largely handled by divers learned and judicious Men I will speak but one word by the way The affairs of State and all other humane affairs publick or particular are considered First Or in themselves within their circuit every one according to the rules of its Art Or Secondly within that Dependence which subjects them to the Law of GOD which is the Rule of Conscience In the first the Divine meddles not at all He is a stranger in that Element In navigation the Pilot is more to be beleived then Saint Paul if this Apostle had not some extraordinary revelation But the irregularities which we may here meet with to the prejudice of GOD are under the cognizances of the Divine It belongeth to him to prevent them by his Counsels yea and to reprove them if they are broke forth into action Indeed It belongs not to him to handle the weights and the measures in a shop but if they are notoriously false ought he to hold his peace under the pretence that he ought not to meddle with another mans trade The Balance The Beams and the weights are of the Jurisdiction of GOD Proverbs 16. In this Island we complain of divers Divines of the Court who wink at certain innovations introduced under the pretence of the reason of State and authorized by the Soveraign power which then was But because these novelties passed for matter of State it would be a wrong to have blamed the silence of the Divines when they should be taxed for omitting that which they owe to GOD to their charges to the Church and to the Statâ— iâ— self Of the Angell of Satan who buffeted Saint Paul 2 Cor. 12. 7. A now interpretation of that passage MAny as Beza doth think that Saint Paul in this place doth complain that Satan kindled in him some inordinate affections But this Exposition is contradicted by many forcible reasons which have been noted hereupon Others take these words at the foot of the Letter as if in effect some evill Spirit had given buffets to Saint Paul tormenting him in his Body as sometimes he had struck Job Lastly Some understand this of some wicked man who by the instigation of Satan persecuted Saint Paul And to speak the truth it is not necessary that this Name The Angel of Satan should alwaies signify a Spirit In the twelfth of the Revelation the Angels of the Dragon in the judgement of some knowing interpreters do signify those that serve the Dragon as his Ministers And so this Angell of Satan may be some man whom Satan imployed to torment the Apostle But this Exposition hath need of a prop to sustain it and this is it which hath obliged me to bring unto it this note that followeth The language of the new Testament is composed of an infiniteness of phrases which do reflect either on the matter of the old Testament or on divers other subjects Now the passages which contain such allusions ought to be interpreted by them otherwise we shall draw wide or if we â—it the mark it will be by accident I find then in the old Testament a History which is almost in all things the same with this which St. Paul speaks of himself in the 1. of Kings the 22. A Prophet saw GOD sitting in his Throne and all the Army of Heaven about him on the right hand and on the left He heard GOD proposing an affair And the Angels as in Councel diversly debating of it He heard a Commission which was given to Satan which he promised to put in execution by his Emissaries After so high a revelation and the hearing of words so sublime this Prophet is buffered by one of the Messengers of Satan by a false Propâ—et who did strike him on the cheek That History doth so much resemble â—his which Saint Paul reciteth of himself that the allusion is most appaâ—ent Now if the Analogy be entire he who buffeted Saint Paul was some false Apostle who did persecute him And so this quality of Angell oâ— messenger of Satan doth not pertain to all sorâ—s of persecutors but to those onely 〈…〉 them who carryed unto others the Doctrine of Satan Of a great number of places in the new Testament which mention the curing of those who were possessed with Spirits In which our Translations change the word which is in the Original Text THe Names of Satan Divel Demon are the Epithets of evil Spirits nevertheless they are not Synonitâ—aâ— and the Scripture doth 〈◊〉 indifferently express them but dotâ— make use of one of them rather the another as they are more condâ—â—cing to the occurrences or matteâ— which are treated The Name 〈◊〉 Divel and that of Demon are 〈◊〉 in the old Testament but are very frequent in the new the language whereof is Greek nevertheless these two words do pass the one for the other When the Holy Spirit doth speak of these evill Spirits which the Son of GOD did cast out of the Bodies of Men or Women It doth not say that it cast forth Divels but that he cast forth Demons that he commanded Demons that he gave power to cast forth Demone c. From which word comes that also of Demoniack Now since in this thing the Holy Spirit doth express the word of Demon and never the word of Divill our Tranflations ought to answer the Originall in the place where we read that he cast forth Divels c. It is true that this change is more tolerable in those tongues to which the word Demon is unknown as in particular to the English Tongue but since the word is become French It would in those places do better in the translation then the Name of Divel I will make no stop at all to give satisfaction to the Question of the Ignorants who will demand If it be not all one to read Divels instead of reading Demons In one word I shall tell them that we ought to read it according to the Originall And without doubt there were reasons which obliged the Evangelists to make use of one of these words and to abstain from the other when they spoke of those Spirits which tormented humane Bodies Many as the Saduces did believe that these Spirits were not substances but onely motions or Impulsions which come by nature Now the word Divel which onely signifies a Slanderer and can be spoken of a man also doth not so well denote a spirituall substance and different from humane kind The word Demon is more significant in this regard for it is the Name which the Pagans gave unto their Gods who in effect were evill Spirits So the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 20. 21. saith not according to our Translation that the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils but that they sacrificed to Demons I forbear many other observations which might be made on this subject Of Bulls crowned with Garlands which are read in the French Bible Acts 14. 13. THe Originall text saith that the Priest of Jupiter had brought with him Bulls and
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
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
of uncleaness was Mary Magdalen But 1. the text gives no name to that sinner where have we then found it Who of the Evangelists or what other Authentick Scripture hath taught us the proper name or the sirname of that Woman For she who poured the oyntment on Jesus Christ Mat. 26. and John 12. was neither that sinner nor Mary Magdalen but the sister of Lazarus All the circumstances do demonstrate that they are two distinct Histories two divers actions performed in divers times in divers places and by divers persons Secondly Where shall we find that Mary Magdalen did ever anoint the feet of our Saviour Thirdly Where shall we find that Mary Magdalen was a Woman of an ungodly life The Gospell doth inform us that she was tormented with seven Devils or evil Spirits an affliction which may befall the most holy man or woman in the world But we find not the least shadow of a word which doth stain her with any note of infamy Wherefore then do we yet adhere to an invention not onely fabulous but injurious to the memory of a woman illustrious in piety We must abstain from bearing false witness as well against the dead as against the living It is remarkeable that neither the sinner mentioned in Luke the 7th nor the Adulteress in the 8th of Saint John are found to have any name in the sacred History no more than the theif who was converted being on the Cross There are no doubt particular reasons for it and in part we may conjecture of them why the Holy Ghost abstained to express the proper names of these great sinners although they were converted It is not then for us to impose names on them much less to appropriate them to persons whom the Scripture hath not marked with any note of enormous sins Of the Sons of Saul whom the French Bible represents to have been crucified 2 Sam. 21. IT hath been observed that this word the Cross is not found in the old Testament and even that the Hebrew tongue hath not any terme to signify that kind of punishment which was unknown to the antient people of Israel The two and twentieth Psalm foretelling that kind of death which Christ should suffer doth express it onely by a Periphrasis They have â—eirced my hands and my feet It is true that the Latin tongue doth give a more â—arge signification of this word the Cross But in our vulgar tongues it is onely taken for that kind of Execution in which they did nayl to the wood the hands and the feet of the Malefactor And this cannot be said of the Sons of Saul The Originall affirms that they were hanged by the Gabaonits who demanded that they might be delivered to them to be hanged This is the word of the text which is also expressed in the English translation In the place whereof the French translation saith that they were stretched forth on the Cross And that the Gabaonits did demand them to the end say they that we may stretch them forth on the Cross But the word of the Cross or the Crucifying is neither in that place nor in any other of the old Testament and therefore ought not to be in the translation Of the beginning or Preface which is commonly added to the Text of the Decalogue WHen the common people do rehearse the ten Commandements they begin in these words Hearken O Israel c. The Books in which the Extract or Copy of the Decalogue is found The Catechisms in which it is interpreted The Poetical Paraphrases in which it is sung do all give it this beginning Hearken O Israel Now there is no man who ought to take offence at what I shall say He hath more reason to wonder that no more heed is taken of so manifest an addition For those two first words Hearken Israel which we pronounce when we recite the Decalogue are no part of the Decalogue it self nor were they spoken then when GOD with his own mouth did publish it in Sinai neither were they comprehended in the writing which he did give in the tables of that Law This is easy to prove the Decalogue which is wholy intire in two places of Moses Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. hath not these words Hearken Israel But what inconvenience doth arise to place them in the front of the Decalogue Surely none at all for the substance of them for it is well known that it was to Israel to whom GOD did speak them But if we shall affirm that they are the proper terms of the Decalogue it is a great mistake And the Jews vvould tell us that vve are but bad Text-men It is expedient at the least that the common people should be advertised to discern an addition or a Paraphrase be it never so pertinent from the express vvords of that Lavv It may be demanded From vvhence did that custom proceed to begin the Decalogue vvith those vvords vvhich are not there It may be from hence that Christ Mark 12. 29. citing Moses Deut. 6. 4. saith that the first of all the Commandements is Hearken O Israel the Lord our God is the onely Lord But these words do not prove that the Decalogue in express terms did begin so No more then by this which followeth Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. That is the first Commandement For these words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God are not in the Decalogue although the other Commandements have their reference to it as to the first that is to say the greatest of them all To all this I shall adde that the French Paraphrase which we sing in our Churches willing to represent this Preface Hearken O Israel doth not express at all the name of Israel which nevertheless ought to be there expressed And which is more in the place of Israel which was a title of honour this Paraphrase hath inserted an Epithet of Reproach which is a hardned people No man ought to take it in ill part if we mark the defectâ— of the language of men Of a distinction unknown to us which was in the writing oâ— every one of the tables of the Decalogue A Qâ—â—stion on that Subject IT is not needfull in this place to demonstrate that which is evidenâ— in History that the Decalogue was not contained in two pages or Columes as it is ordinarily represented but in four For every Table was written on two sides which were as two pages in one leaf in such a manneâ— that all the Decalogue was comprehended in four pages every one oâ— which did contain a part of this Law Exod. 32. 15. Now we cannot give an account iâ— what words nay which is more iâ— what Commandement the first pagâ— did end nor consequently where the second did begin For one part of the four first Commandements was written on one of the sides of the first table and another part on another side But how many of the Commandements or words and what
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