of Stone but in the fleshly Tables of the Heart Let Men cease to adore the Letter and not be so much concern'd for it Having sufficiently explain'd the Holiness and Divinity of Scripture let us now see what is properly meant by Debar Iehovah the word of God. Debar signifies Word Speech Decree Thing now upon what grounds any thing in the Hebrew Language may be said to be God's or have relation to God I have shew'd in the first Chapter so that I need not repeat what I have there said or in the sixth Chapter what I have said of Miracles 't is evident what the Scripture means by the Word of God To make the thing very clear I need only declare that when the Word of God is predicated of any Subject which is not God himself it properly signifies that Divine Law of which we treated in the fourth Chapter namely That Religion which is universal and common to all mankind mention'd in Isaiah chap. 1. v. 10. where the Prophet declares That the right way of living consisted in Charity and in a sincere and pure Heart which he calls the Law and Word of God The Word of God is also taken Metaphorically for the order or course of Nature and Fate because it follows and depends upon the Eternal Decree of the Divine Nature particularly for whatever the Prophets foresaw in this course of Nature because the Prophets understood future events not by natural Causes but thought them to be the Will and Decrees of God. Moreover it is taken for that which any Prophet commanded or declared because he knew it not by Natural Light but by the singular Vertue and gift of Prophesie and more especially because the Prophets as we have shewed in the fourth Chapter apprehended God under the notion of a Lawgiver for these three reasons then the Scripture is called the Word of God namely because it teacheth us true Religion whereof God from all Eternity is the Author Secondly because it makes Prophesies to be God's Decrees And lastly because the Authors of those Prophesies taught for the most part that which they did not know by Natural Reason but by a faculty and gift peculiar only to them and introduced God speaking as it were in them Now tho' the Scripture contain many things which are meerly Historical and may be unnderstood by Natural Knowledge yet the Scripture is called the Word of God in respect of those other particulars I have last mention'd so that now we plainly see why God is called the Author of the Bible namely upon the account of teaching us what is true Religion and not because it contains and hath communicated to us such a certain number of Books And hence we may also learn that the Bible is divided into the Old and New Testament because before the coming of Christ the Prophets Preached Religion as the Law of their Country and by force of the Covenant made in Moses's time but after Christ's coming because the Apostles preached Religion upon Christ's account as a Law universal to all mankind not that the Prophets and Apostles differ'd in Doctrine or that the Books of either Testament are the Deeds and Indentures of the Written Covenant nor lastly because Natural Religion which is universal is new unless it be in respect of those that knew it not according to that saying of Iohn the Evangelist chap. 1. v. 10. He was in the world and the world knew him not If then we had not some of those Books which the Old and New Testament contain yet we should not want God's Word as it properly signifies true Religion for we do not think any part thereof is wanting tho' we lack many of those other excellent Writings namely the Book of the Law which was so Religiously kept in the Temple as the Original wherein the Covenant was first written with many other Books of the Wars and Records of time from whence the Books of the Old and New Testament which we now have were transcribed and collected And this is made good by many reasons first because the Books of both Testaments were not written at one and the same time for the use of all Ages but by chance for some particular people and that as the Time and their particular Disposition requir'd which plainly appears by the calling of the Prophets who are called to warn and reprove the ungodly of their own time and also by the Writings of the Apostles Secondly Because understanding the Scripture and the meaning of the Prophets is one thing but to understand the Mind of God that is the real truth of things is another as appears by what hath been said in the second Chapter of Prophets which distinction likewise holds in Histories and Miracles as we have shewed in the sixth Chapter But in understanding places which treat of true Religion and real Vertue no such distinction ought to be made Thirdly Because the Books of the Old Testament were chosen out of many others and were approved and joyned together by a Council of the Pharisees as we have declared in the tenth Chapter and for the Books of the New Testament they were receiv'd into the Canon by the Decrees of certain Councils when several other Books by many accounted Sacred were rejected as Spurious These Councils both of Pharisees and Christians were made up of Men who were no Prophets but only learned Doctors yet it must necessarily be granted that in this choice they made the Word of God their Rule so that before they gave their Approbation to the Books they ought to know what was the Word of God. Fourthly Because as we have shewed in the preceding Chapter the Apostles did not write as Prophets but only as Teachers and chose that way of instructing which every one judged most easie for his Disciples from whence it follows as we have concluded in the end of the said Chapter that their Writings contain many things whereof in Respect to Religion we have no absolute need Fifthly and lastly Because in the New Testament there are four whom we call Evangelists but who believes it was God's express Will that the History of Christ should be four times told and deliver'd to Men in Writing Tho' things may be contain'd in one which are not in another and that one helps to understand another we must not therefore conclude that all things which the four declare are absolutely necessary to be known and that God made choice of them to write purposely that the History of Christ might be the better understood for every one preach'd his own Gospel in several places and every one wrote what he preach'd plainly that he might the more faithfully relate the History of Iesus Christ and not for any explanation to the rest If by mutually comparing them together they are sometâ—mes more easily and better understood that happens by chance and only in very few places of which tho' we were ignorant the History notwithstanding would be very perspicuous and
those that lived in his days and therefore 't is likely this was the Book of the Law of God which he set forth and expounded and I likewise believe it the first of all those Books he wrote because it contains the Laws of his Country which the People extreamly wanted and also because this Book is with no Antecedent Connexion joyned to another but without any kind of reference begins thus These be the Words of Moses And after he finished this Book and taught the People the Laws I believe he applyed himself to compose the whole History of the Iewish Nation from the Creation of the World to the first Destruction of the City Ierusalem inserting this Book of Deutronomy in its proper Place and perhaps to the first five Books gave the Name of Moses because his Life is the Principal Subject of them for the same reason he called the Sixth Book by the Name of Ioshuah the Seventh Iudges the Eighth Ruth the Ninth and perhaps the Tenth Samuel the Eleventh and Twelfth Kings but whether Esdras perfected them as he desired with his own Hand inquire in the next Chapter CHAP. IX Whether Esdras perfected the Books which we suppose he wrote and whether the Marginal Notes which are found in the Hebrew Copies be divers readings HOW much the inquiry made in the former Chapter concerning the Pen-Man of the Books therein mentioned may conduce to the perfect understanding of them will be easily guess'd by those Places only which we have quoted to make good our Opinion in this Point which places would otherwise have seemed very obscure but beside the Writer there are other things observable in the Books themselves which Common Superstition will not suffer the vulgar to discern The cheifest of them is that Esdras whom I will suppose to be the Writer of the foresaid Books till some body shew me another more likely to pen them did not with his own Hand perfect the Relations which the Books contain but did only collect the Histories out of several writers and sometimes only copying them out left them to Posterity neither examin'd nor put into any Order but what should hinder him from compleatly finishing his Work unless it were untimely death I cannot conjecture we have indeed no Antient intire Iewish Histories but out of a few fragments left us it is evident that Esdras as I have already said gather'd his stories from several Writers and left them very confused and imperfect The History of Ezekiah as it is found written from the Relation of Isaiah the Prophet in the Second Book of Kings chap. 18. v. 17. is recorded in the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah and the story in the Chronicles see Book the 2 d. Chap. 32. v. 32. We find related almost in the same words very few excepted as it is in the forenamed Chapter of the Book of Kings from whence nothing else can be concluded but that there were divers readings of Isaiah's Relation unless some will also here dream of Misteries Moreover the last Chapter of this Book of the Kings is contained in the last Chapter of the Prophet Ieremy and we find likewise the 7 th Chap. of the Second Book of Samuel in the 17 th Chap. of the first Book of Chronicles but the words in divers places so much changed that it may be easily known the two Chapters were taken out of two different Copies of the History written by the Prophet Nathan Lastly The Genealogy of the Kings of Edom which we have Gen. Chap. 36. from v. 31 th Is set down in the same words in the 1 st Chap. of the 1 st Book of Chron. Beginning at the 43 th Verse Now tho' it be evident that the Author of the Book of Chronicles took the things which he related out of other Historians yet he had them not out of the Twelve Books which we believe were written by Esdras and without doubt had we the Original Histories it would so appear but because we have them not let us examin the Histories as they now are observing their Order and Connexion their various Repetitions and their disagreement in Calculation of Time that we may judge of other things Consider first the History of Iudah and Thamar Gen. Chap. 38. The Historian begins his Narration in these words And it came to pass at that time that Iudah went down from his Brethren Which time must necessarily have reference to some other time of which he had immediately spoken before but to that time spoken of in the preceding Chapter of Genesis it could have no Relation for from the time that Ioseph was carried into Egypt until Iacob the Patriarch went down thither with all his Family there passed but twenty two Years for Ioseph when he was Sold by his Brethren was but Seventeen Years Old and when he was sent for out of Prison by Pharaoh but Thirty to which if the Seven Years of Plenty and Two of Famin be added they make up in all no more than Two and Twenty in which space of time no Man can conceive so many things should happen namely that Iudah should successively have three Sons of which the Eldest should at a fit Age marry Thamar and he dying the Second Brother should take her to Wife who also dyed and that sometime after this happen'd Iudah himself should ignorantly lye with his own Daughter in-Law Thamar and have two Children by her at one Birth whereof one likewise should within the aforesaid time of two and twenty Years become a Father Seeing then all these things cannot be referr'd to the time spoken of in Genesis but must necessarily relate to some other time spoken of in some other Book Esdras must therefore only Copy out this Story and unexamin'd add it to others but not only this Chapter but likewise the whole Story of Ioseph and Iacob must necessarily be taken out of several Historians so little congruity is there in it for the 48 th Chap. of Gen. tells us that when Ioseph brought his Father Iacob to Pharaoh Iacob was an hundred and thirty Years Old from which deduct twenty two which he passed in Mourning for the loss of Ioseph and seventeen which was Ioseph's Age when he was Sold with seven which he served for Rachel it will appear that he was fourscour and four Years Old when he Marryed Leah and that on the other side Dinah was scarce seven Years Old when she was Ravisht by Sechem and Simeon and Levi not fully eleven and twelve Years of Age when they Assaulted the City of Sechem and put all the People of it to the Sword. There is no need of particularizing all things of this kind in the Pentateuk if this only be consider'd that in the five Books all the Precepts and Historical Relations are promiscuously set down without any order without any regard had to time and that one and the same History is often and sometimes diversly repeated it must be granted that all these things were
st verse and Isaiah did not Prophesy only in that King's Reign but also wrote a History of all that King did as appears in the 2 d Book of Chron. chap. 26. v. 22. The rest of the Acts of Uzziah first and last did Isaiah the Prophet the Son of Amos write which Book 't is pity we have not those things which we have as hath been already said were copied out of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah and Israel The Rabbins likewise declare That Isaiah also prophesy'd in the time of Manasseh by whom he was put to death and tho' in that they seem fabulous yet they did not believe all his Prophesies were extant The Prophesies of Ieremy which are Historically related were pick'd up and collected out of divers Chronologers for they are not only confusedly put together without any regard had to time but the same History is also repeated in divers manners for the 21 th chap. contains the Prophesy wherein Ieremy foretold King Zedekiah who sent to consult him That the City of Ierusalem should be destroy'd and for which Prophesy he was apprehended Then after an abrupt breaking off from this History the 22 th chap. sets forth Ieremy's Declamation and Prophesy against King Iehoiachim who reigned before Zedekiah declaring Iehoiachim's Captivity After this the 25 th chap. declares those things which were before reveal'd to the Prophet in the fourth year of King Iehoiachim and without observing any order of time goes on to heap together many Prophesies till at length the 38 th chapter as if the fifteen intermediate chapters had been but a Parenthesis returns again to that spoken of in the 21 th chap. for the conjunction Then wherewith the 38 th chapter begins relates to the 8,9 and 10 verses of the 21 th chap. and the relation given in this 38 th chap. of Ieremy's last apprehension and being long kept in a Dungeon is very different from that we have of it in the 37 th chap. So that it clearly appears all these things were taken out of divers Historians and no other excuse can be made for them The rest of Ieremy's Prophesies contain'd in other Chapters where he speaks in his own person seem to be copied out of the Book which Baruch writ from Ieremy's own Mouth which Book as appears by the 2 d. verse of the 36 th chap. contain'd only those things which were reveal'd to the Prophet from the time of Iosiah unto the fourth year of Iehoiachim from which year the Book begins out of which Book also all those things seem to be copy'd which are related from the 2 d verse of the 45 th chap. to the 49 th verse of the 51 th chap. That the Book of Ezekiel is likewise but a fragment is manisest by the first verses thereof for who doth not take notice that the Conjunction Now wherewith the Book begins relates to somewhat that had been already said and joins that to what he had further to say not only the Conjunction but the whole Contexture of what he spoke implies and supposeth other things which had been before written for the Writer himself saith by way of Parenthesis in the 3 d verse of the 1 st chap. The word of the Lord came often to Ezekiel the Priest the Son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans as if he should say That the words of Ezekiel which hitherto he had copied out related to other things which were revealed to him before the present thirtieth year Iosephus in his 10 th Book of Antiquities chap. 9. declares Ezekiel prophesy'd that Zedechiah would not see Babylon which Prophesy doth not appear in the Book we have of Ezekiel but the 17 th chap. foretels the contrary that he was to be carry'd Captive thither Whether Hoseah wrote any thing more than is in the Book which bears his name I am not certain but I much wonder that we should have nothing more of his seeing by the persons testimony who wrote the Book called Hosea that Prophet Prophesy'd no less than eighty four years as appears by the 1 st verse of the 1 st chap. where the several Kings are named in whose times he lived in general we know that the writers of the Books which we call the Prophets did neither collect the Prophesies of all that were Prophets nor all the Prophesies of those Prophets whose names we have for we have not any of the Prophesies of those Prophets who prophesy'd in the time of Manasseh of which Prophets mention is made tho' not by name in the 2 d Book of Chron. chap. 33. v. 10 18 19. nor have we all the Prophesies of the twelve Prophets We have none of Ionah's Prophesies but those that concerned the Ninevites tho' he also prophesy'd to Israel as appears by the 25 th verse of the 14 th chap. of the 2 d. Book of Kings Of the Book of Iob and of Iob himself there hath been among Writers much dispute some think Moses wrote the Book of Iob and that the whole story is nothing but a Parable which is likewise a Tradition of the Rabbins in their Talmud and favour'd by Maimonides in his Book still'd More Nebuchim Others believe the History to be real and true and that Iob lived in the time of Iacob and married his Daughter Dinah but Aben Ezra as I have already said in his Commentaries on the Book of Iob saith It was translated out of some other Language into the Hebrew which I could wish he had more clearly prov'd for then we might conclude the Gentiles also had Books which were Sacred I leave the thing still doubtful and conjecture that Iob was some Gentile of great constancy of Mind who at first was very prosperous afterward very unfortunate and in the end very happy for in Ezechiel chap. 14 v. 14. he is named with Noah and Daniel for a righteous man. The various Fortune and constant Mind of Iob gave many an occasion of disputing God's Providence and to the Author of the Book of composing a Dialogue whereof the Subject and Stile seem to be a Man 's rather at ease meditating in his Study than sick on a Dunghill and I might with Aben Ezra believe the Book to be translated out of another Language because it seems to affect the Heathen Poesy the Father of the Gods being in the first Chapter brought in twice calling a Council and Momus who is called Satan answering God with great liberty but these are meer frivolous conjectures The Book of Daniel without doubt from the 8 th Chapter thereof contains the Writings of Daniel but from whence the first seven Chapters were copy'd I know not we may suspect that seeing all of them but the first were written in the Chaldee Language they were taken out of that Nation 's Chronologies of which could we be certain it were a clear proof that the Scripture is to be accounted Sacred only in respect of the things contain'd in it and not in respect of
the Language Words or Stile wherein they are express'd and that all Books which declare and teach what is excellently good in what Tongue or by what Nation soever written are equally Sacred Let this at least be observ'd that the Chapters which are written in Chaldee are no less Sacred than any of the rest in the whole Bible To this Book of Daniel the first Book of Ezra is so annex'd that it appears they were both written by one person who relates what successively past amongst the Iews from the first Captivity And to this Book of Esdras without doubt is joyn'd the Book of Hester for the Conjunction wherewith the Book begins can relate to no other Book nor can it be thought the same Book which Mordecai wrote for he that writ the Book of Hester saith in the 9 th chap. v. 20. that Mordecai wrote Letters and declares what were their Contents Moreover the 31 th of the same Chapter tells us That Queen Hester confirm'd by a Decree all things concerning the Feast of Purim or Lots and in the 32 th verse 't is said it was written in the Book that is according to the Hebrew manner of speaking in a Book which every one at that time knew which Book with others Aben Ezra says was lost what else concerned Mordecai the Historian in the 10 th chap. v. 2. saith was written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia and therefore without question this Book of Daniel was written by the same person who wrote the Affairs of Daniel and Ezra and so also was the Book of Nehemiah called the Second Book of Ezra so that we conclude these four Books namely Daniel Ezra Hester and Nehemiah to be written by one Historian but who he was I cannot so much as guess but that we may know whoever he were from whence he had the knowledge of the things he relates and from whence he copy'd them out we are to take notice that the Governours and Princes of the Iews in the time of the Second Temple as did their Kings in the time of the First kept Scribes or Historiographers who writ Annals and recorded what past which Annals or Chronologies are every where cited in the Book of Kings but those of the Princes and Priests of the Second Temple are quoted first in Nehemiah chap. 12. v. 23. and also in the first Book of Machabes chap. 16. v. 24. and no question this Book of Annals was that Book mention'd in the 32 th verse of the 9 th chap. of Hester in which the Decree of Queen Hester and those things that concern'd Mordecai were written which Book we agree with Aben Ezra was lost and out of this Book of Annals all things contain'd in the four Books we have last mention'd were in all probability taken and copy'd for there is no other Book quoted by the writer of these four nor do we know any other of publick Authority That these four Books were not written either by Ezra or Nehemiah appears by what is said in the 9 th and 10 th verses of the 12 th chap. of Nehem. where the Genealogy of the High-Priest Iesuah is deriv'd down to Iaduah the sixth High-priest who went to meet Alexander the Great when he had almost conquer'd the Kingdom of Persia as appears in the 2 d. Book and 8 th chap. of Iosephus's Antiquities or as Philo Iudaeus saith in Libro temporum the sixth and last High-priest under the Persian Monarchy which is likewise plainly declar'd in the 22 th verse of the aforesaid 12 th chap. of Nehem. where the Historian saith The Levites in the days of Eliashib Ioiada Iohanan and Iaduah were recorded Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian that is in the Annals of that Government And sure no Man will believe that Hezra or Nehemiah were so long liv'd to survive fourteen Persian Kings for Cyrus the first King of Persia was he that gave the Iews liberty to rebuild their Temple and from him to Darius the fourteenth and last King of the Persians are reckoned 230 years therefore without all doubt these four Books I have mention'd were written long after Iudas Maccabeus restor'd the worship of the Temple and also because at that time were spurious counterfeit Books of Daniel Hesdras and Hester publish'd by some malicious persons who were of the Sect of the Zadduces for the Pharisees would never own them and tho' in the Book which we call the 4 th of Esdras there are some fabulous stories which we also find in the Talmud yet they ought not to be fathered on the Pharisees for there is no Man of sense but believes those Tales were added by some trifling fellow perhaps to render the Pharisaical Traditions ridiculous or to make the people of that time believe that the Prophesies of Daniel were fulfill'd thereby to confirm them in their Religion and in the midst of so many and great Calamities to keep them from despair But tho' these Books be of no great Antiquity yet many faults I suppose through haste in those who copy'd them out have crept into them for in these as in the rest are many Marginal Notes of which we spake in the former Chapter and also some places for which no excuse can be made but if it be granted that the Marginal Readings of these Books be as the Pharisees would have it as ancient as the Writers themselves then it must necessarily follow that the Scribes if they were more than one put these Notes into the Margent because they did not find the Annals from whence they copy'd out the Books perfectly written and tho' some faults be very plain and obvious yet the Scribes would not be so bold to alter or mend the Writings of their Ancestors Of this particular I have said enough and I now pass on to shew those errors whereof no notice is taken in the Margent I cannot tell how many I meet with in the 2 d chap of Ezra for in the 64 th verse it is said that the whole Congregation together of those that went up out of Captivity to Ierusalem was forty two thousand three hundred and threescore and yet if the particular numbers throughout the whole Chapter be exactly summ'd up and added together they make the total to be no more than twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen so that there is an error in the total or particular numbers Now 't is most likely the total number was not mistaken but set down right because every one might keep that in memory tho' he could not remember the particular numbers had there been any error or mistake in the total every body would have known it and it might have been easily mended which is confirm'd by the 7 th chap. of Nehemiah which tells us that the whole number of them that came up from the Captivity was the very same mention'd in the 2 d chap of Ezra but the particular numbers very much differ for
just or unjust pious or impious And then I conclude that that Right is best maintained and the Government most safe where every Man hath free liberty to think and speak what he thinks These are the things Philosophical Reader which I offer to thy examination believing they will be acceptable to thee for the Excellency and Utility of the Subject as well of the whole Book as of every single Chapter to which many things might be added but to this Preface I do not intend the Dimensions of a Volum the chief things in it are sufficiently known to Philosophers to others I care not to commend this Treatise because I have not the least hope they will like it I know how fast those Prejudices stick which the mind of Man hath embraced under the form of Religion I known also 't is as impossible to root out Superstition as Fear out of the Minds of the common People whose constancy is but contumacy and are never to be govern'd by Reason but always rashly praise or dispraise The Vulgar therefore and all of like Affections with them I do not invite to read these things I had rather they should contemn the Book then be troublesome by making perverse Constructions of it as they use to do of all other things not profiting themselves but hindring others who would reason more like Phylosophers did they not think Reason ought to be but a Hand-maid to Divinity To Men of that Opinion I think this Work extreamly useful but because many have neither mind or leisure to read these things I am forced here as well as in the end of the Treatise to declare I have written nothing which I do not willingly submit to the Examination and Judgment of the chief Rulers of my Country For if they shall think any thing I say repugnant to the Laws or public Peace of it I willingly unsay and recant it I know my self a Man Subject to Mistake but I have taken the greatest Care I could not to Err and particularly that whatever I write may in all things be consonant to the Laws of my Country and agreeable to Piety and good Manners A TABLE Of the several CHAPTERS CHAP. I. OF Prophesy CHAP. II. Of Prophets CHAP. III. Of the calling of the Jews and whether the Gift of Prophesy were peculiar only to the Jews CHAP. IV. Of the Divine Law. CHAP. V. The reason why Ceremonies were instituted of the belief of Scripture-Histories why and to whom it is necessary CHAP. VI. Of Miracles CHAP. VII Of the Interpretation of Scripture CHAP. VIII Sheweth that the Pentatenk the Books of Joshua Judges Ruth Samuel and the Kings were not Written by the Persons whose Names they bear and then inquires whether those Books were Written by several Persons or by one only and by whom CHAP. IX Whether Hesdras did perfectly finish those Books and whether the Marginal Notes found in the Hebrew Copies were but diverse readings CHAP. X. The rest of the Books of the Old Testament are examined in the same manner as the forementioned CHAP. XI Whether the Apostles Writ their Epistles as Apostles and Prophets or only as Doctors and Teachers and what is the Office of an Apostle CHAP. XII Of the true Original Hand Writing or Text of Scripture why Scripture is called Holy and why the Word of God Lastly that the Scripture so far as it contains the Word of God is derived to us pure and uncorrupted CHAP. XIII What is Faith who are the faithful what are the Fundamentals of Faith Faith distinguisht from Philosophy CHAP. XIV Divinity no Hand-maid to Reason nor Reason to Divinity upon what ground we believe the Authority of Sacred Scripture CHAP. XV. How Commonwealths came to be founded of every Mans Natural and Civil Right of the Right of Supreme Powers CHAP. XVI No Man can transfer or part with all his particular Right to the Supreme Power nor is it necessary that he should Of the Commonwealth of the Jews what it was while Moses lived and what after his Death before they chose Kings and of the Excellency of it lastly what were the Causes why so Divine a Commonwealth perished and could not subsist without Seditions CHAP. XVII Certain Political Maxims Collected out of the Commonwealth and Histories of the Jews CHAP. XVIII That Religion and all things relating to it are subject to no other Power but that of the Supreme Magistrate that the external Form of Public Religious Worship ought to be accommodated to the Peace of the Common-wealth if we would rightly obey God. CHAP. XIX That in a free Commonwealth it is lawful for every Man to think as he pleaseth and to speak what he thinks CHAP. VIII Sheweth that the Pentateuk the Books of Joshua Judges Ruth Samuel and the Kings were not Written by the Persons whose Names they bear and then inquires whether those Books were Written by several Persons or by one only and by whom CHAP. IX Whether Hesdras did perfectly finish those Books and whether the Marginal Notes found in the Hebrew Copies were but diverse readings CHAP. X. The rest of the Books of the Old Testament are examined in the same manner as the forementioned CHAP. XI Whether the Apostles Writ their Epistles as Apostles and Prophets or only as Doctors and Teachers and what is the Office of an Apostle CHAP. XII Of the true Original Hand Writing or Text of Scripture why Scripture is called Holy and why the Word of God Lastly that the Scripture so far as it contains the Word of God is derived to us pure and uncorrupted CHAP. XIII Shews that Scripture teacheth nothing but what is very plain intending nothing but Mens Obedience neither doth it teach or declare any other thing of the divine Nature then what a Man may in a right Course of Life in some degree imitate CHAP. XIV What is Faith who are the faithful what are the Fundamentals of Faith Faith distinguisht from Philosophy CHAP. XV. Divinity no Hand-maid to Reason nor Reason to Divinity upon what ground we believe the Authority of Sacred Scripture CHAP. XVI How Commonwealths came to be founded of every Mans Natural and Civil Right of the Right of Supreme Powers CHAP. XVII No Man can transfer or part with all his particular Right to the Supreme Power nor is it necessary that he should Of the Commonwealth of the Jews what it was while Moses lived and what after his Death before they chose Kings and of the Excellency of it lastly what were the Causes why so Divine a Commonwealth perished and could not subsist without Seditions CHAP. XVIII Certain Political Maxims Collected out of the Commonwealth and Histories of the Jews CHAP. XIX That Religion and all things relating to it are subject to no other Power but that of the Supreme Magistrate that the external Form of Public Religious Worship ought to be accommodated to the Peace of the Common-wealth if we would rightly obey God. CHAP. XX. That in a free Commonwealth it
to take up the fancy of such Men to a Man sad and melancholly were revealed Wars Plagues and Evils to come if a Prophet were kind merciful chollerique or severe accordingly were his Revelations The fancy of the Prophet was also sometimes the cause that Revelations differed in Stiles for if the Prophet were of an elegant and exalted fancy the mind of God was made known to him in an eloquent lofty Stile if the Prophets fancy were obscure and confused so was in like manner his Revelation when Revelations were made to a Country rustick the signs represented were Oxen Cows c. to a Souldier Captains and Armies to a Courtier Palaces and regal Thrones Lastly Prophesy varied according to the Opinions wherewith the Prophets were affected Math. chap. 11. to the Magi addicted to Astrology the Nativity of Christ was revealed by a Star appearing in the East to the Dreamers or Prophets of Nebuchadnezzar was revealed the destruction of Ierusalem by inspecting the entrails of Beasts that King also understood it from Oracles and the Shooting of Arrows into the Air. To Prophets who believed Men had free Will and Acted according to their will and choise God revealed himself as indifferent and ignorant of Mens future Actions all which Particulars we will singly prove by Places of Scripture First it appears by the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 3. v. 15. that Elisha before he Prophesy'd to Iehoram desired a Minstrel to Play before him and that till he was pleased with the Music of the Instrument he could not because he was Angry with the King foretel what should happen they who are Angry with any Person are apt and inclined to imagin Evil rather then good but they are mistaken who say God is never revealed to Angry and Melancholly Persons for to Moses who was incensed against Pharaoh without the help of any Musical Instrument God revealed that miserable Plague of the death of their first born Exod. chap. 11. God was revealed to Angry Cain to angry and impatient Ezechiel was revealed the misery and obstinacy of the Iews Ezek. chap. 3. v. 14. Ieremy sad and weary of his Life Prophesy'd the Captivity of the Iews so that Iosiah would not consult him but sent to a Woman Hilkiah the Prophetess to whose milder disposition the mercy of God was more likely to be revealed 2 d Book of the Chron. chap. 24. v. 22. Michiah never Prophesy'd any good to Ahab as did some other Prophets in the 1 st Book of the Kings chap. 20. v. 13. but all his Life time Prophesy'd Evil as plainly appears in the 1 st Book of the Kings chap. 22. v. 8. and more plainly in the 2 d. Book of Chron. chap. 18. v. 7. the Prophets therefore in respect of the different temperament of their Body inclined to some Revelations more then to others The Stile also of Prophesy differed according to the Eloquence of every Prophet the Prophesies of Ezekiel and Amos are Written in a lower and less Elegant Stile then those of Isaiah and Nahum and if any who understand the Hebrew Tongue desire to inquire narrowly into these things let them compare some Chapters one with another of diverse Prophets upon the same Subject and they shall find a great deal of difference in the Stile compare the first Chapter of the Courtier Isaiah from the 11 th vers to the 20 th with the 5 th chap. of the Herdsman Amos from the 21 th to the 24 th verse compare the Order and Reasons of the Prophesy of Ieremy which he wrote chap. the 49 th at Edom with the Order and Reasons of Obadiah compare the 40 th chap. of Isai. v. 19 20. and his 44 th chap. from verse the 8 th with the 8 th chap. 6 th verse and the 13 th chap. 2 d. verse of the Prophet Hosea if all things be considered it is very Evident that God had no peculiar Stile of speaking but according to the Learning and Capacity of the Prophet it was either Elegant Concise Sharp Rude Prolix or Obscure Prophetical Representations and Hierogliphicks were various tho' they signify'd the same thing for the Glory of God leaving the Temple was otherwise represented to Isaiah then it was to Ezekiel the Rabbines would have both representations to be the same and that Ezekiel being a Country Man extraordinarily admired his own and therefore described it with all its Circumstances but unless the Rabbines were assured by Faithful Tradition the thing was so indeed we are not bound to believe them for Isaiah saw Seraphims with six Wings and Ezekiel Beasts with four Isaiah saw God clothed and sitting upon a Throne Ezekiel saw him like Fire both of them without doubt saw God as each was wont to imagin Representations also varyed not only in their manner and form but in their clearness and perspicuity for the Representations made to Zachary were so obscure that they could not be understood by the Prophet himself without Explication as appears by the Story and those of Daniel tho' explain'd were not understood by him which happened not in Respect of the difficulty of the thing revealed for it concerned Human Affairs which exceed not the bounds of Human Capacity but only as they are future but because Daniel was not so well able to Prophesy waking as in his sleep which appears by his being so terrify'd in the beginning of the Revelation that he was scarce able to stand and therefore through weakness of imagination and want of strength things were so obscurely Represented to him that he could not understand them tho' they were Expounded and here it is to be observed that the Wonders which Daniel heard were only imaginary and therefore being at that time so much troubled it is no wonder that he could not understand by words which he so confusedly and obscurely imagin'd but they that say God would not clearly reveal the matter to Daniel seem not to have read the words of the Angel who said expresly Dan. chap. 10. v. 14. Now am I come to make thee understand what shall befal thy People in the latter days c. those things therefore remain'd obscure because at that time there was no Man found who so much excell'd in the strength and Power of imagination as to have a clearer Revelation made to him Lastly the Prophets to whom it was revealed that God would take away Eliah perswaded Elisha that he was only to be Translated to some other place where he might be found by them which Evidently proves that they did not rightly understand Gods Revelation there is no need of being larger upon these Particulars for nothing is more manifest in Scripture then that God did bestow upon some Prophets a much greater Portion of the Gift of Prophesy then he did upon others but that Prophesy and Representations differ'd according to the Opinions which the Prophets maintain'd and that Prophets were prejudiced with different yea contrary Opinions I mean concerning things meerly Speculative but as
to things relating to honesty and good manners we ought to think otherwise I will more exactly and fully prove because 't is a matter of greater moment and from thence will conclude that Prophesy never left the Prophets more Learned but left them in the Opinions wherewith they were prepossest and for that reason in things meerly Speculative no Man is obliged to believe them Many men have very unadvisedly perswaded themselves that the Prophets knew all things within the compass of Human Understanding and tho' some places of Scripture tell us plainly that the Prophets did not know some things yet they are rather willing to confess they do not understand those places of Scripture then yeild the Prophets were Ignorant of any thing or else they endeavour so to wrest the Words of Scripture that they would have it say that which it doth not mean. If either of these be lawful then Farewel to all Scripture for in vain do we endeavour to prove any thing by Scripture if those things which are most clear in it shall be reckon'd amongst those that are obscure and unintelligible or else shall be interpreted as we please For example nothing is more plain then that Iosuah and perhaps he that wrote the Book of Iosuah did belive that the Sun moved about the Earth that the Earth had no motion and that the Sun for some time stood still Yet many because they will not allow of any mutation in the Heavens so expound that Place that it shall not seem to imply any such thing but others who think themselves better Phylosophers because they believe the Eatrh moves and the Sun stands still or at least moves not about the Earth do with might and main endeavour to wrest the Proof of their Opinion out of the same Scripture against its plain Words Indeed at these Men I much wonder is any Man obliged to believe that Iosuah a Souldier was perfectly skill'd in Astronomy and that a Miracle could not be revealed to him or that the Light of the Sun could not remain longer above the Horizon then ordinary unless Iosuah understood the Cause thereof both seem to me ridiculous and I had rather plainly say that Iosuah did not know the true Cause of that continuing Light and that all the Army with him did think that the Sun had adiuvrual motion about the Earth and that it 's standing still that particular Day was the true Cause of its longer shining but did not understand that the great abundance of Hail which the 11 th Verse of the 10 th chap. of Iosuah says was then in the Region of the Air might cause a greater refraction of Light then ordinary or some other thing of like Nature which is not our Business here to inquire In like manner according to the Capacity of Isaiah a Sign was given by the Shadow 's going back upon the Dyal of Ahaz because his Opinion was that the Sun moved and not the Earth and for Parhelij perhaps he never dreamt of any such thing which we may without any scruple maintain for the Sign might really happen and be foretold to the King though the Prophet were ignorant of the true Cause thereof The same may be said of Solomon's Building that if all the measures and Proportions of it were revealed by God they were revealed according to Solomon's Capacity and Opinion for seeing we are not bound to believe that Solomon was an exact Mathematician we may lawfully affirm that he knew not what proportion the Diameter of a Circle ought to bear to the Peripheria or Circumference but thought with the common sort of Workmen that it should be as three to one but if it be lawful to say that we do not understand the Text in the 1 st Book of Kings chap. 7. v. 23. Truly I know not what we can understand from Scripture since there the Building is simply and historically related if it be lawful to suppose the Scripture meant otherwise but for some Reason to us unknown would write in that manner what can follow but a total overthrow of all Scripture and then there is nothing so absurd or wicked which Malice can invent that may not under Scripture Authority be countenanced and committed but what we maintain savors not of Impiety for Solomon Isaiah Ioshua c. tho' Prophets were Men subject to Human Infirmities The drowning of all Mankind by a Deluge was revealed to Noah according to his capacity for he thought no Part of the World was inhabited but Palestine and the Prophets without any prejudice to their Piety might be yea were Ignorant not only of things of this Nature but also of Matters of greater consequence for they discovered very little of the Divine Attributes but had mean and Vulgar Opinions of God to which their Revelations were accommodated as by many Testimonies of Scripture shall be proved so that we may plainly see they were not so much commended for the Excellencies and Sublimity of their Knowledge as for their Piety and constancy of Mind Adam was the first Man to whom God revealed himself Yet he knew not that God was Omnipresent and Omniscient for he hid himself from God and endeavour'd to excuse his Sin to God as if he had been before a Man therefore God was revealed to him according to his Opinion and Capacity that is as one who was not every where and as one Ignorant of Adam's Sin For Adam heard or seemed to hear God walking in the Garden calling and asking Adam where art thou Asking likewise because Adam was ashamed whether he had eaten of the forbidden Tree Adam therefore knew no other Attribute of God then that he was the maker of all things God was revealed to Cain according to his Capacity that is as one ignorant of Human Actions nor did he need any higher Knowledge of God to repent of his Sin. To Laban God revealed himself as the God of Abraham because Laban believed that every Nation had a peculiar God as appears Gen. chap. 31. v. 29. Where he saith to Iacob the God of your Father spoke to me Yesternight Abraham was ignorant of God's Vbiquity and Prescience for as soon as he heard the Sentence against Sodom he prayed that God would not execute it till he knew whether all deserved the Punishment Gen. chap. 18 th v. 24. Peradventure there may be found Fifty righteous within the City Nor was God otherwise revealed to him for in Abraham's imagination God said verse 21 th I will go down now and see whether they have done according to the Cry of it which is come unto me and if not I will know God's Testimony of Abraham in Gen. chap. 12. v. 19. Speaks of nothing but Abraham's Obedience and that he would command his Children and his Houshold after him to keep the Way of the Lord and to do Judgment and Justice but says nothing of any extraordinary knowledge or Conceptions that he had of God. Moses did not perfectly
O Israel that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt Nor is it to be believed that Men accustomed to the Superstitions of Egypt Ignorant and broken to the Yoke of a tedious Bondage should have any right Understanding of God or that Moses should teach them any thing more then a peculiar manner and way of living not instructing them as a Philosopher to make living well their free and voluntary choice but as a Legislator compelling them by the Commands and Power of Law So that a good Life the Love and Service of God was to them rather Servitude then true Liberty or the Grace and Gift of God for Moses Commanded them to love God and keep his Law that they might acknowledge their deliverance out of Egypt to be by God he terrifyed them with threatnings in case they Transgrest the Law and promis'd them many Blessings if they carefully observed it So that he dealt with the Israelites as Parents use to do with Children void of Reason which is an Evidence that they were ignorant how Excellent a thing Vertue is and what was true happiness Ionas thought he could fly from the presence of God which imply'd that he also believed God had substituted other Powers to take care of those Countries and Nations which were not within the Territories of Iudea in all the Old Testament we read of no Person who spoke so rationally of God as Solomon who for natural Knowledge excell'd all the Men of his time and therefore thought himself above the Law which was only given to those who wanted the dictates of Reason and natural Understanding and slighted the observance of those Laws which particularly concern'd him as he was King and consisted in three Particulars as may be seen Deut. Chap. 17. v. 16 17. he was indeed to blame in breaking those Laws and did not do like a Philosopher when he deliver'd himself up to pleasure and sensuality yet we read in Ecclesiastes he declared all the Goods of Fortune to be Vanity and that nothing is to be so highly prized as Wisdom and Understanding and no punishment equal to a Mans being a Fool Prov. Chap. 17. But let us return to the Prophets of whose differing Opinions we have taken notice the Rabbines who have left us the Books of the Prophets now extant found the Opinions of Ezekiel so contrary to those of Moses as may be seen in the Treatise of the Sabbath Chap. 1 st fol. 13. page 2 d. that they were near resolving not to receive the Book of Ezekiel for Canonical and had conceal'd it if a certain Person called Hananiah had not undertaken to expound it which some report he did with great Labour and Study so that 't is not certain whether it were a Commentary he wrote and was perhaps lost or that he changed and glossed upon Ezekiels words and discourses according to his own fancy however it was the 18 th Chapter of Ezekiel doth not seem to agree with the 34 Chap. of Exod. v. 7 nor with the 32 Chap. of Ieremy v. 18. Samuel believed that when God had decreed any thing he never repented or changed that decree 1 st Book of Sam. Chap. 14. v. 29 Saul when he repented of his Sin and desired to worship God Samuel told him God would not change his Decree but the contrary was revealed to Ieremy for when ever God decreed good or evil to any Nation if Men became either better or worse before the Execution of the Sentence God did accordingly alter his decrees Ierem. Chap. 18. v. 8 10. the Prophet Ioel beleived that God repented of the Evil which he at any time decreed Io. Chap. 2. v. 13. in the 4 th Chap. of Gen. v. 7. it clearly appears that it is in Mans Power to overcome Evil Temptations and to live well by what God said to Cain who notwithstanding as we find in Scripture and in Iosephus never subdued his Passions by the forecited Text in Ieremy we may conclude that God changeth his purposes either of doing good or evil according to Mens living well or wickedly yet on the contrary St. Paul teacheth nothing more plainly then that Men have no Power over themselves against the Temptations and Lusts of the Flesh but by the particular Mercy and Election of God as may be seen in the 9 th Chapter to the Romans from the 10 th Verse onward in the 3 d Chap. v. 3 d where he asketh whether God be unrighteous in taking vengeance he Corrects himself in speaking after that manner like a Man. From what hath been alledged we have sufficiently proved what we proposed namely that God fitted and suted his Revelations according to the Capacity and Opinions of the Prophets and that they might be and indeed were ignorant of things meerly speculative which did not pertain to Charity and a godly Life that the Prophets were also of very different Opinions and consequently in the Knowledge of Natural and Spiritual things we are not to rely and ground our selves upon them We conclude then that we are not bound to believe any thing more from the Prophets then the end and substance of what they revealed and that in other things it is free for a Man to believe as he thinks best for example Cains Revelation teacheth us that God did admonish him to live well which was the intent end and substance of the Revelation but it doth not declare to us the freedom of Mans Will or any other Philosophical Matter therefore tho' in the Words and Reasons of that Admonition freedom of Will seem to be clearly asserted yet 't is lawful to be of a contrary Opinion since those Words and Reasons were only applyed and suited to the Capacity of Cain The Prophet Michaiahs Revelation only declared what should be the Event of the Battle between Ahaband Aram and therefore we are only bound to believe that but whatever else was contain'd in that Revelation concerning the true and lying Spirit of God or concerning the Host of Heaven standing on each side of God with other Circumstances in that Revelation they do not at all concern us but every one may believe of them as he thinks most agreeable to Reason the same may be said of the Reasons declared to Iob for God's having absolute Power over all things if it be true that they were a Revelation and that he Writ as an Historian and not as some believe like a Poet they were revealed according to Iobs Capacity for his particular Conviction but they were not intended as Universal Reasons to convince all Men nor are we to determin otherwise of the Reasons used by Christ to convince the Pharisees of their Ignorance and Obstinacy and to perswade his Disciples to live righteously all those Reasons were accommodated to the Opinions and Principles of the Persons to whom they were urged for example when Christ said to the Pharisees Mat. Chap. 12 v. 26. If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against himself how then
would not only exceed the capacity of the vulgar but the understanding of all Mankind for who could possibly retain and comprehend so great a Number of Histories and so many circumstances and parts of Doctrine as might be collected from so many and different Histories truly I cannot be perswaded that those Men who left us the Scripture as we now have it abounded with so much Wit as to be able to find out such a demonstration of its Doctrine much less do I believe that the Doctrine of the Scripture could not have been understood unless we had been told of Isaacs strivings about the digging of Wells of Achitophels Council to Absalon and the Civil Wars between the Children of Iudah and Israel with other Chronicles of like kind or that the Iews who lived in the time of Moses were not so capable of understanding the Doctrine of Scripture by Histories as were the Iews who lived in the time of Esdras of which more hereafter the common People are therefore obliged to know only those Histories which stir up their minds to Devotion Piety and Obedience but they are not competent Judges of those Histories because they are more pleased with the narrations and the unexpected events of things then with the Doctrine it self and for this reason beside the reading of Histories they need Pastors and Ministers in the Church to instruct their weak understanding But not to digress from what we principally design'd to prove we conclude that the belief of Histories whatever they be doth not belong to the Divine Law nor doth of it self make Men happy or blessed nor are Histories profitable except it be in point of Doctrine which is the only thing that makes some Histories therefore contain'd in the Old and New Testament excel those that are profane and common and Scripture Histories mutually compared are more excellent one then another for sound and wholsom Doctrine He then that reads Scripture Histories and in all things gives intire credit to them yet if he follow not their Doctrine and amend his Life it is all one with him as if he read the Alchoran a Comedy or any vulgar History but as we have already said he that never heard of Scripture if his Opinions be true and his Life righteous he is truly blessed and the Spirit of Christ is in him but the Iews are of a contrary Opinion for they say let a Mans Opinions be never so Orthodox and his Life never so vertuous yet if he be guided only by natural Light and not by the Doctrins which are Prophetically revealed to Moses he can never be blessed and happy which Rabbi Maimonides boldly affirms in his Eighth Chapter and Second Law concerning Kings He that receiveth the Seven Commandments and diligently performeth them is one of the Pious among the Nations and Heir of the World to come that is if he receive and Practise them because God in his Law commanded and revealed them by Moses and because those precepts were also given to the Sons of Noah but if he Practise them by the guidance and dictates of natural reason he is none of us nor is he to be thought one of the Pious and Learned of the Nations It was an opinion among the Iews that God gave to Noah seven Commandments and that all Nations were obliged to observe only those seven but that God gave many more Commandments to the Iews that he might make them much happier then other Nations Rabbi Ioseph the Son of Shem Tob in his Book called Kbod Elohim or the Glory of God likewise saith that tho' Aristotle whose Book of Ethicks was in his opinion the best that ever was written had omitted nothing which belonged to that Subject and he himself had diligently Practised all he Writ yet he could not be saved because he embraced those Doctrins he taught as the dictates of reason and not as divine and Prophetical Revelations But these conceits are meer Fopperys grounded neither upon reason or Scripture and need no more confutation then doth the opinion of some Men who maintain that by natural light and reason we cannot know any thing belonging to Salvation a Tenet that cannot be rationally prov'd by Men who do not allow themselves any reason but what is corrupted and depraved and if they boast of any thing above reason 't is meer Folly and far beneath reason as sufficiently appears by their manner of living so that of this we need say no more I will only add this that no Man can be known but by his works and therefore they that abound in the Fruits of Love joy peace long suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Temperance c. against whom saith Paul Galat. chap. 5. v. 22. there is no Law whether they be taught by reason or Scripture they are certainly taught of God and are truly blessed CHAP. VI. Of Miracles AS Men use to call that knowledge Divine which exceeds human capacity and understanding so when any thing is done in nature of which the common People know not the cause that they call the Work of God for the vulgar believe Gods Power and Providence do most plainly appear when they see any thing strange and unusual happen in nature contrary to the customary opinion they have of Nature especially when that which happens is for their benefit and advantage and they think the being of a God never more clearly proved then when nature seems not to keep its constant course and therefore conclude that those Men deny the Being and Providence of God who endeavour to explain and understand what they call Miracles by their natural causes They indeed think that while Nature goes on in her wonted course God doth nothing and on the contrary when God Acts the Power of Nature and Natural Causes are idle and at a stand so that they imagin two numerical distinct Powers namely the Power of God and the Power of Nature appointed and directed or as most Men now believe Created by God but what they mean by either or what they understand by God and Nature they know not but fancy Gods Power to be like that of a great King. And the Power of Nature nothing but blind force and violence the Common People therefore call the extraordinary Works of Nature Miracles or the Works of God and partly out of Devotion partly out of a desire to contradict those that love the Study of Natural Sciences they affect being ignorant of Natural Causes desiring to hear of things they do not know and those things which they least know they most admire by taking away Natural Causes and by imagining things out of the order of Nature they think God is most adored when all things are immediately referr'd to his Power and Will neither do they think the Power of God at any time so wonderful as when according to their fancy it conquers and subdues the Power of Nature Which Opinion was first brought into the World by the Iews who to
and clearly appear from the History of Scripture what kind of History it ought to be and what are the Principal things it ought to contain comes now to be declared First it ought to contain the Nature and Proprieties of that Language in which the Books of Scripture were Originally Written and which the Authors of those Books were wont to speak that so all the Senses which every Speech according to the ordinary use of speaking will bear and admit may be found out and because the Pen-Men both of the Old and New Testament were Iews the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue is above all things necessary to understand not only the Books of the Old Testament which were Written in Hebrew but also of the new for tho' some of the Books of the New Testament were Published in other Languages yet they are full of Hebrewisms Secondly The Sentences of every Book ought to be Collected and reduced to Heads that so all that concern one and the same Subject may be easily found and all those which seem doubtful and obscure or repugnant to one another ought to be noted I call those Speeches clear or obscure whose Sense is easily or difficultly made out by the context and not in respect of the Truth of those Speeches easily or difficultly perceived by reason for only the Sense of what the Scripture saith and not the verity is our business we are therefore to take special heed that in searching out the Sense of Scripture we do not suffer our reason as it is founded upon the Principles of natural knowledge to be prepossest with prejudice and likewise that we do not confound the true Sense of the words with the verity of the matter for the true Sense is to be found out only by the use of the Language or by such a way of reasoning as is grounded only upon Scripture That all these things may be perfectly understood Take this example for illustration These sayings of Moses God is Fire and God is jealous how plain and clear are they so long as we regard only the signification of the words but in respect of reason and truth how dark and obscure yea tho' the litteral Sense of the words be contrary to natural reason yet unless it contradict any fundamental Principles derived from Scripture their litteral Sense is still to be retained so on the contrary if these sayings in their litteral construction should be found repugnant to Principles deduced from Scripture tho' they should be most agreeable to reason yet they ought to be Metaphorically not litteraly understood To know then whether Moses did or did not believe God to be Fire we ought not to conclude the one or the other because the Opinion is either contrary or consonant to reason but it must be gathered from some other of Moses own sayings for example because Moses in very many places hath plainly declared that God is not like any visible thing either in Heaven Earth or the Waters we must conclude that either this saying God is Fire or else all his other sayings are to be Metaphorically interpreted but because we ought as seldom as 't is possible to depart from the litteral Sense we must therefore inquire whether this saying God is Fire will admit of any other Sense beside the litteral that is whether the word Fire signify any other thing beside natural Fire and if in the Hebrew Tongue it can never be found to signify any thing else then this saying of Moses is no other way to be interpreted tho' it be repugnant to reason but on the other side all those other sayings of Moses tho' consentaneous to reason are to be conformable and accomodate to this but if the common use of the Language will not suffer this to be done then those several sayings are Irreconcileable and we are to suspend our judgment of them But now because the Word Fire is also taken for anger and jealousy Iob. chap. 31. v. 12. these sayings of Moses are easily reconcileable and we may lawfully conclude that these two Sentences God is Fire and God is jealous signify both the same thing Moreover because Moses plainly saith God is jealous and doth no where declare that God is free from all manner of passion and affections of the mind we may conclude that Moses did think or at least taught other Men to think God was jealous tho' we believe the opinion contrary to reason for as we have already shewn it is not lawful for us to wrest the Sense and meaning of Scripture according to the dictates of our reason or preconceived Opinions because all our knowledge both of the Old and New Testament must be derived only from themselves Thirdly This History of Scripture ought to give such an account of the Books of the Prophets remaining with us as may inform us of the Lives Manners and Studies of the Authors of every Book who the Person was upon what occasion he wrote in what time to whom and in what Language and Lastly it ought to tell us what was the Fortune of every Book how it was first received into whose hands it fell how many various readings it had how it came to be received for sacred and Canonical And Lastly how all the several Books came together into one Volume I say all these things this History of Scripture ought to contain To know what Sentences of Scripture are to be taken for Laws and precepts and what only for moral Doctrins it is very expedient to know the Life Manners and Study of the Author beside we can with more ease know the meaning of any Mans Words when we know his genius disposition and ingenuity Moreover that we may not confound Doctrins whose morality and Obligation is perpetual with those that were but temporary and of use only to some particular People it behoveth us to know upon what occasion at what time to what Nation in what Age all these instructions were Written Lastly it is fit we should know beside the Authority of every Book whether the Books have been adulterated or at least whether any Errors have crept into them and whether they have been corrected by Learned and Faithful Men all which things are absolutely necessary to be known that we may not with Blind Zeal receive every thing obtruded upon us but believe that only which is certain plain and past all doubt After we have such a History of Scripture and have firmly resolved to conclude nothing to be the Doctrine of the Prophets which doth not naturally follow or may be clearly drawn from this History then it will be time to prepare our selves to search out the meaning of the Prophets and of the Holy Ghost which to do the like method and order is required that is to be used in interpreting nature by its own History for as in searching out natural things we first endeavour to inquire concerning that which is Universal and common to all nature as Motion and
which the Pharisees affirm they have or such as have a high Priest who cannot err in expounding Scripture and that the Roman Catholics boast of their Popes but seeing we cannot be sure of such a Tradition or the Authority of such a Priest or Pope we cannot build upon either because the Primitive Christians deny the one and the most Antient Sects of the Iews the other And if we consider the Series and Succession of Years which the Pharisees received from their Rabbies by which they carry their Tradition as high as Moses himself we shall find it false as I have proved in another place such a Tradition therefore ought to be much suspected and tho' in our method we are forced to suppose some kind of Iewish Tradition to be sincere and uncorrupt namely the Signification of words in the Hebrew Tongue which we have received from the Iews yet we need not much doubt this tho' we very well may the other for it can be of no Advantage or Use to any Man to change the Signification of any Word tho' it often may be to alter the Sense of a Speech It is also very difficult to be done for he that should endeavor to change the Sense of any Word must necessarily construe all those Authors who have written in that Tongue and used that Word in its common acceptation according to the Genuine Sense of every Author or else must falsify them with a great deal of Caution The ignorant multitude as well as Learned Men are the keepers of a Language but the Learned only preserve the Sense of Speeches and Books and consequently tho' Learned men may change or corrupt the Sense of some scarce Book yet they cannot the Signification of Words beside if any man had a mind to alter the Signification of a Word to which he is accustomed he cannot without a great deal of difficulty do it either in speaking or writing For these and other Reasons I am perswaded it never yet came into any man's head to corrupt a Language tho' many have perverted the Sense of a writer either by changing or misinterpreting his sayings If our method which layeth this for a ground that the knowledge of Scripture is to be drawn only from the Scripture be plain and true then where it is not able to give us the true Sense and Knowledge of Scripture we may well despair of it what difficulty there is of arriving by this method to the true Meaning and Knowledge of the Sacred Volumes or what is further to be desired in it I will now declare The chiefest difficulty in this method is that is requireth a perfect Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue but how is that to be had the Antient and most skilful Masters in the Hebrew Language have left little to posterity of the Elements and Learning of it we have from them neither Dictionary Grammar or Rhetoric The Iewish Nation hath lost all its Ornaments and Beauty which is no wonder having suffer'd so many Calamities and Persecutions and retains nothing but a few Fragments of their Language and of a few Books for all the names of Fruits Birds Fishes and many other things by the Injury of time are lost So that the Signification of many Names and Words in the Old and New Testament is unknown or very disputable Seeing then all these things and likewise a Dictionary of the Hebrew Phrases and manners of speaking in the Hebrew Language are very necessary to be had because all the Forms of Speech peculiar to the Iewish Nation are forgotten and lost we cannot as we would find out all the Senses of every Sentence in Scripture which according to the customary use of the Language it comprehends and there are many Sayings in Scripture tho' exprest in known words whose Sense nevertheless is obscure and inscrutable and as we have no perfect History of the Hebrew Tongue so the Nature and Constitution of the Language is such and so many Ambiguities spring from it that 't is impossible to frame such a method as shall direct a Man to find out the true Sense of all that is said in Scripture for beside the Causes of Doubt common to all other Languages there are some others in this from whence proceed many uncertainties which causes here to specify I think worth a Man's pains First Obscurity and ambiguity in Scripture is caused sometimes by using the Letters of the same Organ one for another The Iews divided all the Letters of their Alphabet into five Classes or Forms because there are five particular Parts or Instruments of the Mouth used in pronunciation the Lips the Tongue the Teeth the Palate and the Throat for Example Alpha Ghet Hgain He are called Guttural Letters and are without any difference known to us taken one for another El which signifies To is often taken for Hgal which signifies upon and so interchangebly whence it cometh to pass that all the Parts of a Speech are rendred doubtful or are like words which have no Signification The Second cause of ambiguity is the divers and manifold Signification of conjunctions and Adverbs for example Vau promiscuously serves to joyn and disjoyn signifying And but because indeed otherwise then Ki hath seven or eight Significations because although if when even as that burning and so almost all Particles The Third cause of many Ambiguities is because Verbs in the Indicative Mood want the Present the Preterimperfect the Preterpluperfect and the Future tense and others much used in other Languages In the Imparative and Infinitive Mood they want all the Tenses except the Present and in the Subjunctive have none at all and tho' all these defects of Moods and Tenses may with great Elegancy be supplyed by Rules and Principles deduced from the Language yet they have been wholly neglected by the Antient Writers who promiscuously used the Present and Preterperfect tenses for the Future and sometimes the Indicative Mood for the Imperative and Subjunctive which caused great Ambiguity in their Writings beside these three great Causes of uncertainty in the Hebrew Language there remain two other very observable and both of very great moment The first is that the Iews made no use those Letters we call Vowels The Second that they never used in their Writings to distinguish their Words or express their quantity by any Marks or Signs and tho' both Vowels and Marks use to be supplyed by Points and Accents yet we cannot trust to them seeing they were invented and brought into use by modern Men whose Authority is of no great Value The Antients wrote without Points that is without Vowels or Accents as appears by many Testimonies but some of later times brought in both to interpret the Bible as they thought fit so that the Points and Accents which we now have are only Expositions of Men of the present Age whom we ought not to reverence and believe above other Expositors they that are Ignorant of this know not the Reason why the
Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be excused that in the 21 th Verse of the 11 th Chap. of that Epistle he explains the Text in the 31 th Verse of the 47 th Chap. of Genesis quite otherwise then it is in the pointed Hebrew Text as if the Apostle had been to learn the Sense of Scripture from the Punctists in my Opinion the Punctists are mistaken that it may appear they are and that the difference of the two interpretations ariseth from the want of Vowels I will give you both The Punctists by their Points render the Text in Genesis thus and Israel bowed himself Vppon or by changing hgain into Aleph a Letter of the same Organ towards the Beds Head but the Author of the Epistle saith Israel bowed himself leaning Vppon the top of his Staff by reading Mateh instead of the Word Mitah which difference cometh only from the Vowels Now seeing the forecited Chapter of Genesis speaketh only of Iacob's Age and not of his Sickness as doth the following Chapter it is much more probable the Historian meant that Iacob leaned Vppon the top of his Staff wherewith Men of very great Age use to support themselves and not that he did bow himself uppon or towards his Beds Head because in so rendring the Text there is no need to suppose any interchange of Letters By this Example I have not only reconciled that Place in the Epistle to the Hebrews with the Text in Genesis but have also shewn how little credit is to be given to our new Points and Accents so that he who will interpret Scripture without prejudice must with a great deal of doubting narrowly examin them To return to our purpose every one may easily conjecture that from such a Nature and Constitution of the Hebrew Tongue must proceed so many Ambiguities that 't is impossible for any method to resolve them all and there is little hope it can be done by the mutual comparing of one saying with another which we have declared to be a singular way of finding out the true of many Senses which every Sentence according to the common use of the Language will bear and admit Seeing this comparing of Places cannot explain one another but by meer chance because no Prophet wrote with express Intention to explain the Words of another Prophet or his own and also because we cannot know one Prophet's or Apostle's meaning by anothers unless it be in things that concern the use of Life but not when they speak of things Speculative and when they relate Miracles or Histories moreover I can give you many Instances of Speeches in Scripture that are inexplicable but at present I pass them by and proceed to observe what other difficulties yet remain in this method of interpreting Scripture and what is further to be wisht for in it Another difficulty attends this method because we have not such a History of all the Books of Scripture as is necessary for we know not the Authors or rather the Pen-men of many of the Books at least we doubt of them as I shall at large shew in the following Chapter neither do we know upon what Occasion or when those Books of whose Pen-men we doubt were written we are ignorant into what Hands all the Books fell nor know we in whose Copies so many various Readings are found and whether there be not some which have more various Readings what advantage it is to know all these things I have briefly declared in its proper place but I have there purposely omitted some things which come now to be considered if we read any Book that contains things incredible unintelligible or written in very obscure Terms and know not who was its Author or at what time or upon what occasion it was written in vain do we labour to find out the true Sense thereof for none of these things being known 't is impossible to understand what the Author did or could mean but when we are once satisfyed in these things our Thoughts demine without prejudice and give to the Author or to him in whose Favour the Author writ neither more or less then is his due nor do we think of any other things then were or might be in the Author's mind and such as the time and occasion requir'd and this is apparent for it often happens when in divers Books we read stories one like another we pass different Judgments on them according to the different Opinions we have of the Writers I remember I have read in a certain Book of a Man called Orlando furioso who rid upon a winged Monster through the Air into what Countries he pleas'd and slew a great Number of Men and Giants with abundance of other Fancies beyond all Reason and Sense A story like this I have read in Ovid of Perseus and another in the Book of Iudges and Kings of Sampson who single and unarmed slew Thousands of Men and of Eliah who with a Chariot and Horses of Fire mounted up to Heaven these stories I say are like one another yet we make different judgments of every one of them The first Author wrote nothing but Fables the Second matters Political and the Third Sacred and this for no other reason but the different opinions we have of the writers It is therefore evident that the knowledge of those Authors who have written things obscure and very difficult to be understood is absolutely necessary to interpret their writings and among several readings of obscure Histories that we may chuse the true 't is necessary to know in whose Copies those diverse readings are found and whether many other readings have not been met with amongst Men of greater Authority Lastly we meet with another difficulty in expounding some Books of Scripture by not having those Books in the same Language wherein they were first written for 't is the common opinion that the Gospel according to St. Mathew and the Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Hebrew Tongue which Copies are no where extant In what Language the Book of Iob was written is a doubt Abenezra in his Commentaries affirms it was Translated out of some other Language into Hebrew which is the cause of its obscurity Of the Apocryphal Books I say nothing because they are of little or no Authority These are all the difficulties in this method of interpreting Scripture by such a History as might be had of it of which I promised to give an account and I think them so great that I may boldly say we cannot know the true sense of Scripture in many places or at most we can without any certainty but guess at it however this is to be observed that all those difficulties can only hinder us from knowing the mind of the Prophets in things imperceptible which we can only imagin but not in things intelligible of which we may form clear conceptions for things which in their own nature are easily conceived can never be spoken so
obscurely but that they may be quickly understood according to that usual saying a Word to the Wise. Euclyd who writ of nothing but what is very plain and obvious is easily understood by every Body in any Language and therefore to be sure of his Sense and meaning there is no need of a perfect but only a superficial knowledge of the Tongue wherein he wrote nor of knowing his Life Study Manners in what Language when or to whom he wrote neither knowing the Fate of his Book its various readings or how it came to be generally received what I say of Euclyd may be said of all Men who have written of things in their own nature easy to be understood so that we conclude the meaning of the Scripture and the true Sense thereof concerning moral Doctrins may be easily attained by such a History as might be composed of it For all Lessons of true Piety are given us in words of common and frequent use and are therefore plain and easy to be understood and because our happiness and the peace of our Lives consists in Tranquillity of Mind which we find only in things which we clearly understand it evidently follows that we may certainly find out the meaning of Scripture in things necessary to happiness and Salvation and therefore we need not be so Sollicitous about other matters which when they seem so difficult to our reason and understanding have more curiosity in them then profit I have now shewn what is the true method of explaining Scripture and sully declared my opinion concerning it I doubt not but every one sees this method requires nothing more then natural reason whose Nature and Vertue cheifly consists in deducing by right consequences things obscure from known and indisputable concessions and tho' we grant that this natural light is not sufficient to find out all things in Scripture it is not from any defect in this natural light but because the right way which it shews us was never observed and troden by Men So that in tract of time it is become painful and almost impossible to pass as in my opinion manifestly appears by the difficulties I have mentioned It now remains that I examin those Mens opinions who are not of mine the first to be considered is theirs who positively affirm that natural light is not sufficient to interpret Scripture and that only Supernatural light can do it but what they mean by Supernatural light I leave them to explain I suppose they do but in obscure terms confess that they are very doubtful of the true Sense of Scripture for if we diligently consider their expositions we shall find they contain nothing Supernatural yea they will appear to be meer conjectures if they be compared with their explanations who pretend to nothing more then what is natural they will be found like them to be human long Studied and Elaborate In maintaining that natural light is not able to explain Scripture they are mistaken what we have said makes it clear that the difficulty of expounding Scripture doth not arise from any defect of strength in natural light but only from Mens sloth I will not say malice who have neglected to Compose such a History of Scripture as might have been framed of it and also because all Men if I be not deceived confess that Supernatural light is a divine gift bestowed only upon believers but the Prophets and Apostles Preached not only to believers but to wicked unbelievers who were notwithstanding their impiety and unbelief capable of understanding the meaning of the Prophets otherwise they had Preached but to Children and Infants and not to Men endued with reason and Moses had in vain prescribed Laws if his Laws were intelligible only to believers who needed no Law. Wherefore they that seek after supernatural light to understand the mind of the Prophets and Apostles seem void even of natural light and such I think are far from having that Heavenly Gift of light supernatural Maimonides was not of these Mens Opinion for he thought most places of Scripture would bear several yea contrary Senses and thought likewise that we cannot be certain of the true Sense of any place unless we know the place as we interpret it to contain nothing but what is agreeable to reason or not contrary to it for if in its litteral Sense it appear repugnant to reason tho' the Sense appear clear yet he thinks the place ought to be otherwise interpreted and this he plainly declares in the 25 th Chapter of his Book called More Nebuchin where he saith know that I do not refuse to say the World is eternal because there are Texts in Scripture which say the World was created for the Texts which declare the World was created are not more then those that tell us God is Corporeal neither are the ways of expounding those Texts concerning the Creation of the World Shut up or barred against us but we could as well explain them as I did the other when I proved God to be incorporeal perhaps I could better and with more ease expound the Texts of the Worlds Creation and maintain the World to be eternal then I did those of Gods corporiety when I proved God to be incorporeal but for two reasons I will not do it or believe that the World is eternal First because it is evident by a clear Demonstration that God is not Corporeal for all places of Scripture whose litteral Sense is repugnant to a Demonstration require explication because it is certain they ought not to be taken litterally but the eternity of the World is not proved by any Demonstration and therefore it is not necessary to offer violence to the Scripture and wrest it by expositions to maintain an opinion that is but probable when we may with any reason maintain the contrary opinion The second reason is because believing God to be incorporeal is not contrary to the Fundamentals of the Law but to believe the eternity of the World as Aristotle did destroyeth the very Foundation of the Law. These are the Words of Maimonides from which that manifestly follows which I said before for if he were convinced by reason that the World was eternal he would not scruple to wrest the Scripture and make such expositions of it as might support that opiuion and he would be presently certain that the Scripture tho' it every where plainly say the contrary did declare the World to be eternal and consequently could never be certain of the true Sense of Scripture tho' never so plain so long as he doubted the Truth of the thing or that the Truth were not evident to him for so long as the Truth of a thing is not apparent we are so long ignorant whether the thing be agreeable or contrary to reason and consequently we know not whether the litteral Sense be true or false which opinion if it were true I would absolutely grant that some other light beside what is natural is necessary
fitted and proportion'd to Mens understanding and capacity as I have proved mine to be the difficulties that are in it have proceeded from Mens sloth and negligence not from the nature of the Method CHAP. VIII Sheweth that the Pentateuk Books of Joshua Judges Ruth Samuel and the Kings were not Written by the Persons whose Names they bear and then inquires whether the Writers of all these Books were diverse Persons or but one and who IN the former Chapter we have spoken of the Foundations and Principles of the Knowledge of the Scriptures and we have shewn them to be nothing else but a true History of the Scripture which History tho' very necessary the Antients neglected to compose or at least if they Writ or left any by Tradition it perished by the injury of time and consequently a great part of the Fundamentals and Principles of Scripture-knowledge was lost which loss however had been more tollerable if Men of succeeding Ages had kept themselves within their true bounds and had faithfully delivered to their Successors those few Principles which they received or found out and had not out of their own Brains forged new whereby the History of Scripture is not only imperfect but remains full of Errors and the Foundations of Scripture Knowledge are not only so few that a perfect History cannot be built on them but they are also very faulty and defective To rectify this and remove the common prejudices in Divinity is my purpose but I fear I go about it too late for things are now almost come to that heigth Men in this point will endure no correction but obstinately defend whatever they have embraced under the form of Religion Reason prevailing with very few so universally have these prejudices spread themselves in the Minds of Men. I will nevertheless endeavour and try what I can do because the business is not absolutely desperate that I may in order shew what these prejudices are I will begin with those which concern the Penmen of those Books that are accounted sacred and first concerning the Writer of the five Books of Moses commonly called the Pentateuk Men have generally believed that they were Written by Moses himself and the Pharisees so stifly defended this Opinion that they counted him a Heretic that thought otherwise and for this Reason Aben Ezra a Person of an ingenuous disposition and no mean Learning being the first I read of who took notice of this mistake durst not plainly declare his thoughts but only hinted his Opinion in obscure Words which I will not scruple to explain and give you their naked meaning Aben Ezra's Words in his comment upon Deutronomy are these Beyond Iordan Now thou mayest understand the Mistery of twelve and Moses also wrote the Law and the Cananite was then in the Land in the Mount of the Lord shall it be seen behold his Bedsted was a Bedsted of Iron then shalt thou know the Truth by these few Words he shews and plainly declares that it was not Moses but some other Person that lived long after him who wrote the Pentateuk and that Moses wrote some other Book to make this appear his first Observation is that the Preface of Deutronomy which begins thus These be the words of Moses which he spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan could not be Written by Moses who never passed Iordan His second Observation is that the Book which Moses wrote was fairly Copyed out in the compass of one Altar as appears Deut. chap. 27. v. 5 8. Iosh. chap. 8. v. 31 32. which Altar the Rabbins declare was made only of twelve Stones from whence it follows that the Book which Moses Writ was a Volume much less then the Pentateuk and this I think Aben Ezra meant by the mistery of twelve unless perhaps he understood those twelve Curses which are in the forementioned 27 th Chapter of Deutronomy which he might believe were not Written in the Book of the Law and therefore beside the Writing of the Law commanded the Levites to repeat those Curses that they might by Oath bind the People to observe the Written Laws or else perhaps he meant the last Chapter of Deutronomy that speaks of Moses's Death which Chapter consists only of twelve Verses but these and other things which are spoken only by guess need not a more curious Examination The third Observation is that 't is said Deut. chap. 31. v. 9. Moses wrote this Law and delivered it c. which could not be the words of Moses but of some other Person declaring what Moses did and what he wrote His fourth Observation is that place Gen. chap. 12. v. 6. where it is said speaking of Abraham passing through Canaan that the Cananite was then in the Land which words must be Written after Moses's Death when the Cananites were driven out and did not possess the Land and this must likewise be the meaning of Aben Ezra's commenting upon this place in these words And the Cananite was then in the Land it seems that Canaan Nephew to Noah took that Land from some others who possessed it if not then there is a great mistery in the thing whosoever understands it let him be silent that is if Canaan invaded those Countries then the meaning of those Words the Cananite was then in the Land must be that there was a time past when the Land was inhabited by another Nation but if Canaan were the first who lived in that Country as appears by the 10 th Chap. of Gen. he was then the words must imply that in the time of the Person who wrote the Book of Genesis the Cananites were not in the Land so that Moses could not be the Writer of it because in his time the Cananites were still in the Possession of that Country and this is that Mistery he would not have made public His Fifth Observation is that which is in the 22 th chap. Gen. v. 14 where speaking of Mount Moriah the Text saith it is said to this day in the Mountain of the Lord shall it be seen now it was not called the Mountain of the Lord till after it was dedicated to the Building of the Temple and this choice of the Mountain was not made in the time of Moses who did not speak of any place chosen by God but only foretels that God would in time to come chuse a place which should bear Gods Name His sixth Observation is what is said Deut. chap. 3. speaking of Og King of Basan these words are interposed v. 11 th for only Og King of Basan remained of the remnant of the Gyants behold his Bedsted was a Bedsted of Iron is it not in Rabbah of the Children of Ammon Nine Cubits was the length thereof which Parenthesis clearly shews that the Writer of these Books lived long after Moses for this manner of speaking argues that the Person related what past long ago and to obtain credit shewed some Antient Reliques Without question this Bedsted was first
found in the time of David who Conquered this City as is declared in the 30 th Verse of the 12 Chap. of the second Book of Samuel and not only here but a little after the Historian to Moses words adds these in the 14 th Verse Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob unto the coasts of Jeshuri and Maachathi and called them after his own name Bashan Haveth Jair unto this day these Words I say were added by the Historian to explain Moses's Words in the 13 th Verse and the rest of Gilead and all Bashan being the Kingdom of Og gave I unto the half Tribe of Manasseh all the Region of Argob with all Bashan which is called the Land of the Gyants and therefore the Historian was forced to explain what those places were which were antiently so called and also to give a reason why in his time they were called by the name of Iair who was of the Tribe of Iudah and not of Manasseh as appears by the 2 d Chap. of the 1 st Book of the Chron. v. 21 22. We have now explained Aben Ezra's meaning and also those places in the Pentateuk quoted by him to make good his Opinion but indeed he hath not taken notice of all nor of the principal places for there are more of greater moment which I will now mention First the Writer of these Books doth not only speak of Moses in the third Person but also testifies many things of him namely God spake with Moses God spake with him face to face Moses was the meekest of all Men Numb chap. 12. v. 3. Now the Man Moses was very Meek above all Men upon the Face of the Earth Moses was wroth with the Officers of the Host Numb chap. 31. v. 14. Moses the Man of God Deut. chap. 33. v. 1. Moses the Servant of the Lord dyed Deut. chap. 34. v. 5. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses v. 10. but in Deutronomy where the Law which Moses wrote and declared to the People is set down Moses speaketh and tells them what he did in the first Person Deut. chap. 2. v. 1 17. The Lord spake unto me and I prayed unto the Lord but then again after the Historian had repeated Moses's words he goes on and again speaks in the third Person declaring how Moses delivered to the People in Writing that Law which he had published Lastly the Historian relates how Moses warned and admonished the People and ended his Life all which namely the manner of speaking the Testimony and Character given of Moses with the context of the whole History fully satisfy that the Books were not Written by Moses but by some other Person Secondly it is to be observed that this History doth not only relate how Moses dyed was buryed and that the Iews Mourned thirty Days for him but making likewise a Comparison between him and all the other Prophets that lived after him saith he excelled them all Deut. chap. 24. v. 10. and there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face Which as it is a Testimony that Moses could not give of himself so could no other Man who immediately followed him but it must necessarily be one who lived many Ages after him because he speaketh of the time past saying there arose not a Prophet since and of his Burial he saith no Man knoweth of his Sepulchre unto this day Thirdly it is to be Noted that the History calls some places by Names which they had not in Moses's time but by others given them long after Gen. chap. 14. v. 14. it is said Abraham pursued his Enemies unto Dan which name was never given to that City till long after the Death of Ioshua as appears by Iudg. chap. 18. v. 29. and they called the Name of the City Dan after the Name of Dan their Father who was Born unto Israel how be it the Name of the City was Laish at the first Fifthly it is to be observed that the Histories are continued for a longer time then Moses lived for Exod. chap. 16. v. 35. it is said the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty Years until they came to the Borders of the Land of Canaan namely till the time mentioned Iosh. chap. 5. v. 12. In the Book of Gen. 36. v. 31. These are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom before there reigned any King over the Children of Israel the Historian without doubt there declareth what Kings the Edomites had before David Conquer'd them and set Governours over them as appears in the 2 d Book of Sam. chap. 6. v. 11 14. by all this it is as clear as day that the Pentateuk was not Written by Moses but by some other who lived many Ages after him But let us consider the Books which Moses wrote and are mention'd in the Pentateuk First it appears Exod. chap. 17. v. 14. God commanded Moses to write the War against Amalek but in what Book it doth not appear Numb chap. 21. v. 10. there is a Book mentioned called the Wars of the Lord wherein without question Moses gave a full Relation of the War against Amalek and also of all those Encampings or pitching their Tents which the Author of the Pentateuk saith Numb chap. 33. v. 2. were described by Moses it likewise appears Exod. 24. v. 4 7. that Moses wrote another Book called the Book of the Covenant which he read to the People when they first made a Covenant with the Lord but this Book or Epistle contained very few things the Laws only or Commands of God recited in Exod. from the 22 Verse of the 20. chap. to chap. 24. which no body will deny who without partiality and with any sound Judgment reads that Chapter it is there declared that as soon as Moses understood the Peoples readiness to enter into a Covenant with the Lord he wrote the Oracles and Laws of God in a Book and early in the Morning certain Ceremonies being performed he read to all the Congregation the Condition of the Covenant which being read and understood by all the People they with a general Consent obliged themselves to all that God Commanded so that considering the shortness of the time in which it was Written and the manner of making the Covenant the Book could contain no more then the few things I have mentioned Lastly it appears that Moses in the fortieth Year after their going out of Egypt explained all those Laws which he had prescribed as may be seen Deut. chap. 1. v. 5. and again obliged the People to the observance of them Deut. chap. 29. v. 14. and then wrote a Book which contained those Laws so explain'd and the New Covenant Chap. 31. v. 9. which was called the Book of the Law of God to which Ioshua made an Addition by registring that agreement whereby the People in his time obliged themselves and entered a third time into
Covenant with the Lord Iosh. chap. 24. v. 25 26. but because we have no Book extant either of the Covenant of Moses or Ioshua it must necessarily be granted that the Book perished unless we will be as mad as the Chaldee Paraphrast Ionatan and wrest the Scripture as we please for he being prest with this difficulty chose rather to corrupt the Scripture then confess his Ignorance for those words in the 26. v. of the 24. chap. of Iosh. Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the the Law of God c. he render'd thus in his Chaldee Translation And Ioshua wrote these words and kept them with the Book of the Law of God there is no medling with Men who will see nothing but what they list is not this denying what is Scripture and forging new at our pleasure We then conclude that this Book of the Law of God was not the Pentateuk but quite another which the Author of the Pentateuk hath orderly interwoven with his work as appears by what hath been and shall be further said where the forecited place in Deutronomy saith that Moses wrote a Book of the Law the Historian adds that he delivered it to the Priests and commanded them at certain set times to read it before all the People which implyes that the Book must be much less then the Pentateuk seeing at one meeting it might be read all over and understood by the People nor can we here forbear to observe that of all the Books Written by Moses this only of the second Covenant and his Song which he afterwards Writ for all the People to Learn he commanded to be Religiously kept because the first Covenant obliged only those that were present and the second not only all present but their posterity also Deut. chap. 29. v. 14 15. He therefore commanded this Book of the second Covenant to be carefully and Religiously preserved to future Ages and also his Song because future Ages were chiefly concern'd in it Seeing then it is not evident that Moses ever writ any Books beside the Book of the Law and his Song which he commanded to be kept and that many things in the Pentateuk could not be Written by him I conclude that no Man can upon any good ground but must altogether against reason make Moses the Author of the Pentateuk but some body may perhaps here ask whether Moses besides these Books did not write the Laws when they were first revealed to him that is whether in the space of forty Years he did not set down in Writing any of those Laws which he prescribed beside those few contain'd in the Book of the first Covenant to this I answer that tho' I should grant it to be very agreeable to reason that Moses should commit to Writing those Laws which he Communicated to the People at the same time and place when and where they were publisht yet I deny that it is lawful upon this Ground to affirm he did for I have already shewn we ought in like Cases to determin nothing but what is manifestly proved either by Scripture it self or by consequences drawn from the Principles of it and not because a thing seems Consonant to Reason for Reason it self doth not oblige us to be possitive It may be the Senate of Seventy Elders communicated to the People Moses's Edicts in writing which were afterwards collected by him that writ the Pentateuk and were orderly inserted into the History of Moses's Life and so much for the five Books of Moses It is now time to examin the rest the Book of Ioshuah for like Reasons could not be written by Ioshua it must be some other Person that gives so good a Character of him in several places of that Book Iosh. Chap. 6. v. 27. The Lord was with Ioshua and his Fame was noised throughout all the Country that he omitted nothing but did all that Moses commanded Chap. 8. v. 35. Chap. 11. v. 15. That he waxed Old called all the People together and at last dyed Moreover some things are related which happen'd after his Death namely that the People continued to worship God as long as the Old men lived who knew Ioshua In the 16. Chap. v. 10. It is said that Ephraim and Manasseh did not drive out the Cananites that dwelt in Gezur but the Cananites dwell among the Ephramites to this day and serve under Tribute Which is the same Expression we find in the first chap. of Iudges v. 21. But the Iebuzites dwell with the Children of Benjamin in Ierusalem unto this day Which manner of speaking implies the Writer relates what was long ago past as appears Iosh. Chap. 15. Verse the last the Iebuzites dwell with the Children of Iudah unto this day The same Expression is likewise used in the History of Kaleb beginning at the 13 th Verse of the said Chapter The building of an Altar beyond Iordan by the two Tribes and a half mention'd in the 22. Iosh. v. 10. In all Probability happen'd after Ioshuah's Death because in all that story there is not so much as one word said of him but the People only deliberated to make War sent Embassadors received and approved the Answer which was returned Lastly it appears by the 14 th Verse of the 10 th Chap. That the Book of Ioshua was written many Ages after his Death for the Text saith and there was no day like that before or after it that the Lord hearkened to the Voice of a Man If then Ioshua writ any Book it must be that of Iasher mentioned in the same story v. the 13 th As for the Book of Iudges I believe no Man in his right Wits will think it written by the Iudges themselves for the end of the History in the 2 d. Chap. clearly shews it was all written by one single Person who tells us in many places that in those days there was no King in Israel which is an argument it was written in a Time when the People had Kings Concerning the Books of Samuel there needs no deliberation seeing the History is carried on so far beyond his death but however let this be observed that this Book must be written many Ages after him for the Hestorian in the 1 st Book of Sam. Chap. 9. v. 9. saith in a parenthesis Before time in Israel when a Man went to inquire of God thus he spake come let us go to the Seer for he that is now called a Prophet was before time called a Seer The two Books of the Kings as appears by the Books themselves were collected out of what was written of the Reign of Solomon see the 1 st Book of Kings chap. 11. v. 5. And out of the Chronicles both of the Kings of Iudah and Israel chap. 14. v. 19 29. The rest of the Acts of Ieroboam how he warred and how he reigned behold they are written in the Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah We therefore conclude that all the Books which
we have named were written long after the Matters of Fact happen'd which they relate If we consider the Connexion and Subject of these Books we shall quickly find that they were all written by one and the same Historian who designed to write the Antiquities of the Iews from their first Original to the first destruction of Ierusalem for the Books are by connexion so linked together that they seem to be but the single Narration of one Historian for as soon as he hath done with the Life of Moses he begins the next Book with these words Now after the Death of Moses the Servant of the Lord it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Ioshuah And ending the story of Ioshuah with his Death he doth with the very same Transition and Conjunction begin the Book of Iudges in these words Now after the Death of Ioshuah it came to pass that the Children of Israel asked the Lord And to this Book of Iudges as an Appendix he joyneth the Book of Ruth in these words Now it came to pass in the days when the Iudges ruled that there was a Famin in the Land. To which Book of Ruth he doth in the same manner joyn the first Book of Samuel that ended with his wonted Transition he goes on to the Second Book and to this the History of David not being fully endded he joyns the first Book of Kings then going on with David's History addeth with his usual Connexion the Second Book The context and Order of the Histories likewise declare the Historian to be but one Person who propounded to himself one certain end for he begins with the Original of the Iewish Nation then in order shews upon what occasion and at what time Moses prescribed Laws and Prophesyed many things to them afterward he relates how they invaded the Land of Promise according to Moses's predictions Deut. Chap. 7. And when they had possest it how they would forsake God's Laws Deut. Chap. 31. v. 16. And what evils should thereupon follow verse 17. Next he declares how they would chuse Kings Deut. Chap. 17. v. 14. Whose Affairs should succeed well or ill according to the care they took in observing the Laws Deut. Chap. 28. v. 36 68. And Lastly concludes with the ruin of their Government as Moses foretold Of things which served litle to the Establishment of the Law he said nothing or else refers the Reader to other Authors so that all these Books conspire in this one thing namely the publishing the Prophesies and Edicts of Moses and making them good by what after happen'd The simplicity and plainness of the Subject of all the Books the connexion of them and their being written many Ages after the things done is argument enough to perswade any Man that they were all written by one Historian but who he was I cannot evidently prove I have some Reasons and those of some weight to think it was Esdras seeing the Historian whom we now know to be one Person carries on the History as far as Iehoiachim's deliverance out of Prison and moreover adds that he sate at the King's Table all his Life which must be either the Table of King Iehoiachim or of the Son of Nebuchadnezzar for the Sense is very dubious It follows that it could not be any one before Esdras the Scripture saith of Esdras without mentioning any other Person Ezra Chap. 7. v. 10. That he had prepared his Heart to seek the Law of the Lord to do it and Verse 6 th That he was a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses So that I cannot conjecture any body but Esdras should write those Books in the Testimony given of him we find that he did not only seek the Law of God but that he likewise explain'd it Nehem. Chap. 8. v. 8. Where it is said that they read in the Book of the Law of God distinctly and gave the Sense thereof and caused them to understand the Reading Now because in the Book of Deutronomy not only the Book of the Law of Moses at least a great part of it is contained but also many things are inserted for the better explication thereof I conjecture The Book of Deutronomy to be that Book of the Law of God written set forth and expounded by Esdras which they then read and that many things are put in by Way of Parenthesis more clearly to explain it We gave you several instances when I unfolded Aben-Ezras meaning there are more of the like kind as appears Deut. Chap. 2. v. 12. The Horites also dwelt in Seir before time but the Children of Esau succeeded them when they had destroyed them from before them and dwelt in their stead as Israel did unto the Land of his Possession which the Lord gave unto them This explains the 3 d. and 4 th Verses of the same Chapter namely that Mount Seir which was the Inheritance of the Sons of Esau was not found by them uninhabited but that they invaded the Horites who first dwelt there and having subdued destroyed them as the Children of Israel did the Cananites after the Death of Moses likewise in the 10 th Chapter it is evident that the 6 7 8 and 9. verses are interposed by Way of Parenthesis with the Words of Moses for the 8 th Verse which begins in these words at that time the Lord separated the Tribe of Levi must necessarily have reference to the 5 th Verse which speaks of Moses coming down from the Mount and putting the Tables into the Ark and not to the death of Aron mentioned in the 6 th Verse Of which Esdras spake here for no other Reason but because Moses in the story of the Golden Calf which the People worshipt said in the 9 th Chap. v. 20. That he prayed for Aron The Historian goes on and declares that God at that time of which Moses speaks chose for himself the Tribe of Levi that he might shew the Cause of their Election and also why the Levites had no Part or Inheritance with their Brethren this done in the words of Moses he follows the thred of the History If we consider the Preface of the Book and all the Places which speak of Moses in the Third Person and many other things which cannot now be known which he added or exprest in other words that they might be the better understood by those that lived in his time without doubt had we the very Book of the Law which Moses wrote we should find that all the Commandments very much differ not only in words but in Order Matter and Sense Compare the Decalogue of this Book with that in Exodus where it is expresly set down we shall find this to vary from that for the Fourth Commandment in Deutronomy is not only commanded in another Form but is enlarged and the Reason of it likewise differs much from that in Exodus so that this as in other Places was done by Esdras because he explained the Law of God to
confusedly gathered and laid together that they might afterwards be examin'd and put into order and not only those things which we find in the first five Books but the rest of the Histories contain'd in the other seven were also Collected in the same manner Who doth not plainly see that in the 2 d Chapter of Iudges from the sixth Verse a new Historian brought in who had Written the Acts of Ioshua and his very Words used For after our Historian in the last Chapter of Ioshua had spoken of his Death and Burial and promis'd in the beginning of the Book of Iudges to declare what happen'd after Ioshua's Death if he intended regularly to prosecute his own History why doth he again in the 2 d Chapter of Iudges tell us what Joshua did and speak again of his Death and Burial as he had before the 17 and 18 chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. are in all probability taken out of another Historian who made the cause of David's frequenting Saul's Court to be quite different from that spoken of in the 16. chap. of the same Book for he did not understand that David by the Advice of Saul's Servants was called to Court as is declared in the said 16 th chap. but that his Father sending him to visit his Brethren in Saul's Camp David by his Victory over Goliah became known to Saul and afterward lived in his Court. I suspect the same thing of the 26 th chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. and that the History of that Chapter and what is related in the 24 th chap. are one and the same but taken out of several Writers but of this enough I come now to examine the Computation of time It is said in the 6 th chap. of the 1 st Book of Kings that Solomon four hundred and fourscore Years after the Children of Israel came out of the Land of Egypt and in the fourth Year of his own Reign began to Build the House of the Lord but from the Histories themselves we can make it appear it was a much longer time till the Temple was Built Years For first Moses govern'd the People in the desert 40 Joshua who lived a hundred and twenty by the Opinion of Josephus and others govern'd not above 26 Kusan Risgataim kept the People in Bondage 08 Othonyel the Son of Kenaz Judged 40 Eglon the King of Moab kept the People in Bondage 18 Ehud and Samger Judged 80 Jachin King of Canaan kept the People under 20 The People afterward had rest 40 Were again in Subjection to Midian 07 Were again at Liberty under Gideon 40 Were under the Power of Abimelech 03 Tola the Son of Puah Judged 23 Jair Judged 22 The People were again in Bondage to the Philistines and Ammonites 18 Iephtah Judged 06 Absan the Bethlemite Judged 07 Elon the Zebulonite 10 Abdon the Pirathonite 08 The People again in Bondage to the Philistins 40 Samson Judged 20 Ely Judged 40 The People in Bondage again to the Philistines till delivered by Samuel 20 David Reigned 40 Solomon before he began to Build Reigned 04 All these Years added together make up the Number of 580. To which number are to be added the Years of that Age wherein the Common-wealth of the Iews flourished after the Death of Ioshua until it was subdued by Kusan Risgataim which I believe were many for I cannot be perswaded that all the People who had seen the wonders of Joshua's time should presently after his Death perish altogether neither that they who succeeded them should at once bid farewel to all their Laws and from a great deal of Vertue fall in an instant into the depth of Wickedness and Folly neither that Kusan Risgataim Conquer'd them at a blow but seeing all these things require almost an Age to bring them to pass it is not to be doubted but the Scripture in the 2 d. 7 th 9 th and 10 th Chapters of the Book of Judges doth comprize the Histories of many Years which it hath passed over in silence We are moreover to add the Years which Samuel Judged whose number we find not in Scripture and the Years also of Saul's Reign which are left out in the former Computation because by his History 't is not evident how many he Reigned indeed it is said in the 1 st Verse of the 13 th Chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. that Saul Reigned two Years but that Text is maimed and we may from the History it self conclude his Reign was longer that the Text is defective no Man who hath but the least Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue can doubt for it begins thus in the Latin Translation Annum natus erat Saul cum regnavit duos annos regnavit supra Israelem Which in our English Bible is thus render'd Saul Reigned one Year and when he had Reigned two Years c. but who sees not that the number of Years of Saul's Age when he began to Reign was omitted and that the time of his Reign was more then two Years any Man may gather from the History it self for in the 27 th Chap. of the same Book Verse the 7 th it is said that the time David dwelt in the Country of the Philistines was a full Year and four Months so that by this Calculation all things else which passed in Sauls Reign must happen in the space of eight Months which no Man can believe Iosephus in the end of his 6 th Book of Antiquities hath thus corrected the Text. Saul while Samuel lived Reigned eighteen Years and after Samuels Death two but the Story in the 13 th chap. doth in no wise agree with what went before for towards the end of the 7 th chap. v. 13. we are told that the Philistines were so subdued by the Israelites that they came no more into the Coasts of Israel and the Hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel and yet in the foresaid 13 th Chapter 't is said that in Samuels Life time the Philistins invaded the Israelites and reduced them to so great Misery and Poverty that they wanted not only Arms to defend themselves but also Smiths to make so much as a Sword or a Spear that Man must take pains enough who made it his business so to reconcile all the Histories of the first Book of Samuel that they should not appear to be Written and put in order by one Historian but I return to what I proposed the Years of Sauls Reign ought to be added to the foregoing Computation now how many were the Years of the Israelites Anarchy the Scripture doth not mention my meaning is that the space of time is not certain wherein those things happened which are related from the 17 th Chapter of Iudges to the end of that Book so that no exact calculation can be made from the Histories themselves neither do they agree in any but differ very much so that it must be granted they were
collected from divers Writers and were never examin'd or put into any order There is no less disagreement in computation of time between the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel for in the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 1 st v. 17. it is said Jehoram the Son of Ahab King of Israel began to Reign in the Second Year of the Reign of Jehoram the Son of Iehosaphat King of Judah but in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah see the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 8. v. 16. it is said that Jehoram the Son of Iehosaphat King of Judah began to Reign in the fifth Year of Jehoram the Son of Ahab King of Israel he that will compare the Histories of the Books of Chronicles with those in the Book of Kings shall find many of the like differences which I will not here particularly mention nor trouble you with the shifts some Authors have used to reconcile them the Rabbines perfectly doat and some Commentators that I have read imposing upon us their own dreams and inventions plainly corrupt the very Language it self for example in the 2 d Book of the Chronicles c. 22. v. 2. it is said Ahaziah waâ— Forty and two Years Old when he began to Reign Some would have these Years to commence not from Ahaziah's Nativity but from the Reign of Omri if they can prove this to be the meaning of the Author of the Book of Chronicles I may in plain Terms say of him that he knew not how to speak Sense Commentators are full of the like conceits wherein were there any Truth a Man might pofitively aver that the Ancient Hebrews did not understand their own Language but were ignorant of all order in History and that there is no rule or any reason to be observed in expounding Scripture but every Man may phancy and forge what he pleases If any think I speak too generally and without ground I intreat that Man to shew me any such certain order in these Histories as Chronologers may without any gross mistakes follow and that while he is endeavoring to explain and reconcile the Histories he will so strictly observe the Pharses and Manners of speaking the disposing and contexture of the Narrations that another according to his explications may in Writing imitate them which if he can do I will throw away my Pen and take him for an Oracle I have been endeavoring but could never do any thing like it I have Written nothing which I did not often and long meditate and tho' from my Childhood I have been Seasoned with the common and general opinions concerning Scripture yet I could not possibly avoid confessing the things I have mentioned but I will no longer detain the Reader concerning this particular nor will I further provoke him to undertake that which I think is not feasible I only made the proposal the better to explain my own meaning and I now proceed to consider those things which concern the Fate or Fortune of the Books for we are to observe that they have not been so carefully kept by posterity as that no faults have crept into them the Ancient Scribes have taken notice of many dubious readings and many maimed Texts and yet not of all but whether the faults which have crept into those Books be of so great importance as to give the Reader much trouble I will not dispute I believe they are not considerable to those that Read the Scripture with any Freedom of judgment and I can positively affirm that I never observed any Error or variety of Readings concerning mere precepts or instructions which could render them doubtful or obscure but many will not allow of any faults at all in any thing throughout the whole Scripture but peremptorily maintain that God by a singular and special Providence hath kept the Bible free from all corruptions or adulteration and that the various Readings of it comprehend profound misteries and will have great Secrets lye hid even in Asterisms Spaces Points and Accents but whether this opinion proceed from folly and the dotage of Devotion or from their arrogance and malice allowing none but themselves to know Gods Secrets I cannot tell of this I am sure I never read any thing which came from such Men that seem'd mysterious but rather savor'd of Schoool-boy conceits I have met with some trifling Cabbalists whose Freaks and Folly a Man cannot chuse but admire That faults have crept into the Scripture no ingenuous Person can deny who reads that Text I have already mention'd concerning Saul in the 13 th chap. v. 1 st of the 1 st Book of Samuel and also that in the 2 d verse of the 6 th chap. of the 2 d Book of Sam. where it is said that David arose and went with all the People that were with him from Judah to bring from thence the Ark of God. Who doth not see that the name of the place to which they went to fetch the Ark is lest our viz. Kiriathjearim nor can any Man deny but that the Text in the 37 th verse of the 13 th chap. of the 2 d Book of Sam. is defective But Absolon fled and went to Talmai the Son of Ammihud and mourn'd for his Son every day It should have been and David mourned for his Son every day and therefore in our English Translation the Word David is put in but is not in the Latin. There are other such faults which do not at present occur to my memory That the marginal Notes found every where in the Hebrew Copies were dubious readings no Man will doubt who considers that many of them proceeded from the great likness which some of the Hebrew Letters have one to another namely from the similitude which is between the Letter Kaf and Bet the Letter Iod and Van the Letter Dalet and Res for example in the 2 d Book of Sam. chap. 5. v. 24. it is said in the Latin Translation in co tempore quo audies the margent hath it Cum audies and Iudges chap. 21. v. 22. the Latin Text is quando earum patres vel fratres in multitudine hoc est saepe ad nos venerint into the margent is put ad litigandum many different readings likewise come from the use of those Letters whose sound or pronunciation is in reading scarcely perceived and one is sometimes taken for another for example Levit. chap. 25. v. 29. it is Written in the Text that if a House were sold which was in a City that had a Wall the margent says that had not a Wall. But tho' these things are evident yet we will make answer to some arguments of the Pharises who endeavor to perswade the World that marginal Notes were by those that Copied out the Books of Scripture purposely placed there to signify some great mystery they ground their first argument which I think very slight upon the common use of reading the Scripture
for say they if these marginal Notes were used purposely to shew various readings and such as could not be decided why then hath custom prevailed still to retain the marginal Sense as always the best and that it was fit the most genuine and approved Sense should be exprest in the Text rather then in the margent Their Second Argument which carries some countenance is this errors and mistakes in Books say they are not purposely put in but happen by chance now how comes it to pass that in all the first five Books the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nagnad which signifies in Latin Puella and in English a Girl or Young Maid should contrary to the Rules of Grammar be Written in all places but one as a defective Word without the Letter He and yet in the margent be Written always right did this happen by mistake and was the Writer always so much in haste that when he came to this word he constantly left out that Letter this defect might without any scruple have been easily mended and supplyed if then these various Readings did not happen by chance and yet those evident Errors were left uncorrected the first Writers must designedly do it thereby to signify somewhat But these Arguments are easily answer'd that which is urged concerning Use and Custom is not much to be minded I know not how far Superstition might prevail but sometimes both Readings or Senses might seem equally good and tollerable and therefore that neither might be neglected or undervalued they would have one written and the other read they were afraid in a Matter of such consequence to pass any positive Determination least they might through uncertainty mistake and take the wrong Reading for the true and therefore resolved not to prefer one before the other which they must have done if they had commanded that one only should be written and read the Reason why the Marginal Notes are not written in the Text is because some things tho' they be rightly written yet they would have them read as they were noted in the Margent and therefore they appointed the Bible to be generally read according to the Marginal Notes Old Obsolete words out of use which the good Manners of the present time would not permit to be publickly read caused the Scribes to put things into the Margent which they would have publickly read Marginal Notes not being always dubious Readings but contain'd sometimes Words and Expressions not in Use the Antient Scribes being Men free from evil Meaning exprest things in plain downright words without Courtly Epithites but after Naughtiness and Luxury began to Reign those words which the Antients thought had no immodesty in them began to be accounted Obscene yet there was no necessity upon this account to change the Text and Scripture it self but for Decency's sake they ordained that those words which signify'd Coition and the Excrements should be publickly read to the People with greater Modesty as they were noted in the Margent Lastly whatever the reason be why they read and interpreted the Text according to the Marginal Notes yet it is not because those Marginal readings are always the truest interpretation for the Rabbines do not only differ in the Talmud from the Masorites and have other Readings which they approve but some Notes are found in the Margent which the common Use of the Language will not allow for example in the 2 d. Book of Sam. Chap. 14. v. 22. The Text saith in that the King hath fulfilled the request of his Servant Which the Latin Translation renders quia effecit Rex secundum Sententiam servi sui which construction is very regular and agrees with that in the 16 th Verse of the same Chapter but the reading in the Margent which is servi tui of thy servant doth not agree with the Person of the Verb. So also in the last Verse of the 16 th Chapter of that Book the written Text in the Latin Translation is ut cum consultat id est consultatur verbum Dei. But in the Margent is added the Pronoun quis for the Nomnative case to the Verb which was not learnedly done for the common Custom of that Language was to use Verbs Impersonals for the Third Person singular of Verbs Active as is well known to Grammarians In like manner we meet with many Marginal Notes which ought to be preferr'd before the written reading of the Text. Now for the Pharisees Second Argument it is easily answer'd by what hath been said namely that the Scribes beside dubious Readings noted obsolete words for without doubt as in other Languages so in the Hebrew later times antiquated and made useless many words which were found in the Bible by later Writers who as we have said noted them in the Margent that they might be read before the People in the Sense and Signification that was then in use for this Reason the word Naghar is every where found noted in the Margent because antiently it was of the common Gender and signifyed the same that did the word Iuvenis amongst the Latins so also the Metropolis of the Jews was wont to be called Jerusalem and not Jerusalaim I think the same of the Pronoun ipse and ipsa he and she because the later Writers have changed Vau into Iod which change in the Hebrew Tongue is frequent when they would signify the Feminine Gender but the antients never used to distinguish the Feminine from the Masculine Gender of this Pronoun but only by the Vowels Moreover the Anomaly or Irregularity of Verbs in former and later times was not the same and Lastly The Antients made use of Paragogical that is additional Letters as an Elegancy particular to their times all which I can prove by many examples with which I will not at this time trouble the Reader If any Man ask how I came to the Knowledge of these things I answer because I have found them in very Antient Copies of the Bible tho' later Writers would not follow those Copies which is the only cause that in other Languages almost lost Obsolete words are still understood but perhaps some will still object and since I have declared that the greatest Part of those Notes are not doubtful readings will ask me first why of one Place there are never found more then two readings why not sometimes three or more Secondly seeing there are somethings in the written Text so manifestly repugnant to the Rules of Grammar which yet are rightly noted in the margent it may be asked how it is possible to believe that the Writers could make any doubt which was the true Reading To this I answer First that there were more Readings then we find noted in our Copies for in the Talmud there are many noted which are neglected by the Masorites and in many places so much misliked by them that the Superstitious Corrector of the Bombergian Bibles was forced to confess in his Preface that he knew not how to reconcile
them he saith here we know not what to answer more then we did namely that it was the Custom of the Talmudists to contradict the Masorites and therefore we have not sufficient Ground to conclude that of one Place there were never more then two readings yet I easily grant yea I believe that there are not now to be found more then two Readings of one place and that for two Reasons First because that from whence the variety of Readings proceeded could not occasion more then two for we have shew'd that the difference of Readings arose from the Similitude which was between some Letters and still the doubt was no more but this which of two Letters was to be written whether Bet or Kaf Jod or Vau Dalet or Res. Of which there was frequent use and therefore it often happen'd that the Sense was tollerable with either beside it was doubtful sometimes whether a Syllable was long or short whose quantity was to be determin'd by those Letters whose pronunciation was scarcely to be perceived and Lastly all marginal Notes were not dubious Readings for as we have already said many of them were put in for decency and modesty's sake and sometimes to explain Obsolete and Antiquated words The Second Reason why I perswade my self that more then two Readings cannot be found of one Place is because I believe the Antient Scribes met with very few Originals perhaps not above two or three In the Treatise of the Scribes chap. 6 th There is mention made but of three which they pretend were found in the Time of Esdras and boast that the Notes were put in by him however it were tho' they had three Original Copies we may with reason imagine that two of them might still agree in the same Place together but every body may justly wonder that only in three copies there should be found three divers Readings of one Place How it came to pass that after Esdras there should be so great a scarcity of copies can be no great wonder to any Man who will but read the first chapter of the first Book of Machabees or the Seventh Chapter of the Twelveth Book of Iosephus's Antiquities yea 't is a Miracle that after so great and continual a Persecution they should be able if we consider the story to keep those few they had We see then the Reasons why we no where meet with more then two dubious Readings so that it can be no argument at all to conclude that because there are no where more then two therefore the Bible in those noted places was not written right purposely to signify some Mistery The Second Objection which saith some things are so manifestly false written that no body can deny it and therefore those Errors ought to have been corrected rather in the Text then noted in the margent is of no great weight nor am I obliged to know what was the Reason they did not do it perhaps it was beeause they were so honest as to leave the Bible to posterity just as they found it in the few Originals they met with and thought fit to note the disagreement between the Original Copies rather as divers then dubious Readings nor have I called them dubious upon any other account but because I cannot tell which of the two ought to be preferr'd Lastly The Scribes beside these dubious readings by leaving a void space in the middle of Paragraphs have noted many defective places the precise number of which spaces the Masorites have observed to be twenty eight I know not whether they believe there is likewise some mistery in that number the Pharisees are very religious observers of this space there is an Example of one of them Gen. Chap. 4. v. 8. In the Latin Translation 't is thus written dixit Cain Habeli Fratri suo contigit dum erant in Campo ut Cain So that where we expected to hear what it was Cain said to his Brother there is only a void Space of which spaces the Scribes have left Twenty eight in many of which nothing would seem to be wanting if there had not been such a void space left CHAP. X. The rest of the Books of the Old Testament in like manner examined OF the two Books of Chronicles there is not much to be said worth a man's knowing nor any thing that is certain more than that they were written long after Esdras and perhaps after Iudas Maccabeus rebuilt the Temple for in the 9 th chap. of the first Book of Chron. the Historian tells us what Families in the time of Esdras first inhabited Ierusalem and in the 17 th verse of that Chapter speaks of the Porters whereof two are likewise named in the 19 th verse of the 11 th chapter of Nehemiah which is a plain proof that these Books were written after the City was rebuilt Concerning the Writer the Authority Doctrine and usefulness of the Books I can say nothing but I very much wonder they should be esteem'd Sacred and Canonical by those men who think the Book of Wisdom Tobit and others Apocriphal It is not my purpose to magnify their Authority seeing they are generally receiv'd for Canonical as they are I leave them The Psalms were collected and divided into five Books in the time of the Second Temple for the 88 th Psalm was by the testimony of Philo Iudaeus published when King Iehoiachim was kept a Prisoner at Babylon and the 89 th Psalm when he was set at liberty I believe Philo would not have said it had it not been the received Opinion of his time or had he not heard it from very credible persons I believe the Proverbs of Solomon were collected much about the same time or at least in the days of King Iosiah because it is said Prov. chap. 25. v. 1. These are the Pooverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out But I cannot here forbear to take notice of the great boldness of the Rabbins who would have excluded this Book and that of Ecclesiastes out of the Sacred Canon which had been certainly done had they not met with some places which commend Moses Law 't is pity such things so sacred and excellent should lie at the mercy of such men we thank them for communicating them to us but 't is a great doubt whether they have been faithfully deliver'd to posterity which I will not here strictly examin but proceed to the Books of the Prophets Having seriously consider'd them I plainly perceive That the Prophesies contain'd in them were collected out of other Books they are not set down in the order wherein they were deliver'd nor written by the Prophets themselves neither are all recorded but such as here and there could be found out so that these Books are but meer fragments of the Prophets Isaiah began to prophesy in the time of Vzziah King of Iudah as the Writer of the Book of Isaiah himself testifies in the 1 st chap. and 1
some are more and others less in Nehemiah than they are in Ezra and amount in all to thirty one thousand eighty nine so that there is no doubt but that the errors as well in the Book of Ezra as of Nehemiah were in the particular numbers Commentators rack their Wits and Inventions to reconcile these apparent contradictions and while they adore the very Words and Letters of Scripture do nothing as we have already said but expose the Writers of the Bible to Contempt as if they knew not how to speak or put that which was spoken by them into any order yea they do nothing but make that part of Scripture which is plain obscure For if every Man should take a liberty of explaining Scripture as they do we could not be sure of the true sense of any part thereof I am perswaded those Commentators themselves tho' they with so much zeal excuse the Writers of the Old Testament would count any other Man a ridiculous Historian who should write as they have done and if they think him a Blasphemer who says the Scripture is in some places faulty what shall I say of those Men who bely the Scripture and so expose the holy Pen-men thereof as if they knew not how to speak and deny the plain and clear sense of Scripture What in it can be plainer than that Esdras and his fellow Priests in the second Chapter of that Book which is said to be his took a particular account of all that went up to Ierusalem seeing the number of them is set down who could not derive their Pedigree as well as theirs that could And what is more clear than that Nehemiah as appears by the 7 th chap. and 5 th verse of that Book only copy'd out the Register which Esdras had made Who ever makes any other Exposition thereof denies the true sense of Scripture and consequently the Scripture it self 'T is ridiculous Piety to pretend to rectify one place of Scripture by another when plain places are darkened by obscure and those that are right and true corrected and corrupted by those that are false and erroneous but God forbid I should call them Blasphemers who have no malicious intentions because there is no Man free from Error Beside the Errors which are in the particular numbers both of Esdras and Nehemiah's Genealogy there are divers in the names of the Families more in the very Pedigrees in the Histories and I fear likewise in the very Prophesies themselves for the Prophesie of Ieremy in the 22 th chap. against Iehoiachim which says He should be buried with the burial of an Ass drawn and cast forth beyond the Gates of Ierusalem doth not at all agree with the History of him in the last Chapter of the 2 d. Book of Kings no nor with what is related of him in the last Chapter of Ieremy especially in the last Verse neither do I see any reason why Ieremy should tell King Zedechiah that he should die in peace Ierem. chap. 34. v. 5. who was taken Captive and after he had seen his Children slain before his Face had his own Eyes put out If Prophesies may be interpreted according to events the names of those two Kings seem to be mistaken one for the other but that is too paridoxical to be maintain'd and I had rather leave the point under an impossibility of being determin'd seeing if there be any error in it it must be the fault of the Historian and not in the Original Copies from whence he wrote Of any other Errors I will take no particular notice seeing I cannot without troubling the Reader because they have been already noted by others Rabbi Solomon finding the manifest contradictions which are in the erroneous Genealogies doth in his Commentaries on the 8 th chap. of the first Book of Chronicles break out into these words Esdras whom he supposeth to have written the Chronicles called the Sons of Benjamin by wrong names and deriv'd his Pedigree otherwise than we find it in the Book of Genesis and describes the greatest part of the Cities of the Levites otherwise than Joshua did because he met with different Originals And a little after saith The Genealogy of Gibeon and others is twice and diversly repeated because Esdras found different Registers of each Genealogy and in copying them out follow'd those whereof the greater number did agree but when the number of differing Genealogies was equal he wrote after the Original of both So that it appears by Rabbi Solomon's own confession these Books were copied from uncertain and imperfect Originals The Commentators themselves many times do nothing more than shew the causes of the errors and I believe that no person of any sound Judgment can think that the Sacred Historians did write purposely to contradict themselves Perhaps it will be said I go about to overthrow the Scripture and give occasion to suspect that it is every where faulty but I have prov'd the contrary for I hereby vindicate the Scripture and provide against the adulterating and corrupting thereof in those places which are clear and true It doth not follow that because some places are faulty therefore all must be so because every Book is in some places false 't is no good ground to conclude it is no where true especially when the Stile of it is perspicuous and the meaning of the Author perfectly known So much for the Books of the Old Testament Now by what hath been said we may easily conclude that before the time of Iudas Macchâ—bâ—us no Books were esteemed Canonical but those which we now have from the Pharisees of the Second Temple who likewise instituted set forms of Prayer these Books being selected from many others and only by their Decree receiv'd into the Canon he therefore that will demonstrate the Authority of Holy Scripture is bound to prove the Authority of every particular Book the proving any one to be Divine is not enough to prove the Divinity of all unless it be granted that the Council of the Pharisees could not err which is impossible for any Man to make good the reason which inclines me to believe that none but the Pharisees chose the Books of the Old Testament and made them Sacred by Canon is because the last Chapter of Daniel declares That there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead which the Zadduces utterly deny'd Moreover in the Treatise of the Sabbath chap. 2. fol. 30. parag the 2 d Rabbi Iehuda says The learned in the Law endeavour'd to suppress the Book of Ecclesiastes because many expressions in it were contrary which observe to the Books of the Law of Moses but the reason why it was not suppress'd was because it begun and ended according to the Law A little after he saith They would also have conceal'd the Book of Proverbs and lastly in the first Chapter of the same Treatise fol. 13 th these are his words Truly I name the Man for kindness sake had it not been for
Neguniah the Son of Hiskiah the Book of Ezechiel had been absconded because there are expressions in it repugnant to the words of the Law By all which it is manifest that the learned in the Law held a Council to determin what Books should be receiv'd for Sacred and what should be rejected so that whoever will be sure of the Authority of all must search into the Council and know upon what ground and reason every Book was receiv'd I should now examin the Books of the New Testament but I hear it hath been already done by Men learned in the Sciences and skilful in Tongues I am not Grecian good enough to undertake it beside we want Original Copies of those Books which were written in Hebrew and therefore I will not ingage my self in the business but only observe some things which make to my main purpose and that shall be the work of my next Chapter CHAP. XI Enquires whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as Apostles and Prophets or only as Teachers and sheweth what is the Office of an Apostle WHoever reads the New Testament must be convinc'd that the Apostles were Prophets but because the Prophets as I have shew'd in the end of the first Chapter did but seldom and not always speak by Revelation it may very well be a Question Whether the Apostles like Moses Ieremy and others did by express Command and Revelation write their Epislles as Prophets or else only as private Men and Teachers especially because in the 1 st Epist. to the Corinthians chap. 14. v. 6. Paul in express terms declares there are two sorts of speaking the one by Revelation the other by Knowledge I say therefore it may be doubted whether the Apostles in their Writings did Prophesie or instruct Their Stile if we mark it is very far different from that us'd in Prophesie it was alway the custom of the Prophets to declare That they spake by the Command of God still beginning with expressions like these So faith the Lord The Lord of Hosts saith The Word and Decree of the Lord which they did use not only in their publick Speeches but also in their Letters or Writings which contain'd Revelations as appears in the Letter written by Elijah the Prophet to King Iehoram 2 d Book of Chron. chap 21. v 12. and there came a Writing to him from Elijah the Prophet saying Thus saith the Lord God but in the Apostles Writings we meet with no such expressions but the clean contrary 1 st Epist Corinth chap. 7. v. 40. Paul says he speaks after his own Judgment Yea in many places we find expressions which argue a doubtful and uncertain mind as in the Epist. to the Rom. chap. 3. v. 28. Therefore we conclude And Rom. chap. 8 v. 18. for I reckon and many of the like kind Beside these there are other manners of speaking which do not at all savor of Prophetical Authority as in the 1 st Epist. Corinth chap. 7. v. 6. But I speak this by permission not of commandment and in the 25. verse of the same chap. I give my Iudgment as a Man who hath obtain'd mercy of the Lord to be faithful and it is to be observ'd That when Paul in this Chapter speaks as if he did not know whether he had or had not a command from the Lord for what he said it is not to be understood of a Command from God by Revelation but only that he preach'd that Doctrine which Christ the Lord taught his Disciples in the Mount. Moreover if we observe in what manner the Apostles deliver the Doctrine of the Gospel in their Writings we shall find it much different from the Prophets way of instructing for the Apostles are always found reasoning insomuch that they seem rather to dispute than Prophesie Prophesies contain nothing but positive Opinions and Decrees therefore God is always introduced not arguing with Reason but peremptorily commanding by the Power and Soveraignty of his Nature and Essence Prophetieal Authority allows of no rational disputing for whoever will by reasoning confirm his Opinions doth in so doing submit them to the Arbitrary Judgment of another as doth Paul reasoning in his 1 st Epist to the Corinth chap. 10. v. 15. I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say And lastly because the Prophets did not understand the things that were reveal'd to them by Reason and Natural Knowledge as we have shewed in the first Chapter tho' some things in the Pentateuch seem to be concluded and confirmed by Inference and Illation yet if we consider them they cannot be taken for peremptory and decisive Arguments For example when Moses said to the Israelites Deut. chap. 21. v. 27. Behold while I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my death We are not here to think that this was an Argument used to convince the Israelites by Reason that they would certainly after Moses death depart from the worship of God because the Argument had been false as may be prov'd by Scripture for the people persevered constantly in it during the life of Ioshua and the Elders and afterwards also in the life time of Samuel David and Solomon these words therefore of Moses were but a moral manner of speaking which he Rhetorically us'd the more strongly to imagin and foretel that peoples future defection the reason why I do not say that Moses to make his Prediction true spake these words of himself and not by Revelation as a Prophet is because in the 21 verse of the same Chapter God reveals to Moses in other words what the people would do so that there was no need of reasoning to make Moses surer of this Prediction and Decree but it was only necessary to give him a livelier representation thereof in his imagination as I have shewed in the first Chapter which could be done no better way than by imagining that the peoples present rebellious Humor which he had so often try'd would be the very same for the future so that we are not to think Moses's Arguments which we meet with in the Petanteuch to be drawn from the Repositories of Reason but to be taken only for manners of speaking whereby he did more lively imagin and more effectually express God's Decrees I will not deny but that the Prophets might reason and argue by Revelation but that which I maintain is That the Prophets by how much more rational the Arguments were which they used so much more natural did their Knowledge appear which they had of things revealed and that the Prophets knowledge was supernatural chiefly appear'd in their speaking Dogmatically Imperiously and Sententiously so that Moses the chief Prophet never made use of any Logical Argument and I therefore conclude Paul's long Deductions and Reasonings which we find in his Epistle to the Romans were never written by Supernatural Revelation and the manner of speaking and arguing in the Writings of the Apostles doth
are deep Mysteries hidden in the Scripture but because from thence hath sprung up intollerable Superstition and many other mischievous inconveniences of which I spake in the beginning of the seventh Chapter I could not possibly pass them by Religion needs not be attired with any Superstitious Ornaments but rather loseth part of its Beauty and Lustre when it is adorned with such Fopperies But some will say That tho' the Divine Law be written in Mens Hearts yet nevertheless the Scripture is the word of God and therefore 't is as unlawful to say of Scripture as of the Word of God that 't is maimed or corrupted I on the other side fear such Men pretend too much Sanctity and convert Religion into Superstition yea that they worship Pictures and Images that is Paper and Ink for the Word of God this I know that I have said nothing misbecoming the Scripture or the Word of God and that I have laid down no Position which I have not made good by clear Reason and therefore I may positively aver that I have not publish'd any thing that is impious or that savors of the least impiety I confess some prophane persons to whom Religion is a burthen may take a liberty of sinning and without any reason indulging their sensual pleasure may infer that the Scripture is every where faulty and falsify'd and consequently of no Authority to such Men nothing will be an answer for according to the common saying that which is never so well and truly spoken may be abused by an ill and sinister Interpretation they that are lovers of their Pleasure will take any occasion to do it and they who in time past had those Originals the Ark of the Covenant the Prophets and Apostles themselves were not one jot the more obedient or the better for them but all as well Iews as Gentiles were alike still the same and Vertue in all Ages was a thing very rare But to clear all Scruples I will now shew upon what ground and reason Scripture or any other mute thing may be called Sacred or Holy next what is indeed the Word of God that it is not contained in a certain number of Books And lastly that as it contains those things which are necessary to Obedience and Salvation it cannot be corrupted By these particulars every one may easily judge that I speak nothing against the Word of God or give any occasion for Men to be wicked or ungodly That is called Holy and Divine which is dedicated to Piety and the practice of Religion and a thing continues Holy so long as Men make a Religious use thereof when Men cease to be Religious that thing ceaseth to be Sacred and when the thing is used to impious purposes then that thing which was before Sacred becomes unholy and prophane For example the very place called by Iacob the Patriarch Beth-el the House of God because he there worship'd God reveal'd to him was afterwards called by the Prophets the House of Iniquity Amos chap. 5. v. 5. Hoshea chap. 10. v. 5. because the Israelites by the Command of Ieroboam did there sacrifice to Idols Another example will plainly prove the thing Words have a certain signification only by use and custom and if they be according to that use so disposed that they move Men who read them to Devotion then those words are esteemed Sacred and likewise the Book wherein they are written but if afterward it come to pass that the use of those words is lost and thereby the words become insignificant and the Book wherein such words are is quite neglected and laid aside either through malice or because Men have no need of it then the words and the Book as they are of no use so have they no Sanctity in them Lastly If those words come to be otherwise construed and Custom so far prevail as to give them a clean contrary sense and signification then the words and the Book which were before esteemed Sacred may become filthy and profane whence it follows that nothing can be absolutely either Sacred or Profane but only in respect of Mans Mind or Understanding which clearly appears by many places of Scripture I will quote only one or two Ieremy chap. 7. v. 24. saith the Iews did falsely call Solomon's Temple the Temple of God for as he further saith in that Chapter the Name of God could remain in that Temple no longer than it was frequented by Men who worship'd him and maintain'd Justice but when Murderers Robbers and Idolaters resorted to it 't was then but a Den of Thieves I have often wonder'd that the Scripture no where declares what became of the Ark of the Covenant certainly it was either lost or burnt with the Temple tho' nothing was esteemed more Sacred and Venerable among the Iews The Scripture then is Sacred and its sayings Divine so long as Men are thereby moved to Devotion but if the Scripture be quite neglected as it was heretofore by the Iews it is nothing but Paper and Ink 't is then profaned and left liable to Corruption and when it is corrupted and perisheth it cannot be truly said the Word of God is corrupted and lost as in the Prophet Ieremy's time it could not be truly said the Temple of God was burnt which Ieremy himself declareth of the Law for chap. 8. v. 8. he reproves the Wicked in these words How do ye say we are wise and the Law of the Lord is with us Lo certainly in vain made he it the Pen of the Scribes is in vain that is tho' ye have the Scripture yet ye falsely say you have the Law of God since ye have made it of no effect In like manner when Moses brake the first Tables it cannot be said that in anger he cast the Law of God out of his Hands and brake it no person ought to think so he brake only the Stones which tho' before accounted Sacred because upon them was engraven the Covenant by which the Iews bound themselves to obey God yet afterward had not the least Sanctity in them because the People by worshiping the Golden Calf made that Covenant void For the same cause the second Tables with the Ark wherein they were kept might likewise perish 'T is no wonder then if none of those Originals are to be found or that the like should befal the Books we have when the very Original of Gods Law the most Sacred of all things is utterly lost Let Men then forbear to charge me with impiety seeing I have spoken nothing against the Word of God nor have any way profaned it if their anger be just let it be vented against the people of old whose wickedness prophaned and destroyed the Ark of God the Temple the Law and all things else that were Sacred If according to the 2 d Epist. to the Corinth chap. 3. v. 3. The Epistle of Christ were written not with Ink but with the Spirit of the living God not in Tables
Veneration when Genesis was written and this must necessarily be a true and clear Answer because it is expresly said in the forecited text of Exodus that God was not known to the Patriarchs by his Name Iehovah and because also in Exod. chap. 3. v. 13. Moses desired to know God's Name which must have been known to him had it been known to the Patriarchs before him It must therefore be concluded that the faithful Patriarchs were ignorant of this Name of God and that the Knowledge of God is a Gift not a Command It is now time to pass on to the proof of the second Particular That God required from Men by his Prophets no other Knowledge of himself than the Knowledge of his Divine Justice and Love that is those Attributes which Men in a right course of living may in some measure and degree imitate which the Prophet Ieremy in express words declares for chap. 20. v. 15 16. speaking of King Iosiah he saith Did not thy Father eat and drink and do Iudgment and Iustice and then it was well with him he judged the cause of the poor and the needy then it was well with him is not this to know me saith the Lord Nor are those words less clear chap. 9. v. 24. Let him that glorieth glory in this that he understandeth and knoweth me that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness Iudgment and Righteousness in the Earth for in these things I delight saith the Lord. We have a further proof Exod. chap. 34. v. 6. where Moses desiring to see and know God God revealeth no other Attributes to him but such as declare his Divine Justice and Love. Lastly How express in the point are the words of St. Iohn in the fourth Chapter of his first Epistle because no Man ever saw God he maketh God known only by Love and concludes that he knoweth God and God dwelleth in him who hath Charity We see then that Moses Ieremy and Iohn comprize that Knowledge of God which every Man is bound to have in that only wherein we say 't is comprehended namely in believing that God is superlatively just and merciful and the only pattern of a good life The Scripture doth no where give any express and positive definition of God neither doth it prescribe any other Attributes to be imitated and believed by us but those we have named nor are those expresly commended as Attributes so that from all these things we conclude that the intellectual Knowledge of God which considers God as he is in his own Nature and Essence which Nature no Man can by any certain course of life imitate or take for his pattern doth not at all teach a Man how to live well neither doth it concern a Man's Faith or revealed Religion So that a Man may be infinitely mistaken in it and yet not offend God. Let us not wonder then that God apply'd himself to the Imaginations and preconceived Opinions of the Prophets and that faithful Believers had different Opinions of God as by many Instances we have proved in the second Chapter nor let any Man wonder that the Sacred Volumes do every where speak so improperly of God ascribing to him Hands Feet Eyes Ears Mind Local Motion yea Passions of the Mind saying he is Jealous Merciful c. and sometimes set him out as a Judge sitting in Heaven on a Regal Throne and Christ at his Right hand all which is spoken according to the Capacity of the Vulgar whom the Scripture intended to make Obedient but not Learned Of these things whatever ordinary profest Divines have by Reason and Natural Light discovered to be disagreeable to the Divine Nature they will have Metaphorically Interpreted but that which is above their Capacity must be taken Litterally If all things of this kind we meet with in Scripture must be taken and understood Metaphorically then the Scripture was not written for the rude and ignorant common people but for the Learned and especially for Philosophers and if it should be sin piously and in simplicity of Heart to believe those things of God which the Sacred Volumes have in the Letter ascribed to him the Prophets considering the weakness of the common people's Understanding ought to have been very wary and careful what Phrases and Expressions they used and should have clearly and plainly which is no where done declared those Attributes of God which every Man is bound to believe No Man ought to think that Opinions considered absolutely in themselves without respect to a Man's Works have any Piety or Impiety in them but a Man is said to be Godly or Ungodly in his Faith in respect of those Opinions which incline him to Obedience or those that encourage him to Sin and Disobedience so that if a Man tho' he rightly and truly believe be stubborn and disobedient his Faith is evil and on the contrary if a Man believe that which is false and yet live well his Faith is good for the true knowledge of God is not a Precept but a Divine Gift and God never required from Men any other Knowledge than that of his Divine Love and Justice which Knowledge is necessary only to Obedience not to Science CHAP. XIV What is Faith. Who are Believers The fundamentals of Faith stated Faith distinguish'd from Philosophy or Reason TO understand truly what Faith is 't is very necessary to know that the Scripture was fitted and accommodated not only to the Capacity of the Prophets but also to the Understanding of the inconstant mutable vulgar people of the Iewish Nation of which no person can be ignorant that will but a little consider and observe the Scripture He that will take all things which are promiscuously set down in Scripture to be that universal positive Doctrine whereby God is to be known can never rightly discern what was suited to the Capacity of the Iews but not being able to distinguish between Divine Doctrine and the common peoples Opinions must take human Fictions and Fancies for Heavenly Instructions and consequently very much abuse the Sacred Scriptures Authority Who doth not plainly see that this is the cause we have so many Sectaries who maintain their different and contrary Opinions to be all Doctrines and Principles of Faith which they confirm by many Scripture proofs so that 't is become a Dutch Proverb Geen Ketter sonder letter there is no Sectary or Heretick but hath a Text of Scripture to maintain his Opinion The Sacred Books of Scripture were not all written by one person nor for the people of one Age but by divers persons of different dispositions and for the people of several Ages distant in time from one another almost two thousand years by some computations many more We do not charge these Sectaries with impiety for applying the words of Scripture to their own Opinions as heretofore they were suited to Vulgar Capacities it being lawful for every one to apply Scripture to his own Opinions if he find himself
Idolize for the Word of God they account it great Piety in a Man not to trust to his own Judgment and Reason but great wickedness to doubt their fidelity who communicated to us the Sacred Volumes Certainly such Men's Folly exceeds their Piety What troubles them What is it they fear Cannot Religion and Faith be defended unless Men be professedly ignorant and bid Reason farewell they that think so do rather fear than believe Scripture God forbid that Religion should be a Servant to Reason or Reason to Religion both may with great Peace and Concord preserve their own proper Dominion which I will presently prove after I have a little examined the Tenet and Opinion of our Rabbin Alpakhar he as I have said would have us receive every thing for truth which the Scripture affirms and reject every thing as false which the Scripture denies and maintains that the Scripture doth no where in express words affirm or deny any thing contrary to what in another place it hath positively affirmed or denied both which are very bold and rash Positions I will not press him with what perhaps he never took notice of that the Scripture contains several Books that it was written by several Authors in several Ages for the use of divers people and seeing upon his own Authority only he maintains what neither Reason or Scripture ever said he ought to shew that all those places of Scripture which do but by consequence contradict others may from the nature of the Language and in respect of the place conveniently bear a metaphorical interpretation and he ought likewise to prove That the Scripture is derived down to us without any corruption or adulteration To come close to the business I ask him concerning his first Position Whether we are bound to believe every thing to be true which the Scripture affirms and reject every thing as false which it denies tho' both be contrary to our Reason If he answer that nothing can be found in Scripture contrary to Reason I press him with this instance In the Decalogue Exod. 34. 14. Deut. 4. 24. and in other places it is said That Gâ—d is Iealous but that such a passion as Jealousie should be in God is contrary to Reason Now if there be other places in Scripture which suppose God not to be Jealous they must be metaphorically interpreted that they may not seem to suppose any such thing The Scripture expresly saith That God came down upon Mount Sinai Exod. 19.20 and ascribes to him other local motions no where expresly declaring that God is not moved so that all Men ought to believe it to be truth and therefore that which Solomon saith of God in 1 Kings 8. 27. That he cannot be comprehended or contained in any place tho' it do not expresly but only consequentially declare that God is not moved ought to be in like manner metaphorically understood The Heavens also must be taken for God's Throne and Habitation because the Scripture declares positively they are Many things of this kind are said in Scripture consonant to the Opinions of the Prophets and People which Reason and Philosophy but not Scripture say are false all which according to the Rabbi's Opinion who in such cases will allow no consulting with Reason must pass for Truths He affirms that which is not true in saying that no one place of Scripture expresly and directly contradicts another but only by consequence for Moses Deut. 4. 24. expresly declares That God is a consuming fire and directly denies that God is like any visible thing Deut. 4. 12. Now if the Rabbi will have this latter Text not directly but only by consequence to deny that God is Fire and therefore must be so interpreted that it may not seem to deny it let him have his Will and let us grant that God is Fire or rather not to be as mad as he we will let this pass and make use of another example Samuel directly denies that God ever repents of his Decrees 1 Sam. 15. 29. but Ieremy on the contrary affirms Chap. 18. v. 8 10. That God doth sometimes repent both of the good and of the evil that he purposed and decreed Do not these two Texts directly oppose one another Which of these two must be metaphorically interpreted both the Opinions are general and contrary to each other what one directly affirms the other positively denies so that the Rabbi by his own Rule is bound to believe one and the same thing to be true and false but what matter is it tho' one place do not directly but only by consequence contradict another If the consequence be clear and the nature and circumstance of the place will admit of no Metaphorical Explication of which many are to be found in the Bible we have spoke to them in the second Chapter where we have shewn that several Prophets had different Opinions and particularly of those contradictions which I in the 9 th and 10 th Chapter have made appear to be in several of the Scripture Histories they need not be repeated what I have said being sufficient to confute the Absurdities and Falsities which must necessarily follow from the Rabbi's Rule and to shew how unadvisedly and grosly the Author is mistaken The different Opinions of both Rabbies being confuted I do again positively declare That Divinity or Theology ought not to be a Servant to Reason nor Reason to Theology but both ought to maintain their own Dominion Reason ought to rule in things which relate to Wisdom and Truth and Theology in matters which concern our Piety and Obedience The power of Reason doth not so far extend it self as to determin that Men only by Obedience without the true knowledge of things may be blessed and happy but Theology dictates nothing else and commands nothing but Obedience not intending or being able to do any thing against Reason as we have shewed in the preceding Chapter Theology determins Doctrines of Faith no further than is necessary to Obedience but how those Doctrines are precisely in respect of Verity to be understood it leaves Reason to resolve which is the light of our Mind and without which we see nothing but Dreams and Fancies But here by Theology I mean only Revelation so far as it declares the scope and end to which the Scripture aims namely the reason and manner of living obediently or the Doctrines of Faith and Piety This is that which is properly the word of God and doth not consist in a certain number of Books as we have shewed in the 12 th Chapter Theology taken in this sense if we consider its Precepts and Instructions perfectly agrees with Reason and if we consider its End and Design in nothing contradicts it and therefore universally concerns all mankind As for the whole Scripture in general the sense thereof as we have shewed in the 7 th Chapter is to be determined by Scripture History and not by the History of Nature which is the