signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not as to those words to be extended any farther In like manner where it is taken for a Covenant it is not to be inferred that all those things are to be sought for in God's 0economy either Old or New that are observable in Covenants and that every thing must be interpreted according to the Notion of a Covenant From a steddy consideration of the thing it self it appears that God's Dispensations are nothing but Laws And therefore whatever is said about foederal Signs by which God and Men do more closely bind themselves to one another being besides Scripture and not to be certainly concluded from the word Covenant is perhaps to be reckon'd among those things which Divines have more subtilly invented than solidly proved God has no where declared that it was his design to deal with Men so as that all his Dispensations should perfectly resemble Covenants even in the smallest Circumstances But perhaps some may reply that sometimes neither the mind of the Speaker nor things themselves are sufficiently known to us and ask what we are to think then of the signification of words I do not see what else can be done in such a case than to determine nothing rashly as if it were certain It is undoubtedly the part of a wise Man to refrain from judging of what is doubtful and I confess I do not know in this dark state of Mortality what can be safer than laying such a restraint upon our selves But this Doctrin will please but few because most Men love to conceal their Ignorance and had rather seem learned than really be so This may suffice to have been said once for all about an over subtil interpretation of metaphorical words that I may have no occasion to inculcate it Addit to the Remark on the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Title of the first Gospel after these words still remaining to us Barnabas who wrote in the same Age with St. Matthew Ep. Cath. c iii. cites this Gospel in these words Attendamus ergo ne forte sicut scriptum est multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur Let us take heed therefore lest we should be found as it is written many are called but few are chosen These words are twice found in St. Matthew Chap. xx 16. and xxii 14. and in no other place of Scripture For it is observable that St. Matthew is here cited as Scripture as that form of Speech SICVT SCRIPTVM est manifestly shews whence we may infer in how great Esteem this Gospel was as soon as ever it was published Hence it came to pass that when Barnabas his Sepulchre was thought to have been found out by Revelation by Anthemius Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus it was feigned that St. Matthew's Gospel was found also on the breast of Barnabas written in Tables of Thyne wood Thyinis tabulis See Theodor. Lector Lib. 11. at the beginning and Nicephorus Callist Lib. xvi c. 37. and Suidas on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported also that the same Gospel was carried by Bartholomew into India that is Aethiopia where it was found by Pantenus Catechist of the Church of Alexandria under the Reign of Commodus see Euseb Hist Eccles Lib. v. c. 10. These things whether true or no shew that the Antients thought this Gospel was written before the others and that the Apostles carried it about with them ADDITIONS To Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Matthew CHAP. I. Vers 1. Note a. THO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly to bring forth metaphorically signifies to effect yet it does not thence follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tholedah signifies every event for the Metaphors of derivative words are often different from those of their Primitives In all the places that the Doctor alledges Tholedah plainly signifies the origin of a thing which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Gen. ii 4 v. 1. be examin'd it will appear that the meaning of the sacred Historian is this viz. that that was the origin of the World and Mankind which he had describ'd Chap. xxxvii 2 These are the generations refers to what goes before and the meaning of Moses is nothing but this that the Ancestors of Jacob were the same with those of Esau whose Genealogy he had declared in the Chapter immediately preceding So Numb iii. 1 The Generations of Moses and Aaron signify their origin from the Tribe of Levi. In the same sense we meet with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several times in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ocean from which all things had their origin And elsewhere speaking of the Ocean he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that from which the Gods had their origin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore as Grotius very well interprets it is a description of the Origin which title must be reckon'd prefix'd only to this Chapter Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here are three Kings left out Ahaziah Joas and Amaziah Again St. Luke reckons up nineteen Generations of natural Descendents from Salathiel to Joseph whilst St. Matthew numbers but ten according to legal extraction the later must needs have omitted seven persons likewise in his last class of Generations Concerning these Omissions many make divers Conjectures That of Grotius is generally look'd upon to be the best that St. Matthew kept to the number of Generations in the first class from Abraham to David which was most known for memory sake in the rest and so it was necessary that some Generations should be omitted that there might be just three fourteens But it does not seem probable at all to others that the Evangelist merely for the sake of keeping to the number of fourteen should designedly pass over ten persons and especially in that part of his Computation in which it behov'd him to use the greatest exactness because it was least known for till the time of the Captivity the Genealogical series of the Royal Family of David was very well understood but from that time to Christ it was known but obscurely Besides a person cannot be said to retain any Genealogy in his memory that out of fifty persons or thereabouts omits ten and if the Genealogy of Christ must needs have been divided into certain classes it was not therefore necessary that a fifth part of his Ancestors should be pass'd over to make a division into fourteens when it had been easy to make another division This made a very good Friend of mine think that St. Matthew lighted upon a genealogical book of David's family that was defective and accidentally observing there three classes of fourteen Generations between these three great periods of time viz. before the setting up of the Regal Government during its continuance and after its fall was thereby mov'd to make such a division in his account of Christ's Lineage which he would not so much as have
the shore he presently leaped into the water impatient of delay that he might as soon as possible come to the Lord whilst the rest tarried in the Ship till they could step out of it upon Land This occasion St. Peter gave Christ to ask him whether he loved him more than the rest of his Disciples because he came sooner to him than they Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius here has this gloss When thou hast added almost forty years to those which thou hast lived already But out of what Chronology did he learn that from the year of Christ's death to the last of Nero beyond which the death of St. Peter cannot be deferred there was the space of forty years From the year of Christ 33 in which he ascended into Heaven to the 68 th in which Nero died there were only 35 years And supposing St. Peter to have died Anno Christi 65 as the most exact Chronologers think there will be fewer I wonder that Dr. Hammond too should follow Grotius here without any examination Vers 22. Note c. This coming of Christ is very well interpreted by Dr. Hammond who deserves to have almost all the glory of it For few other Interpreters besides him ever discerned the true meaning of it and no body has ever so clearly explained it or so copiously demonstrated it This opinion of his is confirmed by the Church of Ephesus which in vers 24. declares the truth of St. John's Testimony both as to this and all other things If the Christians of that Age had believed the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify till I come to judg the living and the dead as the Apostles had thought they must have judged the testimony of St. John not be true because he was dead and yet that last day was not come Since therefore they thought St. John a faithful Witness both of Christ's Doctrin and Resurrection and knew that he was dead they must have understood this coming of Christ in another sense And nothing happened in all that interval of time which could be called Christ's coming but that remarkable Vengeance which he took upon the Jews Vers 24. Note d. How could the Ephesians say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know that his testimony is true namely not only by those evidences of veracity and prudence which they observed in St. John himself but chiefly by his Doctrin and Miracles the former being a holy Doctrin and the latter God's Seal to the truth of it ANNOTATIONS ON THE ACTS of the Holy Apostles AT the end of the Premon It is much more probable that St. Peter died in the Reign of Nero and that in the year of Christ 65. as A. Pagus has shewn in Baron Epicr ad Ann. 67. CHAP. I. Vers 13. Note d. I Have several Remarks to make on this Interpretation of Dr. Hammond I. That he recurred to this singular Interpretation because he thought that these two Passages of St. Luke could hardly otherwise be reconciled In the last Verse of his Gospel he has not said that the Apostles were always in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And here he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an upper room where they abode and pray'd to God But the Doctor himself acknowledges that the Apostles were not in the Temple the whole day but only at the stated times of publick Prayer At other times therefore they were at their own Houses in which I do not see why there could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which they might retire in order to pray or to spend their time with their Master or in pious Discourses about him And therefore this place may be very well understood thus where they abode when they were not in the Temple or hinder'd by other Affairs where they were for the most part when they kept at home II. It is indeed very true that there were several Chambers or Rooms in the Temple which might be called so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctor might have taken less pains in proving it but he should have given us some Examples to assure us that the common People and especially Strangers did not only pray in the Court of Israel but went up also into the Chambers that lay over the Porches in order to pray with the more secrecy For it is not at all probable that the Apostles who were poor men and Galileans and odious for their Master's sake to the Jews dared to do any thing which others could not in the Temple in which they might have been taken notice of by the Priests and Levites Our Author therefore ought to have shewn that it was the custom of pious Men to retire sometimes into the more secret Chambers of the Temple for their private Devotion which I cannot tell whether any body can prove at least I never met with any footstep of that custom III. He perfectly forces the words in Chap. ii 46 as I shall afterwards shew IV. Epiphanius doth not affirm that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of was where the Temple had been but in Mount Sion upon which as all know was built the Palace or City of David and not the Temple which lay more towards the East and South and stood upon another Hill supposed to be Mount Moriah and commonly called the Mountain of the House He that does not know this let him consult Dr. Lightfoot in Cent. Chorograph premised before St. Matthew Cap. xxii xxiii and xxvii where by Passages taken out of Josephus and the Rabbins he puts this matter out of all doubt It must be acknowledged however that Epiphanius by the inaccurate order of his words gave the Doctor an occasion to mistake For he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He found the whole City demolished and the Temple of God trampled upon except a few Houses The three last words the Doctor makes to refer to the Temple when they ought to be referred to the City It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church of God which was little in the place to which the Disciples returning when our Saviour was caught up from Mount Olivet went up into the upper room for there it was built This Church was not on the ground where the Temple stood but in Mount Sion as Epiphanius tells us in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a part of Sion which was left undestroy'd and some parts of the Houses that were about the same Sion and seven Synagogues which stood alone in Sion Vers 15. Note e. It is true indeed that the Name of God in Scripture is often put for God himself and that the Rabbins call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name with an Emphasis But we never find it set to signify Men or Persons in the Old Testament I am apt to think that it is rather a Latinism than a Hebraism For in Latin Authors nothing is more common than for the word Names to be
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the words of a Prediction are so conceiv'd as to respect indeed primarily a certain event but yet so also as to shadow out something that is of greater importance So Hosea spake indeed directly of the Israelites but because the bringing of the People of Israel out of Egypt was a type of Christ's return out of the same Country into Judea therefore in speaking of the type he is to be thought to have spoken concerning the Antitype also But there are a few things to be observed with relation to this matter which the most learned Interpreters have past by First to use the instance of Hosea it must be confess'd that no body living in that Age could have possibly discern'd any prediction in those words of his but by an intimation from the Prophet himself viz. that tho he spake of a thing that was past yet he had his mind upon an event that was to happen at some Ages distant of which the former was a typical representation Otherwise who could in the least suspect that there was any Prediction latent in a simple relation of matter of Fact Israel was a Child and I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt No body sure will say that the Jews who were far from being a subtil People could ever of their own heads without any advertisment have discover'd here a Prophecy The same we are to think of all other Prophecies of this kind 2 dly Since it is no where found in the old Testament that any such Intimation or Advertisment was given either we must acknowledg that no Prophecy being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be understood by the Jews before the event or else that the Prophets did privately instruct their Disciples if not also admonish the common People that whenever they recounted any of God's past favours or when they spake of themselves they had in their minds a respect to something future Nay it was necessary they should have particularly and severally interpreted every Prediction of that kind and pointed to the event which it had a respect to for otherwise who could be so subtil as between two not much differing events to discern which of 'em was designed in the Prediction But the first of these having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell we must necessarily admit the latter and say that there remained among the Jews in Christ's time several traditions concerning the sense of Prophecies handed down from the Prophets themselves The reason why they did not commit those traditions to writing I confess I do not clearly see but it does not follow from thence that there were no such unwritten Doctrines Nor do I deny but that this way of teaching had its inconveniences and that some false opinions might creep in amongst the true traditions but our enquiry is not what would be most convenient or what we our selves should have done but what was done which is the only thing to be considered in searching into Antiquities 3 dly The same we must think of the types and of typical Predictions for no body that was not first warn'd could ever understand those things that were done or which came to pass to have been representations of things future 4 thly Unless these things be so all the use of those typical Predictions must have been confin'd to those to whom they were explained after the event which how small that is appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2 d vers And not to repeat what has been said by him I might at least gather from hence that no Arguments could be brought from that sort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Christians it was intirely owing to the Authority of the Apostles and not to the Evidence of the Arguments For it is manifest to all that understand Hebrew that the Prophet speaks concerning Israel and that he should speaking of their going out of Egypt have had a respect to Christ's return into Judaea would have been impossible for us to know without a Revelation And therefore we must be oblig'd to say that the Prophets left their Disciples a Key q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions which would otherwise have been shut up out of every body's view And had not this been so it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Messias upon some places in the Prophets out of which no such matter could be fetch'd by the mere assistance of Grammar nor would the Apostles have cited them as making for their purpose For both the former had made themselves ridiculous if they had neglected the grammatical sense and recurred without any other reason than their own fancy to a more sublime one and the latter had been but ill Disputants to produce such Passages as might be hiss'd at The Authority of the Apostles ought not here to be objected as that which added strength to their Reasonings for they themselves did not rely upon their own Authority but upon the force of their Arguments You will no where find it said that Prophecies ought so or so to be interpreted because the Apostles who were inspir'd by the Holy Ghost and whose Doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles did in that manner interpret them but this they take every where for granted that they should be so explained as they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion amongst the Jews Vers 23. Note l. Many think it strange that the Prophets should here be quoted when no such thing as what is here mentioned can by the help of Grammar be deduc'd from any words of the Prophets for there is no place from whence it can be grammatically gather'd that the Messias was to be called by this name of a Nazarene That which is drawn from the meer similitude between the words Netser and Nezir is harsh and far-fetch'd By what means therefore could this be deduced from the Writings of the Prophets It must be doubtless by an allegorical Interpretation of some place which was vulgarly known in those times but is not now extant And this seems to be the reason why St. Matthew did not produce any one Prophet by name but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets in the plural number as referring rather to some allegorical sense than any Scripture words as Jerom has well observ'd So the Writers of the Apostolical times used to cite a Tradition just as if they were the very words of Scripture as we may see frequently done in the Catholick Epistle of Barnabas Chap. vi and especially where the Discourse is about the Scape-goat He brings us as out of the Scripture these words as they are extant in the antient Version Exspuite in illum omnes pungite imponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius sic in aram ponatur cum ita factum fuerit adducite qui ferat hircum in eremum auferat portet illum in stirpem quae
any dishonesty And therefore the old Greek and Latin Copy which contains rather a sort of Paraphrase than as is generally but erroneously supposed the bare words of the Evangelists uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most simple And thus also Hesychius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unblameable pure without deceit I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies likewise unhurt but there is no room here for that signification It would be nearer the sense if we took it in the notion that it occurs several times in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus for one that is free from making a party either with the Grandees or the common People and meddles with none of their designs But neither does this notion of the word sute this place There is nothing can be objected against the interpretation I have given of it except that Doves may be said indeed to be harmless but not properly sincere But we must not be too critical about such things as these for otherwise we might say in the same manner that a prudent Nature is not so aptly represented by Serpents as one that is treacherous and hurtful These are proverbial Sayings which must not be over narrowly searched into but we must gather their sense very often from Custom rather than the consideration of the things themselves And of this kind of Sayings we may meet with an infinite number in common Speech Vers 27. Note k. Hither perhaps may be aptly referr'd that Passage in Herodotus lib. 3. cap. 24. where it is said that the Magi or learned Philosophers of the Country who had seized upon the Persian Empire would have obliged Prexaspes by whom Smerdis the Son of Cyrus had been killed to proclaim from a high Tower to the Persians in a full Assembly that Smerdis was in the Throne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saying that they would gather together all the Persians under the wall of the palace they commanded him to go up upon a Tower and proclaim to them that they were governed by Smerdis the Son of Cyrus Vers 29. Note l. Tiberius's Assarium which is that here spoken of is said by Doctor Edward Bernard lib. 2. concerning weights and measures sect 2. to have been equivalent to six English grains of Silver CHAP. XI Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It would seem very strange that our Author in his Paraphrase upon this Verse should deny John to have been a Prophet to whom at the 9 th Verse and often elsewhere he gives that Title were it not plain that either he had no manner of desire to express himself clearly or else if he had that how great soever his other excellencies were Perspicuity was not his Talent When therefore he denies John to have been a Prophet he must mean that compared with the Apostles he was to be look'd upon rather as a Disciple than a Master as he shews in his Note upon the 9 th Verse Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of what ill repute the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were among the Greeks our Author informs us in his Notes upon Chap. ix 10 But there were two sorts of Men at that time in the Roman Empire that might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were some Roman Knights Men of Honour and Credit who were Publicans and farm'd the Customs and are often mention'd with Honour by Cicero especially in his Orations pro lege Manilia and pro Plancio This sort of Publicans do not seem to be referred to in the Gospels and that S. Matthew who is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not of this sort is beyond all doubt but then those Roman Gentlemen did not gather the Customs themselves but by their Servants or Freed-men or by other men of a low rank And these also were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were infamous persons because many times they levied the Taxes and Duties by force and as is common in those cases exacted more than was due See Suidas upon this word Upon this account it was that they had an ill name and especially among the Jews who paid Tribute to the Romans very much against the grain and could not without indignation see their Countrymen employed by the Romans to gather it for them These sort would in Latin be better called Portitores if we should trust the old Latin and Greek Glossary in which Portitor is put to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Portitorium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in that wherein the Greek stands before the Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is render'd by Publicanus Vectigalium conductor Vers 23. Note i. I have some things to observe upon this last Note of the Doctor 's which may serve partly to confute and partly to confirm what he says I. It is true indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not as we shall presently see immediately and properly signify among the Gentiles any place but it is a mistake that it was put to denote the State of the dead if we take the word in its proper signification It is the name of a Deity who was believed to be chief Ruler in Hell and was otherwise stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pluto which every child knows And hence the place where the Souls of the dead were thought to be was usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of Hades As in Homer Odyss Κ. 512. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But do you go into Pluto's dark house and up and down elsewhere And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used as a contraction of the same Phrase as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go down into sub the house of Hades Nevertheless afterwards this word was taken for the place over which Pluto was thought to reign as Iliad Θ. v. 16. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much lower than Hades as heaven is distant from the earth The like Examples we may every where meet with That this place was supposed to be under ground no body needs to be told This is the constant acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Greeks it is either Pluto himself or his Kingdom that is signified by it but never the State of the dead II. But Dr. Hammond produces a place out of Phurnutus or Cornutus where he interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not to say that no sort of Writers can be imagined more impertinent than allegorical Interpreters of Fables that Triflemonger never intended to shew what was the common signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what Idea those had in their minds who heard that word pronounced but what sense might be put upon it that those nauseous Fables might be found to have a meaning in them not perfectly absurd But the signification of a word must be drawn from the sense that it is vulgarly taken in and not from an allegorical
men by the exercise of his infinite power but because in order to that end he for the most part makes use of Laws Threatnings Promises and such other means he could not possibly have acted otherwise than he did when no Laws could prove effectual to reform the Jews as to this point of the hardness of their hearts He would not therefore require of them what he knew they would never do And this was partly the reason that Solon went upon when he reformed the severe Laws made by Draco as Plutarch in his Life tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that makes Laws must consider the possibility of their being observed if he intends to punish but a few and do good by it and not a great many to no purpose Vers 12. Note a. The place in Aristophanes is in Nub. p. 151. Edit Genev. and needs no Correction no more than S. Matthew did this Rapsody to explain his meaning occasioned by a foolish Etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 24. Note c. lin 10. after the words hole of a needle These words are in Berachoth fol. 55.2 and the foregoing in Babametsia fol. 38.2 as they are rightly cited by J. Buxtorf in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. Lightfoot in h. l. Ibid. at the end of that Note Bochart has treated much more accurately concerning this Proverb in Hieroz Part. 1. l. 11. c. 5. We may learn from him in opposition to what the Doctor thought 1. That there was no need of Christs changing the Elephant into a Camel as the Beast which was most known since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Jews who used the Greek Language might signify a Cable as well as a Camel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Arabians and Syrians signifying both 2. That it was as common with the Jews when they spake of a difficult thing to say that the performing it was like making a Cable to pass through a narrow hole I cannot also but wonder why the Doctor makes Phavorinus the Author of that Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Cable when Phavorinus quotes Theophylact who was much older than himself to the same purpose and without doubt followed him in that Interpretation of it The word Cable as Bochart and others have observed came rather from the Phoenician word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebel which signifies a rope To conclude we must be cautious how we correct Hesychius in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be any part of a ship tho the place where the fire is kindled may fitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides Phavorinus has both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct whence it appears he did not borrow from Hesychius what he says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note d. It is indeed truly observed by the Doctor that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or regeneration here spoken of is not like that of the Pythagoreans but he might have added that it was of a nearer similitude with that of the Stoicks and that the Stoick Philosophers were the first that used this word to express the Restoration of the World after the burning of it Tho in the circumstances they differ very much in their opinion from the Christians yet in the general they agree as to this that the World shall be first consumed by Fire and then afterwards restored and the Christian Writers who knew the thing more certainly and came another way by their knowledg seem to have borrowed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense from them Philo in his book de Incorruptibilitate mundi p. 728. Ed. Genev. after he had spoken of the conflagration of the World proceeds thus in giving an account of the Stoicks opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which the Stoicks say that there shall be another regeneration of the World brought about by the Providence of its Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now according to these mens opinion it may be said that there is one World which is eternal and another which is corruptible the corruptible one so called because of its Constitution the eternal one that which after its Conflagration will by the perpetual REGENERATIONS and Revolutions of it be render'd immortal And often in that book he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense So Marcus Antoninus Lib. xi Sect. 1. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it perfectly comprehends viz. human Reason the periodical regeneration of all things So Eusebius Praep. Evan. Lib. xv c. 19. shews out of Boethus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Stoicks think about the Regeneration of all things And so likewise others speak of this opinion which puts it out of all doubt that this word was borrowed from the Stoicks who had a great many more of the same kind peculiar to their Sect. Seneca in his Nat. Quaestion Lib. iii. c. ult saith Omne EX INTEGRO animal GENERABITUR dabiturque terris homo inscius scelerum melioribus auspiciis natus Every living creature shall be regenerated and the earth shall have men to inhabit it that shall not know what it is to be vicious and whose birth shall be attended with better tokens About the opinion it self see Just Lipsius Phys Stoicae Lib. ii c. 22. But to pass over this we must observe that tho in some sort the regeneration of Mankind is begun by the preaching of the Gospel yet what is here said cannot in any wise be understood of that initial regeneration for in what sense can the Apostles be said to have sat upon twelve thrones and judged the twelve tribes upon earth And therefore most of the Fathers St. Austin himself not excepted understand the words of Christ of the time after the Resurrection See the Passages which Suicer has collected under this word in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus I wish our Author had warranted by sufficient testimonies what he says in concurrence with Grotius about the authority of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or heads of the tribes among the Jews For tho it be evident from the i ii and vii c. Chapters of Num. that there were such Persons in the Camp of the Jews in the time of Moses as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we find afterwards no mention made of them nor were the heads of the tribes Judges in the Apostles time I rather think that when Christ spake of twelve Thrones he had no regard at all to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only to the number of the Apostles and that he did not assign each man his own Tribe but made them every one Rulers over them all And that expression of the Thrones I rather think to be an allusion to the Seats of the Sanhedrim the Council of 72 Men who were the chief Judges in Israel than to the Seats of
long a duration as could agree to the thing spoken of whence the time of mans life was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Latin aevum The Discourse here cannot be about Eternity which has no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consummation or end nor is it about the time of mans life but about the space of time during which God had determined to preserve the Temple and Jerusalem as our Author has best of all observed So that if we consider only the series of the Discourse this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be Elliptical and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the Temple was to stand must be understood But because the duration of the World is sometimes taken for the World it self therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in Greek and Saecula amongst the Latins do now and then signify the World it self The same may be said of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holam as learned Men have long ago observed For which reason we use to interpret that word in the writings of the Rabbins sometimes Eternity sometimes any long space of time during which a thing lasts whatsoever it be and sometimes the World it self It is plain that in the place cited out of the Book of Tobit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both that determinate space of time during which the Temple was to continue and also the whole duration of the World For first Tobit says that they should build a Temple but not such a one as the first which should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the times of the duration viz. of the Temple were accomplished Then he says that there should be afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a structure that should be famous throughout all the ages of the world Hence by most Interpreters the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of St. Matthew is understood of the end of the world They tell us that the Apostles ask'd Christ first when the Temple was to be destroyed and then what were to be the signs of his coming and so of the end of the World It being undeniable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous Christ's answers must be ambiguous too some of his expressions agreeing best to the destruction of the Jews as Dr. Hammond has extraordinarily well shewed and others more properly describing the Conclusion of the World it self I like Dr. Hammond's Opinion best which yet may in some measure be reconciled with the other if we do but suppose the Destruction of the Jews to have been designed as a faint Representation of the end of the World as our Author likewise thinks in his Paraphrase upon Ch. xxv And so this Prophecy will be just of the same kind with those Old Testament Predictions which were so worded as to respect some greater event than that which was expresly and plainly foretold in them of which see Grotius upon Matt. i. 22 Vers 7. Note e. Our Author's Remarks upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are indeed true which is often used to signify not the Nations belonging to several Commonwealths and which were of different originals but the Inhabitants of various Tracts or Territories notwithstanding they were Members of the same Commonwealth and of the same Lineage such as were the several Tribes of the Jews See my Notes on Gen. xlix 10 upon the word People But yet there really were in Judea it self very sharp Contentions between different Nations viz. the Jews and Syrians which are treated of by Josephus in lib. ii cap. xix in Latin de Bello Judaico Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grothius thinks that the persons here intended were the ill Interpreters of the Law and indeed as Cicero lib. 1. de Divin says Oraculorum interpretes ut Grammatici Poetarum proxime ad eorum quos interpretantur divinationem videntur accedere The Interpreters of Oracles as Grammarians are to Poets seem to be near akin to the Diviners themselves which they interpret Vers 17. Note h. Caesarius was in a mistake for as Josephus lib. vii Bell. Jud. cap. xvi and xviii Lat. informs us Jerusalem was taken on the eighth day of September i. e. in the beginning of Autumn And his description likewise of the Slaughter has more Rhetorick than Truth in it Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely because they could not easily fly away which is the case likewise of those that have sucking infants or little children To this purpose are the words of Silius Italicus Punic lib. iv where he describes the flight of the Romans upon the approach of Hannibal's Army Tum crine soluto Ante agitur conjux dextrâ laevaque trahuntur Parvi non aequo comitantes ordine nati Vers 22. Note k. By the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are meant Christians as also in the places where they are set in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called as chap. xx 16 See the Notes upon that place Vers 26. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are properly the inner rooms or chambers of the house and it being usual to hide those things which we would have safely kept in such private places whenever a Commonwealth is spoken of it signifies a Treasury and whenever a Family is spoken of a Storehouse So the Old Glossaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiscus aerarium the publick Treasury 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cellarium Cella a private Storehouse or Cellar c. In this place it must be taken in the first signification for an inner room or that part of the house into which persons use to retire who are desirous of being private It is not probable that there should be a respect here had to a fortified City in which there are no more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or places for men to conceal themselves in than in others but only to a secret place in some house where the Messias might be said to lie hid See the Septuagint in Gen. xliii 30 and Exod. viii 3 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put in opposition to open places such as is a Desert and Christ's meaning is nothing but this that there should be no Deliverer to be found either without doors or within See Deut. xxxii 25 CHAP. XXV Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius has observed that the Syriack and Latin add here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so does also the Cambridg Greek and Latin Copy Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is not such a perfect decorum kept in Parables as I have already observed elsewhere as that every thing in them is an allusion to what was generally practised This appears sufficiently from this place for those that used Lamps did not for one night besides the oil that was in their Lamps carry oil in another vessel with which they might supply their Lamp that same night but they filled their Lamp once for the whole night But it
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Hebraism likewise such another as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to age of ages that is perpetually or to the very last age Vers 73. Note q. What is said here about the allusion of this whole passage to the names of John and his Parents is a meer trifle only fit for an Allegorist to say not for a serious and exact Interpreter such as Grotius from whom the Doctor took this remark Our Author supposes with others that the name of Zacharias's wife was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elischebah but if that had been her name she should have been called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor do I see why her name might not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elischebat my God is a Scepter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elischebath my God is rest Ibid. Note r. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must undoubtedly be joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius righly thought nor can any thing be imagined more harsh than this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be delivered without fear whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve God without fear is a Phrase that every body will acknowledg to be proper when the enemies of Gods worship are so punished and kept under by him as to be incapable of hindring his being openly and publickly worshipped But that which made our learned Author suppose that the Evangelist made use of so harsh a Phrase was the difficulty of understanding what deliverance was here properly spoken of considering the primary notion of the words Zacharias here speaks concerning the Kingdom of the Messias as the Prophets generally did viz. as of a deliverance of the Jews from the dangers that hung over them from their enemies At the time when Zacharias spake these words the Syrians Egyptians and other Heathen Nations that bordered upon Judaea bore the Jews such a grudg and were such troublesom neighbours to them that they could not exercise their Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without fear where the Heathens were more numerous than themselves nor go up to Jerusalem to offer Sacrifice without danger Nay they were not without some fears and jealousies of the Romans themselves lest being blinded with superstition they should some time or other oppose the Worship of the true God as afterwards they often did Zacharias therefore speaks of the Messias as of one that was about to rescue the Jews from these dangers in agreement with the common opinion nor did the Spirit of Prophecy undeceive him as to this matter and the proper sense of his words is this which I have mentioned But in a more sublime sense this deliverance is to be understood in general of the Enemies of Christianity who were in time to be converted to the Christian Religion so that those who were before a terrour to the Christians should enter themselves into Christ's sheepfold and set the Christians free from all their fears which came to pass only in the time of Constantine It was then and not before that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all suspicion misgiving and fear was taken away from the Christians as it is said in the Edict of Constantine extant in Eusebius Hist Eccles Lib. ix c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the side of the wicked was filled with the highest degree of shame and dishonour by the piety of their enemies as Eusebius expresses himself in the next Chapter These seem to be the Enemies here spoken of II. The passage cited by the Doctor out of Prov. i. 33 in the Greek translation will not prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a proper Phrase for these are Wisdoms words But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely and at peace and free from fear of evil which the Septuagint render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall fear no evil The rest of the passages which he compares with this place in St. Luke are foreign to the purpose CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note b. I. OF this passage in St. Luke the learned Jac. Perizonius has treated in a particular Discourse by it self wherein he has confuted Dr. Hammond and others opinion at large and if I am not mistaken solidly He affirms that St. Luke's words in the 2 verse ought to be rendred thus haec descriptio ante facta est quam praeesset Syriae Quirinus this enrolling was made before Quirinus was Governour of Syria and having examined his reasons I freely subscribe to them and refer the Reader to the Discourse it self II. Our Author has committed a great mistake in his paraphrase upon the 2 verse where he tells us that at that time i. e. in the reign of Herod the Great Palaestine was under Syria whereas it is most certain that the King of Judaea had no dependence upon the Proconsul of Syria and that Judaea was not a province at that time This appears evidently from Josephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. xviii c. 1. where he tells us that Judaea was not made a Province till after Archelaus's banishment But perhaps our Learned Author fell into the same Mistake with Eusebius who says that Josephus made mention of the same registring which St. Luke here speaks of because he affirmed it to have been made by Quirinus whose name is mentioned by St. Luke for which mistake nevertheless he has long since been corrected by learned Men. The passage which Eusebius refers to in Josephus is at the end of his seventeenth book of Antiq. in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Archelaus's country was made tributary and added to Syria Cesar sent Quirinus one who had been Consul to enroll Syria and sell Archelaus 's own house See also the beginning of the next book Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was not only the Custom among the Jews as has been observed by Grotius but also among the Romans as appears by these words in Livy lib. 42. cap. 10. Censa sunt civium Romanorum capita ducenta sexaginta novem millia quindecim Minor aliquanto numerus quia L. Postumius Consul pro concione edixerat qui sociùm Latini nominis ex edicto C. Claudii Consulis redire in civitates suas debuissent ne quis eorum Romae sed omnes in suis civitatibus censerentur There were enrolled of Roman Citizens two hundred sixty nine thousand and fifteen a number somewhat less than ordinary because the Consul L. Posthumius had publickly proclaimed that those of their Consederates who should have returned into their respective Cities pursuant to the Order made by the Consul C. Claudius should not any of them be enrolled at Rome but in the several Cities to which they belonged Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Shepherds having spent the night abroad in the open Field it cannot be inferred that the Birth of Christ was not in December as G. J. Vossius has very well shewn in a small Treatise de Nat. Christi But the Antients
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Ye have heard and read indeed his word but it has not entered into your hearts so as to be a perpetual rule of life always in your view and never to be forgotten by you When we despise any thing that another says the remembrance of it seldom abides with us long but what we are affected with manet as the Poet says alta mente repostum abides deeply fixed in our mind and upon the next sit occasion it breaks out This is the importance of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and we meet with it in the same sense several times in the 2 d Chap. of the 1 st Epist of St. John and in the 2 d Epist and 2 d verse Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This verb I rather take to be in the Indicative than in the Imperative mood and interpret the words of Christ to this sense You are generally very curious in searching into the abstruse meaning of the Scriptures because ye think and that justly that ye shall derive those instructions from thence which will lead you to eternal Life and these give their Testimony to me which ye do not hearken to because ye suffer your selves to be prejudiced by perverse Affections It is very probably conjectured by a Learned Man that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or searching here spoken of does not refer to the Grammatical but the Mystical sense of the Scriptures It is certain that the Jews at that time neglected the study of Grammar and therefore those Scripture passages which concerned the Messias do not seem to have been understood by them by the assistance of that Art but by the instructions of the antient Prophets See Bruno Dissert de Therapeutis Perhaps Christ used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at that time did not signify simply to inquire but to search into the Allegorical meaning of any Passage Consult Buxtorf in Thesauro if you doubt of it Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. By whose Doctrin which ye profess to believe ye think ye can attain to Salvation for Christ here speaks of what will be at the day of Judgment I do not believe these words are to be understood of Moses making intercession for the Jews tho I know what is alledged by a great Man in favour of that opinion out of the Rabbins The sense will be most commodious if we understand it to be that those who imagined themselves to act consonantly to the Law in rejecting Christ shall be condemned hereafter by the Law it self according to which they were certainly obliged to receive him See Deut. xviii 15 CHAP. VI. Vers 15. Note a. CHRIST avoided the Multitude who took counsel together about making him a King not only because this was a bad design and proceeded from Persons of wicked and carnal Minds but also because he would not give the least occasion for a Sedition and that his enemies might never be able to accuse him with any appearance of Justice of having affected to be an earthly Prince If he had tarried among these Men tho he had opposed them and openly rebuked them and hindred them from executing their designs yet their very attempt alone would have caused suspicious Men to conceive such a bad opinion of the Gospel which was then but in its infancy as it would have been very hard to dispossess them of Christ's enemies would have said that he had plotted a change in the Government and that he was not so much displeased with his followers for their desire to deliver the Kingdom into his hands as for their unseasonable resolution to make him their King before he had brought his Conspiracy to a head and encreased the number of his Followers They would have said that it was dangerous to suffer such a Teacher to live amongst the Jews who might even without his knowledg and consent give the common People an occasion to take up arms against the State It is well known how mistrustful and cautious those to whom the government of the World belonged at that time were in such matters and when I do but mention the name of Tiberius every one will presently apprehend that it was a most dangerous thing then so much as unwillingly to be the cause of a Sedition This seems to be the reason why Christ would not have it divulged that he was the Messias viz. lest the very mention of that name should like the setting up of a Flag occasion a great confluence of People to him See Note on Mat. viii 4 Vers 27. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak properly is neither operari cibum as it is rendred in the Vulgar nor acquirere cibum to acquire Food as by our Author but laborare ut acquiras to acquire it by Labor And so the Greeks say likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for necessaria or victum labore suo lucrari to earn necessaries or a livelihood by ones Labor or as the French call it gagner sa vie to get ones living See only Constantin's Lexicon So in the example brought out of Palaephatus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he got his living by his Labour In the example of the Pounds Luk. xix 16 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies rather peperit genuit it hath produced or brought forth than comparavit it hath acquired Vers 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unless they have been already so affected with God's former benefits as to be ready to follow God whithersoever he leads them which will make them come to me assoon as ever they hear my Doctrin I like what is said by Faustus Regiensis Lib. 1. c. 17. de Lib. Arbitrio Quid est says he attrahere nisi praedicare nisi Scripturarum consolationibus excitare increpationibus deterrere desideranda proponere intentare metuenda judicium comminari praemium polliceri Audi Dominum non duris manibus sed spei nexibus attrahentem dilectionis brachiis invitantem sicut ait Propheta attraxi eos vinculis caritatis Hos xi 4 What is it to draw but to preach but to encourage People by the consolations of the Scriptures and deter them by its Reproofs to propose to Men such things as they should desire and menace them with what they ought to fear to threaten them with Punishments and promise them Rewards Hearken therefore to God who draws not with rough hands but with the ties of Hope and invites with the arms of Love according to that of the Prophet I drew them with the bands of Love Vers 55. Note f. For the understanding of what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies when it is thus metaphorically used we must consider whence such forms of Speech had their rise which in all probability was from the custom of Merchants who used to distinguish true merchandizes from false i. e. those to which
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou art loosed from thine infirmity And ver 16. Ought not this Daughter of Abraham whom Satan hath bound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold these eighteen years be loosed from that bond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that granting our Author that the same thing as it seems to be is intended in Mat. xviii and here yet it does not follow that Christ speaks of mere excommunication without any disease consequent upon it Let the Learned consider and judg of this matter Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After Christ had said Reach hither thy finger it was consequent that he should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and feel my hands or something like that for we do not reach out our finger to see a thing but to feel or touch it And therefore there is an impropriety of speech here ordinary in every ones discourse whereby we apply a word that belongs properly to one sense to another And particularly nothing is more common than to find this Verb to see used for that which is to try or examin by some other sense See Exod. xx 18 and more Examples which have been collected by Sal. Glassius Rhet. Sacr. Tract 1. Cap. 12. where he treats of the Metaphors that are taken from human senses However Christ seems to have kept the marks of the Nails and Spear unclosed that that might be a certain sign to know him by otherwise he needed not to have left the least sign of them in his body Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He does not add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because his feet had not been pierced through with nails but only bound contrary to what our Painters and Statuaries now adays generally think And therefore Dr. Hammond also well observes that the Legs of the Thieves were broken that they might not be able to run away which the Roman Procurator would never have been apprehensive of if both their feet had been fastened to the Cross by a huge nail driven through the soles of them Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the Nominative case is often put for the Vocative I chuse rather with the Vulgar to use here the Nominative as if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be understood thou art my Lord and my God i. e. I acknowledg thee to be truly that same Lord whom I before followed and not a Man only but to be also God in as much as thou hast overcome death which keeps all men under its power which sense exactly agrees with Christ's words be not incredulous but believing Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith is properly of those things which are not seen because what we see we are said to know not to believe see Heb. xi 1 But yet sometimes any perswasion whatsoever is called Faith even that which is built upon the testimony of the Senses Thus the Latin credere is taken in that Verse of Plautus Asinar Act. 1. Sc. 3. Semper oculatae manus sunt nostrae credunt quod vident Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seems to refer to the time future Blessed are those who tho they will not see yet shall believe And this is Faith properly called whereby we assent to a thing upon solid reasons which we never saw notwithstanding the seeming strangeness of it Consult Interpreters on Heb. xi 1 and what I have said concerning Faith on Gen. xv 6 CHAP. XXI Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in Galilee or at the Lake of Gennesareth as Grotius has observed for at Jerusalem he had appeared to his Disciples before more than once This ought to have been expressed in the Paraphrase Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not seem to signify in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which being sold might help to buy any sort of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by what follows it appears that the Apostles had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 already by them on the shore and the end of their fishing was not so much to get fish for themselves to eat as to sell that they might provide themselves with other necessaries As long as they followed Christ they subsisted by the same liberality of pious Women that he himself did but at this time the Apostles not being yet in any repute there seems to have been a stop put to that liberality And therefore they had been forced to betake themselves to their old trade of fishing again to get their living Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor in concurrence with Grotius and others supposes that these Fish were produced out of nothing which yet is unnecessary considering that the Lake was very full of Fish and that there was no body to see how they came upon the Coals not to say that St. John gives no ground for such a supposition Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since the words knowing that it was the Lord follow the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here cannot so properly signify dared as thought fit or advisable nobody judged it convenient to ask him who he was perceiving it to be the Lord tho they did not presently know his face which had a greater majesty in it than before But yet St. John chose rather to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Disciples abstained from asking that question not only because of the Tokens by which they knew him to be the Lord but also out of fear lest he should be displeased with them as incredulous They knew indeed that it was the Lord but their knowledg of it was not so certain as to make it perfectly needless to ask him but yet they dared not do it Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have already intimated that our Author in his Paraphrase does not clearly enough interpret this word As therefore I have before interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 1. with Grotius of a Place viz. Galilee so in like manner I think that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be understood of a place And indeed it can hardly be understood of the third day after the Resurrection it being certain that on the day of the Resurrection it self the Disciples tarried at Jerusalem and incredible that the Apostles could be a fishing so soon as the third day after it for it is at least two days journey from Jerusalem to the Lake of Gennesareth especially on foot But besides this was not the sixth but the seventh or eighth time if we reckon right that Christ appeared to his Disciples Consult Steph. Curcellaeus Instit Rel. Christ Lib. 5. c. 14. about this matter Vers 15. Note b. I am apt to think that the immediate occasion of Christ's question for that there might be some remoter reasons of it I do not deny was St. Peter's over-hasty descent into the Sea not being able to stay till the Ship came to Land For as soon as ever he had notice given him by St. John that Jesus stood on
the Vulgar by propellere to push forward or to carry along to Judgment for it did not belong to the Jews to question any man but only to the Judges So this word is taken in that excellent saying of Solon in Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That City is extremely well governed in which those that are not injured as well as those that are carry such as do any injury to judgment and punish them Vers 35. Note i. The title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is common in the Coins of the Cities of Asia but Ephesus gloried in it above the rest For there are some pieces of Ephesian Money to be seen at this day in which Ephesus is not only simply stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or twice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but there is also a piece coined under the reign of Caracalla inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another under Heliagabalus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which they boast that they only of all the Cities of Asia had been four times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See J. Foy-Vaillant in Num. Aer Impp. coined in Colonies and Corporations T. 2. pag. 171. CHAP. XX. Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Alexandrian Copy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted as the Oxford Edition of the New Testament observes I wonder that Dr. Hammond who often sets down the various readings of that Copy should take no notice of this It is observable also that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such variations as these are common in the places heretofore controverted in the time of the Nicene Synod CHAP. XXI Vers 7. Note a. THE Vulgar reading is certainly right and ought not to be changed for no body besides the Doctor ever used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Greek phrase for sailing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very properly made use of to signify the finishing of a Voyage The meaning of St. Luke is clear Having finished our Navigation from Tyre we came to Ptolemais for they had first finished their Navigation before they came to Ptolemais from whence they went on foot to Caesarea Whether a Comma be put between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be omitted the thing is the same for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be connected with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having finished or made an end of our Navigation we arrived CHAP. XXII Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God did sometimes shew himself to Persons encompassed with so dazling a light as even blinded the lookers on And hence that saying of Hagar in Gen. xvi 13 where see my Notes as also what I have written on Exod. xxxiv 18 20. Vers 25. Note e. lin 24. after the word such an one 1. Our Author's memory failed him when he said So saith Philo of Agrippa c. for what is there said is spoken by Agrippa of Caligula in Philo de Leg. ad Caium p. 798. Edit Genev. Philo produces a Letter of Agrippa to Caius in which Agrippa writes to him thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is certain that could only be done by the Emperor at that time and not by Agrippa as every one knows He should have said therefore So saith Agrippa of Caligula in Philo. 2. It is strange our Author should produce a passage as out of the 47 th Book of Diodorus Siculus who wrote only 40 as Photius affirms Cod. 70. of which we have only half extant and some fragments But he meant Dion Cocceianus whose words those are in Lib. 47. p. 228. Edit Graec. Rob. Stephani Besides those words of Dion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be translated that from his own name he call'd them Juliopolis but that they changed their name and called themselves from him Juliopolis For it was a piece of flattery in the Inhabitants of Tarsus who afterwards also out of flattery to other Emperors called their City Adriana Antoniniana and Severiana Of which see Luc. Holstenius on Stephanus Byzantinus The words of Dion are no proof at all that Tarsus had the freedom of the City of Rome given to it and it otherwise appears that after Augustus's time that was a free City which was govern'd not by the Roman Laws but by its own and therefore did not enjoy the privileges of the City of Rome Consult on this place H. Grotius whom the Doctor would have more safely followed as being not so well acquainted with antient History Perhaps St. Paul had been made a Roman Citizen because his Father tho a Jew had been made free of Rome such as Philo speaks of in the place quoted by the Doctor in the next Annotation CHAP. XXIII Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems at that time to have looked another way so as not to have observed who it was that had commanded him to be smitten So that we must supply out of what goes before the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had ordered him to be smitten on the mouth There is nothing more natural than this others seek a knot in a bulrush CHAP. XXIV Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor has hit the true sense of this word in his Paraphrase but only as he now and then does he borrows terms from the present custom to express it by which he should not have done because at that time those who had an accusation against any did not use to bring in the heads of it to the Proconsuls in writing but only to speak what they had to say However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not comparere to appear or come before as it is rendered by Beza but to accuse to lay open a Crime as it is explained by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agrees Phavorinus who interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shew it you manifestly It comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pricaeus upon this place has well observed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Aristophanes's Scholiast on Equites is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser and one that lays open causes and an informer And the Old Glosses have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allego intimo to alledg to intimate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declarare to declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimatio an intimation Vers 25. Note a. We may apply those Verses of Juvenal Sat. 13. even to the Heathen Judges of that lewd and wicked Age. Prima est haec ultio quod se Judice nemo nocens absolvitur c. hos tu Evasisse putas quos diri conscia facti Mens habet attonitos surdo verbere caedit Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum Ver. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. To please or gratify the Jews lest they should send Informers to Rome and complain of his
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
of their Lord. V. To shew how aptly what St. Paul here says may be applied to the Heathens and particularly their Philosophers I shall express the sense of his Discourse from Vers 17 to the 26 th in a short Paraphrase 17. For in the Gospel there is a way shewn whereby those that believe it may obtain the pardon of their Sins from God to the end that from the Faith which they had in their former Religion they might be induced to believe the Gospel for to such only we may apply that passage of the Prophet Habakkuk The just shall live by Faith 18. Those who refuse to believe it shall be punished by the Divine Justice for their former Sins which cannot be expiated any otherwise than by Faith in the Gospel and whereof the greatest by far is that whereby the Heathens and even their Philosophers do dissemble the knowledg which they have of the true God and do not conform their Divine Worship to it 19. For many of them understood what God would have them know concerning himself and hath manifested to them 20. From the beginning of the World by his Works wherein his infinite Power and transcendent Nature do illustriously shew themselves and are as it were visible so that they have no excuse to make for the absurd Religion which they profess 21. Tho they knew how wise and powerful a Being God was and had great experiences of his Goodness and Bounty yet they neither gave that honour to him openly which the perfection of his Nature challenged from them nor thanked him for his Benefits And therefore God in just Indignation suffered them to fall into so many errors which he would otherwise have delivered them from that they even rendered the most certain things doubtful 22. And whilst they professed the study of Wisdom they lost their Understandings 23. Being blinded through their own fault as one error produces another they represented God whom they might as I said have understood to be an infinitely more perfect Being than a Man not only like a Man but even like a Beast 24. Nor did their depravation stop here in the errors of their Minds or in Divine Worship but they became also most impure and abominable in their Lives God not restraining them 25. For the same Persons who had formed such vile Images of the Godhead and so extremely unworthy of the Divine Majesty and worshipped those Images neglecting God himself 26. As they had as much as in them lay disgraced the Divine Nature so forgetting also as it were themselves they confounded the Offices of both Sexes which Nature has distinguished by Lusts not to be named c. All these things the Heathens fell into even their Philosophers not excepted as might be easily proved out of Aristophanes Laertius Lucian the Satyrick Latin Poets Seneca and in a word all Antiquity Vers 29. Note i. Lin. 7. After the words giving over all labour This is an absurd Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which never had any such sense but signifies having lost all sense of Pain or Grief See on Ephes iv 19 Ibid. At the end of that Note Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be truly deduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is used both in a good and bad sense of Riches or Power or Victory or endowments of Mind and other things in which some exceed and go beyond others yet I do not think it any where signifies a desire of Pleasure nor does any of all those places which our Author has here heaped together prove what he intends as I shall shew by a brief examination of them For it is not ground enough that such or such a sense of a word is not foreign to the design of any place nay that it is very agreeable to it to infer that that is sometimes the signification of that word seeing the series of the discourse will often permit it to be taken in other senses altogether as commodious and less proper words likewise are many times made use of instead of more proper And therefore before we make use of reasoning to find out the signification of any word the certain use of it must be otherwise known for else it is very easy to mistake Now to review the Passages alledged by our Author 1. The words of St. Paul in Ephes iv 19 will very well bear to be understood of Covetousness as Grotius has observed because there were a great many of the Male Sex that prostituted themselves for the sake of Gain 2. The words of Photius St. Chrysostom and Antiochus do not necessarily require the sense of Lusts but may easily be understood likewise of Covetousness 3. The example of Asterius proves nothing at all because his words may be very well understood of a desire of Riches and Power yea ought to be so I have not indeed Alexander Aphrodisiensis nor can I conveniently get him but I dare lay any wager we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more than he should for that is the definition of an unjust Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor does that word among the Greeks ever signify a voluptuary 4. Tho the Septuagint render the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these Greek words ought to be used promiscuously It is not to be thought that the Greek words made use of in the barbarous stile of those Interpreters are always of the same latitude with the Hebrew and besides there was no necessary reason for the Septuagints translating the Hebrew word in that place of Ezekiel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Interpreters on the place 5. In the Prayer of Ephraim there is nothing that should oblige us to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any otherwise than it commonly is for why may not we suppose him to ask pardon for his Covetousness as well as his Lusts or Uncleanness Do not those Vices sometimes go together 6. Tho Plato uses the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the mention of Pleasures it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies Lust for that Phrase may be very well rendered a greater abundance of these things major horum copia as Mars Ficinus has translated it See Plato himself pag. 508. Ed. Genev. of Ficinus 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epist of Barnabas does not signify to be lustful but multiplicare anum See Cap. 10. Not. 51. Edit Amstel 8. It is without cause that the Doctor interprets avaritia in Polycarpus and Bede by Sensuality or the love of Pleasures Could not Valens be at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or covetous and lustful too And do not sensual or lustful Persons use to be covetous and to seize upon other peoples Possessions when they have opportunity that they may spend them upon their Lusts Bede does not seem neither to have confounded the word avaritia
handle this matter more largely in a Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah Vers 33. Note m. As there are two Passages here in the Prophet Isaiah at a considerable distance from one another put together by the Apostle so there are two Figures also conjoined First Christ is considered as a stone of Offence at which whether it be in walking or running if any one do stumble he is in danger of falling and this refers to the Metaphors the Apostle had before taken from the Grecian Games and particularly that of Running which made him think of a stone of Offence than which in a swift motion nothing can be more dangerous Afterwards in the next words every one that believeth on him shall not be confounded Christ is represented not as a stone of Offence but as a corner stone which he that builds any Wall upon must trust to the firmness of and if he be deceived in his confidence after he has finished his Structure his building falls and that fills him with shame This latter Similitude is in Isa xxviii 16 where God speaks thus I lay in Sion for a foundation a Stone an elect Stone if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behhourah elect for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bohhan a Tower a corner Stone and pretious a most firm foundation He that believeth shall not make hast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is shall never be judged to have made too much hast in choosing it nor ever be ashamed of his choice And the former is in Chap. viii 14 He shall be for a stone of Stumbling and for a rock of Offence to the two Houses of Israel where the Metaphor is quite different and it is no longer a corner Stone that is spoken of but a stone on which a Persons foot or the wheel of a Chariot happens to strike as the following Verse more clearly shews CHAP. X. Vers 5. Note b. THE meaning of St. Paul in this place seems to be only this that the Law promised nothing but to those that observed it so as Moses taught it was to be observed that is unless either all its Precepts were obeyed or the Sacrifices appointed by the Law were offered up for the expiation of some sort of Sins against it Otherwise it promised no Mercy from God to those who had committed such a Sin as the Law threatned with death or allowed no Sacrifice for But on the contrary the Gospel assures us that God will pardon such sins as those if the Sinner does but firmly believe they shall be remitted to him and abstain from them for the future This is all we are here to consider for what our Author says in his Paraphrase that it was impossible the Law should be observed that is so far from being the assertion of Moses that he every where supposes the contrary as appears even by the very next words See my Notes on Deut. xix 9 CHAP. XI Vers 8. Note b. OUR Author truly observes that according to the use of the Atticks or those that spake the purest Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies compunction but he might have added that the Greek Interpreters whether through ignorance or according to the use of the Alexandrians confounded the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of which signifies to prick to pierce and the latter to nod or slumber which made them think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified nodding tho it comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will be worth our while to read Lud. Cappellus about this matter in his Critical Notes on Psalm iv 4 Vers 12. Note d. I have often observed our Author to write so as not to make what he says at last to agree with what he had said at first because I suppose after he had written half an Annotation he changed his Mind and yet was loth to blot out what he had already written And this we have an instance of in this place for after he had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a multitude he alters his opinion and gives it another signification But his second thoughts here were not the best as I shall briefly shew For 1. That this word does sometimes signify a multitude appears also by Hesychius who interprets it among other things by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for collecting but for that which fills up as the Lexicons will shew Neither was a multitude so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a piece of Cloth put into a torn Garment to make it whole again but because it makes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full and complete Assembly or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it fills the places into which it is gathered together Perhaps also there may be a respect here had to the original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is thus set down in the Eâ—ymologicon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Jews who were to come in late to Christ are no more called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their filling up what remained empty in the Church than the Heathens who are called by the same name and made up the greatest part of the Church 4. I wish our learned Author had alledged the Passage he speaks of in Sâ—der Olam in Hebrew or referred to the Page for I have not leisure to read it all through and the words he produces out of it look very suspiciously CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. IT is so manifest that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood only in this last sense that I wonder our learned Author would spoil Paper and lose time in proposing the other Conjectures For they are such as may be reckoned indeed in the number of those things that have no natural repugnancy in them but there is not the least shadow of likelihood in them nor can they be confirmed by any example But unless I am mightily mistaken he had never set them down but only to fill up his Annotations on this Chapter which he found would otherwise be but short And a great many other things there are of the like nature in this Volume which yet I pass by without reprehension Such is what he inserts into his Paraphrase on this Chapter about the Gnosticks without any necessity as if there could have been none corrupted with Vices contrary to the Vertues which the Apostle here commends besides the Gnosticks Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify only knowledg or an opinion conceived in the Mind but an affection of the Soul And thence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not only a change of Judgment or opinion but also of Affections See Beza on Mat. iii. 2 Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we all make one body of Christians or all we Christians are one Body The Phrase 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used by St. Paul for being a Christian So Chap. viii 1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that is to Christians See likewise Rom. xvi 3 5 7 9 11 13. and 2 Cor. xii 2 c. This I thought fit to observe because I perceived this expression was not understood by Grotius who says here We are one body in Christ that is by Christ who was the Compactor of that Body for tho that be true yet it is not the meaning of the Phrase Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is let him say no more than what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is entrusted with in which word the Apostle has a reference to the antient Prophets who were to say nothing but what God revealed to them See Vers 3. and Ephes iv 7 and Beza and Grotius on these words whom our Author would have done well to follow and not suffered himself to be imposed on by that which is now ordinarily called the Analogy of Faith I wonder the English Translation did not suggest to him another Interpretation of this Phrase in which it is truly rendered according to the proportion of Faith Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Author in his Notes on Mat. vi 22 has very well shewn to signify liberality or bounty of which interpretation I shall here give this brief account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or simplicity is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting a difference or using too much Caution in distinguishing those that are proper objects of our Charity from those which are not Hence the Wisdom which comes from above is said in James iii. 17 not only to be full of MERCY and good Fruits but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without difference that is not too nice or scrupulous in putting a difference between those which it does good or shews Mercy to To which purpose is that advice in Herma Past Lib. 2. Mand. 2. OMNIBUS in opibus da SIMPLICITER nihil dubitans cui des Omnibus da. Omnibus enim dari vult Deus de suis donis Qui ergo accipiunt reddent rationem Deo quare acceperunt ad quid Qui autem accipiunt ficta necessitate reddent rationem qui autem dat innocens erit Sicut enim accepit à Domino ministerium consummavit nihil dubitando cui daret cui non daret fecit hoc ministerium SIMPLICITER gloriose ad Deum Give to ALL that are poor SIMPLY without scrupling whom you give to Give to all For God will have all to partake of his Gifts Those therefore that receive shall give an account to God why they received it and to what end And such as feigned themselves to be poor that they might receive the Charity of others shall be called to a strict account for it but the giver shall be judged innocent For by giving universally and without difference to all he fulfilled the Trust committed to him by God and did it SIMPLY and to God's Glory The Greek words are thus set down by Antiochus Hom. 98. tho perhaps with some alteration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Several other Passages might be produced out of the Antients to the same purpose See Lib. 3. Constit Apostol cap. 4 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Partly because that chearfulness discovers a truly liberal disposition of Mind it being natural to Men to be chearful in following their own Inclinations and partly because it makes the benefit seem the greater to him that receives it if it be bestowed chearfully See Seneca de Benâ—ficiis Lib. 2. cap. 4. Vers 11. Note b. This conjecture of Dr. Hammond is favoured by the series of the discourse in which it is not probable that among particular Precepts the Apostle would bring in that general one comprehending all the duties of a Christian's Life of serving the Lord. Besides after the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it very aptly follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and both together make up an excellent Precept to this sense In the business of Piety you must be zealous and fervent but yet so as to observe the proper time for it lest by your unseasonable fervor you should bring your selves into danger without doing any body else any good The Apostle here makes use of a known Proverb and ordinary both in Greek and Latin Authors So Phocylides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must serve the season and not blow against the Winds So Cicero de Finibus Lib. 3. num 73. among other Precepts of the antient Sages sets down this tempori parere for one So the Author of the Panegyrick ad Pisonem Temporibus servire decet qui tempora certis Ponderibus pensavit eum si bella vocabunt Miles erit si pax positis toga gestiet armis Hunc fora pacatum bellantem castra decebunt It 's true in St. Paul the sense is something different but it is sufficient if it have but an affinity with that which it is commonly taken in for such sort of sayings have generally more senses than one Which the Transcribers of the New Testament not sufficiently understanding and knowing that this Proverb was sometimes used in an ill sense for hypocritical time serving changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is much more probable than that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Phrase to serve the Lord so very common in these Books into one less usual to serve the time Ver. 15. Note c. Tho Grotius also as well as our Author supposes this Verse to have a reference to the two Gates of the Temple yet I am not of their opinion nor do I think the Apostle had any particular respect here to excommunicated Persons The words are general and contain an excellent general Precept to all Christians to endeavour to get the Love and Friendship of those with whom they live nothing being more pleasing to Men than to see others sympathize with them in their Afflictions and rejoice at their Prosperity I know they are for the most part Flatterers and Hypocrites that practise this but then it is not for that that they are to be condemned but their hypocrisy in pretending to grieve or rejoice at what happens to others when they really do not but have other Ends and Designs But a good Man also not only may but ought to be truly affected with others Prosperity or Adversity I am apt to think also that St. Paul here rather made use of a common proverbial form of Speech than a new phrase not before heard of We meet with the like expression tho to another purpose in Horace de Arte Poetica Vt ridentibus arrident ita flentibus adflent Humani vultus Adflent for so the word must be read according to the opinion of learned Men not adsunt Of the thing it self see
〈◊〉 This expression may be illustrated by a passage in the Epistle of Barnabas where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the habitation of our Heart is a holy Temple to the Lord. The Holy Spirit is said to dwell in our Bodies because it is present with our Minds which inhabit our Bodies Grotius does but trifle when he tells us that the Spirit of the Mind is the Sanctuary the other parts of the Mind the Court of the Temple and the Body the Porch and its outward parts Such a Remark as this might perhaps be tolerable in a Pulpit but by no means in an exact Interpreter Claudian has an expression much like this in his Second Book on the first Consulship of Stilichon speaking of the Goddess Mercy Haec Dea pro templis thure calentibus aris Te fruitur posuitque suas hoc pectore sedes And a little after Huic Divae germana Fides eademque sorori Corde tuo DELUBRA tenens Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems to allude here to a House which none but he may use how he pleases that has purchased it And God having as it were bought our Bodies as well as our Souls he only has a soveraign Right to prescribe to us how we shall use them CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OF this matter according to the Doctrine of the Rabbins Mr. Selden has treated at large in his Vxor Hebraica Lib. 3. c. 4. and seqq Vers 5. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its opposite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the subject matter are taken sometimes in a larger and sometimes in a more contracted Notion In general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that has not the command of his Passions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is commanded or overruled by them And on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is not subject to the dominion of any Passion but is always his own master But because the Passions are various proportionable to the variety of objects to which they may be carried out therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have also divers objects as Aristotle will teach us in the beginning of his 7 th Book of Ethicks ad Nicomachum And so in this place where the discourse is about the lawful pleasures of Marriage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in a much narrower signification not for a Vice i. e a disposition of Mind contrary to the Law of God and pernicious to humane Society but a certain natural heat of Body which of it self is neither a Vice nor a Vertue But it is described as a Vice because it is an occasion of becoming vitious to those who do not govern it with reason Vers 6. Note c. Col. 1. Lin. 45. After the words on the other side Our learned Author might have confirmed this observation about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for malo I had rather by that Passage in Hos vi 6 I will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have Mercy and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice which is all one as if God had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mizzebahh than Sacrifice and if the Prophet had written so it could not have been rendred otherwise than by I will or had rather And that this the Prophet meant is evident by the next words and the knowledg of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meholoth than burnt Offerings whence the Septuagint according to the Vatican Copy read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Jonathan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Sacrifice But in Mat. ix 13 and in the Alexandrian Copy we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is yet to the same sense It is certain the Hebrews have no Verb whereby to express the Latin malo or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Vers 14. Note d. From this place I readily allow the deduction of this Consectary that the Infants of Christian Parents may be baptized because they are Holy i. e. reckoned as a part of God's People but that this Phrase signifies Baptism it self does not appear by any thing that Dr. Hammond here says For tho the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctify signify also to wash it does not follow that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be meant one whose condition is such as to make him capable of being washed or baptized And on the contrary the Children of Heathens were accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impure that is as part of those who were out of God's Covenant and so could not be baptized because Baptism follows the profession of Christianity which could neither be made by Parents who were Heathens nor by Infants This is the Notion of the words Holy and Impure which being first used in that sense by the Jews came afterwards to be taken in the same by the Christians which is the reason why Christians are so often stiled Saints in the Epistles of the Apostles See the inscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles Vers 17. Note e. I. The same reason which moved Dr. Hammond to prefer the reading of some antient Copies mentioned by Theophylact before that in ours makes me think that the ordinary reading ought to be retained Namely because the obscurity arising in the sense from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily induce some Scribe or Critick to change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and join these words with the foregoing to make the sense more perspicuous but there was no reason why when the sense was clear it should be made more obscure II. I have more than once observed that the end of an Annotation does not agree with the beginning the reason of which I suppose to be that the Doctor did not write it all at the same time For otherwise he would have made his Discourse here hang better together For after he had said it will be reasonable to acquiesce therein viz. in that other reading he gives a reason for so doing which makes it unreasonable for if the sense will be current tho we retain the ordinary reading and only change the pointing of the words what reason can there be to acquiesce in any alteration of them III. We ought therefore to keep to the present reading of all Copies and Interpreters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred but as the Syriack and Arabick render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 34. Note h. The Oxford Edit of the New Testament Anno 1675. takes notice of some Copies which read this place in the same manner as the Alexandrian here mentioned by our Author excepting that the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted but there is no mention there made of the Alexandrian Copy the difference between which and others in the reading of this place is nevertheless set down in the London Polyglott But in that Edition there are other instances of very great negligence I am
Interpretation Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase should represent St. Paul as using that Fiction of some of the Antients about seventy Languages which has been confuted by S. Bochart in his Phaleg Lib. 1. c. 15. to whom I refer the Reader Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of one that could speak Greek this cannot as I have said be understood for what need had any man of a miraculous Gift to enable him to express that in his Mother Tongue which he himself spake in a strange Language if he did but understand what he said And every one that uses a Language the knowledg of which he has received from God is supposed to understand what he himself says for he would really be a sounding Brass or a Cymbal making a confused noise who should speak words in a strange Dialect which yet he did not know the meaning of Grotius interprets these words thus Let him pray that he may faithfully retain in his memory what he speaks outwardly with his Tongue that so he may deliver the same things in Greek But first this Interpretation does not agree with the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to interpret not to remember Secondly He supposes that those who used strange Languages spake from Inspiration not their own thoughts but what was suggested to them by the Spirit which we have no certain ground to believe nor is it probable it was so at that time particularly and in that place For if this supposition of Grotius were true the Holy Ghost would have inspired a Corinthian to speak for example in the Punick Language in such time and place as he would least of all have stood in need of that Tongue there being no Carthaginian present But to what end I pray Was it that he might hold his peace in the Church in which certainly it would have been very improper to speak in the Punick Dialect if there was no body there that understood it Or was it that he might keep his skill in that Language till a fitter occasion But he had better have been inspired with the knowledg of the Punick Tongue when there was need of that Inspiration lest his memory should not retain it or there should be occasion for a new Miracle to confirm his memory For if which I observe in the third place in opposition to Grotius's Interpretation he could not have interpreted by his memory in Greek what he had said by heart and extempore in the Punick Language without a Miracle much less could he have performed that some time after And the Interpretation which Dr. Hammond gives of these words in his Paraphrase is altogether as insignificant unless we understand the Apostle to speak of a Stranger that could not speak Greek Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have set down this whole Verse in Greek that the Reader may compare it with our Author's Paraphrase in which he speaks so barbarously and improperly that he rather obscures the sense of the Apostle which is dark in it self than explains it What mortal would have interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by my Gift or the Gift of Tongues which is given me and what intolerable Language is it to say my Gift prays and so of the rest This is lapides loqui as one said not verba humana to break a Man's teeth with hard words Grotius much more fitly interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a motion from Inspiration and explains the last words by this Paraphrase Mens mea nihil bene excogitatum profert My own mind produces no good thoughts But this is nothing to the purpose for who had not rather hear an inspired discourse it he can but understand it than one that is merely the product of a man 's own meditation Some other Interpretation therefore must be given of this place and St. Paul's mind if I am not mistaken expressed thus If I make use of an unknown Tongue I pray indeed my self with my mind because I understand what my words signify but the sense of what I say is of no use to others who do not know it and if they join with me in that Prayer pray rather with their bodies than with their minds First The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies I pray with my mind and is tacitly opposed to the action of the Hearers who were then present and prayed rather with their bodies than their minds because they did not understand what he that made use of a strange Language said Nothing is more ordinary than for the Spirit and the Body to be opposed to one another which in the use of the Sacred Writers are such perpetual correlates as the Logicians speak that upon the mention of one the other is presently thought on See Rom. viii 23 and Gal. v. 16 Secondly The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my mind or understanding signifies the sense or meaning of what I say which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Fruit viz. to others who do not understand it So this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used and among other places in the Book of Wisdom Chap. ii 16 These things being supposed the sense also of the following words is evident which will otherwise be very obscure Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I will pray so as at the same time to pray to God with my mind and that the sense of what I say may be understood by the standers by I confess an Attick Writer or one that had studied to express himself neatly and elegantly would never have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray so as that those who are present may understand the meaning of my Prayer But St. Paul was never curious in his stile and he said to pray with my mind tho in a different sense because he had said before to pray with the Spirit But he certainly meant what I have said or something like it as appears by what follows See vers 19. Grotius interprets this Verse thus Optandum est ut orem id est ut oret aliquis non tantum motu illo afflatitio verum etiam iis quae ipse excogitavit It were to be wished that I prayed that is that a Man prayed not only from that Divine impulse but also out of his own Thoughts But I say it were to be wished rather that all who pray in publick prayed by Inspiration or a Divine Impulse but in a known Language St. Paul in this Discourse does not oppose that which a Man devises himself and speaks in a known Tongue to a Prayer that is inspired but is expressed in a strange Language but only a Prayer which cannot be understood to one that may They who had the Gift of Tongues might as well express their own Thoughts in a strange Dialect as that which was revealed to them by Inspiration This our Author in some measure
in a rude Stile we muct not go about to anatomize every single Word or Expression in them or examin all that is said with a kind of Geometrical Exactness which the nature of an Idiotic Stile will not bear which regards things only in general and not every minute or particular circumstance nor may we deduce too rigorous Consectaries from any phrases used in these Writings which those who speak rudely never think of We must have always before our Eyes the substance of the Gospel and the main design of the Speaker and by that his expressions must be explained rather than by an over-nice and subtil scanning of every word But this is a Subject which would require a whole Volume to treat of it as it deserves in this place it may suffice to have touched briefly upon the chief heads Vers 9. Note b. It is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be burdensom esse oneri as it is render'd in the Vulgar or something like it that signifies a Man's living upon another's Charity But the only difficulty is how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to have this signification The Doctor conjectures that it is to ask or importune because they that ask any thing of another cause a chilness or numness in those whom they ask But this is harsh and forced The passage which he refers to in Seneca is in Lib. 2. de Beneficiis c. 2. But Seneca does not speak of a Person of whom any thing is asked but that asks and therefore that passage is nothing to the purpose Molestum verbum est saith he onerosum demisso vultu dicendum Rogo I ask is a troublesom and burdensom word and must be spoken with a submissive look I had rather say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be burdensom because those who are benummed with a Disease are much heavier than ordinary whence by a Metaphor it was used to signify to be a burden to others through Poverty Whence St. Paul elsewhere expressing the same thing uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess ii 9 For ye remember Brethren our labour and travel for working night and day because we would not burden any of you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we preached unto you the Gospel of God See likewise 2 Thess iii. 8 This Interpretation is confirmed by the opposition which is made in this very Verse between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep himself from being burdensom Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The false Apostles with wonderful haughtiness boasted that they were Hebrews that they were Israelites that they were the Seed of Abraham the very same thing expressed several ways for Emphasis sake which St. Paul here to shew the vanity of that empty vain-glorious boasting imitates Quanquam eadem ferè sunt unâ sententiâ cooriuntur plura tamen esse existimantur quoniam aures animum saepius feriunt Tho they are almost the same things and come all to one sense yet they are thought to be many because they strike several times upon the ears and mind saith Favorinus in Gellius Lib. 12. c. 24. where he gives us several Examples of such Repetitions out of the best Authors both Greek and Latin Vers 24. Note c. It is manifest that our Author had not look'd into the Passage which he cites out of Josephus in the Historian himself because he alledges it but by halves and translates it absurdly It is in Lib. 4. c. 8. in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For his bold and rash Accusation and Calumny let him suffer punishment receiving forty stripes save one Our Author absurdly renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him extend himself as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be a corrupt reading if it were any where extant because there is nothing that can be referred to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as other Copies read it that is luat let him suffer Vers 25. Note d. Since several other hardships which St. Paul here says he had undergon as his being thrice scourged by the Jews c. are not mentioned by St. Luke I do not doubt but he has omitted also this of his having been in the Deep And hence it may be infer'd that Arguments drawn from St. Luke's silence about any thing are not very strong because he has not written an entire History of St. Paul's Actions even for the time that his History refers to Vers 32. Note e. Mr. Pocock in his Notes on Greg. Abul-Farajius his History of the People and Customs of the Arabians p. 77. acknowledges that many of the Gassanii were called Harethi or Aretae but he tells us he never observed that all the Arabian Chiefs were so stiled by them as Jos Scaliger affirmed But Scaliger does not speak of the Kings of Damascus but of the Hagarens whose strongest Fort was Petra See Lib. 2. de Emend Temp. p. 111. Ed. Roverianae CHAP. XII Vers 2. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rightly here interpreted by Grotius a Christian whom our Author ought to have followed since there are manifest Instances of this Phrase in that sense as I have shewn on Rom. xii 5 It is a thing to be wonder'd at that Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on Rom. xvi has not once rightly interpreted this Phrase The Examples which he here alledges are perfectly forein to his purpose and all the likeness between them is only in the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. Note b. If St. Paul had said simply that there was given to him a Messenger of Satan that thrust a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twig in his Flesh I should easily believe that this passage were rightly understood by Dr. Hammond and other Expositors of some Persecutions which St. Paul suffered But seeing he says there was given me a Twig in the Flesh a Messenger of Satan to buffet me I rather think a molestation from some particular evil Spirit is here meant who continually afflicted him and put him to as great pain as if he had thrust a Twig into his Flesh and brought as much contempt upon him as if he had been buffeted St. Paul not being ignorant of the cause of his suffering so many Evils And because it is before said Lest the greatness of the Revelations should exalt me or lest I should be lifted up above measure by the excellency of the Revelations I am apt to think that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an allusion to some very sharp piece of Wood not of any sort whatsoever but one which should be placed over a Man stooping ready to prick him grievously when ever he rose up Let us represent to our selves the case of Regulus whom the Carthaginians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 killed by shutting him up in a Cage that had Goads on all sides which are the words of Appian in Lib.
1. Which way soever he moved himself the Goads prick'd him And something like this would be the case of a Man who should have some sharp Stakes or wooden Spears hanging over him whilst he bowed his body that would run into his Flesh whenever he raised himself And so if St. Paul grew proud or suffer'd himself to be puffed up because of the Revelations which he had received from God there was ready at hand an evil Spirit who had obtained permission of God to oppose him to torment and afflict him Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words in my judgment shew that it is not any sort of Persecutions stirred up by Men against St. Paul which he was always ready to suffer for the sake of the Gospel that are here spoken of but a particular evil Spirit which as it were accompanied St. Paul and wherever he went did him all the mischief he could either of himself or by men as his Instruments Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems then by this that it is not always unlawful for a Man to speak in his own praise See Plutarch's little Treatise de laude sui Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author thinks the Apostle has a respect here to the unnatural lusts practised at Idol-Feasts as if there were no Feasts kept by the Heathens in honour of their Idol Gods where such Lusts were not practised whereas it is certain that the Heathens especially in Greece seldom mixed any such vile practices with their Religious Solemnities as I have already elsewhere more than once observed See on 1 Cor. v. 10 So that I rather think any sort of unlawful Lusts whatsoever are here intended CHAP. XIII Vers 1. Note a. I. THO the conjecture which our learned Author here proposes be ingenious yet if it be more narrowly examined it will be found not to be so probable His principal reason why St. Paul should be thought to have had a respect to the words of Christ in Mat. xviii is this that he makes use of some part of those words viz. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses every Word shall be established But these were not the words of Christ but of Moses in Deut. xix 15 and St. Paul in reciting them may as well be supposed to have had a respect to that place in Moses as the other in St. Matthew which of the two is so much the more probable because St. Paul does not subjoin them to a discourse about Censures but a Journey he was to make to Corinth which now he purposed the third time because he had been twice before disappointed So that it is all one as if he had said I have twice resolved already to come to you and yet have been frustrated in my design but a third resolution which I have taken up about the same thing shall not be defeated as that which was confirmed by the testimony of three Witnesses under the Law could not be made void It is an adapting the words of Moses to the present business 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Grotius observes II. Dr. Hammond unnecessarily joins the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 2. to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which it is separated by the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when from the order of the words as they now lie arises this very commodious sense I have told you already before and foretel you again as intending to be with you a second time and being absent I now write that I will not spare c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius observes The Apostle had been once already at Corinth and he intended to go thither again The Hebrews having no future Participles it is no wonder that St. Paul speaking after the manner of the Hebrews uses a Greek Participle in the Present Tense for the Future See my Notes on Gen. vi 7 Exod. iii. 2 III. That passage in Mat. xviii is supposed by our Author to belong chiefly to private Persons and not to the Governours of the Church to whom it is not thought that this Precept Tell it to the Church can be directed without doubt because they themselves are supposed to be the Church whereof Christ speaks which ought to have been proved this being not an Age wherein Men are apt to believe every thing that serves to magnify the Governours of the Church or else it had been better to have said nothing Of the passage in Tit. iii. 10 I shall speak when I come to it for it is nothing to the Doctor 's purpose Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond refers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to Christ but the stile of St. Paul shews that God the Father is intended See Rom. iv 24 viii 11 x. 9 1 Cor. vi 14 xv 15 2 Cor. iv 14 Vers 5. Note b. I. It may be not unfitly conjectured that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is used in an Active sense for one that cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove or try and so the sense will be Except ye are unable to try things you will know that the true Gospel has been preached among you by a true Apostle But I confess I have never yet met with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used any where else in this sense II. I cannot tell in what Copy our Author read the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certainly for I have never read it in any If he thought that it was an Omission he ought to have told us his mind However St. Paul's words here are Elliptical and signify what Dr. Hammond would have them It is all one as if the Apostle had said Do ye not know that Christ Jesus is among you Ye must needs certainly know it unless ye are uncapable of trying and judging in such a case Vers 11. Note c. I. Our Author in this Annotation follows those who deduce the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Derivatives from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to fit which derivation is not altogether so certain But grant it to be true yet he should have observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not immediately come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore should have had a greater regard to its nearest Original From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies entire safe perfect is first made the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make to perfect as it is taken in Theocritus Idyll 13. or Hylae Vers 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 danced saith the Scholiast And because those things which are designed for any particular use ought to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entire and perfect in their kind or fit if the forementioned etymology of the word be approv'd therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies
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
10 undoubtedly to perform there the Office of an Evangelist Which Function can hardly consist with the Office of a Bishop watching over the Flock committed to him with that care and diligence he ought The Testimonies of the Antients about this matter who judged rashly of the times of the Apostles by their own and spake of them in the Language of their own Age are of little moment and so do no more prove that Titus was Bishop of the Island of Crete than what Dr. Hammond says proves him to have been dignified with the Title of an Archbishop So the Antients very unanimously affirmed that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome but the more judicious sort of Persons presently discovered them to be in an Error CHAP. I. Vers 2. Note a. IT deserved to be noted that in this one Verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in two several senses for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies eternal Life that is which shall never have any end but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal times is no more than antient times This is a usual thing with St. Paul of which see what I have said in my Ars Critica P. 2. S. 1. c. 6. Vers 12. Note c. I. I do not believe Phavorinus read these words otherwise than we but rather set them down as he remembred them It is an improper Etymology which our Author gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein contrary to all Analogy Μ is inserted between two words Clemens Alexandrinus gives us a much better interpretation of it in Paedag. Lib ii c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an intemperance about Food and as the word literally signifies a madness in the Belly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Mad. This Etymology is suggested also by Phavorinus which I wonder our Author did not take notice of II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Epimenides and in St. Paul signifies what it ordinarily signifies that is idle and slothful as Gluttons usually are It 's true Slothfulness and Gluttony are very often attended with Uncleanness but Idleness and Uncleanness are not therefore the same In Ezekiel Idleness does not signify Uncleanness but that which is the cause of it Behold saith he this was the Iniquity of thy Sister Sodom Pride fulness of Bread and abundance of Idleness was in her c. CHAP. II. Vers 2. Note a. BY a comparison of this place with 1 Tim. iii. our Author has well shewn that the Discourse here is about Deacons but there are two things he will hardly perswade those that understand Greek and are exercised in the reading of these Books to believe One is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is distinguished from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both those words being promiscuously used in the Version of the Septuagint as well when they signify Dignity as Age as Kircher's Concordances will shew The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a Judg in Isa iii. 2 Lament ii 21 v. 14. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same in Levit. iv 15 Num. xvi 25 and elsewhere often And so in many places both these words are used for an old Man The degrees of Comparison ought not to be urged against the perpetual use of the Language especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly said with a respect to younger or young As these two last words signify the same so likewise the two former and the two last as Logicians speak are correlates to the two first They are used also indifferently in the New Testament Compare Philem. 9. with 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The other is that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies Believers who have no Office in the Church It signifies only young Men as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies before Women See what I have opposed to Dr. Hammond on Luke xxii 26 Vers 3. Note b. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to ordain or constitute it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the rank of those who are constituted in any certain Office For nothing is more common than for Derivatives to depart from the signification of their Primitives So that the use of a word must always be joined with Analogy and Etymology unless perhaps it be a singular word or the series of the Discourse shews it must necessarily be understood in a particular sense But neither does the series of the Discourse in this place favour our Author and Use is evidently against him The Deaconesses are commanded to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to go in such a dress and behave themselves in such a manner as became Women consecrated to God This very well agrees with the whole series of the Discourse and Use constantly interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a dress habit or gesture of Body Consult J. C. Suicerus in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus or any other Lexicographer Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Gentleman of great reading who published some years ago Notes and Observations on the Epistle of Polycarp thinks St. Paul here so alludes to the Cabiri or great Gods that were worshipped not only among the Samothracians but also in the Isle of Crete as to oppose Christ to them And it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebir in Arabick signifies great and thence the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been formed as S. Bochart well conjectured Those Gods also were thought by some to be the same with the Corybantes which every one knows were very much worshipped in Crete And there was a mighty talk concerning their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of other Gods as the learned Gentleman before mentioned has largely proved But I think there is more wit than truth in this Interpretation there being nothing in St. Paul's words that shews he had a respect to the Religion of the Cretes for if there be it must be something else besides the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appearance and of the great God which were often in the mouth of the Jews without any allusion to the Isle of Crete or its Gods See the Greek Index of Kircher's Concordances CHAP. III. Vers 10. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he that follows any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect whether its Doctrins are true or false But the Doctrins of the Apostolical Churches govern'd by the Apostles or by Apostolical Men that agreed with their Teachers being true whoever departed from their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that word being understood in a good sense did by consequence maintain false Doctrins And hence Persons of erroneous Opinions whether they were such as desired to live in the Church provided they might be tolerated or whether they chose to
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
scourge and persecute and then it follows That upon you may come all the righteous Blood shed upon the Earth from the Blood of righteous Abel c. whence it is plain that all the Murders mentioned in this Verse the number whereof Christ says in the Verse before the Jews would afterwards augment were already past If I might be allowed to make a Conjecture that which here biassed the Doctor was his desire of finding an Example to confirm what he says about Antipas in his Premon to the Revelations of which in its proper place Ibid. Note k. 'T is through a mistake said by our Author that the High-priest prostrated himself before the door of the Porch for there was no door in that place but the door of the Sanctuary it self which had a Veil drawn before it The Porch facing the Priest's Court was all open and was only surrounded with Pillars See Josephus de Bell. Jud. lib. 1. c. 14. CHAP. XXIV Vers 3. Note b. IT had been better if our learned Author had omitted his Comparison between Vespasian and Christ wherein he is both too nice and not so exact as he should be as will appear by these following Ramarks I. Who can bear to have the Predictions of the Prophets concerning the future Reign of Christ compared to a Prediction of flattering Josephus or to meer uncertain Surmises II. The place the Doctor refers to in Suetonius in the second part of the Comparison is this Caenante bos arator decusso jugo Triclinium irrupit ac fugatis ministris quasi repente defessus procidit ad ipsos accumbentis pedes cervicemque submisit i. e. as he abbreviates him an Ox brake in and fell down at Vespasian's feet as an Omen of his becoming Emperor But all that is said by St. Luke of Christ is that he was born in a manger and wrapped in swadling clothes as to any Beasts being with him in the Stable or falling down before him he is altogether silent nor had the Doctor any good Authority for his asserting it III. I confess Suetonius and Tacitus do give us that account of Vespasian's Miracles of which the Doctor speaks but that what they tell us was real matter of Fact is not sufficiently clear for what assurance can any Man give us that some vain fellows among the Egyptians did not make it their business to flatter Vespasian or that he himself being a Politick Man did not seek such an occasion to gain the favour of the superstitious multitude at his entrance upon the Government or else it may be it was an invention of Idolaters to oppugn Christianity by making people believe that Christ was not the only Person that had healed the blind with Spittle and it was dangerous for any man to go about to detect a Cheat which was countenanced by the Emperor IV. I cannot imagin where the Doctor read in Suetonius that Vespasian was Humillimus Clementissimus for these words are not to be found in the Life of Vespasian He says indeed in Chap. xii Principatus ad ultimum civilis clemens but he never calls him humilis which amongst the Latins is a Reproach and not the name of a Vertue 'T is only Ecclesiastical Writers who call that Humilitas which the old Latins call Modestia Humilis with these signifies one of the common sort of People a poor mean-spirited person as I need not prove V. I wish our Author had set down the place out of Josephus which made him think that he believed Vespasian to be the Messias For it is possible I confess he might foretel that he should be Emperor by misconstruing in his favour an antient and settled Opinion famous throughout all the eastern parts that the Fates had decreed that there should come out of Judea at that time those who should govern the World but he never said nor could say that he was the Messias i. e. the Deliverer of the Jews And the same I say of his attributing afterwards the same Opinion to the other Jews for tho some few of them might perhaps accommodate some Prophecies which were before thought to belong to the Messias to Vespasian yet it was impossible they should take one who almost extinguished the very Jewish name for the Deliverer of their Nation I could find as many faults also with the Doctor 's next Collection of Parallels which are but manifest Niceties I. What tolerable agreement is there for instance between what Isaiah says of John the Baptist and the levelling of the High-ways for the coming of the Roman Engines II. It is false that it was at the approach of the Balistae that the Jews cried out filius venit the Son cometh as our Author says The Story according to the Distinction made in the Latin Translation is in cap. 7. lib. 6. of Josephus but in the Greek in cap. 18. That Cry was made from the Watch-towers of the Jews when the Stones were flung out of the Engines Josephus's words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spies sitting upon the towers gave them notice before-hand when the Engine opened and a Stone was coming crying out in their mother-tongue the Son cometh Which I take nevertheless to be a mistake in Josephus who standing without did not distinguish the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eben which signifies a stone from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habben a Son for without doubt they cried when the Stone was flung out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the stone cometh not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son cometh And if this be true then this part of the parallel is quite spoiled Our learned Author seems not to have looked into Josephus when he wrote these things or rather when he copied them out of some other book as appears partly by the place alledged and partly by the Chapters in Josephus not being always rightly referred to but sometimes according to the division in the Greek and other times in the Latin However it is most certain that the Jews themselves acknowledged that destruction to have been brought upon them by God and this is more than once observed by Josephus in his 6 and 7 Books of the Jewish War See Lib. vi Cap. ii and Cap. xi in the Latin and Lib. vii Cap. xvi And Titus thought the same who after he had viewed the fortifications of the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have fought said he with the assistance of God and it was God who dispossessed the Jews of those strong holds For what human force or engins could signify any thing against those Towers Lib. vii c. 16. Vers 3. Note c. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood unless we first know the just import of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that word seems to signify properly and primarily Eternity for it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies eternal Afterwards it was used in a figurative sense to signify as