〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Ye have heard and read indeed his word but it has not entered into your hearts so as to be a perpetual rule of life always in your view and never to be forgotten by you When we despise any thing that another says the remembrance of it seldom abides with us long but what we are affected with manet as the Poet says alta mente repostum abides deeply fixed in our mind and upon the next sit occasion it breaks out This is the importance of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and we meet with it in the same sense several times in the 2 d Chap. of the 1 st Epist of St. John and in the 2 d Epist and 2 d verse Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This verb I rather take to be in the Indicative than in the Imperative mood and interpret the words of Christ to this sense You are generally very curious in searching into the abstruse meaning of the Scriptures because ye think and that justly that ye shall derive those instructions from thence which will lead you to eternal Life and these give their Testimony to me which ye do not hearken to because ye suffer your selves to be prejudiced by perverse Affections It is very probably conjectured by a Learned Man that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or searching here spoken of does not refer to the Grammatical but the Mystical sense of the Scriptures It is certain that the Jews at that time neglected the study of Grammar and therefore those Scripture passages which concerned the Messias do not seem to have been understood by them by the assistance of that Art but by the instructions of the antient Prophets See Bruno Dissert de Therapeutis Perhaps Christ used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at that time did not signify simply to inquire but to search into the Allegorical meaning of any Passage Consult Buxtorf in Thesauro if you doubt of it Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. By whose Doctrin which ye profess to believe ye think ye can attain to Salvation for Christ here speaks of what will be at the day of Judgment I do not believe these words are to be understood of Moses making intercession for the Jews tho I know what is alledged by a great Man in favour of that opinion out of the Rabbins The sense will be most commodious if we understand it to be that those who imagined themselves to act consonantly to the Law in rejecting Christ shall be condemned hereafter by the Law it self according to which they were certainly obliged to receive him See Deut. xviii 15 CHAP. VI. Vers 15. Note a. CHRIST avoided the Multitude who took counsel together about making him a King not only because this was a bad design and proceeded from Persons of wicked and carnal Minds but also because he would not give the least occasion for a Sedition and that his enemies might never be able to accuse him with any appearance of Justice of having affected to be an earthly Prince If he had tarried among these Men tho he had opposed them and openly rebuked them and hindred them from executing their designs yet their very attempt alone would have caused suspicious Men to conceive such a bad opinion of the Gospel which was then but in its infancy as it would have been very hard to dispossess them of Christ's enemies would have said that he had plotted a change in the Government and that he was not so much displeased with his followers for their desire to deliver the Kingdom into his hands as for their unseasonable resolution to make him their King before he had brought his Conspiracy to a head and encreased the number of his Followers They would have said that it was dangerous to suffer such a Teacher to live amongst the Jews who might even without his knowledg and consent give the common People an occasion to take up arms against the State It is well known how mistrustful and cautious those to whom the government of the World belonged at that time were in such matters and when I do but mention the name of Tiberius every one will presently apprehend that it was a most dangerous thing then so much as unwillingly to be the cause of a Sedition This seems to be the reason why Christ would not have it divulged that he was the Messias viz. lest the very mention of that name should like the setting up of a Flag occasion a great confluence of People to him See Note on Mat. viii 4 Vers 27. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak properly is neither operari cibum as it is rendred in the Vulgar nor acquirere cibum to acquire Food as by our Author but laborare ut acquiras to acquire it by Labor And so the Greeks say likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for necessaria or victum labore suo lucrari to earn necessaries or a livelihood by ones Labor or as the French call it gagner sa vie to get ones living See only Constantin's Lexicon So in the example brought out of Palaephatus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he got his living by his Labour In the example of the Pounds Luk. xix 16 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies rather peperit genuit it hath produced or brought forth than comparavit it hath acquired Vers 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unless they have been already so affected with God's former benefits as to be ready to follow God whithersoever he leads them which will make them come to me assoon as ever they hear my Doctrin I like what is said by Faustus Regiensis Lib. 1. c. 17. de Lib. Arbitrio Quid est says he attrahere nisi praedicare nisi Scripturarum consolationibus excitare increpationibus deterrere desideranda proponere intentare metuenda judicium comminari praemium polliceri Audi Dominum non duris manibus sed spei nexibus attrahentem dilectionis brachiis invitantem sicut ait Propheta attraxi eos vinculis caritatis Hos xi 4 What is it to draw but to preach but to encourage People by the consolations of the Scriptures and deter them by its Reproofs to propose to Men such things as they should desire and menace them with what they ought to fear to threaten them with Punishments and promise them Rewards Hearken therefore to God who draws not with rough hands but with the ties of Hope and invites with the arms of Love according to that of the Prophet I drew them with the bands of Love Vers 55. Note f. For the understanding of what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies when it is thus metaphorically used we must consider whence such forms of Speech had their rise which in all probability was from the custom of Merchants who used to distinguish true merchandizes from false i. e. those to which
grant but it is improbable that lewd Men who had committed Adultery themselves or been guilty of as great a sin otherwise should be for having an Adulteress condemned to death Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This question could not properly be made in such general terms for she might have been condemned by one viz. the Roman Procurator For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood but of such a Condemnation because questionless every one of them condemned that is disapproved Adultery at least in words and Christ himself accounted it a very great Crime Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Your testimony does not only deserve to be rejected by us but you your self cannot reasonably believe your self in this case because you may be deceived by self-love you think you are the Light of the World but you ought also to regard the judgment of others who think otherwise That this is the meaning of these words Christ's answer shews My Testimony is true because I know whence I came c. which is as if he had said I am sure I am not deceived I do not speak out of love to my self for I know that I was sent from God Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimony of two Witnesses was principally required when the question was about the punishment of a Criminal See Numb xxxv 30 Deut. xvii 6 and xix 15 For any one to prove himself a Prophet he needed no other witness of his Mission but God who confirmed his word by a Miracle See Deut. xviii Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tan. Faber in his Epist Crit. conjectured that it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go afar off But as long as the sense is good according to the vulgar reading of the word and all Copies as well as Interpreters favor that reading it ought by all means to stand as it is Vers 25. Note b. There is a third not less probable interpretation that may be given of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. for jam tum already or at that very time i. e. in the beginning of this my Discourse with you So the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jam tum already I have told you what I was the Light of the World vers 12. Vers 29. Note c. 1. I easily believe our Learned Author when he says that the Phrase Common-Pleas in English signifies a Court of Judicature for it is hard if he did not understand his own Language but that in Latin the phrase Placita Principum and Arrests of Parliament among the French signifies any thing but the Decrees of both no body would say that would not be guilty of an intolerable impropriety of Speech which is a thing the Doctor never scrupled 2. What need was there of recurring to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those things that are grateful or pleasing to God without enquiring any further And so in Acts vi 2 the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify 't is not determined but it is not grateful or pleasing to us to leave the word of God and serve Tables And Acts xii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not what was determined or voted by the Jews but what was pleasing to them with whom Herod endeavoured to ingratiate himself as sufficiently appears by the passage alledged by the Doctor out of Eusebius What he says he seems to have taken from Budaeus who out of love to the Greek Language thought that the French word arrest ought to be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas it manifestly comes from arrêter which sometimes signifies to decree or determine and is derived from the Latin Verb restare from which comes the French rester to stay But he has produced no example out of any Greek Writer to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a decree or determination 3. It is utterly false what our Author says about the Roman Custom 's being observed in the Provinces where he speaks of Capital Causes For tho the Citizens of Rome whilst the Commonwealth stood might appeal first to the People and then to the Emperor in such Causes and accordingly the Magistrates whilst the Commonwealth stood could not condemn any one either without the consent of the People if they were appealed to or without the Authority of the Emperor if an Appeal was afterwards made to him yet it will not follow that what the Doctor says is true Whilst the Government of the Roman Empire was in the hands of more than one the Roman Magistrates no where expected the Suffrage of their Provincials to empower them to condemn or absolve and much less did they do so when the supreme Authority came to be lodged in the hands of the Emperors Tho the Jews were permitted to live according to their own Laws yet at that time they had no power to sentence any one to death as appears from Chap. xviii 31 when Pilate condemned Christ because of the importunity of the Jews he did it to gratify them when he might have refused to do it and not as our Author thought because he was obliged to do so as I have elsewhere already observed The Proconsuls Pretors and Procurators did always with unlimited Authority by the advice of their Council i. e. a few Roman Citizens pass sentence upon their Provincials without ever consulting or convening their Provincials unless they had a particular mind to gratify them This sufficiently appears by Cicero's Orations against Verres But the Doctor objects that Pilate asked the Multitude What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ as if he waited for their Suffrages I answer it is certain that the common People of the Jews condemned none no not whilst their Commonwealth stood This Office belonged to the Judges and in such Causes as these to those of the Great Sanhedrim see Grotius on Mat. v. 22 And after Judaea was made a Roman Province the common people had not I suppose a greater Power allowed them than they ever had by the Laws of their own Country The reason therefore why Pilate asked the multitude this question was not that he might hear their resolution or determination without which he could not have proceeded to pass Sentence either of Absolution or Condemnation but because he thought they favoured Christ and would have rescued him out of the hands of the chief Men among the Jews who had accused him out of malice and envy as St. Mark in setting down this story tells us He could have released him indeed without their consent if he had not feared a Sedition but he thought it better to condemn the innocent than to run that hazard This is apparent from the relation that all the Evangelists give us of this matter according to which the people did not condemn Christ by any Authority they had so to do but seditiously demanded of Pilate his life Pilate did not
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
Interpretation which can be defended by no Example but only by weak Arguments Besides for my Censurer's satisfaction tho I do not think Mortality is there meant yet I doubt not but Adam was immortal before he sinned and that he really became mortal by Sin which he might have understood from my Commentary on Gen. iii. 19 In the same Chapter I proved by manifest Examples not only out of Heathen Writers but out of S. Paul and Josephus that the Phrase to write laws in the heart in Jeremiah is not to make them necessarily be obeyed but only remembred without a Monitor My Censurer says that the Prophet speaks of the New Covenant which I never denied then he adds that this Phrase signifies that by virtue of the holy Spirit the understandings of the faithful are so enlightned and their wills and consciences so effectually wrought upon that they are enabled to observe the Law But by what undoubted Example does he prove this None at all Nor could it any more than that irresistible efficacy be demonstrated by any Theological Arguments But I have proved by examples out of St. Paul Rom. ii 15 and Josephus that that Phrase is not to be strained too far And as to St. Paul's words my Censurer says nothing only he denies that examples taken out of Heathen Writers are any proofs as if I had produced none but them Then he says that in the passages of Josephus the Writing of the Law in Mens Minds and the preserving it in their Memories seem to him to be two distinct things But let the Reader consult those places and he will wonder at the shrewdness of this free Censurer I said that by this Phrase of St. Luke in Acts xvi 14 The Lord opened her Heart that she attended to those things which were spoken of Paul was meant no more than that by divine Providence it came to pass quibuscunque tandem machinis usus sit Deus whatever engines God made use of that Lydia attentively gave ear to St. Paul As sufficiently appears by the foregoing Examples My Censurer thinks this to be a strange expression quibuscunque tandem machinis usus sit Deus as if any that understood Latin did not know it to be a metaphorical Phrase taken from Cities are batter'd with Engines And my using such a Metaphor cannot seem strange to those who have read in St. Paul 2 Cor. x. 4 that the Weapons of the Apostles warfare were not Carnal but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds For why may not I use such another Metaphor and say Engines Who besides that has any thing of Learning does not know that the best Latin Writers use that word in this Metaphorical sense Let my Censurer read but this Passage of Cicero in Epist xviii to Brutus ad reliquos his quoque labor mihi accessit ut omnes adhibeam machinas ad tenendum adolescentem But would you know good Sir what those machines were which God made use of to open the Heart of Lydia seeing I have not expressed my Mind more clearly in my Ars Critica Why they were those spiritual Weapons of St. Paul by which he pulled down strong holds namely the Gospel which opens the Hearts of its Hearers unless they are wilfully shut against God's call So the Jews ordinarily said that the Law opened their Hearts as you may be informed by Lud. Cappellus on Luke xxiv 25 A sort of Inspiration whereby God works upon all the hearers of the Gospel to enable them to receive it as they ought if it be not their own fault or upon some only whom he irresistibly works upon is no where intimated in Scripture as some of the most learned Men have long since shewn whom my Censurer may read Whereas he says that I insist upon the ambiguity of the words to redeem and Spirit on purpose to patronize Socinianism that is but the repetition of a Calumny which he brings over so often as to make it nauseous He can't deny that what I said is true but to lessen my Reputation he pretends I wrote it with an ill design I must undoubtedly to please him not only have reviled the Socinians but made my self also a Liar or concealed the Truth that they might be the more easily refuted or rather seem to be so Then the commendableness of my design would have made all my dissimulations and falshoods praise-worthy But these are the tricks of a Man whos 's own Conscience condemns him and who is a great favourer of the Socinian cause whilst to undiscerning Persons he seems to oppose it Which if it was not my Censurer's design as I will not affirm at least he manages things so that it is as easy to see he is as unfit a Man to put an end to that Controversy as he is good at detracting and calumniating In Cap. vii I shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are properly Gods by the institution of Men or such as are accounted Gods And yet says my Censurer such was our Saviour say the Socinian Masters he is a God by divine Institution Therefore hence he ought to have inferred if he would be consistent with himself that it was not my design to gratify the Socinians whom yet he unfitly compares to the Heathens In the viii th Chapter I said that irresistible Grace which is asserted by S. Austin did not seem to me to be agreable to Scripture and that the word Grace had no evident meaning in it My Censurer does not prove the contrary but endeavours to make me odious for saying that St. Austin was a popular Speaker but no Critick As if that were not a thing very well known to all that have read his Works or as if any doubted of it I easily believe my Censurer never read St. Austin's works in which I deal more fairly with him than he does with me Otherwise I should say that either he had no knowledg at all of the Holy Scriptures or a great deal of impudence who should attribute to St. Austin a critical Skill and that in the Scriptures for here the Discourse is about the interpretation of Scripture and endeavour to make me ill thought of for denying it He calls him a pious and learned Father which titles he gives to Dr. Hammond whom he knew to be of a contrary opinion But in this matter St. Austin neither thought piously nor wrote learnedly of God And as little piety or learning does he shew in his Epistles to Boniface and Vincentius where he zealously defends Persecution on the account of Religion and that with very absurd Arguments He was one of the very first that promoted some two Doctrins which take away all Goodness and Justice both from God and Men. For by the one God is represented as creating the greatest part of Mankind to damn them and sentence them to eternal Torments for Sins committed by another or which they themselves could not avoid and by the other Magistrates and all
strange Consult also Salmasius in the place before-mentioned Ibid. Note b. I grant the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify always to break when the discourse is about a thing which may be hurt without being broken as about a wounded Man or a bruised Reed but where the discourse is about a Vessel and especially such an one as is made of brittle matter it has ever that signification and whoever says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be rendered to break a Marble or Glass Vessel See Levit. vi 28.xi.33.xv.12 Rev. ii 27 And those that endeavour to put any other sense upon that Phrase here strain it Dr. Hammond's two first Reasons for another Interpretation I have confuted already in a Note upon the parallel place in St. Matthew The third together with the rest are I suppose taken out of Baronius and relie upon a nauseous Fable which is related in the following words by Suidas whom if our Author had but look'd into I believe he would never have made use of this Testimony Thus Suidas tells the story in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of some unknown Fable-maker as he used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crosses as Aemil. Portus has observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Market-place were buried the two Crosses of the two Thieves and the little Ointment Pot out of which Christ was anointed and many other remarkable things that were laid there by Constantine the Great but taken away by Theodosius the Great Suidas does not give the least intimation that he thought this silly Fable to be true he only tells it as he does many others as he had read it And therefore the Consequences that the Doctor draws from his Authority and Learning are insignificant Nay tho Suidas had said that he believed this Fable yet it would be much more likely that he had either forgot this Passage in St. Mark or that it did not come into his mind than that he thought the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify any thing different from what I have said it does Neither is there any more weight in the Argument which our Author grounds upon a Passage out of Pollux because the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify to open the Cruise and stir the Ointment about with a Spathula or Slice All the rest that he says is manifestly besides the cause because he considers the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstractly not as it is joined with the name of a brittle Vessel nor have I leisure to examine every thing particularly I conclude therefore that this Phrase is rightly translated in the vulgar Latin fracto alabastro See what I have said on the parallel place in St. Matthew Vers 54. Note f. What our Author says about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to have borrowed from Dan. Heinsius who may be consulted by those that have leisure Vers 72. Note i. The Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be separated by a Comma from the following word which is the Verb to that as its Nominative Case The opinion of Grotius which is by our Author mentioned in the second place is the most probable The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone does not signify to see or look upon but only when the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other like that is added to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part follows I am apt to think that in the place cited out of Phavorinus we ought after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to look upon any one is no Greek Phrase and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also must be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XV. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used to release as it is in St. Matthew Chap. xxvii 15 After this manner the future Tense in Hebrew and the aorist in Greek and the preterperfect in Latin is many times used See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word futurum and Rom. viii 29 30. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some Manuscripts it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reason of which is not as Grotius thought that some Greek Copies of this Gospel were altered to make them agree with the Latin Version for besides the Vatican mentioned by him but omitted in the Oxford Edit of the New Testament and the Manuscript that was sent by Beza to Cambridg the Copy also which those that made the Coptick and Gothick Translations used read it so which it is plain could never have it from the Latin Versions If we admit this reading the sense will not be inconvenient And the multitude going up into the Hall began to desire c. Vers 17. Note a. Concerning those things in this History which relate to the Roman Customs we must read the Philological Notes of that learned Lawyer Edm. Merillus upon the Passion who has treated of this matter on set purpose Add also what I have said about this place in St. Matthew Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is very well expressed by our Author in agreement with the Roman Custom in his Paraphrase For they used as in the night so also in the day time to give notice what hour it was by the sound of a Trumpet This appears from a Passage in Lucan lib. 2. ver 689. where speaking of Pompey's flight he describes him forbidding ne buccina dividat horas that his flight might be the more secret Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added for the sake of the uncircumcised Gentiles who were ignorant of the Jewish Customs Every Friday or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so called as Bochart in concurrence with others before him tells us Hieroz P. 1. lib. 2. cap. 50. p. 567. And not only the Jews but Christians also afterwards made use of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius upon Luke xviii 11 Vers 43. Note d. I rather think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand that dignity that Joseph was in among the Jews by being one of the Sanhedrim of LXXII Men or the lesser of xxiii For Arimathaea was not a Roman Colony CHAP. XVI Vers 18. Note c. I Will not undertake here to examine whether those antient and true Sibyls did foretel any thing concerning Christ but I shall observe that no such thing can be inferred from those Verses of Virgil for it is not necessary to suppose that the sense of that Sybil's words are so expressed by Virgil as to have no addition made to them Perhaps the Sybil had prophesied that after the tenth Age which was that of the Sun there should be another Golden Age and that Saying alone gave Virgil occasion
the Body or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be according to the Flesh those Phrases being indifferently used by St. Paul chap. viii 5 8 9. Vers 7. Note e. But the discourse is not about a Jew who could not doubt but that Coveting which was forbidden by the Law was a Sin but one that knew not the Law as those Jews which lived before the Law was given Unless God had prohibited coveting they had not believed it to be a Sin no more than most of the Heathens To seize upon what was anothers by force or secretly take it away they knew to be Theft and a thing manifestly prejudicial to human Society and therefore evil and offensive to God but they did not think it unlawful either to covet what was not their own or to get what was another's by Artifices such as are used by Merchants who think they may lawfully do a great many things either to raise the Price of their own Goods or to buy anothers cheap and the like which are undoubtedly unjust tho very agreeable to the Custom of most Nations But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coveting God forbad and that inward affection from which such Sins proceed as I have shewn on Exod. xx See also on Mat. v. 28 Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is would vellem as Grotius and others have rightly observ'd See 1 Cor. vii 7 So it is used also by Anacreon in the beginning of his first Ode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would speak of the Atridae I would sing also of Cadmus CHAP. VIII Vers 2. Note a. THO it be very true that he who is freed from the Law of Sin is freed from Sin and that the Law of the Spirit is not without the Spirit so that what is said of the Law of the Spirit may be said also of the Spirit yet neither of these Phrases can be properly and literally explained so as our Author interprets them The Law of Sin is properly the Dominion of Sin as appears from the 23 d Verse of the foregoing Chapter namely because it belongs to a Ruler to impose Laws And on the contrary the Law of the Spirit is the Dominion of the Spirit So that St. Paul's meaning is that the Spirit which Christ gives and whose Commands Christians obey does free them from the Dominion which Sin formerly had over them which is so manifest that in his Paraphrase the Doctor has followed this Interpretation Only having no regard to propriety of Speech in his own stile he is as careless of it in interpreting anothers Vers 4. Note c. Grotius in his Notes on Chap. ii 16 interprets this word in a sense quite contrary to Dr. Hammond The Apostle saith he here explains what he means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only by Interpreters but also by Josephus and properly signifies such things as are in their own nature good and just as I have said on Luke i. 6 and in Lib. 1. c. 1.9 de Jure B. P. But they are both in an error for First The distinction which the Rabbins make between the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mitsvoth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhukkim has no foundation either in their Etymology or Use as I have observ'd on Gen. xxvi 5 Secondly The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Greek Interpreters to signify the Divine Laws in general and tho they most commonly render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they use also that word sometimes where the Hebrew has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Deut. xxx 15 and 1 Kings ii 3 Among Attick Writers or the best Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Statute Jus or Record Instrumentum by which the justice of any Cause is determined but in the Old and New Testament God's Ordinances or Institutions of what sort soever they be are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to obey them and sometimes the observation of those Laws it self as in Rev. xix 8 which place our Author forces So that it must be collected from the thing it self and not from the word whether the Discourse be about Moral Precepts or others Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word Spirit here manifestly signifies an affection of the Mind as the Spirit of Jealousy in Numb v. the affection of a jealous Mind and so in many other Phrases of the same kind St. Paul's meaning here therefore is that the manner of God's Behaviour toward the Jews had rather produced in their Minds a slavish Disposition than a filial one But wherein did that servile Temper consist This we are told in the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fear that is that ye should be governed more by fear than by hope for that is the case of Servants who stand in great fear of their Masters but hope for very little from them whereas Children hope much from the bounty of their Parents and fear but little But what was the reason why the Jews fear of God was greater than their hopes Namely because the breach of his Laws excepting Sins of Infirmity and some of less moment was threatned with Temporal Punishments which were unavoidable whilst the Jewish Common-wealth stood and flourished and God had not any where promised Mercy to Persons so offending either in this Life or in the next or allowed any place for Repentance Because he had not appointed any Expiatory Sacrifices in the Law for spiritual Sins such as Pride or Covetousness or the like tho he had denounced no Temporal Punishments against them whereby it came to pass that tho covetous proud or any other such sort of Sinners had nothing to apprehend from the Magistrate yet they were afraid of being punished by God who had made no Promises so much as to the penitent But under the Gospel things are quite otherwise as I need not here at large shew This is what Dr. Hammond ought only to have expressed in his Paraphrase which may be gathered from St. Paul's words themselves and not arbitrarily have inserted foreign things into his Discourse Compare with this place Gal. iv 1 c. Who in reading St. Paul would ever have dream'd that under those things which are signified by the Spirit of Adoption were contained the mild Punishments of the Church Where did Christ where did his Apostles teach any such thing More might be said which I designedly pass over Vers 19. Note f. If ever any thing was written by Dr. Hammond that was harsh and forced and a great many Instances of such things might be given it is certainly what he says in this place as I shall briefly prove I. He confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 18 th Verse is either a deliverance from the Persecutions of the Jews in this
alter it whenever I see sufficient reason That part of those Letters which relates to this matter is as follows I. I shall never forget that advice of St. Austin than which nothing in such matters can be more seasonably call'd to mind That in things obscure and remote from our senses if so be we read any thing in Holy Scripture which may without endangering the Faith we profess be made to comply with different Opinions we should not rashly espouse any of them or if we do yet not so as to resolve not to change our Judgment whatever light be offer'd to us afterwards or to contend not so much for the sense of the Holy Scriptures as our own Opinion as the true sense of the Scripture when it is our own whereas we ought rather to make that to be ours which is the assertion of the Scripture I have set down the whole Passage at length to shew you that I am not so wedded to my present Opinion in this matter as to resolve that no reasons shall move me to forsake it Two things must here in the first place he observed First that the Discourse in 1 Cor. xi is about Men and Women praying or prophesying among others at home For the Women among the Greeks did not appear abroad without a Veil nor therefore stand in need of the Apostle's Admonition which no honest Matron ever acted contrary to And that some of their Neighbours or Acquaintance were present with them in those Exercises is manifest because it is absurd for a Woman praying by her self to cover her Head or to prophesy alone Secondly that as far as the fifteenth Verse the chief scope of the Apostle's Discourse is to shew the Corinthian Women they ought not to prophesy or pray when Men were present without being veiled These two things I take here for certain because they offer themselves to the Readers Mind at first view After therefore St. Paul had alledged Reasons to that purpose at the 10 th Verse he concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this cause ought the Woman to have upon her Head what viz. a Veil which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominatus est of which see Dr. Hammond and my Notes on Gen. xxiv 64 If St. Paul had added nothing more there would have appeared no defect in his Discourse but there follow three words which have extremely perplexed Interpreters because they seem to be altogether superfluous and to have no dependence upon what goes before And indeed if in the Conclusion as Logicians speak there ought to be nothing but what is contained in the Premises either it must be shewn that the sense of these words is couched in what went before or we must acknowledg them to be supervacaneous and to me the former seems to be very easy as it is certainly the best if we do but instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is manifestly not contained in the Premises read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is when she declares the Revelations made to her or while she is delivering her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So a prophetical Doctrin which Isaiah Chap xxviii 9 calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schmouha is stiled by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I might add a passage out of Herodotus where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken in the same signification but because it is obscure and St. Paul did not learn from him to speak Greek I shall abstain from it But you will ask me I suppose how it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I answer because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word much more common in Scripture than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs but once in all the New Testament and not often in the Old And many times it happen'd that the Transcribers substituted a more usual and familiar word in the room of one less known as St. Jerom thought of the Name Isaiah which occurs in Mat. xiii 35 The Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not necessary for the Woman to cover her self with a Veil at home but only when she went abroad unless there was this or the like reason for it They that make the discourse here to refer to the Church do not remember that it was unlawful for Women covered or uncovered to speak in the Church as St. Paul teaches in this same Epistle Chap. xiv 34 But at home amongst their Acquaintance nothing hinder'd but they might prophesy if they had received that Gift from God but they ought to have their Heads covered as when they appeared in publick This is my conjecture about this place which I shall not abandon till I meet with something more probable II. It is a place of that nature that as by its obscurity it opens a door for Conjectures so likewise it leaves room for innumerable Difficulties and it is no wonder that very great ones are objected against this of mine which would not be a conjecture if those who are of another opinion could bring no probability against it Nevertheless what you alledg I shall consider as briefly as I can 1. You suppose the Apostle's Discourse here to refer to publick Assemblies in which all or most of the Christians of the Church of Corinth met But it is plain St. Paul forbids Women to speak in publick Assemblies either covered or uncovered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in private Conversation say you it does not seem probable that the Spirit of Prophecy was given Why so It 's true the principal use of it was in Churches but it might be useful also sometimes in private Conversation amongst familiars for Christians to edify one another privately And it is certain Women had it not to preach that being not allowed them by the Apostle 2. But you say tho it was not lawful for Women to teach others yet they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sing in the Church as the learned J. Mede interprets that word I do not deny but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament has that signification and is rendred by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the New Testament I do not know of any place wherein that word is so taken and in this disputation of St. Paul I am sure that signification does no where agree to it 3. That the fault of the Corinthian Women lay in their coming to Church with their Hair all loose is no where intimated by St. Paul who would have much more vehemently inveighed against Christian Women that should have imitated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophetesses or Interpreters of impure Spirits He does not say one word about their Hair being loose or bound up but speaks only of a Veil 4. But why did the Apostle call
practice of latter Ages Vers 10. Note b. Tho our Author in this Annotation follows Grotius yet I cannot assent to either of them for this reason because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the perpetual use both of Sacred and Profane Writers always signifies elsewhere to perswade and never to appease I can neither find after the most diligent search nor remember any passage in any Author I have read in which it can be reasonably taken in any other sense and if I can shew that this signification will agree to all the instances produced by the learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond there will be then no necessity of recurring to any other And this it will be very easy to do when I have only premised that there is an Ellipsis in all the alledged examples in which that which is wanting must be supplied to shew what the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them signifies In the example out of the Book of Samuel there is a manifest Ellipsis which must be thus supplied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and David perswaded his Men not to kill the King Not he appeased them but he prevailed with them not to slay him A Patron or Advocate is said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is to perswade the Judg not to appease him that is perswade him that his Cause is just For it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be rendred to appease the Judg there should be added the Person of the Accused or whose cause is pleaded in the Dative case thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appease the Judg to the party accused or contending which yet there is no instance of In Mat. xxviii 14 there is the like Ellipsis which must be supplied again in this manner if this come to the Governor's ear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will perswade him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be angry with you and secure you So in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one as if St. Paul had said do I perswade God or Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be displeased with me And thus all those Phrases must be understood in which neither the Case of the Defendant nor any Infinitive mood is subjoined to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often occurs contrary to what Beza thought I know Henr. Stephanus and other learned Men render it then flectere to incline or bend but it 's plain they have more regard to the sense than the proper signification of the word and in all that multitude of examples which are alledged in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae the Figure Ellipsis takes place I shall instance only in one by which we shall be able to judg of the rest In Plutarch in Lib. de cohibenda Ira Euclides to his Brother who had angrily said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let me perish if I be not revenged on you returns this mild answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let me perish if I cannot bend you Peream nisi te flexero in which Version the sense indeed is expressed but not the just import of the word For we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I cannot perswade you to forgive me this offence or some such thing And that such Supplements as these are understood in all these Phrases may appear by infinite examples of intire expressions wherein the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of some of them to be had out of any Lexicon I have been the larger in disputing against our two learned Men about this word lest mere reasoning from some few places contrary to the rules of Grammar and constant use should prevail A thing which Grotius is very seldom guilty of but Dr. Hammond often as I have shewn CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. THAT correction according to which instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fourteen we ought to read δ. four is proposed by Lud. Cappellus in Hist Apostol Appendice Character 4. which is worth consulting because he starts a great many difficulties there against our Author's Chronology And that Conjecture was approved by Grotius because of the connexion of the Discourse Yet Dr. Pearson has excellently shewn in his Annales Paulinae that St. Paul here reckons the years that had passed from the time of his Conversion But he refers the Jerusalem Synod to the year of Christ xlix and makes St. Paul's Conversion to have happen'd two Years later than Dr. Hammond and that with good reason Consult himself and compare him with Cappellus Vers 6. Note d. I. It is very true what our Author here says about St. Paul's Solaecisms which others using a softer term call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeming solaecisms But it matters not much by what name they are called if we do but agree as to the thing And it is universally acknowledg'd by those who understand Greek that there are a great many expressions in the Writings of St. Paul which cannot according to the rules of Grammar be resolved into proper Construction The examples alledged by Dr. Hammond put this matter out of all doubt yet some learned Men have made it their business to collect a certain number of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inconsequences and incoherences out of the best Authors both Greek and Latin to shew that the Stile of St. Paul ought not therefore to be accounted the less elegant But there are two things which may make it appear that those Authors are ill compared with St. Paul The first is that those forementioned defects do seldom occur in them whose whole Discourse is otherwise agreable to the Rules of Grammar and has all those ornaments which are requisite to make it proper and elegant On the contrary the stile of St. Paul is both destitute of all those things which are so much admired and commended in any Discourse I speak of words and not of Matter and has abundance of seeming Solaecisms Secondly the most elegant Heathen Writers tho they were at the same time very well skilled both in Grammar and Rhetorick do designedly sometimes violate the Rules of Grammar for variety sake lest their Stile should seem too studied and artificial which therefore may be look'd upon as so many Figures and a particular sort of elegancy But St. Paul naturally falls as it were into these kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because regarding things and neglecting words he thought it enough if he were understood by an attentive and diligent Reader who loved the Truths he declared So far is he from designedly diversifying his Discourse with that kind of Negligence that he does not seem to have aimed at so much as the common ornaments of Stile Let us hear about this matter Quintilian in Lib. 9. cap. 3. Esset saith he omne schema vitium si non peteretur sed accideret Virtus est si habet probabile aliquid quod
Lib. vi vers 102. Non ulla laborum O Virgo nova mî facies inopinave surgit Omnia praecepi atque animo mecum ante peregi Vers 5. Notes d and e. I. I easily assent to Dr. Hammond interpreting the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by talk or report for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has often that signification as H. Stephanus will shew I see also that Constantine produces out of Aristotle the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to be the Subject of mens Discourse hominum sermonibus celebrari So that if St. Paul's Words were to be rendred in French in agreement with that Latin Phrase they would be rightly translated thus nous n' avons jamais â—té en réputation de flatterie We were never reputed to flatter II. But I question whether he did not misunderstand the Words of Phavorinus from which he endeavours to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Accusation for wherever he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Accusation it might as well be rendred a Cause or Plea whether true or pretended For instance Phavorinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly a specious Oration pretended in accusation of any one but secondarily simply a Cause I am apt to think this must be understood of one that acts the part of an Advocate and brings an Excuse in defence of his Client against his Plantiff because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in good Authors often signifies an Excuse but never an Accusation And the Defendant or accused Party is excused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by a feigned Cause or Plea alledged to shew that he ought to have done as he did His Fault is coloured over with a handsom name Afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified any Cause This I am sure is agreeable to the perpetual use of Greek Authors Besides Phavorinus interprets the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excuso which ought not to be changed that being undoubtedly often the signification of that Verb. However our Author seems to have understood the Words of St. Paul rightly as to the Sense of the Phrase tho perhaps he did not perceive the full and critical importance of it it being more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in a pretence of Covetousness and so the just meaning of the Apostle will be that he never gave any man the least pretence or occasion to accuse him of Covetousness So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint on Deut. xxii 14 seem to be Discourses wherein a Man seeks a pretence or occasion to put away his Wife which agrees with the Vulgar Translation And in Dan. vi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to seek a pretence which the Conspirators might speciously use to destroy Daniel III. I have shewn on Rom. i. 29 that our Author is mistaken wherever he interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lust and in this place he commits the same Error St. Paul shews that he never gave any one the least ground to suspect him of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Covetousness in vers 6. and 9. Vers 6. Note f. To denominate Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 weighty or severe it is not necessary they should threaten Excommunication for there may be weighty i. e. severe Letters which have nothing in them about Excommunication Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no where signifies Excommunication or any thing like it and much less can the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be interpreted to excommunicatâ— according to the use of the Greek Tongue either in Profane or even in Sacred Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius and others well observe is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 9. It is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he that rigidly or severely exacts his right is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 burdensom but he that recedes from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Doctor had thought of these things he would not have look'd here for Church-censures without any example but it was his failing to be more inquisitive after them than he should be which made him think he had discovered them sometimes where they were not Vers 19. Note k. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Crown of which any man boasts not in which he rejoices for tho those things are often joined yet they are not to be made the same unless we would equal Dr. Hammond in impropriety of Speech CHAP. III. Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am apt to think there is a transposition in these Words and that they must be put into this order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praying that we might see your face as that which would overflow our heart with joy or would be a super-abundant cause of joy to me St. Paul was not satisfied to know that the Thessalonians stedfastly adhered to the Gospel tho the news of that was matter of very great joy to him but he desired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over and above to see them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies somewhat which if not superfluous is at least unnecessary and abounds and therefore cannot fitly be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayer which is always necessary And with the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies an overflowing or excess which by no means agrees with a necessary Duty That this is the force of that Particle appears by Eph. iii. 20 where St. Paul says that God is able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think So likewise in this Epistle to the Thessal c. v. 13 We beseech you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to love them with a superabundant love So that it is better to refer this word to that which St. Paul prayed for than to his Prayer it self See an instance of the like transposition in ver 7. of which there are a great many in St. Paul Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must not be understood of an assent of the Mind yielded to the Gospel which was as perfect in the Thessalonians at that time as it could be of which their constancy in suffering Persecution for Religion was a clear evidence but Knowledg which might be increased by further Instruction For St. Paul had not tarried long at Thessalonica nor had time enough to teach them perfectly all that concerned the Christian Religion So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Rom. xiv 23 where see my Note CHAP. IV. Vers 4. Note a. WHat our Author says here out of Barnabas and the Jews he took from Grotius except the interpretation he gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chos which never signified an Instrument but only a Cup Nor is there any such affinity as he contends between that word and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
understood that the Reader or Hearer may comprehend what we say without any pain and the second to omit nothing but what any one may easily supply Nobis say the Masters of that Faculty prima sit virtus perspicuitas rectus ordo non in longum dilata conclusio nihil neque desit neque superstuat Ita sermo doctis probabilis planus imperitis erit They are the words of Quintilian Instit Orat. Lib. viii Cap. 2. But the stile of the Jewish Midraschim is nothing less than Rhetorical and them the Writer of this Epistle follows and not without great reason because he spake to a Nation accustomed to such a stile This by the way which it may suffice to have said once tho we must carry it in our eye throughout this whole Epistle Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This inference manifestly shews that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another day spoken of in the foregoing Verse must be understood of a day wherein unless we obey the Voice of God we shall fall short of a Rest which he has promised and therefore that this must necessarily be supplied Otherwise there would be more as the Logicians speak in the Conclusion than in the Premises which it would be a crime to suppose of the Sacred Writer Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Author of this Epistle renders a reason why he called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a name taken from the Sabbath viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as the day in which God ceased to create or as Moses speaks rested from his Works was called the Sabbath so the time wherein we shall rest from all those Labours and Troubles we are forced to undergo in this Life may be called a Sabbatism What our Author here says in his Paraphrase of a rest from Persecutions and a liberty to worship God is violent Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is said here by Interpreters about the Word of God is harsh to which what the Author of this Epistle affirms concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be applied without violence Can any Man think this to be a tolerable way of speaking the Gospel is living and powerful and more piercing than any two edged Sword reaching even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit and of the Joints and Marrow and is a discerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart nor is there any Creature that is not manifest in his sight Yet I can hardly perswade my self the Discourse is about the Divine Reason which is so much spoken of by Philo. But I am apt to think this Phrase is taken from the Custom of the Jews of that Age who for God and any of the divine Attributes used to say the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Custom there are still frequent instances in Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament wherein many places we find the Word of God set for God not for the Messias as some think This conjecture is confirmed by vers 13. where all things are said to be naked and opened unto his Eyes which cannot be said of the Gospel but only of God See about this matter a Dissertation de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldaeos printed at Irenopolis Ann. M.DC.XLVI So that the meaning of the Sacred Writer is this that God who is displeased with Apostates cannot be deceived for God is living c. Vers 13. Note c. I do not indeed doubt but the Metaphor which the Author of this Epistle here uses is taken from the cutting of the Sacrifices But 1 st it is a mistake that this was the business of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who among the Jews searched only for outward blemishes such as we find mention'd in Levit. xx 22 seqq not for inward defects which were unknown to those who deliver'd the Sacrifice to the Priests 2 dly It is as untrue which our Author says that the Sacrifice after its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was laid upon the Altar to be searched into for the Altar of Sacrifices had a continual Fire kept in it nor was any thing laid upon it but only the pieces appointed by the Law CHAP. V. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to be thought with Dr. Hammond that the Apostolical Writer of this Epistle speaks here so as if no Sacrifices at all were admitted but for Sins that proceeded from mere Ignorance for there were also other Sins committed against Light and Knowledg that were expiated and are mentioned by Moses in Levit. Chap. vi 1 to the 7 th where see my Notes But the Sacred Writer speaks in this manner because the greatest part of those Sinners for which Sacrifices were offer'd up were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. Note b. I. Our Author tells us in the beginning of this Note that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fear coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timuit is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Exod. iii. 6 but it is the Root it self which is used in that place It is strange our learned Author should sometimes cite places of Scripture upon trust II. The words of Isaiah are in Chap. viii 12 13. not in vers 16. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies there that which fears to wit the People of the Jews who are there spoken of and not the terrible thing as will appear to any that look into the place I will not say that in the places of Deuteronomy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ill translated by the Septuagint because they erroneously derived it from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raah he saw which was to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jare he feared For those places in the Septuagint are nothing at all to the purpose and it is true that fear may be taken for the cause of Fear Vers 9. Note c. It is true what our Author here says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he might have said before on Chap. ii 10 where see my Note But I think he had better have omitted the Dream of Menander which has no agreement with the thing here spoken of but only in the likeness of some words Vers 14. Note d. Solid Food compared with Milk and fitter for grown Men than Babes in that figurative sense which it is here taken in may be understood two ways It may signify either something more excellent that is more useful than first Elements or simply Doctrins hard to be understood and such as cannot be digested but by skilful and judicious Persons In the first sense it cannot here probably be taken for tho all that is here said be useful yet the Doctrins proposed as Principles and Foundations in the beginning of Chap. vi are much more useful than the Allegories we find in Chap. vii seqq For
which are easily corrupted viz. to the comeliness of the Body whereof a part is the Hair which the Apostle had mention'd in the foregoing Verse and to Apparel which is a thing much more liable to corruption than Gold and which he likewise makes mention of It 's plain this Verse is oppos'd to all the foregoing Vers 7. Note c. I. If the alledged place of Scripture were said to signify any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should not doubt but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken for some secret Sense which the Jewish Allegorists sought for in the Scripture But it being said that Husbands ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dwell with them according to knowledge giving honour unto the Wife as the weaker Vessel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to manage the dispositions of Women skilfully and prudently II. The examples which our Author produces are nothing to the purpose for they do not contain any mystical interpretation of the places in Genesis but consectâ—ries deduced from the nature of Matrimony it self and the plain words of Moses The place in Ephes v. 31.32 I have interpreted contrary to Dr. Hammond and I shall not repeat what I have there said III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to dwell together or to live in the same House whence it was applied to all the Duties belonging to married Persons whether the Discourse be about Procreation or any other conjugal Office So that the place in Moses concerning multiplying is no more to the purpose than Plato's Fable about the Antient Hermaphrodites Other things here might be corrected which I pass by but shall afterwards touch upon Ibid. Note d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Duty of a Husband towards his Wife never signified to afford her Maintenance and tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes comprehends rewarding it does not signify that alone It may much more naturally and truly be interpreted to honour her as who being the weaker Vessel is extreamly offended even with the bare appearance of Neglect Ibid. Note e. There is no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Benefit but some of the places alledged by our Author might a little otherwise be explained as of John i. 14 I have shewed in a particular Dissertation inserted in this Volume In this place also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vivifying Grace or the Gospel of which the Wife is said to have been made partaker no less than the Man as Grotius has observed But I had rather read with the Vulgar Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for here the Apostle extols not the Man but the Woman which in this respect is made equal to the Man This the series of the Discourse seems to require Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is know that God is Holy or a lover of Sanctity For this is often the signification of the Hebrew Conjugation Hiphil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hikdisch which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Gen. ii 3 This sanctifying God in the Heart is the cause of our Sanctification before Men spoken of in the following Verse whereby we openly shew how Holy we esteem God See Levit. x. 3 and Num. xx 12 and my Notes on those places Vers 19. Note f. I. On this place our learned Author has collected a great many things all which I have neither leisure to examin nor is it worth my while especially having interpreted the place here explained in my Commentary on Genesis And therefore in a few words I shall say that the Apostle does not seem here to have a respect to the place in Genesis cited by our Author It is truly indeed rendred my Spirit shall not abide in man and the thing is to be understood of the Soul of Man as I have shewn on Genesis But the Souls of those that lived before the Flood cannot therefore be called Spirits in prison nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadin in Hiphil be by any means deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neden which signifies a sheath It should be read jindon to be deduced from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond does not seem to have observed II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Christ was raised is truly understood of the Divinity which was afterwards in him and was with God before Abraham was and so in the beginning of all things as St. John teaches us in the beginning of his Gospel But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Spirits keeping guard that is Angels who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep men as we are told in Psal xci 11 The same are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hirim watchers in Dan. iv 13 which may properly be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for watchers and keepers are all one So that the Divinity is said to have called the Men that lived before the Flood to Repentance together with the Angels who admonished Noah to exhort them to a better Life I should render this place thus and being quickned by the Spirit by which he went with the Spirits that watch and preached to the unbelieving c. When God is about to do any thing among men he is represented as coming down from Heaven attended with a guard of Angels of which I have spoken on Gen. i. 27 and xi 7 and Exod. xx 1 For this reason coming down with the Angels to admonish Noah and command him to call men to repentance he is said to have gone with the Spirits that watch and besides to have done that which Noah did in his name and by his command The Example out of St. Paul in Eph. ii 17 clearly shews that St. Peter might speak in this manner Vers 20. Note g. I. All that is here said by our Author are vain Conjectures which have no foundation either in things themselves or in the use of Scripture tho he often repeats them and that as very probable 1 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to believe not to obey which is a heinous sin where the thing to be believed or done is of great importance and a small one where it is a matter of little moment Here it signifies a great sin because the men of the old world would not obey God calling them by the Ministry of Noah to a better life 2 Tho we can say nothing particularly of the sins of the men who lived before the Flood yet we may deny that it can be gather'd from the words of Moses that they were corrupted with the sin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sodomy and other such like Tho they are joined with the Sodomites for their wickedness and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not therefore follow that they were both guilty of the same kind of Impieties different sorts of wicked men being often joined together and the same punishments suffered for divers crimes 3 The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉