nearer the Christians in this matter than the Jews and might easily have imposed upon the unwary His words are these in Lib. de Abrahamo p. 287. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The FATHER is in the middle of all who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar Name stiled the Being and on each side are two most antient Powers next to the Being whereof one is called the effective Power and the other Royal and the Effective GOD for by this the Father made and adorned the Vniverse and the Royal LORD for it is fit he should rule and govern what he has made And in the next words he asserts also that God is Three and One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being therefore attended on both sides with his Powers to a discerning Vnderstanding he appears one while to be ONE and another while to be THREE ONE when the Mind being in the highest degree purified and passing over not only a multitude of numbers but also that which is next to an Vnit the number of two endeavours after a simple and uncompounded Idea perfect of it self and THREE when not as yet sufficiently exercised in great Mysteries it busies it self about lesser and is not able to conceive the Being without any other of it self but by his Works and either as creating or governing This it is certain was thought by learned Men among the Arians to be the very Tenet of the Christians as may be gathered from what Eusebius in Praep. Evangelica says out of Philo. 2. But especially he affirms those things concerning the Divine Reason which as to the words and sometimes also as to the sense are very like the Christian Doctrin of which I shall produce some examples He calls Reason more than once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul Col. i. 15 in Lib. de Agricultura p. 152. where after he had mentioned the parts of the Universe he tells us that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had set over it his right Reason his first born Son who undertook the care of this sacred Flock as some great King's Deputy 3. He describes it as executing the Office of a Mediator between God and Men in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres p. 396. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Prince of Angels and most antient Reason the Father who created all things conferred this excellent gift to stand as a Mediator and divide that which comes to pass from that which he has made And he perpetually intercedes for perishing Mortals with the incorruptible Nature and is the Princes Embassador to his Subjects He is neither unbegotten as God is nor made as we are but of a middle Nature between both extremes acting the part of a Surety or Pledg with both with the Creator by engaging that Mankind shall never all grow corrupt or rebel preferring Confusion to order and with the Creature by giving them good hope that the Merciful God will never overlook or neglect his own Workmanship 4. Upon this account he calls him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a High-Priest in Lib. de somniis p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seems to have two Temples whereof one is this World whose High-Priest is the Divine Reason his first begotten Son and the other the reasonable Soul the Priest whereof is he that is truly a Man In like manner St. Paul says that we are the Temples of God 1 Cor. vi 19 and elsewhere 5. In the same Book pag. 461. Philo tells us that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a Divine and a human 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof one i. e. the Divine purifies and cleanses the Soul from Sin 6. The same Author in several places affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God So in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invisible and intelligible â—ivine Reason and the Reason of God he calls the Image of God viz. Moses So in Lib. de Somniis towards the end he tells us that those who cannot understand God himself yet sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do understand the Image of God his Angel Reason as himself And elsewhere he gives the same description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul also called the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature see Lib. de Profugis p. 363. 7. In his Book inscribed Quod pejus est meliori insidiatur he says that the Lawgiver viz. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls by the name of Manna the most antient of all Beings the divine Reason see also Lib. 2. de Allegoriis Legis p. 70. seqq So in his Book intitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres pag. 784. he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine Reason the celestial and incorruptible Food of a contemplative Soul Which compare with the words of Christ in John vi 31 seqq There are many other things in Philo resembling the Christian Doctrin which I shall not here transcribe for what I have alledged out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is over and above sufficient to shew the possibility of his leading the Christians into an error by his Eloquence if it were not prevented by the Apostles Authority I shall now endeavour to interpret St. John's words and shew that in many things he had a respect to Philo. Vers 1. In the beginning was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in the number of those which signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the language of the Schools relatives it is not therefore to be thought that it refers to the Argument or Subject of this Book which is the Gospel According to all the rules of Grammar we ought rather to regard the signification of the words which immediatly follow and their connexion And here the following words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things were made by it and the Evangelist says the World was made by it which shews that he speaks of the beginning of all things or of the Creation of the World None of those that made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense viz. for a Nature which is with God and is God could understand these words otherwise because they attributed as I shall afterwards shew the Creation of the World to Reason And no wise man ought to take uncommon phrases in a quite different sense from that wherein they are understood by those who mostly use them and yet never warn the Reader of his understanding them otherwise Nor is it the part of a skilful Interpreter to understand Phrases in a perfectly new and unusual sense unless it manifestly appears by the Writer whom he interprets that they ought to be so understood Ibid. Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I interpret the Greek word and not by Verbum the Word or Sermo Speech or Discourse because those who first and mostly used it
there must be all the Attributes as well as the Will of God and when he interprets the eternal Power to be the Promises which shall never fail and thinks he has sufficiently prov'd it because the same Apostle calls the Gospel the Power of God For by this way of Interpretation no Sentence of Scripture can have any certain sense Thus he with a great deal of reason refutes Faust Socinus who in this matter shewed himself neither a Philosopher nor a Grammarian But he is too sharp upon him and at the same time upon Dr. Hammond for understanding the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner as Beza did who renders it jam inde a Creatione mundi ever since the Creation of the World They went according to the proper signification of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows being understood in the sense that Dr. Pearson would have it to be proves it the invisible things of God from or ever since the Creation of the World being understood by the things which he has made are seen For if it had been St. Paul's design to say what the learned Bishop would have him he should have expressed it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Creation and his Works and not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Creation by his Works The Examples he brings to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are nothing to the purpose because the Phrases are different He should have given us an Example in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know any one from any thing was put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But they say also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Matth. vii 16 20. tho the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more commonly used in this Phrase I could confirm this by the Authority of many Interpreters who are far enough from Socinianism but this way Dr. Pearson himself does not take Further tho it be very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify an Action but the Work it self or thing done yet because there is no Work without an Action nor any Action of God without a Work Dr. Hammond might well enough in his Paraphrase make use of a word which signified an Action being it included also in it the Work it self In fine Dr. Hammond thought that what is here said respected chiefly the Gnosticks in which I think he was mistaken but being of this opinion he was obliged to understand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much the Works of Creation as of Providence both ordinary and principally such as were extraordinary and made a mighty impression upon the Minds of Men in Christ's time As for Socinus's Interpretation of the words Power and Divinity as it is manifestly forced so it is rejected by his Brethren of the Polish Society Crellius and Slichtingius in their Commentaries on this Epistle Vers 23. Note f. There are some things with relation to what our Author here says about the Gnosticks that deserve to be considered and I shall briefly set them down in this place not designing afterwards to repeat them I. It cannot be deny'd that there were even from the Apostles time pernicious Hereticks to whom there is often a respect had in these Epistles as our Author has shewn Of which number were the followers of Simon if what the Antients say concerning them be true And it is possible likewise that these Men might even at that time boast of their extraordinary Knowledg and call themselves Gnosticks tho that Name came to be more famous afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Christians of that Age did not signify only Knowledg or Learning in general but also some peculiar knowledg of the abstruse Points of Religion and the mystical sense of Scripture in which sense we more than once meet with it in an Epistle of St. Barnabas See in the Greek Chap. 6. not 35. and Chap. 10. not 60. and in the Latin c. 1. not 15. of the Amsterdam Edition and the learned Dr. Pearson's Vindic. Ignat. Part 2. c. 6. But yet that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 21 st Verse has a reference to these Hereticks I do not think nor is it necessary II. The Doctor is rash in following Justin Martyr who erroneously thought that Simon Magus was deified by the Romans because there was a Statue at Rome consecrated to SEMON SANCVS which was an antient Roman Deity Caesar Baronius indeed had gone before Dr. Hammond in this but he had been corrected by Des Heraldus in Comment ad cap. 13. Apolog. Tertul. And his Opinion was afterwards confirmed by Henr. Valesius on Euseb H. E. lib. 2. c. 13. and Ant. Pagus in Epicr Baroniana ad An. 142. I do not think there is any more truth in what is related concerning the Contest between St. Peter and him but if it were true the Romans had undoubtedly pulled down his Statue for how could they have thought him to be a God who was overcome by a Man but Heraldus justly calls this a Fable in his Notes on the second Book of Arnobius III. I do not doubt but the Gnosticks or followers of Simon imitated the Heathens but I am of opinion with most other Interpreters that the Apostle had a respect here to the Heathens themselves and particularly to their Philosophers not those who imitated them See Grotius All that the Apostle here says very fitly agrees to the Heathens but there are some things which cannot commodiously be applied to the Gnosticks IV. I wonder our learned Author should think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to refer to Exod. xxiv and signify that Splendor which appeared on the top of Mount Sinai when the Law was given to the Jews and afterwards say that the Phrase to change the Glory is borrowed from Psalm cvi 20 For it had been sufficient to mention that Passage in the Psalmist to which this here manifestly refers and not to that Splendor or glorious Appearance The Glory of God is God himself or his eternally glorious Nature If by the glory of God in this place were to be understood that glorious appearance before spoken of the crime charged upon the Gentiles would be not that they had represented God by a visible shape but that they had made use of another than that They ought to have expressed that splendor by Fire as the Persians use to do not by figures of living Creatures as the Greeks and Romans In the Psalm it is said they changed their Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chbodam But St. Paul could not call God the glory of the Heathens who knew very little of him and perhaps in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Psalms which was used at that time by the Synagogues the words were read as they are now in ours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the glory
perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion as to the use of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I shall confirm by these Verses of Virgil wherein he elegantly describes the Mind distracted with variety of Cares and uses the word dividere Aeneid 8. at the beginning Magno curarum fluctuat aestu Atque animum nunc huc celerem nunc DIVIDIT illuc In partesque rapit varias perque omnia versat Nay and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be vexed with Care is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be divided between different Resolutions because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by changing the Letter E into H. See Eustathius on Homer pag. 80. and 1427. Edit Rom. But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to censure The first is his Citation out of the Jerusalem Paraphrase which makes nothing to the purpose it being manifest that those words signify Distrust or Vnbelief not Cares or Distractions And the second is his saying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns whereas nothing is more common in all the best Authors in both Languages than that Construction and which I wonder he did not take notice of it must be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy which he prefers before the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. CHAP. VIII Vers 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a respect to the Hebrew word which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians but to the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self which he here uses and which properly signifies an Image conceived in the Mind which is no where but in our Understanding and afterwards was applied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres And this is the reason why the Jews who spake Greek gave the name of Idols first to the Gods of the Heathens themselves and then to their Statues All which I shall deduce a little more particularly because it will conduce very much to the clear understanding of this Passage And first of all it must be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be like unto in which sense it is often used in Homer as for instance in Iliad B. Vers 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And near to him stood greyeyed Minerva like to a Cryer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast Whence the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came to signify an Image or representation of things such as is formed in the Mind And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as H. Stephanus has shewn out of Plutarch signifies sometimes the same And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin calls an incorporeal thing supposing it appeared in a visible shape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that remarkable Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men would be extreamly in love with Wisdom if it did but present some lively Image of it self to their view And because they thought that the Souls of dead Persons were clothed with a certain airy Form resembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when those Persons were alive that Form they usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of deceased Men. Virgil renders it simulachra figuras which he thus describes in Aeneid 6. Vers 292. speaking of Aeneas who was going to encounter the Ghosts if Sybilla had not diverted him Et ni docta comes tenues sine corpore vitas Admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae Irruat frustra ferro diverberet umbras This was the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks when the Jews first came acquainted with them and therefore when they had learned to speak Greek they fitly called the Gods of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly because they were but meer human Inventions having no real Existence and partly because they generally worshipped dead men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to use the words of Virgil Horum umbras tenues simulachraque luce carentum Which shews likewise the reason why the Apostle says that an Idol is nothing in the World for the Fictions of Men have no real Existence nor are there any such Images or Apparitions of dead Persons as the Poets speak of no more than there is any Horrendum stridens flammisque armata Chimaera Philo Judaeus Lib. de Monarchia affirms that Riches also are called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are but the fading Images of true good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these are the things which the Scripture calleth Idols like Shadows and Phantoms which depend upon nothing firm or certain Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sense of this Verse is not truly expressed by our Author out of Theophylact. It must be rendred for tho there be they which are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as really there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is one God the Father c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels in the Earth Magistrates who are also called the Lords of the World But Christians called only the Father by whom all things were created God and Jesus Christ by whom were all things Lord in the most excellent sense The Apostle has no reference to the false Gods or Idols of the Heathens nor to the common way of speaking among the Jews themselves for he grants that those were truly called Gods and Lords He seems when he wrote this to have had in his mind that passage of Moses in Deut. x. 17 The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords a great God mighty and terrible whom the Jews ought alone to serve And in like manner St. Paul here teaches that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords yet there was but one of those Gods and one of those Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worship Vers 7. Note b. No body will deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Body signifies to be sick and is taken also for a disease of the Mind if the discourse be about the Mind But I don't think St. Paul here has a respect to the general Notion of a distemper of the Mind or of Sin but rather speaks of an infirm purpose in the profession of the Christian Religion and the observation of its Precepts such as is usual in ignorant People who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors This is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiv 1 2. which does not signify sick or diseased in the Faith but Persons whose Faith was not so firm and strong
with the love of Pleasure tho he joins together things that are in effect often conjoined The same may be said of other Authors who have any like Passages for what is more common than to speak of several Vices together 9. Tho the Sodomites be upbraided for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these words properly signify villanous Lusts they are general terms by which their wickedness may be described whatsoever it consisted in as the constant signification of those words shew 10. Of the Passages cited by the Doctor out of St. Paul I shall speak when I come to them as also of the other places of the New Testament 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gen. vi 5 is a general name likewise signifying any sort of Vice or Wickedness and not particularly Lust Our Author made it his business to enquire not what was the constant and usual signification of a word but what he would have it to signify that he might the better apply some passages in St. Paul to his Gnosticks CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. THE Apostle as far as the eighth Verse goes on to condemn the Heathen Philosophers who did those things which they condemned in others and knew to be evil upon which account they were reproached even among the Heathens themselves See Lactantius Instit Divin Lib. 3. c. 15. who produces out of Cicero Corn. Nepos and Seneca very remarkable Testimonies against those who were Philosophers more in words than in manners Dr. Hammond to make these things agree to his Gnosticks puts several things into his Paraphrase whereof there is not the least footstep in St. Paul It is easy to find out what sense we please in any Author whom we interpret if we may take the liberty to patch up his Thoughts in that manner with our own I wonder also at Grotius for thinking the Apostle here had reference to the Roman Magistrates because of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he saith properly signifies a Judg when that word may as well be taken for any one that judgeth as a Philosopher who judgeth concerning Vice and Virtue as a Magistrate Yea Plato in Lib. 9. Reip. p. 506. Edit Ficini applies that word to a Philosopher where he speaks of judging concerning what is good or evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A covetous or ambitious Man is not qualified to judg but only a Philosopher And a great many more such examples if I had time and it were necessary might be found out to shew that a Philosopher may be properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This has a respect to the Philosophers who when they ought according to their own Doctrin to have obeyed the Gospel abused that skill in disputation which they had acquired by the study of Philosophy in resisting it And such were afterwards Lucian Celsus Porphyrius Hierocles and others who out of a love to contention opposed the Christian Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aptly to this purpose defined by Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contradicting or evil speaking or contending by words for which most of the Philosophers were infamous Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Apostle returns to what he had said in the 15th Vers of the foregoing Chapter viz. that the Gospel belonged to the Gentiles as well as the Jews and brought Salvation equally to them both as in this place he tells them that if they continued in their Sins and Unbelief and neglected the only way of Salvation they would both bring destruction upon themselves These he compares first with one another and then inveighs against the Jews who persisted in their Sins nor is there any thing that properly concerns the Gnosticks as any one will see that does but read the Apostle Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Passage perhaps Porphyry had in his mind who often read the Holy Scriptures that he might be able to oppose them when he wrote in his Book de Abstinent c. 57. that it was impossible for a Man to attain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Happiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless he were nailed if I may so speak to God and divided from the Body and the Pleasures which by that affect the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we are saved by WORKS not by a bare HEARING of words Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is they were not instructed out of the written Law but their own Reason informed them what was good and what was evil For that is said to be written in the Heart or Mind which we understand by reasoning without any written Institution This is not opposed to the knowledg of the Gnosticks but of the Jews Ibid. Note c. To this purpose is that elegant Passage in Plautus in Rudente Act. 4. Sc. 7. Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad istum modum Sapienter dicta dicere atque iis plaudier Cum illos sapientes mores monstrabant poplo Sed cum inde suam quisque ibant diversi domum Nullus erat illo pacto ut illi jusserant Vers 17. Note e. This is all forced Read the Apostle himself and it will appear that he speaks of a Jew properly so called and one that was circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not properly to be called or denominated but to be celebrated or famous so that St. Paul's meaning is this it is a thing universally known that thou art a Jew or a Disciple of Moses this is what thou pretendest thy self to be and gloriest in The Apostle has no respect in this to the Gnosticks who could not neither be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rest in the Law which they took not the least care to observe as our Author confesses but when the fear of the Jews urged them to it Vers 18. Note f. Dr. Hammond's Interpretation of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be confirmed by the Authority of an old Glossary in which that Verb is render'd not only by perpendere examinare to weigh to examin but also approbare comprobare to approve And in the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by praesto praecello to excel But yet because the Discourse is concerning one that is able to teach others what is good and profitable and what is not or of a Master I chuse rather to understand it of trying those things that differ or trying the difference of things that is distinguishing between lawful and unlawful And so in that Passage of the Epist to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify to distinguish carefully good from evil or not ignorantly to confound things which are different Whence the Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ye may be sincere that is without mixture of good and evil not sufficiently distinguished by you and consequently as it
leaves us in this mortal Life But that the Primitive Christians might not doubt whether God had really bought them they were distinguished as it were by God's Seal from the rest of mankind and received as an Earnest from him the Spirit of Miracles See Ephes i. 13 and iv 30 Yet the thing from whence the Metaphor is taken does not in every respect agree with that which is thus metaphorically described nor is it necessary it should for it is sufficient if there be but some similitude between them CHAP. II. Note b. THO properly speaking the Apostle was the Author both of the Punishment inflicted upon the incestuous Corinthian and of his Cure upon repentance yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not therefore to be rendred under many or in the presence of many contrary to the use of the Greek Language St. Paul here joins others with himself because they had consented to the punishment which thereupon might be said to have been inflicted by them especially considering it was denounced by their mediation Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It may possibly not without some colour of truth be conjectured that by Satan in this place we are to understand a man who was an enemy to the Corinthian Church rather than the Devil which endeavoured to draw away him who had been delivered to Satan and others from its Communion And therefore it follows for we are not ignorant of his devices Which words if they be understood of the Devil seem to be flat and superfluous for who does not know that the Devil does all he can to pluck men out of the hands of Christ Thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Satan is used in 2 Sam. xix 22 and Mat. xvi 23 which word the Apostle seems to have paraphrased in his Epistle to Titus Ch. ii 8 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot tell whether Dr. Hammond had not also some such thoughts about this place because he paraphrases it as if the Apostle had said for we are ignorant of his Devices Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Namely by their fault whose folly and wickedness made them reject the Divine Mercy and not without commendableness in those who received so great a favour as they ought to do Such another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into the mind of Cebes when he was composing that excellent little piece called his Table wherein he represents the old Man that undertook to explain the design of it speaking in this manner to the Spectators 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you mind and understand what is said you will become wise and happy but if not you will be foolish and miserable and wicked in your lives For the explication of this Table is like the Riddle of Sphinx which she proposed to men if any one understood it he was saved but if not he was destroyed by the Sphinx This is the case of all those whose fate it is Virtutem ut videant intabescantque relicta CHAP. III. Vers 1. Note a. THE Epistles commendatory usual among Christians did not ow their Original to the tesserae hospitales of the Heathens but to an universal custom among all Nations of writing Letters of Recommendation in behalf of their Friends And those publick Letters which were sent by the Bishops of one Church to another were instituted especially upon the account of Heathens and Hereticks for fear Idolaters or Persons of erroneous Opinions in the Faith should creep into the Churches and make an ill use of their Liberality See Beveridge on Can. Apost 12. and 33. Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is certain that all our Faculties Encouragements and Helps to Faith and Piety both General and Special Natural and Evangelical are entirely owing to God and therefore all thanks and praise must be given for them to him alone But these things St. Paul does not here speak of but of those Thoughts and Gifts which were necessary to enable men whether Jews or Gentiles to preach the Gospel And it is certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles could any of them of their own heads have preached any thing like the Christian Doctrin but it was requisite that those first Preachers of the Gospel should receive the Evangelical Doctrin by Revelation from God and Christ and be endued with necessary extraordinary Gifts to communicate the knowledg of it to others such as the power of working Miracles a singular constancy and unweariedness of mind and incredible patience to undergo all manner of Afflictions and the like Both the foregoing and following Context clearly shew that the Apostle here speaks about a sufficiency to preach the Gospel and nothing else and therefore our Author should have kept to that alone in his Paraphrase Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already more than once observed that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the Law as it was understood by the Jewish Doctors in a literal or grammatical sense and so proposed by them to the observation of their Disciples and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mind of the Lawgiver in giving the Law that is the Doctrin of the Gospel of which the Law contained only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elements And this St. Paul here seems to have a reference to and tacitly to oppose his Apostolical Ministry to the Industry of those Jews who travelled over Sea and Land to make Proselites to the Letter of the Law There is a manifest opposition put between the Law and the Gospel in the 3 d Verse See my Note on Mat. v. 17 and Rom. ii 29 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mere observation of the Letter of the Law would not save any Man or make him acceptable to God unless he had also a regard to the Spirit or Intention of the Lawgiver that is good Works such as are prescribed in the Gospel But the Spirit that is the Gospel saves alone without the observation of the Letter of the Law This is the meaning here of St. Paul and not what our Author says in his Paraphrase which has no manifest ground in Scripture but relies purely upon Theological conjecture Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Lord Jesus and his Gospel is the spiritual End of the Law or the ultimate Scope to which the Lawgiver had a respect And where that spiritual Intention of God or the Gospel is known there is Liberty that is men are no longer dealt with as Servants who obey more out of fear than love See my Note on Rom. viii 15 There is nothing here that has any reference to a Veil which is a token of subjection as Dr. Hammond thought The Veil which St. Paul mentions belongs no more to that than the Veil of Moses which was not put upon those that obeyed but on him that commanded CHAP. IV. Vers 7. Note b. I Am apt to think that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies testa that is baked
example of Abraham were accounted just and righteous before God upon the sole observation of the precepts of the Gospel And these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seed of Abraham because they obtain Justification while uncircumcised and the promises made to Abraham at that time uncircumcised are fulfilled in them in a more eminent sense than in the believing Jews as St. Paul himself shews in Rom. iv Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot sufficiently wonder at Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase of this Verse and if he had paraphrased the rest of this Chapter in the same manner I should have quite lost my labour in translating him For who would ever have imagined that the Apostle meant any thing like what he says upon reading only St. Paul's words At this rate of paraphrasing a Man may make any thing what he pleases of any Verse of Scripture This Verse therefore must be better explained It seems to be brought in by way of Parenthesis for the 21 st Verse is manifestly to be joined with the 19 th and so to be consider'd as a digression in which the Apostle upon occasion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonishes the Galatians as he goes along that as the Covenants made by God with Men were more than one so each had their distinct Mediators tho God himself was one The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify is not one as appears from the opposite member of the Sentence but God is one tho they properly signify is not of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some such word being to be understood It is all one as if St. Paul had said I told you that there was a Mediator between God and the Antient Hebrews because tho God be one and the same yet he has not appointed one single Mediator of one Gospel but the Law likewise had its Mediator viz. Moses Which comes to no more than if the Apostle had said there is not one Mediator for to say that the Law had a Mediator appointed it as well as the Gospel is nothing but to say that it is not one only that may be called by that Name If it be asked why St. Paul admonishes the Galatians of this I answer that it is an Exegesis by way of Parenthesis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which kind of Parentheses are very frequent in St. Paul's writings See Ephes ii 5 and iv 9 10. This I thought to be the sense of this obscure place which if not true does however very little depart from the Apostle's words whereas nothing can be more distant from them than Dr. Hammond's Interpretation Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here argues upon the Jews Hypothesis as I have before said who affirmed that God required perfect Holiness in the Law upon which supposition no Man can be justified by it nor consequently attain to Life Otherwise Moses every where supposes and takes it for certain that it was possible to observe the Law but he had not that Notion of the Law which the later Jews had who interpreted every thing mystically And according to these Mens Sentiments St. Paul here disputes and not that of Moses Which unless we observe it will be impossible to reconcile the Prophet with the Apostle Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular St. Paul does not reason from the Sentiments of the Jews but declares his own Mind tho it be a Consectary necessarily following from what went before supposing the truth of the Jews opinion concerning the perfection of the Law But the same also might be inferred from the Nature of the Mosaical Law it self as that which contain'd only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elements of the Christian Religion And those who are taught only the Elements of a thing are still under a Schoolmaster This might be proved by other Arguments if it were necessary So that what in it self was true and relied upon firmer grounds that St. Paul proved also from the Jewish Opinion by this means the more effectually to put the Jews to silence a thing which he often does Such is the perversness of Mankind especially in matters of Religion that they are not moved so much by cogent Reason as by prejudices and opinions taken up in their Childhood Such is the pride of Mens Hearts that they cannot bear to have their Errors confuted or inveigh'd against especially when their mistakes are of a long standing and grown inveterate or when those who are charged with Error have been always judged by their own party to be in the right and look'd upon as learned and judicious Men. And for these reasons Christ and the Apostles reproved as few of the Jews mistakes as they could viz. those only which would not consist with Christianity but their other prejudices that had no very bad consequences attending them and which their obstinacy would not suffer the eradication of to be attempted without manifest danger they chose rather to bear with and to reason against them upon their own principles because they perceived that that way of arguing had the greatest influence upon them But seeing we now live in a time in which we are to search out the Truth more for our own use than for the use of the Jews it is our part after the discovery of it to set it down just as it is Because if we do not we shall never understand the Apostle's Writings nor be able to defend them against the objections of Infidels yea perhaps which God of his infinite Mercy prevent instead of a solid Piety established upon its own Light and Evidence all our Religion may degenerate into but dark and fearful Superstition CHAP. IV. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we Jews for the Gentiles were never under the discipline of the Jewish Law which they were ignorant of and from which they were excluded by the very nature of the Law For it was a Law given to one Nation living in one Country the Land of Canaan This deserved here to be noted because if it be not observed the whole Discourse of the Apostle in this place will be very obscure Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 9. And there is no doubt but he means the Mosaical Law whence it may be again inferred that St. Paul did not think with the Jews that that Law was a perfect rule of Sanctity For if he had been of that mind how could he have called it the Elements of the World and weak and beggarly Elements The elements are the rude beginnings of any Art or Science and far from containing the whole art in its greatest Extent and utmost Perfection Which being so undoubtedly he thought those Elements might be observed by Men if they were consider'd in themselves as they are in Moses tho perfect Holiness such as the Jews affirmed the Law to be a complete pattern of was
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poverty or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes in Pluto in an elegant disputation wherein he endeavours to shew that Poverty is advantageous to Men after Chremylus had described the inconvenices of Beggery is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have not been speaking of my Life but declaring that of Beggers On which words the Scholiast makes this observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a middle sort of indigence when a Man acquires necessaries by Labour and comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to labour and by that to acquire Necessaries but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so called from his begging of every Body See also the following words of Chremylus and Poverty But I dare not insist too much upon the significancy of this word in St. Paul who does not use to be very critical in the choice of his words Further the Galatians who when they knew not God did service unto them which by nature are not Gods are said here by St. Paul upon their defection to Judaism to have turned to the weak and beggarly Elements whereunto they desired again to be in bondage because as I have already suggested they had gone over from Heathenism to Judaism before they became Christians There is no doubt but many of those who first believed the Gospel among the Gentiles were before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Proselytes of the Gate as the Rabbins speak or also of Righteousness Of the former sort were Cornelius the Centurion spoken of in Acts x. and Lydia in Acts xvi And there is no reason to think but the greatest part of the Galatian Christians were such Men who certainly might much more easily relapse to Judaism than embrace it if they had not before known it after their Conversion to the Christian Religion I remark this because Grotius who on vers 5. had observed that St. Paul spake of Proselytes unmindful of what he had there affirmed tells us that the Galatians are said here to return to the elements of Piety non quod Judaizassent antea sed quia multa usurpassent cum Judaeis communia ut ciborum delectum dierum discrimina c. Not because they had judaized before but because whilst they were Heathens they had a great many Customs common to them with the Jews as the distinction of Meats and Days c. But that he is mistaken is evident because it is the Jewish Law that was before called the Elements of the World on which words he has an excellent Annotation and because the following Verse here clearly shews that they are said to return to the Jewish Ceremonies not to say how manifest that is from the whole series of St. Paul's disputation in this place Besides the Religion of the Heathens cannot be said to contain the elements of Piety which taught the most consummate wickedness So that St. Paul would rather have said that they returned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if what Grotius here says were true And therefore we must understand him to speak of the Mosaical Rites which the Galatians who were once Jewish Proselytes before they had embraced Christianity had in part at least observed Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't know which to chuse Dr. Hammond's interpretation of these words or Grotius his who makes them to be a Description of St. Paul's extraordinary affection to the Galatians The place in Cicero which Grotius refers to is in Ep. ad Famil Lib. 7. Ep. 5. to which add this Distich out of the Epigram of Zeno the founder of the Sect of the Stoicks which Apuleius sets down in his Apology Hoc modò sim vobis unus sibi quisque quod ipse est Hoc mihi vos eritis quod duo sunt oculi Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I cannot see what reason moved our Author in his Paraphrase of this and the following Verses to make mention of Persecution whereof there is no footstep in St. Paul's words He is as much out of the way too in seeking here for his Gnosticks and the Authority of the Jews out of their own Country Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is do not ye understand the Law or do ye not hearken to it attentively when it is read to you It deserved here to be noted that St. Paul argues from some received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 midrasch vulgarly known For if that Allegory whereof he here speaks had not been before heard of he would have had no reason to wonder that the Galatians had never collected any such thing from the Story which he refers to it being not at all necessary that the words of Scripture should have any such allegorical signification as that is supposed to belong to them And therefore undoubtedly it was a known Allegory tho perhaps somewhat otherwise expressed by the Jews Further seeing this Interpretation could not be urged against those who might deny that the Scripture ought to be so understood and the Apostle does not make use of his Authority to confirm it it is evident that he argues here from what was generally allowed Which kind of things it is not material should be true or well grounded as long as they contain nothing in them prejudical to Piety and are believed by those against whom we dispute So that from St. Paul's using such an Allegory against the Judaizing Galatians it does not follow that we in this Age are bound to admit it as a secret revealed from Heaven to the Apostle For if we throughly consider it we shall find that most which has ever been said by learned Men against this way of interpreting Scripture in general may be objected against this particular Allegory Vers 24. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Participle in the Middle voice as every one knows and as Dr. Hammond himself very well knew tho he said otherwise before he was aware It is to be taken in a Passive sense and rendred thus which things are allegorically explained or use to be so explained that is by a mystical Interpretation applied to signify other things besides those which that History literally contains This kind of Allegories must be carefully distinguished from the Allegories of Homer and other Poets For the Greek Grammarians and especially their Philosophers affirmed that a great many things which were said by their Poets about the Gods were false in a proper sense and never really happened but in another obstruse and secret sense were true Whereas the Jews did not deny but that their Histories were true but from real events deduced Consectaries belonging to other matters as if those events had been as so many representations of other things Heraclides Ponticus in his little Treatise de Allegoriis Homericis gives us this true definition of a Poetical Allegory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Trope wherein one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are beyond measure fierce and angry at every thing and for every thing which is the reason of their being so called After which he proceeds to the third sort and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are hardly reconciled and are angry a great while for they keep in their Anger and it ceases when they have revenged themselves For revenge extinguishes anger by causing Pleasure where before was Grief But when this is not done they are pressed with an inward weight for because they do not manifest their Anger no one endeavours to appease them And for a Man to digest his Anger within himself requires time Now such Men as these as they are a great torment to themselves so they are most of all to their Friends Lastly those who are vitious in the highest degree in this kind he describes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are angry both for those things which they ought not and more and longer than they ought and are never appeased without Revenge or Punishment By these descriptions it sufficiently appears that St. Paul did not take the several words whereby he describes Anger in this place from the use of Philosophers or dispose them in the same order nor is that his Custom but to take mostly what he says from vulgar use and dispose it without any Philosophical or Rhetorical Artifice CHAP. V. Vers 2. Note a. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I confess be distinguished as Dr. Hammond would have them but they are very often confounded and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly frequently signifies all kind of Oblations in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Korhan or whatever is laid upon the Altar as Kircher's Concordances will inform those who are ignorant In this place they seem to signify the same thing because the scope of the Apostle does not oblige us to distinguish them II. Our Author 's reasoning to this purpose from Heb. x. 5 6. has no validity in it for it is not necessary that these two words occurring in vers 6. should be perfectly synonimous or answerable to those two others in ver 5. Wherefore saith that divine Writer when he cometh into the World he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not but a Body hast thou sitted me in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Burnt-offerings and for Sin thou hast had no pleasure If according to Dr. Hammond â—s reasoning a whole Burnt-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be exactly the same an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a sacrifice for Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be literally the same also which yet he would not allow But the words of the sacred Writers must not be reduced to the rules of Rhetoricians Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Note on Rom. i. 29 endeavours all he can to prove that this word signifies a desire not of Riches but of Pleasures tho with what success I leave the Reader to judg by what I have written on that Annotation This is the chief place that gives any countenance to his conjecture And indeed there are two specious reasons which as to this Passage of St. Paul may be alledged on his behalf I. It is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncleanness OR Covetousness and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seems to join together words of the same signification In answer to which I acknowledg that that is very frequently the use of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or but it is very often also a Disjunctive and connects together words of a different sense And when a Negation follows or goes before it is equivalent to nor as in this place for it is all one as if St. Paul had said Let neither Fornication nor any Uncleanness nor Covetousness be named amongst you II. It may be said that the words not be named among you contain a prohibition which agrees better to Lusts whereof the very names are obscene than to Covetousness or the Sins which proceed from that Vice Which I do not deny nay I think St. Paul spake thus merely because he had before made mention of Fornication and Vncleanness to which that prohibition seems properly to belong But it cannot hence be inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a vice of the same kind with those beforemention'd contrary to the etymology and perpetual use of the word for it is very common for one Verb to be subjoined or prefixed to many Nouns with all which it does not equally well agree See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Verbum Vers 4. Note b. All that our Author here says is very much to the purpose to which add that Men of debauched Lives use to call their Vices by soft and gentle names Far which reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might properly signify in common use not only light and rash but even obscene and filthy Discourses such as the Jests which we every where meet with especially in antient Comedies This Plutarch has observed with relation to the Athenians in the Life of Solon p. 86. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what is said of late that the Athenians covering odious things with mild and pleasing Titles to avoid giving offence call Strumpets Companions Taxing Registring Garisons Safeguards of Cities and a Prison a House that seems to have been first the device of Solon who called the forgiving of Debts an Acquittance Other examples to the same purpose may be had out of Helladius Besantinous in Chrestomathiis We may easily conceive how such sort of Men might call their obscene and filthy Discourses by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Note c. This latter Interpretation would very well agree to this place if it were certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever taken in the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies elegancy of Speech as well as of other things The passage cited out of Prov. xi does not at all belong to this matter the Discourse there being about a beautiful not a pious Woman Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture the Apostle here referring to the place in Isaiah alledged by our Author in his Paraphrase tho rather expressing its sense than citing the Prophet's own words Barnabas in Epist Catholica particularly in cap. v. often uses the same term in citing the Scriptures words Scriptum est enim saith he de illo quaedam ad populum Judaeorum quaedam ad nos DICIT autem sic Vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras c. Supergratulari enim debemus Domino quia
promise as well as they For if God promised to the antient Jews a quiet Habitation in the Land of Canaan he hath promised us eternal Rest in Heaven So that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in its proper that is in a general sense for receiving of any good tidings as it is often used in the Version of the Septuagint where the Verb in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bisser Nothing can be more flat than what the generality of Interpreters think the sacred Writer here says concerning Christians we have received the Gospel as well as the antient Jews because there can be no comparison made between the knowledg which the Primitive Jews had of the Gospel and ours What our Author says in his Paraphrase agrees neither with the words nor the series of the Discourse Ibid. Note a. It is much more probable that the true reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word of HEARING did not profit them not being mixed by Faith with those that HEARD it that is the words of the Promise concerning a quiet Habitation did not profit those who only heard it without believing it For they who believe the Word of God are nourished by it so as if it were incorporated with them and converted into their substance that is they are no less acted and moved by the things which they receive by revelation from God than those which they have found to be true by reasoning and experience And that which makes this mixture of the Word of God with the hearers of it is Faith for which reason the sacred Writer saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Word is mixed by FAITH with those that hear it Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the words of the xcv th Psalm be here alledged I do not believe the Sacred Writer uses the Authority of the Psalmist to prove what he designs but only expresses an antient Story in his words which is related in Num. xiv and Deut. i. And he interprets Rest in the words of God expressed by Moses and by David in a sublimer sense according to the custom of his Age in which all the places of the Old Testament were explained in a more sublime sense than what the words literally contained And as those who believed in the time of Moses enter'd into the Land of Canaan which then might be called God's Rest so the Souls of pious Christians enter into the mansions of eternal Happiness to which that name more eminently belongs Therefore it is said by the sacred Writer we that believe do enter into Rest Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is into Canaan which was as the shadow of the heavenly Rest I say again there is no mention in the Psalmist of any future Rest but only the Writer of this Epistle deters the Men of his Age from sinning by the example of the antient Jews Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words are to be referred and joined to the 2 d Verse in this sense Seeing therefore we also are to enter into Rest understood in a higher sense as I have already said when the greatest part of those to whom rest in the Land of Canaan was promised fell short of it That this Verse is to be joined with vers 2. may appear by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have a respect to those other in the 2d Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Subintellig 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture which word is often understood in antient Christian Writers The sense of this place is that not only the Primitive Jews should have taken heed of Unbelief but all their Posterity and consequently Christians seeing the Scripture teaches that whenever the Voice of God is heard it is to be obeyed and Rest is no less promised to the Obedient than formerly Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is if no other Rest were to be expected besides that which the believing Jews of old obtained under the conduct of Joshua the Psalmist would have had no reason to admonish the Men of his Age and the following Ages to take heed of imitating the primitive Israelites whom Unbelief excluded out of the promised Rest lest God should punish them after the same manner In interpreting these words two things are necessary to be done First we must consider the scope of the Speaker and by that his words are to be understood rather than by the proper meaning of every particular Phrase The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify literally as they are rendred in the Vulgar nam si eis Jesus quietem praestitisset For if Jesus had given them Rest But if they be so interpreted the Apostle's reasoning will be of no force If Joshua had conducted those antient Jews into a quiet Habitation the Scripture would not speak of another day in which the Voice of God ought to be heard Why not Ought not the Men of the following Ages to be obedient to the Commands of God Yes But the meaning of the Sacred Writer in the words alledged is this which I have expressed in the beginning of this Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly something is to be supplied in the following words for otherwise what opposition could there be between rest and another day If there were no other rest besides that which Joshua gave the antient Israelites it would not thence follow there could not be another day or another time in which the Voice of God could not be despised without danger But we must supply here what I have also before intimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which we shall be excluded out of God's Rest if we do not obey his Voice Yet two things ought to be carefully observed in such Interpretations and Additions First no Interpretation is to be admitted which the design of the Speaker clearly understood does not require and to which design the Writers reasoning makes nothing unless it be otherwise understood than the words properly signify Our Author Dr. Hammond has but little regard to the scope of this place into which he brings his Gnosticks by head and shoulders when the scope requires no such thing I have endeavour'd to make directly towards it and think I have not much erred from it Secondly that which is supplied must be taken if I may so speak out of the very bowels of the Discourse so that what is expressed do naturally and purely arise from propositions that must necessarily be supposed to be understood And what I have supplied seems to me to be such but what Dr. Hammond adds seems altogether foreign to this place of which let the Reader be judg Hence we may infer that the stile of this Writer is far from being formed by the Laws of Rhetorick according to which our first care should be to speak properly and clearly what we would have clearly
which are easily corrupted viz. to the comeliness of the Body whereof a part is the Hair which the Apostle had mention'd in the foregoing Verse and to Apparel which is a thing much more liable to corruption than Gold and which he likewise makes mention of It 's plain this Verse is oppos'd to all the foregoing Vers 7. Note c. I. If the alledged place of Scripture were said to signify any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should not doubt but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken for some secret Sense which the Jewish Allegorists sought for in the Scripture But it being said that Husbands ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dwell with them according to knowledge giving honour unto the Wife as the weaker Vessel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to manage the dispositions of Women skilfully and prudently II. The examples which our Author produces are nothing to the purpose for they do not contain any mystical interpretation of the places in Genesis but consectâ—ries deduced from the nature of Matrimony it self and the plain words of Moses The place in Ephes v. 31.32 I have interpreted contrary to Dr. Hammond and I shall not repeat what I have there said III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to dwell together or to live in the same House whence it was applied to all the Duties belonging to married Persons whether the Discourse be about Procreation or any other conjugal Office So that the place in Moses concerning multiplying is no more to the purpose than Plato's Fable about the Antient Hermaphrodites Other things here might be corrected which I pass by but shall afterwards touch upon Ibid. Note d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Duty of a Husband towards his Wife never signified to afford her Maintenance and tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes comprehends rewarding it does not signify that alone It may much more naturally and truly be interpreted to honour her as who being the weaker Vessel is extreamly offended even with the bare appearance of Neglect Ibid. Note e. There is no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Benefit but some of the places alledged by our Author might a little otherwise be explained as of John i. 14 I have shewed in a particular Dissertation inserted in this Volume In this place also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vivifying Grace or the Gospel of which the Wife is said to have been made partaker no less than the Man as Grotius has observed But I had rather read with the Vulgar Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for here the Apostle extols not the Man but the Woman which in this respect is made equal to the Man This the series of the Discourse seems to require Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is know that God is Holy or a lover of Sanctity For this is often the signification of the Hebrew Conjugation Hiphil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hikdisch which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Gen. ii 3 This sanctifying God in the Heart is the cause of our Sanctification before Men spoken of in the following Verse whereby we openly shew how Holy we esteem God See Levit. x. 3 and Num. xx 12 and my Notes on those places Vers 19. Note f. I. On this place our learned Author has collected a great many things all which I have neither leisure to examin nor is it worth my while especially having interpreted the place here explained in my Commentary on Genesis And therefore in a few words I shall say that the Apostle does not seem here to have a respect to the place in Genesis cited by our Author It is truly indeed rendred my Spirit shall not abide in man and the thing is to be understood of the Soul of Man as I have shewn on Genesis But the Souls of those that lived before the Flood cannot therefore be called Spirits in prison nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadin in Hiphil be by any means deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neden which signifies a sheath It should be read jindon to be deduced from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond does not seem to have observed II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Christ was raised is truly understood of the Divinity which was afterwards in him and was with God before Abraham was and so in the beginning of all things as St. John teaches us in the beginning of his Gospel But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Spirits keeping guard that is Angels who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep men as we are told in Psal xci 11 The same are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hirim watchers in Dan. iv 13 which may properly be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for watchers and keepers are all one So that the Divinity is said to have called the Men that lived before the Flood to Repentance together with the Angels who admonished Noah to exhort them to a better Life I should render this place thus and being quickned by the Spirit by which he went with the Spirits that watch and preached to the unbelieving c. When God is about to do any thing among men he is represented as coming down from Heaven attended with a guard of Angels of which I have spoken on Gen. i. 27 and xi 7 and Exod. xx 1 For this reason coming down with the Angels to admonish Noah and command him to call men to repentance he is said to have gone with the Spirits that watch and besides to have done that which Noah did in his name and by his command The Example out of St. Paul in Eph. ii 17 clearly shews that St. Peter might speak in this manner Vers 20. Note g. I. All that is here said by our Author are vain Conjectures which have no foundation either in things themselves or in the use of Scripture tho he often repeats them and that as very probable 1 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to believe not to obey which is a heinous sin where the thing to be believed or done is of great importance and a small one where it is a matter of little moment Here it signifies a great sin because the men of the old world would not obey God calling them by the Ministry of Noah to a better life 2 Tho we can say nothing particularly of the sins of the men who lived before the Flood yet we may deny that it can be gather'd from the words of Moses that they were corrupted with the sin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sodomy and other such like Tho they are joined with the Sodomites for their wickedness and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not therefore follow that they were both guilty of the same kind of Impieties different sorts of wicked men being often joined together and the same punishments suffered for divers crimes 3 The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
understand the words of the counterfeit Epistle of Heraclitus to Hermodorus as appears only by the Passive voice used by the false Heraclitus for such an abuse could not be put upon Heraclitus who was then well stept in Years In the places of the New Testament there is no reason why we should depart from the general signification of Corruption So that it would have been better if Dr. Hammond had here followed Grotius Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author after Grotius and others seems to have rightly interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Note on vers 3. But he did not carefully enough read the place of Euripides in Stobaeus his Florileg Tit. vii for the first Verse is produced out of his Bellerophon the last out of Euripides his Aegeus and should be divided into two Dimeters as it is in Grotius his Edition Ibid. Note c. Because our learned Author often speaks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Gnosticks to whom I have shewn that he refers a great many things without necessity and in this place sets himself more particularly to explain the original of their Name it will not be amiss if I also treat here of that matter in a few words I. I cannot deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a general name for any sort of Knowledg or Learning is sometimes taken properly for Christian Knowledg and where the Discourse is about the Mystical sense of Scripture for the understanding of Mysteries It is used several times in this sense in the Epistle of Barnabas as I have thereon observed But I should not compare the Gift of the Holy Ghost by which the Minds of the Evangelical Prophets were fitted to understand obscure places of Scripture with the Jewish Cabbala For this without any regard had to the literal sense taken from the proper or metaphorical signification of words and the series and occasion of the Discourse deduces any thing out of any place of Scripture and relies either upon trivial reasonings to prove what it asserts or very uncertain Tradition so that if any deny it there is no means left to convince them and those that believe it do so upon insufficient grounds and may be made to believe any thing tho never so unreasonable But the Christian Prophets who received their Knowledg from the Spirit of Truth alledged nothing out of Scripture that was not in it and could not be deduced out of it by Grammatical Reasons Otherwise Prophecies must have been explained by Prophecies and the new Prophets attested to by Miracles to make it believed that such a thing was contained in the Old Prophets because they affirmed it to be so which otherwise no Man could have seen in them which method of acting does not seem worthy of the Spirit of God as I have shewn out of a learned Man on Matt. i. 22 I acknowledg that in the Writings of the Apostles there are several interpretations of places of Scripture more like Cabbalistical than Grammatical ones but wherever we find them they are used only as Arguments to convince the Jews and in compliance with their Opinions and Practices not as demonstrations to Persons of different Sentiments II. I◠is very true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies a profound knowledg of the Christian Religion and so is taken in a good sense as manifestly appears from Clemens Alexandrinus who often so uses that word both elsewhere and in Strom. Lib. vi out of which I shall produce a few words so much the rather because from them we may gather the reason why the Apostle here joins Knowledg with Faith and Vertue Now he in pag. 648. speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we dare say for here is the Faith enlightned with Knowledg that a true Gnostick knows all things and understands all things having a firm comprehension even of those things whereof we doubt such as were James Peter John Paul and the rest of the Apostles Then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Prophecy is full of knowledg as having been given by the Lord and by the Lord again manifested to the Apostles And is not Knowledg a property of a reasonable Soul trained up to this that by Knowledg it may be entitled to Immortality Afterwards he shews that Action must be preceded by Knowledg and contends that nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incomprehensible which is true if we speak of things necessary For whatever it is necessary for us to understand to attain Salvation we can undoubtedly understand At length he thus describes a Gnostick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Gnostick of whom I speak comprehends those things which seem to others to be incomprehensible believing there is nothing incomprehensible to the Son of God and therefore nothing which cannot be taught If any desire the knowledg of many things he knows what past of old and conjectures what will be hereafter A Disciple of Wisdom can discover the deceitfulness of words and unfold Riddles he foreknows also Signs and Wonders and the events of Times and Seasons So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a more exquisite degree of Knowledg and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Person profoundly knowing Hence St. Peter exhorts Christians to join to their Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the highest degree of Knowledg possible III. It appears indeed from the Writings of the Apostles that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such a Knowledg but I don't know whether it hence follows that the Disciples of Simon were by an Antonomasia called even at that time Gnosticks or assumed to themselves that name There is no place alledged from whence this can be concluded Besides I don't know whether all that Epiphanius says of the later Gnosticks be true much less do I believe him in every thing concerning the Antient Epiphanius is not a Person whose affirmation should easily be credited where he accuses and inveighs against the antient Hereticks Yet I do not take upon me to defend the cause of these Men of whom there are no Records come to our hands But I leave the matter undecided IV. It is true indeed that in the Epistle of Barnabas many places of the Old Testament are explained Allegorically and several Mysteries unfolded which otherwise no one would have discerned in them But they are interpretations much more like the Jewish Cabbala and the greatest part of them undoubtedly vain if not also false but yet fit for the Jews of that Age according to whose Opinions rather than to Truth Barnabas reasons So that I should not account this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his the same with that Christian Knowledg which is so highly extolled by Clemens I would alledg some examples out of him but that the Epistle of Barnabas was this last Year M.DC.XCVII published at Amsterdam with
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. and Henr. Stephani will supply us with examples to this purpose in their Thesauri So that the meaning of St. Peter will be this that the Prophets did not open their Mouths ora resolvere or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own accord but by the Will of God CHAP. II. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gnosticks had been already every where spread as our Author both in his Paraphrase and his Annotations often inculcates St. Peter would never have used the future Tense there shall be shall bring in c. I wonder Dr. Hammond did not observe this Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The following Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall make Merchandise of you clearly shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies Covetousness tho our Author carried away by prejudice interprets it Filthiness But I have already confuted him on Rom. i. 29 Vers 5. Note a. This observation our Author owed to Sam. Bochart who treats of the same things more fully in his Phaleg Lib. 1. c. 3. Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Verse is thought by Dr. Hammond to belong to the Gnosticks whom he supposes to have been by birth Heathens but it as fitly agrees to those wicked Jews who took the ready way to destroy themselves and their Nation by their Seditions whom Josephus exactly describes in many places of his History of the Jewish War From this Writer who was an Eyewitness of what he relates it certainly appears that there were such Men as those but it does not appear from any credible Author that there were in Judaea at that time Dr. Hammond's Gnosticks Vers 12. Note b. Our Author is mistaken when he interprets the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actively as appears by the very last word of the Verse But these as living Creatures void of Reason made by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken and destroyed speaking evil of the things which they understand not shall perish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their destruction For therefore it is said of them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they should be corrupted not that they should corrupt because they were like living Creatures designed by nature to be taken by men and killed See Grotius on this place Vers 13. Note c. Seeing our Author had begun to borrow from Grotius what he here says he ought with him to have added that it was read so by the Vulgar Latin Interpreter Vers 14. Note d. Our Author should not have cited Plutarch de Verecundia for there is no Book of Plutarch's which has that Title but de Vitioso Pudore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rhetorician or Orator was called Amphicrates as we are told by Longinus de Sublim cap. iv on which see Interpreters Vers 15. Note e. I. Our Author does not speak accurately when he says that the Chaldeans pronounced Ain ע like S for that is not true and whenever they wrote that Letter they pronounced it like the Jews But his meaning was that צ Tsade is changed into the Guttural ע Ain and therefore it was possible the former might be sometimes written for the latter whence it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is expressed in Greek by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was written for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behor II. If St. Peter here has a reference to the Gnosticks as our Author thinks and the Gnosticks had already crept into most Christian Churches as the Doctor contends I don't understand why St. Peter in the beginning of the Chapter should use the Future Tense But if we understand him to speak of the wicked Jews who had not yet joined themselves to the Christian Assemblies but yet would join themselves to them after the destruction of Jerusalem there will be no such difficulty Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here has a respect to the first original of Bondage which was the effect of Victory and is thus expressed by Justinian in Instit. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Jure Personarum Servi ex eo appellati sunt quod Imperatores captivos vendere ac per hoc servare nec occidere solent Qui etiam mancipia dicti sunt eo quòd ab hostibus manu capiuntur Servi fiunt aut jure gentium id est ex captivitate aut jure civili cum liber homo major viginti annis ad pretium participandum sese venum dari passus est Servants were so called because it was the Custom of Commanders to sell their Captives and to that end servare to keep them and not kill them Which were called also Mancipia Slaves because manu capiuntur they were taken captive by the Enemy Men become Servants either by the Law of Nations that is by Captivity or by the Civil Law when a Free-man above twenty years of Age to enjoy part of the price suffers himself to be sold Vers 22. Note g. This Etymology is given by Sam. Bochart in Hieroz Part 1. Lib. ii c. 57. but he adds others altogether as likely CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius lest these words should be thought to shew that St. Peter wrote two Epistles of which this was the second contends that this is the beginning of a new Epistle of the same Simeon and that the former was comprehended in two Chapters But it was never the Custom to send Epistles without any Inscription tho they were written to those to whom others had been sent before This appears from the second Epistles to the Corinthians to the Thessalonians to Timothy c. So that there is no sufficient reason why we should think this to be the beginning of a new Epistle Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of the Doctrin of the Prophets and Apostles which our Author without reason interprets only of the destruction of Jerusalem who on this Chapter has out-done himself in straining the Scripture to prevent our thinking that the Apostle here speaks of the end of all things But a faithful Interpreter ought not to apply general words to a peculiar sense unless the thing it self or the series of the Discourse requires it which cannot in this place be pretended Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as Grotius well observes hereafter which I have already elsewhere suggested see my Note on Gen. xlix 1 But our Author interprets it of the last Age of the Jewish Commonwealth which was present at that time wherein he supposes this Epistle to have been written So that according to Dr. Hammond's Hypothesis St. Peter ought not to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came for those wicked Men which the Doctor thinks are here meant must have been already come or they never would come Besides who can bear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scoffers should be said to signify a mighty defection from the Christian Religion And what
signifies Machinations or Consultations the way would not be to consider the significations of the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately comes and which amongst other things signifies to consult III. Our Author 's reasoning from the sins here enumerated being disposed according to the order of the precepts of the Decalogue besides that it is overthrown by comparing this with the parallel place in St. Mark does by no means agree with St. Matthew's way of writing in which there is no such accuracy to be observed no more than in the other writings of the Apostles IV. As I do not deny but that part of the Wickedness spoken of in Gen. vi 5 was the murders committed by those who lived before the Flood so I am far from thinking that this is the only signification of those words the imaginations of the thoughts of the heart and I am sure it cannot be proved to be so In a word the Doctor in this whole Annotation takes more pains and uses greater subtilty than he needed to have done It would have been sufficient for him to have shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify the thoughts of particular persons but also the consultations of several persons together and that Christ had a respect to both and by that word was meant all kinds of evil thoughts and wicked consultations Vers 22. Note f. I. I have not that Edition of Pliny which our learned Author made use of nor Budaeus but I read the place in Pliny in the late Paris Edition of M. J. Harduin thus Qui subtilius dividunt circumfundi Syriâ Phaenicem volunt esse oram maritimam Syriae cujus pars sit Idumaea Judaea deinde Phaenice deinde Syria Those that divide more subtilly tell us that Phaenice is comprehended in Syria and is the Sea-coast of Syria of which Idumaea and Judaea make a part then Phaenice then Syria where the word circumfundi signifies to be contained or comprehended not encompassed as the Doctor and Pliny's interpreter thought as appears by the following words by which Phaenice is made a part of Syria and not meerly a Country which Syria surrounded And the reason why the Phaenicians are commonly called Syrophaenicians is not because they border'd upon the Syrians but because the same Persons were both Syrians and Phaenicians too and that perhaps on purpose to distinguish them from the Carthaginians or those Phaenicians who inhabited the Sea-coast of Africa II. The Barbarians mentioned by Laertius in Proaem can be no more the Jews than the Egyptians Chaldeans Brachmans or any other Nation which were all called by the Greeks Barbarians I know the Fathers generally affirm that the Greeks borrowed a great many things from the Hebrews but I know too that the examples produced by them are not sufficient to prove it for the Greeks might as well be beholden for every thing that they instance in to the Tyrians Egyptians or Chaldeans as to the Jews or it may be they might invent them themselves This I could easily demonstrate if this were a proper place for it CHAP. XVI Vers 6. Note a. THO I will not deny but that the Sadduces favoured Herod and so were Herodians as Grotius has observed upon this place yet I am inclined to think that Herod is mentioned by name instead of the Sadduces here in St. Mark by reason he was a Sadducee or one that denied a future State and so it was all one for the Evangelist to say Herod or the Sadduces And this seems to me to be the more probable because it does not appear from the account we have of Herod that he had any opinion peculiar to himself whereas that the Sadduces had so is manifest which therefore Herod rather seems to have embraced than the Sadduces any Doctrine of his he having none that was properly his own Vers 10. Note b. Between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not the least difference they both signify a vessel made of twigs worked together and might be both of several shapes and sizes And therefore that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in one of the Gospels and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another seems to me to be by mere accident not from any choice or design of the Evangelist In the old Glossaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Corbis Corbula Qualus Cista and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Sporta Fiscella Fiscina All which words tho different in sound have the same signification Vers 13. Note c. I should not think it at all strange if a Roman or Graecian Writer should say that Caesarea was in Syria because Palaestine was reckoned by the Greeks and Romans a part of Syria But a Christian that uses to follow the custom of the Scripture which always makes a distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syria and Canaan would have spoken more accurately if he had said that Caesarea was in the territory of the Tribe of Manasse on the west side of Jordan in Palestine or Judea But the contention between the Jews and the Syrians which he afterwards mentions was the reason doubtless why our Author thus spake Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have observed in my Notes upon Gen. xlix 8 which see Had Interpreters taken notice only of this they would never have denied Petrum and Petram here to be one and the same man viz. Simon that eminent Member of the Apostolical Society Consult Camero in his Praelect upon this place or in his Myrothec where he has put this matter beyond all doubt Ibid. Note g. There are two things here to be considered in Christ's words 1. It must be enquired what the demonstrative Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concludes this Verse is the Relative to 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gates of Hell As to the former tho Expositors generally agree in making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to refer to the Church which is its immediate Antecedent yet it might be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rock upon which the Church is built or to Peter the Apostle and this notwithstanding the Pronoun's being usually the Relative to the Noun which most nearly precedes it for it is frequently also to be joined with that which is farthest off as Commentators have observed See Act. vii 19 20. and x. 6 2 Joh. ver 7. And that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought rather to be referred to Peter than the Church appears by the scope of Christ's words for his design in this place as the thing it self declares and Camero has shewed is to promise something singular to Peter who was no more concerned in the state of the future Church than the rest of the Apostles 2. The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot otherwise be interpreted than
according to the use of that phrase in Scripture in which it occurs more than once And we are not here to consider what the word Gates signifies when it is alone or joined with any other word but what is the meaning of this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the signification of that word may be various according as the place is in which it is found Now no body will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and portae mortis the gates of death are the same and this phrase the gates of death signifies nothing but death it self So Job xxxviii 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death So Psal ix 13 Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death i. e. deliverest me from death So Isai xxxviii 10 Hezekiah being in fear of an untimely death says In the cutting off of my days I shall go to the gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as it is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall go to the gates of death So that the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies death it self But what does Christ then mean when he says that the gates of hell should not prevail against Peter or not overcome him namely this that the danger of a certain and speedy death upon the account of his preaching the Gospel should not deter him from discharging the office imposed on him and so not death it self So that Jesus in these words promises Peter after he had professed his belief that he was the Messiah that he should be a foundation of his Church and constant in the profession of the Truth he had declared which he fulfilled accordingly for Peter as we are told by Clemens Ep. c. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not only undergo one or two but many sorrows and so becoming a Martyr went to his proper place in glory We may apply to him that passage of Seneca as we find it in Lactantius Lib. vi c. 17. Hic est ille homo honestus non apice purpuráve non lictorum insignis ministerio sed nulla re minor qui cum MORTEM in VICINIA videt non sic perturbatur tanquam rem novam viderit qui sive toto corpore tormenta patienda sunt sive flamma ore recipienda est sive extendendae per patibulum manus non quaerit quid patiatur sed quam bene This is that brave and honorable person who is not remarkable for his fine hat of feathers his purple robe or his guard of Lictors which is the least part of his glory but who when he sees death just before him is not surprized with the strangeness of the sight and whether he is to undergo the torment of the rack or to receive fire into his mouth or have his arms stretched out upon a cross does not regard what but how well he suffers There is one thing that may perhaps here be objected viz. that according to this interpretation Christ does not keep to the Metaphor for after he had called Peter a stone he adds that death should not overcome him It is true but it was neither necessary that Christ should go on in the same Metaphor nor yet supposing that what we refer to Peter did as it is commonly thought belong to the Church will he be found to continue the same Metaphor For he compares the Church to a building which cannot properly be said to be overcome by the gates of death but only to be pulled down or destroyed Nothing is more ordinary in all sort of Writers than to begin with one Metaphor and end with another As for instance Clemens says a little before the words already alledged concerning St. Peter and St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faithful and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted even to death Pillars can neither be persecuted nor dy However by this it appears that St. Matthew or his interpreter very fitly uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to overcome by force for this is what Christ means that the terror of having a violent Death set before him should not overcome St. Peters constancy tho he saw the gates of death opened for him yet he should notwithstanding hold fast his pious resolution If any doubt of the signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them turn to the Greek Indexes to the first 5 books of Diodorus Siculus and the Roman Antiq. of Dion Halicarnassaeus collected by Rhodomannus and Sylburgius where they will meet with more examples than in any Lexicons But it occurs likewise in the same sense often in the version of the Septuagint I know very well that Interpreters commonly make use of these words to prove the perpetuity if not also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impeccability of the Church but they will never be able to evince any such thing from this place by Grammatical reasons The thing it self shews that the Church is liable to error nor is there any mention made in this place of errors That the Church has and always will continue I do not in the least doubt because of the nature and force of the Evangelical Covenant but this cannot be concluded from these words in which it is much more probable that St. Peter is spoken of both what goes before and what comes after belonging to him and not to the Church However I submit the whole matter to the judgment of the Learned Vers 19. Note h. I. It is certain I confess that there was a great difference between that Person 's power who is said to have had the key of the house of David in Isaiah and his who is represented in the Revelation as carrying the key of David but it would be hard to prove this from the sound of the phrases if it were not otherwise plain and manifest for the key of David is the key by which the house of David was open'd and shut and therefore the same with the key of the house of David Tho a key be an ensign of power the key of David does not signify the power of David himself but a power over the Kingdom of David Our learned Author is not always happy in his subtilties about little things However Mr. Selden has several Observations with relation to this matter lib. 1. de Synedriis cap. ix which those that will may read in himself II. Indeed for my own part I do not doubt but that the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches to single Bishops and accordingly that these ought to be reckon'd their Successors but as their Gifts were not alike so neither was their Authority equal And therefore whatever Christ says to the Apostles ought not presently to be accommodated to Bishops at least by the same Rule and in the same Latitude Especially in this place where Christ promises to St. Peter and the Apostles something extraordinary
could rescue him out of all those dangers if he pleased He has a respect to Psalm xvii 7 where the Psalmist speaks thus Make thy loving kindness marvellous O thou Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred of them that believe for to hope and believe when the Discourse is about a thing which is matter of Joy and that yet future signify almost the same thing So as others have observed God is said to save Man and Beast in Psalm xxxvi 6 So the Author of the Book of Wisdom chap. xvi 7 speaking of those who looked up to the brazen Serpent and were healed says he that turned himself was not saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that which was seen but by thee the Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Men. Vers 15. I will not deny but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in an Agonistical sense but there being nothing said here of those Exercises I rather think it ought to be rendered mind or take care of these things so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not neglect which went before So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesiod signifies care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 380. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where saith Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls care And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Poet is used for to take care as in vers 316. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know in Prose the word rarely occurs in this signification but as long as it very well agrees to this place nothing should hinder us to admit I◠Out of this which is the proper signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by its coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resulted that other mention'd by Dr. Hammond for they that exercise themselves in any business are careful and diligent about it CHAP. V. Vers 17. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies unquestionably sometimes Wages or Reward according to the signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to pay or requite and I doubt not too but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be interpreted double Wages But the other places alledged by our Author to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to reward or something of that kind do not seem to prove it For tho there were Rewards joined with the Honours there spoken of it does not follow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressive of those Rewards which undoubtedly were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Honour it self but an outward signification of Honour and are joined with Honour as its Consectaries II. It is true also what our Author says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but here it seems to signify not only to receive but also to be judged worthy to receive which is the most usual signification of the word In the place of the Exposition of the Faith printed with the Works of Justin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not simply they have or have had but they have been endued with that dignity or excellency of Nature as to be partakers of the same Divinity That is the perpetual signification of the word which is hardly ever used but in a good sense and to signify that he of whom it is said enjoys that of which he is worthy Vers 22. Note g. Dr. Hammond in this Annotation has ingeniously cleared the order of the Discourse but has omitted one thing which he ought first of all to have proved viz. That the Gnosticks forbad not only Matrimony but the use of Wine For tho the former be universally charged upon them yet I cannot tell whether any did ever accuse them of prohibiting the use of Wine It is certain neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius object any such thing against them and later Writers we need not trouble our selves about who for the most part copy after them Tho those Fathers omit nothing whereby they may render the Gnosticks infamous and odious so that we can scarce believe all they say Nay there is a passage in Epiphanius which if true shews the Gnosticks did not abstain from Wine in Haeres xxvi which is that of the Gnosticks Sect. 5. where he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Night and day sorry Fellows and Wenches employ themselves in taking care of their Bodies anointing washing feasting whoring and making themselves drunk And they curse all that fast saying that People ought not to fast because fasting belongs to the Maker and Prince of this Age and they must feed that their Bodies may be strong and able to bring forth fruit in its proper season There were indeed afterwards other Hereticks who taught it was unlawful to drink Wine as the Eneratites as we are told by Epiphanius in Haeres xlvii But all the Doctrines of all Hereticks cannot be attributed to the single Sect of the Gnosticks unless perhaps the Gnosticks were of several sorts CHAP. VI. Vers 2. Note a. IT is strange that those who have written about the Heresy of the Gnosticks did not upbraid them with this That they attempted to deprive Masters of their Servants and I do not well understand why Dr. Hammond if any Vice be reproved presently imputes it to the Gnosticks without any Authority from the Antients By this way of interpreting a wide door is opened for innumerable Fictions Vers 19. Note h. St. Paul seems to have attributed to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same signification as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lye viz. in a Storehouse unless it is to be read in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a very usual word whereas the former no where occurs in the notion of a Treasure or a pretious thing It is certain there is no great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeks use also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 20. Note i. Seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified Knowledg and such Knowledg as the Jews boasted they had received not from the Scriptures but by Tradition from their Ancestors there is no doubt but Men endued with that sort of Knowledg might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnosticks But it may not without reason be doubted whether even from the Apostles time that name was peculiarly attributed to one particular Sect of Heathens who feigned themselves to have embraced the Christian Religion and that owed its beginning to Simon Magus as it was afterwards Our Author has not said any thing to prove this latter and I have elsewhere observed many things which overthrow his Conjectures I am apt to think the Gnosticks of the Apostles times were Jews either by Birth or Profession who because they conversed among the Greeks mixed a great many things out
of their Philosophy with the Jewish Divinity and by that mungril Doctrine interpreted Scripture and Religion Afterwards the name of Gnosticks was appropriated to a certain Sect of Heathens mention'd by Irenaeus and Epiphanius In Barnabas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more than once used in a good sense for the knowledg of the mystical sense of Scripture In chap. vi after he had alledged words out of Moses in Exod. xxxiii 1 and Lev. xx 24 in which the Jews are commanded to enter into the Land of Canaan he presently subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and understand what saith Knowledg hope in Jesus who is to be manifested to you in the flesh Afterwards he interprets the words of Moses allegorically and says that by the Land was meant Jesus See also Chap. x. towards the end where that word occurs twice in this signification Some persons seem as they easily might to have abused that way of interpreting whose knowledg St. Paul here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to whom he often alludes in this Epistle But we must beware of seeking such Allusions where it is not necessary as our Author does in many places who yet sometimes seems to have hit the nail on the head as in Chap. iv 4 seqq ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy AT the end of the Premon Notwithstanding all that is here said by our Author it is much more probable that St. Paul wrote this Epistle after his last Bondage in the year of Nero XIII and of Christ LXVII a little before his death as it is thought by Dr. Pearson who has easily solved all the Difficulties which our Author here objects against that Opinion I shall say something to them on Chap. iv CHAP. I. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of these words seems to be this I thank God that he gives me cause to make perpetual mention of you in my Prayers that is because thou adherest to the Gospel for the Apostle did expresly make mention of those in his Prayers for whom he had a particular Affection and whom he knew to be faithful to Christ This may be gather'd from the beginning of most of his Epistles See especially that to Philemon vers 4 and 5. Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of a long time God had purposed to give us by Jesus Christ. He means the Gospel which God had purposed should be preached both to Jews and Gentiles as appears from vers 10. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a long time is evident from Tit. i. 2 where see our Author and Grotius upon this place And that is said to be given which is by a certain and immutable Counsel decreed to be given So Virgil Aeneid 1. vers 282. represents Jupiter speaking thus concerning the Romans His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono Imperium sine sine DEDI See Note on Ephes i. 4 CHAP. II. Vers 16. Note b. THE place in Tertullian is in Chap. xxxiii de Praeser Haeret. where he speaks thus Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores dubitatores resurrectionis Haec opinio propria Sadducaeorum Partem ejus usurpat Marcion Apelles Valentinus St. Paul in his first to the Corinthians marks those who denied or doubted of the Resurrection This opinion was peculiar to the Sadduces Part of it is espoused by Marcion c. And a little after Aeque tangit eos qui dicerent factam jam resurrectionem id de se Valentiniani asseverant He likewise takes up those that said the Resurrection was already past which the Valentinians affirm of themselves The rest which our Author says in this Annotation about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Derivatives and about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a mere Medley and perfectly useless I will not say to those that understand the Greek Language but those also who can consult Lexicons in which they may find these words more largely and better explained than they are here I shall note only a few things concerning them I. Because while Cattel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are feeding they wander out of one place into another therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to wander as on the contrary the Latin word errare signifies to feed as in that Verse of Virgil Mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae The same I may say of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find in Numb xiv 3 where the Vulg. Interp. renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rohim by vagos Wanderers The Nomades in Scythia and the Numidians in Africa were really both Shepherds and Wanderers so that they might be denominated from both which every one knows But what is that to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Gangrene Our Author ought to have produced Examples which shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the eating of a spreading Ulcer of which there are several given by H. Stephanus The Doctor alledges a Verse as out of Hesiod which is Homers in Iliad Υ. v. 249. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a profusion of words with which any one feeds himself as Eustathius on that place observes Yet that word occurs in Hesiod in the same sense in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 403. where the Poet admonishes Persa that if he did not labour there would come a time when he should beg with a great many words in vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A profusion of words will be useless II. There was no need of recurring to the Septuagint to shew that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes to shun that being the use of it in the best Greek Writers as Lexicographers will shew And therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to shun because if we meet with any thing in our way which we would not run upon and we cannot remove we go round about it Or if we would come nearer the proper signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be to stand about that is to stand still when we meet with any stumbling block for fear of falling upon it Suidas interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flying from or avoiding and then he produces the place concerning Moses alledged by our Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he always avoided a multitude and Tumults especially CHAP. III. WHat our Author says here about Simon 's Contest and Flying he took out of Caesar Baronius as also other things of no great moment See Baron Annal. ad A. C. LXVIII of Nero the 12 th But these things I have already elsewhere confuted See especially what I have said on 2 Thess ii 3 I shall only add that the place which our Author refers to in Suetonius does not at all belong to this matter it is in Chap. 12. of the Life of Nero and