of the Christian Doctrin which was proposed to Proselytes which yet he says he would not now set before them deferring it to another time then he subjoins the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as if he had said I will not propose again that Doctrin whereby Proselytes use to be converted to the Christian Faith that so I may reduce those Jews who have apostatized from it for this they know as well as other things which I might say to that purpose By such a Discourse Men who have been once enlightned with divine Light who had received the heavenly Gift of a quiet Mind who had been endued with a power to work Miracles who have had foretasts in the Church of the promised Happiness of another Life and nevertheless have revolted from Christ by such a Discourse I say I cannot renew again such Men so as that they should repent But why is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impossible to renew again such Men viz. because whatever could be said or done in order to that end had been done and said already They had heard all and had been sensible of all that was naturally apt to fix and engage them for ever to Christ And yet they had not adhered to him because of Persecutions There was nothing more could be done to reduce them to a better Mind unless those things which they already perfectly understood and perceived the efficacy of were again repeated to them which would have been to no purpose The same is the sense of the following comparison and of that which is said about this matter in Chap. x. III. Now if any one enquire concerning the thing it self if he throughly consider it he will easily see that it is not without reason that the Apostolical Writer affirmed it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is if not absolutely impossible as we now speak with the Vulgar Interpreter yet at least extremely difficult and the hardest thing possible The reason I before intimated because such Men have abused all the Reasons and Arguments which might have inseparably united them to Christ They are that Vine of God for which he had done all that could be done to make them bring forth good Fruit and yet had brought forth wild Grapes For which reason some of the Antients plainly affirmed that it was in vain to expect the Repentance of such Men. As Hermas in Lib. iii. Simil. 6. His non est saith he per poenitentiam regressus ad vitam quoniam quidem adjecerunt ad reliqua peccata sua quod nomen Domini nefandis insectati sunt verbis hujusmodi homines morti sunt destinati These Persons cannot return by Repentance to Life because they have added to the rest of their Sins that of blaspheming the Name of the Lord such Men as these are appointed to Death See also Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitl Quis dives salvetur IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where in the Holy Scriptures taken for those Church-Penalties which were imposed upon Penitents before they were admitted again to Communion Our Author should have produced but one place to make himself believed For it is not safe to reason about what was done in antient times from the stile of the Fathers because together with new Customs there were new Names also invented and new significations given to old ones We have no reason to suppose that the manner of a publick Repentance was the same in the Apostles times as afterwards The English or German Articles are vainly alledged in this place But our Author should have cited the viith Can. of the Neocaesarean Council in which the phrase he sets down is not the lii for there are only xv Canons in all of that Council Such another mistake I have already elsewhere observed V. Of the Gnosticks here there is not the least mark or footstep The Apostolical Writer only makes mention of some that had revolted from Christ whether to the Heathens or the Jews And such Men joining themselves to the persecutors of the Christians which had formerly crucified Christ did as much as in them lay the same because they approved the fact and despitefully used Christ's Members This agrees no more to the Gnosticks than to any Apostates VI. I don't think the Church of Rome or others rejected this Epistle because of this place as contrary to their Custom but rather because the Author of it was not certainly known Nor was it admitted because this Passage began to be better understood but because at length the most judicious Persons easily observed that the stile and reasonings of this Epistle were agreeable to the Apostles times in which also and no other there could be an Epistle written to the Jewish Brethren apart from the Gentiles for in the following Age there was no difference between the Members of the Christian Church nor any remembrance of Circumcision and Uncircumcision In the antient Church of Rome as appears from Herma there was the same opinion about the difficulty of Repentance in those who after they had been throughly instructed in the Christian Religion and been zealous for it shamefully apostatized from it Besides that manner of Repentance which was afterwards instituted not having been known in the Primitive times not to say that there is no mention made of it in this place an Epistle could not be rejected as contrary to a Custom which had not yet prevailed VII It is very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies what it is not lawful to do but here it seems to signify that which is very difficult for which reason a very antient Greek and Latin Copy of the New Testament kept at Paris in the Library of St. Victor has in this place difficile tho the Translation is usually literal So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Mat. xix 26 I shall not add any thing about the Gnosticks whom our Author here seeks for because I have often confuted him Vers 7. Note c. Our Author here thinks that in this place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Similitude are confounded for which reason the Apostolical Writer speaks of the Earth as he would speak of Men. And indeed there seems to be some ground for this supposition if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred as usual receiveth a blessing from God But that mixture of the parts of a Similitude being very improper I had rather interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as that the consequent should be expressed by the antecedent and that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not signify to receive but to use the blessing received from God that is Rain Sunshine c. So the sense will be very proper for the Earth which drinketh in the Rain that cometh often upon it and bringeth forth Herbs meet for them for whom it is dressed uses the Blessing which it receives from God but that which beareth Thorns and Briers is
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. and Henr. Stephani will supply us with examples to this purpose in their Thesauri So that the meaning of St. Peter will be this that the Prophets did not open their Mouths ora resolvere or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own accord but by the Will of God CHAP. II. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Gnosticks had been already every where spread as our Author both in his Paraphrase and his Annotations often inculcates St. Peter would never have used the future Tense there shall be shall bring in c. I wonder Dr. Hammond did not observe this Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The following Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they shall make Merchandise of you clearly shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies Covetousness tho our Author carried away by prejudice interprets it Filthiness But I have already confuted him on Rom. i. 29 Vers 5. Note a. This observation our Author owed to Sam. Bochart who treats of the same things more fully in his Phaleg Lib. 1. c. 3. Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Verse is thought by Dr. Hammond to belong to the Gnosticks whom he supposes to have been by birth Heathens but it as fitly agrees to those wicked Jews who took the ready way to destroy themselves and their Nation by their Seditions whom Josephus exactly describes in many places of his History of the Jewish War From this Writer who was an Eyewitness of what he relates it certainly appears that there were such Men as those but it does not appear from any credible Author that there were in Judaea at that time Dr. Hammond's Gnosticks Vers 12. Note b. Our Author is mistaken when he interprets the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actively as appears by the very last word of the Verse But these as living Creatures void of Reason made by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken and destroyed speaking evil of the things which they understand not shall perish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their destruction For therefore it is said of them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they should be corrupted not that they should corrupt because they were like living Creatures designed by nature to be taken by men and killed See Grotius on this place Vers 13. Note c. Seeing our Author had begun to borrow from Grotius what he here says he ought with him to have added that it was read so by the Vulgar Latin Interpreter Vers 14. Note d. Our Author should not have cited Plutarch de Verecundia for there is no Book of Plutarch's which has that Title but de Vitioso Pudore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rhetorician or Orator was called Amphicrates as we are told by Longinus de Sublim cap. iv on which see Interpreters Vers 15. Note e. I. Our Author does not speak accurately when he says that the Chaldeans pronounced Ain ע like S for that is not true and whenever they wrote that Letter they pronounced it like the Jews But his meaning was that צ Tsade is changed into the Guttural ע Ain and therefore it was possible the former might be sometimes written for the latter whence it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is expressed in Greek by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was written for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behor II. If St. Peter here has a reference to the Gnosticks as our Author thinks and the Gnosticks had already crept into most Christian Churches as the Doctor contends I don't understand why St. Peter in the beginning of the Chapter should use the Future Tense But if we understand him to speak of the wicked Jews who had not yet joined themselves to the Christian Assemblies but yet would join themselves to them after the destruction of Jerusalem there will be no such difficulty Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here has a respect to the first original of Bondage which was the effect of Victory and is thus expressed by Justinian in Instit. Lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Jure Personarum Servi ex eo appellati sunt quod Imperatores captivos vendere ac per hoc servare nec occidere solent Qui etiam mancipia dicti sunt eo quòd ab hostibus manu capiuntur Servi fiunt aut jure gentium id est ex captivitate aut jure civili cum liber homo major viginti annis ad pretium participandum sese venum dari passus est Servants were so called because it was the Custom of Commanders to sell their Captives and to that end servare to keep them and not kill them Which were called also Mancipia Slaves because manu capiuntur they were taken captive by the Enemy Men become Servants either by the Law of Nations that is by Captivity or by the Civil Law when a Free-man above twenty years of Age to enjoy part of the price suffers himself to be sold Vers 22. Note g. This Etymology is given by Sam. Bochart in Hieroz Part 1. Lib. ii c. 57. but he adds others altogether as likely CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius lest these words should be thought to shew that St. Peter wrote two Epistles of which this was the second contends that this is the beginning of a new Epistle of the same Simeon and that the former was comprehended in two Chapters But it was never the Custom to send Epistles without any Inscription tho they were written to those to whom others had been sent before This appears from the second Epistles to the Corinthians to the Thessalonians to Timothy c. So that there is no sufficient reason why we should think this to be the beginning of a new Epistle Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of the Doctrin of the Prophets and Apostles which our Author without reason interprets only of the destruction of Jerusalem who on this Chapter has out-done himself in straining the Scripture to prevent our thinking that the Apostle here speaks of the end of all things But a faithful Interpreter ought not to apply general words to a peculiar sense unless the thing it self or the series of the Discourse requires it which cannot in this place be pretended Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as Grotius well observes hereafter which I have already elsewhere suggested see my Note on Gen. xlix 1 But our Author interprets it of the last Age of the Jewish Commonwealth which was present at that time wherein he supposes this Epistle to have been written So that according to Dr. Hammond's Hypothesis St. Peter ought not to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came for those wicked Men which the Doctor thinks are here meant must have been already come or they never would come Besides who can bear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scoffers should be said to signify a mighty defection from the Christian Religion And what
only that he understood the words of the 8 th Verse of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so clearly demonstrated by Mr. Simon that a Man must be very obstinate after reading his reasons to assert the contrary Our Author produces a place out of Tertullian in Lib. Contra Praxeam without adding the Chapter or Page which is a very bad Custom in a thing especially of such great Moment So that I was forced to read the greatest part of that Book to find out the place which is in Cap. xxv p. 515. of the Paris Ed. An. 1675. But Tertullian has not a respect to this place in the 1 st Epistle of St. John but to John x. 30 For these are his words Connexus Patris in Filio Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero qui tres unum sunt non unus quomodo dictum est ego pater unum sumus ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem The conjunction of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Comforter makes three cleaving together one upon another which three are unum one thing not unus one as it is said I and my Father are unum one thing as to unity of Substance not as to singularity of number He no where alledges this place in 1 John which yet in that disputation he ought to have alledged if it had been read at that time as it is now seeing he often alledges the place in John x. which is not so express to his purpose Praxeas was of the opinion of Sabellius or Photinus who thought that there was but one Person in the Godhead so that perhaps he might have abused this place in St. John and so have alledged it or if this place had been thought to be contrary to him it would have been alledged against him St. Jerom's name is prefixed indeed to the Preface to the Catholick Epistles but that it is not his Preface has been shewn by Mr. Simon in the 2 d Part of his Critical History of the New Testament c. ix and the Benedictine Monks who have lately begun to set forth the Works of St. Jerom at Paris tho very great Adversaries to Father Simon have confirmed his Arguments so that they seem to have stopped the Mouth of Obstinacy it self which Dr. Hammond also would have acknowledged Si foret hoc nostrum fato dilatus in aevum If he had lived to this day As for St. Ambrose it is not without intolerable Negligence that his words are not set down because Dr. Hammond knew that he would not be believed in this matter But really there is no where any such thing in the true St. Ambrose And if such a fault had been committed by F. Socinus our Author would not have spared him so easily as he forgave himself V. He would have done much better towards the confirmation of the Truth to adhere only to the Scripture and not to recur to the Fathers whose opinion was quite different from that which is now received as who properly speaking affirmed that there were three consubstantial Gods as has been shewn by Dyon Petavius Steph. Curcellaeus Dr. Cudworth and others Our Author had read the Fathers upon this Head with a mind full of Prejudice as it is very common for Persons to do and with little care as appears by the choice of places which he produces I should not think it safe to cite Clemens upon the Authority of St. Basil because he might have taken the alledged words out of an Apocryphal and supposititious writing of Clemens of which kind there were a great many of old and are some still at this day For it is notorious that the Antients neglecting all the rules of Criticks often confounded supposititious Writings with genuin And our Author imitates them whilst he alledges Passages out of the manifestly spurious Writings of Justin Martyr as his or at least as if they were of some moment for why otherwise did he produce them Of the rest I have nothing to say but that Dr. Hammond could not stand by the Faith of the Fathers which he cites who to speak the truth were Tritheists rather than assertors of the present Opinion For they believed the unity of Substance not the singularity of number as Tertullian speaks that is that the substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost was specifically one but numerically three as the learned Men I before mention'd have clearly shewn and might much more largely be demonstrated Those that do not think fit to anathematize the Fathers ought also to be charitable to other erroneous persons for a great many reasons to every one obvious Besides whoever considers these things seriously will not be so apt to boast of the consent of Antiquity or complain so loudly of Hereticks as Dr. Hammond here does who I believe acted therein sincerely but without due consideration and not very much like a Christian which I do not speak out of a censorious Humor but only by way of Admonition Vers 16. Note c. I. I rather think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Metaphor taken from Diseases which are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are mortal as appears from John xi 4 I wonder Dr. Hammond sets down St. John's words as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when all Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not that false reading induce him to seek here for Excommunication II. I don't know why our Author makes mention here of the Prayers of the Church when the Apostle speaks of this matter so as to mention nothing about the Church or its Governors The Power of the Keys which was too much in the Doctor 's thoughts made him look for those things which belong to it even where there is no footstep of them Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in the Margin of the English Translation remarks that the Alexandrian Copy adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Vulgar Interpreter also read And indeed if it be omitted it must be understood See Grotius on this place Vers 21. Note d. But I don't know why the Idols of the Heathens themselves may not here be understood whose Worship the Christians were no less obliged to beware of than the Idolatry of the Simonians Nay there was a much greater care necessary to be taken in order to keep themselves from the worship of the Heathens because Heathens had the government of the World and compelled the Christians by Torments to join with them in their Idolatry whereas the followers of Simon had no Authority either in the Roman Empire or elsewhere ANNOTATION ON THE Second Epistle of St. John Vers 1. Note a. I Wish our Author had given us better reasons for thinking that some of the Primitive Christian Churches had a twofold Bishop one a Jew and the other a Gentile For I can see a great many Objections to which that supposition is
conquer from his very going out That which is meant is that the Coming of Christ whether to reform Men or to punish them if they were obstinate was neither vain nor casual Vers 4. Note a. I. It was worth observing that Eusebius makes mention of two Famines under the reign of Claudius one foretold by Agabus and to be referred to the second year of Claudius tho he mentions it on his fourth another in Greece and at Rome which he refers to the ninth and tenth Years of that Emperor I know that Joseph Scaliger thinks that the latter was foretold by Agabus and refers it to the fifth Year of Claudius but he gives no reason for his Affirmation expecting as is common with him to be believed without proof II. Suetonius does not expresly say what our Author attributes to him but only Judaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit The unbelieving Jews endeavour'd to raise a Tumult against the Christians upon the account of Religion for which reason both the Jews and Christians were expelled out of Rome Suetonius says that Christ was impulsor the cause or mover of those Tumults out of Ignorance when he should only have said that he was the occasion of them III. Whereas our Author affirms that those who were by the Emperor's Edict expelled out of Rome were expelled also out of the rest of the Cities of the Roman Empire he ought to have proved it and not have supposed it as certain But it is false as every one knows that has read any thing of the Roman History Of this I have spoken already on the Premonition prefixed to this Book Vers 6. Note b. The learned Dr. Bernard thinks that the Syrian Chaenix when full of Wheat weighed something above four English Pounds and that one of Tiberius his denarii current in the time of John was worth a little more than seven English Farthings By which calculation it appears that Wheat was dear when four Pounds cost seven Farthings but that our Author is mistaken who supposes that a Chaenix of Wheat was spent by one Man in a day But I leave these things to the examination of those who are curious about such matters Vers 8. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Cattel but only wild Beasts except improperly and therefore I prefer the ordinary reading before that of the Alexandrian Copy II. There are two faults here in the Citations of Josephus one in the Margin where Lib. vi c. 8. Bell. Jud. is set instead of Lib. vi c. 28. and the other where Josephus de Captiv L. vi c. 44. is cited instead of the same Book de Bell. Jud. Lib. vi c. 45. Vers 9. Note e. I. Our learned Author thought St. John here alludes to the fourth as it is called Book of Esdras extant only in Latin But his Publishers knowing this Book to be Apocryphal cited the second of Esdras in which there is no such passage This must be in a different Edition from that which I use where Esdras 4. is referred to In the Epistle of Barnabas Chap. xii there is a place produced out of the same Book But this might also be added in Barnabas his Epistle and he that wrote the 4 th Book of Esdras who seems to have been some Christian imitated this place in the Revelation II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Souls of them that were slain may according to the use of the Hebrew Language which these Writers often follow signify their dead Bodies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul is frequently taken for a dead Body But tho the Soul is taken for the Life and the Life be in the Blood it does not therefore follow that in the use of Scripture the Blood is ordinarily called the Soul The use of words must be shewn by examples and not by reasonings He might have produced that Passage in Virgil Aeneid ix v. 349. Purpuream vomit ille ANIMAM cum sanguine mista Vina refert moriens But it is better to understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the Souls of Martyrs which being admitted into the heavenly Sanctuary did by their Presence put God in mind of taking Vengeance upon the Jews For the loud Voice here does not signify praying or desiring Revenge but the greatness of the Crime which is said to cry unto God because the thing it self does as much implore the divine Justice as if the injured Person called upon him with a loud Voice This appears by the example of the Blood of Abel and the Story of the Sodomites in Gen. xviii 20 Vers 12. Note g. I. There is no doubt but great numbers of dead Bodies send forth exhalations into the Air but that Clouds have been made by them and visible Meteors whereby the Sun has been made black and the Moon bloody was never I believe by any one observed And therefore the prophetical Expressions in which great Calamities are represented under such Images are not taken from what really is but are rather a Prosopopeia whereby the Sun is said to refuse to behold the impieties of Men and the Moon upon that account to blush and become red with shame when they are very great There are a great many such figurative Expressions in the Poets as in Ovid. Metam v. where speaking of the prodigies that preceded the death of Julius Caesar he says Phoebi quoque tristis imago Lurida sollicitis praebebat lumina terris Sparsi Lunares sanguine currus II. I do not think we ought in the representation of those Miseries that befel Judaea under the Similitude of the Sun becoming black and the Moon red and the Stars falling to consider the several parts distinctly but all these things together which without doubt signify very great Calamities but must not be examin'd particularly as if they had each a special signification which can be proved by no place of Scripture see on the contrary Isa xiii 10 where all these things signify one thing conjunctly and nothing at all separately Add also the place in the same Prophet alledged by our Author Vers 15. Note i. I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Josephus should not have been rendred the promiscuous Noise or Voice for what is a promiscuous Noise but the sudden Voice as it is translated by Sigism Gelonius The Passage which the Doctor afterwards cites as out of Josephus without naming him in these words the seditious go to the Palace where many had laid up their Wealth drive out the Romans thence kill eight thousand of them four thousand Jews that had gotten thither for Shelter plunder the place is not exactly translated from the Greek which is thus Lib. vii cap. 37. according to the Greek division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Seditious went into the Palace in which because it was a safe place many had laid up their Possessions and put the Romans to flight and killing all the Inhabitants that were there gather'd together
which were heretofore under the Consulship of Torquatus and Cotta foretold by Lydius the Etrurian Prophet are now ratified and accomplished for Jupiter has sometime since smitten his own Hills and Temples and thrown fire into the Capitol And therefore the burning of the Capitol under Vespasian was counted a very great calamity as we may see by these tragical words of Tacitus in Hist lib. iii. c. 72. Id facinus post conditam urbem luctuosissimum foedissimumque populo Romano accidit nullo externo hoste propitiis si per mores nostros liceret Deis sedem Jovis Opt. Max. auspicato à majoribus pignus imperii conditam quam non Porsena dedita urbe neque Galli capta temerare potuissent furore principum exscindi Arserat ante Capitolium civili bello sed fraude privata nunc palam obsessum palam incensum Quibus armorum causis quo tantae cladis pretio pro patria bellavimus c. This Action since the first building of the City was the most dismal and shameful that ever happen'd to the People of Rome that when we had no foreign enemy at our gates and the Gods for any thing we had done to provoke them were propitious to us the seat of the great and excellent Jupiter ominously erected as a pledg of Dominion which neither Porsena when the City was delivered to him nor the Gauls who took it by Assault had been able to break into should be destroyed by the fury of our own Princes Once also before the Capitol was burnt during a Civil War but it was then by secret fraud now it was openly beset and openly set on fire Was it for this and that so great a Calamity might befal us that we have been engaged in so many Wars and fought so long for our Country How great the fame of this Accident was among neighbouring Nations and how they interpreted it as a Prodigy the same Writer tells us in Hist 1. 4. c. 54. where having made mention of the Commotions that were in Gaul and Germany he saith Nihil aeque quam incendium Capitolii ut finem Imperii adesse crederent impulerat Captam olim à Gallis urbem sed integra Jovis sede mansisse Imperium Fatali nunc igne signum coelestis irae datum possessionem rerum humanarum Transalpinis-gentibus portendi superstitione vana Druidae canebant Nothing had so much inclined them to think that the end of the Roman Empire was come as the burning of the Capitol That the City had been formerly taken by the Gauls but Jupiter ' s Seat standing safe the Empire had continued Now that by this fatal fire it appeared the Gods were incensed against the Romans and designed to confer the government of the World upon the Nations beyond the Alps was the superstitious tone of the Druids So that these Commotions being appeased and the Capitol rebuilt it might be said that the deadly wound was healed Vers 8. Note e. It should have been added with Grotius that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood in the book of life of the Lamb slain written from the beginning of the world that is in which God from the beginning of the World until this time began to write the names of the Confessors and Martyrs for the Truth whom wicked men had persecuted or killed for its sake for of a man that is alive it cannot be said his name was not written from the beginning of the world instead of never for it could not be written before he was born supposing the Discourse to be about a Catalogue only of those who have begun to live as it is here which Dr. Hammond acknowledges Vers 10. Note f. I do by no means think that S. John here has a respect to Passive Obedience as our Author's Countrymen speak but to the Persecutors themselves to whom it is foretold by this Proverb that it should be their lot to suffer the same things they inflicted upon others See Grotius on this place To this purpose is the Subject of Lactantius his Book de mortibus Persecutorum So that in this place their Opinion is neither approved nor condemned who think it lawful to oppose force by force provided there be a prospect of doing it successfully and without too much bloodshed Nor is there any thing said about this matter in the places which the Doctor cites and it is a thing which it 's probable he would not here have thought of unless he had lived in the days of Cromwel But those things which please us we bring to mind upon the least occasion Vers 15. Note m. Excepting the place in the Maccabees all our Author here says is taken out of Hugo Grotius who treats of the same matter more largely and accurately I have alledged a more antient example to this purpose on Numb xxxv 6 than any alledged by either of them See also what Spencer has collected about this Subject de Rit Mos Legg l. 2. c. 14. Vers 17. Note n. What our Author here says of the several ways whereby sacred marks were received and what follows as far as the citation of Martianus Capella he took for the most part out of Grotius but excepting these words Of these Servius and Virgil makes frequen◠mention perhaps it may be so printed in that Edition of Dr. Hammond which Mr. Le Clere used but in the second Edition of it it is Of these Servius ON Virgil c. which if Mr. Le Clerc had known he would not have made this remark which are a manifest corruption of these words of Grotius Talia mystica nomina etiam aliis Diis fuisse ex Servio discimus that other Gods also had such mystical names we may learn from Servius Virgil himself no where makes mention of such names much less does he frequently mention them and perhaps it is but in one place they are mentioned by Servius II. They that had received the mark of Bacchus were not for that reason called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but because when they danced at Bacchus his Feasts they really carried in their hands a bunch of Ivy or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. I wonder that our learned Author who interprets the first Beast of the Idolatry of Rome and especially of the Capitol did not seek for the number of the Beast in the names of the Gods of the Capitol I my self supposing what is said by Grotius and Dr. Hammond to be true and conjecturing that the mark of the name or of the number of the Beast must contain the number made by the letters of the names of Jupiter and Juno who were chiefly worshipped in the Capitol and signify that he who bore that mark was a worshipper of those Gods found the number of the Beast χξςʹ in these words Δ 4 Ι 10 Ο 70 Σ 200 Ε 5 Ι 10 Μ 40 Ι 10 Η 8 Η 8 Ρ 100 Α 1 Σ 200  666 So that he who had these Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉