was the Prince of the Devils or that such was the Name of the chief of evill Spirits We ought to know that the Scripture gives no proper or peculiar name to any of the evill Angels Some of the good Angels and onely one or two of them have a particular name as Gabriel and Michael But the evill Spirits have but one common name as Satan The Adversary The Devill The Slanderer And although there is a chief of the evill Angels yet he hath not a particular name See Mat. 25. 41. We ought not then to imagin with the vulgar that Beelzebub is the proper name of the Prince of the Devilâ— It were the Pharises and not Christ that said so Of Easter Day improperly so called or ill assigned I Dispute not the antient custom to solemnize one Day every year in the memory of the Resurrection of our Saviour although that every Sunday is observed for that end But as for that Day which every year is celebrated there is no reason to call it the Day of the Passeover But rather clean contrary we ought to give that name to that Day in which Christ our Paschall Lamb vvas Sacrificed to that Day in vvhich he dyed and not unto that Day in which he did rise from the Dead For the word of the Passeover being applyed to Christ hath reference to his Death and not at all to his Resurrection so the Day which is called the Passeover is not the true Day of it but rather the contrary It will be alledged that every one doth so understand it and that the words are indifferent if they give an agreeable sense unto them But whereâ—ore do we give unto words a sense which they have not nay a sense which is contrary to that which they have or wherefore do we speak otherwise than we do understand Of the word the CROSSE which is ordinarily abused when mention is made of afflictions THere is nothing more common in the mouths of afflicted Persons or of those who would comfort them then to say that they do bear their Cross and that their â—ross is heavy and man is subject â—o many crosses But according to the language of GOD there are no afflictions which can be called crosses those afflictions being excepted which men make us to suffer for the cause of our crucified Saviour and for the cause of his Gospel To such sufferings GOD hath reserved and appropriated this honourable title of the Cross In the like manner the persecutions which are raised against us for the cause of Christ the punishments the proscriptions the losses the reproaches and whatsoever a Christian endureth for that quarrell are honoured with this Name of the Cross by reason of the Communion which they have with the sufferings of Christ and more particularly of his Death The afflictions which do proceed from other causes have no part in so glorious an Epithete Nevertheless a man who is chastised or even punished for his sins or by his Improvidence or Intemperance hath plucked an affliction on himself will say that it is a Cross which GOD hath sent him This is to abuse the word Such afflictions and those which proceed from hidden causes as that of the man who vvas born blind John 9. 2 3. cannot be called Crosses And yet this Impropriety is not onely in the language of the common people but also of many Divines nay and in their Books also For they do vvrite in their Books that a wicked man hath his Cross also A great mistake For the afflictions of a wicked man are not worthy of that Name If he himself be an enemy to the Cross and is punished shall vve say that his punishment is a Cross can that be spoken of a Malefactor vvho suffereth for his crimes All the afflictions even of a good Christian are not to be called Crosses Of crying sins which men do not discern from others THere are some sins to which the Divines have given the name of crying sins And this Epithet is taken from the Scripture By this name the effusion of Innocent bloud is called because the bloud of Abel did cry unto GOD So also is the abhominable sin of Sodom Gen. 18. 20 21. and 19. 13. So also is the detaining of the hire of the labourer James 4. 5. So also a House builded by rapine is called a crying sin because it is said that the stones of the wall do cry out against it Habakuk 2. 11. And so generally all violence and oppression is called a crying sin Exod. 3. 17. and 22. 23 27. Now there are reasons wherefore these sins more than others are called crying But without entring into the search thereof we are not to think that this name ought to be given to all those sins which are more enormous and exorbitant than others for neither Idolatry nor Blasphemy no nor the worshipping of Devil are called crying sins And in generall I do observe that of all the sins which do violate the first table of the Law there is not one which is called a crying sin All those sins also which are committed against the second table have not that name in the Scripture but those onely which I have specifyed This distinction although it oftentimes be too much neglected even by men of knowledge themselves yet we ought nevertheless to observe it if we will follow the language of the Spirit and not that of the common people for there is nothing more triviall than these words you may here see what it is that cryeth for vengeance It is a crying sin And nevertheless the common speak thus of such a sin which the Scripture doth not put in the number of crying sins By this confusion there will be no sin which we may not call a crying sin if we will be governed by passion by zeal without knowledge Of faults committed in citing the Histories of the Antients I Will produce but two examples A very famous Scholar in his Book of the truth of Christian Religion doth alledge an Author who doth recite a very strange story concerning Jesus Christ which is that the Jews did choose him to be one of those who offered sacrifice and that they received him into their order qualifying thus the Son of GOD and of the Virgin Mary This story if there were no other thing to object against it doth directly oppose that which the Apostle speaks in the Hebrews that our Saviour came from the tribe of Juda a tribe none whereof did assist at the Altar a tribe of which Moses spake nothing at all concerning the Leviticall Priesthood that if Christ again were upon the earth he would not be a Priest c. These fabulous stories which are used to maintain Christianism doe onely serve but to render it suspected nay ridiculous to the Jews and other Miscreants The other example is not of so great importance nevertheless it will serve to shew how the most learned do mistake themselves men in matters purely Historicall
Father which art in the Heavens But not that he ever said The Father which art in Heaven Wherefore then Do we make him to change his stile in the Prayer which he hath prescribed to us But the English Translation doth change also all the other places in which Jesus Christ doth express the Heavens in the Plurall Number when he speaketh of the Father To the same purpose our Lord did never say the Kingdom of Heaven but alwaies the Kingdom of the Heavens One onely of the Evangelists hath this terme of the Kingdom of the Heavens no less then six and thirty times but the Kingdom of Heaven not once which plainly doth demonstrate seeing the multitude of passages in which the Plurall number is alwaies imployed and never the Singular that there is a mystery or an Emphasis in the one which is not in the other But the English Translation to the contrary doth never say the Kingdom of the Heavens but alwaies the Kingdom of Heaven Amongst all the places of the New Testament where the Original nameth the Heavens there are very few where the English do express the Plurall It is in their translation of the 2 Cor. 5. 1. and Heb. 1. 10. Why ought it not to be or could it not be as well in all the other places which the holy Ghost hath dictated And in Ephes. 1. 10. where the Originall mentioneth the Heavens in the Plurall the English Translation doth onely put it in the Margent and placeth the Singular in the text it self Of Lucifer who is mentioned in the English Translation Esay 14. ver. 12. THe School-Boys know that Lucifer is a Latin word and it is the name of the Star which sheweth its self before the rising of the Sun The Hebrew which signifies this Star is indeed expressed it self by the word Lucifer but it is when we speak in Latine not when it is translated into English To what purpose then is this Lucifer in the English translation The translators in the Margent have inserted the true word of the English tongue which is the Day-Star but in the body of the text they had rather imploy the Name of Lucifer as if it were better English or as if there were some great cause which did oblige them to it It is indeed no other thing but the tracing of an antient Allegory which applyeth to the Devill that which is spoken to the King of Babylon and of the Name of a Star hath made it to be the proper Name of the Prince of evill Spirits and give it him in Latin that is to say Lucifer And because proper Names do retain themselves in whatsoever language they are spoken it was beleived that this ought not to be changed for any other But wherefore do we yet retain the relicks of such notorious folly censured a long time since and disavowed by our selves who is he amongst the vulgar that finding in his Bible this word Lucifer doth not immediatly believe that it is the Name of a great Devill whom common ignorance so calleth It is true that the Divines who have published the last annotations on the English Bible have also condemned those who do so understand the name of Lucifer But so long as that word shall remain in the text the error will continue What need is there to retain a word which is not of the English tongue since the English can express the Hebrew without this Latin word which onely serveth to nourish an antient folly The common people of England have a long time thought that the evill Rich man Luke 16. verse 19 c. was called Dives according to his proper Name And for the greatest part they do to this day believe it for they ordinarily say that Dives is in Hell that Dives spoke with Abraham c. As if Dives had been his christen-Christen-name or at least his Sirname Now this ridiculous opinion was conceived and born at that time when the people had not the Bible but in Latin For because that Dives doth signify a rich man in the Latin tongue when mention was made of Dives the ignorant did imagin that it was the name of a man An interpretation as vain as that which is recited in a modern Satyre of one who maintained that the name of Tobyes Dog was Canis because it is said that Canis followed his Master But it is to be admired how this ignorance hath been fomented even by the Orthodox themselves since the Reformation when they published the Scriptures in the English tongue for in the Contents of the Chapter which they have prefixed to the 16. of Luke we do yet read as if that Chapter did speak of Dives and Lazarus The last translation hath not this word Dives No more ought Lucifer to be any more especially in the text it self Of Mary Magdalen who falsly is said to be a Woman of a bad life The injuries which Divines for the most part aâ— her in their Sermons and their Books And especially the English Bible in the Argument of the seventh Chapter of St. Luke THe injury which the Roman Church doth to another Mary who was the Sister of Lazarus hath been sufficiently confuted by the Orthodox Ignorance hath caused to believe that this Mary and another who was of Magdala and the Sinner mentioned in the 7th of Saint Luke were but one and the same person confounding these three in one now we have truly and already vindicated one of the three who is Mary of Bethany who was the Sister of Lazarus but we do still defame her of Magdala as if this Magdalen were the Sinner of whom Saint Luke speaketh There is nothing more common in the mouth of the vulgar then the wicked life of Magdalen The Preachers willing to comfort Souls afflicted with the horror of their sins do represent unto them this Woman as one of the most unchast and most dissolute that ever was to whom nevertheless GOD hath been mercifull On the same prejudice which is but imaginary the reason is builded wherefore the Son of God being raised from the dead did appear first to Mary Magdalen before he appeared to any other for it is alleged it was because she had more need of comfort having been a greater finner than others The common places the Indexes even that of Marlâ—rat himself and other Books which serve for an Address to Students do give them betimes this impression which alwaies afterwards they retain He who hath wrote the Practise of Piety of whom I shall speak more hereafter doth rank this Magdalen with the most enormous sinners yea with Manasse himself one of the most wicked that ever was And yet more to atuhorize this error it is inserted into the Bible it self For the Contents of the 7th Chapter of Saint Luke in the English translation doth tell us that the Woman whose sins were in a greater number then the sins of others the Woman who untill then had led a wicked life and full
that it doth inable him to say Thou art my Father But David did never directly call him so And those words which express this preheminence do properly concern Jesus Christ in the same manner as do those in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee VVherefore then do we attribute to Elihu the language vvhich none ever spake but the Son of God onely or what need vve to seek a Parallel which is to be found in no other place of the Scripture It is not necessary here to make mention of the French rythm in the 27 Psalm which saith My GOD my Father teach me thy way c. For this word Father is not in the Originall Neither will I in this place examin that in the French Catechism Sect. 38. which saith that every believer can call GOD his Father in particular It is necessary as much as can be we should keep unto the stile of the Holy Ghost Otherwise the consequences are greater then they appear to be Of a superfluous word yea a dangerous one in many places of the English Bible expressing the form of the Oaths recited in the sacred History THe Hebrews did ordinarily swear in these terms The Eternall is living such a thing is c. The Examples thereof are frequent in the old Testament The sense is The Eternal who is living is witness of that which I speak And this Epithete which they gave to God was to distinguish him from false Gods whom the Scripture calleth dead Psal. 126. 28. Now in all those places which are many in number in which these words are contained The Eternall or the Lord is living The English Translation doth prevent this oath with a word in the beginning of it saying AS the Lord is living c. The Bible of Tremelius hath also the same addition to render the Hebrew Phrase more intelligible which otherwise seemeth not to be compleat But this addition is not necessary and if it were yet a better may be found The popular ignorance or liberty when it will affirm the truth of any thing will be so hardy as to say That it is as true as there is a God Or As true as God is living A word full of exccess For there is nothing that can be so true as that GOD is All other truths are but the shadow of it It will be replyed that the difference is great between these two expressions As true as GOD is living And As GOD is living For this last doth signify nothing but a resemblance and a conformity to the truth and not an equality But First This comparison is not in the Originall and it is not necessary to say that these words God is living do signify that any thing is as true as GOD is living The sense is more full That GOD who is living doth know that such a thing is true Secondly Although in the Original these words GOD is living are not joyned with any particle to the words following and therefore did render the sense more obscure yet I had rather in this manner to content my self with them then introduce into the text an addition vvhich is disputable And so the French Translation at least that vvhich is most exact in such places doth speak word for word according to the Hebrew The vulgar opinion touching the sin against the Holy Ghost The Contents of the twelfth Chapter of St. Mathew in the French Bible IT is a common saying that the sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable So speak the Divines in their Sermons and their Books But this assertion expressed in such words is either defective or erroneous Defective If we presuppose that there is but one kind of sin against the Holy Ghost Erroneus if we understand that all sorts of sins against the Holy Ghost are unpardonable Both are but one Now this doth proceed from a gross misadvertisement which doth yet continue For if precisely we regard the terms of the Gospel in which our Saviour speaketh of the sin which is unpardonable we shall never find that he pronounced this vvord That a sin against the Holy Ghost shall be never pardoned But he hath said that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be never pardoned Or that he vvho shall speak against the Holy Ghost shall have no remission The crime then which he hath declared shall never be forgiven is not universally every sin against the Holy Ghost but onely Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Certainly we sin divers vvays against the holy Ghost vvhether it be in resisting or whether it be in grieving the Spirit or by what kind of offence so ever it be Is there any one of us who can boast to have never committed any thing against the illumination which the Spirit of GOD hath infused into his conscience Have we never acted against the motions of the Spirit To lust against the Spirit is that also to sin unpardonably against the Spirit But where is that Christian in whom the flesh doth not lust against the Spirit Woe be unto us All if every sin committed against the Holy Ghost were excluded from pardon Is it not a sin against the Holy Spirit to make sad and to grieve the Holy Spirit Now the Israelites in the Desart did grieve him oftentimes Esay 63. 10. Shall we dare affirm that all those souls who sinned thus against the Holy Ghost are for ever shut out from obtaining mercy both in this world and the world to come To prove the contrary we shal find in the same place that the compassions of GOD were even then upon them seeing that his Spirit which they had so much provoked was still their Conductor There are then many kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost and amongst others one which shall not be pardoned that is Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost But it is either forgetfulness or too confused a speech to say without distinction or exception that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven The French Bible in the Argument on the twelfth of Saint Mathew saith that the Blasphemy of those who speak evill of the miracles of the Son of GOD is a sin against the Holy Ghost But these terms are ambiguous and do not express the sense of the text For Christ doth not say generally or indefinitly that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be remitted but it specifies and marks out that sort of sin which shall never be forgiven not any sin against the Holy Ghost but onely the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Of the Name which many give to the mountain on which Jesus Christ was transfigured IT is said that this wonder vvas wrought on Mount Thabor And this saying is as antient as it is common The opinion indeed is not without great appearance of truth For the situation of the Mount Thabor the form the beauty and the height thereof do all seem to speak that it was the place where this
was the Son of GOD And some French Editions do speak so in the text it self But we ought to know that Adam neither in this nor any other place of the Scripture was ever called Son of GOD much less the Son of GOD That Name doth onely appertain to the second Adam So the last French translation doth not say that Adam was the Son of GOD but that he was created by GOD In the Originall the word Son iâ— found but once and it is onely spokeâ— of Jesus Christ Observe hovv Sainâ—Luke speaks it That Jesus was the Son as it was esteemed of Joseph of Heli of Matthat c. of Zorababel c. of David c. of Abraham c. of Enos of Seth of Adam of GOD The sense is that according to the opinion of men Jesus was the Son of Joseph and that in effect he is of Heli of Matthat c. of David of Abraham c. of Seth of Adam of God And thus as many learned men have a long time observed it it â—s Jesus Christ and not Adam who is called the Son of God These words so often repeated who was the Son who was the Son which are added to every one of the persons who are named in this Genealogy in ascending from Heli to Adam These words I say which are not in the Originall have caused divers to believe that Adam is called the Son of GOD But in all the Catalogue this word the Son ought to be referred to Jesus Christ alone which vvithout the addition of these words vvould be more easy to be understood As there is no need of that which in the French Bible is inserted touching Adam to wit that he was created Of the twelfth Stone which was on the Brest of the High Priest which the French Bible doth call a Beryll and the English a Jasper Exod. 28. 20. WE know that the Hebrew Nomenclation of precious Stones as of many other things is at this day very obscure and the interpretations are very different Nevertheless I will speak one word on this place Two Reasons do induce me to believe that it was rather a Jasper that any other Stone First Because it is the very same word in the Originalâ— text for the Hebrew vvord of thaâ— Stone which is twelfth and the laâ—â— upon the Pectorall is a Jasper which vvord hath been retained in the Greeâ— tongue the most antient of thosâ— sincâ— Babel and hath passed into the Latin tongue and divers other vulgar languages signifying alwaies that which we do call a Jâ—sper To this the Translation of Jâ—â—ius doth accord who puâ—teth the Jasper the last of all in the like manner as doth the English Bible Moreover This Interpretation is more apparent by a light which results from that place Revel. 21. 19. The Heavenly Jerusalem hath also twelve precious stones on which it is founded and who do reflect upon those of the Pectorall but they are not ranked in the same order for in that Jerusalem the Jasper is the first stone which is the last in the Pectorall and this is not without a mystery that the same stone which is the last in the old Testament is the first in the new as joyning the two Testaments together and making the end of the one to be the beginning of the other so admirable a Concurrence ought not to be taken away from a passage where it is accompanied with other apparences Of certain Books written on the Revelation and beleived to be propheticall THe Interpretations of Napeir on this last Book of the Bible have been a long time admired but they have now lost their reputation for the term which they gave to divers events that are yet to come is already expired These mistakes ought to serve to disabuse the vulgar who oftentimes imagine that the conceptions of Expositors are infallible predictions So divers men do to this day extoll Brightman who hath also commented upon the Revelations as if that man had the Spirit of Prophecy Nevertheless if we shall observe the applications which he maketh especially at the beginning we shall find that he stragleth very much if we will not take fancies for Oracles Of a prejudication common to a great sort of them who do read or inteâ—pret the prophecies especially the Revelation IT is ordinary to imagine that the Prophecies speak not but of our selves onely or of our Countrey If there be any prediction not yet accomplished it seems to us that that star is directly over our heads and the influence of it onely for our Climat although it may be it concerns us not at all Such a Prophecy it may be is not to be accomplished but in Asia or America and yet we expect to see it fulfilled in our Northern Climate From hence oftentimes it comes to pass that our Interpretations hit not aright I do confess that a great part of the Revelations doth concern our Western Countries but all the prophecies of that Book ought not to be restrained or applyed to this little corner of the World As if the Holy Ghost had thought on none but on us onely Or As if God had no others that are elected in other Countries of the world Of some Interpreters who censure Saint Paul for wishing to be accursed or separated from Christ for the love to his Brethren the Israelites THe learned Marlorat in his common places and the Divines who have folowed and enlarged them writing on the word peccatum and marking forth those sins into which divers holy personages were fallen they do in that number comprehend thiâ— wish of Saint Paul and without haesitation do pronounce that in that he was not without blemish But first of all It is very dangerouâ— to condemn every action or every word which is above the common Rule for it may be authorized yea and imposed by him who is above the Law as was the Will which Abraham had to sacrifice his own Son Such Acts which otherwise would be irregular are heroicall and transcendent Secondly If we would fathom the depth hereof we would say as it is most true that the Glory of GOD ought to be more precious to us than our own salvation And from hence proceeded this wish of Saint Paul Thirdly The words which immediatly go before do sufficiently demonstrate that the Apostle spake this by the Spirit of GOD which could not erre I speak the truth in Christ I lye not my conscience bearing me witness with the Spirit That I have great sorrovv c. For I would be accursed c. Shall we say that calling the Holy Ghost for witness he immediatly afterwards did pronounce those words which are contrary to the motions and the Rules of the Holy Ghost Fourthly If in this wish Saint Paul speaks like a man that was besides himself If his words are to be reproved Is not this to derogate from the whole Epistle and to render it suspected as if it proceeded onely from man and not from
the Spirit of GOD That of Jeremy ought not to be here objected who in the midst of his divine expressions doth pass so fâ—r as to curse the Day of his Nativity For the Prophet did record these words onely by way of Narration to shew that they escaped from him and his desultory stile in this expression is far different from Saint Pauls in this place Of a vulgar Book intituled the PRACTICE of PIETY I Have often admired at the folly of the common people yea and of many persons that were conceived to be more judicious who have almost adored this Book and have made more account thereof than of the Bible it self This little vvhich concerning it I have extracted shall serve to disabuse those who will give regard unto it At the beginning the Author very magisterially yea and with terrible threatnings doth advertise all sorts of people yea and the most learned vvithout exception whosoever thou art saith he who dost cast thy eyes on this Book make haste to read it for fear that before thou hast read it over GOD by some suddain Death doth cut the thread of thy life you see then it is very dangerous to dye before this Book be read over which is so necessary to salvation O unhappy those vvho are dead before they can come to the last page What Apostlâ—e hath ever spoken thus concerning his own writings Is it less dangerous to dye without reading over the Bible it self The Prologue of this man â—o shevv the excess of a Spirit vvhich hath a marvailous opinion of it self But his work doth not answer to his boastings I omit that which may be spoken on the generality of the Book In many thing he is defective in many superfluous in some obsâ—ur in others frivolous and ridiculous and which carry with them even a â—â—avâ—n of Popery it self First he describeth to us the torments of Hâ—ll after the manner of the monks very curiously and as it were by parcels so far as to particularize the ill smell of the Brimstone which doth offend the Nostrill And speaking of the Evill Angels he calls them Furies which is the Name that the Pagans give to their Infernall Goddesses Secondly he represents the damned soul who doth accuse the Body and doth impute unto it the sins which she hath committed This Prosopopeia is extracted from the Contemplations of certain Monks who have feigned a Dialogue where the damned soul reproacheth the Body with the faults she hath done And this smells of the Heresy of those who affirm that the soul doth not sin but onely by the inducement of the Body Thirdly According to the same Monasticall stile he describes the diversity of the Crowns in Bliss As the Crown of Martyrdom the Crown of Virginity which hath overcome the temptations of the Flesh The Crown of those who are marryed The Crown of good works for the â—ivers of Almes as if no other works were good but the giving of Almes onely c. He represents the faithfull soul incountring the Body at the Resurrection to whom she makes this joyfull Complement O welcome are you O well met my beloved Sister These Indeerments cannot but carry a great Grace no doubt with them He doth make it remarkable that the Virgin Queen Elizabeth vvas born on the Eve of the Nativity of the Virgin and that she dyed on the Eve of the Annunciation of the Virgin But who told him either the Eve or Day in vvhich the Virgin vvas born For as for that annual Feast which the Church of Rome doth celebrate there is no proof that it is the Day of the Birth of the Virgin It is onely an ungrounded and an uncertain tradition In the same manner the Day of the Annunciation is unknown to us because we know not the Day of the Nativity of Christ And thus the observation of this Author is buildâ—â— in the Ayr And though it should appear unto us that the said Queen was born on the same Day as was the Virgin and dyed on the same Day wherein the Angell appeared to the Virgin could not the same thing happen to divers other persons And would not the same accident be as mysterious in every one of them It is very likely saith he that on the seventh Day which is Sunday the world will end And to this purpose he alleageth a tradition which imports that the second comming of Christ shall be on the Sunday But the same Day is not Sunday throughout all the world In some places of the world it is Sunday when in other places it is hardly Saturday In which Country then shall it be Sunday when our Lord shall come Shall it be in England or rather in the East Indyes Speaking of Fasts he saith that they were instituted in the terrestrial Paradise because GOD did forbid Adam the fruit of the Tree of knowledge On this account First Adam did fast although he did eat of all the other fruits of the Garden The Isaelites also did fast all their lives because many viands were forbidden them although they did eat of others By the same reason it may be said that a man doth fast even when he is eating This is the language of the Church of Rome to say we fast when we abstain from flesh although we then feed upon abundance of fish Secondly the Fasts of which he there speaketh had other ends than had the abstinence from the forbidden fruit For we fast especially either to promote or to testify our repentance which could not be spoken of Adam who had no need of repentance because he had not as yet sinned when this abstinence was enjoyned Adam saith he was overcome by the Serpent for having not observed this Fast But first he ought rather to have said that Adam did not keep this Fast because he was overcome by the Serpent or to speak more properly by Eve already overcome by the Serpent Secondly these words are doubtfull and dangerous to affirm that the Fall of Adam did proceed because he did not keep the Fast As if his sin did arise from gluttony which is a gross error This Book in the end thereof doth represent a Colloquy between the soul and her Saviour concerning which take these parcels Lord wherfore wast thou covered with a Garment of purple R. Because I take away thy sins which are as red as Scarlet Wherefore was a Reed put into thy hand R. I am not come to bruise the broken Reed Wherefore were thy eyes blinded and covered R. That thy eyes may be opened from spirituall blindness Wherefore were thy feet and thy hands nayled to the Cross R. To embrace thee more affectionately Wherefore didst thou suffer thy face to be spitted on R. That I might make thee clean from the ordure of sin Wherefore was thy side opened with the point of a spear R. To the end that thou mightst find an entrance to draw neer unto my heart O gallant Demonstrations In all these answers and
two Commandements of the Law or two Petitions of the Lords Prayer in one Section onely when every Commandement and every Petition do demand one entire action it mingles sometimes in one section divers Articles of Faith every one of which doth require a Section by its self There are also some transpositions and articles not so commodious as could be desired It would be convenient to change the form in divers respects for we ought not be so superstitious towards those who have drawn up this Caâ—echism as to take it for a perfect Draught We may retain it still but in some places reform it I do rather wish that our Churches had an Historicall Caâ—echism which by Questions and Answers might re-Present all the History of the Bible at least the generalities of it and the most illustrious particulars Some English men have travailed in it And if the work had been compleat it would produce a great benefit to the Common people But amongst so many Caâ—echisms that are written it were to be desired that we had one where the Doctrine of the Sacraments were better grounded than it hath accustomed to have been For although a Caâ—echism ought to be popular yet we should not omit that which gives intelligence of the true ground of the matter Of this I shall speak more largely in a particular treatise if GOD permit Of the Common opinion that in the death of a man the soul comes out of the mouth WHen a man dyeth It is said that he hath his soul already on the brink of his lips So speak the Divines and so Antiquity hath spoken This language proceeds from a popular opinion that when the soul dislodgeth from the body it goes out at the mouth I will not undertake to answer the curious Questions which may be moved touching the coming forth of the soul I onely affirm that this prejudging of the vulgar is not solid If the soul be universally dilated in every part of the body as many Philosophers do affirm wherefore is it locked up in a particular place at the departure If it lodgeth properly and particularly in the heart or in the Brain what need hath it to come out at an open passage seeing it is a Spirit which can pass away at the traverse of the Skull or any other Bone Now who hath told us that it comes forth rather at the mouth than at the ear or eyes which are as the windows of the soul If I were at leisure to affirm something in a point the decision whereof is neither certain nor necessary I should say that it is rather to be beleived that as the soul of the first man did enter into him by the Nostriâ—ls so it goes forth that way Gen. 2. 7. And certainly when the Scripture would express that man is alwaies neer unto Death it saith that the Spirit or the breath of him is in his nostrill as being ready there to come out Esay 2. 22. To this the words of Job have reference Job 27. 3. So long as the breath of the mighty God shall be in his nostrills which is to say when this soul it self which God hath breathed into me shall be upon the point of its departure having no more hold of it but in my nostrills onely Of the testimony which Josephus the Historian of the Jews did render of Jesus Christ THis testimony is found in the eighteenth Book of the Jewish antiquities This Author making mention there of Jesus doth doubt if it be lawfull to call him a man seeing the great miracles which he wrought He also saith that this Jesus is the Christ That at the third day after his death he shewed himself to be alive That such things and other miracles were forespoken of him by the Prophets It is a long time since the Christians employed this testimony of Josephus to convince the Jews But not to displease so many learned men antient and modern I cannot perswade my self that this Jew which gives not the least apparence to be inclined to Christianism hath written so much to the advantage of our Religion Would he so highly have published in his Book a belief of which he never made profession And he is so far from acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ to whom the Prophets did attribute the Segniory of the whole world that on the contrary he gives it to Vespasian a Pagan Prince and applyes to him the Oracle which belongs onely to the Son of God This is far off from acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ It may be objected that if these words above mentioned were not the words of Josephus it would follow that this Author made no mention of Jesus Christ in any place of his History for he speaks not of him but in this place onely which is in question Now it is not believed that having undertaken to write of the memorable things of those times he should in silence pass by the miracles performed by Jesus Christ which were known to all the world But this is not the onely Omission that is to be noted in Josephus The Massacre of the Infants at Bethlehem of which Herod was the Author was so famous that the Heathens themselves did write of it and nevertheless Josephus who hath recorded many other cruelties of this Herod doth make no mention of it And he is noâ— the onely Historian who by contrivement or otherwise hath surpassed some part of that which was most memorable in his time And shall we wonder that a Jew who never adhered to Christianism should purposely omit the miracles of Jesus Christ Was not his Resurrection contradicted by the Priests although they were convinced of the truth thereof Nevertheless I do beleive that this passage was Josephus his own but withall that some have changed some words therein and this is not the onely writing to which by the irregular zeal of some such a thing hath happened But for this in this place Saint Jerom who translated this Author into Latine and who forgot not â—o value the testimonies which the Jews and the Pagans rendred to the Christian Religion doth make Josephus to speak otherwise For he â—akes him not to say that Jesus was the Christ but that it was beleived he was the Christ Josephus then onely reciteth that it was the belief of others to wit the Christians but not his own for he was not a Christian and being not one nor making profession of Christianity much less could he say that Jesus was the Christ Now if one word in this place be changed it is not incredible but the contexture also of other terms is altered in which this Author speaks of Jesus Christ Let us not think the Christian Religion to be less assured because a Jew doth not confess Jesus to be the Christ Truth needs not the suffrage of her adversaries Nevertheless this passage of Josephus is advantagious to us in one respect The Jews maintained that the Death of Christ was not under Pilate