A SERMON PREACHED Be …

A SERMON PREACHED Before Sir P. W. Anno 1681.

WITH ADDITIONS: To which are annexed Three Digressional Exercitations;

  • I. Concerning the true Time of our Saviour's Passover.
  • II. Concerning the prohibition of the Hebrew Canon to the ancient Jews.
  • III. Concerning the Jewish Tetragrammaton, and the Pythagorick Tetractys.

By JOHN TƲRNER, Late Fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1684.

A SERMON Preached before S r Patience Ward, UPON THE Last SƲNDAY of His MAYORALTY. Anno 1681. With ADDITIONS.

By John Turner, late Fellow of Christ's College in Cam­bridge.

Virtus repulsae nescia sordidae
Intaminatis fulget honoribus,
Nec sumit aut ponit secures
Arbitrio popularis aurae.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1683.

SUMMA PRIVILEGII. Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1640. Artic. 8.

WHereas the Preaching of order and de­cency, according to St. Paul' s rule, doth conduce to edification, it is required that all Preachers (as well beneficed men as others) shall positively and plainly preach and instruct the peo­ple in their publick Sermons, twice in the year at least, that the Rites and Ceremonies now esta­blished in the Church of England, are lawfull and commendable, and that they the said peo­ple and others ought to conform themselves in their practice to all the said Rites and Ceremo­nies, and that the people and others ought wil­lingly to submit themselves unto the authority and government of the Church, as it is now established under the King's Majesty. And if any Preacher shall neglect or refuse to doe according to this Canon; let him be suspended by his Ordinary du­ring the time of his refusal, or wilfull forbea­rance to doe thereafter.

TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD, HENRY, Lord Bishop of LONDON, Dean of the CHAPEL ROYAL, AND One of His Majestie's most Honourable Privy Council.

May it please Your Lordship,

WHen the following Sermon was prea­ched, which is now a full twelve­month ago and as much as since the latter end of October, it made so great a noise about the Town, and was the occasion of so loud a cry against me from a d [...]sloyal and disaffected party, that I was forced immedi­ately to put it to the Press, not out of any vain opinion which I had of my performance, [Page] which, as it was but mean in it self, so it could not be well expected that it should be better, considering the short [...]ess of the time which was spent in the composing, but for my own just and necessary vindication, that the world might see and be satisfied what it was that had opened the mouth of Calumny and Detraction so wide; and Your Lordship ha­ving received information that there was a design to make my Sermon publick, which Iacknowledge I ought not to have done with­out Your Lordship's good leave, by whose commission and authority it was preached, I was commanded to deliver up my Notes to be perused by Your Lordship before they went to the Press; but it so happening that they were then actually in it, before that order came, and the first sheet having been printed off, all the possibility of Obedience that was left me was, to recall my Papers from the Press and lay them at Your Lordship's feet, as they were, torn in pieces by the Printer, and in a condition very much ashamed to make their appearance before You.

Your Lordship was sensible of the confusi­on my Papers, as well as my self were in, and would not suffer them to blush in your [Page] presence, but was pleas'd to dismiss me in a most obliging manner, for which unexpec­ted goodness, when I came so apprehensive, as I was, of a less favourable usage, I am bound to pay you my everlasting thanks, and to command me further, not without expressing some trouble at the incivility and indiscretion of Sir P. W. which was indeed an affront to Your Lordship and the whole Clergy of the three Kingdoms in my person, to let you see the Papers when they were printed.

I came away, as I had reason, from White­hall, where I had the honour to pay my du­ty to Your Lordship then going to the Coun­cil, not onely well satisfied, but very much transported with so obliging an answer; and having now a Licence from your self, as well as from the Eighth of the Ecclesiastical Ca­nons made and set forth by a Convocation of the two Provinces in 1640. whereby we are obliged twice every year to preach upon the Subject of Decency and Order (and whatsoe­ver may be preached, may be printed also if occasion so require) I had now a double en­couragement to go on with the Impression, and accordingly I did go on.

If Your Lordship shall demand of me, as it is very natural for you to doe, what was the reason of its publication being so long delayed, all the answer I can make is that it was, (so far was I at first from designing it for the Press, had I not been provoked to it by the clamours of the worst of men, as well as encourag'd to stand up in my own defence by such as were friends to the Government, and by consequence to me) I say, as it was, I found it to be a very imperfect and unfinish'd piece, and such as had reason to apprehend the censures of its friends as well as enemies; therefore I presumed to take the liberty, not to alter any thing which I had spoken, but onely to add so much to it, as might make a just disquisition upon the Subject, and yet if I had taken a liberty of making alterations, so it had been onely in the expression, not the sense, it would have been such a li­berty as would have been vouched by the best examples that antiquity affords: Pliny, as himself confesses in his Epistles, did so by his Panegyrick to the Emperour Trajan; and before him that great Master as well of thought as expression did the same by his Oration in defence of Milo, and not to [Page] say any thing of the Verrine Orations, and the invectives against Catiline, it is very rea­sonable to believe that the Philippicks, instead of being burnt as Anthony would have had them, have been transmitted to Posterity with an improvement of incens'd eloquence and Ciceronian rage.

There is one thing indeed, which I know not whether I ought to mention or no, which did receive some little alteration, if the omission of a Line or two, for it was no more, may be called by that name; and that is, that upon occasion of discourse concer­ning the persecution still raging in the Ter­ritories of the French King, I did speak of his Majesty, out of the zeal I had for the Protestant Religion, and being under no tie of obedience to a foreign Prince, but onely of respect to his Character if he do worthi­ly sustain it, with so much sharpness and Satyr, comparing his Persecution to that of Nero, Maximine or Dioclesian which was the very thing and the onely thing that was o­mitted, that there were persons, as I suppose, appointed by the Congregation de propagan­da side, the Committee that manage the in­terest of the Faction, to buz in my ears, as [Page] an argument to discourage me from publi­shing what I had spoken, that my Sermon would have the honour of being translated into French, for the use of Monsieur Barillon; that a complaint would be made by the French Ambassadour in a memorial on set purpose, that I had broken the Peace be­tween the two Nations, and that a Fellow of a College, that had not so much as a Pupil to take his part, had presumed barely with the as­sistance of his Sizar, a worthy Squire to so redoubted a Knight, to levy actual War up­on the most potent and formidable Prince that these latter Ages of the World have seen; though I was not sensible that I had said any more, than they themselves who made use of this advantage against me, are every day speaking among one another with a bitterness of Language peculiar to the men that use it; though for this perhaps the French King is to thank them that they take no more liberty with him than they do with their own rightfull Sovereign and natural liege Lord, the one for subverting the Prote­stant Religion, and the other for maintaining it, which shews them to be a People so very hard to be pleased that I am resolved never [Page] to be a servant to such difficult Masters; for as Aristophanes saith rightly in the entrance into his Plutus,

[...]
[...];

Neither indeed, when all comes to all, have I said any more than what most of the Prin­ces and States of Christendom have publickly complained of by their Ambassadours and Agents in the Court of France, and what is sufficiently justified by that excellent Person Dr. George Hickes, a great ornament of Lear­ning, and as able a Champion for the esta­blished Religion as ever the field of contro­versie hath afforded, hath verified to a tittle in his judicious Sermon concerning the True Notion of Persecution, a Discourse which I wish with all my heart those of the Separati­on would take the pains to reade, that com­plain so much, but so unjustly of the sub­ject of it.

So that I think upon the whole matter Sorbiere's case and mine are very different from one another, though that were the ex­ample that was used to fright me, for I have [Page] not spoken contemptibly of the French Na­tion, which I have always accounted of as a gallant People, valiant in War and always excelling in all the arts of Peace, much less have I dared to vilifie the awfull Majesty of so great a King, whose Sovereign Power I do as much acknowledge to be an image of the divine, inviolable, sacred, and never to be mentioned without reverence and honour, as I do that of our Royal Master himself, the best of Princes, the Father of his Country, the delight of Mankind, the wonder of this Age, and the inimitable Example of all that are to come, but yet I think it to be such an image as it would be inexcusable Idolatry in me who am an English Subject to fall down and worship.

And as my case is very different from that of Sorbiere so are my circumstances too; for he they tell me for the indignities he put upon the English Nation, the bravest people that the Sun beholds, was deservedly turned out of all, but I am humbly bold to tell Your Lordship and the rest of my Superiours that I have nothing out of which to be turned and that I should think my self comparative­ly happy in respect of what I am now, if I [Page] could be placed in his circumstances without the crime that occasion'd them, and as I am a stranger to his circumstances and his crime so, I thank God, I am as far removed from his Principles too, for he and his two friends Mersennus and Gassendi were of the Religion of Malmsbury, if they had any at all, as ap­pears by their joint admiration of the Book De Cive, the Latin Leviathan that sports him­self in foreign waters as the English one does upon the British Coast, but I own no princi­ples that destroy the very nature and being of obligation, and are by consequence ene­mies to Mankind.

But it is easie to discern that all I have yet said is by no means a satisfactory answer to Your Lordship's, question, why the edition of this Sermon hath been so long delayed, for the Additions to it are not so considerable that the twentieth part of all this time need to have been taken up about them; and though indeed when I am brought to this pinch I cannot give a good account of such a slow and dilatory proceeding, yet a true one I will be sure to give, and it is this, that when I had written and printed off ten sheets of this discourse, which is as much as I now [Page] publish, I launched out I know not how or why, into things merely Philological and foreign to the subject, and as it is usually, when men are got into a Labyrinth, they do but lose themselves the more for endeavou­ring to get out, so one digression bringing on another, I found I had wander'd so far out of my way, that the subjects I now em­ploy'd my thoughts upon began to speak a­nother Language from that in which the former part of my discourse was written.

They that have a Talent at censuring will be apt to say that this proceeded out of no­thing else but a certain vanity and affectati­on of appearing learned, and it may be this was indeed the very cause, since it will be difficult to assign a better, though I am not sensible of it, and so far as I know any thing of my self (but how few are there that do understand themselves?) I have no such thing as pride or affectation in my nature, and in truth it would be very inexcufable in me to be proud of any thing or to appear as if I were so, and much more to resolve in­dustriously, in spite of the Subject or the Company I am in, to be talking of matters in which neither are concerned, because this [Page] is an humour so tawdry and impertinent, and touches my imagination with so satyrical im­pressions upon it self, that of all things in the World it would appear the most despicable to me, if it did not make me sick, as it al­ways does, and no man can properly be said to despise that which he fears.

But whatsoever were the true reason of so extravagant a ramble from the subject and the Text, whether it proceeded out of vani­ty and foolish ostentation, or whether it were onely, what some that know me will be apt to plead in my behalf, that I am naturally inclined by my constitution to digress from every such Subject which I undertake, which I believe to be a true account of the business, for I scarce ever set upon any thing in my life, but I was always pestered with a multi­plicity of thoughts, as perfect strangers to the Subject and to one another, as all the several barbarous and distant Nations of which the Ottoman forces are composed, who though they are all engaged upon a com­mon design, yet they understand not one anothers Language; I say whatever were the true occasion of such an irregular compo­sure, or whether Your Lordship will referr [Page] it, besides the two causes I have lately men­tioned to some decay of mind, which my misfortunes may have brought upon me, yet thus much I know, that when I came to con­sider and compare the sheets which I had writ­ten together, I was very much ashamed of what I had done, and very angry with my self, insomuch that I saw no hopes of be­ing reconciled, but by throwing those pa­pers, that had made the difference, aside, to try if that way it were possible the business might be forgotten, that so Richard and Bax­ter, who were at Mortal jarrs, might be brought to a better understanding with one another; for it is a very painfull and uneasie thing for a man to be fallen out with him­self, and if there be any torment more ex­quisite than another, a thing of which all the Philosophers but the Scepticks are agreed, I am clearly of opinion that the shame and confusion resulting from a foolish and im­prudent action is the worst punishment be­longing to humane nature.

Therefore I did, as it very nearly concer­ned me, use all the expedients I could think of or devise, and made all the friends I could possibly to my self that the business might [Page] be timely made up, and, as the last remedy, I was resolved to forget it and to employ my meditations upon subjects of another and a very different nature.

In this interval I writ that Discourse con­cerning the Laws of Nature and their obli­gation, which is now abroad, as the second part of it lies by me ready for the Press, onely it wants transcribing, for it is written after so confused a manner that no Compo­sitor can deal with it at present; I writ also that Epistle, which followed, concerning the Marriage of Cousin Germans, which hath suffe­red great variety of censures not onely from the different capacity of its readers, but from their different interests likewise, for it is generally the nature of Mankind, that they will have nothing to be true which does not sute with the circumstances they are or would be in, albeit when things are imparti­ally considered I can scarce believe there are twenty men in the King's dominions that are concerned in point of interest or honour to believe what I have written to be false, and I have some reason to believe that the most considerable objection that lies against that short Essay, is that it will be very long [Page] before any man who understands himself will be so hardy to undertake to answer it.

There was one indeed who had a design of that nature, and though I know not the per­son, yet his character I do, and so will Your Lordship likewise, when I shall have told you that it was the loyal, learned and ingenious writer of Constantius the Apostate, an adver­sary whom though for his known ability I had reason to dread, yet having Nature and Antiquity so clearly on my side, I would have chosen such an Antagonist before any o­ther, both because in his advocation and de­fence of Cousin Germans, the utmost strength of that cause would have been brought into the Field, which would have brought the matter on one side or other to a speedy issue; and because he was pleased to express him­self in a Letter of his which had no name at the bottom, with so much candour and in­genuity towards me, and indeed so far a­bove any thing which I pretend to deserve, that I was well assured that the controversie would be managed on both sides without any heat of words, with mutual kindness and civility toward each other, as becomes [Page] those that know how to defend the truth without insolence, and how to yield to it without shame, and that have joined the courtesie of Gentlemen and the charity of Christians to the learning, judgment and abi­lity of Scholars; but upon what reason I know not he afterwards desisted, as it seems, from his design, and I do not speak this as if I would be thought to send him a chal­lenge by Your Lordship, which it would be very rude in me to doe, but I would rather make it my humble request to him, that he would suspend his engaging in the contro­versie against me, till he have heard all I have to say for my self, and then if my ar­guments will not demonstrate what they pretend to do, I will as freely recant my o­pinion as ever I maintained it, and give the World the reasons why I have altered my mind; in the mean time I look upon my self as bound in gratitude and justice to let Your Lordship and the World understand, how much I think my self obliged to so in­genious a man for his favourable opinion of me, and that I should be glad to be as well acquainted with his person, as I am with his unquestionable loyalty and learning.

My Lord, I am very sensible that by what I writ upon that subject, I did incur the dis­pleasure of some for whom I have so great an honour, that I am very uneasie under the sense and apprehension of it, though I have done nothing but what I thought my duty at that time when I did it, and I see no reason yet to alter my mind; but these are the common inconveniences of humane life to which every wise and good man ought with a Philosophical patience and equality to submit, as I do, and am very perfect in that Lesson, which by long practice I have taught my self, of bearing with patience, as well the affronts and indignities of mine enemies, as the misconstructions and misinterpretations of my friends, for such I call all those who are friends to our common freinds, the King, the Church, and the Religion established, and that I might give no farther occasion of of­fence, I have suspended for a while the publi­cation of what remains upon the same subject, till the controversie, not yet decided by my Lords the Delegates, have received its final period and issue by their judicious, honou­rable and wise determination.

And besides these papers which have been either publish'd or are ready for the Press, and were some of them begun and others finish'd during that time of my retirement from my former studies and to another end of the Town, there was another discourse which lay by me imperfect, being an exer­citatation upon that Law of Moses, whereby the Brother or the next of kin was obliged to raise up seed to his deceased and childless Brother or Kinsman, a great part of which was written by me at Cambridge, as a prepa­ratory to that other Treatise of the Marriage of Cousin Germans, which it is now a long time that my thoughts and studies have been con­versant about, and being so much of it as was then done, transcribed in a very fair and legible hand, it was the greater temptation to me to send it to the Press, as I did, and have added so much to what I had written at the College, that it requires but very little to put a conclusion to it.

In this Discourse, as I have considered all the cases and circumstances of that Law, with much more exactness than any have done before me, so I have particularly le­vell'd a considerable part of it against one [Page] Chapter of Mr. Selden in his Book De Succes­sionibus, and have very largely exposed the vanity of the Rabbinical Learning, and the manifest unskilfulness of that sort of men in the Antiquities of their own Nation; and if I have not found out a new Key to open and interpret the Mosaick Law, yet thus much at least I have done, I have applied it to several Laws, to which it hath not been applied before, and have abundantly disco­vered the extreme impudence, as well as igno­rance of the Aegyptian Moses and other cele­brated Masters of the Jewish Learning.

I have likewise in an occasional Essay up­on that subject demonstrated the Antiquity of Episcopal and Diocesan government in the Jewish Church, the dependence of the inferi­our Clergy upon the Bishop of the Diocess, and the subjection of all the Bishops of the Province of Judaea to the Arch-Bishop, or High-Priest, at Jerusalem: I have shewn that this was the Go­vernment to which our Saviour and his Apo­stles, being members of the Jewish Church, submitted; and not onely so, but that the Jews had among them a Patriarchal dignity likewise, that is, such Bishops as having their usual residence in Jerusalem or in Judaea, had [Page] the care and inspection of the Churches in the dispersion, which was likewise imitated by our Saviour in his modell of the Christi­an Church; and certainly if their be no such harm in a Patriarch, that is, a foreign visitour or inspectour, if this were imitated and ap­proved by our Saviour himself, then much [...]ss can there lie any exception against a do­mestick and residing Bishop, to whose autho­rity likewise our Saviour submitted, and consequently approved of that sort of Go­vernment, which I will grant in its first o­riginal to have been of humane institution, if that will please our Dissenters, for all they will get by it will be this, that our Saviour himself did allow of humane institutions in the Christian Church, and did submit to them, and that this not being a part of the Mosaick Law, so far as that Law consisted of types and shadows which were to be done a­way, (as being fulfilled and answered by their antitype in the person and dispensation and sacrifice of Christ) the reasons of con­venience upon which this government was founded, remain still the same, and there­fore that there is no reason why it should be altered though it had not been recommen­ded [Page] to us by our Saviour's example, which may justly be thought to give it a jus divi­num, though it had none before, for he was by no means a Presbyterian, and much less an Independent.

And yet if this business be examined into the bottom, though the granting it to be of hu­mane institution will doe the Separatists no manner of service, it will be found that this government was instituted by Moses, and e­stablish'd by Joshua, both of which acted by divine appointment, and by consequence it having nothing which was properly Judaical, that is, which was of a Typical or Symbolical nature, nothing that had any necessary depen­dence upon or conexion with their Sacrifices and lustrations and other Ceremonies of that Ʋmbratick dispensation, there is the same reason why it should last after those shadows were done away, as well as when they were lookt upon to be in full force, and were e­steemed the most indispensably sacred.

I have also in the same treatise demonstra­ted the antiquity and the reason of the Priest­ly maintenance by tithes, and I have shewn upon what account it was that the tenth of all the fruits of the Earth, and the encrease [Page] of Cattel was offered to God, and that the reason holds every whit as good to this day as it was either in the Levitical times or in those that went before them.

And upon this occasion I have considered very briefly the question so much controver­ted concerning usury, I have demonstrated its lawfulness to all but the ancient Jews, and by the same clue I have opened a way to a better understanding of the Chronology of the times before the Floud, and so long after it as the age of man was reckoned to be an hundred and twenty years, and have besides made it evidently appear what was the true meaning of the [...], the [...], and the [...], in the computation of the ancient Chalde­ans, and what it was that gave both name and notion to the Kalendae and the Idus a­mong the Romans, things that are as yet a secret to the World.

But it being so ordered by divine provi­dence that while I was employed in this kind of meditations, there fell a living void in this City, in the gift of the worshipfull Company of Salters, I laid my antiquities a­side to try what interest I could make among them, for the obtaining their favour in the [Page] disposal of it, and I was so successfull, thanks to my good friends, who appeared very zea­lous, and very numerous for me, that had the business poceeded to a Poll when the first Court was called, which was a common hall consisting of the whole freedom, I have rea­son to believe my circumstances at that time would have carried it against any of my Competitours, although my merit were very short of some.

And now having laid aside my new de­signs, compell'd by a welcome necessity of my affairs, as I had done my old ones for another reason, I began, as I had leisure from that continual hurry in which my competition had engaged me to sit down and consider seriously with my self, which I could not doe without a mixture of plea­sure and melancholy together, in what a labyrinth of different and disagreeing under­takings I had entangled my self; and being returned again from a remote corner of the Town, into the neighbourhood of Decency and Order, I had, as it is usual with old friends, a very great desire notwithstanding the late unkindness that had past between us, to see them once more and renew our [Page] our old acquaintance, and try if it were possi­ble, in the midst of such confusion, to re­duce them to a better agreement with them­selves, as well as with me, and make them answer to their own names, instead of those of Chaos, Rhapsodie and Cento, by which they now began to be much better known.

And the best expedient I could think of to save my self harmless from the censures of men, with as little injury to the Book-seller as might be, (for I would have no man suf­fer upon my account if I could help it) was after a retrenchment of several sheets, which are now wholly lost, and indeed were very unfit to see the light, to divide the remain­der into two several parts, not such parts as had a mutual connexion and dependence, but such as are wholly what they are, by themselves, without any manner of relation or affinity to each other.

The first of them is that with which I now present Your Lordship, which all but the last six or seven pages hath lain by as it is, for at least eighteen months last past, and is, if I do not very much mistake my self and it, not onely a very pertinent discourse upon the subject it pretends to treat about, but a very [Page] unanswerable one too, if any thing may be thought unanswerable in an age where noise and faction supply the room of argument and reason, and where instead of being yiel­ded to as it ought to be by honest and un­prejudic'd minds, the more convincing any argument is, with so much the greater vio­lence and fury it is opposed, and they that are able to speak the least good sense will al­ways be sure to make the loudest noise.

Sic ego torrentem quà nil obstabat eunti
Lenius & modico strepitu decurrere vidi,
Sed quacun (que) trabes, obstructá (que) saxa tenebant,
Spumeus & fervens & ab obice saevior ibat.

That other part which is likewise finished from the Press and shall immediately come abroad by it self, consists of these two Philo­logical dissertations, the first concerning the true time of our Saviour's Passover, an en­quiry that hath of a long time baffled the en­deavours of learned men, but will now cease to be a question any longer; the second con­cerning the true pronunciation of the Tetra­grammaton, in which likewise, though it be not a probleme of such moment as the other, [Page] several very famous antiquaries and men of the most considerable remark for learning have gone before me; but it will appear, I hope, by my discourse upon that curious, though minute, subject, that they have all been mistaken, and that the true secret hath been reserved for me, a man by no means to be compared with any of them, to inter­pret and explain; but so it often happens that chance finds out what art and industry have in vain sought after, and an accidental thought that wanders in the brain with all the undesigning carelesness of a dream, may carry us directly to the discovery of some truth, which hath been courted in vain by the profess'd addresses of more ingenious and diligent inquirers.

In what I have said upon the first of these, I have demonstrated the onely true significa­tion of that which St. Luke calls the [...], or as we translate it, the second Sabbath after the first, contrary to the several disagreeing conjectures and accounts, disa­greeing with the truth and inconsistent with themselves, as well as with one another, which have been sent abroad by Joseph Sca­liger, Johannes Cloppenburge, Ludovic [...]s Capel­lus [Page] and Hugo Grotius, all very great names, and all in this respect very widely mistaken, and by the account which I have given, there is some light afforded to the ancient Jewish Calendar, which was certainly quite ano­ther thing than the Kalendarium Hebraicum of Sebastian Munster, and much ancienter than the Talmudical Canons for the observati­on of the Jewish feasts, which are but a mo­dern invention of the ignorant Rabbins who make new antiquities to supply the room of the old ones which they have lost, notwith­standing the authority which that Imposture hath m [...]t with from several very eminent scholars and very excellent persons.

In my discourse of the Tetragrammaton I have considered very largely the Tetractys of the Pythagorean School, and I think have shewn sufficiently what a fondness it hath been in almost all the learned writers that have written upon the subject, to derive the latter of them from the former, and though in this I will not be so positive as in my other conjectures, yet thus much I will say of it, that I have bid very fairly for the discovery of the Tetractys; and whether I have or no, I make my humble appeal [Page] to Your Lordship and other learned and judi­cious men that have a palate in matters of this nature, but to Your Lordship in the first place, whose patronage it begs, and humbly implores the powerfull protection of so great a name against the rude assaults of ignorance and envy.

That which made me the more willing to publish the former of these exercitations was, that I was under an engagement to the pub­lick for a discourse of that nature, it being no more than what I did expresly promise in the Epistle Dedicatory before the Sermon con­cerning Transubstantiation, which it is now near four years ago that I preach'd before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of this famous City, and it was in obedience to that wise and venerable Court that it was afterwards printed; and it is a farther service which I now pretend to doe to the Protestant Reli­gion, by setling the exact time of our Savi­our's last Supper, which was a night before the legal Passeover was killed, and conse­quently was in imitation not of the real, which could not be killed before the usual time, but of the Mnemoneutical or commemo­rative Passeover, as Grotius calls it, wherefore [Page] the body of Christ, which is our Christian Passeover, was not at that time truly eaten by the Disciples, but onely a remembrance of it, a Proleptical remembrance it was, as it must needs be, being instituted by our Sa­viour himself, then present among his Disci­ples, as the Mnemoneutical Passeover among the Jews was a Postliminious commemoration. But of this notion of the true time of our Saviour's last Supper, so far as concerns the application of it, which in the papers I now speak of, I have not medled with, I shall speak more largely in some other papers, written ex professo against that blasphemous and absurd tenet in another Language, which shall shortly be communicated to the World, and I hope will find a favourable acceptance in it.

But however wide a discourse of this na­ture may seem to be from the subject of my Text, the occasion of it was pertinent enough, for I was speaking of our blessed Lord's sub­mitting himself, as became the Preacher and the Prince of peace, to humane institutions in religious matters, which is an undeniable ar­gument that such like institutions are not in themselves unlawfull to be complied with; [Page] for he preaches by his example as well as by his doctrine, and the occurrences of his most innocent and spotless life, are in many cases, as clear testimonies of the divine will, as the express declarations of his Gospel; wherefore this Mnemoneutical or commemora­tive Passeover among the Jews, with all the peculiar rites and usages belonging to it, be­ing a matter perfectly of humane instituti­on the Law having onely enjoined the real one, or that which Grotius calls the [...], the sacrificial Passeover, upon the 14th day of the first, or in some cases of the se­cond month, this alone, if there had been nothing else, would have been sufficient in the way of instance, besides what I have ur­ged from the nature and necessity of the thing it self, to prove that humane instituti­ons for the better ordering and government of religious duties are not onely lawfull in themselves, but that they ought to be obey­ed by us, if there be no particular reason from the quality of the thing enjoyned to the contrary, as they were by Christ, who gave in this an example of obedience, and we cannot be his Disciples if we do not fol­low it.

But as it was not proper in a discourse that was intended to have the shape and appea­rance of a Sermon to launch out into so large a Philological disquisition, of which there are so very few of those that hear Ser­mons that can be supposed to be competent Judges, so indeed it was needless to give a particular instance, when our Saviour's com­munion with the Jewish Church, during the whole time of his sojourning among men, is it self an aggregate of a thousand argu­ments to prove the lawfulness of humane impositions; for without such impositions there can be no communion, any more than there can be a City or Commonwealth with­out Laws, or a society without some rules and orders to govern it self by, the submit­ting to which rules is that in which the very being of a society consists, and the breaking of those measures by an universal disobedi­ence is a disparking the society, a pulling down the pale and barrier of the body politick, and a letting all things loose into the state of nature, that is, into a state of tumult, con­fusion and disorder.

For the other Diatriba upon the Shem Ha­meporash, as the Rabbins call it, or the Four [Page] lettered name of God, I cannot say that it came in so well, but rather must acknow­ledge that it was too slight an occasion which was taken hold of to entertain the Reader's curiosity upon it; but as it happens in con­versation, if a man leave the company but for half a minute, he shall find oftentimes the discourse as much altered when he re­turns again, as if he had staid away a thou­sand years, or as if it were another company into which he was now fallen; so it will al­ways be in writing likewise, if a man do not keep a guard upon his thoughts, but allow his fancy a liberty of ranging, which it will easily do in a small space of time, over things at an infinite distance from one another.

However an essay of this nature conside­red by it self, though it will not contribute any thing to the use of common life, yet it cannot be unpleasant to any man to know for certain what the true pronunci­ation of that peculiar name of God was, by which he is pleased to signalize and distin­guish himself in an especial manner from all created and dependent beings that are called Gods, but are not what they are called; that name whose true and genuine pronunciation [Page] hath been lost for so long a succession of a­ges, for neither Josephus nor Philo Judaeus were acquainted with it, and the Jewish Rab­bins are generally agreed (which discovers how ignorant they are themselves, and how unconscionably given to impose upon others) that it was known onely to the High-Priest, and never pronounced by him neither, but onely once a year, in the most holy place, when he brought his piaculary censer, within the vail upon the solemn day of expiation: For I have not onely solidly demonstrated what the true pronunciation of this name was, but I have proved that there were other names of God in Scripture that were equally sacred, though it is true they are owing to the same root from whence this is derived, and that it was not onely known among the Jews themselves but that also the heathen nations were ac­quainted with it, for Rabshekah in the sacred volume mentions it expresly, and Philo By­blius the translatour of Sanchuniathon, a very ancient writer of the Phoenician story, who li­ved in the interval of the Judges, hath made it so far from being any secret that he hath long ago divulged it to the whole learned World.

If Your Lordship shall demand of me, what it was that moved me, having suffered them to lie asleep so long, to publish these papers just at this nick of time; there are two things which I presume to offer as the reasons why I took this opportunity, after so long a si­lence, to let them come abroad and speak for themselves, and for the Church of En­gland, which they pretend to maintain, as well as for my self, the writer of them, who having suffered so much upon their account, they are bound in justice to doe me what right they can, which I imagine they will suffici­ently do by adventuring abroad and putting themselves upon a fair and publick tryal.

One thing that moved me to publish them at this time was, that I thought they would be as much, or rather more seasonable at this juncture than at that in which they were written, and for this I had not onely mine own opinion, but, as I may interpret it, Your Lordship's also, together with the concurring suffrage of all those reverend, learned and judicious persons, who are now employed, as I have been informed, by the particular appointment and direction of Your Lordship, whose paternal care suffers no possible expe­dient [Page] to be unattempted, to procure the peace and unity of this Church, to satisfie the dis­senters, as many of them as act upon a prin­ciple of conscience, without design, in all the pretended matters of difference between us, and to clear up the misty Atmosphere of re­ligious doubt, which hath been raised by zeal, but is not yet dispelled for want of knowledge; a design worthy of so great a Prelate, so truly pious, so profoundly wise, so indefatigably good, and suitable to the nobleness of so large a mind that hath joy­ned so much personal honour and so much honour of inheritance together.

And though in the midst of so many great performances, in which the strength, elo­quence and prudence of the writers main­tain an equal combat with each other, I can­not hope that mine will doe any thing which is not effectually done by some of theirs; yet I thought it my duty upon this occasion not to be wanting to the common cause, and rather to betray, though I hope there is no danger of that, my want of skill or ability to maintain it, as it ought to be maintained, than of affection to serve it to the utmost of my power.

If I have been so fortunate to stumble upon any thing, which hath not been thought of or considered by some of them, it is a new mite cast into the treasury of the Temple, and ought to be accepted cour­teously, not for its own weight, but for the chearfulness and good intention where­with it is offered, without which the rich Hecatomb is not of so much value, as the poor man's Turtle-dove or his handfull of flower.

If I agree with them in any thing, as I cannot imagine but I shall do in all, so as notwithstanding the conceptions which are uttered may be materially different from one another, yet they will all bear their part in the harmonious consort of our common de­sign, which is to perswade to communion and to peace; this ought in reason to be looked upon, since we have not at any time compared notes together, nor have ever had any private conference at Sevill or Valadolid, or any other place, to be not so much the voice of prejudice as of nature, which is e­very where uniform and like her self, and being attentively and heedfully consulted will be sure to pronounce the same sentence, [Page] where the cases themselves are not different from one another.

But though all other considerations and motives should desert me, when I pretend to give a reason of publishing these papers, yet this I am sure will not, that if by the use­fulness of my performance I cannot doe an immediate service to the cause it self, yet that cannot possibly suffer any disparage­ment from so obscure a Champion for it, and I shall at least doe a collateral service by giving an advantage to others upon the comparison; and therefore I beg of Your Lordship, if I am not so happy to make a succesfull attaque upon the enemies of our Church, who hold out obstinately notwith­standing all their arguments are answered, their trenches filled up, and their bastions beat about their ears, yet that at least I may be suffered to be a foil to its friends, and to appear in the company of those for whom I have so great an honour and esteem,

Velut Hedera serpens inter victrices lauros.

But that which was the chief inducement to me to come abroad at this time, or ra­ther [Page] a provocation which I could not resist was, that to frustrate the design of my com­petition, when I appeared a candidate for the Salters favour, the memory of this Sermon was by mine enemies made use of as an ob­jection against me; and though this strata­geme was far from having that malevolent influence upon the success of my affairs which was intended, it appearing after all, that I had a very powerfull interest in that Loyal body, yet I had reason to take it very ill, that that which was an instance of my Loy­alty and affection to the government and the Religion established, and therefore ought in justice to have been an argument in my behalf, should be made an article of impeach­ment against me: And for that reason I was resolved to publish what I had written, part­ly to vindicate my self, and partly that be­ing challenged at so bold a rate with that which was my duty, and was indeed mine honour, as if it had been an unpardona­ble fault, not to publish it at such a critical juncture, might be interpreted a disowning of what I had done, which I abhor to think of, and have taken this course to purge and vin­dicate my self in the best manner I can, as [Page] well from the suspicion of so detestable a baseness, as from the guilt and blackness of the crime it self.

And as I was firmly bent upon this honest resolution, those words of our Saviour came into my mind, which he spake to his Disci­ples in his Sermon on the mount, and which have a particular reference to the Clergy in all ages, Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt have lost its savour wherewith shall it be sal­ted? I considered that salt by naturallists was looked upon as the great principle of fixation and rest, that by the ancients it was accounted a symbol of friendship, and a token of peace; and upon such accounts as these, thought I within my self, it cannot be that the Salters who are a Loyal body, firm to the King and the Religion established, who are desi­rous to promote that peace and good cor­respondence among men which is the very life of trade, and the greatest blessing of life, and by consequence are zealous for that u­niformity of divine worship, without which experience tells us there is no peace to be had; it cannot be that they who are thus disposed should be displeased with me for being like themselves, so that instead of losing any [Page] thing of my interest among them, I did ra­ther promise my self abundance of advan­tage from the honesty of this action; which if it be not otherwise rewarded, will sit down con­tented in the enjoyment of it self, and will abundantly make up with inward satisfaction whatever it wants of any outward reward.

If the salt have lost its savour, in the origi­nal it is, if we may call the Greek the ori­ginal of St. Matthew, [...], which Your Lordship knows to be a Latinism, as there are many such in the New Testament, si sal infatuetur, for this is the meaning of fatuus in Latin, it signifies a pall'd and phlegmy substance that hath no taste nor relish, no savour, life or spirit in it, it is a floating sediment and a liquid Caput mortuum, and therefore it is very fitly applied in the metaphorical way to insignificant and useless persons, the men of latitude and moderati­on, that have not the courage nor the ho­nesty to declare themselves, but live in a Commonwealth with the same listless and unconcerned indifference, as if they were not members of it, which if it have any ef­fect at all, it must needs be a very bad one, by keeping the disagreeing parties at a bay, [Page] by casting a tacit and supposed reflexion upon such as dare stand up in defence of the Government and the Laws, as if they were not so good, or at least not so wise as they should be, and by giving at the same time a secret encouragement to the disaffected in­terest and party, as if their cause were such that all the moderate and sober sort would side with them if they durst, but dare not in Conscience take part with the Laws against them. And yet after all, this is fatuum in both senses, it is not onely insipid, but it is foolish too, and certainly for any man to sit still with his armes folded, and his eyes dropping into a forgetfull slumber, pretending neither to see nor feel any thing about him, when his own interest, which is involved in that of the publick, lies at stake, and when by de­claring for his Country against a Faction, he may ensure himself and get a great deal of deserved honour and reputation into the bargain, is at once a most prodigious wicked­ness and a most despicable folly together; for though they doe a present service to the Faction by it, yet it is true with them as it is with us, he that is not with us is against us, and so it will be seen if ever they get the [Page] day, that the indifferent standers by shall fare no better than he that made a stout and re­solute resistence, onely there will indeed be this difference between them, that though the estates of the one and of the other are an equally tempting and inviting biat to the in­satiable avarice of successfull treason, yet the courage, constancy and integrity of the one will even by the greatest adversaries them­selves be remembred with honour, and spo­ken of with signs of inward veneration, when the pusillanimity and faintness of the other who can be friends to no body but them­selves, shall bring an unavoidable contempt upon their persons, and make them reflect upon themselves with shame, as well as be slighted and disesteem'd by others.

But of all men in the world a Clergy-man that is of so cold a composition is certainly the least excusable, because he is under the greatest obligation to confess God and his truth openly before men, he is not to gratifie any party by a tame compliance to the prejudice of the publick, nor to pur­chase his own peace with the loss of that of the Church, which can onely be maintained by wholesom discipline and an establisht or­der, [Page] and therefore of such an one it is still more true what follows immediately of the unsavory salt, that he is the most contempti­ble, and (whatever high opinion he may have of his own wisedom and prudence) the most really despicable creature in the world, he is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out with disgrace, and to be trodden under foot of men. And therefore whatever becomes of my pretensions, concerning which I am not immoderately solicitous, but refer my self wholly to the wise disposal and goodness of al­mighty God, I shall be very glad if those Gentle­men in whom the Title shall appear to be, shall pitch upon one that is at least no M—tonian, that is, no Deserter, for it would be very in­congruous in those of this fraternity espe­cially, to chuse an insipid Priest, when God himself would not accept of a Sacrifice that was not salted. And let the result of that assair be as it will, yet I shall always be very proud, as I am very thankfull for it, of the great favour and kindness Your Lordship hath been pleased to doe me, by appointing me to officiate at that Parish during the seque­stration of the living, and allowing me so fair a competence out of the profits of it.

May it please Your Lordship,

I am not insensible how much I trespass upon your great affairs by so prolix an ad­dress, but yet I am humbly of opinion, that I have said nothing which the necessity of this occasion, and of my circumstances did not almost indispensably oblige me to doe; and now having given Your Lordship an ac­count of my self, as Cato was used to say Etiam otii rationem reddendam esse, and to whom am I more accountable than to Your Lordship my Diocesan, a Person to whom I am so very much obliged, and one that hath the most undoubted right to exact an account of me? having acquainted Your Lordship, as faithfully as I can with the true reasons that moved me to defer the edition of this busie trifle that hath made so great a noise, so long, as well as to defer it no lon­ger, but to publish it at this juncture of time there are two things still remaining for which I do humbly beg a little more of Your Lord­ship's patience, while I insist with all imagi­nable brevity upon them; the one concerns chiefly an objection which the friends of the present establishment may raise, and the o­ther [Page] is an exception which I know for cer­tain its enemies will make.

The friends of the Church perhaps will object against me, that my discourse being chiefly levelled as it is all along against the Independency, whose name is Legion, being a thousand different Heresies and Sects under one title and denomination, this may be in­terpreted as a supposed allowance of the Presbyterian model; but as for that I think I have already satisfied the world what my o­pinion is, at the latter end of my discourse concerning the Laws of Nature, and if I were to give a definition, or rather a description of Presbytery, it should be this, that it is a de­vice of ambitious and unruly Presbyters bro­ken loose from the government of their Bi­shop, and which though it be not indepen­cy it self, yet it is certainly the mother of it, for the same restless and unquiet humour which could not submit it self to the Episco­pal constitution, will incline them in their Sy­nods and Ecclesiastical assemblies to contend for superiority over one another; for where all are equal, and there is no tye of obedi­ence from the one to the other, nor any common visitour or inspectour indued with a [Page] power of discipline over them all, there it is natural for men that have passions and de­signs about them to squabble, there it will unavoidably come to pass that many will take it ill if they be not chiefly regarded, and if their opinion or determination be not the law and rule of the assembly, every man will be forward to speak, and desirous to govern, but loath to hear and unwilling to obey: The consequence of which will be that it will occasion parties and factions, while some take part with one and some with another, and this cuts the reins of discipline in sunder, and does as naturally terminate in Schism and Separation, as the day is concluded by the night, or as fair and foul weather succeed one another; besides that when men have once tasted the forbidden fruit of disobedi­ence, which it is so natural for all mankind to hanker after, they seldom or never end where they begin, but go on farther and farther in pernicious attempts upon the good order and government of the world, till they have brought all things into absolute confu­sion.

A subordination and dependence of one part upon another, is as necessary in one [Page] sort of government as another, for though the Ecclesiastical and civil Society be in some sense distinct from one another, yet in a Christian Commonwealth they consist both of them of the same persons, and the na­ture of a society is in both cases the same; wherefore because the State and the Church, the body politick and the body ecclesiastick, are both of them made up of the same mem­bers, because every man hath both a civil and an ecclesiastical capacity, it is impossi­ble there should be any disorder in the Church which will not sensibly affect the state; and the division of a Commonwealth or King­dom into infinite sects and parties is a disso­lution of the civil body as well as of the sa­cred, and every thing that hath a tendency to such a dissolution is in its proportion per­nicious and consequently unlawfull.

So that if there were nothing more in the Episcopal government, than what St. Jerome, the great, but very much mistaken patron of the Presbytery hath allowed, namely that the ancient government of the Church, was by a parity of Presbyters (though no body knows when or where, nor is it possible to assign any age or place when and where it [Page] was not govern'd by Bishops) but that in process of time this parity proving inconveni­ent, by being the occasion of Schism and contention in the Church, then in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus su­perponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, I say, if there were nothing more but this in the business, yet this is suf­ficient to assert the necessity, and by conse­quence the jus divinum of Episcopal Superiority in the Church of God; for the nature of things is owing to the authour of nature, and that which is best fitted to preserve the World must needs be most agreeable to him that made it: and this is so true that let this sort of Government be never so ancient, as I shall prove to Your Lordship and the World that it was certainly the government of the Jewish Church, and the government to which Christ and his Apostles did themselves submit, yet its antiquity would be, as old things usually are, too weak and infirm to be able to defend it, did not its usefulness and manifest expedience to the good of so­ciety and of humane life, give it a perpe­tual youth and vigour, by which it is ren­dred strong in its own defence, and will be [Page] too hard for its enemies to the end of the world; otherwise if any man can shew me fairly that either the Presbytery or the Inde­pendency are more exactly calculated for the quiet of the world, notwithstanding that the experience of our late times, added to the reason of the thing, and the opinion of Saint Jerome which was founded upon it, do seem at present to demonstrate the contrary, I must beg Your Lordship's pardon if I with­draw my Canonical obedience, for I must and will be either Presbyterian or Independent as the nature of things would have me.

I speak it with all imaginable deference and profound submission to Your Lordship's ex­act judgment, and that of my Superiours, I have considered of this matter with all the care and attention I am able, and I am cer­tain, if I can be certain of any thing, that I have discovered the Philosopher's Stone, the true Elixir of Government and of humane life, which it must be our own fault in re­jecting so great a blessing or by our disobe­dience not answering the design of it, if it do not turn all things it touches into Gold, and make the whole earth as happy as the Paradise of God.

The true state of the question is in short this, the end of government is obedience and peace, and therefore all sorts of govern­ment, upon supposition that they are equal­ly fitted for the bringing of this end to pass, would have an equal Jus divinum, an equal Jus naturale, an equal right of obtaining and continuing as they are in the several places and territories where they are in use; because in this case nothing could make a disturbance but an alteration, and therefore it would be with governments as it is with proprietours in the state of nature, antecedently to any bargain or compact, the undoubted right would be primi occupantis, because to deprive him of his possession, who was already sei­zed of it, might occasion an embroilment, might be the cause of bloudshed and of war, but if every man would let his neighbour a­lone then all the world would be happy, and upon supposition that every man would be quiet and peaceable without it, that men could be so friendly, so happy and so secure without government as with it, there would be no need of government at all; but since man is by nature an ambitious, a necessitous, and consequently a disobedient, turbulent [Page] and encroaching creature, since he wants many things, and expects more than he wants, for this reason that form of govern­ment is certainly the best which is the best fitted to command and force obedience: and this I affirm from the nature of things, for men do not willingly obey their equals, much less their inferiours, this I affirm from the consent of mankind and the experience of all ages to be the Episcopal Government, or the Subordinate Politie both in Church and State; and if any man will undertake to prove the contrary, and will be as good as his word, then. I shall be for levelling as well as he, but till I see this substantially proved, which I have a strong fancy I shall never do, so long as humane faculties or humane pas­sions continue as they are, I desire to con­tinue in my old post, and be content to move, though in the lowest sphere of this subordinate and comely frame, rather than by the perpetual jarring of equal powers and motions against each other, to go stooping like a Goose under a barn door, and be in perpetual fear, nè fractus illabatur orbis.

It was either the experienced or the fore­seen mischiefs of equality and independence [Page] that first introduced order and good govern­ment into the world, and it is the natural desire of power in man, who is a needy, rest­less and ambitious creature, that endeavours to break this order and dependence for rea­sons of its own, without considering the in­terest of the publick; lastly it is the unspeaka­ble confusion, mischief and calamity with which the breach of this order is attended, that usually makes all parties (weary of those miseries which by strife and disobedi­ence they have brought upon themselves) return again into some orderly establish­ment that may defend and shield them from the same calamities in the time to come; but there is no safety, no security, no quiet en­joyment of a man's self, his friend or his pos­session to be had but under the shade and protection of such a subordinate state of things, in which the very life and being of society consists.

The other exception, which I am infal­libly certain will be made against me by the dissenting party is this, that in the manage­ment of the subject I have undertaken, I have discovered too much violence and heat of temper, and this accusation will consist [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] of two parts, the first will concern my style and way of expression, the other that I have so openly and so zealously declared for a vigorous execution of the penal statutes upon the dissenting parties.

With Your Lordship's good leave I will speak a little to each of these particulars.

And as to the first of them, I might here conjure up the Ghost of an old story, that hath been so often disturbed by men that first pillage antiquity for a smart repartie, and then steal, as it were, by consent from one another, of Croesus and his son, the dumb Prince of Lydia, whose dutifull apprehensi­on of his Father's danger, broke through the obstacles and impediments of nature, and taught him to speak as plain at half a minutes warning, as if the most ingenious and learned Dr. H. had had him in tuition for seven years together, and there is a scrap of Virgil too, if the often use of it had not made it so cheap, that it will hardly pass so much as in capping of verses, where any thing goes as far as from Ennius or Lucili­us [Page] to Qui mihi, which would have done me admirable service and that is

Quis talia fando
Myrmidonum, Dolopum ve aut duri Miles U­lyssi
Temperet à Lachrymis—

But these two being both of them prosti­tute citations which deny no authour that hath occasion for them, I shall be con­tent to say in homely, downright English, without the advantage of historical embel­lishments, or Poetical flowers, that it was impossible for me to be concerned as I am for the peace of the Church, and the hap­piness of mankind, without expressing an hearty indignation that we must be made miserable for the sake of trifles, and by the bold artifices of conventicling varlets, that are as ignorant as they are disloyal, fel­lows that pretend to I know not what influ­ences of the Spirit, onely for that reason be­cause they are unskilfull in Letters, men that are so far from being qualifi'd to instruct the people, that they understand not com­mon sense themselves, and are the most contemptible idiots under the cope of Hea­ven.

I appeal to Your Lordship, and to all man­king, whether this be not sufficient to ju­stifie a passion, and wh [...]ther it be not a man's duty to express himself after the example of our Saviour with the same severity and de­served sharpness with which he treated the Scribes and Pharisees and Hypocrites of his time, nay, it is still more our duty to imi­tate that example, because there is greater cause and matter of indignation; for the Pharisees, though they were indeed Hypo­crites and deceivers, and as Josephus assures us, a pragmatical Sect, and very great med­lers with affairs of State, yet they were ma­ny of them admirable scholars, and men of great understanding, and though they may be justly upbraided with want of honesty, yet with want of learning they could not, they had that in abundance, and that was one reason that made them despise the Gospel at that rate that they did, as being preached by the Carpenter's Son, and by a few poor Fishermen and illiterate people.

But we are fallen into the hands of Fools as well as Knaves, men that have neither honesty, nor sense, nor learning, that preach as with the same lowdness that the Thunder [Page] does, or the Cataracts of Nile, which is mu­sick onely for Crocodiles and monsters, so with no better eloquence, or more intelligible meaning, and they encourage and animate one another, like Mariners weighing anchor, they set their shoulders to the government and muster all the strength and all the noise they can make, and resolve with themselves to unhinge the Kingdom, and overturn the world by importunity and clamour.

Wherefore let any expression be never so severe, yet I desire no allowance to be made me, onely let men consider whether what I say be true or no; for upon supposition that I speak no more than the truth, the things are of that consequence, that wonderfull, and yet that manifest and plain importance, that there can be no severity too much, no zeal too fierce, nor any Steliteutick or Satry too invective.

David in his time said it of himself that, That zeal of God's house had eaten him up, but we have lived to see the Phrase inverted, and seem to have eaten up the zeal of God's house; and if there be any thing that can excuse those bitter imprecations which David showrs in such plenty upon his enemies, which can­not [Page] well be done by any thing but by saying, that they were enemies to God and to Reli­gion as well as to him, then certainly we shall still be more excusable, or rather it will be highly commendable and praise-worthy in us if, without the curses of David, we onely give a due character of the seducers of our times, the disturbers of our peace, and the most dangerous enemies of manking; that the people may avoid them, and leave them, as they do very well deserve, to be a curse and calamity to themselves.

Let any man judge, if a concern for any thing be in any case excusable, whether it be fit to talk of matters of this nature and importance with the same indifference as if he were demonstrating a dry proposition in Euclid, or making out a crabbed probleme in Apollonius Pergeus, being very well satis­fied, nay, and perhaps overjoyed as Archi­medes was when he leap'd out of the Bath, and Pythagoras when he offered an Heca­tomb for a discovery, that he hath found the truth himself; and so sleeps quietly with an opinion of his skill, and with the satisfaction of a sober, mathematical assurance, but is not at all concerned whether any body else [Page] either know or believe as he does, and whe­ther they do or no, yet the discovery may be such, however difficult and intricate in it self, that it may be of little or no conse­quence to humane life.

Nay, I am so far from repenting the se­verity of any expression I have used, that though it should happen to me as it did to him in Horace, Populus me sibilat, the Mobile are displeased and angry at me, yet notwith­standing I would go on as he did, at mihi plaudo Ipse domi, and I shall be glad, when it seems good to fate, to walk along with him to the end of the verse, & tacita num­mos contemplor in Arca. But if any of that party shall pretend to take up the Quarter­staff against me, though he will doe well to follow my example, and take the advice of Horace along with him,

Sumite materiam vestris qui scribitis aequam
Viribus, & versate diu, quid ferre recusent
Quid valeant humeri—

yet if he behave himself with civility towards me, I will either not answer him at all, or I will doe it with respect according as his per­formance [Page] is; but if he have a mind to shew his angry parts, I will set him such a copy of Satyr, as neither he nor any of his party shall be able to follow, and I will let him see that I can doe what Isaac Vossius once threatned in a case of small moment in comparison of this, Ʋtimur nunc leni flabello, usuri etiam flagro si porrò molesti esse pergant, I will shew him that I have Scorpions as well as Whips, and that without translating Ovid against Ibis, I shall find matter enough at home to make him asham'd of himself and his performance; and without putting my self to the drudgery of imprecation, a thing very inconsistent with the goodness of my nature, which enclines me very strongly to wish well to all mankind, all I shall doe is to turn him upon himself, if he dare own his name, otherwise I have neither the patience to beat the air to no purpose, nor the cou­rage and hardiness to fight with Goblins, that vanish out of sight, and assault a man be­hind and before and on all sides at once, without any possibility of being hit them­selves: but let him own himself as an au­thour ought to do, and let him write so as to deserve an answer, and then let us have a [Page] clear stage and fair play, and from him no favour; or if instead of Satyr he have a mind to be more innocently wity, let him but mix a little seriousness with his wit, and let that seriousness be such as is not dull, and then I promise him (like Hippocrates his twins, a very old comparison, but it will be older before it is quite out of date) we will be wonderfull friends in the midst of the fray, and we will laugh and cry together, and I will follow him with a complement at the same time when I make a pass at the very heart of his cause, as the Retiarii in the Ro­man Theatres were used to doe by their An­tagonists, the Mirmillones, who had a fish graven or painted upon their shield:

Piscem peto,
Non te peto,
Quid me fugis, Galle?

But I had much rather that they, whoe­ver they are that shall think it for their own credit, for otherwise I am sure they will hardly doe it for the interest of their cause, to concern themselves with such an unfledg'd authour, whom they may catch with chaff, [Page] as well as bird-lime, as they please them­selves, I say, I had much rather that they would betake themselves to a serious and close way of writing, which notwithstan­ding all the sharpness of the following dis­course, which to be sure will be represented much greater than it is, I have very careful­ly observed in it; neither is there any thing which I should more hate in my self, or more despise in another, than for a man to lose his argument in an impertinent wilderness either of wit or anger.

Therefore if any of that party be dissa­tisfied, or hath a mind to pretend that he is so, with what I have said already upon the three following questions, in which all the matters in difference are contained.

First, Concerning Episcopal Government.

Secondly, Concerning humane impositions, in religious matters in the general, and

Thirdly, Concerning the particular impositi­ons that are the occasion, or pretence, of Sepa­ration from the Church of England.

Let him then enter the lists as soon as he pleases, and I promise Your Lordship I will not fail to answer him in defence of the e­stablish'd Religion, and for the quieting the [Page] minds of his Majestie's good subjects against either the tricks or the mistakes of inconside­rate or designing men; not that I pretend to be able to say much more upon these sub­jects than I have done already, but some men will not be convinced by any thing at the first hearing, let it be never so plain, but they must have it over and over in other words and in a new appearance, till by de­grees the truth is rendred so familiar to them as to subdue the prejudices they have imbi­bed against it, or the mistake so palpable, that obstinacy begins to blush and be asha­med.

And the better to prevent all artifice and cant, which do but perplex the cause and make all controversies endless, and cheat the world of their money and their time, to pre­vent all squabbling about authorities, which is an incompetent way of arguing in this case, because men that are not able to search into these things themselves will be sure to believe the quotations of their own side, whether true of false, or whether they be rightly applied or not. For this reason I propose that we lay all arguments but those of nature aside.

For if it be found upon principles that are universally acknowledged, and such as make their appeal to every common under­standing, that Episcopacy, that is, a superi­ority on the one hand, and a dependence on the other, is the most perfect form of Go­vernment both in Church and State, or in­deed that there can be no lasting govern­ment without it; that in the Church it secures the greatest reverence to the Clergy, by which they are the better enabled to influ­ence the people, and by consequence to an­swer the end of their institution and sepa­ration to the ministerial office; if it give the greatest incouragement to learning, if it streng­then the hands of discipline, as well with respect to the inferiour Clergy as the Layety, and if this be a natural means to secure the publick peace, then here is all that can be expected to justifie this form of government in the Church: and though the testimonies of antiquity may receive strength and advan­tage from the nature of things, which is the onely true immutable antiquity to which we must appeal, yet those very testimonies, let them be never so numerous, unanimous and positive, when they have nature against [Page] them, what are they but so many confessions of ignorance or design? of want of honesty, or want of skill?

So also in the second enquiry, if it shall be found that humane impositions in religi­ous matters are of absolute and indispensable necessity for the keeping any ecclesiastical so­ciety together, for the preservation of peace and unity among men; if it follow plainly from the consideration of humane nature and humane passions, as well as from the experience of our own and former times, that without such impositions we must crum­ble into sects as numerous as the motes that lie basking in a beam of the sun, or that lie basking in a beam of the sun, or that infinity of crowding stars by which the Ce­lestial Galaxy is adorned: this is abundantly sufficient from the necessity of such hu­mane institutions, to justifie their lawfulness, and to prove their obligation; and it is so far from being true, that there can be no external circumstance of religious worship appointed and ordained by men, which is not expresly revealed and set down in some place or other of the New Testament, that if on the contrary our Saviour and his Apostles had expresly told us that we must not so [Page] much as move an hand or a foot in any re­ligious assembly or affair without express li­cence and authority from them, which they have no where done, and yet at the same time had not adjusted the particular instan­ces of our behaviour in these matters, which they have not done neither, all the inference that could have been made from this would be, that we must not worship God at all, which is a very odd sort of divine revelati­tion.

Besides that, nothing can be more foo­lish than to perswade to charity, to talk per­petually of peace and love and such like luscious and delicious things, onely to make our mouths water, while at the same time we are deny'd the necessary means of secu­ring so desirable blessings to our selves.

It would be true at this rate not onely in the event but in the design too, that our Saviour came not to bring peace but a sword, and the end of his coming, if he had any at all, being onely to set the world together by the ears, as it must be if he de­ny the civil or ecclesiastical magistrate a power of determining those indifferent mat­ters, which he hath not any where deter­mined [Page] himself; this would be a plain argu­ment that he was a gross impostour, instead of being, as he is, the prince of peace, and the most powerfull preacher, as well as the most perfect example of obedience.

From all which it follows unavoidably as to the third enquiry, which is concerning the particular ceremonies or impositions that are excepted against, that it is abundantly sufficient that there is a great deal to be said for them, but nothing at all that can with any shew of reason be objected against them; and to except against a ceremonie without giving some other reason, than onely that a man cannot comply with it, or because he is not satisfied with its lawfulness, though he knows not why it should be unlawfull nei­ther, is an indefinite sort of exception that extends to one ceremonie as well as another, and with as good reason may be applied to all humane impositions whatsoever: where­fore unless the magistrate will utterly de­vest himself of all kind of power and autho­rity whatsoever, as all is included consequen­tially in this power of humane institutions in religious matters, he must lay down this as an unalterable rule and measure of proceeding [Page] never to dispense with any thing that is en­joined, merely because his subjects are trou­bled with the Mulligrubs, because they know not what they a [...]l, or what they would be at, or why they would have what they complain of altered and dispensed with; for this is to give up all into the hands of fancy, and which is still more dangerous, of design, and it is the same thing as if a Phanatick or his wife should long for a Crown jewel, not that they intend to make any use or advan­tage of it, but onely it is a pretty thing, and the good woman will miscarry if she have it not, for it is certain if they be grati­fied in this request, they will long for all the jewels one after another, and at last for the Crown and the prerogative themselves.

I am very far (My Lord) from going a­bout to detract from the great and worthy performances of those who have ransacked antiquity to vindicate and defend our church, either against the Romanists on the one hand, or the Separation on the other; but yet it cannot be denied, that this instead of ending the controversie hath but had the unhappi­ness to render it more perplext and difficult than before, and to swell the dispute into so [Page] large a compass that it is no more consi­stent with an ordinary leizure, than with an ordinary education and capacity to consider it: however it is of absolute necessity that this be done, that the onely pretences to antiquity may not lie on the wrong side; notwithstan­ding, that after we have done our best, when the best parts and the most accurate endea­vours have been employed, men that are not Judges of these things for themselves will ra­ther be cheated by their own writers than convinc'd by ours, and the writings of Blon­del, Salmasius and Davilleé, not to say any thing of that Kidderminster stuff, which as course and as unfit for service as it is, is the usual wear of the Schismaticks of our times, will always be in better esteem among some men, if there be no other expedient used to convince them, than the most irrefragable and unanswerable demonstrations of the e­piscopal Divines, who are either more able or more honest, or both of them, than they.

And though when antiquity does but con­firm the true notion of things, or rather is it self strengthened and confirmed by them, it be in a manner needless, yet when either the ancients themselves are on the wrong side [Page] of nature, or are misapplied through igno­rance, inadvertency or design to serve a turn, there is nothing so odious, so distast­full to the palate, and so disagreeable to the stomach of a wise man, as to see a page groan under a heap of quotations, and a margent as full fraught with testimonies to no purpose, or to a very bad one, as an O­range stuck with Cloves, or a Pheasant lar­ded with Bacon.

But where time and reason are both of them of a mind, there indeed is it a double satisfaction to us to see that our ancestours before us were wise men, and that we tread in their steps, but the true reason why we ought to follow their example, is not perfect­ly because they gave it, and for nothing else, for then we may follow bad examples, as well as good ones; but because their practice and ours is alike founded in the reason of things, and the interest of mankind, be­cause nature is unchangeable and always the same, and because experience cannot deceive us, though antiquity may.

I have therefore chosen, because I am sa­tisfied the venture is very safe, to put the stress of the whole controversie between the [Page] separatists and us upon this issue, that we may stand or fall as nature shall determine, and that we may proceed upon such principles as every man may judge and feel for him­self whether they be true or no.

If it be better for us to let loose the reins of Government, without reason and with­out end, as fast as any man that hath a bra­zen face, or a weak understanding, or a sini­ster design, shall come and say, My Conscience is tender, and it is but fit that Conscience should be heard (whether she can speak any thing for her self or no,) then let us let them loose, to make an experiment what the event will be, if former experiments will not resolve the case; but if it be better to keep up an uniform and strict discipline, if the interest of all be to be preferred before the humours of a few, and those of the meanest of the people, both for their quality and understanding; if all the fault of episcopal government and of humane institutions is, that they are not submitted to or obeyed as they should be; if this be a fault, not of the government or of the institutions themselves, but, of those that boggle at them and quarrel with them for no reason, and if the same humour and [Page] itch of disobedience may be as good an ar­gument against any government in the world, and against all institutions whatsoe­ver; if the Episcopacy be the best fitted to secure obedience, and to keep up discipline, to preserve peace and to reward merit, to make us happy and wise into the bargain, Then it is but fit and necessary that we conti­nue as we are, and that without regarding peevish and unwarrantable scruples which can have no good influence, and will admit of no bounds or limits to restrain them, we encourage one another to stand to our old post, and say to each other, remembring the signaculum Crucis which we have received in token of our being souldiers under the sacred banner of the Cross, as the Centuri­on said to his Ensign in Livy, when the se­nate was deliberating whether or no they should remove to Veii, Sta signifer, statue signum hic manebimus optimé.

And this way of procedure I am the more satisfied with, because it gives me a new assurance of the universal influence and undoubted truth of those principles which I have formerly laid down to be the square and measure of obligation, and which being [Page] applied to any particular case, will in every thing resolve what is true or false.

Plenius & melius Chrysippo & Crantore,

Principles that will obtain to the confusion of Popery, enthusiasm and every evill work, when the envy of this age is under ground, and when the heads of two or three Meta­physical Opiniatours are cold, whatever they may doe at present, of which I am not so­licitous, but am content to take men and things as I find them, with as little distur­bance and trouble as I can to my self.

Et mihi res, non me rebus submittere conor.

And as I have intimated already, nature and experience cannot deceive us, though antiquity may, it does not follow because such a polity or such a form of Government was in use among the ancients whether in church or state, that therefore the example of antiquity lays any manner of obligation upon us which is extrinsique to the reason of the thing, but as Livy saith of History in ge­neral, hoc illud est praecipuè in cognitione rerum [Page] salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli docu­menta in illustri posita monumento intueri: inde tibi tuaeque Reip. quod imitere, capias, inde foe­dum inceptu, foedum exitu, quod vites, I say, what he saith of History in general, the same is true of ecclesiastical history in parti­cular, and though it does not follow that the Episcopal government is therefore of neces­sity the best, because antiquity submitted to it, who possibly in this as well as many o­ther things may very well be mistaken, for the ancients were but men no more than we, yet when the history of all the several ages of the Church, shall not onely recommend this government to us by its perpetual and uninterrupted example, but shall also inform us over and above how usefull and expedient this government hath always been to the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church, and how fatal the disobedience of Presbyters to their Bishop hath been found, by being the occasion of great calamities and disorders in it, as well of old time, as now of late in the experience of our own age and nation; in this case antiquity backed by experience gives us all the assurance which it is possible for us to receive in a matter of [Page] this nature, that the Episcopal constitution as being found by experience to be the most wholsome for the preservation of the Chur­ches health, and for the preventing all those maladies and diseases to which the body Ec­clesiastick would otherwise be exposed, is therefore unquestionably the best that can be thought of, and hath besides a right of immemorial prescription, the advantage of long experience, which in matters of this nature, is the most powerfull reason, to re­commend it to us.

It is with government in the body poli­tick, as it is with medicines in the natural, the end of medicine is health, and the end of government is obedience and peace; and therefore though it does not follow because Hippocrates or Galen in a case proposed made such or such a recipe, consisting of such in­gredients, and compounded in such propor­tions together, that therefore the Physicians of our times whenever the same case occurs must of necessity prescribe after the same manner, for we must examine not onely in­to the prescription it self, but also into the success of it with respect to the patient, we must compare patient and patient, and [Page] then patient and prescription together, we must allow for the difference of climate, constitution and diet betwixt one patient and another, and if when all these things have been considered, such a course of phy­sick, or such a method of cure in such a case proposed shall be found to have been successfull in the time of those old Physi­cians and ever since, here is an Empirical demonstration which cannot easily deceive us, what we are to doe at this time of the day, and in this case antiquity joined to suc­cess is a very powerfull argument in behalf of the prescription or the method given, and look how much greater the antiquity is, and how much more frequent the cases that have occurred, and the good success that hath all along attended them have been, so much the stronger is the argument which is drawn from antiquity in their behalf, not so much for the sake of the antiquity it self, as for the success and good fortune of the course that hath been taken.

Wherefore the end of physick being health as the end of government is good order and obedience, and the fitness of means being to be measured by their suitableness to that end [Page] to which they are directed, it is manifest that experience must determine the controversie in both cases, and as that physick, or that diet or that air, is certainly the best, which hath the most wholsome and salutary effects, upon the natural body, so is that sort of establishment or polity whether in Church or State un­doubtedly the best, which hath always been found to be most productive of peace, most powerfully influential upon obedience and good order, and the best fitted to prevent the inconveniences with which the want or absence of government would be atten­ded.

Therefore the question is this, what sort of government is that which is most for the Churches health, and peace, and safety? is it a co-ordinate administration, or will it be better, for the obtaining of these ends, that its government, as it is in the body na­tural and in all other political bodies what­soever, do not consist of parts that are all of them of equal dignity or power, but that one part be dependent upon another, and that the whole be knit together by a steady and regular subordination?

Let us put the case in an army, can that army be well governed all whose officers have equal power and dignity with one a­nother? or did not the rebels themselves in the late unhappy times, when they raised an army, and levied an unnatural war against their king, did not they make this difference in the commissions which they gave, that some were to be Generals, others Major and Lieutenant Generals, others commanders of Tertia's or Brigades, Colonels of Regiments, and so down to Captains, Lieutenants and Ensigns? now either this depended upon the nature of government in the general, or it did not; if it did, as what is an army but an armed commonwealth or city submit­ting to certain rules of discipline and obedi­ence within themselves? then the nature of government is in both cases the same, and consequently a subordination in the church militant is every whit as necessary for the preservation of its unity and peace, as it was in the schism either militant or trium­phant. But if it do not depend upon the nature of government and society conside­red in the general, then there is no reason why an army may not be managed by a [Page] parity of officers, which if it could once be effected it would save a great deal of that unnecessary expence, which is now thrown away, as it should seem, to no purpose upon the great field-officers and the commanders in chief whether of whole Regiments or greater parties.

To carry this comparison a little farther, because the power of the Presbyters in our times is pretended to be swallowed up in that of the Bishop, like the rods of the Ma­gicians by the rod of Moses, contrary, as it seems, to the practice of the primitive times, we may observe that in the affairs of a pri­vate company, it is but reasonable that the captain should advise with the rest of the commission-officers, and not manage all things wholly by himself, but yet the power of summoning and dissolving the assembly is still entirely in him, and he hath a nega­tive at least, entirely to himself, so that without his consent and concurrence no­thing can be done, as to all those things that are within the cognisance and sphere of his authority, but if the commander in chief of the whole regiment were to consult with his officers for their common interest and [Page] safety, it is most likely that he would ad­vise onely with the captains of the respective companies, and in a great council of war, where so great a multitude would breed confusion, there the private captains are not regarded neither, but onely the [...]hief offi­cers and principal commanders of the grea­ter parties, in all which assemblies, for disci­pline and good order sake, the general must be supposed to have his negative, and as the assembly is called by his authority, so to have a power likewise of dissolving it as he pleases.

And this hath always been the custome in the Ecclesiastical model, a Bishop in the ancient practice of the Church was used al­most in all matters to advise and deliberate concerning the affairs of his diocese with his Presbyters about him, and from thence it came to pass that the whole assembly or the place where they met, is sometimes by the ancientest of the Greek fathers termed, [...], the Bishop being indeed, if, with­out using words which we do not under­stand we will frame to our selves an intel­ligible notion of the thing it self, onely the chief or superintendent of the Presbyters ha­ving [Page] an inspection over them and over the whole diocese, as they had over their parti­cular charges, but still the Bishop had his negative and consequently almost the whole power of administration in his own hands; for otherwise than this I can by no means un­derstand the language of St. Jerome, who though in this he be so widely mistaken that he will not have this government to have been ordained in the church by Christ him­self, yet he confesses that it was as old as the contentions between Paul and Apollos and Ce­phas, and that it was made use of as an ex­pedient to restore the churches peace, which I think to be a very apt translation of those words, ut schismatum semina tollerentur, but now what peace there could be, or how this was a possible expedient of procuring it, where the Bishop had not a negative voice in the assembly, I confess I do not understand.

Again as no laws could be made with­out the episcopal Le veult, and on the con­trary all proceedings were stopt in every particular diocesan assembly by the nega­tive saviseroit of the Bishop, so as to those canons and constitutions that were enacted, the Bishop was the person who was chiefly [Page] concerned to look after their performance and to punish their neglect; and as no ecclesiasti­cal sanction could be made without him, so the executive power was in a manner entire­ly his, he was to see that every pastour did his duty, he was to censure and punish the delinquents against it, and in a controversie arising whether this or that particular pastour had broken his canonical obedience or no, or done any thing which was disagreeable to his function or his obligation, the last dioce­san appeal was to the Bishop, and without gran­ting him as much power as this comes to, it is utterly impossible to make sense of the words of St Jerome, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, ut schisma­tum semina tollerentur; for how the bishop could be said in every diocese to be set over the Presbyters, how the care of the whole church or diocese could be said to be com­mitted to him, and that for this end, to pre­serve the peace of the church, or how that peace could be preserved without all this power which I have allotted to him, fateor me scire juxta cum ignarissimis, and if there be any man else that can explain it to me, [Page] let him pass from hence forward for the De­lian Diver or for the Delphick Apollo.

But though in this or that particular diocese the power of the Presbyters seems to have been somewhat greater than it is now-a-days, and yet, as I have proved, it was not so con­siderable neither, yet as the Bishop did ad­vise with his Presbyters as to the affairs of his own diocese, and perhaps did scarce doe any thing of moment without their concurrence and direction in it, so in the Provincial Sy­nods which were convened together for the more regular and uniform administration of several such diocesses together, both as to matters of discipline and belief and much more in the general councils or oecumenical dy­ets of the whole Christian Church, the whole affair was transacted by the Bishops, and yet the canons and constitutions that were then agreed upon were obligatory to all the Pres­byters within the jurisdiction of those Bi­shops of which the assembly consisted, and these constitutions did without question de­termine the most important cases, they appli­ed a remedy to all the greater evils of the church, and laid down all the most general and most concerning rules of discipline and [Page] obedience, so that the conferences of the re­spective Bishops with their particular clergy, so far as any thing new was established or enacted by them were onely about particu­lar cases which could not be sufficiently fore­seen or provided for by the larger assemblies, and for the most part about matters of lesser moment.

But the Presbyters, as small a share as they had in the government of the church, for it appears upon more accounts than one to have been but very small, yet being used upon so frequent occasions to advise with their Bishop, and the Bishop not being used to determine any new matter or issue out a­ny new order without their consent, this was in process of time, an occasion of the Pres­byters aspiring after more power, of their confronting and opposing their Bishop, and taking upon them more than became them or than was for the peace of the Church, which seems to have given occasion in part to Clemens his epistle to the Corinthians, and to Ignatius his so frequent and so passionate exhortations to the Presbyters to pay that duty and obedience which they owed to their Bishop, as the messenger of God and the [Page] vicegerent of Christ in that particular dio­cese wherein he was placed, but when all these endeavours of good and holy men, proved ineffectual, as all exhortation is inef­fectual with the generality of mankind, where there is not a power sufficient to force obe­dience, it seemed good at last to the wise­dom of the Church, to remove the occasi­ons of such evils for the future by enlarging the power of the Bishop, and to curb the in­solence of the Presbytery by removing its cause, which was their meeting together with him in the diocesan convocation upon any occasional emergence that might happen; but yet the Bishop was not by this means rendred absolute neither, but there lay an appeal from him to the Metropolitan or Patriarch, to a provincial or oecumenical dyet, and to the standing canons and consti­tutions of the church, which it was not in his power to violate or alter, and in which all the great lines of obedience, were con­tained.

And this alteration in the government of the church depended upon the same reason with the disanulling popular elections either of Bishops or particular pastours, which being [Page] found by long and wofull experience to be the occasion of perpetual tumult and dis­order in the church, the fruitfull parent of everlasting feuds, animosities and factions to the unspeakable detriment both of church and state, was in process of time partly disu­sed of it self by the peoples being weary of so troublesome a right, and partly by the inter­position of imperial rescripts, and by the au­thority of the civil laws of our own and o­ther nations.

It was very natural in the beginnings of the church to allow some what more to the Presbyters in consultation with their Bishop, and to the people in the choice of both, than was consistent with the policy of after-times because,

Pueris dant crustula blandi
Doctores elementa velint ut discere prima.

when churches and ecclesiastical societies were first to be gathered, men were to be allured by privileges, and to be enticed by power, a thing of which all mankind are naturally very fond, as well as to be convin­ced by arguments to espouse the cause and [Page] interest of Christianity; but when the reli­gion of Christ had taken deep root in the world, when the temptations of honour and preferment, and the dangers of persecution from the Pagan powers were now utterly removed and extinguished, and when at the same time, the world being turned Christian, the dangers and inconveniences of popular elections increased with the number of the electours, and the Presbytery by reason of their number began to be formidable to the Bishop, as well as troublesome and tumultu­ous among one another, which must of ne­cessity have been the occasion of very great calamities, and very sad as well as frequent revolutions if a timely stop were not put, this made it necessary upon the same princi­ple of convenience to abrogate this power, upon which it seems first to have been in­troduced, if indeed it were introduced upon any reason at all but onely a gradual and insensible encroachment in both cases, and upon the supinity in or neglect of the gover­nours of the church, who did not possibly foresee those horrid inconveniences with which this way of management would af­terwards be attended.

For my part I am so firmly of opinion, that the great design of religion is charity, good-will and peace, that I take it to be a certain argument of an institution or custome essentially bad when it is directly calculated for the disturbance of the world, and what­ever becomes of the antiquity of the busi­ness, which is used to afford matter of spe­cious discourse on both sides of the questi­on in several important cases and particular­ly in these which I have so lately mentioned; yet if it could be proved that antiquity and interest were fallen out with one ano­ther, it is in this case but reasonable to con­sider that the longer we and our fore-fathers have laboured under the painfull and preju­dicial consequences of errour, the more it would behove us to think of a reformation, which if it be not allowed to be a good argument in behalf of truth, the Protestant Religion will be utterly unable to defend it self; and we should consider likewise that even in point of antiquity, nature, and the standing interest of the world are much an­cienter things than any the oldest custome can pretend to be, and therefore if antiqui­ty be the measure by which we are resolved [Page] to proceed, it will follow that nature and interest must prescribe to custome and not custome to them.

Nay, if it could be never so demonstrably proved that our Saviour did by his example or by his institution recommend to posterity the presbyterian modell, or the congregational way, though it can hardly be supposed that he who was God as well as man, could be guilty of so great a mistake in the true art and mystery of government, yet these being found afterwards by experience to be very inconsistent with the great end of the Gospel, which is charity and peace, it is manifest that the means having onely a relative or conditional nature, and being to be either used or rejected in proportion to their fitness or unsuitableness to their end, the end of the Gospel, which is peace, would have obliged posterity to alter that institution, though of Christ himself, which was found by experi­ence to be inconsistent with it; or rather, since the declared design of our Saviour's coming into the world was to reconcile God to men, and men to one another, and since the causeless feuds and animosities of men do set them at enmity with God, as well as a­mong [Page] themselves, since they extinguish that calm, serene and charitable spirit, without which neither our persons nor our sacrifices can be accepted, since it is impossible, in the language of St. John to love God whom we have not seen, unless we can also love our brother whom we have seen, this would have been a plain argument, when he preached peace and yet established such a form of government as had a direct or a comparative tendency to confusion, one of which is the case of the Independent churches, and the other of the Presbyterian form with relation to the more perfect and compleat establishment of the Episcopal subordination; I say, it would have been a plain argument either that he had war in his heart, notwithstanding that his words were smoother than oyle, and that though he talked of peace, yet he designed conten­tion, or else if he were sincere in what he did, that he did not understand the message he came about, and in either of those cases he must be acknowledged to be a gross impostour, when he pretended to be sent from God, for God sends no man to disturb the world, un­less it be for our sins, as other great plagues and calamities are inflicted, but how was he [Page] then that auspicious, mercifull and benign Prince, the Prince of peace, and the son of him that is the father of mercies, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed?

And for the same reason I affirm that all the declaimers of the separation, whose lungs are employed in blowing the coals of strife, and in dividing friends, relations and coun­trymen from one another, cannot possibly pretend a mission from heaven for what they doe, unless they can first prove that the terms of communion in the church of En­gland are unlawfull to be submitted to, nay, that they are utterly inconsistent with salva­tion, but when they offer no manner of rea­son for so destructive a schism, so pernici­ous to our peace at home, and to our power and interest abroad, but onely tell us with a splay mouth and a ridiculous tone that they cannot in conscience, that is, they will not comply; (for this reason is infinite, and therefore ought not to be allowed without a more particular and satisfactory plea) that such a thing is superstitious, they cannot tell why, and that they are for greater purity and greater edification, that is, for infinite schism, separation and confusion; for noise [Page] and non-sense and eternal dashing of one disagreeing party against another, as if the breach of charity, the destruction of good order, and the subversion of government were the true methods of edification, that is, as if building up and pulling down were the same, or as if they that have the meanest parts, the least acquired learning, the most confused sentiments and the most unintelligible notions, which is plainly the case of the Nonconformists at this day, were the best qualified for in­structing the people; or as if they that hate the government and persecute all that love it, with a virulence not to be equall'd by a­ny but themselves, were fit to be entrusted with the doctrine of obedience, and were to be permitted in a christian common wealth to have the conduct and governance of souls that have a civil capacity as well as a sacred, and are obliged for God's sake to be subject to every lawfull ordiance of man, and cer­tainly, either nothing is lawfull in this world, or else humane impositions and Episcopal govern­ment are so, when they are found by the ex­perience of so many ages to be either of ab­solute necessity to the publick peace which is the case of the former, or at least the best [Page] fitted to establish and secure it, which is the true pinch of the controversie, as to the latter:

Quis Coelum Terrae non misceat & mare Coelo?

Or may it not be consistent, even with the meekness of a Christian spirit to call for fire from heaven upon such bold miscreants that pretend a commission from it to unhinge the world, and to set all manking together by the ears, onely for the sake of two or three signisicant ceremonies, and because they are significant, that is, because they tend to that which they plead so much for, and talk so loudly concerning, that is, edification, for o­therwise what they signifie I cannot imagine, and I entreat some of them to tell me.

And yet if these things were abated, it is not to be hoped without a severe prosecution of the penal laws, that ever the separation will cease together with them, which under the disguise of religion is indeed nothing else but a Republican faction, which the enemies of monarchy will be sure to cherish so long as they can or dare, so that it is observable though they have been driven fourty times from one [Page] station to another, and though they know not where to fix to entrench themselves safe­ly against the assaults of truth, though the pleas alter almost with the seasons of the year, and with the returns of the day, yet the separation it self continues still the same, or hath rather been every day more obstinate and inveterate than the other, till the laws began to rouse their drowsie heads, and shew that they were not merely a dead and lifeless letter, which it is natural for a Phanatick to despise.

Nay, though there were not, as there is, in the bottom of Phanaticism, a Republican design, yet what terms of accommodation can possibly be expected, when there are so many whose onely trade is schism, and who get the very bread they eat by keeping up their party; whose kitchins must be cold and bellies empty, whenever that fatal day shall overtake them, in which the Conventicles are not full and reeking with the unnatural steams of separation.

However such is the wise temperament and constitution of the church of England, that it hath left the Presbyters no reason to complain, inasmuch as they are not obliged [Page] by any Canon or Ecclesiastical sanction to which themselves have not given their free and full assent in convocation, by their re­presentatives at least, if not in their own per­sons, which is exactly the same sort of assent which the free subjects and free-holders of England give to those laws which are enacted in Parliament, their consent being included in that of their Knight or Burgess, and the major part of the representatives including the whole, as reason and custome do require in all assem­blies of this nature, is at the same time inter­preted as the act of the commons of England, who are represented in the whole assembly.

But it is easie to see by the disorders that frequently happen in so small a number, what confusion it would make, if all the people or the free-holders of England, were actually to have a vote in the passing of e­very law, as by the disturbances which of­ten-times happen in the Livery, which is a smaller body, in the Guild-hall of London, it is obvious to any man at the first sight how much more intolerable the mischief would be if all the freemen were admitted to a right of suffrage, from whence to avoid those confusions they are now excluded.

And the same tumults and disorders would no question happen if all the Clergy-men in England being in both orders, were admitted to a liberty of voting in the convocation, for Clergy-men have passions and designs too, as well as other men, and being supposed by their function to be of the wiser and lear­neder sort, this naturally makes every man the more zealous to betray his ignorance, when he cannot shew his wit or understan­ding; he will be sure to make up in noise and bustle what he wants in knowledge, and it will always happen in this case, that the Bishops and the wisest and best men will be born down with the crowd of the infe­riour Clergy, who being men oftentimes of little maintenance and as little parts, will as naturally comply and side with the humour of the people, as it is natural for the people themselves in all nations, as often as they can or dare to affront their governours, and disobey the laws, which however just and e­quitable in themselves, and however well tem­pered and proportioned to the happiness of those to whom they are prescribed, they look upon as yokes, that are not to be born and will be sure to break them as if they were so.

To which it is to be added, that where so many are concerned in the dispatch of an af­fair, besides the feuds and contentions, which different humours, interests and designs would create, it would occasion infinite delays and difficulties in their proceedings, which would often times prove fatal to their designs, and utterly disappoint the end of their coming together.

And what hath been said of the whole Clergy's meeting in one or in the two several and distinct convocations of Canterbury and York, the same inconveniences would in pro­portion attend the diocesan assemblies, if a­ny such were practised, wherein the Bishop had no greater power than onely to be as it were the Chairman or Prolocutour of the Synod, but could not move one foot himself with­out the consent of a majority of the members of which it was composed, especially in so populous a diocese as Your Lordship's is, where the power and interest of a factious Clergy-man may be of such dismal conse­quence to the peace of the church; but such is Your Lordship's paternal condescention, mixt with an exact judgment and profound wisedom, that You have found out an hap­py [Page] temperament betwixt the authority of the Bishop on the one hand and the dange­rous power of the Presbyters on the other, by admitting your Clergy to so frequent con­ferences and familiar debates concerning the common interest of the church, and the re­spective good and advantage of their parti­cular charges, yet so as not to admit them to a liberty of controlling their Bishop, or invest them with a power which may be em­ployed to bad purposes as well as be made usefull and serviceable to good ones, of which though at present there can be no danger, in a diocese so well stored with men equally conspicuous for integrity, prudence and lear­ning, for loyalty to the King, and obedience to their Bishop, and love to one another, and care of their particular charges and flocks, yet that may be pernicious and destructive in its example which is not so in it self, and power when it is once given to the best of men, is not so easily taken away from worse that may happen to succeed them, as it may be employed to purposes very contrary and opposite to those for which it was intended; otherwise there is no question but it is the indispensible duty of every Bishop, to main­tain [Page] a constant intercourse and correspon­dence with his Clergy, that he may the bet­ter understand, as well them, as the diocese which he is to govern, and may be the bet­ter enabled to make a judgment of both, and accordingly to proportion the expedients of publick peace and safety with a wise and skilfull hand; and that he may conciliate that love and reverence to his person by the affability and obliging sweetness of his con­versation, without which all power is ty­ranny and force, and will not onely be resisted but overcome. Wherefore I pray God that the church may always be blest as long as time shall endure, with such faithfull, vigi­lant and prudent Bishops as Your Lordship, and with so pious, learned and obedient a Clergy, as that in which this diocese in par­ticular and the whole nation in general is at present happy.

But what it is that they mean who would extend the power of the Presbyters with re­lation to their Bishop any farther than this, or who declaim so loudly for the peoples right in the election of their pastours, I can­not possibly conceive, unless it be that they do seriously design and purposely intend to [Page] bring us all into confusion, which it is not much to be doubted but there are some that do, or that being engaged in an interest they are ashamed to retract their errour, and therefore grasp at all arguments how weak so­ever to defend it, which it is very natural for mankind to doe; or lastly, that they are not so wise men as they would be thought to be, and that they do not see into the pernicious consequences of so mischievous a doctrine, which stands condemned by the unalterable decrees of nature, and by the fundamental maximes upon which cities are built, and by which humane society is supported.

I should be sorry to perceive my self thus insensibly engaged in so long a disquisition concerning the natural grounds upon which the episcopal government relies, very much contrary to my first intention which was far from any thought of treating so distinct­ly, and as it were ex professo at this time up­on this subject, did I not hope to doe some service to the church by giving an account of my sentiments upon it, and were I not possessed with a very great inward as­surance that this way of procedure in the matter under debate, that is, by an appeal [Page] to the Principles of nature and to the funda­mental maximes of society, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, or of what kind soever, is that which is liable to the least exception, and is by consequence the most certain and in­fallible expedient of bringing those with whom we have to doe, to a sense of their duty and an acknowledgment of their mistake; which if it could be done, it would be happy for us all, and therefore with Your Lordship's good leave I will proceed to what remains, refer­ring my self humbly to the things that have been or shall be spoken upon a question of so great importance, to intercede with Your Lordship and all that shall reade this Preface in my behalf, if by my too great length I have offended,

Wherefore to improve the comparison of an army, that is, an armed city or society, yet a little farther, for it is not yet stretched out to its full length, since it appears so plainly by the consent of all ages and by the constant practice of the world, that such a body of men cannot be managed by a pa­rity of officers, the next thing to be conside­red is whether the imparity or superiority of one officer over another be consistent with [Page] an equality of salary or revenue? and for this we have the same universal experience and consent, that the pay of the greater officers is proportionably larger according to their respective dignity and place, and the same is to be seen in civil as well as military em­ployments, that the great officers of state, the Judges of the law, and ministers of pub­lick justice, according to their respective dignity and superiority over one another, so are the pensions and advantages annext to their employments for the most part propor­tionably greater; and if the church so far as concerns the general nature of a society be the same, and do as naturally require an im­parity of officers as either the civil or milita­ry subordination, so do the several impari­ties of dignity and power as unavoidably call for an inequality of revenue, the reason of which in all the three cases is this, that man­kind are used to pay a reverence to their su­periours, not so much for their own sakes, as for the sake of some outward appearance, formality and shew, for hospitality which they keep, and for the train and equipage that attends them, and therefore this is ano­ther fault of the Presbyterian government [Page] with hath not yet been mentioned, that it can never be so readily obeyed by the people, because it wants those outward appearances of magnificence and splendour, which are the natural causes of reverence and esteem among men, and which it is much more easie for them to obey, than to submit themselves to the disciplinarian rigour of such as are upon the level with themselves; for this is deeply rooted in the very nature of government, that men will always pay a reverence to the port and grandure of those that are placed over them, but if you devest them of their trappings and attendance, they lose their authority together with them, and will as infallibly be despised, as ever they were esteemed or reverenced before.

It is true indeed that power without wise­dom will lose it self, and will unavoidably produce either hatred or contempt, by ty­ranny on the one hand, or by too much ea­siness and softness on the other; but it is every whit as true that though wisedom be that for which all mankind have a natural inward reverence and veneration, yet whether it be from emulation, or ambition, or whatever be the cause, but so it is in experiment, [Page] which is the surest way to distinguish truth and falshood in these matters, that the per­son of a wise man is usually disregarded, where the splendour and appearance of a great one is wanting, at least thus much must be acknowledged on all hands to be true, that a wise and good man with the ad­vantages of honour and preferment suitable to his worth, is capable of doing more good in the world, and of influencing mankind more powerfully by his authority and ex­ample, than he that wants those advantages to recommend him.

Wherefore the great stress of the question lies here, is it at all necessary that there should be any set apart to the office of the mini­stery, that is to say, to be the preachers and examples of obedience and good life? If it be not, if we are so governable and so good of our selves that we stand in need of no monitour to put us in mind of our duty, I see no need at all we have of any Clergy to instruct us; for at this rate every man would be a Priest to himself, his life would be the best of Sermons to men, and the most powerfull and effectual prayer to God; mu­tual examples would preach to one another, [Page] they would encourage and approve them­selves, they would excite and animate each other, and the earth would be as happy as heaven it self, the habitation of the blessed, and the seat of glorified and immortal spi­rits.

But since the case is clear otherwise, since it appears by every days experience that the world is overrun by luxury and vice, by e­vil habits, and by bad examples, by strife and faction, by animosities, contentions, quarrels, feuds and emulations; since these are the great plagues of humane life, and since the removal of these, or at least the a­bating, as much as is possible, of their malig­nity and destructive influence, is the greatest blessing and benefit that can befall us, and yet a task so difficult to be performed, that all the zeal and diligence of the best and the wisest men is little enough to bring so happy and so desirable an event to pass, it follows unavoidably from the consideration of these things,

First, that it is naturally necessary that in every nation there should be a regular and standing Priesthood, whose business and em­ployment it should be to perswade to charity, [Page] good-will and friendship, to preach obedi­ence, repentance and amendment, and to exhort to a constant and assiduous practice of all whether personal or political vertues, which are the onely expedients of publick and of private peace.

And, Secondly, that for the better enfor­cing the doctrine which they preach, they should have an honourable subsistence dealt among them, lest otherwise their persons and their functions fall into contempt, which they cannot doe without detriment to the publick, if it be true, what cannot without abundance of waywardness and wilfulness be denied, that such an order of men is at all usefull or serviceable to it.

And because all greatness is in it self not an absolute, but a comparative thing, it is ma­nifest that the grandeur of the Clergy, must be taken in proportion from the other parts of the government, that so all the parts of the civil and ecclesiastical state may have a symmetry with one another; for instance, there ought to be a Bishop of a diocese as well as a Lord Lieutenant of a County, a metropolitan of more dioceses taken toge­ther, as well as a Praetor, Proconsul, or Bassa [Page] of a Province, and a patriarchal, as well as an imperial seat having several such Provin­ces under its jurisdiction.

The reason of which is founded in the nature of society, and in the unquestiona­ble maxims of the truest policy, that there ought always to be a proportion and har­mony inviolably preserved betwixt the civil constitution and the ecclesiastical; and I ap­peal to any man of common understanding whether, besides the envy and opposition that such an establishment would meet with, it would not be ridiculous and monstrous in the body politick, for any Clergy-man to challenge or arrogate to himself the state, revenue and equipage of a Patriarch in an Hans Town of Germany, or in one of the an­cient commonwealths of Italy or Greece; or whether it would not as infallibly be an e­qual deviation from the rules of govern­ment, if in a large Empire converted to Christianity, such as the Roman was of old, after the time of Constantine the great, no Clergy-man should be higher than a Parish Priest.

I have very frequently in my mind despi­sed that Phanatick argument against Popery, [Page] (God keep us from such defenders of the Protestant Religion) that Paul worked with his own hands, and Peter was a poor fisher­man, great in nothing but his faith and suf­ferings, and in the supernatural gifts that were bestowed upon him; whereas his pre­tended successour in the Apostolical chair, as he is, at this day, a very great temporal Prince, rowling in wealth, and armed with power, and furnished with all the Regalia belonging to the Triple Crown, so he as­sumes at least a spiritual authority over all the Princes and potentates of the Christian world.

For though I do not believe the Pope or any Bishop to have such a power over Prin­ces as that they may depose them, or ab­solve their subjects from their allegiance, or that they can commission any to hurt or annoy their sacred persons, and much more to destroy or kill the Lord's annointed, to whom our Saviour and the Apostles them­selves have given us so powerfull examples and so frequently inculcated Precepts of o­bedience, whose persons are and ought to be inviolable by the laws of nature, and by the unalterable constitutions upon which all [Page] humane society is founded, which can ne­ver be at peace within it self, if the sove­reign be accountable to any power but of God.

And though I do not think there can be such a thing in nature as an universal Bishop, any more than there can be an oecumenical Monarch whom all mankind shall obey, it being an unmanageable and unwieldy charge which no one man can possibly undergo with so much care and vigilance as is intrin­sick and essential to the duty of a Bishop; yet thus much I believe, that let a temporal do­minion be as large as it will, it is necessary to the ends of an ecclesiastical society, which is to provide for the peace and unity of all its members, that as there is one King or Monarch over the whole, so there should also be one Patriarch or Metropolite, to whom all the rest of the Bishops should be in some sort accountable, and upon whom they should have a dependence, as their respective dioceses are accountable to themselves, and as the particular flocks are likewise to pay a spiritual obedience to the several pastours or presbyters that are placed over them; be­cause by this means it comes to pass that [Page] the government is all of a piece, and the unity of the church, which is Christ's body, is preserved, by the members being fitly framed together, as well with respect to one another, as to their head.

Without this it is impossible to prevent schisms and contentions in the church, and by consequence troubles and revolutions in the state, or at least there is not all the care taken to prevent them, which humane pru­dence and foresight might have used; and for the same reason that there are such dif­ferences and inequalities in power, there ought also to be a like disparity in the out­ward formalities of secular appearance and greatness, otherwise the establishment of such a subordinate power will be a design that will not take effect, an establishment that can neither be so strong nor so lasting as it is intended to be.

For as obedience is the cause of peace, so are respect and reverence the most natural and the most lasting causes of obedience, and it is that which they call the Typhus se­cularis, the pomp and vanity of this wicked world; as vain and as wicked as it is, it is a shew of grandeur, an appearance of power, [Page] a plentifull table, a numerous dependance, and a long train of moenical servants, be­longing to a wise man, who knows how to make use of these things for the good of the world, that is the most certainly produc­tive cause of reverence and respect; it is that which, bating the terrours of the rods and axes, and setting the fears of punishment a­side, hath a magnetick nature to attract obe­dience, and a power of persuasion to make it an easie and a voluntary thing: Whereas though it be true that no society can subsist without fear, yet it is true likewise that it can never possibly be strong and lasting, unless that fear be tempered by esteem and love; and as the latter of these without the former would be every whit as unconstant and un­certain as the changeable humour of a fickle mistress, so would the former divorc'd and separated from the latter, be in its subject the vassallage of slaves, and in its object the barbarity and fierceness of a cruel tyrant, which will not be endured any longer than needs must.

For man is naturally a disobedient crea­ture, and therefore when he feels himself a­bused and opprest, there is his interest added [Page] to his natural inclination to prompt him to rebell; but when a government proceeds by wise and sober measures, though every man would be glad to be uppermost himself, yet when he sees a moral impossibility lying in his way, that ever he should arrive to the top of his desires, and when he can propose greater and more certain advantages to him­self by obeying his superiours than by con­spiring or murmuring against them, this creates in him an artificial or a secondary in­clination to be content with his condition, and to obey the authority that is placed o­ver him; and still the wiser any man is, the more he considers the mischiefs of conten­tion, the sad effects of confusion, the grea­ter likelyhood that there is of losing his own fortune in the publick scramble, than of getting another man's, besides the tenderness that all men have for life, and the folly of en­countring with the most dreadfull dangers upon an improbable prospect of advantage, and this makes him the more willing and rea­dy to acquiesce in present things, and to pro­pose to himself no other than such advanta­ges, as may be acquired with the good leave of the government, and with consistence to his duty.

But where the mold and frame of the constitution it self is such, that men are in a manner upon a levell with their gover­nours, and do by consequence universally despise them, here is a conspiracy ready for­med, without the White-horse consults or the Wild-house caballs, to resist and overthrow it, and the general disposition which is in all to disobey, makes the government it self pre­carious and uncertain, which was the great fault of the Presbyterian establishment; for, besides that equality is the parent of disor­der, the eternal source of strife, animosity and contention, and breaks out unavoidably into independency, anarchy and confusion, I say besides this, men do not so easily sub­mit themselves to the discipline in Cuerpo, as to the solemnity of the present constitution, and to the grave and fatherly reproofs or censures of a wise and learned Bishop; so that what they wanted of the natural causes of obedience, they were forced to supply by severity and rigour, or rather, every thing seems like rigour and severity, where we have a mean or no opinion of the persons that command, for every thing they enjoin hath the force and appearance of tyranny [Page] and usurpation, and arbitrary government, when the governours placed upon the levell with our selves do not look as if they had a natural right to challenge any duty or obe­dience from us.

The contrivers of this modell were very sensible of this disadvantage, and therefore the better to reconcile the people to it, they very wisely called their lay-neighbours in, to come and take upon them a share of the ad­ministration; the lay-elders were to rule the Parishes and to fill the consistories, and the people, which is without question a very fine sort of government, were to be gover­ned by themselves, not considering that as lay-men neither are nor can be fit judges in ecclesiastical matters, so in the general they do not understand sufficiently the nature of laws and the design of punishment, they have not sufficiently considered the wise pro­portions and temperaments of mercy and justice, they have not for the most part such a sense of humanity, or such a comprehen­five prospect of the interest of the world, and of the natural issues and results of hu­mane actions, as is requisite to qualifie them duely for the charge of being publick censors [Page] and perpetual supervisors over the belief and manners of their brethren; but it oftentimes comes to pass that he who is the richest man in a Parish, and by that means puts in most powerfully for a mongrell Presbyter, is very far from being either the wisest or the honestest in that circuit, and if he be of an insolent humour, as many of that sort are when they get into power, for want of stu­dy and liberal education, (besides the con­stitutional frailties which are common to all men) if his temper be rather overweening than overwise, and if he have gotten his e­state by injustice and oppression: I need not say what an excellent government we are like to have, when men thus qualified are got into the saddle, the thing speaks but too plainly and too loudly for it self, so that this device though a very proper expedient, till the inconveniences of it began to be experi­enced, to cully in the vulgar to a comply­ance with this promising modell, that see­med as if it were intended to make all men governours, yet upon experiment it will al­ways be found to be one of the true causes that will for ever render the Presbyterian go­vernment an odious and an intollerable thing.

It is absolutely impossible that any sort of society, be it civil, be it sacred, or of what kind soever, should subsist, without some laws to govern it self by, or without censures and punishments in case of disobedience; and be­cause the unity of the church depends very much upon that of the Clergy, who are its officers, among themselves, therefore it is very natural for a man to ask this question,

—Quis custodiet ipsos
Custodes—

Who are they to whom the inspection or supravision of the Clergy themselves does most properly and rightfully belong, or who are they to whom it is best and safest that the government and superintendencie of the Clergy should be committed in order to this end, namely, that the peace and unity of the church may be preserved? And I an­swer, that it is best it should be intrusted in the hands of such overseers as shall be cho­sen for that purpose out of their own num­ber, and that for two reasons.

First, that all mankind do most easily, most willingly and readily obey those of [Page] their own order and profession, the reason is because all men have a passionate love for themselves, which though they will not own at every turn, yet we may discern it plain­ly by a fondness which they are subject to express for the most faint resemblances of themselves in others; a tradesman or artifi­cer, setting other considerations, which are nearer him, aside, hath a greater kindness for one of his own trade or company, for a brother, as he calls him, of his craft and profession than another; a mariner would chuse to be commanded by a captain like himself that hath been bred in a seafaring life, and a souldier had rather serve under an old beaten officer, that perhaps was once a com­mon souldier, like himself, than under some novice or unexperienced youth who hath nothing but a great birth and fortune to re­commend him, nay he would take the seve­rest discipline in good part from such an one, when yet if the other should inflict the same severity for the same offence it might cause an embroilment and disorder in the army; if they mutiny for want of pay, the promise of such an one that he will look after it, shall signifie more with them than if ano­ther [Page] had paid them down half their arrears, they will follow him chearfully into the greatest dangers, and though it be at him­self that they have taken perhaps a very ex­cusable and justifiable displeasure, yet his bare presence and appearance among them shall have a wonderfull eloquence to perswade them to be quiet, it is like old friends and lovers that are fallen out, they are glad on both sides to accept of any offers of reconciliati­on, because there is kindness at the bottom, and they have a complacency in one ano­ther.

Upon the same account it is, that men that are far from home are used to be migh­tily pleased when they meet with a country­man of theirs, and much more with one of the same town or neighbourhood with them­selves, although it may be when they were at home, they had no knowledge of him; and let them be where they will, yet if a man in his childhood have been but playfellow or schoolfellow, if it so happen that he was born in the same parish or neighbourhood with another, who is famous for any art or skill, or is arrived to any great honour or preferment, the man whenever he talks of [Page] it is almost as proud and as well pleased as if himself had been the very person that is so wise, so skilfull or so great, and if he him­self had been to prefer one into the same dig­nity or high emploiment, supposing that he had no greater interest to conduct his choice, he would infallibly prefer his countryman or his townsman before any other competi­tour whatsoever, merely because he is so, and because of a certain imaginary resem­blance and likeness with himself.

Thus men that are of kin to greatness do reap a pleasure and satisfaction from it, though they have neither honour nor estate themselves; and they who in a mean fortune are yet descended of an ancient and illustri­ous stock, do take a pride in thinking fui­mus Troes, and for the likeness which they fancy betwixt themselves and their progeni­tours they attribute all their honours, their actions, their endowments, their vertues, their successes in some sort to themselves.

To conclude, a Monk hath usually a pas­sion for his own order, a scholar hath the greatest kindness for those that are skilfull in his particular attainments, for his own Col­lege, his own University, and every man [Page] hath a comparative fondness for every thing and person, wherein either nature hath made or education painted the least imaginary re­semblance of himself.

To which it is to be added, that those honours and preferments which the gover­nours of the body ecclesiastick, being them­selves members of the same body, enjoy, as they are very natural and very certain ex­pedients of procuring reverence and esteem to their persons, and by consequence of ma­king them fitter for the end of government, which is obedience; so they are so far from being grudged or repined at, by the inferi­our Clergy, that they do naturally rejoice in them, and as they do in some sense enjoy those honours and those preferments for the reason of self-love and self-likeness which hath been lately mentioned, so the conside­ration of them inspires them with gallant thoughts and vertuous designs to make themselves capable of the same rewards and dignities in time to come: for it is certain that all great attainements in any kind what­soever are owing to an honest and a gene­rous ambition, and Mr. Hobs saith some­where excellently well, nisi qui laudem amant, [Page] pauci faciunt laudabilia, so we may say with e­qual truth, nisi qui ambiunt honores, pauci fa­ciunt quae sunt honoribus digna. The Scrip­ture it self bids us look to the recompence of reward, and press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling, and it is certain that no man will or can doe any thing with a steady purpose of mind, wherein he does not pro­pose some interest to himself. The prospect of such advantages in future, makes a man obedient, as well as industrious for the pre­sent, and by setting an example of submis­sion to his superiours, and of diligence in his station and emploiment, he is in both respects an instrument of great honour and great service to the Church; he is in the rea­dy way to make a wise and excellent person, and will be the more readily obeyed when he comes to govern, for having shewed an ex­ample of obedience before.

But if there were not such honours and advantages to be met with in the Clergy, then there would certainly these two notori­rious inconveniences follow, first that the governours of the church would lose very much of their authority and power, which they cannot do without prejudice to the [Page] government it self, and secondly, that the want of due encouragement would produce in the inferiour Clergy, a scorbutick idle­ness and inactivity, a want of due concern either for the peace of the Church or for the honour of it; it would subject them to the humours of the people, from whose kindness they might in this case expect as great or greater secular advantages than they could propose to themselves in any other course, so that instead of being the instruments of obedience, they would by this means be­come the speaking trumpets of faction; and so it was seen in the late disorderly times, when the Episcopacy was demolisht, and the dignitary lands were all of them confiscate, men preach'd up rebellion for lecture con­tributions, and I doubt not but many of them acted much against their consciences for no other reason but to please the rabble.

It is an old saying [...], it is not to be denied but there are some in­stances of very gallant men to be found in the reformed churches abroad, and that too where they have not the benefit of episcopal government, but I dare appeal to the dissen­ters themselves, if they will speak their con­sciences, [Page] whether ever there was so plentifull an harvest of wise and excellently learned men as are to be found at this day among the Clergy of the church of England, and whether among themselves there be any such thing as learning to be met with, whe­ther both city and country are not now bet­ter furnished than in the late times, with ex­cellent preachers, and men that can speak sense, which is more than they can doe, or whether the Universities are not better stored with men of great attainments on the one hand, and great hopes on the other, than in the days when humane learning and that abominable idol carnal reason were for the most part banish'd with the King and the Bishops; the reason of which cannot possi­bly be referred to any other cause, but one­ly the more ingenuous Principles that are now abroad, and the greater encourage­ments men have now before them to stu­dy and take pains, and deserve well of the world.

This is certain, that the wisedom of Prin­ces hath always been so sensible of the use­fulness of ecclesiasticks to the service of the publick, for the security, honour and safety [Page] of their governments, for the composing and calming the minds of their people into a peaceable and obedient temper, that they have thought no honours and advantages too great to bestow upon them as a reward of their merit, and to make their authority still greater in the eyes of the people; and it was very wisely provided by our ancestours in such a government as this is, where the people have so great a share in the making of those laws by which they are afterwards to be obliged, that the Bishops should have a place allotted them in Parliament, as well as the nobility or the commons have, and that for their greater honour, and to give them a right of suffrage in the house of Lords, they should have Baronies annext to their respective sees.

For where the people have so great an interest in the enacting of their own laws, there, if the Clergy be totally excluded, if there be none admitted into the assembly to look after the interest of the ecclesiastical state, it will most certainly and unavoidably come to pass, that by the envy or the ill de­signs of men the Clergy will be deprest and trampled on at some time or other, which [Page] it can never be without detriment to the state, upon supposition that they are at all advantagious or serviceable to it.

Nay, if it be granted that they are of any use, it must be granted likewise that they are the most usefull persons that do or can belong to a society, and therefore ought to be the most highly honoured and esteemed; for what greater blessing can there be than peace? or what greater plague or calamity can befall a nation than to be embroiled in sedition, enflamed with strife, raging with opposite and eager passions? what better in­struments can there be in any state or king­dom, than they whose business and whose study it is to exhort to peace, and charity, and obedience, to submission to the govern­ment and love to one another?

Certainly if the Lawyers get so much, and are so highly caressed and rewarded sometimes for ending controversies, and sometimes for ma­king them endless, sometimes for setting men together by the ears, and at others for par­ting the fray to the disadvantage of the true pretender; the Divines are much more worthy to be honoured and rewarded, whose business it is to prevent all strife and conten­tion, [Page] and who have perhaps determined as many controversies in a cheap and amicable way at home, as ever the other decided at the bar, to the ruine sometimes of both the parties concerned, and always to the signal detriment and disadvantage of one.

I do not speak this to disparage or under­value the learned Gentlemen of the long robe, whose profession I acknowledge in e­very state to be not onely usefull, but neces­sary to its peace and welfare, so far as it is not abused by ill men, or by tedious delays, and by traversing of courts and actions, to the infinite vexation and oppression of the subject. But, I say, the prevention of all strife is a much more noble, excellent and usefull thing, than the deciding of contro­versies after they are actually begun, as it is better to prevent an ague by a wholesome diet, or by a regular course of life or by preventive medicaments before hand, than to remove the fit, or by degrees perhaps the disease it self, by many repeated doses of the Jesuites powder, which when it hath had its utmost operation, there will still be some dregs of the disease, and some of the very medicine it self that was intended to cure it, [Page] that will remain behind; and so it is in law, though the suit be ended, yet the conten­ding parties are not reconciled, and the ve­ry going to law, which is the remedy of strife, does oftentimes beget a quarelsome and con­tentious temper, and make men more trou­blesome to their neighbours for the future, whether they get the better of the cause or no; as losing gamesters play on out of hope to repair their losses, and they that win so long as there is money stirring upon the board, or an estate to answer the credit which they give, are every whit as eager as the other, out of hope that fortune will continue to be kind.

And as the Priesthood for their usefulness excell the courts of justice, inasmuch as it is a much more noble and more worthy em­ploiment to create in men an obedient and charitable temper, by the one of which they shall converse with the greater kindness and benevolence among one another, and shall be ready at all times to hearken to truth and reason, and to submit their cause to the um­pirage of common interest and universal justice, without respect to private ends or persons, and by the other they are rendred [Page] more tame and tractable, and more easie to be governed, and in both respects contri­bute so much to the peace, and happiness, and safety of each other; I say, as this is an emploiment undoubtedly more excellent than that which is chiefly conversant about the cure of diseases and the decision of quar­rels, after the mutual hostilities are begun, and hath a much greater recourse to force than to persuasion, so it is likewise in the order of nature before it, and in both re­spects it is, that the Priesthood in all nations are not onely worthy of double honour, but it is absolutely necessary to the ends of go­vernment that they should have it.

But yet I do not deny, nay, I have already expresly granted and affirmed it, that it is a part of our business and duty to reconcile differences as well as to prevent them, as it is on the other hand a part of the counsel­lours emploiment to prevent quarrels by deeds of settlement and by antecedent agree­ments and stipulations consented to by both parties in due form of law, as well as to end them by bringing them to an issue and a verdict at the bar; but still these two things remain unquestionably true.

First, that the greatest part of the Divine's business is preventive, and the greatest task of Council learned in the law, is conversant not so much in the prevention of controver­sies as in their final issue and determination.

Secondly, That as we prevent quarrels, so we reconcile them too after another manner than the Lawyers do, we persuade to peace among our selves and to obedience to the governours that are set over us, by endea­vouring to infuse such peaceable and chari­table dispositions into men, as shall not one­ly prevent or reconcile one quarrel, or be a means of producing this or that act of obe­dience, but shall be a lasting principle of ac­tion that shall run through our lives, and in every particular instance that can be given, shall naturally dispose us to act so, as is most friendly to one another, most dutifull with respect to our superiours, and in both cases most for our own inward peace and rest, for the quiet of the world and the happiness of mankind.

The Divine reconciles one quarrel so as by that principle upon which the reconciliation proceeds to prevent another: The Lawyer prevents a quarrel so as to make men unea­sie [Page] under the restraint, and reconciles a dif­ference after such a manner as to leave the embers of a lasting animosity, and the seeds of a contentious, discontented spirit raked up and glowing under the ashes of the cause.

The Divine saith, doe this and you shall be happy, doe it, or we cannot help your being miserable, for there are natural trou­bles and inconveniences annext to all un­reasonable and unjust actions; there is an almighty arm which you cannot resist that is over you, and there is a vengeance ex­pects you in the world to come which it is in vain for you to think of escaping upon any other condition than that of repentance and amendment.

The Law saith, doe this or you shall be severely punished; the law promises nothing, neither indeed can it, for the rewards of vertue are natural and owing to the actions themselves, therefore if the action will re­ward it self it may, but the law gives no­thing but impunity to obedience, and to disobedience proposes terrour.

And after all, its sanctions, which are founded in fear, are not onely less persua­sive, [Page] because there is no argument to per­suade to obedience to a positive law but fear; because there is nothing to be got by sub­mission but impunity, or if any good con­sequence follow from it, it is no thanks to the law but to the nature of the action; whereas the Divine who proceeds upon the nature and tendency of actions, does not onely work upon the fears of men, but likewise upon their hopes and their desires, but he hath also this advantage that the terrours which the law displays, are one­ly such as belong to ouvert actions after due proof and process hath been made, so that in many cases there may be an hope of esca­ping, nay, a moral impossibility that a man should be discovered, and so the inclination to evil remains, being cherished by an hope of impunity and concealment, and although the outward act be in many particular in­stances restrained, yet the inward principle of the mind is not altered all this while, which cannot be done by any menace of the law, but by shewing men, whether they are dis­covered or not, that vertue and obedience are always for their interest whenever they will consider all things impartially together.

And as the terrours of the law may be esca­ped, which cannot be said of those of nature and religion, which are unalterable and una­voidable, so also, as being but humane ter­rours, they may in many cases be resisted and overcome by men, and sometimes they are laid asleep by the connivence and partiality of men to one another; but in the rewards and punishments whether of natural or divine laws, the case is clean otherwise, for so far as they proceed from the natural issues and tendencies of actions, they have as necessary a dependence upon their emanative cause, as the light hath upon the sun, or the stream upon the fountain, or heat and warmth up­on a quantity of combustible matter already kindled and in an actual flame, so that the cau­ses or actions themselves being supposed, there is no way to avoid the natural effects that are consequent upon them; the rewards are certain, the punishments inevitable: ver­tue cannot be separated from the advanta­ges that are linked to it by a necessity of na­ture, nor wickedness be practised without the natural inconveniences that do by plain and physical causalities attend all its motions and follow it by a line of punishment, and [Page] a winding clue of guilt, which runs all a­long parallel to that of sin, into all its most secret laby rinths and retirements.

Again as those rewards and punishments that are future and eternal are therefore the most inviting on the one hand and the most dreadfull on the other, because of their e­ternity and everlasting duration, so is the delightfull prospect and assurance of the one rendred so much the more certain, and by consequence more amiable and lovely to us, by a reflexion upon the veracity and good­ness of that being, who to the natural argu­ments upon which the belief of a blessed im­mortality depends, hath added the more cer­tain and express ratification of his written word, and the terrour of the other is ren­dred still more formidable and more awfull to us, by reflecting upon that justice which cannot be bribed, that power which cannot be resisted, and that knowledge to which all things are naked and exposed, compared with the provocation which our sins have given him to stretch forth his mighty arm and inflict all his vengeance upon us.

But yet I know not how it comes to pass, there is a charm in the denunciation of judg­ments, [Page] as well as in the promises of happiness and reward, and those calamities, which, being conditional and avoidable, cannot be avoided or resisted upon the breach of that conditi­on upon which their avoidance or averrunca­tion depends, have a certain eloquence to persuade and please, as well as a dismal ap­prehension to startle and discompose us; and these two states of happiness and misery be­ing set in opposition to, or interwoven skil­fully with one another, are like the well tempered lights and shades of an exquisite master in the art of painting, and afford a mutual advantage to each other, they are like the discords in musick happily met to­gether to compose a melody of charming sounds, like the jarring elements by the di­vine power and wisedom reduced into the ca­tholick unity of the world, and upon the whole matter, there is as much difference betwixt the dry terrour of an humane law, and the insinuating charms, the soft and melting per­suation of the natural and divine, as there is betwixt the violence of saws and chisels, the screaking of a cart or carriage-wheel upon its loaded axis, with the unnatural force of pulleys and of cranes to compell the stones [Page] and timber into a fitness and harmony with each other for the erecting of some stately building, and the prevailing harp of Orpheus or Amphion, by which they are persuaded to come of their own accord and place them­selves in a beautifull and proportionable or­der; betwixt the notes of Arion and the noise of thunder, by one of which the Dolphins are affrighted, and to the other they dance.

Not that I would be thought to insinuate in the least, as if the restraints of humane laws were not of absolute necessity in every commonwealth, nay they are indeed so ne­cessary that there can be no society without them, for what is an humane society, but a society governed by humane laws? and it is but too notorious by every days wofull experience, that all the restraints that can be laid upon men, whether they be natural, divine or humane, are little enough, nay they are too little, to conquer our frailties to subdue our appetites, and to withstand our temptations; but yet it is still manifest that those arguments are more strong, and consequently those persons more usefull in every Kingdom or state, whose business it is, to create an inward principle of duty [Page] and obedience, than those which onely re­spect the outward act but have no influence upon the mind and will, one of which is the case of natural and divine laws and the other of the humane, which by not being able to punish any thing but the outward act, do in a manner give a licence, if there were no­thing else to be considered, to all the secret and conceal'd iniquity that can possibly be committed.

To which it is to be added, that the hopes of pardon, the prevalence of inte­rest, the importunity of friends, and, which is more, of money, the consideration of our common frailty, and the mutual pity and connivence of men that have offended or may offend towards one another, are things that do extremely rebate the edge of humane punishments, and by consequence, by allay­ing and qualifying those fears which are the onely motives to obedience to any humane law, they are a proportionable temptation, or at least they give strength and power to those temptations which prompt us to of­fend and disobey; and lastly, when an un­lawfull fact is never so evidently proved up­on us, yet there are three things that in ma­ny [Page] cases do either mitigate the punishment or utterly remove it. First, That though a fact be never so wilfully committed, yet either by the favour of chance, or by the design and contrivance of the offender or by the art and eloquence of a subtile advocate it is capable of extenuating and alleviating cir­cumstances in the appearance of the world. Secondly, That though a law be never so carefully drawn up by wise and skilfull men, yet there may oftentimes evasions be found out to elude its force, and frustrate its de­sign. And, Thirdly, That in commiseration of a man's family and of the innocence of those that are to suffer together with him, there shall be mercy shewn for the sake of others though not for that of the offender himself.

But now the laws of nature are plain, im­partial, inflexible, inexorable, their sanction is founded in such goods or evils as flow im­mediately from the nature and tendency of such actions or such habits considered in themselves, and by consequence they are such as cannot be avoided, but the punishment will for ever bear a proportion to the guilt, and the rewards of innocence and vertue will always be proportionable to the things them­selves, [Page] and then as for the divine laws, the terrour of the Lord, by which we endeavour to persuade men, can no otherwise be avoided but upon the condition of an hearty and sin­cere repentance joyned to an effectual and thorough reformation, or at least a steady purpose of it, if God should be pleased to grant us a longer life; and this last, generally speaking, will not doe neither, because a death-bed repentance at the close of a wicked life, lays no manner of congruity upon the divine goodness, neither does it come with­in the termes of the covenant, which Christ hath purchased for us with his bloud; and if a general pardon should be allowed to be granted to all that do heartily repent when they come to die, this would be a thing of very bad example, and every man so long as he found any appetite within him, or a­ny temptation to be complied with from without, would naturally defer his repen­tance till that time, and therefore it is high­ly just and reasonable to suppose that God generally proceeds with men by other mea­sures; and, to be sure, to sin on upon that supposition, that God will pardon us at the last cast, is in it self so bold a sin, so intole­rable [Page] a presumption, so great a provocation, that setting aside those sins which are conse­quent upon it, this alone would be enough to sink us into the bottomless pit, from whence there is no possible redemption to be expected.

It being therefore so clear of what impor­tance and usefulness the Clergy or Priest­hood in all nations is, to the creating in men a peaceable disposition, a vertuous and obe­dient temper of mind, for the happiness of all and of every particular person, it must be granted likewise that it is moreover ne­cessary that all humane care and provision should be made that they may not fall out or squabble among themselves, either about matters of discipline or doctrine, because this will lessen their authority, and conse­quently their use and service among the peo­ple; the question therefore is, to whom it is best that the exercise of this discipline should be committed, whether to a Lay Judge, or an Ecclesiastical, and I answer, as I have an­swered already, that it is best this jurisdicti­on be intrusted with the latter of these, be­cause men do more easily obey their supe­riours in their own order, besides that the [Page] jurisdiction being placed in Lay hands the Clergy have no prospect, but of perpetual subjection, without ever hoping to be go­vernours themselves, and this damps their spirits and diminishes their authority, and chokes that honest and laudable ambition, which is at once a cause of wisdom and vertue in themselves, and of obedience to those that are in authority over them.

But then secondly, a second reason why it is undoubtedly best for the Clergy to be go­verned by Superiours of their own Order, is that as the persons to be governed do more easily obey them, so those that are to go­vern when they are of the same order, and have lived formerly in the same condition and circumstances of life with those that are to obey, have the greater sense of what is rea­sonable and just to be expected from them; they will not in probability behave themselves like rigid taskmasters, but equitable supervi­sours, and are the more likely in all their constitutions and in all their censures to put themselves into the place of their dependents, and to consider that as being their own case again, which hath been so once already; they have something in them which is very like [Page] that which the Greeks call [...] or natural af­fection to the persons of those over whom they are placed, and for the honour and cre­dit of the profession, and the others in requi­tal do [...], they express their resent­ment of this Paternal tenderness and love by such an obedience, reverence and profound respect as becomes those who have the relati­on of Sons, in that which the Canon Law calls, though in another sense, the Spiritual cognation; and certainly so much care on both sides, on the one not to enjoyn any thing but what is reasonable and fit to be done, what is for the interest of the obeisant parties and of that of the profession, and on the other not to disobey any thing that is so, must needs make very much for the Honour and Reputation of the Clergy, and if such an Order of men be of any use, for the service of the world.

To which two considerations there is like­wise a third to be added, which though in it self very obvious I did not think of before, and that is that Clergy men, that is, men that both by their Education and Profession have devoted themselves to the service of the Church, are certainly the best and the most [Page] proper Judges of Ecclesiastical whether things or persons, and by the same reason that all the civil Guilds or Fraternities in a Corpora­tion have Masters and Assistants out of their own number, to whom the chief conduct and administration of the affairs of such a Society does belong; by the same reason that in a Parliament, a Committee for Trade shall call in Tradesmen and Artificers to their assistance to take their opinions in the matters under de­bate, of which they are naturally supposed to be the most competent Judges; by the same reason, that a Lawyer invested with the power and Character of a Judge sits to hear and de­termine controversies upon the Bench, not a Musician, an Astronomer, a Grammarian, a Chymist, an Architect, a Divine, or at least not because of any of these endowments or qualifications with which he may be over and above adorned, but because of his skill and ability in the profession of the Law; by the same reason certainly and upon the same Maxim, because credendum est artifici in sua arte, a Clergy man must needs be the most proper Judge in matters that are of Ecclesi­astical cognizance and concern, if we will but grant this easie supposition that Divinity [Page] is more than an empty name, and that it does require a proportion of pains and study as well as other professions do.

There are three Powers or Offices in every Ecclesiastical Society the full exercise and ad­ministration of which does without all questi­on naturally and rightfully devolve upon the Clergy, and not upon all the Clergy neither, but onely upon the Governours or Bishops of it.

The first is the power of Ordination.

The second of Visitation or inspection, from whence they have the name of Bishops or Overseers.

And the third of Excommunication.

For the first, it would be impossible to pre­vent innumerable Heresies and Schisms in the Church, if every Presbyter had the full power of Ordination in his hands, but it ought to satisfie the Presbyter in this case that he is not totally excluded, but that he is cal­led in as an assistant to the Bishop, and that the Ordination is performed according to the genuine practice of antiquity by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, as well as [Page] by that of the Ordaining Bishop himself. For the third, if every passionate Clergy man out of private ends or out of a rash and un­governable temper might Excommunicate and devote upon every light occasion, it would at once bring the Ecclesiastical cen­sures to contempt, and be a means of infinite mischiefs and confusions in the Church. And for the second it depends upon the first, for as they say in Law, ejusdem est condere & in­terpretari, so by the same reason, the power of Visitation or inspection must be seated in the same hands in which the Ordination is placed, the design and intent of it being onely this, to examine whether every respec­tive Curate or Incumbent do answer the end and meaning of his Ordination.

And for the more authoritative and effec­tual administration of so great a charge, it is requisite that the Port and Dignity of the Bishop above the inferiour Clergy may hold a proportion to his rank and station; and it is in vain in this case to urge the poverty of the first Apostles and Preachers of Christianity, who supplied by Miracles and supernatural inflictions, what they wanted of the natural causes of Authority and greatness among [Page] men, not that I would be thought to plead for such an excessive Pomp, as hath more of pride and vanity than real use, but as it is ne­necessary to the ends of every well regulated Clergy, that their condition in the general should be according to the admirable Mr. Cowley's wish,

Too low for Envy, for Contempt too high.

So to answer the meaning of his institution, it is necessary there should be a proportion of grandeur in the Bishop, suitable to the weight and dignity of his charge, and to the eminence of his place and order in the Church.

I shall conclude this matter, with observing that Princes in all ages, who certainly may be thought to understand Government as well as ever a busie Lay-elder of them all, have al­ways thought it safest for the quiet of their Dominions to govern by Bishops, and I ap­peal to any one of common understanding, supposing the Roman Empire to be still as great and flourishing as it was of old, whether the unity of so great a Body, would be more likely to be preserved, by the government of Presbyteries pecking at one another and every moment in danger of crumbling into pieces, or by the Episcopal subordination, which [Page] makes the Church of God like a fair, firm and well compacted building whose parts do all give beauty and strength to one another; and I do farther put the case, if we suppose all Christendom at this day to be governed by Presbyteries after the new-fangled Republican Model, and having so potent a Monarch as the Turkish Sultan for their neighbour, whe­ther its strength, however broken and disuni­ted, would be so firm and so well united as it is at this day to make head against him, or so likely to hold out against the terrours or temp­tations of the Asiatick steel or gold. These things are easie to be considered and compu­ted by any man of sense and experience in the world, and are, if I am not very much mistaken, a plain and unanswerable demonstration on the Episcopal side, for certainly that Govern­ment which is the best calculated for the peace of the World, is also the most agreeable to the Gospel of Christ, that Government which is the most likely and proper to defend Chri­stendom, does best answer the ends of Christi­anity.

Not but that in the Episcopacy as in all Go­vernments there may be inconveniences too, because men are men and always will be men [Page] as long as the world endures, but it is suffi­cient if it labour under fewer disadvantages than the Presbytery does, or if it be the best Government that can be thought of to pre­vent the passions and designs of men from putting the world in a perpetual flame.

There have been feuds and animosities in an­cient time among the Bishops, but that is not the question, but onely whether they would not have been greater and more frequent in proportion to their number in a National or Provincial Synod of the Presbyters, as there are disturbances sometimes in a Parliament house, but does it follow therefore that to pre­vent those inconveniences the whole King­dom should meet together in a general Assem­bly to make Laws, or would not the dangers and inconveniences be incomparably greater on this side than on the other? Or may I not now fairly sum up the evidence in the words of that great Presbyterian St. Jerome, in his Di­alogue ad Luciferianos, Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exors & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes.

It remains still that, as I promised, I should give some account why I have appeared so [Page] zealous for the execution of the Laws against Dissenters, but the reasonableness of that is now sufficiently seen by the happy success it hath had upon the affairs of a distracted King­dom, so that my answer is already made to my hands, and I have nothing to add, but my Prayers to God that the same Justice and Vigour may continue, and my most humble Petition to your Lordship, that you would pardon the presumption of this long address, for the sake of its honest and well-meant inten­tion from, My Lord,

Your Lordships most humble dutifull and obliged Servant John Turner.

Advertisement to the Reader.

BEcause the Reader may be apt to be inquisitive how far the Sermon it self, as it was Preached, went, there­fore for his satisfaction it is thought fit to let him know that it reach'd as far as p. 23. at these words, the wise pro­vision which the Church hath made. There were two or three particulars added which are not inserted, being very brief and in a concluding form, and therefore inconsistent with the additions that have been made.

Farewell.

1. COR. 14. 40. ‘Let all things be done decently, and in order.’

THE unhappy breaches and differences among us in matters of Religion are at present the subject of universal Complaint; and though nothing be more talked of than an Union among Protestants against the common Enemies of our Liberties as we are English men, and of our Faith as we are Christians; yet, if we will believe mens Actions, rather than their Words, there is nothing that seems less heartily to be desired, or, if you will give me leave to speak a little plainer, for it is not now a time to mince the matter, with more solici­tous Care and Industry to be avoided.

For my part, I am not come hither to enflame those differences, and, if I were, 'tis twenty to one but I should lose my Errant, for they are so great already that perhaps they are incapable of being encreased.

But, if you will allow me that liberty which every man now pretends to as his birthright, that is, to spend my private opinion about the publick Concerns, I will put you in a way by which this blessed Union can onely be effected, and that is, by keeping up strictly to the Dis­cipline of the Church, and by doing all things decently, and in order.

We have, almost every day, many excellent Discourses delivered in the Pulpit, to persuade us to mutual Chari­ty and Forbearance with one another; and indeed this is in a manner the whole design of Christianity, to pro­duce in us those calm and peaceable dispositions of mind [Page 2] which are best fitted to make us happy in this life, and to prepare us for the blessedness of that other state, whose very nature consists in perfect Charity and perfect Peace. Wherefore Saint Paul tells us plainly, that without chari­ty, which is the very bond of Peace, and of all vertues, all our pretences to Religion, and all our attainments in it, our proficiencie in spiritual knowledge, and our super-errogation, if that were possible in good works, will sig­nifie just nothing at all; though I speak with the tongue of men and Angels, saith he, and have not charity, I am be­come as sounding brass, or a tinckling Cymbal; and though I have the gift of prophecie, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am no­thing; nay, though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. And if to the Testimo­ny of St. Paul you will add the greater Authority of our Saviour himself, he makes reciprocal Charity and Love to be the distinguishing mark and character of his Dis­ciples, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.

If therefore this Charity which is so essential to a Dis­ciple of Christ, that he cannot be so without it; if the Ʋnion of the spirit in the bond of peace can be preserved under differing denominations of different Sects and Par­ties, notwithstanding the different external forms and circumstances of Divine Worship; if all or any of those pious and learned Exhortations, which have been made to persuade you to this Christian temper, can have that good effect which is intended by them, notwithstanding the various forms of Church Government, and the di­versity of all other outward appendages and ceremonies of publick Worship; if we can fear God, and honour the King, and love one another, as well and as heartily in the [Page 3] midst of these differences, as if there were no such things to be found among us, then, by my consent, let all the Ecclesiastical Enclosures be laid open, and let every man worship God, so he do but worship him in spirit and in truth, and believe aright as to the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, according to his own particular humour and fancie; because by gratifying such an harm­less, though unaccountable humour, there can no incon­venience follow, but by disturbing and crossing it there may; and therefore the ends of Religion will be better served by a diversity in Worship, than by an uniformity of it.

But now, on the contrary, if it should prove true, as it will most certainly, if either Experience or Reason can be heard amongst us, that the onely way to Unity and Peace is by an Uniformity of Discipline and Obedience. as to the external circumstances of Divine Worship, then this great end, being so necessary as it is for the procu­ring us all that Happiness which either this World or the next can afford us, will justifie all the necessary means that can be used in order to the obtaining it.

Wherefore Uniformity being necessary as a means to Peace, and yet being impracticable unless the Church be supposed to be invested with a Power of prescribing the external modes and circumstances of Obedience, it fol­lows plainly, that the Church is actually invested with such a Power, and that all its members are bound to obey its Prescriptions.

For the Topick of Experience, it is not without some unwillingness that I mention it, much less do I think it proper at this time and place to lay open the wounds of our late unhappy times, or present you with a mournfull Scene of those Miseries and Distractions which neither can nor ought to be remembred without Amazement and Horrour. [Page 4] But if you will, every one of you, retire into your own thoughts, and ask your selves the question, What it was that brought those dreadfull Calamities upon us, that involved three flourishing and powerfull Kingdoms in Bloud, and Slaughter, and Confusion, that made the Gods to dye like men, and fall like one of the Princes; while Slaves were set over us to be our Masters, and Frogs were heard croaking in the Chambers of our Kings; then you your selves will answer for me, It was the tender Conscience dissolved into rebellious Pretences, that car­ryed Order and Government before it, and overflow'd all things with a resistless Stream; it was a Cry against Disci­pline, and Ceremonies and humane Institutions; it was a Clamor for Liberty, against Will-worship and the Ordi­nances of men; it was a Spirit of Sedition, a Thirst after Innovation, an insatiable Humour of being dissatisfied with all the wholesome Establishments of Unity and Peace; it was an Itch of new-modelling both Church and State; it was a Pharisaical Pretence to farther Improve­ments of Purity and Holiness; it was Discontent, and Jealousie and godly Fear, lin'd with Hypocrisie and Dis­simulation, that reduced our Beauty and Order into Ashes, that laid the magnificent and comely Fabricks of the British Church and Empire, the Amazement of them­selves, and the Envy of their neighbours, equal with the ground; and, instead of one firm and well-compacted Buil­ding, rais'd paper Tenements of crumbling Sects and Fac­tions, which, instead of being able to support themselves, betray'd us in a manner into that Security which we now enjoy.

While we, forgetfull of those Miseries under which our Fathers and our selves have groan'd, unthankfull for those Blessings which, under the shade and protection of a wise and happy Government we receive, ungratefull to Al­mighty God, who out of that Chaos of Confusion has [Page 5] rear'd this new world of Establishment and Order, dis­pleas'd with the fatness of the Olive, and the sweetness of the Figg-tree, and quarrelling with the friendly and sociable Vine that cheareth God and Man, are calling again for the Bramble to reign over us, and for the Thornes and Briars to protect us; or like the Israelites in the Wilderness, sur­feited with Miracles, with Manna, and with Quailes, with the dew of Heaven, and with the fatness of the Earth; with liberty and ease and plenty; we are looking back for Sla­very from our old Taskmasters in the Land of Ham, and longing for the Garlick and the Onyons of Egypt.

But because an instance taken from our late Confusions, may but exasperate whenit should convince. Let us avoid the mention of that Crying Guilt, for which this Land of our Nativity has wept in tears of Bloud, and should for ever mourn in Sack-cloth, and humble her self before the Lord in Ashes; and let us trace the footsteps of Antiqui­ty, and search the Records of the more innocent and early Ages.

What was the reason in the Mosaick Dispensation, why all the external niceties of divine Worship, in their Feasts, and in their Sacrifices, and in their Lustrations were so carefully adjusted, by the particular designation and ap­pointment of God himself?

It is true indeed, that most of those Ceremonies were of a symbolicall nature, and were designed to shadow out unto the Jewes, either that purity, simplicity and innocence of mind which God expects from all his wor­shippers and servants; or else they were figurative and emblematicall Representations of the life and death and sufferings of the Messias, and of that more perfect Dis­pensation which was to be introduced into the World by him.

But yet notwithstanding, it must not be deny'd, that there are many Ceremonies to be found in the Law of Moses, [Page 6] which being equally commanded by God himself, were of equall obligation as to their performance, with any of the rest, of which no such Typicall account can be gi­ven. And therefore the reason of their Institution can only be this, That since every thing must of necessity be done with some Ceremony, in some Place, or Time, or Order, or Gesture, or Manner and Circumstance, or o­ther; it pleased God for the avoiding of Confusion, and for the preservation of an uniform and orderly way of Worship, which would otherwise be exposed to perpetual change, disturbance and alteration, to adjust and determine the particular circumstances of those indifferent matters, because considering the perverseness of some mens minds, and the diversity of their several fancies and humours, such changes and alterations could never happen without a considerable breach of Charity and Friendship among men; which must needs be a wonderfull Obstruction as well to the interest of the Civil State, as to all the religi­ous Performances and Duties, both as to their devotion in themselves, and as to their acceptance with Almighty God.

If therefore the nature of Mankind, be still the same under the Gospel that it was under the Law; if the rea­sons for the necessity of Uniformity be the same now that ever they were in former ages; if the method of this Uniformity be not adjusted by God himself under the Gospel, as it was under the Law; and if this Uniformity cannot be obtained unless the Church be invested with a right and power of prescribing the terms of it; than it follows plainly, as hath been already observed, that the Church must be invested with such a power, because else it would want the necessary means of its own unity and preservation, which every Society must be supposed by the Laws of nature and reason, to be invested with; and if the Church be invested with such a power, then all its Members are under an indispensable obligation to obey [Page 7] it, because that Power which may be lawfully disobey'd, is no Power at all: And this is sufficient to vindicate the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures.

And if you demand further, Whether it be lawfull for the civil Sanction to interpose in behalf of the Church, to see that its Orders and Injunctions be duly and faithfully executed and obey'd, I answer that it is for this plain rea­son, because the Civil Power has a right of exacting all kinds of lawfull Obedience from its subjects; and this obe­dience if it were not Lawfull, could not be enjoyned by the Church it self.

But besides the express provisions of the Law of Moses it self, there were also several pretended traditions of Moses from Mount Sinai; there were likewise the deter­minations of their Wise men in controverted cases; the De­cisions of the Tannaim and the Amoraim; and of the Schools of Hillel and of Schammai, the two so much cele­brated, but disagreeing Founders of the Pharisaick Order. For which Traditions and Determinations of their famous Masters, the Jewes had usually as great if not greater Ve­neration than for the Law it self; and they were at length swell'd into so vast a bulk, that (like the Missals and the Rituals of the Romish Church at this day, which are so full of Ceremonies, burthensom in their number, frivolous and superstitious in their use) they ate out the very life and heart of true Religion; as our Saviour him­self in several places of his Gospel with no less Justice than severity complains.

The Heathen World had also their Sacred Offices prescribed by a certain Form as well before as under the Law: And the same is the case with the Mahome­tan and Pagan Idolaters at this day; which Ceremo­nies of theirs, though for their number they be intoller­able to a devout Soul, which cannot suffer it's self to be so far taken off from the more inward and substantial [Page 8] part of Religion, though in their nature they be mostly foo­lish, and in their use Superstitious, and in their design Idolatrous, as being directed to a false object; yet as well these as the Jewish Formalities do prove thus much by the common consent of Mankind, that an Uniformity in the outward circumstances of Divine Service, is necessary to the more due and solemn performance of Religious Wor­ship, and to the publique peace and quiet of the World.

What is the reason that at this day the French Persecu­tion against the reformed Religion and its Professors, ra­ges with so much violence and fury, thorough all the spatious Territories and Dominions of that mighty Mon­arch? Shall we think it is a Zeal for the Catholique Re­ligion, as they are pleased to call it, that is for a Fardle of absur'd, ridiculous and blasphemous Superstitions, that inspires so wise and powerfull a Prince, with so mean thoughts of Cruelty and Revenge? Shall we think he acts upon a principle of Conscience, who has sufficiently discover'd to the world by his insatiable thirst after Em­pire, which cannot be purchas'd without the price of Bloud, that he has no other principle of action than that of a boundless appetite of Rule and Greatness? Shall he be thought to act upon a principle of Duty and Religion, who makes destructive and depopulating Wars without giving a reason, and violates the faith of Peace by arbi­trary Dependances and unwarrantable Claimes? Who conquers more by the peremptory Decrees of his late erected Chambers, than by the conduct of his Generals, or by the numbers, discipline and valour of his Armies?

What therefore can be the true cause and motive, why he that glories in the blessed title of the Most Christian King, should yet notwithstanding, persecute Christianity it self? What else can be the true reason of all this Cruel­ty and seeming Madness, but that he wisely considers that the true way to Empire abroad, is by unity and [Page 9] peace at home, that a Kingdome divided against it self cannot stand; and that these differences of Religion, as they have done already in the experience of that Kingdome as well as ours, will some time or other prove the occasions of great disorders and commotions in the State?

And shall we not then make use of the same wisdome for the support of Christianity, which is with so much diligence and zeal made use of by others for its Extirpa­tion? For Popery is either no Christianity at all, or it is Christianity wrapt up and hid in such an heap of Cere­monies and Superstitions, that it can hardly be discerned.

Is it worth our while to contend about Ceremonies when we are losing the Substance? to squabble and fall out about indifferent things, when our Religion and our Li­berty, our temporall and eternall Interest lye at stake? If the things prescribed be indifferent and consequently law­full, why do we not show that they are so by complying with them? If the quarrells raised about indifferent mat­ters, do yet notwithstanding rise as high, as those which are agitated between the Papists and us about matters of a necessary and unalterable nature; why do we not ce­ment and compose these unhappy breaches, by adding Hu­mility to Obedience, and by submitting to every ordi­nance of man, so far as we may without any violation of the Laws of God or right reason?

All our publique feuds and animosities are comprehen­ded in our Religious Disputes, and if they were but once composed, we should be an happy Nation. The King would be glorious, and his People secure. We should be safe at home and formidable abroad. We should be in a condition to succor our Allyes, to relieve the distressed Protestants, to keep the ballance even betwixt our neighbour Princes, and to stop the progress of the Arms of France, which threaten to involve all Europe in Slavery and Superstition together. Whereas now all [Page 10] we are able to do, is to give protection for a while to persecuted Religion when it flies hither for shelter.

But what will become of us, when the same torrent of Ambition, having overslown what ever stood in its way, shall at length beat upon the Brittish Shore? Shall we suffer our selves to be devoured by our own intestine Divisions, when the Enemy from without is battering our Walls and throwing in his Bombes among us? or shall we not rather unite together for our common safety? and shall we not severely repent that we did not sooner do it before it was too late, that we did not take sweet counsell together and go into the house of God as friends?

Certainly this one consideration, if it were but pow­erfully and frequently impress'd upon our minds, must needs have a wonderfull influence upon us, and must even fright men, and compell them by arguments both of fear and love, into a thorough Reconcilement with the best of Churches, before it be too late, as well out of a principle of Interest as Duty; for besides the considera­tions of this World, it ought to afford matter of very sad reflexion to us, or at least to so many of us, as have been active either in causing or [...]omenting the Differences that are among us, that we must one day give a dreadfull account before the Judgment-seat of God, for a great part of that Bloud which has been spilt, and of those Spoiles, Rapines and Depredations, which have been made by the ambition or injustice of our Neighbours. We must be accountable for the oppression of our per­secuted Brethren beyond the Seas; and for ought we know, if these destructive Animosities be not soon com­posed, for the removall of the Candlestick from among our selves, and for the finall extirpation of the Protestant Religion.

The Jewes had their Ritual, and the Christians their Liturgies or set forms of Divine Service, the one be­fore [Page 11] Christianity, and the other long before Popery, were known in the World.

And first, As to the Jewish Ritual, which cannot be deny'd to have been a thing of humane Institution, it was so little disapproved by our Saviour, or rather so highly approved, that he has been observed by Scaliger, and Bux­torf, and Camero, and Hugo Grotius, and other learned men, to have borrow'd most of those expressions which he makes use of in the Institution of the blessed Sacra­ment of his Body and Bloud from thence; and that Hymn which after the Celebration of that blessed Feast, he and his Disciples went out to sing together on the Mount of Olives, was by Paulus Burgensis a Converted Jew and a learned Bishop of the Christian Church, and out of him by Buxtorf, Drusius, and others, conjectured to be the same which the Jews are used to call the Hallel hagadol, being a Song of Praise and Thanksgiving, consisting of several Psalms, and used to be sung in consort at the Feast of the Passover and other solemn occasions.

And that God Almighty has actually approved those indifferent circumstances in Divine Worship which have not been of his own appointment, being either not con­tained in the Law of Moses, or no where commanded in Scripture, and in use long before the Law was delivered; I will here prove by two other Instances, which I the ra­ther mention, because they are omitted by the learned and judicious Writer of the Libertas Ecclesiastica; and because they are no where, that I know of, taken notice of to this purpose.

The first shall be taken from that passage in the Psalms, Early in the morning will I direct my prayer un­to thee, and will look up, in which words, the Psalmist, addressing himself immediately to God Almighty, ex­presses the Posture in which he would poure out his Prayers before him, by looking up towards Heaven; [Page 12] now, because we cannot imagine he would have made this Vow of looking up to God in Prayer, if he thought it would have been displeasing to him, and if, on the other hand, it can be proved that this was the general custom of that Countrey in all their Prayers and Suppli­cations; then we have here an Instance of an indifferent Posture in Prayer, which the general custom of Judaea had by degrees brought into the authority and reputati­on of a Law, which yet was no where instituted by any Divine Command; but that this was the general practice is plain from the Roman Authors, who tax them upon this account with worshipping the Clouds and the Host of Heaven. So Juvenal,

Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem,
Nil proeter nubes & coeli numen adorant.
And in the Catalecta of Petronius,
Judoeus licet & Porcinum Numen adoret,
Et coeli summas advocet auriculas.

Which places, though they be otherwise interpreted by Mr. Selden and other Learned men, and the reading of the latter of them questioned by Doctor Isaac Vossius, in his Notes upon Pomponius Mela, yet I conceive the first place dos sufficiently vindicate the reading of the latter; and the Interpretation of Mr. Selden, instead of destroy­ing, will rather help and encourage that which I have gi­ven; for the reason why the ancient Jews called God by the name of Shamajim, or Heaven, was the same with that, for which they looked heaven-wards when ever they pray'd unto him, namely, because they thought the more peculiar and beatisick presence of the Divinity to be there; and this is the first Instance.

The second shall be taken from those words of God to Moses, Exod. 3. 5. Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for which he subjoins this reason, [Page 13] for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground: now though it is true that Moses was bound upon the least sig­nification of the Divine Pleasure to obey it, yet this would have been no reason of his Obedience had there not been such a custome in the World before that time; which, not having the least foot-step of a Divine Com­mand, was probably owing meerly to humane institution, but yet we see was approved by God himself.

This Custome prevailed also under the Law; though in the Law it self it be no where enjoyned, in all their so­lemn Feasts, as appears from this, that the Jews are com­manded to eat the Passover with their shoes on; which would have been a needless Command, if in their other Festivals they had not used to put them off; which was therefore done, because every meal among the Jews, but more especially their solemn Feasts, was in the nature of a Feast upon a Sacrifice, as I could prove more largely if it would not be a digression; and therefore, being a­bout an act of religious Worship, they were used to put their shoes off, as the custom of those Countries was in like cases.

For this reason the Turks at this day do alwaies goe barefoot into their Moschs: and it was a Precept of Py­thagoras recorded by Iamblichus, in his Life, [...], sacrifice and worship God with your shoes off. The Romans also did the same at their Feasts, as is evident from several places of Martial and others. Joshua is likewise commanded, by the Angel of the Lord, to doe as Moses had done before him, Josh. 5. 15. Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy; and Joshua did so. Marinus relates of Proclus, that he, being about to worship God, made use of this Cere­mony in the performance of his Devotions, [...] [...].

And, because the Servants, as I conceive, were used to attend their Masters to Divine Service, as Naaman the Syrian was used to goe along with his Master to the Temple of Rimmon, and there to take off their shoes or sandals for them; from thence is that proverbial Speech of John the Baptist concerning our Saviour, whose Fore runner and Harbinger he was, Joh. 1. 27. He it is who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose. Lastly, in allusion to this custom is that passage of Juvenal, in his sixth Satyr,

deinde adamas notissimus, & Berenices
In digito factus pretiosior; hunc dedit olim
Barbarus incestoe, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori,
Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges,
Et vetus indulget senibus clementia porcis.

So that here we have two plain Instances of Instituti­ons in matters of an indifferent nature approved by God, but commanded onely by men, for an immemorial cu­stome whose original or legislative sanction cannot be tra­ced, and perhaps it never had any, but crept in by de­grees, is as much an humane Institution as a possitive Command, of whose Author we can give never so clear an account, as the Common Law of England, is every whit as much of humane institution as the Statute; and those Tenures which hold onely by Custom or Prescrip­tion are to all intents and purposes as good as those which have Deeds and Charters to produce.

Wherefore, if Custom may be comply'd with in these cases, then so may any other humane Institution, and if Custom may not, then is it unlawfull for us to goe to our Devotions at those times when our Neighbours and Coun­try-men are used to frequent them, because this is an Im­position upon our Liberty, which is not ty'd up either to place or time any more than to any other indifferent circumstance of action.

But if the places and times of Divine Worship may be lawfully determined by the Authority of the Church, (and if they may not, then the Church has no power to see that God be worshipped at all, for he must be worshipped at some place or time or other,) then I see no reason why the same Authority may not equally ex­tend to all other indifferent circumstances of action.

As for the use of Liturgies and Set-forms of Prayer in the Christian Church, there is nothing more plain than that, as far as we can trace Antiquity, they have been constantly used, several of the ancient Liturgies are at this day extant among us; and the Service both of the Church of Rome, and our's, is in a great measure taken from thence: nay, so ancient and in such constant use have they alwaies been in the Christian Church, that we have unquestionable Instances of them: in the Apostolical times themselves, as hath been learnedly observed by a Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph. Reverend Prelate of our own from Justin Mar­tyr, in his second Apology, who calls the Pray­ers of the Christians in his time, [...], Common Prayers: and from Pliny, in an Epistle to Trajan, very often cited by Learned men in defence of the Christians of the primitive times, who, being examined by him con­cerning their Manners and Religion, affirmabant hanc fu­isse summam vel culpoe suoe vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire: carménque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere, sécum invicem, &c. The Learned Prelate, whom I have newly mentioned, understands this place of Verses answering one another by turns, as we speak the reading Psalms; and I know not, saith he, how he cou'd better express it. And indeed this must be allow'd to be a very proper, and a no less acute and ingenious In­terpretation; for the Psalms themselves were many of them nothing else but Hymns of Praise and Thanksgi­ving which were composed for the Service of the Temple, [Page 16] and this ancient way of worshipping God by Hymns, as well in the heathen World as among Jews and Christians, is evident from the Hymns of Homer, Orpheus, Callima­chus, and others among the Greeks; from Hymns of a like nature to be met with in the Interludes of the anci­ent Dramatick Poesie, in the Odes of Horace, and in the Writings of Statius, Catullus, and others: And in allusi­on to this it is that the same Pliny saies, in a Complyment to Trajan, Animadverto etiam deos ipsos non tam accuratis adorantium precibus quàm innocentiâ & sanctitate loetari: gratiorémque existimari qui delubris eorum puram castám­que mentem quàm qui meditatum carnem intulerit.

Among the Christians, to be sure, the singing of Psalms and Hymns in honour of God and Christ, and for the mu­tual benefit and edification of one another, was alwaies looked upon as a special Duty, and we have several pla­ces of Scripture which do not onely vouch and justifie, but also enjoyn this Practice.

If therefore Hymns and Psalms, in which many are to bear their parts, cannot possibly be sung but by a Form; if they must be composed before they can be sung; if this be a true and proper exercise of Devotion and Divine Worship; if Praise and Thanksgiving be essential parts of Prayer, as is manifest from that Petition in our Saviour's own Form, Hallowed be thy Name; nay, if it be the most exalted and sublime exercise of a devout mind; and if all this may be done, and in many cases must be done by a Set-form; then, why may not the same be true of all o­ther parts of Prayer? and, why may we not from hence conclude, that a Form of Prayer, as it is alwaies lawfull, so it is in some cases necessary to be used? it is necessary, because Psalms and Hymns cannot be sung without it; and it is necessary, because in some cases we are enjoyned to sing Psalms or Hymns by the express command of Scripture.

And here, before I pass by farther, let me ask our dis­senting Brethren one Question, they in their Congregati­ons are used to sing together the Psalms of David con­verted into English Rhimes, some of them of one man's composing, and some of another; now, though the words of the Psalms themselves, especially as they are in the original, were divinely inspired, and therefore they may pretend, though it be a Form, yet it is not a Form of humane Institution; yet the words of him that puts them into Meeter are not David's words, any more than a Paraphrase and the Text are the same: the same sense may be expressed in different words, and those different words are so many different forms to them that reade them; from whence it is manifest that they do not pray by David's Form which was inspired, but by the Transla­tor's, which is of humane Institution; and why then do they declaim so loudly against a Form of Prayer? Why they will tell us, the Scripture has no where enjoyned it; but I have proved the contrary, and they themselves confute their own Pretences by their Practice.

But, suppose the Scripture did not enjoyn it, what then? if we must neither pray with a Form nor without, unless the Scripture bid us doe one or the other, then we must not pray at all; for the Scripture does not any where command either of these, unless it be in the use of the Lord's Prayer; and yet at the same time enjoyns us to pray without ceasing.

But these Gentlemen, if they were half so good Philo­sophers as they are bad Divines, would have understood before now, that all Prayer is a Form, and that without a Form it is impossible to pray at all: for the sense at the bottom of all Prayer is the same; it is either a devout ac­knowledgment and admiration of the Divine Excellence and Perfection, or it is a thanksgiving for his Mercies, or an humbling our selves before him for our Sins, or [Page 18] entring into new engagements and resolutions of a new Life, by offering up the Sacrifice of a broken and a con­trite Heart; or lastly, it is a deprecating those Judg­ments which hang over our heads for our Sins, and an entreating his Goodness for those Blessings which the ne­cessities of our nature, or the circumstances of our for­tune and condition do require; and let these things be expressed with never so much variation of phrase, yet it is not that variation in which the true nature of the Pray­er consists; but it is the sense which is at the bottom, which is alwaies the same, as a tune is the same, though it be pricked down by never such variety of marks, and a sentence the same, express'd by several cyphers.

It is not the words that God regards, but it is the in­ward Ardency and Devotion of the mind, which may be the same with a Form as without it; [...]ay, in trut [...], it may be greater with a Form than it can be without it, because then he that officiates, not being to seek for what he is to say, and his fancie and invention, not being per­petually upon the rack, his mind is the more intent and fixt upon the Object of his Devotion, and upon a sober and considerate reflexion upon those things which make up the entire theme and subject of his Prayer: he is not apt to dishonour God, nor to expose himself and Religion to contempt by rash and inconsiderate expressions uttered in the heat of a distempered and inconsiderate Zeal, which we find by experience, I speak without reflecting upon any particular person, many of our non­conforming Bre­thren doe, as well in their Prayers as Sermons, for want of duly considering what they have to say before-hand, which shows plainly what extream Presumption and [...]ol­ly they are guilty of, when they pretend to utter such contemptible stuff by the assistence of the Spirit.

It is true indeed, there was in the first ages of the Church such a thing as the Gift of utterance, but it was [Page 19] when men of mean parts and education were sent forth to preach the Gospel by our Saviour himself, who with­out this could not have delivered themselves as became the Embassadors of so great a King; it was at a time when the World could not be converted without Mira­cles, when the Fears of Death and Torments and Perse­cution would have put all their natural faculties to silence, had they not been assisted and encouraged by an extraor­dinary influence of Divine Grace from above: It was at a time when they were to be carry'd before Magi­strates and Rulers, to give an account of themselves and of that Gospel which they preached; and then it was necessary indeed, that a particular assistence of the Di­vine Spirit should overpower the fears of death, and re­move all apprehensions of danger out of their way, and that the words which they were to speak should be gi­ven them and put into their mouths at that very instant, lest otherwise, for want of ability or courage, they should expose and betray themselves and the Gospel.

But at this time of day there is no necessity of any such supernatural assistence; and that it is not actually afforded appears partly from the experience which we have of those that pretend to it, and partly from this that Saint Paul expresly tells us, that the Gift of Prophe­cie, of Tongues, and of Knowledge were in time to fail; and if they be not failed already, as well as those other miraculous Powers of Healing Diseases, and of Casting out Devils, we have little or no reason to believe that ever they will; besides, that the Gift of Tongues being manifestly ceased, and these three being mentioned toge­ther, we have abundant reason to conclude, that those of Prophecie and Knowledge are ceased together with it.

But after all, we have no Promise in Scripture, that God, though by his Spirit he will furnish us with affec­tion and zeal to the end of the World, will ever put the [Page 20] very expressions into our mouths; the Spirit it self hel­peth our infirmities, saith Saint Paul, speaking of this ve­ry business of Prayer, but it is not with a Gift of utte­rance, but with Groans that cannot be uttered: let our words be what they will, so our hearts be but right, God is well pleased.

Compositum jus fasque animo, sanctosque recessus
Mentis, & incoctum generoso pectus honesto.
Hoec cedo ut admoveam templis, & farre litabo.

It is true indeed, such is the nature of style, that the same sense clothed in different expressions, shall either extort respect or laughter; the reason is, because all speech is either proper or metaphorical; in proper speech, where the words are the real and immediate marks of the things they express, there we are affected with the sentence according to the opinion we have of those things which are contained under it; but in metaphorical, we are differently affected, as the Metaphors are taken from things of a contemptible or a serious and usefull na­ture.

Now nothing is more plain than that in religious Dis­courses, whether in Prayer or Sermon, nothing ought to be said after such a manner as to move laughter or con­tempt instead of exciting Devotion and serious attention; but whether this end be more likely to be attained by an extempore or well-considered and premeditated Prayer, let any man of common sense and understanding judge.

And though such rash and inconsiderate expressions may be well enough approved where they are uttered a­mong people that are affected by noise rather than by sober and judicious expressions, by a sound and whole­some Form of words, yet it ought to be considered, one would think, how unbecoming such things are to the gravity of one that pretends to teach and instruct the [Page 21] World, or to the Majesty of that Person whose Character he sustains; what scandal it gives to understanding men, and what advantages to the profane: and lastly, how un­suitable it is to the design of Religion, which is to make men happy by creating in them a calm and sedate tem­per; not so much to move their Passions as to inform their Judgments, and to prepare them for Happiness by wisedom and instruction.

But if there be any who, by the strength of natu­ral parts, by the quickness of their fancie, or the vo­lubility of their tongues, by long custom, or acquired habits, by art and study, by ringing the changes and by shuffling the same expressions at several times into a se­veral order and method, shall from thence seem either to themselves or others to be possessed of this Gift of Prayer, yet they are in truth and reallity very much mistaken, and it will appear they are so, in that they generally use these, whether talents or acquirements, or artifices and devices of theirs, rather in a way of ostentation than use, by spinning out their Devotions to an unusual length, and by endeavouring to captivate the ears and hearts of incon­siderate people by that much speaking which our Savi­viour condemns.

Thus it appears plainly that a sober and well-conside­red Form of Prayer is a manifest advantage both to the Speaker and the Hearer, and to the latter it is an advan­tage in a respect which I have not yet mentioned.

If I pray in an unknown tongue, saith the Apostle, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitfull. 1 Cor. c. 14. v. 14. And again, v. 16. how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen. From whence it fol­lows plainly, that in this age especially, when the mira­culous effusions of the Spirit are in a manner wholly cea­sed, those Prayers are the best to which we are best pre­pared to say, Amen; but those are manifestly Forms of [Page 22] Prayer; because in those we goe along with the Minister himself; nay, we understand beforehand what it is he is about to ask, and so are the better prepared to joyn with­him, and to say, Amen, heartily, devoutly and prepared­ly to all his Petitions.

And the same Chapter will likewise furnish us with another argument against these extempore Effusions, when they are truly and properly, and not onely preten­dedly so, which is but to put a cheat upon the People; namely, that they are subject either to the heats of Enthu­siasm on the one hand, or to the coldness of Non plus and Drawling on the other; both of which expose Religion to contempt in the opinion, or at least in the practice of those whose design and interest it is to make it contemp­tible and cheap, and serves to alienate the affections of much wiser men than ever they are like to gain over to themselves.

If the whole Church be come together to speak with Tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned and Ʋnbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? and if the same or a like advantage may and will be taken from the indiseretion of every extempore Pretender, there is the same reason why he should lay by his pretences, and give way to a sound and sober Form of words.

The truth is a premeditated and an extempore Prayer have each of them their inconveniences, the latter can­not be without them; and the first, if it be not done by [...] man of some judgment and experience, he does usual­ly endeavour onely to shew his parts, as if his design were to recommend himself to the good opinion of God Almighty for a man of Eloquence and Wit: the preme­ditated man does oftentimes talk so fulsomely as if his design [...]ere to cajole and cokes the great God of Hea­ven and Earth; while the man of gifts and graces, as [...]e thinks himself, does by ridiculous or rash expressi­ons, [Page 23] by mimical gestures and affected alterations of his voice, by speaking sometimes so high as if he would prevail with him by clamor, and sometimes so low as if he had a secret to communicate to his Maker, openly affront and abuse him to his face and in the face of a numerous Assembly.

B [...]t both these Inconveniences are happily avoided by the wise provision which the Church has made.

If then the use of Forms of Prayer in the publick As­semblies of Christians be not onely lawfull in it self, and justified by the practice of all ages before the Reformati­on, but also manifestly tending to Edification, and freed from very many and very great inconveniences to which extempore Addresses are exposed, and therefore necessa­ry to be allow'd.

And if though Forms of Prayer be necessary in the ge­neral, yet this or that particular Form be not, other­wise the Liturgy of all Churches and all Ages must be exactly the same.

Lastly, If no Formulary of Divine Service can be in­troduced into the common use and practice of the Church but by the publick Sanction, whether sacred, or civil, or both, then we have here a plain instance of a lawfull humane Imposition in indifferent matters; for though a Form of Prayer be necessary, yet this or that Form is not; from whence it follows, beyond all possibility of contradiction, that an humane Imposition in indifferent matters, or a Determination of those indifferent things by the authority of men to one part of the indifference is not in it self unlawfull, and whatsoever may be lawfully commanded is of necessity to be obey'd, unless we will renounce all obedience whatsoever.

However, thus much will certainly be granted by the most avow'd Assertors of the Separation, that we have every one of us a right and power of determining our [Page 24] selves in those indifferent matters; for otherwise the na­ture of their indifference is destroy'd; and yet if thus much be but allow'd, they will find themselves driven to an absolute necessity, either to contradict themseves, and to affirm contradictions in a breath, to say that the same things are and are not indifferent at the same time, or else they must bid adiew to their beloved Cause, and give submission to the Authority of the Church.

For whatever natural Liberty men have in themselves, when once they become members of a Society, they are supposed to give it up to the legislative or governing power of that Society so far as is necessary to the peace and quiet of it; for otherwise a Society and no Society would be exactly the same, that is, every man would still remain his own Master, and at liberty to doe as much as ever he could before.

For example, in that which Mr. Hobbs is pleased to call the State of Nature, when a man is not a member of a Body politick, but a distinct and perfectly indepen­dent person by himself, he is naturally invested with a right and power of defending his person or his possession by force of Arms, he may lawfully revenge his own in­juries, and he is the onely Judge when he is wronged or injur'd; because without all this power he cannot live in the World, or continue in that Being which God and Na­ture have given him.

But if having listed themselves by mutual covenant and agreement into a Body politick or Commonwealth, for the mutual defence and preservation of every particu­lar person and of the whole Society, men shall notwith­standing after this assume the same liberty to themselves of personal Revenges, and of being their own Judges in controverted cases, without referring themselves to the decision of the Law which is the civil Umpire betwixt man and man, it is manifest this Society cannot be of [Page 25] long continuance, or rather so long as this Liberty is taken it can never be a Society properly so called; from whence it follows plainly, that it is necessary, if men will be members of a Society, that they give up this private power into the hands of the publick.

If therefore the Church be a Society truly and proper­ly so called; if it be that mystical Body of which Christ is the Head; if the members of this Body cannot be knit and well compacted together without external rules of discipline and order, in which the very nature of a Soci­ety consists; if the publick Orders of the Church and e­very man's prescribing rules to himself be inconsistent together, and if the observing no rule or method at all either in Divine Worship or civil conversation be rather like a man in Bedlam than a Denison of a sober Corpo­ration; if charity, good-will and love; if mutual help­fulness and reciprocal usefulness to one another; if peace with God, and peace with men, and peace within our selves be the great design and business of the Christian life; if a man cannot be at peace with God while he is at enmity with his neighbour; if a man can neither love, nor fear, nor know, nor worship God aright at the same time when his thoughts are taken up and filled with en­vy, uncharitableness, detraction and revenge; if no man can be happy in himself when he is displeas'd and angry with other men; if the controversies raised about mat­ters confessedly indifferent have been, when and where­ever they have happened, a perpetual bane and disquiet to the Church; if they alwaies heighten mens Passions against and alienate their affections from one another; if they are alwaies attended with a disturbance of the pub­lick peace, and have de facto proceeded to the utter sub­version both of Church and State; if all these Animosi­ties and Contensions would immediately cease by a quiet and dutifull submission to the Authority of the Church; [Page 26] if by giving up this Power, the Church, as a Body poli­tick or Society of men is actually dissolved, a Society or Aggregate of several persons, being no otherwise one. than as they submit to the same Laws and are governed by the same external Rules of discipline and obedience; if Place and Time, notwithstanding they be indifferent in themselves as to this or that particular determination, yet is it necessary in the general that they should be de­termined, otherwise there can be no publick Worship of God: lastly, when men are met together in a religious Assembly; if every man shall follow his own particular fancie; if almost every single person shall be seen in a different posture; and if this be more like to make men look upon one another than to attend to the Minister or to mind themselves; if it be more like to excite laughter than devotion; if it be a natural obstruction to the solem­nity and seriousness of religious Worship; if, done by chance, it be a sign of too great negligence and remisness; and if, done on set purpose, it be a sign of conceitedness and spiritual pride, while every man prefers his own way, and despises that of another; if it be a ground of censure, and may be a cause of uncharitableness, and, by degrees, of separation; then is it plain, upon all these accounts which I have mentioned, because it would be better if it were so, and because it is necessary that it should be so; because the Church can neither preserve it self in reputa­tion nor so much as in being, because it is for its un­doubted and its perpetual interest, and because it is neces­sary to its preservation, that it should be invested with an Authority of adjusting the most indifferent circum­stances of Divine Worship; without which the blessed ends of Unity and Peace can never be obtained: I say; it is plain from all this, that the Church is actually inve­sted with this Power, and that Ecclesiastical Constituti­ons may for the same reason determine indifferent mat­ters, [Page 27] for which the Civil forbid Adultery and Murther, namely, because it is necessary to the publick Peace; which reason, if it be not sufficient, the Civil Laws do all of them become immediately null and void, as being founded upon no other basis but the consideration of the publick good; but if it be a solid and substantial reason, I would fain know, if any of the Dissenters be at leisure to inform me, why it may not equally extend to defend the necessity, and consequently justice of Ecclesiastical whether Laws or Censures.

Especially if we consider that, as the case of the Chri­stian world now stands, the same persons, with the same interests, prejudices and passions are members both of the Civil and Ecclesiastical State; so that it is as impossible there should be a disturbance in the one, in which the o­ther shall be unconcerned, as that the same man should be divided from himself; and it is every whit as clear, that either it is not lawfull to use all necessary means for the preservation of the Civil Peace, or it is lawfull for the Church to concern her self in the determination of in­different matters, which Determinations and Constituti­ons of hers may be lawfully confirmed and ratified by the State.

If men could differ without falling-out, something might be pretended in behalf of an innocent, though unbecoming Liberty, but since the greatest feuds and a­nimosities do sometimes take their rise from the smal­lest beginnings, since the religious differences are of all others the greatest, and the most fatal to the publick Peace, since there is nothing so infinitely scrupulous as an unreasonably tender Conscience, and since there is no pretence so inconsiderable, from whence either indigent or ambitious men will not take occasions to advance their secular designs under the specious covert of a Concern for Liberty, or a Zeal for Religion, it behoves those in pub­lick [Page 28] Authority, as they tender the reputation of their own wisedom and justice, or the quiet of the World, to cut off all occasions of disturbance, by seeing that all things be done decently and in order, which rule of the Apostle's is founded upon the same reason upon which all Laws whether humane or divine are founded, and from whence alone they can and do receive their obliga­tion, namely, the common Interest of mankind and the particular Happiness of private persons; it depends upon the same reason and the same necessity, for which Injustice and Robbery are forbidden, or upon which Industry, So­briety and usefull Arts are encouraged; which is nothing else but the consideration of the publick Good, which if it be as plainly concerned in this as in any other case, this is sufficient to defend the Authority of the Church, and to make its Sanctions in indifferent matters, so long as they are steered by principles of undoubted Interest, to be of perpetual force and obligation.

Those actions are properly said to be indifferent, which may either be done or let alone without inconvenience or advantage to the publick, or to the interest of any private person; but if any prejudice or advantage will accrue, then there is a plain reason why they should be done or omitted, and consequently they cease to be in different, and become necessary in proportion to the weight of those reasons upon which their performance or omission is founded.

So, for example, we will suppose it for the present indifferent in what posture we say our Prayers in a publick Congregation; yet if we say them at all, thus much is of absolute necessity; that we say them in some posture or other; but now if the Civil or Ecclesiastical Magi­strate, for the avoiding of Confusion, and for the preven­ting of those Piques and Animosities which frequently happen among men about things of little or no value in [Page 29] themselves, especially when Religion is concerned, shall ordain that all men shall say their Prayers in one and the same posture, and shall determine and assign what that particular posture shall be; then here is a reason of Interest for the good of the World, and for the quiet of that Society of which we are members, why this po­sture should be used rather than any other; and conse­quently this posture, though indifferent before, does now derive a necessity from that reason of State and inter­est upon which it's imposition is founded.

To be sure men of common sense and understanding, if they have but common honesty joyned together with it, will take their measures of obligation as to the law­fulness or unlawfulness of what is commanded, from it's design and tendency to promote or obstruct the interest of the Publique, and the happiness of particular Persons; and if either the pretended or the real Scruples of any might be sufficient to stop the course of Law against the common interest, there could be no such thing as Order or Government in the World.

There are many Laws enacted by the sublime Wisdome of the King and his three Estates in Parliament assembled, which though they be for the interest of the whole King­dome, all things considered; yet they manifestly tend to the Prejudice of particular persons, but yet those very persons are as much obliged by these Laws, as they who reap the benefit and advantage of them, because the obli­gation of these Laws is to be taken from the fundamentall Constitution of all Societies, that a greater Interest be preferred before a less, and that when the publique advan­tage shall interfere with a private, the private must give place, because otherwise the Society cannot be preserved; how much more strictly therefore are we obliged by those Laws whose design and tendency being nothing else, but to keep us all at unity and peace together, are so [Page 30] plainly for the advantage of the Publique and of every particular Person?

And if notwithstanding the manifest Conducibleness of such an Uniform way of Worship to the publique Peace, and the experience of those sad Effects which our Reli­gious Differences have produced, every private man shall yet after this take upon him to Judge of the Reason­ableness or Expedience of what is Enacted by his Supe­riours, and shall from thence proceed upon I know not what Pretences, ridiculous in themselves and destructive of the publique Wellfare, to withdraw his Obedience to their just Commands; he may as well take upon him an insinite and boundless liberty of questioning the Reason­ableness and Equity of all Laws whatsoever, and either upon the same or more warrantable Exceptions, for the expedience of no Law can be more evident than of that which enjoyns Uniformity in Divine Worship, he may withdraw his Obedience from all kind of Government and Subjection whatsoever.

But here it is Objected, That if there were nothing but the Civil Interest, or the Interest of this World to be considered, the experience of all Ages and Nations will sufficiently demonstrate, that an Uniformity in Religi­ous matters, is the best Expedient that can be thought of to secure the publique Peace. But alass! we carry souls and Consciences about us, and these are precious things; there is an immortal Interest lyes at stake, which it would be great folly and madness to part with upon any temporal consideration.

But to this I answer first in the general, That the main design of Christianity being to promote Peace and Charity in this world, as well as to procure us Eternal peace and happiness in the next; and indeed the one in order to the other, it follows plainly that Uniformity in Religious Worship, as being a necessary means to Peace, [Page 31] is in the general of Divine Institution, though what the particular terms of that Uniformity shall be, the Scrip­ture has no where prescribed; as in truth it could not do, for a reason which I shall shew hereafter: it remains therefore, that the Church it self be in all Ages furnisht with a right and power of prescribing what those terms shall be, and that all her members are obliged to a neces­sary Observance of them.

But here, because I have made so frequent mention of the Church, that I may avoid Ambiguity, and leave as little room as may be for Exception, before I go any fur­ther, I will explain what I mean by that term, and with­out descending to too much nicety, the Church is one of these three things.

First, it is the congregation of Christian People dis­persed over the whole earth, and agreeing together in the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, which are either expresly, or by direct and lawfull consequence, revealed in the Scriptures of the New Testament, to be of necessity to Salvation. And in this sense it is not only unnecessary that there should be every where the same Rites and Ceremonies observed in the Church, but it is in the nature of the thing impossible that there should, be­cause of necessity the several manners, customes, and other circumstances of several Nations, will introduce a diver­sity of external Formalitie into Religious Worship, which may be done without any breach of Charity or Friend­ship among men, because there is no interest to be served by promoting Feuds and Animosities between them; and it will be all one to the peace and happiness of this King­dome, what rites or usages soever the Greek or Armenian Churches shall embrace.

We do not much trouble our heads, though by reason of their near Neighbourhood we have some reason to do it, about the French saying Mass, or adoring Reliques, or Images, [Page 32] or praying for Dead, or worshipping the Host: Nay, you shall hardly ever see a man in a passion when he hears the Tragicall stories of those horrible persecutions against the professours of the Reformed Religion; but though he may relieve and pity them, so far as a small temporary Contribution will go, yet in truth and reality he is not much concerned; whereas at home we can make a shift to fall out about much smaller matters; the reason is, because we are not embarked in the same bottom with them, and so being able to do neither good nor hurt by being angry or displeas'd, we scarce ever trouble our selves. But at home the pretences of Religion and Liberty, which are always stirring when ever there is any prospect of pu­blique Disorders likely to ensue upon them, will never fail to excite the ambitious, the discontented, and the needy, to embroyle the State out of principles either of Interest or Revenge, while the passions of men that day­ly converse together, and are engaged by interest, or pre­judice, or duty in the respective parties, do but serve to blow the cole, and improve the sparks of Animosity into a flame of War.

The consequence of all which is, That there may be differences in the universal Church, consisting of many Kingdomes and Provinces without dissention; and that all that whatever it is, which is requisite to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, may be consistent en­ough with differences in smaller matters, but that in the same Kingdome or Dominion this can never be.

But secondly, By the Church we may understand a National Congregation of Christian People, divided into many partitions or particular assemblies united together by an unity of Faith, and Discipline, and Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction; and this is that which I affirm to be necessary in every Kingdome or State that would avoid all occasions of publique Tumults and Disorders, and would be as [Page 33] happy either as themselves can wish, or as Christianity designs to make them.

And therefore this is that unity which is by every Good Christian, good Citizen, or good Subject, above all things which this world can afford, the most earnestly to be desired: for the obtaining of which, he is to submit to every thing that shall be required of him, and he is to abstain from every thing which is forbidden him; if all things considered, it may lawfully be done or avoided.

Thirdly, In compliance with those of the Congrega­tionall way, I am content to allow a third sense of the word Church to be a particular and independent Congre­gation governed by Laws and measures of its own, and ac­knowledging no Jurisdiction Forreign to it self; and this is a Form of Church Government, which in a Christian Kingdome or Common-wealth, I affirm to be naturally un­lawfull: And here there are two cases to be considered.

First, Either the whole body of the People is divided into such particular and independent Congregations, or there is a nationall Establishment from which these particu­lar Congregations have separated themselves. The first of these is Babel in Effigie, the very Emblem and Land­skip of Confusion, subject to inconveniences that cannot be thought of till they are felt, and capable of such infi­nite sub-divisions as will at length reduce the comely Form of Government by so many particular interests and facti­ons into a State of publick Hostility and Rapine; for the reason why men separate from one another, is always out of some reall or some pretended dislike, which dis­likes by actuall separation, are so far from being compo­sed, that they are manifestly improved and heightned by it; and from hence arise so many several Interests as there are Sects or denominations of Parties in a Common­wealth.

For it is natural to all men to desire to gain Proselytes [Page 34] to their own Opinion, for men to love themselves and those of their own way, and to think of other men, who are not enroll'd in the same list with themselves, if not with a reall hatred, yet with a less esteem and a compa­rative Aversation, which whenever a Ball of Interest is thrown between them, will be improved into all the sad effects of the most desperate Malice and Revenge.

But here to make all sure as I go along, I must repeat again, That by Ind [...]endent Congregations, I mean, such as own no Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction externall to them­selves; from whence it is easie to perceive that every such Congregation may be a new Sect and Party by it self; as it was in a manner in the late Times, when the Sects were spawned in such increadible abundance, that the Alphabet began to complain of want of Letters to furnish so many different and disagreeing Parties with names.

Neither is it to be supposed that so many several Factions, notwithstanding their differences in matters of Religion, shall yet conspire in an uniform Obedience to the Civil Power, because to be uppermost is that which they all desire; and since the very same persons are mem­bers of the Commonwealth, and of a particular Sect or Party, it is ridiculous to hope that the State can ever be quiet, till all these parties can agree together to be of the same mind; which is, to make them cease to be what they are.

In the United Provinces, where the greatest Liberty is given and taken of any other Territory in the Chri­stian World, the peace of the publick could not be se­cured, if it were not for the Overballance of the Calvi­ [...]isticall Party above the rest; for the Calvinists, as Sir Willian Temple in his Observations upon the United Pro­vinces takes notice, p. 204. "make up the body of the People, and are possessed of all the publick Churches [Page 35] in the Dominions of the State as well as of the onely Ministers or Pastours, who are maintained by the publick, who have no other Salaries than what they receive from the State, upon whom they wholly de­pend; and for that reason they will be sure to preach obedience and submission to the People.

But yet notwithstanding this, so great has the power and interest of the Louvestane or Arminian Party alwaies been, that it has been the occasion of great revolutions among them; and as it was probably one of the main causes of their so sudden fall from the height of envy in­to the lowest region of pity and despair within the com­pass of a very few years, so it is to be feared that in not many more (the animosities between a Calvinist and whoever differs from him being irreconcileable and ever­lasting) it will pr [...]ve the ruin of that once powerfull, but now declining State.

Neither was there any thing in the late unhappy times, next to the Title of an incomparable Prince, to whom the Sceptre of these Kingdoms did of right belong, and the Affections of a loyal Party, which all the republi­can Cruelties were not able to extinguish, that contri­buted so much to put a period to the Usurpation, which was never establish'd upon any certain bottom, as the bandying of the several Factions against one another; which made it both necessary for the Usurpers to support their power by the Sword, and that Sword it self not be­ing all of it of the same metal, and the Army that was to wield it, being it self canton'd into Sects and Factions, they began at length not to understand one anothers language, but were forced to leave working any lon­ger, and to desist from building that Babel of Religion, cemented with bloud instead of mortar, which is in­consistent with the quiet of the Earth, and by which men in vain expect to climbe to Heaven.

It is a prodigious thing for a man to consider what ir­reconcileable feuds the smallest differences in Religion have created, and still the smaller those differences are, the higher usually are those animosities that are produced by them, as if it were the nature and genius of man­kind to make up in passion what they want in reason; as the Turks and Persians, though agreeing in all other parts of the Ma [...]ometan Superstition, yet about a very small Punctilio they are at mortal jars with one another; and, being so near neighbours as they are, they never want an opportunity of expressing their resentments by the frequent and bloudy Wars betwixt those two formi­dable Empires.

The Calvinists pursue the Lutherans and Arminians, who on their own parts are not wanting to retaliate the kindness, with every whit as great if not greater hatred than those who do toto coelo errare, the Popish, I mean, the Mahometan and the Pagan World; nay, so apt are men to fall out with one another, that the most inconsi­derable niceties of difference that can be conceived, when they are used as marks of distinction, when men shall obstinately persist in such discriminations, and when they shall place an opinion or affectation in them, will pro­duce in them a dislike and aversation for one another; and, let the difference be never so small, yet it will al­waies be true to the World's end that, Birds of a feather will flock together; so many distinctions as there are, ba­ting those distinctions which Trade and Functions and the Necessities of humane life have made for the mutual sup­port and maintenance of each other, so many several Parties and Factions you shall have in that Common­wealth or Kingdom where those distinctions are found.

Though in this case it will alwaies happen, that the smaller Fishes will associate and unite together against the Leviathan or prevailing Party, that overballances the [Page 37] rest, but when that King of the Waters is destroy'd, they will then begin to prey upon one another, and contend which of them shall ingross the Dominion of the Seas, which is the case of all the Republican Factions against the Church of England at this day; though as well rea­son as former sad experience may instruct us, when they have obtained their end, if ever they do obtain it, which God forbid, what miserable work they will make of it among themselves.

It is to be confess'd indeed that there are abroad very great heats and contentions to be found, which are not of such dangerous consequence to the publick Peace, such as are those feuds, which will never be extinguish'd, betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars, and betwixt the regular Fraternities with one another; and, I believe, there are but very few monastick Societies will be found that are at peace within themselves; of which, and of the causes of it, which I have well considered, I could say more, if it would not be a digression; but whether it be that common obedience which they pay their Holy Fa­ther the Pope, which keeps them in somewhat better order, or, that being men of a single life, not encumbred with any secular interest or concern, their animosities cannot so easily embroile the State as those who have a greater interest in it, and who may with a better coun­tenance pursue secular designs than they can doe; or, whether it be that the Laiety think it not worth their while, any further than it is matter of common enter­tainment and discourse, to take any part in the quarrels of Beadesmen and of Beggars; or whether it be that their contentions are not of such a popular nature as to have an influence upon any but themselves who make them; or that the perpetual austerities of their respective rules, which are a constant emploiment to them, hin­der them from being capable of prosecuting any dange­rous [Page 38] design, with that address and diligence which is re­quisite to its success; or that all the heat of these conten­tions is spent, by men that know better how to use their tongues than swords, in complaints to the Pope, and in writing against and censuring one another; or, lastly, whether it be that their way of life in the retirement of their cloysters, and in the little formalitie of their cells, and convents renders them unexperienc'd in af­fairs, listless and unactive in business, and unfit to doe any great good or mischief in the World; or whatever the true reason be, there is no question but they are found by long experience, by giving an example of po­verty and contentment, and by the reputation of their sanctity and holyness of life to be rather an advantage than detriment to the places where they are suffered, and they make sufficient amends for their intestine divisions, by their being united together in the Papal Interest and in the support of the Romish Tyranny over the Conscien­ces of men.

But let the reason be what it will, it is certain that no reason can justifie the lawfullness of separate and indepen­dent Congregations in a Christian Commonwealth or Kingdome, which are in their own nature, and have been found so by experience, to be so destructive to the welfare and happiness of the World, which are so big with inconveniences not to be foreseen till they are felt, which are surrounded on every side with infinite and un­speakable dangers, to which no possible remedy can be apply'd, but by the removal of their necessary cause, and by destroying the Independencie it self, that I make no scruple to pronounce it as a self-evident Maxim, that an aggregate of separate and disunited Congregations, unac­countable to one another or to any superior temporal Head invested with a power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Censure, is contrary to the Law of Nature, de­structive [Page 39] of the Peace of the World, and of the design of Christianity it self, which is to engage men in closer obligations of unity and friendship with one another, and therefore ought not to be tolerated in a Christian State no more than Atheism or Infidelity themselves; it being the extremity of Non-sense and religious Folly to allow that Charity, Good-will and Peace are the indispensable duties of a Christian; nay, the characteristick indications of his being Christ's Disciple; that God is Love, and that whosoever loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot possibly love God whom be hath not seen; and yet, that that Form of Church Government is, I will not say of divine Institution, but of divine Permission, which is in its very nature and essential constitution so exactly fitted to bring the World into Confusion and Disorder.

And so I have done with the first Case, which suppo­ses the whole Body of a People to be parcell'd out into many distinct and independent Congregations. Give me leave now to speak a very little to the second, which pre­sumes onely a Separation of one or more Congregations from the Body of the National Church, setting up a new Authority of its own, and disowning the Jurisdiction of the publick: which second Case differs onely in propor­tion from the first, and will of necessity labour with all those ill consequences in its degree and measure with which the first is incumbred; and, it being much easier for small things to encrease than to begin, the consequen­ces at the long run will be exactly the same, if the Go­vernment, by a wise temperament of Care and Courage, do not put a timely stop to the progress of such ill bo­ding beginnings.

Into such separate Assemblies as these all the ill humor [...] of the Body politick will naturally flow, thither the unfor­tunate, the discontented, the covetous and the ambitious [Page 40] will betake themselves, to seek revenge against reall or ima­ginary wrongs, to repair the decaies and ruines of a bro­ken fortune, to satisfie the craving circumstances of pover­ty and want, and to fill up the wide capacity of immo­dest, unreasonable and unjust desires at the expence of the publick welfare, security and quiet.

Neither are such Conventicles as these dangerous one­ly to the Civil Peace, by being the natural causes of em­broilment and disturbance, the very sinks and common­shores into which all bad humors disembogue themselves and find a welcome entertainment, while the simplicity of some suffers it self, under the specious pretences of an extraordinary zeal, to be misled and carry'd away cap­tive by the designing Hypocrisie of others; but, which is still worse, they have a no less pleasing aspect upon Religion it self, which either by the infinite pretences to greater purity, a most absurd and foolish cause of Separati­on, which knows no Law, and will admit no bounds, they refine so long till they have utterly lost it; or by a most impious and unreasonable claim to I know not what Gospel Liberty, they get at last to be Libertines indeed, and are placed as far above the reach of Ordinances as those Ordinances themselves, by their design and use for the preservation of Love and Unity in the Church, by their Divine institution and appointment, and by the su­pernatural Grace which is exhibited and convey'd by a due and worthy participation of them, are plac'd above the blasphemous contempt of such profane and dissolute W [...]etches.

But I would by no means be so far misunderstood, as if I were so uncharitable as to think that all, or so much as the greatest part of those that separate, doe it out of any bad design; for I am not onely morally certain of the contrary, as to the much greater number of the Peo­ple, but as to the Pastors themselves, if that be any cre­dit [Page 41] for them; I dare be confident, in very many instances, that the blind lead the blind, and that they are not sen­sible of those dismal inconveniences to which their Sepa­ration is naturally exposed; but in what I have just now said I chiefly reflect upon the sad experience of former times, which is sufficient to convince us, what the ge­nuine tendencie of these new models is; and I do no more question that the same causes, if suffered to operate with the same freedom, will have the same effect, than I do, whether humane nature and humane passions be the same now that they were twenty or thirty years ago; which Consideration if all well-meaning, but misguided Christians would seriously lay to heart, I cannot doubt but it would soon have a very wonderfull effect upon the Peace and Settlement of these distracted Kingdoms, by persuading all that heartily wish the Prosperity of Sion and pray for the Peace of this our spiritual Jerusalem, to leave their separate Assemblies, and betake themselves into the bosom of the Church, which cannot behold so much goodness and sincerity so miserably misled and gon astray without all the concern that is natural to a dis­tressed, forsaken Mother, and stands alwaies ready with her arms wide open, and with an entreating voice and mind to receive them into her most tender and passionate embraces.

Some sort of Unity as to external Discipline is neces­sary to the consistence even of those lesser bodies; nay, the Quakers themselves who are much the most exorbitant of all Parties to be found among us, yet they differ from others, and agree with one another in nothing more than in a certain Formality peculiar to themselves: And how much more desirable would it be, that all Parties, lay­ing aside their respective heats and animosities which under such diversity of outward forms they so dangerously foment and carry on against each other, should unite together [Page 42] under one common rule in such a blessed band of Peace and Love, as would remove all our Jealousies, and pre­vent all our Fears, and make every man in the Streets in an unknown Face, to meet his Guide, his Companion, and his own familiar Friend?

This is my first Answer to the Objection taken from the pretence of a Tender Conscience, That an Unifor­mity of one sort or other, is of absolute necessity to the peace of the Church; which Uniformity since it cannot be obtained, unless men could all jump into the same mind of themselves, and continue in it when they had done, it follows unavoidably that there is, and must al­ways be in the Church a standing Authority, from whence the Sanctions of Discipline and Order shall receive their obligation.

I come now to give a more particular Answer to the Objection proposed, and in that, I shall consider in the ge­neral what the terms of this Uniformity must be, or rather what kind of terms they are to which all Christian Peo­ple are obliged to submit.

It must be granted therefore, That though an Unifor­mity in Religious Worship be that which is above all things in this World the most passionately to be desired, yet this being only in order to that great End, to which all our endeavours and counsels ought to be directed, the Eternal happiness and salvation of our Souls; no terms of Uniformity ought to be submitted to which are incon­sistent with Salvation. And that Church, whatever she is, let her pretences to Infallibility and Truth, be never so great, which imposes those either Opinions or Practi­ces, as the terms of Communion, which are directly contrary to the word of God, or to the light of Nature and the impartial dictates of right Reason is by no means to be communicated with any longer; but we must im­mediately come out from Her and separate in our own de­sence, [Page 43] lest we be made partakers of Her sins and of Her plagues; and in this case it is she who is guilty of the Schism by necessitating a Separation, not we who sepa­rate when we cannot avoid it.

As to matter of Doctrine, I presume there is no man who calls himself a Protestant, of what Denomination or Party soever he be, who will charge our Church with any damnable Errour; but on the contrary, there are many of our Dissenting Brethren, who, when they are tax'd with the unpleasant imputation of propagating very absurd and very unreasonable Opinions, are used to take Sanctuary in the Articles of the Church of England; of whose Authority, as to some points, they will pretend themselves to be the only Assertors, with what Justice, I think I have in part discovered in some other Papers.

As to Ceremonies there are three Restrictions chiefly to be considered, which if they be all carefully observed in the discipline of any Church, there is no manner of pretence or ground for Separation upon a Ceremonial ac­count; and those three Restrictions are these which fol­low. First, They must not be too cumbersome and hea­vy by their number. Secondly, They must not be Su­perstitious in their use. Thirdly, They must not be Ido­latrous in their direction.

First, They must not be too cumbersome and heavy by their number, for this is that which eats out the very heart and root of Religion, and takes it off from being a De­votional exercise of the mind, by turning it into outward Pomp and Show, which can neither make us better men for the future, nor appease the wrath of God, or apply to us the merit and satisfaction of Christ for what is past.

This was that of which St. Austin in his time complain­ed; but yet he did not think it Lawfull to make any breach or distrubance in the Church upon this account, but rather to take this occasion for the exercise of those [Page 44] two excellent vertues of Patience and Humility, and ex­pect the good time when this burthen should be remov'd by the same regular Authority that had impos'd it.

This was the case of the Mosaick Bondage, especially as that Bondage was afterwards increased by the Phari­sical [...], or by the traditionary Rites and U­sages of the Jewish Church; and this is at this day, and was at the time of the Reformation, and for many Ages before, the case of the Roman Yoak; from which the Wisdome and Piety of our Ancestours, has with no less Justice than Necessity freed us, and plac'd us in that state of Christian Liberty, which does not consist of such an ex­emption from all Ceremonies as some men seem to desire; which is absurd and impossible in the nature of the thing it self, but in the choice of such as are best fitted to the ends for which all Ceremonies ought to be designed, and have the greatest tendency to Edification.

There were other causes upon account of the Ceremo­nies imposed by the Church of Rome, which might be suf­ficient to justify a Separation, of which I shall speak in the two following Heads.

And though a National or Provincial Church have a Right and Power within it self of retrenching the su­persluities of the Ceremonial part of their Divine Ser­vice, which may very well be done without any Schism or Separation from the body of the Church abroad, ei­ther on the one part or the other: Yet for private men to separate from the National Establishment, upon pre­tence that the Ceremonies are too burthensome or too many, is manifestly unlawfull. The reason is, because this will be lyable to the same Inconveniences, to which a separation upon pretence of greater Purity, is expos'd; and in both cases, if every private man shall be allow'd to judge for himself, and to proceed to a Separation in pursuance of that judgment, so infinite are the humours, [Page 45] the sancies, the prejudices, the perversities of some men; so fond are they of Novelty and Change, so apt to controul Authority, and so desirous to be govern'd only by their own Measures, that there can be no lasting Esta­blishment in the World, but the Discipline of the Church will be alwaies reeling like a Drunken Man, and driven to and fro like a Wave of the Sea, by every Capricious wind of Innovation.

We will suppose for the present, in favour of the Dis­senters, because they cannot prove it, that there are too many Ceremonies in our Church, yet I presume it will be granted that there are not above four or five, or half a dozen too many; or if you will, to make it a plump number, and to put the Objection into better shape, let them be half a score, which I believe upon an exact computation, will go a great way in the Ceremonies of the Church of England; and let all these be imposed as indispensable conditions of Communion: 'Tis pretty se­vere I confess, to lay so great a stress upon Indifferent Matters; but yet certainly no man in his wits will ever pretend that this is such an intollerable burthen, as that he must needs separate rather than comply; but if there be any that are so hardy to do it, though I will not dis­commend them for their courage, a vertue, of which in this contentious Age we have a great deal of need; yet in my opinion they deserve rather to be soundly Laught at, than seriously Confuted.

What hath been said of the Churches Power in re­trenching the number of her Ceremonies, the same is likewise true as to the Ceremonies themselves, that they may from time to time be altered and changed for others in their stead by the Authority of the Church, as shall seem most Expedient to that publique Wisdome for the great Purpose of Edification; but for every private per­son to challenge this Right to himself, is unlawfull, be­cause [Page 46] liable to the same inconveniences, with separating under colour of Ceremonious Superfluities, or of purer Ordinances and purer Ordinances and purer Worship, which are therefore just­ly to be suspected to proceed out of a bad design, because they never can have any end.

Saint Paul, in several places of his Epistles, expresses great tenderness for the infirmity of the weak Brother, but yet, if the Instances of such his condescention be exa­mined, they will be sound to be of a quite different na­ture from those which make up the pretences of our daies, as consisting, first, in the eating of things sacri­ficed to Idols, which as looking like a participation of the table of Devils, and as being expresly prohibited by a tem­porary Canon of the Council of Jerusalem, must needs give very great offence and scandal to the Christians of those daies, who did not understand so well as Saint Paul did that an Idol was nothing, and that the consideration of the Food might well enough be prescinded from that of the Idol, and that therefore it was lawfull for one who was well grounded in the reason of things and might doe it without offence to any weaker than himself, to eat whatever was sold in the shambles.

From which last cited place of St. Paul we may observe a threefold difference in the practice of those times as to this Affair. First, There were some, and they the most perfect Christians, in which number St. Paul himself was, who would make no scruple of eating the Idolathyta, though they knew them to be such, so they might doe it without scandal to others. Secondly, There were others who could not justifie to themselves the eating of such food; but yet, by Saint Paul's permission, they would not be at the pains of a solicitous enquiry, but suffering them­selves to remain in ignorance would eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles, asking no question for conscience sake. Lastly, There were a third sort, more scrupulous [Page 47] than either of the former, who thought themselves bound not to eat any manner of meat but what they were sure had not been sacrific'd to Idols, and it is to these especi­ally that Saint Paul's condescention is with abundance of equity and justice made, because their scruple was foun­ded not in a Circumstance or Ceremony onely, but in a deep sense of Devotion, and in a jealousie for the Ho­nour of God and Religion.

The second Instance of this Tenderness of St. Paul's is taken from the Jewish Abstinence from things stran­gled and from bloud, which was not onely strictly en­joyned by the Ceremonial law, but also continued and confirmed by the same temporary Edict of the Jerusalem Synod; and what hath been said of Abstaining from Bloud, the same was true likewise of Circumcision, which in some cases was dispensed with even after Con­version to Christianity; this was the reason why Paul circumcised Timothy, because of the Jews in the 16th. of the Acts, and it is his advice in the first to the Corinthi­ans, c. 7. v. 18. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised: is any called in uncircum­cision? let him not be circumcised. And then it follows, For Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God.

What is meant in this place by becoming uncircumci­sed is needless to my purpose at present to examin and scarce consistent with Modesty to explain.

But that which is more pertinent to my design at present to take notice of is this, that in both these in­stances of abstaining from Bloud and of Circumcision, the case is far different from the scruples of our daies; since it was not the squeamish aversation of a Ceremonie, but an obstinate adherence to the Ceremonial Law on which those scruples were founded, with which not­withstanding Saint Paul, as it were on purpose to show [Page 48] how little an enemie he was to Ceremonies was pleased for the time to dispense, although the retaining of those two Ceremonies in the Church, pursued into those conse­quencies of which they were not sensible, did in reality include in it a Denial of Christ and his Gospel.

For Circumcision, what was it but the Seal of that particular Covenant which God had entred into with A­braham and his Posterity? whereas now that enclosure was laid open and that partition wall was broken down; the renting of the vail in sunder at the instant of our Sa­viour's Passion was to signifie the final abolition, antiqua­tion and repealment of the Abrahamitical Covenant and Mosaick Law, the Holy of Holies was at that instant lay'd open, whereinto not onely the High priest with Sacrifices once a year, but all mankind by virtue of that great propitiatory Sacrifice which was at that time offe­red up upon the Cross, without any other Sacrifice of their own than that of a broken spirit and a contrite heart might enter and be happy; and there was now rati­fied a New and better Covenant, established upon better Promises, whereinto not the Jews onely, but all men that would accept of the conditions of the Gospel, of what sort or quality or Nation soever they were, whe­ther Jew or Gentile, bond or free, Greek or Barbarian, had a free and welcome admittance; and it was in this sense onely that the Promise was litterally fulfilled to Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the sands of the sea shore for number; that is, not the carnal, but the spiritual seed, which was much lar­ger than the other; Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel: Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed: And [Page 49] again, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra­ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Abstinence from Bloud, though it be not so much a Jewish Institution, but was as old as the Creation it self, and continued all along in force till our Saviour's time; yet then its obligation, together with its reason, was to cease, the reason given in the Law, which was the same before it, being this; that God had given it upon the Al­tar, to be an attonement for the souls of men: it is manifest therefore, that when the Sacrifice and the Oblation ceased, as they actually did upon the suffering of the Messias, as to their efficacy and virtue, and as the Prophet Daniel had long before expresly prophesied it should doe; I say, when the Sacrifices were no longer allowed in which this legal Abstinence was founded, it is plain the Obligation to the Abstinence it self must cease together with it, because, sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus: that Cause upon which Abstinence was en­joyned being now finally antiquated and abolish'd, the Effect that Cause, which was this Abstinence from Bloud, must of necessity be supposed to be abrogated likewise.

But yet, I know not how it came to pass, not onely the converted Jews in the Apostolical times, but the pri­mitive Christians for many Ages together did generally abstain from Bloud, and this Abstinence has not wanted very learned Assertors even in our daies, Curcelleus has written a particular Diatriba or Dissertation, De esu san­guinis, wherein he defends this practice, with what suc­cess I leave others to determin, when they shall have con­sidered what I have here said; to which I will now adde, to strengthen the Demonstration, that that Text of Saint Paul's which I have already cited, whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake, may as well refer, and does as necessarily doe so, [Page 50] to a permission of Eating the [...], which we Translate, things Strangled, and to the Repealment of the prohi­bition of Blood; as to the Idolothyta, or things Offered up in Sacrifice upon the Table of Idols. For they could not eat whatsoever was sold in the Shambles, without eating many times such meat as was not killed with that exquisite Accuracy for the draining of the Blood which was peculiar to the Jews, and derived afterwards to the Christians from them.

A particular Instance of this exceeding Care and Sol­licitude of theirs, we have 1 Sam. 14. v. 32. And the peo­ple flew upon the Spoil, and took Sheep and Oxen and Calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood; that is, lying upon the ground the Blood could not so easily be drained out of the Ori­fice that was made; and besides, the Blood flowing about them, polluted and the ground where they lay, and defiled the Skins of the Beasts that were killed, which put the whole Animal in a state of Levitical Unclean­ness; and that which made the touching of Blood to con­tract a Defilement, was this, that by the Levitical San­ctions, the Blood was of an Expiatory nature, and was always Offered up by the express Command of God be­fore the door of the Tabernacle, as long as the Israelites sojourned in the Wilderness; and so being spilt by way of Expiation, it was supposed to be Defiled with the Guilt of the Owner and his Family, who were after­wards to partake of the Flesh, and therefore was Un­clean, as all Expiatory Sacrifices were; as is manifest, not only from the reason of the thing, Expiation being a Translation of Guilt, and Guilt the cause of Unclean­ness, but also from the Rites of the Sin, and the Trespass Offering; which in some cases were by reason of their un­cleanness to be burnt without the Camp, and the Skins of these Sacrifices did not belong to the Priest as in some other cases, because they were unclean.

Now though it is true that after the Children of Is­rael were settled in the Land of Canaan, this Custome of bringing all Animals to be slain at the door of the Ta­bernacle, was omitted, and indeed was utterly Imprac­ticable by reason of the great distance of many parts of Judea from the Temple and Tabernacle; yet notwith­standing, God did not by this lose that Right which he had appropriated to himself in the Blood, but it was in the nature of a tacit or supposed Sacrifice in behalf of the Owner, and those that partook with him of the Flesh, though it were not sprinkled by the Priest before the Lord, as the Law of Moses, if by reason of Distance it had not been impossible, would have required.

By this it appears how the Beasts that were killed in this place of Samuel, came to be defiled, and unlawfull to be eaten.

Let us now see which was the thing I first intended, what care was taken by Saul for the redress of this neg­lect, or at least to make some amends for it, v. 33, 34. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood. And he said, ye have transgressed, roul a great stone unto me this day. And Saul said, disperse your selves among the people, and say unto them, bring me hither every man his Ox, and eve­ry man his Sheep, and slay them here, and sin not against the Lord in eating with the Blood: And all the people brought every man his Ox with him that night, and slew them there. Nay, it is probable that the Blood was also sprinkled from the hands of the Priests; for it fol­lows in the next Verse. And Saul built an Altar unto the Lord, the same was the first Altar that he built unto the Lord.

Now the reason of that Command of his, of rouling a Stone to the place where the Beasts were to be killed, was this, That they were to be laid athwart it with their [Page 52] N [...]ks hanging down, that so the blood might flow with the greater freedom out of the Orifice which was made; and might fall upon the ground without defiling the Bo­dies of the Animals themselves; as I have already taken notice in another Discourse upon a very different Occa­sion from this, and in another Language.

The Jews continue Obstinate to this day in a Religi­ous abstinence from Blood, notwithstanding their Tem­ple be demolished, and they do not so much as pretend to any thing of Sacrifice till it be rebuilt; and I know a Learned Jew, with whom I had for some years a parti­cular acquaintance, who was so scrupulous in this point, that he would never eat any kind of Flesh which he had not killed himself.

But before I pass any further, I will take notice of one cause of Saint Paul's Condescention, as to the business of Abstinence from Blood, which I did not think of before. And that is, That besides what I have said of its Levitical Pol­lution, which it seems they that were the Patrons of this Opinion, did not apprehend to be abolished by the ful­filling of all those legall Sacrifices in and by the Sacrifice of Christ; they considered further, that God having ap­propriated the Blood to himself; which Property and Right of his they did not conceive him ever to have relin­quisht, they looked upon it as a kind of Sacrilege to seed upon Blood; and therefore abstained from it upon the same Pious principle, upon which they would have abstained from Robbing of Hospitals or Colleges, or from Pilfering the Ornaments of Churches, and seizing the Revenues of the Ecclesiastical State; a sort of Piety so necessary to the honour of God, and to the prosperity and happiness of the Church, that it ought by no means to be discouraged, though in a mistaken Instance; much more if Saint Paul himself foresaw, which we cannot tell but he might, that Sacrilegious humour of the Saints [Page 53] which our times have experienced, when the Church was swallowed up at one Morsel, and the Kingdome at another; when all that was Sacred and Devoted to the service of Almighty God, was converted to profane uses by Thieves and Robbers in the disguise of Saints; with as little reason as that for which Dionysius of Syracuse di­vested Apollo of his Golden Ornaments, upon Pretence that they were too heavy and too hot for Summer, and that in Winter they would not keep him warm.

We see therefore that it was not a bare Infirmity with­out any colour or pretext of Reason that was dispensed with in these cases; for such Dispensations if they be once allowed, there can be no end but Confusion and the ut­ter Subversion of all manner of Government and Order. We see upon what reasons and prejudices these Scruples were founded, and how necessary it was at that time to Comply with them: We see likewise that they were not matters of small Weight and Moment, they were not things looked upon on both sides to be of an indifferent nture, they were not Controversiae de Nugis Siculis & Ger­ris Germanis, de foliis Farfari aut Noevill Butubatis, de umbrâ Asini, aut de lanà Caprinâ, they were not matters of meer Ceremony and Show, matters of External Dis­cipline and Form, that exercised the tenderness and in­firmity of those times. Those Babes in Christ that were but newly initiated into the Christian Faith, and had as yet tasted only the sincere milk of the Word, without ad­venturing upon stronger meats, were yet better fed and better taught, than to quarrel about Indifferent Matters, or to Controul their Governours in things of Publique-Decency and Order. But the instances of their Scrupu­losity, were founded in such things as they looked upon to be in themselves Offences of the highest nature against the express Commands of God, against the honour of his Name, against the entire and incommunicable respect [Page 54] which is due from all Creatures both in Heaven and Earth to his Adorable Majesty and Greatness, and against the indispensable duties of natural Reason and Religion; in which though they were never so much mistaken, yet these were Scruples not of small Concernment, but of the highest Consequence and Importance; and St. Paul did therefore comply with the Infirmity and with the mistakes of those Good Men, not barely to gratify a squeemish Fancy, which is out of love with things for no rea [...]on and without any end; but lest by opposing Pre­judices so deeply rooted in matters of so extraordinary a nature as these were, they might be tempted to an Apostacy from the Christian Faith, which did impose burthens upon them which their Consciences, not [...]eing yet sufficiently informed of the true extent of that liberty which Christ had purchas'd for them, could not possibly bear; for this reason, it was Saint Paul's rule to become all things to all men, that he might save the more; and he despensed with them in some cases out of meer necessity, that his Brother, for whom Christ dyed, might not be destroyed, by Relapsing to Judaism on the one hand, or Idolatry on the other: As our Learned Mr. Thorndike, and out of him the Accurate and Industri­ous Doctor Falkner, have observed. And this latter case of Idolatry was therefore the more tenderly to be re­garded, because the Authour to the Hebrews speaking of this very business, tells us, c. 6. v. 4, 5, 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned, and have tasted of the hea­venly Gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the World to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they Crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. And St. John in his first Epistle c. 5. v. 16. tells us there is a sin unto death: I do not say that he, that is our Brother, shall [Page 55] pray for it; that is, there is great danger that his Prayers will never be heard in behalf of such a person; and what that Sin is he afterwards explains v. 21. Little Children keep your selves from Idols. And this is likewise very suit­able to the practice of the Church in the Primitive times, who upon any such Relapse to Idolatry, were not used to receive the Apostate, though giving all imaginable demonstrations of Repentance, into the bosom of that Church, which he had forsaken, by Sacramental Abso­lution, sometimes at the very instant of Death, and sometimes not till then; as is manifest from the case of Serapio, and others.

However, since Peace is the thing above all others, the most to be prized and valued, and with the greatest passion and earnestness to be desired; since no kind of disci­pline or external Form is any further necessary or so much as lawful than it shall be found to Contribute to this blessed end, since Rites and Ceremonies establisht in the Church, are in themselves of a changeable nature, and since our Church her self hath openly and expresly declar'd, that she is no longer desirous to retain all or any of them than they shall be found expedient for Edificati­on; I should not be against closing with any Proposition, let it be almost what it will, by which a lasting Peace and Settlement might be obtained.

And because I think there are but three ways to be thought of in order to this end. The first of which is a Toleration of those that differ from us in their several differences and distinctions. The second, an Alteration of those Customs and Usages which are excepted against for others in their stead. And the third, an Abatement or Abolition of those Ceremonies which are scrupled without any Reparation by the Substitution of others in their room: Therefore I shall speak very briesly to each of these particulars.

And first, A Toleration as it is commonly understood, is a Liberty from the Government for every man to say and do as he pleases in Religious matters for Conscience sake; or upon account of a tender Conscience which can­not submit it self to the publique Rule; and such a Tole­ration as this is, I affirm to be directly and positively un­lawfull, because it cuts the sinews of Government in pieces, and lets the Rains loose to all manner of misrule and disorder: For the truth of which I need only appeal to the Experience of former times, when by such an un­bounded Toleration, the Kingdome was put into such a floating and uncertain Posture, that we had almost as many alterations in Government, as there were Sects and Parties that were to obey.

The Presbyterians, when time was, having shaken off the Episcopal Yoak, as they were pleased, if not to think, yet at least to pretend it to be; were as much for Uni­formity as other men, and urged the very same Arguments with great Judgment and Reason, against the Indepen­dency, which may now with irresistable Force be retort­ed upon themselves; as the Most Reverend and Incom­parably Learned, the Excellent Dean of Saint Pauls, a singular Ornament and strong Support of the English Church and State against their Enemies of both kinds, hath very Wisely, and like himself, Observed.

Nay, to what excess of Riot a Toleration in its ut­most Latitude will proceed, the extravagancies either in Opinion or Practice, or both, of the Antinomians, the Seekers, the Quakers, the Ranters, the Sweet-Singers, and the Family of Love, are a sufficient witness; most of whose Opinions as they proceed only from Ignorance, or Melancholy, or a worse cause, a Life ill spent, or a de­sire to spend it amiss for the future; so the Debaucheries and the Obscenities of some of these Sects which I have named, under a pretence of I know not what Liberty, [Page 57] are so great and so horrid, that I should not have belie­ved it, if I had received it from any other information than that of some who pretended with abundance of as­severation, and in a Company not easily to be imposed upon to speak their own certain knowledge, and who, I have great reason to believe, would not goe about to de­ceive either me or any other man whatsoever.

Or if it be thought too grating to reflect with so great, and, which is still worse, so just and so deserved a Severity upon the Miscarriages of our own Age, upon Religious Pretences; you may then consult the Annals of Antiquity; and then Epiphanius and Irenoeus will tell you, if you consult them, that there was no Crime so horrid, nor any unnatural Beastliness so detestable to hu­mane Nature, not yet corrupted and depraved by vitious habits, which the Gnosticks, the Basilidians, and the Valentinians did not practise; the instances of their exe­crable turpitude being so horrid and so filthy, that I re­member when I first read them, which I did in the la­borious Annals of the most learned Cardinal and Jesuite, Coesar Baronius, I could not believe he had quoted his Authours aright; and when upon a more narrow search into the business I found he had not deceived me, I was amazed, and could scarce believe my own eyes, and to this day am very loth to believe, for the respect I bear to Mankind, that they are true.

But if such Exorbitances in our Age, or any other, be the effects of Liberty, whether tolerated by others, or assumed upon what Pretences soever to our selves, then certainly, since humane Nature is alwaies the same, and being allow'd the same scope, will alwaies be guilty of the same or like Enormities, which, by the prevalence of bad example, and by the addition of impunity to tem­ptation will alwaies increase, instead of taking up with­in a dutifull compass of Sobriety and Moderation, such [Page 58] an unbounded Liberty as this ought alwaies, by the ut­most Severity of publick Justice, to be repress'd, and pu­nished, and restrained.

Neither must we be so vain to pretend, because such Enormities are not now usually practised among those that pretend to an higher degree of Saintship than their Neighbours, that therefore they never will; for we must not take our measures from the present state of things, but we are to consider what would [...]ollow upon the Dis­solution of the Government, to which these separate Congregations have a clear and a natural tendency in themselves, and then we will suppose, if you please, that such Libertines as these, if upon such infinite Pretences they do not separate themselves, shall be expelled the re­spective Congregations to which they belong; but there being no publick Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, who shall hinder them from associating into a Confederacy with one another? to which all that live as if there were no God, or have a desire to live as if there were no Go­vernment in the World will immediately unite them­selves, and betake themselves thither for Protection, as to a Sanctuary of Liberty and Riot.

To say that such things will never happen is as much as to say they never did; for whatever has been may be again, when humane Nature which is alwaies the same shall be joyned to the same unhappy circumstances of Af­fairs.

To say that these things, though they should hap­pen, will never be of any dangerous consequence to the publick, because the common Interest of Mankind will alwaies keep a prevailing Party in better order, is to set bounds to a bad example, and to the corruption of man­ners which is impossible; and besides, to proceed upon this presumption, without taking that course which is in its own nature the best fitted to prevent any such pub­lick [Page 59] mischief, which can onely be done by a regular and orderly Discipline, is to lean so much upon humane pro­babilities and upon our selves, that it is an high provo­cation to Almighty God to withdraw his Grace, with­out which it is impossible for any of us to persevere in a constant and steady course of Vertue.

But we will suppose for once, let what Toleration will be granted, that things will never proceed to this extre­tremity; but it is still to be considered that all these se­parate Congregations are Imperium in Imperio, there be­ing in a manner so many several Societies as there are several and independent Congregations, without any foreign Appeal, or Judge in Ecclesiastical matters; for at this rate it shall be at the Liberty of every private Pa­slour to preach what Doctrine he pleases, be it never so much to the disturbance of the Government of the pub­lick, as some of them doe at this time take a most un­pardonable liberty in their Sermons: But if it be law­full for the Government to assume to it self a Judgment of what Doctrines tend most to the Establishment of its peace and safety, it is much more lawfull for it to con­cern it self in matters of Discipline, which are not in them­selves of so great moment, and which notwithstanding being left undetermin'd will have the same effects; which it is for the interest of the World they should be adjusted after an uniform manner, and in which the Gospel has left no rule, whereby we are to manage and govern our selves.

If the Government where we live shall impose such things upon our Belief and Practice as are inconsistent with Salvation, contrary to the duties of natural and re­vealed Religion, and repugnant to such Propositions of Belief as are expresly revealed in the Scriptures of the New Testament; then all we have to doe is, to suffer pati­ently, as our glorious Predecessors, the Apostles and the [Page 60] primitive Christians did, and we shall certainly have our reward in Heaven for so doing; but if we suffer one­ly for breaking the Rules of decency and order, which have been found by experience to be so necessary to the publick Peace, and which have no other tendencie, meaning or design, but in order to this end, unless we can alledge reasonably what I shall by and by insist upon, that there is Superstition or Idolatry involved in our obe­dience, this is not Persecution but Punishment, we suf­fer either like Fools or Madmen, or, what is worse than either of these, like Boutefeus, Incendiaries and Disturbers of the quiet of mankind, and must not expect either the Title or the Reward of Confessours or Martyrs.

I reckon there are three Causes especially of the pre­sent Non-conformity from the established Discipline of the Church of England.

The First is, The Ambition, or Necessity, or Discon­tent of some bad men who know very well what Ad­vantages may be made for the promotion of any ill De­signs by a Separation; neither is it any matter whether such persons be all of them actually listed in some sepa­rate Assembly, so they do but abet and favour those that are; but rather by paying a personal obedience to the Au­thority of the Church, which they would have not de­stroy'd, but enlarged, by breaking down that Wall of partition to which we have no right, because the Dissen­ters have built it upon their own ground, by endeavou­ring to let in the Trojan Horse of Fanaticism through the Breaches of the Church, by very specious, but very de­structive and pernicious Pretences of moderation and comprehension, and such other hard names, which can onely be understood by being felt; by a pretended ten­derness of dis-uniting Protestants, and yet at the same time uncharitably representing the best Defenders of the Reformation under the odious and invidious Characters [Page 61] of Papists or Popishly affected; by questioning the Juris­diction of the Bishops in temporal causes, that by that means they may weaken their Ecclesiastical Power, by striking at the King through the sides of his loyal and well-affected Clergy; and by doing all this and a great deal more out of a dissembled Zeal for Unity and Peace, and out of a passionate Concern for the Honour and Safe­ty of the King and Church, they doe abundantly more mischief than either the Dissenters themselves, or they who are the most unmanageable and indiscreet in the ex­pressions of a bitter and unchristian Animosity against them; because these, as being prejudiced and profess'd Parties, will not be heard so equally on both sides.

Secondly, a second Cause, though indeed in the or­der of causality it may well enough deserve the first place, of the Continuance of such an unnatural Separa­tion among us, notwithstanding there is so little or rather nothing at all to be said in justification of so prejudicial and so unwarrantable a Practice, is the Necessity or Re­venge of those who at the happy revolution of his Ma­jesty's return, like the rising of the Sun, with healing in his wings to heal the Sores of three divided Kingdoms, being ejected in great numbers out of those Livings and Benefices of which they were then possessed, being un­able to digg, unless it were in the Vineyard, and being ashamed to begg; being desirous to reak their Revenge upon the Government, which had ejected them one­ly for that reason, because it could not trust them, and because they would not obey it; being tainted with the Leaven of the good old Cause; being soundly sea­soned with Democratical and Demagogical Principles of which it is very hard for a thorough Common­wealth's man, especially when he is no Philosopher, to rid himself; being in some small hopes, as drowning men are when they catch at a Reed, of reaping a new [Page 62] Harvest out of the Church lands and out of the Spoils of the Crown; being encouraged and abetted by men of like Principles and Practices and Circumstances with themselves, by good old Officers that had been in Com­mission, by Proprietours that had lost those Tenements and Hereditaments that never were their own, by in­considerate Women that are naturally fond of Saintship and Persecution, by Men that were Bigots to a Party, or Dependents upon an Interest, that wanted a Wife, or would oblige a Chapman, or insinuate themselves into a Last Will and Testament; by the Womens caressing their Husbands, and the Husbands persuading their Wives; by causes that cannot be justifi'd, and causes that must not be named, the black Fraternity of the short robe were at length so far emboldened, as, notwithstanding the Se­verity of those wholesome Laws, whose edge was rebated by the fatal Clemency of a too Gracious Prince, towards men that ought not to be trusted, and cannot be obliged, to own and justifie a Separation, which is now grown to that excessive height, that the Contention is no longer about Liberty, but Dominion; they break the Laws o­penly, without regard to Justice or to Shame, and to propagate a Succession of Law-breakers like themselves, they have ordained an Under-wood of Non-conforming Shrubs, who will in time grow up to be Cedars of Re­bellion, and come by the Priesthood much by the same right and title that Oliver came by the Protec­tourship, or Trincalo by his Dukedom: So that it is now with the Dissenters as it was the Israelites in Jero­boam's time, they have their separate Assemblies and their distinct Altars, their Priests, not of the Levitical or Aaronical Tribe, much less of the more perfect Mel­chisedecian Order, but of the dreggs and refuse of the People, and Calves in abundance, the Idols of the Fac­tion, as far as from Dan to Bethel.

But Thirdly, a third Cause of that dangerous Non-conformity which prevails among us is, a certain sort of Opiniatrity, or Affectation, or Newfangleness which in all Ages usually possesses the ordinary sort of People, by which they are alwaies apt to quarrel and find fault with the present Establishment, let it be never so wholesome; and if it were not for this Cause, the other two Causes which I have mentioned would want a subject upon which to work: but certainly, if men would seriously consider with themselves how dangerous all Innovations in the general are, and how destructive oftentimes to the publick Peace; how little most of them are like to get by Innovation, and how much they may lose; how small and inconsiderable, how unreasonable and unwarrantable the present Differences are; how necessary it is there should be some Establishment, and how impossible that any should please all; and that this is but to perpetuate quarrels by the nicety of some and the design of others, from one generation to another without any measure, moderation or end, to the inexpressible and unconceivable disturbance of the World; they would not then think it worth their while to lose the Quiet of their own minds, their Charity for others, and the good opinion of others for them, to crumble into Sects and Parties, to embroil us in infinite and inextricable Difficulties at home, and to expose us to the unavoidable Dangers of a foreign yoak, and a foreign Religion from abroad; onely to gratifie the Designs of proud, or discontented, or necessitous men; to feed Contempt and Ignorance themselves, and to cloath Want of loyalty, learning, good nature and good manners.

It is true indeed, that the Wisdome of this World is Foolishness with God, and that the Wisdome of God is Foolishness with this World, and that they are opposite the one to the other; but then by the Wisdome of this [Page 64] World, is meant, that Carnal Mind that hath a greater consideration for a Temporal Interest, than for the Inter­est of Truth and Vertue; for the Commands of God, or the precepts of the Gospel; but that men that have little or no Learning of their own, and yet are unassist­ed by those extraordinary helps of Utterance and Super­natural Illumination with which the Apostolical times were furnished; men that are so far from understanding what Reason is, that they decry it; men that are steered wholly by considerations of Interest, by impulses of Passi­on, by an habit of Prejudice and a principle of Revenge; that these of all others should be thought the fittest to Instruct the People, and to have the care and conduct of such precious things as are the Souls of men committed to their Charge; that these should be thought worthy to be the instruments of our Confusion, who have nei­ther the wit nor the honesty to make us Happy, who design us no Good, and can do us none if they did design it; is a thing which I am very confident, will find no manner of countenance from Scripture, and is utterly unable to plead the least shadow of a Grant or Commission from above.

An unlimitted Toleration must of necessity be unlaw­full, if any thing be; because it contradicts the design for which all Laws are made, and that is nothing else but to secure the Peace and Quiet of the World; which must needs be very inconsistent with an unlimitted To­leration, by which nothing else is or can be meant, but a Liberty for every man to doe or say as he pleases, so he doe it upon a Religious account, or out of a Princi­ple of Conscience, of which himself is the only judge in this case: to say otherwise, being to constitute such a foreign Appeal, is altogether incompetible with such a toleration.

Now if it can be proved that the allowance of separate and independent Congregations, without any Jurisdicti­on in Ecclesiastical affairs, Foreign to themselves, is such an unlimitted Toleration in it self, and will prove so in its Effects; then I suppose it will be granted, that all such Separate Assemblies are unlawfull; and consequently, that a Toleration of them cannot be allowed by the Chief Magistrate, or by the Legislative Power, without a Dissolution of the Government, and a betraying of that Trust which is repos'd in them for the preservation of the publique Peace.

What if an Holder-forth in a Separate Assembly, shall teach his Auditours that they owe no subjection to any Earthly Prince, that Rebellion is expresly dispensed with in the Charter of the Saints; that Adultery, and Sacri­lege, and Theft, and Murther, themselves; though in the Wicked and the Unregenerate, they be horrid crimes; yet they are a part of the privilege of the Elect, that all sorts of swearing are in the Reprobate unlawfull; but that Perjury it self, in such as are sanctifi'd and made Partakers of that new Birth by which so many Monsters are brought into the World, may be not only Lawfull, but Pious and Commendable, and in some cases an in­dispensable Duty?

Shall the Government in this Case, Shall Civil or Ec­clesiastical Jurisdiction be allow'd to Interpose, by pu­nishing such Profligate and such Insolent Wretches, and by forbidding under severe Penalties the venting of any such Doctrines for the future, which tend so manifestly to withdraw his Majesty's leige People from their Obedience, and to the unspeakable perill and hazard of their immor­tal Souls? If thus much be not allow'd, then all things must run to Confusion; and if it be, then if the regula­lation of Discipline be sound by experience to be as ne­cessary to the publique Well-fare, to the peace of the [Page 66] Kingdome, and to the preservation of Charity and Friend­ship among men; without which it is hardly possible there should be any such thing as true and acceptable Re­ligion: then certainly it does as much belong to, and is as necessary a part of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdicti­on, as the other.

I know but two things that can possibly be urged against the irresistible force of so plain a Demonstration: I call it a Demonstration, because it will prove so when those Objections are considered. First, It may be pre­tended that there is no danger, such Doctrines will ever be preached. And secondly, That a Difference grounded meerly upon matters of Discipline, will never produce those bad Effects that are pretended.

In answer to the first, there are but two things to be said, the first is an Argument from Reason, the second from Experience. Reason tells us, and so does Experi­ence too, for they cannot well be separated in this case, that men are naturally subject to seek excuses first to palliate, and then arguments to defend those Vices to which they find themselves addicted, and of which they are known to be scandalously guilty, or which they would practise for the future without controul.

The Drunkard, he puts his excess to the account of his friendship and good nature; the Lustfull plead a per­petual inclination as a natural call to enjoyment; the Covetous man is desirous of the character of Provident and Frugal; and the Ambitious would be thought a man of a losty and heroique mind; but nothing is so great a plea for Libertinism and Licentiousness of all sorts what­soever, as when it is made an Instance of Christian Liber­ty, and a Freedom from the Yoak of Ordinances; to which none but Jews and Formalists, and the tame Vas­sals of the dead Letter are subject.

There is no question to be made, but there are very bad People to be found in all Parties, let the Pretences to Religion be what they will; but it is not my business at present to upbraid any with their sinfull practices, so they do not own the Principles from whence those prac­tices proceed.

But what shall we think of the Gnosticks of old time, that made adulterous and inces [...]uous mixtures, and pro­miscuous coitions a part of their Religion? or, of the Fa­mily of Love, that doe the same? or, of the Sweet singers, that drink Ale and puff Tobacco to excess in their very re­ligious Assemblies? or, of the Reformers of this last Age, that thought they did God good service by robbing his Church and persecuting his Servants to death, and banish­ment, and confiscation of goods? or, of the received Ma­xim of those blessed times, Dominium fundatur in gratia, that is, The longest Sword has the best Title? or, of the Fifth monarchists of England? of the incredible Impu­dence and Villanie of the religious Incendiaries in Scot­land? of the Zealots among the Jews, the exact Patterns of the Zealots of our daies, of whom Josephus relates such prodigious Stories? of Theudas or Theodosius and his Followers, and of Judas of Galilee or Judas Gauloni­tes and his Accomplices, in the Acts of the Apostles? all which, under several religious Pretences, have in time past, or doe at present endeavour to set up for themselves, and shake off the Yoak of obedience to their lawfull Su­periours, to their leige Lords and rightfull Masters. What sort of People in the World are so arbitrary as these, who yet are the loudest Declamours not onely against Arbitrary Power, but against all Power but their own? The Papists themselves are not more bloudy than they, nor any of the persecuting Emperours more power­fully acted and possess'd by a Spirit of bitterness and per­secution. To conclude; Did not the Levellers preach [Page 68] Community of goods, according to the primitive example, (though the reason of that practice be now utterly ceas'd) and to reduce the natural state of things, when all things lay in common, before either Industry or Arts began? and what is this but a more religious method of Picking of Pockets and Breaking open Houses and Rob­bing upon the High way? What was it but a new Inven­tion of those pil [...]ering Saints, to give Thieves and Rob­bers, like themselves, a right to the glorious Title and Reward of Martyrdom?

Now if all these Mischiefs and Inconveniences are ow­ing perfectly to separate Congregations, and to mens em­bodying themselves into particular Ecclesiastical Societies distinct from the publick Discipline and Rule; if such O­pinions and Practices cannot better be promoted than by independent methods, nor otherwise or at least better be prevented than by an uniform and regular Discipline of the Church; then is it abundantly manifest that such [...]e­parate Congregations, as tending plainly to the disturbance of the World, are unlawfull; that they may, and that they ought to be suppressed; and that all the Favourers and Abettors of such unlawfull Assemblies, are Promoters, Aiders, Comforters and Assisters of Rebellion and Dis­obedience both against God and Man.

Neither is it at all material in this case, that many of those who frequent these separate Assemblies, nay, to give them their due, the infinitely greatest part of them, are not conscious to themselves of any such bad Design, but they doe it onely out of a religious prejudice which they have conceived against the Establishment of the Church of England, and out of an opinion which they have of the greater Sanctity of their Teachers, and Pu­rity of those Ordinances of which they are made parta­kers by their ministration, out of a real and an hearty zeal for God, although that zeal be not accord [...]ng to [Page 69] knowledge, yet we are not to consider so much what it is they design, as what the natural tendencie of all Se­paration is, which, because by experience it is found to bring so great and so horrid inconveniences and mis­chiefs upon the World, unless it be timely restrained, it may, and it must of necessity have very bad effects; and this is enough to make men guilty of the consequences of their Separation, though at first they did not intend them. He that commits a fault through want of consideration is not altogether so guilty as he that knowing it to be a fault, does yet notwithstanding commit it on set pur­pose; but yet he is guilty in his proportion and degree as well as the other, because it was his duty to consider better, and still the more easie it is too for a man to inform himself: (and what is or can be more manifest than the Prejudice arising from mens embodying them­selves into particular and independent Societies?) So much the greater is the guilt arising from the want of due heed and consideration, because a very little attention would have served the turne, when there is so much rea­son in the thing, and so much experience to improve that reason into all the certainty of demonstration.

But secondly, It will be said, That a bare difference in the externals of Religion, in matters of meer Disci­pline and Ceremonie, will not produce those bad effects that are pretended; and I wish with all my heart, that there were as much truth in this Exception as they that make it would have it seem to have; but, by Experience, which is the great Judge in this Controversie, to which we must apply our selves for the discovery of the truth, the contrary does but too manifestly appear. For what is it that has been the true source and fountain of all our pablick Calamities, that has made so dreadfull and so terrible Convulsions both in Church and State, but an over-heated zeal against Ceremonies and publick Order, [Page 70] which sort of zeal, if it be tolerated, the strength and beauty of the Church is lost, by every man's pursuing fancies of his own, or siding with a new modell of a particular Party instead of joining in the regular and uni­form Worship of the publick, which is at once an in­stance of our Obedience to the Divine and Humane Laws, and a certain expedient of Unity and Peace with one a­nother; but if this zeal, instead of being tolerated, shall be restrained and opposed, then it immediately complains of Persecution, and would have its sufferings thought as meritorious for raising unreasonable, insatiable and eter­nal Scruples, as if the Cause of Christianity it self were at stake, as if it were the being of a God or the immor­tality of the Souls of men that were deny'd by us, and asserted onely by the Dissenters from the publick Order and Rule.

So that either way the inconvenience is in a manner equal, a Toleration has a manifest tendencie to the sub­version of the Government both in Church and State, and in that, there is no question to be made, but it will certainly end, when once it has been suffered to have its full scope and swinge; and yet a vigorous Prosecution of the Laws against the Disturbers of the Peace is branded with the odious name of Persecution, and they that suf­fer by it, for being Incendiaries, are termed Saints; and because it is natural for a distressed Cause to find a friend­ship and pity from the common People whether it be reasonable or no, Suffering being a very sensible and a very affecting thing when the Causes of those Sufferings are not so plain and obvious to every common under­standing, especially when blinded by prejudice or con­cern for the persons of those that suffer; from hence it comes to pass that a just and necessary Prosecution of the Laws, if it be not managed with abundance of temper and prudence, so as it may appear it is not done out of [Page 71] hatred to a Party, but out of a real tenderness to the common good, may sometimes prove the occasion of great and fatal disorders in a State, and may in its con­ [...]equence be attended with all those confusions to which a boundless Toleration is exposed.

This was the great reason of the revolt of the Ʋnited Provinces from under the Spanish Yoak; who, if they had been treated with less severity, might probably by gentler methods have been reduced to Obedience; but by the Cruelty of the Spanish Governours and Souldiery who pursued them, especially under the Government of the Duke D'Alva, with all the symptoms of the most mortal hatred, they were so far alienated in their affec­tions from a Government that used them so ill, they had such a dread of those unheard of Cruelties and such a de­served aversation for that Religion that delights to propa­gate it self by Bloud, that, being assisted by the Hugo­nots from France, whose interest it was to stand by the Reformation, and by Supplies from England, which was glad at that time to find an opportunity to reduce the Spanish greatness to a juster ballance with the rest of the Eu­ropean Princes, they were at length perfectly severed from the body of the Spanish Empire, and united in a common Al­liance among themselves, for the mutual support and main tenance of each other; which, though it gave begin­ning to the most powerfull Republick that has ever ap­peared since the Roman, yet, as a Republick in its na­ture and constitution is more exposed to the ambition or animositie of bad men than a Kingdom or Monarchie is or can well be, so in the midst of its greatness, it alwaies carried in its bowells the undoubted symptoms and cau­ses of its ruine, which it is to be feared, what with the Factions at home, and the daily encreasing Power of its enemies from abroad, is not far off at this time.

But yet though Cruelty be that for which all man­kind, but they that exercise it upon others, have a just and mortal aversation, yet a Prosecution of all Penal Laws cannot be called Cruelty, unless it be Cruelty to govern, or to use the necessary and the onely means to keep the World in order; all Punishment is Cruelty, or at least Injustice, which is inflicted is defence of a bad cause or a bad religion, but when the Penalties them­seves are not so severe as to deserve the name of Cruel, and when they are inflicted for the Preservation of a sound and orthodox Religion, which I persuade my self most of the Dissenters will acknowledge that of the Church of England to be; when they are inslicted for the preser­vation of Unity and Friendship among men, when this is the onely Expedient by which an universal Friendship and Charity can be maintained, by which the Govern­ment can be rendred safe in it self and easie to those that are to obey, by which we can be rendred quiet and se­cure at home, or considerable abroad, by which we can be put in the best capacity to resist an Enemy or to suc­cour an Ally, or to transmit the Profession of the Gospel in its native purity and beauty down to our own Chil­dren and to their posterity through all generations as long as time shall endure, whereas without this course we shall be subject to infinite changes and vicissitudes in our Secular and in our Ecclesiastical Concerns, and shall be more dangerously exposed, when our strength by a Toleration is disunited and broken in pieces, to the in­cursions of Idolatry, Superstition, Infidelity, Debauche­ry, Prophaneness, and of all manner of Evil whatsoever it be; this is sufficient to justifie a lawfull Power in the use of the onely means by which these Inconveniences may be avoided, and if it shall so happen, through the evil disposition of men, that a Prosecution of the Laws, which is the onely possible expedient of Peace and Safety, [Page 73] shall yet notwithstanding produce the same mischiefs and disorders which a Toleration would have done, yet in this case the Magistrate will have the satisfaction in his own Conscience and before God of having discharged his duty, and of not having betray'd that trust which is reposed in him; which in the other, as being a natural means to bring us all to confusion, I do not see how he can ever have or expect.

The Contentions about matters of Discipline are there­fore manifestly of the highest importance, because they occasion a Separation, which is the fruitfull mother of all those fatal mischiefs both to Church and Kingdom that have been mentioned already, and can never be too of­ten repeated, or too seriously reflected upon.

I would very willingly know of our Dissenters what they think themselves, upon supposition that the whole Nation were divided and parcell'd out into separate and independent Congregations, which is that which an un­limited Toleration would produce, whether or no its strength wou'd be so firm and so compacted as it is now? To say it would, is to say that a divided interest can be as strong as that whose parts are never so well compac­ted and knit to one another; and it is, besides this absurdi­ty in the reason of the reason of the thing, to contradict the experience of our own Age and of all that have gone before it; to maintain the lawfulness of such separate Congregations, notwithstanding those many and dismal inconveniences to which they are exposed, is to affirm, that it is lawfull to endeavour the subversion of the Government, which in this case will never be able to maintain it self with­out a standing Army, no more than in the times of usur­pation; and it will be very hard, if not impossible; be­sides other incommodities and pressures to which this way of administration is exposed; that instead of defen­ding the Laws, they shall not at some time or other sub­vert [Page 74] them, instead of making the Prince happy and his People secure, they shall not make both miserable, ob­noxious and dependent; instead of agreeing together for the maintenance of the common peace and safety, they shall not fall out among themselves, partaking of the e­pidemical giddiness of the People whom they pretend to serve, but are in reality their absolute Lords and Ma­sters, and burn up all the sences of Property and Right in the unnatural flames of an intestine War.

I demand farther, whether they can or do suppose, though God be thanked we are not yet brought to the utmost persection of Tumult and Disorder, that the se­parating of so many particular Congregations is not a weakning of the Government, as well as the dividing the whole Nation into such independent Assemblies would be a subvertion of it? Certainly this depends in its pro­portion upon the same reason with the other, and there­fore cannot be deny'd; besides, that the present posture of affairs doth sufficiently prove it to be true, when our Heats and Dissentions about indifferent matters, as men are pleased to call them, have made us, from a Nation that was used to be the Umpire and the Arbiter of Eu­rope, to become so inconsiderable as we are abroad, and so uneasie and unsafe at home; besides, that by our Di­visions we encrease those dangers of Popery which we pretend to dread; while by an universal, but deserved cry against so detestable a Superstition, we are heaping coals of fire upon our own heads against the day of wrath and persecution if ever it prevail among us, and we provoke our Enemies with more zeal than prudence, unless we would join together, as we ought to do, in a common League to resist them: so that it still appears more and more evident, upon all considerations, that Uniformity is necessary to the publick safety; it is necessary to the honour and seemly appearance of the Government as well [Page 75] as to the happiness of it: it appears likewise that sepa­rate and independent Congregations are therefore unlaw­full, because where there is no common jurisdiction there can be no common rule of discipline and order: it appears that a Toleration of such independent Assem­blies, is a Toleration of uncharitableness and strise among men, and therefore as being directly and diametrically opposite to the very nature and temper of Christianity, it must of necessity be unlawfull: lastly it appears that humane impositions are lawfull, because this Unifor­mity, which is necessary to the quiet of the World and to the making Christianity usefull to so good an end can­not possibly be obtained without them.

Separation, let it be for what cause or upon what pre­tence soever, does, as I have said already, imply a dislike, and does create an alienation of affection in the parties se­parating from one another, and therefore since a quarrel is much more easily somented than begun; since it is hard in many cases for the best tempers to [...]e reconciled to one another, but very easie by new provocations to add new fewel to the fire of discord, till it grow master­less without any hopes of quenching, therefore no such Separation ought ever to be made without necessary cau­ses; and such as make Communion in its own nature un­lawfull, because all other pretences are infinite, and at that rate there can be no end of Dissention among men; especially if we consider farther, what is not perhaps so usually regarded, or at least not mentioned among the reasons which prove a Separation unlawfull; men do not onely by this means divide from one another as to their religious concerns, but even in their temporal af­fairs they care not to deal or have to doe with one ano­ther; and thus they trade, and marry, and converse ge­nerally with the men of their own way, and are almost to all intents and purposes as many distinct Societies as [Page 76] there are parties or factions in that unhappy Church whose misfortune it is to be so miserably divided: the consideration of which cannot chuse but affright every man who has any regard either of his own peace, or to that of his Countrey, by presenting him with a dismal Scene of a Church divided and mangled into several dis­agreeing bodies, separated in all respects from one ano­ther, and as it were, drawn up in Battalia, and ex­pecting onely the Signal of opportunity or advantage on any side to begin a bloudy encounter; which they that complain so heavily of Persecution themselves (when they have so little reason, and when they at the same time persecute the Government and all that favour it with ca­lumny and detraction, which is a very grievous sort of per­secution) will certainly doe whenever it shall lie in their power. They having not onely given us a sufficient spice of their temper in the late times, to teach us not to trust them any more or any farther than needs must; but it is scarce longer ago than yesterday, that the tender Consciences were indulged so long till they grew too hard for the Government, and it is but too [...] ­vident, by their words and actions in that critical junc­ture, that if they had gained their point, which was the subversion of the present establishment disguised un­der specious pretences of uniting Protestants, who can­not be united by any thing but a publick Form and Ritual of Divine Service; they would soon have shewn us what opinion they have of their pretended Diana Toleration, a Goddess never worshipt in the publick Temples, and a word that never sounds pleasantly, but to those that want the thing.

So that an universal Toleration of all parties and opini­ons being manifestly proved to be naturally unlawfull, to be attended with infinite inconvenience and mischief both to the publick and particular persons, of which [Page 77] the body politick it self is made up, as the whole is but an aggregate of several parts considered as one, and sum­med up together, there remains now nothing farther to be considered under the topick of concession, but that either we alter some ceremonies which have affor­ded matter or pretence of scruple for others in their stead, or that we do totally abolish whatever is excepted a­gainst, without any supplement or reparation: For the first of these, it is granted by such as shall desire it, that an imposition in the general is lawfull, otherwise it would be ridiculous to talk of substituting other Cere­monies in the stead of those that are abolish'd, when the very substitution it self is made an exception against them, it behoves those persons therefore who are desi­rous of such an alteration, since by the desire it self they do imply an acknowledgment, that a substitution, that is, a new imposition may lawfully be made, and by consequence that an imposition in the general consi­dered is not unlawfull; I say, it concerns them to shew some particular reason, besides the imposition, of their dislike of the Ceremonies which are already in use; for otherwise if we must alter them for no reason, we can have no certainty that this innovating humour will ever have an end, neither is it possible to make any o­ther construction of it, but that it proceeds out of a design to give an endless disturbance to the publick peace, notwithstanding it pretends to establish and secure it. And as for those, in the second place, that are for abo­lishing without a reparation, the case will be the same again; for either they are against those Ceremonies, which they would have abolished, merely for that rea­son because they are imposed, and then it is manifest they ought not to be heard, because this, like Sampson, with an honest perhaps, but yet a blind fury, and a mi­staken zeal pulls up the very Pillars of Government from [Page 78] their natural basis, and destroys the onely expedient un­der Heaven of publick safety, security and peace; it makes the very worship of God it self precarious and uncertain, and exposes it at every turn to the design of Knaves, the destructive zeal of Madmen and Enthusi­asts, the libertinism of Epicures and voluptuary persons, to the scorn of Atheists, and the contempt of all wise, considerate and sober men; there must therefore still be another reason assigned why the Ceremonies that are boggled at should be abolished, and those reasons can be none but one of those three that have been mentioned already, either they are too cumbersome by reason of their number, or they are superstitious in their use, or they are idolatrous in their direction.

The first of these particulars hath been already con­sidered; and as to the second, a Ceremony may be said to be superstitiously used, when we ascribe to it some Physical virtue or efficacy, or some supernatural effect which it hath not, or when we say that by or together with it, grace is conferred, as in the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but we do not affirm this of any of our Ceremonies, and our Church hath expresly declared that she intends nothing by them but onely peace, and decency, and edification; and for the use of the Cross in Baptism, which is the great thing scrupled under this head of Superstition, she does expresly declare that it doth not at all belong to the Es­sence of it, that the Baptism is compleat without and before it, that it is onely a declarative rite of the per­sons being listed under Christ's Banner, of our being de­dicated to his service, who for our sakes underwent so painfull and so ignominious a death, of our not being ashamed of that Cross which the Son of God himself underwent, and of our willingness, if occasion be, to take up our Cross and follow him through much [Page 79] tribulation and sufferings into the glory of the Father. So that here there are but two things to be conside­red, either this Rite is unlawfull because it hath been superstitiously abused by those in the Romish Commu­nion, and then upon the same account kneeling at our Prayers will be unlawfull, because the Papists kneel to the host, which yet, I presume, none of the Dissenters will be so hardy to say; or else, secondly, it will be said, as some of them do, that it is therefore unlawfull because it is a Ceremony of a symbolical or significative nature, which is very strange, as if a Ceremony could be unlawfull, onely for that reason, because it tends to e­dification, as it is the nature of a significant Ceremo­ny to do. And here indeed is a great and common mistake concerning indifferent things, as we do usually, but falsely call them; for though we do not say, that any one Ceremony hath any superstitious efficacy or virtue in it, or that it can never upon any consideration be changed or omitted, or that it is of absolute necessi­ty in order to salvation, yet this must be confessed at the last, that many things are not so indifferent, as they are usually esteemed.

It is very fit and consequently a duty, that the Cler­gy should go attired in black rather than in colours, that they should wear long robes rather than short, and ra­ther short hair than long, because it will always be, that the latter of these will in the minds of all men create a sense of levity, a disposition to contempt, an opinion of luxury and effeminate softness, whereas the former in the common interpretation of Mankind will always have a grave and a majestick appearance, they will re­slect authority, credit, and an opinion of sobriety and staidness upon him that wears them; and if the person be unlike what he appears, his habit which was design­ed among other things for a mark of distinction, will be [Page 80] the greater and the more deserved reproach to him. The Nonconformists themselves are so sensible of this, that they themselves wear black, for no good reason but what is symbolical, though they condemn that account of any thing we doe in us, and they wear long cloaks too, though Gowns and Cassocks they have nothing to doe with, and therefore they do still remain in a state of superstition and uncleanness, onely for that reason be­cause they are longer, that is, more grave, more be­coming, more authoritative, because they preach better and perswade more effectually than short ones.

The Surplice, a thing so much decryed and talked against by some, what is it to the Layety? or how come they so deeply to scruple it in others, who are not obliged to wear it themselves? if they scruple it for no reason but onely because they are not, that is, they will not be satisfied, a man can as little tell where such an unaccountable scrupulosity will end, as from whence it begins or upon what reason it is founded, when it is confessed to be founded upon no reason at all, besides that it is intolerable, that they that talk so much of liberty themselves, should not leave us at our liberty to act as our Oaths and as the Laws oblige us, when they can assign no reason why we should not, and when the dispute is about a matter in which they are not perso­nally concerned: if there be any reason why it is scru­pled it is onely because it is a symbolical thing which hath been already answered, besides that it stands per­fectly upon the same bottom with their own putting on clean cloaths and change of raiment on a Sunday, which that that day of the week is chose above all the rest to doe it in, it must be confessed to be done upon a reli­gious account and a symbolical reason, out of respect to that day, and to intimate that purity and innocence of mind which is expected from them in the worship of [Page 81] God. For the Communion Tables being railed in, and separated in that manner which it is from the rest of the Church, it is declared in the Canons of 1640. Ar­ticle 7. that it is onely to avoid that irreverence and prosanation, which would otherwise bring a contempt upon all holy things, and upon the consecrated Ele­ments themselves.

It is rather necessary than otherwise that I should be uncovered at Church, as being at that time more espe­cially in the presence of God, and that I should kneel or stand rather than sit at my Prayers, because these are Natural postures of humility and reverence, and have been esteemed so in all Ages and Nations, where­as sitting, or leaning, or lying along do betoken a com­parative carelesness and disregard of God and of his worship, and will without question produce that bad effect upon the minds of men whereever they are put in practice; as on the contrary, a devout and submissive gesture and deportment of our selves at the times and places of religious worship is of real benefit and ad­vantage to our selves, and is of good example to o­thers, and for the edification of all; which things are so plain and so undoubted a justification of all signifi­cant Ceremonies, that I need say no more concerning them.

Lastly, there is no Ceremony in our Church, which is or is pretended to be Idolatrous in its direction, for as to the bowing towards the Altar or Communion-Table placed at the East end of the Church, it is left to every man's liberty by the Canons of 1640. to be­have himself in that matter as he pleases, so that here is nothing imposed, and yet because this hath been for­merly so highly censured, and perhaps with some more tolerable pretence, than any of the other exceptions that are made, I should not use it, since I am not enjoined, [Page 82] where it may give offence or be an occasion of scandal to the weak, but in Cathedral or Collegiate Churches, where the Congregations usually are better informed, there is no reason why it may not be done, for it is not pretended that we bow to any carved Image, or to the likeness of any living Creature whether in Heaven or Earth, which was the thing expresly forbidden by the second Commandment, that we worship the Railes or the Table it self, or at any time the consecrated Ele­ments upon it, which is likewise included in the mea­ning of that Commandment, all which our Church does expresly declare against, in as plain Language as words are capable of speaking: And in the second place it is to be considered, that the Israelites long before Chri­stianity was thought of, did always worship toward Jerusalem, that is, towards a certain quarter of the Heavens without any the least suspicion of Idolatry, and that for ought appears, onely by humane institution; lastly, I hope it will not be denied that God is in all times and places a very true and proper object of ado­ration, and that there is no quarter of the Heavens, be­sides the symbolical reasons upon which this practice depends, towards which we may not worship him with­out Idolatry.

As for our kneeling at the Sacrament our Church hath sufficiently declared her self in this point, that she in­tends no worship but to God onely, to God the Father, who sent his onely begotten Son into the World to die for our sins; to God the Son, who is then spiritually received, and dies afresh for us in the merit, and virtue, and efficacy of his passion as often as we do worthily par­take of those holy mysteries, and to God the Holy Ghost, whose Grace is then implored and received by us.

Because the Papists worship their Breaden God, shall it therefore be unlawfull for us to kneel at our Prayers, [Page 83] to behave our selves humbly in the presence of the true and onely God, to acknowledge our offences, and re­pent us of our sins, and give thanks to God for his mer­cy, to pray that the Body and Bloud of our Lord Je­sus Christ may preserve our Body and Soul to everlasting life, and to take that holy Sacrament to our unspeaka­ble and eternal comfort, meekly kneeling upon our knees?

But it would be infinite to say all that might be said upon so copious a subject, in which I have all the way so plainly concurring with me, the voice of reason, of experience, and of the wisest and best men of these and all times ever since the Reformation, therefore I shall summ up all, as I began, with the words of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order.

THE END.
AN EXERCITATION CONC …

AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING The true Time of Our Saviour's Passover: BEING PART of a DIGRESSION In the Additions to the SERMON Before Sir P. W.

By John Turner, late Fellow of Christ's Col­lege in Cambridge.

Stulta est clementia, cùm tot ubique
Vatibus occurras, perituroe parcere Chartoe.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1684.

Reverendo admodum Patri, ET Antiqui Generis Morisque Viro, HENDERICO, Antistiti Meritissimo, LONDINATƲM, &c. JOANNES TƲRNER ex voto

ACcipias placido, Praeful Clarissime, vultu.
Quae tibi Grantigenoe fubvehit unde Cami.
Namque Camus quondam sacros mihi praebuit haustus,
Fovit & in blando Granta benigna sinu.
Ille quidem large Fluvius non labitur amne,
Nec vehit auriferas Gangis ad instar aquas.
Sed Camus Angliacis dat nomina docta Canonis,
Dat decus & titulis surgit ubique novis.
Coulius hîc quondam est viridanti auditus in herba,
Tinnula Threiciis plectra ciere modis.
Hîc cecinit cassos Vates neglectus amores
Subque tuo gemuit, Cypria Diva, jugo.
Traditur hîc vivos rosisse Barovius ungues,
Cui nihil arcani non patuisse ferunt.
Ille omnes linguas & Musas calluit omnes,
Ah! nimium vitae prodigus ille suae.
Quid referam Heroas longo quos ordine monstrat
Quae micat hâc Coeli fulgida luce dies?
Vix habet aequales Oxonia Mater alumnos,
Nec beat Isiacas laus magis alta domos.
Unum te nobis superi si fortè dedissent,
Vix superis dandum, quod superesset, erat.
Tu columen rerum, tu lux, tu sacra salutis
Anchora & Arctoi tu Cynosura poli.
Tu benè pacatis firmas altaria bellis,
Atque togae posito corripis arma sago.
Te Bellona suum, te Pax agnoscit alumnum,
Condecorántque tuas, LAURUS, OLIVA, Comas.
Martis habes animos, linguam ingeniúmque Minervae
Et tumet ancipiti mens cumulata Deo.
Non proavos jactas nec avita in stirpe superbis,
Nec genus in laudes cogitur ire tuas.
Sed facis egelidas in te revirescere manes,
Plusque refers genti quàm dedit illa tibi.
O, quam te memorem COMPTONI nobilis Heros,
Lumen idem Patriae deliciaeque tuae?
O, mihi si centum linguae, centum ora fuissent,
Doctáque centenâ chorda sonare manu;
Omnis lingua tuos, os omne sonaret honores,
Tactáque centeno pectine sacra chelys.
Quàm pulchrè excelsi cavit Moderator Olympi
Ut benè res Patriae Relligionis eant,
Cùm Lambetha Parens GƲLIELMO Principe gestit,
Et magnum HENRICI Numen in Ʋrbe viget.
Scilicet à tantis Ecclesia fulta columnis,
Non timet à rabido Schismate posse quati;
Sed secura sui longum jam pergit in aevum,
Pergat, io! auspiciis usque beata novis.
Tu quoque Patricio Pastor praefulgidus ortu
Perge tuo populos pascere more tuos.
Perge salutiferam dextrâ numerare senectam,
Nestroris & Pylios canus adire dies.
Quo tu plura animi possis monumenta verendi
Spargere & exemplis auctior esse bonis.
Hei mihi! qui referens tanto [...] Patri,
Non possim ex inopi promere digna penu;
Digna tuis meritis & nostrâ digna parente
Quae me Castaliis edidit alma jugis.
Tu tamen accipies animum pro thure colentis,
Digna relaturus, si potuisset, erat.
Accipies placido, Praesul Clarissime, vultu
Quae tibi Grantigenoe subvehit unde Cami.
J. T.

THE CONTENTS.

  • THE Time of our Saviour's Passover assigned; viz. upon the Evening of the Fourteenth of Nisan, Page 98.
  • Four places of Scripture produced to justifie this opinion, p. 99, 100.
  • [...] what, and the errour of Bochartus noted, p. 101, 102.
  • [...] for Easter Sunday and why, p. 102, 103.
  • Tessarescaidecatitae who, p. 102.
  • A fifth place of Scripture produced to confirm this notion concerning the true time of our Saviour's last Supper, which yet does not prove so certainly as the other four, p. 103.
  • Ʋpon what account it was necessary that our blessed Lord should suffer at that very time when the Passover was to be killed among the Jews, p. 103, 104.
  • Three places of Scripture alledged in favour of a contrary o­pinion, that our Saviour's last Supper was celebrated upon the true time of the Jewish Passover, and not the night before it, as I have affirmed. p. 104, 105.
  • A general answer to all these three places, p. 105.
  • A more particular answer, ibid.
  • Objection. How comes it to pass that the Parasceue, or preparation to the Passover, is in the three places last mentioned, called the first day of unleavened Bread, and the day of unleavened Bread? p. 106.
  • Two Answers to the Objection, the first not much relied up­on, but the second confirmed by an observation of Capel­lus [Page] and Grotius, and by comparing of two testimonies alledged from Josephus, p. 106, 107.
  • To the five places that have been mentioned above, and which are all of them produced by Bochartus, with a design to answer and elude their force, there is a sixth added to strengthen my opinion. p. 108.
  • Bochartus his evasion of the first of those five places consi­dered and refuted, p. 108, 109.
  • [...], ibid.
  • Dr. Lightfoot's evasion of this place, though in it self false, yet much more plausible than that of Bochartus, p. 109.
  • Grotius concurrs in opinion with me, that this first place is to be interpreted of the last Supper in opposition to Dr. Lightfoot, ibid.
  • The word Passover in the second place cannot be understood of the Chagigah, as Bochartus would have it, proved at large, p. 109, 110, 111.
  • [...], or the preparation of the Passover in the third place, cannot be understood of the Passover it self, but onely of the day before it proved, p. 111, 112.
  • [...], or the second Sabbath after the first, what, p. 112.
  • Reasons given to strengthen my opinion from the nature of the Sacrifice of Christ compared with those types by which it was shadowed out under the Law, p. 113, 114.
  • Had our Saviour suffered upon the first day of unleavened Bread, be would not have answered to the Passover but the Chagigah. ibid.
  • The general ignorance of all, both ancient and modern Wri­ters, what the true meaning of the Sabbatum deutero­protum should be, p. 114, 115.
  • Scaliger's conjecture why rejected by Grotius and Capellus, p. 115.
  • Scaliger's conjecture laid down, and the insufficiency of it shewn in five particulars, p. 115, 116, 117.
  • [Page] The Sabbatum deuteroprotum in St. Luke fell certainly upon the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath properly so called, p. 117.
  • The absurdity of Scaliger's opinion upon supposition that it always falls upon this day, 117, 118.
  • Grotius his opinion proposed and rejected in five particu­lars, p. 118, 119, 120.
  • The conjecture of Capellus depending upon two different ac­counts of the Jewish year proposed, p. 120, 121.
  • And proved largely that there neither were nor could be two such different account's, from p. 121 to 128.
  • [...], Mensis, Moon, Month, Almenick or Alma­nack, all from the Hebrew Manah, numeravit, p. 124.
  • The places of Scripture producible in favour of the different account considered, p. 125, 126.
  • Teshoubath hashanah, Tekouphath hashanah, in Hebrew, what, ibid.
  • Shanah, [...], annus, p. 126, 127.
  • Tseth hashanah, what; together with a discovery of the mistake of the LXX. and other interpreters, p. 127, 128.
  • And through this whole Discourse it is undeniably pro­ved that the Jews had no other way of computation but by the motion of the Moon, nor any other way of equation to reduce the Lunar and Solar years to a balance, but by an intercalary month at the latter end of the year.
  • Orach, Jareach, [...], Saturnus, what and whence, p. 128, 129.
  • [...], Diana, [...], p. 129, 130.
  • Cynthia, Cybele, Berecynthia, [...], Tohu, [...], p. 130.
  • [...], Sibylla, Choshek, [...], Tehom, p. 131.
  • [...], Latrare, ibid.
  • A citation produced out of Clemens Alexandrinus to justi­fie my opinion p. 132.
  • The mistakes of Epiphanius and Chrysostome concerning [Page] this matter, together with the monstrous absurdity of Isidore Pelufiota, p. 132, 133.
  • [...], agitare, words proper and peculiar to festival solem­nities, and other considerations produced to prove that our Saviour's last Supper was on the Vigil of the Sab­batum deuteroprotum. p. 133, 134.
  • The last place which is endeavoured to be eluded by Bo­chartus farther considered, and the testimony of Cle­mens Alexandrinus improved against him, for the as­serting of my notion of the [...], p. 134, 135.
  • The time of our Saviour's Supper being cleared, it is vari­ously disputed by learned men how he could eat the Paschal Lamb the night before the Jews ate theirs, and for this they have proposed several expedients; First, That the Jews followed the Traditions of the Masters contained in certain Talmudical Canons, while our Saviour re­jecting their Traditions adhered strictly to the Letter of the Law, but it is abundantly proved that there were no such Talmudical Canons as are pretended, any where used in our Saviour's time. from p. 134 to 137.
  • The second Expedient founded in the difference betwixt the Astronomical conjunction and the sensible Phasis, and the vanity of it abundantly detected. p. 137.
  • The third Expedient of Capellus from the embolism or in­tercalation of a day in the Jewish Calendar precarious, and all these three expedients sufficiently resuted from Joh. 13. 29. A fourth Expedient, from the Jews obser­vation of two days together precarious as to the ancient Jews, p. 138.
  • Nay, it is not onely precarious, but plainly false, as is a­bundantly proved from the confession of Maimonides himself that there never was any such custome at Jeru­salem among the ancient Jews, and from several other reasons, p. 139.
  • The Conclusion, p. 140.

AN EXERCITATION Concerning the true Time of OUR SAVIOUR'S Last Supper WITH HIS DISCIPLES.

FOR the time of our Saviour's Passover, I affirm, that it was upon the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, being the night before the Jews by the prescription of the Mosaick Law were to ce­lebrate theirs; and, for the proof of this, I shall produce these following places of Scripture in that order in which they are set down but not answered by the late excellent and profoundly learned Samuel Bochartus, who being dead, yet speaketh, and whose Works will follow him through all generations laden with the spoils of indu­stry; and the rewards of praise as long as civility and lear­ning shall endure; but it is excusable in those that write so much to be sometimes mistaken, and it is usually seen that the errours of great men are like themselves.

He therefore in his Hierozoicon, in that Chapter where he discourses of the Paschal-lamb, hath ranged those Scrip­tures which he pretends to answer in the following order.

The first is Joh. 13. 1. Now before the Feast of the Pass­over, when Jesus knew that his hour was come. And then, [Page 99] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 99] v. 2. And supper being ended, &c. From whence the Ar­gument is clear, that if this place be to be understood of his last Supper with his Disciples, then that last Sup­per was before the Feast of the Passover.

The second place is the eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel at the 28. verse, Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early, and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Pass­over. Now this happening, as it did, the day after, or rather the very same day when our Saviour ate his Pass­over with his Disciples, whereas the Jews were not to eat theirs till the night following; it is manifest our Sa­viour's Passover was a night before theirs.

The third place is Chap. 19. v. 14. And it was the pre­paration of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (that is, Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King. Now if Christ were betray'd and carryed before Pilate upon the Preparation of the Passover, then the Jewish Passover was not yet come; for the Parasceve or Prepa­ration of any Feast was the day before it.

The fourth place is the 31. verse of the same Chapter, The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was an high day) besought Pi­late that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. In which words there are two things to be considered. First, We have it again plainly asserted that it was the preparation of the Sabbath, which Sabbath this year was coincident with the Passover it self. Se­condly, It is said, That that Sabbath day was an high day [...].

And what the meaning of a great or high day is, you may see from Isay. 1. 13. the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies I cannot away with. Where the LXX. [Page 101] render it thus, [...] where the calling of assemblies is rendered by [...], the great, or high day, which in other places is termed an holy convocation, by which is meant the first and last day of the three great Feasts which were kept for seven days together, in the first and last of which there was a more extraordinary concourse of the People, and besides, a Sabbath or day of Rest from all manner of secular imploiment; which notion if Bo­ [...]artus had understood so thoroughly as he should have done, if he had known that the seventh day of a Feast was as well [...], a great, or high day, as the first, though it was not equally so, for by this time most of those that lived at any distance from Jerusalem were gon home, he would not have uttered these words, Quin apud Jadaeos nullum fuit Festum in quod non quadret hoc nomen, that there was no Feast-day among the Jews which might not properly enough be called a great, or high day; for which he cites that Text of Joh. c. 7. v. 37. speaking of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, [...], in the last day, that great day of the Feast; neither is this any more than what is usual in our own Age, as Bochartus could not chuse but know; for what day or night is so guilty of excess and riot as that which is the last of the Carnival in Popish Countries? and here, among our selves, the Solemnities of Twelftide and Candlemass are in a manner equal to that of Christmass day. Procopius himself whose Authority is produced by Bochartus may be sufficient to put him to silence, his words are these, expresly asser­ting a great, or high day to be, [...] that is, every day which is termed an ho­ly convocation, as the first and seventh day of Ʋnleavened­bread, [Page 102] the day of Pentecost, the tenth day of the [...] (Tisri, ) and, in one word, every more remarkable [...] extraordinary Feast-day. But you see he expresly tells [...] as to the Feast of the Passover, that onely the first and seventh were [...], great, or high days; [...] the same is to be understood of the Feast of Pentec [...], or Weeks, and of the Feast of Tabernacles; for the latter of which we have the express Authority of Saint Jo [...], it being absurd to call the seventh day of the Feast, [...], the great, or high day of the feast; if all the seven daies were so as well as that, so that Be­chartus his darling Testimony does sufficiently con [...] that opinion which he endeavours to establish upon it; for that which he designs to prove is, that the second day of Ʋnleavened bread, upon the approach of which he sup­poses our Saviour to have suffered, was a great, or [...] day, which this Testimony will by no means doe, nor that of Procopius neither. Since therefore it is agreed [...] all hands, that our Saviour did not suffer upon the se­venth day of Ʋnleavened-bread, or upon the approach of it, what can be more plain, than that he underwent his Passion upon the approach of the Feast, at that very time when the Paschal-lamb was to be slain? and from hence it is, though I did not intend to have betray'd that Se­cret now, that Easter sunday, by the ancient [...] Church, was called [...], the great, or [...] Sunday, as I have seen it in their Liturgies, both in Ma­nuscript and printed. For although the Tessarescaidecatit [...], so called from their following the Jewish account, cele­brated their Easter upon any day of the week indifferent­ly, as Eusebius, Epiphanius, Saint Austin, Theodoret and Philastrius assure us; yet it was the general way of the Church, which we retain, to celebrate it upon the Sun­day after the anniversary of the Passion, which being co­incident with an ordinary or weekly commemoration of [Page 103] [...] Resurrection, which every Sunday is, was called the [...], or high Sunday, as well because of the concurrence [...] it were of two Holydaies in one, as for that this being our Christian Passover, it answers to the first day of Un­leavened bread, which was an Holy Convocation among the Jews.

The last place mentioned by Bochartus is Matt. 26. 5. But they said, Not on the Feast day, lest there be an uprore [...] the people. Which place, to speak truly, proves no­thing either way. For thus much is certain, that the Jews were wont to put to death notorious Malefactours, and such some of them looked upon our Saviour, and others would have had him thought to be upon the Preparation of their solemn Feast-days, when there was a general conslux of the People, that so the Punishment might be of greater example; but at this time, because of the great reputation and esteem which our Blessed Lord had gai­ned among the People, it was resolved among the Chief­priests and Scribes, that his Crucifixion should not be on the Feast-day, lest the Concern of the People for him might occasion a Tumult: but now it being clear that the Con­course would be in a manner equal either on the first day of Unleavened-bread or on the day before it, when all that were to partake of the Passover were actually come to Jerusalem to prepare themselves in order to it; we must refer it wholly to the Providence of God, who put it into the hearts of the Chief-priests and Scribes, upon occasion of Judas his betraying him, to doe what they designed at a time when they did not design it, that so he might approve himself to be Christ our Passover, as Saint Paul calls him; and the Lamb slain from the foun­dation of the world in the Divine Decree; but not to be brought actually to the Slaughter untill this fulness of time.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

For this reason it was that not a bone of him was [...] ­ken, when the Theives who were crucify'd together with him, not being yet actually dead, were dispat­ed this way; because a bone of the Passover was not t [...] be broken; for this reason he expired at the ninth hour that is, about three in the afternoon, the very time wh [...] the Passover was to be killed; for this reason he came [...] Jerusalem, as Bochartus himself ingeniously and lear [...] ­ly observes, upon the tenth of Nisan, the time wh [...] the Passovers, according to the Law of Moses, were [...] be set by for Sacrifices on the fourteenth; and for the same reason it was, as the same Learned man conjectures that he began to preach in the thirtieth year of his age (which being the perfect age of a man in his full strength and vigour, answers to the Passover of a year old) and [...] continued preaching till his thirty fourth year, where if you take years for daies, in the Prophetick style, [...] entring upon his Preaching in his thirtieth year, will [...] as it were his setting apart, in order to his being a Sa [...] ­fice in the thirty fourth.

Lastly, Our Saviour himself expresly saies, Matt. 26. v. 2. Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover; and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified; because [...] his Person and Sufferings at that time the meaning and in­tention of all the Paschal Sacrifices under the Law [...] to be fulfilled.

Against so plain and so manifold evidence of Scripture to prove that our Saviour's Supper with his Disciples [...] the night before the Passover of the Jews, there are [...] three Places that I know of produced in favour of [...] contrary opinion, which if they had been so well [...] ­derstood as, I hope, they will be hereafter, had, inste [...] of confirming that opinion, overthrown it.

The first is Matt. 26. v. 17. Now the first day of t [...] feast of unleavened-bread the disciples came to Jesus, sa [...] ­ing [Page 105] unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

The second is Mark 14. 12. And the first day of unlea­vened-bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayst eat the Passover?

The third and last place is that of Luke 22. 7. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

In which Places, if those Learned men who have stood up in defence of the Latin Church, had observed that upon this first day of Unleavened bread (wherein the stress of their Argument lies) the Passover was to be killed, they would then have concluded, that this first day could not be any of those seven mentioned in Exodus, the first and last of which were to be an Holy Convoca­tion. For it was the day before the first of these that the Passover was to be killed, that is to say, about three of the clock in the afternoon upon the fourteenth of Ni­san, whereas the Feast upon the Paschal lamb was to be­gin upon the beginning of the fifteenth, which was at six of the clock that evening.

Besides, it is worth our while to observe the particu­lar Phrases by which the two latter Evangelists St. Mark and St. Luke have expressed themselves; in which they killed the Passover, saith Saint Mark, that is, when it was the usual custom of the Jews to kill their Passover, which was, as I have said, upon the fourteenth of Ni­san, which answers to part of our months of March, and April; but Saint Luke is still more express, [...], when the Passover must be killed; or, as a man would express it in Latin, quo die solenne erat ex proescripto Legis, ex instituto Mosis, ex Hebroeorum disciplina, ex proecepto Dei ut mactaretur Pascha.

But then you will ask how it comes to pass, that the Parasceve, or Preparation to the Passover is called the first day of unleavened-bread? to which I answer, that, first, we may look upon it as a Roman way of speaking, of which there are many in the New Testament, as there must needs be in the Language of those times when Ju­doea was become a Roman Province, and so [...] is as much as [...] as in La­tin, Pridie calendarum is Primo die calendarum, that is, Primo die ante calendas.

But this, though it cannot be deny'd by any that have a distinguishing palate in these matters, to be a very plausible conjecture, yet I must confess ingenuously, I do not think it to be true, and therefore I shall not stand upon it.

That which I take to be the very truth is this, That upon this day the Unleavened-cakes were made, and the Leaven purged out of all the Jewish houses, in order to the Feast, which is the present practice of the Jews, as you may see in Buxtorf, in his Synagoga Judaica; and to both of these it is that Saint Paul alludes, 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 7. [...]. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. Ludovicus Ca­pellus, in his Epicrisis against Cloppenburge, somewhere observes, that the Leaven is usually purged out of all the Jewish houses, by one of the clock upon the day of the Preparation, which is two hours before the Passover was to be killed, and therefore that day wherein this was done might well enough be called by a Synecdoche of the part for the whole, the first day of unleavened-bread, not because any Unleavened bread was eaten that day, but because upon that day it was made in order to the Feast, and because after such a certain time there was no Leaven to be found; to which purpose the words of Grotius up­on [Page 107] Matt. 26. 17. are considerable, Incipiebant autem Ju­doei locum in quo comesturi erant Pascha parare ab ea nocte quoe antecedit solem decimum quartum & pars est [...] decimi quarti, quod nunc etiam faciunt; ejus proe­parationis magna est pars anxia [...], ad quam alludit Paulus, 1 Cor. 5. 7. solicitè enim eâ nocte & antemeridiano tempore sequenti, inquirunt ecquid usquam fermentatum supersit, etiam micas colligentes: and upon this account it is that Josephus in the Third of his Anti­quities, speaking of the Feast of Unleavened-bread, speaks of it in the most proper acceptation of those words, for that Feast of seven daies continuance, wherein there was no Leaven to be touched or eaten; [...], saith he, [...] upon the fifteenth of Nisan, after the feast of the Passover follows the feast of Ʋnleavened-bread, which continues for seven daies. But in his Second Book, speaking of the same Feast, he saies, [...]. We celebrate the feast of Ʋnleavened-bread for eight daies together. In which last place it is mani­fest he must of necessity include the Preparation to the Feast as well as the Feast it self, otherwise his eight days will want of their number.

Having thus vindicated these three Texts of the Evan­gelists, Saint Matthew, Mark and Luke, from the false Interpretations which the Latin Church and their Defen­dours, whether among themselves or of the Reformation, have made, and shown that these very places do equally conspire with the rest to overthrow the opinion of that infallible Dictatress, the Church of Rome, and of all that in this particular have taken her part; I will now add one Text more to confirm what hath said, and then consider very briefly the Exceptions that have been made, or rather the Evasions that are made use of to justifie an indefensible cause.

The place is Matt. 26. 18. And he (Jesus) said, Go in­to the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples. Where the Reason given why he would needs keep the Passover at this man's house was, [...] My time is at hand: lest the Master of the house should wonder at his mes­sage, when the time of the Passover was not yet come.

And now, having shewn so plain and so unanimous a consent of the Evangelists, as to the time of our Savi­our's last Supper, I am not obliged to expose all the Eva­sions, in which the Patrons of the Roman opinion take shelter; yet, that the thing may appear still more plain, and that I may not seem to avoid any difficulty or any objection, I will consider a little Bochartus his Evasi­ons, meddling with others onely so far as they are inclu­ded in him, or borrowed by him from them; for Baro­nius and Toletus have already been considered by Isaac Casaubon, in his Exercitations upon the Annals of the former; and Cloppenburge has been taken to task by Lud. Capellus.

To the first place of Saint John he answers, that [...], before the feast, is as much as, [...], at the entrance upon the feast, or, in the beginning of it; as [...] is a part of an Oration, [...] a part of an House, [...] a part of the Tongue, [...] a part of the Hair, [...] a part of the Forehead, [...] a part of a City, [...] a part of a Wall, and the like.

But supposing there were such a word as [...], which I believe it will be difficult to find, yet I deny [...] and [...] to be the same; no more is [...] and [...] and so in the rest of the Instan­ces, the Preposition with the Genitive case annext being manifestly of greater latitude of signification than any of [Page 109] the compound words. It is true indeed that Greg. Nazi­anzen has somewhere put two such words together, as [...], but then he understands it not of the beginning of a Feast, but of the day before it, which will not serve Bochartus his turn.

Dr. Lightfoot, though with no better success, has de­ny'd that which ought onely to be deny'd, if any thing ought, and that is, that this Chapter of Saint John does any way concern our Saviour's last Supper with his Dis­ciples: But if you consider that this was that Supper from whence Judas went out to betray him; that this was that Supper in which he preached Charity and mu­tual Condescention to his Disciples; which he is found to doe likewise in Saint Luke's Gospel; that the story of that Supper which Dr. Lightfoot refers to is manifestly contained in the twelfth Chapter of the same Gospel, and that it is not likely we should have two several relati­ons of the same Supper in two several Chapters immedi­ately following one another. Lastly, If you consider that that expression which immediately follows those words, now before the feast of the Passover, viz. when Jesus knew that his hour was come when he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world he loved them unto the end, cannot so properly be applied to any Supper as to his last, you will then easily conclude with me, and with Grotius, who in this matter concurrs very strongly in opinion with me, that it was indeed his last Supper, and that it could be no other.

To that Text of the same Evangelist, c. 18. v. 28. they themselves went not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover: he an­swers, after several others, that by the Passover is meant the Chagigah, or Peace offerings, which were to be eaten together with the Unleavened-bread for all the seven [Page 110] daies of the Feast; but to this it is enough to answer, that this is by no means the most natural and easie sense, and therefore when there are other places which in their most genuine and first acceptation do so unanimously conspire to prove the same truth, That our Saviour kept his Pass­over the night before the Jews observed theirs, it ought by no means to be allow'd; but yet (though I am not obliged to put the cause upon this Issue, being supported by so many Authorities besides that of this Text) if so much as one single place can be produced besides this which is in question and must not therefore be alledged to justifie it self, where the word Pesach, or [...], in the singular number, is used for the chagigah, or Peace-offe­ring of any of the seven daies of Unleavened-bread, then I will be content to allow that Bochartus and those whom he follows in this particular are in the right, not­withstanding that supposing the chagigah, or Peace offe­ring of the daies of Unleavened-bread to be understood in this place by the Passover, yet this would have been no reason of their not entring into the judgment-hall, [...] that they might not be defiled.

For, in the first place, there was not that Purity requi­red to the feeding upon the chagigah, which was requi­site for the Passover it self, and therefore though the first and last day of the seven were a Sabbath and an Ho­ly Convocation, yet the other five daies were not of a sabbatical nature, as you may see plainly in Exodus, where the Institution of this Solemnity is appointed; sed ita erant Festi, as Grotius expresseth it, ut tamen essent ex aliqua sui parte [...], they were daies of a middle state and condition between the work of the week daies and the Rest of the Sabbath; and if the later Jews have taken so solicitous a care by the Rubrick, as I may call it, of their Calendar, to hinder the concourse of two Sab­baths together, of which I shall speak more by and by, [Page 111] much less can we think, as indeed it is not possible to be done, that either they or their Ancestours ever kept se­ven daies together with a sabbatical of observa­tion.

But, secondly, it is agreed on all hands, If our Savi­our did not suffer upon the Passover it self, yet that it was upon the first day of Unleavened-bread, which be­ing a Sabbath, and kept among the Jews with all the re­ligion and strictness that can be conceived, it would have been no reason of their not entring into the judg­ment-hall, [...], that they might eat the Chagigah, but that they might not be defiled upon the first day of Unleavened-bread, which was so sacred a­mong the Jews that there needed no other reason to make them afraid of being defiled. From all which it follows plainly, that by the Passover in this place, the Paschal­lamb in its utmost strictness and propriety of acceptation is to be understood.

To the Text of c. 19. v. 14. and it was the preparati­on of the Passover, he answers, that by [...], or the preparation, the Friday in every week was ordinari­ly understood, which I should readily have granted him, though he had not confirmed it out of Beresith Rabba and the Arabian testimony of Giauhari, with which his admirable skill in Oriental Learning hath supply'd him; but that the Passover, if it happen'd to fall upon a Friday, was ever called [...], which is that which he and divers others contend for, this is that which I deny, because, first, it must be acknowledged to be precarious, having no Authority of any Hebrew Calendar to vouch it; in the second, when the Friday is called [...], it is an elliptical way of speaking, which must be sup­ply'd thus, [...], and if it be asked, What is meant by those words? the answer will be that, It is the day before the Sabbath; and so a man would [Page 112] think, by the same way of construing, that [...] was the day before the Passover, and not the very day of the Passover it self: but, thirdly, if the Jewish Calendar must be called in to determine this important Question, which has exercised the wits of so many Learned men, we may remember that, in the sixth of Saint Luke's Gospel, there is mention made of the second Sabbath after the first, which in the Greek is called, [...], and which, no question, was a day of special remarke in the Calendar of those times; and, be­cause it is very apposite to my purpose, after the vain at­tempts of Scaliger, Cloppenburge, Capellus and Grotius, I will now give a clear Explanation what is meant by it.

It is plain therefore that the Sabbath being a period or revolution of seven daies, the first Sabbath of Nisan must of necessity fall upon one of the daies inclusively of se­ven; and for the same reason the Passover, being a Feast of seven daies, it must alwaies have a Sabbath for one of the number, which being either the Passover it self, or one of the daies of Unleavened-bread, it was for that reason of greater Solemnity, because it was at once a commemoration of the Divine Rest after the Creation of the World, and of his Goodness in their Deliverance out of the Land of Aegypt; and it had, besides the daily morning or evening Sacrifice, the celebration of the Passover, or the Chagigah, into the bargain, and this Sabbath is that which is properly called, [...], that is, [...], or rather, [...], the second Sabbath after the first of Nisan, which must of necessity fall either upon the Feast of the Passover it self, supposing the first day of that month to fall upon the Sabbath, or else upon one of the daies of Unleavened-bread.

Now, if you consider how many places of Scripture there are, which have been already produced, which do [Page 113] manifestly savour its falling upon the Sabbath that year when our Saviour suffered upon the Cross; if you con­sider what Solemnity the conjunction of the Sabbath would add to that of the Passover; if you reflect upon this, that no Execution could be done upon the Feast-day it self, which was a Sabbath, in which it was not law­full to doe any Work, Exod. 12. 16. or for the Bodies of men to remain or be upon the Cross, Joh. 19. 31. and that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread, in the mor­ning, they that lived at a distance from Jerusalem were used to repair to their respective homes, Deut. 16. 7. be­cause it not being without great detriment to their af­fairs that many of them were forced to repair from the uttermost parts of Judaea to Jerusalem, while God by a Miracle preserved their Flocks and their Substance at home from the Incursion of the neighbour Nations, Ex­odus, c. 34. v. 24. who, not being miraculously restrained, would have made use of this occasion at once to enrich and revenge themselves for the Injuries they had received, he was pleased, upon so necessary an occassion, to dispense so far with the fabbatical Rest, as to suffer every man to depart to his own home upon the first day of Unlea­vened-bread, notwithstanding it had in other respects all the solemnity and strictness of a Sabbath; by which means it would have come to pass, if our Saviour had been crucify'd upon that day, that he would not have been slain by all the Congregation of Israel, as the Law required the Paschal-lamb to be.

Lastly, If you shall observe, what in this case is very ma­terial to be considered, that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time, when the Passover was to be considered, that if our Saviour had not suffered upon the usual time, when the Passover was to be kil­led, that is to say, upon the fourteenth of Nisan, but up­on the fifteenth, or upon the first day of Unleavened-bread, he would not in this have represented the Passover, but the Chagigah, or Peace-offering, of the days of Unlea­vened-bread, [Page 114] neither would he so fully have answered the Legal Types, being no otherwise typify'd by the Chagigah than he was by all Sacrifices whatsoever, which though they did all of them point at that great Sacrifice, which was in the fulness of time to be offered up once for all, yet the Passover, and the Sin and Trespass-offe­ring had some sort of preheminence above the rest in this umbratical designation, as is manifest from his being cal­led so frequently, the Lamb, and the Lamb of God, and the Lamb without blemish, and Christ our Passover; and from his suffering without the Gate, to answer the typi­cal adumbration of the Sin offering which was for this reason burnt without the Camp; certainly, from all this, you cannot chuse but see it absolutely necessary to con­fess, that on the year of our Lord's Passion, the first day of Unleavened-bread and the Sabbath were co incident with one another, and that the Sabbatum Deuteroprotum was alwaies either upon the fifteenth of Nisan or else in­clusively from that to the one and twentieth.

What the true meaning of this Sabbatum Deuteroprô­tum, or the second Sabbath after the first, as we render it, should be, has been a Mystery which has been hid from Ages, and which it is now my happiness, for the better adjusting the true time of our Saviour's Passion, and for the farther vindication of the Scripture History, which receives at once light and credit by being solidly explained, now first of all to discover.

Erasmus upon this occasion gives a pleasant Specimen of Monkish Ignorance, and Saint Jerom, (so long ago have Learned men been ignorant of the true meaning of this passage in Saint Luke) consulting Gregory Nazianzen upon this question, was answered onely with a Jest, in­stead of giving his opinion. De vocis [...] inter­pretatione, saith Grotius, dici ferme potest, quot capitatot sententioe. Syrus & Arabs, Tanto quam nos sumus illi [Page 115] & seculo & loco propiores, satis manifeste ostendunt, se, quid hoec vox velit, ignorâsse: and of this disagreement among the Ancients, as to the meaning of this place, you may see abundance more in Isaac Casaubon, in his fourteenth Exercitation against Baronius.

Neither have any of those modern Writers, who have either occasionally or ex professo inquired into this mat­ter, succeeded any better than the Ancients have done. Scaliger's conjecture, though approved by Casaubon and other Learned men, and of which he was very fond him­self, is yet, upon account of the harshness of the com­position, (which he, being so good a Grammarian, would have understood had it been any man's conjecture but his own,) and for other very good reasons, rejected by Gro­tius and Ludovicus Capellus.

Scaliger's Conjecture is founded upon Levit. 23. 15, 16. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering: seven sabbaths shall be compleat: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath, shall ye num­ber fifty daies, and ye shall offer a new meat-offering un­to the Lord. From whence he would needs have it that the Jews were used to count their Sabbaths to the Feast of Pentecost from the second day of Unleavened-bread, after this manner, [...], &c. reckoning from the [...], that is to say, the second day of unleavened-bread, but then it should not have been [...] but [...], &c.

Secondly, [...] without an adjection would not, nor ever did that can be proved, signifie the second day of Unleavened-bread, but as they say, [...], and in another place, [...], for the first day of unleavened-bread, and the last day of the Feast, so if they had a mind to be understood, they [Page 116] must speak out as plainly [...], other­wise, what second day, or what second thing, which might be any thing with a seminine gender, was meant, it would be impossible for any man to divine.

Thirdly, In the place upon which this Conjecture is founded, it is not from the second day, but from the morrow; mimacharath, in the Hebrew; and in the LXX. [...] so that it is plain, if they had followed either the original Hebrew or the Translation of the LXX, with which they were better acquainted in those days, and from whence they must have borrowed this way of numbering of their Sabbaths, if any such thing had been, they would not have said, [...].

Fourthly, The Jews in this case did not count by Sab­baths, but by days; for though it be true what Moses saith, that from the morrow after the Sabbath, seven Sabbaths were to be compleat, yet when he speaks of the way of counting these seven Sabbaths he saith, v. 16. Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath, shall ye number fifty days; and so the Jews at this day keep their account, saying, the first after Omer, the second after O­mer, &c. till they come to fifty daies, as Grotius upon this place-hath-observed.

Fifthly, and lastly, which I believe has not yet been taken notice of by any other, though it be plain demon­stration against Joseph Scaliger's opinion, he proceeds up­on a mistaken notion of the word Sabbath, which in this Text hath two significations, but neither of them such as will serve his turn: for when it is said, from the mor­row after the sabbath, by the Sabbath is understood the first day of Unleavened-bread, which was, as hath been shewn, of a sabbatical nature, let it fall upon what day of the week it would, and from hence they numbred se­ven [Page 117] Sabbaths, that is, not seven Saturdays or Jewish Se­venth-daies, but seven times seven daies; so as, if Scali­ger's opinion be true, and if the Sabbaths were to be counted after his manner, then it would not be alwaies the Saturday or Jewish Sabbath on which the Sabba­tum Deuteroprôtum would fall, but upon any day of the week indifferently; so, as for example, if the second day of Unleavened-bread were upon the Munday, then the next Sabbath after it, excluding that day, that is, the next sabbatical Period of seven daies would be upon the Tuesday come seven night, and this, according to Scaliger; would be the Sabbatum Deuteroprôtum, and the Wednes­day come six Weeks after would be the day of Pentecost.

But now it is plain, that in that Instance of the [...], which the Gospel of Saint Luke gives us, it is to be understood of the Saturday or of the Jewish Sabbath properly and strictly so called, for other­wise the Cavil of the Pharisees, instead of deserving that solid and judicious answer which our Saviour gives to it, would have been ridiculous, and would have needed no answer at all, since a Sabbath in the meaning and sense of that place from whence Scaliger borrows his Argu­ment might have been understood of any day of the week, let it be what it would, and though there were no manner of Sanctity in it.

But if either Scaliger, had he been living, would have understood, or if any now will needs understand for him, the word Sabbath of seven revolutions of the Saturday or first day of the week, and will have it, that the day of Pentecost was the day after the seventh or last of these, then let us suppose the Passover it self to be co­incident with the Sabbath, in which case the second day of Unleavened-bread will be upon our Sunday, and up­on the Munday come seven weeks the fifty daies will be compleat, upon the Tuesday, the first day of the Feast [Page 118] of Weeks or the first day of the Feast of Pentecost ought to fall; but in regard there have not yet been seven revo­lutions of the Saturday come about, we must stay yet five entire daies longer, that is, five and fifty daies, and the first day of the Feast of Pentecost must alwaies hap­pen upon our Sunday, both of which since they are very absurd and contrary to the express words of the Law, which reckons but fifty daies from the second day of Unleavened-bread, let that day happen upon what day of the week it will, it is manifest what is become of Sca­liger's opinion, of which, as absurd as it is, Grotius was pleased to say, Sententia ista magnis argumentis à suo Au­thore desensa est, that it was defended by its Authour by great and weighty arguments, though for some reasons he thought it necessary to dissent from him; and Casauben, speaking of the same Conjecture, saies, Tantum dicam, Certum atque indubitatum sententioe Scaligeri Fundamen­tum esse in verbis Mosis, Lev. 23. 15. that is, I will onely say this, that Scaliger' s opinion is grounded upon a cer­tain and undoubted foundation of Levit. 23. 15. for we have seen how sandy and infirm and rotten that founda­tion is, and how unable it is to support that little buil­ding of a very small conjecture, how great soever in the opinion of its Authour, which Scaliger would have built upon it.

Scaliger's pretended solution of this difficulty being thus confuted, though in truth much the most ingeni­ous and the nighest to truth of any which have been thought of either before or since him by those who would pretend to substitute a better in its stead: Grotius comes next to be considered, and his solution is this,

That the Sabbath-day next before the Passover is at present called by the Jews, Shabath hagadol, that is, the great Sabbath; and that sometimes the same Sabbath is called also Shabath hagadol, that is, the great Sabbath; and that sometimes the same Sabbath is called also Shabath harishon, the first Sabbath. Now, [Page 119] saith he, there being three great and solemn Feasts among the Jews, that is to say, the Passover or Feast of Unleave­ned bread, the Feast of Weeks or of Pentecost, and the Scenopegia or Feast of Tabernacles; it is but reasonable to believe that the Sabbaths immediately preceding the two latter, had also some preheminence above other Sab­baths, as well as that which was immediately antecedent to the Passover it self; and so the order of these three great or first Sabbaths will be thus;

The Sabbath before the Passover is, [...].

The Sabbath before Pentecost is, [...].

The Sabbath immediately preceding the Feast of Ta­bernacles is, [...].

This is as plain a representation as can be given of Grotius his opinion; which after all is exposed to more and greater inconveniencies than that of Scaliger, which both he and Capellus have rejected.

For, First, granting him what he saies to be true, That the Jews at this day do call the Sabbath immediately go­ing before the Passover Shabath harishon or Shabath ha­gadol, the great or the first Sabbath; yet this is onely [...], as would have it, much less are there any foot-steps of the [...] any where to be found, which yet hath as great a share in his solution as the other, so that give him all that he desires himself, yet these two, and especially the latter, are perfectly precarious.

Secondly, His argument proceeding from the names now in use in the Jewish Calendars to those which obtai­ned in our Saviour's time, it is manifest that this way of argumentation is perfectly fallacious, because if that ancient Calendar had not been lost, there could have been [Page 120] no controversie about the true meaning of the [...], and if it be perfectly lost, I do not under­stand how any modern Calendar can help us out in a dif­ficulty which none but the ancient can determine.

But, Thirdly, if the Language of the modern Jews must be drawn into argument in this case, yet it ought to be drawn no farther than it will go; and since that has onely pointed out one great or first Sabbath in the year, it is unreasonable upon that authority to establish two other of which it is perfectly silent, and which, as silent as it is, it does very strongly imply that there were no other Sabbaths that went by this name, other­wise this Sabbath would not have been called simply Sha­bath hagadol or harishon, but Shabath hagadol harishon, the first great Sabbath, or Shabath harishon min harisho­nim, the first of those Sabbaths which are called First.

Fourthly, It is unanswerable what Capellus objects against Grotius, that his notion of the Sabbatum [...] makes the time of Wheat-harvest to fall much lower than is consistent either with the custom of that Countrey or with the nature of the soil, which is a great absurdity indeed; for certainly the Disciples could not well pluck the ears of corn after the time of the Wheat­harvest was over.

Fifthly, and Lastly, I shall prove immediately against Grotius, that the Jews in their ancient Calendar had a day which they were used to call the [...], or first sabbath, but that it was not the first before the Pass­over, but the first in Nisan, between which and the Pass­over there must alwaies of necessity be one Sabbath in­tervening.

Grotius being thus answered, Capellus, who has un­dertaken Grotius, comes next in course to be confuted himself; and though not having his Book at present by me, which it is many months ago since I read, nor be­ing [Page 121] able to procure it, I cannot so particularly determine what his Hypothesis is, yet this, as I remember, is the foundation of it, that it depends upon the double account of the sacred and civil year among the Jews, in respect of which Tisri, which answers to part of our September, was the first month in one account, and Nisan in the other; now if it can be proved, with the good leave of the Chronologers, who are universally of another mind, that there was indeed no such difference of account in the Jewish year, then Capellus his conjecture, which is foun­ded upon this difference, must of necessity fall to the ground.

There are but two waies that I know of by which this different account can be rendred either probable or certain; it might be thought probable if any use of such a difference could be known, but supposing that one year consisted of as many days as the other, why may not one year serve all the purposes both of the sacred and the civil account? and what then will a distinction of names signifie when the thing is the same?

It cannot certainly be proved, unless it be by the Te­stimony of Scripture which is the onely authentick Re­cord in this case, and that is so far from favouring this conceit of a double account that it will perfectly over­throw it. For all the light we have from Scripture is no more than this, that whereas the old year from the Cre­ation began in Tisri or September, yet in memory of the Deliverance of th [...] Israelites from the Bondage of the Aegyptians at that time, they were from thenceforward ordered to change the beginning of their year, and to look upon Nisan or Abib as the first month in the He­brew Calendar; and therefore, though in the History of the Floud Tisri is expresly called the first month, yet af­ter the institution of the Passover, whenever its order is mentioned, it is called the seventh, but no where the [Page 122] first; neither was it ever after this accounted the first month in any respect whether sacred or civil.

To make this out more clearly, you may observe, that all the ancient Chronology proceeded usually by the Lunar year, and from thence it is that the Jews had no other name for a month but chodesh, from a word that signifies to renew, which is a plain intimation that their months were measured by the return of their new moons; in which case one of these three things was ne­cessary, either that their Feasts which were either upon their new moons, or at such a certain distance from them, should run thorough all the seasons of the year, or that in each month there should be some daies added to make an equation with the Sun's motion; or, lastly, that at the end of the year there should be a Lunar month added to set the account even betwixt the Sun and Moon.

The first could not be, because there were some Feasts which could not be celebrated but at such a season of the year; as the Feast of Weeks or First-fruits after all their Harvest-work was over and their Corn inned into their Barns; and the Feast of Tabernacles, after the gathe­ring of their Autumnal Fruits, which two could not possi­bly be kept at any other time than about Midsummer and Autumn.

The second could not be, because this would disturb the observation of their new moons, by the intercalati­on of one month's falling upon the new moon of ano­ther; it remains therefore, that at the latter end of the year there was an intercalary month, by which the e­quation between the two great movers was preserved.

Since therefore it is clear that all the Hebrew months were Lunar, they having no name for a month but what implies so much, one of these three things must needs be granted; either that those things or actions which were [Page 123] used to recurre at certain seasons with respect to the Sun, did yet notwithstanding wander thorough all the Lunar months of the year, and did sometimes fall out in this month, sometimes in that, and every year about a month different from the other, so as in twelve years or there­abouts to run thorough the whole course of Lunar months, or else there was a different way of intercalation in the civil year from the sacred; or, lastly, there is no diffe­rence between them, but the sacred and the civil years are, as they say, a distinction without a difference, and words invented by Learned men to puzzle themselves in­stead of informing the World.

For the first of these, since there was such a connexi­on betwixt things civil or secular and sacred as there was, and since they had such a dependence upon one another, as the waving of the sheaf, which was alwaies to be in Nisan, had a dependence upon the earing and ripening of the corn, and the Feast of Tabernacles or In-gathering upon the gathering of their autumnal Fruits, it cannot be questioned but both of these were measured by the same common measure; and to say otherwise is not one­ly precarious, but also very unreasonable, to think that people would perpetually trouble themselves with two ac­counts crossing and disturbing one another to no purpose.

For the second, besides that it is precarious, and in a manner as troublesome as the other, and that we have no names of months distinct from the Lunar, there can hard­ly any other intercalation, besides that at the end of the year, be supposed, unless it be an Embolism at the end of every month; which would be to turn the Lunar into a Solar year without any ground, and contrary to the no­tation of the word chodesh, and to make every Solar month in process of time to travell thorough all the names of the Lunar, since every such month does gain some ground upon them.

It remains therefore that this distinction is frivolous and impertinent, and that there is no such real difference as is pretended betwixt the sacred and the civil year.

And now, to confirm what hath been said, I will do these two things: First, I will show by another Ar­gument drawn from the notation of an Hebrew word, that the Lunary year was the onely year in use among the Jews. Secondly, I will answer such places of Scripture as I imagine may be urged in defence of this double year.

And, First, for the Argument drawn from the notati­on, it is known very well that in Greek one of the names of the M [...]on, from whence we have our English word it self, as also that of Month derived from it, as the La­tines have their Mensis, and the Greeks their [...], is [...], which is without question from the Hebrew word ma­nah, numeravit; from whence also the Arabians with a Praefix have their Almenick, or Almanak, as we are used to call an Ephemer is among us; all which may be suffici­ent to convince us that the Jews had no way of measu­ring the larger periods of time but by the motion of the Moon, by the multiplication of whose circle so many times into it self, the Solar year was made up, and not by twelve equal Sections of the Solar circle, which by reason of their Feasts and Holy days depending so much upon the Moon, would have brought all their Chronolo­gy into confusion; besides, that it is most natural and therefore probably most ancient to measure the several periods of time, as far as may be, by the perfect and en­tire motion of one of the Heavenly bodies, as the natu­ral day is measured by the Sun's diurnal circle; the month, by one compleat and perfect revolution of the Moon; and the year, by one entire procession of the Sun thorough all the Signs of the Zodiak or Ecliptick, or by the multiplication of so many Lunar intervals as [Page 125] are equal to that larger circle which the Sun de­scribes.

The places of Scripture that come at present to my mind from whence this double account may seem to be justified are two; the first as long before the I aw as the Creation it self: Gen. 1. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night: and years. Which place, because it equal­ly concerns the Sun and Moon, the two great Lights that were at that time created, it may seem that there was alwaies a different account of the Solar and Lunar year, as old as the Creation it self; but to this, an expla­nation of that Text is a sufficient answer.

Let them be for signs, LXX. [...] which is no question to be understood of that use which the Judicial Astrologers are used to make of the several Aspects and Configurations of the Heavenly bodies, as signs and tokens of future events, not that they are so naturally in themselves, or that they are capable of af­fording any such use; but that God in his Wisedom fore­saw that this use would be made of them by the vain cu­riosity of inquiring mortals, who will needs be prying into those dark Mysteries of the Book of Fate, which all the Stars of the Firmament can never enlighten.

By their being for seasons (lemohadim) two things may be meant, that is, either to point out the solemn and religious Feasts, which all along in Antiquity belon­ged to the Moon, or to distinguish the several quarters and seasons of the year, which is the natural business of the Sun, and is for that reason expresly attributed to him in Scriputre. So 2 Sam. 11. 1. and 1 Chron. 20. 1. And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when Kings go forth to battel: in the Hebrew it is Lete­shoubath hashanah, and Leheth teshoubath hashanah; i. e. at [Page 126] the return of the year or of the Sun from the vernal E­quinox towards the Equator: And Exod. 34. 22. Vechag haasiph tekouphath hashanah, and the feast of in-gathering at the years end, so we translate it; but it should be, at the revolution of the year, that is, at the return of the Sun from the Autumnal Tropick.

But these Lights were not onely for Signs and Seasons, but also for days, and years; both of which, though they may indifferently be measured either by the Sun's moti­on or the Moon's, yet I conceive the earliest Antiquity as well in their account of days as months had a particu­lar respect to the motion of the latter, and that this was one reason, besides what may be taken from the Histo­ry of the Creation, why they began their natural day in the evening, from this Planet's having the dominion of the night; and as the month was made up as I may say of Lunar daies, so was the year of Lunar months, at least in process of time, when for avoiding of confusi­on in their Chronological account the motions of the Sun and Moon were adjusted and fitted to one another, as it was by the intercalary month of the Jews, which they no question borrowed from the neighbour Nations, a­mong whom the Moon had the Government of their so­lemn Feasts as well as among the Jews; otherwise, to speak properly, every entire revolution of one of the Heavenly bodies is that which is called a year, at least in the language of all the ancient World. For shanah in He­brew, what is it, but the repetition of the same motion in the same circle; and [...], is, [...], because, in sese volvitur annus, as the Aegyptians paint the year by a Serpent whose tail is inserted into his mouth, to sig­nifie the ending of a Planetary motion in the point where it began; and the Latin, annus, is nothing but a great Ring or Circle, from whence the diminutive annulus is derived, and may in its true signification equally belong [Page 127] to the revolution of a day, a month, or a year; so that, for ought we know, shanim (years) in this place may be but exegetical of jamim (daies) that went before; from whence it is that jamim in the Plural number does sometimes signifie years as well as daies, and that the terms of a day and a year are in the Prophetick style are in a manner convertible with one another. However it is certain, whatever the meaning of this place be, that it has nothing to doe with the distinction of the sacred and civil year among the Jews, which depended upon a par­ticular occasion, and was two thousand years younger than the Creation.

But though this place cannot be of any moment in this controversie, yet there is another which I shall now pro­duce, that has a greater semblance of argumentation in behalf of this double year, and that is Exod. 23. 16. Ve­chag hahasiph betseth hashanah, we render it, and the feast of in gathering in the end of the year; and the LXX. [...] now if Tisni, in which month the Feast of In-gathering was to be kept, were the end of the year, it must also be the beginning of it, because the year ends and begins together, as hath been shewn; so that here we have plainly, after the Law was made, two beginnings of the year, the one in Ni­san, and the other in Tisri: but to this I answer,

First, That this cannot be, because in the sacred ac­count, to which the Feast of In-gathering must needs refer, Tisri was not the first month but the seventh.

Secondly, I take the liberty to say, That neither our Translatours, nor the LXX. themselves have rendred this place as they should have done; for whereas they have translated it in the end, they ought to have said in the be­ginning of the year; not that there were two beginnings of the Jewish year; but because the old year from the Cre­ation began in Tisri; the Sun being supposed by Anti­quity [Page 128] first to have set out, when he began his course from the Autumnal Tropick, and it is in allusion to this opi­nion, which the Jews and Chaldees had, that this Ex­pression is used, betseth hashanah, that is, not in the end, but in the setting forth of the year or of the Sun; and so the Sun beginning to run his everlasting course is com­pared Psal. 19. 5. to a bridegroom coming out of his cham­ber, and rejoycing as a Gyant to run his race: where what we translate, coming out of his chamber, is in the Hebrew, jotse michouphatho, which is the very word used in the place of Exodus last cited. And so in that place of Samuel already cited, the time when Kings go forth to battel is called [...]eth tseth hamelachim, that is, the time not when they end, but when they begin their expedition.

And thus, I hope, it is abundantly manifest that there were not two several beginnings of the Jewish year, and consequently that the ground upon which Capellus relies is utterly false and mistaken. But yet I cannot leave this Discourse till I have observed farther that in that Text of the Psalms which I have just newly produced, the way or path of the Sun is called orach, from which word the Moon in Hebrew has its name jareach, because by her motion the course of the year was observed; as Saturn is called [...], as it were [...], there being very fre­quent commutations in all Languages of a Lene and an Aspirate into one another, because he describes the largest circle and is therefore the greatest measure of time; or else in the ancient Physiologie, which I am very apt to believe, [...] in Greek, and Saturnus in Latin, were the same with the Moon. [...] from the Hebrew keren cornu, from the horns of the Moon, as they are used to be called by us and by the Latin Poets.

Nec nova crescendo reparabat cornua Phoebe.

And Saturnus, from sathar, latuit, because of its so often and so long disappearing, from whence Italy was called by the Latin Poets saturnia tellus, and in common speech lati­um, according to another known Verse of the same Ovid.

Dicta fuit latium terra latente Deo.

And that it may appear to be more than a fancie, that the Moon was called jareach because the course of time was measured by her, you may observe farther that the Greek and Latin [...] is exactly the same with the He­brew orach, from whence jareach is derived, and signified anciently not barely the four and twentieth part of the natural day, as it does usually in the more modern Writers, but any of the seasons or quarters of the year, as you may see it proved by Isaac Casaubon, in his Ani­madversions upon Athenaeus. And I remember some­where such a Verse as this, it is either in Homer or the Anthologie, I know not well whether,

[...].

From hence also it was that the Moon was called by the Latins Diana, because she had the dominion of the na­tural day among the Ancients which was reckoned to begin in the evening, and by the Greeks [...], that is, either from two Hebrew words erets and chamah, because she receives that light from the Sun which is in­tercepted and obstructed by the Earth; or else from two Greek ones which is more likely, [...], because she was the measure of time; for [...] in the dorick Dialect is the same with [...] in the common, as [...] and [...] are the same.

[...].

Or, lastly, which I acknowledge to be most likely of all, [Page 130] though it do not so much favour my opinion it may be, [...], from cutting the Air or Atmo­sphere, as by the passage of the Clouds in a moon-shiny­night the Moon seems to doe with a swift and hasty mo­tion; from which as looking like a pursuit of some game, and from the barking of Dogs, whether it be that they are pleased or offended at her brightness, she was by the ancient Mythologists made to preside over Hunting, and from thence it is that she is called Cynthia, that is, [...], and Cybele, from the same Greek word compoun­ded with the Phoenician bel, from the Hebrew bahal; and Berecynthia, by adding to the former composition the He­brew barach, fugit, to denote the swiftness of her motion; from whence also one of the names of the North-wind, Boreas, is to be derived, it being exactly the Participle in Pohel, boreach; as Daniel Heinsius, in his Exercitation up­on Nonnus his Dionysiaca, hath before me observed. And because it may seem harsh and unusual to compound an Hebrew or Phoenician word with a Greek, though in that there be no such absurdity that I know of, it is to be noted that [...] it self, as being the Feminine of [...], is of Hebrew extract as well as the other part of the compositi­on; for [...] is from thohu, by which the primigenial Mass is signified in the first Chapter of Genesis; from whence the Heathen Theologie derived all its Gods, as you may see in the Remains of Hesiod, Orpheus, Epicharmus, Ari­stophanes, and others of the ancient Mythologers. From thohu is the Phoenician [...] in Sanchuniathon; and from thence the Greek [...] or [...], thau and sigma being easily changed into one another, as may be observed from this, that there is a natural sibilus in each of them, wherefore the Jews at this day, in their pronunciation of thau at the end of a word, do alwaies melt it into an s; and in this very word of which we are speaking it is manifest that it hath been subject to such a permutation; for what the [Page 131] common Greek calls [...], that the laconick was used to pronounce [...] Hesychius, [...] and so Si­bulla is usually supposed to be composed of the laconick [...] with the common Greek word [...] thus from the Greek [...] is the Latin sepelio; from the Nominative case [...] the oblique [...] from [...], mare, the Greek [...], and the Latin sal and salax; and as [...] is from thohu, so from choshech in the same Chapter is that other Greek word in the ancient Mythologie [...]; and from tehom in the Hebrew the Greek [...]; so as the true translation of tehom rabah, the great abyss, would be in Greek by [...].

And now if we can but prove [...] to be as good He­brew as the rest, the business is done. That it is not a Greek word I am almost certain, there being no word but [...] whence it can be derived, whose signification be­longs but to one sex, and that too in common with all other Animals whatsoever. We must take notice there­fore that the old Greek word was [...], from whence there still remains the Plural Number [...], and the compound [...]; for that what ever it is, [...] Since therefore shacan in He­brew is consedit, habitavit, [...] according to this Etymo­logy will be properly canis domesticus, a mastiff or hous­hold dogg; as among the Latines lar signifies both an house and the dogg that keeps it; whence the tutelar Deities of their houses were painted and carved in the shape of Doggs, and latrare is quasi larrare, to make a noise like a dogg: but enough of this.

Having thus overthrown the Conjecture of Capellus as well as of those other Learned men that went before him, I will now, to establish mine own opinion upon a certain bottom, produce a fragment of Saint Peter out of Clemcns Alexandrinus, which whether it be genuine or no is very ancient, as being to be found in all the Copies [Page 132] of Clemens, and therefore is of greater authority than a­ny modern Conjecture whatsoever.

The place of Clemens is this, Strom. l. 6. speaking of the Jews, [...], Ʋnless the moon appear they never celebrate that sabbath which they call the first, that is, this Sabbath, as all other Feasts, is regulated by the Phasis of the Moon: it seems therefore there was a Sabbath among the Jews which was called [...], the first sabbath: wherefore it having been proved already that they had but one beginning of their year in Nisan; and it being farther clear that they reckoned their years by months, and their months by new-moons, this first Sabbath can be no other than the first after the New-moon of Nisan; but in re­gard the reason of this change of the beginning of the year from Tisri to Nisan depended upon the Deliverance of the Israelites from under the Aegyptian Bondage, which happened upon the fifteenth of Nisan, there­fore this day in some sense might be called the beginning of the year, and the Sabbath coincident with it, or fol­lowing next after it, [...], that is, [...], or [...], or [...], the second first sabbath; as in a different respect we may call the Sunday incident upon the first of January or next after it, the first sunday; and that upon the five and twentieth of March or next after it, the second first sunday; and this is somewhat like that notion which E­piphanius had of this word, for he makes it be the second of two Sabbaths, the one of which is a legal Sabbath, that is, any Feast day; the other a natural, by which he means the Saturday Sabbath, which was instituted from the Creation: but here is the fault of that solution, that he makes it to be no certain day in every year, but one­ly casual or once in so many years, lighting upon the concourse of two such Holy days together; the latter [Page 133] of which though it be in order second, yet it is in na­ture and dignity first; the same inconvenience does like­wise attend the solution of St. Chrysostom, which in other respects is not so good as that of Epiphanius; but of all men, unless it be those that have acknowledged their ignorance, who yet in this are to be commended for their ingenuity, Isidorus Pelusiota has betrayed the greatest want of skill and judgment in this affair; for he makes the [...] to be [...], the second day of the passover, but the first of unleavened-bread, which is impossible and absurd.

Thus have I after the unsuccessefull attempts of so ma­ny Learned men, as well ancient as modern, evidently explained what is the meaning of [...], without supposing any thing which is precarious or which does not sufficiently prove it self.

And since the first sabbath, as it was called, was a day of more than ordinary Festivity, as may be seen by those words of Clemens, [...] in Greek being a word peculiar to Festival so­lemnities, as agitare is in Latin, it is but reasonable to suppose that the sabbatum deuteroprôtum or second first sabbath was likewise used to be celebrated with the same Joy and Ceremony with the other, as having its name from its relation to it, and being in the sense I have ex­plained a first sabbath as well as the other, it being the Anniversary of that day upon whose account the order of the months was inverted, and therefore indeed had ra­ther a better right to challenge all the solemnity of a Feast-day than the other.

Again, Since it was so that the sabbatum deuteroprô­tum must of necessity fall upon one of the daies of Un­leavened bread, and since the Solemnity would be much greater if it fell on the first, which was the [...] [Page 134] of the Passover it self. Lastly, Since Christ by this means would in the most signal manner imaginable fulfill the ty­pical adumbration of the Passover, if he died upon the pa­rasceve of the first day of Unleavened-bread, coincident with the Sabbath, which was the most solemn Passover that could be conceived; it is manifest from all this, that all these things do mutually confirm and strengthn one another, that the sabbatum deuteroprôtum was alwaies the third Sabbath in Nisan, that it fell upon the year of our Saviour's Passion upon the day of the Passover it self, and that our Saviour celebrated his last Supper with his Disciples the night before the Jews were to celebrate their Paschal-feast.

The last place which Bochartus endeavours to evade is that of Jòh. 19. 31. For that sabbath-day was an high day, which I have already occasionally considered, and proved against him out of his own authorities how widely he is mistaken: I will now onely add to what hath been said already the authority of that place of Clemens Alexandri­nus, who goes on thus, speaking still concerning the Jews, [...] that is, that without the phasis of the moon, they neither celebrate a new-moon, nor the daies of unleavened-bread, nor any feast nor high-day: from whence it is evident that every Holy-day is not properly, in the hellenistical Language, [...], a great or high day, which is distinguished both from the New-moon, and from a Feast in the general considered, and from the daies of Unleavened-bread, so far as their [...], as I may so call it, or their unleavenedness, is one­ly to be considered; but when such a day is coincident with the Passover it self, as the first day alwaies is, and when upon the seventh there is a more than ordinary Festivity, a Sabbath, and an Holy-convocation, this is that which makes the [...] otherwise though [Page 135] it may be jom tob, dies genialis, a day of publick joy and gladness, yet it is not a great or high day.

It being so undoubtedly clear that our Saviour's Pass­over was celebrated the night before that of the Jews, and it being unlawfull to sacrifice the Paschal-lamb at a­ny time but on the fourteenth of Nisan between the two evenings, this has afforded new matter for the Wits of Learned men to exercise themselves upon to find out an expedient whereby to make it appear lawfull to sacrifice the Paschal-lamb, which they suppose to have been eaten at this last Supper by our Saviour and his Disciples.

There are some that will needs have recourse to cer­tain Talmudical Canons for the more orderly and regular observation of the Jewish Feasts; and the rule of the Pass­over they tell us was Badu, that is, that if the Passover happened to fall upon the second, fourth or sixth day of the week, it was transferred to the next day following, espe­cially on the second and sixth, to hinder the concurrence of two Sabbaths together; this was the opinion of Mun­ster in his Annotations and in his Kalendarium Hebrai­cum, and of Zegerus in his Notes upon the New Testa­ment, and of Edvardus Liveloeus, an English man, once Fellow of Trinity College, and Hebrew Professor of the University of Cambridge, in a Chronological Disputation upon this Subject against Cardinal Toletus; and, lastly, of Isaac Casaubon who follows the other in his Exercitati­ons against Baronius.

But though it must be acknowledged that such Talmu­dical Canons there were, yet it is equally true that they are of much later date than our Saviour's time, when they were used, (and for a long time after,) to celebrate the Passover indifferently upon any day of the week, though it should so happen that the Sabbath should be the day before it or the day after, as hath been proved by undeniable Testimonies from the Talmud and the Jewish [Page 136] Rabbins by Joannes Coch of Bremen in his Notes upon the Massecheth Sanhedrin, and after him by Dr. Cudworth in his Learned Treatise of the Sacrament, but most particu­larly of all by Bochartus who has confirmed the Jewish Authority by the concurrence of Christian Writers both Greek and Latin, and by the Practice of the Tessarescai­decatitae, who, in imitation of the Jews, were used to observe their Easter not onely upon the Sunday, but up­on any day of the week on which the fourteenth day of the month should happen to fall; nay, so little did they scruple the concurrence of two Sabbaths together by the Passovers being either the day before or the day after the Seventh-day-sabbath, that in the Mishna in Pe­sachim we have an express provision in that case as to the time when the daily Evening-sacrifice is to be killed, c. 5. Chal hereb pesach lehijoth behereb shabath, &c. that is, If the evening of the passover shall fall upon the prepara­tion of the sabbath, then the daily evening-sacrifice must be killed at half an hour past six, that is, with us; at half an hour past twelve, and it must be offered up at half an hour past seven, or, as we would say, at half an hour past one: and Epiphanius in his solution of the sabbatum deu­teroprotum, of which there hath been so much discourse already, doth manifestly suppose the concurrence of two Sabbaths sometimes among the Jews, and so doth S. Chry­sostom and Isidore likewise; which solutions of theirs though they have been already considered and exploded, yet if no such concurrence had been ever known, they had not onely been false in themselves, but also built up­on a false foundation.

The reason why these Learned men, who have stood up in defence of the Talmudical Canons, have made the difference between our Saviour's Supper and the Jews to arise from thence was this, that so it might appear that our Saviour did celebrate his Passover upon the legal [Page 137] day, whereas the Jews, being governed rather by the Traditions of their Masters than by the Law of Moses, to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbaths (the Passover that year, as they tell us, happening upon the Friday) transferred it to the next day, and so made a coincidence of the Passover and Sabbath together, but how indefen­sible this opinion is we have abundantly seen, and I ac­count my self not a little happy, that, after the gleanings of so many Learned men, I have been able to confirm the truth by some new authorities not taken notice of by them.

The second Expedient thought of by Learned men for the solution of this Difficulty is this, that both our Sa­viour and the Jews celebrated their Passover upon the le­gal time, to the best of their understanding, on both sides, but that they onely differed in their way of computation; our Saviour he went more exactly to work, and com­puted his Passover from the [...] or astronomical con­junction of the Sun and Moon, while the Jews, not be­ing it seems so good Astronomers, proceeded onely by the sensible phasis, which was about a day after; but to this though it may be sufficient to answer with Bochartus, that all this is gratis dictum & fine ullo teste vetustatis, that it is spoken without any the least colour of authority to vouch it; yet it is farther true that Maimonides does expresly affirm that it was a Tradition of Moses from Mount Si­nai that they should compute their New-moons by the phasis, and that as long as the Sanhedrin lasted, and all the while the Doctours of the Mishna and the Gemara li­ved till the days of Abijah and Rabba, they had no o­ther way of computation; and so it is also expresly asser­ted in that passage of Clemens Alexandrinus, of which I have already made so much use, [...], &c. that the Jews never celebrate any of their feasts or solemn days but they compute them from the phasis of the moon.

The third Expedient is that of Ludovicus Capellus, who pretends, as I remember, to solve the difficulty by the Embolism or Intercalation of a day at the end of the month foregoing, which being observed by the Jews, but not by our Saviour, makes the Jewish Passover a day later than his: but to this though we may answer as to the former, that it is perfectly precarious, it is onely faid and not proved; yet there is one place of Scripture yet behind, which will serve for a sufficient Confutation of all these three Expedients, it is Joh. 13. 29. when Ju­das went out to betray his Master, it is said of his fellow Disciples, that some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast: which Feast, if it be meant of the Passover, as it can be meant of no other, then we have here an express Testimony of the Disci­ples themselves, and certainly that is as good authority as can be produced, that the Passover was not yet come: For as for those that expound it of the Chagigah, they do not consider that upon the first day of Unleavened-bread, as this must be, if it were not the day before, it was un­lawfull either to buy or sell.

But, besides these three, there has another way been thought of, as insufficient in my opinion as any of the former; and that is, that as the Jews now a-days do use to keep the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan both of them with a Paschal solemnity, that they may be sure to avoid a mistake as to the time of the conjunction of the two Heavenly bodies, so from thence there are some that will needs infer that this was the ancient practice, and, at that rate, that night when our Saviour supped with his Disciples was no less the Passover night than that which followed it. But first, it is to be considered, that there is no testimony of antiquity that can be produced to prove that this was the ancient practice, and therefore [Page 139] it is precarious. Secondly, The ancient Jews, if they did practise it, yet the practice of the modern can be no argument to prove it, because what they doe is propter dubium conjunctionis luminarium, as Scaliger observes, whereas the Ancients went altogether by the Phasis Thirdly, Maimonides observes that even in old time those Jews that were in captivity, or lived in foreign Countries, were used to observe two days together, because they could not certainly tell what day the Sanhedrin at Jeru­salem had consecrated for the New-moon: But as this exception is an argument that it was not the general practice, so the reason given of it proves, that at Jerusa­lem this custome never obtained; for there they could not be ignorant what day the Sanhedrin had pitched upon. Fourthly, When the Friday on which our Saviour suffe­red is called by Saint John, [...], the preparation of the Passover, it is certain it could not be the Passover it self, for the preparation was onely in or­der to it, and was of necessity a day before it. Fifthly, The place of St. John which I have produced upon the former head is every whit as good an argument upon this for had that day upon which Judas went out to betray his Lord been a Passover as well as that which followed next after it, certainly the Disciples could ne­ver have been so silly and so ignorant of their own cu­stoms and Nation, and of the Law of Moses, as to su­spect he was gone to buy any sort of provision at a time when nothing could either be bought or sold. Sixthly and lastly it is an unanswerable argument against this and all other ways of making our Saviour's Supper a properly Paschal or Sacrificial Feast, that He himself was that Lamb of God whom all the mosaick Passovers repre­sented; and that he might unquestionably approve him­self to be so, and unexceptionably fulfill the legal Types, it was necessary that he should suffer at the true time [Page 140] when the Passover was to be killed, and therefore that true time could not possibly be come when he supped with his Disciples: So that it being clear that our Savi­our and his Disciples: So that it being clear that our Savi­our and his Disciples neither did nor could partake of the Paschal Lamb, properly so called, the question is what manner of Passover it was which he celebrated with them, and I answer that it was that which Grotius calleth the mnemoneutical or commemorative Passover; and if you would know what manner of Passover that was, you may consult Buxtorf, in his Talmudical Lexicon, under the word Aphicomen, and in his De Coenoe Dominicie ri­tibus & forma, and Scaliger in his De Coenoe Dominicie ri­tibus & forma, and Scaliger in his sixth De emendatione temporum: I will not insist upon it at present in this place, having done it already very largely in some other Papers.

A Table of the first Sabbaths and second Sabbaths after the first.
Nisan. Nisan.
[...]. 1. [...]. 15.
2. 16.
3. 17.
4. 18.
5. 19.
6. 20.
7. 21.
FINIS.
TWO EXERCITATIONS.Th …

TWO EXERCITATIONS.

The First attempting to demonstrate that the Jews till after the return from the Captivity of Babylon, were not allowed the publick and promiscous use of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament.

The Second concerning the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, or four lettered Name of God a­mong the Jews; As also concerning the Pythagorick Tetractys and other Philological matters that have a connexion with it.

BEING The Second and Last Part of the Digression, In the Additions to the SERMON Before Sir P. W.

By JOHN TƲRNER, Late Fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge.

[...].
Cuncta prius tentanda, sed immedicabile vulnus
Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trabatur.

LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1684.

Reverendo admodum Patri, ET Praenobili Viro, HENDERICO, Volente Faventéque Deo, Antistiti LONDINATƲM, &c.

JOHANNES TƲRNER Voti, Ex aliqua sui parte, nondum soluti reus.

Quod erat residuum pernumerans Et persolvens, Fidem liberat & voto liberatur.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

IF the usefulness of these Discourses will not fpeak their Apology, notwithstanding they are soe little of kin to any thing of a Sermon, which was the onely occasion of their writing, then I shall be at a loss for any other defence, and must submit upon discretion to the cen­sures of my Readers, who are my proper Judges, and from whose sentence there lies no farther remedy or appeal.

I did not till very lately intend to publish the first of these Discourses, but because I find I have referred to it in the latter, (if it may be called the latter, for they are indeed all but one, and the reflexion upon this will doe a kindness to several passages which may otherwise seem absurd) therefore I have per­swaded it to come abroad, lest otherwise you might think me to be haunted with fe­verish [Page] Apparitions, and to refer to things that were not in rerum natura; or lest you should chance to loose your way when you are so obligingly disposed as to design me a Visit, and for More-fields, instead of St. Thomas, mistaking one sort of Hospital for another.

I have nothing farther to add, but that if you will pardon these digressions for this once, I will engage to you solemnly and verbo sacerdotis, which was a very sacred way of plighting Faith, before the discovery of the Popish-Plot, to be more close and per­tinent for the future; and if what I have done already may have the good Fortune to meet with candid acceptance, it will give me en­couragement as well to finish with chearful­ness and Vigour, what is now upon my hands, as to launch out farther into new de­signs, for the improvement of Learning, and for the good of the World.

Farewell.

THE first Exercitation being but very short, and having but few particulars, needs no particular Enumeration of the Contents. The Contents of the Second are as follows.

THE CONTENTS.

  • ABen Ezra accusing the Samaritans of Worshipping Ashima, is guilty either of an Equivocation or a downright falshood, Pag. 199.
  • Asima, what, ib.
  • The Secret of the Tetragrammaton not unknown to Christ according to the Authour of Toledoth Jeshu, which seems to be confirmed by a testimony of Suidas, but no­thing can be safely affirmed or denyed upon such testi­monies as these, 200
  • Our Saviour could not belong properly to the Aaronical or Jewish Priesthood, being not descended of the Tribe of Levi, otherwise than by the Mother's side, ib.
  • The Testimony of Philo Judaeus concerning the Tetragram­maton produced, and proved from it that Philo Judaeus had not read the Original Book of Moses himself, upon which that Testimony pretends to rely, 200, 201.
  • The Testimony of Josephus concerning it produced, 201.
  • From whence it appears plainly that Josephus was not ac­quainted with the four lettered name of God, as that name is represented in its Hebrew form and appearance, 202.
  • [...] in the citation of Josephus are Vowels properly so called in opposition to Consonants, or mute and unsoun­ding Letters proved against. Jos. Scaliger, ib.
  • The name of God according to Josephus in this place can be nothing else but [...]. ib.
  • A Second place of Josephus concerning the ineffable or un­utterable name of God, 202, 203.
  • [Page] Two Reasons why it came to be so great a secret even a­mong the Jews themselves, 203.
  • First Reason, the General Reverence which hath prevailed in all Nations for the name of God, in so much that e­ven among the Heathens themselves they were used to omit his name even at that very time when they Sware by it, saying onely in an Elliptical way, [...] and [...]. Pindar, Aristophanes, and the Anthology explai­ned; 203, 204.
  • The Second Reason, of the Jewish ignorance of this Sacred name to be taken from the Version of the 70. who have rendered it by [...] without any where mentioning the name it self, 204, 205.
  • But though Josephus were himself ignorant of the true Pro­nunciation of this name, yet from what he hath said there is sufficient light afforded to discover it, 205, 206.
  • The Second Testimony of Josephus resumed, and that he speaks there of the Ehjeh Asher Ehjeh, which was that name of God in which Moses delivered his Message to the King of Aegypt, 206.
  • [...] ib.
  • The same with Ehjoh, which is afterwards proved to have been the old punctation, 207.
  • [...] hath but three Letters whereas Ehjoh hath four, and why, ib.
  • The reason given for it confirmed by the Authority of Bo­chartus in a resembling instance, ib.
  • Neither the Javoh of Bochartus nor the Jahoh of St. Je­rome were the true and ancient pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, 207.
  • Which is still farther confirmed, 208.
  • Ad calcem pag.
  • The Tetragrammaton consisted exactly of the same Letters in St. Jerome' s time with [...] of our Masoret [...]al Bibles, and that the Procopian [...] read backwards accor­ding [Page] to the Eastern mode, in the same, p. 207, 208.
  • The interpretation of [...], as it is corruptly read for [...], in Clemens Alex. answers to that Etymon of it which I have assigned, p. 208.
  • The particular reasons assigned why neither Bochartus his Etymon of [...], nor that of St. Jerome, are to be ad­mitted, ibid.
  • As [...] is Ehjoh, so is [...] Jehvoh, and this is that name of God expressed in Greek characters which Josephus affirms to have consisted of [...], four Vowels, 209.
  • [...] is from Hajah, with a Jod, [...] from Havah, with a Vau, both signifying the same thing, ibid.
  • [...], for [...], ibid.
  • The punctation of the future tence of Havah and Hajah, by a Cholem instead of a Segol, very ancient, as is pro­ved by several instances out of Plautus his Paenulus, 209, 210.
  • The affinity, and in a manner sameness, of the Hebrew and Punick Language, ibid.
  • Several other considerations to confirm the same punctation and first, from the testimony of a place of Theodoret, 210, 211.
  • The punctation by a Cholem is confirmed by the custome of the Ancients in their adoration of a Sneeze, Xenophon and Plato explained, 247.
  • A Sneeze why used and consulted in Divination, the An­thology, Propertius, Catullus, explained, 247, 248.
  • A third reason by which the same punctation is confirmed taken from the seven lettered name of God in the Oracle and in the Anthology, 249.
  • Scaliger mistaken in several instances, ibid.
  • The seaven lettered Name of God so called by the mistake and ignorance of the Greeks was the [...] and the [...] joined together, ibid.
  • [Page] This conjecture farther vindicated against a possible exception, and the gross errour of Bochartus discovered, 249, 250.
  • God is not onely called Ehjoh and Jeh voh but Jah, which was a name of God as sacred, peculiar and incommuni­cable as the other, 250.
  • Proved out of Symmachus, the quinta Editio, and the LXX. themselves in their [...], that this was the ancient and true punctation, ibid.
  • It is owing to the same root with the other two, and its a­nalogy cleared, ibid.
  • An objection against the punctation of the name Jah consi­dered and answered, 251.
  • The place of Theodoret farther considered, ibid.
  • [...], the errour of Haeschelius, ibid.
  • [...], Jugum, [...], jaloux, jealous, Pherecydes Syrius explained, ibid.
  • [...] and [...] in Alexander Trallianus, whence, 251, 252.
  • Pharaoh, Pharaoth, Pharaothes, Phraates, ibid.
  • Abraxas, the God of the Basilidians, who, and why so cal­led, and the Abracadabra in Serenus Sammonicus ex­plained, 252.
  • [...], Juno, [...], what and whence, 253.
  • [...], from Jah, Jupiter, q. Jouipiter, from the Impe­rative Joh, the same with Jah, the conjecture of Cice­ro, Agellius and Lactantius concerning the name Jupi­ter rejected, ibid.
  • As also the Jovis pater of the Moderns, ibid.
  • [...], 254.
  • Lucilius explained, and the reading of the present Copies vindicated against Mr. Selden and Dousa, ibid.
  • Nomen in Lucilius what, ibid.
  • Pater and Genitor the common Epithet of all the Heathen Gods, 254, 255.
  • Apollo, why so called, 255.
  • [Page]Apella, [...], Horace explained, ibid.
  • Baal Peor the same with Priapus according to St. Jerom and Isidore, ibid.
  • But this not approved by Mr. Selden, 256.
  • The true Etymon of Priapus proved out of Isidore, and the false one of Dionysius Vossius refuted, [...], 256.
  • Priapus why made to preside over Ports as well as Gar­dens, ibid.
  • [...], who, ibid.
  • Salax, whence, ibid.
  • Portunus, Neptunus, à portubus, navibúsque tuendis, ib.
  • [...], vox nihili, and the conjecture of Plutarch concer­ning the Etymon of Neptune rejected, ibid.
  • [...] and [...], Navius and Nevius the same name, ibid.
  • The Heathen Deities not onely called Patres and Genitores, but also [...], Reges, and both of these comprehended in the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrews, and in the [...] of the LXX. 257.
  • But the title of [...] most proper to the supreme Numen, or him who was accounted the Sovereign of the Gods, ibid.
  • Molech, Moloch, Milcom, Anamelech, Adramelech, who, and why so called, ibid.
  • Annibal, Asdrubal, whence, ibid.
  • Adrumetum and Atramyttium, as much as Adir Mot, and the conjectures of Drusius, Isaac Casaubon and Bo­chartus himself exploded, from 257 to 260.
  • [...], in the Phenician Language the same with the En­glish Mud, 258.
  • It is made probable from Bochartus that the Phenicians traded hither, and the name Britain is originally Pu­nick, ibid.
  • The mistake of Bochartus as to the signification of the Hebrew word Chatsar, 258, 259, 260.
  • Adir, a Phenician word, proved from Priscian and Saint Austin. 260.
  • [Page]Philo Judaeus vindicated against Joseph Scaliger, and the word [...] or [...] farther explained, 260, 261, 262.
  • [...], palus, 261.
  • Tehom, [...], what, ibid.
  • The mistake first of Philo Judaeus, and then of the Jewish Rabbi [...], as to the Etymon and signification of Cherub, or Cherubim discovered, and the true meaning of that word vindicated and explained, 262, 263.
  • Another indication of the punctation of the Digrammaton by a Cholem, from the Io of the Latines, and the con­jecture vindicated from the inscription upon the Numis­ma of Abraxas, together with a farther confirmation of my conjecture concerning the seven lettered Name of God, 263.
  • Mr. Selden' s conjecture concerning Juba the Mauritanian God confirmed, and shewn how by analogy it may be re­duced to the Tetragrammaton, or indeed is of it self the same with it, 263, 264.
  • [...] and [...] or Deus the same, 264.
  • The Tetragrammaton no such secret among the ancient Jews, as it hath been usually represented to be, proved from Mr. Selden, 264, 265.
  • Neither was name Jehvoh onely known to the Gentile World, but also that of Ehjoh too, being both of them from the same root. 265, 266.
  • The Rabbins beholding to the Septuagint for their punctation of Jehvoh by the points of [...], 266.
  • The superstition of the LXX. themselves in not delivering these names of God, viz. Jehvoh, Ehjoh, and Jah, by their own proper Letters and Vowels, [...], ibid.
  • The Tetractys of the Pythagoreans, not the same with the Tetragrammaton of the Jews, ibid.
  • No mystery in the number Four, nor any thing more incom­municably sacred in the name Jehvoh, than in that of Ehjoh or Jah, 267.
  • [Page] The Rabbins called the incommunicable name in its origi­nal, Shem Shel Arbah Othijoth, but this was borrowed by them from the Greeks, who understood it, as hath al­ready been proved, onely of [...], that is to say, of that name as revealed to the Gentile World, not as kept se­cret from it, 267.
  • The time of Pythagoras compared with that of Sanchunia­thon, and shewn that so long before his time, as the lat­ter was elder than the former, the name [...] was no such secret even to the Gentile World. ibid.
  • Nay that it was much earlier abroad than the time of San­chuniathon, who was contemporary with Gideon, is pro­ved from what hath been said before, 268.
  • Nothing but want of skill in Grammar which made the Te­tragrammaton and the Tetractys confounded together, ibid.
  • The Tetractys explained what it is, 268, 269.
  • And that explanation confirmed out of a place of Lucian in his [...]. 269.
  • The analogy and reason of the word [...] explained and demonstrated out of a place of Homer, and the meaning of the [...] in the Pythagorick School, 269, 270.
  • The Pythagoreans swearing by their Tetractys, no argu­ment that it was the same with the Tetragammaton, ibid.
  • The number four, as hath been already declared, had no mystery among the Jews, and the name Tetragramma­ton invented by the Greeks long after the time of Py­thagoras, so that he could not allude to it, 271.
  • Neither did the Jews ever swear by the number Four, but Seven, and why, ibid.
  • Nishbah, Shebouah, what they signifie, and several Pas­sages belonging as well to the History as Dispensation of the Jews explained from this observation, 271, 272.
  • Particularly the reason of the Rite of Circumcision is from [Page] thence largely explained, and the opinion of Grotius confuted, together with that of Maimonides, with whom Grotius concurs in his judgment, both being beholding to a passage in Aristotle, who giving the reason why chil­dren among the Greeks were usually named upon the se­venth day, was himself very grossly and palpably mistaken, from 272 to 275.
  • [...], what it signifies in the old Scholiast upon Ho­mer, shewn by comparing it with that upon Apollonius, the Writer of the Argonauticks, 275, 276.
  • My notion of the Tetractys farther confirmed, 276, 277.
  • The Pythagoreans were used also to swear by their Master Pythagoras, as believing him from the Stories which he related of himself, and which were told concerning him to be a divine and self-existent person, and how ridiculous and impossible those Stories were, 277, 278.
  • The same was likewise true of Empedocles, Epimenides, and Abaris, three Disciples and followers of Pythago­ras, that they also pretended to Divinity as well as he, 278, 279.
  • And of Apollonius Tyaneus, a profest Pythagorean, who lived long after them in the time of Domitian, ibid.
  • And had the honour afterwards to be worshipped in the La­rarium of Alexander Severus, ibid.
  • The symbolick meaning of Pythagoras his golden Thigh con­sidered, from 279 to 292.
  • The Thigh a symbol of fruitfulness and generation, proved out of Heinsius in his Aristarchus, 279, 280.
  • Bacchus thence said to have been taken out of Jupiter' s Thigh, that is no more than to be the son of Jupiter: [...], the ignorance and pedantry of the Greek Grammarians, 280, 281.
  • Two places of Scripture proposed concerning Eleazar' s laying his hand upon the Thigh of Abraham, and Joseph upon that of Jacob by way of adjuration, together with the [Page] reasons of this custome assigned by Sebastian Munster, R. Salomon, Aben Ezra, P. Fagius, and H. Grotius, 281, 282.
  • An account why Munster' s is insufficient, 282.
  • R. Salomon mistaken in matter of fact, 282, 283.
  • The reason of Aben Ezra perfectly precarious and without any shadow of ground, and that of P. Fagius, besides that it is precarious as the former, not comprehensive e­nough to give an account of the universal obtaining of this custome in all the Eastern Countries, 283, 284.
  • Besides the authority of Aben Ezra there is a citation pro­duced out of Busbequius to prove that this custome did universally prevail, and that it is still in use among the Turks in the civilities of conversation. From the citati­on of Busbequius in concurrence with Aben Ezra three observations are raised: 1. That the laying the Hand upon the Thigh was all over the East accounted a token of high respect: 2. That the outward expressions by ge­sture of civil respect and divine worship are the same, being generally the same in all Ages and Nations: 3. The mistake, or as it seems wilfull errour of Josephus in re­lating the story of Abraham and Eleazar is represented, and a warning given not to rely too securely upon his autho­rity without farther testimony from the probability of things and the concurrence of other Writers, especially the sacred and canonical, from 284 to 288.
  • The reason assigned by Grotius for this custome considered and refuted, 288.
  • The true reason of this custome explained, that it includes an appeal to the maker of all things, the first cause of all vital faecundity, and in whom as in the common Parent, the seeds of all other vitalities or existencies are con­tained, and as in religious worship in includes an appeal, an invocating or an imprecation, so in civil conversation it includes a prayer to the same being, in whom are the [Page] Issues of life and death, for the health and safety of that person to whom this respect is paid, which was the reason also in civil salutation of laying the hands to the breast, by way of appeal to the searcher of hearts that we do inwardly wish the health and peace of our Brother to whom we address our selves with this formality of salutation, 288, 289.
  • The signification of Tachath in Hebrew, and of [...] in the Hellenistical Language reconciled to the present u­sage of the Turks of laying their hands upon, not under the Thigh, 289.
  • Several other places of Scripture produced to prove that the Thigh or the Knee, was a symbol of generation, 289, 290.
  • The reason of taking hold of the Knees in supplication. [...], &c. Seneca in Troade, explai­ned, 290, 291.
  • The reason of bowing the Knee either in Divine Worship or civil conversation explained, 291.
  • All this applied to Pythagoras his golden Thigh, and it is extremely probable, if not absolutely certain, that the golden Thigh was intended for a symbol of Divinity, the fruitfulness of the Divine nature being denoted by the Thigh, and by its being made of Gold the stability and eternal firmitude of that fruitfulness was represented, 291, 292.
  • Pythagoras though he received not his Tetractys from the Jewish Tetragrammaton, yet is he not to be denied to have had some acquaintance with the Jewish Nation and affairs, and that he had considerable acquaintance with them both is probably asserted from the testimony of se­veral Authours, and especially Porphyry in his Life, 292, 293.
  • Zabratus the Babylonian, Nazaratus, Zaran, Zaratas, Za­radas, all the same, 293, 294.
  • Abraxas, the God of the Basilidians, is in some Copies [Page] stiled Abraxan, but the former is the true reading, and why, 293, 294.
  • Zabratus as much as Jah Berith, the God of the Covenant and why so called, 294.
  • Why said to be a Babylonian, 294, 295.
  • In what sense Pythagoras may be said to have conversed with Zabratus, and of the likeness and resemblance be­twixt the Doctrine of Pythagoras, delivered by Zabra­tus, and the Books of Moses, in three particulars, 295.
  • Of the dissimilitudes or disagreements betwixt Pythagoras and Moses, and the causes of it, 295, 296.
  • Sanchuniathon noted, ibid.
  • But it is not impossible that Zabratus might be the name of an Idol, the same with Bahal Berith in the Book of Judges, because the name Jah, though it be of right in­communicable and belonging onely to the true God, yet this hinders not but this might be applied by the Hea­thens to their Idols, because they took them to be such, and this, besides what is said afterwards concerning Zamolxis, may serve for a farther indication that the name Jah, which was every whit as incommunicable as the Tetragrammation it self was no secret to the Hea­then World, 296, 297.
  • Bahal Berith, [...], unskilfully confounded with Abibalus, which was the name of the true God, be­ing as much as El Abib, Deus Spicarum, so called from the change of the beginning of the Jewish Year from Tisri to Nisan, or Abib, the confusedness of Sanchuni­athon' s History is again perstringed, 297.
  • Four reasons assigned to strengthen my conjecture concerning Abibalus being the name of the true God, from 297 to 300.
  • [...], what, 298.
  • [...] for Neptune, Mos or Moy for Water in the Ae­gyptian Language, ibid.
  • [Page] [...] the same with Isaac, Annobret with Sarah, [...] with Rouach Elohim, or the spirit or breath of God in Sanchuniathon, for which three discoveries I acknow­ledge my self indebted to Bochartus, 299.
  • Notwithstanding the manifest Anachronisms, and other mi­stakes or impositions of Sanchuniathon, yet his agree­ments with Moses are a testimony to the truth of the Mosaick Writings, ibid.
  • Zamolxis the same with Jah Moloc, 300.
  • Much ancienter than Pythagoras according to Herodotus, ibid.
  • Worshipped for Saturn according to Mnaseas in the Ety­mologist and Suidas, and this is a farther confirmation that Zamolxis and Moloc were the same, ibid.
  • Appeased also by humane Sacrifices as Moloc was, 300, 301.
  • Called Gebeleizin from a Hebrew Word which signifies as much as Terminus, or Jupiter Terminalis, [...], as Herodotus expresly calls Zamolxis, ibid.
  • Alagabalus, the tutelar of Emissa, whence he had his name, ibid.
  • Several other considerations to prove that Jah and Za­molxis are at least so far the same, as that the first is a part of the composition of the latter. First he was wor­shipped without an Image, and supposed to have his pecu­liar residence in Heaven, from whence God by the an­cient Jews was called Shamajim, several places of Scrip­ture are explained, and two passages of Herodotus, 301, 302.
  • Secondly, the Scythians believed of their Zamolxis that he was the true and onely God, and that there was none besides him, which was the reason of their shooting up to Heaven whenever it thundered and lightned, in defiance of those Meteors, as insensible and dependent Creatures, though other Nations worshipped them for Gods, 302, 303.
  • [Page] Thirdly, The Scythians believed the transmigration of Souls, or the passing of the same Soul successively through several humane Bodies, but that this did not belong to all but onely to the good, both of which are asserted con­cerning them by Herodotus, and both of these opinions were received by the Jews themselves in our Saviour's time, from 303 to 307.
  • [...]. Herodotus and Hel­lanicus explained, 304.
  • Porphyry' s opinion concerning the Etymon and significa­tion of the name Zamolxis considered and refuted, 307, 308, 309.
  • Zaleucus and Charondas, who they were, a possible Etymo­logy of each of their names shewed with a detection of the vanity of each, and a caution to wariness in Etymologies, which afford so large a field for Fancy, with a discovery of the true analogy and signification of each of these names, which concludes this Discourse, from 309 to 312.

The First EXERCITATION, Attempting to demonstrate that the Jews, till after the Return from the Captivity of Babylon, were not allow­ed the publick and promiscuous use of the Canonical Books of the Old Testa­ment.

IT is so far from being true, that every Jew in his private capacity was bound to transcribe one Copy of the Law, as the Rabbins would persuade us, that I can make it very probable if not abso­lutely certain that the Commonalty of the Jew­ish Nation neither had nor were permitted usu­ally to have any Copy of the Law for their own private reading, for all that long interval which hapned from the time of Moses himself till after the return from Captivity of Babylon in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, and so much longer as till the version of the 70. was comple [...] ­ted, and by degrees was brought into common [Page 192] use. My Reasons which make me think so are these that follow.

First, When it is said, Deut. 11. 18, 19, 20. Ye shall lay up these my words in your heart, and bind them for a sig [...] upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes, and ye shall teach them your Children, speaking of them when thou sittest-in thine house and when thou walkest by the way, when thou lyest down and when thou risest up, and thou shalt write them upon thy gates. These words to be explained of the Decalogue or Ten Command­ments, not of the whole Law of Moses, as will ap­pear by comparing this Chapter with the 34th. of Exodus, which is parallel to it, and therefore when it is said vers. 20. Thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house and upon thy gates, in the first place this literally taken of the whole Law of Moses or of the Five Books of which the Pentateuch consists is both ridiculous and impossible, ridiculous to think that Posts and Gates were the onely sacred Volumes then in fa­shion, and impossible that all the Law of Moses, in a legible character should be written in so small a compass; wherefore in the second place we are not to interpret this place of writing, or of Posts or Gates in the literal sense, but it is in allusion to the sprinkling of Bloud upon the Posts and Lintels of the Israelitish houses the night be­fore their deliverance out of Aegypt, it is a com­mand with a promise of happiness and safety [Page 193] annext to its performance, and is as much as to say, "if you observe diligently to obey me and keep my Com­mandments, you shall be safe from any Evil or Judgment that may otherwise befall you, as your An­cestours were exempted from the slaughter of the First­born by the bloud of the Paschal Sacrifices sprinkled upon the Posts and Thresholds of their houses; and such another allusion as this, is that saying of Moses to his Maker, Exod. 32. 32. Yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin: and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And then vers. 33. And the Lord God said unto Moses, whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Not that we must entertain so gross and so unworthy conceptions of God Almighty, as if he entered down all humane or other Occurrences in a certain Journal, without which, if they did not es­cape his cognizance he would loose the memory of them, as if he kept an Album Amicorum,. a Catalogue or List of his Friends and Favorites, without which they would ship out of his mind; but it is an allusion to the Ge­nealogical Tables of the Jews, in which such as dyed without Issue, as being of no use in carrying on the se­ries and account of time, were used by those who tran­scribed the publick Genealogies for the common use, or the private Pedigrees for the use of particular Families, to be omitted, and consequently in after Ages forgotten, of which I have spoken more largely in that Disquisition, which I have mentioned, concerning the Brother's mar­rying the Brother's wife in the Levitical Law; and this is plainly the meaning of that Passage, Psal. 109. 13. Let his Posterity be cut off, and in the Generation following let their name be blotted out; that is, when the Genealogies come to be transcribed for the use of the next Generation, let their names as barren and supersluous and dying with­out Issue be omitted.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

Where [...]ore the Precept of writing of the Law or the Commandments upon the Posts and Gates of their houses, must be explained by vers. 18. Ye shall lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and this was that which they were to teach their Children, vers. 19. that is, not the whole Law, which those tender apprehensions could not receive or attend unto, much less comprehend the entire Systeme and Model of so intricate a Dispen­sation, but only the general Rules of Life and Practice, in which it was but requisite they should be trained up from their infancy and childhood, that the exercise and love of Vertue and Religion might be the more habitual to them in their age; and for this reason they were used to instruct them particularly in the Decalogue, as Children now a daies are used to be taught the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, which con­tain the general Heads of Devotion, Articles of Belief and Rules of Practice. The very reducing the general Rules of duty both with respect to God and Man, under ten general Heads, the putting them not less than twice by themselves into Tables of Stone by the Finger of God him­self, that is, by a supernatural operation of the Divine Will, notwithstanding there is nothing in the Com­mandments themselves, which is not more largely insis­ted upon in the body of the Law, and branched out in­to many particular cases, is a sufficient argument that these ten Words or Precepts, or Commandments, were intended for the use of the [...], or vulgar sort of men, to give them a general scheme of their duty; though for their satisfaction in particular cases, whether of reli­gious scruple or civil right, they were to betake them­selves to the Judges and Officers of their respective Tribes, and from thence if they were not satis [...]y'd, they were to appeal to Jerusalem, in that manner which has been alrea­dy declared.

Letters were so scarce in those early times among the Jews, as well as among other Nations, that to be able to write and reade, especially to reade the Law after the traditionary way, of which I shall speak more by and by, was that which qualify'd men for the highest employments in the Jewish State; and therefore it is ob­servable that Shoter, and Sopher, and Shophet in Hebrew as they are names very like in sound, so they are also in signification, and were all of them frequently expres­sive of the highest power and authority among them. Sophrim and Shophtim are joyned together as exegetical and declaratory one of another, 2 Chron. 34. 13. and so are Shophtim and Shotrim, Deut. 16. 18. In the first of which places the Seventy render it [...], Scribes and Judges; and in the latter they are termed [...], Judges, and Promulgers of Judicial Edicts and Letters, as Andreas Masius in his learned and elaborate Notes upon Joshua would have it, but by his favour, I do not allow that interpretation, but am rather of opinion that this word is synonymous with the former [...]. For [...] is an Introduc­tion, [...] an Introductour or Instructour in any Skill or Knowledge, and so Plutarch calls his little Book [...], that is, of the instruction or information of Youth; and so [...] will be interpres, enar­rator, Doctor Legis, an Expositor or Teacher of the Law, and consequently a Judge of those Controversies that were to be decided out of it; or it is one that was used to bring out the Law among the People, who were not al­low'd the use of it, or could not make use of it at home, to reade and explain it, and address himself to them in practical and popular exhortations, as the People spake to Ezra the Scribe, Neh. 8. v. 1. To bring the book of the Law of Moses; and then v. 2. And Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the Congregation.

Neither were they onely by means of this skill of rea­ding and interpreting the Law, capacitated to be the prime Judges and Officers among the People, but al­so by writing and keeping the Genealogies, which was no question another Imployment of theirs, they had op­portunity of knowing all the People and of being better known to them, of understanding their qualities and conditions and serving themselves accordingly of them, and by being necessary to all conveyances and settlements of right between man and man, which will always be done in writing where such a thing as writing is to be found; they did by this means aggrandize and enrich themselves, and had a mighty stroke with their respec­tive Clients, so that it is no wonder the Scribes are men­tioned in the Gospel as men of so great authority and sway amongst the Jews, this being a name, for the reasons above given, of the greatest dignity and power among them, and so in the first of Macchabees the fi [...]th Chapter and forty second verse, the [...], the Scribes of the people, are manifestly the Leaders and the Chiefs among them, and Acts 19. 35. he who in our Translation is cal­led the Town clerk, a man of principal credit and authority among the People of that place, is in the original called [...], the Scribe; and though I am ready to grant that this word does not always denote so much, but that sometimes the more inferiour Officers, such as the Latines call Lictores, apparitores, viatores, accenso, are under­stood by it, which is I think Masius his notion of [...], yet that it sometimes and that very fre­quently in the Old, and always in the New Testament denoted men of the greatest credit and power among the Jews, cannot without great unskilfulness be deny'd.

A second reason from whence it may appear probable, that the ancient Jews were not permitted the use and reading of the sacred Volumes in their private persons or [Page 197] Families, is that a great part of it did not concern them, but was perfectly the business of the Priests, and of none but them; so that to instruct them in the knowledge of those things, with that accuracy and niceness with which it was requisite the Priests and Levites themselves should understand them, was but to fill their heads with a superfluous lumber, which was of no use to them, and was rather an hin­drance than otherwise to their improvement in, and to their due attention to those practical Precepts in which they were chiefly concerned.

Thirdly, There were some things in the Law, the knowledge of which could serve to no other purpose but onely to be a perpetual temptation to transgress it, as men have usually an hankering after those things, which are with the greatest rigour and seve­rity forbidden them; such was the confection or composition of the holy Oyntment, with which the Tabernacle and all its Vessels and Furniture and the Priests themselves were to be anointed, Exod 30. where after the enumeration of its ingredients from v. 22. to 32. it is added v. 32. 33. Ʋpon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy and it shall be holy unto you, whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people. And the same is true likewise of the holy Perfume, whose ingredients are specified v. 34. of which it is said v. 37, 38. And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to your selves according to the composition there­of: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord, whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even [Page 198] be cut off from his people. Wherefore the knowledge of these two things in the Levitical Law, being, if not put in practice, useless, and being practised, not onely dangerous, but fatal and destructive, it is most likely that as well the ingredients of these two holy Compositions, as also the proportions of each, and the manner of tempering and mingling them one with another, was kept as a secret among the Priests, or known onely to him or them who­ever they were to whom the composition of them belonged.

What hath been said of these two Instances, the same would be likewise true of what the Greeks call the Tetragrammaton, and the Jews, Hashem, or Shem Hameporash, the name, or the nomen explica­tum, the explained name, as it should seem by an Anti­phrasis, because, if we will believe the generality of the Jewish Masters, it cannot be explained, which being onely to be pronounced with its true Vowels by the High Priest once a year, when he entred in­to the Holy of Holies, was therefore probably, if this be true, (to hinder it from being profaned) kept from the knowledge of all but him, or his im­mediate Successour in that high Employment; it is certain that at this day its true pronunciation is not known, and the Masorethical Jews either out of ignorance or superstition or both, are always used to point it either with the Vowels of Adonai or Elohim, but mostly of the former; nay so foolishly supersti­tious are they, that in the numbring of the Verses in the present Hebrew Bibles, when they come to the 15th verse of any Chapter, whose proper marks [Page 199] are a Jod and an He, they always change them in­to a Teth and a Vau, counting it by nine and six, instead of ten and five, because the Letters by which the former two numbers are denoted, are two of those Letters of which the Shem Hameporash is composed.

He that would see more of the modern Supersti­tion, may consult Buxtorf in his Learned Synagoga; and he that desires to be informed what admirable work the Cabalistical Triflers have made of this my­sterious name may repair for satisfaction to Rabbi Pau­lus Fagius, who is to be spoke with at all hours of the day in the 28th of Exodus at the 30th verse.

A fourth reason then, which may be assigned, to make it appear that private persons among the Jews were not permitted the reading of the Law, may be taken from their so frequent relapsing to Idola­try; notwithstanding the Law was so passionately severe in its denunciations against that dreadfull sin, so frequent, so unwearied in its exhortations against it, and that the seven Nations, whose Land they came to possess, were rooted out from off the face of the earth for no other reason but this, or at least for none so much at this, for their Idolatry and spi­ritual fornication; it being impossible and absurd to conceive, if all the people had been sufficiently in­structed in the Law (which Law at the same time they must be supposed to acknowledge to have been of divine inspiration, and that all the curses and bles­sings therein mentioned did and would certainly belong to the performance or violation of what that Law commanded); I say, it would be impos­sible and absurd in this case to think, that Idolatry [Page 316] should creep in so often as it did, without any noise or disturbance; for in all those revolutions in the Jewish Church, from the Established Religion to the worship of Idols, and to the abominations of the Heathens round about them, though there might be and were actually some few who did not bow the knee to Baal, or submit to those pollutions which were so inconsistent with the worship and honour due to the true and onely God; yet it is manifest the Crowd and generality of the People were gene­rally swept away with it, as by an Epidemical Di­stemper, a certain Plague and Murrain of the mind.

And this fourth reason will borrow yet farther strength from these three considerations, each of which are alone sufficient, and much more all of them together to put the matter beyond all possi­bility of doubt or question.

First, If we enquire into the true reason from whence it came to pass, that the Romish Church in the Adoration of Images and Reliques, in the worship of Saints, and the sacrifice of the Mass hath been guilty of so vile and execrable Idolatry, besides an infinite number of the most foolish and ridiculous superstitions, that either the wit or the folly of man could invent; it is very plain, that the true and onely cause why the deluded World has submitted it self so tamely to be trampled upon and trodden under foot, in spite of common reason and common sense, and hath believed the gr [...]ssest contradictions, as Articles of Faith; con­descended to the most Contemptible and Apish Follies as parts of a Serious and Devout Wor­ship, [Page 317] is ultimately resolved into their unacquaintance with the Scriptures, which as long as they were in com­mon use among the people, so long the Christian Faith continued, as to the main, free from that foul degene­racy and corruption, to which it was afterwards for so many ages condemned, and under which so great a part of the Christian World is to this day so fatally opprest; but when once the Greek and Roman Tongues became from vernacular to be learned languages, when neither the Fountains themselves, nor their purest streams could be repaired to by the ordinary people, and in too many in­stances not by the Priests themselves, while Translati­ons were either not thought of or not permitted; this gave occasion for ignorance and superstition, by insensi­ble degrees to corrupt and adulterate Religion; and for the craft and wickedness of designing Priests, who gain by nothing more than by the credulity and superstition of ignorant and foolish men, to introduce those opini­ons and practices into the world, which it is hard to say, whether they were better fitted to promote the outward pomp and splendour, the secular interest and advantage of the Romish Church and Clergy, or more expressy con­trary to the positive and declared Revelations of Christ and his Apostles; such as are the sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers and Masses for the dead, denying the Cup to the Laiety in the Holy Eucharist, and the Celibate of the Clergy, or forbidding Clergy-men to Marry: of which the first and third were intended to create a respect and reve­rence for the person of the Priest; the second to be a perpetual Tax and Subsidy upon the Laiety; the last to secure the grandeur and external pomp of the Church, and all of them to fill the peoples heads with such absurd and grosly superstitious opinions, as are the most effectual means for the promoting and perpetuating to [...]uture gene­rations all these unwarrantable interests and designs.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

Secondly, As unacquaintance with the Scriptures, which to the Romish Church are as a talent hid in a Nap­kin, or a Candlestick put under a bushell, was the true cause of that Universal Idolatry and Corruption which prevails among the deluded Votaries of that Communion; so on the other side the true reason why the Reformed Churches have shaken off that yoke of absurdities and abominations, why they have embraced a Religion more agreeable to nature, and more suitable to revelation, is to be referred to the Holy Evangelists and Apostles, speak­ing to every one of us, as they did to the multitude on the day of Pentecost, in his own proper Idiom and Lan­guage; which it is utterly impossible they should do, but they must at the same time discover plainly to the world, God's utter detestation of all such Idolatrous practices, and of all those absurd and unwarrantable opinions upon which those forbidden practices are founded.

But, thirdly, to bring the matter a little more home to the Jews themselves, if it be demanded why before the Captivity of Babylon, they were so often guilty of Idolatry, but never after it, as it is plain they were not; the true reason of this is, that soon after the established worship was again setled upon its old foundations by Esdras and Nehemias; the Translation of the seventy was made out of the Original Hebrew, and from that time forward the Law was layed open both to the Jewish and the Gentile World.

And these three things, as I have said, which are matters of fact, and arguments drawn from experience, I take to be a plain and undeniable demonstration of the matter in question, that the ancient Jews were not permitted the reading of the Law for themselves, or in their re­spective families or persons.

This is the fourth reason, a fifth no less demonstra­tive than that is, shall be taken from the peoples calling to Esdras, to bring out the Book of the Law, and of their having lost not only the memory of those rites and usa­ges with which their solemn Feasts were to be observed, but of the very Feasts themselves; of their having lost their language in so great a measure, that Esdras was forced not only to produce the Law, but to explain it to them, as I conceive, in the Chaldean or Assyrian tongue, which was then more familiar to them than their native Hebrew: All which it is utterly unconceivable how it should ever have come to pass, had it been the custom of every private person to transcribe the Law for himself, as the Rabbins and their adherents would make us believe, and to reade it to his Children and Domestiques in his family; I say, it would have been impossible at this rate, that in so small a period of time (there being several who had seen the first Temple, who likewise returned again from the Captivity and saw the foundations of the se­cond lay'd) so strange an ignorance, and so utter a for­getfulness of the whole Law should over-spread the whole Nation of the Jews. Insomuch that it was the opinion of Ireneus, Eusebius and several other of the ancient Fa­thers, that the Law of Moses in this Interval was utterly lost, and that by a supernatural revelation it was renewed by Edras; nay, Tertullian in his book de habitu Mulie­bri, is so positive as to affirm it for a certain and un­doubted truth, Hierosolymis Babiloniâ expugnatione dele­tis, omne instrumentum Judaicae literaturae constat per Es­dram esse restauratum; "It is certain that after Jerusa­lem was demolished by the King of Babylon, all the Monuments of the Jewish Learning or Law (which were now perfectly lost) were restored by Edras. Which opinion, as being grounded upon no other foundation, than that extreme ignorance of the people in the Law [Page 320] after the return from the captivity, and their importu­ning Esdras to bring out the Book of the Law, may without any unwarrantable disrespect to antiquity be re­jected, especially since I hope I may pretend to have given a better account of those matters, because it hath nothing precarious in it, which is the fault of this; for it does not follow, because Esdras was desired to bring out the book of the Law, that therefore it was revealed to him by inspiration, but he could not bring it out, unless he had it in possession is certain, which is all that I contend for.

Neither need we be so scrupulous of rejecting the testi­mony of the Fathers in this case, if we consider that the divine inspiration of the seventy Interpreters, and their exact jumping together, notwithstanding every man made his Translation apart, is asserted by every whit as strong, nay, a much stronger suffrage of antiquity than this of the [...], or supernatural illumination of Es­dras; nay, Justin Martyr tells us, that he himself saw those very Cells, in which this miracle of a Translation was wrought; and yet nothing in common sense is more plain, nothing that happened either yesterday or to day more known, than that Justin Martyr was imposed up­on, and that all his fellow suffragans were mistaken; un­less we will affirm that the Spirit of God was so, and put all the mistakes and over-sights of the 70 Interpre­ters, which after all that Isaac Vossius hath said in their defence, were very many, to the divine Spirit, either im­posing upon all mankind, or being mistaken and deceived it self; either of which is almost equally absurd and blas­phemous to suppose, because the first argues a pravity in his Will, the second an imperfection in his Nature, and by both the foundation of all certainty is destroyed, it being the same thing with respect to our faculties, which depend upon his skill and veracity for their truth, [Page 321] whether he be capable of being deceived himself, or be of such a fallacious and deceitfull nature, that he will make no scruple of imposing upon us.

Sixthly, It is to be considered, that this was the con­stant practice of the most remote antiquity among all na­tions, that the Mysteries of their Religion were usually locked up among the Priests, and kept from the knowledge of the common people, and they had either generally no writing at all but among the Priests, and such as was to be found in the publick Records or in the sacred Vo­lumes, both of which were used to be kept in their Tem­ples; or if they had any, yet it was a distinct character from that which the Priests and Hierophantoe used, which was unknown to the ordinary sort of men: so Porphyrie saith of Sanchuniathon, that he took his History, [...], Out of the publick Records, and sacred Volumes laid up in the Temples: And Philo saith, that he compared his Hi­story, [...]. With the hidden or concealed Monuments of the Ammonites which were lay'd up in their Temples; for so I rather chuse to translate' [...], than as Bochar­tus doth of the Idols of the Sun, which are called in He­brew Chamanim; for all men that understand any thing in these Grammatical affairs, do know very well that' [...] is a very Analagous word from' [...] or ' [...] to signifie one of that people or nation; and I conceive that in this place it can, in strict Analogy, signifie nothing else: So also Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the letters of the Aegyptians, saith, they had two sorts in use among them, one which was the publique letter of the whole Nation, the other peculiar to the Priests, derived down to them successively from Father to Son, and kept secret among themselves.

Laertius, in the life of Democritus, giving a Catalogue of the Books which he wrote, among others mentions these two, [...], and [...] of the sacred Characters in Meroe and Babylon.

And lastly, Theodoret in his Questions upon Genesis, [...] In the Groecian Temples there were certain peculiar characters, which were called [...], that is to say, the letters or characters of the Priests, where when Bochartus, from whom I have bor­rowed these Citations, would interpret [...] in a larger sense, for any Barbarous or Heathen Temples; it is certain that this is precarious, if it be not false, and that the more strict interpretation, by which [...] in Greek is usually opposed to [...], is the more likely to be true.

From hence it is that the Greeks are used to call that secret learning which is kept among the Priests by the name of [...], the Mysteries; from the Hebrew Sa­thar, latuit, the Participle of which in Hophal is Mustar, and from thence is the Greek [...], ap­plyed afterwards peculiarly by the Greek Fathers to the consecrated Elements of the Holy Eucharist; for this rea­son, because the Catechumens themselves, and much more the [...], those that were perfectly without the pale of the Church, were not admitted to see or know any thing of the solemn administration of that holy Supper; insomuch that in their Homilies or Sermons, or other Dis­courses, they never allowed themselves to talk plainly concerning it, that the knowledge of those secrets might not by any means be imparted to any, but such as were admitted into the most perfect order of Christians, and were in the strictest degree of fellowship and communi­on with the Church.

Wherefore when ever they had occasion to touch upon any thing of those holy rites, the knowledge of which was not permitted to any but the perfect Christian, they were used to speak of it only in very general terms, clo­sing up their dark and general expressions with an [...], that is, the initiated or the perfect Chri­stians understand what I mean; and by the same Analogy with this, to observe that also, now it lies so fairly in my way, the Turks at this day are used to call those who are Atheistically given, or rather they are used to call themselves, (as arrogating a more extraordinary know­ledge to themselves above their neighbours, only for be­ing more ignorant and stupid than they are) the Musarim, that is, [...], the profound or deep searchers into the nature of things, for Sour in Hebrew is recessit, and Mousar the Participle in Hophal is qui in recessu la­tet; and Mousarin, as I have said, are the profound and deep Philosophers of the times, as this sort of people usu­ally account themselves, and laugh at all that are piously or seriously disposed, as a pack of silly, superstitious mor­tals frighted by publick tales, by clouts and scare-crows, the crafty inventions of Priests and Politicians to keep the world in awe.

Lastly, By the same Analogy it is that the Turks call themselves Mushlemen, that is to say, the faithfull, the perfect or the elect, for Shallem is perfectum, beatum esse, and from thence in Hophal Mushlam, and by the addi­tion of a Turkish termination Mushleman (as from the Chalday Tirgem is the Turkish, Drogerman for an Inter­preter) is a perfect or blessed man, or a professor of the true Religion, in which appellation the Mahometaus hug themselves, as their fellow Predestinarians among us are used to do, and learn to despise and hate the rest of Mankind.

Now if it be true, as I have made it appear, that this was the custom of all the ancient World, to keep their sacred Volumes locked up in the Temples, and concealed from the knowledge of the common people; if this were the custom of the Ammonites and the Aegyptians, both of them so near neighbours to the Israelites, then these two things seem pretty plain.

First, If you add this general custom to what hath been said before to prove that the common Jews had little or no acquaintance with their law, I hope all this, taken together, will at least strengthen what former proof hath been given, if it may not pretend to be a new proof by it self.

Secondly, If we should suppose that the Jews had ge­nerally that familiar knowledge of, and acquaintance with the law which is denied, what extreme madness and folly would it have been in this case for them to relapse to the Idolatries and Superstitions of the Heathen World, that is, to run out of the light of noon, into the darkness of midnight, to leave a Religion which they perfectly understood, and were not capable to be abused by the craft and subtilty of designing Priests, to embrace that, where all was kept secret, and where they were in per­petual danger of being imposed upon by the designs and artifices of those whose trade and livelihood depended wholly upon the credulity and ignorance of the people? or would they not rather have said to any that should have endeavoured to perswade them to make so foolish and so unaccountable an exchange of their Religion, as our Saviour said to the Samaritane Woman, Tou know not what you worship, we know what we worship, for salva­tion is of the Jews? So that besides the direct proof of this assertion, which this consideration will afford, here is also a Demonstratio per absurdum, and the manifest in­convenience of the contrary opinion is enough to over­throw it.

Seventhly, For this reason the law is called the Cove­nant of Levi, Malach. 2. 4. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of Hosts. Not but that the Covenant was made in common with the whole people of Israel, but it is called the Covenant with Levi, because as it follows v. 7. The Priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts. And then v. 8. to show how easie it was for them, who had the entire possession of the law to themselves, and who were the Oracles up­on whom the people depended to impose upon them, and abuse them at their pleasure; it is added, But ye are de­parted out of the way, ye have caused many to stumble at the law, ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi.

Eighthly and lastly, It is to be considered that in all the most ancient times of the Jewish Church, the sacred Volume consisted wholly of Consonants, and that the Vowels were supply'd, without the help of any visible Characters, by the skill or traditionary usage of the Priests, among whom it was preserved; that it had no Vowels visibly and determinately set down, is evident from the Genius of all the Eastern languages, to all of which this defect did anciently belong, and from the Writings of all the Rabbinical Doctors, whether Ancient or Modern, who always have, and still do continue to this day, to write down only the Consonants, or unsound­ing Letters, leaving the Vowels to be supplied by the skill or conjecture of their [...]ders; and, lastly, from all the ancient MSS. of the Hebrew Bible it self; of which Isaac Vossius, who had seen Two thousand, an incredible number, affirms, that he never saw any ancienter than Six hundred years, which had the Masorethical Vowels and Accents annexed to it.

Now it being clear and evident, to those who under­stand any thing of these matters, from the nature of the thing it self, and from the experience of those differences which are to be found, by comparing the several Transla­tions, which have been made out of the Original He­brew with one another, by collating the seventy, and the Chalday Paraphrasts, and the fragments of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion, the Vulgar Latin, and the ancient Medrashes or Jewish Expositions and Paraphrases toge­ther, (somewhat of which hath been already attempted by Capellus, but yet so as that, without any detraction from that incomparable work, there is still an infinite field remaining for the industry of others to exercise it self) I say, it being evident from all this, that the same Consonants are capable of, and have been actually pointed with different Vowels, which different Vowels shall con­stitute different words by themselves, and shall by the change of one or more such words make a different sense to arise in a sentence taken together according to the several possibilities of variation in the same clause or sen­tence; it is manifest that every new way of pointing, is in effect a new Comment or Paraphrase upon the Text, in which this variation is made.

But besides this there is also another sort of variation to be considered, to which the Scriptures of the Old Testament are easily, and have been actually exposed ei­ther by the mistakes, or by the wilfull and industrious fault of the Transcribers, and that is by the likeness of Consonants either as to the sound or figure either in the Old Samaritane, or in the [...]esent Assyrian Character; such as are the changes of [...] [...]aleth, a Resh and a Lamed, by reason of likeness in figure, or of an Hajin and an Aleph, being both gutturals, for the similitude of sound, into one another; of which sort of a [...]terations there are an incredible number of instances to be found, by com­paring [Page 327] the several Translations with one another, to say nothing of that addition which might be made to these by a comparison of all those M SS. which are extant at this day, nor to take notice of the Keri and the Ketib of the Masoreth it self, or of the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Nephthali, that is, to say of the Eastern and Western Jews.

Now whoever shall consider these two causes of dif­ferent reading or different interpretation, and shall with­all suppose the ancient Jews to have been every one of them obliged to transcribe an entire Copy of the Law for himself, and to have read it without any Points and Vowels; and, lastly, shall compare this with the mistakes to which men are subject, the wofull ignorance and want of sense, to which the common crowd of all Nations is usually exposed, and much more the Jews, who are by nature a stupid, melancholly and superstitious sort of men; and with the conceits and prejudices, the love of novelty, the natural itch of being thought wiser than their teach­ers, and the wicked ambition which in all ages and na­tions possesses many mens breasts, of overthrowing and unsetling the present establishment of things, of disobey­ing their superiours, of gathering Churches or Congre­gations, as the Modern phrase is, that is, of siding into Factions and Parties, and of disturbing the publique peace and quiet upon religious pretences; and then let him tell me whether it were safe after all this to intrust every pri­vate person to transcribe the Law or Prophets, or to point it for himself, that is, in effect to make all the al­terations in Religion, which either ignorance, carelesness or design can introduce; nay, whether it would not have been impossible, in so great variety of reading and inter­pretation as this would have unavoidably occasioned, but that the Jewish Nation must have been canton'd and di­vided into as many Sects, as there were different possibi­lities [Page 328] of interpretation, arising from either of the two causes, which have been above specified and assigned.

What confusion would this have introduced into the Ceremonial part of the Mosaique Law, while every alte­ration of a letter or vowel would have made a new Cere­mony, and there would have been as great diversity of rites as there was possibility of variation, and all pretend­ing to the same divine authority to justifie and vouch themselves? how would the people, out of that innova­ting humour which is natural to the populace of all the world, have divided and subdivided themselves into seve­ral Parties, Conventicles and Factions? and how would the Priests, as fast as revenge, or ambition, or opiniatrity and affectation should prompt them, have put themselves in the head of disagreeing Sects, and would have fomented those differences among the Jews with the same real or pretended zeal and earnestness that the Non-conformists do now among us, only with this advantage, that the Jews might have done it, when the interpretation of places, for want of a standing punctation, was left so much to every man's honesty and judgment, with infinitely greater plausibility and pretence of warrant from above, than our dissenting Incendiaries can do, who are so shame­f [...]lly driven out of all their posts, unless it be their igno­rance, knavery and impudence, which are citadels im­pregnable against all the power of argument in the world, and can only be taken in by the faithfull and vigorous exe­cution of severe and wholesome Laws? how would they have lampoon'd and ridicul'd the Prophets? and how would the several Parties, by a several way of reading, pointing or accentuation have discharged the several Pro­phecies at one another? Lastly, what strange uncer­tainty would this have brought upon the Law and Pro­phets? how would it have confounded all those Prophe­cies [Page 329] that foretold, and all those Rites and Sacrifices that typified and shadowed out the coming of the Messias? And by consequence how would it have perplexed and entangled, nay, plainly evacuated and disanulled all the evidence which we have, besides the unquestionable mi­racles of our Saviour and his Apostles, for the Christian Religion? how would it have baffled and defeated that argument for our Saviour's Person and Doctrine, upon which he himself laid so mighty stress, that he despaired any miracle, how great soever, should perswade them, with whom the testimonies of Moses and the Prophets were of no force and signification? For upon supposition of such infinite variation, as the Promiscuous use of the Original Hebrew, before the use of points, would have in­troduced, these testimonies could not possibly have been of any weight or value with any considerative or think­ing man, because the several readings by their mutual opposition would have destroyed and supplanted one another.

It is so far from being true, that the ancient Jews were permitted the promiscuous use and reading of the Law, that it seems rather to have been denied to most of the Priests and Levites themselves; for we are to consider that in the distribution of the Levites to their several em­ployments, there were none admitted to the actual exer­cise of any sacred office whatsoever, till they were ar­rived to the age of twenty years, and that at that age they were only capable of the more servile or handy­work employments; and as they arrived to greater ma­turity of years, so they were admitted to offices and employments of a more honourable nature; that there were some appointed for Porters, others for Singers, whose business was only to be instructed in the Songs of the Lord, without any obligation that appears to any particular study of the whole Law: And so for those that [Page 330] were employed, in dressing or preparing the sacrifices, or in sprinkling the blood, it was not requisite they should learn this skill by a personal converse and acquaintance with the Law; as well because all the Ceremonies be­longing to the performance of such Ministeries as these, neither were nor could be prescribed in the Law it self, without swelling it into a much larger Volume, than that in which it is now contained, as hath been already ob­served, to the shame of all Non-conforming scruples, and to the undeniable justification of humane institutions in religious worship; as because it is seen that things of this nature, that is, the ceremony and formality of Offices, whether Civil or Divine, may be and are actually handed down to men in a traditionary way; as it is possible for a man, and many a man actually does understand the Laws of England sufficiently well, and yet in the practice of a particular Law-Court, is not half so well skilled as an ordinary Attorney.

Besides all which, it is still further to be considered, that at the return from the Captivity of Babylon, as hath been already observed, Esdras did not only instruct the people in the knowledge of the Law, but also the Priests and the Levites themselves, Nehem. 8. 13. which would have been needless, if all the Priests had been equally in­structed in the knowledge of it; or if some of them, unless in those matters which belonged to their particu­lar charges, which as well as the Law it self, were now by seventy years disuse forgotten, had not been either altogether or very nigh as ignorant as the common peo­ple.

Wherefore it is most reasonable to conceive, that as the line and family of Aaron, were of all the Levitical race, the highest in the Priestly dignity among the Jews, inso­much that the Priests and the Levites are frequently di­stinguished from one another in Scripture (though it is [Page 331] true that the Levites were Priests too, though in a grea­ter latitude, as well as Aaron and his sons, being all of them equally substituted instead of the first born, and all of them dedicated, though in a less degree, to the ser­vice and ministery of the holy things,) I say, it is highly reasonable from hence to conclude, that the more parti­cular knowledge and study of the Law was confined to the family of Aaron, who were those Priests, most pro­perly and strictly so called, whose lips in the language of Malachi were to preserve knowledge; and to whose custody alone, as being the most sacred depositum in the world, the Original M S. of the Law it self, or the most Authentique and unquestionable Copy of it, was commit­ted, Deut. 17. 18.

It is not certainly for nothing that the Letter or Com­mission of Xerxes to Esdras in Josephus is thus superscribed, [...], to Esdras the Priest, and Reader or Interpreter of the Law of God; and so he is called again afterwards in the body of the Epistle it self, which is to me a plain intimation, that the skill of reading, and much more of interpreting the Law, was in the time of Esdras, a great rarity among the Priests themselves; for that by [...] or Reader, somewhat more is implied, than what the Jews afterwards in their Synagogue worship called Chazan, and the Greeks some­times [...], is evident from the words of Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Aebionites, who calls the Hebrew Chazanim, by an Hellenistical word [...], and inter­prets it in Greek by [...] or [...], which is the very word used in St. Luke's Gospel; and it is plain from that place of St. Luke, and from the interpretation of Epi­phanius, and the place above cited out of the Tractate Succa, that no more was meant by it than an ordinary Reader in one of our Parish-Churches; whereas Esdras was not only a Priest, but a Priest of greatest note and [Page 332] dignity among the Jews at that time, as appears suffici­ently, as well by the sacred Story, as by the testimony of Josephus, who calls him, Antiq. L. XI. c. 5. [...], the chief Priest of the people, that is, of that part of them, who returned out of Babylon into Ju­dea, which all the Jews did not, the High Priest of the whole nation, properly so called, remaining still behind, whose name in the time of Esdras was Joakim, and was succeeded, after his death, by his son Eliasim, remain­ing still in Babylon, as Josephus reports; which is still a new argument to invalidate those testimonies of the an­cient Fathers, whereby they would make Esdras, to have recovered the law after it was perfectly lost, by a divine inspiration; for certainly it is not very likely that the High Priest himself, who was chiefly concerned to under­stand the law, was any whit less knowing in it than Es­dras, much less that all the succession, during that Inter­val, which consisted of three several persons according to Josephus, that is, Jesus, and Joakim, and Eliasim, were all of them so utterly unacquainted with the law, and with their office, as they must be, if this opinion of the Fathers be admitted for truth; besides that what Josephus saith of Esdras, that he was [...], sufficiently or competently skilled in the law of Mo­ses, is very short of a divine inspiration.

It being therefore thus clear from so many irrefragable arguments, that the reading of the law till after the trans­lation of the seventy was not permitted the commonalty of the Jews, (which if it had, it would have been im­possible, that both the law and language during this inter­val, should have been so utterly lost.)

It being certain that they were kept in this ignorance and darkness, even in the time of their best Kings, of David, and Solomon, and Josiah; and that it was so far [Page 333] from being disallowed by God himself, that it seems ex­presly approved by him, in those words of the Prophet Malachi, which I have produced.

Lastly, It being no less evident, that such a conceal­ment of the Law, from the knowledge of the common people, could not be without great inconveniences attend­ing it, by exposing them to the cheats and impostures of the Priests, as it is at this day in the Church of Rome in a great measure, and by being in all probability the occasion of their so frequently relapsing into the Idola­trous worship of the Nations round about them.

From hence we have another pregnant instance how strict and religious care was had to the preservation of peace and unity in the Jewish Church; and this example pursued into its consequences, is still a stronger argument for all those humane means of unity and publique peace, which if quietly submitted to and obeyed, will bring to pass that blessed end they aim at, without exposing us to any of those dangers and inconveniences with which this Jewish prohibition was attended.

If it were lawfull or warrantable, among the ancient Jews, to prohibit the reading of the Scriptures, or so much as to permit them not to be read, because the rea­ding of them would be attended with this fatal conse­quence, that it would infallibly through the perversness of bad, or the unskilfulness of ignorant men, have been the occasion of great schisms and disorders in the Jewish Church and State, (as I have demonstrated, it must needs have proved,) notwithstanding the great danger and in­convenience to which the prohibition it self was exposed; then certainly all those humane institutions which tend to the same end, without the same or any like inconve­nience are undoubtedly lawfull and fit to be commanded, and consequently both fit and necessary to be obey'd.

The great design of Religion is the peace and happi­ness of Mankind, and therefore whatever does in its own nature, or in its direct and necessary consequence, tend to the disquiet and disturbance of the world, is naturally forbidden to men considered as members of a civil socie­ty; such was the promiscuous use of the Law and Pro­phets among the ancient Jews, and for that reason it was with equal justice and necessity forbidden; and if it be the same case in the permission of things indifferent, or in the publique allowance of every man's private fancy and humour, as to the circumstances and external Modi­fications of Divine worship; if this be always found by experience to be a means of crumbling men into Facti­ons and Parties, of alienating mens affections, and dis­uniting their interests, and setting the several Parties at a perpetual strife and variance with one another; then it follows plainly, that a prohibition of such liberty under legal penalties, which is the only remedy against such disorders, is, because necessary to a necessary end, the peace and welfare of Mankind, lawfull, and a duty incum­bent on the Civil Magistrate, to whom the care of the publique peace and safety is committed; which if he shall neglect, he is answerable to God for the greatest breach of trust of which any publique administration is capable; and it being confessedly at every man's own choice, not considering him as a Member of a Society, what indif­ferent posture or circumstance he will make use of in divine worship, otherwise there could be no indifferent things in nature; it is as necessary when he enters into, or engages himself in a society, that he resign up this liberty to the publique Will of the Supreme Civil Power, as any other privilege or power of acting, with which antecedently to all bargain or compact, he is by nature invested; For this plain reason, because otherwise the so­ciety can either not subsist at all, or not without perpe­tual [Page 335] trouble and disorder; which because it is in all its degrees, a proportionable tendency to an actual dissolution, it may and must be restrained with the same care, with which Rebellion or Anarchy should be avoided; which being the direct contrariety to Government, or the return of Society into a state of nature, is that in whose preven­tion by all necessary means the Magistrate is chiefly concerned.

We find in Scripture that even divine Laws themselves are sometimes of no force or obligation, when a particu­lar act of Charity or Mercy either to man or beast is con­cerned; as when David and his followers ate the shew­bread, which could not legally be eaten by any but the Priests; and for the same reason the plucking a Sheep out of a pit, the pulling of ears of Corn, and healing of the blind on the Sabbath-day, are allowed not to be a violation of the Sabbath, though expresly contrary to the words of that Commandment, wherein the observa­tion of the Sabbath, or a feriation from all manner of work or labour is enjoyned; which how strictly it was observed, not only by the superstition of the Jews, but by the appointment of God himself, in cases where there was no such absolute necessity, we know by the punishment of him, who was stoned by the whole con­gregation for gathering of sticks on the Sabbath day.

If therefore a divine Law may be dispensed with in cases of necessity, at the prudence and discretion of men, what can be more plain than that upon the same account a humane law may justly be enacted? For this reason, because a dispensation of any divine Law, in cases not particularly excepted in the Law it self, is every whit as much an humane institution, as any positive humane Law; and if there be the same reason of necessity in both cases, that is, for the welfare of a particular person, and much more of a whole society, they are both of them of [Page 336] equal obligation; neither will it avail any thing in this case to distinguish betwixt humane institutions in sacred and in civil Matters, for certainly the observation of the Sabbath belongs to the former of these; and if humane laws may determine in what particular instances the Sab­bath is violated, and in what it is not, that is, in what manner the Sabbath shall be observed; then it may as well determine, nay, and much more, any other bare ex­ternal circumstance of Worship whatsoever.

But above all things, we can never too frequently re­flect upon what hath been said as to the prohibition of reading the Law and Prophets to the Jews of old, which being a thing drawing so great inconvenience after it, and which could have no other good meaning than to preserve the peace and unity of the Jewish Church, which I have shown plainly, without this prohibition could ne­ver have been preserved; this certainly extends in its con­sequence with much more conclusiveness to all those ex­pedients of publique peace and safety, whatever they be, which have no such inconvenience attending; which to be sure must be the case of all indifferent matters, which would otherwise cease to be indifferent, and by being manifestly hurtfull would lose their name.

But let not any man for all this think or suggest, that in this I favour the cause of the Papists, who deny the Po­pulace the use of Bibles in the vulgar tongue; for in the first place I only represent matter of fact, without making any application; in the second I say there is great dispari­ty of reason betwixt the Papists and the Jews; for had the Vowels been added to the Consonants in the Hebrew Bi­bles, so as the sense might have been more plain and less subject either to errour or design, which is the case of all our Bibles in the Modern Tongues, there had not then been the same reason to keep them lock't up among the Priests that there was; and it would have been as safe to [Page 337] permit every man the use of the Law and Prophets for his own private reading, as it was after the seventy had compleated their Translation, after which the know­ledge of the Law was diffused in common among all the Jews.

Again, If the Law had contained only matters of Mo­rality and rules of Life, which is the main business of the Gospel, it could not have been so lyable to any dange­rous corruption, because it would be more difficult for any Doctrine to gain credit among men, which contra­dicted the common sense and the common interest of Mankind; but in a book of Rituals and Formalities of external worship, as different readings must have pro­duced different rites, so those different rites would have produced so many different Parties and Factions among the Jews.

Fourthly, It was absolutely necessary before the ap­pearance of our Saviour in the world, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament should be lay'd open to the know­ledge both of Jew and Gentile, to prepare them for the reception of the Messias that was to come, and to render them the more inexcusable, especially the former, if at his appearance they did not give him that welcome and respectfull entertainment, which was due to the great­ness of his character and person.

Fifthly, We are expresly commanded in several places of the N. T. to search the Scriptures, we are told that all Scripture is written for our instruction, and Timothy is commended by St. Paul for his knowledge of the Scrip­ture from his youth upwards; and since all these places in the New Testament, where the Scripture or Scrip­tures are mentioned are to be understood of the Old, this is sufficient to show how necessary it was sometime before our Saviour's appearance, and at that time it self, and ever since, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament should [Page 338] be lay'd open and exposed to the view of Jew and Gentile, because Moses and the Prophets did testifie of the Messias; and it would have been impossible to understand how all the Prophecies and Types of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the person, and by the sacrifice of the Messias, without comparing the Life and History of that person, and those types and prophecies together.

Sixthly, Since we are commanded in the Scriptures of the New Testament to study and search into the Scrip­tures of the Old; and that only for this reason, because they bear their testimony to the Messias, whose types and shadows are explained and unfolded in the Gospel: this is sufficient to show the obligation we are under, to search the Scriptures of the New Testament also, because they can neither be sufficiently understood without one ano­ther; and the reading of the Old is enjoyned us only for that reason, that we may compare it with the New for our better understanding of both, and especially the latter.

Seventhly, Since the History of our Saviour's Birth and Life, and Miracles and Sufferings are so faithfully and particularly set down in the Gospels, as this was un­questionably intended for the benefit of all succeeding generations, who would otherwise have lost that History, or have received it, corrupted and imbezled by foolish and ridiculous Fables; so the greatest benefit which any man can receive from a Narrative of this nature, is to be ex­pected from the Original Narrative it self, or from such a faithfull translation, as keeps the closest to the literal and Grammatical sense of the Original; besides, that such Translations, made by men of learning and integrity in all ages, into the vulgar tongue, for the use of the common people, are a perpetual security against all the corruptions and impostures of superstitious, ignorant or designing men.

Eighthly, As there is matter of History in the books of the New Testament, which is best preserved and most edifyingly delivered to the common people, as nigh as may be in the very words, which, it may be supposed, the divine Pen-men themselves, had they been to interpret their own books into English, or any other Modern lan­guage would have used; so there are also matters of Faith and Practice: The first of which as containing my­steries above humane comprehension, ought to be deli­vered as exactly as is possible in the very words of the inspired Writers, to doe otherwise, being either to pretend to explain those things which cannot be explained, or to make mysteries of our own, instead of delivering those of God and Religion. And then as to the rules of life and practice, they can never appear in a more Authori­tative or becoming garb, than in that which God him­self hath put them; neither can the native simplicity and beauty of the Gospel, that peaceable and gentle temper which it breathes from it self, and is apt to inspire into all that converse with it, be any way so advantageously and so profitably represented to the world, as by every man's perusing the Gospels and Epistles for himself, by rea­ding the very Sermons of our Saviour himself, and the ad­vices of his immediate followers and Apostles, in those very words, or their equivalents in which they were de­livered.

Ninthly, Though it cannot be deny'd when we have so many and so sad experiences to convince us of the truth of it, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue is attended with many inconveniences from the perversness, the design, or the ignorance of men; yet those inconveniences neither are nor can be so great, as that they ought to stand in any degree of competition with the salvation of the souls of men, which are of in­finitely more price and value than any other consideration whatsoever.

Tenthly, These inconveniences are not so great as those to which not only particular persons, but Religion it self is exposed by the contrary extreme, that is, by keeping the Bible lockt up in an unknown language, which is in it self, and has been found by experience in the Romish Church, to have been the cause of all those monstrous Idolatries and Superstitions, all those absurd Fables and foolish Traditions, with which that communion is at this day polluted; and which instead of being so zealously practised, and so eagerly pursued after by the Votaries of that way, would by the light of Scripture, if they were to take their measures from thence, be suffici­ently detected and proportionably abhorred; which is not only manifest from the repugnancy of the Scripture it self, to such abominable trumperies and wicked impositi­ons upon the belief or practice of men, but also from the separation of the reformed Churches from that of Rome, which proceeds altogether upon Scriptural measures, and cannot be justified upon any other pretence; and still in all ages, ever since the corruption of Christianity by the Romish artifices, from its first simplicity into a fardle of absurdities and innovations, those gainfull impieties have been proportionably detected, as there was more or less of Evangelical light and truth shining forth in the world.

Eleventhly, There never can any so great inconveni­ence happen by a promiscuous use of the Holy Scrip­tures in the vulgar tongues, which may not in a great measure, if not altogether, be remedy'd by the strict and impartial severity of wholesome Laws; and where Laws do not govern the outward practices of men, though they have nothing to doe with private opinions, while they remain such and do not walk abroad; there the government must of necessity be dissolved, and all the banks of order and society must give place to a deluge of Enthusiasm and Fanatique madness.

Twelfthly, There can no mischief or inconvenience follow upon a publique allowance of reading the scrip­tures in the vulgar tongues, if there be but such re­straints laid upon the practices and opinions of men, as are of absolute necessity to the peace and security of every Commonwealth; and if thus much may not be allowed, if every man shall be permitted not onely to reade the Scriptures, but to interpret them as he pleases, and to practise in consequence of his interpretation; so prodi­gious are the follies, so strong the prejudices, so rash and inconsiderate the zeal, so wicked and detestable the de­signs of abundance of men; that if this be the true En­glish of Gospel-liberty; if this be that liberty which Christ came to purchase for us, and which he hath entailed up­on every follower or disciple of his, then his followers, though agreeing in this, That they all acknowledge him for their head and leader, will yet be at as great strife and variance among themselves; nay, and perhaps at greater too, than if they had been destitute of such a common guide, who by such an ungovernable, unbounded liberty of interpretation, speaking no certain sense, but accom­modating himself in all things, to the follies, prejudices and designs of ignorant or wicked men, will instead of being the Prince of Peace, and the healer of all breaches and animosities among us, prove the certain and infal­lible cause of infinite misery and distraction to the world.

FINIS.

The Second EXERCITATION, Concerning the true Pronunciation of the Te­tragrammaton, or four lettered Name of God among the Jews; As also concerning the Pytha­gorick Tetractys and other Philological matters that have a connexion with it.

A Ben Ezra in the Introduction to his Paraphrase upon the Book of Esther tells us the Samaritanes were used to worship Asima, insinuating thereby that they were Idolaters, though this indeed be but a Rabbi­nical Equivocation, and is rather a confession in behalf of those whom he would pretend to accuse, that they were Worshippers of the true and onely God that made Hea­ven and Earth and all that therein is; For what is Asima? it is either Ath shema, that is, Hashem, the name of God among the Jews, or it is [...], him whose name cannot be expressed in its true sound and pronunciation, and so is the same with the shem hameporash; or if it be not an Equivocation, it is a downright Falsehood, for it was not the men of Cuth, as the Jews call the Samaritanes, but those of Hamath that worshipped Ashima, but the Cuthites Idol was Ne­gal, 2 Kings 17. 30. and though all the several Nations there mentioned verse 31. may in some sense be com­prehended under the general name of Samaritanes, as being all transplanted by Salmanasser into that Country, which from Shomron the Metropolis was usually called Samaria, yet it is manifest that it was but a very small part of them, that worshipped this Idol Ashima, and therefore Aben Ezra cannot free himself from the impu­tation either of an Equivocator or a false Accuser.

There is also a certain Hebrew Gentleman the Authour [Page 200] of a Book called Toledoth Jeshu, or the Book of the Gene­rations of Jesus, who is so kind to our Saviour as to ac­knowledge that he was acquainted with the sed shem ha­meporash, the Arcanum nominis Tetragrammati, (a mighty secret it seems it was accounted) and if you will believe all that Suidas tells you in [...], you may then make out to your self a probable account how he came by this secret, by being of the number of the Priests themselves, among whom this secret seems to have been locked up; but though I grant he knew every thing which was pos­sible to be known, and that from him, as being God, no secret could be hid, yet upon the Authority of such Jew­ish Fables as these, no man will believe any thing that un­derstands what Authority is, and upon what grounds it may safely be relied upon: For as to the first I shall prove that it was not any such secret as is pretended, and for the latter, besides many other absurdities in the Story it self, it is certain that our Saviour, any otherwise than by his Virgin Mother's side, which could not entitle him to the Priesthood, was not of the Tribe of Levi; but of that of Judah, of which Joseph his reputed Father was descended, and in whose right by a tacit kind of [...] or Adoption he was the Son of David and the King of the Jews.

How long the Jews have been ignorant of the true pronunciation of this sacred Name may be seen in part by Philo Judaeus, who seems to have been ignorant of it himself, and to pronounce the same of the generality of his Countrymen the Jews, L. 3. de vita Mosis, where he hath these words, speaking of the Breast-plate which was to be upon the Ephod of the High Priest, Exod. 28. and par­ticularly of the binding of woven work mentioned v. 32. [...] [Page 201] [...]; that is, about the Breast-plate there went as it were a golden Bracelet, interwoven with the four Letters of that name, which it is not lawfull for any ei­ther to speak or hear, unless it be in the Sanctuary, having first rightly prepar'd and purify'd themselves. Now if it can be proved that Philo had never read the Law in He­brew, then it is plain that he himself was ignorant of those letters of which this name consisted, and this be­sides other instances which may be given of his great unskilfulness in the Hebrew Customs and Language, can­not be better made out, than by the place it self which I have justly newly produced, in the close of which he says, [...], the Theologue or Divine, that is, Moses, (who by Lucian in his Philopatris is called [...], the slow Spea­ker) tells us that this name consisted of four letters, which Moses does no where say; though indeed as it was deli­vered down to Posterity by him, it consisted of no more.

Neither was Josephus any more knowing in this Af­fair, after'all his brags of an extraordinary skill above other men, than Philo; his words are these, L. 5. [...]. ch. 15. speaking of the Head-tire of the High Priest, [...]; that is, his head was covered with a Linnen Tiara or Mitre, which was to be surrounded with a blew or purple Lace, about which there was to be another binding of gold having the four sacred Letters woven in it, now those four Letters are four Vowels.

Now if these four Letters were not Vowels but Con­sonants then it is manifest that Josephus was mistaken, and consequently was unacquainted with the Tetragram­maton in its original form and appearance.

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

I am not ignorant that Joseph Scaliger in his Notes upon a fragment of Porphyrie in Eusebius will needs have it that [...] in Josephus does not signify Vowels pro­perly so called, but any Letters whatsoever, but by the favour of so great a man the contrary is unanswerably manifest from the place it self, for if by [...] im­mediately foregoing Letters in general are to be under­stood, as there is no doubt or question to be made but they are, then it is manifest that when he adds, [...], these Letters are the four [...], he must be supposed to restrain the genus of [...] or Letters to the species of [...] or Vowels; and to say otherwise is but to repeat the same thing several times over to no purpose, it being as much as if Josephus had said, that the Mitre of Aaron had a Band about it in­terwoven with four Letters, which four Letters were four Letters, so blind are great men sometimes out of a too indulgent fondness for their own Conceits, when they are hunting about, through all the cold scents of Criti­cism to support a very lame and feeble Conjecture, which was Scaliger's business in this place. It is plain therefore that by [...] in Josephus, Vowels are to be understood, and that he must be understood of the name [...], as that holy Name was represented by Philo Byblius out of Sanchoniathon, for there is no other that I can find or hear of consisting of four Vowels.

To this place of Josephus I shall adde another from his Antiquities, L. 2. p. 61. by which, though it will still appear more plain, how ignorant he was as to this commonly reputed Mystery, so by the help of what he tells us, we shall afterwards find a way by which this Mystery shall be plainly and demonstratively revealed. His words are these, speaking of the Miracles that were wrought to perswade Moses, that it was indeed no other than God himself, that was about to send him upon so [Page 203] dangerous and so di [...]pleasing an Errant to Pharaoh King of Aegypt. [...]; that is, Moses being no longer able to withstand so great Testimonies of a Divi­nity, having seen and heard so great attestations of a Di­vine Power; besought him further, that he would conti­nue to give the same Proofs and Evidences of himself in Aegypt, and that he would vouchsafe to acquaint him with his name, that so when he came to doe sacrifice to him, he might entreat him to be present to and to accept of his Sa­crifice by that name which was most pleasing to him, with which request of his it seemed good to the Divine Majesty to comply, and to acquaint him with that name of his, which was till that time unknown to mortal Men, and which it is not lawfull for me to utter.

If it be demanded how this name of God, which is the most proper to him and the most expressive of his nature, as shall be hereafter declared; came to be so great a se­cret, even to the Jews themselves, who ought in reason to be the most familiarly acquainted with it, as being derived from a Root of their own Language, there are two accounts to be given of it.

First that general Reverence which has prevailed in all Nations for the name of God, which by being used up­on every ordinary occasion, would render his Being less respected, and his Power less feared than it ought to be amongst Men, of which we have a very remarkable In­stance in an Epigram of an uncertain Authour in the An­thology.

[Page 204]

[...] [...]

Where the Epigrammatist speaks in a form of solemn swearing, but does not name that God to whom he makes his appeal. And so also Pindar, as he is cited by Brodeus in his Notes upon this Epigram, [...]; where the Scholiast says, [...]; out of reverence to so sacred a thing as on Oath and to the Gods to whom the appeal is made, the Ancients were wont to leave out the names of their Gods, even then when they swear by them. So also Aristophanes in his [...]

[...].

where the Scholiast thus glosses upon the place; [...]; that is, he swears ellipti­cally or imperfectly, for this is the custome of the Ancients when they swear, sometimes out of reverence to leave out the name of that God whom they invoke.

A second cause of this ignorance among the Jews was that this reverence to the name of God, having in a man­ner worn it out of use among the Jews themselves, the Seventy when they came to translate the Law, and Pro­phets (if indeed they did translate both at the same time, which is much questioned by learned Men) would not expose that holy name to the view and knowledge of the Gentile world, which had been either very nigh or alto­gether concealed from the Jews themselves; and therefore in their Translation they always render it by [...], a [...]ame in Greek equally significative of Existence and Au­thority [Page 205] together, the first of which, as being the basis of all other Attributes, is the foundation of the latter. So that the reading of the Scriptures not being permitted the common Jews (as I have in part proved already, and shall prove more largely and more clearly by and by) till such time as the Version of the Seventy prevail­ed in the world, and was exposed equally to the sight and perusal both of Jew and Gentile; it is no wonder that this Ignorance in so important a matter instead of being improved by that Translation, should rather be con­firmed and take deeper root from thence, so as ut­terly to banish the Knowledge of it, as well out of the Jewish as the Gentile world; so as had it not been for the Monuments of Sanchoniathon, and some other remains of Antiquity, known onely to the more curious and inqui­sitive sort of men, it had been utterly lost and forgotten, and its true pronunciation could have been onely ghess'd at, without any certainty of truth, as it is at this day, not without a palpable discovery of their ignorance in the matter, by the Masorethical Pointers of our present He­brew Bibles; wherefore Josephus and Philo not being ac­quainted with those monuments of Antiquity which I have mentioned, nor with the Original Hebrew it self, (which I believe to be true of Philo especially, and very proba­bly of the other also) at least being ignorant of the true punctation of that word, which since their being carry'd away captive into Babylon was now utterly lost among the Jews themselves, it is no wonder they speak of it, as of a name which it was not lawfull to utter, being wil­ling to excuse their unskilfulness by a pretended reverence for that name whose true pronunciation and [...]ound they did not know.

But, as I have said, though Josephus himself wore a stranger to the Tetragrammaton or name of God consisting of four Letters, yet by that light which we may borrow [Page 206] from him, we may be able to demonstrate what this Name was, of what Consonants it consisted, and with what Vowels it ought to be pointed.

For in the first place, when Moses desired to know by what name he should invoke Almighty God when he was sacrificing to him, or rather as the Scripture it self declares it, what name he should make use of to Pha­raoh, as the name of that divine Person by whom he was employ'd, he adds, [...], God then acquainted him with that name of his, which till that time was unknown to men, and which it was not lawfull for Josephus to utter. Now this name of God consisting of four Letters, (for it is the Ehjeh asher Ehjeh, I am that I am, which the Seventy translate [...], and Philo Judaeus in more places than one [...], I am he that is) it is manifest that this is the pro­per Tetragrammaton or sacred Name of God, to which the Jews have always paid so great and so just a vene­ration.

And if we consider further that in the Monuments of the Greek Antiquity there is extant, as the name of the Supreme Numen among the Jews, [...], as appears by the voice of Clarius Apollo in Macrobius, and by many other Testimonies produced by Bochartus, and by two other Inscriptions, the one not known, the other not taken notice of by him.

[...], and
[...].

The first of which is taken notice of by Scaliger in his Notes upon that Fragment of Porphyrie which I have mentioned; and the last is the Inscription of an Antique Seal now in the possession of my Reverend and Learned [Page 207] Friend Dr. Covell, a present great Ornament of that ex­cellent Society, of which I have the honour and happiness to be a Member.

Lastly, if by a very little variation of the present puncta­tion, instead of Ehjeh by a segol, we shall reade it Ehjoh by an holem, then by taking away the he which being an as­pirate in the middle of a word cannot be expressed in Greek; that which is left is [...], or for better sound's sake [...], as what the Hebrew calls Ramathaim, the Seventy for the greater sweetness of the sound have called [...]; and this is the reason why in Greek it consists but of three Letters, whereas in the Hebrew it hath four, because the Aspirate which cannot be expressed by the Greeks any where but in the beginning of a word is lost, which is likewise acknowledged by Bochartus in his De Coloniis Phoenicum, L. 1. c. 9. though in the true Etymon of the word [...] he be as widely mistaken; his words are these, Insula Chia est insula Serpentis, ex Chiuja, V consonum à Groecis est necessario omissum, ut in [...] ex Javoh Dei nomine Tetragrammato; that is, The Island Chia (or Chios) is as much as to say the Island of a Serpent, from the Syriac Chiuja leaving out the V consonant which by reason of its aspiration the Greeks cannot express, as in [...] from the Hebrew Javoh which is the Tetragrammaton or four lettered name of God. But by his Favour there is no such word as Javoh in the world, no nor Jahoh neither, which was Saint Jerome's conceit, though the latter Editions have read it corrupt­ly Jehovah in his Commentary upon Psal. 8. Prius no­men Domini apud Hebraeos quatuor literarum est, jod, he, vau, he, quod proprie Dei vocabulum sonat & legi potest Jahoh, by which he would imply that the Greek [...] answers to this Jahoh in Hebrew, though still we gain thus much by this Testimony of Saint Jerome, that the holy Name of God, usually called the Tetragrammaton was written exactly with the same letters in his daies, [Page 208] with those which are now extant in our Modern Bi­bles; and the same thing appears likewise in the [...] of Procopius in Esajah, which I make no question was taken out of the Tetrapla, or Hexapla, or Octapla of Ori­gen in all which Editions, one Colume was the Hebrew written in Greek Characters and with Greek Vowels; but the Name of God, consisting of these four Letters which I have mentioned, was, as I conceive, (its true pronunciation being at that time unknown to the Jews themselves, or if it were known it was so superstitiously sacred that it was though unlawfull to utter it) expres­sed onely by its Consonants without the addition of any Vowels, which being read backwards according to the Eastern Fashion, is exactly the Procopian [...]. And if this explication of [...] which I have given be the true, it will then answer exactly to that explication of it which is given by Clemens Alexandrinus from Lib. 5. [...], for both of these ehjoh which is the Future Tense from hajah will signify, as well because the Future Tense in Hebrew is both of a future and present signification, sometimes one and sometimes the other, as becase he that affirms of himself, ehjoh, that is, [...], or, [...], I will be, or, I am he that will be hereafter, does by that very affirma­tion include and suppose his present existence.

Bochartus. his Etymon of this name, is therefore cer­tainly false, as well because he is forced to recurr to a needless Elision of the V consonant, as because the an­cient Future Tense from Havah was not Javoh but Jeh­voh as I shall prove immediately; and Saint Jerome's So­lution is therefore absurd, and consequently false, upon supposition that Jahoh is from the Present Tense Havah, because it melts a radical into a quiescent letter, which certainly ought not to be.

Again, as Josephus in the place last mentioned is to be understood of [...] or Ehjoh, as hath been shewn, so when he tells us that the [...] the letters of which the holy Name of God consisted, were [...], four vowels, it is equally manifest that he can be under­stood of no other name, than the [...] of Sanchoni­athon, which he learned of Jerombaal, that is, Gideon, as Bochartus rightly determines; for there is no other name of God in Hebrew, which being expressed in Greek Characters, will consist of four vowels but this; and as [...] answers to the Hebrew ehjoh which is the first Person of the Future Tense from hajah, so [...] is the Hebrew jehvoh, that is the third Person singular of the same Future Tense from havah, which is the same with hajah, as our first Mother Eve was therefore cal­led chauah, with a vau, because she was eem col chai, the mother of all living, with a jod, and so both of these names as well [...], will signifie the same, and will be both of them expressive of the Divine Existence which is the foundation of his power; all the difference is that when God speaks of himself his name is ehjoh, but when men speak of God his name is jehvoh, and both of them are fitly enough rendred by the Seventy [...], he that is, or [...], which is the same, for one sig­nification of [...] is [...], and by the Oracle [...], he whose original is from himself.

[...],
[...].

And that the change of the punctation from a segol to a cholem may be no longer a scruple, I will now shew that this was indeed the ancient way of punctation, from a place of Plautus in his Poenulus, where Milphio [Page 210] thus salutes Hanno the Carthaginian and his companions in his own Language.

Avo Quojates est is? aut quo ex oppido?

And again,

Ha. Avo Mil. salutat. And a little after, Mi. Avo Donni, which being so often repeated, it cannot be que­stioned, but it is the true reading, and that Avo, is as much as the Latin Ave, salve, that is, it is the Impera­tive from Havah, which signifies to be or live; and if Hevoh be the Imperative, then Jehvoh is the Future, as well in Hebrew as Punique, for these two are in a manner the very same, as will appear by those large Re­mains of the Punique Language extant in Plautus, which have been learnedly explained by comparing them with the pure Hebrew, by our Countryman Mr. Selden in his ingenious and learned Treatise de Diis Syris, by Samuel Petitus in his Miscellanea, and lastly by Bochartus him­self in the second part of his Geographia sacra which is de Coloniis Phoenicum; besides that the names both of Persons and Places in the Phoenician Tongue are a sufficient argu­ment of its near affinity or rather perfect sameness with the pure Hebrew, so that I think for the proof of my Asser­tion, here is all the authority that can with reason be expected, but yet to put it beyond all doubt or question I shall add two or three Considerations more.

And first, whereas Theodoret upon Exodus represents the Samaritane pronunciation of this holy Name very dif­ferent from the Hebrew, [...], saith he, [...]. From this it is to be observed.

First, That when Theodoret affirms the [...] to have been peculiar to the Jews in distinction from the Sama­ritanes, this includes an affirmation that the Jewish punctation was properly by an Holem.

In the second place, as a farther confirmation of that Pointing and Pronunciation of this sacred Name which I have assigned, I appeal to the custome of the Ancients in their adoration of a Sneeze; for as it is still our cu­stome upon that occasion to say God bless or God save you, Sir, with a bow towards the person to whom the Salutation was made, so anciently they were used at all such times, to say, [...], which is the same; the reason of which was, that the person so affected, does by the very Sneeze it self pronounce the holy name of God, which is Ehjoh, which being thus casually and in­voluntarily pronounced, the standers by were used to invoke him in behalf of the party Sneezing, saying, Ho­shiah, or some such word signifying a Prayer for his health and safety. And from hence it was that Xeno­phon cited by Aristotle out of the third of his [...], calls the Sternutamentum or the Sneeze it self a God, and the Bird of [...], or Jupiter, the Saviour, but not for that reason which he, not understanding the true o­riginal of this Custome, assigns, [...], because it proceeds out of that most Divine and Godlike part of the head, which is the seat of Reason, or of Ratiocination. For I make no manner of question but the true reason was that which I have assigned, and the rather because he calls it not onely a God, but the bird of Jupiter Ser­vator, which puts me in mind of a passage in Plato, where Socrates exhorts to sacrifice a Cock to Aesculapius, for this Aesculapius is Jupiter Servator, and the sound of a Cock crowing, is much the same with that of a Sneeze in men, Ehjoh.

For this reason it was that they used to consult a Sneeze as a certain Oracle to resolve them in doubtfull Cases, or in future Events: So the Husband in the E­pigram [Page 248] that had a mind to be rid of a troublesome Wife, Sneez'd over her Grave in a publick Burying place, to know when she would die.

L. 1. [...].

[...],
[...].
[...].
[...].

Propertius,

Aridus Argutum sternuit Omen Amor.

Catullus,

Acmen Septimius suos amores
Tenes in Gremio, mea, inquit, Acme,
Ni te perditè amo atque amare porro
Omnes sum assiduè paratus annos,
Quantum qui pote plurimum perire,
Solus in Lybid Indiáque tostâ
Caesio veniam obvius Leoni.
Hoc ut dixit, Amor, sinistra, ut ante,
Dextram sternuit approbationem.

Which place of Catullus I have cited thus largely, because the latter part of it which cannot be understood without what goes before, is so excellently Translated by Mr. Cow­ley, with allusion to the ancient custome of bowing and adoring a Sneeze.

The God of Love, that stood to hear him,
(The God of Love was always near him)
Pleas'd and tickl'd with the sound,
Sneez'd aloud, and all around.
The little Loves that waited by,
Bowd and blest the Augury.

A third reason by which my Conjecture concerning the Tetragrammaton may be confirmed, is that in Antiquity we find mention also of a seven-lettered name of God. So the Oracle

[...].

And in the Epigram,

[...]
[...]

which places when Scaliger endeavours to explain by HOA [...], he trifles most egregiously, for how is that HOA by which he designs to express the Hebrew [...], a part of the name of God? neither does he mend the matter when he is, as he is afterwards, in a quan­dary with himself, whether he should explain it of the Egyptian Serapis, or of the Basilidian Abraxas, both of which have seven letters, but by his favour, neither of them seven vowels; which is the thing requisite to explain these two Citations, especially the latter, for he does not only say that they are [...], but also [...], which for the reasons already given in our Discourse of [...], can be understood of nothing but vowels, which can be explained no better, than by put­ting both the names of God already mentioned together, which the ignorance of the Greeks might well enough jumble into one thus, [...].

Neither is it at all material in this case, that some of these Vowels are twice repeated, for there are not seven vowels in all; and the Rabbins by the same [Page 248] [...] [Page 249] [...] [Page 248] [...] [Page 249] [...] [Page 250] way of speaking, call the Tetragrammaton shem shel Ar­bah Othijoth, the name of God consisting of four letters, though the He be twice repeated. And from hence we may see the error of Bochartus in these words. Geogr. Sac. p. 856. Eusebius habet [...] sed Theodoretus [...], quod ideò praefero, quia Dei nomen [...], Groeci vix ali­ter efferunt, for I think by this time it is sufficiently clear, that as well [...] as [...], was the real and undoubted name of God answering to the Hebrew Jehvoh.

Lastly, God is not only called in Scripture Ehjoh, and Jehvoh, but more contractedly Jah, which is described in Scripture as his peculiar and incommunicable name; so in the Psalms, at the close of a Psalm or Versicle, Halle­lu Jah, which the LXX. render [...]; and Psa. 68. 4. Sing unto God, sing praises to his Name: extoll him that rideth upon the Heavens by his name JAH, and rejoyce before him. Hebr. bejah shmo. Symmachus [...]. the ancient version which was called quinta Editio. [...]. LXX. [...]; from all which we have a clear account both of its true pronun­ciation and its true meaning. Its true, or at least its most common pronunciation was Jah, and its meaning is [...], that is, [...] the same with Ehjoh, and Jeh­voh; it is therefore the Imperative Mood from Hajah, as from Halac or jalac, is Lek, from Nagash, Gash, and the like; and as the other names are as much as to say he is, or he shall continue to be, so this is as much as to say let him be, or let him live; it is vox per gratulatio­nem agnoscentis & adorantis existentiam Dei. So Rom. 3. 4. Let God be true and every man a lyar, is as much as if the Apostle had said in two Categorical Enunciations, God is true and every man is a lyar. And Psal. 69. 34. Let the Heaven and Earth praise him, the Seas and every thing that moveth therein; that is, they do actually praise him, by being through all ages constant and per­petual testimonies of his goodness and power.

It will be objected, that if the second Future be Eh­joh, the imperative or first Future ought to be Hejoh, or joh, not Jah, and this is true; but why may it not be both of these, both in the imperative and future, though the punctation by a Pathach be more common in the im­perative, and that by a Cholem in the future? for af­ter all what if that [...] of the Samaritanes, or as Scali­ger represents it, [...], be not so much a mistake, or a wilfull error, as one of the ancient ways of Pointing this holy Name; that is, Jahvah, or Jehvah? of which opi­nion Scaliger seems to have been; and if that reading which Mr. Selden represents as the common reading, be the true, which is not the [...] of Bochartus, but [...]; then this place of Theodoret does not so much represent the dif­ference of the Samaritane from the Hebrew, as of the Hebrew from it self, being the two Names of God, the one the Tetragrammaton Jehvah or Jehvoh, the other, as I may so call it, the Digrammaton, which is Jah; though Haeschelius not having considered those places of the Se­venty, and Symmachus, and the Fifth Edition which I have mentioned, would needs have it [...], and in this he is followed by Mr. Selden and Bochartus, though I see no reason to believe otherwise, than that they may be all mistaken.

From Jah is the Greek [...], the Jod being changed in­to the Greek [...], as these two letters are easily changed into one another; as from [...] is Jugum, from [...] the French Jaloux, and the English Jealous.

Pherecydes Syrius,

[...]
[...]
[...]

From the same Original likewise, is the [...] in Alex­ander [Page 252] Trallianus in his Magical Charm for the Cure of the Gout; as [...] in the same Authour, is exactly the Greek [...], or the Hebrew Ehjoh, the He finale not being quies­cent as in [...], but changed into Th, as Pharaoh in the Hebrew, is in the LXX. Pharaoth, and in Josephus Pha­raothes and Phraates, for these are both of them the same name.

I was once of Opinion also, that the Abraxas of the Basilidians so often mentioned, was as much as [...] in composition with [...], as much as to say [...], as God is often called in Scripture; but since I see Reason to change my mind, not only from the ancient Inscriptions and ancient Copies, which do more frequently represent [...] than [...], but chiefly because Tertullian de Praescriptionibus, represents Abraxas as the supreme Numen of Basilides and Valentinus, who yet not­withstanding, looked upon the God whom the Jews worshipped, under the notion and character of an infe­riour Deity, being only the Tutelar Angel of the particu­lar Province of Judea: therefore I concur with that ac­count which Tertullian and other of the Fathers give of it, that it was only an Adumbration of the Sun or the Solar year, which consists of 365 days, which number is made up by the numeral Potestas of those letters of which Abraxas consisteth. I had likewise once such another conceit of the Abracadabra, which is a Charm for the Cure of the Hemitritean or Double Tertian Ague in Serenus Sammonicus, because Chad or Echad, which signifies unity in Hebrew, is reckoned by Macro­bius as one of the names of God; but this I confess is a little hard, and therefore I am rather of opinion, that it was a Magical word made at random, all whose power consists in this, that the beginning and end of it are the same, to signifie the returns of the Fit, but the middle of a very different and disagreeing sound to denote the day of intermission.

From [...] by a very light mutation is the Greek [...] which is the name of Jupiter upon the Theban Monu­ment in Porphyrie,

[...].

From [...] is the oblique case [...] or [...] in the com­mon Greek, and from thence is the Latin Janus, the Eolique [...] and the Latin Juno; as Salmasius upon Lampridius, and Aegidius Menagius upon Diogenes Laer­tius have observed, though the last of these may per­haps be rather from the Syriack Junoh, or Jonoh, which signifies a Dove, in which form Semiramis was worship­ped among the Assyrians; Tzetzes for better sound sake, leaves out the jod, and calls it [...],

[...]
[...],
[...]

Lastly, From the Hebrew Jah, by turning the He in­to an Aspirate, was the Greek [...], and the Latin Jacchus.

Again, as from Jah is [...] and Zan and Zano and Ja­nus, and the rest that have been mentioned, so also in the Heathen Mythology, there want not manifest footsteps of the other punctation by a Cholem; for as from Jah is [...], so from Joh is [...] or [...], for so they pronounced it, as is evident from the Latin jouis derived from it, which was not pronounced anciently, as I conceive, by an v consonant or Eolique Digamma, but by an u vowel; and so Jupiter, is as much as Jouipiter, which I look upon to be a clearer Etymology than either Juvans Pater, which was the conceit of Cicero, Agellius and Lactan­tius among the Ancients, or Jovis Pater of the Moderns, [Page 254] which with the Eolique Digamma is much more harsh, because it depends upon an unnecessary contraction of the word, than if by dissolving that v consonant into a vowel it be all melted down into one Syllable, which by the addition of Pater, is of it self without any further former ation, the very word enquired after; unless you would have it to be [...], which turns to the same account, and therefore I shall not be against it, though in the latter the Analogy be more exact, as in Marspiter, Diespiter, and such other words; besides that, it answers indiffer­ently both to Jopiter and Jupiter, which were the two several ways of writing it among the Romans, who were always used to add the title of Pater or Genitor to the names of all their Gods.

Lucilius,

Ʋt nemo sit nostrum, quin Pater optimu' Divûm,
Ʋt Neptun' Pater, Liber, Saturnu' Pater, Mars,
Janu', Quirinu' Pater, nomen dicatur ad unum.

Where Mr. Selden after Dousa, instead of Nomen dicatur, will needs have it omnes dicamur, not considering that the quantity of the Verse will not bear it, nor under­standing what is the true meaning of Nomen in this place, which is not what we call a proper name, and the Latines otherwise vocabulum; but it is Numen, which was the old way of writing, and of which by going no further than the Glossary of Philoxenus, you may soon be furnish­ed with Five hundred Instances.

Thus Ennius in Lactantius introduces the people of Rome praying to Romulus after he had been snatched from them, in these words.

—O Romule, Romule, dic, O
Qualem te Patriae custodem Dii genuerunt?
Tu produxisti nos intra hominis auras,
O Pater, O Genitor, O Sanguen Diis oriundum.

And in the same Language Aeneas bespeaks his Followers and Companions concerning Anchises in Virgil.

Nunc Pateras libate Jovi, precibusque vocate
Anchisen Genitorem—

Where by Genitor is not understood the Father of Ae­neas, though that he was too, but him that was now translated into the order and dignity of the Gods.

So, also among the Greeks' [...] is as much as Ab­heljon, Pater excelsus, the high or lofty Father, which is a very fit name for the Sun; and this puts me in mind of that place of Horace,

Credat Judaeus Apella Non Ego—

Where there are some that will needs have Apella to be as much as Sine Pelle, or Verpus, which the quantity of the Verse will not suffer. Wherefore the true read­ing is [...], Apellas, that is, Apollonius, or Apollo­dorus, or Apollinarius; as Theudas is Theodosius, Hermas is Hermotimus or Hermodorus, Epaphras is Epaphrodi­tus, Antipas is Antipater, Cleophas is Cleophilus, Joses is Josephus, and many other of the like nature.

And Baal Peor because he is supposed by St. Jerom in more places than one, and by Isidore in his Origenes, to be the same with Priapus of the Greeks and Latines, is therefore thought by Dionysius Vossius in his Notes upon Maimonides de Idololatriâ, to be as much as Peor Ab, or Father Peor, (the same Idol being sometimes in Scripture called simply Peor, as well as with the addition of Baal, [Page 256] Bahal Pehor) but this conceit is evidently too far fetched, and after all Mr. Selden will not allow that Priapus and Baal Peor are the same, or at least he will not grant what this Etymon supposes that the Greeks were behold­ing to the Moabites and Midianites for their God Pria­pus; but the words of Isidore well considered, will help us to the true Original, they are these, L. 8. Beelphegor interpretatur simulachrum ignominiae. Idolum enim fuit Moab cognomento Baal super montem Phegor, quem Latini Priapum vocant Deum hortorum. He tells you that Pri­apus was Deus hortorum, and that is well enough known, though Isidore had been silent, Priapus therefore is not Pehor Ab, but Pri Ab the Father of Fruits. And for this reason he is made to preside not only over Gardens, but Ports by the Sea side, because thither as to a common Receptacle, the fruitfulness and plenty of the whole World repairs; or because in the Sea there is a spirituous and volatile which is the Principle of life and fruitfulness in the world; from whence it is that Venus the Mother and supreme cause of all vital Fecundity among the Hea­thens, is called [...], as being supposed to be born of the Foam or Salt supreme of the Sea; and Salax in Latin is derived from Sal, and all the sorts of Salsamenta are known to be [...] and in this sense Priapus, as in Isidore's notion he, is Custos hortorum, so in the Greek Epigrams he is called [...], which is as much as the Greek Palaemon, or the Latin Portunus, that is, custos portuum, a Portubus tuendis, as Neptunus who is also the same, is not from [...], in Plutarch, which I believe to be a word of no signification, though he interprets it to denote the Sea shore; but it is nevitunus, a nevibus, hoc est, navibus tuendis, as [...] and [...] in Greek are the same, and Nevius the old Latin Poet, is certainly the same name with Navius the Augur in Florus and Livy.

And as the Heathen Deities were usually called Patres, and Genitores, by which title the Self-existence and the Prolifick fruitfull nature of the Deity was signified; so also they are no less frequently stiled, [...], Reges, Kings, by which their dominion and soveraignty over all things was denoted; and as by the first of these that no­tion of the Tetragrammaton is fulfilled by which it is ren­dred [...], so by the latter that other signification of it from whence the LXX. have rendered it by an Hebrew word [...] is represented, both of which together are comprehended in [...], as hath been already observed.

But this title though it be apply'd sometimes to the in­feriour Deities, as to Apollo in Homer, yet it most pro­perly signified him who was as it were the King and Soveraign over the rest; so Homer invokes Jupiter [...]. And Juvenal,

Credo pudicitiam Saturno Rege moratam In terris—

From hence it was that from the Hebrew Melech, the Ammonites called that God whom they worshipped, who is supposed to be the same with Saturn or Jupiter Latia­ris, Molech, and Moloch and Milcom. And the Sephar­vaites in the book of Kings, worshiping two supreme Beings, as the Manicheans afterwards did, the one the Author of all good, the other of all evil and mischief, called the one Anamelech, that is, the Gracious King, who was worshipped for his goodness, the other Adra­melech, that is, the Strong or Powerfull King, who was feared and adored for his Power; to which among the Carthaginians with the addition of Bahal instead of Me­lech, the names of Annibal and Asdrubal do exactly answer, and part of the signification of the latter of these is likewise to be found in Adrumetum a Colony of the [Page 258] Phoenicians upon the Coast of Africk, which is not Chat­sarmaveth, or Chatsarmoth, as Drusius and Casaubon af­ter Scaliger would have had it, which opinion is suffi­ciently confuted by Bochartus himself; neither is it Chat­sar Maathan, that is, Regio Centum, because it seems the Country thereabouts was so fruitfull as to produce a crop of an hundred fold, as Bochartus himself will needs have it. For first, when he translates Chatsar by Regio, he does not consider that Adrumetum was not the whole Countrey, but one particular Town upon the Coast. And secondly, when by the addition of the Syriack Mathan, he makes it to signifie a fruitfull Countrey, bringing forth an hundred fold; this is such an Elliptical way of speak­ing, as not being back'd by any other probability than the bare likeness of sound, would not have been allowed for a tolerable conjecture by Bochartus himself, had it been any other man's but his own; but it is the nature of Mankind to be fond of Monsters, Idiots and Cripples, so they be but of their own begetting.

It appearing therefore how slight and unsatisfactory Bochartus his conjecture is, I do humbly propose instead of it, Adir Mot, Adir is validus, potens, and is a part of the composition in Adramelech and Asdrubal, and Mot by Philo Byblius out of Sanchuniathon is sometimes ren­dered [...], lutum, and sometimes [...], a mixture of Water and Earth together, a slimy or Ma­rish Land, a Fen or Bogg, in English we call it more exactly Mud, which may well enough be a Phoenician word, if it be true what Bochartus tells us, that the Phoe­nicians traded hither for Lead and Tin, and that from hence these Islands had their name of Britain, as in Greek they are called [...], the Tin Islands; so that Adrumetum is as much as arx, praesidium, munimen­tum, propugnaculum, luto, aut aggere aut vallo cinctum, which was the only way of fortification in the earliest [Page 259] times, by mud walls and heaps of Earth thrown up together, like the fortification of the Roman Camps, or like the lines about London and Colchester in the time of the Civil War.

Thus it was that Semiramis fortified Babylon, for which, if it had not been, we should have had but little mention of her in the ancient Story; this action of hers being mentioned, as her greatest enterprize, by all that speak any thing concerning her, so that from thence she seems to have had her name. For Chemer Ramis is as much as Lutum calcatum, or pressum, in the language of the East; and it is particularly apply'd to Walls and Forti­fications in the book of Nahum, c. 3. 14. Draw the waters for the siege: fortifie the strong holds, go into clay and tread the mortar: make strong the brick-kilne. Where what we render tread the mortar, is in the Hebrew Rimsi ba­chomer; so also in the building of Babel after the Flood, it is said, Gen. 11. 3. They had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar; in the Hebrew, by a very pleasant [...] it is thus: Vatehi lahem halebenah leaben vehachemar hajah lahem lachomer. 70. [...].

And as a further confirmation of this conjecture con­cerning Adrumetum, it is to be considered that there was also another place, which was likewise a Phoenician Co­lony, which the Greeks call [...], being either the same with Thebae Hypoplaciae, or very nigh it, and the Bay or Promontory upon which it stood was from thence called Sinus Adramyttenus ( [...]) this Bochartus himself, as to the latter part of its composition will have to be from the Phoenician [...], as much as Chatsar mot, that is, Regio lutosa; but for his Chatsar, the former inconvenience returns, it be­ing not the whole Countrey, but one particular Town which was called by this name. Wherefore I make no [Page 260] question, but these being two places, both built by the Phoenicians, and both so very like in sound, that what little difference there is, may justly be suspected to have come rather from the corruption of the Greeks, than from the Phoenicians themselves; this, as well as the other, is no more than Adir mot, that is, arx lutea, which Ety­mon will receive infinite advantage of probability above that of Bochartus, from these two Considerations.

First, That besides what hath been said of the Names of Asdrubal and Annibal above, it appears, and may be proved that the very word Adir was a Phoenician word; so Priscian in his 5th Book makes Abaddir, that is, Pater magnificus, or validus or potens, to be the name of a God; and St. Austin in his 44th Epistle does pecu­liarly refer it to the Gods of the Phoenicians.

Secondly, There is no question but both of those places lying upon the Sea-Coast, and being intended by the Phoenicians in their Voyages for the convenience of Ca­rining, and Tallowing, and taking in fresh water, and trading up the Countrey, there was always a constant Garrison of Phoenicians in them both; and they were both of them places fortified as well as the skill of those times would allow, and this the word Chatsar was very unfit to express, it being expresly apply'd to Country Vil­lages, and midland Cottages without walls, Levit. 25. 31. therefore all that is meant by Adrumetum, or Atramyttium, for they are both the same, is no more than a Garrison or place of strength fortified with a mud-wall; and so all these things do mutually strengthen and confirm one another.

Before I leave this digression, being got thus far out of my way, as it is very easie for any man to wander who is talking of matters of this nature, I will step aside a little farther, to take notice of an error of Joseph Scali­ger and correct it. Philo Judaeus in the life of Moses, [Page 261] says, that among the Aegyptians [...], Mos is as much as to say water; and from thence he would have Moses to derive his name, because he was taken out of the water: this Scaliger rejects with the supercilious­ness of a Critick, and not without some signs of a trium­phant insultation over the ignorance of Philo; in which after all he is but partly in the right, and partly mistaken: For I am of Scaliger's mind, that Moses had his name from Maslah extraxit, because he was taken or drawn out from among the Flags or Bulrushes by the River side, Exod. 2. 10. And she called his name Moses, and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. In which words, notwithstanding, the action of drawing, and the place from whence he was drawn, the water, seems to have had an equal share in the giving him his name; therefore if [...] at last do happen to signifie water in the Aegyptian lan­guage, then Scaliger was very much mistaken, and Philo not so much as he would make him seem.

It is to be considered therefore, that he was not drawn out of the mere fluid Element, nothing but water, but from among the Flags, that is, a marshy, slimy place, which is the Greek [...], and the Latin Palus, and an­swers exactly to the Phoenician [...], or [...], for they are both the same, and do neither of them signifie simple water, but what Philo Byblius calls [...], or [...]; so that though Philo in this do not altogether hit the exact propriety of the word, yet neither is he altogether mistaken, it being no more than what others have been guilty of as well as he; for what the Hebrew in the description of the Primigenial Mass calls Tehom, the 70 call [...], and both of them mean a confused jumble of earth and water together, but yet the Greek Lexicographers expound [...], and from thence it was that Thales had his opinion, that all things sprang out of the water. And [Page 262] after all, since the Aegyptian language is utterly lost, and since Maim in Hebrew signifies water, which anciently, for ought we know, might be pointed Moim, if you con­sider the extreme likeness of a Samech and a Mem in the Chaldee or Assyrian Character, Philo may not be so much to blame as Scaliger would represent him; and besides those Eastern languages bating some words pecu­liar to each, differing only as Dialects doe from one ano­ther, we cannot at this day pronounce what allowance is to be made to Philo's interpretation, upon account of the difference of sound, arising from the diversity of Dialect in the Aegyptian and Hebrew Speech.

I could have furnished Scaliger with a better instance, to show how little skill Philo had in any of the Eastern Languages, being so unskilfull as he was in the Hebrew it self, as appears among other things by his interpreta­tion of the word Cherubim, which he renders [...]. In which exposition of his he takes no notice of the Caph, which is a radical letter; and the Nun at the latter end, which is only a formative of the plural number is by him advanced into the dignity of a radical; the foundation of the conceit lying in this, that Rab is [...], and Rob is [...], multitudo, and Boun signifies [...], from whence Binah answers to the Hebrew Chochmah, and to the Greek [...]; and yet this interpretation, as bad as it is, is as good as that of the Rabbins, who are the great pretenders to Hebrew, who will have Caph to be a servile letter, and the whole word to be as much as Cherubia, or Che­rabia, because, forsooth, Rabia in Chaldee signifies a boy or youth, of which shape and appearance they will have the Cherubims to have been; whereas there is no questi­on but the true derivation is from Carab to ride, which is particularly applied to Spirits and to God himself in Scripture, as in that place of the Psalms already cited, [Page 263] 68. 4. Extoll him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah. Of whom also it is said, 2 Sam. 22. 11. He rode upon a Cherub, and did fly, and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. And so because the Cherubs in the sanctuary were made with wings, therefore wings are at­tributed in Scripture to God himself, Psal. 17. 8. Keep me as the apple of thine eye: hide me under the shadow of thy wings. And in many other places.

Another manifest remainder of the punctation of the digrammaton, or two-lettered name of God by a Cholem, is the Jo of the Latines so frequently prefixed to the names of all their Gods, as Jo Paean, Jo Bacche, Jo Tri­umphe, Jo Hymenaee; in which instances Jo is the gene­ral name of the supreme Numen, joyned to the particu­lar Deities thereafter mentioned, who were all of them the supreme Numen under different notions, as the Ba­silidians are found to have added the name [...] to that of their supreme Deity Abraxas: And this, if it will hold, as I see no reason why it should not, is a further con­firmation of that explication of the seven-lettered name of God, which I have mentioned; that is, [...], in which [...] is added exegetically, to show that [...] is the name of the supreme Numen, as in Abraxas.

The Mauritanians worshipped their King Juba. Minucius Felix. Et pejerante Proculo Deus Romulus, & Juba Mauris volentibus Deus est, & Divi caeteri Reges qui consecrantur, non ad sidem Numinis, sed ad honorem emeritae potestatis. Lactantius. Romani Caesares suos consecraverunt & Mauri Reges suos. L. 1. c. 15. And a little after, Privatim vero singuli populi gentis aut urbis conditores, summâ veneratione coluerunt, ut Aegyptii Isidem, Mauri Jubam, Macedones Cabirum, &c. And Mr. Selden would have it, that this Juba of the Moors was no other than the God of the Hebrews, the Tetragrammaton it self; perhaps so, if you consider the nearness of sound betwixt Jehvoh or Jehvah▪ [Page 264] and Juba, and the nearness of the Pure Hebrew to the Punick or African language; for as from Havah is Jehvoh, or Jehvah in Kal; so in Hophal it will be Juhvoh, or Juhvah, and by its Passive signification, it may denote the stability and rootedness, or firmitude of the divine Being.

Lastly, From [...] is the Aeolick or Dorick [...], from whence, according to the common way of declining, is [...] in the accusative case, that is, Zah, from Jah, as the Doricks express the [...] of the common Dialect by [...], as in [...], and the like.

But from all this I think there is abundant demonstra­tion, whatever other ways of pointing there might be among the Jews or Samaritanes, or other Nations, that among the Jews themselves, the most ordinary and usual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, and that which the Greeks received from them, was Ehjoh and Jehvoh, and that of the Digrammaton, which was most usual, was Jah.

I shall conclude this business with the words of Mr. Sel­den, though he knew nothing of what I have here de­clared, Syntag. c. 1. de Diis Syris, p. 208, 209. Nec ob­jiciat quis tam [...] aut [...] nomen Tetragramma­ton fuisse ut gentibus non innotesceret. Id quod viri etiam docti nimis pro concesso accipiunt, dum morem religiosissimum Judaeorum in eo proferendo malè interpretantur. Nonne enim Aramaeis Idololatris non solum cognitum, verum etiam & prolatum legimus? Rabsakeh apud Esaiam c. 36. 15. Ne (que) confidere vos faciat Hiskijahu in [...] dicens eruendo eruet nos [...], sepiusque repetit. Quoties palam nomen illud, ut proprium nomen Dei praedicatur potissimum à Jere­miah [...] Zebaoth, & [...] nomen ejus, & nomen suum magnum idem appellat, ipse Deus Opt, Max. Exod. 6. 3. Jerem, 14. 26. Celatam prorsus saeculis antiquioribus & semper data operâ absconditam ejus pronunciationem dicere, [Page 265] est Rabbinorum nugis nimium indulgere, qui etiam ad il­lud, Exod. 3. 13. Hoc est nomen meum Leholam, quod in perpetuum, juxtà septuaginta etiam seniores vertitur, in­telligunt, quasi redderes, hoc est nomen meum absconden­dum, ità enim punctorum variatione Leholam so­nare potest: Quomodo autem saeculorum citeriorum Judaei ab ejus pronunciatione abstinerent; quam religiosissimè se­mel quotannis, qui mos hodieque dicitur alicubi in usu, à sa­cerdote, expiationis festo proferretur, & id genus alia, passim apud Scriptores reperias. Necessarioque observes 70. seni­orum versionem qui aut [...] aut [...] semper pro [...] substituunt. Vide quod de vetustâ quadam Synagoga Pragae refert Buxtorfius in Radice Havah; Ego certè in hanc ità propendeo sententiam, Tetragrammatum nimirum nomen non absconditum à gentibus [...], ut & ipse Pythagoreorum [...], contra quam interpretum turba id nominis fuisse autumem; ità enim illi jusjurandum concipiebant:

[...]
[...]

In which words, which it is needless to translate at length, Mr. Selden affirms, and sufficiently proves by the instance of Rabshakeh, who frequently mentions and de­fies this Sacred Name, that it was not unknown to the Gentile world; and what he affirms of Jehvoh, which I have proved to be its most common, if not its only pro­nunciation, the same is likewise true of the name Eh­joh, which was as sacred as the other, and may as pro­perly be called the Tetragrammaton, that this also was known to the Heathens, it being that very name by which God declared himself to Pharaoh and the Aegyp­tians by the hand of Moses; and I think, though we had not Mr. Selden's Authority to vouch us, yet I have suffi­ciently proved it from the Monuments of the Heathen [Page 266] Antiquity, which have so exactly represented all these three names, which in their original and root are all the same, of Ehjoh, and Jehvoh, and Jah, that the matter here­after will not bear any longer dispute among learned men.

Secondly, Mr. Selden tells us, that the seventy Inter­preters do always interpret [...] by [...], or [...], which are in Greek and Hebrew both the same, and do exactly answer to one another. From whence there are two things observable: First, That the Rabbins, who always point this name with the points of Adonai, un­less when Adonai it self is joyned together with it, have manifestly borrowed this way of pointing from the ren­dition of the 70; notwithstanding they would fain make us believe that they are wiser than they, and that they are not beholding to them in any kind whatsoever. Secondly, We see how ancient this superstitious reverence for the sacred and incommunicable name has been, that the 70 have no where expressed it, by its proper Letters and Vowels, which is not only true of [...], but of [...], and [...] too, though the last of these be expressed by [...] in [...]; yet so, as that the Name of God is hid in the composition, and cannot be discovered by one not skilled in the Hebrew language.

Lastly, He tells us that the Pythagorean Tetractys, which was so great a secret in that School, was no other than the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrews, that is, the name Jehvoh; for this is that name which is generally called the Tetragrammaton, though Ehjoh in its Hebrew form (though not as represented by the Greeks) have as much right to it as the other.

And in this conceit Mr. Selden tells us he differs from the interpretum turba, the common croud of Interpreters, though neither is he singular in this conjecture; and if he had gone along with the croud, he had been less mista­ken. [Page 267] For this is a very idle surmise of learned men to think that in this name there was any sacredness in the number four, since Jah, which consists but of two letters, was every whit as sacred as the other, and as peculiar to God, as incommunicable to any besides him, and as studiously concealed from the knowledge of the Heathen World, by the 70 Interpreters, as the other two, which have all of them the same Fountain and Origination.

The ground of this mistake does sufficiently consute it self; for all the reason of this conjecture is founded only upon this, That the name of God was called by the Greeks Tetragrammaton, which seems by its sound, and by the signification of its number to answer to the Pytha­gorean Tetractys; but they do not consider, though the Rabbins after the Greeks have called the same name in its original, shemshel Arbah Othijoth, as hath been al­ready observed, yet the Greeks meant it only of the [...], that is, of the Name of God, not as kept secret from the Heathen World, but as revealed to it, as hath already been made appear; so that at this rate Pythagoras would have had but little reason to boast of his Mystery, which lay open to the view of all curious inquirers, as well of himself and his disciples; for the time of Pythagoras, ac­cording to Livy and Dionysius Halicarnassensis, falls above an hundred years lower than that of Numa, who was con­temporary with Hezekias, being towards the latter end of the Babylonish captivity, or about the return from it; whereas Sanchuniathon, who had his information from Gideon, and who was the first by whom this name was communicated to the Gentile World, belongs to the in­terval of the Judges, before that which was usually re­puted the oldest Epoche of time, The Trojan War, and within less than Two hundred years of Moses himself, to whom this Holy Name was first imparted.

Besides, that though Sanchuniathon were perhaps the first who did in writing divulge this name to the Hea­then World, yet is it plain from what hath been said of its being communicated to Pharaoh himself and his Aegyp­tians, in the time, and by the information of Moses him­self, that it was got abroad long before his time, and that it was no sooner imparted to the Israelites themselves, than foreigners were made acquainted together with them; neither is it probable when Rabshakeh so frequently inge­minates this blessed Name, that he received his know­ledge of it, from the Phoenician Monuments of Sanchuni­athon; but that it was then as publickly known, as it is now lost and forgotten, by being studiously concealed by the superstition of after-times, or by that common cala­mity, which the Babylonish captivity brought upon the Jewish Nation and Language together.

But after all, it is nothing but want of skill in Gram­mar, which hath been the reason hitherto why learned men have favoured this opinion, That the Tetractys and the Tetragrammaton are the same. For what is Te­tractys?

It is to be considered that the Pythagorick Philosophy was used to explain all things after a mystical manner by numbers and proportions, in which one, or unity, or [...] is the most simple, undivided, and perfectly indivisible root of all things; two, or what the Pythagoreans call the Dyas, is the first principle of multiplicity or composition, and both of these added together, make the number three; in which, if you suppose each unite, to be one side of an oequilateral Triangle, and then by counting the sides after the Triangle is built, you begin at any side indiffer­ently one, two, three, you come then back again to that side from whence you set out; which being considered in two different respects, as the terminus à quo, and the [Page 269] terminus ad quem of this computation; the whole Tri­angle is therefore called the Tetractys, because a Triangle returning into its head or fountain is the number four. And these numbers added to one another 1, 2, 3, 4. make the number ten, which is, as it were, the Universal Basis of infinite numeration.

But that in this I may not seem to represent my own fond conceits, instead of the truth and reality of the Py­thagorean Doctrine, I will here produce a place of Lucian out of his [...], which will both confirm what I have said, and may be explained by it. [...]. It is a discourse between Pythagoras, who stood to be sold for a Slave in the Market, and the person who came to cheapen and buy him; Pythagoras tells him he was able to teach him Musick, Geometry and Arithmetick: Arithmetick, said he, I understand that already: Say you so, said Pythago­ras; let me hear you number. At which he beginning to count, one, two, three, four: Do you see, said Pythagoras, that which you call four, is indeed ten, a perfect or oequi­lateral Triangle, and the Oath of me and my followers. Then by that greatest of Oaths, the number four, said he, I never till now heard such divine and excellent discourse as this.

It appearing therefore by this place, that four in the Pythagorick School was as much as ten, and that it was usually compared to an oequilateral Triangle, from hence we may see what is the meaning of the Triangle, from hence we may see what is the meaning of the Tetractys; for as [...] is the number four, which was the first root and basis of all number and proportion, and con­sequently the great Principle of their natural Philosophy, [Page 270] (For by [...], or an unite, they mean a material Atome; and by their Dyas and Trias the first complexions of those Atomes with one another, as is manifest from the use of [...] in the Anthology.

[...]
[...].)

From hence it comes to pass, that [...] is the art or mystery of resolving all causes and effects into the num­ber four, or of explaining all the Phoenomena of nature according to the Pythagorick mode. As [...] is an Harp, and [...] derived from it the art or skill of playing upon the Harp, exactly according to the same Analogy.

Homer.
[...],
[...],
[...].
[...]
[...].
[...]
[...] KI [...]API [...]TYN.

Neither is it at all favourable to this groundless fancy, that the Pythagoreans were used to swear by the Tetractys, for they were used to swear by their Master himself, as hath been already noted out of Mr. Selden,

[...].

And then at the same time they tell you plainly what this Tetractys was, [...], the source and fountain of everlasting or universal nature, or that which contained in it the roots and seeds, that is, the first principles of the Pythagorick Physiology, from whence it is plain that the Tetractys is to be understood in that sense which I have already explained.

It is true that the Name of God in Hebrew did really consist of four letters; but yet it is equally true, that in that number there was no Mystery placed among the Jews themselves, who did not take any such religious notice of it, but it was afterwards by the Greeks, long after the time of Pythagoras, that it was called the Tetragrammaton; which yet notwithstanding had nothing more of sacredness or peculiarity in it, than the Digrammaton or Name of God, consisting of two letters, as hath been sufficiently proved.

Besides, the Jews did not use to Swear by the number four, and therefore the Pythagoreans could not have it from them, but by the number seven, for Nishbah in Hebrew signifies to swear, whose root is Shebah signifying seven; and it is as much as to say, that they swear by him who in six days made Heaven and Earth, and all that therein is, and rested from his labours on the seventh. And as Nishbah is to swear, so Shebo­uah, which signifies the septenary number, signifies also an Oath; that is to say, an Oath by him who compleated the Creation in six days, and rested the seventh. This was also the meaning of those seven ewe lambs, which Abraham had set aside to be a witness between himself and Abimilech, that he had digged the well, Gen. 21. 28, 29, 30. That is, it was a Symbolical appeal to God as the witness of the Covenant between himself and Abimilech. This was also the meaning, not only of the weekly Sab­bath, but also of the Sabbatical years, and of the years of Jubilee, which consisted of the Multiplication of the Sabbatical period by it self. The same account is also to be given, why the Solemnities of the Passover, Feast of weeks and of Tabernacles, consisted all of them of seven days, and why there were seven weeks to be numbred from the second day of unleavened bread, to the feast of Pentecost; it was a kind of Jubilee of days, as the other was of years, being to commence at the expiration of [Page 272] that term, which consisted of the Paschal Festivity, con­sisting of seven days, multiply'd by it self: This was the reason why of the clean beasts seven, by the Divine ap­pointment, were to be admitted into the Ark; whereas of the unclean, there were to be but two; for that there were more than two, in the General, this depended upon this reason, that they were afterwards permitted for food as well as for sacrifice, and so it was necessary more of the clean kind should be preserved than the other; but that there were to be just seven, neither more nor less, this had a mystical allusion in it, and pointed at him, to whom as the author and finisher of all things in the space of seven days, the seventh was to be offered up in sacrifice when they came out of the Ark.

To the same symbolical account we must also put the number of persons that entred into the Ark, which were eight in all; but Noah is to be considered as distinct from the rest under the notion of a Priest; that as the World was created in six days, so it might be restored and re­plenished by six persons, Noah's three Sons and their Wives, while the seventh, that is, Noah's Wife, being now past Child-bearing, may be looked upon as now wholly devoted to the service of God, and may answer that seventh among the clean species of Animals, which was to be for sacrifice at their coming out of the Ark; or else the eight persons are the septenary number return­ing into it self, by including both the terms, as in the Pythagorick Tetractys, and as in all those cases where the Feasts of seven days continuance among the Jews have sometimes eight days allotted to them, as hath been al­ready taken notice of, that is, by including the Termi­nus à quo, that is, the [...], or preparation to the Feast into the number.

Lastly, This was the reason of Circumcision upon the eighth day, which is the space from Sabbath to Sabbath, [Page 273] including both the terms, and by admission of the Males into the Jewish Church and Covenant upon that day, he was symbolically shadowed out, to whose service they were dedicated by that Rite, and into Covenant with whom they were admitted, which held not only in men, but in some sort was observed even in brute animals themselves, which could not be accepted untill the eighth day, that is, till they were full seven days old. Exod. 22. 30. Seven days it shall be with his dam, and on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. Levit. 22. 27. When a Bullock, or a Sheep, or a Goat is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth, it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And Grotius observes out of Pliny, l. 8. c. 51. Pecoris foetum sacrificio purum esse die septimo, that Sheep and Lambs are fit for sacrifice on the seventh or eighth day, and not till then; for that is plain­ly the sense of Pliny, whose words are these, Suis foetus sacrificio die quinto purus est, pecoris die octavo, which confirms what I have said, that seven and eight in these instances are all one, the latter being only by inclusion of the two terms, or by the return of the Septenary or Sabbatical period into it self.

The same Grotius upon Gen. 17. 12. in which place the first institution of Circumcision is contained, uses a passage out of Aristotle in his 7th de animalibus, wherein he imagines the reason of Circumcision upon the seventh or eighth day may be found; where speaking of infants, he says, [...]; that is, Children dye frequently before they be seven days old: Which is the reason why at that age they usually give them their names, having then some hopes, when seven days are past, that they may continue to live and doe well. [Page 274] And he also produces the opinion of Maimonides, why Circumcision was not performed till the eighth day, Quia antè eum diem infirmior infans quàm ut par sit dolori; Be­cause before the eighth day the child was usually so weak, that this operation could not be performed without danger of life, or too great extremity of pain. But now that this reason of Maimonides is no reason at all, is plain from this, That the Circumcision was never anticipated, though the child should prove never so vigorous and strong, as it is plain there is great difference in the strength and vigour of children from the very birth, as well as after­wards, when they come to greater age; neither was it ever deferred any longer, though at the age of eight days the child should prove never so weakly and unlikely to live. This therefore instead of being a solid reason, is but a Maimonidism or a Rabbinical dream.

The same may also be said of Aristotle's reason, why children had their Names given them upon the seventh day among the Greeks, which term, if it were not by custom either anticipated or prorogued according to the differing degrees of health, which is the general account why the seventh day above others was pitched upon; then this was either no reason at all, or which is still worse, so very bad a reason, as does sufficiently betray and expose it self.

It is therefore more likely that Aristotle was mistaken in his account, and that the true Original of this custom was from the Jews, who were used upon the eighth day to perform the Ceremony of Circumcision; at which time also the Name was probably given to the child. And I think it may be pretty plain from all this, that the rea­son of Circumcision upon the eighth day, and of not of­fering up any animal in sacrifice till then, was the same in both cases, and had a mystical allusion to the septenary [Page 275] number, or to the return of the Sabbatical period into it self, as an act of homage or obedience to him, who rested the seventh day, when he had finished the won­ders of his Power, Goodness and Wisdom upon the other six.

From this custom of symbolical swearing by the num­ber seven, or with the Pythagoreans by the number four; or perhaps from both of these causes it came to pass, that [...] in Greek, which signifies properly to count or number, is also found to have the signification of swear­ing, as appears by comparing two of the Greek Scholi­asts, the one the old Interpreter of Homer, and the other of Apollonius, the Writer of the Argonautiques, together; that upon Homer is Il. [...]. 264.

[...].

Upon which the Scholiast saith thus: [...]; that is, Ceneus was the Son of Elatus, and King of the Lapithoe, once a beautifull Virgin; but being deflowred by Neptune, she requested of him, that she might be turned into a man; which request of hers was not only granted, but she became invulnerable into the bargain, and was the most redoubted Hero of that time; insomuch that [Page 276] on a certain time fixing his Spear in a place where the Gods were to pass by, he would oblige them all to number, that is, to swear by his Spear; at which Jupiter was so angry, as well he might, that he resolved to be revenged, and immediately set the Centaures upon him; who though they could not pierce him, being invulnerable, yet made a hard shift to ram him down by the weight of massy Oaks and Ashes into the earth, of which Apollonius in his Argonautiques thus speaks; and then follows over again the very same Story, as it is told by Apollonius, where the Scholiast re­lating the same Fable, though not so particularly as the Interpreter of Homer does, what the first calls [...], to number, he expresly renders by [...], to swear, [...], he compelled all that came by to swear by his Spear. And then after­wards adds as the reason why Jupiter was so severe up­on him, [...]. This calamity befell him, because he would neither sacrifice nor pray to the Gods, but only to his own Spear.

Neither does it necessarily follow, because the Pytha­goreans were used to swear by the Tetractys, which im­plies indeed that there was something of Divinity in it, that therefore the Tetragrammaton was pointed at, or that any respect was had in it to the four letters, of which the Name of God, either in Greek or Hebrew was composed, but only to that root of number and proportion which I have mentioned, in which the seeds and principles of all natural Productions were contained, [...], the source and fountain of everlasting nature, which word nature is it self only one way of expressing the fruitful­ness and plenty of the divine Being, in which as in their proper Fountain and Original, all the possibilities of things are in a powerfull and hidden manner contained, [Page 277] and from which their actualities proceed, so that God and nature are indeed but two words for one and the same thing.

Hanc Deus & melior litem natura diremit, said Ovid.

And Seneca, Vis illum fatum vocare? non errabis: Hic est ex quo suspensa sunt omnia, causa causarum. Vis illum [...]rovidentiam dicere? Recte dices: Est enim cujus consilio [...]ic mundo providetur, ut inconcussus eat, & actus suos [...]xplicet. Vis illum naturam vocare? non peccabis: Est enim [...]x quo nata sunt omnia, cujus spiritu vivimus; and other [...]assages of a like import. And as natura, according to Seneca, is ex qua nata sunt omnia, so is [...]. And this was that which by the ancient Heathen World, was worshipped and [...]dored by the name of Pan. Neither would they have [...]een any more blame-worthy, that they were used to [...]ear by their Master Pythagoras himself, if it had been [...]rue what he pretended, and they too rashly believed, that [...]e was indeed an immortal, self-existent and divine Per­son; For upon this supposition they went, whenever [...]hey made their appeal to him in swearing; and indeed [...] is ridiculous to swear by any thing, whose Omniscience [...]annot qualifie him for a witness to the imprecation, and those Omnipotence cannot punish the falshood, of a de­ [...]eitfull Oath in the opinion of him that makes it.

Ecce negas juràsque mihi per templa Tonantis,
Non credo, Jura, Verpe, per Anchialum.

And the belief of his Divinity was occasioned partly [...]y the mystical and extraordinary nature of his Doctrine, [...]nd partly by those strange Stories which he told of him­self, [Page 278] or procured to be told by his Abettors, and which were no sooner told than believed by his followers and others; as of his perswading a Bear to abstain from the flesh of Animals, as himself and his Disciples did; his whispering to an Ox, and by that means prevailing with him to abstain from Beans; his calling an Eagle down from Heaven in the greatest height and swiftness of its flight; and after having stroak't and made much of it, letting it go again; his being saluted by Caucasus, and as others say by the River Nessus, when he swam over it with his Golden Thigh, with a [...], which was looked upon as a kind of testimony of nature to the Divinity of his person; his telling some Fisher-men as they were dragging their Net, before it came to shore, how many Fishes they should catch, and by a miraculous power preserving them alive when they were out of their own Element; his pretending to have lived in ages long ago past, to remember perfectly the Trojan War, and all the bodies he had past through from that time, till he came to set up for the Founder of the Italique Sect, and went by the name of Pythagoras in Italy; his telling before Ships came to shore what Fraight they were charged with; his foretelling of Earthquakes, averting of Plagues, and stil­ling of Winds and Tempests; his being able at any time either to raise or allay the passions of men to any pitch or degree; his being seen on the same day to persons at an incredible distance from one another: All which, though they speak him no other than a very great Im­postor, yet being believed, as impossible as some of them might seem, and as ridiculous as others, it could not be otherwise but that they must needs create in his follow­ers an opinion of his Divinity.

Neither was Pythagoras himself the onely pretender, to such extraordinary seats, but his disciples also, Empedo­cles, [Page 279] Epimenides and Abaris did the same; and of the first of them it is certain, and may very well be presumed of the rest, that he had a very strong ambition to be thought a God, otherwise he would not have thought it worth his while to leap into Aetna to purchase the ho­nour of being so esteemed. Flaccus,

Deus immortalis haberi Dum cupit Empedocles, ardentem frigidus Aetnam Insiluit—

But as very ill luck would have it, he left his shoe behind him, and that betray'd his mortality and folly to the world; and what Porphyrie, out of whom I have ex­cerped these particulars, relates of these Gentlemen whom I have last mentioned; the same, or things equally in­credible, are related by Philostratus, concerning Apollonius Tyaneus, who was himself of the Pythagorean School, and had the fortune, I cannot call it good fortune, of com­passing that design which his Predecessour Empedocles had missed; that is, of being thought a God, and worshipped under that notion in the Lararium of one of the Roman Emperours.

But because I have made mention of Pythagoras his Golden Thigh, of which so many Authours have spoken; among which are Lucian, Laertius, Aelian, Porphyrie or Malchus, and others, which yet is in its literal sense so ridiculous and so impossible a figment, I will here ex­plain what was meant by it in the Symbolical Doctrine of Pythagoras. It is to be noted therefore, that in the language of the Eastern World, where Pythagoras had conversed very much, and from whence he received a great part of his Philosophy; the Thigh was looked up­on as an Emblem of fruitfulness and generation, and Je­rek [Page 280] in Hebrew sometimes signified as much as [...], which though it cannot be unknown to learned men; yet because Daniel Heinsius in his Ari­starchus, has been pretty accurate in this observation, therefore I will set down his words as I find them, p. 13. Qui orientem salutârunt, sciunt vocem Jerek, hoc est, fe­mur, pro pudendâ parte viri pariter & mulieris poni; ac de viri quidem, ut cùm aliquoties, nam infiniti propè loci sunt, posteritas Jacobi Femur ejus dicitur egressa, Gen. 46. 26. Exod. 1. 5. ubi modo [...], modo [...], Hellenistae redide­runt: pro mulieris autem, ut cùm ea pars jam ad concep­tum minùs apta, [...] ab iis dicitur, Num. 5. 21— Et quis nescit locum illum, [...]. & tale aliquid Procopius acceperat, cùm notavit, [...]—De Gideone cui plurimi fuisse filii dicuntur, [...], di­cunt Hellenistae; & Sibylla, cujus fragmentum Theophilus ad Autolycum commemorat,

[...]
[...]

Which words, for the sake of those that are learned, it is needless to translate; and for others, [...], it is better they should remain, as they are, untranslated, that in this at least I may not seem to wander from my Text, [...].

From hence it was that Bacchus in the Heathen My­thology was said to be taken out of the Womb of Semele, and sow'd up in Jupiter's Thigh, from whence he was called by the Greeks [...], which Ovid renders insutus femori. Metam. L. 3.

Imperfectus adhuc infans genitricis ab alvo
Eripitur, patrioque tener, si credere dignum,
Insuitur femori; maternaque tempora complet.

That is, in plain English, no more than that Bacchus was Jupiter's Son, which may also be the meaning of the Greek [...], if after the usual trifling of the Greek Grammarians, instead of [...], you read it [...], which seems to have been the Original word from Jerek, Femur, and Jo or [...] the name of God.

This was also the reason why anciently in swearing, the person making Oath, was used to lay his hand un­der the Thigh of him by whom he was adjured, Gen. 24. 1, 2, 3, 4. And Abraham was old, and well stricken in years, and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things; and Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear, by the Lord, the God of Heaven, and the God of the Earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son, of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell: but thou shalt go unto my countrey, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. And again, Gen. 47. 29, 30, 31. And the time drew nigh, that Israel must dye, and he called his son Joseph, and said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me: bury me not, I pray thee, in Aegypt, but I will lye with my Fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Aegypt, and bury me in their burying-place: And he said, I will doe as thou hast said; and he said, Swear unto me, and he swore unto him, and Israel bowed himself upon the beds head. Sebastian Munster upon the first of these places says thus, Jurabant veteres illi manu sub femore atque genitali parte positâ, quod inde posteritas esset futura, [Page 282] atque ideò veluti res sacra haberetur; vel ut R. Salomo sentit, quod illic esset signum Faederis nempe circumcisio, vel quod hoc indicio dabatur intelligi potestas superioris, & promptus inferioris obsequendi animus, ut Aben Ezra autumat, dicitque hunc morem adhuc observari in terrâ In­diae: That is, 'The Ancients in the East were wont to swear, by putting their hand under the thigh or genital part of the person by whom they were adjured, because that was, as it were, the Fountain from whence poste­rity was to spring, and was upon that account esteem­ed sacred; or as R. Salomon thinks, it was because in that part the Seal of the Covenant, that is, of Circum­cision was made; or it was to denote the Power of the su­periour, and the cheerfull obedience of those that were subject to him, as Aben Ezra is of opinion, who saith likewise, that in India the same custom still obtains; the words of Aben Ezra himself, are produced by P. Fagius upon the same place, who afterwards adds of his own, Quidam ex nostris hoc modo jurandi adum­bratum ferunt Christum, qui ex Abrahamo oriturus erat. 'There are some among the Christian Expositors, who believe Christ, who was to be descended of the loins of Abraham, to have been typify'd and shadowed out by this rite. Grotius, Quasi dicerent, si fallam, ense tuo peream, nam ad femur locus ensis, Jud. 3. 16, 21. Psal. 45. 3. 'As much as to say, if I swear falsly, or if I break my Oath, may I perish by your Sword, for the Sword was used to be girt about the thigh.

But as for Munster's three reasons, for so many there are; the first of them is trifling, because it is not a cause sacred and great enough to be the foundation of an Oath, (which is an act of divine Worship), or of any solemn Ce­remony belonging to it.

The second of R. Salomon's is like the reason of a Rab­bin, that is, no reason at all, for it was not under the [Page 283] pudenda, (Quod verecundiae ratio non patitur, ut factum credamus), but it was under the thigh it self, properly so called, that the hand was used to be layed, as shall be proved by and by. Neither is Aben Ezra's reason, which is the third, any less Rabbinical, that is, false, ridicu­lous and absurd, than the other; for how the thigh was an Emblem of superiority, or the putting the hand under it a symbol or token of subjection, I do not understand; and Aben Ezra does not so much as pretend to prove, or so much as assert, which yet if he had, the affirmation of a Rabbin will signifie but little, that ever these things were actually made use of in such a symbolical way.

As for P. Fagius his account, in which also Clarius his Transcriber, as how should it be otherwise? agrees with him, that it was a Typical adumbration of Christ, who was to be descended of the loins of Abraham; it is to be observed, that this is at best but precarious, and is like­wise opposed by very strong Reasons into the bargain: For, first, we find this rite again repeated c. 47. in the person of Jacob, for which though the same account may again be given; for Jacob also was a Progenitor of the Messias, who was more immediately descended from him, than from Abraham himself; yet the repetition of this rite speaks it rather to be a custom of those times, not founded upon any such particular reasons, as belonged only to Abraham and his family, but obtaining generally at those times and places; besides that when Aben Ezra tells us, Vezeh hamishphat hadajan bou beerets Hodo, 'That this in his time was still a custom in the land of India: It is very strange, that a rite which in its first institution, was so peculiar to the family of Abraham, and had a particular respect to the coming of the Messias, who was to arise from thence, should yet obtain so ge­nerally all over the Eastern Countries; for that, I suppose, is to be understood by Erets Hodo in the language of the [Page 284] Rabbin; or if Aben Ezra's Authority, shall be thought as little by any, in matter of Fact, as I have represented it in matter of Opinion, where Speculation and Judg­ment are concerned, (talents very rarely to be met with in that sort of men), to strengthen the Testimony of Aben Ezra, let us call in that of Augerius a Busbeck, a man of unquestionable credit and reputation; who in the fourth of those excellent Epistles, wherein he gives an account of his Embassy from the Emperour to the Grand Seigniour, and of what he observed, or heard, or what Occurrences fell out during that time, and speaking in this particularly of a Turkeish Hoggia, of whom he there tells a pleasant story, taking leave of a Bassa, by whom he had been, together with many others, plentifully en­tertained, he says, Nam remitteret paulisper, valedictu­rus hospiti, necesse erat, quod eorum ità ferat consuetudo, ut manibus ad pectora vel ad femora applicatis suos opti­mates salutet. 'Being about to take leave of his Host, it was now high time for him to shut up his pouch, which he had been busie in filling with good provender to carry home; and the rather because he would have need to make other use of his hands, this being their perpetual custom among the Turks; that being to take leave of their Superiours, as a token of respect, they always lay their hand upon their breast or thigh; and so having made their obeisance, take their leave.

From which Citation of Busbequius, in concurrence with the testimony of Aben Ezra, there are several things very well worth observation: As first, that this was and is a general token of respect in the Eastern Countries.

Secondly, The outward expressions by gesture, of civil respect, and of divine worship, being generally the same in all Ages and Nations, as shall be proved more largely in its due place; the difference between these two, consist­ing only in the difference of the object, and the different [Page 285] application or direction of the mind in the one and the other; and it having been shewn already out of the un­questionable Records of Moses himself, that some such ceremony as this was used in Divine Worship, of which every Oath is a part (it being an acknowledgment of the divine Omniscience, and of his Justice and Power, it in­cluding an Appeal to the former as a witness, and a Prayer to the two latter, so to exercise and dispose themselves either for our benefit or hurt, as we assert truly, or per­form faithfully, what we affirm, deny or promise); it is manifest that this Modern custom of the Eastern Coun­tries, is the best explanation of that ancient usage, of which we have given instances in the Story of Abraham and Jacob; and that therefore R. Salomon's interpretation must needs be false, it being clear that in this Citation of Busbequius the word Femur is to be understood in its most proper, strict and natural acceptation.

Thirdly, By comparing this testimony of Busbequius, with the two places of Genesis, which we have mentioned, it appears how much Josephus was mistaken, who in his Antiquities, L. 1. c. 16. gives this account of that Story of Abraham, which is to be found in the first of those places, [...]; that is, he (Abraham) sends or dispatches his eldest servant to make up the contract betwixt Isaac and Rebekkah, obliging him by the most sacred tyes imaginable, punctually to observe his instructions; now the manner of imposing such solemn and sacred tyes, is this; The party obliging, and the party ob­liged, do both of them mutually put their hands under their thighs, and shaking hands after that manner with one ano­ther, they invoke God as a witness of what passeth between them, or of what the one requires to be done, and the [Page 286] other promises to doe; than which there can be nothing more contrary either to the express words of Scripture, or of Busbequius; by the first of which the ancient usage is expressed, and by the second the continuance of it in these latter times; but on the contrary it is as plainly asserted, as it is possible for words to express it; that all that was done was, that the party adjured was used to put his hand upon, or under the thigh of him, by whom the adjuration was made; and if you consider that in the instances of Abraham and Jacob, they were both of them bed-ridden and lying along, while Eliezer in the first ex­ample, and Joseph in the second stood by the bed side; such a way of shaking of hands, as Joseph in the second stood by the bed side; such a way of shaking of hands, as Josephus describes, though it be not impossible, must needs be extremely difficult and painfull to the party standing by the bed side, as will be easie to imagine, to any that shall but fancy in their minds the posture in which the adjured person must be, with respect to him who lay along in his bed. Where­fore we must attribute this misrepresentation of the mat­ter, either to the ignorance of Josephus, or to an affecta­tion which he had of dressing up the Hebrew customs in the Garb of the Greek and Roman, among whom joyning of hands was always used, as a way of plighting of Faith, that so he might the better accommodate his History, to the approbation and good acceptance of those for whom it was intended; but let it be either way, it argues either want of honesty or skill, either of which are sufficient to weaken his authority and credit to that degree, that his high pretences to integrity and skill, as if he scorned to deceive, and could not be imposed upon, being so very skilfull, that at a very tender age the Priests themselves were used to consult him in difficult and doubtfull cases (which they that please may believe) are so far from supporting his tottering reputation, that compared with such failures, either out of ignorance or design of [Page 287] these, they do but still speak him more plainly either an unwary or unlearned Writer; and indeed how is it rea­sonable to expect much of sincerity from him, where he may either serve the interest of his Nation, or the credit of his own Eloquence and Parts, with which he must be acknowledged to have been very plentifully furnished, by putting false colours and artificial lights and shades upon his Story, when he gives so excellent, nay, so di­vine a Character of our Saviour himself; for he questi­ons whether he were a mortal man or no, and was in that respect under greater convictions than any of the Soci­nians of our days can be, and yet was not perswaded to become one of his followers and disciples; not that I would be so understood, as if I would utterly destroy the authority of his Writings; but I say there is care and judgment to be use in distinguishing his truth from his mistakes, or his impostures.

And first in the general we may and ought to believe, that his main intention was to write truth, because there was no reason why he should doe otherwise, and because to doe otherwise too palpably and too often would have exposed him to the just indignation and hatred of his own Nation, and he would have been confuted and exposed into the bargain. And lastly, because he that out of vanity, affectation or design would effectually deceive sometimes, must be sure for the most part to be a religious observer of truth, that so under the pro­tection of his integrity, his falshood may pass with the less examination.

Secondly, The far greatest part of his Story is attested by the concurrence of the sacred Writings together with it. Lastly, As there are some falsities so palpable, that they expose and betray their own shame and nakedness to the world; so also there are other relations that carry such signatures of probability in themselves, as are a tole­rable [Page 288] testimony to their own reality and truth; so that it is plain by all this, I do not so much design to expose the credit of this Writer, as to establish what is credible in him upon a more certain foundation.

The last opinion which is to be considered, is that of H. Grotius, Quasi dicerent, [...]i fallam, ense tuo peream; that is to say, that this rite of laying the hand of the adjured per­son upon the thigh of him, by whom the adjuration was made, was as much as to say, If I deceive you, or if I break that Oath which I am now making, may I perish by your Sword, that being the place where the sword is used to be girt: But really, to speak the most favourably of this interpretation, it is a conceit by no means suitable to the name of him that made it, [...]. For certainly it would rather look like a jeer or scoff, more like a sarcastical insultation over the infirmity of a bed-ridden and dying man, than like a solemn and serious appeal to the Omniscience and Justice of God, to say, May I perish by your Sword, when he had no strength to wield a Sword; and by reason of old age, an incurable disease, was never like to wield it any more; or would not the symbolical meaning at this rate be rather, as much as to say, I never intend to keep my word, because I imprecate only such curses upon my self in case I break it, from whence I have no reason to apprehend any danger?

Having therefore seen how unsatisfactory all these solutions are, that which I propose instead of them, is this; That it having been proved that the thigh in the Symbolical or Hieroglyphique language signified fertility and generation; the meaning of that expression of Abra­ham and Jacob, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, is as much as to say, I adjure you by the Father and Make [...] of all things: [...] [Page 289] [...], or [...], and that this is truly and plainly the mean­ing of it, appears sufficiently from the first of these places it self, Gen. 24. 2, 3. Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of Heaven, and the God of the Earth. And so in that passage of Busbequius, when the Turks in their custo­mary salutation of their superiours apply their hand, either to their breast or thigh; by the first of these there is symbolically denoted, an appeal to him who is the searcher of hearts, that they do heartily wish and pray for the health and safety of him to whom this salutation is made; and in the latter there is included a Prayer to the Father and Maker of all things, that he would continue to prosper and preserve him.

Neither is it at all material in this affair, that where­as the present custom in Turky is to lay the hand upon the thigh, the Hebrew word in these places of Genesis is Tachath, which the 70 render by [...], and our transla­tion by, under, for Tachath in Hebrew is of a much larger signification than so, and may signifie in general, in loco femoris, that is, either subter or super; and therefore it is most rational to expound it from the Modern custom, which is, no question, a remainder of antiquity, and to understand the [...] of the seventy, rather in an Helleni­stical sense, as being co-extended to the signification of Tachath in Hebrew, than in its proper and genuine accep­tation.

But to make it the more clearly out, before I apply it to the instance of Pythagoras, that this was indeed a symbol of generation, and that the use of this rite in so­lemn adjuration did include an appeal to the Maker and Parent of the World. I will add some other testimonies both out of the sacred and prophane Writings, Gen. 30. 3. And she (Rachel) said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in [Page 290] unto her, and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may al­so have children by her: And c. 50. 23. And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation: the children also of Machir, the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees. In both which places by Bilha's bearing upon the knees of Rachel, and by the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh being brought up upon the knees of Jo­seph, nothing else is meant, but that the off-spring of Machir and of Bilhah, were accounted as descended of Joseph and Rachel, while they were yet living; the one virtually, in as much as Manasseh, the Father of Machir was the son of Joseph, the other by a sort of adoption peculiar to the Eastern Countries and to the earliest times, whereby the children of the handmaid, begotten by con­sent of the Mistress, by her Lord and husband, were ac­counted as if they had been born of her self, as appears by those words already cited, She bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her: And the same thing appears likewise from v. 6, 8, 11, 13. of the same chapter: And in the case of Hagar the handmaid of Sarah, Gen. 16. 2.

By what means the Mistress was invested with this propriety in the off-spring of her handmaid, I have de­clared in my Papers of the Leviratical Law, which was an usage every whit as ancient as this, and built exactly upon the same foundation: but all that I now take no­tice of, is the symbolical way of expressing this impu­tative generation, by bearing, or being brought up upon the knees of the person to whom the propriety belonged.

This was likewise the reason that in the ancient way of the most humble supplication, the person supplicating was used to take hold of the knees of him or her to whom the supplication was made, which included in it a sym­bolical intimation of a prayer or adjuration by the Maker [Page 291] of Heaven and Earth, that the request might be granted; this Homer calls, [...] and [...], and the Latin Writers, amplecti, prensare genua, genibus ad­volvi, genibus manus admovere, and other expressions of a like import; but Seneca in Troade has expressed it a little otherwise, where Andromache thus speaks to Ʋlysses in behalf of her son Astyanax,

—Ad genua accido Supplex, Ʋlysse, quamque nullius pedes Novere dextram pedibus admoveo tuis.

Where what he calls genua in the beginning of these words, he afterwards calls pedes, because in this affair pes, and femur, and genu, are of the same import. So Gen. 49. 10. The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, untill Shilo come, where the 70 have it, [...], as hath been already observed.

Lasty, This was the ancient meaning of bowing the knee, whether in divine worship or civil respect; in the first of which it was a symbolical acknowledgment of the Prolifique and Demiourgique nature of God; in the second it includes a Prayer to the Maker and Conserver of all things, for the health and prosperity of the person to whom the salutation is made; and if to this I may add, what though it be most obvious in it self, yet it did not till just now come into my mind, that [...] and genu have their very names from generation; from all this I will conclude, that the Golden Thigh of Pythagoras, being in the literal acceptation, a most ridiculous and absurd fig­ment, was in the symbolical, an assertion of his Divinity; the fruitfulness of the divine nature being signified in ge­neral by the word [...] or thigh, and by its being made of Gold, the perpetuity and stability of that fruitfulness [Page 292] was denoted: So that it is not much to be wondred, when he made such large and lavish pretences to a divine and self-existent nature, if by his disciples, who were used to submit to him in all things with an implicit Faith and Obedience, he were worshipped under the Name and Character of Apollo Hyperboreus; or if the Metapontini and the Tauromenii built Temples and Altars to his re­puted, though mistaken, Godhead, after his decease.

From whence he received this symbolical way of ex­pressing that Divinity to others, which he arrogated to himself, is, I think, by this time, sufficiently plain; and though I may pretend to have proved, that it is but a vain conceit of some very learned persons that Pythago­ras borrowed his Tetractys from the Tetragrammaton of the Jews, or rather Greeks, or Hellenists, who lived long after Pythagoras his time; yet I am far from denying that he had any knowledge of the Jewish affairs; his symbolical way of Phylosophising in the general, and this particular instance of his Golden Thigh, are sufficient testimonies of his having no inconsiderable acquaintance in the East; and Porphyrie tells us expresly out of Diogenes in his Book, [...], of the wonders or in­credible rarities of the Thule; [...], that he tra­velled among the Aegyptians, Arabs, Chaldees and He­brews; which is likewise asserted by Clem. Alexandrinus, Eusebius and St. Ambrose, and not only so, but if we will believe St. Ambrose, it was the received opinion of a great many that he was descended of the Jewish Nation. And what is still a farther confirmation, how little a stranger Pythagoras was to the Nation, Manners and Religion of the Jews; the same Porphyrie tells us, [...] [Page 293] [...]. In Bady­lon he conversed, as with other of the Chaldeans, so with Zabratus himself, by whom he was purified from the pollu­tions of his former life, and was taught what abstinence was required of all that will be vertuous men; he was in­structed likewise by the same person in the knowledge of nature, and of the principles or causes from whence this Ʋniverse is made, or by which it is preserved.

This Zabratus, by Clemens of Alexandria, is called Nazaratus, by Cyrill against Julian, Zaran, by Plutarch, Zaratas, and by Theodoret Zaradas, but for the Nazara­tus of Clemens, L. Holstenius conceives, that the first syllable is only the last of the preceding word carelesly repeated by the Transcriber, which is a very good con­jecture, and like so expert a Critique as Holstenius was; or it might be that the same carelesness might repeat the first syllable twice, as it often happens that by negligence, the same syllable, word, and sometimes an entire clause or sentence is twice repeated; by which means it wou'd be Zazaratus, which looking like an uncouth name, and considering the likeness of Z and N in the larger cha­racter, the one being but the transverse of the other; and considering, lastly, that there was such a place in the world as Nazareth; all this running in his mind, who first bestow'd that reading upon us which the present copies embrace, he changed the Zaratus of Clemens, which was improved into Zazaratus by the Transcriber, into Nazaratus, which he looked upon to be as much as [...]. The Zaran in Cyrill, who is beholding to Clemens, is partly owing to an abbreviation very frequent in all ancient MSS. by which unskilfull Transcribers are deceived; and partly to this, that N and [...] have so great a likeness and resemblance to one ano­ther, which was the reason that in some of the Copies of Tertullian, the God of the Basilidians, instead of [Page 294] Abraxas, is called Abraxan, which though at first it con­firmed me in my conceit, that Abraxas was a composi­tion of [...] and [...], because he is likewise called [...], as hath been seen already; yet that conjecture, for the reason above mentioned, falling to the ground, it is manifest that this is a corrupt and putid reading, because the whole mystery of that name consisting in the nume­ral potestas of those letters of which it is composed, if you put an N instead of [...], it will fall very short of that number in which the whole mystery consisteth.

For the Zaratas of Plutarch, and the Zaradas of Theo­doret, they are both the same with one another, and with Zabratus in Porphyrie, or Malchus; for [...] and [...] are [...], letters very nigh of kin in their sound; from whence it comes to pass, that both in the use of common speech, and by the mistake of Writers, whose ears are not al­ways so accurate as to distinguish, they are very often changed into one another; but the reading by a [...] is in­deed the true, as shall be seen by and by, and the [...] was omitted by Plutarch and Theodoret, [...], to mollifie the word into the softness and Elegance of the Greek pronunciation.

So then all this diversity of reading, being so natu­rally and so fairly reducible to the Zabratus of Porphy­rie, the remaining question is, who this Zabratus should be, which is the thing I am now about to ex­plain. Zabratus therefore is Jah Berith, the God of the Covenant, as the salt of the Sacrifice is called the salt of the Covenant; and God frequently calls himself in Scrip­ture, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; that is, he who had entered into Covenant with them and their posterity, and circumcision was the peculiar seal of that Covenant betwixt God and them; neither is it any mat­ter in this case that Porphyrie calls this Zabratus, a Baby­lonian, because the time of Pythagoras falls, as I have [Page 295] said, towards the conclusion of the Babylonish captivity, and so the names of a Jew and a Babylonian might well enough at that time be confounded together, because of their being mingled and interspersed among one another. Zabratus therefore, notwithstanding he calls him a Baby­lonian, may be understood of the God of the Jews, and his converse with him, may be meant of that part of his Philosophy or Discipline which he learned out of the Mosaique Law, either by a perusal of the Law it self, which I scarce believe, for want of acquaintance with the language, which was then in a manner lost among the Jews themselves, or by converse with the Jews; who though they had not now any accurate knowledge of the Law, yet were able to give him some traditionary and imperfect account: And this I the rather believe, because all the three things which Pythagoras is said to have received from Zabratus, are largely insisted upon in the Books of Moses, that is to say, the Origine of all things, in the first Chapter of Genesis, the distinction of foods or abstinence from unclean things, in the History of the Flood, and afterwards in the Body of the Law it self; and, lastly, the rites and ceremonies of lustration, which are no where more nicely adjusted than in the Levitical Law.

And if in these particulars he be not in every thing conformable to the platform of Moses, yet this is no ar­gument that he had no knowledge of that Law, or of the Religion and Manners of the Jews, but only that it was Traditionary, confused and obscure; besides that, there are two other causes which might and did probably conspire to make a variation as to particular instances, though the Genius and Spirit of the Pythagorean Philosophy, were much the same with that of the Mosaique Law.

First out of a particular affectation to be the founder of a Sect, and to be thought, as well by himself, as others, to have been the inventor of a new Doctrine, and the in­troducer [Page 296] of a new Philosophical institution into the World.

Secondly, He did not only converse with the Jews, but with all other Eastern Nations, and so his Philosophy was probably little more than a Medley of the Hierogly­phique and Symbolique Mysteries of divers nations (as all the Philosophy and Religion of the East was wrapped up in Symbols) jumbled into a Philosophical Oglio to­gether. It was much such another thing in Philosophy, as the Phoenician History of Sanchuniathon was for an ac­count of time, where there are many very plain and un­doubted strictures of true and genuine antiquity: jum­bled together without any regard either to truth or shame, (though I do not say the composition of Pythagoras was equally frivolous and indiscreet) with the Heathen My­thology of all the barbarous Nations and fabulous times.

But after all, though the converse of Pythagoras in Ba­bylon, be at the same time an argument of his acquain­tance with the Jews; yet it may well enough be, that that knowledge, which he is said to have received from Zabratus, may be only a Transcript out of the sacred Volumes in the Temple of an Idol, such as that which by the Midianites and Amalekites in the book of Judges, was called Bahal Berith; for as Bahal, though it be for the most part applyed to the signification of an Idol, may yet notwithstanding in its genuine and first acceptation denote and signifie the true God; so may Jah also, which is the proper and incommunicable name of the true God, who is only self-existent, and is what he is from himself, be apply'd not improperly, by the Heathens themselves to the most contemptible and silly Idol in the world; be­cause let it be what it will in it self, it is looked upon by them that worship it, under the notion of a true and proper Deity, and that it was actually apply'd to the Idols [Page 297] of the Heathen, I shall immediately make appear; and and if I do, it will then, I hope, be granted, for another reason besides what hath been already urged, that this in­communicable name of God, which is every whit as sa­cred as the Tetragrammaton (and consequently that also), was not so great a secret among the neighbour Nations, as the superstition of the later Jews would make it.

So then Zabratus, though it may most properly and fitly be understood of the true God, yet nothing hin­ders, but a false one may also be signified by it; and at that rate it will be the same with Baal Berith, whom Philo Byblius, the Translator of Sanchuniathon calls [...], the King of Berith, or of the Berytians, and whom he confounds very unskilfully with Abibalus, which was the name of the true God, and was, I make little or no question, the same with [...]; the words of Philo in Eusebius are these: [...], &c. In which words, when I consider what a strange Miscellany that History of Sanchuniathon was, and as it seems a designed imposition upon the credulity of after-ages; I cannot but believe, that this Abibalus, whose name does so exactly hit to the pat and proper signification of the true God, was one of those names by which he was used to be called. For what is Abi­balus, but El Abib, that is, Deus spicarum, as he was called from changing the beginning of the Jewish year, to the month of Abib from Tisri, of which so much hath been already spoken? And that which confirms me very much in this conjecture, is one of these four things which follow, and much more all of them together.

First Eusebius saith, [...], which if you understand of a dedication, such as hath been usual to great persons in the more civi­lized [Page 298] and learned times, I doubt it will be hard to find any instance of such a dedication at a time, when letters themselves were scarce known in the world, and without being able to produce an instance, it is very absurd and ridiculous to suppose it; you may suppose any thing else, though never so extravagant, with equal reason. But if you will understand it so, as that the Monuments of Sanchuniathon were lay'd up in the Temple of Abibalus, which is the most proper sense of [...] and [...] in Greek, then, let the thing it self be true or false, here is a kind of a confused and obscure acknowledg­ment that Abibalus was the name of a God; which since he cannot be the same with the [...], whe­ther you understand by those words the King of the Be­rytians, who was a mortal man, or the Idol of Baal Be­rith, to which the Etymon of Abibalus, will not so well suit as to the true God, here is one, though a faint and obscure indication, that Abibalus was the name of the true God.

Secondly, We meet with other compositions exactly of the same form and analogy with this, in the Monu­ments of the Eastern Antiquity; For as the God of the Hebrews, for the reason above mentioned, was by the Phoenicians, or by the men of Berith called Abibalus, so by the Aegyptians Neptune was called [...], from El and Mos, which signifies water; exactly by the same Analogy with the other, as Tztzes hath recorded, which is a new argument against Scaliger in his Con­troversie with Philo Judaeus, which is likewise backed by the testimony of Josephus, who saith, that among the Aegyptians Mos or Moy hath the signification of water.

Thirdly, It matters not, though this name be no where found in Scripture, for the Phoenicians called even those things and persons, for whose knowledge they were in­debted [Page 299] either to the Scripture it self, or to a Tradition derived from it, by names of a very different sound, from those by which they were called in the books of Moses themselves, though by their signification, as in this in­stance of Abibalus, they did sufficiently discover from whence they came. So Isaac was called [...], that is, Jachid, as being the only son; Sarah, Annobret, that is, Quae per gratiam concepit, as having conceived and brought forth in her old age, when it had ceased to be with her after the manner of women; and the breath of God, which is said to have been breathed into the nostrils of the first man, is called [...], that is, Kol phi Jah, Sonus, or Sibilus oris Dei.

Fourthly and lastly, If we consider the distance of the age of Sanchuniathon, from that of his Translator Philo, who flourished in Adrian's time, it may seem very pro­bable, that the language out of which he made that Translation was not so perfectly understood by him, but that he might be guilty of many and great mistakes; so that if to the unskilfullness or wilfull errours of the ori­ginal, you add the defects and failures of the Transla­tion, there will but little of credit remain to that ancient Writer; only thus much is certain, that those names which still remain in their original sound, are many of them owing, as to their signification, to the true and ge­nuine antiquities of Moses, and as the manifest Anachro­nisms which are to be found in those Phoenician Fables, for they are no better, are a sufficient confutation to themselves; so on the other hand what there is remain­ing agreeable to that account of things, which hath been given by Moses, is an undeniable attestation to the au­thority of his Writings, and shows plainly that there have been really such persons and such transactions in the world, as have been left upon record by him.

But whatever becomes of Abibalus or Zabratus, in the latter of which especially, I am not without great con­fidence that I am in the right; it is certain that in Za­molxis, which was another name for one of Pythagoras his Masters, who was, if I am not mistaken, the very same with Zabratus, the name of Jah is very plainly contained, for this Zamolxis is evidently no other than Jah Moloc, or the King Jah.

For in the first place, as for those among the Greeks, who will needs have Zamolxis to have been contempo­rary with Pythagoras, and to have been his servant, and to have received his Doctrine from him; this opinion is expresly rejected by Herodotus in Melpomene, in these words, [...]. I am of opinion that this Zamolxis lived many years before the time of Pythagoras. In the next place Mnaseas in the Etymologist, who is transcribed by Suidas, saith, that he was worshipped by the Getae for Saturn; nay, his words are more express, [...], that Saturn is worshipped by the Scythians, and is called Za­molxis; so then Zamolxis is evidently Jah Moloc, for Moloc and Saturn have always been accounted the same; and from hence it is that humane sacrifices are offered to Zamolxis in Herodotus, as well as to Moloc by the Am­monites, or to Saturn or Jupiter Latiaris by any other barbarous and heathen Nations; for he tells us, that con­stantly once in five year they were used to send a Mes­senger to Zamolxis, with particular instructions to in­form him of what every one wanted, and to desire him to supply their respective wants; and the manner of their sending of him was this, that they were used to fasten three sharp Stakes upon the ground, and then to take their Messenger, as they called him, and throw him upon the points of those Stakes; in which case, if he dyed pre­sently, [Page 301] they took it then for a good Omen, that their re­quests were granted; but if he were not presently dis­patched, then they were used to say he was a wicked man, and that Zamolxis would not receive his Message, and so they sent another and another in the same man­ner, till some one was immediately dispatched, and him they accounted acceptable and well-pleasing to Zamolxis; which is a plain sign that this Messenger, as Herodotus calls him, was looked upon as an Expiatory sacrifice, which ought to be clean and pure it self, that it may the better attone for the sins of others. And that this Zamolxis is really a word of Hebrew Origination, appears still fur­ther from this, that as Herodotus says, [...] some of the Scythians were used to call him Gebeleizin, which is no other than Gebel or Geboul, in composition with Zan or Zen, whom the La­tines would call Terminus, or Jupiter Terminalis, and the Greeks [...], as Herodotus himself afterwards renders it, [...]. And so the particular tutelar Deity of the City of Emissa in Phoeni­cia was called Alagabalus, that is, Eloah Geboul, the God of the Coast, or President of that City, and the Territory belonging to it.

But besides this there are several other things, which do very plainly confirm what I have conjectured, that Jah and Zamolxis are at least so far the same, as that the first is a part of the composition of the latter.

First, It is certain he was not worshipped by any Image or sensible representation, to which they always sup­posed the Spirit or Divinity of the Numen himself to be present; but they conceived of him, as of an invisible be­ing, having his peculiar residence in heaven; for which reason the Jews were used to call God Shamajim, that is, Heaven; and that not only of latter times, but you [Page 302] may see instances of it in Buxtorf, out of Lex. Talmud. in Shamajim. the Talmud, as old as Shammai, who lived a good while before our Saviour, and in our Saviour's time there are many instances of it; that place of St. Matthew, where our Saviour forbids his dis­ciples to swear by heaven, and that passage of the prodi­gal son, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and be­fore thee; and that Quaere of our Saviour's to the Priests and Elders, the baptism of John, whence was it from heaven or of men? are all very plain examples of this signification; and another instance of it we have like­wise in the book of Daniel, who lived in the time of the Babylonish captivity, c. 4. 26. After that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule; that is, he who hath his more peculiar or beatifique seat in heaven, though by his divine extension he be equally present to all other places besides. For this reason it was, that the Scythi­ans did [...], send a Messenger to him, whom they supposed to have his residence in heaven; and they that dyed were said [...], to go to Zamolxis, which is exactly the language of the Scripture it self: So the Authour to the Hebrews, speak­ing of the Translation of Enoch, immediately subjoyns, He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Eccles. 12. 7. Then shall the dust return to the earth, as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Secondly, The Scythians believed of this Zamolxis, as the truth was, and as the Jews believed, and were ob­liged to believe of the God of their Fathers, that he was the Lord, and that there was none besides him, none that might compare with him in Majesty, Perfection or Power, Exod. 20. 3. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me; therefore the Scythians were used to shoot up towards heaven, as it were in defiance, when ever it thundred or [Page 303] lightened, to show that whatever opinion any other of the Heathen Nations, might have of those or any other Phoenomena of nature, whose causes they could not ex­plain; they themselves notwithstanding had not any other opinion of them, than as of dependent and created things, that had nothing of Self-existence or Divinity in their nature, and could not wound or annoy any thing, whether men or houses, or corn or beasts, but either by chance, or as they were directed by a Superiour power and skill: they are the words of Herodotus, [...]; that is, and this part of the Thracians (that is, the Getae) are used to shoot up to­wards heaven, when ever it thunders and lightens, threat­ning and affronting their supposed Divinity, as thinking there is no other God but Zamolxis.

This Zamolxis therefore was El heljon, Deus ille al­tissimus, as the Socinians are used to speak in another case, in opposition to all inferiour and dependent Beings, and to all Images, or material representations the works of nature or of art; and it is manifest from this, that these people were not Idolaters properly so called, but that they worshipped the true God by his name Jah, though after such a manner, as he had not only not appointed, but expresly forbidden by commanding the Israelites, that they should not suffer their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, as the Ammonites were used to do, and by substituting the lives of Sheep and Oxen to be an expiation for the sins of men; by both of which there is nothing more plain, than that all humane sacrifices were forbidden.

Thirdly, These Scythians were zealous assertors of the Doctrine of Transmigration, which the Greeks call [...], and [...], and [...], that [Page 304] is, the passing of the same soul through several humane bodies; so as after they were gone to Zamolxis, that is, dissolved from that body to which they were last united, they returned again into a new Scene or Stage of hu­mane life, to act their parts over again in a new suppo­situm or personality, consisting of the same soul united to another body.

Fourthly, They did not hold this of all departed souls, but only of those that were good and vertuous, or at least of such as had lived within some tolerable compass of so­briety and duty; both of these are expresly asserted by Herodotus, [...]. that is, it was the Doctrine of Zamolxis, that neither he nor his companions or disciples, nor any that were descended from them, should ever dye, but that they should return to the earth again, from whence they were parted, where they should always enjoy all manner of good things.

And in that I have translated [...], (which in strictness of speech is those that were used to drink to­gether with him) by his companio [...]s, or rather disciples; in this I am warranted both by the thing it self, eating and drinking together being an argument of their being in Covenant with him, and that they were his servants and his followers, which was the meaning of the peace­offerings among the Jews, of which the Priests, the Peo­ple and God himself had each of them their share. And I am further confirmed by the words of the Etymologist, and Suidas out of Hellanicus relating the same Story, [...], that neither he nor those that were with him should ever dye; those that were with him, that is again, his disciples, [...], as the Greeks would express it, or in the Hebrew Idiom, they that walked with God.

Now both of these Doctrines, that is to say, of the Transmigration, and that it belonged only to good men, or at least to such as were comparatively and tolerably so. Both of these, I say, were the Doctrines of the Pharisees among the Jews, in both of which, because it is unlikely they would have jumped so exactly with one another, if one had not received them from the other; this is another argument that Zamolxis is Jah Moloc, the name of the true God, whom the Pharisees wor­shipped. Joseph. Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. speaking of the Pha­risees, says thus: [...]. They are of opinion that humane souls are of an immortal na­ture, that the souls of the wicked are punished under ground, and that those of the just are in a state of hap­piness and reward; and that the first of these are under a perpetual restraint, but the other do easily return to live over the wonted period upon earth again. And in the second book de bello Judaico, the same Authour, de­livers it as the Doctrine of the Pharisees, [...] That every soul is immortal, but that only those of the good and vertuous return to live over in ano­ther body.

From which places it is plain that the Doctrine of the Pharisees, and of the Scythians, the Worshippers of Za­molxis, was the same; only whereas the Scythians seem to have believed that only the souls of the good were immortal, Josephus reports it as the Doctrine of the Pha­risees, that all souls were so; yet since the [...] in Herodotus, is certainly the same with the [...] in Josephus, that is, the return of good men into new bodies; this hinders not, but that they are both of them for all this exactly agreed.

And that this was the opinion of the Jews, that is, of part of them, for it could not be the Doctrine of the Sadducees, who believed there was neither Angel nor Spirit, is evident from several places of the Gospels, Matth. 16. 13. Jesus puts this question to his disciples, Whom do men say that I the son of man am? To which they return this answer, v. 14. Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets; that is, they supposed the Person of our Saviour, by reason of the Miracles which he wrought, and the admirable Doctrine which he communicated to the world, to be the [...]ul of one of these great and holy men united to that body which they saw. So in the Story of Nicodemus, Joh. 3. 3. Jusus said unto him, Ve­rily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. V. 4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his Mothers womb and be born? And v. 9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? To which Jesus answered v. 10. Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things? As much as to say, that this was a common thing among the Jews, and that our Saviour in describing the rege­neration or conversion of a sinner after this manner, did but allude to the received Opinions and Doctrines among themselves; for according to them it was literally true, that a man did really enter into his Mothers womb, in or­der to being born again. Lastly, Joh. 9. 1, 2. As Jesus passed by, he saw a man, which was blind from his birth, and disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Which place, though some learned men are pleased to interpret in favour of the Doctrine of Pre-existence, in a superiour state, and a more refined, subtle and aetherial body; yet from those testimonies of Josephus and of Scripture it [Page 307] self, which I have produced, think it much more rea­sonable to interpret it of the Doctrine of Transmigration out of one terrestrial body into another.

These are the reasons that perswade me to believe the Zamolxis of the Getae to be a composition of Jah and Mo­loc together, and consequently are a confirmation of Py­thagoras his either immediate, or at least oblique and secondary acquaintance with the Jews; and I do hum­bly conceive, that what I have said upon this occasion is so plain, and so demonstrative, that it carries its own evi­dence along with it; and will therefore, as presume to hope, give all the satisfaction, which an enquiry of this nature can afford to learned men. But notwithstanding this, it is to be confessed, that Porphyrie gives another Etymon of this so celebrated and famous name, which I shall now produce to show the unskillfulness of Porphy­rie, and the insufficiency of his conjecture; which in­stead of doing any disadvantage or disparagement to mine, shall but further recommend it to the good opi­nion of every judicious and impartial Reader: the words of Porphyrie then are these, [...]. That is, he (Pythagoras) had another boy, whom he bought in Thrace, whose name was Zamolxis, which name was given him; for that immediately after he was born, he was wrapped up in a Bears skin, for the skin of any beast is by the Thracians called Zalmos.

If this conjecture be true, as I shall demonstrate it to be false, then it ought to be read in the Copies of Por­phyrie, not Zamolxis; but Zalmoxis, as it is de facto in some MSS. of Herodotus, and of the Citations out of him of Aeneas Gazeus, and of Eustathius in his Scholiast upon Dionysius Alexandrinus, commonly called [...]. Aldobrandinus in his notes upon Laertius, at least [Page 308] as I have seen it in the London Edition, citing this place of Porphyrie, calls it [...], which is certainly false, for Zaimos is vox nihili, a word of no signification; and though Zalmos be the true reading of Porphyrie, as ap­pears by all those Copies of divers Authours, that reade the name pretended to be derived from it, Zalmoxis; yet I conceive it is not the true word of the Scythians themselves, who (bating the instance of Zamolxis, which being now the matter in dispute, must not be drawn in­to argument either way) by what hath been said of the word Gebelisin, appear to have had no small tang of Hebraism among them; but the true word, as I conceive, is Zamlos, for Semilah in Hebrew signifies any garment, and we know the first garments, after fig-leaves, were made of leather, Gen. 3. 21. Which might be the reason why Semilah among the Scythians might answer to [...], or by mistake it might be so interpreted by one who had the Story of Genesis in his mind, which sort of mi­stakes do very often happen among unskilfull men; but yet I will not absolutely deny, but there might possibly be a Metathesis in the case, and that what the Hebrews called Semilah, the Getae might call Selimah or Salmah, as [...] and [...] in Greek are the same; and what the Hebrew calls Chetoneth, and the Greek [...], is Tunica in Latin, though I rather conceive that to be à tuendo, because it defends us from the injuries of weather, and so all the Films and Membranes of the Eye are by Anatomists called Tunicae, still à tuendo from guarding and protecting the Pupil, about which they are spread.

But supposing this to be indeed a Scythian or Hebrew word, which yet is improbable, because such a signifi­cation of Selimah, would confound it with the root of Shallem or Shalom, by which all manner of peace and prosperity is denoted; and supposing this to be the true signification, which Porphyrie hath assigned, yet by [Page 309] what Analogy shall we be able to come at the whole word Salmoxis; for my part I do not understand it, and I believe it would puzzle a better Grammarian than I pre­tend to be.

Again, Suidas tells us, [...], Zamolxis it the Feminine gender is the name of a God dess. And how? was this Goddess too wrapped in a Bears skin. [...]!

Auditum admissi risum teneatis.

Zamolxis therefore, or rather Zamolxos, as the Etymo­logist reades it, Jah Moloc; and Zamolxis is, Juno Re­gina, [...].

But in the Story of Pythagoras, there is not only mention of Zabratus and Zamolxis, but also of Cha­rondas and Zaleucus. Porphyrie, [...], He (Py­thagoras) gave Laws (to several people their named) by the hands, or by the Ministry of Charondas the Catanean, and of Zaleucus of Locris. Now if a man consider with himself, what hath been said of Zabratus and Zamolxis, and that the latter of these, notwithstanding that by the ignorance of the Greek Writers, he is made Contempo­rary with Pythagoras himself, and represented as his ser­vant and his disciple; yet in the opinion of Herodotus, who is in this confirmed by the Etymologist and by Suidas, he is much ancienter than Pythagoras his time; the truth of which appears likewise by the most likely Ety­mon of his name, and by other concurrent circumstances which I have carefully set down; I say, he that shall consider this, and that Charondas and Zaleucus may both of them be very plausibly reduced to the Hebrew Jah, may not absurdly conclude, notwithstanding that these two last named are made contemporary with Pythagoras, as well as Zamolxis was, that yet they are much anci­enter [Page 310] as well as he; and that all of these, Zabratus, Abi­balus, Zamolxis, Gebelizin, Charondas and Zaleucus are the same, being only so many several indigitamenta of the same Polyonymous Numen, which was a certain indication of the Majesty and Greatness of the Divinity in it self, and of the respect which it received from its Worshippers and Servants, according to that of Calli­machus.

[...]
[...]

From which place Mr. Selden will needs interpret that reprehension of the Pharisees by our Saviour, that thought they should be heard for their much speaking, [...], as if it were to be understood of this [...], by repeating over a bed-roll of all the names of God in Scripture, such as are El, Eloah, Elohim, Sad­dai, Sabaoth, Adonai, Jehvoh and Ehjoh; but with due respect to the Memory and Authority of so great a man as Mr. Selden, I am not of his opinion, for the Pharisees are manifestly reprehended by our Saviour for the affected length of their Prayers, in which they are unhappily imitated by their successors of this hypocritical age into which we are fallen. Now it being manifest that all the names of God in Scripture, though repeated several times over, would make but a very short prayer; nothing can be more plain, than that Mr. Selden's is but a fanci­full interpretation of the place.

But to return to the consideration of Charondas and Zaleucus: And first for Charondas, Charondas may be Jah Haran, the God of Haran, [...] the 70 call it, and that the Heathen World had some know­ledge of that Vision of the Ladder, which might give occasion to this name, hath been seen above in what hath been said concerning the [...] in Hesy­chius, [Page 311] and Das the termination of Charondas, answers to the Hebrew Jah, from whence is the Greek [...] or [...] supposed to be the ancientest of all the Gods, and the parent of them all; and that [...] and [...] are the same, appears in [...], and other instances which I have mentioned in other Papers, and will not transcribe them hither. So much for Charondas; and for Zaleucus, what can be more like than Zaleucus, and Jah Louchoth, that is, Deus Tabularum, with respect to the Commandments which were written upon Tables of Stone by the singer of God himself, which Tables in Hebrew are properly called Louchoth, and it may seem that Pythagoras con­sulted these, in that those Golden Verses that go under his name, and are to be sure very consonant to his Sentiments, though they are supposed to have been written by Phocylides long after his time, begin with the worship of God, and afterwards enjoin reverence to an Oath, and paying the respect and honour due to Pa­rents.

But I onely mention these two last instances to shew what care ought to be taken of Etymologies, and how deceitfull the prettiest conjectures may be, when all things are not considered; for the unanimous consent of Greek and Latin Writers forbid us to think otherwise, but that there were indeed such humane persons as Cha­rondas and Zaleucus, that they lived in the age of Py­thagoras, and at those places which Porphyrie hath men­tioned; the one in Locris, in that corner of Italy, which was anciently called Magna Graecia, the other in Sicily, in or about that place which even at this day goes by the name of Catanea, where the late dreadfull eruption of the Volcano's happened: and the true Analogy of both those names is this; as from [...], or [...], is Epaminondas; so from [...], or [...], is Charondas; and [Page 310] [...] [Page 311] [...] [Page 312] Zaleucus is as much as [...], that is, the Latin Al­bius or Albinus, the French Le Blanc, the Italian Bian­chi, and the English White; so the Etymologist, [...], the Eolique Dialect expresseth the Prepo­sition [...] by [...] and though I was once of the mind for another reason, besides, that it will favour my con­jecture, or rather demonstration, that the Hebrew Jah, and the Greek [...] are the same, viz. to avoid a very ful­some tautology in the Etymologist, that this place ought rather to be read, with a very light mutation, [...] yet since I have altered my mind, not onely because my conjecture needs it not, but because the oblique case in any instance that I can think of is ne­ver a part of the composition in the Greek tongue, unless it be the genitive, of which there are examples, [...].

FINIS.

The order of the Pages for the direction of the Book-Binder.

Page 191 to 199, the reverse of which is marked 316, and goes on in order to 341, which ends the first Exer­citation. The second begins at a blank Page, and goes on 200, 201, in order to 211, the reverse of which is 248, and goes on in order to 312, which is the end of the second.

Authours cited, refuted, vindicated or ex­plained in the three Exercitations.

A.
  • Aben Ezra.
  • Aelianus.
  • Aenaeas Gazeus.
  • Aldobrandinus.
  • Anthologia.
  • Apollonius, & ejus Scholiast.
  • Aristophanes, & ejus Sch. vet.
  • Aristoteles.
  • Athenaeus.
  • Augustinus.
B.
  • Baronius.
  • Bereshith Rabba.
  • Biblia secundum veritatem Hebraicam ex versione [...]. Aquilae, Symmachi, Theodotionis, quintae Editi­onis, Targumim, Medra­shim.
  • Bochartus.
  • Brodaeus.
  • Busbequius.
  • Buxtorfius.
C.
  • Capellus Ludovicus.
  • Casaubonus Isaacus.
  • Catullus.
  • Chrysostomus.
  • Clarius.
  • Clemens Alexandrinus.
  • Cloppenburgius.
  • Cockins.
  • Dr. Covell.
  • Cowleius.
  • Dr. Cudworth.
  • Cyrillus.
D.
  • Diodorus.
  • Dionysius,
    • Alexandrinus.
    • Halicarnassensis.
  • Drusius.
E.
  • Epicharmus.
  • Epiphanius.
  • Etymologus.
  • Eusebius.
  • Eustathius.
F.
  • Fagius.
  • Florus.
G.
  • Giauhari, Scriptor Arabs, Bocharto laudatus.
  • Glossae veteres.
  • Gregorius Nazianzenus.
  • Grotius.
H.
  • Heinsius Daniel.
  • Hellanicus.
  • Herodotus.
  • Hesiodus.
  • [Page] Hesychius.
  • Hieronymus.
  • Holstenius.
  • Homerus, & ejus Schol. vet.
  • Horatius.
I.
  • Josephus.
  • Irenaeus.
  • Isidorus.
    • Hispalensis.
    • Pelusiota.
  • Justinus.
  • Juvenalis.
L.
  • Dr. Lightfoot.
  • Livius.
  • Liveleus.
  • Lucianus.
M.
  • Macrobius.
  • Maimonides.
  • Masius.
  • Menagius.
  • Minucius.
  • Mishnaioth.
  • Mnaseas.
  • Munsterus.
O.
  • Origenes.
  • Orpheus.
  • Ovidius.
P.
  • Petitus Samuel.
  • Pherecydes Syrius.
  • Philastrius.
  • Philo
    • Byblius.
    • Judaeus.
  • Philostratus.
  • Philoxenus.
  • Phocylides.
  • Pindarus, & ejus vetus in­terpres.
  • Plato.
  • Plautus.
  • Plutarchus.
  • Porphyrius.
  • Priscianus.
  • Procopius.
  • Propertius.
  • Pythagoras.
S.
  • Salmasius.
  • Sanchuniathon.
  • Scaliger Josephus.
  • Seldenus.
  • Seneca.
  • Suidas.
T.
  • Tertullianus.
  • Theodoretus.
  • Scriptor Libri, Toledoth Jeshu.
V.
  • Vossius
    • Dionysius.
    • Isaacus.
X.
  • Xenophon.
Z.
  • Zegerus.

Places of Scripture cited, vindicated and ex­plained in the three Exercitations.

Genesis, I. 14.
XI. 3.
XVI. 2.
XVII. 12.
XXIV. 1, 2, 3, 4.
XXX. 3.
XLVI. 26.
XLVII. 29, 30, 31.
XLIX. 10.
L. 6, 8, 11, 13, 23.
Exodus, I. 5.
II. 10.
III. 13.
VI. 3.
XII. 16.
XX. 22.
XXIII. 16.
XXX. 32, 33, 37, 38.
XXXII. 32, 33.
XXXIV. 24.
Leviticus, XXII. 27.
XXIII. [...] 16.
XXV. 31.
Numbers, V. 21.
Deuteron. XI. 18, 19, 20.
XVI. 7, 18.
XVII. 18.
Judges, III. 16, 21.
2 Samuel, XI. 1.
XXII. 11.
1 Chron. XX. 1.
2 Chron. XXXIV. 13.
Nehemiah, VIII. 1, 2.
Psal. XVII. 8.
XIX. 5.
XLV. 3.
LXVIII. 4.
LXIX. 34.
CIX. 13.
Eccles. XII. 7.
Isaiah, I. 13.
XXXVI. 15.
Daniel, IV. 26.
Nahum, III. 14.
Malachy, II. 4, 7, 8.
1 Machab. V. 42.
Matthew, VI. 7.
XVI. 14.
XXI. 25.
XXVI. 2, 5, 17, 18.
Mark, VII. 22.
XIV. 12.
Luke, IV. 20.
XV. 18.
XXII. 7.
John, III. 10.
IX. 1, 2.
XIII, 1, 2, 29.
XVIII. 28.
XIX. 14, 31.
Acts. XIX. 35.
1 Corinth. V. 7.
Hebrews. XI. 6.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.