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
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
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
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
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
among the Rabbins who often call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melech holamim or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melech holam that is the King of the World as appears by their forms of Prayer It is not probable that St. Paul would use a foolish term of the Gnosticks where he does not dispute against them II. I am apt to think that the Gnosticks called Angels or inferiour Deities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from Ezechiel where they are stiled living Creatures which has no affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ages but as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting as Homer often calls the Gods And so wrested an usual word to a signification which did not belong to it In the mean while what is here said by St. Paul may as well be opposed to the Heathens as the Gnosticks to whom our Author had no reason to suppose the Apostle alluded almost in every word Vers 18. Note f. Our Author here confounds things very different with one another because there is some similitude between them in sound which is a fault he often commits not being sufficiently accustomed to a grammatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor having taken so much pains in studying Criticks as Divinity and Ecclesiastical History I. In Num. iv 3 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be rendred into the host but into the troop or company as I have shewn on that place And a troop or company is so called because any company of men marching in order is in some respect like an Army whether put in array or moving forwards See my Notes on Exod. vi 26 and xii 41 II. In Numb 1.50 This Law is given to the Levites They shall bear the Tabernacle and all the vessels thereof they shall minister unto it and shall encamp round about the Tabernacle which words must be understood in their proper sense for the Levites in the Desart did really encamp about the Tabernacle And therefore they make nothing to the metaphorical signification of an Army tho they gave occasion to it III. Our learned Author had not look'd into the place in Exodus xxxviii 8 for there is no mention there made of Women lately delivered Moses is said to have made the Laver of brass and its foot of brass of the Looking-glasses of women assembling by troops at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation There is no signification here of warring or of sacred Ministration See my Notes on that place IV. In 2 Sam. vi 2 God is called the Lord of Hosts in the same sense as frequently elsewhere not as the Lord of the Ark or Tabernacle which is a Phrase that no where occurs and the Ark and Tabernacle are never called hosts but the Discourse is about conveying the Ark from one place to another to which the title of Lord of hosts that is President of War has no manner of relation But what then Is not God often called by that name in the Prophets where neither War nor the Ministry of the Priests or Levites is spoken of Yes it is a title the Prophets frequently make use of whatever be the subject of the Discourse just as Homer in abundance of places calls Jupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he has nothing at all about Clouds or Rain and Achilles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there is nothing said about running Such as these are perpetual Epithets and as it were Appendages to proper Names or like Sirnames which are used whenever those Names are mention'd without any certain design The Jews called the true God the Lord of Hosts because they look'd upon Victory as one of the chief Favours God could confer upon men in this World and on the contrary a Defeat in War whereby whole Nations were sometimes subjected to Slavery as the greatest evil They saw also often that those whom God favoured obtained the Victory tho they were inferiour both in Policy and Strength to their Enemies and that tho all military Stratagems were used in Battels yet the Event was uncertain and did not depend upon men because unforeseen Accidents tho very small are sometimes the cause of Victories and Defeats Therefore they thought that God did preside in a special manner over War and thence made him a Sirname The Heathens sometimes speak almost in the same manner about their Deities as Hirtius de Bello Alexandr c. 75. where he describes the Battel between Caesar and Pharnaces whom Caesar overcame with much fewer Forces and those not sufficiently prepared to fight Clamore sublato saith he confligitur multum adjuvante natura loci plurimum DEORUM immortalium BENIGNITATE qui cum OMNIBUS CASIBUS BELLI INTERSUNT tum praecipue eis quibus nihil potuit ratione administrari After a great shout on both sides the two Armies engaged one another the situation of the place being a great advantage to Caesar's Party but the FAVOUR of the GODS a much greater who as they are PRESENT in ALL the CHANCES of WAR so especially in those in which there is no room for the exercise of Conduct For these Reasons the Jews attributed to God the title of Lord of hosts which must by no means be urged as if it were never used but where there is a respect had to an Army either properly so called or metaphorically V. The Angels are called Gods Hosts in Psalm ciii 21 because God uses them as Kings and Generals do Armies to assist their Friends in danger and subdue their Enemies and the Stars not the Sun and Moon only because they are like a straggling Army dispersed over all parts of the Heaven VI. Our learned Author had not cast his eyes upon Isa xl 2 where there is no mention of the Priesthood no footstep of the Levites The Prophet speaks thus Comfort ye comfort ye my people saith your God Speak that which may please Jerusalem and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished because her sin is expiated That which the Prophet here calls Jerusalems warfare is the banishment of the Jews and the miseries ensuing thereupon which he foretels would shortly be at an end I cannot conceive by what Engines this can be applied to the Cessation of the Levitical Priesthood VII In 2 Tim. ii 4 there is mention indeed made of fighting but in a proper sense But the place alledged by Dr. Hammond is in the same Epistle chap. iv 7 and the Apostle does not there speak about Warring or make use of a Metaphor taken from War but from the Agones I have strived saith he a good strife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have finished my race 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have kept the faith So that I wonder our Author should alledg that place CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I. THE word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passage of St. Chrysostom alledged in the beginning of this Note is not well rendred Priests for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any Believers that were present