Works, Treatise · Chapter 16

Works · Treatise · Chapter 16

p. 666foreign Expresly, or In express words. CHAP. XVI.

The Fourth Particular, viz. The Warrant or Proof of this Prophecy. When the Spirit speaks foreign, and when foreign. That the Spirit foretold the Great Apostasy foreign expresly in Dan 11. vers. 36, 37, 38, 39. A View of these Verses in the Hebraw Text, with an exact Translation of them both in Latin and English. The chief Difficulties in these Verses explained, and incidentally other places of Scripture. The different opinions of Iunius and Graserus about Vers. 38. The Author's Translation free from the inconveniences of both. A particular Explication of Mahoz and Mahuzim: That hereby are meant Fortresses, Bulwarks, as also Protectors, Guardians, Defenders, &c. How fitly this Title is appliable to Angels and Saints, accounted to be such by those that worshipt them.

NOW I come to the Fourth particular of this Prophecy, The Warrant or Proof thereof. The Spirit hath foretold it foreign, or in express words, in some place or other of Divine Writ, The Spirit told Peter, Acts 10. 19. Behold three men seek thee. The Spirit said, Separate Barnabas and Saul, Acts 13. 2. The Spirit forbade S. Paul to preach in Asia. The Spirit said that the Iews should bind S. Paul at Ierusalem, Acts 21. 11. But in all these the Spirit spake not foreign for these things were nowhere written; and therefore what it spake, it spake foreign, only by secret Instinct or Inspiration. But that which the Spirit speaks in the Written word, that it speaks foreign, verbatim, expresly. If therefore concerning this Apostasie of Christian believers to be in the Latter times the Spirit speaketh foreign; then is it to be found somewhere in the Old Testament: for there alone the Spirit could be said to speak foreign or verbatim, in the Apostles time. Having therefore so good a hint given us, let us see if we can find where the Spirit speaketh of this matter so expresly.

There are three main things in this our Apostle's Prediction whereof I find the Spirit to have spoken foreign or in express words, and that in the Prophecy of Daniel. 1. Of these Last or Letter times. 2. Of the new worship of Daemons in them. 3. Of a Prohibition of marriage to accompany them. As for the first of these, the foreign Latter times, Daniel **Ch. 7. 25.(as you have heard before) expresly names them, foreign, A time, times, and half a time; being those Last times of the Last Kingdom, Ver. 21.wherein the Hornish Tyrant should make war with the Saints, and prevail against them. For the second, A worship of new-Daemons or Demi-gods with the profession of the name of Christ; you will perhaps think it strange if I should shew it foreign But if I do; it was the Appendix of hindering or debarring marriage, mentioned in the next verses, which as a thred led me the way to the end of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, where I found it; and in a place too very suspicious, being taken, I think, by almost all the Ancients for a Prophecy of Antichrist; yea and so expounded by the greatest part of our own, though with much variety of reading and application.

But hear the words themselves in the 36, 37, 38, 39. verses of that eleventh chapter of Daniel, translated, as I think, foreign, verbatim, without any wresting or straining the Hebrew text: They are a Description of the Last or Roman Kingdom, and the several states thereof, Conquering Nations, Persecuting Christians, Falseworshipping Christ. The words are these.

p. 667Daniel Chap. 11. Vers. 36, 37, 38, 39.

1. Now for the understanding of this Prophecy, we must take notice, that the Prophet Daniel at the beginning of these verses leaves off the Greek Kingdom with Antiochus, (of whom he was speaking before,) and falls about the Roman: the reason being, because after Antiochus (in whose time Macedonia, whence that Kingdom sprung, with all the rest of Greece came under the Roman obedience,) the Third Kingdom comes no more in the holy reckoning; Daniel himself calling the time of Antiochus his reign, the latter end of the Greek kingdom, ch. 8. 23. and, as I take it, he intimates the same in this chapter in the verse immediately fore-going these we have now to deal withal: From thence forward therefore the Roman succeeds in the account of the Great Kalendar of Times

2. Under the name King we must understand the whole Roman State, under what kind of Government soever. For the Hebrews use King for Kingdom, and Kingdom for any Government, State or Polity in the world. For the Devil in the Gospel is said to have shewn Christ all the Kingdoms of the world, Monarchies, Aristocracies, Democracies, or what other kind soever.

3. Where it is said, that this King should exalt himself above every God; nothing is thereby meant but the greatness and generality of his conquests and prevailings. And the reason of that phrase or manner of speech should seem to be, Because in the times of Paganism every City and Country was supposed to have their proper and peculiar Gods, which were deemed as their Guardians and Protectors: Whence in the Scripture, according to the language of that time, we may observe a threefold use of speech. First, the Nations themselves are expressed and implied under the names of their Gods. The Israelites were called The people of Iehovah. So are the Moabites the people of Chemosh, Numb. 21. 29. The Lord threatned (Deut. 4. 28. & 28. 36, & 64. p. 668Ier. 16. 13.) to scatter Israel among the nations, from one end of the earth even to another, and that there they should serve other Gods day and night; Gods, the work of mens hands, wood and stone, which neither they nor their Fathers had known: that is they should serve them, not Religiously, but Politically, inasmuch as they were to become Slaves and Vassals to**So Targum Onkelos and Ionathan both render it expresly, Servics p…puli… foreign servientibus Idolis, Deut. 28. 36, 64. also c. 4. 28. necnon Targum Ionathan. Ir. 16. 1…. 1 Sam. 26. 19. that is, in all the places forecited.Deut 28:36Deut 28:641 Sam 26:19 Idolatrous Nations; even such Idolaters as neither they nor their Fathers had ever heard of. For as for a Religious service of Idols, the Iews were never so free as in their captivity, as we see by experience at this day: but with the service of bondage they may be said Politically to have been the Vassals of Idols, as being in bondage to the servants of other Gods. As a Christian taken by the Turk may in the like sense be said to come in bondage and be a slave to Mahomet: For a Slave to the Servants is in a sense Servant to their Master. Let it also be considered whether that of David, 1 Sam. 26. 19. be not to be expounded according to this notion, They have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go serve other Gods; that is, banished me into a Nation of another Religion. Secondly, The exploits of the Nations are said to be done by their Gods, even as we by like privilege of speech ascribe unto our Kings what is done by the People under them. Thus 2 Chron. 28. 23. the Gods of Damascus are said to have smote Ahaz: He sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus that smote him: and he said, Because the Gods of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. Ier. 51. 44. it is said of the Dominion of Babylon, That the Nations flowed together unto Bel, and that he had swallowed up their wealth, which the Lord threatned there to bring forth again out of his mouth. Thirdly, and that most frequently of all others, What is attempted against the Nations, is said to be attempted against their Gods: Even as Generals bear the name not only of the exploits, but also of the disadvantages of the Armies led by them; So her the Gods are said to receive the affronts, defeatures and discomfitures given to the People under their patronage.**2 Sam. 7 23. God is said to have redeemed Israel from Egypt, from the Nations and their Gods See Tr…el. who turns it more to our purpose.2 Sam 7:23 Rabshakeh vounts in his Master's name, 2 Kings 18. 33. Hath any of Gods of the Nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of Assyria? where are the Gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the Gods of Sepharvaim? Isay 46. 1, 2. prophesieth thus of the taking of Babylon by Cyrus; Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth—they could not deliver the burthen, but they themselves are gone into captivity. In the like strain prophesieth Ieremy, chap. 50. 2. Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces, her Idols are confounded, &c. And again, Ier. 51. 44. I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up, and the Nations shall not flow together any more unto him: yea the wall of Babylon shall fall. The same Prophet saith of Moah's captivity, chap. 48. 7. Thou shalt be taken, and Chemosh shall go into captivity with his Priests and his Princes together. Moab likewise in his affronts and derision of Israel is**Vers. 26. & 42. said to have magnified himself against the Lord. According to which manner of speech the success and prevailing of the Roman in the advancing his Dominion and subduing every Nation under him, is here expressed by his exalting and magnifying himself above every God. This I suppose to be the ground of that manner of speech; though if any had rather, as others do, take Gods here for the Kings and Potentates of the earth, it will I confess come all to one purpose.

4. By the Gods of their Ancestors, whom the Roman State should at length cashier and cast off, are meant all the Pagan Deities and Heathen Gods which were worshipped in that Empire.

5. By the Desire of Women, which the Roman also at that time should not regard as he was wont, is meant Desire of Wiving, or Desire of having Women for the society of life, conjugal affection, which is expressed Gen. 2. 24 to be such a desire for which a man shall leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be both one flesh. And it might have been translated in this place, Desire of Wives, as well as Desire of Women; for there is no other word used in the Original for Wives above once or twice in the whole Scripture, but this foreign which is here turned women. With the like use of the word Desire, the Spouse in the Canticles, chap. 7. 10. expresseth her wel-beloved to be her Husband: I am my wel-beloved's (saith she) and his Desire is towards me; that is, He is my Husband: for so twice before the expressed her self, chap. 2. 16. My beloved is mine, and I am his; and chap. 6. 3. I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine. So Ezek. 24. 16. the Lord threatning to take away Ezekiel's wife, saith, Behold I take away from thee the Desire of thine eyes foreign, and afterward ver. 18. it followeth, And at even my wife died. Yea, the Roman language it self is not unacquainted with this speech: Cicero ad uxorem, Eu mealex, meum desiderium. p. 669This Desire of women and married life the Roman should discountenance, when he shook off the Gods of his Ancestors.

6. By the Strange and Forein God whom the Roman should at length acknowledge, is meantaaSee the oration of Licinius to his Souldiers Euseb. de vita Constantin. lib. 2. c. 5. Christ. For though to the Iew every Strange and Forein God were a False God; yet to the Gentiles, who worshipped none but the Idols, the Forein God was the True: Therefore the Philosophers at Athens, when S. Paul preached Christ unto them, said, He preachedbbSyr. foreign The Altar he there speaks of in his defence was inscribed foreign, which God (saith he) I preach unto you. foreign a Forein God. The want of which consideration hath much obscured this Prophecy; this ForeinGod being still supposed to be a False God; when to those who worshipped all kinds of False Gods, as theccRoma cùm penè omnibus dominatetur Gentibus, omnium Gentium serviebar erroribus; & magnam sibi videbatur assumpsisse Religionem quia nullam …espuebat falsitatem. Leo Mag. in Ser. 1. in nat. Apost. Petri & Pauli. Hic confutandi Daemonum cultus, hìc omnium sacrificiorum imp…ie …as destruenda, ubi diligentiss…ma Supersti…ione habeatur collectum, quicquid usquam fuerat vanis erroribus institut…m. ld. ib. Roman did, a Forein God, whom their Fathers knew not, must needs be the True.

7. Where it is said, With this Forein God he shall honour Mahuzzims, these Mahuzzims or Maùzzims are these Daemons we seek for, whom the Roman should worship with Christ whom he should embrace. For Mahuzzim are Protectores Dii, (such as Saints and Angels are supposed to be) as I shall shew by and by; where though I may be new for the particular, yet for the general I shall agree well enough with the Fathers, who constantly thought that under these Mahuzzim was some Idolmeant which Antichrist should worship, and many of our time have taken it for the Mass.

But I must first say something of the translation of this 38. verse, and then will come to the signification of this word Mahuzzim.

For the first; Whereas the Preposition foreign in foreign is usually neglected, and the words foreign and foreign God and Mahuzzim construed together as one thing, viz. God Mahuzzim, or, as some, The God of Forces; I express the Preposition foreign, and construe God and Mahuzzim apart as Two; viz. To, or, Together with, God he shall honour Mahuzzims, &c. Ad (vel juxta) Deum Mahuzzimos honor abit, &c. For the Preposition foreign is made of foreign and signifies the same with it, namely an Addition or Adjoyning of things, Ad, Iuxta, Apud, and foreign super, propter, &c. To, Besides, and Together with **See this use of foreign Ezra. 1. 5. foreign, Vulg. & Angl. with Lev. 16. 21. foreign, Vulg. atque, LXX foreign. Num. 33. 2. foreign LXX foreign chap. 32. 33. foreign LXX foreign Vulg. cùm Angl. with.Ezra 1:5Lev 16:21Num 33:2; as Lev. 18. 18. Thou shalt not take a wise to her sister, foreign, that is, together with her sister.

By this means the controversie betwixt Iunius and Graserus is taken away: For Iunius, as should seem, seeing no reason why the Preposition? foreign should be neglected, and that by so doing the Verb foreign was made irregularly and against use to govern a Dative case, he expresses the Preposition by Quod ad or Quod attinet ad, (that is) As concerning. But the words God and Mahuzzim he sundreth not, but turneth them as in statu constructo, viz. The God of Mights or Forces; understanding thereby the True and Almighty God himself. Against which Graserus excepts, 1. That to render the Preposition foreign Ad [As concerning] savours of a Latinism rather than of an Hebraism. 2. That he doth as good as strike out the distinctive AccentaaUnder the verb foreign vers. 38. Athnach […] which is a Colon; in as much as he makes the sentence being a full member to be imperfect and defective; and yet would seem to stand in awe of that smaller distinction Zakeph-katon [:] over the word foreign Mahuzzim, which yet stands there, asbbviz. ver. 42. of this ch. over foreign, and vers. 3. of the next ch. over foreign where it is unpossible it should distinguish, and so elsewhere. elsewhere, but for a Nota bene. 3. That to expound God Mahuzzim to be the True God, against the consent not only of Iews, who ever take it for some Idol or other, but of the ancient Christian writers, who understand by it some Idol of Antichrist, yea some the Devil himself; and of many of our own, who take it for the Idol of the Mass, and some otherwise, yet for an Idol-deity; To expound this of the True and Almighty God without example in Scripture, Graserus thinks not tolerable. Wherefore himself had rather yield the construction of the verb foreign be irregular, (Iunius himself having admitted it in the next member of the verse) and to suppose it to be a mystical Solecism, the Spirit intending by the Anomaly and incongruity of the Syntax to signifie an Anomaly and incongruity of Religion. But these inconveniences on both sides, as far as I can see, are wholly avoided by that Translation we have given: whereof let the Reader judge.

I come now to unfold the signification of the word Mahuzzim; (a word which the most Translations retain, the Septuagint calling it foreign S. Ierome or the Vulgar Latin Maozim, the Geneva and others Maüzim.) This foreign Mahuzzim, I say, is in the Plural number; the singular is foreign Mahoz, which in the abstract signifies sometimes Strength, sometimes a Fortress or Bulwark, of foreign Robustus fuit: But the Hebrews use Abstracts for Concretes. Examples are many in the Old Testament, as Iustitia pro Iustis, Captivity for Captives, &c. In the New Testament,**Coloss. …. 16. Principalities, Powers and Dominions, for Princes, Potentates and Dominators. p. 670So Mahoz, Strength or a Fortress, for him that strengthens or fortifies, that is a Protector, Defender, Guardian, Helper. Wherefore the Septuagint five times in the Psalms render the word foreign Mahoz foreign, and the Vulgar Latine as often Protector: the places are these. Psal. 27. 1. The Lord is foreign the Protector of my life, of whom should I be afraid? Psal. 28. 8. The Lord is their strength, and he is foreign MahoZ Ieshuoth, the Mahoz of Salvations **Some render it not of, but, is his A…ointed or Messiah, that is, Messiah is, Mahoz Iesh….of his anointed: where the Septuagint hath foreign the Vulgar, Protector salvationum. Psal. 31. 3. Bow down thine ear to me, deliver me speedily, be thou unto me foreign for a Rock Mahoz; Septuagint, foreign, Vulg. in Deum Protectorem. Again vers. 5. Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me, foreign ki atta Mahuzzi, for thou art my Protector; the Septuagint, foreign, the Vulgar, Protector. Psal. 37. 39. The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord, he is foreign Mahuzam, their Mahoz in the time of trouble, and the Lord shall help them and deliver them from the wicked, &c. where the Septuagint and the Vulgar render as before foreign and Protector. How think you now? Are not Saints and Angels worshipped as Mahuzzims? True Christians have with David, in the Psalms before quoted, one Mahoz, Iehovah Mahoz, that is, Christ; but Apostate Christians have their many Mahuzzims. O would they worshipped only foreign that Mahoz of salvations, as you heard David even now call him, Psal. 28. You may if you please compare with these places of the Psalms that in the first verse of this eleventh of Daniel, where the Angel saith he stood in the first year of Darius the Mede to confirm and be a Mahoz to him, foreign which we translate, to strengthen him: By which we may see how fitly this name may be applied to Angels, and so to Saints supposed in helping, protecting and assisting to be like them.

Thus you see the concrete sense of Mahoz for an Helper, Protector and Defender, is not new. But what if we take the word passively, Force and Strength, for Forts and Strong ones? Will not then the valiant Martyrs and Champions of the Faith well bear the name of Mahuzzims? And these are they whom, at the first, Christians worshipped only in this sort, as an honour peculiarly due uto their sufferings.

Moreover, that you may not think this word and the notion thereof improper to be given unto a Deity, observe that the true God is called foreign a Rock seven times Deut. 32. which the Vulgar turns as often Deus; yea in the same place False gods are called also foreign or Rocks: ver. 31. Their Rock (that is, the Gentiles Rock) is not as our Rock, even our enemies them selves being Iudges; and ver. 37. Where are their Gods, (that is, Baalim) their Rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices? &c. The like you shall find in**1 Sam. 2. 2.1 Sam 2:2 Hannah's Song, and other places of Scripture. See now the parity. The True God is called a Rock; Baalim and False Gods are also Rocks: The True God, or Christ himself, is often by David call'd Mahoz; why may not then False Gods, or Plurality of Christs, be called Mahuzzim? Rock and Fortress are not words of so great difference.

Thus having cleared the chiefest difficulties in the Text, and made the way smooth, let us read over the words again, and apply the Interpretation unto them.