men by the exercise of his infinite power but because in order to that end he for the most part makes use of Laws Threatnings Promises and such other means he could not possibly have acted otherwise than he did when no Laws could prove effectual to reform the Jews as to this point of the hardness of their hearts He would not therefore require of them what he knew they would never do And this was partly the reason that Solon went upon when he reformed the severe Laws made by Draco as Plutarch in his Life tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that makes Laws must consider the possibility of their being observed if he intends to punish but a few and do good by it and not a great many to no purpose Vers 12. Note a. The place in Aristophanes is in Nub. p. 151. Edit Genev. and needs no Correction no more than S. Matthew did this Rapsody to explain his meaning occasioned by a foolish Etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 24. Note c. lin 10. after the words hole of a needle These words are in Berachoth fol. 55.2 and the foregoing in Babametsia fol. 38.2 as they are rightly cited by J. Buxtorf in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. Lightfoot in h. l. Ibid. at the end of that Note Bochart has treated much more accurately concerning this Proverb in Hieroz Part. 1. l. 11. c. 5. We may learn from him in opposition to what the Doctor thought 1. That there was no need of Christs changing the Elephant into a Camel as the Beast which was most known since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Jews who used the Greek Language might signify a Cable as well as a Camel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Arabians and Syrians signifying both 2. That it was as common with the Jews when they spake of a difficult thing to say that the performing it was like making a Cable to pass through a narrow hole I cannot also but wonder why the Doctor makes Phavorinus the Author of that Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Cable when Phavorinus quotes Theophylact who was much older than himself to the same purpose and without doubt followed him in that Interpretation of it The word Cable as Bochart and others have observed came rather from the Phoenician word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebel which signifies a rope To conclude we must be cautious how we correct Hesychius in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be any part of a ship tho the place where the fire is kindled may fitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides Phavorinus has both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct whence it appears he did not borrow from Hesychius what he says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note d. It is indeed truly observed by the Doctor that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or regeneration here spoken of is not like that of the Pythagoreans but he might have added that it was of a nearer similitude with that of the Stoicks and that the Stoick Philosophers were the first that used this word to express the Restoration of the World after the burning of it Tho in the circumstances they differ very much in their opinion from the Christians yet in the general they agree as to this that the World shall be first consumed by Fire and then afterwards restored and the Christian Writers who knew the thing more certainly and came another way by their knowledg seem to have borrowed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense from them Philo in his book de Incorruptibilitate mundi p. 728. Ed. Genev. after he had spoken of the conflagration of the World proceeds thus in giving an account of the Stoicks opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which the Stoicks say that there shall be another regeneration of the World brought about by the Providence of its Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now according to these mens opinion it may be said that there is one World which is eternal and another which is corruptible the corruptible one so called because of its Constitution the eternal one that which after its Conflagration will by the perpetual REGENERATIONS and Revolutions of it be render'd immortal And often in that book he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense So Marcus Antoninus Lib. xi Sect. 1. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it perfectly comprehends viz. human Reason the periodical regeneration of all things So Eusebius Praep. Evan. Lib. xv c. 19. shews out of Boethus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Stoicks think about the Regeneration of all things And so likewise others speak of this opinion which puts it out of all doubt that this word was borrowed from the Stoicks who had a great many more of the same kind peculiar to their Sect. Seneca in his Nat. Quaestion Lib. iii. c. ult saith Omne EX INTEGRO animal GENERABITUR dabiturque terris homo inscius scelerum melioribus auspiciis natus Every living creature shall be regenerated and the earth shall have men to inhabit it that shall not know what it is to be vicious and whose birth shall be attended with better tokens About the opinion it self see Just Lipsius Phys Stoicae Lib. ii c. 22. But to pass over this we must observe that tho in some sort the regeneration of Mankind is begun by the preaching of the Gospel yet what is here said cannot in any wise be understood of that initial regeneration for in what sense can the Apostles be said to have sat upon twelve thrones and judged the twelve tribes upon earth And therefore most of the Fathers St. Austin himself not excepted understand the words of Christ of the time after the Resurrection See the Passages which Suicer has collected under this word in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus I wish our Author had warranted by sufficient testimonies what he says in concurrence with Grotius about the authority of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or heads of the tribes among the Jews For tho it be evident from the i ii and vii c. Chapters of Num. that there were such Persons in the Camp of the Jews in the time of Moses as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we find afterwards no mention made of them nor were the heads of the tribes Judges in the Apostles time I rather think that when Christ spake of twelve Thrones he had no regard at all to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only to the number of the Apostles and that he did not assign each man his own Tribe but made them every one Rulers over them all And that expression of the Thrones I rather think to be an allusion to the Seats of the Sanhedrim the Council of 72 Men who were the chief Judges in Israel than to the Seats of
long a duration as could agree to the thing spoken of whence the time of mans life was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Latin aevum The Discourse here cannot be about Eternity which has no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consummation or end nor is it about the time of mans life but about the space of time during which God had determined to preserve the Temple and Jerusalem as our Author has best of all observed So that if we consider only the series of the Discourse this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be Elliptical and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the Temple was to stand must be understood But because the duration of the World is sometimes taken for the World it self therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in Greek and Saecula amongst the Latins do now and then signify the World it self The same may be said of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holam as learned Men have long ago observed For which reason we use to interpret that word in the writings of the Rabbins sometimes Eternity sometimes any long space of time during which a thing lasts whatsoever it be and sometimes the World it self It is plain that in the place cited out of the Book of Tobit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both that determinate space of time during which the Temple was to continue and also the whole duration of the World For first Tobit says that they should build a Temple but not such a one as the first which should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the times of the duration viz. of the Temple were accomplished Then he says that there should be afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a structure that should be famous throughout all the ages of the world Hence by most Interpreters the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of St. Matthew is understood of the end of the world They tell us that the Apostles ask'd Christ first when the Temple was to be destroyed and then what were to be the signs of his coming and so of the end of the World It being undeniable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous Christ's answers must be ambiguous too some of his expressions agreeing best to the destruction of the Jews as Dr. Hammond has extraordinarily well shewed and others more properly describing the Conclusion of the World it self I like Dr. Hammond's Opinion best which yet may in some measure be reconciled with the other if we do but suppose the Destruction of the Jews to have been designed as a faint Representation of the end of the World as our Author likewise thinks in his Paraphrase upon Ch. xxv And so this Prophecy will be just of the same kind with those Old Testament Predictions which were so worded as to respect some greater event than that which was expresly and plainly foretold in them of which see Grotius upon Matt. i. 22 Vers 7. Note e. Our Author's Remarks upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are indeed true which is often used to signify not the Nations belonging to several Commonwealths and which were of different originals but the Inhabitants of various Tracts or Territories notwithstanding they were Members of the same Commonwealth and of the same Lineage such as were the several Tribes of the Jews See my Notes on Gen. xlix 10 upon the word People But yet there really were in Judea it self very sharp Contentions between different Nations viz. the Jews and Syrians which are treated of by Josephus in lib. ii cap. xix in Latin de Bello Judaico Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grothius thinks that the persons here intended were the ill Interpreters of the Law and indeed as Cicero lib. 1. de Divin says Oraculorum interpretes ut Grammatici Poetarum proxime ad eorum quos interpretantur divinationem videntur accedere The Interpreters of Oracles as Grammarians are to Poets seem to be near akin to the Diviners themselves which they interpret Vers 17. Note h. Caesarius was in a mistake for as Josephus lib. vii Bell. Jud. cap. xvi and xviii Lat. informs us Jerusalem was taken on the eighth day of September i. e. in the beginning of Autumn And his description likewise of the Slaughter has more Rhetorick than Truth in it Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely because they could not easily fly away which is the case likewise of those that have sucking infants or little children To this purpose are the words of Silius Italicus Punic lib. iv where he describes the flight of the Romans upon the approach of Hannibal's Army Tum crine soluto Ante agitur conjux dextrâ laevaque trahuntur Parvi non aequo comitantes ordine nati Vers 22. Note k. By the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are meant Christians as also in the places where they are set in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called as chap. xx 16 See the Notes upon that place Vers 26. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are properly the inner rooms or chambers of the house and it being usual to hide those things which we would have safely kept in such private places whenever a Commonwealth is spoken of it signifies a Treasury and whenever a Family is spoken of a Storehouse So the Old Glossaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiscus aerarium the publick Treasury 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cellarium Cella a private Storehouse or Cellar c. In this place it must be taken in the first signification for an inner room or that part of the house into which persons use to retire who are desirous of being private It is not probable that there should be a respect here had to a fortified City in which there are no more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or places for men to conceal themselves in than in others but only to a secret place in some house where the Messias might be said to lie hid See the Septuagint in Gen. xliii 30 and Exod. viii 3 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put in opposition to open places such as is a Desert and Christ's meaning is nothing but this that there should be no Deliverer to be found either without doors or within See Deut. xxxii 25 CHAP. XXV Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius has observed that the Syriack and Latin add here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so does also the Cambridg Greek and Latin Copy Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is not such a perfect decorum kept in Parables as I have already observed elsewhere as that every thing in them is an allusion to what was generally practised This appears sufficiently from this place for those that used Lamps did not for one night besides the oil that was in their Lamps carry oil in another vessel with which they might supply their Lamp that same night but they filled their Lamp once for the whole night But it
only speculative Divinity often stumble in particular Passages and many times look for Doctrins true indeed in themselves but nothing at all to their purpose in places where they are not and know not how to make a right use of those places whence they may really be deduced They are contented not to oppose the received Doctrins and think they cannot do amiss in seeking them any where provided the words do not too plainly oppose it By which means we see the Antient Interpreters of Scripture both Greek and Latin because they had no regard to Words or Grammar but minded only truth of Doctrine have strangely mistaken the genuin sense of Scripture Hence in part came innumerable vain Allegories which I do not call vain because they contain false Doctrins but because they are grounded upon no certain reason Hence proceeded the violent Interpretations and pitiful Subtilties with which the Writings of those Interpreters abound We need but read St. Austin's Commentaries on the Psalms where we shall scarce meet with a page that has not some examples of this kind Which if it were a true way of interpreting any thing almost might be proved or disproved out of any place whatsoever This Dr. Hammond carefully avoided and would have avoided more if some particular things had not a little too often occurred to his thoughts as the Heresy of the Gnosticks the Destruction of Jerusalem and Church-Discipline which three things he frequently sought for where no body acquainted with the Apostles stile had ever before look'd for them and few again ever will Yet as I said before Dr. Hammond does not near so often dash upon this Rock as the Antient or most late Interpreters especially those who have written in the last Age. I might add this also which is no small commendation of his Annotations that he follows mostly that scheme of Divinity which is more agreable to Scripture than the Opinions of many Interpreters keeping a middle way between those who deduce a sort of fatal Necessity from all eternity of which necessity the Mind of Man is a mere Instrument and those who like the Heathens are said to deny that Vertue is at all owing to God No Man that reads his Annotations can doubt whether he had that other faculty of an excellent Interpreter which I said lay in an exact knowledg of the stile of Scripture and cannot be acquired but by a constant reading of it We shall find but few Interpreters so well acquainted with the Sacred Writings That frequent and exact comparing of the words and expressions of Scripture with one another which the Reader upon the first opening of the Book may observe puts this matter beyond all doubt The third Qualification which I said was a Critical Habit of judging concerning the meaning of places tho it was not so great in him as the two former was however considerable And this I doubt not he attained by a diligent reading of the best Writers especially Grotius and he would have acquired it in a much greater degree if the constant trouble of defending the Church of England against several sorts of Adversaries had not diverted him But if we compare him with the Antient Interpreters or with the greatest part of those who have written in the foregoing Age we shall find none among the Antients and but few among those of late that can be thought his Equals For the Antients tho they understood Greek trusted more to their skill in Rhetorick than Language and took more pleasure in running out into common places or Allegories than in seriously interpreting words and expressions Origen and St. Jerom who besides understood Hebrew did also much more seldom use their knowledg in that kind than a sort of Eloquence which took much in their Age. And later Interpreters have been more industrious to fill up their Commentaries with their own Divinity and Controversies with other Sects of Christians than with strict enquiries into the signification of Words and Phrases But Dr. Hammond considering what is expected from an Interpreter and knowing the difference between a Preacher or a Divine and an Expositor of Scripture sets himself to perform the part of an Interpreter and seldom concerns himself about any thing else Which being so it cannot reasonably be said that I have spent my time ill in translating Dr. Hammond's Annotations or in illustrating correcting and enlarging them But as mens Judgments commonly are proceeding not from love to Truth but from Passion I find there are others who whether really or seemingly affirm that I am not indeed to be blamed for translating Dr. Hammond but for annexing those things to his Annotations wherein I often charge him with Error or do otherwise contradict his Opinion as if I were bound to assent to all that he says or ought to have so great a reverence for him as to be afraid of professing that I think he was mistaken in his interpretation of some Passages But to give these Men satisfaction if they are willing to be satisfied I would fain know which of the two ought to be most valued Dr. Hammond's Honour or Truth The Reputation of a Man long since dead and whose Opinions no Law divine or humane obliges us to follow or the defence of immortal Truth which we cannot forsake without offending both God and Men If they are of that humour that they had rather maintain the Honour of a learned Divine as I before said but subject to error than Truth they are not fit to be spoken with I will have no contest with such Men as profess themselves enemies to Truth but shall leave them without any reply to the Mercy of their own perverse Temper But the Errors they say of great Men ought to be conceal'd rather than aggravated I answer I have no where aggravated any thing but confuted him in the softest terms whenever I supposed him in a mistake However I don't think the greatest Mens Faults ought to be conceal'd who the greater they are thought to be the more liable unwary men are to be deceived by them and therefore whenever they are out of the way they ought above all others to be set right again It is just we should forgive their Mistakes and bear with their Defects in consideration of their greater Vertues and the notable Service they have done the learned World but we ought not to let Errors pass under the disguise of Truths It becomes all Candidates of Learning especially those that study the Scriptures to endeavour all they can and contend earnestly that Truth upon all occasions may appear not that it may be concealed out of respect to any man or Error receiv'd instead of Truth The only thing justly blamable in those who take upon them to correct the Mistakes of great Men is if they charge them falsly passionately or maliciously not for the manifestation of Truth but to lessen their Reputation or if they endeavour to obscure their great Excellencies and severely inveigh
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
to signify a divine Mind or God himself did never mean by it a Nature speaking in the Name of God but only understanding and disposing all things into order Timaeus Locrus a Pythagoraean who perhaps first used this word in his description of the Creation of the World speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before therefore the Heaven was made there were in Reason the Idea and Matter and God the Creator of a better So Epicharmus the Comaedian in his Commonwealth as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. Lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Grotius interprets thus Est humana ratio hanc praeter est divina altera Ratio humana circa vitam victum semet occupat At divina Ratio est artis opifex comes omnibus Edocens ipsos quid usus maxime facto siet Quippe homo non reperit artem sed dat hanc auctor Deus Ipsaque illa humana ratio nata est ex ratione Dei Plato Timaeus's Interpreter and Epicharmus's Imitator in his Timaeus calls likewise the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoning p. 528. Ed. Gen. of Ficinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All this true reasoning of God being reasoned c. But in his Epinomis he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoicks who as Diogenes Laertius tells us in Lib. 7. Sect. 135 136. affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was the same thing which was called God and the Mind and Fate and Jupiter and by a great many other names said also that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in the beginning being the seminal Reason of the World dispose all things The same Author in Sect. 134. says it was the Doctrin of the Stoicks that there were two Principles of all things viz. an Active and a Passive the latter of which was Matter or Substance without any Quality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the former viz. the Active was REASON which was in it and which was GOD for this being eternal out of all that viz. Matter or Passive principle formed every thing And to this Doctrin of the Stoicks Tertullian in Apol. cap. 21. had a respect when he says Apud vestros quoque sapientes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Sermonem atque Rationem constant artificem videri Vniversitatis Hunc enim Zenon determinat factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundem fatum vocari Deum animum Jovis necessitatem omnium rerum It is well known that also among your wise men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Speech and Reason was thought to have been the maker of the Vniverse For this Zeno affirms to have been the Creator who formed and disposed all things and was called Fate and God and the Mind of Jupiter and the Necessity of all things There was no need of joining the word Sermo to Ratio to render the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what place could there be for Speech in the Creation and Disposition of the Universe But there was for Reason and therefore Seneca setting down the Opinion of Plato and the Stoicks makes frequent mention of that as in Ep. 65. Causa autem saith he id est Ratio materiam format quocunque vult versat Quaerimus quid sit causa Ratio faciens id est Deus c. The cause that is Reason formeth Matter and turns or diversities it how it pleases If you ask what is meant by Cause it is Reason creating that is God And in Lib. de Vita Beata cap. 8. he stiles it incorporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex incorporeal Reason the Author of great Works Consult also Philo wherever he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Creation of the World and we shall see that he never understands Speech by it but only Reason See his Book de mundi opificio where he says that it was the intelligible Pattern of the World and had no other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the divine Mind or Reason which disposed those things Other Passages out of him I shall produce afterwards I might alledg also the Testimonies of Modern Platonicks and Ecclesiastical Writers to this purpose but that I have determined to shew only how the Antients used this word The Jews who were more antient than Philo himself called Angels both good and bad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same as if they had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers endued with Reason not with Speech which Philo also imitated So the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. xviii 15 16. speaking of the revenging Angel that was sent against the Egyptians says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thine almighty Reason leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as an inexorable Warrior into the midst of a land of destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up filled all things with Death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth c. The Writer of this Book attributes a Throne to this Angel in agreement with the custom of the Eastern Nations who called Angels Thrones Otherwise he imitates Homer who Iliad Δ vers 443. speaking of Iris saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 She fixes her head in the Heaven and walks upon the Earth I know indeed there are some Interpreters who would make St. John to have a respect to the Expression of Moses who represents God as creating the World by speaking or saying But tho Moses teaches us that God made all things as it were by a Command yet it is manifest he does not mean speech properly so called as I have shewn in my Notes on Gen. Ch. i. So that it would be but a dull Allusion to say upon that account that the Word was with God yea God himself nor are there any such Allusions observable in St. John's stile Ibid. And that Reason was with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is said here that Reason was with God by way of antithesis or opposition to what is afterwards said concerning the manifestation of the divine Reason among men Afterwards it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it dwelt in Jesus Christ nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as Christ conversed with men and by the inspiration of the divine Reason called them to a better life I might produce out of Plotinus if he were not a late Author a like expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I shall alledg only the words of Ignatius in his genuin Epistle ad Magnesios concerning Jesus Christ pag. 33. Ed. Voss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who before all Ages was with the Father but in the end appeared Which words allude to this place in St. John and
in the least act in this case as a Tribune of the People who upon the peoples determination pronounced sentence in the name of the Commons but as the Roman Presidents used to act who gave judgment according to the advice of their Counsel I have been the larger upon this subject lest Dr. Hammond's Authority should deceive such as are not very well versed in the Roman Customs Or else to skilful Persons it had been sufficient just to admonish them of his mistake Vers 48. Note d. I have observed in my Notes on Gen. xxxi 20 that the name of Syrian carries in it something I know not what reproachful see there Levit. xxv 47 is a false quotation in our Author for Deut. xxvi 5 for in this place indeed we may find the word Aramaean used in a bad sense but in the other there is no mention made of Aramaeans Many such faults there are in Dr. Hammond's Annotations which are owing either to the carelesness of the Printers or the Author's thoughts being otherwise employed which is no strange thing and I do not reproach him with it CHAP. IX Vers 2. Note a. IT was a long while before this time that many of the Jews believed the preexistence of Souls and that they were sent down into such or such Bodies according to their several deserts as appears evidently by these words in the Book of Wisdom Chap. viii 19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was a witty child and had a good spirit yea rather being good I came into a body undefiled Vers 22. Note b. Of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seldon has treated at large Lib. 1. c. 7. de Synedriis And if we believe him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies any assembly of people whatever publick as well as private in which it was not lawful for any that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put out of the Synagogue familiarly to converse But they were not excluded from the publick Prayers or forbidden to be present at Sacrifices as the same Author shews who is well worth our reading and to whom I refer the Reader tho all are not of his opinion CHAP. X. Vers 35. Note b. IT must be observed that the word Law includes sometimes the Book of Psalms see Chap. xii 34 as sometimes all the Old Testament is called the Law and the Prophets tho ordinarily it is divided into three parts whereof a third makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under which the Book of Psalms is contained CHAP. XI Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. shall not die of this Disease as others do who continue under the power of Death till the general Resurrection It is a form of speech peculiar to St. John So in his 1 Epist v. 16 17. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means a sin that is not of such a nature as to make it probable that the Sinner will continue spiritually dead as long as he lives See the Notes upon that place Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words have no agreement with Christ's answer unless something be understood which is not expressed and which Christ perceived to be in Martha's mind Our Author should have solv'd this difficulty in his Paraphrase which because he has not done I shall endeavour to do my self Ver. 21. And when she was come to him and had saluted him she told him that she should have been very glad if he had come some days before to Bethany because he would then have healed her Brother who had been dead now four days and so he would have been still alive 22. But now he was dead there was no hope of recovering him for tho she very well knew that God would grant Jesus whatsoever he asked of him yet she hardly believed that he would raise up a dead man at his request 23. To which Christ replied that Lazarus should be raised up again 24. But Martha saying that she did not doubt indeed but he should at the universal Resurrection 25. Jesus told her more plainly that God had endued him with a Power to bring the dead to life again especially those that had believed on him I have here expressed the whole connexion of the discourse that the sense might be the more evident But the 22 d verse might also be thus expressed That she knew indeed that all that the Lord Jesus asked of his Father would be granted him She did not dare to add that she did not believe he would presume to ask his Father to raise a man that had been dead four days to life 23. But this being in her thoughts Christ answered c. Christ answered therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to something not expressed and it is easy to understand the reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that Martha broke off her discourse for fear of offending her Lord. Unless this Interpretation be admitted the 22 d verse must be placed after the 27 th and then there will be no difficulty in the series of the discourse But this would be contrary to the Authority of all the Copies Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author represents Martha in his Paraphrase speaking too learnedly according to the opinion of some Physicians for she never thought perhaps of the time of the revolution of the Humors And indeed as the thing it self is false so it is nothing at all to the purpose The revolution of the Blood is completed in a shorter time and the climate or season of the year is the chief thing to be considered when the discourse is concerning the putrefaction of a dead body but this is not very material Vers 48. Note b. Our learned Author had done well to produce the Testimony of some antient Writer that related what he said here concerning Armillus for the later Rabbins fancy a great many things for which they have no Tradition We read indeed in a Chaldee Paraphrase which is said to be Jonathans on Isa ii 4 that a wicked Armillus should be slain by the Messias But who shall certify us of the time when this Jonathan lived For it is childish to give credit to the boasting pretences of the Jews I am apt to think that by this word these men meant the Romans whose Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem by them they had a very great spite against and therefore gave out that it should be overthrown by the Messias Afterwards they invented some other stories about this Armillus of which see Buxtorf's Lexic Talmudicum CHAP. XII Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One of the Copies of R. Stephanus has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Transcriber thought that this agreed better with Christ's discourse And the Author of the Coptick Translation seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no need of these Alterations for God the Father glorifies his Name when he openly acknowledges his
It is all one as to the sense whether we say to be made free by the Truth or to be sanctified by it Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I offer up my self a Sacrifice to thee to obtain for them the pardon of their Sins and also the Spirit of Sanctification that they may be so affected with the Truth they are to preach as to regulate their actions according to it as I have done Christ puts up this Petition principally for his Apostles because it was impossible they should preach the Gospel with any success if they did not live according to its Precepts There could not have been a greater prejudice to the success of the Gospel than the ill Life of those that preached it and next to the Apostles were all other Christians upon whose behaviour the success of the Gospel did also depend and for whom Christ therefore prays This is the design of the following words and therein lies that agreement both in Doctrin and sanctity of Life whereby the Apostles would become one among themselves and one with Christ as Christ himself had been one with God These things are not sufficiently expressed in our Author's Paraphrase Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor of the Power of working Miracles consequent upon which is their obtaining the highest Credit and Authority with those who saw the Miracles which were done by them So likewise in Numb xxvii 20 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hod which the Septuagint render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that Authority which Moses at his Death conferred upon his Successor Joshua Thou shalt transfer saith God there some of thine Authority to him that all the Congregation of the Israelites may be obedient to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Septuagint Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor renders this in his Paraphrase before all eternity which is an unsufferably improper Phrase elsewhere made use of by him as I have already observed This is what I had to observe upon this Chapter on which our Author has made no Annotations But for a more full explication of it I refer the Reader to H. Grotius whom the Doctor follows in his Paraphrase desiring this may stand only as a Supplement to what Grotius has said CHAP. XVIII Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who tell us that this name must not be derived from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reign and their reason is because a Servant would never have had such a Name given him as imported authority in it But notwithstanding that reason this was a very usual name and common to Noble Persons with Ignoble Thus Porphyrie who being a Tyrian had a Phoenician name was called Malchus His own words in the Life of Plotinus where he speaks of a Book that was dedicated to him by Amelius are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he dedicated that Book to me under the title of a King and I Porphyrius had this name of King because I was called Malchus in my own Country Dialect which was also the name of my Father for Malchus if it be turned into Greek signifies King There was also one Malchus a Hermit whose Life is written by St. Jerom There was says he there a certain old Man named Malchus whom we in Latin may call Regem a King by Birth and Language a Syrian Whence it appears that this was a very common name in Syria as Luc. Holstenius has also shewn by many examples in the life of Porphyrius Chap. ii Vers 31. Note c. See the words of the Rabbins themselves concerning the power of Judicature in Capital causes being taken away from the Jews as they are set down by Dr. Lightfoot on this place It is no good custom to mention Authors names and words without citing the very place as the Criticks of the last Age generally do Of the manner of hanging consult the Talmudical Book de Synedrio Cap. 6. § 4. CHAP. XIX Vers 14. Note b. WHAT our Author has here is borrowed from Grotius who says the same in his Notes on Mat. xxvii 45 and confirms it by Testimonies But there are several things to be observed in relation to what Grotius there says which I shall briefly set down 1. He produces a passage out of Ignatius as in his Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna which is not in that Epistle but in his Epistle to the Trallians 2. He makes use of an Interpolator instead of the true Ignatius but in this he ought to be excused because Ignatius's true Epistles were not then published by themselves 3. But it is strange that he should alledg that Passage as agreeable to the reading of our Copies both in St. Mark and St. John when if we believe that Interpolator we ought in St. John to read the third and not the sixth Hour and in St. Mark the sixth not the third just contrary to the reading of the Copies For his words in Chap. 9. Ep. ad Trall are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on friday therefore at the third hour he received sentence of Death from Pilate the Father so permitting it at the sixth hour he was crucified at the ninth he expired But St. Mark says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was the third Hour and they crucified him And according to St. John he did not receive the Sentence of Death but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the sixth Hour 4. The Clementine Constitutions which Grotius also quotes say the same Lib. 5. c. 14. and Lib. 8. c. 34. and almost in the same words whereby the Author of them appears to have thought that the Hours of Christ's Condemnation ought to be so distributed as to make that in which he received the Sentence of Death to have been the third and not as it is in our Copies of St. John the sixth and that of his Crucifixion the sixth and not as we read it now in St. Mark the third 5. And yet that Great Man infers from the Authority of Ignatius and the Clementine Constitutions that we ought not to admit any alteration contrary to the Authority of the most antient Copies and of the Metaphrasts But not to say again that the contrary ought to have been inferred I would fain know what Metaphrasts he means Nonnus it is certain who generally goes only by that name expresses himself in his Metaphrasis of St. John so as that he seems to have read in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third mortal Hour was lengthened out i. e. was not yet past And it is plain that if the Hours be thus disposed and the Evangelists supposed to have written so there will be no difficulty and it is highly probable that there was a considerable interval of time between Pilate's pronouncing the Sentence and Christ's Crucifixion For there was a
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
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.
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
reprobate and near a Curse whose end is to be burnt that is which is of no use except that the Briers and Thorns which grow upon it are burned or serve to make Fires It is common for the antecedent to be taken for the consequent See S. Glassius Rhetor. Sacr. Tract 1. c. 1. de Metonymia Causae I might otherwise interpret these words is said to have received a blessing from God Vers 20. Note e. I. I don't understand what our Author means when he says that it was perhaps taken into the Heathen Oracles from the Prophets that about that time among the Romans the dignity of the Pontificate was joined with the Imperial What Oracles are those When and where deliver'd Was there any need of inferring from the Jewish Prophets contrary to all the rules of Logick that a thing was done at Rome which every one knew But perhaps he meant to speak of the time to come tho his words signify a thing past However that be either those Oracles were none at all or only counterfeited and our Author dared not or could not produce them II. Even from the time of Julius Caesar it was decreed that if he begat a Son he should be High-Priest Of which see J. Andreas Bosius de Pontificatu Max. Impp. Rom. cap. 1. who will inform us more exactly in such matters than our Author who spent but little time in studying the Heathen Antiquities but mostly imployed himself in the study of Ecclesiastical III. He should have added the Chapter of the Life of Augustus as well as of Galba and Claudius But we have no reason to be sorry he did not for all this should have been blotted out because the places marked in Suetonius are nothing to the purpose which I should have wondred at if I had not often observed a great many more such things in the Doctor The place in Tacitus is shamefully corrupted It is taken out of the Oration of Servius Maluginensis Priest of Jupiter Annal. Lib. iii. c. 58. who desiring to have the Province of Asia given to him said this among other things Privatis olim simultatibus effectum ut a Pontificibus Maximis Flamines Diales ire in Provincias prohiberentur nunc Deum munere summum Pontificum etiam summum hominum esse non aemulationi non odio non privatis affectionibus obnoxium Through private grudg it came to pass in former times that they viz. the Priests of Jupiter were not suffer'd by the Chief Priests to go into the Provinces but now by the bounty of the Gods the Chief of the Priests was also the chief of Men and not subject either to envy or hatred or private Passion The Latins did not say summus Pontifex and perhaps Tacitus would not have used the word summus but only for the following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposition CHAP. VII Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius on these words and add to the examples which he alledges these words of Horace in Lib. 1. Sat. vi Persuades hoc tibi vere Ante potestatem Tulli atque ignobile regnum Multos saepe viros NVLLIS majoribus ortos Et vixisse probos amplis honoribus auctos Where nulli majores are such whose Names and Exploits through length of time are forgotten And such were the Parents of Melchisedek for which reason he is said to have been without Father and without Mother c. If we consider this attentively we shall easily perceive that before the time of Christ no Man could without a revelation have imagin'd from the Story of Melchisedek there would hereafter come an Eternal Priest who was to be Successor to none nor have any to succeed him Nor could any Man after the Coming of Christ gather by mere reasoning grounded upon critical Rules that Melchisedeks Parents and Death were omitted in the Scripture with this design that by such a silence he might be an Image of Christ Whoever should have pretended this might have been confuted by a bare Negation Why therefore you will say did the Apostolical Writer insist so much upon that Story with the Jews For it 's plain he does not say here he had any revelation made to him of that matter nor require credit to be given to his bare Affirmation I answer the Allegorical Writers of the Jews at that time accommodated innumerable places to the Messias not relying upon any Grammatical Interpretation but a certain old Custom of explaining the Scripture in that manner So because they interpreted Psalm cx of the Messias the Sacred Writer makes use of that Interpretation to his purpose and because they acknowledged the Messias ought to be like Melchisedek he reasons against them from their own Concession not against other Men who might have denied what he assumed And he used this way of disputing with the Jews so much the more willingly because nothing followed from such an Interpretation contrary to those things which he knew were true concerning Christ yea he might according to the Jewish Custom compare Christ to Melchisedek Otherwise if the thing be consider'd in it self no strong or Grammatical Argument could be drawn against others from that History and therefore such things are not to be too much urged now because that way of explaining the Scripture is grown out of use Vers 4. Note a. I. The true original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well observed by our Author out of Phavorinus It may be further added that the Fruits gathered out of Fields and the Spoils taken from Enemies were piled up in heaps before the owners of the Fields made use of the Fruits or those who had taken the Spoils divided them and then from the tops of those heaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before they were disposed of were taken the First-fruits which were offer'd to the Gods whence any First-fruits came to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not deny but the best part was consecrated but I do not think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here the choice It is plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signify Fruits not as if chosen from Trees but because they are on the extremities of Boughs or on the tops of Trees However I wonder our Author should quote pag. 110. of Phavorinus when what he alledges out of him is in Column 100. and no where else II. But I more wonder he should produce only in English the words of Philo out of Lib. 11. Alleg. Legis which are no where to be found in that Book Philo has only this passage that can belong to this place in pag. 57. Ed. Genev. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he offer'd Bread and Wine which the Ammonites and Moabites would not give for which reason they are kept out of the Assembly and Congregation of God Then he enquires why he gave Wine and not Water and that he interprets Allegorically III. It is strange also that our Author in this pious liberality of Abraham
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉