SHIBBOLETH OR, Observations of several Errors in the last Translations of the English & French Bibles. Together, With many other received Opinions in the Protestant Churches, which being weighed in the balance are found too light.  
Written by John Despagne, Minister of the French CHURCH; And translated into English, By Robert Codrington, Mr of Arts.  
London, Printed in the year▪ 1656▪   

THE PREFACE.  
REader, I am one of the least, but of those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel; And amongst those I am not the first, who have undertaken to lay open those defects, to which the most learned are subject. Where is that Moses who still doth not stammer, although God himself hath talked to him? It is true, the Defects▪ which I have here noted, are not so fatal in their consequences, as that of Shibboleth was unto the Ephraimites, Howsoever we should endeavour, to correct ourselves unto the truth, and to speak as uprightly and as properly as we can. Amongst a multitude of passages, and places which deserve a review, I have only taken a small number, and have ranked them by no other order, but by that only of my memory, and according to that measure which it hath presented them unto me. A work more complete and exact doth pertain to the great Masters of knowledge, unto whom I do commend the care thereof. Nevertheless, If time, or rest, or life; if sight, or light, (and which is more▪ if the light of GOD doth not fail me▪ I hope I shall not be altogether unprofitable.   

Divers Treatises heretofore published by this Author.  

POpular Errors in general points which concern the knowledge of Religion, referred to their causes, and comprehended in several observations.  
The use of the Lord's Prayer maintained against the Objections of the Innovators of these times.  
New Observations on the Creed:  
New Observations on the Decalogue.  
The eating of the Body of Christ considered in its principles.   

SERMONS  
An Abridgement of the Sermon Preached on the 12. of Sept. 1648. Upon the Treaty which was then to begin betwixt the late King and the Parliament.  
A funeral Sermon of the Author upon the Death of his wife.  
A funeral Sermon on the Death of Philip Earl of Penbrok●.  
An Advertisement on the Breaking and distributing of the Bread in the Sacrament of the Supper omitted in many Orthodox Churches.  
An Abridgement of two Sermons which preceded the Ordination of a Pastor in the French Church at Canterbury.  
Considerations on the eclipse of the Sun, March 29. the year 1652.  
The Charity of the Parliament of England to the French Church gathered in the chapel at Somerset House.   
The greatest part of the works above mentioned have been already translated into English by divers learned men.   

SHIBBOLETH OR The Reformation of several places in the Translations of the French and of the English Bible.  

Of a general Fault in the English Translation at the beginning of the Lord's Prayer, and a great number of other places in the New Testament.  
INstead of saying, Our Father which art in the Heavens, the English do express it, Our Father which art in Heaven, There are ●ew who can be persuaded but they express this Prayer in the same terms as our Saviour did dictate it. Nevertheless the mistake is very visible; If it proceeded only from custom and vulgar use, I should not here make mention of it. But it is authorized by the public Translation, reviewed, and oftentimes reimprinted. For all the Translations of Math. 6. and Luke the 11. do with one voice pronounce, Who art in Heaven.  
I shall not here study at all to give an Answer to those, who immediately will reply; Is it not all one, If we say that GOD is in Heaven or in the Heavens? A man experienced in the Scriptures will never speak it. The difference is very great betwixt Heaven in the Singular, and Heavens in the Plural Number; And although in some matters, the Singular be indifferently pronounced as the plural, as in Math. 16. and 19 and Math. 18. and 18. yet this difference is not universal. On the contrary, It is of great importance to discern, when the Scripture speaks of the Heavens, and when it speaks of Heaven; Of which I will not treat at this present, It shall suffice to speak, that the word Heavens in the plural, doth far more express the extent of the power of GOD, whom in that Prayer we do implore; And also that term doth imply, that he hath all the Heavens at his service to assist us, Not only the Angels who are in the highest Heaven, but the Sun and the Stars also, which are in another Heaven, and besides them, the Rain, and the Air which is also called Heaven. In the same Prayer, The Heaven in which the Angels do perform the Will of God, is distinguished by the Singular number from the Heavens in the plural, which our Father doth fill with his presence and ●is power.  
But why should I allege Reasons to maintain a truth, which cannot be de●yed? He that is no extraordinary Grecian may understand well enough that are the terms in the original to which the Translation ought to answer. Is it Our Father which art in Heaven? No, It is, Who art in the Heavens. Wherefore then do we not speak it so? Wherefore do we not translate the word, as they are in the Original Text? Is it because the janguage of this Island doth want a word to express the Heavens in the plural? The contrary is sufficiently known, as by experience it is evident. Is it because the changing of one word, to which the people have a long time been accustomed, would appear either strange or difficult. We ought to regard more the truth of God, than the custom of men. And it will not be so uneasy in a new Translation, to change a supposition in the singular number, into a truth, in the plural.  
Nevertheless, it is here requisite, that I meet with, and prevent a subterfuge, which may be used, For it may be objected, The Evangelists themselves repeating the passages of the old Testament, in which the Heavens are named in the plural, have translated in Heaven in the singular number, As may appear in the 7th. of the Acts and the 46. verse, in comparing it with the 66. of Esay 1. To which I answer, That we are not Evangelists of such a rank as they were, and that our Translations proceed not as theirs did from the Dictates of the infallible Spirit, And when we render the new Testament into any other language, we ought to express the very terms of the Evangelists, and the Apostles, And likewise when we translate the old Testament, we should represent the very terms thereof.  
It is remarkable that in all the New Testament the Son of God did never say. Your Father which is in Heaven, or My Father which is in Heaven, But always, which is in the Heavens; In the Heavens in the plural. The Evangelists do recite a great number of the passages in which he hath said, Our Father or my Father which art in the Heavens; But not that he ever said, The Father which art in Heaven. Wherefore then, Do we make him to change his stile in the Prayer which he hath prescribed to us? But the English Translation doth change also all the other places in which Jesus Christ doth express the Heavens in the plural Number, when he speaketh of the Father.  
To the same purpose, our Lord did never say the Kingdom of Heaven, but always the Kingdom of the Heavens. One only of the Evangelists hath this term of the Kingdom of the Heavens no less than six and thirty times, but the Kingdom of Heaven not once; which plainly doth demonstrate, seeing the multitude of passages, in which the plural number is always employed and never the Singular, that there is a mystery or an Emphasis in the one, which is not in the other. But the English Translation to the contrary doth never say the Kingdom of the Heavens, but always the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Amongst all the places of the New Testament, where the Original nameth the Heavens, there are very few where the English do express the plural. It is in their translation of the 2 Cor. 5. 1. and Heb. 1. 10. Why ought it not to be, or could it not be as well, in all the other places which the holy Ghost hath dictated? And in Ephes. 1. 10. where the original mentioneth the Heavens in the plural, the English Translation doth only put it in the margin, and placeth the Singular in the text itself.   

Of Lucifer, who is mentioned in the English Translation Esay 14. ver. 12.  
THe schoolboys know that Lucifer is a Latin word, and it is the name of the Star, which showeth its self before the rising of the Sun. The Hebrew which signifies this Star is indeed expressed itself by the word Lucifer, but it is when we speak in Latin, not when it is translated into English. To what purpose then is this Lucifer in the English translation?  
The translators in the margin have inserted the true word of the English tongue, which is the daystar, but in the body of the text, they had rather employ the Name of Lucifer; as if it were better English, or as if there were some great cause which did oblige them to it.  
It is indeed no other thing but the tracing of an ancient Allegory▪ which applieth to the devil, that which is spoken to the King of Babylon, and of the Name of a Star hath made it to be the proper Name of the Prince of evil Spirits, and give it him in Latin, that is to say Lucifer. And because proper Names do retain themselves in whatsoever language they are spoken, it was believed that this ought not to be changed for any other.  
But wherefore do we yet retain the relics of such notorious folly censured a long time since, and disavowed by ourselves, who is he amongst the vulgar that finding in his Bible this word Lucifer doth not immediately believe that it is the Name of a great devil, whom common ignorance so calleth. It is true that the Divines, who have published the last annotations on the English Bible have also condemned those, who do so understand the name of Lucifer. But so long as that word shall remain in the text, the error will continue. What need is there to retain a word which is not of the English tongue, since the English can express the Hebrew without this Latin word, which only serveth to nourish an ancient folly?  
The common people of England have a long time thought that the evil Rich man Luke 16. verse 19, &c. was called Dives according to his proper Name; And for the greatest part they do to this day believe it; for they ordinarily say that Dives is in Hell, that Dives spoke with Abraham, &c. As if Dives had been his Christen-name or at least his surname: Now this ridiculous opinion was conceived and born at that time when the people had not the Bible but in Latin; For because that Dives doth signify a rich man in the Latin tongue, when mention was made of Dives, the ignorant did imagine that it was the name of a man; An interpretation as vain as that which is recited in a modern satire, of one, who maintained that the name of Tobyes' Dog was Canis, because, it is said that Canis followed his Master. But it is to be admired how this ignorance hath been fomented even by the Orthodox themselves since the Reformation, when they published the Scriptures in the English tongue, for in the Contents of the Chapter which they have prefixed to the 16. of Luke, we do yet read as if that Chapter did speak of Dives and Lazarus. The last translation hath not this word Dives; No more ought Lucifer to be any more especially in the text itself.   

Of Mary Magdalen, who falsely is said to be a Woman of a bad life. The injuries which Divines for the most part a● her in their Sermons and their Books, And especially the English Bible in the Argument of the seventh Chapter of St. Luke.  
THe injury which the Roman Church doth to another Mary, who was the Sister of Lazarus hath been sufficiently confuted by the Orthodox. Ignorance hath caused to believe, that this Mary, and another who was of Magdala, and the Sinner mentioned in the 7th. of Saint Luke were but one and the same person, confounding these three in one, now we have truly and already vindicated one of the three, who is Mary of Bethany, who was the Sister of Lazarus, but we do still defame her of Magdala, as if this Magdalen were the Sinner of whom Saint Luke speaketh.  
There is nothing more common in the mouth of the vulgar than the wicked life of Magdalen. The Preachers willing to comfort Souls afflicted with the horror of their sins, do represent unto them this Woman, as one of the most unchaste and most dissolute that ever was, to whom nevertheless GOD hath been merciful. On the same prejudice which is but imaginary, the reason is builded, wherefore the Son of God being raised from the dead, did appear first to Mary Magdalen, before he appeared to any other, for it is alleged, it was because she had more need of comfort, having been a greater finner than others. The common places, the indices, even that of Marl●rat himself, and other Books, which serve for an Address to Students, do give them betimes this impression which always afterwards they retain. He who hath wrote the practice of Piety, of whom I shall speak more hereafter, doth rank this Magdalen, with the most enormous sinners, yea, with Manasse himself, one of the most wicked that ever was. And yet more to atuhorize this error, it is inserted into the Bible itself.  
For the Contents of the 7th. Chapter of Saint Luke in the English translation doth tell us, that the Woman, whose sins were in a greater number than the sins of others, the Woman, who until then had led a wicked life and full of uncleaness, was Mary Magdalen.  
But 1. the text gives no name to that sinner; where have we then found it? Who of the Evangelists, or what other authentic Scripture hath taught us the proper name or the surname of that Woman? For she who poured the ointment on Jesus Christ Mat. 26. and John 12. was neither that sinner, nor Mary Magdalen, but the sister of Lazarus. All the circumstances do demonstrate that they are two distinct Histories, two divers actions performed in divers times, in divers places, and by divers persons. Secondly, Where shall we find that Mary Magdalen did ever anoint the feet of our Saviour? Thirdly, Where shall we find that Mary Magdalen was a Woman of an ungodly life? The gospel doth inform us, that she was tormented with seven Devils, or evil Spirits, an affliction which may befall the most holy man or woman in the world. But we find not the least shadow of a word which doth stain her with any note of infamy. Wherefore then do we yet adhere to an invention not only fabulous, but injurious to the memory of a woman illustrious in piety? We must abstain from bearing false witness, as well against the dead, as against the living.  
It is remarkable that neither the sinner, mentioned in Luke the 7th. nor the Adulteress, in the 8th. of Saint John are found to have any name in the sacred History, no more than the thief who was converted being on the Cross. There are (no doubt) particular reasons for it, and in part we may conjecture of them, why the Holy Ghost abstained to express the proper names of these great sinners, although they were converted. It is not then for us to impose names on them, much less to appropriate them to persons whom the Scripture hath not marked with any note of enormous sins.   

Of the Sons of Saul whom the French Bible represents to have been crucified 2 Sam. 21.  
IT hath been observed that this word the Cross is not found in the old Testament, and even that the Hebrew tongue hath not any term to signify that kind of punishment, which was unknown to the ancient people of Israel. The two and twentieth Psalm foretelling that kind of death which Christ should suffer, doth express it only by a Periphrasis. They have ●eirced my hands and my feet. It is true that the Latin tongue doth give a more ●arge signification of this word the Cross, But in our vulgar tongues it is only taken for that kind of Execution, in which they did nail to the wood the hands and the feet of the Malefactor. And this cannot be said of the Sons of Saul. The original affirms that they were hanged by the Gabaonites, who demanded that they might be delivered to them to be hanged. This is the word of the text, which is also expressed in the English translation, In the place whereof, the French translation saith, that they were stretched forth on the Cross, And that the Gabaonites did demand them, to the end (say they) that we may stretch them forth on the Cross. But the word of the Cross, or the Crucifying is neither in that place, nor in any other of the old Testament, and therefore ought not to be in the translation.   

Of the beginning or Preface which is commonly added to the Text of the Decalogue.  
WHen the common people do rehearse the ten commandments, they begin in these words, harken O Israel, &c. The Books in which the Extract or Copy of the Decalogue is found, The Catechisms in which it is interpreted, The Poetical Paraphrases in which it is sung, do all give it this beginning, harken O Israel.  
Now there is no man who ought to take offence at what I shall say. He hath more reason to wonder that no more heed is taken of so manifest an addition, For those two first words, harken Israel, which we pronounce when we recite the Decalogue, are no part of the Decalogue itself, nor were they spoken then when GOD with his own mouth did publish it in Sinai, neither were they comprehended in the writing which he did give in the tables of that Law. This is easy to prove the Decalogue, which is wholly entire in two places of Moses (Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. hath not these words, harken Israel.  
But what inconvenience doth arise to place them in the front of the Decalogue? Surely none at all, for the substance of them, for it is well known that it was to Israel to whom GOD did speak them. But if we shall affirm that they are the proper terms of the Decalogue, it is a great mistake, And the Jews would tell us that we are but bad Text-men. It is expedient at the least that the common people should be advertised to discern an addition, or a Paraphrase, be it never so pertinent, from the express words of that law.  
It may be demanded, From whence did that custom proceed, to begin the Decalogue with those words which are not there? It may be from hence, that Christ (Mark 12. 29.) citing Moses (Deut. 6. 4.) saith that the first of all the commandments is, harken O Israel, the Lord our God is the only Lord. But these words do not prove that the Decalogue in express terms did begin so, No more than by this which followeth, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. That is the first commandment. For these words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God are not in the Decalogue, although the other commandments have their reference to it, as to the first, that is to say, the greatest of them all.  
To all this I shall add that the French Paraphrase, which we sing in our Churches, willing to represent this Preface, harken O Israel, doth not express at all the name of Israel, which nevertheless ought to be there expressed. And which is more, in the place of Israel, which was a title of honour, this Paraphrase hath inserted an Epithet of Reproach, which is a hardened people. No man ought to take it in ill part, if we mark the defect● of the language of men   

Of a distinction unknown to us which was in the writing o● every one of the tables of the Decalogue. A Q●●stion on that Subject.  
IT is not needful in this place to demonstrate, that which is eviden● in History, that the Decalogue was not contained in two pages, or columns, as it is ordinarily represented, but in four. For every Table was written on two sides, which were as two pages in one leaf, in such a manne● that all the Decalogue was comprehended in four pages, every one o● which did contain a part of this Law Exod. 32. 15.  
Now we cannot give an account, i● what words, nay which is more i● what commandment the first pag● did end, nor consequently where the second did begin. For one part of the four first commandments was written on one of the sides of the first table, and another part on another side. But how many of the commandments, or words, and what were written in every side, is that of which we are ignorant. And the like for the second table; we know not where the first page ended, and where the other did begin. I have been willing to give this advertisement to those who before did not think of it.  
But it may be demanded, wherefore hath not the sacred History marked this distinction to instruct us, which were the last words of the foregoing page, or which were the first of tha● which followed? It may be, it was to hinder those, who would have counterfeited the tables of the law, for it was not permitted to make any like unto them. And these tables were shut up in an Ark, that they might not be exposed to the view of men; And so not knowing what words finished the first page neither of one table nor the other, it is impossible to make a certain and an assured Representation of them.   

Of the Songs which without any proof are attributed to the Blessed Virgin, to Zachary and to Simeon, Luke Chap. 1. and 2.  
I May add to this the song of the Angels, who (it is said) did sing these words, Glory be unto God, &c. when they published the Nativity of our Saviour. This is a common opinion, followed also by the English Bible in the Argument of the second Chapter of Saint Luke. But that which may be spoken of it, hath been touched by others, which is the reason that I abstain to proceed any further on it.  
Nevertheless, the same Judgement may be made of this title, which is given to these three other parcels of Scripture, which are called Songs, As the Song of the Virgin, the Song of Zachary, and the Song of Simeon. So speak the Comm●n Places, so the Commentators, and so Calvin himself as to the Song of the Virgin.  
The Evangelist doth tell us that these words, to which the Name of a Song is given, were pronounced, but not that they were sung, either by the Virgin, or by Zachary, or Simeon, nor that they were so much as conceived or brought forth in the form of a Song, or measured by the Rules of Poetry.  
It will not serve to affirm that their stile is poetical, and that certain passages in some of the Psalms, and other Hymns of the old Testament are inchaced in them; for some verses of a Song inserted into a discourse, do not make the whole discourse to be an entire Song. Much less may we conclude that it was sung by pronouncing. Howsoever it was, there is nothing of any certainty in it, to make the vulgar opinion to pass for an undoubted truth.  
In all the New Testament there are but two Songs, so named in express terms, And both those are in the Revelations only, and only in a Vision: Rev. 5. ver 9 10. and Revel. 15. ver. 3. 4.  
I do not say that those excellent words of the Virgin, of Zachary, and of Simeon may not in our vulgar tongues be put into the form of Songs, and sung in our public Congregations; It is of great edification. But it is not convenient to believe for certain, that they were Songs in the original. Wherefore do we not say as well that the words of Elizabeth dictated by the Holy Ghost are a Song also Luke 1?   

Of a very harsh expression in the English Bible Jerem. 20. ver. 7. And other Translations on the same place in the Latin and the French Bible.  
IN this place the Translation makes Jeremy addressing himself to GOD, to speak in these words, Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I have been deceived. It is true that the Translation of S. Jerom, hath the same expression, if not a worse, Thou hast (saith it) seduced me, and I have been seduced. That of Tremelius hath it; pellexisti me. And the French Translation, tumas attrait. To which the English doth answer in the margin. But in the text it saith, Thou hast deceived me. A word full of horror. Now, saving the reverence which is due unto knowing and learned men, none of these expressions doth please me. The Question is if the word in the hebrew doth signify nothing else but to deceive or to attract. The Translators were not ignorant, that it doth signify also to persuade, to induce or to give an Inclination; which words may bear a good sense? Wherefore then in this place do not we employ them in the room of others, whose signification is so sinister. Wherefore do we put a Blasphemy into the mouth of the Prophet, when his language might otherwise be interpreted? In such a circumstance, the most favourable Exposition is also to be most received.   

Of two Interpretations of one word which is in the 34. Chap. of Job ver. 36. And which is the most convenient.  
IN this place the French Bible makes Elihu as addressing his speech to God, to speak in this manner. My Father let Job be proved. So the Latin Bible, And that also o● Junius reads it. The English Bible hath not these words, My Father, but in the margin only. For within the text it saith, My desire is that Job be proved.  
This Diversity doth arise from this, that the Hebrew word, which begins this verse, may be taken in both senses. It signifies my desire, It signifies also my Father. Now of these two significations which ought we to choose? For it is not so indifferent, that a man may think to take that which he pleaseth.  
It is and hath a long time been marked, that the faithful of the old Testament, when they did speak unto GOD, did never call him their Father. There is only one Prayer in which he was called by that Name, Esay 63. 64. For the rest, Amongst so many Prayers, so many thanksgivings, and Confessions, amongst so many Psalms, and so many Dialogues, betwixt GOD and the most holy men of that time, None of them did ever say unto him Father, or Our Father▪ how great so ever was their privacy with him. It is true that speaking of God amongst themselves, they acknowledged that GOD was as favourable to them, as a Father to his Children. GOD did call himself their Father, when he did speak unto them, but when they spoke unto GOD, they did never call him by that Name. The liberty to cry Abba Father, was reserved to the faithful in the new Testament, Gal. 4. ver. 1▪ &c. according to the promise, Jerem. 3. ver. 4. and 19 We ought not then so easily to put this word into the mouth of Elihu.  
There is yet another Reason which ought to restrain us from making Elihu to speak in these words, My Father. For it is of a far greater signification, than when we do call him Our Father in generality. It is known that in all the Scripture there was never any but Jesus Christ only, who speaking unto God did say, My Father. It is the Prerogative of the only Son begotten of the Father. It is true that David Psal. 89. ver. 7. doth recite the privilege which he ha●h received of GOD to be such, that it doth enable him to say, Thou art my Father; But David did never directly call him so. And those words which express this pre-eminence, do properly concern Jesus Christ, in the same manner as do those in the second Psalm. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: wherefore then do we attribute to Elihu the language which none ever spoke but the Son of God only; or what need we to seek a Parallel which is to be found in no other place of the Scripture?  
It is not necessary here to make mention of the French rythm in the 27 Psalm, which saith, My GOD, my Father, teach me thy way, &c. For this word Father is not in the original. Neither will I in this place examine that in the French Catechism, Sect. 38. which saith, that every believer can call GOD his Father in particular. It is necessary as much as can be, we should keep unto the stile of the Holy Ghost: Otherwise the consequences are greater than they appear to be.   

Of a superfluous word, yea a dangerous one, in many places of the English Bible, expressing the form of the Oaths recited in the sacred History.  
THe Hebrews did ordinarily swear in these terms. The eternal is living, such a thing is, &c. The Examples thereof are frequent in the old Testament. The sense is. The Eternal, who is living is witness of that which I speak. And this epithet, which they gave to God, was to distinguish him from false Gods, whom the Scripture calleth dead, Psal. 126. 28. Now in all those places, which are many in number, in which these words are contained. The eternal, or, the Lord is living, The English Translation doth prevent this oath, with a word in the beginning of it, saying AS the Lord is living, &c. The Bible of Tremelius hath also the same addition to render the Hebrew Phrase more intelligible, which otherwise seemeth not to be complete.  
But this addition is not necessary, and if it were, yet a better may be found. The popular ignorance or liberty (when it will affirm the truth of any thing) will be so hardy as to say, That it is as true as there is a God, Or, As true as God is living. A word full of exccess. For there is nothing that can be so true as that GOD is; All other truths are but the shadow of it.  
It will be replied that the difference is great between these two expressions. As true as GOD is living, And, As GOD is living. For this last doth signify nothing but a resemblance and a conformity to the truth, and not an equality. But First: This comparison is not in the original, and it is not necessary to say that these words God is living, do signify that any thing is as true as GOD is living. The sense is more full, That GOD, who is living, doth know that such a thing is true. Secondly, Although in the Original these words GOD is living are not joined with any particle to the words following, and therefore did render the sense more obscure, yet I had rather in this manner to content myself with them, then introduce into the text an addition which is disputable. And so the French Translation (at least that which is most exact in such places▪ doth speak word for word according to the Hebrew.   

The vulgar opinion touching the sin against the Holy Ghost. The Contents of the twelfth Chapter of St. Matthew in the French Bible.  
IT is a common saying that the sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable. So speak the Divines in their Sermons and their Books. But this assertion expressed in such words is either defective or erroneous. Defective, If we presuppose, that there is but one kind of sin against the Holy Ghost. Erroneus, if we understand, that all sorts of sins against the Holy Ghost are unpardonable. Both are but one.  
Now this doth proceed from a gross misadvertisement, which doth yet continue, For if precisely we regard the terms of the Gospel, in which our Saviour speaketh of the sin which is unpardonable, we shall never find that he pronounced this word, That a sin against the Holy Ghost shall be never pardoned. But he hath said, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be never pardoned; Or that he who shall speak against the Holy Ghost shall have no remission. The crime then which he hath declared shall never be forgiven, is not universally every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  
Certainly we sin divers ways against the holy Ghost, whether it be in resisting, or whether it be in grieving the Spirit, or by what kind of offence so ever it be. Is there any one of us who can boast to have never committed any thing against the illumination, which the Spirit of GOD hath infused into his conscience. Have we never acted against the motions of the Spirit? To lust against the Spirit, is that also to sin unpardonably against the Spirit? But where is that Christian in whom the flesh doth not lust against the Spirit? Woe be unto us All, if every sin committed against the Holy Ghost were excluded from pardon. Is it not a sin against the Holy Spirit, to make sad and to grieve the Holy Spirit? Now the Israelites in the desert did grieve him oftentimes, Esay 63. 10. Shall we dare affirm, that all those souls who sinned thus against the Holy Ghost, are for ever shut out from obtaining mercy both in this world and the world to come? To prove the contrary we shall find in the same place, that the compassions of GOD were even then upon them, seeing that his Spirit, which they had so much provoked, was still their Conductor.  
There are then many kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, and amongst others, one which shall not be pardoned, that is, Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. But it is either forgetfulness, or too confused a speech, to say without distinction or exception, that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. The French Bible in the Argument on the twelfth of Saint Matthew, saith that the Blasphemy of those, who speak evil of the miracles of the Son of GOD, is a sin against the Holy Ghost. But these terms are ambiguous, and do not express the sense of the text. For Christ doth not say generally or indefinitely, that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be remitted, but it specifies, and marks out that sort of sin, which shall never be forgiven; not any sin against the Holy Ghost, but only the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.   

Of the Name which many give to the mountain on which Jesus Christ was transfigured.  
IT is said that this wonder was wrought on Mount Thabor; And this saying is as ancient as it is common. The opinion indeed is not without great appearance of truth, For the situation of the Mount Thabor, the form, the beauty and the height thereof do all seem to speak that it was the place where this great miracle was wrought. It was seated in Galilee the less, in a champion place; it was round on the ridge thereof, it was equal on all sides, fourteen furlongs in height, according to the level. I do therefore willingly yield to the vulgar opinion, provided it be said to be an opinion only, and not a certainty.  
This transfiguration is recited four times in the new Testament, to wit by three Evangelists, and by the Apostle Saint Peter, who with his eyes did behold it. But none of them hath given us the Name of that Mountain. Their silence in this particular should also shut up our mouths concerning this. No doubt, it was not without a special cause, that the Holy Ghost abstained from naming that place, seeing other places are named, which seem to be less considerable. Nevertheless if we say that it was Mount Thabor, we ought not to pronounce it as an assured truth, as ordinarily it is done even in Sermons, and in our Books also of devotion, For they who say so, do speak it as if it were most true, and not to be doubted, without thinking that it is an uncertain fore-judgement.   

Of the Son of God whom the English Bible saith is mentioned by Nebuchadnezar. Dan. 3. 5.  
IN this translation Nabuchadnezzar speaketh, that of the four men whom he saw in the furnace, one of them resembled the Son of GOD. This would make us to believe that Nabuchadnezzar did understand the mystery of the Trinity, which nevertheless was obscure in the old Testament. When we do say the Son of GOD, it is presently understood that we do speak of him who is the only Son of the Father, But there is no appearance that this Heathen Prince did speak in this sense. The Prophets themselves, when they touched on this point, have never expressed the name of the Son of GOD but in a figure, as in the persons of David and of Solomon, or of the entire Body of Israel, Mat. 3. 15. Nay Daniel, from whom Nabuchadnezzar received all that he did know concerning the true GOD, did never in express terms name the Son of GOD. Nay, speaking of him, he reciteth that he saw him like unto the Son of man. Dan. 7.  
The French Bible doth otherwise render the words of Nabuchadnezzar. The fourth (saith it) is like unto a Son of GOD, to a man divine, excellent, extraordinary. So spoke the Pagans themselves, when they would represent a man of rare qualities, whether of Body or of Mind. So the best Interpreters have observed, And so this place ought to be translated. Between these two (the Son of GOD, and, a Son of GOD) there is an infinite distance.   

Of the Name of Children which was given to the three Companions of Daniel.  
IN our vulgar tongues the Name of Child, when it is understood without any correlative, is taken for one of a very tender age. It is commonly said that the three Children were cast into the Furnace. And the Song which is attributed to them, is called the Song of the three Children. But certainly they were not Children then when they chose rather to be cast into the flame, than to adore the Image. Before that time, they were reputed amongst the wise men of Babylon, and they should have died amongst those who could not interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezar. And before they were cast into the Furnace, they managed all the great affairs of the Province of Babylon, of which they were governors. And were they yet but Children? The History also which recites the Martyrdom, from whence they were miraculously delivered, doth make mention of them as of men of age, and not as of Children. Daniel 3. ver. 12. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.   

Of the first words of the French Bible.  
IN the original the first words of the Book of Genesis are couched in this order. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. The Scripture begins with the same word of beginning, so do all the Translations which I have seen, the French only excepted, which saith, God created in the beginning, &c.  
It may be said, that I stand here upon too nice a punctilio. For what ●oth it import, if we read it, God created in the beginning, Or, In the beginning GOD created? It is true, It is the same sense indeed: nevertheless besides the general reason which doth oblige us to follow the order of the original words, as near as the propriety of our vulgar languages will permit, there is a more particular consideration on this place.  
Saint John doth in the same manner begin his Gospel, In the beginning was the word, &c. The first Syllables of the Evangelist do represent those which are first in the Bible. And that this was his design, is evident by that which followeth. For immediately afterwards he doth mention that word by which all things were made, and doth make use of those terms which do manifestly reflect on the words of Moses, when he describeth the Creation of the world, And as this term, in the beginning, is the first in Moses and in the Scripture, so it is first of all expressed by this Evangelist.  
This Concurrence, which is so considerable, doth not so plainly appear when we read it, God created in the beginning. I 〈◊〉 most clear when we hear Moses, who saith, In the beginning GOD created, And the Evangelist who saith, In the beginning was the word.   

The Tabernacles of the Israelites being in the Wilderness, ill represented in the pictures inserted in the Bible.  
THese Tabernacles were cabins made of the branches of certain trees. Such were the lodgings of the Hebrews after their departure out of Egypt, until they entered into the Land of Canaan. In memory whereof they were enjoined to celebrate every year a Feast of seven days, during which they lodged in Tabernacies made of the branches of divers trees, Le. 23. N●h. 8. But the Painters do make them of materials very different. For representing the Israelites on the foot of Mount Sinai, or in some other place of the Wilderness, they do lodge them in tents which according to the painting were made of linen, or of the skins of Beasts. So that the Figure doth not answer either to the matter or to the form of those tabernacles of which we speak, now in the pictures of many of our Bibles, we may see portrayed the Camp of Israel, and a certain number of Pavilions, such as at this day are used when our Armies lie in the field: but they do in no wise resemble the tents of the Israelites. Such a portrait doth disguise the History, and the Jews have a cause to tax us for it of ignorance.   

Of the Name of Beelzebub which is imposea on the Prince of the Devils.  
IT is known that the Jews gave him this Name, which is the Name of an Idol. And the Pharises when they blasphemed the Son of GOD, did call him after that Name. But when Christ did answer them concerning Beelzebb, he did not say as they, that Beelzebub was the Prince of the Devils, or that such was the Name of the chief of evil Spirits.  
We ought to know that the Scripture gives no proper or peculiar name to any of the evil Angels. Some of the good Angels, and only one or two of them have a particular name, as Gabriel, and Michael, But the evil Spirits have but one common name as Satan, The Adversary, The devil, The Slanderer, And although there is a chief of the evil Angels, yet he hath not a particular name. See Mat. 25. 41. We ought not then to imagine with the vulgar, that Beelzebub is the proper name of the Prince of the Devil●. It were the Pharises, and not Christ that said so.   

Of Easter Day improperly so called or ill assigned.  
I Dispute not the ancient custom to solemnize one Day every year, in the memory of the Resurrection of our Saviour, although that every Sunday is observed for that end; But as for that Day, which every year is celebrated, there is no reason to call it the Day of the Passeover; But rather (clean contrary) we ought to give that name to that Day in which Christ our Paschall Lamb was Sacrificed, to that Day in which he died, and not unto that Day in which he did rise from the Dead. For the word of the Passeover being applied to Christ, hath reference to his Death, and not at all to his Resurrection; so the Day which is called the Passeover, is not the true Day of it, but rather the contrary.  
It will be alleged that every one doth so understand it▪ and that the words are indifferent, if they give an agreeable sense unto them. But where●ore do we give unto words a sense which they have not, nay a sense which is contrary to that which they have, or wherefore do we speak otherwise than we do understand?   

Of the word the cross, which is ordinarily abused, when mention is made of afflictions.  
THere is nothing more common in the mouths of afflicted Persons, or of those who would comfort them, then to say that they do bear their Cross, and that their ●ross is heavy, and man is subject ●o many crosses. But according to the language of GOD, there are no afflictions which can be called crosses, those afflictions being excepted, which men make us to suffer for the cause of our crucified Saviour, and for the cause of his Gospel. To such sufferings GOD hath reserved and appropriated this honourable title of the Cross. In the like manner, the persecutions which are raised against us for the cause of Christ, the punishments, the proscriptions, the losses, the reproaches, and whatsoever a Christian endureth for that quarrel, are honoured with this Name of the Cross, by reason of the Communion, which they have with the sufferings of Christ, and more particularly of his Death. The afflictions which do proceed from other causes, have no part in so glorious an epithet.  
Nevertheless a man, who is chastised, or even punished for his sins, or by his Improvidence or Intemperance hath plucked an affliction on himself, will say that it is a Cross which GOD hath sent him. This is to abuse the word. Such afflictions, and those which proceed from hidden causes, as that of the man who was born blind, John 9 2, 3. cannot be called Crosses. And yet, this Impropriety is not only in the language of the common people, but also of many Divines, nay, and in their Books also. For they do write in their Books, that a wicked man hath his Cross also. A great mistake: For the afflictions of a wicked man are not worthy of that Name. If he himself be an enemy to the Cross, and is punished, shall we say that his punishment is a Cross, can that be spoken of a Malefactor who suffereth for his crimes? All the afflictions even of a good Christian are not to be called Crosses.   

Of crying sins which men do not discern from others.  
THere are some sins to which the Divines have given the name of crying sins, And this Epithet is taken from the Scripture. By this name the effusion of Innocent blood is called, because the blood of Abel did cry unto GOD. So also is the abominable sin of Sodom, Gen. 18. 20, 21. and 19 13. So also is the detaining of the hire of the labourer, James 4. 5. So also a House builded by rapine is called a crying sin, because it is said that the stones of the wall do cry out against it, Habakuk 2. 11. And so generally all violence, and oppression is called a crying sin, Exod. 3. 17. and 22. 23, 27.  
Now there are reasons wherefore these sins more than others are called crying. But without entering into the search thereof, we are not to think that this name ought to be given to all those sins, which are more enormous and exorbitant than others; for neither Idolatry, nor Blasphemy, no, nor the worshipping of Devil are called crying sins: And in general I do observe, that of all the sins which do violate the first table of the Law, there is not one which is called a crying sin. All those sins also, which are committed against the second table, have not that name in the Scripture, but those only which I have specified.  
This distinction, although it oftentimes be too much neglected, even by men of knowledge themselves, yet we ought nevertheless to observe it, if we will follow the language of the Spirit, and not that of the common people, for there is nothing more trivial than these words, you may here see, what it is that cryeth for vengeance, It is a crying sin, And nevertheless the common speak thus of such a sin, which the Scripture doth not put in the number of crying sins. By this confusion there will be no sin, which we may not call a crying sin, if we will be governed by passion, by zeal without knowledge.   

Of faults committed in citing the Histories of the ancients.  
I Will produce but two examples. A very famous Scholar in his Book of the truth of Christian Religion, doth allege an Author, who doth recite a very strange story concerning Jesus Christ, which is that the Jews did choose him to be one of those, who offered sacrifice, and that they received him into their order, qualifying thus the Son of GOD and of the Virgin Mary.  
This story, if there were no other thing to object against it, doth directly oppose, that which the Apostle speaks in the Hebrews, that our Saviour came from the tribe of Juda, a tribe, none whereof did assist at the Altar, a tribe, of which Moses spoke nothing at all concerning the levitical Priesthood, that if Christ again were upon the earth, he would not be a Priest, &c.  
These fabulous stories which are used to maintain Christianism, do only serve but to render it suspected, nay ridiculous to the Jews, and other Miscreants.  
The other example is not of so great importance, nevertheless it will serve to show, how the most learned do mistake themselves, men in matters purely historical, which contain nothing: but first that requires no exercise of judgement, but only of attention. A modern Writer (whom I highly do esteem) doth recite and follow, in this passage which I have produced, one of the greatest personages of Antiquity, Epiphanius by name. This Author affirms that until the twentieth age after the Creation of the world, there cannot any example be produced of any Son, who died before his Father, that is to say of a natural Death. This was put in because Abel might not be objected against it. The order of nature was kept, that he, who was born first in a line descendant, should also die first, this continued until that Therah the Father of Abraham did invent Idolatry, And then (the first that is marked out for an example) his Son Haran died before his Father Therah, Gen. 11. 28. By a Judgement until then unheard of, GOD did punish Therah causing that his Son should die before his Father.  
But all this observation is null, and proceeds from a great mistake. For long before the days of Therah, nay before the time of the Deluge, we have the example of a Son, who died before his Father, and of a natural Death. It is Lamech the Son of Methuselah. The proof is most evident. Compare the 5. Chapter of Genesis, ver. 25. with the 31. From the birth of Lamech unto the death of Methuselah were 782. years, but Lamech lived but 777. He died therefore five years before his Father, And by this account Methuselah, and not Therah was the first Father by whom we find that his Son died before him of a natural Death; And by this the truth of this Commentary, which attributes the first example of this accident to the Idolatry of Therah doth vanish into nothing; many other defects may be noted in those who do recite Histories, for oftentimes it seems they slumber when they recite them.   

The first words of the ten commandments, which the ignorance of some hath razed out, and taken away from the walls of their Churches.  
THose men, who are not far from us, have made it no difficulty to blot out all the first words, to show unto the eyes of the people a Decalogue without a head, as if they had beheaded it; All these words they leave suppressed. I am the eternal, thy God, who have taken thee out of the land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage.  
I know not who hath moved them to beat down the Frontispiece of the Law of GOD, For, first, since we make a profession to retain all the words which GOD then pronounced, when he published the Law (as it is written that GOD spoke all these words, I am the Lord thy GOD, &c. why do not we write them all? why do we raze out those which are the first? Secondly, These very first words are the foundation of all the Decalogue, for they do mention who is this Lawgiver, and do show the right which he hath to command. We cannot then omit them without taking away the fundamental principle on which the whole Decalogue is builded. Thirdly, The sense of the first commandment is not entire or complete without these words, which go before it, and on which it immediately doth depend. I am the Lord thy GOD, from whence it directly followeth, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. These first words are the soul of this commandment, and they ought not to be disjoined from it. Fourthly, It is unfit, and without Judgement to begin the Decalogue without this Preface, and to speak abruptly, Thou shalt have no ●ther Gods, For this word other, doth ●resuppose that the Decalogue hath ●lready spoken of one GOD, who ex●ludes all other, And therefore this aught first to be expressed; without that it is to speak as men, who have not so much as common sense. Fiftly, Besides all these defects, there yet remains one more enormous, which is a great solecism in Divinity, and by it an injury is done to all Christians, For, when GOD saith, I am thy everlasting GOD, he doth imply, I am thy Saviour. GOD never speaks in these words, but unto those to whom he doth present salvation. These words are evangelical. GOD hath fastened the gospel unto the entrance of the Law. Wherefore, if the Gospel did not here speak first, the Law would beat us back, and bear us down, as persons under the malediction▪ Those than, who present us the Decalogue without these first words▪ which do give us access and a confidence in the mercies of the Law-give● knew not what they do.   

Of certain pictures which are in some Bibles.  
AT the entrance into the English Bible, Jesus Christ with his twelve Disciples celebrating the Passeover, are represented sitting at a table, as we are accustomed to do when we take our Repast. But we know that Jesus Christ and his Apostles sat not then in that posture, and that their Table did not resemble those in which we set our viands. They did not sit but did almost lie along either upon some Cushions or on the ground, leaning upon their Elbows, ●s it is custom in these times in the Eastern Countries. The original ●ext saith not that they sat, but doth make use of a term which cannot properly be expressed in our vulgar ●anguages. The French Bible in a more general expression saith, he ●id set himself at the table, The English hath it, He sat down, and this word for the want of a better, and one more answerable to the Greek text, is tolerable in a translation. But a picture, which speaketh in all languages, ought not to corrupt the Histories in representing them otherwise than they are. The same picture doth very ill describe Saint John in the Bosom of Jesus Christ, The particulars are by so much the more considerable, because they concern some circumstances of the Supper of our Lord, and it is of great importance that we should understand them, because they do furnish us with Arguments against Altars, against the elevation of the Host, and the worshipping of it.  
I will not here speak of the ignorance of Painters, who representing Lazarus in the breast of Abraham, do paint him as a little Infant on the Knees of that great patriarch.  
Moreover in some Bibles of the old Impression we may see GOD represented in the form of a man, producing Eve from the side of Adam. We may truly paint Adam or Eve, but it is impossible to paint God. Those who have such pictures in their Bibles, ought rather to take them out, then take delight to behold them, If it be unlawful to have Images to represent God, much less it is permitted to have them in the Bible which doth prohibit such portraitures.   

Of the Name of the SON of GOD, which some of our Bibles do give unto Adam, Luke 3. verse the last.  
THe English Bible saith of Adam that he was the Son of GOD, the Latin translation of Beza doth no● give him that Name in the text, but the note in the margin doth interpret that Adam was the Son of GOD▪ And some French Editions do speak so in the text itself.  
But we ought to know that Adam neither in this, nor any other place of the Scripture, was ever called, Son of GOD, much less the Son of GOD▪ That Name doth only appertain to the second Adam. So the last French translation doth not say that Adam was the Son of GOD, but that he was created by GOD.  
In the original, the word Son i● found but once, and it is only spoke● of Jesus Christ. Observe how Sain●Luke speaks it, That Jesus was the Son (as it was esteemed) of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, &c. of Zorababel, &c. of David, &c. of Abraham, &c. of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of GOD. The sense is that (according to the opinion of men) Jesus was the Son of Joseph, and that in effect he is of Heli, of Matthat, &c. of David, of Abraham, &c. of Seth, of Adam, of God. And thus (as many learned men have a long time observed it) it ●s Jesus Christ, and not Adam who is called the Son of God.  
These words so often repeated who was the Son, who was the Son, which are added to every one of the persons who are named in this Genealogy in ascending from Heli to Adam. These words (I say) which are not in the original have caused divers to believe, that Adam is called the Son of GOD. But in all the Catalogue this word the Son ought to be referred to Jesus Christ alone, which without the addition of these words would be more easy to be understood, As there is no need of that which in the French Bible is inserted touching Adam, to wit, that he was created.   

Of the twelfth Stone which was on the breast of the High Priest, which the French Bible doth call a beryl, and the English a Jasper, Exod. 28. 20.  
WE know that the Hebrew Nomenclation of precious Stones, as of many other things, is at this day very obscure, and the interpretations are very different, Nevertheless I will speak one word on this place.  
Two Reasons do induce me to believe, that it was rather a Jasper, that any other Stone. First, Because, it is the very same word in the Original● text, for the Hebrew word of tha● Stone which is twelfth, and the la●● upon the pectoral is a Jasper; which word hath been retained in the Gree● tongue (the most ancient of thos● sinc● Babel) and hath passed into the Latin tongue, and divers other vulgar languages, signifying always that, which we do call a J●sper. To this the Translation of J●●ius doth accord, who pu●teth the Jasper the last of all, in the like manner as doth the English Bible.  
Moreover, This Interpretation is more apparent by a light which results from that place, Revel. 21. 19 The Heavenly Jerusalem hath also twelve precious stones, on which it is founded, and who do reflect upon those of the pectoral, but they are not ranked in the same order, for in that Jerusalem, the Jasper is the first stone, which is the last in the pectoral, and this is not without a mystery, that the same stone, which is the last in the old Testament, is the first in the new, as joining the two Testaments together, and making the end of the one to be the beginning of the other, so admirable a Concurrence, ought not to be taken away from a passage where it is accompanied with other apparences.   

Of certain Books written on the Revelation, and believed to be prophetical.  
THe Interpretations of Napeir on this last Book of the Bible have been a long time admired, but they have now lost their reputation, for the term, which they gave to divers events that are yet to come, is already expired. These mistakes ought to serve to disabuse the vulgar, who oftentimes imagine that the conceptions of Expositors are infallible predictions. So divers men do to this day extol Brightman, who hath also commented upon the Revelations, as if that man had the Spirit of Prophecy; Nevertheless, if we shall observe the applications which he maketh, especially at the beginning, we shall find that he stragleth very much if we will not take fancies for Oracles.   

Of a prejudication common to a great sort of them, who do read or inte●pret the prophecies, especially the Revelation.  
IT is ordinary to imagine that the Prophecies speak not but of ourselves only, or of our country. If there be any prediction not yet accomplished, it seems to us that, that star is directly over our heads, and the influence of it only for our climate, although (it may be) it concerns us not at all. Such a Prophecy, it may be, is not to be accomplished but in Asia or America, and yet we expect to see it fulfilled in our Northern Climate. From hence oftentimes it comes to pass, that our Interpretations hit not aright. I do confess that a great part of the Revelations doth concern our Western Countries, but all the prophecies of that Book ought not to be restrained or applied to this little corner of the World, As if the Holy Ghost had thought on none but on us only. Or, As if God had no others, that are elected in other Countries of the world.   

Of some Interpreters who censure Saint Paul for wishing to be accursed or separated from Christ, for the love to his Brethren the Israelites.  
THe learned Marlorat in his common places, and the Divines, who have followed and enlarged them writing on the word peccatum, and marking forth those sins, into which divers holy personages were fallen, they do in that number comprehend thi● wish of Saint Paul, and without hesitation do pronounce that, in that he was not without blemish.  
But first of all, It is very dangerou● to condemn every action, or every word which is above the common Rule, for it may be authorized, yea and imposed by him, who is above the Law, as was the Will which Abraham had to sacrifice his own Son. Such Acts which otherwise would be irregular are heroical and transcendent. Secondly, If we would fathom the depth hereof, we would say (as it is most true) that the Glory of GOD ought to be more precious to us than our own salvation; And from hence proceeded this wish of Saint Paul. Thirdly, The words which immediately go before do sufficiently demonstrate, that the Apostle spoke this by the Spirit of GOD, which could not err, I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness with the Spirit; That I have great sorrow, &c. For I would be accursed, &c. Shall we say that, calling the Holy Ghost for witness, he immediately afterwards did pronounce those words which are contrary to the motions and the Rules of the Holy Ghost. Fourthly, If in this wish Saint Paul speaks like a man that was besides himself; If his words are to be reproved, Is not this to derogate from the whole Epistle, and to render it suspected, as if it proceeded only from man, and not from the Spirit of GOD? That of Jeremy ought not to be here objected, who in the midst of his divine expressions, doth pass so for as to curse the Day of his Nativity; For the Prophet did record these words only by way of Narration, to show that they escaped from him; and his desultory stile in this expression is far different from Saint Paul's in this place.   

Of a vulgar Book entitled the PRACTICE of PIETY.  
I Have often admired at the folly of the common people, yea, and of many persons, that were conceived to be more judicious, who have almost adored this Book, and have made more account thereof than of the Bible itself. This little, which concerning it I have extracted, shall serve to disabuse those who will give regard unto it.  
At the beginning the Author very magisterially, yea, and with terrible threatenings, doth advertise all sorts of people, yea, and the most learned without exception, whosoever thou art, saith he, who dost cast thy eyes on this Book, make haste to read it, for fear that before thou hast read it over, GOD (by some sudden Death) doth cut the thread of thy life; you see then it is very dangerous to die before this Book be read over, which is so necessary to salvation O unhappy those who are dead before they can come to the last page! What Apostl●e hath ever spoken thus concerning his own writings? Is it less dangerous to die without reading over the Bible itself? The Prologue of this man ●o show the excess of a Spirit which hath a marvelous opinion of itself.  
But his work doth not answer to his boastings. I omit that which may be spoken on the generality of the Book In many thing he is defective in many superfluous, in some obs●ur, in others frivolous, and ridiculous, and which carry with them even a ●●av●n of Popery itself.  
First he describeth to us the torments of H●ll after the manner of the monks very curiously, and as it were by parcels, so far as to particularize the ill smell of the Brimstone which doth offend the nostril. And speaking of the evil Angels, he calls them Furies, which is the Name that the Pagans give to their infernal Goddesses.  
Secondly he represents the damned soul, who doth accuse the Body, and doth impute unto it the sins which she hath committed. This Prosopopeia is extracted from the Contemplations of certain Monks, who have feigned a Dialogue, where the damned soul reproacheth the Body with the faults she hath done. And this smells of the Heresy of those who affirm, that the soul doth not sin, but only by the inducement of the Body.  
Thirdly, According to the same monastical stile, he describes the diversity of the Crowns in Bliss As the Crown of Martyrdom, the Crown of Virginity, which hath overcome the temptations of the Flesh. The Crown of those who are married. The Crown of good works for the givers of alms (as if no other works were good, but the giving of alms only,) &c.  
He represents the faithful soul encountering the Body at the Resurrection, to whom she makes this joyful compliment. O welcome are you! O well met, my beloved Sister. These Indeerments cannot but carry a great Grace (no doubt) with them.  
He doth make it remarkable that the Virgin Queen Elizabeth was born on the Eve of the Nativity of the Virgin, and that she died on the Eve of the Annunciation of the Virgin. But who told him either the Eve or Day in which the Virgin was born, For, as for that annual Feast, which the Church of Rome doth celebrate, there is no proof that it is the Day of the Birth of the Virgin, It is only an ungrounded, and an uncertain tradition. In the same manner the Day of the Annunciation is unknown to us, because we know not the Day of the Nativity of Christ. And thus the observation of this Author is build●● in the air. And though it should appear unto us that the said Queen was born on the same Day as was the Virgin, and died on the same Day wherein the angel appeared to the Virgin, could not the same thing happen to divers other persons? And would not the same accident be as mysterious in every one of them?  
It is very likely (saith he) that on the seventh Day, which is Sunday the world will end; And to this purpose he allegeth a tradition, which imports that the second coming of Christ shall be on the Sunday. But the same Day is not Sunday throughout all the world. In some places of the world it is Sunday, when in other places it is hardly Saturday. In which Country then shall it be Sunday, when our Lord shall come. Shall it be in England, or rather in the East Indies?  
Speaking of Fasts he saith, that they were instituted in the terrestrial Paradise, because GOD did forbid Adam the fruit of the Tree of knowledge. On this account; First, Adam did fast although he did eat of all the other fruits of the Garden. The Isaelites also did fast all their lives, because many viands were forbidden them, although they did eat of others. By the same reason it may be said, that a man doth fast, even when he is eating. This is the language of the Church of Rome to say we fast, when we abstain from flesh, although we then feed upon abundance of fish. Secondly, the Fasts of which he there speaketh, had other ends than had the abstinence from the forbidden fruit, For we fast especially either to promote or to testify our repentance; which could not be spoken of Adam, who had no need of repentance, because he had not as yet sinned, when this abstinence was enjoined.  
Adam (saith he) was overcome by the Serpent, for having not observed this Fast, But first, he ought rather to have said, that Adam did not keep this Fast, because he was overcome by the Serpent, or to speak more properly by Eve already overcome by the Serpent. Secondly these words are doubtful and dangerous to affirm, that the Fall of Adam did proceed because he did not keep the Fast, As if his sin did arise from gluttony which is a gross error.  
This Book in the end thereof doth represent a Colloquy between the soul and her Saviour, concerning which take these parcels. Lord wherefore wast thou covered with a Garment of purple? R. Because I take away thy sins which are as red as Scarlet.  
Wherefore was a Reed put into thy hand? R. I am not come to bruise the broken Reed.  
Wherefore were thy eyes blinded and covered? R. That thy eyes may be opened from spiritual blindness.  
Wherefore were thy feet and thy hands nailed to the Cross? R. To embrace thee more affectionately.  
Wherefore didst thou suffer thy face to be spitted on? R. That I might make thee clean from the ordure of sin.  
Wherefore was thy side opened with the point of a spear. R. To the end that thou mightst find an entrance to draw near unto my heart.  
O gallant Demonstrations; In all these answers, and in those which are made to divers other questions, which I purposely omit, Is there any thing pertinent at all? Are they not meet extravagances?   

Of the word AMEN which the people ought to pronounce at the end of public prayers and Benedictions.  
EVery one doth know that it was the practice of the ancient Church approved and recommended by the Apostles themselves, that the Pastor having pronounced a Benection, or a prayer, or the giving of thanks, all the Congregation, even those who were of the simplest people did make answer to him in saying Amen, 1 Cor. 14. 16.  
It would be a folly to reply that they did not speak it, but in their hearts only, or within their teeth. For, First, This Amen was spoken publicly to witness, that they did partake in that which the Pastor had pronounced. This Amen was spoken to express that which they had in their hearts. How had they expressed it, if they had not spoken it but in their hearts only? Secondly, this custom which the people had to close such actions with an Amen, was the very same as was practised in the old Testament, by which it is apparent, that this Amen was pronounced with a loud voice, 1 Chron. 16. 36. Nehem. 8. 6. Psalm 1. 16. 48. So in the first ages of the Christian Church, this Amen, when the Congregation was numerous, was heard afar off, as if it had been some clap of thunder, as the History doth inform us.  
It is known that this custom by little and little, annihilating by the want of zeal, and coldness of the people in the service of GOD, there was one substituted, who in their Names should answer Amen. And this is practised even in the English Church, since it hath renounced Popery. But because this Amen is not in the mouth of the people, it would be better to reduce our Churches to the Primitive and ancient custom authorized by the Apostles themselves.  
We who make a profession of an exact conformity or correspondence with the Primitive Church, wherefore do we suppress, that which she so religiously hath observed in her Congregations, which is the pronouncing of this Amen. What difficulty do the people find in it; what excuse can they make whereby they may be dispensed. Can it be objected that it would appear a novelty? Such a novelty is of great antiquity, and would be better than the continuation of a fault occasioned by coldness in the service of GOD.  
In the Roman Church, where the public service is spoken in a tongue, which the people understand not, they know not in reason where to give this acclamation of Amen. But why do our Congregations refuse this testimony of approbation, unto that which they do understand, and to which they do consent?  
Moreover (as it may so come to pass) if Idolaters should be found in the Congregations of Christians, 1 Cor. 14. 23. 24. this Amen would serve to make a distinction of those who make a profession of Christianity, from those who being yet Pagans do not pronounce it. But in our Congregations at this Day, the Orthodox do no more pronounce it, than do the Idolaters that are amongst them.   

Of the buildings of Jerusalem represented in a Picture at the beginning of many English Bibles.  
THis portrait is to be seen in the Corner of that sheet, which describeth the land of Canaan, where also the fields, and the way which the Israelites did go in the wilderness is represented. But their tabernacles or pavilions are ill described, as they are also in many French Bibles at the beginning of Leviticus, as I have observed before.  
As for the buildings of Jerusalem, it is known that their houses were flat, and plain on the top, as they are through all the East, insomuch that men might walk upon them, yea, and keep assemblies on them. The upper part of the Temple was made in that platform. Many passages of the sacred History will be incredible to those who mark not this Architecture of public and particular edifices, as Judges 16. 27. But this Picture in the English Bible doth transform these upper parts of the houses, yea of the Temple itself, into Pyramids, as if they were the heads of Bells. Jerusalem was not builded in that manner. Such a portrait doth give a lie unto the History, and doth deceive the common people.   

Of the Tree of Life which hath been believed to be but one single plant.  
IT is a common prejudging that this Tree did consist in one only individual, which was but one in its kind, as we do speak of the Phoenix. But in the last Book of the Bible which doth end there, where the first doth begin (although it be in a spiritual sense) we do read that the Tree of life was both in the middle of the place, and also on both sides of the River, Revel. 22. 2. which could not have been spoken, if there were not more trees of the same kind.  
A learned Man, who lately hath wrote annotations in English on the new Testament, did rather chose to alter the ordinary reading of the place, than depart from the common opinion, which imports that thi● tree was one only in her kind. the sense which he gives to the text 〈◊〉 this, That the tree of life did stan● between the place and the River; The place being on the one side of it, and the River on the other.  
This Construction is indeed ingenious, and seemeth to be most natural to the Greek text. But there is a reason which doth dissuade me from conceiving it to be so. This Description contained in the two first verses of the 22. of the Revel is taken out of Ezekiel Chap. 47. 12. The Prophet there doth represent this River coming forth of the Sanctuary; which Saint John doth call the throne of GOD. He speaketh there of the trees, which brought forth their fruit every month. He doth there make mention of their leaves, which were medicinal. It is there said that these trees shall grow on the bank of the River on both sides thereof. In all this Saint John accordeth with Ezekiel, But this correspondence will fail, if it is said, that the trees, of which Saint John speaketh, is only but on one side of the River. It is true that Ezekiel speaketh in the plural number of many trees, and that Saint John mentioneth but one which is the tree of life. But we know that the singular name of one kind, doth compreprehend all the Individuals to which that kind is common.  
I will be replied, that it is inconvenient to maintain that there were many Individuals of that kind of tree. And to prevent this inconvenience, this same Doctor, whom I do honour for his excellent knowledge, hath changed the ordinary reading of this place in the Revelations: But as for the inconvenience I cannot see what it is. Is it because the History doth not make mention of this tree as of an individual? why, that is it which is in question. Is it because that this tree did prefigure Christ who is but only One? But Christ hath been represented both by figures of divers kinds, as by the Cloud, and by the Sea, 1 Corinth. 10. and by many figures of the same kind, as by two Rocks, and a great way distant from one another, Exod. 17. 6. Numb. 20. 28. &c. Is it because the fruit of this Tree had a singular virtue to preserve the life of Man? It doth not from hence follow, that there should be but one plant only, which should bear this fruit. On the contrary, As of all the Trees that were in the Garden, this here was most necessary for man: so it is to be believed that the liberality of GOD, which is ordinarily abundant in things which are most necessary, and which do wast away by use had given him more than only one tree of that kind. Moreover, as the Tree of life was endued with singular properties, so had it the virtue also, as well as other plants, to multiply itself. But without affirming that there were many Individuals of it, I only say that the contrary opinion hath no such certainty in it, that it may be received for an undoubted truth.   

Of the Nature of the Viper marked in the table at the end of the New Testament in some Editions in French.  
THis Index speaking of this kind of Serpent, doth affirm that the young ones do eat their own mother to come out of her Belly by force, It is an old opinion indeed, but at this Day contradicted. Two modern writers both of this Isle, and both very learned amongst many other subjects, in which they are of a contrary opinion, have treated on this question. One of them my intimate friend and a most reverend man is so amorous of antiquity, that he undertakes to maintain all the Paradoxes, which this opinion hath produced; and although that ocular experience doth show us that Vipers are born without giving a Death unto their mother, yet he is pleased to make answers to it. But without engaging myself in this difference, I will only speak one word on that which is in the Index, which I have mentioned. It is dangerous either in Interpretations or Annotations on the Bible, to lay down that for a certain truth, which is disputable, especially when there is experience to the contrary. Secondly, To what purpose, or in what regard was it spoken that the Pharises, and the Sadduces, whom the Scripture calls a Generation of Vipers, had in their birth killed their mothers. Thirdly, if I were to expound such places, I should search out the sense in a propriety, which is constant and particular to the Viper only, amongst all the kinds of Serpents. All other Serpents do proceed from their Mothers, having neither their form as yet, nor any faculty to stir or to move themselves. For the Creature is shut up in an egg, which the mother hath produced, and will ask ●ome respite of time before it be ●atched. But the Vipers are already in life, and all formed when they come out of the Belly of their Mother. When the Scripture therefore doth give this epithet of a Generation of Vipers to certain Men, It is to express, that from their Birth they have already actually hurted, or that their malice was already completely formed.   

Of those who in the unfolding of a Text do believe that they must always divide it into parts.  
THere are some Auditors who believe the Sermon to be without method, if in the beginning thereof, the Text be not divided into parts. But these people are not good Logicians, for there are points indivisible and which will admit of no separation. As in the Tabernacle there we●● moveables which were not to be taken down, or which were made a● of one piece, so there are Texts whic● do not suffer to be divided. Divers Preachers striving to use it where it cannot be admitted, have fallen into irregularities not to be perceived indeed by the common people, but sounding ill in their ears, who know the Laws of a true method, and of that also which is popular, to which it is permitted to be less exact than if the Auditors had been altogether composed of learned men.   

Of the divers Interpretations on the twelfth Chapter of the Revelations verse the first.  
ALthough the Interpretations, which are above recited, do contain nothing in them but what is pious, nevertheless they seem to me to draw wide from the mark. This place represents a woman environed with the Sun, having the Moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve Stars upon her Head. This Woman is the Church, or rather the Church of Israel, which hath brought forth Christ unto us. But what means this Sun that environs her, this Moon which is at her feet, and what is the signification of these twelve stars. Here instead of expositions, an Allegory that is prophetical is interpreted by Allegories that are Arbitrary.  
That which is most received is this. The Church (they say) is clothed with Celestial Glory as with the Sun. She treads under her feet the inconstancy of all human things signified by the Moon, who perpetually doth change. But this is not to interpret but without proof to allegorise, For on the contrary, in the Scripture, which ought to be interpreted by its self, the Moon is considered as an Emblem of firmness and perpetuity. As in the 9 Psalm. It is promised that the throne of David shall be as the Sun, and that it shall always be established as the Moon.  
Some modern writers (and those very learned ones) do believe that this Moon doth signify the service of the ceremonial Law, for the greatest number of the festival days had their time, were marked according to the course of the Moon, And that in this sense it is that the Church seeth the Moon under her feet, that is, the ceremonial Law abolished. And these Authors do affirm, Because the Moon doth rule by Night, and that the service of Idols is a work of Darkness; that the Church doth tread under her foot the Moon, that is to say the service of Idols. But I am possessed with amazement that wise men should give us such Allegories, which have no solid foundation, and may be easily overthrown.  
To speak no more, this place of the Revelations doth interpret itself by another from whence it is extracted. The portrait of this woman environed with the Sun is in part, the Copy of that table which is to be seen in the 37 Chap. of Gen. The Sun, the Moon, and the eleven Stars did show themselves to Joseph in a dream. The Son was Jacob as he himself did interpret it. The Moon was Leah, who by the twelve Patriarchs had the place of a Mother. The Stars were the Brothers of Joseph. Now this place in the Revelations doth represent the original of Christ, who according to the Flesh was descended from this Family, which was composed of this Sun, this Moon, and these Stars. If then these twelve Stars were the twelve Patriarchs, (as it is most evident) it must also be, that the Son be Jacob, and the Moon be Leah, Otherwise this portrait, which is taken out of the 37. Chapter of Gen●si● will not agree either with the original or with itself.  
Those who take these twelve Stars for the twelve Apostles have no regard unto the text. The Church represented by this Woman is said to have this Crown of Stars before she brought forth Christ, when she was yet in her travail, and undelivered. There was at that time no Apostles at all. It could not be then said, that the Apostles were already the stars of the Church, for they themselves were not then in being. So that these Stars could be no others than the twelve Patriarchs, nor the Sun any other than Jacob, nor the Moon than Leah.  
Now the reason of the similitude will easily demonstrate in what sense it is said that the Sun doth environ the Church, and that the stars do serve her for a Crown. All the difficulty consists in this which is of Leah, how it can be said that she was under the feet of the Church. The inconvenience, which appeareth at the first sight, hath caused, that in stead of Leah, there have been clean another thing imagined. For it hath been presupposed, to have the Moon under ones feet, doth signify to tread it under foot, either by misprision as a thing worth nothing, or by hatred, as a thing that is odious. But these words do not always bear this sense. Sometimes they denote the power or authority that is exercised over one. So it is said that GOD hath put all things under the feet of man, Psal. 8. Sometimes they have reference to that which is as a supporter, or a rest to the feet of man. So by a metaphor● it is spoken that GOD had a darkness under his feet. And in the same sense it is spoken immediately after, that he was mounted on the Cherubins. As for this Moon, seeing she is adjoined to the Sun and to the Stars, which represent the Glory of the Church, she cannot be taken for a figure of contemptible things, and such we tread on by disdain. It remaineth then that this Woman, the Church of Israel, had the Moon under her feet, as sustaining herself thereon. Now it is not strange to say that Leah was the supportress of the Church of Israel, because she had held it in her arms, and nourished it from her Infancy. To this the Hebrew Phrase hath reference. To bring up upon the knees. Gen. 30. 3. and 50. 23. that is to say, Of one who is charged with children, and who in nursing of them, doth lift them up, as if they had their feet in her lap.   

Of the brazen Serpent which hath been thought to be a figure of Christ.  
I Have a long time followed this common opinion, which is believed to have been grounded on these words. As Moses did lift up the Serpent in the Wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, John 3. 14. But since I have considered that this similitude was not between Christ and the Serpent) for such a similitude would be horrible and monstrous● but only between the lifting up of the one, and the lifting up of the other; when it is said that the Lord shall come like a thief in the night shall we say that a thief doth bea● the resemblance of our Saviour? the similitude ought to be restrained 〈◊〉 the point in which it doth consist.  
Since that I have found some modern Writers who have gone befor● me, and have already showed that the Serpent is not the figure of Chri●● but that on the contrary it representeth Satan over whom Christ hath triumphed on the Cross. I have nothing to add unto their reasons, but one passage only, which they have omitted, although it be express upon this subject.  
The Apostle saith, that Christ hath fastened to the Cross the obligation which was against us, that he hath despoiled Principalities and Powers (which are Satan and his Angels) and hath brought them to be beheld by all, and triumphed over them on it. Col. 2. 14, 15. Behold here then Satan, who was made a public spectacle. Behold the Serpent, who hath been lifted up as a Trophy, and fastened to the same Cross, on which he was overcome by Christ, as our old Man, sin itself hath been crucified with Christ, Rom. 6. 6.  
And thus all these Imaginary resemblances, and correspondences, which are sought after between the Brazen Serpent and Jesus Christ do vanish into air, And so many Sermons which have been grounded on it, are no more than Straw and chaff, too light to endure the trial of the fire.   

Concerning the Jews whether it were expedient to permit them to have an abode in England.  
THis is that which some do affirm. But the Question is not in general, whether it be lawful for Christian Estates to tolerate the Jews in their territories. On this subject many great men have written many years ago. I will neither contradict nor debate their opinions, but speak only what belongs to England.  
And yet the Question is not whether it be lawful, but whether i● would be expedient to entertain the Jews here, at this time wherein we live. For all that which is lawful is not expedient, And again all tha● which is unexpedient may become unlawful.  
The Politicians ought not to allege their reasons against this principle. If they were to be received we might as well justify the prodigious impiety of King Henry the second, who constrained the Jews, who were made Christians, to return to Judaism. The motive was Avarice. For the Jews, continuing in their profession of Judaism, were more advantageous to him, than after the time that they were rendered Christians.  
But some may reply, we will call them to convert them. We will prepare the way for that great work, which GOD hath promised to do in them, to save all Israel. But observe in the first place. It is not so easy as we think it is, to convert the Jews. The Controversies, which are betwixt them and us are full of Abysms, the depths whereof are unknown to the people; nay, and unto many who meddle in Divinity. Before we undertake to reduce the Jews, we must be harder Students. Secondly, How shall we convert them being ourselves divided into so many Sects, and giving the lie to one another? What would the Jews find, if they should come amongst us? A confusion of language more great than that of Babel, an infiniteness of shameful extravagancies, which are a scandal to all true Christians. Will this be to convert the Jews? No, but rather to divert them from Christianism. Thirdly, The people here are prone to receive all the follies which are presented to them. The greatest horrors are the most excellent mysteries. Is it not to be feared that many will learn to Judaize? and, to convert two or three Jews, a million of Christians will be exposed to the danger to become Jews? Fourthly, Although they will not all be so in general, yet there will be many in particular, and we shall observe new Religions that will result out of the mixture of Judaism with Christianism. Who knows, what monsters will proceed from thence. All the precautions, which other States do use to hinder that Judaism corrupts not Christians, are found too feeble there, where the torrent of an unbounded licence hath already in so many places overtopped and broken down, the bounds which ought to restrain it.  
I shall always wish that we travail to convert the enemies of the Faith, but without endangering those who are of the household of it, For this were to do evil that good may come thereby, and GOD who knows both the time and the means, he will employ for the conversion of the Jews, hath no need that we should do evil for the performance of such a good. It were rather to be desired that those English, who have such an affection to the Jews, who blaspheme the name of Christ, had as much charity towards some strangers, who do here profess the name of Christ, their own Country not vouchsafing them the liberty to exercise the Arts necessary for the sustenance of their own persons and families, unless they will abjure the Orthodox Religion to become Idolaters.   

Of the presages, who boast they have a prophetic Spirits. Of the follies and Blasphemies which they produce.  
WE have sometimes seen in Holland one Doctor Stephens a Divine, who published a Book of his own, on one part of the Revelations, That which is spoken of Christ this man did attribute to Frederick King of Bohemia, who then lived. He also foretold that the said Prince should take the Pope and the King of Spain Prisoners, commence a Process against them, and cause them to suffer under the stroke of the Executioner. Time hath since confuted this Doctor, who notwithstanding was discreet and modest in all other things.  
About that time, there was at Geneva a Boy of twelve years of age, of honest Parentage, who took upon him to discover marvelous things, he discoursed pertinently and magnificently, which caused an admiration of him in all that heard him. Insomuch that some excellent Divines were at a stand about it, doubting whether it were not an extraordinary inspiration of GOD. But at last the Spirit, which made the Boy to speak, did discover himself, for the devil, who served himself with the tongue of that poor creature did cause him to speak the most ridiculous things in the world, making mocks himself at the credulity of those whom he had abused.  
It is commonly seen that a knowing and a wise man is never so much admired as an ignorant fool, who speaketh like a wise man, for we imagine that he proceeds from God, when oftentimes there do come causes from him, which are worse than folly itself. And it is a great simplicity to give more regard to one good word proceeding from the mouth of a frantic man, than to the knowledge and wisdom of him who is always discreet and judicious.  
As for those who counterfeit the Prophets, the wisdom of God hath always left some mark on them to be known to be Impostors. One dead Fly only doth trouble and cause the whole perfume to stink, Eccl. 10. One only Impertinency, which is found in a prophecy, doth discover the falsehood of the Author. How much more if there be blasphemies in it. How much more if they be unnumbered, and in the swarm. A● this day a senseless fellow hath dared to publish that there is none but himself alone, who hath the Spirit o● Illumination and Instruction; Tha● all Divines are in darkness, Tha● many places which cannot be understood but of the Son of GOD only, do signify a King mortal, which (according to the saying of that man) shall reign for ever throughout the world. That Jesus Christ hath not been in possession of this Kingdom until the coming of this King, who nevertheless died some few years since: that this King is truly the third person, and whosoever speaketh against him shall never be pardoned. That in this King all the Scripture is accomplished. That the Elect are nowhere but here in England, and that they are confined only to this Country. That the Liturgy of England, otherwise called the Book of Common Prayers, is the rule of the Spirit of truth, nay, and the only Rule. That the Reformation of Luther, of the Calvinists and Huguenots in France and Scotland and others, are but only rules of Rebellion, like unto the Rods of the Sorcerers of Egypt. That the Saviour, who is spoken of Esay 19 20. is not Jesus Christ, but another.  
I would not vouchsafe to make mention of such horrors, were it not that there are men of understanding, who do lend an ear to the predictions of such senseless people, because they meet sometimes with some events which have followed them. To speak no more, their Blasphemies sufficiently do demonstrate what is the Spirit which doth dictate these prophecies unto them.   

Of some false Miracles which have been held for true ones.  
THere hath been in our time a flying report of a maid, who hath lived many years without eating or drinking, It hath been believed for a truth, and on this presumption, all the world hath cried out a miracle. The Philosophers, the physicians, the Divines have been exercised on the question; It there could be any natural cause for so long an abstinence. But there was no need for it, for it hath been verified and confessed, that this pretended fast was but an Imposture, and the greatest miracle to be seen was the credulity of the people.  
It is recorded that at Cairo in Egypt there is seen every year on a certain day a spectacle worthy of admiration, which is the Bodies of men, which appear some half out of the earth, others showing their heads only, and some having nothing to be seen but their Arms or their Legs. The Evening before, their is no appearance of any such thing at all, but the wonder doth discover itself on the Morning following, and there are then to be seen pieces of Bodies, which in this posture do show themselves as if they had been forced out of the Earth. They are all that day to be beheld, but if you return the next morning there is nothing to be seen. On the Day of this Prodigy (for it is yearly on a prefixed Day) they flock thither from all parts far, and neat to behold the miracle which hath been a fruitful Argument for many discourses.  
For amongst the divers causes which are rendered of it, there are some who report that heretofore in the self same place the Pagans devoured a great number of Christians, who were there assembled to pray unto GOD, And that every year since, on the same Day, in which the Massacre was committed, these imperfect and dismembered Bodies, do show themselves out of the Earth, as if still they would attest the truth for which they were murdered.  
This was a brave miracle, if it were a true one, but we ought to take heed that we be not too credulous. I have lately read the relation of an English traveller, who hath been upon that place, and hath been a spectator of this pretended wonder. He saith, that as the Egyptians from all antiquity have been very careful to embalm the Bodies of the dead, they know a long time to preserve them either entire or in pieces (accordingly as time doth dismember and run them into ruin) and to carry them from place to place. Of such pieces is the foresaid miracle composed, for the Inhabitants of that Country who make provision for them, and with great care do keep them, do go once a year on a certain night to plant them in the ground in a a certain place, where the next morning they may be seen to the great amazement of those who know not how they came thither, nor how after that day they disappeared. But those, who brought them the night before, do carry them away the night following. And the opinion that this is done by miracle, doth draw thither a great multitude of strangers, from whence great profit doth arise to the Inhabitants, which is the design of all the mystery.   

Of the Curing of the evil attributed to the Kings of England.  
I Do not dispute at all if there be any Royalty to which God hath annexed this particular gift to cure such a malady by the bare touch of the Hand, and the Intervention of certain Prayers, neither do I dispute whether the Kings of England have this gift, or whether Royalty being suppressed, the gift expireth with it. A hundred Questions might arise from hence.  
I have here to produce on only consideration. Royalty may be descended to the Women, and there are two who one after another have reigned in England. And have these women also the miraculous gift to cure the evil? If it be denied, It followeth that this gift is not fastened to the sceptre nor doth accompany Royalty. If it be affirmed, I have one thing more to allege.  
Amongst all gifts supernatural there are two which we read, were never communicated to any woman which is the gift of Languages and the gift of miracles. It is already a great Paradox, and unheard of in all the time of the old Testament, and the Primitive Christian Church that a woman ever had the gift of miracles. Moreover as the supernatural gift of languages was never communicated to that Sex, because it is forbidden them to speak in the Church, to which the gift of tongues doth principally serve, so for the same cause, GOD hath not been pleased that any woman should have the gift of miracles in that very time; when they were both necessary and frequent. For as miracles did tend to confirm the Doctrine which was Preached, so were they not wrought but by those men who had a charge to Preach it, which was forbidden unto women.   

Of an advertisement which is put into the margin of some passages in the Bible.  
WHen the Annotators do meet with a difficulty in any place of the Scripture they speak of it, that it is a thing which ought not too curiously to be searched unto. But before we do forbid or restrain the searching after a point, we ought first to be assured that it is not in the Scripture. For this is not to be too curious to undertake to know that which GOD hath been pleased to speak. Wherefore doth GOD speak unto us, if it be not to be understood. Nay, when he speaketh obscurely in some places, it is to this end, that we should yet search more after it, and not that we should recoil from it. And if it be a thing which we understand not, it may be that others do or may hereafter understand it, whose labours we ought not to hinder. How many passages are there which have been taken for Riddles, which are now clearly expounded. How many Questions have been held inexplicable which are now loosed and laid open. How many particulars, allusions, and mysteries, which were not observed in the Scriptures, are now discovered to the great contentment of those Spirits who are lovers of knowledge.   

Of the Dragon which was believed to be a flying Serpent.  
SO he is painted nay and in some Bibles also, And it is a common opinion, that there is such a kind of Serpent having wings. But although this be maintained by divers, there are no more ocular witnesses of it, then of the Horse Pegasus. Nay it contradict; that which the Naturalists have observed which is, that there is no Bird which is venomous, for the providence of GOD hath not been pleased to give wings to creatures, which are venomous, And it is to prevent an infinite number of calamities which would come to pass, if creatures so dangerous could fly, or move at random in the traverse of the air. How many death's not to be avoided would ensue hereby both to men and Beasts? This Fiction of flying Serpents is tolerable, but we ought by no means to introduce it into the Bible.  
It is moreover observable that the Scripture doth give wings to the Cherubins who represent Angels, but it never doth attribute wings to the Serpent which representeth Satan. Add to this, that in the 12. of the Revelations the Woman who fled before the Dragon, had wings given her to fly away, but the Dragon had no wings to fly after her, and all that he could do was to send a vomit of water like a River from her gorge. It is therefore an Imagination in this passage to suppose a flying Serpent. Such a Serpent not found either in Nature or the Scripture.   

Of the Serpent which tempted Eve which many think to be presented in the face of a Woman.  
I Have already made mention of two learned men in this age, who are of a contrary opinion in many things which antiquity hath dictated. Behold yet one point more of which they are in dispute. Some hold that this Serpent which seduced Eve had the face of a maid, and so he hath been painted for a long time. One of these great personages rejecteth this opinion in this Picture. But he gives no reason for it all, but only saith that there being but two faces of mankind in the whole world that of Adam and that of Eve, if Eve had seen a third it had been suspected by her, and the Imposture had been discovered. To this the other doth answer in the contrary. Satan did take the face of a woman to be less suspected, because it was not so strange that such a head should speak, as to hear a Serpent speaking and reasoning like a woman. And that Eve had no reason to wonder that a Serpent should have the face of a woman, since there are divers Beasts who are endued with such a form.  
These two Antagonists have this common betwixt them, that contending on a matter of Fact, they would decede the controversy, rather by reason then keep close unto the History, which ought to be preferred to all our own suggestions. Doth the History then say, that the Serpent which tempted Eve had the face of a woman? Could Moses who maketh mention of the great subtlety of this Creature have forgotten so considerable a particular in so great an Occurrence, as the Visage of a woman in a Beast, Do other holy writers who speak of this Serpent, speak one word of this face which is attributed to it? It is only than an Invention of the Brain of man, which is sufficient enough to dissuade us from receiving it.  
But were it necessary to take off this difference by reasons it is easy enough to decide the controversy. Will any one affirm that there hath been extant any kind of Serpent, which hath the face of a woman? No man can affirm it, And no man ever hath affirmed it, that I do know of. And if it should be so, it could not prove that the Serpent which seduced Eve was of that kind since the History makes no specification of it. Much less can it be said that it was a monster composed of the face of a woman, and of the Body of a Serpent, For no monsters were produced till after the sin of man, and sin entered not till after the temptation of the Serpent.  
We must be then constrained to affirm that this face of a woman was only an apparition or a figure formed by Satan in the Serpent. But again, Was this Serpent but an apparition only? Certainly the subtlety which the Scripture attributes unto him, above all the Beasts of the field, cannot be said to be an apparition on a figure formed in the air. Will any man say that this real Serpent had a face which was not real but only in appearance? This is a Serpent composed of a fiction and reality without any other proof but our imagination only. Finally, will any man allege, that Satan borrowed any one of those creatures, who have a face like unto that of a woman? Why then that Creature had been condemned to the same punishment, as was the Serpent for having served Satan with its voice. But this not so, And the sentence was not pronounced against any other Beast but the Serpent. To conclude, that human face in which it is believed, that the Serpent did show himself is purely imaginary.   

Of the discord which is in modern music, and more particularly of that in our Psalms.  
THere are those who have desired that all our Psalms had but one Tune, that so they may be more easy to the common people, Others do approve of the multitude and diversity of airs, as the most delightful, and most proper to move the Spirit. And certainly, the difference which is in the Psalms, as to the measures of the Hebrew verse, doth sufficiently demonstrate that there were diversities of Tunes. But because they are unknown to us, it remaineth that we give to every Psalm, yea to every verse that tune which shall be most convenient, and the most convenient is that which doth best represent the matter of which we sing. The voice which doth express a sad and mournful subject, ought not to be of one tune, and the voice which doth express a great joy ought to be of another. The voice also of him which speaketh as an affrighted man doth differ much from the voice of him who is safe from danger, And generally the sound ought not to be correspondent to the matter, 1 Cor, 14, 7, 8. But although the music of our Psalms, (more particularly that of the French) be very excellent, and the airs be there conformable to the subjects in many respects, nevertheless it is not so universally over all, nor is there that perfection which may be desired, and it is observable, there are divers Psalms, the subjects whereof are of a contrary nature, yet nevertheless they have the same tune. The hundred and forty second which represents the affrights and the cries of a man brought into the greatest danger, hath the same air as the hundredth which expresseth nothing but joy and the giving of thanks. The seventy fourth is full of grief and lamentation. The hundred and sixteenth is as full of joy and thankfulness, yet notwithstanding one is sung in the same tune as the other. Nay in the very same Psalm there is a verse which corrects the matter of the precedent. In the one the soul speaketh as beaten down with sadness and maketh great complaints in the other (as if another person did speak) the same is reprehended for the words it did speak, and for its want of courage. Moreover there is oftentimes an alternative reiteration of these two Contraries which clap in betwixt one another, the Flesh and the Spirit, as particularly in the 42, the 73. and the 77. Psalms. These verses which represent contrary motions, although in one Psalm ought to differ in the tune, instead whereof in every Psalm we have but one tune common to all the verses.  
To this no other thing can be answered, but that it will be very difficult, and almost impossible to have a music so exact and so universally corresponding with such diversity of matters, and which (moreover) can be easy for the people to learn. This is true, so that I speak not to make any change in the tune, which is used in our Churches. In the Churches of France, we have undertook to give a tune to many Songs in the Bible, which have been as Psalms, and for that end put into music. But the common people being not accustomed to them, and disorder from thence arising we have been constrained to desist. That which hath led me to this discourse, is to speak of those who would reduce all the Psalms to one, and the same tune, when it would be more convenient to multiply, and to diversify the tune more than we do. And although it be impossible to put in practise a music so perfect as that which hath been spoken, yet it is not superfluous to have made mention of it, to the end that we may know how imperfect and how defective we are in that regard.   

Of those who on the first day of the year do make a scruple to wish a good year to any one and of a passage which is in the French Bible.  
THere are some even of those who are learned and Orthodox Divines who reject this salutation when it is given them. But for what cause? Is it forbidden to wish long life to our Neighbour? Certainly when the Apostle Eph. 6. 3. exhorteth children to observe the commandment to which the promise is annexed to make them live a long time, he desireth that this promise may be made effectual to them. If he doth wish them long life, that is many years. If it be lawful to wish unto a Neighbour many years, wherefore not one year? And again can we wish him many years, without wishing him one year which is comprehended in many years?  
Well any one object, that the favours of GOD ought not to be restrained to a year? Why, this would be to restrain them yet more, when we do wish good morrow to our Neighbour, And yet no man condemns this salutation, for in wishing that the morning may prove happy, we do not pray that his happiness may expire with the Day.  
That which gives distaste is that this salutation is given in a Day which is presupposed to be the first Day of the year, when it is uncertain not only on what Day, but also in what season the first year of the world began. But this very incertitude in which GOD hath pleased that we should be, doth show that the knowledge of this Day is not necessary for us, and that it is indifferent to begin the account of the Days of the year, with such a Day which should be made choice of and received in use. If we should stay until we know in what Day of the year the world began, we should deprive ourselves of many helps which are necessary for the measuring of time, and the affairs which are ruled by time; And if it be lawful in whatsoever year it be to wish a good day to a Neighbour, wherefore shall this wish be unlawful on the day in which we do begin to count the days of the year.  
It will be objected that this Day is sullied with superstition, but there is not a Day in the year which is not so soiled. Ought we therefore all the year to refrain from acts of civility or charity? If on such a Day superstition is more present to us, or more offensive, the more ought we to correct that bad air by actions of a sweet savour, not intermitting that which ought to be practised every day.  
On this Subject I have made use of a passage which is in the French Bible 1 Sam. 25, 6. David did send this salutation to Nabal who did shear his Sheep. And so mayst thou make the year to come in the same season, &c. But these words are not formally in the original text, no more are they to be found in the English translation, nor in many other translation. Instead of all these words the Hebrew hath but one, viz. To living, And this word being not accompanied with any Noun Substantive, divers senses are given to it, but that which our French Bible doth give unto it is more forced and more far drawn.   

Of the salutation which is given to those who sneeze.  
THis is practised almost universally amongst all the Christian in the West. There are some nevertheless who not so precisely do observe that custom, as more particularly the English. And it is disputed if it be well done, to salute those who do sneeze in our presence. For neither in the old Testament or the New is there found any Example. In all the holy History there is not mention made of any but only one, And this was the Son of the Shunamite, who sneezed seven times in the presence of Elisha, and nevertheless this Prophet did not use any salutation to him. Some do believe that this custom did begin about one thousand and fifty years since upon the occasion of a Disease, which was then epidemical, in which men and women died sneezing. But the original is far more ancient, as it can be made manifest. It is certain that it had its Original in the time of Paganism, but the cause is uncertain. But presupposing that it did proceed from Paganism the question is, is it lawful to practise it.  
Our answer is grounded on these following hypotheses, First there are things which GOD forbids us to do, but nevertheless being done he willeth not, that they should be undone. He did forbid that Jericho should be builded again, yet nevertheless being afterwards rebuilded, he did not command that it should be demolished. Even some of the Prophets, as Elisha, did keep there their Assemblies, and Jesus Christ did there convert Zacheus and cured the blind. So God forbids to marry with a person that is an Infidel, but such a marriage being made God forbids that it should be broken. The league of Josuah with the Gibeonites was not lawful in all things; nevertheless GOD would not that it should be infringed, and chastised the house of Saul, who had ill treated the Gibeonites. Secondly, That which hath been introduced for bad ends, being otherwise indifferent in itself, may be applied to other uses. The custom of embalming the Bodies of the dead proceeded from the Egyptians, who did practise it either for superstition or for vanity; nevertheless this custom hath passed amongst the people of GOD, who hath never reproved it. Thirdly, It is known, That we ought to distinguish of that which is lawful in it felt from the abuse which superstition hath mingled with it. The Example which the Apostle gives touching meat sacrificed to Idols, doth serve for this purpose, 1 Cor. 8. 10 I am of opinion that external Actions, which belong even to the service of GOD, aught to be done with discretion of circumstances, nay, ought sometimes to be suspended. Elisha would not pray unto GOD in the presence of Naaman, 2 Kings 5. 10. 11. If I am constrained to pass before an Idol, I will abstain from pronouncing any prayer, because I will not give on occasion to any to suppose that my prayer tendeth to honour the Idol.  
This foundation being laid, It is easy to answer the question. First to salute any, or to pray to GOD for him is not only lawful in its self, but also it is commendable. It cannot then be evil, but by accident only, either by the superstition of him who sneezeth, or of those who do salute him, or of others who are present, or on the contrary for the occasion of those who take offence to hear that salutation, because they do believe it to be superstitious. Secondly, If I am then in the presence of any who is superstitious in that kind, I will abstain from saluting any who doth sneeze, to the end that I may not seem to adhere to superstition. And on the contrary, If it be in the presence of any to whom this salutation is a scandal, I will abstain also. Thirdly, But without the appearance of superstition, or of scandal, this custom being no more practised for the imaginary causes which the Pagans had thereunto, but being converted into civility, it may be exercised without offence. The Jews were accustomed, when they beheld the Rainbow, to say their prayers, and to confess that they did merit a second Deluge, and that they subsisted not but only by the mercy of GOD. If there were not any mixture in it of superst●tion, I should make it no difficulty being in their company, and on such an occurrence to speak as they do.   

Of those who without any distinction do pronounce that Divines ought not to meddle with the affairs of State.  
THis common saying is not true, but in some respects, and in others it is false, injurious to GOD, and pernicious to the State itself. But because the Questions, which on this subject do present themselves, have been largely handled by divers learned and judicious Men, I will speak but one word by the way. The affairs of State, and all other human affairs public or particular are considered, First, Or in themselves within their circuit, every one according to the rules of its Art. Or, Secondly, within that Dependence which subjects them to the Law of GOD which is the Rule of Conscience.  
In the first the Divine meddles not at all. He is a stranger in that Element. In navigation the Pilot is more to be believed then Saint Paul, if this Apostle had not some extraordinary revelation.  
But the irregularities which we may here meet with to the prejudice of GOD are under the cognisances of the Divine. It belongeth to him to prevent them by his Counsels, yea, and to reprove them if they are broke forth into action. Indeed, It belongs not to him to handle the weights and the measures in a shop, but if they are notoriously false, ought he to hold his peace under the pretence that he ought not to meddle with another man's trade? The Balance, The Beams and the weights are of the Jurisdiction of GOD, Proverbs 16. In this Island we complain of divers Divines of the Court, who wink at certain innovations introduced under the pretence of the reason of State, and authorized by the sovereign power which then was. But because these novelties passed for matter of State, it would be a wrong to have blamed the silence of the Divines, when they should be taxed for omitting that which they owe to GOD, to their charges, to the Church and to the Stat● i● self.   

Of the angel of Satan who buffeted Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 12. 7. A now interpretation of that passage.  
MAny (as Beza) doth think that Saint Paul in this place doth complain that Satan kindled in him some inordinate affections. But this Exposition is contradicted by many forcible reasons which have been noted hereupon. Others take these words at the foot of the Letter, as if in effect some evil Spirit had given buffets to Saint Paul tormenting him in his Body, as sometimes he had struck Job. Lastly▪ Some understand this of some wicked man, who by the instigation of Satan persecuted Saint Paul. And to speak the truth, it is not necessary that this Name, The Angel of Satan, should always signify a Spirit. In the twelfth of the Revelation, the Angels of the Dragon (in the judgement of some knowing interpreters) do signify those that serve the Dragon as his Ministers▪ And so this angel of Satan may be some man whom Satan employed to torment the Apostle. But this Exposition hath need of a prop to sustain it, and this is it which hath obliged me to bring unto it this note that followeth.  
The language of the new Testament is composed of an infiniteness of phrases, which do reflect either on the matter of the old Testament, or on divers other subjects. Now the passages, which contain such allusions, aught to be interpreted by them, otherwise we shall draw wide▪ or if we ●it the mark it will be by accident.  
I find then in the old Testament a History which is almost in all things the same with this, which St. Paul speaks of himself: in the 1. of Kings the 22. A Prophet saw GOD sitting in his Throne, and all the Army of Heaven about him on the right hand and on the left. He heard GOD proposing an affair, And the Angels, as in council, diversely debating of it. He heard a Commission which was given to Satan, which he promised to put in execution by his Emissaries. After so high a revelation, and the hearing of words so sublime, this Prophet is buffered by one of the Messengers of Satan by a false Prop●et who did strike him on the cheek. That History doth so much resemble ●his which Saint Paul reciteth of himself, that the allusion is most appa●ent, Now if the Analogy be entire, he who buffeted Saint Paul was some false Apostle, who did persecute him▪ And so this quality of angel o● messenger of Satan doth not pertain to all sor●s of persecutors, but to those only 〈…〉 them, who carried unto others the Doctrine of Satan.   

Of a great number of places in the new Testament, which mention the curing of those who were possessed with Spirits, In which our Translations change the word which is in the Original Text.  
THe Names of Satan, devil, daemon, are the Epithets of evil Spirits, nevertheless they are not Synonit●a●, and the Scripture doth 〈◊〉 indifferently express them, but dot● make use of one of them rather the another, as they are more cond●●cing to the occurrences or matte● which are treated. The Name 〈◊〉 devil, and that of Demon are 〈◊〉 in the old Testament, but are very frequent in the new, the language whereof is Greek, nevertheless these two words do pass the one for the other.  
When the Holy Spirit doth speak of these evil Spirits, which the Son of GOD did cast out of the Bodies of Men or Women, It doth not say that it cast forth devils, but that he cast forth Demons, that he commanded Demons, that he gave power to cast forth Demone, &c. From which word comes that also of demoniac. Now since in this thing the Holy Spirit doth express the word of Demon, and never the word of devil, our Tranflations ought to answer the original in the place, where we read that he cast forth devils, &c. It is true that this change is more tolerable in those tongues, to which the word Demon is unknown, as in particular to the English Tongue, but since the word is become French, It would in those places do better in the translation than the Name of devil.  
I will make no stop at all to give satisfaction to the Question of the Ignorants who will demand, If it be not all one to read devils, instead of reading Demons, In one word I shall tell them that we ought to read it according to the original. And without doubt there were reasons which obliged the Evangelists to make use of one of these words, and to abstain from the other, when they spoke of those Spirits, which tormented human Bodies. Many (as the Saduces) did believe that these Spirits were not substances, but only motions or Impulsions which come by nature. Now the word devil which only signifies a Slanderer, and can be spoken of a man also, doth not so well denote a spiritual substance, and different from human kind. The word Demon is more significant in this regard, for it is the Name which the Pagans gave unto their Gods, who in effect were evil Spirits. So the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 20. 21. saith not (according to our Translation) that the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils, but that they sacrificed to Demons. I forbear many other observations which might be made on this subject.   

Of Bulls crowned with Garlands which are read in the French Bible, Acts 14. 13.  
THe original text saith, that the Priest of Jupiter had brought with him Bulls, and Crowns or Garlands. But it dot not say that the Bulls were crowned with them. It is true enough that the Pagans were accustomed so to adorn those Creatures which were the Victims in their sacrifices by putting chaple●s of flowers on their heads, or round about their horns. But that could not be practised in every season of the year. And as for the Garlands which are mentioned in this place, the History expresseth not that the Priest in that nature did make use of them. It may be, that he would have crowned with them Paul and Bar●abas, as the Pagans so did honour their false Gods in their Images. And although that these Garlands were brought to crown the Bulls, yet the Greek Text saith, not that they were already crowned, but only that the Priest brought with him Crowns, and Garlands. So speaks the Syriack translation and so (the Interpreter of the Syriack. Tremellius, and so also doth the English Bible. The French have followed the Latin translation of Beza, who in this particular hath not word for word expressed the original. This Note will not appear fr●volous but to those only who not, that there is not one jo●e in the Scripture, which is not considerable.   

Of one word which the French add to the end of the Lord's Prayer.  
WE say thine is the Kingdom, &c. In ages of ages; so we speak in pronouncing that Prayer. So we read in our Books wherein it is written, and even in the French Catechism itself.  
But the original Text, Mat. 6. 13. where the terms are expressed, which conclude that admirable Prayer, hath not twice this word Ages. It is so word for word. Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, in ages. Amen. This word Ages is there expressed but once, instead whereof we redouble it, nay with the addition of a particle which represents a change of the Case in the Grammars of the Greeks and Latins.  
This Amplification brought into common use, proceeds from this that, there being other places of the new Testament, in which these words we read. To him be glory in ages of ages, they have been taken as if they were the very same, which are in the end of the Lord's Prayer, which notwithstanding hath not this doubling of the word ages. This Phrase, in ages of ages is of the stile of the Hebrews representing a Superlative, who would be called Eternity itself, the longest Duration which can be imagined. This expression is not found but in the Revelat. Chap. 1. ver. 6. and Chap. 5. ver. 13. 14. If any shall reply (as it is true enough) that these words in ages, in the Lord's Prayer do signify as much, as in ages of ages. I answer, wherefore then in reciting the Lord's Prayer, do we not content ourselves with the terms which are there? The excuse is not sufficient that we add nothing to the sense, For when we make profession to transcribe, or to translate, we ought to retain the words of the original, as far as our vulgar tongues are able to represent them▪ without thrusting in any amplificatio● at all. I forbear to speak that there is a secret reason for which this phrase in ages of ages, hath been reserved for the last Book of the Scripture.   

How the word ages, which is in the original of the Lord's Prayer is translated in the French and English Bibles.  
BEhold here clean contrary to that which I have touched on in the precedent observation, for in neither of the one or the other of these two Bibles, hath this Prayer so much as once this word ages, but in the steed thereof, they both say, For ever, or always. Now although the terms are equivalent, if it be said in ages, or if it be said, For ever, nevertheless the word ages, in the stile of the Scripture, do include distinctions of great importance, which this Periphrasis doth not contain, and which I have not the leisure to illustrate in this place. The English Translation is excusable in this, because the language hath not a word, which properly doth express that which we call, ages. But since this word is become French, and doth better answer to that which is in the original Greek, it ought to be retained in the French Translation of the Lord's Prayer, as well as we have retained it in the other places in which it is employed in the same sense, and in the same matter; Revel. 1. 6. and 5. 13.   

Of the sacrifice of Isaac ill represented in many pictures, and particularly in the front of the English Bible.  
ISaac is here painted on his knees before an Altar, and Abraham behind him holding a knife in his hand, which is lifted up to give the blow. But this picture is false, and doth belie the holy History. For before that Abraham did advance his arm, nay before he had the knife in his hand to strike Isaac, Isaac was not before the Altar, but on the Altar itself. The particulars of the action are recited to us in this order. That Abraham did build an Altar, and ranged wood upon it, that he bound Isaac, and put him on the wood, and afterwards that he took the knife into his hand to cut his throat, Gen. 22. 9 10. Isaac was then on the Altar, not at the foot of the Altar, when Abraham did lift up his hand with the knife to strike him. It is a great mistake to frame a portrait which contradicts the History.  
Howsoever I shall note this by the way. This posture in which Isaac is represented having Abraham behind him, and holding a sword in his hand doth cause many to believe that it was to cut off his head, and it is also the common opinion that in this sacrifice, Abraham would have taken away the life of his Son by taking off his head. But this prejudging although ancient, and very general, is not soassured as it is imagined to be; and at least it ought not to be held for a certain truth. The Text saith that Abraham took the knife to cut the throat of his Son, now this word is not restrained to that which we call beheading; And moreover we ought to consider that Abraham had order to offer his Son as a Holocaust, In which kind of sacrifice, the victim was not beheaded until after it were dead, For first of all the blood was let forth, either at the throat, or at the breast until the sacrifice was dead, after that it was cut in pieces, the head was severed from the Body, and the other parts the one from the other. This was the method of the Holocaust confirmed in Leviticus, 1▪ 11. 12.   

Of the Catachism of the French Churches.  
THis Catechism is no more perf●ct than any other of the writings of Men, I am not the first that hath so judged. It is defective in many points. It is prolix and exuberant in questions, in certain matters where it ought to be more succinct. On the contrary, it is too brief there where it ought more to enlarge itself. It sometimes dispatcheth two commandments of the Law, or two Petitions of the Lord's Prayer in one Section only, when every commandment, and every Petition do demand one entire action, it mingles sometimes in one section divers Articles of Faith, every one of which doth require a Section by its self. There are also some transpositions; and articles not so commodious as could be desired. It would be convenient to change the form in divers respects, for we ought not be so superstitious towards those who have drawn up this Ca●echism, as to take it for a perfect Draught. We may retain it still, but in some places reform it.  
I do rather wish that our Churches had an historical Ca●echism, which by Questions and Answers might represent all the History of the Bible, at least the generalities of it, and the most illustrious particulars. Some English men have travailed in it, And if the work had been complete it would produce a great benefit to the Common people.  
But amongst so many Ca●echisms that are written, it were to be desired that we had one where the Doctrine of the Sacraments were better grounded than it hath accustomed to have been, For although a Ca●echism ought to be popular, yet we should not omit that which gives intelligence of the true ground of the matter. Of this I shall speak more largely in a particular treatise, if GOD permit.   

Of the Common opinion that in the death of a man the soul comes out of the mouth.  
WHen a man dyeth, It is said, that he hath his soul already on the brink of his lips. So speak the Divines, and so Antiquity hath spoken. This language proceeds from a popular opinion, that when the soul dislodgeth from the body it goes out at the mouth.  
I will not undertake to answer the curious Questions, which may be moved touching the coming forth of the soul. I only affirm that this prejudging of the vulgar is not solid. If the soul be universally dilated in every part of the body, as many Philosophers do affirm, wherefore is it locked up in a particular place at the departure? If it lodgeth properly and particularly in the heart, or in the Brain, what need hath it to come out at an open passage, seeing it is a Spirit which can pass away, at the traverse of the Skull or any other Bone. Now who hath told us, that it comes forth rather at the mouth than at the ear or eyes, which are as the windows of the soul? If I were at leisure to affirm something in a point, the decision whereof is neither certain nor necessary, I should say that it is rather to be believed, that as the soul of the first man did enter into him by the Nostri●ls, so it goes forth that way, Gen. 2. 7. And certainly, when the Scripture would express that man is always near unto Death, it saith that the Spirit or the breath of him is in his nostril, as being ready there to come out, Esay 2. 22. To this the words of Job have reference, Job 27. 3. So long as the breath of the mighty God shall be in his nostrils, which is to say, when this soul itself, which God hath breathed into me, shall be upon the point of its departure, having no more hold of it, but in my nostrils only.   

Of the testimony which Josephus the Historian of the Jews did render of Jesus Christ.  
THis testimony is found in the eighteenth Book of the Jewish antiquities. This Author making mention there of Jesus, doth doubt if it be lawful to call him a man, seeing the great miracles which he wrought. He also saith that this Jesus is the Christ. That at the third day after his death, he showed himself to be alive. That such things, and other miracles were forespoken of him by the Prophets.  
It is a long time since the Christians employed this testimony of Josephus to convince the Jews. But, not to displease so many learned men, ancient and modern; I cannot persuade myself that this Jew, which gives not the least appearance to be inclined to Christianism, hath written so much to the advantage of our Religion; Would he so highly have published in his Book a belief of which he never made profession? And he is so far from acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ, to whom the Prophets did attribute the signory of the whole world, that, on the contrary, he gives it to Vespasian a Pagan Prince, and applies to him the Oracle which belongs only to the Son of God. This is far off from acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ. It may be objected that if these words above mentioned were not the words of Josephus, it would follow that this Author made no mention of Jesus Christ in any place of his History, for he speaks not of him, but in this place only which is in question. Now it is not believed that having undertaken to write of the memorable things of those times, he should in silence pass by the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, which were known to all the world. But this is not the only Omission that is to be noted in Josephus. The Massacre of the Infants at Bethlehem, of which Herod was the Author, was so famous, that the Heathens themselves did write of it, and nevertheless Josephus, who hath recorded many other cruelties of this Herod, doth make no mention of it. And he is no● the only Historian who by contrivement or otherwise hath surpassed some part of that which was most memorable in his time. And shall we wonder that a Jew, who never adhered to Christianism, should purposely omit the miracles of Jesus Christ? Was not his Resurrection contradicted by the Priests, although they were convinced of the truth thereof?  
Nevertheless I do believe that this passage was Josephus his own, but withal that some have changed some words therein, and this is not the only writing, to which by the irregular zeal of some, such a thing hath happened. But for this in this place Saint Jerom who translated this Author into Latin, and who forgot not ●o value the testimonies, which the Jews and the Pagans rendered to the Christian Religion, doth make Josephus to speak otherwise, For he ●akes him not to say, that Jesus was the Christ, but that it was believed he was the Christ. Josephus then only reciteth, that it was the belief of others, to wit, the Christians, but not his own, for he was not a Christian, and being not one, nor making profession of Christianity, much less could he say, that Jesus was the Christ. Now if one word in this place be changed, it is not incredible, but the contexture also of other terms is altered, in which this Author speaks of Jesus Christ.  
Let us not think the Christian Religion to be less assured, because a Jew doth not confess Jesus to be the Christ. Truth needs not the suffrage of her adversaries. Nevertheless this passage of Josephus is advantageous to us in one respect. The Jews maintained that the Death of Christ was not under Pilate, who in the Name of the Romans (as they allege) was Commander above one hundred years before; The consequences are far greater than they seem to be at the first appearance, of which I will not speak at this present. So great liars are these malicious people proved to be by their own Historian, who in express terms affirmeth that Jesus, of whom the Christians took their Name, was crucified by Pilate.   

Of the name Jehovah which the French Bible marketh not in the twelfth Chapter of Job ver. 9  
IN all the pleadings of the friends of Job, we never read of the Name of Jehovah, Job himself did never but once pronounce it, in this place above named, so that from the beginning of the 3. Chapter of this Book to the end of the the 37. the Name Jehovah is found but once, although divers other Names of God, as the strong, the Almighty are there very frequent. I have not now to speak wherefore the Name of Jehovah (the importance whereof is represented. Exod. 6. 31.) is not at all in the mouth of the friends of Job, nor but once in the mouth of Job, many remarkable considerations may hereupon be produced, I shall only say that, as we at least ought to mark and distinguish this place, which is only to be found, where Job expresseth this great name of Jehovah. And because this name cannot be translated into any other language, the new Testament represents it by the word Signior, And in the imitation of it is the English translation of the old Testament. The French doth note it by another word, which is the eternal. We dispute not which of these names doth approach most near to that of Jehovah. But since the French Bible doth represent it under the name of eternal▪ This name eternal ought to be in this place of Job, where the name of Jehovah is found, For it saith tha● it is the hand of Jehovah which hath made all things. Of Jehovah, that i● to say of the eternal, as the French translation doth usually interpret in And nevertheless the same translatio● forgetting itself in this place instead of saying, the hand of the Eternal, doth say, the hand of God. A mistake by so much the more remarkable, that in this place eclipsing the name of the eternal, which representeth that of Jehovah, it will follow that Job never pronounced this name of Jehovah. And having but once pronounced it, so much the more illustrious is this place, and so much the more important is it, to retain here this word, which doth distinguish itself from all the other words of Job, and from those of his friends, by a mark so much the more considerable that it is not obvious to the vulgar.   

The word Heaven in the singular number is not found in any place of the old Testament. A difference in that respect between the original, and many translations, especially the English.  
IT is known that neither the Hebrew nor Caldean, which are the original tongues of the old Testament have this word Heaven, but always say Heavens in the plural, or the dual numbers. From hence it comes that in all the old Testament this word is never read in the singular number, and nevertheless the greatest part of the Latin and vulgar translations have introduced it in divers places, especially the English, which doth serve itself more often with the Singular than the plural; which is very strange.  
In the beginning of this treatise, I prevented some objections that might be made hereon, and I will not now 〈…〉    


〈…〉 rily abused when we speak of afflictions page 47  
Of ●rying sins which we discern not from others page. 50  
Of the faults committed in citing the Histories of the ancients page. 52  
The first words of the ten commandments, which the Ignorance of some have razed from the walls in their church's page. 56  
Of some pictures which are in certain Bibles. page. 59  
Of the Name of the Son of GOD which some of our Bibles give unto Adam, Luke 3 ver. last page. 62  
Of the twelfth stone which was on the Breast of the High Priest, which the French Bible calleth a Berill, and the English a Jasper, Exod. 28. 20. page. 64  
Of certain Books written on the Revelations and steemed as prophetical page▪ 66  
Of a prejudging common to many of th●se who read or interpret the prophecies, especially the Revelations page. 67  
Of some Interpreters who censure St. Paul for wishing to be Anathema or separated from Christ for the love of the Israelites, Rom. 9 3. page. 68  
Of the vulgar Book, entitled, The practice of Pi●ty page. 71  
〈◊〉 the word, Amen, which the people ought to pronounce at the end of public prayers, and benedictions page. 79  
Of the buildings of Jerusalem represented in a picture on the beginning of many English Bibles page. 82  
Of the tree of life which was thought to be but one only plant page. 84  
Of the Nature of the Viper in some Editions marked in the Index at the end of the new Testament in French page. 88  
Of those who believe that in the unfolding of a Text they must always divide it into parts page. 90  
Of the divers sense given to the 2. Chapter of Revel. ver. 1. page. 92  
Of the Brazen Serpent which was thought to be a figure of Christ page. 98  
Of the Jews; If it were convenient to grant them a residence in England page. 100  
Of presages who boast they have a prophetic Spirit, and of the Follies, and Blasphemies they produce page. 104  
Of some false Miracles▪ which have been held for true page. 109  
Of the curing of the evil attributed to the Kings of England page. 113  
Of an advertisement in the margin of some places in the Bible page. 115  
Of the Dragon which was thought to be a flying Serpent page. 117  
Of the Serpent which tempted Eve, which many think had the face of a woman page. 119  
Of a discord in modern music and pa●ticularly in that of the Psalms page. 123  
Of th●se who in the first day of the year do make a scruple, to wish a good year to any, And of a passage which is in the French Bible page 127  
Of the salutation given to those who s●eeze page. 130  
Of those who without any Distinction do pronounce that Divines ought not to meddle with the affairs of State page. 135  
Of the angel of Satan who buffeted Saint Paul 2 Cor. 12. 7. A new Interpretation on that place page. 137  
A gre●t number of places which mention the cure of demoniacs, in which our Translations d● change the word, which is in the original Text page. 140  
Of the Bulls crowned with garlands▪ which are read in the French Bible Acts 14. 13. page. 143  
Of one word which the French add at the close of the Lord's Prayer page. 145  
How the word ages, which in the original is in the Lord's Prayer, is translated in the French and English Bibles page. 147  
Of the sacrifice of Isaac ill represented in ma●y pictures, and particularly at the beginning 〈…〉