according to the use of that phrase in Scripture in which it occurs more than once And we are not here to consider what the word Gates signifies when it is alone or joined with any other word but what is the meaning of this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the signification of that word may be various according as the place is in which it is found Now no body will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and portae mortis the gates of death are the same and this phrase the gates of death signifies nothing but death it self So Job xxxviii 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death So Psal ix 13 Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death i. e. deliverest me from death So Isai xxxviii 10 Hezekiah being in fear of an untimely death says In the cutting off of my days I shall go to the gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as it is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall go to the gates of death So that the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies death it self But what does Christ then mean when he says that the gates of hell should not prevail against Peter or not overcome him namely this that the danger of a certain and speedy death upon the account of his preaching the Gospel should not deter him from discharging the office imposed on him and so not death it self So that Jesus in these words promises Peter after he had professed his belief that he was the Messiah that he should be a foundation of his Church and constant in the profession of the Truth he had declared which he fulfilled accordingly for Peter as we are told by Clemens Ep. c. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not only undergo one or two but many sorrows and so becoming a Martyr went to his proper place in glory We may apply to him that passage of Seneca as we find it in Lactantius Lib. vi c. 17. Hic est ille homo honestus non apice purpuráve non lictorum insignis ministerio sed nulla re minor qui cum MORTEM in VICINIA videt non sic perturbatur tanquam rem novam viderit qui sive toto corpore tormenta patienda sunt sive flamma ore recipienda est sive extendendae per patibulum manus non quaerit quid patiatur sed quam bene This is that brave and honorable person who is not remarkable for his fine hat of feathers his purple robe or his guard of Lictors which is the least part of his glory but who when he sees death just before him is not surprized with the strangeness of the sight and whether he is to undergo the torment of the rack or to receive fire into his mouth or have his arms stretched out upon a cross does not regard what but how well he suffers There is one thing that may perhaps here be objected viz. that according to this interpretation Christ does not keep to the Metaphor for after he had called Peter a stone he adds that death should not overcome him It is true but it was neither necessary that Christ should go on in the same Metaphor nor yet supposing that what we refer to Peter did as it is commonly thought belong to the Church will he be found to continue the same Metaphor For he compares the Church to a building which cannot properly be said to be overcome by the gates of death but only to be pulled down or destroyed Nothing is more ordinary in all sort of Writers than to begin with one Metaphor and end with another As for instance Clemens says a little before the words already alledged concerning St. Peter and St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faithful and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted even to death Pillars can neither be persecuted nor dy However by this it appears that St. Matthew or his interpreter very fitly uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to overcome by force for this is what Christ means that the terror of having a violent Death set before him should not overcome St. Peters constancy tho he saw the gates of death opened for him yet he should notwithstanding hold fast his pious resolution If any doubt of the signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them turn to the Greek Indexes to the first 5 books of Diodorus Siculus and the Roman Antiq. of Dion Halicarnassaeus collected by Rhodomannus and Sylburgius where they will meet with more examples than in any Lexicons But it occurs likewise in the same sense often in the version of the Septuagint I know very well that Interpreters commonly make use of these words to prove the perpetuity if not also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impeccability of the Church but they will never be able to evince any such thing from this place by Grammatical reasons The thing it self shews that the Church is liable to error nor is there any mention made in this place of errors That the Church has and always will continue I do not in the least doubt because of the nature and force of the Evangelical Covenant but this cannot be concluded from these words in which it is much more probable that St. Peter is spoken of both what goes before and what comes after belonging to him and not to the Church However I submit the whole matter to the judgment of the Learned Vers 19. Note h. I. It is certain I confess that there was a great difference between that Person 's power who is said to have had the key of the house of David in Isaiah and his who is represented in the Revelation as carrying the key of David but it would be hard to prove this from the sound of the phrases if it were not otherwise plain and manifest for the key of David is the key by which the house of David was open'd and shut and therefore the same with the key of the house of David Tho a key be an ensign of power the key of David does not signify the power of David himself but a power over the Kingdom of David Our learned Author is not always happy in his subtilties about little things However Mr. Selden has several Observations with relation to this matter lib. 1. de Synedriis cap. ix which those that will may read in himself II. Indeed for my own part I do not doubt but that the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches to single Bishops and accordingly that these ought to be reckon'd their Successors but as their Gifts were not alike so neither was their Authority equal And therefore whatever Christ says to the Apostles ought not presently to be accommodated to Bishops at least by the same Rule and in the same Latitude Especially in this place where Christ promises to St. Peter and the Apostles something extraordinary
Paul here speaks as Grotius before our Author had observed of that Rod with which he had chastized Elymas the incestuous Person Hymenaeus and Philetus and with which St. Peter had chastized Ananias and Sapphira but I confess I cannot digest what Dr. Hammond here and elsewhere does viz. the confounding of that miraculous Power of the Apostles with the ordinary Excommunication of Bishops He ought to have proved first that that delivering to Satan or any other such Punishments inflicted by the Apostles were the arms not only of the Apostles but of all the Governors of the Christian Church which he neither ever did before his Death nor I believe would ever do if he were to live again This was a Seal which God set to the Apostles Doctrin to fix the Christian Church upon a lasting and immoveable Foundation and all the rest of the Miracles wrought in the Apostles time were designed to the same end But that being once settled no Man had such a Power granted him nor can any one be supposed to have had the like Authority II. However it is well observed by the Doctor that carnal here is all one with weak which I shall confirm both by Reason and Examples The Flesh is very often opposed to the Spirit that is the Body to the Soul in which comparison the Flesh is the most infirm and feeble and hence the word carnal came to signify weak as it is used in Isa xxxi 3 where the Prophet thus bespeaks the Jews who put too much confidence in the Egyptians The Egyptians are Men and not God and their Horses Flesh and not Spirit the Lord shall turn his Hand and he that helpeth shall fall and he that is holpen shall fall down and they shall all be consumed together To this purpose also is that saying of Christ in Mat. xxvi 41 The Spirit indeed is willing but the Flesh is weak III. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Excommunication in the Writings of the Fathers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very aptly be applied to a Mind full of Pride and Obstinacy and by those Vices fortified against the Truth yet it in no wise follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Excommunication of an obdurate Sinner What words do or may separately signify they do not always signify conjunctly as every one knows who is any thing of a Critick in this sort of Learning The reason is because one Phrase can have but one metaphorical sense belonging to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly a strong Hold or Fence and here translated to signify whatever Flesh and Blood puts in the way of the Gospel to hinder the success and efficacy of if it is necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred the destruction of the Fence and to destroy the Fence by a Metaphor taken from Military Affairs So in vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to excommunicate those that reason but to overthrow reasonings Nor let any one say that Fences are destroyed and Reasonings overthrown by Excommunication for granting that yet it will not follow that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these Phrases signify to excommunicate and excommunication IV. It is a pleasant mistake also in our Author which his too great desirousness to find Excommunication every where spoken of in the Writings of the Apostles led him into when he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 8. signifies Excommunication where St. Paul saith that he might boast of the Power which God had given him for edification and not for destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who does not see that the opposite here to the Edification of the House of God is not excommunication but destruction One may as well say an Edifice is excommunicated meaning that it is destroyed as that an excommunicated Person is edified to signify that his Sins are forgiven him The same must be said of Chap. xiii 10 where the same Phrase occurs V. Even in Ecclesiastical Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify Excommunication but only Abdication or degrading from Office and is applied to Clergymen nor is it always joined with Excommunication See Intt. on the Eleventh Apostolical Canon Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author intrudes again into this place the Censures of the Church without any distinction whereas those Apostolical Arms of which I before spake are here intended And indeed with whatever Arguments any Philosopher came armed or what sublimity soever his Reasonings seemed to have in them if he attempted to disturb the Church by Heretical Doctrins and went to resist the Apostles as if he had found them in an error the Apostles could presently shew how much he was mistaken by sending a Disease upon him such as Blindness which St. Paul inflicted on Elymas or delivering to Satan to which others were subjected For these were plain signs by which it appeared that God approved of the Apostles Doctrin But in ordinary Excommunication the case is otherwise For all that can be concluded from that is that when any one upon the springing up of some new Controversies was excommunicated for disagreeing with the Bishop of the Church to which he belonged the Bishop and the rest perhaps of the Clergy were of another Opinion which might as easily be the worse of the two as the better For Excommunication was a certain evidence of Mens differing among themselves but not that the excommunicate Person was in an error because one that had the Truth on his side might be excommunicated by ignorant and prejudiced Persons But if any were chastised in the manner aforesaid by the Apostles viz. by having a Disease inflicted on their Bodies this was an infallible proof of their being Hereticks because God would not have suffered any pious orthodox Person to undergo a Punishment which he had not at all deserved Besides that a Miracle wrought in confirmation of any Doctrin such as this was the present inflicting of a Distemper upon Mens Bodies was of it self sufficient to shew the falsness of any thing advanced in contradiction to it tho with some appearance of probability but certainly the Excommunication of any Bishop who might as easily abuse his Authority as others fall into Error was no sure evidence of any Man 's being an Heretick These two things therefore must not be confounded nor the ordinary Governors of the Church equal'd to the Apostles in their Censures any more than in other Gifts and Endowments as our Author occultly does whether designedly and knowingly I cannot tell but I am sure without reason CHAP. XI Vers 2. Note a. I. THE first signification which our Author produces out of Pollux sutes best with this place for St. Paul does not say simply that he was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot
against small Offences as unpardonable Crimes But when Mistakes in men that have otherwise done great service to the World by their Learning are modestly censured only with this design that others may not follow them in an Error the Admirers of great Men are so far from having any reason to complain that if those great Men themselves were to live again they could not without the greatest ingratitude and being chargeable with intolerable Pride but thank those that had civilly shewn them their Error and set them in the right way Men are not so perfect in this World as to be liable to no Mistakes and those to whom we give the highest Commendations are not such as have never erred but whose Mistakes are but few or only in things of little moment Let us not therefore extol Men so as if the greatness of their Judgment or Learning had exempted them from the common danger of erring nor on the contrary think them excluded out of the number of great Men because they are convinced of some Error I have so high an opinion of Dr. Hammond upon reading over his Works that I think there have been few Interpreters ever in the World comparable to him tho I have often differ'd from him and shewn sometimes that he was mistaken So no man has a greater value for H. Grotius or is more forward to commend him or does it more frequently than I yet I have sometimes confuted him both in these Additions and elsewhere without any abatement of my esteem or veneration for him I am none of those who are always upon the extreams both in applauding men and reviling them I am for commending without envy what is praise-worthy and rejecting without malice what is opposite to Truth But you ought not they say to have mixed things of another kind with Dr. Hammond's Annotations Why not for it 's true he ought not to have any thing attributed to him that he did not say but in a Work published so long after his death and that in another language I don't see why I might not add what I thought wanting in him tho perhaps he himself would not have approved of my Additions if he had been alive For I did not publish this work for his use but of them who are now living or for posterity who may reasonably have a greater regard to Truth than to Dr. Hammond They who do not like my Additions may refuse to buy them They may get Dr. Hammond's Annotations in English by themselves But are there not great Volumes published both in England and Holland in which the Commentaries of learned men both Papists and Protestantes greatly differing in their opinions from one another are printed together And who even among the Papists was ever displeased upon that account or did not rather highly commend the design because by that means what is wanting in some is supplied by others But tho I am not always of Dr. Hammond's judgment yet the differences between us are much fewer than between the Critical Interpreters of the Old and New Testament and if they had not I would certainly never have undertaken to translate any thing of his But because I agreed with him as to the chief points of Religion and the manner of Interpreting therefore I translated his Annotations tho I differ'd from him in some things As I would have others bear with me whenever I disagree with them so I cannot only bear with but also love and respect others when they disagree with me I count it an honour as I said before to have my short Remarks published with his accurate Labours but if I may speak a little boldly without offence I do not think so meanly of my own performances as that their value if it be any can seem e're the less by their being joined with Dr. Hammond's If I had thought so I would never have published them either together or alone I might be mistaken indeed as all men are commonly dim-sighted in that which concerns themselves which whether it be true of me let learned and impartial Readers only judg but I could not but do what I thought fit to be done There is fallen lately into my hands an English Pamphlet intitled A Free but Modest Censure of some Controversial Books written in English and among the rest of my Ars Critica tho a Latin Treatise and quite of another nature from those Controversies To which there is also added the Authors judgment concerning my design in translating Dr. Hammond of which I shall here subjoin a few things That Modest but Free Writer whosoever he be will not take it amiss or at least cannot in reason if I modestly and freely vindicate my intention He says it is a harmful project to publish Dr. Hammond ' ' s Annotations on the New Testament and at the same time to mix my own Additional Notes with them This says he is a politick way to promote the Cause especially in England where the Works of that learned and pious Annotator are in so great esteem When his Criticisms and Interpretations are blended with the Socinian ones how easily will they be both imbibed together I thought fit to caution my Countrymen about this hazard that they may not be betrayed into Error even the worst of Errors whilst they are intent upon studying the Truth The Cause I have undertaken to defend both in all my other printed Works and my Additions to Dr. Hammond is no other than the Cause of Christ and his Apostles whose Authority alone in matters of Religion all Protestants think is to be regarded and followed if we may judg of their Opinion by the Confessions they subscribe of which mind I always was and ever shall be I value the Authority of Socinus or any other uninspired persons whatever destitute of reason no more than Dr. Hammond's or the Council of Trent's When I think they agree with Christ and his Apostles I assent to them and if not I differ from them I never read all Socinus his Works nor like his peculiar Opinions so far as I know them any more than other mens whom I judg to be in an Error Nay I have sometimes confuted them and as I see occasion shall confute more of them not with a design to make his Followers odious or to gain the favour of any Mortal but to vindicate Truth However I am not of their mind who because men err in some things that are otherwise obedient to the Precepts of the Gospel and look for the coming of Christ to judg the quick and the dead after the resurrection by the rule of the Gospel and reward the Good and punish the Wicked and think not that they can attain Salvation by any other means than the Faith they have in Christ as one sent from God which Faith alone they hope by the mercy of God to have imputed to them for righteousness I am not I say of their mind that sentence such men to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the words of a Prediction are so conceiv'd as to respect indeed primarily a certain event but yet so also as to shadow out something that is of greater importance So Hosea spake indeed directly of the Israelites but because the bringing of the People of Israel out of Egypt was a type of Christ's return out of the same Country into Judea therefore in speaking of the type he is to be thought to have spoken concerning the Antitype also But there are a few things to be observed with relation to this matter which the most learned Interpreters have past by First to use the instance of Hosea it must be confess'd that no body living in that Age could have possibly discern'd any prediction in those words of his but by an intimation from the Prophet himself viz. that tho he spake of a thing that was past yet he had his mind upon an event that was to happen at some Ages distant of which the former was a typical representation Otherwise who could in the least suspect that there was any Prediction latent in a simple relation of matter of Fact Israel was a Child and I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt No body sure will say that the Jews who were far from being a subtil People could ever of their own heads without any advertisment have discover'd here a Prophecy The same we are to think of all other Prophecies of this kind 2 dly Since it is no where found in the old Testament that any such Intimation or Advertisment was given either we must acknowledg that no Prophecy being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be understood by the Jews before the event or else that the Prophets did privately instruct their Disciples if not also admonish the common People that whenever they recounted any of God's past favours or when they spake of themselves they had in their minds a respect to something future Nay it was necessary they should have particularly and severally interpreted every Prediction of that kind and pointed to the event which it had a respect to for otherwise who could be so subtil as between two not much differing events to discern which of 'em was designed in the Prediction But the first of these having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell we must necessarily admit the latter and say that there remained among the Jews in Christ's time several traditions concerning the sense of Prophecies handed down from the Prophets themselves The reason why they did not commit those traditions to writing I confess I do not clearly see but it does not follow from thence that there were no such unwritten Doctrines Nor do I deny but that this way of teaching had its inconveniences and that some false opinions might creep in amongst the true traditions but our enquiry is not what would be most convenient or what we our selves should have done but what was done which is the only thing to be considered in searching into Antiquities 3 dly The same we must think of the types and of typical Predictions for no body that was not first warn'd could ever understand those things that were done or which came to pass to have been representations of things future 4 thly Unless these things be so all the use of those typical Predictions must have been confin'd to those to whom they were explained after the event which how small that is appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2 d vers And not to repeat what has been said by him I might at least gather from hence that no Arguments could be brought from that sort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Christians it was intirely owing to the Authority of the Apostles and not to the Evidence of the Arguments For it is manifest to all that understand Hebrew that the Prophet speaks concerning Israel and that he should speaking of their going out of Egypt have had a respect to Christ's return into Judaea would have been impossible for us to know without a Revelation And therefore we must be oblig'd to say that the Prophets left their Disciples a Key q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions which would otherwise have been shut up out of every body's view And had not this been so it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Messias upon some places in the Prophets out of which no such matter could be fetch'd by the mere assistance of Grammar nor would the Apostles have cited them as making for their purpose For both the former had made themselves ridiculous if they had neglected the grammatical sense and recurred without any other reason than their own fancy to a more sublime one and the latter had been but ill Disputants to produce such Passages as might be hiss'd at The Authority of the Apostles ought not here to be objected as that which added strength to their Reasonings for they themselves did not rely upon their own Authority but upon the force of their Arguments You will no where find it said that Prophecies ought so or so to be interpreted because the Apostles who were inspir'd by the Holy Ghost and whose Doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles did in that manner interpret them but this they take every where for granted that they should be so explained as they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion amongst the Jews Vers 23. Note l. Many think it strange that the Prophets should here be quoted when no such thing as what is here mentioned can by the help of Grammar be deduc'd from any words of the Prophets for there is no place from whence it can be grammatically gather'd that the Messias was to be called by this name of a Nazarene That which is drawn from the meer similitude between the words Netser and Nezir is harsh and far-fetch'd By what means therefore could this be deduced from the Writings of the Prophets It must be doubtless by an allegorical Interpretation of some place which was vulgarly known in those times but is not now extant And this seems to be the reason why St. Matthew did not produce any one Prophet by name but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets in the plural number as referring rather to some allegorical sense than any Scripture words as Jerom has well observ'd So the Writers of the Apostolical times used to cite a Tradition just as if they were the very words of Scripture as we may see frequently done in the Catholick Epistle of Barnabas Chap. vi and especially where the Discourse is about the Scape-goat He brings us as out of the Scripture these words as they are extant in the antient Version Exspuite in illum omnes pungite imponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius sic in aram ponatur cum ita factum fuerit adducite qui ferat hircum in eremum auferat portet illum in stirpem quae
who expected the Messias under the notion of a temporal King and were exceeding desirous of innovations which sort of Men were more fit to raise a sedition than to advance the Kingdom of Heaven by just and proper Methods To prevent therefore the resorting of evil men to him with a design to innovate and so making a wrong use of his Name and Authority he thought it better till that danger was over to have the publishing of the truth deferred Thus Joh. vi 15 we see the multitude after they had been fed by him fell into such a sort of consultation whereupon when he knew that they would come and take him by force to make him a King he departed alone by himself into a mountain It was an extraordinary piece of Wisdom in Christ to take care there might be no sedition laid either to his or his Disciples charge whilst the Gospel was but begun to be preached for if such a thing could have been done with any appearance of justice every body easily perceives that it would have been a mighty prejudice to the Christian Religion Vers 10. Note f. Since our Author in his Notes upon this place has thought fit to put together all that he had observed concerning the different notions of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will contribute also my share 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has several significations amongst the Greeks that have nothing to do here but this is to be taken notice of viz. that tho trust be the first notion of that word and its secondary signification is that credit or assent which we give to one who affirms things that we never saw nor have any mathematical demonstration of yet because among things of that kind there are some asserted by all Nations that relate to divine matters and which in points of faith challenge the first place altho we neither see them nor have any mathematical evidence for them therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence a perswasion about matters of Religion So Aelian Var. Histor lib. ii c. 31. having said that there was no Atheist to be found amongst the Barbarians but only among the Greeks and that the Barbarians believed that there were Gods who took care of human affairs and foretold things to come adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a firm perswasion of these things they offer up sacrifices in a pure manner and keep themselves chast and holy c. When the Jews began to write Greek they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense for the credit yielded to their sacred Writings and those that believed them they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Son of Sirach Chap. i. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things that please him i. e. God are faith and meekness and Ch. xlv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sanctified him by faith and meekness So 1 Macc. iii. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a body of Jews But the Christians that followed the Jews in their way of speaking gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Perswasion of those that believed in Christ and opposed it to a twofold kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbelief one of which was proper to the Heathens and the other to the Jews who notwithstanding they credited the Old Testament yet refused to believe Christ and his Apostles However in all these instances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a perswasion of those things particularly which the Discourse relates to and as those are various so we may if we please make Faith to be of several kinds But because no one can believe the Authority of any Laws but he must also observe them provided he does not disagree with himself therefore no body could seriously and heartily believe that Christ was sent down from Heaven to men to teach them the way of eternal Salvation without obeying Christ's Precepts just as no body believed the Law of Moses to be the only Rule of Life revealed by God who did not in part at least conform themselves thereto And hence this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came in the Writings of the Apostles to signify not only a perswasion of the truth of the Christian Doctrin but also a disposition of Mind and Practice agreeable to it the necessary effect of believing But it must be observed that in different places of the New Testament in proportion to the Subject treated of this word has a larger or more contracted Notion 1. Where the Discourse is about the Faith of the Patriarchs we are to understand by it such a perswasion of the truth of those things they received as divine Revelations as was accompanied with an answerable temper of Mind and Life In which sense it occurs frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. xi and elsewhere 2. Where Christ's discourse is of those that believed in him as transacting upon earth as he does here in S. Matthew and up and down every where in the Gospels by Faith is meant a perswasion of his having been truly sent of God with a power of doing Miracles and of the truth of all his Doctrine as far as it was known 3. But after the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost and expounded the whole Christian Doctrine more at large the notion of Faith included in it a perswasion not only of the truth of Christ's Mission but also of his Apostles and Disciples whose Doctrine God gave a testimony to by innumerable wonders and an assent accordingly yielded to whatever they asserted joined with a Life sutable to such a perswasion And this notion the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians where St. Paul disputes about Justification For in these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a living according to the Christian Institution setting aside the works commanded by the Law of Moses only is said to justify i. e. to procure mens being esteemed just or good and pious by God and being acceptable to him And on the other hand the Apostle denies that Works viz. those which were opposed by the Jews to Faith or the Christian Religion did either under the Gospel or ever of old justify And this he makes good by several Arguments which shall in their proper places be explained It shall suffice at present to have run over the different senses that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is capable of and pointed to its original Signification But there is this further to be added that as Faith includes more than a bare perswasion about the truth of a thing in the mind so this perswasion it self must be such a one as is the result of having seriously weighed and examined the Arguments by which the truth of the Christian Doctrine is confirmed For it is not to be imagined that the Centurion for instance did believe in Christ hand over
and the Apostles by Christ cannot be matter of doubt with any Christian but I question whether the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such as that the Authority which belonged to the Apostolical Office can by Grammatical Reasons be thence deduced Mission does not to speak properly signify Authority but only the purpose or action of sending by which there is a greater or lesser Power conferred upon the person sent according as seems good to the person that sends him Nor can the person that is so sent assume to himself the Authority of him that sent him merely because he sent him but only because when he was sent he received such or such a Commission which he is obliged also not to exceed This our Author seems indeed to have perceived tho but obscurely whilst he affirms and denies in the same Annotation that the word Apostle is a Title of Dignity II. The Talmudists term'd them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messengers of the Congregation that were sent by the Synagogues on any business whatsoever and who among other Offices which they performed offered up Prayers for those who could not pray for themselves in the Synagogue especially at the beginning of the new year and on the day of expiation See Joan. Buxtorf in Lexic Talmud and Camp Vitringa de Synagog Lib. 3. Part 2. c. 11. But there were never any Tithes either due or paid to the Synagogues but only to the Temple as long as it stood to which also it was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of in Philo brought money and not to the Synagogues Thus Philo p. 785. Ed. Gen. saith of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew that they gathered the consecrated moneys under the name of first-fruits and sent them to Jerusalem by those who were going to offer up sacrifices there The like he repeats in p. 801. where he calls those persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 22. Note e. Tho it be true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a man yet the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to cast out a man as wicked but to defame as Grotius has evidently proved whom the Reader may consult Vers 30. Note f. It is true that the person here intended is a poor man who makes use of what is anothers but that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to require Vsury or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self to receive upon use I am not apt to believe if those words be considered conjunctly For it is not all one as to the finding out the signification of words what connexion or relation they have with one another I rather chuse therefore to understand this Precept of Christ thus That those who can be without what another person who absolutely needs it possesses of theirs tho it be unjustly detained from them ought rather to recede from their right than by taking what is their own again reduce a poor distressed man to his last shifts Indeed if a rich man should unjustly keep back what is anothers which he stands in no need of it would not be the part of a liberal Man but a Fool to neglect his right but there cannot be a more generous or liberal Action than to connive at such a fault in a poor man And this being a very good sense of this Precept and agreeable to the usual signification of every word in it I do not see why we should recur to any other CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OUR Author might have added that it was ordinary in Scripture to bring in Messengers speaking in the same words that those would have done who sent them if they had been present See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word Nuntius Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They acknowledged God to be just and themselves to be guilty and that they deserved the destruction which John had denounced against them Of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see our Notes upon Rom. iii. 4 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They rejected Gods purpose of reforming them by John's Ministry See Acts xx 27 Vers 44. Note c. See my Notes on Gen. xviii 4 CHAP. VIII Vers 3. Note a. I. IT is true indeed that the meats at Feasts were divided and distributed to the Guests by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring Servants but he is mistaken whoever thinks with Dr. Hammond that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies this particular action rather than any other service nor do the places alledged by him prove it Servants had various employments which were all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as among the Latins ministeria He that divided the Meats was not called by the general name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and in Latin scissor or carptor See Laur. Pignorius and Aus Popma in Comment de Servis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke xii 37 does not signify only to divide to every one his portion of meat but any errand or employment that used to be given to Servants whilst their Masters were feasting The same I say of Matth. xx 28 and Mark x. 45 which the Doctor puts a forced sense upon when they might be most fitly explained according to the constant signification almost of that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Our Learned Author had not sufficiently examined the passage he speaks of in St. Matthew for it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies to exercise Dominion or Kingly Authority over Subjects and not that of a Master over Servants the Discourse not being about Masters and Servants but about Kings and Subjects Ye know that the Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise Dominion over them It follows and those that are great exercise Authority upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Authority as belongs to a Vice-Roy or the King's Lieutenant Christ here forbids the Governours of his Church to assume a Regal Power over Christians which they do whensoever they put them to death or persecute such as cannot say just as they say or to take any such Authority upon them which on pretence of acting in the name of the Supreme Governor Jesus Christ they might easily abuse to the destruction of Christians In fine he would have nothing done in an imperious domineering way but all by perswasion and entreaty III. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in John ii are those that served the Guests in all things which they wanted as well as in distributing to them Meat and Drink It is not from this latter that the Deacons of the Church were so called as by a Metaphor taken from a Feast but rather from a borrowed signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken sometimes for
nearer the Christians in this matter than the Jews and might easily have imposed upon the unwary His words are these in Lib. de Abrahamo p. 287. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The FATHER is in the middle of all who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar Name stiled the Being and on each side are two most antient Powers next to the Being whereof one is called the effective Power and the other Royal and the Effective GOD for by this the Father made and adorned the Vniverse and the Royal LORD for it is fit he should rule and govern what he has made And in the next words he asserts also that God is Three and One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being therefore attended on both sides with his Powers to a discerning Vnderstanding he appears one while to be ONE and another while to be THREE ONE when the Mind being in the highest degree purified and passing over not only a multitude of numbers but also that which is next to an Vnit the number of two endeavours after a simple and uncompounded Idea perfect of it self and THREE when not as yet sufficiently exercised in great Mysteries it busies it self about lesser and is not able to conceive the Being without any other of it self but by his Works and either as creating or governing This it is certain was thought by learned Men among the Arians to be the very Tenet of the Christians as may be gathered from what Eusebius in Praep. Evangelica says out of Philo. 2. But especially he affirms those things concerning the Divine Reason which as to the words and sometimes also as to the sense are very like the Christian Doctrin of which I shall produce some examples He calls Reason more than once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul Col. i. 15 in Lib. de Agricultura p. 152. where after he had mentioned the parts of the Universe he tells us that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had set over it his right Reason his first born Son who undertook the care of this sacred Flock as some great King's Deputy 3. He describes it as executing the Office of a Mediator between God and Men in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres p. 396. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Prince of Angels and most antient Reason the Father who created all things conferred this excellent gift to stand as a Mediator and divide that which comes to pass from that which he has made And he perpetually intercedes for perishing Mortals with the incorruptible Nature and is the Princes Embassador to his Subjects He is neither unbegotten as God is nor made as we are but of a middle Nature between both extremes acting the part of a Surety or Pledg with both with the Creator by engaging that Mankind shall never all grow corrupt or rebel preferring Confusion to order and with the Creature by giving them good hope that the Merciful God will never overlook or neglect his own Workmanship 4. Upon this account he calls him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a High-Priest in Lib. de somniis p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seems to have two Temples whereof one is this World whose High-Priest is the Divine Reason his first begotten Son and the other the reasonable Soul the Priest whereof is he that is truly a Man In like manner St. Paul says that we are the Temples of God 1 Cor. vi 19 and elsewhere 5. In the same Book pag. 461. Philo tells us that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a Divine and a human 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof one i. e. the Divine purifies and cleanses the Soul from Sin 6. The same Author in several places affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God So in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invisible and intelligible â—ivine Reason and the Reason of God he calls the Image of God viz. Moses So in Lib. de Somniis towards the end he tells us that those who cannot understand God himself yet sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do understand the Image of God his Angel Reason as himself And elsewhere he gives the same description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul also called the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature see Lib. de Profugis p. 363. 7. In his Book inscribed Quod pejus est meliori insidiatur he says that the Lawgiver viz. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls by the name of Manna the most antient of all Beings the divine Reason see also Lib. 2. de Allegoriis Legis p. 70. seqq So in his Book intitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres pag. 784. he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine Reason the celestial and incorruptible Food of a contemplative Soul Which compare with the words of Christ in John vi 31 seqq There are many other things in Philo resembling the Christian Doctrin which I shall not here transcribe for what I have alledged out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is over and above sufficient to shew the possibility of his leading the Christians into an error by his Eloquence if it were not prevented by the Apostles Authority I shall now endeavour to interpret St. John's words and shew that in many things he had a respect to Philo. Vers 1. In the beginning was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in the number of those which signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the language of the Schools relatives it is not therefore to be thought that it refers to the Argument or Subject of this Book which is the Gospel According to all the rules of Grammar we ought rather to regard the signification of the words which immediatly follow and their connexion And here the following words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things were made by it and the Evangelist says the World was made by it which shews that he speaks of the beginning of all things or of the Creation of the World None of those that made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense viz. for a Nature which is with God and is God could understand these words otherwise because they attributed as I shall afterwards shew the Creation of the World to Reason And no wise man ought to take uncommon phrases in a quite different sense from that wherein they are understood by those who mostly use them and yet never warn the Reader of his understanding them otherwise Nor is it the part of a skilful Interpreter to understand Phrases in a perfectly new and unusual sense unless it manifestly appears by the Writer whom he interprets that they ought to be so understood Ibid. Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I interpret the Greek word and not by Verbum the Word or Sermo Speech or Discourse because those who first and mostly used it
Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood The meaning of the Apostles is that God had before decreed not to hinder by his Wisdom and Power what he foresaw would be done by them unless his Wisdom and Power interposed to hinder it Affirmatives as they call them must be often expounded by Negatives And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is all one as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to hinder its being done See Gen. xii 13 and my Notes on that place as also on Chap. v. 3 of this History And whereas the Apostles say not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is only the Counsel of God to speak properly that determins and his Hand that is his Power which executes what he has decreed the reason of that is because they would have it understood that God did not want Power to have hinder'd this if he had pleased but only he did not make use of it which confirms the Negative Sense I have given of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be done Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimonies of Philosophers who thought all things ought to be common and Examples likewise of some Nations which have reduced that into practice have been collected by Lucas Holstenius on the Life of Pythagoras p. 82. Amongst the rest he sets down these Verses of Scymnus an antient Geographer of Chios concerning the Nomades in Scythia who dwelt beyond Panticape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They live in common upon what they all possess every one receiving as much as he has need of from the publick Stock And the wise Anacharsis they say came of this very pious Nation of the Nomades CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot see any reason to suppose as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase that Ananias and Saphira did this in pursuance of a Vow they had made to do it i. e. to sell their Estate It is not necessary to add any thing to St. Luke's History Ananias and Saphira hoped that giving part of the Price to the Apostles they should enjoy the rest themselves and at the same time have a maintenance allowed them out of the common Stock of the Church In which they were guilty of a double Sin First That tho they had no need of it yet they would have the Church maintain them and so rob those that were really indigent And secondly That to that end they told a Lie by saying that they had brought the whole Price for which they had sold their Estate That this is the true state of the Case the bare reading of St. Luke's words will shew in which there is nothing that implies these two Persons to have been guilty of breaking any Vow Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Context shews that in this place we must supply in our thoughts this Circumstance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and said that it was the whole Price of the Possession See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia Otherwise St. Peter could not have been angry with Ananias or upbraided him with lying Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words must be interpreted by a Negation for St. Peter's meaning is no more than this Why didst not thou hinder Satan from filling thy mind i. e. Thou oughtest to have hinder'd Satan from having so great a power over thee as to perswade thee to tell a Lie viz. by begging God's Grace to enable thee to resist and overcome that Temptation Of this way of interpreting an Affirmation by the help of a Negation see my Note on Chap. iv 28 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here includes not only the Devil 's tempting Ananias but the noxious effect or prevalency of his Temptation for when the Devil tempts a Man he does but as it were knock at the Door without entring in but when his Temptation prevails being admitted he fills his Mind and casts all thoughts of Virtue out of it St. Jerom not sufficiently understanding the force of this Interrogation or of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated it by cur tentavit Why hath he tempted Beza indeed supposes the reason of his rendering it so to have been that he read the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. tentavit tempted But there are two things which make it probable that he endeavour'd rather to express the sense of the place or if he thought that it ought to be so read that he relied only upon his own Conjecture and not on any Copies First All the Copies out of which any various readings have been taken that ever I could meet with read it as we do Secondly It is certain that the old Translation before St. Jerom's time had implevit filled for so this place is alledged by S. Cyprian Testim Lib. 3. Sect. 30. Ibid. Note b. The sense which our Author prefers before the rest relies only on this supposition which has been liked also by many others that Ananias and Sapphira made a Vow of which there is not the least word said by St. Luke It will be much more natural to interpret the words so as to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify to lie to the Holy Ghost speaking by the Apostles or by lying to deceive him Consult H. Grotius If it be demanded why Ananias and Sapphira suffered so severe a Punishment for telling a Lie the Answer is ready There were three very important Reasons why that Severity should be used First Those that acted in that manner can hardly be supposed to have thought the Apostles to be Prophets who could know Secrets by Revelation from God which Opinion if it had spread would mightily have lessened the Apostles Authority and consequently very much hindered the propagation of the Gospel If any should doubt whether it were generally thought that Prophets could discern Secrets he need only read Luke vii 29 Secondly It was for the interest of the Christian Religion that above all Crimes dissembling should be most severely punished none being more pernicious or of more fatal Consequence according to those words of Cicero de Offic. Lib. 1. c. 3. Totius injustitiae nulla capitalior est quam eorum qui cum maxime fallunt id agunt ut viri boni esse videantur Of all Crimes there is none more heinous and capital than theirs who whilst they deceive most endeavour to appear honest Men. Thirdly It was also of very great concernment that those who first joined themselves to the Apostles should not be hypocritical Persons that made a shew of Piety when they had none because the Sins of such Persons would have discredited the Christian Religion it self among those to whom it had not been yet preached Especially if it had been commonly reported that Men that were slothful or covetous had joined themselves to the Christians
But first this should be proved out of the Old Testament for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any such apprehensions of it there is no reason to say that Manna signified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews understood by it But it may be proved perhaps out of the New If it be asked where out of John vi 31 seqq where Christ opposes his Doctrin to Manna As if a mere allusion or opposition put by Christ between his Doctrin and Manna did necessarily imply that it was the design of God in giving the Israelites Manna to typify the future promulgation of the Gospel by Christ But I further ask for whose sake were these typical representations made Was it for the sake of the Jews This cannot be pretended for that dull Nation hardly understood the plainest and expressest things tho frequently inculcated upon them and much less such as were obscure and intricate And it is not probable that any thing was instituted by God for the sake of the Jews which they did not at all understand But that those Types were given for the sake of Christians is yet far more unlikely because if they were to be believed by us they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority alone would move us in this matter when otherwise we should never have so much as dreamt of them So that in order to our understanding that kind of Predictions the assistance of other Divine Persons would have been necessary whom for other reasons we already believe viz. for the excellency of their Doctrin and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it But this being supposed what need is there of Types to those who already believe Christ and his Apostles upon the firmest grounds They illustrate it may be you 'l say the Apostles Doctrin that I deny and say that they would rather obscure it if they occurred in their Writings for the alledged reasons See my Note on Mat. ii 2 Let the Learned judg of these things and consider whether it be not better at last to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone which the Heathens of old derided and the Jews ridicule at this day and only make use of the most convincing Arguments whereby to prove the truth of Christianity But this would be the subject of a whole Volume which I have here but transiently touched intending wherever there is a fit occasion to shew the weakness of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apostles Writings Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of that spiritual Water which God made to proceed out of the Rock which Water followed the Camp So Gen. iii. and elsewhere to eat of the Tree is to eat of the fruit of the Tree Which must be carefully observed lest any one think that the Rock it self is here properly called spiritual that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock which tho not expressed is yet to be understood For no one will suppose that the Rock from which the Water proceeded followed the Israelites or was carried about with them through the Wilderness But granting may some say that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it yet how is it said that the Water it self followed the Jews The common opinion is that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock followed the Jewish Camp whithersoever it moved But there is not one syllable about that in Moses who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of so great a Miracle if any such had been for it would have been no small Miracle for God to have made a Channel for that Water to run in and follow the Israelites whithersoever they went But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle in order to explain St. Paul's words which may be very well understood without it to wit by supposing only that this Water was carried about by the Israelites through the Deserts of Arabia in leathern Bottles or any other Vessels that followed them with the rest of their Carriage For thus this Phrase is used by Aelian Var. Hist Lib. 12. Chap. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Convoy that followed Xerxes Which he begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other Provisions full of Magnificence and Ostentation which followed Xerxes WATER also FOLLOWED him out of Choaspes And this was the Custom of all the Kings of Persia if we believe Herodotus Lib. 1. c. 188. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaspes that runs by Susa of which alone and no other River the King drinks Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius prefigured Christ But it may every whit as well be interpreted And that which might be said of that Rock in a carnal sense may in a spiritual be affirmed of Christ As all the Israelites drank of the Waters of that Rock and yet those among them who rebelled were destroyed in the Wilderness so all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Christ but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it shall perish This is the sense of the Apostle which needs no typical Prefiguration to explain it his Discourse not being at all grounded thereon or else this Passage may be rightly paraphrased to the same sense thus And the case was the same of the Water that flowed out of that Rock and those that drank of it and of the Doctrin of Christ and Christians So in the Parables of Christ the parts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often called the parts of a Parable because they are compared with one another and the case is the same in both As Mat. 13.19 When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his Heart THIS IS he which received Seed by the way side But he that received the Seed into strong places THIS IS he that heareth the Word c. And it is known that the Jews whom the Apostles followed do very frequently borrow Comparisons from the Old Testament and allude to the stories of it so as often to apply the words of them to their purpose not that they thought those places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to but because they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Testament See Gal. iv 24 25 16. Ibid. Note b. I. Something but briefly and obscurely there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon on Numb xx 2 perhaps taken from the Christians for it is not easily to be believed that all the late Rabbins say they owe to antient Tradition It 's certain neither the Paraphrase of Jonathan nor the Jerusalem Targum have any thing about the Water which followed
Arguments But the case of the Apostles was quite otherwise who proved the reality of a future State by the Authority and Resurrection of Christ which they themselves had seen and confirmed the truth of by their Sufferings Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can neither live quietly nor die naturally nor so much as find a Grave after Death To this purpose is that Inscription on the Monument of Callistus if it be an antient one in Rom. Subterran Par. 1. p. 307. ALEXANDER mortuus non est sed vivit super astra corpus hoc tumulo quiescit Vitam explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multùm beneficii antevenire praevideret pro gratia omnium odium reddit Genua enim flectens vero Deo sacrificaturus ad supplicium ducitur O tempora infausta quibus inter sacra vota ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus Quid miserius vita Sed quid miserius morte cum ab amicis parentibus sepeliri nequeant Vers 29. Note c. I. That Ellipsis which our Author would have to be in this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the series of such a Discourse as St. Paul's here is and in the middle of a Disputation which required that every thing intended should be expressed is very harsh and has nothing common with those examples which he alledges II. What he confidently asserts in the latter end of this Annotation that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 12. is the Nominative case to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is groundless and unnecessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a Nominative case belonging to it in this very 29 th verse viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which immediately goes before But that intricate way of Writing which the Doctor had accustom'd himself to made him able to digest what none besides himself could do III. I confess the opinion of St. Chrysostom and others about this place contains a very commodious sense if we consider it in it self but compar'd with the Apostle's words it cannot stand And to me their Interpretation seems to be most probable who take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the sense to be this If there were no Resurrection what would become of those who every day tho they see Christians put to Death for their Profession do yet chearfully receive Baptism that they may supply the place of those that are dead in the Christian Church By the same way of arguing we might prove that bearing of Arms is not without a reward annexed to it If those that bore Arms were to have no reward for so doing when so many Soldiers are continually killed what should they do who are listed in the room of those that are dead and supply their place That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one can doubt Yet I shall add a Passage out of Dionysius Halicarnass in which he speaks of Soldiers substituted in the room of others that are killed whereby not only that appears but St. Paul's words may be very much illustrated And it is in his Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 553. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FOR those that DIED in the War with the Antiatians they determined to levy other Soldiers IV. What our Author relates out of Photius concerning Synesius is in Cod. 26. But there was a great difference between Synesius and those against whom St. Paul disputes For he being a Platonick believed the Immortality of the Soul and the Rewards and Punishments of another Life but these Corinthians together with the Resurrection of the Body denied the Soul's Immortality and a future Judgment and were perhaps Jews who of Sadduces had embraced the Christian Religion Now St. Paul in order to prove the Resurrection proves that there were rewards to be expected after this Life which reasoning could not be designed against the Platonists because they confessed a future Happiness tho they did not believe the Resurrection of the Dead And Religion might well enough consist with the opinion of the Platonicks tho the Sadduces who disowned the Immortality of the Soul utterly overthrew it And therefore the Egyptians bore with Synesius notwithstanding he was a Platonick which they would never have done if he had been a Sadduce Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who from this place and the citation out of Aratus infer that St. Paul was conversant in the Writings of the Heathen Poets But without sufficient ground because such as these were common proverbial forms of Speech used by every one and might be easily learned from ordinary Discourse even of ignorant Persons by which means I am apt to think the Apostle came to the knowledg of them For the Jews did not use to read much the Writings of the Heathens nor does the stile of St. Paul otherwise give us the least reason to imagin that he ever so much as attempted any thing in that sort of Study For if he had been at all conversant in Heathen Authors we should doubtless have seen more effects of it in his way of Writing However we may learn from hence that Christians ought not to reject any thing which was well said by the Heathens And therefore I think it not amiss to produce two more Passages besides those which have been alledged by Grotius out of Heathen Writers to this purpose Aeschylus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is according to the interpretation of Grotius Adeo malorum scilicet commercio Nil pejus usquam est oritur infelix seges Nam sceleris arvum nil nisi mortem parit Epictetus in Enchirid. cap. xlv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a Companion be corrupted he that converses with him must needs also be corrupted tho perhaps he were before pure Ibid. Note e. I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in the sense in which it is commonly understood because those who denied the Resurrection were undoubtedly Persons of evil Manners and that this was St. Paul's meaning appears by the following words Awake to Righteousness and sin not So in Aristophanes in Nub. p. 177. Ed. majoris Act. 3. Sc. 2. the Chorus addressing themselves to just Reason say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But O thou who hast crowned our Ancestors with abundance of good Manners speak and declare thy Nature Where unquestionably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies good Manners as in many other places Yet Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and this may be joined together Vers 54. Note g. This remark our Author took out of H. Grotius but tho the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify for ever and Death be to be finally abolished after the Resurrection yet St. Paul does not refer to that here for if he had he would have rendred the words of Isaiah Chap. xxv 8 by
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poverty or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes in Pluto in an elegant disputation wherein he endeavours to shew that Poverty is advantageous to Men after Chremylus had described the inconvenices of Beggery is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have not been speaking of my Life but declaring that of Beggers On which words the Scholiast makes this observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a middle sort of indigence when a Man acquires necessaries by Labour and comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to labour and by that to acquire Necessaries but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so called from his begging of every Body See also the following words of Chremylus and Poverty But I dare not insist too much upon the significancy of this word in St. Paul who does not use to be very critical in the choice of his words Further the Galatians who when they knew not God did service unto them which by nature are not Gods are said here by St. Paul upon their defection to Judaism to have turned to the weak and beggarly Elements whereunto they desired again to be in bondage because as I have already suggested they had gone over from Heathenism to Judaism before they became Christians There is no doubt but many of those who first believed the Gospel among the Gentiles were before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Proselytes of the Gate as the Rabbins speak or also of Righteousness Of the former sort were Cornelius the Centurion spoken of in Acts x. and Lydia in Acts xvi And there is no reason to think but the greatest part of the Galatian Christians were such Men who certainly might much more easily relapse to Judaism than embrace it if they had not before known it after their Conversion to the Christian Religion I remark this because Grotius who on vers 5. had observed that St. Paul spake of Proselytes unmindful of what he had there affirmed tells us that the Galatians are said here to return to the elements of Piety non quod Judaizassent antea sed quia multa usurpassent cum Judaeis communia ut ciborum delectum dierum discrimina c. Not because they had judaized before but because whilst they were Heathens they had a great many Customs common to them with the Jews as the distinction of Meats and Days c. But that he is mistaken is evident because it is the Jewish Law that was before called the Elements of the World on which words he has an excellent Annotation and because the following Verse here clearly shews that they are said to return to the Jewish Ceremonies not to say how manifest that is from the whole series of St. Paul's disputation in this place Besides the Religion of the Heathens cannot be said to contain the elements of Piety which taught the most consummate wickedness So that St. Paul would rather have said that they returned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if what Grotius here says were true And therefore we must understand him to speak of the Mosaical Rites which the Galatians who were once Jewish Proselytes before they had embraced Christianity had in part at least observed Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't know which to chuse Dr. Hammond's interpretation of these words or Grotius his who makes them to be a Description of St. Paul's extraordinary affection to the Galatians The place in Cicero which Grotius refers to is in Ep. ad Famil Lib. 7. Ep. 5. to which add this Distich out of the Epigram of Zeno the founder of the Sect of the Stoicks which Apuleius sets down in his Apology Hoc modò sim vobis unus sibi quisque quod ipse est Hoc mihi vos eritis quod duo sunt oculi Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I cannot see what reason moved our Author in his Paraphrase of this and the following Verses to make mention of Persecution whereof there is no footstep in St. Paul's words He is as much out of the way too in seeking here for his Gnosticks and the Authority of the Jews out of their own Country Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is do not ye understand the Law or do ye not hearken to it attentively when it is read to you It deserved here to be noted that St. Paul argues from some received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 midrasch vulgarly known For if that Allegory whereof he here speaks had not been before heard of he would have had no reason to wonder that the Galatians had never collected any such thing from the Story which he refers to it being not at all necessary that the words of Scripture should have any such allegorical signification as that is supposed to belong to them And therefore undoubtedly it was a known Allegory tho perhaps somewhat otherwise expressed by the Jews Further seeing this Interpretation could not be urged against those who might deny that the Scripture ought to be so understood and the Apostle does not make use of his Authority to confirm it it is evident that he argues here from what was generally allowed Which kind of things it is not material should be true or well grounded as long as they contain nothing in them prejudical to Piety and are believed by those against whom we dispute So that from St. Paul's using such an Allegory against the Judaizing Galatians it does not follow that we in this Age are bound to admit it as a secret revealed from Heaven to the Apostle For if we throughly consider it we shall find that most which has ever been said by learned Men against this way of interpreting Scripture in general may be objected against this particular Allegory Vers 24. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Participle in the Middle voice as every one knows and as Dr. Hammond himself very well knew tho he said otherwise before he was aware It is to be taken in a Passive sense and rendred thus which things are allegorically explained or use to be so explained that is by a mystical Interpretation applied to signify other things besides those which that History literally contains This kind of Allegories must be carefully distinguished from the Allegories of Homer and other Poets For the Greek Grammarians and especially their Philosophers affirmed that a great many things which were said by their Poets about the Gods were false in a proper sense and never really happened but in another obstruse and secret sense were true Whereas the Jews did not deny but that their Histories were true but from real events deduced Consectaries belonging to other matters as if those events had been as so many representations of other things Heraclides Ponticus in his little Treatise de Allegoriis Homericis gives us this true definition of a Poetical Allegory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Trope wherein one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actively and the whole passage is rightly rendred the affections of Sins which were by the Law wrought in our Members not were consummated or perfected in them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has never that signification nor do the places alledged out of the Apostle James and Clemens Alexandrinus prove it as we shall presently see The second place is 2 Cor. i. 6 which may receive indeed a Passive signification if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vulgar Interpreter and other Copies And the same may be said of 2 Cor. iv 12 But in Ephes iii. 20 and Col. 1.29 the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must in all reason be understood actively for the discourse there is about the power of God which is not wrought but works In 1 Thess ii 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be rendred obtains its end by any who understand Greek or consider carefully what they say But in 2 Thess ii 7 it may well enough be interpreted in a Passive sense In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best of all rendred working by Love that is which performs works of Love II. Tho St. James says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith was made perfect by Works it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made perfect for why may not St. James say something different from that which is said by St. Paul How did Dr. Hammond know that St. James performs the part of St. Paul's Interpreter Besides granting these two Passages in both the Apostles to be parallel it will not thence follow that exactly the same thing is said in both so that the Verb made use of by St. Paul may grammatically be interpreted by that which is used by St. James Nor will the Etymology or perpetual use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer it to be rendred made perfect III. The place referred to in Clemens Alexandrinus is in Strom. Lib. iv Pag. 518 519. Ed. Paris Colon. but is not here pertinently alledged as will appear by his words which I shall therefore set down entire He is speaking in praise of Love out of Clemens Romanus and among other things says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Love have all the Elect of God been made perfect And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are perfected in Love according to the Grace of God obtain the place of Pious Men. And underneath he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love therefore makes us not to commit Adultery and not to covet what is our Neighbours which before we were restrained from by fear So that there is a difference in the same action as it is either done out of Fear or wrought in Love or as it is performed only out of Faith or also from Knowledg In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 done or wrought as its synonimous words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the thing it self shew So that it cannot hence be inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with to be consummated or made perfect in French être perfectionné Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before signifies another thing where the Discourse is about Persons not about Actions IV. In James v. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to signify an earnest Prayer Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense add to what the Doctor says the observations of Budaeus and Henr. Stephanus who have done the World a great deal of Service in the pains they have taken about the Greek Language V. The words of Hesychius are much worse corrupted by our Author than they are in the common Editions If he had looked into Phavorinus perhaps he would have understood how they were to be corrected That Grammarian has out of Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it must be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prepared to work or working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not vain heard perfected or fulfilled viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers Hesychius having a respect to the forementioned Passage in the Apostle James So that it 's true there was here a void space or Lacuna but different from what Dr. Hammond thought The Scribe whoever he was omitted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the next following which differs only from that in having the Letter Α instead of Ο. Such Omissions are frequent in the Writings of the Antients proceeding from the same Cause as I have shewn in my Ars Critica Part 3. Sect. i. Cap. 5. and it is needless to add any thing more about this particular corruption in Hesychius Vers 12. Note c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying utinam I wish is always joined with an Infinitive Optative or Subjunctive Mood or Preterperfect Tense never with a Future nor is the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever interposed See Thomas Magister on that Particle And therefore I should understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not also read it so to this sense They ought to have been cut off and shall actually be cut off when I come among you that trouble you and so it will be an Elliptical phrase for this entire one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such another as that in these Verses of Virgil in Catalectis after the Verb debuit quae maxima deterrendi Debuit audendi maxima causa fuit Where out of what follows we must supply causa esse as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or else we must understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Loss or Punishment which often use to be understood after the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken simply for he was condemned because condemned Persons ought to suffer Loss or Punishment As in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus Lib. ix Ant. Rom. pag. 585. speaking of Menenius who was accused by the Tribunes of the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the People giving Sentence by Tribes by no small number of Votes he was condemned It is all one which of these ways we interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It might be confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which it is really made by taking away the augment unless it be thought rather to come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else the Transcribers might easily change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom's interpretation of this place which Grotius follows is intolerable utinam abscindatur ipsum membrum genitale Such an imprecation would have been fitter for a lewd Buffoon than for St. Paul And Dr. Hammond's last conjecture lessens the Apostle another way because it represents him as diffident of his Authority among the Galatians notwithstanding
Multitude and pompous Solemnities Note that the Law had imposed this upon Widows or such as were forsaken by their Husbands that they might not be too hasty to marry a second time IV. To the places alledged by Grotius and our Author as well here as on Chap. v. 9 add this out of Livy Lib. x. c. 23. Mr. Le Clere does not cite the place which I wonder at because he blames Dr. Hammond so often for the same thing by which it will appear who it is that is said to be the Husband of one Wife That Historian describing the strife between the Roman Matrons in the Nobles Temple of Chastity out of which Virginia was expelled because she being a Noble Woman had married a Commoner saith Brevis altercatio inde ex iracundia muliebri in contentionem animorum exarsit cum se Virginia patriciam pudicam in patriciae Pudicitiae templum ingressam UNI NUPTAM ad quem virgo deducta sit verò gloriaretur A short quarrel occasion'd by that means through the Womens peevishness grew to a very fierce contention Virginia boasting that she being a noble and vertuous Woman had enter'd into the Nobles Temple of Chastity and had been MARRIED to ONE Man to whom she had been deliver'd a Virgin Vers 15. in Note e. Col. 2. Lin. 8. after the words Donour or Plenipotentiary Dr. Hammond would have done well if he had proved what he asserts here about a Metropolitan Power and the rest of what he says out of Scripture or those Antients which lived nearest the times of the Apostles because he could not but know that there were some in the World who would look upon the greatest part of those things as Fables But perhaps they were delivered first from the Pulpit in a Discourse to the People and afterwards inserted in his Annotations on the New Testament but in an improper place What he says about the Church and the House of God there is no one undoubtedly but knows and it might have been said much more clearly in three words without the tediousness of so many repetitions Ibid. Lin. 39. after the words one and the same Title Our learned Author might have alledged another place out of Maimonides more like this of St. Paul which has been already alledged by Mr. Lightfoot in his Description of the Temple of Jesus Chap. xxii This great Council setting in Garith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the FOUNDATION of the Oral Law and the PILLAR of Instruction For this is said of an Assembly as it is also an Assembly which St. Paul speaks of Ibid. At the end of the same Note I. All this will be insignificant if the words Pillar and ground of Truth should not belong to the Church but to that which follows viz. the mystery of Godliness Which is the opinion of Episcopius and Camero none of the lowest rank of Divines who may be consulted II. I wonder our Author should produce these words as out of the Epistle to the Magnesians for they that did so c. when there are no such words in that Epistle Whether they are to be found in any other place of Ignatius I cannot tell nor have I time to look but it was not prudently done to cite them as out of a place where they are not III. Nor is that confused heap of places out of Ignatius much to the purpose because St. Paul says nothing here about Bishops and because such times may happen wherein it would be a piece of madness to trust Bishops as our Author acknowledges So that whatever is said by Ignatius must all be understood with this exception provided a Bishop truly discharge the Office of a Pastor not if he be a Heretick or a Tyrant who thinks he is not for the Flock but the Flock for him not if he obstinately persist in gross Errors which he will not by any reason be brought to renounce through his Pride or Covetousness It was possible that in the time of Ignatius all the Bishops of whom many had seen the Apostles and many had their Disciples for their Teachers might be Men devoted to the Truth and faithful Pastors and that induced him to insist so much upon their Authority but these are not lessons for all times and places Vers 16. It must be owned that our Author in the precedent Annotations has often acted the part of a Preacher or Divine rather than an Interpreter And therefore to supply what is wanting in him I shall subjoin here out of another English Gentleman a Discourse much more critical than any thing said by Dr. Hammond I mean Dr. Pearson who has treated of the true reading of this place on the 2 d Article of the Apostles Creed p. 128. where after he had said that all the Greek Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God was manifested in the Flesh c. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was manifested c. he speaks thus Nor need we be troubled with the observation of Grotius on the place suspectam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt Interpretes veteres Latinus Syrus Arabs Ambrosius qui omnes legerunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess the vulgar Latin reads it otherwise than the Greek Quod manifestatum est in carne and it cannot be denied but the Syriack however translated by Tremellius agreeth with the Latin and both seem to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the joint consent of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the Authority of these two Translators and the Arabick set forth in the Biblia Polyglotta agreeth expresly with them But that which Grotius hath farther observed is of far greater consideration Addit Hinemarus Opusculo lv illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic positum a Nestorianis For if at first the Greeks read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were altered into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Nestorians then ought we to correct the Greek Copy by the Latin and confess there is not only no force but not so much as any ground or colour for our Arguments But first it is no way probable that the Nestorians should find it in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because that by so doing they had overthrown their own Assertion which was that God was not incarnate nor born of the Virgin Mary that God did not ascend unto Heaven but Christ by the Holy Ghost remaining upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes Part. 1. cap. 17. Secondly it is certain that they did not make this alteration because the Catholick Greeks read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before there were such Hereticks so called Nestoriani à Nestorio Episcopo Patriarcha Constantinopolitano Aug. Haeres Nestorius from whom that Heresy began was Patriarch of Constantinople after Sisinnius Sisinnius after Atticus Atticus after Nectarius who succeeded Joannes vulgarly called Chrysostomus But S.
separate themselves from it were afterwards called Hereticks But as there is a difference to be made between Men and Times so also between Hereticks and therefore this Precept of St. Paul must not be urged beyond what he intended it Whoever heretofore departed from the Apostles did by that very thing deny themselves to be Christians because they contradicted inspired Men from whom alone the Christian Doctrin could be learned and whose Authority was confirmed by Miracles Those undoubtedly were to be avoided by Christians who when they had believed the Apostles did afterwards reject their Doctrin and follow other Teachers But those who after the Governors of Churches were not inspired nor endued with a Power of working Miracles seemed to themselves to observe in the Churches a departure from the Apostles in things themselves tho they were cunningly dissembled and requested a reformation of those Errors from the Governors of Churches these I say were not any longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be avoided if they could truly charge others with dangerous Errors and Tyranny These cannot have that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bugbear name of the Church objected to them as if the greatest number which are qualified with that name could not by degrees at least fall off from the Doctrin of the Apostles and all that separated from it must necessarily be in a state of Damnation Ibid. Note c. I. Besides the difference which our Author has observed between this place and the words of Christ in Mat. xviii there is this further observable that there Christ speaks of an injury done to any private Man and which if it endamaged him it was only with relation to his private Affairs but here the Discourse is about a departure from the Apostles Doctrin which concerned both the Apostles and the whole Church in which case one or two Admonitions might be sufficient to know whether those who separated themselves from the Churches would again return to them Yet I do not think the words of St. Paul are to be taken so as if he forbad such Men to be admonished a third time before they were avoided if there was any hope of reclaiming them He only says after the first and second Admonition to shew Christians that Men are not to be given over for lost presently after the first Admonition but to be often admonished Surely Christian Charity will not allow us to number St. Paul's words so as if after two Admonitions without any regard had to Circumstances it were necessary to proceed to Excommunication Here are no Lawyers forms in which Words are weighed and Citations counted but only a repressing of an overhasty Judgment that no one might be condemned unheard or given up too soon II. As in Mat. xviii 17 Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican does not signify Excommunicate him for the Discourse is about any private Men who had not the power of Excommunication so also in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to Excommunicate but do not any longer converse with him after several Admonitions given him to no purpose avoid him It is plain this is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor can it be applied to Excommunication unless the thing it self requires it But here there is no necessity of its being taken in that sense because an Heretick was self-excommunicate and because he made a new Sect and did not look upon Excommunication as a Punishment Sinners who desire to continue in the Church notwithstanding their sinful practices are excommunicated that they may be reclaimed to a more Holy Life when they see they cannot be accounted Members of the Church as long as they live wickedly not those who voluntarily separate and will no longer communicate with the Church The following words confirm this interpretation which is also Grotius's III. I have shewn on 2 Cor. xiii that that place of St. Paul is wrested by our Author and I will not repeat what I have there said Vers 11. Note d. Here our Author does not seem to be sufficiently consistent with himself having before interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to avoid of Excommunication besides he does not clearly enough shew what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he confounds the present Churches with the Apostolical which in that Age agreed with their Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is one who forsaking the Apostolical and Christian Assemblies did by that very thing deny himself to be a Christian and therefore ought not any longer to be accounted a Christian by his own judgment He was to be avoided therefore by Christians of whose number he denied himself any longer to be But now there are a great many who are called by other Christians by the hateful names of Hereticks and Schismaticks who yet cannot be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they endeavour as much as others to understand the Doctrin and Precepts of Christ and conform themselves to them and no less hope to be saved by the Grace of Christ alone In this imperfect state of Mortality many Errors creep into mens Minds through ignorance or prejudice and weakness of Judgment who live no less Christianly as to other things than those that are free from such Errors And it would be very unjust to call such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they separate from others Again they who denied themselves to be Christians could not complain if they were avoided by the Christians but one that charges others with what he thinks to be Error and cannot be present at their Assemblies unless he approve them and therefore absents himself from them but yet does not avoid the Men themselves or treat them less Christianly is highly injured if equal courtesy be not shewn him This which was plain of it self I thought fit to say in a few words because our Author did not seem clearly enough to explain the mind of the Apostle not that I designed to handle the thing as it deserves Vers 14. Note f. In the place of the Acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a business not a providing of necessaries for Life See Grotius on that place ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Philemon AT the end of the Premon I have observed on the Premonition before the Epistle to the Colossians that that Epistle seems to have been written according to the account of the most exact Chronologers in the Year of Christ lxii or the ix th of Nero. Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is my Son for St. Paul accounted all those he had converted to the Faith of Christ his Children and it is usual for Children to be called the Bowels of their Parents So Cepteus in Ovid. Met. Lib. v. Fab. 1. speaking of his Daughter Andromeda Sed quae visceribus veniebat bellua ponto Exsaturanda meis ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews CHAP. I. Vers 2.
written to the Jews who lived in Palestine Dr. Hammond's interpretation might be admitted but what he says here does not agree to those of that Nation that were dispersed through the Roman Empire for all the Jews every where were not killed by Vespasian Those only who lived in Palestine and the neighbouring Countries and had risen up in Arms against the Romans were destroyed by them So that I rather think St. James here speaks of that day which is much more truly called the last and that his admonition is more general Vers 7. Note b. Seeing the Jews who in Italy or in Greece and other Provinces remote from Judaea had embraced the Gospel received no harm by the standing of Jerusalem and the Jewish Common-wealth nor any benefit by their Destruction I do not see why they should be commanded to wait for this with patience And therefore I rather think what the Apostle here says is to be understood of the last Judgment which he speaks of as near at hand because it was unknown when it was to be and therefore every Age ought to look upon it as nigh And it 's certain as to particular Persons Christ may truly be said to come when he calls them by Death to Judgment Vers 9. Note c. Seeing St. James does not speak here to the Jews who had embraced the Christian Faith in Palestine but those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scattered abroad I am apt to think he does not so much respect here the Vices of the Jewish Zealots as of those Jews who lived in other places which yet I do not deny to have followed the Example of the Zealots in Palestine Vers 15. Note g. It is much better to understand here after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Sins by the Lord that the Phrase may be entire thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he has committed Sins his Sins shall be forgiven him by the Lord There is no mention here of Ecclesiastical Punishments but only of the miraculous curing of a Disease and obtaining pardon from God not from the Priest So that what our Author here says about the Absolution of the Church is foreign to this place Whoever seriously endeavours to reform his past Life and to make continual progress in Holiness does not need the forgiveness of a Priest on which Christ has no where taught that the Hope or Salvation of a Christian depends And whoever does not amend his sinful practices would in vain receive all the Absolutions and Benedictions of all the Priests in the World Vers 16. Note h. Notwithstanding what our Author says the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews the Discourse to be about a mutual confession of Faults between equals or those who are reckon'd equals That is the perpetual use of the Greek Language without any exception as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor does the place alledged out of 1 Pet. v. 5 prove the contrary as I shall there shew It is ridiculous to say that the Prayers of an Elder praying ex officio are more effectual than the Prayers of any good Man whatsoever that fears God as if God granted the thing requested of him for a Mans Office and not for his Piety And there is the same absurdity in saying that a Priest particularly laying open the Sins of his Brother to God is the more likely by that means to prevail with him as if God did not know what a Sinner stands in need of or had promised more to such Prayers than to general ones And little better is that which is added about direction as if it were certain that Elders use to give better or more faithful advice in this matter than any other pious and learned Men when experience teaches us that they have no more discretion than others and often use Religion only as a means to enrich themselves or encrease their Authority ANNOTATIONS On the first Epistle General Of St. Peter the Apostle AT the end of the Premon I. I will not deny that St. Peter wrote this his first Epistle in that Year which Baronius affirms for there is nothing said in it from which any certain judgment can be made of the time wherein it was written But that St. Peter was then at Rome is a mere invention of those who thought the falshoods of the Clementine Homilies to be a true History He seems not to have gone thither before the reign of Nero as Dr. Pearson acknowledges in chap. viii Diss 1. concerning the Succession of the Roman Bishops We may consult also about this matter Lud. Cappellus in Append. Historiae Apostolicae and Ant. Pagus in Baron Epicr on the years of Christ xliii num 2 3. and liv num 3. Yet I had rather say that this Epistle was written later after St. Paul had preached the Gospel round about Asia for before that time there do not seem to have been so many Christian Churches to which St. Peter might write II. That by the name of Babylon we are not to understand Rome but a City properly called by that name is granted by Dr. Pearson who also shews that the Chaldaean Babylon was at that time desolate and so that it is the Egyptian Babylon that is here meant Those who desire to be fully satisfied in this matter may consult Dr. Pearson himself CHAP. I. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing there is a change here made in the form of the expression and after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sanctification of the Spirit the Apostle immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto obedience I am apt to think the difference of these Propositions must be observed so as that this should be the sense elect by Sanctification of the Spirit that they might perform obedience and that they might be sprinkled with the Blood of Christ They are said here to be elected who are separated from the rest of Mankind not by some unknown Decree but by the Spirit of Sanctification whereby their Lives are amended that they may become the People of God In the mean time I wonder here at Dr. Hammond who compares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one another as if they were both joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were taken in a Passive sense For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Discourse is about one that obeys is always taken Actively and cannot here be taken otherwise Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but stands alone but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is connected with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is taken in a Passive sense for we do not sprinkle the Blood of Christ but are our selves sprinkled with it The thing is clear and no one here could have stumbled but our Author who in these Annotations on the General Epistles has surpassed himself in barbarousness of stile Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this place I shall remark what is
not know what himself meant Ibid. Note g. I. He that sits upon the Throne is represented as much greater than the four living Creatures as being God himself whom the living Creatures praise and worship which are undoubtedly the Angels I am apt to think if it were to be enquired who resembled them in the Sanhedrim the only persons that can be likened to them are the Officers that waited upon the Sanhedrim But between these Ministers of God and the Ministers of the Sanhedrim there was almost as much difference as between God and the Prince of the Sanhedrim and therefore there is no similitude to be sought for between them but in this that they might both be called Ministers II. This is much more likely than what is said by our Author who to find out his own meaning makes Apostles inferior to a Bishop which is utterly false for the Apostles having received their Commission from Christ himself had an equal Authority over all Nations and in all Cities and therefore wherever they were had the privilege of the first Seats if any order was to be observed in sitting And they ought not to yield to the Bishop of Jerusalem whom they themselves had ordained What Clemens Alexandrinus says of the Bishoprick of Jerusalem just as if the Apostles out of modesty had not aspired to it is with that learned Writer's leave not agreeable to things themselves It was not lawful for the Apostles to take upon them the Bishoprick of any one City because they were to spread the Gospel through the whole World according to the Command of Christ nor could they without disparaging themselves seek a Dignity less than their own Yet our Author several times alledges these inconsiderate words of Clemens as if they were of some moment But you will say St. James having heard the rest at length in Acts xv sums up the Judgment of the Council after all were agreed which is the Office of a President But it does not therefore follow that he did that as President and so as a thing which of right belonged to him but rather by the impulse of the Holy Spirit who might have pronounced that Decree by the mouth of any that were there present Those holy men were not ambitious of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the Pharisees and therefore among Friends and those acted by the same Spirit every thing doubtless was done without standing upon Order or Ceremonies the effects of mens Pride and Contention Nor do I any more think that St. James here acted as a President than that he sat on a high Throne with some four Apostles attending on him as Metropolitan and Archbishop as our Author calls him and the Bishops of Judea sitting round about which yet must have been done if this representation of the heavenly Court was taken from thence otherwise it has no more resemblance with the Council of Jerusalem than with any other Consistory of Judges III. The Objection our Author proposes to himself is of no moment and might have been solved in one word from what he says towards the end of his second Answer for it is visible that the Antiochians sent to enquire at Jerusalem because there were there a great many Apostles and other Disciples who had conversed with Christ on earth and had received spiritual gifts from him from Heaven who if they had been in the most obscure Village in all Judea would nevertheless have been there consulted They had no respect therefore to the Metropolitan Dignity of the City which our Author here without reason makes a shew of and which was a piece of Grandure not known in those times Of after Ages I say nothing in which it was lawful for Bishops to enter as it were into Covenant with one another and attribute a greater dignity to some seats than to others which Constitution seemed useful and ought not to be changed where it has obtain'd because it may be beneficial to the ordinary sort of Christians Vers 7. Note h. I. These things are not only Conjectures but most extravagant Fancies in which I wonder our learned Author could acquiesce There is not here so much as the least indication of the Standards or Standard-bearers of Israel nor any ground to imagin them alluded to besides that which is said by the Rabbins who are less acquainted with what was done of old than we and whose inventions are justly said by our Author to be absurd But why then did he believe them I confess I don't understand II. On the contrary here is a manifest allusion to the Cherubims who are the Ministers of God not God himself And so it is they which are describ'd and not God of whom see what I have said on Exod. xxv 18 They are the Officers and Ministers of God in executing his Judgments which best of all agree to this place and not Apostles whose Office was not to punish obstinate Offenders What our Author here says out of Eusebius and about some particular Apostles is as absurd as the fictions of the Rabbins Vers 8. Note i. But if we understand the Attendants of God to be signified by those living Creatures which seems to be more probable those Eyes will denote the watchfulness of the Angels in guarding those whom God commits to their care Such another Image presented it self to the fancies of the Poets when they described Argus as set by Juno to watch her Rival Centum luminibus cinctum caput Argus habebat c. which may be read in Ovid. Metam Lib. 1. CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note b. SCriptus in tergo makes nothing to the length of the Roll which tho short might be written on the backside but to the abundance of matter contained in it which was so much that it could not be all written on the foreside of the Parchment as the Orestes of a certain unknown Poet mention'd by Juvenal Sat. 1.5 Summi plena jam margine libri Scriptus in tergo nec dum finitus Orestes Vers 8. Note c. It is indeed the Office of Bishops to offer Prayers and Praises to God in the name of the Churches over which they are set but this Assembly held as in Heaven is not a representation of things done on Earth but as a Celestial Court to set out which there are some colours taken from earthly things So that the four and twenty Elders are rather Angels of the highest Dignity which are as it were God's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assistants in this Council which Angels having the Patronage of the Christian Religion assigned them it is no wonder if they are said to present the Prayers of Christians to God and to speak in the name of Christians An Angel is in like manner represented as performing this Office afterwards in Chap. viii 3 4. CHAP. VI. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the words being inverted he went out to conquer and did in effect
have in many places forborn to confute Dr. Hammond's interpretations because I did not think it worth my while to shew that others were unfortunate in their Conjectures when I my self could produce nothing more certain But here I thought fit to say something about the Conjecture of Dr. Hammond concerning two sorts of Bishops in the Apostles time in single Cities because that may make for the illustration of Ecclesiastical History II. It appears indeed by Acts xv and other places that there was some disagreement between the Jewish and Gentile Christians and that these latter had a Letter sent them which is there set down But that there were two distinct Churches and two sorts of Bishops can be gather'd from no sign Nor is it at all probable that after this Apostolical Decree the Jewish Christians refused to unite with the Gentiles especially Jerusalem being destroyed and St. Paul having written so many Epistles about the unprofitableness of the Mosaical Rites There are no credible Records by which it may appear that Evodius and Ignatius were together Bishops of the Antiochian Churches In the Apostolical Constitutions Lib. vii c. 46. it is said indeed that Evodius was ordained by St. Peter not by St. John as it is said by the Doctor and Ignatius by St. Paul But not to say that we cannot easily believe that Writer as being a notorious Impostor he does not say that they were made Bishops at the same time and of several Congregations as is well observed on that place by J. Bapt. Cotelerius who has also other things worth reading about this matter III. What is said here about St. John's ruling the Jewish Churches in Asia while St. Paul and after him Timothy ruled the Gentiles is a mere invention of our Author There is no footstep of a twofold Episcopacy in those places and that Timothy was first Bishop of Ephesus is also very uncertain because he might be left these by St. Paul as an Evangelist not as a Bishop for the late Catalogues are not worthy our regard which reckon up the Bishops of antient times according to the opinion of the Age in which they were written and not according to any certain knowledg They tell us indeed that the Apostles themselves were Bishops which is absurd tho Dr. Hammond also speaks in the same manner But granting him that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus still there are two things that remain doubtful One is that John was at Ephesus or somewhere near it when Timothy was left there by St. Paul And secondly that both of them performed the Office of Bishop in different Congregations and that St. John did not come thither after Timothy's Ordination and exercise only the Office of an Apostle not of a Bishop It 's plain the Writer of the Apostolical Constitutions whose Authority the Doctor elsewhere makes use of says that Timothy was constituted Bishop of that City by St. Paul and John by St. John IV. What is said here of the Church of Rome was I believe invented by Dr. Hammond to reconcile the Antients that disagreed among themselves about the first Bishop of Rome after the Apostles but he never found in any credible History that two Apostles were Bishops of the Roman Church and had each their Deacon whom they left in their place The Apostles could not be Bishops of any particular Church and they are mere Dreams which are related concerning the Deaconship of Linus and Clemens Whoever desires to be informed about those beginnings of the Church of Rome may consult Dr. Pearson and Mr. Dodwel's Dissert about the first Bishops of that City I wonder our Author who had such sharp adversaries to deal with ventured to propose such things without proof The conjunction of two Churches at Rome under Clemens is also another Fiction of which there is nothing at all said by any of the Antients The Author of the Apostol Constit affirms that Linus was ordained by St. Paul and Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the death of Linus On which place see Cotelerius V. That after the restoring of Jerusalem by Adrian or a little before there were two Bishops of Jerusalem none of the Antients ever said Eusebius in Hist Eccles lib. 4. c. 5. where he sets down the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem tells us that the time during which they were Bishops was unknown but that fifteen sat till the Siege of Adrian which were all Jews by descent Then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all the Church under them was made up of believing Jews who had continued from the Apostles to the Siege which then happen'd By this it appears that there were not two Congregations at that time in Jerusalem nor indeed does Eusebius mention those fifteen Bishops as if some of them had been Bishops together but all one after another That there were many Bishops within a short compass of time may as well be attributed either to their being of a great age when they were elected or the sudden death wherewith some of them were overtaken as to a multiplicity of Bishops in one City The same Historian in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Calamities which befel the Jews under Adrian and related how Jerusalem was restored and called Aelia in honour of Aelius Adrian subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church of the same place being composed of Gentiles Marcus first after the Bishops of the Circumcision undertook the Priesthood over them that were there He does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church being composed of Jews and Gentiles as he ought to have said according to Dr. Hammond's Opinion VI. Diversity of languages could be no reason for the Jewish and Gentile Christians keeping up distinct assemblies because the Jews of old as also now understood the languages of the places in which they lived or at least the Greek which obtained in all Asia as well as in Greece and for that reason there were so many Greek Translations made of the Old Testament for the sake of the Jews that of the Septuagint Aquila Symmachus c. And whatever were the Customs of the Jews there are extant no Records whereby it appears that after the Apostles times they refused to meet in the same Assemblies with the Gentiles nor can any such thing be gather'd from the writings of the Apostles as that they were forced in every particular Town or City to constitute two Bishops and two Churches For all Differences are not open Schisms So that there is no reason why we should assent to Dr. Hammond obtruding upon us a raw Conjecture almost for a certain Truth It would be easy to find any thing in antient History if we might be allowed to reason after the same rate and interpret the Antients by supplying what is wanting in them with Conjecture as if they said in so many words what we infer only by guessing from doubtful signs CHAP. XII Vers 6. Note c. OUR Author
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founders and interpreters of the Christian Religion that for a thousand Years after Constantin the Church was purer than it was before or that there were fewer false Doctrins by publick Authority establish'd in many Churches In that interval of time there were not only many Heresies which created almost perpetual differences but very great Errors crept in among Christians which were openly approved by the Governors of Churches so that the Church-Discipline which our Author so much boasts of was used only to confirm those Errors and with the consent of Princes to kill or at least abuse those who dared to oppose them So that if this Kingdom be to be extended to the thousand following Years it must not be thought consist in sanctity of Life and purity of Doctrin but only in the Liberty which the Christians should enjoy in the greatest part of the Roman Empire so that they might be good and pious Men without being envied or persecuted by the Heathens Vers 7. Note e. I. I wonder our learned Author here took so much pains to confute very weak Objections and yet took no notice of the Heresies which disturbed the Eastern and Western Churches at the time when he supposes the Christians reigned as I have before observed II. He takes it for certain that not only Alaricus spared the Christians and destroyed none but Heathens but also that Gensericus and Attila did the same which he does not prove This should have been shewn and not that which he proves of Julian in so many words when no one can deny it who has read any thing of the History of those times III. I confess I don't approve of the opinion of the Millenaries but I wonder Dr. Hammond here objects against them the condemnation of the Church and gives them the odious name of Hereticks For as that is but a small Error if the rest of the Doctrins of Christianity be retain'd as they were by Irenaeus so the Church had not received any Revelation about that matter from the times of the Apostles Vers 8. Note f. I. That Gog and Magog signify the People who dwelt about the Mountain Caucasus has been so clearly shewn by Sam. Bochart Geogr. Sacr. Lib. iii. c. 12. that it is impossible to doubt of it And the Turks having invaded Asia from those places our Author might hence have confirmed his Interpretation which I wonder he did not seeing he alledges that Writer elsewhere For what is said here by Grotius cannot in the least be compared with what we may learn from Bochart as to this matter II. It is true indeed that Gyges was sometime Ruler of Lydia but the Kings which succeeded him were not therefore as I remember called Gygae tho it be affirmed by Grotius and after him by Dr. Hammond who absurdly deduces it from this place whereas Gyges and his Posterity were in part antienter than Ezekiel and partly his Contemporaries and therefore sure that name could not be taken from the Revelation III. If the Empire of the Turks be here referred to I had rather interpret the beloved City and the Camp of the Saints of all the Eastern Church than Constantinople alone But vers 9. seems to oppose it in which a sudden Victory over Gog and Magog seems rather to be promised than the taking of that City by those People threatned Yet this and all other things of that kind I leave undetermin'd CHAP. XXI Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero Tuscul Quaest Lib. ii c. 15. having defined labor and dolor Labour and Sorrow adds haec duo Graeci illi quoram copiosior est lingua quam nostra uno nomine appellant These two things the Grecians whose Language is more copious than ours call by one name He means the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what he says afterwards as well as the thing it self shews So in Epictetus Enchir. Cap. xiv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Sorrow present it self you will find patience In this place also Sorrow seems to be intended Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words seem also to signify the Apostles as may be gather'd both from the number here specified and from this that by them all Nations enter'd into the Church If this and the like things be to be applied to the Church in later times as Dr. Hammond thinks it must be remember'd that the praises here given to it must be understood comparatively so as for that Church to be opposed to the Jews and Heathens in comparison of which it is not unworthy of these Commendations But we must not measure its Doctrins or Practices by the perfect Rule of the Gospel from which Dr. Hammond himself did not think but it had departed tho he would not acknowledg it Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To wit from the bottom of the Mountain on which the City stood to the top of its Walls for the Walls themselves were not so very high It is somewhat uncertain whether all the sides of this Square were twelve thousand Furlongs in length so as that the whole Circuit was forty eight thousand Furlongs as also the height of the Mountain joined with the height of the Walls or whether a fourth part only of that number is to be assigned to each of the sides that is three thousand Furlongs The former is most likely so as that an exceeding great City should be described nothing but what is great and spacious being here to be thought on Vers 17. Note f. By a man's Cubit here I rather understand an ordinary Cubit as in Deut. iii. 11 where without doubt Moses speaks of a Cubit of six handbreadths In Ezekiel also the Discourse is not about a Cubit of a Foot but of six handbreadths as is evident from vers 5. Chap. xl where the Angel is said to have had in his hand a measuring Reed of six Cubits by the Cubit and an handbreadth that is six Jewish not Babylonian Cubits See Dr. Cumberland of the Jewish Measures CHAP. XXII Vers 1. Note a. IT was sufficient to say that by the Authority of the Lamb sitting upon his Throne Baptism was instituted which is very true and is here signified granting that the Water in Baptism is meant by the Water proceeding out of the Throne The rest Dr. Hammond adds of his own Invention to find out here the power of the Keys as he does in other places where no one else would think them referred to The same he does afterwards but being in hast to make an end of this tedious work I shall not particularly examin what he says nor would it be worth while For who but he could here mistake He describes to us for instance the happy Condition of the Christians from Constantin to the Year MCCC living under the Discipline of Church-Governors and a most pure Church during that interval and most worthy of Christ Which that we might believe either the New Testament must have been many
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what John i. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what properly what metaphorically Acts xiv 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Coat Mat. v. 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether good Dispositions or good Manners 1 Cor. xv 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a person bountiful of a thing profitable Mat. xi 30 Ψ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Acts v. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be the dead bodies of the Slain Rev. vi 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a brutish sensual Man 1 Cor. ii 14 An INDEX OF THE Memorable things contained in these Remarks A. ABortive in a Metaphorical sense what 1 Cor. xv 8 Abraham went from Charran during his Fathers Life Acts vii 4 whether his paying Tithes to Melchisedek can be thought an example of the present Custom of paying Tithes of all that a Man possesses Heb. vii 4 Adoption of Sons what in Rom. viii 23 Adramyttium a Town in Mysia Acts xxvii 2 Adultery the Story of the Woman taken in the Act whether Genuin John vii 53 and viii 3 6 7 9 10. Age to come which Luke i. 70 Agnoetae their Heresy Agonistical terms often used by St. Paul as Rom. ix 16 1 Cor. ix 24 c. 2 Cor. iv 8 2 Tim. iv 7 Phil. iii. 12 but not so often as Dr. Hammond thought Phil. iii. 12 p. 457 and 458. Alabaster box out of which Christ was Anointed whether broken or not Mat. xxvi 7 Mark xiv 3 Alexander the Coppersmith where he did so much evil to St. Paul 2 Tim. iv 14 Allegorical interpretations of Scripture used as Arguments ad hominem to convince the Jews Gal. iii. 16 and iv 21 25. cited for the very words of Scripture James iv 5 Mat. ii 23 All put for some or the most 1 Cor. xiii 28 p. 348. Ambiguity of an expression improved into an Argument 1 Pet. iv 1 Angels their Tongues 1 Cor. xiii 1 appointed to offer up the prayers of Christians Rev. v. 8 Guardian Angels the opinion of the Jews and Heathens about them and what respect Christ might have to either of those Opinions Mat. xviii 10 Angel of the bottomless pit who Rev. ix 11 Anger several degrees of it mention'd by Aristotle whether they were referred to by St. Paul Eph. iv 26 31. Antecedent put for the Consequent Heb. vi 7 Antichrists more than one 1 John ii 18 who Ibid. Antitype what 1 Cor. x. 6 Aâ—rist in Greek expressive of a Custom Mark xv 6 Rom. viii 30 Apostles whether the name it self implies any Authority Luke vi 13 who were properly so called Prem to James Apollyon who Rev. ix 11 Arabians circumcised but not in imitation of the Jews Gal. iv 25 Areopagus whence so called Acts xvii 19 Archippus whether Bishop of Colosse in St. Paul's time Col. iv 17 Arguments for the truth of Christianity taken from Prophecies what we are to think of them Mat. ii 15 and 1 Cor. ii 4 Arguments of the Apostles not always demonstrative Heb. ix 16 and xiii 10 Armillus of the Jews John xi 48 Athletae their Diet 1 Cor. ix 25 B. To be Baptized into Christ is to be baptized to the end that we may become Christians Rom. vi 8 for the dead what 1 Cor. xv 29 into any ones name what Mat. xxviii 19 into Moses 1 Cor. x. 2 in the Cloud and in the Sea spoken of the Israelites what Ib. ver 1. p. 332. Barnabas his Cabbalistical way of reasoning 2 Pet. i. 5 Battology an instance of it out of some prayers of the Jews Mat. vi 7 Better thing how God is said to have provided some better thing for us Christians than the Jews Heb. xi 40 Bishops whether included in the commission given by Christ to his Apostles Mat. xvi 19 how they differ'd from Presbyters Phil. i. 1 when it is a Sin for a Bishop to desert his Office 1 Tim. iii. 1 whether in the Primitive times there were two at once in the same City one over the Jewish and another the Gentile Christians 2 John and Rev. i. 20 and xi 3 Bishops and Deacons why not mention'd by St. Paul in the Inscriptions to all his Epistles 1 Thess i. 1 Body of Sin what Rom. vi 6 Bodily exercises in what sense profitable or unprofitable 1 Tim. iv 8 Bond of Perfectness why Charity is so called Col. iii. 14 Bread taken both for Food and Raiment Mat. vi 11 OUR Bread in the Lord's Prayer what 2 Thess iii. 12 C. Caesarea Philippi where Mat. xvi 13 Called its several acceptations in Scripture Mat. xx 16 Many are called but few are chosen the ground and meaning of that expression Ibid. and xxii 14 Capital Causes whether the Custom of the Romans in Capital Causes was observed among the Jews John viii 29 Captains of the Temple of two sorts Luke xxii 52 Capitol of Rome whence so called Rev. xiii 3 the burning of it under Vespasian reckon'd a very great Calamity Ibid. Carnal for weak 2 Cor. x. 4 Censures of the Church when to be inflicted upon Hereticks Tit. iii. 10 Choenix how big a Measure Rev. vi 6 To Choose in Christ what Eph. i. 4 Christ his Birth by what means known to the wise Men Mat. ii 2 the time of it whether in the publick Records in Justin and Tertullian's time Luke ii 8 why he would not have it divulged that he was the Messias Mat. viii 4 and withdrew himself from the Multitude that would have made him a King John vi 15 the time of his Death John xix 14 his Coat of what sort and in what manner wrought Ibid. 23. what it is to be in Christ 2 Cor. xii 2 Chronology of the Antient Jews faulty Acts vii 4 Church the use of the word in the Apostles times 1 Cor. xvi 19 Church of God and of Christ why the Christian Church is so called 1 Thess i. 1 p. 478. Churches Apostolical whether all regularly formed when St. Paul wrote to them Ibid. Circumstance omitted in the former part of a story to be gather'd from what follows Act. xxviii 22 Circumcision why instituted Rom. i. 26 Citations out of the Old Testament for Ornament sake not as proofs 1 Cor. i. 20 places of Scripture often cited without Connexion Rom. ix 28 and xv 3 the inconveniences of citing Authors upon trust Ephes v. 32 Cloud that went before the Israelites how they are said to have been under it and baptized in it 1 Cor. x. 1 Coming of Christ to signify his punishing the Jews John xx 22 Communion of the Holy Ghost what 2 Cor. xiii 14 Community of Goods enjoyed among some Nations Acts iv 35 Compel how God may be said to compel Men to Piety Luke xiv 23 compelling by entreaty or example Gal. ii 14 Conjugal Love compared to the Love of Christ and his Church Eph. v. 32 Consummation of the Age what Mat. xxiv 3 Council of the Roman Presidents Act. xxv 12 Crown of Righteousness for a Crown bestowed in Justice 2
however not agreeing in their Opinions about the day nor so much as the year in which Christ was born one might be ready perhaps to question the Authority of Justin and Tertullian who tell us that the Tables on which this enrolling here spoken of was made were extant in their time For from those Records this whole matter might easily have been known and it would have been an inexcusable neglect in the Christians of that age who could have looked into those publick Registers and transmitted to Posterity what they had there read and yet would not do it But I am afraid that Tertullian and others spake only by guess because it was not certainly known that those Records were lost But this is not a place to treat of this matter Vers 14. Note e. The Alexandrian and Cambridg Copies which are both venerable for their antiquity and the Latin and Gothick Interpreters have that reading which the Doctor here expounds And therefore it is not true as Grotius says that all the Copies consent in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho the greatest part read it so Vers 35. Note f. It is easy to conjecture what was the occasion of that grief that like a sword pierced through the heart of this holy Woman For how could she see without extreme sorrow and trouble almost all the Jews persecuting her Son and that with such implacable fury as to nail him at last to a Cross As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is either Mary her self according to the genius of the Hebrew or if you please her heart which might metaphorically be said to be struck through when she beheld her Son crucified So in Statius Lib. x. Thebaid a Father hearing his Sons life demanded received the sentence Non secus ac torta trajectus cuspide pectus exanimis There was no need of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be the sensitive Soul to give light to an easy phrase used also in other Languages CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor interprets this in his paraphrase thus Governour of that fourth division of the kingdom called Galilee by which words there is no body but would think that Herod was here equal'd with Pilate and was a President sent by Tiberius But the difference between a Governour or President and a Tetrarch he explains in part in his Annotations He should have added that this Herodes Antipas was in possession of this Tetrarchship in pursuance of Herod the Great 's will and did not send the revenue of that territory to Rome as the Roman Presidents did but converted it to his own use He depended indeed upon Caesar against whose will he could not have took possession of his inheritance and who could take it away from him when ever he pleased and at last did so But he was not however the Emperors tributary but his friend and wanted nothing but the title of one to make him a King And upon this account Josephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. 17. Cap. 10. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I make this remark because our Author seems in another place by an intolerable impropriety of speech to give Herod the title of a Roman Governour as if he had not ruled his Principality in his own name but in the Emperors See Note on Matt. xxii 16 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The force of this word is not sufficiently expressed by the Doctor in his Paraphrase St. Luke's words are to be rendred thus And Jesus himself when he began to execute his office or to preach the Gospel was about thirty years old and as was supposed was the Son of Joseph c. In the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a form of passing over to the next words and they who interpret it otherwise make a difficulty where there is none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said in Greek for he began which yet is commonly here supposed tho without producing any such Example I should paraphrase therefore this Passage thus When Jesus first began to preach the Gospel which he did a little after he had been baptized by John he was about thirty years old and was of the Stock of David his Mother being of the same Family and Joseph her Husband who was the Son of c. CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what has been said by Grotius to confirm the truth of this reading it may be farther observed that it is read so in Beza's Cambridg Copy and three others which he mentions besides that which the Authors of the Coptick and Gothick Versions made use of Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting in the Alexandrian and Beza's antient Copy It is not expressed in the 3 d Verse nor in Matth. iv 6 And therefore Beza who uses to render that Article by a demonstrative Pronoun has here omitted it and told us in his Notes that he suspected it It was possible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joseph that Jesus was conceived without the assistance of a Man and by the power of the Holy Ghost and that for that reason the Angel who had foretold his Birth had said that he should be called the Son of God but it was possible also that he might question whether that was true or no and so be willing to tempt our Saviour himself that he might be more fully satisfied about it And accordingly the Temptation may be thus expressed If thou art the Son of God and not of a Man as thy Mother says cast thy self down from hence for since thou may'st put thy trust in God thy Father there is nothing that thou needest to fear because it is written in Psal xci concerning those that trust in God that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them CHAP. V. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke here follows S. Mark but St. Matthew Chap. ix 9 mentions his own name It is supposed by most and by our Author here among the rest that Levi was but another name for S. Matthew but this is confuted by Grotius by divers considerable Arguments in his Notes on Matt. ix which I wonder that Dr. Hammond should take no notice of but follow the common Opinion St. Matthew and Levi were perhaps Companions in the same Custom or Tollhouse and dwelt together And Christ seems to have called them both and to have been entertained at a Feast by them both at their own house But Levi was not chosen to be one of the twelve Apostles And yet why St. Mark and Luke pass by Matthew and make mention of Levi I confess I can give no reason CHAP. VI. Vers 13. Note c. I. THat Christ was commissioned and authorized by God to found and govern the Church
where that Author speaks of Alaricus he immediately adds This being done in the time of Honorius making as the Reader might suppose Bellisarius contemporary with Honorius which he knew to be false but designed by the word THIS tho no body would think so to refer to what he had said before the mention of Totilas and Bellisarius for the burning of part of Rome by Totilas was after the time of Honorius and Innocentius IV. A little after he says that Innocentius was not at Rome after the first taking of it before the second but he would have said Siege of it for he knew that Alaricus twice besieged Rome and took it but once V. I have set down the place cited out of Orosius Lib. vii c. 38. more at large in my Latin Translation than it is in the English because the words which Dr. Hammond omits make more to his purpose than those which he alledges And they are these Rhadagaiso Romanis arcibus imminente fit omnium Paganorum in urbem concursus bostem esse cùm utique virium copia tum maxime praesidio Deorum potentem urbem autem ideo destitutam maturè perituram quia Deos sacra perdiderit Magnis querelis ubique agitur continuo de repetendis sacris celebrandisque tractatur fervent tota urbe blasphemiae vulgo nomen Christi tanquam lues aliqua praesentium temporum probris ingravatur When Rhadagasus drew near the Roman Towers all the Pagans ran together into the City crying out that an Enemy was come against them who besides a powerful Army had also the Gods to assist him and that the City was destitute of all hope and would soon be destroyed because they had lost the Gods and forborn to do sacrifice to them There were heavy Complaints made in all places and presently they enter'd offering them all the City was filled with loud Blasphemies and the name of Christ was reviled and inveighed against as some present Plague CHAP. XVIII Vers 2. Note a. IT is much more natural to think that the Jews groaning under the Roman Tyranny and believing they should be deliver'd from all manner of Evils by the Messias did upon that ground conclude that the Romans should be destroyed by him that being agreable to their most noted sentiments than to suppose against all probability that they learned it from the Revelation For nothing is more certain than that the Christians and their Writings were detested by the Jews So that what is here said of the perswasion of that People being nothing at all to St. John might have been omitted without any loss to the Reader Vers 8. Note b. I. If the desolations that were brought upon Rome by Alaricus Gensericus and Totila be all put together without doubt the misery of that City will be the greater but all these are not comprehended in the Testimony of Palladius who speaks only of the sacking of Rome by Alaricus which happen'd An. Chr. CCCCX when Gensericus took it in An. Chr. CCCCLV and Totila An. Chr. DXLVII Which times our Author should have distinguished and not spoken of them confusedly II. It is true what he says about the sense of prophetical Expressions of which see the Examples I have alledged on Rev. iv 2 and elsewhere But he ought not to have said that after the Prophecies of Jeremiah the Dominion of Babylon was translated to the Medes but to the Persians as every one knows but the confused Memory of the four pretended Monarchies put him out Vers 13. Our Author took almost all this out of H. Grotius as many other things without ever looking into Julius Pollux by whom he would have seen that Grotius his Animadversion was false Pollux in Lib. iii. c. 8. S. 2. where he reckons up the names of Slaves says that those were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed for Money and a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not say Bodies simply but servile Bodies In which he corrects the common but barbarous Custom of those who called a Slave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Freemen which hire themselves for Money It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of any Man whether a Freeman or a Slave as Lexicographers will shew But when the Discourse is about Wealth or buying or selling Slaves then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Slave not from the proper Notion of the word but because of the Circumstances Examples are alledged by Is Casaubon on Athenaeus Lib. v. c. 10. A hireling was never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the reason of that Appellation invented by Grotius is groundless But Slaves are stiled Bodies when in reckoning up Possessions men are opposed to other things which do not use to be called by that name They are stiled also Souls by the Jews and by the Greeks because as many Slaves as there are so many Souls there are or as the Lawyers speak Persons Nor is it any thing against this signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there are Souls of Men afterwards mention'd which are Slaves for such repetitions are not avoided by these Writers Vers 23. Note d. As our Author before rashly followed Grotius whom he transcribed without examination so here he rashly forsakes him For it is the wealth of the Romans and not that of Strangers which is extolled in this place Grotius had produced a Passage out of Isa xxiii 8 where there is the like Phrase whom the Reader may consult CHAP. XIX Vers 8. Note a. IT is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in these Books for the Ordinances of the Mosaical Law as I have shewn on Rom. viii 4 In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Saints righteous Actions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are aptly described by a white Garment whiteness being a Symbol of Innocence Nothing could be devised more violent than Dr. Hammond's interpretation Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said in my Dissertation about the destruction of Sodom that these Phrases are taken from the Lake Asphaltites which is a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone Which seems to have been observed also by Dr. Hammond as may be gather'd from his Paraphrase So it is usual with the Rabbins to banish any thing that is abominable and the use of which they think to be profane to the salt Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is observed by Mr. Lightfoot Cent. Chorog on Mat. Cap. v. CHAP. XX. Vers 5. Note b. I Confess indeed ingenuously I do not understand the sense of this Prophecy concerning the Persons here mention'd reigning a thousand Years But notwithstanding that I could if I pleased confute what is here said by Dr. Hammond He will never perswade any one who believes that Christ and his Apostles were the only arbitrary 〈◊〉