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 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 words are contained The Eternall or the Lord is living The English Translation doth prevent this oath with a word in the beginning of it saying AS the Lord is living c. The Bible of Tremelius hath also the same addition to render the Hebrew Phrase more intelligible which otherwise seemeth not to be 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 â—ome respite of time before it be â—atched But the Vipers are already in life and all formed when they come out of the Belly of their Mother When the Scripture therefore doth give this 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 weâ—â— moveables which were not to be taken down or which were made aâ— of one piece so there are Texts whicâ— 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 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 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 of this Sun this Moon and these Stars If then these twelve Stars were the tvvelve Patriarchs as it is most
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 chapleâ—s of flowers on their heads or round about their horns But that could not be practised in every season of the year And as for the Garlands which are mentioned in this place the History expresseth not that the Priest in that nature did make use of them It may be that he would have crowned with them Paul and Barâ—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 frâ—volous but to those onely who not that there is not one joâ—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 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 amplificatioâ— 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 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 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 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 perfâ—ct than any other of the writings of Men I am not the first that hath so judged It is defective in many points It is prolix and exuberant in questions in certain matters where it ought to be more succinct On the contrary it is too brief there where it ought more to enlarge it self It sometimes dispatcheth
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 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 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 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 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 â—oth it import if we read it God created in the beginning Or In the beginning GOD created It is true It is the same sense indeed nevertheless besides the 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 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. Nâ—h. 8. But the Painters do make them of materials very different For representing the Israelites on the foot of Mount Sinai or in some other place of the Wilderness they do lodge them in tents which according to the painting were made of 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 to imagin with the vulgar that Beelzebub is the proper name of the Prince of the Devilâ— 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 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 whereâ—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 â—ross is heavy and man is subject â—o many crosses But according to the language of GOD there are no afflictions which can be called crosses those afflictions being excepted which men make us to suffer for the cause of our crucified Saviour and for the cause of his Gospel To such sufferings GOD hath reserved and appropriated this honourable title of the Cross In the like manner the persecutions which are raised against us for the cause of Christ the punishments the proscriptions the losses the reproaches and whatsoever a Christian endureth for that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 â—ther Gods For this word other doth â—resuppose that the Decalogue hath â—lready spoken of one GOD who exâ—ludes all other And therefore this 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-giveâ— 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 â—s it is custom in these times in the Eastern Countries The Originall â—ext saith not that they sate but doth make use of a terme which cannot properly be expressed in our vulgar â—anguages The French Bible in a more generall expression saith he â—id set himself at the table The English hath it He sate down and this word for the want of a better and one more answerable to the Greek text is tolerable in a translation But a picture which speaketh in all languages ought not to corrupt the Histories in representing them otherwise than they are The same picture doth very ill describe Saint John in the Bosom of Jesus Christ The particulars are by so much the more considerable because they concern some circumstances of the Supper of our Lord and it is of great importance that we should understand them because they do furnish us with Arguments against Altars against the elevation of the Host and the worshipping of it I will not here speak of the ignorance of Painters who representing Lazarus in the breast of Abraham do paint him as a little Infant on the Knees of that great Patriark Moreover in some Bibles of the old Impression we may see GOD represented in the form of a man producing Eve from the side of Adam We may truly paint Adam or Eve but it is impossible to paint God Those who have such pictures in their Bibles ought rather to take them out then take delight to behold them If it be 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 the Latine translation of Beza doth noâ— give him that Name in the text but the note in the Margent doth interpret that Adam
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 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 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 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 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 the sense which he gives to the text 〈◊〉 this That the tree of life did stan◠between the place and the River The place being on the one side of it and the River on the other This Construction is indeed ingenious and seemeth to be most 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 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