my thoughts concerning the beginning of St. John's Gospel publickly known I have so confuted Socinus as yet sufficiently to intimate that I intend not to publish any Theological Disputations about those things in which I disagree with him and have expresly said so in a former Preface to these Animadversions For that reason I have not affirmed that the Father Son and Holy Ghost do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same manner but that each has his peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor was I under any obligation to do so from the thing it self for Philo to whom St. John seems to have had a respect in the beginning of this his Gospel did not deny that the Father the first begotten Son and the Soul of the World had their several distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Evangelist corrects only what that Alexandrian Philosopher said concerning Reason or the Son Some have been disgusted with my rendering the Greek word which is usually translated Word or Sermo discourse by Reason But I intreat them first throughly to consider the Reasons I have given for that rendring of it and then to remember that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in it self ambiguous and may as well be translated Reason as Word And tho this latter signification obtained in the West because of the unskilfulness of the old Latin Interpreter or if you please the poverty of the Latin Language yet the Greek Fathers do shew when they treat of this matter that they understood Reason by it no less than Word see Dion Petav. Dogm Theolog. T. 2. Lib. 6. c. 1. Nay the Latin Fathers also themselves who examined the Greek word made use of by St. John do acknowledg that we ought rather to understand Reason by it than what the Latins call Verbum when they say that they do not understand by it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum prolatum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insitum or an internal not an external word for what is an internal word but Reason or reasoning Besides the whole Christian Church both Greek and Latin do frequently confound the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom which is the same with Reason but vastly different from a word uttered or pronounced So that tho I have receded in some measure from the custom of the Latins as to the sound yet not at all as to the thing it self If any object that the word Reason signifies rather a Quality than a Substance let them shew me that the term Word is any fitter than that to signify a Substance and I engage to revoke publickly all that I have said But if any one think he may make use of an improper word because it was generally used by the Latin and those unlearned men let him give me leave to make use of one that is altogether as proper because it was constantly used by the most learned Greek Fathers In the mean time let him permit me to intend by the word Reason that which if he were asked the meaning of the term Word he would be forced to express by internal discourse i. e. reasoning And lastly let him hear what Tertullian says in Lib. adversus Praxeam Cap. 5. where he discourses thus Ceterum ne tunc quidem solus Deus nempe erat habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis etiam Deus Ratio in ipso priùs ita ab ipso omnia Quae Ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis i. e. imperitiam interpretandi Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis Rationem competat antiquiorem haberi quia non Sermonalis à principio sed Rationales Deus etiam ante principium quia ipse quoque sermo Ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suam ostendat c. But neither then was he alone viz. God for he had with him his Reason which he had within himself God is Rational also and Reason was before in him and so all things were of him Which Reason is his Sense This the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word also we use to signify Sermo And therefore it is become the common custom among us through a simplicity of interpretation i. e. an unskilfulness in interpreting to say that Discourse Sermo was in the beginning with God whereas it would be more proper to say that Reason was so which is more antient because God was in the beginning not sermonal but rational even before the beginning and because Discourse it self depending upon Reason does shew that to be prior to it as its substance c. CHAP. I. SOME who have joined the study of the Heathen Philosophy with the Profession of the Jewish or Christian Religion have took upon them to teach a great many things concerning the Divine REASON LIFE and LIGHT and the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God which they have inculcated upon their Disciples as points of Faith of the greatest moment And because what they have asserted is neither all true nor all false that we may know what we are to reject and what we are to admit of I shall in few words set down that which is agreeable to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ before I enter upon his History Verse 1. In the beginning was REASON and that REASON was with GOD and GOD was that REASON 1. It is true before the Creation of the World there was REASON for REASON was then in GOD yea GOD himself since God cannot be without REASON 2. The same was in the beginning with GOD. 2. There was I say REASON in GOD before the World was created 3. All things were made by it and without it was not any thing made that was made 3. For every thing in the World was made with the highest REASON nor can any one thing be instanced in that was created without REASON 4. In it was LIFE and this LIFE was the LIGHT of Men. 4. Heretofore was lodged only in this REASON a full and complete knowledg of the way that leads to Eternal LIFE and this Knowledg wanted only to be communicated to Men to be a sufficient LIGHT to guide them in their pursuit after that LIFE 5. And the LIGHT shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not 5. And now that LIGHT has been brought down upon Earth amongst Men and has shined for many years past upon the way that leads to LIFE but the greatest part of Mankind chuse rather to wander in the darkness of Ignorance than to make use of that LIGHT 6. There was a Man sent by God his name was John 7. The same came for a Witness to bear witness of the LIGHT that all Men through him might believe 6 7. John the Son of Zacharias was sent by
there are a great many such like Orders in Cod. Theodos where the Jews are not mentioned See the Collections of Sam. Petitus in the place before cited 'T is oftner than once that Dr. Hammond either adds or diminishes the sayings of the Antients which he thought by being a little changed would better illustrate the Writings of the New Testament But yet I do not believe he did it designedly who was so good a Man and so great a lover of Truth but rather was misled by others who were not so faithful as they should have been in their Citations Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true indeed that the Consuls and Pretors wore Gowns of divers colours or such as were used in Triumphs when they made any publick Shows as has been shewn by Oct. Ferrarius Part ii Lib. 2. cap. 8. but that which is respected here is the Custom of Kings who thought it lawful for no body to wear Purple Robes but themselves Thus it is observed by Hirtius cap. lvii de Bello Africano Cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante Regis adventum uti solitus esset dicitur Juba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem uti vestitu atque ipse uteretur Scipio using to wear a Purple Coat before the King's arrival they say that Juba reproved him and told him that he ought not to wear the same Garment that he wore About this sort of Robe called Chlamys consult Ferrarius Vers 34. Note f. Tho it be very true what our Author observes concerning the abuse of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Translation of the Septuagint yet he perfectly forces the place which he cites out of Rev. xiv 10 as the Reader would easily have perceived if he had set it all down For these are the words The same shall drink of the Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Wrath of God which is mixed with pure Wine in the cup of his Anger See Isa li. 17 Vers 44. Note h. I confess that this latter Interpretation carries no repugnancy in it but yet it has not the least shadow of likelihood For who can conceive that a wicked wretch who had just before reviled Christ should be so changed in a moment of time as to acknowledg him to be the Messias Yes they say because it was effected by a secret divine Power But who reveal'd this to them The Evangelists say no such thing It is much more likely that Thieves being many times punish'd not only for Crimes which they have lately committed but also for old ones this Man had already had some knowledg of Christ and repented and believed on him before he was cast into Prison and then being afterwards apprehended and convicted of Theft was crucified by the Romans without any regard had to his Repentance I do by no means therefore think that this Thief railed at Christ Nor do I think that St. Matthew spake figuratively when he said Thieves for Thief It is a meer Impropriety as the Examples cited by our Author shew to which add those words in Chap. ii 20 where speaking of Herod's being dead it is said they are dead that sought the young Child's Life Vers 15. Note i. I. Whether any such Earthquake is mentioned by Macrobius I do not know but there is mention made of it in Tacitus Annal. lib. 2. cap. 47. and Suetonius in Tiber. cap. 48. See Interpreters upon the place II. Since our Author reckons the Tombs amongst the parts of the Temple he had done well to tell us what persons were ever buried in that Mountain upon which the Temple stood for nothing being more unclean according to the Jewish Statutes than a Sepulchre which polluted those that went over them as has been observed upon Chap. xxiii 27 it is too strange to be true that there were any Sepulchres in a place of the greatest Sanctity I know St. Jerom in Catal. Script Ecclesiast tells us this of St. James who was thrown down by the Jews from the Pinacle of the Temple out of Hegesippus Juxta Templum ubi praecipitatus fuerat sepultus est Titulum usque ad obsidionem Titi ultimam Hadriani notissimum habuit He was buried near the Temple and in the place where he had been thrown down and had a Monument erected for him which continued famous to the siege of Titus and the last of Hadrian Hegesippus's Testimony is extant in Eusebius's Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 23. But this very thing renders the History suspicious as has been well remarked by H. Valesius to pass by others that have very little appearance of truth in them CHAP. XXVIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is well interpreted by our Author of a concussion in the Air for in the Septuagint also the Whirlwind by which Elijah was caught up into Heaven is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King xi 11 So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Storm a Whirlwind And thus the Latins also say coelum tonitru concuti to signify the concussion that is made in the Air when it thunders Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by Baptism make them the Disciples of Father Son and Holy Ghost and willing to be so called For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make Disciples and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be baptized that we may be called by that name The Jews might have bin called the Disciples of the Father because they professed themselves his Disciples the Apostles before they had received the Holy Ghost and the rest of Christ's Disciples might properly have bin called the Disciples of the Father and the Son but those who were afterwards baptized by the Apostles were the Disciples of the Father as revealing his Will in the Old Testament and of the Son as speaking in the Gospels and of the Holy Ghost as more clearly explaining the Precepts of the Father and Son by the Apostles The Hebrew Phrase for this would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they were baptized that they might be called by their name That this is the true importance of this form of Speech may appear by 1 Cor. i. 12 and seqq where the Corinthians saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ i. e. calling themselves their Disciples and as it were distinguishing themselves from one another by the names of their several Masters or Teachers Paul says Were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius lest any should say that I had baptized IN MY NAME that is that ye might be called my Disciples and distinguished from others by the Title of Paulites So in the Writings of the Rabbins to be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of Servitude is for the Person so baptized to become a Servant and to take that name upon him And on the contrary
the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diogenes said That he that would be saved must either have good Friends or furious Enemies For Diogenes who was a despiser of Riches and all those things that related to the Body considered nothing but the safety of the Mind I have met with several other Examples to the same purpose which I cannot at present remember but these are more than enough CHAP. XIV Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius upon this place and how he corrects St. Austin for his most shameful abuse of it for it deserves to be called no better And yet there are some that resolve still to follow St. Austin contrary to all the rules of Grammar the nature of the Christian Religion and common Sense it self Nay there is a late Enthusiastical upstart a contemptible Woman's follower that has foolishly attempted to skim over and defend St. Austin's Opinion tho he either never read him or never understood him and he every where falls foul upon the Criticks for not interpreting the words of Scripture according to the wild fancies of crackbrain'd Women but according to the nature of things themselves and the constant use of Languages But this Passage alone is enough to shew us of what advantage Grammar or if you please Criticism is to the right interpretation of Scripture seeing St. Austin who was otherwise a very ingenious man but an absolute stranger to this sort of Learning did so wretchedly force and misinterpret this Passage and make use of it to defend the most cruel Opinion imaginable Add to what Grotius has said upon this place my Notes upon Gen. xix 13 If there were any sort of force here intended it must be that which God makes use of by his severe and afflictive Providences which do often constrain as it were wicked men to live better than they did before tho gentler methods had been ineffectual to reform them There is an elegant Passage and a true one if we do but change the word Gods into God to this purpose in Aeschylus in Agamemn not far from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even the unwilling have grown wise by force through a particular favour of the Gods who sit in a venerable Seat But whatever God does doubtless men ought not to force their fellow Creatures to be of their Perswasion Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because Proverbs and proverbial forms of Speech are commonly grounded upon what is really done when the matter of them is something possible I have been ready sometimes to imagin that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not to be understood of Salt properly speaking because that which is here said of Salt neither does nor ever can happen to it For First Salt is never infatuated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Salt which keeps its savour is not fit either for the Land or for the Dunghil Thirdly When it is infatuated it is not CAST OVT What if we should suppose therefore that Wood-ashes was by the Husbandmen called Salt They it 's certain are 1. infatuated if they are washed or soak'd in Water as it happens when they are made use of for the cleansing of foul Linen And 2. after they have been thus soaked in water they are unfit to be used as a means to enrich the ground either alone or mixed with dung because it was only the Salt that was in them before their being so soaked which made them proper for that purpose And if they be spread upon the Land before the Salt is washed out they serve very much to make it fruitful either by themselves or else mixed with dung And 3. when they are infatuated that is when all the Salt Particles are washed out of them they used rather to be cast out into the way or street than upon a dunghil or the fields But I confess I can produce no Example to shew that these Wood-ashes were called Salt and therefore I affirm nothing peremptorily But let the Learned consider what there may be in this Conjecture CHAP. XV. Vers 16. Note b. OF this Fruit Salmasius hath treated at large in his Exercit. Plin. in Solin p. 326. seqq Ed. Vltraj who may be consulted by those that are curious about such matters However it is no where said by Pliny that this Fruit was ordinary among the Egyptians nay on the contrary he denies as Theophrastus had done before him that it grew in Egypt Lib. 13. c. 8. but affirms that it was common in Syria so that in this also our Author is mistaken Consult Salmasius Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 H. Grotius thinks that as we ought not to be superstitious in searching for Allegories in every part of a Parable so neither ought we to overlook them when they are suggested by the agreement of what is said in Parables with other places of Scripture And therefore if we believe him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Robe here signifies that constant innocency of Life which by God's Grace a Person who has receiv'd so much mercy from him is enabled to persevere in And for this he refers us to Rev. vi 11 vii 13 14. xix 8 Now I do not indeed deny but that a white Robe is taken sometimes for an Emblem of Innocence but I say that there is nothing said of that here and that the bestowing of the precious Robe signifies the Father's Joy for the return of his Son so that we are not to consider the Robe in it self but only the Father's Affection in giving it He tells us also as the Antients have done before him that by the Ring we are to understand the Gift of the Holy Ghost by which we are sealed as the Apostle Paul speaks 2 Cor. i. 21 But this part of the Parable likewise is only a farther description of the Father's Joy for the safe return of his prodigal Son whom he thought to have been lost and mourned upon that account And to represent this Joy to us Christ makes use of Similitudes taken from the received custom for at that time a Superior could not confer a greater Honour upon his Inferior than by bestowing a Ring and a Robe upon him Of which we have an Example in Gen. xli 42 See my Notes on the place The best way therefore had been to look only to the main scope of the Parable which is sufficiently plain and not to insist upon the significancy of every particular word For whatsoever may be said of that kind tho not altogether frivolous is certainly besides Christ's design and has no other foundation than the ingenious fancy of the Interpreter But that learned Expositor had put almost all the principal Observations which he had to make upon the three first Gospels in his Notes upon St. Matthew and therefore he could not be large upon the two following and sometimes that he might not be wholly
only that he understood the words of the 8 th Verse of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so clearly demonstrated by Mr. Simon that a Man must be very obstinate after reading his reasons to assert the contrary Our Author produces a place out of Tertullian in Lib. Contra Praxeam without adding the Chapter or Page which is a very bad Custom in a thing especially of such great Moment So that I was forced to read the greatest part of that Book to find out the place which is in Cap. xxv p. 515. of the Paris Ed. An. 1675. But Tertullian has not a respect to this place in the 1 st Epistle of St. John but to John x. 30 For these are his words Connexus Patris in Filio Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero qui tres unum sunt non unus quomodo dictum est ego pater unum sumus ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem The conjunction of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Comforter makes three cleaving together one upon another which three are unum one thing not unus one as it is said I and my Father are unum one thing as to unity of Substance not as to singularity of number He no where alledges this place in 1 John which yet in that disputation he ought to have alledged if it had been read at that time as it is now seeing he often alledges the place in John x. which is not so express to his purpose Praxeas was of the opinion of Sabellius or Photinus who thought that there was but one Person in the Godhead so that perhaps he might have abused this place in St. John and so have alledged it or if this place had been thought to be contrary to him it would have been alledged against him St. Jerom's name is prefixed indeed to the Preface to the Catholick Epistles but that it is not his Preface has been shewn by Mr. Simon in the 2 d Part of his Critical History of the New Testament c. ix and the Benedictine Monks who have lately begun to set forth the Works of St. Jerom at Paris tho very great Adversaries to Father Simon have confirmed his Arguments so that they seem to have stopped the Mouth of Obstinacy it self which Dr. Hammond also would have acknowledged Si foret hoc nostrum fato dilatus in aevum If he had lived to this day As for St. Ambrose it is not without intolerable Negligence that his words are not set down because Dr. Hammond knew that he would not be believed in this matter But really there is no where any such thing in the true St. Ambrose And if such a fault had been committed by F. Socinus our Author would not have spared him so easily as he forgave himself V. He would have done much better towards the confirmation of the Truth to adhere only to the Scripture and not to recur to the Fathers whose opinion was quite different from that which is now received as who properly speaking affirmed that there were three consubstantial Gods as has been shewn by Dyon Petavius Steph. Curcellaeus Dr. Cudworth and others Our Author had read the Fathers upon this Head with a mind full of Prejudice as it is very common for Persons to do and with little care as appears by the choice of places which he produces I should not think it safe to cite Clemens upon the Authority of St. Basil because he might have taken the alledged words out of an Apocryphal and supposititious writing of Clemens of which kind there were a great many of old and are some still at this day For it is notorious that the Antients neglecting all the rules of Criticks often confounded supposititious Writings with genuin And our Author imitates them whilst he alledges Passages out of the manifestly spurious Writings of Justin Martyr as his or at least as if they were of some moment for why otherwise did he produce them Of the rest I have nothing to say but that Dr. Hammond could not stand by the Faith of the Fathers which he cites who to speak the truth were Tritheists rather than assertors of the present Opinion For they believed the unity of Substance not the singularity of number as Tertullian speaks that is that the substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost was specifically one but numerically three as the learned Men I before mention'd have clearly shewn and might much more largely be demonstrated Those that do not think fit to anathematize the Fathers ought also to be charitable to other erroneous persons for a great many reasons to every one obvious Besides whoever considers these things seriously will not be so apt to boast of the consent of Antiquity or complain so loudly of Hereticks as Dr. Hammond here does who I believe acted therein sincerely but without due consideration and not very much like a Christian which I do not speak out of a censorious Humor but only by way of Admonition Vers 16. Note c. I. I rather think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Metaphor taken from Diseases which are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are mortal as appears from John xi 4 I wonder Dr. Hammond sets down St. John's words as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when all Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not that false reading induce him to seek here for Excommunication II. I don't know why our Author makes mention here of the Prayers of the Church when the Apostle speaks of this matter so as to mention nothing about the Church or its Governors The Power of the Keys which was too much in the Doctor 's thoughts made him look for those things which belong to it even where there is no footstep of them Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in the Margin of the English Translation remarks that the Alexandrian Copy adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Vulgar Interpreter also read And indeed if it be omitted it must be understood See Grotius on this place Vers 21. Note d. But I don't know why the Idols of the Heathens themselves may not here be understood whose Worship the Christians were no less obliged to beware of than the Idolatry of the Simonians Nay there was a much greater care necessary to be taken in order to keep themselves from the worship of the Heathens because Heathens had the government of the World and compelled the Christians by Torments to join with them in their Idolatry whereas the followers of Simon had no Authority either in the Roman Empire or elsewhere ANNOTATION ON THE Second Epistle of St. John Vers 1. Note a. I Wish our Author had given us better reasons for thinking that some of the Primitive Christian Churches had a twofold Bishop one a Jew and the other a Gentile For I can see a great many Objections to which that supposition is
Interpretation of it which is generally unknown and for the most part ridiculous We must enquire what notion such a word used to excite in the minds of those that heard it not what signification some doting Stoick that thinks every thing to be intended in Fables that his own idle fancy suggests to him affixed to it III. But it will be said that the Etymology of the word is on Phurnutus and Dr. Hammond's side And I acknowledg it is so if that be the true Etymology of it which may with reason be doubted because the word whose original we are inquiring into is almost every where written with a Spiritus asper which is not usual in words compounded with α Privative I confess that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also written with a Spiritus lenis but this not being constant it is probable that the former is the true pronunciation of the word and that the manner of writing it was varied for no other reason than because the Greeks afterwaâ—ds thought that to be the true Etymology of the word which Dr. Hammond gives us So the Author of the Etymologicon magnum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But with all the Greek Grammarians leave I should say that this is not the true Etymology of the word but that it must be deduced from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be pronounced not only as the Authors of the Masora do ed but ajid The Phoenicians perhaps wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is common for the guttural Letters to be confounded in the Oriental Languages and as the Arabians at this day write it and so from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hajid came haïdes and hades and that word as it is very well known signifies destruction There are a great many words that the Greeks have in vain attempted to find the original of in their Language and which have with good success been derived by learned men from the Phoenicians I could shew why the youngest of Saturn's Sons was so called and assign the reason of the Names of the rest of them out of the same Language but this is not a proper place for it IV. I cannot see the reason why our learned Author citing Esth xii 7 will not allow the Heathen King Artaxerxes a Decree of whose is in that Chapter recited to have had any thoughts of Hell or a place of punishments That heathen King says he cannot be thought to dream of Hell For who does not know that the Heathens believed there was a place under the earth in which bad men were punished 'T is plain the Greeks did and I need not prove the Persians to have been of the same opinion for he that wrote the Additions to Esther was not so well skill'd in the sentiments of the Persians but that he might confound them with those of the Greeks Or however there is nothing that should oblige us to think that as to this matter the opinion of the Greeks and Persians was not the very same Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not as much as to say in English to Hell or in French en enfer for these words do only signify the place of punishments whereas the Greek are more comprehensive and take in not only Hell or the place of Torments but likewise the Elysian fields V. One question there is behind that is not easy to be resolved viz. what notion the Jews who used the Greek Tongue affixed to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not heap together all that might be said with relation to this matter Two things only I shall observe that may help us to find out the meaning of Christ's words 1. That the Jews had a word in their Language which signified a grave any subterraneous places and the State of the dead and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scheol which I have treated of on Gen. xxxvii 35 and which upon all accounts it seems likely that Christ here made use of The Syriack I am sure has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now when this word is opposed to Heaven it signifies among the Hebrews the lowest places of the earth and where Heaven is by a metaphor taken for Glory and Prosperity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes obscurity and adversity Thus Isai xiv 11 12. it is said in this sense of the King of Babylon thy pride is brought down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how art thou fallen from Heaven c. And just in this manner Christ here speaks to Capernaum and uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense with Isaiah for a miserable and low condition as he had before used the word Heaven to express the happy State of that City whilst he preached and wrought Miracles in it 2. Amongst the rest of the senses attributed to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Jews who spake the Greek Language all which I shall not enumerate there was that which I said belonged to the Hebrew word instead of which they generally used this Which appears clearly from hence that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were in their speech synonimous Thus whereas it is said by St. Peter that it was impossible for Christ to be left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. ii 27 St. Paul says that he descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. iv 9 And in this sense St. Matthew or his Interpreter in the room of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ made use of has used the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be true as it is likely almost all that our Author says upon this place must of necessity fall to the ground To the other places of the New Testament where this word is found I shall say something when I come to them Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Verse must be joined to the 25 that Christ may be understood to declare to the Jews as well as Gentiles that notwithstanding their professed eagerness after divine knowledg the true Worship of God his Father and the offices of the Messias were things that they were strangers to For the Jews imagined that the observation of the letter of the Law rendered them acceptable to God whilst they neglected the purpose of the Law-giver which was to make them truly vertuous in the manner that Christ alone has taught us to be And they expected also the Messias to come in the quality of an earthly Prince and free them from that extream bondage which they were under to the Romans So that they neither knew the Father nor the Son Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are to understand this only of the Jews who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were tired by reason of the frequent journies that the Law obliged them to make to Jerusalem and which they took for fear of offending God tho not without a great deal of trouble The design of Christ is to insinuate to the Jews without
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
God to the Jews to shew them in whom that LIGHT resided and by bearing witness to him openly to induce them to believe on him 8. He was not the LIGHT but was sent to bear witness of the LIGHT 8. But John had not this LIGHT in himself nor was it the end of his Coming to make Men partakers of that LIGHT but only by his Testimony to procure Credit and Authority to him who had that LIGHT among the Jews 9. That LIGHT was the true LIGHT which came into the World and lightneth every Man 9. In that Man and no other resided this LIGHT which in the most excellent Sense deserves only to be so called and which now shines among Men so that every one who will but follow this Light may be sure of being brought to eternal LIFE 10. REASON was in the World and the World was made by it but the World knew it not 10. And he in whom that LIGHT was conversed for some time among Men but they notwithstanding their having been created by the Divine REASON which dwelt in that Man did not distinguish him from false Teachers 11. It came to its own but it s own received it not 11. Nay he lived amongst those who alone were called the People and Children of God and yet they did not know the Doctrin of their God 12. But to as many as received it it gave power to become the Sons of God even to them that believe on its Name 12. But all that embraced his Divine Revelations were thereupon made God's People and taken tho they were not Jews into the number of his Children 13. Who were born not of Blood nor of the will of the Flesh nor of the will of Man but of God 13. Tho they were neither Jews by Birth nor by Marriages nor Proselytes yet God was pleased freely to honour them with that Title 14. And that REASON was made Flesh and dwelt among us we beheld its Glory the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father full of Grace and Truth 14. That REASON which I before spake of and asserted to have been with GOD from the beginning yea to have been GOD himself and in which was LIFE and the LIGHT of Men did not always as I said conceal it self from us but by the Man in whom it was became conspicuous and dwelt for some time among us We saw the majesty of the Divine REASON which was never before beheld discovering it self in that Man as it became him who is the SON of God not in that manner that we are but in a manner peculiar and proper to himself alone That Eternal REASON made it self visible and manifest to us in him and shewed it self Merciful and Gracious to us 15. John bare witness of him and cried saying This was he of whom I spake He that is to come after me is preferred before me because he was before me 15. John bare witness concerning this Man openly and declared him to be the Person whom he had described in these words He that is to come after me shall be greater than I. 16. And of his Fulness have we all received and Grace for Grace 16. From that Knowledg wherewith the divine REASON hath MOST FULLY enlightned that Man all the Knowledg that every one of us have is derived and by him we are assured that the Mercy and Goodness of God to us is such as that for all the GRACE and Favour which he resolved to shew us and those great Benefits which flow from his Love towards us he requires nothing in return but a GRATEFUL Mind 17. For the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ 17. For whereas Moses published Laws in which he imposed most grievous and burdensom Rites upon the Jews and threatned with Death those who did not punctually observe them Jesus who is the true CHRIST and in whom the Divine REASON resides came to assure us of the Goodness and Mercy of God in pardoning all our past Sins and easing us of that intolerable Mosaical Yoke 18. No Man hath seen God at any time the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON which is in the bosom of the Father has been his Interpreter 18. Before that Will or Purpose of God was not fully uuderstood by any but he of whom I spake the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD who was singularly and peculiarly beloved by his Father was sent by God to declare it to us BEFORE I come to enquire severally into the sense of the words here made use of by the Evangelist I must endeavour to ascertain some things on which the Interpretation I shall afterwards give of them will in a great measure depend As first I shall examin whether this Gospel as I my self think it is and all the Antients universally almost affirm be justly attributed to the Apostle John there being some in our Age who treading in the steps of the antient Alogi a sort of Hereticks so called and described by Epiphanius in Haeres 51. endeavour to bring that opinion into question Secondly I shall enquire into the time when it was written And lastly where St. John writ it and what was the occasion and design of his beginning his Gospel in this manner 1. That the Apostle JOHN was the Writer of this Gospel the Antients do universally as I said affirm whose Testimony in a matter of this nature cannot by any one be rendered invalid unless he can plainly make it appear that the Antients were all mistaken and shew us at the same time the occasion and original of their mistake For to justify our dissent from the most antient Christian Writers who saw the Disciples of St. John and testify that they heard this affirmed by them and to charge the Christian Churches of that Age with Error who read this Gospel as the genuin product of the Apostle John it is not sufficient to propose some slight conjectures or shew a Metaphysical possibility if I may so speak of their erring But to make it credible that they were all really mistaken and that so soon after St. John's death there must be those evident proofs given of their mistake as none of the weighty reasons I shall hereafter alledg can be thought sufficient to cope with For it is absurd against most probable Arguments and such as in another case we should acquiesce in to object bare suspicions or conjectures which have not the least appearance of likelihood in them and prefer these to the former merely because the opinion which we have espoused and are resolved to maintain makes it necessary for us to think that those conjectures are of great weight It is just as if one that was accused of writing bad Latin upon comparing and examining it with Livy's who was certainly a very clean Writer should therefore begin to doubt whether the History which goes under Livy's name and which all the Antients with one consent attribute to him were really his and proposing some very
slight conjectures against it should think he had rendered the Authority of that History questionable and because it might possibly have been written by some other pretend that no body ought to produce any testimony out of it ever after And yet this they do who as I understand go about to rob the Apostle John of that Gospel which has always been reckoned his as I shall briefly shew by producing some of the most antient Testimonies to that purpose which are well enough known already to learned Men but it may be not so well to those for whose sake I now write who seldom spend much time in reading the Writings of the Antients The first Testimony I shall mention and the most antient of all is at the end of St. John's Gospel it self Chap. xxi 24 where after a Prediction delivered by Christ concerning the great Age that St. John should live to it is immediately added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. THIS is the Disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things and we KNOW that his Testimony is true We may read what Grotius says in his Notes on Chap. xx 29 and Dr. Hammond on this place it self Where those great men have shewn that this is the Testimony of the Church of Ephesus whereby it appears that from the very first this Gospel was thought to be the Apostle John's even by those who lived and conversed with him which is a certain evidence of its being genuine because this Testimony was given by Persons who lived at the time when it was written and might certainly know who was the Author of it Nor let any one say that this Testimony or this whole Chapter was an addition put in by some other a considerable time afterwards for it is read in all the Copies and all Interpreters acknowledg it Another proof of this may be taken out of Justin Martyr who when a Child might perhaps have seen St. John himself And he in that Apology which is commonly called his second and which he presented to Antoninus Pius in the year of Christ 140. where he describes the sacred Assemblies of the Christians says that in them were read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commentaries of the Apostles pag. 98. Ed. Paris Colon. By which he means the Gospels as appears by what he says a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostles in their Commentaries which are called the Gospels c. And tho he does not very often cite the Apostles words themselves in those Writings of his which are extant yet he frequently alludes to them and particularly to the beginning of St. John's Gospel from whence he took what he says in several places about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Incarnation and which he every where sets down as points of Faith generally received among Christians Which he durst not to have done unless he had relied upon the Authority of the Apostles for who among the Orthodox would have presumed first to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was commonly abused by the Valentinians and others at that time Who would have ventured to make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might easily by bad or unwary men have been perverted to a wrong sense unless an Apostle had first used it It belonged only to the Apostles who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspectors of Mysteries and not to the ordinary sort of Mystae to use new words in such kind of matters for they alone might safely impose new names upon things above the reach of human understanding who understood them better than others and so as none ever did without a particular Inspiration I know indeed this was not observed in later times but in those first it unquestionably was Now Justin frequently makes mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all know that have but occasionally read any thing in his Writings I shall produce only one or two passages out of the forementioned Apology In pag. 74. he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Power next to the Father and Lord of all things God and the Son is the Reason which how it became man by being incarnated I shall afterwards shew And hence pag. 83. he affirms that all mankind who follow the direction of Reason are also partakers of Christ And adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who lived according to reason were Christians tho they were thought to be Atheists as among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them And afterwards pag. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ our Saviour was incarnated by the Reason of God and had both flesh and blood for our Salvation Any body may see that these are manifest allusions to the beginning of this Gospel and none but an Ignoramus will deny it But there are extant also in that Book the express words of Christ as they are related by St. John in Chap. iii. 3 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He cites likewise the Apocalypse as that Apostle's Work in Dial. cum Tryphone which yet many have doubted of tho all agreed as to the Gospel Thirdly Among those who acknowledged the Apostle John to be the Writer of this Gospel I might alledg the Testimony of the Valentinians who as Irenaeus tells us endeavoured to pervert it to their own advantage For they pretended that St. John asserted what they called an Ogdoas Pleromatis in the beginning of his Gospel and thought tho erroneously that he very much confirmed their opinions which makes it evident however that before Irenaeus's time this Gospel was vulgarly reputed to be St. John's See what the Valentinians themselves say in Irenaeus Lib 1. c. 1. p. 36. A fourth Testimony may be taken out of Irenaeus himself who lived almost at the same time with Justin his words I shall afterwards produce to avoid repeating them The last shall be out of Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. who relying on the Authority of former Ages and not merely on his own or of the Age in which he lived speaks in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let his viz. St. John's Gospel which is very well known to all the Churches under Heaven be first acknowledged And about the latter end of the same Chapter he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of St. John ' s Writings besides his Gospel the first of the Epistles is and always was acknowledged without dispute See also Chap. xxv I shall not alledg the Testimonies of any other Writers because it is certain that from Irenaeus's time this was the general opinion and if these Testimonies which I have alledged as one said be not sufficient I know not what is But certain Hereticks whom Epiphanius Haeres 51. seems to have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they denied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same reason rejecting the Authority of all the Antients denied St. John
Being returned from his Banishment tn the Isle of Patmos he composes his Gospel when he was a hundred years old It is no matter to us which of these Oâ—inions be true as long as we are certain that St. John wrote his Gospel about the end of the first Century Epiphanius confessing that St. John wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the ninetieth year of his Age and after his return out of Patmos erroneously makes that to have been in the reign of Claudius as learned Men have observed See his words in Heres Alogorum which is the 51. Sect. 12. III. By these Testimonies it appears that St. John either wrote or published his Gospel at Ephesus which Irenaeus also expresly affirms Lib. 3. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John one of our Lord's Disciples who also leaned upon his Breast and himself published a Gospel dwelling at Ephesus in Asia If it be enquired on what occasion and to what end St. John began his Gospel so as we see he does Irenaeus answers in these words Lib. 3. c. 11. after he had spoken of the other Evangelists St. John the Disciple of our Lord designing to extirpate that error which had been sowed in mens Minds by Cerinthus and a great while before by those that are called Nicolaitans who are a branch of that Heresy which is falsly called Knowledg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence they had the name of Gnosticks that he might confound them and perswade them that there is one God who made all things by his Word c. So that St. John if we believe Irenaeus began his Gospel so as he did on purpose to refute the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Gnosticks as he declares afterwards more at large Eusebius in Hist Eccles Lib. 3. c. 24. affirms that the intention of St. John was to fill up what was wanting in the relation of the other Evangelists In his room I shall substitute St. Jerom who in Catal. Script Eccles has these words Novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium rogatus ab Asiae Episcopis adversus Cerinthum aliósque Haereticos maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse unde compulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edisserere Sed aliam causam hujus scripturae ferunt c. He wrote his Gospel last of all at the desire of the Bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other Hereticks and the Heresy of the Ebionites which began to prevail exceedingly at that time who asserted that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary upon which account also he was forced to declare his Divine Birth But there is another reason likewise given of this writing which is the same I have alledged out of Eusebius and is not to our purpose The same Author in Proaem ad Matthaeum speaks thus Joannes Apostolus Evangelista cum esset in Asia c. St. John the Apostle and Evangelist being in Asia and the Heresies of Cerinthus Ebion and others who denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and whom he also in his Epistle calls Antichrists springing up at that very time he was compelled almost by all the then Bishops of Asia and the Messages of many Churches to write concerning our Saviour's Divinity more particularly Whence it is also related in Church-History that being urged by his Brethren to write he promised that he would provided they would all keep a fast and implore the assistance of God on his behalf which being accordingly performed he was filled with the Holy Ghost and immediately dictated as from Heaven that Proemium In the beginning c. Altho all these Authors had been silent we might easily enough have drawn a conjecture from the thing it self for celebrated Writers and Sects of Hereticks having introduced several Platonick terms into the Jewish and Christian Religion before St. John wrote and the Apostle John being the first Christian Writer that used those terms in a peculiar Sense in the beginning of his Gospel it may be easily conjectured that he alluded to the Doctrin of those Men and that it was his design to teach Christians in what sense those terms might be made use of If the Writings of those antient Hereticks were now extant they would be a great help doubtless to our understanding of this matter but since they are lost we can only make use of their fragments which are extant in Irenaeus the most antient Writer that has related their Opinions There are extant also several Books of the famous Philo Alexandrinus who was contemporary with the Apostles and if we believe some of the Antients familiar with them where the same terms are so often used that I am apt to think St. John has as great a respect to him as the forementioned Hereticks It is certain that all his Writings were published a long while before ever St. John wrote and his eloquence is such that he was justly had in admiration by all who lived in his time and is still read by learned Men with great delight What high Commendations Josephus Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Jerom and others give him I need not say So celebrated a Writer therefore could not be unknown to the Apostle John who dwelt so long at Ephesus in the very eye of Asia That he had been carefully read by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews the great Grotius has observed And therefore being often read by the Christians and having a great many things in him of a near affinity with the Christian Tenets it was possible that many who were taken with his Eloquence might imitate him and mix his Opinions before they were aware with Christianity To prevent which St. John in the beginning of his Gospel made use of those terms which were most likely to impose on the unwary that the Christians might understand in what sense they might be used and how probable this is will by comparing the words of the Apostle with those of Philo sufficiently appear But before I come to that I shall endeavour to strengthen this conjecture by producing some passages out of him parallel to several sayings of Christ himself and his Apostles in this Gospel For the more I shew to be in Philo resembling the Discourses of Christ and his Disciples the more likely it will be that he was frequently read and delighted in by the Christians of that Age and accordingly that St. John had a reference to him in the beginning of his Gospel 1. There is nothing in Christianity that more offends the Jews than our so asserting God to be one as yet to make mention of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose names we are baptized And there is something so like this Tenâ—t in Philo that you would almost think you were reading the words of some Christians He seems indeed to speak more agreeably to the opinion which Arius afterwards espoused than of the Orthodox but he came
to signify a divine Mind or God himself did never mean by it a Nature speaking in the Name of God but only understanding and disposing all things into order Timaeus Locrus a Pythagoraean who perhaps first used this word in his description of the Creation of the World speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before therefore the Heaven was made there were in Reason the Idea and Matter and God the Creator of a better So Epicharmus the Comaedian in his Commonwealth as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. Lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Grotius interprets thus Est humana ratio hanc praeter est divina altera Ratio humana circa vitam victum semet occupat At divina Ratio est artis opifex comes omnibus Edocens ipsos quid usus maxime facto siet Quippe homo non reperit artem sed dat hanc auctor Deus Ipsaque illa humana ratio nata est ex ratione Dei Plato Timaeus's Interpreter and Epicharmus's Imitator in his Timaeus calls likewise the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoning p. 528. Ed. Gen. of Ficinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All this true reasoning of God being reasoned c. But in his Epinomis he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoicks who as Diogenes Laertius tells us in Lib. 7. Sect. 135 136. affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was the same thing which was called God and the Mind and Fate and Jupiter and by a great many other names said also that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in the beginning being the seminal Reason of the World dispose all things The same Author in Sect. 134. says it was the Doctrin of the Stoicks that there were two Principles of all things viz. an Active and a Passive the latter of which was Matter or Substance without any Quality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the former viz. the Active was REASON which was in it and which was GOD for this being eternal out of all that viz. Matter or Passive principle formed every thing And to this Doctrin of the Stoicks Tertullian in Apol. cap. 21. had a respect when he says Apud vestros quoque sapientes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Sermonem atque Rationem constant artificem videri Vniversitatis Hunc enim Zenon determinat factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundem fatum vocari Deum animum Jovis necessitatem omnium rerum It is well known that also among your wise men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Speech and Reason was thought to have been the maker of the Vniverse For this Zeno affirms to have been the Creator who formed and disposed all things and was called Fate and God and the Mind of Jupiter and the Necessity of all things There was no need of joining the word Sermo to Ratio to render the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what place could there be for Speech in the Creation and Disposition of the Universe But there was for Reason and therefore Seneca setting down the Opinion of Plato and the Stoicks makes frequent mention of that as in Ep. 65. Causa autem saith he id est Ratio materiam format quocunque vult versat Quaerimus quid sit causa Ratio faciens id est Deus c. The cause that is Reason formeth Matter and turns or diversities it how it pleases If you ask what is meant by Cause it is Reason creating that is God And in Lib. de Vita Beata cap. 8. he stiles it incorporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex incorporeal Reason the Author of great Works Consult also Philo wherever he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Creation of the World and we shall see that he never understands Speech by it but only Reason See his Book de mundi opificio where he says that it was the intelligible Pattern of the World and had no other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the divine Mind or Reason which disposed those things Other Passages out of him I shall produce afterwards I might alledg also the Testimonies of Modern Platonicks and Ecclesiastical Writers to this purpose but that I have determined to shew only how the Antients used this word The Jews who were more antient than Philo himself called Angels both good and bad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same as if they had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers endued with Reason not with Speech which Philo also imitated So the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. xviii 15 16. speaking of the revenging Angel that was sent against the Egyptians says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thine almighty Reason leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as an inexorable Warrior into the midst of a land of destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up filled all things with Death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth c. The Writer of this Book attributes a Throne to this Angel in agreement with the custom of the Eastern Nations who called Angels Thrones Otherwise he imitates Homer who Iliad Δ vers 443. speaking of Iris saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 She fixes her head in the Heaven and walks upon the Earth I know indeed there are some Interpreters who would make St. John to have a respect to the Expression of Moses who represents God as creating the World by speaking or saying But tho Moses teaches us that God made all things as it were by a Command yet it is manifest he does not mean speech properly so called as I have shewn in my Notes on Gen. Ch. i. So that it would be but a dull Allusion to say upon that account that the Word was with God yea God himself nor are there any such Allusions observable in St. John's stile Ibid. And that Reason was with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is said here that Reason was with God by way of antithesis or opposition to what is afterwards said concerning the manifestation of the divine Reason among men Afterwards it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it dwelt in Jesus Christ nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as Christ conversed with men and by the inspiration of the divine Reason called them to a better life I might produce out of Plotinus if he were not a late Author a like expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I shall alledg only the words of Ignatius in his genuin Epistle ad Magnesios concerning Jesus Christ pag. 33. Ed. Voss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who before all Ages was with the Father but in the end appeared Which words allude to this place in St. John and
was something inferior to God as we may see in his Comment on St. John T. 11. p. 55. Ed. Huet But his reasoning is vain as appears by what I said So St. Paul says that he was an Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Will of God 1 Cor. i. 1 and 2 Cor. i. 1 but it cannot be inferred from thence that the will of God is inferior to God That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things is to be understood of the Universe I need not here prove for tho that word may have several significations yet in this matter it cannot be otherwise understood They are bad Criticks who consider what words signify separately and think that any of those significations may be any where applied without any regard had to the Phrases in which they occur or the occasion on which they are used or who think that an interpretation ought to be admitted only because it does not make the sense altogether absurd and it is not Metaphysically if I may so speak impossible but that the Writer whom they interpret might mean as they would have him We ought carefully to consider in what sense words are commonly used in any Language with the occasion of the writing and all the circumstances of the Discourse in order to give a right interpretation of them Ibid. And without it was not any thing made that was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho it be a very true Observation of a great Man that the Holy Scriptures do many times explain what they assert by a Negation of the contrary yet I do not think that these words are added to that end The Epicureans thought that all and every particular thing was made without Reason in contradiction to which the Apostle here affirms that not only all things that is the Universe but every single thing was made with Reason The Epicureans when any objected against their opinion the beauty of the World and the great Benefit which Men received by the Order and Disposition of it pretended to prove Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum tanta stat praedita culpa That the World was not made by a divine Power and Wisdom for our use there are so many faults in it And they composed a Catalogue of things that were hurtful to Mankind and seemed to be made without Reason as we may see in Lucretius Lib. 5. after the words alledged And so Cicero likewise in Acad. Quaest 4. c. 38. disputes thus against the Stoicks Cur Deus omnia nostri causâ cum faceret sic enim vultis tantum natricum viperarumque fecerit cur mortifera tam multa perniciosa terra marique disperserit c. Why God having made all things for our use as ye affirm should make so many Watersnakes and Vipers Why he should disperse so many deadly and pernicious things on the Earth and in the Sea c. These Arguments had such an effect upon some who were otherwise friends to Providence that they granted the Epicureans there were some things made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Reason And among these Philo was one to whom I make little doubt but that the Apostle had a respect in this matter also as he has approved some things in his Doctrine so he has rejected others lest by the unwary the bad should be mixed with the good and lest because he had approved some things he should seem to have assented to all That Doctrine of Philo was extant in his Book de Providentia out of which we have a long disputation set down in Eusebius Praep. Evang. Lib. 8. c. 14. where among other passages we meet with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those creeping things that are poisonous are not made by Providence but come of course as I before said For they are generated when the moistness that is inherent in them or whereof they consist becomes warmer than ordinary I think Mr. le Clere does not express the sense of this period when he translates it Nascuntur enim cum humiditas terrae inhaerens calore mutatur some are animated by Putrefaction as worms in the Belly viz. by the putrefaction of Food and lice of Sweat But every thing which is procreated from a seminal and antecedaneous Nature in the Latin it is praevisam which I take to be a mistake either in Mr. le Clerc or in his Printer for praegressam out of its proper matter is justly ascribed to Providence This is contrary to the Christian Doctrin which teaches us that all things were created and are taken care of by God see Mat. x. 29 and Interpreters upon that place Vers 4. In it was Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life in this place seems to signify a clear Doctrin concerning eternal Life and the way of attaining it which were but obscurely known before Christ upon which account St. Paul 2 Tim. i. 20 says that Christ brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Gospel And that this is here St. John's meaning he himself shews in 1 Epist i. 2 For the Life saith he was manifested and we have seen it and bear witness and declare unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us And in the same Epist. Chap. v. 11 God hath given to us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son Or else the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be called Life because it gives spiritual Life to Men in this world and eternal Life in the other Ignatius St. John's Disciple in his genuin Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smirna after he had said that it was difficult for bad Men to repent subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is in the power of Jesus Christ who is our true Life And in his Epist to the Trallians p. 51. Ed. Voss speaking of Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without whom we have no true Life There are some who think that St. John has a respect to the Doctrin of the Gnosticks who affirmed that Reason and Life were two several divine Emanations But whether this which was afterwards the opinion of Valentinus was before known is very uncertain See Note on Vers 16. Besides the sense I have given is plain and agreeable to what follows The Apostle seems rather to allude here to a Passage in Philo who in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum Haeres p. 381. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is a threefold kind of Life one which is with God another which is with the Creature and a third which is of a middle Nature mixed of both That which is with God has not descended to us or come for the necessities of the Body c. But St. John teaches us that that kind of Life was brought down upon Earth by Christ Ibid. And this Life was the Light of Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The light of the Mind is a thing very often mentioned by Philo but because
he does not fetch that light from the Doctrin of Christ but from Judaism mixed with an opinion of Plato it is all frivolous that he says of it It is only therefore to the Gospel that that Passage of his concerning the Divine Light in Lib. de Humanitate p. 551. agrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as when the Sun rises the darkness is dissipated and all things are filled with Light so when the Sun made by God arises and enlightens the Soul the darkness of Vice and Passion is dispelled and a most pure and amiable form in the Latin it is sanctissima species but it should have been tranâ—lated digna amatu of most shining Vertue appears Vers 5. Shineth in darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. is risen to dispel Mens ignorance Vers 7. Through him might believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that they might by John's Ministry be induced to believe in Christ Grotius's interpretation is harsh that through the Light they might believe in God Vers 8. He was not the Light viz. that excellent Light of which St. John speaks both before and after For otherwise in Chap. v. 35 of this Gospel John the Baptist is called a burning and a shining Light Vers 9. That Light was the true Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Plato and his followers and amongst the rest Philo those things are said to be such or such truly which may be so called in an excellent sense Thus in Lib. de mundi Opificio p. 13. Philo says that in the harmony of the parts of the World there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true Musick And this phrase St. John seems to have taken delight in and frequently makes use of as in 1 Epist. ii 8 where he says again the true Light And so in this Gospel Chap. vi 32 Christ is called the true Bread and his Flesh vers 55. true Meat and Chap. xv 1 he is said to be the true Vine Ibid. Which came into the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This I refer as Grotius does to the Light not to Men. Consult his Notes Ibid. Every Man Not only the Jews as John Baptist and the other Prophets did but all Men of what Nation soever they are of whom vast numbers had received the Christian Faith at that time This is afterwards more clearly explained by St. John Vers 10. Reason was in the World I have supplied the word Reason because the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently follows which is the Relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the World here we are to understand men amongst whom Christ conversed Ibid. And the World was made by it i. e. especially mankind whose first Parents were created by the divine Reason Ibid. Knew it not viz. to be the divine Reason when they ought to have collected from the Discourses and Actions of Christ that that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which all things had been created dwelt in him He did not bring Laws that were useful for one Nation and hurtful to others but such as were equally profitable for all mankind and therefore manifestly proceeded from the common Parent of mankind They were Laws becoming the Creator of all things to make and fit for all Nations and all Ages and if the Jews had not been blind Si mens non laeva fuisset as the Poet speaks they might have easily discerned their Author Vers 11. To its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Jews Consult Grotius The Jews are so stiled because they are called the People of God and so of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Received it not For they rejected the Doctrin of Christ by whose Mouth the divine Reason spake and in whom it dwelt Vers 12. As many viz. of what Nation soever because the greatest part of the Jews rejected him Ibid. Received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. as their only Master Ibid. It gave them power to become the Sons of God that is to be called God's Children as well as the Jews and that in a more excellent sense than they Moses Deut. xxxii 6 calls God the Father of the Israelites In Psalm lxxiii 15 the same People are called the Generation of God's Children and Hos i. 10 the Sons of the living God In this Gospel Chap. viii 41 they boast of their having one Father even God Now those are called the Sons of God who worship the true God and living conformably to his Commands have a well-grounded hope of being made partakers of the good things he has promised And this privilege the Jews contended to belong only to themselves and those who embraced their Religion by virtue of the Mosaical Covenant But St. John teaches us that the Divine Reason has conferred this privilege on all that believe the Gospel Perhaps the Apostle designed also in this passage to contradict Philo who distinguishes between the Sons of God and the Sons of Reason in Lib. de confusione Linguarum p. 267. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that make use of knowledg are deservedly called the Sons of one God as Moses also acknowledges saying Ye are the Sons of the Lord God and God who hath begotten thee and is not he himself thy Father If any one be not as yet worthy to be called a Son of God let him endeavour to be adorned by his first-born Reason the most antient Angel For if we are not yet fit to be reputed the Sons of God yet let us strive to be so of most holy Reason his eternal Image Vers 13. Born not of blood· As those who were descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob and thought themselves to be the Sons of God upon that account See Chap. viii 33 seqq Ibid. Nor of the will of the flesh Strange women that were taken Captives in war and married to Jews were look'd upon to be admitted into the number of God's Children that is to be also Jews And of such it is properly said that they became Israelites or Children of God by the will of the flesh that is by fleshly concupiscence see Deut. xxi 11 seqq Ibid. Of the will of man This has a reference to the Children of Proselites who upon their Father and his Family 's turning Jews became if they were little the Sons of God only by the will of one man Yea and an adult Person who embraced the Jewish Religion may be said to have become a Jew by the will of man viz. his own It must be carefully observed that St. John here uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viri and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominis to distinguish that kind of adoption which was made by the will of a Father from the former whereby a strange woman became a Jew by the will of the flesh Ibid. But of God viz. By Regeneration or a change of manners whereby forsaking Heathenism and embracing the Gospel they lived according to the rules of Christianity
Of this Regeneration St. John speaks afterwards in Chap. iii. 3 seqq And St. Paul insists upon it very much in his Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere for to this all that he says almost about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or adoption of the Gentiles has a respect Which my design in this place will not permit me at large to shew Vers 14. Was made flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by flesh we are to understand human nature is generally observed by Interpreters who may be consulted But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said to have been made flesh or man in more respects than one and here it is said to have been made flesh in regard that being clothed as it were with the Flesh of Christ it became conspicuous for Flesh sometimes signifies a conspicuous nature in opposition to one that is spiritual or inconspicuous So it is used by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iii. 16 where he tells us that God appeared in Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was justified in Spirit c. i. e. God became as it were conspicuous when all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ in Christ I say who being a Man was conspicuous and visible and in whom God shewed himself to be present I know other Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the sense is the same That the word Flesh is taken here for human Nature as conspicuous appears by the following words in this and by the 18 th verse Tho when I say that Flesh is considered here by St. John as conspicuous or precisely under that notion that is so far from excluding the other properties as the Schoolmen speak of human nature that on the contrary it supposes them For our Flesh is therefore conspicuous because it is a necessary property of human nature to be conspicuous It is rightly said by Divines that Reason was made Flesh not by a conversion of the divine Nature into a human which is as impossible as for a human to be changed into a divine but by an unexpressible indwelling of God whereby the humanity of Christ became the humanity of God in a singular and extraordinary manner as on the other hand the divine Reason was made the Divinity of Christ by that secret union From that time God might be called Flesh and reciprocally the name of God might be attributed to Flesh or Man And upon the account of this conjunction of two Natures in Christ the Apostles speak of him sometimes as God sometimes as a Man and do not only ascribe to Christ what they had seen done by the man Jesus but also what the divine Reason did before Jesus was born see Col. i. 14 seqq Heb. i. 2 10. Ibid. Dwelt among us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is it dwelt in a man who conversed among us All these things Philo was ignorant of or else resolved to be so if it be true what some of the Antients say that having embraced the Christian Religion he afterwards apostatized from it see Euseb Hist Eccles Lib. 2. c. 17. Photius Cod. 105. Ibid. We beheld its Glory i. e. such Miracles as were never before or in the same manner done by any That Miracles are called the Glory of God I have shewn in my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 Amongst those Miracles which were wrought for the honour of Christ a very eminent one was that of his Transfiguration spoken of by St. Peter in his 2 Epist i. 16 17. whose words give great light to this passage For we have not followed saith he cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eye witnesses of his Majesty For be received from God the Father honour and glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there came such a voice to him from the magnificent Glory This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased see Mat. xvii Ibid. As of the only begotten whom he accordingly gave that glory to which he had never before conferred on any or ever will The Prophets who were Brethren and the Sons of God in the same manner as one another had often an equal glory put upon them by the Miracles which God wrought at their request But the Miracles of Jesus Christ were so many and great that they were capable if I may so speak of obscuring all that had been formerly wrought by their multitude and splendor By this word only begotten perhaps St. John might have a secret design to oppose the Doctrin of Philo who generally calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first begotten and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most antient of the Angels Grotius thinks that the Gnosticks are here condemned who made the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be two different persons but it is uncertain whether those frivolous Syzigiae Pleromatis had been invented when St. John wrote see on vers 16. Ibid. Of or from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be referred to the word Glory see Grotius Ibid. Full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If these words be referred to the immediatly foregoing we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was viz. the only begotten Otherwise they must be included in a Parenthesis as I have done them Grotius however is of another opinion who may be consulted Grace and Truth that is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhesed veemeth of which phrase I have discoursed in my Notes on Gen. xxiv 27 There is an opposition made here between the Gospel and the Law as appears from the 17 th verse The Mosaical Law appointed Sacrifices for the expiation of some sort of Sins which if they were wilfully and knowingly neglected tho it were but once it denounced death upon the Sinner whatever his Repentance was afterwards For other sins there were no expiatory Sacrifices instituted but they were to be punished with death Neither did God by virtue of that Covenant promise to any one that died for transgressing the Law tho never so penitent any mercy in the life to come And yet these were Sins which by reason of the multitude of the Laws were frequently committed so that God discovered nothing but his inflexible Justice in the Law It 's true he promises Forgiveness to the whole Jewish Nation becoming penitent after the destruction of their Commonwealth in Levit. xxvi and elsewhere But particular Persons as long as the Commonwealth stood sinning in that manner as I have said had no hopes of pardon But it is quite otherwise under the Gospel in which God promises pardon to the greatest Sinner upon repentance and amendment of life and that without the intervention of Sacrifices And in this sense the Gospel alone is full of the grace and mercy of God Vers 15. John bare witness or bears witness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. in
never by any Man excepting the Saviour of all Men Christ Jesus expressed in his Life But it will be said it may be that St. Paul has a reference to the Ceremonial part of the Law and not that which is Moral To which I answer by confessing indeed that he has a respect chiefly to the Ritual part of the Law but so as not to exclude the Moral part of it nor consequently the Moral Law it self which if compared with the Commands of Christ comprehends only the Elements of true Piety as sufficiently appears from Mat. v. and the following Chapters For many things were lawful under the Mosaical Law relating to Manners which are there forbidden by Christ What the Moral Law given by Moses commands is indeed Good and Holy and what it forbids Evil but it is not a perfect rule of Holiness that is it does not command every thing that is Holy nor forbid every thing that is evil For instance Husbands loving their Wives to such a degree as to bear with their Manners and never to put them away but in case of Adultery is a vertue not enjoined in the Mosaical Law as the contrary Inhumanity in putting them away at every turn is not therein prohibited nay is expresly permitted if they did but give them a Bill of Divorce See Mat. v. 31 32. Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Jews or their Proselytes as is rightly observed by Grotius who upon embracing the New Covenant were no longer oblig'd by the Laws of the old to which they were before subject See my Note on Chap. iii. 13 Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words Spirit of his Son are capable of two senses both which St. Paul seems to have comprehended under this Phrase First by the Spirit of Christ may be meant the Spirit which Christ had promised to the Apostles and the rest of the Christians which he accordingly afterwards sent down upon them and by whose power they were enabled to work Miracles For on the effusion of that Spirit upon them the Jews and such as of Gentiles had embraced the Jewish Religion perceived that they were then much more bountifully dealt with than when they were under the Law and called upon God afterwards with greater assurance no longer now behaving himself as a hard Master or requiring the observation of superfluous Rites upon the severest Penalties but as a most gracious and compassionate Father Whence that Spirit is said to cry Abba Father that is to make the Jews upon their Conversion to the Christian Religion to look upon God as a Father and not as a severe Master Secondly by the Spirit of his Son may be meant such an affection of Mind towards God as was in his Son as the Spirit of Elias and the like And that Affection was produced in the minds of the Jews by the knowledg and participation of the Benefits of the Gospel Both these Spirits jointly residing in the minds of Men seem to be called by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of Adoption in Rom. viii 16 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Paul here speaks not to those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by birth Jews and had been brought up in the knowledg of the true God but those who were made Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by assumption that is Proselytes to the Jewish Religion before their Conversion to Christianity And it appears that what the Apostle here says has a reference to such Persons because he afterwards demands of them how they could turn again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the weak and beggarly Elements that is to the Jewish Rites which they had before in part at least observed If Dr. Hammond had not overlook'd this which is obscurely intimated by Grotius on vers 5. he would have given a much more clear and exact Paraphrase of this and the following Verse Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to Gods which Men had made and invented for themselves for the opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is things which depend upon the decrees and institutions of Men. That this place ought to be thus understood I have shewn at large in my Ars Critica Par. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. vii Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already before said that by weak and poor Elements is meant the Jewish Law and that is clear from this and the following Verse But there are two things which I shall here a little more particularly enquire into first why the Mosaical Precepts are called weak and poor secondly how the Galatians who had worshipped false Gods are said to return to those weak Elements The Elements of any Discipline relating to good Manners and divine Worship such as is the discipline of Moses cannot be stiled weak in any other sense than as they are not effectual to reform Mens Manners or bring them to worship God in that manner as they ought to do And indeed the Rewards and Punishments of the Jewish Law which in a literal sense were only temporal could not have such an influence upon the Minds of Men as to bring them to any great degree of Vertue For tho they might restrain them from committing those Sins which would have render'd them infamous in the Eyes of others or exposed them to civil Punishments yet they could not keep them from doing a great many things contrary to true Vertue of which see Mat. v. and what is said by Grotius and Dr. Hammond on that Chapter In this sense therefore the Law was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 weak that is ineffectual and uncapable of making Men truly Pious and Vertuous See also Rom. viii 3 with the same learned Mens Notes Again any Institution may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a metaphorical sense when it is imperfect in its kind and a great many things are wanting in it which must be made up and supplied out of another as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Mon destitute of the necessary supports of Life and who unless relieved by the liberality of others are unable to subsist And such an Institution is the Law which unless it be perfected by the Gospel cannot bring Men to such a degree of Piety as to make them acceptable to God and worthy of eternal Life as manifestly appears both from the nature of the thing it self and a great deal said by Christ to that purpose in the fifth Chapter of St. Matthew And this may possibly be the reason why St. Paul here uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfect to intimate by a word of a special Emphasis that the Law of Moses was not only in a few things but exceeding poor and defective For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify poor but poor to a degree of Beggery And therefore the Greeks distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
expressed the form of God the Father And justly was he pronounced to be in the form of God because he also being over all things and having a divine Power over every Creature is God after the example of the Father yet so as to have obtained this Dignity from his Father that he should be God and Lord of all things and to be God according to the form of God the Father begotten and brought forth by him And therefore tho he was in the form of God he did not think it robbery to be equal with God For tho he knew within himself that he was God of God the Father yet he never compared himself with God the Father being mindful that he was of his Father and whatever he was he was by his Father's Gift And both before and after his assuming Flesh and after his Resurrection he yielded and still yields all obedience to his Father in all things Which shews that he never thought any Divinity robbery to equal himself with God the Father nay on tho contrary being obedient and subject to all his Commands and Will he was content to take upon him the form of a Servant This is the direct tendency of the form of St. Paul's discourse which will not admit of any other interpretation And with this sense all the words made use of by him agree as I shall shew But first of all it must be supposed that the Discourse here is about the Man Jesus and not about the Deity which is evident to produce but this one Argument for it from that which follows for he whom God hath exalted and given him a Name above every Name that in the name of Jesus every Knee should bow is undoubtedly the Man Jesus and not the Deity which never received any thing nor could receive any new Dignity and he whom God so very highly exalted is the same who had humbled himself and suffer'd Death in obedience to the Will of his Father This reasoning which yet is the sum of the common Interpretation is hardly tolerable The Divinity of Christ tho equal yea numerically the same with the Divinity of the Father to the Father humbled it self to put on Humanity wherefore that Humanity received this Reward from the Father to be raised to the highest pitch of Glory On the contrary it is he that humbled himself that St. Paul here says was rewarded This premis'd I shall now explain the several Phrases the Apostle makes use of III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best of all interpreted by Grotius of that Power which was observable in Christ in so great a degree that he could do whatever he pleased wherein he came as near as possible to the most High God The same thing is elsewhere intimated by St. Paul where he says that Christ was the visible Image of the invisible God Coloss i. 15 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes the same Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies a form or species So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Species Form or Aspect And Phavorinus hath the same Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Heathens signifies the Images of the Gods as in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus de Romulo Lib. 2. Ant. Rom. p. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he erected therefore their Temples and Groves and Altars and the places of their carved Statues and their Images and Symbols IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did not think it a thing which he might snatch or ravish to himself So Gregory Nazianzâ—n uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Orat. 1. against Julian pag. 67. where he speaks of the Government 's being usurped by Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which not a rape or robbery of Fortune but the reward of Vertue or Time or the suffrage of the King bestows But the expression of Cicero in Latin comes much nearer that of St. Paul who in his V. Orat. in Verrem speaking of Verres says Omnium bona praedam suam duxit He thought every ones Goods his prey And in Lib. vii Ep. 13. ad Atticum speaking of Caesar after Pompey had forsaken Rome he says Huic tradita urbs est nuda praesidio referta copiis Quid est quod ab eo non metuas qui illa templa tecta non patriam sed praedam putat The City was delivered up to Caesar destitute of its Garison and was filled with Souldiers What is there not reason to fear from him who thinks those Temples and Houses not his Country but his Prey The Man Christ tho he had received all Power both in Heaven and in Earth yet said in John xiv 28 That his Father was greater than he and would not suffer himself to be made equal with God Contrary to what was done afterwards by Simon Magus who trusting only to Magical Artifices dared to equal if not to exalt himself above God See Acts viii 10 and H. Grotius on that place Which if our Author had but here thought on without question he would have greedily took up to say that St. Paul here opposed Jesus Christ to Simon the Patriarch of the Gnosticks V. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to make himself equal with God Which Christ openly professes in Joh. v. 19 for after he had said to the Jews My Father worketh hitherto and I work and the Jews thereupon sought to kill him not only because he had broken the Sabbath but said also that God was his Father making himself as they affirmed equal with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus answers that the Son could do nothing of himself but what he saw his Father do that is that he only followed the Example of God in which he shewed himself to be inferiour to him for he that follows another's Example and cannot depart from it is inferiour to him who sets the Example But all this must be understood of the Humanity of Christ and not of his Divinity Vers 7. Note b. To keep to the Propriety of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be rendred thus He behaved himself so as if he were void of all that Power which he had received from his Father He used it no more than if he had not had it Which must be understood only of those times in which Christ was to suffer any thing either from the Jews or from the Romans Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He did not really become a Servant but having taken upon him the form of a Servant he seemed to be such For when Christ behaved himself towards the Jews and Romans who vilified and loaded him with all manner of Injuries and Reproaches as if he had been subject to their Power like the rest of the Jews he truly took upon him the form of a Servant that is a servile Appearance He did no more use that
Such another Expression there is in St. John's Gospel chap. xvii 3 where see my Note So also St. Paul 1 Cor. xii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is no Man can say that Jesus is the Christ but in the Holy Ghost In St. John's words there are three things contained first that Jesus the Son of Mary who was called a Nazarene was the Messias which the Jews denied secondly that Jesus was come in the Flesh that is was truly a Man and subject to the inconveniencies of human Life which many of the first Hereticks denied if we believe the Antients thirdly that they could not be rejected as Impostors who said that Christ was the true Messias and a Man like us But it may be enquired whether there could not be Impostors who confessed both and yet maintained other pernicious Errors There might without doubt but at that time all the Impostors offended in one or other of these points and to them St. John's marks must be referred not to all Impostors which might be or which afterwards appeared Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is it appears by the love which we have for one another that our love to God is most perfect which otherwise is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we have some degree indeed of Piety towards God but do not heartily enough love our Neighbour Such were the Jews who professed to love none but those of their own Religion and were not sincere even in that see Cap. ii 5 Our Author in his Paraphrase of this and the following Verses is very harsh and scarce knows how to speak his own Thoughts so far is he from happily expressing the mind of the Apostle CHAP. V. Vers 6. Note a. I. IF I should undertake to examine particularly all the foregoing medly I should be obliged instead of short Additions to write a long Dissertation And therefore I shall touch only upon the chief things I do not disagree with our Author about the interpretation of the 6th verse but I wonder he spends so many words in endeavouring to make out the Connection of vers 7. with that and the meaning of the words are one or are to one before he had shewn or endeavoured to shew that this Verse and those words are genuin Of such an order in discoursing it may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to pass by this Dr. Hammond does but wrangle with all the most learned Interpreters who interpret are one of consent And the reason why they understand those words of consent is first because they are so taken in John x. 30 xvii 21 secondly because here the Discourse is about a unity of Testimony and not about a unity of Nature But why is this consent otherwise expressed in the following Verse I answer for variety sake or also by mere accident for in this simple stile words must not be so subtilly scanned or watched All our Author here alledges besides is foreign to the purpose and the scope of the Apostle II. As for his saying that tho the Alexandrian and many other antient Manuscript Copies omit the 7 th Verse yet it is read in many other Manuscripts and all the printed Copies except one that to say no worse of it is not accurately said For in the old Greek Copies that is which were written seven or eight Ages ago and older it is no where read and seldom in those that are later In the most antient Latin Copies likewise it is not read tho frequently in the New Beza alledges a British Greek Copy mention'd by Erasmus and a Spanish Complutensian Edition and several Copies of R. Stephanus which have this place But besides that these do not sufficiently agree with one another they are by no means to be equal'd with the most antient Copies which with great consent reject this Verse and are confirmed by the Authority of all the Greek and Latin Fathers until St. Austin who never used this place against the Arians or other antient Antitrinitarians tho they often make mention of the three Witnesses on Earth as learned Men have long since observed For as for our Author 's objecting St. Cyprian Jerom and Ambrosius that is to no purpose as we shall presently see There are more printed Copies than one which omit this place but tho they all had it their Authority would signify nothing against the Manuscript Copies and the consent of Antiquity III. The conjecture about the omission of some Scribe because of the repetition of the like words as it takes place elsewhere so it cannot here be allowed first because it must be supported by another Conjecture and secondly because it opposes all Antiquity For who will believe that such an omission was admitted in all the Copies which the Christians used privately and publickly for several Ages and afterwards was discovered by I know not whom without the help of any antient Copy Who but those who have no regard to truth and think that Truth may be defended by the help of Falshood Our Author 's reasonings against the suspition of this place being supposititious are insignificant because they cannot be opposed to the joint Authority of the antient Copies Fathers and Interpreters Besides who does not know that tho Truth may be well defended and relies upon solid grounds yet the Orthodox as well as others invented innumerable falshoods to support it Whence came so many supposititious Books in antient times but from this perverse practice But here it is to be observed that it might easily be that these words were inserted into the Context not out of any design to deceive but some Body having in the Margin of his Copy over against the 8 th Verse noted that the Father Son and Holy Ghost was signified in this place others afterwards put that into the Text as is conjectured by Ric. Simon who has set this matter in a clear light in his Critical History of the New Testament P. 1. c. 18. and his Dissert concerning the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament added to the 3 d Part to whom I refer the Reader The places our Author here alledges to prove the Doctrin of the Trinity might have been found in any Theological System and in greater number nor do they make any thing to confirm the ordinary reading for every thing which is agreeable to the Christian Faith is not presently the true Reading Whereas he adds that if this place had been corrupted by the Orthodox the Arians would have taken notice of it tho that should be admitted as a forcible Argument it would signify nothing to this place which seems to have been inserted very lately seeing none of the antient Fathers Greek or Latin till the time of St. Austin ever alledged it against the Arians Consult the foremention'd Monsieur Simon IV. The passage cited out of St. Cyprian does not prove that he read this place as we read it in the printed Copies but
France and the places c. But who will believe that Tertullian according to the custom of zealous Declamers did not make the thing more than it really was It 's certain there were but few Christians if any among those Nations when they invaded the Roman Empire and they did not receive the Christian Religion till they had fixed themselves in it I shall say nothing about the counterfeit Lucius in England Vers 5. Note c. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 considered in it self signifies nothing shameful nor could it be used by Achilles Tatius in the sense our Author here mentions but improperly I do not deny but in the Eleusinia sacra there were some indecent Rites used but I do not think they were so very unclean and abominable as the Doctor supposes nor will any one else think so that has read Meursius his Eleusmia or is otherwise at all versed in Greek Writers They concealed rather some Secrecies about the Gods than any Lusts which they there indulged And that the religious Solemnities of the Romans were commonly joined with Fornication or other such unclean Actions no body will believe who is not a stranger to their History There is no doubt indeed but the strange Rites which were brought to Rome were for that reason sometimes forbidden as the Orgia of Bacchus in Livy lib. xxxix and the Rites of the Egyptians in Tacitus Annal. lib. ii cap. 85. But this very thing shows that the Roman Worship was not generally accompanied with Uncleanness as our Author frequently affirms It is falsly also said by him more than once that Idolatry was propagated in other Countries from the City of Rome when the Idolatry of the Egyptians Syrians and Grecians was much more antient than the Roman But Rome may be said to have made the Kings of the earth drunk with the wine of her Fornication because she resolutely adhered to Idolatry and confirmed it by her example tho the Jews and Christians had for some time upbraided her with it and because also she went before many others in the Worship of the City of Rome as a Goddess and her Emperors Vers 8. Note d. Our learned Author does not seem to have well understood what it was in the time of Vespasian Caesarem salutari for he thinks it was just the same as to be called Augustus and Emperor which it is not for at that time the Sons of the Emperors were called Caesars assoon as ever their Fathers came to the Throne but they were not therefore Augusti Domitian in his Father's absence was indeed at least in shew invested with the Government because the state of Affairs requir'd it no other daring to take upon him to be Emperor whilst the Prince his son was present but he was not therefore accounted Augustus his Majesty or made Partaker of the supreme Power So that no one could wonder if that unsettled Authority of Domitian ceased at his Father's Return who had not intrusted him with the Empire Yet that which our Author meant might be said but in the words of Grotius which he corrupted Vers 14. Note e. I. Our Author sets down somewhat largely this Story but without necessity because Orosius who lived in those times often affirms that the Goths were at that time Christians in lib. 7. The latter place cited out of him by our Author I was a great while before I could find for it is not in lib. 11. c. 10. as it is absurdly set in the Margin when Orosius wrote only seven Books in all but I met with it at last accidentally in lib. 2. c. 3. Et Christiani fuere qui parcerent Christiani quibus parcerent Christiani propter quorum memoriam in quorum memoriam parceretur The same Author has also the Story related by Rubeus in lib. 7. c. 37. II. But it is true that the neighbouring barbarous Kings often fought against the Lamb. Austin de Civ Dei lib. 18. c. 52. where he confutes those who thought that after the Accomplishment of the ten Persecutions which had already been there was none to come but the eleventh which was to happen in the very time of Antichrist among other things says this Nisi forte non est persequutio computanda quando Rex Gotthorum in ipsa Gotthia persequutus est Christianos persequutione mirabili cum ibi non essent Catholici quorum plurimi martyrio coronati sunt sicut à quibusdam fratribus qui tunc illic pueri fuerant se ista vidisse incunctanter recordabantur audivimus Vnless perhaps it is not to be reckon'd a Persecution when the King of the Goths strangely persecuted the Christians in Gothia it self because there were not there any Catholicks of whom a great many were crowned with martyrdom as we have heard from certain Brethren that were there when Children and well remembred that they saw those things See also Orosius in lib. 7. c. 32. Then of the Conversion of those Northern People after their Entrance into the Roman Empire and there settling themselves Orosius speaks thus in lib. 7. c. 41. Quanquam si ob hoc solum barbari Romanis finibus immissi forent quod vulgò per Orientem Occidentem Ecclesiae Christi Hunnis Suevis Vandalis Burgundionibus diversisque innumeris credentium populis replentur laudanda attollenda Dei misericordia videretur quandoquidem etsi cum labefactatione nostri tantae gentes agnitionem veritatis acciperent quam invenire utique nisi hac occasione non possent Tho if it were only for this that the Barbarians should have been sent into the Roman Borders that generally the Eastern and Western Churches are filled with Huns Suevians Vandals Burgundians and a multitude of other different sorts of people who have embraced the Christian faith yet we ought to praise and extol the mercy of God considering that tho with the weakning of the Empire so great Nations receive the knowledg of the Truth which they would never have attained if they had not had this opportunity Vers 16. Note f. There are some faults in this Annotation which I must correct I. It is absurdly said by Dr. Hammond of Gensericus that he robb'd the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus OR Olympius For no body ever called Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome Olympius nor is there any such thing in Procopius The Temple of Jupiter Olympius was at Olympia not at Rome I might perhaps also say that this is a Fable and that it is not likely that the Capitolian Temple had stood untouch'd under so many Christian Emperors But I leave the matter undecided II. Our learned Author having reckon'd Illyricum among the provinces which the Barbarians possessed mentions also Dalmatia which should have been left out because every one knows that Dalmatia is the same Country which was before called Illyricum III. After he had spoken of Totilas and referred us for what he had said about him as one would think to Sozomen lib. ix c. 6.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
may serve instead of an interpretation of it as also what he says a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is one God who has revealed himself by Jesus Christ his Son which is his eternal Reason Ibid. God was that Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John adds this lest it should be thought that there was any thing besides the Divine Nature before the Creation of the World Philo also calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in Lib. de Somniis p. 465. on these words in Genes xxxi 13 I am the God that appeared to thee in the place of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the Scripture calls God is his most antient Reason But there is this difference between St. John and Philo that Philo would have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be called God only abusively or improperly for a little before he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is truly God is one those that are abusively so are many And after the words before alledged he subjoins that the Scripture does not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not superstitious about the imposing of names But St. John teaches us that Reason not only was from the beginning and with God by which word he understands him who is in the most excellent sense so called but adds as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of correction And that Reason was God which according to Philo could only be said improperly And indeed Philo every where makes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferior to the most high God whereas St. John asserts the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says conversed afterwards with men to have been the one only true God properly so call'd And this he says also in opposition to Cerinthus of whom Irenaeus in Lib. 1. cap. 25. speaks thus But one Cerinthus in Asia affirmed that the World was not made by the supreme God but by a certain Power separate and very distant from that Principality which is over all things and which did not know him who is over all things God See also Lib. 3. c. 11. For if Reason be God even that God with whom it was from the beginning and if Reason made the World as St. John affirms then Cerinthus was manifestly mistaken Vers 2. The same was in the beginning with God These words St. John repeats out of the foregoing Verse for the sake of connexion being about to say that all things were made by Reason Vers 3. All things were made by it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is nothing to Cerinthus who did not deny that all things were made by Reason but it is said that the Christians might understand it to be true what Philo and others before him among the Jews asserted concerning the Creation of the World by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He opposes the Doctrin of the Epicureans who contended that all things were made by Chance and without Reason That this was the opinion of Epicurus contrary to the sentiments of most other Philosophers and particularly of Plato every one knows and it is needless to prove Lucretius also in Lib. 5. expresly denies that the Universe was made by Reason where he affirms that it is senseless to say Deûm quod sit Ratione vetustâ Gentibus humanis fundatum That the World was founded for Mankind by the antient Reason of the Gods In which he has a respect to the Platonists who used so to speak as the following words shew in which he denies that God had exemplum gignundis rebus ullum any Pattern to make the World by So that according to the Opinion of Epicurus the World was produced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Reason or as Plutarch de Philos Placitis Lib. 1. c. 4. speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by indivisible Bodies having an unforeseen and fortuitous motion But Lactantius speaking of this Opinion in Lib. de ira Divina cap. 10. after he had described the beauty of the Universe and proved it to have been created by God against Leucippus and Epicurus very well says Tanta ergo qui videat talia potest existimare nullo effecta esse consilio nulla providentia nulla RATIONE divina sed ex atomis subtilibus exiguis concreta esse tanta miracula Can therefore one that beholds such and so great things think that they were made with no design no foresight no divine REASON but that all these great Miracles were produced by the conjunction of subtil small Atoms And Instit Divin Lib. 1. c. 2. after he had said that Democritus and Epicurus thought all things were made and are governed by Chance he subjoins a little after Quos tamen ceteri Philosophi ac maxime Stoici acerrime retuderunt dicentes nec fieri mundum SINE divina RATIONE potuisse nec constane nisi summâ RATIONE regeretur Whom yet the rest of the Philosophers and particularly the Stoicks did most sharply oppose affirming that the World could neither have been made without the divine REASON nor consist unless it were governed by the highest REASON And Lib. 3. c. 17. he expresses again the Opinion of Epicurus thus Nihil in procreandis animalibus Providentiae RATIO molita est REASON used no foresight in the producing of living Creatures In opposition to which he says a little after Non potest quidquam rationale perficere nisi RATIO Nothing but REASON can make any rational being But let us return now to the Jews and particularly to Philo who speak in the same manner as St. John So the Author of the Book of Wisdom cap. ix 1 addresses himself to God thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hast made ALL THINGS by thy Reason and adorned Man by thy Wisdom And Philo Lib. 2. de Monarchia p. 736. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason is the Image of God by which the whole World was created But there is this difference between St. John and Philo in this matter that whereas St. John affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was God himself viz. the most High Philo would have it said that the World was created by it as God's Instrument So in Lib. de Cherubinis p. 100. after he had said that there must be four things considered in every Production viz. the cause the matter the instrument and end for which it is produced and had applied those things distinctly to an Edifice he adds concerning the World that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will find that the cause of it was God by whom it was made and the instrument the Reason of God by which it was disposed But in St. John all things are said to have been made by Reason in the same manner as if it were said the World was created by the Divine Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words do not signify an instrument distinct from God but God himself Tho it 's true Origen thought it followed from hence that Reason
in the least act in this case as a Tribune of the People who upon the peoples determination pronounced sentence in the name of the Commons but as the Roman Presidents used to act who gave judgment according to the advice of their Counsel I have been the larger upon this subject lest Dr. Hammond's Authority should deceive such as are not very well versed in the Roman Customs Or else to skilful Persons it had been sufficient just to admonish them of his mistake Vers 48. Note d. I have observed in my Notes on Gen. xxxi 20 that the name of Syrian carries in it something I know not what reproachful see there Levit. xxv 47 is a false quotation in our Author for Deut. xxvi 5 for in this place indeed we may find the word Aramaean used in a bad sense but in the other there is no mention made of Aramaeans Many such faults there are in Dr. Hammond's Annotations which are owing either to the carelesness of the Printers or the Author's thoughts being otherwise employed which is no strange thing and I do not reproach him with it CHAP. IX Vers 2. Note a. IT was a long while before this time that many of the Jews believed the preexistence of Souls and that they were sent down into such or such Bodies according to their several deserts as appears evidently by these words in the Book of Wisdom Chap. viii 19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was a witty child and had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled Vers 22. Note b. Of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seldon has treated at large Lib. 1. c. 7. de Synedriis And if we believe him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies any assembly of people whatever publick as well as private in which it was not lawful for any that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put out of the Synagogue familiarly to converse But they were not excluded from the publick Prayers or forbidden to be present at Sacrifices as the same Author shews who is well worth our reading and to whom I refer the Reader tho all are not of his opinion CHAP. X. Vers 35. Note b. IT must be observed that the word Law includes sometimes the Book of Psalms see Chap. xii 34 as sometimes all the Old Testament is called the Law and the Prophets tho ordinarily it is divided into three parts whereof a third makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under which the Book of Psalms is contained CHAP. XI Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. shall not die of this Disease as others do who continue under the power of Death till the general Resurrection It is a form of speech peculiar to St. John So in his 1 Epist v. 16 17. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means a sin that is not of such a nature as to make it probable that the Sinner will continue spiritually dead as long as he lives See the Notes upon that place Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words have no agreement with Christ's answer unless something be understood which is not expressed and which Christ perceived to be in Martha's mind Our Author should have solv'd this difficulty in his Paraphrase which because he has not done I shall endeavour to do my self Ver. 21. And when she was come to him and had saluted him she told him that she should have been very glad if he had come some days before to Bethany because he would then have healed her Brother who had been dead now four days and so he would have been still alive 22. But now he was dead there was no hope of recovering him for tho she very well knew that God would grant Jesus whatsoever he asked of him yet she hardly believed that he would raise up a dead man at his request 23. To which Christ replied that Lazarus should be raised up again 24. But Martha saying that she did not doubt indeed but he should at the universal Resurrection 25. Jesus told her more plainly that God had endued him with a Power to bring the dead to life again especially those that had believed on him I have here expressed the whole connexion of the discourse that the sense might be the more evident But the 22 d verse might also be thus expressed That she knew indeed that all that the Lord Jesus asked of his Father would be granted him She did not dare to add that she did not believe he would presume to ask his Father to raise a man that had been dead four days to life 23. But this being in her thoughts Christ answered c. Christ answered therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to something not expressed and it is easy to understand the reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that Martha broke off her discourse for fear of offending her Lord. Unless this Interpretation be admitted the 22 d verse must be placed after the 27 th and then there will be no difficulty in the series of the discourse But this would be contrary to the Authority of all the Copies Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author represents Martha in his Paraphrase speaking too learnedly according to the opinion of some Physicians for she never thought perhaps of the time of the revolution of the Humors And indeed as the thing it self is false so it is nothing at all to the purpose The revolution of the Blood is completed in a shorter time and the climate or season of the year is the chief thing to be considered when the discourse is concerning the putrefaction of a dead body but this is not very material Vers 48. Note b. Our learned Author had done well to produce the Testimony of some antient Writer that related what he said here concerning Armillus for the later Rabbins fancy a great many things for which they have no Tradition We read indeed in a Chaldee Paraphrase which is said to be Jonathans on Isa ii 4 that a wicked Armillus should be slain by the Messias But who shall certify us of the time when this Jonathan lived For it is childish to give credit to the boasting pretences of the Jews I am apt to think that by this word these men meant the Romans whose Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem by them they had a very great spite against and therefore gave out that it should be overthrown by the Messias Afterwards they invented some other stories about this Armillus of which see Buxtorf's Lexic Talmudicum CHAP. XII Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One of the Copies of R. Stephanus has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Transcriber thought that this agreed better with Christ's discourse And the Author of the Coptick Translation seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no need of these Alterations for God the Father glorifies his Name when he openly acknowledges his
Son whom he sent to men in his Name see Psal cxvi 1 and afterwards Chap. xiii 31 32. of this Gospel CHAP. XIII Vers 26. Note c. THE Doctor 's conjecture is confirmed by Hesychius and Phavorinus who interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to draw in the Lexicons out of the Scholiast on Nicander Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Exod. iv 13 CHAP. XIV Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This phrase deserved in the Paraphrase at least to be expressed in other words for a great many use it every day that do not understand it And therefore I shall here briefly explain it The Jews used to ask God particularly in their solemnest Prayers in the name of their Forefathers and especially the Patriarchs and Prophets i. e. to pray to God that he would grant them their requests because they were their Posterity and called by their Name or Abraham Isaac and Jacob's Posterity This was to call upon God in the name of the Patriarchs But Christ would have his Disciples to pray to God in his Name i. e. to desire what they would have granted to them because they were called and were the Disciples of Christ So the gathered together in the Name of Christ are Christian Assemblies in opposition to an Assembly of Jews see Mat. xviii 20 And so afterwards vers 26. of this Chapter the Holy Ghost is said to be sent in the Name of Christ i. e. as that Spirit which was to be called the Spirit of Christ and to be conferred only on Christ's Disciples A great many Passages may receive light from this Interpretation Vers 16. Note b. What our Author observes about the signification of the Greek words is very true but that Christ used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Talmudists did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phraklita I very much doubt Perhaps he used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mnahhman which in Syriack signifies only a Comforter and if that were out of doubt the Greek were to have no other signification put upon it It is certain that there is no Hebrew word of the same latitude with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XVI Vers 7. Note a. Col. 2. Lin. 14. THERE is not the least footstep of any mention made of the Devil in this matter by Moses Our learned Author lent the Prophet before he was aware his own conjecture CHAP. XVII Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius conjectures that this Prayer was conceived in the view of the Temple when Christ went into the Garden of Gethsemane But if we carefully read Chap. xiii 21 it will seem rather to have been pronounced in the same Room in which the Passover was celebrated after Judas's departure and that Christ did not go with his Disciples into the Garden till he had said this Prayer because Chap. xviii begins thus When Jesus had spoken these words he went forth with his Disciples over the Brook Cedron Vers 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words must be rendred thus That they may know thee who art the only true God and Jesus who is the Christ that thou hast sent For the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be repeated before the word Christ 'T is as if the sense were expressed by the Infinitive Mood thus That they may know thee to be the only true God and Jesus to be the Messias whom thou hast sent as if it had been said in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ here says that this is eternal Life not because the whole Christian Faith in its greatest extent is comprehended under these two Heads considered in themselves but because these two things are as it were the foundations of all the rest to believe him who is the Father of Jesus Christ to be the only true God and Jesus to be the Messias whom he purposed to send Without these Christianity cannot stand because all the rest of the Truths asserted in it are built upon these and these being admitted as true every one must admit the rest and regulate his Life according to them unless he be mad and resolve to be inconsistent with himself as every body easily perceives See vers 7 8 25. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all Men in this Gospel yet in this Chapter it seems to respect principally the Jews as that word is also used elsewhere by St. John as I have observed in a Note on Chap. iv 42 That Christ chose Disciples out of all Mankind is too general a Phrase to signify his choosing some Jews Thus vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World hateth them because they are not of the World by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is meant the wicked Jews who hated the Apostles because they were no longer of their number and not the Heathens to whom they were perfectly unknown Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by a Power derived from thee being present with them and acting as an Embassador in thy Name and taking upon me that Character There seems here to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but do thou keep them in my absence by thy Spirit For there is nothing set to answer the words while I was with them in the World I kept them in thy Name in what comes after which yet the context requires And therefore what Christ did not express in words he made up in his thoughts as the Apostles easily understood for whose sake this Prayer was made And accordingly after Christ's Ascension the Holy Ghost came down to supply his place as Christ had promised Chap. xvi 7 13. Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I do not pray thee to take them away from this wicked Generation of Men and particularly of Jews and within a few days translate them along with me into the regions of Happiness but that thou wouldst preserve them from being corrupted by those evil Customs and Opinions with which Mankind is so universally infected By the World here we are to understand wicked Men whom the Apostles could not avoid conversing with Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Cause them to be so affected with that true Doctrin that I have taught them as to express it in their Lives And indeed whoever understands Christ's Doctrin and thinks it to be true if he suffers that thought to sink deep into his Mind will at length be sanctified by the Truth The Doctor did not understand these words as appears by his Paraphrase There is an expression much to the same purpose in Chap. viii 31 32. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him If ye continue in my word then are ye my Disciples indeed and ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free