only speculative Divinity often stumble in particular Passages and many times look for Doctrins true indeed in themselves but nothing at all to their purpose in places where they are not and know not how to make a right use of those places whence they may really be deduced They are contented not to oppose the received Doctrins and think they cannot do amiss in seeking them any where provided the words do not too plainly oppose it By which means we see the Antient Interpreters of Scripture both Greek and Latin because they had no regard to Words or Grammar but minded only truth of Doctrine have strangely mistaken the genuin sense of Scripture Hence in part came innumerable vain Allegories which I do not call vain because they contain false Doctrins but because they are grounded upon no certain reason Hence proceeded the violent Interpretations and pitiful Subtilties with which the Writings of those Interpreters abound We need but read St. Austin's Commentaries on the Psalms where we shall scarce meet with a page that has not some examples of this kind Which if it were a true way of interpreting any thing almost might be proved or disproved out of any place whatsoever This Dr. Hammond carefully avoided and would have avoided more if some particular things had not a little too often occurred to his thoughts as the Heresy of the Gnosticks the Destruction of Jerusalem and Church-Discipline which three things he frequently sought for where no body acquainted with the Apostles stile had ever before look'd for them and few again ever will Yet as I said before Dr. Hammond does not near so often dash upon this Rock as the Antient or most late Interpreters especially those who have written in the last Age. I might add this also which is no small commendation of his Annotations that he follows mostly that scheme of Divinity which is more agreable to Scripture than the Opinions of many Interpreters keeping a middle way between those who deduce a sort of fatal Necessity from all eternity of which necessity the Mind of Man is a mere Instrument and those who like the Heathens are said to deny that Vertue is at all owing to God No Man that reads his Annotations can doubt whether he had that other faculty of an excellent Interpreter which I said lay in an exact knowledg of the stile of Scripture and cannot be acquired but by a constant reading of it We shall find but few Interpreters so well acquainted with the Sacred Writings That frequent and exact comparing of the words and expressions of Scripture with one another which the Reader upon the first opening of the Book may observe puts this matter beyond all doubt The third Qualification which I said was a Critical Habit of judging concerning the meaning of places tho it was not so great in him as the two former was however considerable And this I doubt not he attained by a diligent reading of the best Writers especially Grotius and he would have acquired it in a much greater degree if the constant trouble of defending the Church of England against several sorts of Adversaries had not diverted him But if we compare him with the Antient Interpreters or with the greatest part of those who have written in the foregoing Age we shall find none among the Antients and but few among those of late that can be thought his Equals For the Antients tho they understood Greek trusted more to their skill in Rhetorick than Language and took more pleasure in running out into common places or Allegories than in seriously interpreting words and expressions Origen and St. Jerom who besides understood Hebrew did also much more seldom use their knowledg in that kind than a sort of Eloquence which took much in their Age. And later Interpreters have been more industrious to fill up their Commentaries with their own Divinity and Controversies with other Sects of Christians than with strict enquiries into the signification of Words and Phrases But Dr. Hammond considering what is expected from an Interpreter and knowing the difference between a Preacher or a Divine and an Expositor of Scripture sets himself to perform the part of an Interpreter and seldom concerns himself about any thing else Which being so it cannot reasonably be said that I have spent my time ill in translating Dr. Hammond's Annotations or in illustrating correcting and enlarging them But as mens Judgments commonly are proceeding not from love to Truth but from Passion I find there are others who whether really or seemingly affirm that I am not indeed to be blamed for translating Dr. Hammond but for annexing those things to his Annotations wherein I often charge him with Error or do otherwise contradict his Opinion as if I were bound to assent to all that he says or ought to have so great a reverence for him as to be afraid of professing that I think he was mistaken in his interpretation of some Passages But to give these Men satisfaction if they are willing to be satisfied I would fain know which of the two ought to be most valued Dr. Hammond's Honour or Truth The Reputation of a Man long since dead and whose Opinions no Law divine or humane obliges us to follow or the defence of immortal Truth which we cannot forsake without offending both God and Men If they are of that humour that they had rather maintain the Honour of a learned Divine as I before said but subject to error than Truth they are not fit to be spoken with I will have no contest with such Men as profess themselves enemies to Truth but shall leave them without any reply to the Mercy of their own perverse Temper But the Errors they say of great Men ought to be conceal'd rather than aggravated I answer I have no where aggravated any thing but confuted him in the softest terms whenever I supposed him in a mistake However I don't think the greatest Mens Faults ought to be conceal'd who the greater they are thought to be the more liable unwary men are to be deceived by them and therefore whenever they are out of the way they ought above all others to be set right again It is just we should forgive their Mistakes and bear with their Defects in consideration of their greater Vertues and the notable Service they have done the learned World but we ought not to let Errors pass under the disguise of Truths It becomes all Candidates of Learning especially those that study the Scriptures to endeavour all they can and contend earnestly that Truth upon all occasions may appear not that it may be concealed out of respect to any man or Error receiv'd instead of Truth The only thing justly blamable in those who take upon them to correct the Mistakes of great Men is if they charge them falsly passionately or maliciously not for the manifestation of Truth but to lessen their Reputation or if they endeavour to obscure their great Excellencies and severely inveigh
enough to shew the necessity of this Observation But these Lessons were written for the sake of such as love Truth not such as are ready to defend or oppose any thing for Reward In the viii th Chap. of the same Part I said that all Men had not the same Notion of God but some a larger and more noble one and others a meaner and more contracted one of which I alledged very plain examples which I thought were almost useless because no Man that had the least knowledg of Mankind could have any doubt of it But this Censurer neither understood what I said nor himself while he affirms that these are no very reverent thoughts of God They only think irreverently of God who either worship Idols or after they have endeavour'd without any regard to Truth Justice or Charity to defame Men that fear God think they have deserved well of Religion and their Country and that therefore those Revenues are due to them which the Piety of the Antient Christians instituted only in favour of good and learned Men not of Slanderers Afterwards my Censurer upbraids me for reciting in Part iii. several places of the New Testament wherein the Discourse is of Christ corrupted by bad Men in the antient Copies whether they thought well or ill of Christ which I did not enquire into nor did I deduce any Consectary relating to any Theological Doctrin from thence He does not shew that there was no alteration made in those Copies because he could not but he interprets all these things in a bad sense according to his custom What he himself thinks of these things I cannot tell nor am I concern'd to know but I must needs says he defends the Cause which he affirms to be the best both here and elsewhere just as the most desperate Causes use to be defended that is by concealing Truth and endeavouring to make those who declare it as odious as is possible Which whether it be for the honour of a Party I leave him to consider and those whose province that is At last he concludes his unjust Accusations with an Observation which effectually confutes almost all he had said before to wit that I have alledged nothing new in favour of the Socinians about those places nor endeavour'd to confute Bishop Pearson and Bishop Stillingfleet For thence he ought to have inferred that I had another design which I should not have executed otherwise than I have done if there had never been any Socinians in the World My intention having been only to shew the use of Criticks in things of the greatest moment and if I am not mistaken I have reached my end The rest of what my Censurer says has either been already confuted or does not deserve consideration This worthy Sir is what I thought fit to say of Dr. Hammond and my Ars Critica which I had a mind should be published that the World might have this Testimonial of my Intentions not to engage my self in a Quarrel with my Censurer who if he be not brought to righter Apprehensions by what I have here said no Arguments would ever convince him Let him now call himself to an account for his Accusations and not hope that God should be propitious to him unless he repent of his unchristian Behaviour which I speak with so hearty a good will to him that I earnestly pray God not to lay this thing to his charge but rather reduce him to a better Mind YOVRS J. LE CLERC Amsterdam Jan. 25. 1698 9. Errata P. 3. lin 8. r. their bold P. 48. l. 8. r. deep rooting or like weeds P. 95. l. 16. r. Vers 51. P. 214. l. 13. f. has not r. had P. 234. l. 14. f. Ibid. r. Vers 28. Note h. P. 473 and 475. run Tit. r. COLOSSIANS P. 545. l. 18. r. compared 〈…〉 former yet they ADDITIONS TO Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE New Testament Addition to the Annotation on the Title of the whole Book T0 this which Dr. Hammond has observed of the word διαθήκη if we add what is said of the same word by Grotius there will remain but this one thing further to be noted whereby many places of Scripture yea the whole Christian Doctrin may be illustrated Namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whatever sense it be taken is metaphorical and borrowed from the Customs of Men for Covenants and Testaments properly so called are only made amongst Men. Now Metaphorical Terms are seldom grounded upon a perfect Similitude between those things to which they are indifferently applied and therefore they cannot always be scrued up to the whole Latitude of their natural signification It is sufficient if there be any Agreement tho but small between the thing of which any word is used in a metaphorical sense and that which it properly signifies So that all that can be inferred from the bare word is that the several things expressed by it have some affinity with one another And in order to determin wherein that similitude lies we must carefully consider both things themselves Which being done we may argue from the thing to the signification of the word but not from the word to the thing So that from the sacred Writers calling the Laws of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Covenant or Testament this only in the first place can be concluded that there is some likeness between the Laws of God and Covenants or Testaments But that we may distinctly know wherein that likeness consists we must first consider in what manner God deals with Men setting aside all metaphorical Notions and looking as narrowly as possible into things themselves then we must enquire what Men do when they enter into Covenants or make Testaments and lastly by a comparison of both we may gather the true sense of the metaphorical Word or Phrase So that they labour in vain who whilst things themselves remain obscure deduce as many Similitudes as they can from words Now if we consider the way in which God deals with Men under the Gospel and then think what is ordinarily done in Testaments we shall find that there is only this similitude between the Gospel and a Testament that in both there is something given and in both Death intervenes So that wherever the Gospel is called a Testament provided the Speaker can be thought to have a clear knowledg of things themselves only one or other of these will be signified For this is also to be carefully observed that the mind of the Speaker must be known before â—ny thing be affirmed of it for tho two things agree in many particulars yet we often think but of one or a few of them and would not always have them all urged To illustrate this by an example It appears from the place in Heb. ix 16 17. which Dr. Hammond here interprets that the Sacred Writer only compares the Gospel and a Testament so far as there is a Death and Gift in both And therefore the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the words of a Prediction are so conceiv'd as to respect indeed primarily a certain event but yet so also as to shadow out something that is of greater importance So Hosea spake indeed directly of the Israelites but because the bringing of the People of Israel out of Egypt was a type of Christ's return out of the same Country into Judea therefore in speaking of the type he is to be thought to have spoken concerning the Antitype also But there are a few things to be observed with relation to this matter which the most learned Interpreters have past by First to use the instance of Hosea it must be confess'd that no body living in that Age could have possibly discern'd any prediction in those words of his but by an intimation from the Prophet himself viz. that tho he spake of a thing that was past yet he had his mind upon an event that was to happen at some Ages distant of which the former was a typical representation Otherwise who could in the least suspect that there was any Prediction latent in a simple relation of matter of Fact Israel was a Child and I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt No body sure will say that the Jews who were far from being a subtil People could ever of their own heads without any advertisment have discover'd here a Prophecy The same we are to think of all other Prophecies of this kind 2 dly Since it is no where found in the old Testament that any such Intimation or Advertisment was given either we must acknowledg that no Prophecy being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be understood by the Jews before the event or else that the Prophets did privately instruct their Disciples if not also admonish the common People that whenever they recounted any of God's past favours or when they spake of themselves they had in their minds a respect to something future Nay it was necessary they should have particularly and severally interpreted every Prediction of that kind and pointed to the event which it had a respect to for otherwise who could be so subtil as between two not much differing events to discern which of 'em was designed in the Prediction But the first of these having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell we must necessarily admit the latter and say that there remained among the Jews in Christ's time several traditions concerning the sense of Prophecies handed down from the Prophets themselves The reason why they did not commit those traditions to writing I confess I do not clearly see but it does not follow from thence that there were no such unwritten Doctrines Nor do I deny but that this way of teaching had its inconveniences and that some false opinions might creep in amongst the true traditions but our enquiry is not what would be most convenient or what we our selves should have done but what was done which is the only thing to be considered in searching into Antiquities 3 dly The same we must think of the types and of typical Predictions for no body that was not first warn'd could ever understand those things that were done or which came to pass to have been representations of things future 4 thly Unless these things be so all the use of those typical Predictions must have been confin'd to those to whom they were explained after the event which how small that is appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2 d vers And not to repeat what has been said by him I might at least gather from hence that no Arguments could be brought from that sort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Christians it was intirely owing to the Authority of the Apostles and not to the Evidence of the Arguments For it is manifest to all that understand Hebrew that the Prophet speaks concerning Israel and that he should speaking of their going out of Egypt have had a respect to Christ's return into Judaea would have been impossible for us to know without a Revelation And therefore we must be oblig'd to say that the Prophets left their Disciples a Key q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions which would otherwise have been shut up out of every body's view And had not this been so it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Messias upon some places in the Prophets out of which no such matter could be fetch'd by the mere assistance of Grammar nor would the Apostles have cited them as making for their purpose For both the former had made themselves ridiculous if they had neglected the grammatical sense and recurred without any other reason than their own fancy to a more sublime one and the latter had been but ill Disputants to produce such Passages as might be hiss'd at The Authority of the Apostles ought not here to be objected as that which added strength to their Reasonings for they themselves did not rely upon their own Authority but upon the force of their Arguments You will no where find it said that Prophecies ought so or so to be interpreted because the Apostles who were inspir'd by the Holy Ghost and whose Doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles did in that manner interpret them but this they take every where for granted that they should be so explained as they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion amongst the Jews Vers 23. Note l. Many think it strange that the Prophets should here be quoted when no such thing as what is here mentioned can by the help of Grammar be deduc'd from any words of the Prophets for there is no place from whence it can be grammatically gather'd that the Messias was to be called by this name of a Nazarene That which is drawn from the meer similitude between the words Netser and Nezir is harsh and far-fetch'd By what means therefore could this be deduced from the Writings of the Prophets It must be doubtless by an allegorical Interpretation of some place which was vulgarly known in those times but is not now extant And this seems to be the reason why St. Matthew did not produce any one Prophet by name but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets in the plural number as referring rather to some allegorical sense than any Scripture words as Jerom has well observ'd So the Writers of the Apostolical times used to cite a Tradition just as if they were the very words of Scripture as we may see frequently done in the Catholick Epistle of Barnabas Chap. vi and especially where the Discourse is about the Scape-goat He brings us as out of the Scripture these words as they are extant in the antient Version Exspuite in illum omnes pungite imponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius sic in aram ponatur cum ita factum fuerit adducite qui ferat hircum in eremum auferat portet illum in stirpem quae
of their Philosophy with the Jewish Divinity and by that mungril Doctrine interpreted Scripture and Religion Afterwards the name of Gnosticks was appropriated to a certain Sect of Heathens mention'd by Irenaeus and Epiphanius In Barnabas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more than once used in a good sense for the knowledg of the mystical sense of Scripture In chap. vi after he had alledged words out of Moses in Exod. xxxiii 1 and Lev. xx 24 in which the Jews are commanded to enter into the Land of Canaan he presently subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and understand what saith Knowledg hope in Jesus who is to be manifested to you in the flesh Afterwards he interprets the words of Moses allegorically and says that by the Land was meant Jesus See also Chap. x. towards the end where that word occurs twice in this signification Some persons seem as they easily might to have abused that way of interpreting whose knowledg St. Paul here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to whom he often alludes in this Epistle But we must beware of seeking such Allusions where it is not necessary as our Author does in many places who yet sometimes seems to have hit the nail on the head as in Chap. iv 4 seqq ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy AT the end of the Premon Notwithstanding all that is here said by our Author it is much more probable that St. Paul wrote this Epistle after his last Bondage in the year of Nero XIII and of Christ LXVII a little before his death as it is thought by Dr. Pearson who has easily solved all the Difficulties which our Author here objects against that Opinion I shall say something to them on Chap. iv CHAP. I. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of these words seems to be this I thank God that he gives me cause to make perpetual mention of you in my Prayers that is because thou adherest to the Gospel for the Apostle did expresly make mention of those in his Prayers for whom he had a particular Affection and whom he knew to be faithful to Christ This may be gather'd from the beginning of most of his Epistles See especially that to Philemon vers 4 and 5. Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of a long time God had purposed to give us by Jesus Christ. He means the Gospel which God had purposed should be preached both to Jews and Gentiles as appears from vers 10. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a long time is evident from Tit. i. 2 where see our Author and Grotius upon this place And that is said to be given which is by a certain and immutable Counsel decreed to be given So Virgil Aeneid 1. vers 282. represents Jupiter speaking thus concerning the Romans His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono Imperium sine sine DEDI See Note on Ephes i. 4 CHAP. II. Vers 16. Note b. THE place in Tertullian is in Chap. xxxiii de Praeser Haeret. where he speaks thus Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores dubitatores resurrectionis Haec opinio propria Sadducaeorum Partem ejus usurpat Marcion Apelles Valentinus St. Paul in his first to the Corinthians marks those who denied or doubted of the Resurrection This opinion was peculiar to the Sadduces Part of it is espoused by Marcion c. And a little after Aeque tangit eos qui dicerent factam jam resurrectionem id de se Valentiniani asseverant He likewise takes up those that said the Resurrection was already past which the Valentinians affirm of themselves The rest which our Author says in this Annotation about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Derivatives and about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a mere Medley and perfectly useless I will not say to those that understand the Greek Language but those also who can consult Lexicons in which they may find these words more largely and better explained than they are here I shall note only a few things concerning them I. Because while Cattel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are feeding they wander out of one place into another therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to wander as on the contrary the Latin word errare signifies to feed as in that Verse of Virgil Mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae The same I may say of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find in Numb xiv 3 where the Vulg. Interp. renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rohim by vagos Wanderers The Nomades in Scythia and the Numidians in Africa were really both Shepherds and Wanderers so that they might be denominated from both which every one knows But what is that to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Gangrene Our Author ought to have produced Examples which shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for the eating of a spreading Ulcer of which there are several given by H. Stephanus The Doctor alledges a Verse as out of Hesiod which is Homers in Iliad Υ. v. 249. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a profusion of words with which any one feeds himself as Eustathius on that place observes Yet that word occurs in Hesiod in the same sense in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 403. where the Poet admonishes Persa that if he did not labour there would come a time when he should beg with a great many words in vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A profusion of words will be useless II. There was no need of recurring to the Septuagint to shew that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes to shun that being the use of it in the best Greek Writers as Lexicographers will shew And therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to shun because if we meet with any thing in our way which we would not run upon and we cannot remove we go round about it Or if we would come nearer the proper signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be to stand about that is to stand still when we meet with any stumbling block for fear of falling upon it Suidas interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flying from or avoiding and then he produces the place concerning Moses alledged by our Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he always avoided a multitude and Tumults especially CHAP. III. WHat our Author says here about Simon 's Contest and Flying he took out of Caesar Baronius as also other things of no great moment See Baron Annal. ad A. C. LXVIII of Nero the 12 th But these things I have already elsewhere confuted See especially what I have said on 2 Thess ii 3 I shall only add that the place which our Author refers to in Suetonius does not at all belong to this matter it is in Chap. 12. of the Life of Nero and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is no wonder that our learned Author whose stile is full of intricacies and windings should make a difficulty where there was none Vers 6. Note c. Our Author here follows Grotius But the Syriack Interpreter seems rather to have rendred the place corrupted as he thought it should be understood than as he read it because all the Copies contradict him Besides he rendred it otherwise than the Doctor says for he has and the Tongue is a Fire and a world of Iniquity is like a Wood. Grotius had not carefully enough look'd into that Interpreter and Dr. Hammond rashly followed him When I read this place I can hardly forbear thinking that a Gloss out of the Margin crept into the Context and if it be cast out both a useless repetition will be avoided and the series of the Discourse very proper thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold how great a matter a little Fire kindleth and so the Tongue is among our Members which defileth the whole Body setting on Fire the wheel of our Generation geniturae nostrae As there is nothing wanting in this sentence so there is nothing superfluous First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that thence we must begin the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the comparison as in the foregoing Similitudes in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is begun with the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here Secondly the words which signify the same thing and have no coherence with one another being unnecessarily interposed between the parts of the Similitude are cast out for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with the whole Similitude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly spoils the connexion of the Discourse But how should these words come to be written in the Margin to wit in this manner Some body had expressed the substance of the whole Similitude in these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and added them to the Margin of his Copy as many do who to find out any thing the more easily set down by way of Abridgment the subject spoken of in such or such a place in the Margin of their Books Then as an interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World namely is meant and had subjoined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understanding the wheel of Generation to signify the wheel of Iniquity that is a wicked and unregenerate Life or such as the Life of Men born but not born again And these things having not without some reason been set down in the Margin were rashly inserted into the Context Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word I render is according to its usual signification in good Authors What a spark of Fire is put among combustible matter that the Tongue is among our Members Ibid. Note d. I have observed on Mat. i. 1 that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify every event and I must not repeat here what I have there said I had rather understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wheel or Chariot of Life so called because at our Nativity we enter into that Chariot and with restless Wheels run hastily till we come to the Grave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For like the Wheel of a Chariot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life runs rolling They are the words of Anacreon Od. iii. on himself Vers 17. Note f. I. I have shewn on Chap. ii 4 that our learned Author is mistaken in the signification he attributes to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tho what he there says were true it would not follow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to have a signification deduced from the middle Voice because it comes from the third Person of the Preterperfect tense Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as every one knows II. But because the Passive conjugation of this Verb is taken both in a Passive and Active sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken also in either of these senses according as the thing spoken of requires Thus Hesychius first interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has no difference or makes no difference in an active Notion And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is commonly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undistinguished in a Passive signification as it is expounded also in the Old Glosses So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is taken also for those who do not know what they ought to do or that talk tristingly and foolishly Here it is taken in an Active sense but in a good one for him that does good to all without distinction For that other signification put upon it by Dr. Hammond is without example and has no foundation in any antient Grammarian Vers 18. Note g. I do not think there is here any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is a Greek phrase which may be expressed in Latin thus Qui faciunt pacem illi serunt in pace fructus justitiae those that make Peace sow in Peace the fruits of Righteousness that is they who promote Peace or Christian Concord whilst they follow after Peace sow as it were that Righteousness the fruit of which they shall hereafter reap For to sow the fruit of Righteousness is all one as to do righteous Works which shall be rewarded in their proper time But St. James express'd himself somewhat harshly when he said to sow Fruit for that which is ordinarily called sowing Seed whence a Plant or Tree is produced which afterwards brings forth Fruit. But he could not say to sow Fruit that is a Reward without speaking very improperly CHAP. IV. Vers 5. Note a. HOW forced what our Author here says after other Interpreters is every one sees I had rather say here what is sufficiently evident from several places of the New Testament and of two very antient Writers Barnabas and Clemens that in those times the Jews used to produce as out of Scripture not only the sense of places without regarding the words but also a Jewish Tradition or interpretation of places of Scripture So that I should no more look for what is here said in the Old Testament than what is alledged in Heb. xii 21 as spoken by Moses of himself I exceedingly fear and quake or what is said in Barnabas of the Scape Goat cap. vi or in Clemens cap. xvii Vers 6. Note b. It was a long while since Dr. Hammond had read Virgil when he alledged his words in such a manner He describes the Manners of the Romans and not the part of Kings Aeneid Lib. vi l. 851. seqq Tu regere Imperio populos Romane memento Hae tibi erunt artes pacisque imponere morem Parcere subjectis debellare superbos CHAP. V. Vers 3. Note a. IF this Epistle had been
understand the words of the counterfeit Epistle of Heraclitus to Hermodorus as appears only by the Passive voice used by the false Heraclitus for such an abuse could not be put upon Heraclitus who was then well stept in Years In the places of the New Testament there is no reason why we should depart from the general signification of Corruption So that it would have been better if Dr. Hammond had here followed Grotius Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author after Grotius and others seems to have rightly interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Note on vers 3. But he did not carefully enough read the place of Euripides in Stobaeus his Florileg Tit. vii for the first Verse is produced out of his Bellerophon the last out of Euripides his Aegeus and should be divided into two Dimeters as it is in Grotius his Edition Ibid. Note c. Because our learned Author often speaks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Gnosticks to whom I have shewn that he refers a great many things without necessity and in this place sets himself more particularly to explain the original of their Name it will not be amiss if I also treat here of that matter in a few words I. I cannot deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a general name for any sort of Knowledg or Learning is sometimes taken properly for Christian Knowledg and where the Discourse is about the Mystical sense of Scripture for the understanding of Mysteries It is used several times in this sense in the Epistle of Barnabas as I have thereon observed But I should not compare the Gift of the Holy Ghost by which the Minds of the Evangelical Prophets were fitted to understand obscure places of Scripture with the Jewish Cabbala For this without any regard had to the literal sense taken from the proper or metaphorical signification of words and the series and occasion of the Discourse deduces any thing out of any place of Scripture and relies either upon trivial reasonings to prove what it asserts or very uncertain Tradition so that if any deny it there is no means left to convince them and those that believe it do so upon insufficient grounds and may be made to believe any thing tho never so unreasonable But the Christian Prophets who received their Knowledg from the Spirit of Truth alledged nothing out of Scripture that was not in it and could not be deduced out of it by Grammatical Reasons Otherwise Prophecies must have been explained by Prophecies and the new Prophets attested to by Miracles to make it believed that such a thing was contained in the Old Prophets because they affirmed it to be so which otherwise no Man could have seen in them which method of acting does not seem worthy of the Spirit of God as I have shewn out of a learned Man on Matt. i. 22 I acknowledg that in the Writings of the Apostles there are several interpretations of places of Scripture more like Cabbalistical than Grammatical ones but wherever we find them they are used only as Arguments to convince the Jews and in compliance with their Opinions and Practices not as demonstrations to Persons of different Sentiments II. I◠is very true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies a profound knowledg of the Christian Religion and so is taken in a good sense as manifestly appears from Clemens Alexandrinus who often so uses that word both elsewhere and in Strom. Lib. vi out of which I shall produce a few words so much the rather because from them we may gather the reason why the Apostle here joins Knowledg with Faith and Vertue Now he in pag. 648. speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we dare say for here is the Faith enlightned with Knowledg that a true Gnostick knows all things and understands all things having a firm comprehension even of those things whereof we doubt such as were James Peter John Paul and the rest of the Apostles Then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Prophecy is full of knowledg as having been given by the Lord and by the Lord again manifested to the Apostles And is not Knowledg a property of a reasonable Soul trained up to this that by Knowledg it may be entitled to Immortality Afterwards he shews that Action must be preceded by Knowledg and contends that nothing is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incomprehensible which is true if we speak of things necessary For whatever it is necessary for us to understand to attain Salvation we can undoubtedly understand At length he thus describes a Gnostick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Gnostick of whom I speak comprehends those things which seem to others to be incomprehensible believing there is nothing incomprehensible to the Son of God and therefore nothing which cannot be taught If any desire the knowledg of many things he knows what past of old and conjectures what will be hereafter A Disciple of Wisdom can discover the deceitfulness of words and unfold Riddles he foreknows also Signs and Wonders and the events of Times and Seasons So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a more exquisite degree of Knowledg and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Person profoundly knowing Hence St. Peter exhorts Christians to join to their Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the highest degree of Knowledg possible III. It appears indeed from the Writings of the Apostles that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such a Knowledg but I don't know whether it hence follows that the Disciples of Simon were by an Antonomasia called even at that time Gnosticks or assumed to themselves that name There is no place alledged from whence this can be concluded Besides I don't know whether all that Epiphanius says of the later Gnosticks be true much less do I believe him in every thing concerning the Antient Epiphanius is not a Person whose affirmation should easily be credited where he accuses and inveighs against the antient Hereticks Yet I do not take upon me to defend the cause of these Men of whom there are no Records come to our hands But I leave the matter undecided IV. It is true indeed that in the Epistle of Barnabas many places of the Old Testament are explained Allegorically and several Mysteries unfolded which otherwise no one would have discerned in them But they are interpretations much more like the Jewish Cabbala and the greatest part of them undoubtedly vain if not also false but yet fit for the Jews of that Age according to whose Opinions rather than to Truth Barnabas reasons So that I should not account this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his the same with that Christian Knowledg which is so highly extolled by Clemens I would alledg some examples out of him but that the Epistle of Barnabas was this last Year M.DC.XCVII published at Amsterdam with
taken very often for a thing but the phrase to speak a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never used to signify to do any thing The first therefore is very well observed by the Doctor and demonstrated before by examples at chap. xi ver 23. of this Gospel But the latter no body will ever be able to prove For tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both word and thing yet it does not follow that verbs of a near signification as particularly that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak signifies to do nor can any such instance be given It is true also that those who speak words against the Holy Ghost do oppose him but the reason of that is because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and it is impossible that a man should speak vilifying words of those Miracles that are wrought by a divine power but he must have a design to resist them So that our Author which I am sorry for has not in the beginning of this last Annotation of his given us any Evidence of his great skill in Grammar What he says besides is extraordinary and no body that I know of has so happily explained wherein the Sin against the Holy Ghost consists This Sin is excellently compared to sinning under the Law with a hand lifted up which those were guilty of who after warning given them put an open contempt upon the Laws authority and spake in reproachful terms concerning it as we have shewn in our Notes on Numbers For just as those who are here said to sin against the Holy Ghost defamed the Miracles wrought by Christ so those that sinned under the Law with a high hand derided the Miracles wrought by Moses Vers 36. Note m. There are some who would have Christ to argue here à minori ad majus q. d. If men must give an account even of idle words much more must they do so of slanderous speeches such as had been utter'd by the Pharisees But there is not so much as the least footstep of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Saviour's words And therefore I rather think with Dr. Hammond that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies something in it more than ordinary bad For tho it properly signifies idle yet according to use which often stretches the sense of words beyond what is contain'd in their true original it may signify somewhat more When any man was said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only meaning certainly was not that he had a great deal of leisure which may be true sometimes of good and industrious persons but that he was a lazy sluggish stupid Fellow as the word is rendred in an old Lexicon And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only a vain or idle word such as the Discourse of trifling persons is oftentimes full of but also a wicked one such as is a means of corrupting the minds of the Hearers and making them lazy and slothful i. e. hindering them from doing any good works and as a consequence of that occasioning their running headlong into all manner of evil practices And of this sort were the Discourses of such men as the Pharisees who in respect of Piety might be justly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slothful persons performed no good works but were wicked themselves and by their bad Conversation kept others from becoming sober or serviceable Their Discourses were the Discourses of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lazy men in point of Virtue and such as induced the Hearers to be alike slothful This Christ more than once upbraids them with See afterwards Chap. xxiii 13 And in this place we have an instance of it in them in their not only refusing to believe Christ themselves but using Arguments to perswade others that he was not to be believed whilst they wickedly ascribed the Miracles that were done by him to the Prince of the Devils So that I should understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in a passive but also in an active sense i. e. that Christ speaks of such Discourses as were not only without the least spark of goodness in them but had a bad influence likewise upon others Thus the Doctrine of the Stoicks was by the rest of the Philosophers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an active sense as appears from a passage in Cicero Lib. de Fato Nec nos impediet says he illa ignava quae dicitur ratio appellatur quidem à Philosophis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cui si pareamus nihil est omnino quod agamus in vita So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a contraction is used also actively Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idle or mischievous Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes upon Abd. ver 20. CHAP. XIII Vers 8. Note a. SEe my Citations out of Pliny about the fruitfulness of Egypt Africa and Sicily upon Gen. xli 47 Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He that makes an ill use of God's benefits so as that they prove almost insignificant to him and makes little or no advances in Piety shall be so forsaken of God as to fall even from those first beginnings he has made in Virtue Just such another expression but in a different case there is in Juvenal Sat. iii. vers 208. Nil habuit Codrus quis enim negat tamen illud Perdidit infelix totum nihil Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Metaphor is used by Quintilian de praecocibus ingeniis Inst lib. 1. c. 3. Non subest says he vera vis nec penitus immissis radicibus ut quae summo solo sparsa sunt semina celerius sese effundunt imitatae spicas herbulae manibus aristis ante messem flavescunt Their forwardness is not the effect of any settled strength of Judgment but they are like seeds scattered upon the surface of the ground which presently shoot up before they have taken any rooting or like deep weeds growing amongst the corn which ripen before the Harvest Ibid. The Exposition of this Parable is full of improprieties of speech such as in their ordinary and daily discourse it is usual for men to be guilty of but this does not make the sense obscure because the thing is of it self so very manifest We must not therefore criticize too much upon the words but mind the thing it self When any one saith Christ heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not the wicked one cometh and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart this is he which was sowed by the way side It is just as if he had said and his meaning is no other than this That whosoever hears the Gospel and does not with all his heart entertain it is not long obedient to it for the Examples and Speeches of wicked men soon engage him to return to his former evil course This man
generally kept whatever he found because he could not be forced by the Law to restore it And therefore such a man as lays hold of every opportunity which offers it self for his own interest without having any regard to equity is called by St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by St. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard close-fisted tenacious rough man as Pricaeus upon Mat. xxv 44 has well observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an ambiguous word and signifies both a grave and severe man and one that is rustick and savage Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They call all wise and grave men austere because they neither converse themselves for pleasure nor admit any pleasant discourse from others and there is another sort of men called austere just as Wine is said to be austere which is used in medicinal Potions but never drank because in Comedy a rustick man is called austere In the signification of fierceness or savageness it is used by Diodorus Siculus Lib. 3. p. 168. where speaking of a sort of beast that has a head like a dog he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are exceeding fierce Creatures and impossible to be tamed by any means whatsoever They have a fiercer aspect under the Eyebrows than ordinary I need not tell the Reader that this word is taken here in the worst sense CHAP. XX. Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This is the answer of the Sanhedrim tho their name for brevity sake be here omitted as appears from Mat. xxi 41 See on vers 24. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be rendered thus And when they had understood viz. that these things were spoken against them they said within themselves God forbid for they did not apply the Parable to themselves aloud See Mat. xxi 45 and afterwards ver 19. of this Chapter Thus the omission of a Circumstance often seems to alter a History so that those who tell it large seem to contradict those who relate it more briefly when yet really they agree with one another Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is well observed by learned Men that this Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wait for an opportunity of doing mischief See Chap. xiv 1 of this Gospel and my Notes upon Gen. iii. 15 Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke omits here what St. Matthew expresses and must necessarily be understood viz. And they brought unto him a Penny and he said unto them Mat. xxii 19 Such another omission I have already taken notice of on vers 16. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our learned Author interprets this word in his Paraphase a future state after this life And indeed the Sadduces did deny not only the resurrection of the Body but also the immortality of the Soul But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies simply a future State and the Argument of the Sadduces opposes nothing but the Resurrection I have elsewhere confuted the Doctor 's opinion about this word see Note on Mat. xxii 31 Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very well known that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as well for a man 's as a woman's Garment tho the Latin stola signifies only a woman's This is more than once proved by Oct. Ferrarius Lib. de Re Vestiaria And yet Epiphanius seems to have understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here of a woman's Garment who Haeres 16. says that the Pharisees were like the Scribes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their apparel and womanish Garments But perhaps he speaks in that manner because amongst the Greeks the men wore short Garments or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coats and the women long Gowns such as were usual among several of the Eastern Nations In antient times also stola talaris a gown reaching down to the Ancles seems to have been a Garment worn by Women among the Assyrians See Oct. Ferrarius in Analectis cap. 23. But it is a good observation that Pope Celestine the first makes concerning Clergymen in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienne and Narbonne Discernendi inquit à plebe vel caeteris sumus doctrinâ non veste conversatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We ought saith he to distinguish our selves from the common people or the rest of mankind by our Doctrin not by our Apparel by our Conversation not by our Habit by the purity of our Minds not by our Dress CHAP. XXI Vers 4. Note a. THO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all one as to the sense yet it is false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same for the latter phrase properly signifies to cast in among the Gifts or Offerings and the former only into a Chest of which there were several in the Temple wherein the Money was deposited that was voluntarily consecrated to the use of the Temple See Lightfoot's Descript of the Temple Chap. 19. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some that add here a note of interrogation as if Christ had said Are these the things which ye look upon as it is in the Cambridg Copy wherein the Gospels are rather paraphrased than the words only variously read and therefore Grotius justly rejects this note of Interrogation The Evangelist expresses himself here just as the best Writers sometimes do The end of the sentence does not answer the beginning but the whole is made up of two different forms of speech mixed together For either he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things which ye behold shall be quite destroyed for the days will come c. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Of these things which ye behold the days will come in which there shall not be left one stone upon another But the Evangelist begins just as if he was about to express himself the former of these ways and ends with the latter Grotius has given us two examples of the like Syntax and I add this one more out of Terence Phorm Act. 3. Sc. 2. O fortunatissime Antipho qui quod amas domi est He should have said Qui quod amas domi habes or cui quod amas domi est Who hast what thou lovest at home Such phrases as these have something of that impropriety in them which is frequent in ordinary speech Vers 24. Note b. 1. Our Author tells us as out of Eusebius that there died during the Siege of Jerusalem eleven millions of People i. e. ten times more than there did according both to Eusebius and Josephus's account who reckon up but eleven hundred thousand 2. The words in Eusebius which the Doctor translates to be slaves there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Henr. Valesius renders ut metalla exercerent to work in the Mines and so they ought to be interpreted 3. Eusebius is mistaken in
Being returned from his Banishment tn the Isle of Patmos he composes his Gospel when he was a hundred years old It is no matter to us which of these Oâ—inions be true as long as we are certain that St. John wrote his Gospel about the end of the first Century Epiphanius confessing that St. John wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the ninetieth year of his Age and after his return out of Patmos erroneously makes that to have been in the reign of Claudius as learned Men have observed See his words in Heres Alogorum which is the 51. Sect. 12. III. By these Testimonies it appears that St. John either wrote or published his Gospel at Ephesus which Irenaeus also expresly affirms Lib. 3. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John one of our Lord's Disciples who also leaned upon his Breast and himself published a Gospel dwelling at Ephesus in Asia If it be enquired on what occasion and to what end St. John began his Gospel so as we see he does Irenaeus answers in these words Lib. 3. c. 11. after he had spoken of the other Evangelists St. John the Disciple of our Lord designing to extirpate that error which had been sowed in mens Minds by Cerinthus and a great while before by those that are called Nicolaitans who are a branch of that Heresy which is falsly called Knowledg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence they had the name of Gnosticks that he might confound them and perswade them that there is one God who made all things by his Word c. So that St. John if we believe Irenaeus began his Gospel so as he did on purpose to refute the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Gnosticks as he declares afterwards more at large Eusebius in Hist Eccles Lib. 3. c. 24. affirms that the intention of St. John was to fill up what was wanting in the relation of the other Evangelists In his room I shall substitute St. Jerom who in Catal. Script Eccles has these words Novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium rogatus ab Asiae Episcopis adversus Cerinthum aliósque Haereticos maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse unde compulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edisserere Sed aliam causam hujus scripturae ferunt c. He wrote his Gospel last of all at the desire of the Bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other Hereticks and the Heresy of the Ebionites which began to prevail exceedingly at that time who asserted that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary upon which account also he was forced to declare his Divine Birth But there is another reason likewise given of this writing which is the same I have alledged out of Eusebius and is not to our purpose The same Author in Proaem ad Matthaeum speaks thus Joannes Apostolus Evangelista cum esset in Asia c. St. John the Apostle and Evangelist being in Asia and the Heresies of Cerinthus Ebion and others who denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and whom he also in his Epistle calls Antichrists springing up at that very time he was compelled almost by all the then Bishops of Asia and the Messages of many Churches to write concerning our Saviour's Divinity more particularly Whence it is also related in Church-History that being urged by his Brethren to write he promised that he would provided they would all keep a fast and implore the assistance of God on his behalf which being accordingly performed he was filled with the Holy Ghost and immediately dictated as from Heaven that Proemium In the beginning c. Altho all these Authors had been silent we might easily enough have drawn a conjecture from the thing it self for celebrated Writers and Sects of Hereticks having introduced several Platonick terms into the Jewish and Christian Religion before St. John wrote and the Apostle John being the first Christian Writer that used those terms in a peculiar Sense in the beginning of his Gospel it may be easily conjectured that he alluded to the Doctrin of those Men and that it was his design to teach Christians in what sense those terms might be made use of If the Writings of those antient Hereticks were now extant they would be a great help doubtless to our understanding of this matter but since they are lost we can only make use of their fragments which are extant in Irenaeus the most antient Writer that has related their Opinions There are extant also several Books of the famous Philo Alexandrinus who was contemporary with the Apostles and if we believe some of the Antients familiar with them where the same terms are so often used that I am apt to think St. John has as great a respect to him as the forementioned Hereticks It is certain that all his Writings were published a long while before ever St. John wrote and his eloquence is such that he was justly had in admiration by all who lived in his time and is still read by learned Men with great delight What high Commendations Josephus Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Jerom and others give him I need not say So celebrated a Writer therefore could not be unknown to the Apostle John who dwelt so long at Ephesus in the very eye of Asia That he had been carefully read by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews the great Grotius has observed And therefore being often read by the Christians and having a great many things in him of a near affinity with the Christian Tenets it was possible that many who were taken with his Eloquence might imitate him and mix his Opinions before they were aware with Christianity To prevent which St. John in the beginning of his Gospel made use of those terms which were most likely to impose on the unwary that the Christians might understand in what sense they might be used and how probable this is will by comparing the words of the Apostle with those of Philo sufficiently appear But before I come to that I shall endeavour to strengthen this conjecture by producing some passages out of him parallel to several sayings of Christ himself and his Apostles in this Gospel For the more I shew to be in Philo resembling the Discourses of Christ and his Disciples the more likely it will be that he was frequently read and delighted in by the Christians of that Age and accordingly that St. John had a reference to him in the beginning of his Gospel 1. There is nothing in Christianity that more offends the Jews than our so asserting God to be one as yet to make mention of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose names we are baptized And there is something so like this Tenâ—t in Philo that you would almost think you were reading the words of some Christians He seems indeed to speak more agreeably to the opinion which Arius afterwards espoused than of the Orthodox but he came
was something inferior to God as we may see in his Comment on St. John T. 11. p. 55. Ed. Huet But his reasoning is vain as appears by what I said So St. Paul says that he was an Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Will of God 1 Cor. i. 1 and 2 Cor. i. 1 but it cannot be inferred from thence that the will of God is inferior to God That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things is to be understood of the Universe I need not here prove for tho that word may have several significations yet in this matter it cannot be otherwise understood They are bad Criticks who consider what words signify separately and think that any of those significations may be any where applied without any regard had to the Phrases in which they occur or the occasion on which they are used or who think that an interpretation ought to be admitted only because it does not make the sense altogether absurd and it is not Metaphysically if I may so speak impossible but that the Writer whom they interpret might mean as they would have him We ought carefully to consider in what sense words are commonly used in any Language with the occasion of the writing and all the circumstances of the Discourse in order to give a right interpretation of them Ibid. And without it was not any thing made that was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho it be a very true Observation of a great Man that the Holy Scriptures do many times explain what they assert by a Negation of the contrary yet I do not think that these words are added to that end The Epicureans thought that all and every particular thing was made without Reason in contradiction to which the Apostle here affirms that not only all things that is the Universe but every single thing was made with Reason The Epicureans when any objected against their opinion the beauty of the World and the great Benefit which Men received by the Order and Disposition of it pretended to prove Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum tanta stat praedita culpa That the World was not made by a divine Power and Wisdom for our use there are so many faults in it And they composed a Catalogue of things that were hurtful to Mankind and seemed to be made without Reason as we may see in Lucretius Lib. 5. after the words alledged And so Cicero likewise in Acad. Quaest 4. c. 38. disputes thus against the Stoicks Cur Deus omnia nostri causâ cum faceret sic enim vultis tantum natricum viperarumque fecerit cur mortifera tam multa perniciosa terra marique disperserit c. Why God having made all things for our use as ye affirm should make so many Watersnakes and Vipers Why he should disperse so many deadly and pernicious things on the Earth and in the Sea c. These Arguments had such an effect upon some who were otherwise friends to Providence that they granted the Epicureans there were some things made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Reason And among these Philo was one to whom I make little doubt but that the Apostle had a respect in this matter also as he has approved some things in his Doctrine so he has rejected others lest by the unwary the bad should be mixed with the good and lest because he had approved some things he should seem to have assented to all That Doctrine of Philo was extant in his Book de Providentia out of which we have a long disputation set down in Eusebius Praep. Evang. Lib. 8. c. 14. where among other passages we meet with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those creeping things that are poisonous are not made by Providence but come of course as I before said For they are generated when the moistness that is inherent in them or whereof they consist becomes warmer than ordinary I think Mr. le Clere does not express the sense of this period when he translates it Nascuntur enim cum humiditas terrae inhaerens calore mutatur some are animated by Putrefaction as worms in the Belly viz. by the putrefaction of Food and lice of Sweat But every thing which is procreated from a seminal and antecedaneous Nature in the Latin it is praevisam which I take to be a mistake either in Mr. le Clerc or in his Printer for praegressam out of its proper matter is justly ascribed to Providence This is contrary to the Christian Doctrin which teaches us that all things were created and are taken care of by God see Mat. x. 29 and Interpreters upon that place Vers 4. In it was Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life in this place seems to signify a clear Doctrin concerning eternal Life and the way of attaining it which were but obscurely known before Christ upon which account St. Paul 2 Tim. i. 20 says that Christ brought Life and Immortality to Light by the Gospel And that this is here St. John's meaning he himself shews in 1 Epist i. 2 For the Life saith he was manifested and we have seen it and bear witness and declare unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us And in the same Epist. Chap. v. 11 God hath given to us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son Or else the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be called Life because it gives spiritual Life to Men in this world and eternal Life in the other Ignatius St. John's Disciple in his genuin Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smirna after he had said that it was difficult for bad Men to repent subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is in the power of Jesus Christ who is our true Life And in his Epist to the Trallians p. 51. Ed. Voss speaking of Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without whom we have no true Life There are some who think that St. John has a respect to the Doctrin of the Gnosticks who affirmed that Reason and Life were two several divine Emanations But whether this which was afterwards the opinion of Valentinus was before known is very uncertain See Note on Vers 16. Besides the sense I have given is plain and agreeable to what follows The Apostle seems rather to allude here to a Passage in Philo who in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum Haeres p. 381. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is a threefold kind of Life one which is with God another which is with the Creature and a third which is of a middle Nature mixed of both That which is with God has not descended to us or come for the necessities of the Body c. But St. John teaches us that that kind of Life was brought down upon Earth by Christ Ibid. And this Life was the Light of Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The light of the Mind is a thing very often mentioned by Philo but because
the name they went by was truly attributed the received Custom determining that from those to which it cannot be given but falsly thus true Amomum for instance will be that Plant to which this name is properly attributed and false Amomum another on which it is abusively imposed And because any sort of Plant which is truly called by the name it bears has a much greater Virtue in it than a Plant falsly denominated therefore true Amomum was preferred before false And for the same reason when any two things are compared together which are endued with a like quality tho in a different degree that which has the strongest and best and which is of most use is said to be true and the other compared with it false So the Platonicks used to call the divine Patterns of all things as they expressed themselves true when they compared them with the things upon Earth which are only their Pictures according to them And whatever Virtue there is in things visible it could be no otherwise compared they thought with the Celestial than as counterfeit things With those that are sincere and genuin and therefore they called these false and the other true And just thus Christ in this place is said to be the true Bread and the true Meat and elsewhere the true Light viz. because whatever propriety there is in Bread or Meat to nourish the Body or in Light to illuminate the Eyes that and a much greater there is in Christ's Doctrin to nourish and enlighten the Mind Bread nourishes the Body but does not exempt it from Death which corrupts and dissolves at length its frame but the Doctrin of Christ whilst it nourishes the Soul with Hope and excites and cherishes in it the love of Vertue does not only fill it with solid and substantial joy at present but also rescues it from dying for ever Light illuminates the Eye and shews it visible Objects when it is rightly disposed in their proper forms but it neither cures the distempers of the Eyes nor can hinder them from being closed at last by Death but the Doctrin of Christ makes blind Souls to see clearly and enlightens them for ever so that in this sense it is most truly called both the true Meat and the true Light CHAP. VII Vers 35. Note d. 1. IT is true indeed that there was a vast number of Jews at Alexandria who used the Translation of the Septuagint as appears by many passages in Philo Alexandr See Lib. against Flaccus But that the European Jews had their chief Assembly at Alexandria I cannot tell how our Author could have proved unless he thought Alexandria to be in Europe which would have been a strange mistake It 's true some of the old Geographers place it in Asia and others in Africa but none of them ever said that it was in Europe which is too absurd II. He ought also to have proved that the Onkelos was at that time read in the Synagogues of the Jews at Babylon for it is not safe to rely upon the Authority of the Rabbins who are always for putting as great a face of Antiquity upon their Writings as they are able Vers 53. Note i. It is strange that Dr. Hammond after giving sufficient proofs of this story of the Adulteress being supposititious and saying nothing almost on the other side to confirm its being thought genuin should yet assent to Grotius who has not in the least solv'd the matter If the Church in the time of Papias or in the next Age after him judged this Tradition of his to be true how comes it to pass that so many Fathers and so many Copies a great while after those times omitted this Story It is much more probable that it was added at first only to a few Copies by some Transcribers or Criticks who took it from the Tradition or Copy of the Nazarens and in time came to be inserted by that means into more nor is there any footstep any where to be found of the judgment of the Antient Church concerning this Story So that I think we ought rather to be of Beza's opinion who suspects this Story at least what he says as to this matter is worth considering CHAP. VIII Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is true indeed that at this time the power of inflicting capital Punishments was taken away from the Jews by the Romans but the Jews had no occasion to enquire about this matter of Christ who might easily have answered them that the Woman deserved indeed according to the Law of Moses to be put to Death but that the execution of the Punishment depended upon the pleasure of the Roman President There was no room here for any scruple and I do not conceive how the Scribes or Pharisees could have taken any occasion to accuse Christ if he had given them this ready answer tho he declined it by giving them that which follows Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Those who are of opinion that this Story is supposititious might probably enough suspect that Papias or some other borrowed this Circumstance here mentioned from that which is related of Menedemus as it is thus set down by Diogenes Laertius Lib. 2. § 127. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he was a Man that took a great liberty in talking and used to jeer People and once when a young Man spake something roughly and sharply to him he made him indeed no answer but taking up a little stick he drew upon the ground the figure of a Man muliebria patientis till the young man perceiving the Affront put upon him before all there present went away Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But no Law makes it requisite that those who bring a Criminal taken in the very act to judgment should be perfectly innocent themselves It is sufficient if they do but prove him to be really guilty of the Crime they charge him with by competent Witnesses And besides by giving such an answer as this Christ might have exposed himself to the invidious Censures both of the Jews and Romans for the Jews might have said that he made the Law of no force because he sticked at pronouncing a Harlot to be worthy of death and did in effect affirm that Offenders could not justly be punished but by those who were conscious of no guilt themselves And the Romans might have complained that he would have had the Power of inflicting capital Punishments restored to the Jews because he authorized those of that Nation that were innocent to stone a Woman to death I confess I do not see what danger Christ could think to avoid by such an answer Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it credible that all that were there present had been guilty of Adultery or some other crime as heinous as that not so much as one excepted That the Nation of the Jews was extremely corrupted at that time I
the shore he presently leaped into the water impatient of delay that he might as soon as possible come to the Lord whilst the rest tarried in the Ship till they could step out of it upon Land This occasion St. Peter gave Christ to ask him whether he loved him more than the rest of his Disciples because he came sooner to him than they Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius here has this gloss When thou hast added almost forty years to those which thou hast lived already But out of what Chronology did he learn that from the year of Christ's death to the last of Nero beyond which the death of St. Peter cannot be deferred there was the space of forty years From the year of Christ 33 in which he ascended into Heaven to the 68 th in which Nero died there were only 35 years And supposing St. Peter to have died Anno Christi 65 as the most exact Chronologers think there will be fewer I wonder that Dr. Hammond too should follow Grotius here without any examination Vers 22. Note c. This coming of Christ is very well interpreted by Dr. Hammond who deserves to have almost all the glory of it For few other Interpreters besides him ever discerned the true meaning of it and no body has ever so clearly explained it or so copiously demonstrated it This opinion of his is confirmed by the Church of Ephesus which in vers 24. declares the truth of St. John's Testimony both as to this and all other things If the Christians of that Age had believed the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify till I come to judg the living and the dead as the Apostles had thought they must have judged the testimony of St. John not be true because he was dead and yet that last day was not come Since therefore they thought St. John a faithful Witness both of Christ's Doctrin and Resurrection and knew that he was dead they must have understood this coming of Christ in another sense And nothing happened in all that interval of time which could be called Christ's coming but that remarkable Vengeance which he took upon the Jews Vers 24. Note d. How could the Ephesians say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know that his testimony is true namely not only by those evidences of veracity and prudence which they observed in St. John himself but chiefly by his Doctrin and Miracles the former being a holy Doctrin and the latter God's Seal to the truth of it ANNOTATIONS ON THE ACTS of the Holy Apostles AT the end of the Premon It is much more probable that St. Peter died in the Reign of Nero and that in the year of Christ 65. as A. Pagus has shewn in Baron Epicr ad Ann. 67. CHAP. I. Vers 13. Note d. I Have several Remarks to make on this Interpretation of Dr. Hammond I. That he recurred to this singular Interpretation because he thought that these two Passages of St. Luke could hardly otherwise be reconciled In the last Verse of his Gospel he has not said that the Apostles were always in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And here he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an upper room where they abode and pray'd to God But the Doctor himself acknowledges that the Apostles were not in the Temple the whole day but only at the stated times of publick Prayer At other times therefore they were at their own Houses in which I do not see why there could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which they might retire in order to pray or to spend their time with their Master or in pious Discourses about him And therefore this place may be very well understood thus where they abode when they were not in the Temple or hinder'd by other Affairs where they were for the most part when they kept at home II. It is indeed very true that there were several Chambers or Rooms in the Temple which might be called so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctor might have taken less pains in proving it but he should have given us some Examples to assure us that the common People and especially Strangers did not only pray in the Court of Israel but went up also into the Chambers that lay over the Porches in order to pray with the more secrecy For it is not at all probable that the Apostles who were poor men and Galileans and odious for their Master's sake to the Jews dared to do any thing which others could not in the Temple in which they might have been taken notice of by the Priests and Levites Our Author therefore ought to have shewn that it was the custom of pious Men to retire sometimes into the more secret Chambers of the Temple for their private Devotion which I cannot tell whether any body can prove at least I never met with any footstep of that custom III. He perfectly forces the words in Chap. ii 46 as I shall afterwards shew IV. Epiphanius doth not affirm that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of was where the Temple had been but in Mount Sion upon which as all know was built the Palace or City of David and not the Temple which lay more towards the East and South and stood upon another Hill supposed to be Mount Moriah and commonly called the Mountain of the House He that does not know this let him consult Dr. Lightfoot in Cent. Chorograph premised before St. Matthew Cap. xxii xxiii and xxvii where by Passages taken out of Josephus and the Rabbins he puts this matter out of all doubt It must be acknowledged however that Epiphanius by the inaccurate order of his words gave the Doctor an occasion to mistake For he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He found the whole City demolished and the Temple of God trampled upon except a few Houses The three last words the Doctor makes to refer to the Temple when they ought to be referred to the City It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church of God which was little in the place to which the Disciples returning when our Saviour was caught up from Mount Olivet went up into the upper room for there it was built This Church was not on the ground where the Temple stood but in Mount Sion as Epiphanius tells us in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a part of Sion which was left undestroy'd and some parts of the Houses that were about the same Sion and seven Synagogues which stood alone in Sion Vers 15. Note e. It is true indeed that the Name of God in Scripture is often put for God himself and that the Rabbins call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name with an Emphasis But we never find it set to signify Men or Persons in the Old Testament I am apt to think that it is rather a Latinism than a Hebraism For in Latin Authors nothing is more common than for the word Names to be
Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It being certain that these words are alledged by St. Paul in the same sense that they are used in Gen. xxv 23 they must here be understood not of the Persons of Esau and Jacob themselves but of their Posterity for these are the words of the Oracle Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be separated from thy Bowels and the one shall be stronger than the other and the greater shall serve the less Of which prediction see my Notes on that place in Genesis Therefore in this Passage of St. Paul the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to have been rendred in the English Translation the elder shall serve the younger but the greater shall serve the less And so the Apostles scope also requires who manifestly speaks of the Election not of particular Persons but of whole Nations Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest from the Prophet that this has a reference to the Nations that descended from Jacob and Esau and not to them themselves So that I wonder our Author in his Paraphrase on occasion of these words should observe that that Prophecy the greater shall serve the less was fulfilled personally in them especially seeing the contrary appears from the History of Moses as in my Notes on the forementioned Chapter of Genesis I have observed Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place I have interpreted on Exod. xxxiii 19 and shewed the meaning of God to be that because he had began to shew Favor and Mercy to the Israelites he would continue to do so and this is all that is here intended by these words The Apostle having said that the Posterity of Jacob were preferred by God before the Idumaeans because it so seemed good to him and not because Esau's Posterity were worse than that of Jacob proposes to himself an objection Is there unrighteousness with God Which he denies with detestation saying God forbid for saith he he said to Moses I will have Mercy on whom I have Mercy and I will have Compassion on whom I have Compassion that is as God began to shew kindness to Jacob himself so he continued his kindness to his Posterity without the least injustice because he did not deny any benefit to the Idumaeans which they had deserved but only went on to do good to the Israelites tho unworthy For it is no injustice to be merciful to those that do not deserve it tho it would be so to punish those that do not deserve it Mercy may be justly shewn when punishment cannot be justly inflicted As this Interpretation is favoured by the place referred to in Moses as I have shewn in my Comment on Exodus so it agrees also with the Greek words as they are here accented for we read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense Indicative which is not so favourable to the vulgar Translation according to which we ought rather to read in the Subjunctive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is generally accented in the Greek Copies of the Septuagint so that it might be rendred as it is by Beza Miserebor cujus misertus fuero commiserabor cujus commiseratus fuero I will have Mercy on whom I shall have Mercy and I will have Compassion on whom I shall have Compassion But this is contrary to the Hebrew words which are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have favoured him whom I will favour I have had Mercy on whom I will have Mercy where one of the Verbs is in the future tense and the other in the preterperfect which preterperfect is rendred here in the Present because it is the same thing for God did still then shew Mercy to the Israelites and had never ceased to shew Mercy to them when he so spake Which being so I wonder that Beza should find fault with the Vulgar and Erasmus for making use here of the present Tense and rendering it cui misereor or cujuscunque misereor To whom I shew Mercy or to whomsoever I shew Mercy and give this reason for it that in the Hebrew the Verb is in both places in the future which the Reader has just now seen to be false He adds that the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews it must be interpreted by the future as past and I cannot deny but that Particle uses to be joined to a Subjunctive but it being joined to a Preterperfect tence Indicative it may be also joined to the Present especially where the purity of the Greek Language is not observed as it is not in St. Paul It must be observed further that the words of Moses are inverted for whereas in him it is I have favoured him whom I will favour c. the Septuagint understood it as if it had been said I will favour him whom I do favour c. because tho those Phrases signify the same thing yet the order of the words in the latter sutes better with the Greek Language Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This seems to be a proverbial form of Speech commonly used to signify that all human endeavours are insignificant unless God countenance them I suppose it was taken from the Grecian Games to which St. Paul often alludes In like manner an unknown Poet in Grotius's excerpta says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Man void of Counsel labours and runs in vain The meaning is that from the meer arbitrary pleasure of God proceeded that favour he continued to shew to Jacob's Posterity rather than to Esaus not from any thing that the Israelites had done to deserve the divine Favor more than the Idumaeans From which Doctrin it followed that God might without any injustice call the Heathens to the knowledg of the Gospel and reject the carnal Jews tho otherwise the Heathens had done no more to merit this token of God's favour than the Jews Having thus far endeavoured to clear the Apostle's sense in this place I shall subjoin a Paraphrase of seven Verses from the tenth to the sixteenth to shew how aptly what I have said agrees with St. Paul's scope and the series of his Discourse Vers 10. And not only the Example of Isaac and Ishmael teaches us that it is not sufficient for any Nation to have descended from the Patriarchs to claim to themselves a right in the Divine Promises or entitle them God's People This appears likewise by the instance of Esau and Jacob which Rebecca bare to one Isaac 11. For before ever they were born and consequently had done good or evil by which to procure the favour of God or make him their Enemy that the purpose of God concerning chusing a certain People to himself might appear to proceed from his own arbitrary pleasure and not to have been excited by any Virtue or Merits of that People 12. God answered Rebecca when she consulted him about her Children striving in her Womb That she carried
But first this should be proved out of the Old Testament for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any such apprehensions of it there is no reason to say that Manna signified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews understood by it But it may be proved perhaps out of the New If it be asked where out of John vi 31 seqq where Christ opposes his Doctrin to Manna As if a mere allusion or opposition put by Christ between his Doctrin and Manna did necessarily imply that it was the design of God in giving the Israelites Manna to typify the future promulgation of the Gospel by Christ But I further ask for whose sake were these typical representations made Was it for the sake of the Jews This cannot be pretended for that dull Nation hardly understood the plainest and expressest things tho frequently inculcated upon them and much less such as were obscure and intricate And it is not probable that any thing was instituted by God for the sake of the Jews which they did not at all understand But that those Types were given for the sake of Christians is yet far more unlikely because if they were to be believed by us they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority alone would move us in this matter when otherwise we should never have so much as dreamt of them So that in order to our understanding that kind of Predictions the assistance of other Divine Persons would have been necessary whom for other reasons we already believe viz. for the excellency of their Doctrin and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it But this being supposed what need is there of Types to those who already believe Christ and his Apostles upon the firmest grounds They illustrate it may be you 'l say the Apostles Doctrin that I deny and say that they would rather obscure it if they occurred in their Writings for the alledged reasons See my Note on Mat. ii 2 Let the Learned judg of these things and consider whether it be not better at last to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone which the Heathens of old derided and the Jews ridicule at this day and only make use of the most convincing Arguments whereby to prove the truth of Christianity But this would be the subject of a whole Volume which I have here but transiently touched intending wherever there is a fit occasion to shew the weakness of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apostles Writings Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of that spiritual Water which God made to proceed out of the Rock which Water followed the Camp So Gen. iii. and elsewhere to eat of the Tree is to eat of the fruit of the Tree Which must be carefully observed lest any one think that the Rock it self is here properly called spiritual that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock which tho not expressed is yet to be understood For no one will suppose that the Rock from which the Water proceeded followed the Israelites or was carried about with them through the Wilderness But granting may some say that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it yet how is it said that the Water it self followed the Jews The common opinion is that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock followed the Jewish Camp whithersoever it moved But there is not one syllable about that in Moses who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of so great a Miracle if any such had been for it would have been no small Miracle for God to have made a Channel for that Water to run in and follow the Israelites whithersoever they went But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle in order to explain St. Paul's words which may be very well understood without it to wit by supposing only that this Water was carried about by the Israelites through the Deserts of Arabia in leathern Bottles or any other Vessels that followed them with the rest of their Carriage For thus this Phrase is used by Aelian Var. Hist Lib. 12. Chap. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Convoy that followed Xerxes Which he begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other Provisions full of Magnificence and Ostentation which followed Xerxes WATER also FOLLOWED him out of Choaspes And this was the Custom of all the Kings of Persia if we believe Herodotus Lib. 1. c. 188. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaspes that runs by Susa of which alone and no other River the King drinks Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius prefigured Christ But it may every whit as well be interpreted And that which might be said of that Rock in a carnal sense may in a spiritual be affirmed of Christ As all the Israelites drank of the Waters of that Rock and yet those among them who rebelled were destroyed in the Wilderness so all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Christ but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it shall perish This is the sense of the Apostle which needs no typical Prefiguration to explain it his Discourse not being at all grounded thereon or else this Passage may be rightly paraphrased to the same sense thus And the case was the same of the Water that flowed out of that Rock and those that drank of it and of the Doctrin of Christ and Christians So in the Parables of Christ the parts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often called the parts of a Parable because they are compared with one another and the case is the same in both As Mat. 13.19 When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his Heart THIS IS he which received Seed by the way side But he that received the Seed into strong places THIS IS he that heareth the Word c. And it is known that the Jews whom the Apostles followed do very frequently borrow Comparisons from the Old Testament and allude to the stories of it so as often to apply the words of them to their purpose not that they thought those places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to but because they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Testament See Gal. iv 24 25 16. Ibid. Note b. I. Something but briefly and obscurely there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon on Numb xx 2 perhaps taken from the Christians for it is not easily to be believed that all the late Rabbins say they owe to antient Tradition It 's certain neither the Paraphrase of Jonathan nor the Jerusalem Targum have any thing about the Water which followed
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
understood that the Reader or Hearer may comprehend what we say without any pain and the second to omit nothing but what any one may easily supply Nobis say the Masters of that Faculty prima sit virtus perspicuitas rectus ordo non in longum dilata conclusio nihil neque desit neque superstuat Ita sermo doctis probabilis planus imperitis erit They are the words of Quintilian Instit Orat. Lib. viii Cap. 2. But the stile of the Jewish Midraschim is nothing less than Rhetorical and them the Writer of this Epistle follows and not without great reason because he spake to a Nation accustomed to such a stile This by the way which it may suffice to have said once tho we must carry it in our eye throughout this whole Epistle Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This inference manifestly shews that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another day spoken of in the foregoing Verse must be understood of a day wherein unless we obey the Voice of God we shall fall short of a Rest which he has promised and therefore that this must necessarily be supplied Otherwise there would be more as the Logicians speak in the Conclusion than in the Premises which it would be a crime to suppose of the Sacred Writer Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Author of this Epistle renders a reason why he called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a name taken from the Sabbath viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as the day in which God ceased to create or as Moses speaks rested from his Works was called the Sabbath so the time wherein we shall rest from all those Labours and Troubles we are forced to undergo in this Life may be called a Sabbatism What our Author here says in his Paraphrase of a rest from Persecutions and a liberty to worship God is violent Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is said here by Interpreters about the Word of God is harsh to which what the Author of this Epistle affirms concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be applied without violence Can any Man think this to be a tolerable way of speaking the Gospel is living and powerful and more piercing than any two edged Sword reaching even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit and of the Joints and Marrow and is a discerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart nor is there any Creature that is not manifest in his sight Yet I can hardly perswade my self the Discourse is about the Divine Reason which is so much spoken of by Philo. But I am apt to think this Phrase is taken from the Custom of the Jews of that Age who for God and any of the divine Attributes used to say the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Custom there are still frequent instances in Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament wherein many places we find the Word of God set for God not for the Messias as some think This conjecture is confirmed by vers 13. where all things are said to be naked and opened unto his Eyes which cannot be said of the Gospel but only of God See about this matter a Dissertation de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldaeos printed at Irenopolis Ann. M.DC.XLVI So that the meaning of the Sacred Writer is this that God who is displeased with Apostates cannot be deceived for God is living c. Vers 13. Note c. I do not indeed doubt but the Metaphor which the Author of this Epistle here uses is taken from the cutting of the Sacrifices But 1 st it is a mistake that this was the business of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who among the Jews searched only for outward blemishes such as we find mention'd in Levit. xx 22 seqq not for inward defects which were unknown to those who deliver'd the Sacrifice to the Priests 2 dly It is as untrue which our Author says that the Sacrifice after its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was laid upon the Altar to be searched into for the Altar of Sacrifices had a continual Fire kept in it nor was any thing laid upon it but only the pieces appointed by the Law CHAP. V. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to be thought with Dr. Hammond that the Apostolical Writer of this Epistle speaks here so as if no Sacrifices at all were admitted but for Sins that proceeded from mere Ignorance for there were also other Sins committed against Light and Knowledg that were expiated and are mentioned by Moses in Levit. Chap. vi 1 to the 7 th where see my Notes But the Sacred Writer speaks in this manner because the greatest part of those Sinners for which Sacrifices were offer'd up were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. Note b. I. Our Author tells us in the beginning of this Note that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fear coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timuit is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Exod. iii. 6 but it is the Root it self which is used in that place It is strange our learned Author should sometimes cite places of Scripture upon trust II. The words of Isaiah are in Chap. viii 12 13. not in vers 16. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies there that which fears to wit the People of the Jews who are there spoken of and not the terrible thing as will appear to any that look into the place I will not say that in the places of Deuteronomy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ill translated by the Septuagint because they erroneously derived it from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raah he saw which was to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jare he feared For those places in the Septuagint are nothing at all to the purpose and it is true that fear may be taken for the cause of Fear Vers 9. Note c. It is true what our Author here says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he might have said before on Chap. ii 10 where see my Note But I think he had better have omitted the Dream of Menander which has no agreement with the thing here spoken of but only in the likeness of some words Vers 14. Note d. Solid Food compared with Milk and fitter for grown Men than Babes in that figurative sense which it is here taken in may be understood two ways It may signify either something more excellent that is more useful than first Elements or simply Doctrins hard to be understood and such as cannot be digested but by skilful and judicious Persons In the first sense it cannot here probably be taken for tho all that is here said be useful yet the Doctrins proposed as Principles and Foundations in the beginning of Chap. vi are much more useful than the Allegories we find in Chap. vii seqq For