Question. WHY would God haue Noah and his familie to enter into the Arke?

Answ. First, to pre­serue them from the flood: For this was the ordinarie meanes which God vsed to Saue Noah, although he could haue saued him; without this meanes, and as out of the Arke they could not be preser­ued; so out of the Church we can not be sa­ued. Secondly, God by this doth shew his care to his Saints, that in their greatest [Page 2] dangers he is readiest to helpe them; for now the flood was at hand, and Noe had most need of comfort now. Thirdly, he saues the family for Noes sake. So then God for one iust mans sake doth blesse a great many.

Quest. How was Noah righteous before God?

Ans. Not by the workes of the Law, for so no flesh is iust before God, Rom. 3. but by Faith, Heb. 11. beleeuing in the promised Seed, and that God would performe his pro­mise in sending the flood, and Noah was iust, not before men, as hypocrits are, who desire onely to please men, but he was iust before God, only studying to haue his approbation, now God saued him not because he deserued it, but because hee would crowne his owne worke.

Q. How many cleane beasts were rere and in the Arke?

A. Not fourteenth of euery kinde as Justinus Martij, Origen, and others do thinke, but seauen of euery kinde, that is three cou­ple for procreation, and one Male for sacri­fice, now to thinke that foureteene were brought into the Arke, is vaine, both because so many of euery kinde would haue ouer­charged the Arke, as also because seuen were sufficient.

[Page 3]Q. Why would God haue more cleane then vncleane beasts in the Arke?

A. The vncleane were preserued onely for propogation, but the cleane. First, for pro­pogation. Secondly, for man to eate. Third­ly, for sacrifice. Therefore God would haue more cleane then vncleane, besides, by this God would teach vs two things. First, that there should bee more cleane then vncleane in the Church, as there was in the Arke, that is, more good then bad; for we are chosen to be holy and without blame. Ephes. 1. al­though it falles out otherwise that in Christs field there are more weedes then corne. Se­condly, his loue and care, in that he will haue but few of the vncleane saued, because the most part of them are wilde and cruell to man; and hurtfull to the cleane beasts, there­fore there are more Doues then Hawkes, Sheepe then Woolfes, yet some of these Sa­uadge beasts hee would preserue, that hee might vse them as instruments to punish mans rebellion.

Q. How is it vnderstood that some beasts are cleane some vncleane?

A. By nature all beasts are cleane because good. Gen. 1. 31. and there is nothing vn­cleane of it selfe, Rom. 14. 14. but some are [Page 4] called vncleane, because men doe account them so. Secondly, because they are not vsed for meate. Thirdly, because afterward by Moses Law they were excluded from being offered vp in sacrifice. Fourthly, because in them are some euill qualities and properties which God will haue vs to shunne.

Q. Was there any distinction of cleane and vncleane beasts before the flood?

A. Yes, Moses indeed did establish this distinction, but it was in vse amongst the fa­thers before him, and many things else. As, offering of the first fruits, Gen. 4. building of Altars. Gen. 8. paying of Tithes to the Priest. Gen. 14. yet all things that Moses comman­ded, were not obserued by the Patriarckes. For Moses did forbid to marrie with two si­sters: yet Iacob did with Leah and Rachel. Gen. 29. and he commanded to abstaine from some kinds of flesh, yet God giues permissi­on to Noe to eate of euery kinde of flesh. Gen. 9.

Q. How knew the fathers before Moses which were cleane and which vncleane?

A. Either by tradition of their Ancestors, or by reuelation from God, and not by any positiue law; yet we must obserue that this distinction was not in vse, in regard of [Page 5] meate, for it was lawfull to eate of any flesh. Gen. 9. but in regard of Sacrifice, and so Beeues, Sheepe, and Goates were only cleane for Sacrifice of beasts, and of fowles, only Turtle-doues, and Pigeons.

Q. Why would God haue seauen cleane beasts saued, and neither more nor lesse?

A. Besides that the number of seauen sig­nifieth sufficiencie and perfection in the Scripture, especially in sacrifices, as Numb. 23. 1. 14. 29. 1. Chron. 15. 26. &c. these seauen did containe three couples and one odde: one couple for procreation, an other for foode, and the third for sacrifice, the odde one which was a Male was ordained for that sa­crifice which Noe was to offer presently after the flood: which was rather a Male then a Female, because the Male is perfecter, and so all that we offer to God must be perfect.

Q. Why in the sixt Chapter speaketh Moses but of two, and here of seauen?

A. Here hee speaketh of the number of the cleane which is seauen; there hee spake not of the number, but of the order how they should be receiued, which was two and two, that is, the Male and his Female; and not ei­ther more Males or more Females.

Q. How were so many kinds of creatures [Page 6] brought into the Arke?

A. Noe did not wander vp and downe the world to gather them as Philo thought, for that required long time, and intollerable la­bour; neither did they swimme to the Arke when the flood came as others thinke, for they were in the Arke before the flood came, and the doore of the Arke was shut vpon them also before the flood, but they were driuen thither by the power of God, and the ministry of Angels, Non hominis actu, Sed dei natu saies Augustin. lib. 15. de Ciuit. cap. 17.

Q. Why was God so carefull that euery Male should haue his Female?

A. By this, God doth the second time con­firme marriage, for hee hath ordained it in Paradise, and confirmed it now; which to prohibite is impious, Christ did honour it with his first miracle, it is that type of that Vnion betweene Christ and his Church, it is the meanes to propagate mankinde and en­large the Church, and a remedie against for­nication, &c. therefore as here euery Male hath his Feamale, so euery man must haue his wife.

Q. Why doth God giue to Noe yet 7. daies?

A Not that Mathusalem should be ho­nourable buried and mourned for seauen [Page 7] dayes as the Iewes doe babble; but first that Noe now may make all things the sooner ready knowing the certaine day of the flood: secondly, to show how vnwilling God is yet to destroy the world, if they will repent, therefore he giueth yet seauen dayes, to see if they will forsake their euill waies.

Q. Why would God haue it raine fortie dayes.

A. So long time God did send raine be­cause he would destroy all the creatures with water: secondly, hee would not drowne all the world at an instant, but in the space of fortie dayes, that they might now haue the more time to consider how iust God was in performing his promise, and that it was no Fable that Noe did preach to them concer­ning the comming of the flood, and as God was fortie daies in pooring down his wrath, so was Moyses, Elias and Christ forty dayes in fasting, fortie yeares did the people wan­der in the Desart, fortie dayes respit was giuen to Niniue, fortie daies did Ezechiel beare the sinne of Iuda, fortie daies did Christ conuerse with his Disciples after his resurrection, and thrice fortie yeares, that is a hundred and twentie were giuen to the old world to repent.

[Page 8]Q. What yeare of the world was the floud sent?

A. The 1656 yeare of the world, which was the 600. yeare of Noah in the which yeare Mathusalem died, then the compu­tation of the Septuagints is false, which ma­keth their yeare to be the 2242. yeare of the world.

Q. What month was this which Moses calleth the second month?

A. Some doe thinke that this is not the second moneth of the yeare but the second moneth of Noahs life, So that now Noah was 600. yeare old and two moneths. O­thers againe thinke that this is the second month of the yeare, the which had two be­ginnings, the one at the moone which was next the equinoctiall vernall:—the other at the equinoctiall autumnall, that beginning of the yeare was sacred and appointed by God. Exod. 12. 2. this beginning was ciuill, then in ecclesiasticall matters, April was the second moneth, but in ciuill affaires, October was the second, and which of these two Mo­ses meanes here it is vncertaine, yet it is most probable that he meaneth of April. 1. to ex­tol Gods power the more, who did then send the stood when naturally the springs doe be­gin [Page 9] to dry, and the ayre to be clearer from cloudes. 2. to aggrauate their punishment the more, who then were drowned when the earth began to bee most pleasant and glori­ous. 3. to teach vs, neuer to be secure but still watching, for Christ will come as a theefe in the night, and when the wicked do say peace then shall sodaine destruction come.

Q. What is meant by the great deepe?

A. The deepe sometimes in Scripture sig­nifieth the Ocean sea. Job 38. 16. Psal. 106. 9. Sometimes the waters that are vnder the earth. Deut. 8. 7. Psal. 33. 7. but in this place the deepe signifieth both.

Q. What is meant by the windowes of hea­uen?

A. This speech is metaphorical and it signifi­eth the wōderful falling of the violent waters from aboue, these (windowes) then may sig­nifie the clouds, and (heauen) the middle re­gion of the aire. Some haue thought that these waters were aboue the heauens, but it is absurd to thinke that waters can be aboue the heauens, and that they should breake through so many heauens of the planites, and that of the fixed starres, for it is against the nature of the waters to consist so high, see­ing the lower parts of the world are his [Page 10] place, and it is against the nature of the hea­uen to be broken or opened with raine.

Q. What doth this flood signifie?

A. 1. The afflictions of the Church, for as this flood lasted but for a while, so doth af­flictions; as this flood was sent onely by God, so are afflictions, the higher the flood lifted the Arke, the neerer it was to heauen, so the more we are afflicted, the more wee loath this world and seeke for heauen. Noah is saued and the wicked are drowned in this flood, so afflictions are meanes to saue the Godly but destroy the Wicked, therefore great afflictions are called waters, Psal. 69. 1. 2. 15. vers. Secondly it is a type of our baptisme, 1. Pet. 3. 21. and both the flood and our bap­tisme are types of our, spirituall regenerati­on, for as Noah was saued and the wicked drowned. So we are saued and our sins are drowned in the blood of Christ.

Q. How high was the water of the flood?

A. 15. Cubites it was higher then the mountaines, yea Olimpus Atho and other mountaines of whose incredible height ma­ny false things hath beene recorded, were drowned in the flood, so then Gods wrath spareth not the mountaines, neither will hee spare the mightie potentates, learned and [Page 11] wise men of the world, how great and emi­nent soeuer they seeme to be, when his anger is kindled.

Q. Did all the creatures dye that were not in the Arke?

A. The Rabbins thinke that the fishes also perished because the waters did waxe hotte, but this is vncertaine, wee know that all that did breath died, but the fishes do not breath, because they want the instruments of brea­thing. 2. There is no ayre in the water for them to breath. 3. If they would breath in the water, so could men and other creatures. 4. If they did breath ayre in the water, then they would not dye when they come out of the water into the aire, therfore it is proba­ble that they were not killed; but whether these men that were drowned were also con­demned eternally or not, it is not for vs to inquire, yet those that did repent were doubt­lesse saued; as the theefe on the crosse.

Q. Was this flood all one with that of Ogy­ges and Deucalion.

A. No, for this flood was vniuersall, that of Ogyges was onely in the country of Atti­na, and that of Deucalion in Thessalia. 2. The flood of Noah was in the 1656. yeare of the world, but that of Ogyges was almost 540 [Page 12] yeares after, which was about the 90. yeare of the Patriarch Iacob, and the flood of Deu­calion was almost 770. yeares after the de­ludge of Noah, that is 230. after the flood of Ogyges about the 50. yeare of Moses.

Q. Was this flood sent by Gods immediate power, or was it wrought onely by naturall cau­ses?

A. It was not wrought by nature, 1. be­cause that which nature worketh, commeth to passe of necessity, without any intent of good or euill, now this flood was sent be­cause of the iniquity of that time, which na­ture knoweth not. So that if this flood had onely depended vpon nature, it would haue come whether the world had sinned or not; 2. if the starres were the cause of this flood, then they may be the cause of an other vni­uersall flood; but they cannot. For God hath promised that hee will not destroy the earth any more with water, Ergo. 3. the starres can­not extract, and the earth cannot yeeld such a quantity of vapors as may suffice to make anvniuersal flood to rise 15. cubits higher thē the mountaines: 4. as the flood did not cease by the power of natuare, but by the power of God that sent out a wind to dry the ground, so it was not sent but by the power of God, [Page 13] 5. in this narration God is onely nominated as the sole authour of this flood, therefore it was by his power onely that the flood was sent.

Q. How long did the flood preuaile vpon the earth?

A. A hundred and fiftie dayes, but whe­ther these dayes are to be reckoned from the beginning of the flood, as Lyrane, Ambrosius and others haue thought, or else from the end of these 40. dayes, in the which it did raine as Chrysostome, and some of the Iewish Rabbins doe thinke is vncertaine, but if wee meane the mountaines and all other parts of the earth, ouer which the waters did pre­uaile, then we must not reckon these dayes from the beginning of the flood, for all the earth was not so suddainely ouerflowed with water, but by degrees, therefore God did cause it to raine fourty dayes, at the end of which fourty dayes these hundred and fif­ty take their beginning, for so long did the water preuayle ouer all the parts of the earth.

Q. HOw did God remember Noah and the creatures?

A. Remembrance is the knowledge of things past, but to God all things are present, therefore properly hee doth neyther remember nor forget, but these words are vsed for our better vnderstanding, then because God did suffer Noah to remaine so long in the Arke as in a dungeon amongst stinking beasts, and tossed with the flood, he might be said to be forgetfull of him: and now because hee helpes and deliuers him from his troubles and miseries, he is saide to remember him, here wee see the Lord will not forsake his Saints altogether, he may leaue them for a while, but in his owne good time, he will come againe to them for their euerlasting comfort.

Q. Why did God remember also the beasts?

A. Not for their owne sakes, but because they were ordayned for the vse of man: yet [Page 15] two wayes God remembers the creatures. First as they are the works of his hands, so his prouidence is extended to all things, for a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without the will of our father. Mat. 10. Secondly, as they are made for the vse of man, and so God hath a more speciall care of them then if God remember the beasts, much more will he be mindfull of man.

Q. Was this a wind that God vsed to dry the earth, or was it the immediate power of the holy Ghost?

A. The Hebrew word Ruach signifieth both a spirit and the wind, but here it signi­fieth a wind onely, which he vseth to dry vp the waters, as afterwards he did to diuide the red sea for the people of Israel; yet we can­not say that this wind was generated of na­turall causes, as other winds are; or that na­turally it had that power to dry vp all that huge quantity of water, but this wind as it was sent extraordinarily by Gods immediate power, so it had an extraordinary and mira­culous force to driue away the waters from the face of the earth, yea contrary to the quality of other winds which causeth the water to rage, but this winde did asswage them.

[Page 16]Q. Why did God stay the raine and stoppe the windowes of heauen?

A. First, because now it was time, and hee had sufficiently reuenged himselfe vpon that rebellious world: secondly, to show his won­derfull goodnes, and to teach vs that he will not shut vp his mercy in displeasure for euer: thirdly, to show his mighty power, for at his command the fountaines of the deepe, were broken: and the windowes of heauen ope­ned, and at his command they are stop­ped and the raine restrained: fourthly, to teach vs obedience, for if these dumbe, deafe, and senselesse creatures doe with such alacri­tie obey Gods command, much more ought man indued with sense and reason: fifthly, to show vs what we should doe with our sinnes, as God stopped the fountaines that the wa­ter should flow no more, so should we stoppe the fountaines of sinne, least they burst forth into great floods and drowne both body and soule in euerlasting perdition.

Q. What mountaines are these which are called Ararat?

A. They are hils in Armenia, which coun­trey lyeth neere Assyria and Mesopotamia, these are thought to bee certaine toppes of the hill Cancasus, and though the Arke rested [Page 17] there, yet it followeth not that these were the highest hills in the world. And it is also ridiculous to thinke that some fragments of the Arke were found here in Hieromes time.

Q. How doe wee reckon this seuenth month in which the Arke rested?

A. Some reckon it from the beginning of the flood, but it is more probable, that it is to bee vnderstood from the beginning of the yeere, for so Moses doth vse it euery where in this narration, and to thinke that Moses should else-where in this narration speake of the moneths of the yeare, but hereof the moneths from the flood, were to make him speake ambiguously and doubtfully.

Q. Why did Noah open the window for the Rauen and the Doue, and did not looke out of it himselfe?

A. First, because hee was so stricken with feare of that fearefull iudgement that hee durst not: secondly, because he could not see farre and remote places, whether they were free from the water or not, but these fowles could flie abroad and so discerne.

Q. Why did Noah send out the Rauen, ra­ther then any other fowle?

A. Because the Rauen delighting in dead bodies, would bee allured by their smell to [Page 18] flie abroad, and so to giue a sure warrant of the setling of the water.

Q. Did the Rauin returne againe into the Arke or not?

A. The Latine and Greeke translations haue, that shee returned not, but by the He­brew it is doubtfull, yet it is thought of the most learned that shee did not returne. The Rauin doth resemble the Law which giueth no euidence to mans conscience, that the waters of Gods wrath are setled, because we cannot fulfill the Law; but the Doue resem­bleth the Gospel; who returning with an Oliue leafe doth signifie the glad tidings of peace, and reconciliation, which Christ on whome the holy Ghost discended in the forme of a Doue, hath brought into the world.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the Doue could finde no rest for the sole of her foote?

A. Indeede the tops of the mountaines were seene fortie daies before, yet although the waters were diminished and gone, the earth notwithstanding was slime, and mire as yet, therefore the Doue would not rest in the myre, and dirt, and she resembleth Gods Saints, that can finde no rest, but in the Church. Againe heere is the spectacle of [Page 19] Gods fearefull iudgement, that the Doue can not haue so much roome as to rest her foote, where before there were so many pleasant roomes for all the creatures to rest them­selues, so the end of sinne is Gods wrath, and the end of this is desolation.

Q. What signe did the Doue giue to Noah that the waters were abated?

A. Shee brought in her mouth one Oliue branch in the euening. That Doue resem­bleth the Preachers, the Oliue branch the Gospel, which is the tidings of peace; her mouth the preaching thereof, and the eue­ning, this latter age of the world, now it is thought because of Hieromes translation that this branch was greene, and this is probable enough, for though the waters did all this while preuail vpon the earth and deface the same, yet the Oliue might be preserued, be­cause it is one of these kinde of trees that are still greene, the Iewes prate that the Doue flew to Paradise and got this branch, because that onely was free from water, so Rab. Lenni. babbles that this branch was brought from the mount of Oliues, because that Iudea was not drowned with the flood, but these dreames are scarce worthy of reci­tation, much lesse of refutation.

[Page 20]Q. Why did Noah send out the Doue so often?

A. Because he will not venter to come a­broad till he be fully assured that the earth is drie, which now hee knowes fully, because the Doue returned not, so he would not rash­ly cast himselfe into danger, although he had beene so long in the Arke as in a stinking dungeon; but patiently did waite till the earth was drie, and the Doue was often im­ployed because of his good seruice; this should teach seruants to be faithfull to there Masters as the Doue was to Noah, and not to be like the Rauen. 2. This oft returning of the Doue doth show vs that when God is reconciled with vs, he will make his dumbe creatures to comfort vs rather then we shall want. 3. This practise of the Doue doth teach vs gratitude, for he labours to comfort and bring good newes to Noah, because of the care he had of him being in the Arke, so we should neuer forget a good deede. 4. We must bee louing and mercifull euen to the beasts, for we know not what extraordinarie comfort they may afford vs. 5. As the Doue returned no more into the Arke, hauing done her message, so when we haue finished that seruice which God hath inioyned to vs, [Page 21] wee shall leaue the Arke of this Militant Church and shall goe thither where our re­ward is reserued for vs.

Q. How can this stand, that the ground was drie in the first day of the first moneth of the 601. yeere, as it is set downe in the 13. verse, and the next verse showeth that the earth was dryed on the 27. day of the second moneth?

A. Both is true, for the first day of the first moneth the earth began to drie, so that the waters were quite remooued, but the earth was not perfectly drie till the 27. day of the second moneth, and by this reckoning also we see that Noah was in the Arke a full yeere, that is, 365. dayes: for he entred the Arke the 17. day of the second moneth in the 600. yeere, and there continued till the 27. day of the 2. moneth in the yeere 601.

Q. Why did not Noah goe out of the Arke till God spake to him?

A. Although it was now time for him to goe, seeing the earth was drie, yet such was his modestie and obedience, that as he did not enter the Arke without a warrant from God, so hee will not goe out without the same warrant, so should we depend on Gods mouth and doe nothing but what hee com­mandeth: for obedience is better then sa­crifice: [Page 22] secondly, wee see that many are the troubles of the righteous, but the Lord de­liuereth them out of all; Noah had suffered much griefe, sorrow, and feare, but now be­hold here is an end.

Q. Did the beasts also come out of the Arke at Noahs command?

A. Yes, for these dumbe creatures were obedient to Noah, because he was obedient to God. Againe, the beasts came out that they might increase and multiply, this bles­sing was giuen to the creatures in the creati­on, and the same is now renewed in the re­stauration of the world, and in that none of the creatures did wagge till Noah gaue way, and came out first himselfe, in this we haue the patterne of a well-ordered family, for there is the grace of God where the seruants obey their Masters, the Master feareth God, and all are ioyned together in loue and con­cord.

Q. What is the mysticall signification of the comming out of the creatures?

A. The Arke may signifie the Sinagogue, the beasts cleane and vncleane, the Jewes and Gentiles, their comming out doth signifie that both Iewes and Gentiles which beleeued in Christ, should come out of the Sinagogue, [Page 23] that is, forsake the Jewish ceremonies.

Q. Why did Noah build an Altar to God?

A. That by offering sacrifice on it, hee might testifie his thankful mind vnto God, 2. to teach his posteritie how they should serue God for any blessing receiued, he offered sa­crifice for his deliuerance vpon an Altar of earth, and we must offer the sacrifice of prai­er and thanks-giuing vpon our Altar Christ. He offered to God the cleane beasts, and wee must offer to him cleane soules and bodies, which is our reasonable seruing of him, his sacrifice was a burnt offering, and ours must be a broken spirit.

Q. Of what matter was this Altar made?

A. It is most like that it was made of earth, for this law was giuen after by Moses; Exod. 20. verse 24. An Altar of earth thou shalt make to mee: secondly, this kinde of Altar was most vsuall, euen amongst the Gentiles, Hic viuum mihi cespitem, hic verbe­nas pueri ponite thuraque, Horat. lib. 1. od. 19. thirdly, by this Noah will teach vs, that God delights not in external pompe and splen­dor; he loueth the giuer more then the gift, and the widdowes mite more then the rich mans sinnes. For nunquam est manus vacua à munere, si area cordis repleta sit bona voluntate. [Page 24] Gregorie in Hom.

Q. Had Noah any expresse command to build an Alter?

A. We doe not reade that God did ex­pressely command this, yet wee may gather by consequence that Noah did not this with­out warrant. First, it was ancient to serue God after this manner, as we see in the per­sons of Caine and Habel. Secondly, Noah did nothing without Gods warrant, without this he did not build the Arke, nor enter therein; nor come out from thence, much lesse would he build an Altar. Thirdly, we see that God smelled a sauour of rest in his sacrifice, which could not be if it had beene offered without Gods direction. Fourthly, Noah knew that the seauenth beast was receiued into the Arke not for procreation but for Sacrifice. Fifthly, he did questionlesse beleeue in Christ our perfect Sacrifice, therefore he could not testifie his faith better then to build an Altar and offer a sacrifice.

Q. Why would God bee worshipped by Sa­crifices?

A. First, because he will haue them by this kinde of exercise, to vse themselues to bee thankfull to him, for though hee be a spirit and delighteth more in a contrite spirit, then [Page 25] in burnt offerings, yet because of their dul­nesse, he would haue them worship him with visible offerings. Secondly, these sacrifices were types of Christ, whose body was to bee offered for them; and no sacrifice without relation to Christ could be acceptable. Third­ly, Least the people wanting these visible signes, should fall to idolatry, seeing other nations vsed sacrifice and they not.

Q. Where did Noah offer this sacrifice?

A. The Iewes thinke it was vpon Mount Sion, where Cain and Abel did offer before; and on which Isaac was to be sacrificed, but it is more probable that this was done vpon the mountaines—of Armenia, where the Arke rested.

Q. What doth it signifie that God smelled a sauour of rest in Noahs sacrifice?

A. That it was acceptable vnto him, not in respect of the offering it selfe (for it is im­possible that the blood of calues and goates should take away sinne. Heb. 10. 4.) but God did accept of it; because it was offered in faith, secondly, with a willing minde, thirdly, because it had relation to Christ, who had giuen himselfe to be an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God. Eph. 5. 2.

[Page 26]Q How is it vnderstood that God would curse the earth no more for mans sake?

A. That is that God would not at any time ouerwhelme the earth with water; de­priue her of her fertility, inhabitants and or­naments as he had before, yet this doth not exclude particular cursings vpon particular houses, townes, or countries, nor that vniuer­sall fire by which the world shall bee purged in the last dayes; and this couenant that God made with Noah concerning the wa­ters, is the figure of that euerlasting coue­nant of peace which the father hath made with vs in Christ.

Q. Which is the imagination of mans thought euill from his youth?

A. Because of originall sinne; which all men drawes from Adam, for hee was the roote of mankinde, and such a nature wee haue from him, as he had himselfe; that is corrupted with sinne: then all mankinde is subiect to this euill, because all are from A­dam. Secondly, all the nature of man, that is his body with the parts thereof, his soule with the faculties thereof are defiled. Third­ly, it bindes all men to death both temporall and eternall. Fourthly, it depriues vs of Gods image and of all his blessings, and is [Page 27] the cause of all our infirmities and of all our actuall sinnes.

Q. Why will not God destroy all liuing things as he did?

A. Because mans imagination is so euill from his youth, that if he should punish him as he deserued, hee should euery age send a flood, for there is none that doth good, no not one. Psal. 12. So then that hee spareth vs, it is to be attributed to his mercy, not to our merits.

Q. Is God the cause that mans imagination is euill from his youth?

A. No, he made man holy, but hee fell of his owne accord, God then is the cause of mans heart and of his imaginations, but not of the corruptions and vitiositie thereof, and yet he doth permit sinne, because he vseth it for a scourge to the wicked, and for a means to aduance his owne glory.

Q. What doth God besides promise Noah?

A. That all the dayes of the earth, seede time and haruest heate and cold, &c. should not cease, in which words he sheweth vs the renouation of the world, which answers to the creation. Before the creation there was confusion and darkenesse, and so likewise be­fore this renouation, in the creation God [Page 28] made the lights of heauen, now hee restores them: then he gaue man dominion ouer the creatures, now he restores the same, as God gaue man foode then, so he doth now, man was then created to Gods image, and the same is now mentioned, God made a lawe then that man should not eate of the forbid­den tree, and here hee commands that man shall not shed blood, they receiued a bles­sing then to increase and multiply, the same they now receiue?

Q. Shall there be summer and winter, night and day, &c. so long as the earth remaineth?

A. Yes, so long as the earth remaineth in that state it doth now; subiect to generation and corruption in the parts thereof, and ob­noxious to many imperfect qualities, which at the last day shall be abolished, the sub­stance remaining for euer, and then the sum­mer and winter shall cease. Againe, that which is spoken here, is meant of the world in generall, and not of particular countries and times, for there was neither seede time nor haruest for the space of three yeares sixe moneths in Eliahs time, and in the land of Egypt there was no distinction of day and night for three dayes, because all that time there was darkenesse, and in the dayes of [Page 29] Josua the sunne stood still a whole day.

Q. Why doth God speake onely of summer and winter, and not of the other two parts of the yeare?

A. Because these are the two principall parts of the yeare and most opposite, the o­ther two depends on these, and participates of their qualities, the spring then and haruest being both hot and cold, in the one they a­gree with Summer, in the other with Winter. So likewise here is mentioned onely heate and colde, because these two qualities are more actiue and forcible in generation, and because more sensible, then moyst or dry, so seede time and haruest are onely named, be­cause sowing and mowing are the most vsu­all and profitable actions amongst men.

Q. Doth God promise to Noah onely these temporall blessings, as heate and cold, summer and winter, and not spirituall?

A. Hee promiseth these temporall bles­sings, and vnder them spirituall. For as the stability of the world is promised, so the sta­bility of grace in Christ is included, and vsu­ally in Scripture vnder earthly shadowes spi­rituall blessings are couenanted. Canaan was a type of heauen. Dauids kingdome of Christs spirituall kingdome. Solomons temple [Page 30] of Christs Church, therefore altars, priests, and sacrifices of Christ our golden Altar, our high priest, our sweete smelling sacrifice, a­gaine we must note that oftentimes God al­tereth the seasons and qualities of the ayre, but it is for our sins, therefore when wee see cold summers, hot winters, raging stormes, excesse of heate and cold, drinesse and moist­nesse, let vs leaue to trouble God with our sinnes, and he will leaue to trouble vs with his plagues, moreouer let vs not fixe our chiefest happinesse in these temporall bles­sings. But let vs looke to him that is the gi­uer and the end of all, euen Iesus Christ the authour and finisher of our faith. And last­ly, let not these blessings be motiues of secu­rity, but rather stirre vs vp to be thankfull to him, that prouides all things necessarie for this life, and a crowne of righteousnesse for the life to come.

Q. VVHy doth God first of all blesse Noah with increase of children?

A. Because of earthly blessings this was the greatest, the earth being now voide of mankind, and Noah knew not till now, whe­ther it was lawfull to beget children, seeing God had destroyed mankinde. Secondly, to teach vs to account our children chiefe ef­fects of Gods blessing, and to bee thankfull to him for them, behold children are the in­heritance of the Lord, and the fruite of the womb his reward. Psal. 127. 3.

Q. Is this blessing all one with that which Adam had in paradise?

A. Yes, in respect of the matter, but not of the manner, for then procreation of chil­dren should not haue beene painefull. Se­condly, not inordinate, thirdly, not imper­fect.

Q. How could this blessing belong to Noah, [Page 32] seeing he had no children after the flood?

A. Although this blessing was fulfilled in his children, yet it is giuen to him, because he beeing the roote, their increase was his in­crease. Secondly, because he was found righ­teous before God, and God smelled a sauour of rest in his sacrifice. Thirdly, to let his children know that this blessing did belong to them onely for their iust fathers sake.

Q. Is euery increase the blessing of God?

A. All that are lawfully procreated are Gods blessings both in respect of the childe begotten, and in respect of the manner of be­getting, but those that are not begotten in marriage doe not proceede of Gods bles­sing, in regard of the manner of procreation, howsoeuer in themselues they may bee the effects of Gods blessing. Secondly, the in­crease of all other creatures doe proceede of Gods blessing, but for mans sake for whom they were created.

Q. Which is the second prerogatiue that God giueth now to Noah and his sonnes?

A. That their feare and terrour may bee vpon al the beasts, fowles, fishes and creeping things, this dominion had Adam, but after a more excellent manner, for the creatures were subiect of their owne accord, now of [Page 33] feare and by constraint, and although that man hath power to rule ouer the beasts with feare, yet great men must not rule their infe­riour brethren with feare, but rather with loue, for Viri sancti non praeesse gaudent homini­bus sed prodesse. Greg. mor. lib. 21, cap. 11.

Q. Hath man this dominion ouer all the creatures and at all times?

A. No: For the wilde asse derideth the multitude of the Citie, and heareth not the crie of the driuer, Iob 39. 10. the Vnicorne will not serue, nor will he tarrie by the crib, verse 11. the hawke doth not flee by our wisedome; neither doth the Eagle mount vp at our command, vers. 29. and 30. we cannot draw out Leuiathan with an hooke, neither peirce his Iawes with an angle Chap. 40. ver. 20. and 21. Againe, many beasts are feare­full to man, and often times noysome, as Ly­ons, Woolfes, Beares, &c. God threatneth to send wilde beasts amongst his people which should spoyle them. Leu. 26. 22. the Pro­phet was slaine by a Lyon. 1. King. 13. 24. two Beares did teare in peeces 42. children, 2. King. 2. 24.

Q. Then how is it that the feare of man is vpon the creatures?

A. First, in that they cannot doe that [Page 34] harme to man which they would, because God restraines their power: secondly, they do not offend man but when he offends God: thirdly, in respect that euery nature of wilde beast, &c. hath beene tamed of the nature of man. Iam. 3. 7. fourthly, euen the most sa­uadge beasts stand in feare of man; they flee his companie, they shun his arts and snares, they feare his voyce and shadow: fifthly, be­cause they serue man and submit themselues to his will, the Horse yeelds his mouth to the bridle, the Oxe his necke to the yoake, the Cow her dugges to our hands, the Sheepe her wooll to the sheerers, &c.

Q. Seeing then God hath deliuered the crea­tures into our hands, may wee vse them as wee lust?

A. We may vse them, but not abuse them: first, wee must not cause the [...] trauell on the Sabbath day, Exod. 10. 10. secondly, we must not couet our neighbours beast. Exod. 20. 17. thirdly, wee must not vse them vn­mercifully, for we shall not muzzle the Oxe when he treadeth out the corne. Deut. 25. 4.

Q. Which is the third prerogatiue that Noah hath?

A. That it shall bee lawfull for him to vse euery liuing thing for meate: whereas be­fore [Page 35] the flood it was not vsuall to eate flesh, because the hearbes were sufficient, and the people were then of a stronger constitution of body; but now God giueth libertie to eate flesh: first, because mans strength began to decay: secondly, the earth was not able to yeeld that increase of hearbs which it did before: thirdly, because God will incourage Noah and his family the more, being out of heart to see the miserable state of the earth: fourthly, because hee will tye them to bee more thankfull to him; for the more bles­sings we receiue, the more are we bound to serue God: fifthly, because hee will by this teach man that it is abomination to worship any beast in respect that we must eate them, and that which we eate cannot be God.

Q. Is flesh more conuenient for mans body then hearb [...]

A. Yes, e [...]e it had beene no great blessing to haue receiued the vse of flesh, and that flesh doth nourish more it is knowne by the Phisitians, who prescribe flesh to their pati­ents but not hearbes: secondly, we see by ex­perience that those who feede most on flesh, are more lustie and strong, then they who feede on hearbes: thirdly, that is best foode which is most neere to the nature of him [Page 36] that eates it, but flesh is neerer to the nature of mans body, then hearbes: fourthly, that foode is best, which is most temperate in heate and colde, because mans body is of this temperature, but this is flesh; for hearbs doe exceede in the qualities of heate and colde, drinesse and moystnesse: fifthly, those that doe macerate their bodies, doe vse common­ly to abstaine from flesh and not from hearbs and fruite.

Q. Is it lawfull then to eate flesh?

A. To him that is pure all things are pure; Gods children may eate any thing if it be re­ceiued with thankes, for the beasts were created not only to serue but also to feede man; and good reason hath man to kill the beasts for his foode: both because God hath giuen him authoritie so to do [...] also, be­cause Noah preserued in the [...] the beasts from drowning, and man doth yet preserue their life in prouiding and caring for them. Therefore he should receiue this benefite of them; but as for the wicked they haue no interest other then ciuil in any of Gods crea­tures, they eate and drinke not by right, but by vsurpation, if wee consider the freedome of grace.

Q. Was it not lawfull before the flood, to eate flesh?

[Page 37]A. In my opinion it was lawfull, because there was no law against it: secondly, the beasts were created to be eate: thirdly, their flesh then was as nourishing as now: fourth­ly, they before the flood had their flockes of sheepe not only to cloath their nakednesse with their skinnes: but also to satisfie their hungers with their flesh: but although it was lawfull, yet it was not much vsuall, especial­ly amongst the Saints: first, because they had no positiue law to eate flesh as now: se­condly, the earth then beeing in her full vi­gour yeelds store of excellent hearbs: third­ly, mans nature then was stronger, but now after the flood his strength begins to decay and his yeeres to shorten. For before the flood some liued till they were 900. yeeres and vpwar [...] but after the flood, Arphaxad who was [...] borne, liued little more then 400. yeeres, and after Abraham none liued longer then Isaac, and hee did not exceede 180. yeeres, and Moses confesseth that in his time their yeeres were 70. Psal. 90. 10.

Q. How shall we lawfully eate flesh?

A. First, if we eate it with thanksgiuing, acknowledging God the benefactour. Se­condly, if we eate it with sobrietie, not with ryot. Thirdly, if we eate it not at these times [Page 38] which are prohibited by the Church and the Magistrate. Fourthly, if wee eate it so that we bee not vnmindfull of Christ when hee is hungred in his members. Fifthly, if wee re­member that God gaue vs power to kill and eate flesh after the flood, that we may learne to kill and destroy our fleshly nature, after our Baptisme.

Q. How is it vnderstood that blood is the soule or life of the creature?

A. Blood is not properly the life, but be­cause it is the signe of life, therefore it is cal­led life figuratiuely: as bread is called Christs body. Secondly, because the animall life is in the blood, and preserued by the blood: therefore here continens is taken for contentum.

Q. Why is the life preserued in the blood?

A. Because the life consisteth in heate and moisture, and such is the temperature of the blood: secondly, the vitall spirits wherein the life doth most consist are generated of the blood: thirdly, because the life cannot continue without nourishment: but blood is the last and chiefest nourishment of the creature.

Q. Why did God prohibite the eating of blood?

[Page 39]A. Because by this he will teach vs to ab­staine from murther and crueltie: secondly, in that the life consisteth in the blood, hee will teach vs that he hath onely power ouer the life, and therefore ouer the blood: third­ly, to shunne Idolatrie and offering of blood to images. For if we must not eate the blood much lesse may we offer it: fourthly, to teach them sobrietie in eating: fifthly, by interdi­cting of blood he will accustome them to be obedient to him, to acknowledge him as their Lord. Therefore he will haue them to eate that which he pleaseth, and to abstaine from that which he prohibits; for this cause he did forbid Adam to eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill: sixthly, be­cause he hath giuen it to be offered vpon the Altar to make an attonement for our soules. Leuit. 17. 11.

Q. Is it not lawfull for Christians to eate blood?

A. Yes, for abstinence from blood was ceremoniall amongst the Iewes, which is a­brogated by Christs comming: therefore not onely haue we power to eate blood, but Christ also saith, Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, yee can haue no life in you. Ioh. 6.

[Page 40]Q. Then why did the Apostles prohibite ea­ting of blood. Act. 15.

A. Because the Iewes did abhorre the ea­ting of blood: therefore least they should giue an occasion to the Iewes to seperate themselues from the Church; they in wise­dome thought it fit that the Christians for a while should abstaine from blood, so then in matters indifferent we must bee carefull that we offend not our weake brethren, o­therwaies that which entreth in at the mouth cannot defile the man. Matth. 15.

Q. What is meant by this, that God will re­quire the blood of our liues?

A. This is the reason why he will not haue them to eate blood: he will not haue them to shed mans blood: which if they doe he will require it, that is, he will seeke it out and punish the shedding of it; so then God is he that maketh inquisition for blood. Psal. 9. 12. And by this wee see his fatherly care of vs, who is our defender and the reuenger of our blood: secondly, that none hath pow­er to reuenge shedding of blood, but God and his vicegerent the magistrate: thirdly, that it is a fearefull sinne to shed blood, whe­ther it bee our owne or the blood of others. For God will surely inquire and punish it.

[Page 41]Q. May wee not then shed our owne blood vpon a iust occasion?

A. No occasion should cause vs to shedde our owne blood. For if we cannot murther our brother, much lesse our selues: neither must we murther our selues because Sampson did so; for he did not intend to kill himselfe by pulling downe of the house, but to kill the enemies of God. Againe, he was an extraor­dinary person, and the type of Christ in this, and therefore not to bee imitated, neither must we kill our selues vpon pretence to bee with Christ, because we must so long remaine in this warfare till our captaine Iesus com­mandeth vs to depart.

Q. How is it vnderstood that God will re­quire our blood at the hands of beasts?

A. By the beasts here we vnderstand not the diuels, as Origenes, nor cruell and sauage men as others doe thinke, but these words are to be vnderstood of beasts so called pro­perly, that if they shed mans blood, they shall be killed, as it was afterward ordained by Moses law, if an oxe gore a man, hee shall be stoned, &c. Exod 21. 28. and this should teach vs to abhorre shedding of blood, for if the beasts shall bee killed for shedding blood, much more shall man.

[Page 42]Q. How will God require the life of man at the hand of a mans brother?

A. By brother here is meant any other man, for God made all mankinde of one blood. Act. 17. 26. and this word brother doth teach vs mercy and loue, for it is vnna­turall for one brother to kill another, and if all men be brethren by nature, much more are Christians in Iesus Christ, and therefore hatred and murther amongst them is more fearefull then amongst others that knowes not Christ.

Q. Shall his blood bee shed that sheddeth the blood of man?

A. Yes, it should be shed both by the laws of God and man; this same is mentioned, Mat. 26. Reu. 13. yet oftentimes it falleth out that murtherers doe escape the magi­strate, notwithstanding they cannot escape the hand of God; for men of blood shall not liue out halfe their dayes, Psal. 55. 24.

Q. Then what shall we say of the magistrate that sheddeth blood, and of him that sheddeth blood against his will?

A. The magistrate is Gods vicegerent appointed not to shed the blood of man, but the blood of the manslayer, he beareth not the sword in vaine, for he is the minister of [Page 43] God, a reuenger to execute wrath vpon him that doth euill. Rom. 13. 4. as for him that killeth vnawares, the Cities of refuge were prouided that they might flye thither. Num. 35. 11. but he that presumptuously killeth, must be taken from the Altar that he may dye. Exod. 21. 14. and if this kinde of mur­ther be prohibited, much more is that wher­by wee murther our brothers soule, eyther with poysoning them with false doctrine, or else by prouoking them to sinne, therefore Satan is called a man-slayer from the begin­ning.

Q. Why must not the blood of man be shed?

A. Because hee is made in the image of God, therefore he that spoiles and abuses the Kings image disgracefully, doth abuse the king himselfe, and much more is God a­bused when his liuely image is defaced. Se­condly, wee see that the image of God in man after the fall is not vtterly abolished, but some reliques yet doe remaine. Third­ly, it is not for any worthinesse in man that God will haue his life preserued; but because of his owne image. Fourthly, if man bee made to Gods image, then let not the rich despise the poore; nor the learned the igno­rant, nor the wise the foolish, nor great men [Page 46] their inferiours, because they were all made in the image of God.

Q. Why doth God againe repeate this bles­sing of increase and multiplication?

A. To signifie that euen for this hee doth abhorre murther, because it is an hinderance to multiplication. Secondly, to teach vs that as multiplicgtion proceedes of his blessing, so destruction and mortality doth insue of his wrath. Therefore when God hinders multiplication, either by samine, plague, or sword, we may be sure that he is angry with vs.

Q. Why did God make a couenant with Noah?

A. To confirme his faith the more, al­though his word is sufficient, yet for our comfort and strengthening he many times is forced to confirme his promises by oathes and couenants. Therefore he will not haue Noah and his posterity to thinke, that sup­pose he sends cloudes and raine many times, that he will destroy the earth any more with water. Secondly, by this couenant he signi­fies and represents the internall and eternall couenant of grace, made and confirmed by the blood of Christ. For if hee be carefull to saue our bodies from water, much more to [Page 45] saue our soules from eternall fire. Thirdly, in that he maketh his couenant, not onely with Noah, but with his seede. It sheweth that our children are not excluded from the couenant of grace. Fourthly, in this coue­nant we see the largenesse of his loue who is not contented to make it with one person, fa­mily or countrey, but withall Noahs posteri­ty, then who is able to comprehend the bredth and length and depth and height of the loue of God.

Q. Why did God make a couenant with the beasts and foules?

A. Not for their owne sakes, but for man, for as God made them for his sake, so for his sake he blesseth them and makes his couenant with them; Secondly, to teach vs that if he hath such care of the beasts; farre greater care will he haue ouer vs, Oh we of little faith.

Q. Why did God confirme his couenant with a signe?

A. For the confirmation of our faith and strengthening of our memory, as commonly he vseth; so he confirmed our mortification by circumcision, heauen by Canaan, the death of Christ by sacrifices, our regeneration by water; our spirituall foode by bread and [Page 46] wine, &c. and these are the signes of grace, or rather seales different from these miraculous signes of glory, as the fierie piller, the cloud, the firie bush, the rod of Moses; the dry­ing of the red sea, the rocke that yeelded wa­ter.

Q. Which was this signe of the couenant?

A. The raine-bow which is called his bow. First, because he made it, secondly, be­cause of the wonderfulnes thereof; therefore it is called by the Poet Thaumantia proles, thirdly, because he by his speciall ordinance did ordaine it; to be a sacramentall signe of mercy; againe it is called the raine-bow, be­cause it is in the cloud, in the day of raine. E­zech. 1. 28. Secondly, because it signifies that the world shall neuer be drowned any more with raine, moreouer, it is called a bow, be­cause of the likenesse it hath with a bow. Se­condly, because as a bow in Scripture is vsed for a signe of warres, so the raine-bow natu­rally is the signe of waters, although God hath now made it a signe not of waters, but of deliuerance from waters.

Q. Why did God set his bow in the clouds?

A. That it might bee the more conspicu­ous and in the sight of all. Secondly, because it is a watrie meteor generated in the clouds [Page 47] by the reflexion of the sunne. Thirdly, for our greater comfort, for there God would place it, where the greatest feare and danger of water is, to witte in the clouds. Therefore now we neede not feare the clouds, because their waters are sealed with this bow, that they shall not any more drowne the earth. Fourthly, the clouds are oftentimes the signe of Gods presence and fauor, as here the bow is set in the clouds, a cloud went before the Israelites, the Lord gaue the law in a cloud vpon mount Sinay, the Tabetnacle was filled with a cloud, and in a cloud God appeared in Salomons Temple, the clouds are his pauilion, Psal. 18. and his charret. Psal. 104. Christ was transfigured in a cloud; in a cloud he as­cended, and in the cloudes of heauen hee shall come againe to iudge the quicke and dead.

Q. Is that opinion of Ambrose sound, who thinketh that this bow is not meant of the raine­bow, but rather figuratiuely of the secret power of God?

A. No: for here it is expresly meant of that bow which is in the clouds, which is none else but the rainebow; Secondly, this narration of Moses is historicall, but that o­pinion of Ambrose is allegoricall. Thirdly, his [Page 48] opinion is contrary to the opinion of all the greeke and latine Fathers.

Q. Doth the raine-bow naturally signifie that the earth shall not bee drowned with wa­ter?

A. No: for although the raine-bow in respect of the matter and generation thereof be naturally, yet as it is a signe of Gods mer­cy and deliuerance from water, it is superna­turall, then there is no naturall relation be­tweene the raine-bow and an vniuersall flood, because such a flood cannot proceede of naturall causes but onely by Gods power, yet naturally it doth signifie some moderate raine to follow, because it is generated not when the whole face of heauen is couered with thicke clouds, but when there are some thinne and dewey cloudes opposite to the sunne.

Q. Why did God rather make the raine­bow the signe of his couenant, then any thing else?

A. Because amongst the celestiall bodies, there is none more wonderfull, conspicuous and glorious then this; and therefore fittest to be the signe of such a couenant betweene God and vs; Secondly, the couenant is, that God will restraine the waters from drow­ning [Page 49] the earth againe; this is seene in the bow, wherein there is water but temperated with light, with light heate is ioyned, and heate is that which restraines immoderate raine: thirdly, the effect of his couenant is peace and reconciliation, and this is signified by the Raine-bow; which wanteth both string and arrow. For hee shot his arrow a­gainst the first world, and hath broke the string because he is reconciled to vs: fourth­ly, the Raine-bow naturally signifieth a mo­derate raine, therefore it was fittest to signi­fie supernaturally restraint from inordinate raine; fifthly, the flood proceeded from the clouds, and this Bow is generated in the clouds: therefore fittest of all to assure vs that wee shall not bee drowned with the im­moderate raining of the clouds.

Q. Was the Raine-bow before the flood or not?

A. It was in respect of the matter there­of. For seeing before the flood, the Sunne and the Clouds were, which are the causes of the Raine-bow, it could not be but that the Raine-bow was also. Yet it was not till now, in respect of that sacramentall relation it hath with Gods mercy, for it was no signe of the couenant till now.

[Page 50]Q. Shall there be no Raine-bow as some haue thought, fortie yeeres before the last iudgement?

A. If this were true, then the time of the last iudgement should bee knowne; but of that houre and day knoweth no man: se­condly, if in that space there should bee no Bow, then there should be neither raine nor clouds: but famine, miserie and mortalitie, but Christ testifies the contrarie, for men shall be eating and drinking, marrying, &c. and therefore there shall be great ioy and plentie: thirdly, the Raine-bow is the signe of that couenant which God made, not only with Noah, but with all his posteritie, and therefore shall continue till the end of the world.

Q. What relation is there betweens the Raine-bow and Christ?

A. As the Raine-bow is the signe of that olde and temporarie couenant, so is Christ the Angel of the new and eternall couenant: secondly, as the Raine-bow is generated of the light of the Sunne, which light is all one with that, which is in the bodie of the Sunne. So is Christ begotten of the substance of his Father, light of light, God of God, from all eternitie: thirdly, as the Raine-bow doth consist of the light of the Sunne, but some­what [Page 51] obscurer, because couered with a cloud: So Christ doth consist of the nature of God, which for a while did lurke vnder the vaile of his humanitie: fourthly, as God did ma­nifest himselfe vnto Ezechiel in the Raine-bow; so he hath reuealed himselfe to vs in his Sonne Christ: fifthly, as the generation of the Raine-bow is wonderfull; so is the two-fold generation of Christ more wonder­full. Yea his name shall be called wonderfull, Isaiah 9. 6. sixthly, as in the Raine-bow there are three colours, so in Christ there are three offices, to wit of a King; of a Priest, and a Prophet: seauenthly, as in the Raine­bow there is colour of fire and water, so in Christ there is fire to purge vs, and water to coole and manure vs: eighthly, as the Raine-bow ( [...]euel. 4.) did compasse the throne round about: so doth Christ, with his power and prouidence defend the Church which is his throne: ninthly, as we should looke vpon the Raine-bow, and comfort our selues, when we feare any inundation of wa­ters; so should we with the eyes of faith, looke vpon our Redeemer when we feare the inundation of his Fathers wrath.

Q. What vse should we make of the conside­ration of the Raine-bow?

[Page 52]A. First, it should comfort: for if God was so carefull to confirme this temporall couenant with a signe, much more carefull will he be to confirme that couenant which he hath made with vs in Christ: secondly, when wee see it, let vs with the Iewes lift vp our hands and hearts to him; that not only made the couenant, but hath also euer kept it till now: thirdly, let vs learne to feare him, and auoide sin; that as we haue escaped the flood, which is signified by the waterish colour; so wee may escape that deuouring fire which shall destroy the beauty of this world, represented to vs by that fierie colour which we see in the raine-bow. Fourthly, let vs acknowledge our owne imbecility and in­credulity seeing God is compelled to con­firme his couenants and promises by such like externall signes. Fifthly, as the raine­bow hath no light nor beauty, but that which it hath from the sunne. So let vs acknow­ledge, that we haue no grace nor perfection but that which we receiue from the sonne of righteousnesse. Sixthly, let vs in beholding of the raine-bow, acknowledge that the mer­cy of the Lord is aboue all his workes, for in a litle wrath and for a moment he hid his face from vs, but with euerlasting kindnes he hath [Page 53] had mercy vpon vs. Es. 54. 8.

Q. How will God remember Noah when he seeth the bow?

A. God doth not properly remember, because he doth not forget, and hee cannot forget, because he is most perfect, and all things are present to him; yet for our better vnderstanding hee is said to remember and forget after the manner of men, yet this and such like attributes are in God not subiectiue as they are in vs, but Causaliter; then he will remember, that is, he will cause vs to remem­ber.

Q. Nhy doth Moses make mention of the three sonnes of Noah?

A. First, to let vs see the effect of Gods blessing in the multiplication of mankinde, how that of these three the whole world was so suddainely replenished. Secondly, to let vs know the propagation and increase of the Church, which is his chiefest drift. Thirdly, to let vs see the wickednesse of Cham to his father, and the cruelty of his posterity against the Church of God. Fourthly, that we might know that the propagation of mankind doth not depend on fortune, or the starres, or that they were from eternity.

Q. Had Noah any more sonnes besides [Page 54] these three?

A. No: for if he had, the Scripture would haue named them, as well as the children of other Patriaches, at least in generall, that they begat sonnes and daughters. Secondly, Moses in this and the next chapter sheweth that these three did multiply the world, ther­fore it is not likely that he had any more.

Q. What was the cause that Noah had no more children?

A. Not because he was gelded by his son Cham as the Hebrewes thinke, for that is fa­bulous. But first because these three were suf­ficient. Secondly, he was now very old & not fit for procreation. Thirdly, he did enioy the blessing of multiplication in his children Fourthly, because of his chastity and tempe­rance which hee did more regard then the propagation of children.

Q. Why amongst all the children of Cham, onely Canaan is named here?

A. Because amongst all Chams children, Canaan and the Canaanites were most noto­rious in wickednesse. Secondly, because Ca­naan and his posterity were cursed, of which he speaketh here, verse 25. Thirdly, to ani­mate the Jewes (for now the time was neere, that they should take possession of their [Page 55] land) to goe with courage against them, see­ing they were an accursed nation.

Q. Was Canaan borne in the Arke as Chrysostome thinketh?

A. No: for eight persons onely went in­to the Arke, and onely eight came out from thence; Secondly, in that dolefull time that they were in the Arke, neither man nor beast did giue themselues to procreation.

Q. How is it vnderstood that Noah began now to be an husbandman?

Q. Not that he was none before, but that now he began againe after the flood to fol­low that calling, so we reade that Christ be­gan to say, Luk. 12. 1. and he began to cast out them that bought and sold in the Tem­ple. Mark. 11. 15. that is, he did say, and did cast out, &c. or, he began to be an husband­man, that is, he inuented some other way to till the ground then before, or thirdly, he be­gan, that is, he did more painefully till the ground then before, because it was made more barren by the flood: here then we see, that although Noah was righteous and an old man, yet hee doth not giue himselfe to idlenesse, and neglecteth his calling, so no pretence should hinder vs from following our vocation so long as we are able.

[Page 56]Q. Was Noah the first inuenter of drinking wine?

A. Yes: for if it had been in vse before the flood, Noah had not beene ouertaken with it immediately after the flood. Secondly, we doe not reade that there was any drinking of wine till now. Thirdly, seeing the earth did bring forth most excellent and comfortable hearbs, and the fountaines did yeeld most pleasant waters, and the bodies of men were stronger, there was no such neede of wine before the flood as after; yet we deny not but there were grapes before the flood, and men did eate of them, as they did of other fuits?

Q. But seeing the earth was spoyled with the flood, whence had Noah vines?

A. As other herbes and trees did spring out of the earth being warmed by the sunne. So questionlesse did vines, although not so excellent as before the flood; and Noah by his tillage and husbandry made them better, but we must not thinke that he gaue himselfe altogether to planting of vines neglecting other trees and hearbs, but here is onely spoken of vines, because Moses is to speake of Noahs drunkennesse, and the effects there­of.

[Page 57]Q. Why was Noah so desirous to plant a vineyard?

A. Because he knew that the strength of mans body began to decrease, and wine doth strengthen. Secondly, the earth did not yeeld that increase which it did before. Therefore wine would supply in a manner the defect of hearbs and plants. Thirdly, he knew that wine did comfort the heart, and at that time he stood in neede of it, because questionlesse he was much giuen to sorrow and griefe to see the desolation of the earth.

Q. Did Noah ill in drinking of the wine?

A. No: for who planteth a vine and doth not eate of the fruite thereof? 1. Cor. 9. 7. it is lawfull to vse the creatures of God with thanksgiuing, for euery creature of God is good, &c. 1. Tim. 4. 4. Wine was created to comfort mans heart. Psal. 104. Yea Paul de­sireth Timothy to vse a little wine for his sto­mackes sake. 1. Tim. 5. 2. Christ did drinke wine himselfe, and ordained that in the sa­crament vnder the signe of wine, wee should drinke his blood, then Noah did not sinne in drinking, but he sinned in not regarding the manner nor the measure of his drinking?

Q. Did Noah drinke wine a purpose to make himselfe drunke, as our Priests of Bacchus [Page 58] now adayes doe, that altogether do sacrifice their throates and bellies to him?

A. No: for hee till now, knew not the force of wine, but they know it by dayly ex­perience. Secondly, he was exceeding olde and weake at this time, therefore was quick­ly ouercome, but the most part of them are young and strong to drinke wine. Thirdly, he neuer drinking wine before, knew not how much he should drinke, therefore was sud­dainely ouertaken, but they by drinking e­uery day doe know what should bee their measure; and yet doe drinke beyond all measure. Fourthly, he was drunke but once, but they are drunke daily. Fifthly, he repen­ted for his sinne and was ashamed, but they both glory in their sinne, and doe defend it.

Q. Is Noah then to be excused for his drun­kennesse?

A. No: for although he had beene igno­rant of the effect and force of the wine, yet ignorance excuseth no man. Secondly, hee beeing a learned man doubtlesse and wise, could not be altogether ignorant of the ver­tue and power of grapes; as of other herbes and fruites. Thirdly, excesse in eating and drinking in all creatures is a sinne. Fourthly, [Page 59] if he had beene excusable, then God had not punished him by suffering his owne bowels to mocke him, yet because he did not drinke of intemperance, but to comfort his heart, neither had vsed to drinke wine before, hee may bee partly excused, for ab in experientia profecta est ebrietas, Noe, non ab intemperan­tia, Theod. q. 65. in gen.

Q. Seeing Noah a iust man fell into this sinne but once, and that partly of ignorance, why would not Moses conceale it?

A. As the vertues of the Saints are set downe in Scripture for vs to imitate, so their vices are not omitted, that we might learne to flee and eschew them: secondly, that wee may all learne to see our owne imperfecti­ons; for the iustest man that is, doth fall seauen times a day; our righteousnesse is like a stained cloath: thirdly, that we might see what a damnable vice drunkennesse is, euen a short furie and a voluntarie diuell, as Chry­sostome calles it: Yea cause of sicknesse in the bodie, disquietnesse in the minde, pouer­tie in our goods, negligence in Gods seruice, want of reason, and in a word, the roote of all mischiefe: fourthly, that wee may see from whence proceeded the miserie of the Cana­nites, euen from Noahs drunkennesse: for [Page 60] drunkennesse was the cause of his nakednes, nakednesse of derision, derision of Canaans curse: fifthly, to shew the sinceritie of Gods word, that neither for feare nor fauour will conceale the truth.

Q. What relation is there betweene the sinne of Adam, and this of Noah?

A. Adam the father of the first world, sinned shortly after his creation, and Noah the father of the second world, sinnes shortly after his preseruation: secondly, Adam transgressed by eating the fruite of the for­bidden tree, and Noah transgresseth by drin­king the fruite of the vine tree: thirdly, the sequel of Adams sinne was nakednesse, and the sequel of Noahs sinne is the same: fourth­ly, Adam was ashamed, and the shame of Noah is deliuered: fifthly, Adams nakednes was couered with skinnes, and Noahs naked­nesse is couered with a garment: sixthly, a curse vpon Adams posteritie, is the effect of Adams eating, and a curse vpon Canaan, Noahs posteritie, is the effect of Noahs drin­king.

Q. Where in did the greatnesse of Chams sinne consist?

A. First, in that he did not reuerence his father, in couering his nakednesse: secondly, [Page 61] in that hee tooke pleasure in seeing those members, whereof all men by nature are ashamed: thirdly, in that hee mocked him that was not only his father, an old man, and him who was righteous before God, but also him, for whose sake hee was preserued from the flood: fourthly, in that he had so soone forgot the iudgements of God vpon the first world for such like sinnes: fifthly, in that he did not onely mocke his father, but also told his brethren of his fathers nakednesse: sixth­ly, in that Cham at this time was no childe, but a man of an hundred yeeres and vpward, therefore should haue had more grace and discretion: seauenthly, he was a father him­selfe, therefore should haue knowne what was the dutie of a childe: eighthly, in that he was so quicke to spie the moate in his fa­thers eye, and could not see the beame that was in his owne, I meane his witchcraft, ma­lice, contempt of religion, lcacherie, and o­ther vices which are recorded of him.

Q. Wherein were Shem and Iapheth wor­thie of commendations?

A. First, for their pietie in couering their fathers nakednesse: secondly, for their mo­destie in going back-ward least they should desile their eyes in seeing of his filthinesse. [Page 62] Wherein we see that Sem the yonger is first named: because it seemes he was principall in this businesse: secondly, we see the diffe­rence of Noahs children, and suppose he was a good man, yet he is plagued with a wicked sonne: thirdly, in these children we see the state of the Church. For if amongst these eight persons that were deliuered from the flood, there was one hipocrite, what wonder is it to finde in the Vniuersall Church many thousand hypocrites: fourthly, in Cham we see the type of wicked children, and in Sem and Iapheth a patterne for good chil­dren: fifthly, if Sem and Iapheth were so carefull to honour their earthly father, then much more diligent should wee bee to reue­rence our heauenly Father.

Q. How could Noah know what his yonger sonne had done to him?

A. Either by reuelation from God, or else by the relation of Sem and Iapheth: and here we see that as Cham is yonger in yeeres, so hee is yonger in grace and manners: se­condly, in Noahs awaking we see the state of the godly, that though they sleepe and fall, yet they awake and rise againe: thirdly, in Noahs sleeping we see the state of the world, for when men are drunke with wine, that is, [Page 63] filled with worldly blessings, then they fall asleepe and waxe carelesse and secure: fourthly, in that Noah awoke and knew what was done: wee should learne to doe good to all men, and not to harme them ei­ther sleeping or waking, for there is nothing so secret which shall not be reuealed.

Q. What reward had Cham for scorning his olde father?

A. He was accursed by his owne fathers mouth, which curse he vttered not of malice or in his anger, but being mooued by Gods spirit, did speake it by way of prophesie: secondly, wee must consider that he vttered this with no small griefe of minde; that hee should be compelled to curse his owne childe for his wickednesse, who not only was his childe, but his yongest, whom he loued most deerely, and hauing but these three, who were with him wonderfully preserued in the Arke, and that he should vtter this curse not onely against him, but also against the Ca­naanites his posteritie: thirdly, here wee see the zeale and constancy of Noah, that makes no bones to curse his childe because he disho­noured God, yea more zealous then Brutus that killed his sonne for the loue he carried to his countrey: fourthly, in this wee see [Page 65] what a fearefull thing it is for children to dishonour their parents: who to them are instead of God, certainly the fruite of this sinne is a curse.

Q. Why is Canaan cursed and not Cham?

A. In that Canaan is cursed, Cham the fa­ther is not exempted, but rather his curse is aggrauated, as Sem is not exempted from the blessing in the verse following: although God be named, so Iacob is said to blesse Io­seph. Gen. 48. 15. when properly he blessed Iosephs children. verse 16. and Canaans name is here vsed, not Chams, to let him see the greatnesse of the curse; which did not end with him, but did increase as his posteritie increased: secondly, because Canaan did fol­low his fathers foote-steps in wickednesse: thirdly, for our instruction, that wee may learne to feare him, for his iudgements are a great deepe, they are past finding out, his wrath is like a consuming fire, and when hee curseth, he will not onely curse vs, but also the fruite of our body. Deut. 28. 18.

Q. Wherein was Cham accursed?

A. Not onely in that hee was a seruant, but also a seruant of seruants, and that vnto his brethren, and although this seruitude could not be presently seene in the posteritie [Page 65] of Cham, yet at last it was fully manifested, when the posteritie of Sem had the full pos­session of the land of Canaan.

Q. Is it then a curse to serue?

A. There is a foure-fold seruice. 1. diuine, which all creatures owe to God by right of creation. 2. naturall, which is nothing else but the subiection of inferiours to their superi­ours proceeding of loue for order sake, and this should haue beene in the state of inno­cencie: thirdly violent, when men are con­strained to serue, and this kinde of seruice is hatefull and bitter: first, because it is con­trarie to the libertie of mans nature: second­ly, because it is contrarie to the end of mans creation, for man was created to rule and not to serue: thirdly, it is repugnant to the image of God, a part whereof doth consist in ruling and commanding, and this seruice is a curse laid vpon man for sinne: the fourth kinde of seruice is diabolicall, when a man doth serue his sinnes and mancepate him­selfe to his owne affections, for whosoeuer committeth sinne, is the seruant of sinne. Ioh. 8. 34. and he that serueth such masters may be called a seruant of seruants, and such ser­uants were the Canaanites, seruing not onely their brethren, but also their owne abomi­nations, [Page 66] for which their land did spue them out.

Q. Seeing then inuoluntarie seruice is the effect of sinne, is this a pretence for seruants to reiect altogether there seruice?

A. No, for many things haue and doe proceede of euill causes, which God doth turne to good vses: secondly, seruice is a pu­nishment for sinne, and therefore should not bee reiected, but with patience indured: thirdly, it is a meanes to beate downe our pride, and contempt of God; and this means God vsed against the Israelites, when he cau­sed them to serue the King of Aram eight yeeres, and Eglon King of Moab 18. yeeres. Iudg. 3. Seruants then should comfort them­selues, that though in externall and ciuill matters they are inferiour and subiect to there masters; yet in spirituall blessings, and in respect of Christ, they are equals: second­ly, Masters should not be cruell to their ser­uants, seeing they also haue a Master in hea­uen. Ioh. 6.

Q. What reward hath Sem for couering his fathers nakednesse?

A. First, he is blessed of his father, which is no small matter. For the blessing of the father establisheth the houses of children. [Page 67] Eccle. 3. 9. Secondly, hee hath this honour, that he is the first man that is blessed vnder the name of God expressely: thirdly, by calling God the God of Sem, he shewes that onely Sem and his posteritie shall onely wor­ship and know the true God: fourthly, of Sem came Christ according to the flesh; who here is called the God of Sem: fifthly, in this blessing is included the land of Canaan, which then Sem in his posteritie did inioy, when Canaan became his seruant: sixthly, in that he doth not blesse Sem in his own name, but vnder the name of God, it showeth that eternall life is implied herein; for God hath prepared for them a Citie of whom he is not ashamed to be called there God. Heb. 11. 16.

Q. What is the reward that Iapheth hath for his duty to his father?

A. First, that God will enlarge him, that is, multiplie his posteritie, for he had more sonnes, then either Sem or Cham, and these sonnes of his did spread ouer more nations then Sem or Chams children: to witte ouer Galatia, Scythia, Media, Graecia, Italie, Spaine, Moscouia, Thracia, and many more countries: secondly, that Iapheth shall dwell in the tents of Sem, that is, that the Gentiles Iapheths posterity, shall embrace the religion [Page 68] of the Iewes Sems posteritie: and this was accomplished when the partition wall was broken downe by the preaching of the Gos­pell, then the Gentiles that were afarre off were made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph. 2. then, as Christ foretold, Joh. 10. there was but one Shepheard and one sheepfold: third­ly, that Canaan should be his seruant, which then was fulfilled when the Graecians and Ro­mans Iapheths posteritie had subdued the most part of the world habitable, but if by Canaan we vnderstand the wicked; and by Sem and Iapheth the Church; then it is most true, that the wicked nill they will they, are but seruants to Gods children.

Q. What is meant heere by the Tents of Sem?

A. The Church of God, which is called Tents: first, because Tents are mooueable, and not still in one place, so is the estate of the Church in this life, for here we haue no continuing Citie. Heb. 13. 14. secondly, Tents are most vsed in warres, and our life is a warfare, Job 7. 1. thirdly, Tents are weak­ly built, and not able to resist those iniuries of the ayre that houses can: so the Church in herselfe is weake, though in the Lord shee be strong, and these weake things God hath [Page 69] chosen to confound the things that are mightie. 1. Cor. 1. 27. fourthly, the Church is called a Tent, in relation to Moses Taber­nacle. For as there God was worshipped, sacrifices were offered, and the presence of the Lord was to be seene: so in the Church we worship God, offer vp spirituall sacrifi­ces, and doe inioy the presence and comfort of his spirit. Againe the Church is called the Tents of Sem, because he was the father of the Iewes, amongst whom God onely had his visible Church; so shee is called the Tents of Iudah. Zach. 12. 7. the Tents of Iacob. Mal. 2. 12. and also the Tents of the Saints. Reu. 20. 9.

Q. Where in was Noah the tipe of Christ?

A. As Noah built an Arke, so did Christ the Church: secondly, as Noah did offer a sacrifice, whereof God smelled a sauour of rest, so did Christ: thirdly, as God for Noahs sacrifice did curse the ground no more, euen so for Christs sacrifice, God did curse the Church no more: fourthly, as Noah planted a vineyard, so did Christ plant the Church which is his vineyard. 5. as Noah was drunke with wine, so Christ who is the true wine, and who troad the wine-presse alone, who turned water into wine, and who was coun­ted a drinker of wine, was drunken with the [Page 70] wine of his fathers wrath, in commemorati­on whereof he hath commanded vs to drink wine in the sacrament: sixthly, as Noah af­ter his drinking fell asleepe, so Christ after he had drunke of the Cup which his Father gaue him, died; for death is a sleepe: seauenth­ly: Noah was made naked in his sleeping, and so was Christ in his suffering: eighthly, Noah was mocked by his owne sonne, and so was Christ by his owne people the Iewes: ninthly, Noah fell asleepe in his owne Tent, and Christs died in his owne country Iudea, tenthly, Sem and Iapheth couered Noahs bo­die with a garment, so Ioseph and Nicode­mus couered Christs bodie with linnen cloathes: eleuenthly, Noah awoke from his sleepe, and so did Christ from his graue: twelfthly, Cham was cursed for scorning his Father, and the Iewes are yet accursed for killing their Sauiour.

Q. How long liued Noah after the flood?

A. Three hundred and fiftie yeeres, euen till Abraham was about fiftie yeeres of age, or 58. as the Hebrews, and others doe thinke, and in that Noah liued so long after the flood, it sheweth vs, that long life doth nei­ther depend from the starres, the tempera­ture of the ayre, the constitution of the bo­die, [Page 71] the excellencie of meate and drinke, nor any thing else, except from Gods bles­sing, for neither had the Starres, that influ­ence, nor the ayre that temperature, nor mans body that strength, nor the hearbes that nutriment, which they had before the flood, yet Noah liued after the flood 350. yeeres, and his sonne Sem 500. secondly, God would haue him liue so long after the flood, not onely to see the effect of Gods blessing in the multiplication of his posteri­tie, but also to instruct the world with the knowledge of the true God; and of these things that were done before the flood.

Q. How olde was Noah when he died?

A. Nine hundred and fiftie yeeres, the oldest man that euer liued, except Jared that liued 962. yeeres, and Methuselah that li­ued 969. yeares, yet for all his long life, he is not exempted from death; Nam omnes vna manet nox, & calcanda semel via lethi. Againe, what was all this long life of Noah, but a long tragedie full of sorrow and miserie, hee was vexed with the wickednesse of the world before the flood; and made a mocking stock, in the Arke tormented with the horrour of that fearefull iudgement; after the flood, mocked by his owne sonne, and grieued with [Page 72] the idolatrie not onely of Cham and Iapheths posteritie, but also of Sems family, whom hee had so highly blessed, and this was not a small griefe to see wicked Cham whom hee had cursed with his posteritie, so to flourish and abound in wealth and power. Surely we are made saith Job, to possesse moneths of vani­tie, and wearisome nights are appointed to vs, therefore let vs learne to contemne this foolish world, for the graue at last must be our house, and our beds must be made in the darkenesse. Iob. cap. 7. 3. and cap. 17. 13.

Q. WHat is meant by this word Generation, which is so of­ten vsed in the Scripture?

A. First, it signifieth the originall and be­ginning of things, as Gen. 2. 4. these are the generations of heauen and earth: secondly, the historie of a mans life and of those things that doe befall him, as Gen. 6. 9. these are the [Page 73] generations of Noah: thirdly, a genealogie or supputation of ones posteritie, as here in this Chapter, these are the generations of the sonnes of Noah: fourthly, it is taken for the people that doe liue in such or such an age; as Gen. 15. 16. in the fourth generation they shall come againe: fifthly, for an age it selfe as Matth. 24. 34. this generation shall not passe, &c. sixthly, for ones natiuitie, as Mat. 1. 18. the generation of Christ was thus, seauenthly, for a nation as Matth. 12. 39. an euill generation seeketh after a signe, eighthly, for a kinde or fashion, as Luke 16. 8. the children of this world are wise in there generation, &c.

Q. Why doth Moses set downe this genea­logie, seeing Paul doth command vs not to giue heede to genealogies. 1. Tim. 14.

A. Paul doth condemne these genealogies that are endlesse, and which minister questi­ons, not edifications: secondly, he doth com­mand vs not to giue heede to them; neither to account them apart of Gods worship as the Jewes did, but this Genealogie of Noah and such like in Scripture, are profitable for vs to know, and therefore are not con­demned.

Q. What profit is it for vs to know the ge­nerations [Page 74] of Noahs sonnes?

A. They are profitable. First, because by them we see how the world is multiplied. 2. by them we may refute the fabulour genea­logies of Poets, Phylosophers, Egyptians, Ae­thiopians and others that doe bragge of their antiquity. 3. in this genealogie we see the ef­fect of Gods blessing in multiplying man­kinde. 4. by this genealogie we know so much the better what these nations are, that are often named in the Scripture. 5. we know al­so from hence how Christ came of Sem ac­cording to the flesh, and how Noahs curse tooke effect in the posterity of Cham.

Q. Was this propagation of mankinde by Noahs three sonnes in so short a time, miracu­lous?

A. Miracles are those workes which doe exceede the power and force of nature, and these are of two sorts, pure miracles which in all respects exceedes the course of nature, as the standing of the sunne in the dayes of lo­suah, his going backe in the diall of Achaz. the conception of the Virgin, &c. or els they are mixt miracles, which in respect of the thing it selfe which is produced are naturall but in the maner of producing, and in respect of other circumstances are supernaturall: [Page 75] such as the thunderings that discom fited the Philistines at Samuels prayer. 1. Sam. 7. 10. the raine that fell at the prayer of Elias, 1. King. 18. 45. and such like, then this propaga­tion of mankinde in so short a space is a mi­xed miracle, for it is naturall in respect of the worke it selfe, but in respect of shortnesse of time, and the multitude that were begotten, it is supernaturall.

Q. Doth Moses rehearse here all the heads or fathers of the Nations?

A. No: but those onely that were most famous; Then of Sems progenie hee recko­neth 26. of Chams 31. of Japheths 14. which in all are 71. and many of these names here mentioned, were changed by the Greeks, who not onely changed their rites and ceremo­nies; but also in signe of seruitude altered their names.

Q. What order keepeth Moses in rehear­sing this Genealogie?

A. He beginneth first at Iapheth, because he was last spoken of in the precedent chap­ter; and here he speaketh last of Sem, because the rest of this historie is spent about his po­sterity, and in the middle Cham is placed, which doth represent to vs the state of the Church visible in this world, which hath in [Page 76] her bosome many hypocrites and reprobate Chams.

Q. What was Gomer?

A. The father of the Cimmerians as He­rodotus thinketh, or rather as Iosephus the fa­ther of the Galatians, who first were called Galles, and hauing left their owne countrie, seated themselues in Asia-minor, where be­ing mingled with the Greeks, they were cal­led Gallo-greci, and afterwards Galatae; vnto these Galatians, Peter writ his first epistle; in this country Paul trauelled sundry times and preached, afterward hee beeing captiue at Rome, from thence writ an epistle to them. Gomer also was the name of Diblaims daugh­ter the wife of Hosea, Hos. 1.

Q. What was Magog?

A. The father of the Scythians, a rude and barbarous people, inhabiting many coun­tries in the north part of the world, from them the Turkes haue their originall, which now to the great shame of Christians, and o­uerthrow of our religion, haue by our vnna­turall discords, obtained those kingdomes and glorious Churches in Europe and Asia: sometimes famous and sanctified with the presence of Christ, and preachings of the A­postles; beautified with miracles, adorned [Page 77] with all arts and sciences, illustrated with the learned pens of many orthodox fathers, and besprinckled with the blood of many thou­sand martyrs, but now alas their habitation is desolate, their Churches are become habita­tions for diuels, the holds of euery foule spi­rit, and cages of vncleane and hatefull birds. Magog is taken for the hidde and secret ene­mies of the Church. Eze. 38. 2. and 39. 6. Reu. 20. 8.

Q. What people came of Madai?

A. The Medes, a mightie people, who did inhabite the country lying betweene the Caspian sea and Persia, they were first sub­iect to the Assyrians, afterward refusing the gouernment of the effeminate Sardanapalus, they made Arbactus their King, who with his successours for the space of 350. yeares did gouerne Media vntill Cyrus the Persian, who obtained the Empire of the East. Then Media was annexed to Persia and Assyria; in the cities of the Medes the Israelites were kept as captiues. 2. King. 18. 11. to the Medes and Persians the Babylonian Monarchie was giuen. Dan. 5. 28. the Medes who were at Ierusalem with many other strangers heard the Apostles speake in their owne language. Act. 2. 9.

[Page 78]Q. Of what people was Iauan the father?

A. Of the Greeks, a people sometime in­famous for their inconstancy and vanity, yet glorious for their lawes and gouernment, their arts and sciences, their mightie townes and cities, for the Monarchie of the world that was stablished there, but especially for the light of the Gospell, but now in stead of science there is nothing but ignorance, in stead of ciuility, light and liberty; barbarity, darkenesse and thraldome haue seated them­selues there, so that they haue forgot to speak their owne language, and where the Muses sometimes did raigne, now there is not a schoole to be seen. First, they were a free peo­ple, till they warred one with another, then they were made seruants; for Cyrus, Xerxes and other persian Kings did vexe them; the Macedonians did subdue them, afterward the Romans, then the Empire being deuided, they became to be vnder Constantinople, till the Gothes, Bulgares and Saracens had wasted them; and at last they are subdued and liue in slauery vnder the Turke the Christians scourge, except a few Jlands subiect to the Venetians. The Grecian King is resembled by a Goate, Dan. 8. 21. vnto the Grecians the Israe­lites were sold. Joel 3. 6.

[Page 79]Q. What people came of Thubal?

A. The Italians as the Iewes thinke, and Spaniards as Iosephus, which people inhabited that country which of old was called Hespe­ria, which name was common both to Italy and Spaine; it hath beene fatall for these ma­ny yeares, for Thubals posterity to be great; the Italians in subduing the old world, and the Spaniards in subduing of the new, not known nor heard of by the ancient Romanes. So then we see that God hath enlarged Iapheth, and not onely hath perswaded him to dwell in the tents of Sem: for now Iesus Christ the sonne of Sem is knowne amongst the barba­rous Indians, but as Thubal was an enemy a­gainst the Iewes in Ezechiels daies. Ezech. 38. 2, 3. so Thubal is an enemy still against the Christians, who doe not approoue of their doctrine and ceremonies.

Q. What people came of Meshec?

A. The Moscouians, who first dwelt in A­sia, afterward they remooued farther North; and doe at this day inhabite that great con­tinent lying betweene Tartaria, Liuonia, Po­lonia and the North sea, they are of the greci­an religion, they giue the sacrament in leaue­ned bread, and doe not deny the cup to the lay-people; they thinke it in vaine to pray [Page 80] for the dead, they beleeue no purgatory, they reade the bible in their owne language, Au­gustine, Ambrose, Hierome and Gregory, are in great request amongst them, their Metropo­litan is subiect to the Patriarch of Constanti­nople, and aboue all things they cannot abide to here Rhetoricall sermons in their pulpits, accounting these verball preachers, which doe study more for fine words then true diui­nity, not worthy of the name of preachers, and I wish they were so accounted amongst vs; who not being contented with the plaine and simple stile of Gods word doe spend much time in filling the itching eares of phantasticall people with their owne words.

Q. Who were the sonnes of Thiras?

A. The Thracians, a people sometimes fa­mous for their strength in warres, they doe inhabite the country Thracia, otherwise cal­led Romania, where Constantinople is situated, the Gospell shined sometimes in this coun­try, and happy might they haue beene, if they could haue knowne their owne happi­nesse, but by their miserable discords they haue lost their ancient glory, and Constanti­nople which was the Queene of the Easterne Cities and sometimes the house of God and vineyard of Iesus Christ, is become now a [Page 81] cage for Mahomet, the diuell and his excre­ments, the Turkes who as it seemes were on­ly borne to be a plague to Gods people.

Q. Which are the three sonnes of Gomar here mentioned?

A. Ascanaz of whome came a people which did inhabite Ascania, a countrey in Asia-minor, in which there was a lake of the same name, euen in the time of the Romanes. Kiphath of him came the Paphlagons, a peo­ple also in Asia, which name they had of Paphlagon, the sonne of Phineas. Thogarma of him came the Phrygians, a people in Asia, neere to Bithinia, Lydia and Misia, they are called by the Hebrewes, as Iosephus saith, Thy­grammanes from this Thogarma.

Q. Which are the foure sonnes of Iauan?

A. The first is Elishah, of him came the Aeolians, a people of greece, who leauing their country went to Asia, and seated themselues in Mysia, which they called Aeolia, from their owne name. Elishah sold blew and purple to the Tyrians, Ezech. 27. 7. His second sonne is Tharshish whose posterity inhabited Cilicia, now called Turcomania, where that famous City Tarsus was built as is thought by Sar­drnapalus, in which Paul was borne. Act. 21. 39. hither Ionas fled, Ionas 1. 3. the people of [Page 82] Tharshish were famous for shipping. Ezech. 27. 12. therefore Pompeius vsed their helpe in his sea fight against Caesar, and the mede­teranean sea is called Tarsis, from them, Psal. 48. 7. The third sonne is Cittim, of whom came the Cyprians, who did inhabite the I­land Cyprus, not farre from Syria and Cilicia, therefore the Iland was called Citica, the Hebrewes call it Chittim, and here was the ci­ty Citium. This Cyprus was many yeares vn­der the gouernment of the Venetians, but now they are vnder the seruitude of Magog the Turke. His fourth sonne is Dodanim, of whom the Rhodians came, who inhabited Rhodus an Iland in the Carpathian sea, famous for the citie Rhodos, which was possessed by the Christians many yeares. But at last proud Nabuchadnezzar the Turke, by our negligence tooke both the city and the I­land.

Q. What is meant by the Iles of the Gen­tiles?

A. Not onely the plots of ground which are compassed about with the sea, but also countries and regions within the continent, for the whole earth may be called an Iland, because it is all compassed with the sea; the Iles are giuen them with the rest of the earth [Page 83] to the sonnes of men, the Iles are inuited to praise God. Isa. 42. 10. The Iles shall waite for Christ. Isay 51. 5. the kings of the Iles shall offer gifts to Christ. Psal. 72. 10. and this was accomplished when God perswa­ded Iapheth to dwell in the tents of Sem. Gods children in this world may be likened to Iles, for as Iles are separated from the rest of the earth, so Christ hath chosen his Saints out of the world. Ioh. 15. Secondly as Iles are compassed about with the sea, and most sub­iect to stormes, so the the Saints in this world are most subiect to afflictions. Ioh. 16.

Q. Which was Chams first sonne?

A. Cush, the father of the Aethiopians, of whom mention is made. Isa. 11. Ezec. 29. and 30. Amos 9. Nahum. 3. Soph. 2. and else-where, but the name of Aethiopia is sometime giuen to Arabia, sometime to India, because of the commerce that was betweene the Aethiopi­ans & these countries; as also because they in sūmerare both black, but Aethiopia properly is in Affrica, vnder which name not only the country of the Abissines is cōprehended, but also the Southeast part of Affrica, from the meridionall line, to caput bonae spei, and this confusion of the name hath caused many er­rors amongst the learned, then this name [Page 84] of Cush and Aethiopia so often vsed in Scrip­ture, is rather to bee vnderstood of Arabia which was neere to India, then of the remote countries of Affrica, therefore Moses wife being a Madianite is called an Aethiopian, Numb. 12. Theodoretus thinketh that the Queene of Saba who came to see Salomon, was Queene of Aethiopia. Quest. 22. in Num. The Aethiopians did vse to call their Queenes Candaces, whose chiefe gouernour the Eu­nuch was conuerted by Philip. Act. 8. Mathi­as the Apostle did preach the Gospell to the Aethiopians as thinketh Sophronius?

Q. What was Mizraim?

A. The father of the Aegyptians, who are still called by this name in the new Testa­ment; but in the old Mizraim, and because Mizraim was Chams son, therefore in Scrip­ture Aegypt is called the land of Cham. Psal. 105. 23. and 78. 51. If Mizraim was the fa­ther of the Aegyptians, they neede not brag so much of their antiquity. This country was first gouerned by their owne kings, whom they called Pharaoh, then they were subdued by the Aethiopians in the dayes of Hezekias. After that Cyrus the Persian ouercame them. But vnder Darius Nothus, they fell away from the Persian and were gouerned by their [Page 85] owne kings, till Alexander subdued them. Af­ter his death it fell to Ptolomeus, by whose name their kings were called, till Cleopatra, after whose death the Romans made it a Prouince, after them the Saracens had it, and now it is vnder the Turkish slauery. This country was famous for Abraham, Joseph, the Patriarkes, the birth of Moses, the deliue­ry of the Israelites, for arts and sciences, fruitfulnesse and riches, townes and schooles, for Christ and his mother who fled thither, for many Martyrs and Christian professors, for the first Monks and Eremites who from thence did ouerspreade all Europe. But as before it was infamous for idolatry, so now it is for Mahomets blasphemous heresie.

Q. What people came of Phut?

A. The Lyrians, a people in Affrica, neere Mauritania, where there is a riuer called Phut. They are called by this name. Eze. 27. and 38. cap. But they are called by the name of Lybia. Act. 2. and Dan. 11. in Lybia there hath beene famous Churches, but especially Carthage renowned for that learned Bishop and glorious Martyr Cyprian.

Q. What was Canaan?

A. The cursed sonne of Cham, of whom came the Canaanites, which did inhabite that [Page 86] land, which was called Canaan, the land of promise, Iudea, and now the holy land, it was deuided in Iudea, Samaria and Galile, in it God was once well knowne, but now in stead of God Mahomet is worshipped.

Q. What was Seba?

A. The sonne of Cush, and father of the Sabeans, a people in Arabia-felix, but there is a twofold Sheba; the one in Arabia, the o­ther in Aethiopia, this in Hebrew is written with Samech, that with Shin, from this the Queene of Saba came to Salomon, from that the wise men came to worship Christ, both these places are mentioned. Psal. 72. 10. the Kings of Sheba and Seba shall giue gifts?

Q. What other sonnes had Cush?

A. Hauilah the father of the Getulians, Sabtah of whom came a people called Saba­thei dwelling in Arabia-felix, Raamah and Sabtecha, whose posteritie also did inhabite Arabia-felix, and mingled themselues with the Sabeans.

Q. What sonnes had Raamah?

A. Sheba, whose posterity dwelt in Aethi­opia, and Dedan whose off-spring did possesse a part of Arabia-felix, not farre from Idu­mea, of Dedan mention is made. Ier. 49. 8. E­zech. 27. 15. and 38. 13.

[Page 87]Q. What was Nimrod?

A. He was also the sonne of Cush, and the first tyrant in the world, who is mentioned here apart, not because he was a bastard, as some thinke, but because Moses is to speake of his tyranny and greatnesse. Secondly, Nimrod heere is saide to bee mightie in the earth, that is, bloody and cruell, for power and greatnesse is from God, and therefore good, if it be free from crueltie and blood: but so was not Nimrods greatnesse, and all bloody conquerours are Nimrods successors. Thirdly, Nimrod beeing of the posterity of Cham, should haue rather beene a seruant then a Lord, but it fals out many times that the wicked in this world doe flourish like a greene bay-tree, when as the godly are ap­pointed as sheepe to the slaughter.

Q. Why is Nimrod called a mighty hunter before God?

A. Because he was a persecutor and op­pressor of his brethren, for such are called hunters in scripture, and sometimes fowlers; for as hunters and fowlers vse all the snares and tricks they can to take away the life of the beasts and foules, so doe the mighty ty­rants to kill and destroy men. Of these fow­lers, Dauid speakes. Psal. 61. 3. & Psal. 124. 7. [Page 88] of the hunters, Ier. 16. 16. where such perse­cutors are called also fishers (before God) that is openly and without feare of God, so that now he became shameles in oppressing, and cared not though God tooke notice of his wickednes, this is the qualitie of impu­dent Lyers.

Q. Is Nimrod all one with Belus, of whom prophane histories make mention?

A. Yes: for both are said to build Babi­lon: Secondly, both were mighty men and op­pressors: thirdly, they are both said to liue about 200. yeeres after the flood in Babylon: fourthly, they were both the inuenters of i­dolatry: fifthly, as the histories acknowledge no king in Babel before Ninus but Belus, so the Scripture acknowledgeth none but Nim­rod.

Q. Which are the foure cities that were sub­iect to Nimrod?

A. Babel the chiefest city of Chaldea, where Nimrod began the Tower. Belus his successor built the city which was amplified by Semi­ramis the wife of Ninus, and at last Niniuie being conquered, was reedified by Nabu­chadnezzar. The secōd is Erech a city beyond Euphrates, otherwise called Edessa and Hie­rapolis. The third is Accad, otherwise called [Page 89] Nisibis, a city vpon the riuer Tygris. The fourth is Calneth a city of great note as wee may see, Amos 6. 2. this was called Seleucia and Cresiphon: in this towne the Parthian kings did vse to winter, and these cities were built in Chaldea and Mesopotamia called here the land of Shinar, and Mich. 5. 6. the land of Nimrod.

Q. Who was the builder of Niniuie.

A. Assur the sonne of Sem, who to auoide the crueltie of Nimrod left Shinar, and for his greater securitie built Niniuie, which af­terward was the chiefest citie of the Assyrian Monarchie, and here we must not thinke that Assur was a mightie hunter like Nimrod, in that he built a strong citie; for hee did not build it to that intent, that Nimrod built Ba­bel; but onely to secure himselfe from the crueltie of Nimrod.

Q. When was Niniuie built?

A. Three hundred yeeres after the flood, and 2000. before Christ, about the time that Abraham was borne, by Assur whom the histories call Ninus; this Citie was famous for the greatnesse, beautie, and riches there­of, and for the preaching of Jonas. It did continue in great glorie for the space of 1400. yeeres and more, till it was destroyed [Page 90] by Nabuchadnezzar, at this day Niniuie hath many goodly buildings and spatious streets in it, compassed about with walles, the inha­bitants thereof are for the most part Nesto­rians.

Q. What other cities built Ashur besides the great citie Niniuie?

A. Recoboth, a citie by the riuer Euphrates mentioned also Gen. 36. 37. Chalah the chie­fest citie of the countrey Calacina in Assyria Resen, the citie Bessera also in Assyria.

Q. What sonnes had Misraijm?

A. He begate Ludim or the Lydians men­tioned. Ier. 46. 9. who inhabited the coun­try of Lydia in Asia-minor, famous for that rich King Craesus, and the riuer Pactolus: secondly, Anamim, they did inhabite as it is thought the countrey Pentapolis in Lybia: thirdly, Lehabim, they possessed Libia in A­frica: fourthly, Naphtuhim, they were the people Napatei in Aethiopia: fifthly, Pathu­sim, they were the people Pharusij in Africa beyond Mauritania, mentioned Esay 11. Ezech. 29. sixthly, Casluhim, they inhabited the countrey Casiotis in Syria, from them the Philistims came who possessed the land of Canaan. Amos 9. 7. where they remained, not cast out to the great griefe of the Israelites: [Page 91] seauenthly, Caphtorim a people called Cap­padoces, who did destroy the Philistims and dwelt in their land. Deut. 2. 23. Ier. 47. 4.

Q. What posteritie had Canaan?

A. Of him came Sidon father of the Sido­nians, hee built the citie Sidon in Phenicia, which was after allotted to the tribe of As­ser: secondly, Cheth of him came the Che­thites, or Hittites, who inhabited the places about Bersabaea, and of whom there were Gyants, their land onely is promised to the Israelites. Ios. 1. 4. because they were most a­fraid of them: thirdly, Jebus or the Iebusite, he founded the Citie Iebus, which after was called Salem, and last of all Ierusalem. Iudg. 19. 10. Gen. 14. 18. they were not vtterly subdued by Israel, but continued till Salomons time, who made them Tributaries. 2. Chron. 8. 8. fourthly, the Emorite or Amorites, a peo­ple high as Ceders and strong as Okes, A­mos 2. 9. whose King was Og, they were dis­persed into diuers parts of the land, for some of them possessed Libanus, some Mount Ga­laad, and others the hillie countrey of Pha­ran. Therefore the whole countrey beareth their name, Gen. 15. 16. when the Prophet would expresse the sinnes of Israel, hee sayes their father was an Amorite. Ezech. 16. 3. [Page 92] fifthly, the Gergasite or Gergasins. Matth. 8. and Gadarens. Luke 8. sixthly, the Hiuite of whom came the Gibeonites whose liues were spared by Iosua. Josh. 11. 19. seauenthly, the Arkite who dwelt in the citie of Arce in mount Libanon: eighthly, the Sinite or the people of Sinaei mentioned by Josephus, 1. An­tiq. 6. ninthly, the Aruadite, from them a part of Canaan was called Aruad, mentioned in Ezech. 27. 8. tenthly, the Zemarite, they in­habited Zemarim which after fel to the Ben­iamites. Josu. 18. 22. eleuenthly, the Hama­thite from whom two cities beare the name, the one is Annochia, which Amos cap. 6. cal­leth Hamath Rabba, or Hamath the great, once the Metrapolitan of Syria, the other is Hamath the lesse, called also Epiphania from Antiochus Epiphanes, this citie stood on the north side of the Israelites ground. So these are the eleuen nations that came of Canaan: in the 15. chapter of this booke, there are reckoned vp but ten, and Deut. 7. 1. Act. 13. 19. there are counted but seauen, for it see­meth that some were wasted or mixed con­fusedly with the rest, before the Israelites did possesse the land.

Q. Which were the borders of the land of Canaan?

[Page 93]A. Sidon on the North-west allotted to the tribe of Aser. Gaza on the South-west, a citie which befell the tribe of Iuda. Sodom with the other cities that were destroyed. Gen. 19. on the South-east, and these are the bounds of the whole land of Canaan. Ioshua onely describeth the West part thereof. Iosh. 13. 3.

Q. Why is Sem called the brother of Iapheth here, and not also of Cham?

A. Some are called brethren by nature, as Iacob and Esau, some by nation, as the Iewes were Pauls brethren, some by affinitie as Christ and his kins-folkes. Matth. 12. and some by religion and affection as all Christi­ans. Then Iapheth and Sem are called bre­thren, because they were not onely so by na­ture, but also in affection. So Simeon and Leui brethren for their affection in euill. Gen. 49. Then though Cham by nature were Sems brother, yet God accounts him not so, because he was not of his affection and reli­gion, euen so wicked and prophane Christi­ans though they are accounted our brethren in the iudgement of the world, yet they are not so in the iudgement of God.

Q. Why is Sem called the father of the sons of Heber onely, seeing he had more sonnes then Heber?

[Page 94]A. As Cham is called the father of Cana­an onely, because his curse was visibly exe­cuted on him, so here Sem is called the father onely of Hebers sonnes, because his blessing was visibly powred on them. Gen. 14. 19. Se­condly, because they onely retained the faith and religion of Sem: thirdly, by this God will show that Sems blessing did not belong to all his posteritie, but onely to those that retained his faith. Neither can we be parta­kers of the blessings of our Elder brother Christ, except we be followers of him, and holy as he is holy.

Q. Which are the sonnes of Sem?

A. Elam of whom came the Elamites, so called from him, but afterwards Persians from Perseus their gouernour: secondly, Assur, father of the Assyrians who were ene­mies to Israel. Assur is also the name of a ci­tie in Iudea built by Salomon: thirdly, Ar­phaxad, his genealogie and countrey are not spoken of in Scripture, but that he is the Fa­ther of Christ. Luk. 3. yet it is thought that Chasdin or the Chaldeans are of him: fourth­ly Lud, of him came a people in Africa neere Aethiopia: this I know is contrarie to the receiued opinion, for this Lud is thought to be the father of the Lydians in Asia, and Lud [Page 95] the sonne of Mizraim is thought to bee the father of this people in Africa: but wee must not thinke that the world was so deui­ded among the sonnes of Noah, as though Sems posteritie did onely possesse Asia. Ia­pheths Europe, and Chams Africa precisely without entermingling, for as Madai thought Iapheths sonne did inhabite Media in Asia, and Canaan who came of Cham did possesse Palestina in Asia; so why may not Lud though Sems sonne inhabite Lidia in Africa: fifthly, Aram of whom came the Syrians, called Aramites from him, and their land Aram in the old testament, but Syria in the new; the chiefest citie of this land is Damascus.

Q. What sonnes had Aram?

A. Hus whose sonnes possessed the land of Hus: Iobs countrey, Iob 1. 1. which was a part of Idumea. Lam. 4. 21. secondly, Chul he inhabited Armenia: thirdly, Gether hee dwelt in Caria a countrey in Asia-Minor, betweene Licia and Ionia: fourthly, Mash whose posteritie inhabited the hill Masius a­boue Nisibus and they were called Masiani.

Q. What sonnes had Arphaxad?

A. In the Hebrew text Selah is called his sonne, but the Greeke hath Cainan which [Page 96] Luke followeth in his 3. chapter, for there as also here in the Greeke Selah is called the sonne of Cainan and Cainan the sonne of Ar­phaxad, some thinke that Selah was the adop­ted sonne of Cainan, and the naturall sonne of Arphaxad, but it is like that Luke in a mat­ter of so small moment would not disagree from the Greeke text, because it was in great account amongst the people: then according to the Hebrew text, Selah is the sonne of Ar­phaxad and father of Heber.

Q. What sonnes had Heber?

A. Peleg, in whose daies the earth was di­uided, that is, the inhabitants of the earth who before were of one tongue, and one countrey, are now diuided into diuers tongues and regions, and therefore because when he was borne this diuision fell out, hee is called Peleg, which signifieth diuision: some thinke this name was giuen to him be­fore he was borne by way of prophesie, but it is like hee had it from the euent that fell out when he was borne, neither is their opi­nion sound, who thinke this diuision to haue beene in the end of his dayes, which was in the 48. yeere of Abrahams age; and 38. yeeres after the death of Ninus, for at that time the world was replenished with peo­ple, [Page 97] with diuers languages, Kings and king­domes; and therefore this diuision was long before the last yeere of Peleg. His other son is Ioktan, who hath here 13. sonnes reckoned, but because they seated themselues in remote and vnknowne regions beyond the East-Indies and fell away from the God of Heber to worship vnknowne Gods, therefore they are little mentioned in Gods word, and they doe yet remaine vnknowne to vs.

Q. What countries did Ophir and Hauilah possesse?

A. Ophir did possesse the land which from his name is called Ophir, doubtfull whether it be Cephala in Aethiopia, or Chersonesus in India, or Peru in America; but we know that Salomons shippes fetched store of fine golde from this Ophir. 1. Kings 9. and 10. chapt. Hauilah did possesse India, as Iosephus and Hierome doe affirme.

Q. What are Mesha and Sephar?

A. Mesha is a countrey in India where the sonnes of Iaktan dwelt, so called as it is thought from Mash the sonne of Aram. Se­phar is a hill in India also, and Luther conie­ctureth that this may be the hill Ararat or Imanus.

Q. Was there such a diuision of nations be­fore [Page 98] the flood, as now is after?

A. Before the flood their was a diuision amongst men in respect of qualities, for then some were good, some bad, &c. Secondly, in respect of religion, for the posteritie of Seth, who are therefore called the sonnes of God, did onely worship the true God; but Cains posteritie were Idolaters, or rather Athiests. Thirdly, in respect of place. For Cain remoo­ued from the place where he was, and dwelt on the East-side of Eden. Gen. 4. and there his posteritie planted themselues apart from Seths progenie, yet their was not so great a diuisIon before the flood as after; because after the flood the world was diuided in di­uers tongues and speeches, sects and religi­ons, lawes and gouernments, townes and re­gions, arts and occupations, orders and de­grees, &c. And in this we may see the proui­dence of God. By whom and not by fortune these things come to passe: for it is he that hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Act. 17. 26. Secondly, although amongst vs there be ma­ny diuisions in religion, in lawes, in speech, &c. yet because wee came all of one stocke, [Page 99] we should all studie to vnitie; for these di­uisions came of sinne, but vnitie is more an­cient, for it was from the beginning, before sinne came into the world.

Q. WHat was that one speech that was spoken before the confu­sion of tongues?

A. Not the Aegyptian tongue, as the Ae­gyptians, nor the Phrigian, as the Phrigians: nor the Syriac as Theodoretus. quest. 59. in Gen. nor the Chaldee as Philo lib. de confus. ling. would haue: but the Hebrew. For the Syriac and Chaldee tongues, are but Dia­lects of the Hebrew. Secondly, the names that are mentioned in Scripture before the confusion of tongues are Hebrew and signi­ficant. Thirdly, there are many words which all other tongues haue borrowed from the Hebrew, as Sac, Babel. &c. Which doe testifie that this tongue is most auncient. Fourthly, [Page 100] the most of the Fathers, and all the Recent writers are of this opinion.

Q. Did the Hebrew tongue remaine in vse after the confusion?

A. Yes, but onely in Hebers family, there­fore it is called the Hebrew tongue: Yet all Hebers posteritie did not vse this tongue, but onely Peleg and Reu, and those that were in the straight line of whom Christ came, and it seemes in that this language was not chan­ged; that Heber did not consent to the buil­ding of Babel. This then is that tongue in which God spake and gaue his Oracles, both before and after the flood. It was spoken al­so by Angels, and by his owne people the Iewes; it did not proceede of sinne, as other tongues, but was from the beginning euen in Paradise; it is that tongue that doth con­taine the misteries of our saluation, and like enough it shall be that tongue which we shall speake in heauen: yet though this tongue was not confused at the building of Babel, it was notwithstanding confused in the capti­uitie of Babel. And since that time Hebrew did cease to bee in common vse among the Iewes; and Syriac or mixed Hebrew came in place▪ so that the tongue which Christ and the Apostles vsed amongst the Iewes, was [Page 101] not Hebrew but Syriac.

Q. Why did the people remooue from the East into the plaine of Shinar?

A. They remooued from the East, that is, from the hillie countrey of Armenia, where the Arke rested, into the plaine of Shinar or Chaldea. First, because they were now ex­ceedingly increased, and an 100. yeeres had beene pinned vp in that countrey, therefore now seeing all feare of the flood was gone, they thought good to discend to the plaine and inlarge their habitation. Secondly, be­cause the plaine was more fertile, pleasant and commodious for them. Thirdly, because their minds were not content with their pre­sent estate, therefore they begin to couet for more ground and a richer soyle; and this co­uetousnesse hath beene the cause of so many wants, transmigrations and confusion of tongues?

Q. Of what matter did they build their Tower and Citie?

A. In stead of stone they vsed bricke, be­cause in that plaine countrey stones were scarce, and because of the aboundance of clay they had matter enough to make bricke of. Secondly, in stead of mortar artificiall; they vsed naturall morter, or a kinde of slime [Page 102] that was found in their pits & riuers, of the nature of brimstone, which Semiramis did vse for the building of Babylon; and here we may see their forwardnesse in exhorting one another to this wicked worke. A shame for vs, who are not so earnest to build vp the Church of Christ, the heauenly Ierusalem, as they were to build vp their earthly Babel. Se­condly, although they wanted matter, that is, stone and morter to build their Towre with, yet rather then they will giue ouer, they will make matter to themselues, and in this we see the nature of the wicked, who will leaue nothing vn-attempted to bring to passe their wicked designes. Audax omnia perpetigens humana ruit per vetitum nefas. Thirdly, this sinne is most fearefull; for it is intollerable pride against the Maiestie of God; and it is not amongst a few, but vni­uersall, and that so soone after the flood.

Q. Of what height did they intend to build their Towre?

A. It is Hyperbolically spoken here, that the top thereof may reach to heauen, as the cities of the Anakims are said to be walled vp to heauen. Deut. 1. 28. Nabuchadnezzars tree to reach vp to heauen. Dan. 4. 18. Ca­pernaam to be exalted to heauen. Mat. 11. 23. [Page 103] That is exceeding high, for it is not like they were so foolish, as to thinke they were able to raise a towre to the heauen. For as Philo saith, the earth being the Center, cannot ei­ther in the whole or in the parts thereof, touch the heauen which is the circumfe­rence, and in respect of the huge distance be­tweene earth and heauen, though the whole earth should be set on an heape, it could not reach to heauen; much lesse a Tower; yet it is like they did resolue to build it so high that the toppe thereof might exceede the highest mountaines; that so they might bee preserued from the flood. And this counsell is thought to haue proceeded from wicked Nimrod, to whom the rude multitude gaue speedie consent, now how farre they procee­ded in their worke, none is able to define: the Iewes haue idlely coniectured that it was 27. miles in height; but it is probably recorded, that in Hieromes time, some part of this huge building was yet extant.

Q. For what end did they build so high a Tower?

A. For two, the one to get a name, that is, to be made famous to posteritie, or rather infamous, as he that burned the Temple of Diana. For such is the desire of glory in [Page 104] man, that rather then hee will be buried in obliuion, hee will doe those things that are most odious both in the sight of God and man, that he may be spoken of after death: & this sin is deriued from Adam to all man­kind, for he desired to be like vnto God, and wee doe all desire that glory which is onely due to God. For this cause so many Pira­mides and Towers, Collassus and triumphant arches haue beene erected; yea whatsoeuer noble worke is done, yet amongst men it is for this end: and what will not a man doe to immortalize his name. For, Pulchrum est digito monstrari, & dicier hic est, but we ought rather to consider what the Prophet saith. Psal. 49. Man being in honour abideth not, he is like the beast that perisheth, like sheepe they are laid in the graue, death shall feed on them, their beautie shall consume in the graue from their dwelling, when hee dyeth, his glory shall not descend after him, &c. The other end why they build this Tower is, least they be scattered abroad: a feare which did arise from their guiltie consciences, for the wicked flie when no man persueth. Prou. 28. 1. Yet though this building of this Tower proceeded of pride, and the intent of the builders was to dishonour God, and get themselues a name, we must not for this con­demne [Page 105] the building of Towers and Forts, which are for ornament and defence.

Q. What doth the Tower and Citie of Ba­bel signifie?

A. As Ierusalem is the type of Christs Church, so is Babel of the diuels Synagogue: and therefore as Christs Church and Satans Synagogue are contrary, so is Ierusalem and Babel. Ierusalem signifieth the vision of peace because the King thereof is the Prince of peace, & the subiects are at peace with God, with men, and with their owne consciences. But Babel signifieth confusion, for as there is nothing amongst the wicked but disorder and confusion, so to them there is no peace. Secondly Nimrod out of his pride built Babel to glorifie himselfe, but Christ by his humili­ty builded the Church to glorifie his father. Thirdly Babel is built in a low plaine, for the wicked seeke those things that are below; but Ierusalem is a city built vpon a hill, for the conuersation of the godly is in heauen. Fourthly Babel is built with bricke and slime, but Ierusalem is built with gold and precious stones Reu. 21. Fifthly, diuersitie of tongues▪ was a meanes to leaue off the building of Babel: but diuersitie of tongues▪ was a meanes to begin the building of Ieru­salem. Act. 2. Sixthly, the building of Babel [Page 106] was the cause why the people were dispersed and separated, but the building of Ierusalem is the cause why they are conioyned and v­nited: seauenthly Babel is fallen and is found no more, for the memoriall of the wicked shall perish, Prou. 10. 7. But Ierusalem shall dwell from generation to generation, Ioel. 3. 20. For they that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion, &c. Psal. 125. 1. Eightly Ba­bel is the hold of euery fowle spirit, and a cage of euery hatefull bird, Reu. 18. But Ieru­salem is that holy city comming downe from God out of heauen, Reu. 21. Therefore let vs come out of Babel, least we be partakers of her sins, and receiue of her plagues, Reu. 18. 4.

Q. Did God descend locally from heauen to see the Tower?

A. No: but when he brings out some ex­traordinary effect of his power and proui­dence, whether it be of iustice or mercy, he is said to descend: so he descended to see So­dom, Gen. 18. 21. He descended to deliuer his people from Egypt, Exod. 3. 8. He descended on Sinay, Exod. 19. 11. So he is desired to de­scend, Psal. 144. 5. Esa. 64. 1, &c. So here be­cause he would manifest the effect of his iu­stice in confounding their tongues and dis­persing of them, he is said to descend, but if [Page 107] we say with many of the auncient fathers that Christ oftentimes did assume the forme of man before he had fully vnited it to him­selfe in the Virgins wombe, then we must al­so say that God heere did descend locally, though not as God, but as man. But howso­euer here we see that God will not strike till he descend and see their wickednesse: that is, make it be seene and openly knowne, both a notable example of patience, and an excel­lent president for iudges, who first must exa­mine before they condemne.

Q. Why are the builders of the Tower cal­led here the sonnes of Adam?

A. To put them in minde of their base o­riginall, which was red earth, that their pride might be cast downe, who being but dust and ashes, yet durst attempt to build a Tower a­gainst the God of heauen their maker: se­condly to teach vs and all posterity, that we doe not arrogate any part of diuine honour to our selues, or attempt any thing against him, who may redact vs to nothing; for hee is Almightie and we are but the sonnes of A­dam: therefore when wee doe forget our selues, he can drowne vs with Pharaoh, kill vs with Senacharib, turne vs into beasts with Nabuchadnezzar, and resolue our bodies in­to [Page 108] lice with Herod: thirdly, that we doe not too much admire and adore the Potentates of this world; for let their power bee neuer so great, yet they are but the sonnes of A­dam: therefore Vide vnde es home et eru­besce.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the people are one?

A. Not onely in place and speech, but al­so in consent and affection; and this vnion made them the more forward to begin that worke; so that they would not willingly be restrained from that which they had imagi­ned to doe: and here we see that the wicked haue their vnity, but it is altogether against the Lord and against his annointed, Psal. 2. Therefore such vnion cannot stand, and if the children of darkenesse bee at such vnion a­mongst themselues, much more should the children of light, who haue but one father, one mother, one head, one redeemer, one spi­rit, one word, one baptisme, one bread which we eate, one cup which we drinke, one com­mon enemy, and one hope of inheritance. Se­condly we see their stedfast resolution that they thinke nothing can restraine them from their building: so confident are the wicked in workes of darkenesse. Thirdly we see that [Page 109] God is not idle, he notes and obserues their doings, he that sitteth in the heauens doth laugh them to scorne, Psal. 2.

Q. How, and to whom did God speake here, when he sayes let vs goe downe?

A. Properly speech belongs not to any thing but to man, who onely hath the instru­ments of speech, yet there is an internall and mental speech in spirits, which is nothing but the reasoning and discoursing of the minde; and this speech is imperfect in respect of man; for none vnderstands what is in the minde of man but himselfe; it Angels it is more perfect, for they vnderstand one ano­ther by this mentall speech; but in God it is most perfect, for after an incomprehensible manner, he speakes to himselfe, and the three persons in the glorious Trinity doe vnder­stand one another after that manner which we cannot conceiue, much lesse expresse. Thē as our minds internally and spiritually can speake to God although our tongues do not mooue, so can the Angels speake to one a­nother, so can God both to them and vs. In times past God spake so to the Prophets, and oftentimes by his Spirit he speakes so to his Saints still, yet God may be said to speake, when he frames audible voyces in the ayre, [Page 110] as Mat. 3. Or when his Angels assuming mens bodies, doe speake in his name, as often in Scripture and most excellently did hee speake when his onely begotten Sonne did assume the whole nature of man. By this essentiall word he hath spoken to vs in these last dayes. Now because the Father speakes here to the Sonne and Holy Ghost, wee can neither define nor diuine how he spake; yet this we know, that he being eternall and in­comprehensible, did speake after an eternall and incomprehensible manner.

Q. To what end did God come downe?

A. To confound their language, for this was a speedy way to ouerthrow their buil­ding, which he might haue done other waies, but this way he thought fittest: both because it was a means to disperse them abroad, as al­so in that hee would haue this diuersitie of speech to be a testimony to all ages of their intolerable pride. And this confusion of tongues did take away that vnion which was amongst men, and hath beene the cause of hatred and contempt amongst nations. Therefore when wee cannot vnderstand one another, let vs call to minde the pride of these builders, for whose sinne God hath laid this great labour on the sonnes of men.

[Page 111]Q. Were their tongues so diuided that eue­ry man who was there did speake a particular language?

A. No: for so there had beene no society amongst men, if none could haue vnderstood anothers speech, and so the world could not haue beene replenished with people: but it is probable according to the opinion of the Ancients, that their tongues were diuided according to the number of the families, so that euery family spake a language, which those that were of another family could not vnderstand. Now this confusion of speech is the third vniuersall punishment with which he doth correct the world, for the first was mortality, denounced against Adam and his posteritie: the second was an vniuersall flood: and this an vniuersall confusion of tongues; and that diuision of tongues is a great iudgement, we may see in the 55. Psal. 10. where Dauid doth wish it against his e­nemies.

Q. What relation is there betweene this di­uision of tongues, and that which was visibly done vpon the Apostles?

A. This diuision was the punishment of pride, but that of the Apostles was the re­ward of their humility: secondly as this di­uision [Page 112] was a meanes to disperse men abroad and fill the world with inhabitants, so that diuision was a meanes to disperse the Apo­stles abroad, and fill the Church with Chri­stians: thirdly in this diuision one speech was diuided, amongst many men, but in that diuision many speeches were vnited in the mouth of one man: fourthly by this diuision the people were separated into diuers regi­ons, by that diuision the people were vnited into one Church: fifthly in this diuision God comes downe in his wrath to punish these builders, but in that diuision the holy Ghost comes downe in mercy to comfort the Apostles.

Q. What did follow vpon this diuision of tongues?

A. They were scattered abroad vpon the face of all the earth; so then the euill is brought on them, which they sought to preuent: for that which the wicked feareth shall come vpon him. Prou. 10. 24. Againe, as God came downe and dissolued this wic­ked communion, so Magistrates and Mini­sters must destroy the workes of the Diuell; and although they leaue off from building their Citie, yet about an 100. yeeres after it was repaired and amplified by Semiramis.

[Page 113]Q. Why was this tower called Babel?

A. It is so called not from Belus, but from Balal, that is confusion, and this name God gaue it, to be a perpetual monument of their wicked attempt; and because this name of Babel or confusion, hath beene euer hatefull, let vs in all our actions shunne it; but espe­cially let the Church be free from it; and let all things there be done with order and de­cencie. Againe; let vs feare and tremble to attempt any thing against the God of hea­uen, for he is not farre from euery one of vs, he that planted the eare, shall he not heare? He that formed the eye, shall he not see. Psal. 94. Truly the Lord looketh from heauen, he beholdeth all the sonnes of men: he consi­dereth all their workes. Psal. 33. Yea hee knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanitie. Psal. 94. Therefore as he came downe now to punish these builders, so he will come one day, but with the sound of the trumpet and the Angels of heauen, there shall he ren­der to euery man according to his workes.

Q. Why are the generations of Sem set downe here?

A. As in the fifth chapter of this booke Moses rehearseth ten Patriarckes from A­dam to Noah; so in this he reckoneth tenne [Page 114] from Sem to Abraham. First, to let vs see that euen in these most corrupted times God hath his Church, although but small, there­fore we neede not doubt to call the Church Vniuersall in respect of time, for it hath bin euen from the beginning, although not still apparent in the eyes of men. Secondly, that we may know the age of the world, therfore to euery one of these names, the yeeres of their life are subioyned: for else we should not haue knowne how much time was be­tweene the flood, and the making of the co­uenant with Abraham. Thirdly, that wee may know that Christ came of these fathers according to the flesh. Fourthly, although many more descended of Sem, yet here they are not thought worthy to bee reckoned in Gods booke, because they did not continue in the faith of Sem. Fifthly, although Ar­phaxad be here named, and in the tenth chap­ter, after Elam and Assur. Yet it followeth not that he is yonger then they (for so wee must grant that Noah had these three sonnes in two yeeres, which is not needfull,) but Ar­phaxad is rather the elder: For the Scrip­ture doth not obserue the order of times in setting downe names.

Q. Whether shall we hold with the Hebrew [Page 115] text, that Selah was the sonne of Arphaxad, or with the Greeke which affirmeth that Selah was the sonne of Cainan, and grand-childe of Arphaxad?

A. Rather with the Hebrew, for that is the originall fountaine and of vndoubted ve­ritie, the Greeke is but a translation, and therefore the Translators might haue mista­ken themselues in putting in Caeinan, between Arphaxad and Selah. Secondly, all the He­brew coppies affirme that Selah was the son of Arphaxad, but all the Greeke coppies doe not affirme Cainan to bee Arphaxads sonne, for there are some Greeke coppies, which in the 1. of Chron. 1. 18. Make no mention at all of Cainan, but onely haue [...] Arphaxad begat Selah. Thirdly, al­though Luke chapt. 3. mention Cainan, yet some Greeke coppies there are which in that place doe not at all mention Cainan, as Beza witnesseth in his annot. vpon Luc. cap. 3. Fourthly, the putting in of Cainan here, hath for the most part changed the time of each fathers procreation in the Greeke, least the Gentiles (as it is thought) for whom the Bible was translated first, should know their true genealogie.

Q. How many yeeres liued Sem, after hee [Page 116] begat Arphaxad?

A. Fiue hundred yeares, euen till Jsaac was fiftie yeares old, and so he saw ten gene­rations after him, before he dyed. Then true it is, that he who honoureth his father, &c. his dayes shall be long in the land, &c. And although good Sem was vexed to see not on­ly others, but also his owne posterity fall to idolatry, yet he is comforted before he dy­eth to see the Church renued again in Abra­ham and Isac, and no lesse comfort was it for Abraham and his sonne to enioy the society of old Sem, who saw the first world, the flood, the building of Babel, who questionlesse did instruct them with the knowledge of the true God, and of those things which he had both receiued of his father Noah, and which hee had seene by his owne experience.

Q. What sonnes had Terah?

A. Abraham, Nachor, and Haran, where Abraham though youngest is first placed for hoour and dignities sake, as before, Sem is put before his elder brethren. Secondly, Abraham is not onely mentioned here, but also Nachor and Haran, for the better vn­derstanding of the history of Lot the sonne of Haran, and of Rebeccah Isaacks wife who was of Nachors house.

[Page 117]Q. How doe we know that Abraham was the youngest of these three?

A. Because he was borne when his father Terah was a hundred thirty yeares old, for Terah dyed two hundred fiue yeares olde, vers. 32. of this cap. Then Abraham departed from Charran 75. yeeres olde. Gen. 12. 4. therefore if Abram was 75. yeeres old at the death of his father, it is manifest that he was borne the 130. yeere of his fathers age, and so consequently he was yonger then Nachor and Haran who were borne before this time: for Milcah Nachors wife was the daughter of Haran. verse 29. therefore que­stionlesse Haran was the eldest. Againe Ha­ran died before his father. verse 28. If then he died and had a daughter who was marri­ed before Abraham was 75. yeeres old, then doubtlesse he was the eldest, if then Abraham was borne when Terah was 130. yeeres old, Haran must needs be borne when Terah was 70. For at that time he begate, that is, he be­gan to beget children. verse 26. Therefore by this also we may gather that Nachor was elder then Abraham.

Q. What shall we say to the Hebrewes: who hold that Abrahams age of 75. yeeres, is not counted from his birth, but from his departure [Page 118] from Vr of Chaldea?

A. If this were true, that Abraham was borne when his father was 70. yeeres old, we must admit that hee was 135. yeeres olde, when hee departed from Charran; which is contrarie to Gen. 12. 4. Againe, by this sup­putation it would follow that Isaac was born 35. yeeres before Abraham came to Canaan; for Abraham was 100. yeeres old when Isaac was borne. Gen. 21. But that is false, for I­saac was borne in Canaan. Yea if this fiction of the Hebrewes were true, wee must be for­ced against the Scripture to admit that A­braham was 160. yeere old when Isaac was borne, and that he liued 100. yeeres, whereas he liued but 175. Gen. 25. Neither neede we with Augustine, Quest. 25. in Gen. That A­braham came twice to Canaan, once when his father was liuing, and then hee remained there 60. yeeres, and another time after his death; for the Scripture both here, and Act. 7. Mentions onely of once comming to Ca­naan, and that after his fathers death.

Q. What Vr of the Chaldees here?

A. It may either signifie fire properly, and so the Hebrews think that Haran died in the fire, but that Abraham was wonderfully de­liuered from thence, which sauours of a fa­ble [Page 119] because neither mentioned by Moses, nor Paul. Heb. 11. Neither by Iosephus nor Philo, who haue written much of Abraham. Se­condly, This Ʋr may signifie metaphorical­ly, persecution and affliction; which often in Scripture is called fire, as Psal. 66. 12. Lam. 1. 13. And so Abraham was deliuered from the afflictions of the Chaldees. Third­ly, it may be here the name of a Citie, as the Chaldee paraphrase taketh it; or a countrey as the Greeke translateth it, and this is most proper: then Vr was a Citie or Countrey in Chaldea, so called either from the fire which they saw come from heauen vpon the fathers sacrifices, or else from the sacred fire which was kept there, for fire was holy amongst the Gentiles, especially amongst the Chalde­ans, Persians and Romans, or it might haue beene called so, because it stood in a low place or valley, which the Hebrews call Vr. In this countrey then or Citie Haran died, before his father, that is, his father being yet aliue, and from hence Terah tooke Abra­ham, Lot, and Sarai, to goe to Canaan.

Q. Was Sarai Abrahams halfe sister, by his father Terah, and not by his mother, as thinketh Clem. Alexand. lib. 2. Strom.

A. No, but she was the daughter of Haran, [Page 120] and sister to Lot and Milcha, which Milcha was grand-mother to Rebecca Isaaks wife. Gen. 22. 20, 23. Then though properly shee was his brothers daughter, yet shee is called his sister. Gen. 20. 12. As Lot is called his brother. Gen. 13. 8. For the Hebrewes vse to call their kinsfolkes brethren and sisters; and though properly shee be Terahs grand­childe, yet according to the Scripture phrase, shee may be called his daughter. For grand­fathers, are called fathers in Scripture, as Ia­cob calleth Abraham his father. Gen. 48. 15. 16. Shee was then Abrahams sister, that is, his brother Harans daughter by the same father Terah; but not by the same Mother, for Haran was Terahs sonne, by an other woman: so that he was but halfe brother to Abraham. Here then we see how carefull A­braham is now, and other fathers here after, to take them wiues of their owne kindred, and not strangers being Idolaters, and this they did, when as yet there was no positiue law, to forbid them, as afterward it was com­manded by Moses. Deut. 7. 3.

Q. What was Iscah, whom Moses calleth the daughter of Haran?

A. This Iscah is no other woman but Sa­rai, for els it had beene impertinent to haue [Page 121] spoken of her in this place, the signification also of the word so much importeth. For both Ischai and Sarai signifie the same thing: to witte, principality or rule. Then Sarai we see had two names, as many other in the Scripture, and though Abraham marryed her being his mothers daughter, yet we must not thinke that marriage vnlawfull in him, for it was not exhibited by law, yea after the law we see it was in vse, by the practise of Oth­niel, for he marryed with Achsah the daughter of his brother Caleb. Iudg. 1. 13. Yet although this marriage was not vnlawfull in Abraham and Othniel, because it was permitted them, being extraordinary persons, wee must not put it in practise, for many things were law­full to them which to vs are vnlawfull. And though Moses doth not expresly forbid it, yet by analogy and consequence it seemeth to forbid such kind of marriage. Moses Lev. 18. doth not in expresse tearmes forbid the grand-child to mary with the grand-mother; or with the wife of his grand-father, or a man to marry with his mothers brothers wife, and yet these marriages by proportion are vnlawfull. Moses onely there sets downe expresly a few vnlawfull marriages, that by those wee may iudge of the rest that are vn­lawfull [Page 122] in such distances.

Q. Why is there mention made here of Sa­ries barrennesse?

A. To put vs in minde of the wonderfull birth of Isaac, that so we may the more ad­mire the power of God. Secondly, to make away for the subsequent history of Jsaacks birth; & in this we may consider the state of the Church. For as God out of barren Sarai brought out Isaca, so he did out of her, as out of a dry stock procreate his church: therfore when the Church seemeth to vs as it were vt­terly lost, let vs not despaire, for God of stones can raise children to Abraham, Mat. 3. When we doubt, then let vs looke vnto Abraham our father, and vnto Sarah that bare vs, Esa. 51. 2.

Q. Was Terah the cause why Abraham tooke his iourney to Cainan?

A. No: but Abraham was rather the cause that mooued Terah, for the calling did especially belong to Abraham, Gen. 12. 1. Therefore his faith is particularly commen­ded, Heb. 11. 8. And though Abraham ac­quainted his father with Gods oracle, and so vnder God mooued him to goe, yet because Terah was his father, this honour is giuen to him, that he is said to take Abraham, &c. from [Page 123] Chaldea. Secondly, in that Abraham went with his father and kindred. Wee learne what was his loue to their good, and what our care and loue should be to our friends, in drawing them from Chaldea, that is from the world. But as Abraham was resolued if they had not gone, to haue forsaken them: So must we forsake parents, friends, coun­try, yea all we haue, to follow Christ. Third­ly, these fathers before they departed from Chaldea were Idolaters, as we may see, Josua 24. 2. And in them we may behold what wee are before our calling, euen the children of wrath. Fourthly, in that not onely Abraham, but the rest also went out from Vr. Wee see that this was no fire but the name of a city, for if they had all beene saued from the fire, the Scripture had ascribed it to the power of God, which it doth not, as we see afterwards it doth, speaking of the three children in the fierie furnace. Fifthly, Sarah here is called Terahs daughter in law, therefore she could not be his own daughter. Sixthly, Sarah is cal­led here Abrahams wife, therefore could not be his sister, for such a marriage were alto­gether vnlawfull.

Q. Whether went Nachor with Abra­ham and the rest of his kindred from Vr, or not?

[Page 124]A. If he had gone with them, he had been heere named, as well as the rest, therefore it seemes he stayed behind and would not leaue his Idolatrous country. In whom we see the nature of the wicked who cannot be perswa­ded to leaue the world; and though he went not at this time, yet afterwards being either troubled in his conscience, or els banished from that place as Augustine thinketh, lib. 16. de ciuit. dei. cap. 13. Hee departed from thence, but went no further then Mesopota­mia, for hee dwelt in Nachor. Gen. 24. 10.

Q. Why did Abraham and the rest of his company stay at Charran, and went not immedi­ately to Canaan?

A. Because his father being old not able to trauell so farre as Canaan; therefore hee was driuen to stay there with his old father till he dyed, but after his father was dead, he remooued from thence to Canaan Act. 7. 4. In Nachor, Terah and Abraham wee may see the threefold estate of men; some like Nachor remaine in Chaldea, and will not for­sake the vanity of this world. Others againe are like Terah who in their iourney from Chaldea to Canaan, from the dominion of Sa­tan and power of sinne to the kingdome of grace, stay in the middle way, and so dieth, [Page 125] but the third sort are those true Christians, who with Abraham doe not stay in Chaldea; or if they doe, it is but a short while, but runne on with patience the race that is set before them. Let vs then with Abraham walke towards Canaan while wee haue the light, least darkenesse come vpon vs, Ioh. 12. 35. I meane that darkenesse of death where the light is as darkenesse, Iob 10. 22. For hee that goeth to the land of darkenesse, that is to the graue shall come vp no more, Iob 7. 9.

Q. IN that God doth call Abraham par­ticularly from Chaldea, doth it fol­low that there was more excellency and worth in him then in the rest?

A. No: for before our calling we are all by nature the children of wrath. Abraham was an Idolater, as well as the rest of his kindred, Ios. 24. 2. For how could hee else [Page 126] chuse, beeing borne of Idolatrous parents; and bred amongst an idolatrous people, and wanting the meanes to know the true wor­ship of God, till God himselfe did wonder­fully call him. Yea if he had beene free from superstition, wherein had the mercy of God appeared in calling him? then Abraham be­ing in the same estate of misery that others were, is the more bound to God for his mer­cifull calling: for it was of his meere loue that he called both him and his seed, because he loued their fathers, therefore hee chose their seed after them, saith Moses, Deut. 4. 37. And as God called Abraham from Chal­dea, so doth he call vs from the power of Sa­tan, not because of our foreseene merits, but because it was his pleasure, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Rom. 9. 16.

Q. How and to what end was Abraham called?

A. He was called effectually, for he is not of the number of those who are called but not chosen. Mat. 20. 22. But of these who called in time, predestinated before time, and shall be glorified ofter time, Rom. 8. 30. Secondly, he was called not by violence, as Paul, nor by affliction, as oftentimes the Israelites were, [Page 127] nor by present benefits, as those who were healed by Christ and the Apostles, nor by working of miracles as many in the Gospell, but by the bare word of God, Get thee out of thy country, &c. Thirdly, hee was called not because of his fore-seene faith, much lesse be­cause of his fore-seene merits, for both these follow calling; Non praecedunt iustificandum, sed sequuntur iustificatum. But hee called him, because it was the good pleasure of his will, Ephes. 1. 5. Fourthly, he is not called onely to a priuate office or function, as Saul was to kingdome, Judas to the Apostleship, and neither of them to grace: but he was cal­led both to bee a Father and Prince on his people, as also to be a member of that City which he looked for; whose builder and ma­ker is God, Heb. 11. 10. Fifthly, he is not cal­led as he was, who first desired to bury his father. But as Peter and Andrew, lames and Iohn were, who leauing their ships, their fa­thers and their nets followed Christ, Mat. 4. So Abraham departed as the Lord had spoken.

Q. How often did God appeare to Abra­ham?

A. Nine times. First, now in Chaldea, where he is bid leaue his country. Secondly, [Page 128] when he came to Canaan, then God promised to giue his seed that land, Gen. 12. 7. Thirdly, when hee departed from Egypt to Canaan; being separated from Lot, then the Lord promised to him and to his seed the land of Canaan, Gen. 13. 14. Fourthly, in a vision, when God promised to multiply his posteri­ty, as the starres, Gen. 15. 1. Fifthly, when Abraham was 99. yeares old, then he chan­ged his name from Abram to Abraham, and instituted circumcision the seale of the coue­nant, Gen. 17. 1. Sixthly, in the plaine of Mamre, setting in his tent dore, then hee re­ceiued the three Angels, Gen. 18. 1. Seauenth­ly, when he was commanded to cast out Ish­mael, Gen. 21. 12. Eightly, when hee was commanded to sacrifice his sonne Isaac, Gen. 21. 1. Ninthly, when hee staved him from offering of his sonne, Gen. 22. 11. And by all these apparitions wee may see how highly God did account of his seruant Abraham, and how happy and honourable they are whom God loueth, although they are con­temptible to the world. Secondly, God ap­peared oftentimes to Abraham, and so hee doth still to his Saints, although not after that manner, that hee did to Abraham, yet in his spirit hee is with vs to the end of the world.

[Page 129]Q. How did God appeare to Abraham and the Prophets?

A. Here it is not expressed how God ap­peared or spake, but we know that God hath beene both seene and heard of his people, not in regard of his essence, which is most simple, free from accidents, infinite, incom­prehensible, neyther must we imagine with the Anthropomorphits, that God hath a bo­dy and members by which he is made visible, for no man hath seene God at any time, Ioh. 1. No man can see him and liue, Exod. 33. No: in the kingdome of heauen wee shall not see his essence with our bodily eyes. We may, see him with the eies of our minds as the Angels doe now, for we shall be like to them. Yet we shal see him perfectly with our bodily eyes, but in the person of his Son our media­tor; for the godhead dwelleth bodily in him; then neither Abraham nor any Prophet hath seene or heard God in himselfe, but onely they haue enioyed his presents in externall signes, as Moses in the fierie bush, the Israe­lites in the cloud and fire, in smoake and voi­ces, thunders and lightnings, the Priests in the mercy seat, in the Arke, in Vrim and Thummim. The Prophets sometimes in the shape of a man, sometime they did inioy him without any externall signe, immediately by [Page 130] his spirit working vpon the vnderstanding and will, and they haue seene him sometimes by dreames, sometimes awaking, sometimes in a trance, as his Maiestie thought good, but there neuer was, nor is, nor shal be a more ex­cellent way to see him, then in his sonne Ie­sus. For hee that hath seene him, hath seene the Father. Joh. 14. Then we know not how he appeared and spake to Abraham, it is suffi­cient for vs to know that hee appeared in some externall image. Quam voluntas eligit non quam natura creauit. Ambros.

Q. Why doth God command Abraham to leaue his countrey?

A. Because he will trie his faith and obe­dience. Secondly, because he will weane him by degrees from the loue of the world. Thirdly, because hee will haue him to bee a Preacher amongst the Cananites, to shew them the knowledge of the true God. That he may winne some to saluation; and make the obstinate inexcusable. Fourthly, that he may take possession of that land in the name of his posteritie. Fifthly, that hee may flee from the Societie of the Idolatrous Chalde­ans, and shunne all those that were hinderers to him in Gods seruice; especially his friends and acquaintance. Sixthly, to teach vs what we should doe, when wee are called; euen [Page 131] leaue our owne countrey, Rindred and fa­thers house, that is, the world, our sinnes which are so deere vnto vs, and the dominion of Satan, that we may follow Christ to the heauenly Canaan. Seauenthly, that Gods power might appeare the more, in defending Abraham, in preseruing and multiplying his posteritie, amongst the midst of their ene­mies in a strange land, and at last giuing them the full possession of it, then for these reasons Abraham forsooke his countrey, friends and acquaintance, which was hard for flesh and blood to doe, yet by faith hee went out, not knowing whither hee went. Heb. 11. 8.

Q. Is it lawfull then for vs to forsake our countries and friends, if they hinder vs in Gods seruice?

A. Yes, for if we preferre father or mo­ther, or any thing to Christ, we are not wor­thy of him, for this cause therefore Abra­ham, Isaac, and Iacob, soiourned in the land of promise, as in a strange countrey. Heb. 11. 9. Lot forsooke Sodome, the Israelites Ae­gypt; Moses refused to be called the sonne of Pharaohs daughter. Heb. 11. 24. Elias and Iohn Baptist liued in the wildernesse. Christ also did retire himselfe commonly to the shippe, the mount and the desert: the Disci­ples [Page 132] forsooke all and followed Christ. Math. 18. 28. And many holy men in the Primi­tiue Church, of whom the world was not worthie, as th' Apostle saith, wandred in de­serts and mountaines, in dennes and caues of the earth. Heb. 11. 38. And truly as the socie­tie of the wicked, hinders the seruice of God, so nothing fitter to adunace it, then a priuate life, free from the multitude. Amongst whom we both see and here these things, which doe not bring vs to God, but drawes vs from him; yet here I doe not commend the idle life of the Monkes, which is vndertaken more for superstition then religion, for the belly then the soule, amongst whom for the part: gluttonie; couetousnesse and intempe­rance doe reigne, instead of sobrietie, meeke­nesse and continencie, as Helias Abbas did complaine, although I finde nothing in that kinde of life contrarie to true Christianitie, if so be it were purged from errour and su­perstition, and corrected according to the patterne of that life, embraced by the Pri­mitiue Church, and so highly commended by the fathers. For indeede their Monaste­ries were the seed-plots and seminaries of the Church, and free from these errors and abuses, which now adaies haue filled our Mo­nasteries. Now, though Abraham left his [Page 133] countrey, yet this must not be a president for vs vpon euery occasion, to forsake our countrey and friends, or to thinke that God can onely be serued abroad and not at home, truly many holy men, who neuer forsooke their countrey and friends, haue serued God sincerely. And it was the praise of Noah, that he was righteous before God, in that wicked generation wherein he liued. But if wee see that wee cannot liue amongst our friends without indangering our saluation, let vs rather loose and forsake all, then loose our soules.

Q. In what countrey was Abraham now when God called him?

A. Not in Mesopotamia, or in the way betweene Chaldea and Charran, as Augustine thinketh, lib. de ciuit. Dei. 16. cap. 15. For hee is called out of his countrey, which is not Mesopotamia, though S. Steuen saith, that he was in Mesopotamia, but there he calleth all the countrey beyond Euphrates, Chaldea, Sy­ria, Babylonia by this name. Secondly, nor in Charran, for this was not his countrey, and to say that hee was twice called, once in Chaldea, for that was his countrey, and from Vr in Chaldea he was called. Gen. 15. 7. Then to thinke that he was commanded to leaue [Page 134] his countrey, after that he had left it already is ridiculous, neither must we thinke that ei­ther Mesopotamia strictly taken, or Charran, could be Abrahams countrey, seeing hee did but soiourne there but a while like a stran­ger, his minde in the meane time being still in Charran.

Q. How did Abraham leaue his kindred, seeing they went with him?

A. Of all his kindred, none went to Ca­naan with him but Lot his brothers sonne, for Terah died in the way of Charran, Na­chor went not from Chaldea. Secondly, sup­pose his father went with him to Charran, ei­ther because he hated the Chaldeans Idola­trie, or else because hee would not loose the societie of his sonne Abraham. Yet Abraham was so disposed and resolued, that although his father had not gone, or if he had labou­red to diswade him, yet he would haue gone whether the Lord did call him. And in this hee sheweth a singular faith and obedience, both in that he was so resolute to goe, how­soeuer his friends were disposed, as that hee would leaue a certaintie for incertainties, his owne friends and countrey, for a land hee knew not: for although in the former chap­ter Moses nameth Canaan. Yet it doth not [Page 135] follow, that Abraham as yet, knew that hee was to goe thither, for Moses of himselfe doth name it by the figure Prolepsis.

Q. What are the blessings that God doth pro­mise to Abraham?

A. First, that hee would make of him a great nation, which hee performed in his children by Agar, but more wonderfully in the Israelites by Sarah, being old and barren, but aboue all in the spirituall Israelites. For hee is the father of all them that beleeue. Rom. 4. 11. Secondly, That hee will blesse him, and so he did in earthly things. For he was very rich in cattell, in siluer and golde, Gen. 13. 2. and 24, 25. But specially in spi­rituall things. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 3. Yea in all things God blessed Abraham. Gen. 24. 1. Thirdly, he will make his name great; (not as the Hebrewes thinke by putting to the letter (He) and of Abram, making it Abra­ham, for this coniecture is ridiculous) but he will make his fame and person glorious. For the name is often taken for the person it self, as thou hast a few names in Sardis, that is, a few persons. Reu. 3. 4. And Gods name is in Scripture taken for himselfe, then Abraham was great and famous, for his faith and obe­dience, for Gods care to him for many bles­sings [Page 136] he had of God, in his sonne Isaac, in barren Sarah, in his posteritie the Israelites, in the faithfull, whose father hee is; in that God calleth himselfe, the God of Abraham. But specially in that Christ came of Abra­ham according to the flesh, so then Abrahams name shall bee so great, that hee shall bee a blessing to others. Fourthly, hee will blesse them that blesseth him, and curse them that curse him; so Lot and Ismael were blessed for his cause; Pharaoh was plagued, the foure Kings ouerthrowne, and Abimelec terrified for his sake; but this cursing and blessing hath beene alwaies seene executed vpon the friends and enemies of the Church; the Ba­bylonian, Persian, Grecian, Romane Monar­chies, haue beene cursed for cursing her. But the mid-wiues in Aegypt, the whoore Ra­chab, the widdow of Serepta, and many o­thers haue beene blessed for blessing her. Fifthly, in him all the families of the earth shall be blessed, that is in his seed. Gen. 22. 18. Which the Apostle expoundeth of Christ. Gal. 3. 16. For the blessing of God is come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Gal. 3. 14. God hath sent Christ to blesse vs, in turning euery one of vs from our iniquities. Act. 3. 26. Yea in Christ God hath blessed vs, with [Page 137] all spirituall blessings, &c. Eph. 1. 3. Heere then we see how bountifull God is to Abra­ham for his imperfect obedience, thus hee deales with his Saints, for brasse hee brings gold, and for iron, siluer, and for wood brasse, and for stones iron, &c. Jsay 60. 17. And wee must obserue, that from the promise to the law are foure hundred thirty yeares, Gal. 3. 17. And all this while the Israelites dwelt as strangers in Egypt, Exod. 12. 40. Yet not in Egypt onely, but some part they spent in Ca­naan, and because they did spend the most part of it in Egypt, therfore Moses only men­tioneth Egypt.

Q. How old was Abraham when he went from Charran?

A. Seauenty fiue yeares olde, and in this he deserueth singular commendations, that although now he was old and feeble, yet hee would not descest from going his iourney. Secondly, in that he went as the Lord spake vnto him, we doe learne how to guide our a­ctions, for this is true piety, to vndertake no­thing, but what God hath commanded, and to doe it no other wayes, then as hee hath commaunded; this is onely true obedience, which God more regardeth then sacrifice, 1. Sam. 15. 22. Thirdly, in that Lot went with [Page 138] him, we may see what his affection was to true religion, who beeing but a youth, and hauing Nachor in Chaldea his vncle, who like enough did diswade him from going, yet hee had rather goe with Abraham although hee knew not whether, then to remaine amongst idolatrous companie.

Q. What company tooke Abraham with him to Canaan?

A. Sarai his wife, a notable president for women, who should not with Lots wife look backe to Sodom when they are called, not hinder their husbands from going to the wedding feast as she in the Gospell, Luk. 14. 20. Nor infect their husbands with idolatry, as Salomons wife, nor deceiue them with flat­tering words, as Sampsons wife, nor induce them to breake Gods commandement as Eue; nor desire them to curse God as Iobs wife, but rather let them imitate Sarai, Re­beccah, Lia, Rachel, Debora, Ruth, Abigal, the Queene of Seba, the widow of Serepta, the blessed Virgin Mary, the widdow Anna, E­lizabeth, Lydia, the women in the Gospell who ministred to Christ, who accompanyed him to the crosse, and did visite him in the graue, and many other holy women mentio­ned in Scripture, in whose liues they may see [Page 139] a patterne of deuotion to God, loue to their husbands, faith, wisedome, patience, charity, and many other excellent vertues. Secondly, he tooke Lot his brothers sonne, a notable young man, whom the young men of this age should imitate, who are so farre from following Abraham for religions sake to a strange countrey, that they will neither fol­low the holy life of the Saints, nor the coun­sell of their preachers in their owne coun­try. Thirdly, he tooke all the soules, that is, those persons or seruants, whom he and Lot had gotten in their possessions, in Charran, where wee may see that Abraham was no base fellow, but a man of might, for hee had many seruants, euen 318. trained souldiers, Gen. 14. Againe, here we see his care to their soules, who would bring them with him, a patterne for masters, who must be carefull to procure the weale of their seruants soules, and in that, they went with him, wee haue here an example for seruants, who should bee ready to follow their masters in goodnesse.

Q. Did Abraham well in taking with him to Canaan, all the substance that he had gathe­red?

A. Yes: for God would neyther haue him begge, nor bee burdensome to those a­mongst [Page 140] whom he was to dwell, our calling then doth not hinder the lawfull vse of ri­ches lawfully gotten; for those that were called by the Apostles, did not altogether leaue their possessions, but sold them as well for the vse of others as for their owne, Act. 2. and Abraham as all the Saints may lawful­ly possesse riches, for they are the gifts of God, the effects of Gods blessings, and the instruments of learning, vertue and almes, yet we must take heed, that our riches bee not vnlawfully gotten. Secondly, they be not abused to luxurie and pride. Thirdly, that we doe not put our confidence in them. Fourthly, that wee doe not hide them, with that vnprofitable seruant, when we should vse them to the comfott of our selues and poore brethren. Fifthly, that we doe still acknow­ledge God to be the Authour and giuer of them. Sixthly, that whensoeuer occasion serueth, we be ready to leaue them, if God doe so require of vs for the greater aduance­ment of his glory and true religion, and so it is to be vnderstood that the Apostles forsook all, and they are promised to be highly re­warded, who leaueth these things for Christs sake. Mat. 19.

Q. How farre trauelled Abraham through [Page 141] the land?

A. To the place where Sichem afterward was built, a city in the tribe of Manasses, be­longing to the priests and not farre from the hils Hebal and Garizim, where the Israelites heard the blessings pronounced, Deut. 27. 12. This place in Abrahams time was called the plaine or Oke of Moreth, for it seemes that here was a groue of Okes. And here we see that Abraham euen in this promised land, is but a pilgrim, for he is driuen to wander as farre as Sichem, which is toward the desert. Truely God would teach both Abraham and vs by this, that our life here on earth is but a peregrination.

Q. Did this land belong of right to Abra­ham, because he descended of Sem?

A. The Hebrewes thinke that Canan by Noah was giuen to Sem and his posterity, but Canans sonnes tooke it by violence from them, which is false. First, because the Scrip­ture mentioneth no such thing. Secondly, if this country had belonged to Sem, and so consequently to Abraham, this had beene no free gift. Thirdly, if the Cananites had ta­ken it violently, then this had beene cause sufficient to haue driuen them out, but wee reade onely that their wickednesse was the [Page 142] cause of their expulsion, Leu. 18. 24. Fourth­ly, God would not haue deferred foure hun­dred yeares to driue them out, but presently would haue put Abrahams seed in possession of it, which he did not, for their iniquity was not yet full. Fifthly, Moses mentioneth no other cause, that mooued God to bring his people to Canaan, but onely because he loued them, Deut. 437. And as God brought A­braham now to Canaan, the countrey being replenished with Canaanites; so did hee af­terwards to his posterity, for when they they were brought hither from Egypt, they did finde the Cananites in the land. Againe, as the Cananites was in the land, so the Cana­nites are in the Church, and as Abraham li­ued a stranger amongst them, so do the Saints amongst the wicked, but as there came a time when the Cananites were driuen out, so the day shall come when the wicked shall be cast out into vtter darkenesse, Mat. 8. 12.

Q. Which of the persons of the trinity appea­red here to Abraham?

A. Not the father, for as he is of none, so he is sent of none: nor the holy Ghost, for he visibly onely appeared in a doue on Christ in Iordan, and on the Apostles in fierie tongues, but Christ the second person, the [Page 143] Angell of the couenant, who hath from the beginning beene a mediatour and the em­bassadour of his Father. Some to vpholde image-worship, do thinke this was an Angell Personaliter: but God by representation; and therefore he is called Lord. But this is false, because the name Iehouah which is in the Hebrew text, is neuer giuen to any creature, for it is Gods proper name, Esay 54. 5. Amos 4. 15. If the name Elohim had beene vsed here, they might haue had some shew for their opinion, for that name indeede is some­times giuen to the creatures, Psal. 82. 6. But the essentiall name of Iehouah is here expres­sed, which is onely proper to the creator. Se­condly, if this had beene an Angell, it is not like that Abraham would haue built an altar to him; for building of Altars was a part of diuine worship.

Q. To whom then did Abraham build this Altar?

A. To Jehouah that appeared vnto him, and in so doing, he testifies his piety to God, euen amongst the midst of Idolaters without feare, Religion esse non potest, vbi metus est. Lact. Firm. lib. 4. Loue driueth out feare. Secondly, he shewes a thankfull minde to God, not on­ly in building an altar, but building it with­out [Page 144] command of his owne accord. Thirdly, he did not build it to any of the Idol-gods, hee knew his God to bee a iealous God, and who would giue his glory to none. Farre o­therwise doe they who build Churches and Chappels to the honour of dead men, Hono­randi sunt sancti propter imitationem non ado­randi propter religionem Augustin. I deny not but any religious house may bare the name of a Saint or Martyr deceased, prouided al­wayes that wee derogate nothing from the Lord, or arrogate any thing to them contra­ry to Gods word.

Q. Whether remooued Abraham from Si­chem?

A. To a mountaine on the East of Bethel, so called by Iacob, but otherwise it was called by Luz, Gen. 28. 19. This mountaine was be­tweene Bethel and Ai, a city which Iosuah de­stroyed, Jos. 8. And vpon this mountaine, a Temple was built by the permission of Alex­ander Macedonia, of which hill the woman of Samaria speaketh, Ioh. 4. It had two tops, He­bal and Garizim, whereon the blessings and cursings were pronounced. Here then Abra­ham stayes a while, and yet not long, for hee is forced to trauell towards the South, as ha­uing no certaine abode enen in that promi­sed [Page 145] land, hee was then, and the godly are still but strangers in this world, and as hee went towards the South as towards the Sun: so doe the godly in faith and grace, the way of the righteous shineth as the light, that shineth more and more vnto the perfect day, Prou. 4 18. But the wicked trauell towards the North, from whence a plague shall bee spread vpon them, Jer. 1. 14. Because the way of the wicked is as darkenesse, Prou. 4. 19.

Q. Why went Abraham downe to E­gypt?

A. Not because hee distrusted of Gods prouidence, for hee was assured that God could miraculously feede him, as afterward he did the widow of Serepta and Eliah. Se­condly, not because hee was inconstant and mooueable, as many are, who can neuer set­tle themselues in one place, but like wandring starres, and carryed vp and downe from place to place. Thirdly, neither fled he for any vil­lany he had committed or murther, as Moses did from Egypt. Fourthly, nor to increase his stocke as marchants doe. Fifthly, nor cu­riously to increase his knowledge in humane sciences, as Pythagoras, Emsedocles, Democri­tus and Plato, who for this end trauelled so [Page 146] farre countries; but he went, first because of the famine in the land, therefore hee would not tempt God by neglecting lawfull means. Secondly, because he would propagate the knowledge of the true God in Egypt, as Saint Chrysostome thinketh, Hom. 30. in Gen. And for this end the Apostles trauelled through the world, now although this was a very fruitfull land, Deut. 8. 7. Yet God made it barren for the wickednesse of them that dwelt therein, Psal. 107. 34. Barrennesse and miseery are the fruits of sinne, let no man glory in their fruitfull Ilands, for sinne will make them barren as Sodom and Gomorrha. Againe, when Abraham thought to haue ease and wealth hee is frustrated: for hee is saine to flye for hunger, so God doth exer­cise his children wiith such punishments, that his care and their faith may appeare the more: so he did pinch Isack, Iacob, Ioseph, E­lias, Eliseus, and other Prophets, Paul and o­ther Apostles with hunger. Moreouer Abra­ham for the sinnes of this land fared the worse; and so many times Gods children dwelling with the wicked are partakers of their plagues?

Q. What did the going downe of Abraham into Egypt signifie?

[Page 147]A. That as he went thither so should his posterity after him, and the most part of the circumstances doe agree. First, as famine was the cause that Abraham went to Egipt. So famine was the cause that mooued Iacob and his sonnes to goe thither. Secondly, as Abraham was now troubled: so afterward Israel was more afflicted. Thirdly, Pharaoh for Abrahams sake is plagued, and Pharaoh for Israels sake was drowned. Fourthly, A­braham was vsed well for Saraies sake, and so was Israel for Iosephs sake. Fifthly, Sarai A­brahams wife was faire to looke vpon, there­fore she was enticed to lye with Pharaoh, so Ioseph, Israels sonne was a faire person, there­fore was enticed to lye with Potiphers wife. Sixthly, Abraham departed rich from E­gypt, hauing sheepe, beeues, asses and Cam­mels, so did the Israelites hauing spoyled the Egyptians of their siluer, gold, and ray­ment.

Q. Was Sarai beautifull at this time?

A. Yes: and her beauty was extraordi­nary, seeing it was not diminished, neither by her long iournies, nor by her age, for now she was 65. yeares old, tenne yeares yonger then Abraham. And as Sarai was beautifull in the eyes of Abraham, so is the Church faire in [Page 148] the eyes of Christ her well beloued. But this beauty of the Church doth not so much con­sist in externall splendor, as in internal grace, for the kings daughter is all glorious with­in, Psal. 45. 13. This beauty of Sarai made Abraham giue her counsell to say that shee was his sister, and not his wife, for hee knew what danger there is to haue a beautifull woman. And truely oftentimes beauty hath beene the cause of murther and mischiefe, the wife of Vriah, Lucretia, Helina, and many more can testifie, therefore beauty is not so much to be regarded as vertue. Abraham then had good cause to feare the Egyptians, because they are blacker then the Cananites, and when they see a faire woman, which is scarce in that hot country, they are exceeding prone to defloure her, hee knew also that the aboundance and plenty in Egypt, brought out incontinance and intemperance among them.

Q. Did Abraham sinne in perswading his wife to say she was his sister?

A. He did not sinne in sauing his owne life, seeing nothing is more precious then the life, especially Abrahams, because all nations should be blessed in his seede. Secondly, nei­ther altogether did he lye in saying shee was [Page 149] his sister, for she was his brothers daughter; and such as are neere a kinne, the Hebrewes did vse to call brethren & sisters. Thirdly, nor yet did he sinne in giuing this hard censure of the Egyptians, for what he spake of their cruelty and lust, hee spake it by experience, though not in himselfe, yet in others he knew what the nature and qualities of barbarous people are, without the knowledge of God, yea it seemes by the euent he speakes this as a Prophet. Fourthly, neither can we altoge­ther say that hee sinned in hazzarding his wifes chastity, if we looke to his faith. For we may thinke that hee who in greater matters depended vpon Gods prouidence, did also in this; and was assured that God would rather deliuer her, then suffer her chastity to be abu­sed, as the euent sheweth: yet we will not de­ny but some humane infirmities are mixed with this action of Abraham, for he did not call Sarai his sister in that sence that Pha­raoh vnderstood her to be. Secondly, in that he did seeme too much to hazzard his wiues chastity, hauing no such warrant from God. Thirdly, in that he was too feareful of death, when he should haue rather assured himselfe, that God who had preserued him hitherto, would not leaue him now destitute. Fourth­ly, [Page 150] in that he gaue an euill example to others by counselling his wife to dissemble. Yet these and such like infirmities in the Saints, are not to vs matter of imitation, but of hu­miliation rather, considering that there is a law in our members, warring against the law of the minde, Rom. 7. 23.

Q. What hapned to Abraham when he came to Egypt?

A. His wife Sarai is commended by the Princes to Pharaoh, and she receiued into his house, here then ws see that Sarai did as A­braham desired her, and in this shee shewed her selfe a louing and faithfull wife, who will rather hazard her chastity, then suffer her husband to be killed. Secondly, in that the Princes commended her, we haue here the nature of flattering courtiers set downe, who accommodate themselues to the humors and vices of their king. Thirdly, we see in the E­gyptians the nature of carnall men, who are more mooued with externall shewes and beauty, then with internall vertue and grace. For Sarai is sought not for her vertue, but for her beauty. Fourthly, in that Abraham is the first of Hebers posterity who went to E­gypt, we gather from hence that the Hebrews are not descended of the Egyptians, as Iose­phus [Page 151] in his books against Apton doth prooue. Fifthly, from hence also wee gather, that the name of Pharaoh is euery ancient, seeing the Egyptian kings were generally called Pha­raoh. In the time of Abraham, and this name remained amongst them till the returne of the people from Babylon, then in the begin­ning of the Grecian Empire, they were called Ptolomees till Cleopatra being ouercome, Au­gustus did redact it into the forme of a pro­uince; but after the Empire was diuided, E­gypt being gouerned a while by the Grecian Emperours; and weary of that seruitude, they did chuse Calipha the captaine of the Saracens to be their King; from whom the Egyptian kings for almost the space of 447. yeeres were called Caliphae, afterward the kings of Egypt were called Sultans after the death of Melechsala.

Q. How was Saraies chastity preserued?

A. By the hand of God, for Pharaoh and his house were plagued with great plagues because of her; then questionlesse as God had a care to keepe her chastity from Abi­melech, so now he hieth to keep it from Pha­raoh, though here it bee not directly expres­sed as there, because shortly after mention is made of Isacks birth, whom some would haue [Page 152] thought to haue been Abimelechs sonne, and not Abrahams. Secondly, here we see the care that God hath of his children in their extre­mities, hee suffereth no man to doe them wrong, Psal. 105. 14. Thirdly, Kings must take heede by this Pharaoh, that they do not oppresse and offend Gods children. for hee hath reprooued kings for their sakes, Psal. 105. 14. Fourthly, wee may see here the fiercenesse of Gods iudgements, who for this sinne of Pharaoh did plague his whole house: so many times for the wickednesse of a king, the whole land is punished, Quicquid delirant reges plectuntur Achiui. Fifthly, God plagued Pharaoh for Abrahams wife: euen so whore-mongers and adulterers God will iudge, Heb. 13. 4. Examples we haue of Pha­raoh here, Rubin. Gen. 35. The Beniamites, Iudg. 19. Dauid, 2. Sam. 11. The Israelite with the Moabite woman, Num. 25. 6. If God plagued Pharaoh who ignorantly tooke Sa­rai, what plagues must they looke for, who take a pride and pleasure in committing a­dultery. Seauenthly, not onely Pharaoh, but the Princes that counselled him are plagued: euen so shall all wicked counsellors bee hand­led, Malum consilium consultori pessimum, Then let none wonder why they are also punished, [Page 153] Quid mirum cos regiae penae fuisse participes, qui regis in patrando flagitio fuerunt adiutores, Chrysostom.

Q. Did Pharaoh commit adultery with Sarai?

A. No: for he is plagued before he tou­ched her, or else to what end had hee beene plagued after he violated her. Secondly, it was not the custome amongst these nations for kings to take them wiues before they had purified themselues certaine dayes, yea a whole yeare as we may see in the booke of Hester. Thirdly, although Pharaoh had tou­ched her, yet properly wee cannot call that copulation adultery, because she yeelded not of her owne accord, but was compelled both by her husband to saue his life, as also by Pharaoh. So Abraham did lye with Agar, and yet we cannot say he committed adulte­ry, seeing he did not of lust, but by the coun­sell of his wife to beget children, yet the su­rer way is to hold that she was not touched. Fourthly, we may collect here by Pharaohs words, that if he had knowne Sarai to be A­brahams wife, he would not haue taken her, Qui pratendit ignorantiam condemnat intempe­rantiam, Ambros. lib. de Abr. cap. 2. This pro­phane king had learned so much continency, [Page 154] euen by the law of nature. Fifthly, it is like that Pharaoh was warned by God in a dreame, as afterward Abimelech was, that Sa­rai was the wife of Abraham.

Q. Why did Pharaoh giue charge to his men concerning Abraham?

A. Because he would not haue any to doe him wrong, and like enough the Egyptians did enuy him, because for his sake the king and court was plagued: as also, because hee grew very rich amongst them in that short time he remained there. Secondly, because he would not haue any violence offered to Sarai, for he knew how prone to lust his peo­ple were. Here then we see that the hearts of kings are in the hands of the Lord, Prou. 21. 1. Secondly, Abraham in this tentation lost nothing, but gained both riches and ho­nour, then true it is that all things worke to­gether for the best to them that loue God, Rom. 8. 28. Now whether Abraham taught the Egyptians astrologie or not, is vncer­taine, yet like enough he did, although he did not remaine their long, for it is very proba­ble that Abraham did labour to bring them to the knowledge of the true God, which he could not better doe, then by the knowledge of the visible celestiall creature; and truely [Page 155] no man fitter to teach them then Abraham, being bred amongst the Chaldeans the one­ly astrologers in the world, hauing also him­selfe the true knowledge of God; and none fitter to learne this science, then the Egypti­ans, who were naturally inuited thereto, be­cause of the perpetuall serenity of their ayre, beeing altogether free from cloudes, which doe take away the light of these ce­lestiall bodies oftentimes from vs.

Quest. HOw is it vnderstood that A­braham went vp, out of E­gypt into the South?

A. He is said to goe vp out of Egypt, be­cause this country lyeth lower then Canaan. So in the precedent chapter, vers. 10. Hee is said to goe downe to Egypt. Now Abraham going to Canaan from Egypt, is said to goe vnto the South, not as though Canaan did lye Southward from Egypt, for it is North­ward. [Page 156] But by the South here Moses vnder­standeth the Southerne parts of Canaan. As Canaan was a type of heauen, so is Egypt of the kingdome of Satan. Abraham came out of Egypt to Canaan, so must we from the po­wer of Satan to the kingdome of grace; he went vp from Egypt, so wee must ascend by faith, and seeke those things that are aboue, he went vnto the South, as to the sunne, so we must follow the sonne of righteousnesse, and walke in the light while it is day, hee tooke his wife and Lot with him, so we must helpe forward our friends in this spirituall iourney, he was very rich when he went vp, so we must be rich in faith, Iam. 2. 5. Rich in good workes, 1. Tim. 6. 18. Rich in vnder­standing, Col. 2. 2. Rich in all vtterance and knowlege, 1. Cor. 1. 5.

Q. Why did Abraham returne againe to Bethel, where he was before?

A. Not to pay his debts, which hee had contracted going to Egypt, as Rabbi Salomo prateth, but because he knew this place better then others. Secondly, he had more acquain­tance here then else-where. Thirdly, he recei­ued here some blessings from God: there­fore his affection is more bent to this place then to any other. Fourthly, this place had [Page 157] beene consecrated already by building an al­ter and calling vpon the name of the Lord: therefore he would not seeme to neglect that place which was once consecrated for Gods worship, teaching vs not to despise the pub­like places dedicated to Gods seruice. Fifth­ly, he would not seeme to be a vagabond ro­uing vp and downe when there was no need, teaching vs that vpon euery trifle wee must not remooue from place to place, for that which he enioyned the Apostles, Luk. 10. Hee also enioyneth vs to doe, that we remaine in the same house, where we are receiued, and that we goe not from house to house. Sixth­ly, as Abraham returned to his first altar, and there serued God: so must wee remember from whence we are fallen, and repent, Reu. 2. 5. And forsake the Idols of Egypt, Ezech. 20. 8.

Q. Why could not Abraham and Lot dwell together?

A. Because their substance was great, where we see that Lot also had great riches, and questionlesse the more for good Abra­hams sake, with whom he still did keepe com­pany till now. Secondly, these two whom nei­ther pouerty, long iournies, nor famine, could separate their great substance and wealth, do [Page 159] separate, such is the nature of riches, when Rome was poore, there was great concord, but when it waxed potent and rich, then fol­lowed diuision and rent of the Empire, so there was no distinction and heart-burning betweene Iuda and Israel, till they waxed rich, and Christians while they suffered persecution and pouerty, they did maintaine loue and concord amongst them, they were of one heart and minde, yea and all things common, Act. 2. But after the Church grew rich, they who should haue beate their swords into plow-shares, and their speares into pru­ning hookes, did beate their plow shares into swords, and their pruning hooks into speares. Thirdly, in that Abraham must depart from Lot his kinsman, whom he loued so dearely, it was no small griefe to him, thus God did cast him downe, lest his riches should too much puffe him vp. Fourthly, the cause of this strife was without doubt scarcity both of pasture ground and water for their cat­tell. Fifthly, seruants oftentimes doe breede quarrels amongst themselues, which are the cause of strife betweene their masters, as we may see here in these heards-men. Therefore let masters take heede that they take not too much pride in the multitude of seruants, for [Page 158] too many seruants brings but confusion: nor too rashly to credite their seruants re­ports.

Q. Why is it added that the Cananite and Perezite were in the land?

A. To signifie that this was a maine rea­son that mooued Abraham not to striue with Lot: because hauing then such strong ene­mies as these were, it had beene their vtter ruine to haue contended. Secondly, lest by their idle contention they should be giuen to goe to law before the vnbeleeuers, which Paul doth dislike in the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 6. Thirdly, lest Abraham should giue them any occasion of offence or scandall, seeing he was in some account amongst them for his lear­ning and wisedome, it seemeth that the Pere­zites were not a seuerall nation distinct from the Cananites, but rather a family of the Ca­nanites, for they dwelt with them in that part of the country which fell to the tribe of Iuda, Iudg. 1. 4 Now as Abraham was loath to striue with Lot, because they had stronge­nemies, so let vs take heed lest we giue occa­sion to our spiritual Cananits and Perezites, to ouerthrow vs by our contentions. And truely we haue greater cause to maintaine loue and concord amongst our selues, then [Page 160] Abraham and Lot had. For our spirituall enemies are more and stronger then the Ca­nanites and Perizites were.

Q. Why saith Abraham to Lot, let there be strife, for we are brethren?

A. Because he would by these words mooue Lot to giue ouer contending with him, and in this he showeth both wonderfull wisedome and meekenesse, who although in all respects he was Lots better. Yet he doth submit him­selfe for concords sake vnto him. Secondly, he showes his exceeding loue to peace, when not onely doth he labor to maintaine peace, betweene himselfe and Lot: but also be­tweene their seruants, which all good peace­makers should doe. Thirdly, he brings a rea­son why they should not contend, because they are brethren, that is, naturall kinsemen. Yea brethren in faith and affection, if then Abraham was so carefull to maintaine peace, lest hee should offend the Cananites: how should not wee maintaine the same, lest wee offend weake Christians. Secondly, as hee thought it no disparagement to submit him­selfe for peace sake, so should not kings and great men, but they ought to be meeke and humble as Christ was. Thirdly, if they would not contend because they were brethren, [Page 161] much lesse should Christians, who are not onely the sonnes of God and brethren with Christ, but also the members of the same bodie.

Q. Wherein is the plaine of Iordan com­mended?

A. In that it was well watred euery where; euen as the garden of the Lord, that is, earth­ly paradise wherein Adam was placed, wa­tred with Euphrates, and like Aegypt watred with Nilus, and hereby is signified that this plaine was very fruitfull: as all grounds are which are watered with fresh riuers; but this plaine did not continue long pleasant. For God destroyed it with fire from heauen a­bout a yeere before the birth of Isaac, and 20. yeeres after Lots comming thither, so then God turned this fruitfull land into bar­rennesse, for the wickednesse of them that dwelt therein, Psal. 107. 34. And as this plaine was once pleasant and well watered with Iordan. But now there is nothing to be seene but barrennesse and a stinking lake, so was Iudea once well watered with the Ora­cles of God, the doctrine of Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles, but now it lyeth wast and barren, being ouerflowed with the stin­king puddle of Mahomets doctrine.

[Page 162]Q. Why did Lot chuse the plaine of Iordan?

A. Because of the fruitfulnesse and plea­santnesse thereof, and in this hee seemed to regard too much his profite, looking too much to the goodnesse of the ground, and not considering the wickednesse of that peo­ple, therefore he was twice punished for it; once when he was taken prisoner, the other time when God destroyed the cities of this plaine with fire. Then was he faine for suc­cour to flee to the mountaines, and as he was as it seemeth to greedie to settle himselfe here by Iordan, so afterward were the tribes of Rubin and Gad, who did sollicite Moses to giue them the countrey on this side Iordan, before the other tribes had passed ouer the riuer: so they regarded their profite more then their safetie: for although that coun­trey was fat and pleasant, yet of all the coun­tries in Iudea: it was most dangerous, be­cause most obnoxious to the neighbour ene­mies. Numb. 32.

Q. Wherein did the riuer Iordan exceede all other Riuers?

A. Not in power, riches, deepenesse and largenesse, for Tibris, Nilus, Euphrates, Da­nubius, and others haue in these respects been more famous then shee, but in miracles and [Page 163] mysteries shee yeeldeth to none, for shee di­uided her selfe to let the Israelites passe ouer. Iosh. 3. In her Nahaman was clensed from his leprosie. 2. King. 5. Shee was diuided twice with Elias mantle. 2. King. 2. In her the yron did rise from the bottome, and swimme at the command of Elisha. 2. King. 6. In her many were baptized by John, confessing their sinnes. Matth. 3. Yea Christ himselfe did sanctifie her with his bodily presence, being baptized there, and in her the holy Ghost descended vpon him; and whils he was there, the heauens were opened, and the voyce of the Father heard. Matth. 3. This Iordan flowed from two springs in the foote of Li­banus, the one is Iordan, and the other Dan, and emptieth her selfe into the dead sea, so called because no creatures can liue there, the very fowles that flie ouer it, fall downe dead: this lake is about some 36. miles long, and in some places 8. or 12. miles ouer: whatsoeuer is cast into it doth swimme not sinke, as Vespatian made triall, vpon the bankes groweth fruit, faire to the sight, but being touched, are nothing but dust within.

Q. Why would God haue Abraham and Lot to be separated?

A. For the further good of them both. [Page 164] First, to preuent that discord which was like to arise, by their dwelling together. Second­ly, that the knowledge of God may the fur­ther be defused in Canaan by Abraham, and to the fiue Cities by Lot, so wee reade Acts 15. That when Paul and Barnabas could not agree about Marke, they departed asunder. Paul to Syria and Cilicia, and Barnabas to Cyprus, and so the Gospell by this meanes was enlarged. Thirdly, God would haue A­braham to stay in Canaan, but Lot to depart, because Abrahams posteritie the Israelites was to inioy this land, but not the Moabites and Ammonites, who came of Lot. And here we may obserue that Lot did not chuse the better part: for though that countrey was pleasant, yet the inhabitants were wicked; and where he thought to haue found plea­sure, he met with trouble and sorrow, for he vexed his righteous soule from day to day, with their vnlawfull deedes. 2. Pet. 2. 8. Such is the foolishnesse of this world: for whiles men hunt altogether for pleasure, they fall into griefe and sorrow. Vbimel, ibi fel. A­gaine, in Abraham we may obserue singular wisedome, who though he loued Lot most deerely, yet rather then by his companie he would offend God, he doth most willingly [Page 165] suffer him to depart, and so must we cast a­way euery thing, that is offensiue to God, be it neuer so neere and deere vnto vs. If thy right eye offend thee, plucke it out, and if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, for bet­ter it is for one of the members to perish; then that the whole body be cast into hell. Matth. 5.

Q. How is it vnderstood that the Sodomites were sinners before the Lord?

A. That is openly and boldly, without ei­ther shame of men, or feare of God, euen as the earth. Gen. 6. 11. Is said to be corrupt before God, and Nimrod, (Gen. 10. 9.) Is cal­led a mightie hunter before the Lord, the sinnes then of Sodome were many and feare­full, as pride, fulnesse of bread, aboundance of Idlenesse. Ezech. 16. Euen that vnnaturall sinne of Sodomie. Gen. 19. Yea they were contumelious against men, impious against God, vnmercifull to the poore, cruell to strangers, Iosep. lib. 1. Antiq. And question­lesse Idolatrie did reigne amongst them, and many more sinnes, and here they are called sinners, not as though they onely were sin­ners, (for by the disobedience of Adam we are all made sinners. Rom. 5. 19.) But because they were notorious and open sinners: there­fore [Page 166] this title is giuen them, so Psal. 104. 35. Let the sinners be consumed, &c. and Matth. 26. 45. The sonne of man is betrayed into the hand of sInners, and 1. Tim. 1. 9. The law is made for sinners, and here wee see that though these Sodomites inioyed pleasant and fruitfull grounds: yet they sinne exceeding­ly against the Lord. Thus the wicked doe a­buse Gods externall gifts, and the more they haue, the more vnthankfull and sinfull they are, when the Israelites waxed fat, they spur­ned with their heele. Deut. 32. 15. This made Salomon vnwilling to seeke riches, lest hee should deny God. For it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen. Secondly, let not the godly enuy the riches and pleasure of the wicked, but behold the end, and they shall see them consumed with Sodome. Thirdly, let not the wicked reioyce in their riches, and pleasures, for though God spare them a while, yet the day will come, when with Sodome they shall bee consumed with fire and brimstone.

Q. Did Abrahams posteritie inioy no more ground, then that which Abraham did now see?

A. Yes, a great deale more, euen from Dan to Beersheba, which Abraham at once could not see, then Abraham did not onely [Page 167] inioy that which he saw, but that also which he went through in length and breadth. verse 17. And as God showed the land now to A­braham, so did he afterwards to Moses, but neither of these could at once see all the land, but God points out the limits and corners of it to them both, and as Moses saw the land vpon Mount Pisgath: So it is like that Abra­ham saw it vpon Mount Garizim, they both see this land, but neither of them doe possesse it, now Abraham is grieued; doubtlesse for the want of his deere friend and brother Lot, but behold God comes to comfort him, showing him the land, thus God deales with his Saints heauinesse may bee for a night, but ioy shall come in the morning. Second­ly, we see here that Abraham did well in par­ting from Lot, or else God had not come to comfort him: thirdly, God came not to Abra­ham till this strife with Lot was ended: nei­ther will he come to vs, so long as we are at variance. Fourthly, Abraham saw the land now, but did not inioy it, so we by faith doe see the heauenly Canaan, but hereafter wee shall possesse it.

Q. Why doth God againe renew the promise of giuing to him this land?

A. To confirme his faith, which was often [Page 168] assaulted with many crosses, and such is the weakenesse of our faith, that of it be not of­ten confirmed with the word of God, it will faint, and although Abraham had no inheri­tance here except that field and caue which he bought to burie Sarai in; yet he did pos­sesse it all in hope, euen as we are now alrea­dy saued by hope. Rom. 8. Againe, he did pos­sesse it, if not in himselfe yet in his posteritie, so Iacob was Lord ouer his brethren. Gen. 27. 29. Which was accomplished not in him, for Iacob doth call himselfe Esaues seruant, and Esau his Lord. Gen. 33. 14. But in his posteri­tie the Israelites, who were Lorrds ouer the Edomites Esaus posteritie; so Jacob foretold many things. Gen. 49. Which should befall his children, which did not happen to them; but to their posteritie, then Abraham being the chiefe head of the Israelites, recei­ueth this blessing for his posteritie, which they did begin to inioy 370. yeeres after the death of Abraham, but they did possesse it not for their owne worthinesse, but for the faith and obedience of Abraham.

Q. Whether was Abraham heire onely of this land, or els heire of all the world, as Paul see­meth to affirme. Rom. 4.

A. The seed of Abraham is twofold, some [Page 169] after the flesh, and some by promise, Gal. 4. These who were only after the flesh, possessed onely Canaan, but the spirituall seede, those that are Abrahams sonnes by promise, and heires of his faith, are also heires of the whole world, for to them the world doth be­long of right, although the wicked haue the possesion of the most part thereof, yea wee may say, that Abrahams spirituall seede hath possessed the whole world from the begin­ning, for the Church which is Christs king­dome, and the seed of Abraham by promise, is vniuersall: neyther is it tyed to any parti­cular place according to these Scriptures. I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheri­tance, and the vttermost part of the earth for thy possession, Psal. 2. 8. He shall haue domi­nion from sea to sea, and from the riuer to the ends of the earth, Psal. 72. 8. Hee shall raigne ouer the house of Iacob for euer, and of his kingdome there shall be no end, Luk. 1. 33. This is that stone cut out of the moun­taine without hands, which became a great mountaine and filled the whole earth. Dan. 2. 35.

Q. How long was Abrahams seede to enioy this land?

A. For euer, that is a long time, for so [Page 170] this word is often vsed in Scripture, so in this sence circumcision is called an euerlasting co­uenant, Gen. 17. The Sabboth a signe between God and his people for euer, Exod. 31. The seruant whose eare is boared must serue his master for euer, Exod. 21. Now this cannot be vnderstood of eternity, for the Israelites are long agoe expelled from Canaan, circum­cision, the Sabboth, and other ceremoniall lawes were abolished by the comming of Messyas, the seruant was tyed to serue his master no longer then the yeare of Jubilie, then so long did they possesse this land, as they walked obediently before God, for it was giuen to them vpon condition of legall obedience, otherwise if they did not obey, the land was to spue them out, Leu. 18. 28. Abraham and his seede were to enioy this land for euer, but Abraham was to keepe Gods couenant, he and his seed after him for euer, Gen. 17. 9. If then they haue not enioy­ed this land for euer, they must not accuse God, but themselues, who haue not kept his couenāt for euer; Gods promises do then stil include the condition of our faith and obe­dience, as, whosoeuer beleeueth in the Sonne, shall not perish but haue euerlasting life, but he that beleeueth not, is condemned already, [Page 171] Ioh. 3. And here we cannot deny but than vn­der this earthly Canaan, promised to Abra­hams carnall seede, is vnderstood heauenly Canaan, which belongeth to his spirituall seede: then this word (euer) is attributed to the signe which doth properly belong to the thing signified, and thus the Scripture vseth in all sacramentall speeches, to ascribe that to the type and figure, which doth onely belong to the thing signified, as the lambe is called the passeouer, the blood of goates and calues is said to hallow and purge, the bread is cal­led Christs body, and here Canaan is promi­sed to Abrahams seede for euer, which yet shall not continue for euer, for the world shal be destroyed, and all the works therein, then earthly Canaan was possessed of the carnall Israelites for euer, that is, a long time, but the true Israelites shall possesse the heauenly Ca­naan for euer and euer.

Q. Why saith God that he will make Abra­hams seed as the dust of the earth?

A. God doth vse this hyperbolical speech to stirre vp the minde of Abraham, for hee knoweth how dull and hard by nature wee are to hearkento him: for whichcause the Scripture doth vse many such kinde of figu­ratiue speeches, as the toppe of Babel is said [Page 172] to reach to heauen, the cities of the Ana­kims to be walled vp to heauen, to birds of the ayre are said to carry our words, if we speake ill of the king, the world cannot con­taine the bookes which might be written of Christ; and many such like, therefore they are foolish who thinke that there is no figu­ratiue speech in the Scripture; but that all must be vnderstood simply. Secondly, by this speech God would signifie vnto Abraham, that out of his loynes should proceede an exceeding great multitude of people, which was fulfilled in Moses time, for he sayes, they were as the starres of heauen in multi­tude, Deu. 1. 10. & 10. 22. And Balac said that they couered the face of the earth, Num. 23. 5. Yea Balam is forced to acknowledge their great number when hee sayes, Num. 23. 10. Who can count the dust of Iacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel. Third­ly, although Abrahams carnall seede were great in number; yet his spirituall seede is greater; the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, Hos. 1. 10. Which is meant of the spirituall Israelites, and Iohn saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people and [Page 173] tongues before the rhroane, &c. Reu. 7. 9. Fourthly, as the carnall seede of Abraham considered in themselues were many, yet but few in respect of all other nations, for the Cananites, the Hittites, &c. Were greater and mightier then the Israelites, Deut. 7. 1. Euen so the spirituall children of Abraham, though many in themselues, yet are but few in re­spect of the wicked, for many are called, but few are chosen, Mat. 22. 14. The way that leadeth to destruction is broade, and many goe in thereat; but the gate that leadeth to life is narrow, and few there be that finde it, Mat. 7. 13. Fifthly, although the seede of A­braham be innumerable to man, yet it is not to God, who telleth the number of the stars. Psal. 147. 4. And from hence we may col­lect that increase of children, and a great po­sterity, is a speciall blessing of God, as wee may see, Psal. 128.

Q. Why would God haue Abraham to walke through the land, in the length and bredth of it?

A. To augment both his faith and ioy, in that his children should haue the possession of that land, whereof he had now made a full survey. Secondly, this continuall walking vp and downe, God would exercise his patience, [Page 174] and let him know that he was but a stranger in his owne land. Thirdly, that by this meanes the knowledge of God might be the further propagated. Fourthly, that by the consideration of the length and breadth of that land, hee might be able to comprehend the bredth and length, and depth, and height, and know the loue of Christ, which passeth knowledge, Eph. 3. 18. Now, as all the life of Abraham consisted in walking, so doth the life of a Christian. Enoch walked with God, Gen. 5. Abraham is commanded to walke before God. Gen. 17. Noah walked with God, Gen. 6. Abraham confessed that he wal­ked in the sight of God, Gen. 24. Jacob con­fesseth that Abraham and Isacke walked in the sight of God, Gen. 28. God requireth Is­rael to walke in his wayes. Deut. 10. They are blessed who walke in the law of the Lord, Psal. 119. Euen so we must walke in the new­nesse of life, Rom. 6. We must walke honestly as in the day, Rom. 13. Wee must walke by faith, 2. Cor. 5. We must walke in the spirit, Gal. 5. We must walke worthy of our vocati­on, Eph. 4. In loue, as children of the light, Eph. 5. Worthinesse of God, Col. 1. And if we passe our life in walking, so we shall hereaf­ter walke with him in white, Ren. 3. Who [Page 175] walketh in the midst of the seauen golden candlesticks, Reu. 2.

Q. What plaine was this, which is here cal­led the plaine of Mamre?

A. It is a plaine or an oake groaue not farre from Hebron, which city of Hebron was also called Mamre, Gen. 23. 19. Therefore from the towne this plaine is so called, and this towne was called Mamre from a cer­taine Amorite of the same name, with whom Abraham made a couenant, Gen. 14. 13. Where there is mention made of him and his two brothers Eschol & Aner. In this Mamre, Abraham liued a long time, and neere to it, he and his wife Sarai, Isack and his wife Re­becca, Iacob and his wife Leah were buryed in one graue, Gen. 49. 31.

Q. What was Hebron?

A. A city in Canaan, which was built seuen yeares before Zoan in Egypt, Num. 13. 22. Which Zoan is thought to be Tanis, and it is supposed that this Hebron was builded by Heth the sonne of Canaan, whose posterity the Hittites inhabited in it till Josuahs time; it was sometimes possessed by Gyants, whom Caleb droue out, Ios. 15. 14. It was a chiefe city in the tribe of Juda, and after called Ki­riatharba, Ios. 14. 15. From one Arba a great [Page 176] man amongst the Anakims. This towne be­came the inheritance of Caleb, Ios. 14. 14. And was made a city of refuge. Ios. 20. 7. Here Da­uid was first annointed king, and reigned there seauen yeares, 2. Sam. 2. This towne then was both a seat for the kings and the priests also, and it was called Hebron, from Hebron the sonne of Caleb, and some thinke it was to this city that Mary came to visite E­lizabeth, which Luke calleth a city of Iuda in the hill countrey. Beza in annot. in Luc. cap. 1.

Q. What did Abraham when he came to the plaine of Mamre?

A. He built an Altar to the Lord, both to sacrifice thankfully to God, as also to sancti­fie this place where he was to remaine, and this is the third Altar we reade that Abraham built. He hath set vp three altars, as three te­stimonies of Gods loue to him; and his thankfulnesse to God, and that in three fa­mous places, one at Sechem, the other at Be­thel, and the third at Hebron. Now as Abra­ham whether soeuer he went, did build altars and sacrifice thereon to the Lord: so should we at all occasions be ready to offer vp spiri­tuall sacrifices, praise and thanks-giuing, the calues of our lippes, Orationum hostias, et mi­serecordia [Page 177] victimus, saith Lyranus, To pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath and doubting, 1. Tim. 2. 8. For God delighteth not in outward sacrifice, nor in burnt offerings, for the sacrifice of the Lord are a broken spirit, he is pleased with the sa­crifice of righteousnes, Psal. 51. 16, &c.

Quest. VVHy doth Moses so care­fully set downe the warres of these kings?

A. That we might consider the excellent carriage, and happie successe of Abraham, in warring with so many kings, with so few men, and that with such a happie euent, that both hee ouercame them, and tooke their goods; and rescued Lot. Secondly, that we might see the reward that Lot hath, for desi­ring to dwell with such wicked companie himselfe is taken prisoner, and his goods ta­ken from him. Thirdly, that wee might see [Page 178] how mercifull God is, and slow to destroy those cities in the plaine because of their crying sinnes, had already deserued fire from heauen. Yet God by this small ouerthrow will warne them, if they doe not repent, a greater punishment is at hand. Fourthly, that wee may see the cause of this, and all other warres for the most part, to wit, pride and ambition; for ambition mooued Chedor­laomer to subdue so many nations, and pride mooued those nations to shake of his go­uernment. Fifthly, to teach vs how God of­tentimes, vseth the seruice of the wicked, to punish the wicked, that the punishers them­selues may be punished; as Assyria the rod of Gods anger, is sent to punish hypocrites, but God will punish the stony heart of Assyria. Isa. 10. Sixthly, that we might know that the Sodomites were iustly ouercome, be­cause they resisted the ordinance of God, and refused to be subiect to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God. Rom. 13.

Q. What kings came against Sodome, and the other cities of the plaine?

A. Amraphel king of Shinar, that is, of Babel, and this is thought to be Ninias the sonne of Semiramis. Secondly, Artioch king of Elasser, that is, of Persia as some thinke, [Page 179] and not of Pontus. Thirdly, Chedarleomer king of Elam; the Elamites were a people that dwelt in the vpper part of Persia. Fourthly, Tidal king of nations, that is, of a people gathered together of diuers nations, so Galile is called Galilec of the nations. Esay 9. Matth. 4. These foure kings came against the fiue cities of the plaine, which here are forewarned of God, by these warnes, but af­terward were burned with fire from heauen, except Zoar, which was spared for Lots sake. Gen. 19. And for the smalnesse of it was cal­led Zoar: for this cause also it seemeth that Moses doth not here name the king of this Citie, because it was so small.

Q. Where did these kings ioyne battell toge­ther.

A. In the valley of Siddim, which is the salt sea, and it was so called afterward from the euent, for at this time it was a pleasant plaine, but afterward it was turned into a salt sea or lake, for the Hebrewes call euery col­lection of water, sea, and as this part of Cana­an was turned into a barren lake, so now that whole land is made barren of all spirituall graces: and as this plaine for sinne is turned into a sea of salt, so was Lots wife for looking backe, turned into a pillar of salt; because [Page 180] neither this countrey nor shee were seasoned with grace and obedience, to teach vs how we should be seasoned; we must haue salt in our selues. Mar. 9. 10. All our sacrifices must be seasoned with salt. Leuit. 2. 13. Yea our speech must be seasoned with salt. Col. 4. 6.

Q. May kings lawfully and with a good conscience make warre.

A. If their cause be good, their affection sanctified, their authoritie lawfull, and if they finde there is no other meanes to suppresse the enemie, to secure themselues, and ad­uance Gods glory, they may lawfully raise wars, for if it is lawfull to defend the poore, to releeue the oppressed, to punish the wic­ked, to preserue our selues, friends, children and goods, if the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vaine, if God himselfe hath prescri­bed the manner and forme of fighting, if A­braham, Moses, Iosuah, Dauid and other ho­ly men haue made warres; then it is lawfull for Kings and Princes to raise warres, the former conditions being obserued, but be­cause peace is better then warres, as saith the Poet. Pax vna triumphis innumeris potior; Kings must be slow to vndertake warres: as Hozekias was with the kings of Assyria, and some iniuries must be winked at, which doth [Page 181] show the magnanimitie of a King, not for e­uery small iniurie to be inflamed with wrath, but rather to forget them, as Caesar by Cicero was commended that hee did vse to forget nothing, except iniuries, and aboue all things crueltie in warres is to be hated; for Pax homines: suas trux decet ira feras.

Q. But may Christians vnder the Gospel raise warres?

A. Yes, but they must be very carefull to auoide warres, and to vse all the lawfull meanes they can to maintaine peace. For Christ the Prince of peace, hath left his peace with vs. Ioh. 5. It was foretold that wee shovld beat our swords into plow shares, and our speares into pruning hookes. Esay, 2. It was Christs commandement that wee loue one another. Ioh. 15. We must not resist euill, Matth. 5. Wee must not reuenge, but giue place to wrath. Rom. 13. Our greatest strife and warres must be against our spirituall e­nemies, therefore we are exhorted to put on the whole armour of God. Eph. 6. This spi­rituall armour did the Christians vse in the Primitiue Church, to subdue the greatest Monarches in the world, and to propagate the Gospel, Peter is commanded to put his sword into his sheath. Matth. 26. And we are [Page 180] [...] [Page 181] [...] [Page 182] all commanded to loue our enemies, to blesse them that curse vs, to doe good to them that hate vs. Matth. 5. Which testimonies doe alleadge, not altogether to condemne warres in case of necessitie, but to show how loath Christian Princes should bee to raise warres, and how rather they should loose some of their right and dignity, then to trou­ble the peace of Ierusalem, to shed the blood of their brethren, whom Christ hath bought with his owne blood; to bereaue parents of their children, & wiues of their husbands, to defloure virgins, ouerturne Churches and Chappels, destroy religion, extinguish lear­ning and discipline, lawes and iustice, and to make away for the Turke, the Diuels eldest sonne, the professed enemie of our Sauiour, the scourge of Christians, & the rod of Gods indignation, to sweepe away that little rem­nant of the Christian world which is left, and to ouerthrow all with that, not Aegyptian, but Tartarian darkenesse of Mahomets do­ctrine, as he hath already done these glorious Countries and Churches, which wee haue shamefully loft, through our pride and con­tention. Heu quo discordia ciues perduxit mi­seros?

Q. Why did Chedorlaomer raise armies [Page 183] against these other kings?

A. Because they rebelled against him, and here we may see, that it is not lawfull for any people to rebell against their kings, although their gouernment be vniust. Secondly, they deserued to be tributaries and seruants to a strange king, because they were the seruants of filthy and strange sinnes, neither are they worthy to be a free people, whom the sonne hath not made free. Thirdly, the truth of Noahs prophesie may here be seene, that Ca­nan is Sems seruant; Chedorlaomer of Sem is king at this time ouer the Cananites. Fourth­ly, here we may see what a dangerous thing it is, for a people to rebell against their kings, for by this meanes vnitie is broken, order and discipline is euerted, lawes and re­ligion are extinguished, and all things turned vpside downe; and therefore the authors of rebellion, haue beene most fearefully punish­ed, as the examples of Core, Dathan and A­biram, against Moses and Aaron: Absalom and Seba against Dauid, and many more can witnesse. Therefore kings must be obeyed in all matters indifferent, but not in those things that are against the glory of God, for it is better to obey God then man, and they who doe not obey their kings in matters against [Page 184] God are not to be accounted rebels, except we will make Moses and Aaron, who resisted Pharaoh: Christ, Iohn Baptist, and the Apo­stles, who resisted the Iewes, the Christians who resisted Idolaters to be rebels, which to thinke is impious.

Q. Why did the king of Elam with his con­federates, kill the Rephaims?

A. These Rephaims or Gyants with the Zuzims, Emims, and Horites tooke part as it is thought with the Sodomites, and did hinder the king of Elam from taking Sodome, and Moses here mentioneth their ouerthrow, to show vs of what great power the king of E­lam was then, that he was able to ouerthrow so many nations, now these Rephaims were a people then dwelling in Canan. Gen. 15. And are here ouerthrowne in Ashteroth, a citie in Basan, where Og afterward was king, Iosh. 13. 31. The Zuzims are these people as it is thought, who in Deut. 2. 20. Are called Zam­zummims, and they are ouerthrowne at the citie Ham where they dwelt, the Emims were a great people and accounted Gyants, Deut. 2. 10. These are ouercome in Shaneth or the plaine of Kiriathim, the Horites were a peo­ple that dwelt in Seir, where they are now o­uercome. Esau and his sonnes afterward [Page 185] droue them out from thence, and this mount was called not Seir at this time, but afterward had this name from Esau. Seir signifieth Hea­ry, these then were chased by Chedorlaomer his confederates vnto El-paran, or the plaine of Paran, which is a barren or comfortlesse wildernesse neere to the desart of Sinai, and heere the Israelites wandered thirty eight yeares.

Q. What was En-mishpat?

A. The name of that place where the Is­raelites were iudged and reprooued by God, because they murmured for want of water, for En-mishpat doth signifie the wel of iudg­ment, this is called also Cades, which is a ci­ty in Arabia, where Mirian Moses sister was buried; the desart next adiacent is called Cades, and Cades-barne, from whence Moses sent the twelue spyes to Canaan. Hither Che­dorlaomer returned with his confederate kings, and smote the Amalakites and Amo­rites in Hazezon Thamar a city in Canaan, which afterward fell to the tribe of Juda, and was called Engedi, Ios. 15. 62. Here wee may see what happy successe Chedorlaomer hath o­uer his enemies, which is neither to be ascri­bed to fortune or his courage, but to him [Page 186] who is the Lord of hosts, there is no king sa­ued by the multitude of an host, a mighty man is not deliuered by much strength, Psal. 33. 16. Yet this we must commend in him, that he vsed such diligence and expedition in suppressing these rebels before they grew stronger. It was the praise of Alexander Macedo, that whatsoeuer battell hee vnder­tooke, he did it with wonderfull celerity and expedition, Curtius, lib. 5. And that was a meanes that in so short a time he did subdue so many nations; and from hence wee must learne with all expedition to subdue our sins. for, Periculum est in mora.

Q. What successe hvd Chedorlaomer and his confederates against the Kings of Sodome and Gomorrha?

A. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrha fled and fell into the slime pits, not of igno­rance, for they were better acquainted with that ground then their enemies, but of pur­pose, that so they might escape the fury of their enemies: in these pittes questionlesse a great many perished, and others of them fled to the hils. Secondly, all the goods and vi­ctuals of Sodom & Gomorrha were taken, which was a very great spoyle, because in So­dom [Page 187] there was both riches and abundance of bread. Thirdly, Lot is taken captiue, and his goods taken from him, which was the cause that Abraham made warre against them and ouercame them. Here then we see that ma­ny are killed in the iudgement of God, and some escape in his mercy. Secondly, the goods and the victuals of Sodom, are made a prey to the hungry souldiers in Gods iust iudge­ment; because they did not vse them eyther to Gods glory or the comfort of the poore; but to pride and ryot. Thirdly, Lot is taken, and so he is partaker of their misery, because he desired to be partaker of their fruitfull country.

Q. What league made Abraham the He­brew with Mamre, Eschol and Aner?

A. Abraham the Hebrew (for so he is cal­led from Heber, because he retained his faith, or else from Habar, because hee passed ouer Euphrates, from which his posterity are cal­led Hebrewes, to put them in mind of their originall) made a couenant with these three men, or rather they with him, because he was so highly beloued of God, which couenant was not of the nature of those couenants that conquerours make with the conquered, [Page 188] which are nothing els but lawes, which the conquered must obey according to the plea­sure of the law-makers: neyther was this covenant to desist from warres, and main­taine peace, for there was no wars betweene them, but it was onely a partition betweene them to defend and maintaine one anothers right against their enemies; and question­lesse this couenant was made by the speciall direction of God, for the comfort of Abra­ham, who beeing a stranger there, had not­withstanding the ayde and assistance of these great men when occasion serued, and wee must note heere that Abraham is called an Hebrew, and his posterity Hebrewes, which name signifieth a pilgrime and stranger, to put vs in minde what the children of God are in this life, euen pilgrimes and strangers. By which they shew that they seeke a coun­try, Heb. 11.

Q. But did Abraham well to make a coue­nant with these Amorites being infidels?

A. Whether these three were infidels or not it is vncerten, and I rather hold that they were not, both because Abraham made a couenant with them, rather then with others, as also because wee cannot deny but there [Page 189] were some in these parts, who knew the true God. As Melchisedech who conuersed in these countries, was both a king and priest of the most high God, it is very like that his seruants and many more were of his profes­sion; and if there were, why should we think that these three who were Abrahams speciall friends to be infidels, seeing the holy man made a couenant with them, but suppose they were infidels, yet we cannot reprooue Abraham for this couenant made with them because as yet there was no positiue law to the contrary. Secondly, the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. Thirdly, Abraham could not liue amongst them if hee had not had mutuall commerce and made some co­uenants with them. Fourthly, in this coue­nant Abraham did not offend God, seeing otherwise he could not haue liued peaceably among them, and in this he gaue no advan­tage to the Idolaters to blaspheme God. Fifthly, many holy men haue made such co­uenants with infidels, and are not reproo­ued, as Iaeob with Laban, Gen. 31. Isaack with Abimelech, Gen. 26. Salomon with Hiram, 1. King. 5. Yea the Israelites themselues had power to make couenants with their neigh­bour [Page 190] nationst excepr with those seuen men­tioned, Deut. 7.

Q. Was it lawfull for Abraham being both a priuate man and a priest, to raise warres?

A. A priuate man cannot raise armes, ex­cept he will be counted seditious, now Abra­ham was no priuate man, because by Gods owne mouth, he was appointed Lord of this land; and it was his by right, although not by possession, neither were these three bre­thren priuate men, with whom Abraham was confederate. Yea although Abraham had beene a priuate man, yet this fact of his is no president, for priuate men to rayse armes, except they haue the same measure and direction of the Spirit that he had, for if he had not beene directed by God, it is vn­like that with three hundred and eighteene domestick seruants hee would pursue foure mighty kings. Moreouer, although Abra­ham was a priest, and a prophet also, yet he rayseth armes lawfully, beeing called by God, so did Moses and the Leuites fight a­gainst the worshippers of the golden calfe, Moses killed Og king of Sihon, and Samuel Agag king of Amelec, yet these are not pre­sidents for the ministers of the Gospell to [Page 191] rayse armes, for they were called extra ordi­narily vnto this function, but the preachers of the Gospell are not. Againe, the prea­chers of the Gospell must eschew all things that hinder them in discharging of their fun­ction, especially warres, which if they follow, they must neglect prayers, preaching, and ec­clesiasticall discipline. Besides, the Apostle sheweth, that the weapons of our warrefare are not carnall, but mighty through God, casting downe euery strong hold, 2. Cor. 10. Yet I deny not but the preachers may ex­hort the magistrate to rayse armes against the enemies of God, for the priests vnder the law sounded the trumpets and carried the Arke, when the people went to battle.

Q. How farre did Abraham pursue his e­nemies?

A. As farre as Dan, a place in the North of Canaan, and one of the springs of Jordan, a hundred and foure miles from Ierusalem, it was of old called Leshem, but being wonne by the Danites it was called Dan. Ios. 19. 47. And it seemes that eyther Moses now giueth it this name by way of prophesie, or els E­zeras who set the bookes of the olde Testa­ment in order, did change the old name bee­ing [Page 192] out of vse into this other name Dan. Here it was where Jereboam set vp the golden calfe, and Peter confessed Christ to bee the Sonne of God, and where the woman was miraculously healed of her bloody fluxe, in memory of which miracle the woman caused a pillar to bee erected in that city, on which the image of Christ was set, and the woman behinde him, touching the hem of his gar­ment; but Iulian caused this Image to bee pulled downe, and his owne to be erected in the same place, which shortly after was throwne downe with thunder from heauen. Euseb. lib. 7. eccles. hist. cap. 14. This towne was also called Cesaria-Philippi, by Philip Tetrach of Traconites, in honour of the Romane Cae­sars, Agrippa also inlarged this Citie, and called it Neronia in honour of Nero. Josep. ant. 20. cap. 6. Now we must not thinke that this was rashnesse and temperitie in Abra­ham, with so few men to follow so great an armie so farre; but rather true cou­rage and fortitude, because he was led by Gods spirit, and because hee was assured of Gods helpe, therefore hee knew there were more with him then against him, besides the iustnesse of the cause, the good end, that A­braham [Page 193] did ayme at in this fight; his vp­right life, and the testimonie of his con­science made him bold to despise death it selfe. Sapiens non metu frangitur, non potestate mutatur, non extollitur prosperis, non mergitur tristibus, Amb. ad Simpl. And if any thing make a man feare, it is the guiltinesse of his conscience, Nam timidum nil facit animum nisi reprehensibilis vitae conscientia. Sen. 4. de virtut.

Q. What successe had Abraham in this battle against the foure kings?

A. He smote them and persued them to Hoba, he rescued Lot and his goods, the So­domites and their goods, and here we may see Abrahams policie in diuiding his ser­uants, and that in the night: to teach vs that it is lawfull to vse policie and subtiltie against our enemies, if there bee no false­hood and vniustice found in it. We know that God commanded Ioshua, to lay an am­bush behinde the Citie Ai, for to take it. Iosh. 8. 2. He came suddenly vpon the fiue kings in the night. Iosh. 10. 9. Gedion vsed the stratagem of trumpets, pitchers and lampes, to ouercome his enemies. Iudg. 7. 16. And Dauid the meanes of an Amale­kite [Page 194] to ouercome the Amalekites, 1. Sam. 30. 15. For if it be lawfull vpon iust occa­sion to raise warres against our enemies, it is also lawful to vse such stratagems, as may further vs in obtaining the victorie. Second­ly, wee must not attribute this victorie of Abrahams to his strength or policie, but to the Lord who made him rule ouer kings, and gaue them as the dust to the sword, &c. Isay 41. 2. Thirdly, God would haue A­braham to bring backe the Sodomites and their goods, that both God might show his wonderfull mercy and patience, as also make them inexcusable. Fourthly, this Hoba into which Abraham persued his e­nemies, was a village in Hieromes time, where certaine Ebeonite Hebrewes dwelt. Fifthly, as the foure kings troubled Canaan, but are ouercome by Abraham. So, the foure great kingdomes of the world haue troubled the Church, but are ouercome of Christ the Sonne of Abraham.

Q. What was Melchisedec?

A. Not the holy Ghost, as some here­tikes haue affirmed, for the holy Ghost is not a man; nor king of Salem, nor a priest, nor priest of the most high God, except we [Page 195] will make him inferiour to God. Secondly, not an Angel, for the Scripture showeth no such thing, neither is an Angel a priest, for euery high priest is taken from amongst men, Heb. 5. 1. Thirdly, not the Sonne of God, for he is not Melchisedech the priest, but a priest after the order of Melchise­dech, Psal. 110. 4. Fourthly, not Sem the Sonne of Noah, as the Hebrewes affirme, rather of malice then sound iudgement, be­cause they cannot endure any stranger should be thought superiour in any thing to their father Abraham, for if Sem was Melchisedech, Moses had not concealed it, being an honour to haue such a noble pro­genitor. Secondly, Melchisedechs genea­logie is not mentioned in Scripture, but Sems is. Thirdly, Melchisedechs descent is not counted from the Hebrewes proge­nitors, Heb. 7. 6. Which plainely sheweth he descended of another stocke then the Iewes did who came of Sem. Fourthly, all this country in which Melchisedech reigned, was possessed by Canaans posteri­ty. Therefore Sem could not bare rule here, to be both a king and a priest among them. Fifthly, if we should yeeld that Mel­chisedech [Page 196] was Sem, wee must be forced to deny a chiefe relation betweene Melchise­dech and Christ, which Paul toucheth, Heb. 7. Which is this, as Melchisedech beeing a stranger from the family of Sem, was not­withstanding a priest and king; so Christ though a stranger from the tribe of Leui, which onely was appointed for the priest­hood, is notwithstanding a king and priest for euer. Sixthly, Melchisedech had no suc­cessour in his priest-hood, but Sem had, for Abraham was a priest, so was Isaac, Iacob, and the children of Leui. Seauenthly, if Melchisedech was Sem. Then, whereas Leui payd tithes being in the loynes of A­braham, he being also in the loynes of Sem, (because Abraham came of Sem) did pay tithes to Sem, which is absurd. Eighthly, if this be true, then we must confesse that in the person of Sem, both the priesthood of Aaron and Melchisedech was ioyned to­gether, for Aron was in the loynes of Sem, and so we must yeelde that Christ in that he was a priest after the order of Melchise­dech, he was also after the order of Aaron. Ninthly, if Melchisedech had beene Sem, it it is very like that Abraham all this while [Page 197] that he was in Canaan, would not negle­cted to haue sought him out, and conuersed with him, both for his further comfort, strength and instruction, then the fift opi­nion is soundest, which holdeth Melchise­dech to haue beene a Cananite, yet a true worshipper of God, for it is very like, that as God had his priests amongst the Iewes, so he had some amongst the Gentiles, and as Aaron among the Iewes was eminent, so Melchisedech among the Gentiles, for God is the God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Iewes, and besides that Philo and Iosephus are of this opinion, the chiefest of the auncient Fathers doe defend the same.

Q. Where did Melchisedech, and the king of Sodom meete Abraham?

A. At the valey of Saueth, not farre from Ierusalem, where Absolom set vp his pillar, 2. Sam. 18. 18. This valley is called the kings dale, eyther because the kings and princes did vse to exercise themselues heere in running, or els because of the ex­cellency and pleasantnesse thereof, being a place fit for kings. Herein the king of So­dom though a prophane man, we see great huma­nity [Page 198] and thankfulnesse, that hee would goe to meete Abraham, and reioyce with him at his happy successe, humanity and gratitude are commendable in al, for, Bene­ficiorum memoria non debet senescere, Senec. lib. de benif.

Q. Of what place was Melchisedech king?

A. He was king of Salem, which after­ward was called Ierusalem, from Iereth and Salem, that is, the vision of peace, for Abra­ham called the hil on which he would haue sacrificed his Sonne Iehouah Iereth, Gen. 22. Then Jereth being put to the old name Sa­lem is made vp Ierusalem, after Melchise­dech the Iebusites had the dominion of this city, and from them it was called Jebub, Ios. 18. 28. Iud. 19. 10. But afterward Dauid conquered it, and did enlarge it with many goodly buildings, so that it became the most famous city in all the east, Plin. lib. 5. cap. 14. This is that city gouerned by Mel­chisedech, repaired by Dauid, beautisied by Salomon, with the goodliest temple in the world, adorned with the miracles and prea­ching of the Prophets, sanctified with the life, miracles, doctrine, blood and resurre­ction [Page 199] of our Sauiour; and with the sending downe of the holy Ghost, honoured to bee the figure of Christs Church millitant in the old Testament, and of the Church tri­umphant in the new, watered with the blood of Steuen, Iames, and other holy Mar­tyrs, and happy in that the light of the Gospell did first shine there; for out of Si­on came the law, and the word of the Lord from Ierusalem, but most vnhappy in that she killed the Prophets, and stoned them that were sent to her, in that she would not bee gathered vnder the wings of Christ, therefore many yeares agoe she is left de­solate, Mat. 23.

Q. Wherein was Melchisedec the type of Christ?

A. Melchisedec was a king, so is Christ the king of kings. Secondly, Melchisedec was a priest, so is Christ a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Thirdly, hee was King of peace, so is Christ the Prince of peace. Fourthly, he was King of righteous­nesse, so is Christ Iehouah our righteousnes. Fifthly, he was without father and mother, so is Christ, as God without a mother, as man without a father. Sixthly, as he was [Page 200] without generation, so none can declare Christ his generation. Seauenthly, as he was without beginning, or end, so is Christ, be­cause hee is the beginning and the end. Eightly, he was an extraordinarie Priest, not being in the line of Sem, so was Christ not being of the tribe of Leui. Ninthly, he was a greater priest then Aaron, and so was Christ. Tenthly, hee was not annointed with externall oyle, neither was Christ, but but with the oyle of gladnesse. Eleauenthly, hee refreshed Abraham with bread and wine; so hath Christ with his owne body, which is that bread of life that came downe from heauen. Twelfthly, he in his Priest­hood had no successour, neither Christ, but hath an euerlasting Priesthood. Thirtenth, he blessed Abraham; and so hath Christ vs withall spirituall blessing. Fourteenth, he was made like to the Sonne of God, and Christ is the true and onely begotten Son of God. Fifteenth, he was king of Salem which is Ierusalem, so was Christ annointed king vpon the holy hill of Sion, which is Ierusalem. Sixteenth, he did not blesse A­braham till he returned from the slaughter of his enemies, neither will Christ vs, till [Page 201] we haue ouercome our spirituall enemies; Seauenteene, Melchisedec did vse to sacri­fice at Ierusalem, so did Christ sacrifice his blessed body on the crosse at Ierusalem.

Q. Why did Abraham giue tithes to Mel­chisedec?

A. To testifie his thankfulnesse to God, who had sent such an excellent Priest to blesse him, for he was bound to minister to him in carnall things, seeing he was perta­ker of Melchisedechs spirituall things. Rom. 15. 27. Secondly, he gaue tithes in signe of homage, and to show how inferiour he was to Melchesedec, consider how great Mel­chisedec was, to whom euen the Patriarch Abraham gaue the tenth, Heb. 7. 4. Third­ly, he gaue tythes because hee knew, (al­though not by a positiue law as yet, but by diuine inspiration) that the tithes did belōg to God; and to his Priests, and therefore was sacriledge to keepe them backe, for we must giue vnto God, that which is Gods. Matth. 22. 21. Fourthly, because it was the custome euen before the law amongst ho­ly men, to pay their tythes, euen as sacrifi­cing, building of Altars, distinction of cleane and vncleane beasts, therefore wee [Page 202] reade here not onely of Abraham, but also of Iacob that promised to pay tythes of all he had to the Lord. Gen. 28. 22. Fifthly, he paide his tythes as other holy men vse to doe, because he knew that those who serue at the Altar, must liue by the Altar. 1. Cor. 9. 13. Sixthly, he paide his tythes, because hee knew that God would giue an hundred fold more then his tythes were worth, ac­cording to that, bring yea all your tythes vnto the store-house, and prooue me saith the Lord; if I will not open to you the win­dowes of heauen, and poure you out a bles­sing, that there shall not be roome ynough to receiue it. Malac. 3. 10.

Q. What kinde of tythes were vsed a­mongst the Hebrewes?

A. Hierome vpon Ezechiel cap. 5. & 40. Affirmeth that there were some tythes which the people did owe to the Leuites. Againe, there were other tythes which the Leuites, that is, the inferious order of mi­nisters, out of their tythes, did owe to the Priests, also there were other tythes which euery one of the people put a part in their barnes, appointed to be eate by the Priests, Leuites and people together, in the en­trance [Page 203] of the Temple; moreouer there were other tythes which were laide vp for the poore, but Vincentius in spec. moral. lib. 1. distinct. 66. Maketh mention onely of three sorts of tythes, vsed in the old Law: the one sort were these which were paide to the Leuites, spoken off Numb. 18. 24. The other sort were these which were publikely eaten in the Temple, mentioned Deut. 14. 23. The third sort were these which were laide vp at the end of euery three yeares, for the poore & strangers, spoken of Deut. 14. 28. Of these three sorts of tythes, the first onely remaineth amongst Christians, the second sort which were publikely eaten and sacrificed, are abolished, being a meere ceremonie, the third sort also for the pro­portion is taken away, for wee are not bound to giue the tythes of our goods to the poore, but to releeue them according to our abilitie, and giue them such as wee haue. Luk. 11. 41.

Q. Then is it lawfull to pay tythes to the preachers of the Gospel?

A. It is not onely lawfull to pay them, but sacriledge to withold them, for wee must giue vnto God that which is Gods, [Page 204] and hee who bestoweth all things on vs, doth require no more but his tithes of vs, for the tithes doe not principally belong to the preachers, but to God; and he who setteth them a worke is their pay-master. Therefore hee who withholdeth the tithes from the preachers, doth not so much wrong the preachers as God, to whom they properly belong. Moreouer, the pre­cept of paying tithes is not altogether ce­remoniall, but partly morall, partly iudici­all: morall, in that the labourer is worthy of his hire, especially they who labour in the word are worthy of double honour, for he that serueth at the Altar must liue by the Altar. Iudiciall, in that the paying of tithes to the labourers in the word, be­longs to the externall gouernment of the Church and common wealth, and there­fore Christian Kings and counsels haue e­stablished, that vnder paine of excommuni­cation the tithes should bee paid to the mi­nisters, as a due which God himselfe hath demanded. Constantine and Charles the great did command the same, the counsells Matisconense held anno. 587. can. 5. Durien­se, an. 779. can. 10. Moguntinum, an. 813. caen. [Page 205] 38. And other famous synods haue most strictly enioyned the paying of tithes, then seeing tithes are both commanded by God to be paid, as also by the ciuill magistrate, it is both sacriledge and contempt against the magistrate (whom we must obey for conscience sake) not to pay them, truely if it had not beene the speciall will of God, euen in the time of the Gospell, to pay tithes to the preachers, Christ had not commended the Scribes and Pharises for paying of them, which he doth, Mat. 23. 23. Againe, it was necessary in the old law to pay tithes to the Leuites, much more needfull is it now in the Gospell, for the preachers are not onely the Leuites suc­cessours, but also their calling is more ho­nourable, and their charge is greater. Be­sides our righteousnesse must exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharises, or else we cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen, but their righteousnesse was so great, that they did not omit to pay their tythes, euen of the least things; therefore much more carefull must we be to let the preachers haue their due; the Gentiles al­so led by the law of nature, were carefull in [Page 206] this practise, as Cyrus king of Persia, hauing ouercome the Lydians, payed the tythes of his spoile to Iupiter, saith Herodotus lib. 1. The Romans paide tythes to Hercules, Cicero lib. 2. de offic. The Arabians paide tythes of their incense to Sabis. Plin. lib. 12. cap. 14. Lastly, the punishments executed vpon these, who haue defrauded the Church of her right, are sufficient testimonies to prooue how dangerous it is, to with-hold the tythes from her, famine and pouertie, are the effects of this sinne, Hierome in Malach. 3. They are guiltie of the mur­ther of soules, before Gods tribunall, who are pertakers of it, August. de doct. Christ. they are punished with present and eternall plagues. Chytreus in cap. 7. Josuae. Eagles feathers being mingled with the feathers of other fowles, are said to consume these and themselues also, euen so the tythes haue eate vp and consumed patrimonies, and e­states of many men, as daily experience teacheth euery where, but especially in the kingdome of Scotland. Truly, to meddle with the Church goods after this sort is to meddle with aurum Tolosanum. Eras. in Adag.

[Page 207]Q. Why is God called the possessour of heauen and earth?

A. That by this title, he might be distin­guished from false gods, therefore these and such like titles are giuen him in Scripture, he is said to sit in the heauens. Psal. 2. To make the heauen and earth. Psal. 124. To stretch out the heauens aboue. Esay, 44. To stretch them out like a garment. Psal. 104. To lay the foundations of the earth and the cor­ner stone thereof, Iob. 38. Hee is called the Lord God of heauen, Ion. 1. The earth is said to be his, and the fulnesse thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein, Psal. 34. And Ieremie concludeth that these gods who haue not made the heauens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, Ier. 10. 11. Now by the heauen and earth are vnderstood all things therein contained, and this may abate the pride of these who haue great possessions, which if they bee compared with heauen and earth they are nothing. Againe, they are not permanent, for when man dyeth, he shall carry nothing away, his glory shal not descend after him, Psal. 40. 17. Besides, let a mans possession be neuer so great, yet as Philo saith, the [Page 208] right of possessing all things belongs vnto God onely, man hath but the vse of these things which he doth possesse. Secondly, if God be possessor of all, then the Sonnes of God haue right and interest in all the crea­tures, the wicked haue none. Thirdly, be­cause he hath the possessions of all nations, we must wish well to all, and despise none. Fourthly, if he be possessor of all, then hee is by his power and prouidence in all things, he is not far from euery one of vs, Act. 17. 27.

Q. Did Abraham well to sweare that he would take nothing from the king of Sodom?

A. Yes: for by this oath he both satis­fieth the king, that hee dealt simply and plainly with him in deliuering the persons and the goods, as also the people who might haue thought that Abraham for his owne gaine did vndertake this warre, and not for loue of his brother Lot; in such ca­ses then it is lawfull to sweare, both for the aduancement of Gods glory, and confir­mation of the truth, for wee honour and loue God, when we sweare thus, Qui iurat, aut veneratur, aut diligit eum per quem iurat, Aquin. in Math. Then seeing swearing is [Page 209] commanded by God himselfe, Exod. 22. Yea oftētimes vsed by him & by Christ al­so. By the Saints and by the Angels, for we reade that all these haue sworne Christ did not reprooue the high Priest for adiuring him: swearing also tendeth to the honour of God and the profit of our neighbours: therefore the Anabaptists are ridiculous, who oppose this doctrine, yet we must take heed that wee doe not sweare at all times rashly for euery trifle, so Gods name shall waxe vile and common. Secondly, that we sweare not to doe any thing contrary to Gods will, for such an oath is euill, but the action is worse; as wee may see in Iephthes now, and Herods oath. Thirdly, that we doe not forsweare or sweare to confirme a lye, for that is highly to dishonour, God if we make him a witnesse of our lyes. Fourthly, that wee doe not sweare by the creatures, for that is to attribute Gods glory vnto them, neither can that be an oath properly which is sworne by the creature, because men sweare by the greater, Heb. 6. 16. But there is no creature greater then man. Fifthly, that we doe not sweare deceitfully, vsing ambiguous words, speaking one [Page 210] thing, & thinking another, for an oath is v­sed to make an end of strife, Heb. 6. 16. But such oathes doe increase strife. Sixthly, that we sweare not by the name of Idols, or false Gods, for that is also to attribute Gods glory vnto them, and they that sweare by them doe seeme to put their trust and con­fidence in them, if then we sweare at all, let vs sweare only by God, as Abraham did here, who lifted vp his hand in testimony thereof, for we know that the Gentiles did honour their false gods by vsing their names to confirme their oathes, as the Ro­manes by Fides Plut. in numa. The Vestall Nymphs by Vesta, the Carthaginians by their countrey gods, some by Jupiter and Hercules, others by Castor and Pollux did vse to sweare, much more should wee then seeke the glory of the true God by calling vpon him in our lawfull oathes.

Q. Did Abraham well to refuse the king of Sodomes offer?

A. Yes: because he would not haue him thinke that it was for his owne profite hee vndertooke this battle, neither would hee haue any thinke, that he would bee so much beholding to a prophane king, neither did he stand at this time in need, because hee [Page 211] was sufficiently rich. Besides he would let him and all ages see how little hee did re­gard riches, and how little we should, seeing our treasure is laid vp in heauen. Yet this fact of Abrahams is no president for any to refuse gifts when they may lawfully take them, for Abraham did not refuse the gifts of Pharaoh, nor Ioseph the present of his brethren, nor Salomon the gifts of the Queene of Seba, neither did Ezechia refuse to take gifts from the king of Babel, nor Ieremy from the captaine of the guard, nor Daniel from Nabuchadnezzar, nor Christ from the wise men. Notwithstanding, wee must know, that taking and giuing of gifts, is not alwayes lawfull, for it is dangerous and suspicious for any subiect to receiue a­ny gift from a forraine king, because no man can serue two masters. It is also vnlaw­full to receiue gifts from the poore, and those that cannot spare them, for wee must giue to the poore and not take from them: no lesse preposterous and impious it is for a iudge or magistrate to receiue gifts to doe iniustice, for, Oblatio muneris tinea est re­giminis, Cassiod. in epist. But most of all in­tolerable it is to take or giue gifts for re­mission of sins, for deliuerance from pur­gatory, [Page 212] for heauen and for the graces of the holy Ghost, as that old verse sheweth, Templa sacerdotes, &c. And not much infe­riour are these gifts, that are giuen and ta­ken for spirituall benefices; truly we liuein a goldē age according to that, Aurea nunc ve­re sunt saecula, plurimus auro, venit honos, auro cōciliatur amor, To many now adais are like to Midas, who desire that whatsoeuer they touch may be gold. But I will not seeme too much to exclaime against this abuse, because the time will come, when the reeds will proclaime it, as they did the long eares of Midas. Besides Harpocrates teacheth me that, Tutum est silentii praemium, Now to re­turne to the matter, no gift is to bee giuen or taken which is contrary to true piety, or Gods glory, for such a gift blindeth the wise and peruerterh the words of the righ­teous, Exod. 23. 8. Secondly, it peruerteth the naturall affection of men, so that Iudas for a gift sold his master, the souldiers for a gift did bely Christ, saying, that his disci­ples stole him by night, and Dalilath for a gift betrayed Sampson, Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, auri sacra fames? Thirdly, it is an enemy to liberty, for he that is corrup­ted [Page 213] with gifts, hath his hands bound from doing good, and his mouth from speaking truth. Fourthly, it is the cause of iniustice, therefore cursed be he that asketh a gift to slay an innocent person, Deut. 27. 25. And woe to them which iustifie the wicked for a gift, Esay 5. 23. 5. It is a hinderance to true happinesse, for, not he that taketh bribes, but he that shaketh his hands from taking of bribes, shall dwell on high, &c. Esay 33. 15. Sixthly, the reward of these that take such rewards is fire, fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery, Job 15. 34. For these causes therefore many holy men haue refu­sed gifts, as the man of God refused to take a gift from Jeroboam, Eliseus from Naa­man, Dauid from Araunah, Daniel from Belthashar, and Peter from Simon the sor­cerer. And here I end this second booke, in which I haue not set downe euery question that can be mooued, for I know that many friuolous questions may be moued, which are not worthy the answering, Plura potest Asinus interrogare, quam respondere Philo­sophus. Yet I haue not omitted these que­stions which are most eminent and wor­thy [Page 241] of our paines, notwithstanding I haue passed by as much as I could, these which haue beene handled by o­thers, lest I should seeme [...].