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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod's Domesticks What he says afterwards does not concern Herod I am apt to think that the Reason why the Sadduces are called Herodians was because Herod the Great was known to be a Sadduce not because some part of the Sadduces were called by that Name III. I wonder that our Author should think all those things which he says in his Paraphrase to have been implied in that Question of our Saviour's Whose is this Image and Superscription We should read about this matter the learned Discourse of M Freherus de Numismate Censûs where we shall find all these things more accurately handled and better discussed than they are here by the Doctor IV. Christ's Answer if throughly considered will be found to have nothing in it that respects the dueness of the Tribute he only warns the Pharisees that they had no ground for their thinking it to be a Sin against God to pay Caesar the Tax imposed on them because the rendering of a piece of Mony to Caesar which had his Image impressed upon it was no wise inconsistent with the strict and due Observation of the Jewish Religion And all that we can gather from this is that it was lawful to pay Tribute not that the Tribute was justly imposed which was not the thing enquired into Our Author has several things upon this occasion that do not at all belong to this place which I do not intend in these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or short Remarks to examin Vers 20. Note c. It might as well be one of Tiberius's Denarii as Augustus's nor was it necessary that it should have the year wherein Judaea was subdued inscribed upon it The Denarius that was required to be paid was only such a one as had on it the Image of Augustus or Tiberius See M. Freherus whom I before mentioned Vers 31. Note d. There are several things both in our Author's Paraphrase upon the Objection of the Sadduces and in his Annotation upon this place that need Correction I. Moses does not say as the Doctor represents him at the 24 th Verse that the Children of the Person who raises up Seed to his Brother should be accounted his dead Brother's Children but only the first-born See Deut. xxv 6 II. What he says about the Doctrine of the Sadduces is very true as appears from Acts xxiii 6 but his supposing that the Sadduces Objection was designed as a Confirmation of their whole Doctrine is without any ground Their words oppose only the Resurrection of the Body for they knew well enough that marrying was a thing which respected only the Body and had no place at all among separate Souls III. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never used in Scripture to signify any thing but the Resurrection of the dead i. e. of Men whose Bodies were destroy'd and which being raised Men are said to be raised because the Nature of Man consists in the conjunction of Soul and Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when this is the thing spoken of never signifies any thing but to rise or to rise again In this sense it is used by Achilles in Homer Iliad φ. 56. where he speaks of the Trojans that he had killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The valiant Trojans whom I have kill'd will certainly rise again out of obscure Darkness Tho St. Paul uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that these words signify the same thing but rather that St. Paul and the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word differently Tho therefore absolutely speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second State or Subsistence yet since it is never met with in that sense it must according to its constant use be understood of a thing that is fallen and then raised up again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as the Logicians speak in this case Correlates See 2 Maccab. xii 43 44. This word was so very commonly used in that sense that even when it is put alone it signifies the Resurrection of the Body It is a mistake also that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of the Neuter Gender the Substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to be understood as appears from several places where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are said to be raised up as in Mat. x. 8 and xi 5 Luke xx 37 Joh. v. 21 1 Cor. xv 15 16 c. Our Author 's reasonings against the perpetual use of the word are not to be regarded The place which he cites out of Luke xiv 14 may most fitly be understood of the Resurrection of the Body as being the principal Reward which is opposed to the Rewards of this Life IV. Lastly That the force of Christ's reasoning ver 32. might be discerned he puts in as a supply to it in his Paraphrase upon that Verse the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was spoken by God I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob after their death I had rather infer it from the import of the Phrase I am the God of Abraham c. considered in it self whereby God dos not only signify that he had bin in time past the Object of Abraham Isaac and Jacob's Worship but that he had had a peculiar kindness for them which he still retain'd but now the dead that is those that are eternally dead cannot be said to be the Objects of God's Favour or Kindness but only those whose Souls live with him after Death and whose Bodies also are to be raised See my Notes upon Gen. xvii 8 Vers 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the Love of God is often set to signify the whole Duty which we owe to him both the Duties of the first and second Table yet it being in this place distinguished from the Love of our Neighbour I am apt to think that by that great Commandment we are only to understand the Worship of the one true God whom we may be said to worship with all our Heart with all our Soul and with all our Mind when we worship him alone and not any other For those that worship more Gods than one worship none at all with their whole Soul but divide as it were their Minds between many This seems to be the proper meaning of this Phrase which is so much diversified to signify the highest Affection and Intention of the Soul in Divine Worship See Deut. vi 5 and my Notes upon that place Vers 40. Note f. It is a Metaphor taken from those things which are hung upon a Nail or Peg which sticking fast to the Wall whatever hangs upon it is firm and secure and it cannot be plucked out but all tumbles down at once And so as long as these two things the Worshiping of God alone and the loving our Neighbour as our selves stand
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
〈◊〉 This expression may be illustrated by a passage in the Epistle of Barnabas where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the habitation of our Heart is a holy Temple to the Lord. The Holy Spirit is said to dwell in our Bodies because it is present with our Minds which inhabit our Bodies Grotius does but trifle when he tells us that the Spirit of the Mind is the Sanctuary the other parts of the Mind the Court of the Temple and the Body the Porch and its outward parts Such a Remark as this might perhaps be tolerable in a Pulpit but by no means in an exact Interpreter Claudian has an expression much like this in his Second Book on the first Consulship of Stilichon speaking of the Goddess Mercy Haec Dea pro templis thure calentibus aris Te fruitur posuitque suas hoc pectore sedes And a little after Huic Divae germana Fides eademque sorori Corde tuo DELUBRA tenens Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems to allude here to a House which none but he may use how he pleases that has purchased it And God having as it were bought our Bodies as well as our Souls he only has a soveraign Right to prescribe to us how we shall use them CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OF this matter according to the Doctrine of the Rabbins Mr. Selden has treated at large in his Vxor Hebraica Lib. 3. c. 4. and seqq Vers 5. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its opposite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the subject matter are taken sometimes in a larger and sometimes in a more contracted Notion In general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that has not the command of his Passions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but is commanded or overruled by them And on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is not subject to the dominion of any Passion but is always his own master But because the Passions are various proportionable to the variety of objects to which they may be carried out therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have also divers objects as Aristotle will teach us in the beginning of his 7 th Book of Ethicks ad Nicomachum And so in this place where the discourse is about the lawful pleasures of Marriage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in a much narrower signification not for a Vice i. e a disposition of Mind contrary to the Law of God and pernicious to humane Society but a certain natural heat of Body which of it self is neither a Vice nor a Vertue But it is described as a Vice because it is an occasion of becoming vitious to those who do not govern it with reason Vers 6. Note c. Col. 1. Lin. 45. After the words on the other side Our learned Author might have confirmed this observation about the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for malo I had rather by that Passage in Hos vi 6 I will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have Mercy and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice which is all one as if God had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mizzebahh than Sacrifice and if the Prophet had written so it could not have been rendred otherwise than by I will or had rather And that this the Prophet meant is evident by the next words and the knowledg of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meholoth than burnt Offerings whence the Septuagint according to the Vatican Copy read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Jonathan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Sacrifice But in Mat. ix 13 and in the Alexandrian Copy we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is yet to the same sense It is certain the Hebrews have no Verb whereby to express the Latin malo or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek Vers 14. Note d. From this place I readily allow the deduction of this Consectary that the Infants of Christian Parents may be baptized because they are Holy i. e. reckoned as a part of God's People but that this Phrase signifies Baptism it self does not appear by any thing that Dr. Hammond here says For tho the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctify signify also to wash it does not follow that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be meant one whose condition is such as to make him capable of being washed or baptized And on the contrary the Children of Heathens were accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impure that is as part of those who were out of God's Covenant and so could not be baptized because Baptism follows the profession of Christianity which could neither be made by Parents who were Heathens nor by Infants This is the Notion of the words Holy and Impure which being first used in that sense by the Jews came afterwards to be taken in the same by the Christians which is the reason why Christians are so often stiled Saints in the Epistles of the Apostles See the inscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles Vers 17. Note e. I. The same reason which moved Dr. Hammond to prefer the reading of some antient Copies mentioned by Theophylact before that in ours makes me think that the ordinary reading ought to be retained Namely because the obscurity arising in the sense from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily induce some Scribe or Critick to change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and join these words with the foregoing to make the sense more perspicuous but there was no reason why when the sense was clear it should be made more obscure II. I have more than once observed that the end of an Annotation does not agree with the beginning the reason of which I suppose to be that the Doctor did not write it all at the same time For otherwise he would have made his Discourse here hang better together For after he had said it will be reasonable to acquiesce therein viz. in that other reading he gives a reason for so doing which makes it unreasonable for if the sense will be current tho we retain the ordinary reading and only change the pointing of the words what reason can there be to acquiesce in any alteration of them III. We ought therefore to keep to the present reading of all Copies and Interpreters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred but as the Syriack and Arabick render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 34. Note h. The Oxford Edit of the New Testament Anno 1675. takes notice of some Copies which read this place in the same manner as the Alexandrian here mentioned by our Author excepting that the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted but there is no mention there made of the Alexandrian Copy the difference between which and others in the reading of this place is nevertheless set down in the London Polyglott But in that Edition there are other instances of very great negligence I am
Arguments But the case of the Apostles was quite otherwise who proved the reality of a future State by the Authority and Resurrection of Christ which they themselves had seen and confirmed the truth of by their Sufferings Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can neither live quietly nor die naturally nor so much as find a Grave after Death To this purpose is that Inscription on the Monument of Callistus if it be an antient one in Rom. Subterran Par. 1. p. 307. ALEXANDER mortuus non est sed vivit super astra corpus hoc tumulo quiescit Vitam explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multùm beneficii antevenire praevideret pro gratia omnium odium reddit Genua enim flectens vero Deo sacrificaturus ad supplicium ducitur O tempora infausta quibus inter sacra vota ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus Quid miserius vita Sed quid miserius morte cum ab amicis parentibus sepeliri nequeant Vers 29. Note c. I. That Ellipsis which our Author would have to be in this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the series of such a Discourse as St. Paul's here is and in the middle of a Disputation which required that every thing intended should be expressed is very harsh and has nothing common with those examples which he alledges II. What he confidently asserts in the latter end of this Annotation that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 12. is the Nominative case to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is groundless and unnecessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a Nominative case belonging to it in this very 29 th verse viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which immediately goes before But that intricate way of Writing which the Doctor had accustom'd himself to made him able to digest what none besides himself could do III. I confess the opinion of St. Chrysostom and others about this place contains a very commodious sense if we consider it in it self but compar'd with the Apostle's words it cannot stand And to me their Interpretation seems to be most probable who take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the sense to be this If there were no Resurrection what would become of those who every day tho they see Christians put to Death for their Profession do yet chearfully receive Baptism that they may supply the place of those that are dead in the Christian Church By the same way of arguing we might prove that bearing of Arms is not without a reward annexed to it If those that bore Arms were to have no reward for so doing when so many Soldiers are continually killed what should they do who are listed in the room of those that are dead and supply their place That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no one can doubt Yet I shall add a Passage out of Dionysius Halicarnass in which he speaks of Soldiers substituted in the room of others that are killed whereby not only that appears but St. Paul's words may be very much illustrated And it is in his Antiq. Rom. Lib. 8. p. 553. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FOR those that DIED in the War with the Antiatians they determined to levy other Soldiers IV. What our Author relates out of Photius concerning Synesius is in Cod. 26. But there was a great difference between Synesius and those against whom St. Paul disputes For he being a Platonick believed the Immortality of the Soul and the Rewards and Punishments of another Life but these Corinthians together with the Resurrection of the Body denied the Soul's Immortality and a future Judgment and were perhaps Jews who of Sadduces had embraced the Christian Religion Now St. Paul in order to prove the Resurrection proves that there were rewards to be expected after this Life which reasoning could not be designed against the Platonists because they confessed a future Happiness tho they did not believe the Resurrection of the Dead And Religion might well enough consist with the opinion of the Platonicks tho the Sadduces who disowned the Immortality of the Soul utterly overthrew it And therefore the Egyptians bore with Synesius notwithstanding he was a Platonick which they would never have done if he had been a Sadduce Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who from this place and the citation out of Aratus infer that St. Paul was conversant in the Writings of the Heathen Poets But without sufficient ground because such as these were common proverbial forms of Speech used by every one and might be easily learned from ordinary Discourse even of ignorant Persons by which means I am apt to think the Apostle came to the knowledg of them For the Jews did not use to read much the Writings of the Heathens nor does the stile of St. Paul otherwise give us the least reason to imagin that he ever so much as attempted any thing in that sort of Study For if he had been at all conversant in Heathen Authors we should doubtless have seen more effects of it in his way of Writing However we may learn from hence that Christians ought not to reject any thing which was well said by the Heathens And therefore I think it not amiss to produce two more Passages besides those which have been alledged by Grotius out of Heathen Writers to this purpose Aeschylus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is according to the interpretation of Grotius Adeo malorum scilicet commercio Nil pejus usquam est oritur infelix seges Nam sceleris arvum nil nisi mortem parit Epictetus in Enchirid. cap. xlv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a Companion be corrupted he that converses with him must needs also be corrupted tho perhaps he were before pure Ibid. Note e. I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in the sense in which it is commonly understood because those who denied the Resurrection were undoubtedly Persons of evil Manners and that this was St. Paul's meaning appears by the following words Awake to Righteousness and sin not So in Aristophanes in Nub. p. 177. Ed. majoris Act. 3. Sc. 2. the Chorus addressing themselves to just Reason say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But O thou who hast crowned our Ancestors with abundance of good Manners speak and declare thy Nature Where unquestionably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies good Manners as in many other places Yet Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and this may be joined together Vers 54. Note g. This remark our Author took out of H. Grotius but tho the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify for ever and Death be to be finally abolished after the Resurrection yet St. Paul does not refer to that here for if he had he would have rendred the words of Isaiah Chap. xxv 8 by
Paul here speaks as Grotius before our Author had observed of that Rod with which he had chastized Elymas the incestuous Person Hymenaeus and Philetus and with which St. Peter had chastized Ananias and Sapphira but I confess I cannot digest what Dr. Hammond here and elsewhere does viz. the confounding of that miraculous Power of the Apostles with the ordinary Excommunication of Bishops He ought to have proved first that that delivering to Satan or any other such Punishments inflicted by the Apostles were the arms not only of the Apostles but of all the Governors of the Christian Church which he neither ever did before his Death nor I believe would ever do if he were to live again This was a Seal which God set to the Apostles Doctrin to fix the Christian Church upon a lasting and immoveable Foundation and all the rest of the Miracles wrought in the Apostles time were designed to the same end But that being once settled no Man had such a Power granted him nor can any one be supposed to have had the like Authority II. However it is well observed by the Doctor that carnal here is all one with weak which I shall confirm both by Reason and Examples The Flesh is very often opposed to the Spirit that is the Body to the Soul in which comparison the Flesh is the most infirm and feeble and hence the word carnal came to signify weak as it is used in Isa xxxi 3 where the Prophet thus bespeaks the Jews who put too much confidence in the Egyptians The Egyptians are Men and not God and their Horses Flesh and not Spirit the Lord shall turn his Hand and he that helpeth shall fall and he that is holpen shall fall down and they shall all be consumed together To this purpose also is that saying of Christ in Mat. xxvi 41 The Spirit indeed is willing but the Flesh is weak III. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes Excommunication in the Writings of the Fathers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very aptly be applied to a Mind full of Pride and Obstinacy and by those Vices fortified against the Truth yet it in no wise follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Excommunication of an obdurate Sinner What words do or may separately signify they do not always signify conjunctly as every one knows who is any thing of a Critick in this sort of Learning The reason is because one Phrase can have but one metaphorical sense belonging to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly a strong Hold or Fence and here translated to signify whatever Flesh and Blood puts in the way of the Gospel to hinder the success and efficacy of if it is necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred the destruction of the Fence and to destroy the Fence by a Metaphor taken from Military Affairs So in vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to excommunicate those that reason but to overthrow reasonings Nor let any one say that Fences are destroyed and Reasonings overthrown by Excommunication for granting that yet it will not follow that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these Phrases signify to excommunicate and excommunication IV. It is a pleasant mistake also in our Author which his too great desirousness to find Excommunication every where spoken of in the Writings of the Apostles led him into when he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 8. signifies Excommunication where St. Paul saith that he might boast of the Power which God had given him for edification and not for destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For who does not see that the opposite here to the Edification of the House of God is not excommunication but destruction One may as well say an Edifice is excommunicated meaning that it is destroyed as that an excommunicated Person is edified to signify that his Sins are forgiven him The same must be said of Chap. xiii 10 where the same Phrase occurs V. Even in Ecclesiastical Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify Excommunication but only Abdication or degrading from Office and is applied to Clergymen nor is it always joined with Excommunication See Intt. on the Eleventh Apostolical Canon Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author intrudes again into this place the Censures of the Church without any distinction whereas those Apostolical Arms of which I before spake are here intended And indeed with whatever Arguments any Philosopher came armed or what sublimity soever his Reasonings seemed to have in them if he attempted to disturb the Church by Heretical Doctrins and went to resist the Apostles as if he had found them in an error the Apostles could presently shew how much he was mistaken by sending a Disease upon him such as Blindness which St. Paul inflicted on Elymas or delivering to Satan to which others were subjected For these were plain signs by which it appeared that God approved of the Apostles Doctrin But in ordinary Excommunication the case is otherwise For all that can be concluded from that is that when any one upon the springing up of some new Controversies was excommunicated for disagreeing with the Bishop of the Church to which he belonged the Bishop and the rest perhaps of the Clergy were of another Opinion which might as easily be the worse of the two as the better For Excommunication was a certain evidence of Mens differing among themselves but not that the excommunicate Person was in an error because one that had the Truth on his side might be excommunicated by ignorant and prejudiced Persons But if any were chastised in the manner aforesaid by the Apostles viz. by having a Disease inflicted on their Bodies this was an infallible proof of their being Hereticks because God would not have suffered any pious orthodox Person to undergo a Punishment which he had not at all deserved Besides that a Miracle wrought in confirmation of any Doctrin such as this was the present inflicting of a Distemper upon Mens Bodies was of it self sufficient to shew the falsness of any thing advanced in contradiction to it tho with some appearance of probability but certainly the Excommunication of any Bishop who might as easily abuse his Authority as others fall into Error was no sure evidence of any Man 's being an Heretick These two things therefore must not be confounded nor the ordinary Governors of the Church equal'd to the Apostles in their Censures any more than in other Gifts and Endowments as our Author occultly does whether designedly and knowingly I cannot tell but I am sure without reason CHAP. XI Vers 2. Note a. I. THE first signification which our Author produces out of Pollux sutes best with this place for St. Paul does not say simply that he was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot
insignificant places and for the most part foreign to the words of St. Paul in which the first thing liable to censure is that our Author here follows the old way of Philosophizing which in this particular is certainly false there being nothing in a Man but his Body and reasonable Soul which Soul is moved by Affections arising 〈◊〉 the Body without the intervention of any third Faculty as learned Men have long ago shewed even before this was published by Dr. Hammond And that Soul alone not any inferior Nature is the subject of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Free-will It is strange that wise Men in order to know what is in Man that is in themselves should go and consult Plato or Aristotle as if they were enquiring into the nature of a living Creature which they only had seen and we knew nothing of and make it their business to repeat what Men of little accuracy have said about a thing which every one may much better understand of himself II. It is false that any such thing can be deduced from the History of Man's Creation as it is set down by Moses For tho it be said that God formed Man out of the Dust of the Earth by which words is meant his Body yet he is not said to have added two other parts to him for Moses proceeds thus verbatim and breathed into his Nostrils the breath of Life and Man became a living Soul or as I have rendered it in more proper terms spiritumque vitalem in nares ejus flavit atque hâ—no animal factus est And breathed into his Nostrils a vital Spirit and Man became a living Creature Which words signify only that God put Life into Man's Body which he had fashioned out of the Dast and properly speaking contain nothing about an immortal and reasonable Soul tho there is no doubt but that God together with Life infused that also into Man's Body The distinction of the Rabbins between the breath of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a living Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is grounded neither upon the Phrase it self nor any Scripture example tho it is alledged on this place by Grotius However it must be acknowledged that we may consider in the nature of Man his Body and Soul as two distinct parts and then his Life not as another part or effect of some third Principle but as a certain affection of the Body and that to this St. Paul seems to have had a respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being very frequently taken for the Life And so the Apostle will be understood to pray for the Thessalonians that God would preserve their Bodies Spirits and Lives unblameable which he calls their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or all that was in them and indeed there is nothing else to be found in Man III. I acknowledg also that the Soul in the old Testament is sometimes taken for the Will but Gen. xxiii 8 is in vain alledged to that purpose Where the Hebrew has if it be with your Soul that I should bury and not if it be your Soul as our Author has it out of the English Translation which renders only the sense not the words And the Chaldee Paraphrast does not render the word Soul by a word which signifies Will but the whole Expression if it be your Soul by this entire Phrase if there be a will in your Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All choice or will is in the Spirit but the Spirit is sometimes divided between carnal Affections and the Law so as on the one hand to see what it is obliged to and on the other to be held by Pleasure and the lusts of the Body For all that our Author has here heaped together I would not give one rush IV. The only difficulty is wherein consists that preservation by which God is said to keep the Spirit Life and Body blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Those three not being of the same nature they cannot be said in the same sense to be preserved blameless The Spirit is blameless when it is not perverted by any pernicious Error or defiled with any habit of Sin The Life may be said to be blameless in a peculiar manner considered separately from the Spirit and Body when it is kept without dissembling or revolting from the Christian Religion in which respect fearful Men incurred Blame who to save their Lives either dissembled or renounced the Faith Lastly the Body is preserved blameless in a particular sense when it is not polluted by the enjoyment of any unlawful Pleasures But these all making up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither ought nor can properly be considered separately because they are conjunctly defiled and incur blame And the reason why St. Paul mentions them severally is not because he would have them conceived as disjunct but only that he might describe the whole Man the more distinctly V. As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the coming of the Lord they must be understood thus That when Christ comes ye may be judged blameless that is such as according to the tenour of the Gospel-Covenant cannot be accused before Christ So that it is as if St. Paul had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ye may be blameless when Christ comes so as that your Spirits may neither be upbraided with dangerous Errors or vitious Habits nor this charge brought against you that you once redeemed your Lives by dissembling or Apostacy nor in fine that you polluted and profaned your Bodies with sensual Lusts Many perish by one of these three things but no Man is saved but by a conjunction of all the contrary Vertues ANNOTATIONS On the Second Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Premon This Epistle is referred by Dr. Pearson to the Year of Christ LIII or the XIII th of Claudius at which time St. Paul still remained at Corinth after he had been in vain accused by the Jews at the Tribunal of Gallio Of the occasion on which it was written I shall speak on the Epistle it self CHAP. I. Vers 5. Note a. WHat the Christians said about Christ's coming to punish the Jews might possibly expose those of them that lived in Judea to the Fury of that Nation but in Greece or other remote Provinces of the Roman Empire that the Christians were persecuted particularly upon that account I do not believe so as that St. Paul could say that the Thessalonian Christians suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Roman Magistrates did not so much befriend the Jews especially out of Judea as to afflict the Christians because they portended that the seditious Jews would ere long be destroyed by the Romans themselves Of which we have a manifest instance in Gallio Acts xviii 12 seqq And it appears no less from profane Writers that the Jews were not at that time in favour with the Romans Tiberius compescuerat had restrained not only the
not to be referred at least principally to any time which preceded the Reign of Constantine but to his age and the following ages hitherto because since that time the Christian Religion has flourished so that nothing like it was ever seen in the Commonwealth of the Jews See my Note on Luke i. 73 II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the antient Jews had not received I chuse rather with Grotius and others to understand of the resurrection of the Body and the entire and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect Happiness of the whole man which none had yet enjoyed except Enoch and Elias and perhaps Moses and a few others that were risen with Christ That Promise is contained in these words I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Christ shews God provided better for us Christians than to raise them whose Faith is commended in the Old Testament from the dead and make them completely happy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so much to provide better things for us than for the Jews as if we were to receive any thing which they are not to receive as to the substance of the thing but to have a greater regard to us Christians than to the Jews whom God would not raise from the dead and make perfectly happy before the Christians Those are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are made happy both in Soul and Body when such whose Souls only are made happy enjoy but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfect Happiness in comparison with them CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. I. TO understand what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies it must in the first place be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often signifies circumstare to stand about and passively circumsisti circumveniri to be surrounded or beset And hence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa quem statur one who is surrounded So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocrates in his Oration about retribution Jugling tricks that are of no use but are surrounded by a company of Fools For which the spectators stand about in a ring This Harpocration has and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says that in Dinarchus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we add Α privative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be one that no body stands about such as those who have no Friends or Relations nor any to assist them in the management of their Affairs This Hesychius had expressed but his words are corrupted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone not having assistance or means So it must be rendred not as it is by our Author who translates these words absurdly In which sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the words of Georgius Alexandrinus alledged by our Author and that Notion ought not to have been confounded with the Rhetorical Notion which Dr. Hammond mentions These things supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be properly one whom others easily stand about or encompass and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies metaphorically to be circumvented that is to be deceived or pressed with difficulties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one that is easily circumvented So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a foolish man who is easily turned or wound about that is deceived He adds the words of the Apostle So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy viz. to be circumvented and overcome Phavorinus also interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her that is easily deceived So that in this place where agonistical words are used I am apt to think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies which is easily circumvented that is overcome because all that ran and suffer'd themselves to be easily circumvented were by that means sure to be overcom for they who had circumvented them came first to the end of the race And Sin is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because those who are infected with it are easily conquer'd and terrified by difficulties from persisting constantly in their Christian Course II. It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes a case wherein a man is in great danger of his life as in the place cited out of Diogenes Laertius and that among Rhetoricians a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or question is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is proposed without any circumstances but all this is nothing to this place and is a mere medly of undigested Learning or rather of a man groping as it were in the dark and seeking for the signification of a word where it was not to be sought for In the place of St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly taken in an Active sense not in a Passive for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has an Active signification as often as a Passive and that an Active one must be assigned to it in this place appears evidently by the following Active Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But St. Chrysostom is mistaken for almost all such Nouns have a Passive signification because they are derived from the third person of the Preterperfect tense Passive So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easily passable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily expanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily subverted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy to be beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily taken away and innumerable others which may be found in any Lexicon St. Chrysostom interpreted this Passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews by Conjecture not by Grammatical Rules Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is on the right side of that inaccessible Light which is a Symbol of the presence of the most high God See Note on Mark xvi 19 Vers 3. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly to be tired and metaphorically to faint or languish because when a man is excessively tired his strength fails him So in the Apopthegm of Coriolanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to have his strength fail him or to do that which fainting persons use to do for when those who stood by him besought him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that being burden'd with labours and Wounds he would retire into the Camp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saying that it was not the part of Conquerors to be overcome by weariness pursued them that fled These Words are found in Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus p. 218. Ed. Wechel T. 1. I cannot tell whether our Author read them in the Writer himself it 's certain he sets down the saying of Coriolanus otherwise than Plutarch However that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as I said to be tired secondarily to do that which tired persons use to do as in this place of the Epistle to the Hebrews as to desist from running to quit the Field that is to betake ones self
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase obtrudes his Gnosticks here upon us of whom there is not the least mention or footstep in St. James So Men see in the Clouds what they please Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again our learned Author forces his Gnosticks upon us as if there were none that could be charged with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Gnosticks St. James alludes to Circumcision in which the filthy and superfluous Skin was cast away not to any peculiar practices of the Gnosticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word which is ingrafted in the Minds of its Hearers that is takes as it were root in them if they receive it with Meekness that is with a teachable Mind This word is used also in the same sense by Barnabas Epist cap. ix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knows who has put into us the ingrafted Gift of his Doctrin Where the old Interpreter mistranslates the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by naturale which he has also in the beginning of that Epistle where the Greek is wanting Vers 23. Note e. Without doubt the former interpretation is the more probable if not also true But I had rather I. Understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a natural Countenance not as it is opposed to a Vizard or Mask but as opposed to a painted face For Maskers do not use to behold their Vizards in a Glass but their Faces I might shew that Dancers and other effeminate Men corrupted the natural colour of their Countenances with Paint but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homo as it is often in Poets so as to comprehend also Women II. I do not think St. James speaks as well of that which is usually done as of that which might be done For he compares them who having heard the Word retain the Vices which the Word condemns with those who seeing the stains of their countenance in a Glass should not wash them off which being accounted a piece of Madness and Absurdity they must also necessarily be accounted Fools and Madmen who when they observe their Vices represented and condemned in the Doctrin of the Gospel do not think of forsaking them The former is very seldom done the latter too frequently because Men take more care of their Bodies than of their Souls They are offended with the spots of their Face but they are not offended with the blemishes of their Minds Vers 27. Note f. This might all be admitted if it were certain that none but the Gnosticks thought Religion to consist rather in Faith than in Practice But who told Dr. Hammond that among those who lived in the Apostolical Churches there were none who turned the Grace of God into lasciviousness CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I Do not think there is a respect here had to the Shechinah for the Glory of Christ signifies rather in this place his Kingdom as Dr. Hammond himself seems to have observed So that I take the meaning of this Verse to be this Ye who believe that Christ reigneth in Glory ought not to have respect to Persons because he promised to make the Poor as well as the Rich provided they believed and obeyed him partakers of his Kingdom See vers 5. Vers 2. Note b. I. To begin with this last remark our learned Author ought to have told us where we might find the Jewish Canon he speaks of and alledged the words of it themselves but I am apt to think he had it only from the Mouth of some Jew or learned Man that affirmed he had read it in the writings of the Rabbins Where are the Christians who having Controversies with Jews and those of mean Condition think fit to refer them to the judgment of a Chacham Namely in the Kingdom of Vtopia Yet there is I confess a Jewish Canon to this purpose tho not such as our Author speaks of set down by J. Henr. Hottinger out of R. Levi Barcinonensis in Leg. cxlii Juris Hebraici Let not one sit down and the other stand but let them both stand because when they are before the Council it is fit they should stand as if they were in the presence of the divine Majesty Yet the Rabbins say that if the Council will permit the contending parties to sit down they may which words must be understood of the time during which the Cause is examined but whilst Sentence is pronounced they are obliged to stand But because it became the Custom in all the Consistories of the Israelites that after the decision they were commanded to sit down to avoid contention tho they were only Witnesses they command them now also to sit down Hottinger sets down the Hebrew words and refers the Reader to other places in the Rabbins II. I don't think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies the seats of Christian Judges or places in which they assembled for a rich Man drawing a poor Christian before Christian Judges could not be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oppress him because it belonged to the Judges to restrain the rich Man's Anger Besides it is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. vi 4 signifies a Tribunal as I have shewn on that place III. What our Author alledges does by no means prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Consistories of Christian Judges For first none were Judges properly so called but Roman Magistrates or those of privileged Cities Secondly respect of Persons may have place not only in publick Judgments but in any other as when we entertain poor Men with scorn whatever Gifts and Vertues they are endued with and treat the rich with all kind of respect because they are rich Thirdly if we suppose that the Controversies which arose between Christians according to the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi were decided by Christian Judges we must not dream here of Tribunals and Footstools set for those Judges These were the appurtenances of Magistrates not of private Men unless perhaps it should be thought that Bishops in that Age pronounced sentence from some high place like Magistrates which none I suppose who understand these matters will say in good earnest Fourthly we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Judges of the dignity of Men when we assign them Seats as we think their Dignity requires and when we have only a regard to Riches in this matter then we imitate corrupt Judges So that any may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who do something like them Fifthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have said did not belong to Christian Judges but to Heathens and therefore that word does not prove that the Discourse is here about Judges Lastly a variety of Seats does not belong so much to an assembly of Judges as to a Congregation of many private Men such as Ecclesiastical Meetings IV. So that it is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rahah and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any sort of vice and therefore it might be put by St. Luke for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intemperance because it is a more general name which comprehends under it the particular not that those words are ordinarily confounded 4 It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes have those significations which Dr. Hammond attributes to them as also the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schibheth used by Moses but they likewise signify in general any kind of depravation or change for the worse in which sense I shall take the word in Moses till it be evidently proved that a general signification in him can have no place 5 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more signifies Violence than any other sort of Injustice as I have shewn on Gen. vi 13 So that what our Author builds upon that signification is vain as all the rest of his Conjectures which rely upon this foundation Our learned Author often forges an Interpretation by heaping together a parcel of very slight Conjectures afterwards he raises what Superstructure he pleases upon that interpretation and then lastly speaks of the Consectaries he thence deduces as so many certain Truths But we ought not only to set bounds to our Conjectures but especially to the Consequences we deduce from them if we would not be in perpetual danger of erring That danger no body here will be in who shall suppose that the men of the old World were very wicked men there being in that no conjecture because it is affirmed by Moses in plain words but whoever shall attempt particularly to explain what Moses has said in general and give way in this matter to Conjectures will find himself in the dark And this may suffice to have been said briefly against a way of interpreting Dr. Hammond too often takes II. It had been better to observe that from the very Expression of St. Peter it may be gather'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thus he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which and by the spirits that watch he preached to whom Namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them who were sometime disobedient c. Vers 21. Note h. I. I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the true reading not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it might easily be that some Transcribers not having another Copy to write after but setting down the words from the mouth of a Prompter might confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used just in the same sense as if it were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like as the Word is manifestly taken in Heb. ix 24 on which place see my Note A pattern is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the similitude which it has with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the vulgar Interpreter translates it similis formae The other interpretations Dr. Hammond gives of this place are forced II. He says indeed truly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies contrary which might be proved from several places in Xenophon but not that which he alledges out of Hiero where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not simply contrary but dura hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is severe as it is rightly rendered by J. Leunclavius CHAP. IV. Vers 1. Note a. OUR Author here says that Saint Peter's phrase in vers 6. of this Chapter is hard and I do not deny it but I say also that he is a hard Interpreter if ever any one deserved that name For here as one said lapides loquitur he speaks stones not words to mollify hard phrases The whole sense of this verse depends upon a particular Elegancy arising from the ambignity of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer in the flesh or to the flesh which being used of Christ signifies that he suffered and died in his humane nature or for the sake of our humane nature i. e. of men But when we are said to die or suffer to the flesh we are understood to be no longer devoted to the flesh or to the vices of the flesh and accordingly St. Peter's meaning is this seeing I say that Christ has suffer'd to the flesh ye also who ought to imitate him as far as ye are able know that you must suffer to the flesh in a sense which is agreeable to you to wit wholly renounce it for he that has suffered to the flesh has ceased from sin Just such another sort of reasoning we have in Rom. vi 10 11. in the place parallel to this For in that he died instead of which St. Peter here says suffered he DIED UNTO SIN once but in that he liveth he liveth unto God Likewise reckon ye also your selves to be DEAD indeed UNTO SIN but alive unto God Instead of to die unto sin here is to suffer to the flesh but both these phrases have the same ambiguity in them These places should have been compared not verse 6. with this which have no affinity with one another Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius on this place says it is idololatriae quaedam species adesse sodalitiorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quibus prosecta falsis Diis dantur in hac maxime re credibile est Judaeos antequam Christiani essent accommodasse se Gentium moribus a sort of Idolatry to be present at such common feasts where part of the meat is offered in sacrifice to false Gods and in this particular especially it is probable the Jews before they were Christians conformed themselves to the manners of the Heathens And I do not deny but this might be done by them but there having been among the Jews every where a great number of Proselytes of which many embraced the Christian Religion I rather think St. Peter has a respect here to these who had formerly been Idolaters Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None but Dr. Hammond could have thought that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same as to die to the flesh who could digest any impropriety tho never so great in his own stile But it is much more natural to interpret it so that they were condemned indeed in the flesh according to men that is put to death by the judgment of men as to the body but live according to God in the Spirit that is their Souls were made partakers of eternal life by God This is the usual signification of the words which ought not to be changed without reason Vers 14. Note f. This is all forced the meaning is evidently this If ye are reproached for the name of Christ that is because ye will be called Christians happy are ye because the Spirit
conquer from his very going out That which is meant is that the Coming of Christ whether to reform Men or to punish them if they were obstinate was neither vain nor casual Vers 4. Note a. I. It was worth observing that Eusebius makes mention of two Famines under the reign of Claudius one foretold by Agabus and to be referred to the second year of Claudius tho he mentions it on his fourth another in Greece and at Rome which he refers to the ninth and tenth Years of that Emperor I know that Joseph Scaliger thinks that the latter was foretold by Agabus and refers it to the fifth Year of Claudius but he gives no reason for his Affirmation expecting as is common with him to be believed without proof II. Suetonius does not expresly say what our Author attributes to him but only Judaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit The unbelieving Jews endeavour'd to raise a Tumult against the Christians upon the account of Religion for which reason both the Jews and Christians were expelled out of Rome Suetonius says that Christ was impulsor the cause or mover of those Tumults out of Ignorance when he should only have said that he was the occasion of them III. Whereas our Author affirms that those who were by the Emperor's Edict expelled out of Rome were expelled also out of the rest of the Cities of the Roman Empire he ought to have proved it and not have supposed it as certain But it is false as every one knows that has read any thing of the Roman History Of this I have spoken already on the Premonition prefixed to this Book Vers 6. Note b. The learned Dr. Bernard thinks that the Syrian Chaenix when full of Wheat weighed something above four English Pounds and that one of Tiberius his denarii current in the time of John was worth a little more than seven English Farthings By which calculation it appears that Wheat was dear when four Pounds cost seven Farthings but that our Author is mistaken who supposes that a Chaenix of Wheat was spent by one Man in a day But I leave these things to the examination of those who are curious about such matters Vers 8. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Cattel but only wild Beasts except improperly and therefore I prefer the ordinary reading before that of the Alexandrian Copy II. There are two faults here in the Citations of Josephus one in the Margin where Lib. vi c. 8. Bell. Jud. is set instead of Lib. vi c. 28. and the other where Josephus de Captiv L. vi c. 44. is cited instead of the same Book de Bell. Jud. Lib. vi c. 45. Vers 9. Note e. I. Our learned Author thought St. John here alludes to the fourth as it is called Book of Esdras extant only in Latin But his Publishers knowing this Book to be Apocryphal cited the second of Esdras in which there is no such passage This must be in a different Edition from that which I use where Esdras 4. is referred to In the Epistle of Barnabas Chap. xii there is a place produced out of the same Book But this might also be added in Barnabas his Epistle and he that wrote the 4 th Book of Esdras who seems to have been some Christian imitated this place in the Revelation II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Souls of them that were slain may according to the use of the Hebrew Language which these Writers often follow signify their dead Bodies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul is frequently taken for a dead Body But tho the Soul is taken for the Life and the Life be in the Blood it does not therefore follow that in the use of Scripture the Blood is ordinarily called the Soul The use of words must be shewn by examples and not by reasonings He might have produced that Passage in Virgil Aeneid ix v. 349. Purpuream vomit ille ANIMAM cum sanguine mista Vina refert moriens But it is better to understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the Souls of Martyrs which being admitted into the heavenly Sanctuary did by their Presence put God in mind of taking Vengeance upon the Jews For the loud Voice here does not signify praying or desiring Revenge but the greatness of the Crime which is said to cry unto God because the thing it self does as much implore the divine Justice as if the injured Person called upon him with a loud Voice This appears by the example of the Blood of Abel and the Story of the Sodomites in Gen. xviii 20 Vers 12. Note g. I. There is no doubt but great numbers of dead Bodies send forth exhalations into the Air but that Clouds have been made by them and visible Meteors whereby the Sun has been made black and the Moon bloody was never I believe by any one observed And therefore the prophetical Expressions in which great Calamities are represented under such Images are not taken from what really is but are rather a Prosopopeia whereby the Sun is said to refuse to behold the impieties of Men and the Moon upon that account to blush and become red with shame when they are very great There are a great many such figurative Expressions in the Poets as in Ovid. Metam v. where speaking of the prodigies that preceded the death of Julius Caesar he says Phoebi quoque tristis imago Lurida sollicitis praebebat lumina terris Sparsi Lunares sanguine currus II. I do not think we ought in the representation of those Miseries that befel Judaea under the Similitude of the Sun becoming black and the Moon red and the Stars falling to consider the several parts distinctly but all these things together which without doubt signify very great Calamities but must not be examin'd particularly as if they had each a special signification which can be proved by no place of Scripture see on the contrary Isa xiii 10 where all these things signify one thing conjunctly and nothing at all separately Add also the place in the same Prophet alledged by our Author Vers 15. Note i. I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Josephus should not have been rendred the promiscuous Noise or Voice for what is a promiscuous Noise but the sudden Voice as it is translated by Sigism Gelonius The Passage which the Doctor afterwards cites as out of Josephus without naming him in these words the seditious go to the Palace where many had laid up their Wealth drive out the Romans thence kill eight thousand of them four thousand Jews that had gotten thither for Shelter plunder the place is not exactly translated from the Greek which is thus Lib. vii cap. 37. according to the Greek division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Seditious went into the Palace in which because it was a safe place many had laid up their Possessions and put the Romans to flight and killing all the Inhabitants that were there gather'd together
where that Author speaks of Alaricus he immediately adds This being done in the time of Honorius making as the Reader might suppose Bellisarius contemporary with Honorius which he knew to be false but designed by the word THIS tho no body would think so to refer to what he had said before the mention of Totilas and Bellisarius for the burning of part of Rome by Totilas was after the time of Honorius and Innocentius IV. A little after he says that Innocentius was not at Rome after the first taking of it before the second but he would have said Siege of it for he knew that Alaricus twice besieged Rome and took it but once V. I have set down the place cited out of Orosius Lib. vii c. 38. more at large in my Latin Translation than it is in the English because the words which Dr. Hammond omits make more to his purpose than those which he alledges And they are these Rhadagaiso Romanis arcibus imminente fit omnium Paganorum in urbem concursus bostem esse cùm utique virium copia tum maxime praesidio Deorum potentem urbem autem ideo destitutam maturè perituram quia Deos sacra perdiderit Magnis querelis ubique agitur continuo de repetendis sacris celebrandisque tractatur fervent tota urbe blasphemiae vulgo nomen Christi tanquam lues aliqua praesentium temporum probris ingravatur When Rhadagasus drew near the Roman Towers all the Pagans ran together into the City crying out that an Enemy was come against them who besides a powerful Army had also the Gods to assist him and that the City was destitute of all hope and would soon be destroyed because they had lost the Gods and forborn to do sacrifice to them There were heavy Complaints made in all places and presently they enter'd offering them all the City was filled with loud Blasphemies and the name of Christ was reviled and inveighed against as some present Plague CHAP. XVIII Vers 2. Note a. IT is much more natural to think that the Jews groaning under the Roman Tyranny and believing they should be deliver'd from all manner of Evils by the Messias did upon that ground conclude that the Romans should be destroyed by him that being agreable to their most noted sentiments than to suppose against all probability that they learned it from the Revelation For nothing is more certain than that the Christians and their Writings were detested by the Jews So that what is here said of the perswasion of that People being nothing at all to St. John might have been omitted without any loss to the Reader Vers 8. Note b. I. If the desolations that were brought upon Rome by Alaricus Gensericus and Totila be all put together without doubt the misery of that City will be the greater but all these are not comprehended in the Testimony of Palladius who speaks only of the sacking of Rome by Alaricus which happen'd An. Chr. CCCCX when Gensericus took it in An. Chr. CCCCLV and Totila An. Chr. DXLVII Which times our Author should have distinguished and not spoken of them confusedly II. It is true what he says about the sense of prophetical Expressions of which see the Examples I have alledged on Rev. iv 2 and elsewhere But he ought not to have said that after the Prophecies of Jeremiah the Dominion of Babylon was translated to the Medes but to the Persians as every one knows but the confused Memory of the four pretended Monarchies put him out Vers 13. Our Author took almost all this out of H. Grotius as many other things without ever looking into Julius Pollux by whom he would have seen that Grotius his Animadversion was false Pollux in Lib. iii. c. 8. S. 2. where he reckons up the names of Slaves says that those were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed for Money and a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not say Bodies simply but servile Bodies In which he corrects the common but barbarous Custom of those who called a Slave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Freemen which hire themselves for Money It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of any Man whether a Freeman or a Slave as Lexicographers will shew But when the Discourse is about Wealth or buying or selling Slaves then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Slave not from the proper Notion of the word but because of the Circumstances Examples are alledged by Is Casaubon on Athenaeus Lib. v. c. 10. A hireling was never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the reason of that Appellation invented by Grotius is groundless But Slaves are stiled Bodies when in reckoning up Possessions men are opposed to other things which do not use to be called by that name They are stiled also Souls by the Jews and by the Greeks because as many Slaves as there are so many Souls there are or as the Lawyers speak Persons Nor is it any thing against this signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there are Souls of Men afterwards mention'd which are Slaves for such repetitions are not avoided by these Writers Vers 23. Note d. As our Author before rashly followed Grotius whom he transcribed without examination so here he rashly forsakes him For it is the wealth of the Romans and not that of Strangers which is extolled in this place Grotius had produced a Passage out of Isa xxiii 8 where there is the like Phrase whom the Reader may consult CHAP. XIX Vers 8. Note a. IT is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in these Books for the Ordinances of the Mosaical Law as I have shewn on Rom. viii 4 In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Saints righteous Actions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are aptly described by a white Garment whiteness being a Symbol of Innocence Nothing could be devised more violent than Dr. Hammond's interpretation Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said in my Dissertation about the destruction of Sodom that these Phrases are taken from the Lake Asphaltites which is a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone Which seems to have been observed also by Dr. Hammond as may be gather'd from his Paraphrase So it is usual with the Rabbins to banish any thing that is abominable and the use of which they think to be profane to the salt Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is observed by Mr. Lightfoot Cent. Chorog on Mat. Cap. v. CHAP. XX. Vers 5. Note b. I Confess indeed ingenuously I do not understand the sense of this Prophecy concerning the Persons here mention'd reigning a thousand Years But notwithstanding that I could if I pleased confute what is here said by Dr. Hammond He will never perswade any one who believes that Christ and his Apostles were the only arbitrary 〈◊〉