CHAP. I. Introduction. Adam why Created out of Paradise, and after brought in? Our first Parents Created in perfection, yet never offered to couple in their innocen­cy, though they had such a command, with a blessing; and why? Why, also, they coveted Children after their fall? wherein their outward state of misery is pointed out.

BY what degrees and means the Divine Power and Wisdom would erect a Kingdom to him­self, distinct from all the Nations, which [Page 2] he suffered to walk in their own ways, Acts 14.16. is the scope of these reserches: to the end, that we may come to know (at last) what manner of Kingdom that should be, which God would give unto his on­ly Son. Who being to derive his flesh from the first Adam, we cannot chuse but begin from the head of all; and observe somewhat concerning his state, that hath either escaped some Writers, or been wisely passed o're by others to e­vade perplexity.

Gen. 1.26, 27. & 2.8.As for Adam (then) the School-men have observed, that he was created out of Paradise, and after brought in: from which some of them would inferr, and argue, Si hom [...] non pe [...]âsset, tota terra velut Paradisus qui­dam, ab hominibus genera­tione multiplicandis, inco­lenda s [...]it [...]; licèt ille Para­disus, in quo positus dici­tar Adam, esset ins [...]gnior cat [...]is, ideoque primo [...]o­mini attributus, quatenus gene [...]is principi. Est. in lib. 2. sent. dist. 25. § 2. That he was not created in Grace, but in his pure naturals; and that he was endued with superna­tural Gifts, when he came to be instated there. To which some others have fit­ly applyed this Answer: That if Adam had not sin­ned, the whole Earth would have been a kind of Paradise to the sons of men; but that, that which was set forth for Adam, was adorned for him (in a special manner) as the Prince, and head [Page 3] of all mankind; to be his residence, and mansion (which as it is described, com­prised many regions) while his Children, to be born, had all the rest before them.

Whereas, if there be any mystery at all to be observed in it, it may seem to have been this, That God would not leave Adam, to abide in the wide world (at large) as his own master, and Lord of all besides, without any homage to be paid to himself, his Maker; and there­fore, that he would impale him (with­out confinement) within a certain glo­rious place, wherein he would be wor­shipped, in a more especial manner, by him and his, that were to constitute an holy Church in the state of innocency, if he had held it. Unto which intent, God took Adam into a kind of implicit Covenant (but not the same with that, which some do take for the Covenant of Works) with himself, and to the ordi­nance of the Sabbath, he annexed (as a kind of Sacraments) the Tree of knowledge for his caution; Gen. 2.2, 3, 9. and the Tree of Life for his comfort, Gen. 2.17. as a pledge of immortal felicity, in case of his obedience. But when Adam fell from this, it gave occasi­on unto God to excommunicate, Gen. 3.22, 23, 24. and send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till [Page 4] the [common] ground, from whence [...] had been taken, into that consecrated place.

Now, although it be manifest by it self, that our first Parents were cre­ated in perfection, inasmuch as God bless­ed them (as soon as he had done) and said unto them, Gen. 1.28. be fruitful, and multiply; yet, no Christian ever did presume to think R. Iarchi tamen asserit Adamum, ante praevaricati­onem, genuisse Cainum, quia praeceptum su [...]rat, crescite, &c. At Doctores Catho­lici statuunt cos è Paradiso egressos Virgines: praeceptum vero expectasse tempus debi­tum, [...]t varii Coment. in G [...]n. that there was any offer of copulation between them in the Garden: whether, be­cause they had no burning blood in them, but were like to other tame creatures (that retain their native innocence) which have no desire, but at certain seasons, when men observe to joyn them: Or, whether it was so ordered (according to the fore­knowledge of God) that no kind of in­convenience might ensue; for, if Adam had had but one Son, born in innocency, then all mankind could not have fallen together, in Adam's person; but the state of Men might have proved like to that of Angels, whereof some left their first station, while others held it: Or, if Eve had but conceived in her integri­ty, that conception (not having been [Page 5] shapen in iniquity, Psal. [...]51.5. could scarce have been said to have been born in sin; or to have sinned in its Parents loins: So that it might have been justly questioned, how far such an issue might be lyable to, or exempted from, the consequents of sin, in reference unto punishment? Ezek. 1 [...].4. for he saith, Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the Son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

But as soon as they were fallen, and yet (in mercy) respited from sudden death, they began to long for posterity; both to supply their own mortality, and also to obtain the blessed seed, that had been promised to them for their reco­very.

In the next place, therefore, we have to contemplate the greatest beauties, and the most accomplisht souls that ever were, (as coming immediately, out of the hands of the [...], or first Former of all mankind, in them) thrust forth to dig, or till the ground, that had been newly curs'd with bar­renness. But what shall they dig, or cut withal? He that made all living creatures made no tools: Nay he hid the Iron within the earth, so that without Iron it is not easie to come by it: or if [Page 6] Adam find any in the stony mass, above ground, what should he do with it, if the use of the forge was not known till Tubal-Cain was born, above a hundred years after? But it seems that Tubal was an im­prover rather than an inventer: For the Text says only, Gen. 4.22. that he was the instruct­er of every [ Arti [...]icer] (as if there were Artificers before) in brass and iron. It makes no matter, since we find that the Indians in America had Bows and Ar­rows, and comely Tents, having only ways to sharpen stones, and fish-bones, without the use of Iron, before they learnt it hence. And we will suppose our father Adam to have been much more handy and ingenious, than those bruitish peoples and the better workman needs the fewe [...] tools, and helps: for what could [...]ve do, who must be taken up (for her part) to make some thing or o­ther of skins, or wooll, to be spun, or wove, or patcht, for cloaths and clou [...]s against her lying-in?

Then she could have no other but her Husband instead of Midwife, Nurse, and Tender; and before she could have any child to be officious to her, what a deal must lie upon her hands? And whereas she had this heavy sentence [Page 7] from the Lord? Gen. 3.16. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow, and thy conception: In sor­row shalt thou bring forth Children: and thy desire shall be to thy Husband [for more.] Judge what she might suffer, by bearing and nursing Children, in her time, if she lived proportionably unto Adam, nine hundred and thirty years, and bare (one year with another) but three hundred of them. To which mi­sery, this was also to be added; she must needs bear the seed of the Serpent as well as her own, and not know which was which, till they should be grown: when she should have more sorrow with one Cain, than in bearing all the rest. And thus we have surveyed some part of their outward punishment for sin.

CHAP. II. That our first Parents repented, and belie­ved. That in token thereof they sacri­ficed, and taught their Children so. That Sacrifices were not of the light of Nature, against Pelagius; but of insti­tution; though not to be proved but by inference, as the Lords Supper it self, and Infant-Baptism, and the Lords Day, and single Marriages.

NOR can we doubt, but that our first Parents, seeing into what a state they had brought themselves, did earnestly repent, and embrace the promise of the blessed Seed, and understand so much of the meaning of it as was for their use and comfort. Neither could they live without fear thereafter, of sin­ning (again) by the like disobedience: For by occasion of their sin, they came to see into the horrour of eternal death, which remained as the utmost punish­ment thereof, and which they could not understand so well before.

[...]r [...]naeus l. 3. [...]ontra Haer. cap. 34, &c. Eppihan. Her. 46, [...]7.And this truth the Catholick Church hath ever held with so much zeal, that it hath taxed Tatianus and the Encratitae, of [Page 9] Heresie, for holding to the contrary. For (say they) if these were not saved, of whom Christ was to be born, Nihil quicquam eorum massae salvabitur, Nothing of their mass can ever be saved. And if they were to perish, certainly the whole Church of God was once at a loss and failure; which, that it might not be, God had no sooner excommunicated them out of his Temple of Paradise, but he took them into the Church of Christ, the State of Grace; whereinto he called them by repentance Deus u­trum (que) posl­quam pec­cârunt, non dereliquit, sed incre­pando re­quisivit, & adpoeniten­tiam voca­vit: & ut eos in majorem spem veniae erigeret, promisit Semen ex Mu­liere nasciturum, quo aliquando conter [...]ret [...]r Caput Serpentis, qui cos ad transgressionem Divinae Legis induxerat. Est. in 1. 2. d. 33. §. 10., and faith in his blessed promise. He did not leave them so soon as they had left him, but he brought them about again, by reproving of their sin, and setting a better hope before them than they had deserved.

And the effects themselves will shew it: For they not only submitted unto their punishments with thank­fulness, in that they were delivered both from sudden and eternal death; but also o [...]ered continual Sacrifices and Oblati­tions unto God, both of their Herds and Flocks and Fruits and all their encrease or acquists, that they had; and so they [Page 10] taught their Children all alike, that God might be glorified in all, and their Chil­dren become Partakers of the same hope, which themselves, through mercy, had received. Now,

As for Sacrifices, we may well think that it could not lightly enter into their heads to invent them; but if they had, that God himself was unlikely to be so well pleased with their will-worship, as, first, to accept, and after, to make a standing Ordinance of them (with the addition of many more Rites) till the fulness of time should be accomplished: Nor is it easie to discover how this kind of service (which was a Type and a My­stery) came to be first revealed to them.

I cannot pass the Porch of this Argu­ment, but I shall meet Pelagius ready to oppose me with the first; For it follows from his opinion, That Sacrifices were but of the light of Nature only, if the Fathers, Pelagius docuit pri­mos post peccatum homines, sal [...]atos suisse per Legem Naturae; pos [...]eriores per Legem Mosis; postremos vero per Evangelium Chris [...]i, quasi [...]ine gratiâ Christi, vel Natura, vel Moses cuiquam potuerit prodesse ad salutem. Est. in l. 3. sent. d. 1. § 3. from Adam to Moses, lived by no other light; as from Moses to Christ, by the Law; and we at last by Grace [Page 11] (by him also Pelagius vero, cùm gratiam Dei omninò negare non posset, docebac [...]am in libero arbitrio, in Lege data, in exemplo Chrisli▪ &c. sitam es [...]e. Id. in l. 2. sent. d. 26. §. 18. Naturalis gratia ha [...]ent [...]r bona gubernationis, &c. ut & dona naturalia scientiae, & morum: quanquam gratia significavit antiquitus donum aliquod supernaturalis Ordinis, alque dovec Pelagius abus [...] est boc nomine, ad significandum solam Naturam gratis creatam. Alvar. disp. 1. de auxiliis. Quam gratiam sussecisse ad salutem, secundùm P [...]lagi­um▪ resert etiam Voss. Hist. Pelag. l. 3 th. 1. perperam intellect­am.)

As for the practice it self, there is no doubt: for although we do not read that Adam himself did make any Sacrifice or Oblation, Gen. 4. yet we find that in process of time, Cain ( being a Tiller of the [newly ac­cursed] ground) brought of the fruits there­of an Offering unto the Lord▪ And Abel (being a Keeper of the Sheep amongst which the immaculate Lamb was) brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. Which how should they do, but by their Parents directions▪ That Abraham offered the Tent [...] of his spoils unto Melchisedeck; Chap. 14. and that Iacob vow­ed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, &c. then shall the Lord be thy God, and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee. [...] Ch. 28.20 If to Sacrifices, what should he add? If to any Priest­hood, after the disappearing of Melchi­sedeck, where was the like o [...]der? If to [Page 12] any other pious uses (since the Building of Altars of Earth or loose Stones was of little charge, and Poor he had none) Ex­positors are troubled to shew them; un­less there be some light arising out of those words, —ver. 22. And this Stone which I have set for a Pillar, shall be Gods House; as if he had designed, like David, to erect a Temple over his Altar, if it had pleased God to permit him. Only it is manifest that these things were revealed ( ab ini­tio) from the very first.

Not by the light of Nature: For then, 1. Adam in innocency had been bound to sacrifice; 2. Since Christ's death, Sa­crifices also would be in force as much as the rest of the Laws of Nature; 3. It seemeth rather abhorrent unto Nature to shed the blood of Beasts in vain; so that many of the Heaten Philosophers have seemed to symbolize with those passages of the Psalmist, Psal. 51.16. Thou desirest not Sacri­fice, thou delightest not in Burnt-offerings. Will I eat the flesh of Bulls, —50.13. or drink the blood of Goats?

Indeed it is a Question among the School-men, whether Christ should have been incarnate, though Adam had not sinned; but it was never doubted, whe­ther he should have been crucified with­out [Page 13] out it. And that the slaying of Beasts prefigured this, the common consent of Christians hath made it manifest, who e­ver since the death of Christ, did not only cease to sacrifice, but declare all sa­crificing to be a denial of it, and a cru­cifying of Him afresh. And the power of God hath so wrought, that where­ever the Gospel came, the Heathen Sacri­fices also decayed by degrees. Nay, that where it came not (to our knowledg) as in America, and the utmost Indies, the sacrificing of any Beasts was not found in use when later Travellers came a­mongst them. But why they were in use all the World over, before the coming of Christ, no other reason can be given than that Adam, first, and after Noah, taught their Children all alike to offer Sa­crifice. But as it went, it gathered mani­fold corruptions: for whereas Adam and Abel (as Selden and Bertram judg Selden de jure natu­rali, & Gentium juxtadisciplinam Ebraeor. l. 3 c. 8. & quia Noachus munda ab immundis segregavit. Gen. 7.2. Item Bertr. de Rep. Ebr. cap. 2. Illud non praeter [...]undum, non sicut ips [...] Sacrificia, ita omnia, quae prophanae Gentes ad Sacrificia adhibuerant, adscita [...]uisse in Dei sacra: nec enim omnia Animantium, nec Rituum sacrificalium genera eadem in populi Isra [...]litici, a [...] Gentium a'iarum, sacris [...]rant. Ou [...]am de Sacrificiis, lib. 1. cap. 1. put a difference betwixt the clean and un­clean in their Sacrifices; the Gentiles af­terwards offered Swine, and all abomi­nations, [Page 14] even Vt notum est de Poenis, Phoenici­bus, Syris. DeGallis e­tiam Caesar: pro vitâ ho­minis nisi vita homi­nis reddatu [...], non posse D [...]orum Immortalium numen placari arbitrantur. De Bello Gall. lib. 6. Mankind, unto some or other of their Idols; and by erecting Altars for Sacrifice unto other men, they did translate them into the number of their reputed Deities. But so much by occasion of Pelagius.

On another hand, who will dare to say, That it was lawful to sacrifice (which was the special Sacrament of the Old Testa­ment, in lieu of which the Papists would set up their Sacrifice of the Altar, tanquam incruentum only, as a proper Sacrifice of the like kind) without an institution? Or who can shew the institution before the practice? A Point that is like to move the Kidney in two sorts of men.

The first can never prove, That God did directly institute this Ordinance of sacrificing, the most substantial part of his worship, which, no doubt, from A­dam unto Moses (whatever he added to it) was not without confession and be­wailing of sins, so far as the Sacrifices were Sin-offerings, that is, of expiati­on or atonement; or without prayers, if they were but Peace-offerings, or Sa­crifices of propitiation for obtaining of benevolence; nor without certain words [Page 15] of Benediction, or Thanksgiving, when they were oblations of inanimate things for the blessings that God had bestowed, or continued to them. How do they then stand so stiffly on it, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship and ser­vice of God, without a positive com­mand, extending to all the material cir­cumstances, (at the least) when they can­not find so much as a syllable of the sub­stance of this first Sacrament at all?

In the New Testament, we find no institution neither (which will touch them nearer still) of the Lords Supper itself (which all hold for an Ordinance, and a Sacrament, [...]; and it may be a weak pretence, why they ex­cuse so many from coming to it, and keep so many more from it:) For when our Lord gave it to his Disciples, he only shewed them an example, as to some part of the manner (not observable, or observed since, in point of conscience; as to be celebrated at the Passover, or in the midst, or after Supper; or sitting, kneeling, standing; or with or without any form or gift of Pray­er, more than blessing or asking of a bles­sing, before the breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine) but as if he left them at an ingenuous liberty, ac­cording [Page 16] to their own good will, or love; 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. he only saith, As oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me: not so much as directing them how oft to do it.

In the like manner S ^t Paul, —v. 23. I have re­ceived of the Lord (whether by tradition, or report, or example of the Apostles at Ierusalem, and the Churches of their first planting, or by special revelation) that which I also delivered unto you, setting forth no more but only Christ's own example. Will they therefore wholely deny any institution, by way of impli­cit precept? or raise example in some one case, or two, as high as a precept; and in many more, of great importance, study to dwindle it to nothing?

As for Baptism, indeed, our Lord speaks positively, and expresly (as if they might inferr, that this ordinance of ini­tiation were only instituted; and not the other, which they account worthily, of greater excellency) Go teach all Nati­ons, Matt. 28.19. baptizing them, Mark 16.15. &c. but say the Ana­baptists, baptize only such as ye have taught before, and not Infants, which could not understand you; contrary to the universal practice of the Church, succeeding in the next age from the Apo­stles, as deriving from the first: Shall we [Page 17] therefore stand strictly to the institution (as some account institution) and deny Baptism unto Infants?

No, say others, that is utterly unrea­sonable. Gen. 2.2, 3. Yet some of these will scarce acknowledge that those express words, Exod. 20.11. God rested on the s [...]venth day, and there­fore blessed the seventh day, and sanc [...]ified it, did amount to any institution, as to Adam in Paradise, or his Children after­wards, Vide [...]ti­am plura de hac qu. in Seldeno, loco supra ci­tato & cap. 9. sequen [...]e. affirming that the Patriarchs did not keep it, because they do not read that they did, (as if God were obliged to be as punctual in his Commands and Re­cords as men, if he would be obeyed) but that it was of Moses first; not con­sidering, or not weighing what S ^t Paul says, Gal. 3. that the Law of Moses was added only because of transgressions: and there­fore because in [...]gypt (it is like) this Observation had been neglected, God would have the transgression of this his original Institution to become Capital for the future. Nor yet, that Moses brought in no new Institutions at all, but of Rites and Circumstances relating to the Iewish Church and Commonwealth alone. And although the Sabbath be not of the Law of nature, yet I doubt not Videsis que fusius de hác re disseruit Selden. de jure natur. &c. l. 3. cap. 8. & 9. but it obliged all Nations from [Page 18] Adam, as the penalty did the Iews alone by virtue of the Law of Moses.

The same men (that they may pre­serve the greater veneration to the Cu­stoms of the Church) though Christ a­rose on the first day of the Week, (the seventh being the first day to Adam also, Gen. 1.31. who was created on the sixth) and sent the Holy Ghost on the same, and the Di­sciples met on the same to break Bread, (in no common way) and that S ^t Paul saith expresly, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Concerning the collection for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, so do ye. Vpon the first day of the Week let every one con­tribute, as God hath prospered him; do notwithstanding hold, that the Lords Day is but of even rank with other Ho­ly days that the Church observes, as if it were of Ecclesiastical Tradition only, and not of Institution; whereas it may be shewn when other Feasts began suc­cessively, and demonstrated that the Lords Day began from Easter and Whit­sunday, (fifty days after) and so continu­ed without any interruption hitherto, as hath happened unto all the rest.

But if all this amount not to an insti­tution, in vain do they object against the Anabaptists that which they may so rea­dily [Page 19] retort. For may not they say, Why do not you hold the Lords Day to be jure Divino? Is it not for the same reason that we hold Infant-Baptism to be nothing so?

The like might be said of single Mar­riage, Gen. 2.23, 24. That it was instituted or ordain­ed in Paradise as an implicite positive Law, dispensed with (for a time) by the Law-giver unto the Patriarchs, and Di­vorces indulged to the Israelites (till Christ came) for the hardness of their hearts. Matth. 19.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Mark 10.5, 6, 7, 8. Eph. 5.31, 32. But when he says, From the beginning it was not so, without more words he re­vives the Primitive Institution. So that where the Scripture speaks but little, there is much to be understood; John 21.25. for if all should be written at large, the world it self could not contain the Books that should be written. It remains therefore that we think otherwise of Institutions than some men do: And, for all these two Institu­tions in Paradise, ( viz. of the Sabbath and of single Marriage) that we do not presently imagine, Cautione adhibitaâ contra So­cinum, qui censet Ada­mum ante pecc [...]sse, quàm com­ed ret, [...]a­metsi sola comessione à slat [...] ex­cideret. that though A­dam had not eaten of the forbidden Fruit, he might have fallen some other way; but rather that he was under a Sacra­mental Guard before he made a breach upon Gods injuction.

CHAPTER. III. The subtilty of the modern Socinians. An abstract of their chief Tenents, and the main design to which they are all [...]ccom­modated, noted. A ground-work laid against them in order to prove, That Sa­crifices were offered by revelation, and not according to any possible invention of man.

BUT (to resume our Argument a­bout the original of Sacrifices) the modern Pelagians (learning how to ward the Passes that pressed home upon their Founder) espied this to be one, That if Sa­crifices had been of the light of Nature, it would have been written there indele­bly, as with a Sun-beam, at the same time that Adam received the Image of God; or (if there be any difference) if it were of the Law of Nature, mens consciences could not chuse but bear wit­ness to it, Rom. 2.15. their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, ac­cording to the performance or omission of their Sacrifices; and this as much be­fore the Fall as after: whereupon they bethought themselves of such a subter­fuge [Page 21] as this, Referente Outramo lib. 1. c. 1. §. 6. in haec verba, Hi, qui sua sponte pririò sa­ [...] judicant, bun [...] sa­cri [...]ic [...]i Rit [...]m ad Naturea [...] dictas, [...]ternas, [...]lique [...], & immutabiles non reser [...]nt; sed ad ejus [...]nodi Instituta, quae ratio natura­lis [...]xcogitaverit, tanguam [...] icuum Dei cultum ap­t [...], & idonea, &c Contra sententiam Antiquo­ram, qui Sacrificia isla ig­nita, ex jussu, seu inspirati­one Numinis, cum caeteris ad cultum necessari [...], originem babuisse tradid [...]runt. Uti probant Alex. Halens. p. 4. membr. 6. & Scot. in sent. 4. dist. 1. quaest. 7. viz. That Sa­crifices were offered unto God of m [...]ns own accord, not accord [...]g to the Laws of Nature properly so cal­led, (which are eternal, im­mutable, confirmed, and far from being abolished by Christ himself) but accord­ing to such institutes there­of as natural reason might excogitate as apt and sit for the conspicuous worship of God. v. gr. To offer the best of the Flock [like an Herriot] unto God in ac­knowledgment of his dominion and power and bounty; but more especially as the Lord of life and death, in token of homage, as other Offerings in token of thanksgiving for their encrease. Which is the most favourable opinion of such as do but socinianize, and so double-refine upon him, who thought he had refined Pelagius before. Neque mirum, inquiunt, se quae primi illi homines Deo sacra facie­bant, ea igne absumenda curarent, u [...]pote quod faciendum erat, ne quod Deo sacra­tum fuit, ad usus prophanos transferretur, quod aliter accidere potuisset. For they [Page 22] say it was no wonder, but most natural that the Ancients should consume by fire that which they had dedicated unto God, lest any remainders of them should hap to be afterwards converted to pro­phane uses. Which doth not amount to so much as the Heathen did imagine, who thought their Sacrifices to be sanctified by that Celestial Element of fire. Or the Iewish Rabbins, (enemies unto Christ, or any mystery relating unto him) for they held, D ^• Lig [...]t­ [...]oot's Tem­ple Service ch. 8.§ 1. ‘That Burnt-offerings were to ex­piate for matters whereupon there was a penalty; and that the Body of the Beast that was sacrificed did serve to expiate, even for the thoughts of the heart.’ From which we may collect, That they also thought their Offerings to have been purified by the [...]ir [...] of the Altar.

Now I can hardly forbear (at the first entrance) to declare my opinion, That whoever doubteth [...]o deny, that Sacrifices came in ure by the use of natural reason, (e [...]cogitating any acceptable service un­to God) or to determine and affirm with us, that they came in by institution only, according to the illumination of the very first Patriarchs, and were not essential to salvation before Moses; they can hardly [Page 23] come so clearly off from Pelagianism or Socinianism, as to oppose them ab imis fundamentis, but must needs yield Goli­ah's Sword to gratifie them. Neither yet that they can heartily acknowledge this fundamental Principle, Vn [...]m esse omni­um fidem, that there was but one faith and way of salvation from the begin­ning, I mean since the Fall, (which I am shortly about more clearly to demon­strate) till the end. I shall therefore im­mediately betake my self to compare o­pinions, that contraria juxta se pos [...]ta, ma­gis illucescant, contraries being set one a­gainst another, the truth may arise the brighter out of all obscurity, the one set­ting off the other.

When we meet with any Divine No­tions among the Heathen Writers (which are not a few) we may take all the rest, that they had not from the Phoenicians (by which name they seem to have known in general the Hebrew people) to have been clearly from the light of Nature, or from some old Traditions, traduced by their Poets, which were their ancientest Philosophers. When there are any Passages quoted out of the Iew­ish Rabbins in favour of any Gloss or Te­nent, we are to consider whether that [Page 24] Author lived before our Saviours birth, or after: If before, how far suspicious of the leven of the Pharisees; if after, how much tainted with the reprobate imagi­nations of the unbelieving Iews, (which yet some do swallow as a Loche;) or, in fine, how far free from contradiction, (those blinded people, out of hatred to Christianity, having many ways belied one another, in delivering of their pre­tended Rites and Traditions.) In Chri­stian Controversies, where the Authority of Fathers and Councils is quoted, the times, circumstances, occasions, interests and powers, are either to be added or substracted, as Grains are in the weight of Gold. But the present scope and design of Parties may seem to give us the best light (if we can discover it) into mo­dern opinions, what to judge of them. I will therefore here endeavour to de­tect that of the Socinians, (as far as I am able) because it stands in my way now, and is like to stand in my light hereafter, (as I proceed) if I do not utterly re­move it.

The design of Socinianism is not to destroy all Religion, without which they could not make a Sect; nor yet to deny the Gospel in express terms, (lest they [Page 25] be questioned of Iudaism or Mahume­tism, which would work nothing else to their purpose besides a prejudice) but by consequence only. Yet because they draw as near to the Borders of Atheism as those of Poland do to the Grand Seigni­or's, they have a mighty [...]orce (as it were) of Cossacks, that pretend indeed as if they were of that Sect, but really hang be­twixt that and utter Atheism. Their main foundation is, That men might and may be saved by the light of Nature in things Divine and moral.

To second which Hypothesis, E praelecti­onibus th [...]o­log. F. S [...] ­cini Senen­sis, sparsim. amongst others, these are some of the chief, First▪ That men argue so from Scripture, a [...]f they did (in effect) but adhere to their own opinions, according to their light of reason, or capacity of reasoning; ta­king only the Subject of it to furnish their apprehensions with some more pro­bable matter of believing, and generally seem to adhere unto that common reason, whereof they accuse Socinians only. Secondly, That there is not naturally a sense of the Being and Providence of God in men, but that it is a matter of Faith only to believe that God is. Heb. 11.6.. Third­ly, That natural Religion is only moral, and that he which is just shall be saved, [Page 26] though he believe not whether there be a God or no; and to believe more, they are only bound to whom more hath been revealed. Fourthly, That there was no such thing as original righteousness in A­dam (but only innocency) before the Fall; nor as original sin, ensuing there­upon, or any imputation of his sin at all to his Posterity: (For he holds that A­dam was mortal in Paradise, though he might have been continued in life, or have been translated if he had not si [...]ned that sin (though he did others in inordinate affections, at the least, before) and that his Posterity was little the worse for it, although somewhat.) Fifthly, That Christ (though a more Divine Person than any other) neither justly could, nor did satisfie for sin; so that his righte­ousness can be any way said to be impu­ted: but th [...]t men are justified by sim­ple condonation only. Sixthly, That he was given to us, chiefly as an example, to shew us that way to Heaven, which else it would have been hard for us to find. Seventhly, That as Adam had free­will before he fell, so all his Posterity hath still; since there is no cause why he should be deprived of it by his Fall, nor the nature of the thing it self, nor of [Page 27] Divine Justice so admitting. Eighthly, That by the right use of this, a man may obey the Divine Law. Ninthly, That Predestination unto life is of such as shall do so, according to the foreknow­ledge of God. Tenthly, That such fore­knowledge relieth on no Decree, Cui [...]nim usui, obse­cro, is [...]a praenotio es­set? Annon fatis est, D [...]n c [...]n [...]la regere perpetu [...], ac g [...]b [...]nare, n [...] [...]pso plan [...] ne­lente quidquam fieri posse? S [...]a cura ubique semper, [...]ta scientiâ, ac potentiâ suâ praest [...] esse, ut omnes ho [...]inis conatus & perspicere, & si sibi visum suerit, impedire posse [...], insin [...]aque suâ sa [...]i [...]ntiâ ( [...]uicquid homo [...]oliatur, aut moliri [...]) omnia ad sui gloriam [...]; & quà rationi, prout hominis conatus suerit, sibi, ag [...]ndu [...] sit, ja [...], ant [...]a, si it [...] placet, constituisse? cap. 9. but is like to the foresight only of a prudent man, including no contingences.

Now according unto these Principles, if Christ himself was not made a S [...]cri­fice for sin, (nor needed) but only suf­fered martyrdom, as the Prophets before, to instruct us in the way of patience, meekness, Cap. 10. respondend [...] ad 1 Pet. 1.20. or the like (as Socinus teach­eth more expresly afterwards) what should they do but talk contemptuously of Sacrifices from the first to the last, as indeed they do? For what say others of his Followers? When we urge them thus, Would such a righteous man as A­bel imbrue his hands in the bloud of a Beast, and burn it, as an Offering acce­ptable unto God, if it had been no way [Page 28] revealed to him, that with such Sacrifi­ces God was well pleased? [...] Outram. ubi supra. Nobis, inqui­unt, quibus alii mores, aliae Religiones in­veter [...]runt, non est temere judicandum, tanto temporis intervallo, quid alteri in mentem venire posset, praesertim eorum, quae non sunt contra Naturae Leges, qualia uti­que erant Sacrificia; ut quae Deus, qui ni­hil unquam contra Natur [...] Leges jussit, po­pulo Hebraeo imperabat. To us, say they, who are inured unto other manners, and religious Rites, it is in vain to judge rashly, after so long a time, what might come into the mind of another man, e­specially about such things which are not contrary to the Laws of Nature, as Sa­crifices were not, since God command­ed them unto the Hebrew people. Age­dùm, igitur, jam cominùs agamus.

CHAP. IV. That the Arguments of Socinians are ta­ken from two of the weakest Topicks. A distinction offered to detect the first fallacy, betwixt a Law imperative and indicative. That Sacrifices were of the latter sort, proved, first, Because in all Ages God prescribed his own worship, and accepted no other. Secondly, Be­cause illumination (in this case) prece­ded Sacrifice, shewed, 1. By the man­ner of acceptation of Cain's Offering.

I Would fain come indeed to handy­blows with my Adversary, but that I cannot but remember that the Romans themselves could scarce at last get any advantage against Hannibal in that way, because he fought more by subtilty and sleight. Nor is there any great force in a Serpent, Outram. in Praes. libri de Sacrif [...] ­ci [...]s. when he is displayed, Ita sci­licet Socini Discipuli, quoties urgentur sa­cris literis, vel ad verborum ambiguitatem, vel ad sensus quosdam tralatitios, tanquam in Castra se recipiunt, as my Authour speaks. When the Socinians are urged with the Scriptures, they betake them­selves to ambiguity of words, or to cer­tain [Page 30] wrested expositions, as it were into their Holds. You may partly guess (from the beginning) what art they need to send and prove, when you shall have once observed, that all their Arguments arise from two of the weakest Topicks, viz. A negativo ad positivum generale; from a negative to a positive Conclusion general, that because no Law is expresly recorded, therefore there was none. 2. A possibili ad necessarium, that because it was not impossible, but that by the light of Nature (reasoning and excogitating) the Offering of Sacrifice might come in­to their minds, that therefore it must needs be so, and no otherwise.

Temere ab [...]is sactum judicant, qui Lege a­liquâ à Deo latà, cujas neque Mo­ses, neque alius quis­qua [...] Scri­ [...]or [...]m ve­ [...]rum os­quam [...]ne­minit, pri­mo sacrifi­catum sla­ [...]t. Prorsus enim incredibile esse, omnes planè Scriptores sacros [...]iul­modi si qua esset, Legem que primis omnium hominum parentibus eorhin­que posteris à Deo ipso lata [...]suerit; quase nullius momenti rem, tacitè prae­loire [...]l [...]isse. ubi supr. l. 1. c. 1. To the first Argument therefore, That because there is no Law commanding Sa­crifices expresly recorded, there was no such. Or, (as my Author amplifies it, ac­cording unto their sense, and not his own) That it is incredible that God should have ordained such a Law unto posterity, and that Moses and all other sacred Writers should pretermit it as a thing of no mo­ment, and that it is a rash thing to intro­duce imaginary Laws. It is to be answer­ed, [Page 31] That it is sallacia in homonymia, and may be solved easily by distinguishing betwixt Laws imperative and indicative: for as it is a rashness to introduce the for­mer, without shewing of the express Precept; so it is a like rashness to deny the other (by way of true construction) as made more in favour than the other; and implying the same authority and ha­zard, in case of violation, as the other. Wherefore under the name of a Law we must know that a Rule, direction, inti­mation, or any signification whatsoever, from a Sovereign power, obtains the name of a Law indifferently, to all his loyal Subjects, without any Act or Edict whatsoever. For who will dare to diso­bey the nod of a Prince (if he may un­derstand it right) without the pain of displeasure, or other penalties? Who will venture to keep his place, if a Ge­neral point with his Staff or Finger, di­recting any motion? And that this Law of Sacrifices was of this latter sort, I am ready now not only to prove, but to demonstrate unto any clear and unpreju­diced man, by these two irrefragable Ar­guments; 1. Because, though God in all Ages left to humane prudence the or­dering of such things as were agreeable [Page 32] only unto humane order, yet he never suf­fered it (so depraved especially as it is since the Fall) to excogitate any way of worship whatsoever; much less an intire way to please him, such as Sacrifice, with all its appurtenances, ever was. Which if I take for the assumption of my Argu­ment, I believe it will not be denied in its kind. Ergo, The Offering of Sacrifices could not be of any mens excogitation.

The major likewise will hold its own, unless an instance can be given in any o­ther thing besides Sacrifice it self, which I believe cannot be done. And if they still insist no less on that than before, we say, It is very strange that so important a thing as Sacrifice (about which, God after­wards establishing but a better order, de­stroyed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire before the Lord, Lev. 10.1. which he com­manded them not) should be the sole ex­ception.

But if it be said further, Why might not God (accepting of Sacrifices, which men had offered of their own accord) after make an Ordinance of them, as Christ himself did of Baptism, in use a­mong the Iews before? Or of the Bread and Wine that was used at the Passover, to frame his own Supper by it, according [Page 33] to their use? I answer, That for Ba­ptism, if it had been grounded in Pha­risaical washings, it would have availed the Objectors somewhat; but that which was grounded on the Law, and war­ranted by it before, might well be ta­ken out, and varied by the Giver of the Law. And so for the Lords Sup­per; when he abolished the Passover, he took Bread and Wine out of it, as he had taken a Rib out of Adam, and made another Creature. There is not the least of humane invention therefore left in either of these, having both their first Originals from God, before men were conversant about them. In sine, if it be urged, That if Sacrifices were by no Law, it remains that they must needs have their Original from the apprehensi­ons of men, bethinking themselves what service was proper for them to offer un­to their Maker, Lord of life and death and all; and that none appeared like to Sacrifices of living Creatures, and Obla­tion of other precious things: they shall then make way for my second Argu­ment, viz. That,

Secondly, Because illumination came between, therefore Sacrifices must needs be from God, and not of man. In [Page 34] which I shall be put to prove, first, That illumination came in, and, secondly, that it amounted to a Law; and then I shall be rid of this too.

Now in the touching upon this Point, methinks I cannot but foresee that my Adversaries are ready to compound with me by some concession, viz. That God is not deficient to them that use their right reason, to illuminate them some way; yet as by the use of their own na­tural reason, and not by ungrounded infusions, or outward revelations, any more than he did in the Case of Bezaleel, (whom he filled with the Spirit of God, Exod. 31.3, 5. in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, to fit all things for the Taber­nacle) and yet he wrought as an Artist still. But I am not so much afraid of my Argument, as to admit of any com­position with them. I grant to them likewise that Bezaleel was enabled and o­ver-ruled (so as they say) to work­manship only; but I say, That neither he nor any other did ever begin or continue any true way of worship, without a previous revelation, in an ex­traordinary manner, from God.

It cannot be denied (in the first place) but, That if illumination may be a me­dium [Page 35] betwixt an imperative Law, and the use of reason, that then there may be (what we call) an indicative Law, betwixt these extremes, amounting in ef­fect unto some express of positive Com­mand. Let us therefore begin with this, and shew, first, That there was such a thing; secondly, That it amounted to as high a Law to the First Adam to sacri­fice, as this word did after the Second A­dam had spoken it, As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.

First, The first appeareth, viz. That there was illumination before Sacrifice, these two ways:

1. In that Cain's Sacri [...]ice was not for­bidden, when it did not please God for the manner of the Offering; for the Text saith, Gen. 4. that after, God had respect to the Offering of Abel, and not of Cain; so that his countenance fell. God was so far from excusing his obedience, that he rather put him in mind to amend it than to refrain, If thou do well, saith he, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lyeth at the door; (and Cain knew what that was by his Father Adam's punishment for sin) but if thou do well, unto thee shall be Abel's desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Judge you [Page 36] therefore, whether Cain or Abel first in­vented sacrificing. If it had been wick­ed Cain, would God have spoken so in­differently to him? If it had been righ­teous Abel, the younger Brother, whom Cain hated, would not Cain have dis­dained to take example from him? But unto such straits are these reduced, who because they do not read that Adam sa­crificed, would take it for granted that he did not at all; and so that Adam li­ved without any Form of Religion, (it may be a hundred years or more) till his Sons invented one. Let us hear one of their Quotations to prove it, R. Levi Ben Ger­son ad Gen. cap. 4. in h [...]c ver­ba, [...] i. e. Cainus & Abel vi­ri valdè sapientes e­rant: at­que i [...]a sa­ctum, utcum ad laborum suorum si­nem perve­nissent, u­terque ex facultati­bussuis mu­nus Deo of­f [...]rret, &c. from a Jewish Rabbin, which they take to be pat unto their purpose. ‘ Cain and A­bel, saith he, were very wise men; [whereas the Scripture noteth the wick­edness and folly of the first, and the righteous simplicity only of the latter] and it came to pass when they came to the end of their labours, they either of them offered a Present unto God, out of their encrease’ [as viz. Cain when his Fruits were ripe, and Abel when his Ewes had yeaned, once or twice a year] ‘and the reason of such Oblations, as it seemeth to me (saith the Rabbin) was this, Because they knew that all things [Page 37] were created and governed by God, as the true cause of all. But Abrabenel thinks that Adam also sacrificed as well as his Sons;’ both forgetting that God did afterwards require daily Sacrifices, and that not only as Presents, but as mat­ter of atonement and expiation for sin: as he had expresly told their Fore­fathers, Lev. 17.11. The life of the flesh in the bloud, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the bloud that maketh an atonement for the soul. However the modern Rab­bins would blanch the matter, to make their own way more plausible unto the [...]Gentiles, or out of hatred to Christianity; because we say, and prove, That their bloud-shedding of old, was a Type of the bloud of our Christ, to be shed, once for all, in the latter days.

But indeed the Sentiments of such Reprobate Jews are most agreeable to Socinus's Disciples, Socinos [...] ­bi supra, re­spondendo ad 1 Pet. 1.20.who hold, That Christ was no Sacrifice, nor made any a­tonement for sin, nor was absolutely de­creed to be crucified at all (notwith­standing that express place, Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world; but was manifest in these last [Page 38] times for you) but foreseen only; or, if decreed at all, conditionally, that if men did sin, then Christ should be given to be slain. For why? To make one sin more than was before, but not one less!

CHAP. V. The 2. way laid down to shew an indicative Command, viz. Abel's Offering by a twofold Faith, First, Of the Object, viz. his Duty to sacrifice, which faith he had in common with Cain. Secondly, Of the promise, which was siducial, where­in his Sacrifice excelled, as being of­fered with bloud (which Cain's was not) and with respect to Christ. The Socini­an varnish washed off. The second Head proved, viz. That Sacrifices were by a certain Law ab origine, because a certain penalty accrued to the omission of them before the Law of Moses.

2. BUT for that which we are to al­ledge, as the second way where­by it may appear, That there was some indicative or implicite precept, involved in some gracious revelation from Christ himself, (as the eternal Word of God) [Page 39] previous unto these' Sacrifices, the Ad­versaries have been made sensible, and are well aware of it: I mean the Sacri­fice of Abel, more accepted than his Brothers. Which having been said by S ^t Paul (or the Author to the Hebrews) to have been offered unto God by faith, Heb. 11.4. as a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain's; by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it, he being dead yet speaketh: we may clearly conclude, That he sacrificed in a right obedience to some gracious intima­tion of the good pleasure of God, which was instead of an imperative Com­mand, if there were none (though we conceive there might be, though it be not mentioned) before. On that therefore we will not insist, because it is not to be proved; but on the intimation, or indica­tive Command, we will proceed and an­swer their dilutions.

Let it be observed that Socinus doth not call in Question the Authority of this Epistle (whatsoever the Arrians did, Vt neq [...]e Crellius, qui in han [...] Epistola [...] variè Com­mentatus aut com­mentus est. whose Heresie he absorbs, together with the Pelagian) since he quotes it to prove (as I noted before) that the knowledge of God is not by Nature, but by Faith; for without faith (saith the Author) it [Page 40] is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that di­ligently seek him. And he also saith, that by faith Abel offered unto God. Is not this argumentum ad hominem, if af­ter this he affirm (as his Followers do) that Sacrifices were of humane excogita­tion only? For cannot God be known but by faith? And can Abel offer by faith, and yet according unto humane excogi­tation only (reasoning in it self what was fittest to be done, and so doing) which in Socinus's sense is taken to be an exclusion of faith, and directly contrary to it?

And if Abel had offered without faith, the Apostle testifies that he could not have pleased God; but in that he did please him, with a witness he shews, that it was by such a faith as Cain had not, though he could not have offered with­out revelation neither. Now when the Apostle says, that without faith it is im­possible to please God, we will take So­cinus's Grant for a ground, viz. That the true object of Faith is some kind of supernatural revelation, and not any thing that is excogitated by a rational man; so that if Abel had offered with­out [Page 41] such a revelation, he had sinned; nay, if he had but done such a thing in doubt, whether he had warrant for it, or no; those other words of the Apostle might have been sit to be applyed, Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth is damned in the case: for what­soever is not of faith is sin. Wherefore Cain sinned not in sacrificing, according to the revelation of God to his Father Adam; for he sacrificed with faith, or belief of the Duty to be done, and he obeyed the outward part, as many men do at this day (who have not the faith of Abel, or of right Belie­vers) but he sinned in his hypocrisie, having malice in his heart, and no love to God, nor respect unto his promise. And this you may take for a good reason why his Sacrifice could not be so acceptable as his Brothers. For it is manifest by the Text, Gen. 4.3.4. that he offered only of the fruit of the ground an Offering unto the Lord; whether it were a viler or a fairer Offering, it makes no matter (let the Rabbins In oblati­onibus spon­taneis, ho­locaustis i­tid [...]m spontaneis, & votis (pro vario personarum, ac rerum discrimine) praeter preces, gratiarum actiones, benedictiones, constitisse cultum illum Divinum, ad quem genus humanum obligatum esse voluêre Ebraei, idque [...]x jure naturali. —In holocaustis autem cruentis, seu a [...]imalium sa­crisiciis, [...]g [...]e omninò consumendis, parte nullâpollutâ, sex comesâ... at­que tune temporis (sc. ante Noacbum) sacrificia illa ignita ex jussu, seu inspiratione Numinis, originem habuerunt... Et totum animal pro victi­ma oblatum, excoriatum tamen pro more, & dissectum [Tamen quaere num Abrabamus ita fecerit, cùm arietem pro Isaaco immolaret] concre­mandum erat, in gratiarum actionem, favoris conciliationem, peccato­rum expiationem, velut per symbolum... Vnde Abel primogenita Ovium, [...]aque optima in holocaustum immolavit, Numinique sic placuit: Cainus verò tantum absuit ab hoc tam eximio Numinis hominibus indultu ag­nos [...]do ut nondum admitteret animantium immolationem; ac si baberet caedem licitam magis fuisse, as homicidium; parilem enim (ut Ebraei reserunt) hominibus censuit, ac animantibus caeteris fuisse exitum. At­que inde cùm res viliores, seu fruges terrae obtulit, [...]o demùm nomine Deo displicuit. Ut Seldenus, ubi supra, ex Rabbinis. argue that) but Abel brought of the firstlings, or first-born) [Page 42] of his flock, and of the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect unto Abel and his Offering; but not to Cain's. Why, wherein was the difference? Abel offer­ed with bloud-shedding, but Cain a dry Offering, Heb. 9.22. And without shedding of bloud there is no remission. Abel's Offering was like the humble supplication of the Pub­lican, a Sinner; Cain's like the Pharisees, who offered praises more than prayers, as if he had no need of mercy. Abel had respect to Christ; for so he is reckoned in the Catalogue among the rest, Heb. 11.39. And all these having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, but eyed and expected it. But since Cain was fal­len into the temptation of the first Tem­pter, the Serpent, he could have but lit­tle comfort in looking forward towards this (which made against him) viz. That [Page 43] the seed of the woman should break the Ser­pents head.

And is this the reason why Sociniani­zers would be content to take that blind Gloss of the Hebrews, for sense e­nough to be made of those words, viz. That they import no more but that men should hate Serpents, and Serpents men; and that they should lye in wait for one another? Or to hold, That there was no such thing as a Sin-Offering (but only Peace-Offerings at the most, or Oblati­ons of Gifts and Presents, without a Type) before Moses? Or, That men were never at all justified by their Of­fering of Sacrifice in Faith? But let us hear what they say now to this instance of Cain and Abel? Tantum ab­esse judi­cant, at hîc laudata A­belis fides explicato ullo Dei jussu nite­retur, ut boc ex loco contrarium potius effici posse arbi­trentur, &c. A p. Outr. l. 1. c. 1. §. 4. They say, That this place, wherein the saith of Abel is com­mended, is so far from proving that it did rely on any explicated Command of God, that the contrary may be rather proved from it. For if Abel sacrifi­ced in obedience to some Law of God, what shall we judge of Cain? For if he sacrificed on the same account that Abel did, he had the same Faith that Abel had, which is quite contrary to the A­postle. The Answer riseth of its own accord from what hath been said before, [Page 44] That ( secundùm fidem credendam) he offered with the same faith that Abel did, but ( secundùm fidem quâ creditur, seu quâ debuit credere) he offered without any such faith at all, as the Apostle speak­eth of in that Chapter. Thus a multitude partake of the Lords Supper, believing it to be his body and bloud; but a few receive in faith: yet all are bound to come that profess any hope in Christ, or any interest in him. And if we say, That Cain sacrificed according to the faith of his Father Adam, more proper­ly than his own; it may well be said fur­ther, Whether there was an explicite Command or not, yet he had an implicite Faith at least, to believe as the Church believeth.

2. Now that these reve [...]tions amoun­ted to no less than a positi [...] or impera­tive Law, remaineth to be shewed next, by this (as invincible an Argument as a­ny other) Where there is no Law, Rom. 4.15. there is no transgression; and where there is no transgression, there is no legal penalty; but where there may be manifest trans­gression and just punishment, there an undoubted Law must be presumed, or the Government call'd in question about the equity of the matter. The Law of [Page 45] Moses was not given till they came into the Wilderness; Exod. 5.3. but in order to their marching thitherwards, God command­ed Moses to speak thus unto Pharaoh, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us; let us go, we pray thee, three days journey into the desart, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or the sword. Ergo, This Law was ab origine to the people of God, viz. That they should offer Sacrifice unto him, for their own good, or at their peril. The Lord Christ, when he instituted his Communion (as I noted before) only gently said, As oft as you do this, &c. And it hath been let pass for an Ordinance of his: and there is no penalty upon the omission of that, though the Apostle lets them know that for the sake of eating and drinking unworthily, 1 Cor. 11.30. many were weak and sick amongst them, and many slept. But in this Case omission only is to be punished with extreme mortality.

CHAP. VI. Socinus's second Topick propounded to be examined, viz. Whether, because men might possibly invent Sacrifices, as not against the Law of Nature, it must needs follow that they had their rise from thence. A contrary way of argu­ing propounded, by way of demonstra­tion, and the subtilty of his way noted. That there were divers other Laws be­fore Moses, in force; shewed also that he did not record the Laws, but the practice only.

AND now, that I may bring Soci­nus (or his Adherents) off with the more advantage or disadvantage, which may happen, since we have con­trary designs; they to admit as little need of Christ, and so, to do as little honour to him, as needs must; and we do him all the Right that the Scriptures or the Catholick Church hath ever done: I come to his second Topick, A possibili ad necessarium, that because it was possible (or not impossbile, but) that by the light of Nature (reasoning and excogi­tating what was fit to be done in honour [Page 47] to the great Creator, to set up some con­spicuous service to be performed to him) the Offering of Sacrifices might come into their minds, that therefore it must needs be so, and no otherwise; there being nothing in it contrary to the Law of Nature, since God did afterward confirm it.

In answering of their former reason­ing, from a particular Negative to a ge­neral Affirmative, we proceeded by the way that is as strong as theirs was sleight; I mean, by demonstration from the ef­fects to the cause (the same way that we prove a God) for where there was ex­ample, encouragement and penalty de­monstrated, there the Law it self (the cause of these) was also demonstrated, by a necessary consequence. And so in handling this their other Topick, A pos­sibili ad necessarium, I shall go near to requite them by arguing quite contrary, A necessario ad impossibile.

But, first, What kind of arguing is this? There is no Command revealed a­bout a matter of such moment as sacri­ficing; and therefore there was none, nor any reason to be given why such a thing should be omitted. And yet to say that it is possible and likely (of as [Page 48] great moment as it is)that men should find it out by the use of right reason, where­as this is less revealed than the other? And less reason to be given why or how it should be first devised? We say still, it was absolutely necessary, that after the Fall there should be sacrificing; but that it was utterly impossible that man should invent it of himself. And if Socinus doth not ground his own Hypothesis upon Scripture, wherefore doth he call for Scripture, Scripture? And when we shew him Scripture, what avails it in the case of Sacrifices, when he shall set the same reason that invented them, above the Scriptures; giving it authority to ex­pound them (not so as right reason, but) as the reason of Socinus shall al­low? Is not this to appeal always to himself? And what hath he deserved of the truth, that we (that revere the Scri­pture indeed) should defer so much au­thority to him? Do we not see that he alledgeth Scripture only to baulk us, and admitteth it not to inform himself? But let us appeal, however, unto such as will hearken what the Scripture saith, and be­lieve it.

Gen. 22.2.13.Was not Abraham expresly command­ed to offer up his Son Isaac, and did not [Page 49] God provide him of a Ram in the stead of his Son? Gen. 22.2, 13. And, said not God unto Ia­cob, —35.1. Go up to Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an Altar unto God? The Question is, Whether God commanded these things, because Cain (suppose) be­ing a very wise man, had invented them before, or because God himself had commanded the like before; what do you think? Is it more reasonable that men should prescribe a modus of his own worship unto God, or he to men? Or do you think it proper that God himself should second a project of the wicked Cain, or the decayed Adam?

And what though the first Law be not recorded, (as many Laws of England, depending on the ancientest Customs of all, are not; and yet are held to be such, as out of which Magna Charta was com­posed, and which, without so much as mention in any Statute, are accounted to be prime Law amongst us) does it there­fore follow that there was none? What think you of Murder before Noah? Gen. 38.9.24. of burning for Adultery afterwards? or of the Law of Leviration, obliging the Brother surviving to raise up Seed unto his Brother; for the breach of which, God Almighty being provoked (besides [Page 50] the other aggravation) cut off Onan in his prime? Shew me the Laws, if you are able; and yet they were of such mo­ment, that their breach (you see) was Capital. I instance in Laws (which is ad idem to the Question) since it nothing moves them when we shew, That divers things are recorded in the New Testa­ment as delivered by Moses, (who was directed unto brevity) which we cannot find at all in him: Jude 14. as Enoch's Prophecy, Lot's perturbations for the wicked So­domites, 2 Pet. 2.5, 7, 8. Noah's preaching to the old World, &c. In a word, the fourth Chapter of Genesis was not the place wherein Moses was to set down the Law of Sacrifices, which he was after to re­form.

So that these two Points remain, in the whole, to discover the fallacies of our Adversary, and to vindicate the truth, viz. first, That after the Fall, Sacrifices were absolutely necessary towards the re­paration. Secondly, That it is utterly improbable, and morally impossible, that any man should invent them; so that from the very first they should have been acceptable unto God on that ac­count.

CHAP. VII. What maketh the Socinians talk so sleightly of Sacrifices. The inconcinnity and implications of their opinion, in part detected.

IN this it is that the Socinians trifle much, when they talk (prophanely) concerning Sacrifices, as if they had been but complemental or superstitious things; nay, but fond in their imaginations, and such as they should have never liked if they had lived then: which will re­present their opinion to the more preju­dice, if it shall at last appear that God himself was the Director of them only as a merciful remedy for man. But what though? Will they be any more asha­med in this, than in their sleighting of both the Sacraments of the New Testa­ment, (of which they acknowledge Christ himself to have been the Author) while they drive them to another scope, and question the necessity of their continuance? For what is there in wa­ter now, more than in fire before? or in Bread and Wine now, more than in the Cakes and Libaments, with the flesh [Page 52] and bloud of Sheep, before?

They say, (as it were by a scomma or a sarcasm) Nobis, quibus alii mores, &c. ‘To us, Vt supra, cap. 3. that are inured unto other man­ners and religious Rites for a long time, it is in vain to judge, after so long a time before, what might come into the mind of another concerning Sacri­fices;’as if Adam and the Patriarchs were no other in their account but as old exotick Heathens, that had invented some way of worship: acknowledging, however, lest they should be free in a­ny part from contradiction, Haec, & hu­jusmodi instituta, quae ratio naturalis ex­cogitavit, tanquam ad conspicuum Dei cultum, Ita nimi­rumprime­voshomines naturae lu­mine insti­tutos judi­cant, ut cul­tum, & ho­norem con­spicuum Deo adhibendum viderent, idque optimè si [...]ri potuisse, si quod quisque optimum habuit, id ritu sacro Deo redderet. Ibid. satis apta suisse, & idonea. ‘That these Sacrifices, and what pertained to them, were apt and proper enough (though invented by men) to render a certain kind of conspicuous service unto God.’

And so when they say, ‘It is no won­der that they should consume these consecrated things by fire; for how else could they prevent their reservati­on (possibly) unto prophane uses, af­ter [Page 53] once they had been dedicated?’ They themselves, that pretend to take their refuges in reason, do but raise us unto admiration of their considence, when they tell us, that there is no won­der in such a thing, whereof they can give no other but an illusory or ridicu­lous reason, while they say, There is no wonder. For if this be strange to us, how it should come into the Patriarchs heads, to think to please God, by slaying of a Beast, without such revelation; how should it seem less strange, that burning it, when they had done, should enter into the same heads, for any one reason more than another? Certes, the reason which these Socinians give, viz. That nothing might remain of that which they had thus devoted unto God, doth but edge upon the brim of two o­ther contradictions of their own, or some of theirs. Hec enim sic intellig [...] volunt, ut sinis di [...] ­rum Cai [...]o messis [...]xi­tus esset: A­beli aut [...] tempus il­lud, qua pecorum setu au [...]tus erat. sect. 5. For they say, That Cain brought only of the fruits of the Ground at the end of Harvest; explain­ing themselves so, as if they did not think he burnt them, (whatsoever he did with them) nor is it likely that he [...]id: nay, in after times, God accepted of di­vers kinds of Gifts and Offerings, which were not to be consumed; but conserved [Page 54] rather for his Priests, or for his Taber­nacle, or Temple, and the Utensils and Ornaments thereof. And as for A­bel, Hugo Grotius, not to be excused of favouring them in this particular opinion (however it stand in others) doth upon the matter bring it into Question, Whe­ther Abel himself o [...]fered by fire.

For being pressed with this Argument, That if there had not been some revela­tion from God, men would scarce have thought of offering their own food to God, (which anciently were the only Offerings) he being of the opinion, That the old World (so much given to the flesh) did eat none before the Flood; falls upon this broken shift to say, That Abel offered not the flesh it self, but on­ly the Milk and fine Wool thereof. ( Cu­jus tamen sententiae, saith my Author, nescio an quenquam adjutorem habeat.) But in the mean time he leaves us as much to admire what he did with the Beast, if he did not burn it, being slain: Did he rather bury it, to with-hold a Sacrifice by fire? Or did he spare all his Flock to be immortal, while Man alone was subject to mortality? Or what need had Abel to bring such Sacrifices as these but once a year, the profits whereof a­rose [Page 55] daily? Or how was Abel's Sacrifice of more value than Cain's? Or indeed, a thousand Head of Sheep or Cattel of any great worth, if their Flesh were not? Which of the contradictions of these ra­tional Querists shall we embrace, since they cannot all hold together, nor yet agree one with another? In fine, if such a conceit as this might by natural reason have entred into the heads of some of the Ancients, it is a wonder why it should not into theirs also, who set Di­shes before their Idols (to which some passages of the Prophets seem to allude) for them to feed upon? For if they had thought of burning them, the Priests, who would not defraud their own Ge­nius's, could not have defrauded their I­dols in the Night. Or why might not we, at this day, have discovered such an use of consuming by fire those Presents, which the Chinese, Tartars, or Americans do offer unto their Pagods?? which I cannot learn to be true from the report of Travellers, although they make fires, and rings, and feasts, and the like, as bar­barous people have been still accustomed. But I will tell you more anon, why God required and directed fire; and not He [Page 56] that was to be tormented with it hereafter, together with all his Compli­ces.

CHAP. VIII. The summ of our opinion related in the words of Eusebius Caesariensis. Sleight exceptions against them noted. Our o­pinion stated more at large. That it implies an inconvenience to oppose Socinus, and our opinion too. The Subject of the next Chapter laid down.

Point I.BUT to come up closely to the Que­stion: Our first Parents, after their transgression, must either fall im­mediately to sacrificing, (especi [...]lly by fire) or else yield themselves to go in­to that fire of Hell, which they had deserved without remedy. Neither have we forgotten that all this cometh in upon occasion of shewing how they re­pented, believed and were restored un­to Grace by the Church, whereof the promised seed was the Head, in the use of the means of Grace. To proceed therefore in our purpose.

[Page 57]The summ of all is contained in that passage of Eusebius, quoted by my Au­thor (though by him so qualified, as if either Party might take their advantage of it, and [...]bound in their own sense; which we (for our parts) think ought not to be left to an indifferent liberty.) ‘I do not think (saith he) that the thought of sacrificing came by chance, [...]. Euseb. Caesariens. de dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. or by design of man. For the godly (then) and such as were familiarly ac­quainted with God, and were enlight­ned by his Divine Spirit in their souls, sa [...] what manner of need they had of a great means of healing, for the do­ing away [or expiation] of their mor­tal sins; and therefore thought a re­compence was to be made [or a redem­ption] for their salvation, to the Gi­ver of life and soul. And since they had nothing better or more worthy than their own souls to consecrate unto God, in the stead of these they sacri­ficed unreasonable Beasts, laying down [or offering] up their lives as ho­stages [or pledges] for their own.’

[Page 58]There are two shifts obtended over this authority to avoid the manifest per­tinency and cogency of it. First, That he makes no mention of inanimate Of­ferings in the Case; but it is confessed that he had spoken somewhat of them before, viz. That they availed little to the Point in hand, the expiation of sin.

Secondly, That he doth not say, that the Beasts which Abel, Noah, or Abra­ham sacrificed, were offered unto God, explicatâ aliquâ ipsius Lege, by any mani­fest Law of his; but only by some Di­vine enlightning (it may be) of their minds, not common unto all, but im­parted only unto some of the best of men: And this they think maketh not at all against their own supposition. Which trifling baffling, I shall also endeavour to uncase presently, that when I do pro­ceed I may the sooner wind up all that doth remain of this Argument upon its last bottom.

We say in summ, That the Law of sa­crificing was revealed unto Adam, and no other; and only taught by, and de­rived from him: That no Sacrifice a­part was ever of any avail at all, with­out respect to that which was made by blood. And we have proved how the [Page 59] first illumination or direction amounted to a Law; and shall shew the manner, in order, as we can come to it. We ut­terly reject the fallacious insinuation, as if only extraordinary mén did sacrifice; and we say, That Cain and all his did sa­crifice (one way or other) as well as Seth, there being no need of any se­cond illumination. But the main subtil­ty lyes about the [...] of the first, viz. Whether Adam and Eve did exco­gitate Sacrifice, or no; and if they did, Whether by their own natural reasons, with nothing else but some remote assi­stance of illumination, such as a man may have by study? When we therefore say further, That Sacrifices were abso­lutely necessary after the Fall, for the reparation of Adam and his Posterity; we must distinguish against the Sons of Cain, or the Magnifiers of his Sacrifice by inanimate things (if they were of more worth) above Abel's, which was by the choicest Animals that he had; as if both alike were no more but returns of thanks to God, by a visible token, for his outward benefits, according to their several kinds: I say, we must distinguish betwixt Sacrifices of expiation, or atone­ment for sin, (which they deny) and [Page 60] those others, whatsoever they were, that were Propitiatory only, or Eucha­ristical. And we say, That they were all absolutely necessary (but especially the first) and all alike revealed, before they could be tendred unto God.

Now why Socinus thinks so meanly or indifferently of Sacrifices, as not be­longing to salvation, is not far to seek. For he holds, (as we have hinted before) 1. That the light of Nature alone, with­out this excogitation, was sufficient; 2. That natural Religion is only moral, which Sacrifices are not; 3. That there is no such thing as expiation, or satisfa­ction for sin; but that it is done away by merely pard [...]ning: Qui Socini­ [...]norum Scripta le­g [...]rit, ita de morte I [...]s [...] Chri­s [...]i, ita de illius Sacri­ficio (quod [...] morte e­jus semper sejungunt) judicâsse sentiet, ut alteri om­nem planè detraxerint poenae vicari [...]e rationem, nihilque nobis gratiae apud Deum al [...]ro impetratum exislimaverint: ut qui licet mortis ejus vi [...] aliquo modo circa Deum, vim tamen Sacrificii ejus circa bomines primò versari statuerint. Outram. in Praf.— 4. That Christ (therefore) s [...]red no vicarious punish­ment for sin, [...]gured by any Sacrifices, which themselves impor [...]ed no such mat­ter; but that he was only sacrificed as a good man for the publick good. But what should move any man to grant un­to Socinus, that Sacrifices might be found out by men; and that they became not figurative, or expiatory, until Moses, [Page 61] and yet oppose him; I cannot imagine, unless it be to gratifie a more modern Fa­ther; or because they are well enough assured of sufficient Arguments (besides) out of the Old and New Testaments, to overthrow the Socinian suppositions; and so to let this opinion of revelation go how it may to them that are fonder of it; suppose some or other of the Cal­vinists.

Let it favour or disfavour any Party whatsoever (as it may happen) I doubt not but that passage of Eusebius, which I have borrowed from my Author, con­tains the Catholick Doctrine; to be se­conded by the authority of more Fa­thers, when I come to prove, Vnam esse omnium fidem. In the mean while, (in prosecution of my first Argument, set down in the close of the sixth, and beginning of the last Chapter) I shall endeavour to shew, 1. How this revela­tion of the will of God concerning Sa­crifices may be conceived; and then, 2. That it was necessary to be received and obeyed.

CHAP. IX. The Offering of Sacrifice revealed, 1. By the light of Grace. The ends of Sacri­fice shewed, and the true reason of con­suming it by fire. 2. By the light of Prophecy, as the Day of Christ to Abra­ham. That hereupon our first Parents must needs obey.

1. FOR the first, we may conceive two ways, whereby it pleased God to reveal his will unto Adam, con­cerning Sacrifices, as a means of his re­covery,

Lumine

Gratiae, &

Lumine

Prophetiae.

First, In a way of Grace and Mer­cy; which was not so obscurely as ob­liquely tendred to him. For after his Fall, Expositors have observed, that Gods beginning with the Serpent first, to sentence him (who was the first in fault) imported a reservation of greater mercy to them that were but drawn in, and so betray'd. And when he had said, Gen. 3.14. I will put enmity betwixt the Woman (a Type of the Church) and the Serpent (the De­vil) and betwixt his Seed (the Repro­bate [Page 63] World) and her Seed (the Elect) that they were given out of hand to un­derstand that they should not dye pre­sently, as they had deserved; but should live to see a various Seed. And when they heard, in the close, that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the head of Satan, whereas his Seed should only bruise the heel of the other, by temporal tribula­tions; they had light enough given them to perceive that they should not only obtain a redemption by that blessed Seed promised, but also a certain Victory at the last: which some of the ancient Rabbins understood as relating to their Messiah. But if any one will rather chuse to be frivolous with the modern Iews, it is in vain to stand to beat the truth into them with a Mallet.

Surely, none found the effects more of God's severity or goodness, imported in the whole judgment, than our first Pa­rents themselves; since they both suffer­ed more troubles in the flesh, and ob­tained more favour than any of their Posterity. Sidetrahas primos 60. annos Ma­thus [...]lae, ae­tatem p [...]r­fectam praecedentes, sacilè inde conjici potest, quantò longior [...]erit Adae vita. In sent. dist 17. §. 1. For (as Estius counts) Adam was a longer Liver (being created in per­fection) of nine hundred and thirty [Page 64] years, than Me [...]husalah of nine hundred forty nine; who began not to procreate (for ought appears) till seventy; Gen. 5.15. Only Ma­baleel be­gan to ge­nerate at 65. unless it be said, that Children of lesser note are wholly omitted in the Genealo­gy.

Wherefore, when our first Parents saw themselves delivered from the ut­most fear to some certain hope, they must needs conceive that somewhat was thereupon to be done by them in hope. But what that was, how could they have possibly imagined, if the same Grace that gave the promise, had not both enlightned the eyes of their minds, to know the meaning of it, and what to do in order to obtain it, or in expectation of it? So that according to Eusebius it must needs be some way or other merci­fully insinuated to them; that whereas they had deserved death in their own persons by transgression, they should put to death in their own steads the fair­est of their living Creatures, [...]ictimae e­nim piacu­lares pecca­ta, di qui­bus immo­labant [...]r, p [...]enâ vica­ [...]iâ expiâ­ [...]t. C [...]e [...]a Sac [...]is [...]ia omnia ad Dei gratiam vel impetrand [...]m, vel [...]. Outr. in Praef. that were clean (and not the Serpent) and then offer them up unto God above by fire, that their prayers might ascend there­with, and their sins be forgiven, as if [Page 65] they were utterly consumed. And here may be a place to shew the reasons of of­fering by fire.

If we consider the ends of sacrificing in the general, Dr. Light­soot's Tem­ple-Set­vice, ch. 8.it will soon afford some light into it. Which were, 1. To re­present, and to be a memorial of the great Sacrifice of Christ to come, who [...]hould once be offered up in behalf of Sinners. 2. To lecture to them the de­sert of sin and Sinners, death, and fire, in the death and firing of the Sacrifice before their eyes. 3. Continet hoc Sacrifi­cii genus protesta­tionem, quod homo totum, & omne bonum suum acce­pisset à D [...]o, cum recog­nitione, & gratiarum ac [...]ione. I­d [...]oque to­tum Ill [...]d Sacrifici­um, nullà parte reser­va [...]â, igne consumi de­bebat in ho­norem Dei. Est. in lib. 2. dist. 25. §. 27. To acknowledge their Goods received from God, in of­fering up to him somewhat of all they had. 4. To be a matter of Worship and Religion in those times of ceremo­niousness; wherein all did acknowledge their homage to God, and true Belie­vers acted their faith on Christ's suffer­ings. 5. To be signs of repentance, and pledges of expiation; when they should see (that is to say) the innocent slain in­stead of the nocent, and their sins to pass away (as it were) with the smoke that ascended from the Altar.

To these others add, That the Sin­ner was hereby admonishe [...] to burn up [Page 66] (as it were) all animal-concupiscences within him, which have their rise from blood and fat; and so, to eradicate all vice within them. But the main reason is that which God hath given us himself; for whereas the Patriarchs offered whole Burnt-offerings, without any curious ordering of their Sacrifice, when God directed Moses afterwards how to wash the Inwards, and divide the parts, and how then to put them again together, and burn them on the Altar, he saith, It is a sweet savour, Exod. 29.18. an Offering made by fire unto the Lord. Levit. 1.9.Therefore they were to burn their Offering then, that the o­dour thereof might ascend with their prayers into the nostrils of God, at whose right hand the Mediator was (e­ven then also) to do the same Offices for his Church and people that he doth now, as it is described in the Revelation, that he stood at the Altar, Rev. 8.3. having a golden Censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it up with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar, which was before the Throne. And the smoke of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angels hand. Say not therefore, that the savour of Beasts, [Page 67] being burnt, could not be sweet of it self, any more than that of the sinful prayers of men. De precibus vero sacrifi­calibus quales e­rant. Vid. Outr. l. 1. c. 15. & Jo. Seld. de jure nat. & Gentium juxta di­scipl. Ebr. l. 3. c. 8. & Lightsoot c. 9. §. 6. God smelleth not as men do; but though under Moses's or­der, other things were added unto Burnt-offerings, that there might be no evil savour (possibly) in the Temple, as to men; yet all received another scent, with a sweet perfume and odour, as it passed through the ministration of the Angel, the Mediator of either Testa­ment, before it came into the nostrils of his Father.

Secondly, Lumine Prophetiae; Whe­ther it were by vision, Adami, seu praeficti Ec­cles [...]e moderande duplex fu­isse videtur ofsicium: unum Prophetiae, alterum Sacerdo­tii... Saepius iteravit, & exposuit Vxori increpatio­nem, & promissionem sibi sa­cram, item & Liberis suis, [...]ósque Genuinum Dei cultum doc [...]it: atque ita proph [...]tam [...]git, ut & suit. Bertr. de Rep. Ebr. cap. 2. or any other way of Prophe­tical revelation, Adam as a Prophet might have all this and more (as no doubt he had) from God; for else how should the first Church of all have been informed or directed according unto God or godliness? We may not therefore suppose Adam little the worse for his Fall, as Socinus; or as de­prived of his natural endowments, (the Image of God) but only of all the ex­traordinary improvements and comforts that he had before, when he had ordi­nary [Page 68] communion with God. Est. in l. 2. dist. 23. sect. 3. So that it is still held in the Schools, That Adam was absolutely the wisest of all mortal men, (not Solomon excepted, whose wis­dom was Government) and that he did not after cease to know those Creatures which he had named in Paradise. Gen. 2.20. And as he was the first that received Grace, so we may well think that he received it not in the least measure. Wherefore, since our Saviour doth assure us, (and yet it is not to be proved out of Moses) that Abraham longed to see his day, John 8.56. and that he saw it, and was glad; Most like it might be then, when he was about to set his Knife to Isaac's throat; and lo, a Ram was provided ready for him to offer up instead of Isaac, Gen. 22.11, &c. and the Angel from a­bove staid his hand from such a sad issue of obedience: and the Angel swore, say­ing, By my self have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, In blessing I will bless thee. And had not Abraham reason to be glad? We may doubt no less of Adam, at some one time or other, when he received this Ordi­nance of Sacrifice, to be continued in their Generations, until Shiloh came.

2. Then (after this) they must needs receive and obey this enlightning from [Page 69] above; for if we think upon Adam's Case, he must needs at first be thunder­struck with the terrible appearance of God, calling him to judgment, and pas­sing sentence on him. For if Moses said, (which is not to be proved in terminis, out of his own Books neither) I exceed­ingly fear and qu [...]ke, Heb. 12.21. when he received the Law in the Mount; how much more out first Parents, when they hid them­selves, and made such weak and lamen­table excuses (being forced to appear) for their transgression? But what should they do at last? Should they rest in de­spair, and in dejection? Or should they rather strive and endeavour to rise a­gain? Certainly, to rise: but if so, must it not be by a right repentance? And was that possible without hope? Or such an hope, without a ground of faith? Or such a faith without a clear evidence to support it? And if you say they might repent, believe and pray; and that that might be enough without Sacrifice: I an­swer, That there was never any faith without the Church, never any Church without Ordinances, whereby a right faith might be supplied, and the Object of faith (in some measure) conveyed unto right Worshippers. It is in vain to [Page 70] imagine that they should have some faith, and no practice; or any right pra­ctice without a certain faith before, without which it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11. These therefore put together, did constitute a true Church, in the per­sons of Adam and Eve, and the Head of the Church (two or three, till they bred more) and a sure Religion unto them and theirs: of the nature of which it is, that if it be not imposed by another (but excogitated only) it is no Religion; which signifies a bond or tye, such an one as a man can [...]ot lay upon himself; and if he do, it b [...]nds not his God to ac­cept it, or reward it in the least; or, so much as to approve of it, lest it be a thing incongruous, or disagreeable unto himself.

We cannot therefore imagine any time at all betwixt the Fall, and the in­troducing of some Religion, by the be­nefit of which our first Parents might recover. But the So [...]inians must needs suppose it, if the Offering of Sacrifices were indeed the first Religion, which they deny not; and yet, that it hung in suspense, till a certain space of exco­gitation: they care not, though it be till Cain and Abel were grown unto maturity. [Page 71] In the mean while, is not this true, that they which live without a right Religi­on, do live without God in the World, and are in a kind of reprobate estate? Which doleful apprehension about our first Parents, I have shewed you before how much the Catholick Church abhor­reth.

CHAP. X. The last shift of the Socinians discussed, wherein is shewed, That Sacrifices, nei­ther probably nor (morally) possibly could be invented by men, so as to be appro­ved by God. And that they had been unnatural, if they had not been ordain­ed towards a mystery. Socinus not so pious as Pelagius, or Homer.

IN fine, Point II. Whereas the Socinians do di­stinguish betwixt the Laws of Nature, [...] sacri­ficandi Ri­tum ad Na­turae Leges propriè di­ctas, aeter­nas utique & immutabiles non reserre; sed ad [...]jusmodi in [...]titata, q [...]ae ratio naturalis excogitav [...]rit, tanqua [...] ad conspicuum D [...]i cultum apta satis, & idonea... Neque ipsa animalia ab Abele, Noa & Abrahamo, Deo immolata, explic [...]tâ aliquâ ipsius Lege, sed Divinâ quâdam ration [...], que non omnium communis erat, sed potius optimi c [...]ju [...]q [...] prop [...]ia ▪ Outr. ubi supra. that were eternal and immutable, and those which excogitating reason might ordain, towards the setting up of some [Page 72] conspicuous and idoneous worship, to be rendred unto God; and affirm, that Sacrifices had their original from the lat­ter, inasmuch as they were not contrary to the former; (granting that they were not necessarily implied in the former) and say (besides) that what Abel, Noah and Abraham might do (in this kind) might be indeed by some especial Divine way; so that it was not common unto others, but only proper to themselves, or such excellent men as they: they have given us the last hints of Argument to proceed, and to conclude on somewhat in the close.

We have shewed before, the vanity of their reasoning, à possibili ad necessarium, from a thing possible to the certainty of the thing, or to the probability either. For who ever thought, that a thing not repugnant must needs be, or be most likely, at the least? How many instances might be given to expose such a suppo­sition to laughter? But the way which I propounded last was, to detect their legerity, by arguing, à necessario ad im­possibile, from a thing necessary to a thing impossible. I have shewed, that Sacrifices were necessary to do away sin: if they like not that, yet they seem not [Page 73] to deny, but that they were apt and fit enough to set forth some conspicuous worship and service unto God. And if this sacrificing for either end, was a Duty not revealed, nor likely, nor possible to be excogitated by any man; then man was obliged to an impossibility by nature (at least excogitating) which is absurd, Quia nemo tenetur ad impossi­bile.

Will they say, that it was not necessa­ry from the beginning to offer any Sacri­fice at all, but only to set up some way of worship; and that another way might have been invented, if this had not been fit enough? They themselves are not able (in this light of day) so long after, to shew what that other way might have been. Will they say, they deny not some direction; but that it came in use ( divinâ quâdam ratione) they know not how, but by mens using of their right minds, the government of God (it may be) over-ruling them? This, I have noted before, was the shift of the old Pelagians; who finding some Grace to be undeniable, Vt supra cap. 2. would have it all to be placed in the natural gifts of knowledge, Free-will and moral Vertues, together with the benefits of Gods Pro­vidence [Page 74] and Government: but all this (as I have also shewed before) is not e­nough to constitute a Religion, which must needs come from some Law impo­sed, and revealed from God himself; much less a Covenant betwixt God and man, or a certain sign thereof, as Sacri­fice was, viz. Of our first Parents there­by entring into the Covenant of Grace, Gather my Saints together unto me (he says, Psal. 50.5.) those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice. Which was not the sign of the Covenant by Moses, but only circumcisio [...]. But from which of the first reasons (however o­ver-ruled) should it proceed? From A­dam's? He was at an utter loss, and if he had gone about such a thing (of his own head) more apt to fall into the snare of the Tempter again, than to hit it right towards God; From Cain? He was a Reprobate; From Abel, Noah and Abra­ham, according to such respective enlight­nings as they had? Then so many good men, so much variety of sacrificing; which was all but uniform until the Law of Moses.

Let us therefore come to the last winding up of the botom. 1. It was not probable, 2. It was morally impossi­ble, [Page 75] that any man should invent sacrifi­cing, so as to please God thereby, up­on their own accounts.

1. It was not probable, that either Adam or Abel should invent the sacrifi­cing of living Creatures, (since of Cain there remains no further Question, as to his own person, whatsoever his Descen­dents did, because he brought only of the fruits of the ground) as any acceptable service unto God. For Adam and Eve (for their parts) they being due to death themselves (from which they were but re­prieved only in respect of temporal death) it cannot well be imagined, that one of the first thoughts that should enter into their minds, should be to kill any of their lower Fellow Creatures; as being a [...]raid in themselves to see what natural death might be, much more a violent one, Rom. 8.20. in any other; more especially, wrought by their own hands, which had brought all other things into bon­dage with themselves, howsoever inno­cent. And as for Abel, he could have no less estranged apprehensions from the like slaughter, Prov. 12.10. For a righteous man re­gardeth the life of his Beast, but the ten­der mercies of the wicked are cruel; even as the very Sacrifices of the Heathen. [Page 76] And Abel besides was a Shepherd, which sort of men are so tender of their Flocks, that David encountred a Lyon and a Bear in their defence; and our Saviour himself saith, John 10.10, 11. The Thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy; but the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep.

2. So that it was morally impossible, that such good men as these should ever devise such a way as this of their own heads, or approve of it in their own conceits, if they had not been inform­ed of a mystery in the Case. For it would have been a sin against the Crea­tor to have slain his Creature, (for no mischief done, nor yet for food) if he had not required Sacrifice, or the death of the innocent (which he valued less) instead of the nocent, which he loved more. What was his speech to Ionah? Should not I spare Niniveh that great City, Jonah 4.11. wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons, that cannot discern betwixt their right hands and their left, and also much Cattel? The Children and the Cattel be­ing innocent alike, and so far Objects of Divine compassion, according to their different worths and natures.

We hear what they say, That these [Page 77] did it to acknowledge the right and do­minion of the Lord of life and death, and that it was not unnatural, because that God confirm'd it afterwards by Moses, and Christ in fine abolish'd it, which he never did any Law of Nature, which is eternal and immutable.

But if they did this to acknowledge the right of the Lord of life and death only, why did they take his right from him? Was that the proper way to ac­knowledge it? For if they slew the Creature in their own right (before God had put it into their hands) they wron­ged the Lord of life by bare killing, much more by presenting of such a death, as an acceptable token to him. To the Lord of life, a living Present is a fitter token than a dead; for he delighteth not in the death of any of his Creatures, he willeth not so much as the death of a Sinner, but rather that he should turn and live. But as the same is the Lord of death by his own free dispensation, for again he saith, Psal. 90.3. Return ye Children of men; so he will be avenged on them that take this out of his hand, Deut. 32.35 to hasten the end of any of his Creatures, Psal. 94.1. having once said, Rom. 12.19. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay it, Heb. 10.30. saith the Lord.

[Page 78]In a word, if there had been no my­stery in Sacrifices, they had been as un­ [...]atural in themselves, as Zipporah count­ed Circumcision; or, as we may account the severities of Moses, and of Ioshuah, and more especially of David (who was a merciful man in his own nature) who put the Ammonites under Saws, 2 Sam. 12.31. and Har­rows of Iron, and hewed them with Axes, and cast them into the Brick-kilns, 1 Chron. 20.3. (or made them pass through them) not on­ly those that resisted at Rablah, but all the Children of Ammon. A thing, which even Turks and Tartars would at this day shrink from committing, as contrary to the Laws both of Nature, and of Nations. So that God's confirm­ing of Sacrifices afterwards doth only prove, that they were his Ordinance before; and Christ's abolishing of them, that they were ordained only for a time.

In this, at last, we find Socinus to ex­ceed Pelagius, viz. That he holdeth but one way of salvation from the begin­ning to the end, (which is very true, if he had assigned the right) namely, by living according unto Nature; whereas Pelagius held, that that endured but till the Law, and that that was another [Page 79] way, and Grace another after that. And that he doth not so much as come up to the Heathen Philosophers, who though they sometimes speak lightly of prodigal Sacrifices, which God (they thought) delighted not in for them­selves; (as he also testifieth of himself in many places of the Scripture) yet they generally acknowledged Sacrifices to be piacular of offences, and pacatory of their offended Deities; according to the advice of Calchas unto Agamemnon, for removing of the Plague brought upon the Grecian Army (as he said) for Aga­memnon's offence in using roughly of Apollo's Priest, and detaining of his Daughter.

[...] Hom. 11.1.

[...]

[...]

[...]

CHAP. XI. Why Abel cut off, and why without issue, viz. That the curse and the promise might obtain their respective turns. The Sen­tence of the Woman, as the weaker Vessel, lightest; and a blessing restored to her in the birth of the Seed promised. That Cain inherited Adam's curse, by his own choice. Of the City that he built, and how it might be peopled, so as to leave retinue enough to his Father Adam, and Bro­ther Seth, besides.

BUT was this the reward (at last) of the Grace and favour shew­ed unto Abel's Sacrifice more than Cain's, that he should be delivered up into those hands which God himself did hate, to be vilely murthered by them? So God, it seems, esteemeth (o­therwise than men do) this to be the greatest honour that he can do his Saints, [Page 81] that they should suffer for his sake in this World, to the end that Abel might be­come the first Prophet upon record, Luke 11.51. (by which we may observe how he came, besides his Fathers directions, to be bet­ter informed about his sacrificing than his Brother) the first Martyr, and the first Inheriter of eternal life and Glory [...] ▪ as also, Matth. 23, 35. that on the persecuting World might come all the righteous blood shed up­on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the utmost crucifying of Christ and of all his Members.

Nor was Abel suffered to live so long, as to leave any Issue of his own, wherein he might have survived here on Earth in another manner, (which might a lit­tle have alleviated the loss of him to­wards his broken-hearted Parents) God reserving for him a better name than that of Sons and Daughters. But, very pro­bable it seems, that both his death was permitted, and his issue prevented, for two other ends, which I may point at here, viz. 1. That the Curse, and 2. That the Promise, might both obtain their respective turns.

For God had said first unto the Ser­pent, Gen. 3. Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed; and I will put enmity between thee [Page 82] and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. And unto the Woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow. And unto Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, till thou return unto the ground whence thou wast taken.

For the first,

It was denounced against the Serpent, and against the man, more extensively; but against the Woman ( tanquam medi­um tantùm participationis) as the weaker Vessel, more remisly, though sad enough, In sorrow shalt thou conceive. But the be­nefit of the promise it self passeth through the Woman by a stroke darted through the Serpent, and reacheth to the man ( tanquam objectum tantùm partici­pationis) as the primary object of mer­cy only; since the Woman was of the Man, and all Mankind was to be the like thereafter, till the very promised Seed should come from the bowels of a Woman only. So that as Woman was taken out of Man at first, Man was ta­ken out of Woman afterwards, with­out [Page 83] generation in both; but the regene­ration that came by the latter to all Man­kind, was infinitely a greater benefit than the constitution of a certain Sex or Spe­cies of Womankind before.

And for so much of the Serpents Curse as glanceth also terribly on the Posterity of man, Gen. 3. the Lord had said, I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed (poor Woman! that She herself must bear against her will!) and her Seed (which God should chuse, and She not know which was which) but the Seed of the Serpent was named first. This was Cain, the first, that was concei­ved in iniquity and born in sin; which yet was no more imputed unto him than unto Abel: what reason shall he there­fore have to murmure? Gen. 4. cain est possessio [...] In [...]o [...]. p [...]ta­bant redem­ptionem el­se in [...]ori­bus: ergo Letum [...] nomen im­pos [...]nt. [...] Aé [...]le [...], ideo vanitatis nomine p [...]tiùs illum insig [...]b [...]. Fagius. If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lyeth at the door. And yet poor Eve hoped that this had been the promised Seed, wherefore She called his Name Cain, Gen 4.1. saying, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Unto Adam God had also said, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. And this did Cain also obtain for his inheri­tance (as a double portion) by his own [Page 84] choice; for whereas Abel was a Keeper of the sheep, Cain was a Tiller of the ground.

Of the competition likewise betwixt the two Seeds it is said further, It shall bruise the Serpents head, but the Serpents Seed shall bruise the others heel. Now the Seed of the Woman (if that was A­bel) was so far from beginning at all with the Seed of the Serpent (so much as to tread upon its tail, much less to bruise his head) that it was not only bruised in the heel by a small hurt from the Serpent, but in the head it self, by the death of Abel, quite contrary to what might be expected.

But the Answer is, Though Cain knock'd his Brother in the head, yet the Seed of the Serpent did but bruise the heel of the Church (which was the Wo­mans Seed) in the person of Abel, who was the first Type of Christ, qui patiendo vicit, who overcame, and so broke the head of the Serpent by his sufferings. For ‘ Daemona, non armis, sed morte, subegit IESVS.’ Wherefore as Christ arose from the dead the third day, and then triumphed glo­riously over Principalities and Powers; so did Abel rise again (to the benefit of [Page 85] the Church) in the person of his Bro­ther Seth, Gen. 4.25. For God, said Eve, hath ap­pointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew; by whom the Serpent was to be sped at last.

In the mean while, there are two further Points to be discreetly traversed, 1. Gen. 4.3.4. That Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years (and it is likely Eve some­what near the matter, whether more or less) and begat other Sons, not menti­oned, and Daughters, whereof the name of never an one is at all recorded. 2. That some penitent issue is not obscurely shewn to have issued from Cain him­self.

ver. 19, &c.For all the Sons of Adam, not named, we may take it for granted that they ei­ther abode in their Fathers Tents (ta­king their Sisters to Wives, who were next to be taken) or went off with Cain to help him build and replenish his City; being nevertheless of the Seed of the Woman (or of the true Church) so long as they retained the Worship, the Rites, the Rules, and the Moral Laws, that they carried off from their Fathers house. And others of them cleaved un­to Seth, and holp to make up his Family, because the Earth must needs be reple­nished, [Page 86] and Children go off to further distance. And thus we may conceive that the true Church was far from failing betwixt the death of Abel, and the birth of Seth, howsoever the necessity of lively­hood, or civil accommodation might di­vide the Members of it. But as Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years be­fore he had Seth, so Seth live a hun­dred and five years more before he had Enos. In which long tract of time, and encrease of Generations, Gen. 6.1, [...]. when men began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and that Daughters were born unto them; so that the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair, and took them Wives of all they liked: then the true Worshippers were [...]ain to gather unto one House, or Tribe. And how they might attain to any consistency there, I refer you to the Letter of a learned Gen­tleman in the Postscript. All that remains to be said here is this, That when the House of Seth came to degenerate too, God brought a Deluge on the World, as it is commonly accounted 1656 years af­ter the Creation.

CHAP. XII. Why God preserved Cham and Japhet in the Ark, as well as Sem. That though they followed the way of the old World, yet they were encreased in dominion (which was not the blessing promised) more than .Sem Nay, that he himself was greater in temporal accessions by o­ther Sons, than by Eber.

NOW one might think, since God Almighty was so much offended with the sins of the old World, as to say, Gen. 6. It repented him that he had made man on the Earth, and it grieved him at his heart, that he would have taken such caution about the next succession, that no generation like to that of Cain's should have survived the Deluge. Yet as he preserved some of all kinds (even of noxious Creatures) in the Ark, so he dealt by the intire Family of Noah. He would not prejudge the Cases of Iaphet and Cham, who were under the same protection, discipline, and common bles­sings with Sem, till they came to be se­vered in their habitations and progenies. ‘Among the Sons of Noah (saith Sir [Page 88] Walter Raleigh) there were found strong effects of the former poyson. First Book of the Hi­story of the World. part 1. ch. 6. sect. 2. For as the Children of Sem did inherit the Vertues of Seth, Enoch and Noah; so the Sons of Cham did possess the vi­ces of Cain, and of those wicked Gi­ants of the first Age.’

As for Iaphet, we read no hurt of him, but it is rather recorded to his com­mendation, Gen. 9.23. that he joined with his Bro­ther Shem, to make some amends for the villany of Ham. who had exposed his Fathers nakedness. However, it is not obscurely implyed that Iaphet was either fallen or about to fall off to dege­nerate worship; because this is added to his blessing (for that act of silial Grace and Duty) That God would at last en­large or perswade Iaphet to dwell in the Tents of Sem, Gen. 10.21. who, though chosen by God, is for the most part concluded to have been the younger Brother: Which Prophetick Promise to Iaphet, as the like Curse to Ham, were not to be ac­complished in either of their persons, but in their posterities, some Ages after. Wherefore, for all the love and great sa­vour that God shewed unto Noah, he would not hinder the accursed race of enmity from spreading out of his Loins al­so, [Page 89] to be two ways branched, for the greater afflictions of Sem's choicest De­scendents, until the time appointed.

For as the Sons of Noah descended from Mount Ararat, (where the Ark rested, whether it was Caucasus or Tau­rus) Ham and his Sons seized on all that they were able to occupy, from the parts of Mesopotamia to the ends of Africk, which was the Road that a part of them took. Gen. 10. Of his Son Cush descended Nim­rod,the Founder of the ensuing Babylo­nian Greatness, as also Ashur (who gave the Name of Assyria) that built Niniveh. And of his Son Canaan descended the Si­donians, Hittites, Iebusites, Ammonites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, and other reprobate Hoards or Nations. Of his Son Mizraim descended also Pathrusim, the Father of the Philistines, and Caslu­him, the original of some of the Bor­dering Arabians. And such of his Race as aimed further Southwards, peopled all Egypt and Ethiopia, to the Lands end, so far as their number or encrease could seize on Lands without resistance. So that out of Ham proceeded the Prin­ces and people which held the great Kingdoms (as they grew) of Babylon, Syria and Egypt, for many Descents to­gether, [Page 90] towards the future oppression of the Sons of Sem; Sir Walter Raleigh Book, 1. part, ch. 8 §. 2. the blessings of Shem and Iaphet (as my Authour hath it) taking less effect, until the time ap­pointed. So that the first great Lords of the Earth were of this accursed Race, that they might thresh in the Theshing­floors of Israel, and bring their Fans in their hands, whensoever the House of God was to be purged by the affliction of his people. And to shew besides that God accounteth not, as men do, of Worldly Greatness, he letteth it go (to chuse) unto the Heathen: who there­upon do idolize the Fortunes of their Princes, and set them up for Gods. The first of which this Ham is counted to have been, by the Name of Iupiter Hammon; and the places where he was adored most, do countenance that opini­on. And who was ever set up for an I­dol, but the worst of men?

From Iaphet also and his seven Sons, the Medes, Seythes, Thracians, Macedo­nians, Grecians, and the most part of Lesser Asia were replenished; together with the Isles of the Gentiles, by which name the ends of the habitable World were only known unto the Hebrews. From whence came Alexander first, and [Page 91] his Captains, and after them the Romans, to subdue and to waste Eber. Which events seem to have been more clearly revealed unto Balaam, than unto any of the better Prophets, even in the infancy of this people, while they travelled in the Desart towards this Land of Promise. And Ships shall come, Numb. 24.24. saith he, from the Coasts of Chittim, and shall afflict Ashur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever

Nor did no other, but the holy Line, run through Sem himself: For from his Son Elam the Elamites or Persians did derive their name; from Arphaxad the chaldeans sprung; and some say, from his Son Ashur (and not Nimrod's) the Assyrians: as from his Son Aram the A­ramites or Syrians; and from his Son Lud the Lydians (what people soever they were) became known, according to the names of their Progenitors.

CHAP. XIII. The knowledge of God dispersed in other Families, besides Sem's : but corrupti­on in his also occasioned the Call of A­bram. Why Lot came with him, and why he was driven into Egypt, and brought back so soon. Piety in Canaan while Sem lived there. Nor was the whole election at first restrained to the House of Abraham.

Though goodness may be re­paired in our selves, yet it can­not be, propaga­ted unto ours....Doubtless their edu­cation was holy: for Adam, tho' in Para­dise he could not be inno­cent, yet was a good man out of Paradise, saith Bishop Hall. Contemplat. on Cain and Abel.NOW as Adam taught his Children, as he himself had been taught by God, how to sacrifice and keep the Sab­bath, with certain Rites of Worship, and Laws of life; so Noah also taught his Children all alike the same true Worship that had been delivered from Adam, (who dyed not much above an hundred years before the birth of Noah, since he lived nine hundred and thirty years, and Noah was born in An. Mundi 1056.) to­gether with the true meaning of the Co­venant after the Flood, betokened by a Rainbow. And because Noah lived three hundred and fifty years more, and the dispersion happened not in his life, Ut fusè ex­plicat Ber­tramus, l. de Rep. E­br. cap. 2. & Jo, Seld. l. 3. de Ju­re Natur. & Gen.&c. cap. 8. the [Page 93] knowledge of God must needs be far and wide dispersed in the Tents of Cham and Iaphet as well as in those of Sem, before the Rout at Babel; and they that went off in that confusion of lan­guages, could not chuse however but carry off some rudiments or other of their first breeding. But when true Re­ligion came to be corrupted in Sem's Fa­mily too, as well as in the rest, in the eighth Generation (about five hundred and two years after the Deluge) in the person of Terah, who became an Ido­later, as the Scriptures do expresly Josh. 24.2, 3.Isal. 51.1, 2. te­stifie (however Bishop Montague Montag. apparat. c. 1. Sect. 28. comes to have a better opinion of him) Then it pleased God to call forth his elect Ves­sel Abram from his Fathers house, to go into a Land that he would shew him, where his Seed should in time to come be planted alone by themselves in the middle of the Earth, and become a pe­culiar people unto God.

And Abram brought his Brother Haran's Son Lot with him by God's per­mission, because he was a righteous man; and yet neither he nor his were to be comprized in the same Covenant with Abraham and his Seed. Jos. Antiq. l. 1. c. 8. Iosephus says, That Abram brought him along [Page 94] with him, with intent to make him his Heir, because as yet he had no Issue. But the same Providence that brought them forth together, within a while did sever them, that Moab and Ammon (that should hate the Seed of Abraham as much as Lot and Abram loved one another) might arise out of Lot's incest, and be ready planted in the Land of Canaan, to be Thorns in the sides of Israel.

As for Abram himself, God had no sooner shewed him the Land of promise, but he forced him and Lot from thence by famine into Egypt, Egypt gives relief to A­braham, when Canaan could not afford him Bread, which yet he must believe shall flow with Milk and Hony to his Seed... Thrice had Egypt preserved the Church of God; in A­bram, in Iacob, and in Christ. Bishop Hall. Cont. of Abraham. to try whether he would not stagger after such a promise, seeing such a defeat imme­diately upon it; as also to make him a Type of the Seed promised, who was to be driven into Egypt as soon as he was born; as also to begin the sufferings of Christ in his Body the Church. For it was from this time to be accounted, that the four hundred years should be accomplished in him and his Seed; of which he had received this threatning (after such a promise of Grace) for some shew of lesser faith than he had exprest before, Gen. 15.13. Know of a [Page 95] surety that thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs (as Egypt and the parts about, for in Egypt it self they remained but two hundred and ten years) and shall serve them four hundred years. Gen. 12.19—20.4, 8. But while Abram sojourned here, he found more piety than he expe­cted; as he after did in the same Case, at Gerar of the Philistines. However, Pharaoh's mistaken kindness unto Sarah, occasioned the dismission of Abram and Lot, Simson. Chronici Catholici parte 1.ad An. Mund. 2086. with all their substance, into Canaan (as it is thought) the very next year, where their substance being great­ly encreased, they were fain to part; Wherefore God enjoin­ed Abraham's Posterity in after Generations to speak, and say before the Lord their God, A Syrian ready to pe­rish was my Father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a Nation, &c. Deut. 26.5. their Compa­nies also being great, A­bram was put to shew his power in falling upon four victorious Kings for the res­cue of his Gen. 14. Nephew Lot, who had been taken cap­tive by them: for it is said, that Abram was very rich in Cattel, Ch. 13.2. in Silver, and in Gold. And for his great Retinue, when he treated with the Sons of Heth for a Burying-place for Sarah, they said unto him, Ch. 23.6. Hear us, my Lord, thou art a migh­ty Prince amongst us; in the choice of our Sepulchres bury thou thy dead: As if there [Page 96] had been yet some civility among these Hitties, of the Race of Cham, some­what of kin to piety.

But when Abram returned with victo­ry over the Kings which he had pursued, then Melchizedeck King of Salem came forth to meet him, Ch. 14.18, &c. and he brought forth bread and wine, (Whe­ther to re­fresh his little Ar­my, or to sacrifice, or both.) Qui Mel­chisedecum nihil ad Sacrificia, nisipane & vino usum censent, & rebus tan­tùm inani­mis sacri­ficâsse ar­bitrantur, hi sanè quantum mihi vide­tur, quare fiejudicent, nihil habent. Imòverò, se à Sacerdotio ejus aliena suissent cruenta Sa­crificia, quî sactum est, ne ipse Christus cujas idem Sacerdotii genus sanguine suo sacrificaret? Outr. l. 2. c. 1. [Ubi Vir Cl. coactus est sareri Sacrificia Typica, ac proinde instituta ante Mofen.] because he was the Priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, Possessor of Heaven and Earth. And Abram gave him tythes of all [his spoils] as the A­postle doth expound it, Heb. 7.4. So that here we are pointed to observe ano­ther Church, without the House of A­bram, which hath an High Priest, whereas Abram himself had no greater Title than that of a Pro­phet; Gen. 20.7. nor any greater Right to handle Divine Mysteries, than a­ny other Father of a Family, (which de­rived Priesthood down from Adam) so that Abram paid Tythes unto him.

Not to enter into the whole Dispute about Melchisedeck, Gal 3. Saint Paul prefer­ring [Page 97] ancient things before the latter, sets the Covenant of Grace before the Law four hundred and thirty years; and thereby proves the excellency of it a­bove the latter. And to shew that our Lord Christ was of a Royal Priesthood, far above the Tribe of Levi, he proveth that Levi, himself paid both tithes and homage to him, by Abraham in his Anti­type Melchisedeck (while Levi was in the loins of his Progenitor Abraham) as Priest of the most high God, and King of righteousness, and King of peace, by aug­mentation of his titles, (King and Priest from ancient times agreeing in the same person, till God appropriated the Tribe of Levi, for the better preservation of purity, after many of the Heads of Fa­milies were found so prone unto degene­racy) whatever proper name he might have besides. The generality agree that he was a Videsis tamen quid de hâcre sen­ferit P. Cunaeus de Rep. He­braeorum, l. 3. c. 3. mortal man (immortal only as a Type of Christ) and some think (as à Corn. à Lap. in lo­cum. Qui interimpi­os piè & juslè vix. it... Lapide quotes the Authors) that he was one of the Roytelets of Ca­naan, who by God's Providence was preserved to be both a faithful man, and a good King amongst them. Accuratis­simè v. Matth. Po. lus in Sy­nopsi ad Heb. c. 7. Which to me ( prophanum quoddam sonat, & au­dax) seems to be too bold a sense to [Page 98] agree with that expression of our Apo­stle, Now consider how great this man was, Sine Pa­tre, sine Ma­tre, quia sine Genea­logia, quod in aliis om­nibus viris magnis contra à Mose fieri solebat: I­mò nallis parentibus esse dicti sunt magni & illustres Viri, quo­rum Paren­tes non me­morantur. Nam Sene­ca duorum Regum me­minit, quo­rum alter, inquit, Pa­trem non habet, alter Matrem. Ep. 108. In Outr. l. 1. c. 4. cujus Libri Cl. de Sacrif. ad manus meas non pervenêre, nisi post exaratas, & propemodum fi [...]itas hasce Chartas; quaeratio est, cur in ipsis Columnis postea non citentur. unto whom even the Patriarch Abra­ham gave the tenth of the spoils. Which words are surely imcompatible unto the best of the race of Canaan. But the circumstances agree well, that this Mel­chisedeck should be the great Patriarch Sem, the high Progenitor of Abram, from whom in a direct Line Abram was of the ninth Generation : for Sem be­gat Arphaxad, and He Salah, and He Eber, and He Peleg, and He Re [...], and He Serug, and He Nahor, and He Terah, and Terah Abraham. And Sem lived in all, six hundred years, whereof a hun­dred and fifty in Abraham's life time : so that very venerable must his presence needs be to Abraham, who was so much a Puis [...]é among the Great, Great, Grand­Children of Sem.

Now if any wonder how this Sem should come to dwell and have a King­dom among the Canaanites, it is to be remembred what Noah had said when he cursed Canaan, Gen. 9.26. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his [Page 99] Servant. So that for a time Shem might have an habitation amongst them, and he built the City of Salem (as it is con­ceived) amongst them, all other Nati­ons becoming (soon) a confused medly of people, besides the Israelites, whom God preserved intire to himself. And so, it may be, this branch of Sem (after his death) that dwelt at Salem, might come to be incorporated with the other Nati­ons, that were afterwards to be destroy­ed for their idolatry. But the blessing went away with his Son Arphaxad only, Gen. 10, 21, &c. of all his Sons mentioned before, whi­ther he went; and followed only his Po­sterity, according to election, till the time of promise was compleat, and the iniquity of the Canaanites full, that the Sons of Sem by Eber alone might have it all at last.

Only this we may observe, That for a long time after Adam, and after Noah, the Church of God was in divers Families, and in divers Kindreds. But as in the old World, the Children of men came to be distinguished from the Sons of God by the House of Seth, and his Son Enos, Gen. 4.26, when men began to call upon the name of the Lord, in Assemblies apart from the o­ther: So after the Flood, the like hap­pened [Page 100] to the House of Sem, the whole House of Sem; till out of this it pleased God to make a more particular election of the Seed of Abraham, for his pecu­liar people, to be his visible Church on Earth; to which all Nations owed reve­rence and obedience, as they hoped to share in the blessings of his holy Cove­nant (not to dispute here whether the whole Election or the whole Covenant of Grace, as to the inward part, was not larger than the Covenant of Promise, Gen. 4.26. entailed only unto Abraham and his Seed, with the outward priviledges annexed to it) But before the Call of God to Abra­ham, Gen. 9.26. he disdained not to be called the Lord God of Shem; Montague's Acts and Monu­ments (w ^th is his Ap­paratus o­therwise accommo­dated) ch. 1. § 29. Gen. 17.7. yet after that, ‘it was said to Abraham in appropriated terms, with addition above Sem, for his posterity, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed after thee. By which new way of entailment, [...], God common, and as common appertaining unto all, was, saith Chrysostome, made his by peculiar interest and appropriation; since when it is delivered, declared and averred by God himself, for him and his Seed, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob; this is my [Page 101] name for ever, this is my memorial from generation to generation. And so he continued known, and distinguished in the World of old, until the incar­nation, the God of Israel above other people.’ Let us therefore next consi­der how it pleased God to form them.

CHAP. XIV. That God's Command to Abram might not seem too hard, it pleased him to mollifie it with an ample Promise, only general at the first: Which he delayed about twenty eight years to exercise the faith of Abram, and repeated with some va­riety to the sixth time, after long inter­vals, Abram running divers hazards between. Abram is terrified by seeking of a sign, and why. Sarai thinking the promise not to be to her, weakly gi­veth Hagar to her Husband: yet divers mysteries in the coming of Ishmael be­twixt the promise and the Son of pro­mise.

‘IF Chaldaea had not been grosly ido­latrous (saith Bishop Hall) Abra­ham had not left it:’ Con empl. of Abra­ham, Book 2. (But how could he [Page 102] chuse, since God had called him from thence, Acts 7.2. even out of Mesopotamia, which is invironed with the two great Rivers of Euphrates and Tigris, about which Tracts the Garden of Eden is thought to have been situated?) ‘But whither must he go? to a place he knew not? to men that know not him?’ The Text says no more, at the first word, but only unto a Land that I will shew thee. Gen 12. [...], 2, 3— Wherefore, that this Command of God might seem the less hard or strange to A­bram, he thought it not too much conde­scension to his chosen Vessel, to mollifie it with a rich and gracious promise, both temporal and spiritual, I will make of thee (saith he) a great Nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the fa­milies of the earth be blessed.

In which promise it is contained, 1. That God would make of his Seed a great Nation; 2. That that Nation should be a blessing, in that it should be­come his only true Church; 3. That God would bless the friends and blast the enemies thereof; 4. That at last all the faithful, throughout all the Families [Page 103] of the World, to the World's end, should become the Children of Abraham through faith in the blessed Seed promi­sed, who was to be made of God the Heir of all things visible and invisible; by which faith they should be after bles­sed, as Abraham himself was before.

Now to exercise this faith of Abraham, and to make him a pattern to all poste­rity, it pleased God to delay this pro­mise for the space of twenty eight years, Ab Anno Mun. (ut Simson computat) 2077 ad An. Mun. 2108. till there was little hope in Abraham, and none at all in Sarai of obtaining any Issue; and yet still to continue this pro­mise, after divers tedious intervals, to a sixth repetition, with some seeming vari­ation in the terms.

He no sooner had received the first ge­neral promise (mentioned above With a second assurance, delivered as a new promise, pointing out the Land in particular, which he had been commanded to survey.) but God drove him out of Canaan into E­gypt by famine (as was touched before) where he was in fear of being killed for Sarai's sake. Gen. 13.7 Then he soon finds himself (after his return) engaged in a War to rescue Lot, leading forth three hundred and eighteen of trained Ser­vants, born in his own house; besides some Auxiliaries of the Amorites, his [Page 104] Confederates, under the Conduct of A­ner, Eshcol and Mamre, (in whose Plain at that time Abram sojourned, when the tidings were brought unto him) which happened after the promise re­newed the third time, in these words, Lift up now thine eyes, Gen. 13.14, 15, 16. and look from the place where thou art, Northward, and Southward, and Eastward, and Westward. For all the Land that thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever. And I will make thy Seed as the dust of the earth, which cannot be numbred. In which promise the temporal blessing is only pointed at, and that Land in parti­cular, more amply than before.

Some considerable time seems to have passed between, e're God appeared un­to Abram again with these comfortable words, Gen. 15.1. Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. Abram is sensible that these words relate to the three former promises; yet doubting, lest he should be mistaken in the meaning of them, he makes bold to complain un­to God, That (for all his former promi­ses) he remained Childless still, and no other Heir but Eliezer, his Steward (a Stranger of Damascus, though born in his house) appeared likely to inherit all [Page 105] his Substance. Which moved God to compassionate his Case, and to conde­scend to him in a fourth promise, that he should have an Heir out of his own Loins, Gen. 15.6, &c. And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness. Yet after that, presuming farther, to ask a sign, though God vouchsafed to conde­scend to his request; yet he caused an horror of great darkness to fall upon him in his sleep, in (or after) which he gave him to know, that his posterity should serve unto the fourth Generation, till the iniqui­ty of the Amorites was full. However, when this heavy agony was over, God was pleased to amplisie his temporal pro­mise, in extending the bounds of it from the River of Egypt, unto the great River Euphrates.

In the mean time, Sarai, thinking these promises to be made to her Hus­band only, and not unto her self (find­ing how the Case stood with her) gave her Egyptian Handmaid Hagar to him, Gen. 16.2. desiring (at least) to have some little part in the Land promised, by her own Maid; which She was not like to have by ano­ther. This was the tenth year after the promise at the least; but as soon as She conceived, Sarai was iealous of her, Ver. 3. [Page 106] and by hard usage wrought her flight: and so gave birth unto a great mystery or two, before the Son of the Concubine could be produced.

What made Abram so continent hi­therto, and so constant to his barren Wife Sarai? Did he think it unlawful to take a Concubine? And if so, why did he now? He might have had, it seems, a nearer Heir than Eliezer before this, and if he had gone this way; for Ut pro­bat Jo. Sel­denus de jure, &c. libr. 5. cap. 7. Concu­bines were accounted as Wives, only dif­ferent in their Rank; and divers of their Sons did inherit among the Sons of As Dan and Naph­tali, Sons of Bilhab; and Gad and Ashur, Sons of Zilpah. Israel, whereas Bastards only were ex­cluded, as in the Case of Judg. 1 1.2. Mar. 19.4. Alii dicunt, Fili­os Concubi­narum (e­jusdem Gentis) Haere­des quidem esse, seu pos­se; non i­tem ancil­larum alie­nigena­rum, ut Agar. Vide que Sarah suggerit, cap. 21.10. Iephthah. It may be Abram understood about Concu­binacy (what our Saviour taught expres­ly) that, God having made Man Male and Female (one and one) from the be­ginning it was not so: yet that it might have been permitted unto him, as well as his Progenitors, for the supply of Is­sue, if it had not been to grieve his belo­ved Wife, and Sister-in-Law, Sarai. But now She puts Hagar to him, as if it were on purpose to restrain his choice of any other: What shall He do? Is He glad of the occasion for the further [Page 107] satisfying of his flesh? Or doth he do it the better to please his Wife, even as Adam pleased Eve, and fell by it? Or, in sine, is not he himself also touched with a little spice of unbelief, in his ob­temperance unto Sarai, as well as she?

In my opinion (howsoever some Ex­positors do seek to blanch it) the faithful Abram was at this time imposed on by his Wife Sarai, and not excusable of some infirmity in the Case. Though he stedfastly believed the promise, yet hi­therto it had not been revealed to him, that it should be by Sarai: By whom should he therefore try, but by her whom Sarai herself had recommended to him? It happened therefore as a pu­nishment unto Sarai's diffidence, that her Handmaid Hagar (having conceived, and thereupon imagining that she and hers should go away with all at last) be­gan to despise her; and to Abram him­self, that he should have such a Lout as Ishmael, by a foul Egyptian. Of whom yet (as a Son by Nature) he was so fond, Gen. 15. ult. & 17▪ 1. that when God renewed the pro­mise the fifth time of the blessed Seed, thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael, enough to let him know that Ishmael was not the Seed intended; yet he could not [Page 108] forbear to intercede for him after this manner, O that Ishmael might live before thee: Gen 17.18. As if Abram could e'en have been contented that Ishmael might have been the man.

But it may not fare better with Abram than with his Forefathers, Adam and Noah, before him; for as Adam had Cain for his First-born, and Noah one, or other of the Aliens; so must Abram too (the election of Grace having sel­dome been observed to have followed primogeniture, while all other privi­ledges were annexed to it). And as Cain and Cham were born to persecute the true Church, before it was yet in being, or but yet in its under growth; (like the red Dragon, Rev. 12.4. in the Revelation, that stood before the Woman that was ready to be delivered, for to devour her Child as soon as it was born) so it was to fare with Ishmael, Gen. 21.9. who first scoffed at the Feast of Isaac's weaning, and was after planted in his own Issue upon the skirts of the Land of Canaan, among the Ca­naanites, to be ready to join as far as a­ny of them, with the enemies of the Race of Isaac. So that God would have out of the same Loins of Abram both the Curse and the Blessing to have their [Page 109] appointed course, according to his own purpose, without respect unto the favour that he bore to Abram!

In fine, Gal. 4.24, &c. the Apostle himself warns us of a further mystery, Why Ishmael should come between the promise, and the ful­filling of it; and why he was to be born before Isaac the Heir of the promise, Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, Do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, That Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bond-maid, the other by a Free woman. But he who was of the Bond-woman was born after the flesh, but he of the Free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two Covenants, the one from the mount Sinai, which gendreth unto bondage, which is Agar: for this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth unto Ierusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her Children. But Ierusalem which is above, is free, which is the Mother of us all,&c.

So that the further mystery beyond this (that Israel should first suffer under Egyptian bondage before they should be free) was this, That the Law which en­gendreth unto bondage must needs come first; whereof this Hagar and her Son Ishmael were a Type or Allegory. Which [Page 110] do answer (saith the Apostle) to the un­believing Ierusalem, [...] that now is, or still remaineth fixed to the Law of Mount Sinai, the Law of the old Covenant or Testament. But Sarah and her Son Isaac, the Son of the promise, do answer unto that Ierusalem, which is from above, viz. the Church of the Gentiles, called by wonders from Heaven, 1 Cor. 10.11. with the descend­ing of the Holy Ghost. Which Church is free both from all the burthen of the Law, Evidenter ergo Pau­lus pronun­ciat, quòd omnis, qui per sidem à Chrislo con­sequitar li­b [...]rtatem, Filius sit Liberae; & hanc dicit esse sursum Hierusalem, quae libera est, quae est Mater om­nium no­strum. O­rig in Can­tic. homil. 2. tom. 1. Hi vero qui ex Gentibus crediderunt, Domino crediderunt, & non videntur sub hu­jus viri, i.e. sub Legis vixisse poteslate, nec unquam habuisse virum Le­gem— Vt Esaias declarat, dicens, Laetare slerilis, quae non paris—Et ollenait eam quae habet virum, Synagogam quae habet Legem—Post Christam Lex everta est—Et tunc mortuus est Vir ejus, i.e. secundum li­teram Lex. Idom ia E.p. ad Rom. c. 7.1.6. tom. 2. Frobenii. and from all its defects, as having that joy in the Holy Ghost, which by the Law it could not possibly have at­tained to. Unto which Church it is further promised, that the desolate (which was) should have more Children than she which hath (the Law for) an Husband. But what saith the Scripture? Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son; for they cannot live together, by reason of the Spirit of persecution that is in one against the other; much less can they in­herit together, that lay claim by titles so opposite to one another, as the Law and Works, the Gospel and its Grace.

CHAP. XV. At the fifth renewal of the promise God augmented the names of Abram and Sa­rai. And required a Covenant from A­braham and his Seed; the effect of which was, That he would be their God, and they should be his people. Why God required such a sign as Circumcision to be the token of the Covenant. Wherein the Glosses of Philo and Maimonides are detected. How Circumcision came to be in use in Egypt, and who of them received it. The right state propounded, as it was to be accommodated to the times of the Old Testament.

NOW, when it pleased God to re­new his promise, at the fifth course when Abram was ninety nine years old, and Sarai past Child-bearing, ac­cording unto Nature; he added an [...] of augmentation in the midst of Abram's name, and in the end of Sarai's; that the one should thereafter be called Abraham, and the other Sarah: the reasons where­of (to refer the rest unto the Cabbalists) are given in the Text. And so the pro­mise it self is exhibited in ampler terms [Page 112] than before, and Sarah expresly shewed to be, in her own Person, the Woman that should conceive this Seed, and the set time, viz. at that set time in the next year, after God had done talking with Abraham, Gen. 17.21, 22. and went up from him. But Abraham is now given to understand, that according unto this Grace, he must enter into a Covenant with God for himself, and for his Seed after him; wherein God would also condescend to be one Party of the Covenant with him; which in effect was this, That God would be the God of him and his Seed, and that he should be their only God. In token of which Covenant, (as a recognizance or acknowledgment of it) God required of Abraham, that he and his Seed, every male at eight days old should be circumci­sed in the foreskin of the flesh; and all that were born in his house, or bought with money of any stranger, which was not of his seed; under penalty of being cut off from his people, whosoever should break the Covenant, in remaining uncircumcised after this. So Abraham began with Ishmael, or with himself, it is uncertain whether; but to me it seems that it was with himself. So that Abra­ham's heart being formed by faith be­fore [Page 113] God would also now have all of the same profession to be signed with the same Sign, whereby his visible Church and people should be distinguished from others, and Sacramentally sanctified un­to himself. Which mystery is therefore next to be enquired into with the greater diligence.

It appeareth by it self what circumci­sion is: The only thing to be admired is, Why it should please God to make an holy Ordinance of so obscene a thing as Circumcision , ( saltem in adultis) at the least in grown men, that were to be made Proselytes; whom, one would think, the pain should not more keep off than the shame of the thing, in the eyes of common men: And to what ends (especially) he did require it: Which may draw in all the Question here, so far as it doth relate unto the times of the Old Testament: for of the remainder (if God permit) there is more to be said hereafter. And be­cause this is no Polemical Discourse in its first intention, I shall endeavour to be the briefer in the stating of it.

This Question therefore may be con­sidered, First, As it hath been blanched or coloured, to make it more plausible [Page 114] unto the Philosophical apprehensions of the learneder sort of Heathens. Second­ly, As it was accommodated to the state of the Old Testament, from Abra­ham until Moses, Ioshua, David, and the times of the Maccabees. Thirdly, As it was a Type, a Figure, a Mystery, or a Sacrament, referring unto Christ, and the state of his Church to come, un­der the ministration of the New Testa­ment: Which are all worthy to be weighed by themselves.

In Com­ment. Lo­riniad Act. 15.1. Ant Plato Phi­lonizar, ant Philo Platonizat. Vulg. dict. Jos. Antiq. [...] 18. cap. 10.First, I find that Philo (a Iewish Phi­losopher) of Alexandria imitating Plato, descended from one Class or other of the Chief Priests, and sent as an Ambassador from the Jews of that place unto the Emperour Cains, about seven years after the death of Christ) endeavouring, as his manner is, to apologize for Iudaism, that it might seem the more gentile a­mong the Gentiles, among other reasons why Circumcision was introduced by their Ancestors, and transmitted to their Posterity, speaketh thus: ‘The Circum­cision of our Ancestors is derided; but it is had in no small honour among other Nations, especially the Egyptians, who excel no less in sapience than in populacy of men.’ And [Page 115] Herodotus informs us, In Euter­pe ubi mores Antiquorum Aegyptio­rum dei scibic. That divers other Nations, as the Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Inhabitants of Colchos, &c. derived this Custom from the Egyptians. Philo goes on, and says, ‘That one cause of it is, For that Circumcision is a good pre­vention of a foul Disease called the Carbuncle:’ Whether he mean the same that was since known in these Parts by the Neapolitan Disease, let the learn­ed judge; and enquire whether this Disease was known in those times and Countries when Philo wrote, or not; and whether this [...]were a preventive remedy against that Disease. ‘Another reason (he says) was, That the whole Body might become the purer; so that the Egyptian Priests did add rasure to it, over all their Bodies, that they might come the purer to their Offi­ces.’

Now as for this, Virilia circumcldunt mun­ditiae gra­tiâ, plaris sacientes te mundos esse quàm deco­ros. Herodotus (indeed) says, ‘That the Egyptians circumcised themselves for cleanliness, making more account of that than to be decorous.’ But on whatsoever trust Herodotus took this, it could not escape the search of the learned Father Origen, that this preten­ded cleanliness was for some reputed san­ctity amongst the Egyptians; and that [Page 116] they did not admit their Vulgar unto Circumcision, but their Priests only, or their Soothsayers, and Students of their Hieroglyphicks, and their sacred Scien­ces, as they reputed them.

Apud vos (inquit) O Gentiles, Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. cap. 2.l. 2. Gelenii E­dir. à Fro­benio. it a mag­ni habetur Circumcisio, ut non passim Vulgo ignobili, sed solis Sacerdotibus, aut My­stis credatur. Nam apud Aegyptios, qui in Superstitionibus vestris & vetustissimi habentur, & eruditissimi, à quibus propè omnes reliqui Ritum sacrorum, & Caere­moniarum mutuati sunt, apud hos, inquam, nullus, avt Geometriae studebat, avt A­stronomiae...... nise Circumcisione susce­ptâ.... Hoc igitur apud Iudaeos turpe, & obscoenum judicatis, quod apud vos ita ho­nestum habetur, ac magnum?

Now if any one ask, How come the Egyptians, who were fully peopled be­fore Abraham's time, and of the Off­spring of Cham, to have any Circumci­sion at all among them? Was Circumci­sion ancienter than He?

Some are of opinion that they might learn it in after-times from the Ishmaelites, Gen. 37. who when they traded into Egypt, sold Ioseph there: But that they rather learn­ed it from the Israelites themselves, while Ioseph was in much authority [Page 117] there, Theodor. qu. 67. in Gen. & Perer. in c. 17. relieth on the opinion of divers ancient Fathers, and modern Interpre­ters; and that with reason, since Ioseph lived in Egypt about ninety three years in all, and Israel came to him thither when he was but young, viz. about thirty seven years of Age: Allen's Chain. Notes up­on the [...] Period, § 32. He lived 110. years, Gen. 50, 26. Time e­nough to bring the Egyptians to some odd conformity or other!

To go on with Philo a little further: ‘Another reason (saith he) is for the sake of better propagation; for the circumcised Nations are said to be most populous.’ ‘But this agrees little with a passage of R. Moses Ben Marmon. Qui tloruit Cordubae A.D. 1150. aut circi­ter. (who hath carried away the reputation from all the modern Iews, and who seems also to philosophize, for plausibili­ty, as Philo had done before him) for he says, Vt libido h [...]minum diminus­tar, & Membru [...] b [...]e, quan­tam sieri potest, a.d. actum i­stum debi­litetur. Atque haec est principalis ratio, meo quidem judicio. More Nevochim. par. 3. c. 49. Lorinus ubi supra. That in his judgment Circum­cision was instituted unto this end, that the lust of men should be thereby aba­ted, and that Member which is the Instrument thereof impaired; which he taketh to be the principal reason.’ If impaired, never the better to propa­gate; [Page 118] but if debilitated, one would think (as the Rabbi says) the less prone to lust. But this (saith Lorinus) is not much credited amongst us, who hear that the circumcised Turks and Saracens are more inordinate in their lust, than the generality of uncircumcised peo­ple.

Secondly, To consider therefore this Question (not as it is wire-drawn to a­void prejudice, but) as it is to be ac­commodated to the state and times of the Old Testament.

CHAP. XVI. The true ends of Circumcision, I. Civil, to distinguish them from other Heathen people or corrupted Worshippers; which was a Bridle to them, as restraining them from mixt marriages and fornica­tion, and given as a mark to make them odious to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles an abhorrency to them. 2. Moral, to put them in mind of purity of heart. 3. Spiritual and Mystical, in respect, First, Of Abraham; Secondly, Of his Seed, and thirdly, houshold. 4. Of the whole Church. Why Ishmael must be circumcised, Arminius taxed; why the Sons of Keturah were also to be circum­cised, and in fine all the Servants.

THE ends of Circumcision (in rea­lity) seem to be partly Civil, whereby the Jewish Nation should be se­vered from others; partly Moral, to teach them purity; and partly Typical, or Spiritual, in respect to the holy Seed, and the Mysteries thereafter to be re­vealed.

1. For the first of these Maimonides himself striketh in with the right, im­mediately [Page 120] after the words cited before, ‘But (saith he) there is also another reason, viz. That all such as are of this Faith, have one certain sign of conjunc­tion against any that should thrust in amongst them: For Circumcision is such a thing as no man will admit but for Religion sake. And thus Circum­cision is a Covenant [S ^t Paul calls it a sign and seal of a Covenant] which our Father Abraham made, and so ma­ny as are circumcised enter into the same, viz. to believe the Unity of God; as God faith, I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy Seed after thee. And this reason (saith he) is as firm and valid as the former, and it may be more solid.’

[...] 1. c. 11To which Iosephus was agreed before, viz. ‘That God commanded Abraham that his Posterity should be circumci­sed in their Privities, by reason that he would not that Abraham's Posterity should be intermingled with other Na­tions.’ To which purpose S ^t Chrysostom speaketh thus, ‘See (saith he) the wisdom of God: For knowing what evil impressions the Hebrews were like to take, he imposed the Sign of Circumcision as a Bridle on them, Signum Circumci­sionis quasi Fraenum quoddam [...] ­is imposuit, ut suâ Gen­te cont [...]nti essent, & ita Patriarche Semen inconsusum, atqat incontaminatum maneret, ut sic in to Di [...] promissa compleri possent. Homil. 39. in Gen. apud [...] ­rer. lest [Page 121] they should mix themselves with other Nations; that so the Seed of the Pa­triarch Abraham might remain unmixed and undefiled in them, to the end that the promises of God might be accom­plished in his Seed.’

But how a Bridle? Why, Gen. 6.1, 2. when men began to multiply, and Daughters were born unto them, the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them Wives of all which they chose. Which brought in both Idolatry and all uncleanness, and provoked God (before) to send a Deluge. Now Cir­cumcision was not only given them as a mark, to warn them against the like wandring, but to shame them if they did; if they should but offer to uncover their nakedness unto any Stranger: for it served both to make the Israelites a scorn to Foreigners, and the uncircum­cised a like abhorrency unto them; that the due enmity betwixt the Seed of the Woman, and the Serpent might be the better stated.

Among the Romans, Iudaes Apella was a term of derision: Neither may [Page 122] there seem to be any greater reason why Tacitus should write foeda superstitio upon the Jewish Religion than, Taci [...]. An­nal. lib. 15. this; since in their worship there was nothing like to the Rites of Bona Dea, or Priapus, to be observed.

And on the other hand, it was the greatest reproach which the Iews thought they could cast upon other peo­ple, Gen. 34.14. to call them Uncircumcised. We cannot give our Sister (say the Sons of Iacob) to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us. 1 Sam. 14.6, 17, 26. Let us go over unto the Garison of these uncircumci­sed Philistins, said Ionathan: Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? said David. And it may be for this reason S ^t Paul rec­koneth the Maltese but as Barbarians, Acts 28.1, 3, 22, 28. while he counts it an honour to himself that he was a free-born Roman. Nay, whereas the Greeks and Romans looked upon other Nations as barbarous only out of scorn, the Iews looked on all a­like as barbarous, with the more bitter­ness, because they were not circumcised. But of this we shall have somewhat to observed further when we come into the Wilderness.

2. Circumcision was also ordained for a Moral End. In which alone [Page 123] Philo doth acknowledge some part of the truth; Tertia (in­quit) cau­se, pars bee Corporis circumcis [...] Cordis [...] ­militudi­nem quan­dam habi [...] Viraquesa­nè Genera­tions ser­vit: siqui­dem ab al­tera Spiri­tus animales, ex alterâ Genitales procreantur, & proslu [...]. Quocirca prisci equum censuerunt, potiori illi fonti, visibilem [...] partem [cir­cumscindendo] assimilare. but in such an Heathenish manner, that his similitude is not only filthy, but as false, and unworthy to be conceived to have ever entred into the purer thoughts of God; but that the outward Circumcision taught the Israe­lites the circumcising of their hearts, ears and lips, the Phrase of the Scripture doth often teach us.

3. But as for that intention of this Ordinance, which was Spiritual, Typi­cal and Mystical, there is much mat­ter of disputation involved in it, accor­ding to the several Branches or Divisions of the Subject, as it had respect, first, to Abraham's Person, secondly, His whole Seed, and thirdly, Family, and fourth­ly, the whole Church of Israel, to which Proselytes were thereafter to be joined. Under some of which Heads it will fall in to be considered how Circumcision was a Sign, and of what? How a Seal, and of what Covenant? and whether it might be imposed?

As to Abraham's Person in particular, [Page 124] one of the ancientest of the Fathers hath left us this to observe, viz. [...] J. Mart. Qu. 102. ad Orthodoxos. That whereas Abraham was old and unapt for Ge­neration, God had appoint­ed him this suffering in the flesh, that being the more debilitated in that part, his faith might become the stronger in God, when he should find his strength repaired above Nature. A thing to be the more regard­ed, because God had said to Abraham when he talked with him, Gen. 17.21. My Covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee, at this set time in the next year. An vero Circumcisio debili [...] partem il­lam ad a­ctum gene­randi, and hominum libidines aliquatenus diminuat, supra in quaesitis suit, asserent [...] Maimonide, & reclamante Lorino. Aquinas tamen par. 3. qu. to. Artic. 3. [...]tiam hanc inter causas recenset, quare circumcisio fier [...]et in hàc parte, potiùs quam in fronte, a [...] alio quovis membro, scil. ad diminuendam concupiscentiam, que praecipuè in istis membris viget, propter abundantiam d [...]ectationis venereorum. Et Maimonides qui dem consititur, [...] gandere pontius in circumcisis Viris; ac Medici, cum praeputio, partem quandam titillationis [...] praescindi Viris eti­am antumant. Videtur igitur, quod Circumcisio nihil physicè operatur ad coercendam illam, quae intus [...]rit, libidinem, aut ad impediendum externum generandi actum. At moraliter tamen Signo est homini Cir­cumciso, [...] se inspexerit, quo ad [...] moneatur carnis concupiscen­tiam, & ad omnis delicias (ej [...]smodi) superstuas amputandum. Quod coincidit, ad extremam, cum secundo fine h [...]jus instituti, quem supra attigimus. And lo! that very day Abraham circumcised himself, and so must needs be unfit for Sarah's Company, till he was cured of it.

[Page 125]But this (in fine) was most pertinent to Abraham in particular: Whereas, at the making of the promise once before, Abram had said, Gen. 15.8. Lord God, whereby shall I know? He hath now a Sign or a Token given him in his own Flesh, The wound was notso grie­vous, as the significati­on was comsorta­ble; for herein he saw, That from his Loins should come that Blessed Seed, which should purge his soul from all corruption. Bishop Hall. whereby he might rest the more assured (thereafter) that Christ should be born of his Seed, according to the Flesh, out of his Loins, and of the Womb of Sa­rah, and no other.

Secondly, Then if we look upon Cir­cumcision with respect unto his Seed, as an Ordinance for ever, to be begun with Ishmael (his Reprobate Issue) before the Son of Promise was any otherwise conceived: But in the faith of Abraham we shall find some further matter wor­thy to detain us in the way, even though we were in haste before.

This is (indeed) one of the true rea­sons assigned by the Fathers and the School-men why Circumcision was given unto Abraham, as to his Person, viz. To be a Sign to him of that faith where­by he believed, and was to believe, that Christ should be born of his Seed. But [Page 126] had this been all, it had sufficed that A­brahams alone bad been circumcised in his own Person; whereas, if it had been so, there could no Covenant have en­sued, comprehending all his Seed, and all his houshold, together with himself. The Questions that arise for the clearing of this Point are three, Firth, Since I­saac, who was to be born, was declared to be the Son of the promise, and Ish­mael not; why must Ishmael be circum­cised into this Faith, and be compre­hended in this Covenant, and that be­fore Isaac was born? Secondly, Why the Sons of Keturah afterwards? Third­ly, Why the Servants born in the house, or bought with money, who were all A­liens from the Seed of Abraham?

For the fifth of these: Must he that was an Enemy by Nature, in that he must lose the inheritance that he stood so fair for before, and an Enemy by God's appointment; be circumcised into a Covenant of thankfulness and obedi­ence for Isaac, who was to be his Sup­planter, as much as Jacob (after) was of Esau?

We must take all together: The whole promise made to Abram (at the very first) amounted unto thus much, [Page 127] I will bless thee, and make thy name great, Gen: 12.2, 3. and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And again it is said, Chap. 18.18, 19, & 22.18. not only that Abram should be­come a great and mighty Nation, but that all the nations of the earth should be bles­sed in him. And that he should command his Children and his houshold after him, to keep the way of the Lord, that the Lord might bring upon Abraham that which he had spoken of him. Ishmael had been hi­therto brought up in his Fathers house, (to the twelfth year of his Age) and taught to sacrifice, which he understood no more than Circumcision; but he must submit to both. He was so far from being excluded from the state of Grace, or the hope of Glory, that he was a principal Member of the visible Church, before the Son of promise was conceived. Neither was he circumcised into the blessings of Isaac's house in par­ticular, but of his Father Abraham's, the Father of the Nations to descend by pro­mise from Ishmael, and of all the faith­ful; and into him that was the utmost Ob­ject of all faith, Hag. 2.7: the desire of all nations: which whoseover should bless, he should be blessed. It was not sufficient there­fore [Page 128] that only the very promised Seed should be circumcised, for Isaac himself did not afterwards know whether his Son Efau, or his Son Jacob should be the man, till he was as blind with Age as he was with fondness of his elder Son. I am not of the mind of Arminius, Ishmael & Isaac, E­sau & Ia­cob non in sese, sed ut Typi, iślis quos Apo­stolus ad­sert locis, sunt consi­derandi ... Quod mo­neo ne quis necessum esse putit, ut is qui repraesentat filios carnis, sit ips [...] filius carnis ejusdem difinitionis modo. in cap. 9. ad Rom. v. 9, 10. that Ishmael, or Esau, though Types of reje­ction from the temporal promise, annex­ed unto Isaac, were not also examples of a real reprobation. But if the priviled­ges of Nature, or of the outward pale of the Church, had been of any regard in the Point of Election, the elder sure­ly had not been rejected.

Yet it cannot be said but that the house of Abraham was enough to season both the Mother and the Son with some piety, as appears by divers passages of Hagar, and by Ishmael's returning, after he had been turned out of doors, to as­sist Isaac in the Burial of his Father. Gen. 25.9. However, as he had been a Scoffer in his own Person, so he continued to be a Persecutor in his Posterity, which in­stead of the blessing inherited the curse, which was opposed to it, Gen. 12.3. viz. I will curse [Page 129] him that curseth thee. We read of no good man of his descent at all, so far as I remember.

Secondly, But for the Sons of Keturah, I know not whether any Persecutors de­scended from them, or no, unless the Midianites; out of some of which (however) the Subjects of Iethro, and the Kenites befriended Israel, and be­came Partakers of his Blessing. So that their Circumcision served to carry the true worship of God abroad into remo­ter Parts, when Abraham gave them gifts, and sent them father off from Isaac. Gen. 25.6. Job 1.1. Of the Race of Edom, or as bad, we are sure enough that Iob descended, and his zealous friends. And that our Lord himself, according to the flesh, drew a vein of his bloud from humble Ruth, a Moabitish Woman, whose Nati­on was abominable for its insectuous O­riginal. Bishop Hall's Con­templati­on upon Lot and So­dom. ‘The chaste Bed of holy Pa­rents hath sometimes bred a monstrous Generation; and contrarily, God hath raised sometimes an holy Seed from the drunken Bed of incest or for­nication.’

But, Bertr. cap. 2. Adam, inquit, eliam tempore Mosis, illuxisse alibi quàm in polleris verae Religionis aliqua vesligia, &c. as Bertram does observe, the [Page 130] knowledge of God by such means came to be propagated far, in other parts, e­ven in the times of Moses. And al­though Cunaeus doth collect (in favour, it may be, of some opinion) that the Church of old was still restrained unto one Family, as from Adam to Seth, and so to Noah, and to Sem alone of his, and to Abram alone of his, Cujus Fa­milia Ec­clesie no­men atque dignita­tem inessabili ratione, ve­lat per suc­cessionem, si­bi vindica­ret. Caeli­ [...] Gentes, tanquam prophanae, specteà spectae Numine, posthabiteque [...] donec Messias terranum orbem ingressus, in­tergevinam disjecit parictem, &c. de Rep. Hebr. 1.3. c. 2. It may be noted (besides) that after Circumcision Salah and Sem survived as true Worshippers, in other places, and Eber longer than Abraham himself. Ioseph. Antiq. lib. 13. cap. 17. and to Isaac alone of his line; and that God despi­sed all other Nations as prophane, until the coming of Christ; yet it seems to me, that although many Families and Nations did not escape corruption, yet some true Worshippers there were here and there, without those houses, and without that Nation. But the first Church was the Metropolis (only) of all the rest.

Thirdly, And now we may perceive the reason why Abram's Servants also must be circumcised, to the solution of the Question (with favour) against Pe­rerius, That Circumcision was to be im­posed, since it was not free for Servants, [Page 131] bought with Abram's money, to obtain liberty upon the pretence that they would not be cirumcised. Nor was e­ver Hyrcann's blamed in later times for compelling the Edomites, when he had subdued them, to be circumcised, but commended rather. The reason of their Circumcision (besides the share which they had in the desire of all Nati­ons) was partly to propagate the know­ledge of God, if they went off; and partly to constitute and fortifie the Bo­dy of the Church, if they continued in the Tents of Abraham. Such was the Church which it pleased God to form to himself from the beginning; such the Materials of it! And how many of these had true Grace in their hearts, besides Abraham himself, and his Wife Sarah, and (it may be) his Steward Eliezer, before Isaac was born; I leave the Brethren that are most concerned to en­quire. But that part of this Question which relateth to the whole Church of the Old Testament with reference, as a seal unto some Covenant (that we may not be delayed in our progress here) will fall in, in a proper place in order.

CHAP. XVII. Abraham's obedience so acceptable unto God, that he maketh himself known to him in a more familiar way than ever before. That Abraham knew nothing to the contrary why there might not be more righteous people in Sodom than his Brother Lot. His various peregrinati­ons are recounted, and further Questi­ons propounded to be enquired into.

SUCH hath been the acceptation of a liberal obedience in the hearts of generous Princes, both of ancient and later times, that they have not thought much to go out of their way, and to come incogniti to visit one or o­ther of their meaner Subjects whom they have known by such a Character: In the like manner, after Abraham had circumcised all his Males, it pleased God, not to defer, as in former times, but, [...] quasi per praei [...]ia, incarnatio­nem [...] praevenien­te, [...] pa­tribus non­nulii nobis [...] to make haste to come and see him ( in­cognito, but) in a more familiar manner than before, to make the last promise, or to confirm all the former to him, to be surely made good to him within the set time mentioned before; so that to keep [Page 133] reckoning, Gen. 18.20.we may account it to have been within a month or two after the last appearance.

To this was added the great favour of Almighty God (for when did he e­ver do so by any other mortal man?) to commune with Abraham about the de­struction of Sodom, and to hearken to his intercession: In which it appeareth, that Abraham thought no other but that there might be many righteous persons there (whom God would not destroy with the wicked) besides his Brother Lot.

Acts 7.2.Some are of opinion that Abram re­mained five years at Charran of the Chal­dees (or that part of it to which Mesopo­tamia may be reckoned) after he had received the first promise. And then (upon the death of his Father Terah, who as S ^t Chrysostom ob­serves, [...]. Hom. 31. in Gen. though an Idolater, had a fatherly affection for his Children) he came as far as Sichem in the land of Canaan, in the seventy fifth year of his Age; and there he received the second promise, Gen. 12.6, 7. and built an Altar to the Lord for remem­brance; because the Lord had there ap­peared [Page 134] to him. It is only said that he came unto the place of Sichem, unto the Plain of Morch. And that the Canaanite was then in the Land. So that it seems not likely to me that he entered into the City at all, whe­ther it were a walled City (as is most pro­bable, it being a great and ancient one) or only a City of Streets, as we find such ac­counted in the number, before the Nati­ons were replenished. But he removed, journeying southwards, Gen. 28.19. and about Luz or Bethel (which was after called so by Ia­cob) he built another Altar for constant worship, Gen. 12.8. and there he called on the name of the Lord.

But the very next year (as it may seem) he was driven into Egypt by fa­mine, An Mund. 208 [...] 1918. secundum supputari­onem No­stratis Sim­son. Gen. 13. and the year after that returned again to the place, where he had erected his second Altar: and here he remained (if conjecture fail not) about a year or two; when, obeying the command of God, he went about surveying the Land of promise, and came the third year to the Plain of Mamre (about Hebron, which was after called so) and there built another Altar to the Lord, viz. as a place where he designed some resi­dence, if it should please God to permit him. And hereabouts he continued [Page 135] eighteen years, even till he had received the last promise; Gen. 20.1, &c. and then he journeyed again toward the South Country, and dwelt between Cadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar, where he made a Covenant, Ch. 21.27, 33. by mutual Oath, with Abime­lech, a King of the Philistines, at Beer­sheba. And Abraham planted a Grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God. And he sojourned in the Philistines Land many days. Ch. 23.1. But by the death of Sarah in Kiriath-arba, which is Hebron in the Land of Canaan, we may learn that though the Son of Promise was born among the Philistines, yet Abraham re­turned at the last to Hebron, where he had his place of worship, among the Hittites. And there he had his last bles­sing, of encrease by Keturah, Quae u­tram eadem suerit cum Hagare, consulatur Simsonius ad A. M. 2181. & Jo. Scld. de jur. &c. l. 5. c. 7. Heb. 11. ac­cording to the fulness of the promise of God, to the rise of many Nations from him. And there he left in his Tents Isaac and Iacob, Heirs of the same promise with himself, having lived a hun­dred and seventy five years (whereof one hundred hereabout) and leaving Isaac about seventy years of Age, and his Son Iacob fifteen. Gen. 23.9. And his Sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him with Sarah [Page 136] in the Cave of Machpelah. So that all the expeditions of Abraham were 1. from the remoter parts of Chaldea unto Char­ran; from thence, 2. unto Sichem; from thence, 3. to Bethel; from thence, 4. to Egypt; from thence, 5. back a­gain to Bethel; from thence, 6. to the Plain of Mamre (which is Hebron or Ki­riath-arba;) from thence, 7. to the Parts of Gerar; and from thence, 8. back again to Hebron of the Sons of Heth.

That which remaineth to be enqui­red, is, first, What use Abraham made of his Altars; secondly, How he go­verned his own Hoard; thirdly, How he lived amongst the Canaanites and Philistines; fourthly, In what estate he left his whole Posterity.

CHAP. XVIII. Letters and Writing (most probably) from Adam, as also Altars. Of Cain and Abel, and the difference of Sacrifices; and of theirs in particular. Whether they offered in one place; and whether Adam offered for them, or they for themselves: Why Abel more accepted, and how Cain knew it.

THough it hath been thought by many (studious of the Pagan An­tiquities, Literas semper ar­bitror Assy­rias suisse: sed alii a­pud Aegy­ptios à Mer­curio, ut Gellius; a­lii apud Sy­ros repertas volunt. U­tl [...]; in Grae­ciam intu­lisse Cad­mum 16. numero. Plin. lib. 7. Nat. Hist. c. 56. Phoenices primi, famae si cre­ditar, ausi Mansuram radibus vocem signare figaris. Lucan. lib. 3. v. 220. Videsis quid de hoc commentitio Oraculo disserit P. Cunaeus de Rep. Hebr. lib. [...] cap. 1. Et quid de literis S ^t Walter Raleigh, lib. 1. part 1. cap. 7. §. 10. † 4. ut [...]: ante nos sensit D. August. and too much addicted to cre­dit them) that the Patriarchs before the Floud delivered unto their Posterities all the learning which they had, by Oral Tradition only; and that Writing was first expressed by certain Hierogly­phicks, and after Letters formed by the cunning of the Phoenicians, or the Greeks; yet I must confess I take it to be but an heathenist conceit, and not fit to be imagined, that the Church of God did ever want its Scriptures, out of [Page 138] which by Divine Instinct Moses drew the Abstract of the things that were before his time. Which it pleased God to allow only, as to be preserved unto after A­ges, whatsoever is reported about a cer­tain Prophecy of Enoch, Jude 14, 15. to which S ^t Iude is conceived to refer: But there is also reference in other places unto certain current Traditions among the Jews. It is as easie for me to believe that our Fa­ther Adam could as well write and read, (and teach his Children so to do) as speak, and set the names on every Crea­ture. Should we think it to be too hard for him, or that he had not time enough in the nine hundred and thirty years, that he lived, to accomplish it? I can­not so much as think, that the Church (or the World either) could want the use of Letters so long as Jos. Ant. lib. 1. cap. 3. S [...]th natus est A. M. 130. Enoch 622 s [...]cund. Allen, &c. Seth, (whose engraven Pillars are spoken of) much less as Enoch, who was born so long af­ter him, though both in the life of A­dam Adam vero suit omnium ho­minum (excepto [...]) sapientissimus: sicus quàm senti [...]nt He­braei, qui more suo nugantes, fingunt Adamum, & Evan creatos suisse (tanquam infantes) simplicissimos. Est.in l. 2. sent. dist. 23. §. 3..

The like conceit I must needs retain con­cerning Altars. When God had vouch­safed to reveal unto Adam this Grace and [Page 139] Mystery, That whereas he had incurred the guilt of sin, and the punishment of death by his transgression, an atone­ment should be accepted for him, through the shedding of the bloud of certain clean Beasts, Bert. ubl supra. (which are thought to have been revealed to him, together with the first Notion of Sacrifice it self) with respect to the Seed of the Woman, promised in some uncertain time to come; it was so natural to him to erect an Altar for Sacrifice and Oblations, that he could not conveniently do any other­wise, any more than men can eat with­out a Table: Yet that a standing Altar was not always necessary, Gen. 22.9. appears by A­braham's building one in haste, when he was tempted to sacrifice his only Son I­saac. How Cain and Abel did (to be­gin from thence) may worthily be doubted, as it is. But to set it free as much as may be, we must know, That whereas not only death eternal, but also temporal, with many calamities, besides the Curse of the Earth, were the consequents of sin; not only bloody Sacrifices (or whole Burnt Totum A­nimal pro Victimâ oblatum, excoriatum tamen ex more, & dissectum, concreman­du [...] er at. Seld. de jure l. 3. c. 8.Offerings, as they knew no other before Moses) were to be offered for the expiation of sin; but also other Offerings, in ac­knowledgment [Page 140] of the Dominion of the supreme Majesty over all; in way of thankfulness for plenty and prosperity; in way of supplication for encrease and blessings; in way of vowing and devo­ting themselves, and the Goods which they enjoyed, unto God's service in some acceptable manner.

The Queries are, (1.) Whether Cain and Abel offered apart, or in one place? (2.) Whether they offered, as for them­selves so, by themselves, or whether they brought them to their Father Adam, Vt Hebrae­orum pri­mogeniti homines es­sent D [...]o sa­cri, nec ae­tatis suae Praerogati­vâ, nec ju­re ad Sacerdotium sactum est, sed sal [...]te sibi praestitâ dum primogeniti Aegyptiorum subito excidio interivent, Numb. 3.13 [...]& 24.5. [...]nde postea redimendi, Numb. 18.10. N [...]que Levitae Sacerdotes erant, sed corum Min [...]stri .... Ego in antiquissimis seculis ita comparatum suisse judico, ut in sacris pro se uno factis, sibi quilq [...]e suus Sacerdos esset. Nam Cainus & Abel, sua ipsi sacra per se Deo osser [...]bant ... Qui autem Cainum & Abelem sacra Deo destinata ad Adamum adduxisse judicant, hi ca [...] sic judicent, nihil asserunt. In sacris autem pro familiâ quâvis destina­tis nihil dubium quin ipse Paterfamilias Sacerdotii obeundi [...]as babuer it. Aeoque jure Noa, Gen. 8.20. & Jobus c. 1.5. pro se, sulsque immola­bant. Outr. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 3. as the only High-Priest then on Earth, and the first Prophet, to offer for them? (3.) How the difference stood or appeared in respect of what they offered, and how they were accepted?

For the first: No doubt, while they were young, and lived in their Fathers house (which necessity would teach him [Page 141] to build, as well as to make himself Cloaths) but that Adam offered for himself and all his Children; but when they were able to go abroad, and set up a Tent of their own, to be filled with their younger Brethren and Sisters, and their Children; then of common Right, Paterfamilias, the head of the house, was their Priest, and in Case he sacrificed, all the houshold were suffici­ently consecrated to assist him by an im­plicite Ordinance of God, because that which he required could not otherwise be done.

Some are of opinion, (Bert. se­cutus (ut videtur) Ab. Ez­ram) Pro cis autem Coetibus, qui variis ex familils constabant, mos [...]rat, ut cujusque princeps (si modo ipsi visum ess [...]t) publica Deo sacra fact­ret. Ibid.that Adam ap­pointed a certain place of meeting for Divine Offices for all his Children; where (most likely) he erected an Al­tar; which of old did (as it were) con­stitute a Temple sub dio: and that con­tinued some Ages, both amongst the peo­ple of God, and the Heathen. There he instructed them, there he prayed and offered up praises unto God (more espe­cially on the Sabbath Day) and did all, in substance, that belonged unto Sacri­fices ever after. But against this that pas­sage seems to make, that when God de­manded of Cain, Where is Abel thy Bro­ther? He replyed, I know not: Am I my [Page 142] Brothers Keeper? As if God knew they did not use to meet every Day or every Week together. So that possibly they might offer in divers places.

(2.) It might so happen that one or o­ther of them might be absent; and yet their Father (who led a careful and pe­nitential life) might offer for which of his Sons came; Job 1.5. as Iob did for all his Sons when they were absent. Yet I know nothing to the contrary, but that Cain and Abel, when they had housholds of their own, might have Altars so too, the mystery of oneness of Altars being not as yet revealed.

(3.) For the last Query, Why Cain's Sacrifice should not be accepted so well as Abel's; Iosephus Jos. Antiq. lib. 1. cap. 3. [...] gives us this reason, Because Cain, being covetous, offered on­ly that which he had forci­bly extorted (as it were) from Nature by the Plow, whereas Abel offered things produced of themselves. [...] videre est in Sel­deno loco ci [...]t. p. 18. The Rabbi's tell other Dreams relating to the wick­edness of the Person, and the niggardli­ness of his Oblations. But a clearer rea­son is hinted in the Text it self, when it is said, That Cain brought only of the [Page 143] fruits of the ground, which was no ex­piatory Sacrifice for sin, but a superflu­ous Oblation (it may be) of more splen­did things than Abel; whereas S ^t Paul as­sures us, Heb. 9.22. that without shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin: Which things have been touched before.

But how should these know the diffe­rence of their acceptations? If they came to their Father Adam, and his Al­tar, by him; who was both a Priest and a Prophet, and though not in former fa­vour, yet not wholly left by God, or deprived of all his manifestations to him: But if they sacrificed otherwise, God did not leave himself without witness, till he raised up sufficient Seers to advise them that had to do with him. And thus the worship of God came to be trans­mitted unto Abraham, unless any small circumstances might be added to his wor­ship, after God had given certain Pre­cepts unto Noah, Gen. 8.20. Where we read of the first Altar, built by Noah, to offer some of every sort of clean Beasts and Fowls; though (we do not doubt but) multitude of Idol-Altars (imitating the true) had provoked God to drown the World before— with a kind of Cove­nant, by the token of the Rainbow.

CHAP. XIX. Altars of Monument for mercies and de­liverances. Of Tokens for a Testimony or a Covenant betwixt God and man, and man and man. Of service for ado­ration, vows and sacrifices. Of the matter and form of them. Of those which Abraham made at Sichem, Mam­re and Beersheba, with his Grove there, which was drawn into an ill ex­ample, and the like afterwards forbid­den.

WE read, first, of Altars of Monu­ment and Testimony (which were usually magnificent:) Secondly, Of Altars for Burnt-Sacrifice, Meat and Drink-Offerings and Peace-Offerings and the like; and thirdly, Of an Altar of incense, in after-times, all opposed to the Idolatry of the Heathen.

Of the two first (which belong only unto this place) we may consider the matter and the form. For the matter, they were simple, of Earth or Stone, (and not of Brass, as they after were in setled times) as we may learn by the first Institutes that were delivered by [Page 145] Moses, who according to God's directi­on digested many things into Law and Rule, which were but only of good ex­ample before. Exod. 20, 24, 25. & Deut. 27.5, 6, 7. An Altar of Earth (saith he) shalt thou make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy Burnt-offerings, and thy Peace-offerings, thy Sheep and thine Oxen: In all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an Altar of Stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn Stone The Pa­triarchs had no time for that, nor, it may be, ready Work-men; possibly by Providence, as the next words may shew the reason : for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

For the form therefore, if it was for remembrance only, as for thanksgi­ving, and a glory; they made it greater, or it may be neater; but yet so, that it might be sit to be used as an Altar for service upon all occasions. Let us see what examples we have of any of these, since it may be questioned whether they did not more hurt than good (as in pro­cess of time it happened unto Moses's Brazen Serpent) for the Heathen find­ing them, might either demolish them in revenge, Exod. 34.13 & Deut. 7, 5 ^.. &c. 12.3. (because the Israelites were commanded to abolish theirs) or else prophane them by some new Dedica­tion [Page 146] or Consecration to an Idol; and so offer Sacrifices, even unto Devils, up­on the same Altars; or else they might become occasions of division among themselves, which we are about to note hereafter.

It was in use from ancient times, as from Seth's Pillars (if there be any truth in that) and from the Tower of Babel, for men to raise some Structure or another, in remembrance of their at­chievements or fortunes: And (it seems) that the true Worshippers delighted ra­ther in erecting Altars, than any other Fabricks: But if they were not intend­ed directly for the service of sacrificing, why should they do so?

I find therefore, as I hinted, that be­fore the Law, Altars were erected for a threefold end. First, For Monuments of thankfulness for some mercy or deli­verance; Secondly, For tokens of a Covenant, (or for a Testimony) whe­ther betwixt God and man, or betwixt man and man; Thirdly, For ordinary resort to the whole acceptable service of God, not only on their Sabbaths, but on every Day of the Week, and on all oc­casions: All of these pious, and allow­ed by God; not only before the Law, [Page 147] but till the Temple was built; and (up­on some occasions) even after that.

First, We find of Abram, that after God had appeared to him in the Land of Canaan, and had assured him that that was the Land which he would give un­to his Seed; Gen. 12.7, 8. that he built an Altar upon the Plain of Moreh, near unto the place of Sichem: But that he forthwith re­moved thence, unto a Mountain on the East of Bethel, (called so proleptically, since Iacob was the first that named it so, that is, the House of God; which for divers mercies and manifestations of God became a place famous to posterity) and pitched his Tent, and there he built an Altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord: as if he had not done so at the Altar before, but had on­ly set it up as a Monument of thanksgi­ving unto God, who had so graciously appeared to him near Sichem. Which Notion is favoured the more by this cir­cumstance, that when Abram returned from Egypt, he repaired unto the place betwixt Bethel and Hai, Ch. 13.3, 4. where his Tent had been at the beginning, and there called on the name of the Lord; returning not to the Altar at Sichem at all, by any thing that we can find. Neither might [Page 148] it seem lawful or expedient for him to demolish any Altar of thanksgiving, or any other, that by erection he had con­secrated and dedicated unto God, for fear left the Heathen should prophane them, who might be likelier to sleight them, as having Altars enough of their own, called by the names of one or o­ther of their Idols. As the true Wor­shippers did also call the Altars which they erected by some special name, Gen. 13.18. for a Memorial.

Gen. 14.24.And when Abram removed from thence to the Plain of Mamre, Cùm cultus interior sit, qui consistit in conjun­ [...]tione ad Deum, sum­mâque ejus reverentiâ per intelle­ [...]tum & af­fectum: ex­terior au­tem, qui in­precibus & laudibus ef­fundendis, Adorationibus, Sacrificiis, Oblationibus cernitur, neque hic sine illo rità exhiberi possit; consequitar ad ultrumque obligatos etiam Proselytos Domicilii, & qui eorum instar fuere (adulti scil. nec rationis expertes; & pro rerum suarum sive copia, sive inopia) censuisse Ebraeos. Seld. lib. 3. cap. 8. supra citat. (so cal­led from Mamre the Occupant and Col­legue of Abram) he built another Altar (as a place where he might likely spend some time of sojourning) and there also he called on the name of the Lord; that is, instructed all his people, offer­ed up prayers, thanksgivings, sacrifices and such Oblations or Peace-offerings, as God had so far directed him, or any of the Patriarchs before.

But in fine, when Abraham came into the Country of the Philistines, (where [Page 149] Isaac the Son of the Promise was born, as God appointed it) and was entred into a League with Abimelech, Quum Abrahamus ad Quer­cetum Mamrae consedisset, ibi Sacrarium & Altare quod­dam ordinariis familie suae coetibus destinavit. Sacri­sicavit, Gen. 15.9, &c. Do­cuit, Gen. 18.19, — Pro­pheta dicitur, Gen. 20.7. Ipse Domi familiae suae Sacer­dos erat; & ubi Altaria e­rexit, D [...]i [...]omen invocavit, i. e. universum Dei cultum celebravit, qui nomine ora­tionis, invocationis & ado­rationis variè nancupatur. Bertr. by exchan­ging of Presents on either hand, so that Abraham took himself to be setled for a time, He planted a Grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord the everlasting God. Gen. 21.33. Which Grove, it seems to me, A­braham only made for shel­ter, (since he and his lived only in Tents) against the heats and wets, that his Altar and place of Wor­ship might be the better defended. But it came indeed to be drawn afterwards in­to ill example, and to be expresly for­bidden; Deut. 13.2, 3. as the offering of Children un­to Molech, Levit. 18.21. upon pretence of imitating the same Abraham's obedience in the Offering up of his Son Isaac. John 4.12, 20. Even so did the Well and Mount at which Iacob wor­shipped, (in his time) prove a pretence to the Samaritans to oppose the Temple at Ierusalem. But I will leave the Altars standing in this imperfect state, till I turn this way again, which I foresee will happen speedily.

CHAP. XX Abraham had many Tents, and, as a Prince, had a Despotick Power over them, that (through all their Tents) were born in his house. That the Pa­triarchs occupied much Land, and were no burthen, but a profit to the Coun­tries wherein they sojourned, viz. Freely in the wasts, where the Pasture was; and by Purchase, Covenant and Com­promise, when they pitched near to any great City, or populous place. Of A­braham's purchase of a Field, and Ja­cob's of a parcel of one.

Now whereas we read that Abra­ham and, after him, Isaac and Ia­cob pitched their Tent, in the singular number; it may seem that this is not to be restrained more than needs, but to be extended so as the circumstances do direct us. And lot also had Flocks and Herds and Tents, (in the Plural Number) Gen. 13.5. The enquiring into which will lead us to consider and perceive what manner of temporal or spiritual lives they enjoyed in their respective pilgrimages; God having so provided for the honour of his Church, that he would not therewithal afford them all [Page 151] kind of temporal enlargements or ac­commodations; nor leave them (long) in any uncomfortable state.

Saint Paul tells us, Heb. 11.9. that by faith Abra­ham sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange Countrey, dwelling in Taber­nacles (in the Plural Number) with Isaac and Iacob, the Heirs with him of the same promise. By which we may collect that the Tents were many, and Abraham's on­ly like a Praetorium to the rest. Out of which Abraham drew three hundred and eighteen men, to pursue the Seizers on his Nephew Lot, Gen. 14.14 (who was permitted to be taken, that Abraham might redeem Lot, and Melchizedech might thereupon bless Abram) which were all said to have been born in his own house. Certes, if all in one Tent (and you cannot imagine that they all lodged continually under the Cope of Heaven) it must have been a very large one; but if it had been so, Gen. 18.4, 5, 6. he would not have entertained three Angels (whom he took to be but Stran­gers) under a Tree, without the doors.

As for his power over all these, it was absolutely Despotical, as the Princes round about him. He taught them the Laws that they were to obey; and he [Page 152] might punish as he thought sit, without account to any other Prince, any more than the Prince to him, whosoever he was. Which is sufficiently declared by Bertram in the same Chapter, cited more than once before.

And if we think sit (in the next place) to consider what extent of Grounds these Sojourners might occupy, and by what Right, since they were but Strangers in the places where their Dwellings or their Changes were, it may dart a little further light unto us.

It cannot be doubted, but Abraham and his Herdsmen, with their several Ten [...]s and Families, took up much Ground, because that Lot and He were forced to part, since the Land was not a­ble to bear them, [...] 13.6. that they might dwell to­gether, because that both their substance was exceeding great; which was in Flocks of Sheep and Goats, and in Herds of other Cattel, as Bullocks, Horses, Camels, Asses, Mules, and such other Breed as those Countries did afford.

Now although it be said, that the Ca­naanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the Land; yet Abram said unto Lot, Is not the whole Land before thee? If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go [Page 153] to the right. And Lot beheld the Plain of Iordan, that it was well watered, and he dwelt in the Cities of the Plain, and pitched his Tent towards Sodom: But A­bram dwelt in the Land of Canaan. Nor could Isaac and Iacob afterwards when the Stock was much encreased, and the Families (it is likely) more, but occupy Land accordingly.

The Question is, Quo jure, by what Right these Strangers took up so much Ground in a Strange Countrey, and e­scaped wars about Plats, wherein they sate down, and (in all probability) en­trenched themselves, for the better security; and about the Tracts round about them, which they filled with their Herds and Flocks.

We must remember (to set us right here) that from the Flood to the pro­mise made to Abram, there is but about four hundred and twenty two years rec­koned, which is too little to imagine all places to be replenish'd in; so that while the Inhabitants that were, lived in walled Towns for safety; and studied Arts and Sciences (to which the Canaanites and Phoenicians ever were addicted) and were employed in the cultivating of the [Page 154] nearer Fields, and planting of their Vine­yards, the coming of these Strangers with their Stocks, and pitching about them, (like a standing Fair or moveable City) brought both Trade and plenty to them, while the waste Grounds might be left at large, without preju­dice unto any Native of the Country; which brought also encrease of Gold and Silver to the Patriarchs.

As for Abraham himself, he kept at a distance from all the idolatrous Cities, and entred not at all into them without some great occasion, Gen. 12.16 & 20.1. & 23.3. Ch. 13.12. & 14.16. & 19.1. as Famine and Di­stress once or twice, and to treat with the men of Kiriah-arba for a Burying-place for Sarah but Lot being indis­creetly mingled amongst the men of Sodom, happened once to be taken captive amongst them by the four Kings, and after hardly escaped from being destroy­ed with them.

And if it ever fell to their conveni­ency to pitch nearer to any City, or bet­ter peopled place, so that there might be any danger of interfering with them. Then they either made some Purchase, or some Confederacy, or Compromise, with the Princes or people there, to pre­serve [Page 155] an inviolable peace amongst them. And when Abraham was about Gerar, he did all at once.

Gen. 21, 22.For when Abimelech and his Chief Captain Phichol observed that Abraham grew great, they thought it good policy to take caution of him by a solemn League, made by Oath, That he should not thereafter deal falsly by Abimelech, or his Son, or Son's Son; but according to the kindness that he had found in the Land, wherein he had so long sojourned. And Abraham sware, and both of them made a Covenant. At the making where­of, Abraham did reprove or gently con­tend with Abimelech, about a Well of wa­ter which Abimelech's Servants had vio­lently taken away from his, though Abra­ham himself had digged it. And he made a Present to Abimelech, that he might enjoy the better Right to it: But of the Land about, there was no Que­stion made between them. However, when Abraham planted a Grove about the Well, and set up an Altar there, so­journing many days in the Land of the Philistines, no doubt he became a Pur­chaser; at least of some Tenant-right or other for the time: both the Grove [Page 156] and the Well being to rest to him and his, as their propriety In the Plain of Mamre, Abraham had also such a Confederacy, that he got Mamre himself, with Aner and Eshcol, to join with him in the pursuit of the four victorious Kings; which was a bold and brave attempt of theirs. Gen. 14.13, 24..

And when Abraham bought the Field and Cave of Machpelah, it may seem that he intended to make no other use of it, but for a Burying-place, though it cost him four hundred Shekels of Silver, of currant Money with the Merchant, which amounts to about an hundred Dollars, Jun. in not. A Shekel of Silver, ar­genteus, 2 ^f 6 ^d. Matth. 26.15. as Iunius doth account, (which before Navigation came to an height, was no inconsiderable Summ;) but as others, it might amount to two hundred and fifty Crowns.

Once more, (and no more that I can find) When Iacob came to Shalem a City of Shechem, Gen. 33.18. which is in the Land of Ca­naan, when he came from Padan Aram, and pitched his Tent before the City; he bought a parcel of a Field, where he had spread his Tent, of Hamar Shechem's Fa­ther, for a hundred pieces of money. And he erected there an Altar, and called it El-Elohe-Israel, that is, God, the God of Israel. So that his Purchase seems to [Page 157] have been partly to prevent exceptions, in that he had pitched his Tent upon part of Hamar's Patrimony, and partly, that he might erect his Altar of Worship in the most convenient place, where­ever the other Tents were pitched, for the benefit of the Drove. The Pur­chase it self, as the price, was but small, a parcel of a Field. But why? Must not he, as well as his Grandfather Abra­ham, leave it all behind him, at the next remove?

CHAP. XXI. Why the Patriarchs made it their first Work to erect Altars whereever they came. What their outward form of Worship was. Of the restraints and in­commodities of the Patriarchs, as li­ving in Tents, frugality of Diet, pa [...]city of entertainments, want of Fields, Gardens, Vineyards; whereby being hindred from sowing for themselves, they were ost distressed through Famine, if there was any scarcity abroad.

HItherto we have seen somewhat of the best of the Patriarchs state, as, viz, that they had Gold and Silver and Stock and a great Retinue, toge­ther with some favour in the places where they most conversed. As for their outward form of Religion, there being no retiring places in Tents for the exer­cise of devotion, Gen. 24.63. ( Isaac being fain to go forth into the Field to meditate) they made it their first work to erect Altars whereever they came; which were their places of resort to pray and pay their Vows, and receive instructions and directions from God, (whether O­racularly, [Page 159] or by the mouth of the Priest, who was the Father of the Fami­ly) as it is said of Rebekkah, Gen. 25.22, 23. that when the Twins struggled in her, She went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two Nations are in thy Womb; which was said unto her, while Abraham was yet alive. Here they offered their Sin-offerings for expiation, and their propitiatory Sacrifices, or Peace offer­ings, for reconcilement, and for further blessings. To these their Eucharistical Oblations of thanksgivings by First-fruits and Tenths and Spoils; which Abraham thought meet to make Melchizedech, as a greater Priest than himself, Heb. 7.7. Partaker of (since the less is blessed by the greater) because he had a certain knowledge of this before the Law. As also, Ver [...]simile e [...]l unum quemque in suâ familiâ Principem, & Sacerdo­tem fuisse, atque inde has digni­tates ad primogeni­tos p [...]rve­nisse: ita ut primariae familiae primogenitus eas semper obtineret; ali rum vero familiarum primogeniti tum ad Rempublicam, tum ad sacra p [...] agenda adhibiti sunt. Bertr. As also, that though every Father of a Family was Priest in his own Tents, yet when he came to a greater Father in such a Tribe or Kindred, as were true Worshippers, that the younger was to serve the elder, and to pay such a reverence to him, as if he reserved none unto himself.

[Page 160]Let us next consider (before we leave them) some of their restraints and incommodities, under which it pleased God to discipline and train them up unto a growing Church.

We have a kind of Emblem of it in the Case of the Rechabites, Jer. 35.6, &c. whose Father Ionadab commanded them, saying, Ye shall drink no Wine, you, nor Your Wives, nor your Sons, nor your Daughters for e­ver: Neither shall ye build house, nor plant Vineyard, nor have a Field, nor any Seed. But all your days ye shall dwell in Tents, that ye may live many days in the Land, where ye be Strangers. Only, for fear of the Army of the Chaldeans, (say they) we dwell at Ierusalem, for a time, even as Abraham might do in Gerar, or in Hebron, whose example that devout man seemed to recommend unto his Children and their Posterity for ever; and so to become more extraordinary Votaries than any of the Nazarites.

For Wine indeed, it was not forbid­den to the Patriarchs; but they could not have it of their own, since they could not be so well setled as Noah, Gen. 9.20. who began to be an Husbandman, and planted a Vineyard, and he drank the Wine, and was drunken, belike as unaccustomed to [Page 161] it too. Gen. 19.23. Even as it happened unto Lot, whose Daughters got the Wine (no doubt) from the inhabitants of the Land: But since the Patriarchs had no such intimacy with their wicked Neigh­bours, Gen. 18.5, 6, 7, 8. we read of no other Beverage that they had, but Milk and Water. And such were their frugal entertain­ments, with Cakes made ready upon the hearth, and a little Butter, Veal, or Kid, fetched (as occasion served) from the Flock. And, that we may likewise think, might much conduce to their encrease of Wealth, since they made much ado a­bout the approach of any Visitant, that came for kindness only, as a rare thing.

As for the Fields, which Abraham and Iacob purchased, we have noted before, that the one was for no other use but a Burying-place, and the other for his Booth and his Altar, even as men at a Fair pay for the Ground they break or occupy for the time. Acts 7.7.For S ^t Stephen tel­leth us, That God gave them no inheri­tance in the Land, [...], not so much as to set their foot upon; but a pro­mise only unto Abraham's posterity. And S ^t Paul, Heb. 11.9. that Abraham by faith (on­ly) sojourned in the Land of promise, as in a strange Countrey. And, in opposition [Page 162] unto houses, that he dwelt in Tabernacles (which are no more comparable unto Houses, than the Ship-Cabins to the Chambers of a Palace) with Isaac and Iacob, the Heirs with him of the same promise; though for Isaac it seems that he was not lodged under the same Roof with Abraham, but was enlarged enough in Family to have a Tent of his own, Gen. 24. [...]3, 67. when he went forth to meet Rebekkah; and having met her, he brought her in­to his Mother Sarah's Tent, or [...], for mutual joy, and Rebekkah's bet­ter welcome.

Having therefore no Lands, what should they do with Seed? This might be the Cause why they were so oft di­stressed by Famine, if there were a little Drought; because the Husbandmen of Canaan seem to have been but few, and might easily be brought to have little e­nough for their own necessities. And by these occasions happened the chiefest of the troubles of Abraham's life, that have been touched before.

Which things considered and weigh­ed, I cannot but wonder at some mens accessions, so near unto that Socinian fan­cy; as if the Fathers of the Old Testa­ment did but only live according unto [Page 163] temporal promises, as they were in part from time to time fulfilled to them. So apt are men sometimes to dote up­on Antiquity, as if nothing in the latter Ages could either happen or be done like what was then; and at o­ther times to look upon the same as meer dotage, even as young men when they hearken to old mens Tales think that they themselves are able to do much more and better. Or, as others pretend, that the modern Ages must needs be far more knowing, because they stand upon their Shoulders, while they are but growing up unto their Elbows; at least more pious by revelation and experi­ence: whereas more knowledge is lost than can possibly be repaired, and more piety than the declining Age of the World is likely to restore.

CHAP. XXII. Adam and Eve earnestly looked towards the promised Seed. Enoch lived an heavenly life, and Noah. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob much in private devo­tions. The Saints of the Old Testa­ment lived not by temporal promises, nor rested in them: But they lived, and were saved by faith in Christ; Proved out of both Testaments, and one Obje­ction answered.

WE may perceive by what hath been hinted before, what man­ner of life our Father Adam lived after his transgression, viz. praying and sa­crificing in earnest expectation of the Seed promised, in whom all Sacrifices were to cease: And poor Eve (to make amends) travelled continually with the desire of obtaining it (as She hoped) in her own person. Wherefore when She brought forth her first-born, Gen. 4.1. 25, 26.She said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And when She came again in process of time with Seth, She said, For God hath ap­pointed me another Seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. So that the first pro­mise [Page 165] being to the Seed of the Woman, it is conceived to be some reason why they were allowed usually to name their own Children. And when Seth had E­nosh, it is further said, That then men be­gan to call upon the name of the Lord, that is, the Sons of God began to sever themselves from the Sons of men, or the Race of Cain, and to worship apart from them.

And Enoch also, Jude 14, 15. the seventh from A­dam, Gen. 5.24. (of whom it is said, that he walk­ed with God, and was not, for God took him) shewed by his prophecy what manner of Spirit he was of. Behold (saith he) the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints, to execute judg­ment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly commit­ted, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly Sinners have spoken against him. Behold his faith in the Point of the Re­surrection and Judgment, his foresight of the Flood, and his great zeal against all sin; especially those of the times wherein he lived. Behold what Record is left of his exactness, his heavenly mindedness, his holy contemplations, and indesinent Communion, and famili­arity [Page 166] in walking with God; who had endued him with the Spirit of Prophe­cy and sanctity to such a measure, that (wanting nothing else but Vision) God translated him from Earth to Heaven in the middle of his days, Hebr. 11.5. in the 365. year of his life. Gen. 5.23. Gen. 6.7. 1 Pet. 3.20. & 2 Pet. 2.5. That he should not see death: for before his translation he had this testimony, That he pleased God.

When it is therefore said of Noah, That he was a just man, and perfect, and one that walked with God; and that he endured long (as a Preacher of righteous­ness) the contradictions of Sinners, while the Ark was in preparing (which was about a hundred and twenty years by account) we may guess whether he was not also like to Enoch. And whe­ther the holy speculations of these expe­rienced Long-livers, were dry, or more unlearned, than the shorter-lived and shorter-sighted casts of the Ages fol­lowing, may be well conjectured by the Book of Iob, Job 42.16, 17. who lived hundreds, and died full of days.

Now for all the Saints (in general) of the Old Testament, let us see what their inward piety was; from Abraham the Father of the faithful, till the co­ming of Christ: that I may clear this Point, Vnam esse omnium fidem, that [Page 167] there was but one faith of all Believers, the same with ours, faith in Christ, which was the strength of all their lives and hopes; and not any carnal blessings whatsoever. Which I think worthy, in this place (as if it were once for all) to state and prove, and answer such Ob­jections as may be made against it.

As for Abraham's private Devotions, they appear in his Visions, Expostulati­ons and Intercessions with Almighty God. Isaac's in his meditation and pray­er recorded; Iacob's in his vows and wrestlings, whereby he did prevail with God, and obtain the name of Israel.

For the state of the Question moved, it needs no further explication, when it shall be remembred, that it speaketh not of faith under any common Notion, (by which it might be diversly divided) but of faith taken properly and strictly for faith in Christ; of which it is asserted, that such a faith was in all Believers from the beginning; more especially from the promise made to Abraham, that in his Seed all the Nations should be blessed. And, according unto true method, the next Proceeding must be to prove it by Authority and Reason.

First, In the Old Testament, (not to [Page 168] cite all places, Job 19.25, 26, 27. Docet Iobi cum aliis fidelibus consensum. Quatenùsa­micis re­spondet, sen­sus est; Li­cèt me pro impio habe­atis, in Re­demptorem vindicem unicè spero: fiduciam non abjeci; Conqueror à Dio me ad tempus de­relictum, sed tamen credo. Va­rii Com­mentato­res in Poli Synopsi. but to point out to the diligent Reader how to find more) Iob is express when he saith, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin Worms destroy this Body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for my self, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my reins be consumed within me. In which words it is plainly manifest that Iob understood that the Seed promised was to be the Redeemer, that he should come in the Flesh, and after that to Judgment at the Day of the Resurre­ction, when he should glorifie them that had believed in him. All these even as we believe now. In the Pro­phecy of Isaiah we read this, Thus saith the Lord who redeemed Abraham Isai. 29.22..

Secondly, In the New Testament our Saviour testifieth thus much more of A­braham in particular, John 8.56. Your Father Abra­ham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. First, He might see it by the Scriptures, which were extant before him: for (as I hinted before) it is not safe to think that God had left his Church for above two thousand years, without Record, only to favour un­warrantable [Page 169] Tradition, which in such times might have been erroneous, or in others corrupted; or too weak (with­out any Monuments) to have kept so many important Genealogies, as have been collected and digested by Moses as the Spirit of God directed him, (and therefore thought fit to save no more but his Books unto Posterity) and so to have transmitted them by memory alone. Nor may it be convenient to imagine that God by revelation only discovered unto Moses all that had passed before, as if he had left himself in the Ages be­fore without witness. Secondly, He might know it by the Sacrifices, which he was to offer for the doing away of sin, which he knew to be the life of the lower Creatures instead of man, till the Redeemer should come; and this he might know (in a more especial manner) by the Precept dispensed with, which he had received, to offer up his only Son. Thirdly, He might know it by Vision and Revelation; since when God had admitted Abraham himself, as a Type of Christ, to be a Mediator for sinful So­dom, Gen. 18.17, 18. he had said, Shall I hide from A­braham that thing which I do, seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty [Page 170] Nation, and all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in him; and since he will instruct his Children after him, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him?

Object.And if it be asked further, Why, what could he see in this day that should make him glad, more than the Iews that descended from him, who expected nothing more than temporal greatness at the Messiah's coming, which seems to be the literal meaning of the promise? Let us hear how our profound Bishop An­drews descanteth on it: Resp. Serm. 8. on the Na­tivity. ‘Why should Abraham (saith he) so desire to see this day two thousand years, and more, after his own were at an end? How was he concerned in it? Yes, Christ's birth he needed, and he had good by it. Will ye hear it from his own mouth? Thus he setteth down his Case, Gen. 18. Ecce ego pulvis & cinis; Lo! I am but dust and ashes: Dust refers us to Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. But why Ashes? He was not made of these: This sure refers to somewhat else. Ashes (we know) come of fire: Without it they are not made. So that besides death to resolve him into dust, he saw a fire [Page 171] to turn him into ashes. He saw it in his Vision when the Sun was down, Gen. 15. and it was Night, and a great fear or horrour fell upon him; he saw Cliba­num fumantem, a fiery Furnace. Blame him not, if after such a Night he de­sired to see such a Day, and was glad when he beheld it.’

Besides, it is a vulgar errour which represents the Iews of the ancient times (whatsoever the modern think) as look­ing for no other than a King, when their Messiah should come; for they looked for such a Saviour as should be withal the greatest Prophet that they had ever had. Wherefore Iudas Macca­baeus, when he had pulled down the Altar that the Heathen had desiled, 1 Mac. 4.46. he laid up the Stones, by advice, until there should come a Prophet, to shew what should be done with them. And was not this the Question put to Iohn the Baptist, John 1.21. Art thou that Prophet, or do we expect ano­ther? And the Woman of Samaria spoke (no doubt) the sense of Israel when she said, John 4.25. I know that Messias co­meth, which is called Christ: when he is come he will tell us all things. But how­ever the Iews were mistaken in their day, our Saviour himself after his resur­rection, Luke 24.27. [Page 172] beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, expounded [unto his Disci­ples] in all the Scriptures, the things con­cerning himself. Acts 3.18.22, 24. & 15.16, &c. And the like method did the Apostles use towards all men, when they had received the Holy Ghost.

This especially they studied to clear, That they brought in no new faith by Christ. Acts 15.11. But we believe (saith S ^t Peter) that through the grace of the Lord Iesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they, viz. the Fathers, which had born the Yoke of the Law before, till they were wea­ry: signifying that they were also saved by the same Grace of Christ (and not by the Law) before it was revealed by the Gospel in a clearer manner. 2 Cor. 4.13. We ha­ving the same spirit of faith (saith Saint Paul) by which the Psalmist spoke in the place he citeth. And if it be neces­sary to insist on more Texts, they will be apt (some of them) to fall in with the Reasons which I shall set in order.

CHAP. XXIII. The Church of the Old and New Testa­ment but one. Christ made known in all his Offices before his incarnation. That he was King and Captain of his people, 1 Cor. 10. illustrated. That Christ was Mediator also of the first Covenant delivered by Moses.

THEY amount (in effect) to these, First, One Church; Secondly, One Head; and, Thirdly, The same O­perations of the Spirit before and since. Which do all prove the unity or sameness of that saving faith, which was com­mon unto them and us.

For the first of these, Quis unquam ne­gavit? Who ever denied or doubted but that the Saints of the Old Testament made up the same Body of the Catho­lick Church, to which we hope to be joined, Heb. 12.23. The general Assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in Heaven, and the Spirits of just men made perfect? Or who ever questioned but that those were saved by some faith or other equivalent unto ours? Matth. 17.1, 2. Wherefore Iesus also took with him Peter, Iames [Page 174] and Iohn to be transfigured before them, In hujus rei [scil. uni­tatis fidei] mysterium transfigu­rationi Christi in­tersuerunt, duo ex ve­teri Lege, & tres ex novâ, ut omnium justorum u­triusque temporis u­nam esse fidem, quae in Christum est, insinuaretur. Est. in lib. 3. sent. dist. 23. sect. 12. when there appeared also Moses and Elias talking with him; that his Apostles might be joined to his Prophets by himself, the Mediator (not only betwixt God and man, but) of either Testament. For there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Lord, and one faith, and one hope, and one God and Father of all, who is a­bove all, and through all, and in us all, as S ^t Paul expresseth it, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6.

P. Lum­bard, dist. 1. lib. 3. For the second, Ex sponsione factâ ab antiquo (as the Master of the Sentences speaketh) by a certain compromise be­twixt the Father and the Son, our Blessed Lord and Saviour exercised all his Offices of King, Priest and Prophet, and was so obeyed and believed in (according to the measure of revelation) before he was incarnate; and, tanquam in praelu­diis, (as the Fathers took the Phrase from one another) he made himself ma­nifest in sundry manners before he came in Person. He appeared and commu­ned with many; but with Iacob only he vouchsafed to wrestle hand to hand, and to name him Israel, because he had pre­vailed with God, And Iacob called the [Page 175] place Peniel, Gen. 32.21, 28, 30. for I have seen God (saith he) face to face, and my life is saved.

To exemplify the appearances of Christ in these his Offices (apart and severally) through divers passages or places of the Old Testament, may seem superfluous; since they are to be found exerted there (in act) more than once, and sometimes all at once. In our Systems of Divinity they serve for better method, or clearer illustration of some particular Points or Questions. If he guided their Kings, they expected another kind of King­dom; if he inspired their Prophets, they expected another kind of Prophet, when the time should come; if they re­paired to their Priests according to the Law, they knew that they needed ano­ther Advocate or Intercessor in many Cases; neither were they satisfied with any of their Sacrifices, Psal. 51. For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. Purge me with Hyssop, and I shall be clean. Cre­ate in me a clean heart; and— Deliver me from bloud-guiltiness, that my tongue may sing aloud of thy righteousness, &c. Nei­ther was this the Notion of so choice a Spirit as David's only, but it passed in­to the Vulgar Doctrine of the Scribes; for one of them replyed upon our Lord [Page 176] in these terms, Mark 12.32, &c. Well master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God, and to love him with all the heart, is more than all whole Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices. To whom our Lord again, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God. Not as if Sacrifices, the Ordinances and Sacra­ments of God, Lightfoot's Temple-Service. ch. [...].sect. 1. could be neglected (without which there was no remission of sin) but because in Sacrifices there might be more or less profusion (being partly Eucharistical, even their very Sin-Offerings) according to the wealth or liberality of the Offerer; as also, be­cause the thing signified was of more worth than the sign thereof.

Yet it shall not be amiss to consider the headship of Christ two ways, viz. as to (1.) Power; and (2.) Mediation, what­soever Offices may be comprized under these, during the state of the Old Testa­ment.

Heb. 11.24, &c.Of the first we read, That Moses, when he was come to years, did by faith refuse to be called Pharaoh's daughters son; esteem­ing the reproaches of CHRIST (to whose Kingdom he belonged) greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect un­to the recompence of reward, viz. in the Kingdom of Christ. And of all the people [Page 177] of Israel it is said. Ver. 29. That by faith they pas­sed (under Christ's conduct) through the Red Sea, as by dry Land. Which pas­sage of theirs is more fully cleared in a­nother place, 1 Cor. 10▪ 1, 2, &c. Moreover, Bre [...]hren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea. And were all ba­ptized into Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea. And did all eat the same spi­ritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spi­ritual rock that followed them, and that rock was CHRIST. But with many of them God was not well pleased— Which things were our examples. Let us not therefore lust as they did, neither let us tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted HIM, and were destroyed of Ser­pents; neither murmur, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer, Numb. 14.37. that is, the Pestilence. Was not therefore the Regiment of the Church of the Old Testament under God the Father? Or, if any delegation of Government was unto Christ, under compromise (as was mentioned before) did he himself destroy, who was said to be the Mediator (likewise) before of ei­ther Testament? The Answer unto this [Page 178] will fall in better with the next conside­ration, viz. of the Mediation, or Medi­atorship of Christ, which may chance to clear more obscure Texts all toge­ther.

(2.) Wherefore, as Mediator, our Blessed Lord (under the state of the Old Testament at least) seemed in one respect to have been but as a Moderator unto temporal punishments; and in an­other, an Intercessor, not only that all punishment should be remitted, both temporal and spiritual, but also that all Grace and Favour, necessary unto that estate, should be afforded. Neither will I be curious to divide these Parts of his Office of Mediator, more than of the other; but I shall shew what I find in reference unto any part at all relating unto this Head, or remaining Headship of Christ, as it may happen to conduce unto the first purpose.

First, The Apostle tells us, Gal. 3.19. That the Law it self was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. Heb. 9.19, 20. And that, When Moses had spoken every Precept to all the people, according to the Law, he took the bloud of Calves and Goats, with Water and Scarlet Wool and Hys [...]op, and sprink­led both the Book and all the people, saying, [Page 179] This is the bloud of the Testament, which God hath enjoined unto you. Whereupon neither the [...]irst Testament was dedicated without bloud: for almost all things were by the Law purged with bloud; and with­out shedding of bloud is no remission.

As the Apostle would therefore have the Corinthians know, that by the mini­stry of Moses all the Israelites were ba­ptized into Christ, by the Type of the Cloud over their heads, and the Sea round about their bodies; and did in effect and virtue partake of the like Sa­craments, by which they ate and drank of the fulness of Christ (the Rock that followed them when they left the other behind) and so had the like priviledges as the Corinthians had: Yet as God was displeased with many of them to their destruction, so he might with these too. He taketh not the Government from God the Father, while he sheweth who had the conduct from the beginning hi­therto. Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa. But if the Son be despised now, as heretofore, God the Father may extend his justice where the Media­tor is wickedly set aside by men, for whose redemption he had satisfied. But whether it was ever committed un­to [Page 180] Christ to destroy his own enemies (in any other than a spiritual way) be­fore his coming, or since his exaltation, is beyond the Question. Heb. 8.6. & 9.15. & 12.24. But S ^t Paul would have his Galatians and the He­brews know, not only that Christ is the Mediator of a new and better Cove­nant than that which Moses made in the behalf of the people; but also that Christ himself, in the person of Moses, was indeed the Mediator of that too; or else that it had been the worser for them.

CHAP. XXIV. It was necessary by reason of the Curse an­nexed to the first Covenant, that it should be delivered in the hands of a Mediator, who could be no other than Christ himself. God caused the Cove­nant of Works to be shut in a Chest under the Mercy-seat, and why? The benefit of Christ's mediation otherwise. The Vnity of the Spirit in both Testa­ments.

THE thing that troubled S ^t Paul, and the Churches of his Plantati­on, (more than any other) was this, Certain men which came down from Iu­daea, Acts 15.1. taught the Brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised according unto Moses, ye cannot be saved. Against whom S ^t Paul dis­puteth in most of his Epistles, and having shewed the Churches, Gal. 5.3. that this Doctrine made them Debtors to the whole Law (as to keep the Iewish Sabbaths, New­moons, and other Fasts and Feasts; as also to their vows and purifyings; to their abstinence from all unclean meats, and from all such Companies as ate so; and from all uncircumcised persons [Page 182] whatsoever, though Believers in Christ; In sine, to repair to Ierusalem to sacri­fice, as the Head-City and Mother-Church, as oft as the Law of Moses requi­red) he takes the Question it self soundly to task, to discover the danger and the ill consequents of it.

Amongst his other Arguments, these are strong and pressing: 1. That the free promise was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the Law was given by Moses; Gal. 3.17, [...]9. &c. so that A­braham being justified by faith without the Law, the Law could not render the promise void to any that believed as A­braham had done before. 2. But that the Law, so far as it contained Types and Figures of things to come, was it self abolished by Christ, in whom they were all accomplished. 3. And as for the Moral Law, That none was ever justified by that, or ever could be; nei­ther was it given for that end, but only added because of transgressions, or deli­ve [...]d in a terrible manner to that back­sliding [...] corrupting people, as a Bri­dle, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. 4. In fine, Because the whole Law had this dreadful Codi­cil annexed to it, Cursed is every one that [Page 183] continueth not in all things, which are writ­ten in the Book of the Law, to do them; that they had in those times been misera­ble, if the Law, which was delivered by thundring Angels, had not been or­dained in the hand of a Mediator; which is the Point that [...] closest to that which we are now about.

Who was this Mediator then? And why must the Law be needs ordained in the hand of such an one? The Media­tor, in a Type and true Vice-gerency, was Moses, beyond all doubt; Exod. 19.9, &c. Deut. 5.5. & Heb. 12.18, &c. and the end why he was sitted to interpose at the giving of the Law, was because the people was affrighted at the sound of the Trumpet, and the voice of words, and the Mount that burned with fire, entreating that the word should not be spoken to them any more: for they could not endure that which was commanded. So Moses stood between the Lord and them, at that time, as a Type of Christ, who breaketh the Majesty of the Father, delivering us from the terrour of his Justice and Power. But in effect and virtue it was the good will of him that dw [...]lt in the Bush, that was the true Mediator then (though not after the same manner as he is of the New Covenant) the same that appeared in the [Page 184] Cloud upon the Mercy-Seat; Levit. 16.2. and upon the Tabernacle, to guide them and pro­tect them from the heats; Numb. 9.15.21.6, &c. that cleft the Rocks when they were thirsty, and gave them Manna when they hungred; Exod. 17.11, &c, that delivered them from the fiery Ser­pents; and by the same Moses's interces­sion, holp them to prevail against. Ama­lek Patrem per silium dedisse Legem consentiunt Veteres, & Recentiores, Graeci & Latini. Sensus est, Legem per Ange­los ordinatam ( uno Angelo denuntiante, ut Act. 7.38.) in mana Chr [...]ni dispositam esse, qui pro nobis [...]am pr [...] ­slitit: Vel, Legem Israelitis traditam suisse per manum, five directionem, Christi Me­diatoris, populum illum in su [...]m adventum ho [...] modo praeparantis. Varii. Nor did he leave his Office neither as soon as he had brought them into the Land of promise: But his Mediation, in whatsoever we may discover it, was profitable to them, to the end. For, after their first restipulation with God by the hand of Moses (who returned this Answer from them unto him that sent him, Exod. 19.8. All that the Lord hath spoken we will do) it plea­sed God to cause this Covenant of Works to be shut up in a Chest, called the Ark of the Covenant or Testimony [betwixt God and them] but to be co­vered with a Mercy S [...]at, Exod. 25.16, 17. 1 Kings 8. [...], &c. and then pla­ced according unto his direction; which in Solomon's Temple was in the Oracle of the most holy place: and the reason of his prayer, why God should hearken to [Page 185] the supplications of his people (in any Case, or without any Offerings) when­soever they shoud but look toward that holy place, and pray. By which we know where the Throne of the Media­tor was under the Old Testament.

If they transgressed, the Covenant enclosed was a Testimony against them; but there was a Mercy-seat above it, as though God would oblige himself to his Covenant of mercy, though they should break their Covenant of obedience to him. And this was a gracious Argument to him, not to cast them off upon every provocation, but rather to chastise them gently, and to restore them to his for­mer favour, by virtue of his elder Co­venant of Promise, made unto Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, Psal. 78.37, 38, 39 their Progenitors. So that when their hearts were not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his Cove­nant, he being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not, yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.

O ye Seed of Abraham his Servant, Patriarch. Faederis hanc promissionem accepere, Ero Deus vefler, & pro­steritatis vestrae. Hinc per­saepà in sa­cro codice, cù Israelitae veniam ab irato Deo, & insuper magna impe [...]rant beneficia, Coelesti voce monentur, uti hoc totum acceptum s [...]rant majoribus suis A­brahamo, Isaaco, Iacobo. Creber ille sermo est in Pentateucho, & in Vatum Scriptis. Porrò Foederis illius quod cum patriarchis sancitum diximus, Sponsor Messias [...]uit, qui [...]deò appellatur Angelus Foederis: Propter ipsum Messiam igitur salus Israelitis data erat, etiam propter majorem sidem. P. Cunaeus lib. 3. cap. ult. ye Children of Iacob his chosen.— He hath remembered his Covenant for ever, which he made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac. And confirmed the same unto Ia­cob [Page 186] for a Law; and to Israel for an ever­lasting Covenant— He remembred his ho­ly promise, and Abraham his Servant.

And though God suffered at last the Assyrians to destroy this Ark (together with his Temple) so that the second Temple wanted this inestimable pledge of Grace; yet when the people hum­bled themselves with Nehemiah, and o­ther of their Reformers, and renewed their Covenant with God by their re­pentance, they were accepted without the Ark, so as to stand upon their good behaviour more than ever, like a Fort dismantled, or a City that is disfranchi­zed of its former priviledges. But the time was short then, after the Lord had said so long before, Heb. 10.7. Lo, I come (in the Volume of thy Book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.

In fine, as they had the same Head, so they had the same Spirit that we have now; which may serve for a Close to all the Arguments. That I may not [Page 187] seem to skrew or wire-draw any Text of Scripture, 1 Pet. 1.10, 11. S ^t Peter is express, Of which Salvation (faith he) the Prophets have enquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you, Searching what and what manner of time the Spirit of CHRIST, which was in them, did signifie, when it te­stified before-hand the sufferings of CHRIST and the glory that should fol­low.— Which things the Angels desired to look into, as having been appointed mi­nistring Spirits, before and since, uni­ted also to this Church of Christ.

And if we look upon the operations of the Spirit, and see how it wrought before and since; we shall find the same breathings of the Saints of both Testaments in their Confessions, As may appear by Psal. 51. alone. Pray­ers and Arguments; save only that what we ask for Christ's sake, by virtue of his death, his resurrection and his intercessi­on for us; they asked by the mercies of God (not at large, as Heathen-men, but as) annexed to his Promises and his Co­venant, and his faithfulness therein, with respect unto him that was to come, whatsoever Notions they had of him: Which we shall take account of in the last place, by answering two or three [Page 188] more Objections, to attain the clearer light in this particular; trusting that the Reader will think it as worthy of his perusal, as I of my digesting. In the mean while we leave the Saints of the Old Testament, as endued with the samehope, love and patience, as these of the New; and have thereupon infer­red, according to the connexion of the Graces of the Spirit, that they must needs have the like faith. Idem & ratione du­ctâ à simi­li ostendi­tur. Est u­na spes om­nium, quâ ad tandem felicitatem tendunt; & una charitas, quâ omnia propter Deam diligant: ergo & unasides. Eft. ubi supra. And for their outward Worship, all the people were sprinkled with the bloud of Heb. 9.19, 20. Mediati­on, often shed, as ours are, by the bloud of Christ, once shed for all, unto the Worlds end.

CHAP. XXV. Second Objection propounded, How that little which they knew could answer un­to that justifying faith which we have now. First, The things that they be­lieved considered, and shewed, That they amounted to as much as our Creed, less than which may be a ground of justi­fying faith. Secondly, For the man­ner of their faith, it was explicit. The distinction of explicit and implicit weighed; How much faith in them. Fiducial faith.

THE first Objection was, That a few choice persons only had any special notion of the Messiah to come. Obj. 2. The next is, That of those ve­ry choice persons so little was known, as could not be a sufficient ground of such a faith as we account to be a justi­fying or a saving faith in Christ; since of the Prophets, to some one was reveal­ed one part of this mystery; to some others a little more; to no one the whole. Nay, it is to be gathered from that place of S ^t. Peter quoted before, that some of them had Commission to [Page 190] prophesie more than the meaning whereof was revealed even to them­selves For he saith, Of which salvation the Prophets (that prophesied) have en­quired and searched diligently of the Grace that should come unto you, (and not unto themselves) unto whom it was revealed (at the last) that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you. Which things (for all their Prophecies) the An­gels desired to pry into.

Let us, Resp. first, consider the things be­lieved (or to be believed) betwixt them and us; and, secondly, then de­modo, of the manner of their Faith and ours, how far they agree or dif­fer.

First, If they and we do agree in the same Creed (which is called the Apo­stles Creed) then certainly we both a­gree in side credendâ, in the Faith which is to be believed. But why we should not be taken to agree in this, since eve­ry Article of it may be articulately pro­ved out of the Old Testament, there can (indeed) be no other reason given than that which is insinuated, viz. That though the substance be there; yet it lyes scattered, and was not revealed (so [Page 191] much as in the matter) all at once; nor the end clearly understood by them, to whom the matter it self was reveal­ed.

Now if this Creed (which is sufficient) be but understood confusedly by many of ours, and yet we take it to be ground enough for a saving faith to be built up­on it, as they know in part; how much more may we extend our latitude of Charity to the Saints of the Old Testa­ment, who believed upon the matter as much as some of ours, before it was pro­pounded in such an order?

Let me say further, Aug. in 1 Tim. 2. Ep. 89, Vnus (inquit) est Mediator, quia unum Christum ad ju­stificationem nobis prodesse commemorat Apostolus: ut sciamus etiam Antiquos ju­stos, non nisi pèr candem fi­den liberatos, quâ & nos: si­dem scil. incarnationis Chri [...]ti, quae illis praenuntia­ [...]ata [...], sicut à nob [...]s sacta an­nuntiatur. That it was e­nough for them to know in the general that Christ should be born in the time appointed, to redeem us (without any circumstances) to ground even a Fiducial Faith upon that alone. But let us see how much they knew more. We have proved that our Father Adam offered Sacri­fices according unto revela­tion. And if they came in use by revela­tion, it is reasonable to imagine that the end also was some way or other reveal­ed from the first, viz. That Christ him­self [Page 192] should be offered up unto God (in the appointed time) to do away that sin which Adam had contracted; the pu­nishment whereof deserved death and fire, as the act of Oblation required true repentance and contrition, with com­passion on the innocent that was to dye in the sread of the nocent. And was not Abraham taught as much as this, (do you think?) when God commanded him to offer up his only Son Isaac, and in sparing Isaac, provided Abraham of a­nother Sacrifice? But when we come to the Book of the Psalms and the Prophets, both the death and resurrection and a­scension and sending of the Holy Ghost are all described to the life; so that the Object of Faith was but only more com­fortably enlarged than before, and left under less obscurity, as the Day-Star and the dawning drew the nearer. Nor was all the Scripture of the Old Testament of no profit in its own time, 2 Tim. 3. 16. ( which was gi­ven by inspiration of God, 1 Cor. 10.11 for their instruction in righteousness) though many things happened unto them as Types unto us, and are also written for our admoniti­on, upon whom the ends of the World are come.

Upon all which, S ^t Augustine is here [Page 193] producible with a clear Verdict: Ante ad­ventum Christi prae­cesserunt jus [...]i, sic in [...]um creden­tes ventu­rum, quo­modo nos credimus in [...]um qui veni [...]. Tem­pora vari­ata sunt, non sides, quia & ipsa verba pro tempore variantur, cùm variè declinantur. Eadem tamen fides introsque conjungit, & [...]os qui ventu­rum esse, & [...]os qui [...]um venisse crediderunt, diversis quid [...]m t [...]mporibus, sed u [...]rosque per unum sid [...]i os [...]ium, hoc est per Christum videmus ingressos. Nos credimus dominumi nostrum natum ex Virgine, venisse in carne, &c. Tract. in Joan 45. Et alibi: Sine side incarnati [...]nis, & mortis, & re­surrectionis Christi, ne [...] antiquos juslos ut jus [...]i essent, à peccatis potuisse mundari, & Dei gratiâ justificari, veritas Christiana non dubitat..... vel ante diluvium, vel inde usque ad datam Legem, vel ipsius Legis tem­pore, non solùm in filiis Israel, sicut fuerunt Prophetae, sed etiam extra eundem populum, sicut Iob. Et iplorum etiam corda [...]âdem munda­bantar Mediatoris side, & dissundebatur in [...]is charitas per Spiritum Sanctum, qui ubi vult, spira [...], non merita sequens, sed [...]tiam ipsa merita faciens. Lab. de pecc. origin. cap. 24. Quaescunque sacrae scripturae [...]nca probant neminem salvari sme Christo Mediatore, eadem valent ad probandam fidei necessitatem. Est. in lib. 3. di [...]. 25. s [...]ct. 4. Before the Coming of Christ (faith he) there were righteous men, so believing in him to come, as we believe in him come: The times are varied, not the Faith. We believe that our Lord was born of a Vir­gin, suffered, rose again, and ascended; They that all this should be thereaf­ter, &c.

Secondly, But because neither they nor we could be saved by believing any Articles only, howsoever clear; let us next consider de modo, or de fide quâ, by what manner of faith they might be­lieve in Christ as well as we, unto justi­fication by him.

To this we have also an Answer in the [Page 194] general from the same Father, Quicunque ab exordio generis bu­ma [...]i in e­um credide­runt; eum (que) [...]; in­telle [...]erant, & secun­dums ejus Praeceptapiè, & justè vixerunt, quandolibet, & ubilibet sue­rint, per eum proculdubio salvi sacti sunt. Aug. Ep. 49. ad Deogra­tias, Qu. 2. Whoso­ever (saith he) from the beginning have believed in him, however understood, whensoever it was, or wheresoever they were, without doubt they were saved by Him.

But this Answer will not serve the turn, since the late distinction of the School-men about explicit and implicit faith; so that we must endeavour to give a clearer and more particular Re­ply to the thing in Question.

Summ. 1, 2. Qu. 2. Artic. 5. Lumbard. lib. 3. dis [...]. 25. b.The Distinction it self seemeth to have been first coined by Aquinas in his Comments on the Master of the Sente­ces, who called this explicit Faith, ( Fi­dem distinctam in aperto, and the other Fide [...] velatam in mysterio) such a di­stinct Faith by revelation as Abraham and Moses had, and such a veiled Faith in the mystery as they received from them in the after-times; to whom no more was revealed, but that they must believe as Abraham and Moses had done before, having no distinct knowledge of all the Articles of the Faith that were de­livered to them. But Aquinas's explicit [Page 195] Faith is described to be, Quâ quid credi­tur secundùm se, & in particulari, the believing of a thing by it self, and in particular; and his implicit to be, Quà quid creditur in alio, tanqu [...]m in universali, the believing of a thing that is contained in another, as in the general. Which at last was wrested to this sense, Eft. in 1.3. d 25. sect. 2. Velut si quis ex animo profiteatur se credere quic­quid credit Ecclesia, as if any one should profess that he believeth from his heart what the Church believeth; which we take to be no faith at all, but only a blind obedience.

But of the Believers of the Old Te­stament we say, first, that they had a certain explicite Faith in Christ, in some measure, every one of them according to the Word of Grace that was any way revealed or transmitted to them. And then that there was implicitly more con­tained in that which they received (which was indeed veiled in a mystery) than they could possibly conceive: Whether they received it in Doctrine, or in the Promises, or, more especially, in any of the Types and Figures of the Law. But an implicit Faith in their own Church they had not; neither could they be saved by the faith of their [Page 196] Progenitors, like little Infants, Etiam [...]i multitudo nihil cognitum, perceptùmue ha­buisset de Messia, nihilo ta­men minus Coe [...]estem beatitu­dinem dari illis potuisse pro­p [...]er Patriarchas, qui Messi­am mente intuiti sunt, & Foaderis hanc Promissionem accep [...]re à Numine, Ero Deus vester, & Pos [...]eritatis ve­strae. Hinc persaepe v [...]niam, & magna impe [...]trant benefi­cia majoruma suorum gratiâ... Sic Infantibu [...] ad salutem pi [...]tas Parentum valet. U­bi supra. (as Cu­n [...]us is apt to think that some of them might be) but every one by his own faith; and that a Fiducial Faith too, wherein I follow Cu­naeus for the rest: But to a­void that Question of the Schoolmen, (or to refer my Reader to them) How much or how little it was necessary for the ordinary people, before the coming of Christ, to believe concerning him; as also to make way for my more direct proceeding; Quod si Prophetae, & ill [...]s [...]ri­ores, qui videban­t [...]r in illo populo, non omnes om­nia liqui­do [...] ­liter agnos­cere value­ru [...]t, sed a­lii plus, a­lii minus; quanto magis simpliciores qu [...]que ju [...]ti, sine detrimento sa­lutis, salvationis modum, tempus, & ordinem [...]escire p [...]tuerunt; qu [...] tamen certâ spe, & side, [...]ti promissa suerant, firmissi [...]è ten [...]erant? Bern. in Ep. 77. ad Hugonem. I cannot but take that pas­sage of S ^t Bernard in my way. ‘If the Prophets (faith he) and choicest of them did not all know all alike, but some more, some less; how much more might the simpler sort, without any detriment unto their salvation, be ig­norant of the time and manner; while they held fast the things promi­sed with a certain faith and hope?’

[Page 197]Yet I cannot but wonder how the Fa­thers and Schoolmen could all beat a­bout so much (as they have done) in this suit; and not withal bethink them­selves, that this faith of the Believers of Israel (at least) was not wholly towards a Mediator to come; but was also in him, as having him with them in every time, even as they had ever since they had the name of Israel: For I have shewed how he wrestled with Israel (in particular) and was with them all in the Red Sea, and the Desart. To proceed therefore a little further, and you shall know what manner of explicit and sidu­cial faith they had, and how far it was implicit or veiled, (take which term you like the better) and how agreeable un­to that Faith which we conceive to be saving now.

CHAP. XXVI. That the Israelites were not saved by a blind obedience, or any mere implicit faith only; but by a fiducial trust in the mercies of God, as they were exhibited in the Ark of the Covenant, and the Mercy-seat erected over it. That the Cherubims, erected at either end, re­presented the same Church, of one piece, of either Testament, looking to­wards Christ; who really dwelt (by his Divine presence) betwixt them, and so shewed himself their King and Prophet. The Argument of the next Chapter pro­pounded.

WE are never nearer to a bright Morning, than when we pass through an early foggy Mist. When we are told that the Israelites (for their parts) might be saved by a mere obedi­ence, without any explicit Faith at all in Christ, tanquam per opera operata, (as they speak abusively to the very terms;) or else by the faith of their Forefathers, as if it could be imputed unto them to justification, as Christ's righteousness is to us: Or, in fine, by believing that [Page 199] God, who could do wonders, would redeem them, and all Mankind, one way or other, in the general (they knew not how) we are left in a maze.

But when we come to this result, viz. That as the Patriarchs before the Law worshipped God in Christ at many Al­tars; so after the giving of the Law, the Children of Israel worshipped him in his holy Tabernacle, at one only Al­tar; as having Christ there in the midst of them, sitting on the Mercy-Seat as his Throne, and dwelling betwixt the Cherubims, who was the Keeper of their Covenant; and that their trust in the mercies of God (shadowed there by the wings of the Cherubims) according to all his promises, was their [...]iducial faith in God, through Christ Iesus; I say, when we come to this result, me­thinks we have found a certain Clue, to bring us out of all perplexity, and to shew us, that the Saints of the Old Te­stament had (at least) enough to stay their Stomachs till the Word it self should be made flesh, and come to dwell among them, in a larger place.

In this posture we therefore find the Mediator of both Testaments, as exerci­sing all his Offices under the first; for [Page 200] protection, direction and doing away of sin, in such an extraordinary way as all the other expedients of the Ceremonial Law could not come near. The Ark it self contained the Law of the ten words, which when the people had ac­cepted, Exod. 19.8. saying, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do, it became a Covenant of Works to that people, and to no o­ther, though a Rule and Obligation un­to all Mankind, that should come to know it. And when God had com­manded that this should be laid up be­fore him in the Ark, and placed in the Holy of Holies; the Ark came to be called the Ark of the Covenant, or of Testimony. However, he that gave the Law, knowing their proneness to [...]ansgress, was graciously pleased to command that it should be covered with the Mercy-Seat; remembring his elder Covenant of Grace, made with Abra­ham, Is [...]a [...] and Iacob, in whom not only one people, but all the nations of the earth should be blessed. And for Suppor­ters to the Mercy-Seat, as a Royal Throne, Exod. 37.6, &c. he caused two Cherubims of Gold, beaten out of one Piece, to be set at either end of it, which spreading out their wings on high, covered the Mercy-Seat [Page 201] therewith; and having their faces one towards another, looked both to­wards the Mercy-Seat.

Now in that the Cherubims were both of one Piece, looking both towards this Mercy-Seat, (which was also made of pure Gold, that we might know the worth of mercy) they served aptly to set forth the posture of the Saints of both Testaments, which in their faces look towards one another, and both to­wards Christ: and in the spreading of their wings, they reach the two sides of the World, while they touch in the middle, and so do sweetly join to one a­nother, Temple, chap. 15. sect. 4. as D ^r Lightfoot speaks. But be­twixt these was the strength and glory of Israel, the most pregnant and proper resemblance of our Saviour, in whom God dwelleth among men: Nor was it a mere resemblance, 2 Kings 19.15, &c. So Psal. 80.1. & 99.1. but it was truly so. For Hezekiah (in his distress) prayed be­fore the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the Cheru­bims, bow down thine ear and hear; open thine eyes, and see and save us, that all the Earth may know, that thou art the Lord God, even thou alone.

1 Sam. 4.4. & 2 Sam. 6. [...], &c.This Ark the Priests were therefore ordered to carry forth to Battel, while [Page 202] the Tabernacle stood, and it was the Pal­ladium of Israel, they were either victo­rious, or invincible, while they had it with them; for the King of Glory went along with it: And, Who was that King of Glory? Psal. 24: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battel; The Lord of Hosts is the King of Glory. So that when the Philistines had once taken this Ark, (though they could not hold it long) the Wife of Phinehas fell in tra­vail, and dyed; having first named her Son Ichabod; 1 Sam. 4.22. because, said she, the glory is departed from Israel, since the Ark of God is taken. In fine, when it pleased God to deliver them up to the Assyrians for their incorrigible Idolatry (which was not a breach of the Covenant in part, but in the whole) he suffered this Ark, Mercy-Seat and all, to be burned with the Temple.

To this, the same Ark was their Ora­cle, 1 Kings 6.16. and gave name to the whole Room, the Holy of Holies, to be called the O­racle, Exod. 25.12. For there I will meet with thee (said God) and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two Cherubims, which are upon the Ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give in commandment unto the Chil­dren [Page 203] of Israel. And thus it was of frequent use so long as the first Temple did continue.

But that which is most to the purpose (to understand the Object and the man­ner of the faith of the Saints of old) is that which presents it self to our next thoughts, about the Priestly Office of Christ within this inner Temple, be­yond the ministry of the Sons of Levi, which was in the outer Sanctuary, (once a year excepted, when it was permit­ted to the High Priest alone to enter in hither.)

I hardly can forbear to deliver my own opinion expresly here, although I know no other authority to fortifie it by, besides the very Scriptures them­selves, or what an ingenuous man may accept for a reasonable inference upon them. I take the Ark it self to have been a kind of Altar.

CHAP. XXVII. The Kingdom given unto Christ for his Priesthood-sake; who as of the order of Melchizedek had an inner house and Altar, to which the house of Aaron owed reverence: That it was not pro­perly an Altar, but bore some analogy; and was needful for the people. That the promises of God before the Law were virtually concealed in the Ark. A new Objection started.

IT was in contemplation of Christ's Priesthood, that God the Father be­stowed the Kingdom on him, according to that of the Royal Psalmist, Psal. 110. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool .... The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever, after the Order of Melchizedek, Heb. 7.15. that is, after the s [...]militude (as the Apostle doth expound it) of that King of righteous­ness; which word doth indifferently signifie mercy in the use of the Old Te­stament.

Within this inward Temple (there­fore) [Page 205] it was convenient that another kind of Altar should be reserved for ano­ther kind of Priest than Aaron was, (who had the Ruler of the people over him; and many Laws lying on his Or­der, from which Melchizedek was free) For the Law made nothing perfect; Heb. 7.19. but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God.... Chap. 6.19, 20: which hope [...]e have as an Anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast; and which entreth into that within the Veil. Whither the fore­runner is for us entred, even Iesus, made an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, who was a Type of him; as the Holy of Holies, within the Veil, was of Heaven; having the Throne of God in the midst of it, and a multitude of Cherubims besides it, after Solomon had put the last hand to it. And as our hope is now (above all) in the inter­cession of Christ in Heaven; so was theirs of old within the Veil, more than it was without, as I am about to shew.

But because it doth not consist with the oneness of the Body of Christ, that there should be more Temples or Al­tar [...] (properly so called) than one; I [Page 206] shall first address my self to some ac­commodation Nec quis miretur (in­sup [...]r) au­ratam mensam, cui panes sacierum apponi solebant, tanquam oblationes, in Ararum censum referri. Sicut enim Ara Mensa Dei (Mal. 1.12.) ita Mensa D [...]i Ara quedam [...]rat, Araeque plane vicera praeslabat. Neque viro apud Iudaeos tantum, sed etiam apud prophanas Gentes, Mensas ritè dedicatas Ararum vices praeslitisse legimus. In papyria [...]o enim j [...]re evi­dentèr relatum es [...] Arae vicem p [...]estare posse mensam dicatam. Outr. lib. I. cap. 8..

Besides the Altar of Oblation, there stood apart (and nearer to the Veil) the Golden Altar, or Altar of Incense, by God's appointment; which served to set forth the intercession of the Angel of the Covenant, who is represented to us in the Revelation, Rev. 8.3, &c. as standing at the Al­tar, having a golden Censer, with much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar, which was before the Throne; the smoke whereof ascended up before God out of the Angels hand, and then the Angel took his Censer, and filled it with fire of the Altar, and cast it to the Earth (as a return of prayers) and then the judgments of God began to work below. Which Altar therefore stands not in opposition to the other; nor this that I am about to speak of to either of them. But now I will shew what analogy, and what need or use there was of this token.

[Page 207] Quod prius praestantius, was the great Rule that S ^t Paul went by in preferring Christ's Priesthood before Levi's, in that it was according to the likeness of Mel­chizedek's, unto whom Levi himself had paid Tythes in the Loins of his Father Abraham. Heb. 8.4, &c. And in this he shews the ex­cellency of the New Testament above the Old, Gal. 3.17. that it was four hundred and thirty years (indeed) the elder of the two. This I say (saith he) that the Co­venant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hun­dred and thirty years after, cannot disan­nul, that it should make the promise of no effect. And that it might not do so, God laid a Mercy-Seat over the Law, and put all together behind the Veil; where he kept the Archives of his first promise made to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Iacob, concerning Christ: In re­ference whereunto he bad Moses tell the people from the very first beginning of his vocation, Exod. 3.13. The Lord God of your Fa­thers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever; and this is my memorial unto all Generati­ons. This was his name within the Veil, covered with the wings of Angels, [Page 208] while the Lord of life was yet in the Loins of his Progenitors.

Obj. 3.So that if any one be ready to object further against the knowledge of Christ of old, that Moses put a veil [of Types and Ceremonies] over his face, [on pur­pose] that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished [ viz. the Ceremonial Law.] But their minds were blinded so, that un­til this day, the same Veil remaineth on them in the reading of the Old Testament; we are as ready to meet them with ano­ther passage of the same Apostle.

Resp. Wherefore then serveth the Law? [Was it given to the prejudice of the Grace of Christ?] Gal. 3.19, 21, 23. It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator: Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid. But be­fore faith came, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith, which should after be revealed.

Now the strength of the Objection seems to bear against the multitude of the Children of Israel, and not against any choice men amongst them; who (for all this Objection) as they drew nearer, [Page 209] might see the clearer into this mystery of Christ, on coming. But I shall endea­vour to take things in such an order, that that which remains of the former Objection, may go off as well satisfied as can be with this that cometh last.

CHAP. XXVIII. What resemblance the Ark bore unto an Altar; and how the Altar of Burnt-Offering was sanctified by it. That a Censer was only a necessary Vtensil, be­longing to the Holy of Holies, to be u­sed once a Year. That the whole Tem­ple was hallowed by the Còvenant and Mercy-seat, shewed by Solomon's Dedi­cation of it.

OF the whole Law, how far it is a priviledge or a burthen, a light or a veil, (that I may not too much an­ticipate the design that I have in hand) there will be a proper place hereafter. In the mean while, whatsoever was de­fective ( [...]) in the Sanctuary, Heb. 9.2, 3. was supplied ( [...]) in the Ho­ly of Holies, or most holy place. And whatsoever blindness happened to the [Page 210] later Jews, it was not so much by the Veil, that Moses drew over his own face (which was, as it were, but of Cy­press) as by the grosser Veils, that the Scrib [...]s and Pharisees, in the later times, had drawn over all.

Lev. 16,On the tenth Day of the seventh Month, T [...]ri or September, the High Priest was to make an atonement for the people by Sacrifice, to cleanse them, that they might be clean from all their sins be­fore the Lord. But this was to be done the same Day, after he had performed all that was required to be done in the Holy of Holies.

He was first to make an atonement without, for himself and for his house, by a Sin-Offering, which was to be a Bul­lock. Then he was to carry a Censer full of burning Coals of fire from off the Al­tar, with his hands full of incense within the Veil, where he was to burn it upon the Coals, that the Cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testi­mony, [thus it resembleth the Altar of incense, as it was in form somewhat like it] and he shall take of the bloud of the Bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger Eastward; and before the Mercy-Seat shall be sprinkle of the blo [...]d with his finger [Page 211] seven times [thus doth he dedicate it to the Lord with some of the same Ceremo­nies that he used towards the Altar of Oblation] Then shall be kill the Goat of the Sin-Offering that is for the people, and do with that bloud as he did with the for­mer, sprinkling the bloud upon the mercy-seat, and before it. And then he shall there make an atonement even for the San­ [...]uary it self, because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins. In fine, (as if this were the Altar of Altars Quod sacit tale, to magises [...] tale. So that if we suppose a third Al­tar, we do not [...]rigere Altare con­tra Altare▪ but rather set all three to agree in one, ac­cording to the Myste­ry of the Trinity., that imparted holiness Quod sacit tale, to magises [...] tale. So that if we suppose a third Al­tar, we do not [...]rigere Altare con­tra Altare▪ but rather set all three to agree in one, ac­cording to the Myste­ry of the Trinity. unto both the other, as well as unto all the people) he shall go out [again] unto the Altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it, and shall take of the bloud of the Bul­lock, and of the bloud of the Goat, and put it upon the horns of the Altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the bloud upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. And then, to the Sa­crifice of atonement mentioned before.

Now because S ^t Paul reckons that there was a golden Censer (which be­longs to an Altar) within this Holy of Holies, whereof there was no need, since the Priest carried one in with him; it [Page 212] might occasion that errour of S ^t Augu­stine's, that the Altar of incense was in this most holy place; which is sufficient­ly detected by Cunaeus. P. Cun. l. 2. c. 4. And when Ex­positors have toiled much about this su­perfluous Censer; it may be it was but for Ornament alone, as the multitude of Palm-Trees and Cherubims, with which Solomon adorned the Oracle; whereas Moses had ordained two only Cheru­bims at the ends of the Ark it self. Or else S ^t Paul might intend no other than that which the Priest brought in (as the only Ut [...]sil belonging unto the service of that place) though he carried it out again.

But is was not once a Year only that the Mercy-seat and the Covenant were of any use unto this people. For if the Altar of Sacrifice was ( Non solum [...]rbes Levi­tarum Asyli gandebaut privilegio, verum & Altare Tem­pli, licèt perquam dispari, tum respectu sa­cinorum, tum & more, &c. Joan. Seld. de jure Nat. & Gent. jux [...]a Heb. lib. 4. cap 2. Asylum) a certain refuge whereunto to flee, and to repair for succour; this was much more, both for all the people, and for each par­ticular person, in ordinary and in extra­ordinary, whether at home or abroad. Let us mark how they might use it.

This awful place, into which the High Priest might not presume to enter above once in the year, at the time ap­pointed, [Page 213] not without Typical bloud (to safeguard him) and incense (to procure a gracious acceptation, by the interces­sion of the immaculate Lamb, Levit. 16.2, 13. slain from the beginning of the World) lest he dye (as it is twice said in the same Chap­ter) gave its dignity unto all the Temple.

1 Kings 8.22. & 2 Chron. 6.12, &c.So that when Solomon had fini [...]hed the whole, he stood before the Al [...]ar of the Lord [upon a Brazen Scaffold, which he had erected] and kneeling down in the presence of all the Congregation, he prayed, saying, Lord God of Israel, who keepest Covenant and mercy (there being little comfort in the one without the other, as also to shew us that it was the Cove­nant and the Mercy-seat together that was the glory of the whole) although the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee, much less this house that I have built; yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy Servant, O Lord my God, (which Pronoun possessive is to be ob­served as bearing respect to the promise that he had mentioned before, made un­to his Father David) that thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there. And hear­ken thou to the supplication of thy people Is­rael, [Page 214] when they shall pray toward this place, and when thou hearest, forgive, and relieve, reckoning up the needs that might happen. And among the rest of his petitions, what prayer or supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, (and not of his Body only) and spread sorth his hands towards this house; then hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do; moreover, concerning a Stranger that is not of thy people Israel, (that it might be known that this house was also sacred unto him, in whom all the Nati­ons of the Earth were to be blessed) but cometh out of a far Country for thy names sake; (for they shall hear of thy great name) hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the Stranger calleth unto thee for. Which proved a Rule (if not mistaken) in after-times to admit Heathen Princes to offer Sacrifices in the Temple.

This is therefore the frequent com­pellation (or adjunct to the blessed At­tributes) of God in the Old Testament, who keepeth Covenant and mercy. If you please to know how often, the Concor­dances are at hand; to which I may re­fer [Page 215] you with favour, and not oblige my Reader to pay twice for a single sa [...]i [...]fa­ction. Only this remains to be enquired into, What Covenant they meant, and with what respect unto the Temple.

CHAP. XXIX. They intended t [...]at Covenant which God had made with Abraham, Isa [...]c and Jacob, by the sign of Circumcision, (and not that which they consented [...]o when they received the Law) upon which fun­damental Covenant it was that God proclaim [...]d his Attributes of mercy to them; yet they were bound [...]o renew their own Covenant wh [...]n [...]hey sought for mercies. The presence of God in the Temple an Object of their faith; of which presence Christ was the Angel, otherwise known by the name of the lo­ving kindness or tender mercies of God, to which they trusted more than to any of their services.

ONCE we may be sure, that it was not that part of the Covenant which they had broken, which was ad­ded because of transgressions, or annexed [Page 216] as a Codicil unto the first Testament, to keep them in awe, and fear of sinning, by its threatnings, they being always prone to trespass upon the God of Israel: Gal. 3.17.19. But the Covenant which they intended was that which was confirmed before of God in Christ, viz. with Abraham, I­saac and Iacob, their Progenitors, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. 1 Chron. 16. So that when David had brought the Ark, and set it in the midst of a Tent, which he had pitched for it, they offer [...]d Burnt-sacrifices, and Peace-offerings before God: and then he deli­vered the hundred and fifth Psalm unto Asaph and his Brethren, to be tuned by them unto praise, in which there is this special passage, But in the Psalm, v. 6. it is, O ye seed of Abraham his Ser­vant— O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Iacob his chosen ones; Be ye mindful always of his Cove­nant: the word which he commanded to a thousand Generations. Which Covenant be made with Abraham, and his Oath un­to Isaac. And confirmed the same unto Ia­cob for a Law, and to Israel for an ever­lasting Covenant. Unto all which the temporal promise of the Land of Ca­naan (a Type of [...]he eternal rest) is join'd and knit.

Upon which fundamental Covenant [Page 217] it was that God proclaimed the name of the Lord, at the second giving of the Law, in this manner, The Lord, Exod. 34.5, 6 the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgi­ving iniquity, transgression and sin.

This is the Covenant that they were to flee to in all their adversities, so as still to renew their own, which they had made with God by the mediation of Moses, when the Law was given. In such manner, 1 Kings 23. Ezra 8. Nehem. 8. & 9. as we may read distinctly in the examples of Iosiah, Ezra, Nehe­miah, and whatever Reformers or Re­storers there were besides. All the Sa­crifices of their Land were of no avail to appease or please God, wi [...]hout this. And this was to be done either in the Temple, with their faces towards the Mercy-Seat; or towards the Temple, when they were at a distance from it. This was the use of the Covenant of mercy, as to all the people: Let us see next what the faith of particular men might be, and of what use or help, this within the Veil.

Jonah 2.4, 7.It was the Object of Ionah's faith di­rectly, I said, I am cast out of thy sight, yet will I look again toward thy holy Tem­ple: [Page 218] When my soul fainted within me I remembred the Lord, and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy Temple. Lect. 11. on Ionah. ‘Of all places (saith Archbishop Abbot) he pitcheth on the Temple, where God had put his name, and was more appa­rently conversant by his [...]pecial Grace. Which did make that House and City to be counted an holy Mansion, the joy of the Earth, the beauty of the World, the Palace of the Great King, the delight, Paradise and Garden of the Highest. There was the Ark of the Covenant, the Tables of the Te­stimony, [that we may not take these latter alone to be the whole Covenant] the Cherubims and the Mercy-Seat, all being strange things of much excellen­cy: But the summity of all happiness was the residence of God's favour there .... Wherefore the Jews obser­ved this evermore in the earnestness of their prayer, in what land soever they were, to turn them toward the Temple; not tying superstitiously the power of God to that place, but knowing that the same house was not erected in vain. And witnessing withal their obedience unto the Lord, and to men the constancy of their pro­fession, [Page 219] who held that place as the Seal of the Lord's assured protection over them. Dan. 6.10. So when Daniel in Chal­daea would pray, he set his Windows open toward Ierusalem, to the hazard of his life.’ Let us therefore next con­sider his example.

When Daniel knew by Books, Dan. 9. that the seventy years were expired, he set his face toward the Temple (though it was demolished, because the blessing was that way still, and a promise of its resti­tution) and prayed, saying, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the Covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his Com­mandments .... To the Lord our God be­long mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him. O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turn­ed away from thy City Ierusalem, and cause thy face to shine upon thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake. Nos cum Sy­nodo Sar­dicensi, sim­plicitèr h [...]c verba acci­pimus, Propter Dominum, h. e. propter Messiam, sive christum. Junius in locum. Eadémque suit in Veteri & Novo Testamento salutis im­petrandae ratio. Nec Iudaei hîc renit [...]ntur, quo minus hec verba de Messia intelligantur. Yarii. Which if any one think to be not the same as if he had said, For Christ's sake, who was wont to dwell in the Sanctua­ry, [Page 220] that lyeth now in ruines, it might be fit to put him in mind of our Saviour's Question to the Pharisees, saying, What think ye of Christ, whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth Da­vid in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine Enemies thy footstool? —And no man was able to answer him a word. The Prophet said, I beseech thee, O Lord, for the Lord's sake; The Question is, For what Lord's sake? or what congruity in the sense? For the words are not, I beseech thee for thine own sake, or for thy mercy-sake; But for the Lord's sake: Neither is it questioned, but that the Lord Christ was revealed to the Prophets, in a great measure; nor yet that their Writings were so obscure, as that others besides themselves understood nothing of the meaning of them: for they were written (as all Scripture) for instructi­on, which has been pointed at be­fore

There are indeed of opinion that hold, That by the Types they were lit­tle the wiser; but by the Prophets, they knew to the very Day of Christ's com­ing, Matth. 14.33.—26.63.—27.43, 54. [Page 221] not only that he was to be the Son of David; but also the Son of God: A Notion common unto all that expect­ed the Messias in any manner.

But, [...], Joh. 1.49.—6.69.—11.27.—20.31, &c. to speak the rest in a word, What is the Son of God, but the loving kindness and mercy of the Father, begotten in himself by eter­nal Generation, to be made manifest in the flesh, according to the time appoint­ed by the Father? In this loving kind­ness (therefore) and tender mercies of God, with respect to him that was to come, they put their trust; even as we do, in the same mercies, through him, that is come since, and now for ever li­veth to make intercession for us.

So that in their prayers there was no­thing but the name of Christ concealed, because it was not yet revealed to them; the same Petitions, the same Arguments, and the like Confessions. In all which, if there were not a Syllable of Christ, how could we use the fame Forms and Phrases still? If they were not accord­ing to the Spirit of Christ, how could we be sanctified or comforted by the Scriptures of the Old Testament? A thing that hath been little weighed by the Antinomians, when they spake so [Page 222] contemptibly of an Old Testament-Spi­rit, as if it were all legal, and of bon­dage only in blindness and darkness.

Alas! they knew as well as we, that faith and repentance (whether with or without Sacrifices or other outward ser­vices) was the only way to please God: Neither had they any Sacrifices, but if it were a Sin-Offering, Levit. 1.4. & 3.13. & 4.24. D ^r Light­foo [...]'s Tem­ple-Ser­vice, ch. 8. sect. 1. Et Outr. l. 1. c. 15. the Offerer was bound to put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-Offering. Which was account­ed amongst them to have been a Rite of transmission, as it were, of the man's sin unto the Sacrifice that was to dye for him (which was a Figure of the trans­ferring or our sins on Christ.) And in laying of his hands on the Bullock's head, he confessed his sin after this man­ner, I have sinned, I have done perverse­ly, I have rebelled, and done thus or thus; but I return by repentance before thee, and let this be my atonement. And once a year they had a scape-goat let loose with all their sins into the Wilderness, Levit. 16.9.22. to teach them that God delighted not in the bloud of Beasts; and that there was an­other mean to do away their sins, besides the slaying of the dumb Crea­ture.

For if had been otherwise, what [Page 223] should David have done, when he was convicted by the Prophet of his two great sins, of murder and adultery? All the Beasts of the Forest, Psal. 30.10, 11. and the Cat­tel upon a thousand Hills (which were all God's own) had not been enough to sacrifice for the expiation of such sins as those. Psal. 51. Wherefore he saith, Thou desirest not Sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou delightest not in Burnt-Offering. How then? The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness, ac­cording to the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions..... Wash me, and I shall be whiter than Snow. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit.

Nor was this a mystery known only unto choicer men: For one of the Scribes approving of our Lord's Answer, when he had told him which were the two great Commandments, replyed, Well, Mark 12.32, 33. Master, thou hast said the truth; for to love God with all the heart and soul, and to love his Neighbour as him­self, [Page 224] is more than all whole Burnt-Offer­ings and Sacrifices.

And if that passage of Isaiah be well considered, it will shew us what kind of piety it was that did impregnate the Spi­rits of the people of God from Moses unto Christ: Isai. 63.7, 8, 9. I will mention the loving kindnesses of the Lord, according to the great goodness towards the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them, according to his mercies, and according to the mul­titude of his loving kindnesses: for he said, Surely they are my people: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence sa­ved them. In his love, and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Where­in the church standeth clear off from a­ny merits of her Progenitors; or of Moses, Aaron, and the Prophets, relying only on her Saviour, the Angel of the presence of the God of Israel. They believed therefore in Christ as we do only by the name of the tender mercies of God, both for pardon and for every Grace beside.

CHAP. XXX. Christ cloathed in his Word and promises, the adequate Object of saving faith; which he was to them as well as unto us: No naked Christ without these: No ple­rophory without them. So much of any promise as the Ancients laid hold of, so much of Christ they received in an im­plicit manner. There is somewhat implicit in faith, even in these days too.

Ut B [...]za, Zanchius, &c. ut eti­am videre est in Ta­ctic. sacr. D. Arrow­smith.NOW if Faith be to be defined per modum [...] (as some Divines have followed Calvin over strict­ly in such a Notion, from which they are much come off of late) to be a cer­tain full perswasion of particular Ele­ction in Christ; I must confess I know not how to accommodate such a faith to the times of the Old Testament; or to find that they had (then) an agreeable faith unto such as are of that perswasi­on. Or if the Object of Faith be pre­cisely (and abstrusely) set, to be the ve­ry person of Christ, a naked Christ, di­vested (almost) of his Word and Ordi­nances; I shall not be able to make out [Page 226] any thing that way neither.

But as the Lutherans speak about their Consubstantiation, that Christus vestitus, Christ clothed in the Elements, is there received by the worthy Communicant; so I doubt not but I may safely say, that Christus vestitus verbo suo, Christ clothed with his own Word, ever was and is the adequate Object of the Faith of all A­ges; wherein he was and is received to salvation, and to all other ends and pur­poses whatsoever. More especially ac­cording to the measure of promises, as they have been revealed, and made from time to time Credide­runt qui­dem in Chrislo per promissa, & prophetias partim revelato: intra Che­rubinos tamen, & in Typis, aliter velato..

I think I have gone somewhat near to prove to indifferent men, that many of the Saints of the Old Testament had a greater insight into the main scope of the very promise about the person and me­rits of Christ, than diversmen might have thought before; and that they had the right use of their faith unto justificati­on, as we have now. The only Point wherein it may seem that some may stick, is, whether in the multitude it was not a confused faith, and not distinct enough to be what ours must be.

[Page 227]To this therefore it is to be consider­ed, That saving faith relyeth not on a­ny one promise whatsoever (abstracted­ly) by it self; nor yet that all the pro­mises which are certainly to be believed are of use to all men: so that all toge­ther are of no more consequence unto us than unto them.

Next it is to be remembred what S ^t Paul tells us, 2 Cor. 1.20. that all the promises of God in Christ are Yea, and in him Amen. So that how much or how little soever the Saints of the Old Testament embraced of the promises, they embraced of Christ, as implicitly contained in them: which wrought in them the like obedi­ence, hope and perseverance as in us, so as to carry them beyond carnal things, to the things heavenly and spiritual. Which S ^t Paul (again) elaborately proves to us, in the eleventh to the He­brews; and that they looked more to­wards that Seed wherein all the Nations should be blessed, Heb. 11.10, &c. and another Country and City, which hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God, than to­wards the Land of Can [...]an. And all the Worthies which he reckons up, he says obtained a good report through faith, ha­ving not received [...]he [special] promise, [Page 228] God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us, should not be made perfect.

In fine, we shall find somewhat that is implicit in the best faith of any of ours; and if we shall consider how short that faith may be, which others of ours may have, (unto salvation t [...]o) and so compare it with theirs, we shall think the less strange of any thing that has been said of theirs before.

Do we not all believe the Gospel, not knowing how much may be contain­ed in it? Do we not engage ourselves in Baptism to obey, not knowing what shall be required of us? Like Abraham, who when he was called, obeyed, and went out, not knowing whither he went. Are we not in frequent doubts and fears both about the promises that we em­brace as we are able, and about our pra­ctice, to be ordered so that at last we may obtain them? Was it a weak faith in that Martyr, that went drooping to the Stake, not so much for fear of death, as for the pressure of desertion that then lay upon him? And yet he durst not recant to save all, (as they might think) both Soul and Body too. But the Spirit of Glory came upon him [Page 229] in an instant to bear him up above all. In fine, when we shall consider how ma­ny of ours that have some faith of ad­herence (as we otherwise distinguish) and, in the judgment of Charity, do stand fair towards salvation in the end, are ignorant of the mystery of Christ, whom they profess; not knowing how to apply themselves to the mercies of God, through him alone, nor the Ver­tue of his merits, or benefit of his inter­cession for them; in a word, nor th [...] power of his death and resurrection in any comfortable measure to their own souls; what need we wonder much, though it be said, That (as many which were first shall be last, and many of the last, first, so) the Saints of the Old Te­stament shall be found in comparison with us at the latter Day? For better were those of them who knew how to apply the mercies of God in Christ, not knowing the name of Christ; than such of ours as have heard the sound of the Gospel, and do not understand so much of the meaning of it, as they before.

CHAP. XXXI. Wherein the Saints of the Old Testament could not attain to so much as hath been since revealed. That the generality of them were blinded most (1.) by God's Providence, who would have 'Christ to come in the worst times, that he might be crucified; and so obtain his King­dom. And that the Disciples themselves should be held in like obscurity with o­ther misled Disciples of the Scribes, lest they should indis [...]r [...]etly offer to hin­der the ministry of Christ. (2.) By Sa­tan's malice, to work the destruction of the Jewish Church and people; chie [...]ly by the perverseness of the Pharisees. Different apprehensions concerning Jew­ish Learning. The close of this Argu­ment.

BUT here the Objectors may close again, and say, Is there (then) no priviledge or no advantage by the Gos­pel? or by the explicit faith of Christ, exhibited in the New Testament, more than there was before? Has S ^t Paul magnified his own ministry, and this mi­nistration all in vain?

[Page 231]God forbid! But it is not within my verge (in this place, though I have stretched to bring in this Question) to shew the difference betwixt the two Testaments; but only in discovering the state of the first, to manifest that they had the faith of Christ amongst them. But for a better relish in the Close, I will adde a passage or two of the Fa­thers, whose Authority may go further than any Comments of my own.

Saint Augustine thus, Licet mag­nam jucun­ditatem ha­bu [...]rint Pro­phetae, quan­do in Spirit [...] vide­bant [...]utura de Chrislo, tamen vole­bant, si ficri posset, in hoc tempore nobiscum vivere, & videre impleta, quae Spirit [...] prophetabant. Praef. in Psal. 96. ‘Although the Prophets conceived much pleasure, when in the Spirit they foresaw the things to come concerning Christ; yet they would (if it could have been) have lived in the same times with us; and to have seen those things fulfilled which they prophesied by the Spi­rit.’

And S ^t Bernard upon those words of our Saviour [ Blessed are your eyes, Matth. 13.16, 17. for they see; and your ears, for they hear: for verily I say unto you, that many Pro­phets and righteous men have desired to see these things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear these things which ye hear, and have not heard them] des­canteth [Page 232] thus, Quare vo­láerunt vi­dere, & au­dire? Vt videlicet clarius, [...]ar­giúsque per­ciperent, quod vix ten [...]itèr ob­scuré (que) prae­sinserant. Alioqui quid erat opus, soris videre car­nem, & carnis audire sermones, si intus [...] Spriritu su rint instructi per­fectè de omnibus? Epist. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore. ‘Why would they see and hear? To wit, that they might perceive more clearly and largely that which they scarcely discerned, but slen­derly and obscurely before. For what need had there been to see with their fleshly eyes, and to hear with their outward ears, if they had been in­wardly and perfectly instructed as much before as they could ever learn thereafter?’

There remains nothing to be cleared more, but what is shadowed by the Veil of Moses, in the latter end of the last Objection: For if the Veil of Ceremo­nies was but thin, and the Prophecies so clear; why were all the Jews so igno­rant, especially the Disciples of our Lord himself, about any true or proper thing relating to Messias when he came?

It hath been hinted before, that they generally knew how he was to be both the Son of God, and the Son of Da­vid, to be born at Bethlehem, and to be the greatest Prophet and King that they ever had. Now it is a further Question [Page 233] among the Schoolmen (to whom I may refer you) whether Moses knew more of the Messias to come than Abraham, and David more than both: and so on­wards of all the Prophets, home unto Iohn the Baptist, even as his coming was the nearer. But I confess my opini­on carries me to think, That the Pro­phets ceasing after Malachi, and the Pharisees arising to repute under the first beginnings of the Maccabees, (which will be noted in its place) and not long after combining with the Scribes to the corruption of the true Religion; that this mystery was on purpose veiled (more than before) by the Providence of God, and malice of the Instruments of Satan.

(I.) By God's Providence, who would have, the Restorer to appear in the worst of times. Luke 18.8. Could the Son of man then (any more than at his second Coming) find faith upon the Earth? If they had known him generally, Acts 3.15.17. durst the rest of them have crucified the Lord of life and glory? Wherefore when S ^t Peter preached to their conviction, that they might not be driven to despair, but to repentance of such a sin; he is per­mitted thus to insinuate with them, And [Page 234] now Brethren, I wot that through igno­rance ye did it, as also did your Rulers. And had not Christ suffered, and so en­tred into Glory, how could he have ob­tained the Kingdom promised of his Fa­ther?

So that left the Disciples themselves (that had been trained under the Paeda­gogy of the Scribes and Pharisees) should become impertinent Hinderers of their Masters ways, if they had known to what they tended; the spiritual myste­ries of Christ were sparingly delivered to them before he suffered, and fully af­ter he was risen. Once, when our Sa­viour had said unto them▪ Luke 9.44, 45. (somewhat to prepare them for a change) Let these sayings sink down into your ears; for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men; they understood not this saying, but it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying. Matth. 16.21, 22, 23. And again, when Iesus began to shew unto his Disciples how he must suffer and be killed, and rise again the third day; Peter took him up, and be­gan to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee. (for Peter meant to fight for him) But Iesus turned, and said unto Peter, Get [Page 235] thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Such a check had never trusty Peter, or any of the Disciples before. Luke 24.27. But after his resurrection, he began from Moses and all the Prophets, and expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things con­cerning himself.

(2.) As for the malice of Satan, and his Instruments. He himself could have no greater stratagem (so far as he could discern the tokens of Christ's coming, more than mortal men) than to blind their eyes before-hand that they might not know the day of their visitation; but that they might be defeated, and disappointed of all their perverted, car­nal expectations, and so become offend­ed in him to the death: In sine, that by the murder of the Son of God, he might bring many souls to Hell; and the ancient people and Church of God to fi­nal ruine and destruction, as shortly af­ter happened. And who knows but Sa­tan might understand the Prophecies of these things, and so set himself to work, as the readier instrument to bring them all about, as he desired?

But for his Under-Instruments, they [Page 236] chiefly were the Scribes and Pharisees, whose corruptions our Saviour there­fore bends himself to discover and re­prove on all occasions. And if you ask me, what could they do? I answer, they had in a long tract of time before, put such carnal glosses on the Scripture, out of their designs (sometimes against their own Princes, sometimes against the Ro­mans; but always to get both gain and authority among the people of the Iews) that sitting in the Chair of Moses, as Expounders of the Law and of the Prophets; they utterly perverted the true sense and meaning thereof: and that especially about the Messias, who was generally expected (almost throughout the whole Roman Empire, and beyond it) when he came. And when he was come, Matth. 2.4. who should be enquired of but the Pharisees whether he was indeed the Christ, or no? And they generally deni­ed him; for the Character of his Person agreed not with their ancient Glosses, or their present ends or interests.

And here I cannot omit what diffe­rent Notions learned men have of the Iewish Rabbins, especially of such whose Writings remain as accounted written before our Lord was born, or shortly [Page 237] after. Cunaeus saith, Talmudicorum omnium, Rabbinorumque gravissima judicia, semper apud omnes cordatos permagnum pondus habuēre, quoties de Patriis Ritibus eorum, Ceremoniis (que) orta disceptatio est. l. 2. c. 4. That their autho­rity was always great a­mong ingenuous and pru­dent men, as oft as any Question doth arise about their Countrey-Rites and Ceremonies. And another speaks thus, M ^t Vines in his Treatise of the Sacram [...], chap. 1. ‘Let all blind and bold Expo­sitors know, that if they expound not many Phrases and things in the New Testament out of the old Records of Jewish Writings or Customs, they shall but fansie and not expound the Text, as may be confirmed, saith Scaliger, sexcentis Argumentis, by very many Ar­guments.’ And what account M ^r Hugh Broughton, M ^r Selden, and D ^r Lightfoot, Alib. in l. praed. have made of these (it may be because they could have no better) appeareth by their elaborate Collections from them. On the other hand Chemnitius (whom M ^r Vines esteemeth as the learnedst of all the Lutherans) hath entred abundant caution with us about these Writings of the Iews.

‘ Chemn. in examp. 1, par. Conc. Trident, pag. 12, Agens de si­milit [...]dine & assinita­te Traditi­onum Pon­tificiarum, cum Phari­saicis & Talmudi­cis.The Disputation (saith he) about unwritten Traditions, whether to be joined or opposed to the Scriptures, is no new thing; but it is the very pano­plia of Iewish perfidy against the Sword [Page 238] of the Spirit, which is the Word of God in the Scripture. That the pu­rity of the sound Doctrine of the Word was corrupted amongst them in the time of Christ, the Evangelical History doth manifestly shew; and that it sprang partly from Oral Tradi­tions, and partly from other holy Books (so esteemed) which they re­ceived with the like veneration as the other, Matth. 15.9. is likewise to be gathered from their teaching for Doctrine the Com­mandments of men.’ (Which have e­ver used to be written.) ‘And if An­dradius (against whom the Author writeth) cannot bear the indignity, that their Traditions should be compared with the Pharisees, which were but false and feigned; whereas theirs are derived by a continual succession from the Apostles themselves; the Iews, saith he, will be as ready to pretend as much from Moses and the Prophets by a like succession. And if the Tal­mud had not first been written, I should rather have thought that the Rabbins had learned from the Pontifi­cians, than these from them,— Ita a [...] ­tem Commentum suum concinnant Tal­mudici: They feign, that at Mount [Page 239] Sinai, Moses received f [...]om God, not only what he wrote, Verum etiam my­sticam, & arcanam Expositionem Legis, but also a certain mystical and secret Exposition of the Law, which he nei­ther wrote nor would have written, but to be delivered by word of mouth from one to another, and so to be transmitted to Posterity. And they say further, that both of [...]hese are the Word of God, and to be received with the like veneration...... And that after these had been long trans­mitted from the Priests and Prophets, (whose succession they name) they were thought fit (at last) to be com­piled in the Talmud...... Unto whose Expositors the poor Iews are in such bondage, that they must believe against their own sense and reason, whatso­ever their Rabbins do impose upon them.’

‘And why the Iews are so zealous of this Talmud, may be learned from the circumstance of time when it was compiled: for when the Iews saw ma­ny of their Nation converted to Chri­stianity, by the evidence of the Scri­pture; the Rabbins about the year of Christ 150. began to write the [Page 240] Talmud, comprizing their Traditions. Finding the success whereof, they after infinitely encre [...]sed the number of them: so that few Jews were after that converted to Christianity.’

So that in the opinion of Cheminitius all the errours and perverseness of the ancient Pharisees are couched in the Tal­mud (which is one of the most ancient Iewish Books we have) The Talmud it self has been replenished and corrupted more than it was at first. All that is in it (howsoever) has given Rules and Bounds to all the Rabbins that have written since; from whence it follows, that we can hardly tell wherein to believe or trust the most applauded of them. They contradict the Scriptures (often) in re­lating of their own Customes, and one another no less; and if any man thinks to illustrate one part of a Text by some of their suggestions, he may be as apt to leave the other darker than before. In fine, the Iews of later times know what they know of their own Rites by learning only, and have ever had con­current Christians to study with them, and exceed them, as the more concern­ed to gain such knowledge, and to gain­say such friends as they. But we are no [Page 241] such Enemies unto Learning (howsoever) though we cannot get the light we seek from them, as to burn their Books for a blaze at once, and after that to stand in need of such a Guide as we might have gotten (rather than none at all) in the Quarters of an Enemy.

And thus have I endeavoured (not to say all that may be said, but) to travel through a Question that hath sometimes puzzled me before; and which being well cleared (if I have attained unto that happiness) may prevent perplexities and more digressions, that may else be­ [...]al me hereafter in my proceeding: But chiefly upon Cunaeus's encouragement, Dix illud inter homi­nes erudi­tissimos di­sceptalum est, quid de summo salutis au­spice spera­verit olim, credidertive antiquior illa Hebraeorum Natio? Habit [...]a res magnum mo­mentum ad rectam interpretationem: otius sacri codicis, Adio latè pa­tet illius ambitus. Lib. 3. cap. ult. (who has offered fine things upon the same Subject) viz. ‘That this Point is of great moment towards the inter­pretation of the whole Bible, and such as doth deserve to be discuss'd with diligence.’

CHAP. XXXII. Shewing the providence of God over his peo­ple Israel, according to the Blessing pro­mised of their multiplying; in respect of fruitfulness, and of protection in Egypt (however hardly used otherwise) from Famine, War and Pestilence. That the indulgence of Concubines might con­tribute much to the number of their en­crease. That in an ordinary way of computatio [...] (without flying unto Twins, or any other miracles) out of seventy persons only, the Muster-Roll of Moses might easily arise.

NOW when it had pleased God to sever from the Tents of Abraham and Isaac whom he pleased, and to plant them so as they might either afflict or befriend the House of Israel in the times to come; he brought the whole House of Iacob, by another Providenti­al Famine, into Egypt, whither he had brought Ioseph (as if he had been but a lost man) before, to provide for all the rest.

Gen. 46.26, 27.It is said, that all the souls that came with Iacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Iacob's Sons Wives, [Page 243] were sixty six. And the Sons of Joseph, which were born to him in Egypt, were two souls: All the souls of the house of Iacob; which came into Egypt, were seventy. And again, Deut. 10.22. [...] Thy Father went do [...]n in­to Egypt with seventy persons [or names] and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the Stars of Heaven for multitude. Nei­ther doth Iosephus reckon more. Antiq. 1.2. c. 4. But when they came forth of Egypt (after two hun­dred and nine years) the Children of Isra­el, Numb. 1.45, 46. being numbred from twenty years old and upward, were found to be six hun­dred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty, all able to go forth to Battel: (Judge how many more the Women and Children might be.) And when the Tribe of Levi was numbred by it self, every Male from a month old and up­ward, Chap. 3.15.39. it amounted to twenty two thou­sand more, (to which we may allow as many Females;) so that we can hardly imagine less than a million and an half of these people in the whole. And how this account may be stated to [...] reasona­ble man (to save him the labour of ad­justing it) I have begg'd the assistance of a learned Gentleman, who hath obliged us both with this return. Which I give you clearly in the Postscript, as I received [Page 244] it, though it seem in divers passages to contravene some of my own opinions, as they are here and there delivered in these Papers. See the Postscript, where the Contents intended in this Chapter are annexed.

CHAP. XXXIII. That a great number came along with the house of Jacob; for Abraham had a great Train, Isaac more, Jacob all they left, and such as he brought with him from Padan-aram. Six Objections pro­pounded: And two fundamental Argu­ments for the Thesis.

BUT if all that be not ample satis­faction, what If I should pro-pound another thought (fortified with its probabilities) unto other searching Spirits? Which is, that the seventy names or persons were only of such as came out of Iacobs loins, Heads of Fa­milies, which were to be the Princess of Is­rael; and that indeed a great number came along with them.

We cannot but remember what a Band of his own trained Servants, bred [Page 245] in his own Tents, Abraham carried forth against the Kings, when he rescued Lot; and no doubt he left others with the Women and the Cattel at home. It seems to have been about thirty years after, that Abraham being much more en [...]reased in wealth and power, Gen. 21.22, 23. D ^r Simson. Gen. 26.12, &c. was sought unto by Abimelech to enter into League with him. And it was about a hundred years after (if my Chronolo­ger guess well) before another Abime­lech entred into the like Covenant with Isaac; when he sowed in the land, (which is more than Abraham had done) and re­ceived in the same year an hundred fold, and waxed great, and went forwards, and grew until he became very great: for he had possession of flocks, and herds, and great store of Servants; so that the Phi­listines envied him.

And as for Iacob, Gen. 35, 27. he returned out of Padan-aram (or Mesopotamia) to his a­ged Father Isaac at Hebron, —32.10. where Abra­ham and Isaac (for the most part) so-journed, with much more Cattel, and with two Bands in his Retinue; toge­ther with both his Wives (only Rachel fell in travail of Benjamin, and dy­ed by the way, falling short of Hebron no more than Bethlehem is distant from it) [Page 246] and his twelve Sons, besides his Daugh­ter Dinah (mentioned, it may be, on occasion only, and that Iacob might have more See Gen. 46.7 Iacob came into Egypt with his Sons, and Sons Sons, his Daughters, and his Sons Daughters, &c. yet again ver. 15. Dinah a­lone seems to make up the number of seventy souls.; at least by Bil­hah and Zilpah, the Concu­bines that his Wives had gi­ven him out of their emula­tion unto one another:) So that after Isaac's death, he must needs be, not only enriched with the inheritance but, powerful in the number of Chap. 37.35. it is said, that all Iacob's Sons, and all his Daughters, rose up to comfort him after Io­seph's loss. all his people. A specimen whereof we have in the attempt of Si­meon and Levi (alone by themselves) who took each man his sword and came upon the City of Shechem boldly, and slew all the males; Chap. 34.25. unless any man will have it so, that two single men stormed a walled City, and put all the males to the sword, who (however sore) might have been defended by the very Women in such a Case.

Now as the absence of Iacob from his aged Father before was very long, (some twenty years) so it is not to be expect­ed that Isaac's days should be extended much longer by the Providene of God; since the Heir of the Promise was restored home to him. Bish. Hall. ‘Of all the [Page 247] Pa­triarchs, none made so little noise in the World as Isaac, none lived either so privately, or so innocently. He u­sed no Concubine, although Rebekkah was twenty years barren......’ And now that Rebekkah's Darling was come back, he left all to him in the hundred and eightieth year of his life. Which Iacob managed, not above ten years lon­ger (upon account) before he was en­forced by God's Providence to descend into Egypt with all his house. The Que­stion is, Whether they were but seventy Males in all (to wave the Question, whe­ther they were so many, for some are of opinion that some of Iacob's Sons Sons are reckoned by anticipation, and might for all that be born in Egypt, after they were planted in the Land of Goshen.) Let us hear what may be said on either side. And first, that they were but I seventy precisely, or thereabouts, as S ^t Stephen reckoneth. For, Acts 7.14.

First, Obj. I. It is safe to keep to the Letter of the Scripture (in Historical Passages especially) and not to wire-draw it, or extend it more than needs; for fear of wresting, or of worser consequences that may be drawn from more remote constructions, than from the very words. [Page 248] Now of Iacob and his Sons it is expresly said,

Gen. 42.First, That Iacob sent his ten Sons (and no more) into Egypt, to buy Corn; by which it may seem, that he had no such number to spare as hath been suggested: Or that his Sons were but as the rest, by the errand that they went on.

Obj. 2.Secondly, When Ioseph returned their monies, it was to every man in the mouth of his Sack; and being searched, Chap. 44. upon their second return (when they had Benjamin with them) the search be­gan from the eldest to the youngest, and could proceed no further, because (it seems) they were no more.

Obj. 3.Thirdly, Their dealing was for little, since so few Asses could carry what they came for; and their Sacks not so full, but that they could contain Provender besides: proving nothing else, but that these being laden, the poor Ass-Riders must go on foot home.

Obj. 4.Fourthly, By Iacob's mean Present, and Iudah's fear of losing the Asses, Chap. 43.10, 18. when they were taken, it seems they were but poor; and so when Ioseph re­turned an answerable Present with Wag­gons to his Father, to bring him into E­gypt

[Page 249]Fifthly, Obj. 5. Besides, that there maybe no doubt of the number, it is carefully re­corded how many came with Iacob, and were there before, viz. seventy souls. Gen. 46— And so Iosephus, Jewish An­tiquary, doth account, and no more.

Sixthly, Obj. 6. In fine, it would be a strange extravagancy to put so many Supernu­meraries (of we know not what Aliens) unto this account; which must needs reckon them to Israel, and the Seed of Abraham, (and so to the only Church of God;) or else give some other clear account what became of them at the last.

Secondly, Notwithstanding which II Objections, we must hold, That Israel descended into Egypt with more than seventy person, by these two Argu­ments (which will be proved by an­swering the Objections only) 1. Because he descended with all his houshold. 2. Because he neither could nor ought to part with his circumcised Servants, and their Wives and Children.

CHAP. XXXIV. Certain Corollary Rules preliminary to the answering of the first Objection. That Jacob sent his Sons to Joseph, as a foreign Prince, for a favour; but not unaccompanied; considering, 1. Their concern; 2. What weight of money they might take with them in so many Bun­dles, if only to lade ten Asses. 3. What the length and hazard of the way. The four next Objections briefly answered.

TO the first good Rule, these others may be joined as succedaneous Corollaries. First, That the sense of the Scripture is its own authority, more than the Critical position of the words; warranted by several Quotations in the New Testament, out of the Old. Se­condly, That necessary consequence is all one with the Text it self; neither was a good Inference ever sleighted. Thirdly, That in such Historical Passa­ges of Scriptures as do veil (or are inve­lop'd with) a mystery, we are, in a manner, Gal. 3.22, 23. directed to a further indagati­on by S ^t Paul, where he tells us, (what [Page 251] else we should have hardly found) that one of Abraham's Sons by a Bond-maid, and another by a free Woman, did by an Allegory exhibit to us the difference of state betwixt Mount Sinai and the New Ierusalem, or betwixt the Law and Grace, Bondage and Liberty. Fourthly, That by comparing Passages, one Scri­pture doth best expound another. Af­ter which Preliminaries, I address my self to answer the first Objection, thus:

First, Answer to Ob­ject. 1. It is still to be remembered, that it is above two hundred and ten years since Abram armed three hundred and eighteen trained Servants born in his own house, to pursue the Kings that had taken Lot Prisoner: And if seventy Per­sons only in two hundred and ten years (or thereabouts) might become such an incredible number, (as the possibility hath been demonstrated) what may we think of three hundred and eighteen more, in the same Family, Partakers of the like Blessings, so far as their encrease was the encrease of Abraham's wealth and strenght? But (not to be entangled with too many difficulties) to think mo­desty, Iacob could scarce have less than a thousand souls within his Tents.

Secondly, But why (then) did he send [Page 252] his ten Sons only, with their ten Asses, to buy Corn for them all? Could they bring enough? Or did they only bring for Iacob's own Tent, and leave the rest to live on Roots, or Nuts and Almonds, with which (it seems, by the Present, that) the Land abounded?

You must remember Ioseph's Dreams, Gen 37.7, 9. that their sheaves should do obeysance to his sheaf, and the Sun and the Moon and the eleven Stars also; and then you must consider his present state, and the condi­tion of all the Nations thereabouts. Ch. 41.38. Io­seph was advanced to be chief Minister of State under Pharaoh; and accord­ing to his own advice, he was appointed to take up the fifth part of the Land of Egypt, for seven years together, of plen­ty, against seven other to ensue of cer­tain famine, according to the interpreta­tion of Pharaoh's Dream. Ver. 54. And when the famine came in all parts, Ch. 42.1. Iacob heard that there was Corn in Egypt (for Ioseph had gathered Corn as the sand of the Sea, very much, until he left numbring, for it was without number) but not to be had, save only from the hands of Pharaoh, or his chief Minister; and therefore (you may know) he sent his ten Sons (and not his Servants) to do their obeysance [Page 253] for Corn; But not without Attendance, as we may easily collect from divers cir­cumstances: as, 1. From the Concern that they had; 2. From the money that they carried with them; 3. From the hazard of the Journey, and the length there­of.

As for their Concern, they had every man his own Family, and did not al­ways eat in Iacob's presence: Nor could they live on Nuts or Almonds any more than the Egyptians on their Fruits, Gen. 47.19. who were forced to sell their Lands, and their Persons too, to Pharaoh, that they might have Bread.

For their money, Ch. 43.35. Ver. 21. We opened our Sacks, and behold every man [...] money wa [...] in the mouth of his Sack, our money in full weight— every of the ten carried a Bundle in his Bag: Think you that a Bundle of Silver (as money went then) was but enough to buy one Asses burthen? Weigh the Bundle, and the burthen, and consider!

For their Journey, it could be little less than two hundred miles directly from Hebron unto Caire: If they brought but each man an Ass-Load, what might they spend by the way? Or what might they have to divide amongst them when they came home? Certainly so little, [Page 254] that there would have been no end of going or coming; whereas (by virtue of what they brought) they were able to subsist (it seems) a good while e're Ia­cob could be prevailed with to venture Benjamin, though Simeon lay at stake till their return. And for the way, it was never to be passed without a lusty Caravan, Gen. 16.12. for fear of the Ishmaelites, (of whose Progenitor it was said, That he should be a wild man, and that his hand should be against every man, and every mans hand against him) and the Arabi­ans, who wanted Cornespecially.

Answer to Ob­ject. 2.And now the Answer is the easier to the second, viz. That in the search they went not so much by Pole, as by Com­panies, the Heads of which were the Leaders and the Purse-bearers for all the rest of their Retinue. And in Benjamin's own Sack (as it was designed) the prize was found.

Answer to Ob­ject. 3.To the third, we answer, That if there were any Servants at all, there might be Asses enough, so that the Ma­sters needed not to foot it back, or to re­turn home with so slender provision, as is imagined. And if there were no Ser­vants, Chap. 45. [...]1. Ioseph gave his Brothers not a lit­tle trouble when he gave them Wag­gons [Page 255] also, without any one man (men­tioned) to assist them.

It may seem rather by Iudah's fear a­bout the losing of the Asses that they were not a few, Answer to Ob­ject. 4. than that his Father was poor; and for Iacob's Present, let it be compared with other Presents of the same time; nay, 1 Sam 25.18. with Abigail's a long time after, when one would think that she should have stretched to pacifie the wrath of David.

That the seventy are recounted on­ly to keep the Genealogy of the Head [...] of Israel, Answer to Ob­ject. 5. Wherein the Servants had no share.

CHAP. XXXV. The last Objection answered, by shewing, That the circumcised Servants were part of Jacob's household, that could not be parted withal, without loss, scandal and prejudice to the Church of God; as be­ing, 1. Children of the faith of Abra­ham. 2. Graffed into his Seed by in­termarriages. 3. Distinct in Genealo­gy. 4. Yet (possibly) some snare unto the Israelites, by retaining a smack of their old Idolatry.

Answer to Ob­ject. 6.NOW I cannot be unsensible how loth some will be to admit many rude Herdsmen (who were still apt to be at debate with their Neighbours) in­to the number of Abraham's Seed, the only Church of God; lest it should be prophaned by them, and prove an interruption to the promise: yet I must needs shew them that these were no A­liens from the Commonwealth of Israel, but were really constitutive members of that growing Body.

1. I think it will not be questioned but that these were part of Iacob's house or houshold, who dwelt in the Tents [Page 257] of Iacob: and then it is expresly said, Gen 46.1, 31, &c. that Israel took his journey with all that he had. And Ioseph said unto his Bre­thren, and unto his Fathers house, (distinct from them) I will go up, and say unto Pharaoh, My Brethren and my Fathers house, which were in the Land of Canaan, are come unto me. And the men are Shepherds; for their trade hath been to feed Cattel, and they have brought their Flocks and their Herds (more than twelve men could manage) and all that they have, that ye may dwell in the Land of Goshen, which was a fertile Tract a­bout the mouth of the Nile, or the tongue of the Red Sea, nearest unto Canaan, and neglected by the Egyptians. For every Shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. Videsis Cun. de Rep. Heb. l. 1. C. 5. Out of superstition (say some) because they worshipped some fort of Beasts; and (say others) out of niceness, because they more affected Towns and Trades. Chap. 47.11, 12. And Ioseph placed his Father and his Brethren in the best of the Land, in the Land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. And he nou­rished them and all his Fathers houshold with bread, according to their Families. Which shews that some of the Servants also were of some account, and had [Page 258] their own Families, enough to people the rest of Goshen: So that Ioseph wise­ly kept them at a distance from the sight of Pharaoh, for fear of State-jealou­sie.

2. As these could not be left behind without loss, so neither w [...]s it lawful for Iacob or his Sons to turn them off, or a­bandon them. For their Circumcision was an indelible Character; so that it would have been a reproach to Israel to have exposed any of his unto the Hea­then, or to have cast them into tempta­tion of revolting to Idolatry, after once they had been joined to the Church by the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, even of the same faith with Abra­ham, in whose Seed all the Nations of the Earth were to be blessed; and these (in particular) as the first-fruits of the Gen­tiles, Children of the faith of Abraham, and Heirs of the better part of the pro­mise; and not excluded from their lots in the other part neither, as we trust to shew hereafter. Neither was there need to put off these for any misdemeanour, since every Head of an house had power of life and death, and other punishments, and that without appeal to the Supreme, Gen. 38.24. as is manifest in the Case of Iudah and Tamar, [Page 259] when it was told Iudah, that she was with Child of whoredom; saith he, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. And though specious things are said a­bout the ancient use of Excommunica­tion in the Church; Videsis Bertr. cap. 2. & God­win's Jew­ish Anti­quities, Book 5. chap. 2. Exod. 4.24. yet it seems to me, that hitherto (and long after) there was no cutting off from the people, but by death: wherefore an Angel met Mo­ses with a drawn Sword, and sought to have slain him, for his neglect of circum­cising of his Child.

3. Nor let any one admire at this that follows. They became the Chil­dren of Abraham by a kind of adoption or insition into the Stock of Abraham, by marrying of the Daughters of Israel; and so, in course of time, they became one Kindred with them. For who should they give them to besides? Gen. 34.15, 16. We cannot give our Sister to one that is uncir­cumcised (said the Sons of Iacob) for that were a reproach unto us. But if ye will be as we be, then will we give our Daughters unto you, and take your Daughters unto us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. Trouble not your self about disparage­ment; for they were bene nati, well­born, who were born in the same house; [Page 260] emancipate also ( tanquam liberi aut li­berti) by Circumcision, and they lived all upon one Stock, so that there could not be any want amongst them. But the truth is, the dignity of Degree and Pedegree went to the prime Descen­dents male, from the Loins of the twelve Patriarchs of Israel; which may seem to be the true reason why we find in the Genealogies such an account as this, Numb. 26.35. viz. These are the Sons of Ephraim (for instance of one) after their families, of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthal­hites; of Bacher, the family of the Bach­rites; of Taban, the family of the Taba­nites— And the rest are numbred in gross only, to be in all thirty two thou­sand, and six hundred Families. But the Patriarchs themselves were put to harder shift for Wives (even unto tres­pass) because they could not take their Sisters, or go any more to their Unkles houses to be matched, as Isaac and Iacob had done before. It remaineth (there­fore) that these Hinds, Husbandmen, Gen. 15.2. or Stewards (such as Eliezer was to A­braham) were far from being Supernu­meraries, or Aliens from the Covenant, or Church of God; and that they never went out of it after once they were [Page 261] called or brought in, and joined to it by the sign of Circumcision.

Only this may be doubted, viz. That these people (taken out of Chaldea, Sy­ria, Arabia, or any other parts) and joined only by Circumcision, (some of them (no doubt) by compulsion, lest others should be cut off for them) might not prove so good Members as could be wished; but they retained still a smack, and had an hankering after their old Ido­latry. Which sin continued uncontroul­ably amongst all, (one seducing another) till the captivity of the Tribes: And af­ter their return, when Hyrcanus forced the Edomites to be circumcised, he pre­pared a way for Herod to come and to subvert their whole Estate. But how­ever it was for that, God himself fore­saw these inconveniences; and yet he would not prevent them: as some of the Separation think they are able to do in their Societies, by so often drilling of them, that at last they lose their first matter, order and consistency.

CHAP. XXXVI. That the simplicity of the Scripture (con­trary to the Romances of the Heathen Writers) maketh little state of great Se­cular matters, relating to the Church; Shewed by instances of Abraham and Jacob; yet Joseph (as a Statesman in Egypt) observed Ceremonies in the rece­ption and introduction of his Father and Brethren. That the Israelites built not in Egypt, but by constraint.

WE may see (in part) by this how little state the simplicity of the Scripture maketh of great mat­ters, in things Secular, that are incident unto God's Elect; who are also as hum­ble in themselves as Servants in all Condi­tions. For after Abraham had obtain­ed a famous Victory over four Kings, that had (immediately) before been them­selves victorious over five; Gen. 18.1, &c. we find him sitting at his Tent-door in the heat of the day, and he espied three men, and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the Tent-door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not [Page 263] away, I pray thee, from thy Servant. Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest your selves under the Tree. And I will fetch a morsel of bread. And Abraham hastened into the Tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make Cakes upon the hearth, (as if poor Sarah had never a Maid to help her.) And Abraham stood by them under the Tree, while they did eat— And af­ter they had eaten, Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. Gen. 23. De Abra­hamo mag­nifica eti­am tradi­dêre Eth­nici, ut Jos. An­tiq. l. 1. C. 9. & Euseb. praepar. l. 9. And when he was to bury Sarah, and to sue for a Sepulchre, he bowed himself to the people of the Land, even to the Children of Heth, who complemented him, say­ing, Hear us, my Lord, Thou art a mighty Prince amongst us: In the choice of our Sepulchers bury thou thy dead. And when he sent Eliezer, Chap. 24. the eldest Servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, he set him forth (indeed) in some Equipage, with Jewels and other Pre­sents, Gen. 11.26, &c. & 24.15.24. that he might obtain Rebekkah (the Daughter of Bathuel, the Son of Nahor, the Brother of Abraham) for his Son Isaac. But Rebekkah (who was to be presented with Jewels, and had ten Camels to bring the errand to her) is [Page 264] brought forth with a Pitcher on her shoul­der, as ready to make the Camels drink as the Stranger, wondring at the fine things, and straining no courtesie about accepting of them; but as coming and forward, as a simple Country-Lass: and her Brother Laban no less officious. Yet this Rebekkah it was that over-reached the Old Man Isaac, and her elder Son Esau.

Gen. 28.1, &c.As for Iacob himself, though he went forth with his Fathers Blessing (and not by meer flight) on his way to Laban, his Mothers Brother; yet we read nei­ther of Ass, nor Camel, nor Camerade, nor any Servant, given to attend him in his journey (which was for a Wife too, of one of Laban's Daughters) and it was a long step further (I trow) than into Egypt. His adventures are thus de­scribed: first, He lighted on a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the Sun was set; and he took the Stones of that place, and put them for his pillow, and lay down in that place to sleep. And by his vision there, it appears no other­wise, but that he was alone; save only that it is said, He took the stone that he had put for his pillow, and set it up for a Pillar, and poured Oil upon the top of it. [Page 265] Which it is not like that he should carry about him, with other necessaries, un­less you should imagine him to have been a kind of Walking-Tavern in a Wilder­ness. However, that we may be assu­red that Iacob was not overmuch ac­commodated; let us hear his own de­vout acknowledgment unto God, Gen. 32.10. I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth which thou hast shewed unto thy Servant; for with my Staff I passed over this Iordan, and now I am be­come two Bands. ‘With a Staff (saith Bishop Hall) goes he over Iordan, doubtful and alone, (not like the Son of Isaac) and is fain to lye sub dio, when an Angel appeared to comfort him. And when Laban heard of his Sisters Son, he might expect a like E­quipage as fetch'd Rebekkah— but now as he comes, so he uses him. He fled from a cruel Brother to a cruel Unkle: And as his Mother had cun­ningly (by deceiving Isaac) substitu­ted him for Elder; so now Laban as cunningly deceiveth him, by giving him the Elder instead of the Younger, whom he loved.’ Wonder not there­fore that the Equipage of the Sons of Iacob, and of their whole descent into [Page 266] Egypt, is described without any pomp at all; for so I could lead you forward to Gideon's Threshing-floor, and to Da­vid's Flocks; and shew you how great thing were always veiled, and good men lowly: But these also were both of the principal Families of Israel, as may be observed hereafter.

In the mean while, considering that Ioseph was a great Courtier, and a Po­litician; and that we have observed his cunning in getting the fairest and fertil­est Tract of the Land of Egypt, for his Father and his Brethren, on colour of their being Shepherds: In the next place let us note some of his Ceremonies (howsoever) whereby he wrought the ingratiating of his own Kindred with Pharaoh and his Egyptians.

Gen. 42.When his Brethren came first into his presence (he knowing them, but they not him) they bowed down themselves before him, with their faces to the Earth; know­ing what kind of reverence the proud E­gyptians did expect. Then Ioseph remem­bred the dreams which he had dreamed of them, and like a crafty Statesman (to get what he could out of them, and to make them fit for what he presently ap­prehended) he spake roughly to them, [Page 267] and dealt as hardly, keeping them three days in ward, and speaking to them by an Interpreter; nay, he took Simeon from them as a Pledge, and bound him before their eyes, and sent them away (the first time) in fear.

But the next time, Gen. 43. as soon as Ioseph spied Benjamin in their Company, he said to the Ruler of his house, Bring these men into my house, and slay, and make ready (a place that will trouble them to an­swer, who would perswade us, as if the Egyptians then did eat no living Creature) for these men shall dine with me at noon. Then he brought Simeon forth unto them (who, no doubt, looked ne­ver the worse for his detainment) And they made ready the Present against Ioseph came in, and made many low obeysances; but he spake very kindly to them.

Then that Ioseph might reserve Dig­nity to himself in the sight of the Egypti­ans, he caused himself to be served at a Table of State; and that there might be no interfering, he caused his Brethren (knowing their scruples about eating of unclean meats, or with uncircumcised men) to be served at another Table by themselves: And knowing also the su­perstition of the Egyptians, (who look­ed [Page 268] upon the Hebrews as prophane to them, as the Egyptians could be unto the Hebrews, if they did not also scorn them as Shepherds) he caused them to eat in the same presence apart; so that all ad­mired, and there was no exception: but they drank and were merry, as Ioseph had ordered the matter; and, no doubt, obtained favour with such Egyptian Courtiers as there were then admitted at the entertainment.

Gen. 46.28.Now when Iacob drew near unto Go­shen, he thought it a fit Ceremony, for his part, to send Iudah before (as his Harbinger) to prepare for his reception by his Son Ioseph, in the state wherein he then was. And Ioseph hastened in his Chariot (to meet him as a Prince) and to do honour to his aged Father. And so instructed all his Company how to be­have themselves before Pharaoh.

But since policy did require that Pha­raoh should not see all, civility and gra­titude seemed to prompt Ioseph that he should present (at least) the chief of Pharaoh's beneficiaries before his face; and he thought it enough to present but five of them to do or to receive that ho­nour. It is like, the most personable and fashionable of his Brethren, that [Page 269] were the Sons of Rachel and Leah, rather than of the Concubines; who, we are not to doubt, made their reverence unto Pharaoh, as the Master of the Egyptian Ceremonies should direct them.

But as for his venerable Father, he brought him in, (after them, which was ever esteemed the more honour) and set him before Pharaoh. Gen. 47.7, 10. And Iacob bles­sed Pharaoh, (after his own way, whe­ther as a Prince, and Priest of the most High God, or as a congratulation only of his favours.) And so when he went out (after short communication by Inter­preters) he blessed him again. And Pharaoh accepted of their addresses, and seems to have been pleased and satisfied with them.

Thus was the way made for Israel and his Children, to be planted in Rameses, (which I take to be a fenced place, with a Territory, situate upon the jaws of the seven-mouth'd Nile) and for his Hinds and Herdsmen to pitch where they liked in the Province of Goshen, So the former of these needed Tents no longer; for when Ioseph sent for them, he had said from Pharaoh's mouth, Gen. 45.20. Come unto me, and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt. Regard not your [Page 270] stuff; for the good of all the Land of E­gypt is yours.

'Tis true, the place might be called Ra­meses, by anticipation, as that which was called Luz, was after called Bethel, by Iacob's nomination; but that there was an habitable Town or City before Iacob came thither, I doubt not; both because of Ioseph's recommendation of his father to a good place, and because of the situation of it, as a necessary For­tress against Out-livers of another Nati­on. However, some are of opinion, that the Israelites themselves might build that City (as the English did Calais) while they were in Egypt, Exod. 1.11. (before the Task-masters set them to work to forti­fie it more, as a Treasure-City, and a Bridle to themselves, from escaping, as well as to keep out others) against com­mon sence; for throughout their prospe­rity they were instructed that the Land of Canaan was their inheritance, ex­pecting (daily) as good a Call to return out of Egypt, as ever they had to come thither. Said not God unto Iacob at his first descent, Gen. 46.4. I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again? And said not Ioseph on his death-bed unto his Brethren, Gen. 50.24. I dye, and God [Page 271] will surely visit you, and bring you out of this Land unto the Land which he sware unto Abraham, Isaac and Iacob. Ye shall carry up my bones from hence. Heb. 11.22. Which he did by faith (as S ^t Paul witnesseth) bearing up the like in his Brethren and Posterity.

In this estate the Children of Israel lived in prosperity the remaining seven­teen years of Iacob's life, and about fifty four more of Ioseph's, through the Reign of more Kings than one, as Historians tell us. (Even as it happened (after) unto Daniel, for the sake of the same people, when they were a second time to be redeemed from their bondage.) As large a time of felicity as God doth usu­ally grant to his Church at once; that their hearts should neither fail, nor wax gross▪ But before any change arrive, we will leave them in their best condition, in a foreign Countrey, only eying in the close what their spiritual state was, as the only remaining visible or (at least conspicuous Church of God under Hea­ven.

CHAP. XXXVII. Th [...] Israelites had toleration in Egypt, as to offer Sacrifices during Ioseph's life; Afterwards, denied them. That con­trary Religions are sooner tolerated than diversities of the same. That there was but one Religion in Satan's Kingdom, how many Gods soever the Heathen worshipped. Jews (at this day) tolerated much at the like rate that they were before.

THERE are three Questions emer­gent here, if I may dare to han­dle the Argument that I have in hand, viz. first, Toleration; secondly, Divi­sion; and, thirdly, The Unity of the Church. The first from the indulgence of Egypt, during Ioseph's life; The se­cond from the piety of Ioseph's house, while separated from his Brethren; And the third, from the adoption of the whole house of Iacob (whereas but one of Abraham or Isaac's Sons were compre­hended in the blessing) even of the Sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, in opposition un­to Hagar and Keturah.

[Page 273]It is not only said, that every Shepherd was an abomination unto the Egyptians; Locis cit [...] ­tis. but also, that the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an a­bomination to the Egyptians; as if it were so to those, more than to the He­brews to eat with them. I would glad­ly know (then) how they could hold a­ny time together: for I take it for granted, Gen. 33.19—35.1, 2, 4, 7. that Iacob would rather starve than want an Altar at Rameses, or some other part of Goshen; it being the first thing he did to erect one (and to purge his house from Idols) in other places. Or how the Egyptians could bear their Sacrifices better than their Trade or Diet?

I cannot doubt but that there were Egyptians in Goshen before a fer­til Plat, and a Frontier; and some of these, Shepherds, and Hersmen too, (however scorned by the Citizens) be­cause Pharaoh had said unto Ioseph, In the best of the Land make thy Father and Brethren to dwell; in the Land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any man of activity A vulgo multum di­versa su [...] terita qu [...] ­dam populi pars, quae seorsim in Campestribus Aegypti, ac prope paludes degebat; ii Pastores suere, actuosi illi quidem gnavique, sed cunctis Ae­gyptiis execrabiles, propte [...]ea quod ignaviam [...]orum semper sollicitam ten [...]bant. Cunaeus lib. 1. cap. 5. The Floud ceased Anno Mundi 1657. Iacob descended into Egypt An. Man. 2298. So that by the Scheme before, you may guess to what magnificence they might be grown by this. amongst them, then make them Rulers over my Cattel; Which [Page 274] whether they consumed in Egypt, or sold abroad, (as the Jews after did their Swine) it matters not. But this was e­nough to ground such a Commerce as was fit to hold the Israelites and Egypti­ans in the fairer terms; especially since no man durst to mutter against the Kin­dred of Ioseph, (that came in with so high a hand of grace and favour, and) who himself had preserved alive the people of Egypt. Neither is it to be doubted, but that these Parts were at this time more populous than Canaan, by reason of fertility, and the multitude of the Sons of Ham, that betook themselves this way (as fast as they encreased) from the Mountains of Armenia.

We must also suppose, that the Egy­ptians (and all other Nations) offered Sacrifices Adeo ut ineptire (quasi) ge­stian [...], qui Aegyptios ab omni mactatione aversari praetegunt; sin­tientes divinum aliquid in animalibus inesse: Vt & alii, qui Iose­phi tempore, nullam in Aegypto Idololatriam agnosc [...]nt, sed in Syria tan­tùm; quum Israelitae bîc sacrificare Vitulo didicerint, & dum in Aegypto degerent, idolis eorum inquinati sunt. Ezech. 23.3, as well as Israel; (for both Adam and Noah taught all their Sons [Page 275] alike to sacrifice.) And this perhaps might be a worser eye-sore to the Egypti­ans than any other, the Israelites wor­shipping another God before their faces, in another manner than they did; since the Rites were changed wheresoever Ido­latry came instead of the right Worship.

Now to this it may be said, that two different Religions were always account­ed more tolerable than the same divided. For such would be sure to go far enough apart, and not to interfere with one an­other. Nay, all Religions (besid [...]s the true) which had Satan for their Modera­tor, agreed well enough with one another.

As in the Roman practice, there are Churches dedicated by divers names in sundry Regions, which have Reliques, Miracles and Altars with indulgences annexed to them; so that there is curio­sity in pilgrimage and merit too: Sand [...]'s Socculum, pag. 6. more particularly, the places that bear the su­perscription of the Blessed Virgin, are the most celebrated and visited: for ‘their stateliest Churches are lightly hers, and in Churhes hers the fairest Altars. Where one prayeth before the Crucifix, two before her Image; where one voweth to Christ, ten vow unto her, and not so much to her self, [Page 276] as to some peculiar Image, which for some select Vertue or Grace, together with greater power of operation of Miracles, they chiefly serve, as the glorious Lady of Loretto, the devout Lady of Rome, the miraculous Lady of Provenzano, the Annunciata of Florence; whose Churches are so stuf­fed with vowed Presents and Memories, that they are fain to hang their Cloi­sters also, and Church-yards with them. Then as their vows are, such are their pilgrimages, &c.’

Consulatur Chemniti­us parte 3. Exam. t [...]t. de invoca­tione & veneratio­ne Sancto­rum; & recentio­res adversus Bell.In like manner,, the Heathens had al­ways some sumptuous Temples, or won­drous Stories, to draw Strangers and de­votion, and to raise a name to the places where they lived. If they would see a stately Structure (compared with the Temple of Solomon by some Writers) and a wonder by report, What man is there that knoweth not how that the City of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great Goddess Diana, and of the Image that fell down from Iupiter? Acts 19.35. If they would be cured, they must go to Aescu­lapius or Apollo (chuse they whether) or to any other God or Goddess that had a same, whether in their own or in ano­ther Countrey, for some particular aids [Page 277] or remedies. If they would have coun­sel and success, Ciceron comp [...]e 6. Her­cules; Varron 43. & plus de 300. Jupiters. Le' Tre­sor Polit, l. 3. chap. de ce mot Brindes these were reserved chiefly unto Iupiter (in great Cases, and) in those few places where Satan would vouchsafe to speak by his Oracles. But it was obser­ved that Venus had more Votaries than any other; whether Men or Women would be married, or obtain any other Love; or be fruitful, or be barren; or agree (after they had fallen out) Quoties inter Vi­rum & Vxorem a­liquid jar­gii intercesserat, in Sacellum D [...] Viri-plac [...]e, quod est in palatio, ve­niebent; & ibi invicem locuti quae voluerant, con [...]entione animorum de­posit [...] concordes revertebantur. 1.2. c. 1. Invenit tamen medium sioi [...] mortalitas Numen: Toto q [...]ippe m [...]ndo, & locis omnibus, omnibus­que horis, omni [...]m vocibus, fortuna, sola invocat [...]: Vna nominat [...]r, una accusatar, una agitar rea, una cogitatur, sola laudatur, sola argui­t [...]r, & um convitiis colitur... [...]deoque obnoxiae sumus sortis, u [...] 'ors ipsa pro Deo sit, quâ Deus probatur incert [...]s... [...]nnumeros autem credere, a [...]que etiam ex virtutibus, vitiisque hominum, ut pudicitiam, concor­diam, &c. majorem ad socordiam accedit. Plin, Nat. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 7. Quinetiam surtorum, & s [...]elerum Numina esse tradiderunt. Coluerunt Romani Ioven adulterum & slupratorem, & sebri publicum sa­num in palatio dedicârunt, & Aram malae sortunae in Exquiliis. Corn. Agrippa de Van, scientiarum cap. de Relig. Sic nos. Te sacimus For­tuna Deam, Caeloque locamus. Juv. Sat. Sed (ut Plinius pergit) irri­dendum, agere curam rerum humanarum quicquid est summum: a [...]ne tam trisli, atque multiplici mixisterio non pollui credamus? Et often­dens paulò post, quid Deus possit sacere, v [...]l non, asserit expresse... Non mortales aeternitate donare, aut revocare desunctos, nec facere, [...] qui vixit, non vixerit, &c. nullumque habere in praeterita jus, praeter­quam oblivionis. Ibid. ad Sacellum Deae viri-place, which is descri­bed in Valerius Maximus.

[Page 278]Wherefore, though some Nations of the Heathens intituled themselves to par­ticular Gods or Goddesses, and so pre­ferred them above others, as their Protectors; yet they never opposed or vilified the Gods of other Countries, when they came into the places where they were adored, (although both at Rome and Athens they were fain some­times to take caution against admitting too many Foreign Religions within their own Walls) whereof I will alledge but two Instances, for fear of an imperti­nent digression.

Xen. de Exped. Cyri mi­norisWhen Xenophon had returned safe with his Army out of the Locks and Bars of Persea and was now within the protection of the Grecians, he consulted with a famous Soothsayer about his Af­fairs (having always been a superstitious and industrious man) why he should get nothing howsoever: His Soothsayer advised him to sacrifice to Iupiter [...] (or the Gentle) who was adored in those Parts: And after this service performed unto that Idol (of a fine Title) Xenophon struck into a small and short exploit, and enriched himself more than by all his former Travels. Which he imputed unto that direction.

[Page 279]And of Pompey the Great, Plut. in vit. Pomp Plutarch tells us, that he enriched and adorned the Temples of the Gods in the Eastern Parts with his Spoils; Jos. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 8. & de Bello lib. 1. cap. 5. and Iosephus, that he not only abstained from spoiling the Temple at Ierusalem, when he had ta­ken it by Storm (through the reverence he had of God) but also caused such as had the charge of the Temple, to purge the same, and to offer Sacrifices unto God the next day, according to the Law; whereof we shall have more to say here­after in its proper place; where we shall observe (that according unto Solomon's prayer) Alexander and divers other Princes also were admitted to offer their own Sacrifies or Oblations there.

But the Question of toleration return­eth still for a fuller Answer. It seems, that they enjoyed it no longer than Io­seph's life: for the first message that Mo­ses brings to Pharaoh complains of this oppression, and demands redress of it, Let us go three days journey into the Wil­derness, Exod. 3.18. & 5.3. that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, and with the sword, for having thus long deferred it out of fear. Chap. 8.25, &c. And when Pharaoh (after dreadful judgments) would have yielded that they should sa­crifice [Page 280] in the Land; Moses replyed, So shall we sacrifice to the Lord our God the abomi­nation of the Egyptians, and will they not stone us?

When the same people were in Baby­lon (where Sacrifices ceased with the Temple, so that they were the less to be observed) they were sometimes over­looked, and sometimes not; even as they are at this day in Turky and Christendom; whereas the Turkish Mus­sulman hates the Persian Mahometan, even more than either Jew or Christian. and the Papists would extirpate Prote­stants, if they were able; and inferi­our Sects (howsoever plausibly they speak when they are low) would even do the like by one another. Only our Mother Church of England is of no Sect at all.

CHAP. XXXVIII. How Joseph might live in Pharaoh's house, And be free from Egyptian superstition. What private Religion he might have; What godly people near him? What Vnion he had with the Church Catholick, or his Fathers house. That he lived by faith, like Daniel in Babylon; yet the want of Ordinances such a trouble to him as to David.

1. IF any one admire how Ioseph could II live so many years, first, in Poti­phar's, and then in Pharaoh's house, so as to escape the Egyptian idolatry or Su­perstitions; they may observe, that he was noted in both places to have a Divi­ner Spirit in him than the Magicians; and so to have been left the more to himself in Egypt, as Daniel (after) was in Babylon, till a particular charge was brought against him concerning his Re­ligion. Nay, Gen. 44.18. & 45.8. Ioseph's being as Pharaoh and a Father unto Pharaoh (after he came to Court) exempted him from any jurisdiction or inspection whatsoever; for who durst say unto Pharaoh, What dost thou?

[Page 282]2. If it be further questioned, What private Religion Ioseph could have unto himself, or what exercise or practice of it, in the house of Pharaoh? Could he have any private Altar? Or, if he had, any one to serve at that Altar, or to wor­ship at it, besides himself? Or, could he have any Closets adorned with the Reliques of Noah, Sem, Eber, Abraham, &c or any other holy things? or what did he do? I answer,

First, He did as his Father Iacob had done before in the idolatrous house of Laban; where I cannot think that he ei­ther had or needed any Altar, or any o­ther circumstances of devotion. In his way to whose house (notwithstanding) he set up the stone that he used as a pillow, Gen. 28.28. for a pillar, and poured Oil upon the top of it, and called the name of the place Bethel, that is, the house of God; vowing that it should be so to him, if God should re­store him safe to his Father's house, and that he would offer the tenth unto him, of all that God should give him; as if he would make that Stone an Altar, and that place such a place of worship, as Gilgal and Shiloh after were. But this Pillar (you see) was erected pro futuro only.

[Page 283]Secondly, Yet I doubt not but Ioseph might have erected an Altar of testimo­ny or thanksgiving, or for Peace-offer­ings (at the least) as others did upon special occasions, (before and after the Law) even till the building of the Tem­ple, if such occasion were. But we read not of it; peradventure God would not suffer his own name to be prophaned by setting up an abomination to the Egyptians before their faces, nor Ioseph's service, to be prejudiced there­by. For although the Father of a Fami­ly was the ordinary Priest of his own house; yet any man apart (as Iacob) might erect an Altar, and offer his thanksgivings thereupon, using such as he had about him like so many Levites ▪ all sanctified by the Sacrifice, if the occa­sions of the Altar and the Sacrifice were right.

Thirdly, If Ioseph had any outward part of Devotion to accomplish, it may be he might have found some (of his Re­tainers) not unmeet to be assisting to him. Gen. 42.18. For in his handling of his Brethren (while they took him for an Egyptian) he said un­to them the third day, This do and live; for I fear God: As if he would have them think no other, but that there was some [Page 284] piety in Egypt as well as amongst them whom he knew. And when they made Apology unto the Steward of Ioseph's house about their money, the Steward said unto them, Gen. 43.19, 23. Peace be to you, fear not: your God, the God of your Father hath given you treasure in your Sacks, I had your money. As if this Steward could speak the language of Israel, and was not unacquainted with the God of Iacob.

Fourthly, It may seem that Ioseph worshipped God with the like respect to his Fathers house, and the Sacrifices of­fered there; and with the like respect unto the Land of promise, as Daniel did in Babylon, when he opened his Win­dow towards the Temple, and prayed for the restitution that was promised: in the mean while they were both abridged of the outward Ordinances, and lived by their faith in the promises of God. We have spoken enough of Daniel before; S ^t Paul is as clear for Ioseph when he saith, Heb. 11.22. By faith Ioseph when he was a dying made mention of the departing of the Child­ren of Israel, and gave commandment concerning his bones; reckoning him a­mong the rest, who through faith obtained a good report, not having yet received the promise.

[Page 285]Fifthly, Nay, by the History it is ma­nifest, that as Moses by faith when he was come to years refused to be called the Son of Pharaohs Daughter, esteeming the re­proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; so it had fared with Ioseph before. All the pleasures of that Heathen Court, and all the submissions of that Heathen People, infused no o­ther satisfaction into his spirit, but that he must be contented (that he might be Protector of Israel) to abide without, as an Alien from his Fathers house, and to be deprived of the holy Ordinances of God: For when he was about to dye, Gen. 50.24. he said unto his Brethren, I dye, and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this Land (of bondage, where I have been detained and afflicted with you, in expectation of the promise made unto our Fathers) unto the Land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Ia­cob: God will surely visit you; and he took an Oath of them about carrying his bones from thence. Nor was Da­vid in his worst Quarters when he said, Wo is me that I sojourn in Mesech, Psal. 120.5. that I dwell in the Tents of Kedar. For al­though good men may be saved without the Ordinances, where God himself de­barrs [Page 286] them; yet they cannot live com­fortably without them: Which they may do well to consider, who (if they have but a reasonable excuse for it) had as lief be planted in the utmost Indies, as in the midst of Churches. So we see what union Ioseph held in his separation both with the Church Catholick of all Believers, and also with the house of Ia­cob in particular.

CHAP. XXXIX. Of the Vnity of the Church in respect to Election, in the general (perplexities noted) more especially in respect to the house of Jacob, wherein all were chosen; whereas in the house of Abraham and I­saac, there was but one received as Heir of the promise. Reasons to be given for their rejection: and so, might have been in Jacob's house too, whose errours are recorded.

NOW concerning the Unity of the III Church, this hath been taken for a general Rule, That the Church is as large as the Election, and the Election so determined within its Bounds or spaces, that ( extra Ecclesia [...] non est salus) without the Church there is no salvati­on. Which occasioning a distinction betwixt the Church visible and invisi­ble, it hath made the wide World the Subject of some mens charity, as much as any Church visible; the rather be­cause some men think there may be an inward Call by the Spirit, where there in so outward Call of the Church visi­ble. And so for Election; Whereas S ^t [Page 288] Paul gives us ground for two distincti­ons uncontroulable, viz. 1. Of a gene­ral Election both of Jew and Gentile, un­to the state of Grace, by believing of the Gospel, answering to the Election of the Jews alone (from the times of the Law) unto special Covenant and pri­viledge. 2. Of a certain Election of per­sons (not so large as the other) unto e­ternal life, according to the foreknow­ledge of God. This hath occasioned the Schoolmen and the modern Polemical Divines (by scanning of the terms, and sisting what might be drawn from them) to come in with a distinction between (like a kind of superfo [...]tation) of parti­cular Election absolute or conditional (for of the general Election of some people more than others unto special means, they dare not question over boldly; or enter farther into this Secret of Providence, than Travellers dare in­to that Stove of S ^t Germans in Italy, the mouth wherof I have been in; only, some presume to say, that there are suf­ficient means granted unto all) which modern distinction of the Popish School­men, and our Common-place-men, hath raised much stir and heats both in the Roman and Reformed Churches: For [Page 289] if the [...]e be an absolute positive Election of a [...]ew, the Question is not so much, Whether it be without respect of per­sons, as without respect of sin? If there be a particular Election of persons, con­ditionally only; then, Whether Electi­on hangeth in suspense? or, being from eternity, proceedeth according to God's foreknowledge ( vel saltem per scientiam mediam) with a respect to his own De­cree, according to works foreseen, of merits condign or congruous, (as the Schoolmen speak) or according to faith or Evangelical obedience (at the least) foreseen and foreknown; which pleaseth some of ours well enough, though they have much difficulty and difference in the explaining of their meanings? In the mean while perhaps there cannot be much more proved from S ^t Paul, than that Election beareth no respect to the Works of the Law, by which neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified; but that both must be brought to cry, Grace, Grace, unto the Gospel.

But the Bounds of my Discourse con­fine themselves naturally within the ge­neral Election of Grace, whereby it pleased God to chuse some particular persons to be the Body Constitutive of [Page 290] his Church, to the exclusion of [...]hers, that might seem to have stood as fair as they.

If it be asked, Why Abel was accept­ed, and Cain not? it is ready to be an­swered, That Abel offered a better Sa­crifice, and that from a better mind; wherein God himself is our Warrant: for he said unto him, Gen. 4.6, 7. Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countonance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lyeth at the door.

If it be asked again, Why was Sem chosen rather than Ham and Ia­phet? A reason may be given against Ham; but there is no manifest reason a­gainst Iaphet, but the Oeconomy or Providence of God, secundum beneplaci­tum: Whoever presseth further, may en­gage himself beyond recovery, unless he do content himself in this, that there was a time to be (when it pleased God) that the fulness of the Gentiles should come in.

So a reason may be given against Ish­mael, He was not only the Son of the Bondwoman that misbehaved her self towards her Mistress, but a malicious Scorner of the true Heir, the Son of the [Page 291] Free-woman, and a Wild-man; but of the Sons of Keturah, what have we to say more than of Iaphet, save only, that of Midian, one of them, came Iethro and the Kenites, friends and partakers of the house of Israel?

What wonder though Esau was per­mitted to seek his Fortunes in Mount Seir, he having matched with the Daugh­ters of Heth and Ishmael, to the grief of his Parents (and so, without their li­king) and being otherwise prophane; not only as a common Hunt, but as an Hunter like to Nimrod, so far as God permitted?

But what have we to say at last, that all the Sons of Iacob (his Concubines and all) should be taken in, and never an one rejected? Did ever Ishmael or Esau play such pranks as some of these? Reuben the eldest went in to Bilhah, Gen. 35.22. (the Concubine which Rachel, and not his Mother Leah, had given unto Iacob) and lay with her, Ch. 49.4. Ch. 34.25. and defiled his Fathers bed. Simeon and Levi fell upon the Shechemites, not only cruelly, but per­fidiously, after they had made them Pro­selytes. Iudah (the next preferred a­bove all) went down from his Brethren, (who had little converse, beyond their [Page 292] commerce, with the people of the Land) and turned in to a certain Adullamite, Gen. 38. whose name was Hirah. And Iudah saw there a Daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah, and he took her, and went in unto her. And she bare him Er, Onan and Shelah. Er married Ta­mar, and was wicked (following his Mo­thers kind) and the Lord slew him, and Onan after him. And then Iudah dis­sembled about giving the third Son She­lah unto Tamar, lest he should perish too. So Iudah himself fell into Tamars Gin, and was disgraced by her at the present, but got more honour from her incestuous Issue at the last, than from his own marriage with the Canaanite. For the Sons of the Concubines, Chap. 37.1. Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher, Ioseph was wont to bring their ill report unto his Father, for which they envied him: And for Issachar and Zebulun, Ver. 18. they were also in the Conspiracy against the life of Ioseph. Only Reuben's pity was com­mended, (though he was agreed with the rest to conceal it with fraud from Iacob) in that he would have saved Io­seph altogether, (which might be a rea­son why Ioseph bound Simeon, the se­cond when he let Reuben, the first, go [Page 293] free) and Iudah so far, Gen. 42.22.24. as that he would rather fell him for a Slave than slay him. Thus the Scripture concealeth not their vices: Only Ioseph (the Son of Rachel) is extolled, and his Brother Benjamin blameless.

CHAP. XL. The Sons of Jacob compared in their ver­tues and vices: The latter aggravated, and excused. Why Pharez, born of incest, should be so great in Judah, and inherit the promise at the last.

NOW to compare the good and bad qualities of these Patriarchs with one another. It seems to some, Ch. 35.22. that when Reuben had committed his in­cest with his Mother-in-Law, and that Israel heard of it, his Father was afraid to take notice of it, Es [...]ius. ( quia Reuben ferox erat) because Reuben was a fierce man: It may seem likewise as if he defiled his Father's Bed, in contempt of Bilhah, Rachels Handmaid; and so that there was some malice mixed with his lust. But the pity that he alone had of Ioseph, the Son of Rachel, shews that he was [Page 294] neither fierce (as Simeon and Levi) nor yet so envious as the rest: But most like it is that the beauty only of Bilhah did in­flame him (as a fine Creature, for Rachel, to present to Iacob, whereby to estrange him a little more from Leah) since Ia­cob, who was to denounce his punish­ment to him at the last, Gen. 49.3, 4. said no more but that though he was the beginning of his might, he should not excel only be­cause he was unstable as water, when he went up to his Fathers bed, and defiled it; high water being such as will break any Bounds whatsoever.

And though some Expositors doubt not of his repentance, (by the tokens of his good nature towards Ioseph, both when he was betrayed, and after in his Embassy) yet God did not think fit to remit the temporal punishment unto him and his posterity, of being deprived of Primogeniture and number. But whe­ther it was Iudah or Ioseph that had his Right, we shall consider by and bye.

As for Simeon and Levi, after their bloudy fact, Chap. 34.30, 31. when their Father said un­to them, Ye have troubled me, to make me stink among the inhabitants of the Land, so that I being few in number (in­comparison of the Canaanites and Periz­zites) [Page 295] they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me, and I shall be de­stroyed, I and my house (shewing their blind and rash folly as well as wicked­ness) they had so little Grace as to re­turn this surly Answer, Should he deal with our Sister, as with an Harlot? Nor had they any more remorse about their Brother Ioseph afterwards, in whose bloud they would (for their parts) have had an hand. Which might occasion Ioseph to seize on Simeon (to chuse) as hath been noted. Yet (no doubt) he was famous in his Generation (for some Vertue Reuben for one fault, ly­ing with Bilha, his Fathers Concubine, lost all: and yet for himself, in his par­ticular, Ioseph excepted, he was (otherwise) the best of the Brethren. Bi­shop Mont. acts, &c. cap. 1. § 37. or other) because so many bore the name of Simeon or Simon in the suc­ceeding Ages. So that he had but one and the same Sentence with his Brother in iniquity, even with Levi, I will divide them in Iacob, Gen. 49. and scatter them in Israel. Which was accomplish­ed in Simeon's posterity, by having their lot shut up (in a manner) within the Confines of Iudah, and its Borders; and in Levi's, by having no lot at all a­mong the rest in the Land of promise; saving a lot extraordinary, which God had assigned to them (they say) as good [Page 296] as the best: So God over-ruleth in his gracious Providence, even turning his chastisements into blessings! And for Levi's own person, Exod. 6.16. he lived a hundred and thirty years, (what Age he might be when he came with Iacob into Egypt, is uncertain.) And a hundred and thir­ty years after Iacob's descent was Moses born, the younger Brother of Aaron, the Redeemers of Israel, descended both immediately from Levi So long as Ioseph lived, so long as Levi, who survived all his Brethren, they adhered to God, and to his Service alone, wherein they had been brought up and instructed by tradition [so it liketh him] from Iacob, Isaac, Abraham. After which they degenerated (as Ezek. 23. cited above.) Bishop Montague's acts, &c. cap. 1. §. 32..

Now for Iudah, his faults and failings have not been spared; upon which (saith Bishop Hall) ‘I find not many of Iacob's Sons more faulty than Iudah:’ But Bishop Montague Id. Sect. 37. says (accord­ing to Iosephus) that ‘ Iudah, being [...] a bold, daring, putting-forth man, was well enough disposed in his own per­son to be the Law-giver, and to have the Scepter, although it was not (in­deed) conferred on his person, but his Tribe.’ Methinks (in truth) he was (like Peter among the Disciples) the [Page 297] forwardest to undertake with his Father, to lead his Brethren, to expostulate with Ioseph, to be Iacob's Harbinger, and the likeliest to be presented (as one of the five) in the presence of the great King Pharaoh. And though he consented to Ioseph's slavery, Gen. 37.27. yet said he, Let not our hand be upon him; for he is our Brother, and our flesh. And as he was of a fer­vent Spirit, and presently passed Sentence upon Tamar to be burnt; so when she convinced him, he did not deny, or ha­sten execution to conceal it, but ingenu­ously said, She hath been more righteous than I: And he knew her again no more. To him therefore, as a man of great suf­ficiency, was the Scepter given, and the promise of Christ, (which was much more) and yet the birth-right of Reu­ben was translated unto Ioseph. 1 Chron. 5.1, 2. Of which (peradventure) more at large when I come unto the lots.

Only, this is too much to my purpose and design to be omitted. Not only Iudah with all his faults (which poor Iacob's pious soul must bear withal a­mongst them) is admitted to the prime Prerogative; but his base-born Pharez, after him, becomes the immediate Heir of the Promise, and not his elder Son [Page 298] Shelah, begotten in the state of Wed­lock; to the disparagement likewise (as it might seem) of the rest of the Seed of Iacob. Let us make the account thus: Reuben is deprived of his birth­right for the Cause of Bilhah; Simeon was next, and Levi next to him: but they are both removed farther off for the sake of Shechem. Iudah is (there­upon) the next in order; and (if there be any fault in him, or however, if it were possible) one would think that Ia­cob should transfer this blessing unto Ioseph, who was the eldest Son of his best beloved Wife, and now a Father to his Brethren, as he was to his own Father too, so far as he was a Father unto Pharaoh, under whose protection and beneficence they were to be cherish­ed and flourish; or else (by Ioseph's leave) to his own Brother Benjamin, the Son of Iacob's right hand, with whom no fault is found; nor, it may be, ever was, since his posterity held stedfast to the Covenant, and the bles­sing, when Ioseph's had revolted.

Why, there was fault enough to be found with Iudah to stop his mouth, and barr his claim to any Excellency a­mongst his Brethren. It was a kind of [Page 299] debauch in him, to go rambling among the accursed Canaanites, (from whom he ought to have kept an holy distance) and there to be enamoured or inveigled with their Shuah; and to marry accord­ing to his lust, rather than his reason. It was like that sin of the old World, which hastened the deluge, Gen. 6.2. when the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them Wives of all that they chose. If you ask, Why, where should he have had ano­ther? Think you not that Esau guessed shrewdly (though he hit amiss) when hearing that Iacob was to be sent to Pa­dan-aram for a Wife of the Mothers kin; he himself was resolved to mend the matter, Gen. 28.6, 9. by taking one of the Fathers side, in marrying the Daughter of Ish­mael the Son of Abraham? But if there had not been choice enough of kin of either side at hand, better an Alien of any other Countrey than of Canaan; which he knew to be the very Land that God had promised to his Father and Forefathers for an everlasting possession, not without the destruction of the inha­bitants, as the very Seed of the Serpent and Coar of enmity. Thou shalt not (therefore) take a Wife of the Daughters [Page 300] of Canaan, had Isaac said unto his Fa­ther Iacob. For must such a mixture be? Or such a Seed proceed from the Bowels of a Canaanitish Woman, as shall be proper to destroy the Canaanites?

Was not this (then) as just an exce­ption against Iudah now, as it had been against Esau before, and for the sake of which his own Mother could not love him, Gen. 26.34, 35. & 27.46. but procured his disherison? For Esau when he was forty years old marri­ed two Hittites, (before Ishmael's Daugh­ter) which were a grief of mind to I­saac and Rebekkah: and she said, I am weary of my life, because of the Daughters of Heth.

Now if any one ask here, Why, what choice had he or the other Brothers? Whither should they go? Whom did the other Brothers marry? Gen. 47. [...]2. Did not Io­seph (for his part) marry the Priest of On's Daughter (an Egyptian) for whose sake it may seem that he left the Egyptian Priests demesns intire, when he cun­ningly bought all the rest of Egypt, for his bread, into bondage unto Pharaoh? Or who ever blamed Abraham for his ta­king of Hagar or Keturah for his Concu­bines? Or Iacob himself, for taking Bil­hah into his bosom (who proved not [Page 301] honest to him) or Zilpah, and had been bred amongst the Idols of Laban, which Rachel stole, whether for love or hatred is a Question?

Although it hath been taken for an opinion, that the Hebrews took their Wives only ( ex Ingenuis) out of free­born women, and their Concubines ( ex Ancillis) out of Handmaids; De jure Nat. & Gent. sec. Heb. l. 5. c. 7. yet M ^r Selden proves that these did not differ in the quality of Wives, but only in the inequality of conditions; Gen. 25.1.1 Chron. 1.32. forasmuch as Keturah in Genesis is called Abraham's Wife, and in the Chronicles his Concu­bine, (which some do therefore impro­bably think to be the same with Hagar re-assumed) We may observe that Ha­gar had been seasoned with the same Re­ligion before Abraham took her, by be­ing bred in his house; insomuch that she prayed in her distress, and had an Angel to comfort her. But she was re­pudiated for her rebellion against her Mistress, and her Son sent away with gifts (which followed) because it is said, Gen. 25.6. that unto the Sons of the Concu­bines (both of them) which Abraham had, he gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his Son, while he yet lived But af­ter they were sepa­rated, it seems, that they both revolted: for Ishmael dwelt in the wilder­ness of Pa­ran, and became an Archer. And his Mother took him a Wise out of the Land of Egypt. Gen. 21.20, 21.. [Page 302] And by Keturah (whose true Religion we have no ground to questi­on) he had some Issue which retained their profession in the time of Moses, who married a Wife out of Iethro's house, descended from Midian, a Son of Abraham by this Keturah. Among some or other of these (therefore) the Sons of Iacob might have found Wives, as well as Moses, who is not blamed for it.

Or else, among the Women that Re­bekkah, Rachel and Leah had brought with them, (if they were more than two) or the Daughters born of them, in the space of a hundred and fifty years; or as they might give their Sisters to their choicer Servants, so they might take their Daughters, and so contain themselves within themselves; which might be the reason of their leviration, (which God did after establish by a Law) or Brothers marrying of a Bro­ther's Widow, in case he dyed before he had any Issue by her. Indeed, it is not mentioned whence the other Sons had their Wives, Gen. 38.8. only Iudah seemeth to be blamed.

[Page 303]As for Ioseph's taking the Priest of On's Daughter, 1. Pharaoh gave her. 2. God himself, who was able to sancti­fie her unto him, as it is like he did by the towardly Children which she bare him; which pleased Iacob when he bles­sed them. 3. If Ioseph spared the Priests Lands, it is an Argument that he feared Sacriledge, as many of the Heathen (af­ter) did, with the like regard unto the Iewish Priests: And this is delivered (by Iosephus) as a Law among the Iews: Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. ‘Let no man speak evil of those Gods which other Countries and Cities sup­pose to be Gods. Amiq. l. 4. c. 8. Let no man spoil a­ny strange Temple, nor take that which is dedicated unto any God.’

And as for Iacob's taking of Bilhah and Zilpah, the same may be said as of Abra­ham taking of Hagar and Keturah. They came from Padan-aram with him, and abode with their Mistresses after he had purged his house from Idols; La­bans and all, (if any did remain) which it may seem that Rachel stole away to please her Husband Iacob (when time should serve to discover it) not fearing her Fathers displeasure, rather than out of any love to them, because she may be understood to have been of the forward­est, [Page 304] when Iacob purged his house, Gen. 35.4. to bring all the strange Gods and ear-rings unto him: As also because she had the blessing of the two more pious Sons.

CHAP. XLI. Pursuing the same Argument, and opening the Law of Leviration, by which Pha­rez was restored. Other marked persons not blot to the Genealogy of Christ.

BUT the failing of Iudah concern­ing Tamar (if it were not greater) might yet seem more unlucky of the two, and more prejudicial in the conse­quence unto the house of Israel, than the other; inasmuch as two misbegotten Children came thereby to be reckoned to the ruling Tribe of Israel, and not only to have equal part with others, but to have inheritance from Iudah, all alike with Shelah. Doth God abhor in­cest and adultery, and yet suffer the choicest Blessings of all to descend to their Issue? Or how is it that David and Christ should come to descend from this Pharez, rather than from Shelah?

[Page 305]Now about the first failing of Iudah we may say, That if Iacob had had the power of the blessing in his own hands (as he had not) it was not exception e­nough against him to put him by; nor in the streights wherein they were, can one be sure that there were no more strange Wives within the Tents of Iacob, but only Shuah's Daughter. However, God was pleased to take the punishment of Iudah's fault home unto himself, and he brought it home to Iudah; for what­ever Shelah was, he gave him but three Sons in all, two of which he permitted to be such wicked Canaanites as were not to be born withal; so that the Lord himself slew them, and in the stead there­of made him father other two, which he least intended.

But on second thoughts, neither was the latter fault so great as the first, nor the consequence so bad as you imagine.

See what an Acquaintance had Iudah gotten by wandring away from the Tents of Israel, and searching out for some good house or other wherein to solace and caress himself; Gen. 38.1. He turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. And he, it seems, as having a design upon his Friend (so called) hold [Page 306] him unto Shuah's Daughter, with whom Iudah was taken in his vagary. Which friendship (howsoever) continued till after her death, (good men being sel­dome forward to shake off even their Back-friends:) So that Hirah, being with him to comfort him, was as ready to help him at another turn, (even as lewd Suburbers delight to draw in Country-men into the Stews) and to wait for him (like a Pander) and con­ceal his prank, while he suffered him (rather than himself) to go aside unto a seeming Harlot: and when Iudah came back, to carry a Kid for him unto the Woman, to redeem Iudah's pledges, be­cause he was ashamed to send by any but a Stranger. So that Iudah seems to have continued still under the same or like temptations, as long as he retaineth this acquaintance. And it is by his tempta­tions that we must endeavour to excuse him; whereof this Heathen Hirah was the first.

Then we must consider, that it was but simple fornication, upon surprize (and without design) that Iudah suf­fered himself to be drawn in by; whereas his marriage was a setled reso­lution. And that God suffered him to [Page 307] be thus betrayed (punishing one sin by another, and the consequences of it) for his injustice in denying his third Son Shelah unto Tamar; which he was bound to do by a known Law amongst them: Or for his distrust in God, lest he should take away Shelah for doing his Duty, as he had done the other two for wickedness.

Add to this the subtilty of Tamar (who was a Free-woman of Israel, by her marriage unto Er the eldest Son of Iudah, whatsoever she was before) that knew where the soft place was in Iu­dah's Head, and meant to be meet with him, inasmuch as she had been of a long time wronged, and saw no other likeli­hood of redress but this: for the Law (as we may learn more clearly by the re­viving of it) was this, Deut. 2 [...].5, 6. viz. If Brethren dwell together, and one of them dye, and have no Child, the Wife of the dead shall not marry without, unto a Stranger; her Husband's Brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to Wife, and perform the duty of an Husband's Brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his Brother, which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

[Page 308]The Law (then) obliging Tamar to live within, under a Widow's guise, and not to marry without, but expect; she had (indeed) Onan given to her; but he hating to raise up Seed unto his Brother (more than to lye with a taking Woman) spilt his Seed upon the ground, thinking (it may be) after that to go into fruitless dalliance. Gen. 38.10. And the thing displeased the Lord, so that he slew him also after his Brother Er. The reason of Onan's sin is to be understood, viz. Because he would have the eldest Bro­ther's Right extinct, and be eldest him­self; whereas if he had begotten a Son on Tamar, even that Son should have carried the birth-right from him. And when Tamar had remained still a shady Widow, in hope of Shelah, and she saw that he was grown, and not given to her, she began not only to despair of an Husband, but of an interest in the house of Iudah, which ought not to be deny­ed her: It was the least of her inten­tion (therefore) to play the Harlot, whatever Iudah meant; for being sped by him, she put on her Widows Gar­ments again, and betook herself to her former place. So that she may seem no more to blame than an honest Woman, [Page 309] that puts her self into an Harlots place, and so defrauds her own Husband.

Ay, but the Law was, That the Bro­ther and not the Father-in-Law should raise up Seed unto the first Husband, How then can Tamar be excused for tempting, and lying with the Father?

We must not take Tamar for a scrupu­lous Casuist, (though she meant not to be an Harlot, but contained ever after, as it is most likely Iudah did, of whose refraining there in mention, but of his marrying again we read not) but for an interested, wronged Person, that sought to right herself the best she could: For if she conceived, she should be wrapped up in the inheritance of her Issue, which Iudah could not abandon; or if not, yet Iudah could not wrong her any fur­ther.

But take the Case as it will bear: For a Brother to lye with his Brothers Wife or Widow, in any other Case than this, is incest; And it is no more incest in the Father-in-Law, so far as touching of bloud is intended (for the Father-in-Law has no more blood in his Son's Wife that never conceived) than in the Brother: There is only the reverence of Descent, that is more. And the rea­son [Page 310] of another Descent ( viz. of inheri­tance) being the reason of the Law that allows the dispensation, it is the less wonder that Tamar should lay aside the respect of reverence only to a Father, that would hold her still under greater wrong, unless she laid this Veil aside, and put another on: which is all that I have to say for her.

But as for Iudah, as his soul hated in­cest, so neither was he guilty of it (in the least) as he was beguiled. And though his two Sons Pharez and Zarah were misbegotten (by mistake) on Ta­mar; yet they were not base-born, but came by due Right into their Father Er's Lot, as much as if Shelah had begotten them, who ought to have endeavoured it: So that Iudah (by God's permission) did but supply his Son's place as a punish­ment for his with-holding him. And when God had pardoned all this to Iu­dah, neither his Father, nor his Bre­thren eyed him the worse; but God himself prospered him the more: For whereas his Brethren had all more Chil­dren than he, when they came to be numbred, at their going out of Egypt, Iudah had seventy four thousand, Numb. 1. [...]6, 27. and six hundred males, from twenty years [Page 311] and upwards, whereas no other Tribe could come within ten thousand of His.

If all this doth not satisfie, let us hear the pious Bishop a little further: Bish. Hall's Contem­plation of Iudah and Thamar. ‘I find not many of Iacob's Sons more faulty than Iudah, who yet is singled out from all the rest to be the Royal Progenitor of Christ, and to be honoured with the dignity of the birth-right, that God's Election might not be of merit. Else, however he had sped alone, Thamar had not been joined in this Line. E­ven Iudah marries a Canaanite: It is no marvel, though his Seed prosper not. Yet, that good Children may not be too much discouraged with their unlawful propagation, the Fa­thers of the promised Seed are raised from an incestuous Bed.’ And (as I may add) in Christ's Genealogy we have Rahab the Harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, and Bathsheba (to chuse) the adulterous Wife of David. But (as the Apostle speaks) he put no difference betwixt us and them, Acts 15.9. purifying their hearts by faith.

Such was the state of the first visible Church (which produced afterwards such admirable Spirits) so far as I can discover. But if the Masters were indif­ferently such (as I have described) what [Page 312] think you were the Men? If it had so seemed good to God, he could have set them all alike without blemish: But he would rather take in all (now) than leave out one. And so must we, lea­ving them in the good Land of Goshen all the life of Ioseph, and some time af­ter; for the Text saith, that Ioseph dy­ed, and all his Brethren, and all that Ge­neration, Antiq. l. 2. c. 5. before a new King (Iosephus saith of another Race) arose up over E­gypt, which knew not Ioseph. And that the people were so encreased, that Go­shen could no more contain them, but that the Land of Egypt was filled with them.

[...]