive the Seventy might read it Shiloh, as we have it now; but they took it to be as much as asher lo, ille cujus or cui, He for whom the Sceptre, mentioned just before, was laid up, or to whom it belonged, and thence they rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that although the Jewish Interpreters mistake the Hebrew words in other places (as it is certain they do) yet there is no necessity of asserting that they do so here. Perhaps they did read it right, though they mistook the true meaning of the word (of which I shall give you an account afterwards) and instead of understanding it to be the Name of the Messiah, thought the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●o be a Pronoun, and so they concluded that Shilo was of the same signification with Shelo. But this is a sorry Interpretation of the word, and the very jews themselves (excepting 
* R. Solomon.  one single Rabbi) are ashamed of it; for it unnecessarily confounds and jumbles two words together, and at the same time mangles one of them, and substitutes a Van in the place of a He, and strikes out a Iod, and after all this leaves the sense of the Prophecy lame and imperfect, uncertain and arbitrary, for these words [he to whom] assert and determine nothing at all.  
II. The Vulgar Latin Version furnisheth us with another Interpretation of this word, rendering it qui mittendus est; for it seems these Translators read it not Shiloh but Shiloah or Shilluach, i. e. missus, which here is as much as mittendus, the Praeterit being put for the Future, after the manner of the Prophetic Writers. Some think that this is one of the Messias' Names in Isa. 8. 6. and that this Text which we are now treating of, was, among several others, corrupted by the Jews, they changing Shiloah into Shiloh: But there is not the least show of reason to assert either of these, for in that place in Isaiah, Shiloah barely signifies a Fountain or Spring of that name, which risen at the foot of Mount Zion: And it is a mistake that the Jews corrupted this Text by turning Shiloah into Shiloh, for it was to no purpose to do it, the word Shiloh (as you shall hear anon) being as expressive, yea much more, of the Messi●s, than that other could be. Without all Controversy, the Text is entire and uncorrupted; and as for these Surmises, they arise only from attending to the Vulgar Latin Version. The short is, the Authors of this Interpretation mistook a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they might easily do, by reason of the likeness of these Letter's: And besides, in the Hebrew Copy which they used, the Pathah under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was omitted, and so they thought the word was Shiloach, and not Shiloh. There ne●ds no more to be said than this, for the Refutation of this Exposition of the word.  
III. Others tell us that Shiloh is derived from Shil, which signifies the Secundine, the Membrane which the Infant is wrapped in when it comes into the World. And because this accompanieth the Child, it is taken for it, as in Deut. 28. 57 and by a Metonymy signifies as much as foetus, filius; and consequently (say they) Shiloh is the same with Beno, filius ejus, his Son or Offspring, viz. Iudah's. But though this be the Interpretation of some of the noted 
* ●. D. Ki●chi, Aben Ezra, R. ●●chai.  jewish Rabbis, and though these he followed by several 
‖ Gala●i●●s, Calvin, ●●nius & Tre●elli●●, 〈◊〉.  Writers of the Christian Persuasion, yet there is good reason to question, yea to reject this opinion, for there is no such Hebrew word as Shil in the Bible, nor any where else. These Writers have deceived themselves one after another, by trusting to what a circumcised Doctor had told them. They read in R. Kimchi, that Shil is secundina or fo●tus in the forementioned place in Deuteronomy; but if we consult it, we shall find that it is Shiljah, not Shil. However, they made Shil out of Shiljah, and then fancied that Shil was comprehended in the word Shiloh, and that this hath the like signification with that. B●t we must remember that there is no such word as Shil; and as for the word Shiljah, it is once taken in a strained sense for proles or filius; but who can thence gather, that this is the Acception of the word Shiloh? No Man certainly that knows how to make rational Deductions from things. Moreover, they add a Vau to Shil to make it Shilo, which is extravagantly done to no purpose, for it is Shiloh, not Shilo in the Original. They throw away the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as superfluous and redundant, as a useless Affix to the word; but we must remind them that the He is not of that nature, but that it is a substantial and radical Letter belonging to the word, for the word is the proper Name of the Messiah, as I shall now proceed to show.  
iv 
* Vatablus, Fagius, Castalio, Shindler, Avenarius, Hotger, Mede.  Others of great Learning and Judgement▪ derive Shiloh from the Verb Shalah: And this I take to be the most genuine Derivation of the word, the three radical Letters of the Verb Shala● being in it. What can be said or desired more? Some hundreds of Derivative words have but two, and yet none questions their Production from the Root. Much less than can we doubt of the Extraction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath the full number of Letters belonging to the Radix. And as for the Iod in the Derivative, it is common and frequent to insert that between the Radical Letters, as the Learned very well know. So that in short, Shiloh from Shalah is deduced without the least strain upon the word. But I do not find that any of those learned Persons, whose Names you see in the Margin, have taken notice of, and represented to us the Wonderful Suitableness of this Appellation. I never met with any Writer that hath showed the peculiar Contrivance of this word, and how 'tis particularly framed, to express the Glorious Nature and Attributes of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the World. That therefore is the thing which I will now undertake, and consequently I shall demonstrate, that there is no Name imaginable that can be more properly and fitly applied to him than this. We must take notice then, that there are three Significations of the word Shalah whence Shiloh comes. First, Shalah is 
* Thence Merce● 〈◊〉 A●e●arius, ●nd other E●●●ologists, derive this Latin word Salvare fr●m the H●brew Verb Sh●la●, or the Noun Shal●ah.  salvavit, salvus fuit, as is clear from Job 3. 26. where this word is used in this sense. It imports Safety or Salvavation, and so Shiloh, 
‖ Lo Shala●●i, I was 〈◊〉 Safety.  which is derived from this Verb, is as much as Saviour. Secondly, Shalah is of the same signification with Shalam quievit, pacificavit; qui●●us, pacifi●us fuit, Psalm 122. 6. 
* I●shlaiu, ●●ieti er●nt Mon●an.  which is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently by the Septuagint. It denotes Peace, and consequently Shiloh is the same with Peaceable. The third and next Denotation of the word Shalah (which also follows naturally from the two former significations) is 
* Psal. 30. 6. jer. 1●. 1. Lam. 1. 5.  felicem, fortunatum, prosperum esse, and accordingly is rendered by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prospero successu uti. Therefore Shiloh is as much as the Happy, the Fortunate, the Prosperer.  
Here than you cannot but see already the great Mystery contained, and also discovered in this Remarkable Word. It hath its undoubted and immediate Original from a Verb which signifies to save, and also to be at Peace, and (because these are the Blessings which conduce to the Felicity of Man) to be Happy. Whence we cannot but acknowledge that this Title Shiloh is most suitably applied here to the Messiah, who is jesus, i. e. a Saviour and Deliverer, who is also our great Peacemaker, and who is the Author of all our Happiness both in this World and in another. This admirable and singular Make of the Wo●d, is little less than an Assurance and Demonstration to me, that I have pitched upon the right and only true Derivation of it. Therefore this invites me to stay here a while, and to ponder the Virtue and Weight of this Marvellous Name given to the Messiah. Indeed these great things comprehended in this glorious Title, are worthy to be insisted upon, that we may thereby be throughly convinced, how fit an Epithet this is for our Blessed Lord: And I shall do this the rather, because (as I have intimated already) I have not found the Extensive Meaning of this Glorious Name displayed by those who have purposely undertaken to explain and comment upon this ancient Prophecy concerning the Coming of Christ.  
I. This Title contains in it the welcome notice of that most Ravishing Name JESUS, the Name given him by the particular direction of an Angel from Heaven, Matt. 1. 21. and which being interpreted, is no other than a Saviour. Wherefore you find both joined together by St. Paul, Acts 13. 23, a Saviour, jesus, the one being expressive of the other. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Apostle here useth, is of mighty sense and import, and accordingly Tully tells us, that 
* Hoc quantum est? ita magnum ut Latino un● verbo ex primi non possit, l. 4. contra Verrem.  this word cannot be expressed by any single one in Latin. It is certain that Servator (which was a word then in use) came short of it; therefore Salvator hath been used by the Latin Fathers as a suller word, and this hath generally obtained in the Church. 
* De Resurrect. carn. c. 47. Adu. Mar●ion. l. ●  Tertullian is pleased to render it Salu●ificator, thinking this to be a more significant word. But 
* In Matt. 1. 21.  Grotius comes and produceth another word, and makes bold to correct Tully (as good a judge of Latin as he was) and averreth that the single word Sospitator is of the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is as full. I think truly this great Man hath outdone the Orator in his own Tongue: For from Tully's own account of the word 
* Is est nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui salutem dedit. ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we may gather that this Latin word fully answers to that Greek one, which implies not only a Saving or Preserving from being destroyed but a Restoring to that Safety which was lost: So that it is a conferring of some positive Benefit on a Person. This is the very import of Sospitator, it properly relates to those things or Persons that were lost and undone. It respects the Condition of Men in Mis●ry, and it signifies a restoring them to their former ha●py State, and so is exactly applicable to the Redemption wrought for us by Jesus Christ. Thus the Ti●le of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saviour, is very expressive and emphatical. But to come to particulars behold how our Shiloh, our Saviour, merits that name by all the ways imaginable. He was a Bodily Saviour, miraculously rescuing distressed People from their Diseases and Pains which they laboured under, compassionately preserving many Thousands from perishing by Hunger, powerfully ejecting the evil Spirit out of those that were possessed and tormented by him. Yea, he was infinitely beneficial and advantageous to the whole Race of Mankind, by conferring on them all Temporal, and offering all Spiritual Mercies to them, so that he is most truly called 
* 1 Tim. 4. 10.  the Saviour of all Men. But especially of those that believe in him, and conform their Lives to his Holy Laws, He is a Saviour, and that in a more eminent manner, viz. 
* Mat. 1. 21.  To save them from their sins, which is the grand reason assigned why this Name was given him. 
* Acts 5. 31.  Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance and Forgiveness of sins, to save us from the Prince of Darkness, and to bruise Satan under our feet: For this Shiloh is the Seed of the Woman foretold in Gen. 3. 15. that was to break the Serpent's head. This Blessed Shiloh 
* 1 Thess. 1. 10.  delivers us from the Wrath to come, and frees us from eternal Death, which is the just Wages of sin. And lastly, he actually confers all Good upon us both here and hereafter. He freely purchaseth for us the Favour of God, he bestoweth Life and Happiness, and is 
* Heb. 5. 9  the Author of eternal Salvation unto all them that obey him.  
Thus he merits the Name of Shiloh or Saviour, and therefore most justly ought we to value and reverence this Name. The jews indeed call our Lord by the Name jesus, but with some Diminution of it; for (as we are informed by 
* Elias Le●i●a Thi●b.  one that was well acquainted with the Jewish Writers) instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they style him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which curtailing of the word, they let us understand that they do not own him (as the Christians do) for a Saviour. But let us be sensible that this is the True jesus, the Saviour, and that there is none else; let us adore him as a Complete and Perfect Saviour. It is true, we read in the 
‖ In Pinda ro, Sophocle, Aeschilo.  Greek Poets and 
* jul. Poll. Onom●st. l. 6 c. 16. Atbenae. l. 45. c. 20.  others, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Jupiter's Epithet: And the Temple of jupiter Servator is mentioned by 
‖ Nat. Hist. ●. 34.  Pliny. Bacchus likewise had this Title, for Pausanias' mentions an Altar to him with this Inscription. And the Dioscuri were particularly called 
† Aelian. var. Hist. l. 1. c. 36.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they were thought to deliver and save Men in Tempests at Sea. And not only the Gods, but great Men and Benefactors were honoured with this Appellation. Thus 
‖ joseph. Antiq. jud. l. 11. c. 6.  Ahashuerus (whom josephus names Artaxerxes) caused Mordecai the jew, who had detected the Conspiracy of the Eunuches against him, to be proclaimed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Saviour and Deliverer. So Antiochus Epiphanes had this Title given him in Flattery by the Samaritans, saith the 
* joseph. Antiq. jud. l. 12. c. 7.  same Author. And this very Name was bestowed upon Demetrius one of the Grecian Monarches. But to go back to the times long before, 
† Gen. 41. 49  Zaphnath Paaneah, Saviour of the World, (as St. jerom interprets it, who had been in Egypt, and had, it is likely, learned the Interpretation of that Egyptian Name) was the Title conferred on joseph by Pharaoh, because he had saved not only Egypt, but other Countries from perishing by Famine. But it is our jesus, our Shiloh alone that i● worthy of that Name in the full extent of it, and accordingly he is styled the Saviour of the World, 1 john 4. 14. And you may observe, that this Appellative is given him by the Samaritans that came to him, john 4. 42, We know, say they, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the World: Which Title they had learned, I conceive, from this very Prophecy concerning the Messiah, where he is called Shiloh. For the Samaritans owned the Pentateuch, in which this Prediction of the Holy Patriarch jacob was very eminent, and much observed by them: Wherefore they could not but inquire into the true meaning of this Name, and they found it to signify a Saviour, and thence knew and were assured that Christ was the Saviour of the World. Thus you see the reason why this good Patriarch gave the N●me Shiloh to the Messiah, viz. Because it is of the same import with JESUS or Saviour. But,  
II. This Title of the Messiah signifies not only Salvation, but Peace. And indeed these two are nearly allied to one another, and accordingly are joined together by the Apostle, Rom. 5. 8, etc. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us: Much more being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: Much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his Life. These two, Salvation and Reconciliation, are inseparable, and they are both purchased by the Blood of jesus, who is our Shiloh, i. e. both our Saviour and our Peacemaker. Hear how the meaning of this Blessed Name was proclaimed by the Inspired Writers of Old. 
‖ Dan. 9 24  He shall make Reconciliation for Iniquity, saith the Prophet Daniel: And others foretell, that 
* Mic. 5. 5.  This Man shall be the Peace, and that 
‖ Zech. 6. 13  The Council of Peace shall be between them both, viz. Between the Lord and the Branch spoken of in the foregoing Verse: For an Eternal Council was held between the Father and the Son, concerning the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind, and this was a Council of Peace, i. e. of Reconciliation towards lost▪ Sinners. This was the Effect of that Blessed Consult from Eternity: The Son of God was to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World, and thereby to pacify the Divine Justice, and so to become our Shiloh. But this was more especially the Glorious Theme of the New Testament, where we are abundantly assured, that 
‖ Col. 1. 20.  he made Peace through the Blood of his C●oss, and that the great Design and End of his being Incarnate, was to make Peace between God and Man, to reconcile Heaven and Earth. 
† Eph. 2. 14.  He is ou● Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of Partition between us, having abolished in his fl●sh the Enmity, so making Peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the Cross, having slain the Enmity thereby: An● came and preached Peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh, i. e. both to Gentiles and jews. This 
‖ 1 Ti●. 2 5.  is the Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ jesus, that Middle Person who interposed between us and the Offended Majesty, and by his powerful Mediation reconciled us unto God. Therefore even the Hebrew Masters and Cabalists called the Messiah 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a Man between, one who undertakes to appease the difference between God and Man. Iacob's Shiloh is the same with this Mediator, this Reconciler, this Peacemaker. This was his Office, and his Name is suitable to it.  
Again, Aben Ezra and other Rabbis grant, that this Name Shiloh is given to the Messiah, because he is Peaceable, and the Author of Peace to Mankind. This is the very Character of our JESUS, our Saviour; and this (viz. Peaceableness) is the very Genius and proper Nature of that Holy Religion which he founded and established in the World. The Principles of Christianity do most effectually conduce to the promoting of Peace among Men, it strictly commanding them to forgive them that trespass against them, to put away all Bitterness, and Wrath, and Anger, to choose in some cases to take wrong without looking for Redress, to study to be quiet, and to follow peace with all Men. And to commend and encourage this excellent Temper our Lord hath pronounced the Peacemakers Blessed. If there be Quarrels and Dissensions, Animosities and Persecutions amongst Christians (and who sees not that these too frequently abound?) they are not the fault of Christianity, but of the Evil Dispositions, Lusts and Corruptions of Men. Christ is not the Author of these, neither is Christianity itself to be blamed, that any such thing happens in the World; for the design of Christ's Kingdom was Peace, as the Prophet sets forth the times of the Gospel, 
‖ Isa. 2. 4, 5.  They shall beat their Swords into Ploughshares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up Sword against Nation, neither shall they learn War any more. It is one grand end of the Evangelical Institution, to remove all quarrelsome Distinctions and Antipathies between the different People of the Earth, that in Christ jesus there may be neither jew nor Gentile▪ neither Greek nor Barbarian, neither Bond nor Free, but that all may become one in Christ jesus; and that a period being put to all their former Grudges and Dissensions, they may be perfectly joined together in brotherly Affection, that universal Peace and Amity may take place, and that the Royal Law of Love may prevail in the World. This is the design and work of our Shiloh, our Peaceable Messiah; he hath purchased the means conducing to it, and we may be in possession of it if we will. Farther, to evince the Truth and Efficacy of this Name, let us reflect on the remarkable time of our Saviour's visiting the World, which was a Time of Universal Peace. I grant this is a common Observation, and generally known; but here in our present Subject it is very considerable, and more than ordinarily to be taken notice of and applied, because it will let us into the true Notion of this great and comprehensive Name Shiloh. The noise of Wars and Battles was ceased, all was calm and hushed, a Catholic Peace possessed the World at Christ's appearing in it; for he was born in the Reign of a Mild and Peaceable Prince, who after five Civil Wars, and after infinite Slaughter and Bloodshed accompanying them all, reigned peaceably many Years. At this time it was, that the Parthians, and several Nations which before had continually infested the Roman Empire with their Arms, came and humbly besought its Friendship, and tamely restored those Banners and other Ensigns of War which they had formerly taken from the Romans in Battle, and laid them down at Augustus' Feet. When thus this Emperor had vanquished the World, and settled the Nations, and all Kingdoms were brought under his Dominion, when he as well as the whole Earth was at Peace (of which the shutting of the Gates of Ianus' Temple, as it were shutting up Peace there, was a visible Token, and whereof there was very rarely an Example, as 
‖ In vit. Nu●ae.  Plutarch observes, till this time) then, and not till then, our Saviour chose to bless the World with his presence, to make it appear, that he was indeed the Shiloh, the Prince of Peace, (as the 
‖ Isa, 9 6.  Evangelical Prophet had styled him) the True Solomon, the Pacifick King, who brought Peace with him into the World, and brought a Religion with him which is the greatest Friend and Advancer of Peace.  
III. This Appellation given to the Messiah by the ancient Prophet jacob, denotes not only Salvation and Peace, but Prosperity. 
‖ Shiloh, h. e. Ille fortunatus. Ave●●●. Lexic.  Shiloh is as much as Prosperous, Happy, Triumphant; which is yet a farther Accession to the Glory of this Name. Therefore it immediately follows after the mentioning of Shiloh in this Prophecy, Unto him shall the gathering of the People be, all Nations shall own his Authority and Power, and submit to his Empire: The People shall be obedient unto him, as Onkelos' Targum renders it: All the Kings of the Earth shall be subject to him, as the jerusalem-paraphrase hath it. And from both we are acquainted, that this is a fit Epithet of the Messiah, who is 
* Rev. 1. 5.  the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, and 
‖ Luke 1. 32, 33.  shall be great, and shall reign for ever, and of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. This is the King foretold in, jer. 23. 5. that shall reign and prosper, that shall be Victorious and Triumphant, that shall be both a Saviour and a Conqueror. And therefore to this purpose that is very observable which we read, concerning our Saviour's 
‖ Matt. 21.  riding in state into Jerusalem upon an Ass, for in Palestine even their 
* judg. 10. 4  Princes and Nobles rid upon As●es. It is said the officious People 
‖ Mat. 21. 8.  spread their Garments in the way, which was a Testimony of Subjection to Kings, 2 Kings 9 13. There was the like Custom used among the Gentiles, as their 
* Plutarch. in Catone Vtic. Aeschil. in Agamemn.  Writers assure us. And some of this transported Multitude 
† V 9  cut down branches from the Trees, and strewed them in the way: And other Branches without doubt they carried in their hands, as an Emblem of Victory and Triumph, for this was an usual Practice among several Nations. The Evangelist St. john relating this passage, tells us, That they took Branches of Palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, ch. 12. v. 13. For it was the Custom on such an Occasion, to make use especially of the Boughs of this particular Tree, because it was generally held to be a Symbol of Victory, of which 
† L. 3. c. 6.  Aulus Gellius and 
‖ Sympos. l. 8. c. 5.  Plutarch pretended to give the reasons, viz. Because this is a firm and durable Tree, and had Leaves always green (whence you read of 
* Ps. 92. 12.  flourishing like the Palmtree) and from a Vulgar Error that prevailed about this Tree, i. e. That the more weights are laid on it, the higher it riseth. Whence Palma among the Latins signifies Victory and the Reward of it: And 'tis certain that the Branches of this Tree were used in Triumphs both among the Greeks and Romans, and were the Recompense of Conquerors. Accordingly the jews here (who in many things followed the Usages of other Nations) to express their Triumphal Joy at the Arrival of the Blessed jesus, took Branches of Palm-trees, and went forth to welcome him to jerusalem. Yea, 'tis no wonder that the jews in particular, who were used to this Solemnity, and did yearly carry and hold up Boughs of Trees 
‖ Neh. 8. 15  on their Feast of Tabernacles; 'tis no wonder, I say, that these jews, when they saw jesus coming, made use of this Ceremony, and cried Hosanna to him (as you read they did) for at that Feast they used to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for shortness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hosanna: And the Talmud informs us, that these very Boughs and Branches of Trees which they lifted up, were called Hosannas by them. Here then 'tis worth our observing, that at our Saviour's Triumphal C●valcade through the Streets of jerusalem, they received him with this particular Acclamation and Applause, and that they bore their Hosannas in their Hands, and brought them to the Son of David, and acknowledged him by this Gratulation to be their Messiah and Saviour, for the English of Hosanna is Save us now. And thus this Gratulatory Acclamation exactly agrees to him who is the jesus, the Saviour, the Deliverer, and who is the Shiloh, the Prosperous, the Triumphant. Therefore I take it to have been by a particular Direction of Heaven, that our Blessed Lord, at his entrance into jerusalem in Triumph, was received with repeated Hosannas from the People; for Saving and Triumphing go together. I find the concurrence of these two in Zechary's Prediction of our Saviour in ch. 9 v. 9 (a Prophetical Passage which all the ancient Jews understood of the Messiah, but it is needless to produce their words or give you their names, this being so amply and satisfactorily performed by a 
‖ Bochart. de Animal. Sacr. l. 2. c. 17.  worthy Writer of this last Age) Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having Salvation, lowly (meek in himself, but) riding upon an Ass, and upon a Colt the Foal of an Ass, as a King in Joy and Triumph. Thus he was a Saviour and a Triumphant King; and if he had not been the former, it was impossible he should have been the latter.  
It is true, he was pleased to submit to Death, and the Horrors of the Grave, but he soon rescued himself from them, and ascended Triumphantly to Heaven. 
‖ Acts 2. 36.  God made that same jesus who was crucified, both Lord and Christ, and 
† Eph. 1. ●0, etc.  hath set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all Principality and Power, and Might, and Dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this World, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church. We might here also recount the wonderful Success of the Christian Religion in the World, how it was planted and propagated even against the powerful Inclinations and most inveterate Customs of Mankind, how it broke all their Measures, and made its way through all Difficulties; how it thrived and flourished when it was most opposed and persecuted: In a word, how it miraculously prevailed maugre all the Force and Power, all the Wit and Policy of its malicious Adversaries. From this one Consideration alone we might demonstrate the Virtue of this Name Shiloh, and give undeniable proofs, that our Lord most deservedly had this Title, i. e. That he was Prosperous and Successful. And when at last he shall take to himself his most Absolute Power and Sovereignty, and reign in the Christian Church as 
‖ Rev. 19 16.  King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, when in those Halcyon days▪ in that Glorious Jubilee of the World, 
‖ Rev. 11. 15.  The Kingdoms of the Earth shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ▪ then we shall with rejoicing and Exaltation proclaim, admire and extol this Name Shiloh; we shall then with gladsome Experience acknowledge that He and his Cause alone prosper upon the Earth; we shall confess that all his Blessed Erterprises for his Church are Successful: Briefly, we shall adore him as our Complete Shiloh, our Saviour, our Peacemaker, our Prosperous Messiah.  
Thus I have been large in interpreting and explaining this Ancient Name of the Messiah, and you see what an Illustrious and Glorious Title it is. I have this yet farther to observe, that in some of the most notable and eminent Prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ, these three things which are comprehended in the Name Shiloh, are particularly and distinctly mentioned and are all found together. Thus in Psalm 72. which is a clear Prediction concerning the Messiah, (as the Hebrew Scholiast upon it, and some of the old Rabbins acknowledge, and as the Application of some passages in this Psalm to Christ, in the Writings of the New Testament plainly showeth.) This Name Shiloh is as it were commented upon. For you find him here first represented as a Saviour, He shall ●ave the Children of the needy, v. 4. He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the Poor and Needy, and shall save the Souls of the Needy, v. 12, 13. Nothing could be more expressive than this of the Salvation wrought by Christ jesus for poor, distressed, helpless Sinners. Secondly, He is described as a Peacemaker, The Mountains (those places which used to be haunted with Robbers and wild Beasts) shall bring Peace to the People, v. 3. This Blessing shall be conferred on those places where it was wholly a Stranger before, and therefore shall be the more welcome. And in v. 7. you read of abundance of Peace in his days; and the Duration of it is answerable to its Plenty, for it ●hall last till there be no Moon, (as the Hebrew hath it) till the Heavens and Earth, and the whole Fabric of the World be dissolved. In the third place, to complete his Character, it is added, that he shall be Prosperous and Happy, He shall break in pieces the Oppressor, v. 4. He shall be a great Victor, and Triumph over all his Enemies, especially over Satan the Great and Unsufferable Oppressor of Mankind. This is also signified in that Metaphorical Language, v. 6. He shall come down like rain upon the mown Grass, as showers that water the Earth: i. e. in plainer terms, The Subjects of his Kingdom shall grow and increase, thrive and flourish: Therefore it follows immediately, In his days shall the Righteous flourish, v. 7. And then in several Verses together you have the Prosperity and Happiness of his Kingdom deciphered, He shall have Dominion from Sea to Sea: They that dwell in the Wilderness shall bow before him, and his Enemies shall lick the Dust. All Kings shall fall down before him: All Nations shall serve him. And he shall live, i. e. (according to the 
‖ 2 Sam. 16. 16. 1 Kings 1. 31.  Eastern stile) he shall prosper; and Men shall be blessed in him: All Nations shall call him blessed.  
Likewise in that other noted and famous Prediction concerning Christ, in the 53 Chapter of Isaiah, all these three significations of the word Shiloh meet together. The Prophet recounting the admirable Benefits and Advantages of our Saviour's Passion (for that it is spoken of Him is evident from Matt. 8. 17. and Acts 8. 32, 35.) tells us, That he hath born our Griefs and carried our Sorrows, v. 4. i. e. He underwent the Punishment which we should have suffered which is farther expressed in the next Verse, He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was bruised for our Iniquities. Whereas we should have been wounded and bruised, punished and tormented for our Sins, He was pleased, out of infinite Kindness, to take the Recompense of our Sins upon himself, and to bear them on the Cross, and thereby to free us not only from the Gild of Sin, but from all the Miseries which were consequent upon it. What is this but to be a Saviour? Wherefore it is added, With his stripes we are healed, v. 5. By the Sufferings of Christ 
‖ Sanati sumus. Vulg. Lat.  we are made whole, and saved. Thus he was a Saviour. But the same Inspired Prophet acquaints us in the same Verse, that he was a Peacemaker, the Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, i. e. by his Meritorious Sufferings our Peace with God was purchased, our Reconciliation with the incensed Majesty of Heaven was procured. Yea, it is not unworthy of our notice, that the Hebrew word which we render Peace, is in the plural Number, to intimate to u●, that whatever Pleas and Accusations are against us, they are all (though never so many) silenced by Christ our Advocate, our Mediator, our Reconciler, our Peacemaker. Farther, the Peaceable Nature of Christ is set forth in those words, As a Sheep before her Shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth, v. 7. He bore all Hardships, Reproaches, Injuries, yea and the Cross itself, with a humble Silence and Submission. 
‖ Isa. 42. 2.  He did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his Voice to be heard in the Street. This is the Character of the Mild, the Gentle, the Peaceable jesus. In the next place, he is represented as Prosperous, When thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for sin, he shall see his Seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, v. 10. That is, his whole Design and Undertaking for the Salvation and Redemption of Mankind (for this is the Pleasure of the Lord) shall be Successful: There shall be a Happy Effect and Issue of all that he hath done and suffered, he shall see and rejoice in his Seed, that numerous Race of Holy Converts, of Believers and Regenerate Persons who are added to the Church. He shall see of the Travel of his Soul, and shall be satisfied, v. 11. He shall delight himself in the Blessed Effect of his Labours, he shall acquiesce in the Fruit of his Sufferings, viz. The Salvation of his Chosen. Therefore will I divide him a Portion with the great, etc. v. 12. Which is a Comparison taken from the Practice of Great Conqueror's, who after the Victory is over, share in the Rich Spoil: So that this expresseth the Complete Victory and Triumph of Christ over all his Enemies. Thus he is every ways the True Shiloh; for Salvation, Peace and Prosperity (which are all contained in that Appellation) belong to him.  
Whence we may gather, that this One Title comprehends in it All the Glorious Names that are given to Christ, either in the Old or New Testament, together with all his 〈…〉, and all the Admirable Effects 〈…〉 his Passion. These all centre in this One Name, which the Holy Ghost hath made choice of on purpose, as the most Comprehensive Word to express the Glorious Nature and Properties of the Messiah. Yea, I doubt not but the Holy Patriarch jacob had this Name revealed unto him from Heaven, and being immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, he divulged it to the World. You see then that I had great reason to prefer this Derivation of the word Shiloh (viz. from Shalah) before any others, and to commend it as the True and Native Signification. And because the Extent and Latitude of this word have not been observed by Expositors, there was a necessity of my insisting and enlarging upon it, that I might thereby display the full Import of the word designed here by the Holy Spirit, and that it might plainly appear, that this Name which God hath given his Son, is a Name above every Name.  
But after all that I have said, concerning this so remarkable Etymology and Denotation of the word, I leave every one to his liberty. It may be some do not apprehend the Singularity and Fitness of this Derivation which I have offered. However, it is sufficient for my general Purpose in this Discourse, that the Ti●●e Shiloh▪ (whether we embrace this or the other Derivations) is agreeable to the Messiah, and belongs to Him and none other. This is the unanimous Opinion and Suffrage of the most Learned jews themselves, I say of the most Learned, for though there be some jews, who by Shiloh understand Ne●uchadnezzar, others jeroboam, others David, and some the City Shiloh, where Saul was elected King; and though there be some other wild and fanciful Opinions of the Rabbis concerning the Interpretation of this word; yet all the wise and sober Writers among the Jews, all those who are of greatest Learning and Judgement, deride these Conjectures, and ingenuously profess that Shiloh is the Messias' Name. The three Chala●ee Paraphrases interpret the word thus, and so R. Solomon, and all the ancient Rabbis understand the place. In several places of the 
‖ Sanhedr. c. 11. Nedarim. c. 4. Pesachim. c. 3.  Talmud it is clear, that the Hebrew Doctors thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one of the Names of the Messiah, and they quote this Text for it. The Author of Bereshith Rabath (an ancient Piece) asserts the same in express terms, viz. Shiloh is the Messiah. Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Bechai, later Doctors hold the same. Still, though there be different Derivations of the word, they all agree in this, that it is meant of the M●ssias. If then all the Ancient, and some of the Moder● Hebrews of the greatest Note and Learning acknowledge Shiloh to be the Name of the Messiah or Christ, I think no Man of the Christian Persuasion will be averse from acknowledging it, but will rather admire and magnify the Divine Providence in affording such a clear and notable Testimony from the Mouths and Pens of our professed Adversaries.  
It being thus universally agreed, who is meant by Shiloh in this famous Prophecy, let us now sum up the plain meaning of the whole▪ The Sceptre shall not departed, etc. that is, the Government of the ●ewish Nation shall ever reside in the Posterity of judah till a greater Governor cometh, till He that was the Desire of all Nations, He that is the MESSIAH, the Deliverer and Saviour, the Peaceable, the Prosperous, blesseth the World with his arrival. ●hen, and not before, the Jewish Government shall departed, and so departed, that it shall never return again. This is the meaning of 〈◊〉; and this we must carefully observ● 〈◊〉 ●he expounding of this Proph●●●●. For I find that most Authors have stretched this Prophecy too far, and have thereby made themselves justly liable to the Objections of the jews. And indeed they can never maintain this Prediction against them upon the grounds on which they proceed, viz. That the Sceptre is to be taken in these words precisely for the Kingly Power, and that the departing of this Sceptre from judah is meant of any departing, though it were but for a little time. This cannot be the meaning of the words, for then the Sceptre may be said to have departed from judah, when the Jewish Nation was carried Captive into Babylon, when the Dignity of the Kingly Majesty was taken away by Nabuchadnezzar, about five hundred years before Christ▪ And after it, under the Kings of Persia, and after the Ruin of that Empire, under Alexander's Successors there was a kind of departing of the Sceptre. But it was not properly a Departing; it was rather an Interruption, and a Cessation for a time, but that is not the thing spoken of in this Prophecy. The Text is not meant of a Departing for a Time, of an Interregnum, or partial Failing, but of a full and total Departure; which happened not in the foresaid Instances. Nay, it is certain that all that while the Administration of the Jewish Commonwealth remained in those who were of the Line of judah, viz. the Seventy Elders, who had the Power in their hands: These (as the jews tell us) failed not to be of the Race of judah and David. But the Asmonaei, who were the last Set of Governors among the jews, were no● of the Tribe of judah, but of Levi, they being Priests. Wherefore we must freely acknowledge that the jewish Government was not tied to the Tribe of judah, and consequently we must not restrain this Prophecy as some do, as if the Sceptre should not in the least be removed from the Tribe of judah before Christ came. For 'tis certain that the Sceptre did not continue in this Tribe all the while, and therefore in my opinion Helvicus might have saved all his pains in endeavouring to demonstrate that there was a Continuation of the Sceptre in Iudah's Tribe: Which thing indeed he hath with great Learning and Skill in History, attempted to make good, and he hath said as much towards the proof of it as any Man upon Earth could have done; but still all of it falls short of what he undertook, because the matter itself would not bear it, and he went upon a wrong Hypothesis, viz. That the word judah in this Prophecy is to be restrained to the Particular Tribe of judah. Whereas it is to be taken in a larger Sense, (as is most frequent in Scripture) i. e. for the jewish Race or People. The Sceptre, the Supreme Power and Authority, continued in the Race and Line of the Jewish People, till the Coming of Christ. And even in those times when the Sceptre, or Royal Dignity, failed for a Season; yet the Lawgiver (if we will take it in the strictest Sense) never failed at all; for the jews had their own Laws and Customs. And neither the Sceptre nor Law departed wholly from the Jewish Nation in any of those Times before mentioned: It departed not in Zedekiah, the last King of the House of David, nor in Zorobabel, nor in the Failure of the Maccabean Family: I say, it departed not wholly, though 'tis granted, that for a time, and in some part, it was taken away. Yea, when jehoiakim broke his Oath and Covenant, and rebelled against the King of Babylon, the Sceptre departed from judah for a time, as Ezekiel observes on that Event, so that Judah hath no strong rod to be a Sceptre to rule, ch. 19 l. v. But when Shiloh the Messiah came, it remained no longer, it was wholly cut off and ceased, so as not to be any more. Now was the Determinate Time come; for that is implied in these words [till Shiloh come] which signify a Set Period of time.  
It remains then, that I show you that This was the Time of our Saviour's Coming, and that it was the Precise Time. The Sceptre, i. e. the Jewish Government was not totally abolished till Christ our Blessed Lord came; but at that very time when he came, i. e. when he was born, the Jewish Polity was utterly destroyed and nulled, so as never to be recovered again. Yet this we are to note, that the departing of the Sceptre was by degrees; it began some time before our Saviour's Birth, and was in a short time completed. I say, before Christ's coming in the Flesh the departing of the Jewish Government had its Beginning: For it is evident from unquestionable Writers, that Antipater, an Idumaean, was set over the jews by julius Caesar, and Antigonus (who was the last of the Jewish Kings, and of Jewish Race) was deposed. Now it might be said that the Sceptre departed from Judah, viz. when a Person, not by Birth a Jew, but a mere Alien, was forced upon them, and usurped the Jewish Government. Till this time their Governors were always jews, but now ever afterwards all the rest were Strangers and Gentiles. This was the first step of the Total Departure of the Sceptre, but it more signally and eminently departed quite from that Nation, when Herod, the Son of this Antipater, was set over them: For he, upon the Death of Caesar, hastened to Rome, a●d by complaining to the Roman Senate, and by Anthony's means (whom he had bribed) was made King of judea. Whereupon, at his return, he endeavoured to extirpate all the Blood Royal, he put to death 〈◊〉 and Hircanus, the right Heirs of the Crown, he killed all of the Tribe of judah, and of the Family of the Asmonaei, whom he feared might contend with him for the Kingdom, and he reigned at jerusalem as King of judea, but without the jews consent. He was a considerable time a great Scourge and Plague to the jews, who would by no means acknowledge a Stranger for their King. But he, to oblige and win them, embraced their Religion, and rebuilt their Temple; which had this Effect upon them, that at last they voluntarily resigned the Right of the Kingdom to him, and owned him for their King, and swore Fealty to him. This was in the two and thirtieth Year of his Reign; in which Year likewise Christ was born. So that the Prophecy was exactly fulfilled; when the Jewish Kingdom had changed its True Owner, and the Sceptre was actually departed from judah, and that with the Consent of the jews (which never was before) than Christ came. This was in the Two and fortieth Year of Augustus, when Cyrenius was the Perfect of Syria, Luke 2. 2. And that it may appear that the Sceptre was 〈◊〉 from Judah, it is signally recorded that Augustus taxed judea, 1, 3, 4, Verses of that Chapter. Herod paid Tribute to Caesar, the whole Land was subject to the Empire, and the jews had no Dominion of their own. Thus, till this Herod the Great's time, the Kingly Government continued in the Tribe of judah, and the Royal Sceptre did not departed till this Stranger reigned over them, for he was the first Jewish King of strange Blood and Descent.  
It is unreasonable to attend to what 
‖ Scaliger, Casaubon.  some allege, that he was not an Alien, but one of the Israelitish Nation, and a jew by Birth. Which mistake they have run into because they read that Herod was a jew, and was circumcised; which was only to please the jews, and to settle himself in the Kingdom; but this proves not that he was a jew by Birth. The contrary appears from the best 
‖ St. jerom, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers.  Records: Yea, josephus the jew tells us expressly, that he was by his Father an Idumean, and by his Mother an Arabian. Africanus and others derive his pedigree otherwise, but all make him a Foreigner and Stranger: And they all agree, that the jews owned him for their King, and that he was the first Stranger whom they admitted to sway the Sceptre over them, and consequently that in Him this Divine Oracle began to be fulfilled, viz. That the Sceptre should departed from Judah. And when our Saviour conversed here on Earth, this Prophecy was still accomplished more and more: For we find that the jewish Sanhedrim had lost their Judicial Power of Life and Death, and in all things truckled to the Roman Governors that were set over them. And at last, at the Destruction of jerusalem, their whole Power was quite Extinct, and the Sceptre and Lawgiver totally and finally departed from them. Then the Government of every sort, the Priesthood and the Magistracy, the Making of Laws, and the Executing them, the State and Religion, the Commonwealth and the Church, were destroyed together, and so this Sacred Prediction was completely fulfilled. You see then that there were Degrees of it, and therefore 'tis Vain and Idle to interpret this Prophecy of a Moment of time. A punctual Designation of a certain Minute Season is unreasonable, for the Government and Authority of the jews decayed gradually, till there was at length a final departing of them.  
This then is the Grand thing represented in this Prophecy, that at or about Christ's Coming, the Sceptre departed from the Nation of the jews. Which is as much as we desire, to prove the Real Fulfilling of this Ancient Prediction, and from thence the Truth of Christianity. For thus we argue, the Jewish Sceptre was to departed when Christ came: It is manifest and undeniable, that that Sceptre is departed; therefore Christ is come. The Overthrow of the Jewish Polity, Magistracy and Government, is a certain Sign, Proof and Demonstration, that our jesus is the Christ, and that this Christ is come. It is true, there was heretofore an Interruption of the Sceptre, but the jews returned to their Land and Rule again: But now for above Sixteen hundred Years, there hath been no show at all of a Sceptre and Kingdom; which is an undeniable Argument, that the Sceptre is quite departed. Therefore the Talmud often saith, that this Prediction refers to the Particular Case of the jews; so that when Magistracy ceased in Ierusal●m, and the Kingdom and Jurisdiction were cast off, they ought presently to expect the Messiah. And those are Remarkable words of R. David Kimchi on Host 3. 4, The Children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and without a Prince, and without a Sacrifice, etc. These (saith he) are the times of Exile in which we are at this day, we have neither a King, nor a Prince of the Stock of Israel, but we are under the Power of the Gentiles, and under the Power of the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles. Which is as much as to confess, that this Prophecy which I have been commenting upon, is accomplished, That the Sceptre is departed from Judah, and that the Messiah, who is the Blessed jesus, the True Shiloh, (the Saviour, the Peacemaker, the Prosperer) is come.   

The second Text enquired into, viz. Exod. XXVIII. 30. Thou shalt put in the Breastplate of judgement the Urim and the Thummim.  
THis Renowned Oracle of the jews, hath employed the Thoughts and Studies of many Learned Persons, both jews and Christians, but the Result of their Inquiries hath been very different. For some after all their Searches have brought in an Ignoramus: Thus R. David Kimchi expressly averreth, 
‖ In libr. Radic.  It is not known to us what the Urim and Thummim are: And several other Writers (as you shall hear afterwards) speak the same despairing Language on this Theme.  

‖ Origen in Ex. 21. Hom. 9 Cy●il. Alex▪ de Adorat. in Spir & ●erit. l. 11.  Others seem to be Allegorical, and by the Urim and Thummim understand that Spiritual Light and Knowledge, that Divine Truth and Wisdom, with which God inspired the Heart or Breast of the High Priest, as aften as he wore the Rationale on that part. But after this rate, a Man may Allegorise away half the Bible; and then when the Literal or Historical Sense is wholly swallowed up of the Mystical, we may give up our Reason and Religion together, and profess we know not what either of them means. Besides, it is impertinent and ridiculous to interpret these words of any thing that God infused into the High Priests Heart, because they are spoken to Moses, as appears from the first Verse of the Chapter: So that it is evident they mention not what God, but what Moses was to do. It is He that is here commanded to put the Urim and Thummim into Aaron's Breastplate, and therefore it is unreasonable and absurd to understand these words of Gods infusing Light or Wisdom into Aaron's Heart. This be sure is not the Primary and Literal Sense, though (as I shall show in the close of this Discourse) it may be contained in the Mystical and Highest Meaning of the Words.  
I might in the next place mention (and truly it is enough barely to mention) the wild Fancy of the Brethren of the Rosy Cross, who pretend to make and prepare the Urim and Thummim, and therefore would persuade us that they know very well what it is, viz. That it is an Artificial or Chemical Preparation of Light, answerable to the Subterranean Lamps, or it is such a Splendour made by Art, as Noah prepared for the Ark, Gen. 6. 16. for by what we translate a Window, there is meant, say they, some Greater thing: And what is that but this Spagyric Splendour, the True Urim and Thummim of the World? But leaving these Fanciful Urim and Thummim-makers, I proceed to acquaint you with the Sentiments of the more Sober.  
I. Some of these hold that the Name of God was written, and put into the Breastplate, and that this was the Urim and Thummim. 
‖ In locum.  R. Selomoh jarchi saith expressly, that it was the Name jehovah inserted into the Foldings of the High Priest's Pectoral. This is also avouched by Eugubinus, Vatablus, and P. Fagius, the last whereof hath these words, 
‖ In locum.  The Writing which contained the Name of God with four Letters, was called the Urim and Thummim. And Avenarius is partly of this Opinion; for though he holds that the Urim and Thummim are the Twelve Precious Stones shining in the Breastplate, yet he joins to them the Shem Hamphorash, as the Jewish Doctors style the Name jehovah. But for my part I cannot conceive how these Persons came to take up this Opinion, there being no Foundation at all for this Particular Word or Name. They might as well have assigned any other Name of God, yea any other Word whatsoever that was reputed Sacred and Venerable. Wherefore others take another course, and understand by the Urim and Thummim something of a far different Nature, viz. some Curious Piece of Work, either framed by the Hand of some Skilful Artist, or immediately wrought by God himself, and given by him to Moses when he was on the Mount. Accordingly,  
II. Some are of opinion, that the Urim and Thummim were the Precious Stones in the High Priest's Breastplate, those Twelve Stones on which the Names of the Tribes were engraven. This is the received Doctrine of the Talmudists, and the Generality of the Jewish Doctors, to whom our Learned Lightfoot, and several other Christian Writers adhere. And they labour to prove this Assertion from Exod. 39 8, etc. where the making of the Breastplate, with all its Ornaments, is set down, and yet the Urim and Thummim are not expressly mentioned there: Whence they conclude, that these Stones are the Urim and Thummim, and that Moses mentioning those, did as good as mention these. These, therefore, say they, are nothing else but those Stones. But this is confuted from this Exod. 28. where Aaron's Garments and Habiliments are most distinctly set down: Here you read of the Breastplate with Twelve Precious Stones, v. 15, etc. and then in v. 30. the Urim and Thummim are mentioned by themselves, Thou shalt put, etc. Therefore These are things really different from the Stones which were distinctly named before, and particularly described from v. 15. to 22. This I think is very plain and convincing; and as for the place before produced, the answer is, that the mentioning of the Urim and Thummim is omitted there, where the Design was particularly to insist upon those Habiliments which were Rich and Costly, and required great Art and Preparation, but the Urim and Thummim are not of that nature, but a plain easy thing, as I shall show afterwards. The Talmudical Doctors go on, and tell us, that by the Stones shining more than ordinarily Answer was given to what was asked by the Holy Priest. Which also is asserted by some Late Writers, who confidently tell us, that the Stones in the Breastplate were called Urim, because they sent forth a light in great abundance, and especially that a Pair of these Gems shone forth with extraordinary Brightness, when the Answer of God was Acceptable and Welcome; but when it was not, they looked very Dim and Dull. But some say (and with as much reason as the former) that the Answer was given, not by the Unusual Lustre of the Stones, but by the Letters of the Names Engraven in them, which raised themselves higher, and stood more out, and so made up certain Words out of the Alphabet, contained in the Names of the Twelve Tribes. When any one came to inquire at this Oracle, the High Priest looked on the Letters which were Engraven on the Stones of his Breastplate, and there read what God's Pleasure was. But this is a mere Conjecture: Besides, we are certain that Long Answers (and such there were sometimes) could not be given in this way. 
‖ Antiq. jud. l. 3. c. 9  josephus affirms, that the Stones in the High Priest's Breastplate, fore signified what was to be by the Change of their Colour. Others have other Fancies, as Suidas quotes an Author, who averred that the Stones turned Red if there was any Answer of War, and that they turned Black if Death was denounced, and other Divinations and Answers were signified by other Colours: All which is mere Surmise and Conceit: Wherefore 'tis needless to insist upon the Refutation of it.  
III. Others hold that the Urim and Thummim were Two Precious Stones given by God to Moses, distinct from the Twelve Gems or Stones before mentioned. I find that Procopius of old inclined to this Opinion, and among the Moderns Aria's Montanus asserts it. But because they merely assert it, and assign no reason or ground of it (as indeed it is impossible they should) I will take no farther notice of it, but pass to the next Opinion.  
iv Others will have the Urim and Thummim to be a sort of Small Images belonging to the Breastplate. But there is a Disagreement among those that are of this Opinion, for some hold that the Urim and Thummim are one and the same thing, others that they are two different things.  
Those that hold the Urim and Thummim were the Same thing, tell us, That they were two Little Images finely wrought, which the High Priest wore within the Foldings of his Pectoral, and by these God gave Answer when there was occasion. This is the Opinion of Christopherus à Castr●, who adds also, That they are the same with the Teraphim, which were Statues, Figures, or Images used in Divining: The Talisman were of the like nature. So 
* De Dis Syr. Syntag. 1.  Mr. Selden thinks, and addeth, That the Teraphim, among the Idolaters, answered to the Urim and Thummim among the Jews. The Learned Mr. Gregory agrees with him, and saith likewise, That the Teraphim were Puppets made of Wax in shape of a Man, and that they were framed under a certain Constellation, and thence had power to foretell future things. But in another place he saith, They were the Heads of Firstborn Males cut off, and Magically ordered, and then being Consulted, they spoke.  
There are others, who assert that the Urim and Thummim were things of Different Natures. To such I would propound that passage in Numb. 27. 21. Eleazar the Priest shall ask Counsel for him (i. e. joshua) after the judgement of Urim before the Lord. Here is no mention of Thummim, but Urim alone is put for both, or rather it is implied, that they are the same. So we read in 1 Sam. 28. 6. That when Saul enquired of the Lord, he answered him not, neither by Dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets: Whence it seems to be evident, that Urim includeth the Thummim, and consequently the difference which some Persons make between them is taken away; they are the same Oracle, though not the same Words. Mr. Mede seems to be of another Opinion, and makes them two Distinct Oracles: By Urim (saith he) the Jews were ascertained of the Council and Will of God, by Thummim of his Favour and Good Acceptance. The Learned Dr. Spencer likewise hath in a whole Treatise attempted to prove, that the Urim is a quite different thing from the Thummim, and that it was to another end and purpose. As to his Notion concerning the Urim, it is the same in the main, with that of Christopherus à Castro, but he with Great Wit and Extraordinary Learning hath embellished and improved it. The Urim, saith he, was one or two, or more Little Images, or Hollow Instruments which the High Priest had in the Foldings of his Breastplate. They were the same with Teraphim, often mentioned in the Old Testament. And Teraphim, by an usual change of S into T is for Seraphim, which Hebrew word signifies Urentes: So that Urim and Teraphim agree in the Name, for Urim properly signifies Ignes. Now Seraphim is a word in the Old Testament to signify Angels, Isa. 6. 6. it was the first and ancientest Name for those Glorious Messengers of Heaven. And they often appearing in the first Ages of the World, and God holding Correspondence with Mankind by them, it was grown into a Custom to make Little Images and Representations of them in Wax; and at last the Images were called by their Names; as the Images of Angels in the Holy of Holies were called Cherubin, so the Images of Angels which the High Priest had in his Rationale were called Seraphim or Teraphim, and Urim. This Oracle was from the High Priest's Breast, as the Oracle in the Temple was from the Ark, and from between the Cherubims, which were of the same Nature. In short, the Urim were of Pagan Extraction, they being the same with the Teraphim, which are taken in Scripture in a good and a bad Sense, for they might be used lawfully or unlawfully, Devils and Impure Spirits might give answer by these as well as Good Spirits. The Teraphim then, which were a piece of Gentile Superstition at first, were by Gods leave tolerated among the Jews, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, and to comply with their obstinate Temper. Accordingly God ordered those to be placed within the doubling of the High Priest's Breastplate, and thence he gave answers by them. This is the Learned Doctor's Notion of the Urim, and he quotes Philo the Jew and Aben Ezra as the Patrons of it.  
But I presume to offer one thing against this Excellent Person's Opinion, and more particularly against the Foundation of it, which is this, that the word Teraphim is of a middle Signification in Scripture and is taken sometimes in a good, and other times in a bad Sense; sometimes for Cherubims and other Lawful Representations, and at other times for Unlawful Images and Idols. This I conceive is a mistake, for I find that the word Teraphim is always to be understood in the latter Sense. Thus Laban had these Teraphim, Gen. 31. 19 which the generality of Learned Expositors interpret concerning Magical and Telesmatical Images, by which it was usual among the Gentiles to foresee and foretell future Events. Therefore Rachel took them from her Father, that he might not, by consulting them, know which way she traveled: Or, it may be she retained something of his Superstition, and took these Tutelar Gods with her to direct her in her Journey. So we read that Micah had got him a House of Gods and a Teraphim, Judg. 17. 5. but whether these were Lawful Implements, and becoming True Worshippers, you may gather from the next Verse, In those days there was no King in Israel, but every Man did that which was right in his own eye. And even when the Israelites had a King, and a more composed Government, this corrupt Practice was not soon worn off, for Michal, David's Wife, kept this piece of Idolatry in her House, to consult with upon occasion, 1 Sam. 19 13. But when a Reformation was set on foot in good earnest, these Idolatrous Images immediately vanished: Thus we read that when King josiah reform Israel, he put away from among them the workers with familiar Spirits, and the Wizards, and the Images (or Teraphim, as 'tis in the Original) and the Idols, and all the Abominations that were spied in the land. I think it will not be questioned whether Teraphim are to be taken here in a bad Sense. And that these were noted Instruments of Idolatry is clear from Ezek. 21. 21. where we read that the King of Babylon being about to use Divination consulted with the Teraphim, which shows plainly what they were. But it may be objected that the Ephod and Teraphim go together, as in the forenamed place, judg. 17. 5. where 'tis said Micah made an Ephod and a Teraphim: And in Host 3. 4. it is prophesied that the Israelites should be without an Ephod and a Teraphim, whence some infer that the former being a thing Lawful, the latter is so too; the Ephod belonged to the True Worshippers, therefore the Teraphim did. I answer first, it may be both of these were Unlawful and Idolatrous, for it was the Custom of False Worshippers to imitate the True ones in some things: And because God appointed his Priests an Ephod, they likewise aped that Holy Garment, and had a certain Vestment not unlike to it, which they used in their Idolatrous Services. This went along with their Teraphim which was a Device of their own, and had no reference (that we know of) to any thing made use of by God's People. If we consult judges 8. 27, we shall see a proof of this: Ephod is not here meant of a Holy Garment, but of Gideon's Idolatrous Vestment, in imitation of the High Priest's Ephod. So in judg. 18. 14. an Ephod and Teraphim are joined together as things of the same Quality and Kind, i. e. as Idolatrous, yea and thrice more they are mentioned together, viz. in v. 17, 18, 20. In all which places you may observe, that either molten or graven Images are joined with them, to convince us yet farther of what nature they are.  
Or Secondly, Suppose that by Ephod in the latter place, viz. in Hosea, be meant a Lawful Garment, even the same which the High Priest wore by God's Appointment, yet it doth not follow from this that the other thing mentioned with it, viz. the Teraphim was lawful. For in these words of Hosea this double thing is foretold, namely, That the time will come when God will take away from the Jews, not only the True Worship but the Idolatrous one, which used to be so delightful to them. The Prophet tells them, That they shall not only be without an Ephod, i. e. The Mosaic Priesthood and Service, but they shall be without an Image, i. e. a Standing Image or Statue (as the word signifies) such as the Golden Calf, or the Calves in Dan and Bethel, and that they shall be without Teraphim, i. e. Images for Divination: They shall be debarred the Profane and Idolatrous way of Worshipping, which was so dear to them. And this is the very case of that People at this day, they neither worship the True God after the Mosaic Appointment (for they are out of a Capacity of doing it in their present Circumstances) nor do they serve Idols and fall down to Images. They have no Ephod, and they have no Teraphim, they are without the Mosaic Worship, and also without the Idolatrous and Superstitious Rites to which they were heretofore accustomed, and in which they took so great delight. This seems to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Words, and any Man may see how directly it Confronts the Learned Doctor's Opinion.  
I might add, that it is improbable God would make use of the Teraphim (which are the same with the Urim according to this Worthy Person) as a Divine Oracle, seeing they are originally Superstitious and Idolatrous things, and no other than the common Instruments of Divination among the Pagans. I know this Learned Author salves the Improbability of this, by adding that this was done wholly in Compliance with the peevish and hardhearted Jews, who were to be humoured and pleased at that time. But I crave leave to descent from this Learned Man here, because I question whether it was worthy of God to indulge the Israelites in these Heathen Superstitions. I refer the Reader to Arguments of another sort in a very 
‖ Dr. Pocock Comment. on Host 3. 4.  Learned Writer, who hath largely confuted this mistake of the Teraphim being the same with the Urim.  
I pass now to this Reverend Author's Notion of Thummim, which he holds to be a thing really different from the Urim. He hath this particular and singular Apprehension of it, that as Urim was fetched from Serapis an Egyptian Image, so Thummim is of the like Original, for it was an Image made of Precious Stones, which the High Priests of Egypt wore about their Necks, having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written on it, and therefore it was called Truth, as Diodorus Siculus, Aelian, and others relate. Accordingly the Jewish Thummim is styled Truth by the Septuagint. Against which most ingenious and plausible Conjecture, which the Author of it hath adorned with infinite Reading and Criticism, I make bold to offer a few things, begging first his pardon for daring to shake so admirably contrived a Notion. And truly I am apt to think myself already absolved by a Person of that famed Ingenuity and Candour, who as he hath thought fit to departed from other Writers on this Subject, and hath worthily established a Sentiment of his own, so he will forgive the Freedom of this Critical Essay which ventures to descent from that so Celebrated Hypothesis of his. Briefly then, whereas he parallels the Thummim with the Egyptian Ornament, because, like that, it hung down by a Golden Chain, I humbly conceive that Text which is alleged in favour of it, is no positive Proof, viz. Exod. 28. 22, etc. for though it appears thence that the Breastplate of the Jewish High Priest was fastened to the Shoulder-pieces of the Ephod by Chains and Rings of Gold, yet there is not a word of the Thummim being fastened to or hanging by any thing; but 'tis only said in that Chapter that Moses shall put in the Breastplate the Thummim. And this likewise I offer from these express words, if the Thummim was put in the Breastplate, and leapt up within it, how could it be a Pendent Image, and how could it be seen hanging without? Then besides, if this Image or Jewel called Thummim hung dangling on the High Priest's Breast, it could not but cover (in part at least) the Rich Gems in the Rationale, and hinder them and their Curious Engraving from being seen. I only modestly query whether this be allowable. And this too is to be thought of, that if the Thummim hung down by a Chain, there is the same reason to assert that the Urim did so too, for the Text speaks of both alike, and so the Images which were supposed to be shut up in the warm Folding of the Pectoral must be taken out, and exposed to the Air, and both they and the Egyptian Image must hang together on the High Priest's Breast.  
Lastly, If this Excellent Writer will give me leave to utter my thoughts freely, This is another reason why I descent from him, viz. because his Assertion concerning the Thummim (as well as the Urim) supposes that God himself imitated the Idolatrous Nations; for the most Sacred Thummim, according to him, was borrowed from the Egyptians, and particularly from their Priests; which to me seems to be not only unworthy of the Divine Majesty, but of his High Priest, and of the Religion instituted by him. Therefore the Admirable Grotius declares that it is most likely that the Egyptians in this (as in other things) imitated the jews. And the Learned Isaac Vossius acknowledgeth that the Egyptians took this Ornament and the Name of it from the Hebrews, as they did many other things. And he adds that the Egyptians consulted this Precious Stone of the High Priest as an Oracle, wherein also they emulated the Hebrews. But the contrary, viz. That the Jews, nay that God himself, and in a Matter so Solemn and Sacred, followed the Example of the Idolatrous Egyptians seems to me very improbable. We read in the Infallible History, that the Israelites borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of Silver and Gold, and Raiment; but that the High Priest of Israel borrowed his Pontifical and particularly his Oracular Habit from them I find not where attested: But I read that God strictly forbade the Jews to use the Rites of the Pagan Nations, and to follow their Customs, After the do of the Land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelled, shall ye not do: And after the do of the Land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ye shall not do, neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances, Leu. 18. 3. And it is the Confession of one of the most Understanding Rabbis, even that Moses of whom the Jews say, that from Moses the Great Lawgiver to this Moses there never was such another of that Name: (I say) 'tis his Confession and Acknowledgement, That the jewish Rites prescribed that People by God were not in imitation of the Pagan Rites, but were in absolute opposition to them. Thus the Famous Rambam, who was celebrated for his profound Skill in the Jewish Laws and Constitutions. This is all that I have at present to offer in way of Exception to the Learned Doctor's Opinion. But though I cannot yield to be his Proselyte in this Point, yet I deny not that Others of great Sagacity and Judgement may see farther into and acquiesce in so Noble a Discovery: And as for my own part, I acknowledge most frankly that I pay a great Veneration to this Excellent Person, who hath with so great an Amassement of Learning and Variety of Reading, framed so Delicate a Notion. I admire the Incomparable Artificer, though I cannot altogether subscribe to his Work.  
You see what have been the Different Opinions of Writers concerning the Urim and Thummim: I will now after all propound that which I conceive is more eligible than any of those already named. The High Priest, the Chief Minister of the Jewish Church, had eight distinct Garments wherewith he was adorned, whence he was called the Priest 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of many Garments, to distinguish him from the other Priests. But of all these Vestments the Ephod was the most considerable, and was worn over all the rest: This had a hole or opening in the forepart of it, where was fastened a piece of Cloth of the same work with the Ephod, very richly embroidered and mixed with Gold. This Cloth being doubled was Foursquare; it was a Span in length, and of the same Dimension in breadth, Exod. 28. 15, etc. This Quadrangular Piece is called the High Priests Pectoral or Breastplate, and it was set with four Rows of Precious Stones, three in a Row, i. e. twelve Stones in all; and on each of these Stones was engraved one of the Names of the Sons of Israel, from whom the Twelve Tribes took their Denominations. And this Square Breastplate, this Rich Stomacher of the High Priest was Famous not only for these Precious Stones and the Ingraving on them, but also for the Urim and Thummim which were placed here also. Now (to come to the matter) these were no such Fine and Rare things as some talk of: Nay, let me add, they were no Things at all, but only Words. I take them to be no other than these two bare words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written or engraven upon the Breast plate. After all the various Sentiments, Disputes, Opinions and Conjectures about this so Famous and so much Controverted Oracle, I apprehend this to be the short, plain and easy account of it. It was only these two Hebrew Dissyllables URIM and THUMMIM (of great Significancy and Importance, as you shall hear afterwards) placed upon the High Priests Pectoral. This was all. And that this Account of the Urim and Thummim is as Probable and Reasonable as it is Plain, I will make appear from these following Particulars.  
1. There was no room for a pair of Images or more in the Breastplate, for it was but a Span in length and breadth, so that you cannot conveniently lodge these little Flying Seraphims in so narrow a compass, you will endanger their Wings, or hurt some of their Tender Members by trussing them up in so Contracted a Room. Besides, we must remember, that according to the foresaid Opinion the Urim were Images of Wax: Now, it was not safe to lodge these little Waxed Tools in that Close Folding next the warm and zealous Breast of the Priest; for by this means there might be danger of dissolving these Little Cherubims. But this is prevented by our Assertion that the Urim and Thummim were not Things but Words.  
2. The Terms whereby it is expressed in Scripture will bear this Interpretation very well; for concerning the Urim and Thummim it is said, Thou shalt put them in the Breastplate; or according to the Version of the Seventy, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Thou shalt put them upon it. And when Moses had clothed Aaron with the Ephod and Breastplate, it is said he 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  put upon the Rationale or Breastplate the Urim and Thummim, Leu. 8. 8. Now this without the least Straining may signify to us the Writing of these words Urim and Thummim upon the Breastplate. It is a general Term, and so may include that Particular way and manner of Putting those words upon the Pectoral, viz by Writing or Engraving them. Nay, if we go to the Original, we shall find that that is as fair for us, for Thou shalt give in the Breastplate, etc. (which is the Exact Version according to the Hebrew) may as well be understood of Writing as any other way. Nay, you may observe that the word giving is used with reference to Writing, in Esther 3. 14. The Copy of the Writing for a Commandment to be given is as much this, 
‖ Summa Epistolarum h●c fuit. Vulg. Lat.  The Sum of the Writing was, that there should be written such a Command or Decree. Given is of the same import here with written, or engrossed. Another place I will produce, to confirm this Notion which I offer, viz. jer. 31. 33. I will put (or according to the Hebrew) I will give my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their Heart: Where you see Nathan and Katab are the same: I will give or put, and I will write, are Synonimous Terms; and so in the Greek of the Seventy, and the 
* Heb. 8. 10. 10. 16.  New Testament (where this place of jeremiah is quoted) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus you see that according to the Idiom of the Holy Language putting or giving is understood and interpreted of Writing. To farther this Notion, I could add, that Giving hath the same Acception in other Tongues, as in the Greek (besides what hath been said already) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent to Scribere according to that of Demosthenes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to prefer a Bill or Writing against one. And in the Latin 'tis well known that dare literas is meant of writing Epistles or Letters: And in our own Language dated or given is the same with written. However, 'tis certain that the Hebrew word Nathan is of a very large Extent in Scripture, and is no less applicable to Writing than to many other things. Thus in the Text, Thou shalt give in the Breastplate the Urim and Thummim, may well be rendered, Thou shalt write them in the Breastplate, this being one way of giving; for in Writing there is something put or given into the Writing-Table, Paper, or Book, or whatever else the Writing is in.  
3. We read that This very thing was done in the Pontifical Habiliments: Certain Words were Written or Put upon some part of the Holy Garments, Exod. 28. 36, Thou shalt make a plate of pure Gold, and grave upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD. Observe here, These words HOLINESS TO THE LORD were writ on a Plate, and put on Aaron's Forehead. Why then might not these words URIM and THUMMIM be written on something, and put in the Breastplate of Aaron? One Writing is a Pattern of the other; the words URIM and THUMMIM in the Breastplate answered to Those HOLINESS TO THE LORD in the Head-plate or Mitre. And though they are not said to be Graven, yet it is said they were Put upon, which is a large term, and comprehends the other.  
4. We have a Parallel place in Zach. 14. 20, In that day shall there be upon the Bells of the Horse's HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD. The Prophet here speaks of the Glorious days of the Gospel, when True Holiness (which was shadowed forth by the Mosaic Purifications and Cleansings) shall take place in the Church, when Men shall universally turn to God, and dedicate themselves wholly to Him and his Service. True Sanctity shall then be the Ornament and Lustre of their Lives: Yea, their very secular and inferior Employments shall be devoted and made Serviceable to Holiness. In that day shall there be upon the Bells or the Bridles (so the Hebrew word signifies likewise) of the very Horse, Holiness unto the Lord: Instead of their Curious Harness and Trappings, there shall as it were be written or Engraven upon them these words, Holiness unto the Lord, the very words which were commanded to be written in the Front of the High Priest's Mitre. This shall be their Ornament and Bravery. I do not think (nor doth any Man else, I suppose) that these words shall be really written on the Horse's Bells or Bridles, but I allege this place for this, that 'tis spoken and expressed as if such words were written, because they were so in effect. The manner of expressing the thing is that which I observe here as pertinent to our purpose. Mark! It is not said there shall be written or engraven, but there shall be upon the Bells of the Horses: And it is not said there shall be these words, but plainly and simply there shall be Holiness to the Lord. So here it is not said, thou shalt write, but thou shalt put; and it is not said, thou shalt put these words, but thou shalt put the Urim and Thummim. Yet as in the former place Writing and Engraving is understood, so it is here: These Individual Words Urim and Thummim are to be written or Engraven on the High Priests Breastplate as the words Kodesh Laihovah (i e. Holiness to the Lord) were to be seen in effect written or engraven on the Trappings of the Horses.  
5. There is another place of Scripture to illustrate this, and to let us see that it is probable the words Urim and Thummim were to be Written, though it is not said so in express terms. The King of Babylon stood at the parting of the way to use Divination, he consulted with 
‖ Teraphim. Hebr.  Images; at his right hand was the Divination for Jerusalem, Ezek. 21. 21, 22. The Preposition [for] is not in the Hebrew Text, but only jerusalem; for here is described the Pagan way of Divination, and particularly how the King of Babylon undertook by his Heathen Art to predestine the Slaughter and Destruction of jerusalem; namely, as Haman cast Lots in his Divining way, to know what days were fittest and best for the Slaughter of the jews. He commanded Pur (i. e. the Lot) to be cast from day to day, Esther 3. 7. This sort of Divining Lottery is used here by the King of Babylon, who had a Scheme before him (as was the Custom in these cases) of what he intended to inquire about, and accordingly in his right hand was the Divination jerusalem (so it is in the Hebrew) i. e. jerusalem was the Word which was written on that part of the Lots. The meaning than is, that the Magical Divination or Lottery went clearly against jerusalem, that City was to be destroyed. This is the short way of Scripture Expression, At his right hand was the Divination, Jerusalem, which more largely should have been expressed thus, At his right hand was the Divination which respected Jerusalem, and to distinguish it from the rest, the word [Jerusalem] was written upon it. So here, the like Abbreviating stile is used, Thou shalt put the Urim and Thummim in the Breastplate, i. e. Thou shalt distinctly write down these two words Urim and Thummim, and then place them conveniently in that part of the Ephod.  
6. Let this be considered, That the Inspired Penman of the Book of Exodus, is very Exact and Particular about all the Habiliments and Ornaments of the High Priest, in the 28th Chapter. How Punctual is he about the two Great Onyx stones on the Shoulders of the Ephod, from the ninth to the thirteenth Verse? And the setting of the twelve Precious Stones in the Breastplate is precisely described from the seventeenth to the thir●ieth Verse. But when he comes to speak of the Urim and Thummim, he uses no Description at all, but only mentions the Bare Names Urim and Thummim; whence any Observing Man may perceive that these were some Easy and Plain thing, which needed no Explaining and Enlarging. If it were not so, we should have the manner of the putting of the Urim and Thummim into the Rationale, particularly set down, as you see other things in that Chapter are punctually described. He that hath any Ingenuity must needs acknowledge that this makes exceedingly for my Assertion.  
Let me add this, That you read not of any Directions for preparing the Urim and Thummim, which is another Argument that they were mere Names or Words, that they were something Written only. If they had been to be made with Art, viz. by Engraving or Carving, or some other way (as Authors have supposed) we should have had the Materials and the Manner of it set down, at least in the general, as we read of the Manner of preparing several things belonging to the Tabernacle and the Mosaic Worship. But we read of no such thing relating to the Urim and Thummim: There is no more said than barely this, Thou shalt put them in the Breastplate. What reason then is there to fancy any other thing than the mere Writing of them?  
8. I offer this to be considered, That josephus hath not a word of Urim and Thummim, though he hath a whole Chapter (viz. The Eighth in his Third Book of Antiquities) of the Priests and High Priests Garments. His business was in this place to describe the Pontifical and Sacerdotal Ornaments, and therefore if this had been any Great and Considerable thing, he would not have passed i●▪ by in silence, especially throughout a whole Chapter, which is one of the longest he hath in the Book. Nay afterwards, when in the next Chapter he falls upon mentioning a certain Miracle of the Stones on the High Priest's Breast; he saith not a Syllable of this Matter, but only relates how Answer was given (as he thought) by the extraordinary shining of those Stones. Nay further, this Author had a fair Opportunity again to mention the Urim and Thummim if they had been any Notable thing, for in his sixth Book of the jewish War, chap. 6. he particularly and distinctly enumerates all the Garments of the High Priest, and more especially the Rich Gems in his Breastplate; but he saith nothing at all of Urim and Thummim, yea he doth not so much as name them. Whence 'tis to be presumed that these were rather Words than Things, i. e. That they were these two words written, and nothing else. If the Urim and Thummim had been some Great and Wondrous thing, or if they had been like any of those things which have been presented to us before, this Excellent Man as a Faithful Historian would not have omitted it, and as he was a jew would not have passed it by for the Glory of the Nation, and much more as a Priest he would not have done it for the Honour of his Order.  
9 From the Learned Dr. Spencer's Notion of Thummim I may confirm my own, though a contrary one. He maintains that the Jewish Thummim was borrowed from the Egyptian High Priest who had a rich Saphire hanging by a Golden Chain at his Breast, and because the word Truth was Engraven on it, therefore the Image itself was called Truth. This gives a fair hint of what I assert, that the Thummim (as well as the Urim) was something written, especially if we invert what that Worthy Person saith, and with Mr. Selden and others hold, That the Egyptians borrowed this Ornament from the jews. Hence we may learn the true Nature and Quality of it▪ for their imitating the jews in this matter acquaints us that the Thummim was only a written or ingraved word: This usage of the Egyptian High Priest, viz. of wearing a Jewel at his Breast, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was written, shows plainly that the Jewish High Priest (from whom this usage was taken) wore in the same place something written or engraven. And this was the Hebrew word Thummim (together with the other word Urim) which was thought to signify Truth, and accordingly the Seventy Interpreters render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus we may partly gather what the Nature of the Thummim among the jews was, from the Egyptian imitation of it. Their having the word Truth written and made use of by their Chief Minister of Religion, lets us know that it was but a Copy of the Hebrew Original, and that the Thummim was no other than that very word inscribed in the Breastplate.  
10. The probability of this Opinion is confirmed from what was said in the entrance into this Discourse, viz. That several of the most Learned and Inquisitive Writers have professed their Ignorance as to the matter which is before us. This seems to me to be no contemptible Consideration, but to be something towards a proof of what I assert. Besides R. Kimchi before mentioned, there are other Hebrew Doctors that declare they cannot tell what the Urim and Thummim are. 
‖ In locum.  Aben Ezra is of this mind, and so is R. Abraham Seba, and if I had leisure to search into Writers upon this Subject, I might produce others among the Circumcised Doctors. These are followed by many of the Christian Profession, as Cardinal Cajetan, a Man of great Search and Curiosity, who ingenuously professeth he knoweth nothing of the Urim and Thummim. 
‖ Quales fuerint resneminimortaliu●● constat. In Ex. 28. 30.  Munster acknowledgeth the same, and so doth 
* Exercitat. cap. 2.  Buxtorf, and a 
‖ Dr. Gellon Leu. 8. 8.  Learned Man of our own hath these words, To define what the Urim and Thummim were is none of my business, nor indeed dare I attempt that which hath puzzled all the Learned Men in the W●rld. This makes for my Opinion, for 'tis plain that these Learned Writers were not able to make any Considerable Matter of the Urim and Thummim. If they could, it is certain they would have told us of it; If These had been any Great Thing, they would not have been silent, but would have laid it open before us. But in the mean time they overlooked that which was Plain and Obvious, they would not take notice of that which was a mere Writing, and no more, as 'tis most probable these Urim and Thummim were. These very Words were written, and put upon or into the Breastplate, and that was all, if I mistake not.  
11. That they were something written hath been a Notion not unacceptable to some Understanding Men, both jews and Christians, as you have already heard: And particularly they thought the Tetragrammaton was the Name that was written; but there is no reason given why that Name should be called the Urim and Thummim. However, thus far I will make use of it, to let you see it was not thought Improbable and Unreasonable, that some Writing was here meant; otherwise they would not have talked of the Tetragrammaton. This is a good Foundation for my Hypothesis, which I conceive I have built upon with Probable Arguments already, and am proceeding to add more.  
12. That passage of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria is very remarkable, who speaking of the Urim and Thummim mentioned by Moses, hath these words, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 11. de Adorat. 〈◊〉 Spir. & verit.  He (i. e. Moses) hath not plainly showed whether they were Stones, or whether he commanded that Inscription to be made as it were in a small Table. Again he saith, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Whether they were Stones, or whether those Words were written down as it were in a Golden Table, I will not be too Curious in enquiring after. You see the Learned Father was inclinable to believe that the Vrim and Thummim were only those two words written in some small Table, and so deposited within the Breast plate. And the words of this Pious Writer are the more Considerable, because he is wont to be very Sagacious in finding out of Mysteries in the Holy Bible, and if he had thought the Vrim and Thummim had been any Mystical and Wonderful thing, he would certainly have enlarged upon it; whereas you see he is not averse to the Assertion I am maintaining, that These Bare Words were committed to Writing, and lodged in the Square-piece of the Ephod (when there was occasion to consult them as an Oracle; otherwise they were not put into it) and that is all.  
13. This Opinion was hinted of old by 
‖ Quaest 117 in Exod.  St. Augustine; it was obscurely glanced at by 
* In Isai.  Procopius, and by 
‖ De vita Mos. l. 3.  Philo the jew; and I find that others of late, as Salianus, Bellarmine, hay, somewhat incline this way, though they are loath to speak out. But ●ornelius à Lapide seems to be the most positive, though he saith very little in defence of the Opinion. He in a manner stands alone in this Cause, and that without Supporters: Wherefore I have in this Discourse endeavoured to hold him up, of the Success of which, let the Reader judge.  
Lastly, This Opinion may justly merit our Reception upon this account, That hereby are avoided all the Inconveniencies, Absurdities, Incongruities, Inconsistencies, which accompany some of the Opinions which I have named, and which are commonly received.  
Now, if it be said that the Hebrew Doctors and Talmudists are the best Judges in this Controversy, and that they maintain quite another thing, the Answer is ready, viz. That some of them maintain nothing at all in this matter (as you have heard) but proclaim their Ignorance concerning it: And as for the rest, we have no reason to look upon them as Able Judges in this Affair, for any one that hath conversed with the Rabbis, knows full well that they are the most Fanciful Creatures in Nature. Though as to some peculiar things they may be profitably consulted, yet in most they are very Deceitful, and betray Men to gross Errors and Falsehoods. Maimonides was the only Man among the Jewish Rabbins that began to leave off trif●ng and playing the Fool, saith a 
‖ Selden de Dis Syr. Syntag. 2.  Great Admirer of Jewish Learning, and 
* Scaliger & Causabon  others had said it before him. It is certain that the Generality of this Tribe are the most Fabulous, Conceited and Superstitious Writers under Heaven. Their way is to invent and feign, and to impose upon the World: And besides, they monstrously affect Obscurities, and dote on Mysteries, and indeed care not for any thing that is Plain: So that their Opinion is not to be relied upon.  
If any shall blast the former Assertion as Novel, it must be remembered that Antiquity is not always a Badge of Truth. Besides, you may perceive by what I have said, that some of the Ancients, both Christians and Jews, were in a fair way to receive this Opinion; but the commonly received Notion did so bias them, that they became averse to the espousing of This which is more Probable and Accountable. Interpreters and Commentators on this place have been always busy to discover some Great and Wonderful things in these words, they (as was suggested before) looked for some Strange and Mysterious Matter here, and that made them pass by this Plain and Ordinary thing, viz. That these bare words Vrim and Thummim were written and deposited in the Breastplate, which is a true account of the thing, though there were no Antiquity to vouch it.  
Now, if you ask how these words Vrim and Thummim were witten, whether upon two Precious Stones distinct from the Twelve, or on a little Table of thin Gold, or some other matter, and whether they were placed in the middle or sides of the Rationale, I declare I have nothing to say to these Queries, I pretend not to decide them. It is sufficient that there was room enough for them in that place. And if you ask how the Answers were made by these written Words, how Affirmative or Negative Responses were given by them, I am not Solicitous to resolve you. The Learned Dr. Spencer hath not told you how the Little Images gave Answer, or how the Greater Pendant-Image did its work: As to the Manner of the Responses he leaves it Uncertain. And I may be excused if I undertake not to acquaint you, How by these Written Words God gave Answer to those who asked Counsel of him. We are sure He did give Answer by them, and let that suffice.  
But I have not done yet; I am now to show you what These Hebrew Words Vrim and Thummim signify; and here we shall find something worthy of our Remark. The Chaldee Paraphrase and the Samaritan retain These Original Words; so do junius and Tremellius, the French Bible, and our Last English Translation. The Syriac Verson renders them Lucid and Perfect, the Arabic Dilucidations and Certitudes, the Septuagint 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Manifestation and Truth, St. jerom and the Vulgar Latin Doctrine and Truth, Castellio Clearness and Integrity, Coverdale Light and Perfectness. The Syriac Version and these two last give us the Trust Meaning of the words Urim and Thummim; but the Most Exact rendering of all is that of Pagnine, Illuminations and Perfections, for the Hebrew words are in the Plural Number. First, The proper Signification of 
‖ from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuxit.  Vrim is Lights or Illuminations. Now Light is in the Sacred Scripture put for Knowledge, and therefore God is called the Father of Lights, because Reason and Understanding, and the Product of these Knowledge (as well as other good and Perfect Gifts) come down from Him. The Soul is illuminated with Divine Knowledge, the Will of God is taught and manifested by this, and so this is reconcilable both with the Septuagint and Vulgar Version, [Manifestation and Doctrine] for this Light manifesteth and teacheth. Secondly, The most proper and genuine rendering of Thummim (being in the Plural also) is Perfections or Integrities; for both these meet in one, and are denoted by that Original Word, as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both Perfect and Upright. This is the True account of the Hebrew words Vrim and Thummim.  
Now let us see what these relate to: It is certain that there is a Spiritual Meaning in most of the Mosaical Appointments and Rites. Is there not Reason then to think that These Words which were commanded to be put into the High Priests Breastplate, that these Sacred Characters which were written at first with Gods own hand (it is probable) as the Moral Law was, represent unto us something that is Spiritual and Mystical? First then, These relate to the High Priest and the Holy Function of the Ministry. Those who are appointed to this Office are the Lights of the World: And they must be (as it was said of john the Baptist) Burning and Shining 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uro, luceo.  Lights. They must with Zeal Inform and Instruct the People, they must Enlighten, and at the same time Warm men's Minds. And the Thummim must be the individual Companion of Vrim, i. e. They must be Men of Integrity and Uprightness, Faithfulness and Sincerity, which are also called Truth, and so the Translation of the Seventy is very Agreeable, who render Thummim Truth. The short is, That those who are employed in the Sacred Ministry, must speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4. 11. They must deliver God's Word Plainly, Impartially, Faithfully, Truly, and they must add Integrity of Life and Manners, which make them in some measure Perfect. Secondly, These words relate to the Law of God, which is so often called a Light. Thy word (saith the Psalmist) is a Lamp to my feet, and a Light unto my path, Psal. 119. 105. The Commandment is a Lamp, and the Law is Light, saith Solomon, Prov. 6. 23. Therefore it is said, The Commandment of the Lord enlightens the Eyes, Psal. 19 8. And in Psal. 119. 130. It giveth Light. The same Inspired Person tells us, That the Law of the Lord is Perfect, Psal. 19 7. And it is This Divine Law which the Psalmist calls the Truth, Psal. 119. 142. So that you see the Urim and Thummim may relate to This. Yea, as they refer to this Law or Will of God, the Revelation of it may be signified by Light, and the Effecting and Accomplishing of it may be signified by Perfection. Thirdly, They have respect to a Higher Matter, they represent and set forth Christ jesus our High Priest. He is the True Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World, John 1. 9 and therefore he calls himself The Light of the World, John 8. 12. When this arose the Shadows fled away, Darkness and Night vanished, and all became Clear and Bright. This Sacred Oracle, which was represented by That in Aaron's Pectoral, did not speak Ambiguously, but Plainly and Distinctly, we are by it taught what we must believe, and what we must do. He is Truth itself as well as Light; he is of such Faithfulness and Integrity that he will not deceive us. In this Infallible Oracle Doctrine and Truth, Light and Integrity, Illumination and Perfection meet together. The Jewish Vrim and Thummim were lost at the Captivity of Babylon, and wanting at the People's Return, Ezra 2. 63. neither do we find that God answered by them any more. But Christ, the Word, is a Never-failing Oracle, and shall endure for ever. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily: And we also are complete in him who is the head, Col. 2. 9, 10. Thus the Vrim and Thummim were a Type of our Lord jesus Christ the Great High Priest, who is truly our Light and our Perfection.  
You see then how Significant these Two Words are, and by consequence how worthy they were to be written by the Finger of God himself, and placed on the High Priest's Heart. It was impossible to couch more in two single words than you see is here comprehended. Whence we may conclude, That the Writing or Engraving of these was all that Moses here meant, and consequently that those Writers have mistaken the Text, who have imagined that some Precious Stones or Images, or some such things were put into the High Priest Pectoral, and that they are here called Urim and Thummim.  
Thus I have given you an Account of the Different Opinions of the Learned concerning this Extraordinary way of Revelation styled Urim and Thummim: And I have presented you with my Own Thoughts, which (as I conceive) are the most plain, natural and simple account of this Divine Oracle: I have likewise endeavoured to inform you what was the Higher and Spiritual Meaning intended by the Holy Ghost.   

The third Text enquired into, viz. Judges XI. 30, 31. And Jephthah vowed a Vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the Children of Ammon into my hands, Than it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, when I return in Peace from the Children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering.  
THis Remarkable Vow of jephthah, and the Manner of the performing of it, have frequently employed the Thoughts and Pens of the Learned, who according to their different Apprehensions of the Words, have decided this Controversy in a different manner. Some confidently assert, that jephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter, but others on the contrary maintain that he did. And besides this, there is another Question on supposal that he did Sacrifice her, viz. Whether it was well done of him or no? These are the Particulars which will fall under our Enquiry at present, but especially I shall entertain the Reader with the latter of them, and there endeavour to show what was the Rise of this Inhuman and Extravagant Action, and what Reason may be given why this Generous Commander, this Noble Warrior was so eager of shedding the Blood even of his own Daughter, yea when it was so absolutely contrary to the Law which this Great Man could scarcely be ignorant of. Here I hope to give some light to this Controverted Cause, by assigning the True Spring of that Strange Action, and by discovering what was the overruling Design of Providence in it, which hath not been enquired into by others (that I have met with) on this Subject.  
But first, Let us hear what those say who embrace the Negative, viz. That jephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter. To make this good, they hold that there are two distinct parts of the Vow: 1. Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, shall surely be the Lords. 2. I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering. And they put them together thus, Whatsoever cometh, etc. shall surely be the Lords, or I will offer it up, etc. They read Or instead of And, for the Copulative Vaughan (they say) is sometimes Disjunctive in Scripture, and so it is here in this Vow, the Hebrew Particle which is here translated and should be rendered or; for Iephtha's words are to be taken Disjunctively, and his Vow was no other than this, Whatever I first meet with coming out of my House, shall either be dedicated to the Lord, or I will Sacrifice it for a Burnt-offering. It was a Conditional Vow, i. e. If it were a thing fit to be Sacrificed he would Sacrifice it, otherwise not, he would Dedicate and Consecrate it to God, or something in the lieu of it. If a Dog or an Ass had been first met by him, he was not engaged to Sacrifice them. Neither if he met with a Man or a Woman, was he bound to offer them in Sacrifice; but only he was to act according as the Creature was which he met with. Now jephthah, they say, performed the first part of his Vow, and that was sufficient. He offered and Consecrated his Daughter to the Lord, he devoted her to a Virgin-State all her Life, which appears from the Connection of those words, He did according to his Vow; and she knew not a Man, v. 39 One is Exegetical of the other; which showeth that jephthah kept his Vow in separating his Daughter to a single Life for ever. She was not Properly, but Metaphorically Offered and Slain, i. e. she was to keep her Virginity perpetually. This Civil Death passed upon her. Which is confirmed by what you read in v. 40. The Daughters of Israel went yearly to 
‖ Letannoth, ad lament andum, à tanan lamentari, R. jarchi & Chald. Paraphr.  lament (or, as others render it, to 
* Ad confabulandum, à tanah narrare, confab●l●ri. R. ●imchi, jun. & Trem. Buxto●s.  talk with) the Daughter of Jephthah. Whence they gather that jephthah did not Sacrifice his Daughter, but only made her a kind of a Nun; in some solitary place he secluded her from all Society, excepting that the Daughters of Israel were permitted to go and spend three or four days in a Year in Lamenting and Condoling her perpetual Virginity, and in Talking and Conferring with her, and in Comforting her concerning her Solitary Condition, and her being kept from Marriage. Thus her Life was spared, she fell not a Sacrifice, but was Consecrated to God and his Service, she was devoted to a single Life, and was to remain a Recluse all her days. This was the opinion of R. Kimchi and some other Jewish Expositors; and they are followed not only by some of the 
‖ Arias Montanus, Pagnin, Vatabl●s, Estius.  Pontificians (who perhaps might think of Celibacy and a Nun's Life) but by 
* junius, Lud. de Dieu, Broughton, Perkins Drusius, Grotius, Heinsius, Selden.  several of the Reformed Churches.  
Secondly, Others, and with more reason, are for the Affirmative, viz. That jephthah really sacrificed his Daughter. For what is, or can be more plain, than that in v. 39 He did with her according to his Vow which he had vowed? What was this Vow? There is all the Difficulty. And yet, if you inquire narrowly into it, you will find that the Difficulty vanisheth; for the Vow is very plain and intelligible, Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, shall surely be the Lords, and I will offer it up for a Burnt-offering. He saith whatsoever, which shows that it was no Conditional Vow, (as those of the other side pretend) but an Absolute one. He unadvisedly made a Vow to Sacrifice whatsoever he met in his return from the Battle, if he proved a Victor. When the Vow is thus Large and General, it is ridiculous to think or say the contrary, viz. That it was a Conditional Vow, and it is as irrational to distinguish between a Copulative and a Disjunctive Vau in this place; though 'tis granted that in some other Texts it is allowable, because the very Sense and Meaning of the words direct us, yea constrain us to it; but here is no occasion for it in the least. Wherefore this nice distinguishing between one Vaughan and the other, and between Offering to the Lord and Sacrificing, is altogether groundless, and you may see it cashiered by what is expressly mentioned in the following Narrative in this History, for 'tis positively said, that jephthah upon his return home and meeting his Daughter 
* V 35.  Rend his clothes. What was the reason of this? If his Vow had been Conditional or Disjunctive, (as some would have it) there was no ground at all for this his Behaviour; there was no occasion of Sorrow and Distraction if the Sacrificing his Daughter were not included in his Vow, if it were in his choice to offer her to the Lord (i. e. to dedicate her to him) or to Sacrifice her on the A●●ar; yea if he were at liberty by virtue of his Vow to kill a Beast instead of his own Child. If the case was thus, he had no reason to lament and rend his clothes, to vex and mortify himself, which we find him doing here. But it is plain by this Action of his, that things were otherwise with him, and that he had some Dreadful and Fatal Tidings to impart to his Daughter which were real matter of Lamentation, and that the Contents of his Vow which so nearly concerned her Life, were the cause of his Trouble and Sorrow. This appears from what follows, 
* V 35.  Alas, my Daughter (saith he) thou hast brought me very low, and thou are one of them that trouble me: And then he communicates the direful News to her, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. It happeneth indeed to be a very Sad and Deplorable Vow which I made, but I am engaged to keep it, and I am fully resolved that I will. Whereupon his Submissive Child uttered these words, 
* V 36.  My Father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth: Seeing thou are returned in Safety, and with Victory over thy Enemies, I am willing to be offered a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving to the God of Heaven, who mercifully covered thy Head in the day of Battle, and delivered thy Enemies into thy hand. But this Obedient Damosel had one thing to request of her Father before she left the World. 
* V 37.  Let this be done for me (saith she) let me alone t●o months, that I may go up and down upon the Mountains, and bewail my Virginity, I and my Fellows. As much as if she had said, Seeing thou, O my Father, hast determined that I shall be offered up unto the Lord for a Burnt-offering according to the Tenor of the Vow which thou madest in the day of the Distress, I beg but this one thing of thee, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to respite me for a little time, I desire only that I may be permitted to retire with a few of my Female Acquaintance into some Solitary place, that I and they may join together in Mourning, and lament this unhappy Allotment of mine, viz. That I must not live to be acquainted with the Joys of a Conjugal State, nor be a Joyful Mother of Children, (as I have sometimes wished, because Barrenness is accounted a Curse) but that I must Expire a Virgin, and die Ingloriously, and leave no Offspring behind me. jephthah, as soon as she made known this her request to him, most willingly granted it, and wished with all his heart he could have granted her more. 
* V 38.  He said, Go, and he sent her away for two Months: And she went with her Companions, and bewailed her Virginity on the Mountains. And then the History immediately after this tells us, That 
* V 39  at the end of two Months she returned to her Father, who did with her according to his Vow which he had vowed: That is, he offered her up unto the Lord for a Burnt-offering, for that was his Vow.  
One would think now that there should be no Dispute whether jephthah Sacrificed his Daughter; for what reason can Men have to oppose the express words of the Text? These are so plain that it cannot but create some wonder, why Expositors should vary in the Interpretation of th●m. Or, suppose there be some Ambiguous Words in the Relation, which seem to disagree with what is here said; yet for that very reason, because they are Doubtful and Ambiguous, we are not to make use of them to confront a Plain Text. It is true, it is added in the last mentioned Verse, She knew no Man: And indeed how could she when she was taken out of the Land of the Living? Observe the Connection, He did with his Daughter according to his Vow, and she knew no Man: That is, She was so Unhappy as to leave the World in her Youth before she had the Knowledge of a Man. Hereupon it immediately follows, (which verifies and confirms this Interpretation) It was a custom in Israel, that the Daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the Daughter of Jephthah four days in a year. This doth not imply that she was Alive, and that they went duly to give her a Visit in the Mountains. No, These words plainly relate the Behaviour of her Surviving Companions; they brought it into a Custom and Constant Practice among the Daughters of Israel, to go yearly and lament her Memory in that very place where she chose to bewail her Condition before her Death. Or, if they went to talk and confer (as it may be rendered according to the Acception of the Hebrew word) the Sense is the same, for the meaning is not that they talked with Her, but with one another; they discoursed among themselves of that Deplorable Matter, of that Unfortunate Occurrence. I join both the Senses of the word together thus, At that Anniversary Meeting they talked of and lamented, they lamented and talked of the Sad Fate of that Royal Virgin, who was snatched away in her Prime, and denied the Blessing of Marriage, and of bearing Children. This was the Compliment of Condoleance which was performed upon her Death. This is the plain History without wresting it; and nothing is more clear from the whole than this, that jephthah slew his Daughter, and offered her for a Burnt-offering, and that it was the True and Real Import of his Vow that he would do so. He vowed that he would Sacrifice to the Lord whatsoever he met coming out of his House: He met his Daughter, and accordingly he did with her according to his Vow, i. e. he Sacrificed her. The Famous 
‖ joseph. Ant. jud. l. 5. c. 9  Jewish Historian gives his Suffrage to this, and all the Old jews were of the same Opinion, expressly asserting that jephthah vowed to Sacrifice his Daughter, and that he did so. This is the general Persuasion of the 
* justin Mart. Quaest 99 Tertull. count. Marc. 3. 4. Hieronym. Epist. 34. ad julian. chrysost. hom. de jephthâ. Ambros. de Offic. Nazian●. Orat. 6. de Maccab. Augustin. de civ. Dei. l. 1. c. 21.  Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, and their Agreement herein is very considerable. A numerous Company of 
‖ Luther, Peter Mar●r, Salianus, Serarius, Menochius, à Lapide, Lud. Cappellus, etc.  Moderns of great Learning and Judgement, both of the Roman and Protestant Persuasion hold the same: And our 
* Dr. Light●oot in his Chronicle of the T●nes of the Old Testament.  Great Christian Rabbi, who had been once of another mind, was induced by a farther Enquiry into the Reasons of this Opinion, to change his thoughts, and to declare expressly that Iephthah's performing of his Vow, is to be understood in the plain and literal meaning of it, viz. The real and actual Sacrificing of his Daughter.  
The next Question is, Whether jephthah did well or ill in so doing: Or, which amounts to the same, Whether it was lawful to Sacrifice his Daughter? Some think (and what will not they think?) that it was a Good and Lawful Deed, and to this purpose they allege Leu. 27. 28, 29. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord, of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed: but shall surely be put to death. Iephthah's Vow, say they, was of this sort, and he could not possibly Redeem his Daughter, but was necessitated to Sacrifice her. That known Critic 
* Diatrib. de Voto jepht.  Lewis Cappel runs altogether upon this, viz. That it was lawful by the Law of Cherem to Sacrifice this Innocent Maid: But this Learned Man was never so overseen and mistaken as in this Cause, for 'tis certain that Cherem, which is the word here used, always signifies either Persons devoted to Slaughter, destined to Death for their Execrable Wickedness (as the Amalekites, and those other People and Nations which the Israelites were commanded to put to death) or it signifies Things destined to utter Destruction, as jericho and Ai, etc. with all the Substance that was found in them, excepting some particular things which God ordered to be spared. And these Things were thus destined for the sake of the Persons to whom they appertained, who were extremely Wicked and Abominable in the Eyes of God. This is the true Notion of Cherem (of which I shall give you a farther account in a following Discourse.) And as for the Law of Cherem, which is set down in that forecited place in Leviticus, it speaks only of that Irrevocable Vow of Destining Persons or Cities to utter Destruction (as in Numb. 21. 32. Deut. 13. 15. 25. 19 josh. 6. 17, 18. 1 Sam. 15. 3.) for their horrid Crimes, and because indeed there was the particular command of God for it. Now let any Man judge whether this hath any reference to Iephthah's Innocent and Harmless Daughter. The Law saith, no Person or thing devoted of Men (i. e. by Men) shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to Death, or be destroyed. But then let it be remembered that no Men can devote any Persons to Death, unless they deserve it for their Excessive Impiety; nor can they devote any Thing to Destruction, unless it be on the account of such Persons. This therefore doth no ways concern our present Business. jephthah could not lawfully Vow the Death of any one who deserved not to be put to death. Therefore his Daughter was no Cherem, no Execration, no Devoted Wretch. This Law of Cherem or Anathema gave the Jews no Licence to turn Assassins and Cutthroats, and to take away the Lives of their own Children: Of which 
* De jure Nat. & Gent. l. 4. c. 11.  Mr. Selden and other Learned Men were so convinced, that upon this very account they assert (and think they prove) that jephthah did not offer up his Devoted Daughter in Sacrifice. But, by their leave, all that they prove hence is this, that he should not have done it. Besides, this sort of Vows called Cherems, was to be made by particular Warrant from God, who is Lord and Disposer of Life and Death, and can Sentence and Devote to Destruction whom and what he pleaseth: But we read of no Warrant that jephthah had to Vow the Death of his Daughter, much less to proceed to Execution; therefore it was direct Murder to put her to Death. And particularly as to Sacrificing her, that was a most Inhuman, Horrid and Barbarous Act, and expressly forbid of God, and hated by him. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not burn thy Sons and thy Daughters in the fire, as the Heathens used to do to their Gods: For every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done, Deut. 12. 31. For jephthah then to Vow the Sacrificing of his Daughter, was so far from being according to the Law, and Acceptable to God, that it was an Abomination to him.  
Yea, some of the very Pagan's themselves thought such-an Act as this to be Unlawful: Thus 
* In vit. Pelopidae.  Plutarch tells us that Agesilaus being commanded in a Dream to Sacrifice his Daughter, refused to do it; and that when Pelopidas in a Vision was bid to Sacrifice a Virgin, he looked on it as a Severe and Impious Command. Agamemnon, it is true, Sacrificed his own Daughter, but even a Profane and Atheistical Poet could blame him for it, crying out against his 
* Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum Lucret. l. 1.  Superstitious Religion, as the ill Motive which prompted him to so vile a Practice. Yea it is probable that This is the very Instance which I am now treating of: Iphigenia was Iephthah's Daughter, for the Greeks mistook Iphigenia for jephthigenia, which plainly signifies the Daughter of Jephthah: And Agamemnon was mistaken for jephthah, for he being a known Man in the Trojan Wars, which were in Iephthah's time (as the Masters of Chronology have agreed) it was easy for the Poets to take one Warlikeman or Great Captain for another, and to represent the History of jephthah under the Name of Agamemnon (as I shall show at another time, it was the common use of the Poets, to disguise Passages of Sacred History with Fables and Profane Names,) particularly as for this Sacrificing of his Daughter, it being so Remarkable but yet so Infamous an Act, it is certain that it was spread abroad and known among the Nations, and could not but be abhorred by all Persons of Sobriety and Reason: So far is it from being allowed by a Particular Law of God, as some pretend.  
Again, There are Others, who that they may effectually prove the Lawfulness of this Fact, tell us, it was done by the particular Instinct of the Holy Spirit, that jephthah was immediately stirred up by God to Achieve this singular Enterprise, which in others would have been unlawful. 
* Epist. ad julian.  St. jerom of old seemed to be of this mind and Peter Martyr afterwards was inclined to think the same, but he presently corrected himself. And truly no less could be expected from him, for it is a very near approach to Blasphemy, to say that so Wicked a Perpetration was by favourable Instinct from God himself, especially when he hath so particularly forbidden it, as you heard in the former particular. Indeed from what I delivered there, this Bold Opinion is sufficiently confuted, for if Sacrificing his Daughter was downright Murder, and was a Breach of Moses' Law, and of the Law of Nature, than it is intolerable Folly and Presumption to plead for the Lawfulness of it. Moreover, if there had been here a Divine Impulse, or a Particular Command from Heaven (as in the Example of Abraham, who was bid to do what he did, and that for Trial only) he would not have rend his clothes and been troubled, but he would have likewise checked his Daughter's Sorrow (as well as his own) by declaring that his Resolution to Sacrifice her was from a particular Dictate which he received from Heaven: Thus we have reason to reject the Opinion of those Men who hold that jephthah sinned not in Sacrificing his Daughter, for neither of the Arguments which they allege have any Truth and Reality in them; there was no Express Law of God, nor any Divine Instinct in the case. Wherefore we may safely and confidently aver with the Great jewish Antiquary before cited, That 
* Antiq. jud. l. 5. c. 9  the Sacrifice which ●ephthah offered was not lawful, nor acceptable to God, but that on the contrary it was Unlawful and Sinful. And so most of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, who have spoken of this, do assert.  
But here we may be thought to be reduced to a great straight in maintaining this Post; for if all Humane Slaughter was forbid by God, and is against Nature, and is utterly Unlawful and Vicious, how came jephthah to commit this Fact? What made him act so Strangely? What could be the Motive to so Horrid an Enterprise? If it was so Gross an Enormity, how can we think this Great Man, this Judge with his High Priest and Priests about him, yea and the whole Sanhedrim to advise him, could be guilty of such a Vile and Notorious Crime as this?  
Here than I am to give an Account why and whence it was that jephthah acted thus Extravagantly and (as it may seem) profligately; and I hope it will not be offensive, if I take liberty to descent from the generality of Writers in this matter: For though I agree with those who hold that jephthah sacrificed his Daughter, and that he did very ill in it, yet I differ from them in the Ground and Occasion of it; which is the thing I will now insist upon, and for which I chief designed this Discourse.  
They attribute it to the Corruption of that Age, telling us that very Strange and Exorbitant things were done in those days, as the Book of judges expressly relates. And moreover they add that jephthah herein followed the Examples that had been before him, for Humane Sacrifices were commonly offered by the Heathens that dwelled in Palestine, Deut. 12. 31. Their Sons and their Daughters they burned in the fire to their Gods, and particularly we read that the Ammonites offered their Children to Moloch in the Flames. Nay it cannot be denied that this Horrid and Bloody Idolatry was practised by some of the Israelites a little before Iephthah's time, judges 1. 21. compared with Psalm 106. 37. Much less can it be denied, that afterwards there were frequent Examples of this Effusion of Humane Blood, and Sacrificing of Men and Women, of which I shall speak in another place. But though Example is strong, and hath a very great Empire over our Minds, yet I cannot be induced to believe that this was the Ground of Iephthah's Sacrificing his Daughter. This Good and Virtuous Man (for he is signally represented to future Ages as such by St. Paul) would not be led to this Flagitious Action by the Example of some Wild Insidels, or a few Besotted Israelites, who were forsaken of God, and became professed Votaries to the Infernal Daemons, and having given Themselves, proceeded to offer their Children (who were parts of them) to these Hellish Ghosts. I cannot think therefore that this was the reason of Iephthah's committing this worst kind of Homicide: This was not, this could not be Motive strong enough to prevail upon this Worthy Man, this Noble Hero; he would easily have baffled such a Scandalous and Horrid Temptation as this. As bad as those times were, as degenerate as Israel was in those days, it is not credible that such a Person, and in such Circumstances (which could not but make him willing to be disengaged from his Vow, if it were possible) would tamely follow the Example of the most Accursed Idolaters, of the worst and vilest Miscreants in the World, and inhumanely Massacre his only Child. This must not, this cannot enter into our thoughts, unless at the same time we banish thence all sober Reason.  
But they likewise impute it to the Ignonorance of that Age. The Priests, say they, were Strangers to their own Law, and knew it not. Hence it was that they thought that by the Law in Leu. 27. 28. Iephthah's Daughter was a devoted Person, and so could not be redeemed, but must be put to Death. I do not wholly exclude the Ignorance of that Age, which was an attendant (if not a Cause in part) of their General Corruption: But it is highly improbable that none of the Sacred Function should understand this Case that was before them, as Dr. Lightfoot represents it, The Sanhedrim was now sitting, and there was the Priesthood attending on the Ark at Shiloh, and yet is Israel now so little acquainted with the Law, that neither the Sanhedrim nor the Priests can resolve Jephthah that his Vow might have been redeemed. I cannot persuade myself that they could All of them err so grossly, and that in so plain a Matter, wherein they were directed not only by the Positive Law of God, but by that of Nature and Reason. But I rather think that there was more of Neglience than Ignorance in the present Miscarriage: The Priests of that degenerate Age were grown Careless and Unconcerned: They were not Solicitous to instruct this Prince aright, and to conduct his Conscience by right and steady Measures in this present Case of the Vow which he had made. They could not (as I conceive) be ignorant of the Unlawfulness of this Vow, and of the Greater Unlawfulness of putting his Daughter to Death: But herein they were most shamefully defective, that they neglected to inform this Doubting and Misguided Man, and to convince him of the Unreasonableness of his too forward Zeal.  
Which brings me to that which I intent more largely to insist upon, viz. The True Source and Original of this Extravagant and Bloody Act of our Renowned jephthah. It was, as I apprehend, his too Forward Zeal that pushed him on to this unhappy Undertaking. To make good this Assertion, I must tell you that I have this Idea ofhim, That he was a Man of a very Religious and Pious Disposition; which manifested itself at his first public appearing for his Countrymen; for I observe that he then applied himself to ask Council of God, judges 10. 17. 11. 11. When he undertook to fight their Battles, this was the first thing he did. He opened the Campagne well, for he began with God. Likewise I take notice that he shown himself very Conscientious in his Treaty with and offers of Peace to the Ammonites before he proceeded to any Acts of Hostility, Chap. 11. 12, etc. He was pleased to give them some account of his marching against them, though he needed not have done it: He laboured to convince them that it was a Just and Lawful War which he was undertaking, and accordingly he sacredly appeals to the Lord as judge in this Quarrel, v. 27. When he had thus quitted himself like a Religious and Just Man, it is expressly said, The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, v. 29. That is, he was extraordinarily stirred up by God, and animated to engage the Enemy, and to reduce them to Obedience and Submission. A Person of so Holy and Pious Inclinations was assisted and blessed by God in a signal and eminent manner. But behold yet another Argument and Demonstration of his Godly Mind, viz. His Solemn Vow that he made; for this proceeded purely from a Good and Religious Heart, from an ardent Desire and Intention of giving Honour to God upon his obtaining a Victory. All these Instances are Proofs of what I asserted, That this Mighty Man of War (as he is 
* Ch. 11. 1.  called) was a Man of as great Religion and Goodness. Which is farther confirmed by the Testimony of the Infallible 
‖ Heb. 11. 32  Apostle, who reckons this jephthah among the Holy Patriarches, Prophets and Eminent Servants of God, whose Faith had made them known and Famous in the World.  
Having thus laid my Foundation (which is grounded on the History of jephthah both in the Old and New Testament) I am to raise my Superstructure, which is this, This Conscientious and Good Man having with a Pious Intention made a Vow, but having been Rash and Indiscreet in the Wording and Framing of it, was unhappily drawn into a Snare, and his own Religious Temper and Active Zeal hastened him into it: And this I take to be the true Spring and Motive of his strange Acting, i. e. Of his bereaving his Daughter of her Life. He being a Person of a very Sensible Conscience, of a Soft and Tender Spirit, thought verily that he ought to perform his Vow, and accordingly did so. In this he shown a very Singular Zeal, but not according to knowledge: So that we have reason to conclude, that he sinned out of Blind Zeal to perform his Promise and Vow which he had solemnly made to God. This was a great Fault, an heinous Error, but it was one on the right hand, and therefore the more excusable. This invites me to mention his Name and Memory with Honour, and to remember that he was one of those who are righteous overmuch (as the Wise Man speaks:) He was too Zealous in pursuit of his Vow, although it was a Rash and unadvised one as to the manner of it, and hereupon his Innocent Daughter became a Victim, viz. for the sake of his Vow. Indeed his case was to be pitied and lamented, for his Fault was the product of his Wellmeaning, and of his Great Care to keep a Good Conscience. He saw it was usual with Good Men to 
* Gen. 28. 20. Num. ●●. 2.  make Vows, and in a mistaken Imitation of them he turned a Solemn Votary, and in the sight and hearing of all Persons that were about him, as well as before the All seeing God, promised the Sacrificing of his Daughter, for it was so in effect, she being included in whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of his House to meet him. The Sense of this most Solemn Act of Religion (for such a Vow is, which is a Promissory Oath made unto God) was so vigorous on his mind, that he could not possibly divert the thoughts of it, nor persuade himself that he could any ways be excused from acting according to what he had vowed. This is to be imputed to the Reverence of an Oath, which hath ever been very Great and Awful.  
We see in that Noted Instance of the Gibeonites what was thought concerning this kind of Obligation, though it was by Craft and Imposture: We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: Now therefore we may not touch them, Joshua 9 19 It is not improbable that jephthah bore this very Instance in his mind, and indiscreetly made use of it on this occasion which I am now speaking of: He thence confirmed himself in the Apprehensions he had of that Inviolable Tie he was under by reason of his Vow. He thought it was so far from being a Sin to keep his Promise made to God, that he reckoned it his indispensable Duty: And this false Persuasion hurried him on to this vile Act. So in other Examples in the Sacred History, we see what a Regard and Reverence Men had of an Oath or Vow, yea though it was in itself unlawful: Thus Saul having rashly but solemnly vowed in the day of Battle, that the Person should die who tasted any Food before the Pursuit was quite over; his own Son jonathan, who had so signalised his Valour at that time, by vanquishing Threescore thousand Philistines, had like to have been a Sacrifice (as Iephthah's Daughter here) after the Victory, because Saul was so Religious and Austere (for so he would be thought to be) in observing his Oath, notwithstanding he was so plainly excused from the Obligation of it, as to his Son jonathan, by reason of his known Circumstances, which were his Ignorance of his Father's Oath, and the Necessity which he then lay under of taking some small Portion of Food to support him when he was so Faint and Hungry. The like Erroneous and Superstitious Conceit of an Oath, the jews, but especially the Pharisees, had in our Saviour's time, who therefore sharply reproves them, Mark 7. 11. They imagined that their Vow of Corban extinguished their Obligation to other Commands, as Honouring their Parents, and the like. So we read that Herod, by a lavish Oath, promised Herodias to grant her whatever she would ask, and therefore forsooth 
* Mat. 14. 9  for his Oaths sake he must needs kill St. john. This, though it was a mere Pretence in Herod, shows that a Vow or Oath hath always been held Sacred; else he could not have made use of this Pretence, viz. That he was bound by his Oath, and therefore could not be loosed from it. This hath in all Ages been held a most Sacred Tie; especially Vows, which are Oaths more immediately made to God, have been esteemed such. Whence we find that the Best and Holiest Men have always been very observant of the Religious Obligation of a Vow, and have been exceeding careful to pay God their Vows which their Lips have uttered. It is no wonder then that jephthah, a Person so Religiously disposed was very careful, yea even to an Excess, to do the same. He had read in the Law, 
* Deut. 23. 21.  When thou shalt vow a Vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: And he was sensible that the wilful Neglect of this is a Crime of a very heinous Nature, and that God is a severe Exactor of Vows, and is wont to avenge the Breach of them, by inflicting the greatest Judgements and Plagues imaginable. He knew that the Violation of Vows was no other than a Mocking of God, a Dissembling with Heaven, and an Act of Injustice and Unfaithfulness towards our Maker.  
Wherefore it is likely he thus argued with himself, though I know that the performing of my Vow will be accompanied with Murder: Yet I consider likewise, that the not performing it will be attended with downright Perjury. Seeing then there is a Necessity of Sinning one way or other, I resolve to choose the former, for though that be an Injury to my Daughter, yet the latter is a plain Affront to God. My Child is dear to me, but my God, my Father, is much more dear: Therefore 'tis be●●er to be Cruel than Impious, to be Guilty of blood●●ed, than to be Perjured and False to the Lord of Heaven and Earth. I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back, I must not reverse, I dare not revoke the Sacred Promise which I have made to the Almighty, but my firm and unshaken purpose is to perform it. Thus the mistaken Sense of the Indissoluble Obligation which his Vow had laid upon him, ran him upon this fatal Rock. jephthah could not but know, if he had seriously considered, that no Vow is Obligatory where the matter of it is unlawful; that what we Vow must be Honest, and in our Power, whereas this of killing his Daughter was neither; That the Force of that Obligation which goes along with a Vow or Oath, is from the Lawfulness of that thing which is vowed or Sworn; and therefore that he could not oblige himself to lay violent Hands on his Dear Relative, but that he having vowed it, and it being Unlawful in itself, he was obliged not to perform the Vow; besides that the Law of Natural Reason and Equity was a prior Obligation upon him. He should have considered that an Unlawful thing cannot possibly be made Lawful by the Interposition of a Vow; yea That it is a Double Sin to act unlawfully by virtue of a Vow, for there is not only the Sinful Vow, but the Sinful Act that follows it. But so blind and partial is good men's Zeal sometimes, that they are not in a Capacity to attend to, at least not to regulate themselves by the most Rational Principles that are offered ●●em. This was the Lot of our Unhappy Prince and Warrior, he had conquered the Ammonites, but could not vanquish his own Erroneous Conceptions, his Mistaken Zeal, his Misguided Conscience. He knew that the Law forbade Humane Sacrifices, but he was so deluded as to believe that the Religion of a Vow superseded that Prohibition. Wherefore he goes on perversely in the Prosecution of his Rash Oath, and commands the Poor Reprieved Virgin to be brought to the Altar, and there be offered up a Burnt-offering to the Lord.  
Yea, I am inclined to believe he Sacrificed her with his own Hand; for it is not probable that the Priests would comply with him in so Extravagant and Inhuman a Demand as this, of Sacrificing his Daughter: And besides, he that was so Precise to keep his Vow according to the very Exact Wording of it, would not think himself excused from acting this part himself, seeing he had expressly vowed the doing of it in his own Person, if you rigorously interpret the Words: I will offer it up, saith he, for a Burnt-Sacrifice. By which Words this Curious Man might really think he was obliged to be the Sacrificer himself. Which could not but be a great Aggravation of his Fault, because he was a Father, and so acted Unnaturally; because she was his Daughter, nay, because he had 
* V 34.  no other Child but her, which made it yet more Unnatural and Cruel, because he was a Layman, and so plainly usurped on the Office of the Priest. But mention none of these things to me, saith he, say not I am her Father, and she my Child, say not I am no Priest, and that I invade the Sacred Function: I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, I have Sacredly engaged to offer up for a Burnt-offering whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my House to meet me, and lo! this my Daughter met me, and therefore must be offered up by my hand. Who knows not that the Regal and Priestly Power have resided in the same Person? As I am a Ruler and Magistrate, I have Authority to use the Sword: And why may I not make use of it to slay a Sacrifice as well as to cut off Offenders, especially when I have sacredly promised to do the former? My Vow makes me a Priest: I need no other Ordination than this: This alone Capacitates me, nay Necessitates me to discharge this part of the Sacerdotal Office. Thus our wellmeaning Bigot is Punctual in pursuing his Solemn Vow, this he urgeth and insisteth upon, and the thoughts of it are so Rampant in his Breast, that he will not be beaten off from it. Though he had 
‖ V 38. 39  two months' time to consider of this Case, yet he remained inflexible, and would by no means be prevailed with to call back his Rash Vow, but he broke through all to keep it. The Cause of it was no other than what I have often suggested, namely, too Nice and Curious a Conscience: This thrust him on to act against the undeniable Laws of his Religion. Lest he should violate his Sacred Promise to God, he puts off the Nature and Pity of a Man. To make good his single Vow, he disregarded all the other Obligations of Reason and Religion. Such, such is the impetuous Force of a Misguided Mind, of a Disordered Zeal.  
Having thus discovered the True Spring and Motive of Iephthah's Sacrificing his Daughter, I will offer something concerning the Design of Providence, which ruled in this, as in all other Events and Actions, seem they never so Strange; and I will suggest what I think is the Proper Use that is to be made of this Extraordinary and Surprising Occurrence. Though this Great Judge and Prince of Israel behaved himself thus unworthily, and no ways suitably to his Character, yet God was pleased to suffer this for Ends not unworthy of his Divine Wisdom and Holiness. For by this Remarkable Example he thought fit to admonish us concerning our making of Vows, that if at any time we enter upon this Solemn Act of Religion, we be careful to do it with great Circumspection and Consideration. God permitted Iephthah's Daughter to be Sacrificed, saith an Ancient Pious Father, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Mart. Quaest & Resp. add Orthod.  To teach Men for the future, not to make Vows to God indefinitely, as you remember Iephthah's Vow ran. These Large, Unlimited and General Vows are dangerous, and prove a Snare unto us: Wherefore in this respect we ought to use great Caution and Prudence. With this agrees that of Theodoret, God (saith he) to remind others to be careful of their Vows, and to teach them to make them Discreetly, hindered not Jephthah from putting his Daughter to death. By this Notable Instance in Sacred Story, he would condemn all Precipitancy and Temerity in Vowing and Swearing, and in making Solemn Promises before him: And he would warn the future Ages of the World to perform these Acts of Religion with previous Consultation and serious Premeditation. For here he showeth us what is the Punishment of Rash Oaths, and Undue and Unlawful Vows, that we may learn to avoid them. Here we see that the Fault of Iephthah's Rash Vowing was punished in the Untimely Death of his Daughter.  
And as we are by this Example taught to avoid all Rash and Unlawful Oaths and Vows, so, when we have made them, not to keep them. There is a great deal of Iephthah's Blind Zeal in the World, too Nice a Conscience in some things, and too Rash and Bold in others. Nothing is more Sacred than an Oath, and yet there may be a Superstitious and Undue Reverence of it. This appears plainly in men's fond pretending the indispensible Obligation of some Oaths, whilst at the same time they have no regard to others which are certainly Obligatory to them. They speak the same Language that jephthah did, telling us that they have opened their mouths unto the Lord, and they cannot go back, i. e. They plead the Force of their Solemn Engagements and Ties, and refuse to unbind themselves (though it be in their Power) and thereby plunge themselves into Mischief, and endanger not only their own, but (with our Resolute, yet Nice jephthah) other Persons Lives and Fortunes. This Rash juror speaks to us all to take warning by his Fatal Circumstances, and to be at great Pains to enlighten our Minds, but especially to invoke the Divine Light and Aid: He calls to us not to Debauch our Consciences by entertaining False Notions and Conceptions of a Vow. He remains an Example on Record of an Imprudent and Unlawful Votary, and likewise of the Dismal Effects of his being so. He not only reminds us that we ought to be extremely careful not to make any Rash Vows or Unlawful Oaths, but that we ought not to think ourselves tied by them when we have made them. He is a constant Monitor to teach Men that their Unlawful Oaths and Promises oblige them only to break them, and that this is acceptable to God, and just and equitable in itself.  
Lastly, This Notable Instance informs us that Real Virtue and Goodness do not always exempt Men from doing some very ill things. Sometimes we shall see Virtuous Persons undertake and pursue with great Warmness what their Misinformed Consciences have put them upon, though it contradicts the Laws of God and Men. What jephthah did was out of Simplicity and an Honest Mind, and therefore it was not inconsistent with Faith, which we find him praised for in the Catalogue of the Ancient and Famous Worthies by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: And truly there are other Great Offenders besides our jephthah mentioned in that Panegyric. So it is, the Sacred History acquaints us by enumerating sundry Instances that Persons beloved of God, and of the greatest Integrity, have been guilty of the most heinous Miscarriages. Especially it may be observed of those that are very Active and Warm in their Religion, that they sometimes are subject to some Unwarrantable Bigotry, which unhappily leads or rather drives them to something worse. Particularly we see this in the Example before us, and let us mind the Design of Heaven in it. This Renowned Warrior and Judge was suffered by the most Wise Disposer of all Events to commit this great Folly, that we may be convinced of the Insufficiency of Humane Strength, that we may see that the Best Men egregiously offend in some things, that they are a Compound of Spirit and Flesh, half Angel and half Brute, and that it may appear to the World that there is no Perfect and Consummate Virtue in this Life. This is the Conception I have of Iephthah's Case; but every one is left to his Liberty to frame what other Notions of it he pleaseth.   

The fourth Text enquired into, viz. Dan. IX. 24, 25. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, to finish the Transgression, etc.  
THIS is another Famous Prophecy concerning the Time of our Lords Coming, but more especially (as I shall show in the sequel of this Exercitation) concerning the Time of his Passion and leaving the World. My design in treating on these Words is to offer what I conceive is most Observable in them, to assign what is most proper and pertinent towards the leading us into the true Meaning of this Noble Prediction, to remove the Difficulties and Obscurities that lie either in the Text or Context, to correct the Mistakes of some Writers upon both, to render the Words Clear, Plain and Intelligible (as to which most Expositors have been Deficient,) to present you with a Particular Computation, or Chronological Calculation of the Years contained in the Seventy Weeks, and in the whole Attempt to let you see that this Prophecy was spoken of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, the True Messiah, that it is really fulfilled, and that this fulfilling of it is a Demonstration of Christ's being come, and consequently of the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Religion.  
In this Chapter you read that the Holy Prophet Daniel foreseeing 
* V 1, 2.  in the first Year of Darius, that the Seventy Years Captivity was now coming to an end, 
‖ V 16.  prayed for the Restauration of jerusalem: And whilst he was directing his Prayers to Heaven, 
* V 20, 21.  the Angel Gabriel (the same Divine Messenger, as you may observe, who appeared afterwards to the Virgin Mary, and told her that the Time of the Messias' Coming was accomplished) came and informed him concerning that Important Matter, and told him, That as the Israelites had been Captives Seventy Years, and were now to be delivered, so within Seventy Weeks of Years the M●ssias should come, and be a Deliverer and Saviour. This I conceive is the reason of this Mystical way of speaking, and describing the Time: It alludes to the Captivity of Babylon, which was to last Seventy Years. That was the determinate Space of the Captivity, after which they were to be delivered, and to return back to their own Land. So in like manner the time of the Administration of things until the Redemption from the Captivity of Sin and Satan's Tyranny in the World, is circumscribed in a Number that answers to that, viz. Seventy Weeks of Years, instead of Seventy Years. Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, to finish the Transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make Reconciliation for Iniquity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness, and to seal up the vision and Prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. It hath been intimated already that by Seventy Weeks here are to be understood not Seventy Weeks of days, but of Years; each day for a Year; which Seventy being multiplied by Seven (every Week consisting of Seven days) make 490. Now that it is usual in Scripture to signify Years by Days, I need not be very laborious in proving. Life is measured by Days; Years are meant when Days are expressed, as in Gen. 5. 5. All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty Years: And so of Seth, v. 8. and Enos, v. II. and Gainan, v. 14. and Enoch, v. 2●. And that a Day is put for a Year, and consequently that a Week is taken for a Septenary of Years, or the space of Seven Years, is most evident from Leu. 25. 8. Thou shalt number Seven Sabbaths (or Weeks) of years unto thee, i. e. Forty nine Years. So in Gen. 29. 27. a Week is interpreted Seven years in the same Verse. But we need not be very Solicitous here, because as to this there is no Controversy between us and the jews, who are the Persons we are concerned with in this Prophecy. 
* Seder Olam, R. Solomon in cap. 9 Dan.  They willingly grant that Weeks not of Days or Months, but of Years are here meant, and that the Seventy Weeks are seven times Seventy Years, that is, 490 Years.  
It is said, Seventy weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy Holy City, i. e. There is a Certain Determinate Time set, viz. Four hundred and ninety Years, within which Period the Jewish People and Nation, and the City of jerusalem in a special manner shall experience very Strange Alterations: Within that space of time the M●ssias shall come, and the Wonderful Effects and Fruits of his Coming shall be such as These: 1. There shall be the finishing of Transgression, and the making an end of sins: By the Light of the Gospel which shall be preached at his Coming, Men shall see the Error of their ways, and be convinced of their Sins, and shall leave off their former Evil Courses. 2. There shall be a making of Reconciliation for Iniquity: The Blood of Christ shall make an Atonement for the Sins of the World. 3. Everlasting Righteousness shall be brought in: The Legal and Mosaical Services shall cease, and a more Pure and Spiritual Worship shall take place, and continue for ever. 4. There shall be the Sealing (or the finishing, for '●is the same Hebrew word which was used before in this Verse, and was translated making an end of) the Vision and Prophecy, i. e. When these things before mentioned shall come to pass, there shall be a Fulfilling and Accomplishing of the Prophecies concerning the Messiah and his Kingdom: Then it shall appear to the World, that they are Ratified and Verified: The Seal is set upon them. 5. There shall be the anointing of the most Holy: Then shall be set up an Eternal Priesthood, excelling that of the Law, than Christ Jesus shall be the High Priest, and he shall be solemnly Appointed and Consecrated to that work and Office. The Messiah, the Anointed One is meant here, and that by the Confession of the jews themselves. Thus far, I think, we have made all very plain.  
It follows v. 25, 26, 27. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Jeru●alem unto the Messiah, the Prince shall be Seventy weeks: And threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and t●o weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: And the People of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a Flood: And unto the end of the War Desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one week▪ and in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacrifice and the Oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the Consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate. Here, before I Paraphrase on these words, I am to observe to you that the Angel divides the Seventy weeks into three parts, viz. Seven weeks, and sixty two weeks, and one week; which he doth to give a more Distinct Account of what was to happen in that Period of time. The Seven weeks of Years (i. e. 49 Years) were fulfilled when the Building of the City of jerusalem was completed: The Sixty two weeks of Years were fulfilled in the space of time between the finishing of the City and Christ's Manifestation at his Baptism: In the one Week, viz. The last Week of the Seventy Christ was put to Death. Thus the Time is reckoned by Parts, as it is usual among the Hebrews to express a Number by parts which might be done altogether in whole: Twenty Shekels, five and twenty Shekels, and fifteen Shekels shall be your Maneh (or Mina) Ezek. 45. 12. So here in the Weeks of Daniel, the Seventy Weeks or former Sum of 490 Years, is divided into Seven weeks (i. e. 49 Years) and into Sixty two Weeks (i. e. 434 Years) and into one week (i. e. Seven Years) in all Seventy Weeks or 490 Years. Having premised this, I will briefly descant on the words, From the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build ●erusalem, i. e. From the going forth of the Word of God, or of the Edict of the Persian Princes concerning the rebuilding of jerusalem, and the Finishing of it unto the Messiah the Prince (i. e. To the time when Christ will manifest himself, and show himself to be the Prince, Lord, and Head of the Church) the Saviour and Redeemer of the World by his Dying for it, shall be seven weeks (i. e. Forty nine Years, in which time the Jews rebuilded their City and Temple peaceably: For to this must those words in this Verse be referred; The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times) and threescore and two weeks (which make in all 69 Weeks, or 483 Years.) And after the threescore and two Weeks (which immediately succeeded the Seven Weeks; that is, after 69 Weeks, viz. in the Seventieth Week, being 484 after the Restoring of the Temple) shall the Messiah be cut off, (he shall suffer Death upon the Cross) but not for himself (which Clause plainly testifies that this is spoken of Christ, who suffered and died not on his own account, but for us, that he might deliver us from Death and Damnation.) And the People of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City, etc. Which is a brief Description of the miserable condition of the Jews, when Titus Vespasian the Roman Prince came with his terrible Army and besieged jerusalem, and took it, and utterly destroyed it: Which was the Fruit of their putting to Death the Lord of Life. And he shall confirm the Covenant (the new Covenant spoken of by the Prophet jeremiah) with many, even with all true Israelites who believe in him. And this he shall do for one Week, or in one Week, viz. in the remaining Week, which is the Seventieth in Number. Then in a more signal manner the Gospel-Covenant shall be ratified and confirmed. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease, i. e. In the last Week, and in the fourth Year of that Week (which may be called the middle of it) all Sacrifices and Oblations shall be abolished and nulled by Christ his once Offering up Himself on the Cross, for in the midst of this last Prophetic Week Christ made the Oblation of himself. And in the next words, For the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it ●●esolate, etc. There is set forth (as in the former Verse) the dismal Consequence of the Jews putting Christ to Death, viz. The Besieging and Sacking of jerusalem by the Roman Armies which were Abominable and Detestable, and are called by our Saviour (with Allusion to this place without doubt) the Abomination of Desolation, Matt. 24. 15.  
This is a brief and plain Exposition of the Text and Context. And from the several particulars here mentioned, any unprejudiced Man may see that Christ, and none else is meant here. It is impossible with any show of reason to apply the words to any other, though some Jewish Writers have attempted it, but in a very sorry and ridiculous manner, as you may briefly see in 
* Demonstrat. Evang. Prop. 9  Huetius. It is certain that this Prophecy directly points at Christ, and his Coming and Manifestation, and lets us know that there shall be Four hundred and ninety Years between the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild jerusalem, and his full Manifestation in the World.  
But now Great Disputes arise about the True and Exact Beginning and Ending of these 490 Years, which for the Satisfaction of the Curious, I will undertake to give some account of. The Greatest Dispute is about the Beginning; for there were several Orders and Commands about building jerusalem; hence it is Difficult to tell from which of them we must date our Account. We know that the Seventy 〈◊〉 begin from the going forth of the Commandment (or Word) to restore or build Jerusalem. But the Word or Commandment concerning that matter was both Divine and Humane, from God and from the Persian Kings. Which of these is meant here? As for the Word of God touching the building of jerusalem, That was at several and very different times. You have the Divine Promise about it from the Mouth of Isaiah, ch. 44. 26. and 45. 13. and of Baruch the second and fourth Chapters, and of jeremiah 25. 12. and 29. 10, etc. From this latter Promise especially 
* Lyranus, Vatablus, Galatinus, and many of the Hebrews.  some have dated the Seventy Weeks, but therein are much mistaken, for they go back too far. Baruch and jeremiah prophesied six hundred, and Isaiah above seven hundred Years before Christ; so that it cannot be that the Seventy Weeks should begin from their Prophecies, because these were long before that Time can be fixed. Therefore it is impossible these Divine Predictions and Promises should be meant here. Others look to that Divine Word from the Mouth of the Angel to Daniel, At the beginning of thy Supplications the Commandment came forth, Dan. 9 23. These Supplications were made in the 
* Dan. 9 1▪  first Year of Darius the King of Babylon: Therefore the Commandment went forth in the first Year of this Darius, which was just about the end of the Captivity, and consequently the Seventy Weeks began at the end of the Seventy Years Captivity, when the Angel brought that Message to Daniel in the entrance of Darius' Reign. Hence Calvin confidently averreth, That those Seventy Years and the Seventy Weeks are joined together. If we interpret the going forth of the Commandment concerning a Divine Word, this is a very probable Opinion; but if you compare Verse 23 and 25. you will find that they speak of two Different things. The Commandment that came forth, in the former place, is not the same with the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, in the latter place. The first only signifies that a Word or Message from God came to the Angel, and that He was to discover it to Daniel, as it follows in that Verse, I am come to show thee, I am come to tell thee that Word and Commandment which I have from God. But the second speaks of something which was to be afterwards, in pursuance of the foregoing Message. There should be within the compass of a few Years a Formal Command or Decree for the re-edifying of jerusalem, and from that time (and that only) the Seventy Weeks were to take their Rise. It is probable then that the Word of Man, i. e. The Command or Edict of some Prince is here to be understood by the going forth of the Commandment. Now there were several Edicts of Princes which went forth for the restoring of jerusalem, and that at different Times. There are no less than four Edicts mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah; we will inquire to which of these the Inchoation of the Seventy Weeks belongs.  
The first Edict we read of, is that of Cyrus, the first Emperor of the second Monarchy, in the first Year of his Reign, when he set forth a Proclamation for the ●ews Return under their Commanders Zorobabel and Io●hua, 2 Chron. 36. 22, 23. 1 Ezra 1, 2, etc. 5. 13. 6. 3. which is confirmed by the Apocryphal Writings of 1 Ezra 2. 2, 3, 4. Accordingly 
* Origen, Cl●me●s Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Calvin, L' Emperor, Beroaldus, Broughton, Will●t, Light●oot.  some begin the Edict, or Going forth of the Commandment, from the first Year of Cyrus, i. e. of his Reign in Babylon, for he had reigned near Thirty Years before in Persia. But the beginning of his Reign in Babylon was contemporary with the end of the Seventy Years Captivity. The second Edict was made by Darius, in the second Year of his Reign, Ezra 6. 1, 2, etc. Hag. 1. 1. For Cyrus being employed abroad in the Wars, and at last treacherously out off by the Scythians (against whom he then warred) and the Enemies of the Church being very vigorous at home, the Work was stopped for a time: But this King renewed it, and set it forward by his Decree; therefore 
† S●ali●●r, Per●rius, Petavius, Mede.  some begin the Number of Daniel's Weeks from this. But here it is disputed by some, whether this Darius was Darius Hystaspis or Darius Nothus: 
* Eusebius, Cyril of Ierusal●m, Pererius, Petaviu●, Li●●ly, Vsher.  Some hold it was the former, and 
‖ Severus Sulpitius, Scaliger, Helvicus, Dr●sius, junius, Mede.  some contend it was the latter. For there is a great Controversy among Historians, about the placing of these Persian Kings, their Names being so often confounded by those that writ of them. But the former of these Opinions bids fairest for the Truth. Yea indeed it will be found upon a strict Search, that Darius called Nothus was not Emperor of Persia till a considerable time after, for there were 140 Years from Cyrus to this Darius, whereas the Temple was built in less than a third part of that time: Whence we may conclude, that this Darius spoken of by Ezra, was not, nay could not be Darius Nothus. The third Edict or Decree was of Artaxerxes, in the seventh Year of his Reign. This is the Subject of the whole seventh Chapter of Ezra; therefore some are of the Opinion that the Computation of Daniel's Weeks commenceth from this time. There is some Dispute whether this Artaxerxes was Artaxerxes Mnemon or Longimanus, but it goes generally among the 
* E●sebius, ●osil, Funeci●s, a Lapide, Ludo●icus Capillus, etc.  Learned for the latter, and there is good reason for it, because this Artaxerxes Mnemon did not reign till several Years afterwards. The fourth and last Edict went forth in the Twentieth Year of the Reign of this Artaxerxes Longimanus, when he gave Nebemiah a Commission to build and repair jerusalem with Gates and Walls, Nehem. 2. 1. to v. 9 Accordingly 
* Chrysosto●, Theodoret, ●ulius A. fricanus, Zonaras, Bede, Salianus, Vorstius, Pererius, ● Lapide, Bishop Montague, Pe avius, Bish▪ V●her.  some take the beginning of the Calculation of the Seventy Weeks from the twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.  
Now of these four Opinions concerning the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks or 490 Years, this last seems to be the most probable, yea 'tis more than probable, for this is the thing which I offer here to be noted, that the Rise of the Seventy Weeks is to be taken precisely from that Royal Decree, and no other, wherein 'twas ordered that the City jerusalem should be built. This one thing being attended to, will lead us to a right understanding of the true and only Epoch of Daniel's Weeks. Indeed the main reason why the Expositors, who have undertaken to give an account of these Prophetic Weeks have been mistaken, is because they overlooked this. They saw they were to take their beginning from the going forth of the Commandment, but they were not solicitous to observe which of the Commandments or Decrees it was. They did not take notice that the Seventy Weeks were to begin from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. As for the other Decrees, viz. In the Reign of Cyrus and Darius, and in the seventh Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, they were for rebuilding the Temple only, not the City, and therefore cannot be meant here. Consult the Book of Ezra, and you will find that the first Edict of Cyrus, was only for the Jews to go back, and to build the House of the Lord. And afterwards Darius renewed the Grant for building the Temple only, and no more. And it is said expressly, That Artaxerxes in his seventh Year gave leave to the Jews to take care of whatsoever was needful for the House of their God, Ezra 7. 20. There is not a word in these three Commissions, concerning the building of the City, the Street and the Wall: Therefore I infer that the last Commission is meant here, which was expressly for rebuilding the City, and the Walls, and Gates. Accordingly Nehemiah, to whom the Commission was given, raised the Walls, and set up Gates, and so finished the Building of the City, which was in the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes. This hath not been taken notice of by several Learned Men, and hath caused them to mistake the True Aera of this Prophecy. But certainly this is a very useful and necessary Key for the opening of the Text. You see plainly that the Prohesie gins from that time when Nehemiah was sent to effect this, and not before; for there was not before this Time any Licence or Power given to the Jews to restore and build the City. Artaxerxes, and he only, was the Prince that did this; he gave order in the Twentieth Year of his Reign, for the Restoring and Re-edifying of jerusalem, and setting up the very Walls of it, which was the last thing to be done: Therefore in the Twentieth Year of this Artaxerxes was the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. I think this matter is very evident in itself. And besides, as to the forementioned Edicts, the first of them, viz. That of Cyrus cannot be the beginning of the Seventy Weeks, because there are above 560 Years from Cyrus to Christ's Death; for Cyrus' Edict was about the Sixtieth O●ympiad, and Christ's Death was about 202 Olympiad. And the three other Epoches are also too much backward to be thought to be the times when the Seventy Weeks began.  
There are 
* Isaac Vossius, De la hay.  some that hold they commenced from the Completing and Finishing of the Building of jerusalem, which was in the Three and twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Nehemiah made a Feast of Dedication of the New City, Nehem. 12. 27, etc. which is called the Sacrifice of Dedication and of Finishing the Temple, 2 Macc. 2. 9 That this was in the Three and twentieth Year of Artaxerxes may be gathered also from josephus in his 
* Lib. 11. c. ●  Antiquities. At that time all was completed, the Work was at an end; and to this purpose the Authors of this Opinion understand the going forth of the Commandment in a Sense far different from what was represented in the foregoing Opinions. They maintain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 25. is the going out or ending of the word, and accordingly is translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint, and by the Vulgar Latin Exitus, and so signifieth the Fulfilling and Accomplishing of the Commandment or Edict concerning Building jerusalem: Or this Motza debar is Exitus rei, the finishing of the Thing (for a word instead of a thing, is an usual Idiom in the Hebrew and in other Oriental Languages) and so the meaning is, that from the Actual and Real Completing of the Building of the City unto the Messiah shall be Seventy Weeks; therefore from that time the Weeks begin. But this is but a Critical Notion, and hath no considerable weight in it, especially if you remember that this Phrase [the going forth of the Commandment] was used once or twice before in this Chapter. I ask then the Authors of this Opinion, whether it is to be understood so then as well as now: If they say not, than they must give a reason why it should be understood so here, and not before; which I believe they are not able to give an account of, neither did they think of this when they espoused the former Notion. But if it be understood here as before, then there is this palpable Absurdity to be granted, that the thing was finished in the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes' Reign, and yet that it was not finished till the Twenty third Year of his Reign, whereas there can be but one finishing. To which I add, That it is evident from other places of Scripture, that Motza dabar is no other than the Promulgation of the Command or Decree, for so this going forth signifies in Dan. 2. 13. and Esther 1. 19 When the Edict is published and made known, then 'tis said to go forth. Wherefore the foresaid Opinion is a mere straining and perverting of the Hebrew Phrase. So much for the Beginning of Daniel's Seventy Weeks: It is most clear and evident that they began from the Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the Twentieth Year of his Reign. For this must be rembred, That the Edict here spoken of, is meant of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the Streets and the Walls, but mentions not the rebuilding of the Temple. I grant that the City was begun to be built before this Edict came forth, as may be gathered from Ezra 4. 12. but there was no Royal Command and Authority for this; only the Jews were necessitated to build some part of the City, that they might have a Habitation and Shelter to be in whilst they were erecting the Temple. But afterwards Nehemiah came with Authority from Artaxerxes, and with a particular Order and Express Command to build what was wanting in jerusalem▪ to erect the Walls, and effectually to finish the whole Work. There was no Edict for doing this, but this Particular one in the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes' Reign.  
In the next place I am to speak of the End and Period of these Weeks. Hippolytus the Martyr placed it in the Birth of Christ, others in his Baptism, and some in his Preaching, but 
* Asri●anas, Bede, L●r●, Burg●nsis, M●rcator, Funccius, Bucboltz●r, Lansb●rgius, Pererius, Beroaldus, ●acob. & Lud. Capellus, Eroughton, Will●t, Lightfoot.  most terminate the Seventy Weeks in his Death; for then those things were fulfilled which the Prophecy mentions, viz. Finishing the Transgression, making Reconciliation for Iniquity, etc. These were the proper Fruits of the Passion and Death of Christ, and therefore it is most reasonable to believe that the Seventy Weeks or Four hundred and ninety Years expired with our Saviour on the Cross. But though this in the Latitude of speaking be very true, yet if we would be Exact, we must say that the Four hundred and ninety Years ended not just at Christ's Death, but Three Years and a half or thereabouts after it. This I will make evident to you thus, The Angel expressly saith, That after the Threescore and two Weeks, joyn●d to the Seven mentioned immediately before (which together make Threescore and nine Weeks) shall Messiah be cut off: Whence it is plain, that Christ's Death falls within the Seventieth Week, for if it be after the Threescore and nine Weeks, it must necessarily be in the Seventieth Week, when there are no more reckoned beyond that, as is the present case. This Seventieth or last Week, may be divided into three parts; and we have ground for this Division in the Prophecy itself, which mentions the midst of the Week. If there be a Middle, there is also a Beginning and an End. In the beginning of this Prophetic Week (which you know consists of Seven Years) the Messiah confirmed the Covenant, i. e. The New Testament by his Holy Doctrine, Life, Laws and Miracles, and now his Apostles preached the Covenant of the Gospel. The Week began with his Baptism, Three Years and a half before his Passion, in the fifteenth Year of Tiberius; at which time Sixty nine Weeks, or Four hundred and eighty three Years were accomplished, and the Seventieth Week succeeded. The Beginning or Former part of this Week consisted of above Three Years, and it is distinguished into four Passovers. The first Passover of Christ's Public Ministry is mentioned in john 2. 13. from whence gins the first Year of the Seventieth and last Hebdomade of Daniel: The second Passover you find in john 5. 1. compared with john 4. 35. Here gins the second Year of the Seventieth Week. The third Passover, whence the third Year of Daniel's last Week takes its Rise, is in john 6. 4. The fourth Passover, when Christ our Passover was slain, about three Years and a half after his Baptism, produced the fourth Year of the last of Daniel's Weeks. This is that which is called the Midst of the Week (as you have heard,) in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacrifices and Oblations to cease. This was verified when the Messiah by his Death abolished the Old Law and Covenant, when the Sacrifices ceased by this High Priests making an Oblation of himself on the Altar of the Cross. Though the Middle in the Style of Scripture be not always properly and exactly taken, yet here in this Prophecy it is to be understood in the Strict and most Proper Sense, for Christ Suffered and Died in the fourth Year of this Prophetic Week, which is the very Middle of Seven, yea in the Middle of that fourth Year, which is yet more Exact and Precise. Now if Christ was put to Death in the Middle of the last Week (as the Angel foretold) then the Seventy Weeks cannot be terminated in Christ's Death, because there were but Sixty nine Weeks and a half completed at that time. And if there was half a Week behind (for the Middle part of the Week was but short, Christ's Death taking up but little time) than the Latter part or End of the Week must contain in it Three Years and a half, or thereabouts, and consequently the Seventy Weeks or Four hundred and ninety Years ended not just at our Saviour's Death, but about Three Years and a half after it; which was the thing to be proved. This is the most Exact Account that I can offer to you.  
I know there are 
* Tr●ullian, Chrysostom, Sulp●tius Se●●ru●, Drusius, Sc●liger, Calvisius.  Learned Writers and Chronologers who extend the Period of the Seventy Weeks to the Destruction of jerusalem by Titus Vespasian, but they were unwarily drawn into this Opinion by fixing their Minds on those words in the Prophecy, The People of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the City and Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a Flood, and unto the end of the War Desolations are determined: And again, For the overspreading of Abominations he shall make it desolate: Which without doubt are a Prediction of the Overthrow of the Temple and City of jerusalem by the Roman Armies: And because this is joined with the Seventy Weeks, those Persons think that the Weeks end at this time. But this is no necessary Consequence, because here is only mentioned what shall follow upon the expiring of the Seventy Weeks, the direful Recompense of the Jews cutting off the Messiah is foretold. This horrible Devastation shall happen not long after the 490 Years are completed; but you cannot conclude thence that these Years were just fulfilled at the Devastation and Ruin of jerusalem in the second Year of Vespasian.  
It remains now that I give you the Particular and Distinct Computation of these 490 Years; which yet it is something difficult to do, by reason of the Uncertainty in Chronology, as must be confessed by all Persons that have consulted variety of Authors, (and those that have not done so are no Competent Judges here) but the Disagreement among these Writers is not so great, as wholly to discourage us. I have laid their Calculations together, and have duly compared them, and upon an impartial balancing of the whole difference among Chronologers in computing these Years, I settle the Account thus, The Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes' Reign was in the Year of the World's Creation 3497, at the end of the 81 Olympiad; and the time of Christ's Passion was in the Year of the World 3983, at the beginning of the 203 Olympiad, and consequently the fourth Year after Christ's Passion was A. M. 3987, and the beginning of 204 Olympiad. This Calculation is indifferently fixed, and will be agreed to by all Parties that are moderate. Now, if you reckon the Years that were between these two Periods, viz. between 3497 and 3987, you will satisfy yourselves that they were just 490 Years, and no more, which is the very Number that the Seventy Weeks amount to; and consequently from the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes to the time of our Saviour's Passion were no more, nor no less than 490 Years. This might be particularly made good from the Distinct Aeras between these Great Periods, and which are of note among Chronologers; but I think it is superfluous to undertake this, seeing in Helvicus and other Chronological Tables they are very plain.  
But I will go another way to work for the satisfaction of the Reader, I will trace these 490 Years through the several Reigns of the Kings that were in those times, and thence I will demonstrate, that from the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes' Reign (at which time the Decree came forth for the Rebuilding of jerusalem, as hath been sufficiently proved) to our Saviour's Passion were 490 Years, or according to Daniel's Sacred Arithmetic Seventy Weeks. Take it thus, Artaxerxes reigned Twenty Years after his sending Nehemiah to build the City and Walls: Then succeeded Xerxes and Sogdianus▪ two Brethren, Artaxerxes his Sons, but it seems they were of no account at all, and are therefore omitted by some Historians; but others own them, and say they reigned a very short time: We may allow them (as Writers generally do) a Year. After these Darius Nothus sat on the Throne Twenty three Years, than Artaxerxes Mnemon reigned fifty Years. Some say more, but I embrace their Opinion who say he reigned but fifty, because I have before exceeded some men's Account when I set down Twenty three Years for Darius Nothus, whereas some assign him but Nineteen. Then reigned Darius Ochus Twenty six Years, Arses or Arsanes Four, and Darius Codomannus Six: So that the whole time of the Reign of these Persian Kings was 130 Years from the time of the Decree to rebuild jerusalem. Upon the Death of Darius (the last Persian Monarch) Alexander the Great succeeded in the Monarchy, and reigned six Years: After whose Death reigned the Ptolomees or Lagidae in Egypt (for I will trace the remaining Years by this Line, and not by that of the Kings of Syria or Macedon, these being more intricate) in this order, Ptolomaeus Lagi Forty Years, Ptolomaeus Philadelphus Thirty four, Ptolomaeus Euergetes Twenty five, Ptolomaeus Philapator Sixteen, Ptolomaeus Epiphanes Twenty four, Ptolomaeus Philometor Thirty five, Ptolomaeus Eurgetes Twenty nine, Ptolomaeus Physcon Seventeen, another Ptolomee Ten, another called Soter Eight, Ptolom. Dionysius Thirty, Cleopatra Twenty two, at which time the Greek Monarchy ended, after it had held out 296 Years. After her Death Augustus (who was properly the first Emperor of Rome, and began the Roman Monarchy) reigned 43 Years, whom succeeded Tiberius, in whose Eighteenth Year our Blessed Lord suffered; which two Numbers, viz. Eighteen and Forty three put together make Sixty one Years. Now then, reckon all these Sums, viz. 130 Years of the Persian Kings Reigns, 296 Years of the Successors of Alexander, 61 Years of Augustus and Tiberius, and you will find that they amount to 487 Years, which wants Three Years of the Complete Sum, viz. 490 Years or Seventy Weeks. Wherefore to supply this, we must remember that Christ suffered (as the Prophecy expressly saith) in the midst of the last Week, and so by adding Three Years we shall make the 490 Years complete.  
I cannot say this Calculation of the Years of the Kings is Exact, nor can any Man say that any other is; for there is no little Obscurity in the History relating to those Monarches, and the right Order and Succession, the true Number and Names of them, and the time of their Reign. Wherefore the Account must be taken and fixed with some Latitude, and we must be content with this, because we can attain to no other. But from what I have offered, we are as to the main certain of the Truth of this Prophecy, and we cannot doubt of the Evidence of the Account in general. It is most plain that the Seventy Weeks are to be reckoned from the Twentieth Year of the Reign of King Artaxerxes Lo●gimanus, in which Year (and not before) the Royal Decree came forth to restore and build the City, and to finish the Temple which Zerobabel had begun; and it is as plain that these Seventy Weeks had their Expiration about the time of our Saviour's Passion and Death: Or if we exactly and precisely make the Computation, we must say that his Death fell in the middle of the last Week.  
After all this, I must freely declare that we need not be Dogmatical and Punctual in the Interpreting this Prophecy. Though I offer that Calculation before specified, as the most Probable; yet this is certain, that if you take the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks according to some of those other Opinions, and fix them to their respective End, you will find that they do not fall much amiss; they do not considerably come short of Seventy Weeks of Years, nor are they much redundant. Which truly is as much as we can rationally expect in the Present Case, considering that the Chronology of that time is Difficult and Intricate, and Historians hugely differ in the Account of the Years of those Monarches. Therefore 
* Hi●ronym, in loc. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, l. 18.  some of the Ancient Fathers shun the Question about the Beginning and Ending of the Seventy Weeks, and hold it too Difficult to solve. Yea, a Modern Father of the Protestant Churches abroad declares, that here is place only for 
‖ Co●jectu●â utendum e●t. Calvin.  Conjecture, and accordingly he propounds his. But this is too Lose and Lavish. And much more is that of another 
† Reinold. Praelect. 1●8.  Writer, who absurdly imagines that the Seventy Weeks are to be taken indefinitely, as if a certain Number were here put for an Uncertain one. This no Man of deliberate Thoughts can swallow down, because this great Number is afterwards divided into lesser and more distinct Portions, as much as to assure us that a Determinate Number was meant, for if the parts of the Number be definite and determined, if they be fixed for such particular Transactions, than it must undeniably follow, that the whole Number is definite and fixed also. But yet it must be acknowledged that it is very Difficult to determine the Exact Beginning and Punctual Ending of these Prophetic Weeks. I have (after the Attempts of many others) propounded that way which seems to me most probable, and I submit it to the Censure and Judgement of the Reader. Some take the beginning of the Calculation from one thing, and others from another, but the general Reason of them all is the same, for at that Time they think the word went forth for the Restauration of jerusalem. But I having fixed the going forth of the word, i. e. The Royal Commandment or Decree, I having by unquestionable Arguments determined this, I hope there is no farther occasion of disputing about the True Beginning or Epoch of the Seventy Weeks. And having gained this Point, we have secured the next also, for the End of these Weeks depends upon their Beginning, and must be regulated and determined by it; when we know one, we are not to seek for the other.  
However, though some place the End of this Computation at one time, and some at another, yet they all agree in the Main, that is, they all confess that the Seventy Weeks are placed in some Period between the Return from Babylon and the last Overthrow of jerusalem: And consequently they agree in this, that these Seventy Weeks are long since past and gone.  
And that our Saviour is meant by Messiah in this Prophecy, no Man can have any reason to doubt in the least; for who can these Descriptions and Characters which you meet with here agree to but to Christ? The Messiah was to be cut off for the sins of others, which can be understood only of Christ jesus, who was the Lamb of God that came to take away the sins of the World. So likewise the making of Reconciliation for Iniquity is the alone Office of Christ, our Messiah: And therefore the Old Jews used to say the Messiah should be Ish caphar a Man of Propitiation, a Man that should make Atonement and Satisfaction for Sin. To Christ alone belong the bringing in and confirming the Covenant, the New Law and Religion of the Gospel. And the causing the Sacrifices to cease, i. e. The Abolishing of all the Mosaic Rites and Ceremonies can be meant of none but Him. Particularly as to the last of these, it is plain that Christ was to come whilst the jewish Temple stood, and whilst Sacrifices were offered, for he could not make them to cease unless they were in being. Now than the Sacrifices being ceased, it follows that the Messiah is come. This is an unanswerable Conclusion, and this is the grand thing I urge, viz▪ That from this Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks it is undeniably evident that the time of the Messias' Coming is past. Yea, whensoever you begin these Seventy Weeks, it is plain that they 〈◊〉 expired. That is enough to Baffle and Confute the Jews: That is enough to prove that the Prophecy is fulfilled, which is the Principal thing I designed.   

The fifth Text enquired into, viz. Matthew XXVII. 5. He departed, and went and hanged himself. Compared with Acts I. 18. Falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his Bowels gushed out.  
WHen I take notice of the Dimensions of Iudas' Sin and Gild, when I consider what he was, and what he did, I am apt to think that his Punishment was answerable to his Horrid Fact. Of all the Great and Notorious Sinners mentioned in the Bible or in any other History from the beginning of the World to this time there is none like him, and therefore I am inclined to believe that as his Crime was unparallelled, so the Recompense of it was of a resembling Nature. judas the worst and vilest of Traitors became his own Executioner, but not in a way that was Usual and Ordinary, but such as was as Remarkable as his Damnable Treachery. The Consideration of this hath invited me to inquire into the Manner of his Death, and to find out of what Particular Kind it was; whereby I hope to Reconcile these two places of Scripture, which have not a little exercised the Brains of Interpreters, because they seem to be Different, if not Contrary Relations of the Fatal Exit of this Cursed Traitor and Apostate. From St. Matthew we are ascertained that he went and hanged himself: By St. Luke we are no less assured that he falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and all his Bowels gushed out. Both these passages I will examine, and compare together, that by this means we may the better understand what Kind, or rather Kind's of Death justly happened to this Execrable Wretch, and also that hereby the Inconsistency of the Relations concerning the Death of judas, may not be alleged (among other things) by Atheistical Men to disparage the Holy Scripture, and the Authority of it.  
First, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify to us that he choked and stifled himself with immoderate Grief and Anguish of Mind, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes among the Best and most Authentic Writers; and there is the same signification of the simple Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence the La●in ango is derived, and both of them from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspiravit, gemuit cum angore cordis, with which the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strangulavit, suffocavit hath Affinity. Here then in the first place we are told by the Evangelist, that this Vile Wretch went and macerated himself with Grief and Melancholy, which was partly mentioned before in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is post factum angi, to be very much grieved and troubled in mind for what is done; and the Devil, who had entered into him, followed this close, and made it a Prologue to something more Tragical. For though it was his own Act, yet he was hurried to it by the special Instigation of the Devil, who was now become his intimate Guest. Such a Devilish Distemper, but not in so great an Excess, King Saul laboured under, saith 
* Philocal.  Origen, when he was forsaken of God. This was the Evil Spirit that came upon him, and strangely disturbed him in his Body, insomuch that he seemed, saith 
† Autiq. ●●d. l. 6. ●. 9  Io sephus, to be choked and strangled. 
‖ Exercitat. Sacr. in M●t. 27.  Heinsius (with whom agree Grotius and Ham mond) understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this sudden Suffocation: judas was choked or strangled, i. e. saith he, He was struck with a sudden Disease in his Throat, he died of an Angina Squinancy, or some such Violent Distemper that unavoidably stopped his Breath; so that being swelled within by the Air or Spirits shut up, he fell down, and broke his Belly, and the Bowels gushed out. So this Excellent Critic, He thinks judas expired, as 
* A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuagint. 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 17 23.  Achitophel is said by some of the Jews to have done, viz. Of some Suffocating Disease that was bred by some great Grief of Mind, which is implied (say they) in the word Chanak which is there used. This Suffocation or Stifling of the Spirits, is that Machanac which the Hebrew Doctors talk of, viz. That sudden stopping of the Breath which is caused by an inward Oppression of the Mind, that sudden Death which job was tempted to wish for, job 7. 15. My Soul, saith he, chooseth strangling, i. e. In the height of my Temptations I could even desire to be utterly bereft of Breath and Life by this Suffocating Melancholy which my Miseries bring me into. This was Iudas' Distemper at present, when he had reflected on what he had done, he was swallowed up of Sorrow and Remorse, he was oppressed with the Load of Gild, he laboured under the Pangs and Horrors of Conscience, he was terrified with the Dismal Apprehensions of the Divine Nemesis, and thereby his Spirits even stifled, his Breath obstructed, and himself in a manner 
* Strangulat inclusus dolour— Ovid.  Strangled and Suffocated. I subscribe then to those Learned Critics thus far, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant of a Melancholy Suffocation, but I cannot go with them so far as to grant that this only is here meant, and than: judas died of this Suffocation, which is ●he thing that Heinsius and Grotius assert; for as for our Learned Annotator he leaves them here, and is inclinable to attribute Iudas' Death to something else, as you shall hear presently. And truly Grotius likewise, though he follows Heinsius in his Interpretation, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Grief of Mind, adds this of his own, that judas had a sudden dangerous Fall, and therewith burst himself. I grant that this Suffocation was a Preparatory Death, this made way for the Halter and all that followed it: But that which I assert here is, That this Suffocation here spoken of, was not to that Excess that he immediately died of it; for it is Idle to think that this Suffocating Grief alone was the cause of his Death, when we read of his falling down headlong, and of all his Bowels gushing out. These are never known to be Concomitants of that Distemper; no History gives us any Instance of this Nature. And therefore it is fond and groundless to imagine that this Suffocating Passion was his Fatal End, that this was it which dispatched him.  
What then did? You will say. I answer, his hanging himself, i. e. His Strangling himself with a Halter or some such thing, and his falling headlong from the place where he hung, and thereby bursting asunder. Some indeed tell us, That that which dispatched him was his fall from a Precipice; for being Melancholic and Vexed, he took the Course which such Persons are commonly wont to do, i. e. He threw himself down from a Rock, or some such place, and so ended his Life; and upon this fall his Bowels gushed out. The Critics who run this way (the chief whereof are Pricaeus, Vossius and Dr. Hammond) endeavour to prove our of several Writers, that Persons overwhelmed with Grief and Despair chose this way of Dying, viz. Casting themselves down from some Precipice. This is freely granted, and moreover no Man, I believe, will question that upon this precipitating themselves their Bowels were broken. This is no Wonder, but it would be one indeed, if their Members were not broken and shattered with such a Descent. Well, but than what shall we do with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? How could judas go and hang himself, and also throw himself down from a Rock, or craggy Hill, or some place of this kind? I suppose no Man will say he did this before he hanged himself: And I scarcely think any Man will say he did it after; neither was it possible for him to do it at the very time when he cast himself down: Therefore I conclude that he did it not at all. But the abovesaid Critics evade this by understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another Sense wholly; one of them interprets it of Melancholy Suffocation only, as you have heard; and the other tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as mori cupere or mori velle, to be w●●ry of Life, and from a consciousness of Gild to be restless till we are rid of it. But this Great and Worthy Writer assigns a Sense of this word which was never heard of before, and he doth not so much as attempt to show, that this word is taken so in any Author. A great Oversight certainly! To say the Truth, these Professed and Resolved Critics have all of them at one time or other this-Fate, they deliver things without any ground; being warm in the Notion they have taken up, and having a great Opinion of their own Authority, they think 'tis enough to vouch the matter; or being in Prosecution of father Notions depending on it, they wholly forget to establish what they have asserted.  
As for the Rise of this Mistake in these Learned Men, I conceive it was from this, That they found in Authors (whom they plentifully quote to this purpose) that it was usual with Discontented and Melancholic Persons, to put an end to their Days by throwing themselves down from Precipices, and they taking judas to be such a one in the highest degree, conclude that he dispatched himself after this manner, and that this is the meaning of his falling headlong mentioned by St. Luke. Especially when they read that all his Bowels gushed out, they think there is good reason to affirm, That this was caused by his falling from some high place. But all this is mere Conjecture, and hath no ground to support it, for if judas had procured his Death by throwing himself down from a Precipice, as Melancholists have been wont to do, then surely instead of bursting asunder, and his Bowels gushing out, we should rather hear of broken Bones and Limbs, which are the most usual Consequences and natural Effects of such a Precipitation (for these Commentators speak only of such.) So 
‖ I● Trachin.  Sophocles expresseth Lichas' throwing himself from a Rock into the Sea, and so Precipitation is generally described in Authors. Wherefore seeing we read of something else, which is not commonly mentioned as the Effect of a Great Fall, we may be induced to infer that some other thing is intended and meant. Besides, there is nothing here mentioned, nay there is nothing implied or hinted concerning Iudas' dispatching himself from a Precipice, unless it be in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it is well observed by Heinsius (for we must make use of one Critic to confute another) that Praeceps is not the genuine or primary Import of this word, but that it ought rather to be interpreted Pronus. However, this is sufficient to invalidate the aforesaid Opinion, that we cannot infer from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a volutnary Precipitation, which is the thing that Author contends for. But on the contrary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joined here with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shows that judas did not throw himself down, but that he was altogether Passive as to this thing, and consequently that this place of St. Luke is not to be understood of a wilful flinging himself down from the brow of a Hill, or the top of a Rock, as the old Melancholic Desperadoes used to do.  
The Truth is, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of an ambiguous use, and may be rendered not only praeceps but pronus (and 'tis likely this Latin word came from that Greek one) and so we may take it here; for I am for interpreting words in their greatest Latitude, because by this means we shall find out the full Sense of the Scripture. Though judas did not cast himself from a Precipice, yet he was precipitated, and he was in a prone posture: Both these, but the latter especially, seem to be signified here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: being in a prone posture leaning forward, bending downward (that is the primary Denotation of the word) he fell to the Earth, and this declining Posture that he was in contributed to it. This word than gives us some light into the manner of his Death; it fairly intimates to us, that (after he had immersed himself in most profound Grief and Anguish of Mind, whereby he choked and stifled his Spiri●s) he hanged himself, i. e. he wilfully intercepted his Breath by Strangling himself. For this prone Situation, this bending of his Head and Face, and this pressing down of his whole Body were caused by this way of dispatching himself. This gives us sufficient ground to believe that this perplexed and despairing Wretch ended his Life with a Halter, for this was the very Posture which his Hanging himself put him into. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being with his Face downward or forward, stooping and declining with his Head, was as fitly and properly said of such a Person, viz. One that hanged himself, as could have been, and accordingly 'tis very observable, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered sus●ensus by the Vulgar Latin; which Version, although it doth not take in the full Extent and Latitude of the words, yet it confirms the Inrerpretation which I am now insisting upon, viz. That Hanging, and not voluntary Precipitaition, is here meant.  
For the Proof of this we need only allege the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Matthew, which signifies this particular way of Dying, and answers to the Hebrew Chanak, which is to kill with Strangling, and is used after the same manner that Talah suspendere is, which is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is acknowledged by 
* In locum.  Grotius, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word commonly used in Greek Authors, to signify a Persons Killing himself by Hanging himself. And the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of the same import, from whence cometh our English word to Hang. It is true, this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bears another Sense likewise, as I have said before, but that doth not exclude this, but is very consistent with it, which is the thing that I desire may be observed here. It seems good therefore to the Holy Ghost, in this place to make use of an Ambiguous word, which may be taken either or both ways. Our Translation is very well, he hanged himself; but the word in the Greek is of a larger meaning, and signifies Strangling or Choking, which may be either by a Man's being Stifled and Choked with Grief, or by his Hanging himself, in the more strict way of speaking. Let it not then be wondered at, that I take the word in both Senses in this place: I am induced to do so by the different signification of the word which the Evangelist useth; and therefore I advise that it be translated thus, He strangled himself, for this takes in both Senses of the Greek word. For in this, as in several other things, the Holy Scripture differs from other Writers, it hath sometimes a double Sense couched in it, yea a double literal Sense; such is the Pregnancy of the Sacred Style above all others. Therefore seeing this Inspired Writer hath here used such a word, I see no reason why I may not interpret it in the double meaning which it carrieth: And accordingly I understand by it, that this Vile Despairing Traitor first choked his Vitals with Grief, and then to ease himself of that intolerable Pressure, wholly stifled them by hanging himself. This latter Sense is that which I am now treating of, and you will find it acknowledged and embraced by several 
* Origen, contr. Cels. l. 2. Epiphanius contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 38. Chrys●stom. Augustine, Bede, Sed●●ius, juvencus, Arator.  Ancient Fathers, and other Writers of the Church. An 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. Epist. ad Philipp.  Eminent Primitive Martyr is very positive in it: And St. jerom (from whom the Vulgar Latin hath it) renders the Greek word thus, Laqueo se suspendit. These thought it reasonable to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Sense, viz. for Suffocation by Suspension, and thence conclude that judas laid violent hands on himself, and strangled himself with a Ro●e or Halter, or something that was 〈◊〉 that purpose. If you ask what Tree he hung himself upon, 
* Hist. Evangl. l. 4.  juvencus will tell you that it was a Figtree; but the more Vulgar Tradition is, that this was done on an Eldern●tree● whence the 
† Fungus S●mbucinus Auricula judae.  Excrescencies about the Root of it bear the Name of jews or Iudas' ●ars, and are a Vulgar Medicine against Squinancies and Sore Throats, as if it had some reference to that traitor's Strangling himself in that part. But this we may allow to have little weight in it, and no more able to evince that he hanged himself on that Tree than Veniat illi laqueus in Psalm 35. 8. (which some make use of) proves the manner of his Death before spoken of. But this use may be made of this Fabulous Report (as some account it) that we may thence gather it was the general Belief of old, that judas hanged himself, (for why should they talk of a Tree and a certain Tree, on which he did it, if he did not do it at all?) which questionless was grounded on this Record of the Evangelist concerning him, [he went and hanged himself.] For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both among 
* Herodot. T●●●ydid. Pausa●. Ae●ian, P●lybius.  Historians and 
† A●i●●●h. T●●o●rit. Epigram.  Poets (as well as other Writers) commonly signifies the applying a String or some such thing to the Neck, and therewith compressing that part, and stopping the Breath.  
But how shall we reconcile this with his falling headlong, and bursting asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushing out? How are these consistent with his Fatal Suspension? If he fastened himself to a Beam, or a Tree (or whatever else it was I am not solicitous) how came he to fall thence, and upon that Fall to break in pieces? The answer is easy, it was the Will of Heaven that the Punishment of this Notorious Varlet should be Remarkable, and that we might see in the Strangeness of his Death the Extraordinary Judgement of God upon him. He thought to deprive himself of his weary Life by Hanging himself: But it happened, and that by Divine Disposal, that the Fatal String wherewith he did this, was not strong enough to hold him any considerable time, and thereupon his cursed Body fell to the Ground. This is a plain and easy Resolution, and without this it is impossible (whatever some have enterprised) to reconcile St. Matthew and St. Luke, the first who saith judas hanged himself, the latter who tells us that falling headlong he burst asunder, etc. Nor is this without good Authority; Oecumenius acquaints us that it was received as a true Narrative from Papias and others that lived near the Apostles times that judas hanged himself, and that the String or Cord with which he did that Execution broke asunder, and so he dropped down, and was run over by a Cart or Wagon that came by at that time, which crushed his Guts out of their place. And you'll find Theophylact also asserting his Suspension, only with some Variation as to Circumstances, for he is of opinion that the Tree whereon he hung did bend or break, and thence this Cur●ed Man fell to the Ground. I cannot be positive here, only this I suggest, that either the Fatal Instrument of his Execution, or that on which it was fastened might slip, or break, or some other ways be loosened; and then he falling upon a Stone, or a sharp piece of Timber (as we may suppose) unless we will admit of the other Conjecture before named, it is not to be admired that his swollen Belly did burst, and that his Entrails came forth. Here is nothing difficult or improbable, nothing harsh or strained. We may easily assent to what I here offer, without the least Violence to our Faculties. The Proposal is reasonable in itself, and it hath the Suffrage and Approbation of those Writers who have treated of the Particular Manner of Iudas' Death. Nor must we think it strange that some Writers of the Church are silent as to this, for they did not concern themselves in the giving a particular Relation of this Fact, and the Manner and Events of it. And what though Papias and others lard the Story of Iudas' hanging himself with several Fictions, as that of the Cart, and his Hydropic Swelling, etc. These we are to ●light and disregard, but the plain Truth we must retain, viz. That he ended his Life by that Fall which was occasioned by the breaking of the String or Noose with which he had thought to dispatch himself. This hath been believed by the Ancients (as we have said) and is embraced by several of the 
* Isaac Casaubon. Gerhard. Calixt. Di●t●ric. etc.  Moderns; though of late some have gone another way, and have invented new Opinions of their own.  
So then the full Meaning of both the Texts put together is this (as I conceive) judas, after he had thrown down his Money, the Cursed Reward of his Treachery departed and went (both which words are very observable but are not sufficiently distinguished by our Translators) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he retired into some solitary place (for so the word is used in Matt. 14. 13. john 6. 15. and in other places, and it is the frequent Denotation of the word in Profane Authors) thus he departed, or rather (as it should be rendered) went apart, he betook himself to Solitariness, as is the Custom of deep Melancholists; and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added to signify his Wicked Design, he went, i. e. he went away with a Design and Purpose of putting a Period to his Life, and accordingly first he pined himself with Excessive Grief and Melancholy, and thereby fell into such Fits of Suffocation as had like to have proved Mortal to him. In the next place he betook himself to a Halter, as an infallible Remedy of his Grief and Anguish; but the Load and Pressure of his swelled Body soon gave him a Release from his Noose, and he fell headlong to the Ground, or rather on something that lay between that and him: And thus his remaining Breath was quite beaten out of his Body by its violent dashing on that which lay in the way; and at the same time by that wide Rupture whereby his Entrails were poured forth, his wretched Soul made its way, that it might go to its own place, i. e. To the Infernal Regions of the Damned, and there have its Portion without Hope and Possibility of a Redress: For I think there is no Man in his Wits will give heed to what is mentioned by 
* 〈…〉 ●rigen in ●tt. tract. Theophy●● in Mat. 27. Theophan. homil. 27. Zonar. Epist. 56.  some, that judas knowing Christ would shortly descend into Hell, and deliver all Persons thence, went and hanged himself before our Saviour's Death, that he might be sure to be in Hell when he came thither, and thereby have the Benefit of being saved by him.  
This is the Complete Interpretation of the words which I offer, wherein I not only take in the full Sense of both Texts (which I see most Expositors are Defective in) but I put an end to most of the Disputes that have been raised about the Interpreting of these words. For it hath been warmly controverted, whether Iudas' Death was by Grief, or Suspension, or by a Precipice: Some have held the first, some the second only, and others defend the last as most accountable. But I maintaining that his Death was procured by all these three, (for in the way that I have explained them, they are all three very consistent) I do hereby silence the particular Quarrels and Pretences of Critics against one another on these places of Scripture. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Matthew useth, having a double meaning, hath rendered the Manner of Iudas' Death uncertain among these Authors, but I have made use of the Ambiguity of that word to another end, viz. To suggest to me that the double Sense of the word is to be attended to here, i. e. We are hereby informed that this Wretched Caitiff was first suffocated with Fits of Despairing Sorrow, and soon after attempted to end his days with a Halter: But as he hung and pressed himself down, this cracked or otherwise was unfastned, and so he came tumbling from his height. Then, to this Suffocation, Suspension and Precipitation (for it may be called so, though it was not that Precipitation which some, as you have heard, fancied he expired of) was added a Rupture and Effusion of his Bowels (the last Act of this Tragedy) for by being thrown down he so wounded and tore his Body, that these Entrails soon found a passage by which they came forth. This is the Exposition which I give of the words, and you see it is consistent with itself (which cannot be said of some of the Interpretations which have been mentioned) and it is fully adjusted to the Grammar and Criticism of the words; it is also comprehensive of the full meaning of the Relation which we have of Iudas' Death, and is effectual to the silencing of those Quarrels that are among Interpreters. But chief it may merit the Preference to all other Interpretations: Because,  
1. Hereby, and not by any other way St. Matthew and St. Luke (or St. Peter rather, for 'tis he that gives that Relation in the Acts concerning judas) are thoroughly reconciled. For the first saith he hanged himself, i. e. by an inward Grief and an outward Application he strangled himself: The second saith he fell headlong, and burst asunder, i. e. His swollen Corpse by its mighty Pressure and Gravity got lose from the place where it was tru●●ed up, and by its violent fall broke asunder. Here is nothing contradictory in both these Passages, for in the one is set down what judas wilfully attempted and did towards the procuring of his Death: The other acquaints us what was the direful Sequel of it: The former relates the beginning of this Fatal Tragedy, the latter the end and Catastrophe of it. Thus both these Inspired Authors agree: But if you understand the words either wholly of Precipitation properly so called, or of Melancholic Suffocation, you set these Writers at Variance, and you will never be able to bring them to an Agreement: Yea, you make them say that which was never so much as thought of. For as for Iudas' flinging himself from a Precipice, there is not a single Syllable in the Relation given by these Holy Men that looks that way, or gives the least Hint of it. Besides, hanging himself is expressly mentioned in one of the Texts, and we are sure that this is inconsistent with casting himself down from a Precipice. And as for Melancholy Suffocation, it was never heard that this alone produced a Total Rupture of the Body, and an Exclusion of all the Bowels: These must undoubtedly be the Effect of another Cause. That 
* Tho. G●idot, M. D.  Physician who pretended to solve this by the Instance of a Bursten Child, whose Malady is caused by keeping in the Breath, whereby the Diaphragm is born down, and so by that violent Depression the Entrails are broken and displaced, was as wide from the purpose as Bath is from jerusalem. What is this to the bursting asunder in the midst, and all the Bowels gushing out, and that by falling head long? Was it ever known that the stopping of the Breath, the mere hindering of Respiration procured such an Effect as this, viz. A total Exenteration? No. It is to be ascribed to another Cause, and I have assigned what it is. Thus the seemingly different Accounts of Iudas' Death are reconciled, which could not possibly be done in that way which Expositors generally have taken.  
2. This Exposition which I have presented you with is an undeniable Proof and Demonstration of that which I suggested in the entrance into this Discourse, viz. The Remarkableness and Singularity of this Execrable traitor's End. Of all the Criminals Recorded either in Sacred or Profane Story, there is none equal to this judas, and therefore it was fitting that the Recompense of his black and foul Demerit should be as Matchless as that itself: And this we see accomplished in the Wonderful Manner of his Death. Or rather, it was not a Single Death, but a Complicated one, which is the thing that makes it so Strange and Observable. The first thing he attempted, was to abandon himself to excessive Melancholy. When he reflected on his Fact, he was overwhelmed with Vexation and Despair. It is impossible to relate, or to imagine the Horrors of his Soul, and the Tortures of his Conscience, which he underwent on this occasion. This only we can say, That this Load was so Great and Pressing, that it even choked and smothered his Vitals, it strangled and stifled his Spirits, and almost bereaved him of Life. To complete this fully, he proceeded yet farther, and wilfully hanged himself, that he might be freed from his present Misery, although this did but let him into greater. The Memory of this more effectual Strangling of himself (the everlasting Badge, and Infamous Memorial of his Gild) remains still in his Name 
* From Iscarab Strangulatio. Lud. de Dieu in Matt. 10. 4. Dr. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebraic. in eund. loc.  Iscariot, which was given him (as our Learned English Rabbi thinks) after his Death, or (as others Conjecture) before it, with a Prospect of this direful Fact.  
It is farther remarkable in this Singular Instance of God's Vengeance, that this traitor's hanging himself, was not, as he intended it, his last Punishment: This Miserable Criminal fell headlong, before he was altogether deprived of Life and Sense, from the place of his Suspension, and his almost Breathless Carcase shook out his loathed Soul and his Bowels together by a Fall. This Evisceration is very remarkable, for 'tis emphatically said, his Bowels, yea all his Bowels gushed out. St. Luke speaks here like a Physician, as he was, and means by 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Hesych.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the usual Acception of that word among those of that Faculty, all the Viscera of the middle and lower Ventricles, the Heart and all the other Inwards belonging to both these. This sets forth the Rarity and Wonderfulness of this Judgement, this calls upon us to take special notice of i●. Let me observe to you, that in his being thus wholly disbowelled, we may plainly read the Punishment of a Traitor: For not only with us, but other Nations, Eviscerating hath been part of the just Penalty inflicted on such Malefactors.  
Moreover, I might take notice of St. Luke's other word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which we have not fully translated when we English it [he burst asunder] for it properly signifies such a Rupture as is accompanied with a Noise, and therefore in the Vulgar Latin Version 'tis rightly rendered crepuit. This Terrible Crack which attended Iudas' Fall, was so loud, that it was heard at a great distance: And accordingly we read in the next Verse, That this was known unto all the Dwellers in Jerusalem. It is no wonder, saith our 
* H●●. H●b●, in 〈◊〉  Christian Rabbi, that this sudden and violent Explosion of all his Entrails, made such a mighty and horrid Sound, for the Devil, who had entered Bodily into him, and had inhabited there three days, now broke forth: And upon this violent Eruption of that Evil Spirit, a great and amazing Noise was heard, such as must needs affright the Neighbourhood. For though ● do not approve of the Learned Doctor's Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he takes in a Passive Signification wholly, and tells us that judas was snatched up by the Devil into the Air, and there strangled by him, (whereas 'tis expressly said he went, which is an Active word, and shows that what immediately follows, was a proper act of his own; whence I have reason to gather, that he strangled and hanged himself, that he was a Felon of himself, that he wilfully procured his own Death) yet I do verily believe that the other Act of the Tragedy was immediately by the Devil's Procurement. This Infernal Daemon struck him down to the Earth and Hell together, whither his Body was inclining. And truly he might justly have his last and fatal end from the Devil's own Hand, who was immediately stirred up by this Diabolick Spirit to commit that cursed Fact.  
Thus all the Circumstances of this Miserable Caitiff's End make it Stupendious; that we may be convinced of this Great Truth, that this was a Notorious and Exemplary Punishment, and designed by God to be Peculiar and Remarkable. Here were several Deaths met together in this One Horrid Example, that we may be invited to observe and admire the Extraordinary Hand of Providence in it, and that we may take notice how God hath inflicted a Judgement worthy of such a Miscreant, that this Unusual and Unheard of Manner of his Death, may appear to be the just Desert of his unparallelled Villainy, namely, his Betraying of Innocent Blood, even that of the Lord of Life and Glory. One way of Death was not thought sufficient for him, and therefore his cursed Life was torn from him by many, viz. by Macerating Grief, by Violent Hanging and Strangling himself, by a sudden Precipitation, by a Disruption of his whole Body, and by an Effusion of all his Entrails.  
As to what is suggested by a 
* Gronou. Exercit. Academ.  late Writer, that he was not buried but cast into the place destined for the Carcases of Beasts and all manner of Filth and Dung, and that the throwing his Dead Body into this Barathrum, where he was burst asunder, is meant by his falling head long, I cannot apprehend any ground for this Conjecture, and therefore I cannot insert it as a Remarkable Attendant of his Death, and as part of that Severe Judgement which befell him here. I have gone as far as the words of the Evangelists have authorized me, in explaining of which, I have fully set forth the Tragical End of this Hypocritical Actor in Religion, this Mock-Disciple, this Apostle in Masquerade, this Execrable Deserter and Vile Betrayer of his Master.  
But I have not yet done, for I am to add, that as the Just Judgement of God upon him here, was Signal and Remarkable, so the same Divine Vengeance pursued him to another World, and made his Fate there as Singular and Observable. This is that which I conceive is the true meaning of those words in Verse 25. of the first Chapter of the Acts, That he might go to his own place. I know some interpret this of Death or the Grave, but very improperly, for this is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proper place, but a Common one, and therefore is rightly called so by 
* 〈…〉  Plautus, and Dying is going to that place which is Common to all, which is the Recepta●le of all Mankind. Others understand this place of Hell, that being (say they) judas his own place: But, so far as I apprehend, this Acception of the word for Hell in a general Notion is not the meaning of the Text, because Hell was not so Iudas' own place, as that it was proper to him alone, and none else, for Hell is the Common place for all the Damned. But though I am ready to grant that Hell is meant here, yet I take leave to understand it in a more Emphatic way than it is usually taken: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own place is his peculiar place, the place in Hell proper to him, and no other. This I am persuaded is the true and full Import of the words. judas went to his own place, i. e. That Individual Peculiar Place in the Regions of Hell, which was particularly allotted for him, and him alone. All Impenitent Sinners have their Portion in that Infernal Lake, but this Cursed Traitor and Apostate was confined to his own Apartment to his proper and peculiar place in that Universal Receptacle of the Damned. To establish this Opinion, and to confirm the Sense of the words on which I ground it, I desire it may be considered, that as 'tis generally acknowledged by Divines, that there are Degrees of Happiness in Heaven, so 'tis also granted, that there are Degrees of Torment in Hell. This is the general Ground and Foundation of my interpreting these words in this Sense. In the Kingdom of Heaven are 
* john 14. 2  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Mansions, and in the Infernal Kingdom are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper distinct places, singular and peculiar Torments according to the Quality of Sinners, and consequently judas was consigned to his; he had, and he hath, and shall ever have a Peculiar Proper Punishment, distinct from that of other Sinners. Again, I find that there is a Particular Individual Wo● denounced against that Man by whom the Son of Man was betrayed, Matt. 26. 24. judas is 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Man, remarkably set forth, and distinguished from all other Men, by that inimitable Fact of his, the Betraying the Son of Man, which assures us of the Peculiarity of the Woeful Curse here affixed to him. This is as proper to him as his Crime. Moreover, to strengthen this Assertion, I might take notice that he is emphatically styled the Son of Perdition by our Lord, john 17. 12. which signifies not only that he is inevitably Lost and Damned, for this is true of every profligate Man that dies in his Sins, but it must necessarily include something else in it, something Greater and Higher, viz. That he is Lost and Damned, and consequently that he is the Son of Perdition in a Sense different from all other Persons, that his Punishment in Hell is Singular, his Place or State of Torment is his own, it is proper to him, and different from that of all others. Lastly, I desire you to observe the particular wording of this Text: St. Luke saith not that he went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as 
* Num. 24. 25. 70 Interpr.  Baalam is said to do,) but he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to let us know that this place which he went to was so his, that it was no Bodies else: For this is the true import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor doth this suffice, he inserts here the Demonstrative Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: twice, he went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which remarkable Duplication of the Article fixes and appropriates the Sense, and undeniably proves that the place and State allotted to this Arch-traitor in the Regions of the Damned, were his in a peculiar manner, i. e. They were so his, that they were not common to any others. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And thus I have given you the Reasons of my Exposition of these words in that way which I have propounded. I do not find that Commentators interpret them in this Sense, but yet I think that from what I have offered, it is evident that this is the true and genuine Acception of that Expression. All the Criminals recorded in the Old and New Testament, are but Puny Sinners, if compared with judas, especially if we consider that he was placed in so high a Rank, and was so highly favoured by his Lord, that he was one of the Sacred College of Apostles, and Blessed with Extraordinary and Miraculous Gifts, and admitted to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the rest of his Brethren. It will not seem Strange and Wonderful, that this Ungrateful and Perfidious Parricide, who acted so contrary to his Profession and Privileges, and betrayed his Master with a Faithless Kiss, was rewarded with a proper place of Torment, a peculiar State of Damnation, not common to him with others. It was ●itting that his Future Penalty should be answerable to that here, (of which we have sully treated in this Discourse) namely, That it should be Singular and Unparallelled, and differing from all others. It was ●itting that as no Man ever committed such a Crime, so no Man should have the same Punishment with him, either in this or in the other World.   

The sixth Text enquired into, viz. I Cor. XVI. 22. If any Man love not the Lord jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.  
THE Task which I set myself at present, is to make enquiry into the true Sense and Signification of the word Anathema, that understanding the right import of it, we may grasp the meaning of this Dreadful Execration of the Apostle, Let him be Anathema: For as for the ensuing word, or rather words Maran-atha, I shall offer but little about them, which shall be in the close of all. That we may have a true N●tion of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I must in the first place take notice of a great Mistake among some A●●hors, which is this, They are wont to con●ound these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas they are really distinct, and of different Significations. This we are 〈◊〉 observe ●efore we proceed any farther, that we may form right Apprehensions of the word, as well as of the thing which is before us. The former of these, which is the word in the Te●e, is al●ays taken in a bad Sense, but the lat●●er is generally understood in a good and 〈◊〉 one, and simply and 〈…〉 any thing that is set apart, dedicated to a Deity, devoted to the Honour of God, or of the Gods, for this word is used by Profane as well as Sacred Writers. As this is the Acception of the word in the best Classical Authors, (which none will deny that are acquainted with them) so this is the use of it in St. Luke 21. 5. Some spoke of the Temple, how it was adorned with goodly Stones and Gifts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. with Presents and Oblations brought to that Holy Building, and there bestowed toward the Beautifying and Enriching of it, not without some Relation certainly of Devotion and Reverence to the Lord of that House. And all Gifts and Presents whatsoever that are consecrated to God, are called by this name, and accordingly the usual rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is donarium or donum, a Gift consecrated to God; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reponere, sursum ponere, attollere, suspendere, and thence is very appositely applied to these Sacred Gifts, which being 
* Ind apud Platon. Polit. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & apud Herodian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  offered to God were laid up, and hung up in the Temple for the Service and Honour of the Numen to which they were dedicated.  
And here let me have leave to offer my Conjecture, which is this, That the Greeks giving that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those Gifts which were thus Consecrated, is an Allusion to the Hebrew name which that kind of Holy Presents hath in the Old Testament, and which was given to it by God himself, as in many things it might be proved, that the Pro fane Grecians borrowed from the Sacred Book. This sort of Gifts was styled Terumah, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elevatus, exaltatus fuit, which we translate an 
* Numb. 15. 19 18. 24.  Heave-offering, because it was heaved or lifted up before the Lord. And with this is joined Tenuphah, another Holy Oblation which owes its Original to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to shake and move to and fro, as well as to elevate, and thence that sort of Present is called a 
* Leu. 7. 30. 8. 27.  Wave-offering, it being the particular usage it seems at the tendering of it, not only to lift it up (which was the main thing) but to wave it. Now, to this lifting up (whence Terumah more signally had its name, and was properly an Oblation lifted up) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks exactly answers, and according to the forementioned Theme whence 'tis derived, may be rightly rendered donum elevatum or suspensum. In the Pagan Devotions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such Presents as were bestowed on the Gods, and set up on some high and eminent place, as generally upon the Walls and Pillars of their Temples. This is well observed by a 
† Salmas. in Solinum.  Learned Critic who tells us that Not all those Gifts which were dedicated to the Gods were called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but those only which could be hung up, or set upon some high and conspicuous place. And this is the true and simple Acception of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is different from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Epsilon, although you'll find that several Writers observe not this difference. But 'tis certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a quite contrary signification to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this latter denoting a Holy, the former an Unholy thing or Person; this signifying some thing or Person Consecrated to God, that on the contrary some thing or Person Gursed of God and Man, and destined to be destroyed, yea sometimes it signifies the very Cursing itself, as you shall hear afterwards.  
But here it is objected that the Septuagint use the word in a good sense, to signify that which is Holy to God, and dedicated to his Service, as in Leu. 27. 28. where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or devoted thing is said to be Holy unto the Lord. So in jos. 6. 19 we read that all the Silver and Gold, and Vessels of Brass and Iron that the Israelites should find in jericho, when they took it, were to be consecrated, or as 'tis in the Original) to be Holiness unto the Lord, which very things have the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given them in v. 18. whence some infer that the word with an ● as well as with an ● is taken in a good sense, and signifies a Sacred Gift offered to God. But this is a palpable Mistake, for if you consult the place in Leviticus, you will find that it speaks of the Cherem properly so called, the thing or Person that was devoted to utter Destruction, and therefore could not be redeemed, as you read there. How then could this be a Gift to God, how could it be an Offering consecrated to God, and separated to Sacred Uses when it was utterly destroyed? But yet it may be said to be Holy to God in this sense, viz. That the Destruction of it, which was appointed and commanded by God himself, was for his Glory and Honour. The cursing of the Canaanites, the devoting them to Ruin, yea and the actual Destroying of them redounded to the Honour of God, whilst thereby he shown himself the Sovereign and Absolute Disposer of the World, and at the same time gave undeniable proof of his irreconcilable Hatred of all Idolatry and Idolaters. Thus the Persons and things devoted to Destruction were Holy to the Lord. This is the true and genuine meaning of this place, and no Man that looks into it and considers it well, can interpret it otherwise. And hence perhaps it is, that in a remote Sense the Verb Charam (and consequently the Noun Cherem) may be taken, as in Mic. 4. 13. to signify Consecrating or Holy Dedication. Not that the word hath any such genuine signification, for it is not Charam but Kadash that is the word constantly used to denote Sanctifying or Consecrating, i. e. setting a thing or Person apart to a Pious use, to Gods peculiar Honour and Service. I say Kadash is the proper word for this every where in the Old Testament; yet because even Cursing of things or Persons is to God's Glory, and so may be said to be Holy to the Lord, hence Charam and Cherem, and accordingly Anathema come to have that Sense sometimes, but in a very improper and forced manner.  
The other Text in joshua speaks not of things that were to be destroyed, but to be preserved, and therefore it is added there, they shall come into the Treasury of the Lord, and consequently they are said to be Holiness unto the Lord. But this is Foreign to the present Business, for we are speaking now of the Primary and Proper Meaning of the world, not of any Improper and Secondary one. I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is improperly and as it were at a distance applied to the things which are consecrated to God, and are reserved for his particular Use and Service: But thence to infer that this is the First, Genuine, and Native Signification of the word is Unreasonable and Illogical. The things spoken of in the forenamed place, viz. The City jericho, and all that was in it, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Seventy's Translation, not because they were to be reserved for the use of the Temple, or because they were consecrated to the Lord: No, this is another Consideration of the things, and is nothing at all to the true import of the word, for this consecrating to the Lord, refers to some particular individual things only, and not to the rest spoken of in that place. For observe what is there said, v. 17. The City shall be (Anathema) accursed, even it, and all that are therein, all things as well as Persons, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes in both, and the Seventy Interpreters particularly restrain it to things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Now, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being accursed to the Lord, is meant here that they shall be destroyed to the Glory of God, is evident from the words immediately ensuing, Only Rahab the Harlot shall live, she, and all that are with her in the House. These particularly are excepted from the general Anathema or Curse which was to end in Destruction: Therefore it is undeniably true, that all other Persons and things were cursed by God, and destined to Destruction. The whole City, and every Person and thing in it, were thus an Anathema, yet so as God was pleased to spare the Silver and Gold, the Brass and Iron for the Service of the Tabernacle. But still these are included in the general Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Accursed things, and so are called in v. 18. because they did belong to that accursed City jericho, and should have been involved in the actual Curse and Destruction, if God had not in a peculiar manner exempted them, and thought good to reserve them for Holy and Religious Uses, and thereby to cut off as it were the Curse entailed upon them. But if we consider the things in themselves, i. e. as they appertained to that City, which was devoted by God to Perdition, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed things, and are so styled, as you have heard. The words in v. 18. run thus, Keep yourselves from the accursed thing (viz. The Gold and Silver, etc. mentioned in the next Verse) lest you make yourselves accursed when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the Camp of Israel a Curse. Or, you may read it according to the Septuagint thus, Keep yourselves from the Anathema, lest you make yourselves Anathema, when ye take of the Anathema, and make the Camp of Israel an Anathema. Here is you see nothing contained in the Primitive and Genuine Sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a Curse, and a devoting or being devoted to Mischief and Perdition, for there is no colour at all of reason to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in contrary Senses, but all Men must acknowledge, that the general Sense is the same in every Clause of this Verse, or else 'tis impossible to make any Sense of it. Which shows us what is the true import of the word, viz. A being set apart and destined by a Solemn Curse to Destruction, and consequently that the word is not to be taken in a good Sense, but the contrary, viz. for something Execrable and Detestable, and (as the consequent of this) that it is far different from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea is another word, which is the thing I was to prove.  
But notwithstanding this, we shall find that some Writers are very defective here, and mistake one word for another, and thence they tell us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are things dedicated to God. Thus 
* Resp. 21. add Ort●od.  justin Martyr confounds the words, and so doth 
‖ Homil. 16. in Epist. ad Rom.  Chrysostom, whatever a late 
† Suicer. T●esaur. Eccles.  Writer suggests to the contrary. Nor do 
* In cap. 13. Esai. & in cap. 9 a● Rom●n.  Theodoret or 
‖ In 23 cap. Act.  Oecumenius distinguish between them, as appears from some part of their Writings. And Balsamon and Zonaras often confound the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Comments on the Councils. The same is done by some Modern Commentators, as 
† In Rev. 22. 3.  Cotterius, 
* In Gal. 1. 8.  Gomarus, and others. But you may observe that all the Exact Masters of Grammar and Criticism make a real Discrimination between these two: Thus according to Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maledictus, excommunicatus: But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donarium, ornamentum templi. The like Distinction is made by Suidas and Pollux, and other Grammarians. 
† Annota● in Pandect.  Bud●eus, a sufficient Judge in this case, asserts this difference, and by no means suffers them to be confounded. 
* In Rom. 9 3.  Estius, that Judicious Commentator, tells us that it is most certain the Ancient Greeks made a Distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Exercitat. Sac. in cap. 4. ad Rom.  Heinsius' wonders that any have asserted the promiscuous use of these words, for they are (saith he) not only divers but contrary. The Learned 
† Exercitat. in Solin. p. 1089.  Salmasius agrees with him, and makes a real difference between these words. So Hoffman in his 
* In Verbo Anathema p. 99  Universal Lexicon carefully fixes the Distinction between them.  
If it be asked what was the reason, or occasion rather of the forementioned Mistake about these words, whence was it that the forenamed Authors, and several others whom I might have produced, confound these two, I answer I conceive this is the ground of it, namely because Offerings and Gifts are sometimes consecrated to God with the addition of a Curse: As Darius' Decree for Building and Dedicating the Temple ends with an Execration, Ezra 6. 12. Thence perhaps Anathema hath been used to signify a Gift dedicated to a Temple, and an Accursed thing, or such a one as hath a Curse laid on it, viz. a Curse to him that shall meddle with it to alienate it. Thence Anathemata were said to be those Gifts that were consecrated to God, and which 'twas not lawful to convert to another use, because the Consecration was under pain of a Curse to those that altered the Property of them. And it is indeed generally said by the jewish Doctors, that one sort of their Cherems were so set apart from common use, that there was implied, and sometimes expressed a Cursing of them who ●hould attempt to alienate them. I conjecture it is on this account (viz. because of this Execration annexed to the Donation) that these words have had a promiscuous use, and have been thought by some to signify things consecrated to Holy uses, and also those that are destined to Destruction. Hence, as I suppose, Anathema, with a little Variation in the Writing, and sometimes without it, is of an ambiguous meaning, and hath been taken by some in a good and a bad Sense, namely for the Gifts and Offerings which Religious Votaries present to the Deity, and appropriate to Sacred Uses, and likewise for such things and Persons as are wholly alienated from God, and are devoted to Destruction by him. But the former Acception is secondary and improper, and the Rise of that Promiscuousness of the words which we have obferved, is only from that Curse which is sometimes annexed to the Consecration. Hence it is that the Primitive mea●ing of the wor●s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is perverted; as we see there are many Instances of the like nature. For there are some good words (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) which afterward are used in a bad Sense, and on the contrary some words of ill meaning (●s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. become good sometimes. Thus it is here in the words before us, they are distorted from their proper Sense and Primitive use, and one is made to signify the same with the other, whereas they really differ in themselves, and are of a contrary Signification.  
Having thus cleared the way to what I intended, by showing the Difference between these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I come now to speak particularly of this latter, and to offer a more distinct account of the genuine meaning of it. We must know then that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath its original from the same Greek word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had, yet with this difference, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here separare, removere, auferre, as also renuntiare, rejicere (for these are the known significations of the Greek word in good 
* See Constantine's Lexicon, which in many places outdoeth all others.  Classic Authors.) And consequently as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies that which is kept or laid up in some eminent place, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly denotes that which is separated, removed, taken away and rejected: Briefly, as the former signifies the Preserving of a thing, so this latter imports the utter Destroying and Consuming of it. But not to rely wholly upon the Etymology (which I know generally is but an uncertain proof,) I will make this good from other Considerations, and offer the reasons why I fix this Interpretation on the word. First, Let it be remembered that our Apostle often alludes and refers to the Old Testament, and makes use of several Words, Phrases and Expressions which he finds there. Those that are conversant in the Style of this Hebraizing Writer will not show any Averseness to acknowledge this, and therefore I need not insist upon it. Now, it is probable that he doth the like here, i. e. That he refers to that noted word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often mentioned in the Old Testament, which hath this very Signification, and is applied in the same manner that this word is: So that any discerning Person may perceive that this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew Cherem, and that the Apostle hath respect to it in this place. Secondly, This is made more probable from the Famous Version of the Seventy Interpreters, who constantly render the word Cherem by this word which the Apostle here useth, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and from them without doubt this word was taken by this Sacred Writer, who in above a hundred places (as might easily be showed) hath borrowed words from those Greek Interpreters, and applied them in the same Sense and Meaning that they do. Wherefore it is reasonable to think that he doth the like here. Thirdly and lastly, This may be called an Ecclesiastic word, because it is most used by the Fathers and Church-Writers, and from their rendering and explaining of the word, we may infer that it runs parallel with Cherem.  
Here than we are concerned to look into the true import of this word Cherem, because upon this depends the right understanding of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First, we shall find that the more general significations of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence this Noun cometh, is separavit, excommunicavit, and consequently Cherem is a 
* Cherem, privatio vel separatio plenaria. Avenar. lib. Radic.  Separation, or the Sentence of Excommunication whereby Persons are separated and cut off from Holy Communion. This is the usual meaning of the word in jewish Writers, they understand by it an Ecclesiastical Punishment, or a Solemn Interdiction or Proscription whereby Contumacious Offenders are forbid the use of Holy things, and debarred the Communion of the Church, and the Benefits of it. But in the next place, the more particular import of the word is Separating with a Curse. For devovere, execrari is the usual signification of the Verb Charam in Scripture, as in 1 Kings 20. 42. Isa. 34. 5. and other places; whence Cherem is not only a Cursed thing or Person, but the Cursing of them. This is that which is threatened by God to the Jews, if they reject the Messiah, and is the Conclusion of the Old Testament, That he will come and smite them with a Curse, Mal. 4. 6. Cherem is the word, and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used to denote a Curse, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in Acts 23. 12. signify to Curse, or to Swear with the Addition of a Curse. It is a Separating and Devoting of things or Persons by a Solemn Execration; it is a Vowing, Wishing and Pronouncing their Destruction and Perdition. Therefore thirdly, Charam among the Hebrews is desolavit, destruxit; and Cherem is desolatio, destructio, perditio omnimoda. As to the Verb, 'tis acknowledged by all, that there are great Numbers of Texts, wherein it signifies to destroy utterly, as in Ex. 22. 20. Deut. 2. 34. where the word can have no other Sense than this, and therefore is rendered by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in Isa. 11. 15. it cannot possibly signify any thing else (as is plain from the words themselves, and from the Context) and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devastare, desolare is the Version of the Septuagint. Again, in jer. 51. 3. and Dan. 11. 44. it cannot be understood otherwise than thus, and accordingly it is rendered in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abolere. And I question not but this is the meaning of the word in Ezra 10. 8. though we transla●e it to forfeit; but the plain Sense and rendering of it is this, [his Substance shall be destroyed,] as in the case of Achan; wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used here by the Greek Interpreters, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to Cherem, the proper meaning of which word is Destruction.  
And we may farther learn and be ascertained of the true and genuine meaning of this word from the Law of Cherem, set down in Leu. 27. 28, 29. which there signifies a thing or Person devoted to Destruction, and also from the particular Instances of this Cherem, as those Idolatrous Cities mentioned in Deut. 13. 15, 16. Which were to be utterly destroyed, and all that was in them. Neither Inhabitants nor Cattle were to be spared, nay all the Spoil of them was to be gathered into the midst of their Streets, and both City and Spoil to be burnt to A●hes. The Cities shall be a heap for ever, they shall never be built again, and there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing (the Anathema) to thy hand, v. 17. jericho was a Cherem, Cursed and Destined to Destruction: So A●alek was devoted to be a Cherem, 1 Sam. 15. 3. Utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but s●ay both Man and Woman, etc. Charam and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words here used. And hence perhaps were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Devota capita among the Greeks and Romans: For (as I have said before) it was not unusual with the Gentiles to borrow some Practices from the jews. They had a report among them, it is likely, of this Remarkable Usage, viz. The Devoting of certain Cities, and the Inhabitants of them, to Slaughter and Destruction, and that this was executed by the special Command of God: Whence it is not improbable that in an Apish and Superstitious manner they took up such a Practice as this, and devoted certain Men to Death and Destruction, to please their Gods. And this is the more probable, because the very word 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, homines quorum ca●ita di●s in●eris devota ●unt. Constant●n. Lexic. & B●daeus.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used by the Ancient Greeks to signify those Execrable Wretches who were chosen out to be put to Death, and to be devoted to the Infernal Demons. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to the jewish Cherem, i. e. Things or Persons devoted to utter Destruction, for the word Cherem retains the Sense of the Verb Charam, which signifies utterly to destroy, and that without Mercy: Whence the Critical Hebrews tell us, that Charam is directly opposite to the Verb Racham misereri.  
From Charam the word Chormah derives its Pedigree, and so should be translated Destruction in Numb. 14. 45. though you find it otherwise, for the Vulgar Latin keeps the Hebrew word itself, and our English Translators follow it, rendering the place thus, The Amalekite discomfited them even unto Hormah, whereas I conceive Hormah or Chormah denotes not a place, but Death and Destruction, and the words should be rendered thus, The Amalekite discomfited, or 
* P●rsecutus st. Vugg. Lat.  pursued them even unto utter destruction, i. e. Death. Those Pagan Victors pushed on their Conquest even to the utmost Extremity, according to what Moses had foretold, v. 43. that the Israelites should fall by the Sword. Thus they were destroyed, as you expressly read in Deut. 1. 44. where this same passage is related again. And from such a Fatal Event as this (but upon the contrary Party, the Israelites afterwards overthrowing the Canaanites) the place where the Execution was done was called Hormah, and not before. Numb. 21. 3. They utterly destroyed them (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by the Septuagint) and their Cities, and called the name of the place Chormah, or (according to the Greek Translation) Anathema: So it is as much as Cherem, you see. But in the other Text before mentioned Hormah is no Proper Name, but an Appellative; which is farther evident from this, that there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before it, whereas there are no Prefixes to Proper Names. I am inclined to think that Harmageddon, Rev. 16. 16. (a word that hath much exercised the Critical Wits) is of the same Derivation, Charmah denoting Destruction, and Gad or Geddon an Army, and so it signifies the Destruction and Fatal Overthrow of that Army of Antichrist which was to Rendezvous in that place: It takes its name from the Event which you read in v. 19 This I conceive is preferable to the other Derivations that are usually assigned of the word Harmageddon.  
I will also observe to you, that this word Cherem in a Metaphorical way signifies a Net, in which Fishes are taken to be killed and eaten, i. e. destroyed, Ezek. 32. 3. Mic. 7. 2. Hab. 1. 15. All which I allege, to show you that Cherem, if you respect the word from whence it is extracted, or the words that are of near Cognation with it, denotes killing and destroying. This is the proper signification of it (for as to the Catechrestick Acception of it, I have nothing to do with it here,) yea, this is its 
* Brixia●. Thesaur. Linguae S. Avenar. lib. Radic.  First and Original signification. By Cherem we are principally to understand Utter Destruction and Perdition, Final Extirpation and Excision, and withal the Wishing, Vowing and Denouncing of these. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is borrowed from Cherem in the Old, and answers exactly to it. I know some Authors have taken notice of the Reference of the one to the other, but I thought fit to superadd a full and distinct account of the Remarkable Agreement that is between them, and this I have done by laying open the Origination of the words, and the particular use of them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be a Cherem, that is to say in the full meaning of it, Let him be a Person separated, cursed, destroyed.  
So that by this I have conducted you to the true and complete meaning of the Apostle's words: Here is a Triple judgement denounced against those that love not the Lord jesus Christ, those who are so far from loving him, that they disown and deny him. For 'tis certain here is a Meiosis, less is expressed than is intended; by not loving is meant hating and renouncing of the Lord jesus Christ. Let him that is guilty of this horrid Sin be Anathema, saith the Apostle, that is,  
1. Let him be separated. In which these two things are included; First, That he be separated from Christ's Church, that he be excluded from being a Member of that Body. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to Cherem, is rightly understood, as that was, of Excommunication, which is a Prohibition of Communion with the Church, and a cutting a Person off from the Benefits which accrue from it. Thus our Apostle in Holy Zeal for the Jews his Countrymen and Kinsmen, professes he could be content to be for their sakes 
* Rom. 9 3.  an Anathema from Christ, i. e. to be separated from Christ's Church, and the Communion of Saints: He could even wish himself excommunicated from the Assemblies of the Faithful, if this might any ways redound to the good of his Brethren. So here, the least Punishment that can be inflicted on him who loves not the Lord jesus Christ, is that he be deprived of the Fellowship of the Church, of which he professed himself to be a Member. As he renounceth Christ, so it is but just he should be cast off by the Church, and debarred of all Society with it. So St. Chrysostom understands this place, Let him be Anathema, that is, saith he, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ho●il 16 in Ep●st ●d Rom  Let him be separated from all, let him be estranged from all, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In loc.  Let him be a stranger to the common Body of the Church, saith Theodoret. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I● Rom. 9 3.  Anathema is Separation or Alienation, saith Theophylact. And indeed among Christian and Ecclesiastical Writers it hath this peculiar Denotation, and is used to signify Excommunication. And as he deserves to be separated from the Church, so likewise from Christ Himself. Secondly therefore Let him be Anathema, i. e. Let him be separated from Christ, let him have no part in jesus. So indeed the Apostle's words before mentioned m●y be farther meant, I could wish that myself were Anathema from Christ, i. e. separated from Christ himself. If it were p●ssible (for it is but a Supposition, and a strain of passionate Love and Indearment,) if it might any ways promote my brethren's Welfare, I could willingly be excluded from all Benefit by our Lord ●esus Christ. I could methinks endure any loss, part with God's Favour and my own Bliss for their sakes. But what the Apostle here utters only in a high strain of Affection to express his Great Concern for his Kindred (for you must look upon it as no o●her,) he most truly and directly wisheth and denounceth against all those that wilfully and obstinately renounce Christ, that fall from the Faith they once professed, and abjure the Holy Jesus. Let such a one never in this World enjoy his Favour, or share in any Advantage by his Blessed Undertake for Mankind.  
2. Let him be a Person Accursed of God and Men, for that (as I have showed) is contained in the Notion of Cherem, and consequently of Anathema; and thence among the Writers of the Church, to Anathematise is to Curse, or to denounce Accursed. If any Man love not, i. e. hate the Lord jesus Christ, it is a most equal Recompense of that his Hatred, that he himself be detested and abhorred, and that he be Cursed upon Earth. If he calls Christ Anathema (1 Cor. 12. 3) i. e. looks upon him and speaks of him as an Abominable Execrable Person, he certainly himself ought to be an Anathema, an Execration, a Malediction. As he is justly banished from the Communion of the Church (which we spoke of before,) so moreover he is to be delivered to Satan, which in the Apostles times accompanied Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. This is a farther Punishment of the Apostate here spoken of. He is to be accounted a Devoted Person, he is to be consigned over to the Evil Spirit as a most Detestable and Cursed Wretch, forsaken of God, and destined to Destruction. Which is the  
Third thing contained in this word. Let him be Anathema, i. e. let him be destroyed; for that also is comprehended in the Notion of Cherem, yea is the primary import of it, as we have fully proved. Now, this Destruction includes in it both the Temporal and Eternal Punishment which are entailed on these cursed Miscreants, the Haters of Christ. First, it is probable the Apostle means here those Temporal Inflictions, as Sicknesses, Diseases and Torments of Body which attended Excommunication and Delivering to Satan in those days, and which are called the Destruction of the Flesh, 1 Cor. 5. 5. which also may be included in the Apostles Wish before mentioned, That himself were an Anathema from Christ, i. e. That (besides what hath been said before) he might feel all those Corporal Punishments which usually were inflicted on Sinners when they were delivered to Satan. I could be content, saith he, out of his Excess of Affection and Kindness, to undergo all those Severities and outward Hardships of Body, on condition that I might be really Beneficial to the Souls of my Brethren, and reclaim them from their Unbelief and Impenitence. This the Learned Dr. Hammond (as well as G●otius) takes to be the Anathema of the Text which is before us; it refers to the Primitive Discipline of Anathematising or Excommunicating, which was followed with most dismal Effects, particularly with remarkable Judgements on their outward Man, which are called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Plagues which the Devil inflicted. Let these Execrable Sinners, who renounce their Lord and Saviour be plagued with all those bodily Maladies; being thrown out of the Communion of the Church, and debarred of Spiritual Benefits, let them suffer all the Temporal Evils and Calamities of this Life.  
Secondly, A future Eternal Punishment in another World is here implied; which makes this Denunciation of the Apostle to be most Astonishing and Dreadful. If any Man love not the Lord jesus Christ, and persists in this vile Temper and Practice, let a Curse pursue him into the next World to his Everlasting Perdition and Confusion. This is the highest Sense of this Anathema, this Cherem, this is a devoting to Death and utter and final Destruction. So then in brief the meaning of the words in their full Latitude is this, If any Man love not the Lord jesus Christ, so as not to confess him, but to renounce and deny him, especially in time of Persecution (as some at that time, the Gnostics saith our Annotator, affirmed it lawful to do) if any Man hate and vilify the Lord Jesus Christ, and disown and reject that Faith which he once embraced, let his Reward be to be separated and cut off from Christ Jesus the Head, and from his Body the Church, let him be Accursed in Body and Soul, and be given up to the Prince of Darkness, and suffer all Evils in this World and in the next, let him be destined to Eternal Misery, and perish Everlastingly without remedy.  
Thus Spiritual, Temporal and Eternal Evils, but more especially these last, are comprehended in this Apostolical Execration; therefore to this Anathema the Apostle adds Maran-atha, which is thought by some to answer to the Third kind of Excommunication among the Jews, the Severest and Dreadfullest of all, which they styled Shammatha, a final Separation from the Church without hopes of returning. And some that embrace this Opinion tell us that Maran atha is a Talmudick word, and frequent in the Rabbis, and that the greatest and most fearful Excommunication among the Jews was called by this name from the first words of the Writing or Instrument of Excommunication. But our great Christi●n Rabbi gainsays this, 
* Hor. Hebraic.  That this (says he) is a Form of the highest Excommunication, and is the same wi●h Shammatha (which some assert) is utterly without the Warrant of any Jewish Antiquity at all. Nay, the words Maran-atha are not to be met with in the Jewish Writings. I believe we may take it upon the Doctor's word (who knew as well as any Man) tha● they are not there. However, this is certain that if we look into both those words [Shammatha and Maranatha] we shall find that they are of the same signification, for Shame or Shem is nomen, which in ordinary Speech among the Jews signifies God, and atha is venit, and so the compound word is to be resolved into this, God cometh; which is the same with Maran-atha, for Maran in the Syriack and other Eastern Tongues signifies Dominus (and thence, as Grotius observes, the Syrian Maronites have their name, because they call Christ Marani, i. e. our Lord) and atha, as was said before, is rendered venit, he cometh; and so both Shammata and Maran-atha exactly answer to that direful Menace of Enoch, 
* Jud. v. 14.  The Lord cometh, which was a Prophecy as well as an Execration, that was very Famous in the Church of the Jews, and from this (it is very probable) those Forms of Execration were taken. Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute judgement upon all, especially on such wicked and profligate Sinners that deny the Lord who bought them, and shamefully renounce the Christian Faith and Profession. These are they that love not the Lord jesus Christ.  
Here then all that I will remark is this, that this Dreadful Execration which the Apostle here useth, hath peculiar reference to God's Final judging the World, and his executing Eternal Vengeance on the Wicked. For though we may grant with the Learned Lightfoot, that the Apostle here primarily speaks to the Unbelieving jews, and accordingly expresseth himself in the very Language which they used at that time, viz. Syriack, (whereas in Hebrew it should have been Adonenu ba, not Maran-atha, which, 
* Hor. Hebr.  saith he, evidently showeth that this Speech refers more especially to the jewish Nation) and though we may grant that the words have some reference to our Lords coming to destroy jerusalem and the Jewish Polity, yet (as this Worthy Doctor afterwards acknowledgeth) they may have a larger Sense, as many other passages in Scripture have, and be understood more signally and eminently of the Last Doom and Curse which shall be pronounced not only against the Unbelieving Jews, but all those that love not the Lord Jesus Christ of what Nation soever. This shall be at the General judgement of the World, which (we know) is by way of eminence called the Lords coming in the Sacred Style of the New Testament: And we read that in that day Go ye Cursed is the particular Language used towards those miserable Creatures. To this therefore I am of opinion that St. Paul's Execration in the Text doth more particularly and especially refer. The short is, those that love not the Lord jesus Christ, those who wilfully hate and oppose him and his Laws, are Accursed Persons in this Life, and are devoted to Destruction; and likewise when our Lord shall come to judge the World, they shall be Cursed more openly and solemnly; when they shall stand before that Impartial Judge of the World, they shall receive from his infallible Mouth a Final Malediction, an Irreversible Execration, which shall immediately be succeeded with the Eternal Punishment of Hell.   

The Seventh Text enquired into, VIZ. Coloss. II. 8. Beware lest any Man spoil you through Philosophy and vain Deceit, after the Tradition of Men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ.  
THough this whole Verse requires an Explication, which I shall briefly offer; yet the main thing which seems difficult in it is this, This St. Paul here enters a Caveat against Philosophy, and joins it with vain Deceit, whereas he that is acquainted with the Apostle's Education and Accomplishments cannot imagine he would speak any thing to the Disparagement of true and s●und Philosophy, which is the Guide of our Faculties, the great Improver of our Reason, the main Conduct of all rational and considerate Minds, and that which teacheth us the right Knowledge of God as it arises from the Nature of things in the World. To Moses' Honour it is recorded by St. Luke, and related by the holy Martyr St. Stephen, (in which he was directed by the Holy Ghost▪ that he was 
* Act. 7. 22.  learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, bred up in their Mystic Hieroglyphics, and acquainted with the natural Magic of their wife Men. And therefore though it is one of the Documents of a Jewish Rabbi to his Disciples, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. judah Ben. Behera.  Suffer not your Children to learn Logic: and though some of the 
* Tert●llian, Augustin, Greg. Nyssen & Nazianzen, Basil.  Christian Fathers have spoken freely against Logic and Philosophy, (and particularly St. Ambrose on the 118th Psalm is taken notice of for his nihil nobis cum Philosophiâ) because they observed that a sophistical way of Reasoning and Logic was made use of by Heretics, and because the Study of Philosophy had introduced innumerable Contentions and Quarrels, as also because it sometimes meddled with and encroached upon Divinity, (for which cause a 
‖ Greg. Naz. Orat. de modo in disput.  Learned Father gives no better name to Philosophy, than that of Egyptian Plagues, and 
* Augustin. de conv. decem Precept. c. 2.  another calls them the Egyptian Frogs that have crept into the Church;) tho, I say, for these Reasons the Fathers sometimes thus inveighed against Logic and Philosophy, yet at other times they show the Usefulness and Necessity of both; and that the Sophistries of Heretics cannot be confuted without them. Clemens of Alexandria 
† Strom. l. 1.  proves that Philosophy and Human Arts are from God, and are useful in Divinity. 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strom. l▪ 6.  It is not absurd (he saith) to assert that Philosophy is the Gift of Divine Providence, and was designed to prepare Men for the perfect Doctrine of the Gospel. Accordingly he tells us that Philosophy was given to the Greeks to be the Foundation of Christianity. As the Law and the Prophets were to the Jews, so (saith he) was Philosophy to the Greeks, viz. to fit and dispose them for the preaching of the Gospel, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strom. l. 7.  to purge and prepare their Souls for the Reception of the Christian Faith. A Proof of this we have in that great and learned Platonist, justin Martyr, who (in his Apology for the Christians) acquaints us, that by reading a Sentence in Plato's Works he was excited to leave Paganism, and to embrace Christianity. Theodoret, another Greek Father, in that known Treatise of his wherein he addresses himself to the Grecians, makes it evident to them that the Evangelical Truth is consonant to and may be confirmed by the Gentile Philosophy in some parts of it. St. Jerome, a Latin Father, although once in a Dream he thought he was beaten for reading Tully and such like Authors, yet in his Epistle to Magnus a Roman Orator, after he had showed what Allowance Human Learning hath in Sacred Scripture, sets down in order the Fathers who made use of the Writings of the Gentiles in confuting their Errors: and in his 84th Epistle he gives an account why he himself in his Writings made use of secular Learning. And as I related before, how justin was guided to Christianity by a Sentence in his Master Plato, so you may be certified from St. Augustin himself, 
† Confession. l. 8. c. 7.  that he was very much helped forward toward embracing the Christian Faith, by reading one of Tully (that great Philosopher) his Dialogues, which is put out in Hortensius his Name.  
These things thus alleged represent to us the Usefulness and Serviceableness of true and sober Philosophy. This certainly is a great Help to Religion, yea, a part of it. For a Philosopher (as Tully defines him▪ and not amiss) 
‖ Philosophus is est qui omnium rerum divinarum atque humanarum naturam causasque noscit, & omnem bene vivendi rationem tenet ac prosequitur. De Oratore 1.  Is one that inquires into, and is acquainted with the Nature and Causes of all things relating to God and Man, (i. e. so far as Natural Reason will conduct him) and he is one that both knows and pursues all the ways of living well. Or take the Description of the rectified Philosophy in the words of Maximus Tyrius, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Disserta●. 15.  It is (saith he) such an accurate knowledge of Divine and Human Things, as leads to Virtue, and conduceth to excellent Reasonings, and causes a Melody and apt Proportion in a Man's Life, and teacheth us Moderation and Right Conduct of our Manners. Hierocles is short, but very full, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Philosophy is the Purgation and Perfection of Man's Life. This clears the Mind of Pollution, this enlightens and consummates Human Nature: This I may call the Urim and Thummim of the Heathen Moralists, the Light and Perfection which they attained to. Philo's Definition of Philosophy agrees with this, but advanceth it yet higher, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Opi●. Mundi.  It is that (saith he) by which Man, though he be mortal, attains to Immortality. And that is a high Flight of Cicero, who, as it were, speaking to Philosophy, saith thus, 
* Est unus dies bene & ex praeceptis tuis actus, pecca●ti immortalitati anteponendus. Tusc. qu. 2.  One single day well spent in the Observance of thy Dictates and Rules, is to be preferred before an Eternity of living after the vicious way of the World. But if we should speak moderately, certainly what the Apostle saith of the Law, is the least that can be said of true Philosophy, viz. It is good if a Man use it lawfully. It may be serviceable to excellent Ends and Purposes if it be rightly made use of, and in a way subordinate to the revealed Truth of Scripture. We may be assured thereof, that St. Paul here condemns not Philosophy and Human Learning as they are considered in themselves, but only with respect to the Abuse and Corruption of them. St. Paul himself was bred up first at Tarsus, a noted School of Learning, and afterwards sat at the feet of a famous Doctor of the Law, who was Nephew of Hillel Prince of the Sanhedrim, and was (if we may credit our learned Antiquary) created by him a Jewish Elder, and a Member of that venerable Council. He was the greatest Master of Logic and Reason of all the Apostles, a profound and accurate Disputant, and one not less seen in the Syriack, Greek, and Latin Tongues, than in the Hebrew Traditions and Jewish Constitutions. His citing of the Greek Poets▪ assures us of his Skill in that sort of Learning. And who now will believe that he wholly neglected the Philosophers? none surely who considers that he was signally called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and that he chief repaired to those Countries where there was the greatest number of these, (as St. Peter most of all applied himself to the jews) our Apostle being the fittest Person to preach to them who were Professors of Reason, and Lovers of Arts and Ingenuity: Among these he would by no means inveigh against Philosophy as it was pure and innocent; but finding it to be miserably corrupted and perverted, and to have espoused many fond and absurd Principles, and to have abetted many undue Practices, there was Reason he should declare against it. And indeed this Corruption had been of a long date, insomuch that in the days of the Asmonaeans 
† Grotius in locum.  it was decreed, That that Parent should be pronounced accursed, who taught his Son the Philosophy of the Greeks. Now if the Jews thought it would corrupt and debauch their Children, it is no wonder that St. Paul saw it would be injurious to the Christian Proselytes, and undermine the Principles of the Gospel. Yea, it is very probable, that at this time when the Apostle writ to the Colossians, the Christians began to mix their Christian Divinity with the Subtleties of Philosophy, and so to corrupt the Mysteries of Christianity with those Sophistries, and by that means to bring in Heresies. Thereupon the Apostle remonstrates against this Abuse of Philosophy, as a thing of very dangerous Consequence, such as would pervert the Minds of Christians, and prove hazardous even to Christianity itself. Wherefore he warns his Christian Converts of Coloss against this corrupt way of Philosophising. Beware (saith he) lest any Man spoil you through Philosophy and vain Deceit.  
Observe the Apostle's manner of expressing himself, Lest any Man spoil you. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Military Term, and sometimes is used in the Imperial Laws, particularly concerning Reprisals. More generally it signifies Praedam abigere, to carry off the Prey or Booty, either at Land or Sea. The Apostle than doth very emphatically express his meaning, when he saith, Beware lest any one spoil you, i. e. take from you by Force, prey upon you, make a Prize of you, rob you of your Christianity through Philosophy and vain Deceit, i. e. through the vain deceit of Philosophy, or the Philosophy which is both vain and deceitful. This is a common Figure, not only used by our Apostle, but by other accurate W●iters. The Apostle proceeds in the latter part of the Text, to tell us the Rise of the Grecian Philosophy, which was so vain and deceitful. It is after the Tradition of Men, i. e. it is the result of Humane Wit only, it is the mere Institution of Man, and hath nothing Divine and Heavenly (i. e. of supernatural Revelation) in it: And therefore this Clause cannot be understood (as it is by most Expositors) of the Legal and Mosaical Ceremonies, which we know were instituted by God himself. The Apostle adds, that it is after the Rudiments of the World, i. e. it is a mere do●ing on the Custom and Prescription of the Men of the World: It is an adhering to the Opinions of the chief part of Mankind, who are pleased with the Philosophy as well as the Religion of their Country. It is true, the Rudiments of the World, in 2 Cor. 2. 20. and in Gal. 4. 3. are the Ceremonial Law, which was as the first Rudiments or Alphabet in which the World was instructed at first, and trained up, and taught a Religion, which was to make way for a more perfect One. Or the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies are called the Elements, or Rudiments of the World, saith 
* In Galat. 4. 3.  Grotius, because the chief of those Ceremonies, viz. Temples, Altars, Sacrifices, First-Fruits, etc. were common to all the World. But though the Rudiments of the World are to be understood in those forenamed places of the jewish Ceremonies, yet it doth not follow thence that those Expressions are to be understood so here; for the same words may be diversely taken, according to the different Matter they are applied to. It is probable that the Rudiments of the World, mentioned in the 20 and 22 Verses of this Chapter wherein this Text is, are meant of the upstart Doctrines of some Heretical Christians. If ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, (i. e. if you have no regard to Errors and false Opinions, which worldly Men hold in opposition to Christ's true Doctrine) Why do ye dogmatise (so it is in the Greek) after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men? The Mosaical Ordinances seem not to be intended here, (as our Translators import) for the things which the Apostle speaks of are 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Doctrines of Men. This cannot be applied to the Ordinances and Rites appointed by God from Heaven, as the Judaical Ceremonies were. Therefore the Rudiments of the World here, are the Inventions of worldly-minded Heretics, who were at that time crept into the Church; and the Apostle smartly demands of the Colossians, Why some among them did so stiffly and dogmatically adhere to the Opinions of those Seducers, who bid them touch not, taste not, handle not? i. e. superstitiously forbade them to eat certain Meats, and persuaded them to abstain from Marriage as a thing unlawful.  
And as Heretical Opinions are referred to in this place, so something else may be meant by these words in another, and particularly in the Text, where it is plain, that the Rudiments or Elements of the World, refer to the Philosophy just before mentioned, the Apostle seeming to allude to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the four Elements of the World, those simple Bodies of which all mundane Things consist, and which are generally the Subject of Philosophers. And thus the wo●d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Wisd. 7. 17. where you read that Wisdom teacheth Men the knowledge of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Composition of the World, and the Operation of the Elements. It is likely then that the Apostle hath an Eye here to the Mundane Philosophy, or to the Philosophers who doted on the several Elements (as Thales on Water, another on Fire, and the rest on the other Elements) as the first Principles of all things. Thus you see how reasonable it is to apply the Rudiments of the World to the Philosophy here spoken of, and not to the Mosaical Ceremonies, as Expositors generally have done. So that Ancient and Learned Father Clemens Alexandrinus declares that Philosophy, and the Rudiments of the World, are in this place the same. But he gives this Reason why the Apostle 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calls it the Elements of the World, viz. because it teacheth the First Elements, and is but a preparatory Discipline to Truth. These first Rudiments and Elements are weak and beggarly, as the 
† Gal. 4. 9  Apostle saith of the Jewish Institutions; they are weak, because they cannot throughly purge the Soul of Vice, and teach it to master its evil Habits: they ar● poor and beggarly, because they cannot enrich the Soul with any of those Graces which are requisite to Eternal Happiness. In this respect they are not after Christ, (as 'tis said here) i. e. they are not like the Excellent Doctrine of Christ which was from Heaven, and is ever accompanied with extraordinary Efficacy.  
The Apostle goes on in the Verses after the Text to give the Reason of his Caution against Philosophy. 
* V 9  For in Him (i. e. in Christ) (saith he) dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. As if he had said, Let no Man impose upon you by a lame and imperfect Philosophy, for now there is introduced an absolute and complete Doctrine, namely, that of our Lord Jesus, who hath the Fullness of all Wisdom incorporated into him. Or, the dwelling of the Fullness of the Godhead bodily in him, may signify the perfect Glory and Majesty of the Divine Nature displayed in the Flesh, when the Word became Incarnate, when God was made Man. Bodily denotes the Hypostatical Union, whereby the Divine Nature is united to the Humane, and both concur to make up one Person. The Godhead dwells in Christ, not only Spiritually, (as in all Saints and Believers) but so that the Divine and Humane Nature are joined by a Personal Union. Or, you may consider that of our 
* Dr. Ha●mond.  Learned Annotator, who tells us that the word 
† Essentia, substantia, res ipsa, idem ipse, identitas.  Gnetzem, which is the Hebrew word for Body, signifies oftentimes no more than Being or Essence, and imports the Existence and Reality of the thing spoken of. And accordingly he saith, that the Body of Sin, and the Body of Death, mentioned in the New Testament, are no more than Sin and Death; the real Being▪ of them is denoted, and nothing else. Thus here also the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the Hebrew one, and is a kind of Expletive, for nothing but the real Being of the thing here spoken of is to be understood by it. But I conceive there is something more than this meant by the word Bodily, for it signifies not only the Real, but Substantial and Solid Fullness of Christ. The greatest Masters of Humane Wisdom attained to the Shadow▪ only, but he is the Body, the Substance.  
And so it follows, 
* Ver. 10.  Ye are complete in him, saith the Apostle, you have all Things by Christ; there is nothing wanting and defective in the Christian Doctrine, it is an exact Model of Moral and Divine Wisdom. But the Philosophy which is now in vogue in the World, is another kind of thing; it is weak and imperfect, short and deficient; and as it is at this time abused and corrupted, hath nothing of solidity and substance in it. St. Paul had often cautioned against the Legal and jewish Institution, and bid the Christians beware that none spoil them by that.  
Now he comes to direct his Caveat against the Impostors of Philosophy. He had without doubt repeated and inculcated that of our Saviour, Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, (the most exact Observers of the Mosaic Law) ye can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now he thinks fit to urge this upon them also, That unless they go beyond the Bounds of the most improved Wisdom among the Gentiles, they are never like to arrive at that place of Happiness. Neither the Ceremonious Precepts of the jews, nor the Dogmas of Philosophers, were able to conduct them thither. All the Men of Tradition could not effect it, the numerous Rabbis, and the Families of Hillel and Shammeai were defective, notwithstanding all their peculiar Dictates and Will-worships. And here and elsewhere, the Sons of Reason, the great Searchers into the Law of Nature, are charged by the Apostle with the same Deficiency. Their Philosophy, which they brag so much of, and value themselves so much upon, if it be rightly scanned, is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Philosophy and vain Deceit, are but Terms convertible. As Christianity outdoth the Law of Moses, so it outstrips that of Nature and Morality, especially as it is depraved and corrupted by the Grecian Philosophers and others, as it is made up of Fallacies and seeming shows of Arguing, but really void of solid Reason.  
Against these the Christians of Ephesus were warned, Let no Man deceive you (saith the Apostle) with vain words, Chap. 5. v. 6. These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exactly answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and they both strike at the fallacious and deceitful Mode of Philosophising in St. Paul's days, who was the first that planted the Gospel at Ephesus, (the Metropolis of all Asia) but it seems, in his absence from that place, some attempted to pervert his Converts, by pressing upon them the Jewish Rites; and others endeavoured to debauch them by Philosophy, either that of Heraclit●s who was an Ephesian, or of Pythagoras who had many Followers there. This coming to St. Paul's ear, who was then in Bonds at Rome, he presently dispatched away his Epistle to the Ephesians, wherein he undertaketh to show them, that the Gospel far exceeds both Judaisme and Philosophy, and that Christ's Doctrine is more Sublime and Heavenly, more Powerful and Efficacious than either of them. In most Divine and exalted Language he extols the Evangelical Doctrine, and convinces them, that all Learning and Wisdom are mean and vile in comparison of it. And this Epistle to the Colossians was written, it is likely, at the same time with that to the Ephesians, even whilst the things he wrote to them were fresh in his Memory: for you will find that it is of the same strain and tenor with that, and the very Phrase and Expression are the same, as I might show you in several Particulars besides that in these words. The Argument and Design is the same in both, viz. to oppose the Gospel-Wisdom not only to the Jewish Dispensation, but to the Accomplishments of the Gentile Knowledge so celebrated at that time in Greece and Asia. Of this latter it is that St. Paul speaks in the Text, and in that parallel place to the Corinthians, 1 Epist. 3. Ch. 18. v. (and it is well known that Corinth was famous for Philosophy, one 
* Periander.  of the seven Wise Men fell to their share, and Diogenes lived and conversed there. Let us hear then what the Apostle saith to these Men of Corinth); Let no Man deceive himself, (where the deceitfulness of Humane Philosophy is no less asserted than it is in the Text) upon which Grotius makes this Gloss, 
† Omnis Philosophia humana Evangelio repugnans Deceptio est. I● loc.  All Humane Philosophy which is repugnant to the Doctrine of Christ in the Gospel, is a mere Cheat and Delusion. Let therefore no Man deceive and gull himself with it. But (as it followeth) if any Man seem to be wise in this World, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. according to the Wisdom of this World; if he thinks himself to be a great Philosopher) let him become a Fool (renounce those deceitful Principles, and embrace the Gospel, which is accounted Folly) that he may be Wise, (really so, i. e. wise to Salvation); for the Wisdom of this World (i. e. Humane Reason and Philosophy abstracted from Revelation) is Foolishness with God, i. e. it is reckoned by God, what it is really in itself, a weak and shallow Thing, blind and imperfect, and unable to conduct a Man to Bliss and Happiness. Mark here how the Pretenders to Wisdom are shamefully baffled, and their perverse Judgement is here justly retaliated. As the Gospel is no other than Foolishness in the Accounts of the Men of the World, so their Wisdom is esteemed no better than Folly by God. And this it must needs be likewise in the esteem of all truly wise Men, who, with St. Paul, making a right Judgement of Things, discern that Vanity and Deceit are entailed upon it.  
And these are the two Heads that will engross my Discourses on these words: 1. The common Philosophy of the Greeks and others then in request in the Apostles days, was Vain and Empty. 2. It was Fallacious and Deceitful. It was Vain, because it profited nothing to Piety, and making them better. It was Deceitful, because it hazarded their Souls, and rob them of Happiness. The Philosophy at that time in force had these bad Qualities. It was in all things short and imperfect; in many erroneous and vicious. It was not only defective, but corrupted; whereas the sacred and inspired Doctrine of the Apostles was complete and sound, fraught with infallible Truth, and the exactest Rules of living well.  
I betake myself to the first Part of the Task propounded, i. e. to show you that the Philosophy of which St. Paul here speaks, was Vain and Empty. Which I shall evince, by letting you see that it was, 1. Uncertain. 2. (Which was the Effect of the former) Quarrelsome. And, 3. (which made it yet vainer) it was Trifling.  
1. The Pagan Philosophy was dark and Uncertain. The Title which Aristophanes gives his Comedy, wherein he lasheth the Philosophers, may agree to the Philosophy itself. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be prefixed to it, it was mere Clouds and Obscurity. The Philosophers spoke as doubtfully and ambiguously as their Delphic Oracles. The Ephesian Philosopher was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it might as well be fixed on some others of the Philosophic Tribe, for they are wonderfully dark and dubious. It is confessed, they light upon many things true and excellent, but they only guessed at them; and their Conclusions of them were fickle and unsteady. A short perusal of Stobaeus, and of Plutarch's Treatise of the Placits of Philosophy, or Diogenes Laertius of their Lives, are sufficient, I think, to satisfy any Man of the Uncertainty, both of their Physics and Ethics. It fares with Philosophers, as it did with those Mutineirs at Ephesus, some cry one thing, and some another. Varro reckons 188 Opinions of the Summum Bonum, or the chief Good of Man: and their Opinions of other things laboured under vast Uncertainties. The World surely had very mistaken and disordered Conceptions of things, when every thing was a God with them when (as the Apostle observes of that strange way of Metamorphosis which their Idolatrous Fancy led them to) 
* Rom. 1▪ 22, 23.  they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God, into an Image made like to Corruptible Man, and to Birds, and four footed Beasts, and creeping things, and any thing else which their wild Imagination suggested. The Learned may satisfy themselves how uncertain Notions they had of their Gods, from the divers Accounts which Plutarch (who was one of the most intelligent Persons among them) gives of the Egyptian Deities Isis and Osiris. And if they were in the Dark about their Gods, it is no wonder they had so little Light in other things. This made Hermias, the old Christian Philosopher (in his Piece which he Entitled the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Irrision of the Gentile Philosophers) cry out at last, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Truth hath left the World, and the so much Celebrated Philosophy hunts rather after Shadows, than lays hold on any true knowled● of things. And again thus, (in very fine words) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All this that the Philosophers talk of, is but the Darkness of Ignorance, and black Fraud, and endless Error, and imperfect Imagination, and incomprehensible Ignorance. Indeed the first and best Enquirers into the Knowledge of things were sensible of this; particularly Pythagoras, notwithstanding the seven Celebrated Men of Greece went under the Name of Wise Men, assumed to himself only the Name of a Lover of Wisdom. To him the Philosophers own that Modest Name, whereby they tell the World that they are only Well-willers to Wisdom, not perfect Masters of it. And Socrates (who was voted by the Oracle the wisest Man of his Age) was yet more selfdenying, when he sincerely professed (for why should we take it as a Compliment?) that all that he knew was this, that he knew Nothing.  
The Reasons of this Ignorance and Darkness in Philosophy, I take to be these two especially; 1. Because Humane Reason was corrupted and vitiated, loaded with Prejudices and Prepossessions, darkened with Sensuality, and perverted in many by a constant course of Sinning. Hence it was disabled from framing right Apprehensions of things, and from directing Men into a certain knowledge of God, and of Themselves, and of their Duty. 2. Because they wanted Supernatural Revelation, which is absolutely necessary to give Men a clear Discovery of the Nature of God, and a full Representation of all the Offices of Religion. This was another Reason of Philosophic Darkness and Uncertainty. And on the contrary, that which renders the Christian Laws so certain and indubitable is this, that they are derived from the immediate Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; this is the Foundation of that Institution which we are honoured with. This makes our Religion unquestionable and infallible, and such as we can confidently rely upon. For Divine Testimony commandeth Assent, and forceth an Acknowledgement, and will not suffer our Minds to hang in uncertain Doubtings and Hesitations: This is the Excellency of Christianity. Whereas the corrupted Philosophy of the Gentiles discovered its Vanity in its great Obscurity and Uncertainty.  
2. Another Instance of the Emptiness and Vnsatisfactoriness of the Gentile Wisdom is, that it was intolerably quarrelsome and vexatious. And this is the Result of the former; for it was Uncertainty among the Philosophers which made so many Sects among them. The two capital ones were 
* Diog. Laert. in Proaemio.  the Italic and jonick; of the former Pythagoras (who after his Travels philosophized in Italy) is recknoned the chief, and next to him Democritus and Epicurus. Of the latter Thales was the first Author and Institutor; and this was divided into several Sects, as, 1. The Socratic, of which Socrates was the Head. 2. The Platonic, which took its Rise as well as Name from Plato; though the Retainers to it were also called Academics. 3. The Peripatetic, of which Aristotle was the Founder. 4. That of the Cynics, of whom Antisthenes was the Father. 5. That of the Stoics, which was set up by Zeno and Chrysippus. And to these we may add the Sceptics (if they may be thought to deserve the Name of Philosophers who questioned, and in a manner denied all Philosophy) who were also called Aporeticks, i. e. Doubters, and Zeteticks, or Seekers, of whom Pyrrho was the Head. I am not now to speak of and relate the Opinions of the Barbaric Philosophers, as the Magis among the Persians, the Chasdim, or Chaldees among the Assyrians, the Gymnosophists among the Indians, the Druids among the old Galls and Celtaes, for (besides that the account of these is imperfect and dark) it is certain, that all that was eminent in their Philosophy was translated into that of the Greeks, and reduced into some form, and made more intelligible, for which reason, I suppose, it is concluded by Laertius in his Proem to the Lives of the Philosophers, that Philosophy had its beginning from the Greeks, and not from the Barbarians. Wherefore I will wholly speak of the former, only I will make bold to insert the Epicureans (named so from their Master Epicurus) though their Philosophy most properly belongs to the Italic: but even this may be called part of the Greek Philosophy, because the Founders of it were Grecians.  
These were the several Sects of the Greek Philosophy, which as they differed in Names, so in Opinions. Nay, they fought with themselves as well as with one another. Tully is observed to be sometimes of one Sect, and another time of another: He often delights in the Academic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but when he speaks his own Mind, he defends Plato's Opinions; yet so that he favours the Peripatetics, and he is also a Friend of the Stoics when he pleaseth, witness his Paradoxes. There was a perpetual squabbling among these Philosophers about their divers Placits and Opinions; they grew angry and waspish, they made it their business to brawl and wrangle, to cavil and scuffle, to start Objections, and to make everlasting Repartees. Socrates, who was one of the best of them, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that acted a part, that dissembled and prevaricated. He affected all his Life Ironical Dissimulation. This was his way of Rhetoric, and his Philosophy was tainted with it, for you may observe that his disputing was in the way of Dialogue, or Interrogations, which savoured of a Mind disposed to bickering and contending. The old Academics, who imitated Plato and Socrates, their first Founders, used a Problematick way of philosophising, and made a Trade of disputing Pro and Con, and were unsufferably litigious: so that Socrates' Philosophy seemed to bear the Character of his Xantippe, i. e. to be clamorous and brawling. The Stoics and Cynics (who were the stiffest and most peremptory sort of Men, yet) were given to snarling and contradicting. It was observed of the Stoics by a 
* Plutarch. adv. Stoicos.  grave Man, that they were so given to Contradiction, that they exercised it on themselves, they oftentimes ran from their own Notions. And he writ a 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Treatise on purpose to show the Repugnancies of these men; especially his Work there is to run through all Chrysippus' Writings (which were many) and to show how he confutes himself, and speaks Contradictories. Who knoweth not that the Writings of the Stoics are full of singular Strains, Wonders, Nice Say, and Riddles? (and Lucian very wittily jeers them on this account). It was a sign they affected to maintain Paradoxes, to weather out Difficult Cases, and to descent from the rest of Mankind.  
But the Aristotelians (of which Tribe there was plenty in Greece) were the most Disputing People of all, they were never at a Nonplus, but had always something to say. The great Stagirite, who was the Founder of them, set up in the World by refuting the Doctrine of all that went before him: Like one of the Race of the Ottomans, he thought he could not reign safely except in the first place he slew all his Brethren Philosophers. And he could not but look for the same fate himself, and so it happened, for he was dealt with after the same rate that he treated his Predecessors and Competitors. And as for the New Academics▪ they disputed of course, and were for and against all things; nay, they held an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Incomprehension; or, as some of them styled it, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an utter Suspension, which is as much as to say, they held nothing. So that it seems Dubitation was the first Principle of their Philosophy, as of Des Cartes his. This was called by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which according to Sextus Empiricus is an 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Equilibrum between believing and dissenting. Falshood and Truth were equally probable; for which Lucian deservedly derides the Philosophers in his Balance, where he brings them in weighing Truth and Falsehood, and making them of equal Poise. At last out of the different Disputes and Contentions of Philosophers sprung up the Sceptics, those Schismatics in Philosophy, who held no Communion at all with the Assemblies of Philosophers, but doubted of, or denied whatever they said. Indeed these Sceptics were but a bolder sort of Academics, or we may say, these set up first the Doctrine of Indifferency and Acatalepsy, and the others improved it. Their Assertion was that nothing can be defined and determined concerning any Object, that to incline to one part or other, or to affirm or deny any thing, is unphilosophical, and that all is mere Appearance only. Pyrrhonism was a Calumny to the whole Profession of Philosophers, a baffling of all Science and Argument. They professed a Liberty of Enquiry, and, as they thought fit, rejected the Arguments of all Men by virtue of that Liberty. Some of these Pretenders to Philosophic Modesty and Self-denial reasoned themselves out of their Senses. Some Philosophers denied Motion whilst their Tongues wagged. Nay, there was an odd Fellow (Anaxagoras they called him) who professedly gave the Lie to any one who said Snow was white, for he was pleased to maintain that it was as black as Soot. Now certainly Tully's words prove true, 
* Nihil tam absurdum quod non dixerit aliquis Philosophorum. De Nat. Deor. l. 3.  that there is nothing so absurd but one Philosopher or other asserted it. And that brief Character which Tertullian gave of the Philosophers is verified, that 
† Quidvis struere ac destruere eruditi. De Anim. c. 3.  they had a Gift of setting up or pulling down what they pleased. This was the best of it, seeing nothing was asserted by any of them but some one would stand and oppose it, by this means Falshood was opposed as well as Truth. But this was not to be attributed to any good design in them, but it proceeded wholly from their love of dispute and quarrelling. This is that which an observing Historian takes notice of concerning the Philosophy of the Grecians, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diodor. Sic. l. 2.  If any one (says he) examines the most famous Sects of Philosophers, he shall find that they very much disagree with one another, and in the greatest Points are clearly contradictory. This Theodoret expresseth in few words, saying, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Cur. Graec. Affect. Serm. 1.  Among the Greek Philosophers was always a great Contention and an implacable fight of words. And he that will consult the 14th and 15th Books of Eusebius' Evangelic Preparation, shall find this abundantly proved, viz. that the Gentile Philosophers all fight with one another, and there is no Consent and Harmony amongst them. But if we had all the Books and Writings of the Philosophers which Diogenes Laertius particularly mentions, we should see this much more evidenced.  
But see now how Christianity runs counter to all this. It openly declares against Disputes and Wranglings, and enjoineth us to speak all the same things (i. e. to agree in all matters of Faith) and that there be no Schisms and Divisions in the Church, but that all be perfectly joined together in the same Mind and in the same judgement, i. e. that we believe, approve of, and profess the same necessary Truths. The same Apostle bids us avoid foolish and unlearned Questions, knowing that they gender Strife; and the Servant of the Lord must not strive. Some have observed that when the Pharisees sought out our Saviour to wrangle and contend with him about what he had done, * he slipped aside in the Throng, and purposely evaded them. † The design of the Gospel is to put a period to Contests and Debates, which it happily effecteth by taking away the occasion of all Uncertainty. The Apostle assigns this to be the end of Christ's ascending to Heaven and giving Gifts to Men, and constituting Pastors and Teachers in the Church, 
Ephes. 4.  that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine, by the ●light of Men and cunning Craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (to which belongs the Vain Deceit in the Text) but speaking the Truth in Love (i. e. agreeing together unanimously to profess and maintain the same things) we may grow up unto him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ. This is the Noble Design of the Evangelical Dispensation, it aims at Agreement and Concord, it banisheth fruitless Disputes and Controversies, it is void of Sophistical wrangling and caviling. This is the true and natural, the real and proper Effect of Christianity considered in itself, and in its excellent Principles: but if we see something else in Christendom (as with great Regret we may) it is not to be attributed to the Nature and Genius of the Gospel, or of those that are the true and genuine Professors of it. Whereas the Philosophers were naturally contentious and brawling; they delighted to amuse and puzzle the World, they dealt in Sophistry and Fallacies, and were conversant in Shift and Wind, like those sort of Combatants in the Roman Spectacles, whose aim was to catch their Adversaries in a N●t. These Men too studied to entangle; which was no small Argument of the Vanity and Emptiness of their Philosophy.  
3. Their Philosophy was Idle and Trifling. Had their Controversies been about great and weighty Matters, they might have met with some Excuse; but that which stigmatizeth them for foolish and vain Persons was this, that they jangled about mean and worthless Propositions, they were at Daggers-drawing about idle and useless things, and such as were not for the real Profit of the World, conducing nothing to the bettering their Minds or Manners, to the advancing any solid Truth, or the reforming of men's Lives. The Apostle observes of them that they 
* Rom. 1. 21.  became vain in their Imaginations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their Reasons and Arguings (so it may be rendered). These were of no use, their Discourses were childish and foolish, they were conceited and capricious, they affected Curiosities and Niceties, they pursued Shadows, and neglected substantial and useful Inquisitions. This Humour of the Gnostics, who were considerable Retainers to Philosophy, was charged upon them by St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Ch. 6. v. 4. where he deciphers them to be proud, knowing nothing (though they so much affected to be esteemed knowing Men, and accordingly had their Name from their monopolising of Knowledge and Wisdom to themselves) doting about Questions and strifes of Words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were sick about Questions, as the Greek word imports, they were not well till they were disputing) whereof cometh Envy, Strife, Rail, perverse Dispute, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. was the word to express their 
† Diog. La●rt. in Aristippo.  Philosophical Exercitations: And the perverse and sinister use of those Disputes and Exercises is signified by the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They had unworthy Conflicts and Scuffles among their Dissertations: therefore the Apostle gives them their own Word with a little altering, to denote the perverse fondness of their Disputes, which in the same Chapter he styles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain Babble, which is part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text, the vain and trifling way wherein they pursued their Delusions. An Ancient Author had made this Remark betimes of the Greek Philosophy, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tri●megist.  It is, saith he, but a mere noise and clatter of Words. This was it which Lucian in his 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sale of the Philosophers, (where he sets them to be sold) jeers all the Philosophers for. And not only scoffing Lucian, who had a Pique against them, derides them for this Folly, but the serious Plutarch. 
‖ Maxima pars S●oicarum disputationum circa Nomina consumi●ur.  Cicero observed it of the Stoics, (who were the gravest and manliest Sect) that the greatest part of their Disputes was spent about mere Names and Words. Their Philosophy was a Heap of Impertinencies. In pursuance of this Hierocles writ a Book of Philosophical Jests, where he gives a Catalogue of Philosophical Bulls, or Absurdities, and lashes them for it. They were contemptible and ridiculous for this at last; and a Philosopher (as Epictetus saith) was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arrian. ●issert.  a Creature that all Men laughed at. Of these was true what my Lord Bacon saith of the Schoolmen, that by their petty and childish Questions, they marred the solidity of all Sciences. Their Philosophy was made up of idle and useless Disquisitions, of verbal Contests, of unedifying Disputes, They puzzled their Auditors, and perplexed themselves with unnecessary Subtleties and vain Curiosities: they contented themselves with dry and sapless Notio●s, with jejune and frigid Speculations.  
But these are unworthy of a Christian, whose Religion forbids all foolish Bicker and Degladiations about Mean and Inconsiderable Matters. This Laborious Idleness, this Solemn Trifling becomes him not. We are blessed under the Christian Dispensation with solid and substantial Truths, we are entertained with things that are Material and Weighty, and which are worthy of a Rational Enquiry. All the Evangelical Discoveries are useful and profitable, of vast Concern and Necessity. We are not put off with Trifles, but are invited to study and converse with serious and manly Doctrines, such as are fraught with Great Sense, with High Matter, with Discoveries of vast Moment and Importance: which cannot be said of the Philosophy which the Apostle speaks of, which I have proved to be Light and Vain, as well as Uncertain and Quarrelsome.  
The second Part of the Task I undertake is to convince you of the Deceitfulness of the Gentile Philosophy; for the Apostle acquaints us, that it is not only Vain, but that there is a Deceit in it also. I will make it appear then that the Pagan Philosophers deceived and deluded Men, by instilling into their Minds Erroneous Principles, and by promoting Vicious Practices in their Lives. Error and Vice, Unsound Maxims and Evil Manners, Falsity and Immorality were the issue of that Philosophy which our Apostle here cautions the Colossions against. And, that I may touch at the Particular Sects which he here intends, I shall ransack the Principles, 1. Of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, whom the Gnostics affected. 2. Of the Epicureans. 3. Of the Stoics. 4. Of these and other Philosophers together: For after I have enquired into these distinctly and separately, I will consider them all jointly.  
First, I begin with the Philosophy of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which was at that time taken up by the Gnostics, who by the confession of all were Philosophically disposed, and gave no small Trouble on that account to our Apostle and others to convince and refute them. And indeed the Learned Hammond understands the Text wholly of the corrupt Doctrine of Simon Magus, the Simonians and gnostics, who borrowed their Wild Notions from the Pythagorean Philosophy, and withal Judaized in imposing the Observation of the Mosaic Law, which that Learned Person thinks is meant by the Rudiments of the World. They made a Medley of Philosophy and Divinity, a strange Rhapsody of the jewish Cabala, and the Platonical and Pythagorean Conceits. They affected to introduce the Theology of Orpheus and Hesiod into Christianity. But a Particular Instance of the Deceit of their Philosophy is mentioned in the 18th Verse of this Chapter. Let no Man beguile you of your Reward in a voluntary Humility, (or, more exactly according to the Greek, pleasing himself in Humility) and worshipping of Angels. For it seems these Gnostics were disposed to worship Angels, and thought it no little Specimen of their Humility and Modesty to do so. They would not be so bold as to offer Prayers to God immediately, but they begged of the Angels to present them to him. It is certain that Celsus, and other Pagan Philosophers used to defend their Polytheism this way. And 'tis plain that it was a spice of Gentilism, because the Heathens had their Dii Medioxumi, Spirits that were Mediators between the Supreme Deity and Men, whose Office was to offer the Prayers and Oblations of Mortals to the Gods. To this questionless the Apostle refers in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshipping of Angels. This part of the Gentiles Theology concerning Demons or inferior Deities, whose Office was to Mediate between the Sovereign Gods and Mortal Men, is that Philosophy which the Apostle admonisheth the Colossians to take heed of. To this purpose Mr. Mede interprets that Prophecy in 1 Tim. 4. 1. The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter days some shall departed from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils. By these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Devils are not meant, (saith 
* In his Apostasy of the latter Times.  he) such Doctrines as sprang from the Devil, or from Devilish Teachers and Impostors, but the Doctrines about Demons or deceased Spirits. And he explains this by a like Speech, in Acts 13. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Doctrine of the Lord, i. e. the Doctrine about the Lord. So that, according to this Learned Man, here is meant that Paganish and Idolatrous Doctrine of worshipping Demons or departed Heroes. And this part of the Gentile Theology the Apostle foretells shall creep into the Church, and be received among Christians, i. e. worshipping and invocating of Saints (who answer to the Pagan Heroes) shall be practised among some of them, (as it was by the Gnostics): And that it is in use among the Papists is evident to all the World, and there are few of that Church that are very solicitous to deny it. This worshipping of Saints and Angels, though it was reckoned a piece of Modesty, was (as the Apostle tells us in the next words) a singular Instance of Boldness and Impudence; for the Man who worshippeth them intrudes into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly Mind. He saucily presumes to determine of Matters not known; he peremptorily asserts what he pleaseth of the Orders and Ranks of Angels, whose Oeconomy is not discovered to us below. His Humility therefore which he talks of is but a Pretence: as meager and lank as he seems to be, he is really swelled and puffed up: Whiles he pretends Humility, he hath nothing of it; or if he hath any such thing, he is proud even of that. The Gnostick Philosophy then is deservedly styled Knowledge falsely so called, it makes a show of being Humble, and at the same time dictates the highest Arrogance. Their Disputes therefore are called profane janglings, because they savour only of their own insolent Humour, and proceed without any ground of Revelation. For this is it we are to rely upon in this Matter, namely, That there is but one Mediator between God and Man, even the Man Christ jesus. Invocation and Worship are proper to God only, and Christ is the only Intercessor to the Father, and therefore to apply our Addresses to Saints or Angels, is an absolute dishonour to the Merits and Intercession of our Saviour. From whence you may take notice how abominable the Doctrine and Practice of the Papists are. They blaspheme whilst they pretend to Worship, they are grossly Idolatrous in attributing that to the Creature, which is due only to the Creator.  
And thus you see how the Gnostics, (from whom the Church of Rome borrowed her Doctrine as to this Particular) by Pretences to a higher and sublimer Knowledge than others had attained to, corrupted and spoiled men's Minds, and by their bold and daring Notions adulterated the Simplicity of the Gospel. Of which the Apostle was justly Jealous, when he said, I fear lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so their Minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ, 2 Cor. 11. 3. And this is that which, it is likely, the Apostle speaks of in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, where, by Fables and endless Genealogies he means the idle and fabulous Pedigrees of Angels, which under the Name of Aeones the Gnostics talked so much of, which they partly borrowed from the Platonists and Pythagoreans, of which you may read a particular Account in Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius. They will satisfy you, that the Gnostick Heretics received these things from those Philosophers who were Adorers of Demons and Angels, and made them Mediators between God and Man. I will quote only one Passage out of Plato for the satisfaction of the Learned, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sympos.  God (saith he) is not mingled with Man, (i. e. hath no converse and intercourse with him): therefore by these is held all that Communication and Intercourse which is between God and Men, these carry men's Prayers to God, and God's Commands to Men. Therefore Plutarch representing this Philosopher's Opinions, tells us, that he held it to be the Office of Demons, i. e. Angels 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. De Osir. & Isid.  to convey men's Petitions to Heaven.  
And here by the by it might be observed, that many Old Heresies risen from Philosophy, especially from the Platonic Philosophy in the three first Centuries, as the Heresies of Simon Magus, and of the Valentinians, and of the Marcionites, and of the Manichees, as the Fathers who confute these Heretics let us see, and complain of it often. Tertullian 
‖ De Prescript. Heretic.  particularly showeth, that many Heresies in Christianity came from Philosophy, particularly the Doctrine of the Aeones and Forms came from Valentinus who was a Platonist▪ and so other Errors from Martion who was a Stoic, and others from the Epicureans, etc. All these (saith he) are made up of the Fables and Fancies of Philosophers Athens and jerusalem were blended, the Academy and the Church were unhappily mixed: there was a Stoical and Platonical Christianity. Hence he saith that 
† Apol. c. 47.  Heretics are begot of the Seed of Philosophers, and that 
‖ Adu. Hermogen. c. 8.  Philosophers are the Patriarches of Heretics. Nay I might farther remark, that not only the Theology of some of the Heretics, but likewise of some of the learnedest Fathers was almost spoiled by Philosophy, and particularly by that of the Platonists. I might instance in Origen, justin, Martyr, and Clemen● Alexandrinus, about the Doctrine of the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: they spoke as Heraclitus, Plato and Socrates did, and thereby gave scope for the Arian Heresy. More especially it may be observed, that Origen borrowed his Divinity from Plato, and that corrupted him, as Ga●d●ntius proves in several Particulars. It was from his following of Plato that he propagated the Opinion of the ceasing of Hell Torments. Though this, I must say, we learn rather from other Fathers than from the Works of Origen himself: but we have no reason to disbelieve so many Fathers, and to think that they represent him falsely, especially when we know that Origen was a great Platonist, and in other things followed his steps. So likewise he borrowed the preexistence of Souls from Plato's School, and therefore one said rightly, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Harmenopul. de Sect. 9  He taught according to the Greeks (meaning the Platonists) that Souls did exist before their Bodies. The Reason of this is well known, Origen, justin, Clemens, and other Fathers, were Platonic Philosophers before they were converted to Christianity, and therefore 'tis no wonder that they brought some of their Philosophical Errors into Christianity. I need not tell you that the Church in its first Times explained and defended its Principles of Religion by the way of Plato's Philosophy: besides that I might suggest this (which is a great Truth) that Platonism of all the Sects of Philosophy, came nearest to Christianity. Hence the Platonist who read the first Verses of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel said that Barbarian had stolen from his Master. Yea, I could add what Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata tells us, that they made the Christian Divinity as like Gentile Philosophy as they well could, and they caused the Holy Doctrine of Christ to approach to the received Notions of Philosophers, and made the Holy Scriptures speak Platonism, that they might by that means gain Proselytes to the Christian Religion. I appeal to you now upon these things, whether these good Men were not in danger of being spoiled through Philosophy.  
Secondly, Leaving the Platonists, I come to examine the false and pernicious Principles of the Epicureans, with whom we are 
* Acts 17. 18.  informed our Apostle encountered. Their Philosophical Deceits were such as these.  
1. They held that Chance and Fortune were the Rise of this World, and of all things in it: That the World was not made or created by an Understanding Being, but commenced by a strong Juncto of Atoms, which clubbed together (though without Counsel and Intelligence) to erect this great and stately Fabric. These Men had no Notion at all of a Creation, for their old Saw was, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laert. in Epicuro.  Nothing is made of Nothing: and therefore (according to their Masters, Democritus and Epieurus) they agreed to give the World its Date from those capering 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laert. in Democrito.  Atoms, as if that would solve the Business. But indeed according to their Hypothesis it had no Date at all, for all this Atomick Bustle was from Eternity. As the Platonists held the World was Eternal by Necessity, so the Epicureans asserted its Eternity, but said it was by Chance. The World, according to them, was a strange By-blow of Nature, begot by mere Fortune. These were the wild Conceits they took up, rather than they would be beholden to God for the production of the World; that is, rather than they would acknowledge a Wise Omnipotent Being that was the Author of it, rather than they would own the Principle of the World's Beginning, and that by a Power Divine. As for their Notion, it is so poor and precarious, that no Man of any consistency of Thoughts can give credit to it. So excellent Order and Composition as we see in the World and all the Parts of it, could never arise from a fortuitous Confluence, from a casual jumble of Matter and Motion without any Guide, but must needs be concluded to be the Contrivance of Infinite and Superlative Wisdom. That thin and subtle Particles blindly tilting against one another, (without any Mover to set them on work) should at last jump into so exact an Order, is an Assertion unworthy even of a Rational Pagan, and fit only for such a Christian Philosopher as he of Malmsbury. Not to speak of the monstrous Absurdities which follow upon asserting the Eternal Existence of Matter▪ Nay, not to speak of the utter Impossibility of the thing itself; for what is made cannot be from Eternity, i. e. can't be without a beginning, for its being made, necessarily supposes one that made it to have been before it; and if he was before it, than it was not from Eternity, for there is nothing hath the priority of Eternity. But it is enough that this Epicurean Doctrine is confronted by the Christian Philosophy. Through Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of ●od, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear, Heb. 11. 3. And, as the same inspired Author argues in another place, Every House is built by some Ma●, but he that built all things is God, Heb. 3. ●▪ As much as to say, there is as great Reason, nay greater, to be persuaded that this vast Structure of the Universe was built and erected by a Divine Hand, than that we should believe that the stately Habitations and Palaces which we see, were made by some Artists. The World is the Fabric of Divinity, the Temple of God, — Mundi magnum & versatile Templum. So far Lucretius went, but we may go farther. It is a wonderful System contrived by an Alwise and Omnipotent Being. It is a TEMPLE made by GOD, and dedicated to him. As the World had a Beginning, so it had its Beginning of existing from God. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth: in the Beginning, therefore the World was not from Eternity; God created, therefore it was not by Chance.  
2. As the Epicureans affirmed the World was by chance, so (consistently enough with that Principle) they held it was left to shift for itself. And truly this was no absurd Consequence from the former Assertion: for if the World made itself, it might as well be thought to look after itself. These Men in their most sober Determinations would not suffer God to intermeddle with the Government of the World: they complemented the Godhead out of its Jurisdiction over Mankind and things here below, by saying he should not give himself the Trouble of having any Resentments of things on Earth, and taking care of Human Affairs. Epicurus his God (as 
* De Benefic. l. 4.  Seneca describes him) was reserved and careless, he turned his Back on the World, and took no notice of it; he either did something else, or was wholly idle. And therefore he afterwards calls such Gods as these 
† Surda numina, inefficaces D●os.  deaf Deities, Gods of no Virtue and Power. Thus Tully tells us of those Philosophers who 
‖ Qui Deum nihil habere negotii dicunt, & nihil exhi●●re alteri.  held, that God had nothing to do himself, and that he set not others on work. Not unlike to these were those absurd Atheistical People in Zech. 1. 12. who said, The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil. The Reason of this was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Epicureans say is in God; he is at quiet in himself, and it would 
* Si in ipso Mundo ●●us inest aliquis qui 〈◊〉, qui gubernet,— nae ille est implicatus molestis negotiis & operosis. Cic. 〈◊〉 nat. dear. l. 1.  disturb him to provide for the World. The Being which is happy (say they) 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Laert. in Epicuro.  hath no Employ of its own, and it creates no Business to others; for Business and Care would distract, and render unhappy. They yet more blasphemously add, that 
‖ Quis non timeat omnia providentem, & cogitantem, & animadvertentem, & ommia ad se pertinere putantem, curiosum, & plenum negotii Deum? Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1.  such a busy God would cause perpetual Dread in the Minds of Men, and they must always stand in awe of him if he constantly took notice of them and their Actions. These were the vile Blasphemies of the Epicurcan Philosophy. But Christianity hath rendered it clear and undeniable, that God hath an Inspection into all Human Actions, and disposes and directs all Occurrences to his own Glory. At his Beck and Command are all Men and Devils, glorified Angles and departed Souls: nothing comes to pass in Heaven or Earth, or Hell itself, without his Cognizance and Control. Like a prudent Master of a Family he suffers nothing to be done by any Member of it withaut his Licence or Permission. Providence is spread as wide as the Universe; nor is there any thing, be it never so little and mean, exempted from its Tuition, no not the fall of a Sparrow, nor of a Hair of the Head, as our Great and Infallible Instructor hath ascertained us. Well therefore doth Octavius (who represents the Christian in Minutius Felix) in answer to Caeciliu's Objection against Providence (viz. that God is in Heaven, and cannot see all things below) well doth he assert, That 
* Ubique non tantùm nobis proximus, sed infusus est; non tantùm su● illo agimus sed cum illo (ut prope dixerim) vivivimus.— Non so●um in oculis ejus 〈◊〉 & in Sinu vivimus.  all things are full of God; that he is not only most near to us, but infused into us: we not only act under him, but live with him; we are not only in his Eye, but in his Bosom. This was the rate of the old Christianity, as it was derived from the Prophets and holy Men, and particularly from our Apostle, who excellently asserts the Providence of God, saying, He is not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our ●eing, as he tells the Athenian Philosophers, Acts 17. 27. intending thereby directly to confront the Doctrine of the Epicureans, with whom he encountered at that time. All that I will add under this Head is this, that the Epicureans exempting God from all Employment and Administration of things was suitable enough to their known Hypothesis of an idle, lazy and pleasurable Life. They thought it a happy thing to be free from Cares and Business, and to indulge themselves in all Pleasure; and accordingly they attributed the same Happiness to God which they desired and liked themselves. And this reminds me of the  
3d Deceitful Opinion of the Epic●reans, which was this, That Happiness consisted in Pleasure. Clemens Alexandrinus speaking of these words, Beware lest any Man spoil you through philosophy, saith, the Apostle meant them of the Epicurean Philosophy, and especially, that part of it which denies Providence, and deifies Pleasure. These Men's avowed Principle was, that sensual Delight is 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athenae. Deipnosoph. 1.  the source of all Good, and the Sovereign Blessedness of Mankind. Tho I must needs say, it is very strange, yea even prodigious, that there should be such a Sect, that any Men pretending to Philsophy, or the study and love of Wisdom, should espouse such a monstrous Opinion, that Persons of Reason and Knowledge should make the Body, which is the worst part of Man, his best and only part; and that the Animal and Sensual Life, which is so base and grovelling in comparison of the Rational one, should be thought to be the chief and leading Principle of Man. There are not transmitted to us the Names of many that held this wild Opinion. As for Epicurus himself, 
† Diog. Laert. in Epicuro.  he that gives us an account of his Life, tells us, that some represented him a very abstinent and mortified Man, others as great a Glutton and Drunkard. But from what he farther adds (when he distinctly sets down his Principles and Persuasions) it is evident that this Philosopher placed not Happiness in bodily Pleasure, i. e. not in that only, for his avowed Opinion was, that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Happiness consisted both in Mind and Body, in the Peace and Tranquillity of the former, and in the Ease and Health of the latter. H● held, that the Pleasure which arises from both these is the beginning and end of a Happy Life. But that he might not be misconstrued, he adds farther, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  When we say (saith he) that Pleasure is the End and Happiness of a Man, we do not mean the Pleasures of the luxurious, and such as are placed in the fruition of Worldly Delights (as some ignorantly or maliciously interpret our words) but we say this Pleasure consists in an absence of bodily Pain and Perturbation of Mind. Nay, he goes on further, and declares, That 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Virtue alone, abstracted from bodily Pleasure, is never separated from Pleasure. And many other Excellent Notions he hath, which discover him to have been a Good Man, considering he was but a Heathen. Which may induce us to think, that some of those other things, which he is reported to have held, are not a just Representation of his own Opinions, but rather of what some of his deluded Followers took up. But if I may guests at the Reason of his being thus misrepresented, I conceive it was this, because he was singular and different from the rest of the Philosophers, as to his School or place of philosophising, which was a pleasant Garden. Some might think that this had some Influence on his Studies and Opinions, and that he was a light Airy Man, addicted to bodily Pleasure, and that he placed Man's Happiness in it, especially when it was his real Opinion and Profession, that Happiness consisted in Pleasure. This Philosopher's case methinks was like that of Nicolas the Deacon, who though he was himself of a pure and blameless Life, yet from him the filthy and dissolute Nicolaitans took their Name. So though Epicurus himself might be a Man of Abstinence and Sobriety, yet it is certain that his Followers, i. e. those who called themselves after his Name, did roundly maintain, that sensual and bodily Pleasure was the only Good to be sought after, and passionately prosecuted by all Men. By Brutus' they should have said, for Corporeal Pleasure is all the Happiness that those Creatures are capable of, or concern themselves for. But Man's chief part is his Soul, which was made and designed for nobler Pleasures, and cannot find any solid Satisfaction but in them, and therefore God hath provided him such to be his Chief Entertainment. The Apostle takes notice of that Epicurean Strain 
* 1 Cor. 15. 32.  [Let us eat, and drink, for to morrow we die] and replies to it, 1. With an Intimation of the vain Deceit of these Swinish Philosophers, Be not deceived. 2. With a sober Check borrowed from one of their Poets, Evil Communications corrupt good Manners. And 3dly, He answers yet more Apostolically in the words following, Awake to Righteousness and sin not, for some have not the Knowledge of God. These Men (saith he) are downright Atheists, devoid of the true Knowledge and Sense of a Deity, and of another Life. Which brings me to the  
4th Pernicious Opinion of the Epicureans, viz. That there is no Life after this, that there is no future Existence or State of Souls to be expected. And herein again these Men are consistent with themselves; this is a natural Consequence of their former Assertion. If sensual and bodily Pleasure be all the Happiness which is the Portion of Mankind, than there can be little or no Entertainment for the Soul if it should be separated from the Body, and therefore it is fit to believe that the Soul perisheth with the Body, and there is no future State after this. 
† De Placit. Philos. l. 4.  Plutarch testifies concerning Epicurus, that he asserted all human Souls to be mortal. And another assures us that it was his Opinion, that Men vainly trouble themselves with the fear of some 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. L●ert. in Epicuro.  terrible thing in another and everlasting State, as if there were any thing after Death. Therefore when the Resurrection was preached to the Epicureans by St. Paul, which implies a future Life, they were startled at it, and looked upon it as a new and strange Doctrine, Acts 17. 19 All is concluded, said they, in this World, and therefore they made much of themselves whilst they were here, and lived as they listed, not looking at all for any Punishments or Rewards hereafter. But this is so diametrically opposite to the natural Notions and Dictates of rectified Minds, which are not debauched with Prejudice and Sensuality, and so fully baffled by the Principles of the Christian Religion, that it will be but lost Labour to offer at the Confutation of it. I shall only desire you to reflect upon this and the other dangerous Sentiments of the Epicurean Philosophy, and to consider how reasonable and necessary it was that the Apostle should caution his Followers against it, and intimate to them that this was a Philosophy by which they would certainly be spoiled and ruined if they adhered to it.  
Thirdly; I will present to your view the Deceitful Ethics of the Stoics, who were another sort of Antagonists our 
† Certain Philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered ●im. Acts 17. 18.  Apostle grappled with. From what Topics he disputed with them may be gathered from the Knowledge of those things which that Sect was most considerable for. And we read they were noted for the Notion of Fatal Necessity, for their Proud and Conceited Humour, and for their Doctrine of Apathy.  
Their First beloved Notion was that of Fatality; they held that God and all things are tied up by Fate, that the same irrevocable Necessity hampers all Being's, Divine and Human, and that particularly Men are so restrained by the Destinies that they cannot act freely, but all their Actions, whether internal or external, are forced. Yea, Chrysippus openly professed that 
* Pl●t. de Contradict. Stoic.  there is no Intemperance, no Fraud, no Sin whatsoever of which I●piter is not the Architect. All comes from him of Necessity, without any Design or Intention. All Events are to be attributed to the Necessary Make and Constitution of the World. Hence it is that God distribut●s Poverty and Adversity to good Men, and Prosperity to the bad. It must be so, saith Seneca, for 
† Non potest Artifex mutare materiam. ●e Provide. ca●. 5.  the great Artificer cannot change the Matter he works upon; and therefore things must needs be thus, and he cannot help it. This was the Opinion of the severest sort of Stoics, which cramps all Religion, and enervates all the Attempts and Erterprises of Virtue, and robs Man of his Rational Nature, and indeed makes him a Stock rather than a Man, and therefore is a Doctrine unworthy of Mankind, and consequently of the Christian Institution, which is no ways repugnant to the Reasonable Nature of Man. Why therefore may not this be thought to be part of this Deceitful Philosophy which the Apostle speaks against? But to do the Stoics Right, this was the Sentiment but of some of them, and as for the more Intelligent and Sober sort of them, they were of another Persuasion: or rather, to speak more impartially, they ran counter to their own Persuasions. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were cried up by them. Seneca, Antoninus, Epictetus, who everywhere inculcate Fate, yet defend the Liberty of the Will, And 
* Phys. Stoic. l. 1. Dissertat. 12.  Lipsius (who was well acquainted with those men's Writings and Notions) declares that the Stoics Fate is no more than the Immutability of the Divine Decrees, which takes not away the Freedom of Man's Will, or the Contingency of Events as to Us. Thus Fate and Freedom were Reconciled, and there was not Hurt done to Christianity. And by the by, this Doctrine of the Stoics Fatal Necessity and freewill being Consistent, may teach us to Moderate our Disputes, and to Reconcile the Divine Decree with the Freedom of Man. It was no Absurd Doctrine among them, and I do not see why it should be among Us at this Day. But I cannot so easily acquit the Stoics of the  
Second Thing they were Noted for, viz. Their Pride and Arrogance, their insufferable Insolence and Ostentation. Three Instances, among others, I will give of their Proud and Haughty Spirit, (reserving the Philosophical Pride to be spoken of more generally afterwards, but now I will confine myself to the Stoics Pride.) Their Morality exceedingly administered to This Vice, and this was it which made these Men, of all Sects, the most averse to the Christian Religion, which is Humble, and Meek, and Selfdenying.  
1. They held that their Wise Man was not indebted to God for any Virtue or worthy Accomplishment which he was Master of, but that he was furnished out of his own Stock. He was beholden to himself only that he was Good and Virtuous. The Stoics Wise Man was Upright and Just of himself, and stood not in need of others Helps: his Happiness was all from what he had by his own Power and Will. Let us observe a little how he boasteth and vaunteth: 
— Sapiens uno minor est jove, Dives,  
Liber, Honoratus, Pulcher, Rex denique regum.  Their Wise Man is the only Possessor of Riches, Freedom, Honour, Beauty: he is a Prince Paramount, and Commands all the Kings and Monarches of the Earth: he is inferior only to jupiter. But this Description of the Poet is Low and Grovelling, and a mere Degrading of the Stoic. For Seneca in Severe Prose tells you concerning himself, that 
* Hoc est quod Philosophia mihi promittit ut me parem Deo faciat. Epist. 49.  This is the thing which is promised him by Philosophy, to be made Equal to God. Which though I am very willing to understand in the Best Sense, as if he meant no more than this, that he expected to be made Like unto God by the Principles of Moral Philosophy, yet I find that he explaineth himself in another Meaning in an Epistle of his where he hath these words, 
† Sapiens cum Diis ex pari vivit. Epist. 59  The Gods and Good Men are Fellows. And in an 
‖ Hoc est Summum Bonum, quod si occupas, incipis Deorum socius esse, non supplex. Epist. 31.  other place he tells his Wise and Happy Man that he is a Companion of the Gods, not a Suitor to them. But other Stoics indulged this way of Talking, this vain Rhodomontade. It is quoted by 
* Eclog. Physic.  Stobeus and 
† De commun. Notionib.  Plutarch as a Saying of Chrysippus, (a Man that was in High Esteem among that Sect of Philosophers, as being one of their Founders) 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Jupiter did not exceed Dion (a Wise Man of theirs) in Virtue, (which is yet better and more smartly expressed with an Equivoke in the Greek;) yea, Jupiter and he were equally helpful to one another. And that of Epictetus is something like it; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arian. Dissertat. 1. cap. 12.  If thou art a Wise Man, thou art not inferior to the Gods in point of Understanding and Reason. And Seneca relates the like Huff, among others, of a Chief Man of that Persuasion, (and of whose Writings, I remember, he saith somewhere, Vivit, viget, Liber est, supra hominem est). It was a usual saying of Sextius, saith he, (that was his Name) 
† Solebat Sextius dicere, ●ovem plus non posse qu●m bonum virum. Jupiter quò antecedit bonum virum? Diutiùs bonus est. Epist. 73.  Jupiter cannot do more than a Good Man. Jupiter excels a Good Man only in this, that his Goodness is of a Longer Date and Duration. And Seneca himself is as Presmuptuous and Daring, as may be gathered from that Passage of his, 
‖ Bonus Tempore tantùm à Deo differt. De Provide. c. 1.  A Good Man differs from God only as to Time. And again, God surpasses not a Wis● Man in Happiness, 
Deus non vincit Sapientem felicitate, etiamsi vincat aetate. Ibid. Epist. 73.  though he doth in Age. Which amounts to this Blasphemy, that God hath Pre-eminence of Man only as to his Existence before him. This is also asserted by Cicero 
* E virtutibus vita beata existit, pa● & similis Deorum, nullâ re nisi Immortalitate, quae nihil ad bene vivendum pertinet, cedens Coelestibus. De Nat. Deor. I. 2. , who not only in his Paradoxes, but in other Places of his Writings, is pleased to play the Stoic. But the Demure Stoic, before cited, blasphemes at a higher rate, when he saith, 
† Est aliquid quo Sapiens antecedat Deum. Ille naturae beneficio, non suo, sapiens est. Epist. 53.  There is something wherein a Wise Man excels God: God is Wise by Nature, and cannot help it, but the other is so by his own Power and Industry. What think you now of Seneca, doth he not show himself a right Spaniard? Or rather, hath not that Haughty Nation learned to speak big, to huff, to rant, and blasphem● from this their Haughty Countryman? What think you now of these Stoics? Can there be more manifest proof of their unmeasurable Arrogance and Elation of Mind? Are not they as well as the Epicureans horribly profane and blasphemous, though in a different way? The one denies a God and Providence, the other makes his God to come short of his Wise Man; or, which is the same, he makes his Wise Man much better than his God. Some indeed have thought that Seneca retracts what he said, when he tells us that 
* Bonus vir sine Deo nemo est. Epist. 41.  No Man is virtuous without God: But perhaps by God he means the Conscience, for this he calls a God in another 
† Deus in humano corpore hospitans. Epist. 31.  place; and 'tis usual with the Stoics and Platonists to style 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathemat.  the Mind a God. We have no reason then to think that Seneca corrected himself, but rather to be persuaded that this was the inseparable Genius of that Sect, viz. to be guilty of those Impious Boastings, and to break out into horrid and impudent Blasphemies. You see therefore how reasonable it was that our Apostle should caution against this Sect of Philosophy, lest the Minds of Men should be perverted by it. This is the Philosophy that will spoil a Man, or else there is none in the World that will do it. The Christian Religion therefore is in direct opposition to it. Those Arrogant and Blasphemous Boastings are repugnant to the Christian Simplicity and the Tenor of the Gospel, which everywhere beateth down all High and Lofty Thoughts, and bids us Pray and Entreat, and Humbly Sue for the Divine Assistance, and be throughly Sensible of our own Weakness and Disability. This acquaints us that every good and perfect Gift is from Above, and that there is nothing which we have that was not received thence, that we cannot think, nor speak, much less act any thing that is Good without the Assistance of the Divine Power; that we are constantly beholden to God; that we depend upon him for all things, especially as to Grace and Goodness. These are wholly derived from him, and we are ever to acknowledge that he is the Author and Finisher of them in us. The Contrary Doctrine to this I have the more largely showed to be the Sentiment of the Stoics, because this is the Chiefest and most Dangerous Indication of their Pride and Arrogance. I will be the more brief in the other Instances of it.  
2. They held that it was below a Man to do any Good Act, with any respect to a Reward to be received for the doing of it. These Soaring Souls would needs maintain that Virtue is to be loved, and Good to be done merely for its own sake: they declared that the foresight of a Recompense did not influence upon them at all in what they Did or Suffered: and that no Good Man ought to make any thing a Motive to Virtue and Goodness, but these themselves. Seneca, Epictetus, Arianus, Antoninus and other Stoics will furnish you with Passages to this purpose. But Christianity (which is the Sublimest Doctrine in the World) is not of this strain, if we may credit one of the greatest Professors of it, who freely declares, that if in this Life only we have hope, 
1 Cor. 15. 19  we are of all Men most miserable. From whence it appears that there must be an expectation of another Life, there must be the assurance of a Future Recompense joined with the Pleasure and Intrinsic Goodness of a Holy Life. It is true, it is Servile to fix the Eye altogether on the Wages: but it is Disingenuous and Ungrateful not to take notice of the Reward which God hath purposely set before us. True Love is destroyed if God and Holiness be not embraced for themselves: But then on the other hand Christian Hope (which is also an Eminent Grace) is annulled if the Opinion of the Stoics be valid. It is clear therefore that their Doctrine is False and Erroneous, and is the Result of their Vain Thoughts of Themselves, and of a counterfeit Zeal to Virtue, and a mere show and ostentation of it. For if we could examine things truly and fully, it may be there would be found no such thing under Heaven as a Virtue wholly and perfectly Disinteressed, such as hath no Advantage, no Benefit, no Emolument belonging to it, or so much as supposed to be consequent of it. Therefore when these Men tell us that 
* Virtutum Omnium pretium in ipsis est. Sen. Epist 81.  no Reward is to be looked after, when like the Love-Pharisees (called so in the 
† Sota. c. 1.  Talmud) they pretend to obey the Law merely and only out of Love of Virtue, without the least respect to a Future State, we may reasonably conclude that in this, as in other things, they affect Chimaeras and Fictions, and are ready on all Occasions to give proof of their Self-Conceit and Haughty Imaginations.  
3. To give another Instance of these men's unsufferable Pride, they grew up to such a pitch of it, that they were inclined to throw off Magistracy and Government, and to withdraw themselves and others from the Jurisdiction of the Powers they lived under. Their Wise Man was a King, nay King of Kings (as you heard before), and thence they would infer that he was Above all Allegiance and Subjection to Authority. This Notion made them so Domineering and Imperious, that they broke out into Tumults and Seditions, as Tacitus observes of them in his Annals. It went against the Philosophic Grain to be Subjects and Servants. But this is contrary to St. Paul's Politics, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers; and to his Economics, Art thou called a Servant? mind it not, i. e. do not think that That Condition renders thee the worse in the sight of God: serve God and thy Master at once, and therein thou wilt show thyself a Good Christian. So much of the Stoics Pride.  
The Third Thing they were taken Notice of for, and which was a piece of Singularity in these Philosophers, was their Apathy, as 
* In Zenone.  Laertius acquaints us. And we are told by 
† Plin. lib. 7. c. 19  another that Diogenes the Cynic (for you must know the Cynics were but overgrown Stoics) was a great Maintainer of it. This put an unnecessary Restraint and Violence upon the Natural Affections of Mankind, and would not allow Humane Nature either to laugh or weep. Their Wise Man that they made was but a Statue, (and so indeed he was as good as some of their Gods): he was stupid and senseless upon occasion: he was not permitted to resent the Occurrences of the World, were they never so surprising and admirable. He was to be silent upon the Rack; and when the Stone or Gout tortured him, he was to force a Smile: and it was a Mortal Sin (for you must remember all Sins were alike with these Gentlemen) to wax pale at the sight or feeling of the Incision-Knife. He was to Play with Torments, and to Sport with Pain and Misery. Thus they believed the Sense of Morality was to devour all Sense of Humanity. But this was the Doctrine of some only of that Rigid Sect. The Soberest of them did neither speak nor think thus: the Apathy or Indolency which they maintained was a very Laudable and Innocent thing. Let Seneca speak for them, 
* Non educo saplentem ex hominum numero, etc. Epist. 71.  I do not (saith he) draw out a Wise Man from amongst Mankind, and place him out of the Number of Men; for he that is Senseless is no Man. And this Philosopher's Practice was suitable to this Principle, for we find him in his Writings often resenting the Evils which befell the World, Himself, or his Relations. So Antoninus Surnamed the Philosopher, shed Tears upon occasion of a Friend's Death; and his Father Antoninus Pius (for he was his Son by Adoption) excused him, saying, Permit him to be a Man. Arian●s 
‖ L. 3. c. 2.  prosessedly declares against that Apathy which takes away Natural Affection. It becomes a Man (saith he) not to be Senseless and immovable, but to keep and preserve his Natural and Acquired Affections and Relations, as a Father, a Son, a Brother, a Citizen. The Affections are not to be Eradicated and Expelled, but the best way is 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de Curios.  to Change them and Turn about, and Fit them for our Purpose, and so make them Easy and Advantageous to us. Reason, and Nature, and Christianity approve of the Emotions of our Affections so far as they are Instrumental to Virtue, and are restrained within their Due Limits. The Passions are not wholly to be Rooted up, but to be Diverted; they are not to be Banished, but to be Kerbed and kept under. These Gibeonites are not to be Killed, but to be made Serviceable, and kept in Obedience. jesus wept over the Grave of his Friend, and thereby for ever Hallowed all Tears, and Consecrated all Natural and Humane Affections. It is certain that the Passions are of great use in Religion, and may be subservient to the noblest Ends and Purposes of it. Therefore our Apostle might justly enter his Caveat here against those Hard and Flinty Philosophers, who talked of an utter Dispassion, and would make Men to be Iron and Stones.  
Thus I have acquainted you what were the Opinions and Practices of the Epicurean and Stoic Philosophers with whom St. Paul grappled. Thence you may guests what the Apostle and they disputed about, and thence you may gather likewise what the Apostle means when he warns the Christian Colossians that they be not spoled through Philosophy and Vain Deceit. I will only make this Remark or Reflection in the Close, that these Epicureans and Stoics among the Pagans Answer to the Sadduces and Pharisees among the jews. There is a Great Affinity between these two sorts of Antagonists. The Epicureans, like the Sadduces, placed all their Hopes in this Life, and therefore would be very Merry and Frolic: The Stoics, like the Pharisees, were Demure, and great pretenders to Austerity and Sublime Virtues, though they came but little short of the others in point of True Morality. And this indeed might be observed further, that when Men are not Masters of True and Solid Virtue, when they are not really Changed and Mended in their Minds, they pretend to greater things than usual, to make Men admire and applaud them, to be thought Singular Proficients in Religion: they pretend to do more than others, when they are Conscious to themselves that they do not so much. This is the very Guise of our Quakers, (those Modern Stoics and Pharisees) they make as if they were exceeding great Observers of Morality, and had attained to a Higher and more Spiritual way of Christianity than Others, yet these People, of all the Sects that we know, are the most Defective in Religion, and have run the farthest off from the Principles of Morality and Christianity.  
I have hitherto shown the Deceitful Opinions which were peculiar and proper to those particular Sects of Philosophers I have named. Now in the next place, I will set before you those gross and mistaken Notions, which for the most part were common to them all. I will discover the Deceitfulness of the Pagan Philosophy, by instancing in some Principles and Practices which were not only maintained by the particular Sects above named, but also by all the rest of the Philosophers. I will reduce them to these two Heads, 1. Their deceitful Opinions and Practices relating to some particular Vices and Virtues. 2. Their false Sentiments concerning Happiness.  
In pursuance of the first, I shall present you with their Pride, their Revenge, their Self-Murder, their Lewdeness, and other Mistakes in their Morals.  
1. Pride was the Catholic Blemish, the general Stain of all the Philosophers: Yea, it seemed even to be congenial to them to be immoderately proud of their Attainments. There could not be a more visible Discovery of this than their desire of Applause and Acclamations. By their Subtlety and Sophistry they thought to conciliate a great Fame and Honour, than which nothing was dearer to them, even when they seemed to shun them. Excellently to this purpose Plutarch observes that the Author of that Saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, live retiredly and unknown, would not lie hid himself: He would be known by that Motto; whilst he affected an Obscurity, he reached at Fame. Those that give such Precepts (saith he) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de occult● videndo.  follow after Glory, and yet at the same time seem to turn away from it: Whilst they look full at it, they pretend to look another way. Some of them, even whilst they writ against Glory, ambitioned it. Our own Philosophers (saith Tully) 
† Tusc. Quaest  set their Names to those Books which treat of despising of Glory. And the same Observation you meet with in Valerius Maximu●, 
‖ Gloria nè ab his quidem qui contemptum ejus introducere conantur, negligitur: quoniam quidem ipsis voluminibus nomina sua diligenter adjiciunt. lib. 8. c. 14.  Glory is not despised▪ no not of those who 〈◊〉 to introduce the Contem●● of it; for we see they 〈…〉 careful to affix their Names to their very Books that they put forth. A P●ilosopher, saith Tertullian, is a 
* Animal Gloriae. De Animâ cap. 1.  vain glorious Animal; and St▪ 〈◊〉 saith the very same of him, and addeth, that he is a 
† 
Gloriae Animal, & venale rumorum mancipium. Epist. ad Pammach.  
Popularis aurae vile mancipium. Epist. ad julian.   Mercenary Slave of Applause. Tertullian, speaking of the Philosophers in another place, saith they were 
* Negotiatores famae. Apolog. cap. 46.  Traders for Fame, and this was the Commodity they were most eager to purchase. Another time he saith they 
† Homines Gloriae libidinosi.  were Men that lusted after Glory, and made Fame their Mistress. This was the noted Badge of the best of them, to hunt after Glory with too great an Impatience; and they would do any base and servile thing to get a Name. We may truly say of them that they lived upon Applause; and if Fame did not trumpet them, they could not breathe. But to instance in the arrogant Humour of those who were thought the modestest and most Selfdenying Philosophers, viz. the Cynics, their daily business was to decry the Pride of others. But whilst they did so, and professed to be Masters of the greatest Humility, they were the boldest and proudest Fellows imaginable: Tho they were the greatest Censors of Pride, yet they were certainly most haughty, and under the very Garb of Humility there lurked an intolerable Arrogance. They were rudely clothed, to witness outwardly a Contempt of the World; but yet if a Man looked narrowly into them, he might observe they were very proud of what they wore, though 'twas never so corpse. Their Beards and their sullen Looks, their affected Gestures and Grimaces were Ensigns not of their Gravity, but Singularity. This made them harden their Bodies against all Injuries of Wether, this made some of them beg of Statues, and provoke common Women to rail with them, which were Instances of Affectation, not Humility. Diogenes in a frosty Morning stood naked in the Marketplace, to show (as he pretended) his Patience; it happened that Plato passed by at that time, and knowing his vainglorious Humour, spoke to the People that came about him to leave him alone, and then my Cynic would soon retire, for he was buoyed up only by the People's Applause. Diog●nes another time thought to be even with Plato for this, (for you must know th●y understood one another well enough, though they deceived the People) and trampled upon a Neat Couch, or some such Trim Furniture which Plato had in his House, and cried out, I trample on Plato ' s Pride; to which Plato adjoined, but with greater Pride. Thus they were conscious to themselves of the Dis●e●●er which they so much laboured under. As for the Academics, who openly pro●e●●ed they knew nothing; it is too evident from their Carriage and wild Contrasts that they were conceited they had an Insight into all things; for those that undertake to dispute against every one, do thereby proclaim their Universal Knowledge. The supercilious Temper of the Stoics I have partly given you an acco●nt of before, and I might here further do it by showing you how they (above all Sects) delighted in high Strains and Paradoxes, which is an an Argument that their Philosophy was starched and formal, that it was more for Show and Ostentation, than to cherish in men's Minds sound and profitable Truths.  
The Arrogant and Vainglorious Spirit of the rest of the Philosophers, and of all the Men of Parts and Worth among the Gentiles, is sufficiently obvious.— Volito vivus per ora virûm, is Ennius' Rant. D●mosthenes declared himself mightily pleased with what he heard from an Ordinary Woman, a Tankard-bearer, as he passed by her, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There goes the great Demosthenes, said she. And his Brother Orator and Philosopher may seem to have been a great Affector of popular Glory, when 
* Tusc. Quaest  he claimed Kindred with Servi●s T●llius, the sixth King of Rome; he calls him his Cousin merely because he was his Namesake, but he was nothing akin to him. The famous Pliny, who was a Philosophical Man, and a grave Magistrate and Consul in Trajan's days, hath left a whole 
† Epist. 23. lib. 9  Epistle to tell the World that he was infinitely transported with Applause; particularly (among other Instances which he there mentions) when one pointed at him, and said, That is Pliny, he professes he was never so well pleased in his Life. After these Grave Men 'tis no wonder to hear of martials Said toto l●gor orbe frequens, & dicitur Hic est. And in another place, his Ille ego sum nulli, etc. And of Ovid's jamque opus ex●gi, etc. And Horace his Exegi monumentum aere perennius, And his — Monstror digito praeter●untium Romanae fidicen lyrae. All which show that they were tickled with Applause, and impatiently thirsted after Fame and Repute. But Christianity allows not of this, it permits us not to gasp insatiably after the Acclamations of Men. I do not say it is simply unlawful and against the Rules of Christianity to desire or accept of Honour and Praise; for 'tis certain that he who doth virtuously, cannot hate the Reward of doing so. But to look after these chief, and in the first place, and to make them the great End of our Actions, is altogether blamable and vicious. To love the Praise of Men more than the Praise of God; to do good Acts not for the Acts sake, but only for the Applause that follows them, is immoral as well as unchristian. Our chief End must be to contribute towards the Honour and Glory of God in the World, to be beneficial to Mankind, and to promote the design of our Master upon Earth. If whilst we are doing this, Repute and a Good Name accrue to us, it becomes us not to be averse to them, but to receive them as the due Attendant of Virtue; yea as that Reward of it which God himself hath pleased to annex to it. Moreover, Christianity acquaints us that it is a sign of a mean and vulgar Spirit to act only out of a desire to be commended, and that it is truly noble and generous to despise the World, and to glory in the Cross, and to look for the Euge's of Angels, and the Applause of Heaven: This is a worthy Ambition. The Advice of our Apostle is, Let nothing be done through vain Glory: and again, Be not desirous of vain Glory. Christianity leads Men to a true Knowledge of themselves, and that is the only Spring of Humility, and of sober and becoming Thoughts. Whereas it is the nature of all other Knowledge (as the Apostle observes) to puff up them that are Possessors of it, to swell them into high Conceits of themselves. And this was the very case of the philosophising Gentiles, they grew big, and were ready to burst with this Tumour, or rather this Poison. Their Carriage was observed to be most absurdly proud and lofty: Fame and vain Glory principled all of them, and the aggrandizing their Names was the main thing they looked after.  
2. Their insatiable desire of Revenge, and their Averseness to forgive Injuries, was another deceitful and unsound Principle that they had imbibed. Their very Philosophers too often spoke the Language of the Poet, — No● haec patiemur inulti? Must we suffer such Affronts, must we undergo such Wrongs, and yet not revenge ourselves? Vim vi repellere, was accounted good Morality: But it was held the Mark of a low Spirit to pass by Injuries and Wrongs. It is a servile and slavish thing, when we are used contumeliously, to suffer it without making Returns. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad Nicomach. l. 4. c. 2.  This was the Sense of Aristotle. And that Tully, the great Master of Moral Offices, placeth not Forgiveness amongst them, and that he reckons it not among natural Dictates, Grotius 
† De Verit. Christ. Relig.  will inform you in three or four Quotations out of that Philosopher, though certainly it is a Dictate of right and unbiass'd Reason. Nay, you will find that this famous Moralist 
‖ De Invent. 2.  reckons Revenge in the number of those things which belong to the Law of Nature. He doth but invite Persons to the commission of a new Offence, who passeth by an old one, was a 
* Veterem ferendo injuriam invitas novam. Terent.  Pagan Maxim. It was thought the best way to defend themselves against Injuries for the future, to take Revenge on those that were passed. And hear what a great Moralist saith, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isocrat.  Think it as base a thing to be outdone by thy Enemy's in ill turns, as by thy Friends in good ones. I know this is not the constant Language of the Pagan Philosophers; they have better Apprehensions of this thing at other times, and speak very laudably. But you see how easily their Sentiments are altered and perverted, and to what corrupt Maxims their unstable Philosophy betrayed them. But Christianity on the contrary inculcates nothing more than Patience and Self-denial, and a free forgiving of Injuries. We are bid by Christ to 
‖ Luke 17. 4.  forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven, i e. to make it our constant and usual Practice to forgive Offences. We are enjoined by the Christian Morals to overcome our Enemies with Patience, or (which is more heroical) by Obligations and Courtesies. 
* Rom. 12. 20.  When they hunger, we are bid to feed them, and when they thirst, to give them Drink; that by so doing we may heap Coals of Fire on their Heads; that we may, if it be possible, soften and melt them, tame and charm them by our Tenderness and Benevolence; that we may by the Flames of Charity in our own Breasts, kindle a resembling one in theirs. Our Master hath commanded us to 
† Luke 6. 37.  forgive, that we may be forgiven; to pardon others, as we hope to find Pardon and Mercy at the Hands of our offended God. It is truly Christian to imitate Him, who makes his Sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth. Rain on the just and on the unjust; who lets the greatest Delinquents share in his Favour, and communicates his Mercies and Blessings to the vilest Sinners. In short, it is the excellent and generous Nature of Christianity, to forgive Offences when the Criminal acknowledges them: i● is yet a greater degree and height of it to take no notice of them, where the Community is not concerned, but to pass them by as not worth our observing: but the greatest and highest Glory of it, is to love our Enemies, to pray for them that persecute us, to return Good for their Evil, and to be kind and obliging even to the worst of Men.  
3. Self-Murder (which is a Notorious Affront and Injury to Humane Nature) was defended by the Chiefest Philosophers of them all. They held that a Man need not ask Leave before he went out of the World, that when they saw themselves in Danger, they might be as cruel to themselves as the Gods were, yea that it was Religious to dispatch that Life which the Gods were resolved to destroy. It was determined by the Stoics, that a Man might Kill himself rather than endure Servitude, Reproach, or Long and Grievous Diseases: And this Cato defends, if Tully doth not belie him, as we have no reason to think he doth. That Stoic it seems was a Severe Commonwealth's Man, and could not fit himself to the Turn of the Times. The Gods must give him a Reason why Caesar vanquished Pompey: and because they would not, he fell upon his own Sword, and dispatched himself. This the Great Roman Philosopher approves of, and thinks it was not without God's Leave that he departed hence. He expressly saith, 
* Tusc. Quaest  God gave him a just Occasion of dying, as he d●d Socrates: and he reckons him among those who are discharged and dismissed by God. Some others of the most Philosophical Men, either directly slew themselves, or were wilfully accessary to their own Deaths. Thus Lycurgus, the Great and Renowned Lawgiver of Sparta, pined himself to death; which Fact 
† In vitâ Lycurg.  Plutarch approves and applauds with a Jest, viz. that he made an end of himself by a total abstinence from Meat, to teach his Countrymen Temperance. 
‖ Cic. Tusc. Quest. l. 1.  Cleombrotus a Platonist, having read Plato's Ph●do, where Socrates being about to die, discourses of the Immortality of the Soul, went and threw himself down headlong into the Sea. And other Great Men of Morals, as Empedocles, Demosthenes, Anaxagoras, Chrysippus, yea and Zeno the Father of Stoicism, were Felons of themselves. Those who pretended to be great Despisers of Pains and Sufferings, ran away from them as soon as they felt the Anguish of them. Observe it, the very Stoics, who were such Unpassionate and immovable Moralists, were for leaving the World before their Time. This they called Withdrawing themselves, and a fair Retiring out of the World. And the Famous Seneca, in no fewer than Four Epistles, maintains this Practice. In one of which he plainly tells us, (whatever he had said at other times concerning the Great Extremities which might put a Man upon killing himself) that 
* Nec hoc tanti●m in necessitate ultimâ facit, sed cum primum illi coeperit suspecta esse fortuna, etc. Epist. 70.  his Wise Man need not stay till Extreme Necessity urgeth him to such a violent Action, but as soon as his Fortune gins to be suspected, as soon as he perceives there is some likelihood of his being brought into ill Circumstances, he may prevent them all by going aside. He hath this leave given him by the Stoics, as well as by the Platonists and other Philosophers.  
But Reason and Christianity (and some of the Philosophers too in a better Mood) oppose it as a Rash and Foolish Attempt, nay as a vile and wicked Enterprise. It is an usurping on God's proper Right and Authority, who only hath Power to dispose of Man's Life. When God calls for our Lives, than we are to part with them submissively and willingly, but not before. In the mean time we must entertain Poverty, Sickness, Disgrace, or whatever Crosses befall us, with invincible Patience and Resolution. We must not shamefully relinguish our Stations, and like imprudent Pilots quit the Guidance of the Vessel in the midst of a Storm. We must bear up undauntedly against the briskest Assaults, and resolve to grapple with all sorts of Hazards and Extremities. We must prepare ourselves to look new Dangers in the face, and by the Divine Assistance make way through the thickest Troops of Opposition. When we are assaulted with Sufferings, we must not crouch and sneak, and fly like Cowards, but we must resolve to maintain our Post, and weather out our Miseries with a Courage becoming Christianity. Be the Way we pass through rough or smooth, difficult or easy, 'tis the Divine Appointment, and God hath not made any Calamity insupportable; it may soon wear off of itself, however Time will take it away. But we must be careful that we do not by any means put an end to it by doing so to our Lives. This is a high Offence against God, against the Community (of which we are a part) and against ourselves, and Humane Nature itself. This is a manifest token of base Fear and Cowardice, and Abjection of Mind; it argues unmanly Precipitancy and Unadvisedness, a distrust of Providence, a defect of Faith, and Hope, and Christian Courage, and even black Despair itself. But how brave and noble is it, after all our hard Service to go off honourably, with the Comfort of having fought a good Fight, and finished our Course, and kept the Faith, and of having persevered in our Duty to the end, maugre all Discouragements and Hardships? This is true Christian Philosophy.  
4. Lewdness, i. e. Immodest and Obscene Speeches, Ribaldry and lose Talk, with Lascivious Gesture and Behaviour, with Lewd and Filthy Practice, were countenanced by the greatest Pretenders to Deep Notions and Morality; yea, and were not thought contrary to the Principles of Philosophy. As for the Stoics, they professedly held that there is no Obscenity in Words. And Chrysippus more particularly is named by Sextus Empiricus as the chief Assertor of this: Chrysippus, who was the very Prop and Buttress of the Stoics Porch (as Tully tells us) was a Great Defender of this Opinion, and propagated it among his Disciples. They were wont (as the same Author saith) 
* Suo quamque rem nomine appellare. Cic. Epist. l. 9 Ep. 22.  to call every thing by its Name, hereby excusing and palliating their Obscenity; and he seems to take their part, 
† Ibid.  calling this Lewdness of Speech Libertatem loquendi, a Liberty of speaking. From tolerating of Obscene Words they proceeded to licence the Lewdest Actions, and therein were justified by the concurrent Practice of other Philosophers. He that rifles Plato's Politics, shall find that Plurality of Wives, and even a Community of Women are allowed by him. The wisest Philosopher shows himself here most absurd, for thus he argueth: 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sue de Republics, l. 5.  Because all things in a Commonwealth are to relate to the Common Good and Public Advantage, therefore to have all things in common doth so, yea, to have the promiscuous use of Women. We are 
* Laert. in Zenone.  told that Diogenes, Zeno and Chrysippus (topping Men among their Parties) were of the same Mind. Adultery was allowed 
† Plutarch. in vit. Lycurgi.  the Lacedemònians by the sober Lycurgus. Common Whores were permitted 
‖ Idem in vit. Solon.  to the Athenians by the wise Solon. We are told that the Cynics blushed not to act openly the most uncomely and lewd things.  
Yea, Sodomy was approved of and practised by the greatest Pretenders to Wisdom among the Pagans. 
* 
Ille etiam Thracum Populis fuit auctor, amorem  
In teneros transfer mares.  
Ovid. Metam. l. 10.   Orpheus, who was the Head and Prince of them all, taught the Thracians this: and Socrates is taxed of this unnatural Vice, not only by juvenal and others in Raillery, but by Authors of Great Gravity and Good Credit, as Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Minutius Felix, 
† Apolog. c. 46.  Tertullian, 
‖ Deipnosoph. I. 13.  Athenaeus. I know some are inclined to think that this Charge against Socrates is a Slander, and that he was clear and innocent as to this matter, and that these Authors were too rash in borrowing such a Report from some Poets and light Heads. And truly I am not averse to think so too, since I have made some Enquiry into the Business. I conceive this may be given as the fairest and truest Account of this Brave Man, that he was taken with the Society of ingenious and sweet-natured Young Men. Their Intellectual Beauty was that which was courted and loved by him; and this is that Manly Beauty which some of his Dialogues (as Philaebus and Phaedo) commend. He having made choice of the Spritliest Youths he could meet with, took great Pains with them to ripen and improve those Seeds of Virtue which he saw in them, and to fit them for the Service of their Country. Among many others, an Example of this was Alcibiades, a Young Nobleman of Athens, who was shaped and form in his Manners by this Philosopher, and owed the Excellent Conduct of his whole Life to the Early Instructions of so wise a Master. Hence some took occasion to tax him as guilty of Unnatural Lust toward this and other Young Men, and of corrupting (in the worst sense that can be thought) the Youth of Athens. Some were conscious to themselves of their own Gild, and knew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Vice of the Country; and therefore concluded Socrates to be like themselves, and that he made no other use of Young men's Company than they did. Aristophanes was the Chief Man that set this on foot, who wrote his Comedy called the Clouds, only to abuse Socrates: You must know then (as the True Ground of this) that Socrates inveighed against the Sophists and Mock-Philosophers of that Age, Men who had nothing in them of True and Sober Philosophy, but were a Disgrace and Reproach to it. Hereupon these Men got him jeered by Aristophanes in that Play of his beforenamed. Besides, Socrates had disobliged all the Poetic Tribe by that part of the Model of his Commonwealth, wherein he would have all Poets banished: Whence it is no wonder that the Poets were set against him. Indeed they were these who had the greatest hand in the Impeachment of Socrates, especially the Comedians, because Socrates had a more particular Dislike of the Comic Poetry: for he being grave and composed, disrelished that Light Humour of the Stage, which was Vain and Drolling, but at that time most taking. Yea, Socrates was sometimes present at, and applauded the Tragedies of Euripides, but would not honour with his Presence Aristophanes' Comedies. Whereupon this Poet-Laureat of that Age conceived a Displeasure against the Philosopher, and seeing he would not approve of the Comic Way, he must fall under its Lash, to make the People Sport. Now Socrates is everywhere laughed at; now Virulent Tongues say any thing of him; now they report he used the Company of Young Men to Vicious and Lewd Purposes. But that would not suffice; a Formal Indictment was drawn up against him. The Poets take to them Melitus and Anytus, and other Conspirators, who, because out of Extreme Hatred to the Philosopher, they sought his Death; insisted not much on the former Accusation, as not Criminal enough, but accused him for perverting the Laws, by introducing new Gods and a New Religion. If you look into the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laert. in Socrate.  Story, you will find that Socrates had the Honour to be impeached upon the same Athenian Law that St. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Acts 17. 18.  Paul was when he was convented before the Areopagites, viz. that the Ancient Gods were to be worshipped, and no new ones to be introduced contrary to the Custom of the Country. It was the breaking of this Law which procured his Death; he had discovered the Unreasonableness of the Pagan Idolatry, and the Shameful Deities which were set up among the Athenians. This proved fatal to him, though to make him doubly guilty, they inserted the 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laert. in Socr.  Accusation beforementioned, which no Man believed, who knew either Socrates, or his Enemy's Malice. It was this which at last bereft him of his Life, after they had robbed him of his good Name by fixing the Crime of Unnatural Lust upon him.  
But though Socrates for the Reasons above alleged, may be thought not to be guilty of that Foul Vice, yet some other Philosophers of Great Name cannot be so cleared. I am loath to think that Plato was one of that number, but Diogenes Laertius saith he was, and that he disguised this Vice, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristotle, the Prince of the Peripatetics, was guilty, saith Athenaeus, so was Zeno the Father of the Stoics, who, as both Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius testify, had a Male Sweetheart whose Name was Cremonides: And this was so frequent among the Philosophers, that 
* Dialog. Amor.  L●cian would have this Love of Boys left wholly to that sort of Men. But Graver Authors may be alleged (besides those already mentioned) as 
† Pyrrh. Hyp. I. 3. c. 24.  Sextus Empiricus, who proves that this Filthy Practice was looked upon as a thing lawful, at least indifferent, among the Men of the greatest Philosophy. Theodoret 
‖ De Cur. Graec. Affect. I. 9  saith it was approved of by Lycurgus' Laws: though I know some are of Opinion that Sparta was not stained with this Foul Enormity. But the Truth is this, there was at one time a Law 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  against this Lewd Practice, but this was soon abrogated by common Consent. Thus there was a Time when there was a Law 
† Aeschin. Orat. contr. Timarchum. Demosthenes & Lysias, in Orationibus.  at Athens against prostituting of Boys if they were free, and against hiring them to filthy Purposes. But it is not to be doubted that the Athenians afterwards (as well as before) were generally guilty in this kind, and the Law of that place allowed it. This is expressly testified by Plutarch, who was well acquainted with the Laws and Constitutions of that Country. He 
‖ In vit. Solon. Aeschin. Orat. contr. Timarch.  reports that Solon, their Great Lawgiver, tolerated by Law that Unnatural kind of Lust, that he indulged it to all but Slaves; as much as to say, it was fit only for Freemen, and those of Quality. Yea, this Plutarch himself (as Grave an Author as he is, and famed for his Moral Writings) hath writ shamefully 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  on this Subject. And in his Piece of the Education of Children, he seems to allow of it in Plato and other Philosophers. Other Credible Authors vouch this 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xenoph. de Repub. Lacedaem.  for a known Truth, that the Laws of most Cities in Greece did not suppress that Libidinous Usage. And St. Paul's Testimony may be added to all these, in Rom. 1. 27. The Men, leaving the natural use of the Woman, burned in their Lust one toward another, Men with Men, working that which is unseemly. Which words are meant of that Filthy and Preposterous Lust, and are spoken of the Wise Men and Philosophers among the Pagans: which is a farther Proof and Confirmation of this Head of my Discourse, that the Gentile Philosophy patronised Obscenity and Lewdness, and even Unnatural Acts of Lusts. Thus I am glad I have rid my Hands of this Ill Subject, which yet it was requisite to stay a while upon in pursuance of my Undertaking on these Words, which was to show the Corruption of the Pagan Philosophy, together with that of Philosophical Men. And you see the Apostle himself thought fit to make particular mention of this flagitious Usage among them, and at the same time to reprove and condemn it, as he doth likewise in 1 Cor. 6. 9 For our most Holy Religion forbids even the least Tendencies to Lewdness, and the least Indications of it; 
‖ Col. 3. 5.  Inordinate Affection, Evil Concupiscence, Lascivious Thoughts and Desires are criminal by the Evangelical Laws. We are ascertained by our Saviour himself, that an Unchaste Eye, a 
* Mat. 5. 28.  Lustful Look is Adultery. All Words and Speeches that savour of Lust, all 
† Ephes. 4. 29.  Corrupt Communications and Discourse are condemned by the Apostle. And the same Inspired Writer, who knew very well what was Vice, and what was Virtue, and who fully understood the nature of the Christian Religion, and what it allows, and what it forbids, strictly commands us that we 
‖ 1 Pet. 2. 11.  abstain from fleshly Lusts, that we 
* Rom. 13. 14.  make not Provision for the Flesh, to fulfil the Lusts thereof; that 
† 1 Cor. 6. 18.  we flee Fornication; assuring us of the Everlasting Penalty which is to be awarded against those that act contrary to these Prohibitions; 
‖ Heb. 13. 4.  Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge. Those Wanton and Lascivious Flames shall certainly end in those that are Eternal.  
I might proceed, and instance in other Allowances incorporated into the Body of those Morals which are left us by Philosophers, as the destroying of the Child in the Mother's Womb (if it be safe and possible for her) when she thinks she hath had a full and sufficient number of Children; this you will find suggested by 
* Polit. l. 7. c. 16.  Aristotle. And the exposing of Children is another Allowance. Plato would have this done whenever Parents have exceeded the Bounds of getting Children, and when they grow too numerous. Aristotle is of Opinion 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  that a Child which is lame or blind, or any ways deformed, may be cast out, and without Pity or Care exposed to the wide World: And he saith it would be well if there were a Law to forbid the bringing up of Children that are any way maimed and imperfect. Thus two of the greatest Philosophers that ever were, taught People to be cruel to the Fruit of their own Loins, to be brutish and unnatural to their own Flesh (nay, the worst of Brutes are seldom found to do so). The Practice of the Pagans was according to this Doctrine, as several Writers inform us. Thus Philo 
‖ De Legib. Specialib.  the Jew tells us, That exposing of Infants was usually among many Nations. Herodotus relates 
* L. 2. c. 35.  that the Parents in some Countries were not bound to bring up their Children if they did not like it. The Indian brahmin's, though great Pretenders to Philosophy, cast off their Children if they did not like their Humours and Conditions. It was lawful according to the Athenian Laws 
† Petit. in Leges A●tic●s. , for Parents to expose their newborn Infants, to cast them out of the Family, and to deny them Food. Hence among the Greeks and Latin Comedians, 
‖ Teren●. Heautontim. Act. 4. Scen. 1. Aristophan, Ranae.  when they represent the Manners of the Athenians, the exposing of Infants is commonly brought in. This Custom hath spread itself into many Regions of the World, insomuch that the People of Madagascar throw off, and never have to do with any of their Children that are born on a Friday. Nay, this exposing was heretofore accompanied with downright Murder; for the Lacedæmonians had an Unnatural Custom (and it was by the Decree of Lycurgus) 
* Plutarch. vit. Lycurgi.  that if Children were deformed and unhealthful, they should be cast into a deep Cavern of the Earth near the Mountain Taygetus. This People (who were the Civilest of all Greece) erected an Office on purpose for this; they appointed so many Searchers, whose business it was to examine every Infant as soon as it was born, to see its Limbs, whether they are strong and firm, to make Inspection into the several Parts, and to satisfy themselves whether there was any Lameness, Blindness, or any other Deformity. If there was, they presently ordered them to be thrown into the Barathrum beforementioned; or else those Children that were at a very great distance from that place, were to be carried and left in Woods, or exposed on Rivers in Baskets, and so to be left to the Providence of Heaven. And Plutarch who relateth this, approves of this their murdering their Infants; for he saith (in the close of their Constitutions and Laws which he sets down) that he doth not see any thing amiss in them. I could observe to you also, that Theft was approved of by that wise Lawgiver Lycurg●s, who allowed it to the Spartans' on condition they could keep it close. It was tolerated (saith the forenamed Author) yea 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut.  enjoined by the Law to Steal, but it was looked on as a base and dishonest thing to be found guilty of it: The being taken was criminal, the not stealing cunningly was the thing that was faulty. Lastly, Lying had the Approbation of the Chief Philosopher among the Pagans. It is lawful to Lie for the Good of the Commonwealth, saith Socrates, as he is quoted by his Scholar 
* De Repub. l. 2.  Plato. Thus you see what were the Corrupt Ethics of the Heathen World: for though many of these things which I have mentioned are repugnant to True Philosophy, yet being maintained, and sometimes practised by the Masters of Philosophy, they are justly reckoned among the Deceits of Philosophy. However, if these latter Instances be not so home to the purpose, it is certain that no Man can pronounce so concerning the others beforementioned, which were some of the chief Ingredients and Principles of the Gentile Philosophy.  
But though I have given you this Large Account of their Mistakes in Morality, yet I will pursue this Matter a little farther, and (according to what I propounded) show you in the next place, that the Philosophy the Apostle speaks of was Deceitful, in that it was grossly mistaken about the Happiness of Man. It was mistaken, and consequently deceived Men as to this Grand Point. 1. By not assuring them of a Future Life. 2. By giving no notice of the Eternal Duration of it. 3. By not determining wherein True Happiness consists. 4. By not directing them to the Right Way to it.  
1. It deceived them by not assuring them of a Future Life. The Future Existence of the Soul (though it was a Notion dictated by the Light of Nature and Reason, and sometimes positively and plainly asserted by some of the Philosophers, yet it) was disputed and doubted of among them at other times by reason of false Principles which they had wilfully taken up, and thereby clouded their Reasons and the Natural Dictates of their Minds, as also because of Interest and Sensual Pleasure which stifled the Rational Actings of their Souls. Upon these accounts a Future State was hardly believed by some of the Philosophers, and wholly opposed by others. The Epicureans (as you have heard) flatly denied it: And it is no wonder, seeing their Language was after this rate, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. La●rt. in Epicuro.  We can have no Notion of an Incorporeal Thing, unless it be a Vacuum: 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  They therefore that say the Soul is Incorporeal, talk vainly and idly. 
‖ De Placit. Philosoph. l. 4.  Plutarch attests that Democritus held the Soul to be corruptible, and that it perished together with the Body. It is true, the Pythagor●ans and Platonists asserted that the Soul went on Pilgrimage, and flitted from one Man to another: Yea, they held, that men's Souls passed into Brutes as well as into other Men; and he that was a Man a while ago, is now an Ass, a Wolf, a Dog, or some other Animal: But this is vain Philosophy indeed, and all that we can build upon it (if it were true) is this, That the same Man is often begot, and as often born, and dieth: Indeed Plato 
* In Phaedone, seu de Animo.  brings in Socrates before his Death, treating of the Immortality of the Soul; he makes him speak some things that are Admirable, Excellent, and Divine, but other things are Poor, Mean and Frigid; he presents him as dubious and uncertain, wavering, and inconsistent with himself. That Socrates doubted of a Future State and the Soul's Immortality, may be gathered from that Passage of his, which Plato inserts, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plat. Apologia Socratis.  If these things we speak of be true. Again, Socrates saith, 
‖ Ibid.  One of these two is absolutely necessary, either Death utterly deprives us of all Sense, or we pass from hence to another place. It seems he looked upon Death either as a Sound Sleep, or a Long Journey, but he could not certainly tell which. Plutarch 
* De Consolation ad Apollon.  had this very Notion of it, and on that account concludes that Death is not Evil. After this wavering manner speaks the Great Roman Philosopher, 
† Si supremus ille dies non extincti●nem, sed commutationem a●●ert loci, quid optabilius? Si autem perimit ac delet omnino, quid melius quàm in mediis vitae laboribus obdormiscere, & i●a conniventem somno consopiri sempiterno? Cic. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.  If the day of Death be accompanied with the Change of Place only, and not an utter Extinction, What can be more desirable than Death? Or, if it makes an end of us, and quite annihilates us, What is better than when we are wearied with the Labours of this Life, to fall asleep, and never to wake again? In like manner Seneca, 
‖ Mors nos aut consumit aut emittit: emissis meliora restant, onere detracto; consumptis nihil restat. Epist. 24.  Death doth either consume, or sends us out of this World into another: if the latter be true, there are better things remain for us when we are sent out hence, and have laid aside our Terrestrial Clog and Burden; but if the former be true, then there is nothing remaining for us, being utterly consumed, and consequently not Hurt can befall us; that is our Comfort. Again, he thus faintly and ambiguously talks, 
* Fortasse si modò sapientum vera fama est, recipitque nos locus aliquis. Epist. 63.  Perhaps if the Report of Wise Men be true, and if there be any such thing as a place hereafter to receive us, etc. Thus Antonine (the Royal Philosopher) cannot tell whether Death be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Extinction, or a Translation; whether it be an Annihilation, or a Change of our Condition. And many 
†— Siquis modò extinctis sensus inest. Val. Max. l. 4. c. 6.  others have thus expressed their Doubtfulness about another Life. But most remarkable is that Passage of Xenophon in the Life of Cyrus, whom that Wise Historian represents as a Great Hero, and Singular Pattern of Virtue. We must expect therefore that he will make him speak like a Brave Prince, furnished with true and sound Notions of things. He tells us that this Great Man lying on his Deathbed, and having certain Presages of his approaching Departure out of the World, commanded his Courtiers to come to him, and called his Sons and Friends together, and spoke to them to this purpose, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Instit. Cyr. l. 8.  You ought not to think you know certainly that I shall be nothing after I cease to live here. For let me tell you, the Soul whilst it is in this Mortal Body, doth not live, though it gives Life to the Body; but when it leaves the Body, than it properly lives, than it acts, and is truly knowing and wise. The Tortures and Punishments inflicted on Murderers by Souls thrust out of their Bodies, and the Honour and Rewards of Good and Innocent Minds, prove that Souls still subsist. When Man is dissolved, it is not probable that all things belonging to him go to their particular Kind except the Soul only. You may observe that nothing is more like Death than Sleep: but even in Sleep the Soul discovers its Divinity, and never more than then, for it hath a prospect of things to come, the Soul being at that time more free than ever. If these things be so, reverence my Soul when I am dead, and do according to my Commands. But if these things be not so, but the Soul perisheth with the Body, yet reverence the Gods who are Immortal. And a little after, he saith, Call all the Persians and my Fellow-soldiers to my Funerals, that they may congratulate with me 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that I am got to a sa●e Place and State, wherein no Evil can befall me, whether it shall be my lot to be with God, or whether to be reduced to nothing. A fair Speech indeed! This was the faint Result of all the Knowledge which his Wise Tutor could let him have of another State. He had not determined whether after Death he should be taken to the Gods, or be annihilated. Thus Philosophy, as it was corrupted and depraved, was unsteady and doubtful about a Future Life and Happiness. Much less,  
2. Had they any notice of the Eternal Duration of them. Those of them who held that the Soul was longlived, had no firm Apprehension of its being Immortal. But especially the Stoics failed here; Zeno, the Master of that Sect, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog. Laert▪ in Zenone.  expressly asserted that the Soul remains a●ter Death, but at length is corrupted. The Generality of this Sect went so far as to say, the Soul survives the Body a good while. But if you ask, How long? They tell you 'tis only till the Conflagration of the World. Yet here they were divided, for there were some among them who held, that the weaker sort of Souls (viz. of the unlearned) perish with the Body; but the stronger ones (viz. of Wise Men) hold out till the Conflagration. And with this agrees that Account which 
‖ Diu mansuros aiunt animos; semper, negant. Tusc. Qu. l. 1.  Cicero gives of them; and Seneca relates the very same of this Sect of Philosophers. But the certain Knowledge and Assurance of the Endless Duration of Souls, and the Eternal Reward of Virtue, is the Purchase only of Christ's Appearing, who hath brought Life and Immortality, i. e. Immortal Life, to light by the Gospel. There was but a faint shadow of it before; the Discoveries were dark and obscure, but by the arising of the Sun of Righteousness, this Darkness is dispelled, and we have gained a clear Manifestation of the Everlasting Subsistence of our Spirits in another World. For Christ Jesus, whose Soul was of the same nature with ours, commended his into God's Hands, and so did the Holy Martyr St. Stephen in imitation of Him; which assures us that the Souls of the Righteous are taken into God's Custody at their departure out of the Body. This, together with the Resurrection of▪ our Saviour and his ascending into Heaven, gives us an absolute Assurance and Demonstration of our rising again, and living immortally in another World.  
3. Their Philosophy proved Deceitful in not determining wherein the True Happiness of Man consisteth. The Different Notions of the divers Schools of Philosophy about the Chief Good, proclaim aloud that they only guessed at it, and were not able to tell wherein it was placed. Their Mistakes were never so numerous and (which is worse) so dangerous as here. It is of infinite Consequence to understand what is the Chief Felicity of Man, what is the perfect State of Bliss, what is the Principal and Last End of Man, wherein there remains nothing further to be desired. Now, He only can acquaint us with our True Happiness who is the Author of it, the Lord of Bliss and Glory, who purchased Immortal Life for us, and is Himself the True, Sovereign, Chief Good, the Ultimate Object of our Wishes and Desires, Studies and Endeavours, the only Rest and Centre of our Minds. This is Life Eternal to know, and in knowing to enjoy the only True God, and jesus Christ whom he hath sent. It is the Utmost Happiness of Man to have, in the discharge of his proper Duty, the Favour of God, to know and love him, and to be loved of him. This is the highest Felicity our Nature is capable of, and it is not where fully discovered but in the Holy Scriptures.  
4. Philosophy was mistaken, and thereby proved Deceitful in not discovering the True Certain Way to this Happiness. And indeed how could it? It was impossible for the Philosophers to know how to regain the Favour of Heaven whilst they understood not how they lost it. They could not come to the full understanding of the true Cause of the Degenerate Condition of Mankind. Whence should they know that Man was at first created pure and holy, spotless and innocent, able to serve God with an unwearied Obedience, and that he voluntarily abused his Power and Freedom, and disobeyed the Command of his Maker, and so by an Act of his own Will apostatised from God, and plunged himself into unspeakable Misery? They could not reach this by their Natural Light and Moral Reason. The most Philosophical and Inquisitive Brains, though they have made some guesses about the Corruption of Mankind, were not able to arrive to a clear account of this matter. They were apprehensive that Nature was vitiated; they perceived a strange Disorder, a horrible Shatter, but they were ignorant of the Original Spring and Source of it. And thus not knowing the Cause of Human Corruption and Depravation, it is no wonder that they light not on the Right Remedy of them. In the Gospel alone is set forth the Way for the recovery of lapsed and degenerate Souls; here is discovered the certain Method of obtaining the Pardon of our Sins, and the Assurance of God's Favour, and our Everlasting Welfare. The Contrivance of Man's Redemption by the Blood of Jesus was too high a Flight for the most improved Reason, and Light of Nature. And when it was revealed to some of the most knowing Pagans, they were loath to truckle to so low and mean a Dispensation as the Gospel, which teacheth us to trust and rely upon another's Merits. They all agreed in this, 
* Unum bonum est, quod beatae vitae causa & firmamentum est, sibi fidere. Sen. Epist. 31.  that there is this one good thing which is the Cause and Foundation of Happiness, viz. a Man's trusting to himself, and resting upon what he can do by his own Power. These lofty Sons of Reason counted it absurd to be beholden to another's Undertake for their Felicity; especially it sounded as the most ridiculous thing ever heard of, to hope for Life and Happiness by the Death of another. St. Augustin's Complaint of Tully's Works may be the ●ust Impeachment of all the voluminous Discourses of Philosophers, that the Name of Christ is not to be found there. There is nothing in them of the exalted Morals of our Great and Perfect Lawgiver, of the great Mystery of Godliness manifested by a Redeemer, and of the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Yea, in the account which the Philosophers give of the ordinary Moral Virtues and Vices, they are very wavering and uncertain. He that is acquainted with the Writings of the Chief Moralists among them, knows that they frequently confute themselves: their way is to set up their Wise Man, and then soon after to pull him down; which made an understanding Person declare that the Stoics Wise Man 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch. de Contradict. S●oicorum.  is not where to be found upon Earth; yea, and that he never was in being. He is a Chimaera, a Fiction, made up wholly of Paradoxes, Riddles and Impossibilities; so that there is nothing real in their Description of him but their Pride and Conceit. The false and erroneous Conceptions which these and other Moralists had concerning Virtue and Vice, we have in several Particulars laid open in the preceding part of this Discourse; and it is that which 
‖ De vero cultu, cap. 17.  Lactantius long ago hath very largely proved, viz. that the Philosophers mistook Virtue for Vice, and Vice for Virtue. I remember the excellent 
* Praefat. ad Ethic.  Des Cartes compares the Moral Writings of the Heathens to Splendid and Magnificent Palaces built upon Mud and Sand. They extol, saith he, Virtue to the Skies, and prefer it before all other things, but do not sufficiently explain to us the True Nature of it, or lay the ground of it right: nay, oftentimes that which is called Virtue by them, ought rather to be styled Vice. Now, these ill Foundations cannot but be followed with as bad Superstructures; and both of them will promote vicious Practices in men's Lives. So that upon this account we might conclude the Pagan Philosophers were very defective in showing the way to Happiness; for how could they do this, so long as they were not able to build Men up in True Godliness, and to make them really better?  
But their greatest Blemish was that which I have already mentioned, viz. their Ignorance of the way of Life and Salvation by jesus Christ. They knew not that there is no other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby they must be saved. They understood not that in the great and universal Deluge of Mankind, this is the only Ark we can be safe in. They were unacquainted with the Mystery of Faith and Justification, and the absolute necessity of the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, and other such Divine and Saving Truths, the Discovery of which is peculiar to the Christian Religion, which is the only true Philosophy. For this Name you may observe it bears in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers: Thus justin Martyr, speaking of the Christian Institution, hath these words concerning it, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dialog. cum Tryph.  Philosophy truly is the greatest Good and most acceptable to God, it being that alone which leads us and commends us to him: and they are really holy, who apply their Minds to this Philosophy. And he tells us that he found this to be 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  the only certain and useful Philosophy. So the Barbarous Philosophy with Clemens Alexandrinus, is the Christian Religion, or the New Testament composed by those whom the Greeks styled Barbarians. This according to Isidore is 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. l. 4.  the New and Evangelical Philosophy; and sometimes it is called by him the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. l. 5.  Heavenly Philosophy. And in several other Fathers this is the word for Christianity; and the Doctors and Eminent Professors of the Christian Church are styled 
‖ Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 12.  Philosophers, in opposition without doubt to those among the Pagans who boasted of this Title.  
Thus I have attempted to show how the Apostle's words are to be understood; I have let you see what those things are which were unblamable in the Greek Philosophy, and why the Apostle cautions against it. I have particularly discovered how this Philosophy was abused of old, and thereby became most prejudicial to Christianity, and how the Professors of it did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the word here used) forcibly carry away, and make a Prey and Booty of too great a part of the World by it. Whence it is that the Apostle here couples Philosophy and Vain-Deceit together.   

A Discourse on 1 S. john Ch. 3. v. 8. — For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the Works of the Devil.  
Wherein is showed what the Works of the Devil are.  
I Will inquire into these words, not that they contain any Difficulty in them, but because I would lay open the full and complete Meaning of them: for though I grant that by the Devil's Works is in the general meant all Sin and Vice, (as is evident from the foregoing Verse, He that committeth Sin is of the Devil) yet I conceive there is something more Particular intended here by these words. Some Particular Works are to be understood, wherein the Power, Subtilty, or Malice of that Evil Spirit are more signally exerted, and therefore are Emphatically here called the Works of the Devil. And this is that which I now design to offer; and I will be the larger in insisting on it, because it is of very Great Moment, and is not like some other Subjects which I have treated of before, (that are Controversial and Disputable) and likewise because I see this is not taken notice of by Commentators.  
First, Superstition is a remarkable Work of the Devil, and without doubt is meant here. This is a Reverencing and Adoring at a venture, as those Religionists at Athens did, who erected an Altar to an Unknown God: It is a yielding of unreasonable and groundless Homage, and (to define it more generally) it is attributing in a religious way, more than is due to Things or Persons. It is in this large sense, a vain and groundless Fear where no Fear (i. e. no true cause of Fear) is. And on the other hand, it is a fond and unwarrantable Expectation of those things from created Being's which they cannot afford us, and which they were never designed for. The Evil Spirit took care to employ the Minds of Pagans about these Matters, that he might thereby divert them from Objects of a better Nature, and take off their Thoughts from True Religion, and the Divine Author of it, and that he might hold them in a constant dependence on himself, whilst he persuaded them that these Foolish Fears and Hopes should be of singular use and advantage to them. Hence of Old they had their Lucky and Unlucky Days, on which they made superstitious and fond Remarks. The Observer of Times mentioned by Moses, Deut. 18. 10. and joined with him that useth Divination was, I conceive, of this sort: his proper Talon was to tell what Days were Fortunate and what Unfortunate, what Events should happen on such Seasons, and what on others, and which of them should be Successful. And thus R. David Kimchi understands the place. The Persians of old had this Notion of the distinction of Days, as appears from their casting Lot from Day to Day, and from Month to Month, (Esth. 3. 7.) when the Design was on foot of Massacring the Jews. They were solicitous to inquire what Lucky Days and Months of the Year would happen to favour that Bloody Conspiracy. From those first Ages of the World, this Superstitious Practice was derived to the Greeks and Romans; the former of whom (as Hes●od, Pythagoras, and others acquaint us) were very Great Observers of Days, critically dividing them into Good and Bad ones, and calling one kind of them 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesiod. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Mothers, and the other Stepdame's. Hence we have Hesiod's Days, which he styles so, because he treats there of the Difference of Days, some whereof are Good, others Bad, and a third sort of a middle Nature. And the latter (i. e. the Romans) outdid the grecians in this vain Observation of Days, marking the Lucky ones (as they took them to be) with White Characters, and the Unlucky ones with Black, to signify the different Nature of them. They grew at last so observant of these Distinct Times, that (as Macrobius and others relate) they dared not keep Court, or engage in Battle, or so much as invite their Friends to Supper, or do any thing else in the course of their Lives, upon those Times which they had fond marked out as Unfortunate.  
To this were added many other Superstitious Usages, as Ariolation, Omens, Auguries, and a vast number of other kinds of South-saying and Divinations. A very remarkable and ancient Instance we have of these in King Nabuchadnezzar, who when he would be determined whether he should go against the jews or the Ammonites, and be prosperous in either Expedition, betook himself to the known and usual practice of Divination, (for they generally used before the Wars to divine about the Manner of it: they writ down the Names of the Countries or Cities which they designed to invade and make War against; and according as the Divination directed them, they fell upon such a particular place): 
* E●ek. 21. 21.  The King of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways to use Divination: he made his Arrows bright, he consulted with Images, he looked in the Liver. Where we see that (according to what we read in Profane Authors, who speak of the manner of Divination and Enchantment) he is careful of that Circumstance so much observed by that sort of Men, viz. to choose a place where two or three ways meet, and there to go about their Business, for they thought this was very advantageous to their Designs. Having thus made choice of a convenient Post, he falls to the work of Divining; and that he may be sure to speed well, he uses three sorts of Divination, that by one of them at least (if the other two should fail) he might arrive to a foreknowledge of the future Occurrence he was prying into. First, He made his Arrows bright: from whence some would gather, that the Chaldean Kings had a way of exercising their Magic Skill upon their Weapons before they went out to Battle, to give them Edge and Force when they came to fight. But this is a gross Mistake, because this place in Ezekiel represents only the Chaldeans way of Divining, and therefore the Arrows are not mentioned here with any respect to the Battle, but only they are used in order to Divination: Which was thus, according to St. jerom on the place; They put several Arrows into a Quiver written with the Names of those things which they consulted about, and that Arrow which was taken out first, was the Lot; and they determined by this which City to Besiege or Invade. Which comes near the Divination in use among the 
* Liv. lib. 1.  Romans, by certain Letters and by Rods. But I rather think that the Chaldee Version affords us a better Interpretation, which renders that Clause thus, jacet Sagittas, he casts, he throws, he shoots hi● Arrows up into the Air, (where they are seen bright and glittering, and therefore are said to be made bright, which the other Account, given by St. jerom, takes no notice of) to see which way they would fall, and thence to know which way to lead his Army. This I take to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by Nabuchadnezzar before he went out to War: He stood in bivio, at the parting of the two Ways, (as was the custom of Diviners) intently observing towards which of them the Arrows fell, that he might know thereby whether the Ammonites or the jews were to be fought with good Success. This was the very same mode of Divination which was used by the Greeks and Romans, this was the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divining by a Rod or Staff, so frequent, of old, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a large Word and Sign; a Rod of Iron or Steel, or Wood, or any such slender thing like a Wand, or Staff, or Arrow. The jews (who at one time or other imitated all the Pagan Follies in the World) took up this Soothsaying, Their Staff declared unto them, Host 4. 12. i e. they made use of this Rhabdomancy which was so frequent among the Pagans, and thereby they prognosticated concerning things to come. The Arabians of old (as Christopherus à Castro tells us) consulted their Gods by Arrows or Staves: and (if I may be permitted to offer my Conjecture) this practice among them and others was borrowed, either from the Egyptian Magicians Rods, Exod. 7. 12. or from the Rods mentioned Numb. 17. where the Israelites were commanded to write the Names of the Princes of their Tribes. The Gentiles it may be, in a fond imitation of this Ceremony, (which without doubt was grown famous, and spread abroad in the World) made use of Rods or Staves in Divination. This I propound in way of Conjecture and Probability, it being undeniable that the Gentiles aped the Israelites in several things, as I shall have occasion at another time to make good in abundance of Instances, and those perhaps not hitherto taken notice of.  
Secondly, He consulted with Images, or (as 'tis in the Hebrew) with Teraphim, so often spoken of in the Old Testament, which are no other than Images for Divination, to foretell future Events. These were a sort of Magical Images (for you must know that Divination (of which I am now speaking) and Magic (of which afterwards) generally went together) used by the Gentiles; the Egyptians and Arabians especially, called by these latter Talisman 
* Selden de Dis Syr. 1. Syntag. , made at a certain time when they knew such Stars and Constellations were most active. The Diabolick Spirits entered at such a time into these Images, these Teraphim, and possessed them as they used to take possession of Humane Bodies, and by them and in them they spoke, and moved and acted, and did strange Feats, and gave Answers to those that enquired of them, so that they may be said to be the Devil's Oracles. These Images were very early in the World, if we may credit the 
† Zoar▪ etc.  Jewish Writers, who tell us that they were used by the profligate Sinners that lived about the time of the Flood, and afterwards by the Babel-builders. But this we are sure of, that these Magical Instruments were made use of by the King of Babylon, and that they were consulted by him in the way of Divination, under which Notion I have considered them at present.  
Thirdly, He looked into the Liver, or the Heart, (for the word Cabed signifies both) and thence this sort of Augur is styled Roeh baccabed by the Jewish Masters, an Inspector into those parts of Animals: whereby we are to understand that common kind of Divination used by all the Pagans, especially the Romans, (who perhaps had it from the Chaldeans) viz. the looking into the Entrails of Beasts that were to be sacrificed, and from that Critical Inspection, guessing at what should come to pass.  
These were the three sorts of Divination which Nabuchadnezzar applied himself to upon so great an Emergency; and besides these, there was an incredible number more which the Pagan Nations (i. e. almost all the World) addicted themselves to. But indeed the Divination by the Fowls of the Air was of the greatest account, for it was believed by the Vulgar, that 
* 

— Name Dîs, ut proxima quaeque,  
Nunc pennâ veros, nunc datis ore sonos.   Ovid. Fast. l. 5.  these were well acquainted with the Gods, and knew their Minds better than other Creatures, by reason of their greater nearness to them. I will produce some particular Instances of this their Superstition, which consisted in Auguries and Auspicies, i. e. (taking those words strictly) divining by Birds, foretelling by the flying, or sitting, or feeding, or by the Voices of these Creatures, things that should happen afterwards. Thus 
* Homer. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Calchas from the number of Sparrows which he saw, foretold how many Years the Trojan War was to last. The Swallows that were seen by Darius when he was in his Expedition against the Scythians, were looked upon as an Unlucky Auspice, and presaged his Death. Alexander the Great was assured by his Augur of a Victory before the Battle from the flight of an Eagle. 
† Varro, Ennius  Vectius. (a famous Augur) from the Vultures that appeared to Romulus, gathered, that the Roman Empire should last twelve hundred Years. 
‖ Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 21.  The crowing of Cocks was Auspicious, and presaged Victory to the Boetii against the Lacedæmonians. So likewise Themistocles' Army were assured of Conquest by the fortunate Crowing of those Animals. But the fightings of Cocks, it seems, were an ill Omen, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Artemidor. l. 3. c. 5.  foretold Seditions and Civil Wars. The Bees that were seen on the Altar before the Fight at Pharsalia, were reckoned Unfortunate, and portended Pompey's fatal Overthrow. Several other Signs and Omens, Good and Bad (as they accounted them, and verily believed them to be) were frequent among the Heathens and they were strangely affrighted or encouraged by them, both in their Journeys, and at Home. Augustus Caesar was a Great Observer of these, as a 
† Sue●on. in O●tavio, cap. 92.  Credible Author informs us, and therefore I will mention one pretty Passage that concerns him: 
‖ Idem. cap. 96.  When he was upon his March to Actium, and prepared to engage the Enemy, there met him an Ass with the Owner of it: the Name of the former (for it seems Asses had their Names then) was Nicon, which signified a Conqueror; and the latter's Name was Eutychus, the import of which was Fortunate. Hereupon the Emperor took the Omen to be good, and promised himself Victory; and after the Victory he called the Place Nicopolis, and the Image of an Ass was set up in the Temple there in remembrance of the Happy Omen.  
I might add that Sneezing was accounted a Sacred Sign, and was called so by some of the 
* Hom. Odyss. 6. Aristot. de Hist. Nat. Plutarch. vit. Homeri.  best Pagan Writers, and that it was held one of the Greatest Omens (either for Good or Evil, according to its Circumstances) by the generality of the deluded World. Thus forsooth Sneezing 
† Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.  in the Morning was held Unlucky, but at Noon or afterwards it was thought to be of another Nature. If it was heard from the left hand, it was doomed Unfortunate, but not so on the Right: wherefore from this latter it was that Themistocles and Xenophon, two great Warriors, took their Omen of Success; the 
‖ Plut. in vitaâ Themistoel.  one was encouraged by it to fight the Enemy, the 
* Xenoph. Hist. l. 6.  other was chosen Commander of the Army by it.  
To speak more generally, viz. of the whole Set of Pagan Divinations and Auguries, they were looked upon as Certain and Undoubted Prognostics of Future Occurrences. Whenever they busied themselves about the flight, and chattering, and the pecking of Birds, and made inquiry into the Entrails of slain Beasts, or used any other way of Divining, they were so besotted as to think, that they could thence infallibly foretell Futurities. To which purpose there was a particular Office and College of Augurs, who (though their Name be from one Species only) were skilful in the whole Art of Divination, and interpreted all the Signs of the Gods, as they called them. So great Reverence was paid to this Art, that 
* Nè quid inauguratò faciunto. Lex Papir. Auspiciis hanc urbem conditam esse, auspiciis bello ac pace, domi militiaeque omnia geri, quis est qui ignoret? Liv. lib. 6. c. 41.  nothing was done at Home or Abroad without it. The old Romans could neither create Magistrates, nor make Laws without the Presence and Approbation of the Augurs, as is clear from Tully's Books of Laws. Ave sinistrâ populi magister esto, was a Law of the Twelve Tables, by virtue of which all Offices and Places were disposed by Augury. Hence we are told that some 
† A. Gell. l. 13. c. 14.  Magistrates were reputed and styled Greater, and some Lesser, because the one was created with Greater, and the other with Lesser Auguries. We read likewise that the Lacedaemonian Kings admitted Augurs into their Councils, and constantly advised with them. Yea, among the Persians and Parthians of old, their Kings and Greatest Princes were skilled in Augury, for they thought it was a necessary Qualification of a King to Divine. The noblest and choicest Citizens of Rome, were preferred to this Priesthood, (for so it was styled by them); of the Authority and Dignity of which Tully discourseth in his Books of Divination, and therefore in the beginning prefaceth to them in excuse of what he was to say, because he was an Augur himself. There he reckons up the several sorts of Divination used by the Gentiles, some of which I have rehearsed here: And from the whole we may observe, (which is the thing designed by me in mustering up these Pagan Follies) that Satan bore a great sway in the Minds of Men, and deluded them after a strange manner, to that purpose making use of all sorts of Creatures (as well as the Serpent of old) to deceive Mankind. Satan, I say, did this, for I suppose the Conceit of those Persons who think he had no hand in these things, will be exploded by Considerate and Wise Men, who cannot but see how greatly his Cause is promoted by these Pagan Superstitions. It is evident that whilst the Minds of the Gentiles were detained and busied with these gross Vanities, a Habit of Superstition was contracted, the Great Disposer and Over-ruler of all Occurrences and Events was forgotten, Divine Providence was banished out of the World, groundless Fears and Jealousies were created, and all the true and ●ound Principles of Religion were destroyed. Whence it is reasonable to conclude, that the Hellish Damo●s had a hand in all this, and that from them these Auguries had their Original, (as 
* De D●ct. Christian. l. ●.  St. Augustin long since determined); and, in a word, that these were the Noted and Signal Works of the Devil. He took care to have these spread over the whole World, that his Dominion and Power might be thereby enlarged. Every where it was the custom to consult their Gods, as they called it, i. e. in plainer and truer terms, to inquire of the Devil, by applying themselves to the Arts of Divination and Soothsaying. This is represented by 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sympos.  Xenophon as the general practice of the Pagan World; and so it is by 
† Quae est autem gens, aut quae civitas quae non aut extis pecudum, aut augurum, aut ●or●ium praedictione moveatur? De Divina●. l. 1.  Tully. In all Places (as hath been suggested already) Auguries were used whenever any thing of Consequence was to be undertaken and done, that thereby they might know (as they fancied) whether it should prove Successful. And as for the rest of the Omens and Signs styled Lucky and Unlucky; the use of them was as Catholic, and (which is worse yet) they were in esteem even among some Persons of no mean Understanding. Thus 
‖ In Problem.  Plutarch, as serious a Man as he was, is of Opinion that there were really Good and Evil Auguries: And 
* Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.  Pliny asserts (which is very strange, if we consider the Genius of the Man) such Divinations to be valid. And we shall find that Caras, Orpheus, Amphiaraus, Tiresias, Amphiction, Melampus, and others, were the Great Authors and Promoters of all sorts of Omens among the Credulous Gentiles.  
Yet we may take notice of this also, that the most Noble and Generous Spirits, though not enlightened with Christianity, slighted these things, and looked upon them as Delusions. Thus we read how the Gallant Hector answered Polydamas, who was inclined to put off the Battle, because of some Ill Omen he had received from the Augurs; he plainly told him. That 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the only best Augury, and that which was of Divine Authority, was to fight valiantly for his Country. It was a memorable Speech of M. Varro, a most Wise Roman, who, perceiving the Errors and Forgeries of the Augurs Divinations, from their inspection into the Entrails of Beasts, freely said upon this Occasion, That the Gods were both Idle and Sordid, in lapping up their Counsels in the unsavoury Bowels of Brutes, to be raked out thence by the mad Priests. Eusebius relates out of Hecataeus, an old Greek Historian, that when one Mossolanus, (or as others, Mysonianus) a Great and Notable Captain under Alexander the Great, and Eminent for his Skill in discharging the Warlike Bow, advanced with the Army near the Red Sea; a Soothsayer bid him stop, and make an Halt: Whereupon the Captain made bold to ask him, What was the Matter? and why they were not suffered to March? The Officious Augur presently pointed at a Bird on the Way, and told them, It was necessary to consult that Animal, and to see which way it would fly, that so they might follow her flight by marching that way; or if she flew back, that they might return too. The Warrior being thus hindered on his March by the Augur's trifling stay, to divine about the Success of the War by that Fowl that sat on the Way, silently drew his Bow and shot it dead upon the spot; and when he had done so, he uttered such words as these, How was it possible that silly Creature could read us our Fortune, when (you see) she could not foretell her own? How could that Animal which foresaw nothing of the Arrow, foretell us any thing of our Journey? If she had known Futurities, she had not come in the way to be killed by Mysonianus. And so he marched on, and we do not read that he was e'er the less successful for this Attempt. In relation to this, I remember Q. Curtius, in the Life of Alexander the Great, condemns that Prince for his Vanity, in minding the Superstitious Observations and Omens of the Augurs. The Sentiment of Cato in this Matter is well known; It was a Wonder to him if one Soothsayer did not fall a laughing when he saw another, they being all of them such a Cheating Tribe, and designing purposely to abuse the People. Cicero, who was an Augur himself, and one of the chief of that Worshipful College, sometimes seriously con●utes the Follies of these Divinations, and at other times makes himself merry with them, and laughs at those fond Men who direct their Lives by the chattering of a Crow, by the Entrails of a Sheep, by Oracles, by Dreams, by Lots, and by Fantastic Prodigies: This is the Task of that Great Wit, in his Second Book of Divination. Thus among the Wisest Men, the Folly of Sooth-saying was despised and rejected, and the Augurs themselves were looked upon no other than Impostors; and many of the other Pagan Superstitions began to be disesteemed and laid aside.  
Now, if this was done by those that made free use of their Reasons and Judgements, it is no wonder that it was backed by the Author of the Christian Religion, whose Design it was to rectify and improve those Faculties. We cannot but observe therefore, that what was hitherto said and done, was far short of what was afterwards effected towards the Time of our Saviour's Coming into the World. This Daystar from on High, even before it actually visited us, and blessed our Horizon, darted such a Light into the World, that they were enabled to discern, though in an imperfect manner, the gross Fooleries of that Superstitious Religion which was among them. And when the Glorious Light of a Saviour and Redeemer shined forth unto a perfect Day, when the Son of God manifested himself in the Flesh, than the dark and dismal Night of Superstition wholly vanished in many parts of the World, and the Follies which they once embraced, grew odious and abominable. And it is most certain that the Principles and Maxims of Christianity do eminently overthrow the fond Surmises and frightful Observations of Superstitious Men. Nothing indeed could do it so effectually as the Gospel: for now under the Evangelical Oeconomy and Christian Dispensation, our Adoration is confined and determined, and we know whom we Worship; and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gentiles can have no footing here. And as for the Dread of Future Occurrences, Christianity hath utterly removed it by the Right Apprehensions of things which it blesseth us with, and by teaching us to place Religion in that which is truly Religion. It effectually extirpates all Superstition, by stifling the Principles of Enthusiasm and Fanaticism, by suppressing False Fears, and Childish and Groundless Terrors, by superseding all Fantastic Devotion, by putting an end to all Foolish Rites and Idle Ceremonies, all Superfluous and Needless Observances, which proceed from a Causeless Timorousness in Religion, and from False Representations of God and his Worship. All this we own to the Truth and Doctrine revealed by jesus Christ: For though considerable Discoveries were made by some Wise and Serious Persons among the Heathens, as well as Jews, yet this was nothing in comparison of what followed, when the Laws of Christ prevailed in the World. And particularly as for Divinations and Sooth-saying, (wherein a great part of the Gentile Religion consisted) as they were reckoned to be Fanciful and Groundless things, and not founded on any True Reason and Bottom, even by some of the Pagan's themselves, (as you have heard) so they are much more rejected, confuted and baffled by Christianity which is our Reasonable Service, and requires nothing of us but what is just and accountable, and every way correspondent to the Dictates of our Rational Nature. This acquaints us, that all those Superstitious Omens are really what some of them were called by the Pagan's themselves, Bruta Fulmina, Insignificant Flashes, mere Mormoes to fright Children and Fools, things that have no other Existence than Imagination, actuated by the Devil the Author of Delusion, especially of all Superstitious Cheats, which Christ jesus came to discover and destroy.  
Secondly, It is reasonable to understand by the Works of the Devil, the Pagan Oracles which were so famous of old at Delphos, and in other parts of Greece, as the Trophonian Oracles at Thebes and Lebadia, (both in Boeotia); and those other more remote ones in Lybia and Egypt, and other Countries, where were these Habitations of the Devils, those Dens of Satan, who loved to be enquired of and courted by the ignorant and besotted Pagans. I know there are some who think there was nothing of the Diabolical Spirit in these Oracles, but that they were only for Gain. Caelius Rhodiginus professeth himself to be of this Opinion; but yet before he ends the Chapter (where he asserts it) he ingenuously confesseth, That 
* Lect. Antiq. l. 2. c. 12.  this Business was not altogether managed without some correspondence with and help from the Devil. And there is a 
* Sir Tho. P. B's Essays.  Gentleman of late very much concerned and moved, because we attribute it to him: The setting up of Oracles, saith he, was merely for the Interest of the Priests, and that was all. They were a juggle to get Money and Repute, especially among the reat Men and Princes: Therefore he concludes, That they are Superstitious Christians who think they were from the Devil. But who sees not the Vanity of such an Inference as this, as if the Oracles could not be from the Devil, and yet for the Priest's Interest too? These are no ways inconsistent, and therefore whilst this Gentleman makes one exclude the other, he uses a Fallacy, but no Argument. I deny not but there was Interest in the case, yea, double Interest, that of the Devil, as well as the other of the Priests. I grant him that Oracles were a juggle, but a devilish one; and he must acknowledge the same, if he pleases to remember that there were sometimes such things foretold by them as could not possibly be foreseen and known by Humane Skill. But the Knowledge and Sagacity of the Evil Angels might reach them; because these Invisible and Active Spirits can fly up and down the World with infinite swiftness, and inform themselves of all Occurrences whatsoever, and are present at the most private Consults, and have learned, by long Experience and Observation, to dive into the Designs of Men, and to see the very Disposition and Tendency of Causes before they begin to act: Besides that, they are always caballing together, and holding Correspondence with one another, so that it is probable what one of them knows, the whole Herd of them is acquainted with, and that in a few Moment's time. Hence, hence it is that the Oracles spoke such shrewd things sometimes, which it is impossible to give an account of, unless we assert that this Office was set up and maintained by those Invisible Demons: for 'tis certain, that the most Cunning and Subtlest Priest of them all could never have foretold those things. Again, there is ground to believe that these Ill Spirits were Managers here, because we are ascertained from those who describe the Manner and Circumstances of the delivery of the Oracles, that there was something more than Man in it. The Place was filled with amazing Noise and Horror, loud Shrieks and Howl were heard, and sometimes the Temples were torn with Thunderclaps; the Earth trembled and quaked, and so did the Priests: these now appeared with erected Hair, with distorted Eyes, with foaming Mouths, and unusual but frightful Voices; they beat and knocked their Breasts with an Inhuman Fury; they raged and raved, and ran about like possessed Persons, as indeed they were. The Subterraneous Demons, whom they consulted and dealt with, put both the Earth and their Bodies into this Motion and Disorder. This looks like the truest Cause of them, and therefore we have good reason to assert, that those Pagan Priests were acted by those Evil Spirits, who generally brought them their Intelligence, and helped them to give Answers. And this was done (if I may be permitted to offer my Conjecture) in imitation of the Celebrated Oracle of Vrim and Thummim, and of the Divine Inspirations and true Prophetic Spirit which the Holy Scripture speaks of: for 'tis certain that the Infernal Spirits did in many Particulars emulate the things and practices which were in use among the People of God the Jews, and which are recorded in the Sacred W●itings.  
From what hath been said, I think we may cross the Learned Gentleman's Assertion, and with Confidence, as well as Reason aver, That they are no Superstitious Christians, who think the Pagan Oracles were from the Devil: For we find apparent Marks and Signs of his acting in them, we see those things done which we cannot impute to any other Cause, and therefore here is no reason to cry out of Superstition. But on the other side, we may suspect there is something worse, and that those who so briskly oppose the Devil's acting in the Heathen Oracles, are persuaded there are no such Being's as Devils. However, 'tis certain, that these Persons show themselves ignorant of the Devices of these Diabolical Spirits, whose Business it is, by all Arts and Methods imaginable, to hurt and mischief Mankind: and this of their Oracles was none of the least effectual to this purpose. For hereby they eclipsed the Glo●y of the Divine Majesty, setting up an Infallibility to confront 〈◊〉, out of a proud and ●a●cy Emulation of the True God, and an insolent Ambition of being like him: They obscured the Knowledge of the True Religion, they erected a False Worship in the World, they confirmed Men in their Errors and Superstitious Persuasions, they extinguished the Sense and Remembrance of their Duty, by nourishing in them False Fears and Fond Credulity, yea, a Diffidence in God's Providence, and a Trusting in the Enemy of Mankind. Hereby likewise (as hath been intimated) they abused and profaned the most Sacred Things of Divine Institution and Appointment, viz. by an impious and profane aping of the Holy Oracles, the Revelations, Visions and Dreams which were vouchsafed to God's own peculiar and chosen People. Thus it appears that the Design of the Pagan Oracles, was not wholly for the Interest of their Priests, but that the Devil got much more by them than they. I see reason therefore to subscribe to Lactantius and other Pious Fathers, who expressly tell us that they were the Invention of Satan. And indeed this was not only the belief of Christians, but of Pagans themselves. 
* Lib. de Daemonibus.  Porphyrius (who was a very Inquisitive Man, and had diligently searched into the Nature of the Oracles) ingenuously confesses that the Daemons were the Authors of them. And the same is acknowledged by 
† Lib. de Mysteriis, cap. 21.  jamblicus. And though (it is true) some of the greatest Philosophers among the Gentiles had not attained to this Notice, (or if they had, they would not let the Vulgar know it); yet I wonder that any Man who understands the true Nature of Things by the Light of the Gospel, where the Designs of the Malicious Spirits of Darkness are so fully discovered, can be a Stranger to this, and publicly tell the World that the Oracles were Cheats of the Priests, and not of the Devil. This I have endeavoured to disprove, and to show that the Cursed Daemons made use of these on purpose to deceive and delude Mankind, to uphold their own Kingdom, and to weaken and destroy that of the Lord Jesus.  
Having thus made it evident that the Pagan Oracles were the Works of the Devil, (which it was necessary for me to undertake in the first place under this Head) I proceed now to prove that our Saviour destroyed those impious Works. This he effectually did, by curbing and lessening the Power of this Infernal Spirit, by detecting his Cheats and Forgeries, by silencing his Priests, and by striking the Devil himself dumb. It is true, even before Christ's Birth, the Histories of those Times tell us, that the O●acular Spi●●ts did not make Answer, but began to falter, and could not play their accustomed Pranks. The Oracles did not presently cease just at our Saviour's Coming; for that they did decay before that time, is plain from those words of 
* Cur isto modo jam O●acula D●lphis non ed●n●●r, non modo nostrâ a●ta●e, fed 〈◊〉, ●t nihil possit e●●e contemptius?  Tully; What is the meaning of the Cessation of the Delphic Oracle's, not only in our Time, but a good while ag●, insomuch that nothing is more contemptible now than they are? Neither is it denied that even after Christ's Death some Oracles were enquired of, and returned Answers, if Su●tonius in the Life of Caligula may be credited. And Plutarch speaking of the Ceasing of Oracles in Greece, excepteth that of I ●badia. And other Histories, I know, mention some kind of Oracling in force till Iulian's Time. But it is undeniable, that about the time of Christ's arrival in the World, and when he was arrived, and soon after upon the preaching of the Gospel, m●st of the Heathen Oracles were struck speechless, and delivered no Answers to those that came to inquire of them. This is testified by 
* 
Excessere omnes adytis, arisque relictis  
Dii quibus imperium hoc steterat, etc.   Lucan who lived in Nero's Time; and by 
† 
— Delphis oracula 〈◊〉,  
Et g●nus humanum damnat caligo 〈◊〉.   juvenal who flourished in Domitian's Reign. These and other Writers complain that Apollo's Oracles were ceased, and would tell them then Fortunes no more; that the Daemons were all packed away; that the Forlorn Spirits had quitted their Beloved Territories, and with horrid Groans resigned up their former Mansions. And this is it which was foretold by one of the Sibyls in her Mystic Verses, that a Little Child, even the Blessed Babe jesus, should throw down Idolatry with his Hand, and stop the Mouths of the Delphic Devils. And here by the way I appeal to you, whether it was not a wonderful Forerunner and Presage of what should afterward be effected by Christ in this Matter, that one of the Sibyls was of Delphos, and prophesied concerning our Saviour there, in the City where the Oracle of Apollo was, whence she bears the Name of the Delphic Sibyl, because she had her chief Seat at Delpho●, and there delivered her Oracles several Years before the Trojan Wars. This was a h●ppy Prognostic of the Blessed Change which was to be made, i. e. that Christ jesus should be preached, and the Prophecies concerning Him and the Gospel be fulfilled, in those very Places where Paganism and Idolatry so mightily prevailed. But we need not fly to the Poets: It is evident from other Writers, that upon Christ's manifesting himself to the World, yea, sometime before he actually appeared, the Oracles were generally suppressed and quashed. I will mention only Plutarch, a Grave Historian and Philosopher, who lived in Trajan's Reign, and w●it two Treatises, wherein he positively attests the Cessation of the Oracle's in those Days, and purposely searcheth into the Causes of it: What a strange Account doth ●e give there of it? You will find th●t he is hard put to it, and utters many Ridiculous and Absurd Things. But he is to be excused, because he could give no other, he being so unhappy as not to own the Author of Christianity, who was the Cause of this and G●●●ter Wonders in that Age. This Writer will have the Cessation of Oracles to be the Effect of Natural Causes; much after the rate of Tully in his Book of Divination, who imputes it to the Earth become Old, so that the Fatidick Virtue was worn out through length of Time; As we see, saith he, many Rivers are dried up and turned into another Course for the same Cause. Just so Plutarch Philosophizeth; The Oracles (saith he) depended upon the Nature of the Soil, that is, a particular sort of Ground in those Parts, sent up a particular sort of Vapours and Exhalations, which with their Steam affected the Priest's Brains and Spirits, and so moved them to prophecy, and made them capable of giving Answers concerning Future Events, to those that came to consult them: But after a long time, this peculiar Quality and Temperament of the Earth vanished, and could not any longer supply the Priests with such a sort of Vapours as would cause Predictions; and so farewel Oracles. A very goodly Account, you'll say, especially from one of Great Learning. This is Vain Philosophy indeed; but let us not upbraid Him, but bless God in behalf of ourselves, that we have attained to greater Light and Knowledge, and are acquainted with the True Causes of things, and are assured that those Oracles were Cheats and Delusions of the Prince of Darkness; and in plain terms, that they were the Works of the Devil, and therefore it was no wonder that they were destroyed by Him, who was manifested for that very Purpose. But that which I allege this Writer for is this, that you may be satisfied from him of the Matter of Fact, and be throughly convinced that things did really happen according to our Saviour's Design, and that these Works of the Devil were destroyed. Accordingly therefore this Author tells us, that in his Time the Oracles generally were cashiered. Indeed the Pythian Oracle would now and then tattle a little, but very sorry Stuff it was, he saith, and it was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in Prose. The Oracular Daemons could not afford, it seems, to versify as they had done before; the Vein of Poetry flagged. And in Boeotia, a Country which before swarmed with Oracles, there was (he saith) but a single One left. Those that would be farther satisfied in this Matter, may consult 
† Praepar. Evang. lib. 4 & 5.  Eusebius, who hath fully treated of this Theme, showing not only the Vanity and Falsehood of the Oracles, but particularly relating how they ceased at Christ's Coming: this being so largely handled by him, I remit the Reader thither.  
And now I might observe concerning these Oracles, (as I did before of the Superstitious Divinations) that many of the bravest and wisest Heathens cared not for them, but manifestly slighted and jeered them, as 
‖ Plutarch. de Herodoto.  Demosthenes could say the Delphic Oracle did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had learned to favour Phi●ip King of Macedon; that is as much as to say, they were Arrant Cheats, (for the Devil could Cheat and Flatter as well as the Priests) they could be corrupted with Gold, and take what p●rt they pleased. The People began at last to see through these Impostures, and consequently their regard to them was considerably abated. They arrived to this Notion, (which Minutius Felix insists upon) that the Observers of these Oracles were not successful, and the Despisers of them prospered. They found out at length the Reason why Apollo gave such Dark and Ambiguous Answers, why they were delivered by the Priests mutteringly and with a low Voice, so as not to be perfectly heard, namely, because by this means they could best salve their Cheating, and the Enquirers should not be able to know whether they spoke Truth or Falsehood. For these Reasons Apollo was Surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he oftentimes put them off with Obliqne and Doubtful Responses: for the Devil in these Oracles of Old professedly Equivocated, and played the jesuit betimes. I could set before you what the brave Cato thought of these Oracles, as he is represented in Lucan. I might transcribe a great part of Tully's second Book of Divination, which discovers the Vanities of these Responses, and proves them to be mere Gulls. But you know my Business at present is to evince, (and I hope I have done it sufficiently) that these Lying Oracles were confuted at last by a Greater than Cato or Tully, even Christ jesus our Lord. It is a known, but remarkable Passage in Plutarch, that the Daemons complained aloud that their Great God Pan was dead: That was the lamentable Voice which was heard in the Grecian Sea in Tiberius' Reign, when our Saviour was Crucified. Then Christ through Death destroyed him who had the Power of Death, the Devil: then the Prince of this World was judged: then our Saviour, having spoiled Principalities and Powers on the Cross, triumphed over them in it. No wonder then that the Cursed Daemons howled and lamented, when they saw their Kingdom was shaken, and began to fail; when they experimentally found that He who cried with a loud Voice on the Cross, had drowned the Noise of their Juggling Oracles. And in a short time, as Other Writers will inform us, this Diabolical Trade was clearly put down in the most considerable Countries of the World, which we must attribute to the sole Power and Sovereignty of that Jesus who came to destroy the Works of the Devil.  
Thirdly, I understand by these Works the Diabolical Obsessions of men's Bodies, which our Saviour did actually defeat and destroy, when he ejected the Evil Spirits out of those poor Wretches who were thus possessed by them. It is evident that at the time when Christ was on Earth, great Numbers of Persons laboured under this grievous Calamity, and we do not read that at any other Seas●n such numerous Legions of them molested Mankind. But the Evangelists acquaint us, that our Lord did frequently rescue the Bodies of the Possessed from the Power and Dominion of those F●ul Fiends. For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often used in the Gospels, may perhaps not be understood in the rigour of it in every place, (for Lunatics and Epileptic Persons, when they were extraordinarily distempered, were said by the jews to be possessed with an Evil Spirit; and in this kind was Saul troubled, say the Jewish Doctors); yet the Relation which those Inspired Penmen give of the Formal and Solemn Casting out of Devils by our Saviour, is a sufficient Proof to any observing Person, that, if not all, yet most of those who are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were really Possessed. For though that Man who is styled a Demoniac in Luke 9 39 is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be a Lunatic, in Matth. 17. 15. yet all that can be gathered thence is, that this Man, and those others that were possessed with the Devil, had Periodical Fits, that they were either epileptics, or Distracted at certain times; and that, as it is usual with such Persons, they were worse when the Moon increased. Therefore the Arabic Version of the forenamed Place in St. Matthew is very remarkable; He hath a Devil, and he is exceedingly vexed in the beginnings of the Full Moon: as much as to say, the Devil and the Disease met together, and the former was the Author of the latter. Or, we may say, the Impure Spirits chose to enter into those crazy and Diseased Bodies, when they were most disposed to Illness by the powerful Influence of the Moon. This is no Argument that they were not really possessed with the Devil; but it is a plain Proof of the contrary, and of something else, viz. that Satan doubled his Malice, vexing and tormenting them at a time when they were least able to bear it. As for the Reasons why such vast Numbers of Men were thus visited when our Saviour was on Earth, these may justly be assigned; it was an Age much given to Magic and Enchantments, and the calling up of Spirits was a frequent thing in those Days: Besides, Divine Providence might so order it at that very juncture of Time for an Occasion of the more Glorious Cures. It might happen by the Particular Disposal of the Almighty, that thereby it might appear to the World, that Christ had Power over the Devils, and could, when he pleased, dislodg those Mischievous Spirits, and rescue Mankind from their Tortures. The Reality and Greatness of his Sovereignty over those Infernal Powers, were to be demonstrated by those Achievements. Moreover, it may rationally be thought that the Devils would be most busy than when Christ came into the World, and would be more interessed to disturb and torment Mankind, because they saw their Kingdom was going down, and Christianity was to be exalted in the World. Now therefore it was time for the Messiah to exert his Miraculous Power; and behold, as an effect of it, the Devils submitted to him, and at his Command presently quitted the Bodies which they had taken possession of. One Person among the rest was a famous Instance of this sort, out of whom a Legion of Devils was ejected by Christ's Holy Exorcism: With one Word he vanquished whole Regiments of the Kingdom of Darkness; he routed Armies of Infernal Daemons. I remit you to the Evangelical Records, where you have abundant proof of the casting out of these Hellish Spirits, not only by our Saviour himself, but by his Disciples, who (as you read) came to him with these words in their Mouths, 
* Luk. 10. 17.  Lord, the Devils are subject to us: this being an Effect of that Mighty Power which Christ had invested his Followers with, Luke 9 1. And therefore 
† Contr. Cels. l. 3.  Origen rationally infers, that Christ's Power was divine, because at his Name the Devils left the Bodies of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And this was a thing not unusual in those very Days in which this Father lived, as well as before. We are ascertained that the ordinary Christians, merely by their Prayers and Invocations, ejected those Spirits, and made them confess what they were. That they had this Power in justin Martyr's Days, who flourished in the middle of the Second Century, appears in his known Dialogue with Trypho, where he expressly saith, The Devils tremble at the Name of Christ, and being adjured by that sacred Name, they become subject to us. That they did the same in Irenaeus' Time, which was some few Years after, is clear ●rom his 
* Lib. 2. cap. 58.  Writings. And the same Miraculous Gift continued till Tertullian, at the end of the second Century, as is evident both from his Apology and his Book to Scapula. And St. 
* De vanit. Idolorum.  Cy●rian testifies the like of his Time, about the middle of the 3d Century. So Minutius Felix and Lactantius relate how the Christians controlled the Evil Spirits, and tell us, that not only their Words and Commands, but their bare Presence shut the Mouths of the Possessed, and made the miserable Ghosts quake and tremble. Yea, Gregory Nazianzen in the next Age gives this Testimony; 
† Orat. Apologer.  The very Devils at this time tremble when Christ is called upon; neither is the Power and Virtue of that Name diminished and impaired by our Sins. And if I designed to expatiate, I could derive it lower, and also show you that these and other Christian Writers commonly appeal to the Pagans concerning the Truth of these things, and allege this Ejection of Devils as a great and undeniable Proof of the Authority of the Christian Religion, as certainly it was. But I add no more, having said enough for my purpose, which was, to make it appear, that among other Works of the Devil, Christ destroyed This in particular.  
Fou●thly, Is there not reason to think that St. john refers here to what Christ did, when by his Coming he rooted out Magic and Sorcery, Dealing with the Devil, either by Practising Witchcraft, or Consulting with those that did, and the like Works of the Black Art, which the Cursed Spirit taught the World? These were the Devil's Opera which he shown of old, and got so much by, whereby he pleased and gratified, and at the same time bubled the easily deluded People. Not to attend to the perverse Folly of those mere Matter-Men who disown Spirits, and consequently deny a God as well as Devils, (for they will rather profess Atheism, than acknowledge any such Rank of Being's.) Not to gratify these Gross Atheists so far as to take notice in this place of what they are wont to say in Defence of their Mad Opinion; I shall take it for granted, that Magical Operations (properly so called) are the Works of the Devil, and that he was the first Founder of them, designing and endeavouring thereby to bring Men under his Dominion, and (so far as he can effect it in the Minds of Men) to exclude God and his Providence out of the World. This questionless was his Design, and was never doubted by the Ancient Christians, as appears not only from 
* Magis non tantum sciunt daemo●es, sed etiam quicquid miraculi edunt, per daemones faciunt: illis aspirantibus & infundentibus praestigias edunt, etc. Adu. Gentes.  Arnobius, but several other Primitive Writers, though some of late so extraordinarily civil to him, that they will not impute the Practice of Magic to his Assistance. Good Men! they are afraid to slander the Devil. But from the History of several Ages, we are certainly informed that there was nothing more usual th●n to make a Compact with Satan; which the Magicians and Wizard's effected with ma●y direful Ceremonies. And when there was not a Fo●m●l League with the Devil, yet there was a Communication with him, because the Persons gave themselves into his Hands by their immoderate Curiosity, by their affecting to know more than was fitting, or by an impatient coveting after Wealth and Riches, or by a greedy desire of having an Ability and Opportunity to satisfy their Revenge. From that infallible and inspired Testimony in Deut. 18. 10, 11. we are assured that there were Enchanters, Witches, Charmers, Consulters with Familiar Spirits, Wizards and Necromancers: for these Persons, and their Practices, would not have been condemned and pronounced an Abomination, (as they are there) unless there had been really such. This I think is very plain and unanswerable. And truly I am apt to believe, that the Holy Ghost makes use of so many different Words here, on purpose to obviate and refute the vain Cavils of the Men of our Days, who are Infidels as to the Point of Witchcraft, and with great Confidence tell us, that there is no such thing, and that the Foundation of it, viz. a Compact with Evil Spirits, is a mere Forgery. Here are six Words to press and inculcate the same thing, (though if we be Critical, there may be found some difference, because one word may be more expressive of a particular Act of that Cursed Art than another; but I speak now of the General Notion and Import of them) that we may be thereby convinced of the Truth and Reality of the Thing, viz. that there were and are Enchanters, Witches, etc. Persons holding Correspondence with Infernal Agents, and by their Help and Assistance effecting strange things in the World. The last in Moses ●s Catalogue, are Necromancers, such who by Magic Enchantment raised the Souls of the De●d, or the Devil rather to represent those Souls, and then consulted with him, and enquired concerning some Future Events which they were exceeding desirous to know. Of this we have an Ancient and Famous Instance in the Sacred Records, viz. the Witch of Endor, who by this Devilish Art caused the Appearance of Samuel, i. e. of some Evil Spirit in his Shape. And of these Hellish Necromancers, perhaps that of Ilb (Ch. 3. v. 8.) is to be understood, they curse the Day, (for the Night is the time proper for their Black Work) and raise up ●eviathan, i. e. the Devil, who most fitly is compared to 
* No less Persons than Gr●gory the Great, Hugo 〈◊〉, and M. Luther, 〈◊〉 Leviathan to be the Devil, or rather apply what 〈…〉 of him to the Devil.  the Leviathan. Or, in a more li●eral sense, to raise up the Leviathan, may signify, to charm and tame that Sea-Monster, and so it sets forth the Great, bu● Devilish Power of Magic and Incantation. As Plutarch saith of the Egyptian Priests, that by Art Magic they could tame the Crocodile, so as to make him come to their Hand. This Necromantic Practice is spoken of in Isa. 8. 19 and is called, Seeking unto them that have Familiar Spirits, and unto Wizards that peep and mutter. To which is added, a Reprehension with a Di●ection; Should not a People seek unto their God? Yes surely; for the Living to the Dead should they go? No certainly, that is abominable and execrable. And I question not but the Idolatrous Jews, who used Necromancy, are meant by those who remain among the Graves, and lodge in the Monuments, Isa. 65. 4. This, and the other parts of this Science, were very frequent in the World heretofore; especially they made use of it to inquire beforehand what Success they should have in their Affairs: and thus the practice of Divination and Magic was often coincident. But their Charms and Spells, and Mystical Characters, were the most frequent of all, whereby they helped and eased People in case of Sickness, Bodily Pains, 
* 
Cato de re rustic. cap. 160. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 28. c. 2.  
Cato prodidit luxatis membris carmen auxiliari.   Luxation of Members, and all outward Calamities that befell them: whereby also they were able to inflict Diseases, and all manner of Bodily Evils, and (in brief) to produce very surprising and astonishing Operations.  
I am very ready to grant, notwithstanding what I have said, that many things have been ascribed to the Devil which he was never guilty of, or was any ways concerned in. I question not but many things have passed for Magic of the worst sort with vulgar and unthinking People, which were the mere Effects of Natural Philosophy improved and set forth by Art. The Times have been such, that a Mathematician and a Magician have been esteemed the same. But though we pity the Mistakes of the Ignorant, yet we are not to attend to the Dictates of the Perverse, who avouch there is no Diabolick Magic, and therein destroy the Faith of all History, both Divine and Humane.  
The Ancient Great Masters in this Impipious Art and Practice, who are mentioned in the Sacred Story, were the Egyptian Sorcerers, (of whom jannes' and jambres were the chief, and accordingly they are called in the Talmud the Princes of the Magicians) Gen. 41. 8. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Baalam the Mesopotamian Soothsayer, Numb. 22. 5. the Casdim or Chaldean Magis, Dan. 2. 2. And the Ancient Practisers in this Art mentioned in Profane Writers, were Zabulus, Zamolxis, Abbaris, Zoroaster, Pasetes, Pancrates and Zachlas, (both of them Egyptian Magicians, spoken of by Lucian and Apuleius) Numa Pompilius, etc. Pythagoras may be taken into the Number, for from several Circumstances of his Life (as well as from the Precept, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to worship the Infernal Gods) he may be thought to be a Magician: And perhaps in this Travels into Egypt and Chaldea, he picked up this Ill Art; for 'tis certain that from those Countries the Magical Practices had their Rise. Yea, many of the jews, the Chief Men especially, were given to Magic; and even the Elders of the Sanhedrim studied this Art, saith our 
† Hor. Hebr. in Ma●. 24. 24.  Learned Lightfoot: And he farther observes, that the nearer the Jewish State approached to its ruin, the more were they addicted to it.  
Thus have I given you a brief Account of this Cursed Art, of the main Limbs of it, of the Authors that supported it, and of its spreading and prevailing in the World. But (which is the next thing I am to make good) by the Coming of our Lord these Wicked Practices began to decay, Sorcery and Witchcraft lost their Power. Christ by his Appearing, and afterwards by his Apostles and Followers, defeated such Hellish Works. At what time, saith 
* Orat. de Incarnate. Verbi.  Athanasius, did the Magic Arts and their Schools begin to be trodden down, but when God the Word appeared among Men? It seemed to be an early Presage of Christ's Power in this kind, that the Eastern Magis came to him, and prostrated themselves at his Feet in his very Infancy: for I could produce the Testimonies of Ignatius and justin Martyr, of Origen and Tertullian, of jerom and Basil, and other Greek and Latin Fathers, to prove that these Wise Men (as our Translation renders it) were no other than Sorcerers and Enchanters, the worst sort of Magicians, who dealt with the Devil. These submitted to the Babe Jesus, and owned him to be the Lord and Sovereign of the World. Though the Pharisees were so malicious, impudent and blasphemous as to represent our Saviour himself as a Magician, as one that did his Miraculous Works by help of the Devil; yet nothing is more clear, than that in all his Discourses and Practices, his Design was to defeat the Devil's Projects, to ruin his Interest, and to destroy his Works, and consequently This which is the grossest of all. So for Necromancy, raising the Dead, and enquiring of them, he came to destroy this Work, and did it effectually, by informing Men aright concerning the State of the deceased, by fixing and determining the Place of their Abode after this Life, by sending us to Moses and the Prophets, and bidding us consult and believe them, and not expect any Tidings from the Dead. The Acts of the Apostles acquaint us, that Simon the Sorcerer, who bewitched the People of Samaria, was soon reclaimed by Philip's preaching the Gospel there, and that he believed and was baptised, Acts 8. 9, 13. And another Noted Sorcerer, was not only rebuked by St. Paul after this severe manner, Thou Child of the Devil, (a fit accost to such a one as He, for Magic is properly the Devil's Work) thou Enemy of all Righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right Ways of the Lord? Acts 13. 10. but he was struck blind by the fame Miraculous Hand, and disabled to pursue his impious Practices. St. Peter likewise undertook the former of these Hellish Practitioners, and in the midst of his Magic Attempts and Adventures, brought him down headlong and defeated him, as we are informed from very Ancient Writers. When St. Paul preached at Ephesus, where several of the Inhabitants were given to this Vile Art, he as it were, by more Holy Charms and Spells, made them throw away their Books of Curious Arts, that is, of Enchantment, and then bring them forth, and burn them, Acts 19 19  
Because this is so famous an Instance of the destroying these Works of the Devil, and because it may be enquired how the using of Curious Arts is the same with practising of Magic, I will examine the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Luke here makes use of, and let you see how fitly it is here applied. This word being no where to be found in the New Testament but in this place and in one other, we must consult other Writers, and observe how 'tis taken in them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned by 
* Instit. Orat. l. 8. c. 3.  Quintilian among the Faults of Speech, namely when Persons are too nice about it, and take too much Care in the ordering of it; and thence perhaps Apion had the Epithet given him of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most Curious and Acquaint Grammarian. This Over-curiousness in speaking, leads to Adulation and Fawning, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defined thus by Theophrastus in his Characters of Morals; 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  It is a kind of a dissembling in Words and Actions, joined with a Pretence of Benevolence: And according to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Officious Flatterer, and one that doth act that Part with much Affectation and Folly. The word refers to Actions as well as Speeches, for Talkative Persons generally are Pragmatical; therefore we render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Busy-Bodies, 1 Tim. 5. 13. who there are joined with, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tatlers, those that exceed in Words, as the other in Doing. So it seems that Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Composition, imports that which is too much, that which is Superfluous and Unnecessary. And this Unnecessary and Pragmatical Overdoing, doth easily tend unto and end in Superstition; which indeed, according to the true Denotation of the Word, is an Overdoing; and the Bigotry of Superstition commonly ends in Unlawful Arts, and degenerates into Magic. Wherefore it was well observed by an Historian, concerning one of the Roman Emperors, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodian. l. 4. de Antonino.  that being given to a Foolish and Immoderate Curiosity, he was inclined not only to search into all those Occult Things which relate to Men, but he was very busy in prying into those Secrets which are Divine, yea, and those which are Diabolical and Magical. Thus you see the Connection between these two, Curiosity and Magic, and why the using of Curious Arts here is to be understood of Magical Practices, viz. because men's Unlawful Curiosity leads them to these Wicked Erterprises. Having discovered the true Origine of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thereby settled the meaning of it in this place of the Acts, it remains that I farther establish this by letting you see that this is the meaning of the word, both in Ecclesiastical and Profane Writers. Thus an 
† Irenaeus adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 24.  Ancient Father speaking of the Simonians, a sort of Heretics that took their Name from Simon the Sorcerer, and who also were versed in his Art, saith of them, that the Eroticks, (or Phil●res) the Agogimas, the Paredris and Oniropompi, and whatever other Perierga there are, (i. e. whatever other Magic Tricks there are) are studiously practised by these Persons. And another Ancient Writer of the Church useth the word Curiositas, which answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 
* Incantationum vires promulgaverant, & omnem curiositatem usque ad stellarum interpretationem designaverant. Tertul. de hab. mulier. c. 2.  the Magic Art, and particularly for the Unlawful Divination by the Stars. To which we may add that Sanction of the Emperor Constantius against these Evil Practices which is inserted into the Imperial Law, and is expressed thus; 
* In Lege cont. Maleficos.  Sileat omnibus perpetuò divinandi curiositas, etc. Among Profane Authors, 
† De Abstinent. lib. 2.  Porphyrius may be cited, who tells us, that the Philosophers used to give this Name to Magical Operations, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of the same import with them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were. In 
* Epigram. 7.  Catullus and 
† Epod. Ode 17.  Horace we shall find that Curiosus (which answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is the Epithet from him that pries into the Magic Secrets, or rather is the same with a Magician. Thus you see what ground there is from the denotation of the word itself, and from the use of it among Writers, to fix that sense upon it which we have done. But besides this, if we take notice of the particular Place and Persons that St. ●uke here refers to, we shall be yet farther confirmed in this meaning. We may observe, that the Scene of this Action is Ephesus, as is clear from the 1st and 17 verses of this Chapter. They are the Ephesian Converts whom this Text speaks of, these are they that had heretofore used Curious Arts. By minding of this (especially after what hath been said already) we may certainly gather what these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are, for Ephesus before all other Cities was addicted to these Impious Studies. Not only 
* In Alexandro.  Plutarch, but other very credible Writers (whom the Reader may consult) particularly take notice that the People of this Place were in a more than ordinary manner inclined to, and conversant in these Arts. This was so common and notorious, that it became a Poverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used as a known expression to signify Magic Learning, as several 
† Plutarch. Athenaeus, Hesychius, Suidas, Alexander ab Alexandro, etc.  Ancient Writers testify. From this old Proverbial way of speaking, we may gather what St. Luke here means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. those Ephesian Characters or Charms, those Magical Notes and Rites, which that People were so famed for, and by which they did such great Feats, or seemed to do so at least. The Ephesians had a certain set of Letters and Words which they used in Enchantments, and they never failed; so greatly were they befriended by the Author of them. The Christians called these Diabolical, but St. Luke here useth the word, which perhaps was received at Ephesus as well as in other Places; and he tells us that many of them who used these Curious Arts, were now weary of them, and brought their Books together, and burned them before all Men. When they came to be acquainted with the 
* 2 Tim. 3. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they soon disliked those Ephesian Letters, and in a pious Revenge, used them in the like manner that Books of that sort used to be dealt with: for from the 
† Liv. lib. 39 Sueton. in Augusto.  Roman Writers and others, we are informed, that the Punishment which was wont to be executed on Books of such a Nature, was Burning of them: so that the very Penalty here voluntarily inflicted on these Books, acquaints us of what kind they were. That which particularly and signally shows the Efficacy of the Gospel in destroying these Diabolical Works, is this, that these Ephesians, who were so addicted to Devilish Practices, and were Magical even to a Proverb, that these (I say) were reclaimed from these damnable Studies by the Preaching of St. Paul among them, and presently gave a demonstration of their hearty Repentance for their past Enormities, by producing their Books of Enchantment, and committing them to the Flames. And that which makes this yet more remarkable is, that these Books which they thus consumed to Ashes, were of so great a Price, no less than five Myriad of Silver, (for so 'tis in the Greek, and I do not know why it should not be rendered so by us. This Translation is more exact than [fifty thousand Pieces of Silver]). These Ephesians showed the Truth and Sincerity of their Conversion by this one generous Instance, by parting with that which cost them so dear, and by which they could have gained so much.  
So much for this Notable Passage in the Acts, which is as great and Convincing a Proof of the Matter in Hand as could be offered, and therefore I thought good to insist upon it. I might go on, and let you see out of Ecclesiastical History, that Conjurers were not able to play their Magical Pranks in the presence of Holy Christians. Tertullian and Lactantius agree, that the Heathen Gods, or rather their Priests, complained that their Rites could not be performed so long as any Christians were in their Temples, or present at their Sacrifices. The Astrologers and Soothsayers of Alexandria cried out, that they could do little or nothing in their Wicked Art till Athanasius, that Good Father, was removed out of the City. And 'tis the Universal Testimony of Writers, that when Christianity waxed Great in the World, Magic dwindled, and grew less and less. It will, I think, be confessed by all Men, that the Transactions of the Devil, with Witches and Persons of a resembling Quality, are neither so frequent nor so powerful as they have been heretofore. The Light of the Gospel dispels these Works of Darkness. This we find foretold by the Prophet Micah concerning the Messiah, and his appearing in the Flesh, I will cut off Witchcrafts out of thy Hand, Ch. 5. ver. 12. And it follows in the next Verse, Thy graven Images also will I cut off, and thy standing Images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the Work of thy Hands. Which reminds me of the next thing contained in the words.  
Fifthly, By the Works of the Devil, we must needs understand Idolatry and Polytheism; than which there was nothing more serviceable towards the promoting his Kingdom in the World. I grant, that the Pagan Priests were no Losers by Idolatry, yea, that they were Gainers by it; but 'tis absurd to infer thence, (as I have showed before in the like Case) that it was not the Work of the Devil, that it was not set up and managed by him to advance his Interest in the World. Therefore you may know how to judge of that Gentleman's Doctrine, who saith, That 
* Sir Tho. P. B's Essays.  the setting up many Gods among the Gentiles was only for the Priest's Gain, because the Sacrifices and Worship done to them were so profitable to them; whereas the Worship of one God would not have brought in so much Gain. This was the sole Cause of Idolatry, saith he. Still he is wonderfully civil and obliging, extremely courteous and friendly to the Great Enemy of Mankind, and will not harbour any ill Thoughts of him, either as to the Pagan Oracles, and I suppose as to Sorcery and Magic, and we are sure as to Idolatry. He is persuaded, (but hold there, I do not know that, for it may be he speaks not his inward Sense, I may rather say he tells us) that those most Cursed Inventions and Designs of that Hellish Impostor were none of his, and that they were only contrived by the Covetous Priests to get a Penny. I see the Devil is a very Innocent and Harmless Creature, according to some Persons; it will be well for them if they find him so. But we have more reason to believe that he is very Spiteful, Malicious and Destructive, and that he not only seeks for, but makes use of all Occurrences and Opportunities to endamage Mankind, and that he is pregnant in his Inventions to that purpose. And such we may justly reckon these to be which I have mentioned, and therefore I take them to be from another Spring than what some imagine. It is evident that they are properly the Devil's Works, and carry his Mark upon them: particularly as to Idolatry or Polytheism, it is plain that it is of his setting up. Ye shall be as Gods, was the early Insinuation and Suggestion of that Evil Spirit to our first Parents in Paradise: The Notion of being Gods strangely wrought upon them, and procured our Misery. This was the first Temptation of Satan▪ and is the first step to Idolatry, which of all his Works may justly be styled his Chief Masterpiece. It is true, the wisest of the Pagans asserted One God, and knew that there were not Different Deities, but the generality of them thought and believed otherwise; and the Philosophers themselves complied with these Vain Worshippers, and so confirmed the People in their Error. Nothing is more evident, than that the greater part of the World heretofore declared for a Multiplicity of Gods. The Idea of God, like some great Mirror, was broken in pieces by the Heathens, and in every one of these they saw a Deity, or fancied they did so. Every Attribute of God, was a Distinct God. But this was more pardonable; they proceeded to worship the Heavenly Bodies, and ascribed Life and Divinity to them. Nay, they ransacked for Gods and Goddesses below, as well as above: they found them in the Earth, and in the Deep, as well as in the Heavens. The Number of these Deities had reached to thirty thousand in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hesiod's Time; and they were almost as many more afterwards; for, if Varro's Computation be right, there were above that Number of Gods and Goddesses worshipped by the Europeans alone. Nor would one way of worshipping them serve their turn. There were as many various Rites and different Sacrifices, as there were Deities; the Solemnities which were performed to one, would not suffice another. Nothing forsooth would please Ceres but a Sow, nothing would serve Aesculapius but a Cock, and the most acceptable Offering to Neptune was a Bull. The Pagans fancied that one God delighted in this Oblation, and another in that; and therefore to be sure to please them they had Particular Services and Diversities of Worship for them. Egypt was the most fruitful Soil for this; it furnished the rest of the World with Gods. The Grecians (who afterwards stocked the Romans) took the Names of their Gods, their Temples, their Altars, their Images, and most of their Superstitious Ceremonies from that Country, as 
* In Euterpe.  Herodotus testifieth. And with him agrees 
† Lib. 22. c. 43.  Ammianus Marc●llinus, who positively tells us, that all Idolatry came from Egypt. And 
‖ Lib. 17.  Strabo and others acquaint us, that All sorts of Living Creatures were worshipped by the Inhabitants of that place. That Sheep, and suchlike Animals, had Divine Respect paid to them, is attested by the most Ancient and Undoubted Annals of Holy Scripture: for it is said, in Gen. 46. 34. that a Shepherd is an Abomination to an Egyptian, viz. because the Egyptians did not kill or eat Sheep, or suchlike Animals, but looked upon them as Sacred. Hence Moses saith, 
* Ex. 8. 26.  Shall we sacrifice the Abomination of the Egyptians before their Eyes, and will they not stone us? i. e. If we sacrifice Sheep or Oxen, Creatures that they worship, and abominably idolise, they will be incensed against us. They abhorred the I●ws, because they were generally Shepherds, and fed upon that sort of Animals, and used them in Sacrifice. And this, it is probable, was the reason why, when joseph entertained his Brethren at Dinner▪ they did eat asunder, because it was an Abomination to the Egyptians to eat Bread with th● Hebrews, Gen. 43. 32. For (as O●kelas here adds) the Hebrews eat those Animals which the egyptians worship. And for this Cau●e the Israelites lived apart in the Land of Gosh●n And besides, they were not permitted to Sacrifice all the time they were in Egypt, as appears from those words of God to Moses Exod. 9 13. Let the People go that they may serve me; i. e. that they may Sacrifice unto me, as appears from Ch. 10. 25. which implies, that they were not permitted to Sacrifice before; and the Reason was, because the Egyptians would not let them kill, and offer in the Fire those Animals which they had so great a regard for, and even Deified. So besotted were these Gentile Adorers, that not only Irrational but Inanimate Creatures were deified by them. You might have seen the Greatest Men, to whom others bowed and did lowly obeisance, prostrate themselves to Stocks and Stones, to Wood, and Brass, and Iron, shaped into Gods; and by the Art of Masons, Carpenters and Smiths, made Deities. This was the Idolatry which obtained so much in the World, this was the Capital Enormity of Mankind, this was the Main Gild which they were polluted with, as 
* Principale crimen generis humani, summus 〈◊〉 reasons. De Idololar. cap. 1.  Tertullian called it. Our Learned Dr. Hammond thinks this is meant by the Apostle in Rom. 8. 20. The Creature was made subject to Vanity; for he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Gentile World, and Vanity for Idolatry, as this is called very frequently in the Old Testament. The Heathen World was every where enslaved, subjected to this Vile Sin, though not willingly, i. e. as this Author expounds it; the Devil forced them to it, otherwise he would not be appeased.  
But this gross Folly and Madness was soon disgraced and discountenanced by the introducing of Christianity, and even in Egypt, the Mother and Nurse of all Idolatry, where Garlicks and Onions (no very fragrant Deities) had Veneration paid them, and Cats and Crocodiles were good fashionable Gods; where they worshipped all things in Nature, where every thing living or dead was a Deity, even here this Prodigious Idolatry was destroyed by Christ's Coming; for upon on St. Mark's preaching there, and at Alexandria especially, Images were soon demolished, the Counterfeit Gods were thrown away, and the only True God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost were worshipped with an unanimous Veneration. At Rome itself, and even in Nero's Palace, and in all the Territories belonging to the Roman Emperors, there were some to be found who discovered their hatred and detestation of Idols, and adored the True God in Spirit and in Truth. But the Pagan Worship had got such deep rooting in the Hearts of Men, and had by long Custom and Prescription so gained their good Will and Approbation, that almost four Centuries of Years had passed after Christ's Incarnation, before it could be universally extirpated, and the True Worship of God become the Religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great made the first remarkable and generous Essay towards this Glorious Work; in his Reign it was that Idolatry received its greatest mortification: and he was succeeded by many Worthies that imitated him. Let all the Images be plucked up from their Seats, was 
* In Cod. Theodos. l. 16. Tit. 11.  Honorius' Constitution; and by the Edict of Theodosius and Valentinian, the Idol Temples were all demolished, and Idolatry every where in their Dominions destroyed, and all False Gods discarded. Thus the Blessed Work went on with great Life and Vigour, being set forward by Royal Hands, and those Hands being strengthened by the Son of God. Therefore the Pious Father said well, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Lib. de Incarnate. Verbi Dei.  When the Madness of Idolatry and Impiety possessed the World, and the Knowledge of the True God was banished, to whom did it belong to instruct the World aright concerning the true worship of the Father, but to the Son? And in the same place he farther sets forth the vast spreading of Idolatry over the World, and Christians more powerful destroying of it. And you shall find, that this Glorious Achievement of Christ in crushing Idolatry, which was grown so prevalent every where, is made the great Proof and Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, and is insisted upon with mighty Force and Reason by all the Ancient Apologists for Christianity. And that this was one Great Design of our Saviour's manifesting himself in the World, is evident from many Promises and Prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah and his Kingdom; as that of the Evangelical Prophets 
* Is●. 2. ●0.  They shall cast their Idols of Silver, and their Idols of Gold, to the Bats, and to the Moles, (to the Moles, fit company you will say for them that have Eyes and see not, as Idols are described by the Psalmist). The meaning of this Prophetic Writer is, that the enlightened and converted Gentiles shall renounce their Beloved Idolatry, and with indignation throw their Idols and Images into the dark Corners of the Earth. Whereas before they placed them in the Light, and set them up to be seen, now they shall be ashamed of them, and being ashamed of them shall hid them, and cast them into those obscure Holes where Bats and Moles lie hid under Ground. To the same purpose is that of the Prophet 
* Jer. 16. 19, 20.  jeremiah, The Gentiles shall come unto thee from the Ends of the Earth, and shall say, Our Fathers inherited Li●s and Vanities, (which are terms in the 
* Isa. 28. 15 & 44. 20. Jer. 13. 25. Ho●. ●. 1. Am. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 25.  Scripture-stile to express False Gods) but we will reject them, for shall a Man make Gods to himself that are no Gods? And in several places, both Isaiah and this Prophet insist upon this, that the Messiah should bring the Gentiles out of the Darkness of Idolatry to the Light of the Gospel, and the Acknowledgement of the True God. In Ezek. 37. 23. there is another Prediction of the like Nature, Israel shall not defile themselv●● any ●ore with Idols, nor with their Detestable Things: which latter Clause is but an Explication of the fo●me●, for Shikku●zim and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which are the words in the Original and the Septuagint) are frequently used to signify Idols, which are Detestable in the Eyes of God. And Zephaniah foretells, that 
* 〈◊〉. 2. ●●.  the Lord will famish all the Gods of the Earth: which is a very remarkable Passage, and alludes to the fond Conceit of the Pagans, which is mentioned in Deut. 32. 38. that their Gods did eat the Fat of their Sacrifices, and drank the Wine of their Drink-offerings. To which it is probable God himself was pleased to allude in Psal. 50. 13. Will I eat the Flesh of Bulls, or drink the Blood of Goats? And in Isa. 43. 24. Neither hast thou filled me with the Fat of thy Sacrifices. It was a Notion among the Heathen Worshippers, that the God's were nourished with the Steam of the Sacrifices; and in relation to that the Prophet's Prediction is, that those Gods shall be famished: they shall not, according to the fond Notion of the Gentile World, be any longer ●ed from the Altars, they shall be starved when Christianity takes place amongst Men, for the Pagan Sacrifices shall then be laid aside, and Idolatry cashiered. All these Prophecies were plainly accomplished, when our Saviour came and commissioned his Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole World. This threw down the Idolatrous Images, and in many places the very Idols themselves ●ell down prostrate on the Ground, and, as it were, worshipped the Holy Jesus.  
But as Christ gave a fatal Blow to Idolatrous Worship, so I am more particularly to prove (under this Head) th●t he did con●ound the Worshipping of Devils, which had been a thing very fashionable in the World before Christ came into it. I say, the Worshipping of Devils, the highest Strain of Idolatry, was confounded by our Saviour's appearing: for it seems the Devil could not be content to cheat the World with his Oracles, to enter into men's Bodies, and to make Leagues and Contracts with Persons, but (as an Effort above all these) he affected to be worshipped and adored as a God. This is confessed by Porphyrius in his Book of Abstinence from Animals: and Eusebius and St. Augustin, and other Fathers make use of what he saith there against the Pagans, whom they undertake to confute. That the Gods whom the Gentiles sometimes worshipped, were Devils, is also the acknowledgement of Trismegistus in his Asclepius. And it is owned by all the Wise and Understanding Heads among them that the Service paid to many of their Gods was a kind of Adoring the Devil. It is well known that these Worshippers could, by certain Magic Spells make these Infernal Fiends come to their Images when they pleased: and when they had brought them thither, they worshipped these Wicked Ghosts to appease their Fury, and that they might do them no harm. Besides, the Particulars which I insisted on before, do sufficiently evince the present Point; for the consulting the Devil when he spoke in Oracles, and dealing with him by practising Witchcraft and Sorcery, were a palpable forsaking of the True God, and setting up the Devil for a God. These were giving Divine Honour to the Prince of Darkness. And, which is most convincing, do not the infallible Oracles of Scripture expressly tell us, that the Idolatrous Jews sacrificed unto Devils, not to God? Deut. 32. 17. which (to confirm the Truth and Certainty of it) is repeated in Psal. 106. 37. They sacrificed their Sons and Daughters unto Devils. And if I be not mistaken, the Psalmist had before referred to this abominable Practice, ver. 28. They eaten the Sacrifices of the Dead, i. e. (as I conceive) the Sacrifices that were offered to the Manes, and to the Stygian jupiter or Pluto the God of the Dead: these are meant here by Zibche methim, the Sacrifices of the Dead. I know some Writers have lessened and minced this Idolatry, as well as that before spoken of, and tell us that the Pagans all along worshipped God, though under a false Representation. It is partly true, that the best of the Heathens did so, but others did not: and as for those that defend the contrary, they are confuted by downright Authority from Scripture, which acquaints us, that they worshipped even Devils: for sacrificing to them, is worshipping them. If they can evade this, let them. I could add, that the Hebrew Masters were of Opinion that some of the Jews worshipped the Devil in shape of a Goat in Woods and Deserts, because the word Sagnir is both Daemon and Hircus, Leu. 17. 7. 2 Chron. 11. 15. Isa. 13. 21. & 34. 14. And 'tis likely this worshipping of Satyrs was a piece of Devilish Idolatry which they learned and brought from 
* Diodor. Sic. l. 1.  Egypt, where 'twas practised. But this we are certain of from a more sure word, (as you heard) that the Devils themselves were adored by them. And concerning the Gentiles Worship, the Apostle is peremptory, 1 Cor. 10. 20. The things which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrificed to Devils, and not to God. Whereas the Greeks used to call the Victims or Beasts which they offered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Apostle on the contrary plainly styles them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things sacrificed to Idols, 1 Cor. 8. 1, 4, 7. & 10. 19, 28. In which places Idols are no other than Diabolick Spirits which inhabited in those Idols.  
But Christ by his coming soon put a Period to this Hellish Usage. When the Devil was so impudent as to make that offer to him, All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me, he presently rebuked the bold Spirit, by alleging what was written, not only in the Law, but in all men's Hearts, that they should worship the Lord their God, and serve him only. And by the whole System of his Heavenly Doctrine he built up this Truth, and pulled down the Contrary, and all the least Tendencies to it. After our Saviour left this Earth, his Apostles and Followers managed the same Work, and endeavoured by all means to run down this Cursed Project of the Devil, viz. of his being worshipped. As a particular Effect of their Care to baffle this Design, we read, that the Primitive Christians solemnly vowed at their Baptism to renounce the Devil and all his Works. By which, 
* De Spectac. c. 4.  saith Tertullian, is principally meant Idolatry, yea, and the worst kind of Idolatry, a giving Divine Honour and Worship to those that are Devils, and not Gods, a Sin very common at Christ's Coming into the World, the greatest part of it at that time living in this Vile Practice: therefore, ●aith this Father, this was made a chief part of the Baptismal Vow, that the Proselytes and Converts to Christianity, should in a solemn manner bid Defiance to that detestable Enormity of the Heathens. Conformably to this our Learned 
† Dr. Hammond, Pract. Cat. l. 6. Sect. 3. P. 375.  Catechist in reply to that Question, What is meant by the Devil and all his Works? answers thus, Certainly the principal thing here renounced, is the False Gods, i. e. Devils, which the Heathen World did worship so universally before Christ's Time, and against which the Catechists (who prepared all for Baptism) did first labour to fortify their Disciples, and are for that Cause called in the Ancient Church Exorcists, as those that cast out these Devils. Very near akin to This, is that which is added next in the Solemn Vow at Baptism, viz. The renouncing the Vain Pomp and Glory of the World: For that word Pomp in its Original meaning, refers to the Idolatrous Shows of the Heathens, it properly signifying sending of some thing, and carrying it up and down to be seen and exposed: so that hereby are denoted those Splendid Sights and Stately Processions in use of old among the Heathens; at which Solemn Times the Images, the Thrones, the Ornaments, and all the Habiliments, as also the Oblations and Sacrifices which were to be offered to their Gods, were carried openly through the Streets, and Honour was done to these false Deities. The Ancient Fathers of the Church very strictly cautioned their Flock against these Devilish Customs; and particularly when they admitted Converts into the Church by Baptism, they took care to fortify them against them. Hence may be observed the Antiquity of the Form and Office of Baptism, which our Church makes use of at this Day. The solemn Renuntiation of the Devil and his Works, and of the Pomp and Vanity of the World, is as old as Primitive Christianity. Yea, some Learned Men have thought, that the Apostle St. Peter alludes to it, in his 1 Epist. Chap. 3. v. 21. and that the Answer of a good Conscience there, refers to the manner of Interrogation and Answer used in Baptism. But this by the by. That which you are chief to take notice of is, that whereas the Wicked Ghosts and Daemons were ambitious of Divine Adoration, it pleased God so to bless and succeed the Christian Religion, that in a short time this wicked Usage wore away, this cursed Work of the Devil came to nought, the Christian Faith being, by the wonderful Providence of Heaven, propagated so universally through the World.  
Sixthly, I conceive, that by the Works of the Devil are meant here especially those Sins which have most of his Image upon them, and wherein Men more immediately and directly resemble that Accursed Spirit; those Works which the Devil chief tempts Men to, and which he himself is observed to practise most. As first, Malice and Envy are the proper Guise and Character of Devils; for these lapsed Spirits being irrecoverably damned themselves, are fired with Revenge and Malice against all Mankind; being thrust down from Heaven, they endeavour to hinder us from coming thither. Wherefore Envy (which is a Grieving at the Good and Welfare of others) Sporting with men's Infirmities, Exposing them to Obloquy and Disgrace, Delighting in the Miseries of those we affect not, Rejoicing at the Evils which befall others; these have all an Impress of the Devilish Spirit on them. Our Saviour pronounced concerning the Pharisees, whom he found to be Envious and Malicious, that the Works of their Father they would do, plainly giving us to understand, that these Vices are more eminently Diabolical. But the Laws of Christianity strictly enjoin us, 
* 1 Pet. 2. 1.  to lay aside all Malice and Envy, and command us to 
† Rom. 12. 15.  rejoice with them that rejoice, to weep with them that weep, and 
‖— V 10.  to be kindly affectioned one towards another, and to delight in the Welfare and Happiness of our Brethren. Again, Rage and Passion, Bitter Strife and Contention may be justly ranked among the Devil's Works. Schism and Faction are from him, who was the first Mutineer and Rebel against Heaven, and ever since delights in Wars and Tumults, and loves to ruffle and embroil the World, and raise Tempests and Storms in it. But Christ Jesus, our Blessed Peacemaker and Reconciler, came to remove all Grounds of Difference, and to introduce Universal Love and Charity. And Christianity itself is furnished with Peaceable and Healing Principles, and offers all the Motives and Incentives to it imaginable. The Laws of Christ are fully set against all undue Passion and Choler, and there are in no Institution whatsoever so severe Prohibitions of this Diabolical Temper; 
* Ephes. 4. 31.  Let all Bitterness, and Wrath, and Anger, be put away from you. 
† V 26, 27.  Let not the Sun go down on your Wrath; neither give place to the Devil. Where we learn, that the Fire of Hell burns in Angry Breasts; the Brimstone of the Bottomless Pit may be smelled there. He that is overcome of Passion, gives place to the Devil.  
I add in the next place, that Pride is perfectly Diabolical. It was this which first infected Lucifer and his Fellow-Angels, and thrust them down from their Heavenly Dignity, and made them (what they now are) Devils. But our Saviour on the contrary throws down Pride, and exalts Humility, and commends it to all his Followers from his own Example, Learn of me, for I am Meek and Lowly. This is a right Christian Temper, and is Heavenly and Godlike, and whoso fosters it in his Breast is beloved of God, and all Good Men. Reproaching and Reviling are no less the Devil's Works, and thence he hath his Name given him in the Greek: A Devil and a Reviler are terms convertible. It is the Office and Employ of the Evil Spirit, first to raise, and then to keep up Slanders and Contumelious Reports. But behold, our Blessed Master hath left us Rules diametrically opposite to these Practices. 
* Ephes. 4. 31.  We must put away from us all Evil-s●●aking. We are not suffered to revile, though we be reviled: Yea, we are to be possessors of that Charity which 
† 1 Cor. 13. 5.  thinketh no Evil.  
To proceed, Lying and Falsehood, Craft and Treachery, most sensibly discover the Devilish Nature. These Wind and Crooked Courses are the Go of the Serpent. We are told, that the Devil put it into Judas ' s Heart to betray Christ, that we may thence infer, that Treachery and Perfidiousness are more immediately from that False Spirit: And for this Reason chief our Saviour doth once and again call this Mock-Apostle 
‖ John 6. 70. & 8. 44.  a Devil. But certainly nothing is more opposite to Christianity, than this base and sordid Vice. And Christ and his Apostles, both by Precept and Example, commend Fidelity, Truth and Sincerity, and disallow of all Guile and Hypocrisy, and herein show themselves opposite to the Wicked Spirit, who is a Liar, and the Father of Lies, John 8. 44.  
In the same place it is said, He was a Murderer from the beginning; which suggests to us another Particular. He began betimes to exert his Cruel Nature: in the first setting out of Mankind, he stirred up Cain to kill his Brother; and ever since this Savage and Bloody Spirit hath showed itself in the World. It is the inseparable Property of the Roaring Lion to seek whom he may devour. He is the Destroyer, 
* Rev. 9 11  Apollyon is his Name, and he acts agreeably to it. As for his Violence and Cruelty towards men's Bodies, in continual haunting and worrying the Possessed, I have said something already in this Discourse; but it is another sort of Cruelty which I am now to speak of, of which I will propound these two notable Instances: First, The Humane Sacrifices which were offered in most parts of the World. Secondly, The Bloody Prizes of the Gladiators, which prevailed in great Cities, chief at Rome, the Mistress and Governess of the World: And I will briefly hint to you how the Christian Religion destroyed these Works of Satan.  
First, I say, Humane Slaughter and Sacrifices were no unusual things in the World. The Evil Spirit taught Parents to make a Burnt-Offering of their Children unto Moloch, to Sacrifice them alive in the Valley of Hinnom; so that the Name of Hell, Gehenna, takes its denomination ●rom that bloody Usage. This Moloch was the God of the Ammonites; but it appears from jer. 7. 31. and Psal. 106. 37. that even the jews, God's Select People, burnt their Sons and Daughters to this Idol, nay, although they had been particularly cautioned against it by an early Prohibition, Levit. 18. 21. I know some of the 
* Solomon Jarchi, D. Kimchi, Maimonides.  Rabbins hold, that the Children were not burnt or killed, but that two Fires being made, the Priests drew them between both, and that was all. But this is a Rabbinical Fancy, for 'tis clear from that place in the forementioned Psalm, that the Children who were offered to Moloch, were slain and burnt. They sacrificed their Sons and Daughters: jisbechu, Mactarunt, they killed them: And therefore it immediately follows, They shed Innocent Blood, even the Blood of their Sons, and of their Daughters; and the Land was polluted with Blood. Hereupon these Idolatrous Rites are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wisd. 14. 23. i e. Ceremonies that were accompanied with the Slaughter and Death of their Children. But I think I can guests at the Reason why some of the Rabbins conceited that this passing through the Fire was not attended with the Death of the Persons, but was rather Purgative than Mortal. The Occasion of this Opinion might be this; There was a very old Custom of passing through the Fire without Killing: for those that swore to clear themselves of a supposed Gild, undertook likewise to purge themselves, and clear their Innocence, by going through, or over, or between certain Fires, or hot glowing Coals, or Irons; and if they came off unhurt, they were believed to be Guiltless. The Grecians of old used to swear and purge themselves from Crimes, by creeping on their Hands through some Fire, or by hold-a red hot Iron in their Hands: for thus one in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sophocles' Antigona offered to swear and clear himself. St. 
† Cont. Julian. I. 10.  Cyril treats of this old Piece of Superstition: and our own Histories tell us, that our Ancestors in this Island were no strangers to such a kind of Ordeal. This perhaps might give some Jewish Writers occasion to imagine, that this kind of Fiery Trial is spoken of, when the Scripture saith, The Children passed through the Fire to Moloch; and to think it was only a Consecrating or Initiating the Persons into the Pagan Rites, a Previous Purgation or Februation, as 
‖ De Idololat. I. 2. c. 5.  Vossius calls it, (for he holds they were not burnt, but only passed between two Fires; though in another place he is of another opinion). But this is a gross Mistake, for the forenamed Text informs us, that it was a Bloody Rite; and accordingly Philo, a Learned and Sagacious Jew, as well as Eusebius and other Christian Fathers, assert it to be of that Nature, and explode the contrary Opinion.  
But who hath not read of the barbarous Effusion of Humane Blood on the Altars of the Painims? The jews, it is probable, had it from them, and particularly from the Canaanites, who (as we are ascertained from Deut. 12. 31.) were in●ected with this Cruelty: Thei● Sons and their Daughters they burned in the Fire to their Gods. And an impious Example of this we have in 2 Kings 3. 27. where we read, that the King of Moab offered up the King of Edom's Son (the Heir of the Kingdom) for a Burnt-Offering. These Heathens were not content with Sacrificing of Beasts, but they must needs offer Humane Sacrifices to their Daemons. And it is strange to see how this Vile Usage spread itself, and prevailed among all Nations. That it did so among the Old Grecians, is testified by several Authors 
* Virgil. Aeneid. 2. Diodor. Sicul.  Profane and 
† Euseb. Praep. Evang. lib. 6.  Ecclesiastical: Particularly we are told by 
‖ De Abstin. lib. 2.  Porphyrius, that the Lacedæmonians used this Cruelty, and sacrificed a Living Man to Mars. The rest of the 
* Suid. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Grecians did the same, or the like: Yea, this Practice was Authorized by the Oracle itself, which ordered the Greeks to Sacrifice Agamemnon's Daughter to Diana, to appease her Goddessship. The Persons thus Sacrificed, were call'ed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Purgatory or Expiatory Oblations; to which some Critics have thought the Apostle alludes, in 1 Cor. 4. 13. where he saith, that himself, and the rest of the Christians of that Time, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,, Devoted, Accursed, Abominable in the Eyes of the World, and destined for Slaughter. Among the Trojans likewise Sacrificing of Humane Blood was in use, as we learn from Homer and Virgil. So among the Persians Men and Women were usually killed in Sacrifice to Mithra. However, ever, great † 
* J. Mart. Apol. 2. Tertul. de Prescript. Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Torments were to be undergone by all that were entered into the Rites of their Worship: No less than fourscore kinds of Punishments they were to suffer first. That the Africans, and particularly the Carthagenians, sacrificed Children to their Gods, is attested by sufficient 
* Diodor. Siculus, Justin. Tertul. Apol. c. 4. Minutius Felix, Lactantius, lib. 1. c. 21. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4.  Writers: Nay, 
† In vit● Pelopidae.  Plutarch tells us, that those amongst them that had no Children, bought some of poor People to Sacrifice them. This was the Practice of the 
* Heliodor. l. 9  Ethiopians, 
† Evag. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 33.  Saracens, 
‖ Mela l. 2. c. 1.  Scythians, 
* Porphyr. de Abstin.  Phoenicians and 
† Curt. Hist. l. 4.  Tyrians. Our Neighbours, the Ancient Gauls and Germans (as Caesar de Bello Gall. l. 6. relates) were guilty of this Bloody Folly. Nor were the Old Inhabitants of this Island, where we live free from this Wild and Extravagant Practice. The British Druids held, that the Wrath of their Gods could not be appeased in some Cases but with the Life of Man; and accordingly (as 
* In Nerone.  Dio Cassius and 
† Annal. 14.  Tacitus report) the People of this Isle, led on by their Priests, frequently offered these Barbarous Sacrifices. Thus you may be satisfied from divers Authors, and many more than I have named, (for this I own to be a brief Collection made from them, as I see 
* Vossius de Idololat. l. 2. c. 5. Selden de Dis Syr. Syntag. 1. c. 6. Grotius de Satisfact. And in Deut. 18. 10. Dr. Stillingfleet of Christ's Satisfaction.  Others have done before me) that the Custom of Sacrificing Men did almost universally obtain in the World. Nothing was more common with them, than to offer up an Innocent Person to the Gods in time of some Imminent Danger, to pacify their Wrath, and remove the Public Calamity. This Example of Devilish Cruelty was very frequent among the Pagans before our Saviour's Coming, and a while after: But as soon as Christianity had got any footing in the World, it began to disappear. After Christ had offered himself a Sacrifice on the Cross, and his Holy Religion was propagated, this Custom of Sacrificing Men ceased in a great part of the World. It is true, this Cruel and Tyrannical Sway of the Evil Spirit is not yet wholly destroyed. The Sacrificing of Children to the 
* Hacklui●, Purchas, and others.  Devil, was in use not long ago among the Americans. We read of the Dreadful and Astonishing Apparitions of Satan to the People of Florida and Brasil, and other Countries where Paganism is still in its Meridian. These Devil-Worshippers complain, that he cuts and tears their Flesh, and miserably torments their poor Carcases. Indeed those that give an Account of the Americans and Indians, (as Acosta and others) do constantly take notice, that flashing and cutting their Bodies are usual in their Worship. But it is to be hoped, that this and all other Acts of Cruelty will at last be abandoned, when the Christian Faith shall arrive among those Bloody Men. We are to bless God, that there are any Effects of it already in those parts of the World, and to pray that there may be yet a larger and more vigorous Influence of the Laws of Christianity, which are against nothing more than Cruelty and Bloodshed.  
Secondly, The Bloody Spectacles of the Gladiators were no small Instance of the Devil's Empire in the Pagan World, which delighted in Slaughter, and made it one of their Public Sports to see Men kill one another upon the Theatre. It was usual not only to expose Men to fight with Beasts, and at last to be torn by them, but they kept others to fight with their own Kind, and to dispatch one another. Of the former of these speaks that Pious Bishop Salvian; 
* In Spectaculis primum deliciarum genus est mori homines, impleri serarum alvos humanis carnibus, cum circumstantium voluptate & conspicientium laetitiâ. De Gubernat. lib. 6.  In those Spectacles, saith he, the main thing that pleased them was, to feast their Eyes with the slaughter of Men, and to see Wild Beasts gorge themselves with Humane Flesh, and that with an incredible Satisfaction and Delight. This was the Lot of some Condemned Malefactors, and of some that were taken Captive in War. These who had fought with Men, were now compelled to fight with Beasts, and so to lose their Lives. And some think that the Blessed St. Paul was put upon this sharp Service at Ephesus, for they take that to be the meaning of his words, when he saith, He fought with Beasts at Ephesus, 1 Cor. 15. 32. i e. not with Wicked Men (as it is generally interpreted) who are Irrational and Savage Creatures, and Men only in Shape, but really with Wild Beasts, with whom he was condemned to fight for his Life, this being the Punishment inflicted on him. This is the Interpretation which St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose give of the words: and it will not seem strange, if we duly consider these following things.  
1. When there is a plain and express place of Scripture, 'tis not safe to evade it by flying to Metaphors. Which is the Case here: St. Paul saith, he fought with Beasts; and we may very well understand it in the plain and obvious Sense of the Words; wherefore we are to choose this Literal Sense before a Metaphorical one: Especially if we consider.  
2. That this was in those Times and afterwards an usual Punishment inflicted on the Christians. 
* Tertul. Apol. c. 40.  Christianos ad Leones, was the People's Cry: though, I grant, that merely to be thrown to the Beasts was another thing; there was no fight then, they were thrown to them to be torn in pieces presently, and to be devoured, as that Glorious Martyr 
† Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 33.  Ignatins was. But Others were exposed to fight with them, and that on the Public theatres; and they were armed for that purpose, and if they could get the mastery of the Beasts (of which the Instances are very rare) they were set free: which known Custom and Practice it is likely the Apostle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the forenamed place, may be well applied.  
3. It is remarkably said [at Ephesus]; for in this Celebrated Place, that Bloody sort of Prizes was very usual, as we are informed by 
‖ Oneirocrit. l. 1. c. 9  Artemidorus and others.  
4. What you read to have been the Consequent of the great uproar against St. Paul at Ephesus, the draging his Companions into the Theatre, Acts 19 29, 31. seems to have a particular relation to this very thing.  
5. Those words in 1 Cor. 4. 9 We are made a Spectacle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) unto the World, may be thought to be an Allusion to this his fight on the Public Stage; especially if you mind the words immediately following, God hath set forth us as 'twere appointed to Death, designed by our Adversaries to that Fatal Combat.  
6. This is more than intimated to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 1. 8. where he acquaints them with his Trouble which came to him in Asia, (of which Ephesus was the Chief City) how he was pressed out of measure above strength, in so much that he despaired even of Life: And in the next Verse he tells them, that he had the Sentence of Death in himself: And then in the next words he thankfully acknowledgeth God's Hand in delivering him from so great a Death. All which Passages seem to refer very plainly to this Deadly Encounter with the Beasts at Ephesus: Or at least it appears hence, (as the Learned Dr. Hammond and Dr. Lightfoot acknowledge) that St. Paul was designed, appointed by the Multitude to this Punishment, although God disappointed their Bloody Designs. If it be objected, that the Apostle makes no mention of this among his Dangerous and Bloody Adventures which he particularly recounts in 2 Cor. 11. 23, etc. This Answer may suffice, that the Apostle underwent more than he particularly sets down; but in those general words [in Deaths oft] he comprehends all: Yea, these very words may particularly refer to his fight with Wild Beasts, which certainly had been attended with Death, unless the Divine Providence had in an extraordinary manner interposed. So that this Objection is of no Force, and cannot hinder us from taking the words in their proper meaning. In brief, I will say this, although perhaps none of these forementioned Texts singly taken, may be thought sufficient to induce us to a belief of what I have propounded; yet if we consider them altogether, I think they will not fail to render it very probable. This is all I suggest, leaving every one to determine as they please. Though St. Paul was delivered from so great and imminet a Death, and that by no less than a Miracle perhaps, yet in these Bloody Combats the Beasts generally got the better: yea, sometimes one Lion was hard enough for 
* Praeclara aedilitas! unus Leo, ducenti bestiarii. Cic. Orat. pro Ses●.  two hundred Men; and when this happened, it was a Worthy and Noble Prize indeed, for they always esteemed these Games according to the Number of the Persons that were dispatched by the Beasts: when the most Men were killed upon the Spot, the Sport was at the highest, which shows how Devilish it was.  
But the latter sort of Prizes, viz. where Men fought with their own Kind, was the worst. In these Bloody and Inhuman Matches, they first brought Slaves on the Theatre to combat one another, and afterwards others of better Quality. Besides, some were hired to undertake this Employment, and some were bred up and disciplined to it. It grew an Art to Diet, to Arm, to fit them for this Purpose. Nor can it be expressed how 
† Id autem spectaculi genus erat quod omni frequentiâ atque omni genere hominum celebratur, quo multitudo maximè delectatur. Cic. Orat. pro Sestio.  the People were taken with this Sport, and how they flocked to it. No Entertainment pleased them like this Bloody Fencing. Here they could kill Men at their pleasure; by turning up the Thumb they could at any time adjudge the Combatants to continue the Fight, and they had Power to keep them Fight till they died on the Place: And when any of them did so, others were presently fetched and placed in their room, to fight with the Victor, till one of them fell dead on the Spot. Lactantius hath well expressed it thus; 
‖ Irascuntur etiam pugnantibus, nisi celeriter alter è duobus occisus est: & tanquam humanum sanguinem sitiant, oderunt moras, alios illis compares dari poscunt recentiores, ut quamprimum oculos suos satient. Lib. 6. c. 20.  They show themselves very angry, and grow enraged, unless one of the Combatants be slain very speedily: and as if they thirsted after Humane Blood, they hate all Delays, and call for other fresh Fighters that are not weary and faint, but will briskly fall on, and thereby satiate the Eyes of the Spectators.  
From these Passages we may be informed how mad the World was upon Slaughter and Bloodshed: We see what strange Immoralities these Civilised People admitted among them, what Barbarous and Outrageous Usages were approved of by them. This I might well mention as one Instance of the Devil's working among them. But the Christians continually declamed against those Bloody Games, they Preached and wrote against these Inhuman Combats; and at last 
* Euseb. in vit. Constant. M. l. 4.  the Christian Emperors strictly forbade them. You may read in the Ancient Apologists, how these Unlawful and Mad Shows are struck at, and how the Christians are particularly warned against them. A Christian was not permitted to be a Spectator of them, but by his Profession and Character, he was obliged to declare against them, and draw off others (if he could) from being present at them. Hear the words of one of the most Learned Apologizers for the Christian Religion against the Pagans; We, 
† Athenagoras, in Legat. pro Christian.  saith he, abstain from, and are averse to these Spectacles of the Sword-Players, being persuaded that there is no great difference between being a Spectator of these Bloody Prizes, and an Author of the Bloodshed there committed. Thus the Primitive Christians showed their Abhorrence of these Entertainments, and so at length they came to be wholly laid aside, and accounted utterly unlawful. Thus this Work of the Devil was destroyed: which we cannot but attribute to the Manifestation of the Son of God upon the Earth, and to his Holy Institution, which promotes Tender-heartedness and Pity, and condemns whatever is Savage and Bloody.  
But the Slaughter and Murder of Souls are the worst and highest Cruelty, the Main Work and Business of that Implacable Enemy of Mankind. Those Cursed Spirits being fallen themselves from God, endeavour the Apostasy of all Mankind; and this they do, by drawing Men into Error, and by tempting them to Sin and Wickedness. They are as busy in debauching men's Minds by Erroneous Opinions and False Doctrines, as they are in any other Design; and they get as much by it: for by corrupting men's Understandings and Notions, they prepare the way for all other Mischiefs to ensue. Heresies are of the Devil, and lead to him; and therefore Polycarp knew what he said, when he called Martion (that Arch-Heretick) the firstborn of Satan. But the inveigling to Practical Error, which is no other than Vice, gives him chief his Denomination of Tempter; and consequently those who allure others to Vice, those who entice them to Evil Courses, are to be called by no softer Terms, than those of Murderers and Devils; for Tempting, i. e. drawing others to Sin, is properly the Work of the Devil; this is that which he constantly practiseth, and takes so much delight in. But the Blessed Founder of Christianity is a Saviour and Lover of Souls, who thus expostulated when he was on Earth; What is a Man profited, if he shall gain the whole World, and lose his own Soul? or what shall a Man give in exchange for his Soul? This Jesus was Loving and Kindhearted, and submitted to a painful and ignominious Death, to give an undeniable Demonstration of his Compassion to the Souls of Men. He ascended the Cross, and shed his Blood there, to convince the World how Tender he was of their Immortal Concerns, and Everlasting Welfare: And let me speak a Great Word, He would even now leave all his Glories, and die once more for Man, if it were necessary for the procuring of his Happiness.  
Lastly, Carnality, Lewdness and Uncleanness, may fitly be styled the Devil's Works. It is well known, that these prevailed even in the most Solemn Rites and Devotions of the Pagans. As the Poets represent the Gods Lewd and Lascivious, so the most Serious Authors tell us of the Impure and Filthy Sacrifices, the Villainous and Beastly Rites performed to them. They relate the Obscene Feasts of Bacchus and Priapus, of Flora and Venus, and acquaint us that they kept their Lupercalia, or Festivals of Pan, in running up and down naked, behaving themselves in that lewd manner which cannot be named without injuring chaste and modest Ears. Of the Eleusinian Solemnities, in Honour of Ceres and Proserpina, we have some Account from 
* Adu. Valentin.  Tertullian: and the Religious Ceremonies of Isis were as lewd and obscene, saith 
† De Isid. & Osir. l. 1.  Plutarch. It is certain that Lewdness and Wantonness were the very Ingredients of their Worship, and their very Temples were Stews. Arnobius makes it his Business in his fifth Book, to show how obscene and unchaste, how immodest and shameless their Rites and Ceremonies, their Stories and Relations of their Gods were. In brief, Uncleanness hath been so eminently confirmed to be the Work of the Devil, that the Foul Fiends have sometimes assumed Bodies to act it in, as 
‖ S. Augustin. de civ. Dei. lib. 15. Bodin. contr. Wier.  some have thought. But Christ coming in the Flesh, destroyed even the Deeds of the Flesh: he chose to be born of a Pure Virgin, that he might give a Pattern of Spotless Purity in the World; and the Design of his Holy Institution, was to Sanctify men's Bodies and Souls, and to fit them for the unstained Pleasures of another Life. Thus I have finished my Task, having largely and particularly showed you what the Works of the Devil are, either such Works as are done by that Evil Spirit, or such Vices and Practices in Men, as more nearly approach to the Devilish Nature and Temper; and I have at the same time proved that our Saviour and his Religion, do overthrow and destroy these Works of the Infernal Spirit.  
I will only add a Critical Remark on that manner of Expression in the Text, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that he may lose (our English Word, it is likely, coming from thence) or dissolve, etc. for that is the exact rendering of the Word. This supposes Bonds and Fetters: We were in Durance and Captivity, we were shut and locked up 
* Isa. 42. 7.  in the Prisonhouse, we were under the Power of Satan and Dominion of Sin: but the Merciful jesus came to rescue and redeem Mankind, to knock off their Fetters, and to set them at Liberty. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, and for this only. He came not (as the jews fond imagined concerning their Messiah) to be a Great Earthly Monarch, to wage War, and to beat the Romans out of judea, and to make his People Rich and Wealthy, and to promote them to great Honours. This alas was a poor Design, and not worthy of the Messiah: but he came to effect a thing of greater Moment, even of Universal Concern, and that which is more Noble and Glorious than all Worldly Empire and Sovereignty. He came to free his People from the Tyranny of Satan, to vanquish the Prince of Darkness who had enslaved all Mankind.  
Or, this Word gives us a true Notion of our Saviour's Design, thus: The Devil had corrupted Man, had been the great Instrument at first of depraving his very Nature, and ever since he hath made it his Work to debauch men's Minds and Manners, and by all ways imaginable, to render them like unto himself. Hereupon the Son of God was sent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might dissolve, defeat, undo these Works of the Devil. This is the short and plain Account of the Grand End of Christ's being manifested in the World, of his Incarnation, Doctrine, Life, Sufferings, Death, and all his Undertake whatsoever; it was no other than this, to undo, to annul all that the Devil had done in the World. Christ's task was to pull down what Satan had built up, to untie, to untwist all his Knots and Intrigues, to baffle all his Plots and Contrivances, to unravel the Enchantments of the Evil Spirit, to break the Snares of Satan, and to destroy the Destroyer.  
FINIS.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. line 27. read junius. P. 68 l. 22. prefix the Figure 7. P. 77. l. 10. r. in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 118. towards the bottom, the Parentheses are misplaced. P. 127. l. 20. r. a Man for a Teth. P. 171. l. 7. r. Nun for Caph. P. 217. l. 26. deal † P. 270. l. 8. after Writer, add with others. P. 272. l. 13. r. were. P. 275. l. 2. after dieth make a Period. P. 290. l. 13. r. signifies, l. 24. for Arrows r. Rods, l. 31. after Tribes, add, for it is certain that the jews and other Nations mutually borrowed from one another. P. 291. l. 3. after Israelites, add (as well as these aped them). P. 318. l. 23. insert are. P. 337. l. 15. r. Christianity's.   


Books printed for Jonathan Robinson, at the Golden-Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
THE Holy Bible; containing the Old Testament and the New; with Annotations and Parallel-Scriptures. To which is annexed, The Harmony of the Gospels; as also a Reduction of the Jewish Weights, Coins and Measures, to our English Standards. And a Table of the Promises in Scripture. By Samuel Clarke.  
Synodicon in Gallia Reformata: Or, the Acts, Decisions, Decrees and Canons, of those famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France. Wherein are contained, 1. A most faithful and impartial History of the Rise, Growth, Perfection and Decay of the Reformation in that Kingdom, with its fatal Catastrophe upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nants, in the Year 1685. 2. The Confession of Faith, and Discipline of those Churches. 3. A Collection of Speeches, Letters, Sacred Politics, Cases of Conscience and Controversies in Divinity, determined and resolved by those grave Assemblies. 4. Many excellent Expedients for preventing and healing Schisms in the Churches, and for reuniting the dismembered Body of divided Protestants. 5. The Laws, Government, and Maintenance, of their Colleges, Universities and Ministers; together with their Exercise of Discipline upon Delinquent Ministers and Church-members. 6. A Record of very many illustrious Events of Divine Providence relating to those Churches. The whole collected and composed out of Original Manuscript Acts of those Renowned Synods. A Work never before extant in any Language. In two Volumes. By john Quick.   

Books printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lion, and John Wyatt at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
A Practical Exposition on the Ten Commandments; with other Sermons. By the Right Reverend Father in God, Ezekiel Hopkins, late Lord Bishop of London-Derry.  
An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church that flourished within the first three hundred Years after Christ. Faithfully Collected out of the Extant Writings of those Ages. By an impartial Hand. In two Parts.   

Books printed for John Everingham, at the Star in Ludgate-street, near the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard.  
MIscellaneous Essays. By Monsieur St. Euremont. Translated out of French. With a Character, by a Person of Honour here in England. By Mr. Dryden.  
The Divine Art of Prayer: Containing the most proper Rules to pray well. With divers Meditations and Prayers suitable to the Necessities of Christians, useful in every Family. To which are annexed, seasonable Prayers for Soldiers, both in their Majesty's Army and Fleet.  
Monarchia Microcosmi: The Origine, Vicissitudes and Period of Vital Government in Man. For a further Discovery of Diseases incident to Humane Nature. By Everard Maynwaring, M. D.   

Books printed for John Wyat.  
THE Christian Virtuoso; showing, That by being addicted to Experimental Philosophy, a Man is rather Assisted than Indisposed to be a Good Christian. By the Honourable Robert boil Esq.  
Experimenta & Observationes Physicae. Wherein are briefly treated of several Subjects relating to Natural Philosophy, in an experimental way. To which is added, A small Collection of strange Reports. By the same Author.