presently run the discourse to Magistrates Secondly he ought to have represented St. Paul in his Paraphrase speaking so as he speaks and not fasten'd upon him a Consectary which he did not think of Dr. Hammond might if he would in his Annotations have deduced from the words of the Apostle what seemed deducible from them but not in his Paraphrase in which St. Paul himself ought to speak and not his Interpreter But even in this Dr. Hammond is not so consistent with himself as he ought to be as I shall observe on vers 4. See my Notes on the fifth Commandment in Exod. xx Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as far as the Laws of God will permit as Interpreters generally observe which was a necessary Admonition especially at that time in which without doubt there were a great many Heathen Parents who were displeased with their Children for having embraced the Christian Religion But Dr. Hammond who makes the Apostle here to speak of obedience to Magistrates interprets these words in the Lord by under the Gospel for as to Parents it would have been but flat to say that they ought as much to be honoured under the Gospel as under the Law for who could have doubted of it But there might have been some among Christians who thought as most of the Jews did that they were not to be subject to the Roman Magistrates for which reason St. Paul more than once in his Epistles teaches the contrary But he says nothing at all about it in this place See Rom. xiii 1 Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am apt to think there is a Hebraism in this place and that St. Paul renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which perhaps he had in his mind by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because that word signifies both first and one And thus as the Hebrew word and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signify first so reciprocally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first will be taken here for one Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This promise in Moses belongs only to the Jews and to those only among them who were obedient to their Parents and gave them all due Respect and Honour Besides that which is there promised is a long and happy Life in Canaan and that respected not so much particular Persons as the whole Commonwealth for if the Commonwealth were overthrown a small number who had honoured their Parents could not expect by virtue of this Promise to live happily in their own Country I do not believe that St. Paul understood this Promise in any other sense because there can be no doubt raised about it Why therefore did he mention here a Promise which did not at all concern the Ephesians Undoubtedly not to move or perswade them by that Promise to honour their Parents but to shew them how very pleasing the performance of that Duty was to God because he had formerly annexed a promise to the Precept wherein the Duty of Children to their Parents was enjoined As for what our Author says here about a peaceable Life being the effect of obedience to Superiors or Magistrates that as it is often true so it is frequently false Civil or foreign Wars not to mention Tyranny or Arbitrary Government do no more spare faithful than unfaithful Subjects Tho it be very true that factious Persons and such as are desirous of Innovations do bring upon themselves a great many evils from the supreme Power it do's not therefore follow that such as are quiet and willing to obey do enjoy a longer or more happy Life Which as it holds good at all times so then especially when the supreme Power is of a different perswasion in Religion from those who honour their Parents as it was in the time of St. Paul So that what the Doctor says here about the honour which is to be given to Magistrates tho true does not belong to this place Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here undoubtedly signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first Verse of this Chapter that is both Parents But I cannot but wonder that Dr. Hammond who took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that first Verse to be meant of Princes as well as Parents and thought the Apostle spoke there of that honour which is due from Subjects to Magistrates should not have one word about them in his Paraphrase on this place but make mention only of Parents Is it so therefore that when the Discourse is about the Duty of Children to Parents to Parents must be joined Princes but when the Scripture speaks of the Duty of Parents to Children in that Magistrates are not at all concerned Or is it true that tho Subjects ought to obey Magistrates yet there is no Duty incumbent upon Magistrates with respect to Subjects What can be the reason of this difference Surely it deserved to be mentioned if there was any But to speak my thoughts our learned Author writing this in a time when he saw his Countrymen had rose up in Arms against the King whose cause he very much favoured and that a great many abused the Power which they thought was lodged in the People resolved to omit no occasion of magnifying the Authority of Kings and carefully to avoid every thing which might seem to countenance the Cause of the People lest his Adversaries should abuse it By which it came to pass that sometimes he does not so much perform the Office of an Interpreter as a Preacher for the King's party About the Cause it self which I have not sufficiently consider'd as to England I pass no judgment but it had been better to interpret St. Paul so as if there never had been any seditious Persons in England because our learned Author wrests a great many things in favour of his own side Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word must not be rendred all the Arms as if St. Paul had said take all the Arms which you have For tho this word be compounded of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Arms yet Use has made it to signify another thing which belongs to a particular sort of Souldiers To wit that heavy Armour which was born by the Legionarii among the Romans or those that served in the Phalanges Brigades of the Macedonians For tho the Slingers and Archers were furnished with all the Arms wherewith according to Custom they ought to be armed yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never said to belong to them So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified heavy armed Souldiers without any Addition And St. Paul very fitly made use of that word in this place where he does not speak about a Skirmish which might be made with light Armour but about a long and sharp engagement with very formidable Adversaries To which purpose he advises them not to take a Sling or a Bow which are
whom he had banished Dyrrachium and Philippi and other Towns to inhabit By this it appears how a little before St. Paul's time Philippi came to be enlarged because that City had twice received a Colony of Romans We may consult Foy-Vaillant on Numismata aerea Coloniarum The same Author testifies that Philippi in pieces of Coin is stiled Metropolis But that there was any regard had in that to Ecclesiastical order or dignity of Bishops even from the very time of St. Paul Dr. Hammond has not proved nor will any other I believe prove tho the thing be undoubtedly more antient than many think The Passage alledged out of the Digest is in lib. 50. tit 15. de censibus leg 8. § 8. and is Paulus's not Vlpian's as is said by our Author who it seems cited him upon trust He might have added that of Celsus in leg 6. Colonia Philippensis juris Italici est II. Our Author affirms that after Vespasian had brought a Colony into Caesarea that City became immediately even in respect of Ecclesiastical Government a Metropolis under which Jerusalem it self was But at that time there was no Jerusalem because it had been razed to the ground and was not rebuilt till under Adrian who put into it a Roman Colony as we are told by Xiphilinus in the Life of Adrian and as appears by a great many Medals in which it is called COL AEL CAP. Colonia Aelia Capitolina And who told our Author there was a Bishop at Caesarea in the time of Vespasian From what marks of Antiquity did he gather that the Caesarean Bishops were reckoned superior in Dignity and Order to those of Jerusalem from the Age of Vespasian If what he says be true that a City which had a Roman Colony brought into it was made a Metropolis Jerusalem enjoyed that Privilege as well as Caesarea tho not quite so soon Vlpian in the foremention'd Tit. lib. 1. § 6. saith Palaestina duae fuerunt Coloniae Caesariensis Aelia Capitolina sed neutra jus Italicum habet But I look upon this also as improbable III. I am ready to think that the reason why the Antients place Philippi sometimes in Thrace and sometimes in Macedonia is not because those Provinces were variously divided which yet I do not deny but because when Cities stand upon the borders of any two Countries it is doubtful to which of them they belong The same I say of Nicopolis What our Author says besides about many Churches and those Episcopal depending upon the Metropolis of Philippi is nothing but Conjecture which I am not wholly for rejecting but which I do not easily believe Learned Men often partly prove things out of the Ancients and partly make up by Guess and Conjecture what they would have to be true then they equal their Conjectures to that which they have proved and from all put together they very easily infer what they please Because St. Paul preached the Gospel first at Philippi does it presently follow that that City was also accounted the Metropolis in respect of Ecclesiastical Order The rest also is very deceitful and uncertain Ibid. Note b. I. The Opinion of Grotius and others seems to be much plainer who think that as the words Presbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used tho' there was one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called so also the word Bishop signifies both Orders first and second which is the reason why we meet with this word in the Plural Number where the Discourse is but of one Church There was a Communion of Names between Ministers of the first and second Rank so that those of the first Rank were sometimes stiled Presbyters and those of the second Bishops not because their Authority was the same and their Office in every respect alike but because there was little or no difference between them as to preaching the Gospel and administring the Sacraments But the particular Power of Ordination might belong to one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called II. That which our Author says about Metropolitans and by the help of which alone he defends himself against his Adversaries as to those Apostolical Times is very uncertain nor can it be proved by the Authority of the Writers of the following Ages who speak of the Primitive Times according to the Customs of their own and not from any certain Knowledg not to say at present that Bishops or Presbyters aspiring to that Dignity cannot always safely be heard in their own cause It is not probable that there was any Episcopal Church in the Proconsular Asia besides Ephesus at the time spoken of in Acts xx or in Macedonia besides Philippi and Thessalonica But a little while after when the number of Christians was encreased there were other Episcopal Seats constituted in them Ibid. Note c. I. I also have spoken pretty largely of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Luke viii 2 and I shall not repeat what I have there said Our Author in the beginning of this Note uses the word dimensum for demensum tho that it self was not proper to be used in this place because demensum signifies the Portion or Allowance of Servants not of Guests See Frid. Taubmannus on Plautus his Stich Acts i. Sc. ii vers 3. II. I think indeed with Dr. Hammond that the Original or Deacons must be fetched from the Jews and that Deacons were in the Christian Church what the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhazanim were in the Jewish Synagogue But I do not think we have any thing to do here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schoterim which was the Name only of the Officers that attended upon Magistrates or certain publick Criers See my Note on Exod. ver 8. III. Nor do I think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Juniors ought to be confounded with the Charanitae especially in Acts v. 6 where any of the younger sort who were accidentally then present seem to be meant Tho the Disciples of Doctors are called Juniors in Maimonides it does not therefore follow that that word must be so taken where-ever we meet with it IV. The Saying of the Jews about the decay of Learning among them which our Author speaks of is in Sotae fol. 49.1 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since the second House was destroyed the wise Men began to be as the Scribes and the Scribes as the Minister of the Synagogue and lastly the Minister of the Synagogue as the People of the Earth Which Dr. Hammond mistranslates and inverts the Words themselves They may be found by those that may perhaps have a mind to turn to them in the Editions of Joan. Chr. Wagenseilius in Sotae Cap. ix S. 15. It appears that our Author did not look into this Saying himself but went upon trust for it and that made him render it so ill and not so much as refer to the Book in which it is set down Vers 13. Note e. Some years ago there arose a great Controversy about this place
met him or went into a house and leaned his hand on the wall and a Serpent bit him Vers 4. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the proper Name of a Goddess which was look'd upon by the Heathens as the Revenger of Wickedness and was otherwise stiled Nemesis So saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accusation Justice There is a notable Description given of her in Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 14. cap. 11. which I shall here set down that the reason of this Speech of the Maltees may be the better understood After he had spoken of the Punishments which some wicked Men had suffered for their evil Practices he proceeds thus Haec hujusmodi quaedam innumerabilia ultrix facinorum impiorum c. These and innumerable other such things the Revenger of wicked and villanous Actions and the Rewarder of those that are good Adrastia many times effects and I wish she always did whom we otherwise call Nemesis Some sublime Power of an irresistible Deity plac'd as Men suppose upon the Circle of the Moon or as others define it a substantial Guardianship presiding with a general Power over particular Fates Which the antient Divines feigning to be the Daughter of Justice from some hidden Eternity affirm to inspect all Affairs here on Earth She as the great Mistress on whom the decision of all Causes depends and the Disposer and Determiner of Chances varying the courses of Lots by turns and many times giving our Actions a different issue than it seemed at first they would have works a manifold change in the Purposes and Acts of our Will And by an indissoluble chain of necessity tying up the Haughtiness of Mortals vainly puffing themselves up and as she understands how turning and winding about the Junctures of thriving and decaying in tho World one while she treads upon the Necks of the proud and insolent and quite dispirits them and another while she raises the good from a low and mean to a happy and prosperous condition The fabulous Antients feigned her to have Wings that by her extraordinary swiftness she might be thought present with every one and represented her as holding a Rudder and standing over a Wheel that she might be understood to steer and govern the Vniverse by running over all the Elements On which words see Valesius and Lindenbrochius Vers 15. Note e. To confirm what is said by Jos Scaliger our Author might have alledg'd the Testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus who seems to have been the Writer out of whom he learned it and who in Lib. 16. cap. 11. has these words Conversus hinc Julianus ad reparandas Tres Tabernas munimentum ita cognominatum haud ita dudum obstinatione subversum hostili quo aedificato constabat ad intima Galliarum ut consueverant adire Germanos arceri From hence Julian went and repaired the Tres Tabernae a Fortress so called that not long before had been ruined by the Stubborness of the Enemy which being rebuilt he retired into the innermost parts of Gallia and stayed there in order to hinder the Incursions which the Germans used to make into the Country And the Tabernae having been so called because they consisted of Tabulae Boards or Planks it is probable that there were little Houses built there with Boards for the Souldiers to lodg in because they could not endure to abide always in the Camp Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both by this place and what we find said in Chap. xxii 6 and xxiv 15 and xxvi 6 7. it seems probable that St. Paul's chief Adversaries and Accusers were not the Pharisees but the Sadduces who were most of all offended with his saying that Christ had been raised from the Dead and lived with God in Heaven because they denied the Resurrection And so besides the hatred common to them with the Pharisees there was this peculiar reason of their cruelty towards the Christians It 's true there is no mention made of this either in the Accusation brought against St. Paul or in any other part of St. Luke's History relating to that matter but from the defence which St. Paul makes for himself this may be collected who here mentions a circumstance which St. Luke left out in its proper place and that is no rare thing in the History of the Scripture See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia and Note on Vers 5. This is better I think than to say as some others do that it was a stratagem made use of by the Apostle Paul to feign himself accused for asserting the Resurrection of the Dead when the question was about something else that he might get the Pharisees to be more favourable to him Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author did not sufficiently mind who the Persons were that spake this when he interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brethren by Christian Jews For it is clear that they were unbelieving Jews whom these Persons who were also themselves such called Brethren Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot from the foregoing words be inferred that St. Paul was a favourer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the Christian Religion and these Jews having no knowledg of him any other way they could hardly have made this answer if he had said nothing but what St. Luke here relates But St. Luke has not set down all the Circumstances or particulars of St. Paul's Discourse but only the principal part of it and so it cannot seem strange if it be inferred from what follows that there was something done or said which in the foregoing Context is omitted viz. that St. Paul did declare himself to believe that God had raised Christ from the dead or that some others had affirmed this of him See on Vers 20. Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words are displaced and for the better understanding of them are to be read in this order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to whom he expounded those things which concerned Jesus bearing Testimony to the Kingdom of God and perswading them both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets I know very well that there are a great many instances to be found of the misplacing of words in the very best Greek Writers and particularly in Aristotle as Is Casaubon in his Notes on Theophrastus's Characters c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has observed But such transpositions sounding very harsh in Latin and much more to those who understand only the Modern Languages this here in St. Luke ought not to have been retained by Interpreters because tho the thing is plain to one that is skilled in the Greek yet it makes the sense very obscure to others Translators ought no more to imitate the Original in such things than the peculiar construction of the Greek Language which it is impossible without altering to turn into other Languages For the clearer perceiving of which I shall here set down the words
of their Lord. V. To shew how aptly what St. Paul here says may be applied to the Heathens and particularly their Philosophers I shall express the sense of his Discourse from Vers 17 to the 26 th in a short Paraphrase 17. For in the Gospel there is a way shewn whereby those that believe it may obtain the pardon of their Sins from God to the end that from the Faith which they had in their former Religion they might be induced to believe the Gospel for to such only we may apply that passage of the Prophet Habakkuk The just shall live by Faith 18. Those who refuse to believe it shall be punished by the Divine Justice for their former Sins which cannot be expiated any otherwise than by Faith in the Gospel and whereof the greatest by far is that whereby the Heathens and even their Philosophers do dissemble the knowledg which they have of the true God and do not conform their Divine Worship to it 19. For many of them understood what God would have them know concerning himself and hath manifested to them 20. From the beginning of the World by his Works wherein his infinite Power and transcendent Nature do illustriously shew themselves and are as it were visible so that they have no excuse to make for the absurd Religion which they profess 21. Tho they knew how wise and powerful a Being God was and had great experiences of his Goodness and Bounty yet they neither gave that honour to him openly which the perfection of his Nature challenged from them nor thanked him for his Benefits And therefore God in just Indignation suffered them to fall into so many errors which he would otherwise have delivered them from that they even rendered the most certain things doubtful 22. And whilst they professed the study of Wisdom they lost their Understandings 23. Being blinded through their own fault as one error produces another they represented God whom they might as I said have understood to be an infinitely more perfect Being than a Man not only like a Man but even like a Beast 24. Nor did their depravation stop here in the errors of their Minds or in Divine Worship but they became also most impure and abominable in their Lives God not restraining them 25. For the same Persons who had formed such vile Images of the Godhead and so extremely unworthy of the Divine Majesty and worshipped those Images neglecting God himself 26. As they had as much as in them lay disgraced the Divine Nature so forgetting also as it were themselves they confounded the Offices of both Sexes which Nature has distinguished by Lusts not to be named c. All these things the Heathens fell into even their Philosophers not excepted as might be easily proved out of Aristophanes Laertius Lucian the Satyrick Latin Poets Seneca and in a word all Antiquity Vers 29. Note i. Lin. 7. After the words giving over all labour This is an absurd Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which never had any such sense but signifies having lost all sense of Pain or Grief See on Ephes iv 19 Ibid. At the end of that Note Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be truly deduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is used both in a good and bad sense of Riches or Power or Victory or endowments of Mind and other things in which some exceed and go beyond others yet I do not think it any where signifies a desire of Pleasure nor does any of all those places which our Author has here heaped together prove what he intends as I shall shew by a brief examination of them For it is not ground enough that such or such a sense of a word is not foreign to the design of any place nay that it is very agreeable to it to infer that that is sometimes the signification of that word seeing the series of the discourse will often permit it to be taken in other senses altogether as commodious and less proper words likewise are many times made use of instead of more proper And therefore before we make use of reasoning to find out the signification of any word the certain use of it must be otherwise known for else it is very easy to mistake Now to review the Passages alledged by our Author 1. The words of St. Paul in Ephes iv 19 will very well bear to be understood of Covetousness as Grotius has observed because there were a great many of the Male Sex that prostituted themselves for the sake of Gain 2. The words of Photius St. Chrysostom and Antiochus do not necessarily require the sense of Lusts but may easily be understood likewise of Covetousness 3. The example of Asterius proves nothing at all because his words may be very well understood of a desire of Riches and Power yea ought to be so I have not indeed Alexander Aphrodisiensis nor can I conveniently get him but I dare lay any wager we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more than he should for that is the definition of an unjust Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor does that word among the Greeks ever signify a voluptuary 4. Tho the Septuagint render the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these Greek words ought to be used promiscuously It is not to be thought that the Greek words made use of in the barbarous stile of those Interpreters are always of the same latitude with the Hebrew and besides there was no necessary reason for the Septuagints translating the Hebrew word in that place of Ezekiel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Interpreters on the place 5. In the Prayer of Ephraim there is nothing that should oblige us to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any otherwise than it commonly is for why may not we suppose him to ask pardon for his Covetousness as well as his Lusts or Uncleanness Do not those Vices sometimes go together 6. Tho Plato uses the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the mention of Pleasures it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies Lust for that Phrase may be very well rendered a greater abundance of these things major horum copia as Mars Ficinus has translated it See Plato himself pag. 508. Ed. Genev. of Ficinus 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epist of Barnabas does not signify to be lustful but multiplicare anum See Cap. 10. Not. 51. Edit Amstel 8. It is without cause that the Doctor interprets avaritia in Polycarpus and Bede by Sensuality or the love of Pleasures Could not Valens be at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or covetous and lustful too And do not sensual or lustful Persons use to be covetous and to seize upon other peoples Possessions when they have opportunity that they may spend them upon their Lusts Bede does not seem neither to have confounded the word avaritia
praeterita nobis ostendit sapientes fecit de futuris ut non simus sine intellectu DICIT autem Non injuste tenduntur retia avibus For it is written of him some things relate to the People of the Jews and some to us And he SAITH thus He was wounded for our Transgressions c. For we ought to be exceeding thankful to the Lord because he hath both shewed us past things and so made us wise and instructed us also in the knowledg of things Future that we might not be without understanding as to them And he SAITH Not without cause are Nets spread for Birds A great many more examples to the same purpose might be alledged out of that Epistle Vers 16. Note e. It being manifest from the place cited out of Daniel in the beginning of this Annotation that the phrase to redeem the time signifies to delay or put off as long as possible that only Notion of it should have been kept to and not things of an Affinity with it or very distant from it mixed together as they are here by our Author that he might have an occasion to obtrude his Gnosticks upon us See Grotius on this place St. Paul here advises the Ephesians to endeavour by all lawful means to get time allowed them by the Heathens and to take heed lest by their rash fervour they should bring Persecution upon themselves especially in an evil and troublesom time such as that was wherein he wrote this Epistle which was towards the end of Nero's reign or those black and dismal days in which that monster of a Man outdid all that ever went before him in Wickedness and Villany The reason of the Apostle's Admonition is this that there was a time coming wherein the Truth might be defended with less danger And the nature of Truth is such that if it have but time allowed it and is not presently extinguished tho it lie cover'd as it were under Ashes for a while yet afterwards in a fitter time it shines out and makes an universal day So that those who defend it ought never as long as they can avoid it to run all adventures or undergo the last hazard that it may either triumph instantly over Falshood or else unavoidably be oppressed for ever Now I am apt to think that this phrase had its rise from the custom of Debters who when paiment is demanded of them and they cannot restore the whole sum or principal due obtain a longer time to discharge their Debt in either by a present Fee or by advancing the use of the Mony lent them For this is truly to redeem time whence it afterwards came to pass that because the solution of a Debt is thus deferred therefore to defer or delay is sometimes called to redeem the time Parallel to this is the Latin phrase moram acquirere which occurs in Cicero pro Caecina cap. ii or Num. 6. where the Delegates who had after twice hearing the Cause deferred to pass Sentence are said moram ad condemnandum acquisivisse and also to have given the Defendant a space wherein to recollect himself Vers 18. Note f. There was no need here of the Bacchanals or Gnosticks because there were Heathens enough in Asia that loved Wine and whenever they had an opportunity drank to excess and indulged themselves in other Lusts whose example might have had a bad influence upon the Christians if they did not take great heed to themselves Vers 19. Note g. Our Author has shewn indeed here that Songs are called by three several names but that those were so many different kinds no one can prove because they are often confounded as appears by the titles of the Psalms The Greek words might also be referred to several sorts of Songs if the most frequent use of them be respected but those also are often put one for another So that I should rather say that St. Paul here does but express the same thing in three different words Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is so complying with each other as yet to do nothing which may displease God to gratify any one whatsoever That this is here the signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may appear by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that it is a mutual subjection that is compliance which is here spoken of So the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood in Gal. ii 5 where St. Paul speaking of false Brethren saith To whom we did not so much as for an hour give place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by compliance Yet Grotius to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here saith thus nempe secundum ordinem naturalem civilem ecclesiasticum quae omnia nobis servanda propter Christum viz. according to order whether natural civil or ecclesiastical which must all be kept for Christ's sake And this Dr. Hammond follows in his Paraphrase But to signify that it should have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or something to that purpose and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that it is a mutual Duty here intended Vers 30. Note h. Our Author here compares together things that have no agreement with one another for to be of Christ's Flesh and Blood is not to be Christ himself as that which is called the Heaven and Earth is the very Universe but to be very intimately joined to Christ in like manner as Kinsmen by Blood and Man and Wife are to one another See Grotius on this place and my Notes on Gen. ii 34 Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not a Precept wherein Matrimony is commanded or its Laws enforced but an observation of a Custom begun ever since Adam and propagated to all Mankind See my Note on Gen. ii 24 Vers 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. From vers 23. of this Chapter St. Paul compares the love which does or ought to intercede between Man and Wife with the love of Christ and the Church for which reason he mixes Precepts belonging to married Persons with Precepts which relate to the love of the Church towards Christ And therefore he subjoins vers 31. in which the union of the Husband with the Wife is described immediately and without any transition after the foregoing words whereby he had described the union of the Church with Christ not because they belong to the same Argument but because he so mixes the thing compared with the thing to which it is compared If he had intended to make a perfect Comparison he would first have set down that which relates to Christ and the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards described the conjunction of Man and Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he makes use of an imperfect comparison in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is hardly distinguished from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His meaning may be expressed in this Paraphrase Vers 30. For between us and