Of a generall Fault in the English Tran­slation at the beginning of the Lords 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 perswaded but they [Page 2] express this Prayer in the same terms as our Saviour did dictate it. Neverthe­less the mistake is very visible; If it pro­ceeded onely from custom and vulgar use, I should not here make mention of it. But it is authorized by the pub­lick Translation, reviewed, and often­times re-imprinted. For all the Tran­slations of Math. 6. and Luke the 11. do with one voyce pronounce, Who art in Heaven.

I shall not here study at all to give an Answer to those, who immediatly 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 Plurall, as in Math. 16. and 19. and Math. 18. and 18. yet this difference is not universall. On the contrary, It is of great importance to discern, when the Scripture speaks of [Page 3] 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 Plurall, doth far more express the extent of the pow­er of GOD, whom in that Prayer we do implore; And also that Terme doth imply, that he hath all the Heavens at his service to assist us, Not onely 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 Plurall, which our Father doth fill with his presence and [...]is power.

But why should I alleage 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 Originall to [...]hich the Translation ought to answer. [Page 4] 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 Ianguage of this Island doth want a word to express the Hea­vens in the Plurall? 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, then 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 Plurall.

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 Plurall, have translated in [Page 5] 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 remarkeable 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 alwaies, which is in the Heavens; In the Heavens in the Plurall. 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 [Page 6] 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 Plurall Number, when he speaketh of the Fa­ther.

To the same purpose, our Lord did never say the Kingdom of Heaven, but alwaies the Kingdom of the Heavens. One onely of the Evangelists hath this terme of the Kingdom of the Heavens no less then six and thirty times, but the Kingdom of Heaven not once; which plainly doth demonstrate, seeing the multitude of passages, in which the Plu­rall number is alwaies imployed 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 al­waies the Kingdom of Heaven.

Amongst all the places of the New Testament, where the Original nameth [Page 7] the Heavens, there are very few where the English do express the Plurall. 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 Originall mentioneth the Heavens in the Plurall, the English Translation doth onely put it in the Margent, and placeth the Singular in the text it self.

Of Lucifer, who is mentioned in the Eng­lish Translation Esay 14. ver. 12.

THe School-Boys know that Lucifer is a Latin word, and it is the name of the Star, which sheweth its self be­fore the rising of the Sun. The Hebrew which signifies this Star is indeed ex­pressed it self by the word Lucifer, but it is when we speak in Latine, not when it is translated into English. To what purpose then is this Lucifer in the Eng­lish translation?

[Page 8] The translators in the Margent have inserted the true word of the English tongue, which is the Day-Star, but in the body of the text, they had rather imploy 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 antient Allegory▪ which applyeth to the Devill, 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 evill 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 beleived that this ought not to be changed for any other.

But wherefore do we yet retain the relicks of such notorious folly censu­red a long time since, and disavowed by our selves, who is he amongst the vulgar that finding in his Bible this word Lucifer doth not immediatly be­lieve [Page 9] that it is the Name of a great De­vill, 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 onely serveth to nourish an antient folly?

The common people of England have a long time thought that the evill 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 Sirname: Now this ridi­culous opinion was conceived and born at that time when the people had [Page 10] 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 ima­gin that it was the name of a man; An interpretation as vain as that which is recited in a modern Satyre, 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 it self.

Of Mary Magdalen, who falsly 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.

[Page 12] There is nothing more common in the mouth of the vulgar then 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 unchast and most dissolute that ever was, to whom nevertheless GOD hath been mercifull. 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 Indexes, even that of Marl [...]rat himself, and other Books, which serve for an Address to Students, do give them betimes this impression which alwaies afterwards they retain. He who hath wrote the Practise of Piety, of whom I shall speak more hereafter, doth rank this Magdalen, with the most enormous sinners, yea, with Manasse [Page 13] himself, one of the most wicked that ever was. And yet more to atuhorize this error, it is inserted into the Bible it self.

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 then the sins of others, the Woman, who untill 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 Authentick Scripture hath taught us the proper name or the sirname of that Woman? For she who poured the oyntment 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 [Page 14] 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 Gospell 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 onely 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 remarkeable 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 theif 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 [Page 15] 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 terme to signify that kind of punishment, which was unknown to the antient people of Is­rael. The two and twentieth Psalm foretelling that kind of death which Christ should suffer, doth express it onely 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 [Page 16] Cross, But in our vulgar tongues it is onely taken for that kind of Executi­on, in which they did nayl to the wood the hands and the feet of the Malefa­ctor. And this cannot be said of the Sons of Saul. The Originall affirms that they were hanged by the Gabao­nits, 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 Ga­baonits 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 Commande­ments, they begin in these words, Hearken 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, Hearken 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, Hearken Israel, which we pro­nounce when we recite the Deca­logue, are no part of the Decalogue it self, nor were they spoken then when GOD with his own mouth did publish it in Sinai, neither were they [Page 18] comprehended in the writing which he did give in the tables of that Law. This is easy to prove the Decalogue, which is wholy intire in two places of Moses (Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. hath not these words, Hearken 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 vvould tell us that vve 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 vvords of that Lavv.

It may be demanded, From vvhence did that custom proceed, to begin the Decalogue vvith those vvords vvhich are not there? It may be from hence, that Christ (Mark 12. 29.) citing [Page 19] Moses (Deut. 6. 4.) saith that the first of all the Commandements is, Hearken O Israel, the Lord our God is the onely Lord. But these words do not prove that the Decalogue in express terms did begin so, No more then by this which followeth, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. That is the first Commandement. For these words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God are not in the Decalogue, al­though the other Commandements have their reference to it, as to the first, that is to say, the greatest of them all.

To all this I shall adde that the French Paraphrase, which we sing in our Churches, willing to represent this Preface, Hearken 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 hardned people. No man ought to [Page 20] 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 needfull in this place to demonstrate, that which is eviden [...] in History, that the Decalogue was not contained in two pages, or Co­lumes, 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 Commandement the first pag [...] did end, nor consequently where th [...] second did begin. For one part of th [...] [Page 21] four first Commandements was writ­ten on one of the sides of the first ta­ble, and another part on another side. But how many of the Commande­ments, 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 vvhich vvere the first of tha [...] which followed? It may be, it was to hinder those, who would have counterfeited the tables of the Lavv, for it vvas 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 vievv of men; And so not knovving vvhat vvords finished the first page [Page 22] 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 adde to this the song of the Angels, vvho (it is said) did sing these vvords, Glory be unto God, &c. vvhen they published the Nativity of our Saviour. This is a common o­pinion, follovved also by the English Bible in the Argument of the second Chapter of Saint Luke. But that vvhich may be spoken of it, hath been touched by others, vvhich is the rea­son that I abstain to proceed any fur­ther on it.

Nevertheless, the same Judgement may be made of this title, vvhich is given to these three other parcels of Scripture, which are called Songs, As [Page 23] 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 vvords, 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 vvere so much as conceived or brought forth in the form of a Song, or measured by the Rules of Poetry.

It vvill not serve to affirm that their stile is Poeticall, 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 vvhole di­course to be an entire Song. Much less may vve conclude that it vvas sung by pronouncing. Hovvsoever it vvas, there is nothing of any cer­tainty in it, to make the vulgar opi­nion [Page 24] to pass for an undoubted truth.

In all the New Testament there are but tvvo Songs, so named in express termes, And both those are in the Revelations onely, and onely 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 publick Congregations; It is of great edification. But it is not convenient to believe for certain, that they vvere Songs in the Originall. Wherefore do vve not say as vvell that the vvords 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 Latine and the French Bible.

IN this place the Translation makes Jeremy addressing himself to GOD, to speak in these vvords, 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 vvorse, 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 Margent. 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 vvord in the Hebrevv doth signify nothing else [Page 26] but to deceive or to attract. The Tran­slators were not ignorant, that it doth signify also to perswade, to induce or to give an Inclination; which words may bear a good sence? Wherefore then in this place do not we imploy them in the room of others, whose signification is so sinister. Where­fore do we put a Blasphemy into the mouth of the Prophet, vvhen his language might othervvise 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 [...] [Page 27] Junius reads it. The English Bible hath not these words, My Father, but in the Margent onely. For within the text it saith, My desire is that Job be proved.

This Diversity doth arise from this, that the Hebrew word, vvhich 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 wee 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 faithfull of the old Te­stament, when they did speak unto GOD, did never call him their Fa­ther. There is onely 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 [Page 28] 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, vvas reserved to the faithfull 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 vvords, My Father. For it is of a far greater signification, then when vve do call him Our Father in generality. It is known that in all the Scripture there vvas never any but Jesus Christ one­ly, who speaking unto God did say, [Page 29] My Father. It is the Prerogative of the onely Son begotten of the Father. It is true that David Psal. 89. ver. 7. doth recite the priviledge vvhich he ha [...]h received of GOD to be such, that it doth inable him to say, Thou art my Father; But David did never directly call him so. And those words which express this preheminence, 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: VVherefore then do we attribute to Elihu the language vvhich none ever spake but the Son of God onely; or what need vve 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 Origi­nall. Neither will I in this place exa­min that in the French Catechism, Sect. 38. which saith, that every be­liever [Page 30] 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 then 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 Eter­nall 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 Epithete, 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 [Page 31] words are contained. The Eternall, or, [...]he 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 compleat.

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 replyed 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, [Page 32] and not an equality. But First: This comparison is not in the Originall, 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 joyned with any particle to the words following, and therefore did render the sense more obscure, yet I had rather in this manner to content my self with them, then in­troduce into the text an addition vvhich is disputable. And so the French Translation (at least that vvhich 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. Ma­thew 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 vvord, That a sin against the Holy [Page 34] Ghost shall be never pardoned. But he hath said, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be never par­doned; Or that he vvho 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 onely Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Certainly we sin divers vvays a­gainst the holy Ghost, vvhether 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 [Page 35] 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 Desart 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 shal 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 [Page 36] the Argument on the twelfth of Saint Mathew, saith that the Blasphemy of those, who speak evill 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 indefinitly, 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 onely 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 vvas wrought on Mount Thabor; And this saying is as antient as it is com­mon. The opinion indeed is not without great appearance of truth, [Page 37] 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 Galile the less, in a champian place; it was round on the ridge thereof, it was equall on all sides, fourteen fur­longs in height, according to the le­vell. I do therefore willingly yeild to the vulgar opinion, provided it be said to be an opinion onely, 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 speciall cause, that the Ho­ly Ghost abstained from naming that place, seeing other places are named, which seem to be less considerable. [Page 38] 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 Nebuchadnezzar speaketh, that of the four men whom he saw in the fornace, one of them resembled the Son of GOD. This would make us to believe that Ne­buchadnezzar 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 wee do speak of him who is the onely Son of [Page 39] 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 Nebuchadnezzar 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 Nebuchadnezzar. 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, [Page 40] 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 dyed a­mongst those who could not interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezar. And before they were cast into the Fur­nace, they managed all the great af­fairs [Page 41] of the Province of Babylon, of which they were Governours. 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 Originall 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 onely 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 [Page 42] beginning GOD created? It is true, It is the same sense indeed: nevertheless besides the generall reason which doth oblige us to follow the order of the originall words, as neer 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 immediatly 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, [Page 43] 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 Cabbins made of the branches of certain trees. Such were the lodgings of the Hebrews after their departure out of Egypt, untill they entred into the Land of Canaan. In memory whereof they were enjoyned 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 [Page 44] 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 Linnen, 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 pourtrayed the Camp of Israel, and a certain number of Pavilions, such as at this day are used when our Armies lye in the field: but they do in no wise resemble the tents of the Israelites. Such a portraict doth dis­guise the History, and the Jews have a cause to taxe 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 evill Spirits.

We ought to know that the Scrip­ture gives no proper or peculiar name to any of the evill Angels. Some of the good Angels, and onely one or two of them have a particular name, as Gabriel, and Michael, But the evill Spirits have but one common name as Satan, The Adversary, The De­vill, The Slanderer, And although there is a chief of the evill Angels, yet he hath not a particular name. See Mat. 25. 41. We ought not then [Page 46] to imagin 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 antient 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 vvas Sacri­ficed, to that Day in vvhich he dyed, and not unto that Day in which he did rise from the Dead. For the word of the Passeover being applyed to Christ, hath reference to his Death, and not at all to his Resurrection; so [Page 47] the Day which is called the Passeover, is not the true Day of it, but rather the contrary.

It will be alledged 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 CROSSE, 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 [...]he language of GOD, there are no [Page 48] 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 quarrell, 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 Epithete.

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 [Page 49] abuse the word. Such afflictions, and those which proceed from hidden causes, as that of the man who vvas born blind, John 9. 2, 3. cannot be called Crosses. And yet, this Impro­priety is not onely in the language of the common people, but also of ma­ny Divines, nay, and in their Books also. For they do vvrite 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 vve say that his punish­ment is a Cross, can that be spoken of a Malefactor vvho 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 bloud is cal­led, because the bloud of Abel did cry unto GOD. So also is the abhomina­ble 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 entring into the search thereof, we are not to think that this name ought to be given to all [Page 51] 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 generall 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 onely which I have speci­fyed.

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 tri­viall 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 [Page 52] 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 Antients.

I Will produce but two examples. A very famous Scholar in his Book of the truth of Christian Religion, doth alledge 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 [Page 53] Altar, a tribe, of which Moses spake nothing at all concerning the Leviti­call 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, doe onely 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 shew, how the most learned do mistake themselves, men in matters purely Historicall, which contain nothing: but first that requires no exercise of judgement, but onely 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 untill the twentieth age after the Creation of the world, there cannot any example be produced of any Son, [Page 54] who dyed before his Father, that is to say of a naturall 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 dye first, this continued untill that Therah the Father of Abraham did invent Idolatry, And then (the first that is marked out for an example) his Son Haran dyed before his Father Therah, Gen. 11. 28. By a Judge­ment untill then unheard of, GOD did punish Therah causing that his Son should dye 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 dyed before his Father, and of a na­turall 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 [Page 55] of Methuselah were 782. years, but Lamech lived but 777. He dyed 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 dyed before him of a naturall 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 seeems they slumber when they re­cite them.

The first words of the ten Commande­ments, 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 shew unto the eys of the people a Decalogue without a head, as if they had be­headed it; All these words they leave suppressed. I am the Eternall, 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 spake 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 [Page 57] first? Secondly, These very first words are the foundation of all the Decalogue, for they do mention who is this Lawgiver, and do shew the right which he hath to command. We cannot then omit them without ta­king away the fundamentall princi­ple on which the whole Decalogue is builded. Thirdly, The sense of the first Commandement is not en­tire or compleat without these words, which go before it, and on which it immediatly 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 Commandement, and they ought not to be disjoyned 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 [Page 58] ought 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 soloecism 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 Evangelicall. GOD hath fastned the Gospell 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 then, 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 sate 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 lye 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 Originall [...]ext saith not that they sate, but doth make use of a terme which cannot properly be expressed in our vulgar [...]anguages. The French Bible in a more generall expression saith, he [...]id set himself at the table, The Eng­ [...]ish hath it, He sate down, and this [Page 60] 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 Patriark.

Moreover in some Bibles of the old Impression we may see GOD repre­sented in the form of a man, produ­cing [Page 61] 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 unlawfull to have Images to represent God, much less it is permitted to have them in the Bible which doth prohi­bite such portraictures.

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, th [...] Latine translation of Beza doth no [...] give him that Name in the text, but the note in the Margent doth inter­pret that Adam was the Son of GOD▪ And some French Editions do speak so in the text it self.

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 onely 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 Originall, the word Son i [...] found but once, and it is onely spoke [...] of Jesus Christ. Observe hovv Sain [...] Luke speaks it, That Jesus was the [Page 63] 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 O­riginall 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 vvithout the addition of these words vvould be more easy to be understood, As there is no need of [Page 64] that which in the French Bible is in­serted touching Adam, to wit, that he was created.

Of the twelfth Stone which was on the Brest of the High Priest, which the French Bible doth call a Beryll, 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 vvord of tha [...] Stone which is twelfth, and the la [...] upon the Pectorall is a Jasper; which vvord hath been retained in the Gree [...] tongue (the most antient of thos [...] sinc [...] [Page 65] Babel) and hath passed into the La­tin tongue, and divers other vulgar languages, signifying alwaies 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 Pectorall, 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 Pecto­rall, 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 joyning 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 [Page 66] from a passage where it is accompa­nied with other apparences.

Of certain Books written on the Re­velation, and beleived to be propheticall.

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 extoll 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 [Page 67] 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 our selves onely, or of our Countrey. 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 onely for our Climat, 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 [Page 68] of that Book ought not to be restrained or applyed to this little corner of the World, As if the Holy Ghost had thought on none but on us onely. 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 folowed 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 haesi­tation do pronounce that, in that he was not without blemish.

But first of all, It is very dangerou [...] [Page 69] 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 heroicall 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 im­mediatly go before do sufficiently demonstrate, that the Apostle spake this by the Spirit of GOD, which could not erre, I speak the truth in Christ, I lye not, my conscience bea­ring me witness with the Spirit; That I have great sorrovv, &c. For I would be accursed, &c. Shall we say that, calling the Holy Ghost for witness, he immediatly afterwards did pro­nounce those words which are con­trary [Page 70] 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 onely 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 f [...]r as to curse the Day of his Nativity; For the Prophet did record these words onely by way of Narration, to shew that they escaped from him; and his desultory stile in this expression is far different from Saint Pauls in this place.

Of a vulgar Book intituled 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 it self. This little, vvhich 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 threatnings, doth advertise all sorts of people, yea, and the most learned vvithout 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 suddain Death) doth cut the thread of thy life; you see [Page 72] then it is very dangerous to dye be­fore this Book be read over, which is so necessary to salvation O unhappy those vvho 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 dye without reading o­ver the Bible it self? The Prologue of this man [...]o shevv the excess of a Spirit vvhich hath a marvailous o­pinion of it self.

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 it self.

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 [Page 73] which doth offend the Nostrill. And speaking of the Evill Angels, he calls them Furies, which is the Name that the Pagans give to their Infernall 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 onely by the inducement of the Body.

Thirdly, According to the same Monasticall stile, he describes the di­versity of the Crowns in Bliss As the Crown of Martyrdom, the Crown of Virginity, which hath overcome he temptations of the Flesh. The Crown of those who are marryed. The Crown of good works for the [...]ivers of Almes (as if no other works [Page 74] were good, but the giving of Almes onely,) &c.

He represents the faithfull soul in­countring the Body at the Resurrecti­on, to whom she makes this joyfull Complement. 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 vvas born on the Eve of the Nativity of the Vir­gin, and that she dyed on the Eve of the Annunciation of the Virgin. But who told him either the Eve or Day in vvhich the Virgin vvas 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 onely 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 th [...] Nativity of Christ. And thus the ob­servation of this Author is build [...] [Page 75] in the Ayr. And though it should appear unto us that the said Queen was born on the same Day as was the Virgin, and dyed on the same Day wherein the Angell 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 alleageth a tradition, which imports that the second comming 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 In­dyes?

Speaking of Fasts he saith, that they were instituted in the terrestrial Para­dise, because GOD did forbid Adam [Page 76] 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 enjoyned.

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 [Page 77] 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 doubtfull 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 wherfore 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 spirituall blind­ness.

Wherefore were thy feet and thy hands nayled to the Cross? R. To em­brace thee more affectionately.

[Page 78] 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 neer 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 publick prayers and Bene­dictions.

EVery one doth know that it was the practise of the antient 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 onely, or within their teeth. For, First, This Amen was spoken publickly 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 [Page 80] their hearts onely? 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 antient custom authorized by the Apostles themselves.

[Page 81] 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 publick 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 [Page 82] 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 Portraict 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 pavillions 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, [Page 83] 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 plat-form. Many passages of the sa­cred History will be incredible to those who mark not this Architecture of publick 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 it self, into Pyramids, as if they were the heads of Bells. Jerusalem was not builded in that manner. Such a portraict doth give a lye unto the History, and doth de­ceive the common people.

Of the Tree of Life which hath been be­leived to be but one single plant.

IT is a common prejudging that this Tree did consist in one onely Individuall, 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 Spi­rituall 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 onely in her kind. Th [...] sense which he gives to the text [...] this, That the tree of life did stan [...] [Page 85] 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 natu­rall to the Greek text. But there is a reason which doth disswade 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 medicinall. 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 onely but on one side of the River. It is true that [Page 86] Ezekiel speaketh in the Plurall 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 replyed, 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 individuall? why, that is it which is in question. Is it because that this tree did prefigure Christ who is but onely 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 [Page 87] 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 vertue to pre­serve the life of Man? It doth not from hence follow, that there should be but one plant onely, 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 onely one tree of that kind. Moreover, as the Tree of life was indued with singular properties, so had it the vertue also, as well as other plants, to multiply it self. But without affirming that there were many Individuals of it, I onely 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 shew us that Vipers are born with­out giving a Death unto their mo­ther, yet he is pleased to make an­swers to it. But without engaging [Page 89] my self in this difference, I will onely 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 onely, 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 egge, which the mother hath produced, and will ask [...]ome respite of time before it be [...]atched. But the Vipers are already [Page 90] in life, and all formed when they come out of the Belly of their Mother. When the Scripture therefore doth give this Epithete 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 compleatly formed.

Of those who in the unfolding of a Text do believe that they must alwaies divide it into parts.

THere are some Auditors who beleive 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 [...] [Page 91] 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 vvide from the mark. This place represents a woman en­vironed vvith the Sun, having the Moon under her feet, and a Crovvn of tvvelve 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 invirons her, this Moon which is at her feet, and what is the signification of these tvvelve stars. Here instead of expositions, an Alle­gory that is propheticall is interpre­ted by Allegories that are Arbi­trary.

That which is most received is this. The Church (they say) is cloathed [Page 93] with Celestial Glory as with the Sun. She treads under her feet the incon­stancy of all humane things signified by the Moon, who perpetually doth change. But this is not to interpret but vvithout proof to allegorize, 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 alwaies be established as the Moon.

Some modern writers (and those very learned ones) do believe that this Moon doth signify the service of the Ceremoniall Law, for the grea­test number of the Festivall dayes had their time, vvere 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 Ceremoniall Law abolished. And these Authors do affirm, Because the Moon doth rule by Night, and [Page 94] 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 it self by another from whence it is extra­cted. The portraict 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 shew 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 Originall of Christ, who according to the Flesh was descended from this Family, which was compo­sed [Page 95] of this Sun, this Moon, and these Stars. If then these twelve Stars were the tvvelve Patriarchs, (as it is most evident) it must also be, that the Son be Jacob, and the Moon be Leah, Otherwise this Portraict, which is taken out of the 37. Chapter of Gen [...]si [...] will not agree either with the Originall or with it self.

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 [Page 96] will easily demonstrate in what sense it is said that the Sun doth inviron 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 alwaies 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 [Page 97] it is spoken immediatly after, that he was mounted on the Cherubins. As for this Moon, seeing she is adjoyned 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 her self 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 armes, 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 vvith 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 onely between the lifting up of the one, and the lifting up of the o­other; 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? Th [...] 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 shewed that the Serpent is not the figure of Chri [...] [Page 99] but that on the contrary it represen­teth Satan over whom Christ hath triumphed on the Cross. I have no­thing to adde unto their reasons, but one passage onely, which they have omitted, although it be express upon this subject.

The Apostle saith, that Christ hath fastned to the Cross the obligation which was against us, that he hath despoyled 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 publick specta­cle. Behold the Serpent, who hath been lifted up as a Trophy, and fast­ned to the same Cross, on which he was overcome by Christ, as our old Man, sin it self hath been crucifyed 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 [Page 100] vanish into ayr, And so many Ser­mons which have been grounded on it, are no more than Straw and Chaffe, too light to endure the tryall of the fire.

Concerning the Iews whether it were ex­pedient to permit them to have an aboad in England.

THis is that which some do affirm. But the Question is not in Ge­nerall, whether it be lawfull for Christian Estates to tolerate the Jews in their territories. On this subject many great men have written many years agoe. I will neither contradict nor debate their opinions, but speak onely what belongs to England.

And yet the Question is not whe­ther it be lawfull, but whether i [...] would be expedient to entertain the Jews here, at this time wherein we live. For all that which is lawfull is not expedient, And again all tha [...] [Page 101] which is unexpedient may become unlawfull.

The Politicians ought not to alledge 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 advantagious to him, than after the time that they were rendred 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 [Page 102] undertake to reduce the Jews, we must be harder Students. Secondly, How shall we convert them being our selves divided into so many Sects, and giving the lye 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 shamefull extravagancies, which are a scandall 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 generall, yet there will be many in particular, and we shall observe new Religions that will result out of the [Page 103] 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 over-topp'd and broken down, the bounds which ought to re­strain it.

I shall alwaies wish that we travail to convert the enemies of the Faith, but without indangering those who are of the Houshold of it, For this were to do evill that good may come there­by, and GOD who knows both the time and the means, he will imploy for the conversion of the Jews, hath no need that we should do evill for the performance of such a good. It were rather to be desired that those English, vvho have such an affection to the Jews, who blaspheme the name of Christ, had as much charity to­wards some strangers, vvho do here [Page 104] 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 Presagers, who boast they have a prophetick 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 stroak of the Executioner. Time hath since confuted this Doctor, [Page 105] 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 marvailous 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 Divill, vvho served himself with the tongue of that poor creature did cause him to speak the most ridiculous things in the vvorld, making mocks himself at the credulity of those whom he had abused.

It is commonly seen that a know­ing and a vvise man is never so much admired as an ignorant fool, who speaketh like a wise man, for we imagine that he proceeds from God, [Page 106] when oftentimes there do come cau­ses from him, vvhich are vvorse than folly it self. And it is a great sim­plicity to give more regard to one good vvord proceeding from the mouth of a frantick man, than to the knovvledge and wisdom of him who is alvvaies discreet and judicious.

As for those vvho counterfeit the Prophets, the vvisdom of God hath alwaies left some mark on them to be known to be Impostors. One dead Fly onely doth trouble and cause the vvhole perfume to stink, Eccl. 10. One onely Impertinency, vvhich is found in a prophecy, doth discover the falshood of the Author. How much more if there be blasphemies in it. Hovv much more if they be unnumbred, and in the swarm. A [...] this day a senseless fellovv 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 [Page 107] but of the Son of GOD onely, do signify a King mortall, which (ac­cording to the saying of that man) shall reign for ever throughout the vvorld. That Jesus Christ hath not been in possession of this Kingdom untill the coming of this King, who nevertheless dyed 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 no where but here in England, and that they are confined onely 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 onely Rule. That the Reformation of Luther, of the Calvinists and Huguenots in France and Scotland and others, are but onely 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.

[Page 108] 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 senceless people, because they meet sometimes vvith 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 vvithout eating or drinking, It hath been beleeved for a truth, and on this presumption, all the world hath cryed out a mira­cle. The Philosophers, the Physiti­ans, the Divines have been exercised on the question; It there could be a­ny naturall 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 shewing their heads onely, and [Page 110] 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 it self on the Mor­ning following, and there are then to be seen pieces of Bodies, which in this posture do shew 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 neet to behold the miracle which hath been a fruitfull Argument for many dis­courses.

For amongst the divers causes which are rendred 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 [Page 111] Massacre was committed, these im­perfect and dismembred Bodies, do shew themselves out of the Earth, as if still they would attest the truth for which they were murthered.

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 Travailer, 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 carefull to imbalm the Bodies of the dead, they know a long time to preserve them either in­tire 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 [Page 112] 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 Evill 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 supprest, the gift expireth with it. A hundred Questions might arise from hence.

I have here to produce on onely 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 Evill? If it be denyed, It follow­eth that this gift is not fastned to the Scepter nor doth accompany Roy­alty. If it be affirmed, I have one thing more to alledge.

[Page 114] Amongst all gifts supernaturall 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 vvoman ever had the gift of mira­cles. Moreover as the supernaturall gift of languages was never commu­nicated to that Sex, because it is for­bidden them to speak in the Church, to vvhich the gift of tongues doth principally serve, so for the same cause, GOD hath not been pleased that any vvoman should have the gift of miracles in that very time; vvhen 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, vvhich vvas forbidden unto women.

Of an advertisement which is put into the Margent 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 vvhich 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 recoyl 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 [Page 116] 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 layd 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 venemous, for the providence of GOD hath not been pleased to give wings to creatures, which are venemous, And it is to prevent an infinite number of cala­mities which would come to pass, if creatures so dangerous could fly, or move at randome in the traverse of the Ayr. How many deaths 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.

[Page 118] 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. Adde 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 lik 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 one­ly 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 [Page 120] 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 subtilty 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 vvhich is attributed to it? It is onely then an Invention of the Brain of man, which is suffici­ent [Page 121] enough to disswade us from recei­ving it.

But vvere it necessary to take off this difference by reasons it is easy enough to decide the controversy. Will any one affirme that there hath been extant any kind of Serpent, vvhich 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 vvas 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 vvoman, and of the Body of a Ser­pent, For no monsters vvere pro­duced till after the sin of man, and sin entred not till after the temptation of the Serpent.

We must be then constrained to affirm that this face of a woman was onely an apparition or a figure for­med by Satan in the Serpent. But a­gain, Was this Serpent but an appa­rition [Page 122] onely? Certainly the subtilty 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 Ayr. Will any man say that this reall Serpent had a face which was not reall but onely in apparence? This is a Serpent composed of a fiction and reality without any other proof but our ima­gination onely. Finally, will any man alleage, 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 Sathan with its voice. But this not so, And the sentence was not pronounced a­gainst any other Beast but the Ser­pent. To conclude, that humane face in which it is beleived, that the Ser­pent did shew himself is purely ima­ginary.

Of the discord which is in modern Mu­sick, 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 Ayrs, as the most delightfull, 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 mourn­full subject, ought not to be of one tune, and the voice which doth express [Page 124] 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 Musick of our Psalms, (more particularly that of the French) be very excellent, and the ayrs 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 crys of a man brought into the greatest dan­ger, hath the same ayr 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 [Page 125] 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 Musick so exact and so universally corresponding with such diversity of [Page 126] 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 Musick. But the common people being not accustomed to them, and disorder from thence arising we have been constrained to desist. That which hath ledde 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 then we do. And although it be impossible to put in practise a Mu­sick 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 Com­mandement to which the promise is annexed to make them live a long time, he desireth that this promise may be made effectuall to them. If he doth wish them long life, that is many years. If it be lawfull 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?

[Page 128] 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 distast 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 onely 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 shew 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 untill we know in what Day of the year the world began, we should de­prive [Page 129] our selves of many helps which are necessary for the measuring of time, and the affairs which are ruled by time; And if it be lawfull in what­soever year it be to wish a good day to a Neighbour, wherefore shall this wish be unlawfull on the day in which we do begin to count the days of the year.

It will be objected that this Day is sullyed with superstition, but there is not a Day in the year which is not so soyled. 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 ayr 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 sheere his Sheep. And so mayst thou [Page 130] make the year to come in the same season, &c. But these words are not formally in the Originall 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 custome, 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 [Page 131] 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 onely 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 beleive that this cu­stom did begin about one thousand and fifty years since upon the occasi­on of a Disease, which was then Epi­demicall, in which men and women dyed sneezing. But the Originall is far more antient, 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 lawfull 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. [Page 132] 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 Gibeonits was not lawfull in all things; never­theless GOD would not that it should be infringed, and chastised the house of Saul, who had ill treated the Gi­beonits. Secondly, That which hath been introduced for bad ends, being otherwise indifferent in it self, may be applyed to other uses. The custom of imbalming 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 [Page 133] of GOD, who hath never reproved it. Thirdly, It is known, That we ought to distinguish of that which is lawfull 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 externall Acti­ons, which belong even to the service of GOD, ought 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 layd, It is easy to answer the question. First to salute any, or to pray to GOD for him is not onely lawfull in its self, but also it is commendable. It can­not [Page 134] then be evill, but by accident onely, 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 beleive 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 scandall, I will abstain al­so. Thirdly, But without the appa­rence of superstition, or of scandall, 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 [Page 135] Deluge, and that they subsisted not but onely 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 it self. 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 humane affairs publick or particular are con­sidered, First, Or in themselves with­in their circuit, every one according [Page 136] 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 beleived 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 cognizances 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 mans trade? The Balance, The Beams and the weights are of the Jurisdicti­on of GOD, Proverbs 16. In this I­sland we complain of divers Divines [Page 137] of the Court, who wink at certain innovations introduced under the pretence of the reason of State, and authorized by the Soveraign 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 Angell 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 [Page 138] in effect some evill 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 alwaies 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 Angell of Satan may be some man whom Satan imployed 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 [Page 139] passages, which contain such allusions, ought 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 Councel, diversly 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, [Page 140] he who buffeted Saint Paul was some false Apostle, who did persecute him▪ And so this quality of Angell o [...] mes­senger of Satan doth not pertain to all sor [...]s of persecutors, but to those one­ly [...] them, who carryed 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, Divel, De­mon, 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 [...] Divel, and that of Demon are [...] [Page 141] 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 evill Spirits, which the Son of GOD did cast out of the Bodies of Men or Women, It doth not say that it cast forth Divels, 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 Demoniack. Now since in this thing the Holy Spi­rit doth express the word of Demon, and never the word of Divill, our Tranflations ought to answer the O­riginall in the place, where we read that he cast forth Divels, &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 [Page 142] translation then the Name of Di­vel.

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 Divels, instead of rea­ding Demons, In one word I shall tell them that we ought to read it ac­cording to the Originall. 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 hu­mane Bodies. Many (as the Sadu­ces) did believe that these Spirits were not substances, but onely mo­tions or Impulsions which come by nature. Now the word Divel which onely signifies a Slanderer, and can be spoken of a man also, doth not so well denote a spirituall substance, and different from humane kind. The word Demon is more significant in this regard, for it is the Name which the Pagans gave unto their Gods, who [Page 143] in effect were evill 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 Originall 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. [Page 144] 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 onely 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 Latine translation of Beza, who in this particular hath not word for word expressed the Originall. This Note will not appear fr [...]volous but to those onely who not, that there is not one jo [...]e in the Scripture, which is not considerable.

Of one word which the French adde to the end of the Lords 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 it self.

But the Originall 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 [Page 146] 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 Lords 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 it self, 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 Lords Prayer do signifie as much, as in ages of ages. I answer, wherefore then in reciting the Lords Prayer, do we not content our selves with the terms which are there? The excuse is not sufficient that we adde nothing to the sense, For when we make profession to transcribe, or to translate, we ought to retain the words of the Originall, as far as our vulgar tongues are able to represent them▪ without thrusting in any amplificatio [...] [Page 147] 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 O­riginall of the Lords 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 alwaies. 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 [Page 148] 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 Originall Greek, it ought to be retained in the French Translation of the Lords 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 bely the holy History. For before that A­braham [Page 149] 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 it self. 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 portraict 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 beleive 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. [Page 150] But this prejudging although antient, and very generall, 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 untill after it were dead, For first of all the bloud was let forth, either at the throat, or at the breast untill 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 [Page 151] 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 it self. It sometimes dispatcheth two Commandements of the Law, or two Petitions of the Lords Prayer in one Section onely, when every Com­mandement, 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 Historicall Ca [...]echism, which [Page 152] by Questions and Answers might re-Present 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 compleat 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 [Page 153] 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 onely 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, [Page 154] the decision whereof is neither cer­tain nor necessary, I should say that it is rather to be beleived, 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 alwaies neer unto Death, it saith that the Spirit or the breath of him is in his nostrill, 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 nostrills, which is to say, when this soul it self, which God hath breathed into me, shall be upon the point of its departure, ha­ving no more hold of it, but in my nostrills onely.

Of the testimony which Josephus the Historian of the Jews did render of Jesus Christ.

THis testimony is found in th [...] eighteenth Book of the Jewish [Page 155] antiquities. This Author making mention there of Jesus, doth doubt if it be lawfull 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 shewed 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, an­tient and modern; I cannot perswade my self that this Jew, which gives not the least apparence 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 Segniory of the whole world, that, on the contrary, he gives [Page 156] it to Vespasian a Pagan Prince, and applyes to him the Oracle which be­longs onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 [...] [Page 157] the onely 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 beleive that this passage was Josephus his own, but withall that some have changed some words therein, and this is not the onely 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 Latine, and who forgot not [...]o value the testimonies, which the Jews and the Pagans rendred to the Christian Religion, doth make Jo­sephus to speak otherwise, For he [...]akes him not to say, that Jesus was [...]he Christ, but that it was beleived [Page 158] he was the Christ. Josephus then one­ly 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 advantagious 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 alledge) was Commander above one hundred years before; The consequences are far greater then they seem to be at the first appearance, of which I will [Page 159] not speak at this present. So great lyars are these malicious people pro­ved to be by their own Historian, who in express tearms 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 [Page 160] the mouth of Job, many remarkeable considerations may hereupon be pro­duced, I shall onely say that, as we at least ought to mark and distinguish this place, which is onely 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 Eternall. We dispute not which of these names doth ap­proach most neer to that of Jehovah. But since the French Bible doth re­present it under the name of Eternall▪ This name Eternall 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 Eternall, as the French translation doth usually interpret in And nevertheless the same translatio [...] [Page 161] forgetting it self 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 Eternall, 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 it self 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 Originall, and many translations, es­pecially the English.

IT is known that neither the He­brew nor Caldean, which are the o­riginall tongues of the old Testament have this word Heaven, but alwaies say Heavens in the Plurall, or the Duall 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 Latine and vulgar translations have introduced it in divers places, especially the English, which doth serve it self more often with the Sin­gular then the Plurall; which is ve­ry strange.

In the beginning of this treatise, I prevented some objections that might be made hereon, and I will not now