Exposition of Job 38-42
Nor doth it a little help this interpretation that most of those marks, which the Scripture takes notice of in that beast called Reem, namely, his extreme fierceness, great strength, and the extraordinary magnitude of his horn, are all ascribed by Authors to the Unicorn.
Yet to me this interpretation seems the less probable, because Unicorns are found only in India, say they, who have written of them. Now it is not likely, that M • ses, David, and the Prophets should speak so often of, and take similitudes from, and that God himself should spend so much time in a discourse with Job about a creature unknown in their Countries. And it must needs be, that he was there (and to them) unknown, if no Country nearer than India produced the Unicorn; for the world was not so discovered in those times, by mutual commerce, that living creatures, and things proper to Nations, should be familiarly or much known, in Nations far remote. Of this we have a clear instance in the Elephant, of which famous animal, so useful to man for various services, and so abounding in many parts of Africa and Asia, the Israelites seem to have had little or no knowledge at all; which we may well conjecture by that deep silence in Scripture concerning him, there being no mention made of the Elephant anywhere but in the book of Job: And Job was not an Israelite, nor an inhabitant of Canaan, but of Arabia; whose neighbors on the other side of the Red-sea, the Ethiopians and Troglodites abounded with Elephants. And this is the more to be marvelled at, because Ivory, which is nothing else but an Elephants tooth, was so well known and common in India. Now, if the Elephant, of whose teeth they had plenty, and which were bred in great numbers in Countries much nearer than Judea, was so little known to the Jews, who can believe that the Unicorn, which was proper to India, should be known to them?
But we have another, and that a stronger argument, against this interpretation; namely, that we account the report of this Unicorn to be a mere fable, and that no such animal, as this is described and commonly believed to be, is at present in the the world, or ever was. For Clesias, a most vain man, and who, moved only with a love to lying, hath b • ought in very many, and those most monstrous figments in his books of the Indians, is the father of this story, from whom Pliny, Aelian, and all who have written of the Unicorn, received and took it up.
And that Clesias lied, as in many other things, so in this also, we may hence conjecture, because this animal was never seen at Rome; in whose shows, all the rarest animals which this half part of the world, containing Asia, with Europe and Africa, ever produced, were wont to be presented to public vi ••• , and those not only fetched from within the bounds of the Roman power, but from the Empire of the Parthians, and from the furthest parts of India and Ethiopia. For to omit many other wild beasts, Tigers, &c. (none of which were bred in the Roman Territories) Rome often saw Rhinocerotes, w • ich are bred only in India. So that Aristides spake but the truth in his Encomium of Rome, when he said, All things meet here, whatsoever is bred or made; and whatsoever is not seen here, is to be reckoned among those things which are not, nor ever were. Seeing then, in those many ages, wherein that custom continued, of showing the strangest beasts that could be found all the world over at Rome, the Unicorn, among all the strange beasts, was never seen there, it gives a ground of strong suspicion, that there is no such animal in the whole compass of natu • e.
M • reover, in these times, wherein no corner of the world hath been unsearcht, and all things in them as well known to us, as those which are bred a • our own homes; • he 〈◊〉 is no man will say, that he ever saw this animal, except Ludovicus Vartomannus, who writes that he had seen two. But it weakens his credit in this report, both that he is found in other matters to tell fables for truths, as also, because what he saith of the Unicorn, differs so much from what hath been said by others. Certain it is, that Garcias ab Horto, in those many years which he spent in India, as Phycisian to the Kings Vicegerent (in all which time, he had great acquaintance with very many learned men of that Country, and had the favor of their Kings, and was himself a most diligent searcher after such like matters, He, I say) did not only not see any Unicorn there, but could not get any certain information concerning him; only he met with some persons, who told him, that in the furthest parts of Africa they had seen a beast having but one horn. Yet, suppose these men told him the truth, it makes nothing as to the Unicorn so much spoken of, with which that, according to their observation, hath little agreement; that being an Amphibion, and having a horn not passing two handfuls in length. My own Country-man also, Johannes Hugonis Linschotius, who was an industrious inquirer after Natural things, having resided twelve whole years in the City Goa, one of the most famous among all the Cities of India, and to which is brought whatsoever is rare and of esteem in those Countries, did never see an Unicorn, nor yet hear by any worthy of credit, that there was any such animal in all those parts, and therefore accounts the report of an Unicorn to be merely fabulous; as may appear by what he writes in the 47th Chapter of his Itinerary; where speaking of the Rhinocerote he saith, that is taken by many for the Monocerote or Unicorn: Forasmuch as no other Unicorn is found or known, but only in reports and pictures.
We have shown what moveth us not to assent to them, who say, that by the word Reem, we are to understand the Unicorn. And they who render it the Rhinocerote, may with no l • ss ease be refuted. And the first argument brought against the former exposition, may serve here; seeing the Rhinocerote is only bred in those remotest parts of the East, Bengata, Patane and Cambaya, all which lie beyond the River Ganges, in the utmost India.
But besides this, there are two other unanswerable arguments against that interpretation.
First, From their horns. Those animals called Reem have very large horns, but the Rhinocerotes have very small ones: And though Martial the Poet seems to say the contrary, while speaking of the Rhinocerote, he saith, How powerful was he with his horn, who could toss a Bull with it like a Ball! And though Nicolaus Contius in his Itinerary, reports it as long as a man's arm, yet experience and eye-sight have confuted them; to which it appears, that the horn of the Rhinocerote is very thick and strong at the root, yet very short: For Gesner tells us, that his horn planted upon his Nose, riseth no higher than his Ears, and therefore it cannot be long. Bucer makes use of this argument, in his Commentary upon the 2d Psalm, affirming that the hight of the horn, ascribed to that animal the Reem, will not agree with the Rhinoceros.
The Second argument is grounded upon the unconquerable fierceness of that animal called Reem; whereas the Rhinocerote, though with some difficulty, may be in some measure tamed, as hath been seen in those at several times brought into Portugal.
Thus laying aside (for the reasons forementioned) that interpretation, which makes this Reem to be either the Unicorn or the Rhinocerote, we are now to consider what animal this Reem should be: And surely it cannot but be some beast (Bubulo generi affinis) of the race of Bulls or Bullocks; seeing in many places of Scripture, mention is made of the Reemim and Bullocks together, as intimating that they are animals of a near cognation or likeness, Deut. 33.19. Psal. 27.6. Isa. 34.6, 7. In this last place the Prophet having named three living Creatures of one kind ( ver. 6.) to wit, Lambs, and Goats, and Rams; Reason may persuade our belief, that in the 7th or following verse (which seems to run parallel with the former) the Prophet observes the same rule of speaking; and to those two Bullocks and Bulls, joins this third called Reemim, being beasts belonging, at least, to the same kind with them.
I find the same confirmed Psal. 22. by comparing those words of the 12. verse, Many Bulls have compassed me; strong Bulls of Bashan have beset me round; with those of the 21. (which answer them) Save me from the Lions mouth, hear me (we read, thou hast heard me) from the horns of the Reemims (we rendered Unicorns) as if the Psalmist intended under the word Reemim, a sort of beasts much like in kind, if not of the same kind, with the Bullocks and strong Bulls of Bashan, spoken of before (as the learned Author endeavors there to make out more largely and distinctly) to whom I refer the Reader.
By what hath been said, I suppose we have made it appear plainly, that the beast meant by this word Reem, is an animal near in kind to the Bull or Bullock, which can be no other than a wild Bull or Bullock, which is to other Bulls or Bullocks, as wild Swine, B • ars or Sows, are to those which are tame, or live and feed about our houses. But seeing there are several sorts of these wild Bulls or Bullocks, we do not conceive the word Reem, to be a common appellation which may be given to them all, but that it signifies someone certain sort among them. To find out which, will not be hard to those who consider what the Scripture holds out concerning the beast there called Reem; namely, the eminent greatness of his horns, and the eminent greatness of his strength; both which are ascribed to him, not only Deuteronomy 33.17. and Psal. 22. but Psal. 92.10. My horn shalt thou exalt, like to the horn of a Reem; i. e. Thou shalt exalt it greatly and strongly, even like the horn of a Reem. This makes it evident, that this Reem cannot be that beast which Aristotle calls Bonasus, nor that which later Writers call Bubalus or Bufalus (we in English, a Buffe ) which is so far from being better fitted by his horns, for fight and force, than our Bulls, that his horns are indeed altogether unfit for either; as Aristotle shows ( lib. 3. de part. Anim. cap. 2.) his horns being turned inward, and one against the other, and therefore (as he saith, lib. 9. Hist. Animal. cap. 45.) are unuseful for his own defense. The horns indeed of some of those beasts, are of another fashion, as Gesner describes them, and also Scaliger, Exerc. 206. Sect. 3. but all concludes them unfit to fight with, because they all are either turned one against another, or point downward.
Now though this beast which Aristotle calls Bonasus, others Bubalus or Bufalus, be of such great strength, as also of such fierceness and untractableness, as may well suit the description which the Scripture gives of the Reem; yet the form and fashion of his horns will by no means comply with it, notwithstanding it must be granted, that they who have expounded Reem by that beast, have spoken more probably, and have come much nearer the truth, than they who understand by it, either the Unicorn or the Rhinocerote.
There remains two sorts of wild Oxen, Bulls or Bullocks, the Vrus and Bisons; which latter is so like the Bonasus, that by some he is taken for the same; yet between the Bisons, properly so called, and the Bonasus of Bufalus, their horns make a very remarkable difference. What the form of the horns of the Bufalus is, hath been shown; but the Bisons have them a little bowing in the top or point, in which respect they are compared by Oppianus to brazen fish-hooks, but in the rest or body of them they spread upward, or stand right up, and not so unfit to fight with, insomuch that some have called them (Leth • feros tauros) deadly Bulls. And though we grant to Gesner (who denieth the Bonasi and Bisontes to differ in specie ) that the difference which is between the horns of these two beasts, is not sufficient to constitute a specifical difference between them; yet when besides the difference in their horns, there are other constant differences, as namely, that the beast called Bonasus doth not fight with his head, but with his heels, and runs away as soon as wounded (as Aristotl • reports of him, lib. 9. Hist. cap. 45.) whereas the beast called Bisons, useth his horns only in sight, and is not at all discouraged by being wounded, but like a Boar or a Lion, assaults his pursuers the more fiercely (as is set forth at large by Sigismundus Liber, in Muscovieticis ) therefore we may well conclude, that there is a specifical difference between these animals.
Now though the beast called Bisons, considering the greatness and strength of his horns, as also his fierceness, might be taken for the beast in Job, called Reem, yet he is not that beast, because he may be tamed by the art of man, and made to put off his fierceness; as appears abundantly out of a good Author. But as for the beast called Reem, he never gives over the fierceness of his nature, nor can he be tamed or brought to hand; as appears fully, by what God saith of him in this 39th Chapter of the book of Job. In which, when God had proposed the more remarkable properties of several creatures to the consideration of Job, he brings in this beast, called Reem, only to set forth this property, the unsubduable or untameable fierceness of his nature. So that all that God saith of him, may be reduced to this; That the Reem can neither by the skill nor power of man be brought to the yoke, nor made serviceable to man in any way, when as many other wild beasts, no less eminent than he for strength and fierceness, even Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Leopards, Bears, Rhinocerotes, have laid down their immanity, and become mild, and have suffered themselves to be managed and governed by men, yea, and learn to acknowledge their Masters, and serve them; whereas such tractableness might rather be expected from the Reem (he being of the Bullocks kind, and living upon grass) than from any of them; all which, except the Elephant and Rhinocerote are ravenous, and delighting in blood and slaughter, live upon spoil and prey.
And that we may the more wonder at the unsubduable nature of the Reem, the Lord shows the same to be in the wild Ass, a weak and ha • mless animal, and which hath neither strength nor inclination to do hurt; than which nothing can be said or imagined more wonderful, that wild Asses, whole flocks of which, even a single boy will put to flight and chase, yet will by no means be tamed, whereas Tigers and Lions, one of which will stand a band of armed men, and sometimes put them to flight, should notwithstanding be tamed, even to yield servile obedience. No other reason can be given of this, but only, because it hath seemed good to God, the Author of nature, to order it so.
Now in that God is pleased to discover the untameable nature of the Reem by these marks or signs, namely, that he scorns to plow the ground, or do any work that belongs to Husbandry. Hence it doth more clearly appear, which we have above confirmed by many Scriptures, that the Reem is an animal of the same kind with Bullocks; forasmuch as the sense of the discourse of God about him, is as if he had said, Seeing among those beasts which are prepared by men to help them in their work, and whose labor they ease in tilling and subduing the earth, the Ox is chief, as being man's most laborious helper in husbandry, and which in most Countries is more used in it than any other beast, according to that ( Prov. 14.4.) Much increase is by the strength of the Ox. How comes it to pass, that men do not make use of the Reem for those services, seeing he is of the same kind with Oxen, and so may seem to be made by nature for that purpose as much as other Oxen, and is by so much the fitter for that service, than any other Oxen or Bulls whatsoever, by how much his strength is greater than theirs, yet no man attempts to use him in it; or if any did, it were to no purpose, forasmuch as I the Lord of nature have created this beast, as also the wild Ass before spoken of, altogether untameable. This seems to be the meaning of God in his discourse about the Reem. And hence also it appears, that the Reem is not the Bisons, seeing he, as well as many other wild beasts, being skillfully handled, proves tame and gentle, and may be formed to the use and obedience of man.
It remains therefore, that this Reem is the beast called Vrus, because this property of untameableness is ascribed to that beast. Caesar in his 6th book of the Gallican war, saith, The Vri, no not the young ones, will not be tamed by men, wherefore being caught in pits, they are killed. Pliny also saith as much of them, Lib. 8. cap. 21.
And as in this particular, his untameable wildness, there is a full agreement between the Vrus and Reem, so those other things which the Scripture speaks of the Reem agree to him also, as those foreign Authors witness, who have written his History. For Caesar writes, that he is in bigness, little less than an Elephant, but of the kind, color and figure, or shape of a Bull. And Pliny in two places ( lib. 8. cap. 15. lib. 28. cap. 10.) names wild Oxen as the Genus, with respect both to the Vri and Bisontes.
The learned Doctor adds many more proofs out of ancient Authors, which the Reader may peruse, if he please, at his leisure. And from all he concludeth,
It is not therefore to be doubted, but that the Reems are the Vri; and indeed so much the less, because not only the Northern Regions (in divers parts of which, it is said by Writers, that not only the Bisontes, but Vri, are found at this day) are the proper soil where these Animals are bred, but the Eastern parts also bring them forth. Pliny writes, that the Indian woods are full of them, and so doth Aristotle, I collect also out of Diodorus (lib. 3.) that the Country of the Trogloditicks, which is seated at the bosom of the Red-Sea, opposite to Africa, hath these Vri in it.
And though no Author doth affirm, that Syria and Palestine yield these wild Oxen, yet this doth not hinder, but that in old times, when the Israelites first inhabited those Countries, they were there; since it is no new thing, that the whole kind of some wild creatures should be utterly extinct in these Countries, where formerly they have abounded, of which England gives us a plain testimony in Wolves. Dion also reports the same of Lions, which sometimes were bred in some parts of Europe, but now for many ages have not appeared there. And the same witnesseth Ammianus (lib. 22.) concerning the Hippopotami in Egypt, of which none are to be found now in that Country.
Thus far the learned Doctor, whose discourse may be of much advantage and profit to the Reader, for the better understanding of this place.
But I find he hath a great Antagonist, who though he agreeth with him in the negative part of his opinion and discourse, That the Reem here spoken of in Job, is neither the Unicorn nor the Rhinocerote, nor the Bufalus, nor the Bisons; yet he doth not agree with him in the affirmative part of his opinion, that the Reem is that savage beast or wild Ox called Vrus; but first gives a large account why the Reem cannot be that beast called Vrus, nor any of that kind; and then concludes, that it is a kind of Goat, or of the Goatish kind, by name the Oryx, being an animal in color pure white, in stature tall, in disposition fierce and intractable, in his gate stately, lifting up his head and horns on high. That this beast is the Reem here spoken of, he proves by various testimonies, taken especially out of the ancient Arabian, Chaldean, and Hebrew Writers, and endeavors to remove several objections arising from the seeming incompetency of any beast of the Goatish rank or kind, to answer the description given of that noble animal called Reem, both in the Text and in many other places of Scripture.
Thus the learned are much divided in opinion about this creature, and upon which to determine is not easy.
Yet because the word Reem is everywhere in Scripture rendered by our Translators (as also by many others of great authority) Unicorn; I shall leave that matter of difference to the Readers judgment, and do that reverence to our Translation, as to open the Text distinctly, in all that is here said by the Lord concerning the Reem, under that name or title, Unicorn.
In these words, the Lord presents man, as it were, inviting, wooing, hiring the Unicorn to serve him. But when he hath used all his skill and cunning, when he hath done his best and worst too, that is, used all manner of means, the Unicorn will not by any means be wrought upon, to come under man's yoke, or do his work. Will the Unicorn
To will, is an act of reason, and therefore to be willing, is not proper to irrational Animals; yet to will and to be willing, may allusively be given to them: They have a kind of will, and an understanding befitting their kind. The Hebrew word signifies to will with much readiness and propensity of mind, it signifies willingness with delight; and thence comes the Hebrew word for a Father, because a Father is willing and ready to take care of, and provide for his children, though it cost him much travel and pains. But,
Will the Unicorn be willing to serve thee? will he be a ready servant to thee? he will not. As if it had been said, The Unicorn is an indocible, and an intractable animal; he will not be brought to hand, he will neither bear the yoke, nor wear the bridle; nor endure to be harnessed like the Ox and Horse; let man do what he will, what he can with him, he will neither go to Plow nor Cart, not he.
Hence note, First;
It is the commendation of a servant, when he doth his Masters work with his will, more than with his hand. Man should be as willing to serve, as he is to be served, as willing to obey, as to rule; nor doth any man know truly how to command, but he that knows how to obey, and when called, is willing to obey in the service of God; nothing is done to him, unless it be done with the will, and therefore the full effect of the work of the grace of God upon the heart of man, is comprehended in this one word ( Psal. 110.3.) Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. They were once like the Unicorn in the Text, that will not serve; but in the day of thy power, when the word comes upon them in the power of the Spirit, they shall serve with all manner of dutiful readiness and willingness. Some men are not at all wrought to the service of God; others serve him but are not willing to serve, they do it by constraint, not willingly; for base fear of loss, or for baser hope of filthy lucre, not of a ready mind; upon which carnal terms the Apostle Peter warns the Ministers of the Gospel, to take heed they feed not the flock of God (1 Epist. 5.2.) Nothing but a day of power conquering the will, renders us willing to serve Christ, willing to submit to the yoke of Christ, to be bound in his furrow, and to harrow the valleys after him, that is, to do any work that he calls us to. Service should be with the will, and 'tis so by grace. That's the first thing which the nature of the Unicorn is against, as to the service of man; he hath no will to it.
Secondly, Note;
That some beasts have such a willingness, is more than implied, while 'tis said, that some have not. As the wild Ass before was spoken of in opposition to the tame, so here the Unicorn is spoken of in opposition to the Ox or Horse; who though they are not properly willing to serve, yet they will not always refuse service, but freely at last, or after a while, take the yoke and receive the bridle. The Apostle saith ( Rom. 8.20.) The creature is made subject to vanity, not willingly. The creatures are not willing to serve the lusts of men, yet many of them are willing to serve the occasions and necessities of men. 'It is through the sin of man that the creature is made subject to vanity; but it is through the appointment of God that the creature is made subject to duty, and that with a kind of willingness.
Thirdly, 'It is said here of the Unicorn, as of the wild Ass before; Canst thou make him willing? when thou hast used fair means, foul means, one way or other, will he serve thee? he will not.
Hence note;
Beasts hold fast their natural qualities. The Horse, the Bullock, who are tame by nature, will come to hand; but the wild Ass and the Unicorn, whose nature is quite opposite to service, will never be broken nor brought to it: Thrust out nature with a fork it will return again. Till nature is quite altered and changed, acts will not change. 'It is thus with man, considered in nature, who as he is compared to a wild Asses Colt ( Chap. 11.12.) so he may be compared to an Unicorn. Will man be willing to serve God? no, not by any moral persuasions; no, nor heartily, he may hypocritically, by any outward benefits, nor by any hard usages. Though (as Solomon saith, Prov. 27.22.) thou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar among wheat, with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him. A carnal man will never submit quietly to duty, till God hath changed his nature, and made him a new man, or, till his mind is renewed after the image of God. Conversion is first a change of our nature, and then of our way. This makes conversion so difficult a work. Good education and human instructions, may change a man's way, but nothing less than the power of God can change his nature. Man is naturally as unwilling to serve God, as the wild beasts are to serve man: He is as stout and as stiff as the Unicorn, as cruel and fierce as the Lion, as crafty as a Fox, as crooked and cross as any creature; unless his heart be changed, he will never to purpose change his course. Man cannot change the course of the Unicorn, because he cannot change his nature; and could not God change man's nature, he could never really change his course.
Fourthly, Observe;
The Horse would no more serve man than the Unicorn, nor would the Ox serve man more than the wild Ass, unless the Lord had put another spirit or disposition into them, than he hath done into the Unicorn.
Fifthly, Observe;
At first, all creatures were subject to man; not only the Horse, and the Ox, and all the now tame creatures, but the fiercest Lions, Tigers, Bears, Unicorns, were all in subjection to man, according to that sovereign power given man by God, in the day that God made him ( Gen. 1.27, 28.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and said to them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. The original grand Charter of man's Sovereignty, was extended over the Unicorn and the Lion, &c. And therefore when creatures are not willing to serve man, especially when they rise up against man, let man remember his sin in not obeying the Sovereign command of God. Had not man been unwilling to submit to and serve God, no creature had been unwilling to serve man. We may see our own neglect or refusal to serve God, in the refusal of any creature to serve us; we may see our own rebellion against God, by the rebellion of the creatures against us. Unless man had departed from God by sin, none of the creatures had departed from their subjection to man. The sin of man loosed the creatures from that bond of service to man, in which, and to which they were created.
Observe, Sixthly;
These clearly resemble the condition of those men who live only to themselves, or who serve none but themselves. Whatever some men do they serve themselves only, they respect no man's good, either spiritual or temporal, besides their own; were it not that they had a chief respect to their private ends and interests in serving, they would never serve. A gracious spirit is willing to serve his neighbor, to serve his brother, as well as or with himself. Christ tells us, his Disciples should be so far from serving themselves only, that they should not serve themselves at all; he that will be my Disciple (saith our Lord Jesus Christ, Mat. 16.24.) Let him deny himself, that is, not serve nor seek himself, either contrary to the good of others, or with a neglect of their good. Therefore they who in all they do, do all for themselves, live upon no better terms, nor to any nobler ends, than the Unicorn or wild Ass, who are not willing to serve any man. Let others sink or swim (say such) they care not, they will look to their own.
Seventhly and Lastly, Though God hath made a sort of creatures that (as the case stands) will not serve man, nor contribute any help to him; yet these creatures live not in vain to God, nor are they altogether unserviceable to man, though they have no will to serve him. For,
First, They declare the power and wisdom of God, both in making and governing them, and in that they declare his praise. God would not give any creature a being, that did not one way or other, set forth his praise in the world; there's much of God shining in those creatures, which man hath no service by ( Psal. 148.) Praise him ye Dragons, and all Deeps. Dragons praise God, they raise up a revenue of glory to God, though man get no service from them.
Secondly, Such creatures adorn the universe; the world is beautified with their variety.
Thirdly, Even such creatures serve man when they are dead, though they will not while they live; some parts of them are Medicinal, and many useful to man. The Unicorn, who will serve no man living while he lives, yet his horn is accounted a great Antidote against Poison, and so is a means to prevent the death or prolong the life of many men. So then, there is no creature but is serviceable to God and man some way or other. And though it may be truly said of some men, as of the Unicorn, with respect to man, they will not serve God, yet God hath service by them. Will the Unicorn be willing to serve thee?
A Crib is that in which an Ox or an Ass feeds, ( Isa. 1.3.) The Ox knoweth his Owner, and the Ass his Masters Crib; that is, the vessel in which he useth to be fed. Solomon saith ( Prov. 14.4.) Where no Oxen are, the Crib is clean, that is, the Crib is not used, and so remains clean. If none come into a Room, the Room is clean. In one sense, where Oxen are, the Crib is clean, that is, they eat up all the fodder put into it. But in Solomon's sense, where no Oxen are the Crib is clean, because no fodder is put into it. The Lord having said, the Unicorn will do no work, adds also, he will not abide by thy Crib. As he will do thee no service, so he will put thee to no charge; that's a piece of ingenuity in the Unicorn, as he does no work for man, so he looks for no wages nor reward from man: which may be a reproof to those men, who are very unwilling to serve others, yet are very willing to abide by their Crib; they like it well to eat and drink upon you, as long as you will, and possibly whether you will or no, but will not do a stroke of work; Such a one we call proverbially a Lurdane, from the lazy Danes, who long since Lording it in this Kingdom, would eat and drink in a good well-stored house, but refused all labor. The Unicorn is to be commended above such idle drones, who use their teeth more than their hands, as if they were born only to feed their bellies, or to live upon the sweat of other men's brows; for he hath a kind of honesty in him, as he doth you no work, so he will not trouble your Crib.
Hence note;
They will rather endure hunger and thirst, than be put upon labor. There is much of this also in some men's spirits; 'tis so with all those whom Solomon calls sluggards; they prefer hunger and ease (which some calls a dogs life) before plenty with industry, and a thread-bare back before a sweating brow.
Secondly, From the connection, in that the Text saith, will he serve thee? will be abide by thy Crib?
Note;
We ought to feed those that do our work. If the Unicorn would labor, he should not want a Crib, nor should any laboring man want a Table; It were a most unrighteous thing in the sight of God and Man if he should. As the Apostle gives the rule (2 Thess. 3.10.) He that will not work, let him not eat; so on the contrary, he that doth work, all the reason in the world he should eat; therefore the Apostle James (Chap. 5.4.) denounceth a woe against rich men, for detaining or keeping back, either in whole or in part, the hire of the laborers who had cut down their harvest. Hire kept back, crieth; for what? for wrath and vengeance upon them that detain or keep it back. The law of God given by Moses (Deut. 24.15.) commanded that the laborers hire should be paid him presently; his hire was not to be kept from him, no not for a night. As if the Lord had said, he hath been willing to serve thee all the day, therefore let him carry his wages home at night, to comfort his Wife and Children. The Lord is very jealous in this thing; if a beast serve he must have a Crib; and shall not man?
One of the Ancients applies this in a spiritual sense, to hearing the Word of God: The wicked will not serve God, nor will they abide by his Crib; they will not come where their souls may be fed to eternal life, where they may have clean Provender, as the Prophet speaks ( Isa. 30.24.) that is, sound and wholesome doctrine, directing them both what to believe, and how to live, that they may be saved and live forever.
The Lord having in this 9 th verse set forth the lawless life of the Unicorn; First, By his unwillingness to serve man; Secondly, By his independence upon man for his livelihood: Proceeds to confirm and illustrate the same thing, the stoutness or pride of the Unicorn, and so his utter unserviceableness unto man, by his refusal to be engaged in any of those labors which are necessary to husbandry. First, The Plowing, Secondly, The Harrowing of the ground. Thirdly, The Inning or Bringing home of the corn.
His refusal of the first of these services, we have in the former part of the next or tenth verse.
Vers. 10. Canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band in the furrow? Thou canst not.
Beasts use to be bound with cords to their work, they will hardly else abide by their work. Neither reason nor religion binds beasts to their work, therefore cords must. The word here rendered to bind, signifieth very fast and strong binding, and such is binding with cords. Moses useth the word ( Deut. 11.18.) with respect to the Divine Law, which God commanded the people of Israel, to bind as frontlets between their eyes, and so to hold them fast forever. The word is used also ( Neh. 4.6.) to note the fixing of stones in a Building or Wall, by Lime, Cement, or Morter, And all the Wall was joined together unto the half thereof; that is, the Wall was fastened and cemented half high. Now saith the Lord, Canst thou bind the Unicorn? Canst thou make him fast with his bands: The word signifieth a thick and strong band, which will hold pulling and not break; A three-fold cord (saith Solomon Eccles. 4.12.) is not easily broken. Canst thou bind the Unicorn in his band? Some make the Pronoun his in the Hebrew to be only Paragogical, without any necessary signification in the construction; but I conceive there is somewhat peculiar in it, when he saith, canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band. Every beast hath his special band or way of fastening to his work; so that, when 'tis said, Canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band? it seems to sound as if it had been said, hast thou a proper band for the Unicorn, as I know thou hast for other beasts, the Horse, Ox, and Ass? hast thou a band which will hold him to his work? I know among all thy tackling, thou hast none will do it; he will break thy bands, and cast thy cords from him, as stubborn and proud men are said to do the bands and cords, that is, the laws and commands of God ( Psal. 2.2.) Many beasts have their bands, the Unicorn will have none, he will not be bound; or if he be, he breaks his bands, and refuseth to obey; either he will not come to hand, nor admit bands or cords to be put upon him, or he strives against them and casts them off. In a word, 'tis as if the Lord had said; Thou canst not get the Unicorn into his gears (as the Husband man speaks) thou canst not harness him as thou dost a horse, nor yoke him as thou dost an Ox, to Plow or Cart; he will not touch thy work. Canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band,
The Plough makes Furrows, and Furrows laid together make Ridges: Both are expressed ( Psal. 65.10.) Thou waterest the Ridges thereof abundantly, thou setlest the Furrows thereof. Canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band in the Furrow?
When the Plough hath laid the Furrows, harrowing followeth. The Plow leaveth the clods too gross for the reception and growth of the seed; therefore the Harrow is employed to break the Plowed ground yet more, and to crumble the clods yet finer. We find both these parts of Husbandry set down ( Isa. 28.24.) Doth the Plow-man Plow all day to Sow? doth he open and break the clods of the ground? when he hath made plain the face thereof? doth he not cast abroad the fitches, &c? Here's a description of this work of the husbandman Plowing and Harrowing, or making plain the face of the ground, all in an allegory, intending a very spiritual work of God, in breaking and harrowing the heart of man by affliction, and making it thereby fit to receive the seed of the Word. Thus also spake the Prophet ( Hos. 10.11.) Judah shall plow, and Jacob shall break his clods, that is, Jacob shall Harrow. The Prophets meaning is, that the Lord would bring them into a laboring state of life, even into captivity, where they must Plow, because they had Plowed iniquity, and had not Plowed up the Fallow ground of their hearts by repenting of their iniquity. Will the Unicorn Harrow
Some render the word, Furrows, which lie like Valleys between the Ridges. But the word more properly signifieth Valleys; and they are most commonly Plowed and Sowed with Corn, as Hills are reserved for Pasture. Will he Harrow the Valleys
That is, will the Unicorn be led by thee? The Harrower goeth before the Horse, or that which draweth the Harrow, and the beast followeth; or thus, will he Harrow the Valleys
After thee? That is, after thou hast Ploughed them. As if the Lord had said, will he either be driven or led? thou canst not make him Harrow? thou canst not lead him on in that work. Thus we have the Unicorns refusal of those labors, in which other beasts, the Ox and the Horse especially, are very commonly used.
Now for as much as the Husband-man's work is described, by Plowing and Harrowing.
Note, First;
The Husband-man's life, is a painful life; Plowing and Harrowing are hard labors; and what is all this for? but to bring forth the necessaries of man's life, bread to strengthen man's heart, and by consequence what ever else is food for man. Adam was commanded to dress the Garden, and to keep it, (Gen. 2.15.) Adam was not put into that pleasant Garden, only to take his pleasure and to eat the fruit of it; but he was put into the Garden to dress it, and to keep it. Even Adam was to eat upon his labor, though not such labor as man now eateth upon; that came in by sin after the fall; labor was imposed upon man, not only as a duty, but as a penalty. It was imposed upon man before the fall as a duty, but it was imposed upon man after the fall as a penalty, ( Gen. 3.17, 18, 19.) Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground. Our ordinary bread is not easily come by; remember the Husband-man's labor. Hence the Apostle, when he would show what pains God taketh, either immediately by the work of his Spirit, or mediately by the labor of his Ministers, to convert and build up souls in the faith, he tells us (1 Cor. 3.9.) That we are God's husbandry, and God's building. As if he had said, great pains hath been or must be bestowed upon you, that your souls may be saved, and that ye may bring forth fruits of righteousness unto eternal life. The Lord hath his spiritual Plow-men, his Laborers, his Oxen; by these the faithful and industrious Ministers of the Gospel are emblem'd, and set forth in the holy Scriptures, (1 Cor. 9.10. Rev. 4.7.)
Note, Secondly;
You must stir up and break the ground, before you cast the seed into it; 'tis not else fit to receive the seed, and improve it for a harvest. The Scripture speaks first of Plowing, then of Sowing ( Isa. 28.24, &c. ) The Plow-man opens the earth, and breaks the clods before he casts in his seed, the cumin, the fitches, and the principal wheat. He doth not Plow for Plowing sake, but for Sowing; and when he hath Plowed he leaveth not his work, till he hath Sowed what he Plowed. This method doth the Lord use in his spiritual husbandry; the Plow of repentance must break up the Fallow ground of the heart, and the Harrow must smooth the face of the soul, before it be fit to bring forth. The Spirit makes frequent use of these Metaphors ( Jer. 4.6.) Plow up the Fallow ground of your hearts; read also ( Hosea 10.12.)
Further, Harrowing comes after Plowing, and either before or immediately after sowing (there is some variety as to husbandry in this point) that the seed sown may be preserved from being devoured by the Fowls of the air, it must (unless sowed under Furrows) be Harrowed. Harrowing helps the seed to spring more freely, and grow more thrivingly. And thus it is also in spiritual husbandry; When the seed of the Word is Sown, the heart must be Harrowed, else the Seed will miscarry. In that Parable of the Sower ( Mat. 13.) some seed fell upon the high-way, which was neither Plowed nor Harrowed. This Highway ground, signifieth those careless hearers who receive the Word in a formality only; the Fowls of the air (evil spirits) quickly picked up that, because it was not covered by Harrowing. Now there are two Harrows, by which the Seed of the Word cast into the Valleys and Furrows of our Hearts, is covered and secured, that it may bring forth fruit to perfection; these are meditation and prayer. By meditation we hide the word in our hearts, and by prayer we obtain a blessing upon it from God, both for the securing of it, and our fruit-bearing according to it. There are two resemblances in Scripture, setting forth the use of meditation and prayer about the word received; The one, is chewing of the cud; the other, is Harrowing. Clean beasts under the Law chewed the cud; and wise men, both under Law and Gospel, Harrow their land; a godly man doth both in a spiritual way, while he meditates in the Word, and prays for a blessing upon it. Thus husbandry for our daily bread, teacheth us what course the Lord expects we should take for our souls, that we may bring forth fruit, and answer the end of receiving his Word. The Unicorn will not be brought to either of these parts of the Husband-man's labor, and his refusal is aggravated in the next Verse, by the ability which he hath for both.
Vers. 11. Wilt thou trust in him because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labor unto him?
The Unicorn hath strength sufficient; he is a beast stronger (say Naturalists) than either the Ox or the Horse; but, Wilt thou trust him because his strength is great? The word notes trusting with much confidence, and rest of the mind; as 'tis said ( Isa. 12.2.) I will trust, and not be afraid. Confidence, upon a good ground, leads us into a full, as well as a good security; I will trust, and not be afraid, for the Lord Jehovah is my strength, saith the believing soul in that place. But saith the Lord here to Job, Wilt thou trust this strong beast without fear or jealousy? Wilt thou trust him,
Hence note, First;
There are some works that are done, not so much by strength as by art, or as it were, by slight of hand; such a work a feeble weak man may do: but there are other works which require great strength; all the wit, and skill, and learning, & cunning of men, cannot do them, unless they have a suitable, that is, a great portion of strength for the doing of them. David (Psal. 144.14.) describing the temporal felicity of his people, makes this request for them, That our Oxen be strong to labor. The labor of the Ox is great, and therefore he needs great strength to do his work, and go through with his labor.
Note, Secondly;
Great strength is a great advantage for service. If the Unicorn would employ and put out his strength, he might do much. Strength of body is a talent, much may be done by that; strength of mind is an excellent talent, much more, very much more may be done by that. But when a man hath much strength of body and mind together, what may not he do! Let those who have much strength, consider how they use it. For a man to have the strength of an Unicorn, much bodily strength, and make no use of it, is to become more beastly than the Unicorn. A strong man rejoiceth to run a race (Psal. 19.5.) He that hath great strength, may run a great race. A race requireth great strength, and he that hath strength, or is a strong man, should rejoice to run it. A strong man, if he have an heart and a will to his work, delighteth in his work more than in his reward.
Note, Thirdly;
Strength is not always to be trusted. There is a twofold trust in strength; First, There is a trust in strength as to confidence in it for success; and thus we are not to trust any strength in the world, neither our own nor others. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm (Jer. 17.5.) The arm of flesh is too weak to be trusted in, though never so strong; though it have the strength of the Unicorn, it must not be trusted; no creatures strength is to be trusted in, as to dependence upon it. Secondly, There is a trusting of strength as to the using and employing of it; thus strength may be trusted. We may trust the strong that they will use their strength for us, only we must not rest in their strength. They who (like the Unicorn in the Text) have great strength, and yet are not to be trusted that they will use it, are in a much worse condition than they who have no strength to use, or to make them any way useful. There are three sorts of men to be considered, in respect of strength.
First, Some have a will to do more than they have strength to do; they have a will to do more in ordinary work, than they have strength to do, and they have a will to do more in extraordinary work & duty, than they have strength and ability to do. The Apostle speaking of the labor of love or charity, in the ministration of the good things of this life, to those that stand in need, thus commendeth the Macedonians (2 Cor. 8.5.) For to their power, I bear them record, and beyond their power, they were willing, &c. He meaneth, not the power of their bodies, but of their purses and estates. Some are willing beyond the power of their estates, to relieve the necessities of others; and some are willing beyond the power of their bodies, to labor not only for the supply of their own necessities, but in any public service. To have a will to labor according to our strength for labor, showeth an honest heart; but to have a will to labor beyond our strength for labor, showeth an Heroic heart. But
Secondly, Most have strength to do more than they have a will to do; they are like the Unicorn, and that upon a double ground: First, Some are so lazy and idle, that they will not do what they have strength to do. Thus Solomon describeth the sluggard ( Prov. 21.5.) His hands refuse to labor. He hath strength enough in his hand, but for idleness he will do nothing. Secondly, Others are so proud, that though they have strength enough to labor, yet they will not; they are so stout, so stubborn, so high-minded, that they sco • n to work or do service; they think themselves too good to take pains: I shall say too little, if I say, these are in a very bad frame. They are right Unicorns, who are so stout that they will not serve, nor be bound to attend any service.
There is a third sort, who have strength to do service, and they have also will to do it; they have will, and they have strength, but they want an opportunity to do service. This may be the case of a good man, who is like the laboring Ox; A good man hath always a will to work, and may have strength for his work too, yet many times wants work. As they in the Parable ( Mat. 20.6, 7.) answered when questioned, Why stand ye all the day idle? It was not (so they excused themselves) because they had no will to work, or had no strength to work; but (say they) No man hath hired us; we have not been called to work, we know not where to have a days work. Such there are, who have will and strength, while they want a call. Thus the Apostle spake concerning the Philippians (Chap. 4.10.) Ye were careful, but ye lacked opportunity. The door was not open, and so ye could not do what ye desired, and had both a mind and an ability to do. The point in hand leadeth us to the middle sort of persons (truly shadowed by the Unicorn) who though they have much strength to do service, yet they have no mind to serve, but hide their Talent in a Napkin, and put their Candle under a Bushel: These are not to be trusted, though they are well furnished. I may say to any man concerning such men, as the Lord to Job, concerning the Unicorn; Wilt thou trust them, because their strength is great? because their strength of mind, their strength of body, their strength of estate is great? Can we trust all rich men that they will do works of charity, because their estate is great? Can we trust all healthy men, who have sound and able limbs, that they will take pains, because their bodily strength is great? Can we trust all knowing men, who have quick parts, and excellent gifts, much knowledge, that they will go through with their work, because the strength of their minds is great? We can hardly find any to trust, what strength soever they have, but those who have received strength of grace from God, and so have strength of faith in God, strength of love, strength of affections to God, strength of zeal for God. And even they who have strength of grace, may fail their trust very much ( Job 4.18.) Behold he put no trust in his Servants, and his Angels he charged with folly. The Lord could not be confident of Angels, who are mighty, in strength. If God should leave Angels to themselves, they would soon fail; it is because Angels are confirmed by grace (Christ being the head of Angels) that they stand fast to their work, and abide by their duty, else the Lord could not trust Angels with all their created strength; much less then could the Lord trust the best of Saints with all the spiritual strength he hath planted in them, did he not continually confirm them, and quicken them (to the work which he hath called them to) by his holy Spirit. No further than any man trusteth in Christ for strength, or maketh Christ his strength as well as his righteousness, is he to be trusted with the doing of any work, anymore than the Unicorn, how much soever his strength is? Many are set a work, and do work, because their strength is great, but none (in a due sense) can be trusted, but they who make Christ their strength, and look daily to him for it. Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great?
This latter part of the Verse is of the same importance with the former, yet I shall touch a little upon it. Wilt thou leave thy labor to him? Labor is taken in Scripture two ways;
First, For the very act of labor. Jacob said ( Gen. 31.42.) God hath seen mine affliction, and the labor of my hands. God knows (said he to Laban ) what pains I have taken, what hard work I have been at in thy service; and how hard he had been at work, he told Laban (ver. 40.) Thus I was in the day, the drought consumed me; and the frost by night, and my sleep departed from me. To such hard work in spirituals the Apostle exhorts; Be steadfast; and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15.58.) The word in the Text which we render labor, signifieth a laboring to weariness, or a labor which causeth weariness. Strong labor, diligent labor wearieth a strong man; and though an industrious person is not weary of his labor, yet he may be wearied with his labor; yea, the more industrious he is in laboring, the sooner he may be wearied with his labor.
Secondly, Labor is taken sometimes for the fruit of labor, or for that which is got by labor; the reward, and wages given and received for work and service done, is called labor ( Psal. 128.2.) Thou shalt eat the labor of thy hands. No man can eat the acts of his labor, but every man should eat the fruit of his labor; labor brings in bread, and that bread is sweetest which comes in by labor. The Lord threateneth his people ( Deut. 28.33.) strangers shall eat thy labor, that is, the increase that comes in or hath been gotten by thy labor, even that which thou hast labored for. And it was a mercy bestowed by the Lord upon his Israel (Psal. 105.44.) that they inh • rited the labor of the people, that is, they dwelt in the houses, which they had built; and enjoyed the gardens, which they had planted; & reaped the fields, which they, the Heathen, had sowed; In a word, they had the fruit of all their labors. Some understand the word here in this latter sense, Wilt thou leave thy labor unto him? that is, wilt thou allow him any of the fruit of thy ground, seeing he refuseth to work in thy ground? surely, thou wilt not. Labouring cattle have somewhat for their labor, they share in those good things which are the product of their labor (1 Cor. 9.9.) Thou shalt not muzzel the Ox that treadeth out the corn. But though it is a truth, that laboring cattle eat of, and are fed with the fruit of their labor; yet here, by labor, I understand the very act of 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 labor, not the fruit of it. Wilt thou leave thy labor to him? that is, wilt thou leave thy business with him? wilt thou trust him with thy Plow or with thy Harrow? And (consider the dependence) if thou darest not trust him, then thou wilt not leave thy labor unto him.
Note hence, First;
Our work will be ill done, or half done, or not done at all by those that we cannot trust. We trust those much, to whom we leave our business; and there are three things requisite in those to whom we leave it.
First, That they have strength and ability for it; there is a necessity of that: No wise man will trust or leave his business with him that hath no strength to do it, no ability for it.
Secondly, That they be subject and obedient to us. No wise man will leave his business in the hand of those who acknowledge no obedience nor subjection to him, how much strength soever they have. An unsubmitting strength will work against us rather than for us.
Thirdly, That they be faithful. No man will leave his business to a person of strength and in subjection to him, if he be not honest to him. Solomon hath sufficien • lie cautioned us against trusting such, while he saith ( Prov. 25.19.) Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble ('tis true also in time of peace) is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint. A b • oken tooth cannot chew our meat, and a foot out of joint can worse go a journey; an unfaithful man will prove a worser servant to us, than the worst of these. And as it is thus among men, they will not leave their business with an Unicorn, with one that hath strength, but yields no subjection, nor ever shown any faithfulness; so God will not leave his labor, his work and service to such as are like the Unicorn; he will not leave it in such hands, as have great ability to carry it through, yet want obedience to his will, and faithfulness in his work. There must be a concurrence of these three, strength, subjection, and faithfulness, in all those to whom the Lord God, the God only wise, will leave his labor, or commit the doing of any service for him. But where these three meet and center in any person, strength of body and mind, submission of will, and faithfulness to a work; how great things may they do in the service whether of God or Man?
Secondly, Observe;
As the Unicorn with his great strength, so they who are like the Unicorn in strength may do little or nothing. But they that have only a little strength, and a mind to be doing, have done, and may do much. Little strength is a kind of weakness, yet where there is a willing mind, weakness will do more than great strength without a willing mind. We have a common saying; John is a good servant when Will is at home. Willingness to work, works better than bare strength: We have this conclusion ( Neh. 4.6.) So built we the wall (Nehemiah spake there of the Jews returned from Babylon) And all the wall was joined together unto the half thereof. For the people had a mind (or as the Hebrew is, an heart) to work. The wall of a great City being soon raised half up, the reason given was, because they had a mind to work. The Jews at that time, were a people under so much weakness, that the enemies j • ar'd them with it ( ver. 2.) What will these feeble Jews do? will they fortify themselves? will they sacrifice? will they make an end in a day? will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish? &c. Will they work miracles? remove mountains? But how feeble soever they were, the work went on amain, For the people had a mind, a heart to work. Though they were no Unicorns, no people of great strength; though they were feeble Jews, yet they attained to half their work quickly: Strong hearts and feeble hands, will dispatch a business better and sooner, than strong hands and feeble hearts. 'It is thus, as in corporal so in spiritual labor, where there is a mind to the work, though we have but a little strength, we shall do great things. This was the high commendation of the Church of Philadelphia (Rev. 3.8.) Thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. He doth a great deal of work for God, who keeps the Word of God. But how unfit the Unicorn is, or any strong one like the Unicorn, to be trusted, or have labor left with them, appears further in the next verse.
Vers. 12. Wilt thou believe him that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn.
Here is another piece of service which the Unicorn might not be trusted with; Wilt thou believe him, &c. The root-word signifieth that act of faith which we put forth upon God, for our free justification and eternal salvation, as also for our sustentation under, and deliverance from any trouble inward or outward, of soul or body; in and for all which the just live by faith. There is believing God, and believing in God, both which are expressions sometimes of a like importance; Wilt thou believe him, or in him, saith God of the Unicorn? As if he had said, Suppose thou couldst get a promise from the Unicorn, that he will bring home, or return thy seed (so the Hebrew strictly) that he will make thy seed to return; or (as we render fully) bring it home; Wilt thou take his word, or believe him that he will keep his word, that he will indeed return or bring home
First, For that which is to be sowed; it is ordinary with the Husbandman, to call that seed-corn which he reserveth for sowing. The grain or corn intended to be sowed on the earth, is properly seed-corn; in allusion whereunto the Psalmist saith ( Psal. 126.6.) He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him. The people of God mourning and praying, sow precious seed. Believing prayers and repenting tears never failed, nor shall ever fail, of a merciful, of a plentiful Harvest, or of a plentiful Harvest of mercy. Some understand this Text thus; Wilt thou believe that he will return thy seed? will he do this service for thee? will he carry thy seed, which is to be sown, into the field? But though that be a piece of service to carry the seed-corn into the field, yet the scope of the place doth not well comply with it here; and therefore leaving that interpretation, I shall rather
Secondly, Take seed for ripe corn, or for that which is reaped; as in Haggai (Chap. 2.19.) Is the seed yet in the Barn? That is, is the Harvest yet come in? No, the seed is not in the Barn. So, in this place, seed is that which hath been sown and grown up, and ready to be gathered into the Barn. And that may be taken two ways;
First, Thus: Will the Unicorn by plowing and harrowing the ground, procure that thy seed shall return again to thee? or that the seed which is sown, shall come home to thy Barn, yielding a good crop, so returning what was sowed with advantage and increase? Wilt thou believe him that he will cause thy seed thus to return home to thee? Surely no; do not believe that he will do thee any such service, for he will deceive thy credulity if thou dost.
Secondly, Thus: Wilt thou believe that he will draw the cart, and so help thee home with thy corn at Harvest? This Exposition is most favored, not only by our Translation, but by the words following in the latter part of the verse, both which intimate, that the seed here spoken of, is the seed reaped, rather than that to be sowed. Will he bring home thy seed,
Seed to be sowed, is carried into the field, not into the barn; seed or corn reaped, is carried into the barn, not into the field. As if it had been said, The Unicorn will do thee no service: As he would not go to plow, so neither will he go to cart, for the gathering of thy seed into thy barn. Sowing, reaping, and gathering into the barn, are the three principal parts of the Husband-man's labor; and therefore our Lord Jesus Christ showing how the fowls of the air live purely upon the providence of God without labor, saith ( Mat. 6.26.) They sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly father feedeth them.
The word which we translate Barn, is used ( Numb. 18.27. 2 Sam. 6.6.) and in both places it is rendered, Threshing-floor. The threshing-floor is usually in the barn, and therefore the same word may well signify both. Wilt thou believe him that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Hence note, First;
The Ox and Horse bring the seed home formally when 'tis reaped, and they bring it home or make it to return virtually when they labor and take pains about or for the sowing of it. The Psalmist having prayed ( Psal. 144. verse. 13.) That our garners may be full, affording all manner of store, presently adds ( verse. 14.) That our Oxen may be strong to labor; for (Prov. 14.4.) where no Oxen are, the crib is clean. Not only, First, Because there is no need to fill the crib, where no oxen are to eat up the fodder, as was shown a little before: But, Secondly, Because where no Oxen are, there is nothing to fill it. The crib must needs be empty, when the barn is empty; food faileth both for man and beast, where there are no Oxen. Barns and garners are full, when the Ox is strong to labor, or because the strong Ox hath been in labor: For (as it followeth) Much increase cometh by the strength of the Ox. Why doth Solomon impute increase to the strength of the Ox? Surely, because the Ox being strong is also willing to labor and lay out his strength, and so, much increase cometh by the strength and labor of the Ox, though that alone will not do it. For that there may be an increase, these five things must concur.
First, The skill and industry of the Husbandman.
Secondly, The strength and labor of the Ox or Horse.
Thirdly, The virtue and fatness of the earth.
Fourthly, The showers and influences of heaven.
Fifthly, And above all, the blessing of God. Old Isaac said of his Son Jacob (Gen. 27.27.) See, the smell of my Son is as the smell of a field, which the Lord hath blessed. As there is no increase without the blessing of God, how much soever men or oxen labor, so there is great increase (the Lord adding his blessing) by the labor of men and oxen. Labor and increase usually go together; and where no labor is, there (except by miracle) is no increase: Where no labor is, the barn is empty, the crib is empty, the belly is empty, the purse is empty. Of doing nothing comes nothing, but want and misery. 'It is said, when the Ox is weariest, he treads surest: To be sure, they who are most wearied by honest pains-taking, tread surest upon honest profit.
Secondly, observe;
That which was scattered abroad in the field, is gathered into the barn. Some may think when they see the Husbandman cast his seed into the ground, that he casts it away; but by the labor of the Ox, by the skill of the Husbandman, and the blessing of God upon all, the seed cometh home again. Thus the Apostle spake in a spiritual sense; He that ploweth, should plow in hope; and he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope (1 Cor. 9.10.) It should be so according to the ordination of God, as to the faithful Ministers of God (of whose labor in plowing up souls by the word, and sowing those souls with the word, the Apostle there treats) And it is so through the benediction of God, as to laborious Husband-men and their cattle, in plowing and sowing the soil of the earth. Yea, thus it is in all we do, our actions (good or bad) are as seed sown, which will certainly come again, they will not be lost. Good done, will assuredly turn to good; and evil done (and not undone by repentance) will as surely turn to evil. The Apostle gives us this double assurance ( Gal. 6.7, 8.) Whatsoever a man soweth, that (not numerically, but specifically) shall he also reap: For, He that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting. And thus in special, works of charity, or our distributions to the necessities of others, are more significantly called sowing ( Psal. 112.9.) He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor (That is, he hath sowed his alms abundantly; what then? It followeth) His righteousness endureth forever, his horn shall be exalted with honor. To give to the poor, especially to God's poor, to the godly poor, or to those that are made poor for God's sake, is sowing good seed; and he that soweth thus, shall receive a fruitful crop. Grain sowed in the field, may yield a good increase; but that which is rightly sowed in the bowels of the poor, shall certainly yield a better. What we give, is like seed sowed in the field, which increaseth thirty, sixty, an hundred fold: What we keep by us, is like corn stored up in the garner, which we bring forth and spend, and there's an end of it. Here's great encouragement to do good, yea to abound in doing good to others. What we so part with, is not lost, but sowed; it will come back to the barn, it will come home again, and that with a great increase. And doubtless where there hath been a plowing up of the heart by a work of grace, there will be a free sowing in every good work. And though we are not to do good works, merely eying a return, or our personal advantage, yet we may have an eye to it, as Moses had in his holy sufferings and services, to the recompense of reward: yea, and take encouragement from the Lord's bounty, to be more in duty, more in charity, even unto bounty. We may consider the harvest while we are diligent in sowing, yea, to make us more diligent in sowing.
Having thus opened the several properties of this creature, here called the Unicorn, properly taken, and given out some meditations upon them, it will not be (I conceive) either unuseful or unacceptable to the Reader, if for the conclusion of the whole matter in hand, I show how the holy Scriptures, together with some of the Ancients, make use of this creature, tropically, or in a figure, to resemble and represent,
First, The state of the Church and people of God. Thus Moses reports Balaam shadowing the power and blessedness of Israel, when he came and was hired to curse them ( Numb. 23.22.) God (saith he) brought them (that is, the children of Israel) out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of an Unicorn. Most expound the word, He, collectively, concerning that whole people, as one body; He, that is, Israel, hath as it were, the strength of an Unicorn; that is, he is exceeding strong. Some expound it of God: He, that is, God, who brought them out of Egypt, the mighty God of Jacob, hath as it were, the strength of an Unicorn. God is indeed infinitely strong, stronger than the Unicorn. That which is most eminent in any creature, or for which any creature is most eminent, the Scripture often ascribes in a way of super-eminency unto God. The Lord hath strength like the strongest; and how strong soever he is, he is strong for his Israel, yea, he is the strength of his Israel. So that if we take the word in this latter sense, it reaches the same thing, setting forth the power and strength of Israel, by the strength of the Unicorn; for the Lord, who is their strength, will make them strong like Unicorns. Balaam spake thus again ( Numb. 24.8.) God brought him (all Israel as one man) out of Egypt; he hath as it were, the strength of an Unicorn, he shall eat up the Nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. Thus also Moses spake or prophesied of the Tribe of Joseph (Deut. 33.17.) His glory is like the firstling of his Bullock, and his horns are like the horns of Vnicorns, with them shall he push the people (or people's, the word is plural) together, to the ends of the earth, and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. Moses sets out the fruitfulness of Ephraim, beyond that of Manasseh, ten for one; and in both, jointly shows how powerful, how prevailing they shall be; even, as if they pushed their enemies with horns like those of Unicorns. In all these Scriptures, the Lord fore-shown the wonderful force of the Jewish Church of old, his portion and peculiar people, by that of the Unicorn. David also (as was said before) expresseth his assurance of a prosperous condition and great success, in the same language ( Psal. 92.10.) He shall exalt my horn, like the horn of an Unicorn.
And we may affirm the Israel of God are like the Unicorn, chiefly upon this account; because their strength and defense, or their strong defense is in, and by their horn. And if any ask, what or who is that? I answer, Jesus Christ: Of whom, Zacharias filled with the Holy Ghost, prophesied, saying ( Luke 1.59.) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, in the house of his servant David. Jesus Christ, is callen an horn of salvation for his people,
First, Because he is the Strength and Defense of his people.
Secondly, Because he is the Glory and Honor of his people. Thus the Seventy translate that ( Num. 23.22.) he hath (as it were) the glory of an Unicorn. As Jesus Christ is called a light to lighten the Gentiles, so the glory of his people Israel (Luke 2.32.)
Thirdly, Jesus Christ is an horn of salvation to his people, as he is (like the horn of an Unicorn, according to report, against bodily poison) the most Sovereign, yea, the only antidote against the poison of sin, and the infection of the world (2 Pet. 1.4.) By him we escape the corruption that is in the world, through lust, that is, believing in him, we are preserved from those poisonous lusts, which corrupt and infect this world.
Secondly, Some of the Ancients and Moderns too, make the Unicorns stoutness and stiffness of spirit against doing any work for man; an emblem of that gracious well-tempered stoutness & resolvedness of spirit in the faithful servants of God, against doing any work at all for the Devil, as also in refusing to do any sinful work at the will or command of man: In which sense, it is both their wisdom and their duty not to serve nor please men (1 Cor. 7.23. Gal. 1.10.) Thus Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3.18.) We will not serve thy gods. These were no willful men, though they said, We will not: Their understanding was in the answer as well as their will, and their conscience for God, as well as either. And in this sense the Apostle, who so often exhorts to faithfulness and diligence in the service of man, admonisheth us, Not to be the servants of men, (1 Cor. 7.23.) And in this sense, (though he had said, I please all men, in all things for their profit, that they might be saved (1 Cor. 10.33.) and counselleth every man, to please his neighbor for his good to edification (Rom. 15.2.) yet) concludeth of himself, If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ (Gal. 1.10.)
Thirdly, The Unicorn is spoken of in Scripture, as an Hieroglyphic of those evil men, who are enemies to the Church of God ( Isa. 34.7.) And the Unicorns (we put in the Margin the Rhinoceros ) 'tis this Hebrew word) shall come down with them, and the Bullocks with the Bulls, &c. How shall the Unicorns come down with them? Not as we come down from a hill, or high place upon our feet, but they being destroyed shall be cast or thrown down. These Unicorns in the Prophet, are all those proud and mighty men of the world, who oppose, oppress, and persecute the Church of God, called out of the world to faith in Christ, and salvation by him, as appears fully ( ver. 8.) These for their stubbornness against the will and ways of God, are justly compared to, or called Unicorns; For, as Unicorns will not serve men, so these will not serve God; they will neither Plow nor Harrow, they will neither go nor come at his command.
And as the enemies of the Church, so, the enemies of Jesus Christ himself, or they who persecuted, pursued, and afflicted him to death, are set forth under this title, in that prayer of David a type of Christ ( Psal. 22.21.) Save me from the Lions mouth, for thou hast heard me from the horns of the Unicorns. Christ prayed, Save me from the Lions mouth, that is, from my greatest enemies: Thou hast heard me from the horns of the Unicorns, that is, of the Scribes and Pharisees, of Herod and Pontius Pilate, against whom Christ had help when he prayed, and got victory over them all, by his death and sufferings.
Lastly, The Unicorn (according to the description here given of him) resembles all refractory and rebellious sinners, who will by no means be reclaimed to the service of God, who will not receive the yoke of Christ though easy, nor bear his burden though light, but remaining obstinate and obdurate in their sins, will only do what they will, serving divers lusts and pleasures, and being to every good work reprobate. And as Naturalists say of the Unicorn, he may be slain, he will not be taken; so we may say of such men, they will sooner loose their lives than their wills: They are like natural brute beasts (of whom the Apostle Peter speaks, 2 Eph. 2.12.) made to be taken and destroyed. Such beasts were the Egyptians, of whom it is said ( Psal. 89.10.) Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain. Some beasts are broken and tamed, but Egypt (called Rahab for strength and pride, or for pride in strength) was a beast that would not be broken and tamed by all those plagues of God poured upon it at Land, and was therefore broken and slain in the Red-sea.
Thus we see how the Church and faithful people of God, resemble the Unicorn in some things; as also, how the wicked of the world, or the world lying in wickedness, resemble him in other things.
JOB, Chap. 39. Vers. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
13.
Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the Peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the Ostrich?
14.
Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
15.
And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beasts may break them.
16.
She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear,
17.
Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.
18.
What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the Horse and his Rider.
THe Lord having put several questions to Job, about the wild beasts of the earth, questions him in this context, according to our translation, about two, but according to some other translations and readings, about three sorts of Fowls of the Air. Our translation mentions only the Peacock and Ostrich, others add the Stork.
Yet 'tis the opinion of a very late and learned Author, that the whole context of these six verses contains the description of one Fowl only, and that the Ostrich. It cannot be denied, but that the first verse of this context, or the 13th of the Chapter, hath as various translations, by all sorts of Authors, as any (if not more than any) in this book; yet he grants, that most who have translated it into Latin, and all that ever he saw, who have translated it into the Mother language, of any Country, render it, the Peacock. And therefore referring the Reader to the perusal of his reasons and authorities, which are many and cogent, why he interprets the word Renamim, the Ostrich, I shall only touch at some of them in passage, as I proceed to open the Text, as 'tis expressed in our own translation.
That the Hebrew word here used, signifies a Peacock, is clear in all those Lexicographers that I have met with. Another word is used (1 Kings 10.22.) which yet Buxtorfius saith is by some rendered Parrats, and they are often brought in ships from far Countries. This I desire the Reader to take notice of, that there is a wonderful variety and difference of opinion among Interpreters, about the proper names of Animals, Plants and Gemms; and therefore no wonder if some render the word Chasidah in the following part of this verse, which is usually taken for a Stork, the Ostrich; and others, the word Renanim at the beginning of it, Ostriches, which we and almost all others, render Peacocks.
The Peacock is described only by his wings in the former part of the 13th verse, Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the Peacock.
The Ostrich is described, not only by her wings and feathers, in the same 13th verse, but by four distinct qualities, in the context of the five verses following;
First, By her carelessness and forgetfulness of that which she should be very tender of, her eggs, when she hath laid them; this we have in the 14th and 15th verses; Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, &c.
Secondly, She is described, by her unnaturalness to her young ones, when her eggs are hatched; this we have at the 16th verse, She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers.
Thirdly, She is described, by that which is the reason of both the former, her want of wisdom and understanding, at the 17th verse, which verse tells us also whence it comes to pass, that she hath so little of these excellent endowments, even Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, &c. As if he had said, if you would know a reason, or have an account, why the Ostrich is thus forgetful of her eggs, thus unnatural to her young ones, it is this, God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted unto her understanding.
The Fourth thing which she is described by, is her swiftness of foot or wing, for both are here to be taken in, testified by her scorn and contempt of her swiftest pursuers; When she lifteth up herself she scorneth the Horse and his Rider, at the 18th verse. Thus you have the parts of this context, with respect to these two winged Creatures or Fowls of the Air here (according to our reading) described the Peacock and the Ostrich. Thus the Lord having shown his unsearchable wisdom, shadowed in those other creatures formerly inquired of, proceeds still in the same argument, though upon a different subject. The power, wisdom and providential care of God, is manifested in and about all his creatures; as much in and about the feathered-fowls of the Air, as the four-footed beasts of the earth, of one kind or other.
Vers. 13. Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the Peacocks.
Those words gavest thou, are not expressed in the Hebrew Text; that's marvelous concise, which hath occasioned both differences and difficulties, in the explication of it. The Text is only this, goodly wings to the Peacocks, we say, gavest thou the goodly wings unto the Peacoks? The Jewish Doctors generally make the same supplement. Some expositors express it thus, hast thou made the goodly wings of the Peacocks? I conceive the difference is not great, whether we read, hast thou given, or hast thou made? for doubtless, God in giving made, or in making gave,
Master Broughton translates proud wings. The Peacock is a beautiful bird, and a proud one too: The Peacock is gorgeously clothed, as I may say, by the hand of God. Gavest thou the goodly wings? no, it was I the Lord, not thou, O Job, that gave the goodly wings unto the Peacocks. The word which we translate goodly, is very proper to the Peacock; the root of it signifies to exult, to boast, to glory, and therefore many translate, gavest thou the exulting or the rejoicing wings unto the Peacock. Though the Peacocks wings cannot properly exult or boast, yet because they are an occasion of exulting and boasting to this creature, therefore they may be said to do so. Hence Master Mercer translates The Peacock boasts with his wings or of his wings, he is filled as it were with joy, beholding his wings. And this gives one reason why the learned Bochartus is persuaded that the Ostrich is here intended, because the Peacock hath not goodly wings as the Ostrich hath, all the most beautiful feathers of the Peacock being placed in his tail or train, which is richly painted and adorned with various well-shadowed colors to the eye, when he spreads his tail, and prides himself in his plumes. But we need not stay upon this objection; the wing may well be taken for any feathered part. As Moses saith ( Gen. 7.14.) every bird of every sort, or as the Hebrew is, of every wing, came into the Ark. And though the Peacock boasteth chiefly in his train, as being most beautiful, yet he hath beauty in his wings too. Gavest thou the goodly wings
The Vulgar Latin translates, the wing of the Ostrich, is like the wing of the Hawk; but that translation is so wide, that one saith, Who reading this, wonders not at the strangness of the interpretation? The Greek translation of the Septuagint is as wide and dark as that, I shall not trouble the Reader about either, nor about many more which he may find collected, not only by Bochartus, but by several others.
The word which we translate Peacocks in the plural number, comes from a root which signifies to cry, or to make a loud noise, to make a cry in joy and triumph, and so it may be rendered, The wings or feathers of rejoycers and triumphers. The Peacock may well be so called, because he is a loud-voiced shrieking bird, glorying as it were, and triumphing in his wings and feathers. The very nature and qualities both of beasts and birds, are often and elegantly expressed in the Hebrew names. Gavest thou the goodly wings to the Peacocks?
Hence Note, First;
Here the Lord takes off Job from having any hand in that gift, much more from having the sole hand in it. The workmanship of God may be seen, and is to be acknowledged, even in this, the feathers of a bird; and if the least, the smallest things, among good things, are of God, how much more the greatest! If it be of God, that the Peacock hath his feathers? how much more that man hath reason, that man hath wisdom and understanding! how much more that man hath grace and holiness! every good gift, and every perfect gift cometh from above; God will be owned, even in a feather, in the wing of a fowl. Gavest thou? not thou, but I.
Secondly, In that God takes it upon himself to have given feathers to the Peacock, or to have made her feathers.
Observe,
We read before, how the Lord feeds the Lions, how he feeds the Ravens, how he feeds the wild Asses, how he provides food for Unicorns, and here he would have us take notice, how he provides clothing for the birds; feathers, are to the birds their clothing; they are to all birds good and warm clothing, and to some beautiful and goodly clothing. While Christ ( Mat. 6.26.28.) spake of clothing the Lilies, and of feeding the Fowls of the Air, he would from thence infer an argument of the Fatherly care of God over his people; Now in that God gives a clothing of feathers to the Fowls, and doth not leave them naked, it holds forth these three things.
First, It is an evidence or proof of the goodness and munificence of God, in providing sufficiently for the comfortable subsistence of all his creatures, and for the ornament of some of them.
Secondly, 'It is a confirmation of his children's faith, in and dependence upon him for outward things, for meat and clothing, with all necessaries of this life.
Thirdly, 'It is a reproof of their distrust and unbelief, with respect to outward things. Certainly, the Lord who hath provided feathers for the Fowls of the Air, will provide clothing for his children and faithful servants.
Further, consider; The Lord hath not only given wings or feathers to the Peacock, but the Text saith, he hath given goodly wings
Hence learn, Thirdly;
That is, God doth not give alike, no, not to birds. Some fowls of the air have feathers only for their use, or to serve their necessity; all fowls of the air have not gay feathers, nor goodly wings; all of them have not painted feathers, all of them have not (as Pliny's word is, describing the Peacock) jewelly feathers, gemmy feathers; some have but plain feathers to fly with, and to keep them from the cold, but here the Peacock hath goodly wings. And we read ( Ezek. 17.3.) of an Eagle full of feathers, which had divers colors; we put in the margin, Embroydering colors. God makes for some fowls of the air, such coats as Jacob made for his son Joseph, whom he loved more than all his children ( Gen. 37.3.) even coats of many colors; and such are his degrees of dispensation also, with respect to the children of men. God gives clothing to all, but not goodly clothing, not rich clothing; to some he gives goodly clothing, he puts a glory upon their garments; he clothes some with scarlet, and puts ornaments upon their apparel, as David in his mourning song spake of Saul, adorning his subjects, the people of Israel (2 Sam. 1, 23, 24.) When Abraham sent his servant to woo for his son Isaac, or to fetch a wife for him, he sent goodly clothing; his servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment and gave them to Rebekah (Gen. 24.53.) Joseph (Gen. 45.22.) gave all his brethren changes of raiment; but to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver, and five changes of raiment. Thus the Lord deals with men and women in this world; all have apparel to cover their nakedness, and defend them from the sharpness of a Winter season, but some have goodly apparel.
Fourthly, In that these goodly wings given to the Peacock, are by some rendered proud wings, and by others boasting wings.
Note;
The very Peacock having fine feathers, over-weenes himself, and is proud of them. As we say, Fine feathers, make fine birds, so we may say, Fine feathers, make proud birds. And no wonder if it be so with silly birds; for even wise men, if they receive anything that is goodly from the hand of God, are very apt to be as proud of it, as the Peacock of his goodly wings. If the Lord doth but give us a few gay feathers, a little more riches than others, a little more honor than others (these are gay feathers) or if the Lord give us better and higher parts than others (these are gayer feathers) How hard is it for us to keep down high thoughts, or not to soar high upon these wings and feathers, in admiting thoughts and airy conceits of ourselves, though the holy Ghost everywhere way-layeth the pride of our hearts by many arguments, by this especially, because all we have is given us by God, and we have nothing of our own. The Lord hath given man many goodly feathers, beauty and strength of body to many, riches and honor to not a few, wit, learning, eloquence to some, and to others spiritual gifts and graces, which are the goodliest feathers of all. Now seeing, all these are given us, why should we be proud of any one of them? yea, how humble should we be, though adorned with them all! Hence that Apostolical check to proud ones (1 Cor. 4.7.) What hast thou that thou didst not receive? and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory or boast, as if thou hadst not received it? In these words he more than implieth two things; First, That they who have received those goodlier feathers of spiritual gifts and graces, are in danger of being lifted up by them. Secondly, That they ought not. The Angels who fell, had goodly feathers, and they were lifted up, not only in pride with what they had received, and were beholding to God for, but in pride to have more, or get higher, and not be beholding to God for it. There is a temptation in any good thing, a great temptation in goodly things, to pride; and therefore we had need to pray when we have anything that is goodly, whether it be natural, civil, moral, or spiritual, to be kept humble and preserved from pride. The Apostle Paul was in danger to be exalted above measure, through the abundance of the revelations which he had, when caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12.3, 7.) The best men on earth may be overheated by what they have received from heaven, and the flesh may take occasion, as, by the commandment to work in us all manner of concupiscence (Rom. 7.8.) so, by our raptures in spirit, to puff us up with that special concupiscence called pride.
The Peacock here spoken of, is so far transported with his fine feathers, that he may be called the picture of pride. We have a common saying in our language, Such a one is as proud as a Peacock; or, he is a proud Peacock. A Peacock and a proud person are alike in several things.
First, As the Peacock is proud of his feathers, so is he of his clothes. One of the Ancients reproving pride in clothing, said, in his time, It is not so much the warmth of their clothing, but the curious die or color of the cloth which is regarded; and most insist more upon the trimming of their vestures, than upon the increase of their virtues.
Secondly, A Peacock, as he is proud of his feathers, so he loves they should be seen, or he loves to show his fine feathers. The Peacock spreads his plumes, so doth a proud person. Not only he that is proud of his apparel affects to be seen, but he that is proud of his gifts, knowledge, learning, eloquence, how doth he spread these plumes, and affect applause! As the vain-glorious Pharisees thought nothing they did in Religion worth the doing, unless they were seen in doing it; so vain-glorious persons think nothing they have worth the having, unless they make others see they have it.
Thirdly, A proud man is like to the Peacock in his exulting clamorous voice or cry: Such love to talk high, and are very loud; they love to be heard as well as seen, and to hear themselves speak in the hearing of others.
Fourthly, The Peacock (say Naturalists) however he hath very goodly feathers, yet hath but a very weak head. 'It is so with proud persons; whatever fine shows they make, their intellectuals are but course; and they that are proud of the strength of their heads, of their wit and understandings, have indeed the weakest heads of all. There is much folly lodged in that man's head, where much knowledge lodgeth, if pride lodge in his heart too. And seeing God gives (in this sense) foolish men (as this foolish bird) fine feathers, we need not envy them; for their folly in being proud of their fine feathers, debaseth them more in the sight of God, than their fine feathers can honor them in the sight of men. Usually proud persons have little that is good in them; but how much soever they have, it will be little more to them than a fine feather, because they think it so much, that they are proud of it.
Fifthly, Naturalists say, the Peacock (and it is as true of a proud person) is an Angel in aspect, or to look on (he makes a goodly show) a thief in his foot, i. e. he goeth softly without noise, yet hath a voice like hell, crying out and shrieking very unharmoniously to the ear. A proud person may be an Angel in aspect, but he is a thief in his feet, he goeth softly, yet deceitfully; and there is a hell in his voice. A loud boasting tongue is as troublesome and unpleasant to the ear, as a brawling; and usually boasters are brawlers too: For, as Solomon hath concluded it ( Prov. 13.10.) By pride cometh contention.
Lastly, Proud ones are like the Peacock, because that which persons are most commonly proud of, is of little worth. The Peacock is proud of his feathers, which are worthless things, fit only for children to play with. And though it is a truth, that some men (as was said before) are proud of such things as are excellent in themselves, and of a great intrinsic value, yet (as was also said before) whatsoever a man is proud of, will (to his account) be no better than a Peacocks feather. A man that is proud of his beauty and apparel, of his riches and outward splendor, may truly be said to be proud of a feather; Solomon, the wisest of Kings, and taught by the Spirit of God, hath written vanity and insufficiency upon all worldly things. And if a man be proud of his understanding, knowledge, or any internal endowment (which are things of real excellency) they all become vain to him; yea, if a man be proud of his graces, though they shall never be utterly vain to him, yet so far as he is proud of them, they are vain to him, being hindered by the present prevailings of corruptions, from doing that which is one of the most proper works of them, the keeping him humble, empty, and nothing in his own eyes. Gavest thou goodly wings to the Peacocks,
Several Translators (as was touched before) find two distinct fowls in this latter part of the verse. Mr. Broughton saith, Gavest thou feathers to the Stork and Ostrich? and so others. Our Translators put it thus in the Margin, The feathers of the Stork and Ostrich. The occasion of this difference in translating, arises from the original word used last in this verse, which commonly signifies a feather only, yet is sometimes taken to signify the fowl itself, or a feathered fowl; and because the Ostrich hath the richest and most beautiful feathers, therefore it is here translated, the Ostrich. The feathers of the Ostrich being that for which she is most famous, the Ostrich herself may (not inelegantly) be expressed by a word, which properly and strictly taken, signifies nothing but a feather; but most interpreters taking that word in its proper sense to signify a feather, take the former word, which firstly and properly signifies a Stork, for the Ostrich. Gavest thou wings and feathers to the Ostrich. The reason, I conceive, why that word (Chasidah) which properly signifieth a Stork, is here rendered an Ostrich, is because the description given of the bird here intended in the five verses following, doth no way agree with the Stork, but fairly with the Ostrich; for the Stork (say Naturalists) is of a very good and pitiful nature, and hath its name from a root in the Hebrew, which signifies kindness, pity and tenderness, whereas the creature here described, is void of all these, as will appear in opening this context. And therefore Grammarians tell us, that the Ostrich is so called by the rule of contraries, merciful or kind, for unkind and cruel; which way of speaking is usual in the Hebrew, as also in other languages. Thus the Hebrew word for a Harlot, signifies one that is holy; Harlots being most unholy, filthy, and unclean women, prostituting their bodies to the lusts of others, and inviting them to unlawful pleasures.
And that we are not here to understand the Stork properly taken, but the Ostrich, is plain for these three reasons; the first of which hath been already intimated, the bird here intended being of a quite contrary nature to the stork. Secondly, The Stork hath no such beautiful feathers as seem to be given to the bird here spoken of, yet we must not believe that all those beautiful colors in which Ostriches feathers are seen and worn, are natural to them; for she hath no feathers of note, of any color growing on her, but black and white, all others are died and artificial. Thirdly, The Stork doth not lay her eggs on the ground, but builds on high in trees ( Psal. 104.17.) As for the Stork, the Firr-trees are her house, whereas the bird here mentioned, goes upon the ground; though she hath wings, yet not wings able to lift her up to a tree, or take any lofty flight in the air. Naturalists describing the Ostrich, tell us, that she is such a bird as is also a kind of beast. Some creatures are of two kinds in one, living partly upon the earth, and partly in the water; here the Ostrich may upon another account be numbered among these, he using the wing to slutter a little in the air like a bird, yet mostly like a beast moving upon the earth. And hence a learned Author placeth the • strich between fowls that fly in the air, and things that breath or move upon the earth. Pliny reports, the Ostriches of Africa and Arabia to be very big bodied, as tall in stature as a horse and his rider, and more swift of foot than any horse, being helped by their wings, which yet are not strong enough to raise their bulkie bodies above the earth.
Upon these grounds and considerations it is, that all these Interpreters, who will have but one fowl of the air to be intended in this part of the Text, fix upon the Ostrich, not upon the Stork; though the word Chasidah, which they translate Ostrich, doth properly signify the Stork.
Howbeit, some see no cogent reason why we may not expound the word Chasidah properly by the Stork, and yet salve all the former objections, by rendering the word Notsa an Ostrich. There is a necessity that we find the Ostrich in this verse, because (as was said before) the description given in the five following verses, is not applicable to the Stork, but Ostrich; notwithstanding, if while we apply the word Chasidah to the Stork, the word Notsa may serve as well, if not better, to signify the Ostrich. Why may we not (say they) take in both, and so render the Text thus, Who gave wings to the Stork and the Ostrich? and so all difficulties will be removed, and the word Renanim reserved free for the Peacock.
But forasmuch as our translation puts the Ostrich alone into the Text, I shall not add anything concerning the nature of the Stork, but only of the Ostrich; Gavest thou wings and feathers to the Ostrich?
The word rendered wings, signifies strength; the strength of birds is in their wings (as of man in his arms) and some birds are exceeding strong of wing.
The word rendered by us feathers, signifies in the root to fly, because feathers are the instruments of flying; yet others derive it from a word, which signifies to grow or flourish, because feathers grow and flourish upon fowls, as herbs and flowers out of, and upon the ground. And the reason why some conceive the Ostrich is meant by this word (Notsa) which we translate feathers, is because the feathers of the Ostrich are so like beautiful flowers, or a goodly garland of flowers. Great Princes in all ages having adorned their hats or hair with the plumes of the Ostrich, set in ouches of gold, and bespangled with the rarest gems or precious stones.
What the nature, the customs and qualities of the Ostrich are, will appear in opening the latter part of this context. All that I shall add here, is,
First, To set down more fully the description which the natural Historian gives of her. The African and Ethiopian Ostriches (saith he) are the greatest of birds, even as big as a beast, in height they are taller than a horse and his rider sitting on his back; they also exceed the horse in swiftness of foot, their wings seeming to be given them only to help them in running, for they can scarcely fly at all, or lift themselves much above ground. They are cloven-footed, or hoof-forked like a Hart, their hoofs or claws serving them to gather up stones, which in their flight or retreat, they throw backward upon such as hunt them. They have an admirable concoction, digesting the hardest things which they swallow down; nor is their folly less admirable, thinking themselves sufficiently hid, when their heads are. Their eggs serve for cups to drink in, and their feathers adorn the crests and helmets of the Warrior.
And besides the beauty of her feathers, their equality or evenness is so remarkable, that among the Egyptians, the feather of an Ostrich was taken for the symbol of equity; so that when they would signify a man of an equal spirit and conversation towards all men, and in all things, they used to paint the feather of an Ostrich.
Secondly, I shall add this also; That as in the Peacock we had the representation of a proud person, so in the Ostrich the lively image or picture of an Hypocrite, which may be held out and made good in these five particulars.
First, The Ostrich is a kind of middle creature (as was said) between a bird that flies in the air, and a beast that goes upon the ground, having somewhat of both, yet is properly neither. Thus it is with the Hypocrite or false-hearted Christian; He stands between a godly man and a profane man, he is neither; he is not profane, in strict sense (though really he be so, as the Hebrew word for a Hypocrite imports, yet (I say) in strict sense he is not profane) because he makes a profession, and appears to men in a form of godliness; yet he is not godly, because he only makes a profession, and appears in a form of godliness, either denying, or at least, not having any power of godliness. A Hypocrite hangs, as I may say, between God and man, between the ways of holiness, and the ways of sin; he either halts between two Religions, as Elijah told the Jews (1 King. 18.21.) or takes not one right step in that one which he pretends to; he is (as it was said of the Church of Laodicea) neither hot nor cold, but between both, luke-warm. As the Ostrich is a creature between two, something like a fowl of the air, and something like a beast of the earth, or (as the Latin word for an Ostrich implies) A Camel winged, a winged Camel; so is a Hypocrite, a kind of a middle-man, between a good man and a bad, in appearance very good, but in truth and reality stark naught; and by so much worse than the worst of profane ones, by how much he had a mind to appear better than the best, at least among the best of holy ones.
Secondly, This Ostrich, as he is described, is a creature without natural affection; and so the Hypocrite and false-hearted professor, is always without spiritual, Christian, gracious affections, and very often without natural and mere human affections. That's one part of the character which the Apostle gives of those who have a form of godliness, but deny the power (2 Tim. 3.3.)
Thirdly, the Ostrich hath feathers, but cannot fly; the Ostrich spreads her wings as if she would fly aloft, yet cannot make a lofty flight; she raiseth herself no higher above the earth, than a man may hop or leap; her body or earthly part is so ponderous, that her wings cannot raise her far into the air, much less bear her up long there. It is so with the Hypocrite, he hath wings, and he seems to spread them, as if he had strong desire, and great designs heaven-wards; he would make you believe he is both from and for above, yet he cannot get off the earth; he is an earthly minded man, as the Apostle speaks of such, though as to an outward profession, and some formal actions, he seems to soar aloft, and live above the world, yet he ever drives an earthly trade, and hath some base carnal aim or other, in his highest services. The earth is every natural man's center, and therefore though (as any heavy body, a stone or clod of clay) he may be forced upward, yet when that impression is spent, he falls down again to earthly things, which only are connatural to him.
Fourthly, The Ostrich is a creature of a mighty digestion, of a hot stomach; and therefore is painted and figured with a piece of iron in her mouth, implying, she digests iron. Thus the hypocrite can digest the hardest things, even that which is harder than iron, sin; that which lieth upon the stomach of a godly man as heavy as a stone, that is, which burdens his conscience, that the hypocrite can swallow, it goes down easily with him, and is as easily digested; he can swallow this and that sin without trouble, especially, if he can but do it unseen or in secret; he makes no bones (as we say) of anything, which may but feed some lust, he hath a conscience wide enough, and hot enough, and strong enough to digest iron, any unlawful deed if it serve his turn, or may tu • n to his worldly advantage. That which a man truly fearing God, and strongly resolved to do his known will, and nothing else knowingly, cannot will, not do, nor touch with for a world, that he can do, and will do for some poor pittances, much more for the great things of the world.
Fifthly, Pliny saith, the Ostrich being a very tall creature, is yet so foolish, that if she hide her head, she thinks herself all hid and safe from danger; she concludes no man sees her, if she sees no man. Thus it is with the hypocrite, if he can but be out of sight himself, he thinks none see him, no not God himself ( Psal. 94.6, 7.) They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless; yet they say, the Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. They think they do all in such secrecy, that as men do not, so God shall not behold it.
Lastly, The Ostrich hath very gay feathers, of much more worth than the Peacock, yet the Ostrich hath no more wit than the Peacock; one is the emblem of a proud man, the other of a hypocrite, both bravely clothed, yet with nothing but feathers.
From both, I would infer these two or three things, which may hold out much of the mind of God in this discourse with Job, and which some Interpreters conceive God chiefly aimed at in this place, by telling Job or minding him, that he had given goodly wings, and gay feathers to Peacocks and Ostriches. We see those creatures which have little worth in themselves, have very goodly ornaments put upon them by the hand of God. Hence we may infer,
First, God oftentimes bestoweth the gay and glitter of worldly things upon the worst, the unworthiest among the sons of men; upon such as have no more wisdom in them, than a Peacock or an Ostrich. And if so, then
Secondly, take this inference; We should not envy any sort of men in the world their gay feathers. Job stumbled at this, and so did David, who said of himself, I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked (Psal. 73.3.) David was troubled to see them garnished and trimmed like Peacocks and Ostriches, flaunting with their feathers, while he poor man was chastened every morning; yet he quickly saw he had little reason for this trouble, when once he went into the sanctuary; For there he learned in what a slippery place they stood, and therefore called himself ignorant fool and beast, for envying them their gayest feathers, their greatest prosperity. ( ver. 22.) Let it not offend us to behold bad men in the best array. Is any man offended because a Peacock or an Ostrich hath such goodly feathers? Surely, no man ought to complain of or find fault with the dispensations of God, because he hath bestowed a richer suit of feathers upon the proud Peacock and the foolish Ostrich, than he hath upon the pious, kind-hearted, well-natured Stork, or the innocent Dove. Why then should any be offended or murmur, if God give the good things of the world to those that have no more goodness than Peacocks or Ostriches, if he fills and adorns some bad men, with better things of this life, than many that are good? The Prophet ( Ezek. 17.4.) gives the description of an Eagle, having long wings, and embroidered feathers, or feathers of many colors. Yet that Eagle was but a Heathen Prince, and he none of the best, though one of the greatest of that sort. Bad men have their embroiderirs, the paint of an earthly glory, and that is all the portion, all the good they are ever like to have; As Abraham told the rich man in the Parable ( Luk. 16.) Who was clothed with purple and fine linen, and fared deliciously every day while he lived; Son remember thou hast had thy good things. Fine clothes and delicious fare is the all of good (and how poor an all is that) which some men desire, and which any ungodly man shall receive from the hand of God.
Thirdly, We may infer; Let all learn to be content with, and thankful for their own clothing or portion in this world, though it be but mean, course or plain, and much inferior to what they see others have. Those birds which have but poor feathers are satisfied with them, as well as the Peacock and the Ostrich with their gaudy ones. By this argument God would persuade Job, to be quiet and patient, though his clothing at that time was very mean, yea, though all the gay feathers of his former prosperity were plucked oft and he stripped naked, as he (poor man) said at the 21th verse of the first Chapter; Naked came I out of my Mothers womb, and naked shall I return thither, that is, to the womb of the earth, man's common parent. Though we make not a fair show (as the Apostle saith some desired to do, Gal. 6.12.) in the flesh; though we have not such goodly feathers on our backs, in our outward robes as others have, let us be thankful for a dress of the meanest clothing, and patient though dressed in sackcloth. God is a sovereign Lord, he is at his liberty to give goodly wings and glorious feathers to this bird, and plain ones to another: And the same liberty he may and doth take and exercise when and where he pleaseth, among the children of men. Gavest thou the goodly wings to the Peacocks? or wings and feathers to the Ostrich?
The Lord having thus described the Ostrich by her outside, her wings and feathers, proceeds to show her inside, her disposition and qualities. And we might expect, that a creature clothed with such lovely wings and feathers, would have had some lovely and rare qualities, whereas the Ostrich hath not one that's commendable, all that is said of her signifying an ignoble disposition. For first, she is forgetful and careless of that, which she should be very careful of.
Vers. 14, 15. Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beasts may break them.
Here's the folly, the carelessness, and blockishness of this creature.
The eggs of the Ostrich are great, and the shell very hard; we often see them set curiously in gold or silver, and so used as cups or drinking vessels. But of what worth or use soever her eggs are, she useth them very coarsely, and carries it towards them as if they were little worth. O • her birds, when they l • y their eggs, do their utmost to put them out of danger, they sit upon them themselves, and hatch them; but the Ostrich (say some) leaves them in the earth and is gone, she takes no further care of them; where once they are laid, there she lets them lie. This (I say) is contrary to the nature of other birds, who lay their eggs in nests, as much as they can from danger, but she leaveth them in the earth,
Which is not to be understood, as if she left them there on purpose or designedly to warm them in the dust, for that were a piece of discretion, but she is reproved for improvidence; and therefore where 'tis said, she leaves them, the meaning is, she looks no more after them, they are little beholding to her, she will not (as some intimate) take pains, nor hath she the patience to sit on them, and hatch them as other fowls do. Several Authors affirm, that the eggs thus left, are hatched by the heat or warmth of the Sun. This Rochartus rejects as a mere dream, affirming, That all her eggs, so left in the sands, are corrupted, not hatched; and tells us from others, that the Ostrich having forgotten where she left her own eggs, happening upon the eggs of some other Ostrich, sits upon and hatches them; according to which, the Chaldee saith, She brings young ones which are not truly hers. But I leave these things to the consideration of the Reader.
Others give two reasons, why the Ostrich leaves her eggs in the dust, and doth not sit upon them; both which are very unsuitable to what God himself saith of the Ostrich. First, (They say) she leaveth them and warms them in the dust, lest she should break them with the weight of her body; but doubtless there is no fowl so heavy, but may sit on her eggs, and not break them. The least bird that sits upon eggs may break them if she be careless, and the greatest may preserve them by care. Besides, an Ostriches egg is a very hard egg, and not easily broken; therefore surely, that cannot be the reason. Secondly, That she doth not sit upon her eggs herself, because she wanteth feathers; her under parts being bare and naked, and so very unfit to yield warmth. But if the Ostrich did thus upon a natural instinct, there would be no reason to charge her with folly, or to say God hath deprived her of wisdom; for as the former reason, so this would prove her to be a wise and provident creature, therefore we must lay the reason somewhere else. And God himself hath given us the true reason, her blockish forgetfulness and unnaturalness, having no consideration how soon her eggs may be spoiled.
Vers. 15. And forgetteth that the foot may crush them.
That is, she hath no thought that they may take hurt, and therefore takes no care, nor makes any provision to preserve them from hurt; she minds not, nor doth at all apprehend the danger which her eggs are • n: She forgetteth that the foot (of man) may crush them,
The Hebrew is thresh them, which implieth more than cracking, even breaking them all to pieces.
Thus we see what report God himself makes of the Ostrich; but many other things are reported of the Ostrich by natural Historians, which we have no reason to believe, because they contradict the report which the Lord here makes of her, unless they mean some other sort of Ostrich than is here described. For Aelian tells us, The Ostrich sits diligently upon her eggs, till the young ones are hatched, and then is very tender over them. Both which the Lord denies concerning the Ostrich in the Text, while he saith, She leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, &c.
Hence note, First;
Though none of the beasts of the earth, or fowls of the air, have Reason, properly so called (that's the privilege of Angels and Men) yet there are some of them, that by a natural instinct, show a great deal of reason in what they do, both as to their own preservation, and the provision which they make for their young ones; in which latter respect, especially this Scripture, takes notice of the deficiency of the Ostrich.
Secondly, Forasmuch as the spirit of God reports this as the folly of the Ostrich, that she leaves her eggs to so much hazard and danger,
Observe;
It is a great piece of wisdom to foresee danger, and a greater to provide well against it. A prudent man (saith Solomon, Prov. 22.3.) foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple puss on, and are punished. Noah heard of the flood, and being warned of God, moved with fear (he both feared God, and was afraid of the danger) prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, that is, his household and family. In all cases, as 'tis our wisdom to forsee danger, so 'tis our duty to provide against danger; not to leave our eggs, anything we have, much less our lives, least of all our own souls, or the souls of others, in danger. How many leave the souls of their children, the souls of their relations in the earth, yea, to the earth, or (as we say) to the wide world; and forget what snares, what temptations they may fall into, what foot may crush them, what wild beast may tread upon them; yea, many that have the charge of souls, as Ministers, leave their flocks, and forget the danger that may come to them, they forget that the foot may crush them, that Satan, and those wild beasts, their lusts, may ruin and destroy them. We may say to such, as Eliab, the elder brother of David, said to him (when he was sent by his father to visit his brethren in the Camp) (1 Sam. 17.28.) With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? dost thou know what will become of thy sheep? thou hast left them for Lions and Bears to devour and to tear. So we may say to many (who are hardened like the Ostrich against her eggs) with whom have you left your flocks? with whom have you left those few sheep, those poor souls left under your charge? may not wild beasts, Bears and Lions destroy them? Not to foresee danger, shows some want of prudence; but not to provide against danger foreseen, is an argument of greatest folly.
Again, consider this foolish creature the Ostrich, leaves her eggs at (as we say) sixes and sevens, and is gone, she never troubles herself more with them, yet they are preserved, and her kind is continued, though little thanks to her.
Hence we learn, Thirdly;
By how much the Ostrich is more neglectful, by so much the providence of God is more watchful. In the carelessness of the creature, how doth the care of God shine forth! when they that are engaged to, or should provide for the good of others, or to prevent their evil, neglect that duty, how wonderful is the goodness and kindness of God in providing for them, and protecting them! David had this confidence ( Psal. 27.10.) When my father and my mother (like the Ostrich) forsake me (that is, though my father and mother should prove so unnatural, as to forsake me, and expose me to the wide world) yet the Lord will take me up. How good is God, who takes care for them, for whom nearest relations take none! The Prophet puts this question, as if the negative answer were out of question ( Isa. 49.15.) Can a woman forget (like the Ostrich her eggs) her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely, if the answer were to be made to this question in the light of nature, would it not be this? She cannot, 'tis impossible she should. But how doth the spirit of God answer in the Text? Not absolute in the negative, she cannot; nor absolutely in the affirmatively, she will; but mixedly or comparatively; Yea, they may forget; yet will I not forget thee; that is, though it would be a very strange thing if they should, yet possibly they may, but 'tis impossible that I should forget thee. Or thus, though women should turn Ostriches, and forget their own issue, yet will I not forget thee; that is, I will have thee in everlasting remembrance, as it followeth in the next words of the Prophet ( verse. 16.) Behold! I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands, thy walls are continually before me.
And as the Lord will not forget his Zion, the Church, nor leave her to the danger of being crushed by every foot; so whatever is left to hazard or danger, whether, First, by any unreasonable creature, as here in the Text; Or secondly, by unreasonable and foolish men (from whom to be delivered the Apostle begged earnestly, 2 Thes. 3.2.) Or Thirdly, which the wisest men, with all their care, and power, and diligence cannot secure from danger and hazard; there is a wakeful eye of providence, that will take care in all such cases, especially, in the last. For, when men have done their utmost, to keep the foot from crushing us, and the wild beasts from destroying us, but canno • , then the care of God appears most in doing it. And in the case of that double necessity, when good men have done their best to keep us safe, but cannot; and bad men have done their worst, to expose us unto, and leave us in danger, we may, and must leave all to God, who naturally takes care of all creatures, and is the Savior of all men (both as to temporal and eternal salvation, 1 Tim. 4.10.) especially of them that believe.
Thus we have the first part of the description of the Ostrich, who being so very foolish, not to discharge her duty to her eggs, God himself doth it, his providence orders the Sun to warm them, and the Sand to bring them forth. And as the Ostrich is careless of her eggs, before they are hatched, so she neglects her young ones as much when they are hatched, as is shown in the next verse.
Vers. 16. She is hardened against her young ones, as if they were not hers.
This verse gives us a farther description of that Bird-beast the Ostrich, by her unnaturalness to her offspring; having left her eggs carelessly to hatch or perish in the dust, she is as careless of her brood when they are hatched; when the heat of the Sun (say some) by the providence of God, hath done one part of her duty, to bring them forth, she neglects the other part of her duty, which is, to bring them up; and so the pains that she took in laying so many great eggs (one tells us, her nest is usually sto • ed with fourscore eggs, others say with twenty, the least say with twelve or ten) seems to be in vain, she taking no care of them, not having any regard to them. This the Spi • it of God expresseth in the beginning of the 16th verse, She is hardened against her young ones; she is as forgetful of her chickens (if I may so call them) as she was of her eggs. Rabbie Abraham reads thus, God hath hardened her against her young ones; and the reason that he gives for it, is, because the word is in the Masculine Gender, which cannot well agree with the Feminine her. And we find it in an active signification ascribed to God ( Isa. 63.17. ) O Lord (said the Church there) why hast thou hardened our hearts from thy fear? Nor is it anywhere else found in the whole Bible, but in this place of Job; in this sense the Rabbin expounds it here, nor is it either an impertinent or an unprofitable sense. For as God sometimes judicially hardens the hearts of men, so he doth also naturally harden the hearts of some beasts and birds, and makes them of a cruel disposition against their own kind, and then they l t them sink or swim, and expose them to the greatest danger without any the least provision for them.
The Septuagint or Greek Interpreters, do not read as we, She is hardened against her young ones, but taking the same active signification of the ve b, say thus; She hardeneth her young ones; that is, she doth not bring them up tenderly, nor delicately, but leaves them to shift for themselves, and so hardeneth them. And the reason of that rendering may be this, because there is no particle in the Hebrew expressing the word, against; we say, She is hardened against her young ones, but the preposition commonly rendered against, is not in the Hebrew; that saith only, She hardeneth her young ones, or, She is hardening her young ones; but the sense riseth much to the same point, whether we read, She hardeneth her young ones, or, is hardened against her young ones; for by being hardened against them, or by using them hardly, she hardeneth them. Many parents harden their children by being hard to them. If we put the sense of both readings together, it will make the matter more complete; she hardeneth her young ones, by hardening herself against them. Our reading is full and clear, She hardeneth herself against her young ones, or children; so the word (strictly taken) signifies.
Implying, that the consideration of them, as hers, should have made her more tender of them; yet she carrieth it as if she had no relation to them. The Hebrew is, For that they were not hers; which here, as in other parallel Scriptures, is rightly sensed in our Translation, As though they were not hers. As if it had been said, she could not do otherwise, nor worse by them, if they were mere strangers to her, or such as she had no title to. She deals no better with them, than as if they either were not hers, or as if they were nothing to her, and she no way concerned in them. Such is that complaint of the Church ( Lam. 1.) Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by (and see my sorrow) is it nothing to you? are you not at all concerned? am I to you merely as a stranger, that you pass by and take no notice of my sufferings? Thus the holy Ghost describes the Ostrich, she is hardened against her young ones, as though they were none of hers, or as if she had nothing to do with them.
Hence note, First;
When Pharaoh dealt so extreme hardly with the people of Israel, when he increased their number of bricks, and denied them straw, and made them serve with rigor, he was extremely hardened against them. That spiritual judgment, hardness of heart, was deeply upon Pharaoh, when he dealt so hardly with the chosen people of God, notwithstanding all the corporal judgments which God brought upon him. And as it was in that case between Pharaoh and the children of Israel, so in any case whatsoever, he that dealeth hardly with others, hath a heart hardened against them; as this beast-bird, the Ostrich (upon that account) is said to harden herself against her young ones.
Note, Secondly;
They that are grown up, they that are hardened, can endure hardship. The Apostle Paul would have every believer, especially a Minister of the Gospel, to endure hardship (2 Tim. 2.3.) 'It is both their duty & wisdom to harden themselves, who are like to endure hardship, and to find the world hardened against them. All such should inure themselves to endure hard things, or to suffer evil (as the word there is) as the good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Good soldiers, especially old experienced soldiers, will endure hardship; but your raw soldiers, new listed soldiers, who never saw battle or siege, can hardly endure it. The Ostrich puts her young ones to hardship. We should be very careful, if we put hardship upon any, to put it upon those only that are fit to endure it; we should not put hardship upon young ones; 'tis the spirit of an Ostrich, of a beast-bird to do so. Jacob had a tender respect to his flocks, for this reason; when Esau would have journeyed with him, no, saith he ( Gen. 33.13.) My Lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks a • d herds with young are with me, and if men should over-drive them one day, all the flock would die. As if he had said, should I use these young ones hardly, that are not fitted for hardship, I should destroy all. Jacob had a tender care of those that were tender. The Ministers of the Gospel should take heed that they harden not themselves against the young ones of the flock, such as are newly come in to Jesus Christ, late Converts, Babes in Christ, as the Apostle calls them (1 Cor. 3.1.) these should be dealt tenderly with. The Prophet describes the tender care of Christ towards his people under this notion ( Isa. 40.11.) He shall feed his flock like a Shepherd; he shall gather the Lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young; and shall his Ministers hurry and over-drive them? When any do so, are they not as the Ostrich in the Text, hardened against their young ones, yea against those that are with young?
Again, From that addition to her hard heartedness; not only is she hardened against her young ones, but she is hardened as if they were not hers.
Hence note;
To look upon those as not ours, that are ours, is an extremity of hardness. She is a hard mother indeed, who deals with her children as if they were not her children. The Apostle concludes universally in the Negative ( Eph. 5.29.) No man ever hated his own flesh, but loved it and cherished it, as the L • rd doth the Church. Now as it is an unnatural thing for a man to hate his own flesh personal, so his own flesh relational. Christ speaking of the world, saith ( John 15.19.) The world loves its own. The world doth not love you, saith Christ to his disciples; yea, because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. The world and you are not of a piece, are not of a Pedigree, nor of the same extraction; you are of another world, and have had both a birth and a breeding, differing (toto coelo) heavenly wide from theirs; and therefore 'tis no great wonder if the world hate you, who are not of it: but the world loves its own. They have a nature more unnatural than the world, who are hardened against their own relations. Jesus Christ ( John 1.11.) came to his own, and his own received him not. Now, as not to be respected by our own, so not to respect our own, is unnatural. It was the sin of the Jewish Nation, that they did not respect Christ, they being Christ's own according to the flesh. Their sin is great, and they do shamefully, who will not do what good they ought and can for their own. The Prophet Jeremiah in his Lamentations (Chap. 4.3.) speaking of the women of Jerusalem in that extremity of famine, saith, Even the Sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones; but the daughter of my people is become cruel like the Ostriches in the wilderness. The Prophet compares that people to the Ostrich, though that cruelty of theirs to their young ones proceeded not so much from the hardness of their hearts, as from the hardness of the times, and was to be charged rather upon their necessity, than their nature. The famine upon them was so great, and pressed them so sore, that they were so far from having anything to give their children to eat, that they were forced to eat their children; and yet this necessitons hard-heartness of theirs towards their own, the P • ophet upbraids them with, and reproves them for, while he said, The daughter of my people is become cruel like the Ostriches of the wilderness. Let all own relations to the utmost, and take heed of turning away from, and casting off the care of theirs, as if they were not theirs. The Prophet ( Isa. 58.7.) puts it among the duties of a fast, That thou hide not thyself from thy own flesh. Then we keep a true fast, a fast that God hath chosen, when we break our bread to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out to our houses; when we clothe the naked, and comfort the sorrowful, not hiding ourselves from our own flesh; by w ch , though we are specially to understand our kindred and nearest relations in the flesh, yet 'tis true of mere strangers, of those who are at furthest remove from us, as to either alliance or consanguinity, if they need our help. God hath made all men of one flesh, in the same sense that he hath made all men of one blood (Act. 17.26.) and therefore to hide ourselves from the help of any man in distress, is to hide ourselves from our own flesh. 'It is much to be wondered, that a foolish bird should be forgetful of her young ones, as though they were not hers; but it is to be abhorred in men and women, especially in those that profess the faith of Christ, that they should no more look to them that are theirs, than as if they were not theirs. The Apostle gives this censure of, or sentence upon all such (1 Tim. 5.8.) If any man provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, or (as the Margin hath it) kindred (if any man carry it towards them, as if they were not his) he hath denied the faith, and (in that point) is worse than an infidel; for the common light of nature teacheth infidels to take care of those that are their own, and not to slight them, as if they were not theirs.
Farther note, Fourthly;
The Apostle describing the best of Heathens ( Rom. 1.) saith, They were without natural affection. Nature hath not of itself natural affections. That some beasts of the earth, and birds of the air, are very full of natural affection, none can deny; but it must be granted also, that God hath planted those affections in them. If, that which we call natural affection, were purely from nature, then every bird and beast would have the same natural affection; but this Text tells us, the Ostrich hath it not in her, she hath no natural affection at all towards her young ones; therefore there is somewhat in it beyond nature that any creature hath it; though we call it a natural instinct to do so, yet nature is not always furnished with it. In many creatures it is eminent, in others it is not at all apparent. How great and tender is the care of a Hen over her chickens? how eagerly will she fight in their defense? yet the Ostrich will do no more for hers, than as if they were not hers; so that, were it not for the care and providence of God, who is the father of, and provider for all creatures, many of them would be little cared or provided for.
The Text proceeds to set forth the ill conditions of the Ostrich.
As if it had been said, Through her carelessness, she is in hazard to lose all that labor, which according to natures course she had taken in laying her eggs. In this sense, that promise is made to the Church ( Isa. 65.23.) They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth in trouble, for they are the blessed of the Lord, and their off spring with them. As there of them in the Negative, so here 'tis said of the Ostrich in the affirmative, Her labor is in vain; that is, it is likely to be in vain, and all but lost labor, as to her eggs and young ones.
Labor is in vain, when it turns to very small account. A Husbandman that plows & sows his ground, if it scarce yield him his seed again, is said to labor in vain, because he hath got so little by his labor, though somewhat he hath got. A Student that hath applied himself to his book, and gotten but little knowledge, may be said to have studied in vain; much more is that labor in vain, which turns to no account, or hath no good effect at all; such as is the washing of the Ethiopian or Black-moo • , whom how long soever ye wash, he is never a whit the whiter. But above all vain labor, that labor is in vain, which produceth an effect quite contrary to the intent and purpose of the laborer. Thus Pharaoh and the Egyptians labored in vain, to diminish the Israelites; for (saith the Scripture, Exod. 1.12.) the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. Thus also the Heathen Emperors labored in vain to abolish Christianity; for the more they persecuted the Christians, the more they were confirmed in the faith of Christ.
The Ostrich layeth eggs for the increase of her kind; therefore if her eggs be broken, or the young ones trodden underfoot as soon as hatched, here's labor in vain in the second sense at least, because no good comes of her labor.
Yet I may say, the labor of the Ostrich is here said to be in vain, not because she hath no effect of her labor, nor because the effect runs cross to her intent, no, nor because she hath but little fruit of her labor, but she is said to labor in vain, because if God did not take more care of her eggs and young ones than she doth, her labor would be altogether in vain; for her labor is (as it followeth)
What fear? There is a twofold fear; First, There is a fear puzzling us with distraction and amazement. Secondly, a fear urging us to activity and industry. The Ostriches labor is without fear, that is, without such fear as should put her upon endeavor to preserve her own eggs and young ones; she fears no evil that may come to them, and so takes no care what becomes of them; she is a fearless creature of any danger, and so a careless creature, as to the use of any means for the prevention of danger. The Ostrich is not without all fear; for they that have had best knowledge of this animal, have found her so fearful a creature, that her fear, as well as her folly, is gone into a Proverb; a very fearful man being said to be more fearful than an Ostrich. The Ostrich is here said to be without fear, because she wants that provident fear which should excite her to look after those that are hers, as a parent doth or ought, after the good of those that depend upon him. The Ostrich hath no love for her young ones, & therefore no fear about them. Though Aelian (as was touched before) reports otherwise of her ( lib. 14. cap. 7.) but in this he is alone, and may be suspected as to the truth of this relation, as well as about the number of her eggs formerly mentioned, wherein others contradict him; and therefore, if God took no more care than she (as was said) all her labor would be in vain.
Hence note;
What is it to have eggs, if there be neglect of hatching them? what is it to have young ones, if there be a neglect of bringing them up? It is as great a virtue to preserve what we have attained by labor, as to labor for the attaining of it; and how much soever we labor for the attaining of anything, unless we labor for the preservation of it, both labors are in vain. All labor is in vain that is not followed with a due care for the preserving of what we labor for.
Note, Secondly;
What's the reason why this Ostrich takes no care to hatch her eggs, to preserve her young ones? She is fearless; had she a fear about them, she would take care of them. As true love is full of solicitous fear, so due fear is full of solicitous endeavor. Fear makes us both consultive what to do, and active in doing it. And as it makes us both consultive and active about our outward preservation, so much more for our inward and spiritual preservation. It is said of Noah (Heb. 11.7.) That being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an Ark for the saving of his house. Noah had never taken care to prepare an Ark against the deluge, but for these gracious impressions of fear, that God would bring a dreadful inundation upon the world. Fear moved him, and faith prevailed with him to prepare an Ark. The Apostle ( Phil. 2.13.) calls upon all believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. If we have no fear about our salvation, we shall never work out our salvation. Yet 'tis a truth, that they who have most assurance of their salvation, are most in working out their salvation. Holy assurance is so far from making us careless, that then we are most careful, knowing that the Lord hath joined the end and means together; knowing also, That they are in most safety, who have most sense of danger; yea, that they who have most fear of danger, are farthest from feeling danger. The labor of the Ostrich is in vain, because she hath no fear; her foolishness makes her fearless, and that makes her careless; therefore no thanks to her, that all her labor is not lost or in vain, that both her eggs and young ones do not utterly miscarry. Thus we may profitably meditate upon the improvidence of this creature the Ostrich, and learn wisdom from her folly, to make us more provident. But whence is it, or how comes it to pass, that she is so foolish? The next words tell us.
Vers. 17. Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted unto her understanding.
In this Verse, a reason or an account is given of this blockishness, carelessness and fearlessness of the Ostrich; it is, Because God hath deprived her of wisdom. More foolish than an Ostrich, is a proverb for the greatest fool. The Hebrew Text may be read thus; God hath made her to forget wisdom. Now, as one may be said to forget that which he hath not, so that which he never had. In the description that Bildad gives of a wicked man ( Chap. 8.13.) he saith, This is the portion of them that forget God; And who are they? the words are a periphrasis of the wicked, To forget God is their character; they may be said to forget God, who never had any true knowledge or remembrance of him. Thus ( Gen. 41.30.) There shall arise after them (that is, after the seven years of plenty) seven years of famine, and all the plenty shall be forgotten to the Land of Egypt. In a time of famine, we are rather quickened to remember former years of plenty, together with the wast that we then made of it, and our unthankfulness for it. When the Israelites had nothing but Manna in the wilderness, they complained ( Num. 11.5.) We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely, the cucumbers, and melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. Now, when 'tis said, that in the seven years of famine, they should forget the seven years of plenty, the meaning is, they should have no plenty at all; the forgetting of it was not the not having of plenty in their memories, but the not having it in their hands. When a people are in a time of trouble, they remember their former peace; and when in straights, they remember their former liberty; but they are said in straights, and trouble, and famine, not to remember their liberties, peace and plenty, because they have none of them. Thus here God hath made her to forget wisdom, that is, she hath no wisdom, nor knowledge, nor understanding; and when it is said, according to our translation, God hath deprived her of wisdom, we are not to take it, as if God had taken that stock of wisdom from her which once she had; but his depriving her of wisdom, is his not communicating wisdom to her, or his not trusting her with a stock of wisdom; For so it followeth,
This latter part of the verse explains the former, and shows that the Ostriches want of wisdom is noc privative, but negative; God hath not taken it from her, but not given it her. But here it may be demanded, hath God given wisdom, or imparted understanding to any fowls of the air? Are not these two words, wisdom and understanding, too high for beasts or birds, indeed, for the whole irrational part of the creation? I answer, as the Ostrich hath no true wisdom nor understanding, so neither hath any beast or bird. Wisdom and understanding taken strictly, are proper only to rational creatures, Men and Angels; there is no wisdom where there is no reason: yet wisdom and understanding are ascribed sometimes to brutish creatures, and here the Ostrich, a brutish creature, is said to be deprived of them, or not to have them communicated to her, because not so much as that shadow of wisdom and understanding is given to her, which appears in some beasts and birds. Brutes are said to have wisdom, because they have that which serves their turn for their preservation; and some of them are said to have wisdom, because they are indeed wiser, and more subtle than other brutes ( Gen. 3.1.) yet all their wisdom is nothing to the wisdom of man. That natural affection and forecast of beasts and birds, in providing for, and bringing up their young ones, is their wisdom; of this wisdom God hath deprived the Ostrich, neither hath he imparted unto her so much as this small parcel of understanding, not so much as this shadow of understanding, which he hath bestowed upon other, both birds and beasts. And there appears somewhat in nature, as a proof, that the Ostrich is a foolish bird, for her head is very little, and her brains (in proportion) much less. And that any one Ostrich hath not much brains, may be collected from a piece of the Roman History, which reports, that Heliogabalus the Emperor had the heads of six hundred Ostriches prepared for him at one supper, only for the brains sake. 'It is added also by the same Author, that the Ostrich is naturally deaf, and that there is no perfect anima else, in the whole compass of nature, that is deaf or wants the sense of hearing. And needs must that creature have little or no understanding, which hath no hearing, that being the sense of discipline. All these considerations confirm what this Text in Job speaks of her, that God hath not imparted to her understanding.
Hence Note, First;
Though the Ostrich is short of this short pittance of understanding, yet most irrational creatures have it.
Note, Secondly;
God is said not to give or impart wisdom an understanding to this brute creature, therefore he gives it others. Wisdom, such as it is, in beasts and birds, must be acknowledged to be a gift of God. Not only every good gift in man, but every good gift in beasts, their strength, their swiftness, their subtlety, and craft their fore-cast, are of the Lord's plantation in them.
Thirdly, Note:
Some have (in their capacity) a great deal, others very little, so little, that they may be said to have none at all, as the Ostrich in the Text; who (though in some things she hath understanding, yet) as to her eggs and young ones, is a careless, witless animal, As there is a difference among men in wisdom and understanding; some have a great portion given them of God, others have so little, that they may be said to have none: The natural man hath no spiritual understanding ( Isa. 27.11.) This is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them, will not have vercy upon them; and he that formed them, will show them no famour. What! were they brutes and beasts? no, possibly they were witty and subtle enough for the world, but they were a people of no spiritual understanding. Men full of natural understanding may have none that is spiritual. And As to natural and political wisdom and understanding, there is a great difference among men: Some have enough to rule Kingdoms, others, not enough to govern a family, no, nor their personal affairs; yea, some men are so low in parts and understanding, that God may be said to have deprived them of understanding, or not to have imparted wisdom to them. And this offers us a ground of useful meditation. Let us bless God, that men have more wisdom than brutes; and if any man have more wisdom and understanding than his neighbor, let him acknowledge the goodness and bounty of God to him in it; for who hath made thee to differ in natural wisdom and understanding? As the Apostle speaks of that great difference among men, grace and no grace, Who hath made thee to differ? how is it that one man hath grace, and another hath no grace? hath man made himself to differ in grace? No, it is of grace that any have grace: So who hath made thee to differ in common wisdom and understanding? what, thyself? surely no. You that seem to have as much wisdom above other men, as men have above beasts, have not any of yourselves; it is God who makes all men differ from beasts in understanding, and it is he that makes one man differ, from another in understanding. He that hath almost as much understanding above other men, as men have commonly above beasts hath it all of God. Understanding is not of nature, nor is it gotten (though it may be improved) by study and industry; gold and silver cannot purchase it, nor can our pains procure it. What man receives not, he hath not; nor hath any man more than he hath received. Now if common wisdom be of God, and we owe him the glory of it; how much more is spirirual wisdom, which is to fear him, and spiritual understanding, which is to depart from evil (Job 28. ult. ) the gift of God!
What a mercy is it to have wisdom,
First, To know God in Christ, whom to know is eternal life.
Secondly, To know ourselves lost, miserable and undone forever without Christ.
Thirdly, To know the difference between good and evil, between light and darkness, truth and error, sound doctrine and damnable, right worship and superstitious or idolatrous.
Fourthly, To know our duty, what is incumbent upon us in this life. The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way (Pro. 14.8.) where to walk, what to do, that he may keep tite and close to God, to know upon what bottom he is settled, and upon what ground he treads.
Fifthly, What a mercy is it for us, that live here on earth, to see our way to that eternal life in heaven!
Lastly, What wisdom and understanding hath God imparted to his people, and how thankful should they be for it, that they are able, while on earth, to converse and have communion with himself in heaven! The Apostle saith ( Phil. 3.20.) Our conversation is in heaven; with whom there? with God. True believers know how to converse with God, and can say (in their measure, as the Apostle John, 1 Ephes. 1.3.) Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. This wisdom hath God imparted to his faithful servants, and how thankful should they be for it! The least ray of wisdom is from him; that in beasts, and that in common men, much more that in godly men. The wisest in the world would have had no more wisdom than an Ostrich, had not God provided better for them, and given them a richer furniture of internals or intellectuals.
Further, consider this Ostrich as a goodly bird, having beautiful feathers, yet not a dram of wisdom or understanding.
Hence Note, Fourthly;
The Ostrich hath a bulky strong body, as well as beautiful feathers; but her brains are as light as her feathers. And is it not so with some men? their gay feathers are visible; but where is their understanding?
Note, Lastly;
The Ostrich, who as to taking care of her young ones, hath no understanding, is yet reported by Naturalists to be very subtle in some things; for when she is pursued by the Hunter, she gathers up stones with her claws, and casts them back to the hurt of her pursuers. 'It is so likewise among men; some are wise enough in this or that matter, while miserably blockish and defective in all things else. And of all wicked men the Prophet hath left this character, They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have knowledge. And that the Ostrich hath this piece of knowledge and cunning, to do a mischief to those who intend her one, may be collected from her confidence, in that case, spoken of in the next verse.
Vers. 18. What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the Horse and his Rider.
Before we heard of the folly of this creature, now of her pride and confidence.
And this she doth when beset by those who would take her, then she lifteth up herself on high, that is, as high as she can, though (as was said) very high she cannot, and then she casts back stones upon her persecutors. And hence some conceive these words give answer to a secret or un-expressed objection. For it might be said, If the Ostrich, which is of so heavy a body, be likewise of so dull a wit, having no wisdom nor understanding; surely, then she may be easily taken and destroyed? Not so neither; for God hath provided her a help against this time of danger, and therefore though she be of a heavy body, and have little understanding in other things, yet she understands how to shift for herself; she raiseth up herself as high as she can, and fluttering with her wings (which she holds up like sails to the wind) she drives on amain; though she keepeth still upon her feet, or riseth very little at any time above the ground, and is therefore said to fly running, or to run flying, or, in a sort, to sail in the air, very lightly touching the earth is, yet she is somewhat lifted up, and being thus lifted up,
As much as to say, she can out-run them all, and so cares not a straw for them, let them do their worst; she scorns them, not because able to resist them, or as if she thought herself stronger than they, but because by help of her wings, though on her feet, she is swifter than they. So that, in plain course they can never overtake her, and therefore not take her; only by some slights and stratagems, she is entangled and taken; she may be over-reached, but she cannot be over-run. And so swift is her course, that is hath long since grown into a Proverb among the Arabians, who thus signify a man of great expedition in business, He hath ridden upon the wings of the Ostrich. What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the Horse and his Rider.
Hence Note, First;
The Ostrich being heavy bodied, hath no great mind to run, and being short or weak-winged, hath little power to fly, yet when she must, she runs to purpose; she will not lose her life to spare her labor. Great dangers make us do great thing. Fear adds wings to our feet, and makes a heavy body mount and fly, rather than go. The Ostrich (in that case) lifteth up herself on high.
Note, Secondly;
Though the Ostrich cannot sore aloft, in the air as the Eagle, yet she lifts up herself as high as she can above the earth. Some seek for safety by creeping into the ground, and running into the holes of the earth ( Isa. 2.19. Rev. 6.16.) But the best way for our safety, when we are pursued, is by lifting up ourselves on high, and that to God; to get into his power, and mercy, and goodness; that's our way, and that's our wisdom, when we are hunted and pursued by our enemies. I (saith David, Psal. 121.1.) will lift up mine eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help; that is, to God ( ver. 2.) When the Ostrich is thus lifted up she scorneth the Horse and his Rider.
Hence Note;
The Ostrich looks upon herself as out of danger, when she is on high, and therefore scorns the Horse and his Rider. Danger is not to be laughed at, when we are under or within the reach of it; but we may laugh at it when we are out of the fear of it ( Job 5.22.) At destruction and famine thou shalt laugh. Why? because through the goodness of God thou shalt be provided against them, and prepared for them. A believer scorns the Horse and his Rider, his swiftest and most eager pursuers, because he can lift up himself on high, or as the Prophet speaks ( Isa. 33.16.) He dwells on high, his place of defense is the munition of rocks, bread shall be given him, his waters shall be sure; he is safe from danger, and out of gun-shot: This makes him laugh at danger, at trouble, and the sword. God who sitteth in heaven laughs at his enemies, and hath them in dirision ( Psal. 2.4.) why? because he knows, they who oppose him, can do nothing to annoy him; they cannot ruin his kingdom, nor hurt his servants, how much soever they molest them; he sits on high, he is above all his enemies. And as God lifted up in himself, so a godly man, lifted up on high in God, upon the wings of faith and love, scorns the Horse and his Rider: For as the Apostle was ( Rom. 8.38, 39.) so he is persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor pri • cipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor heighth, nor, depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate him from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; that is, they shall not be able to separate him, either from that love that Christ bears to him, nor draw him off from that love which he bears to Christ. When once his soul is drawn up to a due height in believing, he scorns all dangers, and in all these things is more than a conqueror. A man that is a conqueror, much more he that is more than a conqueror, may scorn all dangers, and conquer them who think they have more than conquered him. From this whole verse take these brief inferences.
First,
We might chink the wings of the Ostrich were given her to no purpose, because he cannot fly aloft, nor make a lofty slight; yet they help her for another purpose, they help her much in running, though little or nothing in flying.
Secondly,
The Ostrich hath more beautiful wings than the Eagle, yet makes little use of them. We may in appearance be fit to do that which we cannot do.
Thirdly,
The Ostrich hath goodly feathers, yet bad wings; the Eagle hath no goodly feathers, yet good wings. One man excess in this gift, another in that, scarce any one hath all (1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10.) All have not the same gift, and none have all gifts, that all may be kept in dependence upon God, and be humble one towards another, seeing they must be beholding one to another. All men cannot do all things; And though all godly men can do all things (which are commanded of God as their duty) through Christ strengthening of them; yet some godly men cannot do some things, which others can.
Lastly, That which is conceived, and may well be the design of God in questioning Job about this creature, was to teach him, and us in him, the wisdom of God towards unwise creatures, and the power of God in saving those that are exposed to danger; and so to quiet both Jobs spirit and ours in staying upon his providence, when we are in greatest straights. What though we have not Eagles wings; yet between wings and feet we shall make a shift to shuffle out of danger; and if we cannot out-fly, yet we may out-run the Horse and his Rider.
JOB, Chap. 39. Vers. 19, 20, 21.
19.
Hast thou given the Horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
20.
Canst thou make him afraid as a Grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.
21.
He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength; he goeth on to meet the armed men.
THe Lord having occasionally mentioned the Horse, the hunting Horse, at the 18th verse of this Chapter, questions Job, and enters a large discourse about the Horse, the war Horse, or Horse for war; and is pleased to give us a most elegant and rhetorical descripcion of that kind of Horses, exceeding all the fancies of the old Poets, and the strains of Orators. The divine eloquence of this context, exceeds all competition and comparison.
The war Horse is described two ways in this context, or with in respect to a twofold qualification.
First, With respect to his force, at the 19th verse; Hast thou given the Horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
Secondly, To his fearlessness or courage, which is described in the six verses following.
First, By his slighting of all danger; Canst thou make him afraid like a Grasshopper? (ver. 20.) He mocketh at fear (ver. 22.)
Secondly, His courage appears, as by slighting danger, so by that which is a consequent of it, his forwardness to run upon danger; for so doth he, that goeth out to meet the armed men, or armies of men, ver. 21. and turneth not away (as he doth not) from the sword, ver. 22. And so doth he, that swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage, that (for joy) believeth not that it is the sound of the Trumpet; that saith among the Trumpets, Ha, ha, &c. ver. 24, 25.
If any should ask a reason, why God bestowed so much rhetoric upon a brute beast, upon a horse? I answer; God, who is infinitely wise and holy, will not misspend a word; he will not lavish out lines vainly, as men often do; the Lord therefore had this design and scope in speaking so largely and rhetorically of this generous horse, even thereby, to set forth, his own power, wisdom and greatness in making him, and to convince Job yet farther of his own weakness and inability, as compared in some things with a Horse.
Vers. 19. Hast thou given the Horse strength?
The Hebrew word which we translate Horse, is Sus, and thence the Latins have the word Pegasus (as some conceive) which is as much as, The horse of the fountain; and by the very same word, in sound and letters, the Latins express a Swine, and another language, Silence. One of the Rabbins saith, he is so called from a word of the same, or a very near sound, in the Hebrew, though not of the same letters, signifying to rejoice, because the Horse is a cheerful beast. O • hers from an Arabic word, signifying to govern or rule, because he is a docile creature, and soon submits to government.
What Horse? The word is indefinitely put in this 19th verse, and may be taken for any horse; yet the subsequent description, restrains it to a particular sort of horses, horses of war, or war horses. A horse is a very useful creature, and there are six several uses of the Horse;
First, For travel, which is the ordinary use; we say, this is a good travelling horse.
Secondly, For burden, the carrying horse.
Thirdly, For drawing Carts and Waggons, &c. the draught horse.
Fourthly, For pleasure, the hunting horse.
Fifthly, For swiftness, the race horse.
Sixthly, For war, the valiant horse; that's the Horse in the Text: Hast thou given the Horse
Every horse according to his usefulness needs strength, the war horse much more. Hast thou given that horse strength which needs so much strength? As if the Lord had said, Job, thou seest the horse is a strong and stately beast, a beast of great force; how came he by his strength? hast thou given it him, or I? surely not thou, but I: It is I, who have made him strong; it is I, who have filled him with courage, and fitted him for the battle. The Hebrew word, which we translate strength, doth not signify ordinary strength, but manly noble strength; a strength, not only of outward force, but virtue. The Root notes, a great, a potent man. It is not any kind of strength which is here intended, but an active strength; I may say, a manly strength. Histories report strange things concerning the manly strength of the Horse; his is a generous strength. Alexanders horse, called Bucephalus, is famous for the greatness, both of his strength and spirit. Hast thou given the Horse strength?
Hence note, First;
God is infinitely strong and mighty; and whatsoever might or strength is found in any creature, God is the Author of it: Strength in great proportion, is not the portion of every creature. Solomon (Prov. 30.26.) speaks of the Coneys as a feeble folk, they have little or no strength; yet that they have little strength, or that little strength which they have is of God, as well as that the Horse hath great strength, or the great strength of the horse: The strength of a beast is of God, as well as the strength of man. The strength of man's body is of God, as well as that more excellent strength, the strength of his mind, or the strength of his understanding, judgment and memory. All strength floweth from, and is to be ascribed unto the strong God. As no man gives it, so let no man take it to himself. Glory not in strength; give God the glory of all strength, even of the Horses strength.
Secondly, A Horse having received such mighty strength, yet is serviceable to man, for very many, and very necessary uses, as was touched before, not only for pleasure, for hunting and racing, but for burden and for travel, for draught and for war.
Hence note;
Some creatures have great strength, yet are no • , nor will be subject nor serviceable to man. It is said at the 10. verse of this Chapter, concerning the Unicorn, Canst thou bind the Unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? The Unicorn hath great strength, but man can get no service from him; he cannot bind him in the furrow, nor make him do him any other work. Why is it that the Horse, who is of great strength, though possibly not of so great strength as the Unicorn, is so serviceable? surely the reason is only this, Because God by his power hath subdued the strength of the Horse to, and for the service of man. Who could break the Horse, who could handle and manage him, if God himself had not brought him to hand? The Elephant, greater in strength than the Horse or Unicorn, is yet made subject to the use of man, by the power and appointment of God. Take five Inferences from both these considerations: That the strength of the Horse, is of God; and that the Horse, though mighty in strength, is by God subdued to the use of man.
First, If the strength of horses be the gift of God, then, do not glory in their strength; though they are very strong, yet rejoice not in their strength, but in God, who hath given them their strength. David saith ( Psal. 147.10.) The Lord delights not in the strength of the Horse. The Lord gives the Horse strength, but he delights not in it; no, nor in the legs of a man; The Lord's delight is in them that fear him. The Lord tells us, he doth not delight in them, to teach us, that we should not delight in them. The Lord delights not in the strength of a horse, much less in the strength of those men, who are like Horses and Mules (of whom David speaks, Psal. 32.9.) whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto us, to do us a mischief. Some men are strong in body, and strong in mind too; they have strong understandings, and strong memories; yet a • e but like strong horses, that must be held in with bit and bridle, else they will do more mischief with their strength, than the strongest ungoverned horses. In these the Lord delights not; he cannot delight in the strength of any who are strong to sin, and to do wickedly; or (to give it in the words of the Prophet, Isa. 5.22.) Who are strong to drink wine, and to mingle strong drink: such a strength some men glory in, but the Lord abhors all that strength which is used and issued to the darkening of his glory.
Secondly, As we are not to delight in the strength of horses, but in God, who hath given them their strength; so, whatever strength we see in the horse, or in any other creature, we should give God the glory of it. Do not glory in the strength of creatures, but in God, who gives them their strength; that which he hath given, or cometh from him, should return unto him in daily praise, or in the due acknowledgement of his power and goodness.
Thirdly, Use the strength of horses (I say also, your own strength) for God, and not against him. We should take heed of employing the strength which God hath given a beast, against God; much more should we take heed of using our own strength against him. When men employ the strength of a beast, or their own, against God, they employ the gift against the giver, and so fight against God with his own weapons.
Fourthly, If the strength of horses be of God, or be his gift, Then trust not in the strength of horses: Use the strength of horses, but do not trust the strength of horses. If you trust that strength which God hath given to horses, you make them your God. How often doth God fo • bid trusting in the strength of horses, as knowing that we are apt to trust in anything that is strong, though but a beast ( Psal. 33.17.) A horse is a vain thing for safety, neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. As if God had said, you think a horse can save you, but know, he is a vain thing. And when the Psalmist saith, A horse is a vain thing, he doth not mean it of a weak horse, but of (such a horse as is here described) a horse of the grea • est strength imaginable, such a horse is a vain thing to save a man, neither can he deliver any by his strength; and therefore the Lord, when he promised great deliverances to his people (lest they should expect it by the strength of horses) faith ( Hos. 1.7.) I will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horse-men: As if he had told them, do not look after creature strength to be saved by; a horse will be a vain thing to save you, and I can save you effectually without horses; yea, I will. Hence the people of God ( Hos. 14.3.) when beaten off from all outward helps and trusts, are brought in, speaking thus; Ashur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses, neither will we say anymore to the work of our hands, ye are our gods: Heretofore we thought to be saved by this and that, we thought, if we could have horses enough they would save us; but now, Ashur shall not save us, nor will we ride upon horses. We may collect from ( Psal. 20.7.) how the spirit of man runs out this way; Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. The Law of Moses gave great caution about this thing, limitting even the King in this case; and that Law was made for the King some hundred of years before they had a King ( Deut. 17.16.) He shall not multiply horses to h • mself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: As if it had been said, take heed you do not put your confidence upon the strength of horses; though the Law deny not your King the use of horses, both for civil and military affairs, yet it limits him that he shall not multiply them, lest, having many of them, he should look upon them, as more than they are, or can be, his help, and so put confidence in them. Hence also is that reproof ( Isa. 31.1.) Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many, and in horse-men, because they are very strong. We see how the spirit of man runs out to the horse which God hath made strong, even forgetting God who hath made him strong. That people thought themselves strong enough with horses without the strong God, and therefore the Lord told them at the third verse, The Egyptians are men, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit; that is, they are weak and not strong: not that they were weak in themselves, but weak to save and deliver them, or to give them victory in battle; they are but flesh, and not spirit: flesh notes weakness, and spirit notes strength; so that, though a horse hath a mighty strength, yet if you trust to him, he is but flesh, that is, he is weak. And some conceive this was the reason why the Lord commanded Joshua, in his war with the Canaanites, to hough their horses; as the rule is given ( Josh. 11.6.) Thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire; that is, cut their nerves, or as we say, their ham-strings. Why did the Lord command him to hough their horses? why might he not preserve them for service in his wars? Doubtless it was, lest he should think that horses could do the work. And therefore according to this command of God, when David took a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horse-men from the Moabites, he houghed all the chariot-horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots (2 Sam. 8.4.) He would not multiply horses to himself out of the spoils of the enemy, lest he should seem to trust their strength and numbers.
Fifthly, Fear not the strength of horses. The Prophet saith to the fearful ( Jer. 12.5.) If thou hast run with foot-men, and they have wearied thee, how canst thou contend with horses? When we have horses to contend with, 'tis a very dangerous conflict. The Prophet by foot-men and horse-men, intends lesser and greater oppositions; when we have to deal with lesser difficulties, we have to deal with foot-men, but when with greater, then with horse-men. If then you have to do with horses, either in the metaphor or in plain sense, fear them not; why? for they are but creatures; and God who hath given them their strength, can take away their strength, and make them useless ( Psal. 76.6.) At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the chariot and the horse are cast into a deep sleep. Suppose a multitude of chariots and horses should come against us, yet at the Lord's rebuke, if he doth but speak the word, if the God of Jacob do but give a rebuke, the chariots and horses are laid in a deep sleep; that is, they are as nothing or as dead. Death is a deep sleep; & therefore, though horses have a mighty strength, yet be no more afraid of them than of that which is dead; the Lord God who hath given them their strength, can defend us against their strength, or disable them, notwithstanding their strength, to offend us. Hast thou given the Horse strength?
To clothe with, or to be clothed with this or that, is a very common Scriptural phrase, metaphorically applied to things, both corporeal and incorporeal. Of the first sort are all those places of Scripture, where man is said to be clothed with skin and flesh (Job 10.11.) The flesh with worms and clods of dust. (Job 7.5.) The fields with flocks (Psal. 65.13.) The earth with Sea (Psal. 104.6.) The Sea with clouds (Job 38.9.) The heavens with blackness (Isa. 50.3.) Of the second sort, are all those Scriptures which say, A person is clothed with righteousness (Job 39.14. Psal. 132.9.) With salvation (Psal. 132.16.) With glory and beauty (Job 40.10.) With power or strength (Psal. 93.1. Isa. 51.9.) With the Spirit of God (Judge. 6.34. 2 Chron. 24.20.) With desolation (Ezek. 7.27.) With shame (Psal. 71.13. Psal. 109.29.) And as both things and persons are said to be clothed with these, so to be clothed with anything, notes two things; either, First, that such have much of it. Thus to be clothed with glory, is to be exceeding glorious; and to be clothed with shame, is to be exceedingly ashamed; and to be clothed with pride, is to be exceeding proud; and to be clothed with righteousness and honor, is to be exceeding righteous and honorable; and to be clothed with humility, is to be exceeding humble; and lastly, to be clothed with the Spirit, is to be exceeding spiritual, and full of the Spirit. Or, Secondly, to be clothed with anything that is good, notes it to be very becoming and ornamental to us, as rich and suitable garments are; or if it be bad, that it is very disgraceful and detrimental to us, as filthy and uncomely garments are. Now, here in the Text, when the neck of the horse is said to be clothed with thunder, it must needs note somewhat, in which the horse exceeds, and which is both an honor and an ornament to the horse. Hast thou (saith God to Job, or I) clothed his neck with thunder?
There are various interpretations of the word which we here translate thunder.
First, Some affirm, That the word by us rendered thunder, signifies nothing less than thunder, or that it doth not signify thunder at all, neither in a proper, nor in a metaphorical sense; but that it signifies the horses mane. Nor can it be denied, but that this form of speaking is very apt and elegant, to say, the neck of a horse is clothed with his mane; as birds may be said to be clothed with feathers, or beasts with hair. And here the mention of the horses mane is fitly brought in, because the scope of the place is to set forth the chief signs and conditions of a generous stomackful War-horse. For though the meanest horses have manes, and that of an ancient Author be true, in part, of all horses, That the mane is given them for an ornament; yet generous horses have thickest and fullest manes hanging down, and covering their necks, as the old Poets often describe noble and warlik • Horses. And that in this place of Job, not an ordinary thin or sho • t mane, but a thick and a deep one is intended, we may collect from the word clothed, which will not well agree with those of ordinary Horses. The only difficulty with which this interpretation is attended, is how to make it out that the Hebrew word (Ragnemah) signifies the mane of a Horse, it being never used in any place of Scripture but this; and it is much questioned, whither the word be to be found in the writings of any of the Jewish Rabbins in that sense. The only answer is, that it is to be reckoned among those words (of which there are several in Scripture) which are only once read or used; and so the sense of them is to be given from the scope of the place where they are used, not from their usage in other places, they not being used in any place but one. This is a fair interpretation, that being granted, that the word Ragnemah hath no communion with the word Ragnam, which properly signifies Thunder.
But, almost all other interpreters agree, that Ragnemah is the same with Ragnam; and take the Hebrew letter ה in the end of it, to be only Paragogical, and so not making any alteration at all in the sense.
Now this being the most received opinion, and our translators pitching expressly upon it, saying, Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? It is questioned what is here meant by the word thunder. No man can imagine that it should be understood of proper thunder; and in what the metaphor is couched, or whence to take the allusion, that's the doubt.
First, I shall not stay upon that weak conjecture, that by thunder we are to understand the sound, noise or rattling, which is made by the armor, ornaments or trappings, which are sometimes put upon the necks and breasts of war-horses, when they go out to battle. We read that the Camels of Zebah and Zalmunna, conquered by victorious Joshua, had ornaments upon their necks (Judge. 8.21.) But surely, the word thunder suits not with such sounds; Thunder must needs relate to somewhat that is terrible, not ornamental; and all the sound which the rattling of a Horses arms or ornaments can make, is much too low for any resemblance of thunder, or to be compared with it; nor will the general scope of the question comply with any such interpretation. For when God saith, to Job, Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? The question denies; and the meaning of it is, Thou hast not, but I have. Whereas if it were understood of artificial warlike arms of defense or ornaments, Job might have answered the question affirmatively, and have said, Yes, I, or other men, have clothed the neck of the horse with them. And the Lord possibly put this question, in opposition to all such kind of defences and ornaments; As if he had said, Thou; O Job, hast or mayst clothe the neck of the horse with rich ornaments, and strong arms to defend him? but hast thou, or canst thou clothe his neck with thunder? That's my work alone. Therefore somewhat is here intended by thunder, beyond what any man is able to clothe the neck of a Horse withal.
Secondly, Some render thus, Hast thou clothed his neck with fear? another, with trembling? But some may say, h • w doth this serve to set forth the honor and commendation of the Horse? yea, what can be said more improperly of a brave Horse, or more unsuitable to the description here given of him, than this, that his neck is clothed with fear and trembling? I answer, 'tis true, if we take fear, as taking hold of or possessing the Horse himself: But if we take it for that fear and trembling (which doubtless is the sense of those translations) with which the Horse affects others, than to say his neck is clothed with fear, that is, his appearance makes others afraid, is very proper to the discourse in hand. And for as much as thunder makes the stoutest men fear and tremble, the Horse, who doth so too, when he rusheth fiercely into the battle, and chargeth the enemy, may significantly enough, be said, to have his neck clothed with thunder. How terrible a shock, even like a thunder-clap, doth a stout valiant Horse make upon his adversary, with the force of his neck and breast. And when Horses come galloping upon us with their full speed, 'tis usual to say, they come thundering upon us.
Thirdly, Most Interpreters say confidently, that by thunder clothing the neck of the Horse, the neighing of the Horse is intended. And some (who are not of this opinion) conceive, that if the Hebrew word (Ragnemah) signifying thunder properly, be here to be taken Metaphorically for neighing, then it were better to render the Text (not as our last translators have done with thunder, but) as many have done, and among them our old English translators with neighing; to which effect they render 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 this clause in our language thus, Hast thou learned him to neigh courageously. For (saith that learned Author, who opposeth this reading) it is uncomely, when a word hath two or more significations, to retain that in the translation, which is least commodious to hold out the meaning of the place in hand. And (saith he) it is most certain, that the word thunder, is never used in the Latin tongue; no, not by the boldest Poets, to signify the neighing of a Horse. Yet I see no cogent reason, seeing the Latin words which signify to thunder, are applied to several clamours and noises, much inferior to thunder, why the word thunder in the Noun may not be so applied; nor do I see any reason why the neighing of a mighty Horse, being usually accompanied (when he is in a rage) with fretting, chafing, and snorting, may not be allusively called thunder or thundering. I am sure, the fretting and chafing of a woman is so expressed by the Verb in the Holy Scripture (1 Sam. 1.6.) where it is said of Hannah, Her adversary provoked her sore to make her fret; the Hebrew is, to make her thunder. Now the fretting of a woman, though heightened to loud brawling, and (if I may use so course a word) scolding, bears not so much proportion to the noise of thunder, as the neighing, snorting, and fretting of a great and generous Horse. When a Horse is enr • ged, we may say, sparks leap out of his eyes like lightning, and a sound out of his mouth like thunder, and a breath out of his nostrils like smoke. And that the snorting and neighing of Horses is dreadful, even like thunder, appears fully by that of the Prophet ( Jer. 8.16.) The snorting of his Horses was heard from Dan (that is, from the utmost bounds of the Country) the whole Land trembled at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones. The neighing of Horses, is a sign of their courage and boldness, of their fearlesness and generosity; which probably was the reason why the great Lord's of Persia agreed, that meeting all together in one place on Horse-back, he should be chosen Emperor whose Horse neighed first after they were met; they supposing it a good Omen or Sign, that the Rider would prove a person of great courage and spirit, whose Horse first gave that token of it: Upon what occasion the Horse of Darius neighed first, and so got his Master the Empire, the Persian histories will inform the Reader.
But to the point in hand. 'It is evident from what hath been said, that 'tis no uncouth, nor far fetched, much less forced metaphor, to express the neighing of a furious fretting Horse by thundering. And as the word rendered thunder, signifies (in the Verbe) to be moved with choler and indignation, so a noble-spirited Horse, charging an enemy, shows a high strain of rage and indignation, in which respect, together with his neighing, his neck may seem to be clothed with thunder.
And though it be said, that, as the neck is not reckoned among the instruments of speaking in man, so it cannot be conveniently reckoned among the instruments of neighing in a Horse, that properly belonging to the throat; and though I grant that when the Scripture saith ( Psal. 75.5.) Speak not with a stiff neck; the word neck is not there to be taken, for the means or instrument of speech, but notes only the manner of speaking; namely, that there the Lord forbids wicked men to speak scornfully, pertinaciously, or as Hannah expresseth it in her Song (1 Sam. 2.3.) that they should talk no more so exceeding proudly, nor let arrogancy come out of their mouth: Yet the throat being placed in and being a part of the neck, we may by a common synecdoche, of the whole for the part, avoid that difficulty. Nor doth the metaphor of clothing (though, I confess it, most suitable to the first interpretation, that of the mane ) oppose this third of neighing; For when a Horse neighs strongly, the sound coming out of his mouth compasseth him, his neck especially, round about as with a garment. David describing a wicked man, saith, he clothed himself with cursing (Psal. 109.18.) Cursing goes out of the mouth of a wicked man, as neighing out of the mouth of a Horse; and therefore, as when a man is much in cursing, he may be said to clothe himself with cursing, as with a garment, so a Horse which neigheth much, may (I conceive) be said to have his neck clothed with neighing.
Having thus far drawn out these expositions of this second question, which the Lord put to Job about the Horse, Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? I shall submit them to the Readers judgment, and only say, that the first (if that word Ragnemah may signify a Horses-mane) is the clearest, and most literal of them all; and that among the second sort of expositions, the third is most received and approved.
From the first interpretation we learn,
The mane of a Horse is of little use (and therefore some cut it quite off) but it is a great ornament to the Horse.
From the two last interpretations
Observe, First;
Thunder is so, and so must he needs be, whose neck is clothed with anything resembling thunder.
Note, Secondly;
The Horse hath thunder about his neck, but it is God who hath clothed his neck with it. If any Horse, or any other creature be delightful to us, God hath made it so; and if any Horse, or any other creature be thunder, dreadful and terrible to us, it is the Lord who hath made it so. This we find more clearly held out in the next verse.
Vers. 20. Canst thou make him afraid as the Grass-hopper: the glory of his nostrils is terrible.
In the first part of this verse, we have the courage of the Horse set forth. That creature is full of courage, that cannot be made afraid: Thus the Lord speaks to Job concerning the Horse.
The Chaldee, with whom one of the Rabbins joins, rendereth, Canst thou cause him to make a noise like a Grass-hopper. Vehement motion causeth a sound or noise in the air. When many grass-hoppers fly together, they make a kind of rushing noise. This exposition agrees well enough with the word, which at second hand signifieth to make a noise, that being caused by motion. Yet other considerations hinder from resting in this interpretation. For seeing the whole discourse here, insists upon the descrip • ion of a generous horse and his qualifications, the noise or sound which a Horse makes in running, makes nothing to that purpose; for as much as it is common to all Horses, even the basest sort of them, to make a sound with their feet when they run. And if it should be granted that great and generous horses have somewhat peculiar in this, and make a greater sound than common horses in running, yet to take the comparison from the sound which Grass-hoppers make in flying, doth easily refute this exposition. We know indeed, what Pliny saith, Grass-hoppers make such a sound with their wings in flying, that they may be thought some other kind of fowls: Yet we cannot therefore believe, that it is a proper similitude, to compare the sound which horses make in running (who, as Poets use to phrase it, make the earth tremble and groan) with that crassing noise which Grass-hoppers make while they fly in the air. For if the comparison may at all be taken from flying-fowls, great fowls were much fitter for it, who use to fly in flocks together; Yet these greater fowls make no very great noise in flying, much less can Grass-hoppers. And therefore the Poets, both Greek and Latin, though they affect to shadow great sounds and clamours, by a similitude taken from flying-fowls, yet they do not take the resemblance from the sound which their flying makes with their wings, but from the sound or chattering which they make with their bills while they fly; of which the Reader may find many instances given by the learned Author named in the Margin.
Seeing then fowls do not make any such noise in flying, as may serve for a suitable resemblance of any great sound, surely that small noise which Grass-hoppers make in flying cannot be a proper resemblance of it. Further, here is nothing said of many, or of a troop and body of horses, but of a single horse, or of horses singly and a part considered. Now that someone horse should be compared with one Grass-hopper, as to the sound which the one and the other makes in their motion, were no small absurdity.
This therefore may suffice for the laying aside of that first interpretation of the whole clause, though the force of the word doth not oppose it.
Secondly, Others read the Text thus, Canst thou make him move leap or skip like the grass-hopper: As if the Lord had said, It is not of thee, O Job, but of me, that the horse hath this property to move himself like a Grass-hopper.
The motion of a horse may be compared to that of a Grass-hopper in two respects. First, In respect of his swiftness. Secondly, Of his subsaltation, or bounding and leaping. I conceive God had respect only to the latter, in these words: for seeing this whole context doth not handle the nature of the horse in general, but only the marks or qualities of valiant horses; therefore the mention of this (namely, the subsaltation of horses) is much more proper than that of their swiftness or speed in running: For swiftness or speed in running, is not appropriate or peculiar to generous horses; it being certain, that as they excel the common sort of horses, both in the swiftness of their course, and in the continuance or lastingness of it, so it is as apparent, that ordinary horses will often run very swiftly, or with great speed for a time. But as for that other motion of their bodies in which they imitate the leaping or skipping of Grass-hoppers, that is proper to them.
And there are two sorts of this motion proper to generous horses. The one, in which standing upon two feet only, either the hinder or the forefeet, the other part of their body is lifted up on high from the ground; which motion (being very dangerous to the Rider) we call bounding or to bound. The other sort of saltatory motion, is that, whereby the horse lifts up himself, with his four feet quite off the ground, and goeth as it were leaping, or intermingles saltation or leaping with his going. There is a twofold leaping. First, When a horse raiseth himself over a bar, hedge or ditch, this is of daily use. The other, is only for pomp, when a horse raiseth his body upon plain ground to show his activity, this we call curveting, as the proud stately gate of a horse is by us called praunsing. Now of these two motions, bounding and curveting, the latter is rather to be understood in this place; that being most like the saltation, the leaping or skipping motion of a Grass-hopper; and the other to be reckoned rather among the ill qualities, than the commendations of a horse, which are here only taken notice of. Canst thou make him leap or move like a Grass-hopper? The Grass-hopper moves with a kind of leap. Naturallists tells us, that the hinder-legs of Grass-hoppers are much longer than their fore-legs, to fit them for leaping; the Horse in his leaping and curveting motion, clearly represents the motion of a Grass-hopper. According to this exposition, the great agility and nimbleness of the horse is set forth, as before his strength and courage. Hast thou made the horse so agile or active, that like a Grasshopper he doth as it were, leaping fly, and flying leap. A horse will do strange seats of activity if well managed. This interpretation is much urged by several of the learned; yet I conceive the purpose of these words, is rather to set forth the boldness, than the nimbleness of the horse. Our Translation carries this sense clearly.
The Grasshopper is a weak and frightful creature, he is soon scared, and quickly flies away. The word rendered a Grasshopper, signifies a multitude, because they usually go by multitudes ( Prov. 30.27.) The Locusts have no King, yet go they forth all of them by bands; they go, as it were, an Army of them together. The Latin word Locusta, is from an ill effect of Locusts or Grashoppers, because they consume, and in a manner, burn up every green thing in the places where they come. Hence that allusive prohibition ( Rev. 9.4.) There came out of the smoke Locusts; and it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any Tree, &c. Now, though the Scripture compares these creatures to a great Army ( Joel 2.25.) because they go out in great companies, and do a great deal of mischief: And though ( Rev. 9.7.) The shapes of the Locusts (there spoken of) were like unto horses prepared unto battle, that is, completely armed; yet the Locusts are but a weak kind of Warriers, they are quickly scared, they are fearful creatures. Canst thou make the Horse afraid like the Grasshopper? When the Lord saith, Canst thou make him afraid like the Grasshopper, his meaning is, The Horse is of so stout a spirit, that he will not only not be afraid like the Grasshopper, but no more afraid than a Lion. So then, I conclude this part of the verse contains not a similitude, but a dissimilitude between the horse and the Grasshopper; not a likeness between the horse and the Grasshopper in nimbleness, but their unlikeness in fearfulness.