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
and the Apostles by Christ cannot be matter of doubt with any Christian but I question whether the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such as that the Authority which belonged to the Apostolical Office can by Grammatical Reasons be thence deduced Mission does not to speak properly signify Authority but only the purpose or action of sending by which there is a greater or lesser Power conferred upon the person sent according as seems good to the person that sends him Nor can the person that is so sent assume to himself the Authority of him that sent him merely because he sent him but only because when he was sent he received such or such a Commission which he is obliged also not to exceed This our Author seems indeed to have perceived tho but obscurely whilst he affirms and denies in the same Annotation that the word Apostle is a Title of Dignity II. The Talmudists term'd them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messengers of the Congregation that were sent by the Synagogues on any business whatsoever and who among other Offices which they performed offered up Prayers for those who could not pray for themselves in the Synagogue especially at the beginning of the new year and on the day of expiation See Joan. Buxtorf in Lexic Talmud and Camp Vitringa de Synagog Lib. 3. Part 2. c. 11. But there were never any Tithes either due or paid to the Synagogues but only to the Temple as long as it stood to which also it was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of in Philo brought money and not to the Synagogues Thus Philo p. 785. Ed. Gen. saith of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew that they gathered the consecrated moneys under the name of first-fruits and sent them to Jerusalem by those who were going to offer up sacrifices there The like he repeats in p. 801. where he calls those persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 22. Note e. Tho it be true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a man yet the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to cast out a man as wicked but to defame as Grotius has evidently proved whom the Reader may consult Vers 30. Note f. It is true that the person here intended is a poor man who makes use of what is anothers but that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to require Vsury or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self to receive upon use I am not apt to believe if those words be considered conjunctly For it is not all one as to the finding out the signification of words what connexion or relation they have with one another I rather chuse therefore to understand this Precept of Christ thus That those who can be without what another person who absolutely needs it possesses of theirs tho it be unjustly detained from them ought rather to recede from their right than by taking what is their own again reduce a poor distressed man to his last shifts Indeed if a rich man should unjustly keep back what is anothers which he stands in no need of it would not be the part of a liberal Man but a Fool to neglect his right but there cannot be a more generous or liberal Action than to connive at such a fault in a poor man And this being a very good sense of this Precept and agreeable to the usual signification of every word in it I do not see why we should recur to any other CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OUR Author might have added that it was ordinary in Scripture to bring in Messengers speaking in the same words that those would have done who sent them if they had been present See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word Nuntius Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They acknowledged God to be just and themselves to be guilty and that they deserved the destruction which John had denounced against them Of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see our Notes upon Rom. iii. 4 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They rejected Gods purpose of reforming them by John's Ministry See Acts xx 27 Vers 44. Note c. See my Notes on Gen. xviii 4 CHAP. VIII Vers 3. Note a. I. IT is true indeed that the meats at Feasts were divided and distributed to the Guests by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring Servants but he is mistaken whoever thinks with Dr. Hammond that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies this particular action rather than any other service nor do the places alledged by him prove it Servants had various employments which were all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as among the Latins ministeria He that divided the Meats was not called by the general name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and in Latin scissor or carptor See Laur. Pignorius and Aus Popma in Comment de Servis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke xii 37 does not signify only to divide to every one his portion of meat but any errand or employment that used to be given to Servants whilst their Masters were feasting The same I say of Matth. xx 28 and Mark x. 45 which the Doctor puts a forced sense upon when they might be most fitly explained according to the constant signification almost of that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Our Learned Author had not sufficiently examined the passage he speaks of in St. Matthew for it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies to exercise Dominion or Kingly Authority over Subjects and not that of a Master over Servants the Discourse not being about Masters and Servants but about Kings and Subjects Ye know that the Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise Dominion over them It follows and those that are great exercise Authority upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Authority as belongs to a Vice-Roy or the King's Lieutenant Christ here forbids the Governours of his Church to assume a Regal Power over Christians which they do whensoever they put them to death or persecute such as cannot say just as they say or to take any such Authority upon them which on pretence of acting in the name of the Supreme Governor Jesus Christ they might easily abuse to the destruction of Christians In fine he would have nothing done in an imperious domineering way but all by perswasion and entreaty III. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in John ii are those that served the Guests in all things which they wanted as well as in distributing to them Meat and Drink It is not from this latter that the Deacons of the Church were so called as by a Metaphor taken from a Feast but rather from a borrowed signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken sometimes for
grant but it is improbable that lewd Men who had committed Adultery themselves or been guilty of as great a sin otherwise should be for having an Adulteress condemned to death Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This question could not properly be made in such general terms for she might have been condemned by one viz. the Roman Procurator For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood but of such a Condemnation because questionless every one of them condemned that is disapproved Adultery at least in words and Christ himself accounted it a very great Crime Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Your testimony does not only deserve to be rejected by us but you your self cannot reasonably believe your self in this case because you may be deceived by self-love you think you are the Light of the World but you ought also to regard the judgment of others who think otherwise That this is the meaning of these words Christ's answer shews My Testimony is true because I know whence I came c. which is as if he had said I am sure I am not deceived I do not speak out of love to my self for I know that I was sent from God Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Testimony of two Witnesses was principally required when the question was about the punishment of a Criminal See Numb xxxv 30 Deut. xvii 6 and xix 15 For any one to prove himself a Prophet he needed no other witness of his Mission but God who confirmed his word by a Miracle See Deut. xviii Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tan. Faber in his Epist Crit. conjectured that it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go afar off But as long as the sense is good according to the vulgar reading of the word and all Copies as well as Interpreters favor that reading it ought by all means to stand as it is Vers 25. Note b. There is a third not less probable interpretation that may be given of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. for jam tum already or at that very time i. e. in the beginning of this my Discourse with you So the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jam tum already I have told you what I was the Light of the World vers 12. Vers 29. Note c. 1. I easily believe our Learned Author when he says that the Phrase Common-Pleas in English signifies a Court of Judicature for it is hard if he did not understand his own Language but that in Latin the phrase Placita Principum and Arrests of Parliament among the French signifies any thing but the Decrees of both no body would say that would not be guilty of an intolerable impropriety of Speech which is a thing the Doctor never scrupled 2. What need was there of recurring to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those things that are grateful or pleasing to God without enquiring any further And so in Acts vi 2 the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify 't is not determined but it is not grateful or pleasing to us to leave the word of God and serve Tables And Acts xii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not what was determined or voted by the Jews but what was pleasing to them with whom Herod endeavoured to ingratiate himself as sufficiently appears by the passage alledged by the Doctor out of Eusebius What he says he seems to have taken from Budaeus who out of love to the Greek Language thought that the French word arrest ought to be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas it manifestly comes from arrêter which sometimes signifies to decree or determine and is derived from the Latin Verb restare from which comes the French rester to stay But he has produced no example out of any Greek Writer to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a decree or determination 3. It is utterly false what our Author says about the Roman Custom 's being observed in the Provinces where he speaks of Capital Causes For tho the Citizens of Rome whilst the Commonwealth stood might appeal first to the People and then to the Emperor in such Causes and accordingly the Magistrates whilst the Commonwealth stood could not condemn any one either without the consent of the People if they were appealed to or without the Authority of the Emperor if an Appeal was afterwards made to him yet it will not follow that what the Doctor says is true Whilst the Government of the Roman Empire was in the hands of more than one the Roman Magistrates no where expected the Suffrage of their Provincials to empower them to condemn or absolve and much less did they do so when the supreme Authority came to be lodged in the hands of the Emperors Tho the Jews were permitted to live according to their own Laws yet at that time they had no power to sentence any one to death as appears from Chap. xviii 31 when Pilate condemned Christ because of the importunity of the Jews he did it to gratify them when he might have refused to do it and not as our Author thought because he was obliged to do so as I have elsewhere already observed The Proconsuls Pretors and Procurators did always with unlimited Authority by the advice of their Council i. e. a few Roman Citizens pass sentence upon their Provincials without ever consulting or convening their Provincials unless they had a particular mind to gratify them This sufficiently appears by Cicero's Orations against Verres But the Doctor objects that Pilate asked the Multitude What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ as if he waited for their Suffrages I answer it is certain that the common People of the Jews condemned none no not whilst their Commonwealth stood This Office belonged to the Judges and in such Causes as these to those of the Great Sanhedrim see Grotius on Mat. v. 22 And after Judaea was made a Roman Province the common people had not I suppose a greater Power allowed them than they ever had by the Laws of their own Country The reason therefore why Pilate asked the multitude this question was not that he might hear their resolution or determination without which he could not have proceeded to pass Sentence either of Absolution or Condemnation but because he thought they favoured Christ and would have rescued him out of the hands of the chief Men among the Jews who had accused him out of malice and envy as St. Mark in setting down this story tells us He could have released him indeed without their consent if he had not feared a Sedition but he thought it better to condemn the innocent than to run that hazard This is apparent from the relation that all the Evangelists give us of this matter according to which the people did not condemn Christ by any Authority they had so to do but seditiously demanded of Pilate his life Pilate did not
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
place does not necessarily signify Devils or evil Spirits for the Heathens did not always sacrifice to evil Spirits if we consider what were their true Thoughts But the greatest part of their Idolatry consisted in this that when they ought to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Heathens also themselves have confessed that they did not offer sacrifice to Gods but to Demons As appears by the words of Porphyry in Lib. 2. de Abstinentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did those who knew the powers of the World offer bloody Sacrifices to the Gods but to Demons and this is affirmed in the Latin it is translated creditur which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divines themselves CHAP. XI Vers 4. Note a. IF it had been the Custom in capital Punishments to cover the Heads only of Men and not of Women our Author would have rightly deduced what St. Paul here says from that practice but seeing there was no difference between Men and Women in this respect why would it have dishonoured the head of a Man to have a Veil cast over him like a condemned Person and not of a Woman I rather think therefore that the Apostle had a respect only to the Custom of the Greeks among whom it had been a disgrace for a Man to speak publickly with his Head covered and a Woman with her Head bare Our Author's distinction between the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will appear to be vain if we compare Mark xiv 3 and Mat. xxvi 7 Vers 7. Note b. Here our learned Author abuses an impropriety in the Septuagint to enlarge our Lexicons with new significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he does also elsewhere I. It is false that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chabod simply taken signifies a Beam tho if it be added to the word Sun it signifies its Splendor and Beams It is false also that because the Septuagint have perhaps somewhere tho I cannot tell where improperly rendred what ought to have been translated a Beam by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Beam To authorize that signification it was requisite they should have frequently and industriously used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that purpose and not rashly before they were aware II. Nor is it true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be metaphorically called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that those words are promiscuous The Doctor should have produced but one example in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Beam or Splendor Besides is this Phrase the Woman is the beam of the Man any thing plainer than this is the glory of the Man which he interprets by the former But the truth is what our Author here says is only a misinterpretation of Grotius's Note upon this place to which I refer the Reader III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that symbolical likeness of God which appeared in the Tabernacle because that used to be so called and not because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any Similitude as well as the Hebrew word There is nothing more deceitful than such sort of reasonings as the Doctor often makes use of in order to find out the signification of words unless at the same time their Use and Analogy be regarded IV. Setting aside what is said about the Glory of God in the Pentateuch which does not at all belong to this place tho Grotius thinks otherwise the Man is called the Glory of God because whoever looks upon a Man will perceive him to be a piece of Workmanship worthy of the divine Majesty and give Glory to him upon that account And the Woman is the glory of the Man because there is some ground for the Man to glory when he considers that the Woman was formed out of his Body and created for his Help and Assistance The following Verse does shew that by being his glory the Apostle means that for which he was made and we need not go any further to understand St. Paul's Mind The sense of the whole place is that the Man indeed ought to have his Head uncovered because God made him as his other Works to be beheld and it is not for the glory of God to have that Work of his hid by a Veil but the Woman which was made for the Man ought to be veiled because she is inferior to the Man who uses her as he pleases and would have her veiled It is for the Man's glory to have his Authority appear over the Woman and as in other instances so in this particularly of having her conceal her self whenever he pleases Solomon has a saying in the xi th Chapter of Proverbs vers 16. which according to the Version of the Septuagint is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so saith Esdras Lib. 3. c. iv 7 of Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But of this whole reasoning and many other such it must be observed that they are not at all demonstrative because they are not grounded upon things that are unchangeable but alterable according to the Custom or Opinion of Men. It was thought by the Greeks to be a token of the Mens Authority over the Women for the Men to appear abroad with their Heads uncovered as being their own Masters and exposing themselves to every ones view and on the contrary an Argument of subjection in Women to go abroad veil'd because that signified them to be but one Man 's who had power to remove their Veil and would not have them publickly beheld But if a contrary Custom had prevailed St. Paul would have reasoned quite otherwise to perswade the Corinthians to what he endeavoured to induce them viz. to do all things decently in the Church and wherever any one prophesied I confess he grounds his Argument also upon the History of the Creation but if we consider the thing who can deny but that the Woman was created after the Image of God and for his Glory as well as the Man See Gen. ii 27 Nor indeed is this denied by St. Paul but only in a certain sense viz. as the Woman is said to have been created after the Man and to be an assistant to him And in this sense only his reasoning is valid and not by a general and if I may so speak mathematical deduction Vers 10. Note d. The Rabbi cited by Schickard was not a Talmudical Doctor but only cited a place out of the Talmud as we may see by the words that Schickard alledges Ibid. Note e. About this difficult place of Scripture I have written two years ago two Letters in answer to a Friend who desired to have my Opinion of it which I shall here propose to the Readers examination declaring my self ready to
provoked them that they utterly refused to obey him and when Agrippa would have perswaded them to submit patiently to his Government till there was another sent in his room 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a great rage they reviled the King and commanded him to go out of the City yea some of the Seditious were so bold as to fling stones at him And the King seeing the fury of the Innovators to be VNRESTRAINABLE departed into his Kingdom They are the words of Josephus in cap. 29. Afterwards he relates the beginning of the Rebellion to which the Priests and all the leading Men in vain opposed themselves being no longer able to hold in the enraged multitude as they had done in former times Yea many of them were killed as Ananias Ananus Jesus and others whose Authority being once despised those wicked Captains of the Seditious discover'd their minds and shewed that it was a tyrannical Power and not the Liberty of the People that they had aimed at At the same time they set upon the Romans and took courage from the cowardise of Gessius as Josephus declares at large in lib. ii c. 31. seqq So that the Authority of the chief of the Jewish Nation and the fear of the Romans were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the thing that withheld the Jews Which obstacle being removed the Seditious thought the time was now at length come in which they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 openly declare their purposes and act as the Loaders of the People of the Jews That Simon the Son of Giora who affected to become a Tyrant and robb'd and plunder'd the Acrabatena Toparchia was repressed by Ananus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Army sent against him by Ananus and the Rulers but he fled to the Robbers which were at Massada and stayed till Ananus and the rest of his Enemies were killed as we are told by Josephus in the last chap. of the 2d Book See lib. iv and v. where the Villanies of these wicked men are at large related This is much move probable than what Dr. Hammond has invented about the dissembling of Simon and the Gnosticks whilst the Jews and Christians did in some measure agree with one another for which he alledges no Argument out of History Vers 7. Note i. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which began to work at this time consisted in this that under the pretence of setting the people of the Jews at liberty yea and of a more strict observation of the Law of Moses a most treacherous and wicked Design of domineering was concealed till the strength of the Conspirators being increased it appeared at last what they aimed at So the Zelots behaved themselves who as an unlawful thing rejected the Sacrifices which used to be offered up for the Romans tho the Priests shewed that it was not a crime to receive Sacrifices from the Gentiles See Josephus de Bello Judaico lib. ii c. 30. who affirms that this was the beginning of the Jewish War In the mean while the Zelots did not think it unlawful for them to commit any villany whatsoever after they had laid aside the fear of punishment The same Historian speaks of them thus in lib. vi cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eleazar the Son of Simon who had first separated the Zelots from the People and carried them into the Temple as offended with the continual bold attempts of John who did not cease from shedding of blood but in truth not enduring to be subject to younger Tyrants than himself went off through a desire of Superiority and thirst after Dominion And in lib. vii cap. 30. after he had said that the Edomites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had introduced into all places the highest Iniquity he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which that sort of men called Zelots had arrived to the highest pitch who stained their Title with the foulness of their Actions For they imitated every evil work even that which had never been done before in the memory of man they did not leave unimitated Tho they imposed on themselves a specious Name borrowed from the love of virtue either their savage Disposition made them deride those whom they injured or they thought the greatest Evils to be Virtues This was a Mystery which was concealed under the name of a Virtue viz. Zeal but in reality it contained the vilest Iniquity which principally discover'd it self when Gessius Florus was President of Judea towards the end of Nero's Reign But there was a Mystery as I said in this also that these desperate Villains made the Liberty of the People of the Jews a pretence for their Robberies whilst their design was to tyrannize over their Countrymen as appeared afterwards by their Actions Of this number were the Sicarii who opposed the Taxing of Judea by Cyrenius and as Josephus a little before says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspired against those who were willing to obey the Romans and exercised all manner of Hostilities against them spoiling and carrying away their goods and setting their houses on fire for they said there was no difference between them and Strangers who so basely gave up the Liberty of their Country for which they ought to fight and professedly chose to be in bondage to the Romans But this was a meer PRETENCE and said only to cover their Cruelty and Avarice as their Actions plainly shewed Hence it appears that before ever S. Paul wrote this Epistle the Mystery of Iniquity began to work among the Jews Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not one man who withheld the Jews from breaking out into open Rebellion but on one side they were restrained by the Roman President on the other by the chief men of the Nation King Agrippa and a great many Priests as I have before shewed But after these were expelled out of the City or slain the Seditious were at liberty to do what they pleased and accordingly committed the most abominable Outrages and acted contrary to all Laws both of Religion and Humanity See Josephus de Bello Judaico from cap. 28. lib. 2. Vers 8. Note k. I. Our Author truly observes that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are the same wicked persons which were before called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but those I think are the Seditious Jews not Simon and the Gnosticks notwithstanding the mention made afterwards of lying Wonders as I shall presently shew II. The destruction of Simon which he relates out of Arnobius is a meer Fable which Arnobius had taken out of the Clementine Homilies a Book full of Fables This was the fault of Men and the Times not of the Christian Religion which is grounded only upon Truth to take up right or wrong every thing that offer'd it self to their Minds and make use of it against the Heathens whom otherwise they might have overcome with very good reasons and really did so Tho it is manifest that the foremention'd Book is supposititious
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.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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