parting of the Clouds and then that a light shone very high out of the Sky as it was in the Gospel of the Nazarenes concerning which matter consult Grotius Plutarch has somewhere this Saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be understood but of a cleaving of the Clouds by their retiring hither and thither CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is here related may more easily be conceived to have happened to Christ in a Vision or Dream than really It looks methinks very odd that an Evil Spirit should be permitted to have such a power over our most holy Saviour as to carry him through the Air and then that prospect of the Kingdoms of the whole World could no more be shewn from a Mountain than upon a Plain for what is there to be seen from a Mountain besides Woods Fields Rivers Villages Towns and the like and those only afar off But these things do not use to be stiled in any Language the Kingdoms of the world and the glory of them That which we call the glory of Kingdoms is rather the splendor of a King which consists partly in his splendid Attire partly in his Guards or Attendents and partly in his costly Edifices and other things of that nature So the glory of a Kingdom is taken 2 Chron. ix 25 where Solomon is the subject of the Discourse as afterwards here in St. Matthew chap. vi 29 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used See also Rev. xxi 25 26. Now it 's true in a Dream the most powerful Kings of the Earth with all their glory might be shewn to Christ in a moment of time as S. Luke says these things were but not if he were awake or from a mountain The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore may be interpreted here as St. Luke does that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Spirit i. e. in a Vision as Rev. i. 10 And so Ezekiel declares himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch ii 2 iii. 12 when being in a Vision he thought the Spirit took him up And chap. xl 2 we find the same person again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he fancy'd caught up into a high mountain And so likewise St. John Rev. xxi 10 But however by this Vision Christ might learn that his Life would not be without Temptations and that he must do really what he seemed to himself to do in a Dream i. e. strive against Unbelief and Ambition Ibid. Note a. As Satan in Hebrew so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek imports a Hater for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify to calumniate but also to hate and to this latter signification the Septuagint seem to have had a respect when they rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Hebrew word signifies to oppose or hate but never to calumniate Of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I mentioned we may see an example out of Strabo in Casaubon's Notes upon p. 545. lib. xviii where he observes that it frequently occurs in the same signification in Philostratus In that sense 1 Mac. i. 38 Antiochus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonimous of which see Grotius upon 2 Thess ii 4 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the glory and riches which he saw lying in the vast tracts of the earth So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Jews signifies glory and wealth See what I have observed upon Gen. xxxi 1 Apollo in Ovid is represented speaking thus to Phaeton whilst he was looking down from the palace of the Sun upon the Earth Metam l. 2 Quidquid habet dives circumspice mundus Eque tot ac tantis coeli terraeque marisque Posce bonis aliquid nullam patiere repulsam Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Notes upon Chap. ii 23 H. Grotius has observed upon Jam. chap. ii 23 that it was common for the Hebrews to say that such or such a place of Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or was fulfilled whenever any thing came to pass resembling what was mentioned in that place But he gives us no example of it and therefore I shall produce one out of R. Salomon upon Gen. xi 8 where at the words the Lord scattered them abroad he makes this remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they had said lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth so that Saying of Solomon was verified concerning them What he is afraid of shall come upon him And this way of speaking the Greeks also themselves used upon a like occasion Aelian lib. iii. c. 29. has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Diogenes Sinopensis used continually to be saying that he fulfilled and underwent all the curses of Tragedy for he was a vagabond and had no home c. i. e. that one might see something in his condition resembling that which the Players in Tragedy used to wish when they were in a rage to others So likewise Olympiodorus in the Life of Plato applies to him a Verse out of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As he was lying all along a swarm of bees came and filled his mouth with honey-combs that so that Saying of Homer might prove true of him From whose tongue proceeded a sound sweeter than honey Vers 15. Note e. Our Author should rather have said that several Nations dwelt in this Coast than round about it For there were several Nations that dwelt also round about the rest of Judea We shall be most likely therefore to find out the reason of this Appellation by what Strabo says about the northern parts of Judea lib. xvi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these Countries lie towards the North and each of them are mostly inhabited by a mixt sort of People made up of Egyptians Arabians and Phaenicians CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note a. THis same History and these very Discourses of Christ are related by St. Luke chap. vi but much more compendiously and not so distinctly whence we may perceive that the Evangelists have not reported the very words of Christ but only the sense of what he said according as their own or others memory suggested it to them And this may teach us that the sense is that which we should principally look to and that we ought not to anatomize or insist too nicely upon every single word Otherwise we shall hardly make the Evangelists to agree with one another As for instance Christ says here in St. Matthew vers 3. blessed are the poor in Spirit but in St. Luke this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting Now if we take these words of St. Matthew in the finest and nicest sense Christ will be found to speak here not of those that are destitute of riches but those who in what condition soever they be are not too
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod's Domesticks What he says afterwards does not concern Herod I am apt to think that the Reason why the Sadduces are called Herodians was because Herod the Great was known to be a Sadduce not because some part of the Sadduces were called by that Name III. I wonder that our Author should think all those things which he says in his Paraphrase to have been implied in that Question of our Saviour's Whose is this Image and Superscription We should read about this matter the learned Discourse of M Freherus de Numismate Censûs where we shall find all these things more accurately handled and better discussed than they are here by the Doctor IV. Christ's Answer if throughly considered will be found to have nothing in it that respects the dueness of the Tribute he only warns the Pharisees that they had no ground for their thinking it to be a Sin against God to pay Caesar the Tax imposed on them because the rendering of a piece of Mony to Caesar which had his Image impressed upon it was no wise inconsistent with the strict and due Observation of the Jewish Religion And all that we can gather from this is that it was lawful to pay Tribute not that the Tribute was justly imposed which was not the thing enquired into Our Author has several things upon this occasion that do not at all belong to this place which I do not intend in these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or short Remarks to examin Vers 20. Note c. It might as well be one of Tiberius's Denarii as Augustus's nor was it necessary that it should have the year wherein Judaea was subdued inscribed upon it The Denarius that was required to be paid was only such a one as had on it the Image of Augustus or Tiberius See M. Freherus whom I before mentioned Vers 31. Note d. There are several things both in our Author's Paraphrase upon the Objection of the Sadduces and in his Annotation upon this place that need Correction I. Moses does not say as the Doctor represents him at the 24 th Verse that the Children of the Person who raises up Seed to his Brother should be accounted his dead Brother's Children but only the first-born See Deut. xxv 6 II. What he says about the Doctrine of the Sadduces is very true as appears from Acts xxiii 6 but his supposing that the Sadduces Objection was designed as a Confirmation of their whole Doctrine is without any ground Their words oppose only the Resurrection of the Body for they knew well enough that marrying was a thing which respected only the Body and had no place at all among separate Souls III. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never used in Scripture to signify any thing but the Resurrection of the dead i. e. of Men whose Bodies were destroy'd and which being raised Men are said to be raised because the Nature of Man consists in the conjunction of Soul and Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when this is the thing spoken of never signifies any thing but to rise or to rise again In this sense it is used by Achilles in Homer Iliad φ. 56. where he speaks of the Trojans that he had killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The valiant Trojans whom I have kill'd will certainly rise again out of obscure Darkness Tho St. Paul uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these words signify the same thing but rather that St. Paul and the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word differently Tho therefore absolutely speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second State or Subsistence yet since it is never met with in that sense it must according to its constant use be understood of a thing that is fallen and then raised up again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as the Logicians speak in this case Correlates See 2 Maccab. xii 43 44. This word was so very commonly used in that sense that even when it is put alone it signifies the Resurrection of the Body It is a mistake also that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of the Neuter Gender the Substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be understood as appears from several places where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are said to be raised up as in Mat. x. 8 and xi 5 Luke xx 37 Joh. v. 21 1 Cor. xv 15 16 c. Our Author 's reasonings against the perpetual use of the word are not to be regarded The place which he cites out of Luke xiv 14 may most fitly be understood of the Resurrection of the Body as being the principal Reward which is opposed to the Rewards of this Life IV. Lastly That the force of Christ's reasoning ver 32. might be discerned he puts in as a supply to it in his Paraphrase upon that Verse the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was spoken by God I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob after their death I had rather infer it from the import of the Phrase I am the God of Abraham c. considered in it self whereby God dos not only signify that he had bin in time past the Object of Abraham Isaac and Jacob's Worship but that he had had a peculiar kindness for them which he still retain'd but now the dead that is those that are eternally dead cannot be said to be the Objects of God's Favour or Kindness but only those whose Souls live with him after Death and whose Bodies also are to be raised See my Notes upon Gen. xvii 8 Vers 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the Love of God is often set to signify the whole Duty which we owe to him both the Duties of the first and second Table yet it being in this place distinguished from the Love of our Neighbour I am apt to think that by that great Commandment we are only to understand the Worship of the one true God whom we may be said to worship with all our Heart with all our Soul and with all our Mind when we worship him alone and not any other For those that worship more Gods than one worship none at all with their whole Soul but divide as it were their Minds between many This seems to be the proper meaning of this Phrase which is so much diversified to signify the highest Affection and Intention of the Soul in Divine Worship See Deut. vi 5 and my Notes upon that place Vers 40. Note f. It is a Metaphor taken from those things which are hung upon a Nail or Peg which sticking fast to the Wall whatever hangs upon it is firm and secure and it cannot be plucked out but all tumbles down at once And so as long as these two things the Worshiping of God alone and the loving our Neighbour as our selves stand
knows who has had but the least taste of that Language And therefore Grammarians and Greek Writers make the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuous Hesychius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer to omit but also by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to grant to remit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission So Dionysius Halicarnass Antiq. Rom. Lib. 2. p. 103. Ed. Sylburg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We forgive them this Offence without setting any fine upon them or if you please we let it go unpunished which is the same with pardoning And Lib. 7. he oppâ—ses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to remission but delaying or putting off p. 446. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not tho they begged very hard obtain from the Tribunes a full REMISSION but as long a delay as they desired So in Ecclesiasticus Chap. xxiii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to spare and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put one for another Sins committed through Ignorance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do thou spare O Lord but the reproaches of those who by profession are Sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not pardon So that all that learned Men have said about the distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remission comes to nothing Vers 16. Note k. I have before interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a revenger of Sin but a lover of Righteousness or Gospel-sanctity which agrees very well with the scope of the Apostle For having said that God accounted those Persons just whose Sins he had remitted he adds with great reason that God was nevertheless Just or Holy lest the Jews should perhaps object that by his Doctrin the Justice or Holiness of God was impeached because he justified Men that had lived in a course of Sin But he does but touch upon this here transiently designing in the vi vii and viii th Chapters to speak to that matter more at large So God is said to be just in Deut. xxxii 4 and elsewhere often CHAP. IV. Vers 1. Note a. THO as to the thing it self our Author seems to have reached the scope of this place yet as to all the words he will not satisfy an exact Grammarian For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot without violence be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or also by human strength both which he seems to think are meant by that Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the places alledged by him signifies according to the course of the Flesh or human Generation as Christ is said Chap. i. 3 to have been of the Seed of David according to the Flesh which signification cannot be pertinent here unless these words be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Father which yet he will not allow of See Chap. ix 3 5. St. Paul's words therefore must be explained thus What shall we say then that Abraham our Father hath found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace according to the Flesh that is in the judgment of Man or according to a carnal Judgment It is certain this alone can be said for if Abraham was justified by Works he hath whereof to glory before Men but not before God So John viii 15 to judg according to the Flesh signifies to judg after the manner of Men. See also 2 Cor. 1.17 which very thing is expressed in 1 Cor. ix 8 by speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense being thus known it must be considered whether the Context requires it to be understood in this sense here Now St. Paul shews in the foregoing Chapter that all Men were Sinners and therefore had nothing to alledg in their own defence and that none could boast of their justification before God as if they were therefore accounted just by him because they had never sinned This is the sum of the foregoing Chapter whence it might be justly inferred that Abraham himself was not justified by Works before God and therefore in that sense could not be said to have found or obtained Grace before God but only in the judgment of Men who cannot judg of things exactly and to talk of whose judgment in this case is absurd For which reason to the question proposed that Abraham our Father hath found Grace according to the Flesh the Apostle answers nothing because it is confuted by the bare proposal of it it being manifest that in this dispute he speaks of the judgment of God and not that of Men. And therefore he goes on If Abraham was justified by Works if he was accounted just for his works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the judgment of Men he hath whereof to glory viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Men but not before God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These last words manifestly shew the judgment of God here to be opposed to the judgment of Men of which there should accordingly have been something said before and yet of which nothing will have been said unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This our Author was in some measure sensible of as appears by his Paraphrase on the 2 d verse but he discerned it as other Interpreters also did just as a Man sees the Moon through the Clouds which put him strangely upon the wrack to find out the sense of these words and the connexion of the Discourse This Verse does not contain any objection made by the Jews who not only said that Abraham was justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Scripture declares It is rather a concession of St. Paul wherein he grants that Abraham might possibly in the judgment of Men for his spotless Life before them be accounted just which is not the thing here spoken to the Discourse being about the judgment of God Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is him who accounteth one just that was before ungodly because he believes in Christ and obeys his Precepts The Works which are excluded from Justification are those which precede Faith and Repentance and are wicked Works in the room of which succeed Faith and new Obedience which are accepted instead of constant Righteousness and Innocence and therefore Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our learned Author's Paraphrase on this and other Verses is so very full of his own Additions and Remarks upon what the Apostle says that it is impossible almost to know what to attribute to St. Paul He puts in so many Parentheses and repeats the same thing so often that he makes it very difficult to discern the contexture of the Apostle's Discourse And here particularly in this Verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might have been explained in much fewer words which refers only to God and signifies a sign whereby God assured
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
countenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may appear unto men to fast but thou when thou fastest anoint thine head and wash thy face It is as plain as the Sun at Noon-day that an anointed head and washed face is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a dirty unwashed face and one that is not anointed such as theirs used to be who fasted in sackcloth and ashes About anointing the face with oil in order to make it the more shining see Psalm civ 15. and what Interpreters say upon that place But this used to be neglected by Mourners as appears from 2 Sam. xii 20 So that tho what Dr. Hammond says upon this place contains a great many learned things in it and is worth our reading yet he has certainly miss'd the scope of it Vers 22. Note l. Our learned Author is mistaken in the sense he puts upon the words of Hesychius for that which that Grammarian speaks of is the soundness of the body See my Notes upon Levit. xxi 17 It is most true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies liberal but that Virtue as on the contrary an envious and sordid way of giving or also a denying any charitable assistance is imputed to the eye because there is a mighty discernible difference between the looks of a man that gives chearfully and willingly and one that either belies himself in saying he has nothing to give or else gives but sparingly and unwillingly It would be needless to go about to confirm what is plain from the Testimonies of the Antients I shall only observe that oculos dolere was a Latin Phrase applyed to a person who could not without regret behold what another possessed because that Passion chiefly discovers it self in the eyes See Plautus Asinar Act. v. Scen. 1. v. 4. and upon that place Fr. Taubmannus Vers 27. after the words proportionable stature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and Quadratus in Latin does not signify as broad as high which is absurd but a just Stature Consult Constant Lexic CHAP. VII Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius tells us is after the manner of the Hellenists i. e. of the Jews who spake Greek not so correctly as they should have done and produces Examples of it But Salmasius in the Epist Dedic to his Commentar de Hellenist says that he elsewhere proves it to be Alexandrian Where this proof is I cannot tell but it is enough to justify its being called a Hellenism if it be but improper Greek and has something discernible of a Hebraism in it The Hebrews use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it is no wonder if he that interpreted S. Matthew imitated Now the reason why the Gate that leads to Happiness is said by Christ to be straight is because as men live it lets in but few The same similitude is made use of to intimate this to us by Cebes in his Table where we find these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you see also a certain little gate and a path before that gate which is not much frequented but trodden only by a very few as seeming to be unpassable rugged and uneven And he that was asked making answer that he did see it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he said was that way that leads to true Learning Vers 23. Note d. Our Author is here mistaken for in all the best Greek Writers there is nothing more common than this Phrase which is a form of turning the Discourse that was before indirect into a direct one or of mixing both those ways of speaking together and it makes the sense to be no other than if all the Sentence was indirectly spoken I will profess to them that I never knew them and will bid all that work Iniquity to depart from me And this way of confounding a direct and indirect Speech together tho it seems I know not how to have something that looks careless in it yet it expresses the thing more to the life than any other way would do There is an instance of this in Theophrastus Charact. cap. iii. de Adulatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As he was on his way to a certain Friend of his the Flatterer overtook him and told him his Friend was coming to him and then returning back I have given him says he notice beforehand of your coming Such Examples as these we may in our reading every where meet with which makes the bare suggesting of it here to be sufficient CHAP. VIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the custom of the Jews says Grotius to give any one they spake to this title yea tho they did not know the person Joh. xx 15 Were it needful I could bring a multitude of proofs of its having been also the custom of the Romans Seneca Ep. iii. says Obvios si nomen non succurrit dominos salutamus If we meet with any one and cannot just then call to mind his name we give him the title of Sir or Lord. So Martial lib. i. Ep. 113. Cum te non nossem dominum regemque vocabam Cum bene te novi jam mihi Priscus eris I rather think nevertheless that there is something more here meant by it and that the Leper gave our Saviour this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adoni with a design to honour him tho perhaps so great and famous a Prophet's name might not be unknown to him And so the Romans used also to do Sueton. in Claudio cap. xxi Hortando rogandóque ad hilaritatem homines provocabat dominos identidem appellans He used by caresses and intreaties to excite people to chearfulness calling them every now and then Lords So Seneca Epist civ Illud mihi in ore erat Domini mei Gallionis I had in my mouth that saying of my Lord Gallio So the Hebrews use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Gen. xxxiii 8 and xliv where you may meet with this word several times Vers 4. Note b. Besides the reasons which the learned Dr. Hammond has assigned of Christ's unwillingness to have it divulged that he was the Messias there may be two others given of no small importance The first is that Christ had rather this should be gathered from his works than by his Disciples or his own publishing it because the faith that was hereby begotten in Men would be much the firmer as having the true grounds of a solid faith to rely upon And thus when those that were sent to him by John the Baptist desired of him to be satisfied whether he was that person that was to come he made answer Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see The blind receive their sight c. Matt. xi 4 5. The other is because if his Disciples had openly proclaimed him to be the Messias they would have drawn after them a vast multitude of People
Interpretation of it which is generally unknown and for the most part ridiculous We must enquire what notion such a word used to excite in the minds of those that heard it not what signification some doting Stoick that thinks every thing to be intended in Fables that his own idle fancy suggests to him affixed to it III. But it will be said that the Etymology of the word is on Phurnutus and Dr. Hammond's side And I acknowledg it is so if that be the true Etymology of it which may with reason be doubted because the word whose original we are inquiring into is almost every where written with a Spiritus asper which is not usual in words compounded with α Privative I confess that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also written with a Spiritus lenis but this not being constant it is probable that the former is the true pronunciation of the word and that the manner of writing it was varied for no other reason than because the Greeks afterwaâ—ds thought that to be the true Etymology of the word which Dr. Hammond gives us So the Author of the Etymologicon magnum says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But with all the Greek Grammarians leave I should say that this is not the true Etymology of the word but that it must be deduced from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be pronounced not only as the Authors of the Masora do ed but ajid The Phoenicians perhaps wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is common for the guttural Letters to be confounded in the Oriental Languages and as the Arabians at this day write it and so from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hajid came haïdes and hades and that word as it is very well known signifies destruction There are a great many words that the Greeks have in vain attempted to find the original of in their Language and which have with good success been derived by learned men from the Phoenicians I could shew why the youngest of Saturn's Sons was so called and assign the reason of the Names of the rest of them out of the same Language but this is not a proper place for it IV. I cannot see the reason why our learned Author citing Esth xii 7 will not allow the Heathen King Artaxerxes a Decree of whose is in that Chapter recited to have had any thoughts of Hell or a place of punishments That heathen King says he cannot be thought to dream of Hell For who does not know that the Heathens believed there was a place under the earth in which bad men were punished 'T is plain the Greeks did and I need not prove the Persians to have been of the same opinion for he that wrote the Additions to Esther was not so well skill'd in the sentiments of the Persians but that he might confound them with those of the Greeks Or however there is nothing that should oblige us to think that as to this matter the opinion of the Greeks and Persians was not the very same Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not as much as to say in English to Hell or in French en enfer for these words do only signify the place of punishments whereas the Greek are more comprehensive and take in not only Hell or the place of Torments but likewise the Elysian fields V. One question there is behind that is not easy to be resolved viz. what notion the Jews who used the Greek Tongue affixed to that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not heap together all that might be said with relation to this matter Two things only I shall observe that may help us to find out the meaning of Christ's words 1. That the Jews had a word in their Language which signified a grave any subterraneous places and the State of the dead and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scheol which I have treated of on Gen. xxxvii 35 and which upon all accounts it seems likely that Christ here made use of The Syriack I am sure has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now when this word is opposed to Heaven it signifies among the Hebrews the lowest places of the earth and where Heaven is by a metaphor taken for Glory and Prosperity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes obscurity and adversity Thus Isai xiv 11 12. it is said in this sense of the King of Babylon thy pride is brought down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how art thou fallen from Heaven c. And just in this manner Christ here speaks to Capernaum and uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense with Isaiah for a miserable and low condition as he had before used the word Heaven to express the happy State of that City whilst he preached and wrought Miracles in it 2. Amongst the rest of the senses attributed to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Jews who spake the Greek Language all which I shall not enumerate there was that which I said belonged to the Hebrew word instead of which they generally used this Which appears clearly from hence that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were in their speech synonimous Thus whereas it is said by St. Peter that it was impossible for Christ to be left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. ii 27 St. Paul says that he descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. iv 9 And in this sense St. Matthew or his Interpreter in the room of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ made use of has used the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be true as it is likely almost all that our Author says upon this place must of necessity fall to the ground To the other places of the New Testament where this word is found I shall say something when I come to them Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Verse must be joined to the 25 that Christ may be understood to declare to the Jews as well as Gentiles that notwithstanding their professed eagerness after divine knowledg the true Worship of God his Father and the offices of the Messias were things that they were strangers to For the Jews imagined that the observation of the letter of the Law rendered them acceptable to God whilst they neglected the purpose of the Law-giver which was to make them truly vertuous in the manner that Christ alone has taught us to be And they expected also the Messias to come in the quality of an earthly Prince and free them from that extream bondage which they were under to the Romans So that they neither knew the Father nor the Son Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are to understand this only of the Jews who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were tired by reason of the frequent journies that the Law obliged them to make to Jerusalem and which they took for fear of offending God tho not without a great deal of trouble The design of Christ is to insinuate to the Jews without
taken very often for a thing but the phrase to speak a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never used to signify to do any thing The first therefore is very well observed by the Doctor and demonstrated before by examples at chap. xi ver 23. of this Gospel But the latter no body will ever be able to prove For tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both word and thing yet it does not follow that verbs of a near signification as particularly that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak signifies to do nor can any such instance be given It is true also that those who speak words against the Holy Ghost do oppose him but the reason of that is because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and it is impossible that a man should speak vilifying words of those Miracles that are wrought by a divine power but he must have a design to resist them So that our Author which I am sorry for has not in the beginning of this last Annotation of his given us any Evidence of his great skill in Grammar What he says besides is extraordinary and no body that I know of has so happily explained wherein the Sin against the Holy Ghost consists This Sin is excellently compared to sinning under the Law with a hand lifted up which those were guilty of who after warning given them put an open contempt upon the Laws authority and spake in reproachful terms concerning it as we have shewn in our Notes on Numbers For just as those who are here said to sin against the Holy Ghost defamed the Miracles wrought by Christ so those that sinned under the Law with a high hand derided the Miracles wrought by Moses Vers 36. Note m. There are some who would have Christ to argue here à minori ad majus q. d. If men must give an account even of idle words much more must they do so of slanderous speeches such as had been utter'd by the Pharisees But there is not so much as the least footstep of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Saviour's words And therefore I rather think with Dr. Hammond that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies something in it more than ordinary bad For tho it properly signifies idle yet according to use which often stretches the sense of words beyond what is contain'd in their true original it may signify somewhat more When any man was said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only meaning certainly was not that he had a great deal of leisure which may be true sometimes of good and industrious persons but that he was a lazy sluggish stupid Fellow as the word is rendred in an old Lexicon And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only a vain or idle word such as the Discourse of trifling persons is oftentimes full of but also a wicked one such as is a means of corrupting the minds of the Hearers and making them lazy and slothful i. e. hindering them from doing any good works and as a consequence of that occasioning their running headlong into all manner of evil practices And of this sort were the Discourses of such men as the Pharisees who in respect of Piety might be justly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slothful persons performed no good works but were wicked themselves and by their bad Conversation kept others from becoming sober or serviceable Their Discourses were the Discourses of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lazy men in point of Virtue and such as induced the Hearers to be alike slothful This Christ more than once upbraids them with See afterwards Chap. xxiii 13 And in this place we have an instance of it in them in their not only refusing to believe Christ themselves but using Arguments to perswade others that he was not to be believed whilst they wickedly ascribed the Miracles that were done by him to the Prince of the Devils So that I should understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in a passive but also in an active sense i. e. that Christ speaks of such Discourses as were not only without the least spark of goodness in them but had a bad influence likewise upon others Thus the Doctrine of the Stoicks was by the rest of the Philosophers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an active sense as appears from a passage in Cicero Lib. de Fato Nec nos impediet says he illa ignava quae dicitur ratio appellatur quidem à Philosophis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui si pareamus nihil est omnino quod agamus in vita So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a contraction is used also actively Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idle or mischievous Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes upon Abd. ver 20. CHAP. XIII Vers 8. Note a. SEe my Citations out of Pliny about the fruitfulness of Egypt Africa and Sicily upon Gen. xli 47 Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He that makes an ill use of God's benefits so as that they prove almost insignificant to him and makes little or no advances in Piety shall be so forsaken of God as to fall even from those first beginnings he has made in Virtue Just such another expression but in a different case there is in Juvenal Sat. iii. vers 208. Nil habuit Codrus quis enim negat tamen illud Perdidit infelix totum nihil Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Metaphor is used by Quintilian de praecocibus ingeniis Inst lib. 1. c. 3. Non subest says he vera vis nec penitus immissis radicibus ut quae summo solo sparsa sunt semina celerius sese effundunt imitatae spicas herbulae manibus aristis ante messem flavescunt Their forwardness is not the effect of any settled strength of Judgment but they are like seeds scattered upon the surface of the ground which presently shoot up before they have taken any rooting or like deep weeds growing amongst the corn which ripen before the Harvest Ibid. The Exposition of this Parable is full of improprieties of speech such as in their ordinary and daily discourse it is usual for men to be guilty of but this does not make the sense obscure because the thing is of it self so very manifest We must not therefore criticize too much upon the words but mind the thing it self When any one saith Christ heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not the wicked one cometh and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart this is he which was sowed by the way side It is just as if he had said and his meaning is no other than this That whosoever hears the Gospel and does not with all his heart entertain it is not long obedient to it for the Examples and Speeches of wicked men soon engage him to return to his former evil course This man
is sufficient if what is said in Parables be not impossible and there be a fitness in them to express the mind of the person that uses them Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other such must be understood and supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Ellipsis before the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest that is very common among the Hebrews Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here I am apt to think we must understand those which the Romans called Liberti rather than Servi or at least Hirelings who were at their own disposal See my Note upon Chap. xviii 23 To this agrees the Saying of Trimalchio in Petronius Postquam coepi plus habere quam tota patria mea habet manum de tabula sustuli me de negotiatione coepi libertos foenerare After I had once gotten more than all my kindred put together I threw by my Accounts left off my Trade and began to put out my money to such as had served for their freedom upon Vsury Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here be understood that he might traffick to the best of his ability Each Servant had a certain sum given him by the Master of the Family that he might trade proportionably to the sum which he received and according to the degree of his Prudence for there are some that can manage prudently a great sum and are fit to engage in much business and there are others whose ability is less and must have less employment given them This has a mystical sense in it and signifies that some have received more light and gifts from God than others and that every one must give an account according to his Receipts This is more natural than what is said by Grotius and is the sense that Dr. Hammond puts upon it in his Paraphrase Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot imagin what our Author's thoughts were taken up with when he wrote his Paraphrase upon these words for it has no agreement at all with the words of Christ. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies a Feast to which a Patron usually invited his Libertus or Client upon his having well executed his Orders The Septuagint in Esther ix 19 render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a feast by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is no wonder that things which do so often accompany one another as joy and a feast are sometimes promiscuously used That the Liberti used to lie down at meat with their Patrons a Privilege not granted to the Servi by their Masters is notorious Demetrius the Libertus of Pompey the Great is particularly branded for his insolence in lying down before his Patron The Patron therefore here in this part of the Parable is represented as ordering his Libertus or Client to come into the Dining-room that he might partake of his Feast Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this part of the Parable there is no decorum at all observed for no Servant or Client would dare to speak at this rate to his Master or Patron But as I said before this is not necessary in a Parable and these words are very fitly made use of to represent to us the idle Excuses that bad Servants are apt to alledg in their own behalf However it must be observed also that this part of the Parable is but as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which serves to fill up in a Picture for there is nothing to answer it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mystical sense All that Christ meant by it is that no Excuse will be admitted for those who do not make a good use of the favours they have received Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes upon Chap. xiii 12 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that our learned Author should interpret this Expression outer darkness of the darkness of a Dungeon which should rather be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inner darkness I have explained this Phrase already in a Note on Ch. viii 12 where the discourse as it is here is about men excluded from the Feast and cast out of the house where it was kept Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author very improperly paraphrases these words before all eternity as if any thing could be prior to eternity This is what I had to observe on this Chapter to which the Doctor has said nothing And I have only touched on those things which others have wholly passed by referring the Reader for a more full Interpretation of it to Grotius CHAP. XXVI Vers 7. Note b. I Don't believe that that is the true original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Grammarians who are very notable men at inventing trifling Etymologies give us of it for if it were that sort of vessel would rather have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than with so little regard had to the analogy of the derivation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides if that vessel had been so called because it had no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 handles it oughts to have been said adjectively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever is destitute of handles which yet the Greek Language will not admit of whence a particular sort of vessels were afterwards called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the words were to be derived from a Greek original I should rather deduce it with Salmasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imponere and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Atticism for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Salmas on Ch. xiii of Solinus But the true original of the word is certainly from that sort of Marble which was called Alabaster of which those Vessels that bore that name were commonly made For to say that Marble was so called because out of that were formed Vessels without handles as the Doctor and Salmas himself does is absurd since not only Vessels of all shapes and forms but even Pillars also were made out of it 'T is as if one should say because the word Onyx sometimes signifies a Vessel therefore that sort of stone was so called because it was the matter of which those Vessels were made Now as for the word Alabaster it self it is an Arabian name for that kind of Marble for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 batsraton is the Noun it self in use which by an addition of the Arabian Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albatsraton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason why I think it had an Arabian name is not only because the Arabian Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes it probable but because it was cut out of the Arabian Mountains and was first brought from thence So Pliny tells us Lib. xxxvi C. 7. Onychem etiam tum in Arabiae montibus nec usquam aliubi nasci putavere Veteres The Antients
also at that time thought that Alabaster grew in the mountains of Arabia and no where else And a little after he says Nascitur circa Thebas Aegyptias Damascum Syriae it grows about Thebes in Egypt and Damascus in Syria And there was a City somewhere between the Nile and the Red sea or in Egyptian Arabia called for that reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mentioned by Pliny Lib. v. c. 9. and by Ptolomy Lib. iv c. 5. who places it in the Province of Cynopolis near to which was the Alabaster Mountain mentioned by the same Author So that the Doctor finds fault with Is Casaubon unjustly for saying that Vessels not made of Marble were but by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor can I imagin how a person so extraordinary well versed in the Scriptures could deny that this Vessel was broken by the Woman who poured the Ointment out of it upon Christ this being expresly affirmed by St. Mark Chap. xiv 3 And tho it had not yet our Authors reason against it is of no weight for what ground had he to think that a little Vessel made of thin Marble could not easily be broken As for the Reason of the Womans breaking the vessel that seems to be because the mouth of it was so narrow that the Spikenard which is a thicker ointment than ordinary could not run easily enough out of it Ibid. Note c. I have shewed in a Note on Matt. xxv 21 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there and sometimes the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a feast The French would say une rejouïssance which tho it does not signify properly a feast yet never uses to be made without one What our Author says about the use of ointments in Feasts is very true but who does not know it He had better only have referred us to some Critick who had treated upon that Subject The indignation which Judas expressed against the Woman who poured the oil upon Christ concealed his covetousness the better because none but delicate or voluptuous persons made use of such pretious ointments and Christ was a professed enemy to all sensual pleasures So Aristippus perceiving that he could not anoint himself without incurring peoples censures cried out Male istis effaeminatis eveniat quia rem tam bellam infamaverunt A mischief take those effeminate persons for bringing so good a custom into disgrace See Diog. Laert. Lib. ii S. 76. Vers 26. Note e. I. Concerning the phrase the body of the Passover and the like see Buxtorf in Diss de Instit. Coenae Domin Sect. 25. from whom our Author seems to have borrowed what he here says II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the relative to the ceremony or action but only to the bread for who besides Dr. Hammond would ever have thus explained Christ's words This eating and drinking denotes my body That learned man did not care how he expressed himself provided the skilful Reader could but guess his meaning but the words of Scripture must not be forced in that manner 'T is bread not a ceremony that is called the body of Christ and eating and drinking are only the signs of our spiritual participation of that body And it makes nothing against this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender it being usual in all Languages so to demonstrate any thing whatsoever and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being always to be understood in the Greek Language when the name that belongs to the thing intended is not expressed Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be very well referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the sense be the same The words of St. Luke are contrary to the Doctor 's opinion for who would say the eating of bread is the figure of my body In the rest of this Annot. our Author acts the part of a Divine rather than an Interpreter and speaks as if he were making a common place about the Lords supper Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is an old Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that undertakes a thing confidently is generally fearful And to the same purpose is that saying of Epicharmus in the Scholiast upon Homer at ver 93. Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a coward is at first very confident of himself and afterwards runs away And this was just St. Peter's case before he had been confirmed by the Holy Ghost upon Christ's praying for him CHAP. XXVII Vers 5. Note a. OUr learned Author that he might be able to reconcile S. Matthew with S. Luke follows for the most part D. Heinsius who by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understands a suffocation caused by grief But I. There is no place by any one alledged wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such a disease especially in men for those which are cited by the Doctor are nothing to the purpose as I shall presently shew That word is always taken for strangling with a Halter or some other violent way II. The place alledged out of Aelian does not prove that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any thing but strangling with a Halter When he says that Scoffs have not only grieved men but also killed them he does not mean that some who had been scoffed had laid it so to heart as to die only with Grief but that they had been so impatient of Derision as to kill themselves Thus Poliager being jeered hanged himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Archilochus's Iambicks made Lycambe and her Daughters hang themselves III. The word in Chrysostom is simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes taken metaphorically for the anguish of the mind but never a Suffocation Nor does that place signify any thing to the business as has been well observed by the learned Jac. Gronovius in his Diss de Casu Judae for Chrysostom speaks of wicked men who he tells us at the last day when their Sins shall be made publick and manifest will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffocated and strangled with Conscience which is not the same with what is said here of Judas IV. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tobit signify so as to think of hanging her self as is plain from what follows where she is represented as blaming her self for entertaining such Thoughts and saying I am my fathers only daughter if I should do this it would be a reproach c. and a little after I said i. e. I thought according to the genius of the Hebrew that I had best free my self from the earth and hear no more reproaches for so we ought to render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not I said free or take me away for it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which does not signify and do not hear me but I ought not to hear or hearken
agreement and concord Our Saviour that he might represent the great dissensions that were occasioned by the variety of mens opinions about matters of Religion speaks in this manner Matt. x. 21 The brother shall deliver up the brother to death and the father the child and the children shall rise up against their parents and kill them and verse 35. I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against the mother Now to shew that John was to extinguish all such animosities or at least use the properest means to that end the Prophet made use just of a contrary expression and said he shall turn the heart of the fathers c. This is by two Evangelists called the restoring of all things and here by the Angel turning the disobedient to the sentiments of the just and indeed the Jews could not be reclaimed from their dissensions and disposed to submit to one Master Jesus Christ unless John had been to make it his endeavour to restore the whole Jewish Nation and to bring them over to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind or opinion of the just See Grotius on Malach. and this place in St. Mark The Doctor here takes abundance of pains to interpret this place to little purpose because he had not looked into the words of Malachi He represents the Prophet speaking the same thing over and over like him that said Semivirúmque bovem semibovémque virum For what else but a nauseous Tautology are those words old and young young and old But that which the Prophet says is that John should endeavour to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children i. e. the fathers who were mistaken in their Opinions to the Children who had righter apprehensions of things and the hearts of the children to the fathers or the erroneous Children to the judgment of their Fathers who embraced the true Doctrine of Christ in a word to bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incredulous and disobedient to be of the mind or sentiments of the just II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render mind or sentiment and not Wisdom because that is the most usual signification of the word and agreable to the common acceptation of the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sentire to think or be of such a sentiment as it is used by St. Paul in Phil. ii 2 where the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to think the same thing to be of the same mind And my reason for this is because the Discourse here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consent of the Jews who disagreed among themselves But then it must not be thought that by sententiam sentiment I understand the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speculation or opinion which entertains only the understanding but an affection or disposition of the Soul which discovers it self in external actions and is that vertue which the Latins usually call prudentia as the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the reason it may be why the Evangelist rather made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly neither sententia opinion nor prudentia prudence or wisdom but an affection of the Soul by which we not only think and judg but also love and hate See H. Stephens Thesaur upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note k. I. For the understanding of what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place it must be enquired not what Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and particularly in the New Testament And we find this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Paul in a very clear notion in Eph. i. 6 where he says that God has predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to the praise of the glory of his grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he hath gratified us in the beloved i. e. by which he hath dealt most bountifully with us through Christ And agreably hereto the meaning of the Angel here must be O Virgin who art highly favoured by God Phavorinus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloved blessed II. What our Author quotes out of Hesychius relates rather to the body or to elegancy of speech than to the Mind which certainly we can have nothing to do with here Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he interprets by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretty elegant sayings And the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facetus gratiosus witty pleasant In which sense it is taken in the Son of Sirach Chap. xviii 19 where the discourse is concerning one that was well skilled in the art of speaking or an eloquent man The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius ought not to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old Glosses have that word and render it by gratus gratuitus acceptus grateful freely bestowed acceptable But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is undoubtedly as the Doctor supposes a false print for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prov. xi 16 signifies a handsom Woman for which sense there can be no room here Vers 39. Note m. Of this Phrase in those days see my Notes on Gen. xxxviii 1 Vers 67. Note n. at the end of the third sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 190. lin 24. I. Our Author had done well if he had produced the words of those Grammarians who say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies naturally no more than one that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or in the stead of another And he might have shewn us too at the same time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition is the same sometime with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as pro in Latin in Proconsul For as for me I know of no Grammarian that has proved this but I know of one that thinks them both false When Poets are said to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Muses it is not meant that they speak in the place or stead of the Muses but by their inspiration no less than Prophets by the inspiration of that particular Deity to which they are consecrated For it must be observed that tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who foretels things to come yet when Poets are so stiled it signifies only men inspired by the Muses Which is the reason also why Poets used to invoke them II. Amongst the Heathens the Divines Prophets or Priests did not teach the People how they were to live but only the manner of worshipping and pacifying the Gods And therefore Lactantius Lib. v. c. 3. speaking of the Heathen Divinity very truly saith Nihil ibi
disseritur quod proficiat ad mores excolendos vitamque formandam nec habet inquisitionem aliquam veritatis sed tantummodò ritum colendi That it does not in the least teach men how to live nor give any rules how to find out the Truth but declares only in what manner and with what ceremonies the Gods are to be worshipped It was the business of the Philosophers to teach those things which related to Peoples Manners as the same Author observes Philosophia says he religio Deorum disjuncta sunt longeque discreta Siquidem alii sunt professores sapientiae per quos utique ad Deos non aditur alii Religionis Antistites per quos sapere non discitur apparet nec illam esse veram sapientiam nec hanc Religionem Philosophy and the worship of the Gods are two very different things among the Heathens For their Professors of Wisdom are one sort of men who teach nothing that relates to divine worship and their Priests another sort which give men no instructions how to grow wiser But it is manifest that neither the former is true Wisdom nor the latter true divine Worship III. As for Epimenides who wrote no books of Ethicks but rather taught the way of purifying or expiating I know not why our Author should deny him to have been a Foreteller of things to come merely because of Aristotle's single Testimony and thereupon argue that he was not for that reason called a Prophet For others do affirm him to have been skilful in the art of Divination and produce some instances to that purpose See Laertius Lib. i. Sect. 114. and his Interpreter And we have no reason to suppose but that St. Paul might rather have a respect to the general Opinion than to Aristotle's Ibid. After the 4 th sense given of that word pag. 190. lin 29. When the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to interpret Scripture or exhort the People to Virtue or both it ought not to be rendered by prophesying or foretelling which is its most usual signification but by preaching or speaking publickly And the reason of this is because the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and does not only signify ante before when it is referred to time but also when the Discourse is about things and Persons i. e. propè or coram nigh to or in the presence of which last signification it manifestly has in many compound words Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is producere provehere to bring forth to carry on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promere proferre to bring out to produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 progredior procedo to go forward to proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promoveo proveho to put forward to lead on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proscriptum a publick order posted up in writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proscribo profiteor to publish to profess with many more which may be had out of any Lexicon I have transcribed these out of the old Glossaries of Philoxenus and others and to transcribe more was needless It cannot therefore seem strange to any if we interpret this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by proloqui to utter or pronounce which is rendered in the old Onomasticon by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly call him a Prophet who delivers or pronounces a pious discourse in a Church Assembly It is certain that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used thus in Lucian in Auct Vitarum where Diogenes is represented as giving this short Character of himself that he was one who took it to be his province publickly to teach Vertue and inveigh against Vice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in short I am resolved to be a PROPHET of truth and liberty of speech i. e. to speak freely whatever I think to be true and just I confess Diogenes seems here to have taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for two Goddesses by whom he was inspired but then it was only in order to this end that he might boldly speak the truth concerning mens manners and not that he might foretel things to come This is the sense in which the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Aristotle in lib. de mundo where he speaks thus concerning Philosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understanding I suppose easily things agreable to her nature and comprehending divine things with the divine eye of her mind and declaring them to men In this place also there is a respect had to inspiration but not such a one as has any relation to the knowledg of things future These two passages were not understood by H. Stephanus Because therefore the Genius and use of the Greek language would admit preachers to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul made use of this word and so much the more willingly because therein he did not depart from the custom of his Country-men the Jews among whom it was a Prophet's office not only to foretel things to come but also to teach the People Piety and Vertue The Egyptians also had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they prophesied or confer'd with the People about their manners is not known Ibid. under the 6 th sense of that word See my Notes upon the passage cited by the Doctor out of Numbers Vers 70. Note p. I. The learned Jac. Rhenferdius has written a Discourse very well worth our reading about this phrase saeculum praesens futurum the present and future age in which he asserts that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the age to come was used in antient times and so in the time of Christ to signify only the next life and not the age of the Messias And indeed all the examples brought by the Doctor do confirm this very thing nor is there any clear place alledged by him out of the New Testament which puts the contrary out of doubt One or two passages in a late Rabbin ought not to be taken for a certain proof of what was the custom and doctrine of the Antient Jews II. The interpretation which the Doctor gives of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears to be ingenious at first sight but if it be narrowly examined it will be found inconsistent with the use of the Hebrew language For as the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to age and to age signifies nothing but to all future ages so the meaning of that other is no more than for ever It is a Hebraism wherein the same word is repeated to express all that such or such a word signifies And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man man is used to signify every man III. The Gospel is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal because it will never be made void by any other Covenant or Dispensation as the Law had been It has no relation at all to the Phrase the present or future age IV. The Phrase 〈◊〉
and the Apostles by Christ cannot be matter of doubt with any Christian but I question whether the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such as that the Authority which belonged to the Apostolical Office can by Grammatical Reasons be thence deduced Mission does not to speak properly signify Authority but only the purpose or action of sending by which there is a greater or lesser Power conferred upon the person sent according as seems good to the person that sends him Nor can the person that is so sent assume to himself the Authority of him that sent him merely because he sent him but only because when he was sent he received such or such a Commission which he is obliged also not to exceed This our Author seems indeed to have perceived tho but obscurely whilst he affirms and denies in the same Annotation that the word Apostle is a Title of Dignity II. The Talmudists term'd them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messengers of the Congregation that were sent by the Synagogues on any business whatsoever and who among other Offices which they performed offered up Prayers for those who could not pray for themselves in the Synagogue especially at the beginning of the new year and on the day of expiation See Joan. Buxtorf in Lexic Talmud and Camp Vitringa de Synagog Lib. 3. Part 2. c. 11. But there were never any Tithes either due or paid to the Synagogues but only to the Temple as long as it stood to which also it was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of in Philo brought money and not to the Synagogues Thus Philo p. 785. Ed. Gen. saith of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew that they gathered the consecrated moneys under the name of first-fruits and sent them to Jerusalem by those who were going to offer up sacrifices there The like he repeats in p. 801. where he calls those persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 22. Note e. Tho it be true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a man yet the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to cast out a man as wicked but to defame as Grotius has evidently proved whom the Reader may consult Vers 30. Note f. It is true that the person here intended is a poor man who makes use of what is anothers but that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to require Vsury or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self to receive upon use I am not apt to believe if those words be considered conjunctly For it is not all one as to the finding out the signification of words what connexion or relation they have with one another I rather chuse therefore to understand this Precept of Christ thus That those who can be without what another person who absolutely needs it possesses of theirs tho it be unjustly detained from them ought rather to recede from their right than by taking what is their own again reduce a poor distressed man to his last shifts Indeed if a rich man should unjustly keep back what is anothers which he stands in no need of it would not be the part of a liberal Man but a Fool to neglect his right but there cannot be a more generous or liberal Action than to connive at such a fault in a poor man And this being a very good sense of this Precept and agreeable to the usual signification of every word in it I do not see why we should recur to any other CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OUR Author might have added that it was ordinary in Scripture to bring in Messengers speaking in the same words that those would have done who sent them if they had been present See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word Nuntius Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They acknowledged God to be just and themselves to be guilty and that they deserved the destruction which John had denounced against them Of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see our Notes upon Rom. iii. 4 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They rejected Gods purpose of reforming them by John's Ministry See Acts xx 27 Vers 44. Note c. See my Notes on Gen. xviii 4 CHAP. VIII Vers 3. Note a. I. IT is true indeed that the meats at Feasts were divided and distributed to the Guests by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring Servants but he is mistaken whoever thinks with Dr. Hammond that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies this particular action rather than any other service nor do the places alledged by him prove it Servants had various employments which were all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as among the Latins ministeria He that divided the Meats was not called by the general name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and in Latin scissor or carptor See Laur. Pignorius and Aus Popma in Comment de Servis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke xii 37 does not signify only to divide to every one his portion of meat but any errand or employment that used to be given to Servants whilst their Masters were feasting The same I say of Matth. xx 28 and Mark x. 45 which the Doctor puts a forced sense upon when they might be most fitly explained according to the constant signification almost of that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Our Learned Author had not sufficiently examined the passage he speaks of in St. Matthew for it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies to exercise Dominion or Kingly Authority over Subjects and not that of a Master over Servants the Discourse not being about Masters and Servants but about Kings and Subjects Ye know that the Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise Dominion over them It follows and those that are great exercise Authority upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Authority as belongs to a Vice-Roy or the King's Lieutenant Christ here forbids the Governours of his Church to assume a Regal Power over Christians which they do whensoever they put them to death or persecute such as cannot say just as they say or to take any such Authority upon them which on pretence of acting in the name of the Supreme Governor Jesus Christ they might easily abuse to the destruction of Christians In fine he would have nothing done in an imperious domineering way but all by perswasion and entreaty III. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in John ii are those that served the Guests in all things which they wanted as well as in distributing to them Meat and Drink It is not from this latter that the Deacons of the Church were so called as by a Metaphor taken from a Feast but rather from a borrowed signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken sometimes for
was something inferior to God as we may see in his Comment on St. John T. 11. p. 55. Ed. Huet But his reasoning is vain as appears by what I said So St. Paul says that he was an Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Will of God 1 Cor. i. 1 and 2 Cor. i. 1 but it cannot be inferred from thence that the will of God is inferior to God That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things is to be understood of the Universe I need not here prove for tho that word may have several significations yet in this matter it cannot be otherwise understood They are bad Criticks who consider what words signify separately and think that any of those significations may be any where applied without any regard had to the Phrases in which they occur or the occasion on which they are used or who think that an interpretation ought to be admitted only because it does not make the sense altogether absurd and it is not Metaphysically if I may so speak impossible but that the Writer whom they interpret might mean as they would have him We ought carefully to consider in what sense words are commonly used in any Language with the occasion of the writing and all the circumstances of the Discourse in order to give a right interpretation of them Ibid. And without it was not any thing made that was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho it be a very true Observation of a great Man that the Holy Scriptures do many times explain what they assert by a Negation of the contrary yet I do not think that these words are added to that end The Epicureans thought that all and every particular thing was made without Reason in contradiction to which the Apostle here affirms that not only all things that is the Universe but every single thing was made with Reason The Epicureans when any objected against their opinion the beauty of the World and the great Benefit which Men received by the Order and Disposition of it pretended to prove Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum tanta stat praedita culpa That the World was not made by a divine Power and Wisdom for our use there are so many faults in it And they composed a Catalogue of things that were hurtful to Mankind and seemed to be made without Reason as we may see in Lucretius Lib. 5. after the words alledged And so Cicero likewise in Acad. Quaest 4. c. 38. disputes thus against the Stoicks Cur Deus omnia nostri causâ cum faceret sic enim vultis tantum natricum viperarumque fecerit cur mortifera tam multa perniciosa terra marique disperserit c. Why God having made all things for our use as ye affirm should make so many Watersnakes and Vipers Why he should disperse so many deadly and pernicious things on the Earth and in the Sea c. These Arguments had such an effect upon some who were otherwise friends to Providence that they granted the Epicureans there were some things made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Reason And among these Philo was one to whom I make little doubt but that the Apostle had a respect in this matter also as he has approved some things in his Doctrine so he has rejected others lest by the unwary the bad should be mixed with the good and lest because he had approved some things he should seem to have assented to all That Doctrine of Philo was extant in his Book de Providentia out of which we have a long disputation set down in Eusebius Praep. Evang. Lib. 8. c. 14. where among other passages we meet with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those creeping things that are poisonous are not made by Providence but come of course as I before said For they are generated when the moistness that is inherent in them or whereof they consist becomes warmer than ordinary I think Mr. le Clere does not express the sense of this period when he translates it Nascuntur enim cum humiditas terrae inhaerens calore mutatur some are animated by Putrefaction as worms in the Belly viz. by the putrefaction of Food and lice of Sweat But every thing which is procreated from a seminal and antecedaneous Nature in the Latin it is praevisam which I take to be a mistake either in Mr. le Clerc or in his Printer for praegressam out of its proper matter is justly ascribed to Providence This is contrary to the Christian Doctrin which teaches us that all things were created and are taken care of by God see Mat. x. 29 and Interpreters upon that place Vers 4. In it was Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life in this place seems to signify a clear Doctrin concerning eternal Life and the way of attaining it which were but obscurely known before Christ upon which account St. Paul 2 Tim. i. 20 says that Christ brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Gospel And that this is here St. John's meaning he himself shews in 1 Epist i. 2 For the Life saith he was manifested and we have seen it and bear witness and declare unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us And in the same Epist. Chap. v. 11 God hath given to us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son Or else the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be called Life because it gives spiritual Life to Men in this world and eternal Life in the other Ignatius St. John's Disciple in his genuin Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smirna after he had said that it was difficult for bad Men to repent subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is in the power of Jesus Christ who is our true Life And in his Epist to the Trallians p. 51. Ed. Voss speaking of Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without whom we have no true Life There are some who think that St. John has a respect to the Doctrin of the Gnosticks who affirmed that Reason and Life were two several divine Emanations But whether this which was afterwards the opinion of Valentinus was before known is very uncertain See Note on Vers 16. Besides the sense I have given is plain and agreeable to what follows The Apostle seems rather to allude here to a Passage in Philo who in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum Haeres p. 381. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is a threefold kind of Life one which is with God another which is with the Creature and a third which is of a middle Nature mixed of both That which is with God has not descended to us or come for the necessities of the Body c. But St. John teaches us that that kind of Life was brought down upon Earth by Christ Ibid. And this Life was the Light of Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The light of the Mind is a thing very often mentioned by Philo but because
of a few Versions of this Passage The Vulgar has Exponebat testificans regnum Dei suadensque eis de Jesu ex lege Moysis c. What is exponebat testificans Besides de Jesu does not express the sense of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to have been rendered quae pertinent ad Jesum those things which concern Jesus But yet Erasmus so translates them omitting the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as superfluous And Castellio was guilty of the same fault who otherwise uses to recede when there is no reason for it from the Phrase of the Sacred Writers for thus he renders the words quibus ille disserebat divinum regnum testificans eis de Jesu ex Mosis lege persuadere conans which is neither Latin nor expresses St. Luke's sense Beza's translation is a great deal better cum attestatione exponebat regnum Dei suadens eis quae de Jesu Christo sunt ex lege c. but he did not observe there was a transposition here nor come up to the sense of every word The not understanding of this was the occasion of the Geneva and other French Interpreters mistranslating this Passage The Geneva renders it ausquels il expliquâ—it par divers temoignages le Royaume de Dieu les induisit a croire ce qui concerne Jesus c. as if St. Luke had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Port-Royal has il leur prêchoit le Royaume de Dieu leur confirmant ce qu' il leur disoit par plusieurs témoignages c. which is taking too great a liberty whereas they should have said il leur racontoit ce qui concerne Jesus rendant temoignage au Royaume de Dieu les persuadant par la Loi c. In the first place the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to interpret but to relate or declare when the Discourse is about matters of Fact such as the coming of Christ his Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven Secondly the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the History of Jesus by which he was understood to be the Messias Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bear Testimony to the truth of any History as the Apostles did when they testified that Jesus was risen from the Dead and gone up to Heaven upon which account they are called his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses See Acts i. 8 22. and x. 39 41. St. Paul indeed was not capable of bearing the same Testimony to Christ as the rest of the Apostles who declared that they had seen him dead and a little after alive again and had heard and touched him c. But he was able to testify that he was still alive which he knew by what had happened to him in his way to Damascus Acts ix See also Chap. xxii 15 And thus we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in Chap. x. 42 of this History He commanded us to preach unto the People and to testify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is be which is ordained of God to be the Judg of the living and the dead viz. by giving account of what had happened to him and of his Doctrin St. Paul bore Testimony in a peculiar manner to the Kingdom of God when he declared that Christ reigned in Heaven and had been seen by himself surrounded with immortal Light and Glory Of the transposing of words there is another plain instance in Chap. i. 2 of this Book ANNOTATIONS ON THE Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to the Romans AT the end of the Premon Tho most of what our Author says in this Premonition be true yet there are two things in him liable to reprehension and those are first that he supposes many times the Apostle to have a respect to the Gnosticks where the Heathens or Jews are thought to be spoken of by other Interpreters and that with more probability as will appear by those places and especially by Chap. i and ii The second relates to his Paraphrase which is many times intricate and obscure full of Repetitions harsh and forced and in a word not sufficiently adapted to explain the Series of St. Paul's Discourse tho as to the main he seldom misses the true scope of it But no body will ever explain an obscure Epistle without endeavouring perspicuity and brevity which two things our Author's Paraphrase is extremely defective in CHAP. I. Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This passage S. Austin de Praedest Sanct. c. 15. says may be so almost understood as the Unitarians commonly understand it Praedestinatus est ergo saith he Jesus ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem filius David esset tamen in virtute filius Dei secundum Spiritum sanctificationis quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria. Jesus therefore was predestinated as one who was to be according to the flesh the Son of David and yet should be in Power the Son of God according to the Spirit of Sanctification because he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost But the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must have a different sense put upon them which I take to be this viz. that the Holy Ghost which Jesus had received was as it were a Voice whereby it was miraculously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified or declared that he should be the Son of God after his resurrection from the dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was the Son of God it 's true not only in decree as the Schoolmen speak but actually before his Resurrection but he was again called the Son of God in a peculiar manner after his Resurrection as appears from Acts xiii 32 33. And therefore in this respect he might be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be ordained by the Holy Ghost to be the Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after his Resurrection This same Verb is used by St. Peter in Acts x. 42 in a like matter where having said that he and the rest of the Apostles had eaten and drank with Jesus after he was risen from the dead he adds And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that it is he which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained by God to be the Judg of the living and dead As by the Holy Ghost which descended upon him he was ordained or marked out by God to perform the Office of the Messias and so to rise again and upon that account to be called the Son of God besides other reasons for which he has that title by a special Right and Privilege given to him so also by his being raised from the dead he was ordained or marked out by God to be the Judg of the living and dead That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are the same is truly observed by Grotius who yet interprets the sense of this passage somewhat confusedly Add to the
in her Bowels the Fathers of two great People of which People that which did first become the most numerous and acquired the greatest Riches and Power should afterwards serve the other tho in the beginning not so powerful 13. To which purpose also is that saying of God in Malachi that he had preferred Jacob and his Posterity to Esau and his Progeny and upon the former conferred much greater Benefits 14. Perhaps some may object that God according to this Doctrin seems to be unjust who as I affirm so much prefers one People before another that are no better than they But that does not in the least follow from this Doctrin 15. For Moses whom none will affirm to charge God with any injustice tells us that when he had prayed God to continue to go before the Camp of the Israelites tho they had deserved his anger and prevailed he received this answer from him that the Israelites tho they had heinously offended him since he had begun to shew them favour should find him also for the future gracious to them and still be accounted by him his People 16. So that the Mercy of God in calling any Nation to the knowledg of himself and making them his peculiar People does not use to depend on the Merits of that Nation but on his own free Will and arbitrary Purpose This is if I am not mistaken the Series of the Apostle's discourse which being so explained directly answers his design in this place and admirably agrees with the sense of the places he refers to in Moses as it is in Moses himself About the 12 th Verse we must consult Grotius Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seems to refer to the sense latent in the foregoing words in which tho St. Paul speaks only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the election yet by this very thing that he declares God to chuse a Nation whom he may shew a peculiar kindness to he intimates that he leaves other non-elect Nations in their Sins For as I before suggested there can be no election where something is not cast off because that which is not chosen must necessarily be rejected And to this the Apostle's words in this and the Verses following refer wherein he discourses separately concerning rejection as in the foregoing he had mostly treated about election So that I should paraphrase this 17th Verse thus Moses also teaches us that as to the rejection or praeterition of sinful Nations whereby it comes to pass that the People so abandoned fall into the greatest evils and calamities that may without blasphemy be imputed to God because he says he was commanded to speak to Pharaoh in God's name to this sense that he if he so pleased could easily destroy both the King himself and the whole Egyptian Nation and so make his People a free passage which they had so often refused them out of their Country but he would suffer Pharaoh still to live that he might give further demonstrations of his Power and make his Name great and famous throughout the World See what I have written on Moses's words in Exod. ix 15 16. for what our Author says in the following Annotation does not agree with them Ibid. Note h. Tho the Hebrew word be in the Preterperfect tense yet I have rendred it in its proper place as if it were the Future because of the Verse foregoing which seems to require its being so rendered See my Notes on that place by which this must be understood Vers 18. Note i. By God's hardening the Heart of Pharaoh I think is neither intended any action of God upon Pharaoh's Mind nor so much as any withdrawing of his Grace from him seeing there is neither any mention made of such withdrawing in Moses nor is it necessary to suppose it Nor do I think that Moses purposely abstained from using the Phrase the Lord hardened his Heart till the sixth Plague that he inflicted upon that Egyptian King was past as if then and not before he particularly forsook him For before ever Moses went to Pharaoh God foretold that he would harden him Exod. iv 21 which refers to all his obstinacy from first to last See therefore my Notes on that place Vers 28. Note k. What our Author says in this Annotation he took from Grotius with whom nevertheless I cannot agree in correcting this place out of one Alexandrian Copy contrary to the Authority of all the rest and the Antient Interpreters It is harsh I confess for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the construction is intricate but neither is it much clearer in the Septuagint Besides in alledging Testimonies of Scripture there is but little regard had to the series of the Discourse provided the Writers words are but to the purpose and rightly quoted The words in the Hebrew are thus vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Septuagint render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 finishing and making up his account in Righteousness whence it is probable they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhorets the Participle Benoni for Pahul Then follows in v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because an account cast up will the Lord make in all the Earth by which it appears that they thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiljon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chalah to signify an account and if that be true we may render the words something more commodiously tho to the same sense thus he will hasten an account exactly cast up in Righteousness for an account and that exactly cast up will the Lord God of Hosts make in the whole Earth The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify diligently and particularly cast up and this very thing in part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also seems to signify so as to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cast up or draw together several sums into one And the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the use of the Chaldee I render by to hasten In French the words might be translated thus il dépêchera de faire exactament son compte avec justice car le Seigneur créateur Dieu des armées fera un compte un compte exact dans tout le païs He will hasten to make exactly his account with Justice for the Lord God of Hosts will make an account and an exact account in all the Land The Prophet's meaning is that as one who carefully casts up an account of his expences and receits sees if there remains any thing over and tho it be but a small sum lays it safe up so God will destroy all the wicked and save only the good tho they be but very few which admirably well sutes with the design of the Apostle I shall add nothing more in this place because I intend hereafter if God permit to
〈◊〉 ever signifies a lustful Person See Hesychius Phavorinus the Old Glosses and all the Lexicons in the World I name Hesychius among the rest because he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Railer for there is one sort of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which lies only in words Whence the Old Glosses render it not only injuriam Injury but also convitium probrum railing reviling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convitiatur convitium facit contumeliatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contumeliosus Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Gnosticks I should no more imagin them to be here referred to than any other bad Men unless our Author meant to give the honourable name of Gnosticks to all the vile wretches that in the Apostles times had crept into the Christian Assemblies tho why he should I can see no reason Vers 12. Note l. Our Author who makes his stile both in English and Latin rugged with unnecessary and misplaced Parentheses and thereby often renders it tedious to the Reader makes too much use of that expedient to connect the Discourse of the Sacred Writers Besides if we read the Greek words it will appear that the Discourse does not sufficiently hang together for we should be obliged to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing this ye shall put away I shall propose here a Conjecture which if it were true would make all things plain We read the words in our Copies thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now what construction this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess I do not understand I know the sense commonly put upon it is What have I to do or what business is it of mine to judg them that are without i. e. it is not my business But there is no example given of any such Phrase Besides the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intervening makes the Phrase still more harsh for which reason it is left out in the Alexandrian and other Manuscripts and omitted by the Syriack Interpreter but in my judgment rashly because that Particle may be of use to direct us to the true reading which seems to be this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For what have I to do with those that are without But do you judg those that are within and those that are without God judgeth and ye shall put away the wicked Person from among you First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Phrase very common in the Sacred Writers and is as much as take care of your own Business and I 'll take care of mine See Mat. viii 29 John ii 4 and Interpreters on those places And the sense here must certainly be It is not my business to take care of the Manners of the Heathens who have not yet embraced the Gospel Next the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily enough be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs twice in the following words And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Adversative Particle frequently used by St. Paul See Rom. iv 20 and x. 18 and Phil. iii. 8 This makes the sense very plain whereas that interrogation do not ye judg them is very harsh and improper in this place If St. Paul had said It is not my business to judg those who are among you do not ye judg them this would be some sense the foreign to this place and the discourse would be current but as it is now the connexion of the words is extremely harsh Thirdly the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being here a manifest opposition between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews there ought to have preceded the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is contained in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if we believe H. Stephanus ought to be so distinctly written Fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is evidently conjoin'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judg and ye shall put away The words intervening and those that are without God judgeth ought not to be included in a Parenthesis because they are set in opposition to that which went immediately before and not inserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it cannot seem strange that I suppose this place to be corrupted seeing the Syriack Interpreter seems to have thought the same who has left out in the 12 th Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again in the 13 th because he did not see how the Apostle's words could otherwise be made to hang together The Latin also and the Arabian Interpreters omit the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Verses The Ethiopian departs yet further from the rest who has eum qui intus homines judicabit And there are other variations in the Manuscript Copies which I pass by CHAP. VI. Vers 2. Note a. WHAT our Author says here about the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is true but as that word has more significations than one so in this place it seems rather to be taken for judgment for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not Persons unworthy to sit in the lowest Judgment-seats but to judg of the smallest matters and therefore is very rightly rendred by the Vulgar qui de minimis judicetis And thus the Old Glosses render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judicium examen sensus Judgment Examination Opinion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judicia But in vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to signify to have things to be judged of relating to life as Dr. Hammond himself interprets it in his Paraphrase So that in this Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the act of judging and in Vers 4. for things to be judged of Vers 7. Note b. Here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as omnino or a Particle of affirming as I have shewn on that place in Chap. v. 1 Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word our Author here in the Margin according to his manner interprets of a Person of inordinate Lusts But if that were the true sense of it it should have been joined with the foregoing words in the 9 th Verse and not have been put here in the 10 th after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in this place as it is rendred in the Old Glosses fraudator avidus A cheating covetous Person Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be washed and sanctified which went just before The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies when ye became Christians or took upon you the profession of the Christian Religion in Baptism which obliged all those that received it to reformation of Life See Acts ii 38 Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 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
place does not necessarily signify Devils or evil Spirits for the Heathens did not always sacrifice to evil Spirits if we consider what were their true Thoughts But the greatest part of their Idolatry consisted in this that when they ought to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Heathens also themselves have confessed that they did not offer sacrifice to Gods but to Demons As appears by the words of Porphyry in Lib. 2. de Abstinentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did those who knew the powers of the World offer bloody Sacrifices to the Gods but to Demons and this is affirmed in the Latin it is translated creditur which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divines themselves CHAP. XI Vers 4. Note a. IF it had been the Custom in capital Punishments to cover the Heads only of Men and not of Women our Author would have rightly deduced what St. Paul here says from that practice but seeing there was no difference between Men and Women in this respect why would it have dishonoured the head of a Man to have a Veil cast over him like a condemned Person and not of a Woman I rather think therefore that the Apostle had a respect only to the Custom of the Greeks among whom it had been a disgrace for a Man to speak publickly with his Head covered and a Woman with her Head bare Our Author's distinction between the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will appear to be vain if we compare Mark xiv 3 and Mat. xxvi 7 Vers 7. Note b. Here our learned Author abuses an impropriety in the Septuagint to enlarge our Lexicons with new significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he does also elsewhere I. It is false that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chabod simply taken signifies a Beam tho if it be added to the word Sun it signifies its Splendor and Beams It is false also that because the Septuagint have perhaps somewhere tho I cannot tell where improperly rendred what ought to have been translated a Beam by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Beam To authorize that signification it was requisite they should have frequently and industriously used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that purpose and not rashly before they were aware II. Nor is it true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be metaphorically called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that those words are promiscuous The Doctor should have produced but one example in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Beam or Splendor Besides is this Phrase the Woman is the beam of the Man any thing plainer than this is the glory of the Man which he interprets by the former But the truth is what our Author here says is only a misinterpretation of Grotius's Note upon this place to which I refer the Reader III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that symbolical likeness of God which appeared in the Tabernacle because that used to be so called and not because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any Similitude as well as the Hebrew word There is nothing more deceitful than such sort of reasonings as the Doctor often makes use of in order to find out the signification of words unless at the same time their Use and Analogy be regarded IV. Setting aside what is said about the Glory of God in the Pentateuch which does not at all belong to this place tho Grotius thinks otherwise the Man is called the Glory of God because whoever looks upon a Man will perceive him to be a piece of Workmanship worthy of the divine Majesty and give Glory to him upon that account And the Woman is the glory of the Man because there is some ground for the Man to glory when he considers that the Woman was formed out of his Body and created for his Help and Assistance The following Verse does shew that by being his glory the Apostle means that for which he was made and we need not go any further to understand St. Paul's Mind The sense of the whole place is that the Man indeed ought to have his Head uncovered because God made him as his other Works to be beheld and it is not for the glory of God to have that Work of his hid by a Veil but the Woman which was made for the Man ought to be veiled because she is inferior to the Man who uses her as he pleases and would have her veiled It is for the Man's glory to have his Authority appear over the Woman and as in other instances so in this particularly of having her conceal her self whenever he pleases Solomon has a saying in the xi th Chapter of Proverbs vers 16. which according to the Version of the Septuagint is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so saith Esdras Lib. 3. c. iv 7 of Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But of this whole reasoning and many other such it must be observed that they are not at all demonstrative because they are not grounded upon things that are unchangeable but alterable according to the Custom or Opinion of Men. It was thought by the Greeks to be a token of the Mens Authority over the Women for the Men to appear abroad with their Heads uncovered as being their own Masters and exposing themselves to every ones view and on the contrary an Argument of subjection in Women to go abroad veil'd because that signified them to be but one Man 's who had power to remove their Veil and would not have them publickly beheld But if a contrary Custom had prevailed St. Paul would have reasoned quite otherwise to perswade the Corinthians to what he endeavoured to induce them viz. to do all things decently in the Church and wherever any one prophesied I confess he grounds his Argument also upon the History of the Creation but if we consider the thing who can deny but that the Woman was created after the Image of God and for his Glory as well as the Man See Gen. ii 27 Nor indeed is this denied by St. Paul but only in a certain sense viz. as the Woman is said to have been created after the Man and to be an assistant to him And in this sense only his reasoning is valid and not by a general and if I may so speak mathematical deduction Vers 10. Note d. The Rabbi cited by Schickard was not a Talmudical Doctor but only cited a place out of the Talmud as we may see by the words that Schickard alledges Ibid. Note e. About this difficult place of Scripture I have written two years ago two Letters in answer to a Friend who desired to have my Opinion of it which I shall here propose to the Readers examination declaring my self ready to
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
practice of latter Ages Vers 10. Note b. Tho our Author in this Annotation follows Grotius yet I cannot assent to either of them for this reason because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the perpetual use both of Sacred and Profane Writers always signifies elsewhere to perswade and never to appease I can neither find after the most diligent search nor remember any passage in any Author I have read in which it can be reasonably taken in any other sense and if I can shew that this signification will agree to all the instances produced by the learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond there will be then no necessity of recurring to any other And this it will be very easy to do when I have only premised that there is an Ellipsis in all the alledged examples in which that which is wanting must be supplied to shew what the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them signifies In the example out of the Book of Samuel there is a manifest Ellipsis which must be thus supplied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and David perswaded his Men not to kill the King Not he appeased them but he prevailed with them not to slay him A Patron or Advocate is said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is to perswade the Judg not to appease him that is perswade him that his Cause is just For it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be rendred to appease the Judg there should be added the Person of the Accused or whose cause is pleaded in the Dative case thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appease the Judg to the party accused or contending which yet there is no instance of In Mat. xxviii 14 there is the like Ellipsis which must be supplied again in this manner if this come to the Governor's ear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will perswade him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be angry with you and secure you So in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one as if St. Paul had said do I perswade God or Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be displeased with me And thus all those Phrases must be understood in which neither the Case of the Defendant nor any Infinitive mood is subjoined to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often occurs contrary to what Beza thought I know Henr. Stephanus and other learned Men render it then flectere to incline or bend but it 's plain they have more regard to the sense than the proper signification of the word and in all that multitude of examples which are alledged in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae the Figure Ellipsis takes place I shall instance only in one by which we shall be able to judg of the rest In Plutarch in Lib. de cohibenda Ira Euclides to his Brother who had angrily said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let me perish if I be not revenged on you returns this mild answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let me perish if I cannot bend you Peream nisi te flexero in which Version the sense indeed is expressed but not the just import of the word For we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I cannot perswade you to forgive me this offence or some such thing And that such Supplements as these are understood in all these Phrases may appear by infinite examples of intire expressions wherein the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of some of them to be had out of any Lexicon I have been the larger in disputing against our two learned Men about this word lest mere reasoning from some few places contrary to the rules of Grammar and constant use should prevail A thing which Grotius is very seldom guilty of but Dr. Hammond often as I have shewn CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. THAT correction according to which instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fourteen we ought to read δ. four is proposed by Lud. Cappellus in Hist Apostol Appendice Character 4. which is worth consulting because he starts a great many difficulties there against our Author's Chronology And that Conjecture was approved by Grotius because of the connexion of the Discourse Yet Dr. Pearson has excellently shewn in his Annales Paulinae that St. Paul here reckons the years that had passed from the time of his Conversion But he refers the Jerusalem Synod to the year of Christ xlix and makes St. Paul's Conversion to have happen'd two Years later than Dr. Hammond and that with good reason Consult himself and compare him with Cappellus Vers 6. Note d. I. It is very true what our Author here says about St. Paul's Solaecisms which others using a softer term call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeming solaecisms But it matters not much by what name they are called if we do but agree as to the thing And it is universally acknowledg'd by those who understand Greek that there are a great many expressions in the Writings of St. Paul which cannot according to the rules of Grammar be resolved into proper Construction The examples alledged by Dr. Hammond put this matter out of all doubt yet some learned Men have made it their business to collect a certain number of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inconsequences and incoherences out of the best Authors both Greek and Latin to shew that the Stile of St. Paul ought not therefore to be accounted the less elegant But there are two things which may make it appear that those Authors are ill compared with St. Paul The first is that those forementioned defects do seldom occur in them whose whole Discourse is otherwise agreable to the Rules of Grammar and has all those ornaments which are requisite to make it proper and elegant On the contrary the stile of St. Paul is both destitute of all those things which are so much admired and commended in any Discourse I speak of words and not of Matter and has abundance of seeming Solaecisms Secondly the most elegant Heathen Writers tho they were at the same time very well skilled both in Grammar and Rhetorick do designedly sometimes violate the Rules of Grammar for variety sake lest their Stile should seem too studied and artificial which therefore may be look'd upon as so many Figures and a particular sort of elegancy But St. Paul naturally falls as it were into these kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because regarding things and neglecting words he thought it enough if he were understood by an attentive and diligent Reader who loved the Truths he declared So far is he from designedly diversifying his Discourse with that kind of Negligence that he does not seem to have aimed at so much as the common ornaments of Stile Let us hear about this matter Quintilian in Lib. 9. cap. 3. Esset saith he omne schema vitium si non peteretur sed accideret Virtus est si habet probabile aliquid quod
Christ there intercedes so near a conjunction that we may be called his Flesh and Bones as it is said of a Woman with relation to her Husband So that as Christ loves his Church as if it were his Wife and so his own Body 31 32. so Husbands having left their Fathers House for the sake of their Wives and become as it were one Flesh with them should look upon it as their Duty to love their Wives as themselves If we carefully read St. Paul's words and consider the scope of his Discourse we shall not doubt but this is his meaning For the Apostle's design here at least primarily and professedly is not to teach any thing concerning Christ but from the noted example of Christ to shew what conjunction and intimacy of Affection there ought to be between Man and Wife So that what he says of Christ is said but by the way and assumed as sufficiently known II. This being supposed it will be easy to perceive that the 32d verse is a Parenthesis inserted between words belonging to the same thing but which make nothing to the series of the Discourse And by this Parenthesis the intention of the Apostle is only to shew that what he had said about that intimate union of Christ with his Church for which he suffer'd Death was hitherto unknown to Mankind This he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in 1 Tim. iii. 16 and so these words are referred not to the mystical sense of the place in Genesis but to the thing it self that is to the love of Christ to his Church which was so great that he did not refuse to die for its sake Away therefore with that mystical sense which is without reason sought for in the words of Moses as by the suggestion here of the Apostle III. But what shall we say then to those Jews whom our Author cites in his Paraphrase as knowing that great Mystery from the secret sense of the words of Moses To speak what I think they are either the words of some Impostor acting the part of a Jew or misconstrued to a wrong sense Our Author took this Testimony from H. Grotius who on this place saith Sic Hebraei aiunt mulierem de latere viri desumtam ad significandum conjugium viri supremi benedicti So the Jews also say that the Woman was taken out of the side of the Man to signify the marriage of the highest blessed Man But where are those Jews who say this Do they with one consent speak thus in any publick form Or is it some Rabbin who proposes his own Conjecture or the Tradition of the Antients Such Citations as these in a matter of no small moment or not universally known should be avoided by learned Men seeing they cannot be relied on unless it be supposed that a vain uncertain report may be so But I know if I am not mistaken whence Grotius took this observation to wit from Camero who himself had it from Sebast Munster the first Author of it in his Annotations on Gen. ii 24 Hebraei magistri saith he docent id quod Paulus docuit c. The Jewish Rabbins teach the same thing which is taught by St. Paul that a Man should love his Wife as his own Body and honour her more than his own Body because of that signification and Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of which Mystery St. Paul also makes mention who teaches that we are espoused to Christ He did not render the Hebrew words which seem to be corrupt but they are rendred by Camero after promising that he took them from Munster thus ad significandum conjugium viri superni qui benedictus est to signify the marriage of the Man on High who is blessed And so they are rendred by Grotius But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not vir but Homo besides what is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Should it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to thee What can be the sense of these words the most high Adam shall be blessed In fine both Mâ—nster ought to have more exactly cited his Witnesses and others been more cautions in believing him For who will not prove any thing from the Jews or others if such Testimonies as these be admitted I know this was the custom of the Philologers of the last Age but it was certainly a very bad one and justly censured by the more exquisite Wits of ours I am apt to think it proceeded either from want of Judgment or unfaithfulness in their not being sensible with what caution and tenderness Testimonies ought to be handled from which any Consectary is to be deduced or being unwilling to have their Citations examined Both which a Man that aims at Accuracy and pursues Truth should be very far from for he that would neither be deceived himself nor deceive others cannot desire to have what he affirms believed rashly and without examination IV. A vast inconvenience arises from the custom of writing out other Mens Citations unless we look into the Authors themselves from whence they are taken because something may easily be added whilst the sense is rather expressed than the words The Hebrew words alledged by Munster can hardly be understood and he dared not translate them Camero has rendred them and added of his own that the Jews confess the creation of a Woman out of the rib of the Man was to signify c. when Munster says nothing of that but only what I have produced out of him Grotius followed Camero and neither added nor changed any thing but Dr. Hammond has changed the highest Man who is blessed into the most High God blessed for ever Perhaps there will come some body afterwards and add to these words that which our Author subjoins out of St. Chrysostom as taken out of some Rabbin from whence he will infer that all the mysteries of the Christian Religion were very well known to the antient Jews As common Fame is magnified the further it goes so Testimonies not looked into in the Authors themselves are many times enlarged as they are deliver'd from hand to hand CHAP. VI. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author here in his Paraphrase adds to Children Subjects and to Parents Princes in which he seems to have committed a double fault First in supposing that the word Children here comprehends under it Subjects and the word Parents in the Decalogue Magistrates which appears by no example nor any reason I do not deny indeed but that according to the most sacred Laws of human Society and consequently of God himself People ought to obey Magistrates as long as they command nothing which is contrary to true Devotion Society or good Manners That Obedience being as necessary and natural a Duty as for Children to obey their Parents because without it Society for which we are formed and born cannot consist But hence it does not follow that when the Scripture speaks of the honour due to Parents we must
is not there the Lord of Death but a mortal or deadly Disease In the Civil Law Haeres an Heir does not signify properly Dominus a Lord but Justinian tells us that he who pro Domino gerit represents or manages for a Lord gerit pro Herede does the same for an Heir and then he adds Veteres enim haeredes pro dominis appellabant For the Antients used to say Heirs for Lords But hence it does not follow that because the Heir was the First-born therefore the First-born of an Estate may be put for an Heir and so for the Lord of an Estate II. I think therefore with Beza and others that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant he that was before all Creatures but I interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just in the same manner as if St. Paul had simply said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying no Emphasis at all on the two last Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which come from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a firstborn is before the rest of his Brethren therefore St. Paul calls Christ the first-born of every Creature just in the same sense as if he had called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interpretation the Apostle himself suggests to us who explaining his own mind says more clearly in vers 17. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all things and in ver 18. calls Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-born from the dead that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that was first raised from the dead St. Paul proves that Christ was before every Creature because by him all things were created But no body in his wits ever dreamt that the Man Jesus was before every Creature and therefore this must be understood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine Reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which as St. Paul afterwards speaks it pleased the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should dwell in him See my Notes on John i. III. I know that not only Joan. Crellius and other Vnitarians but also H. Grotius interpret these things of the new Creation and tell us that Christ is called here the first-born of every Creature because he was the first and chief in the new Creation But that is a forced interpretation and remote from tho most usual sense of the words if we consider what follows Besides that in this place it should be said in the praise of Christ that he was before every new Creature that is before the Renovation made by himself and this again proved by that Renovation and repeated in vers 17. is certainly flat and mean when the thing is so evident of it self Compare this place with John i. and see what I have there said Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I acknowledg that things are sometimes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are constituted or which have acquired a new State as Grotius has shewn in his Prolegomena before the Gospels So Men converted to Christ are called new Creatures and the like I have shewn also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies colonis instruere To furnish with Inhabitants on Gen. i. 1 But if we throughly examin this phrase of St. Paul we shall easily perceive that those interpretations can here have no place Christ is said here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have created all things in Heaven which St. Paul afterwards interprets of Angels Now 1 st This cannot signify to constitute the Angels in Heaven which were already in it and performed the same Offices as before 2 ly Nor can the Angels be said to have been put into a new State because nothing new befel them but their becoming subject to the Man Christ upon which account they can no more be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him than the Romans by Julius Caesar because he ruled over them with the title of Perpetual Dictator that is not without speaking very improperly 3 ly Nor would it be any thing more proper to say that the Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Heaven received new Inhabitants into it That these significations or any of them might be admitted it should have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not the Angels because we might then indeed think if there was nothing in the Context to oppose it that things in Heaven were disposed after a new manner or that there was a certain use of it constituted and settled or lastly that it was furnished with Inhabitants but that the Angels themselves who were already in Heaven before the Man Christ and discharged the same Offices should be said to be created or conditi made the use of the Holy Scriptures will not bear nor the genius of the Hebrew or Greek Languages I observe that the Learned do often err in thinking that any signification which belongs to words when they are found separately or in such or such a particular construction may also be attributed to them in any construction whatsoever But if the reading of the Antients did not methinks the very genius of Modern Languages might teach them that there is a great difference between the significations of words according as they are joined with one another and that the sense of Phrases is quite changed by the addition or alteration of one small Particle To understand therefore the Apostle's mind nothing can be here more fitly devised than this Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who among Men was a visible Image of the invisible God and was with God before all Creatures for by him were all things created c. Ibid. Note b. I do not think the same words can be understood of Angels and Men as if the several Orders among both were intended by the same Names See Grotius on this place Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were created by him viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the divine Reason and for him that is that the infinite Wisdom of the divine Reason might be made manifest See John i. and my Notes on the first 18 Verses of that Gospel Vers 20. Note c. This Interpretation is violent and forced and tho agreeable enough to Divinity quite contrary to Grammar and therefore I think it is wholly to be rejected For the question is not whether what Dr. Hammond says be true but what the Apostle says in this place I. I acknowledg there is some agreement between Ephes ii 14 seqq and this place for in both the Redemption of Christ is spoken of but that they are perfectly and in all things parallel I utterly deny and so will any one who does but read both places with any Application And therefore this place ought not to be strained to agree exactly with that other II. This reasoning of our Author is inconclusive The Heavens and the Earth signify this lower World this lower World is all one with Men therefore all things in Heaven and Earth signifies all Men
admonished by the whole Congregation But it may be he was not the Bishop of Colosse but an Evangelist who did not execute his Office so diligently as he ought and lying idle among the Colossians or somewhere in the Neighbourhood was to be admonished by them Which seems the more probable because this Archippus in the Epistle to Philemon ver 2. is called the fellow Souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Paul On which place see Grotius Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius who is followed therein by our Author thinks there is a Hebraism in these words for see that thou fulfil in the Lord the Ministry which thou hast received so that the phrase in the Lord should signify according to the Precepts of the Lord. But tho I do not deny but this may be the meaning of St. Paul's words they are capable of two other senses first Consider throughly the Office which thou hast received in the Lord in order to a complete discharge of it or else secondly Consider in the Lord that is as in the sight of the Lord or according to the Precepts of the Lord c. So the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken as in 2 John 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See your selves that we lose not those things which we have wrought but that we receive a full Reward that is throughly consider or examin your selves c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and according to the various significations of the Preposition ב which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and used in a manifold sense signify diverse things I confess I do not know which of these senses is the best Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bare remembring of St. Paul's Bonds being in it self no part of Piety it is consequent the design of the Apostle in these words must be to admonish the Colossians to behave themselves both towards God and towards him as became those that were mindful of his Bonds that is who very well knew that he was cast into those Bonds only for the sake of the Gospel or to be constant in the profession of the Christian Religion as he was and love him and pray to God in his behalf that he might be set at liberty ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Praemon I. Dr. Pearson and other the most exact Chronologers suppose this Epistle was written in the year of Christ lii or the xii th of Claudius II. I have already several times observed that the Jews were neither so formidable as our Author thought nor the Christians so perfectly set free from persecution by their destruction throughout all the parts of the Roman Empire so as that those who dwelt in Greece found the Heathens more favourable to them after the overthrow of Jerusalem and the excision of the Jews III. I do not easily believe what Eusebius says about the journey of Simon Magus to Rome nor St. Peter's contest with him which seems to be all taken ex Clementinis and out of Justin the former being a feigned History and Justin having run into a mistake through his ignorance in the Latin Tongue as learned Men have long ago observed I wonder our Author in this discerning Age in Quo pueri nasum Rhinocerotis habent should build his Interpretation upon such rotten and nauseous Fables But he produces you will say the Testimonies of Eusebius and St. Jerom and Orosius But this is but one Witness all this while because the two latter only transcribed Eusebius and the single Authority of Eusebius is not much to be regarded because he often affirms things without considering whether they are true or false and some that are manifestly feigned It 's true Justin makes mention of the Statue of Simon in his Apology commonly called the Second but he says nothing at all about St. Peter's Conflict or Victory over him which he would never have omitted if that had been the general opinion of those times because it might be made very great use of against the Heathens whom he upbraids with deifying Simon Irenaeus also mentions the Statue in Lib. 1. c. 20. but says nothing about the contest That was but an invention of the false Clement which other rashly received for truth There being very few if any Historical Records in the first Age excepting the Acts of the Apostles Men that had nothing else to do misemployed their wits in devising Fables which the injudiciousness of Posterity has almost made it a Crime to question the truth of But I am sorry to find Dr. Hammond should so easily give Credit to these Trifles CHAP. I. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are a few things which it may not be amiss to remark upon this Chapter tho Dr. Hammond has passed it over without any Annotations contenting himself to express what he thought to be the meaning of it in his Paraphrase Grotius explaining these words tells us that the Apostle non nominat hic Presbyteros Diaconos quia recens erat Ecclesia nec dum formam plenam acceperat does not name here Presbyters and Deacons because the Church of Thessalonica had been but lately gathered and not yet formed into a regular Church But if this reason be good none of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote except that of Philippi were regularly formed Churches because there is no mention made of Church-Governors Bishops and Deacons in the inscriptions of any of the Epistles but to the Philippians But who will believe that the Ephesian and Corinthian Churches in which St. Paul had for a great while resided were not yet so constituted as to have Rectors in them and yet that the Church of Philippi in which he made a shorter stay had Of the Church of Ephesus the contrary appears from Acts xx 17 28. and of the Corinthian by the Epistles themselves written to that Church So that there must be another reason given for St. Paul's not making mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Inscriptions of all his Epistles And that which seems to me the most probable is that the Governors of the Primitive Churches were modest humble Men who were unwilling to have themselves distinguished from the rest of the People in the front of St. Paul's Epistles that they might not appear to pretend to any magisterial Authority but to look upon themselves only as Ministers instituted for the sake of Order and Christian Society There are a great many signs of this especially in the Epistles to the Corinthians in which the Governors of the Churches of Achaia are no where order'd to use any Authority in the Administration of their Office or in curbing evil Men who broke the Order of the Church St. Paul every where speaks to whole Churches never to the Governors of them apart from the People However I would not be thought
that in the Lord's Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give us OUR Bread that is order it so by thy Providence that we may not live by other Mens Labours but upon Food got by our own Labour And so the sense of the whole Petition will be this Grant that the remaining part of our Lives we may daily by our Labour provide Food for our selves On the contrary they are said in Latin alieno pane vesci not whom another Man maintains because they are industrious in his Service but who like Drones live idly at another Man's cost So Juvenal begins his v th Sat. against Parasites thus Si te propositi nondum pudet atque eadem est mens Vt bona summa putes aliena vivere quadra Si potes illa pati c. Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antients for the most part omitting the use of Points it is uncertain whether these words should be rendred if any Man does not obey our Word signify that Man by an Epistle i. e. write me word who it is or if any Man obey not our Word by this Epistle note that Man The former is preferred by Erasmus and Grotius and indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftner said than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The latter by Beza and Dr. Hammond Besides these who are 〈◊〉 of Excommunication make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be all one with to brand by Excommunication but they ought to have produced an example of that signification For all Lexicons indeed tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to signify or notify but I don't know whether it be ever used for to brand or set a mark of infamy upon a Man ignominia notare I confess that is often the notion of the Latin Verb notare but hence it does not follow that the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems the Vulgar Interpreter read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having rendred it loco And that reading is approved by Grotius who explains the mind of the Apostle thus Deus det vobis res bonas sive Thessalonicae eritis sive in Judaeam seu Syriam redibitis sive aliò migrabitis God give you good things whether ye stay at Thessalonica or whether you return into Judaea or Syria or wherever else you go This is sense good enough but most Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I chuse to follow in this sense God give you always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peace by all means so it is in the English Translation that is whether Peace be taken for all Prosperity or for Tranquillity which the Heathens may let you enjoy or for Concord which ye may preserve among your selves both publickly and privately For all these things are in Scripture comprehended under the name of Peace This is certainly the fittest sense of these words if the whole Assembly be considered which lived at Thessalonica and to which St. Paul writes not to particular Persons who might take those Journeys which Grotius speaks of ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy AT the end of the Praemon What Dr. Hammond here attempts in order to assign the time in which this Epistle was written is contrary to what he says about the Journeys of Timothy for it is not likely that Timothy was left Bishop at Ephesus that presently after he should leave that City and travel with St. Paul and go to visit him as far as Rome It is much more probable that Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus after St. Paul was released from his Bonds and went from Rome to Asia about the year of Christ lxiv. or the xi th of Nero and that the year after this Epistle was written as Dr. Pearson in his Annales Paulinae thinks CHAP. I. Vers 3 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These two Verses must be joined with the 18 th all the rest which intervene being a Parenthesis It is I confess a harsh Hyperbaton but St. Paul was not curious about such things Vers 4. Note a. What Dr. Hammond says here about Antiphanes as the Author of the Gnostick or Valentinian Genealogies he ows to Irenaeus in Lib. 4. c. 19. who affirms that that Poet wrote such things in his Theogonia It is strange that Comedy of Antiphanes should no where else be cited But perhaps this was not the name of a Comedy but Irenaeus refers to a place in which something was said upon that Subject viz. the generation of the Gods as in Aristophanes his Aves we have something still extant about that matter As to Hesiod the thing is plain if we read the beginning of his Theogonia and the Valentinians are more than once upbraided with applying the fabulous Stories of that Poet to their purpose by Irenaeus and Epiphanius But as to Philistio who wrote Mimick Poems I very much doubt whether he be rightly reckon'd in the number of those who described the Genealogies of the Gods I am apt to think our Author was deceived as to him by misunderstanding a Passage in Epiphanius in Haeres xxxiii which is that of the Ptolemaites S. 1. where Epiphanius speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For none of those antient Tragedians or their Successors the Mimicks Philistio I speak of and Diogenes who wrote things exceeding all belief nor any of all those other Writers and patchers up of Fables could have forged so great a Ly as these men temerè suae ipsorum vitae periculo acti finxerunt acted by the fear of their own lives have boldly invented and intangled the minds of men who believe them in foolish Questions and endless Genealogies Epiphanius here compares the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falseness or incredibility of the Fables which were written by the Mimick Poets with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the fooleries of the Valentinians but he does not say these latter owed their Genealogies to the Mimicks Vers 15. Note c. I do not believe St. Paul here has a respect to the Jews Cabbala for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek very often signifies to approve and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 approbation So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a pure Greek Phrase in which there is no allusion to the Cabbala Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word is joined with an Accusative and Genitive Case and signifies to approve as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I approve your manners So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esteemed worthy of acceptation So the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probo acceptum habeo comprobo I approve I account acceptable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprobat And hence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Hesychius interprets by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laudable See also my Note on 1 Cor. ii 14 Vers 17. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an imitation of a Hebrew form of speech very common
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is no wonder that our learned Author whose stile is full of intricacies and windings should make a difficulty where there was none Vers 6. Note c. Our Author here follows Grotius But the Syriack Interpreter seems rather to have rendred the place corrupted as he thought it should be understood than as he read it because all the Copies contradict him Besides he rendred it otherwise than the Doctor says for he has and the Tongue is a Fire and a world of Iniquity is like a Wood. Grotius had not carefully enough look'd into that Interpreter and Dr. Hammond rashly followed him When I read this place I can hardly forbear thinking that a Gloss out of the Margin crept into the Context and if it be cast out both a useless repetition will be avoided and the series of the Discourse very proper thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold how great a matter a little Fire kindleth and so the Tongue is among our Members which defileth the whole Body setting on Fire the wheel of our Generation geniturae nostrae As there is nothing wanting in this sentence so there is nothing superfluous First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that thence we must begin the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the comparison as in the foregoing Similitudes in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is begun with the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here Secondly the words which signify the same thing and have no coherence with one another being unnecessarily interposed between the parts of the Similitude are cast out for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with the whole Similitude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly spoils the connexion of the Discourse But how should these words come to be written in the Margin to wit in this manner Some body had expressed the substance of the whole Similitude in these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and added them to the Margin of his Copy as many do who to find out any thing the more easily set down by way of Abridgment the subject spoken of in such or such a place in the Margin of their Books Then as an interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World namely is meant and had subjoined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understanding the wheel of Generation to signify the wheel of Iniquity that is a wicked and unregenerate Life or such as the Life of Men born but not born again And these things having not without some reason been set down in the Margin were rashly inserted into the Context Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word I render is according to its usual signification in good Authors What a spark of Fire is put among combustible matter that the Tongue is among our Members Ibid. Note d. I have observed on Mat. i. 1 that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify every event and I must not repeat here what I have there said I had rather understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wheel or Chariot of Life so called because at our Nativity we enter into that Chariot and with restless Wheels run hastily till we come to the Grave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For like the Wheel of a Chariot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life runs rolling They are the words of Anacreon Od. iii. on himself Vers 17. Note f. I. I have shewn on Chap. ii 4 that our learned Author is mistaken in the signification he attributes to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tho what he there says were true it would not follow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to have a signification deduced from the middle Voice because it comes from the third Person of the Preterperfect tense Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as every one knows II. But because the Passive conjugation of this Verb is taken both in a Passive and Active sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken also in either of these senses according as the thing spoken of requires Thus Hesychius first interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has no difference or makes no difference in an active Notion And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is commonly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undistinguished in a Passive signification as it is expounded also in the Old Glosses So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is taken also for those who do not know what they ought to do or that talk tristingly and foolishly Here it is taken in an Active sense but in a good one for him that does good to all without distinction For that other signification put upon it by Dr. Hammond is without example and has no foundation in any antient Grammarian Vers 18. Note g. I do not think there is here any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is a Greek phrase which may be expressed in Latin thus Qui faciunt pacem illi serunt in pace fructus justitiae those that make Peace sow in Peace the fruits of Righteousness that is they who promote Peace or Christian Concord whilst they follow after Peace sow as it were that Righteousness the fruit of which they shall hereafter reap For to sow the fruit of Righteousness is all one as to do righteous Works which shall be rewarded in their proper time But St. James express'd himself somewhat harshly when he said to sow Fruit for that which is ordinarily called sowing Seed whence a Plant or Tree is produced which afterwards brings forth Fruit. But he could not say to sow Fruit that is a Reward without speaking very improperly CHAP. IV. Vers 5. Note a. HOW forced what our Author here says after other Interpreters is every one sees I had rather say here what is sufficiently evident from several places of the New Testament and of two very antient Writers Barnabas and Clemens that in those times the Jews used to produce as out of Scripture not only the sense of places without regarding the words but also a Jewish Tradition or interpretation of places of Scripture So that I should no more look for what is here said in the Old Testament than what is alledged in Heb. xii 21 as spoken by Moses of himself I exceedingly fear and quake or what is said in Barnabas of the Scape Goat cap. vi or in Clemens cap. xvii Vers 6. Note b. It was a long while since Dr. Hammond had read Virgil when he alledged his words in such a manner He describes the Manners of the Romans and not the part of Kings Aeneid Lib. vi l. 851. seqq Tu regere Imperio populos Romane memento Hae tibi erunt artes pacisque imponere morem Parcere subjectis debellare superbos CHAP. V. Vers 3. Note a. IF this Epistle had been
from the use of the Apostles who ordinarily call Christians the body of Christ II. But what Dr. Hammond says afterwards of the Magistracy of the Devil whose Dignity the good Angel reverenced even in an evil Spirit tho Grotius and others say the same that I confess I cannot digest For it 's true among Men not only Subjects honourably bespeak their Rulers but Princes also themselves shew a mutual respect to each other the Law of Nations requiring it should be so for many weighty reasons between Nations enjoying an equal Power lest they should be at perpetual variance among themselves constituted like the Civil Law among Citizens But there seems to be no such Law between good and bad Angels who are irreconcilable Enemies the bad having rebelled against their common Lord by whom being put in Chains they are reserved unto the Judgment of the great Day So that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Angel would not rail at are some others nor does Satan signify the Prince of the Devils If we consult the History of the times to which the Vision seen by Zachariah refers we shall find that the Governors of Persia who had the oversight of the Provinces situated on the West of Euphrates vehemently opposed the design of Joshua about restoring the Temple And of these the chief were the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai whose Enterprises and Calumnies are recorded in Esdr Chap. v. Now these things were represented to Zachary the Prophet in a Vision by which he understood that the Jews had indeed powerful Enemies with the King of Persia but that God by the Ministry of his Angels render'd their Calumnies and Attempts ineffectual So that Satan are the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai and other Adversaries of the Jews that were represented to the Prophet under the person of one Accuser So in Psalm cix 5 Satan standing at his Right hand is manifestly an Accuser and that word often signifies any Adversary who endeavours to frustrate any ones designs The same is meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Septuagint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well to resist adversari as to calumniate And the same Persons that are called Satan in the Prophet Zachary and here the Devil were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Magistrates sent from Persia to rule over Syria and other Countries on the West side of Euphrates subject to the King of Persia for which reason the same that are signified in this Verse by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in the foregoing and St. Peter stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the disputation of the Angel with those Men mention'd in Zechariah the Angel being represented as modestly rebuking the enemies of the Jews the Persian Rulers because of their Dignity hence St. Peter and St. Jude with great reason infer that the Jews did very ill in reviling the Roman Governors who stood at that time in the same relation to the Jews as formerly the Persians This interpretation seems to me much more natural and agreable to History and things themselves than any other and I doubt not but the Jews in the Apostles times did so interpret the place in Zachariah Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do by no means think that the Apostle here has a respect to Angels but to general Notions concerning the necessity of the distinction of Men into Magistrates and Subjects and about the necessity of obeying those whom the divine Providence has set over us tho they do not always behave themselves as they ought lest Wars should ensue which are much more pernicious than that obedience Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is without a Master See my Note on 1 Cor. xi 14 Vers 11. Note f. I should render the words effusi sunt errore Balaami mercedis causa Were poured out in the error of Balaam for Reward which perfectly agrees with the place in St. Peter which is undoubtedly parallel to this not Rom. i. 27 but in the harsh Conjecture of Dr. Hammond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about Men signifies to be spread abroad or wander by a Metaphor taken from Liquor poured out So Judith Chap. xv 2 about the flight of the Assyrians which the Jews pursued some running one way and some another and there was not a Man which stayed before the face of his Neighbour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being poured out they fled every way and then the Children of Israel every warlike Man among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were poured out upon them This is what was meant by Hesychius and Phavorinus when they interpreted this word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they that thus fly away run out of others sight nor must any thing be alter'd in Phavorinus of whom we have no Manuscript Copies because he himself first printed his own Lexicon in the time of Leo X. Our Author seems to have thought that he wrote before Printing was found out But in Hesychius we must read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 12. Note g. I prefer the latter interpretation so as to think it is not a Tempest called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the signification of the word that is here referred to which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to corrupt Fruit as it is in the Etymologicon Magnum because tho towards the end of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trees are destitute of Leaves and Fruit yet principally during that Season the fruit of Trees ripen and are gather'd Vers 16. Note i. I. I acknowledg that the Phrase here used by St. Jude is taken from Daniel but it does not therefore follow it must be understood in the same sense for what is more common either among Jewish or Christian Writers than to take Phrases out of the Scripture tho not to be understood just in the same sense It is sufficient if they can but with some fitness be applied to those things which are spoken of Besides when the whole place is not alledged no body will say that the whole place is referred to unless the thing require it II. Therefore by great swelling words I am apt to think is meant the boastings of the wicked Jews who pretended to defend the Cause of God against the Tyranny of the Romans and promised their Associates Victory and declared that they could not be subject to any To these Men and not to the Gnosticks St. Paul seems to have had a respect in 2 Thess ii as I have shewn at large against Dr. Hammond on that place I have shewn also on Rom. viii 20 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify Idolatry Vers 22. Note m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Participle of the Passive and not of the Middle Voice and must be rendred making a difference namely according to mens Dispositions and Offences For some must be dealt
Tim. iv 7 Cubit of a Man for an ordinary Cubit Rev. xxi 17 Curse in what sense Christ is said to have been made it Curse Gal. iii. 13 Cymbals their form use and matter 1 Cor. xiii 1 D. Day of Christ not always to be understood of the Destruction of the Jews 2 Pet. i 19. Daily Bread what Mat. vi 11 Darts fiery what and why so called Eph. vi 16 Deacons in the Church whence so called Luke viii 3 Delivering to Satan not to be confounded with the ordinary Censures of the Church 1 Cor. v. 5 2 Cor. vii 8 and x. 4 5. whether it has any reference to Satan's desiring to have Men deliver'd to him 1 Cor. v. 5 To Deny himself what Mat. xvi 24 Devil whether any reverence be due to him as a Prince Jude 9. To Die unto Sin an ambiguous expression 1 Pet. iv 1 Diogenes Cynicus his Character Luke i. 67 To be Drawn of God what John vi 4 Drowning not us'd as a Punishment among the Jews Mat. xviii 6 E. Earnest of the Spirit what 2 Cor. i. 22 and of the Inheritance Eph. i. 14 Ebimites what Hereticks and whence so called Gal. iii. 1 Ellipses many in the Apostles stile Heb. iv 8 how they are to be supplied Ibid. examples of Elliptical expressions Gal. i. 10 Elxai a Jew his Heresy Rev. ii 4 Epimenides why ciced us a Prophet Luke i. 67 Epistles of Recommendation from one Bishop to another their original 2 Cor. iii. 1 Epistle to the Hebrews why rejected for some time but afterwards admitted Heb. v. 6 p. 548. whether written by St. Paul or another Ibid. ix 2 and x. 34. and xi 21 Eternal why the Gospel so called Luke i. 70 Evangelists relate the same thing variously and why Mat. v. 1. Excommunication ordinary not to be confounded with the Punishments inflicted by the Apostles 1 Cor. v. 5 2 Cor. vii 8 and x. 4 5. Excommunicate Persons whether debarred all kind of Commerce with the rest of Christians Gal. i. 8 Eye how said to be evil i. e. covetous or single i. e. liberal Mat. vi 22 opening the Eyes the meaning of that Phrase Luke xxiv 16 F. Faith taken in several Notion Mat. viii 10 the object of it John xxi 29 to ask in Faith what James i. 6 Famine foretold by Agabus when it happen'd Rev. vi 4 Figs at what time ripe in Judaea and of how many sorts Mark xi 13 The First and the last why Christ is so called Rev. i. 11 Flesh according to it what Rom. iv 1 to be in the Flesh what Rom. vii 5 Fulfilled in what sense places of Scripture are sometimes said to be so Mat. iv 14 Future state upon what grounds believed by the Heathens 1 Cor. xv 19 G. Gates of Hell what Mat. xvi 18 Genealogy of Christ why defective in St. Matt. and how St. Matt. came to divide it into three fourteens Chap. i. 8 Genealogies of the Valentinians owing to whom 1 Tim. i. 4 Gentiles their vocation unknown to the Angels before the event Eph. iii. 5 Glory of Kingdoms what Mat. iv 1 glory for miracles Joh. i. 14 glory of God for God himself Rom. i. 23 why the Man is so called and the Woman the glory of the Man 1 Cor. xi 7 To Glorify God is to confess the Truth Luke xxiii 47 Gnosticks whether they had any reason to fear the Jews out of their own Country 1 Cor. iii. 15 and Prem to Galat. whether they were the troublers of the Churches in Galatia Gal. 1.7 whether they were all suddenly destroyed with the rebellious Jews 2 Thess ii 8 whether they abstained from Wine or forbad others the use of it 1 Tim. v. 22 or attemâ—ted to draw away Servants from their Masters Ib. vi 2 whether there was any one Sect in the Apostles times peculiarly so called Ibid. 20. Gog and Magog sigâ—ify the Turk Rev. xx 8 Grace for Grace what John i. 16 Great God whether he be so called with a respect to the Cabiâ—i or great Gods of the Heathens Tit. ii 13 Grotiâ—s his Posthumous Annotations without reason suspected by Dr. Hammond Rom. xiv 23 and Prem to 2 Pet. Guardian Angels see Angels Gygae whether the Kings of Lydia that succeeded Gyges were so called Rev. xx 8 H. Happiness of Heaven why represented under the similitude of a Feast Mat. viii 11 Head the Custom of Mens having it bare when they appeared in publick and Women veil'd 1 Cor. xi 4 7. head of the Beast which had received a deadly wound to be understood of the burning of the Roman Capitol Rev. xiii 3 Heart how the Law is said to be written in it Rom. ii 15 Heaven whether it can be taken for a name of God Mat. xxi 25 how it is said to have opened Mat. iii. 16 to fall from it what Luke x. 18 Rev. xii 10 the Phrase Heaven and Earth whether it signifies only this Earth or sublunary Region 2 Pet. iii. 7 all things in Heaven and Earth whether they signify Men Col. i. 20 Hellenists who Acts vi 1 Heretick properly who Tit. iii. 10 of what fâ—rt to be avoided Ibid. how said to be condemned of himself Tit. iii. 11 Herodes Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee not Procurator of Judaea Mat. xxii 16 Luke iii. 1 Holy why the Infants of Christians are so reputed 1 Cor. vii 14 Hours how counted by the Jews and the Romans John xix 14 Humanely to speak so what Rom. vi 19 Husband of one Wife in what sense it is said a Bishop ought so to be 1 Tim. iii. 2 I. St. James reconciled with St. Paul James ii 24 Idiotick or rude stile what 2 Cor. xi 6 Idle word which Mat. xii 36 Idolatry whether always joined with unnatural Lusts 1 Cor. v. 10 2 Cor. xii 21 Jerusalem when taken Mat. xxiv 17 whether the Destruction of it was so very sudden and unexpected as is supposed by Dr. Hammond 2 Pet. iii. 16 Jezebel whether it need be understood of any Sect of Hereticks Rev. ii 2 Jews their zeal to make Proselytes became a Proverb Mat. xxiii 15 acknowledg'd their Destruction to be from God Mat. xxiv 3 the Vengeance taken on them by Christ represented by his going out to battel against them Luke ix 31 how they hoped for Justification by the Law Gal. iii. 10 whether they were in so great favour with the Roman Magistrates as to be able to put them upon persecuting the Christians 2 Thess i. 5 and Prem to Rev. whether they were so numerous as Josephus affirms Rev. vii 4 Image of the invisible God how Christ is said to be Col. i. 15 and the express Image of his Person Heb. i. 3 Immortality of the Soul believed by the Platonists 1 Cor. xv 29 Impostors how they were to be known in St. John's time 1 John iv 2 Impossible for what is very difficult Heb. vi 6 Interrogation equivalent to a Negation Mat. iii. 7 Joseph of Arimathaea one of the Sanhedrim Mar. xv 43 Joy
that have the Administration of publick Affairs are stirred up to persecute those that differ from them in matters of Religion However that first Doctrin might be born with because if any Man rashly shuts others out of Heaven and erroneously reflects upon the Goodness and Justice of God provided he does not persecute those that differ from him and force them to profess themselves of his Opinion he does more hurt to himself than others because God is nevertheless Gracious and Merciful But he that is for being cruel to those that differ from him does mischief both to others and to the Truth He makes himself a Beast and forfeits eternal Happiness which is promised to reasonable Creatures not to Savages he persecutes the innocent and exposes them to innumerable Calamities in fine he disparages Truth if he defends it by such Methods and if he opposes it he profanes the most Sacred thing in the World and fights against God who is its Author And this is no vain fear about what perhaps will never be we have reason to be afraid lest St. Austin's Authority should move Christians to persecute one another for differences in Religion The thing is actually come to pass already for a certain great and powerful Monarch in whose Kingdom many thousands of Protestants lately lived was chiefly by that Father's Authority moved to attempt and execute those things for which all Europe has justly rung with the loud Complaints of poor wretches that have been forc'd to fly their Country It 's certain the French King who is otherwise no Tyrant could not by any means have been induced to cancel all his past Edicts in favour of the Reformed and make use of the barbarity of Souldiers to extort from them a confession which none of the Clergy of that Kingdom could by all their false reasonings bring them to unless it were after the foremention'd Letters of St. Austin had been read to him whose Authority being imposed upon by Flatterers he thought he might safely follow Let my Censurer go now and resent my being so hardy as to say the truth of St. Austin I speak in that manner who do not use like many others to calumniate the Living and speak untruths in favour of the Dead My Censurer pretends that in Chap. ix where I said that Philosophers and Divines often use words that have no meaning in them and which if any one desire them to interpret they can give no solid answer for which I instanc'd in the words Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation My Censurer I say pretends that I have a respect also to the Trinity and other particular points belonging to the same matter This forsooth is that modest Censurer otherwise called searcher of Hearts who can divine what other Men think tho they are never so profoundly silent Were I to make a Conjecture from what he has written I should say that he did not only exterminate Charity but even Justice and Truth out of the number of Christian Vertues But I had rather think he erred through I know not what Passion that hurried him to the violation of those Duties of Religion which he himself accounted the most sacred My Interpretation of the words Righteousness of God in Chap. xii 17 for God's righteous Precepts has no affinity with the peculiar Doctrins of the Socinians unless it be in the brains of a Man that sees things where they are not and has conceived such a dreadful Notion of the Socinians that upon the least noise he presently imagins a whole Army of them to be coming upon him I am sure Crellius and Schlictingius their chief Leaders give us a quite different interpretation of this place In Chap. xiv I did not say that St. John had the same thoughts of the eternal Reason as Plato but only called the Divinity which dwelt in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Platonical manner and added that it remained to be enquir'd whether S. John understood that word in a Platonical sense plainly intimating that I thought the same word might be taken in different notions I said also that if that word were to be understood in a Platonical sense in St. John we should be forced to go over to the Arians which according to the opinion my Censurer represents me to be of no Man in his wits would say it were necessary to do But this searcher into Heresies forgot that Platonism or Arianism was very different from Socinianism And he knows not or makes as if he did not know that I have in a particular Dissertation explained the beginning of St. John's Gospel in a sense contrary to Platonism Whereas I said that all Christians do at this day very much differ from the Opinion of the Nicene Council he knows that can be manifestly proved from English Books not to mention Latin He knows very well that the learned Dr. Cudworth has proved that the Nicene Fathers and others thought the three Hypostases to be three equal Gods as we should now express it Let him read also the Life of Gregory Nazianzen which I have written and has been translated into English if he does not understand French and he will find that Gregory was undoubtedly of that Opinion The thing is so clear that it cannot be question'd by those who have consider'd it But of this elsewhere In Chap. xvi I rejected the mystical and high flown interpretations and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Antients which are destitute of reason and I still reject them with all the best Interpreters of Scripture I value Rhetorical Arguments which depend only upon the Speakers fancy and are not to be tried by the rule of right Reason no more than my Censurer's Calumnies which are the products of his own fruitful brain Such is his saying that I rejected the Rhetorical Discourses of the Fathers because I think all things to be clear and plain in Christianity and that no Mystery is to be admitted Of which there is not so much as one word in that Chapter where I speak of vain Rhetorick and not of the obscurity or perspicuity or Religion I never thought we had a clear and perfect Notion of all things revealed as I have sufficiently shewn in the 2 d Part of my Ars Critica where I treat of clear and adequate Notions My Censurer who knows the secret Thoughts of mens Hearts ought to have known what I had written in a Treatise he took upon him to censure But he read it only to find matter of Calumny not to do himself any good by it What I said about Concrete and Abstract Notions in Part. ii c. 5. let my Censurer read over again a little more sedately and he will find I had great reason to say that the names of Synods were names of abstract Ideas because many attributed to them things which rather should have been in them than which really were so to heighten their Authority to the prejudice of Religion The Council of Trent is alone
enough to shew the necessity of this Observation But these Lessons were written for the sake of such as love Truth not such as are ready to defend or oppose any thing for Reward In the viii th Chap. of the same Part I said that all Men had not the same Notion of God but some a larger and more noble one and others a meaner and more contracted one of which I alledged very plain examples which I thought were almost useless because no Man that had the least knowledg of Mankind could have any doubt of it But this Censurer neither understood what I said nor himself while he affirms that these are no very reverent thoughts of God They only think irreverently of God who either worship Idols or after they have endeavour'd without any regard to Truth Justice or Charity to defame Men that fear God think they have deserved well of Religion and their Country and that therefore those Revenues are due to them which the Piety of the Antient Christians instituted only in favour of good and learned Men not of Slanderers Afterwards my Censurer upbraids me for reciting in Part iii. several places of the New Testament wherein the Discourse is of Christ corrupted by bad Men in the antient Copies whether they thought well or ill of Christ which I did not enquire into nor did I deduce any Consectary relating to any Theological Doctrin from thence He does not shew that there was no alteration made in those Copies because he could not but he interprets all these things in a bad sense according to his custom What he himself thinks of these things I cannot tell nor am I concern'd to know but I must needs says he defends the Cause which he affirms to be the best both here and elsewhere just as the most desperate Causes use to be defended that is by concealing Truth and endeavouring to make those who declare it as odious as is possible Which whether it be for the honour of a Party I leave him to consider and those whose province that is At last he concludes his unjust Accusations with an Observation which effectually confutes almost all he had said before to wit that I have alledged nothing new in favour of the Socinians about those places nor endeavour'd to confute Bishop Pearson and Bishop Stillingfleet For thence he ought to have inferred that I had another design which I should not have executed otherwise than I have done if there had never been any Socinians in the World My intention having been only to shew the use of Criticks in things of the greatest moment and if I am not mistaken I have reached my end The rest of what my Censurer says has either been already confuted or does not deserve consideration This worthy Sir is what I thought fit to say of Dr. Hammond and my Ars Critica which I had a mind should be published that the World might have this Testimonial of my Intentions not to engage my self in a Quarrel with my Censurer who if he be not brought to righter Apprehensions by what I have here said no Arguments would ever convince him Let him now call himself to an account for his Accusations and not hope that God should be propitious to him unless he repent of his unchristian Behaviour which I speak with so hearty a good will to him that I earnestly pray God not to lay this thing to his charge but rather reduce him to a better Mind YOVRS J. LE CLERC Amsterdam Jan. 25. 1698 9. Errata P. 3. lin 8. r. their bold P. 48. l. 8. r. deep rooting or like weeds P. 95. l. 16. r. Vers 51. P. 214. l. 13. f. has not r. had P. 234. l. 14. f. Ibid. r. Vers 28. Note h. P. 473 and 475. run Tit. r. COLOSSIANS P. 545. l. 18. r. compared 〈…〉 former yet they ADDITIONS TO Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE New Testament Addition to the Annotation on the Title of the whole Book T0 this which Dr. Hammond has observed of the word διαθήκη if we add what is said of the same word by Grotius there will remain but this one thing further to be noted whereby many places of Scripture yea the whole Christian Doctrin may be illustrated Namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whatever sense it be taken is metaphorical and borrowed from the Customs of Men for Covenants and Testaments properly so called are only made amongst Men. Now Metaphorical Terms are seldom grounded upon a perfect Similitude between those things to which they are indifferently applied and therefore they cannot always be scrued up to the whole Latitude of their natural signification It is sufficient if there be any Agreement tho but small between the thing of which any word is used in a metaphorical sense and that which it properly signifies So that all that can be inferred from the bare word is that the several things expressed by it have some affinity with one another And in order to determin wherein that similitude lies we must carefully consider both things themselves Which being done we may argue from the thing to the signification of the word but not from the word to the thing So that from the sacred Writers calling the Laws of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Covenant or Testament this only in the first place can be concluded that there is some likeness between the Laws of God and Covenants or Testaments But that we may distinctly know wherein that likeness consists we must first consider in what manner God deals with Men setting aside all metaphorical Notions and looking as narrowly as possible into things themselves then we must enquire what Men do when they enter into Covenants or make Testaments and lastly by a comparison of both we may gather the true sense of the metaphorical Word or Phrase So that they labour in vain who whilst things themselves remain obscure deduce as many Similitudes as they can from words Now if we consider the way in which God deals with Men under the Gospel and then think what is ordinarily done in Testaments we shall find that there is only this similitude between the Gospel and a Testament that in both there is something given and in both Death intervenes So that wherever the Gospel is called a Testament provided the Speaker can be thought to have a clear knowledg of things themselves only one or other of these will be signified For this is also to be carefully observed that the mind of the Speaker must be known before â—ny thing be affirmed of it for tho two things agree in many particulars yet we often think but of one or a few of them and would not always have them all urged To illustrate this by an example It appears from the place in Heb. ix 16 17. which Dr. Hammond here interprets that the Sacred Writer only compares the Gospel and a Testament so far as there is a Death and Gift in both And therefore the
Prophesies cannot only be those Ages which were to survive their accomplishment but also those before and therefore it cannot be sufficient to pretend as many do that these Prophesies shall then be understood when they are fulfilled but it will be further requisite to assert that they may be so before For the only momentous reason that must be conceived concerning these as well as other Revelations must be some duty which could not otherwise have been known which must have been something antecedent for all consequent duties of patience and resignation are common to them with other Providences and therefore may be known in an ordinary way Now for antecedent duties such as seem to be intimated in the Prophesies themselves where any are mentioned nothing can suffice but an antecedent information Besides to what end can this postnate knowledg serve For satisfying Christians of the Divine prescience upon the accomplishment of his Predictions This is needless for they already profess themselves to believe it Is it therefore for the conviction of Infidels But neither can this be presumed on a rational account For how can it be known that a prediction was fulfilled when it is not known what was predicted Or how can it be known what was predicted when the prediction is so expressed as to be capable of many senses and no means are acknowledged possible for distinguishing the equivocation Nay will not such a design of ambiguity seem to such a Person suspicious of that stratagem of the Delphick Oracles to preserve the reputation of a Prophetick Spirit by a provision beforehand for avoiding the danger of discovery for indeed this kind of Prophesie will be so weak an argument for proving Divine Inspiration as that indeed it may agree to any natural Man of ordinary prudence For in publick affairs the subject of these Prophesies which proceed more regularly and are less obnoxious to an interposition of private Liberty the multitude who are the causes of such Revolutions generally following the complexion of their Bodies and therefore being as easily determined and therefore predicted from natural causes as such their complexions it will not be hard at least very probably to conjecture future contingences from present appearances of their natural causes And then by foretelling them in ambiguous expressions he may provide that if any of those senses of which his words are capable come to pass that may be taken for the sense intended so that a mistaking in all but one would not be likely to prejudice his credit And at length if all should fail yet a refuge would be reserved for their superstitious reverencers of his Authority that themselves had rather failed of understanding his true sense than that had failed of truth Especially if among a multitude of attempts but one hit in one sense as it is hard even in a Lottery that any should always miss much more in matters capable of prudential conjectures that one instance of success would upon those accounts more confirm his credit than a multitude of failures would disparage it because in point of success they would be confident of their understanding him rightly but in miscarriages they would lay the blame not on the prediction but their own misunderstandings Now seeing this way is so very easily pretended to by Cheats beyond any probable danger of discovery it cannot to persons not already favourably affected who only need conviction prove any Argument of a Divine Inspiration and therefore will even upon this account be perfectly useless Supposing therefore that it is necessary that these predictions be understood before as well as after that they are fulfilled it will follow Fourthly that where they were not explained by the Prophets themselves there they were intelligible by the use of ordinary means such as might by the Persons to whom the Revelations were made be judged ordinary For that they should be explained by new Prophets to be sent on the particular occasion there is no ground to believe and if these Prophesies were so expressed as that they needed a new Revelation for explaining them they must have been useless and indeed could not have deserved the name of Revelations they still transcending the use of human means as much as formerly For if they had been revealed formerly what need had there been of a new discovery And if this need be supposed it must plainly argue that the former pretended Revelation was not sufficient for the information of mankind in the use of ordinary means and that which is not so cannot answer the intrinsick ends of a Revelation This therefore being supposed that old Revelations are thus intelligible without new ones it must needs follow that their explication must be derived from the use of ordinary means And then for determining further what these ordinary means are that might have been judged such by those to whom these Revelations were made I consider Fifthly that this whole indulgence of God in granting the Spirit of Prophesie was plainly accommodated to the Heathen practice of Divination This might have been exemplified in several particulars Thus First the very practise of revealing future contingences especially of ordinary consultations concerning the affairs of private and particular persons cannot be supposed grounded on reason otherwise it would have been of eternal use even now under the Gospel but a condescension to the customs and expectations of the Persons to whom they were communicated And Secondly that an order and succession of Prophets was established in Analogy to the Heathen Diviners is by a very ingenious Person proved from that famous Passage of Deut. xviii 15 18. to which purpose he also produces the concurrent Testimony of Origen cont Cels L. 1. And thirdly that the sense of the Platonists and other Heathens concerning Divine Inspiration its nature and parts and different degrees and distinction from Enthusiasm does very much agree with the notions of the Rabbins concerning it will appear to any that considers the Testimonies of both produced by Mr. Smith in his excellent Discourse on this subject Hence it will follow Sixthly that as this Divination of which they were so eager was originally Heathenish so they were most inclinable to make use of those means of understanding it to which they had been inured from the same principles of Heathenism especially where God had not otherwise either expresly provided for it or expresly prohibited the means formerly used and those Means others failing were most likely by them to be judged ordinary And that Oneirocriticks were the proper means among the Heathens for explaining their Divinatio per somnium answering the Jewish degree of Prophesie by Dreams and indeed the principal Art of the Harioli and conjectures concerning Visions as far as they held Analogy with those Representations which were made to other less prepared Persons in their sleep will not need any proof It might have been shewn how the principal Rules of the Jewish Cabbala were very agreeable to the like
Arts of Tradition among the Heathen and among them were a curious mystical kind of Learning contrived for maintaining a conversation with their Gods wherein as they were imitated by the Gnosticks so these Rules themselves were derived from the Heathen occult Philosophy And certainly it is most likely to have been some kind of expressing and explaining Prophesies and some kinds of Learning subservient thereunto which was so solemnly studied by the Jewish Candidates for Prophesie in their Schools and Colleges and which made it so strange that Persons wanting that preparation such as Saul and Amos should be by God honoured with it Besides that we find the punctual fulfilling of several predictions of the Chaldeans by virtue of their Oneirocriticks those most eminent Transactions of the Conquests of Cyrus and the Death of Alexander the Great were thus foretold plainly implying that God himself as he designed those Dreams to be Divinatory so he observed the Oneirocritical Rules in their signification For it is not probable that Revolutions managed by such special designs and signal interpositions of Divine Providence could have been foreknown or signified by the Devil he being frequently put to his solemn shifts of equivocation for concealment of his ignorance in affairs of greater moral probability and consequently of easier prediction And it cannot seem more strange that God should observe the Rules of Oneirocriticks and Hieroglyphicks in his Responses when made use of with a pious design by his own people than that he should answer the Heathens themselves in their own practice Thus he observed the sign proposed by the Philistins for discerning the true reason of their sufferings 1 Sam. vi 2 9 12. and met Balaam in the use of his enchantments Numb xxiii 4 16. and revealed our Saviours Nativity to the MAGI by the means of a STAR And particularly for Oneirocriticks their sutableness to this purpose will not be scrupled by them who admit the Testimony of Trogus Pompeius who ascribes the first invention thereof to the Patriarch Joseph which will be very congruous to that prevailing Opinion among the Fathers and many late excellent Authors that all Arts were derived originally from the Jews Besides Daniel who was so famous for expounding Dreams tho he was thought by the Heathens to do some things by the Inspiration of the Holy Gods Dan. v. 11 yet had Chaldean education Chap. i. 4 and was a great proficient in it vers 17. and was accordingly included in the decree for killing the Chaldeans Dan. ii 13 and was therefore after his miraculous interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream promoted to be Master of the Magicians Astrologers Southsayers and Chaldeans Dan. v. 11 and therefore certainly was thought in things not exceeding the power of the Art to have proceeded according to its Prescriptions that is in the interpretation tho not in the discovery of the Dream it self And they as well as the Jews being concerned in the event of his Prediction must also have been so in the understanding of them So also Moses being expresly affirmed skilful in all the learning of the Egyptians must therefore be presumed skilful not only in their Hieroglyphicks for which they are so commonly famed but also in Oneirocriticks to which they were also addicted as appears Gen. xli 8 And methinks that challenge made in the Revelation concerning the name of the Beast that here is wisdom and that he that hath understanding should exercise himself in counting the number thereof as it seems plainly to allude to the Cabalistical way of finding out Names by Numbers whereof we have among the Heathens a precedent in Martianus Capella who thus fits the names of Mercury and Philology to shew the congruity of their Marriage besides very many more in the Gnosticks in St. Irenaeus so seems to imply that it was tho hardly in the exercise of this Art discoverable even by human wisdom Certainly St. Irenaeus understood him so when he attempted to unriddle him by finding out names whose numeral Letters in the Greek Tongue wherein the Challenge had been made might amount to such a number I do not by all that has been said intend that all Prophecies are explicable by any Rules of Art or suitable Conjectures I know many of the Heathen Oracles themselves were not The Oracles expounded by Themistocles Curtius Nebrus c. did not depend on Art but Luck My meaning is only concerning the Prophetick Visions and only those of them which are left unexpounded by God himself but are to be presumed sufficiently intelligible in the use of ordinary means Thus far Dodwell who advises them that study Divinity to read those Writings of the Antients which concern the critical knowledg of Dreams and the interpretation of Oracles as that which would be of use to 'em in the understanding of obscure Prophecies But as it is with great modesty that he proposes this and only as a conjecture which he submits to the Learneds examination so I shall also leave the Reader to his own Judgment about it Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 About the signification of this word consult Grotius upon this place and upon the second precept of the Decal It being used promiscuously in Scripture to signify both Divine Worship and also that Honour which we give to Men because in the East the same gestures of Reverence were used towards Men as towards God 1. Chron. xxix 20 it is not credible it should here be taken for an act of divine Worship for the Wise-men did not know Jesus to be the Son of God but only that he would be a very great King and therefore they gave that Honour to him which us'd to be shewn to Eastern Monarchs And for this reason I should decline the using of the word adorare here which tho it had heretofore a doubtful sense amongst the Latins yet now by the use of the Schools is made to signify only divine Worship And therefore it is also a fault in the French Versions where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all along translated adorer which in the French Language does by no means belong to civil but Religious Worship only it being altogether incredible that all those who prostrated themselves at the Feet of Jesus knew him to be the Son of God who might and ought to be honour'd with divine Worship And indeed what one Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another frequently expresses by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fall down prostrate See Matt. viii 2 compar'd with Luc. v. 12 and ix 18 compar'd with Marc. v. 22 Luc. viii 41 and Matt. xviii 24 29. Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Consult what our Author has upon the 22. ver of the foregoing Chapter and what Grotius before him has collected upon the same place They say that there were two kinds of Prophecy the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the event is directly foretold the words referring to that only the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
much puff'd up in their minds On the other hand St. Luke's words do not properly import humble-minded persons but persons of mean estate The like we may observe concerning the 6 th verse and abundance of other places in which the Evangelists report the same thing with some variation Vers 8. Note c. That in these words the pure in heart have a blessedness conferred upon them is plain enough but what that blessedness is is not so clear Of old the Jews as well as the Heathens thought they might sometimes have a sight of the Gods By the Gods I do not mean the very divine Nature but corporal Shapes assumed by Angels Yea and so the most high God himself if it was not rather an Angel called by his name that appear'd to the Israelites gave notice of his presence by a cloud or by fire which form the Jews called by the name of God as appears from the Pentateuch They had a conceit also that if any one should see those forms against the will of the Gods they would certainly die or lose their sight See my notes upon Gen. xvi 13 And therefore whoever was admitted by any God to an interview with him was look'd upon to be his special favourite as the Holy Scripture informs us concerning Moses who went near to the Cloud in which the Angel had wrapt himself and talked with him Hence this phrase to see God was used to express some great happiness even amongst the Gentiles which gave occasion to those Verses in Virgil Ille Deûm vitam adspiciet divisque videbit Permistos Heroas ipse videbitur illis and those in Ovid Felices illi qui non simulachra sed ipsos Quique Deûm coram corpora vera vident Add to this that because God was thought not only by the Hebrews but also by most Heathen Nations to have his Habitation in a peculiar manner in Heaven and Heaven was esteemed the seat of blessedness therefore to see God and to be in the seat of supreme happiness came at last to signify one and the same thing And hence it is said of the Saints Heb. xii 14 that they shall see the Lord and 1 Cor. xiii 12 face to face i. e. like Moses they shall be permitted to have an access to the Light it self by which God manifests his presence in Heaven and because they are to see him as he is they shall also as Moses whose countenance was made to shine become like to God 1 Joh. iii. 2 From this it appears that if there be any solidity in what the Schoolmen say about the beatisick vision they must deduce it from metaphysical reasonings and not out of these places of Scripture Vers 17. Note g. The Law being here spoken of I should rather think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand the most simple or that which we commonly call the Grammatical or Literal sense of the Law in which respect there are innumerable external rites enjoined in it and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the mind of the Lawgiver lying hid under those symbolical Precepts Aristotle in Lib. de repâ—â— often uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for written laws in opposition to the will of the Governour or the interpretation that he puts upon them So Lib. 2. ch 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not the best way to pass sentence according to our own will and pleasure but by the written Statute and Laws And Lib. 3. c. 15. after he had said that the Law speaks of things but in general terms without accommodating it self to particular cases he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is a foolish thing for a Governour to follow strictly the written law and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not the best way of administring a Commonwealth to keep close to the Letter and the Laws So also Cicero opposes the letter of the Law to the intention of the Law-maker Lib. 1. de Inventione cap. 38. Omnes leges ad commodum Reipublicae referre oportet eas ex utilitate communi non ex scriptione quae in literis est interpretari All Laws ought to be directed to the benefit of the State and have such a construction put upon them as the publick interest requires without sticking too close to the letters in which they are written See likewise Lib. 2. cap. 48. And under this consideration the Laws of Moses are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. when they are understood in a Grammatical sense and are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the design of God in enacting them The word Spirit is used in Scripture to signify any thing that is out of sight in contradistinction to what is apparent and conspicuous as the letters are of the Law But this may be more clearly demonstrated in its due place Vers 18. Note i. Ludovicus Cappellus in Arcano punct Lib. 2. Cap. 14. has said enough about this place and if we consult him and join what Dr. Hammond and he have observed together we shall have as complete a Commentary upon this place as can be desired Christ's meaning is that none no not the least moral precept which did not peculiarly respect the Jews as a Commonwealth but was fitted to all men and all Ages and Places of which kind there were many in the Law should ever be abrogated by God 'T is as if he had said that he would be so far from licensing Men to break any of that sort of Precepts that he would require an exact performance of the very least of them As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an abolishing of a Law so a Law is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continues in its full force and obligation And therefore the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify until all be fulfilled but but all its precepts shall be still obliging for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius has observed has here the force of an Adversative Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase partly makes Christ to speak himself directly and partly insinuates and intermixes his own Remarks with his words But yet I must say that this is harsh and forced as the Doctor 's way of expression no disparagement to his Learning commonly is Besides his Paraphrase upon this period does not make the mind of Christ clear enough which I take to be this 21 22. Ye know that Murder was forbidden by Moses and that this Law of his threatned Death to the Transgressors of it but let me tell you that it is not only those heinous sort of crimes that will be punished by God in another life Whoever shall but indulge his anger and make a custom of carrying himself hastily and morosely to others without reason shall have a punishment inflicted upon him comparable to that capital one to which persons are sentenced by the
found in the ritual Books of the Jews where there are some Prayers so composed as if they thought a particular laying open of their requests necessary to make God understand them On the day before that of the Expiation there are Prayers read wherein in a long series all the kinds of Sins together with the respective Punishments due to them are distinctly enumerated They begin thus Let it please thee O Lord our God and the God of our Fathers to forgive us all our iniquities and pardon all our offences and to purge us from all our sins the sins which we have committed against thee by compulsion and the sins which we have committed against thee voluntarily and of our own accord and the sins which we have committed against thee by uncovering our nakedness c. The whole form as it was taken out of the manuscript Copy was published by Selden de Synedriis lib. 1. c. 12. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates as Xenophon tells us lib. 1. Memor p. 420. Ed. Graecae H. Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayed simply to the Gods that they would bestow good things upon him as knowing themselves best what things were good See what H. Grotius says as to this matter and hence we may conclude that the Heathens did sometimes speak of things more agreeably to the Precepts afterwards given by Christ than many Christians usually do Vers 11. Note f. There is none here but Grotius whose opinion is first laid down by our Author that deserves our regard and the Doctor had done better if he had only endeavour'd to confirm his interpretation Every body knows that the Greeks used the Phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify as well in general the time future as the day immediately ensuing from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to approach or to be at hand So Euripides in his Alcestes v. 171. uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an evil that is future or ready to come to pass So in that place of Solomon Prov. xxvii 1 Boast not thy self of to morrow for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the time future The meaning of Christ therefore is this Give us every day all the remaining part of our lives as much as may be sufficient for our subsistence Vopiseus has almost such another kind of expression in the Life of Aurelian where he speaks of the loaves that were daily distributed to the People Siligincum suum viz. panem quotidie toto aevo quisque recipiebat posteris suis dimittebat Every one daily received his white loaf as long as he lived and that custom was continued to their posterity Upon this place Salmasius observes out of Chronic. Alexandr that such Loaves were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. such as every one was sure to have during his Life so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify almost the same thing It is likewise truly observed by Grotius that this word comprehends under it both food and raiment i. e. all the necessaries of Life which we pray God we may never want as long as we live Our Author makes it to relate also to the mind or soul but without any necessity for those things which concern the Soul are contained in the foregoing verses In Solomon Prov. xxx 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify food convenient for me but my allowance or proportion of it 'T is an allusion of the Writer of Proverbs to the custom of those who gave daily to their Servants or others a certain allowance which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhok i. e. as if one should say appointed food See my Notes upon Gen. xlvii 22 Wherefore altho if we consider the thing it self the translating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our proportion of bread may not be much amiss as J. Mercerus upon the Proverbs has observed yet the just force of the Greek word will be far from being thereby expressed Vers 16. Note h. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make any thing become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the contrary of both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bright or shining and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspicuous And hence the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a twofold signification according as it is either opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make bright or to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make conspicuous To begin with the latter a thing becomes inconspicuous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is either quite destroyed or else carried to another place or covered for which sense there seems here to be no room as has been well observed by the Doctor In the former sense of the word a thing is said to lose its brightness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is some how or other defiled Thus the countenance when the face is washed and anointed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shines and when instead of using oil to make it shine we disfigure it with Ashes or Dust then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pollute to defile But the Grammarians observe the signification of polluting to have been more late and that of taking out of sight to be the older of the two Etymol Magn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used by the Antients for to pollute as it is now but for to render wholly inconspicuous Concerning the antient use also of this word Suidas must be thought to speak when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not signify to defile and pollute but to take quite away and out of sight But of this later signification of Greek words discerned by the other which properly belongs to them there are abundance of instances in the New Testament amongst which the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be reckoned one Of this notion of the word the Doctor has given us several examples and one out of Nicostratus whose words he ought to have set down at their full length for he understands them in a sense quite contrary to the intention of the Author He is speaking concerning Women that had too great a passion for Ornaments and brings reasons to disswade and reclaim them from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Far be it from a healthful woman to think she has any need of white paint or red to put under her eyes or any other colour in order to daub and pollute the face not to make it more beautiful for that is against the Writer's design and contrary to what this Verb constantly signifies And that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Christ in the sense of polluting and denotes a purposed endeavour to deform the face is manifest from the manner of the opposition When ye fast be not as the Hypocrites of a sad
who expected the Messias under the notion of a temporal King and were exceeding desirous of innovations which sort of Men were more fit to raise a sedition than to advance the Kingdom of Heaven by just and proper Methods To prevent therefore the resorting of evil men to him with a design to innovate and so making a wrong use of his Name and Authority he thought it better till that danger was over to have the publishing of the truth deferred Thus Joh. vi 15 we see the multitude after they had been fed by him fell into such a sort of consultation whereupon when he knew that they would come and take him by force to make him a King he departed alone by himself into a mountain It was an extraordinary piece of Wisdom in Christ to take care there might be no sedition laid either to his or his Disciples charge whilst the Gospel was but begun to be preached for if such a thing could have been done with any appearance of justice every body easily perceives that it would have been a mighty prejudice to the Christian Religion Vers 10. Note f. Since our Author in his Notes upon this place has thought fit to put together all that he had observed concerning the different notions of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will contribute also my share 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has several significations amongst the Greeks that have nothing to do here but this is to be taken notice of viz. that tho trust be the first notion of that word and its secondary signification is that credit or assent which we give to one who affirms things that we never saw nor have any mathematical demonstration of yet because among things of that kind there are some asserted by all Nations that relate to divine matters and which in points of faith challenge the first place altho we neither see them nor have any mathematical evidence for them therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence a perswasion about matters of Religion So Aelian Var. Histor lib. ii c. 31. having said that there was no Atheist to be found amongst the Barbarians but only among the Greeks and that the Barbarians believed that there were Gods who took care of human affairs and foretold things to come adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a firm perswasion of these things they offer up sacrifices in a pure manner and keep themselves chast and holy c. When the Jews began to write Greek they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense for the credit yielded to their sacred Writings and those that believed them they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Son of Sirach Chap. i. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things that please him i. e. God are faith and meekness and Ch. xlv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sanctified him by faith and meekness So 1 Macc. iii. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a body of Jews But the Christians that followed the Jews in their way of speaking gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Perswasion of those that believed in Christ and opposed it to a twofold kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnbelief one of which was proper to the Heathens and the other to the Jews who notwithstanding they credited the Old Testament yet refused to believe Christ and his Apostles However in all these instances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a perswasion of those things particularly which the Discourse relates to and as those are various so we may if we please make Faith to be of several kinds But because no one can believe the Authority of any Laws but he must also observe them provided he does not disagree with himself therefore no body could seriously and heartily believe that Christ was sent down from Heaven to men to teach them the way of eternal Salvation without obeying Christ's Precepts just as no body believed the Law of Moses to be the only Rule of Life revealed by God who did not in part at least conform themselves thereto And hence this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came in the Writings of the Apostles to signify not only a perswasion of the truth of the Christian Doctrin but also a disposition of Mind and Practice agreeable to it the necessary effect of believing But it must be observed that in different places of the New Testament in proportion to the Subject treated of this word has a larger or more contracted Notion 1. Where the Discourse is about the Faith of the Patriarchs we are to understand by it such a perswasion of the truth of those things they received as divine Revelations as was accompanied with an answerable temper of Mind and Life In which sense it occurs frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. xi and elsewhere 2. Where Christ's discourse is of those that believed in him as transacting upon earth as he does here in S. Matthew and up and down every where in the Gospels by Faith is meant a perswasion of his having been truly sent of God with a power of doing Miracles and of the truth of all his Doctrine as far as it was known 3. But after the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost and expounded the whole Christian Doctrine more at large the notion of Faith included in it a perswasion not only of the truth of Christ's Mission but also of his Apostles and Disciples whose Doctrine God gave a testimony to by innumerable wonders and an assent accordingly yielded to whatever they asserted joined with a Life sutable to such a perswasion And this notion the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians where St. Paul disputes about Justification For in these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a living according to the Christian Institution setting aside the works commanded by the Law of Moses only is said to justify i. e. to procure mens being esteemed just or good and pious by God and being acceptable to him And on the other hand the Apostle denies that Works viz. those which were opposed by the Jews to Faith or the Christian Religion did either under the Gospel or ever of old justify And this he makes good by several Arguments which shall in their proper places be explained It shall suffice at present to have run over the different senses that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is capable of and pointed to its original Signification But there is this further to be added that as Faith includes more than a bare perswasion about the truth of a thing in the mind so this perswasion it self must be such a one as is the result of having seriously weighed and examined the Arguments by which the truth of the Christian Doctrine is confirmed For it is not to be imagined that the Centurion for instance did believe in Christ hand over
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
his safety depends require For otherwise if this had not been lawful man had been for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man in as much as it would have been his duty to set less by his own Life than the observation of the Sabbath Thus if there be a just occasion we are obliged to lay down our lives rather than not observe those precepts of eternal equity and obligation that are contained in the Gospel because the keeping of those precepts was the end for which God created us And yet they too I acknowledg may in a sort be said to be for us because if they were but universally observed they would be a means of making men happy both in this life and everlastingly in the other But the Sabbatical days of rest come quite under another consideration and were not appointed for the good of the mind so much as of the body The Jews according to the intention of the Lawgiver were bound only to observe them so far as they could without inconvenience and consistently with self-preservation In all other cases they were to have a greater regard to their life than to the keeping of holy days Dr. Hammond therefore has made an ill advantage of the ambiguity of this phrase for the good of man which does not always signify the same thing Add to this that I have said what Grotius has upon this place and then there will be no room to doubt but that this learned English Gentleman has mistaken the true design of it Vers 20. Note e. Few that are skilled in the Hebrew will allow our Author that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall bring forth judgment unto truth is the same with he shall bring forth a true judgment for to express this the Jews would say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall bring forth the judgment of truth It is more probable that the Evangelist who produces rather the sense than the very words of the Prophecy expresses that which the Prophet calls to bring forth judgment unto truth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and would be understood thus to advance the Doctrine of true Piety so as that it shall prevail over falshood which is the same as to lay down that Doctrine in such a manner as to make it appear true Undoubtedly that Doctrine which is looked upon as true must be said to have overcome and this is the only victory that the Gospel can obtain to be looked upon as true Ibid. Note d. This proverbial expression not to break a bruised reed nor to quench smoking flax is rightly expounded by Dr. Hammond as well as by many others before him I add that the Latins much after the same manner used the phrase extinguere extinctos to signify the killing or destroying outright such as had before but little hope left of safety Thus the Writer to Herennius Lib. 4.52 after he had told how a City was taken by the Soldiers brings in a Woman deprecating the Conquerors anger in these terms Parce per ea quae tibi dulcissima sunt in vita miserere nostri noli extinguere extinctos We beseech you by all that you count sweetest in life to spare and take pity upon us do not resolve to destroy those that are already destroyed Vers 24. Note f. What our Author has about the God Achor perhaps he took out of Selden de Diis Syris Synt. 11. c. 6. where this matter is copiously handled Certain it is that Mr. Selden wrote first But both of them were deceived by a false reading in Pliny whose words in the vulgar editions were corrupted In the Manuscript Copy there is no mention made of the Cyrenaeans nor of Achor Deus as Salmasius in his Plinian exercit p. 10. Edit Vltraj observes who must be consulted by those that have a mind to enquire more throughly into this matter He thinks and very rightly that we may from the marks that are found in the old written copy read the words thus invocant Elei Myiagron Deum muscarum multitudine pestilentiam afferente and this reading was taken into the context of the Paris Edition ann 1685. It will bear likewise a dispute whether it be a probable conjecture of our Author that the Ekronites God Beelzebub was the same with the Grecians Jupiter For Jupiter a Deity among the Greeks was as unknown to the Philistines as Dagon the God of the Philistines was to the Greeks It was a piece of vanity in the poor silly Grecians rashly to think that their Gods were every where worshipped as I might easily shew if it was a thing to be done in this place But I do not here take upon me to explain the Greek Mythology Vers 27. Note g. The Doctor might perhaps have added that the whole of Christ's reasoning in this place consists of Arguments ad hominem for there are several things here supposed as true because they were believed by the Jews which are no where designedly laid down for certain by Christ nor any where confirmed by the Apostles One is that there is such a political order amongst the Devils as that one rules over the rest in the quality of a Prince and under the name of Beelzebub which every one must needs look upon as doubtful Another thing is that that political order should continue for a great while after that time and consequently the Devils should have no civil dissensions among themselves It 's certain that the Persians who called the Devil by the name of Arimanes thought that his Empire would never be at an end till it was overthrown by Oromazes or the good God See Stanley Philosoph Oriental Lib. ii c. 6. And much such an opinion as this seems to have been taken up by the Jews who perhaps had it from the Chaldeans and if we believe learned men the rest also of the Doctrine about the several orders that there are among the Angels It may be further asked perhaps why Christ did not answer an objection which easily springs up in a mans mind upon the reading of this reasoning of his For it might have been pretended by the Pharisees that this was only an artifice in the Prince of the Devils to expel his subject Devils for a little time who might afterwards enter in again unobserved and settle him more securely in his Dominion and so that there seemed to be a dissension among the Devils tho really there was none But this pretence the Doctrine of Christ it self sufficiently confuted and his Resurrection which was purposely intended as a confirmation of his Doctrine put the matter out of all doubt For how could it be imagined that so holy a Doctrine confirm'd by miracles from Heaven should owe its being so universally spread to a previous juggle and contrivance among the Devils This is in effect tho but obscurely suggested by Christ at the 33 d Vers Vers 32. Note h. It is very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a word is
according to the use of that phrase in Scripture in which it occurs more than once And we are not here to consider what the word Gates signifies when it is alone or joined with any other word but what is the meaning of this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the signification of that word may be various according as the place is in which it is found Now no body will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and portae mortis the gates of death are the same and this phrase the gates of death signifies nothing but death it self So Job xxxviii 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death So Psal ix 13 Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death i. e. deliverest me from death So Isai xxxviii 10 Hezekiah being in fear of an untimely death says In the cutting off of my days I shall go to the gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as it is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall go to the gates of death So that the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies death it self But what does Christ then mean when he says that the gates of hell should not prevail against Peter or not overcome him namely this that the danger of a certain and speedy death upon the account of his preaching the Gospel should not deter him from discharging the office imposed on him and so not death it self So that Jesus in these words promises Peter after he had professed his belief that he was the Messiah that he should be a foundation of his Church and constant in the profession of the Truth he had declared which he fulfilled accordingly for Peter as we are told by Clemens Ep. c. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not only undergo one or two but many sorrows and so becoming a Martyr went to his proper place in glory We may apply to him that passage of Seneca as we find it in Lactantius Lib. vi c. 17. Hic est ille homo honestus non apice purpuráve non lictorum insignis ministerio sed nulla re minor qui cum MORTEM in VICINIA videt non sic perturbatur tanquam rem novam viderit qui sive toto corpore tormenta patienda sunt sive flamma ore recipienda est sive extendendae per patibulum manus non quaerit quid patiatur sed quam bene This is that brave and honorable person who is not remarkable for his fine hat of feathers his purple robe or his guard of Lictors which is the least part of his glory but who when he sees death just before him is not surprized with the strangeness of the sight and whether he is to undergo the torment of the rack or to receive fire into his mouth or have his arms stretched out upon a cross does not regard what but how well he suffers There is one thing that may perhaps here be objected viz. that according to this interpretation Christ does not keep to the Metaphor for after he had called Peter a stone he adds that death should not overcome him It is true but it was neither necessary that Christ should go on in the same Metaphor nor yet supposing that what we refer to Peter did as it is commonly thought belong to the Church will he be found to continue the same Metaphor For he compares the Church to a building which cannot properly be said to be overcome by the gates of death but only to be pulled down or destroyed Nothing is more ordinary in all sort of Writers than to begin with one Metaphor and end with another As for instance Clemens says a little before the words already alledged concerning St. Peter and St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faithful and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted even to death Pillars can neither be persecuted nor dy However by this it appears that St. Matthew or his interpreter very fitly uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to overcome by force for this is what Christ means that the terror of having a violent Death set before him should not overcome St. Peters constancy tho he saw the gates of death opened for him yet he should notwithstanding hold fast his pious resolution If any doubt of the signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them turn to the Greek Indexes to the first 5 books of Diodorus Siculus and the Roman Antiq. of Dion Halicarnassaeus collected by Rhodomannus and Sylburgius where they will meet with more examples than in any Lexicons But it occurs likewise in the same sense often in the version of the Septuagint I know very well that Interpreters commonly make use of these words to prove the perpetuity if not also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impeccability of the Church but they will never be able to evince any such thing from this place by Grammatical reasons The thing it self shews that the Church is liable to error nor is there any mention made in this place of errors That the Church has and always will continue I do not in the least doubt because of the nature and force of the Evangelical Covenant but this cannot be concluded from these words in which it is much more probable that St. Peter is spoken of both what goes before and what comes after belonging to him and not to the Church However I submit the whole matter to the judgment of the Learned Vers 19. Note h. I. It is certain I confess that there was a great difference between that Person 's power who is said to have had the key of the house of David in Isaiah and his who is represented in the Revelation as carrying the key of David but it would be hard to prove this from the sound of the phrases if it were not otherwise plain and manifest for the key of David is the key by which the house of David was open'd and shut and therefore the same with the key of the house of David Tho a key be an ensign of power the key of David does not signify the power of David himself but a power over the Kingdom of David Our learned Author is not always happy in his subtilties about little things However Mr. Selden has several Observations with relation to this matter lib. 1. de Synedriis cap. ix which those that will may read in himself II. Indeed for my own part I do not doubt but that the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches to single Bishops and accordingly that these ought to be reckon'd their Successors but as their Gifts were not alike so neither was their Authority equal And therefore whatever Christ says to the Apostles ought not presently to be accommodated to Bishops at least by the same Rule and in the same Latitude Especially in this place where Christ promises to St. Peter and the Apostles something extraordinary
Sickness and Death to infest and ruin the Province by their Pride and Covetousness were with a heavy weight put about their Necks thrown headlong into a River Oneratis gravi pondere cervicibus praecipitatos esse in flumen And the place where that was done seems to be Syria Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Men are so wicked that they will certainly put Stumbling-blocks in others way but they shall be severely punished for doing so namely because there is no necessity of Mens being bad tho when they are bad and as long as they continue bad they must needs be an offence to others There is an Expression not much unlike this in Herodotus lib. i. cap. vii where he speaks of the folly of Candaules who was desirous to have Gyges see his Wife all naked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not long after that for it was necessary that Candaules should have some evil befal him he said to Gyges i. e. Candaules was so foolish that he could not possibly avoid bringing by his folly some mischief upon himself I remember that I have also read the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used much to the same purpose in Aristophanes but the particular place where is out of my mind Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sense of these words is admirably well expressed in one Verse of Dionysius Cato Quae nocitura tenes quamvis sint cara relinquas Vers 10. Note a. Grotius ought to be read upon this place tho I should by no means grant him that Christ does here make good the Opinion of the Jews that every particular Man had a Guardian Angel assigned him It was ground enough for Christ to speak as he did that Angels had in general the care of Men committed to them as Dr. Hammond well observes And it was much at one whether they thought that every Man had constantly his own Angel to guard him or that some number of them had the care of a whole Society and upon some occasions of a particular Person And therefore Christ neither contradicted nor justified either of these Opinions in particular but left them in an uncertainty One thing there is which he here contradicts viz. an Opinion that seems to have been common to the Jews with the Heathens that according as Men differed in rank and condition they had more or less powerful Genius's appointed to watch over them So that great and rich Persons were attended they thought with a Genius of greater Power and Might than those that were poor or of the lowest rank So Plutarch in the Life of Antonius p. 930. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ludicrous Contentions that Antony had with Caesar in his Childhood and in which he was always beaten vexed him to the heart For he had a certain Fortune-teller with him out of Egypt that pretended to understand what Men were born to who told him that tho his Fortune was great and extraordinary yet it was obscured by Caesar's And therefore he advis'd him to separate himself as far as possible from that young Prince For says he your GENIVS is afraid of his Genius and tho it is fierce and lofty when alone yet at his approach it grows remiss and cowardly Now what our Saviour here says directly thwarts this Opinion for he teaches us that Angels of the highest dignity are appointed to take care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of little ones For to see the face of God is all one as to be permitted a near access to him as Grotius has observ'd Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because our Author in his Paraphrase upon the 17 th Verse refers the Reader to his Treatise of the Power of the Keys where he explains this place more largely I shall take out thence what is not to be found in his Annotations that those who want that Book may see fully what is Dr. Hammond's Opinion here Mat. xviii 15 If thy Brother shall offend against thee it seems the place belongs not primarily but only paritate rationis by analogy of Reason to all Sins in the latitude but peculiarly to Trespasses or personal Injuries done by one Brother one Christian to another as besides the express words v. 15. if thy Brother trespass against thee is more clear by St. Peter's Question to the same purpose v. 21. How oft shall my Brother trespass against me and I forgive him Go and reprove him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. either reprehend him for it as the word is used sometimes when 't is join'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chasten or discipline Heb. xii 5 Apoc. iii. 19 or again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make him sensible of the Wrong he hath done thee or as it may be rendred make him asham'd of his Fact Betwixt thee and him alone i. e. do thy best by private admonitions to bring him to a sense If he hear thee be thus wrought on Thou hast gain'd thy Brother gain'd him first to thy self gotten a Friend instead of an Enemy and secondly to Christ gained a Convert a Proselyte to him and this also a great acquisition to thee to have had the honour of doing that glorious thing and of being capable of the Reward of them that convert any to Righteousness But if he hear thee not if this first method of thy Charity and discipline of this calmer making succeed not another essay must be made another artifice used Take with thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 farther or over and above one or two that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established i. e. that the thing which thou layest to his charge be so confirmed according to that Joh. viii 17 The Testimony of two Men is true i. e. of sufficient authority in Law according to an Hebraism whereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true among the Greek Translators signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to be credited that so either by the Testimony of these as Witnesses he may no longer be able to deny the Fact as Heb. vi 16 an Oath is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for establishing or confirmation in that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an end of affirming and denying the thing so establish'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Oath cannot be denyed or the Parties denial will no longer stand him in stead or by authority of these he may be induced as the Judg is on the accused Deut. xix 15 Heb. x. 28 to give sentence on to condemn himself which if it may be obtained is the prime end of all these charitable Artifices to bring the Injurious to a sight and shame the best Preparatives to Reformation To which purpose is that of Tertullian Apol. cap. 39. Disciplinam praeceptorum inculcationibus densamus We thicken the Doctrine of Precepts with ways of inculcating i. e. press them to Reformation whom our Doctrine will not prevail on
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is certainly the meaning of Moses whose words the Doctor manifestly strains A festival day was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there was a holy Convocation or solemn Assembly of the People kept on that day V. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Numb i. 16 are those that were chosen or called by name out of the Congregation The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in chap. xvi v. 2. of the same Book are the called together of the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the called out of the Assembly or to the Assembly In the former place the Septuagint have and that rightly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were called to the Council and in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to the same sense So Xerxes in Herodotus takes counsel about his flight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Persians called together about him VI. I admire that our learned Author whilst he was inquiring into the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament had no regard almost to its primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often occurs in the Septuagint and is frequently made use of in the books of the Prophets to signify what God did when he called the People of the Jews to the knowledg of himself See Isa xliii 1 and xlv 3 4. In the same Prophet we might have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense if the Septuagint had pleased Chap. xlviii 12 Hearken unto me O Jacob and thou Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mkoraï my called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is taken for the Exhortation of the Prophets calling the People to the Worship of God Jerem. xxxi 6 And this is the sense in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in the New Testament nor does the difference of Circumstances make any change at all in their signification as appears by what the Doctor has said who is but too curious and accurate in discussing the places where they are found Several of them might from the Signification I have here given be more grammatically and simply interpreted VII I am ready to believe that this Phrase Many are called but few are chosen is a proverbial form of Speech as Grotius remarks which alludes to that more sublime sense in which the words Calling and Election are used in the New Testament but has another different original which if I am not mistaken in my conjecture is from the way of mustering and choosing Soldiers when all that were fit to carry Arms were ordered to present themselves upon such a certain day and so were called to some particular place where when more had met than were necessary to carry on the War they were going to be engaged in the most valiant only were chosen So that there were many called and few chosen Thus when Gideon Judg. vii had called or summoned together many to repulse the Midianites who made War with the People of the Jews there were but few chosen to perform that Service See also Josh viii 3 And so likewise Christ Luk. vi 13 called unto him his Disciples which were many and out of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles The meaning therefore of this Proverb Many are called and few are chosen is this that among many that undertake the same thing there are few that excel and deserve to be preferred before others And this sense very well agrees with the scope of the Parable that Christ makes use of which is that there are but a very few of those that believe who are worthy of an extraordinary reward Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpreters here justly insist upon the force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes a Substitution whereby Christ died not only for our good but in our place or stead And so the Heathens in a matter of this nature understood that Particle Thus Alcestis saith in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I honouring you and substituting your seeing this light in the room of my life die when I might refuse to die for you And Ovid. de Art Amand. lib. 3. speaking of the same Woman says Fata Pheretiadae conjux Pegasaea redemit Proque viri est uxor funere lata sui The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has also the same signification as appears by the last Verse of that passage of Euripides The Heathens in those first Ages and not only then but also in latter times thought that any one might escape Death if another put himself into his place Aristides who was of the same Age almost with the Emperor Adrian tells us in V. Sacrarum that when he was dangerously sick he was admonish'd by an Oracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Philumena one that was nursed with the same Milk gave Life for Life and Body for Body her 's for his See more Examples to this purpose in Isaac Casaubon upon Suetonius's Caligula cap. xiv and Spartianus's Adrian upon which consult also Salmasius Such Persons as these were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word often us'd by Ignatius in his Epistles concerning which read Dr. Pearson's Vindiciae Part 2. cap. xv Vers 29. Note d. It were to be wish'd that Dr. Hammond as well as others who quote that Greek and Latin Manuscript had given us also the Latin Version out of it or rather that it were published entire But in the mean time the more I consider the various readings of that Manuscript as they are set down both in many places of Beza and in the Oxford Edit of the New Testament the more I am confirmed in the Opinion which I have sometime since made learned Men the Judges of viz. that that Manuscript does not so much contain the words of the Evangelists as of some Paraphrast who now and then fills up what he thought was wanting and where the Greek was not good mended the Language and all that will but examine it with a particular care will be of the same Opinion The Paraphrase of Epictetus's Enchiridion published by Meric Casaubon is much such another in which there are most of Epictetus's words set down but often in a different order and with several Enlargements And therefore I disagree with the Doctor in his suspecting that St. Matthew ought to be supplied out of that one Manuscript which all the rest contradict it being more probable that that Addition is taken out of St. Luke tho with some Alterations But I say again that it were to be wished that that Copy were published entire and those who keep up such things to be burnt by the next Fire are not to be commended Since the writing of this I have happened to see some new Annotations upon the New Testament made by R. Simon who is of the
And this I know not for what reason Dr. Hammond has omitted by which it would have appear'd that the foregoing words were not rightly translated Let but the place it self be read and the thing will be plain V. The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Job vii 15 is rightly rendered by Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a halter because the thing intended is evidently a squeezing of the throat with a rope as a way of dying My soul hath chosen strangling and death rather than my bones i. e. My grief is so great that I had rather die by strangling or any other sort of death than live The Septuagint neither understood Job's meaning nor knew perhaps what they meant themselves It is certain at least that their words do no more favour Dr. Hammond's Interpretation than any other The Translation of the Vulgar Latin is very exact elegit suspendium anima mea c. VI. There is no doubt but that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to choak or suffocate by any means whatsoever but it does not follow that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in any other notion than that of hanging nor is any other signification to be affixed to it where the discourse relates to a person in despair and that chuses Death rather than Life which was the case of Judas and Achitophel VII But our Author tells us that it is necessary to put another sense upon this word in order to reconcile St. Luke with St. Matthew This would be true if we could not make them agree any other way which we may very well do by compounding both their accounts together thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And going away hanged himself and falling down forwards he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out But it may be asked if he hanged himself how could he fall down to which I answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ropes breaking or by being cut down by some body which circumstance as long as it was known that he killed himself in despair was not thought material enough to be set down But it may be said again How came he to burst asunder and his bowels to gush out I answer because he fell down from on high as he must needs have done if he hanged himself upon the battlement of some Terras or upon a Tree that leaned over a deeper Valley than ordinary for then if he fell upon some stone or stump or stake that was underneath his belly might easily be ripped open Pricaeus upon this place has given us several Examples of this nature and the thing is plain But never did any Woman by a suffocation of the Mother burst asunder in the midst and much less did ever any Man do so Our Author should have given us but one such instance at least but I am sure he was not able The Interpretation I have given is not only the most natural but agrees exactly with the words The learned Person I but now spake of who has written largely and on set purpose about this matter does indeed very well shew that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to kill by hanging but he has not proved that Judas as he conjectures was thrown down from some steep Rock as a mark of infamy set upon him It does not appear from any Testimony that those who killed themselves were so punished by the Jews Besides the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently intimates that the Body of Judas was not conveyed to any other place to be thrown down from for that would rather have been expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other such words but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the Body fell down without any forcible impulse It may be enquired perhaps why St. Matthew did not add the Circumstance taken notice of by St. Luke and why St. Luke did not make mention of Judas's hanging himself To which I answer it may reasonably enough be supposed that St. Matthew heard only of his hanging and St. Peter who speaks in Acts i. only of his falling down some steep place and tho both were true yet they related severally the story just as they had heard it That in a matter of no great moment all the Circumstances are not exactly set down let such only wonder as have not observed that Circumstances of much greater moment are frequently passed over by one or other of the Evangelists as appears from other places Compare St. Matthew and St. Luke as to what they both say about the Thieves that were crucified with Christ Vers 15. Note d. There are some things in this last Note that need Correction I. The Phrase ad faciendum populum is not a Latin Phrase nor has any signification but I believe it was an Error of the Printer's and that the Doctor wrote ad faciendum sibi favorem apud populum II. What is here said about the singular Privilege of the Citizens of Rome has no affinity with the matter in hand for tho a Roman Citizen could not be put to death without the Suffrage of the People yet I suppose Pilate did not wait for the consent of the Jews to empower him to behead such as he judged guilty He gratified the Jews when he let go a Criminal at their request and he did not condemn any at their request when they were otherwise affected but of his own accord to get their favour but in Rome no Magistrate had authority to behead any Citizen without the peoples Consent and those that the people absolved were to be let go whether the Magistrates would or not and those whom they condemned were certainly to be punished III. It would have been better observed that it was the custom also among other Nations to release their Prisoners upon festival days So in Athens it was a Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that at the time when the Feasts were kept in honour of Ceres the Prisoners should be let loose And the same was practised upon other Athenian Feasts as Sam. Petitus has shewn Lib. 1. de Legg Att. Tit. 1. See likewise Is Casaubon in his Notes upon Suet. Tib. cap. lxi IV. This Custom was imitated by the Christian Emperors who for joy at the Passover gave order in their Letters that the Prisons should be opened But that you may not mistake this was done in honour not of the Jewish but of the Christian Passover and the Jews were released no more than others which contradicts what the Doctor says So in Cod. lib. 1. Tit. iv Leg. 3. there is this Law made by Valentinian Theodosius and Arcadius Vbi primus dies Paschatis extiterit nullum teneat carcer inclusum omnium vincula dissolvantur As soon as the first day of the Passover is come let there be none kept shut up in Prison let them be all released of their Chains There is no mention at all here made of the Jews And
to be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of a Son of free Men or in the name of Proselytism is to receive Baptism upon condition that the Person baptized be called a Freeman or Proselyte Consult Selden de Jure Nat. Gent. lib. 2. c. 3. Grotuis has committed a mistake in his Translation of the last words but discerned however the import of the Phrase tho just as a Man sees the Moon through the Clouds ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Mark CHAP. 1. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words I rather take to be as an Inscription to this whole Book than a form of introducing what follows as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase For even in the most antient times these Books were called the Gospels as Grotius has observed out of Justin at the beginning of St. Matthew And it is ordinary in Latin Manuscripts to find it written in the front such or such a Book BEGINS that the Reader may know the work to be entire and that there wants nothing at the beginning Such another Inscription as this is that of the Book of the Prophet Hosea i. 2 The beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea I conceive therefore that these words ought to have a full stop made at the end of them Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We must conceive this beginning thus AS it is written in the Prophet Isaiah Behold I send my Messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way before thee A Voice crying in the Desart Prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths streight John BAPTIZED c. The force of the Particle AS belongs to the 4 th Verse where thre is as it were an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Evangelist shews that the Event was answerable to what was foretold Some learned Men have thought that the beginning of Herodotus is just like this but without reason as will appear to any one that compares them Vers 38. Note b. Our learned Author is mistaken when he says that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here adjoining from the use of it in the Septuagint For so all the best Greek Writers who were strangers to the barbarous Dialect of the Septuagint used that word It occurs very often in Herodotus in that signification as the Ionick Lexicon of Aemilius Portus alone will shew CHAP. II. Vers 26. Note b. I Chuse rather to interpret the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by apud at or to according to its usual signification and so the sense will be He went viz. David into the House of God to Abiathar the High-priest The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the House of God is taken here more largely not for the Tabernacle only but also for the house in which the High-priest lived which joined to the Tabernacle or Court For the Loaves which David took away were not any longer in the Sanctuary but had been removed before he came that fresh ones might be put in their place as the sacred Historian informs us 1 Sam. xxi 6 So in the same Book Chap. iii. 3 by the Temple of the Lord we are to understand the House adjoining to the Court in which Samuel slept not far from the place where Eli lay down But you will say why dos not Christ say to Abimelech who was at that time the High-priest but instead of that says to Abiathar who was Abimelech's Son and lived rather in his Father's House than his own The reason is because Abiathar was more known than Abimelech by the Sacred History as the Learned have observed And so the meaning of Christ is this he went to Abiathar who was High-priest tho not at that time CHAP. III. Vers 21. Note c. DAvid le Clerc my Uncle has treated upon this place in his Quaestiones Sacrae Quaest xiii which is worth the reading CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in a little ship at a small distance from the shore Thus Prov. xxiii 34 he that lieth down in the heart of the Sea is one that lies down in a Ship And to the same sense is that of Propertius Lib. 1. Eleg. xiv Tu licet abjectus Tiberinâ molliter unda Lesbia Mentoreo vina bibas opere This would have been a needless remark unless a man of a sharp wit and whose judgment in critical matters is not to be despised viz. Tan. Faber in Epist Crit. Part 2. Epist xvii would have had this place contrary to the Authority of all Copies altered by reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Ship and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sea which would not go down with him Vers 12. Note a. This form of speech has something proverbial in it and is set to signify such Persons as if they made a right use of their faculties would take notice of those things which their folly makes them pass over without attention And in this sense the Greeks also used it Thus Prometheus is represented in Aeschilus as speaking in this manner of the ignorance of men in the first age before he had taught them arts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They at first seeing saw in vain Hearing they did not hear but just As men in dreams for a long time Confounded all things And so Demosthenes Orat. 1. contra Aristogit sect 123. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Proverb that those that see do not see and those that hear do not hear CHAP. V. Vers 22. Note c. SInce a Synagogue does sometimes signify a Consistory of Judges whose Authority related to civil matters it is certain that the person who presided over them might well enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying a Consistory or Sanhedrim see our Author's notes upon Matt. vi 5 The Judges and the Presidents of Ecclesiastical assemblies which our Author has forgot to observe were called by the same name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they were the same Persons of which see the learned Camp Vitringa de Synag Lib. 2. c. 9. But Dr. Hammond in what follows seems to confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a School with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a consistory of Judges which are quite different things Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this Phrase were to be understood properly and literally we should be obliged to think that Christ cured the sick of their Diseases by certain effluvia that proceeded from him which is very difficult to conceive And therefore I rather think with Grotius that this was a vulgar way of speaking by which we are to understand no more than that this Woman was cured by God at the instant in which she touched our Saviour See Luke vi 19 where it will appear that that expression was taken from the use of
the common People Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. hath healed thee Thus Barnabas in Epist Cathol Cap. ix brings in Moses speaking in this manner of the brazen Serpent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being dead can make alive and he shall presently be saved i. e. healed viz. that looks upon it CHAP. VI. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. What is this wisdom which is given unto him And how is it that such Miracles are wrought by his hands For the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be joined with Wisdom which may be very great and yet separate in the Person that has it from the power of doing Miracles but it signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how And so the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very frequently rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used as Isai xxix 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should the work say of him that made it he made me not See afterwards Chap. ix 11 28 of this Gospel Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. According to the laws which he had prescribed to himself he could not there do any miracles For he did not use to work Miracles where he was not sought unto to work them or where no body believed that he was able to work them He could not therefore is as much as he would not The Evangelist to use the words of Hierocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of a moral and not a natural power And Hierocles is in the right when he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the necessity of the mind is more powerful than any external force with wise men See his Notes on Pythag. Aur. Carm. ver 8. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To reconcile these words with Matt. x. 10 it must be taken for certain in the first place that the Evangelists do not always set down the very words of Christ but very frequently only his sense as appears manifestly by comparing them together And then the sense may be the same tho at first sight the words seem to contradict one another Now the meaning of Christ here is only this that the Apostles were not to make any preparation or provision for their journey and that may as well be expressed in the words of one Evangelist as the other In St. Matthew it is Do not get any gold or silver or brass in your purses nor any satchel for your journey nor any staff for the workman is worthy of his food The plain meaning of this is that God would take care of those things which were necessary for the Apostles and therefore that they were immediately to set upon their Journey without making any preparation for it but just as they were If it happened that they had a Staff already in their hands there is no command given them to throw it away but if they had never a one they ave forbidden to get any or to furnish themselves with any thing that they then had not And this as to the sense is not contrary to what is here said in S. Mark He commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey save a staff only no satchel c. i. e. to begin their Journey just as they were when he spake to them with a staff only which some of them perhaps already had without getting any thing that they wanted If the words of both the Evangelists were to be expressed together in a Paraphrase they might most fitly be explained thus Go immediately and preach the Gospel provide no money nor clothes nor victuals for your Journey Those that have staves let them travel only with them and those that have none let them not get any but enter upon their Journey without They whom you preach the Gospel to God so ordering it will furnish you with all necessaries Vers 20. Note b. Dr. Hammond's Opinion may be confirmed by the Authority of the Glosses of Philoxenus in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by conservo to preserve and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservat tuetur preserves defends Vers 46. Note f. See my Notes on Gen. iv 8 CHAP. VII Vers 2. Note a. IT is true indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies polluted as well us common but the proper signification of it seems to be common whence by a Metaphor it was used to signify polluted because those things which are intended for common use are generally polluted by such use II. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot properly be said to be a part of the hand or arm but is the hand contracted to make the fist So Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fist or the shutting up of the fingers And Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the hand when a person has his fingers contracted It is rather the contraction of the hand than the hand it self but by a Metaphor it may signify the hand it self The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore is not properly to be washed up to the wrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Rabbins speak but to put the fist into water or to be washed with the hand contracted tho considered in it self the thing be much the same See Jos Scaliger upon Serarius cap. 7. and H. Grotius Palladius abused the word when he applyed it to the feet III. This Custom of washing the hands amongst the Jews had its rise in part from the Law Levit. xv 11 Whomsoever he that hath the issue toucheth and hath not washed his hands he shall wash his clothes c. The Jews thought that by this Law as they misunderstood it he that had been touched by one who had an Issue was presently to wash his hands or else he was obliged to wash his clothes and all his body And therefore when they came out of any mixed assembly of people amongst which there might possibly be some such unclean persons they immediately washed their hands But the not having the hands washed in that place of Moses relates to the man that had the issue and not to him whom he had touched Vers 4. Note c. In the beginning of this Note our Author speaking of Eupolis says Tragedy instead of Comedy for Eupolis was a Comedian and we have no account of his having ever wrote any Tragedy The Play called Baptae is said also to have been a Comedy and it 's certain that Poets did not use to inveigh against those that they had a hatred against in Tragedies but only in Comedies See the Scholiast upon Juvenal Sat. 2. v. 92. concerning this Comedy of Eupolis Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here our Author in his Paraphrase has these words and also of beds ON which they did eat then as NOW on tables Now it is certain that they had heretofore Tables to eat on as well as now but only whereas we sit upon chairs or benches they sat upon beds the
Meat was placed upon Tables as well as it is now tho the Guests sat upon beds And this I doubt not Dr. Hammond very well knew only he was not careful enough to avoid speaking improperly As for the reason why the beds in those Chambers where they dined were washed that was because possibly they might be polluted by some or other that sat upon them and so if they were not washed they might defile the next comers See Levit. xv 4 seqq Vers 22. Note d. Tho St. Paul charges those that boast with folly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it does not follow that that word signifies boasting and may be understood so when it is alone because all boasting indeed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not boasting Our Author very often imposes new significations upon words different from what they are used in tho it is certain that Use is the great thing that determins what words signify according to that of the Poet Quem penes arbitrium est jus norma loquendi That I may discuss therefore the ambiguity of this word by the use of it I observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things whereof one is a distemper of the brain and the other of the mind Sometimes it is taken for madness proceeding from some disease or disturbance of the brain without any fault in the patient And in this sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Person that is not in his right senses But this signification has no place here where the discourse is about a distemper of the mind And in this acceptation again it is used two ways first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies imprudent and is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prudent and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies imprudence in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prudence Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also intemperate contrary to which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 temperate as in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for intemperance and is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 temperance And in this last sense it is taken here in St. Mark for imprudence without malice which is very common does not pollute the mind out of which it proceeds But as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a habit and actions opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Intemperance and its usual effects are sins which do really defile the mind I need not bring many examples to prove that these words are used in the significations mentioned for they may be had out of Lexicons tho these do not sufficiently distinguish them I shall produce only a few I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mad in these words of Xenophon de Exped Cyri lib. 4. towards the end where he speaks of the honey of Colchis whereof the Greeks not knowing its nature had eaten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Soldiers that did eat of it became mad and vomited But the next day after as he tells us in what follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the same hour they came to their right senses again II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies imprudent and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imprudence Thus Homer Iliad Γ. ver 220. speaking of the outward appearance of Vlysses says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You would say that he was an angry sort of man and one that acted rashly and imprudently And Iliad H. ver 110. Menelaus desiring to fight with Hector in a single combat is commanded to abstain from that piece of imprudence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you have no need to be guilty of this imprudence III. Lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in contrary actions is used in the same latitude As in Xenophon lib. 3. de Instit Cyri not far from the beginning where after Tigranes had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that without temperance no other vertue is of any use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is several times opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then afterwards Tigranes adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have you never observed so much as one man that through intemperance i. e. transported with Anger or any other extravagant passion went to fight with one stronger than himself how after he was beaten his intemperance against that man was presently cooled So likewise among the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nabal signifies mad and intemperate and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nbalah madness and intemperance and the former is rendered in both senses by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the latter by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint See Psalm xiv 1 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mad does not signify one that is mad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through a bodily distemper or is imprudent through an error in his mind but a wicked evil man And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only folly but a bad or wicked action See Deut. xxii 21 Judg. xix 23 24. xx 6 10. And yet the Septuagint have in these places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Psal xiv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence it came to pass that Phavorinus and Suidas before him misinterpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is ignorant of the true God and unacquainted with the first principles of Wisdom Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this man was naturally deaf and dumb as Dr. Hammond seems to think the meaning of these words must be that he imitated rightly those sounds which he heard made by others for it was necessary that he should have some time allowed him to learn to discourse in even after that which obstructed his organs of speech was removed But if we suppose that whereas he heard and spake before readily he came by a disease to be deprived almost of his hearing and to speak with difficulty as Grotius thought then these words must be understood in their usual and obvious sense And this makes me prefer this Opinion to the former which is most agreeable also to the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot signify a dumb person any otherwise than figuratively CHAP. VIII Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho all divine Miracles are from Heaven i. e. from God yet I am apt to believe that here is meant such a Miracle as was seen by John the Baptist at the time when he baptized our Saviour viz. when the heavens were opened unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him and behold a voice from heaven saying This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is used to express the vehemence of the groan which Christ fetched upon this occasion just as Acts xvii 16 when St. Paul was at Athens and saw
the City filled with Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Spirit was stirred up within him which expression denotes the vehemence of the commotion that was in St. Paul's mind The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify barely the mind but the mind moved by some passion as the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which consult Schindler's Lexicon Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of these words is rightly expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase but he tells us in the Margin that the King's MS. and many printed Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet still these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make but harsh construction and I do not know but that the antient reading was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as trees that walk and so the meaning of the blind man will be that two sorts of objects presented themselves to him whereof one stood still viz. Trees and another which were also like Trees to his apprehension walked or were like walking Trees The Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and may as fitly be rendered I see men like walking trees as like trees walking Perhaps the Evangelist wrote as I said but the Transcribers would not endure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 walking trees CHAP. IX Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks that what is said here of the Jews that they had done to John whatsoever they would is said to have been foretold by Malachi because he called him Elias and this very thing says he shewed that he should not want Ahabs and Jezebels But this seems to have too much subtilty in it nor was it necessary that there should be a perfect similitude between John and Elias that he might be intended by the Prophet by his name I chuse rather to make the words as it is written of him to refer only to those Elias is come as if Christ had said Elias is come as it is written of him and they have done to him whatsoever they would the misplacing and cross ordering of words being usual in Scripture See my Notes upon Gen. xiii 10 As for the sense of this whole passage it is in the general well enough expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase but if we read Christ's words and would understand by what Dr. Hammond says the series or connection of his Discourse we shall find our selves disappointed I express it therefore thus 12. But Christ answered them it was requisite indeed that Elias should first come and call all the Jews to their duty that they might entertain the Messias who was suddenly to come amongst them in a fit manner nor was this Prophecy contrary to those by which it was foretold that the Messias should be ill treated by the Jews 13. For Elias also was already come who was John the Baptist intended for certain reasons by that name and had gone about to call the Jews to Repentance that they might be so disposed as persons ought to be who were to receive the Messias but the Jews had refused to hearken to that holy man yea and had killed him The words of the Evangelist must be rendered thus 12. And he answering said unto them Elias indeed must first come and restore all things But how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it written of the Son of Man that he must suffer many things and be set at nought 13. But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto you that both Elias is come and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would For the better understanding of these words there are these three things to be observed First That the Apostles understood the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the event whence they inferred that it was impossible that Christ should be killed by the Jews because he was not to enter upon his Reign till a great Reformation had been made among the People of the Jews by Elias But Christ's answer which is grounded upon matter of fact shews that this ought to be understood of the design of John's preaching and what it would have effected if the Jews had hearkened to it and not of what really came to pass That active Verbs do commonly signify a design and endeavour to do any thing tho it may be the event does not follow is known to every one See my Notes upon Gen. xxxvii 21 Secondly that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how c. contain another Objection which might be made against what Christ had said besides that which was made by the Apostles as the interrogatory Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews Thirdly That the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendered by attamen nevertheless or but yet according to its usual signification See 1 Cor. iv 4 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed as Grotius has observed superfluous in Luke xxii 2 as well as here but the construction in that place is different from what it is in this I know all that is said by others about this Particle but to me nothing seems more probable than that it proceeded from some Transcriber's repeating the last syllable of the foregoing word It is certain it is left out in Beza's antient copy and two others in the Barberine Library and that neither the Vulgar nor Syriack version take any notice of it Vers 49. Note e. I. That Christ's words here may be understood they must first be set down in Hebrew and then it must be shewn how fitly they are turned into Greek The expression in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every one shall be consumed by fire and every offering of corn shall be seasoned with salt And in the same manner it may be expressed in Syriack as appears from the Syriack Interpreter All the elegancy of the expression lies in the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jimmaleahh which signifies both salietur shall be seasoned with salt and absumetur shall be consumed which ambiguity cannot be expressed in Latin Nor is the Greek Language more fit for this purpose in which there is no word that signifies both to season with salt and to consume Which the Evangelist perceiving in imitation of the Septuagint and the Jews who spake Greek in Syria and Palestine he abused the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to be seasoned with salt by putting a new sense upon it And so Symmachus rendered afterwards the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Isai li. 6 for the Heavens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be consumed like smoke by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning therefore of Christ in these words is this that as every Corn-offering according to the Law extant in Levit. ii 13 was seasoned with salt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so likewise every bad man shall at last be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with
fire The conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefixed to the words every sacrifice is of the same import here as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as as it is afterwards Chap. x. 12 and John xiv 〈…〉 That which seems to have occasioned Christ's comparing bad m 〈…〉 sacrifices is partly his having made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order to describe the future condition of the wicked and partly his having mâ—â—â— mention of unquenchable fire such as was the fire of the Altar as Grotius has observed And so because the words by which he had described the Punishments of bad men had led him as it were to it he did not decline the using of such an ambiguity as might easily be understood by persons skilful in the Language he spake in And so likewise God in the books of the Prophets sometimes uses such kind of elegances proceeding from the ambiguity of words See Jer. i. 11 12. and at your leisure Mer. Casaubon in Diss de Lingua Hebraica II. The conjecture of Jos Scaliger is by Grotius and here by our Author deservedly rejected but he might have been more effectually confuted if they had observed that St. Mark did not want a proper Greek word whereby to express the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so that there was no need of his coining that new and unheard of word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which the Hebrews express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering to be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fire the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which often occurs in Euripides and Callimachus to mention no more Aquila who translated words according to their Etymologies could not have rendred the Hebrew word into Greek more fitly it being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fire as the Hebrew from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same signification Hesychius and Phavorinus interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifices which are burnt III. Nevertheless Dr. Hammond is mistaken when he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take signifies shall be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has that signification but this is not to be confounded with the tenses of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 50. Note f. I do not know whence the Doctor took the passage he speaks of out of Aeschines but he does not seem to have looked into Aeschines himself For it will appear to any one that reads the whole passage that it is to be understood of the provision which was allowed to the Embassadors out of the publick revenue The story in short is this Aeschines and Demosthenes were sent together as Embassadors to King Philip and eat at the same Table with the rest of the Embassadors throughout the whole journey nevertheless Demosthenes accused Aeschines and the rest of the Embassadors of having ill discharged their Commission And hereupon Aeschines p. 31. Ed. Stephani not far from the beginning charges him with practising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such Treachery towards his Companions at the same Table and in the same Embassy as a man would hardly be guilty of to his greatest Enemies And then it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he professes to have a high value for the salt of the City and the publick Table not being a Native of our Country c. So among the Latins the publick Corn that was allowed to the Military Tribunes and others was called Salarium CHAP. X. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being in Beza's antient Copy nor in the Syriack nor in the parallel place in St. Matthew may justly be suspected It is possible that some Transcriber thinking it not to be sufficient to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might add the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that the beginning of the World was spoken of But this was needless the beginning of the World being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence as it were See my Notes upon Gen. i. 1 Vers 12. Note a. See my Notes upon Mat. ix 14 and Grotius upon this place in St. Mark The sense of Christ's words is this Whosoever puts away his Wife and marries another ought to be reputed an Adulterer as a Woman that puts away her Husband and is married to another Man is an Adulteress The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which begins the 12 th Verse is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as as I observed before upon Chap. ix 49 In this respect Christ levels the Husband with the Wife whereas under the Law it was lawful for a Man to put away his Wife tho not for a Woman to put away her Husband Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This whole Passage is explain'd by Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in § 4. he sets it down but not without some alterations substituting synonimous words and correcting some Hebraisms in it which makes it probable to me that tho he did not indeed read the Passage so in his Copy yet thought however that it was all one whether he expressed it in the Evangelist's own words or in a little better Greek in compliance perhaps with critical Ears The beginning of it is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vers 19. Note b. What our Author says about the sense of the tenth Commandment is I grant true but we shall interpret both Moses and St. Mark more Grammatically if we understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those fraudulent methods by which a Person may endeavour to invade another man's Possessions For there are two ways of injuring our Neighbour viz. by Theft whether privately or by force against the will of the Owner and by taking away what belongs to another without any pretence of Right or Justice which is forbidden in the seventh Precept of the Decalogue or else by secret and cunning Devices where the Law and a pretence of Right is made use of to cover the Injury which is prohibited in the tenth Commandment whereby all such Artifices are made unlawful whether they prove successful or unsuccessful And this Christ here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to defraud So the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privo defraudo abnego to deprive to defraud to deny ones Trust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inficiatur he disowns or denies his Trust or the Debt charged upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fraus abnegatio denegatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fraudator fraudulentus inficiator See my Notes upon the Decalogue Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ here shews what sort of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rich Men they are that cannot heartily entertain his Doctrin viz. such as trust more in their Riches than to
strange Consult also Salmasius in the place before-mentioned Ibid. Note b. I grant the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify always to break when the discourse is about a thing which may be hurt without being broken as about a wounded Man or a bruised Reed but where the discourse is about a Vessel and especially such an one as is made of brittle matter it has ever that signification and whoever says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be rendered to break a Marble or Glass Vessel See Levit. vi 28.xi.33.xv.12 Rev. ii 27 And those that endeavour to put any other sense upon that Phrase here strain it Dr. Hammond's two first Reasons for another Interpretation I have confuted already in a Note upon the parallel place in St. Matthew The third together with the rest are I suppose taken out of Baronius and relie upon a nauseous Fable which is related in the following words by Suidas whom if our Author had but look'd into I believe he would never have made use of this Testimony Thus Suidas tells the story in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of some unknown Fable-maker as he used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crosses as Aemil. Portus has observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Market-place were buried the two Crosses of the two Thieves and the little Ointment Pot out of which Christ was anointed and many other remarkable things that were laid there by Constantine the Great but taken away by Theodosius the Great Suidas does not give the least intimation that he thought this silly Fable to be true he only tells it as he does many others as he had read it And therefore the Consequences that the Doctor draws from his Authority and Learning are insignificant Nay tho Suidas had said that he believed this Fable yet it would be much more likely that he had either forgot this Passage in St. Mark or that it did not come into his mind than that he thought the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify any thing different from what I have said it does Neither is there any more weight in the Argument which our Author grounds upon a Passage out of Pollux because the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify to open the Cruise and stir the Ointment about with a Spathula or Slice All the rest that he says is manifestly besides the cause because he considers the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstractly not as it is joined with the name of a brittle Vessel nor have I leisure to examine every thing particularly I conclude therefore that this Phrase is rightly translated in the vulgar Latin fracto alabastro See what I have said on the parallel place in St. Matthew Vers 54. Note f. What our Author says about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to have borrowed from Dan. Heinsius who may be consulted by those that have leisure Vers 72. Note i. The Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be separated by a Comma from the following word which is the Verb to that as its Nominative Case The opinion of Grotius which is by our Author mentioned in the second place is the most probable The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone does not signify to see or look upon but only when the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other like that is added to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part follows I am apt to think that in the place cited out of Phavorinus we ought after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to look upon any one is no Greek Phrase and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also must be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XV. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used to release as it is in St. Matthew Chap. xxvii 15 After this manner the future Tense in Hebrew and the aorist in Greek and the preterperfect in Latin is many times used See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word futurum and Rom. viii 29 30. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some Manuscripts it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reason of which is not as Grotius thought that some Greek Copies of this Gospel were altered to make them agree with the Latin Version for besides the Vatican mentioned by him but omitted in the Oxford Edit of the New Testament and the Manuscript that was sent by Beza to Cambridg the Copy also which those that made the Coptick and Gothick Translations used read it so which it is plain could never have it from the Latin Versions If we admit this reading the sense will not be inconvenient And the multitude going up into the Hall began to desire c. Vers 17. Note a. Concerning those things in this History which relate to the Roman Customs we must read the Philological Notes of that learned Lawyer Edm. Merillus upon the Passion who has treated of this matter on set purpose Add also what I have said about this place in St. Matthew Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is very well expressed by our Author in agreement with the Roman Custom in his Paraphrase For they used as in the night so also in the day time to give notice what hour it was by the sound of a Trumpet This appears from a Passage in Lucan lib. 2. ver 689. where speaking of Pompey's flight he describes him forbidding ne buccina dividat horas that his flight might be the more secret Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added for the sake of the uncircumcised Gentiles who were ignorant of the Jewish Customs Every Friday or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so called as Bochart in concurrence with others before him tells us Hieroz P. 1. lib. 2. cap. 50. p. 567. And not only the Jews but Christians also afterwards made use of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius upon Luke xviii 11 Vers 43. Note d. I rather think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand that dignity that Joseph was in among the Jews by being one of the Sanhedrim of LXXII Men or the lesser of xxiii For Arimathaea was not a Roman Colony CHAP. XVI Vers 18. Note c. I Will not undertake here to examine whether those antient and true Sibyls did foretel any thing concerning Christ but I shall observe that no such thing can be inferred from those Verses of Virgil for it is not necessary to suppose that the sense of that Sybil's words are so expressed by Virgil as to have no addition made to them Perhaps the Sybil had prophesied that after the tenth Age which was that of the Sun there should be another Golden Age and that Saying alone gave Virgil occasion
enough to describe that new Age just like that Golden one which was said by the Poets to have been in the Reign of Saturn And it was only in the Silver Age as they tell us that Serpents became poisonous which in the Golden Age had no Poison This we are told to go no farther by Virgil himself Georg. 1. ver 128. Ille viz. Jupiter malum virus serpentibus addidit atris Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius has very well observed that this form of Speech is borrowed from the Custom of Kings who use to command those whom they have a mind to confer the highest Honour upon to sit at their right-hand See his Notes upon Mat. xx 21 The Greek Poets speak also in the same manner concerning the Heathen Gods as that great man has shewed by an Example out of Pindar And if you please you may add this out of Callimachus about Apollo in his Hymn consecrated to that God ver 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollo will honour this Quire because it sings to please him for he is able since he sits at Jupiter's right-hand But this might by the Poets who fancied their Gods to be in the shape of men be understood properly the difficulty is how S. Mark who had quite another Notion of God understood this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpreters tells us that it is a Metaphor and must be understood to signify only the great Glory to which Christ was exalted and nothing more And it is certain that this Expression of the right hand of God if by God we understand the divine Nature considered in it self must needs be metaphorical but is it not something odd that a Christian Historian should in a naked account of things make use of such a Metaphor So it will seem if I am not mistaken to those that attentively consider it And therefore perhaps for I affirm nothing positively we ought rather by the Word God to understand a Light inaccessible to any but Christ which is a Symbol of the divine Presence and on the right side of which he whom the Father hath made King of Heaven and Earth sits And this is that which the Martyr Stephen seems to have seen when he beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God viz. of that inaccessible Light or Glory of which see my Notes upon Exod. xxxiv 18 For without doubt properly speaking he did not see God and to say that when it is affirmed of him that he saw Jesus on the right hand of God the meaning is that he saw him in the enjoyment or possession of the highest Glory is harsh and unnatural See also Matth. xxvi 2 and Mark xiv 62 Let the Learned consider whether this be not what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also intended in Chap. xii 2 where he says that Jesus is set down at the right hand of God I have not time at present to prosecute these things at large Which I mention lest the Reader should think that I had too slightly passed over a Subject which deserves to have a great many Thoughts spent upon it ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Luke CHAP. I. Vers 1. Note a. I. IT might have been said without any more ado that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to certify or assure and is properly spoken of persons Thus in the collections of Ctesias Cap. xxxviii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having by many words and oaths assured Megabizus So in Socrates Orat. Trapezit pag. 360. Ed. H. Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he knew for certain that I had in the hearing of a great many witnesses denied that I had any thing And from hence the word being applied to things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such things which we are sure are true as in this place in St. Luke as the following words shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no where signifies to come to pass or to be fulfilled where the Discourse is concerning a Prophecy II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to comply with or satisfy a desire for so the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies As in the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 morigero satisfacio Agreable hereto is the Latin phrase explere animum libidinem c. And which is much to the same sense the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to fulfil his trust or office which the Latins express by implere partes officii sui numeros omnes implere III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often of the same signification with the simple verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is rendred by plenitudo satisfactio fulness satisfaction What is further observable about this word Dr. Hammond has here set down Vers 2. Note b. I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those which have fulfilled their office of preaching the Gospel pursuant to Christ's Command The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for the Gospel See Act. iv 4 c. In the same phrase almost the office of such Persons is described by St. Luke in Act. vi 4 where he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministry of the word or Gospel II. The reason why St. John calls the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have shewn in my Animadversions upon St. John Chap. i. 1 I cannot tell whether our Author thought that the Chaldee Paraphrasts lived before Christ's time but there are a great many things in them which make it probable that they are of a later date Besides the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord which is so often used by them does not signify a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or subsistence as has been shewn by a learned man in a Discourse intitled de sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldaeos tho I am not in all things of his opinion III. In what sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was known to the antient Heathens I have shewed in the forementioned Animadversions out of older Authors than Amelius Amelius's Testimony is extant in Eusebius Praep. Evang. Lib. xi cap. 9. Vers 27. Note f. Our learned Author trusting too much to his memory vainly contends that the preposition ב in Malachi iv 6 ought to be rendered with not to for it is the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not ב that is used in that place of Malachi and he shall turn the fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon or to the children and the heart of the children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon or to their fathers It seems to be a proverbial form of speech to signify that John was to call the Jews who were at very great variance among themselves to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diogenes said That he that would be saved must either have good Friends or furious Enemies For Diogenes who was a despiser of Riches and all those things that related to the Body considered nothing but the safety of the Mind I have met with several other Examples to the same purpose which I cannot at present remember but these are more than enough CHAP. XIV Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius upon this place and how he corrects St. Austin for his most shameful abuse of it for it deserves to be called no better And yet there are some that resolve still to follow St. Austin contrary to all the rules of Grammar the nature of the Christian Religion and common Sense it self Nay there is a late Enthusiastical upstart a contemptible Woman's follower that has foolishly attempted to skim over and defend St. Austin's Opinion tho he either never read him or never understood him and he every where falls foul upon the Criticks for not interpreting the words of Scripture according to the wild fancies of crackbrain'd Women but according to the nature of things themselves and the constant use of Languages But this Passage alone is enough to shew us of what advantage Grammar or if you please Criticism is to the right interpretation of Scripture seeing St. Austin who was otherwise a very ingenious man but an absolute stranger to this sort of Learning did so wretchedly force and misinterpret this Passage and make use of it to defend the most cruel Opinion imaginable Add to what Grotius has said upon this place my Notes upon Gen. xix 13 If there were any sort of force here intended it must be that which God makes use of by his severe and afflictive Providences which do often constrain as it were wicked men to live better than they did before tho gentler methods had been ineffectual to reform them There is an elegant Passage and a true one if we do but change the word Gods into God to this purpose in Aeschylus in Agamemn not far from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Even the unwilling have grown wise by force through a particular favour of the Gods who sit in a venerable Seat But whatever God does doubtless men ought not to force their fellow Creatures to be of their Perswasion Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because Proverbs and proverbial forms of Speech are commonly grounded upon what is really done when the matter of them is something possible I have been ready sometimes to imagin that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not to be understood of Salt properly speaking because that which is here said of Salt neither does nor ever can happen to it For First Salt is never infatuated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Salt which keeps its savour is not fit either for the Land or for the Dunghil Thirdly When it is infatuated it is not CAST OVT What if we should suppose therefore that Wood-ashes was by the Husbandmen called Salt They it 's certain are 1. infatuated if they are washed or soak'd in Water as it happens when they are made use of for the cleansing of foul Linen And 2. after they have been thus soaked in water they are unfit to be used as a means to enrich the ground either alone or mixed with dung because it was only the Salt that was in them before their being so soaked which made them proper for that purpose And if they be spread upon the Land before the Salt is washed out they serve very much to make it fruitful either by themselves or else mixed with dung And 3. when they are infatuated that is when all the Salt Particles are washed out of them they used rather to be cast out into the way or street than upon a dunghil or the fields But I confess I can produce no Example to shew that these Wood-ashes were called Salt and therefore I affirm nothing peremptorily But let the Learned consider what there may be in this Conjecture CHAP. XV. Vers 16. Note b. OF this Fruit Salmasius hath treated at large in his Exercit. Plin. in Solin p. 326. seqq Ed. Vltraj who may be consulted by those that are curious about such matters However it is no where said by Pliny that this Fruit was ordinary among the Egyptians nay on the contrary he denies as Theophrastus had done before him that it grew in Egypt Lib. 13. c. 8. but affirms that it was common in Syria so that in this also our Author is mistaken Consult Salmasius Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 H. Grotius thinks that as we ought not to be superstitious in searching for Allegories in every part of a Parable so neither ought we to overlook them when they are suggested by the agreement of what is said in Parables with other places of Scripture And therefore if we believe him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Robe here signifies that constant innocency of Life which by God's Grace a Person who has receiv'd so much mercy from him is enabled to persevere in And for this he refers us to Rev. vi 11 vii 13 14. xix 8 Now I do not indeed deny but that a white Robe is taken sometimes for an Emblem of Innocence but I say that there is nothing said of that here and that the bestowing of the precious Robe signifies the Father's Joy for the return of his Son so that we are not to consider the Robe in it self but only the Father's Affection in giving it He tells us also as the Antients have done before him that by the Ring we are to understand the Gift of the Holy Ghost by which we are sealed as the Apostle Paul speaks 2 Cor. i. 21 But this part of the Parable likewise is only a farther description of the Father's Joy for the safe return of his prodigal Son whom he thought to have been lost and mourned upon that account And to represent this Joy to us Christ makes use of Similitudes taken from the received custom for at that time a Superior could not confer a greater Honour upon his Inferior than by bestowing a Ring and a Robe upon him Of which we have an Example in Gen. xli 42 See my Notes on the place The best way therefore had been to look only to the main scope of the Parable which is sufficiently plain and not to insist upon the significancy of every particular word For whatsoever may be said of that kind tho not altogether frivolous is certainly besides Christ's design and has no other foundation than the ingenious fancy of the Interpreter But that learned Expositor had put almost all the principal Observations which he had to make upon the three first Gospels in his Notes upon St. Matthew and therefore he could not be large upon the two following and sometimes that he might not be wholly
silent he was forced to say a great many far-fetch'd things and now and then intermix Allegories in his Annotations Tho I would not have this taken as an Argument that I have the least undervaluing thought of that incomparable Man CHAP. XVI Vers 9. Note b. IT is most true that there are a great many Verbs used in the Scripture without any Nominative case to them and that therefore we must supply that defect in our own thoughts unless they be impersonal Verbs See my Notes upon Gen. xi 9 and my Index to the Pentat on the word Persona But this Observation can have no place in 1 Sam. xxi 8 because it holds only when the Verb is in the third person masculine and in that place it is in the feminine Vers 12. Note c. This interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the learned Doctor 's leave a mere nicety The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken here in a Philosophical sense for that which does not belong to the Mind and is such as may be taken away from us against our will as Riches And on the other hand that which Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that which pertained to the minds of those whom he spake to and could not be taken away from them against their wills viz. the Truths of the Gospel The meaning of Christ in this place is that those who abused their Riches and could not obtain of themselves to employ them to better purposes were unfit to receive the true Gospel riches as they ought and would not use them better than they did the other Nothing is more common among the Philosophers and especially the Stoicks than this distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pricaeus upon this place has given us some Examples of it and a great many more might be added out of Epictetus only Thus Enchirid. Cap. 1. telling us what things are not in our power he instances in the Body Riches Honours Empires and in a word saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing but our own Works And Cap. 2. he says that those things which have their dependence on us cannot by any one be hindered but those which are not in our power are weak obnoxious to servitude and a great many impediments in fine they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cap. 3. he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Remember therefore that if thou thinkest those things which are servile to be free and those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anothers to be thy own thou wilt be hindered but if thou countest that only to be thy own which is thy own and that which is anothers to be as it is another then no body will compel thee c. See likewise his â—â—rger Discourses Lib. 3. c. 24. I have also taken notice of a word borrowed from the Stoicks in a Note on Mat. xix 28 Vers 19. Note d. This Translation which the Doctor gives us of the Parable set down in Gemara Babyl is partly according to the words in the Hebrew and partly according to the Latin Version of R. Sheringamus and taken from thence and this has led our exact Author into a mistake which ought indeed easily to be forgiven him but whereby it appears that Learned Men are overseen sometimes when they seem to be most exact That part of the Parable which there is a mistake in the Doctor 's Translation is word for word according to the Talmudical Dialect thus A King of Flesh and Blood made a great Feast and called to it all the Children of his City There came a certain poor Man and stood at the Gate c. Sheringamus in Praef. ad Cod. Joma sets down this Parable in Hebrew and Latin and with more freedom than ordinary translates the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to have been rendred omnes filios urbis suae by multos hospites And Dr. Hammond knowing that the word hospes is sometimes used in the same Notion with exterus or peregrinus and not sufficiently considering that the Discourse here was about Guests translates that by Strangers whereas it is very manifest that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify Citizens i. e. Persons belonging to the same City And this I have thought fit here to take notice of not out of a captious humor but only to warn the Reader that he ought not to be too severe a Judg of those mistakes which the Learned sometimes fall into through want of care since we err sometimes when we are most careful But I have this farther to add that I cannot see any reason why this Parable should be thought to be the same with that here in St. Luke when all the likeness that there is between them is only that the subject of them both is a rich Man and a Beggar But their scope is quite different Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato in Phaedone S. 41. however he came by the Notion has a Passage much to this purpose for he supposes the Souls of good men to have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods who accompany and conduct them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into their proper place Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Titus Bostrensis Pag. 808. C. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did not say cruel and inhuman wretch c. but what my Son saith he CHAP. XVII Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word the Doctor in his Paraphrase interprets an hired Servant but the proper Greek word for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the name of a Slave I know the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the New Testament in both these senses but there is no mention made here of any hire or reward due for service and I do not see any reason why we should depart from the most usual signification of the word Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Master whose Authority over his Servant is absolute is not obliged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to thank that Servant who does nothing but what he is commanded for the condition of a Slave is such that he is bound to do whatsoever he is ordered and is able to do But on the other hand a Hireling is not obliged to perform any servile Offices against his will Having agreed with his Master for such a reward for such or such work he cannot be compelled against his will to any other employments and if he voluntarily undertake them he ought to be thanked for it It was the general Notion of Masters that giving attendance was the peculiar office of a Slave whose condition was such that nothing which he did was looked upon as an obligation by his Master They are the words of Seneca Lib. 3. c. 18. de Bâ—nefic who nevertheless contrary to the vulgar opinion affirms that a Master may
receive a benefit from his Slave But Christ here speaks of Masters that use the utmost rigour and according to the received Notion and Custom I shall only add that our Author has admirably connected this Parable with what goes before in his Paraphrase CHAP. XVIII Vers 5. Note b. THO the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come from the same Primitive yet they cannot therefore be compared with one another for we ought not to consider the significations of their Primitives but the words from which they are most immediatly derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that part of the face or countenance which lies just under the eye and is taken also for a blue Scar caused by a bruise given to that part And because the pugils or cussers used often to strike those parts with their Fists the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signified sugillare to give one a black and blue Eye as it is rendered in the Old Glosses Afterwards the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was metaphorically used to signify disgrace or infamy as by Cicero and Nilus And in the same sense also the Latins often used the words nota and plaga And from this signification of the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came to signify as in this place to defame just as among the Latins likewise the Verb sugillare which is properly to give one a blow upon the Eye signifies also the same with infamare And in this sense undoubtedly it is that the Greek is rendered in the vulgar by sugillare and that rightly The unjust Judg was afraid lest the Woman should defame him and ruin his reputation every where where she went by her cries and complaints The proper signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to its etymology is indeed that which our Author says but where the discourse is of God it signifies only to beg so as to obtain and we ought not to insist upon the original of the word for to put God to shame is a phrase that must needs seem intolerable to all but such as are not ashamed when they speak never so clownishly or improperly of which number certainly was the Doctor whose want of expression was equal to his learning The Heathens perhaps would not scruple saying that they put their Gods to shame but I should hardly forgive a Christian that would speak in that manner of God CHAP. XIX Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a Synechdoche saith Grotius for the house is put for the master of the house But I rather think that it is put as it most usually signifies for the Family which by the Master's example might be reduced to a better life or for his Wife and Children who perhaps imitated the one her Husband and the other their Father Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Tho the meaning of Christ in this Parable be sufficiently plain and rightly enough explained by the Doctor yet he did not see the reason of its being so conceived or worded by Christ neither ought Christ to be understood to speak of an independent King or one that went to take possession of a Kingdom which he had a natural right to But he took this Parable from the custom of the Kings of his time who reigned rather by the courtesy of the Roman Emperors than by any privilege of birth Such as all those were who were in Judaea from the time of Herod the Great They could not take the Scepter in their hands without the permission of those who had the supreme Government at Rome Herod the Great took a long Journey that he might obtain the Kingdom of Judaea from Antonius and he did not go in vain for as Josephus tells us Antiq. Jud. Lib. 14. c. 25 26. he went out of Judaea to Rome and thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having received the Kingdom he returned into Judaea And afterwards he took another Journey that he might have his Kingdom confirmed to him by Caesar as we are told by the same Historian Lib. 15. cap. 10. And his Successors were forced to do the same as that Author likewise informs us Lib. 17. cap. 13. Against these the Jews sometimes sent Embassies to Rome either to hinder the Kingdoms being conferred upon them or else that they might procure their being deposed So they accused Archelaus to Caesar by their Embassadors at that Court see Cap. 11 15. of that Book And this shews us the reason why this Parable here is so conceived which it is impossible to learn by our Author's Paraphrase Archelaus for example was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man of noble birth for he was the Son of Herod And this Nobleman went into a far Country viz. Italy to receive for himself the Kingdom of Judaea and to return into Judaea But his Citizens hated him and sent a message after him saying to Caesar we will not have this man to reign over us which nevertheless they could not obtain And so he returned having received the Kingdom or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Josephus speaks And severely punished those Enemies of his who would not that he should reign over them What is said here by Interpreters about the Grammatical sense of this Parable give me leave to say it is very obscure in comparison of this Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius who is followed therein by a great many others thought that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signified any sort of Linen cloth But I believe it is to be understood properly of that particular piece of Linen which serves to wipe the sweat off the Face and which used in Latin to be called Orarium a Handkerchief as has been proved at large by Is Casaubon and Cl. Salmasius upon Aurelian And this as it is now being constantly wore served People for want of a Purse to tie and wrap up their money in which is also sometimes still practised Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of this St. Matthew hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathering where thou hast not scattered which is to the same sense But St. Luke seems to have expressed this proverbial form of speech most exactly which had its rise from a Law common to the Jews with many other Nations Quae non posuisti ne tollito What thou hast not laid down do not take up Of which Law see my Notes on Levit. vi 3 This was a kind of theft but because those that found any thing after it was lost could not be prosecuted at Law as being for the most part alone when they found it and telling no body of their good Fortune such as restored what they had so found to the right owner were looked upon as fair and just men who acted from religious Principles and not the fear of human Laws And on the other hand a covetous or greedy person
〈◊〉 which properly signifies a military Captain or Commander whereas the Levites were no Soldiers And this is undoubtedly the reason why Dr. Hammond thought it was the Tribune who was set over the Roman Garison that was called by that name But he and others who have fallen into the same mistake should have remembred that the sacred Functions of the Levites are more than once stiled by Moses a Warfare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Num. viii 24 25. where the Septuag have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore he that was chief over the Levites might very well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Greek is usually rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Doctor upon Chap. xxiii 11 Note a. CHAP. XXIII Vers 11. Note a. HAVE a care of thinking that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies to serve or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Servants The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is applied sometimes to the service of the Levites is therefore made use of because it signifies congregari to assemble or gather together as the Levites used to do about the Tabernacle or Temple or because they were God's garison Soldiers who came together for the defence of the Temple not because that word ever signifies to serve Timothy is called a good Soldier not simply as a Servant of God but as a fighter in God's cause tho the thing considered in it self be the same yet the significations of words are various and it is not all one whether we say a Servant or a Soldier tho both may be said sometimes of the same Person Our Author therefore here looked for a knot in a Bulrush when it had been easy to understand the word here used of Herod's guard Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Cambridg Copy here reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in a great many other places there is as great a variation as this between it and other Copies which discovers it to be a sort of a Paraphrase Vers 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He acknowledged the truth he confessed that Jesus was indeed the Person whom he would have himself believed to be That this is the meaning of this Phrase appears by the following words saying truly this was a Just Man and just in the same manner it is used in Chap. v. 26 of this Gospel and in Josh vii 19 And therefore Grotius who interprets it he acknowledged the power of God and our Author who follows him in his Paraphrase are mistaken CHAP. XXIV Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Their Sorrow was so great that they had not sufficiently taken notice nor looked stedfastly enough upon the Man that had joined himself to their Company to know him to be Jesus So Hagar was so overwhelmed with Grief at the thoughts of her Son 's dying that she did not see or did not take notice of the Well of Water that was just by her Gen. xxi 19 And so when it is said afterwards Vers 31. of this Chapter that the same Disciples Eyes were opened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is nothing but this that looking more stedfastly upon Christ they knew him which very Phrase is used in the story of Hagar in the same sense Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Pious and Eloquent not like the Pharisees who talked very big of Virtue without practising it and were powerful men in words but not works which was the general reproach cast upon the Philosophers among the Heathens Cebes Thebanus in his Table describing a true Philosopher tells us that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prudent Man and mighty in Wisdom both in Word and Deed See Acts vii 22 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These two Disciples of Christ do not seem to have spoken with the Women themselves but only to have heard the report of others by which means they came to know but half the Truth for the Women affirmed that they had also seen Jesus himself Nor can this seem strange since it is evident from the 21 st verse that these Disciples went from Jerusalem the same day that Christ rose from the Dead a very few Hours after his Resurrection and so could not have a perfect knowledg of all the Circumstances of it Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Gen. xix 2 Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they besought him instantly so 2 Kings v. 16 Naaman the Syrian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 urged or importuned Elisha to take the Gift which he refused for curing him of his Leprosy See note on Chap. xiv 23 Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he went out of the Room on a sudden and they could not possibly understand whether he was gone for it is not necessary to suppose that he became invisible before he went out of the Room Pindar uses the same word of Pelops who had conveyed himself away but certainly without becoming invisible Olympion 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he you disappeared So afterwards vers 36. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he came amongst them on a sudden and before they were aware Vers 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. by his explaining the Scriptures to them whereby they came to perceive that there were several things spoken of Christ which they did not before take notice of For Christ had not as yet given them the Holy Ghost and it appears from Acts i. 6 that after all these Discourses of his they did not understand the nature of Christ's Kingdom In my Ars Critica I have interpreted this Phrase more at large Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Luke who often omits several Circumstances which are related by the other Evangelists joins together several Discourses that were delivered by Christ at different times and here in this place he seems to connect these words with the foregoing tho they were spoken by Christ many days after for he said the former on the very day of his Resurrection but these latter were not spoken till after the Apostles were come back from Galilee Compare these things with the History of the other Evangelists ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. John NB. Tho Mr. Le Clerc did not insert this Paraphrase and Animadversions on the 18 first Verses of the first Chapter of this Gospel in his Latin Edition of Dr. Hammond because it had been publish'd twice before yet 't was thought fit for the convenience of English Readers and to make the Work more complete to put it here in its proper place The Author's Preface to the 2 d Edition of his Paraphrase on the first eighteen Verses I Have already in the first Edition of this little Commentary given the Reasons which induced me to publish it and therefore I shall not here repeat them I freely give my consent to the reprinting of it because it is my interest to have
my thoughts concerning the beginning of St. John's Gospel publickly known I have so confuted Socinus as yet sufficiently to intimate that I intend not to publish any Theological Disputations about those things in which I disagree with him and have expresly said so in a former Preface to these Animadversions For that reason I have not affirmed that the Father Son and Holy Ghost do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same manner but that each has his peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor was I under any obligation to do so from the thing it self for Philo to whom St. John seems to have had a respect in the beginning of this his Gospel did not deny that the Father the first begotten Son and the Soul of the World had their several distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Evangelist corrects only what that Alexandrian Philosopher said concerning Reason or the Son Some have been disgusted with my rendering the Greek word which is usually translated Word or Sermo discourse by Reason But I intreat them first throughly to consider the Reasons I have given for that rendring of it and then to remember that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in it self ambiguous and may as well be translated Reason as Word And tho this latter signification obtained in the West because of the unskilfulness of the old Latin Interpreter or if you please the poverty of the Latin Language yet the Greek Fathers do shew when they treat of this matter that they understood Reason by it no less than Word see Dion Petav. Dogm Theolog. T. 2. Lib. 6. c. 1. Nay the Latin Fathers also themselves who examined the Greek word made use of by St. John do acknowledg that we ought rather to understand Reason by it than what the Latins call Verbum when they say that they do not understand by it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum prolatum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insitum or an internal not an external word for what is an internal word but Reason or reasoning Besides the whole Christian Church both Greek and Latin do frequently confound the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom which is the same with Reason but vastly different from a word uttered or pronounced So that tho I have receded in some measure from the custom of the Latins as to the sound yet not at all as to the thing it self If any object that the word Reason signifies rather a Quality than a Substance let them shew me that the term Word is any fitter than that to signify a Substance and I engage to revoke publickly all that I have said But if any one think he may make use of an improper word because it was generally used by the Latin and those unlearned men let him give me leave to make use of one that is altogether as proper because it was constantly used by the most learned Greek Fathers In the mean time let him permit me to intend by the word Reason that which if he were asked the meaning of the term Word he would be forced to express by internal discourse i. e. reasoning And lastly let him hear what Tertullian says in Lib. adversus Praxeam Cap. 5. where he discourses thus Ceterum ne tunc quidem solus Deus nempe erat habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis etiam Deus Ratio in ipso priùs ita ab ipso omnia Quae Ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis i. e. imperitiam interpretandi Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis Rationem competat antiquiorem haberi quia non Sermonalis à principio sed Rationales Deus etiam ante principium quia ipse quoque sermo Ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suam ostendat c. But neither then was he alone viz. God for he had with him his Reason which he had within himself God is Rational also and Reason was before in him and so all things were of him Which Reason is his Sense This the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word also we use to signify Sermo And therefore it is become the common custom among us through a simplicity of interpretation i. e. an unskilfulness in interpreting to say that Discourse Sermo was in the beginning with God whereas it would be more proper to say that Reason was so which is more antient because God was in the beginning not sermonal but rational even before the beginning and because Discourse it self depending upon Reason does shew that to be prior to it as its substance c. CHAP. I. SOME who have joined the study of the Heathen Philosophy with the Profession of the Jewish or Christian Religion have took upon them to teach a great many things concerning the Divine REASON LIFE and LIGHT and the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God which they have inculcated upon their Disciples as points of Faith of the greatest moment And because what they have asserted is neither all true nor all false that we may know what we are to reject and what we are to admit of I shall in few words set down that which is agreeable to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ before I enter upon his History Verse 1. In the beginning was REASON and that REASON was with GOD and GOD was that REASON 1. It is true before the Creation of the World there was REASON for REASON was then in GOD yea GOD himself since God cannot be without REASON 2. The same was in the beginning with GOD. 2. There was I say REASON in GOD before the World was created 3. All things were made by it and without it was not any thing made that was made 3. For every thing in the World was made with the highest REASON nor can any one thing be instanced in that was created without REASON 4. In it was LIFE and this LIFE was the LIGHT of Men. 4. Heretofore was lodged only in this REASON a full and complete knowledg of the way that leads to Eternal LIFE and this Knowledg wanted only to be communicated to Men to be a sufficient LIGHT to guide them in their pursuit after that LIFE 5. And the LIGHT shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not 5. And now that LIGHT has been brought down upon Earth amongst Men and has shined for many years past upon the way that leads to LIFE but the greatest part of Mankind chuse rather to wander in the darkness of Ignorance than to make use of that LIGHT 6. There was a Man sent by God his name was John 7. The same came for a Witness to bear witness of the LIGHT that all Men through him might believe 6 7. John the Son of Zacharias was sent by
God to the Jews to shew them in whom that LIGHT resided and by bearing witness to him openly to induce them to believe on him 8. He was not the LIGHT but was sent to bear witness of the LIGHT 8. But John had not this LIGHT in himself nor was it the end of his Coming to make Men partakers of that LIGHT but only by his Testimony to procure Credit and Authority to him who had that LIGHT among the Jews 9. That LIGHT was the true LIGHT which came into the World and lightneth every Man 9. In that Man and no other resided this LIGHT which in the most excellent Sense deserves only to be so called and which now shines among Men so that every one who will but follow this Light may be sure of being brought to eternal LIFE 10. REASON was in the World and the World was made by it but the World knew it not 10. And he in whom that LIGHT was conversed for some time among Men but they notwithstanding their having been created by the Divine REASON which dwelt in that Man did not distinguish him from false Teachers 11. It came to its own but it s own received it not 11. Nay he lived amongst those who alone were called the People and Children of God and yet they did not know the Doctrin of their God 12. But to as many as received it it gave power to become the Sons of God even to them that believe on its Name 12. But all that embraced his Divine Revelations were thereupon made God's People and taken tho they were not Jews into the number of his Children 13. Who were born not of Blood nor of the will of the Flesh nor of the will of Man but of God 13. Tho they were neither Jews by Birth nor by Marriages nor Proselytes yet God was pleased freely to honour them with that Title 14. And that REASON was made Flesh and dwelt among us we beheld its Glory the glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father full of Grace and Truth 14. That REASON which I before spake of and asserted to have been with GOD from the beginning yea to have been GOD himself and in which was LIFE and the LIGHT of Men did not always as I said conceal it self from us but by the Man in whom it was became conspicuous and dwelt for some time among us We saw the majesty of the Divine REASON which was never before beheld discovering it self in that Man as it became him who is the SON of God not in that manner that we are but in a manner peculiar and proper to himself alone That Eternal REASON made it self visible and manifest to us in him and shewed it self Merciful and Gracious to us 15. John bare witness of him and cried saying This was he of whom I spake He that is to come after me is preferred before me because he was before me 15. John bare witness concerning this Man openly and declared him to be the Person whom he had described in these words He that is to come after me shall be greater than I. 16. And of his Fulness have we all received and Grace for Grace 16. From that Knowledg wherewith the divine REASON hath MOST FULLY enlightned that Man all the Knowledg that every one of us have is derived and by him we are assured that the Mercy and Goodness of God to us is such as that for all the GRACE and Favour which he resolved to shew us and those great Benefits which flow from his Love towards us he requires nothing in return but a GRATEFUL Mind 17. For the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ 17. For whereas Moses published Laws in which he imposed most grievous and burdensom Rites upon the Jews and threatned with Death those who did not punctually observe them Jesus who is the true CHRIST and in whom the Divine REASON resides came to assure us of the Goodness and Mercy of God in pardoning all our past Sins and easing us of that intolerable Mosaical Yoke 18. No Man hath seen God at any time the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON which is in the bosom of the Father has been his Interpreter 18. Before that Will or Purpose of God was not fully uuderstood by any but he of whom I spake the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of GOD who was singularly and peculiarly beloved by his Father was sent by God to declare it to us BEFORE I come to enquire severally into the sense of the words here made use of by the Evangelist I must endeavour to ascertain some things on which the Interpretation I shall afterwards give of them will in a great measure depend As first I shall examin whether this Gospel as I my self think it is and all the Antients universally almost affirm be justly attributed to the Apostle John there being some in our Age who treading in the steps of the antient Alogi a sort of Hereticks so called and described by Epiphanius in Haeres 51. endeavour to bring that opinion into question Secondly I shall enquire into the time when it was written And lastly where St. John writ it and what was the occasion and design of his beginning his Gospel in this manner 1. That the Apostle JOHN was the Writer of this Gospel the Antients do universally as I said affirm whose Testimony in a matter of this nature cannot by any one be rendered invalid unless he can plainly make it appear that the Antients were all mistaken and shew us at the same time the occasion and original of their mistake For to justify our dissent from the most antient Christian Writers who saw the Disciples of St. John and testify that they heard this affirmed by them and to charge the Christian Churches of that Age with Error who read this Gospel as the genuin product of the Apostle John it is not sufficient to propose some slight conjectures or shew a Metaphysical possibility if I may so speak of their erring But to make it credible that they were all really mistaken and that so soon after St. John's death there must be those evident proofs given of their mistake as none of the weighty reasons I shall hereafter alledg can be thought sufficient to cope with For it is absurd against most probable Arguments and such as in another case we should acquiesce in to object bare suspicions or conjectures which have not the least appearance of likelihood in them and prefer these to the former merely because the opinion which we have espoused and are resolved to maintain makes it necessary for us to think that those conjectures are of great weight It is just as if one that was accused of writing bad Latin upon comparing and examining it with Livy's who was certainly a very clean Writer should therefore begin to doubt whether the History which goes under Livy's name and which all the Antients with one consent attribute to him were really his and proposing some very
slight conjectures against it should think he had rendered the Authority of that History questionable and because it might possibly have been written by some other pretend that no body ought to produce any testimony out of it ever after And yet this they do who as I understand go about to rob the Apostle John of that Gospel which has always been reckoned his as I shall briefly shew by producing some of the most antient Testimonies to that purpose which are well enough known already to learned Men but it may be not so well to those for whose sake I now write who seldom spend much time in reading the Writings of the Antients The first Testimony I shall mention and the most antient of all is at the end of St. John's Gospel it self Chap. xxi 24 where after a Prediction delivered by Christ concerning the great Age that St. John should live to it is immediately added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. THIS is the Disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things and we KNOW that his Testimony is true We may read what Grotius says in his Notes on Chap. xx 29 and Dr. Hammond on this place it self Where those great men have shewn that this is the Testimony of the Church of Ephesus whereby it appears that from the very first this Gospel was thought to be the Apostle John's even by those who lived and conversed with him which is a certain evidence of its being genuine because this Testimony was given by Persons who lived at the time when it was written and might certainly know who was the Author of it Nor let any one say that this Testimony or this whole Chapter was an addition put in by some other a considerable time afterwards for it is read in all the Copies and all Interpreters acknowledg it Another proof of this may be taken out of Justin Martyr who when a Child might perhaps have seen St. John himself And he in that Apology which is commonly called his second and which he presented to Antoninus Pius in the year of Christ 140. where he describes the sacred Assemblies of the Christians says that in them were read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commentaries of the Apostles pag. 98. Ed. Paris Colon. By which he means the Gospels as appears by what he says a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostles in their Commentaries which are called the Gospels c. And tho he does not very often cite the Apostles words themselves in those Writings of his which are extant yet he frequently alludes to them and particularly to the beginning of St. John's Gospel from whence he took what he says in several places about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Incarnation and which he every where sets down as points of Faith generally received among Christians Which he durst not to have done unless he had relied upon the Authority of the Apostles for who among the Orthodox would have presumed first to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was commonly abused by the Valentinians and others at that time Who would have ventured to make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might easily by bad or unwary men have been perverted to a wrong sense unless an Apostle had first used it It belonged only to the Apostles who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspectors of Mysteries and not to the ordinary sort of Mystae to use new words in such kind of matters for they alone might safely impose new names upon things above the reach of human understanding who understood them better than others and so as none ever did without a particular Inspiration I know indeed this was not observed in later times but in those first it unquestionably was Now Justin frequently makes mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all know that have but occasionally read any thing in his Writings I shall produce only one or two passages out of the forementioned Apology In pag. 74. he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Power next to the Father and Lord of all things God and the Son is the Reason which how it became man by being incarnated I shall afterwards shew And hence pag. 83. he affirms that all mankind who follow the direction of Reason are also partakers of Christ And adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who lived according to reason were Christians tho they were thought to be Atheists as among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them And afterwards pag. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ our Saviour was incarnated by the Reason of God and had both flesh and blood for our Salvation Any body may see that these are manifest allusions to the beginning of this Gospel and none but an Ignoramus will deny it But there are extant also in that Book the express words of Christ as they are related by St. John in Chap. iii. 3 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He cites likewise the Apocalypse as that Apostle's Work in Dial. cum Tryphone which yet many have doubted of tho all agreed as to the Gospel Thirdly Among those who acknowledged the Apostle John to be the Writer of this Gospel I might alledg the Testimony of the Valentinians who as Irenaeus tells us endeavoured to pervert it to their own advantage For they pretended that St. John asserted what they called an Ogdoas Pleromatis in the beginning of his Gospel and thought tho erroneously that he very much confirmed their opinions which makes it evident however that before Irenaeus's time this Gospel was vulgarly reputed to be St. John's See what the Valentinians themselves say in Irenaeus Lib 1. c. 1. p. 36. A fourth Testimony may be taken out of Irenaeus himself who lived almost at the same time with Justin his words I shall afterwards produce to avoid repeating them The last shall be out of Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. who relying on the Authority of former Ages and not merely on his own or of the Age in which he lived speaks in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let his viz. St. John's Gospel which is very well known to all the Churches under Heaven be first acknowledged And about the latter end of the same Chapter he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of St. John ' s Writings besides his Gospel the first of the Epistles is and always was acknowledged without dispute See also Chap. xxv I shall not alledg the Testimonies of any other Writers because it is certain that from Irenaeus's time this was the general opinion and if these Testimonies which I have alledged as one said be not sufficient I know not what is But certain Hereticks whom Epiphanius Haeres 51. seems to have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they denied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same reason rejecting the Authority of all the Antients denied St. John
Being returned from his Banishment tn the Isle of Patmos he composes his Gospel when he was a hundred years old It is no matter to us which of these Oâ—inions be true as long as we are certain that St. John wrote his Gospel about the end of the first Century Epiphanius confessing that St. John wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the ninetieth year of his Age and after his return out of Patmos erroneously makes that to have been in the reign of Claudius as learned Men have observed See his words in Heres Alogorum which is the 51. Sect. 12. III. By these Testimonies it appears that St. John either wrote or published his Gospel at Ephesus which Irenaeus also expresly affirms Lib. 3. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John one of our Lord's Disciples who also leaned upon his Breast and himself published a Gospel dwelling at Ephesus in Asia If it be enquired on what occasion and to what end St. John began his Gospel so as we see he does Irenaeus answers in these words Lib. 3. c. 11. after he had spoken of the other Evangelists St. John the Disciple of our Lord designing to extirpate that error which had been sowed in mens Minds by Cerinthus and a great while before by those that are called Nicolaitans who are a branch of that Heresy which is falsly called Knowledg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence they had the name of Gnosticks that he might confound them and perswade them that there is one God who made all things by his Word c. So that St. John if we believe Irenaeus began his Gospel so as he did on purpose to refute the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Gnosticks as he declares afterwards more at large Eusebius in Hist Eccles Lib. 3. c. 24. affirms that the intention of St. John was to fill up what was wanting in the relation of the other Evangelists In his room I shall substitute St. Jerom who in Catal. Script Eccles has these words Novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium rogatus ab Asiae Episcopis adversus Cerinthum aliósque Haereticos maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse unde compulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edisserere Sed aliam causam hujus scripturae ferunt c. He wrote his Gospel last of all at the desire of the Bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other Hereticks and the Heresy of the Ebionites which began to prevail exceedingly at that time who asserted that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary upon which account also he was forced to declare his Divine Birth But there is another reason likewise given of this writing which is the same I have alledged out of Eusebius and is not to our purpose The same Author in Proaem ad Matthaeum speaks thus Joannes Apostolus Evangelista cum esset in Asia c. St. John the Apostle and Evangelist being in Asia and the Heresies of Cerinthus Ebion and others who denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and whom he also in his Epistle calls Antichrists springing up at that very time he was compelled almost by all the then Bishops of Asia and the Messages of many Churches to write concerning our Saviour's Divinity more particularly Whence it is also related in Church-History that being urged by his Brethren to write he promised that he would provided they would all keep a fast and implore the assistance of God on his behalf which being accordingly performed he was filled with the Holy Ghost and immediately dictated as from Heaven that Proemium In the beginning c. Altho all these Authors had been silent we might easily enough have drawn a conjecture from the thing it self for celebrated Writers and Sects of Hereticks having introduced several Platonick terms into the Jewish and Christian Religion before St. John wrote and the Apostle John being the first Christian Writer that used those terms in a peculiar Sense in the beginning of his Gospel it may be easily conjectured that he alluded to the Doctrin of those Men and that it was his design to teach Christians in what sense those terms might be made use of If the Writings of those antient Hereticks were now extant they would be a great help doubtless to our understanding of this matter but since they are lost we can only make use of their fragments which are extant in Irenaeus the most antient Writer that has related their Opinions There are extant also several Books of the famous Philo Alexandrinus who was contemporary with the Apostles and if we believe some of the Antients familiar with them where the same terms are so often used that I am apt to think St. John has as great a respect to him as the forementioned Hereticks It is certain that all his Writings were published a long while before ever St. John wrote and his eloquence is such that he was justly had in admiration by all who lived in his time and is still read by learned Men with great delight What high Commendations Josephus Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Jerom and others give him I need not say So celebrated a Writer therefore could not be unknown to the Apostle John who dwelt so long at Ephesus in the very eye of Asia That he had been carefully read by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews the great Grotius has observed And therefore being often read by the Christians and having a great many things in him of a near affinity with the Christian Tenets it was possible that many who were taken with his Eloquence might imitate him and mix his Opinions before they were aware with Christianity To prevent which St. John in the beginning of his Gospel made use of those terms which were most likely to impose on the unwary that the Christians might understand in what sense they might be used and how probable this is will by comparing the words of the Apostle with those of Philo sufficiently appear But before I come to that I shall endeavour to strengthen this conjecture by producing some passages out of him parallel to several sayings of Christ himself and his Apostles in this Gospel For the more I shew to be in Philo resembling the Discourses of Christ and his Disciples the more likely it will be that he was frequently read and delighted in by the Christians of that Age and accordingly that St. John had a reference to him in the beginning of his Gospel 1. There is nothing in Christianity that more offends the Jews than our so asserting God to be one as yet to make mention of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose names we are baptized And there is something so like this Tenâ—t in Philo that you would almost think you were reading the words of some Christians He seems indeed to speak more agreeably to the opinion which Arius afterwards espoused than of the Orthodox but he came
nearer the Christians in this matter than the Jews and might easily have imposed upon the unwary His words are these in Lib. de Abrahamo p. 287. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The FATHER is in the middle of all who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar Name stiled the Being and on each side are two most antient Powers next to the Being whereof one is called the effective Power and the other Royal and the Effective GOD for by this the Father made and adorned the Vniverse and the Royal LORD for it is fit he should rule and govern what he has made And in the next words he asserts also that God is Three and One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being therefore attended on both sides with his Powers to a discerning Vnderstanding he appears one while to be ONE and another while to be THREE ONE when the Mind being in the highest degree purified and passing over not only a multitude of numbers but also that which is next to an Vnit the number of two endeavours after a simple and uncompounded Idea perfect of it self and THREE when not as yet sufficiently exercised in great Mysteries it busies it self about lesser and is not able to conceive the Being without any other of it self but by his Works and either as creating or governing This it is certain was thought by learned Men among the Arians to be the very Tenet of the Christians as may be gathered from what Eusebius in Praep. Evangelica says out of Philo. 2. But especially he affirms those things concerning the Divine Reason which as to the words and sometimes also as to the sense are very like the Christian Doctrin of which I shall produce some examples He calls Reason more than once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul Col. i. 15 in Lib. de Agricultura p. 152. where after he had mentioned the parts of the Universe he tells us that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had set over it his right Reason his first born Son who undertook the care of this sacred Flock as some great King's Deputy 3. He describes it as executing the Office of a Mediator between God and Men in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres p. 396. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Prince of Angels and most antient Reason the Father who created all things conferred this excellent gift to stand as a Mediator and divide that which comes to pass from that which he has made And he perpetually intercedes for perishing Mortals with the incorruptible Nature and is the Princes Embassador to his Subjects He is neither unbegotten as God is nor made as we are but of a middle Nature between both extremes acting the part of a Surety or Pledg with both with the Creator by engaging that Mankind shall never all grow corrupt or rebel preferring Confusion to order and with the Creature by giving them good hope that the Merciful God will never overlook or neglect his own Workmanship 4. Upon this account he calls him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a High-Priest in Lib. de somniis p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seems to have two Temples whereof one is this World whose High-Priest is the Divine Reason his first begotten Son and the other the reasonable Soul the Priest whereof is he that is truly a Man In like manner St. Paul says that we are the Temples of God 1 Cor. vi 19 and elsewhere 5. In the same Book pag. 461. Philo tells us that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a Divine and a human 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof one i. e. the Divine purifies and cleanses the Soul from Sin 6. The same Author in several places affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God So in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invisible and intelligible â—ivine Reason and the Reason of God he calls the Image of God viz. Moses So in Lib. de Somniis towards the end he tells us that those who cannot understand God himself yet sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do understand the Image of God his Angel Reason as himself And elsewhere he gives the same description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul also called the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature see Lib. de Profugis p. 363. 7. In his Book inscribed Quod pejus est meliori insidiatur he says that the Lawgiver viz. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls by the name of Manna the most antient of all Beings the divine Reason see also Lib. 2. de Allegoriis Legis p. 70. seqq So in his Book intitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres pag. 784. he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine Reason the celestial and incorruptible Food of a contemplative Soul Which compare with the words of Christ in John vi 31 seqq There are many other things in Philo resembling the Christian Doctrin which I shall not here transcribe for what I have alledged out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is over and above sufficient to shew the possibility of his leading the Christians into an error by his Eloquence if it were not prevented by the Apostles Authority I shall now endeavour to interpret St. John's words and shew that in many things he had a respect to Philo. Vers 1. In the beginning was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in the number of those which signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the language of the Schools relatives it is not therefore to be thought that it refers to the Argument or Subject of this Book which is the Gospel According to all the rules of Grammar we ought rather to regard the signification of the words which immediatly follow and their connexion And here the following words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things were made by it and the Evangelist says the World was made by it which shews that he speaks of the beginning of all things or of the Creation of the World None of those that made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense viz. for a Nature which is with God and is God could understand these words otherwise because they attributed as I shall afterwards shew the Creation of the World to Reason And no wise man ought to take uncommon phrases in a quite different sense from that wherein they are understood by those who mostly use them and yet never warn the Reader of his understanding them otherwise Nor is it the part of a skilful Interpreter to understand Phrases in a perfectly new and unusual sense unless it manifestly appears by the Writer whom he interprets that they ought to be so understood Ibid. Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I interpret the Greek word and not by Verbum the Word or Sermo Speech or Discourse because those who first and mostly used it
Of this Regeneration St. John speaks afterwards in Chap. iii. 3 seqq And St. Paul insists upon it very much in his Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere for to this all that he says almost about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or adoption of the Gentiles has a respect Which my design in this place will not permit me at large to shew Vers 14. Was made flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by flesh we are to understand human nature is generally observed by Interpreters who may be consulted But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said to have been made flesh or man in more respects than one and here it is said to have been made flesh in regard that being clothed as it were with the Flesh of Christ it became conspicuous for Flesh sometimes signifies a conspicuous nature in opposition to one that is spiritual or inconspicuous So it is used by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iii. 16 where he tells us that God appeared in Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was justified in Spirit c. i. e. God became as it were conspicuous when all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ in Christ I say who being a Man was conspicuous and visible and in whom God shewed himself to be present I know other Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the sense is the same That the word Flesh is taken here for human Nature as conspicuous appears by the following words in this and by the 18 th verse Tho when I say that Flesh is considered here by St. John as conspicuous or precisely under that notion that is so far from excluding the other properties as the Schoolmen speak of human nature that on the contrary it supposes them For our Flesh is therefore conspicuous because it is a necessary property of human nature to be conspicuous It is rightly said by Divines that Reason was made Flesh not by a conversion of the divine Nature into a human which is as impossible as for a human to be changed into a divine but by an unexpressible indwelling of God whereby the humanity of Christ became the humanity of God in a singular and extraordinary manner as on the other hand the divine Reason was made the Divinity of Christ by that secret union From that time God might be called Flesh and reciprocally the name of God might be attributed to Flesh or Man And upon the account of this conjunction of two Natures in Christ the Apostles speak of him sometimes as God sometimes as a Man and do not only ascribe to Christ what they had seen done by the man Jesus but also what the divine Reason did before Jesus was born see Col. i. 14 seqq Heb. i. 2 10. Ibid. Dwelt among us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is it dwelt in a man who conversed among us All these things Philo was ignorant of or else resolved to be so if it be true what some of the Antients say that having embraced the Christian Religion he afterwards apostatized from it see Euseb Hist Eccles Lib. 2. c. 17. Photius Cod. 105. Ibid. We beheld its Glory i. e. such Miracles as were never before or in the same manner done by any That Miracles are called the Glory of God I have shewn in my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 Amongst those Miracles which were wrought for the honour of Christ a very eminent one was that of his Transfiguration spoken of by St. Peter in his 2 Epist i. 16 17. whose words give great light to this passage For we have not followed saith he cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eye witnesses of his Majesty For be received from God the Father honour and glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there came such a voice to him from the magnificent Glory This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased see Mat. xvii Ibid. As of the only begotten whom he accordingly gave that glory to which he had never before conferred on any or ever will The Prophets who were Brethren and the Sons of God in the same manner as one another had often an equal glory put upon them by the Miracles which God wrought at their request But the Miracles of Jesus Christ were so many and great that they were capable if I may so speak of obscuring all that had been formerly wrought by their multitude and splendor By this word only begotten perhaps St. John might have a secret design to oppose the Doctrin of Philo who generally calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first begotten and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most antient of the Angels Grotius thinks that the Gnosticks are here condemned who made the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be two different persons but it is uncertain whether those frivolous Syzigiae Pleromatis had been invented when St. John wrote see on vers 16. Ibid. Of or from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be referred to the word Glory see Grotius Ibid. Full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If these words be referred to the immediatly foregoing we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was viz. the only begotten Otherwise they must be included in a Parenthesis as I have done them Grotius however is of another opinion who may be consulted Grace and Truth that is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhesed veemeth of which phrase I have discoursed in my Notes on Gen. xxiv 27 There is an opposition made here between the Gospel and the Law as appears from the 17 th verse The Mosaical Law appointed Sacrifices for the expiation of some sort of Sins which if they were wilfully and knowingly neglected tho it were but once it denounced death upon the Sinner whatever his Repentance was afterwards For other sins there were no expiatory Sacrifices instituted but they were to be punished with death Neither did God by virtue of that Covenant promise to any one that died for transgressing the Law tho never so penitent any mercy in the life to come And yet these were Sins which by reason of the multitude of the Laws were frequently committed so that God discovered nothing but his inflexible Justice in the Law It 's true he promises Forgiveness to the whole Jewish Nation becoming penitent after the destruction of their Commonwealth in Levit. xxvi and elsewhere But particular Persons as long as the Commonwealth stood sinning in that manner as I have said had no hopes of pardon But it is quite otherwise under the Gospel in which God promises pardon to the greatest Sinner upon repentance and amendment of life and that without the intervention of Sacrifices And in this sense the Gospel alone is full of the grace and mercy of God Vers 15. John bare witness or bears witness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. in
the Gospels But I have preferred the former because it follows in the Preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cried It is thought by some that this is repeated by the Evangelist because there were some who chose to be the Disciples of John the Baptist rather than of Christ and so gave the preference to him And when the Gospel was first preached it is certain there were such persons as appears by John's having Disciples of his own that went under his name and from Acts xix But that so many years after Christ's ascension into Heaven there remained any such persons is not probable and the words of the Evangelist may respect any of the Jews whatsoever who having a good opinion of John the Baptist because he was of a Sacerdotal Order and uncondemned by the Sanhedrim did yet reject Christ because he was condemned unjustly and did not know that John the Baptist had given a most clear testimony of him Ibid. That is to come viz. In the Name of God to his People Ibid. Was before me That is in dignity or a more eminent Person than I see Grotius And to the passages alledged by that great Man to this purpose add this out of Euripides in Oreste ver 488. where it is said to be the Character of a Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to desire to be above the Laws or superior to the Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Scholiast well explains it Vers 16. Of his fulness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus supposes this to have a reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he attributes not only to the Valentinians but to Cerinthus and such as were antienter than he the Nicolaitans Lib. 3. c. 11. But I cannot perfectly agree with him for the following reasons 1. He himself in Lib. 1. c. 25 27. where he sets down the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans has nothing about this Pleroma which he affirms to have been peculiar to the Valentinians in Chap. 1. of the same Book 2. These words do not confute those who invented that term for all whom it might be said that men do receive Grace from the fulness that is in Reason see Irenaeus himself Cap. 1. lib. 1. 3. Irenaeus might easily confound the Doctrins of various Hereticks as he did the Fooleries of the Millenaries with the Doctrin of the Apostle John He was a very pious man and a great lover of the Christian Religion the truth of which he sealed with his Blood but that he was any great Judg of things or opinions will not be thought by any who shall but carefully read his Writings It were to be wished also that he had rather left us instances of his Charity to the Heterodox than of his Zeal which is often so like Anger that it can hardly be distinguished from it I am sure the innumerable dotages of those men deserved rather pity than anger In fine it is highly probable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into St. John's mind and was therefore used by him because he had said just before that Christ had appeared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he used it the rather because he knew that St. Paul had made use of it in a like sense in his Epistle to the Colossians Chap. ii 9 and elsewhere Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies the fulness of the Godhead as St. Paul speaks which dwells in Christ that is the divine Reason it self from whence issued the Gospel which is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Paul Ibid. Grace for Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words have strangely perplexed Interpreters whose conjectures I shall not here set down They have been collected by J. C. Suicerus in Thesauro on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall only propose my own The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have received from God is as I before said the Gospel it self and all the benefits of it which he bestows upon us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is gratis and with a proviso only that we are thankful to him which comprehends all the duty of a Christian because we cannot heartily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 return thanks to God unless we also obey his Gospel For when God promises us eternal life if we believe on Christ and renounce our former sins and amend our lives How can we be said to be thankful to him if we do not so small a thing for that great benefit God therefore in this sense may be said to give us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by thankfulness or a thankful disposition of mind I go according to the common use of that word among the Greeks with whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an ordinary phrase So also it is taken by St. Paul in Rom. vi 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks be to God See likewise 1 Cor. xv 57 2 Cor. viii 16 And there is a sort of an elegance in repeating the same word in a different sense of which see Grotius As for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I take that also in its proper and most usual sense whereby it signifies a permutation as in these words which others have cited out of Euripides's Helena 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let benefit come for benefit V. 1250. Not to depart from the words before us or to be laborious in the proof of what is plain it shall suffice to observe that the Greeks call a benefit which is return'd for a benefit received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thence deduce the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to return or repay a benefit So that that passage of Euripides would be almost perfectly parallel to this in St. John if we could but demonstrate our thankfulness to God in the same manner as we can to men Which being unable to do we express our gratitude to him by our words and faithful obedience Summus rerum invisibilium procreator to use the words of Arnobius dignus est verè si modo eum dignum mortali dicendum est ore cui spirans omnis intelligensque natura habere agere nunquam desinat gratias The great Creator of things invisible is worthy is truly worthy if mortal lips are not too mean to say that he is worthy to be incessantly praised and thanked by every living and intelligent nature This is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we give to God What shall I render unto the Lord saith the Psalmist in Psalm cxvi 12 All his benefits are above me I will take the cup of Salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. Vers 17. The Law was given by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often in St. Paul as it is here opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law of Grace which I have observed on vers 14. Vers 18. No man hath seen God at any time That
grant but it is improbable that lewd Men who had committed Adultery themselves or been guilty of as great a sin otherwise should be for having an Adulteress condemned to death Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This question could not properly be made in such general terms for she might have been condemned by one viz. the Roman Procurator For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood but of such a Condemnation because questionless every one of them condemned that is disapproved Adultery at least in words and Christ himself accounted it a very great Crime Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Your testimony does not only deserve to be rejected by us but you your self cannot reasonably believe your self in this case because you may be deceived by self-love you think you are the Light of the World but you ought also to regard the judgment of others who think otherwise That this is the meaning of these words Christ's answer shews My Testimony is true because I know whence I came c. which is as if he had said I am sure I am not deceived I do not speak out of love to my self for I know that I was sent from God Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimony of two Witnesses was principally required when the question was about the punishment of a Criminal See Numb xxxv 30 Deut. xvii 6 and xix 15 For any one to prove himself a Prophet he needed no other witness of his Mission but God who confirmed his word by a Miracle See Deut. xviii Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tan. Faber in his Epist Crit. conjectured that it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go afar off But as long as the sense is good according to the vulgar reading of the word and all Copies as well as Interpreters favor that reading it ought by all means to stand as it is Vers 25. Note b. There is a third not less probable interpretation that may be given of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. for jam tum already or at that very time i. e. in the beginning of this my Discourse with you So the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jam tum already I have told you what I was the Light of the World vers 12. Vers 29. Note c. 1. I easily believe our Learned Author when he says that the Phrase Common-Pleas in English signifies a Court of Judicature for it is hard if he did not understand his own Language but that in Latin the phrase Placita Principum and Arrests of Parliament among the French signifies any thing but the Decrees of both no body would say that would not be guilty of an intolerable impropriety of Speech which is a thing the Doctor never scrupled 2. What need was there of recurring to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those things that are grateful or pleasing to God without enquiring any further And so in Acts vi 2 the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify 't is not determined but it is not grateful or pleasing to us to leave the word of God and serve Tables And Acts xii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not what was determined or voted by the Jews but what was pleasing to them with whom Herod endeavoured to ingratiate himself as sufficiently appears by the passage alledged by the Doctor out of Eusebius What he says he seems to have taken from Budaeus who out of love to the Greek Language thought that the French word arrest ought to be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas it manifestly comes from arrêter which sometimes signifies to decree or determine and is derived from the Latin Verb restare from which comes the French rester to stay But he has produced no example out of any Greek Writer to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a decree or determination 3. It is utterly false what our Author says about the Roman Custom 's being observed in the Provinces where he speaks of Capital Causes For tho the Citizens of Rome whilst the Commonwealth stood might appeal first to the People and then to the Emperor in such Causes and accordingly the Magistrates whilst the Commonwealth stood could not condemn any one either without the consent of the People if they were appealed to or without the Authority of the Emperor if an Appeal was afterwards made to him yet it will not follow that what the Doctor says is true Whilst the Government of the Roman Empire was in the hands of more than one the Roman Magistrates no where expected the Suffrage of their Provincials to empower them to condemn or absolve and much less did they do so when the supreme Authority came to be lodged in the hands of the Emperors Tho the Jews were permitted to live according to their own Laws yet at that time they had no power to sentence any one to death as appears from Chap. xviii 31 when Pilate condemned Christ because of the importunity of the Jews he did it to gratify them when he might have refused to do it and not as our Author thought because he was obliged to do so as I have elsewhere already observed The Proconsuls Pretors and Procurators did always with unlimited Authority by the advice of their Council i. e. a few Roman Citizens pass sentence upon their Provincials without ever consulting or convening their Provincials unless they had a particular mind to gratify them This sufficiently appears by Cicero's Orations against Verres But the Doctor objects that Pilate asked the Multitude What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ as if he waited for their Suffrages I answer it is certain that the common People of the Jews condemned none no not whilst their Commonwealth stood This Office belonged to the Judges and in such Causes as these to those of the Great Sanhedrim see Grotius on Mat. v. 22 And after Judaea was made a Roman Province the common people had not I suppose a greater Power allowed them than they ever had by the Laws of their own Country The reason therefore why Pilate asked the multitude this question was not that he might hear their resolution or determination without which he could not have proceeded to pass Sentence either of Absolution or Condemnation but because he thought they favoured Christ and would have rescued him out of the hands of the chief Men among the Jews who had accused him out of malice and envy as St. Mark in setting down this story tells us He could have released him indeed without their consent if he had not feared a Sedition but he thought it better to condemn the innocent than to run that hazard This is apparent from the relation that all the Evangelists give us of this matter according to which the people did not condemn Christ by any Authority they had so to do but seditiously demanded of Pilate his life Pilate did not
Cross to be provided which perhaps was not yet got ready and it would take up some time to go to the place of Execution because Christ was not well able to carry his Cross and then there must be some time also allowed for their crucifying him It can hardly be doubted but that it was so and therefore if Christ was not condemned properly speaking till a little before the sixth Hour as the Doctor supposes it will be difficult to understand how he was crucified in the second quarter of the day And yet I hardly think that the Copies of both the Evangelists are corrupted It would not indeed be incredible that St. Mark was corrected out of St. John or St. John out of St. Mark and there are frequent instances of such corrections as those but that this seeming contrariety between them is owing to the corrections of some Criticks is not credible and therefore I am apt to think that the ordinary reading is true but we must take another Method to solve the difficulty St. Mark who wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem seems to have reckoned the Hours after the manner of the Jews and the Jews dated their first Hour from the rising of the Sun and so by the third Hour we must understand the third from that time viz. the Sun 's rising and accordingly if we suppose that the Sun pursuant to our way of computation from Midnight rose about six a Clock that which is St. Mark 's third Hour will be our ninth And the relation which the Evangelists give us of this matter makes it reasonable to think that Christ was not crucified sooner For early in the Morning he was sent by the Sanhedrim and accused before Pilate Mat. xxvii 1 2. Mark xv 1 John xviii 28 Then Pilate questioned him and sent him to Herod and tried to rescue him out of the hands of the Jews by ordering him only to be scourged and suffering him to be mocked and at last being no longer able to resist the Jews importunity he condemned him And about the third hour from the rising of the Sun we will suppose that he was fastened to the Cross and after he had hanged there three hours at the sixth from the Sun 's rising but the twelfth from Midnight began that darkness mentioned in Mat. xxvii 45 which rested till the ninth i. e. our three in the Afternoon upon Judaea And then a little after the ninth Christ expired But how then is it said by St. John that Christ was condemned about the sixth Hour viz. according to the custom of the old Romans who used to reckon the beginning of their civil or artificial day from Midnight of which see A. Gellius Noct. Attic. Lib. 3. c. 2. Censorinus de die Natali c. xxiii I grant the same way of computation obtained afterwards among the Romans as among the Jews but nevertheless the old Custom might also continue in some parts of the Empire and therefore Plutarch in his Quaest Rom. 83. makes it a matter of enquiry as a thing then in use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why they counted the beginning of the day from Midnight And this Custom was probably followed by St. John who wrote a great while after the destruction of Jerusalem Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we believe the conjecture of Oct. Ferrarius de Re Vest Lib. 3. c. 16. this Coat was like our silk or worsted Stockings which are knit with long Needles or at least if that art was not then found out it was as he thinks made only with hands without any Needle and of the nature of small Nets or a particular sort of Hoods which Women sometimes wear And upon this account he supposes it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. wrought upwards and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. orbicularly and all together without having any Seam made in it After this manner were made the straight Garments which Fathers as Festus tells us caused to be wove for their Children as an omen of their being lucky so called because they were wrought from the bottom upwards and by Persons standing which Custom also prevailed amongst the Inhabitants of Palaestine as has been shewn by learned Men out of Theophylact. But Euthymius tells us that this Coat was wrought from the upper parts just saith he as amongst us the Winter-coverings for the Head or Feet and he is in the right for the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify towards the top upwards as Ferrarius would have it but from the top downwards so as Stockings use to be knit However those are mistaken who are of opinion that the Workmanship of this Coat was extraordinary rare and curious which does not at all sute with the humility and poverty of Christ Let us rather hear what Isidorus Pelusiota says Lib. 1. Ep. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who does not know the meanness of that Garment which the poor of the Galileans wore amongst whom chiefly this sort of Garment used to be made like Stomachers pressed or wove Vers 35. Note e. lin 29. Bartholinus in Diss de latere Christi aperto has treated more exactly of this whole matter who may be consulted CHAP. XX. Vers 23. Note d. SUpposing the same thing to be conferred upon the Apostles in this place as in Matth. xvi and xviii Our Author justly rejects the interpretation of Mr. Selden But perhaps some may doubt whether it be just the same thing which is promised in both these passages they being delivered upon different occasions and no proof being given that the promise made in them is the same And besides the sense of the phrases to remit and retain Sins is sometimes quite different from that which can belong to them in the business of the excommunication of an Offender or the admission of a Penitent The phrase to remit sin in the New Testament signifies sometimes to deliver a person from the punishment inflicted upon him by God for his sins and if we admit that sense here to retain sins will be to inflict or continue the infliction of such punishment Thus Matth. ix 2 Thy sins are remitted to thee is all one as I deliver thee from thy Palsy which has been sent upon thee as a punishment for thy sins as the following words manifestly shew and Dr. Hammond acknowledges and so if we apply the phrase in this sense to this place that which Christ here bestows upon his Apostles will be a power of delivering up to Satan as St. Paul speaks i. e. of inflicting diseases upon the impenitent and curing them upon their repentance Which Power depending upon the gift of doing Miracles can have no place where that gift is not conferred as learned men have observed on 1 Cor. v. Thus also to bind signifies sometimes to inflict diseases and to loose to cure them So Luke xiii 12 Christ speaking to the Woman that had been diseased eighteen years says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
put for Men or Persons So Ovid. Amor. Lib. 2. El. 1. Heroum clara valete Nomina So Statius lib. 6. Thebaidos Quisnam iste duos fidissima Phoebo Nomina commisit Deus in discrimina Reges So Valerius Flaccus lib. 4. Nomen ait praedulce mihi nomenque sequutus Otreos That is Otreus See vers 225. of the same Book and Lib. 5. vers 61. and 120. Vers 18. Note g. See my Note on the parallel place in St. Matthew and what I have said there in opposition to Dr. Hammond's Opinion Vers 25. Note k. If our Author's Interpretation were true the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have preceded the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will be very modestly said concerning Judas by the Apostles that he went into his proper place if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be meant that State whatsoever it was which he passed into after his Death Such another Phrase Plato makes use of in Phaedone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Soul which has lived purely and soberly dwells in a place sutable to it self CHAP. II. Vers 17. Note b. lin 49. AFter the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi 29 I have shewn in my Notes on Deuteronomy that these words signify only in general after days If they signify the days of the Messias the reason of that is because those days were after-days or days then to come Sometimes the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the last days not of the Messias but of those Writers that made use of it i. e. the days just past or that were near at hand This may easily be applied to the places that Dr. Hammond alledges Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is well translated by the Vulgar circa domos i. e. not in any one House but sometimes in one and sometimes in another for fear of being surprized by the Jews I do not deny but that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be set to signify a Chamber or Room in the Temple but the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can no more signify in one of the Rooms of the Temple than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jerusalem Chap. xv 21 xx 23 Tit. i. 5 Who will ever believe that a vast multitude of Christians did every day eat in the Chambers of the Temple No body besides Dr. Hammond Ibid. It is true indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies often a Benefit as also the Latin gratia but the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only to be in favor with him and not to give any thing to him The case is plain We must not enquire what words signify by themselves but in conjunction with one another Our Author 's arguing here is absurd CHAP. III. Vers 19. Note a. line 15. AFter the words utter ruin Our learned Author's Memory here failed him See my Notes on Gen. v. 29 Vers 21. Note b. This Interpretation which the Doctor here gives us of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not as he pretends most agreeable to the Context but a very harsh one for it is manifest that what is here said concerning Christ viz. that the Heaven must receive him is opposed to the foregoing words And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you St. Peter first exhorts the Jews to repent of their Sins that they might obtain Mercy and Forgiveness when Christ should come from Heaven and then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. whom the Heaven must contain or who must continue in Heaven until the times of the restitution of all things There could be no mention here made of Christ's Government or his having taken upon him the Government of Heaven but only of his staying in Heaven which is the opposite to his returning from thence Our Author out of a desire to propose something new says sometimes such things as none that have any skill in this sort of Learning can admit of Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Syriac and Chaldee word was that St. Peter made use of I cannot tell But St. Luke expressing his sense and meeting with a word proper to his purpose among the Stoicks he used that Thus Numenius in Eusebius Praep. Evang. lib. 15. cap. 19. setting down the Opinion of the Stoicks says that after the Conflagration of the World Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will return to its first as it is called Reason and that Resurrection which will make the great Year in which year the restitution of it self alone into the same will be brought about See Lipsius de Physiol Stoic lib. 2. c. 22. where there is a very remarkable Passage out of Julius Firmicus to this purpose Vers 24. Note c. I wish our Author had given us the Reasons which made him think that Samuel first of all instituted the Schools of the Prophets for I confess I do not know how he could be certain of this It is true Samuel is described the first in the company of the Prophets and going before them 1 Sam. xix 20 But it no where appears that he was the first Institutor of such Schools I should rather say that his Name is here put first because he was indeed the first famous Prophet whose Predictions are extant that succeeded Moses CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was not a Heathen but a Jew the Captain of the Levites of which see my Note on Luke xxii 44 The Priests did not use to walk so close together with Heathens for fear of being polluted Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did you do this by a magical Power or a Power derived from the Devil or from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by whose authority since you had none from the Sanhedrim In whose Name do you pretend to be sent That the invocation of any Name is here intended I do not think Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor in his Paraphrase so as to make the sense of St. Peter's words here to be that Jesus is the only Mediator by whom we can have access or admission to God and that God has sent no other from which it is consequent that those must fall short of Salvation who rejecting him betake themselves to any other Mediator as the Jews did who placed their Confidence in Moses But this is nothing at all to the Heathens who have neither ever heard any thing of Christ nor ever cast him off to substitute any Mediator in his room If God will think fit to pardon some of them who live the most agreeably to right Reason and confer upon them some measure of Happiness out of mere Grace and Mercy do we think that Christ will intercede that he may not Sure he will not and I do not see why we silly Mortals should set bounds to God's Mercy But this belongs to the Theory of Divinity which I have purposed not to meddle with
Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood The meaning of the Apostles is that God had before decreed not to hinder by his Wisdom and Power what he foresaw would be done by them unless his Wisdom and Power interposed to hinder it Affirmatives as they call them must be often expounded by Negatives And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is all one as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to hinder its being done See Gen. xii 13 and my Notes on that place as also on Chap. v. 3 of this History And whereas the Apostles say not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is only the Counsel of God to speak properly that determins and his Hand that is his Power which executes what he has decreed the reason of that is because they would have it understood that God did not want Power to have hinder'd this if he had pleased but only he did not make use of it which confirms the Negative Sense I have given of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be done Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimonies of Philosophers who thought all things ought to be common and Examples likewise of some Nations which have reduced that into practice have been collected by Lucas Holstenius on the Life of Pythagoras p. 82. Amongst the rest he sets down these Verses of Scymnus an antient Geographer of Chios concerning the Nomades in Scythia who dwelt beyond Panticape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They live in common upon what they all possess every one receiving as much as he has need of from the publick Stock And the wise Anacharsis they say came of this very pious Nation of the Nomades CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot see any reason to suppose as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase that Ananias and Saphira did this in pursuance of a Vow they had made to do it i. e. to sell their Estate It is not necessary to add any thing to St. Luke's History Ananias and Saphira hoped that giving part of the Price to the Apostles they should enjoy the rest themselves and at the same time have a maintenance allowed them out of the common Stock of the Church In which they were guilty of a double Sin First That tho they had no need of it yet they would have the Church maintain them and so rob those that were really indigent And secondly That to that end they told a Lie by saying that they had brought the whole Price for which they had sold their Estate That this is the true state of the Case the bare reading of St. Luke's words will shew in which there is nothing that implies these two Persons to have been guilty of breaking any Vow Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Context shews that in this place we must supply in our thoughts this Circumstance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and said that it was the whole Price of the Possession See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia Otherwise St. Peter could not have been angry with Ananias or upbraided him with lying Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words must be interpreted by a Negation for St. Peter's meaning is no more than this Why didst not thou hinder Satan from filling thy mind i. e. Thou oughtest to have hinder'd Satan from having so great a power over thee as to perswade thee to tell a Lie viz. by begging God's Grace to enable thee to resist and overcome that Temptation Of this way of interpreting an Affirmation by the help of a Negation see my Note on Chap. iv 28 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here includes not only the Devil 's tempting Ananias but the noxious effect or prevalency of his Temptation for when the Devil tempts a Man he does but as it were knock at the Door without entring in but when his Temptation prevails being admitted he fills his Mind and casts all thoughts of Virtue out of it St. Jerom not sufficiently understanding the force of this Interrogation or of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated it by cur tentavit Why hath he tempted Beza indeed supposes the reason of his rendering it so to have been that he read the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. tentavit tempted But there are two things which make it probable that he endeavour'd rather to express the sense of the place or if he thought that it ought to be so read that he relied only upon his own Conjecture and not on any Copies First All the Copies out of which any various readings have been taken that ever I could meet with read it as we do Secondly It is certain that the old Translation before St. Jerom's time had implevit filled for so this place is alledged by S. Cyprian Testim Lib. 3. Sect. 30. Ibid. Note b. The sense which our Author prefers before the rest relies only on this supposition which has been liked also by many others that Ananias and Sapphira made a Vow of which there is not the least word said by St. Luke It will be much more natural to interpret the words so as to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify to lie to the Holy Ghost speaking by the Apostles or by lying to deceive him Consult H. Grotius If it be demanded why Ananias and Sapphira suffered so severe a Punishment for telling a Lie the Answer is ready There were three very important Reasons why that Severity should be used First Those that acted in that manner can hardly be supposed to have thought the Apostles to be Prophets who could know Secrets by Revelation from God which Opinion if it had spread would mightily have lessened the Apostles Authority and consequently very much hindered the propagation of the Gospel If any should doubt whether it were generally thought that Prophets could discern Secrets he need only read Luke vii 29 Secondly It was for the interest of the Christian Religion that above all Crimes dissembling should be most severely punished none being more pernicious or of more fatal Consequence according to those words of Cicero de Offic. Lib. 1. c. 3. Totius injustitiae nulla capitalior est quam eorum qui cum maxime fallunt id agunt ut viri boni esse videantur Of all Crimes there is none more heinous and capital than theirs who whilst they deceive most endeavour to appear honest Men. Thirdly It was also of very great concernment that those who first joined themselves to the Apostles should not be hypocritical Persons that made a shew of Piety when they had none because the Sins of such Persons would have discredited the Christian Religion it self among those to whom it had not been yet preached Especially if it had been commonly reported that Men that were slothful or covetous had joined themselves to the Christians
received in that Age in which there might have been a mistake than that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to speak as he did because it signified very little whether the year of Abraham's departure were exactly known and the force of St. Stephen's reasoning or the truth of the Christian Religion did not at all depend upon that Chronology And I suppose the reason of this mistake in the common account of the Jews viz. that Abraham set out from Charran not till after his Father was dead was because Moses in Gen. xi made mention of the death of Terah before he spake of Abraham's departure And it is no wonder that the Jews who took little or no care to improve in any sort of Learning were so mistaken in matters of Chronology and overlooked those things which later Writers on Gen. xii 1 have observed Just such another Error I have taken notice of in Josephus on Gen. xxv 20 Those who correct the Mosaical Chronology by St. Stephen's discourse of which number is Lud. Cappellus think that Abraham was born not in the sixtieth but in the hundred and thirtieth year of Terah's Age. But if this were so why did Abraham think it so strange that a man of a hundred years of Age should be able to get Children when he himself had been begotten by his Father when he was thirty years older See Gen. xvii 17 But then they on the other hand ask us whether it is likely that Terah who accompanied Abraham out of Vr should rather chuse to stay five and sixty years at Charran than go to Abraham Why not since he had his Son Nachor there with him who had a numerous Family But at least say they after the miraculous birth of Isaac he should have gone to Abraham This cannot according to them be any such great Miracle and their inference from it is weak For Terah might have a great many reasons for his staying at Charran more than we know of Vers 14. Note g. Col. 2. lin 12. after the words Jacob's going into Egypt Our learned Author is mistaken See my Notes on Gen. xxviii 1 Vers 51. Note i. See my Notes on Exod. xxxii 9 CHAP. VIII Vers 32. Note g. GGrotius justly rejects the Opinion of Beza who thought that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made out of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho there be no great difference between them either in sound or signification Nor is Dr. Hammond's Conjecture any thing more probable which relies upon the same grounds with that of Beza Grotius has shewn out of Cicero that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a genuine Greek word which signifies periodus a Period For it comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contain or comprehend which is used by St. Peter 1 Ep. ii 6 where citing a place of Scripture he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is contained in the Scripture I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has other significations belonging to it but amongst those significations there is one that has a near affinity with this So in the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 argumentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 argumentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tenore leg tenoris all which signify what may be otherwise barbarously called in Latin contentum in French le contenu the Contents Vers 33. Note g. If St. Luke spake Hebrew there is no doubt but that he cited the words of Isaiah as they are in the Hebrew and that therefore his meaning is to be understood by the signification of the Hebrew words But the Septuagint do not differ much from the sense of the Hebrew if their words be but rightly pointed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his humility was his judgment he was taken away That is Christ appearing to be a person of a mean and low condition the Jews and Pilate passed judgment on him as an inconsiderable contemptible man who ought to be put to death to prevent any Seditions being made upon his account And so in effect he was by Pilate's order The words in the Hebrew are to be rendered thus By reason of force and punishment he was taken away or by reason of restraint and punishment for the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to force and to restrain The Prophet's meaning is that Christ suffered that punishment of death by reason the Jews hindered Pilate to pass an equitable judgment upon him or forced him as it were to condemn him It appears by the paraphrase on vers 35. that Dr. Hammond was of Grotius's opinion or one very near it for he thought that this Prophecy was literally fulfilled not long after Isaiah's time I wish he had spoken more plainly It is not as the Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hotser in the Hebrew but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hatsarah that is render'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they may I confess be used promiscuously and therefore I will not quarrel with him about that CHAP. IX Vers 31. Note d. THE 9 th Similitude in the 3 d Book of Herma's Pastor is worth our reading upon this Subject CHAP. X. THE Hebrew word alledged by our Author signifies Incense or Perfume not an Offering See my Notes on Levit. ii 4 Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cambridg Copy which was formerly Beza's reads this Passage thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is manifestly a Paraphrase on St. Luke's words and not a various reading taken out of any antient Copy for the Greek is purer and the stile more natural and fluent than is usual in the New Testament Writers There are in this Book a great many Passages paraphrased by the Author of that Copy See Chap. xi 1 2 16. and xiii 44 and xiv 1 and xxiii by which places it will evidently appear that the Writer of that Manuscript being more skilful than St. Luke in the Greek Language has every now and then changed the Phrase to make the construction more elegant Those who affirm these notwithstanding the contrariety of them to all the other Copies and the agreement of the most Antient Fathers with those Copies to be various readings and that too older than any in our Copies were certainly never any great masters of Criticks CHAP. XI Vers 30. Note b. COL 1. lin ult after the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi 28 Our Author would have said what was more likely if he had told us that old Men signified Magistrates because publick Trusts were generally committed to aged Persons upon the account of their great experience and the Government which they have over their Passions above the younger sort CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. YEA and which is more than that it signifies to do a thing for in Gen. iii. 22 by putting forth the hand and taking we are to understand taking and not merely an attempt to take Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
met him or went into a house and leaned his hand on the wall and a Serpent bit him Vers 4. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the proper Name of a Goddess which was look'd upon by the Heathens as the Revenger of Wickedness and was otherwise stiled Nemesis So saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accusation Justice There is a notable Description given of her in Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 14. cap. 11. which I shall here set down that the reason of this Speech of the Maltees may be the better understood After he had spoken of the Punishments which some wicked Men had suffered for their evil Practices he proceeds thus Haec hujusmodi quaedam innumerabilia ultrix facinorum impiorum c. These and innumerable other such things the Revenger of wicked and villanous Actions and the Rewarder of those that are good Adrastia many times effects and I wish she always did whom we otherwise call Nemesis Some sublime Power of an irresistible Deity plac'd as Men suppose upon the Circle of the Moon or as others define it a substantial Guardianship presiding with a general Power over particular Fates Which the antient Divines feigning to be the Daughter of Justice from some hidden Eternity affirm to inspect all Affairs here on Earth She as the great Mistress on whom the decision of all Causes depends and the Disposer and Determiner of Chances varying the courses of Lots by turns and many times giving our Actions a different issue than it seemed at first they would have works a manifold change in the Purposes and Acts of our Will And by an indissoluble chain of necessity tying up the Haughtiness of Mortals vainly puffing themselves up and as she understands how turning and winding about the Junctures of thriving and decaying in tho World one while she treads upon the Necks of the proud and insolent and quite dispirits them and another while she raises the good from a low and mean to a happy and prosperous condition The fabulous Antients feigned her to have Wings that by her extraordinary swiftness she might be thought present with every one and represented her as holding a Rudder and standing over a Wheel that she might be understood to steer and govern the Vniverse by running over all the Elements On which words see Valesius and Lindenbrochius Vers 15. Note e. To confirm what is said by Jos Scaliger our Author might have alledg'd the Testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus who seems to have been the Writer out of whom he learned it and who in Lib. 16. cap. 11. has these words Conversus hinc Julianus ad reparandas Tres Tabernas munimentum ita cognominatum haud ita dudum obstinatione subversum hostili quo aedificato constabat ad intima Galliarum ut consueverant adire Germanos arceri From hence Julian went and repaired the Tres Tabernae a Fortress so called that not long before had been ruined by the Stubborness of the Enemy which being rebuilt he retired into the innermost parts of Gallia and stayed there in order to hinder the Incursions which the Germans used to make into the Country And the Tabernae having been so called because they consisted of Tabulae Boards or Planks it is probable that there were little Houses built there with Boards for the Souldiers to lodg in because they could not endure to abide always in the Camp Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both by this place and what we find said in Chap. xxii 6 and xxiv 15 and xxvi 6 7. it seems probable that St. Paul's chief Adversaries and Accusers were not the Pharisees but the Sadduces who were most of all offended with his saying that Christ had been raised from the Dead and lived with God in Heaven because they denied the Resurrection And so besides the hatred common to them with the Pharisees there was this peculiar reason of their cruelty towards the Christians It 's true there is no mention made of this either in the Accusation brought against St. Paul or in any other part of St. Luke's History relating to that matter but from the defence which St. Paul makes for himself this may be collected who here mentions a circumstance which St. Luke left out in its proper place and that is no rare thing in the History of the Scripture See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia and Note on Vers 5. This is better I think than to say as some others do that it was a stratagem made use of by the Apostle Paul to feign himself accused for asserting the Resurrection of the Dead when the question was about something else that he might get the Pharisees to be more favourable to him Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author did not sufficiently mind who the Persons were that spake this when he interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brethren by Christian Jews For it is clear that they were unbelieving Jews whom these Persons who were also themselves such called Brethren Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot from the foregoing words be inferred that St. Paul was a favourer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the Christian Religion and these Jews having no knowledg of him any other way they could hardly have made this answer if he had said nothing but what St. Luke here relates But St. Luke has not set down all the Circumstances or particulars of St. Paul's Discourse but only the principal part of it and so it cannot seem strange if it be inferred from what follows that there was something done or said which in the foregoing Context is omitted viz. that St. Paul did declare himself to believe that God had raised Christ from the dead or that some others had affirmed this of him See on Vers 20. Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words are displaced and for the better understanding of them are to be read in this order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to whom he expounded those things which concerned Jesus bearing Testimony to the Kingdom of God and perswading them both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets I know very well that there are a great many instances to be found of the misplacing of words in the very best Greek Writers and particularly in Aristotle as Is Casaubon in his Notes on Theophrastus's Characters c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has observed But such transpositions sounding very harsh in Latin and much more to those who understand only the Modern Languages this here in St. Luke ought not to have been retained by Interpreters because tho the thing is plain to one that is skilled in the Greek yet it makes the sense very obscure to others Translators ought no more to imitate the Original in such things than the peculiar construction of the Greek Language which it is impossible without altering to turn into other Languages For the clearer perceiving of which I shall here set down the words
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
with the love of Pleasure tho he joins together things that are in effect often conjoined The same may be said of other Authors who have any like Passages for what is more common than to speak of several Vices together 9. Tho the Sodomites be upbraided for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these words properly signify villanous Lusts they are general terms by which their wickedness may be described whatsoever it consisted in as the constant signification of those words shew 10. Of the Passages cited by the Doctor out of St. Paul I shall speak when I come to them as also of the other places of the New Testament 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gen. vi 5 is a general name likewise signifying any sort of Vice or Wickedness and not particularly Lust Our Author made it his business to enquire not what was the constant and usual signification of a word but what he would have it to signify that he might the better apply some passages in St. Paul to his Gnosticks CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. THE Apostle as far as the eighth Verse goes on to condemn the Heathen Philosophers who did those things which they condemned in others and knew to be evil upon which account they were reproached even among the Heathens themselves See Lactantius Instit Divin Lib. 3. c. 15. who produces out of Cicero Corn. Nepos and Seneca very remarkable Testimonies against those who were Philosophers more in words than in manners Dr. Hammond to make these things agree to his Gnosticks puts several things into his Paraphrase whereof there is not the least footstep in St. Paul It is easy to find out what sense we please in any Author whom we interpret if we may take the liberty to patch up his Thoughts in that manner with our own I wonder also at Grotius for thinking the Apostle here had reference to the Roman Magistrates because of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he saith properly signifies a Judg when that word may as well be taken for any one that judgeth as a Philosopher who judgeth concerning Vice and Virtue as a Magistrate Yea Plato in Lib. 9. Reip. p. 506. Edit Ficini applies that word to a Philosopher where he speaks of judging concerning what is good or evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A covetous or ambitious Man is not qualified to judg but only a Philosopher And a great many more such examples if I had time and it were necessary might be found out to shew that a Philosopher may be properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This has a respect to the Philosophers who when they ought according to their own Doctrin to have obeyed the Gospel abused that skill in disputation which they had acquired by the study of Philosophy in resisting it And such were afterwards Lucian Celsus Porphyrius Hierocles and others who out of a love to contention opposed the Christian Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aptly to this purpose defined by Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contradicting or evil speaking or contending by words for which most of the Philosophers were infamous Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Apostle returns to what he had said in the 15th Vers of the foregoing Chapter viz. that the Gospel belonged to the Gentiles as well as the Jews and brought Salvation equally to them both as in this place he tells them that if they continued in their Sins and Unbelief and neglected the only way of Salvation they would both bring destruction upon themselves These he compares first with one another and then inveighs against the Jews who persisted in their Sins nor is there any thing that properly concerns the Gnosticks as any one will see that does but read the Apostle Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Passage perhaps Porphyry had in his mind who often read the Holy Scriptures that he might be able to oppose them when he wrote in his Book de Abstinent c. 57. that it was impossible for a Man to attain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Happiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless he were nailed if I may so speak to God and divided from the Body and the Pleasures which by that affect the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we are saved by WORKS not by a bare HEARING of words Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is they were not instructed out of the written Law but their own Reason informed them what was good and what was evil For that is said to be written in the Heart or Mind which we understand by reasoning without any written Institution This is not opposed to the knowledg of the Gnosticks but of the Jews Ibid. Note c. To this purpose is that elegant Passage in Plautus in Rudente Act. 4. Sc. 7. Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad istum modum Sapienter dicta dicere atque iis plaudier Cum illos sapientes mores monstrabant poplo Sed cum inde suam quisque ibant diversi domum Nullus erat illo pacto ut illi jusserant Vers 17. Note e. This is all forced Read the Apostle himself and it will appear that he speaks of a Jew properly so called and one that was circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not properly to be called or denominated but to be celebrated or famous so that St. Paul's meaning is this it is a thing universally known that thou art a Jew or a Disciple of Moses this is what thou pretendest thy self to be and gloriest in The Apostle has no respect in this to the Gnosticks who could not neither be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rest in the Law which they took not the least care to observe as our Author confesses but when the fear of the Jews urged them to it Vers 18. Note f. Dr. Hammond's Interpretation of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be confirmed by the Authority of an old Glossary in which that Verb is render'd not only by perpendere examinare to weigh to examin but also approbare comprobare to approve And in the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by praesto praecello to excel But yet because the Discourse is concerning one that is able to teach others what is good and profitable and what is not or of a Master I chuse rather to understand it of trying those things that differ or trying the difference of things that is distinguishing between lawful and unlawful And so in that Passage of the Epist to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify to distinguish carefully good from evil or not ignorantly to confound things which are different Whence the Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ye may be sincere that is without mixture of good and evil not sufficiently distinguished by you and consequently as it
follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without offence However it is most true that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify the examining of a thing but also that which is consequent upon it the approbation of it But this may very aptly be said of the Jews compared with the Heathens because the Jews were instructed out of the Law which the Gnosticks were not but were part of them Heathens Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Blind cannot discern the right way from the Path which would lead them out of the Road they desire to take and therefore they need a Guide to discern it for them And in like manner such as cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to those things between which the Will of God makes a difference have need of a Teacher to shew them the difference between what is lawful and unlawful This and what follows plainly confirms the Opinion which I have preferred to Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and agrees exactly to the Jews compared with the Heathens Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not think the Doctor has expressed the Apostle's sense here in his Paraphrase I chuse rather to understand this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of stealing the Vessels that were consecrated to Idols as if the Apostle had said Thou who pretendest to abhor Idols as most polluted things which thou wouldst not so much as touch dost nevertheless if thou hast an opportunity steal the Vessels which are consecrated to them and are as polluted as the Idols themselves In which he has a respect undoubtedly to that Law in Deut. vii 25 The graven Images of their Gods shalt thou burn with fire thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is upon them c. Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is it is advantageous for a Person to profess himself a Jew and to carry about him the sacred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Religion in his body provided he observe its Laws and those especially which relate to a good Life and the Interest of Human Society I know Divines usually call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant in the sense our Author uses those words But see what I have said of that matter in my Notes on Gen. xvii 10 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If those who boast themselves to be circumcised Persons and bear the token of God's Covenant in their Bodies neglect the most holy Laws delivered to them by Moses their Circumcision can be of no use to them which is only a sign of their professing Judaism not the whole Jewish Religion Vers 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as all Interpreters have observed the uncircumcised Circumcision was instituted as a sign of God's Covenant with which all that were marked professed their Resolution to obey the only true God Creator of Heaven and Earth But if there were any among other Nations who without that mark set upon the Jews only obey'd God in those things which they knew to be acceptable to him their Piety was as pleasing to God as that of the circumcised Jews That Sign was instituted only to put the Jews constantly in mind of their Duty and not as a thing in it self grateful to God Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is whoever observes those Laws that are of eternal Equity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherever he be and what Nation soever he be of shall be accounted by God in the number of his People as much as if he were circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks properly signifies Equity or that which is alledged to shew a Cause to be just or good But in the Septuagint it is used to signify the Laws of God of what kind soever they be But in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those things which God may equitably require of all Nations such as Experience and right Reason dictate to be just Vers 27. Note h. I wonder learned Men did not perceive there was an Ellipsis in this Phrase and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood which is expressed afterwards The meaning of S. Paul is this They that have been hitherto uncircumcised as they are born for so the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and yet observe the Moral Laws are Jews that is in the number of God's People not indeed according to the letter of the Laws themselves but according to the mind of the Lawgiver and accordingly will shew by their Example that you are justly condemned who by the letter of the Law and Circumcision are esteemed the People of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are Jews by the Spirit and Righteousness shall condemn such as are Jews by the Letter and Circumcision Afterwards in Chap. iv 11 the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has another signification to wit among the uncircumcised Nations or whilst they are uncircumcised for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies distance of place or time See ver 29. in which this Interpretation is confirmed Of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is opposed to the Intention or Mind of the Lawgiver I have already spoken in a Note on Mat. v. 17 Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that Circumcision is worthy of Praise which is agreeable to the spiritual Intention of God in instituting carnal Circumcision not that which according to the letter of the Law is made in the Flesh which in it self is neither good nor evil So that when the Apostle uses the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the spiritual Intention or Will of God as on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the letters of the Law Whence in the Writings of St. Paul the Law of Moses is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Letter and the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit because this revealed the spiritual Intention of God which was concealed under the letter of the Law See 2 Cor. iii. 6 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To wit the Jews who highly preferred a Person that was circumcised to one that was not having little or no regard to how they both lived They considered the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Lawgiver and so neglecting Mens internal Qualifications commended chiefly their external CHAP. III. Vers 2. Note a. Col. 3. lin 16. NOthing could have been said more falsly concerning the Original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was commonly used by the Greeks in that signification before ever the Greek Language was spoken in the Land of Canaan It was used by Herodotus and Thucydides who lived whilst the Persian Monarchy stood nor did the Septuagint for any other reason call the Pectoral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho improperly and barbarously than because that
word ordinarily signified in Greek an Oracle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Oracles which were so called because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is audibly pronounced or expressed when otherwise the Gods were supposed to give their Responses by Dreams Intrails Signs or Omens without any Voice This derivation of the word seems to be more proper than that which is given of it by Thucydides's Scholiast in Lib. 2. p. 104. Ed. Aem. Porti where on those words of the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Oracles or Responses were given many things were sung by the Prophets he makes this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those Responses which are made by God in Prose and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which are given in Verse Hence also the Author of the Book of Wisdom chap. xvi 11 and the Son of Syrach in chap. xxxvi 16 call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Revelations of God by the Prophets And such the Apostle here means and not the Responses given by the High Priest as Grotius has shewn But our Author being deceived by the ambiguity of the word treats of the Pectoral in an improper place Ibid. In the same Col. after the words Judgment of Vrim How foreign all this is to this place in St. Paul I have already shewn But I have one or two things more here to observe First That the Doctor took what he here says out of Rob. Scheringamius in his Notes on cap. 8. Jomae as he has done other things also of that nature Secondly That the Rabbins whose Authority he here alledges were as ignorant of this matter as we only they had the confidence to set down their own Inventions for known and certain Truth which is a very usual thing with them Every one knows that during the second Temple there was no Vrim and Thummim and I would not have any one so silly as to think that the Rabbins who lived some Ages after the destruction of that Temple understood by certain Tradition what Vrim and Thummim were Their Opinion is evidently confuted by Spencer in his Treatise of Vrim and Thummim cap. 3. sect 11. As for me I think quite otherwise of the whole matter as I have declared in my Notes on Exod. xxviii 30 and Numb xxvi 21 Ibid. Col. 4. in that Note lin 10. after the words dead Witnesses I have shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Greek God's Responses without any respect had to the Pectoral and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as has been well observed by H. Grotius are enlivening or quickning words I wonder he did not alledg to that purpose Heb. iv 12 Ibid. lin 20. after the words there consisted Our learned Author heaps Mistakes upon Mistakes for it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has no allusion to the Pectoral and does not signify Letters but the Rudiments or first Principles of Piety Vers 4. Note b. That the Doctrine which our Divine here teaches is very true considered in it self no one can doubt that understands the nature of the Gospel-Covenant But I expected he should have acted the part of a Grammarian rather than a Divine and reasoned not from the Analogy of Faith but the grammatical use of words What our Author therefore has not done shall be briefly done by me And first It must be observ'd that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek are most frequently used in the largest sense to signify a good Man or one that loves Righteousness but are sometimes taken in a more limited notion and signify a Man who is guiltless of any particular Crime Of the first signification we may every where meet with Examples of the latter there is an Instance in Prov. xvii 15 He that justifieth the guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he that condemneth the just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both an Abomination to the Lord. See also Isa v. 23 And agreeably to this twofold sense of the word Just the signification also of the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justify is twofold either for to esteem just that is good or just that is innocent or guiltless of the Crime charged upon him In this latter signification they are used in the Passages before mentioned in the Proverbs and Isaiah but this Notion in this dispute concerning Justification can have no place For God does not justify any Man from all Sin that is account him guiltless because all Men are Sinners But there remains another sense in which God may properly be said to esteem those just that is good Men and acceptable to him who believe in Christ tho their Righteousness be not perfect or sinless because he mercifully accepts of an imperfect Vertue instead of a perfect one upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice And in this sense it is said of Abraham that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was justified that is accounted a just Man not according to strict Justice but the gracious acceptance of God who judged him to be a good and pious Person Whence it is said in Scripture that Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that is that Faith was look'd upon as the Act of a good Man and one that feared God and therefore Abraham was judged by God to be such an one See my Notes on Gen. xv 6 These things if carefully observed will give great light into this whole Disputation of St. Paul which is otherwise hardly intelligible The Jews affirmed that by the bare observation of the Law of Moses as they interpreted it a Man was justified in the sight of God that is accounted just by God and accordingly accepted by him and might expect from him the Reward promised to all good Men. And they thought they could exactly fulfil the Law in all points and so be justified as good Men upon that account meaning by the observation of the Law a Life so regulated that no Charge could by any one be brought against them out of the Law as Transgressors of any of its Precepts which had a threatning of Punishment annexed to it And if they lived so they thought the Reward of pious Men was justly due to them This was the Opinion of the Jews against which St. Paul disputes and shews that Men are not justified by the Works of the Law that is esteemed pious by God but by Faâ—th i. e. upon their believing God's Revelations and for the future obeying them tho they had not before observed the Law or any of its Ceremonies To which purpose he alledges the Example of Abraham who when uncircumcised was accounted just by God upon believing his Promise And he urges that no Man can justly contend with God because all have heinously sinned and therefore stand in need of God's pardoning Mercy in order to their being accounted just With many other Arguments of which as the matter shall
require I shall afterwards speak Two things I will further observe in this place First That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is taken in that sense in which I said a Person was justified who is not esteemed guilty of any unjust or wicked Action for David's meaning in Psalm li. 6. is this that he acknowledged he had committed a very great Sin so that he had no reason to doubt of the Divine Justice in threatning to punish him Secondly That towards the end of the foregoing Annotation Dr. Hammond does ill compare the Phrases to be imputed to Righteousness and to be accounted worthy of a Reward with one another as will appear if we look into St. Paul's words Vers 8. Note d. There is no necessity of any Parenthesis in this place if we do but supply the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from what follows the sense will be plain thus Why yet am I also judged as a Sinner Why do not we do as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say that we will do evil that good may come Vers 25. Note b. lin 13. after the words propitious to the People Our learned Author is mistaken in thinking that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chapporeth is indifferently rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is only one place in Exod. xxvi 34 where the Septuagint can seem to have translated it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if it be more narrowly look'd into it will appear that they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pharocheth which is the name of the Veil that was drawn over against the most Holy-place and thought that Moses was commanded to put the Ark there within that space I have rendered the place impones operculum areae testimonii in sanctissimo adyto Thou shalt put the Covering upon the Ark of the Testimony in the most Holy Place and they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only a Veil which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended in order to hide any thing and so they constantly translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pharocheth which is the name of the Veil or Curtain that hid the most Holy Place But a Covering such as that was which was put upon the Ark would be more fitly called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by another Name I fear our learned Author confounded the Hebrew words alledged because of the similitude there is between them and through want of memory Ibid. Lin. 39. After the words to be performed To speak freely my opinion I am apt to think there is no allusion here to the Covering of the Ark but that Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subintell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifice because immediately there is mention made of Blood which has no affinity with a Covering So the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sacrifice offered up by way of Thanksgiving But I confess I never could meet with that word in this sense save in the old Onomasticon where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred propitiabile which word is to be understood actively for that which is capable of pacifying or rendring God propitious as in like manner impetrabilis signifies one that can easily obtain what he desires So that the vulgar who renders this word Expiationem and Beza who renders it Placamentum i. e. an expiatory Sacrifice have translated it better than others who render it by propitiatorium a propitiatory by which word is generally understood the Covering of the Ark. Ibid. At the end of that Note Tho what our Author here theologically discourses be very true yet it does not much conduce to the understanding of St. Paul's words if the proper signification of them be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here spoken of not for the reasons mentioned by our Author but because the Discourse is about an expiatory Sacrifice whereof the Blood can be of no use to us unless we believe on Christ and hope that by his Sacrifice God will become propitious to us tho we have been great Sinners against him Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctrin indeed laid down by our learned Author in the foregoing Annotation I heartily subscribe to but I think it is foreign to this place as depending upon a wrong interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The scope of the Apostle is to shew that there is another kind of Righteousness brought in by Christ which he calls the righteousness of God different from that which results from Works and by which we are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus And for the clearer explaining of that he adds whom God hath set forth as an Atonement through Faith in his Blood that is which Jesus God declares in the Gospel to be an expiatory Sacrifice by whose Blood the Sins of those who believe on him are expiated To make known his Righteousness because of the remission of former Sins under the forbearance of God To shew that those are just in his sight whose past Sins he has remitted and whose Repentance he did not in vain wait for At this time that he might be just and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus which at this time only is manifest to all whence we may conclude that God is both a lover of Righteousness and also accounts those just who have believed in Christ and heartily obey him The whole series of the Discourse does as it were proclaim this to be the scope and sense of the Apostle and I wonder that Grotius himself did not see it tho the Doctor who often gives forced Interpretations of Places might easily not discern it Tho I do not deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Righteousness of God is often put for his Goodness and Mercy as Grotius has shewn yet in this dispute it has another signification as appears from Chap. i. 17 and vers 21 24 and 26 of this Chapter where it is manifestly taken for Gospel-Righteousness that is for sanctity of Life consequent upon Repentance And this Righteousness which God accepts upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice is not grounded upon a connivence or taking no notice of past Sins but the remission of them For God accounts those just not whose Sins he overlooks or connives at but those whose Sins he has already pardoned and upon their Repentance takes into his favour contrary to their deserts I contend that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be urged to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing is more common in the Greek Language than for Prepositions to lose their proper force in compound words as every one
Abraham that he accepted of his Piety So this word is used in 1 Cor. ix 2 where St. Paul bespeaks the Corinthians thus If I be not an Apostle unto others yet I am so to you the seal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord that is by you it may be known that I am an Apostle or you are a certain Evidence of my Apostleship It is a Metaphor taken from the custom of confirming things by setting a Seal to them See Note on Gen. xvii 11 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said on Chap. ii 27 that these words signify among the uncircumcised Gentiles or in the time of their Vncircumcision not in Vncircumcision And here it is visible that when the Apostle had a mind to express that he uses the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the Verse before and after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chap. ii 26 27. signifies the uncircumcised Gentiles and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify among the uncircumcised Gentiles as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies through the middle of and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among all things And it may also signify the time in which any one is uncircumcised as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does in Life and the like Vers 17. Note b. St. Chrysostom's Interpretation is a mere Nicety as Beza rightly thought nothing being more common in Scripture than this Phrase before God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has no such signification as in the place alledged by our Author out of Gen. xvii In this it signifies truly tho Men viz. the Jews falsly thought otherwise See my Notes on Gen. x. 9 CHAP. V. Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which seems to be intended by these words is a power of doing Miracles conferred on the Apostles and innumerable others by Christ as the Doctor intimates in his Paraphrase For hereby the Apostles and the rest of the Christians were assured that Christ would not disappoint those who waited for the accomplishment of his promises having already so plentifully bestowed on them the promised gifts of his Spirit Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as our Author well observes in his Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneficent or charitable which is more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just So in a great many places God is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not his Goodness that is his Sanctity but his Bounty or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 towards Men See Psalm cxxxvi So Mat. xx 15 Is thine Eye evil because I am good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is bountiful as the Parable shews So in Aelian Var. Hist Lib. 3.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Archytas was good to the Tarentines i. e. a Benefactor to them So the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bonus benignus good gracious and Phavorinus among other things says it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that without asking bestows good things freely CHAP. VI. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of this Phrase is not sufficiently expressed by our Author nor by other Interpreters The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies as it usually does the end of Baptism and the Apostle's meaning is no more than this we were baptized ΤΟ this end that we might be Christians So in 1 Cor. x. 2 the antient Jews are said to have been baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to that end that they might be the Disciples of Moses See Note on Mat. xxviii 19 And so in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to the end we might imitate his Death viz. Christ's Vers 6. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 34. after the words in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are several things in the beginning of this Annotation I cannot assent to I. To confirm the sense our learned Author puts upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he alledges places as parallel that are not For there is a great difference between places in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joined with Pronouns Possessive where the discourse is about Men as my Body c. and places in which it is joined with the names of other things There is no doubt but the Phrase my Body is often all one with I my self by a Synechdoche of the part for the whole common in many Languages But when other Names are added to the word Body the Phrase is quite different because they cannot be said to consist of two parts of which one may be called the Body and give a denomination to the whole thing as to a Man Nor is there any comparison between Phrases whereof one as the Logicians speak signifies a substance as when Body is attributed to a Man and the other an accident as the body of Sin if that Phrase be to be understood of Sin it self II. I had rather in this place and such others recur to another very frequent Idiom of the Hebrew Language whereby a Noun Substantive in the Genitive Case is put for an Adjective and so by the Body of Sin understand a sinful Body or a Body obnoxious to Sin which Interpretation how agreeable it is to this place I shall afterwards shew So in Chap. vii 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Body obnoxious to death as I shall prove And Phil. iii. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly a vile Body and a glorious Body From whence saith St. Paul viz. from Heaven we look for our Lord Jesus Christ who shall change our Body of Vileness that it may be fashioned like unto the Body of his Glory III. By the Body of Sin or obnoxious to Sin here we are to understand reduplicativè as the Schoolmen speak the Body as such or the Body as a body of Sin The Apostle does not respect the Substance it self of the Body but this quality of it that it is the original incentive and instrument of Sin as he tells us in the next Chapter And it is certain sensible things do not draw us to sinful Actions any other way than by affecting our Bodies and by that means impressing our Minds And that most of the Sins we are guilty of proceed from an inordinate love of sensible things every body will readily acknowledg After therefore the Apostle had said our old Man was crucified that is we had left our old sinful Customs he very fitly adds that hereupon that deadly and destructive Power which was in our Bodies to draw us to Sin was taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the body of Sin is weakned or disabled for so I interpret the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the figure called Echasis not as a Causal So Col. ii 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in the putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh for that Body
which before served Sin is as it were put off in order to put on another new Body which may serve Righteousness The change is in the use of the Body not in the substance of it that is here meant IV. The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hetsem properly signifies a Bone not the Body of which there is no Example and comes from a Root which signifies to be strong because the Bones are the strongest parts of the Body But afterwards I know not for what reason it came to signify the thing it self which the Discourse related to Instead of Judg. 9. our Author writes Jos 9. as it is falsly quoted also in Val. Schindler from whom or some other Lexicographer he took it upon trust without looking into the place which is thus Remember that I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Bone and your Flesh which is a Hebrew Phrase used to signify Consanguinity See my Notes on Gen. ii 23 The Phrase in Job ii 5 Touch his Bone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his Flesh is a Periphrasis of the Body which consists chiefly of Flesh and Bones Nor do either of those places serve the Doctor 's design I confess among the Rabbins the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signify a Substance as it is opposed to Accidents and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies my self but it would not be properly rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Body Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Col. ii 9 I may have occasion to speak elsewhere for we have nothing to do with it here Ibid. At the end of that Note These descriptions of Regeneration illustrate indeed the thing St. Paul here speaks of but do not shew us what is the proper meaning of the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was most requisite The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as seldom used by Heathen Writers as it is frequently by St Paul in whom it occurs more than twenty times The simple Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be at rest to cease from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idle one that has nothing to do And hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make to cease and by consequence to render vain or useless In the Old Glossary it is rendered by casso to frustrate or make void and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by avocat calls off viz. from business to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idleness or rest And Phavorinus has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should overcome should make to cease 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make to cease and finish for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was made to cease And so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make those Sins which have their rise from the Body to cease Vers 19. Note b. I. I believe our Author never look'd into the Passage in Demosthenes for if he had he would have seen that it was nothing to his purpose and would have otherwise translated it It is in the Greek Ed. of Morellus Num. 72. where Demosthenes speaking of the Stripes inflicted on him by Midias saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what excuse will seem human and modest for those things which he has done That is in which a Man would acknowledg that he had been humanly treated of which Phrase see H. Stephanus in his Thesaurus The place in Horace ought to have been more exactly referred to For who ever alledged a Testimony out of Horace lib. 2. without adding Carm. Sat. or Epist That place is in Epist 2. Lib. 2. ver 70. where speaking of the tediousness of the ways which could not be travelled but with great pain he ironically says Intervalla vides humanè commoda that is valde commoda or such as you would in all reason desire The Doctor who did not look into the place renders it parum commoda little profitable II. The latter Interpretation is favoured by Phavorinus who saith out of a Lexicon which contained perhaps the words of Scripture of which sort there are a great many in the Italian Libraries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But S. Chrysostom seems to favour the former who interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from human reasonings from those things which are commonly or customarily done And indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficiently shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles form of speaking And because words borrowed from common use are plain and clear therefore the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to speak plainly as it is usual to speak not in a bigger or more swelling stile than ordinary and consequently more obscure A Cook in Strato in Phoenicide is brought in speaking of another that used old fashioned and poetical words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I earnestly beseech him to change his Dialect and speak humanely It is in the 9 th Book of Athenaeus cap. 7. on which see Is Casaubon It is certain what St. Paul had said before was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is no wonder if changing the form of his Discourse he says here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also the Latin humanè is opposed to poeticè in Petronius cap. 50. Minùs quà m duabus horis mecum moraris saepius poeticè quà m humanè loquutus es You have been with me less than two hours and have talked oftner poetically than humanely CHAP. VII Vers 5. Note c. OUR Author confounds here things that ought to be distinguished and distinguishes between things that are the same because he had a greater regard to Divinity than to Grammar I. Being in the Flesh is a Phrase here applied to the Jews who observed only the letter of the Law as St. Paul speaks that is its carnal Commands which respected only the Body but had no regard to the spiritual design of them But this could not be said of all the Jews among whom such as were pious did doubtless take more care about real and inward Holiness than external Ceremonies To this purpose is that Declaration in Hosea vi 7 concerning the excellency of Mercy above Sacrifices and the like sayings in the Prophets II. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to enjoy the spiritual sense of the Law not the literal or grammatical that is to regard the Mind or Spirit of the Lawgiver more than his Words as the Christians did See on Chap. ii 29 and compare that Verse with the foregoing which will shew what is the meaning of the word Spirit on one hand and Letter or Flesh on the other for these two last are used promiscuously III. But because they that followed only the carnal sense of the Law were not lovers of true Piety the Phrase to be in the Flesh taken in this sense draws another Notion along with it which is to indulge the Lusts of
privilege the Sons of God but when Christ comes to separate the Godly from the Wicked this will be plain and manifest See John 1 Ep. iii. 1 2. Vers 20. Note i. Our Author covers one Mistake with another to keep them as one said from leaking This I most of all wonder at that he should produce the Example of a most superstitious Heathen and most malicious and implacable Enemy to the Christian Religion viz. Porphyry as a Philosopher who groaned under the burden of Idolatry Whoever reads his Writings and his Life writ by the learned Luc. Holstenius and understands but the nature of that new Platonick Philosophy will soon perceive that no Men were ever more devoted to Idolatry than Porphyry and the rest of the Philosophers of that Age. Our Author ought rather to have produced the Examples of Socrates Plato and others who in some measure disapproved Idolatry than of such as were its greatest Champions and with all their might defended it against Christianity But there was no need of recurring to that for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify Idolatry nor is the Discourse here about Idolaters For tho I should grant our Author that Idolatry is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that wherever that word is used it must be so interpreted or that it respects the Worship of Idols rather than any other Vanities of the Heathens It may be better understood here of that Emptiness or Vanity which is in all the things of this Life For the Heathens who had embraced the Gospel did earnestly expect that time wherein they knew they should be delivered from the Vanity of this World to wit when Christ should openly acknowledg and declare them to be the Sons of God as I before said Those who have entertained the Christian Religion and seriously considered it do best of all know that those things which relate only to this Life are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect Vanity such only understand the truth of that saying of the Preacher Vanity of Vanities all things are Vanity and of the Poet Heu quantum est in rebus inane And accordingly the Heathens who had been converted to Christianity did groan and as it were travel in pain till they were set free from those vain Occupations which partly necessity and partly the ignorance and weakness of human Understanding has imposed on us That is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a vain desire or labour for it signifies what is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies frustraneous insignificant and in the old Glosses is rendered by inanis cassus vanus supervacuus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frustratio vanitas Such are most of the Employmenss of this Life designed either to procure what we judg profitable or to redress those Evils which trouble and torment us in which we often find our selves disappointed so that we grow weary of our present Condition and are made to wish for that time wherein being delivered from all these vain distractions we shall enjoy the happiness of the Sons of God Ibid. Note h. Having already overthrown what Dr. Hammond says in the foregoing Annotations what he has here about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs fall to the ground The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is God who has made Men for their Sins subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to vanity that is as I said before the vain employments of Life which the Wise Man in Eccles i. 13 and iii. 10 calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habalim and the Septuagint elegantly render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This sore Travel saith he this vain Labour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it may be rendred in Greek hath GOD given to the Sons of Men to be exercised therewith And to so many vain labours with which humane Life is encumbred we are unwillingly subject and should not patiently undergo them but for God who has subjected us to them and in whose most wise and just Providence it is fit we should acquiesce But in the mean while nothing hinders but we may desire to be delivered from these vexations which will then only be when the Sons of God shall be revealed who now together with the wicked are subject to the same Troubles and Labours and will not be set at Liberty till Christ's return In comparison of this Interpretation to omit the rest Dr. Hammond's is violent and all he says besides is nothing to the purpose Vers 21. Note k. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place signifies nothing but that corruption to which our Body is naturally liable and which in this Life we are unwillingly in Bondage to So it is used in 1 Cor. xv 42 50. It is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanity that being but a consequent of it for the corruptibleness of our Bodies is the reason of our being exercised with so many vain Labours Vers 23. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I before said is that solemn acknowledgment of the Sons of God which will be made at the day of Judgment presently after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Resurrection of the Dead Now we are rather ordained or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Sons of God than actually enjoy that Dignity as Jesus was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined the Son of God after his Resurrection as St. Paul speaks in Chap. i. 2 No one besides Dr. Hammond would say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is delivered from Persecutions Ibid. Note m. Lin. 9. After the words in a different sense Our Author forgot himself when he wrote this for we do not find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the 22 d verse nor any where else in this Chapter or in this Epistle but in Chap. iii. 24 Ibid. At the end of that Note It is much more agreeable to St. Paul's stile and the series of his Discourse in this place to understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the resurrection of the Body after which we shall enter upon that Happiness which is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vanity of this Life Vers 26. Note n. There was no need of proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament often signifies Diseases that being very well known and to be learned by any Concordance The rest our Author had from Grotius and nothing is his own but his translating the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by labour which in this place ought to have been rendred grief for the Hebrew never signifies labour and the Greek is very often used in the other sense Vers 28. Note o. Col. 1. Lin. 36. After the mention of 1 Kings i. 41 49. 2 Sam. 14.11 Our learned Author is mistaken in his interpretation of these two places as I have shewn on
Mat. xx 16 Numb ii Ibid. At the end of that Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seems to be taken for that purpose or course of Life which those who embraced the Gospel lived in before they came to the knowledg of it and so St. Paul's meaning will be that all things turn to the advantage of those to whom the Gospel-call was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeable to their former purpose i. e. disposition of Mind and manner of Life And indeed those Persons prove the most constant who receive the Gospel in an honest Heart as Christ tells us in the Parable of the Sower Luke viii 15 because they throughly discern the beauty and excellency of it above all other Doctrins and suffer it to sink deep into their Minds They are distinguished in the New Testament by several commendable Characters which Dr. Hammond has excellently treated of in his Annotations on John vi 37 and Acts xiii 48 and elsewhere Such a one was Cornelius the Centurion whose manner of Life was such that he needed not to change his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or purpose to believe the Gospel Such also were the Beraeans whom that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excellent and generous Disposition which God had before planted in their Minds had prepared for a ready submission to the Gospel and all others among the Jews who with a pious Mind waited for the Kingdom of God or among the Gentiles like them These all persisted in their former purpose of living piously and did not alter it when they embraced the Gospel The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to resolve or decree beforehand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must also be a previous Purpose or Resolution formerly taken up And that Purpose may be either concerning any thing in particular or about the whole course of a Man's Life so that what comes to pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of what is either contrary or agreeable to a particular purpose or the whole scope and aim of a Man's Actions So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both a single purpose and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the general course a Man resolves to live in So Propositum in Latin is used in both those senses And these words we may the more confidently compare with that here in St. Paul because the Greek Grammarians use the former by which to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the latter is manifestly an imitation of the Greek Hence when the discourse is about any particular thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies on set purpose and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which comes to pass against our Will or Intention Thus in Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will or design of which he gives this Example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he did not injure any one wilfully or on set purpose So the Author of the Quest and Answ to the Orthodox Quest 19. speaking of the palpitation of the Heart which takes Men sometimes on a sudden demands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if this be an evil how comes it to happen against our Will The same Phrase he uses in his Answer That Propositum among the Latins signifies a certain way of Life Rob. Stephanus in his Thesaurus has shewn by several Examples as his Son Henricus will furnish us with others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for design or purpose So that whereas Beza supplies here ipsius his and renders the words ex praestituto ipsius according to his purpose referring the word purpose to God if any thing be supplied I think it should rather be suum their And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God to them who are called according to their purpose For that it is rather the purpose of Men than of God that is here intended appears by the Active Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if St. Paul had spoken only of God he would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that are beloved of God Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The discourse here being about a thing which at the time that St. Paul wrote was as well both present and future as past I would not have all these Aorists render'd by the Preterperfect tense because it is certain the Aorist among the Greeks as the Future among the Hebrews often signifies a Custom See my Notes on Gen. x. 9 So that I think these words should be translated thus Whom he hath predestinated them he also calleth i. e. useth to call and whom he hath called them he also justifieth and whom he hath justified them he also glorifieth That this is the Apostle's sense all Interpreters acknowledg only they did not observe that the Aorists denote a Custom Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is who shall implead or prove them to be guilty For so the Lawyers speak amongst whom this is an Axiom Peregisse reum non aliàs quis videtur nisi condemnaverit A Person does not seem to be proved guilty unless he be also condemned St. Paul speaks of an accusation before God against Christians which he affirms would be ineffectual to procure their condemnation because they had Jesus for their Advocate with the Father if they lived according to the Laws of the Gospel CHAP. IX Vers 1. Note a. IT is a perfect force our Author puts upon that expression in Acts v. to lie to the Holy Ghost of which see what I have said on that place as also of the Vow that Ananias is groundlesly supposed by learned men to have made Vers 4. Note c. Col. 2. Lin. 38. After the mention of Heb. ix 5 By the glory of God in Acts vii 55 I rather understand some dazling glorious Light than Angels See my Note on Mark xvi 19 Ibid. In that Note Lin. 41. After the words most High There is no such expression as this in Job i. 5 and I cannot tell whence our Author took it unless it were from some Greek Interpreter on that place Vers 5. Note d. It were to be wished our learned Author had examined here the Animad version of Grotius on this place rather than copied out Jewish Fables that make little to the purpose especially seeing Erasmus had long ago written enough to overthrow all that can be inferred from them For if what Grotius and before him Erasmus have observed stand good Dr. Hammond's reasoning cannot be thought of any force Let those that are inquisitive into these matters compare both places Vers 9. Note e. By the place in 2 King iv 16 it appears that the Doctor was in the wrong to think that the Passage in Genesis was corrupted on which see my Notes Vers 11. Note g. There is no election or chusing without preferring and therefore there was no need of observing that the Hebrew word is rendred to prefer as well as to chuse
Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It being certain that these words are alledged by St. Paul in the same sense that they are used in Gen. xxv 23 they must here be understood not of the Persons of Esau and Jacob themselves but of their Posterity for these are the words of the Oracle Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels and the one shall be stronger than the other and the greater shall serve the less Of which prediction see my Notes on that place in Genesis Therefore in this Passage of St. Paul the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to have been rendred in the English Translation the elder shall serve the younger but the greater shall serve the less And so the Apostles scope also requires who manifestly speaks of the Election not of particular Persons but of whole Nations Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest from the Prophet that this has a reference to the Nations that descended from Jacob and Esau and not to them themselves So that I wonder our Author in his Paraphrase on occasion of these words should observe that that Prophecy the greater shall serve the less was fulfilled personally in them especially seeing the contrary appears from the History of Moses as in my Notes on the forementioned Chapter of Genesis I have observed Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place I have interpreted on Exod. xxxiii 19 and shewed the meaning of God to be that because he had began to shew Favor and Mercy to the Israelites he would continue to do so and this is all that is here intended by these words The Apostle having said that the Posterity of Jacob were preferred by God before the Idumaeans because it so seemed good to him and not because Esau's Posterity were worse than that of Jacob proposes to himself an objection Is there unrighteousness with God Which he denies with detestation saying God forbid for saith he he said to Moses I will have Mercy on whom I have Mercy and I will have Compassion on whom I have Compassion that is as God began to shew kindness to Jacob himself so he continued his kindness to his Posterity without the least injustice because he did not deny any benefit to the Idumaeans which they had deserved but only went on to do good to the Israelites tho unworthy For it is no injustice to be merciful to those that do not deserve it tho it would be so to punish those that do not deserve it Mercy may be justly shewn when punishment cannot be justly inflicted As this Interpretation is favoured by the place referred to in Moses as I have shewn in my Comment on Exodus so it agrees also with the Greek words as they are here accented for we read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense Indicative which is not so favourable to the vulgar Translation according to which we ought rather to read in the Subjunctive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is generally accented in the Greek Copies of the Septuagint so that it might be rendred as it is by Beza Miserebor cujus misertus fuero commiserabor cujus commiseratus fuero I will have Mercy on whom I shall have Mercy and I will have Compassion on whom I shall have Compassion But this is contrary to the Hebrew words which are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have favoured him whom I will favour I have had Mercy on whom I will have Mercy where one of the Verbs is in the future tense and the other in the preterperfect which preterperfect is rendred here in the Present because it is the same thing for God did still then shew Mercy to the Israelites and had never ceased to shew Mercy to them when he so spake Which being so I wonder that Beza should find fault with the Vulgar and Erasmus for making use here of the present Tense and rendering it cui misereor or cujuscunque misereor To whom I shew Mercy or to whomsoever I shew Mercy and give this reason for it that in the Hebrew the Verb is in both places in the future which the Reader has just now seen to be false He adds that the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews it must be interpreted by the future as past and I cannot deny but that Particle uses to be joined to a Subjunctive but it being joined to a Preterperfect tence Indicative it may be also joined to the Present especially where the purity of the Greek Language is not observed as it is not in St. Paul It must be observed further that the words of Moses are inverted for whereas in him it is I have favoured him whom I will favour c. the Septuagint understood it as if it had been said I will favour him whom I do favour c. because tho those Phrases signify the same thing yet the order of the words in the latter sutes better with the Greek Language Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seems to be a proverbial form of Speech commonly used to signify that all human endeavours are insignificant unless God countenance them I suppose it was taken from the Grecian Games to which St. Paul often alludes In like manner an unknown Poet in Grotius's excerpta says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Man void of Counsel labours and runs in vain The meaning is that from the meer arbitrary pleasure of God proceeded that favour he continued to shew to Jacob's Posterity rather than to Esaus not from any thing that the Israelites had done to deserve the divine Favor more than the Idumaeans From which Doctrin it followed that God might without any injustice call the Heathens to the knowledg of the Gospel and reject the carnal Jews tho otherwise the Heathens had done no more to merit this token of God's favour than the Jews Having thus far endeavoured to clear the Apostle's sense in this place I shall subjoin a Paraphrase of seven Verses from the tenth to the sixteenth to shew how aptly what I have said agrees with St. Paul's scope and the series of his Discourse Vers 10. And not only the Example of Isaac and Ishmael teaches us that it is not sufficient for any Nation to have descended from the Patriarchs to claim to themselves a right in the Divine Promises or entitle them God's People This appears likewise by the instance of Esau and Jacob which Rebecca bare to one Isaac 11. For before ever they were born and consequently had done good or evil by which to procure the favour of God or make him their Enemy that the purpose of God concerning chusing a certain People to himself might appear to proceed from his own arbitrary pleasure and not to have been excited by any Virtue or Merits of that People 12. God answered Rebecca when she consulted him about her Children striving in her Womb That she carried
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Stobai Florileg Tit. 113 and 115. CHAP. XIII Vers 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 21. AFter the words avenger of Wrath. I don't well understand what our Author meant in taking so much pains to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power signifies the person of the Ruler or Magistrate for who would have ever question'd it But perhaps his design was to shew that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or governing Power was so confined by God to some particular Persons or Families that it could never pass from them Which is true where the Kingly or any other Power according to the custom of the Country descends by Succession to the next Heir and that Custom cannot be altered without great danger But where the Custom is otherwise as it was in the Roman Empire in the time of St. Paul I do not see the use of what our Author here says For it is known that the supreme Power was not confined to any one Family in Rome but belonged to those whom the Army elected Ibid. Col. 2. Lin. 4. After the words Fideni or Gabii Our learned Author misquotes here the words of Juvenal and puts Fidenorum Gabiorumque instead of Fidenarum Gabiorumque which for want of sufficient skill in the Roman Antiquities he seems to have taken for the names of two People whereas Fidenae was the place where Juvenal wrote and every Child that has read but the first Book of Livy knows that Fidenae and Gabii were two Cities of that name whereof the People were called Fidenates and Gabini not Fideni and Gabii Ibid. At the end of that Note The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have something that another hath not to excel or be eminent in any thing and so may be applied not only to that which is in its kind and order supreme but also to that which in any thing whatsoever excels others destitute of it Thus in the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by exsto emineo excello praecello exsupero antecello all signifying to excel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eminet existit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exstans excellens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore here is rendred rightly by the Vulgar sublimioribus The Powers here meant are the Emperor and all the other Roman Magistrates who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at that time superior to all the Princes of the Nations contained within the bounds of the Roman Empire And these Powers were all from God not that God had conferred a greater or a less degree of Power to this or that person immediatly but because it being the Will of God that men should form themselves into political Societies and live peaceably with one another he is said upon that account to will also that there should be Magistrates both supreme and subordinate because there can be no Commonwealth nor any Peace kept without Government And this being so whenever any one either with the consent of the People or by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superiority of strength seizes upon the Government provided we may live peaceably under it we ought to be subject to him for the sake of the Commonwealth and consequently of God's Ordinance and of Conscience So did the Christians under the Heathen Emperors and so did also the wisest men among the Heathens Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Because it is but just that those who employ themselves in the service and defence of the Common-wealth should be furnished for all necessary expences This being a necessary consequent of Society God who will have men live in Society must accordingly be supposed to require the paying of Tribute to its Governors In which nevertheless the Laws always are to be regarded which appoint that Tribute For this Reward given to the Magistrate for serving the Community is constituted by Men not by God immediatly tho it ought not therefore to be accounted the less sacred because in this particular of requiring Tribute men act according to the Notions they have received from God by the very Constitution of human Nature This is what St. Paul means and not that God has immediatly ordained either Kings or the paiment of Tribute to them as our Author seems to think which no one would say concerning the Roman Emperors and the Tribute paid to them Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. As it is very certain to me that Honor is due to Kings and none but seditious persons can make a question of it so I cannot tell whether any one can prove that the fifth Commandment requires us to pay that Honor which is due to Magistrates There is the same reason indeed for both but they are not required in the same Precept See what I have written on the beginning of the Decalogue in my Comment on Exod. xx Vers 13. Note e. All this Plautus's Interpreters and the Greek Lexicographers had observed a great while before our Author But what is the meaning of lotis in the last Verse he cites out of Plautus Perhaps it is a false print for lotus The ordinary reading is thus Tute tibi puer es lautus luces cereum Which needs no alteration See Taubmannus on that place CHAP. XIV Vers 1. Note a. I. OUR Learned Author on Matth. xv 19 took abundance of pains to affix a sense upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which does not belong to it in that place And so he does here to as little purpose for tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify that reasoning which respects the regulation of a man's Life yet that is not the literal importance of the word which signifies any other sort of reasoning equally with that II. In Epicurus his Epist to Idomeneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all the Inventions and Disputations of that Philosopher of what kind soever they were which he had committed to writing and the remembrance of which so much refreshed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Epist to Menaeceus is another thing and signifies the act of reasoning it self Hence Cicero not in Lib. 5. Tuscul Quaest but de Finibus Lib. 2. Cap. 30. where he recites that whole Epistle renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rationes inventa Reasons and Inventions As for St. Ambrose who did not design to be extraordinary exact in rendring that word his Authority can signify nothing III. In this place I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a Speculation or Opinion conceived in the Mind and the meaning of the Apostle to be that those among them who were more knowing and intelligent ought to receive and treat the ignorant with all mildness tho weak in the Faith that is tho having a less degree of knowledg and understanding in Christianity they differed from them in their Opinions So tha◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without discrimination of Opinions The Judaizing Christian was
observed on Chap. ix 28 that when any passages of Scripture are cited the connexion of the Discourse is generally neglected For the sense here is imperfect and must be made up by the Reader thus or to this purpose For even Christ did not please himself but was very careful to avoid every thing that might prejudice the weak and did not give his own Judgment that free liberty that he might have done for fear of giving them an occasion to blaspheme against God which he was as careful to shun as if those Blasphemies had fallen upon himself so that it may be justly said of him The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me It is certain Christ might have said a great many things as to the abrogation of the Law of Moses and the calling of the Gentiles which afterwards he revealed to the Apostles and by the Apostles to others he might have gone before them himself by his example in neglecting the vain Ceremonies of the Law and conversing freely with the Heathens which undoubtedly would have been more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grateful and pleasing to him than to hold his peace because the Apostles could not as yet bear what he had to say and much less the rest of the Jews or to avoid the society of the Heathens as polluted Persons who would more readily have believed on him than the Jews lest he should give these latter an occasion to blaspheme the Christian Religion which was then but in its infancy This is the sense if I am not mistaken of this place which our Author did not sufficiently understand Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here also there must be something supplied to this purpose These words of the Psalmist shew you what it is your duty to do in endeavouring to avoid giving any occasion to Men to blaspheme Religion For whatever things were written c. The despising of the scruples of the weak was a thing of very dangerous consequence because it might alienate their Minds from Christianity and make them turn Apostates and Blasphemers and so expose it also to the contempt of Infidels when they saw it forsaken by them that had first of all embraced it and that the Christians were divided amongst themselves Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is preached only to the Circumcised which our learned Author has not clearly enough expressed in his Paraphrase See Grotius Vers 12. Note a. Those which are here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Prophet People and Nations are literally the Tribes of Israel as will appear to any one that compares the 10th verse out of which the Apostle cites this Passage with the following verses But as under the person of Hezekiah is described the Messias so by the Jews and their several Tribes are represented all the Nations throughout the World that should believe on the Messias And the Jews in St. Paul's time generally took those Passages to belong to the Messias and therefore they are here fitly urged But our Author is mistaken when he supposes the power of making War which belongs only to him that is supreme is here referred to for Isaiah does not speak of making War but of bringing back the Israelites that were dispersed in the neighbouring Countries in Judaea of which he says that Hezekiah should be an Ensign See Isa xiii 2 It is a Metaphor indeed taken from Military Affairs because at the setting up of an Ensign Souldiers use to gather together but the power of making War is not alluded to Nor had the Septuagint any such thing as that in their thoughts when they translated this Passage but only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lnes for an Ensign read or thought it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Prince by which the sense is not much alter'd because the same Person that was to be a Prince was also to set up an Ensign Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Two ways any Offering might be said to be sanctified first by him that determined to offer up any Sacrifice to God and delivered it already consecrated in his Mind to the Priest to be actually offer'd up and 2 dly when it was placed upon the Altar which sanctified i. e. made it to be esteemed Sacred whatever that touched See Exod. xxix 37 and Mat. xxiii 19 This I suppose the Apostle here has a reference to rather than as the Doctor to the Priests or as Grotius to Salt and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are meant the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost whereby the Gentiles after they had believed were consecrated to God as by the sacred fire of the Altar See Acts x. Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To understand here Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase we must read Grotius on this place and on Isa lii where he interprets the words of the Prophet as spoken primarily of Jeremiah and secondarily of Christ forcedly indeed in my opinion But I have not room here to discuss that matter I shall only remark that St. Paul might very pertinently alledg this Prediction speaking of the calling of the Gentiles because it was commonly supposed to have a reference to the Messias Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase interprets of the judaizing Christians but I think it ought rather to be interpreted of the unbelieving Jews whom St. Paul had most reason to be afraid of as the thing it self shews CHAP. XVI Vers 1. Note a. IT is very true that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to supply the poor with necessaries and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberality but it does not appear from any example that any one was therefore called either simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Grecian ever spake in that manner to signify a Woman that was liberal to the poor of any Church but of her own substance So that it is much more probable a Deaconess is here meant as the Christians afterwards used to speak which had the oversight of the publick Alms of the Church and performed perhaps other Offices in it Not all it may be then that have since been attributed to them but there were undoubtedly in those Primitive times Deaconesses which administred several things relating to the Church as appears both by this place and by an Epistle of Pliny to Trajan wherein he makes mention of such ministrae so he calls them among the Christians On which passage Ger. Vossius has put together almost all that belongs to that Office as Joan. Bapt. Cotelerius has also done on several places of the Apostolical Constitutions See particularly on Lib. 3. cap. 15. I wonder Dr. Hammond when he had Grotius to go before him did not rather keep to this than say things which are nothing to the purpose For it is no where said that Phaebe accompanied any of the Apostles and what is affirmed of
Just as the Greeks and Latins frequently borrow passages out of their own Poets not to prove any thing by their Authority but to express their mind in their words more elegantly than they could do in their own and to the same end likewise the Hebrews frequently alledg the words of the Old Testament And as the Greeks and Latins make no difficulty of applying the sayings of their Poets to a different purpose than they intended them provided they do not apply them absurdly the same is observable also among the Hebrews Of which there are innumerable Instances to be met with in the Talmudists and the mystical Interpreters of the Scripture and before them in Philo who seldom ever cites the Scripture but in that manner And this being a usual practice in the time of the Apostles it is no wonder if they followed the custom of the Age wherein they lived there being no harm at all in that custom A very remarkable instance of such a Citation we have in Rom. x. where the discourse is about the Righteousness of the Gospel But those passages are carefully to be distinguished from others by which any thing is proved or any conclusion drawn from them I don't think St. Paul did so subtilly examin the agreement of the words of Isaiah with what he designed to say as Dr. Hammond CHAP. II. Vers 4. Note a. WHAT our Author says here about the several Arguments that might be used to procure credit to the Gospel is all very true and undeniable but the greatest part of it is besides the scope of this place For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is meant only the Gifts of the Holy Ghost which were used by those who are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter in the Church as the Gift of Tongues which was no small evidence of the truth of Christianity Achaia at that time being a place of great commerce a great many Jews and Gentiles out of Africa Egypt and other places where the Inhabitants were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if I may so speak resorted to it And these could not hear the Apostle speaking properly in their several Languages without the highest admiration knowing that he had never learned them See Chap. xii of this Epistle where the word Spirit often signifies such Gifts And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius rightly observes is meant the Gift of healing Diseases or the like See the same Chapter vers 10 28 29. St. Paul's meaning therefore is that he did not come to the Corinthians as a Philosopher to perswade them to believe what he said by argument and reasoning but endued with miraculous Gifts such as the Gift of Tongues and the like and a power of curing the diseased that the credit they gave to him might not be as to a Philosopher who confirmed the truth of his Doctrin by probable reasons but as to God's Messenger demonstrating by Miracles that he had a Command from Heaven to say what he preached to them and did not discover it by reasoning The Arguments for the truth of the Christian Religion taken from Prophecies which Grotius and our Author would have to be partly here intended were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demonstrations to any but the Jews who had already fixed a certain sense upon them and believed them but they could not in the least move the Heathens The rest also were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct from reasonings but to those that had seen them It is present Miracles that are here meant whereby the Apostle without any long arguing proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was sent from God Our Author in his Paraphrase on this Chapter puts in so many things foreign to the sense of St. Paul's words that it is rather he himself than the Apostle that reasons in it Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Power of God from which he received an ability to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word in the foregoing Verse signifies the effect of the divine Power but here the divine Power it self which was the cause of those Miracles That Faith which relies upon Miracles wrought by a divine Power relies upon the divine Power it self by which those Miracles are wrought Dr. Hammond here according to his manner makes a difficulty where there is none Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Verse should be paraphrased thus All that throughly understand what is true Wisdom will easily perceive that the Gospel is so It is not I confess such Wisdom as that of Philosophers or Orators who by their subtilty and eloquence render themselves so acceptable to the great Men of the World which Wisdom is made vain by the preaching of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Philosophical Learning which is vain in the account of those that are perfect or that throughly know what it is to be wise as Christians do And by the Wisdom of the Princes of the Age seems to be meant Eloquence which in that Age the Nobility of Rome did diligently study as appears by both the Seneca's Quintilian both the Pliny's and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render the Nobility to make that word comprehend not only the Roman Emperors but also lesser Powers such as the Presidents or Governors of Provinces Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is not to be referred to the Authority of the Roman Magistrates which at that time prevailed and afterwards continued but to their Wisdom or Learning which was vain and empty because it could not make them happy or lead them to the knowledg of the true Religion Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't think this Phrase signifies the chief Men among the Jews excluding the Heathen Magistrates or these latter only and not the Jews For both may be intended it being manifest that some multitude is designed in this expression NONE of the Princes of this Age c. Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to spiritual Men speaking spiritual things For that after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears by the next Verse where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to them And spiritual things are such as agree with the spiritual Nature of the Gospel according to the usual notion of that word not Arguments deduced from Prophecies which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where else used to signify this appears further from the following Verse which makes me wonder that both Grotius and Dr. Hammond who follows him should talk here of Prophecies of which St. Paul does not speak one syllable in this place Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is meant a Man that makes use of nothing but reason as our Author supposes after Grotius such a Man should rather have been stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for reason is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not
err through a false notion of Wisdom and do mischief to the Christian Church So that what he thought to be manifest seems to me to be plainly false CHAP. IV. Vers 6. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly is to think and does not signify to be proud simply taken but only when there is something else added to it as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is be not lifted up in your Minds beyond what these Instructions will allow which I have already written either in this Chapter or the foregoing but especially in Chap. iii. where St. Paul had taught the Corinthians what they ought to think both of themselves and of their Teachers Vers 13. Note b. I. It is true indeed what our Author says about the signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is another notion given by the same Grammarians of these words which I like better as seeming to be more agreeable to this place for purgamenta filth quisquiliae retrimenta the dregs or refuse of any thing For the Apostles meaning is no more than that he was the Object of every bodies Contempt and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look'd upon by all the World as refuse And this notion of the words is agreeable to their Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to purge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe off Hesychius has indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but without any interpretation of it which must be supplied out of Phavorinus who seems to have had the most correct Copy of that Grammarian and tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for filth and as refuse The other word is interpreted in Hesychius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe off and ought not to be alter'd It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the former word was omitted because of its likeness to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which went before In Suidas also it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aemil. Portus observed who ought to have corrected the whole passage by Hesychius For it follows in Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he ridiculously renders ipsa sub vestigiis redemptio when it is manifest the words ought to be read with a Comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what is under foot also redemption Phavorinus interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abomination but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Towel which wipes the Sweat off one that is tired with work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or refuse which is cast away as useless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Metaphor taken from those who wipe down Tables after eating He adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for that which signifies to purge to wipe off with a sponge but he ought to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is a Compound of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe to shave Whence in an old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred scobs shavings or filings The old Glosses published together render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgamentum And Eustathius in the place alledged Edit Rom. p. 1935. interprets both the words by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is washed and wiped with a Sponge And Apostolius in Cent. 16.3 interprets them also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which every one treads under foot or despises II. I do not think that those Nations who had purifications in some respect like the Jewish imitated therein the Jews to whom most of them were perfect Strangers and some of them more powerful and antient than they as the Egyptians Nor have such Rites considered in themselves any thing Divine in them that they should be referred to God as their first institutor It is much more probable that the Jews had been already accustomed to them whilst they were among other Nations and that God in those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beggarly elements of the World as St. Paul calls them did accommodate himself to their Capacity and Temper Of which matter I have had occasion to speak in many places of my Commentary on the Pentateuch CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note a. THE word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify but two things in this place First it may denote the certainty of the Report and be referred to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so St. Paul's meaning will be that that report had been a long while spread and it was universally affirmed for a certain truth by all that knew the Church of Corinth in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Adverb of affirming Secondly it may be a Particle whereby the Apostle signifies he would tell them briefly and in one word why he should come to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Rod. In both these senses this Particle is used in good Authors but never in Dr. Hammond's that I know of and if it were yet in this Construction that could not be the sense of it It signifies also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly or altogether but for that signification of it there can be no room neither here See Mat. v. 34 and afterwards Chap. xv 29 of this Epistle I rather think it is here an Adverb of affirming because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately follows it Vers 2. Note c. Lin. 13. After the reference to Rom. xii Note c. This passage of St. Clement as also the Citation out of Origen was taken by our Author out of Grotius as is evident by this that Grotius refers us only to Constit 2. without setting down the Chapter which he ought to have done in the quotation of a Book that had been long since divided into Chapters and so does the Doctor Grotius does not truly cite the words of the Constitutions no more does Dr. Hammond The place is in Lib. 2. cap. 41. and the last word of it here alledged is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cut off By this it appears that learned Men are not to be absolutely trusted in citing the Testimonies of the Antients Ibid. At the end of that Note If our learned Author to this passage in St. Paul had added only that in 2 Cor. xii 21 no one would ever have disputed with him about these interpretations But all that he says afterwards is manifestly forced because St. Paul does not speak of that Sorrow which was caused by the censures of the Church or Excommunication but concerning Sorrow which proceeded from a depravation of Manners in the Corinthians for which St. Paul had justly reprehended them For it is apparent that St. Paul speaks to the whole Corinthian Church which no
Epistle in both Verses yet that Epistle must be an Epistle in which St. Paul had spoken ambiguously and not this in which there is no ambiguity as I have just now said Thirdly If the Apostle had meant this Epistle he would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but either have wholly omitted it or said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Epistle tho even that could not be handsomly enough said if but just before he had written that which by many he is supposed here to refer to But undoubtedly he meant another Epistle as in his 2 d Epist Chap. vii 8 where he speaks of this which is come to our hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I made you sorrowful in a Letter viz. formerly written to you Tho I confess the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used elsewhere by St. Paul to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Epistle viz. in Colos iv 16 and 1 Thess v. 27 But I do not rely only on this reason or the bare omission of the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All this did not hinder Dr. Hammond who was an excellent Divine but an indifferent Grammarian from declaring himself of another Opinion in his Note upon this Verse which if I am not mistaken was owing to a Theological prejudice mentioned in the beginning of this Animadversion Ibid. Note g. Col. 2. Lin. 23. After the words guilty of those Sins I have already confuted what Dr. Hammond here says who would have done better to follow Grotius whom he so often had recourse to That none of the Antients have made any mention of that Epistle to the Corinthians which I say is lost does not prove that there was no such Epistle because there might be reasons as I before said for the concealing of it or perhaps also after it was read for the tearing and burning it by the Apostle's own order who had written it Vers 10. Note h. I. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no where signifies a Voluptuary unless it be in Dr. Hammond's Lexicon as I have shewn on Rom. i. 29 so neither does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is alone signify a Ravisher of Boys or Women but the circumstances of the place where that word occurs must oblige us to take it in that sense otherwise it always signifies one that is greedy of Mony and takes away what is anothers either under a pretence of right or by abusing his Authority to that purpose And in this place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set in the first place and signifies a Person addicted to Venery there is no necessity to take it in any other than its ordinary sense See especially the following Verse where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is last mentioned after the names of four other Vices II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Pet. ii 12 signifies no such thing for Animals made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Animals therefore created that they might be taken and destroyed See Grotius on that place There was no necessity of recurring to the Version of the Septuagint to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies rapere to ravish for who does not know that III. What is said of the sense of Gen. vi 11 is all mere conjecture which has no ground either in the History or the proper signification of the words The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhamas does not signify Violence but Injury and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schihheth he was corrupted signifies any change whatsoever for the worse and not only Lusts as any Lexicon will shew It 's true the Marriages of the Ensidae with the Cainites were a means of corrupting all Mankind but it does not thence follow that Lust was their principal Sin no more than from St. Peter's joining the Men who lived before the Flood with the Sodomites for to put them together it is sufficient that they were both Sinners tho their sins were different and both utterly destroyed tho not in the same manner IV. I grant a lustful Person was the occasion of what the Apostle here says but it does not follow therefore that the Vices which he mentions in vers 10 and 11. belong to the same thing Surely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not signify one given to Venery tho I confess Idolaters Railers and Drunkards have been often addicted to Lust V. There is no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a Ravisher of Boys or Women but as I said before the Circumstances of the place must shew that the word is used in that sense as in the place alledged out of Harmenopulus which nevertheless I do not warrant because I have not look'd into him But the Passages cited out of the Sybillin Oracles are certainly wrested nor do I believe that our learned Author took them out of the Book it self For the first is in the first Book not the second out of which he cites it And the place it self shews that he misinterprets it for after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is subjoined the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tyrants who are rather Ravishers of Goods and Possessions than of Men. In the second are collected the names of several Vices whether they have any Affinity with one another or not and tho Men are called by the Sybil A race of Adulterers Idolaters Deceivers and Persons whose breasts are full of Rage and she adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Snatching to themselves having an impudent Mind it does not thence follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here be understood of the ravishing of a Boy or a Woman tho there were nothing added which shewed the contrary But it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For no rich Man that has great possessions will make another participate of them By which it is evident that it is not so to be understood Two Verses after that it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Widows will privately love others for Gain Which is nothing to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the last Verse but two of the Book the Sybil saith that the day of Judgment of which she had before spoken would come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the smell of Brimstone should be gone In which I cannot tell whether she had any respect to the destruction of Sodom VI. In Mat. xxiii the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in their ordinary signification and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is opposed to them is not only that purity which consists in Abstinence from carnal Pleasures but from any sort of Wickedness as appears by the place alledged out of St. Luke where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all kinds of Vice as the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rahah in Gen. vi 5 They who think otherwise can bring no Argument either from the thing it self or
the word to confirm their Opinion So that upon the whole here is as the Poet speaks Pergula pictorum veri nihil omnia falsa Ibid. Note i. Here is I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mighty flood of Examples but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is true indeed the Solemnities used in the worship of some Deities in some places were accompanied with shameful Lusts as I have shewn my self on Exod. xxxiv 15 But that either every where or for the most part it was so I leave them to believe who are ignorant of the antient Heathen Customs Our Author speaks as if the Greeks and Romans did very freely suffer their Wives and Children to be corrupted and prostituted in their sacred Mysteries and as if that was the general Custom than which nothing can be more false Nay there were severe Decrees sometimes made against Impurities in the worship of their Gods as appears from Livy Lib. 39. and by an order of the Senate it self still extant See also Cicero de Legibus Lib. 2. Cap. 14 15. I do not therefore believe that an Idolater simply is ever taken for a Fornicator or Adulterer as if Idolatry and Uncleanness had always gone together Nor does our Author produce any one Passage to make it probable for tho all the Sins which are joined with Idolatry here and elsewhere respected carnal Pleasures it would in no wise follow that by Idolatry is meant Impurity when neither the proper signification of that word nor its use will admit that sense and it is very common for Sins of various kinds to be joined together And yet upon this only ground almost our learned Author in his Note on Rom. i. 29 endeavoured to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified Luxury against the proper signification of the word and the constant use of all Writers as I have there shewn And the same I shall do here as to the word Idolatry lest any should be deceived by his Authority or multitude of Examples I. The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gilloul signifies Dung properly and Idols are by way of contempt so called not because of those carnal Pollutions that accompanied the Worship of them but because they were made no more account of than Dung by the Jews For Dung did not pollute viz. with any legal Pollution By the Septuagint this word is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as if that were the proper signification of it but because the Jews who spake Greek commonly called Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abominable things not polluted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to be polluted but to abhor to detest And the same is the signification of the Hebrew root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schakats whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an abominable thing not properly because of carnal Pollution but because it is evil Lyra's Authority is not to be regarded See my Notes on Gen. xxi 7 II. I do not doubt but in the Bacchanalia or night Revels of Bacchus there were horrible Villanies committed but I do not think it was universally known in Greece that those things were done there in honour of that God Our learned Author might have produced a great many fitter Testimonies to shew that the Mysteries of Ceres were secret than those which he alledges out of Horace and Seneca or rather have let them quite alone since every Child knows such things III. That passage in Jerem. xliv 19 is perfectly foreign to this business there being nothing there said about nocturnal Sacrifices For thus the Women who had offered Sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven that is the Moon speak When we burned Incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink Offerings did we make her Images without our Husbands c. IV. I am of opinion indeed with our Author that God by the sacred mark of Circumcision did signify the amputation of inordinate Pleasures but whether he had a particular respect to the shameful practices of the Heathens in their Religious Solemnities which in that Ceremony he condemned I cannot tell nor is it evident from any place of Scripture V. Our Author had not look'd into 2 Kings xxiii 7 for the word there in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laascherah that is in a Grove not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hastheroth which has a different signification But he was deceived by an overhasty reading of what Mr. Selden says about this matter de Diis Syris Synt. ii Cap. 2. who may be consulted and who has also treated at large of Milytta and the rest here spoken of in Syntag. 2. Cap. 7. To me likewise it seems most probable what he conjectures about the original of the names Atergatis and Derceto in cap. 3. of the same Syntagm as if they were the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addir-dag a magnificent Fish because he sets down a story which agrees with his conjecture as he at large shews VI. By a pleasant mistake our Author produces Verses out of the 3 d Book of the Sybillin Oracles as respecting the Roman Lustrations of which there is not in them the least mark or footstep merely if I am not mistaken because Joan. Opsopaeus who turned the Sybillin Oracles into bad Latin Verse had thus translated the two first which Dr. Hammond alledges Masque mari se junget statuentque pudendis In LUSTRIS pueros But these Lustra any one will see to be Bawdy-Houses who observes it to be in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other places prove nothing but only that the Heathens were generally given to inordinate Lusts but not that those Lusts were reckoned by the most of them a part of Religion VII In the Eleusinia Sacra or Rites performed in honour of Ceres there were indeed some indecent things practised as Joannes Meursius in Eleusiniis will inform us but that any horrible Villanies and such as are not to be named were committed in them will not be thought by any that shall read what is said of them by Cicero de Legibus Lib. 2. in the place before cited VIII In Coloss iii. 5 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in its usual and constant signification for Covetousness and not for lustful Idolatry The same I say of Ephes v. 5 The rest of the places alledged prove nothing at all for the Affinity there is between some Vices does not make it necessary that all others should be of the same kind What is produced out of Polycarpus and Beza has been already confuted on Rom. i. 29 The words of the Council of Illiberis are figurative and signify no more than that the Heathen Priests who after they had taken upon them the profession of Christianity did again return to the worship of Idols were as guilty as if they had committed the three Sins there mentioned Vers 11. Our Author did well to add this at last for it is false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion as to the use of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I shall confirm by these Verses of Virgil wherein he elegantly describes the Mind distracted with variety of Cares and uses the word dividere Aeneid 8. at the beginning Magno curarum fluctuat aestu Atque animum nunc huc celerem nunc DIVIDIT illuc In partesque rapit varias perque omnia versat Nay and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be vexed with Care is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be divided between different Resolutions because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by changing the Letter E into H. See Eustathius on Homer pag. 80. and 1427. Edit Rom. But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to censure The first is his Citation out of the Jerusalem Paraphrase which makes nothing to the purpose it being manifest that those words signify Distrust or Vnbelief not Cares or Distractions And the second is his saying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns whereas nothing is more common in all the best Authors in both Languages than that Construction and which I wonder he did not take notice of it must be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy which he prefers before the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. CHAP. VIII Vers 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a respect to the Hebrew word which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians but to the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self which he here uses and which properly signifies an Image conceived in the Mind which is no where but in our Understanding and afterwards was applied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres And this is the reason why the Jews who spake Greek gave the name of Idols first to the Gods of the Heathens themselves and then to their Statues All which I shall deduce a little more particularly because it will conduce very much to the clear understanding of this Passage And first of all it must be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be like unto in which sense it is often used in Homer as for instance in Iliad B. Vers 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And near to him stood greyeyed Minerva like to a Cryer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast Whence the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came to signify an Image or representation of things such as is formed in the Mind And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as H. Stephanus has shewn out of Plutarch signifies sometimes the same And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin calls an incorporeal thing supposing it appeared in a visible shape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that remarkable Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men would be extreamly in love with Wisdom if it did but present some lively Image of it self to their view And because they thought that the Souls of dead Persons were clothed with a certain airy Form resembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when those Persons were alive that Form they usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of deceased Men. Virgil renders it simulachra figuras which he thus describes in Aeneid 6. Vers 292. speaking of Aeneas who was going to encounter the Ghosts if Sybilla had not diverted him Et ni docta comes tenues sine corpore vitas Admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae Irruat frustra ferro diverberet umbras This was the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks when the Jews first came acquainted with them and therefore when they had learned to speak Greek they fitly called the Gods of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly because they were but meer human Inventions having no real Existence and partly because they generally worshipped dead men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to use the words of Virgil Horum umbras tenues simulachraque luce carentum Which shews likewise the reason why the Apostle says that an Idol is nothing in the World for the Fictions of Men have no real Existence nor are there any such Images or Apparitions of dead Persons as the Poets speak of no more than there is any Horrendum stridens flammisque armata Chimaera Philo Judaeus Lib. de Monarchia affirms that Riches also are called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are but the fading Images of true good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these are the things which the Scripture calleth Idols like Shadows and Phantoms which depend upon nothing firm or certain Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sense of this Verse is not truly expressed by our Author out of Theophylact. It must be rendred for tho there be they which are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as really there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is one God the Father c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels in the Earth Magistrates who are also called the Lords of the World But Christians called only the Father by whom all things were created God and Jesus Christ by whom were all things Lord in the most excellent sense The Apostle has no reference to the false Gods or Idols of the Heathens nor to the common way of speaking among the Jews themselves for he grants that those were truly called Gods and Lords He seems when he wrote this to have had in his mind that passage of Moses in Deut. x. 17 The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords a great God mighty and terrible whom the Jews ought alone to serve And in like manner St. Paul here teaches that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords yet there was but one of those Gods and one of those Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worship Vers 7. Note b. No body will deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Body signifies to be sick and is taken also for a disease of the Mind if the discourse be about the Mind But I don't think St. Paul here has a respect to the general Notion of a distemper of the Mind or of Sin but rather speaks of an infirm purpose in the profession of the Christian Religion and the observation of its Precepts such as is usual in ignorant People who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors This is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiv 1 2. which does not signify sick or diseased in the Faith but Persons whose Faith was not so firm and strong
But first this should be proved out of the Old Testament for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any such apprehensions of it there is no reason to say that Manna signified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews understood by it But it may be proved perhaps out of the New If it be asked where out of John vi 31 seqq where Christ opposes his Doctrin to Manna As if a mere allusion or opposition put by Christ between his Doctrin and Manna did necessarily imply that it was the design of God in giving the Israelites Manna to typify the future promulgation of the Gospel by Christ But I further ask for whose sake were these typical representations made Was it for the sake of the Jews This cannot be pretended for that dull Nation hardly understood the plainest and expressest things tho frequently inculcated upon them and much less such as were obscure and intricate And it is not probable that any thing was instituted by God for the sake of the Jews which they did not at all understand But that those Types were given for the sake of Christians is yet far more unlikely because if they were to be believed by us they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority alone would move us in this matter when otherwise we should never have so much as dreamt of them So that in order to our understanding that kind of Predictions the assistance of other Divine Persons would have been necessary whom for other reasons we already believe viz. for the excellency of their Doctrin and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it But this being supposed what need is there of Types to those who already believe Christ and his Apostles upon the firmest grounds They illustrate it may be you 'l say the Apostles Doctrin that I deny and say that they would rather obscure it if they occurred in their Writings for the alledged reasons See my Note on Mat. ii 2 Let the Learned judg of these things and consider whether it be not better at last to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone which the Heathens of old derided and the Jews ridicule at this day and only make use of the most convincing Arguments whereby to prove the truth of Christianity But this would be the subject of a whole Volume which I have here but transiently touched intending wherever there is a fit occasion to shew the weakness of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apostles Writings Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of that spiritual Water which God made to proceed out of the Rock which Water followed the Camp So Gen. iii. and elsewhere to eat of the Tree is to eat of the fruit of the Tree Which must be carefully observed lest any one think that the Rock it self is here properly called spiritual that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock which tho not expressed is yet to be understood For no one will suppose that the Rock from which the Water proceeded followed the Israelites or was carried about with them through the Wilderness But granting may some say that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it yet how is it said that the Water it self followed the Jews The common opinion is that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock followed the Jewish Camp whithersoever it moved But there is not one syllable about that in Moses who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of so great a Miracle if any such had been for it would have been no small Miracle for God to have made a Channel for that Water to run in and follow the Israelites whithersoever they went But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle in order to explain St. Paul's words which may be very well understood without it to wit by supposing only that this Water was carried about by the Israelites through the Deserts of Arabia in leathern Bottles or any other Vessels that followed them with the rest of their Carriage For thus this Phrase is used by Aelian Var. Hist Lib. 12. Chap. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Convoy that followed Xerxes Which he begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other Provisions full of Magnificence and Ostentation which followed Xerxes WATER also FOLLOWED him out of Choaspes And this was the Custom of all the Kings of Persia if we believe Herodotus Lib. 1. c. 188. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaspes that runs by Susa of which alone and no other River the King drinks Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius prefigured Christ But it may every whit as well be interpreted And that which might be said of that Rock in a carnal sense may in a spiritual be affirmed of Christ As all the Israelites drank of the Waters of that Rock and yet those among them who rebelled were destroyed in the Wilderness so all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Christ but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it shall perish This is the sense of the Apostle which needs no typical Prefiguration to explain it his Discourse not being at all grounded thereon or else this Passage may be rightly paraphrased to the same sense thus And the case was the same of the Water that flowed out of that Rock and those that drank of it and of the Doctrin of Christ and Christians So in the Parables of Christ the parts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often called the parts of a Parable because they are compared with one another and the case is the same in both As Mat. 13.19 When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his Heart THIS IS he which received Seed by the way side But he that received the Seed into strong places THIS IS he that heareth the Word c. And it is known that the Jews whom the Apostles followed do very frequently borrow Comparisons from the Old Testament and allude to the stories of it so as often to apply the words of them to their purpose not that they thought those places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to but because they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Testament See Gal. iv 24 25 16. Ibid. Note b. I. Something but briefly and obscurely there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon on Numb xx 2 perhaps taken from the Christians for it is not easily to be believed that all the late Rabbins say they owe to antient Tradition It 's certain neither the Paraphrase of Jonathan nor the Jerusalem Targum have any thing about the Water which followed
the Israelites on Exod. xvii but in quite another place viz. on Num. xxi 19 20. where Moses speaks of a Well that was digged upon the border of the Moabites the year before the Israelites entred into Canaan The words of Jonathan are these And ever since the Well was given them in Mattan it went up again with them into the high Mountains and from the high Mountains is descended with them ihto the Hills It encompassed all the Camp of Israel and yielded it self for every one to drink of at the door of the Tabernacle It descended also with them out of the high Mountains into the low Vallies c. The like we read in the Jerusalem Paraphrase but with this difference that there is nothing there said of this Well encompassing the Camp or breaking out at the Gate of the Tabernacle as Jonathan affirms II. The Jews did not want Water because they both carried about with them the Water of Horeb and might also meet with Springs in other places for tho the rocky Arabia be a dry Country yet it is not every where without Water there being mention made of several Rivers which run through it See my Notes on Gen. ii 12 III. What Dr. Hammond says about the Water's ceasing to follow the Jews upon the course of their Travels being changed is a mere Invention to support his tottering Interpretation IV. If the Water of Horeb followed the Israelites without a Miracle they must have all along journied near a Valley in which it might have a free course after them from the time of their departure from Horeb. But that is another of Dr. Hammond's Fictions which I need not say much about Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is warily here said by St. Paul with the Most of them God was not well pleased not with all of them except two as our Author says in his Paraphrase which is not true See my Note on Num. xxiv 65 Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the punishments inflicted on the rebellious Israelites are so many examples which God proposes to us to take heed of falling into the like Sins So also vers 11. St. Paul having again made mention of God's destroying the murmuring Jews saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all these things happened unto them for examples and were written for our Admonition c. that is God designed those things for Examples to be recorded in the Holy Scriptures and proposed as Warnings to every one that should read them They that render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by in figura in a Figure or typice typically must shew that God intended to prefigure the punishments of Sins by the punishments of the Israelites which I suppose they will never be able to do But it is certain this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken only in a threefold sense in the New Testament And first for any Form whether corporeal or conspicuous only to the Mind which sense does not belong to this place See John xx 25 Acts vii 43 44. and xxiii 25 Rom. vi 17 Heb. viii 5 Secondly It signifies an Example as here and in many other places as we shall presently see The first signification of it is proper this metaphorical For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly a Figure or Form into which any thing is beaten or hammer'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because such figures were sometimes made to serve instead of patterns to others in French pour servir de modelles therefore it was metaphorically applied to any sort of Figure or Example proposed to others for their imitation or warning So Phil. iii. 17 Brethren be ye followers of me and mark them which walk so as ye have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us for an example So 1 Thess i. 7 Ye were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examples to all that believe in Macedonia c. See also 2 Thess iii. 9 1 Tim. iv 12 Tit. ii 7 1 Pet. v. 3 Thirdly In another metaphorical signification because a Model or Pattern is like those things which are made according to it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place of St. Paul is taken for a thing which in some respect resembles another And that is in Rom. v. 14 where Adam is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is like him that was to come viz. in this that he alone had done something that was propagated to all Mankind as Christ did something alone which extends to all Men. For in other things the Apostle observes not only a dissimilitude but an opposition between them But now who will believe that it was God's design that Adam should first of all sin alone and that that Sin should do mischief to all his Posterity to prefigure what was to be done by Christ Who was able to discern the Similitude before the Event Who after the Event finds his Faith confirmed by that Similitude Nor certainly was this the Apostle's meaning but only that in the respect I have mention'd there was a Similitude between Adam and Christ as there is between a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This last word perhaps may be made the ground of an Objection which is twice found in the New Testament The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Ch. ix 24 denies that Christ was entred into Holy Places made with Hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is which were made after the example of the true viz. Heaven or which were the images of Heaven not which prefigured Heaven So Baptism is said in 1 Pet. iii. 21 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Noah's Ark that is in some measure to resemble it But no Man of sense would thence infer that it was God's intention by the Ark to prefigure Baptism and reval this Mystery which was before unknown by St. Peter Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words manifestly shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be rendred Examples for Punishment is inflicted on guilty Persons for an example to others not to imitate them So that it is absurdly rendred by the Vulgar and Erasmus figura and as ill by Beza typi but rightly in Castalio and in the English and Geneva Translations Examples Which being so I wonder Grotius should speak here of Prefigurations Vers 7. Note c. Notwithstanding all the Doctor has with so much care here put together I rather think the place in Exodus here refer'd to is to be understood of Dancing about the Golden Calf on which place see my Notes as also on Gen. xxi I do not pay so great a deference to the Rabbins as to take all which those Men fancy to explain the Old Testament for certain truth nor perhaps would our Author himself have attributed so much to their Authority if he had not resolved to force his Gnosticks here upon us Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this
alter it whenever I see sufficient reason That part of those Letters which relates to this matter is as follows I. I shall never forget that advice of St. Austin than which nothing in such matters can be more seasonably call'd to mind That in things obscure and remote from our senses if so be we read any thing in Holy Scripture which may without endangering the Faith we profess be made to comply with different Opinions we should not rashly espouse any of them or if we do yet not so as to resolve not to change our Judgment whatever light be offer'd to us afterwards or to contend not so much for the sense of the Holy Scriptures as our own Opinion as the true sense of the Scripture when it is our own whereas we ought rather to make that to be ours which is the assertion of the Scripture I have set down the whole Passage at length to shew you that I am not so wedded to my present Opinion in this matter as to resolve that no reasons shall move me to forsake it Two things must here in the first place he observed First that the Discourse in 1 Cor. xi is about Men and Women praying or prophesying among others at home For the Women among the Greeks did not appear abroad without a Veil nor therefore stand in need of the Apostle's Admonition which no honest Matron ever acted contrary to And that some of their Neighbours or Acquaintance were present with them in those Exercises is manifest because it is absurd for a Woman praying by her self to cover her Head or to prophesy alone Secondly that as far as the fifteenth Verse the chief scope of the Apostle's Discourse is to shew the Corinthian Women they ought not to prophesy or pray when Men were present without being veiled These two things I take here for certain because they offer themselves to the Readers Mind at first view After therefore St. Paul had alledged Reasons to that purpose at the 10 th Verse he concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this cause ought the Woman to have upon her Head what viz. a Veil which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominatus est of which see Dr. Hammond and my Notes on Gen. xxiv 64 If St. Paul had added nothing more there would have appeared no defect in his Discourse but there follow three words which have extremely perplexed Interpreters because they seem to be altogether superfluous and to have no dependence upon what goes before And indeed if in the Conclusion as Logicians speak there ought to be nothing but what is contained in the Premises either it must be shewn that the sense of these words is couched in what went before or we must acknowledg them to be supervacaneous and to me the former seems to be very easy as it is certainly the best if we do but instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is manifestly not contained in the Premises read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is when she declares the Revelations made to her or while she is delivering her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So a prophetical Doctrin which Isaiah Chap xxviii 9 calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schmouha is stiled by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I might add a passage out of Herodotus where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken in the same signification but because it is obscure and St. Paul did not learn from him to speak Greek I shall abstain from it But you will ask me I suppose how it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I answer because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word much more common in Scripture than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs but once in all the New Testament and not often in the Old And many times it happen'd that the Transcribers substituted a more usual and familiar word in the room of one less known as St. Jerom thought of the Name Isaiah which occurs in Mat. xiii 35 The Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not necessary for the Woman to cover her self with a Veil at home but only when she went abroad unless there was this or the like reason for it They that make the discourse here to refer to the Church do not remember that it was unlawful for Women covered or uncovered to speak in the Church as St. Paul teaches in this same Epistle Chap. xiv 34 But at home amongst their Acquaintance nothing hinder'd but they might prophesy if they had received that Gift from God but they ought to have their Heads covered as when they appeared in publick This is my conjecture about this place which I shall not abandon till I meet with something more probable II. It is a place of that nature that as by its obscurity it opens a door for Conjectures so likewise it leaves room for innumerable Difficulties and it is no wonder that very great ones are objected against this of mine which would not be a conjecture if those who are of another opinion could bring no probability against it Nevertheless what you alledg I shall consider as briefly as I can 1. You suppose the Apostle's Discourse here to refer to publick Assemblies in which all or most of the Christians of the Church of Corinth met But it is plain St. Paul forbids Women to speak in publick Assemblies either covered or uncovered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in private Conversation say you it does not seem probable that the Spirit of Prophecy was given Why so It 's true the principal use of it was in Churches but it might be useful also sometimes in private Conversation amongst familiars for Christians to edify one another privately And it is certain Women had it not to preach that being not allowed them by the Apostle 2. But you say tho it was not lawful for Women to teach others yet they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sing in the Church as the learned J. Mede interprets that word I do not deny but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament has that signification and is rendred by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the New Testament I do not know of any place wherein that word is so taken and in this disputation of St. Paul I am sure that signification does no where agree to it 3. That the fault of the Corinthian Women lay in their coming to Church with their Hair all loose is no where intimated by St. Paul who would have much more vehemently inveighed against Christian Women that should have imitated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophetesses or Interpreters of impure Spirits He does not say one word about their Hair being loose or bound up but speaks only of a Veil 4. But why did the Apostle call
the pious Discourses of the Corinthian Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or predictions In answer to that I acknowledg that the latter was the most common word but the former also was used as I have shewn And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at least for the most part the thing it self prophesied not the act of prophesying but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only the thing declared but the Action it self or Office of declaring if we believe Eustathius on Iliad Λ. vers 140. where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he thinks that Homer means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this place I did not say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant the spiritual Gift of Prophecy but either Prophecy or the action it self of prophesying of what kind soever that be which the Apostle has chiefly a reference to tho because of their affinity they may be easily confounded as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken both for the thing it self preached and for the Office or Action of preaching 5. Another thing which you seem very much to stick at is that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once used in all the New Testament but consider first that it is very common in Homer Xenophon and other Greek Writers and therefore taken from the vulgar use And then secondly there are in St. Paul's Epistles as well as in other Authors words that are but seldom used as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chap. xiii 4 of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Cor. xi 9 and several others which learned Men have taken notice of 6. You add that in vers 16. the Apostle draws an Argument from the Custom of the Churches but that Custom does no more respect publick than private Assemblies for the Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul here has a respect to the Custom of the Jews which the Apostles had introduced into Churches consisting partly of Jews and partly of Greeks together with other Jewish Customs Hear what Tertullian says de Corona Chap. 4. Among the Jews it is so ordinary for the Women to have their Heads covered that they are distinguished by it from others This is what I had to reply to your objections which are so far from satisfying me that they confirm me in my conjecture If we had any Old Copy which instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should have no manner of doubt about this place whatever others thought Vers 14. Note f. I. I have at large shewn in my Ars Critica P. 2. Sect. 1. c. vii § 6. that St. Paul's meaning in Ephes ii 3 is this that the Jews meant by the word us and not the Romans were of as lewd and wicked a Disposition as other Nations II. But in this place to the Corinthians the word Nature does not signify properly a Custom or Disposition but is opposed to Instruction It is just as if the Apostle should have said Do not you know this of your selves Do you want any one to teach it you So the Latin natura is used by Cicero in Lib. 1. Tuscul Quaest where comparing the Romans with the Greeks he saith Illa quae naturâ non litteris adsequuti sunt neque cum Graecis neque ulla cum Gente sunt conferenda As to those things which they have acquired the knowledg of by Nature not by Learning they viz. the Romans incomparably go beyond the Greeks and all other Nations The same Author in Philip. 2. thus bespeaks Antonius An verebare ne non putaremus natura te potuisse tam improbum evadere nisi accessisset etiam disciplina Were you afraid lest we should think you could not have arrived to such a pitch of wickedness by Nature unless you had also been instructed Vers 29. Note g. I. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Book of Joshua manifestly signifies to consecrate the Discourse being about places of Refuge which were esteemed Sacred The Septuagint unnecessarily expressed the sense rather than the proper meaning of the word for the Cities consecrated for places of Refuge were by that Consecration distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from others But hence it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies reciprocally to sanctify II. The Apostle's sense is best interpreted by those who affirm this to be an Elliptical Phrase and the meaning of it to be not discerning the Lord's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from other Bread or not eating the Consecrated more reverently than any common Bread In the 31st verse we have the same expression again for if we did but distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our selves we should not be condemned that is if we distinguished those that were not rightly disposed or qualified from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To look here for any thing else is to seek a knot in a Bulrush CHAP. XII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not often find fault with our Author's Paraphrase tho in a great many places the mind of the Apostles might have been more fitly expressed I am contented if he does but any how interpret the sense But his Paraphrase of this Verse is intolerable for the Heathens did not believe that their Idols spake of themselves or that their Priests answered them of their own Heads but were both moved by the Gods whose Priests and Statues they were So that the two first could not be charged upon them and all that could be objected against them was that it was not any God as they supposed that answered them by their Idols but an evil Spirit But the Apostle does not upbraid them so much as with that in this place but only that they had formerly suffered themselves by their own blindness to be led to the worship of Idols which gave no answers to them that enquired of them either by their Priests or by evil Spirits but were shamefully deceived by their crafty Priests who pretended themselves to be acted by the Spirit of the Gods or by mere human artifice imposed on the credulous so as to perswade them that Images could speak which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such sort of Men were very unfit to distinguish between true Inspiration and feigned which therefore the Apostle here teaches them how to do I confess Dr. Hammond had Grotius to go before him but the thing it self confutes him Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place was imitated by St. Clement in his 1 Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace given unto us and one calling in Christ Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Similitude also is used by the same St. Clement more than once in the forementioned Epistle and among other
Arguments But the case of the Apostles was quite otherwise who proved the reality of a future State by the Authority and Resurrection of Christ which they themselves had seen and confirmed the truth of by their Sufferings Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can neither live quietly nor die naturally nor so much as find a Grave after Death To this purpose is that Inscription on the Monument of Callistus if it be an antient one in Rom. Subterran Par. 1. p. 307. ALEXANDER mortuus non est sed vivit super astra corpus hoc tumulo quiescit Vitam explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multùm beneficii antevenire praevideret pro gratia omnium odium reddit Genua enim flectens vero Deo sacrificaturus ad supplicium ducitur O tempora infausta quibus inter sacra vota ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus Quid miserius vita Sed quid miserius morte cum ab amicis parentibus sepeliri nequeant Vers 29. Note c. I. That Ellipsis which our Author would have to be in this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the series of such a Discourse as St. Paul's here is and in the middle of a Disputation which required that every thing intended should be expressed is very harsh and has nothing common with those examples which he alledges II. What he confidently asserts in the latter end of this Annotation that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 12. is the Nominative case to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is groundless and unnecessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a Nominative case belonging to it in this very 29 th verse viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which immediately goes before But that intricate way of Writing which the Doctor had accustom'd himself to made him able to digest what none besides himself could do III. I confess the opinion of St. Chrysostom and others about this place contains a very commodious sense if we consider it in it self but compar'd with the Apostle's words it cannot stand And to me their Interpretation seems to be most probable who take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the sense to be this If there were no Resurrection what would become of those who every day tho they see Christians put to Death for their Profession do yet chearfully receive Baptism that they may supply the place of those that are dead in the Christian Church By the same way of arguing we might prove that bearing of Arms is not without a reward annexed to it If those that bore Arms were to have no reward for so doing when so many Soldiers are continually killed what should they do who are listed in the room of those that are dead and supply their place That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one can doubt Yet I shall add a Passage out of Dionysius Halicarnass in which he speaks of Soldiers substituted in the room of others that are killed whereby not only that appears but St. Paul's words may be very much illustrated And it is in his Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 553. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FOR those that DIED in the War with the Antiatians they determined to levy other Soldiers IV. What our Author relates out of Photius concerning Synesius is in Cod. 26. But there was a great difference between Synesius and those against whom St. Paul disputes For he being a Platonick believed the Immortality of the Soul and the Rewards and Punishments of another Life but these Corinthians together with the Resurrection of the Body denied the Soul's Immortality and a future Judgment and were perhaps Jews who of Sadduces had embraced the Christian Religion Now St. Paul in order to prove the Resurrection proves that there were rewards to be expected after this Life which reasoning could not be designed against the Platonists because they confessed a future Happiness tho they did not believe the Resurrection of the Dead And Religion might well enough consist with the opinion of the Platonicks tho the Sadduces who disowned the Immortality of the Soul utterly overthrew it And therefore the Egyptians bore with Synesius notwithstanding he was a Platonick which they would never have done if he had been a Sadduce Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who from this place and the citation out of Aratus infer that St. Paul was conversant in the Writings of the Heathen Poets But without sufficient ground because such as these were common proverbial forms of Speech used by every one and might be easily learned from ordinary Discourse even of ignorant Persons by which means I am apt to think the Apostle came to the knowledg of them For the Jews did not use to read much the Writings of the Heathens nor does the stile of St. Paul otherwise give us the least reason to imagin that he ever so much as attempted any thing in that sort of Study For if he had been at all conversant in Heathen Authors we should doubtless have seen more effects of it in his way of Writing However we may learn from hence that Christians ought not to reject any thing which was well said by the Heathens And therefore I think it not amiss to produce two more Passages besides those which have been alledged by Grotius out of Heathen Writers to this purpose Aeschylus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is according to the interpretation of Grotius Adeo malorum scilicet commercio Nil pejus usquam est oritur infelix seges Nam sceleris arvum nil nisi mortem parit Epictetus in Enchirid. cap. xlv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a Companion be corrupted he that converses with him must needs also be corrupted tho perhaps he were before pure Ibid. Note e. I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in the sense in which it is commonly understood because those who denied the Resurrection were undoubtedly Persons of evil Manners and that this was St. Paul's meaning appears by the following words Awake to Righteousness and sin not So in Aristophanes in Nub. p. 177. Ed. majoris Act. 3. Sc. 2. the Chorus addressing themselves to just Reason say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But O thou who hast crowned our Ancestors with abundance of good Manners speak and declare thy Nature Where unquestionably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies good Manners as in many other places Yet Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and this may be joined together Vers 54. Note g. This remark our Author took out of H. Grotius but tho the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify for ever and Death be to be finally abolished after the Resurrection yet St. Paul does not refer to that here for if he had he would have rendred the words of Isaiah Chap. xxv 8 by
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he now interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had before reckoned Death in the number of Christ's Enemies vers 25 and 26. and afterwards in vers 57. he saith that God had given us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the victory over Death So that of two significations whereof the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inetsahh is capable viz. for ever and in victory St. Paul here follows the latter which made most for his purpose And indeed that signification agrees best to the place in Isaiah it self CHAP. XVI Ver. 19. Note c. I. Wonder our learned Author should begin this Annotation with saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church did not ONLY signify the place of assembling together but also the Persons that used to do so When it is certain the former signification of the word for a Place was wholly unknown in the times of the Apostles in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was always used for an Assembly as well among the Christians as by the Greeks II. I rather also understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the House it self which is said here to have had a Church in it because there were in it several Christians so that that House seemed to contain a whole Church Tertullian in Lib. de Exhort ad castit cap. vii Where there are three Persons there is a Church tho they be Laicks Vers 22. Note d. I. Those learned Men who affirm there were only two degrees of Excommunication among the Jews are Selden and his followers See his Treatise de Synedriis Judaeorum Lib. 1. cap. 7. And I confess I could never meet with any that has answered his Arguments tho Dr. Hammond does not doubt but he was mistaken but our Author was too great a favourer of Ecclesiastical Punishments which yet it is certain have done more mischief than good to the Christian Church II. What he says about the word Maran is taken out of Grotius without Care or Examination 1. The Etrurians did not call their Kings Marani but Murrani as Grotius tells us out of Sâ—rvius on Aeneid 12. vers 529. 2. The Syrians are not stiled Maronitae because they call Christ Lord but from one Maron an Abbot whom the Maronitae affirm to have been Orthodox but others a Heretick or from Maronia a Territory of Syria on which matter there is extant a Dissertation of Gabriel Sionita and Joannes Hezzonita both Maronites It is certain Maron is a Syrian name there being in the Recognit of S. Clement Lib. 3. c. 2. mention made of Maron the Tripolite who entertained St. Peter 3. I cannot tell where Epiphanius says that God was called by the Gazari Marnas but I know that Mr. Selden a great while before this was published by Dr. Hammond or before ever Grotius first wrote it had shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marnascha was the name of a Deity among the Gazaeans in his Treatise de Diis Syris Synt. 2. c. 1. 4. Stephanus was mistaken when he said that the Cretians called their Virgins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see J. Selden and C. Salmasius on cap. 11. of Solinus III. The Spaniards do not say Anathema Maranatha but Anathema Marano as it is rightly set down by Grotius out of Mariana Lib. 7. cap. 6. Rerum Hispanicarum The Arabick words subjoined to that form of speaking among the Spaniards are not an interpretation of it nor brought as such by Grotius but of this place in St. Paul out of the Arabick Translation published by T. Erpenius IV. The conjecture set down by the Doctor concerning the passage in Steph. Byzant on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken from Dan. Heinsius whose name he ought to have mentioned tho it be but an unhappy conjecture The Shepherd there spoken of said in Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ram-anth thou art high viz. O God Stephanus misunderstood Philo as S. Bochart well observes in Chanaan Lib. 2. c. 12. to whom I refer the Reader Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is omitted in the Alexandrian Copy But I have sometime suspected that the true reading was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by a mistake came to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians CHAP. I. Vers 11. Note a. THIS Observation our Author had out of Grotius but it is false that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies in respect of And if it did the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not signify in respect of many viz. men but in many respects and the latter part of the Verse should be rendred thus That the Gift bestowed upon us in many respects might be received by many with thanksgiving for us To make sense of which words we should be obliged to interpret in many respects by to many purposes or ends which yet will not agree either with the Hebrew or Greek phrase I believe therefore indeed that there is here a Hebraism but so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is answerable to the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mipphene rabbim from the face of many that is from many It is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies from as Chr. Noldius in Conc. Particularum has observed The Greek words are only transposed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the faces of many And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is set at length in Chap. ix 12 of this Epist just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in a few words in Heb. xiii 22 So that this Verse ought to have been rendred thus That many thanks may be given for us by many for the Gift bestowed upon us by God Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a Paranomasia or figure in which words of a like sound and different sense are joined together Such another as that of Dionysius Cato Nam legere non intelligere negligere est on which see Jos Scaliger It is a noted saying of Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have read I have known I have condemned Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who purchase any thing for which they do not pay ready Mony nor take it immediately away use for fear of its being changed or a worse commodity substituted in its room to mark it with their Seal and give the Seller earnest And this seems to be the ground of this metaphorical description here of those benefits which God confers upon us whilst we live in this world by the names of Seal and Earnest God has redeemed us with the Blood of his Son and yet he does not presently for ever make us his own by bestowing eternal Blessdness upon us but
Clay and thence by a Metaphor was applied to Animals covered with a certain Shell which for the hardness of it might be compared to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I affirm nothing positively but this I affirm that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undoubtedly signifies earthen Vessels because that is the perpetual signification of this Phrase and the other alledged by Dr. Hammond is without example Besides the place it self necessarily requires the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be so understood for it is manifest that St. Paul compares the Apostles to frail and contemptible and not precious or artificial Vessels such as are made of the finest sort of Shells There is a clear opposition here put between the great Excellency of the Gospel and the meanness of its Preachers or between the Power of God which exerted it self in the Gospel and the Infirmity of the Apostles Vers 8. Note c. I fully agree with our learned Author in interpreting St. Paul's words here by the customs of the Heathens in their Agones But there are some things to be observed on this Annotation I. It is strange he should confound the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek with the Latin algeo when the Greek constantly signifies to grieve to be tormented and the Latin to be cold Yet he has elsewhere committed the same mistake lest any one should think it was by mere accident It is manifest that St. Chrysostom interprets the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this latter does no more signify to be cold than the former but to be grieved or afflicted II. In the place of St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an Agonistical term The words of the Apostle are Let patience have its perfect work that ye may be perfect and entire deficient in nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the thing spoken of is manifestly a defect and not any Victory which might be gained over the Christians III. It would have been worth observing that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition carries a greater emphasis with it than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only to be perplexed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despair utterly So Aristophanes in Nubibus Act. 4. Sc. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith he will destroy and utterly ruin or undo me Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius Habentes communem nobiscum Dei Spiritum qui non datur nisi credentibus Iterum hic genitivus causam significat id est conditionem requisitam Having the common Spirit of God with us which is not given to any but Believers Again here the Genitive Case signifies a Cause that is a necessary Condition But I should rather interpret the Spirit of Faith of a disposition of Mind sutable to what we believe or to the Faith which we profess So the Spirit of Jealousy and the Spirit of Bondage c. are the dispositions of jealous Persons or Servants Which Interpretation agrees better with what follows for because the Apostles were so disposed as Persons who did not doubt of the truth or excellency of the Gospel ought to be therefore they boldly preached it and could not be deterred from so doing by any danger CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't think this is an Hypallage whereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beza supposed and therefore without necessity inverted the words in his Translation But an House of a Tabernacle is a Hebraism for a House which like a Tabernacle is easily dissolved a House that is built of Boards which maybe easily taken asunder in opposition to a House of Stone which abides firm after its Tenant is removed So that the Genitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent to an Adjective which would signify like a Tabernacle such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were in use for then it might have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if our earthly House like a Tabernacle were dissolved Which the Greek not permitting it is no wonder that St. Paul after the manner of the Hebrews supplied the place of an Adjective by a Substantive Hippocrates in Aphorismis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Soul having left the Tabernacle of the Body Vers 10. Note a. The Vulgar Interpreter read also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by his translating it propria and the sense is not improper but have a care of thinking that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Man himself See what our Author has said about that matter on Rom. vi 6 and what I have there objected against him Vers 11. Note b. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be often joined with a great opinion of the Person who perswades and he that desires to perswade must above all things endeavour to get the approbation and good opinion of his Hearers yet the use of the Greek Language will not permit that word to be taken in the sense which our Author here fixes upon it The Accusative case to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be repeated from what goes before The sense is knowing how much the Judgment of God ought to be feared we perswade others to fear it that we may induce them to a Holy Life of which God is our witness and you also if am not mistaken conscious Nor is it to be expected that the Doctor will any where else prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any thing but to perswade It is common with him to impose significations upon words collected from mere uncertain reasonings whereas Use is that which ought to be principally regarded and nothing else when a word may be conveniently taken in its usual sense Nothing is more dangerous than those kind of reasonings which ought never to be recurred to but when it is impossible to apply the ordinary signification of words to any particular places in which they occur CHAP. VI. Vers 2. Note a. I Have already elsewhere said that out of Judaea the Christians had no reason to fear the Jews in those times and therefore the day of Salvation here cannot reasonably be referred to the Jews the Apostle writing to Persons that lived in Achaia But Grotius and others more fitly understand it of eternal Salvation But I am not against thinking that the Apostle here opposes his own and the rest of the Apostles Life to the ill Manners and Effeminacy of false Teachers provided the 2 d verse be not interpreted of a Deliverance from them by a sudden destruction which was to befal them For what deliverance could this be from Hereticks when the Heathen Persecutions daily encreased from this time throughout all the Roman Empire Vers 14. Note b. Our learned Author who finds fault with Budaeus and Stephanus for taking up with a conjecture rather than attending to the use of the
word ought to have produced a place in which the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified to incline to one part more than another not a single Passage out of Phocylides where the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an uneven balance For if the signification of the Verb must necessarily be deduced from the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the same reason I will derive it from another signification of the same word viz. for of another kind In which sense it is used by the Septuagint in Levit. xix 19 where for thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse kind they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be by joining themselves to Unbelievers to mix with another sort of Men viz. different from Christians or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems to have had a respect to that Law in Levit. It 's certain at least that Moses by that Symbolical Law signified the same which the Apostle here forbids as I have shewn in my Notes on that place But why are Cattel of a different Species called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely because they do not use to be joined together in the same yoke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So saith Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are not yoked together And on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Wife is by the same Grammarian called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she is linked together in the same Yoke with her Husband This Interpretation is more natural than that of the learned M. Meibomius in Lib. de Fabrica Triremium p. 37. where he renders this place do not strive with Vnbelievers viz. like Rowers who endeavour by unequal force of rowing to pull the Vessel to one side But what he says is worth our reading tho it be much more simple and agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to yoke themselves with Infidels so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the composition of this Verb be not opposed to the yoke of Unbelievers but to the Yoke of Christ CHAP. VII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as it is rightly rendred by Beza quaestui habuimus made gain of them Our Author's interpretation I have confuted on the place of the Epistle to the Romans referred to in his Paraphrase Vers 8. Note a. Unless our Author had here look'd for Church Censures of all kinds he would not have had one word to say upon this Chapter but with all due respect to the Memory of so great a Man be it said he had better have said nothing than wrested the Apostle's words at such a rate I. He should not have said indefinitely that the Greeks used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a short space of time but only the latter Greeks as it is said by Grotius from whom he took this remark but should have better transcribed him And the latter Greeks as the same learned Man thinks borrowed the word in that signification from the Latins So it is taken in Horace Sat. 1. Lib. 1. Horae Momento cita mors venit aut victoria laeta II. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify to excommunicate but to grieve by severe Reproofs as I have already observed on 2 Cor. v. 2 And the Corinthians are said to have been grieved for a short time by St. Paul's reproofs because they were sensible they had deserved them but when they had a little while after seen that they whom St. Paul had particularly aimed at in those reproofs became sober and penitent they rejoiced that the seasonable severity of the Apostle had so good an effect upon them St. Paul has no reference here to Excommunication nor must delivering to Satan be confounded with Excommunication a Punishment peculiar to the Apostles times but afterwards unknown as I have on 1 Cor. v. observed III. It 's true indeed there are others besides the incestuous Person here referred to but that they had the Censures of the Church inflicted upon them is not said by the Apostle nor so much as intimated but only that they were at first sorry that there had been such Disorders committed among them as gave St. Paul just reason to reprehend them and afterwards rejoiced that they had been reclaimed by his reproofs from those sinful practices There is no regard here had to Excommunication inflicted either for a longer or a shorter space of time Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author goes on in his Paraphrase to interpret this word of excommunication contrary to the Rules of Grammar For who does not see that to sorrow to Repentance is to be grieved so for what we have done amiss as to forbear offending for the future Obstinate Persons are troubled indeed when their Sins are reproved but they are not troubled because they have sinned they are troubled only because they are reproved And therefore they are angry with those who reprehend them and never think of reforming their evil Practices But Persons of a yielding Temper are not sorry that they are reprehended but that they have sinned and therefore they take it well of those who reprove them for their faults and carefully abstain from them ever after And this Sorrow St. Paul here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is so as not to think that you suffered any loss of Reputation by my severity in reproving you quite otherwise than obstinate Men would do who would have cried out that they were injured and defamed without ever becoming better Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An excellent sentence is here quite spoiled by our Author and turned into an empty sound of words by his wresting the words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is the Discipline of the Church and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are punishments inflicted by Men. Who will endure such an Interpretation as this so distant from the literal sense of the words especially when a very good and excellent one arises from a Grammatical Explication of them For the meaning of St. Paul is this That a Sorrow agreeable to the Divine Will such as is the Sorrow of all good Men worketh Reformation of Manners and consequently Life but the sorrow of worldly minded Persons makes them but sin the more and that brings eternal Death upon them the just reward of obstinate and incorrigible Offenders For as I have already said good Men are sorry that they have sinned bad Men that they are discovered and reproved the former upon Reproof amend but these latter grow but the more hardy tho perhaps more close in sinning CHAP. VIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of Liberality the original of which phrase I have set down on Rom. xii 8 Vers 10. Note a. I cannot perswade my self that St. Paul would say ye have begun not only
to do but also to will in the same sense as he would have said ye have begun not only to will but also to do nor is there any example of such an inversion So that I had rather with Dr. Hammond enquire for some other notion to fix here upon this word Will and because it is common with us to do some things especially in acts of Charity with some kind of regret and not heartily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Homer speaks interpret it of a chearful and liberal Mind and so make the sense to be Ye have not only from a Year ago begun to contribute a sum of Mony but also as to your manner of doing it it was not by compulsion or the bare importunate perswasion of those whom you could not deny but with a ready chearful and charitable Mind Without which qualification the liberality which any Man exercises is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against his Will and becomes unacceptable so that those who receive a Benefit from one who is not hearty in bestowing it had almost rather not receive it at all as esteeming more the Will of the giver than the Gift it self And if it be so sometimes among Men with God it is always so who has ever a greater regard to the Disposition with which a Man gives than what he gives St. Paul therefore might aptly subjoin a word which signified the affection of the Persons who gave to a word which signified their Gifts themselves and his Discourse does not descend but ascend Seneca has a great deal to this purpose in the beginning of his Lib. 2. de Beneficiis and elsewhere in the same Book This interpretation is confirmed by the following Vers and the beginning of the ixth Chapter Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This our Author must needs understand of a Synod and Bishops as if some Churches could not by Letters declarative of their Mind have agreed about sending a particular Person along with St. Paul I should rather have used general words because it in no wise appears that this matter was determin'd in a Synod The same Person that is here intended is afterwards vers 23. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one deputed by the Churches to accompany St. Paul in his Travels and ease him of part of his work Of this see the learned Mr. Dodwell in Dissert Cyprian 6. S. 17. Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is instruments saith Grotius of the glory of Christ viz. in advancing the Gospel saith our Author in his Paraphrase But I think it is much more natural to say that those are here called the glory of Christ who are an honour to Christ by the integrity and sanctity of their Life as bad Christians are a disgrace and reproach to him See what I have said about a like expression on 1 Cor. xi 4 CHAP. IX Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that from a whole year past they had been forward to give and begun already to contribute Our Author here fancies some new act of liberality in the Corinthians as if they had already before sent a sum of Mony to Judaea which is no where intimated by St. Paul This opinion of his proceeded from misunderstanding the 10th verse of Chap. viii on which see my Note St. Paul had not told the Macedonians that the Corinthians had a year ago got ready a sum of Mony to send to Judaea which he knew to be false but that they had begun to contribute from that time and were so forward and chearful in their Contributions that the whole Sum expected from them would easily be completed So that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be referred to a readiness of Mind To which it is very properly applied Gratissima saith Seneca de Beneficiis Lib. 2. c. 1. sunt beneficia PARATA facile occurrentia ubi nulla mora fuit nisi in accipientis verecundia Those Benefits are most grateful which are READILY bestowed that come easily from a Man and as it were of their own accord and if there be any hesitation it is on the part of the bashful receiver Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author interprets what St. Paul here says that God was able to do so as if he had said he would certainly do it and thence he infers that Riches are promised to the liberal even under the Gospel But the promises of the Gospel respecting all of them the Soul and a future State as appears both by the nature of the Evangelical Covenant and innumerable places in the Gospels it is not necessary to represent St. Paul as saying here what he did not say Nay he seems to have on set purpose spoken cautiously when he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will make to abound because God does not promise or give such things under the Gospel but for certain reasons which are many times unknown to us And if he does not give them we have no cause to complain because he has not promised them and those things which he gives us are infinitely more valuable But does not the Apostle you will say pray to God that he would reward the bounty of the Corinthians by bestowing upon them greater Riches I acknowledg he does but it does not therefore follow that God has promised to make the bountiful always rich but only that this is sometimes done by him and that it is lawful to pray for it because we may desire Riches both for our selves and others on this condition that we make a good use of them So that all that our learned Author says about Riches being promised under the Gospel to the liberal is insignificant and to speak the truth more worthy of those who affirm Riches to be a mark of the true Church than of Dr. Hammond Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words only which are alledged by St. Paul ought to have been urged and not others which he omits For otherwise it is not the Apostle but Dr. Hammond that here reasons who groundlesly infers from hence that Riches are promised in the New Testament The place which he refers to in his Annotation on the foregoing Verse viz. Mat. xix 29 does not prove that good Men shall be made rich in this World or receive again their Kindred and Friends and other things of the same nature which they have forsaken for Christ but only what will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hundred-fold better in the room of them viz. a Mind contented with its present State and the sure hopes of eternal Happiness So that what our Author infers from the Passage alledged here out of the Psalms has no foundation and cannot be attributed to St. Paul Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See before Chap. viii 2 and my Note on Rom. xii 8 CHAP. X. Vers 4. Note b. I. Do not at all doubt but that St.
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
sequatur Vna tamen in re maxime utilis ut quotidiani semper codem modo formati sermonis fastidium levet nos a vulgari dicendi genere defendat Quo siquis parce cum res poscet utetur velut adsperso quodam condimento jucundior erit At qui nimium affectaverit ipsam illam gratiam varietatis amitâ—et c. Every figure would be an imperfection if it were not chosen but casual It is an excellency if it have something probable following it But there is one thing in which it is most useful and that is to take away that nauseousness which is bred by forming our Discourse always after the same manner and to keep us from a vulgar way of expression Which if any one sparingly use and only when the thing requires it it will give a grateful relish as it were to his Discourse But if he unnecessarily affects it he will lose all that agreableness which a Variety would otherwise cause c. Now I do not think there is any one will suppose that St. Paul purposely chose those harsh and frequent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Discourse less distastful to his Readers And therefore it remains that they be looked on as Defects and Imperfections which yet are no prejudice to his matter because the Gospel is a very plain and easy thing which does not need to be illustrated by any Light dâ—â—â—â—ding upon Elegancy or exactness of Expression It is well said by St. Jerom on Chap. vi of this Epistle to the Galatians vers 1. Qui putant Paulum juxta humilitatem non vere dixisse etsi imperitus Sermone non tamen scientia defendant hujus loci consequentiam Debuit quippe secundum ordinem dicere vos qui spirituales estis instruite hujusmodi in spiritu lenitatis considerantes vosmet ipsos vos tentemini non plurali inferre numerum singularem Hebraeus igitur ex Hebraeis qui esset in vernaculo sermone doctissimus profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat nec CURABAT MAGNOPERE DE VERBIS CUM SENSUM HABERET IN TUTO They who think that St. Paul spake only out of Modesty and not the real truth when he said tho I am rude in Speech yet not in Knowledg let them defend the Connexion of this place For according to good Syntax he ought to have said Ye that are Spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of Meekness considering your sâ—lves lest you also be tempted and not have brought a Singular number upon a Plural But being a Hebrew of the Hebrews and very skilful in his own Native Dialect he could not express his profound sense in another Language and AS LONG AS THE SENSE WAS SAFE HE DID NOT MUCH CONCERN HIMSELF ABOUT WORDS II. The Passage referred to by our Author in the same St. Jerom in Comment ad Ephes iii. I have set down a little more fully in my Latin Translation than the Doctor who did not complete the sense but ended at the word adnotamus and it is thus Quotiescunque solaecismos aut tale quid adnotamus non Apostolum pulsamus ut malevoli criminantur sed magis Apostoli adsertores sumus c. Whenever we take notice of any Solaecisms or the like we do not injure the Apostle as some malicious Persons would lay to our charge but we do him so much the more Justice c. Our Author adds and so Epist cap. 1. Quaest 10. which I have omitted because to produce the testimony of St. Jerom in that manner is absurd and I could not find the passage to which he referred I don't think he look'd himself into St. Jerom when he sent us to that place For otherwise he would certainly have cited him with more care and instead of those Divines which he alledges appealed to the Testimony of St. Jerom whose Authority is much more considerable And with St. Jerom he might have joined Origen who lays down this Rule of which more at large in cap. 8. Philocaliae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we ought not to attempt the correcting of any seeming Solaecisms or verbal incoherences in Scripture where to discerning Persons the sense is well enough connected Vers 11. Note g. I. I do not think that from an ill interpretation of one place in the Old Testament we ought to deduce an unheard of sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it therefore ordinarily signified the same with the Hebrew used in that place One single place in the Septuagint where they arbitrarily fix a sense upon a word which they could not properly render does not change the use of a Language as I have already elsewhere suggested For they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because they thought it signified just the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but because it contained a sense not altogether disagreable to that place as they imagined So that I chuse here to follow the vulgar Interpretation and especially seeing it best sutes with the context viz. when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed that is because he did what he ought not to have done not because he was look'd upon by others as a Dissembler For first he did really pretend to avoid the Society of the Gentiles which he used not to do nor ought to have done And secondly others did not see him dissemble because by his example and manner of Life the Gentiles began to be perswaded that they were obliged by the Jewish Laws So that it is rightly observed by Grotius after a great many others that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is the same with the Verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. The Passage in Ecclesiasticus makes nothing at all to the purpose which is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shame is upon the Toief and an evil Condemnation upon the double Tongue that is they are at length condemned and suffer a shameful Punishment I do not see any necessity of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by detection Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are said to compel not only who use Commands Threatnings or Violence but those who when they say or do any thing others dare not but follow their Example or Authority or cannot neglect any thing which they would have them do without great prejudice to their Interest or Reputation So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in 2 Cor. xii 11 where St. Paul says that the Corinthians had so carried themselves towards him that to keep up his Reputation he was compelled to speak somewhat more highly and honourably of himself than he would otherwise have done And to the same sense the Latin cogere is used by Cicero in the beginning of his Book de Amicitia where Laelius speaking to his Sons-in-law who had earnestly entreated him to discourse concerning Friendship says Vim hoc
example of Abraham were accounted just and righteous before God upon the sole observation of the precepts of the Gospel And these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seed of Abraham because they obtain Justification while uncircumcised and the promises made to Abraham at that time uncircumcised are fulfilled in them in a more eminent sense than in the believing Jews as St. Paul himself shews in Rom. iv Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot sufficiently wonder at Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase of this Verse and if he had paraphrased the rest of this Chapter in the same manner I should have quite lost my labour in translating him For who would ever have imagined that the Apostle meant any thing like what he says upon reading only St. Paul's words At this rate of paraphrasing a Man may make any thing what he pleases of any Verse of Scripture This Verse therefore must be better explained It seems to be brought in by way of Parenthesis for the 21 st Verse is manifestly to be joined with the 19 th and so to be consider'd as a digression in which the Apostle upon occasion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonishes the Galatians as he goes along that as the Covenants made by God with Men were more than one so each had their distinct Mediators tho God himself was one The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify is not one as appears from the opposite member of the Sentence but God is one tho they properly signify is not of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some such word being to be understood It is all one as if St. Paul had said I told you that there was a Mediator between God and the Antient Hebrews because tho God be one and the same yet he has not appointed one single Mediator of one Gospel but the Law likewise had its Mediator viz. Moses Which comes to no more than if the Apostle had said there is not one Mediator for to say that the Law had a Mediator appointed it as well as the Gospel is nothing but to say that it is not one only that may be called by that Name If it be asked why St. Paul admonishes the Galatians of this I answer that it is an Exegesis by way of Parenthesis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which kind of Parentheses are very frequent in St. Paul's writings See Ephes ii 5 and iv 9 10. This I thought to be the sense of this obscure place which if not true does however very little depart from the Apostle's words whereas nothing can be more distant from them than Dr. Hammond's Interpretation Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here argues upon the Jews Hypothesis as I have before said who affirmed that God required perfect Holiness in the Law upon which supposition no Man can be justified by it nor consequently attain to Life Otherwise Moses every where supposes and takes it for certain that it was possible to observe the Law but he had not that Notion of the Law which the later Jews had who interpreted every thing mystically And according to these Mens Sentiments St. Paul here disputes and not that of Moses Which unless we observe it will be impossible to reconcile the Prophet with the Apostle Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular St. Paul does not reason from the Sentiments of the Jews but declares his own Mind tho it be a Consectary necessarily following from what went before supposing the truth of the Jews opinion concerning the perfection of the Law But the same also might be inferred from the Nature of the Mosaical Law it self as that which contain'd only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elements of the Christian Religion And those who are taught only the Elements of a thing are still under a Schoolmaster This might be proved by other Arguments if it were necessary So that what in it self was true and relied upon firmer grounds that St. Paul proved also from the Jewish Opinion by this means the more effectually to put the Jews to silence a thing which he often does Such is the perversness of Mankind especially in matters of Religion that they are not moved so much by cogent Reason as by prejudices and opinions taken up in their Childhood Such is the pride of Mens Hearts that they cannot bear to have their Errors confuted or inveigh'd against especially when their mistakes are of a long standing and grown inveterate or when those who are charged with Error have been always judged by their own party to be in the right and look'd upon as learned and judicious Men. And for these reasons Christ and the Apostles reproved as few of the Jews mistakes as they could viz. those only which would not consist with Christianity but their other prejudices that had no very bad consequences attending them and which their obstinacy would not suffer the eradication of to be attempted without manifest danger they chose rather to bear with and to reason against them upon their own principles because they perceived that that way of arguing had the greatest influence upon them But seeing we now live in a time in which we are to search out the Truth more for our own use than for the use of the Jews it is our part after the discovery of it to set it down just as it is Because if we do not we shall never understand the Apostle's Writings nor be able to defend them against the objections of Infidels yea perhaps which God of his infinite Mercy prevent instead of a solid Piety established upon its own Light and Evidence all our Religion may degenerate into but dark and fearful Superstition CHAP. IV. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we Jews for the Gentiles were never under the discipline of the Jewish Law which they were ignorant of and from which they were excluded by the very nature of the Law For it was a Law given to one Nation living in one Country the Land of Canaan This deserved here to be noted because if it be not observed the whole Discourse of the Apostle in this place will be very obscure Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 9. And there is no doubt but he means the Mosaical Law whence it may be again inferred that St. Paul did not think with the Jews that that Law was a perfect rule of Sanctity For if he had been of that mind how could he have called it the Elements of the World and weak and beggarly Elements The elements are the rude beginnings of any Art or Science and far from containing the whole art in its greatest Extent and utmost Perfection Which being so undoubtedly he thought those Elements might be observed by Men if they were consider'd in themselves as they are in Moses tho perfect Holiness such as the Jews affirmed the Law to be a complete pattern of was
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said and another thing different from that signified is called an Allegory Vers 25. Note c. Our learned Author has sufficiently indeed here shewn that the Arabians were circumcised but not in conformity to the Mosaical Law but a more antient Precept given to Abraham himself and in imitation of Ismael not of Isaac Whether they had any other Custom which might be look'd upon as an imitation of the Law of Moses I cannot tell but it is false that the Ismaelites ever bound themselves to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies as was observed by Grotius whom I wonder Dr. Hammond did not give ear to I have often observed that learned Men supply out of their own Invention what is wanting in the Testimonies of the Antients and afterwards thence draw Conclusions as grounded upon the undoubted Authority of Antient Writers which yet is certainly no good way of arguing The 24 th and two following Verses may be thus paraphrased Ver. 24. These things use to be allegorically explained by the Jews and may be interpreted so as to signify what I a little before said Sarah and Hagar are as it were the Symbols of two Covenants the latter viz. Hagar of the Covenant given from Mount Sinai the Laws of which impose nothing but Slavery upon those who seek to be justified by it 25. And Hagar is so much the more fitly said to be an emblem of the Covenant delivered from Mount Sinai because her name signifies a Rock And to that Covenant of which the Servantmaid Hagar was an Image belongs the earthly Jerusalem which is entirely taken up in the observation of servil Rites and acted by a slavish Fear 26. But Sarah the free Woman is a Symbol of the Evangelical Covenant according to the Laws of which the Citizens of the Spiritual Jerusalem live that is all we Christians The Apostle undoubtedly alludes to the name of Hagar which being written with an ח according to the usual confusion of the guttural Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhagar signifies a Rock among the Arabians It is probable that the Jews who were no very great Friends to the Arabians said a great many things by way of Allegory out of the History of Moses to extol their Nation and on the contrary to depress the Hagarens and that St. Paul here applies to those who were Israelites according to the Spirit what the Jews used to say in honour of their Nation as on the contrary to the carnal Jews what they often asserted to the disadvantage of the Hagarens I shall take the liberty here which I do not otherwise use to allegorize a little after the Jewish manner that we may the better see what might give the Apostle Paul an occasion to speak so as he does And first I shall perform the part of a Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 darschan or Allegorical Preacher and then represent a Christian retorting the like Allegory upon the Jew THE JEWISH 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That ye may be sensible O Israelites of the great benefits which God has conferred upon you compare your Original with that of your Neighbours the Hagarens The founder of your Nation Isaac was born of a free Woman and Mistress of a Family Sarah on the contrary Ismael the Father and Founder of the Hagarens was born of a Servant Isaac was conceived by a particular efficacy of the Divine Power when Abraham was neither able to beget nor Sarah to conceive by reason of old Age on the other hand Ismael was born of Abraham and Hagar when younger according to the ordinary course of Nature Nor did the distinguishing Providence of God terminate only on Sarah and Hagar and their Sons Isaac and Ismael but drew as it were in them the figure of what has already come to pass in former Ages and shall hereafter happen to both their Progenies The Posterity of Isaac have been protected almost with perpetual Miracles and often enjoyed the sweets of Liberty and had dominion over their neighbour Nations and shall again have when that great King whom we so much expect and long for and whose Reign our antient Prophecies foretel comes to rule over us But the Hagarens like their Mother cast out and disinherited have already more than once been our Servants and shall hereafter be so being subdued by the Power and Authority of the Messias Do not in the least doubt of the truth of what I say for God has heretofore given you a pledg of future events on one hand in Sarah and Isaac and on the other in Hagar and Ismael who as I said before represented the several Conditions of their posterity THE CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIST We take you at your word O Jews that antient Events did shadow out and represent things future But as of old the Offspring of Abraham was twofold so it is now and the same which was the condition of that twofold race of Abraham is at present the lot of their Posterity Hagar and Ismael were Images of the Carnal Israelites who are the Seed of Abraham indeed according to the Flesh but because they do not imitate his Faith and Piety shall not inherit the Promises made to him upon believing They shall be cast out of his spiritual Family and be subject in a servil manner to the Covenant established on Mount Sinai in Arabia of which Hagar may the more fitly be said to be an Emblem because her name signifies a Rock and her Posterity still inhabit that Country So that the Bondwoman Hagar who was cast out together with her Son represented the state of the earthly Jerusalem which is subject to slavish Rites and Ceremonies But Sarah the Freewoman of whom Isaac was heretofore born beside the course of Nature in like manner as now Men are made Christians by an extraordinary efficacy of the Divine Power was an Image of the Evangelical Covenant and the Jerusalem which was to come that is the Christian Church As Sarah and Isaac were Free so also Christians freely obey God and are not tied to any servil Rites As Isaac only was Abraham's Heir so none but Christians shall obtain that heavenly Inheritance which Abraham by his Faith obtained If the Jews thought their reasoning against the Arabians to be cogent there was no reason why they should reject the Christian Allegory And this I doubt not made St. Paul here use an allegorical way of reasoning which he otherwise would not have done CHAP. V. Vers 6. Note b. I. SEEING our Author has thought fit to put together in this place all he had to observe about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall examine all that he says for there are some things in it which I cannot assent to I grant the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may according to the Analogy of Grammar be taken as well in a Passive as an Active sense as the matter requires but I do not think it is so used in all the places here alledged In Rom. vii 5
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actively and the whole passage is rightly rendred the affections of Sins which were by the Law wrought in our Members not were consummated or perfected in them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has never that signification nor do the places alledged out of the Apostle James and Clemens Alexandrinus prove it as we shall presently see The second place is 2 Cor. i. 6 which may receive indeed a Passive signification if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vulgar Interpreter and other Copies And the same may be said of 2 Cor. iv 12 But in Ephes iii. 20 and Col. 1.29 the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must in all reason be understood actively for the discourse there is about the power of God which is not wrought but works In 1 Thess ii 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be rendred obtains its end by any who understand Greek or consider carefully what they say But in 2 Thess ii 7 it may well enough be interpreted in a Passive sense In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best of all rendred working by Love that is which performs works of Love II. Tho St. James says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith was made perfect by Works it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made perfect for why may not St. James say something different from that which is said by St. Paul How did Dr. Hammond know that St. James performs the part of St. Paul's Interpreter Besides granting these two Passages in both the Apostles to be parallel it will not thence follow that exactly the same thing is said in both so that the Verb made use of by St. Paul may grammatically be interpreted by that which is used by St. James Nor will the Etymology or perpetual use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer it to be rendred made perfect III. The place referred to in Clemens Alexandrinus is in Strom. Lib. iv Pag. 518 519. Ed. Paris Colon. but is not here pertinently alledged as will appear by his words which I shall therefore set down entire He is speaking in praise of Love out of Clemens Romanus and among other things says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Love have all the Elect of God been made perfect And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are perfected in Love according to the Grace of God obtain the place of Pious Men. And underneath he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love therefore makes us not to commit Adultery and not to covet what is our Neighbours which before we were restrained from by fear So that there is a difference in the same action as it is either done out of Fear or wrought in Love or as it is performed only out of Faith or also from Knowledg In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 done or wrought as its synonimous words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the thing it self shew So that it cannot hence be inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with to be consummated or made perfect in French être perfectionné Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before signifies another thing where the Discourse is about Persons not about Actions IV. In James v. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to signify an earnest Prayer Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense add to what the Doctor says the observations of Budaeus and Henr. Stephanus who have done the World a great deal of Service in the pains they have taken about the Greek Language V. The words of Hesychius are much worse corrupted by our Author than they are in the common Editions If he had looked into Phavorinus perhaps he would have understood how they were to be corrected That Grammarian has out of Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it must be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prepared to work or working 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not vain heard perfected or fulfilled viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers Hesychius having a respect to the forementioned Passage in the Apostle James So that it 's true there was here a void space or Lacuna but different from what Dr. Hammond thought The Scribe whoever he was omitted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the next following which differs only from that in having the Letter Α instead of Ο. Such Omissions are frequent in the Writings of the Antients proceeding from the same Cause as I have shewn in my Ars Critica Part 3. Sect. i. Cap. 5. and it is needless to add any thing more about this particular corruption in Hesychius Vers 12. Note c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying utinam I wish is always joined with an Infinitive Optative or Subjunctive Mood or Preterperfect Tense never with a Future nor is the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever interposed See Thomas Magister on that Particle And therefore I should understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not also read it so to this sense They ought to have been cut off and shall actually be cut off when I come among you that trouble you and so it will be an Elliptical phrase for this entire one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such another as that in these Verses of Virgil in Catalectis after the Verb debuit quae maxima deterrendi Debuit audendi maxima causa fuit Where out of what follows we must supply causa esse as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or else we must understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Loss or Punishment which often use to be understood after the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken simply for he was condemned because condemned Persons ought to suffer Loss or Punishment As in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus Lib. ix Ant. Rom. pag. 585. speaking of Menenius who was accused by the Tribunes of the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the People giving Sentence by Tribes by no small number of Votes he was condemned It is all one which of these ways we interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It might be confounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which it is really made by taking away the augment unless it be thought rather to come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else the Transcribers might easily change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom's interpretation of this place which Grotius follows is intolerable utinam abscindatur ipsum membrum genitale Such an imprecation would have been fitter for a lewd Buffoon than for St. Paul And Dr. Hammond's last conjecture lessens the Apostle another way because it represents him as diffident of his Authority among the Galatians notwithstanding
same word ought to be so taken in Chap. i. 11 of this Epistle as appears by his Paraphrase For St. Paul did not write this Epistle in the name of the Church of Rome so that when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he should be understood to speak of the Christians who dwelt in that City And besides nothing could be said more flat in the name of the Roman Gentiles than among whom also we all had our Conversation c. seeing every body knew that the Romans had lived in the same Vices with other Heathens yea had been worse it may be than their Neighbours as the Inhabitants of great Cities are generally most devoted to the Vices of the Age. But that might very fitly be said of the Jews whom St. Paul would otherwise have seemed to distinguish from other Nations as to the course of their Lives in which as he would not have declared the truth so he might have offended the Gentiles And for this reason he says here we all that is Jews as well as Gentiles Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of this expression I have shewn at large in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. i. cap. 7. to be no more than this that the Jews were a People of as wicked Dispositions and deserved as much the Wrath of God as other Nations Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have set down the whole Verse to shew that the sense of the last words is different from what is vulgarly thought They render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by quae praeparavit which he hath prepared and I do not deny but that according to the Greek Construction it may be so rendred but the thing it self and the Phrase ought to have admonished Interpreters that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rather to be understood and that it should be rendred for which he hath prepared us or made us fit The foregoing words in which Christians are called God's workmanship and said to be created by Christ shew that St. Paul speaks of a change made in Men who of bad and indisposed to good Works were made good and fit for the exercise of Christian Vertues And therefore the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have been referred to them It 's certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There can scarce be a harsher Phrase and more destitute of examples than this to prepare good Works that Men might walk in them But Men themselves are frequently said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in Rom. ix 23 where St. Paul speaks of a like matter God is said to make known the riches of his Glory on the vessels of Mercy which he had before prepared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Glory whom he also hath called not only us of the Jews but also of the Gentiles God is here said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have prepared us to good Works because the knowledg and belief of the Gospel has that influence upon us as to fit us for the performance of vertuous Actions So in the Book of the Son of Sirach Chap. ii 1 all that intend to serve God are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prepare their Souls for Temptation See vers 18. of the same Chapter and Chap. xvii 25 Vers 14. Note a. The place in Ecclesiasticus is nothing to this business which perhaps our Author did not look into in the Book it self because he quotes it wrong out of Chap. xix 29 whereas it is in Chap. xxix 30 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an honorable Man and the discourse there is about another thing Nor was the stranger commanded to go out of the Sanctuary of Israel but forbidden to enter into it Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here our Author tells us in the Margin that the Kings Manuscript reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders together but to express that St. Paul should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 19. Note b. It is truly observed by Dr. Hammond that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here refers to the Jews but there was no necessity of recurring to Procopius for the reason of their being so called The Jews are stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints because they were consecrated to the true God and not because their Forefathers were holy in their Lives See Exod. xix 6 and my Notes on that place CHAP. III. Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The same thing which is here said in other Ages not to have been made known to the Sons of Men is said in vers 10. to have been unknown also to Angels Which being so I confess I do not well understand how those who are neither Prophets nor Angels can find out so many places in the Prophets in which the calling of the Gentiles is manifestly and directly foretold For certainly if it was of old revealed to the Prophets they understood it for that which is not understood cannot be thought revealed And if it could have been gathered from the literal sense of any Prophecies the Angels might have understood it by those Prophecies But the event you will say which is the best Interpreter of Prophecies has unfolded the sense of them But I demand whether such an event can be easily supposed to be respected in Prophecies which are so obscure that neither Men nor Angels could before understand them to contain any such sense If that can be supposed I do not see what event may not be found in them But you will say again the Apostles and so the Angels came to know that they had a respect to such an event by divine Revelation But as I said before that cannot be called a Revelation which no body understands and therefore it was of no use to the Prophets See what has been alledged out of the learned H. Dodwell on Mat. ii 2 From hence all that I here infer is that we ought not presently to condemn those who look for other events which happen'd before Christ in the antient Prophecies of which number the great Grotius must be reckon'd the chief otherwise this matter would deserve to be more exactly discussed CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a conjecture of a Friend of mine that by Captivity here is meant the dead bodies of Saints which were held captive by Death but were raised with Christ at his Resurrection and ascended with him into Heaven Mat. xxvii And accordingly he thought that St. Paul says Christ descended into the lower parts of the Earth because he descended into the Grave that he might bring them out from thence And there is nothing in the thing it self nor in the words repugnant to this Interpretation Ibid. Note a. I. Marcus Aurelius gave nothing to the common People of Rome in the time of Triumph nor any thing of his own accord The story is thus related by Xiphilinus out of Dio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is repeated for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius observes What is said by our Author is taken from the use of the Rabbins Vers 19. Note f. I. Who this Pausanias is I cannot tell but perhaps Dr. Hammond wrote Phavorinus whom he often cites and who has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which places our Author refers which Suidas also has out of Thucydides and Polybius II. But wheresoever Dr. Hammond had this it is certainly false for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies algere in Latin to be cold nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 algor cold tho they resemble one another in sound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to lose ones feeling to be no longer sensible of any Pain whatever be the cause of it I confess it proceeds sometimes from extremity of Cold when the parts of the Body being congealed with the sharpness of Air or the like cease to feel any Pain but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not therefore signify to cease to feel cold but any sort of Pain So in Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that will no longer work that are become insensible that are tired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insensible one that is past pain Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always has a Passive signification and never an Active The thing is manifest and needs no proof yet this is not the first time of our Author 's mistaking the sense of this word See Note on Rom. i. 29 Vers 26. Note h. I. I confess I do not see any allusion in the words of the Apostle to those three kinds of angry Persons mention'd here by our Author out of Aristotle He teaches us that all excessive Anger is to be avoided but he does not seem to refer to the distinction made by that Philosopher between the several degrees of Anger at least there is no sign of it in his words Besides why did not the Doctor say that St. Paul had a respect to four sorts of angry Persons seeing so many sorts are reckon'd up by Aristotle viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason of that I suppose was because he did not look into Aristotle himself but cited his words upon trust for what he alledges out of him is not in either of those places which he refers to but in Lib. 4. Cap. 11. If we reason out of Aristotle St. Paul here will not condemn the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is those who tho they are soon angry soon forgive but the excessive anger of other Persons II. The place referred to in the Psalms is in Psal iv 4 not in ii 4 but our Author could not infer any thing from thence because the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rigzou ought rather to be rendred fear tho the Septuagint whom St. Paul follows out of Custom translate it otherwise III. The Passage alledged out of Plutarch is much more pertinent than that out of Aristotle And it is pag. 488. Ed. Wechelianae Vers 30. Note k. I. By the Holy Spirit here seems to be meant the Gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred by God on the Ephesians whereby they were enabled to work Miracles for by them they were sealed as sufficiently appears from what is said by Dr. Hammond But because those Gifts were bestowed on the Ephesians by a Person therefore they are forbidden here to grieve them that is to do any thing which might displease the Person from whom those Gifts came or provoke him to withdraw them But St. Paul seems principally to refer to the Gift of Prophecy which lewd Discourse corrupted and renderd useless For it appears by other places that those who had received that Gift were obliged to preserve it by care and holiness of Life which if they neglected to do it was taken away from them See 1 Tim. iv 14 II. Our Author confounds things which ought to be distinguished for Christ is not said to have been sealed by the Father just in the same sense as the Ephesians and others who had received the Gifts of the Spirit God is said to have sealed Christ by way of Allusion not to any ordinary Servants but to the Ambassadors of Kings who are then first believed when they produce their Masters Letters marked with their Seal Labour not saith Christ in John vi 27 for the Meat which perisheth but for that Meat which endureth unto everlasting Life which the Son of Man shall give unto you for him hath God the Father sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hath sent with Power and Instructions as you may see by his Miracles which are as the Seal of God for which ye ought to believe me But the Ephesians are said to be sealed to the day of Redemption by a Metaphor taken from Merchandizes or Slaves which the buyer did not take away with him as soon as he had bought them See my Note on 2 Cor. i. 22 III. I cannot see to what purpose our Author tho it is but by the way sets down the Etymology of the word servi from servando when he is explaining an Author who wrote in Greek and could not have any respect to that Latin word IV. Our Author's interpretation of the words to grieve the Holy Spirit and to the day of Redemption is perfectly forced The meaning of the Apostle is this Ye that have received Gifts from the Holy Spirit do not either by neglecting them or despising them grieve him and provoke him to take away from you those things which he has given you to distinguish you from other Men even in this World till that day comes in which in the view of Men and Angels he will distinguish you from all the rest of Adam's Posterity See my Note on Rom. viii 21 Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By these words Dr. Hammond might have discerned that St. Paul had no reference when he wrote this to Aristotle's distinction between the several degrees of Anger because he does not reduce them to the Order and Notions of that Philosopher Which it may not be unuseful to shew briefly out of Aristotle himself by alledging his words For by this alone it will appear that Interpreters ought to omit all unnecessary Niceties in explaining the rude or idiotick Stile as St. Paul himself calls it of this Holy Apostle That Philosopher therefore in Mar. Lib. 4. c. ii setting down the several degrees of Anger and proceeding from those who are least vitious in that kind to those who are tainted with the highest degree of this Vice defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are such as are soon angry and with those that they ought not and for those things which they ought not and more than they ought But their Anger is soon over and this is their best property And a little
after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are beyond measure fierce and angry at every thing and for every thing which is the reason of their being so called After which he proceeds to the third sort and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are hardly reconciled and are angry a great while for they keep in their Anger and it ceases when they have revenged themselves For revenge extinguishes anger by causing Pleasure where before was Grief But when this is not done they are pressed with an inward weight for because they do not manifest their Anger no one endeavours to appease them And for a Man to digest his Anger within himself requires time Now such Men as these as they are a great torment to themselves so they are most of all to their Friends Lastly those who are vitious in the highest degree in this kind he describes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are angry both for those things which they ought not and more and longer than they ought and are never appeased without Revenge or Punishment By these descriptions it sufficiently appears that St. Paul did not take the several words whereby he describes Anger in this place from the use of Philosophers or dispose them in the same order nor is that his Custom but to take mostly what he says from vulgar use and dispose it without any Philosophical or Rhetorical Artifice CHAP. V. Vers 2. Note a. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I confess be distinguished as Dr. Hammond would have them but they are very often confounded and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly frequently signifies all kind of Oblations in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Korhan or whatever is laid upon the Altar as Kircher's Concordances will inform those who are ignorant In this place they seem to signify the same thing because the scope of the Apostle does not oblige us to distinguish them II. Our Author 's reasoning to this purpose from Heb. x. 5 6. has no validity in it for it is not necessary that these two words occurring in vers 6. should be perfectly synonimous or answerable to those two others in ver 5. Wherefore saith that divine Writer when he cometh into the World he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not but a Body hast thou sitted me in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Burnt-offerings and for Sin thou hast had no pleasure If according to Dr. Hammond â—s reasoning a whole Burnt-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be exactly the same an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a sacrifice for Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be literally the same also which yet he would not allow But the words of the sacred Writers must not be reduced to the rules of Rhetoricians Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Note on Rom. i. 29 endeavours all he can to prove that this word signifies a desire not of Riches but of Pleasures tho with what success I leave the Reader to judg by what I have written on that Annotation This is the chief place that gives any countenance to his conjecture And indeed there are two specious reasons which as to this Passage of St. Paul may be alledged on his behalf I. It is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncleanness OR Covetousness and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seems to join together words of the same signification In answer to which I acknowledg that that is very frequently the use of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or but it is very often also a Disjunctive and connects together words of a different sense And when a Negation follows or goes before it is equivalent to nor as in this place for it is all one as if St. Paul had said Let neither Fornication nor any Uncleanness nor Covetousness be named amongst you II. It may be said that the words not be named among you contain a prohibition which agrees better to Lusts whereof the very names are obscene than to Covetousness or the Sins which proceed from that Vice Which I do not deny nay I think St. Paul spake thus merely because he had before made mention of Fornication and Vncleanness to which that prohibition seems properly to belong But it cannot hence be inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a vice of the same kind with those beforemention'd contrary to the etymology and perpetual use of the word for it is very common for one Verb to be subjoined or prefixed to many Nouns with all which it does not equally well agree See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Verbum Vers 4. Note b. All that our Author here says is very much to the purpose to which add that Men of debauched Lives use to call their Vices by soft and gentle names Far which reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might properly signify in common use not only light and rash but even obscene and filthy Discourses such as the Jests which we every where meet with especially in antient Comedies This Plutarch has observed with relation to the Athenians in the Life of Solon p. 86. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what is said of late that the Athenians covering odious things with mild and pleasing Titles to avoid giving offence call Strumpets Companions Taxing Registring Garisons Safeguards of Cities and a Prison a House that seems to have been first the device of Solon who called the forgiving of Debts an Acquittance Other examples to the same purpose may be had out of Helladius Besantinous in Chrestomathiis We may easily conceive how such sort of Men might call their obscene and filthy Discourses by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Note c. This latter Interpretation would very well agree to this place if it were certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever taken in the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies elegancy of Speech as well as of other things The passage cited out of Prov. xi does not at all belong to this matter the Discourse there being about a beautiful not a pious Woman Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture the Apostle here referring to the place in Isaiah alledged by our Author in his Paraphrase tho rather expressing its sense than citing the Prophet's own words Barnabas in Epist Catholica particularly in cap. v. often uses the same term in citing the Scriptures words Scriptum est enim saith he de illo quaedam ad populum Judaeorum quaedam ad nos DICIT autem sic Vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras c. Supergratulari enim debemus Domino quia
between two Gentlemen very skilful in the Roman Antiquities Vlricus Huberus and Jac. Perizonius concerning the Signification of the word Praetorium here whence there was a considerable Volume made which may be read by those who are curious about such Matters not without advantage Huberus thought that Praetorium where the Discourse was about Civil Affairs signified the Palace of Caesar or properly his Judgment-hall but Perizonius a Body of Praetorian Troops or the Camp in which the Praetor's Guards used to pitch their Tents And there is no doubt but that the most frequent notion of the Word in the best Writers is agreeable to the Opinion of this latter And so S. Paul's meaning will be that his Bonds that is the Reason for which he was cast into Bonds was known to the Praetor's Guards to which the Soldiers with whom he was bound might have brought him Yet others quote a Passage in Cicero in which Praetorium seems to signify a publick Place of Judicature in Orat. 5. against Verres cap. ult Vos omnes rerum forensium consiliorum maximorum legum judiciorumque arbitri testes celeberrimo in loco PRAETORII locati Castor Pollux c. Ye Judges and Witnesses of all matters belonging to Court of the greatest Counsels Laws and Suits who are seated in the place of the Praetorium Castor Pollux c. The Forum is the place in which was the Judgment-seat of the Praetor which may seem to confirm the Interpretation of Phavorinus and Dr. Hammond For it appears that there was in the Forum a Temple dedicated to the Castors by Suetonius in the Life of Julius Caesar cap. x. But it is not probable that St. Paul who had appealed to Caesar was judged by a City Praetor and I am rather of Perizonius his Opinion See his 1st Dissert de Praetorio S. 35. seqq Vers 23. Note h. I. What our Author says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he owed in part to Grotius but it is not a Hebrew word which has that signification but a Chaldee and Syriack one as Lexicons will shew When Grotius said it was commonly used by the Jews to signify Death he meant only the Rabbins who often speak more in Chaldee than in Hebrew II. That which our Author here says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may serve to confirm what I have said against him about another compound of the same Primitive on Luke ix 12 The conjecture of Philoponus about the reason why a particular sort of Method is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho very agreeable to the nature of the thing yet seems to be false because the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood by its opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is another kind of Method And that being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gathers up Principles and deduces Consectaries from them compounded and joined together by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily be meant that which resolves things conjoined and separates the parts to make way for the knowledg of each particular And indeed that is the use of this Method as every one knows Phavorinus saith much righter than Philoponus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rightly indeed rendred by reverti to return but that this interpretation of it is ill confirmed by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. II. Vers 6. Note a. OUR Author has well enough confuted in this place the Interpretation of Grotius but has proposed nothing more certain instead of it nor sufficiently consider'd the series of the Discourse I. He ought not to have interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without bringing an example of the like phrase For as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separately consider'd supposing that signified what our Author affirms it will not follow that it has the same signification in this Phrase But Aeschylus who was a very bold Poet is no fit Author to be made use of in explaining the simple stile of St. Paul And Phavorinus judged of the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly by the use of the Peripateticks partly by the opinion of Divines not by its vulgar acceptation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really signifies a servil Form or Appearance as we shall afterwards see These things could not be opposed to the perpetual use of the Septuagint and the Writers of the New Testament according to which as Grotius has observed that word does not signify something internal and secret but apparent and visible II. If that were the meaning of St. Paul in this place which our Author after others supposes the Apostle should have exprest himself thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who being in the form of God and thinking it no robbery to be made equal with God yet emptied himself And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. would be opposed to all which goes before But as the words now lie it is opposed only to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who being in the form of God thought it no robbery but c. Which is all one as to say tho he was in the form of God yet he did not think he might assume to himself an equality with God but submitted himself to his Will and took upon him the form of a Servant c. That this is the series of the Discourse this the sense of this place was well understood by Novatian in Lib. de Trinitate cap. xvii whose words I shall not think much to set down Imitator omnium paternorum operum dum ipse operatur sicut Pater ejus forma ut expressimus est Dei Patris Et meritò in forma pronunciatus est Dei dum ipse super omnia omnis creaturae divinam obtinens potestatem Deus est exemplo Patris hoc ipsum tamen a Patre proprio consequutus ut omnium Deus esset Dominus esset Deus ad formam Dei Patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus Hic ergo quamvis esset in forma Dei non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem se Deo esse Quamvis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset nunquam se Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit memor se esse ex suo Patre hoc ipsum quod est habere se quia Pater dedisset Inde denique ante carnis assumtionem sed post adsumtionem corporis post ipsam praeterea resurrectionem omnem Patri in omnibus rebus obedientiam praestitit pariter ac praestat Ex quo probatur nunquam arbitratum illum esse rapinam quandam divinitatem ut aequaret se Patri Deo quinimò contra omni ipsius imperio voluntati obediens atque subjectus ut forman servi susciperet contentus est Being an imitator of all his Fathers works and working also as his Father does he is as I have
expressed the form of God the Father And justly was he pronounced to be in the form of God because he also being over all things and having a divine Power over every Creature is God after the example of the Father yet so as to have obtained this Dignity from his Father that he should be God and Lord of all things and to be God according to the form of God the Father begotten and brought forth by him And therefore tho he was in the form of God he did not think it robbery to be equal with God For tho he knew within himself that he was God of God the Father yet he never compared himself with God the Father being mindful that he was of his Father and whatever he was he was by his Father's Gift And both before and after his assuming Flesh and after his Resurrection he yielded and still yields all obedience to his Father in all things Which shews that he never thought any Divinity robbery to equal himself with God the Father nay on tho contrary being obedient and subject to all his Commands and Will he was content to take upon him the form of a Servant This is the direct tendency of the form of St. Paul's discourse which will not admit of any other interpretation And with this sense all the words made use of by him agree as I shall shew But first of all it must be supposed that the Discourse here is about the Man Jesus and not about the Deity which is evident to produce but this one Argument for it from that which follows for he whom God hath exalted and given him a Name above every Name that in the name of Jesus every Knee should bow is undoubtedly the Man Jesus and not the Deity which never received any thing nor could receive any new Dignity and he whom God so very highly exalted is the same who had humbled himself and suffer'd Death in obedience to the Will of his Father This reasoning which yet is the sum of the common Interpretation is hardly tolerable The Divinity of Christ tho equal yea numerically the same with the Divinity of the Father to the Father humbled it self to put on Humanity wherefore that Humanity received this Reward from the Father to be raised to the highest pitch of Glory On the contrary it is he that humbled himself that St. Paul here says was rewarded This premis'd I shall now explain the several Phrases the Apostle makes use of III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best of all interpreted by Grotius of that Power which was observable in Christ in so great a degree that he could do whatever he pleased wherein he came as near as possible to the most High God The same thing is elsewhere intimated by St. Paul where he says that Christ was the visible Image of the invisible God Coloss i. 15 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes the same Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies a form or species So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Species Form or Aspect And Phavorinus hath the same Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Heathens signifies the Images of the Gods as in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus de Romulo Lib. 2. Ant. Rom. p. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he erected therefore their Temples and Groves and Altars and the places of their carved Statues and their Images and Symbols IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did not think it a thing which he might snatch or ravish to himself So Gregory Nazianzâ—n uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Orat. 1. against Julian pag. 67. where he speaks of the Government 's being usurped by Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which not a rape or robbery of Fortune but the reward of Vertue or Time or the suffrage of the King bestows But the expression of Cicero in Latin comes much nearer that of St. Paul who in his V. Orat. in Verrem speaking of Verres says Omnium bona praedam suam duxit He thought every ones Goods his prey And in Lib. vii Ep. 13. ad Atticum speaking of Caesar after Pompey had forsaken Rome he says Huic tradita urbs est nuda praesidio referta copiis Quid est quod ab eo non metuas qui illa templa tecta non patriam sed praedam putat The City was delivered up to Caesar destitute of its Garison and was filled with Souldiers What is there not reason to fear from him who thinks those Temples and Houses not his Country but his Prey The Man Christ tho he had received all Power both in Heaven and in Earth yet said in John xiv 28 That his Father was greater than he and would not suffer himself to be made equal with God Contrary to what was done afterwards by Simon Magus who trusting only to Magical Artifices dared to equal if not to exalt himself above God See Acts viii 10 and H. Grotius on that place Which if our Author had but here thought on without question he would have greedily took up to say that St. Paul here opposed Jesus Christ to Simon the Patriarch of the Gnosticks V. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to make himself equal with God Which Christ openly professes in Joh. v. 19 for after he had said to the Jews My Father worketh hitherto and I work and the Jews thereupon sought to kill him not only because he had broken the Sabbath but said also that God was his Father making himself as they affirmed equal with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus answers that the Son could do nothing of himself but what he saw his Father do that is that he only followed the Example of God in which he shewed himself to be inferiour to him for he that follows another's Example and cannot depart from it is inferiour to him who sets the Example But all this must be understood of the Humanity of Christ and not of his Divinity Vers 7. Note b. To keep to the Propriety of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be rendred thus He behaved himself so as if he were void of all that Power which he had received from his Father He used it no more than if he had not had it Which must be understood only of those times in which Christ was to suffer any thing either from the Jews or from the Romans Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He did not really become a Servant but having taken upon him the form of a Servant he seemed to be such For when Christ behaved himself towards the Jews and Romans who vilified and loaded him with all manner of Injuries and Reproaches as if he had been subject to their Power like the rest of the Jews he truly took upon him the form of a Servant that is a servile Appearance He did no more use that
Gentiles as well as Jews The parts of this Argument are false and the consequence illegitimate First it is false that Heaven and Earth does any where signify merely this lower World that is the Earth and the Air lying round about it exclusive of the upper spaces For those words are used to comprehend the whole Universe not excepting the Starry Heaven as appears by Gen. i. I confess Heaven often signifies the Air but then it is not joined with the Earth which must be carefully observed for the usual signification of an entire Phrase is one thing and of single words another Secondly granting that the Phrase Heaven and Earth signifies this inferiour World it will not follow that Men are so called nor indeed are they so ever But thirdly suppose that also were true it must be observed that it is not said here simply that Heaven and Earth were reconciled but all things which are in Heaven or in Earth which is a quite different thing for in this phrase the Heaven and the Earth are clearly distinguished from those who are in them nor can the words Heaven and Earth be here thought synonimous to the name World which often signifies Men. The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or which being twice repeated is a Disjunctive shews also that those who are in Heaven are not the same with those who are on Earth and therefore that Men only cannot be intended Besides tho the word World signifies all Men and Heaven and Earth is called the World it does not follow that Men may be signified by these words all things which are in Heaven or in Earth In interpreting Languages it must not only be consider'd what may be said without absurdity according to Analogy but with Analogy we must join use Quem penes arbitrium est lex norma loquendi Fourthly hence it may be inferred that what our Author adds about the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Creature is to no purpose for it is certain that is often used to signify all Men but that this other all things both which are in Heaven and on Earth signifies the same appears by no example III. If Eph. ii 16 ought to be corrected to Dr. Hammond's mind we should not change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would here signify nothing but into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the same But there is no need of any correction What follows makes nothing to the purpose and as it does not help Dr. Hammond so it does not hurt me IV. The reconciliation of Angels is not to be understood of a reconciliation with God but with Men who being God's Enemies by evil Works were at the same time Enemies to the Holy Angels which are so intimately allied to God that the Friends and Enemies of the one are the Enemies and Friends of the other But Men being once converted by Christ to a holy and religious Life and made Friends with God they become also Friends to the Angels who love the good as much as they detest the wicked Thus God has reconciled all things into him that is Angels and Men acknowledging and worshipping one Lord Jesus Christ made them Friends with one another and composed one Family of both these orders of Creatures who were before at a vast distance from each other both in their Habitations and Dispositions This is that which is signified in Ephes i. 10 on which place see Grotius It was a Mystery before unknown that the time would come when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all the Nations upon Earth should become one Family with the Angels as well as the Jews that is should own and worship the true God according to his own prescriptions and so be accounted his Children Which being so what our Author alledges as out of that place in St. Paul to confirm his interpretation of this is insignificant Vers 22. Note d. Grotius and others much better interpret this Phrase of a fleshly Body that is obnoxious to the same Infirmities as ours It is not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Body tho our Author has several times affirmed it Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I that formerly persecuted the Church of Christ do now on the contrary suffer many evils for its advantage and go on to suffer with undaunted constancy all that Christ has left me to suffer for his Church So I have interpreted this place in my Ars Critica Part 2. S. 1. C. xii where see what I have said CHAP. II. Vers 8. Note b. I Easily grant that these Words signify Philosophical Doctrines but it does not appear to me that the Gnosticks are here referred to For why may not the Apostle have a respect to the Heathen Philosophers who had not a full and entire knowledg of true Vertue but only some Elements of it No body certainly can doubt but there were Philosophers in all parts of Asia who might oppose the Christian Religion but it is not so easy to prove that the Followers of Simon were so universally dispersed Vers 9. Note c. The Context seeming to require the sense which our Author gives of this place it is probable to me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here indeed Elements or Rudiments of Vertue but that S. Paul alludes to another Signification of that Word because he opposes to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body of the Deity And that is when it is taken for a Shadow of which Signification we have a clear Instance in these words of Julius Pollux Lib. VI. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they gathered from the Shadow when it was time to go to the Supper which shadow they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it behoved them to make haste if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ten foot long This he took from Aristophanes in whom a Woman is brought in speaking thus in Concionat pag. 744. Ed. Maj. Genev. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take care as soon as the Shadow on the Sundial is ten foot long to go instantly or neatly to the Supper On which place the Scholiast has the same Observation with that I have set down out ot Pollux And hence perhaps the Representations which are made to us in Dreams were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are as the obscure Shadows of things Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images and Fictions of Dreams which in a shorter or longer time have their exit So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an obscure and â—aint Description of those Duties which Men ought to perform or the gross and rude Elements of Vertue are very fitly here opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ. Vers 16. Note e. Tho I deny not but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet two things hinder my assenting to Dr.
own Sentiments but the opinion of the Vulgar who are more taken with those outward shews than with true inward Piety And I have this reason on my side that according to the judgment of St. Paul that Humility which consisted in the worship of Angels had no appearance of Virtue in it because to speak in the softest terms it favoured something of Idolatry The same may be said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he declares to profit but little which place I wonder Dr. Hammond would alledg seeing it makes so much against him But besides this there is another reason which puts this matter out of all doubt and that is that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of is the worship of Angels which was therefore unlawful because voluntary it being unwarrantable to invent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 objects of Worship to our selves of our own accord without a Command from God Compare this verse with the 18 th where St. Paul speaks thus Let no Man seduce you in a voluntary Humility and worshipping of Angels and there will be no doubt but the voluntary Worship which the Apostle here speaks of is the worshipping of Angels it being manifest that he treats of the same thing in both places So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to St. Paul's notion of it signifies something unlawful tho the common sort of People who did not understand the nature of true Piety admired such voluntary and affected Worship VI. But the case as to the freewill-Offerings of the Jews and the voluntary Worship of Angels of which S. Paul here speaks was quite different For God had commanded that Sacrifices should be offer'd to him and prescribed the way in which they were all to be offered so that all that was voluntary in those Sacrifices was the offering them up at such certain times as the Supplicant of his own accord determined according to God's prescribed Rule both as to the matter and manner But God never commanded or permitted that religious Worship should be given to any but himself and his only begotten Son and much less has he prescribed the manner how Angels ought to be worshipped So that there can be no comparison between these two things VII I acknowledg there may be some things good in themselves which yet may be omitted without Sin but that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is taken in a good sense I do not think because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies religious Worship which we may not give to any or our own accord But the Doctor understood the matter here so as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified either a lawful way of divine Worship or any Action good in it self but not indispensably commanded And so indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken in a good sense but the former which I take to be the sense wherein it is used by the Apostle is a bad one VIII After all there are two things which seem necessary to be observed concerning all voluntary Actions relating to Piety which if they be not consider'd this whole business will be very obscure and may be misunderstood First That under the Gospel to make any voluntary course or act of Piety acceptable to God the matter about which it is conversant must be good in it self and such as cannot be done but by a good man and consequently a better than those who do not perform any such Action otherwise if it be a thing indifferent in its own nature and may be done by bad men as well as good that voluntary Piety cannot be thought to please God To preach the Gospel with a pious design and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without making it chargeable to the Hearers that so men might be the more easily perswaded to the practice of Vertue and brought to believe in Christ was a thing good in it self and could not but be commendable in St. Paul and acceptable to God But to live a single Life tho chaste is a thing neither good nor evil if it be opposed to a chaste married Life and may be found in a man that is proud unmerciful contentious or imperious and consequently worse than others who are married And therefore that voluntary Piety as it is called cannot please God whatever is said by S. Jerom who was not a whit the better for being a single man The same may be said of all other things of the like nature The second thing to be carefully observed in this matter is that voluntary acts of Piety are commendable only in those who observe what is indispensably required and not in those who neglecting necessary and commanded Duty as mean and trivial would seem to aspire to some higher degree of Piety For what Master would be well pleased with a Servant who omitting his express Orders should set himself to do other things greater than he commanded him to do All Masters and that with reason expect their Servants should do first what they require of them and then and not before they may attempt to do something extraordinary otherwise they are offended with the pride and perversness of those Servants who when they do not perform what is exacted from them are yet vainly ambitious of appearing better than others St. Paul after he had done all those things which became a good man and an Apostle preached the Gospel freely to his great Commendation and with the sure hope of a special Reward But if he had neglected plain Duty or any essential part of his Apostolical Office and pleased himself only with this that he had preached the Gospel without making it costly to his Hearers he would not upon that account have been any thing the more acceptable to God And so when we see that some of those in antient times who shut up themselves in Monasteries under a pretence of exercising themselves in a more sublime course of Piety and being righteous above what is commanded do manifestly discover a great deal of Pride Hatred of their Neighbour Impatience of Injuries and the like Vices in their Writings he must be either stupid or infected with the same Vices himself that admires them or thinks they were for that reason at all more pleasing to God Such also were the Pharisees at least for the most part whom Christ so sharply reproves and whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot but wonder that Dr. Hammond should take in a laudable sense No one that reads the beginning of the description of their Heresy in Epiphanius can doubt but that word is used in a bad notion The learned Dion Petavius tho a Jesuit presently saw this as appears by his Version of Epiphanius's words here subjoined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui ideo saith Petavius Pharisaei dicti sunt quod essent propter adscititiam superstitiosamque disciplinam à reliquis sejuncti who were therefore called Pharisees because by their affected and superstitious Discipline they were distinguished from others Hence
to deny that some Churches were not yet compleatly formed when St. Paul wrote to them in which number seems to have been the Church of Rome But this of Thessalonica must be excepted as appears from Chap. v. 12 13. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God and Christ The Jews often pleaded that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kehal o hedath Jehovah The Congregation of the Lord a phrase not unusual in Moses of which we have an example in Num. xvi 3 Now to distinguish the Christians from the Jews St. Paul calls them not only the Church or Congregation of God but of Christ The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in Christ is to be a Christian and being subjoined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Christian Church or a Church of Christ See Note on Rom. xii 5 Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Genitive Case here signifies the relation of a cause to its effect so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a work of which Faith is the cause or such a work as can proceed only from Faith Such was mens renouncing Heathenism and totally forsaking their old Customs and Practices in order to embrace the Christian Religion and regulate the remaining part of their Lives according to its Precepts which could not be done but by those who believed Jesus to be truly sent from God and gave the Apostles a Commission to preach what they did and so the whole Doctrin of the Gospel to be true About the ambiguous signification of a Genitive case see what I have said in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. 1. C. xii Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love or Charity creates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is labour to a degree of Fatigue when a Man loves his Neighbour so as to put himself to a great many Hardships and Troubles and resolves to spare no pains whereby he may benefit others Such was the Charity of St. Paul who patiently underwent incredible difficulties in those long Journeys to mention no more which he made that he might rescue multitudes of Men from eternal Destruction And that the Thessalonians followed his example as far as they could he himself teaches us in this place Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That patience of Adversities which Hope produces is never more remarkable than when Christians are persecuted for their Religion and submit to any Sufferings rather than comply with the demands of Heathens For the hope of eternal Happiness makes them most patiently undergo the cruellest Torments The Apostle therefore here teaches us that from the three great Vertues of Faith Charity and Hope proceed as all kind of good Works so particularly an officious Diligence which declines no Labour and submits to any Calamities whatsoever Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is God looking on as an Agonotheta or Overseer of the Games who confers a Crown on those that exercise themselves in Christian Vertues and persevere in them to their lives end The Arabick and Syriack seem to have omitted these Words because they could not connect them with the foregoing when other Copies have them But they might have been left out without disturbing or altering the Sense Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is knowing and seeing that upon your embracing the Gospel God has actually distinguished you from other People See Note on Eph. 1.4 They who rejected the Gospel when preached to them were not discriminated from other people but lay buried still among the unbelieving multitude of Mankind as before Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having received the Word which was in much affliction that is the Preachers of which were grievously afflicted with joy of the Holy Ghost that is with a pious chearfulness preferring a good Conscience and the hope of eternal Happiness to carnal Joy joined with a course of Sin and worldly Possessions Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See what I have said on this Word on 1 Cor. x. 7 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza and Grotius think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be prefixed to the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Sense should be For from you not only sounded forth the Word of the Lord in Macedonia and Achaia but also in every place your Faith is spread abroad But if we carefully consider these words we shall perceive that the opposition here is not between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sounding out of the Word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Thessalonians Faith but between Macedonia and Achaia which were parts of Greece and every place that is all the places of the Roman Empire in which there were any Christians For the Discourse ascends in this manner The Gospel is become famous not only in some Countries of Greece by the means of your Faith whereof they have heard but also through all the Christian Churches your Faith is spread abroad The Word of God is said to have sounded out from the Thessalonians in Macedonia and Achaia that is to have been made famous by their Faith And this is what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the going out of their Faith for to go out is to be spread abroad See Psalm xix 4 and Interpreters Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Alexandrian Copy here reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we had which is better than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows and the Discourse is about a thing past So that it must be read either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks this is the Present tense for the Future but without any necessity for he at present frees us from the Wrath to come that sets us upon such a Course of Life which if we constantly follow we shall have no reason to fear that Wrath. Dr. Hammond thinks the Destruction of Jerusalem is also here intimated but I am not of his opinion CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I had rather retain here the usual signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for vain or light For St. Paul shews in the following Verse that it was not any Rashness or Vanity that had put him upon preaching the Gospel which he himself did not believe to be true in Macedonia because notwithstanding the fierce opposition and despiteful usage which he met with from the Jews at Philippi he had constantly persisted in his Work For rash and vainglorious Men do indeed easily sometimes undertake difficult things but they as easily lay their Designs aside if they meet with any great difficulties in their way But those who have throughly considered things and think for very good reasons they ought to do that which they have undertaken cannot be deterred by any Difficulties from prosecuting their first Purpose They may apply to themselves that Saying of Aeneas to the Sybil in Virgil Aeneid
either in sound or signification Vers 6. Note b. All that our Author here says does not perswade me to believe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be referred to fleshly Desires contrary to the use of Scripture and all other Greek Writers For I. What he infers from the Series of this place he would plainly have perceived to have been of no force if the Gnosticks had not stood in his light and like a Cloud hinder'd him from seeing the thing as it is The Apostle here teaches us that there are two sort of Vices to be especially shunned the lusts of the Flesh and an inordinate desire of other mens possessions The former in verses 3 4 5. in these words This is the Will of God your Sanctification that ye should abstain from Fornication that every one of you should know how to possess his Vessel in Sanctification and Honour not in the lust of Concupiscence even as the Gentiles which know not God The latter in vers 6. where he speaks thus And that no man go beyond or overreach his Brother in any matter because the Lord is the avenger of all such as we also have forewarned you and testified Then he subjoins the special reasons of both these Injunctions of the former in ver 7 and 8. and of the latter in ver 9. which shews that the 7 th verse must not be immediately connected with the 6 th verse as it is by our Author but with the 5 th verse and the 9 th with the 6 th That this may be the order of the Discourse is undeniable and that it not only may but really is so every one will think who knows that the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signify what Dr. Hammond would have them And we ought not to impose an unheard of signification upon these words because of the Series of the Discourse when the order of St. Paul's reasoning is clear without it Of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have spoken on Rom. i. 29 II. As to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the places alledged by our Author do not prove that word to signify the practice of unnatural Lusts The last Verse of Hesiod's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Sins or Transgressions but that is nothing to Dr. Hammond's purpose The place in Phocylides must be set down more correctly and at large 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do not transgress of all things a mean is best and Transgressions are grievous Where the Discourse is about breaking into another man's Ground as appears by the words immediatly going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstain from thy neighbour's Field But what is this to Sodomy or unnatural Filthinesses The place cited out of Hesychius proves nothing because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is rather taken for an Injury joined with contempt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying praecellere superare to outgo to surpass and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being afterwards interpreted in Hesychius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What our Author adds about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Derivatives or Compounds does him as little service for the signification of a simple Verb or of some of its Compounds does not necessarily pass to all the rest and there is no example brought by the Doctor where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to commit filthiness with him III. Besides the annexed Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew that St. Paul did not so much as dream of that sense which our Author here affixes to his words For no body ever said in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify an act of Uncleanness and if St. Paul had so meant he would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Christian but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man for it was as bad to commit that Sin with Heathens as with Christians IV. Nor did ever any one say in that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I wonder how any Expositor could differ here as to the sense from Beza who interprets these words Nequis opprimat aut habeat quaestui in ullo negotio fratrem suum That no man oppress or make a gain of his Brother in any matter Consult himself and Grotius on this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make a gain of in 2 Cor. vii 2 and xii 7 8. CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note a. OUR Author here as in many other places meerly serves an Hypothesis and forces every thing to a compliance with his own opinion But I. Why may not we think that St. Paul after he had spoken of the last coming of Christ in the conclusion of the foregoing Chapter passes here to the time of it not as to another thing but as another circumstance of the same thing so as also to speak in this place about the last coming of Christ The Thessalonians lamented the condition of those who died under Persecutions and therefore St. Paul in the end of the last Chapter comforts them with the prospect of an endless Reward which such persons were to receive at the coming of Christ and here he adds that there was no need of his writing to them about the time when that should be because it would come on a sudden and when it was least expected as Christ himself had more than once said Which can be understood only of his final coming For tho the Siege of Jerusalem might perhaps be sudden and unexpected to the Jews who lived in that City yet it was an easy matter for others to conjecture that some great calamity was like to come upon them from the Romans for their perpetual seditions and unruly tempers Josephus has shewn at large in Lib. ii of the Jewish War that the indignation of the Romans against the Jews was not presently stirred up But those especially who were dispersed through the Roman Empire had time enough to know that the Jews were upon the point of utter ruin when they saw Judea laid wast by the Roman Armies Besides the Jews who lived out of Palestine as those who were dispersed through Greece did not perish by any sudden Destruction in which they involved the Gnosticks but only those who took up Arms against the Romans as the Antiochians Cyrenians and some others I know indeed the Jews suffer'd very great Miseries under Adrian in the Isle of Cyprus but our Author will not have the time of Adrian to be here referred to nor did those Calamities befal them on a sudden It is not probable that the Gnosticks who had no true Zeal for the Jewish Religion and who as the Doctor often tells us complied with the Jews to escape being accused by them before the Roman Magistrates did yet conspire with a handful of that Nation against the whole Roman Power
II. Our Author supposes that a constant Faith and holy Life would be an infallible means to preserve the Christians which as I acknowledg to be most true understood of eternal Salvation so I do not believe it true if understood of a Deliverance from the Persecutions of the Romans For could not the Gnosticks feign themselves to be Heathens and do sacrifice to their Gods that they might not be accounted Jews And that if I am not mistaken was abundantly enough to cause a distinction to be put between them and the Circumcised especially if the Gnosticks as our Author thinks were not real Jews Besides the Christians in Greece whilst the Romans were incensed against the Jews did not escape the fury of the Magistrates because they were Christians but because they were not Jews and were look'd upon as peaceable Men who were not for making any disturbance in the Government I wonder our learned Author did not see these things but so often serves himself of an Hypothesis which he never attempted to prove by History Vers 10. Note b. Our Author goes on to fasten his own Conjectures upon St. Paul without any regard to Grammar I. It is true indeed that to live may signify to be in prosperity and there are several examples of the word taken in that sense as our Author has shewn on Chap. iii. 8 of this Epistle but that to live with Christ has ever any such signification Dr. Hammond will never prove without examples to any that understand Greek or are acquainted with the stile of Scripture Whatever a word signifies alone it does not signify in conjunction with others Whatever is meant by it in one place it cannot signify in all In this place to live with Christ does not only include the notion of eternal Life but signifies nothing else as the bare reading of the Verse shews who died for us that whether we wake or sleep we might live together with him Can Christ be said to have died for the Christians of Thessalonica that they might not perish in that destruction which was to come upon the Jews but survive them Where does the Scripture mention any such end of the Death of Christ Dr. Hammond did not think fit to say so much as this in his Paraphrase where he does not express the words of St. Paul but what he himself thought II. But Christ having died for Men that they might live with him i. e. that they might enjoy eternal Life with him in Heaven and that being the sense of the Apostle's words the next thing to be consider'd is what is meant in this place by waking or sleeping And because St. Paul says that neither of these things signifies any thing to Salvation for whether we wake or sleep we shall live together with Christ those Phrases cannot be thought to signify either a Vice or a Virtue contrary to what they do in vers 6 7 8. Our Author who thinks the Discourse is about a temporal Deliverance interprets them of Sollicitude and Security which I cannot admit because I affirm that the Discourse is about eternal Salvation as the thing it self also declares What therefore do they signify why this and nothing else Whether we are still alive when he shall come to judg the Living and Dead or whether we die before that time As in Chap. iv 13 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were asleep are they who shall be dead at the coming of Christ so here those who shall be awake signify them which shall be found alive at that time as Grotius well observes whom our Author ought to have followed What the Doctor says in this Annotation besides I have already confuted III. Yet there is one thing perhaps that may be objected in favour of Dr. Hammond viz. that St. Paul seems to speak of a thing which was to come to pass in his time because he exhorts the Thessalonians to watch in ver 6. lest they should be found in Darkness at the day of the Lord 's sudden Coming But God having not revealed the day in which he will judg Mankind so much as to his Son Jesus Christ whilst he conversed in this World but only said that it would come on a sudden and when it was least expected with a design seemingly to keep Men from delaying their Repentance while they hope to have time enough to repent before that day comes it is no wonder that St. Paul here speaks of the last Judgment as a thing which was to happen in his Age. He could not speak otherwise seeing God had not revealed the thing more clearly To which purpose it must be observed that he does not deny but that the Judgment was deferred in which there would have been a manifest Error but only teach the Thessalonians that Men ought to be always prepared for fear of being surprized by the sudden coming of Christ I know indeed Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase of the 2 d Verse represents the Apostle as saying that the Coming of Christ was not far off but if we read St. Paul's words we shall see that he only teaches that it would be sudden and unexpected not that it was near at hand or shortly to be For it is compared to the coming of a Thief in the Night in which nothing but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unexpectedness of it is considered Vers 12. Note c. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may much more simply be interpreted to signify the Governors of both Orders in the Church who may be comprehended under the common name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being all set over the Church of Thessalonica tho not with an equal Authority Considering this is grounded upon the proper signification of the word it may much more easily be admitted than that there were more Episcopal Churches in Macedonia besides that of Philippi and Thessalonica which were contained under these as their Metropolitans See my Note on Philip. i. 1 Vers 22. Note e. Our Author rightly interprets the words of St. Paul in this place of all kind of Evil for after the Apostle had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things hold fast that which is good it very fitly follows abstain from all kind of evil which is all one as if he had said When ye have carefully examined all that any Prophet shall say to you be sure to embrace and retain whatever you find to be good but reject all that is evil As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify that which has an appearance of good so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is set opposite to it is not every appearance of Evil but all that is really Evil. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for kind there is no need of proving But if any doubt of it they may consult the old Glosses of Labbaeus his Edition on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 23. Note f. I. This in earnest is a medly of
insignificant places and for the most part foreign to the words of St. Paul in which the first thing liable to censure is that our Author here follows the old way of Philosophizing which in this particular is certainly false there being nothing in a Man but his Body and reasonable Soul which Soul is moved by Affections arising 〈◊〉 the Body without the intervention of any third Faculty as learned Men have long ago shewed even before this was published by Dr. Hammond And that Soul alone not any inferior Nature is the subject of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Free-will It is strange that wise Men in order to know what is in Man that is in themselves should go and consult Plato or Aristotle as if they were enquiring into the nature of a living Creature which they only had seen and we knew nothing of and make it their business to repeat what Men of little accuracy have said about a thing which every one may much better understand of himself II. It is false that any such thing can be deduced from the History of Man's Creation as it is set down by Moses For tho it be said that God formed Man out of the Dust of the Earth by which words is meant his Body yet he is not said to have added two other parts to him for Moses proceeds thus verbatim and breathed into his Nostrils the breath of Life and Man became a living Soul or as I have rendered it in more proper terms spiritumque vitalem in nares ejus flavit atque hâ—no animal factus est And breathed into his Nostrils a vital Spirit and Man became a living Creature Which words signify only that God put Life into Man's Body which he had fashioned out of the Dast and properly speaking contain nothing about an immortal and reasonable Soul tho there is no doubt but that God together with Life infused that also into Man's Body The distinction of the Rabbins between the breath of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a living Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is grounded neither upon the Phrase it self nor any Scripture example tho it is alledged on this place by Grotius However it must be acknowledged that we may consider in the nature of Man his Body and Soul as two distinct parts and then his Life not as another part or effect of some third Principle but as a certain affection of the Body and that to this St. Paul seems to have had a respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being very frequently taken for the Life And so the Apostle will be understood to pray for the Thessalonians that God would preserve their Bodies Spirits and Lives unblameable which he calls their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or all that was in them and indeed there is nothing else to be found in Man III. I acknowledg also that the Soul in the old Testament is sometimes taken for the Will but Gen. xxiii 8 is in vain alledged to that purpose Where the Hebrew has if it be with your Soul that I should bury and not if it be your Soul as our Author has it out of the English Translation which renders only the sense not the words And the Chaldee Paraphrast does not render the word Soul by a word which signifies Will but the whole Expression if it be your Soul by this entire Phrase if there be a will in your Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All choice or will is in the Spirit but the Spirit is sometimes divided between carnal Affections and the Law so as on the one hand to see what it is obliged to and on the other to be held by Pleasure and the lusts of the Body For all that our Author has here heaped together I would not give one rush IV. The only difficulty is wherein consists that preservation by which God is said to keep the Spirit Life and Body blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Those three not being of the same nature they cannot be said in the same sense to be preserved blameless The Spirit is blameless when it is not perverted by any pernicious Error or defiled with any habit of Sin The Life may be said to be blameless in a peculiar manner considered separately from the Spirit and Body when it is kept without dissembling or revolting from the Christian Religion in which respect fearful Men incurred Blame who to save their Lives either dissembled or renounced the Faith Lastly the Body is preserved blameless in a particular sense when it is not polluted by the enjoyment of any unlawful Pleasures But these all making up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ought nor can properly be considered separately because they are conjunctly defiled and incur blame And the reason why St. Paul mentions them severally is not because he would have them conceived as disjunct but only that he might describe the whole Man the more distinctly V. As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the coming of the Lord they must be understood thus That when Christ comes ye may be judged blameless that is such as according to the tenour of the Gospel-Covenant cannot be accused before Christ So that it is as if St. Paul had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ye may be blameless when Christ comes so as that your Spirits may neither be upbraided with dangerous Errors or vitious Habits nor this charge brought against you that you once redeemed your Lives by dissembling or Apostacy nor in fine that you polluted and profaned your Bodies with sensual Lusts Many perish by one of these three things but no Man is saved but by a conjunction of all the contrary Vertues ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Premon This Epistle is referred by Dr. Pearson to the Year of Christ LIII or the XIII th of Claudius at which time St. Paul still remained at Corinth after he had been in vain accused by the Jews at the Tribunal of Gallio Of the occasion on which it was written I shall speak on the Epistle it self CHAP. I. Vers 5. Note a. WHat the Christians said about Christ's coming to punish the Jews might possibly expose those of them that lived in Judea to the Fury of that Nation but in Greece or other remote Provinces of the Roman Empire that the Christians were persecuted particularly upon that account I do not believe so as that St. Paul could say that the Thessalonian Christians suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Roman Magistrates did not so much befriend the Jews especially out of Judea as to afflict the Christians because they portended that the seditious Jews would ere long be destroyed by the Romans themselves Of which we have a manifest instance in Gallio Acts xviii 12 seqq And it appears no less from profane Writers that the Jews were not at that time in favour with the Romans Tiberius compescuerat had restrained not only the
at the Celebration of the Eucharist or any other religious Mysteries And the reason why St. Chrysostom says the thing was known to them and not to others is because the Christians prayed for the Emperors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there were none but Mystae present In the Apostolical Constitut. lib. 8. c. 13. in a Prayer for the faithful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a divine Oblation we meet with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let us pray for Kings and those that are in Authority that we may live at peace c. II. In St. Chrysostom's Liturgy Dr. Hammond renders the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Defenders of God or of the Faith of Christ because I suppose he had in his mind the Title of the King of Great Britain who is ordinarily called Defender of the Faith But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that is kept or preserved by God not one that preserves or defends God as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one taught of God and not one that teaches God So in the old Latin Version of the Liturgy of St. Basil Ed. Plant. An. 1560. Pro piissimo à Deo conservando Imperatore nostro omnique palatio exercitu ejus Dominum postulemus Let us beseech God for our most pious Emperor to be preserved by God and for all the Court and his Army So in the Translation of the Mass of S. Chrysostom publish'd by Leo the Tuscan Pro piissimis caelitus custodiits Imperatoribus nostris toto palatio exercitu eorum Dominum deprecemur Let us pray earnestly to the Lord for our most religious Emperors which Heaven preserves for the whole Court and their Armies The thing is clear and needed no proof if our learned Author had not stumbled in it Vers 8. Note b. The Doctor read Aristeas too hastily for if he had read the following words he would have seen that there was no need of any Correction there being immediately added after the words alledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the entire sense being as it is the general custom of the Jews having washed their hands in salt water after they had prayed to God they went to reading and every one interpreted Vers 15. Note d. I wonder our Author has made no mention of the Opinion of Grotius who following Beza interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Apostle's meaning will be either that Women tho they are punished for Sin in Child-bearing should nevertheless be saved if c. as Beza thinks or that their bearing of Children should be no hindrance to their Salvation if c. which Grotius prefers These are certainly the most natural Interpretations and from them we may easily assign a Reason of the confusion of the Numbers which are often set promiscuously when the Discourse is about a whole Species as Grotius and Dr. Hammond himself well observes CHAP. III. Vers 1. Note a. NO Man that understands what is the Office of a Bishop or Presbyter which may be learned from these Epistles to Timothy and Titus can doubt but that it is a very honourable and excellent work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we ought not therefore to decry other conditions of Life as worldly in which a man may as truly serve God provided he regulates himself according to the prescriptions of the Gospel nor can I assent to what our Author here says about Demas of which I shall have occasion to speak afterwards As to the desertion of that Office it is a great Sin without doubt in those who have applyed themselves to it being duly qualified and can discharge it as they ought and usefully but how many are there who rashly aspire to that Office as to some Magistracy or secular Dignity for the sake of Honour and Profit who are destitute of Gifts necessary to the right exercise of it And it would be much better if such men repented of their Vow if a purpose respecting only Riches and Honours ought to be called a Vow after they had found by experience how unfit they were for the Ministry of the Gospel and set themselves to some other employment for which they were better qualified Such Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who whatever Orders they have entered into or whatever Promises they have made it would be well if they were loosed from their Engagements and returned to the World as they use to say than that they should profane and abuse so sacred an Employment But if that were done so many Legions of Angels of the Lord would be reduced to a few Vers 2. Note b. I. There is a fault either of the Printer or Dr. Hammond in his haste in the citation of the Neocaesarean Synod for that which he refers to is in Canon 7. and there are but 15 Canons of that Synod II. There is such another mistake in the citation of the Ancyran Synod for Dr. Hammond referred to Can. 19. and there are no more than 25 in all Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify in that Canon a term of time but a Constitution or Determination by which a certain penalty was imposed upon such as had been twice married 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant a Constitution and Canon saith Zonaras III. Our Author cites Plutarch in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had looked into the Greek whereas Plutarch says the quite contrary as will appear by his words which I shall set down entire that the Reader may see Citations are not always to be trusted because our learned Author relying upon the fidelity of others obtrudes upon us I know not what Dreams for the sense of Plutarch These are that Writer's words in Quaest. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why is it not the custom for Virgins to be married on the publick Feasts and for Widows to be married Dr. Hammond supposes the contrary tho he is not consistent with himself in what follows Now to that Question Plutarch answers thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it as Varro said because Virgins when they are married are sorrowful but women joyful And at a feast time nothing should be done sorrowfully or by constraint Or rather because it is decent for Virgins to be married in the presence of a great many but not for Widows For the first marriage is desirable but the second is abominable The last words are alledged by Grotius than which nothing can be more pertinent to the business in hand and our Author would not have done amiss if he had followed him who is for the most part a faithful guide Plutarch adds some things to which our Author refers which I shall therefore transcribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they are ashamed if while their former Husbands are alive they are married to others and if they die they mourn which makes them prefer Quiet to the noise of a
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
should see a sufficient Example and Testimony of the Custom in Abraham 's time of paying Tithes to the Priest of ALL our increase of what kind soever it is For he himself has observed two things contrary to this Inference First that Abraham gave Tithes only of the spoils of the War which is no Evidence that the Antients used to pay Tithes when ever their Possessions were encreased for an universal Proposition as Logicians speak cannot be concluded from a particular Secondly that those Tithes were extraordinary as being paid to a Priest to whom that tract of Land wherein Abraham dwelt did not belong which surely cannot be an example of a perpetual Custom of paying Tithes to Priests of the same Country Vers 5. Note b. It is very barbarously and without example that Dr. Hammond here joins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to think that is a periphrasis of the Jews The reason he alledges for this Interpretation is of no moment because here is not a mere repetition The sense is They have received a Commandment to require Tithes of their Countrymen in that manner which is prescribed by the Law Ver. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word our Author interprets in his Paraphrase of a perfect expiation of Sin but he ought to have produced examples of that Notion Grotius thinks it signifies id quod in genere sacerdotii perfectissimum est That which is most perfect in the kind of Priesthood but that this might be said the thing should have been expressed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if therefore there were perfection in the Levitical Priesthood and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Levitical Priesthood I believe therefore that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for Consecration whereby not the Priests themselves but private Persons who offer'd Sacrifice were by the hands of the Priests so consecrated to God as to become acceptable to him So the Heathens thought themselves by their Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be through Sacrifices initiated and consecrated to their Deities so as to be upon that account the more pleasing to them as is well known of the Mysteries of Ceres Hence the Christians used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a Consecration whereby we are rendred more acceptable to God See J. Casp Suicerus his Thesaurus on this word In the same manner I understand the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 19. Of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Priests see on Chap. ii 10 Vers 19. Note c. I am apt to think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a reference to the mystical signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to consecrate to initiate in certain Rites For as those that were initiated drew nearer than others to the Images of the Gods and entred into the secret places of their Temples so the consecrated Priests among the Jews enter'd into the Sanctuary which was nearest that place where God was thought in a special manner to reside and among Christians any one whatsoever as initiated by the most Holy Rites betakes himself to God in Prayer without the intervention of any mortal Priest See Note on vers 11. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be referred only to the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is not to be understood so as if Christ had offer'd not only for the sins of the People but also for his own as Grotius and Dr. Hammond understood it For there is no such thing in any other place suggested by the Apostles and what those learned Men here say is violent These Writers are not to be examined so by the Rules of Rhetoricians as always to be thought to intend what a Rhetorician would have meant by the same words It 's true accurately speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be referred to the whole verse but the former part of it not agreeing to Christ it must be supposed only to belong to the latter CHAP. VIII Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my note on Mark xvi 19 Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of Heaven in which Christ exercised the chief part of his Priesthood when he carried into it his blood as into the most holy place Our Author misunderstood this of the Church in which Christ did not execute his Priestly Office but in Heaven In the words of the Apostle after the true Tabernacle we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God which is called true because God there shews himself in a peculiar manner present by an inaccessible light with which his inhabitation of the Mosaical Tabernacle can no more be compared than the malignant and as it were false light of the reflex rays of a Torch with the true light of the Sun See what I have said about this phrase on John vi 55 and about the Tabernacle of God on Rev. xxi 13 Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't think we ought to supply here only after the words on earth with Grotius and Dr. Hammond for the reasoning of the Apostle is not at all cleared by that Supplement But to be a Priest on earth is to be understood so as if he had said by the Mosaical Law which appointed only the race of Aaron to be Priests and that to offer up brute Sacrifices in the Temple whose blood they alone according to the Law of God might pour out at the Altar and carry into the Sanctuary For Christ was of the Tribe of Judah as the Apostolical Writer of this Epistle elsewhere observes Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here can by no means signify a prefiguration of something future for Heaven was a great while before the Tabernacle and Temple but some faint and obscure Image of a thing extraordinary beautiful and glorious For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as painted Images are an imitation as it is used in this very Epistle Chap. iv 11 Let us labour to enter into that rest lest any man perish in the same imitation of unbelief that is in the imitation of the same unbelief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Phavâ—rinus interprets thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he represents for he paints I will shew a thing by discourse as by some picture So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to delineate or to draw the first and rude lineaments of things from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a rude draught or delineation And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a dull or rough Picture like the representation of a body by its shadow Then the Phrase to serve to the delineation and shadowing of heavenly things signifies to minister to the Sanctuary which was a delineation c. as was done
by the Jewish Priests What our Author says here in his Paraphrase is besides the scope of this place Vers 9. Note a. I. What Dr. Hammond here says about the mistakes of Transcribers is very true as Lud. Cappellus in his Critica Sacra has shewn in which Mr. Pocock has confuted indeed a few ces but left the foundations untouch'd tho he ever now and then has a stroke at them both in his Notes ad Portam Mosis and elsewhere Yet they cannot be overturned because they are undeniably true But it is true also before any place be thought to have been differently read by the Septuagint the neighbouring Languages ought to be consulted which was not always done by Cappellus In this place our Author might have added that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are one and the same root but differently written the Letters of the same Organ in the Eastern Languages and especially the Guttural being very often confounded II. I wonder our learned Author thought the Septuagint pointed otherwise the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for melammedah is of the Feminine Gender and cannot be joined with what goes before The words may be literally render'd thus Fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timere eorum me praeceptum hominum edoctum their fearing me was a precept taught by men If any thing else were to be changed by the Version of the Septuagint we should read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melammedim teaching But that is needless the sense being the same in the Hebrew words as they are now as it is in the Greek III. Our Author mistranslates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by I have given or sent He confounds this Verb with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath sent in his Explication of Zachar xi 13 CHAP. IX Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not seem to signify an Image of the whole World as Grotius and Dr. Hammond explain it but rather earthly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken both for this lower World and for Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Beza observed whom the learned Doctor and Grotius should have followed in this matter Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is called Holies in the plural number because the most holy place was called the Holies of Holies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by those that spake Greek for in Hebrew the former is called the Sanctuary or Holiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mikdasch or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kodesch never in the plural number the latter the Holiness of Holinesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this and what I shall observe afterwards of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may seem probable that the Writer of this Epistle was a Grecian or at least one that did not well understand Hebrew and therefore cannot be thought to have been St. Paul Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius understands by this word the Golden Censer which had fire put into it out of the Altar by the High Priest who afterwards threw Incense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into it on the day he entred into the most holy place That Vessel used to be kept in the outward Sanctuary but non est saith he difficile intellectu cur diâ—at hic scriptor interius illud tentorium habuisse batillum non quod ibi semper esset sed quod semper Arcam quae erat in Adyto respiceret in illo die maxime solemni expiationis in tentorium interius id est in Adytum transferretur Habere enim dicimur quod est in nostrum usum It is easy to understand why this Writer says that inward Tabernacle had the Censer not because it was always there but because it always had a respect to the Ark which was in the most holy place and on that most solemn day of Expiation was carried into the inward Tabernacle and into the most holy place For we are said to have what is for our use By the same reason every thing which was in the outward Sanctuary might be said to have been in the most holy place because they had a respect to it It might have been said to have the Fire and the Incense before they were carried into it because they were for its use and were to be carried into it Which things as they cannot be said according to the ordinary use of Speech so they are by no means agreeable to the Stile of this Writer For when he says wherein was the candlestick and the table and the shewbread that must undoubtedly be understood properly and we cannot otherwise understand what is said here which had the golden Censer c. I am apt to think therefore that this was a Jewish Tradition of that Age by which they supposed that the Censer used on the day of Expiation was kept in the most holy place See on the following words Ibid. Note b. It 's certain Isaac Abarbanel on 1 Kin. viii 9 says there is a Tradition to that purpose See what Joan. Buxtorfius has collected about this matter out of the Rabbins and other Interpreters in his Arca Foederis cap. 5. Vers 5. Note d. See also what I have said on Rom. iii. 25 Vers 7. Note e. All the Sins that were expiated by Sacrifices were not involuntary but only the most as appears from Levit. vi 1 seqq and the greater number gave the denomination Vers 13. Note f. In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify washes abluit but lustrat purifies or purges that is according to the Institution of the Law makes one that was before judged unclean with an Uncleanness not properly so called but legal to be accounted clean tho neither his Mind was made more holy nor his Body properly speaking more clean For the sprinkling of Blood and Ashes rather defiles than washes the body It is a plain case Why therefore did the Apostolical Writer say that it sanctified the flesh I answer It is all one as if he had said the Body of such a man was accounted holy or clean and might be touched without Pollution for those that were accounted unclean were thought to pollute every one that touched them Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is as it were a playing with the Ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in these Writers constantly signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Covenant was used by those that spake the best Greek for a Testament It is true indeed a Testament is ratified by the death of the Testator and Christ is dead But Christ was not the Mediator of a Testament for Testaments do not want Mediators and if it should be granted that he was he could not be thought at once a Mediator and a Testator by whose death alone a Testament was confirmed The Testator here is God the Father whose heirs men are in conjunction with
for the Sons of Men where the Septuagint who yet have very ill translated these words have right enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nor waits for the Sons of Men or puts Confidence in them For those Interpreters must often be understood by the Hebrew words which they endeavour'd to illustrate in their Translation Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signified to subsist III. Our Author in his Paraphrase interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Conviction or Perswasion but he should have brought us an example wherein it appeared that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a certain disposition of Mind and I cannot tell whether any can be found But till such an instance be alledged I chuse rather to interpret this word according to its usual signification that is argumentum an Argument as it is rendred in the Vulgar The firm and constant Faith of wise Men has that weight and influence upon others as to be an Argument for which they believe with them the reality of things which they do not see So St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv to prove the certainty of the Resurrection to those who had not seen it argues from his own and the rest of the Apostles and Christians Faith Else what shall they do saith he who are baptized for the dead If the Dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the Dead And why stand we in jeopardy every hour If after the manner of Men I have fought with Beasts at Ephesus what advantageth it me if the Dead rise not c. These things may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is arguments proving the truth of the Resurrection of the Dead it being not at all probable that wise and good Men would have rashly and without reason submitted to such things The same may be said of those examples of Faith mentioned in this Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Paraphrase rightly interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the best for this Verse is taken out of the Greek Translation of Genes iv 7 where Cain is said to have offer'd indeed rightly but not to have divided rightly that is to have kept to himself what was Gods See my Notes on that place Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Grotius rightly refers to Jerusalem which our Author interprets in a mystical sense I know not for what reason for if we read Genesis we shall be perfectly of Grotius his Mind nor does the series of the Discourse here require any other interpretation Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words are rightly understood by Grotius and Dr. Hammond so as if the Apostolical Writer had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they desired a better Country which was an antitype of Heaven that is the Land of Canaan For it appears from Gen. xxiii 7 xlvii 9 that the only meaning of the Patriarchs in saying they were strangers and sojourners in the Land was that they had no ground of their own in the Land of Canaan but dwelt in it merely by the courtesy of the Canaanites Vers 20. Note d. What our Author says in this Note is very ingenious and if not true seems highly probable as far as the last period beginning with and this perhaps Because that which follows is plainly forced for who would say that the Edomites were Lords of the Jews because when their Commonwealth was overthrown by the Chaldeans they did no longer obey them Is it all one to be any Mans Lord and not to serve him I think not So that this last remark should have been blotted out or rather not at all written Vers 21. Note e. See my Notes on Gen. xlvii 31 We had better here acknowledg the hand of a Writer who did not understand Hebrew and followed without examination the Septuagint than endeavour to reconcile inconsistencies Our Author commits here another great mistake in seeking in Gen. xlix for that which is in Gen. xlvii and joining the words of Chap. xlix belonging to another Story with the words of Chap. xlvii 21 See the places and you will think it strange that our learned Author who so diligently studied the Scripture should commit such an error Vers 29. Note f. This also is a Dream plainly contrary to the History and owing to the false reasoning of Interpreters as I have shewn in a Dissertation de Maris Idumaei trajectione added to my Commentary on the Pentateuch Numb iv Ibid. Note g. All this is true but had been observed before by Grotius and others See also Davidis Clerici Quaest Sacr. x. Vers 35. Note h. I. Mr. Gataker has treated largely concerning this word in Adversar cap. xlvi who may be consulted From the places by him alledged it sufficiently appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about an instrument of Torment was properly a Club so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to beat and secondarily the place or torment it self of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was deduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to strike with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Club till the Person accused made Confession or else died which Verb was afterwards used to signify any kind of painful Death But here where there are particular kinds of Death mention'd I think it is to be understood properly of those who were beaten to death with Clubs So that what our Author conjectures of I know not what Engine that was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and on which Malefactors were hanged is vain Mr. Gataker also very truly observes that Lexicographers often attribute to words those significations which either precede or accompany the thing signified and that shews the reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said by Hesychius and Suidas to signify to be flea'd or hanged II. I do not see why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Yoke mention'd in Jerem. xxviii 14 should be reckoned the same For from the beginning of the foregoing Chapter it appears that those Yokes are consider'd as representations of slavery which the Prophet foretold to several Nations not of Torment or a Prison The only similitude between them we have any certain knowledg of is that they were both put upon the Neck III. Tho in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joined together it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho tympanum sometimes signifies a Wheel among Architects It is sufficient that the Wheel was an instrument of Torture as appears by the Fable of Ixion that in the description of Hell there might be mention made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not safe to deduce Consectaries from the order of words See Lucian Tom. i. p. 334. Ed. Amstel IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very
fitly be rendred to come to the torment of the Club or if you please to the place in which that Torment was inflicted because that is abusively called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus also improperly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is to die a painful Death nor is it necessary he should have thought of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of hanging as we shall afterwards see on the place in Eusebius which Dr. Hammond last of all alledges V. The pulling off the Skin or cutting off the Members signify nothing to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called nor was it necessary that those who suffer'd this kind of Torment should also have their Skin pulled off or be dismembred But all these severities might improperly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense that this word is taken for any sort of Torment VI. They who have been a long while beaten with Clubs in all the parts of their Body may truly be said as in Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so stiled was a capital Punishment for there might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of fewer or more blows either for Chastisement or to Death as the Judges thought fit or the Crime deserved VII It is a strange citation of Eusebius which we have here in our Author after the place in the Maccabees First there is no such thing in Lib. iv of Eusebius but the passage is in Lib. ix c. 40. Secondly it is not taken out of Polyhistor but out of Berosus himself or rather out of a fragment of his which we find in Josephus out of whom Eusebius cites it as appears by the very Inscription of the Chapter The same fragment has been published by Jos Scaliger out of Josephus So that the comparison the Doctor makes between Alexander Polyhistor out of Eusebius and Berosus is vain because one and the same Writer is cited in both places in whose different Copies especially in a barbarous name there might be a various reading VIII The place in Daniel is in Chap. vii 11 as was well noted by Jos Scaliger in Not. ad Fragm p. 11. and not in Chap. v. But this I should not observe if the foregoing and following things did not shew that our Author in collecting this medly was extreamly careless beyond what he uses to be and did not think it worth while to look into the places in the Writers themselves He says afterwards Megasthenes out of Abydenus calls the King of Babylon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the contrary Abydenus produces the words of Megasthenes in Eusebius Lib. xi c. 41. IX I easily believe the punishment of the Club even to Death was used among the Greeks and Babylonians But our Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he describes it was no where used nor can any thing be alledged in his favour out of Justin who subjoined a synonimous Verb to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinking there was no difference between them after which manner both he and other Fathers often cite the Scripture The place is in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew p. 248. X. Nothing could have been more impertinently alledged by the Doctor to prove that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in use among the Romans than the passage of Eusebius or rather of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons out of Lib. v. c. 1. of Eusebius For after he had said that the Emperor had written word that those who professed the Christian Religion ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describing the manner how the President had executed the Emperors orders he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were judged to have been made free of the City of Rome he cut off their Heads and the rest he sent to the wild Beasts Where is here our Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christophorson misled him who had rendred the word tympanis torqueri which is justly censured by H. Valesius with whom yet I should not render it gladio caedi for those who were condemned to be devoured by wild Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as those who were beheaded XI Not only our Author but also the great Grotius did not know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified in this place who on 2 Maccab. vi 19 conjectures that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fidiculae quibus pellis humana ita tendebatur quomodo bubula in tympano qui sic cruciabantur dictos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Cords whereby a Mans skin was stretched so as the Skin of an Ox on a Drum and those who were so tormented were said c. But both the reason of the word and use are plainly against him as will appear to any one that reads Gataker whom I will not transcribe I shall only add that in the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred sirimpio which is a corrupt Writing for scipio a Staff Vers 37. Note i. I wonder our Author here cites Copies which no one else has mention'd I mistrust they are Conjectures which he imposes upon us for various Lections Beza affirms that it is so read in all his Copies and there is no variety of reading observed in the Oxford Edition but of one Copy in which this word is wanting The same Beza conjectures that we might read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were burnt and Tanaquillus Faber in Ep. Crit. Lib. ii Ep. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were maimed or dismembred which kind of punishment was common among the Eastern People The Reader may chuse which of these he pleases either of them being better than the received reading Vers 40. Note k. I. If we should admit the reasonings of Dr. Hammond about the signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to grant they signified tranquillity in this World and the perpetual duration of the Christian Church yet we could not allow him that this may be referred to the times of the Apostles For what tranquillity did the Christians enjoy for three Ages greater than the Jews from the beginning of their Commonwealth to this time It 's true the Jews in so many Ages suffer'd various Calamities but they had also long intervals of Rest and Prosperity such as the Christians for 300 Years never enjoyed as the Scripture informs us as in the reigns of David and Solomon and other Kings Did the Christians enjoy so great tranquillity after the destruction of Jerusalem that there never had been any tranquillity in the Jewish Commonwealth than which that short rest if it were any was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who does not know that the Christians from that time were often grievously persecuted tho not by the Jews yet by the Heathens till the time of Constantine If therefore we would interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a quiet Profession of the Christian Religion that were
not to be referred at least principally to any time which preceded the Reign of Constantine but to his age and the following ages hitherto because since that time the Christian Religion has flourished so that nothing like it was ever seen in the Commonwealth of the Jews See my Note on Luke i. 73 II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the antient Jews had not received I chuse rather with Grotius and others to understand of the resurrection of the Body and the entire and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect Happiness of the whole man which none had yet enjoyed except Enoch and Elias and perhaps Moses and a few others that were risen with Christ That Promise is contained in these words I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Christ shews God provided better for us Christians than to raise them whose Faith is commended in the Old Testament from the dead and make them completely happy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so much to provide better things for us than for the Jews as if we were to receive any thing which they are not to receive as to the substance of the thing but to have a greater regard to us Christians than to the Jews whom God would not raise from the dead and make perfectly happy before the Christians Those are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are made happy both in Soul and Body when such whose Souls only are made happy enjoy but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfect Happiness in comparison with them CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. I. TO understand what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies it must in the first place be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often signifies circumstare to stand about and passively circumsisti circumveniri to be surrounded or beset And hence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa quem statur one who is surrounded So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocrates in his Oration about retribution Jugling tricks that are of no use but are surrounded by a company of Fools For which the spectators stand about in a ring This Harpocration has and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says that in Dinarchus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we add Α privative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be one that no body stands about such as those who have no Friends or Relations nor any to assist them in the management of their Affairs This Hesychius had expressed but his words are corrupted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone not having assistance or means So it must be rendred not as it is by our Author who translates these words absurdly In which sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the words of Georgius Alexandrinus alledged by our Author and that Notion ought not to have been confounded with the Rhetorical Notion which Dr. Hammond mentions These things supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be properly one whom others easily stand about or encompass and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies metaphorically to be circumvented that is to be deceived or pressed with difficulties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one that is easily circumvented So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a foolish man who is easily turned or wound about that is deceived He adds the words of the Apostle So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy viz. to be circumvented and overcome Phavorinus also interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her that is easily deceived So that in this place where agonistical words are used I am apt to think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies which is easily circumvented that is overcome because all that ran and suffer'd themselves to be easily circumvented were by that means sure to be overcom for they who had circumvented them came first to the end of the race And Sin is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because those who are infected with it are easily conquer'd and terrified by difficulties from persisting constantly in their Christian Course II. It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes a case wherein a man is in great danger of his life as in the place cited out of Diogenes Laertius and that among Rhetoricians a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or question is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is proposed without any circumstances but all this is nothing to this place and is a mere medly of undigested Learning or rather of a man groping as it were in the dark and seeking for the signification of a word where it was not to be sought for In the place of St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly taken in an Active sense not in a Passive for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has an Active signification as often as a Passive and that an Active one must be assigned to it in this place appears evidently by the following Active Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But St. Chrysostom is mistaken for almost all such Nouns have a Passive signification because they are derived from the third person of the Preterperfect tense Passive So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easily passable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily expanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily subverted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy to be beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily taken away and innumerable others which may be found in any Lexicon St. Chrysostom interpreted this Passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews by Conjecture not by Grammatical Rules Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is on the right side of that inaccessible Light which is a Symbol of the presence of the most high God See Note on Mark xvi 19 Vers 3. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly to be tired and metaphorically to faint or languish because when a man is excessively tired his strength fails him So in the Apopthegm of Coriolanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to have his strength fail him or to do that which fainting persons use to do for when those who stood by him besought him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that being burden'd with labours and Wounds he would retire into the Camp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saying that it was not the part of Conquerors to be overcome by weariness pursued them that fled These Words are found in Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus p. 218. Ed. Wechel T. 1. I cannot tell whether our Author read them in the Writer himself it 's certain he sets down the saying of Coriolanus otherwise than Plutarch However that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as I said to be tired secondarily to do that which tired persons use to do as in this place of the Epistle to the Hebrews as to desist from running to quit the Field that is to betake ones self
this Inscription to be of a later date than the Age of the Apostles II. It is much more probable that St. James was killed in the Year of Christ LX. as Ant. Pagus on that year has shewn in Epicrisi Baroniana III. The passages in this Epistle which our Author understands of the Gnosticks and the destruction of the Jews are as fitly interpreted by others of any bad men whatsoever or any other Judgments of God Of which matter it will be more proper to speak on those passages themselves CHAP. I. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is generally interpreted the trying of your faith as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is harsh to transpose the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and without any Transposition these words will have the same sense if they be rendred thus the tryal of you worketh patience of faith that is patience proceeding from faith as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is obedience proceeding from faith Yet there is a like transposition observable in 1 Pet. i. 7 in this very Phrase unless perhaps in both places for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 6. Note a. I have a suspicion that Dr. Hammond when he first set about the explication of the New Testament began with the explanation of this Epistle because his stile is harsher and more intricate than ordinary which yet is every where very much neglected and because besides there are a great many things here violently and by straining deduced from the words of St. James In his Paraphrase he represents him speaking what he pleases because he departs far from his words and in his Annotations he wrests them with forced conjectures I. It is false that in vers 9. the discourse is about sufferings and tho that should be granted it would not follow that the four antecedent Verses belong to the same matter because in this Epistle there are divers Precepts often set one after another without any order or connexion as well as in other Apostolical Epistles These holy men spake those things which they thought would be useful to those whom they wrote to without observing any method which is not necessary in such Writings and Admonitions II. If the Apostle had intended to say what our Author would have him he would have expressed his mind thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not said simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is let him ask with faith that is believing that God can and will do good to us and grant us every thing that is necessary or not doubting concerning the divine Promises This is properly that Faith which is to be joined with our Prayers Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is doubting concerning the divine Promises Clemens in Epist 1. to the Corinthians cap. xi says that Lot's Wife disagreeing with her Husband was changed into a Statue of Salt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all might know that double-minded persons and such as doubt concerning God's Power are for a condemnation and sign to all generations The same Clemens uses the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let us not be double minded and let not our Soul hesitate about his excellent and noble Gifts Far be from us that Scripture where it is said Miserable are the double minded they that are of a doubtful Heart c. The same Verb is used by Barnabas cap. xix in the way of Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not doubt whether it shall come to pass or not Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubting In the same sense we more than once meet with the word dubius in Herma's Pastor See Lib. iii. Simil. ix § 21. Vers 9. Note b. I. Tho joy and boasting are usually joined together yet those words ought not to be confounded as if they had the same signification which really differ because there may be joy without boasting and this place manifestly requires the notion of boasting properly so called which is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 humiliation and is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 height For if we may mix things which have an affinity with one another we shall make strange confusion and here the elegancy of St. James his saying will be all lost Let the Brother that is low boast in his height that is that he is a Christian than which nothing can be more honourable if we rightly consider the thing but on the other hand rich Men whose confidence in their Riches generally makes them proud ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blush and be ashamed in their humility that is because of their low and base disposition in putting confidence in earthly and fading things There is a double Antithesis here observable for first the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the poor Man is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the rich and secondly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the former to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the latter For tho there be no Verb joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner of the opposition shews that some such thing must necessarily be understood as Grotius and other Interpreters have well observed And nothing can be better opposed to boasting than shame So that we must supply with Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this sense which necessarily arises from the very words of St. James our Author's Paraphrase makes nothing in which he expresses his own forced conceptions and not the mind of St. James II. What is here said of the dispositions of poor and rich Men has not any special relation to persecution for the sake of Religion but may be said of them at any time For as poor Men ought always to keep themselves from being cast down to think how honourable a Condition it is to be a true Christian and to boast in the Lord so rich Men if they are conscious to themselves of putting confidence in their Riches ought at all times to be ashamed of the vileness of such a disposition III. But the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Dr. Hammond may be judg shews these words must be connected with what goes before But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there follows another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words are to be rendred thus Let the Brother indeed that is low boast in his height but let the rich Man be ashamed in his being low We meet with a great many examples in the best Writers where when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs twice the first is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the manner of the opposition shews See Henr. Stephanus Vers 11. Note c. If there were any thing here to be alter'd I should chuse to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Riches that is together with his Riches Verses 16 17.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase obtrudes his Gnosticks here upon us of whom there is not the least mention or footstep in St. James So Men see in the Clouds what they please Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again our learned Author forces his Gnosticks upon us as if there were none that could be charged with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Gnosticks St. James alludes to Circumcision in which the filthy and superfluous Skin was cast away not to any peculiar practices of the Gnosticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word which is ingrafted in the Minds of its Hearers that is takes as it were root in them if they receive it with Meekness that is with a teachable Mind This word is used also in the same sense by Barnabas Epist cap. ix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knows who has put into us the ingrafted Gift of his Doctrin Where the old Interpreter mistranslates the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by naturale which he has also in the beginning of that Epistle where the Greek is wanting Vers 23. Note e. Without doubt the former interpretation is the more probable if not also true But I had rather I. Understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a natural Countenance not as it is opposed to a Vizard or Mask but as opposed to a painted face For Maskers do not use to behold their Vizards in a Glass but their Faces I might shew that Dancers and other effeminate Men corrupted the natural colour of their Countenances with Paint but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homo as it is often in Poets so as to comprehend also Women II. I do not think St. James speaks as well of that which is usually done as of that which might be done For he compares them who having heard the Word retain the Vices which the Word condemns with those who seeing the stains of their countenance in a Glass should not wash them off which being accounted a piece of Madness and Absurdity they must also necessarily be accounted Fools and Madmen who when they observe their Vices represented and condemned in the Doctrin of the Gospel do not think of forsaking them The former is very seldom done the latter too frequently because Men take more care of their Bodies than of their Souls They are offended with the spots of their Face but they are not offended with the blemishes of their Minds Vers 27. Note f. This might all be admitted if it were certain that none but the Gnosticks thought Religion to consist rather in Faith than in Practice But who told Dr. Hammond that among those who lived in the Apostolical Churches there were none who turned the Grace of God into lasciviousness CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I Do not think there is a respect here had to the Shechinah for the Glory of Christ signifies rather in this place his Kingdom as Dr. Hammond himself seems to have observed So that I take the meaning of this Verse to be this Ye who believe that Christ reigneth in Glory ought not to have respect to Persons because he promised to make the Poor as well as the Rich provided they believed and obeyed him partakers of his Kingdom See vers 5. Vers 2. Note b. I. To begin with this last remark our learned Author ought to have told us where we might find the Jewish Canon he speaks of and alledged the words of it themselves but I am apt to think he had it only from the Mouth of some Jew or learned Man that affirmed he had read it in the writings of the Rabbins Where are the Christians who having Controversies with Jews and those of mean Condition think fit to refer them to the judgment of a Chacham Namely in the Kingdom of Vtopia Yet there is I confess a Jewish Canon to this purpose tho not such as our Author speaks of set down by J. Henr. Hottinger out of R. Levi Barcinonensis in Leg. cxlii Juris Hebraici Let not one sit down and the other stand but let them both stand because when they are before the Council it is fit they should stand as if they were in the presence of the divine Majesty Yet the Rabbins say that if the Council will permit the contending parties to sit down they may which words must be understood of the time during which the Cause is examined but whilst Sentence is pronounced they are obliged to stand But because it became the Custom in all the Consistories of the Israelites that after the decision they were commanded to sit down to avoid contention tho they were only Witnesses they command them now also to sit down Hottinger sets down the Hebrew words and refers the Reader to other places in the Rabbins II. I don't think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies the seats of Christian Judges or places in which they assembled for a rich Man drawing a poor Christian before Christian Judges could not be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oppress him because it belonged to the Judges to restrain the rich Man's Anger Besides it is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. vi 4 signifies a Tribunal as I have shewn on that place III. What our Author alledges does by no means prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Consistories of Christian Judges For first none were Judges properly so called but Roman Magistrates or those of privileged Cities Secondly respect of Persons may have place not only in publick Judgments but in any other as when we entertain poor Men with scorn whatever Gifts and Vertues they are endued with and treat the rich with all kind of respect because they are rich Thirdly if we suppose that the Controversies which arose between Christians according to the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi were decided by Christian Judges we must not dream here of Tribunals and Footstools set for those Judges These were the appurtenances of Magistrates not of private Men unless perhaps it should be thought that Bishops in that Age pronounced sentence from some high place like Magistrates which none I suppose who understand these matters will say in good earnest Fourthly we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Judges of the dignity of Men when we assign them Seats as we think their Dignity requires and when we have only a regard to Riches in this matter then we imitate corrupt Judges So that any may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who do something like them Fifthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have said did not belong to Christian Judges but to Heathens and therefore that word does not prove that the Discourse is here about Judges Lastly a variety of Seats does not belong so much to an assembly of Judges as to a Congregation of many private Men such as Ecclesiastical Meetings IV. So that it is
much better to understand these words with Grotius and other Interpreters of a Church Assembly in which St. James not without reason complains that the poorer sort were treated with too much contempt and the rich with too much honour for in those Assemblies at that time when there were no Magistrates who upon the account of their Office justly have the most honourable Seats allotted to them it was absurd to have a regard merely to Riches Those who sat there were estimated by nothing but the name of Christians and were admitted into those Assemblies because they were Christians and not because they were Rich. And therefore no difference should have been made between Men as to the place of their sitting barely upon the account of their possessions Vers 4. Note c. I. To begin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preposterously our learned Author is mistaken when he says that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the middle voice which dropt from him before he was aware for any Child knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first Aorist passive II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily be a Hebraism for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interrogative or whether or no because in that Language the Particle And often abounds It is plain it is prefixed to interrogations in Mat. xviii 21 and Acts xxiii 3 from which it might be absent without any prejudice to the sense But I had rather in this place blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Alexandrian Copy to which we may join perhaps the Vulgar Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seems to have been added by some Transcriber who did not sufficiently understand the series of the Discourse III. Nothing could have been invented more harsh than that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the period should begin in vers 5. If ye have a respect c. hear my beloved Brethren hath not God chosen c. Besides our Author without necessity fastens a Solecism upon St. James for after five Verbs in the Subjunctive Mood had gone before which are govern'd by the conditional Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he supposes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are subjoined in the same construction If any one come in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a gold Ring and there come in also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a poor Man and ye have respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that weareth the gay clothing and say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the poor Stand thou there which words according to Dr. Hammond's opinion would be followed by these and ye have not doubted in your selves and are become judges c. But to avoid a Solecism St. James should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Subjunctive Mood whereas we have here two Indicatives which I wonder our Author could join with the foregoing in the Subjunctive IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho in the Passive voice seems to be taken in an Active sense as innumerable other Passives in Greek Authors So in Herodian Lib. iv c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Souldiers having obtained permission to exercise Violence and Rapine did no longer distinguish who they were that had spoken insolently Accordingly the Apostle's meaning is this do not ye put a distinction within your selves between a rich and a poor Man merely for the sake of Riches with which one abounds and the other is destitute In a Church consisting of Christians which at that time were all private Persons there ought to have been an equality in seats not a difference made according to Mens Estates as if it had been the business of the Governors of Churches to take an account of Peoples Possessions and according to their several Estates to distribute them into several Classes The thing it self requiring this sense there is no need of seeking any other Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is no one is look'd upon by God as a good Man merely because he believes the Christian Religion to be true but besides that its Precepts must be obeyed that we may be accounted good Men and become acceptable to God St. James here opposes those who did not join a vertuous Life with the profession of Christianity And St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans opposed the Jews who pretended that Men might become good and pleasing in the sight of God by the mere observation of the Law of Moses and shews that those who believe in God and live piously might be accounted just and be in favour with God without the performance of legal Works See my Notes on Rom. iii. and iv CHAP. III. Ver. 1. Note a. I. THE interpretation of Grotius seems to me to be much more natural according to which St. James here forbids every one indifferently to aspire to the Office of a Teacher because a severer account will be required of him that undertakes to teach others and would have himself believed by the more ignorant than if he were content to be wise for himself or err alone without endeavouring to make Proselytes of others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to have a greater Judg but to receive the greater Judgment that is the greater Condemnation if we offend So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Mat. xxiii 14 Luke xx 47 Mark xii 40 see also Rom. xiii 2 It concerns indeed every one to bridle their Tongue lest they should condemn any rashly but especially those who teach others because their Judgments are most valued and have the worst consequences attending them if they are unjust This makes both Pages in Ecclesiastical History and a more wholesom Precept than this could not have been given to Christians which I wish they had suffer'd to sink down into their Minds But there neither was of old nor is at this day any thing more common than the rash judgments of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masters II. That long and nice Comparison of this place with others in which either the same thing is not spoken of or at least the Discourse is no more about the Gnosticks than the Jews too much addicted to Judaism or about other Men no better than they that nice Comparison I say of those places does not prove that St. James here has a respect to the Gnosticks Nay I do not think here and elsewhere where the Apostles address themselves to Christians living under Christian Bishops in Apostolical Churches that Schismaticks are referred to See vers 10. 13. Vers 5. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is certainly the beginning of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is As Horses are governed by a small Bridle and a Ship by a small Stern so the Tongue which is a little member rules whole Societies I do not see why we should depart from the natural signification of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
elsewhere often observable in these Writings viz. that the Apostles frequently begin a sense without continuing it and no otherwise connect their Discourse than with the last words of the former Period and the beginning of the next so as on occasion of the last word to begin a new sense For the better understanding of which I have subjoined some of St. Peter's words in which those are printed in Capital Letters which connect the Discourse Vers 4. To an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for YOU 5. WHO are kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation ready to be revealed in the last TIME 6. WHEREIN ye greatly rejoice tho now for a season if need be ye are in heaviness through manifold TEMPTATIONS 7. That the TRIAL of your Faith being much more precious than of Gold that perisheth tho it be tried with Fire might be found unto Praise and Honour and Glory at the appearing of JESUS CHRIST 8. WHOM having not seen ye love 9. Receiving the end of your Faith even the SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS 10. Of WHICH SALVATION the Prophets have enquired and searched diligently Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here St. Peter speaks only of eternal Salvation as the foregoing words manifestly shew See ver 4. Nor was there any Salvation revealed to the Christian Jews scatter'd through Asia Minor by the destruction of Jerusalem Our Author speaks every where as if Proconsuls and Pretors had been sent from Jerusalem not from Rome into the Provinces of the Roman Empire who had persecuted the Christians But certainly the Christians had reason to fear only the Heathen Magistrates not a few contemptible Jews to whom no part of the Administration of the Provinces belonged Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of the Salvation of Souls of which he spake in the Verse before or of eternal Happiness which will then only be conferred when Christ returns from Heaven Of this Salvation the Prophets enquired not of a deliverance of the Christians from the fear of the Jews whom they had no reason to be much afraid of unless perhaps in Judaea Yet some may object in favour of Dr. Hammond the following Verse in which the Discourse is principally about things that happen'd in the time of the Apostles whence he inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Deliverance which happened in the same Age. But the learned Doctor did not observe that the Prophets who desired to know the time of the last Judgment did at once covet to know when were to be the sufferings for the sake of Christ because after them and not before Christ was to come to Judgment And hence St. Peter calls all those things which had already followed and were afterwards to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the glorious things that after them should come to pass not immediately and all together but at several intervals which not only the Apostles but also the Angels themselves were ignorant of Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Beza renders eventuras Christi perpessiones The future Sufferings of Christ which Grotius follows and says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the foregoing Verse But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify your but to you who prophesied of the Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you that is to be conferred on you or which God was about to bestow on you So also in ver 4. Salvation reserved in Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either until you or for your sakes And agreeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify the sufferings of good Men for the sake of Christ which the Prophets obscurely foresaw and the Glory of Believers that should follow but of which they knew not the times only it was revealed to them that they were not to come to pass in their Age. This excellently agrees with the series of St. Peter's Discourse who speaks of the Afflictions which Christians endured for Religion sake Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This I understand of the time of the last Judgment which the Angels do not know Otherwise if St. Peter had spoken of a thing already past he would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desired Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is whom God had purposed in himself before the Creation of the World to send at this time The Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presignified which makes me wonder why Dr. Hammond here speaks of Types and Images At this rate the Apostles may be made to say any thing CHAP. II. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Grotius rightly observes that St. Peter here means those Vices which had been very common among the Jews and with which those to whom he writes had been infected But our Author without reason would have the Vices of the Gnosticks to be intended which yet at that time wherein he supposes this Epistle was written could hardly have infected so many Besides the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lay aside shews that the Discourse here is about Vices with which those to whom St. Peter writes had been corrupted in Judaism it self and not about unknown Vices against which they were only to fortify themselves Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By a Metaphor taken from Plants which stick yet fast to their Roots and are nourished by juice ascending from them Stones which remain still in the Quarry are said to be living By which Epithet here I suppose is meant the firmness of that thing which is signified by the name of a Stone because nothing is firmer than Stones still growing in a Quarry or cleaving fast to a Rock by their Roots For which reason a steddy and inflexible purpose of Mind is compared by Ovid to such a Stone in Metam xiv where he speaks of Anaxaretes Durior ferro quod Noricus excoquit ignis Et saxo quod adhuc VIVUM radice tenetur Hermas in his Vision of the Tower thus describes Christ Lib. iii. Sim. 9. § 2. In medio campo candidam ingentem mihi petram ostendit quae de ipso campo surrexerat In the midst of the Field he shewed me a white and huge Rock which had risen out of the Field it self Vers 12. Note f. I. In St. Peter's words there is an Ellipsis common in all the best Greek Writers who expressing only the Relative Pronoun leave the Demonstrative to be understood Thus therefore we must Grammatically explain this Phrase where the Pronoun to be supplied is expressed in great Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wherein they speak against you as evil doers understanding THIS more throughly by your good Works they may glorify God In the same manner we must resolve the Phrase occurring about the same matter in Chap. iii. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wherein they speak evil of you as of
evil doers IN THIS they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good Conversation in Christ. II. It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to see for it is properly to look into or understand throughly for this Verb is immediately derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Judg or Witness of the more secret Rites used in Holy Mysteries the sight of which not only the profane Multitude but also the Mystae themselves were debarred which we may learn as from others so especially from J. Meursius in his Eleusinia Sacra I shall produce but one Testimony out of Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were those who took part of the Mysteries they were called at first Mystae and the next Year Epoptae and Ephori Afterwards it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which words he seems to intimate that there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to know viz. superficially or externally as between an Epopta and Mysta The same Author hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consideration Therefore I believe we ought to correct the Old Glosses in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred prospicio to look forward whereas it signifies rather perspicio to look through as I suppose it should be read This signification being supposed there results an excellent sense for by the words of the Christians denying that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truth could not be understood which false pretenders to Vertue carefully conceal by deceitful words but by their good Works whereby the thing it self is throughly discerned For it could not but be a good Doctrin which made such good Men. Christ shewing his Disciples how they might distinguish Hypocrites from good Men saith beware of false Prophets which will come unto you in sheeps Clothing but inwardly they are ravenous Wolves Ye shall know them by their Fruits Mat. vii 15 For tho they cunningly dissemble their Wickedness it is not long before it discovers it self But on the other hand when we see any Man live well and that for many Years we easily perceive that Man cannot profess a Doctrin which favours Wickedness III. Our Author therefore without necessity recurs to Hesychius and suspects there is a mistake here committed by some Scribe or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to all Copies and the Analogy of the Greek Language But it is the greatest Absurdity imaginable what he says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which never signified suspicere but only suspicari to suspect for which signification there is here no place Besides the Latin suspicere is not to look upon the ground but as it were from some low place to look upon another as above us or reverence him Our Author was scarce awake when he wrote this and it does not seem to have been written by the same hand with the rest of his Annotations Ibid. Note g. I. No Body will doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phkoudah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visitation signifies very often Revenge but it is as well known that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and signifies also God's Benefits So that we may as fitly understand the day of Visitation of the time in which God favourably visits the Heathens when he converts them to the Christian Religion and so the meaning of St. Peter will be By your Conversation so reconcile the Minds of the Heathens to the Christian Religion as that they may at last acknowledg its truth when God shall more fully set it before their Eyes The day of Visitation signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the time when the Gospel is more fully and clearly revealed as manifestly appears from Luke xix 44 where Christ speaking to Jerusalem foretels all those evils which afterwards came upon her because thou knewest not saith he the time of thy Visitation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is wouldst not understand that God called thee by my Ministry to Salvation II. The fame of the Christians flight out of Jerusalem does not seem to have so much as reached the Ears of the Heathens who lived in Asia Minor or the Roman Magistrates and those that attended them through the Asiatick Provinces much less to have been taken notice of by them as a remarkable Deliverance For a great while after the most learned Men among the Romans did not distinguish Christians from Jews as sufficiently appears by Tacitus and Suetonius The Halcyonian days which our Author tells us the Christians enjoyed throughout the whole Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem are mere Dreams Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschylus in his Seven Captains that went against Thebes says something very much like this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one suffer evil without infamy well and good for this is only gain among the dead But for wicked and vile Men to suffer cannot be reckon'd any Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies wickedness the punishment of which is suffer'd not without Shame and Infamy by him that commits it Vers 24. Note h. If the Apostles words had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who being upon the Tree bare our Sins there would have been some place for Dr. Hammond's Interpretation But when St. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he took them up with his Body upon the Tree it is clearly not so much the expiation of Sins as the Mortification of them as the Apostles speak that is here signified For St. Peter's meaning is that our Sins were as it were fastened to the Cross that is mortified when Christ was lifted up upon it See Rom. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render with his Body because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ב in Hebrew is frequently so taken so the Phrase it self will not bear to be otherwise rendred CHAP. III. Vers 4. Note a. OUR subtil Author sees here two Hebraisms where others cannot see so much as one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said as well in Greek as in Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so true a Greek Phrase that it was used by Plato as Henr. Stephanus in Schediasmatibus has long ago observed Ibid. Note b. I. If St. Peter had made mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perhaps there would have been some place for what our Author here says of the corruption of compounded things but because he mentions no simplicity it is nothing to the purpose Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he should have written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by Homer Iliad 1. vers 50. on which Verse the Scholiast makes that remark which Dr. Hammond sets down II. The incorruptibleness of a meek and quiet Spirit wherewith St. Peter would have Women to be adorned seems to be opposed to two things
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rahah and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any sort of vice and therefore it might be put by St. Luke for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intemperance because it is a more general name which comprehends under it the particular not that those words are ordinarily confounded 4 It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes have those significations which Dr. Hammond attributes to them as also the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schibheth used by Moses but they likewise signify in general any kind of depravation or change for the worse in which sense I shall take the word in Moses till it be evidently proved that a general signification in him can have no place 5 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more signifies Violence than any other sort of Injustice as I have shewn on Gen. vi 13 So that what our Author builds upon that signification is vain as all the rest of his Conjectures which rely upon this foundation Our learned Author often forges an Interpretation by heaping together a parcel of very slight Conjectures afterwards he raises what Superstructure he pleases upon that interpretation and then lastly speaks of the Consectaries he thence deduces as so many certain Truths But we ought not only to set bounds to our Conjectures but especially to the Consequences we deduce from them if we would not be in perpetual danger of erring That danger no body here will be in who shall suppose that the men of the old World were very wicked men there being in that no conjecture because it is affirmed by Moses in plain words but whoever shall attempt particularly to explain what Moses has said in general and give way in this matter to Conjectures will find himself in the dark And this may suffice to have been said briefly against a way of interpreting Dr. Hammond too often takes II. It had been better to observe that from the very Expression of St. Peter it may be gather'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thus he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which and by the spirits that watch he preached to whom Namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them who were sometime disobedient c. Vers 21. Note h. I. I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the true reading not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it might easily be that some Transcribers not having another Copy to write after but setting down the words from the mouth of a Prompter might confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used just in the same sense as if it were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like as the Word is manifestly taken in Heb. ix 24 on which place see my Note A pattern is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the similitude which it has with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the vulgar Interpreter translates it similis formae The other interpretations Dr. Hammond gives of this place are forced II. He says indeed truly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies contrary which might be proved from several places in Xenophon but not that which he alledges out of Hiero where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not simply contrary but dura hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is severe as it is rightly rendered by J. Leunclavius CHAP. IV. Vers 1. Note a. OUR Author here says that Saint Peter's phrase in vers 6. of this Chapter is hard and I do not deny it but I say also that he is a hard Interpreter if ever any one deserved that name For here as one said lapides loquitur he speaks stones not words to mollify hard phrases The whole sense of this verse depends upon a particular Elegancy arising from the ambignity of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer in the flesh or to the flesh which being used of Christ signifies that he suffered and died in his humane nature or for the sake of our humane nature i. e. of men But when we are said to die or suffer to the flesh we are understood to be no longer devoted to the flesh or to the vices of the flesh and accordingly St. Peter's meaning is this seeing I say that Christ has suffer'd to the flesh ye also who ought to imitate him as far as ye are able know that you must suffer to the flesh in a sense which is agreeable to you to wit wholly renounce it for he that has suffered to the flesh has ceased from sin Just such another sort of reasoning we have in Rom. vi 10 11. in the place parallel to this For in that he died instead of which St. Peter here says suffered he DIED UNTO SIN once but in that he liveth he liveth unto God Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be DEAD indeed UNTO SIN but alive unto God Instead of to die unto sin here is to suffer to the flesh but both these phrases have the same ambiguity in them These places should have been compared not verse 6. with this which have no affinity with one another Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius on this place says it is idololatriae quaedam species adesse sodalitiorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quibus prosecta falsis Diis dantur in hac maxime re credibile est Judaeos antequam Christiani essent accommodasse se Gentium moribus a sort of Idolatry to be present at such common feasts where part of the meat is offered in sacrifice to false Gods and in this particular especially it is probable the Jews before they were Christians conformed themselves to the manners of the Heathens And I do not deny but this might be done by them but there having been among the Jews every where a great number of Proselytes of which many embraced the Christian Religion I rather think St. Peter has a respect here to these who had formerly been Idolaters Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None but Dr. Hammond could have thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same as to die to the flesh who could digest any impropriety tho never so great in his own stile But it is much more natural to interpret it so that they were condemned indeed in the flesh according to men that is put to death by the judgment of men as to the body but live according to God in the Spirit that is their Souls were made partakers of eternal life by God This is the usual signification of the words which ought not to be changed without reason Vers 14. Note f. This is all forced the meaning is evidently this If ye are reproached for the name of Christ that is because ye will be called Christians happy are ye because the Spirit
of glory and of God resteth with you that is those reproaches are so far from being a sign that the Spirit hitherto bestowed upon you by God and which has brought so much glory to the Gospel departs from you that on the contrary it so much the more resteth or will more constantly abide with you as long as ye stedfastly profess the Christian Religion The Spirit of glory and as it is in the Alexandrian Manuscript of power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Spirit of Miracles which was conferred upon Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies Miracles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same See my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 and John i. 14 Vers 15. Note g. As I do not scruple disagreeing with our Author when the matter seems to require it so I am ready to commend his inventions when they are such as this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in all probability the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who does or takes care of other mens business by which word the Greeks signify those who usurp other mens offices in a Commonwealth Plato lib. iv de Repub. where he at large proves that all Orders of men in a Political Society have a certain and determinate business which they ought to take care of and that therein consists the justice and peace of a Commonwealth towards the end says that the contrary is injustice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Igitur seditionem quandam horum trium hanc esse oportet affectionem quandam qua nimis multa aggreditur alienaque munera invadit rebellat pars quaepiam animi adversus totum ut in illo imperet id quod non par est quippe quod est ejus naturae ut deceat id servire ei qui est ex prosapia imperantium Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take spiteful counsels Then he produces these words out of an antient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they observed him not to meddle with other mens business nor to endeavour alterations Budeus in Comment Ling. Graec. gives us also other examples And it is easy to discern that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the chief word of which these names are compounded is the same So that what Dr. Hammond observes is very pertinent in this place Vers 17. Note h. The sense of the Hebrew words is this Behold the righteous use to be punished on earth how much more the unrighteous and the sinner For the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and signifies either to reward or punish But the Septuagint thought Solomon had a respect to that signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be safe and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beots which signifies in straits or in hast and which they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they that escape out of any danger by a hasty flight or are brought into great straits hardly save themselves CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus St. Peter calls himself out of modesty not because he executed any where the Office of a Bishop who was invested with a much higher viz. that of an Apostle Bishops or Elders properly so called had the oversight but of one Church from which they were not to depart but the Apostles were Bishops and Elders of all the Churches in the World and could not be confined to one particular place Besides he did not write this Epistle from Rome but from Babylon a City of Egypt as learned men have shewn and I have observed at the end of the Premonition to this Epistle Vers 3. Note b. I. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed is indeed truly here used to signify the Office of a Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flock to signify the Church but it does not therefore follow that the rest of the words here used are taken from Shepherds No body ever said that Shepherds properly so called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Sheep when he going before they follow him except Dr. Hammond No body would say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are applicable to Sheep properly so called which belong to reasonable Creatures not at all to Sheep which are forced to follow with blows unless they go along with the rest by natural instinct II. It is true indeed that whilst the Roman Commonwealth stood the Roman Magistrates chose their Provinces by lot which therefore might be called their lots to whom they fell by lot But I can't tell whether among Latin Writers or those Grecians that have written about the Roman Affairs sors or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ever used for a Province at least as I never read any such thing so I could not find any example of it in the Writings of Learned men who do not use to omit such things I dare also affirm that no Greek Writer ever said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is to vex Provinces by Tribute or Extortion III. Our Author seems to have believed a Fable which some Writers of no repute formerly divulged about the division that was made of the World by Lots among the Apostles which even Baronius himself did not absolutely give credit to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts i. 25 is part of the Apostleship not a Province which Matthias obtained by Lot See Dr. Hammond himself on that place He had much better here have followed Grotius whom the Reader may consult Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye younger saith he be subject to the elder and all be subject one to another that is let the younger give way to the elder and comply with their Admonitions and the elder on the other hand shew themselves courteous to the younger not scrupling to yield to them and comply with them when there is a just occasion Here the discourse is about an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a consequent of Meekness and Courteousness and whereby we easily yield and comply with one another not about that Obedience which is due to Church-Governors from those who bear no Office in the Church Therefore the Apostle says ALL be subject one to another which shews him to speak of a thing that belongs to every one and which is a mutual duty See my Note on Jam. v. 16 and Eph. v. 21 Vers 13. Note d. See what I have said about this matter on the Premonition ANNOTATIONS ON THE Second Epistle General of St. Peter AT the end of the Premom For my part as I profess my self to be of Dr. Hammond's Opinion as to the Apostle Peter's being the Writer of this Epistle so I cannot forbear saying that our learned and pious Author deals a little unfairly with Hugo Grotius I. He suspects here and elsewhere without reason that the Posthumous Annotations of Grotius had not
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
sins it was consequent that they should renounce them if they would have fellowship with Christ as he speaks in verse 7. that is be his true disciples whom he would make partakers with himself of eternal happiness By this we may understand why St. John says he writes these things to Christians that they sin not But tho he uses this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know Christ it does not presently follow he alludes to the Gnosticks because all who professed to embrace the Gospel said that they therefore embraced it because they knew that Jesus came from God Such allusions must not be recurred to but when the thing cannot well be understood without an allusion Otherwise whenever the Apostles use the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the discourse is about the knowledg of the Christian Religion or those things which concern it we must always recur to the Gnosticks who it is not certain in the Apostles age were so called Besides to find out Dr. Hammond's conceptions in St. John innumerable things must be supplied and added than which way of interpreting nothing can be imagined more uncertain CHAP. II. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What our Author says in his Paraphrase about the Prayers of the Church is indeed true but does not belong to this place in which St. John does not speak the least word about the Church And therefore I had rather he had omitted it and reserved it for a fitter place for it is a deceitful Paraphrase which assumes things that are neither expresly contained in the words of the Apostle nor necessarily deduced from them Our Author every now and then imposes his own conceptions upon the Reader instead of St. John's This by the way lest I should seem to approve of Dr. Hammond's insertions if I had taken no notice of them Vers 18. Note b. I. I had rather our Author had contented himself with a more general Assertion and said that St. John here had a respect to divers false Christians which at that time had revolted from the Christian Church and the Doctrin of the Apostles whether they were Simon 's Disciples or others For this only being affirmed there would have been no need of interpreting several words of this Chapter not so much as they truly signify as according to the signification which he would have to belong to them that he might find in them his own Opinion Read what he says of the five things foretold by Christ which he supposes to be spoken of in this Chapter as fulfilled and compare it with St. John's own words and it will appear that a great many things must be supplied in them to make out Dr. Hammond's interpretation II. Polycarpus is said by Irenaeus Lib. iii. c. 3. to have saluted Marcion when he met him once at Rome primogenitum Satanae The first-born of Satan And to him or rather to any Hereticks who did as he says he seems to have had a respect not to the Gnosticks only Ibid. Note e. I. I will not exclude indeed Simon and his followers out of the number of these Antichrists but that name signifying as is well observed by our Author after Grotius both those that oppose Christ directly whilst they deny that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messias or was a true Man and those who take upon themselves to be Christs or put themselves in the place of Christ I don't see why we should think the Apostle here to have a respect to the Gnosticks more than to any others who did either of those things It 's true those Antichrists are said to have gone out of the Christian Assemblies but who knows whether others besides the Gnosticks that were half Jews did not depart from the Christian Churches There being no historical Records of the Christians of those times we cannot certainly determin any thing about this matter II. Our Author thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified that which is called in English to counterfeit in French contrefaire but his Memory failed him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only contra facio adversarius sum altercor par pari reddo aggredior vindico rependo To counterwork to resist to contend to return like for like to set upon to revenge to repay Yet it is true that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when alone so in Composition signifies that which Dr. Hammond affirms for it signifies loco in the place of and pro for as well as contra against so that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may truly be applied not only to him who directly opposes Christ but also who puts himself in the place of Christ tho he denies nothing concerning Jesus So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to exchange that is to give and receive one thing for another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one that comes in the place of another Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to compensate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proconsul c. CHAP. III. Vers 19. Note e. I. OF this word Dr. Hammond has treated on Gal. i. 10 and interpreted it in the same sense as he does here but I have shewn on that place that he is mistaken Here also the expression is Elliptical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall perswade our Hearts is a doubtful Phrase for the understanding of which we must repeat out of the foregoing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is we shall be conscious to our selves before God that we are truly Christians St. John teaches us that he is a true Christian who helps his Neighbour not in Words but in Deeds and from that true Beneficence only can conclude himself to be a good Man and rest throughly perswaded of it in his own Mind But he that assists his Neighbour only in words when he is able indeed to relieve him if he deceives others yet he cannot deceive himself but is conscious to himself before God of Uncharitableness And St. John adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before him to wit God because God only is witness of the Judgment which we secretly pass upon our selves Hence that noted expression in Scripture to be just before God to signify a true and sincere Vertue because God alone is the true and infallible judg of it See Luke i. 6 and Interpreters on that place II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be purged so by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to be conscious that God is propitious to us See my Notes on Heb. ii 10 vii 11 CHAP. IV. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred as Dr. Hammond well observes in the Margin of the English Translation not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh but which is come in the Flesh But besides this whole Period is to be understood thus every Spirit that confesses Jesus who is come in the Flesh to be the Christ is of God
the Beast if he had not taken some pains himself about this matter to no purpose Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius interprets this in his first Explication of this Chapter nomen viri principis ex quo post exutam libertate Rempublicam tempora maxime cognoscebantur the name of a Prince by which after the Commonwealth was deprived of its liberty the times were especially known and the same he expresses in other words in his last Explication of it But first the question here is what is the number of the name of the Beast not of a Man as I have already said Secondly St. John would rather have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly it is nothing to this place that the times were signified by the names of Emperors for St. John does not speak about the time when the Beast was to shew it self but about his name expressed in numbers What is then the number of a man I answer a small number or one not so great that a man cannot count it So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used afterwards in Chap. xxi 17 where see my Note CHAP. XIV Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is rightly understood by Grotius and Dr. Hammond of multitudes of converted Gentiles Ovid twice uses the same comparison speaking of a tumult of people Metam lib. v. Fab. 1. Adsimilare freto possis quod saeva quietum Ventorum rabies motis exasperat undis You may compare them to the Sea which the fierce rage of the Winds makes rough with Waves And Metam xv Fab. 49. Qualia fluctus Aequorei faciunt siquis procul audiat illos Tale sonat populus Such a noise as the waves of the Sea make when they are heard afar off was made by the people Vers 10. Note d. I have already on Matt. xxvii 34 rejected Dr. Hammond's interpretation of this place because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where used to signify the bitterness or poyson of God which is an absurd phrase We must render this place thus of the Wine of the wrath of God which is without mixture poured into the cup of his indignation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifies to pour in as Mr. Gataker had shewn at large in Advers cap. v. where he has collected a great many things about this and the like phrases Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is said that riches do not follow rich men because it is of no advantage after death to have been rich in this world but on the contrary here it is said of good men that their works follow them because they receive the reward promised to them from God To this purpose are the verses of Euripides in Temeno 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Virtue when any one dies is not destroyed But lives even after the dissolution of the body but when a bad man Dies all he possesses perishes and descends with him under the earth Which are in Florileg Stobaei Tit. 1. So the Rabbins in Pirke Aboth cap. penult In the hour wherein a man departs out of this life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither Silver nor Gold nor precious Stones nor Pearls stick by a man but only the Law and good Works Vers 20. Note h. Our Author did not well understand Grotius who does not say these slaughters happen'd in Judea but interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra Judaeae terminos without the limits of Judea Ingens haec saith he effusio sanguinis Judaeorum Gentilium facta est Trajano imperante non in Judaea sed in locis Judaeae vicinis id est Syria Aegypto Cyrenaica Cypro This great effusion of blood both of Jews and Gentiles was made in the reign of Trajan not in Judea but in places near Judea that is in Syria Egypt Cyrenaica and Cyprus Yet Dr. Hammond puts a more probable sense upon this whole Chapter than H. Grotius CHAP. XV. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is just and righteous aequae are thy ways for among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and words properly signifying the same thing are often taken for aequus righteous So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homer and Hesiod is frequently used for righteous whence Hesychius hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just It is a noted Verse of Horace which is the last of Epist. vii lib. 1. Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est That is say the old Scholia Aequum est ac decet it is just and fit To the same purpose is the Observation of Priscian in lib. xviii fol. 115. Ed. Badianae Sophocles in his Ajax says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for verus true And our Latins also often put verus for justus and justus for verus As Virgil Aeneid xii Quaecunque est fortuna mea est me verius unum Pro vobis foedus luere decernere ferro By verius he means justius CHAP. XVI Vers 12. Note e. I. WHat Dr. Hammond says about the treacherous Bridg of Maxentius is false and grounded upon a Misinterpretation of Eusebius who says indeed that Maxentius had made that Bridg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an engine of his own destruction But that came to pass accidentally not that the Bridg was so contrived as to fall in pieces of its own accord for Maxentius would not have been such a Fool as to make use of that Bridg himself II. It is false that Eusebius says these things happen'd to Constantine according to the prediction of the divine Oracles or thought that S. John had a respect to them in this Vision He only compares this Event with the antient Miracles and applies some places of Scripture to it Vers 17. Note i. St. John indeed seems to have taken this Phrase from the Stile of the Greeks and Latins but that it is usual in Prophecies to express sad events covertly as by an Euphemismus I leave them to believe who never read them or have forgotten them CHAP. XVII Vers 3. Note b. DR Hammond sometimes alledges the words of Writers so carelesly that he does not so much as set down a perfect sense as here in the words of Tertullian which are in cap. 7. Ed. Rigaltianae In quem enim alium universae Gentes crediderunt nisi in Christum qui jam venit Cui enim aliae Gentes crediderunt Parthi Medi tunc in Jerusalem Judaei caeterae Gentes ut jam Getulorum varietates Maurorum multi fines Hispaniarum omnes termini Galliarum diversae nationes Britannorum inaccessa c. For in whom else have all Nations believed but in the Christ who is now come For whom have other Nations also believed the Parthians Medes then also the Jews in Jerusalem and the rest of the World as now the several Nations of the Getuli and many Countries of the Moors all the People of Spain and divers Nations of
2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether by Works or in the judgment of Man Rom. iv 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be deceived Col. ii 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it ever signifies to discover Gal. ii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether an Agonistical term Phil. iii. 12 p. 458. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bait or lodg Luke ix 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be burdensome how so 2 Cor. xi 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compunction and slumbering Rom. xi 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mortify Sins arising from the Body Rom. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how variously taken in the New Testament 2 Cor. xiii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mould or form and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forming 2 Cor. xiii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether the Rank of such as are ordained Ministers or rather a dress of any sort Tit. ii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied by way of contempt to those who boasted of Circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. iii. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Thess ii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to overcome by force Mat. xvi 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies false 1 Thess ii 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to pour in Rev. xiv 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether full of Grace or singularly favour'd by God Luke i. 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether to cry out Mat. viii 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctor 's Opinion of the use of that word in Scripture examin'd Mat. xx 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of whom and what it signifies Ib. xxii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Stomach Rev. x. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnclean Mark vii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Cor. xiii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for earthly Heb. ix 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words signifying the same thing Mat. xvi 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hang upon a thing spoken of the Law the ground of the expression Mat. xxii 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Pet. iv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Jam. iii. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that judgeth of Good and Evil Rom. ii 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Judgment 1 Cor. vi 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how they are said to have been so by Christ Col. i. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divination by Lots Eph. iv 14 Λ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Jude 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set simply where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood Eph. v. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oracles whence so called Rom. iii. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Reason prem to John 1. for Knowledg 1 Cor. i. 5 for Report 1 Thess ii 5 for the Gospel Luke i. 2 joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for God himself in Heb. iv 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies Lustful 1 Cor. v. 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be grieved so as to become disaffected to Christianity Rom. xiv 15 whether it ever signifies Excommunication 2 Cor. vii 8.9 M. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies Idolatry or Vanity Rom. viii 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind or take care of 1 Tim. iv 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Col. ii 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distract 1 Cor. vii 34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for over against the midst of the Throne Rev. iv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to use a Blessing Heb. vi 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether ever taken in the New Testament for Church Penalties Heb. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies Dumb Mar. vi 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Phil. ii 6.7 Municipium Municipatus in Lat. what Phil. iii. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who 1 Tim. ii 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signify any thing indecent Rev. xvii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Office among the Jews Heb. iv 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for obscene Discourse Eph. v. 4 N. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nard faithfully prepared Mar. xiv 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common title of the Cities in Asia Acts xix 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether applied to Christians that have no Office in the Church Luke xxii 26 and Tit. ii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in victory not for ever 1 Cor. xv 54 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a profusion of words 2 Tim. ii 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the meaning or sense of words 1 Cor. xiv 14 for quickness of Wit or Vnderstanding Phil. iv 7 O. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a House in the likeness of a Tabernacle easily dissolved 2 Cor. v. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house Acts ii 46 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom it grieveth to do any thing Phil. iii. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adverb of affirming or in few words 1 Cor. v. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry himself like a common Man Phil. ii 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Person Acts i. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how Christ is said to have been so Rom. i. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earthen Vessels 2 Cor. iv 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether an Expletive Mat. vii 23 for how Mar. vi 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of an Apodosis Jam. iii. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. v. 12 Π. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what sort of Exercise 1 Cor. ix 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Servant Luke xi 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Philosophical word signifying the restoration of all things Mat. xix 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heavy Armour Eph. vi 11 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to punish among the antient Greeks to traduce among the later Mat. i. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies to excommunicate Tit. iii. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in what sense used by Christ John xiv 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Friday Mar. xv 42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense Luke xx 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Remission Rom. iii. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ambigous expression 1 Pet. iv 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it ever signifies to pacify 2 Cor. v. 11 and Gal. i. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elliptical Phrase 1 John iii. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to avoid 2 Tim. ii 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the offscouring a contemptible Person 1 Cor. iv 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a period Acts viii 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Mat. x. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith several Notions of it Mat. viii 10 for a certain knowledg Rom. xiv 23 and 1 Thess iii. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 what John ii 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies unnatural Lusts Rom. i. 29 Eph. v. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several senses of it Luk. i. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a multitude Rom. xi 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the design of the Lawgiver in oppoâ—tion to the Letter of the Law Mat. v. 17 Rom. ii 29 and vii 5 2 Cor. iii. 6 for the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. ii 4 for the mind of Man distinct from the Body 1 Cor. xiv 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rom. viii 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. xiv 2 p. 356. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirits that watch 1 Pet. iii. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for supernatural 1 Cor. x. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to drag along by head and shoulders Mat. xviii 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a work Rom. i. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the privilege of Citizen Phil. iii. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grief Rev. xxi 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Phil. i. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used promiscuously to signify either Dignity or Age Tit. ii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to push forward or lead to Judgment Acts xix 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Jud. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Jud. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purpose of Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreably to such a purpose Rom. viii 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. xiv 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both divine and civil Worship Mat. ii 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether they differ Eph. v. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which may be converted into Food John xxi 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the natural Countenance James â— 2◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Cause true or pretended 1 Thess ii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond's opinion about the various senses of that word examin'd Luke i. 67 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superior John i. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Col. i. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how the Law of Moses is so called Gal. iv 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jews what Mar. vii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Mat. xvi 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Acts xvi 16 P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deceit Acts xiii 50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rattling noise 2 Pet. iii. 10 Σ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very fit word to express the Hebrew Elohim 2 Thess ii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a concussion in the Air Mat. xxviii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies to brand by Excommunication 2 Thess iii. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rough Picture Heb. viii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Cor. xii 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Luke xix 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be slain applied to a Sacrifice 2 Tim. iv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether to excommunicate or only to withdraw himself 2 Thess iii. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Shadow Col. ii 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 long Robes Luke xx 46 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be to serve Luke xxiii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of two sorts Luke xxii 52 Acts iv 1 and v. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what word Heb. iv 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why St. Peter calls himself 1 Pet. v. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. viii 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies all conjugal Offices 1 Pet. iii. 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preserve Mar. vi 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to break a Vessel not to shake it Mar. xiv 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sign Rom. iv 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an outward appearance Phil. ii 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for several things Luke xiii 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies my self Rom. vi 6 1 Cor. ix 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether Sin or a Body obnoxious to Sin Rom. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Slaves not Hirelings Rev. xviii 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eternal Salvation not a temporal Deliverance from Persecutions Heb. ii 3 T. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secret Chambers Mat. xxiv 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Tim. ii 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a sort of Perfection which is only ornamental Heb. vi 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to consecrate not to make perfect Heb. ii 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether an Agonistical term Phil. iii. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enjoy perfect Happiness Heb. xi 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Consecration of any one that offer'd Sacrifice Heb. vii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of two sorts Mat. xi 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Acts xiii 48 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Luke iii. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of just Stature Mat. vi 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Honour and Reward 1 Tim. v. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Col. ii 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wheel of Generation what James iii. 6 p. 580. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what sort of Torment Heb. xi 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Wheel or a Club Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several significations of that word 1 Cor. x. 7 Î¥. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hearken if any body knocks or calls Acts xii 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superabundantly 1 Thess iii. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room or stead of those that are dead 1 Cor. xv 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signify unnatural Filthiness 1 Thess iv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signify the supreme Power Rom. xiii 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the Apostles met together whether in the Temple Acts i. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Luke xviii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imitation Heb. viii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Mark xii 44 Φ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Greek word 2 Tim. iv 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence so called Jud. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Filthiness sometimes any Corruption 2 Pet. i. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. iv 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mind of the Just Luke i. 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for natural Light in opposition to Instruction 1 Cor. xi 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak to John ii 9 X. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joy for a Feast Mat. xxv 21 and xxvi 7 for a Christian Vertue Rom. xiv 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rev. xiii 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Gospel in opposition to the Law John i. 14 p. 183. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be the Charity of Christ 2 Cor. xiii 14 〈◊〉
Idiotick That is the Stile which I before described and which is used by St. Paul And it is not opposed only to the painted Eloquence of Rhetoricians but also to the Elegance of Politicians to whose Stile that of the Vulgar is much inferior This as to St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament has been shewn at large by C. Salmasius in Comment de Lingua Hellen. Sect. 2. The other kinds of discourse mention'd by Diogenes I omit because they are not to our present purpose But when I say that a Rhetorical or Political Stile excels that of the Vulgar or Idiotae my meaning is not that it surpassed it only in Ornaments which do not belong to the Matter but also in Disposition and Propriety of words which very much contribute to the perspicuity of any Discourse For which reason one that is skilful in the Greek Language may much more easily understand Demosthenes or Isocrates than St. Paul not only because the stile of this latter has abundance of Hebrew Idioms in it but because the order of his Sentences is many times inverted his Phrases and Terms improper and his Metaphors harsh As Diogenes Laertius also who wrote in an Idiotick Stile and had no great regard to order or choice of words is in many places very hard to understand And such are among the Greek Fathers Epiphanius and the Author Historiae Lausiacae in whose Writings often occur the like difficulties proceeding from negligence of Stile Which being so I cannot sufficiently wonder why Beza was so angry with St. Jerom because he did not admire St. Paul's Eloquence which setting aside his Matter and considering only his Words was certainly none at all But let us hear Beza himself Quid igitur saith he an imperitus loquendi Paulus elinguis ut Hieronimus existimat What then did not St. Paul know how to express himself or had he not the use of his Tongue as St. Jerom thinks No he was not so perfectly tongue-tied neither that the Substance of his Discourse and Doctrine cannot be understood but his Stile is not so clear nor his Expression so elegant as to make every thing that he says easy or pleasant to critical Ears St. Paul did not aim at that disposition in his Words which might facilitate the understanding of a thing in it self obscure or render his Discourse more plain and perspicuous which Beza very well knew and no one can be ignorant of who has read but St. Paul's Epistles in Greek But Beza goes on and saith Imo vero Chrysostomum potius doctissimos quosque ex Graecis ipsam denique rationem sequutus quamvis nativa illa germana masculae facundiae ornamenta ipsi videri possint non defuisse fateor tamen illum fucatae illius rhetorices pigmentis uti noluisse Yea rather following St. Chrysostom and the most learned among the Greeks and Reason it self tho those native and genuin Ornaments of masculine Eloquence seem not to have been wanting in him yet I confess he uses none of those colours of false Rhetorick But a clear way of speaking to begin with his last Words and disposing every thing we say in its right order is no fucus That artifice of those Rhetoricians who endeavor to magnify by words things that are in themselves inconsiderable or skim over those that are base may properly be stiled fucus daubing but not apt Expressions or soft Metaphors and an orderly disposition of every part in a Discourse in which the Speaker has no other end than to make himself easily understood and carefully to avoid all Ambiguity which might lead his Hearers into a mistake And St. Paul's stile is not only without fucus but deficient also in these things which are not discommendable So that if we follow reason we shall never say that St. Paul was eloquent provided it be remembred we are speaking of words or disposition and not of matter That St. Paul's matter is praised by St. Chrysostom and other Greek Fathers and preferred before all the Arguments which the antient Greeks have treated of I know and none but a Mad-man will deny but that they commended his Style or the Order of his Words and Sentences as clear and elegant I do not think and if I did their Authority would not move me because the contrary is so manifest But they were not altogether so void of Understanding as to attribute that Eloquence to St. Paul which he himself disclaims Nor does Beza himself disagree with me in this matter when he adds that St. Paul would not make use of Rhetorick Vt vi spiritus hominum animos ad Christum raperet non autem Sermonis blanditiis adulatorum more alliceret That he might bring men to Christ by the Power of the Spirit and not allure them after the manner of a Flatterer by smoothness of Speech Which is as much as if he had said Those who are affected with what St. Paul says are affected with his Matter not with his Words or Expression as being brought by the Spirit of God to an Enquiry and Love of the Truth tho deliver'd in a rude Stile He adds Cum orationis ipsius totam indolem characterem propius considero c. When I more narrowly consider the whole Strain and Form of his the Apostles Discourse I must needs say I never could see any such Loftiness in Plato himself when ever he undertakes to thunder out the Mysteries of God any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Majesty or Force in Demonsthenes when ever he applies himself either to terrify Men with the fear of the Divine Judgment or to admonish them or to draw them to contemplate the Goodness of God or to exhort them to the Duties of Piety and Mercy or lastly a more exact Method in teaching even in Aristotle or Galen who were otherwise very excellent and skilful Artists If we consider the things themselves I acknowledg all this to be very true but we are speaking now about Stile and Order of Discourse in which as those Authors mentioned by Beza were superior to St. Paul so as to things themselves they are vastly inferior Yet I do not deny but there occur even in St. Paul also some Sentences admirably well expressed but then they are but rare and his Stile is for the most part barbarous as the Speech or Idiotae uses to be But as things of small moment in themselves being set off with Rhetorical Colours are and have been often admired so on the other hand things of the greatest importance have many times made an obscure and ill ordered Discourse to be extolled wheras those two things should be distinguished and separatly consider'd I have been the larger upon these things that I might shew in what sense and how truly the Apostle here calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what I have said may be of exceeding use to direct us in the interpretation of these Books for knowing that they are written
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.
past his review before they were published as also that there were some things mixed with them by another hand contrary to his real sentiments But it appears both by Grotius his Epistles lately published and others that the learned J. Mercer a man of unquestionable integrity received all these things from Grotius himself and his Widow to be set forth and published them as he had received them But Grotius is here and elsewhere mistaken As if that Learned man had been exempted from all danger of error It 's plain all these things have one and the same style and are written in the same strain and I do not think it would have been an easy matter in France or elsewhere to find a man that could have obtruded his own works instead of Grotius's upon the more judicious sort of Readers II. Besides why did Dr. Hammond not take notice that there are other reasons for which both antient and later Writers have suspected this Epistle drawn from the stile which is not like that of the former Epistle Did not he know that Jos Scaliger also who was afterwards followed by Cl. Salmasius thought this Epistle to be supposititious Methinks all this may much extenuate Grotius his error who only studied for new arguments to confirm the opinion of those great men III. What our Author alledges out of Chap. iii. 1 to prove that this is a second Epistle of St. Peter is of no force if that Chapter it self be a second Epistle of Simeon as Grotius conjectures whom he ought to have confuted IV. The comparing of Grotius his Annotations on Mat. xvii with those he has on Chap. i. 17 of this Epistle does not prove that these were written by another hand because Grotius might have changed his Opinion as he plainly here acknowledges If Dr. Hammond had lived longer and carefully reviewed his own Annotations I doubt not but he would have alter'd a great many things which I have corrected in him V. They that have rejected this Epistle as falsly attributed to St. Peter have not stuck to say that the Person of that Apostle is here ill represented Scaliger having adventured to affirm that it is commentum veteris Christiani otio suo abutentis The invention of some antient Christian who did not know how to employ his time better VI. Grotius did not infer from Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem's writing this Epistle as he supposed that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem but on the contrary from its being written after the destruction of that City that we must find out some Writer who survived it to whom this Epistle might be attributed and whom he thought to be this Simeon because of the likeness of the name VII It cannot be denied that the Christians who had read Mat. xxiv did not expect the consummation of all things before the destruction of Jerusalem but it did not therefore follow that the last Day of all the World was immediately to follow that Destruction So that tho the Christians were here commanded to wait patiently for the last Judgment it would not follow that this Epistle was written after the demolishing of Jerusalem This I had rather say than deny there is any mention here made of the last Judgment as Dr. Hammond does with the greatest confidence in opposition to most other Interpreters VIII Our Author followed as he ordinarily does Caes Baronius as to the year of Christ in which St. Peter suffer'd Martyrdom But Ant. Pagus contends that it happen'd in the year of Christ LXV and Dr. Pearson in LXVIII whom I chuse to follow But if we suppose St. Peter died at Rome in the Year which Dr. Hammond thinks and that he wrote this Epistle a little before his Death it cannot be said that the Jewish War was then approaching which began in the xiith of Nero and in the ii d of Cestius Florus President of Judea and of Christ LXVI and in the Month of May. See Dr. Pearson's Annales Paulinae CHAP. I. Vers 3. Note a. INstead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Alexandrian Copy and others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his own Glory and Vertue propria gloria virtute as the Vulgar Latin also hath it Which way soever of these we read it the sense will be the same Christ namely hath called us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the extraordinary Miracles which he wrought as Dr. Hammond well observes and by his Virtue that is by his most holy Example whereby we are as much affected as by his preaching nay without which all his preaching would be vain and insignificant They are mistaken who by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here understand God the Father because it is to be understood of Christ who himself called the Apostles and first Disciples whom he won to himself not only by the excellency of his Doctrin but by the Miracles he wrought and the Sanctity of his Life Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no where signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the Miracles and Vertue of Christ are said to be given unto us great and precious Promises because they accompanied the Word he preached and added weight to it without which it would have had no greater influence upon Men than the Doctrins of Philosophers which did not work upon many because there were no Miracles wrought in confirmation of them and they themselves often contradicted them in their Lives Ibid. Note b. I. No one will doubt but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies a desire of unlawful fleshly Pleasures and if the Discourse be about that of those which are contrary to nature but that it may be thought to have those extraordinary significations the circumstances of the place must require it Otherwise it may be reasonably thought that word is taken in general for any Desire or Lust whatsoever The same may be said of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifying any corruption of Manners does sometimes peculiarly denote what our Author here supposes to be refer'd to But I see in this place no circumstance which should oblige us to take those words in any other than a general sense For the Apostle speaks of that amendment of Life to which Christ called all Men and therefore it is probable that the Corruption through Lust which is in the World signifies any sort of Vice which Christ would have us renounce II. To corrupt a Youth where the Discourse is about a Man and unnatural Lust signifies what our Author says but when young Men are said to corrupt a Maid all we can think is meant by it is the deflouring her as in the Passage cited out of Palladius The corruption which Socrates was accused of was nothing but a depravation of Manners and Temper not that peculiar Wickedness which our Author speaks of This appears from the Apology of Socrates written by Plato And in the same sense we must