Selected quad for the lemma: king_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A37989
|
A discourse concerning the authority, stile, and perfection of the books of the Old and New-Testament with a continued illustration of several difficult texts of scripture throughout the whole work / by John Edwards.
|
Edwards, John, 1637-1716.
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing E202; ESTC R29386
|
927,516
|
1,518
|
their Law required two Witnesses but his Testimony concerning himself was true was authentick and valid because he was an Extraordinary Person even God Himself and because likewise his Testimony concurr'd with that of his Father and so there was a Double Witness Thus he explains himself in Iohn 8. 16. My Iudgment is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me And again ver 18. I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me Therefore it is plain that Christ doth not absolutely exclude his own Testimony concerning himself and consequently the Texts above alledged do not oppose one another This also may be referr'd to what we observed in the beginning of this Discourse viz. a Negative is often put for a Comparative And that of our Saviour Think not that I am come to send Peace upon Earth I came not to send Peace but a Sword Matth. 10. 34. may seem to be repugnant to other Texts of Scripture which represent Christ as a Man of Peace But this ariseth from our misunderstanding his Words his Meaning is not that he directly intended or primarily design'd a Sword or Fire as another Evangelist expresses it i. e. Persecution and Division But his Words are to be understood as those in Iohn 9. 39. I came into this World for Iudgment i. e Occasionally and by Accident his Coming would prove to be for Condemnation But this was not his Design as he saith God sent not â—is Son into the World to condemn the World John 3. 17. And again I came not to judg the World John 12. 47. You hear what our Saviour saith he came for Iudgment and he came not for Iudgment In such a different Sense he came to send a Sword and â—e came not to send a Sword that is it is Accidental and not by Design that Slaughter and Contentions happen by Christ's Coming These are not the natural Effect and Consequence of his Doctrine and of Christianity it self but they proceed from the corrupt Nature and evil Dispositions of Men who will not entertain so harmless and innocent an Institution but are resov'd to oppose it The Sword which Christ is here said to send is managed and wielded by the Hands of Irreligious and Prophane Men the Fire is blown up and kindled by the Breath of Anger and Passion the Fuel of it is our own wicked Nature inordinate Lusts and corrupt Manners In a word the Doctrine of Christ meeting with the Vices of Men becomes an occasion of Quarrels Divisions Bloodshed and Persecution When Christ sent forth his Apostles he forbad them to provide Staves Matth. 10. 10. yet in Mark 6. 8. he permits them to take these for their Journey But this seeming Inconsistency is removed by remembring that there is a Necessary Staff a Staff to support them in their Travels and there is an Offensive Staff to encounter the Enemy with The latter was not allowed them because they were not to use any Violence especially at this time when he sent them forth So in the foresaid Place of St. Matâ—â—ew Christ forbids them the wearing of Shoes yet in that of St. Mark he permits them Sandals Some sort of Fence to their Feet they were not denied but they must not be â—areful for the better sort of it nay they must not be solicitous about any it becomes them not to be thougâ—tful for any kind of Provision that is the plain Meaning of our Saviour's Words But when he beds them buy Swords Luke 22. 36. which may seem to be contrary to Maâ—tâ— 26. 52. it is as I have shewed an Ironical way of Speaking and so there is no Repugnancy That of the Apostle Heâ— 9. 4. is reckon'd by some as a gross Mistake for speaking of the Aâ—k of the Convenant he tells us that there were in it the Golden Pot that â—ad Manna and Aaron 's Rod that budded and the Tables of the Covenant and yet we read that there was nothing in the Ark save the two Tables of Stonâ— I Kings 8. 9. To which Theophylact upon the Place answers that though there was at first nothing in the Ark but the two Tables yet it may be afterwards the Pot of Manna and Aaron's Rod were put into it and this perhaps the Apostle had by Tradition from the Jews saith he But Grotius tells us that it was the Opinion of the Old Rabins in which he also acquiesces that the Manna and the Rod were in the Ark in Moses's Days but afterwards lest they should be mouldy and putrify they were taken out and deposited in some subterraneous Vaults But first thiâ— disagrees with the former Solution and yet the Jewish Doctors are quoted for both Again I ask were the Rabins sure that these Holy Relicks were kept from moulding in those low Cells or Receptacles of the Earth otherwise 't was in vain to take them out of their old Place and lodg them here Therefore I look upon this as a mere Invention of the Rabinick Tribe as 't is well known they abound with such Besides we learn from the fore-cited Text in the Kings that these Sacred things were not in the Ark even in Solomon's time and if they were not there then at all it is not likely the Apostle would have said Wherein i. e. in the Ark was the Golden Pot of Manna and Aaron 's Rod for who can think that he refers to some after-Practice of the Jews and not to what is so plainly recorded to have been at that time therefore I look upon these Answers as groundless Another is wont to be given and it is this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth fully assoil the Difficulty if you can be perswaded that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath reference to a Word so far off when there is another nearer to it to which it may well agree The Consideration of this made Drusius who once rested in the foresaid Solution to quit it afterwards and to find out another viz. that â— which is rendred by in signifies here ad prope or juxta so the meaning is that near the Ark stood the Pot of Manna But he checks himself for this afterwards apprehending it to be forced and strained Wherefore to avoid all these Inconveniencies I reconcile that Place in the Epistle to the Hebrews with the former one in the Kings thus The Ark is taken strictly in that former Place but largely in the latter one In the first Sense that is as it signifies the Principal Part or Division of the Ark it had nothing in it but the Tables for the Chief Apartment was designed for these and therefore 't is observable that the Ark hath its Name from them and is call'd the Ark of the Covenant by which which is meant the Two Tables as you 'l see in 1 Kings 8 21. But as the Ark is taken largely
that is as it signifies the Whole Body of the Ark and all its Receptacles and Boxes it contain'd in it other things besides the Tables viz. the Pot of Manna and Aaron's Rod. This I propound as a plain and easy Solution of the two fore-cited Texts The Manna and the Rod were in the Ark and they were not in it viz. in different Respects they were in it if you understand by it the Whole Sacred Chest but they were not in it if you mean by it the Chief and Eminent Part of it which oftentimes gave a Denomination to the Whole CHAP. XII Answers to Objections against the Arithmetick of Scripture as Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of Iacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten compared with Acts 7. 14. where they are said to be threescore and fifteen Souls Numb 25. 9. saith that those that died of the Plague were twenty and four thousand but we read in 1 Cor. 10. 8. that there fell in one Day three and twenty thousand David is his Father's eighth Son 1 Sam. 16. 10. yet he is reckon'd the seventh Son 1 Chron. 2. 15. Other Numerical Difficulties in 2 Sam. 24. 9. 1 Chron. 21. 15. and in 1 Kings 4. 26. 2 Chron. 9. 25. cleared A Resolution of several Geographical Scruples as about the Place of Abraham's Nativity Gen. 11. 28. ch 24. 10. Joseph was sold to the Ismaelites Gen. 37. 28. yet in the same Verse and afterwards ver 36. 't is said he was sold to the Midianites Moses's Wife is call'd an Ethiopian Numb 12. 1. though she was of the Land of Midian Exod. 2. 15 16. Shâ— that is call'd a Woman of Candan Matth. 15. 22. is said to be a Syrophoenician Mark 7. 26. The Chorography of the Scripture is sometimes different i. e. it seems to be so from that in Prophane Authors because several Places mentioned in Holy Writ have not the same Names which they are known by in other Writers Whether the Queen of Sheba came from Arabia or Ethiopia is uncertain Ophir is unknown to us So is Ararat But Tarshish is so named from Tarsus a Noted Town on the Mediterranean How East and West in Ezekiel are to be understood Different Meanings in Scripture arise from the Relation which certain Words have in Texts to the adjoining Chapters and Verses Some Instances of this largely prosecuted BUT a great Cry there is that the Scripture is defective or in plain Terms false in its Arithmetick and here many Places are muster'd up as That in Gen. 46. 27. All the Souls of the House of Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten And again Deut. 10. 22. they are said to be threescore and ten Persons so many they were reckoning Iacob and Ioseph into the Number But how doth this agree with St. Stephen's Account in Acts 7. 14. Joseph sâ—nt and call'd his Father Jacob to him and all his Kindred threescore and fifteen Souls Here is an Addition of five to the former Number But the Agreement of these Texts is not difficult because we may say that Moses only reckons Iacob's Children and Grand-children and not his Daughters in Law the Wives of Iacob's Sons which in all are seventy five Or it may be said that St. Stephen reckons up how great the Number of Iacob's Family was before he came into Egypt and so takes in Iacob's Wives and Iudab's Sons although then dead Or thus that he reckons some into the Number who were begot before they came into Egypt but born after their coming thither There might be such a Tradition as this among the Jews and Stephen here makes use of it Any of these Answers is satisfactory in a Matter of this nature But by no means must we approve of Grotius's shift viz. that it was the Fault of the Transcriber he inserted five more than he should have done Again some ask what Agreement there is between those two Places viz. Numb 25. 9. Those that died in the Plague were twenty and four thousand and 1 Cor. 10. 8. which speaks of the same thing There fell in one Day three and twenty thousand Here is a Thousand short of the former Account But if you look into the Context you 'l soon reconcile these two different Numbers by taking notice that there were two different Judgements or Plagues upon the People at that time The Apostle numbers those only that were kill'd with the Plague from Heaven but Moses reckons those also who were kill'd with the Sword and hung up by the Levites ver 4 5. Or I conceive the Difference between the Numbers may lie in this that St. Paul speaks only of what was done in one Day the Emphasis may be in those Words and so here is not excluded the other thousand which fell at another time Some are dissatisfied because they read in 1 Sam. 16. 10. that David was his Father's eighth Son and again in 1 Sam. 17. 14. they find that he is call'd the youngest Son of eight and yet in 1 Chron. 2. 15. he is reckon'd the seventh Son But the Answer is short and plain namely that in this latter Place where there is a particular Enumeration of Iâ—sse's Sons one of them is omitted and it concerns us not to know why Only we know that sâ—ch Omissions are not unusual in Scripture Another Numerical Difficulty is in 2 Sam. 24. 9. where the Sum of the Number of the People which Ioaâ— gave up is said to be â—ight hâ—â—dred thousaâ—d viz. in Israel and five â—undred thousand in 〈◊〉 in all thirteen hundred thousand fighting Men but look into the Accompt in 1 Chron. 21. 5. and you will find a vast Difference between it and the former But why should this seem strange â—â—â—ing there might be â—everal Reasons why these Sums vary I will mention one Ioab had not finished his numbring of Israel but left off because the Anger of the Lord was kindled â—gainst Israel and so brought David the Number only which is mentioned in Samuel Iosephus is more particular and saith that Ioab left out the Tribe of Benjamin and the Tribe of Levi which two he had not at that time reckon'd for David in the mean time when this Number was taking repented of what he did and call'd back Ioab before he had finish'd the Sum But the Captains who were â—et about this Work in the remoter Parts numbred threâ— hundred thousand besides which being put to the eight hundred thousand in Israel make up exactly the Number in the Chronicles and the same may bâ— said of Iudab Tâ—at Place likewise is objected Solomon had four thousand Stalls for Horses 2 Chron 9. 25. whereas we are told that he had forty thousand 1 Kings 4. 26. If we distinguish between Stalls and Stables the Difficulty ceaseth and wâ— have reason to do so because there is a Diffeâ—encâ— in the Hebrew Words used in these Places latter signifies distinct Stalls for Horses where they stood asunder