Book 2, Chapter 3: The Scriptures

Of the Scriptures.

The second main question, is touching the truth of scripture, whether the scriptures be the true word of God?

The answer is, that they are. And the grounds of this assertion, may be reduced to six heads.

Book 2 — Sect. 1.

The first, is taken from the causes, namely, the author and writers of the scriptures.

Touching the Author, the scripture refers itself to God. Therefore he alone is the true and undoubted author thereof, and none but he. The sufficiency of this consequence, stands upon these grounds.

First, if God were not the author of scriptures, there would be no one book in the earth so fabulous and so full of error as it, which to say, is blasphemy. For it speaks such things, as never any could speak, but God.

Secondly, if it were not the book of God, then all God's will should be hidden, and God should never yet have revealed his will to man.

Thirdly, if it had not been the word of God, the falsehood thereof would have been detected long ago. For there has been nothing falsely said of God at any time, which he himself has not at some time or other, opened and revealed. Even as he did detect and discover the falsehood of the false prophet Hanan (Jeremiah 28:16), and God's heavy hand, no doubt, would long since have been upon the ministers and preachers of this word, if they had unjustly and wrongfully fathered it upon him.

Again, for the writers and penmen of scripture, Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles in their writings, do not set forth their own glory, nobility, or virtues: but all with one consent, have acknowledged directly and plainly their own errors, and faults; yes, such faults as may be disgraceful to themselves, and their posterity, and yet they have done it. A plain proof, that they were not carried by policy, and natural reason, but were holy men, guided by the Holy Ghost. For if they had been guided by reason, they would never have written that, which would have tended to their own disgrace: but would rather have commended themselves, their name, stock, and lineage. Again, human authors in their discourses, do commonly write of the praises and virtues of men, of whom they write. But the penmen of scripture, with one consent, give all to God; yes, when they speak of commendation due to men, they give it all to God in men. God is in their writings, the beginning, the end, and all.

Book 2 — Sect. 2.

A second head of reasons, is taken from the matter, and contents of the Scriptures, which are manifold. The principal are these.

First, the Scripture does that, which no other books can do. For it sets out the corruption of man's nature by sin; the fountain of this corruption; and the punishment of the same, both in this life, and the life to come: it discovers sinful man's particular thoughts, lusts, and affections, which never any book has done beside it. No Philosopher was ever able to make so true record, and so plain declaration of the thoughts, motions, and affections of the heart. The reason of man cannot discern them by nature, unless it receive a further light by grace, than it has naturally in itself. Yes, the Scripture sets down things, that no man's heart can imagine, and yet are true by experience. For example: that it is an evil thought to think there is no God, man by nature cannot imagine, but yet it is true in experience, and by the light of the word. And therefore David says, 'The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.'

Secondly, the main contents of this book, are sundry articles of faith, all which are far above the reach of human reason, and yet they are not against it; but at least some of them may be proved by it.

For example, that there is a Redeemer of the world, is an article of faith, above reason: yet not against the same. For in natural understanding, God is not all justice, and no mercy. But if there were no redeemer, then should God be all justice, without mercy. Now because he has revealed himself to be as well merciful, as he is just, reason concludes, there is a redeemer. Again, that this Redeemer should be God and man, is above reason; yet not against it. For reason teaches, he must be God, that he might satisfy the infinite justice of God for sin; which none but God can do. Again, that he must be man, because man having sinned, man must be punished for the sin of man.

Thirdly, in the scripture there are sundry predictions made before hand particularly, which notwithstanding were not to come to pass till an 100, 200, 300 years after, and all these predictions in the same manner as they have been foretold, have been fulfilled.

Jacob in his will foretold, that the scepter should not depart from Judah till Shiloh, that is, the Messiah came. This was verified, even as it was foretold. For a little before Christ's birth, the scepter was taken from the Jews, and translated to the Roman Empire. And Herod put the whole college of the Jews, called their Sanhedrin, to the sword, in which college was the heir apparent of the kings' blood.

Again, Balaam (Numbers 24:24) foretold that Kittim, that is, the Grecians and the Romans, should subdue Eber, the people of the East, and that also was afterward verified. For the Hebrews and Assyrians, were afterward overcome by the Grecians, and Cilicians.

The Apostle Paul in his time foretold the destruction of the Roman Empire, and the revealing of Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8, etc.), which prophecy was shortly after fulfilled. For Antichrist grew from those times by little and little, till at length he came to sit in the Emperor's throne. Men indeed may foretell things to come, but things foretold by them are present in their causes, and so they know and foretell them, not otherwise. But God foretells simply, and the scriptures foretell simply, therefore they are the word of God.

Fourthly, the law, a part of the scripture, is propounded most purely and perfectly without exception or limitation. Whereas, in all men's laws some sins are condemned, but some be tolerated and permitted. But in God's law every sin is condemned, and none either forborne or excused.

Lastly, the style and speech of the Scripture is plain and simple without affectation, and yet full of grace and majesty. For in that simple style, it commands the whole man, body and soul; it threatens everlasting death, and promises everlasting life: and it does more affect the heart of man, than all the writings in the world whatever.

Book 2 — Sect. 3.

The third reason to induce us to receive the scriptures, as the word of God, is taken from the effects: whereof I note only two.

The doctrine of Scripture in the Law, and specially in the Gospel, is contrary to the corrupt nature of man. Whereupon Paul says, the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God. And yet the same word, being preached by the Minister appointed by God, converts nature, and turns the heart of man to it, in such sort, as in this last age it has won a great part of the world to the embracing thereof. Now in reason this is impossible, that a thing which is so flat against man's corrupt nature, should notwithstanding prevail with it so far, as to cause man to live and die in the profession and maintenance thereof. We are wont to reject the writings of men, if they please not our humors; whereas this word of God, is of force to move and incline our affections, though never so much censured, crossed, and controlled by it. And this shows that God is the author thereof, from whom the word of creation came, to which every thing at the first yielded obedience.

The word of God has this effect, to be able to minister comfort and relief, in all distresses of body or mind, yes in the greatest and most desperate troubles, and vexations of the conscience. And when the helps of human learning and philosophy (which are of great use and force in other cases) have done all that they can, to the very utmost, without effect or success: even then the sweet promises of the Gospel, will revive and raise up the heart, and give it full contentment and satisfaction. Experience shows this to be a confessed truth in particular cases: and it teaches, from where and from whom this word proceeds, wherein these promises are contained, namely, from God. For when he sets the conscience upon the rack, the word that relieves and refreshes the same, must needs proceed and come from him alone.

Sect. 4.

The fourth reason, is taken from the properties of Scripture. I will name only two.

The first, is antiquity, which most plainly appears in the history, though the doctrine itself be as ancient. The Scripture contains a continued history, from age to age, for the space of 4000 years before Christ, even from the beginning. Human histories, that are of any certainty or continuance, begin only about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. As for those which were written before, they are only fragments, and of no certainty.

The second property, is consent with itself, in all parts, both for the matter, scope, and end. The writings of men do dissent from themselves, by reason of ignorance and forgetfulness in the authors. But the word of God, agrees with itself most exactly, and the places that seem to disagree, may easily be reconciled; which shows that holy men, by whom it was penned, were not guided therein by their own private judgment, but were directed by the wisdom of the Spirit of God.

Sect. 5.

The fifth reason, is drawn from the contraries. The Devil and wicked men, are in judgment and disposition, as contrary to Scripture, as light is to darkness. I prove it thus. Let a man read any book of philosophy, and labor to be resolved of any one point therein, he shall never be tempted to infidelity. But if the same man, read the books of Scripture, and labor to understand them; he shall have within himself, many motions and temptations, not to believe and obey it. Now what should be the cause thereof, but that these books are the word of God, which the Devil labors to oppose with might and main?

Again, consider the same in the practice of wicked men. They will not brook the rebuke of their sins, namely, their idolatry, blasphemy, and other notorious crimes, by Scripture; but will seek the blood and life of him, that shall sharply tax and reprove them. And hence it was, that wicked kings so persecuted the Lord's Prophets. Yes further, let it be marked, that these wicked men, that are tainted with these horrible crimes, and cannot abide the word, nor teachers thereof to the death, have commonly fearful ends. Now the opposition of Satan, and wicked men to the word shows the Scriptures to be a most holy word, and indeed the very word of God.

Sect. 6.

The sixth reason, is taken from sundry testimonies.

First, of holy Martyrs, in the Old and New Testament, who have given their lives for the maintenance of this word, and sealed the same with their own heart's blood; yes suffered the most horrible and exquisite torments, that the wit of man could devise, and that most patiently and willingly, not being daunted or dismayed. The stories of Martyrs in all ages, confirm this truth, especially of those that suffered before, in, and after the times of the ten bloody persecutions. And unless they had been supported by a divine power, in so good a cause, they could never, so many of them, have suffered in such manner, as they did.

The second, is the testimony and consent of heathen men, who have recorded the very same things, at least many of the principal, that are set down in the Bible. If this were not so, man should have some colorable excuse of his unbelief. And these things which they record, were not all taken out of the Scripture, but were registered to memory by historiographers, that lived in the times, when they were done. Such are the stories of the creation, and flood, of the tower of Babel, of the ark, of Abraham and his possessions, of circumcision, of the miracles of Moses, of the birth of Christ, and the slaughter of the young children, of the miracles of Christ, of the death of Herod, Agrippa, and such like. And these we take for true in human stories: much more then ought we to do it in the word of God.

The third testimony, is of miracles. The doctrine of Scripture was confirmed by miracles, wrought by the teachers thereof, the Prophets and Apostles, above all power and strength of nature, and such as the Devil cannot counterfeit; as the staying of the sun, and the raising of the dead, etc.

The fourth, is the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which is the argument of all arguments, to settle and resolve the conscience, and to seal up the certainty of the word of God.

If any shall ask, how this testimony of the Holy Ghost may be obtained, and being obtained, how we may discern it to be the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and not of man: I answer, by doing two things.

First, by resigning ourselves to become truly obedient to the doctrine taught. If any man will do my father's will (says Christ), he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God (John 7:17). Secondly, by praying to God for his Spirit, to certify our consciences, that the doctrine revealed, is the doctrine of God. Ask (says our Savior Christ) and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For he that asks, receives (Matthew 7:7, 8). Again, your heavenly father will give the Holy Ghost to them that desire him (Luke 11:13). And, if any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, who gives to all men liberally, and reproaches no man, and it shall be given him (James 1:7).

Sect. 7.

Now having set down the proofs of this point, before I come to the next question, some special objections against this doctrine, are to be answered, and resolved. For there have not been wanting in all ages, both atheists, and others, who have professedly excepted against it, and of set purpose, have undertaken to call the written word of God into question. Such were Celsus, Lucian, Julian, Porphyry, Apelles, and others. From whom some of latter times having received the poison of atheism, and profaneness, have not ceased as much as in them lies, to oppugn sundry parts and portions of holy scripture. Their principal reasons and exceptions, I will propound, and answer one by one.

And first, they except against that which is written (Genesis 1:16), where it is said, God made the sun the fourth day. Now, say they, the sun is the cause of the day; and therefore there could not be three days, before the sun was created, considering that the effect is not before the cause, but the cause before the effect.

I answer. First, we must put a difference between cause and cause. For of causes, some be the highest, some subordinate to them. The highest and first cause, of all creatures, is God himself, from whom all things at the first immediately flowed, without any relation to their causes in nature. And thus were the first, second, and third days created and appointed immediately from God, and distinguished from the night, by an intercourse of light, ordained by him for that purpose.

But the subordinate and inferior cause of the day, in order of nature, was the sun, and that by the same appointment of God: and this cause was not set in nature, as the cause of the day, before the fourth day of creation; for then it pleased him to make it his instrument, to distinguish the day from the night, as also for other ends and uses. And therefore it is no marvel, though the day was created before the sun, the instrumental cause thereof: considering that it was created before the sun was set in the heaven, by the Creator himself.

Secondly, we must distinguish of times: which are either of creation, or government: and there is one regard to be had of things while they were in making, and another after they were created. Now it is true, the sun is the cause of the day and the night, in the time of the government of the world, but it was not so in the time of the first making of all things. For in the three first days of the world, there was day and night without the sun, by a vicissitude of light and darkness, which the Lord made, and nature could never have found out, had not the word revealed it.

But since the creation, in the time of government, the sun is but an instrument appointed by God to carry light, and he that made the light, can now in the government of the world, if it pleased him, put down the sun from this office, and by some other means distinguish the day from the night; therefore no marvel though he did so in the beginning.

The second objection, is touching the light of the moon. Moses says, it is one of the great lights which God made. Now, say they, in all reason according to human learning, it is one of the least of the planets, and less than many stars.

Answer. It is true which the Holy Ghost says by Moses, and yet the moon is less than the sun, yes than many of the stars. For one and the same star, in a diverse and different respect, may be termed greater and lesser. And in that place the Scripture speaks of the moon, not in regard of other stars greater than it: but in respect of our sense, because it appears greater in quantity, and really communicates more light; yes, it is of more operation and use to the earth, than any of the stars in the heaven, saving the sun.

The third objection. Moses says, man and beast were made of the earth, and fishes of the waters. But all human learning avouches, that the matter of every creature, consists of all the four elements, earth, water, fire, and air.

Answer. Moses speaks only of two, which were the principal, and in them includes the other; because they are impure, and mixed with the other since the fall. Again, some learned avouch, that all creatures are made of earth and water only, as being the two main material principles of all; and not of air, nor of fire. And this accords with Moses, and is no doubt, a truth, that he speaks only of the principal matter of these creatures: and yet the fire and air, are and may be called elements, or beginnings, because they serve to form, preserve, and cherish the creatures.

The fourth objection. In Genesis 3 it is said, that Eve before her fall, was deceived by the serpent. Now this, says the atheist, is absurd. For even in the estate of corruption, since the fall, there is no woman so simple, that will either admit speech, or suffer herself to be deceived by a serpent; much less would Eve, in the estate of her innocence.

Answer. Though Adam and Eve in their innocence, had excellent knowledge, yet they had not all knowledge. For then they should have been as God himself. But in that estate, ignorance befell Eve in three things. For first, though Adam himself was a prophet, in the time of his innocence, yet both he and she were ignorant of the issue of future things, which are contingent. Secondly, they knew not the secrets of each other's heart. For to know the event of things contingent certainly, and the secrets of the heart, belongs to God only. Thirdly, though Eve knew the kinds of creatures, yet she knew not all particulars, and all things that were incident to every kind of creature, but was to attain to that knowledge, by experience and observation.

Neither may this seem strange: for Christ as he was man, had as much, yes more knowledge than our first parents had in their innocency: and yet he knew not all particulars, in all singular creatures. For, seeing a figtree by the way as he went to Jerusalem, he thought it had borne fruit, and yet coming towards it, he found none thereon. And in like manner, Eve might know the serpentine kind, and yet be ignorant, whether a serpent could speak. Besides that, the naming of the creatures, which argues knowledge of them, was not given to Eve, but to Adam. And therefore it was not so strange, that Eve should be deceived by a serpent, considering that to know that a serpent could speak, or not speak, came by experience, which she then had not.

It will be said, that all ignorance is sin: but Eve had no sin: and therefore she could not be ignorant. Answ. Ignorance is twofold; some ignorance arises of an evil disposition, when as we are ignorant of those things which we are bound to know, and this is sin properly. But there is another ignorance, which is no sin, when as we are ignorant of those things, which we are not bound to know. And this was in Christ: for he was ignorant of the figtree's bearing fruit: and he knew not the day of judgment as he was man. And this also was in Eve, not the other.

The fifth objection is about the Ark (Genesis 6:15). God commanded Noah to make an Ark of 300 cubits long, of 50 cubits broad and of 30 cubits high. This Ark, says the Atheist, being so small a vessel, could not possibly contain two of every sort of creatures, with their food, for the space of a year.

The first author of this cavil, was Apelles the heretic, that cavilled with Christians about the Ark. And the answer is as ancient as the heresy: namely, first, that the cubit of the ark must be understood of the Egyptian cubit, which is with some, six foot, and with others, nine foot, by which measure the Ark would be in length half a mile at the least. And by this means, any man may see a possibility in reason, that the Ark might contain, and preserve all creatures, with their fodder, and room to spare.

The second answer is, that as the Jews had a shekel of the sanctuary, which was greater than the ordinary shekel, so they had beside the ordinary cubit, a sacred cubit, the cubit of the sanctuary, whereof mention is made in the prophecy of Ezekiel, Chap. 40, and that was bigger by the half, than the ordinary cubit. And by this measure, some say, the Ark was made. But both these answers are only conjectural, without good ground in the scripture.

To them therefore I add a third. In the days of Noah, the stature of man was far bigger than it is at this day. And look as the stature of man was great and large, so was the cubit proportional thereto; containing the length of the arm, from the elbow to the longest finger's end. And this being considered, that the Ark was built by that measure, and not by the ordinary cubit, as it is now; it will appear, that the Atheist has greatly deceived himself, and abused that part of God's word that declares the story of the Ark.

Again, the length of this vessel, being 300 cubits, it is plain that it was five times the length of Solomon's temple, which contained only 60 cubits. The breadth being 58, it was twice and a half the breadth of that, which was but 20 broad.

Besides that, it is to be remembered, that in the Ark were three lofts or stories, one above another, whereof each contained 10 cubits in height, and a chamber or floor of square measure, 15000 cubits.

As for the creatures that were put into it: the fowls of the air, though they were of many sorts, yet the biggest sort of them, being the Eagle and his kind, they could not take up any very large place for their residence. The water creatures, as some fowls, the fishes, etc. kept the waters, and were not lodged in the Ark. And the beasts of the earth, such being excluded, as were bred either by accidental generation, as Mules; or by putrefaction, as serpents, and other creeping things, which might afterward be restored in other creatures that were preserved, though for multitude and greatness they excelled the rest, yet (as some write) there are of them in all not above 150 distinct kinds. And though there were as many more not known, yet in probability, they could not be either many, or great. And of those that are great, there are thought not to be above 40 kinds.

Now though it be granted, that there were in the Ark 300 distinct kinds of beasts, yet this number compared with the room, it will easily appear, that there might be allotted to every kind, in one only story 50 square cubits, which in all likelihood might well suffice them all one with another, specially seeing all were not of an equal greatness: and therefore some might have that or more space, and some less. All these things duly considered, the vessel being of such capacity, might comprehend all those beasts, and many more together with their provision for a longer time than a year. Other doubts touching this history, of less moment, I omit, and pass to the next.

The sixth allegation, is out of (Genesis 21:9), where Ishmael is said to mock at Isaac when he was weaned, at which time Ishmael was fifteen years of age at the least. For he was born when Abraham was 86 years old (Genesis 16), and Isaac was born, when Abraham was about a hundred (Genesis 21:5), both which put together, make 14 years: whereto one year being added, before Isaac was weaned, makes up the age of Ishmael, as before. And yet afterward in that chapter, v. 14, Hagar is said, to carry the child in her arms, and to cast him under a tree, when he and his mother were cast out of Abraham's house, which argues him to have been but a little child: whereas before he was said to be 15 years old.

Ans. A foolish cavil, which blind Atheists do draw from the error of some translation. For the text is plain, that Ishmael with his mother Hagar, by reason of extreme heat, and drought, was almost dead, wandering in the wilderness of Beersheba: and being in this extremity, she carried him not, but v. 18, led him in her hand, and set him down under a tree, and there left him to die. For in those countries, men for want of water, were at death's door: as we may see in the example of Sisera (Judges 4:19), and Samson, chap. 15:18.

The seventh allegation: Genesis 43:8 — Judah, Joseph's brother, calls his brother Benjamin a lad, or a boy, "Send the boy with me," etc., and yet this lad (says the Atheist) the year following, when he went down into Egypt, with Jacob his father, is said to have ten children (Genesis 46:21). How can these two stand together?

Ans. This cavil arises from the gross ignorance of the Atheist, in the original text. For Benjamin is called jeled, which word commonly signifies a child; but sometimes also a young man. Thus Ishmael that was 15 years old, is called jeled, a lad (Genesis 20:15). And so Genesis 4:23, Lamech says, "I will slay a man in my wound, and [jeled] or a young man in my hurt" — that is, if a man should wound me, and a young man hurt me, I would slay him. Now it is not likely that a child could hurt Lamech. Neither must this seem strange: for the most valiant men that David and Ishbosheth had, are called hannegnaiim, the boys of Abner and Joab (2 Samuel 2:14). And the like phrase is used in other languages. For the Greeks do call young men by the name of [in non-Latin alphabet], and the Latins by the name of [pueri], boys, or children.

The eighth allegation: Exodus 7 — it is said (v. 19) that all the waters in Egypt were turned into blood, by Moses and Aaron; and yet v. 22 it is said, that the magicians of Egypt turned water into blood also, which seems to imply an absurdity, considering that all the waters were turned into blood before.

Ans. Some answer thus: that the water which the magicians turned, was newly dug out of new pits, and therefore they understand the former of all the waters that were seen, and that they only were turned into blood. Others answer more fitly, that the waters which the magicians changed, were fetched out of Goshen, from among the Israelites, where the waters remained pure, and were not turned, as the other were. Either of these answers may satisfy, but specially the latter.

The ninth allegation: Exodus 9:6 — Moses says, that all the beasts in Egypt died of the murren, and yet v. 25, in the seventh plague, it is said, the beasts were killed with thunder, and hail, and lightning, both which cannot be true.

Ans. First, we must put a difference between a common plague, or judgment, and a universal. A common plague is, when no sort or kind escapes, but all sorts are smitten, and such was the murren. For no man's cattle were free, no kind of cattle were saved. But the universal is, when no particular of any kind is exempted, but all destroyed. Such was not this plague, but some escaped, and were reserved for other judgments that followed. The ground of this distinction is this: the word "all" in Scripture is often taken indefinitely for many. Thus the Prophet Isaiah speaks (Isaiah 66:23), "From month to month, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, shall all flesh come to worship before me" — that is, many or great multitudes. And so in the New Testament (Matthew 4:23), Christ healed all diseases — that is, many and of all kinds some. And in like manner the text before alleged, must not be taken generally to include all without exception, but indefinitely for many or the most part of the cattle that were in the land of Egypt.

The tenth allegation: Exodus 10:22 — we read that one of the plagues was a palpable darkness, and so great, that for three days together, no man either saw another, or rose up from the place where he sat. And yet v. 23, Moses is sent for, and called to come before Pharaoh. How should this be, seeing no man could stir from his place, nor have any light to go before him, for there was none to be had, the darkness was so palpable, and the air was so thick?

Ans. I take it the word "Then" (v. 24) is to be meant thus, that Pharaoh sent for Moses after the darkness was ended, not by candle or other light in the time of darkness. And this answer may very well stand without further exception.

The eleventh allegation: Judges 16:29 — the Atheists make a mock at the history of Samson, as fabulous, where it is said, that all the Philistines came together in one house, to make sport with him, and on the roof sat about 3000 persons to behold him while he played, and yet there were but two pillars whereupon the whole house stood, and those also standing in the midst so near together that a man might reach them both with his arms. This, say they, is most absurd and impossible.

Ans. Although the full resolution of this cavil belongs to them that have skill in architecture; yet thus much may be said in way of answer: that the house might be capable of so many persons, and they also that stood above might well see and behold Samson. For first, the whole house was not sustained by two pillars only, but by many more, whereof two were the principal. For in likelihood the middle part whereon the whole building was knit together, from the bottom to the top, being the weightiest of all, was supported by two master-pillars. The other which was more outward, and less weighty might be upholden by lesser props, which artificers in that kind call by the name of false-pillars. Hence it appears, that the two main ones standing so nigh together, being shaken, the whole house together with them must needs fall. Neither will this seem strange, that two pillars should bear up a building of such capacity, if we do but consider what is recorded of Curio the Roman, who devised the frame of a great amphitheater, the two parts whereof were supported only by two hinges, and yet was so large, that it contained the whole people of Rome. Secondly, old buildings in those countries were made for the most part, with open roof. Again, they were full of windows on every part like to great gates; and that they might be the more fit for sight from above, they were reared up in some sort after the manner of the Egyptian Pyramids, wider below, and narrower above towards the top. And by this means it is probable, not only that they might contain a great company, but that all those which stood about the sides, and upon the roof, might very well behold what Samson did below, specially considering that he stood in the midst of the theater, between the two middle pillars.

The twelfth allegation: 1 Samuel 16:19 etc. — it is said that David played before Saul, and that Saul knew him. But chapter 17:55, when he was to fight with Goliath, Saul knew him not. Here is a plain contradiction in the Atheist's judgment.

Ans. This sort of men doe still bewray their grosse ignorance, both in the matter and in the order of Scripture. For the word of God does not alway set downe things, as they follow in order of time iust one after an other: but sometime it does anticipate, putting such things in former histories, as are alreadie done and accomplished, which in regard of their euent should be related afterward. Sometime againe it vseth by recapitulation to declare things as following in order of time, which doe properly belong to a former narration. An example of the latter (to omit many other that might be brought) is the text alleadged. For that part of the 16 chap. from the 19v. to the ende, should by order of historie follow the 17, as will easily appeare by comparing the place. And the like displacing of things saide and done is else-where to be found in the Scriptures. Which beeing considered, the Atheists supposed Contradiction, falls to the ground. For Dauid was to fight with Goliah before he plaied before Saul, and though he was then not knowne, yet Saul after that time tooke better knowledge of him.

The thirteenth Allegation is out of 2 Chronicles 21:2. where the Papist plaies the right Atheist, in going about to improoue the originall copies. There (says he) Iehosaphat is called king of Israel, when as indeede he was king of Iudah, and so is he called in the former booke of Chronicles. In like manner Ahaz is tearmed king of Israel (2 Chronicles 28:19), whereas the truth is, he was king of Iudah.

Answ. After the death of Salomon the kingdome was deuided, and the ten tribes were called Israel, and the other two Iudah and Beniamin did beare the name of Iudah. Now after the diuision, for some time the name of Israel common to both sides, was giuen to either, and both were named after it. And in this respect Iehoshaphat and Ahaz may be termed kings of Israel. Againe, the name of Israel sundry times in Scripture, and namely in the prophets, is taken only for the two Tribes, which bare the name of Iudah after the defection. And thus also might Ahaz have that name given to him, though he were king of Iudah. Furthermore, the word Israel, is sometimes put for a true worshipper of God, that is, for him that is a Iew not without but within, not in the letter, but in the spirit (Romans 2:29). Thus our Sauiour says of Nathaniel (John 1:48), Behold a true Israelite in whome is no guile, that is, a man of an vpright hart, that serueth God in spirit and in truth. And in this sense Iehoshaphat might be termed king of Israel, because he was a king and patrone of all true worshippers of God. For euen then the Israelites sorted themselues together, and the godly among them came to live under him in Iudah, though the distinction of the kingdomes did still remaine.

The fourteenth Allegation is out of Acts 7:16. where the Papists and Atheists alleadge the Scripture to be contrary to it self: in that there it says, Abraham bought a field of Emor, when as (Genesis 33:19) the same field was bought by Iacob.

Ans. 1. Some say that there is a fault, because Abrahams name is put for Iacob. Yet not a fault of the Bible, but of them that wrote out the Bible. Neither does this diminish the authoritie of scripture, though the penmen did erre and slippe in writing, so long as we may find out the truth by scripture.

2. Ans. That this field was bought twice: First by Abraham, and then afterward recouered by Iacob, that he might maintaine his fathers possession.

3. Answ. That Abrahams name is here put for his posterity, as Israels name is otherwhere giuen to his children, yes not only to his children, but also to his fathers Isaack, and Abraham. For (Exodus 12:40) it is said, The abode of the children of Israel while they dwelt in Egypt, was 430. yeares, which cannot be true vnlesse the abode of Abraham and Isaack be therein included. Now if the name of the successour may be giuen to his auncestors, much more may the name of the auncestors be giuen to the posteritie.