Exercitations Divine

Exercitat. Divine. 1.

HVmane Sciences and Arts, have been fitly compared to the dough which the Israelites brought out of Egypt, Exod. 12. 34. which they fed upon until they got Manna: This dough was prepared by much labor; by plowing, by sowing, by reaping, by grinding, kneading, and baking: So human Sciences which are the birth of reason, are bred below here: but Divinity is like unto Manna which was prepared or ready to their hand; they neither plowed for it, neither did sow it, nor reaped it. So Divinity is prepared in heaven, and sent down to teach the Church here below. The dough which they brought out of Egypt, Deut. 16. 3. is called, panis pauperum, the poor's bread; it is called the poor's bread, because the poor in their necessity could not be at leisure to ferment it, and it had not so pleasant a relish; therefore it is called the poor's bread: but Manna is called the bread of Angels, Psal. 78. 25. It is called the bread of Angels, because it was brought down by their ministry; and it was so pleasant in taste, that if the Angels had eaten bread, it might have served them: So 1 Cor. 13. 1. If I speak with the tongue of Angels, that is, if the Angels had tongues to speak with: And as far as Manna surpassed the poor's bread, as far and farther doth Divinity surpass human Sciences and Arts.

Again, the world hath been well compared to Egypt, and the Church to Canaan: Egypt was a Land that was watered with the feet of men, Deut. 11, 10. It was said to be watered with the feet of men, as a garden, because they carried water on foot out of Nile, and watered their Land with it: but Canaan was a Land blessed of God, and his eyes were upon it from the beginning of the year to the end, Deut. 11. 12. It was a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven. The world is but watered with human Sciences and Arts, which are drawn out of the troubled reason of man like Nile: but the Church is watered with these celestial graces which come from above.

Now that we may see the excellency of Divinity above all other Sciences and Arts, let us observe wherein they differ in general, and then let us make a particular comparison betwixt Divinity & other Sciences and Arts.

First, they differ origin, in the original: human [Differ. 1] Sciences and Arts proceed from God as he is God and general ruler of the world, but Divinity proceedeth from the Father by the Son to the Church, Revel. 22. 1. And he shown me a pure river of water of life, clear as cristall, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb: but these human Sciences and Arts, although they proceed from God, yet they proceed not from God and the Lamb like a cristall river.

Secondly, these human Sciences and Arts, are but [Differ. 2] humano-divinae, they are but the brood of reason, which proceedeth from God enlightening every man that cometh into the world, John 1. 9. Some again are human and the birth of corrupt man only, as Sophistry: And thirdly, some are Diabolicae, as necromancie and witch-craft: But Divinity is Divino-divina, that is, it is originally from God and immediately.

And if we shall compare Faith the daughter of Divinity, [Dyffer. 3] with Reason the mother of all other Sciences and Arts, we shall see how far Divinity excelleth all other Sciences and Arts.

There are in man, sense, reason, and faith; and as far as reason surpasseth sense, much farther doth faith surpass reason; and by consequent Divinity surpasseth all other Sciences.

Reason differeth much from sense, for sense the farther that the object is from it, it is magis universal & magis confusum, it is the more universal and more confused; and the nearer that the object comes to the sense, it is the less universal and more distinct: Example, when we see an object a far off, we take it up first to be ens somewhat, then we take it up to be a living creature, then we take it up to be a man, and last to be Peter or John; Here the nearer that the object cometh to our sense, it is less universal and more distinct; and the farther that it is removed from our sense, it is the more universal and more confused. The knowledge which a [Simile.] young child hath at the first is wonderful confused, and he will suck any woman for his nurse, this knowledge is very confused: then his knowledge becometh more distinct and more general, and then he beginneth to know, this is not my nurse, and this is not my nurse, but this is my nurse; here his knowledge beginneth to be more distinct, and he will suck none but his own nurse: and his knowledge now, resembleth the knowledge which we have by reason, which ascendeth from the particular to the general, and the farther that it is from sense, it is the more universal and less confused. But faith the daughter of Divinity, ascendeth higher than reason or sense, and the further that it goes from sense and reason the more perfect it is, and it goeth from minus universal, to the supreme and highest cause, God himself; and the nearer that faith cometh to reason or sense, the weaker it is and more indistinct. Thomas his faith was an indistinct faith and weak, and could not believe unless he put his fingers in the wounds of Christ, John 20. 28. here his faith leaned too much to sense; but faith the higher that it goes from sense and reason, the more perfect it is; We have a notable example of this, Gen. 49. when Joseph took Ephraim and Manasseh, Ephraim in his right hand towards Israel's left hand, and brought him near unto him, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraim's head, and his left hand upon Manasseh head, guiding his hands wittingly, or as Onkelos the Chaldee Paraphrast hath it, Prudenter egit manibus suis, when he dealt wisely with his hands: But when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he held up his fathers hand, and he said to his father, not so my father, for this is the first borne, put thy right hand upon his head: and his father refused and said, I know it my son, I know it truly, the younger shall be greater than he, Gen. 48. 19. Joseph thought because his father Jacob was blind that his faith was a confused and weak faith, but Jacob knew that the farther his faith was from sense, and the higher that it ascended from reason, it was the more perfect, and therefore he said jadanghti been jadanghti, I know it my son, I know it; that is, certainly I know it. This is then the excellency of faith, that the higher that it goes from sense and reason the more perfect it is, which showeth the excellency of Divinity above all other Sciences and Arts; for if faith the daughter of Divinity surpasseth them all, much more doth Divinity it self: and it may be said of faith, as it was said of the virtuous woman, Prov. 30. Many daughters in Israel have done virtuously, but thou surpassest them all.

Last of all, other Sciences and Arts are but handmaids [Differ. 4] to Divinity, and as the Nethinims the posterity of the Gibionits were appointed by Joshua to hew wood and draw water for the Sanctuary, but never to meddle with the Sacrifices, neither to kill them nor offer them, Josh. 9. 23. so human Sciences and Arts are appointed but to attend and serve Divinity, they are but to hew the wood, and draw the water only to the Sanctuary.

There are three principles from whence Sciences and Arts are derived, the first is contemplation, the second is action, the third is operation.

For contemplation, the metaphysicks are the most abstract, considering ens ut ens only: the second are the mathematicks, which considereth the quantity and the number of things; geometry the quantity, and arithmetic the number. Thirdly, the Physicks consider only natural properties of the body.

These who are exercised in actions and moral philosophy, are laws and such.

Arts which are exercised in operation are rhetoric and grammar.

Metaphysicke considereth God only, ut ens vnum, verum et bonum, as he hath a being, as he is one, as he is truth and goodness; but it considereth not God as Creator, Christ as Redeemer, it considereth not God in his attributes as Divinity doth, & therefore they say metaphysica parit scientiam tantum, sed theologia fidem.

Secondly, compare Divinity with physic and the mathematicks, the mathematician searcheth visible forms in visible things, the Physician invisible forms in visible things; but the Divine invisible forms in visible things.

Thirdly, let us compare the Divine, the Lawyer and Physician; the Physician est minister naturae, the servant of nature, the Lawyer est minister justitiae, but the Divine est minister gratiae: and look how far grace exceedeth nature or justice, so as far doth Divinity surpass the Physician or the Lawyer.

Fourthly, let us compare Divinity and moral philosophy, the Philosopher saith, that Iuvenis non est idoneus auditor moralis Philosophiae, that a young man is not fit to hear moral philosophy, but David saith, Psal. 119 9. Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his ways. Chrysostom hath a good observation to show the force of Divinity above all moral philosophy, when he compareth Plato the moralist and Paul the Apostle together: Plato saith he, that wise Philosopher came three times to Sicily to convert Dionysius the tyrant to moral philosophy, yet he went away without any success: but Paul a Tent-maker did not only convert Sicily, but ran from Jerusalem to Illyricum, Rom. 15. 19. and converted thousands of souls by the preaching of the Gospel. See how far Divinity excelleth moral philosophy. And Augustine observeth how Seneca the most excellent of all the moralists, mocked the Jews, because they spent (as he thought) the seventh part of their life in idleness, which was the Sabbath day. Justin Martyr being first a philosopher, and after a martyr, searched thorough all the sects of philosophy, and could never find contentment to his soul till he came to Divinity. First he came to the sect of the Stoics and gave himself to be a scholar in that school, but hearing nothing of God in Stoa in that school, he turned to be a Peripatetic: but when he entered with the Peripatetics, he perceived his master nundinantem sapientiam mercede (as he speaks) selling his wisdom for gain, then he left that sect also. Thirdly, he came to the sect of the Pythagoreans, but having no skill in geometrie (which knowledge Pythagoras required of his Scholars before he taught them philosophy) he left the Pythagoreans and fell into the society of the Platonickes: at last he met with a Christian Divine Philosopher who persuaded him to cast aside all these circular disciplines, and to study Divinity which should give him greater contentment than all the philosophy in the world, and he renouncing all gave himself to the studying of the holy Scriptures, and of a Philosopher became both a Christian and a Martyr.

Fifthly; let us compare Divinity and Physic alone, they say ubi desinit physicus ibi incipit medicus, Where the natural philosopher leaveth, there the Physician beginneth, but we may say, ubi desinit Physicus, ibi incipit Theologus, where the Physician leaveth off, there the Divine beginneth; for when the Physician hath done his last cure and given over the patient, heresignes him into the hands of the Divine, or if he be a religious Physician, he is glad to play the Divine to him himself; the Physician showeth the patient that his health consisteth in letting of blood, but the Divine showeth that the health of his patient consisteth by the letting of the blood of Christ.

Sixthly, compare Divinity and the mathematicks, the mathematician considereth the length, the height and the breadth of things, but be never considereth what is the height, the breadth and the length of the love of Christ, Ephes. 3. 8. he never teacheth a man to number his days, that he may apply his heart to wisdom, Psal. 90. 12. as the Divine doth.

Lastly, compare Divinity with grammar and rhetoric: hearing of others teacheth us to speak; grammar teacheth us to speak congruously, and rhetoric teacheth us to speak eloquently, but Divinity teacheth us to speak the language of Canaan, Isaiah 19. 18.

Whether cometh Laws or Physic nearer to [Quest.] Divinity?

We must answer here by distinction, the Law [Answ.] hath two parts in it, the first is that which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of constituting and making of laws: the second is that ligitious part which is exercised about the pleading of causes; the first part cometh nearer to Divinity than physic doth, because the Physician is exercised only about the health of the body, and if he speak anything to his patient of temperance or restraining of his passions, all this he doth but for his patients health. But the nomotheticke or maker of the law, doth all things for the well ordering of the people; and look how much more excellent it is to live well, than to live in good health: so much more that part of the law excelleth physic. But physic again is to be preferred to that part of the Law which is called litigiosa or the litigious part of the law, because that part of the law doth not respect the commonwealth, or the manners of the people, but to give this or that particular man his right: But to cure this or that particular man, is better than to restore this or that particular man to his goods; for skin for skin, and all that a man hath will he give for his life, Job. 1. therefore physic excelleth the litigious part of the Law.

It may be said that Divinity borroweth many things [Object.] of other Sciences, therefore it may seem not to be so absolute in perfection.

This argueth no want in Divinity, but only a defect [Ans.] in our understanding; for by these inferior things we are led to the knowledge of more divine things.

Divinity is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or a general sum of all Sciences and Arts, or one universal director to all our actions as they are natural, civil, or economical.

But Paul biddeth Timothy take a little wine to comfort [Object.] him, 1 Tim. 5. 23. So Moses setteth down weights and measures in the Law.

When Paul biddeth Timothy take some wine to comfort [Answ.] him, he is not playing the Physician here: so when Moses setteth down weights and measures, this is not his last end that there may be commutative justice amongst the children of Israel; Paul's last end and chief consideration is this, that Timothy having a sound body may be able to glorify God in his ministry. So Moses considereth weights and measures, that God's people might do no wrong, but glorify God in their calling; And as one thing may belong to the mathematitian in respect of the midst, and to the Physician in respect of the thing it self, as when a Physician showeth that a round wound is more hardly cured than a long wound, although the Physician show this by the principles of geometry, yet he cureth not the wound as a Goemetrician but as a Physician. So when a Divine speaketh of weights and measures, and health of body, although they belong to the politickes or physickes in respect of the midst, yet in respect of the end they belong to Divinity.

Other Sciences are not directly subordinate to Divinity; these sciences which are directly subordinate, the conclusions of the superior Sciences are the principles of the inferior, as the conclusions of arithmetic are the principles of music, and these sciences which are directly subordinate here, have but some new accident added to them, to make a distinction betwixt them and the superior Sciences, as music subordinate to arithmetic hath this accident superadded to it, to be numerus sonorus a number with sound, but Divinity and other Sciences toto genere differunt, they are altogether different.

Other Sciences are not directly subordinate to Divinity but only in respect of the end, the Apothecary is directly subordinate to the Physician; therefore he prescribeth unto him all his ingredients, what hot things he must use and what cold, what drachmes and what scruples: the Taylor again is not directly subordinate to the Doctor, but only in respect of the end, therefore the Doctor prescribeth not unto him how much he should make in a gown; ask the Doctor why he giveth physic to a man? and he will answer, for the preservation of the body: So ask the Taylor why he maketh clothes for him? he will answer for the same end; here the inferior, the Taylor, is subordinate to the Doctor, only in respect of the end: So all Sciences and Arts are but indirectly subordinate to Divinity, and in respect of the end, and therefore they have not their particular directions from Divinity.

The conclusion of this is: All Sciences are found out [Conclusio. 1] for the benefit of man, but all of them can do him but little good, until Divinity come in and rectify him.

All Sciences are subordinate to Divinity in respect [Conclusio. 2] of the end; therefore every man should study to be holy, what Science soever he profess: but profane men think that it becometh not a Physician to be holy, because they understand not that these Sciences are subordinate to Divinity in respect of the end.

EXERCITATI. II.

AS God in the creation set up two lights to guide and to direct the world, Gen. 1. 16. so the Lord hath given two lights to direct man; the light of reason to direct him in things below here, and Divine light to direct him in things above: these two lights the one of them doth not extinguish the other, but only diminish it, and maketh it fall down and give place, and then rectifieth and exalteth it. Esa. 42. 15. I will make the rivers ylands, and I will dry up the pools. The rivers come from the fountains, but yet when the light of grace cometh in, then the rivers are diminished and they decrease that the dry land may appear: reason is not taken away here, but it falleth down and giveth way to grace; but the pools shall be dried up, that is, grace taketh away schisms and herisies and drieth them up: but when reason submitteth her self to Divinity and is rectified, she hath good use in Divinity. And even as a Dwarfe set upon a Giants shoulders seeth much further than he did before: so doth reason when it is rectified by Divinity; and so grace doth not extinguish reason but perfecteth it: and therefore Justin Martyr called religion true philosophy, and then he saith, he became a Philosopher when he became a Christian.

Let us consider first what is above the reach of reason in Divinity. First, reason cannot be a judge in matters Divine, for reason can never judge of the object of supernatural verity. Reason showeth this much to a man: when it seeth the antecedent and the consequent, that this followeth rightly upon that: but reason never judgeth of the object of supernatural verity, but Divinity enlighteneth the mind and maketh the spiritual man to judge of this. A Carpenter when he is working, doth see by his eye when he applieth the [Simile.] square to the wood, whether it be straight or not; but yet his eye (without the which he cannot see) is not the judge to try whether the tree be straight or not, but only the square is the judge: So reason in man (without the which he could not judge) is not the square to try what is right or what is wrong, but the Word it self is only the rule and square; reason cannot consider how faith justifieth a man, or whether works be an effect of faith or not, but reason can conclude only ex concessis, of things granted, if faith be the cause and works the effect, then they must necessarily go together, and reason goeth no higher.

Secondly, no midst taken from philosophy can make up a Divine conclusion, neither would it beget faith in a man. Example, God is not the efficient cause of sin, the efficient cause is a term attributed to God: here if a Divine should go about to prove either by logic or grounds of metaphysicke, this conclusion were not a Divine conclusion, whereupon a man's faith might rest, as if he should reason this ways, No efficient cause can produce a defect but an effect, God is an efficient cause, and sin is a defect, therefore God cannot produce sin; this were but an human conclusion and could not beget faith. So if he should reason from the grounds of metaphysicke this ways, God is ens entium, and the properties of ens are vnum verum bonum, therefore God who is ens entium cannot produce sin, because he is goodness it self; the conclusion were but an human conclusion and could not beget faith: but if a Divine should prove the same by a midst taken out of the Scriptures, and should reason thus. 1 John. 2. 16. All that which is in the world, is either the concupiscence of the flesh, or the lust of the eye, or the pride of life, not from the Father, this midst will make up a Divine conclusion which will beget faith in a man, and then the Christian man may say to the Philosopher as the Samaritans said unto the woman of Samaria, I believe not now for thy reason, but for the authority of God, which is the ground of my faith.

Thirdly, Philosophy doth not enlighten the mind with spiritual knowledge, it enlighteneth the mind only with a general knowledge whereof John speaketh, John 1. 9. Rom. 1. when he believeth, his reason at the first is mere passive; therefore this speech of Clemens Alexandrinus would be very warily taken, Philosophiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vocat; as though philosophy made an introduction to saving faith: And this speech of some Divines is harshly spoken, lumen natura accendit lumen gratiae, and Basils comparison must not be stretched over far, as Dyers before they bring on the most perfect die, they die first with the baser color, to make it the more fit to receive the more bright color: So human learning may be a preparation to grace. But the comparison is too far stretched here, human learning is a preparation to make a man understand the axioms, syllogisms and logical part in Divinity; but a heathen philosopher having the help of nature, is no sooner converted to the truth. A learned Philosopher converted to the faith, may have a greater certainty of evidence than a laicke, and may know the literal sense better, but he hath no greater certainty of adherence, as we see oftentimes when it cometh to the point of suffering. But seeing zeal is not always according to knowledge, therefore knowledge of human Sciences is a great help to the knowledge of faith once bred, when it is sanctified.

Philosophy must not transcend her bounds and commit Saltum, as they speak in the Schools, when she taketh midsts which are mere philosophical to prove anything in Divinity; this was the fault of most of the Schoolmen: but when she doth keep herself within her bounds, then she hath good use in Divinity. Matth. 22. the Sadducees reason this way concerning the resurrection. If there were a resurrection, then there should follow a great absurdity, that seven men should have one wife at the day of judgment: but this is absurd: therefore, &c. But Divinity telleth reason, that here she goeth without her bounds, measuring the estate of the life to come, by the estate of this life, and borroweth midsts which are not Divine to prove this conclusion; for in the life to come we shall be like Angels, who neither marry nor give in marriage, and need not to propagate their kind by generation.

Another example. Nicodemus reasoned this ways, He that is borne again must enter into his mothers womb, John. 3. 4 no man can enter again into his mothers womb, therefore no man can be borne again: but Divinity teacheth reason that she transcendeth her bounds here, and useth a midst which is mere natural to prove a supernatural conclusion.

A third example, Arius reasoneth this ways; he that is begotten is not eternal, Christ is begotten, therefore he is not eternal: here Divinity telleth reason that she is out of her bounds, and applieth her midsts falsely. There is a threefold generation, first a physical generation, secondly a metaphysical, and thirdly an hyperphysicall: physical generation is this, when a mortal man begetteth a son, and this is done in time: metaphysical generation is this, when the mind begetteth a word, and this is always done in time: but hyperphysicall generation is that eternal generation, and this is done before all time; and Divinity showeth reason how she misapplyeth her physical and metaphysical generation, to this eternal generation.

Whether is such a proposition true in Divinity, and [Quest.] false in reason, the Son of God begotten from all eternity, true in Divinity, the Son of God begotten from all eternity, false in the court of reason: So Mary the Virgin bare a Son, true in Divinity: Mary the Virgin bare a Son, false in the court of reason?

That which is true in one Science, is not false in another. [Answ.] In Israel there was a judicatorie of seventy who judged of matters of greatest weight, and there was an inferior judicatory, consisting of three, and these judged of goods and matters of least moment: that which was truly concluded in the highest judicatory was not false in this inferior judicatory, although they could not judge of a false Prophet as the great Synedrion did, yet they held it not false in the lowest judicatory, when the great Synedrion concluded such a one to be a false Prophet: So that which is true in Divinity is not false in reason, but only above her reach; and if anything were true in one Science, and false in another, then verum non esset reciproca affectio entis, that is, that which hath a being should not be true, and that which is true should not have a being, these two propositions should not be converted. There is a verity that is above reason, and there is a verity which is agreeable to reason, and there is a verity that is under reason, the first is of things taken up by faith, the second is of things taken up by reason, the third is of things taken up by sense, but there is no verity contrary to reason, it is not against reason to believe that a Virgin conceived and bare a Son, but it is above reason.

We must not seclude reason altogether from Divinity, Christ himself used the help of reason against the Sadducees, and Paul against the Jews, Heb. 7. 17. Thou art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. This is revealed by God himself that Christ is the King of peace and righteousness, yet to prove this and to make it manifest to the misbeleeving Jews, he borroweth a help of a logical notation, saying, which is by interpretation, the King of righteousness, the King of peace, Heb. 7. 2. So Christ useth reason against the Sadducees: God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, hence he inferferreth this consequent, that they must live.

But they say that Christ and Paul were immediately [Object.] directed by God, that they could not err in their Midsts, and conclusions as we do.

If Paul's extraordinary calling had given him power to use reason, then they had spoken to the purpose, but [Ans.] he useth reason as common to him and to all other men, whether Apostles or not Apostles.

But they say, that Christ's authority and Paul's was [Object.] greater than ours is.

This we grant, they disputed against those [Answ.] who acknowledged not their authority, but yielded only to them, in respect of the force of the arguments, is it not lawful for us to do the same against our adversaries? which Christ did against the Sadducees, and Paul against the Jews.

But whatsoever was pronounced by Christ against [Object.] the Sadducees, or by Paul against the Jews, it became by and by holy Scripture, which we cannot say of our conclusions.

Although arguments used by Christ and his Apostles [Answ.] became by and by the Word of God, yet it will not follow that we may not use these midsts brought forth by reason, although they become not Scripture; but then that would follow if we brought forth these principles of reason, to make them the object of our saving faith.

Whether were the Sadducees bound to believe this [Quest.] argument of Christ's, as an article of their faith, or not?

By the force of this consequence as it were the [Ans.] work of reason, they were not bound to believe it, but as it was proved to them out of the Scriptures they were bound to believe it.

Seeing human midsts have no force to bind of [Quest.] themselves, why are they used in proof against men?

This is done for the infirmity of man, who is hard [Answ.] to believe, and the Divine midsts will not serve to refute the natural man. These who have good and perfect [Simile.] sight need no other midst to see by, but the light; but a man who is of a weak sight and purblind, useth Spectacles as a help to his sight: so the perverse heriticks make us to bring in these human midsts, whereas the midsts taken out of the Word of God should serve by themselves to convince. When Christ rose again, Thomas doubted of the resurrection and thought that his body had been but a Spirit, but Christ bearing with his infirmity, by this human midst proveth that he is flesh, because he may be touched and felt.

Observe again that in Divinity some propositions are merely Divine, and some are mixedly Divine. These that are merely Divine, reason can do little thing here, it can but join the terms together, but it cannot take up these great mysteries; example, if I were disputing against the Monothelites who denied that there were two natures in Christ, and should reason thus; Where there are two natures, there are two wills; but in Christ there are two natures, therefore two wills. That in Christ there are two wills, this is a proposition merely Divine, reason can never take up this, yet reason showeth this much, where there are two natures there must be two wills, and it judgeth only of the connection of these two, but it cannot judge of the verity of this, whether there be two wills in Christ or not.

Ye will say then, what doth reason in the verity [Quest.] of these propositions which are merely Divine?

Reason in a regenerate man concludeth not that to [Ans.] be false which is above her reach, but only admireth and resteth in this great mystery; and reformed reason enlightened by the Word of God, goeth this far on, that she believeth these things to be possible with God which she cannot comprehend; but reason in a corrupt man will scorn and mock these things which she cannot comprehend, as the Stoic called Paul a babbler, Act. 17. 18, when he disputed against them for the resurrection, and called it a new doctrine.

In these propositions again which are mixedly Divine, reason hath a further hand; example, No natural body can be in moe places at once, Christ's body is a natural body, therefore it cannot be in moe places at once; this is mixedly Divine, for the properties of a natural body showeth us that it cannot be in moe places at once, and the Scripture also, showeth us that Christ's body is a natural body.

But is not this a mixture of Divinity and human [Quest.] reason together, when we borrow a midst out of the Scriptures, and then confirm the selfsame thing by reason?

This maketh not a mixture of Divinity and philosophy, [Answ.] but maketh only philosophy to serve Divinity.

When we use reason to help our weakness, we do not ground our faith upon reason or upon the light of nature, but upon that supernatural light; and the light of nature cometh in, but as in the second room [Simile.] to confirm our weakness: and as we ascribe not the price of the Ring, or the worthiness of it to the Hammer which beateth it out, but to the Gold it self, so our faith is not grounded upon human reason or the light of nature, but upon the Word of God it self.

How can reason serve in Divinity seeing the natural [Quest.] man perceiveth not the things of God, and the greater Philosophers, the greater enemies of grace?

We must distinguish inter concretum & abstractum [Ans.] betwixt philosophy and the Philosopher: many of the Philosophers oppugned the mysteries of Divinity by their corrupt and natural reason: but true philosophy impugneth it not, and the greater light extinguisheth not the lesser, and verity doth not contradict it self; and truth in philosophy, is but the footestep of that truth which is in God by way of excellency.

The conclusion of this is, contra rationem nemo sobrius [Conclusi.] dicit, contra scripturam nemo christianus, & contra ecclesiam nemo pacisicus: we must learn then to give everyone of these their own place and not to reject reason altogether from Divinity, but to captivate her and make her a handmaid to Divinity.

EXERCITAT. III

THe end of our Divinity here consisteth in doing rather than contemplation. If we speak properly, doing is not in the understanding but in the will; when reason divideth, compoundeth, or frameth any proposition within it self, then the understanding is not said properly to do, but contenting it self within it self, then it is speculative: but when the understanding setteth the will on work, then the will doth, & the understanding but directeth the will; and when the understanding reasoneth within it self, they call this actus elicitus; but when the understanding setteth the will on work, they call this actus imperatus.

A proposition in Divinity commandeth us either virtually to practice, or else formally. Virtually it commandeth us to practice; example, This is life eternal, to know thee to be the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Christ, John. 17. 3. 11. This is a proposition which virtually includeth in it practice; for as the Hebrews say, verba notitiae includunt verba affectus, Words of knowledge include words of affection: if it be life eternal for us to know God, then it is life eternal also for us to love God.

This proposition again in Divinity, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, Matth. 22. 37. and thy neighbor as thyself, verse. 39. commandeth practice formally.

Secondly a proposition in Divinity urgeth practice either mediately or immediately: immediately, as God is summum bonum the chief good; out of this mediate proposition we gather an immediate, therefore we are to love him above all things.

Thirdly, these conclusions in Divinity which conclude for practice, the propositions out of which they are drawn, must also be for practice and not for contemplation, nam nihil agit extra genus suum, as they say in the Schools; as we cannot gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistels, Matth. 7. 16. So new wine cannot be the cause why the Apostles spake with divers tongues; Act. 2. So we cannot gather conclusions of practice from speculative propositions.

Fourthly, these rules which serve to direct men to practice may be called rules of practice, as the Carpenters line in his hand is a line of practice, because it leadeth him to practice. So the Word of God is the line by the which we should walk, therefore it is a rule of practice, Gal. 6. 6. As many as walk according to this rule, peace be unto them: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to work by rule or line, the Word is the rule of our working, therefore it teacheth us practice.

But it may be said, that contemplation is the end of [Object.] Divinity in heaven to see God face to face, therefore is the end of our Divinity here upon earth.

Contemplation in heaven leadeth us always to practice, and they can never be separate; for as below here [Answ.] those Sciences which we call inspectrices; as the mathematicks, physic, and such (whose end consisteth not in doing) are the parents of moral philosophy and of doing, for by these we take up the nature of things, the goodness and the truth of them, and then we begin to esteem of them, and love them when we know them; so that contemplation bringeth forth always practice. The glorified Saints in heaven, coming nearer to the first cause, esteem more highly of him, and therefore they love him more sincerely, and return all praise to him.

But it may seem that contemplation is more excellent [Object.] than practice; for Mary is preferred unto Martha, Mary for her contemplation to Martha for her action.

When Mary and Martha are compared together, they [Answ.] resemble not the contemplative and the active life, but the natural and spiritual life; Mary careth for the spiritual life, and Martha for the natural. Did not Mary care for practice as well as Martha? sat she not at Christ's feet that she might learn practice, that she might wash them with her tears and wipe them with her hair?

And because practice is joined always with knowledge, therefore the wisdom which is proper to the understanding is ascribed sometimes to the will, Job. 28. 28. to depart from evil is understanding: and therefore it is, that justice and judgment are joined together in the Scripture, and they are called fools who do not according to their knowledge. And Solomon saith Eccle. 10. 2. The heart of a wise man is at his right hand, because his heart teacheth his hand to put things in practice.

The end of our Divinity is more in practice than in contemplation; therefore these onagri or wild asses, the Heremites who lived without all society of men, forget the chief end wherefore they were set here, living rather like beasts than like men: and if we shall take a view of the ecclesiastical history, as out of Theodoret and Zozomen, we shall see how unprofitablie these men have spent their time, leaving the congregation of the Saints of God. Theodoret writeth of one Macedonius qui 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & gubba dict us est; gubba in the Syriac tongue is a Ditch, he was called gubba because he stood in a Ditch all his time, and he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because he eat nothing but Barley pulse: See how unprofitablie this man spent his time, not giving himself to reading of the holy Scriptures, for he was altogether ignorant of them; for when Flavianus the Bishop sent for him that he might make him a Minister, he was so ignorant of that which the Bishop had done unto him when he ordained him Minister, that being required the next Sabbath day to come again to the Church, answered him who came for him, that he was afraid to be made Minister the next Sabbath day also, and so refused to come; see how this holy man spent his life for forty years in contemplatin and what great progress he made in Christian Religion. So Theodoret maketh mention of one Styllites who stood under a pillar all his life time, and never came into a house. So Zozomen in his ecclesiastical history, writeth of one Pior, who going out of his fathers house into a desert, vowed solemnly that he should never see any of his kinsmen or friends again, and living fifty years there he had a sister who longed to see him before she died: the Bishop pitying the poor woman, granted leave to Pior to come and visit her, and he returning into his country, & standing before the door called out his sister, and shutting his eyes, he said unto her, behold, I am your brother Pior, look upon me as much as you please; but she entreating him earnestly to come to her house, he altogether refusing went back again to the Wilderness: and so we read in Theodoret of one Adynus; who lived ninety years in the Wilderness and never spake to any man, as if he had been possessed with a dumb Devil: this is that holy contemplative life which the Church of Rome commendeth so much, but this is pure Religion, to visit the fatherless and widow in their necessity, I am. 1. 27. These Heremites living this contemplative life were like Polyphemus having but one eye in his head, and looking ever up but never down.

The Schoolmen differ but little in this point, how Divinity teacheth us practice. Thomas and his followers say, that fides non est recta ratio agendi, sed recta ratio sentiendi; and therefore Contra gentiles he compareth faith to hearing rather than to sight, but he addeth that practice followeth faith as the fruit of it: but Scotus maketh faith to be habitus practicus. Ye see how both of them insist in this, that Divinity consisteth in practice.

The Lord Num. 15. 38. 39. commanded the Israelites to make fringes upon the borders of their garments, that they might remember the Commandments of the Lord and keep them; the Sadducees gave themselves only to look upon the fringes, and if they had only remembered the Law, they thought then they had discharged their duties; but the end of the Pharisees was to remember their own traditions. So the end of the Monks Divinity now is only idle contemplation with the Sadducees; and the end of the Jesuits Divinity now is only to practice mischief: and many Christians when they read the Scriptures now, they read them not for practice, but for to pass the time with; they are like little children who seek Nuts to play, but not to break them and eat the kernels.

The conclusion of this is, I am. 1. 22. Be ye doers of the [Conclusi.] word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

EXERCITAT. IIII.

FIrst, consider in Adams knowledge, the manner how he got this knowledge, and secondly the measure of his knowledge.

His knowledge was inbred knowledge and not acquired; for as soon as he did behold the creatures, never having seen them before, he gave them all names according to their nature. This knowledge being inbred it could not be acquired also; nam duplex ejusdem scientiae in vno subjecto, non datur causa, there cannot be two causes given of one, & the self same knowledge in one subject, although one and the self same knowledge cannot be said both to be acquired and inbred, yet Adam might have had experimental knowledge, afterward of his inbred knowledge: His inbred knowledge and our acquired knowledge, are not divers sorts of knowledge, for as the sight restored to the blind although it was miraculous, yet when he saw, it was one sort of sight with our sight: so these inbred habits and acquired habits, are but one sort of habits; but these inbred habits in Adam, and infused habits, were more excellent than acquired habits; for these things which God doth, are such that nature cannot produce the like, or so perfect: as that wine which Christ made miraculously at the marriage of Cana in Galilee, John. 2. was more excellent wine than other natural wine: so when Christ cured the blind, their sight was more perfect than our natural sight; so when he made the lame to go Act. 3. 16. So the habits of inbred knowledge in Adam, were more perfect than any other sinful man could ever attain unto, after him.

The creatures are less than the knowledge of God; they were equal with the knowledge of Adam before his fall, but they exceed our knowledge now. When the eye looketh upon the white color, it scattereth the [Simile.] sight, and the white color exceedeth it; but when it looketh upon the green color, exaequat visum, and it is a proportionable object for the eye: but when it looketh upon a taunie color, it is less than the sight. So the creatures are less than God's sight; they were equal with Adams sight before his fall, like the green color, and they exceed our sight since the fall, as the white color doth exceed our sight; and because the heart since the fall is not so capable and so large to comprehend the knowledge of these creatures as it was before the fall, therefore it is said, 1 King. 4. 29. that the Lord gave Solomon a wise heart as the sand of the Sea shore, that is, to know an innumerable kind of things like the sand of the sea. When a man is to infuse liquor into a [Simile.] narrow mouthed vessel, that none if it run by, he enlargeth the mouth of the vessel: So did the Lord enlarge the heart of Solomon that he might conceive this heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge of all things; but the mind of Adam before his fall needed not this extension to rcceive these gifts.

Secondly, the great measure of this knowledge which Adam had before his fall, may be taken up this ways. The Hebrews write that there were four gates by the which Adam entered to see the Lord: the first was the gate of the visible creatures, the second was by the gate of the Angels, the third was by the gate of majesty, and the fourth was by the gate of glory; and they say that Adam entered three of these gates, but the fourth was shut that he entered not in at it in this life.

The first gate was opened unto him, for in the creatures below, here he saw the majesty and glory of God. The Scriptures when they express any great thing, they join the name of God with it, as Ezek. 13. 9. great hail is called God's hail or sent by God, el gabbish. So 1 Sam. 26. cecidit sopor domini super eos, that is, a great sleep fell upon them. So a strong Lyon is called ariel, the Lyon of God, 2 Sam. 23. 10. So Moses is said to be fair to God, that is, very fair, Act. 7. 20. So Nineveh was great to God, that is, very great. The beauty and greatness in the creatures led Adam to take up how great the Lord was. Jacob when he saw Esau reconciled unto him, said, I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, Gen. 33. 10. This glimpse of goodness in the face of Esau, made Jacob take up, how good God was unto him.

The second gate was porta intelligentiarum, the knowledge of the Angels, they resembled God more than any visible creature doth, therefore they are called God's Sons, Job. 1. Chapt. and 38. Chapter, 7. verse, and they see his face continually. Matthew 18. verse 10. As the Kings courtiours are said to see his face continually, 2 King. 25. 25. and the Angels conversing with him, made him to come nearer to the knowledge of God.

The third gate was porta Majestatis, he saw the majesty of God more clearly than any other did. Moses is said to see the face of God, and yet it was but the sight of his back parts, compared with Adams; and we see him but through a grate, Cant. 2. 11. Heb. 11. 26.

The fourth gate was porta gloriae. That gate was reserved to be opened for him in the heavens.

Let us compare the most excellent men with Adam, and see which of them came nearest unto him; in some things Moses came nearest to him, in somes things Solomon came nearest unto him, and in some things Daniel, in some things Joseph, but Christ the second Adam excelled them in all.

In the knowledge and sight of God and his attributes, Moses came nearest to him. Exod. 33. 13. Teach me thy ways, that is, thy attributes. So Psal. 103. 7. He made known to Moses his ways, that is, his attributes, for he subjoineth, the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and full of compassion, and he chideth not forever; here his ways are his attributes, Moses came nearest to Adam in this knowledge.

Solomon in the knowledge of the politickes came nearer to Adams knowledge than Moses did; Moses sat all the day long to judge the people, Exod. 18. and he stood in need of Jethro's counsel to make choice of helpers; but Solomon could have found out all these things by himself without the help of another. Solomon begged wisdom of God, and it was granted unto him, he desired wisdom to be his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be president of his counsel, and to be his assister or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & to be his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to rule happily, Wisdom. 9. 4. Solomon came nearest to the knowledge of Adam in the Politickes, and he is preferred to the wisest within the Church, as to Heman and Dedan, 1 King. 4. 3. and to the wisest without the Church, as to the Egyptians.

As he came nearest to Adams knowledge in the Politickes, so likewise in the knowledge of natural things, for as he wrote from the Cedar of Lebanus to the Hyssop that grew out of the Wall, 2 King. 4. 33. that is, as Josephus explaineth it; he wrote parables and similitudes taken from everyone of these kinds: and Tertullian saith well, Familiare est sacris scriptoribus ut sublimiores veritates explicent per sensibilia; nam idem qui est author naturae, est author gratiae: It is an usual thing to the holy writers to illustrate heavenly things by earthly comparisons, for he that is the God of nature is also the God of grace. Solomon wrote from the tall Cedar to the small Hyssop that groweth out of the wall, that is, from the greatest to the smallest, then he passeth by none of them: for it is the manner of the Hebrews to mark the two extremes, and to leave the midst for brevities cause, as Num. 6, 4, from the kernel to the husk, here the Scripture omitteth the wine which is the midst betwixt the kernel and the husk. Another example, Exod. 11. 5. And all the first borne of the land of Egypt shall die, from the first borne of Pharaoh that sitteth upon the throne, unto the first borne of the maidservant that sitteth behind the Mill. The Scripture omitteth the midst here, the rest of the people for shortness, and expresseth only the two extremes, the highest and the lowest. A third example, Job 24. 20. The womb shall forget him, and the worms shall feed sweetly upon him, the birth, and the grave, the two extremes include the whole life. So Psal. 121. 8. The Lord shall keep thy going in, and going out, that is, all thy ways: So Solomon writing of the two extremes, the tallest and the least, includeth all the rest. Now if Solomon had such knowledge of these natural things, much more had Adam.

Adam had such knowledge of the creatures that he gave them fit names in the Hebrew expressing their natures, he was a good nomenclator to give everything the right name. Plato in Cratillo showeth that he who giveth the right name to a thing, must know the nature of it very well; but since the fall men impose wrong names to things, as they call light darkness, and darkness light.

When he gave names to the creatures, he gave not names to these creatures in particular that had not principium individuationis in se, and which differed not something in subsistence from others, as all herbs of the same kind, and trees and stones of the same kind; he gave not a name to everyone of them in particular, but gave one name to them all of the same kind: but these who differed not in essence but in the manner of their subsisting, to these he gave diverse names, as he called himself Adam and his wife Eve. And we are to observe that there are many names which Adam gave to the creatures in the first imposition, which are not found in the Scriptures now: the Elephant the greatest beast upon the earth, yet it hath no proper name given to it, in the Scripture it is called Behemoth, Job 40. 15. and the teeth of the Elephant are called Shenhabbim, the teeth of Ivorie, but not the teeth of the Elephant; and usually the Scripture expresseth only the word teeth, as 1 King. 10. 18. he made a Throne of teeth, but not of the teeth of the Elephant, because the Elephant was not so known to the Jews; therefore the Scripture doth only circumscribe this beast and the horns of it; but Adam gave the greatest beast a proper name when he imposed names to the beasts.

When Adam imposed names to the beasts, he imposed proper names to them, not circumscribing them as the Scripture doth now for our capacity; example, Shemamith with the hands of it takes hold on kings houses, because this word is a hard word to be understood, and may signify either a Spyder weaving with her hands; or else 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Monkie with a long tail (for kings are delighted in their palaces with such when they see them hung by the hands) because we cannot take up the nature of this beast by the name alone, therefore the Scriptures by the effects and properties of it, describeth it more at large for our capacity; but Adam at the first imposed the simple name.

These names which Adam gave to the beasts at the first were most perfect names, therefore ye shall see other languages to keep some footesteppe still of the first imposition, as 1 King. 10. 22. Tukkijm are called Peacoks, the Talmud calleth it Tabhas, the Arabic called it Taus, and the Latin Pavo.

David came nearest to Adam in prudency, for although he was not so wise as Solomon, yet erat prudentior Salomone he was more prudent than Solomon; therefore the woman of Tekoah said to him, Thou art wise as an Angel of God, 2 Sam. 14. 20.

The Lord asked the king of Tyrus if he could match Daniel in wisdom, Ezek. 28. 3. Behold thou art wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee. Daniel exceeded all the Chaldeans in wisdom, and the Chaldeans exceeded the Tyrians, therefore Daniel far exceeded all the Tyrians: but yet if we will compare Daniel's wisdom with the wisdom of Solomon, it will come far short; for Solomon exceeded all the children of the East in wisdom, and came nearest to Adams knowledge, no sort of wisdom was hid from Solomon, Daniel only exceeded in interpreting of secrets and heavenly visions.

Joseph came nearest to him in oeconomie, Psal. 105. 22. he exceeded the Princes of Egypt in wisdom, & taught their senators.

Jesus Christ the second Adam, the personal wisdom of God his Father, far excelled Solomon; here is a greater than Solomon. Jesus Christ the second Adam as he excelled Solomon far; so did he the first Adam in wisdom, Psal. 45. 2. Thou art fairer than the Children of men, in the original it is Iophjaphitha, which the Hebrews doubling, express the great beauty that was in him; and sometimes it is put in two words, as Ier. 46. gnegla jephe pija, that is, very fair. Christ the second Adam in outward beauty exceeded not, Non erat decor in facie ejus, He had no form nor comeliness: and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isaiah. 53. 2. but in inward wisdom and grace he was fairer than the Sons of men, and excelled the first Adam.

The conclusion of this is, Adam having such measure [Conclusion.] of knowledge before his fall, what great presumption was it in him to presume above that which was revealed unto him. Let us be content not to be wise above that which is written, 1 Cor. 4. 6. and let us remember that saying of Augustine, Multi propter arborem scientiae amittunt arborem vitae.

EXERCITAT. V.

FIrst, let us inquire how these first Principles which are called primo-prima, are made up in the hearts of man. Secondly, how these secundo-prima principia are deduced out of these. And thirdly, how these principia make up this which we call Conscience: and lastly, we shall show that man by this natural knowledge ingraft in his heart, cannot come to the true and saving knowledge of God.

These first Principles are made up after this manner: The Lord hath put two faculties into the Soul, one which we call speculative in the understanding, and another which we call a practik faculty in the will, to prosecute these things which the understanding showeth to her. God hath placed first the speculative in the understanding, that it might follow that eternal reason that is in God's Law; for as it is the perfection of Art to imitate nature, so it is the perfection of nature to imitate this eternal reason, which is God's Law; Then he hath placed the will into the soul of man to prosecute those things, which the understanding the speculative faculty showeth unto it.

There are some primo-prima principia, in the speculative faculty, and some in the practic faculty; this is a principle in the speculative faculty; Omne totum est majus sua parte, and this is the first principle in the practike faculty, the will, Matth. 7. 12. Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

These primo-prima principia are not naturally known quoad actum perfectum, but they are in potentia propinqua, that is, they may be most easily known; for that which is actually perfect in the first degree, is always known, and as soon as the creature existeth, so soon they are known; as the knowledge of an Angel is not potential but ever actual: but these first principles are made up without any reasoning discourse or foraigne help. And as it is natural for a stone to move downward, although it be not always moving downward, yet because it hath that weight within it self, and needeth no other help to make it move downward, as it needeth of a foraigne help to cause it to ascend; therefore this motion is said to be natural to it. So because the mind can make up these principles without any discourse; therefore they are said to be natural to it: but when we make up a conclusion in a syllogism, the knowledge of this conclusion is not so easily known to me: but we must borrow some midsts, which are more known to us, to make up this conclusion. These first principles are naturally known, but the conclusion in the syllogism is ratíonaliter known only, by way of discourse. These first principles the Divines call rations eternas, dignitates, immobilia principia, and the Greeks call them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If the judgment be sound and well disposed, then it agreeth to those first principles; but if it be corrupt it declineth them. It is not necessary that all agree in these first principles, for although some be found who deny them, yet they stand as principles to those who are of sound judgments; children and mad men understand not these first principles, yet those who are of sound judgment, do acknowledge them.

These first principles are not actually written in the heart of man, but potentially: the mind of man is not like a seminarie, which containeth in it diverse sorts of seeds: neither is it like the Flintstone which hath the fire lurking within the veins of it, and being stricken upon the steel, casteth out the sparkels of fire which lurked in the veins of it before: but it is like unto the eye, which being enlightened by the Sun, hath that natural faculty in it to discern colors: So the mind frameth these principles when the objects are laid before it.

And out of these primo-prima principia, the mind frameth, and maketh up secundo-prima principia: the difference betwixt these primo-prima principia, and secundo-prima is this: these primo-prima principia, first inbred principles are contained in the conclusions; but these secundo-prima principia, these second inbred principles, are as conclusions contained in the principles: now to clear this by example; this is a first inbred principle in the mind; whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: this is a second imbred principle drawn from the first, ye shall not murder; this conclusion drawn from the first principle, containeth in it this first principle, whatsoever ye would men, &c. So that any man may infer thus; I may not kill my neighbor, because I will that no man should kill me; here this principle is contained in the conclusion. There are other conclusions drawn from these secundo-prima principia, which may be called tertiae conclusions, and these are not so easily made up as the first; here the conclusions are contained in the principles, and not the principles in the conclusions as before; example, honor thy father, and thy mother; this is a second principle; and this; thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, Livit. 19. 23. is a conclusion of the third sort: for this followeth not so clearly as the former conclusion, Ye shall rise up before the hoary head; therefore ye shall honor your father and your mother: but rather this ways, ye shall honor your father and your mother; therefore ye shall rise up before the hoary head: hear the conclusion is contained in the principle and not contra.

This law written in the heart of man, maketh up this which we call conscience, which is an inbred light in the mind of man, teaching him to follow that which is good, and to eschew that which is evil: and it is called conscientia, quasi concludens scientia; and it hath a twofold Act; the first is to give testimony to things, whether we have done them well or ill; if we have done them well, then it giveth testimony for us, Rom. 9. 1. my conscience also bearing me witness; and if we have done evil, then it testifieth against us. Gregory Nazianzen used to call the conscience paedagogum animae; for as a Pedagogue waiteth upon a child, and commendeth him when he doth well, and whippeth him when he doth evil; so the conscience when a man sinneth, it stingeth him like Hornets, Deut. 7. 20. but when he doth well, it alloweth him: and that which we call conscience, the Syriac calleth it Tira, Rom. 2. 15. Which signifieth a painted thing, for the conscience now is like a table, in which sundry things are painted; and this sort of writing in the consciences, hath not been unfitly compared to that writing, which we write with the juice of an Onion; here the letters at the first are not legible, [Simile.] but hold the paper to the fire, and that maketh the letters legible: So these evil deeds, which sink first into the conscience, and are not legible, yet when the conscience is put to the fire of God's wrath, then they begin to appear legible, and then the Lord setteth their sins in order before them, Psal. 50. 21. The second act of the conscience is to bind or loose; for even as a man, when he is bound hand and foot, he cannot stir out of the place; so the light which is in the conscience, bindeth the will of man, so to do a thing; that he cannot do any other thing unless he sin against it. Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of saith is sin, that is, whatsoever he doth against his conscience, in that, he sinneth.

This conscience is either a good conscience, a bad conscience; a doubting conscience, a probable conscience, or a scrupulous conscience.

A good conscience is that, which is well informed, and concludeth rightly.

A bad conscience is that, which is wrongly informed, and concludeth falsely.

A doubtful conscience is that, which neither doth assent nor dissent, and therefore concludeth nothing.

A probable conscience is that, which concludeth as it thinketh, upon probable and good reasons.

And a scrupulous conscience is that, which concludeth, but with some fear or doubting, which troubleth the mind. Let us take but this one example for all in the case of eating of meat: The good conscience saith, To the pure all things are pure, and therefore I may eat of this meat: the bad conscience of the Jew saith, Touch not, taste not, handle not; therefore I will eat none of this, because it is unclean. The doubtful conscience doubteth whether he may eat of it, Rom. 14. 23. but doth not fully conclude with the Jew, that he may not eat of it. The probable conscience is this, which upon probable grounds, concludeth to eat of it. In Corinth some doubted whether they might eat of flesh sold in the Shambles, 1 Cor. 10. because perhaps they might light upon that in the Market, whereof the other part was sacrificed to Idols; but the probable conscience concludeth to eat of it, because in the Shambles it hath no relation to the Idol, and it knoweth, by all probability, that the rest of it was not sacrificed to Idols, but that the Priest got the rest for his portion; he seeth others who are men of a good conscience, eat of such; and upon these probable grounds he eateth of it. The scrupulous conscience is this which inclineth to eat, but with fear and grief to his mind, when he eateth it.

The light in the conscience since the fall maketh not up this good conscience, but it maketh this ill conscience, and it troubleth the scrupulous conscience, and this doubtful conscience.

This bad conscience it excuseth or accuseth: it excuseth an unregenerate man falsely, when he heareth the curses of the Law, and blesseth himself in the meanetime, Deut. 29. 19. John. 16. 2. Secondly, it excuseth him falsely, when he assenteth to the principles in general; but when he cometh to the particular application; he concludeth not rightly. When the Husbandmen killed the Lord of the Vineyard, Christ asked of the Jews, what should become of these Husbandmen? Matth. 21. 41. they answered, he will destroy these wicked men: but Luk. 20. 16. when they consider this, that the matter touched them more nearly, then they said God forebid. The thing which they assented to in the general, they shune it in particular, as if they should say, we are no such men, and we hope that God will not so deal with us. So when it accuseth for the breach of any superstitious ceremony, as it did the superstitious Philistines; if they did but tread upon the Threshold of the Door, where Dagon break his neck, 1 Sam. 4. 5. So a bad conscience accuseth a man truly sometimes, as Eccles. 7. 22. for oftentimes also, thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself hast cursed others.

The conscience bindeth as the Lord's deputy; the conscience may be compared to the Kings Herald. The Herald intimateth to the Subjects the Kings laws; When they are intimated, the Subjects are bound to obedience: but if the Herald should make intimation, of that which were not the Kings Law, unto the Subjects; yet they are to give obedience to it, until they know the contrary: so a man is bound to obey his conscience, that is, to do nothing contrary to it, although it intimate a falsehood unto him.

How can an evil conscience bind a man to that [Quest.] which is evil; it being God's Deputy, and God can bind no man to do evil?

It bindeth him not simply to do the evil, but it bindeth [Answ.] him to do nothing against it: God cannot bind a man so, but he simply bindeth him always, to do right because he cannot err; judging that to be done which is not to be done, as the conscience doth.

When a good conscience doth bind a man, and [Quest.] when an evil conscience doth bind a man, what is the difference between these two sorts of binding?

A good conscience bindeth a man forever, but a bad [Answ.] conscience bindeth not forever, but only so long as he taketh it to be a good conscience: he is bound to do nothing against his conscience, albeit it be erroneous: but he is bound to search the truth, and then to lay aside this erroneous conscience.

So out of these principles naturally bred in the heart, arise all these laws which are written in the heart; and they differ from the laws of nations, or municipal laws of countries. Isaiah 24. 5. saith, they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant: they have transgressed the Laws, that is, the municipal Laws of the common-wealth: they have changed the ordinances: that is, these things wherein all nations agree; as not to do wrong to strangers, to ambassadors and such: and then he cometh to the greatest of all; they have broken the everlasting covenant; that is, the law of nature: it is less to break a municipal law, than the law of nations; or it is less to transgress the law of nations, than to violate the Law of nature; for this Law is that: light which lighteneth every man, that cometh into the world, John. 1. 9.

A man by this natural knowledge, cannot be brought to the knowledge of his salvattion; therefore the Law must be written anew again in his heart. It is a strange position of Clemens Alexandrinus, who holdeth that there was alia justitia secundùm legem naturae, alia secundùm legem Mosis, et alia secundùm Christum; and he calleth these two first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or degrees to lead to Christ; and as the Law led the Jews to Christ, so did philosophy lead the Greeks; and hence he concludeth, that the good men amongst the Heathen were saved, or at least had some steps to salvation.

The conclusion of this is, seeing the conscience is so [Conclusion.] obscured, and corrupted through the fall, we must labor to reduce it to the first estate again. When a compass is out of frame, we touch the needle of the compass with a Loadstone, that the stone may draw it right to the pole again: So the mind must be touched with the Loadstone of the Spirit of grace, that it may come back again to the Lord, as to the pole.

EXERCITAT. VI.

BEfore the Law was written, the Hebrews say, that the Lord gave to Noah seven Precepts, which were delivered of Noah by tradition to his posterity after him; these the Jews call pirke abhoth, capitula patrum, the traditions of the fathers. The most ancient & first tradition that we read of, was that, Gen. 32. 32. because Jacob halted upon his thigh, therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew wbich shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh unto this day; So were these seven precepts delivered by tradition.

The first was against strange worship or idolatry, that they should not worship false gods; and this they called gnabhuda zara, strange worship. The second they called it gnal birkath hashem, that is, they should bless the name of God. The third was gnal shepukoth dan • mim, that is, he was forbidden to shed innocent blood. The fourth was gnalui gniria, that is, he should not defile himself with filthy Insts. The fifth was gnad hagazael, de rapina; that he should take nothing by violence or theft. The sixth was, gnal hadinim de judiciis. The seventh was, abhar min achai, ne menbrum de vivo; that he should not pull a member from a living creature, and eat of it. This precept they say, was given last to Noah, Gen. 9. 4. but the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat: that is, (as the Jews interpret it) ye shall not pull a member from a living creature, & eat of it, as the wild beast doth; but to stay until the beast be killed, and then eat the flesh thereof: neither shall ye eat the blood while it is hot, as if it were yet in the body: this is cruelty, & against a moral precept; to eat hot blood while the life is in it; for where the reason of the Law is perpetual, the Law must be perpetual. The reason of the Law is; ye shall not eat blood because the life is in it; so long as the life is in it, ye must not eat it: and see how this sin, Ezek. 33. 35. is matched with other great sins. Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes towards your Idols, and shed blood, and shall ye possess the land? The moral transgressions of the Law joined with it here, showeth that it is cruelty to eat hot blood. But Levite. 7. 27. was the ceremonial part of the Law: and the Apostles in the council, Act. 15. forbiddeth them to eat anything that was strangled; whereby they meant the ceremonial part of the Law.

Whether are we to take these precepts as ceremonial or as moral? [Quest.]

The most of these are moral precepts, and the [Answ.] same which are set down again in the Law: For when the Apostles biddeth them abstain from fornication, Act. 15. It is the same that is forbidden in the fourth precept given to Noah, not revelare turpitudinem, and to interpret here, fornication, for eating of things sacrificed to Idols, seemeth to be a strained sense: for that is forbidden already by the first precept, to Noah. And to uncover the nakedness according to the phrase of the Scripture, is meant of bodily pollution and not of spiritual fornication.

Now besides these moral precepts set down by the council; they interlace this ceremonial precept de suffocato, forbidding to eat things strangled; and they give the reason wherefore the Gentiles should abstain from these, Act. 15. 21. For Moses is read in their Synagogues every Sabbath, as if James should say, they profess not only the moral Law, but also the ceremonial Law yet; therefore ye Gentiles shall do well to abstain, from these things which may give them offense. The Jews respected these precepts most, because they were kept in the Church even from Noah's days.

The Hebrews add further; that there was no other precept given until Abraham's days; then God added the precept of circumcision, and afterwards taught them to separate tithes.

The Lord taught his Church in her infancy this ways by traditions, and not be write: and even as parents teach their children the first elements by word, [Simila.] and afterwards by write; so the Lord taught his Church first by word, and then by write.

The conclusion of this is. The Lord never left his [Conclusion.] Church without his word to direct her: before the fall, he spake immediately to Adam and Eve, & taught them. In the second period, he taught them by these seven precepts. In the third period, by the Law written, and in the fourth period by the Gospel.

EXERCITAT. VII.

GOd manifested himself to his Church; first by prophesy, secondly, by the holy Spirit, thirdly by Vrim and Thummim, and fourthly by the pool Bethesda.

First by prophesy. There were sundry sorts of prophecy: the first was lepi face to face, to Moses only.

This sort of prophesy was the highest degree of revelation; and it drew nearest to that sort of vision, which we shall get of God in the heavens. He manifested himself to Moses face to face, and he knew him by his name, that is, not only by the face, as Princes know many of their Subjects; but he knew him inwardly, and liked him: this was notitia approbationis.

Moses saw God face to face, yet he saw not the essence of God, for he dwelleth in a light inaccessable. John saw God three manner of ways. First, in his incarnation, he saw God dwelling amongst men in the flesh here. Secondly, in his transfiguration upon the Mount. Thirdly, in the Spirit upon the Lord's day, Rev. 1. 10. Although John lay in the bosom of Christ and was his beloved Disciple, yet he saith, No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father he hath declared him. John. 1. 18.

When God spake to Moses, he spake to his underderstanding immediately. A man hath a right ear, and a left ear; the understanding is like the right ear and the fantasy is like the left ear: he spake to Moses [Differ. 1] right ear, to his understanding: but when he spake to the rest of the Prophets, by some shapes and visible forms; he spake first to their left ear. Moses saw no visible shapes nor forms, except only in the entry of his calling, when he saw the bush burning, Exod. 3. 6. and the Angel coming to kill him in the Inn, Exod. 4. 24. and when he saw the pattern of the Tabernacle in the Mount, Heb. 9. but usually God manifested himself to his understanding.

Secondly, the other Prophets were astonished and weakened at the sight of God. Dan. 8. 27. and I Daniel [Differ. 2] fainted and was sick certain days, and I was astonished at the visions. So Ezekiel fell upon his face when the Lord revealed himself unto him. Chap. 3. 27. But Moses was never afraid at the sight of God but thrice. First when he was to enter in his calling when he saw the bush burning. Exod. 3. 2. Secondly, at the giving of the Law, Heb. 12. 21. Thirdly, in the Inn.

Thirdly, Moses needed not such preparations before he prophesied, as some of the other Prophets did. Elisha [Differ. 3] before he prophesied, called for a Minstrel to settle his passions; that he might be the more fit to receive his prophesy. 2 King. 3. 15. But Moses needed not such a preperation. So Paul when he was ravished to the third heaven, this knowledge which he got, was intellectual, and it was neither by the sight, nor by the fantasy: and whether the soul was in the body here tanquam in organo, vel tanquam in seed only, it may be doubted.

The second sort of prophesy, was by vision; as when Moses saw the bush burning, this was presented to him when he a was awake; this was the meanest sort of revelation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The third sort was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when something was presented to their fantasy in a dream.

These visions which he show to the Prophets, sometimes they were of things which really existed; as Zechariah saw Joshua the high Priest, and Satan standing at his right hand. Zach. 3. Sometimes of things that might be and was not: as Zechariah saw two women carrying an Ephath, Zach. 5. 5. and sometimes of things that were not, nor never could be: as the monstrous beasts shown to Daniel, and to John in the revelation.

When the Lord revealed himself to the Prophets in these visions: sometimes he spake mediately to them by an Angel. As Exod. 3. 2. God is said there to appear to Moses; but Act. 7. 30. an Angel is said to appear in the burning bush. Sometimes again in these apparitions, he immediately appeared to the Prophets. John. 12. 40. He blinded their eyes, &c. these things he said when he saw his glory, that is, when he saw Christ's glory.

When the Angels did appear to the Prophets in these visions, they appeared in the shapes of men, but they never appeared in the likeness of women, far less in the likeness of beasts, as the Devil doth: therefore Levite. 17. 7. they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto Devils, in the Hebrew it is, leshegnirem, to the hoary ones; because the Devil appeared in these shapes. When the Cherubims appeared they carry the face of a man, the crest of a Lyon, the feet of the Ox, and the wings of an Eagle; they had not four faces (as some think) but in something they represented man, in someting the Lyon, in something the Ox, and in something the Eagle: panim here should be translated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

When the Angels appeared to the Prophets, there was more glory in them, then in other men; although sometimes they concealed this glory for a while, as may be seen Gen. 18. comparing it with Heb. 13. 2. When Paul saw an Angel standing by him in the likeness of a man of Mecadonia; there was more glory in him, than in all the men of Mecadonia, Act. 16. 9, Because the glory of an Angel did shine in him: and in this sense it is said, Act. 6. 15. that they saw the face of Steven as it had been the face of an Angel, that is, his face did shine above the face of mortal men, as when the Angels appeared in human shape. But when the Lord appeared in the likeness of a man, then his glory far exceeded the glory of an Angel, Esa. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne. First, he was set upon a high throne. Secondly, his clothes reached down to the ground, which signifieth his glory▪ the hem of his garment touched the ground, which signyfied the humanity of Christ: and the Seraphims covering their faces, because they could not behold the glory of God. And when the Lord appeared in these visions, he appeared in the likeness of an old man: as Daniel saw the Ancient of days sitting upon a throne, Dan. 7. 9. and Reve. 1. 14. when the Son of God appeared, his hair was white as wool, and white as Snow: but the Angels of the Lord appeared in the likeness of young men, Mark. 16. 5. and the Cherubims were made like young men.

Which of the Prophets saw the most excellent visions.

[Quest.] Ezekiel saw the most excellent visions. Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, Esa. 6. 1. but this was a vision of judgment, to make fat the hearts of the people: but the visions of Ezekiel for the most part were of [Answ.] Christ and the building of the spiritual Temple. These visions were so high, that the Jews forbad any to read them ante annum sacerdotalem, that is, before they were thirty years of age.

Whether were the revelations by visions, or by [Quest.] dreams, or that which was intellectual more perfect?

Thomas answereth; that the vision which was to the [Ans.] fantasy, was more agreeable to the nature of man, and to his estate here: But that which was immediately to the understanding, cometh nearer to our estate in glory.

It is generally to be observed here; that in all these sorts of visions, and apparitions, they understood that which they prophesied: and therefore the Prophets were called videntes, Seers, Job. 13. 1. mine eyes hath seen all these things, mine ears hath heard them, and I understand them all. Pharaoh did not understand these things which he saw; therefore he was not a Prophet: So Belthasser when he saw fingers writing upon the wall, he undernot that which he saw, and therefore he was not a Prophet: and so Caiaphas understood not what he prophesied. John. 11. They were like unto men who are purblind and see not a thing distinctly: and therefore desires others to tell them more distinctly what it is. The Jews say of these, that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, they were stirred up by God, but they sought not the Lord. And of Balaam they say, prophetavit ex voluntate Dei, sed non cepit quod prophetavit. Daniel at the first understood not the prophesy, but the Angel revealed it unto him, Dan. 8. 17.

So the Lord appeared to them in Dreams as he did before to them when they were awake, and sometimes these dreams were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dreams in which they saw some shapes and visions; as Jacob saw a ladder in his dream: so Abraham in his dream, saw the Carkases, and fowls lighting upon them. Gen. 15. 8. Daniel saw the four monarchies, represented befoure visible shapes, Dan. 4. and sometimes he revealed himself sine symbolo, without any visible shape; as to Joseph, Matt. 2. and to the wise men, Mat▪ 2. 12.

The Lord was only author of these dreams, therefore. Gen. 37. 7. when Joseph is called bagnal chalamoth, it is not well translated Lord of dreams, for God himself is only Lord of dreams. The Seventie translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , infomniator, and it signifieth not simple a dreamer but him who dreameth often, therefore chalamoth is in the plural number. If the Lord revealed himself in the forepart of the night as he did to Abraham, then it was called Tardema, a dead sleep, 1 Sam. 26. cecidit sopor domini super eos id est magnus. But if in the latter part of the night, then it was called chalam, a dream. To some he revealed himself in a dream, but he gave then not the interpretation of it, as to the Butler and Baker. Some had the interpretation of the dream, but not the dream, as Joseph. Nebuch • dnezzer had the dream, but Daniel the interpretation of it, but the Prophets of God: had both the dream and the interpretation of it, as Daniel. The heathen sometimes had both the dream and the interpretation, as the Midianites had of the Barly cake. Iud. 7. but this was for their destruction: but the comfortable dreams and visions, with their interpretations; were only revealed to the Prophets, for the good of the Church.

Whether was the revelations by dreams, or by visions the more perfect revelation? [Quest.]

Intensive the revelation by vision was the more excellent, but extensive the revelation by dreams was the more excellent, and that by vision came nearest to that which was intellectual, for they had no use of their senses in it, & the visions were presented to their understanding only. When we take up a thing by sense; first the sense transmiteth it to the fantasy, and then the fantasy sendeth it to the understanding; this is the most imperfect sort of knowledge. Secondly, when the vision is presented to the fantasy only, and the fantasy sendeth it to the understanding, this is more perfect then the former. And thirdly, when the vision is presented to the understanding only, this is a higher degree.

In the Knowledge which they got by dreams, first, they had the dream, and when they were awake they got the understanding of it: but in a vision they presently understood the thing presented unto them. Because the revelation by vision was the more perfect sort of knowledge, therefore Joel saith your young men shall see visions, and then he added, your old men shall dream dreams, as the more imperfect sort of revelation, Joel. 2. 28.

It may be asked why God revealed himself this way [Quest.] by dreams?

The reasons were these. First these things which [Ans.] we begin to think upon when we are awake we begin to try them by reason, and if reason approve them not then we reject them, but in a dream the mind receiveth [Reason 1] things not examining them by reason. In matters Divine the less that reason have a hand in admitting of them the better it is, and here it was better for the Prophets to be ruled by God, and fitter for them to be scholars then judges.

The second reason why he taught his Prophets by [Reason 2] dreams was this, to let them see how far his power exceeded the power of man; for masters cannot teach scholars; but when they are awake and giving heed: but God can teach his Prophets in a deep sleep and in a dream: which gave the Prophets to understand what great commandment, the Lord had over all the faculties of their minds.

He revealed himself in dreams to them, to let [Reason. 3] them understand, that death took not away all knowledge from man, and that there was another way to get knowledge, than by discourse or reason.

The third way, how the Lord revealed himself to his Prophets; was by ruah hakkodesh, by the holy spirit: then the Prophets had all the use of their senses; hearing one speaking to them, as we do everyone another, and seeing, &c. and the more use that they have of their senses, the more imperfect was their revelation. Others distinguish this sort of revelation which was by the holy Spirit, from that which was properly called prophecy: they say these who spake by the holy spirit, & were Prophets in that sense, they were not called to attend still as Prophets; such as was David a King; & Daniel a Courtiour: But Isaiah and Jeremiah were Prophets properly so called: because they waited still, and attended in the school of the Prophets.

The fourth way, how God revealed himself, was by vrim & thummim, and they are always joined together except in two places of the Scripture, Exod. 17. 21. and 1 Sam. 28. 8. This was a different kind of revelation from the former: for by this the Priest did not prophesy, neither made songues to the praise of God: but having put on this breastplate, it was a sign to him that God would answer these doubts, which he asked of him, & it is called the Brestplate of judgment, mishpat signifieth, either the administration of public judgments, Esa. 41. 3. or private affairs, Pro. 13. 23. est qui absumitur absqe judicio, that is: because his family is not rightly administrat. It is called then the breastplate of judgment: because the Lord taught his people in their doubtful cases; what to do, by this vrim and thummim.

Exod. 28. 30. Thou shalt put in the breastplate Vrim and Thummim. Some hold that the twelve precious stones set in the breastplate, were called vrim and thummim: as Kimchi; but the Text maketh against that: for the breastplate, and the vrim and the thummim are distinguished verse. 30. Some of the Jews again incline most to this sense; that these two words vrim and Thummim were set in the breastplate as holiness to the Lord was written in great letters upon a plate of Gold, and set in the forehead of the highpriest. But it seemeth rather that they were two precious stones given by the Lord himself, to be set in the breastplate: and an Ancient Jew called Rabbi Bechai marketh, that these two are set down cum he demonstrativo for their excellency. Neither saith the Lord thou shalt make vrim and thummim as he said of the rest of the ornaments of the Highpriests, thou shalt make this or that.

It is commonly holden that the letters did shine out of the breastplate of Aaron, when the Lord gave his answers to him, that he might read the answer by the letters: but this could not be, as may appear by the form of the breastplate following.

When David asked of the Lord, 1 Sam. 23. 12. will the men of Keila deliver me and my men into the hands of Saul? the Lord said ijsgiru, they will deliver thee: here the letters in the breastplate would have made up this whole answer; Yod from Iehuda, Samech from Joseph, Gimel from Gad, Yod from Levi, Resh from Reuben, and Vau from Reuben, but Judges 20. 8. when the Israelites asked counsel of the Lord, who shall go up first to battle against Benjaman? it was answered, Iehuda Battechilla, Judah shall go up first, now there was not so many letters in the breastplate to express this answer, for there wanted four letters of the Alphabet in the breastplate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 Sam. 5. 23. when David inquired of the Lord, shall I go up against the Philistines? the Lord answered, Thou shalt not go up but fetch a compass behind them and come upon them over against the Mulberry trees. The letters in the breastplate could not express all this, therefore it was not by the letters that the Lord answered the Priest: but when he had on this breastplate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or rationale upon him, then the Lord taught him what to answer; and this breastplate was but a sign unto him, that the Lord would answer him, as Samson's hair was a sign unto him, that the Lord would continue his strength with him as long as he kept his hair; how was the strength in Samson's hair? not as in the cause, or in the subject, but only as in the sign, so in the Apostles garments and shadow; they were but a sign of their power which they had in healing miraculously; and so was vrim and thummim but a sign of this, that the Lord would answer the Priest.

The vrim and thummim were not always with the Ark; for all the time of Saul they asked not counsel of the Ark, 1 Chron. 13. 3. Let us bring again the Ark of our God unto us: for we inquired not at it, in the days of Saul; they went usually to ask counsel in the Tabernacle and Sanctuary of the Lord, Iud. 20. they went up to Silo, where the Tabernacle was, to ask the Lord then the Ark was in the Tabernacle: but when the Ark was separated from the Tabernacle, they might sacrifice in the Tabernacle. So they might ask the Lord here by vrim and thummim although the Ark was not there. When the High priest asked counsel for David, at Nob: the Ark was not there nor the Tabernacle; but only vrim and thummim: but when the Ark and the vrim and thummim were together, they always inquired the Lord before the Ark; and when they were separated; they turned their faces towards the Ark, wheresoever it was, when they asked counsel by the judgment of vrim and thummim. When David was in Ziglaeg, 1 Sam. 30. he asked counsel of the Lord by the Priest: but neither the Ark nor the Tabernacle was ever in Ziklag a town of the Philistines.

When any are said, to ask counsel of the Lord, who were not Highpriests; as the Israelites are said thrice to ask the Lord. Iud. 20. 18. 1 Sam. 14. 37. & 23. 2. 1 Chron. 14. they are understood to have done this by the High priest, for Num. 27. 21. Joshua is commanded to ask counsel at the Lord, by Eleazar the High priest.

The manner how he stood who asked counsel of the Lord by the High priest, He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Vrim before the Lord. Num. 27. 21. he stood not directly before the High priest, for then he should have stood betwixt him and the Ark: therefore liphne should be translated juxta, a latere, or beside the Priest. He stood by the High priest when he asked counsel, and he heard not what tht Lord said to the Priest; but the Priest gave him his answer.

When two things are demanded of the Lord, he answered in order to them. As 1 Sam. 23. 9. will they come up? The Lord answered, they will come up. So he answered to the second question, will they deliver me? They will deliver thee.

They asked not counsel of the Lord by Vrim and Thummim but in great and weighty matters; as David after the death of Saul, 1 Sam. 2. So 2 Sam. 5. they asked the Lord, for the King, for the common wealth or for a tribe, or for making of wars, but in matters of less moment they asked not the Lord, by Vrim and Thummim: as if anything had been committed to ones custody, and it was lost; they did not ask the Lord for it by Vrim and Thummim, but the oath of the Lord was betwixt them, Exod. 22. 11.

When they got their answers by Vrim and Thummim, the Lord confirmed their answers sometimes by lot. As 1 Sam. 10. 8. he asked first by Vrim and Thummim, who should be King? and then it was confirmed by lot. So when Joshua divided the Land, First, he got his answer by Vrim and Thummim, and then he biddeth them cast lots, & as their lots ascended, he distributed unto them, Num. 26. 55. When the High priest consulted, he stretched out his hands unto the Ark of the Lord. 1 Sam. 14. 19. collige manum tuam, draw in thine hand.

The difference betwixt the predictions of the Prophets and the Priest, by Vrim and Thummim was this. The Prophets when they foretold things, vt futura in seipsis, as to fall out in themselves; then they always fell out: but when they foretold things as they were in their causes; then they might fall out, or not fall out. Example, Isaiah saith to Hezekiah, set thy house in order for thou shalt die, and not live, Isaiah. 38. 1. looking to the second causes, and to Hezekiah, he shall die. But looking to the event, he shall not die. So 1 King. 21. 20. The Lord threatened to bring a judgment upon Ahab, and yet upon his humiliation spared him. So the Lord threatened … ve, forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed, Jonah. 3. 4. and yet when they humbled themselves they were not destroyed. But that which was revealed by the High priest, when he took on Vrim and Thummim, took always effect.

But it may be said, Iud. 20. 23. shall I go up to the [Object.] battle against the children of Benjamin our brother? The Lord answered, go up against him. And yet they were killed.

In this first answer the Lord showeth, that they had [Answ.] just cause to make war against Benjamin; but he an swered not to the success of the battle, because they were not as yet humbled; and they trusted too much to their own strength. But when Phineas demanded what they should do, verse. 28. when they were humbled: they got a direct and more distinct answer: go up, for tomorrow I will deliver them into thine hand.

Bellermine the Jesuit, that he may prove the infallibility of the Pope in judging in matters of faith; alledgeth the Vrim and the Thummim, which were upon the breastplate of the High priest; which directed him that he could not err in judgment. But this reason is faulty many ways. First, in the derivation of the names; for he deriveth Vrim from the root jara which signifieth, to teach; whereas it is derived from or to give light. So he deriveth thummim from the root A man, which signifieth to believe; whereas it cometh from tamam, to make a thing perfect. The seventy translate these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as ye would say, manifestatio & veritas. And so doth Jerome. But this they do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and they respect more the end here, wherefore they were put into the breastplate, than their proper significations. For as Vrim properly signifieth brightness, and figuratively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because that which maketh all things manifest is the light, Ephes. 5. 13. and this Thummim properly signifieth perfection; so figuratively in things spiritual, it signifieth verity. The Seventy looking to the figurative signification, translate them this ways.

Secondly, put the case that Vrim and Thummim signified doctrine and verity, yet it will not follow that the High priest might not err: for by these were signified not what sort of men they were, but what sort of men they ought to be. Prov. 16. 10. A divine sentence is in the lips of the King, and his mouth transgresseth not in judgment. Here is a clearer place that the King of Spain cannot err in judgment, than that the Pope cannot err in judgment; if ye will take words as they stand. But the meaning of the words is, a divine sentance ought to be in the lips of the King; and then his mouth will not transgress in judgment. So these two are set in the breastplate of Aaron, to teach him his duty: but they were not notes of his infallibility. And if by Vrim, they would infer his infallibility in judgment: so by Thimmim, they may infer his holiness of life: and so none of the Popes were profane and wicked men.

Thirdly, this breastplate served not for a trial of his doctrine, but only for foretelling of the doubtful events of things; for their doctrine was to be tried by the law and by the testimony, Esa. 8.

Fourthly, if Vrim and Thummim signified verity and judgment, then it should follow, that none of the Highpriests could err: but we know that Vrijah the High priest in the time of Achaz, brought the pattern of the Altar of Damascus, and placed it in Jerusalem. 2 King. 16. 6. And Caaiphas erred, when he condemned Christ to death.

Lastly, let this be granted, that the High priest under the law could not err; therefore that either Peter or the Pope his successor (as they allege) could not err, it will not follow. For this privilege, not to err, belongeth to none, but to Jesus Christ, of whom the High priest was a type; who had both Vrim and Thummim, purity of doctrine and perfection of life.

How long did the gift of prophesy endure in the second [Quest.] Temple.

The gift of prophesy endured under the Old Testament [Answ.] until the time of the Macedonian Empire. When Alexander the great did reign, Nehemiah maketh mention of one Iaddus the High priest, Neh. 12. 7. who met Alexander, when he came against Jerusalem. Now if there had been none, who were infallibly directed by the Spirit of God at this time; who could have put this into the canonical Scripture it being historical? therefore there behooved to be one at this time, who had the spirit of prophesy, and was one of the masters of the great Synagogue, who did this: and then the Sun went down upon the Prophets. Micah. 3. and the gift of prophecy ceased.

Thse gift of prophesy was bestowed anew again, in the second Temple, under the New Testament. Joel. 2. I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your young men shall see visions, &c.

This gift lasted in the Church, till the second Temple was destroyed. The Jews by a certain kind of Kabbala called gematrja, observe upon Hagg. 1. 8. it is written there ekkabhda, I will be glorified, because the word wanteth the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the end of it, which letter standeth for five; they say that the want of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , showeth the want of five things in the second Temple, which were in the first. The Ark, the mercy seat, and Cherubims. Secondly, the fire from Heaven. Thirdly, the majesty of Divine presence called shekena. Fourthly, the holy Ghost. And fifthly, Vrim and Thummim. But this rabbinicall observation is most impious, and serveth to overthrow all the whole New Testament, to deny Jesus Christ, and to condemn his Apostles and Evangelists; as though they had not the gift of the holy Spirit when they wrote, during the time of the second Temple: and this is contrary to the very scope of the Prophet, Hagg. 1. 8. Go up into the mountain, and bring wood to build this house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified saith the Lord, and Hagg. 2. 9. The glory of the latter house shall be greater then the former, and in this place will I give peace saith the Lord.

Whether were the Ark, the Vrim and Thummim, and [Quest.] the holy fire in the second Temple or not?

Although there was greater spiritual beauty in the [Answ.] second Temple, than in the first; yet the second Temple wanted this typical Ark, the Vrim and Thummim, and the fire; therefore it is but a fable of theirs, who say, that Titus after he had destroyed the second Temple, brought the Ark to Rome in his triumphs; but the Ark was never seen in the second Temple; and Josephus, who was an eye witness of Titus triumphs showeth, that it was only but the table of the shewbread which Titus carried away in his triumphs, and is seen yet pictured there.

The Vrim and Thummim were not in the second Temple, but the graces signified by them.

But it may be said. Nehem. 7. 65. and Ezra. 2. 63. That [Object.] they should not eat of the most holy things, until there stood up a Priest with Vrim and with Thummim.

It is the manner of the Scriptures to express the nature [Answ.] of the Church under the New Testament; by figures and types which were under the Old Testament: so by Vrim and Thummim which were in the first Temple; to express the perfection of the Priests, which should be in the second Temple.

The last way, how God revealed himself in the second Temple, was by the pool Bethesda: when the Angel came down at certain times to stir the pool, then whosoever after the first troubling of the water stepped in, he was cured of whatsoever disease. John. 5. 4. It was not the Angel that cured them here: for it is a true Axiom of the Schoolmen, pars nature a non potest super are naturam, an Angel is but a part of nature, therefore he cannot work a miracle, which is above nature. It was Christ himself who wrought the miracle, it was he who loosed the prisoners, Psal. 146. Mattir, is so to loose the bound, that they have use both of their hands and feet, to leap as freely as the Grasshopper doth, which hath legs to leap upon the earth, Levite. 11. 21. So the diseased were loosed, that they might leap and go straight upon their own feet. By Angel here some understand the power of God, who useth his Angels, as his ministers to work many things below here; and therefore the Seventy put God in place of the Angel, as Eccles. 5. 6. Say not before the Angel, that it was an error. But the Seventy translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the Chaldes use to ascribe the work of God to his ministers, the Angels. But it is better to ascribe this miracle here, to the Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. Tertullian saith, that the operation of the fishpoole being now to cease and to loose the virtue of it, our Savior curing him who had been long diseased, being at the pool, gave thereby an entrance to all sick persons to come unto him: as if he should have said, he that desires to be whole; let him not come to the pool, or expect the coming down of the Angel: for when he cometh, he healeth but one; but come unto me, and I shall heal you all.

The conclusion of this is, seeing we have a more [Conclusion.] clear manifestation of the will of God by Christ, than they had under the Law; let us beware to offend him now. He that despised Moses law, Heb. 10. 28. died without mercy, under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment shall we be thought worthy of, if we tread underfoot the Son of God.

EXERCITAT. VIII.

GOd thought it necessary, after that he had taught his Church by Word; next to teach her by write. There is a twofold necessity. The first is called an absolute necessity: the second, of expedience. Again, God's revealed will was necessary to all men, as a cause; but his written word was necessary as an instrumental cause; and this word is considered either essentially, or accidentally. Essentially for the written word: this written, and unwritten word, differ only as a man naked, and clothed; for there is no change in the nature [Simile.] and substance here. And that we may the better underderstand the necessity of the writing of the word, we must distinguish here the states of the Church. First, she was in a family or oeconomike. Secondly, she was National, dispersed through the country of the Jews. Thirdly, she was Ecomenicall or Catholic, dispersed through the whole world. So long as she was in a family, and the Patriarchs lived long, to record to the posterity, the word and the works of God; then God taught his Church by his word unwritten. But when his Church began to be enlarged, first through Judea, & then through the whole world, then he would have his word set down in write; because then the Fathers were not of so long a life, to record to the posterity, the word and the works of God. Again he did this to obviat the craft of the Devil, and the counterfeit writings of the false Apostles.

It was necessary then, that the word should be written, that the Church might have a greater certainty of their salvation. See how far the Lord commendeth unto us, the certainty which we have by the Scriptures; above all other sort of revelation. 2 Pet. 1-19. We have also a more sure word of prophesy: here the certainty of the Scriptures, is preferred to the transfiguration in the mount. Secondly, the Apostle Gal. 1. 8. preferreth it to the revelation made by Angels, If an Angel should come from heaven and teach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. Thirdly, Christ himself preferred the certainty of it to Moses and the Prophets. If one should come from the dead and teach us. Luke 16. 31.

The Church of Rome then doth great wrong to Christians; when they would make the last ground and stay of Christian faith, to be the Church only; But we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets, and Apostles, Ephe. 2. 20. the Lord when he dwelt between the Cherubims, he set the Candlestick upon his right hand, and the table with the shewbread upon his left hand: to teach us, that the Scriptures are to be preferred still to the testimony of the Church; and that we must rest upon their testimony primario.

Whether is it an Article of our faith, to believe that [Quest.] the Scriptures are the Word of God or not?

Some things are both de fide, & de verbo fidei; as [Ans.] Christ is Emmanuel. Secondly, some things are de verbo fidei but not de fide primario; as Paul left his cloak at Troas. Thirdly, some things are de fide, but non de verbo fidei, which are the conclusions drawn from the canonical word by consequence. And these are either drawn from the word generally; as this, that the Scriptures are the word of God. for this is evident from the whole word generally, and although this be a principle in it self, which ought first to be believed; yet in my conception, and manner of taking up, it is a conclusion arising from that majesty and Divine character which is in the word it self, or the particular conclusions drawn from the word. They are de fide, non de verbo fidei, as when a man concludeth, his own particular justification from the word; as I James am justified, est de fide mea, and not a part of the canonical word, but an application arising from it. Fourthly, something are neither de fides nor de verbo fidei.

Secondly, we may answer to this: whether the word written be an article of our faith or not. The articles of our faith are either taken generally, or specially: generally, for all that is contained in the Scriptures, or may be deduced by way of consequence from the Scriptures: then it is not an article of our faith, to believe the canon of the Scriptures. Secondly, specially for that which is contained in the Creed; for the Creed is the substance of that which is contained in the Scriptures; and then it is an article of our faith to believe the Cannon of the Scriptures.

The Scriptures of God, are considered essentially, or accidentally. Essentially, as they proceed from God; accidentally again, as they were written by such and such men. As they proceed from God, we must believe them to be true, and to be the means of our salvation; for saving truth is only from God. But if we consider them but accidentally, as they are written by such and such men, then it is not an article of our faith to believe them; for it maketh not to our salvation primario, to know that they were written by such and such men.

When the books in holy Scripture, carry the names of those who wrote them; as the books of Moses carry his name; if a man should deny these books to be written by Moses, & then be ignorant altogether of the matter contained in them; then his ignorance were damnable, and the denial of them heretical; they have Moses and the Prophets, Luk. 16.

But if the writer of the book be not set down in the Scripture; if a man should deny such a man to write it, he should not be reputed as an heretic for that; and to be ignorant that such a man wrote it, this were not damnable ignorance. Example, it is holden that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; now if a man should deny that Paul wrote this Epistle, he were not to be holden a heretic for that, neither were his ignorance damnable. A man may be ignorant of this or that book, and yet be saved, and many were saved before the books were written, and now many are saved who cannot read the Scriptures.

But when a man doubteth of the order and number of the books in the Canon, this argueth but his unskilfulness and infirmity, and the denial of the number and order of these books, is but heretical by accident, and the ignorance is not damnable.

When we believe such a book to be written by such [Quest.] a man, whether believe we this by a justifying faith, or by an historical faith?

When we believe that such a man wrote this book, [Ans.] this is but an historical faith, and this we have by the Church: but that which is dogmatical in this book, that we must believe out of the word it self; we being illuminate by the Spirit.

The conclusion of this is. Seeing God hath revealed [Conclusi.] his will in his word written to us, and remitted us always to the law and to the testimony, Isaiah 10. 8. John. 5. 49. search the Scriptures: therefore those who leave the Scriptures, and make choice of traditions; they forsake the fonntaine of living waters, and dignity Cisterns to themselves that can hold no water, Ier. 2. 13.

EXERCITAT. IX.

THe holy men of God, who were inspired by the holy Spirit to write the Scriptures: First they [Prorogative. 1] were immediately called by God. Gal. 1. 12. For the Gospel which I preached, I received it not of man, neither was I taught but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, they had not their calling from man, but immediately from God. They had their calling intuitu Ecclesiae, 1 Cor. 3. 2. sed non interventu Ecclesiae: that is, God ordained these offices for the good of the Church, and it was for the Church cause that he appointed them; but they had not their calling from the Church: But Preachers now have their calling both intuitu Ecclesiae, & interventu Ecclesiae. There is immedietas ration suppositi & immedietas ration virtutis: the first is, when the person is immediately separated by God to such a calling; the second is, when the graces and calling, are immediately given by God. When Ministers are called, they have their gifts immediately from God, and so they have their calling; there interveneth no suppositum, or midst between God and them: but for the appointing and designing of them to such places; that they have from the Church. But the Apostles were called immediately, both ration suppositi & vírtutis; they had their gifts immediately from God, neither were they designed to such and such plaees as the Ministers are now.

The Prophets and Apostles were immediately called by God, and therefore Matthias was chosen by lot to be an Apostle, because the lot is immediately directed by the hand of God; but Preachers now should not be chosen by lot. Zeno the Emperor tempted God in this case, laying a paper upon the Altar, that God might write in the paper the name of him, who should be Bishop of Constantinople: but Flavitius corrupting the Sexton of the Church, caused him to write in his name, and so was made Bishop of Constantinople.

But Moses learned from the Egyptians, and Daniel from the Chaldeans: therefore it may seem that they [Object.] had not their calling immediately from God.

They had the learning of human sciences and trades [Answ.] from men; as Paul learned from men to be a Tent maker: so Moses learned these human sciences from the Egyptians, & Daniel from the Chaldeans; but their knowledge, as Prophets & Apostles immediately was frō God. Although they had their divine knowledge immediately from God, yet they were to entertain it by reading, [Simile.] As the fire, that came from heaven upon the Altar was miraculous; yet when it was once kindled, they kept it in with wood, as we do our fire: So the Prophets knowledge was preserved by reading, as ours is.

Their second pretogative, was the measure of knowledge [Prerogative. 2] they had in matters Divine. Their knowledge far differed frō the knowledge of Christ; this was visio vnionis, & this excelled the knowledge of all creatures, even of the Angels: this was not called prophesy, as he was comprehensor; but as he was viator here upon the earth, this his illumination is called Prophesy; he is called the great Prophet, Deut. 18. 15. and in this sort of knowledge he excelled both men and Angels. Secondly, their knowledge differed from the knowledge of Angels, and the glorified Spirits: for prophesy as Peter saith, 2 Pet. 1. 19. is like a light shining in a dark place, but in Heaven there is no darkness.

Thirdly, their knowledge differed from the knowledge that Paul had, when he was taken up to the third heaven; and this was called visio raptus: their knowledge was far inferior to all these sorts of knowledge; but it far exceeded all the knowledge that we have.

Whether had the Prophets of God, and the Secretaries [Quest.] of the holy Ghost; this their Prophesy, and divine knowledge, by way of habit or no? [Answ.]

They had not this gift of prophesy by way of habit, as the children of God have their faith: and as Bezaliell and Aholiab, although they had their knowledge immediately from God, to work all curious works in the Tabernacle; yet they kept still this their knowledge as an ordinary habit; but this gift of prophesy, the Prophets had it not as a habit, but they had need still of new illumination when they prophesied. Peter compareth prophesy to a light shining in a dark place, 2 Pet. 1. 19. how long continueth light in a dark house? no longer then a candle is there: so this coruscation, [Simile.] or glimpse of the Spirit, continued no longer with them; but when the Spirit was illuminating them, and teaching them: they had the gift of prophesy even as they had the gift of healing; but they could not heal when and where they pleased. Paul saith, I have left Trophimus sick at Miletum, 2 Tim 4. 20. So they could not prophesy when and where they pleased, 2 King. 4. 27. The Lord hath hid it from me and hath not told it me, they had not this prophesy as a permanent habit; but as that, which was now and then revealed unto them. Ier. 42. 7. And it came to pass after ten days; here the Prophets behooved to attend, until he got a new revelation from the Lord; and sometimes they waited longer, and sometimes shorter for this revelation.

How differed the Prophets then from other men, [Quest.] when they prophesied not?

First, ye shall see a difference between them and [Ans.] others who prophesied. Num. 17. It is said of those Prophets, prophetarunt & non addiderunt, that is, they prophesied but that day only, that the Spirit came upon them, but never after; as the Hebrews expound it: but the Prophets of the Lord, prophesied often. So 2 King. 2. 3. The children of the Prophets came forth: they prophesied, but this gift of prophesy continued not with them: but these Prophets of the Lord, often prophesied: And although they had not the habit of prophecy, yet they were separated by God for that purpose, to expect still for new illumination.

The third prerogative, which the holy men of God had, was this, that they could not err in their writing, [Prorogat. 3] 2 Pet. 1. 21. The holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the holy Ghost, Matth. 10: 2. Luk. 21. 15. Luk. 1. 17. therefore the Prophets were called, the mouth of God, Luk. 1. 70. Ier. 15. 19. thou shalt be as my mouth. He spake not only by their mouths, but also they were his mouth. And contrary to this is that lieing Spirit in the mouth of the false Prophets. 1 King. 22. 22.

The secretaries of the holy Ghost, erred sometimes in some of their purposes, and in some circumstances of their calling; but in the doctrine it self they never erred. Peter in the transfiguration, knew not what he said, Luk. 9. 33. David was minded to build an house to God, he asked of Nathan if he should do so, 1 Chro. 17. 2. Nathan said to him; do what is in thine heart. So when Eliab stood before Samuel, 1 Sam. 16. 6. Samuel said: surely the Lord's anointed is before me. So the Disciples erred in their counsel, which they gave to Paul, forbidding him to go up to Jerusalem, Act. 21. 4. But the spirit of God, taught the contrary by Agabus, verse. 17. David Psal. 116. said in his hast, that all men are liars: he meant, that Samuel the man of God had made a lie to him; because he thought the promise too long defferred in getting of the kingdom. So when he wrote a letter to Joab with Uriah, in this he was not God's secretary, but the Devils. But as they were the secretaries of God, and spake by divine inspiration, they could not err.

But it may seem, that all which they wrote in holy [Object.] Scriptures, was not done by divine inspiration: for Paul wrote that he would come to Spain, Rom. 15. 24. and yet he never came to Spain.

We must distinguish between their purposes external, [Answ.] and their doctrine: they might err in these external purposes, and resolutions; but all which they wrote of Christ, and matters of salvation, was yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. He wrote that he was purposed to come to Spain, and so he was; but he was let, that he could not come.

But Paul repented that he wrote the Epistle to the [Object.] Corinthians to grieve them, 2 Cor. 7. 8. If this was written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, why did he repent of it?

Paul wrote this Epistle to humble them, and when [Answ.] he saw them excessively sorrowful, that was the thing that grieved him; but it grieved him not simply that he wrote to them to humble them. When a Chyrurgian cometh to cure a wounded man, he putteth the [Simile.] poor patient to great pain, and maketh him to cry out, that grieveth him; but it greeveth him not when he cureth him: So it repented not Paul, that he had written to the Corinthians; but it repented him to see them so swallowed up with grief.

But if the Scriptures be Divinely inspired, how say [Object.] they, Iud. 16. 17. there were about three thousand upon the roof of the house. So Act. 2. 40. and that day there were added to the Church, about three thousand souls. Is not the number of all things, certainly known to God?

The Scriptures set down the number that way: because [Answ.] it is little matter, whether we know the number or not. And secondly, the Lord speaketh to us this way in the Scripture after the manner of men.

Peter erred in a matter of faith, Gal. 2. 14. [Object.]

The error was not in the substance, but in the circumstance of the fact: and where it is said, Gal. 2. 14. [Ans.] That Peter walked not uprightly, according to the Gospel; it is to be understood only of his conversation; he erred here only, in this principle of Christian Religion; not walking according to his knowledge, but he erred not in his writing.

All men are subject to error, the Prophets and Apostles [Ob.] are men, therefore subject to error.

The Prophets and Apostles are considered as members [Ans.] of the Church, and so they might err; and they pray as other men, Lord forgive us our sins. Secondly, they are considered according to their functions and immediate calling; and then they were above the Church, and could not err.

What needed Nathan to be sent to David to attend [Quest.] him continually, one Prophet to another?

Although one Prophet stood not in need of another; [Answ.] yet he who was both a King and a Prophet had need of a Prophet to admonish him: for Kings stand in slippery places, and have need of others to advertise them.

The Prophets, as they were Prophets, could not err; therefore, that collection of the Jews, is most impious: they say that David wished to the sons of Joab four things, 2 Sam. 3. 29. First that some of them might die by the sword. Secondly, that some of them might die of the bloody flixe. Thirdly, that some of them might lean upon a staff. And fourthly, that some of them might beg their bread. And so they say, it befell David's posterity, for his sinful wish. One of them leaned upon a staff, Asa was goutish. One of his posterity was killed by the sword, as Josiah. One of them died of the flixe, as Rehoboam. And one of them begged his bread, as Iehojachim. But this collection is most impious; for David spake not here by a private spirit of revenge, but as a Prophet of God: and therefore when they assign these to be the causes, why these judgments befell David's posterity; they assign that for a cause, which was not a cause.

The fourth prerogative, they were holy men. Holiness [Prerogat. 4] distinguished them from those Prophets which were profane and unsanctified; who had the gift of illumination, but not of sanctification: the Lord made choice of none such to be his secretaries, who were not sanctified. The Lord's Prophet is called vir spiritus, the man of the Spirit, Hos. 9. 7. because he is ruled, and guided by the holy Spirit, that he become not profaine. If the very women, who spun the curtains to the Tabernacle were wise hearted, Exod. 35. 25. Much more will the Lord have those, who are to build his house; wise and holy men. Those who translated the Bible into Greek, ye shall see how often they changed their faith, and were turn-coats: Aquila of a Christian he became a Jew. Symmachus was first a Samaritan, and then he became half Jew, half Christian. Then Theodoton, first he was a fllower of Tatianus the heretic, and then he became a Marcionite, and thirdly he became a Jew. But the Prophets of God, after they were called, continued holy men, and never fell back again.

God will have no man, but holy men to be his secretaries, Luk. 1. 70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets. Therefore Solomon being a Prophet, and one of God's secretaries, behooved to be a holy man; and being holy he could not be a reprobate: hence he is called Jedediah, The beloved of God, 2. Sam. 12. 25. and whom God loveth, he loveth to the end.

The holy men of God wrote as they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inspired by God, the Spirit enlightened them, and directed them when they wrote: they were inspired three manner of ways, first, antecedenter. Secondly, per concomitantiam; and thirdly, subsequenter.

First, they were illuminate antecedenter: when the Lord revealed things to come to his Prophets, and made them to write his prophesies; then their tongue, was the pen of a swift writer, Psal. 45. 1. That is, he not only indicted these prophesies unto them; but also ruled them so, and guided them in writing; even as a master guideth the hand of a young child, when he is learning to write.

Secondly, he inspired them in writing the Histories and Acts, after another manner per concomitantiam: for that which was done already, he assisted them so in writing it down; that they were able to discern the relations which they had from others, to be true: as Luke knew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , accurately the truth of these things, which he had from those, who had heard and seen Christ: and he made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a perfect declaration of them. There was a great difference betwixt him and Tertius, who was Paul's Scribe, and wrote out his Epistles, Rom. 16. 22. or betwixt him and Baruch, who was Jeremiah's Scribe, Ier. 38. they were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the secretaries of the holy Ghost, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discribebant ab alio, they wrote only these things which Jeremiah and Paul indicted to them; neither was sanctification required in them, as they were their Scribes. But the Evangelists who saw not Christ, yet they were the Secretaries of the holy Ghost, and holy men; as they were his Secretaries, and directed by him to write.

Thirdly, he assisted them in writing subsequenter; the holy Ghost revealed things to the Prophets long before; but when they were to write these things, the spirit of the Lord brought the same things to their memory again; and indicted these things unto them which they had seen before in vision. Ier. 36. 2. Take thee a roll, and write therein all the words that I have spoken to thee, against Israel and against Judah, and against all the Nations; from the day that I spake to thee, even from the days of Josiah, unto this day. So John. 14. 26. the comforter which is the holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all thing, and bring all things to your memory which I have told you.

These Secretaries of the holy Ghost, when they wrote, habebant libertatam exercitij, sed non specificationis, as they say in the Schools, they were not like Blocks or Stones, but the Lord inclined their wills freely to write: which putteth a difference betwixt them, and the Sybils, and other Prophets of the Devil, who were blasted, and distracted in their wits, when they prophesied. When Elisha sent one of the children of the Prophets, to annoint Jehu; one said to him, wherefore cometh this mad fellow, 2 King. 9. 11? they took the Prophets to be mad, like unto the Heathish Prophets, but they were enlightened by the Spirit when they prophesied, and the Lord rectified their understanding, and took not away from them the right use of their will. It is said of Saul, when he prophesied, that the evil spirit of Lord came upon him, 1 Sam. 18. 10. And the Chaldee Paraphrast paraphraseth it, caepit furere, he began to be mad: the Devil stopping the passages of his body, he wrought upon his melancholious humor, which is called Esca diaboli, the Devils bait; and then it is said, ijthnabbe, impulit se ad prophetandum, which is never spoken of the true Prophets in this Conjugation.

Although the Lord's Secretaries had libertatem exercitij, yet they had not libertatem specificationis; that is, they might not leave that subject which they were called to write, and write any other thing, as they pleased; they were necessitated only to write that, although they wrote it freely.

Again, these men when they wrote as the holy Ghost enspired them, they did it not with pain and study, as we do; but it came freely from them without any pain or vexation of their spirit. The Princes when they heard Baruch read the prophesy of Jeremiah, after that it was endited, they asked how did he write all these words at his mouth? and Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink into the Book, Jer. 36. 17. 18. Solomon saith, Eccles. 12. 12. In making many books and in reading there is much weariness of the flesh, but this was no weariness to them; for they wrote this without any pain or labor: and hence it followeth, that those to whom their writing hath been troublesome and painful, have not been the Secretaries of the holy Ghost; as Mac. 2. 26. He that assayed to abridge the five Books of Jason said, that it was not an easy thing, to make this abridgement; but it required both sweat and labon.

Seeing all that wrote the holy Scriptures were enspired [Quest.] by the holy Ghost; why was this Epithet appropriate to John, to be called a Divine, Revela. 1. 1. For they were all Divines who wrote the holy Scriptures?

The Greek Fathers, when they spake of Christ, [Answ.] and specially Chrysostom, they distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and they say, Apud caeteros aeconomiae fulmen, sed apud Iohannem theologiae tonitrua extare. The rest when they describe the humanity of Christ, they do it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but when John discribeth the Divinity of Christ, he doth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and they say Mattheus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Johannes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , incipit

Observe a difference betwixt these speeches. The Word of the Lord came to Isaiah, to Jeremiah; and this phrase: The Lord came to Balaam, to Abimelech, to Laban. The first signifieth, that the Lord put these holy men in trust with his Word to be his Prophets; but he never concredited his word to these prophaine wretches: therefore it is said only, He came to them, but never the Word of the Lord came to them. He concredited his Word to his Prophets, as to Isaiah, and Jeremiah 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, as a pupil is concredited to the trust of his Tutor; but he never concredited his Word to these wretches.

The Lord spake in his Prophets, Hosea 1. 1. The Spirit of the Lord spake in me, that is, inwardly revealed his secrets to me. Mark a difference betwixt these two phrases, Loqui in aliquo, & Loqui in aliquem.

Loqui in aliquo, is when the Spirit of the Lord speaketh inwardly to the Prophets; sed Loqui in aliquem est maledicere, to rail against him: thus Num. 12. Miriam loquuta est in Mosem, id est, maledixit Mosi.

The conclusion of this is, Matth. 10. 20. It is not ye [Conclusion.] that speak, but the Spirit of our Father which speaketh in you. So it was not they who wrote, but the Spirit of the Lord in them. 2 King. 13. When Joash the King of Israel took a Bow in his hand, Elisha laid his hands upon the Kings hands, and Elisha bad him shoot; and he said, the Arrow of the Lord's deliverance and the Arrow of the deliverance from Syria; it was not the Kings hand that directed the Arrow here, but it was the hand of the Prophet laid upon the Kings hand which gave this mighty blow: so it was the hand of the Lord laid upon the hands of his Secretaries, which directed them to write the holy Word of God.

EXERCITAT. IX.

THe Testimonies which prove the Scriptures to be Divine, are first, the Testimony of God himself when he approved them by his Spirit, and when they were laid before him, by Vrim and Thummim. Secondly, arguments drawn out of the Scriptures themselves. Thirdly, the Testimony of the Church. Fourthly, the Testimony of those who were without the Church, Deus testator, Scriptura contestatur, & Ecclesia subtestatur.

God beareth witness to the Scriptures two ways, First, by the internal Testimony of his Spirit. Secondly, by his external Testimony.

When the Spirit testifieth unto us such Books to be [Quest.] his Word, whether is this a public or a private Testimony?

This is a public Testimony, which the Spirit Testifieth [Ans.] to the whole Church, and to the several members of it, that these Books are holy Scripture: for the same Spirit which endited the Scriptures to the Church, testifieth still to the Church, and to the particular members thereof; that the Scriptures are the Word of God.

The second Testimony which God gave to the Scriptures, was his external testimony given by Vrim and Thummim, testifying these Books of Moses and the Prophets, to be the holy Scriptures.

What are we to think of these Books, written and [Quest.] set in order after the captivity, seeing they had not the approbation of the Lord by Vrim and Thummim?

These Books were called Ketubhim, written Books, [Answ.] to put a difference between them, and these Books which were confirmed by Vrim and Thummim: they who wrote these Books were inspired by the holy Ghost as well as these who wrote the former; and they were confirmed by the masters of the great Synagogue, such as were Esdras Zechariah and Malachi. The Greeks called these Books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and the Jews distinguish them still, frō the Apocryphal Books called Gannazim abscinditi, and the Greeks called them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Books of whose authority it was still doubted.

Reasons taken out of the Scriptures themselves proving them to be Divine; the first reason is taken from [Reason. 1] the antiquity of the Scriptures: all this time was tempus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the heathen, that is, it was an hid or an unknown time to them. After the flood, the Scriptures go on, and they set down to us the history of the Church: but the Heathen history is Tempus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or fabulosum; as that which we read of Hercules, and Prometheus: and nothing is set down in the Heathen history before the Olympiads of the Grecians, which was but in the days of Uzziah. See how far God's Word exceedeth human history, in antiquity; It beginneth with the world and endeth with it, Luk. 1. 70. as he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began.

Secondly, the matter contained in the Scriptures showeth [Reason 2] them to be Divine. Many histories show us the heavy wrath of God upon man for sin; yet the Scriptures only show us morbum, medicinam, & medicum, it showeth us both the sickness, the physic, and the Physician to cure it.

Thirdly, the Scripture setteth down things necessary [Reason. 3] only for our salvation, and nothing for our curiosity. It is often repeated in the Books of the Kings and Chronicles. The rest are they not written in the Books of the Chronicles, of the Kings of Judah and Israel, So Ester. 10. 2. The rest are they not written in the Books of the Kings of Persia. The holy Ghost would meet here with the curious desires of men, who desire still to know more and more, and to read pleasant discourses, to satisfy their humors: as if the Spirit of God should say; I have sufficiently told you here of the Kings of Judah and Israel, and of Persia, and so far as concerneth the Church, and may serve for your edification: it is not my manner to satisfy your curiosity, if ye would know more, go to your own Scrowles and Registers; where ye shall find matter enough to pass the time with. To be short, the Scriptures are not given to pass the time with, but to redeem the time.

Fourthly, the prophesies set down in the holy [Reason 4] Scriptures show them to be Divine, for they distinguish the Lord from all the Idols of the Gentiles, and the Devils themselves, Esa. 41. 22. Let them show the former things what they be, that we may consider them and set our hearts upon them: and show us the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are God's. Here the Prophet distinguisheth the true God from the false God's, and true prophesies from false: If they could tell of things by-past, and relate them from the beginning and join them with the things to come; then he would confess that they were God's, and that their prophesies were true. To tell of things past is not in respect of time; for the Angels and Devils can tell things fallen out from the beginning of time: but it is in respect of the things themselves, when they took beginning, & this is only proper to God, Psal. 139. 16. In thy Book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them. He can join things by-past with things that are to follow; and can tell certainly of things to come. There is a twofold beginning of things. The first is, exordium rei: The second is, exordium temporis. The Angels know exordium temporis, but not exordium rei; for the Lord only knoweth things before the foundation of the world was laid, Ephe. 1. 4. He who knoweth certainly the beginning of things, can only certainly fortell the event of things, as though they were present, Hos. 12. 4. he wept and made supplication to him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us. Here the thing past, he applieth to the generation which was present, because he knew exordium rei.

The plain, and clear manner of setting down the Scriptures, showeth them to be Divine, Esa. 8. 1. Take [Reason 5] a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen, Behheret enosh. That is clearly, that the simplest amongst the children of men may understand it, Deut. 30. 11. This commandment which I command thee this day, is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off: In the Hebrew it is, Lo niphleeth, non separatum a te, that is, it is not separated from thy knowledge, that thou cannot understand it: and it is not far from thee, for these things which are obscure and doubtful which we cannot take up, are said to be far from us; these things which we understand again are said to be near us, Rom. 10. 8.

But it may be said that there are many things hard in [Ob.] the Scriptures, and cannot well be taken up.

We must distinguish these three, the obscurity in the [Ans.] things themselves, the perspicuity in the midsts as they are set down, and thirdly, the dullness of our conception to take them up. There are many matters handled in the Scripture, which are hard to be understood, and we are dull in conception to take up these things; yet they are clearly and plainly set down in the word. Christ showeth all these three, John. 3. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not: how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things. If I have told you earthly things, that is, illustrated heavenly things to you by earthly comparisons; here is Christ's plain manner in setting down his word. And ye believe not; here is our dullness in taking up these things which are plainly set down. How shall ye believe if I shall tell you of heavenly things, here is the obscurity of the heavenly matters contained in the Scriptures. The Church of Rome confoundeth still these three, Obscuritas rei, & nostri conceptus, cum perspicuo modo tradendi, the obscurity in the matter the dullness of our conception, with the clear manner of manifestation of these things in the Scriptures.

The Heavenly consent and agreement, amongst the [Reason 6] writers of the holy Scriptures, showeth them to be Divine. There were in the Church Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles: Amongst the Patriarchs Abraham was the chief; therefore the revelations made to the rest of the Patriarchs, as to Isaac and to Jacob, had always relation, to the promises made to Abraham. Amongst the Prophets Moses was the chief, and therefore all the Prophets grounded themselves upon Moses. And upon the revelations made to the Apostles, the faith of the Church is grounded, under the New Testament: and ye shall never find any contradictions amongst these holy writers; there may seem some contradiction amongst them, but indeed there is none. Epiphanius useth a good comparison to this purpose: when a man, saith he, is drawing water out [Simile.] of a deep Well with two Vessels of a different metal; the water at the first seemeth to be of a different color; but when he draweth up the Vessels nearer to him, this diversity of colors vanisheth, and the waters appear both of one color, and when we taste them, they have but one relish. So saith he, although at the first, there seem some contradiction in the holy Scriptures, yet when we look nearer and nearer unto them, we shall find no contrariety in them, but a perfect harmony. When we see the Heathen history, or Apocryphal Books contradicting the holy History, we should stand for the holy Scriptures against them: but when we see any appearance of contradiction in the Scriptures, we should labor to reconcile them: when Moses saw an Egyptian and an Israelite striving together; he killed the Egyptian, and saved the Israelite, Exod. 2. 12. But when be saw two Israelites striving together, he labored to reconcile them, saying, ye are brethren why do ye strive. So when we see the Apocryphal Books, or heathen History, to contradict the Scriptures, we should kill the Egyptian and save the Israelite. Example, Jacob cursed Simeon and Levi, for murthering of the Shechemites, Gen. 49. 7. but Judith blessed Simeon for killing of them, Judith 9. So Jeremiah saith, they shall return in the third generation, Ier. 27. 7. but Baruch saith, they shall return in the seventh generation Baruch, 6. here let us kill the Egyptian but save the Israelite: but when we see any appearance of contradiction in the holy Scriptures, we should labor to reconcile them, because they are brethren.

The heavenly order set down in the Scriptures [Reason 7] showeth them to be divine; there is in the Scriptures, Ordo naturae, Ordo conjugalis thori, Ordo historiae, & Ordo dignitatis; all these the Scriptures mark, and for sundry reasons setteth one before another: and although there be not prius & posterius in Scriptura (as the Jews say) in respect of the particular occasions, yet there is still prius & posterius in respect of the general end of the history. First, in setting down the Patriarchs, it observeth ordinem naturae, as they were borne; as Reuben in the first place, because he was the first borne; and then Simeon, thirdly Levi, and fourthly Judah, &c. Secondly, there is Ordo conjugalis thori, according to their births, and so the free women's sons, are set first in the Brestplate of Aaron, Exod. 28. Thirdly, there is Ordo dignitatis, as Sem is placed before Japheth for dignity, although he was younger. So the Scripture else where observeth this order, Matth. 13. He bringeth fourth new and old, & Ephe. 2. Apostles and Prophets. So the Scripture observeth the order of history, Matth. 1. 1. The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David the Son of Abraham. why is Abraham put last after David? because the history is to begin at him. So 1 Chro. 3. 5. Solomon is placed last amongst his brethren, because the history was to begin at him: and if we shall mark the heavenly order that is amongst the Evangelists, they will show us that the Scriptures are divine. Mark beginneth at the works of Christ. Matthew ascendeth higher, to the birth of Christ. Luke goeth higher, to the conception of Christ, and John goeth highest of all, to the divinity of Christ and his eternal generation. Who would not admire here, the steps of Jacob's heavenly ladder, ascended from Joseph to Adam, and from Adam to God.

The matter contained in the Scriptures, shows them [Reason. 8] to be divine, and to make a wonderful change in man, which no other book can do, I am. 4. 6. The spirit in us lusteth after envy, yet the Scriptures offer more grace, that is, the Scriptures offer grace and ability to do more, then nature can do: Nature cannot heal a Spirit, that lusteth after envy, or after money or after uncleanness; but the Scriptures offer more grace to overcome any of these sins, be they never so strong. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul, Psal. 19. 17. when it is dead in sin, it quickeneth and reviveth it again; and when it is decayed in grace, it restoreth it again, even as Boaz is said to be a restorer of the life of Naomi, and a nurisher of her old age, Ruth 4. 15.

The rubukes and threatenings of the holy Ghost in [Reason 9] the Scriptures, fall never to the ground in vain, but take always effect, when people stand out against them. And as Jonathan's bow did never turn back, and the Sword of Saul never returned empty, 2 Sam. 1. 22. So the Arrows of the King are sharp to pierce his enemies, Psal 45. 5.

John. 10. 35. The Scriptures cannot be broken, the arguments [Reason 10] set down in the Scripture, are so strong; that all the heretics in the world could never break them, and they stand like a brazen wall against all oppositions; therefore the Lord challengeth men to bring forth their strongest reasons, Esa. 41. 21. produce your cause saith the Lord, bring forth your strong reasons saith the King of Jacob.

The Church is the Pillar of Truth, she holdeth out the Truth to be seen, she expoundeth and interpreteth the Scriptures; yet her testimony in but an inducing testimony, and not a persuading testimony: she can teach the Truth, but she cannot seal up the truth in our hearts, and make us to believe the Truth of the Scripture. Her testimony is but in actu exercito, but non signato. Her testimony is informativum, sen directivum, it informeth and directeth us, sed non certificativum & terminativum fidei; that is, she cannot persuade us of the Truth by her Testimony.

Testimonies of these also, who are without the Church prove the Scriptures to be Divine, and these are of two sorts; either Heretics, or Infidels.

First, the testimonies of Heretics prove the Scriptures to be Divine; for Heretics labor always to ground themselves upon the Scriptures. The habit goeth always before the privation, & omne falsum innititur vero, every falsehood laboreth to cover it self under the Truth. When the Husbandman had sown his good seed, then came the evil one and did sow his Tares: when Heretics labor to ground themselves upon the Scriptures; it is, as when a thief goeth to cover himself under the pretence of Law. This argueth the Law to be just and equal. The testimonies also of the Heathen history proveth the Scriptures to be Divine. Observe the descent of the Babylonian and Assyrian Kings, and look back again to the holy Scriptures: ye shall see clearly, how they jump with the Scriptures: and as those who sail along the Coast, have a pleasant view of the Land; but those who stand [Simile.] upon the Land, and behold the Shippes sailing along the Coast, have a more settled and pleasant sight of the Shippes: so when we look from the Heathen history, and mark the descent of the Heathen Kings, we shall see a pleasant sight: but a far more delectable and sure sight, when we look from the Scriptures, to the Heathen history. Mark the descent; Belochus the third called Pul King of Assyria came against Menahem, and took his son, 2 King. 15. Then Pileser called Tiglath, came against Hoshea, King of Samaria, and took him in the sixth year of the reign of King Hezekiah: and then Shalmaneser, who carried away the ten Tribes into captivity, in the ninth year of Hoshea, 2 King. 17. and his son Sennacherib, 2 King. 18. came against Judah, in the fourteenth year of Zedekias, and Esarhaddon succeeded his father Sennacherib, and his son Berodach-baladon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, then Berodach, 2 Chro. 33. carried away Jeconiah, and then Nebuchadnezzar carried away Zedekias; then Nebuchadnezzar the great, burnt Jerusalem, and carried away the people captive. Then Evil Merodach, who succeeded him had three sons, Ragasar, Babasar and Belshassar, of whom we read Dan. 5. and in Belshassers time, the kingdom was translated to the Medes and Persians. Here we see the descent of the Heathen history, agreeing with the holy Scriptures.

There are other testimonies of the Heathen, to prove the Scripture to be Scripture, but not so clearly; when we find the rubbish of some old monuments, we gather that there hath been some great building there: So when we find some dark footsteps of holy Scripture amongst the Heathen, we may gather, that once the holy Scriptures▪ have been read amongst them, although they have depraved and corrupted them.

Example 1. They of the East Indians have this fable amongst them, that the God's drowned the world for sin, and that they took some just men, and put them up in the clifts of Rocks, to save them: those men to try whether the waters were abated or not; sent forth some mastive Dogs, and the Dogs returning as clean as they went out; they gathered by this, that the waters were not yet abated: they sent them forth the second time, then they returned full of mud, by this they gathered that the waters were abated: then they sent them forth the third time and they returned no more. Here we see how this fable is taken out of the history of the deluge, and from Noah's sending forth the Dove out of the Ark; and that this history was known of old amongst the Heathen, we may perceive because the Dove and the Raven are called the messengers of the God's, by the Heathen Poets.

Example 2. Gen. 36. 24. This is Anah who found out Hajemim mules, in the Wilderness, others read it Iamin • waters: now because it was hard to find out the right translation of the word, some translating it Mules, and some translating it Water: the Heathen made up a notable lie on the Jews, saying; when Anah was feeding his Asses in the Wilderness, because the Mules and Asses found out water in the Wilderness for them to drink, therefore the Jews worshipped the golden head of an Ass: see how some shadow of holy histostory was still amongst the Heathen.

Example 3. When the destroying Angel destroyed the first borne of their children, & beasts in Egypt, the Lord caused to sprinkle the blood of the pascal Lamb, upon the Lintels of the doors, that so their first borne might be saved, Exod. 12. 13. Epiphanius recordeth that the Egyptians afterwards, although they had forgotten the history of the work of God, yet they rubbed over their Cattle with a red sort of Keill, to save them that no evil should befall them that year, ignorantly counterfeitting that blood, which saved the Israelites once in Egypt: which fable letteth us to understand, that this Scripture was once taught amongst them.

Example 4. Plato did hold that in the revolution of so many years, men should be just in the same estate, wherein they were before; which is drawn obscurely from the resurrection, when we shall be in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as we were in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Matth. 19. 28.

Example 5. Clemens Alexandrinus and Basel note, that the Heathen Philosophers did make their fables, counterfeitting the Scriptures; and founded their falsehoods upon the truth of God, that men might give credit to their lies: as upon this, Jonah was swallowed up by the Whale; they made up this fable of Arion, sitting upon a Delphin, and playing upon an harp, and a thousand such. [Conclusion.]

The Conclusion of this is. Seeing the Scriptures are Divine, we must pray with David, Psal. 119. 18. open thou mine eyes, that I may behold the wondrous things out of thy Law in the original it is, Devolue ab oculis meis velamen, scilicet, caliginis, and let us be diligent searchers and dwell in them, as Paul biddeth Timothy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Panormitan writeth of Alphonsus King of Aragon, that in the midst of all his princely affairs, he read over the Bible fourteen times, with the gloss and commentaries upon it. The Jews say, let a man divide his life in three parts; a third part for the Scriptures, a third part for mishneth, and a third part for gemara, that is, two for the Talmud, and one for the Scriptures, see how well they were exercised in reading of the Law.

EXERCITAT. X.

THe Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek.

The Character, in which the Old Testament was written first, was the Samaritan Character; It was called the Samaritan Character, not because the Samaritans used it first, but because it was left to the Samaritans after the Jews refused it.

This Samaritan Character was the first Character as may be seen by the inscriptions upon their shekels set down by Arius Montanus, Beza, and Willet upon Ezekiel. And sundry of the Jews ancient monuments have these letters upon them.

The Character at the first was the Jews and not the Samaritans, as is proved by the inscriptions of the shekels. The inscription is this, Jerusalem hakkodesh; but no Samaritan would have put this inscription upon it: for they hated Jerusalem and the Jews, therefore this inscription must be the Jews, and not the Samaritans.

Secondly, most of these ancient shekels are found about Jerusalem, therefore the shekel and letters upon it, was at the first the Jews, and not the Samaritans.

This Samaritan Character the Jews kept still, in the time of the captivity, when Belshasser saw fingers writing upon the wall, Mene mene tekel, &c. Dan. 5. 25. These Characters were the Samaritan Characters: therefore the Babylonians could not read them; because they knew not that Character; neither could the Jews understand the matter although they knew the letters: to the Babylonians, it was like a sealed book; and to the Jews it was like an open book, to an unlearned man; because they understood it not, Esa, 29. 11. But Daniel read it and understood it, both because he knew the letters, and also understood the Chaldee tongue.

Esdras changed this Character after the captivity, and left it Idiotis, to the Samaritans: and he set down this new Character, which before was the Chaldee, Character.

The reason why he changed it, was this, because being long in the captivity, they forgot their own language, that they could neither read it rightly, nor write it rightly: and therefore he changed the Characters, in these which we have now.

But the ancient Samaritan Character seemeth to be kept still in Lamina sacerdotali, in the plate of Gold which was upon the forehead of the High priest, after the captivity; for they might change none of the ornaments of the High priest. So neither that which was written upon the plate of Gold, Kokesh Laihova, holiness to the Lord: because the Lord commanded these clothes and ornaments, to be made for him, and his seed after him, Exod. 28. 43.

The New Testament was written originally in the Greek Character; and there were two translations of it, Syriac and Arabic; the Syriac was written in the Syriac Character, which differed much from that, which is called Alphabetum Salomonis, or the Character which Solomon found out. This Character Pineda setteth down in his book De rebus Salomonis. These diverse Characters may be seen setdowne here, as followeth.

• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
  • Character
    • Antiquier Mosis sive Samaritanorum.
    • Recentior Samaritanorum
    • Hebraeorum sive Mer • bha Ezrae recentior.
    • Chaldaeorum antiquorum nunc Rabbinorum.
    • Antiquorum Arabum, seu Alphabetum Salomonis.
    • Arabum Recentior.
    • Syrorum.
    • Graecorum.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

The Old Testament was originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and some of it in the tongues derived from the Hebrew, as Chaldee.

We may know the Hebrew was the first original tongue; because it hath fewest Radicall letters: whatsoever tongue is derived from thence, it addeth some letters to the first original; as from the Hebrew word Galal, cometh Golgotha the Syriac word. So Gabbatha Bethsaida, from Gabha and Chased. Secondly, that language which the Lord spake, to Adam, Abraham and Moses, and they to him, must be the original language. But God spake to them in the Hebrew, and he wrote the two Tables with his own hand in this language. And thirdly, that language which expresseth the nature, of things, and their affections most clearly, and in fewest words; that must be the original language: but the Hebrew doth this; therefore it is the first language.

These tongues which were Propagines and Dialects of the Hebrew, the Jews understood them, when they heard them spoken, and when they read them, but they understood not the strange tongues, which had but small affinity with the Hebrew. When Laban and Jacob made a covenant; Laban called the heap of stones jegar Sagadutha in the Aramean tongue, which had small affinity with the Hebrew; but Jacob called it Galeed, Gen. 31. 47.

But if there was little affinity betwixt the Aramean [Object.] language and the Hebrew, how is it that they say, 2. King. 18. 26. Speak to thy servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it?

They might understand it, for they were Courtiours and States men; and so learned it, as we learn now the [Answ.] Italians and French language. And Abraham's servant spake to Nachor in the Aramean language, he being borne in Damascus, which was in Cylo-Syria: and we may think that Nachor and his house, understood the Hebrew tongue, being of the posterity of Heber, and keep that tongue as Abraham did, who came out of Vr of the Chaldees.

Assyria or Syria hebraice, Aram, comprehended all Palestine, Damascus, the Kingdom of Assyria, Chaldea, babylon, Arabia, Cylo-Lyria and Antiochia, Zoba, Adiabena, therefore all the languages which were spoken in these parts, took their general denomination from Syria, as Syro-aramaea the language which Laban spake in Mesopotania: Syro-Chaldea or Babylonica was that which they spake in Babylon, Syro-Antiochena which they spake in Antioch or Phoenicia: although they were Propagines or Dialects of the Hebrew, yet they understood them not while they were taught: therefore Nebuchadnezzar caused to instruct the children of the Jews in the Chaldee tongue, Dan. 1 4. but the Syro-Arabean and the Palestine or Canaanitish language they might understand it; because it came nearer to their own language.

The Egyptian tongue differed much from the Hebrew, Psal. 81. 5. Joseph heard a language in Egypt, which he understood not. Joseph here is put for the whole people of the Jews, because there was no affinity betwixt the Hebrew and the Egyptian tongue, therefore they understood not this tongue. So Psal. 114. 1. they departed from a people of a strange language, or a barbarous people: they called them all barbarous whom they understood not: and because the Jews understood not the Egyptian tongue, therefore Joseph made him to speak to his brethren by an Interpreter, Genesis. 42. 23.

The Canaanitish language, was a daughter of the Hebrew tongue, or rather one, with the Hebrew tongue: and this we may perceive by the names of the towns; men and places which were imposed to them by the Canaanites; as Jericho, Salem, Kiriath-arba, Kiriath-Sepher, Beth-dagon: so the names of men, Melchizedek, Adonibezek, Abimelech. And if the Canaanitish tongue, had not been all one with the Hebrew, how could the Patriarchs have kept conference with those in Canaan, and made their Bargaines and Contracts with them? this is clear also by the example of Rahab, who could speak to the Spyes, and they understood her; and so Joshua to the Gibionites. The Lord would have this tongue continued amongst the Canaanites, because the Hebrews were shortly to inhabit that land, and to converse with the Canaanites for a while, until they had rooted them out.

There is some of the Old Testament written in the Chaldee tongue, which hath great affiance with the Hebrew: and some of it written in the Syrian dialect, as Job, which the Idumeans used, and it differed little from the Hebrew tongue; but it differed much from the Syrian language now, but more from Arabia Ismaelitica, which the Turks speak now, in Asia and Africa.

There are some words found in the Old Testament which are Egyptian, Gen. 41. 43. Some Phaenitian, as Chabbul, 1 King. 9. 13. Some Persian words as Pur, Esth. 9. 24. and some moabitish.

There is one verse in Jeremiah originally written in the Chaldee tongue, Ier. 10. 11. whereas all the rest of that prophesy, is written in the Hebrew tongue. The gods that have not made the heaven and earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. The reason why this verse was written in the Chaldee tongue, was this; because the Jews now, were to be carried to Babylon, and when they should be sollicitated there to worship their gods, they should answer them in their own language; cursed be your gods, for they made neither heaven nor earth.

That of Daniel and Ezra which is written in the Chaldee tongue, was transcribed out of the roules, and registers of the Chaldeans; and insert in the books of God: but that which the holy Ghost indicted originally to Daniel and Ezra, was written in the Hebrew tongue; the rest was borrowed but out of their registers, as first, Nebuchad-nezzers dreams, Dan. 2. So Nebuchad-nezzer setteth up a golden image, Cap. 3. So Nebuchad-nezzers dream, Cap. 4. and Belshassers visions Cap. 5. all these were written in the Chaldee tongue: the seventh Chapter is only excepted; it is written also in the Chaldee tongue although it was originally endited to Daniel: because it is a more clear exposition of the monarchies revealed before to Nebuchad-nezzer, and Belshasser; and set down in their own Registers in the Chaldee tongue, but the eight Chapter and the rest, are wholly written in the Hebrew tongue, which were indicted immediately by God to Daniel, and not transcribed out of their registers as the rest were: So that part of Ezra which is written in the Chaldee tongue, is but transcribed and written out of the decrees, and letters, of the Kings of Media, and Persia; from the eleventh verse of the fourth Chapter, to the seventh Chapter.

The Chaldeans and Persians used to register, and keep a Chronicle of all their memorable deeds, and what befell them: and so of their visions and dreams; and they caused to write them, and interpret them; so did the Persians, Esth. 9. 32. and Daniel wrote these visions in the Chaldee tongue, and he set them down for the good of the Church; that they might understand, that their conditions should be under the Heathish Kings.

The holy Ghost borrowed some things first from the Poets, and secondly, from the history of the Heathen; and the Secretaries of the holy Ghost insert them in the Book of God. From the Poets; as Paul borrowed from Aratus, Menander, Epimenides or Callimachus, some verses; and inserted them in his Epistles. So the Scriptures borrow from the history, which were either Heathenish, or Jewish. Heathenish again, were of two sorts; either Chaldean or Persian. Daniel borroweth from the Chaldeans: So from the history of the Persians, as that memorable history of the deliverance of the Jews under Haman; was first written in the Persian language, Esth. 9. 32. and he who wrote the Book of Esther, borrowed the history out of that book. These things which are borrowed from the Jewish history; as the facts of those registrate in the Books of the Maccabees, Heb. 11. So Jude out of the prophesy of Enoch, borrowed the history of the strife, between Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses. So the Apostle Heb. 11. out of the traditions of the Jews, borroweth, that Isaiah was cut with a saw under Menasse. So there are sundry proverbial speeches in the Talmud, as, Cast out the beam which is in thine own eye, and then thou shalt see chearely to cast out the mote that is in they neighbors eye, Matth. 7. 5. So it is easier for a Camel to go thorough the eye ef a Needle, Matth. 19. 24. So it is hard to kick against pricks, Act. 9. 5. Some of our Divines, to prove that the Apocryphal Books are not Canonical Scripture, use this midst; because they are not cited by the Apostles, in the New Testament: but this is false, for the Apostle citeth them, Heb. 11. And Scaliger in his Eusebianis, proveth out of Georgius Cyncellus that the Apostle citeth many testimonies out of the Apocryphal Books, and out of the traditions of the Jews. As Matthew, that Salmon married Rahab. Salmon, his genealogy is set down, 1 Chro. 2. but not whom he married, this Matthew had by tradition, Matth. 1. 5.

Things in the Heathen history, which are not necessary to be known to the Church: the Scripture passeth by them, and remitteth us to Heathen History, and saith still; The rest are they not written in the books of the Chronicles of Judah and Israel? and when the knowledge of them is necessary to the Church; it borroweth them out of the Heathen history, and inserteth them in the book of God.

These things which were written out of the Jewish, or Heathenish history were not sanctified; until they were insert in the book of God: therefore Tertullian writing to his Wife, and citing that verse, Evil speeches corrupt good manners, 1 Cor. 15. 33. saith, Memor illius versiculi sanctificati per Apostolum, the Apostle sanctified this verse when he borrowed it from the Heathen. And as a woman that was Heathenish, when she became a Proselyte, she might enter into the congregation, and a Jew might marry her: so these Jewish and Heathenish histories, God sanctified them, that they might enter into the Congregation and become holy Scriptures, and so the holy Spirit sweetened the salt waters of Jericho, that the children of the Prophets might drink of them, 2 Kings. 2. 21.

There are many proper names set down in the Scriptures which are not Hebrew names, but some of them are Chaldee, some Assyrian and some Persicke names, Ier. 39. 3. And all the princes of the King of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergal-Sharezer, Samger Nebo, Sersechim, Rabsaris, Nergal Sharezer, Rahmag, with all the residue of the Princes of the King of Babylon. And that we may know what names are Chaldee names, what Syriac and what Persicke. Mark this Table following, concerning these names, and the composition of them, taken out of Scaliger.

How shall we discern in what language a book was [Quest.] written?

There be two special notes whereby we may discern [Answ.] this; the first is Interpration, and the second is Allusion.

First is Interpretation, when the Spirit of God interpreteth a strange word, into another tongue; then the book was written in that language, in which the word is interpreted. Example, Esth. 9. Pur this persicke word is interpreted by the Hebrew goral, therefore the book was written in the Hebrew, and not in the Persicke tongue by Mordecai, or by him who else wrote the book. Example 2. Abba Pater, Rom. 8. 15. Abba is the Syriac word, and Pater the Greek word, because Abba is interpreted by Pater, therefore the Apostle hath written this Epistle in Greek, and not in Syriac. And so Thomas is called Didymus; John. 11. 16. therefore the Gospel of John was written originally in Greek, and not in Hebrew. So Heb. 7. 2. Melchizedek the King of Salem, first, by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that King of peace. The word Melchesedeck which is one word, for the understanding of the Graecising Jews he divideth it in two, and showeth in Greek, that Salem signifieth peace, and Zedek Iustitia, righteousness; as if ye would say, frugifer, qui fert fructum, cornifer qui fert cornua: here because the interpretation is in Greek; we may know that this Epistle hath been written originally in Greek.

The second note, to know in what language books have been written, is by the Allusion of words in the Scriptures. for there are many allusions in the Hebrew, and in the Chaldee tongue, when they are translated in the Greek or any other language they loose that grace, as Cabhal is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Cebhel is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Cobal apud Tergumistos est caligare, but John. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And the light shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not; Here the sweet allusion which is in the Chaldee, perisheth in the Greek. So John. 10. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the Syriac expresseth it by a sweet allusion Min tirghna letira, which is not in the Greek, where the words fall alike which will not fall out in other languages. There was a question betwixt Origen and Africanus, whether the history of Susanna was written in Hebrew or in Greek. Africanus denied that it was written in Hebrew, but in Greek, and he proved it thus. When Daniel examined the Witnesses who testified against Susanna, he took the witnesses a part and inquired at one of them, under what tree he saw her commit that villainy? he said it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Lentish tree; then Daniel alluding to this said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Angel of God hath received sentence of God to cut thee in pieces. So he inquired at the other, under what tree he saw her; he answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Under a Prime tree. Then Daniel said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Angel of the Lord waited with the sword to cut thee in two. Africanus by this allusion of words gathered, that this history was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Greek.

The Conclusion of this is, the Old Testament was first written in Hebrew. This was the first language [Conclusion.] by which the Lord spake to the Patriarchs, and in which the Angels spake to men, and it was the language which all the world spake before the confusion of Babylon, and it is the mother tongue from whence many other tongues are derived, and it is holden by some, to be that tongue, in which we shall speak one to another in the life to come. Therefore we should be desirous to understand this holy language.

EXERCITAT. XI.

WHen we describe a man's speech, first we describe it by that which is natural, as whether he be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of a weak voice, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a slow tongue. Secondly, in what language he speaketh. Thirdly, in what Dialect he speaketh. Fourthly, whether it be Soluta oratio or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Fifthly, the Property of the speech. Sixthly, the Evidence of the speech. Seventhly, the Fullness of the speech. Eighthly, the Shortnesse of the speech. Ninthly, the Coherence, and lastly the Efficacie of the speech.

First, we describe that which is natural, and proceedeth from some defect of the organs, as if he spake with a weak voice, or be of a stammering tongue, or thick lips, which Exod. 6. 12, are called Vncircumcised lips: Contrary to this is a thin lip which is a sign of Eloquence, Job. 12. 20. for these who have thin lips, commonly are Eloquent. Moses the Penman of the holy Ghost, although he was defective in speech; yet read his writings, and ye shall see such eloquence in him, that no Heathen could ever match it, and as it is said of Paul, when he was present in person he was weak, 2 Cor. 10. 10. and his speech base and contemptible yet his letters were weighty and powerful: so whatsoever want or infirmity was in Moses person, yet there was no want or defect in his writings.

Secondly, in what language he speaketh. The holy Ghost spake and wrote in Hebrew in the Old Testament, and in the New in Greek. He wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew, a language which had this blessing spoken of in the Law, Deut. 28. 12. Thou shalt lend and not borrow, so this language lendeth to many Nations, but borroweth of none. He wrote the New Testament in Greek, a most copious and fertile tongue, which was then Lingua communis to the Jews although not vulgaris.

Thirdly, in what Dialect he speaketh. The Dialects of the Hebrew tongue were sundry, first, Dialectus Hierosolymitana, that Dialect which was spoken in Jerusalem and about it, Ast. 1. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In their own Dialect, or proper tongue. So the Dialect of the Ephraimites, who said, Sibboleth & not Shibboleth, Iud. 12. 6. and the Dialect of the Galileans, as Peter spake in the Galilean Dialect, Matth. 26. 73. So in the New Testament there are sundry Dialects as Ionick, Dorick Attick, &c.

Fourthly, whether it be in prose or in verse. The Jews divide the Old Testament according to the style into Charutz; rithmum; Shir carmen, & Halatza, Orationem solutam, that is prose.

Charuz is Soluta oratio, but in five Rithmo colligata; that is, it beginneth in prose, but endeth as it were in meeter, such is Job.

Shir, canticum; written in meeter, as the Psalms and Canticles.

Hallatza, written in prose; such are the Histories and the most of the prophets.

Fifthly, the property of the speech. The phrase in Hebrew is much to be observed, for in the Hebrew it will signify one thing, and in other languages, another thing.

Example, Num. 19. 20. Dies numeri, signifieth A few days, so Homines numeri, Gen. 34. 30. A few men, Deut. 4. 27. Ezek. 12. 16. So Isaiah 10. 19. The rest of the Trees of his Forest shall be number, that a child may write them, that is, They shall be few. In other languages this phrase would signify many men, and many trees, &c.

So some phrases of the Scripture have a contrary signification with the Hebrews, as Zack. 11. 24. Ascendit visio a me, that is, It perished. So Ier. 47. 15. Moab is spoiled and gone up out of her Cities, that is, She is destroyed. Sometimes again it signifieth to wax and increase, as 1 King. 22. 35. Bellum ascendit, The battle increased. So Psal. 74. 23. The tumult that arise up against thee ascendeth, that is, Increaseth continually.

So Levare peccatum is to take off the burden of sin, Exod. 10. 17. and John alludeth to this, 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. And Levare peccatum, Is to take up the burden of sin, Levite. 5. 1. So Sakal, Lapidare & Elapidare, signifieth either to cast stones upon a thing, as Deut. 22. 24. or to take away the stones out of a place, as Esa. 62. 10.

Another example, I am like a drunken man whom the wine hath gone over, Ier. 23. 9. that is, whom the wine hath overcome, but Matth. 26. 39. Let this cup pass over me, that is, let it not touch me; in a contrary signification. So Gen. 25. 18. Cecidit coram fratribus suis, He died in presence of his brethren, but the Seventie translated it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He dwelt before his brethren.

The New Testament usually followeth these Hebraisms of the Old Testament as Hos. 8. 8. A vessel in which there is no pleasure, Rom. 9. 21. A vessel of dishonor. So 1 Sam. 21. 5. The vessels of the young men are holy, 1 Thess. 4. 4. That ye may know to possess your vessels in holiness. So Exod. 1. 8. there arose a new King in Egypt who knew not Joseph, Matth. 11, 11. there arose not a greater then John the baptist.

So in the New Testament there are many peculiar phrases which are found in no other Greek writers, and here we must distinguish inter Hellenismum & Graecismum. Hellenismus is that sort of phrase which the Seventy use, for they translating the Scriptures for the use of the grecizing Jews, followed the Hebrew Chaldee and Syriac in many things: so that they have a peculiar style which is not to be found in other Greek writers, example 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament signifieth wrath and poison Reve. 18. 3. Ex vino veneni, that is, poisoned wine. So Job 4. 6. The reason of this is, because Hbema in the Hebrew, signifieth both wrath and poison. Another example, 1 Cor. 5. 45. Death is swallowed up into victory: the Seventy hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In perpetuum, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify perpetuum amongst the Heathen, why do they then translate it, For ever? because the word Netzahh, signifieth both Victory and Eternity. A third example, Gen. 8. 21. Dixit ad cor suum dominus; but the Chaldee saith, Bemeria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which phrase the Evangelist John followeth; but this is not a phrase used amongst the Greeks. A fourth example, Give us this day, our daily bread, Matth. 6. 11. The Greeks say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Panem quotidianum, but the Syriac hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Crastinum panem, that bread which may feed us today and tomorrow. So I am. 4. 6. The Lord exalteth the humble, but according to the Hebrew and Syriac phrase, to Exalt, is to lift up on the Cross, John. 8. 28. When ye have lift up the Son of man, or exalted the Son of man, that is, lifted him up on the Cross. These particular phrases used by the Seventy would be marked. And besides these, if we shall look more nearly to the style of the Scripture, as to the simplicity of it, then we shall much more admire it, 1 Cor. 2. 4. My preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power.

Again the Evidence of the style, the judgments of God are set down, so vively in the Scripture, as if a man were looking on with his eyes, this is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Greeks, as we may see in the deludge, the overthrow of Sodom, and the miracles in the Wilderdernesse, set down so clearly before us, as if we had been eye witnesses of them. See a notable example, Psal. 7. 12. 13. By a borrowed kind of speech he setteth forth the judgments of God which were to over take the wicked, as if we were looking on. If he turn not he will whet his Sword, he hath bent his bow, and made it ready, he hath also prepared for him the instruments of death: he hath ordained his arrows against the persecutors.

Eighthly, the Fullness of the speech. The Greeks call this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wherein nothing is wanting, neither in the enumeration of the parts, or explication of the causes, or reciting of the circumstances: for the holy Ghost setteth down all the circumstances belonging to the purpose. So the Apostle Rom. 1. describeth at large the vanity and impiety of the Gentiles. And Rom. 2. the hypocrisy of the Jews, and Cap. 3. he maketh a full description of the corruptions of man, reckoning up the parts. There is none righteous, no not one, verse. 10. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God, verse. 11. They are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become unprofitable, there is none that doth good, no not one, Vers. 12. Their throat is an open Sepulcher, with their tongues have they used deceit, the poison of Asps is under their lips, Vers. 13. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, Vers. 14. Their feet is swift to shed blood, Vers. 15. Destruction and misery are in their ways, Vers. 16. And the way of peace they have not known, Vers. 17. And there is no fear of the Lord before their eyes, Vers. 18.

Ninthly, the Shortnesse of the speech: and here we cannot enough admire the fullness of the style and the shortness of it, & that which Cicero said of Thucycides may here be applied fitly, Eum esse adeo plenum refertum{que} rebus, ut prope verborum numerum, numero rerum exaequet, That every word carried a weight with it, and therefore we may call it Laconica Scriptura.

Tenthly, the Coherence: all things in the Scriptures are fitly joined and coupled together. The Heathen said that there were three things unpossible, Eripere, Iovi fulmen, Herculi clavam & Homero versum; to pull Jupiter's Thunder-bolt out of his hand, Hercules Club out of his hand, and a verse from Homer: for they thought, that there was such a connection between Homers verses, that not one verse could be taken away without a great breach in the whole work: but this may be much more said of the Scriptures of God which have such a dependence and connection, that if ye take away but one verse, the whole shall be marred.

But it may be said that there are sentences which [Ob.] seem not to cohere or agree fitly together, Gen. 48. 7. And as for me when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the Land of Canaan in the way, when there was but yet a little way to come to Ephrath, and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath, the same is Bethlehem, Vers. 8. And Israel beheld Joseph's sons. How doth this cohere with that which goeth before; it would seem that there is no dependence here.

They cohere well enough with the words going before; for Jacob had adopted two of Joseph's children, [Ans.] then he giveth the reason of this adoption in these words; as if he should say, whereas I might have had moe children by my first wife Rachel, if she had lived; it is great reason that I supply this defect in her, by placing some in stead of these children, which she might have borne to me; and I adopt those thy sons since she is dead.

The second place which seemeth to have no coherence with things going before, Esa. 39. 21. Take a lump of figs, and lay it for a plaster unto the boil and he shall recover, verse. 22. Hezekiah also had said what is the sign, that I shall go up into the house of the Lord. What coherence is betwixt these words, and the words going before?

There is a right coherence here, and he setteth down that last, which was first for brevities cause; which is more at large set down in the book of the Kings; and therefore Junius translateth it well, Vajomer, In plusquam perfecto, Isaiah had said.

Ier. 40. 1. The word which came to Jeremiah from the [Object.] Lord, &c. The words following seem not to cohere with the former.

The beginning of the fortieth Chapter, with the seventh [Answ.] Verse of the fortiesecond Chapter, and these things which are insert between them, do contain but the occasion of the prophesy, to wit; when Godoliah was killed, the rest of the Jews would have gone into Egypt, which Jeremiah forbiddeth them to do. And it came to pass ten days after, Chap. 42. 7, &c. This should be joined with the first Verse of the fortieth Chapter, and all the rest should be included in a parenthesis.

As we have spoken of the style of the Scripture in general, so let us observe the style of some of the writers in particular. Isaiah’s style differed much from the style of Amos, he being a Courtiour, and he but a Neat-herd. So the style of Ezekiel differed from the style of the rest of the Prophets: he calleth himself The Son of man, not because it is a Chaldee phrase, but because of the excellent visions which he saw, therefore he is called the Son of man, that is, an excellent man; as Jesus Christ in the New Testament is called The Son of man, that is, an excellent man. So this is peculiar to John the Evangelist, to call Christ the Son of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the Chaldees and the Talmud usually call him so: John opposed himself to Ebion and Cerinthus two Jews who denied the divinity of Christ, wherefore he hath usually the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 John. 7. 5. which was frequent in the Chaldee paraphrast, and read often by the Jews.

So there are some things peculiar to Paul; for he useth some words according to the manner of the speech in Tarshish and Silicia, as Collos. 2. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in their language, signifieth insidiose alteri praeripere palmam. So 1 Cor. 4. 3. Mans day according to the phrase of Tarshish, is put for the time of judgment; because they had some appointed times for judgment.

The Conclusion of this is, here we may admire the [Conclusion.] wisdom of God, who gave most excellent gifts to his Secretaries for the edification of his Church. Moses was a man of a slow speech, and of a slow tongue, and Aaron must be his spokesman, Exod. 4. Yet Moses was mighty in words and deeds, Act. 7. 22. It is said of Paul that his bodily presence was weak, but his letters were weighty, 2 Cor. 10. 11. By his preaching he converted many, from Jerusalem to Illiricum, Rom. 15. 19. but by his letters he converted moe, both in Europe Africa and Asia; such was the majesty and grace in his writing, that they acknowledged it to be from the Lord.

EXERCITAT. XII.

THe Church of Rome, that they may advance the authority of the vulgar Latin translation, which they have made canonical; do labor to disgrace the original Text, the Hebrew and Greek, holding that they are corrupt in many things.

Master James Gordon our Country man, observeth four distinct periods of time. The first period, he maketh to be the Jews Synagogue before Christ came in the flesh; he granteth that all this time, the Hebrew Text was not corrupted by the Jews. The second period of time he maketh to be from the ascension of Christ until the days of Jerome and Augustine, and he saith, that in this second period, the Jews went about to corrupt the translation of the Seventy: because the Christians then began to use arguments taken out of that translation against them, as Justin Martyr testifieth, writing against Tripho. The third period he maketh to be after the death of Saint Jerome, until the time that the Talmud was composed and set together, and then he saith, there arose great contention betwixt the Oriental and Occidentall Jews: (the Oriental Jews were those who dwelt upon the East side of Euphrates in Babylon Media & Persia, those Peter called the Church at Babylon, 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Occidentall Jews were those to whom he wrote, Scattered abroad in Pontus Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Pet. 1. 1.) because of the diversity of their reading, and corruptions in the Text. He saith that the Jews met at Tiberias, Anno 508. and there set down the Points; and made their Masora; to obviat this, that no more corruption should enter into the Text. The fourth period he maketh to be after the Jews had met at Tiberias; they decreed that none should use any copy, but such as were corrected by the Masoreth: and so from this time he freeth the Text from corruption: but he laboreth much to prove that the Hebrew Text was corrupt before, and that the vulgar Latin is sound and free from corruption, which was translated by Saint Jerome under Pope Damasus; and so continued in the Church of Rome.

The Jews to whom The Oracles of God were committed, Rom. 3. 2. (therefore it was called Their Law, John. 8. 17.) would they have corrupted their own Evidents? Augustine calleth the Jews Capsarios nostros, who faithfully kept the book of God, and reserved it unto us without corruption, & he saith, Dispersos esse Iudaeos, infidels ut testarentur Scripturas esse veras. The unbelieving Jews were scattered through the world, that they might testify the Scriptures to be true: and shall we think that the Jews would have corrupted the Text, who have numbered the words, letters, and verses of the Bible: and R. Zaddias hath numbered the letters words and verses, and summed up all the verses at the end of every book, and they have observed that all the letters are found in one verse, Zeph. 3. 8. as also four of the final letters: they carry such respect to the Law, that if it but fall to the ground, they institute a fast for it.

The superstitious Jews at this day, are so careful to keep the letters and words of the Law, that they will have neither Chaldee, Syriac, nor Hebrew words wrirten; but in Hebrew letters: and it grieved them when they saw in Origen's Hexupla, Hebrew words written in Greek Characters, when they saw the copy which was presented to Alexander the Great, having the name Jehovah still written in Golden letters, they were much grieved at it, and when they see anything changed in our copies now, in disdain they call it, Hhomesh pesul shel gelahhim, that is, Pentateuchus rasorum Monachorum, the Pentateuch of the shaven Monks.

The Jews after the death of Christ were dispersed among many Nations and they never met together again: and albeit they would have corrupted the Scripture, how could they have falsified all the Copies?

Bellarmine maketh this objection to himself. Some men will say, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted after the days of Saint Jerome and Augustine. He answereth, that Augustine's reasons serve for all times against the corruption of the Hebrew Text: And Serrarius acknowledgeth, that there is but small or no corruption in the Hebrew Text, & he maketh a threefold corruption. The first Physical, the second Mathematical, and the third Moral. Physical corruption he maketh to be this, when it wanteth any member which it should have. Mathematical corruption he maketh to be this, when there are some faults in the print which we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And a moral corruption he maketh to be this, when one of purpose goeth about to corrupt the Text, and in effect he cometh to this, that the errors which are found in the Text, are but errors in the print, and not in the matter.

But now lately there is one risen up, called Morinus, who hath set himself to improve the original Hebrew Text, and to prefer the Samaritan to it as the original.

We must put a difference betwixt Hebraeo-Samaritana and Hebraeo-samaritano-samaritana. Hebraeo-samaritana is that which Moses wrote from the Lord and delivered to the Jews, it is called Hebraeo-samaritana; because the Hebrew was written in the Samaritan Character at the first and so kept still till after the captivity, and this we grant to be the first and original writing by which the Church should be ruled.

But that this Hebraeo-samaritano-samaritana should be the first original; that in no way must we grant, and the reasons are these.

First, the Samaritans were Idolaters they were brought out of Assyria by Salmanasses, and they erected a false worship in Judea, for the which they [Reason 1] were hated by the people of God, John. 4. They branded them always with these two letters, Gnaijn Zain, that is, strange worship. The Lord concredited his oracles to his own people, Deut. 33. 4. The Law is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. Therefore the Law was not committed to their custody, who were not God's people, they had no right to his inheritance.

Secondly, if the Samaritan copy were the original, then it should follow that the Church hath wanted the [Reason. 2] true original Text until the year of God, 1626. when Petrus de Valle brought it from Damascus.

The Samaritan Copy differed as much from the original, as the Seventy do, but none of them hold that [Reason 3] the translation of the Seventy is the original by which all others should betryed, why then should they give this prerogative to the Samaritan Copy, to be the original? this Samaritan Copy addeth to the original Text which was The inheritance of the Jews, Deut. 33. 4. and diminisheth also from it. It addeth to the original Text, Josh. 21. two Verses, 36. 37. Verses. So Gen. 4. it addeth a long speech or conference betwixt Cain and Abel which is not in the original Text. So Targum Hierosolymitanum supplieth the same 28. verses here, which are not in the original Hebrew Text, a conference betwixt Gain and Abel, whether there be any providence of God or not? or whether there be any reward for the just, or punishment for the wicked? Abel holdeth the affirmative, and Cain the negative part. But this note of the Masoreth in the margent should not be read this ways, Pesu pesuki bimtzegno pesuk. Viginti octo versus desiderantur in medio hujus versus, There are twenty eight Verses wanting in the midst of this verse. But it should be read this ways, Pesukim pasekin bimtzeghnoth pasuk, that is, There are twenty eight verses whose sense endeth in the midst of the verse: therefore when the Scripture saith that Cain talked with his brother, it was to persuade him to go out to the field, and not that he had a long conference with him. Both the Samaritan Copy then, and the Targum of Jerusalem wrong the Text as defective, putting in these 28. verses which the Spirit of God never indicted.

As it addeth to the original Hebrew Text, so it diminisheth some things from it, Hos. 4. 11. I have called my Son out of Egypt. These words are not in the Samaritan Copy. So these words, Zach. 12. 10. They shall behold him whom they pierced. [Reason 4]

If this Samaritan Copy were the original Copy, what is the reason that Origen setteth it not down in his Octupla, as he hath done other translations? and what is the reason that Jerome never citeth it, nor followeth it in his translation, if it be the original?

Fifthly, the manner of the Samaritans writing showeth [Reason. 5] that this was not the original, w ^ch Moses received from the Lord, and delivered to the people of God afterwards, as you may perceive in the page following, out of Exod. 31. from verse. 12. to 18.

Observe the form of this writing of the Samaritans and ye shall find it to be mere Cabbalisticall, by which they would find out the diverse readings, in framing the lines, words and letters, and setting them down after such a curious form, as the Cabbalists do, by their Gematrija, notaricon, and temura: that is, by the number of letters, the diverse significations of them, and the diverse situation and placing of them, they make diverse senses in the Scriptures, as by elbham, and ethbhash; sometimes putting the last letters for the first, and the first for the last; sometimes reading up and down; sometimes crosswayes, and sometimes from the left hand to the right: this we may see in this example of the Samaritan Copy, where they sum up the observation, the breach, and punishment of the Sabbath in a round circle; which curiosity the Spirit of God never used in writing the holy Scriptures.

Christ speaking of the original Text, and the perpetuity of the Law which we have, he saith, One jot, or one title of the Law shall not pass, in the original it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answerable to the Hebrew Yod; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is not properly translated, A tittle, as if it made a difference betwixt some letters, as the top of Daleth from Resh: for the Syriac calleth it Sharat, incisura vel incisio, the small lines which are in ones hand. The meaning is then, that not one part of a letter, neither the least letter, nor any part of the least letter shall perish, hence we may reason from Christ's words. In that copy whereof the Lord speaketh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Yod must be the least letter; but in the Samaritan copy Yod is not the least, but the biggest of all the Letters: therefore the Samaritan copy, is not that copy which Christ spake of, but the Hebrew as we may see by the difference of the Letters in the margent here: hence we may gather that this Samaritan letter was abolished in Christ's time, and therefore we ought neither to embrace the copy nor the Characters, as authentic or original.

The Conclusion of this is, If the light that is in the [Conclusion.] body be darkness, how great is that darkness, Matth. 6. 23. The Scriptures are the light of the Church, and if the original Text were corrupted, how great were the darkness of the body; God hath Conjuncta instrumenta, & remota instrumenta gratiae. Remota instrumenta gratiae are the Preachers and their writings, and they may be corrupted. But Conjuncta instrumenta gratiae are the Prophets and Apostles and their writings, these the Lord kept from error and corruption for the good of his Church.

EXERCITAT. XIII.

WHen a thing wanteth an essential part, this is the greatest want. Secondly, when it wanteth an integral part, this is likewise a great defect. And thirdly, when it wanteth accidental ornaments. When the soul is separated from the body, here is a separation of the essential parts. When a man wanteth a hand or a foot, then he wanteth an integral part. And when he wanteth his clothes, he wanteth some ornaments.

There is no book in the Scripture that wanteth any essential part; for the Law and the Gospel which are essential parts, are found in every book.

Secondly, the Scripture wanteth no integral part since the Canon was sealed, before the Canon was sealed they had as much as served for their infancy: but after that it was sealed the whole Canon was complete, and none of those Books perished.

Great was the care which the Lord had to preserve the Scriptures. First, he commanded the Levites to take the book of the Law written by Moses, and to put it in the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, Deut. 31. 26.

Secondly, the Lord commanded the King, when he should sit upon the Throne of his kingdom to write a Copy of this Law, Deut. 17. 18. and the Jews add further, that he was bound to write out two copies, one which he should keep in his treasury, and another which he should carry about with him; and they say moreover, if Printing had been found out then, yet he was bound to write them out with his own hand.

Thirdly, the Lord commanded the Prophets to write their visions upon Tables, and to make them plain, Habak. 2. 2. Isaiah 8. 1. and the Seventy read it, to be graven upon the bush tree, which is a sort of wood that corrupteth not, and it will preserve that which is written upon it and it were to the worlds end.

Fourthly, when any book which was necessary for the use of the Church was lost; the Lord had a care that that book should be found again, as the book of the law found by Hilkiah, 2 King 22. 8. Or the Lord endited it a new again, when it was lost; as when Jehoiakim cut the roll of the lamentations of Jeremiah, yet the Lord inspired him a new again to indite this book to his Scribe Baruch, Jer. 36. 32. because he thought it necessary still for the Church: therefore he would not have it to perish.

Fifthly, in that general destruction which the Babylonians made at Jerusalem, burning their houses, and robbing them of their goods; yet as Jerome and Basil observe well, it was a special providence of God that they should leave to those captives, their instruments of Music, wherewith they used to serve God in the Temple: that they might preserve some memory of their former worship, they brought these instruments to Babel with them, Psal. 137. 2. we hung our harps on willows. If the Lord had such a care of these instruments to have them preserved for his praise, much more care had he to have the Scriptures preserved; which taught them to worship: and he who had a particular care of the parts of the Scripture, before it was complete, and numbereth the hairs of our heads, Matth. 10. 30. and the stars of the heavens, Psal. 147. 4. will he not have a special care that none of these Books should perish which are canonical?

That fable of Esdras then is to be rejected, lib. 4. cap. 4. 23. So cap. 14. 21. to the 24. verse, he showeth how the book of God was lost in the Captivity, and that Esdras the Scribe, by holy inspiration wrote it all anew again: but this is false, see we not how Daniel read out of the prophesy of Jeremiah, how long the captivity should last, Dan. 2. 9. The book of God then was not lost in the captivity, and written anew again by Esdras, but only he set the books in order after the captivity, & nihil ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fecit sed ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He did nothing in correcting the book of God, but only set it down in order.

But we read often times in the Scriptures of many Books wanting now, which were extant before; as the Books of the battles of the Lord, Num. 21. 14.

By this it cannot be inferred that any canonical [Ans.] book is perished; for this word Sepher, signifieth a relation, as well by word, as by write. Secondly, although we grant that it was a written book, yet it will not follow that it was a holy Book. Thirdly, although we grant that it was an holy book, yet it will not follow that it was a canonical book. The books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel were but civil records, and belonged nothing to the canon of the Scriptures.

Secondly, some books that were written by the Prophets, were not written by them as they were Prophets. Solomon wrote of Hearbes, Trees and Plants, 1 King. 4. 33. But what books were these? They were but books of things which were under the Moon and of things corruptible, and because they served not for the edification of the Church afterwards, therefore the Lord suffered them to perish. Soudas saith, that the book which Solomon wrote of Physic, was affixed upon the gate in the entry of the Temple; and because the people trusted too much in it, neglecting the Lord (as Asa put his trust in the Physicians, 2 Chro. 13.) therefore Hezekiah caused to pull away this book, and bury it. And the Talmud saith, that Hezekiah did two memorable things. First, Ganaz Sepher rephuoth. Abscondit librum medicinarum, He hid the books of Physic which Solomon had written. And secondly, Cathath nahhash hannehhushoth shegnashe Moshe, Comminuit aeneum serpentem quem fecerat Moses, He brake the brazen Serpent which Moses made.

Solomon spake three thousand Proverbs, 1 King. 4. 32. yet of all these Proverbs scarce eyght hundred are put in the Canon. Some of these Proverbs the servants of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out, Prov. 25. 1. And as they saw the King their master bury Solomon's book, which he knew was hurtful to the Church: so those servants copied out these Proverbs which were profitable for the Church, whereas the rest perished. So Solomon wrote a thousand and five Songes; of all which Songes, the Lord made choice but of one to be insert in the Canon, which is called the Song of Songes, or canticum canticorum quae Salomonis rather then canticum canticorum quod Salomonis, it was the most excellent Song of all Solomon's Songs, rather then the excellentest Song compared with other Songes.

But all books written by thē for the whole Church none of them are perished: as the Prophesies of Nathan Ahija, and Iddo. For Burgensis observeth well upon, 1 Chro. 29. That the first book of Samuel is holden to be written by Samuel himself. So the second Book of Samuel, and the second book of the Kings were written by Nathan and Gad, who lived with David and Solomon, and wrote until the death of Solomon, then Iddo and Ahija wrote the history following of Jeroboam interlacing some things of Solomon and Rehoboam.

1 Chron. 29. 29 Now the acts of David the King, first [Object.] and last behold they are written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the book of Nathan the Prophet; and in the book of Gad the Seer, with all his reign and his might and the times that went over him, and over Israel and all the Kingdoms of the Countries. But these words cannot be understood of the books of Samuel; for we read not in these books, what David did abroad in these Countries: therefore some other books must be understood here, written by Gad and Nathan, which are not extant.

Not only the things, which David did in Israel, are [Ans.] set down in the book; of Samuel's but also the things which he did abroad in other Countries, as against Zoba King of Hadadezzar, against the Moabites, and against Tobh King of Hemath. And where it is said over all the kingdoms of the countries, it is the manner of the Scripture (as Jerome marketh) by the whole Countries, to understand the next adjacent countries whereof it speaketh; and therefore in the original it is, Haaratzoth, Of that earth.

2 Chro. 33 19. The prayer of Manasseh and how God [Ob.] was entreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images before he was humbled: behold they are written among the saying of the Seers, or Hosai. But in the whole book of the Kings there is no mention made of his affliction, or of the cause which moved him to repent or of his prayers which he made to God in time of his affliction: then this book of the prophet is not now extant. So the acts of Baasha, Zimri, and Omri are they not written in the Books of the Chronicles of Israel, 1 Kings 16. 5. & 27. But nothing concerning their acts are found in the books of the Kings, or in the Chronicles: therefore those books are perished, when the Scriptures remit us to those books, it giveth us to understand that these books are worthy to be trusted, as written by the Seers of God: neither doth the Scripture cite them, as it doth some short sentences out of the Heathen Poets. The Apostle saith of those Poets, that they said the truth, Tit. 1. 13. But the Spirit of God remitteth us to these books, that we may be fully instructed by them in the whole truth of the Acts of those Kings.

First we must know that there were many Prophets [Answ.] who prophesied, whose prophesies were never written; as the prophesies of the children of the Prophets, and the prophesies of those, who prophesied from the days of Eli, to David, as some of Asaph Heman and Jeduthun. Secondly, all the things which were written by the Seers, were not written by them as Seers: Solomon wrote many things, which he wrote not as a Prophet, and so did David. Thirdly, many things which they wrote then as Seers, and were profitable to the Church for that time, were not profitable for the Church now: and the Spirit of God remitted them then to the civil records and to some prophesies which were then extant, but are perished now; because now they were not necessary for the Church: but all these things which the Lord endited to them by his Spirit and which he thought to be necessary for his Church, to be the Canon and rule of our faith, all those the Lord's watchful eye hath kept and preserved, that none of them are perished.

The Conclusion of this is: The books of Emperors [Conclusion.] and Kings are lost, yet the Lord hath kept the register of the little Kings of Judah and Israel, both in whole and in parts, although they were but Shepherds, and banished men. And the Church would rather spend her best blood, then she would part with that precious Jewel or any part of it: therefore they called those who delivered the book of God to the persecuting Tyrants, Traditores.

EXERCITAT. XIIII.

WE have shown that the Scriptures are not corrupt, and that no essential or integral part is wanting in the holy Scriptures: Now it resteth to show that the Points, the accidental ornaments were not from the beginning.

The Jews who are faithful keepers, but bad interpreters of the Scriptures, interpret these words, Nehe. 8. 8. after this manner, vaijkreu bassepher betorath, They read in the book of the Law, this they expound, to be the literal sense, which Ezra gave. Mephorash, distinctly that is, adding the Points and distinctions. Veshom Shecel, Apponentes intellectum, and gave the sense, that is, he added the Targum or paraphrase to it. Vajabhinu bammikra and caused them to understand the reading of the Law, that is, he added the Kabbala. But this is a false Gloss, Ezra read the Law to them, & gave them not only the gramatical sense, but also the spiritual and true meaning of the words; he neither added points nor Targum, or Kabbala to it. The points were not then from the beginning, as may be seen by these reasons following.

The first reason is taken from the Samaritan Character. The Jews acknowledge that the letters of the law [Reason. 5] which they have now, are not the ancient Characters in which Moses wrote the Law. But to these ancient Characters there is no vowell subjoined as we may see in the form of the Shekell set down by Arias Montanus, Beza, and Villalpand upon Ezekiel.

The second reason is taken from the first exemplar [Reason 2] of the Jews, which they kept in their Synagogues; and they have most exactly written and rolled up this book, which is the chief book in their estimation, and whereof they account more then of any other Hebrew Bible; yet there is neither Poynt nor Accent in this book, but only Consonants. This may be seen also in their ancient bills of divorce wherein are neither Points nor Accents: Therefore the Points were not from the beginning.

The third reason is taken from the names of the [Reason 3] Points, and Accents, which are Chaldee names, therefore they were imposed after the captivity.

But they who maintain that the Poynts were from [Object.] the beginning, say, that this reason holdeth not; for the names of the Moneths are Chaldee names, imposed after the captivity; and yet the Moneths were from the beginning: So the Points may be from the beginning, although the Chaldee names were given to them after the captivity.

As the Moneths were from the beginning, and had [Answ.] Chaldee names given unto them, after the captivity: so the value of the Points were from the beginning; but the figures and the names of the Points, were set down a long time afterwards.

The fourth reason is taken from the translation of the [Reason. 4] Seventy: for when the Seventy read the Hebrew Text wanting the Points, they differed very far from the Hebrew in many things. The difference of their reading arose from this; because the Hebrew Text wanted the Poynts. Example, Gen. 47. 31. and Israel bowed himself, gnal rosh hamitta, upon bis beds head. But the Apostle followeth the translation of the Seventy translating it, He bowed upon the top of his rod, Heb. 11. 21. So Psal. 40. 7. for Megilla the Seventy read gilgoleth, in capite libri, for in volumine libri: because they wanted the Points, and the Apostle followed this reading.

The fifth reason is taken from, Ketibh volo keri, when [Reason 5] the words are written one way, and read another. This diversity of reading and writing arose because the letters wanted the Points from the beginning: this made them to read one way and write another way.

The Chaldee, Arabian, and Assyrian language, which [Reason 6] are but daughters proceeding from the Hebrew tongue, have no Points: therefore it is not probable that the Hebrew Text had Points from the beginning.

The seventh reason is taken out of the Talmud. They [Reason. 7] write, that Joab killed his master, because he taught him to read Zacar Masculus, for Zecer Memoria, and so made him to spare the females of the Amalekites, whereas he should have blotted out their memory and killed them all. Now if the points had been from the beginning, then Joab's master could not have taught him, to have read Zacar for Zecer.

The Points were not from the beginning then, but found out afterwards by the Masorath.

There were three sorts of teachers, amongst the Jews. The first was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who gathered the traditions of the Fathers together; such were the Pharisees. The second were the Sopherim afterwards called the Masoreth: these observed the letters and words in the reading. The third sort were the Midroseth, the Cabbalists, who expounded the Scriptures allegorically. The Scribes were from Moses time, who taught the people to read the Law, because the Law wanted the Points: and Christ calleth these The learned Scribes, and saith to one of them; How readest thou? Luk. 10. 26. But afterwards Shammai and Hellel were the first of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were the original of these sects. Shammai was the first of these Scribes who drew out the Cabbalisticall readings, and Hillel was the first who gathered their traditions together.

Because the Text wanted the Vowels before the Masorets time, hence arose these diverse readings marginal and Textuall; here we must take heed of two errores. The first is of those who hold, that both the Textuall and Marginall reading were from the beginning, and both authentic and original from Moses. The second error which we must shun, is this, that the marginal reading implieth some corruption, where as it serveth for illustration of the Text.

There is but small difference betwixt the Marginall and the line reading. There are three sorts of reading. The first is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when there is no difference at all in the words. The second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when there is some small difference in the reading. And the third is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when there is a contrary reading. Now for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we may see it in the original Text it self, as 2 Sam. 22. and Psal. 18. the same argument is handled almost word by word in both these places, there is some diversity of words only: for 2 Sam. 22. 43. It is Adikem, I did stamp them as the mire of the streets, but Psal. 18. 42. it is Arikem, I did cast them out as the mire in the streets. Here is but small difference, Daleth is only changed into Resh, the sense is all one. So 2 Sam. 22. 11. and Psal. 18. 11. So 2 Sam. 22. 27. and Psal. 18. 26. So 2 Sam. 22. 8. and Psal. 18. 9. here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So the Marginall reading, and the Text reading makes not a contrary reading, but a diverse reading: therefore ye shall see that the Translators follow sometimes the Marginall reading in their first translations, as Junius 2 King 8. 10. in his first translation, he saith abi, dic ei, but in this second translation he saith, abi, dic non, So Ezr. 4. 2. In his first edition, sacrificabimus eidem which is the marginal reading, but in his second translation, non sacrificabimus alt eri which is in the Text. Example, 3. 1 King 22. 49. Jehoshaphat prepared shipes, Gnasha fecit; but in his second translation Jehoshaphat made decem naves which is in the Text. So Prov. 31. 4. Eccles. 3. 4. Ier. 2. 20. and 5. 8. He followeth Ketibh in his last Edition, that is, as it is written and not read in all these places. And sometimes ye shall see them, join both the Marginall and Text reading together. Psal. 22. 17. They Lyon like digged. So the Chaldee Paraphrast and the Seventie readeth it. So Junius▪ (Exod. 21. 8. If she please not her Master who hath not betrothed her unto himself, non sibi) joineth lo, lo, both together, both the Text and Marginall reading. So Josh. 8. 12. The line reading hath gnir, vrbs, and the Marginall reading hath Hai, and he joineth them both together vrbs Hai. So Prov. 23. 26. Let thine eyes observe my ways. Ratza, and Natzar, he joineth them both together, studiose custodivit. So Eze. 22. 16. They join them both together. So 1 King. 22. 18. the Tigurin joineth them both together▪ and the English join them both together, Prov. 19. 7. They are wanting to him.

In these diverse readings set down by the Masoreth, sometimes the Points are put in the Text and the Consonants in the Margent, as Ier. 31. 39. Behold the day saith the Lord. Here is a blank in the Text, the vowels are only set down and the word Baim, is understood by the Points of it, which are in the Text, and so it is Baim, although it be not expressly written in the Text. The reason why they set the consonants in the Margent and the vowels in the Text, was to signify, that they inclined rather, to follow the Marginall reading than the Text, and yet not to exclude the Text reading: therefore they set the vowels in the Text.

Again, when the Masoreth think that some words abound, they set down the Consonants of the word in the Text, but they point not the word, which they would have to be be omitted, Example, Ier. 51. 3. Against him that bended, let the Archer bend his bow. El ijddroch ijddroch hadderech. And thus the Masoreth keep us that we go not amiss, and their observations are a hedge to the Law: therefore the Jews say, Sejag lahhochma shethea, Silence is the hedge of wisdom, for when a man holdeth his peace he is then thought to be wise. So they say Megnasheroth sejag legnosher, Tythes are the hedge of our riches, and therefore pay thy Tythes and be rich. So Nedarim sejag liphrishoth, vows are the hedge of the first fruits. Lastly, they say, Masoreth sejag latora, that the Masoreth is the hedge to the Law. By great pains and wonderful care those Masoreth, numbered the letters and words of the Scripture, that none of them might perish: and as in a well constituted family, the master of the family taketh a note of all the things in his house from the greatest to the least: So did these Masoreth of the whole Law: therefore the Hebrews say, Gnim shimmureth hatorah, that is, the study of the Masoreth was Cum conservatione legis, for the preserving of the Law from corruption.

These diverse readings make not up diverse senses but help us better to come by the right sense of the Scripture. When it is objected to us by the Church of Rome that we have not the true meaning of the Scriptures, because of our diverse translations: Our Divines answer, that these diverse translations make not diverse senses in the Scriptures; for the sense is still one and the same: but these diverse translations help us only, to come to the true meaning of the Scriptures, and so we must use these marginal and line readings, as we use these interpretations. When we see a blank left in the the Text, and supplied in the Margent; this addeth nothing to the Text, as a word added sometime by a translator, addeth nothing to the Text: So when the Masoreth putteth another word in the Margent, which is not in the Text; that word is set down only for explanation, and it addeth nothing to the Text. We take up the meaning of the Text, by the antecedent, and consequent. Example, Prov. 4. 3. Tender and young was I, Liphni, before my Mother; but in the Margent it is, Tender and young was I, Libhni, amongst the Sons of my Mother: for Solomon had moe brethren 1 Chron. 3. 6. But these readings may stand, he was tender and young before his Mother, and best beloved of all his Mothers Sons.

The Conclusion of this. A certain Jew gave God thanks for four things. First, that he was a Jew and [Conclusion.] not a Samaritan. Secondly, that he was bred at Jerusalem and not at Pambiditha. Thirdly, that he said Shibbeth and not Sibboleth. Fourthly, that he needed not the helps of Tiberias, meaning the Points and Accents. But we who are not natural Jews should be thankful to God; because we have these helps to further us in the reading.

EXERCITAT. XV.

THere are three special means by which God maketh the Scriptures plain unto us. The first is translation of the Scripture. The second is paraprasing of the Scripture, and the third is the interpretation of the Scripture.

In the Translation of the Scripture consider, first, what is a Translation. Secondly, the necessity of translation. Thirdly, what things a Translator should observe, and what things he should shun. Fourthly, who they were who translated the Scriptures. Fifthly, the authority of the translation of the Seventy. Sixthly, the authority of the vulgar Latin translation.

First, what is a translation. We translate when we change out of one language into another, and it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If the Translator consider the words a part, then it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there is great force in the words, and therefore the Translatour must observe them. Plato was wont to call Socrates, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , seu obstetricem; because when he sought out the words, then he brought forth the truth.

Secondly, let us consider the necessity of Translation without a Translation we cannot understand a strange language, but it is barbarous to us.

Reasons proving the necessity of translation.

First, when the old testament hath words altogether [Reason 1] unknown to the Jews, it useth to interpret them. Example, Purim was a Persicke word unknown to the Jews; therefore the Holy Ghost interpreteth it, calling it a Lot. So the Evangelists writing, in Greek, and having sundry Hebrew and Chaldee words, they expound them in Greek as Siloam, that is, sent, John. 9. 7. Abba interpreted by Pater, Rom. 8. So Tabitha kumi, by interpretation, Daughter arise, Mark. 5. 21. So Thomas called Didymus. See Mark. 7. 34. and Act. 1. 27. and Revela. 1. 7. amen by nai, So Abaddon be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Reve. 9. 11. So Rabboni by Master, John. 20. 16. why doth the holy Ghost interpret these names? but to teach us that he would have the Scriptures translated into known tongues, that the people might understand them.

Why doth the holy Ghost interpret Elymas by Magus, [Quest.] Act. 13. 8. But Elymas the Sorcerer (for so his name is by interpretation) withstood them, Seeing all translations should be in a more known tongue, but Magus, is as obscure as Elymas?

Magus was first a Persicke word, but afterwards it [Answ.] was well enough known to the Jews, Elymas was but a part of Persia, so called from Elam the son of Sem: therefore the Persians are called Elamites, Act. 2. and Luke interpreteth Elymas by Magus, as by that which was well enough known to the Jews, and to us now; for we take Magus commonly for a Magician: the Arabic▪ translateth Magus, by Hhartom, from Hharat, fingere or formare; because the Magicians draw figures and circles when they conjure.

Why is the prayer of Christ upon the Cross set [Quest.] down in Hebrew by the Evangelists? Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, Matth. 27. 46.

The Evangelist doth this, that we may perceive the [Ans.] bitter mock that the Jews used against Christ, saying, He calleth upon Elias, for in no other language the mock will so appear.

Secondly, it was a curse pronounced against the people of God, when the Lord should send strangers against them who should speak unto them in an unknown tongue, Esa. 28. 11. So it is a curse to the Church, as the Apostle applieth it, to speak to the people the mysteries of their salvation in an unknown tongue, 1 Cor. 14. 21.

The Lord at the Pentecost gave the gift of tongues to the Apostles, that they might speak to the people [Reason 3] in a known language, Every man heard them speak in his own language, Act. 2. 6. And to some he gave the tongues, but not the interpretation of them; but lest the people should not understand these languages, he gave to others the gift of interpretation, 1 Cor. 12. 10. but the Church of Rome studieth of purpose to keep the Scriptures in an unknown tongue, and thinketh, that thereby the minds of the people are more affected and stirred up to devotion.

The third thing to be considered in a translation is what a Translator should observe and what he should eschew in his translation. A Translator must observe Ex quo vertit & in quod vertit, or Terminus a quo & terminus ad quem, and he must consider first the sense, and then the words; he must look first to the sense and see that he carry it with him, and next to the words; and [Simile.] even as Merchants when they sell their wares they look for the worth of their wares in Money: So should a Translator in his translation see that he have the worth, or meaning of the sense in his Translation, he must consider first the aptness of the phrase into which he is to translate it, and he is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 servilly to follow it. Example, the Hebrew saith, I will multiply thy seed as the sand upon the lip of the Sea, Gen. 22. 17. But our language saith upon the Sea shore. So the Hebrew saith we must not eat with common hands, but we say, with unwashen hands: now in this metaphrase changing one phrase into another, the Translator must take good heed.

Secondly, where the sense beareth it a Translator may add a word without any hurt to the Text. The original Text it self, affecteth sometime more brevity and in other places supplieth this brevity. As, 2 Sam. 6. 6. Vzzia put fourth to the Ark, it is expounded more at large, 1 Chron. 13. 9. He put forth his hand to the Ark, So 2 Chron. 10. 9. is expounded by 2 Chron. 13. 9. At more length. The holy Ghost addeth a word for illustation where the sense beareth it, Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them; But the Apostle Galat. 3. 10. Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. So a Translator may add a word for illustration when the sense beareth it, Gen. 3. Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I forbad thee to eat? the Seventy add, Hast thou eaten of the tree which I (only) forbad thee to eat.

When Christ Mark. 5. 4. interpreteth tabitha kumi [Quest.] arise daughter, how addeth he here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tibi dico?

He doth not this as an interpreter, but to show the power and authority of him who speaketh; and therefore [Answ.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , should be in a parenthesis.

A Translator must add nothing of his own in his translation, Exod. 16. 15. The vulgar translation addeth something which is not in the original: when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, what is this? These words (what is this) are not the words of the holy Ghost: for Man signifieth, prepared or ready, and therefore it should be interpreted, this is ready or prepared meat. So Exod. 12. 11. they translate Phase, id est transitus, it should not be translated, id est transitus, but transitus, it is the Lord's Passover.

A Translator must not affect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, newness of words: those do contrary to that of Solomon, Prov. 22. 28. Remove not the ancient marks which thy fathers have set. This was the fault of Castalio who translated Sequester, for Mediator, Genius, for Angelus, Infundere, for Baptizare, Histrio, for Hypocrita, Respublica, for Ecclesia, and such. We are not so bound to words, but when the matter requireth, a new word may be used. Nicephorus telleth of Spiridion, when he heard the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , read for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; he rose and went out of the Church in a chafe: so another could not abide Cucurbita, for Hedera, Jonah 4. 6. Esa. 45. 9. Woe be to him that striveth with his Maker: let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Jerome hath it, testa de Samijs, he translated it terra Samiae; there is not such a word in the original, neither were these vasa Samiae, in use, in the days of the Prophet; yet because these vessels were in use in his time, he useth it in his translation: neither can he be thought to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a hunter of new words for this. So Nahum 3. 8. Art thou better than No. But Jerome translateth it, art thou better than Alexandria: because in his time No was called Alexandria: being built anew by Alexander.

A Translatour must not use a great circuit of words, or the floorishing speeches of Rhetoric in his translation; for as men pouring wine out of one Vessel into another, take heed that the vent be not too [Simile.] great; for then the wine would corrupt: So the Translatour if he take too much liberty to himself he may corrupt the sense.

Words that are transeunt, passing and received in all languages should not be translated: as Sabbath, Amen, Halleluia, Hosanua. So I am. 5. 4. and the cries of them which have reaped, are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath. For as some sort of coin passeth in all countries [Simile.] so do some words. Secondly, some words which come not originally from the Hebrew but from the Greek, yet they should be kept still untranslated, as Phylacterie, Tetrach and such.

There are many Latin words which are made Greek in the New Testament, and these are to be translated. For as Daniel borrowed some words from the Ionians who dwelt in Asia minor and made Chaldee words of them, as sabucha from sambucha an instrument which they played upon. Angaria a Persicke word made Greek, Matth. 5. 41. So Gazophylacium, all these should be translated: So the Latin words which are made Greek should be translated, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Census, Matth. 17. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Centurio, quadrans 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 5. 26. So Colonia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 16. 12. So custodia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 26. So Legio, linteum, Macellum, membrana, modius, praetorium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 27. sudarium, Luk. 19. 20. Spiculator, Matth. 6. 27. Semieinctum, Act. 19. 12. and Sicarius, Act. 21. 38. All these should be translated.

Words appropriate should not be translated to any other use, but unto the use, to which they are appropriated. Example, Rachab received into her house 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A Translator cannot translate it Angels (because that word is appropriated to the blessed Angels) but Messengers. Example 2. Phil. 2. 25. Epaphroditus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Translator cannot translate it your Apostle (for that word is appropriated to the the Apostles) but your Messenger. So Act. 19. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Translator cannot translate it, The Church was confused, because this word Church is appropriated to the meeting of the Saints of God for his worship; but only, The assembly was confused.

So words not appropriate should not be appropriate as the Church of Rome do appropriate this word Synagoga to the Old Testament, and Ecclesia to the New Testament; but Synagoga is said of the Church of the New Testament, and Synagoga & Ecclesia are promiscuusly taken. So this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be translated God's Clergy, but God's inheritance, 1 Pet. 5. 3. This word which is common to all God's people, should not be appropriated to a few.

Words that are degenerate, we cannot use them in a translation. Example, 1 Cor. 14. 16. He that occupieth the room 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it cannot be translated Idiot here (unless we would beg them for fools,) but Vnlearned. So the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a degenerate word in our language, and taken in an evil sense, we cannot translate it, the Magicians came from the East, but the Wise men came from the East, Matth. 2. 1, So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be translated Priest, for the word Priest now is taken for a sacrificing Priest: and God himself would not be called Baal, but ishi because Baal was a word degenerate and given to Idols, Hos. 2. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the first was he that had the charge of the corn which the Latins called Epulo, but now both are degenerate. So should not a degenerate word be used in a translation.

Words that are proper should not be translated as appellatives or contra, 2 Sam. 23. 8. The Tachmonite that sat in the seat chief amongst the Captains, this same was Hadino the Eznite, but 1 Chro. 11. 11. Iashobeam an Hachmonite, the chief of the Captains he lift up his Spear against three hundred. It was a proper name of a man, as we may see, 1 Chro. 27. 2. And therefore should not be translated, he sat in judgment. So Adino and Eznite are not proper names, but are to be translated thus, His delight was to lift up his spear against three hundred. So Josh. 14. 15. The Vulgar translation hath it thus, This is Adam who was buried amongst four. Adam here is an appellative name and not proper; therefore the article He, is put before it. Secondly, he addeth Situs est, which is not in the original. Thirdly, he translateth Arba, Four, which is a proper name here▪ and hence came that fable, that four men and their wives are buried there, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Lea. So Act. 19. 9. Schola Tyranni, cannot be translated, in the School of a Tyrant, but In the School of Tyrannus, because it is not an appellative but a proper name.

Words that are Mediae significationis, a Translator must take heed how he translateth thē. Example 1. Esa. 3. 2. I will take away your Kosem from you. The Translator cannot translate it here, your Soothsayer but your Prudent. So Joshua. 13. 22. Balaam also the son of Beor the Kosem, did the children of Israel slay. It cannot be translated, Balaam the Prudent, but Balaam the Soothsayer.

Another example gnarum is called subtle or crafty and also prudent or wise, Gen. 3. 1. the Serpent was gnarum, it cannot be translated, More wise than any beast of the field; but More crafty and Prov. 1. 4. It cannot be said to give Subtlety, but Wisdom to the simple. So Matth. 10. 16. It cannot be said, be ye Craftie as Serpents, but Wise as Serpents.

A third example, Sheol signifieth both the grave and hell; when it is set down without He locale, then it ever signifieth the grave, but when He locale, is put to it, and the godly, are said to go Lesheolah, then it signifieth the lowest grave, as Psal. 86. 13. But when Sheol hath He locale joined to it, and the wicked are said to go Lesheolah, then it signifieth the Hell, and it should be translated, They went down to hell, Num. 16. 30.

A fourth example, Pethi is taken in an evil sense for Foolishness, as Prov. 1. 22. and in a good sense for Simplicitie, as Psal. 116. 6.

Words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and as the Jews say Quae nullum habent fratrem) they should be warily taken heed unto, how they be translated, because there is not another word to clear them by. Example, Num. 24. 3. Hag gebher shethum hagnaijn, Vir apertis oculis. It is not taken in this sense in all the Scriptures but only here: in other places of the Scripture it is taken in a contrary signification for Shutting of the eyes.

Another example, Mat. 13. 25. The enemy came and sowed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it should not be translated Tares or Fitches, but Evil seed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is that which we call blasted Corn, or the deaf ears, which grow up with the good Corn, & cannot be discerned from the good Corn until the Harvest; and then it proveth naught: for Fitches and Tares may be presently discerned, and pulled up; the one signifieth the Hypocrites and the other Heretics. And where it is said, His enemy came and sowed Tares, The parable must be understood thus, that the enemy corrupted that seed which seemed to be good seed: In a parable we must not stretch every word, but only look to the main scope; for then we may gather that the wicked in Hell have tongues now, and the glorified have bodies now in the Heavens.

A third example. Mark. 14. 3. She brought a box 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of liquid nard, it should be translated Of upright and perfect nard: for according to the phrase of the Seventy, that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which excelleth in the own kind of it, and so they call the Temple of Solomon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; An excellent Temple. The Syriac hath it Pis from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The fourth thing that is to be considered here, are they who translated the Scriptures. Junius saith that there are twelve translations of the Bible into the Greek, the first translation of the Ptolemies was Lagiana which Ptolemaeus Lagi caused to be translated. The next translation, was the translation of the Seventy, which was translated in the days of Ptolomeus Philadelpus, the third was Herodiana in the time of Ptolemy the last, the fourth that of Aquila, the fifth of Symmachus, the sixth of Theodosion, the seventh Hierichuntina found in Jericho, the eight Nicapolitana found at Nicapolis, the ninth Origenaria, translated by Origen, the tenth Luciana translated by the martyr Lucian, the eleventh Hesychiana, translated by Hesychius, the twelfth Exhieromineana translated out of Jerome's translation into Greek.

There is such a profundity in the Scriptures, that it is unpossible for any Interpreter to sownd the depth of them, but as it fareth with the oil of the widow, 2 King. 4. So long as the children brought vessels, so long there was oil to fill them: So there is such plenty in the Scriptures, when they have filled the wits and understanding of the best; yet there is sufficient for these who go about to translate anew again, to be drawn out of them.

And it is no marvel why they differ so in their translations, for one root hath so many significations sometimes, that all the Translators cannot agree in one. Let us take but this one example, Job. 4. 18. Pagninus translateth it, In angelis suis ponit lumen. 2. In angelis suis indidit vesaniam, Tigurin. 3. In Angels suis ponit lucem exactissimam, vatablus. 4. In angelis suis posuit gloriationem, Regia. 5. In angelis suis reperit vanitatem, Symmachus. 6. Adversus angelos suos pravum quid advertit, Septuaginta. The diversity of these translations ariseth from the word Halal, which signifieth Laudare, gloriari, fulgere splendere, insanire.

The first translation which was in any account was that which was in in the days of Ptolomeus Philadelpus.

The second that of Aquila who translated the Old Testament into Greek, an hundred and twenty years after Christ. The third was that of Symmachus who lived in the time of the Emperor Severus, fifty and six years after the translation of Aquila. The fourth translation was that of Theodosion who lived under the Emperor Commodus (as Symmachus lived under Severus) and he and Symmachus lived at one time. These four were joined together by Origen, and he called them Tetrapla. And then he added the Hebrew Text and his own translation, and then he called them Hexapla. And lastly he added that translation which was found in Jericho, and at Nicapolis, and then he called them Octupla or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because every Page contained eight Columns, as may be seen in this Table following.

This was Origen's last Edition, but as he set them down first, he set his Tetrapla in the first place, and next his Hexapla,, and last his Octupla, as Scaliger hath set them down.

Mark Origen's farther diligence in this his work; for by sundry marks and notes, he distinguished that, which was extant in the Hebrew; from that which was added by the Translators.

These things which were found in the translations, and not in the Hebrew Text, he marks them Obelo, thus ⸓ ὀβελίσκος These things again which were in the Hebrew Text, and not found in the translations; he marked them Asterisco, with a star this ways ܍ ἀστερίσκος Thirdly, the divers readings confirmed by sundry Copies, he marked them lemnisco this ways ÷ λημνίσκος And lastly, these things which were found but in few copies, he marked them Hypolemnisco this ways ܋ ὑπολημνίσκος

This Edition of Origen was so generally followed afterwards, that Augustine complained that in all the Libraries they could scarcely find one Copy of the Seventy, wanting these marks of Origen: and when sundry faults, had crept into this his Edition Lucian an Elder at Antioch and afterwards a Martyr, took all these Editions and conferred them together; and he set out a more axact and correct Edition then Origen's was.

EXERCITAT. XVI.

THe scriptures are divided into the old and New Testament.

The Old Testament again is divided into Moses and the Prophets, and sometimes the Law is put for the whole Old Testament, Rom. 3. So John. 7. 49. Isaiah. 2. 3. And sometimes the Psalms are called the Law. John. 15. 25. That the word might be fulfilled which is written in their Law, they hated me without a cause. So the Prophets are called the Law. 1 Cor. 14. 21 In the Law it is written.

Moses is divided into Hammitzua, Commandments, Chukkim, statutes, and Mishpatim, judgments; that is, in Moral Precepts, Ceremonial, and Judicial.

The Jews again divide the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets and Cetubhim, which the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , holy writings, all the Scriptures are holy writings; but usually these that were not confirmed by Vrim and Thummim are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The Prophets are divided in Rishonim & Acharonim, the former and the Latter: the former Prophets are Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel. 1 Kings and 2 Kings, They are called the former Prophets because they entreat of the history past, and present. Act. 3. 24. Yea and all the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow after. Samuel is said to be the first of the Prophets; therefore, Jer. 15. 1. Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, Samuel is the first of the Prophets; then it is most probable that he wrote the books of Joshua and Judges. Joshua is the first in order of the Prophets, therefore the Haptorath which is set upon it, is called Haphtorah laetitiae legis, They were glad when they ended the Law, and began the Prophets. But Samuel seemeth to be the writer of this book.

Others call them the first Prophets, because they saw the first Temple; and they call them the latter Prophets, because they prophesied in the time of the second Temple, as Haggai, Malachi, Zechariah. But they are all rather to be called Acharonim latter Prophets, because they foretell things to come: and they are divided into the great Prophets and into the small.