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
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
Inscription of the antient Apostolical Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God that dwells at Rome meaning I conceive by the Title the Church himself who wrote the Epistle and was chief there or Bishop at that time and the other Clergy with him for so the other part of the Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God at Corinth is after explained by him in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishops and Deacons But if this will not be acknowledged then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall give you leave to understand any meeting or Congregation of pious men either a consessus Presbyterorum a College of Presbyters which were ordinarily assistant to the Bishop in the antient Church or possibly the whole or any part of the People convened whose Authority or consent may work somewhat upon the Offender as S. Paul conceives it were apt to do when he commands Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rebuke the offenders before all men i. e. in the presence of the community of the People 1 Tim. v. 20 and perhaps when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6 the rebuke that was by or under the many though it be not certain whether that signify the chastisement as our English reads punishment and censure inflicted by the Presbytery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under them those assisting or joining in the censure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts of Canonical severity which in case of sorrow and relenting of the Offender upon rebuke or admonition before ejection out of the Church were wont to be thought sufficient without excommunication and after excommunication as in this place to the Corinthians if they were submitted to were sufficient tho not presently to restore him to the Communion yet to make him capable of being prayed for by the Church 1 John v. 16 and to be delivered from the stripes of Satan the diseases that the delivering to Satan in the Apostles times brought upon them or whether as the words may be render'd it import the rebuke or reproof viz. the third admonition or the second given by the Bishop which was equivalent to that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under or in the presence of many viz. of the People or Congregation The former of these senses seems more agreeable to the place to the Corinthians the latter rather to belong to that in 1 Tim. and so that which even now in Musar was coram multis before many and in St. Paul if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under many yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the presence of all men Christ may here express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church This Interpretation being admitted or not rejected it then follows commodiously and reasonably in the Text of the Evangelist that after the matter is brought to them i. e. to those many or after this act of reproof or rebuke before them and upon continued refractoriness to these last admonitions then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sure is the Apostles or Governors of the Church the Pastors which cannot be in any reason excluded from under the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church whatsoever it signifies and those already promised this power chap. xvi may or shall bind or excommunicate them And that is the sum of the 18 th verse in reference to the 17 th And then vers 19 c. Thus Dr. Hammond who adds some things like what we have had already upon Chap. vii 6 If any be desirous of more they may turn to the Treatise it self viz. Power of the Keys Chap. ii Sect. 6. seqq We should compare these things with what Grotius says upon this place of S. Matthew which is a great deal more plain and natural The Doctor takes for granted what he ought to have proved that Christ speaks to his Apostles as the Governours of the Church Vers 23. Note c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eastern People used but one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hebed to signify both ministros liberae sortis Servants who were at their own disposal and Mancipia Slaves as I have observed in my Notes upon Gen. xx 8 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Interpreters and Writers of the New Testament has also the same ambiguity in it But when we speak Latin there is no reason why we should not use various words according to the nature of the subject spoken of Thus those whom S. Matthew here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be render'd by Ministri Servants because Slaves or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are never sold by their Master that he may have what is owing him paid Vers 28. Note d. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here in its proper signification for when we take any man by the Collar and hale him along against his will we almost choak him The Latin Phrase for it is obtorto collo trahere which Erasmus here makes use of So Plautus in Paenulo Act. iii. Sc. 5. ver 45. Priusquà m hinc obtorto collo ad praetorem trahor Which is well interpreted by learned men to take hold of a man's collar and squeeze his jaws together and then drag him along So a Philosopher is represented by Lucian in Hermotimo demanding his pay of one of his Scholars and haling him before the Justice or Praetor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having thrown his cloak about his neck And in the same Author in Lapithis this Stoick Philosopher is reproached with this very thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do I take my Scholars by the throat and drag them before the Justice if they do not pay me my stipend when it is due See also the Dial. between Aeacus Protesilaus Menelaus and Paris Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every body must perceive that these words cannot be urged to signify that the Justice of God will in its Retributions take notice of every single circumstance in the sins of men We must consider only the main scope of Christ which is no more than that those who do not forgive their Brethren their Offences shall not obtain forgiveness from God for theirs This is all therefore that can be concluded from this place not as the Doctor and Grotius before him says that Sins which are once pardoned in this life may be again charged upon a man If we consider the thing in it self 't is then only that God passes Judgment upon men when after the course of their life is ended they are sent into the place of Rewards or Punishments So that that is the time when persons are pardoned or condemned and there is no need of any previous Sentence CHAP. XIX Vers 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you will say then that to ones thinking God should have changed it True if it were the ordinary way of God to change the dispositions of
whom he had banished Dyrrachium and Philippi and other Towns to inhabit By this it appears how a little before St. Paul's time Philippi came to be enlarged because that City had twice received a Colony of Romans We may consult Foy-Vaillant on Numismata aerea Coloniarum The same Author testifies that Philippi in pieces of Coin is stiled Metropolis But that there was any regard had in that to Ecclesiastical order or dignity of Bishops even from the very time of St. Paul Dr. Hammond has not proved nor will any other I believe prove tho the thing be undoubtedly more antient than many think The Passage alledged out of the Digest is in lib. 50. tit 15. de censibus leg 8. § 8. and is Paulus's not Vlpian's as is said by our Author who it seems cited him upon trust He might have added that of Celsus in leg 6. Colonia Philippensis juris Italici est II. Our Author affirms that after Vespasian had brought a Colony into Caesarea that City became immediately even in respect of Ecclesiastical Government a Metropolis under which Jerusalem it self was But at that time there was no Jerusalem because it had been razed to the ground and was not rebuilt till under Adrian who put into it a Roman Colony as we are told by Xiphilinus in the Life of Adrian and as appears by a great many Medals in which it is called COL AEL CAP. Colonia Aelia Capitolina And who told our Author there was a Bishop at Caesarea in the time of Vespasian From what marks of Antiquity did he gather that the Caesarean Bishops were reckoned superior in Dignity and Order to those of Jerusalem from the Age of Vespasian If what he says be true that a City which had a Roman Colony brought into it was made a Metropolis Jerusalem enjoyed that Privilege as well as Caesarea tho not quite so soon Vlpian in the foremention'd Tit. lib. 1. § 6. saith Palaestina duae fuerunt Coloniae Caesariensis Aelia Capitolina sed neutra jus Italicum habet But I look upon this also as improbable III. I am ready to think that the reason why the Antients place Philippi sometimes in Thrace and sometimes in Macedonia is not because those Provinces were variously divided which yet I do not deny but because when Cities stand upon the borders of any two Countries it is doubtful to which of them they belong The same I say of Nicopolis What our Author says besides about many Churches and those Episcopal depending upon the Metropolis of Philippi is nothing but Conjecture which I am not wholly for rejecting but which I do not easily believe Learned Men often partly prove things out of the Ancients and partly make up by Guess and Conjecture what they would have to be true then they equal their Conjectures to that which they have proved and from all put together they very easily infer what they please Because St. Paul preached the Gospel first at Philippi does it presently follow that that City was also accounted the Metropolis in respect of Ecclesiastical Order The rest also is very deceitful and uncertain Ibid. Note b. I. The Opinion of Grotius and others seems to be much plainer who think that as the words Presbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used tho' there was one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called so also the word Bishop signifies both Orders first and second which is the reason why we meet with this word in the Plural Number where the Discourse is but of one Church There was a Communion of Names between Ministers of the first and second Rank so that those of the first Rank were sometimes stiled Presbyters and those of the second Bishops not because their Authority was the same and their Office in every respect alike but because there was little or no difference between them as to preaching the Gospel and administring the Sacraments But the particular Power of Ordination might belong to one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called II. That which our Author says about Metropolitans and by the help of which alone he defends himself against his Adversaries as to those Apostolical Times is very uncertain nor can it be proved by the Authority of the Writers of the following Ages who speak of the Primitive Times according to the Customs of their own and not from any certain Knowledg not to say at present that Bishops or Presbyters aspiring to that Dignity cannot always safely be heard in their own cause It is not probable that there was any Episcopal Church in the Proconsular Asia besides Ephesus at the time spoken of in Acts xx or in Macedonia besides Philippi and Thessalonica But a little while after when the number of Christians was encreased there were other Episcopal Seats constituted in them Ibid. Note c. I. I also have spoken pretty largely of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Luke viii 2 and I shall not repeat what I have there said Our Author in the beginning of this Note uses the word dimensum for demensum tho that it self was not proper to be used in this place because demensum signifies the Portion or Allowance of Servants not of Guests See Frid. Taubmannus on Plautus his Stich Acts i. Sc. ii vers 3. II. I think indeed with Dr. Hammond that the Original or Deacons must be fetched from the Jews and that Deacons were in the Christian Church what the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhazanim were in the Jewish Synagogue But I do not think we have any thing to do here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schoterim which was the Name only of the Officers that attended upon Magistrates or certain publick Criers See my Note on Exod. ver 8. III. Nor do I think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Juniors ought to be confounded with the Charanitae especially in Acts v. 6 where any of the younger sort who were accidentally then present seem to be meant Tho the Disciples of Doctors are called Juniors in Maimonides it does not therefore follow that that word must be so taken where-ever we meet with it IV. The Saying of the Jews about the decay of Learning among them which our Author speaks of is in Sotae fol. 49.1 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since the second House was destroyed the wise Men began to be as the Scribes and the Scribes as the Minister of the Synagogue and lastly the Minister of the Synagogue as the People of the Earth Which Dr. Hammond mistranslates and inverts the Words themselves They may be found by those that may perhaps have a mind to turn to them in the Editions of Joan. Chr. Wagenseilius in Sotae Cap. ix S. 15. It appears that our Author did not look into this Saying himself but went upon trust for it and that made him render it so ill and not so much as refer to the Book in which it is set down Vers 13. Note e. Some years ago there arose a great Controversy about this place
admonished by the whole Congregation But it may be he was not the Bishop of Colosse but an Evangelist who did not execute his Office so diligently as he ought and lying idle among the Colossians or somewhere in the Neighbourhood was to be admonished by them Which seems the more probable because this Archippus in the Epistle to Philemon ver 2. is called the fellow Souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Paul On which place see Grotius Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius who is followed therein by our Author thinks there is a Hebraism in these words for see that thou fulfil in the Lord the Ministry which thou hast received so that the phrase in the Lord should signify according to the Precepts of the Lord. But tho I do not deny but this may be the meaning of St. Paul's words they are capable of two other senses first Consider throughly the Office which thou hast received in the Lord in order to a complete discharge of it or else secondly Consider in the Lord that is as in the sight of the Lord or according to the Precepts of the Lord c. So the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken as in 2 John 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See your selves that we lose not those things which we have wrought but that we receive a full Reward that is throughly consider or examin your selves c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and according to the various significations of the Preposition ב which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and used in a manifold sense signify diverse things I confess I do not know which of these senses is the best Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bare remembring of St. Paul's Bonds being in it self no part of Piety it is consequent the design of the Apostle in these words must be to admonish the Colossians to behave themselves both towards God and towards him as became those that were mindful of his Bonds that is who very well knew that he was cast into those Bonds only for the sake of the Gospel or to be constant in the profession of the Christian Religion as he was and love him and pray to God in his behalf that he might be set at liberty ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Praemon I. Dr. Pearson and other the most exact Chronologers suppose this Epistle was written in the year of Christ lii or the xii th of Claudius II. I have already several times observed that the Jews were neither so formidable as our Author thought nor the Christians so perfectly set free from persecution by their destruction throughout all the parts of the Roman Empire so as that those who dwelt in Greece found the Heathens more favourable to them after the overthrow of Jerusalem and the excision of the Jews III. I do not easily believe what Eusebius says about the journey of Simon Magus to Rome nor St. Peter's contest with him which seems to be all taken ex Clementinis and out of Justin the former being a feigned History and Justin having run into a mistake through his ignorance in the Latin Tongue as learned Men have long ago observed I wonder our Author in this discerning Age in Quo pueri nasum Rhinocerotis habent should build his Interpretation upon such rotten and nauseous Fables But he produces you will say the Testimonies of Eusebius and St. Jerom and Orosius But this is but one Witness all this while because the two latter only transcribed Eusebius and the single Authority of Eusebius is not much to be regarded because he often affirms things without considering whether they are true or false and some that are manifestly feigned It 's true Justin makes mention of the Statue of Simon in his Apology commonly called the Second but he says nothing at all about St. Peter's Conflict or Victory over him which he would never have omitted if that had been the general opinion of those times because it might be made very great use of against the Heathens whom he upbraids with deifying Simon Irenaeus also mentions the Statue in Lib. 1. c. 20. but says nothing about the contest That was but an invention of the false Clement which other rashly received for truth There being very few if any Historical Records in the first Age excepting the Acts of the Apostles Men that had nothing else to do misemployed their wits in devising Fables which the injudiciousness of Posterity has almost made it a Crime to question the truth of But I am sorry to find Dr. Hammond should so easily give Credit to these Trifles CHAP. I. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are a few things which it may not be amiss to remark upon this Chapter tho Dr. Hammond has passed it over without any Annotations contenting himself to express what he thought to be the meaning of it in his Paraphrase Grotius explaining these words tells us that the Apostle non nominat hic Presbyteros Diaconos quia recens erat Ecclesia nec dum formam plenam acceperat does not name here Presbyters and Deacons because the Church of Thessalonica had been but lately gathered and not yet formed into a regular Church But if this reason be good none of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote except that of Philippi were regularly formed Churches because there is no mention made of Church-Governors Bishops and Deacons in the inscriptions of any of the Epistles but to the Philippians But who will believe that the Ephesian and Corinthian Churches in which St. Paul had for a great while resided were not yet so constituted as to have Rectors in them and yet that the Church of Philippi in which he made a shorter stay had Of the Church of Ephesus the contrary appears from Acts xx 17 28. and of the Corinthian by the Epistles themselves written to that Church So that there must be another reason given for St. Paul's not making mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Inscriptions of all his Epistles And that which seems to me the most probable is that the Governors of the Primitive Churches were modest humble Men who were unwilling to have themselves distinguished from the rest of the People in the front of St. Paul's Epistles that they might not appear to pretend to any magisterial Authority but to look upon themselves only as Ministers instituted for the sake of Order and Christian Society There are a great many signs of this especially in the Epistles to the Corinthians in which the Governors of the Churches of Achaia are no where order'd to use any Authority in the Administration of their Office or in curbing evil Men who broke the Order of the Church St. Paul every where speaks to whole Churches never to the Governors of them apart from the People However I would not be thought
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
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.
entertain and we to sup with him that entertains us The meaning of this figurative Expression is that if any one in this life with that sincerity which he ought embraces the Christian Religion he shall be received by Christ into the Mansions of eternal Happiness Our Author did not understand this place CHAP. IV. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Vision as almost all the rest has many things in it resembling the Visions of the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostle often uses Words and Phrases borrowed from them for the manner of God's revealing himself to men was to use Phrases to which they were accustomed rather than any other And so because the Christians were used to the reading of the Old Testament God describes future things under the New by the same Images and Expressions by which he had represented them to the antient Prophets This every one must have in his eye that undertakes to explain these Prophecies that by the accomplishment of the antient Predictions he may judg of the New which if he does not he will be apt to fall into very great mistakes For instance we read this Prophecy in Joel ii 30 31. I will shew wonders in the heavens above and wonders in the earth beneath blood and fire and vapour of smoke The Sun shall be turned into darkness and the Moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord come Whoever should understand these words properly and according to the present way of speaking would be mightily deceived and ready to think that they were yet to be fulfilled But St. Peter in Acts ii has told us that they are to be understood figuratively of a spiritual change which the Gospel was to make in the earth And so when we read the like in this Book we must have a care of thinking that the changes which are described as future both in Heaven and Earth before some things here foretold came to pass were really and literally to be accomplished Ibid. Note b. If it were certain that the privileges of Metropolitans were known in that age that the Apostles sat in a lower place than the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Christians at that time were as observant of that external order as they were afterwards Dr. Hammond's conjecture might be born But now to speak in the softest terms all those things being uncertain it will not easily be believed by judicious persons that St. John here alludes to the Church of Jerusalem rather than any other Assembly Vers 4. Note c. The Sanhedrim of the Jews sat in the form of a half circle as is largely shewn by Mr. Selden de Synedriis lib. ii c. 6. and the Head of the Council in the middle seat And hence I rather think that the form of the heavenly Council represented to St. John was taken both because the Sanhedrim was an Assembly of Judges and because it is not certain that in the Apostles times Christians meeting together secretly and in a private house did so carefully observe that order in sitting Our Author often takes it for undoubted that the customs of the second or third Century or also later Ages were Apostolical which he ought not to have done Of the Episcopal seat in Churches see Beveridge his Notes on Can. xi of the first Nicene Council Ibid. Note d. I. Our Author before in Note on v. 2. rejected their opinion who thought this Image of a Court presented to St. John was taken from the Great Sanhedrim because the number was not in both the same and it is strange he was not afraid lest it should be objected to him that it was altogether as unallowable to feign a certain number of Bishops without the authority of antient Records But tho this Image be said to be taken from the Great Sanhedrim it is not necessary there should be a perfect similitude between them But you will say why are there only four and twenty and not lxxii here represented as sitting in Council If I should say I don't know Dr. Hammond's conjecture will not be therefore at all more probable But it may be said that to describe this Court four and twenty Heads of the priestly Order were chosen out of the Sanhedrim because they were in a special manner consecrated to God besides that the Priests only were of divine institution not the rest of the members of the Sanhedrim II. The High Priests of the Jews cannot be said to have worn golden Mitres because they were made of linen and had no gold belonging to them but only a thin plate hanging over the Forehead See my Note on Exod. xxviii 4 Much less do I think there is any respect here had to the Mitres of Bishops which I no more imagin to have been in that age than the rest of the ornaments at this day used by them They had the thing then without the Ornaments and now we have the Ornaments without the thing Vers 5. Note e. I see here nothing that looks like a respect to the Deacons of the Church of Jerusalem unless it be the number of seven which seems rather to be taken from the number of Lamps used in the Sanctuary and that was otherwise common in holy Solemnities among the Jews and other Nations See my Notes on Exod. xxix 29 and Levit. xiv 7 Vers 6. Note f. I. It is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the former part because where the discourse is about men to be in the midst of them is all one as to be before them The places in the Acts are in vain alledged for in them it is not properly the middle part or centre that is signified by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor properly the former or hinder part but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simply before the rest or among the rest in Acts i. 15 and iv 7 for in the other places those words are not found So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here will not signify behind II. The Interpreter our Author confutes is H. Grotius who interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly over against the midst of the Throne placing one living Creature upon the steps before the Throne and another behind which is much more probable because he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in vers 4. according to Dr. Hammond's own Opinion Yet I had rather place two living Creatures before the Throne not on the Steps but even with the ground over against the middle of the Throne and two on the sides for this reason because afterwards in Chap. v. 6 it is said that a Lamb stood in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the Elders by which it appears that there was some space between the Throne and the living Creatures From this place our Author disputes indeed against Grotius but so as it appears that he did
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