admonished by the whole Congregation But it may be he was not the Bishop of Colosse but an Evangelist who did not execute his Office so diligently as he ought and lying idle among the Colossians or somewhere in the Neighbourhood was to be admonished by them Which seems the more probable because this Archippus in the Epistle to Philemon ver 2. is called the fellow Souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Paul On which place see Grotius Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius who is followed therein by our Author thinks there is a Hebraism in these words for see that thou fulfil in the Lord the Ministry which thou hast received so that the phrase in the Lord should signify according to the Precepts of the Lord. But tho I do not deny but this may be the meaning of St. Paul's words they are capable of two other senses first Consider throughly the Office which thou hast received in the Lord in order to a complete discharge of it or else secondly Consider in the Lord that is as in the sight of the Lord or according to the Precepts of the Lord c. So the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken as in 2 John 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See your selves that we lose not those things which we have wrought but that we receive a full Reward that is throughly consider or examin your selves c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and according to the various significations of the Preposition ב which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and used in a manifold sense signify diverse things I confess I do not know which of these senses is the best Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bare remembring of St. Paul's Bonds being in it self no part of Piety it is consequent the design of the Apostle in these words must be to admonish the Colossians to behave themselves both towards God and towards him as became those that were mindful of his Bonds that is who very well knew that he was cast into those Bonds only for the sake of the Gospel or to be constant in the profession of the Christian Religion as he was and love him and pray to God in his behalf that he might be set at liberty ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Praemon I. Dr. Pearson and other the most exact Chronologers suppose this Epistle was written in the year of Christ lii or the xii th of Claudius II. I have already several times observed that the Jews were neither so formidable as our Author thought nor the Christians so perfectly set free from persecution by their destruction throughout all the parts of the Roman Empire so as that those who dwelt in Greece found the Heathens more favourable to them after the overthrow of Jerusalem and the excision of the Jews III. I do not easily believe what Eusebius says about the journey of Simon Magus to Rome nor St. Peter's contest with him which seems to be all taken ex Clementinis and out of Justin the former being a feigned History and Justin having run into a mistake through his ignorance in the Latin Tongue as learned Men have long ago observed I wonder our Author in this discerning Age in Quo pueri nasum Rhinocerotis habent should build his Interpretation upon such rotten and nauseous Fables But he produces you will say the Testimonies of Eusebius and St. Jerom and Orosius But this is but one Witness all this while because the two latter only transcribed Eusebius and the single Authority of Eusebius is not much to be regarded because he often affirms things without considering whether they are true or false and some that are manifestly feigned It 's true Justin makes mention of the Statue of Simon in his Apology commonly called the Second but he says nothing at all about St. Peter's Conflict or Victory over him which he would never have omitted if that had been the general opinion of those times because it might be made very great use of against the Heathens whom he upbraids with deifying Simon Irenaeus also mentions the Statue in Lib. 1. c. 20. but says nothing about the contest That was but an invention of the false Clement which other rashly received for truth There being very few if any Historical Records in the first Age excepting the Acts of the Apostles Men that had nothing else to do misemployed their wits in devising Fables which the injudiciousness of Posterity has almost made it a Crime to question the truth of But I am sorry to find Dr. Hammond should so easily give Credit to these Trifles CHAP. I. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are a few things which it may not be amiss to remark upon this Chapter tho Dr. Hammond has passed it over without any Annotations contenting himself to express what he thought to be the meaning of it in his Paraphrase Grotius explaining these words tells us that the Apostle non nominat hic Presbyteros Diaconos quia recens erat Ecclesia nec dum formam plenam acceperat does not name here Presbyters and Deacons because the Church of Thessalonica had been but lately gathered and not yet formed into a regular Church But if this reason be good none of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote except that of Philippi were regularly formed Churches because there is no mention made of Church-Governors Bishops and Deacons in the inscriptions of any of the Epistles but to the Philippians But who will believe that the Ephesian and Corinthian Churches in which St. Paul had for a great while resided were not yet so constituted as to have Rectors in them and yet that the Church of Philippi in which he made a shorter stay had Of the Church of Ephesus the contrary appears from Acts xx 17 28. and of the Corinthian by the Epistles themselves written to that Church So that there must be another reason given for St. Paul's not making mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Inscriptions of all his Epistles And that which seems to me the most probable is that the Governors of the Primitive Churches were modest humble Men who were unwilling to have themselves distinguished from the rest of the People in the front of St. Paul's Epistles that they might not appear to pretend to any magisterial Authority but to look upon themselves only as Ministers instituted for the sake of Order and Christian Society There are a great many signs of this especially in the Epistles to the Corinthians in which the Governors of the Churches of Achaia are no where order'd to use any Authority in the Administration of their Office or in curbing evil Men who broke the Order of the Church St. Paul every where speaks to whole Churches never to the Governors of them apart from the People However I would not be thought
have in many places forborn to confute Dr. Hammond's interpretations because I did not think it worth my while to shew that others were unfortunate in their Conjectures when I my self could produce nothing more certain But here I thought fit to say something about the Conjecture of Dr. Hammond concerning two sorts of Bishops in the Apostles time in single Cities because that may make for the illustration of Ecclesiastical History II. It appears indeed by Acts xv and other places that there was some disagreement between the Jewish and Gentile Christians and that these latter had a Letter sent them which is there set down But that there were two distinct Churches and two sorts of Bishops can be gather'd from no sign Nor is it at all probable that after this Apostolical Decree the Jewish Christians refused to unite with the Gentiles especially Jerusalem being destroyed and St. Paul having written so many Epistles about the unprofitableness of the Mosaical Rites There are no credible Records by which it may appear that Evodius and Ignatius were together Bishops of the Antiochian Churches In the Apostolical Constitutions Lib. vii c. 46. it is said indeed that Evodius was ordained by St. Peter not by St. John as it is said by the Doctor and Ignatius by St. Paul But not to say that we cannot easily believe that Writer as being a notorious Impostor he does not say that they were made Bishops at the same time and of several Congregations as is well observed on that place by J. Bapt. Cotelerius who has also other things worth reading about this matter III. What is said here about St. John's ruling the Jewish Churches in Asia while St. Paul and after him Timothy ruled the Gentiles is a mere invention of our Author There is no footstep of a twofold Episcopacy in those places and that Timothy was first Bishop of Ephesus is also very uncertain because he might be left these by St. Paul as an Evangelist not as a Bishop for the late Catalogues are not worthy our regard which reckon up the Bishops of antient times according to the opinion of the Age in which they were written and not according to any certain knowledg They tell us indeed that the Apostles themselves were Bishops which is absurd tho Dr. Hammond also speaks in the same manner But granting him that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus still there are two things that remain doubtful One is that John was at Ephesus or somewhere near it when Timothy was left there by St. Paul And secondly that both of them performed the Office of Bishop in different Congregations and that St. John did not come thither after Timothy's Ordination and exercise only the Office of an Apostle not of a Bishop It 's plain the Writer of the Apostolical Constitutions whose Authority the Doctor elsewhere makes use of says that Timothy was constituted Bishop of that City by St. Paul and John by St. John IV. What is said here of the Church of Rome was I believe invented by Dr. Hammond to reconcile the Antients that disagreed among themselves about the first Bishop of Rome after the Apostles but he never found in any credible History that two Apostles were Bishops of the Roman Church and had each their Deacon whom they left in their place The Apostles could not be Bishops of any particular Church and they are mere Dreams which are related concerning the Deaconship of Linus and Clemens Whoever desires to be informed about those beginnings of the Church of Rome may consult Dr. Pearson and Mr. Dodwel's Dissert about the first Bishops of that City I wonder our Author who had such sharp adversaries to deal with ventured to propose such things without proof The conjunction of two Churches at Rome under Clemens is also another Fiction of which there is nothing at all said by any of the Antients The Author of the Apostol Constit affirms that Linus was ordained by St. Paul and Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the death of Linus On which place see Cotelerius V. That after the restoring of Jerusalem by Adrian or a little before there were two Bishops of Jerusalem none of the Antients ever said Eusebius in Hist Eccles lib. 4. c. 5. where he sets down the succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem tells us that the time during which they were Bishops was unknown but that fifteen sat till the Siege of Adrian which were all Jews by descent Then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all the Church under them was made up of believing Jews who had continued from the Apostles to the Siege which then happen'd By this it appears that there were not two Congregations at that time in Jerusalem nor indeed does Eusebius mention those fifteen Bishops as if some of them had been Bishops together but all one after another That there were many Bishops within a short compass of time may as well be attributed either to their being of a great age when they were elected or the sudden death wherewith some of them were overtaken as to a multiplicity of Bishops in one City The same Historian in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Calamities which befel the Jews under Adrian and related how Jerusalem was restored and called Aelia in honour of Aelius Adrian subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church of the same place being composed of Gentiles Marcus first after the Bishops of the Circumcision undertook the Priesthood over them that were there He does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church being composed of Jews and Gentiles as he ought to have said according to Dr. Hammond's Opinion VI. Diversity of languages could be no reason for the Jewish and Gentile Christians keeping up distinct assemblies because the Jews of old as also now understood the languages of the places in which they lived or at least the Greek which obtained in all Asia as well as in Greece and for that reason there were so many Greek Translations made of the Old Testament for the sake of the Jews that of the Septuagint Aquila Symmachus c. And whatever were the Customs of the Jews there are extant no Records whereby it appears that after the Apostles times they refused to meet in the same Assemblies with the Gentiles nor can any such thing be gather'd from the writings of the Apostles as that they were forced in every particular Town or City to constitute two Bishops and two Churches For all Differences are not open Schisms So that there is no reason why we should assent to Dr. Hammond obtruding upon us a raw Conjecture almost for a certain Truth It would be easy to find any thing in antient History if we might be allowed to reason after the same rate and interpret the Antients by supplying what is wanting in them with Conjecture as if they said in so many words what we infer only by guessing from doubtful signs CHAP. XII Vers 6. Note c. OUR Author
according to the use of that phrase in Scripture in which it occurs more than once And we are not here to consider what the word Gates signifies when it is alone or joined with any other word but what is the meaning of this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the signification of that word may be various according as the place is in which it is found Now no body will deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and portae mortis the gates of death are the same and this phrase the gates of death signifies nothing but death it self So Job xxxviii 17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death So Psal ix 13 Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death i. e. deliverest me from death So Isai xxxviii 10 Hezekiah being in fear of an untimely death says In the cutting off of my days I shall go to the gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as it is rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall go to the gates of death So that the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies death it self But what does Christ then mean when he says that the gates of hell should not prevail against Peter or not overcome him namely this that the danger of a certain and speedy death upon the account of his preaching the Gospel should not deter him from discharging the office imposed on him and so not death it self So that Jesus in these words promises Peter after he had professed his belief that he was the Messiah that he should be a foundation of his Church and constant in the profession of the Truth he had declared which he fulfilled accordingly for Peter as we are told by Clemens Ep. c. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not only undergo one or two but many sorrows and so becoming a Martyr went to his proper place in glory We may apply to him that passage of Seneca as we find it in Lactantius Lib. vi c. 17. Hic est ille homo honestus non apice purpuráve non lictorum insignis ministerio sed nulla re minor qui cum MORTEM in VICINIA videt non sic perturbatur tanquam rem novam viderit qui sive toto corpore tormenta patienda sunt sive flamma ore recipienda est sive extendendae per patibulum manus non quaerit quid patiatur sed quam bene This is that brave and honorable person who is not remarkable for his fine hat of feathers his purple robe or his guard of Lictors which is the least part of his glory but who when he sees death just before him is not surprized with the strangeness of the sight and whether he is to undergo the torment of the rack or to receive fire into his mouth or have his arms stretched out upon a cross does not regard what but how well he suffers There is one thing that may perhaps here be objected viz. that according to this interpretation Christ does not keep to the Metaphor for after he had called Peter a stone he adds that death should not overcome him It is true but it was neither necessary that Christ should go on in the same Metaphor nor yet supposing that what we refer to Peter did as it is commonly thought belong to the Church will he be found to continue the same Metaphor For he compares the Church to a building which cannot properly be said to be overcome by the gates of death but only to be pulled down or destroyed Nothing is more ordinary in all sort of Writers than to begin with one Metaphor and end with another As for instance Clemens says a little before the words already alledged concerning St. Peter and St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faithful and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted even to death Pillars can neither be persecuted nor dy However by this it appears that St. Matthew or his interpreter very fitly uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to overcome by force for this is what Christ means that the terror of having a violent Death set before him should not overcome St. Peters constancy tho he saw the gates of death opened for him yet he should notwithstanding hold fast his pious resolution If any doubt of the signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them turn to the Greek Indexes to the first 5 books of Diodorus Siculus and the Roman Antiq. of Dion Halicarnassaeus collected by Rhodomannus and Sylburgius where they will meet with more examples than in any Lexicons But it occurs likewise in the same sense often in the version of the Septuagint I know very well that Interpreters commonly make use of these words to prove the perpetuity if not also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impeccability of the Church but they will never be able to evince any such thing from this place by Grammatical reasons The thing it self shews that the Church is liable to error nor is there any mention made in this place of errors That the Church has and always will continue I do not in the least doubt because of the nature and force of the Evangelical Covenant but this cannot be concluded from these words in which it is much more probable that St. Peter is spoken of both what goes before and what comes after belonging to him and not to the Church However I submit the whole matter to the judgment of the Learned Vers 19. Note h. I. It is certain I confess that there was a great difference between that Person 's power who is said to have had the key of the house of David in Isaiah and his who is represented in the Revelation as carrying the key of David but it would be hard to prove this from the sound of the phrases if it were not otherwise plain and manifest for the key of David is the key by which the house of David was open'd and shut and therefore the same with the key of the house of David Tho a key be an ensign of power the key of David does not signify the power of David himself but a power over the Kingdom of David Our learned Author is not always happy in his subtilties about little things However Mr. Selden has several Observations with relation to this matter lib. 1. de Synedriis cap. ix which those that will may read in himself II. Indeed for my own part I do not doubt but that the Apostles committed the Government of the Churches to single Bishops and accordingly that these ought to be reckon'd their Successors but as their Gifts were not alike so neither was their Authority equal And therefore whatever Christ says to the Apostles ought not presently to be accommodated to Bishops at least by the same Rule and in the same Latitude Especially in this place where Christ promises to St. Peter and the Apostles something extraordinary
where he mentions these three degrees Exhortationes Castigationes Censura Exhortations and Chastisements and then Censure But if he hear not them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be still refractory either through non-conviction of the Fact or non-contrition for it if this second Admonition be not in event 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. xiii 10 to Edification or Instruction if it work not on him Then tell it to the Church I shall tell you what that is presently And if he hear not the Church continue his Refractoriness still let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican which may possibly signify that in that case thou hast liberty to implead him as thou wouldst do any Heathen in any foreign Heathen Court for that Injury that Trespass done to thee which was at the first mentioned For certainly though it were unlawful for a Christian both here and 1 Cor. vi 1 to implead a Christian for a personal Trespass before a Heathen Tribunal yet to deal thus with a Heathen or Publican which was in account the same was not either by Christ or the Apostle counted unlawful but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Christian with Christian v. 6. and consequently with a perverse refractory Brother whom you see Christ gives leave to account and deal with as with a Heathen or Publican it would not be unlawful also But another Interpretation I shall not doubt to propose and prefer that by Heathen and Publican may be meant a desperate deplored Sinner such as the Rabbins call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sinner as in the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deplored Sinner Thus in Musar If he will not then i. e. when two or three Friends have been taken to be present at his Admonition be reconciled go and leave him to himself for such an one is implacable and is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom again 't is there said Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecerit i. e. adhibitis amicis if this second Admonition do no good debet eum pudefacere coram multis he must be ashamed before many which may be the meaning of Dic Ecclesiae tell it to the Church as will anon appear by 1 Tim. v. 20 And this interpretation of that Phrase will seem most probable if you mark 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Publicans and Sinners are frequently joyned together in the Gospel as once Publicans and Harlots those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinner-women 2. That the Heathen are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinners as when 't is said that Christ was by the Jews delivered into the hands of Sinners i. e. Romans Heathen and in St. Paul not Sinners of the Gentiles and then those words let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican will sound no more but give him over as a desperate deplored Sinner to whom those Privileges of a Christian viz. of not being impleaded before an Heathen Tribunal c. do not belong i. e. leave him to himself This sure is the simplest rendring of the place and then he that is such that is capable of that Denomination is certainly sit and ripe for the Censures of the Church which follow in the next Verse and are appointed to go out against this refractory incorrigible For so immediately it follows Verily I say unto you who are those you Why 1. In the plural Number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you Disciples the same that were after made Apostles for so in the first verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Disciples came to him with a question and v. 3. he said verily I say to you i. e. to you Disciples and ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do you think asking the Disciples or appealing to their own judgment and so still the same Auditors continued and his Speech addrest to them I say unto you Disciples whatsoever you shall bind on earth c. After this it follows ver 19. again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth c. Many false illations are by men of different perswasions made from these words which will all vanish I conceive and the truth be disinvolv'd if the Reader will not despise this one observation which I shall offer to him and it is this that the method oft-times used in Scripture is when it hath proposed one or two severals to speak of to resume the last first and so orderly to go back till it come to the first to which you may accommodate that expression and description of God's method in other things Many that are last are first the last in proposing first in handling or resuming and the first last Other Examples of this Observation I shall leave the Reader to observe when he reads the Scripture more ponderingly and only proceed to help him to take notice of it in the point in hand Three cases it is apparent are here mention'd orderly by our Saviour in the matter of trespass 1. Telling the Trespasser of his fault between him and thee alone 2. Taking one or two with thee to do it more convincingly and with greater Authority 3. Telling the Church of it Having said somewhat to each of these as he delivered them in the three first Verses 15 16 17. he resumes the matter again and speaks first to the last of them ver 18. telling them what after the not succeeding of the third admonition the Apostles and their Successors are to do when the cognizance of this injury and contumacy comes before them which that in every case of trespass it always should I conceive doth not hence appear to be necessary save only in case that the Magistrate or secular Tribunal be Heathen because that Supposition may perhaps be the ground of the sit tibi Ethnicus on which this other is superstructed viz. excommunicate such a Refractory till reformation and then upon that absolve him again and verily I say unto you whatsoever you shall bind on earth c. From this view it is not irrational to conclude that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church and the Disciples considered prophetically under the notion of Apostles i. e. Founders first then Governours of Churches may in that place signify the same thing So saith St. Chrysostom in Mat. Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell it to the Church i. e. to the President and Rulers of it and Theoph. in Matt. xviii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Church for the Rulers of the Church To which purpose it is observable what Kimchi a Jewish learned Rabbi hath affirmed that the Governours and Rulers are oft meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Congregation and so the word People Exod. iv 29 doth clearly signify the Elders not all the People Exod. iii. 16 Agreeable to which is the
Inscription of the antient Apostolical Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God that dwells at Rome meaning I conceive by the Title the Church himself who wrote the Epistle and was chief there or Bishop at that time and the other Clergy with him for so the other part of the Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God at Corinth is after explained by him in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishops and Deacons But if this will not be acknowledged then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall give you leave to understand any meeting or Congregation of pious men either a consessus Presbyterorum a College of Presbyters which were ordinarily assistant to the Bishop in the antient Church or possibly the whole or any part of the People convened whose Authority or consent may work somewhat upon the Offender as S. Paul conceives it were apt to do when he commands Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rebuke the offenders before all men i. e. in the presence of the community of the People 1 Tim. v. 20 and perhaps when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6 the rebuke that was by or under the many though it be not certain whether that signify the chastisement as our English reads punishment and censure inflicted by the Presbytery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under them those assisting or joining in the censure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts of Canonical severity which in case of sorrow and relenting of the Offender upon rebuke or admonition before ejection out of the Church were wont to be thought sufficient without excommunication and after excommunication as in this place to the Corinthians if they were submitted to were sufficient tho not presently to restore him to the Communion yet to make him capable of being prayed for by the Church 1 John v. 16 and to be delivered from the stripes of Satan the diseases that the delivering to Satan in the Apostles times brought upon them or whether as the words may be render'd it import the rebuke or reproof viz. the third admonition or the second given by the Bishop which was equivalent to that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under or in the presence of many viz. of the People or Congregation The former of these senses seems more agreeable to the place to the Corinthians the latter rather to belong to that in 1 Tim. and so that which even now in Musar was coram multis before many and in St. Paul if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under many yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the presence of all men Christ may here express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church This Interpretation being admitted or not rejected it then follows commodiously and reasonably in the Text of the Evangelist that after the matter is brought to them i. e. to those many or after this act of reproof or rebuke before them and upon continued refractoriness to these last admonitions then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sure is the Apostles or Governors of the Church the Pastors which cannot be in any reason excluded from under the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church whatsoever it signifies and those already promised this power chap. xvi may or shall bind or excommunicate them And that is the sum of the 18 th verse in reference to the 17 th And then vers 19 c. Thus Dr. Hammond who adds some things like what we have had already upon Chap. vii 6 If any be desirous of more they may turn to the Treatise it self viz. Power of the Keys Chap. ii Sect. 6. seqq We should compare these things with what Grotius says upon this place of S. Matthew which is a great deal more plain and natural The Doctor takes for granted what he ought to have proved that Christ speaks to his Apostles as the Governours of the Church Vers 23. Note c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eastern People used but one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hebed to signify both ministros liberae sortis Servants who were at their own disposal and Mancipia Slaves as I have observed in my Notes upon Gen. xx 8 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Interpreters and Writers of the New Testament has also the same ambiguity in it But when we speak Latin there is no reason why we should not use various words according to the nature of the subject spoken of Thus those whom S. Matthew here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be render'd by Ministri Servants because Slaves or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are never sold by their Master that he may have what is owing him paid Vers 28. Note d. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here in its proper signification for when we take any man by the Collar and hale him along against his will we almost choak him The Latin Phrase for it is obtorto collo trahere which Erasmus here makes use of So Plautus in Paenulo Act. iii. Sc. 5. ver 45. Priusquà m hinc obtorto collo ad praetorem trahor Which is well interpreted by learned men to take hold of a man's collar and squeeze his jaws together and then drag him along So a Philosopher is represented by Lucian in Hermotimo demanding his pay of one of his Scholars and haling him before the Justice or Praetor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having thrown his cloak about his neck And in the same Author in Lapithis this Stoick Philosopher is reproached with this very thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do I take my Scholars by the throat and drag them before the Justice if they do not pay me my stipend when it is due See also the Dial. between Aeacus Protesilaus Menelaus and Paris Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every body must perceive that these words cannot be urged to signify that the Justice of God will in its Retributions take notice of every single circumstance in the sins of men We must consider only the main scope of Christ which is no more than that those who do not forgive their Brethren their Offences shall not obtain forgiveness from God for theirs This is all therefore that can be concluded from this place not as the Doctor and Grotius before him says that Sins which are once pardoned in this life may be again charged upon a man If we consider the thing in it self 't is then only that God passes Judgment upon men when after the course of their life is ended they are sent into the place of Rewards or Punishments So that that is the time when persons are pardoned or condemned and there is no need of any previous Sentence CHAP. XIX Vers 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you will say then that to ones thinking God should have changed it True if it were the ordinary way of God to change the dispositions of
however not agreeing in their Opinions about the day nor so much as the year in which Christ was born one might be ready perhaps to question the Authority of Justin and Tertullian who tell us that the Tables on which this enrolling here spoken of was made were extant in their time For from those Records this whole matter might easily have been known and it would have been an inexcusable neglect in the Christians of that age who could have looked into those publick Registers and transmitted to Posterity what they had there read and yet would not do it But I am afraid that Tertullian and others spake only by guess because it was not certainly known that those Records were lost But this is not a place to treat of this matter Vers 14. Note e. The Alexandrian and Cambridg Copies which are both venerable for their antiquity and the Latin and Gothick Interpreters have that reading which the Doctor here expounds And therefore it is not true as Grotius says that all the Copies consent in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho the greatest part read it so Vers 35. Note f. It is easy to conjecture what was the occasion of that grief that like a sword pierced through the heart of this holy Woman For how could she see without extreme sorrow and trouble almost all the Jews persecuting her Son and that with such implacable fury as to nail him at last to a Cross As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is either Mary her self according to the genius of the Hebrew or if you please her heart which might metaphorically be said to be struck through when she beheld her Son crucified So in Statius Lib. x. Thebaid a Father hearing his Sons life demanded received the sentence Non secus ac torta trajectus cuspide pectus exanimis There was no need of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be the sensitive Soul to give light to an easy phrase used also in other Languages CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor interprets this in his paraphrase thus Governour of that fourth division of the kingdom called Galilee by which words there is no body but would think that Herod was here equal'd with Pilate and was a President sent by Tiberius But the difference between a Governour or President and a Tetrarch he explains in part in his Annotations He should have added that this Herodes Antipas was in possession of this Tetrarchship in pursuance of Herod the Great 's will and did not send the revenue of that territory to Rome as the Roman Presidents did but converted it to his own use He depended indeed upon Caesar against whose will he could not have took possession of his inheritance and who could take it away from him when ever he pleased and at last did so But he was not however the Emperors tributary but his friend and wanted nothing but the title of one to make him a King And upon this account Josephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. 17. Cap. 10. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I make this remark because our Author seems in another place by an intolerable impropriety of speech to give Herod the title of a Roman Governour as if he had not ruled his Principality in his own name but in the Emperors See Note on Matt. xxii 16 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The force of this word is not sufficiently expressed by the Doctor in his Paraphrase St. Luke's words are to be rendred thus And Jesus himself when he began to execute his office or to preach the Gospel was about thirty years old and as was supposed was the Son of Joseph c. In the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a form of passing over to the next words and they who interpret it otherwise make a difficulty where there is none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said in Greek for he began which yet is commonly here supposed tho without producing any such Example I should paraphrase therefore this Passage thus When Jesus first began to preach the Gospel which he did a little after he had been baptized by John he was about thirty years old and was of the Stock of David his Mother being of the same Family and Joseph her Husband who was the Son of c. CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what has been said by Grotius to confirm the truth of this reading it may be farther observed that it is read so in Beza's Cambridg Copy and three others which he mentions besides that which the Authors of the Coptick and Gothick Versions made use of Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting in the Alexandrian and Beza's antient Copy It is not expressed in the 3 d Verse nor in Matth. iv 6 And therefore Beza who uses to render that Article by a demonstrative Pronoun has here omitted it and told us in his Notes that he suspected it It was possible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joseph that Jesus was conceived without the assistance of a Man and by the power of the Holy Ghost and that for that reason the Angel who had foretold his Birth had said that he should be called the Son of God but it was possible also that he might question whether that was true or no and so be willing to tempt our Saviour himself that he might be more fully satisfied about it And accordingly the Temptation may be thus expressed If thou art the Son of God and not of a Man as thy Mother says cast thy self down from hence for since thou may'st put thy trust in God thy Father there is nothing that thou needest to fear because it is written in Psal xci concerning those that trust in God that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them CHAP. V. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke here follows S. Mark but St. Matthew Chap. ix 9 mentions his own name It is supposed by most and by our Author here among the rest that Levi was but another name for S. Matthew but this is confuted by Grotius by divers considerable Arguments in his Notes on Matt. ix which I wonder that Dr. Hammond should take no notice of but follow the common Opinion St. Matthew and Levi were perhaps Companions in the same Custom or Tollhouse and dwelt together And Christ seems to have called them both and to have been entertained at a Feast by them both at their own house But Levi was not chosen to be one of the twelve Apostles And yet why St. Mark and Luke pass by Matthew and make mention of Levi I confess I can give no reason CHAP. VI. Vers 13. Note c. I. THat Christ was commissioned and authorized by God to found and govern the Church
Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood The meaning of the Apostles is that God had before decreed not to hinder by his Wisdom and Power what he foresaw would be done by them unless his Wisdom and Power interposed to hinder it Affirmatives as they call them must be often expounded by Negatives And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is all one as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to hinder its being done See Gen. xii 13 and my Notes on that place as also on Chap. v. 3 of this History And whereas the Apostles say not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is only the Counsel of God to speak properly that determins and his Hand that is his Power which executes what he has decreed the reason of that is because they would have it understood that God did not want Power to have hinder'd this if he had pleased but only he did not make use of it which confirms the Negative Sense I have given of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be done Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimonies of Philosophers who thought all things ought to be common and Examples likewise of some Nations which have reduced that into practice have been collected by Lucas Holstenius on the Life of Pythagoras p. 82. Amongst the rest he sets down these Verses of Scymnus an antient Geographer of Chios concerning the Nomades in Scythia who dwelt beyond Panticape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They live in common upon what they all possess every one receiving as much as he has need of from the publick Stock And the wise Anacharsis they say came of this very pious Nation of the Nomades CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot see any reason to suppose as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase that Ananias and Saphira did this in pursuance of a Vow they had made to do it i. e. to sell their Estate It is not necessary to add any thing to St. Luke's History Ananias and Saphira hoped that giving part of the Price to the Apostles they should enjoy the rest themselves and at the same time have a maintenance allowed them out of the common Stock of the Church In which they were guilty of a double Sin First That tho they had no need of it yet they would have the Church maintain them and so rob those that were really indigent And secondly That to that end they told a Lie by saying that they had brought the whole Price for which they had sold their Estate That this is the true state of the Case the bare reading of St. Luke's words will shew in which there is nothing that implies these two Persons to have been guilty of breaking any Vow Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Context shews that in this place we must supply in our thoughts this Circumstance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and said that it was the whole Price of the Possession See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia Otherwise St. Peter could not have been angry with Ananias or upbraided him with lying Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words must be interpreted by a Negation for St. Peter's meaning is no more than this Why didst not thou hinder Satan from filling thy mind i. e. Thou oughtest to have hinder'd Satan from having so great a power over thee as to perswade thee to tell a Lie viz. by begging God's Grace to enable thee to resist and overcome that Temptation Of this way of interpreting an Affirmation by the help of a Negation see my Note on Chap. iv 28 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here includes not only the Devil 's tempting Ananias but the noxious effect or prevalency of his Temptation for when the Devil tempts a Man he does but as it were knock at the Door without entring in but when his Temptation prevails being admitted he fills his Mind and casts all thoughts of Virtue out of it St. Jerom not sufficiently understanding the force of this Interrogation or of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated it by cur tentavit Why hath he tempted Beza indeed supposes the reason of his rendering it so to have been that he read the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. tentavit tempted But there are two things which make it probable that he endeavour'd rather to express the sense of the place or if he thought that it ought to be so read that he relied only upon his own Conjecture and not on any Copies First All the Copies out of which any various readings have been taken that ever I could meet with read it as we do Secondly It is certain that the old Translation before St. Jerom's time had implevit filled for so this place is alledged by S. Cyprian Testim Lib. 3. Sect. 30. Ibid. Note b. The sense which our Author prefers before the rest relies only on this supposition which has been liked also by many others that Ananias and Sapphira made a Vow of which there is not the least word said by St. Luke It will be much more natural to interpret the words so as to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify to lie to the Holy Ghost speaking by the Apostles or by lying to deceive him Consult H. Grotius If it be demanded why Ananias and Sapphira suffered so severe a Punishment for telling a Lie the Answer is ready There were three very important Reasons why that Severity should be used First Those that acted in that manner can hardly be supposed to have thought the Apostles to be Prophets who could know Secrets by Revelation from God which Opinion if it had spread would mightily have lessened the Apostles Authority and consequently very much hindered the propagation of the Gospel If any should doubt whether it were generally thought that Prophets could discern Secrets he need only read Luke vii 29 Secondly It was for the interest of the Christian Religion that above all Crimes dissembling should be most severely punished none being more pernicious or of more fatal Consequence according to those words of Cicero de Offic. Lib. 1. c. 3. Totius injustitiae nulla capitalior est quam eorum qui cum maxime fallunt id agunt ut viri boni esse videantur Of all Crimes there is none more heinous and capital than theirs who whilst they deceive most endeavour to appear honest Men. Thirdly It was also of very great concernment that those who first joined themselves to the Apostles should not be hypocritical Persons that made a shew of Piety when they had none because the Sins of such Persons would have discredited the Christian Religion it self among those to whom it had not been yet preached Especially if it had been commonly reported that Men that were slothful or covetous had joined themselves to the Christians
because all that brought a little Mony to the Apostles pretending it to be their whole Estate were maintained at the publick Charge as this would have been a great Reproach to Christianity so it would have induced a great many lewd People to feign themselves Christians that they might abuse the Churches Liberality as it frequently I believe happened in succeeding Ages when the Possessions of the Christians were enlarged Of which we have a famous Example in one Peregrinus mentioned by Lucian Vers 4. Note c. There is no difficulty at all in this place if we do but lay aside the thoughts of a Vow about which St. Luke is perfectly silent The sense will be very natural and commodious if we understand the Apostle thus Who compelled thee to sell thy Estate Would it not have continued thy own if thou hadst not sold it But thou wert resolved to sell it And couldst thou not have kept all the money which thou hadst for it after it was sold Who required any part of it from thee Thou mightest have kept it all to thy self and no body would have complained but thou oughtest not to come with a lie to those that are Prophets and inspired by the Holy Ghost and feign thy self to have brought the whole Sum that thou mightest be maintained by the publick Liberality as if thou hadst left thy self nothing at all and made thy self as indigent as the poorest The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies an immoveable Estate that is nothing but our learned Author 's own invention Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify those that believed and heartily embraced the Gospel but rather Hypocrites or Dissemblers who would in vast numbers have joined themselves to the Church if the Apostles could have been imposed on This Grotius perceived whom our Author ought to have followed in this as he ordinarily does in other things The Apostles were not solicitous how many professed the Christian Faith but how good and sincere they were in that profession lest by the evil practices of its Professors the Christian Religion when it was but in its rise should be dishonoured which would have been a thing of very bad consequence as I have already observed Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Captain of the Garison of Levites as I have shewn on Luke xxii 52 And hence vers 26. St. Luke calls those that he had under his command not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers or Officers viz. of the Levitical Tribe who according to the direction of the Law obeyed the Priests that had the oversight of the Temple Vers 33. Note f. If our learned Author had look'd a little further into Hesychius he would have understood what was the proper signification of this word For thus that learned Grammarian interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were angry they gnashed with their teeth Which Phavorinus as he uses to do has transcribed Vers 41. Note k. It is true among the Romans scourging was a servil punishment because it was not lawful to scourge any Roman Citizen but it was not among the Jews tho those upon whom it was inflicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were also reproachfully used And St. Luke makes use of that word rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the reproachful usage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles was worse than their punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Doctor on Luke xxiii 16 CHAP. VI. Vers 1. Note a. THE words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place alledged by the Doctor out of Phavorinus are not well translated by him to have skill in the Greek learning but ought to be rendered to be on the Greeks side or of the sentiments of the Greeks And hence the learned Is Vossius De Sybillinis Oraculis Cap. 16. affirms those to be mistaken who interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Dr. Hammond does because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify to imitate the Language of the Greeks but also to side with the Greeks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to imitate the Manners or Customs or be of the side of the Romans Persians Medes or Antigonus or any who howsoever countenance them For it is certain saith he that the Jews were divided into two parties Those that were for the Rites and Customs of their Country bore the Grecian and Roman yoke c. impatiently But those that were of a more peaceable temper and exhorted the rest to bear with patience the yoke which God had laid upon them were said to be on the Grecians side and upon that account were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But notwithstanding this it is possible that some of the Jews might have this name of Hellenists given them merely because they understood Greek and others because besides that they were more favourable to the Greeks than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profound Hebrews and imitated in some measure their manners nor do I see how either of these can be denied obstinately But those I think are guilty of a mistake who make a distinct language of that which was used by the Hellenists and call it the Hellenistical Tongue whereas it seems only to have been the Language of those who could speak nothing well but Hebrew and spake Greek very ill such as were those who translated the Old Testament into that Language and likewise the Apostles and others who had learned to speak Greek in Judaea But this was rather a corruption of the Greek Tongue by mixing it with Hebraisms than a distinct Language or Dialect as Salmasius and others have shewn at large CHAP. VII Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice Abraham received such a command as this from God first when he was in Vr of the Chaldees from whence he set out with his Father and went to Charran as we are told by Moses Gen. xi 31 and here by St. Stephen and then afterwards at Charran where he left his Father of which Moses gives us also an account Gen. xii 1 Unless we distinguish these we shall hardly make Moses agree with St. Stephen or he consistent with himself See my Notes on Gen. xii 1 Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this discourse of St. Stephen were not extant and the sacred Chronology were taken only out of Moses every thing in Moses would be plain for Abraham would be understood to have began his Journey whilst Terah was alive as I have shewn on Gen. xii 4 But because St. Stephen here says that Abraham departed from Charran after his Father's death therefore the Mosaical Chronology is otherwise digested and Abraham is reckoned to have gone into Canaan sixty years later But if we examin the matter more throughly it will seem much more probable that St. Stephen spake according to the account generally
such Women is very suspicious For it is true certain rich Women did sometimes follow Christ but this seems neither to have been constant nor ever practised in great Journeys when the longest were from Galilee to Jerusalem and that at the time of the Feasts in which Women otherwise used to go up to that City But that in the journeys which the Apostles made into far distant Countries they had rich Women to accompany them and supply them with necessaries which might otherwise have been more easily and decently done let them believe who use to give credit to all that the Antients affirm without the least appearance of likelihood It were easy to shew the improbability of it and I shall say something to that purpose on 1 Cor. ix 5 Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Christians as I observed on Chap. xii 5 See there Vers 16. Note c. It is uncertain whether St. Paul here had a respect to that Salutation which the Christians us'd to give to one another in their holy Assemblies nay it is very improbable and that for these two reasons First because the Apostle here speaks of such a Salutation as was given by Friends in the room of their Friends to persons whom they desired in a Letter to be saluted in their name which Salutation has nothing common with that Church-salutation Secondly in the Church where Men and Women sat apart from one another the Men were saluted by the Men and the Women by the Women not promiscuously the Men by the Women or the Women by the Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Lib. 2. c. 57. where he sets down the whole order observed in the Christian Assemblies describes that Custom thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let the Men salute one another and the Women one another with a kiss in the Lord. He had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Laicks sit on one side in all quietness and good order and the Women also sit apart by themselves keeping silence I know there were several alterations made in the Order of the Church in the following Age but thus in all probability it was antiently not only because of the decency of it but also because it is certain this was the Custom â—mong the Jews whom in many things the Primitive Church followed as J. Bapt. Cotelerius on this place in the Constit Num. 32. Edit Amst has well observed Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. At the end of the Premonition to this Epistle I said I did not think that the Gnosticks were referred to whereever Dr. Hammond thought so but I did not deny that sometimes the reproofs of the Apostles might belong to them as these do in this place They were subtil crafty Persons who perceiving that a great many had embraced the Christian Religion who were very liberal to the poor of that Profession and ready to hearken to any that made a shew of Piety and Learning took occasion to deceive the simple that they might live idly at their cost and privately indulge themselves in all manner of Sensuality Of which number seems to have been that Peregrinus whose death is related by Lucian if we may give credit to an Epicurean and an Orator And to these Hereticks seem to be owing that multitude of supposititious Writings which were received and used by the Christians ever since the first Ages and those Philosophical Opinions with which Christianity was very early corrupted and were taken by the ignorant and unwary for Apostolical Doctrines See Col. ii 8 and 2 Tim. iii. 2 c. Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase puts several things together to shew the full importance of this Phrase But I believe it has a reference only to the persecuting Jews who waged an irreconcileable War with the Christians as Apostates For these being the instruments of the Devil who is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Satan or an Adversary and by his inspiration endeavouring to oppress the Christian Religion at its first rise could not be destroyed but Satan must be trod under foot as it were at the same time The Heathens had not as yet begun to persecute the Christians for Religions sake but only under the notion of seditious Persons by which name the Jews endeavour'd to defame them amongst the Romans as appears from the History of the Acts. So that the Christians had no Adversaries at that time but the Jews who having some years after become odious themselves to the Romans upon the account of their Seditions were not in a condition to do the Christians any great harm And that seems to be the reason why St. Paul promised the Christians peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shortly from the God of Peace What the Doctor says here besides this is besides the meaning of the Apostle That about the silencing of the Oracles is perhaps false and it is certain Satan ceased not to stir up the Heathens for some Ages after against the Christians ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians CHAP. I. Vers 5. Note b. IT is easily discernible that all Dr. Hammond says in this Annotation are mere Niceties which have no foundation in Grammar but depend upon bare reasoning every part of which almost may be denied Nor is it needful to confute it all particularly It is much more natural both here and in 2 Cor. viii 7 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to understand the knowledg of Religion which the Apostle Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense that the Latins call Learning litteras and the Greeks litteras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as every one knows or if they do not they soon may by the Lexicons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies in all knowledg that which relates for instance to the interpretation of Prophecies that which concerns the speculative part of Religion and that which respects the government of the Life Nor is it any objection against this Interpretation that hereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made to signify the same thing nothing being more common than for synonimous words to be joined together But see also Dr. Hammond's next Annotation Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that they might be called my Disciples or receive a denomination from me and be stiled Paulites See my Note on Mat. xxviii 16 Vers 20. Note f. What our Author says on this place is certainly very ingenious and some things he has transcribed out of Grotius so as to mend and add to them But if we consider we shall find that the Prophet Isaiah is cited as a Witness to the Gospel only in ver 19. out of Chap. xxix 14 and that the following words in ver 20. are taken by St. Paul out of Isa xxxiii 18 not to prove any thing but only express his mind by them as his own words
one would say was excommunicated because the Apostle had in this Epistle reproved their Manners or because he had ordered that one incestuous Person spoken of in this Chapter to be delivered to Satan The thing confutes it self upon the very mention of it and I dare say our Author had never written in this manner if he had not some time before composed a disputation about the Power of the Keys which he was very much in love with and perhaps more than he should have been and that made him think he saw those Keys where no body else would ever have thought of them Vers 5. Note e. I. It had been better in my judgment if our learned Author had insisted only on the second reason he assigns of this phrase which is manifestly grounded on the Apostle's writings for what need was there of inventing another new one when the Apostles had given one very sufficient reason of it But unless I am mistaken the Doctor did not sufficiently distinguish the common Excommunication as it is described by the Jews or as it obtained in after Ages from that delivering up to Satan in the time of the Apostles For this was a consectary of that miraculous Power of the Apostles whereas the power of Excommunication was not conjoined with any Miracle What Josephus relates concerning the Esseni may so be understood as that the Excommunicate Person should be said to have died for Grief not by the miraculous Virtue of the Excommunication which yet if Josephus had believed it would be no Crime to refuse to give Credit to him And it is certain those Esseni were neither Prophets themselves nor instituted by Prophets But of this and other things which belong to Excommunication we may consult Mr. J. Selden de Synedr Judaeorum Lib. 1. cap. 7 c. II. What our Author conjectures about the sense of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it signifies here to deliver up upon Demand or Petition is certainly ingenious but if it should be denied I don't see how it could be proved For an Executioner does not use to require the Magistrate to deliver up Malefactors to him but they are delivered up to him without his demanding them And when it is said that Satan desired permission of God to sift the Apostles that was not properly to execute Punishment on them for their Sins but to assault them the more vehemently with his Temptations and wicked Suggestions Nor indeed can the Devil be supposed to demand bad Men of God in order to torment them whom he would rather make happy if he could that he might entice others into sin by the example of their Prosperity so that he is rather to be thought to punish bad men against his will than to ask leave of God to afflict them And it 's visible that bad men who serve Satan are so far from being more miserable and obnoxious to diseases than the good that the contrary is generally true Whence also by the way we may infer that if to be delivered to Satan were all one as to be cast out of the Church those who never were within the Church must have been reckoned from their very birth to have been delivered up to Satan and by consequence have been all more obnoxious to diseases than the Christians And all likewise that were rightfully Excommunicated should have been said to have been delivered to Satan and been afflicted with Diseases which yet that it was of old so no Writer has ever asserted nor does any one believe But delivering up to Satan tho conjoined with Excommunication is not the same thing And therefore our Author ought not to have confounded this unusual Punishment inflicted by Apostolical Authority with the ordinary Censures of the Church Nor is he more fortunate in conjecturing that this delivering to Satan was an imitation of God's dealing with Sinners when he leaves them to the power of the Devil to execute his pleasure upon them Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Interpreters would have this to be understood of this very Epistle contrary to all the rules of Grammar lest it should be thought that any of St. Paul's Epistles were lost which yet why they might not no reason at all can be given For if so be we want none of those things which are necessary to Salvation what reason can we have to accuse the Providence of God if any of the Writings of the Apostles were lost Should we have been ever the less Disciples of Christ if any of those Epistles had been lost which we now have Was it absolutely necessary that every thing which the Apostles wrote should be transmitted to Posterity Nay we may suppose that there were some such Epistles which it was the interest of the Churches and Men of that Age to conceal for there are secrets which every body need not to be acquainted with And it would be no hard matter to produce instances of such secrets if every one could not easily find such himself So that there being no sufficient reason to perswade us that all the Apostles writings either were or ought to have been preserved if it be most agreeable to the rules of Grammar to suppose that the Discourse here is about an Epistle which is lost I do not see why we should not be of that Opinion And there are three things that shew St. Paul to speak of some other Epistle First That he had no where in the foregoing part of this admonished the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to associate with Fornicators For what he had said about the Corinthian who was guilty of Incest cannot be the thing here referred to because that had no ambiguity in it and it appears by the following Verse that the ambiguity of St. Paul's words either did or at least might have given the Corinthians an occasion to mistake I wrote unto you saith he in an Epistle not to keep company with Fornicators but not altogether with the Fornicators of this World or with the Covetous or Extortioners or Idolaters for then must ye needs have gone out of the World But now I have written unto you not to keep Company with any Man that is called a Brother and is a Fornicator c. Secondly The 11th Verse which begins with the Particle NYNI now sufficiently shews that the Apostle in that speaks of this Epistle and in the 9 th Verse of another I WROTE unto you saith he in an Epistle not to c. But NOW I have written unto you c. There is here a plain opposition between the time of the Apostles writing the one and the other for tho the Particle now be sometimes only a transition and does not signify any difference of time yet it is manifest that St. Paul speaks here of a thing that was past which he now explains more clearly Nay tho we should grant the Particle now to be here a form of transition and the Apostle to speak of the same
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
the pious Discourses of the Corinthian Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or predictions In answer to that I acknowledg that the latter was the most common word but the former also was used as I have shewn And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at least for the most part the thing it self prophesied not the act of prophesying but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only the thing declared but the Action it self or Office of declaring if we believe Eustathius on Iliad Λ. vers 140. where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he thinks that Homer means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this place I did not say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant the spiritual Gift of Prophecy but either Prophecy or the action it self of prophesying of what kind soever that be which the Apostle has chiefly a reference to tho because of their affinity they may be easily confounded as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken both for the thing it self preached and for the Office or Action of preaching 5. Another thing which you seem very much to stick at is that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once used in all the New Testament but consider first that it is very common in Homer Xenophon and other Greek Writers and therefore taken from the vulgar use And then secondly there are in St. Paul's Epistles as well as in other Authors words that are but seldom used as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chap. xiii 4 of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Cor. xi 9 and several others which learned Men have taken notice of 6. You add that in vers 16. the Apostle draws an Argument from the Custom of the Churches but that Custom does no more respect publick than private Assemblies for the Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul here has a respect to the Custom of the Jews which the Apostles had introduced into Churches consisting partly of Jews and partly of Greeks together with other Jewish Customs Hear what Tertullian says de Corona Chap. 4. Among the Jews it is so ordinary for the Women to have their Heads covered that they are distinguished by it from others This is what I had to reply to your objections which are so far from satisfying me that they confirm me in my conjecture If we had any Old Copy which instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should have no manner of doubt about this place whatever others thought Vers 14. Note f. I. I have at large shewn in my Ars Critica P. 2. Sect. 1. c. vii § 6. that St. Paul's meaning in Ephes ii 3 is this that the Jews meant by the word us and not the Romans were of as lewd and wicked a Disposition as other Nations II. But in this place to the Corinthians the word Nature does not signify properly a Custom or Disposition but is opposed to Instruction It is just as if the Apostle should have said Do not you know this of your selves Do you want any one to teach it you So the Latin natura is used by Cicero in Lib. 1. Tuscul Quaest where comparing the Romans with the Greeks he saith Illa quae naturâ non litteris adsequuti sunt neque cum Graecis neque ulla cum Gente sunt conferenda As to those things which they have acquired the knowledg of by Nature not by Learning they viz. the Romans incomparably go beyond the Greeks and all other Nations The same Author in Philip. 2. thus bespeaks Antonius An verebare ne non putaremus natura te potuisse tam improbum evadere nisi accessisset etiam disciplina Were you afraid lest we should think you could not have arrived to such a pitch of wickedness by Nature unless you had also been instructed Vers 29. Note g. I. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Book of Joshua manifestly signifies to consecrate the Discourse being about places of Refuge which were esteemed Sacred The Septuagint unnecessarily expressed the sense rather than the proper meaning of the word for the Cities consecrated for places of Refuge were by that Consecration distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from others But hence it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies reciprocally to sanctify II. The Apostle's sense is best interpreted by those who affirm this to be an Elliptical Phrase and the meaning of it to be not discerning the Lord's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from other Bread or not eating the Consecrated more reverently than any common Bread In the 31st verse we have the same expression again for if we did but distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our selves we should not be condemned that is if we distinguished those that were not rightly disposed or qualified from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To look here for any thing else is to seek a knot in a Bulrush CHAP. XII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not often find fault with our Author's Paraphrase tho in a great many places the mind of the Apostles might have been more fitly expressed I am contented if he does but any how interpret the sense But his Paraphrase of this Verse is intolerable for the Heathens did not believe that their Idols spake of themselves or that their Priests answered them of their own Heads but were both moved by the Gods whose Priests and Statues they were So that the two first could not be charged upon them and all that could be objected against them was that it was not any God as they supposed that answered them by their Idols but an evil Spirit But the Apostle does not upbraid them so much as with that in this place but only that they had formerly suffered themselves by their own blindness to be led to the worship of Idols which gave no answers to them that enquired of them either by their Priests or by evil Spirits but were shamefully deceived by their crafty Priests who pretended themselves to be acted by the Spirit of the Gods or by mere human artifice imposed on the credulous so as to perswade them that Images could speak which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such sort of Men were very unfit to distinguish between true Inspiration and feigned which therefore the Apostle here teaches them how to do I confess Dr. Hammond had Grotius to go before him but the thing it self confutes him Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place was imitated by St. Clement in his 1 Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace given unto us and one calling in Christ Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Similitude also is used by the same St. Clement more than once in the forementioned Epistle and among other
places in Chap. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great cannot be without the small nor the small without the great there is a kind of mixture in all things and every thing has its use Let us take for instance our Body The Head without the Feet is nothing nor the Feet without the Head The smallest parts of our Bodies are necessary and useful to the whole Body but they all conspire and jointly subserve the preservation of the whole Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we were baptized that we might be called by one name of one Society the Church of Christ See my Note on Chap. x. 2 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having spoken before of Baptism which is performed with Water the Apostle here keeps to the same Metaphor and says that Christians had drank of the same Spirit Which is to be understood both of the Spirit of Miracles and of the Spirit of Christianity Such another Metaphor is made use of by Cebes in the beginning of his Table where he feigneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imposture making those who enter into Life to drink of her power Vers 28. Note d. I. Of the difference between a Teacher and a Prophet some things must be further observed which our Author having omitted has left us not a little in the dark about this matter The Prophets under the Old Testament had a twofold Office The first and highest consisted in declaring those things which they had received immediately from God or by the mediation of Angels and were such as could not have been known by Men without a Divine Revelation The other was to perswade Men to the observation of the Law already revealed by pious Exhortations Reproofs and Counsels And to this seems to belong those Schools of the Prophets so often mentioned in the Old Testament and particularly in 1 Sam. xix 20 2 Kings iv 38 Because the Worship of the only true God was to be firmly established among the Jews a generation of Men that chiefly regarded the things of this Life and defended against the encroaching Idolatry of their neighbour Nations for several Ages God saw it necessary to raise up Prophets by inspiring them in an extraordinary manner And under the New Testament likewise to establish the Authority of the Apostles God vouchsafed them and others the same extraordinary Inspiration but as the Christian Religion grew and flourished and by growing acquired Strength the gift of foretelling things to come was by degrees more sparingly conferred And because Christianity did not much regard what was to happen in this World but put Men upon the thoughts and expectations of another Life the principal Office of the New Testament Prophets lay in interpreting those things more clearly and at large which were revealed by Christ and his Apostles for the benefit of the common People In which Office there are two things to be carefully distinguished one is their preparation for the exercise of that Office in which besides natural Gifts and Knowledg acquired by Industry they were endued with the Holy Ghost which was conferred on them by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles as appears from 1 Tim. iv 14 Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And tho we do not know how the Holy Spirit influenced their Minds or what change it produced in them yet it appears by what is afterwards said about these Prophets by St. Paul that this was the effect of that divine Inspiration to fit them to preach the Gospel Which fitness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul calls it was all at once conferred upon them And when they were thus made fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this Office they executed it not by a particular sort of Inspiration by which such things were revealed to them as they knew not before or which unaccountably and extraordinarily moved them to speak but as they saw fit themselves and those things which they had received from Christ and the Apostles they interpreted after their own manner Which was the ground of those Disorders and Tumults in the Church of which St. Paul speaks in the 14 th Chapter when more Prophets than one would be heard at the same time And hence this Gift did not supersede the necessity of Study and diligent reading as appears by that advice of St. Paul to Timothy Till I come give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrin Neglect not the Gift that is in thee c. Meditate upon these things give thy self wholly to them that thy profiting may appear to all These are they whom the Apostle calls Prophets the Teachers seem to be those who had qualified themselves for preaching the Gospel only by Study and had not received the extraordinary Gift of the Spirit The Prophets for the most part at least did not teach by Inspiration but had been fitted to teach by Inspiration but these who are here peculiarly called Teachers did not only teach without Inspiration what they had learned but had received no extraordinary preparation from God for the exercise of their Office In which particular they were inferior to the Prophets besides that these did sometimes foretel things to come Unless this Interpretation be admitted it will be hard to understand any thing that St. Paul says afterwards about Prophets II. As for these Teachers in that Age having been always Bishops or Priests of the first Rank in the Church I do not know whence that can certainly be concluded I am sure what our Author alledges to that purpose does by no means prove it nor is there any reason from the thing it self which should oblige us to be of his opinion Ibid. Note e. If the Apostles had shewn any other instances of severity beside that on Ananias in the beginning of their Ministry I do not think but St. Luke would have related them and therefore I suppose they are other Miracles intended in Acts ii 43 But why doth St. Luke say there was such a general fear upon that account To wit because that fear might as well follow upon beneficial Miracles as punishments inflicted on wicked Persons for any Miracles joined with a pious and reasonable Doctrin are capable of impressing an aw upon the Minds of Men and making them afraid to oppose the Teachers of it lest they should be found fighters against God This is a much better Interpretation than to say that the Apostles terrified Men by inflicting Diseases upon them and menacing them with Death which they very seldom did and could not have been frequently done without giving a fair occasion to the enemies of Christianity to cavil both at the Apostles conduct and it And I as little believe that this power belonged to all Governors of Churches which we read of none that used besides the Apostles and those to whom the Apostles did as it were lend it as St. Paul did to
I have said already appears to be false and for further proof take this passage out of Josephus in Lib. 7. cap. 10. p. 243. where among the rest of David's musical Instruments he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were broad great and brasen The other is S. Bochart who in his Phaleg Lib. 4. c. 2. affirms that the Cymbal differed hardly in any thing but the roundness of its form from the Timbrel whereas the Timbrel was an Instrument with holes in it and made with little cross bars of Metal not like a pewter Saucer as the Cymbal Which it is not proper in this place to prove at large Vers 4. Note c. See my Note on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Mat. xi 30 CHAP. XIV Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is said in this Verse seems to be by way of concession and therefore should be paraphrased thus For granting that he who speaks in an unknown Language does really use a Gift which he has received from God yet he should remember that he can speak in that Language only to God not to men who do not understand it and to whom all that he says is unintelligible It was certainly a piece of folly and arrogance not to say any worse of it to speak so as to be understood by no body for it was a mere ostentation of the Gift of Tongues But there are some things to be observed with relation to that Gift which our Author has past by and will it may be give light to this whole Business I. They who received the Gift of Tongues were doubtless instructed with them in order to propagate the Gospel among those Nations whose Languages they were whether they went into their Countries or discoursed with such as came out of them and therefore the time for using them was only when they could not be better understood in any other Language Those that were at that time at Corinth and could speak Greek ought to use the Greek Tongue among the Corinthians and not strange Dialects which they could not understand and for which they might be suspected of Imposture because no body understood them For certainly one who could speak Greek and industriously used another Language among Grecians who understood nothing but their native Dialect might not without reason be taken for a Deluder or Impostor II. But besides Grecians and those who understood Greek there were at Corinth some other People out of Africa Asia and Europe who resorted thither for the sake of Trade and were unskilful in the Greek Language and who having been converted by the Apostle to the Christian Faith had also received the Gift of Tongues to enable them when they went into their own Country to preach the Gospel among barbarous Nations And these seem to be the first who might abuse the Gift of Tongues in the Church of Corinth as if for instance a man that could speak Latin because born and bred in Italy had used the Illyrian Celtick or Spanish Language the knowledg of which had been conferred upon him by God when no body was present that understood any of those Tongues III. It must be acknowledged notwithstanding that a Grecian before Grecians might for example speak Spanish that those of his own Country might know he was instructed by God with the knowledg of the Spanish Tongue to which purpose there was need of an Interpreter who by a faithful interpretation of what he said might shew that he did not speak some fictitious Language or use sounds that had no sense belonging to them but the true Spanish Language For if he himself had first used a strange Language and then spoken in Greek what he had said before in an unknown Tongue he might be suspected by those who did not understand that strange Language But if no body were present who could perform the Office of an Interpreter It was better for the Person so miraculously endued with the knowledg of the Spanish Language to hold his peace lest he should speak to those who did not understand it to no purpose or become suspected to the Hearers if he himself should take upon him to be his own Interpreter or at least by his proud ostentation of an useless accomplishment at that instant of time offend them IV. These two sorts of men St. Paul here reproves who used the Gift of Tongues in an improper place and time and prefers such Prophets as spake nothing but Greek to them But you will say Were not those who preached the Gospel in strange Languages also Prophets Yes undoubtedly but not to those who did not understand those Languages and therefore the Apostle distinguishes them from those who spake only Greek And he justly prefers a Grecian endued only with the Gift of Prophecy and speaking to his Countrymen in their own Language to one who did not use the Gift of Prophecy but of Tongues among those who did not understand them These things being diligently observed which if I am not mistaken are true or very probable the Apostle's whole discourse will be perspicuous which is otherwise very dark and intricate Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not think this is to be understood of a particular Inspiration for they who had once received the Gift of Tongues were not inspired as often as there was occasion to use them but they expressed their minds whenever they pleased in any of those Languages with which the Spirit of God had instructed them So that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is meant to his own understanding but not to another's Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is not as our Author says unless he afterwards speak in a known Language what he had expressed in an unknown for it would have been absurd to speak for instance in Spanish to Grecians that which one should be forced afterwards to speak ones self in Greek but he is a greater Prophet who prophesies in one known Language than he that prophesies in many unknown if he cannot deliver his mind without them in a known Tongue A Carthaginian for example who besides the Punick should have understood all the Dialects of the Mores and Lybians could not be so much esteemed at Corinth as a Greek Prophet that understood only his native Language unless he were able also to express in Greek what he could say in the Language of the Mores or Libyans This St. Paul calls here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he is speaking of a man who did not understand Greek and wanted an Interpreter among the Grecians and so would have been his own if he had understood that Language No other Person can be intended for who doubts but a native Grecian was able to speak in his own Tongue what he said in a strange one Grotius would have the Gift of Interpretation to be understood of a faithful Memory but that is manifestly a harsh and far-fetch'd
perceived and therefore mollified a little Grotius's Interpretation Vers 16. Note a. I rather think the Apostle means here other acts of Thanksgiving which particular Persons according as it seemed good to them offer'd up to God in the Church in strange Languages to which they who did not understand those Languages could not say Amen For who will believe that there was any Governor of a Church so sensless as when he celebrated the Eucharist a religious Ceremony in which all the Members of the Church were to join to use an unknown Language This is confirmed by the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy which shews the Apostle to speak of Thanksgivings offer'd up in the name of one Man and not of the whole Church Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 15. seems to be but a harsh Phrase to signify that I may be understood yet that that is the meaning of it may appear by the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I might teach others also as also by its being opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words in an unknown Tongue Grotius interprets this also a me ipso cogitata The product of my own Thoughts as if one that had been endued with the Gift of Tongues could not have expressed the product of his own private Thoughts in an unknown Language Or as if he that so unseasonably made ostentation of that Gift spake by Inspiration Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond follows indeed for the most part Grotius and not without reason as being unquestionably the best of all the Interpreters of Scripture But here he justly forsakes him because that great Man puts such an Interpretation upon this Passage alledged out of Isaiah as makes it to be nothing to the purpose Besides there are other things in his Annotation on this place liable to reprehension As when he saith Haec citari à Paulo ex loco quidem Esaiae xxviii 11 12. non tamen ex versione LXX Intt. sed ex versione Aquilae docet nos Origenes Philocaliae viii For first Origen speaks of this passage not in the viii th but ix th Chapter of his Philocalia Secondly he does not say that St. Paul had cited Isaiah according to the Version of Aquila whom he very well knew to have lived but in the time of the Emperor Adrian All that he says is this after he had set down this place of St. Paul wherein he alledges Isaiah's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I have found what is equivalent to this expression in the interpretation of Aquila St. Paul who understood the Hebrew Language cited these words out of the Hebrew Copy not out of the Version of Aquila which was composed a great many Years after the Apostle's death If Aquila translated them in the same manner the reason of that was because he also carefully follow'd the Hebrew This was an error in Grotius which proceeded not from carelesness or oscitancy and much less from ignorance but from an unavoidable weakness in human Nature which will not bear a perpetual Intention of Mind For I do not doubt but this difficult Chapter kept that great Man's Thoughts a long while employed and so writing this after he was tired with too long Study he fell into a double Mistake which I do not speak to upbraid him far from that but only to caution the Reader CHAP. XV. Vers 8. Note b. WHAT is observed by Baronius out of Suetonius and here since him by Dr. Hammond is vain being grounded upon a corrupt reading of the words of Suetonius where instead of Abortivos the best Copies have orcinos or orcivos which Is Casaubon and Laev Torrentius have shewn to be the true reading The phrase used here by St. Paul is much older than Augustus for the Hebrews metaphorically call any mean or contemptible thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that word the Septuagint very truly render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Job iii. 16 and Eccles vi 3 So any thing whatsoever that is in its kind little might be called abortive as Antonius's Dwarf in Horace Sat. 3. Vers 46. Appellat pater pullum male parvus Si cui filius est ut abortivus fuit olim Sisyphus On which place see the old Interpreter Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Two things St. Paul proves in this Discourse 1. That the Apostles did not falsly pretend themselves to expect a Happiness after this Life from Christ but truly expected it because otherwise they would never have underwent so many Hardships and Dangers for his sake 2. That this their expectation was not vain because it was grounded upon the Resurrection of Christ whereof they were witnesses and therefore credible because they suffer'd so much for being so and it was a thing in which they could not be deceived This arguing has a great deal more strength and certainty in it than that of Cicero in a like matter and grounded in part upon the same Topicks Acad. Quaest iv where saith Lucullus Ille vir bonus qui statuit omnem cruciatum perferre intolerabili dolore lacerari potius quam aut officium prodat aut fidem cur has sibi tam graves leges imposuit cum quamobrem ita oporteret nihil haberet comprehensi percepti constituti Nullo igitur modo fieri potest ut quisquam tanti aestimet aequitatem fidem ut ejus conservandae causâ nullum supplicium recuset nisi iis rebus adsensus sit quae falsae esse non possunt That good Man who resolves to undergo all manner of Torments and to be torn in pieces with unsufferable pain rather than to betray his Duty or Trust why has he imposed upon himself such severe Laws if he did not see sufficient reason for him to do so It is utterly impossible that any Man should put such a value upon Justice and Honesty as to submit to any Tortures rather than act contrary to them unless he have assented to such things as cannot be false And Tuscul Lib. 1. Cicero himself speaks thus Nescio quomodo inhaeret mentibus quasi saeculorum quoddam augurium futurorum idque in maximis ingeniis altissimisque animis exstitit maxime apparet facillime quo quidem demto quis tam esset amens qui semper in laboribus periculis viveret I know not how there abides in the Minds of Men as it were a presage of a future State and especially in Persons of the greatest Capacity and deepest Thoughts in whom it most easily discovers it self and if this apprehension was taken away who would be so mad as to live perpetually in Troubles and Dangers This indeed shews that those Heathens believed another Life after this but does not prove that they were not mistaken For it was possible they might be deceived by an Opinion taken up in their Childhood for which they could produce no sufficient
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he now interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had before reckoned Death in the number of Christ's Enemies vers 25 and 26. and afterwards in vers 57. he saith that God had given us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the victory over Death So that of two significations whereof the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inetsahh is capable viz. for ever and in victory St. Paul here follows the latter which made most for his purpose And indeed that signification agrees best to the place in Isaiah it self CHAP. XVI Ver. 19. Note c. I. Wonder our learned Author should begin this Annotation with saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church did not ONLY signify the place of assembling together but also the Persons that used to do so When it is certain the former signification of the word for a Place was wholly unknown in the times of the Apostles in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was always used for an Assembly as well among the Christians as by the Greeks II. I rather also understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the House it self which is said here to have had a Church in it because there were in it several Christians so that that House seemed to contain a whole Church Tertullian in Lib. de Exhort ad castit cap. vii Where there are three Persons there is a Church tho they be Laicks Vers 22. Note d. I. Those learned Men who affirm there were only two degrees of Excommunication among the Jews are Selden and his followers See his Treatise de Synedriis Judaeorum Lib. 1. cap. 7. And I confess I could never meet with any that has answered his Arguments tho Dr. Hammond does not doubt but he was mistaken but our Author was too great a favourer of Ecclesiastical Punishments which yet it is certain have done more mischief than good to the Christian Church II. What he says about the word Maran is taken out of Grotius without Care or Examination 1. The Etrurians did not call their Kings Marani but Murrani as Grotius tells us out of Sâ—rvius on Aeneid 12. vers 529. 2. The Syrians are not stiled Maronitae because they call Christ Lord but from one Maron an Abbot whom the Maronitae affirm to have been Orthodox but others a Heretick or from Maronia a Territory of Syria on which matter there is extant a Dissertation of Gabriel Sionita and Joannes Hezzonita both Maronites It is certain Maron is a Syrian name there being in the Recognit of S. Clement Lib. 3. c. 2. mention made of Maron the Tripolite who entertained St. Peter 3. I cannot tell where Epiphanius says that God was called by the Gazari Marnas but I know that Mr. Selden a great while before this was published by Dr. Hammond or before ever Grotius first wrote it had shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marnascha was the name of a Deity among the Gazaeans in his Treatise de Diis Syris Synt. 2. c. 1. 4. Stephanus was mistaken when he said that the Cretians called their Virgins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see J. Selden and C. Salmasius on cap. 11. of Solinus III. The Spaniards do not say Anathema Maranatha but Anathema Marano as it is rightly set down by Grotius out of Mariana Lib. 7. cap. 6. Rerum Hispanicarum The Arabick words subjoined to that form of speaking among the Spaniards are not an interpretation of it nor brought as such by Grotius but of this place in St. Paul out of the Arabick Translation published by T. Erpenius IV. The conjecture set down by the Doctor concerning the passage in Steph. Byzant on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken from Dan. Heinsius whose name he ought to have mentioned tho it be but an unhappy conjecture The Shepherd there spoken of said in Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ram-anth thou art high viz. O God Stephanus misunderstood Philo as S. Bochart well observes in Chanaan Lib. 2. c. 12. to whom I refer the Reader Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is omitted in the Alexandrian Copy But I have sometime suspected that the true reading was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by a mistake came to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians CHAP. I. Vers 11. Note a. THIS Observation our Author had out of Grotius but it is false that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies in respect of And if it did the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not signify in respect of many viz. men but in many respects and the latter part of the Verse should be rendred thus That the Gift bestowed upon us in many respects might be received by many with thanksgiving for us To make sense of which words we should be obliged to interpret in many respects by to many purposes or ends which yet will not agree either with the Hebrew or Greek phrase I believe therefore indeed that there is here a Hebraism but so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is answerable to the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mipphene rabbim from the face of many that is from many It is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies from as Chr. Noldius in Conc. Particularum has observed The Greek words are only transposed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the faces of many And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is set at length in Chap. ix 12 of this Epist just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in a few words in Heb. xiii 22 So that this Verse ought to have been rendred thus That many thanks may be given for us by many for the Gift bestowed upon us by God Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a Paranomasia or figure in which words of a like sound and different sense are joined together Such another as that of Dionysius Cato Nam legere non intelligere negligere est on which see Jos Scaliger It is a noted saying of Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have read I have known I have condemned Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who purchase any thing for which they do not pay ready Mony nor take it immediately away use for fear of its being changed or a worse commodity substituted in its room to mark it with their Seal and give the Seller earnest And this seems to be the ground of this metaphorical description here of those benefits which God confers upon us whilst we live in this world by the names of Seal and Earnest God has redeemed us with the Blood of his Son and yet he does not presently for ever make us his own by bestowing eternal Blessdness upon us but
word ought to have produced a place in which the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified to incline to one part more than another not a single Passage out of Phocylides where the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an uneven balance For if the signification of the Verb must necessarily be deduced from the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the same reason I will derive it from another signification of the same word viz. for of another kind In which sense it is used by the Septuagint in Levit. xix 19 where for thou shalt not let thy Cattel gender with a diverse kind they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be by joining themselves to Unbelievers to mix with another sort of Men viz. different from Christians or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems to have had a respect to that Law in Levit. It 's certain at least that Moses by that Symbolical Law signified the same which the Apostle here forbids as I have shewn in my Notes on that place But why are Cattel of a different Species called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely because they do not use to be joined together in the same yoke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So saith Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that are not yoked together And on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Wife is by the same Grammarian called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because she is linked together in the same Yoke with her Husband This Interpretation is more natural than that of the learned M. Meibomius in Lib. de Fabrica Triremium p. 37. where he renders this place do not strive with Vnbelievers viz. like Rowers who endeavour by unequal force of rowing to pull the Vessel to one side But what he says is worth our reading tho it be much more simple and agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to yoke themselves with Infidels so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the composition of this Verb be not opposed to the yoke of Unbelievers but to the Yoke of Christ CHAP. VII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as it is rightly rendred by Beza quaestui habuimus made gain of them Our Author's interpretation I have confuted on the place of the Epistle to the Romans referred to in his Paraphrase Vers 8. Note a. Unless our Author had here look'd for Church Censures of all kinds he would not have had one word to say upon this Chapter but with all due respect to the Memory of so great a Man be it said he had better have said nothing than wrested the Apostle's words at such a rate I. He should not have said indefinitely that the Greeks used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a short space of time but only the latter Greeks as it is said by Grotius from whom he took this remark but should have better transcribed him And the latter Greeks as the same learned Man thinks borrowed the word in that signification from the Latins So it is taken in Horace Sat. 1. Lib. 1. Horae Momento cita mors venit aut victoria laeta II. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify to excommunicate but to grieve by severe Reproofs as I have already observed on 2 Cor. v. 2 And the Corinthians are said to have been grieved for a short time by St. Paul's reproofs because they were sensible they had deserved them but when they had a little while after seen that they whom St. Paul had particularly aimed at in those reproofs became sober and penitent they rejoiced that the seasonable severity of the Apostle had so good an effect upon them St. Paul has no reference here to Excommunication nor must delivering to Satan be confounded with Excommunication a Punishment peculiar to the Apostles times but afterwards unknown as I have on 1 Cor. v. observed III. It 's true indeed there are others besides the incestuous Person here referred to but that they had the Censures of the Church inflicted upon them is not said by the Apostle nor so much as intimated but only that they were at first sorry that there had been such Disorders committed among them as gave St. Paul just reason to reprehend them and afterwards rejoiced that they had been reclaimed by his reproofs from those sinful practices There is no regard here had to Excommunication inflicted either for a longer or a shorter space of time Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author goes on in his Paraphrase to interpret this word of excommunication contrary to the Rules of Grammar For who does not see that to sorrow to Repentance is to be grieved so for what we have done amiss as to forbear offending for the future Obstinate Persons are troubled indeed when their Sins are reproved but they are not troubled because they have sinned they are troubled only because they are reproved And therefore they are angry with those who reprehend them and never think of reforming their evil Practices But Persons of a yielding Temper are not sorry that they are reprehended but that they have sinned and therefore they take it well of those who reprove them for their faults and carefully abstain from them ever after And this Sorrow St. Paul here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is so as not to think that you suffered any loss of Reputation by my severity in reproving you quite otherwise than obstinate Men would do who would have cried out that they were injured and defamed without ever becoming better Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. An excellent sentence is here quite spoiled by our Author and turned into an empty sound of words by his wresting the words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is the Discipline of the Church and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are punishments inflicted by Men. Who will endure such an Interpretation as this so distant from the literal sense of the words especially when a very good and excellent one arises from a Grammatical Explication of them For the meaning of St. Paul is this That a Sorrow agreeable to the Divine Will such as is the Sorrow of all good Men worketh Reformation of Manners and consequently Life but the sorrow of worldly minded Persons makes them but sin the more and that brings eternal Death upon them the just reward of obstinate and incorrigible Offenders For as I have already said good Men are sorry that they have sinned bad Men that they are discovered and reproved the former upon Reproof amend but these latter grow but the more hardy tho perhaps more close in sinning CHAP. VIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of Liberality the original of which phrase I have set down on Rom. xii 8 Vers 10. Note a. I cannot perswade my self that St. Paul would say ye have begun not only
Paul here speaks as Grotius before our Author had observed of that Rod with which he had chastized Elymas the incestuous Person Hymenaeus and Philetus and with which St. Peter had chastized Ananias and Sapphira but I confess I cannot digest what Dr. Hammond here and elsewhere does viz. the confounding of that miraculous Power of the Apostles with the ordinary Excommunication of Bishops He ought to have proved first that that delivering to Satan or any other such Punishments inflicted by the Apostles were the arms not only of the Apostles but of all the Governors of the Christian Church which he neither ever did before his Death nor I believe would ever do if he were to live again This was a Seal which God set to the Apostles Doctrin to fix the Christian Church upon a lasting and immoveable Foundation and all the rest of the Miracles wrought in the Apostles time were designed to the same end But that being once settled no Man had such a Power granted him nor can any one be supposed to have had the like Authority II. However it is well observed by the Doctor that carnal here is all one with weak which I shall confirm both by Reason and Examples The Flesh is very often opposed to the Spirit that is the Body to the Soul in which comparison the Flesh is the most infirm and feeble and hence the word carnal came to signify weak as it is used in Isa xxxi 3 where the Prophet thus bespeaks the Jews who put too much confidence in the Egyptians The Egyptians are Men and not God and their Horses Flesh and not Spirit the Lord shall turn his Hand and he that helpeth shall fall and he that is holpen shall fall down and they shall all be consumed together To this purpose also is that saying of Christ in Mat. xxvi 41 The Spirit indeed is willing but the Flesh is weak III. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Excommunication in the Writings of the Fathers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very aptly be applied to a Mind full of Pride and Obstinacy and by those Vices fortified against the Truth yet it in no wise follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Excommunication of an obdurate Sinner What words do or may separately signify they do not always signify conjunctly as every one knows who is any thing of a Critick in this sort of Learning The reason is because one Phrase can have but one metaphorical sense belonging to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly a strong Hold or Fence and here translated to signify whatever Flesh and Blood puts in the way of the Gospel to hinder the success and efficacy of if it is necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred the destruction of the Fence and to destroy the Fence by a Metaphor taken from Military Affairs So in vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to excommunicate those that reason but to overthrow reasonings Nor let any one say that Fences are destroyed and Reasonings overthrown by Excommunication for granting that yet it will not follow that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these Phrases signify to excommunicate and excommunication IV. It is a pleasant mistake also in our Author which his too great desirousness to find Excommunication every where spoken of in the Writings of the Apostles led him into when he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 8. signifies Excommunication where St. Paul saith that he might boast of the Power which God had given him for edification and not for destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who does not see that the opposite here to the Edification of the House of God is not excommunication but destruction One may as well say an Edifice is excommunicated meaning that it is destroyed as that an excommunicated Person is edified to signify that his Sins are forgiven him The same must be said of Chap. xiii 10 where the same Phrase occurs V. Even in Ecclesiastical Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify Excommunication but only Abdication or degrading from Office and is applied to Clergymen nor is it always joined with Excommunication See Intt. on the Eleventh Apostolical Canon Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author intrudes again into this place the Censures of the Church without any distinction whereas those Apostolical Arms of which I before spake are here intended And indeed with whatever Arguments any Philosopher came armed or what sublimity soever his Reasonings seemed to have in them if he attempted to disturb the Church by Heretical Doctrins and went to resist the Apostles as if he had found them in an error the Apostles could presently shew how much he was mistaken by sending a Disease upon him such as Blindness which St. Paul inflicted on Elymas or delivering to Satan to which others were subjected For these were plain signs by which it appeared that God approved of the Apostles Doctrin But in ordinary Excommunication the case is otherwise For all that can be concluded from that is that when any one upon the springing up of some new Controversies was excommunicated for disagreeing with the Bishop of the Church to which he belonged the Bishop and the rest perhaps of the Clergy were of another Opinion which might as easily be the worse of the two as the better For Excommunication was a certain evidence of Mens differing among themselves but not that the excommunicate Person was in an error because one that had the Truth on his side might be excommunicated by ignorant and prejudiced Persons But if any were chastised in the manner aforesaid by the Apostles viz. by having a Disease inflicted on their Bodies this was an infallible proof of their being Hereticks because God would not have suffered any pious orthodox Person to undergo a Punishment which he had not at all deserved Besides that a Miracle wrought in confirmation of any Doctrin such as this was the present inflicting of a Distemper upon Mens Bodies was of it self sufficient to shew the falsness of any thing advanced in contradiction to it tho with some appearance of probability but certainly the Excommunication of any Bishop who might as easily abuse his Authority as others fall into Error was no sure evidence of any Man 's being an Heretick These two things therefore must not be confounded nor the ordinary Governors of the Church equal'd to the Apostles in their Censures any more than in other Gifts and Endowments as our Author occultly does whether designedly and knowingly I cannot tell but I am sure without reason CHAP. XI Vers 2. Note a. I. THE first signification which our Author produces out of Pollux sutes best with this place for St. Paul does not say simply that he was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot
otherwise be rendred than I have espoused you to one Man or Husband Which words we rightly read with a Comma after them which cannot be transferred after the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but absurdly so that I wonder Dr. Hammond should judg that to be the best punctation The following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought as they are rightly by Grotius to be rendred that I may present or deliver you a chast Virgin to Christ A Virgin is first espoused to one Man and afterwards she is delivered to him And because it was possible and sometimes also happen'd that a Virgin who was espoused to any Man upon intervening strifes or for some other reason was given in Marriage to another and that between her Espousals and Marriage she might be vitiated St. Paul says I have espoused you to one Man even Christ and I never intended that this Match should be broken off or suffered you to be privately corrupted by any other but have done my utmost to keep you pure that I might present you a chast Virgin to him Of those things which might fall out between Espousals and Marriage we may read Interpreters on Mat. i. 18 Now the Christian Church in this World seems to be only espoused to Christ and the Marriage between them not to be celebrated till all other things are consummated so that many things may fall out between that spiritual Espousing and Marriage and really do so whereby the Church which is espoused to Christ is vitiated and defiled or sometimes also married to another The Corinthian Church was by St. Paul espoused to Christ but before he presented it and delivered it as it were into his hand false Apostles might allure it again to the love of Heathenism or wed it to another opinion almost as bad as that by which means the Espousals of that Church would have been made of none effect II. The Doctor does not seem sufficiently to have distinguished between the nuptial Solemnity and Espousals because he alledges a passage out of Cinnamus where the Discourse is about the marriage Solemnity which he immediately subjoins to the place cited out of Pollux as parallel to it He had better have produced some examples out of Herodotus in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly signifies to espouse and which have the more agreement with this matter because the Virgins of which that Historian speaks were not as yet delivered to their intended Husbands the very thing which St. Paul was sollicitous about as to the spiritual Marriage of the Corinthian Church with Christ And he in Lib. 5. c. 47. speaks thus about one Philip the Son of Butacidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having espoused the Daughter of Telys a Sybarite he fled from Croton and being disappointed of the Marriage he sailed to Cyrenae And Lib. 6. c. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Percala the Daughter of Chilo the Son of Demarmenes had been espoused to Leutychides Demaratus by Treachery deprived Leutychides of the Marriage coming himself and taking away Percala and marrying her And Lib. 9. c. 107. speaking of Xerxes who espoused at Sardis the Daughter of his Brother Masistes he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having espoused her and performed what was customary he went to Susa And being come thither and having led home to Darius his Wife c. By these examples it appears that St. Paul may properly enough be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have espoused the Corinthians to Christ seeing that word is applied as well to a Guardian or him that espouses as to the Man to whom a Virgin is espoused Nor is there any other Notion of this word to be look'd for where the Discourse is about Marriage this being then the perpetual signification of it tho if St. Paul had spoken of any thing else it might perhaps be said that he had a respect to the custom of the Lacedaemonians which our Author now unnecessarily supposes Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place signifies a stile or faculty of speaking as it is opposed to knowledg in the Mind As there are Persons of no great Learning who yet are skilful in the art of speaking so on the other hand there are a great many learned Men who are unhappy in expressing their Conceptions in which number St. Paul here reckons himself For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one of the vulgar sort a Person of no polite Learning And agreeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Phrases vulgarly used among the common People But here we must carefully distinguish things from words and their oratorical Disposition for things in themselves very excellent may be expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not elegant and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disposed tho the disposition be improper In respect of knowledg the Apostle Paul was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rude or ignorant but he does not deny but his stile was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which because learned Men have not sufficiently understood but have confounded things with words I shall insist on a little more at large Orators differ in three things from the illiterate Vulgar in discoursing upon any Subject First in Invention and choice of matter in which they far surpass the ordinary sort of People but this I need not treat of the Discourse here being about Elocution Secondly in Disposition the rules of which are laid down by Rhetoricians and are unknown to the Vulgar Thirdly in Elocution or choice of words and Sentences And as to these two last Idiots never equal Orators unless it be by chance and in a very short Discourse So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Stile or Discourse in which neither the Laws of Disposition nor Elocution such as are laid down by the Masters of Rhetorick are observed tho it be otherwise full of excellent Sentences and shew the Speaker to have a great measure of Wisdom and Knowledg In Diogenes Laertius in Platone § 87. according to the opinion of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discourse or Stile is divided into five kinds whereof one is that which the Administrators of the Commonwealth make use of in publick Assemblies and is called Political Of this kind is the stile of Demosthenes and other Orators whose Employment lay in pleading at Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Another kind of Stile is that which is used by Rhetoricians and is for ostentation in which are written Encomiums and satyrical Discourses and Accusations and this kind we term Rhetorical Such is the Stile of Isocrates and other Rhetoricians who spent all their time in Schools This latter kind has more of Grace and Ornament in it than the former otherwise there is no difference between them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A third kind of Stile is that which Idiots or illiterate Persons use in common discourse and this is called
Christ there intercedes so near a conjunction that we may be called his Flesh and Bones as it is said of a Woman with relation to her Husband So that as Christ loves his Church as if it were his Wife and so his own Body 31 32. so Husbands having left their Fathers House for the sake of their Wives and become as it were one Flesh with them should look upon it as their Duty to love their Wives as themselves If we carefully read St. Paul's words and consider the scope of his Discourse we shall not doubt but this is his meaning For the Apostle's design here at least primarily and professedly is not to teach any thing concerning Christ but from the noted example of Christ to shew what conjunction and intimacy of Affection there ought to be between Man and Wife So that what he says of Christ is said but by the way and assumed as sufficiently known II. This being supposed it will be easy to perceive that the 32d verse is a Parenthesis inserted between words belonging to the same thing but which make nothing to the series of the Discourse And by this Parenthesis the intention of the Apostle is only to shew that what he had said about that intimate union of Christ with his Church for which he suffer'd Death was hitherto unknown to Mankind This he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in 1 Tim. iii. 16 and so these words are referred not to the mystical sense of the place in Genesis but to the thing it self that is to the love of Christ to his Church which was so great that he did not refuse to die for its sake Away therefore with that mystical sense which is without reason sought for in the words of Moses as by the suggestion here of the Apostle III. But what shall we say then to those Jews whom our Author cites in his Paraphrase as knowing that great Mystery from the secret sense of the words of Moses To speak what I think they are either the words of some Impostor acting the part of a Jew or misconstrued to a wrong sense Our Author took this Testimony from H. Grotius who on this place saith Sic Hebraei aiunt mulierem de latere viri desumtam ad significandum conjugium viri supremi benedicti So the Jews also say that the Woman was taken out of the side of the Man to signify the marriage of the highest blessed Man But where are those Jews who say this Do they with one consent speak thus in any publick form Or is it some Rabbin who proposes his own Conjecture or the Tradition of the Antients Such Citations as these in a matter of no small moment or not universally known should be avoided by learned Men seeing they cannot be relied on unless it be supposed that a vain uncertain report may be so But I know if I am not mistaken whence Grotius took this observation to wit from Camero who himself had it from Sebast Munster the first Author of it in his Annotations on Gen. ii 24 Hebraei magistri saith he docent id quod Paulus docuit c. The Jewish Rabbins teach the same thing which is taught by St. Paul that a Man should love his Wife as his own Body and honour her more than his own Body because of that signification and Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of which Mystery St. Paul also makes mention who teaches that we are espoused to Christ He did not render the Hebrew words which seem to be corrupt but they are rendred by Camero after promising that he took them from Munster thus ad significandum conjugium viri superni qui benedictus est to signify the marriage of the Man on High who is blessed And so they are rendred by Grotius But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not vir but Homo besides what is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Should it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to thee What can be the sense of these words the most high Adam shall be blessed In fine both Mâ—nster ought to have more exactly cited his Witnesses and others been more cautions in believing him For who will not prove any thing from the Jews or others if such Testimonies as these be admitted I know this was the custom of the Philologers of the last Age but it was certainly a very bad one and justly censured by the more exquisite Wits of ours I am apt to think it proceeded either from want of Judgment or unfaithfulness in their not being sensible with what caution and tenderness Testimonies ought to be handled from which any Consectary is to be deduced or being unwilling to have their Citations examined Both which a Man that aims at Accuracy and pursues Truth should be very far from for he that would neither be deceived himself nor deceive others cannot desire to have what he affirms believed rashly and without examination IV. A vast inconvenience arises from the custom of writing out other Mens Citations unless we look into the Authors themselves from whence they are taken because something may easily be added whilst the sense is rather expressed than the words The Hebrew words alledged by Munster can hardly be understood and he dared not translate them Camero has rendred them and added of his own that the Jews confess the creation of a Woman out of the rib of the Man was to signify c. when Munster says nothing of that but only what I have produced out of him Grotius followed Camero and neither added nor changed any thing but Dr. Hammond has changed the highest Man who is blessed into the most High God blessed for ever Perhaps there will come some body afterwards and add to these words that which our Author subjoins out of St. Chrysostom as taken out of some Rabbin from whence he will infer that all the mysteries of the Christian Religion were very well known to the antient Jews As common Fame is magnified the further it goes so Testimonies not looked into in the Authors themselves are many times enlarged as they are deliver'd from hand to hand CHAP. VI. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author here in his Paraphrase adds to Children Subjects and to Parents Princes in which he seems to have committed a double fault First in supposing that the word Children here comprehends under it Subjects and the word Parents in the Decalogue Magistrates which appears by no example nor any reason I do not deny indeed but that according to the most sacred Laws of human Society and consequently of God himself People ought to obey Magistrates as long as they command nothing which is contrary to true Devotion Society or good Manners That Obedience being as necessary and natural a Duty as for Children to obey their Parents because without it Society for which we are formed and born cannot consist But hence it does not follow that when the Scripture speaks of the honour due to Parents we must
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
it self or a Sacrifice generally consider'd and as untrue is it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Office or Action of the Priests and Levites in preparing the Sacrifice to be offered rather than any other part of the publick Worship of God So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a publick Oblation of the Philippians Faith to God and those two words signify one and the same thing to wit the Action of the Apostle publickly offering up to God the Faith of the Philippians Vers 20. I think the place in Hesychius needs no correction unless perhaps instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is equal in a balance of equal weight for so the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as any Lexicons will shew which I wonder our Author did not consult CHAP. III. Vers 1. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here being subjoined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot otherwise be rendred than is not to me grievous i. e. I do not think it grievous to write the same things It does not appear by any example that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies cowardly or that which is a sign of Fearfulness Dr. Hammond did not well understand Phavorinus whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is It must be observed that tho Homer has put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or not to labour yet the more common use of those who have written since Homer is to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Fear in which sense it is frequently used in Sophocles See about this Eustathius p. 545. Ed. Rom. from whom Phavorinus borrowed this Remark Vers 2. Note b. It is much better to understand these things as spoken of the Jews to whom Grotius applies them who may be consulted For they who proudly called themselves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are with reason stiled here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the cutting or rending because they rent asunder the Church of Christ. I. The passage which our Author cites out of the Apocal. shall be considered in its proper place But from Gal. vi 13 it does not at all appear that those whom the Apostle there blames were not circumcised nay the contrary may be inferred as I have shewn on that place It is strange our learned Author should cite the words of S. Paul so as if he had expresly said that the Gnosticks were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much as circumcised when the Apostle speaks quite otherwise as any one that looks into the place will see II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to those who were truly Jews because those men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cut asunder the Christian Church whilst they endeavoured to impose the Mosaical Rites upon the Gentiles against their will And such were justly call'd both Dogs and Schismaticks who bark'd and snarl'd at all that refus'd to submit to the Jewish Yoke and kept up Factions in the Church See Rom. xiv Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here tho set simply without any addition must be understood a Resurrection to a blessed life because tho the dead bodies of the wicked are to be restored to their former state yet that Restoration is hardly worth the happy name of a Resurrection which is succeeded by eternal death Thus Polycarpus also speaks in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that raised Christ from the dead will raise us up also if we do his will and walk in his commandments Vers 12. Note d. Tho S. Paul here uses several words taken from the Agones and tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may perhaps signify the most noble and valuable Rewards yet that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Agonistical term I shall not believe till I see some place in an antient Writer who in the description of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uses it in that sense For it is not necessary to think that St. Paul keeps in every thing to the same Metaphor nor can it be inferred from the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to attain to those Rewards unless an example to that purpose be alledged I. I acknowledg that Gregory Nyssen calls the Death of a Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not therefore allude to the Agonistical way of speaking in that word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Writers very often call Martyrs Athletae and the Death of Martyrs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify that they are dead not that those three words are all by the same Metaphor taken from the Agones but because they who had struggled under the Torments inflicted on them by the Heathens were at length consummated by Death that is finished suffering all that they could suffer for the sake of Christ The learned Joan. Casp Suicerus has collected a great many examples of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these Acceptations in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus And the Latin Fathers frequently use the words consummari and consummationem which without doubt are not Agonistical terms II. It is not probable that the Apostle James in c. i. 17 had a reference to the Rewards of the Agones because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not Agonistical names signifying the Rewards of such as overcame Of the passages alledged out of the Epistle to the Hebrews I shall treat in that Epistle III. What our Author says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is true but S. Chrysostom's Observation does not belong to that but to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nâ—tsahh IV. St. Paul here uses the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a more general sense not for Death but the attainment of Perfection from which men cannot fall into an unhappy condition such as is the Perfection of the Saints admitted into the mansions of eternal Blessedness So that his meaning is this that he had not as yet attained to such a degree of Holiness as was perfect from which he could not fall We meet with this Verb used to signify Perfection in Vertue in Jam. ii 22 1 Joh. ii 5 and iv 12 13 18. See also Vers 15. of this Chap. Ibid. Note f. That which was said of one of the Antients Nâ—scivit manum de tabula tollere may justly be applied to our Author who seldom knew when he had said enough about one thing Because in some places he had some reason to think that the Gnosticks were referred to by the Apostles therefore wherever there was but the least occasion for such a suspicion the Gnosticks must undoubtedly be respected as if all the Hereticks and wicked men that disturbed the Christian Churches at that time had been Gnosticks And so
becomes all Hope And therefore those Impostors and beliers of God perswaded the miserable People This excellently well agrees with the 10 th 11 th 12 th verses where the condition of the unbelieving Jews is represented by St. Paul almost in the same colours Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is highly probable that St. Paul has a reference to the words of Christ in Mat. xxiv 24 whence it may be inferred that the Discourse here is about Judaea and the Jews as it is there CHAP. III. Vers 2. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when spoken of a Man signifies lewd base villanous and belongs no more to a Gnostick than any other wicked Man such as there were a great many among the Jews and Heathens who opposed the Gospel which makes it unnecessary to recur to the Disciples of Simon whom our Author supposes like so many Shadows to have followed or gone before the Apostles without any certain ground from the History of that Age. What he says that Simon is described by Polycarp is also his own Conjecture not the Affirmation of Polycarp who speaks of any one possessed with those errors and does not mention Simon by name But this does not belong to this place Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wicked base things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baseness wickedness The old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flagitium facinus A villany a wicked Action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facinorosus villanous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facinorosus flagitiosus Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase interprets these words so as if he thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith here signified true Faith in opposition to pretended Which interpretation he seems to have invented for the sake of the Gnosticks who feigned themselves to be Christians when they were not and of whom he understood these words of St. Paul But St. Paul says nothing here about the Gnosticks but speaks of any bad Men who through their wicked Dispositions did not only refuse to believe the Gospel themselves but also hindred others from embracing it Such were the Jews who had a greater regard to the Ceremonies of the Law than to true Vertue and every where opposed the progress of the Gospel with all their might as appears from many places in the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles Such were the Epicureans and other Pseudo Philosophers who lived in the practice of the greatest Vices which they cover'd with a philosophical Cloak and could not endure the sanctity of the Christian Doctrin or being blinded by Pride and a false conceit of their own Wisdom thought it would be a disgrace to them to confess that Men so universally learned as they could learn any thing from Barbarians as the Greeks called them or acknowledg that they had all the while before been studying and philosophizing in vain Such were those who heard St. Paul at Athens as St. Luke tells us in Acts xvii And seeing no one can doubt but that these Adversaries of the Gospel were dispersed almost in all places throughout Europe and Asia what need is there of imagining to our selves the Gnosticks every where opposing the Apostles of whose being so universally spread we have no account in any credible Author And therefore setting aside the Gnosticks let us say that the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Apostle in this sense all Men indifferently are not qualified to embrace the Gospel but only those who are lovers of Truth and Vertue tho they are not sufficiently acquainted with them before the Gospel is preached to them Such a disposition as this is excellently described by Dr. Hammond on John vi 37 and elsewhere Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is an example of that ambiguity in the signification of a Genitive case of which I have largely spoken in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 12. Grotius interprets the Love of God to signify that Love which is terminated upon God and so makes the Genitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the relation of an object to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I acknowledg to be a sense worthy of the Apostle But if we interpret it of a Love commanded by God so that the Genitive be understood to signify a Cause the sense will be altogether as proper and agreeable to the Gospel So again by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks is meant that patience of which Christ is the efficient and there is no doubt but that is frequently the signification of the Genitive case as I have shewn in my Ars Critica But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be interpreted of that patience of which Christ was a Pattern and perhaps more fitly And if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand not so much constancy as waiting for the coming of Christ then Christ will be the object of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so this Phrase is taken in Revel i. 9 I John your Brother and companion in Tribulation and in the Kingdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expectation of Jesus Christ Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to withdraw your selves signifies to excommunicate as our Author interprets it in his Paraphrase I do not believe the properest word for that being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks if there had been a Presbytery at Thessalonica St. Paul would have commanded these disorderly Men to be excommunicated but because there was not he only commands the rest to avoid all familiar Conversation with them which every particular Christian had a power to do But when he says there was no Presbytery at Thessalonica he is mistaken as I have shewn on 1 Thess i. 1 That double Admonition which our Author in his Paraphrase finds to be intimated in these words and which ought to precede Excommunication few doubtless would have perceived without being advertised of it Nor can I for my part perceive it yet I grant the Apostle had twice admonished the Thessalonians about this matter but does it presently follow that those Admonitions which were twice read in the Church of Thessalonica were accounted as forerunners of Excommunication Does it follow also that St. Paul had a respect to it in this place I think not Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not barely to be idle but to do that which Idleness especially in young people is the cause of that is to live wantonly and irregularly The Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquietus inordinatus petulans troublesom disorderly wanton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tumultuosiores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inordinatè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enormitas tumultuatio Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Bread which they shall get by their Labour for that is every one 's own which he acquires by lawful Industry This perhaps may lead us into the true meaning of
10 undoubtedly to perform there the Office of an Evangelist Which Function can hardly consist with the Office of a Bishop watching over the Flock committed to him with that care and diligence he ought The Testimonies of the Antients about this matter who judged rashly of the times of the Apostles by their own and spake of them in the Language of their own Age are of little moment and so do no more prove that Titus was Bishop of the Island of Crete than what Dr. Hammond says proves him to have been dignified with the Title of an Archbishop So the Antients very unanimously affirmed that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome but the more judicious sort of Persons presently discovered them to be in an Error CHAP. I. Vers 2. Note a. IT deserved to be noted that in this one Verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in two several senses for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies eternal Life that is which shall never have any end but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal times is no more than antient times This is a usual thing with St. Paul of which see what I have said in my Ars Critica P. 2. S. 1. c. 6. Vers 12. Note c. I. I do not believe Phavorinus read these words otherwise than we but rather set them down as he remembred them It is an improper Etymology which our Author gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein contrary to all Analogy Μ is inserted between two words Clemens Alexandrinus gives us a much better interpretation of it in Paedag. Lib ii c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an intemperance about Food and as the word literally signifies a madness in the Belly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Mad. This Etymology is suggested also by Phavorinus which I wonder our Author did not take notice of II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Epimenides and in St. Paul signifies what it ordinarily signifies that is idle and slothful as Gluttons usually are It 's true Slothfulness and Gluttony are very often attended with Uncleanness but Idleness and Uncleanness are not therefore the same In Ezekiel Idleness does not signify Uncleanness but that which is the cause of it Behold saith he this was the Iniquity of thy Sister Sodom Pride fulness of Bread and abundance of Idleness was in her c. CHAP. II. Vers 2. Note a. BY a comparison of this place with 1 Tim. iii. our Author has well shewn that the Discourse here is about Deacons but there are two things he will hardly perswade those that understand Greek and are exercised in the reading of these Books to believe One is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is distinguished from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both those words being promiscuously used in the Version of the Septuagint as well when they signify Dignity as Age as Kircher's Concordances will shew The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a Judg in Isa iii. 2 Lament ii 21 v. 14. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same in Levit. iv 15 Num. xvi 25 and elsewhere often And so in many places both these words are used for an old Man The degrees of Comparison ought not to be urged against the perpetual use of the Language especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly said with a respect to younger or young As these two last words signify the same so likewise the two former and the two last as Logicians speak are correlates to the two first They are used also indifferently in the New Testament Compare Philem. 9. with 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The other is that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies Believers who have no Office in the Church It signifies only young Men as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies before Women See what I have opposed to Dr. Hammond on Luke xxii 26 Vers 3. Note b. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to ordain or constitute it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the rank of those who are constituted in any certain Office For nothing is more common than for Derivatives to depart from the signification of their Primitives So that the use of a word must always be joined with Analogy and Etymology unless perhaps it be a singular word or the series of the Discourse shews it must necessarily be understood in a particular sense But neither does the series of the Discourse in this place favour our Author and Use is evidently against him The Deaconesses are commanded to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to go in such a dress and behave themselves in such a manner as became Women consecrated to God This very well agrees with the whole series of the Discourse and Use constantly interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a dress habit or gesture of Body Consult J. C. Suicerus in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus or any other Lexicographer Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Gentleman of great reading who published some years ago Notes and Observations on the Epistle of Polycarp thinks St. Paul here so alludes to the Cabiri or great Gods that were worshipped not only among the Samothracians but also in the Isle of Crete as to oppose Christ to them And it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebir in Arabick signifies great and thence the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been formed as S. Bochart well conjectured Those Gods also were thought by some to be the same with the Corybantes which every one knows were very much worshipped in Crete And there was a mighty talk concerning their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of other Gods as the learned Gentleman before mentioned has largely proved But I think there is more wit than truth in this Interpretation there being nothing in St. Paul's words that shews he had a respect to the Religion of the Cretes for if there be it must be something else besides the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appearance and of the great God which were often in the mouth of the Jews without any allusion to the Isle of Crete or its Gods See the Greek Index of Kircher's Concordances CHAP. III. Vers 10. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he that follows any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect whether its Doctrins are true or false But the Doctrins of the Apostolical Churches govern'd by the Apostles or by Apostolical Men that agreed with their Teachers being true whoever departed from their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that word being understood in a good sense did by consequence maintain false Doctrins And hence Persons of erroneous Opinions whether they were such as desired to live in the Church provided they might be tolerated or whether they chose to
separate themselves from it were afterwards called Hereticks But as there is a difference to be made between Men and Times so also between Hereticks and therefore this Precept of St. Paul must not be urged beyond what he intended it Whoever heretofore departed from the Apostles did by that very thing deny themselves to be Christians because they contradicted inspired Men from whom alone the Christian Doctrin could be learned and whose Authority was confirmed by Miracles Those undoubtedly were to be avoided by Christians who when they had believed the Apostles did afterwards reject their Doctrin and follow other Teachers But those who after the Governors of Churches were not inspired nor endued with a Power of working Miracles seemed to themselves to observe in the Churches a departure from the Apostles in things themselves tho they were cunningly dissembled and requested a reformation of those Errors from the Governors of Churches these I say were not any longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be avoided if they could truly charge others with dangerous Errors and Tyranny These cannot have that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bugbear name of the Church objected to them as if the greatest number which are qualified with that name could not by degrees at least fall off from the Doctrin of the Apostles and all that separated from it must necessarily be in a state of Damnation Ibid. Note c. I. Besides the difference which our Author has observed between this place and the words of Christ in Mat. xviii there is this further observable that there Christ speaks of an injury done to any private Man and which if it endamaged him it was only with relation to his private Affairs but here the Discourse is about a departure from the Apostles Doctrin which concerned both the Apostles and the whole Church in which case one or two Admonitions might be sufficient to know whether those who separated themselves from the Churches would again return to them Yet I do not think the words of St. Paul are to be taken so as if he forbad such Men to be admonished a third time before they were avoided if there was any hope of reclaiming them He only says after the first and second Admonition to shew Christians that Men are not to be given over for lost presently after the first Admonition but to be often admonished Surely Christian Charity will not allow us to number St. Paul's words so as if after two Admonitions without any regard had to Circumstances it were necessary to proceed to Excommunication Here are no Lawyers forms in which Words are weighed and Citations counted but only a repressing of an overhasty Judgment that no one might be condemned unheard or given up too soon II. As in Mat. xviii 17 Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican does not signify Excommunicate him for the Discourse is about any private Men who had not the power of Excommunication so also in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to Excommunicate but do not any longer converse with him after several Admonitions given him to no purpose avoid him It is plain this is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor can it be applied to Excommunication unless the thing it self requires it But here there is no necessity of its being taken in that sense because an Heretick was self-excommunicate and because he made a new Sect and did not look upon Excommunication as a Punishment Sinners who desire to continue in the Church notwithstanding their sinful practices are excommunicated that they may be reclaimed to a more Holy Life when they see they cannot be accounted Members of the Church as long as they live wickedly not those who voluntarily separate and will no longer communicate with the Church The following words confirm this interpretation which is also Grotius's III. I have shewn on 2 Cor. xiii that that place of St. Paul is wrested by our Author and I will not repeat what I have there said Vers 11. Note d. Here our Author does not seem to be sufficiently consistent with himself having before interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to avoid of Excommunication besides he does not clearly enough shew what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he confounds the present Churches with the Apostolical which in that Age agreed with their Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is one who forsaking the Apostolical and Christian Assemblies did by that very thing deny himself to be a Christian and therefore ought not any longer to be accounted a Christian by his own judgment He was to be avoided therefore by Christians of whose number he denied himself any longer to be But now there are a great many who are called by other Christians by the hateful names of Hereticks and Schismaticks who yet cannot be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they endeavour as much as others to understand the Doctrin and Precepts of Christ and conform themselves to them and no less hope to be saved by the Grace of Christ alone In this imperfect state of Mortality many Errors creep into mens Minds through ignorance or prejudice and weakness of Judgment who live no less Christianly as to other things than those that are free from such Errors And it would be very unjust to call such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they separate from others Again they who denied themselves to be Christians could not complain if they were avoided by the Christians but one that charges others with what he thinks to be Error and cannot be present at their Assemblies unless he approve them and therefore absents himself from them but yet does not avoid the Men themselves or treat them less Christianly is highly injured if equal courtesy be not shewn him This which was plain of it self I thought fit to say in a few words because our Author did not seem clearly enough to explain the mind of the Apostle not that I designed to handle the thing as it deserves Vers 14. Note f. In the place of the Acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a business not a providing of necessaries for Life See Grotius on that place ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Philemon AT the end of the Premon I have observed on the Premonition before the Epistle to the Colossians that that Epistle seems to have been written according to the account of the most exact Chronologers in the Year of Christ lxii or the ix th of Nero. Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is my Son for St. Paul accounted all those he had converted to the Faith of Christ his Children and it is usual for Children to be called the Bowels of their Parents So Cepteus in Ovid. Met. Lib. v. Fab. 1. speaking of his Daughter Andromeda Sed quae visceribus veniebat bellua ponto Exsaturanda meis ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews CHAP. I. Vers 2.
of the Christian Doctrin which was proposed to Proselytes which yet he says he would not now set before them deferring it to another time then he subjoins the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as if he had said I will not propose again that Doctrin whereby Proselytes use to be converted to the Christian Faith that so I may reduce those Jews who have apostatized from it for this they know as well as other things which I might say to that purpose By such a Discourse Men who have been once enlightned with divine Light who had received the heavenly Gift of a quiet Mind who had been endued with a power to work Miracles who have had foretasts in the Church of the promised Happiness of another Life and nevertheless have revolted from Christ by such a Discourse I say I cannot renew again such Men so as that they should repent But why is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impossible to renew again such Men viz. because whatever could be said or done in order to that end had been done and said already They had heard all and had been sensible of all that was naturally apt to fix and engage them for ever to Christ And yet they had not adhered to him because of Persecutions There was nothing more could be done to reduce them to a better Mind unless those things which they already perfectly understood and perceived the efficacy of were again repeated to them which would have been to no purpose The same is the sense of the following comparison and of that which is said about this matter in Chap. x. III. Now if any one enquire concerning the thing it self if he throughly consider it he will easily see that it is not without reason that the Apostolical Writer affirmed it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is if not absolutely impossible as we now speak with the Vulgar Interpreter yet at least extremely difficult and the hardest thing possible The reason I before intimated because such Men have abused all the Reasons and Arguments which might have inseparably united them to Christ They are that Vine of God for which he had done all that could be done to make them bring forth good Fruit and yet had brought forth wild Grapes For which reason some of the Antients plainly affirmed that it was in vain to expect the Repentance of such Men. As Hermas in Lib. iii. Simil. 6. His non est saith he per poenitentiam regressus ad vitam quoniam quidem adjecerunt ad reliqua peccata sua quod nomen Domini nefandis insectati sunt verbis hujusmodi homines morti sunt destinati These Persons cannot return by Repentance to Life because they have added to the rest of their Sins that of blaspheming the Name of the Lord such Men as these are appointed to Death See also Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitl Quis dives salvetur IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where in the Holy Scriptures taken for those Church-Penalties which were imposed upon Penitents before they were admitted again to Communion Our Author should have produced but one place to make himself believed For it is not safe to reason about what was done in antient times from the stile of the Fathers because together with new Customs there were new Names also invented and new significations given to old ones We have no reason to suppose that the manner of a publick Repentance was the same in the Apostles times as afterwards The English or German Articles are vainly alledged in this place But our Author should have cited the viith Can. of the Neocaesarean Council in which the phrase he sets down is not the lii for there are only xv Canons in all of that Council Such another mistake I have already elsewhere observed V. Of the Gnosticks here there is not the least mark or footstep The Apostolical Writer only makes mention of some that had revolted from Christ whether to the Heathens or the Jews And such Men joining themselves to the persecutors of the Christians which had formerly crucified Christ did as much as in them lay the same because they approved the fact and despitefully used Christ's Members This agrees no more to the Gnosticks than to any Apostates VI. I don't think the Church of Rome or others rejected this Epistle because of this place as contrary to their Custom but rather because the Author of it was not certainly known Nor was it admitted because this Passage began to be better understood but because at length the most judicious Persons easily observed that the stile and reasonings of this Epistle were agreeable to the Apostles times in which also and no other there could be an Epistle written to the Jewish Brethren apart from the Gentiles for in the following Age there was no difference between the Members of the Christian Church nor any remembrance of Circumcision and Uncircumcision In the antient Church of Rome as appears from Herma there was the same opinion about the difficulty of Repentance in those who after they had been throughly instructed in the Christian Religion and been zealous for it shamefully apostatized from it Besides that manner of Repentance which was afterwards instituted not having been known in the Primitive times not to say that there is no mention made of it in this place an Epistle could not be rejected as contrary to a Custom which had not yet prevailed VII It is very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies what it is not lawful to do but here it seems to signify that which is very difficult for which reason a very antient Greek and Latin Copy of the New Testament kept at Paris in the Library of St. Victor has in this place difficile tho the Translation is usually literal So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Mat. xix 26 I shall not add any thing about the Gnosticks whom our Author here seeks for because I have often confuted him Vers 7. Note c. Our Author here thinks that in this place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Similitude are confounded for which reason the Apostolical Writer speaks of the Earth as he would speak of Men. And indeed there seems to be some ground for this supposition if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred as usual receiveth a blessing from God But that mixture of the parts of a Similitude being very improper I had rather interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as that the consequent should be expressed by the antecedent and that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not signify to receive but to use the blessing received from God that is Rain Sunshine c. So the sense will be very proper for the Earth which drinketh in the Rain that cometh often upon it and bringeth forth Herbs meet for them for whom it is dressed uses the Blessing which it receives from God but that which beareth Thorns and Briers is
much better to understand these words with Grotius and other Interpreters of a Church Assembly in which St. James not without reason complains that the poorer sort were treated with too much contempt and the rich with too much honour for in those Assemblies at that time when there were no Magistrates who upon the account of their Office justly have the most honourable Seats allotted to them it was absurd to have a regard merely to Riches Those who sat there were estimated by nothing but the name of Christians and were admitted into those Assemblies because they were Christians and not because they were Rich. And therefore no difference should have been made between Men as to the place of their sitting barely upon the account of their possessions Vers 4. Note c. I. To begin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preposterously our learned Author is mistaken when he says that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the middle voice which dropt from him before he was aware for any Child knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first Aorist passive II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily be a Hebraism for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interrogative or whether or no because in that Language the Particle And often abounds It is plain it is prefixed to interrogations in Mat. xviii 21 and Acts xxiii 3 from which it might be absent without any prejudice to the sense But I had rather in this place blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Alexandrian Copy to which we may join perhaps the Vulgar Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here seems to have been added by some Transcriber who did not sufficiently understand the series of the Discourse III. Nothing could have been invented more harsh than that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the period should begin in vers 5. If ye have a respect c. hear my beloved Brethren hath not God chosen c. Besides our Author without necessity fastens a Solecism upon St. James for after five Verbs in the Subjunctive Mood had gone before which are govern'd by the conditional Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he supposes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are subjoined in the same construction If any one come in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a gold Ring and there come in also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a poor Man and ye have respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that weareth the gay clothing and say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the poor Stand thou there which words according to Dr. Hammond's opinion would be followed by these and ye have not doubted in your selves and are become judges c. But to avoid a Solecism St. James should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Subjunctive Mood whereas we have here two Indicatives which I wonder our Author could join with the foregoing in the Subjunctive IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho in the Passive voice seems to be taken in an Active sense as innumerable other Passives in Greek Authors So in Herodian Lib. iv c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Souldiers having obtained permission to exercise Violence and Rapine did no longer distinguish who they were that had spoken insolently Accordingly the Apostle's meaning is this do not ye put a distinction within your selves between a rich and a poor Man merely for the sake of Riches with which one abounds and the other is destitute In a Church consisting of Christians which at that time were all private Persons there ought to have been an equality in seats not a difference made according to Mens Estates as if it had been the business of the Governors of Churches to take an account of Peoples Possessions and according to their several Estates to distribute them into several Classes The thing it self requiring this sense there is no need of seeking any other Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is no one is look'd upon by God as a good Man merely because he believes the Christian Religion to be true but besides that its Precepts must be obeyed that we may be accounted good Men and become acceptable to God St. James here opposes those who did not join a vertuous Life with the profession of Christianity And St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans opposed the Jews who pretended that Men might become good and pleasing in the sight of God by the mere observation of the Law of Moses and shews that those who believe in God and live piously might be accounted just and be in favour with God without the performance of legal Works See my Notes on Rom. iii. and iv CHAP. III. Ver. 1. Note a. I. THE interpretation of Grotius seems to me to be much more natural according to which St. James here forbids every one indifferently to aspire to the Office of a Teacher because a severer account will be required of him that undertakes to teach others and would have himself believed by the more ignorant than if he were content to be wise for himself or err alone without endeavouring to make Proselytes of others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to have a greater Judg but to receive the greater Judgment that is the greater Condemnation if we offend So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Mat. xxiii 14 Luke xx 47 Mark xii 40 see also Rom. xiii 2 It concerns indeed every one to bridle their Tongue lest they should condemn any rashly but especially those who teach others because their Judgments are most valued and have the worst consequences attending them if they are unjust This makes both Pages in Ecclesiastical History and a more wholesom Precept than this could not have been given to Christians which I wish they had suffer'd to sink down into their Minds But there neither was of old nor is at this day any thing more common than the rash judgments of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masters II. That long and nice Comparison of this place with others in which either the same thing is not spoken of or at least the Discourse is no more about the Gnosticks than the Jews too much addicted to Judaism or about other Men no better than they that nice Comparison I say of those places does not prove that St. James here has a respect to the Gnosticks Nay I do not think here and elsewhere where the Apostles address themselves to Christians living under Christian Bishops in Apostolical Churches that Schismaticks are referred to See vers 10. 13. Vers 5. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is certainly the beginning of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense is As Horses are governed by a small Bridle and a Ship by a small Stern so the Tongue which is a little member rules whole Societies I do not see why we should depart from the natural signification of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of glory and of God resteth with you that is those reproaches are so far from being a sign that the Spirit hitherto bestowed upon you by God and which has brought so much glory to the Gospel departs from you that on the contrary it so much the more resteth or will more constantly abide with you as long as ye stedfastly profess the Christian Religion The Spirit of glory and as it is in the Alexandrian Manuscript of power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Spirit of Miracles which was conferred upon Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies Miracles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same See my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 and John i. 14 Vers 15. Note g. As I do not scruple disagreeing with our Author when the matter seems to require it so I am ready to commend his inventions when they are such as this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in all probability the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who does or takes care of other mens business by which word the Greeks signify those who usurp other mens offices in a Commonwealth Plato lib. iv de Repub. where he at large proves that all Orders of men in a Political Society have a certain and determinate business which they ought to take care of and that therein consists the justice and peace of a Commonwealth towards the end says that the contrary is injustice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Igitur seditionem quandam horum trium hanc esse oportet affectionem quandam qua nimis multa aggreditur alienaque munera invadit rebellat pars quaepiam animi adversus totum ut in illo imperet id quod non par est quippe quod est ejus naturae ut deceat id servire ei qui est ex prosapia imperantium Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take spiteful counsels Then he produces these words out of an antient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they observed him not to meddle with other mens business nor to endeavour alterations Budeus in Comment Ling. Graec. gives us also other examples And it is easy to discern that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the chief word of which these names are compounded is the same So that what Dr. Hammond observes is very pertinent in this place Vers 17. Note h. The sense of the Hebrew words is this Behold the righteous use to be punished on earth how much more the unrighteous and the sinner For the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and signifies either to reward or punish But the Septuagint thought Solomon had a respect to that signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be safe and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beots which signifies in straits or in hast and which they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they that escape out of any danger by a hasty flight or are brought into great straits hardly save themselves CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus St. Peter calls himself out of modesty not because he executed any where the Office of a Bishop who was invested with a much higher viz. that of an Apostle Bishops or Elders properly so called had the oversight but of one Church from which they were not to depart but the Apostles were Bishops and Elders of all the Churches in the World and could not be confined to one particular place Besides he did not write this Epistle from Rome but from Babylon a City of Egypt as learned men have shewn and I have observed at the end of the Premonition to this Epistle Vers 3. Note b. I. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed is indeed truly here used to signify the Office of a Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flock to signify the Church but it does not therefore follow that the rest of the words here used are taken from Shepherds No body ever said that Shepherds properly so called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Sheep when he going before they follow him except Dr. Hammond No body would say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are applicable to Sheep properly so called which belong to reasonable Creatures not at all to Sheep which are forced to follow with blows unless they go along with the rest by natural instinct II. It is true indeed that whilst the Roman Commonwealth stood the Roman Magistrates chose their Provinces by lot which therefore might be called their lots to whom they fell by lot But I can't tell whether among Latin Writers or those Grecians that have written about the Roman Affairs sors or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ever used for a Province at least as I never read any such thing so I could not find any example of it in the Writings of Learned men who do not use to omit such things I dare also affirm that no Greek Writer ever said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is to vex Provinces by Tribute or Extortion III. Our Author seems to have believed a Fable which some Writers of no repute formerly divulged about the division that was made of the World by Lots among the Apostles which even Baronius himself did not absolutely give credit to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts i. 25 is part of the Apostleship not a Province which Matthias obtained by Lot See Dr. Hammond himself on that place He had much better here have followed Grotius whom the Reader may consult Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye younger saith he be subject to the elder and all be subject one to another that is let the younger give way to the elder and comply with their Admonitions and the elder on the other hand shew themselves courteous to the younger not scrupling to yield to them and comply with them when there is a just occasion Here the discourse is about an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a consequent of Meekness and Courteousness and whereby we easily yield and comply with one another not about that Obedience which is due to Church-Governors from those who bear no Office in the Church Therefore the Apostle says ALL be subject one to another which shews him to speak of a thing that belongs to every one and which is a mutual duty See my Note on Jam. v. 16 and Eph. v. 21 Vers 13. Note d. See what I have said about this matter on the Premonition ANNOTATIONS ON THE Second Epistle General of St. Peter AT the end of the Premom For my part as I profess my self to be of Dr. Hammond's Opinion as to the Apostle Peter's being the Writer of this Epistle so I cannot forbear saying that our learned and pious Author deals a little unfairly with Hugo Grotius I. He suspects here and elsewhere without reason that the Posthumous Annotations of Grotius had not
only that he understood the words of the 8 th Verse of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so clearly demonstrated by Mr. Simon that a Man must be very obstinate after reading his reasons to assert the contrary Our Author produces a place out of Tertullian in Lib. Contra Praxeam without adding the Chapter or Page which is a very bad Custom in a thing especially of such great Moment So that I was forced to read the greatest part of that Book to find out the place which is in Cap. xxv p. 515. of the Paris Ed. An. 1675. But Tertullian has not a respect to this place in the 1 st Epistle of St. John but to John x. 30 For these are his words Connexus Patris in Filio Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero qui tres unum sunt non unus quomodo dictum est ego pater unum sumus ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem The conjunction of the Father with the Son and of the Son with the Comforter makes three cleaving together one upon another which three are unum one thing not unus one as it is said I and my Father are unum one thing as to unity of Substance not as to singularity of number He no where alledges this place in 1 John which yet in that disputation he ought to have alledged if it had been read at that time as it is now seeing he often alledges the place in John x. which is not so express to his purpose Praxeas was of the opinion of Sabellius or Photinus who thought that there was but one Person in the Godhead so that perhaps he might have abused this place in St. John and so have alledged it or if this place had been thought to be contrary to him it would have been alledged against him St. Jerom's name is prefixed indeed to the Preface to the Catholick Epistles but that it is not his Preface has been shewn by Mr. Simon in the 2 d Part of his Critical History of the New Testament c. ix and the Benedictine Monks who have lately begun to set forth the Works of St. Jerom at Paris tho very great Adversaries to Father Simon have confirmed his Arguments so that they seem to have stopped the Mouth of Obstinacy it self which Dr. Hammond also would have acknowledged Si foret hoc nostrum fato dilatus in aevum If he had lived to this day As for St. Ambrose it is not without intolerable Negligence that his words are not set down because Dr. Hammond knew that he would not be believed in this matter But really there is no where any such thing in the true St. Ambrose And if such a fault had been committed by F. Socinus our Author would not have spared him so easily as he forgave himself V. He would have done much better towards the confirmation of the Truth to adhere only to the Scripture and not to recur to the Fathers whose opinion was quite different from that which is now received as who properly speaking affirmed that there were three consubstantial Gods as has been shewn by Dyon Petavius Steph. Curcellaeus Dr. Cudworth and others Our Author had read the Fathers upon this Head with a mind full of Prejudice as it is very common for Persons to do and with little care as appears by the choice of places which he produces I should not think it safe to cite Clemens upon the Authority of St. Basil because he might have taken the alledged words out of an Apocryphal and supposititious writing of Clemens of which kind there were a great many of old and are some still at this day For it is notorious that the Antients neglecting all the rules of Criticks often confounded supposititious Writings with genuin And our Author imitates them whilst he alledges Passages out of the manifestly spurious Writings of Justin Martyr as his or at least as if they were of some moment for why otherwise did he produce them Of the rest I have nothing to say but that Dr. Hammond could not stand by the Faith of the Fathers which he cites who to speak the truth were Tritheists rather than assertors of the present Opinion For they believed the unity of Substance not the singularity of number as Tertullian speaks that is that the substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost was specifically one but numerically three as the learned Men I before mention'd have clearly shewn and might much more largely be demonstrated Those that do not think fit to anathematize the Fathers ought also to be charitable to other erroneous persons for a great many reasons to every one obvious Besides whoever considers these things seriously will not be so apt to boast of the consent of Antiquity or complain so loudly of Hereticks as Dr. Hammond here does who I believe acted therein sincerely but without due consideration and not very much like a Christian which I do not speak out of a censorious Humor but only by way of Admonition Vers 16. Note c. I. I rather think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Metaphor taken from Diseases which are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they are mortal as appears from John xi 4 I wonder Dr. Hammond sets down St. John's words as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when all Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did not that false reading induce him to seek here for Excommunication II. I don't know why our Author makes mention here of the Prayers of the Church when the Apostle speaks of this matter so as to mention nothing about the Church or its Governors The Power of the Keys which was too much in the Doctor 's thoughts made him look for those things which belong to it even where there is no footstep of them Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in the Margin of the English Translation remarks that the Alexandrian Copy adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Vulgar Interpreter also read And indeed if it be omitted it must be understood See Grotius on this place Vers 21. Note d. But I don't know why the Idols of the Heathens themselves may not here be understood whose Worship the Christians were no less obliged to beware of than the Idolatry of the Simonians Nay there was a much greater care necessary to be taken in order to keep themselves from the worship of the Heathens because Heathens had the government of the World and compelled the Christians by Torments to join with them in their Idolatry whereas the followers of Simon had no Authority either in the Roman Empire or elsewhere ANNOTATION ON THE Second Epistle of St. John Vers 1. Note a. I Wish our Author had given us better reasons for thinking that some of the Primitive Christian Churches had a twofold Bishop one a Jew and the other a Gentile For I can see a great many Objections to which that supposition is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written on his wrist which made 666 it was the same as if he had had written upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am of Jupiter or of Juno whereby they professed themselves to be worshippers of the Gods of the Capitol This or some such thing seems to be signified not that it was always done or that the Christians were forced to receive such marks upon them for fear of being barred all commerce with the rest of mankind but that which is signified is the publick profession of Idolatry of which the bearing such marks was a notable token This Conjecture I do not propose as certain for I confess there are few things in these Prophecies which I clearly understand but as better agreeing with the rest of the interpretations of Learned men than that which is said by Grotius who sought for the number of the Beast in the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was that of Trajan For the name of the Beast cannot be the name of a Prince unless that Prince be counted a Beast which Grotius did not think who interprets the beast Idololatriam ferino more Jaevientem Idolatry raging like a wild Beast on verse 1. in his Explic. of this Chapter first printed with the Gospels as also in his last Works afterward published with his Annotations on the Epistles Vers 18. Note o. I. As I was rendring the foregoing Annotation into Latin I thought of a reason of the obscurity that is in these Prophecies which upon thorow consideration I looked upon to be very probable and therefore I shall here propose it which is that a great part of these Predictions being about things that were shortly to be fulfilled by the Romans and St. John speaking of these as the enemies of God by whom they were also suddenly to be destroyed it was not safe either for himself or for others to whom he communicated these Prophecies that the matter of them should be more clearly represented lest the Book falling into the hands of the Romans should be a means to enrage them But how could they be understood you will say and of what use were they if they were not understood To this I answer I doubt not but St. John himself very well knew what every thing in them meant and explained the contents of them to the Bishops of Asia and the wisest part of ordinary Christians so far as it was ncecessary for them to understand the accomplishment of these Predictions But their meaning not being thought fit to be indifferently communicated to all lest the imprudence of some persons should bring the Apostle and the Churches into danger the memory of their secret signification especially upon the intervening of Persecution was in a little time lost and it is no wonder that it did not descend to Irenaeus II. The distance of so many Ages is no hindrance at all to our understanding these Prophecies considered in it self but the want of Historical Records that were perhaps heretofore written both by Christians and Heathens out of which if they were extant we might undoubtedly come to know many of the circumstances which are here referred to We should make out the sense better than the Antients themselves who did nothing by rule and method for which reason most of their Interpretations of Scripture are impertinent and do not sute with their great reputation I wonder that our learned Author rejects the Judgment of Irenaeus about the way of explaining this place for such silly reasons but perhaps after he had searched a great while and could find nothing himself he had a mind to deter others from an enquiry which he thought would be to no purpose It is a mistake that the custom of expressing a name by numbers was not known to the Greeks of that age for what else can be meant by the number of the name Does not Irenaeus who lived almost in the time of St. John as he himself speaks mention it as a thing which was known in lib. v. c. 3. Is there not some such thing in the Books of the Sibyls as Dr. Hammond himself has before observed which most Learned men suppose to have been counterfeited in the second age Does not also Irenaeus in lib. 2. c. 40 and 42. expresly affirm that the Valentinians used the art of numbering the letters of names for their numeral signification But granting St. John to have taken what he says from the custom of the Jews yet why might not he apply to the Greek letters what was usual in the Hebrew seeing he wrote in Greek For to suppose a man writing in Greek and that to men who understand only that language to think of the Hebrew names of the Idolatry of the Romans is in earnest too much to indulge Conjectures and to consider only what is possible and not what is probable So 't is certain Barnabas searched for an Arithmetical mystery in the Greek letters in cap. ix of his Epistle What our Author says about two ways of expressing numbers among the Greeks to grant now that the thing is well expressed by him is nothing to the purpose For however numbers are expressed it is all one if that number be but found in the name which is written with its letters We may express DC.LXVI in Greek thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by two H of which the first shall be within a great Πwhich signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Δ inclosed in the like figure and another Δ alone and then last of all the letters 111. But neither way are the letters of the name expressed otherwise than by their numeral signification Dr. Hammond does not seem to have well understood what he meant when he argued from a twofold way of expressing numbers against Irenaeus III. As he rashly affirmed that the Greeks in that Age were not acquainted with this way of expressing a name by the number of the letters so without reason he attributes the invention of it to the Rabbins who perhaps borrowed it themselves from the Greeks Doubtless Gematria is a mere corruption of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is probable that that custom would not have had a Greek name if it had not been derived from the Greeks I acknowledg indeed that the Rabbins did more frequently use this way of signifying names than the Greeks It should seem by this that Mr. Le Clerc misunderstood Dr. Hammond for the Doctor does not say as he represents him that the custom of expressing names by numbers was not known at that time by the Greeks but that it was not ordinary among them and that it was very usual among the Rabbins of that age unless not ordinary inusitatum as he translates him and not known ignotum be the same But this was owing to the vain fancies of the Jews who made too much use of it So that our Author had no reason to slight the forementioned way of finding out the name of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founders and interpreters of the Christian Religion that for a thousand Years after Constantin the Church was purer than it was before or that there were fewer false Doctrins by publick Authority establish'd in many Churches In that interval of time there were not only many Heresies which created almost perpetual differences but very great Errors crept in among Christians which were openly approved by the Governors of Churches so that the Church-Discipline which our Author so much boasts of was used only to confirm those Errors and with the consent of Princes to kill or at least abuse those who dared to oppose them So that if this Kingdom be to be extended to the thousand following Years it must not be thought consist in sanctity of Life and purity of Doctrin but only in the Liberty which the Christians should enjoy in the greatest part of the Roman Empire so that they might be good and pious Men without being envied or persecuted by the Heathens Vers 7. Note e. I. I wonder our learned Author here took so much pains to confute very weak Objections and yet took no notice of the Heresies which disturbed the Eastern and Western Churches at the time when he supposes the Christians reigned as I have before observed II. He takes it for certain that not only Alaricus spared the Christians and destroyed none but Heathens but also that Gensericus and Attila did the same which he does not prove This should have been shewn and not that which he proves of Julian in so many words when no one can deny it who has read any thing of the History of those times III. I confess I don't approve of the opinion of the Millenaries but I wonder Dr. Hammond here objects against them the condemnation of the Church and gives them the odious name of Hereticks For as that is but a small Error if the rest of the Doctrins of Christianity be retain'd as they were by Irenaeus so the Church had not received any Revelation about that matter from the times of the Apostles Vers 8. Note f. I. That Gog and Magog signify the People who dwelt about the Mountain Caucasus has been so clearly shewn by Sam. Bochart Geogr. Sacr. Lib. iii. c. 12. that it is impossible to doubt of it And the Turks having invaded Asia from those places our Author might hence have confirmed his Interpretation which I wonder he did not seeing he alledges that Writer elsewhere For what is said here by Grotius cannot in the least be compared with what we may learn from Bochart as to this matter II. It is true indeed that Gyges was sometime Ruler of Lydia but the Kings which succeeded him were not therefore as I remember called Gygae tho it be affirmed by Grotius and after him by Dr. Hammond who absurdly deduces it from this place whereas Gyges and his Posterity were in part antienter than Ezekiel and partly his Contemporaries and therefore sure that name could not be taken from the Revelation III. If the Empire of the Turks be here referred to I had rather interpret the beloved City and the Camp of the Saints of all the Eastern Church than Constantinople alone But vers 9. seems to oppose it in which a sudden Victory over Gog and Magog seems rather to be promised than the taking of that City by those People threatned Yet this and all other things of that kind I leave undetermin'd CHAP. XXI Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero Tuscul Quaest Lib. ii c. 15. having defined labor and dolor Labour and Sorrow adds haec duo Graeci illi quoram copiosior est lingua quam nostra uno nomine appellant These two things the Grecians whose Language is more copious than ours call by one name He means the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what he says afterwards as well as the thing it self shews So in Epictetus Enchir. Cap. xiv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Sorrow present it self you will find patience In this place also Sorrow seems to be intended Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words seem also to signify the Apostles as may be gather'd both from the number here specified and from this that by them all Nations enter'd into the Church If this and the like things be to be applied to the Church in later times as Dr. Hammond thinks it must be remember'd that the praises here given to it must be understood comparatively so as for that Church to be opposed to the Jews and Heathens in comparison of which it is not unworthy of these Commendations But we must not measure its Doctrins or Practices by the perfect Rule of the Gospel from which Dr. Hammond himself did not think but it had departed tho he would not acknowledg it Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To wit from the bottom of the Mountain on which the City stood to the top of its Walls for the Walls themselves were not so very high It is somewhat uncertain whether all the sides of this Square were twelve thousand Furlongs in length so as that the whole Circuit was forty eight thousand Furlongs as also the height of the Mountain joined with the height of the Walls or whether a fourth part only of that number is to be assigned to each of the sides that is three thousand Furlongs The former is most likely so as that an exceeding great City should be described nothing but what is great and spacious being here to be thought on Vers 17. Note f. By a man's Cubit here I rather understand an ordinary Cubit as in Deut. iii. 11 where without doubt Moses speaks of a Cubit of six handbreadths In Ezekiel also the Discourse is not about a Cubit of a Foot but of six handbreadths as is evident from vers 5. Chap. xl where the Angel is said to have had in his hand a measuring Reed of six Cubits by the Cubit and an handbreadth that is six Jewish not Babylonian Cubits See Dr. Cumberland of the Jewish Measures CHAP. XXII Vers 1. Note a. IT was sufficient to say that by the Authority of the Lamb sitting upon his Throne Baptism was instituted which is very true and is here signified granting that the Water in Baptism is meant by the Water proceeding out of the Throne The rest Dr. Hammond adds of his own Invention to find out here the power of the Keys as he does in other places where no one else would think them referred to The same he does afterwards but being in hast to make an end of this tedious work I shall not particularly examin what he says nor would it be worth while For who but he could here mistake He describes to us for instance the happy Condition of the Christians from Constantin to the Year MCCC living under the Discipline of Church-Governors and a most pure Church during that interval and most worthy of Christ Which that we might believe either the New Testament must have been many
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what John i. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what properly what metaphorically Acts xiv 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Coat Mat. v. 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether good Dispositions or good Manners 1 Cor. xv 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a person bountiful of a thing profitable Mat. xi 30 Ψ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Acts v. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be the dead bodies of the Slain Rev. vi 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a brutish sensual Man 1 Cor. ii 14 An INDEX OF THE Memorable things contained in these Remarks A. ABortive in a Metaphorical sense what 1 Cor. xv 8 Abraham went from Charran during his Fathers Life Acts vii 4 whether his paying Tithes to Melchisedek can be thought an example of the present Custom of paying Tithes of all that a Man possesses Heb. vii 4 Adoption of Sons what in Rom. viii 23 Adramyttium a Town in Mysia Acts xxvii 2 Adultery the Story of the Woman taken in the Act whether Genuin John vii 53 and viii 3 6 7 9 10. Age to come which Luke i. 70 Agnoetae their Heresy Agonistical terms often used by St. Paul as Rom. ix 16 1 Cor. ix 24 c. 2 Cor. iv 8 2 Tim. iv 7 Phil. iii. 12 but not so often as Dr. Hammond thought Phil. iii. 12 p. 457 and 458. Alabaster box out of which Christ was Anointed whether broken or not Mat. xxvi 7 Mark xiv 3 Alexander the Coppersmith where he did so much evil to St. Paul 2 Tim. iv 14 Allegorical interpretations of Scripture used as Arguments ad hominem to convince the Jews Gal. iii. 16 and iv 21 25. cited for the very words of Scripture James iv 5 Mat. ii 23 All put for some or the most 1 Cor. xiii 28 p. 348. Ambiguity of an expression improved into an Argument 1 Pet. iv 1 Angels their Tongues 1 Cor. xiii 1 appointed to offer up the prayers of Christians Rev. v. 8 Guardian Angels the opinion of the Jews and Heathens about them and what respect Christ might have to either of those Opinions Mat. xviii 10 Angel of the bottomless pit who Rev. ix 11 Anger several degrees of it mention'd by Aristotle whether they were referred to by St. Paul Eph. iv 26 31. Antecedent put for the Consequent Heb. vi 7 Antichrists more than one 1 John ii 18 who Ibid. Antitype what 1 Cor. x. 6 Aâ—rist in Greek expressive of a Custom Mark xv 6 Rom. viii 30 Apostles whether the name it self implies any Authority Luke vi 13 who were properly so called Prem to James Apollyon who Rev. ix 11 Arabians circumcised but not in imitation of the Jews Gal. iv 25 Areopagus whence so called Acts xvii 19 Archippus whether Bishop of Colosse in St. Paul's time Col. iv 17 Arguments for the truth of Christianity taken from Prophecies what we are to think of them Mat. ii 15 and 1 Cor. ii 4 Arguments of the Apostles not always demonstrative Heb. ix 16 and xiii 10 Armillus of the Jews John xi 48 Athletae their Diet 1 Cor. ix 25 B. To be Baptized into Christ is to be baptized to the end that we may become Christians Rom. vi 8 for the dead what 1 Cor. xv 29 into any ones name what Mat. xxviii 19 into Moses 1 Cor. x. 2 in the Cloud and in the Sea spoken of the Israelites what Ib. ver 1. p. 332. Barnabas his Cabbalistical way of reasoning 2 Pet. i. 5 Battology an instance of it out of some prayers of the Jews Mat. vi 7 Better thing how God is said to have provided some better thing for us Christians than the Jews Heb. xi 40 Bishops whether included in the commission given by Christ to his Apostles Mat. xvi 19 how they differ'd from Presbyters Phil. i. 1 when it is a Sin for a Bishop to desert his Office 1 Tim. iii. 1 whether in the Primitive times there were two at once in the same City one over the Jewish and another the Gentile Christians 2 John and Rev. i. 20 and xi 3 Bishops and Deacons why not mention'd by St. Paul in the Inscriptions to all his Epistles 1 Thess i. 1 Body of Sin what Rom. vi 6 Bodily exercises in what sense profitable or unprofitable 1 Tim. iv 8 Bond of Perfectness why Charity is so called Col. iii. 14 Bread taken both for Food and Raiment Mat. vi 11 OUR Bread in the Lord's Prayer what 2 Thess iii. 12 C. Caesarea Philippi where Mat. xvi 13 Called its several acceptations in Scripture Mat. xx 16 Many are called but few are chosen the ground and meaning of that expression Ibid. and xxii 14 Capital Causes whether the Custom of the Romans in Capital Causes was observed among the Jews John viii 29 Captains of the Temple of two sorts Luke xxii 52 Capitol of Rome whence so called Rev. xiii 3 the burning of it under Vespasian reckon'd a very great Calamity Ibid. Carnal for weak 2 Cor. x. 4 Censures of the Church when to be inflicted upon Hereticks Tit. iii. 10 Choenix how big a Measure Rev. vi 6 To Choose in Christ what Eph. i. 4 Christ his Birth by what means known to the wise Men Mat. ii 2 the time of it whether in the publick Records in Justin and Tertullian's time Luke ii 8 why he would not have it divulged that he was the Messias Mat. viii 4 and withdrew himself from the Multitude that would have made him a King John vi 15 the time of his Death John xix 14 his Coat of what sort and in what manner wrought Ibid. 23. what it is to be in Christ 2 Cor. xii 2 Chronology of the Antient Jews faulty Acts vii 4 Church the use of the word in the Apostles times 1 Cor. xvi 19 Church of God and of Christ why the Christian Church is so called 1 Thess i. 1 p. 478. Churches Apostolical whether all regularly formed when St. Paul wrote to them Ibid. Circumstance omitted in the former part of a story to be gather'd from what follows Act. xxviii 22 Circumcision why instituted Rom. i. 26 Citations out of the Old Testament for Ornament sake not as proofs 1 Cor. i. 20 places of Scripture often cited without Connexion Rom. ix 28 and xv 3 the inconveniences of citing Authors upon trust Ephes v. 32 Cloud that went before the Israelites how they are said to have been under it and baptized in it 1 Cor. x. 1 Coming of Christ to signify his punishing the Jews John xx 22 Communion of the Holy Ghost what 2 Cor. xiii 14 Community of Goods enjoyed among some Nations Acts iv 35 Compel how God may be said to compel Men to Piety Luke xiv 23 compelling by entreaty or example Gal. ii 14 Conjugal Love compared to the Love of Christ and his Church Eph. v. 32 Consummation of the Age what Mat. xxiv 3 Council of the Roman Presidents Act. xxv 12 Crown of Righteousness for a Crown bestowed in Justice 2
the Corinthians See chap. v. But the Doctor thought he could never say enough about Church Censures Ibid. Note h. I. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. Jac. Maussacus has copiously and learnedly treated in a Dissert premised to Harpocration where he has at large shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only Languages in general but strange Languages and words peculiar to certain Dialects for the interpretation of which Glossaries were composed II. Tho it is said in Acts ii 5 that there were at Jerusalem devout Men out of every Nation under Heaven who heard the Apostles speaking in their own Languages yet that expression is not to be taken in the strictest and most comprehensive sense because it is certain universal Phrases are often used for indefinite or particular ones of which see my Notes on Gen. vii 19 and Part. 2. Sect. ii cap. vi § 16. of my Ars Critica And indeed it is not at all probable that the Apostles could speak all the Languages so much as of the Asian People among which were the Scythians who inhabited a great and vast Country towards the North and the Seres and Japanners and divers Indian Nations to which they never went And therefore by all Nations and all Languages must be meant the most and most famous within the Roman Empire and in bordering parts of the World Tho I do not doubt but that if the Providence of God had called the Apostles to the most remote Countries God would have miraculously conferred on them the knowledg of their Languages But it was time enough for that when they had occasion to use them III. There are some things to be observed about the Gift of Tongues which I shall afterwards set down because our Author has past it by CHAP. XIII Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul here seems to speak according to the opinion of the Vulgar who think that the Angels cannot communicate their Thoughts to one another without speech tho Spirits whether pure or clothed with another kind of Body may have other ways to convey their Thoughts to each other And those ways altogether as conceivable as the manner how we understand one anothers Thoughts by Speech which is not at all as I might easily shew if this were a proper place to philosophize in But I shall rather set down a passage out of Michael Psellus in his little Book de operationibus Daemonum where he describes thus the manner of their discoursing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that speaks if he be afar off is forced to speak very loud but if he be near he whispers what he has to say into the Ear of the Person he speaks to And if he could have an immediate access to the spirit of the Mind he would not need so much as to whisper but he might make himself be understood and communicate whatever he had a mind by a secret way without any noise in the same manner as they say Souls do after their separation from the Body who converse without making any sensible impression on each other And this way the Devils also discourse with us Men and wage war with us unperceived And afterwards he saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Demons have any peculiar Language we shall not find for instance Hebrew or Greek or Syriack or any other barbarous Tongue For what occasion have they for Speech who converse together without Speech as I before said But he goes on and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as among the Demons of the Nations some presided over one and some over another and had each their distinct place of Residence so they severally spake the peculiar Languages of those Nations For which reason those of them that resided in Greece gave their responses in Greek Heroick Verses and those in Chaldea were invoked in the Chaldean Language c. This as it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any examination to be admitted so nor absolutely I think to be rejected wherefore I thought fit to set it down here that the Learned might judg of it Ibid. Note a. There are several things in this Annotation which I cannot assent to and are undoubtedly false I. From the order observed in reckoning up the Consort in Psalm cl it cannot be inferred that the Cymbal was a musical Instrument of a bigger sound than those before named for who told Dr. Hammond that the Discourse ascended Does the Psalmist use to be so exact in placing his words They must have read the Psalm but very carelesly that can think so II. The Cymbal cannot be said to have been a wind Instrument It was made in the form of a Hemisphere hollow within and two Cymbals were shaken and struck one against another to make a sound If any one ask me saith Adr. Turnebus in Advers Lib. 26. c. 33. what sort of Instrument a Cymbal was I will send him to the Herb Cotyledon Pennywort whose Leaves resemble a Cymbal So saith Scribonius Largus Mentastrum vel radicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae herba similia folia Cymbalis habet Wild Mint or the root of the Herb Cotyledon the leaves of which are like Cymbals He might have added that this Herb was for that reason called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by Dioscorides in Lib. 4. c. 92. who gives this description of it and at the same time tells us what was the form of the Cymbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotyledon some call it Scytalium others Cymbalium hath a Leaf like a Sawcer of a round shape and gradually concave That the manner of sounding these Instruments was by dashing or shaking them against one another appears by this Verse of Virgil Georg. Lib. 4. vers 64. where he shews the way how to call back a swarm of Bees Tinnitusque cie matris quate cymbala circum On which place Servius hath this Note by whose words it will more fully appear what was the form of the Cymbal quae viz. cymbala in ejus Matris Deûm tutela sunt quia sunt similia HEMICYCLIS coeli quibus cingitur Terra quae est mater Deorum Which are under her protection because they are like the half Circles of the Heaven by which the Earth is encompassed which is the Mother of the Gods That they were shook together we may learn also from the words of Isidore in Orig. Lib. 2. c. 21. Cymbala acetabula quaedam sunt quae percussa invicem se tangunt sonum faciunt Dicta autem Cymbala quia cum ballematica simul percutiuntur Ita enim Graeci dicunt Cymbala ballematica Cymbals are a sort of Sawcers which being struck against one another make a sound The reason why they were called Cymbals was because c. What the meaning of the word ballematica is I do not understand but the word Cymbal must be derived not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
where that Author speaks of Alaricus he immediately adds This being done in the time of Honorius making as the Reader might suppose Bellisarius contemporary with Honorius which he knew to be false but designed by the word THIS tho no body would think so to refer to what he had said before the mention of Totilas and Bellisarius for the burning of part of Rome by Totilas was after the time of Honorius and Innocentius IV. A little after he says that Innocentius was not at Rome after the first taking of it before the second but he would have said Siege of it for he knew that Alaricus twice besieged Rome and took it but once V. I have set down the place cited out of Orosius Lib. vii c. 38. more at large in my Latin Translation than it is in the English because the words which Dr. Hammond omits make more to his purpose than those which he alledges And they are these Rhadagaiso Romanis arcibus imminente fit omnium Paganorum in urbem concursus bostem esse cùm utique virium copia tum maxime praesidio Deorum potentem urbem autem ideo destitutam maturè perituram quia Deos sacra perdiderit Magnis querelis ubique agitur continuo de repetendis sacris celebrandisque tractatur fervent tota urbe blasphemiae vulgo nomen Christi tanquam lues aliqua praesentium temporum probris ingravatur When Rhadagasus drew near the Roman Towers all the Pagans ran together into the City crying out that an Enemy was come against them who besides a powerful Army had also the Gods to assist him and that the City was destitute of all hope and would soon be destroyed because they had lost the Gods and forborn to do sacrifice to them There were heavy Complaints made in all places and presently they enter'd offering them all the City was filled with loud Blasphemies and the name of Christ was reviled and inveighed against as some present Plague CHAP. XVIII Vers 2. Note a. IT is much more natural to think that the Jews groaning under the Roman Tyranny and believing they should be deliver'd from all manner of Evils by the Messias did upon that ground conclude that the Romans should be destroyed by him that being agreable to their most noted sentiments than to suppose against all probability that they learned it from the Revelation For nothing is more certain than that the Christians and their Writings were detested by the Jews So that what is here said of the perswasion of that People being nothing at all to St. John might have been omitted without any loss to the Reader Vers 8. Note b. I. If the desolations that were brought upon Rome by Alaricus Gensericus and Totila be all put together without doubt the misery of that City will be the greater but all these are not comprehended in the Testimony of Palladius who speaks only of the sacking of Rome by Alaricus which happen'd An. Chr. CCCCX when Gensericus took it in An. Chr. CCCCLV and Totila An. Chr. DXLVII Which times our Author should have distinguished and not spoken of them confusedly II. It is true what he says about the sense of prophetical Expressions of which see the Examples I have alledged on Rev. iv 2 and elsewhere But he ought not to have said that after the Prophecies of Jeremiah the Dominion of Babylon was translated to the Medes but to the Persians as every one knows but the confused Memory of the four pretended Monarchies put him out Vers 13. Our Author took almost all this out of H. Grotius as many other things without ever looking into Julius Pollux by whom he would have seen that Grotius his Animadversion was false Pollux in Lib. iii. c. 8. S. 2. where he reckons up the names of Slaves says that those were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed for Money and a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not say Bodies simply but servile Bodies In which he corrects the common but barbarous Custom of those who called a Slave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Freemen which hire themselves for Money It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of any Man whether a Freeman or a Slave as Lexicographers will shew But when the Discourse is about Wealth or buying or selling Slaves then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Slave not from the proper Notion of the word but because of the Circumstances Examples are alledged by Is Casaubon on Athenaeus Lib. v. c. 10. A hireling was never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the reason of that Appellation invented by Grotius is groundless But Slaves are stiled Bodies when in reckoning up Possessions men are opposed to other things which do not use to be called by that name They are stiled also Souls by the Jews and by the Greeks because as many Slaves as there are so many Souls there are or as the Lawyers speak Persons Nor is it any thing against this signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there are Souls of Men afterwards mention'd which are Slaves for such repetitions are not avoided by these Writers Vers 23. Note d. As our Author before rashly followed Grotius whom he transcribed without examination so here he rashly forsakes him For it is the wealth of the Romans and not that of Strangers which is extolled in this place Grotius had produced a Passage out of Isa xxiii 8 where there is the like Phrase whom the Reader may consult CHAP. XIX Vers 8. Note a. IT is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in these Books for the Ordinances of the Mosaical Law as I have shewn on Rom. viii 4 In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Saints righteous Actions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are aptly described by a white Garment whiteness being a Symbol of Innocence Nothing could be devised more violent than Dr. Hammond's interpretation Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said in my Dissertation about the destruction of Sodom that these Phrases are taken from the Lake Asphaltites which is a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone Which seems to have been observed also by Dr. Hammond as may be gather'd from his Paraphrase So it is usual with the Rabbins to banish any thing that is abominable and the use of which they think to be profane to the salt Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is observed by Mr. Lightfoot Cent. Chorog on Mat. Cap. v. CHAP. XX. Vers 5. Note b. I Confess indeed ingenuously I do not understand the sense of this Prophecy concerning the Persons here mention'd reigning a thousand Years But notwithstanding that I could if I pleased confute what is here said by Dr. Hammond He will never perswade any one who believes that Christ and his Apostles were the only arbitrary 〈◊〉