First,1 because we find in Scripture that which is historically related, yet was done by way of vision. And it is an usual way of Scripture to express that which is done in a way of vision, as if it were a history, as if it were really done. I will show you two examples for this, one of Jeremiah when he was at Jerusalem, yet the Scripture speaks as if he had been at Babylon: and the other of Ezekiel, when he was at Babylon, it speaks as if he had been at Jerusalem. It is as fully related as this is here, and both must therefore needs be understood as in a way of vision. First for Jeremiah, you have it Chap. 30. ver. 4. God requireth there that he should go to Euphrates and hide his girdle there in the hole of a rock. But this river was a river ⟨p. 20⟩in Babylon, and Jeremiah was not in Babylon at this time, nor in all the time of the siege, nor in the time of the captivity, neither could he go to Babylon, for the City was now besieged, and when he did but assay but to go a little way to Anathoth his own Town, he was presently taken hold upon as if he had been a Traitor to his Country. Therefore this which is here declared as a history, as if he had really done it, was but only done in a vision. And so Ezekiel the other way, he was at Babylon (for he was that Prophet that prophesied to the people that were carried captive to Babylon, God sent a Prophet to them to help them there in their captivity) yet in the 8. Chapter of his Prophecy, Ezekiel seemeth to be brought to Jeremiah, and he is bidden there to dig a hole in the wall to see the wicked abominations that the ancients of Israel did there. Now Ezekiel was not there, he was at Babylon all this while, but it is declared as if the thing had been done really. So we are to understand Isaiah his going naked 20. days, and Ezekiels lying three hundred and ninety days on the one side, and 43. on the other, Ezek. 4.
First,1 because we find in Scripture that which is historically related, yet was done by way of vision. And it is an usuall way of Scripture to express that which is done in a way of vision, as if it were a history, as if it were really done. I will shew you two examples for this, one of Ieremy when he was at Jerusalem, yet the Scripture speaks as if he had been at Babylon: and the other of Ezekiel, when he was at Babylon, it speakes as if hee had been at Jerusalem. It is as fully related as this is here, and both must therefore needs be understood as in a way of vision. First for Ieremy, you have it Chap. 30. ver. 4. God requireth there that he should goe to Euphrates and hide his girdle there in the hole of a rocke. But this river was a river ⟨p. 20⟩in Babylon, and Ieremy was not in Babylon at this time, nor in all the time of the siege, nor in the time of the captivity, neither could he goe to Babylon, for the City was now besieged, and when he did but assay but to go a little way to Anathoth his own Towne, he was presently taken hold upon as if he had been a Traytor to his Country. Therefore this which is here declared as a history, as if he had really done it, was but only done in a vision. And so Ezekiel the other way, hee was at Babylon (for he was that Prophet that prophesied to the people that were carryed captive to Babylon, God sent a Prophet to them to help them there in their captivity) yet in the 8. Chapter of his Prophecie, Ezekiel seemeth to be brought to Ieremiah, and he is bidden there to dig a hole in the wall to see the wicked abominations that the ancients of Israel did there. Now Ezekiel was not there, he was at Babylon all this while, but it is declared as if the thing had beene done really. So we are to understand Isaiah his going naked 20. dayes, and Ezekiels lying three hundred and ninety dayes on the one side, and 43. on the other, Ezek. 4.
- 1Reasons why Hoseas marrying a whore was but only in a vision. 1.
