all the rest of the wicked see vers 14. of this Chapter And upon this account it is that the punishments of bad men are frequently referred to that day not only in the Scripture but also in the Books of the Antient Fathers Read to this purpose the excellent Discourse of Lud. Capellus about the State of the Soul after Death Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I was thinking and representing to my self before-hand the destruction that is suddenly to befal the Devil's Kingdom The overthrow of the Devil's Kingdom is described by his falling from Heaven because as being lifted up to Heaven signifies the greatest Glory as we may see here by the 15 th Verse where it is said And thou Capernaum which hast been exalted to Heaven c. so the falling from Heaven or being thrust down to Hell signifies the losing of that former Glory So Isa xiv 12 the King of Babylon being dethroned and dead the other deceased Kings of the Nations are represented as meeting him and saying amongst other things How art thou fallen from Heaven O Lucifer Son of the Morning i. e. How camest thou to be dethroned and killed So the Latins also used to express themselves Thus Cicero saith of Antonius who had deprived his Collegue of all his Authority Phil. 2. Collegam quidem de coelo detraxisti And Lib. 1. ad Atticum Ep. 20. speaking of Pompey he saith Quia deciderat ex astris lapsus potius quam progressus videbatur CHAP. XI Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth for the most part signify Children yet I should chuse here to interpret it Servants so as to make it answerable to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both Child and Servant and is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint in 1 Sam. xxi 5 where the Discourse is not about Children but about Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signify the same Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this be interpreted according to the Doctrin of the Talmud the Adjective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood for the Jews paid Tithes of such Herbs only as were eaten and not of all sorts see Selden of Tithes Chap. 2. S. 7. Vers 47. Note e. I am apt to think that it is the very adorning of the Sepulchres it self with which the Jews are here upbraided tho they did it with a contrary design as if this had been a symbolical expression of their cruelty See Grotius upon Mat. xxiii 29 what our Author says here is forced CHAP. XII Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Doctor follows Grotius in his Paraphrase upon this Verse but if we carefully consider the words we shall find that the Man who here makes his complaint to Christ does not desire him to perform the Office of a Judg or Arbâ—trator between him and his Brother but to make use of his prophetical Authority to oblige his Brother who detained the whole Inheritance to divide it with him But Christ tells them that such civil Matters did not belong to his Office Tho he might have occasionally concerned himself in them yet he declined it not that he feared the ingratitude or ill-will of the contending Parties if they were not both satisfied but as I rather think lest he should be said by the Pharisees to lessen the Magistrates Authority and be ambitious of Government See Note on Mat. viii 4 Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seneca Ep. c. 1. hath a very elegant Passage to this purpose concerning such another man as Christ here speaks of In ipso actu says he bene currentium rerum in ipso procurrentis pecuniae impetu raptus est He was snatched away in the full career of his Fortune Insere nunc Melibaee pyros pone ordine vites Quam stultum est aetatem disponere ne crastino quidem dominamur O quanta dementia est spes longas inchoantium Emam aedificabo credam exigam honores geram tum demum lassam plenam senectutem in otium referam Omnia mihi crede etiam felicibus dubia sunt How foolish a thing is it for a man to dispose of his life when even so much as to morrow is not in our power O how great is the madness of those who propose to themselves designs that must be a long while in compassing who say within themselves I will buy I will build I will trust out I will gather in again I will go through such and such Honours and Dignities and then at length spend a full and tired old Age in rest and ease Alas the most fortunate are sure of possessing nothing long CHAP. XIII Vers 23. Note b. I. THE Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to preserve safe and comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safe It uses for the most part to be applied to bodies and such things as relate to the Body The Hebrew Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has the same signification as appears by abundance of places So Psal xxxvi 6 Thou preservest man and beast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by the Septuag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iv 14 where speaking of God he says He is the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe Our Author produces a great many more Examples II. Afterwards this word was applied to the safety of the Mind in which sense also we find it used by the Heathen Writers out of whom I shall set down some Instances which will confirm what Dr. Hammond says Thus Cebes in his Tab. p. 11. Ed. Amst Gronov. speaking of the Genius which he supposed every one had to direct and instruct him saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it shews what way they are to take if they would be SAVED in life i. e. if they would be preserved from those Calamities and Evils with which Vice is usually attended And pag. 13. speaking of the Passions that were drawn in the shapes of Women and which are the causes either of Mens safety or destruction he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but whither do they lead them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some lead them to safety and others to ruin And pag. 25. speaking of one that embraced the opinion which led to true Learning he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being purged thereby he is saved and made blessed and happy all his life that is he is preserved from vice and the miseries that accompany it And pag. 43. he that is represented as the explainer of the Table says to his inquisitive Hearers after they had promised to live according to what they had heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you do so you shall be saved So Plutarch in his Book of the difference between a Friend and a Flatterer towards
found in the ritual Books of the Jews where there are some Prayers so composed as if they thought a particular laying open of their requests necessary to make God understand them On the day before that of the Expiation there are Prayers read wherein in a long series all the kinds of Sins together with the respective Punishments due to them are distinctly enumerated They begin thus Let it please thee O Lord our God and the God of our Fathers to forgive us all our iniquities and pardon all our offences and to purge us from all our sins the sins which we have committed against thee by compulsion and the sins which we have committed against thee voluntarily and of our own accord and the sins which we have committed against thee by uncovering our nakedness c. The whole form as it was taken out of the manuscript Copy was published by Selden de Synedriis lib. 1. c. 12. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates as Xenophon tells us lib. 1. Memor p. 420. Ed. Graecae H. Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayed simply to the Gods that they would bestow good things upon him as knowing themselves best what things were good See what H. Grotius says as to this matter and hence we may conclude that the Heathens did sometimes speak of things more agreeably to the Precepts afterwards given by Christ than many Christians usually do Vers 11. Note f. There is none here but Grotius whose opinion is first laid down by our Author that deserves our regard and the Doctor had done better if he had only endeavour'd to confirm his interpretation Every body knows that the Greeks used the Phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify as well in general the time future as the day immediately ensuing from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to approach or to be at hand So Euripides in his Alcestes v. 171. uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an evil that is future or ready to come to pass So in that place of Solomon Prov. xxvii 1 Boast not thy self of to morrow for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the time future The meaning of Christ therefore is this Give us every day all the remaining part of our lives as much as may be sufficient for our subsistence Vopiseus has almost such another kind of expression in the Life of Aurelian where he speaks of the loaves that were daily distributed to the People Siligincum suum viz. panem quotidie toto aevo quisque recipiebat posteris suis dimittebat Every one daily received his white loaf as long as he lived and that custom was continued to their posterity Upon this place Salmasius observes out of Chronic. Alexandr that such Loaves were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. such as every one was sure to have during his Life so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify almost the same thing It is likewise truly observed by Grotius that this word comprehends under it both food and raiment i. e. all the necessaries of Life which we pray God we may never want as long as we live Our Author makes it to relate also to the mind or soul but without any necessity for those things which concern the Soul are contained in the foregoing verses In Solomon Prov. xxx 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify food convenient for me but my allowance or proportion of it 'T is an allusion of the Writer of Proverbs to the custom of those who gave daily to their Servants or others a certain allowance which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhok i. e. as if one should say appointed food See my Notes upon Gen. xlvii 22 Wherefore altho if we consider the thing it self the translating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our proportion of bread may not be much amiss as J. Mercerus upon the Proverbs has observed yet the just force of the Greek word will be far from being thereby expressed Vers 16. Note h. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make any thing become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the contrary of both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bright or shining and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspicuous And hence the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a twofold signification according as it is either opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make bright or to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make conspicuous To begin with the latter a thing becomes inconspicuous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is either quite destroyed or else carried to another place or covered for which sense there seems here to be no room as has been well observed by the Doctor In the former sense of the word a thing is said to lose its brightness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is some how or other defiled Thus the countenance when the face is washed and anointed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shines and when instead of using oil to make it shine we disfigure it with Ashes or Dust then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pollute to defile But the Grammarians observe the signification of polluting to have been more late and that of taking out of sight to be the older of the two Etymol Magn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used by the Antients for to pollute as it is now but for to render wholly inconspicuous Concerning the antient use also of this word Suidas must be thought to speak when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not signify to defile and pollute but to take quite away and out of sight But of this later signification of Greek words discerned by the other which properly belongs to them there are abundance of instances in the New Testament amongst which the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be reckoned one Of this notion of the word the Doctor has given us several examples and one out of Nicostratus whose words he ought to have set down at their full length for he understands them in a sense quite contrary to the intention of the Author He is speaking concerning Women that had too great a passion for Ornaments and brings reasons to disswade and reclaim them from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Far be it from a healthful woman to think she has any need of white paint or red to put under her eyes or any other colour in order to daub and pollute the face not to make it more beautiful for that is against the Writer's design and contrary to what this Verb constantly signifies And that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Christ in the sense of polluting and denotes a purposed endeavour to deform the face is manifest from the manner of the opposition When ye fast be not as the Hypocrites of a sad
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
agreement and concord Our Saviour that he might represent the great dissensions that were occasioned by the variety of mens opinions about matters of Religion speaks in this manner Matt. x. 21 The brother shall deliver up the brother to death and the father the child and the children shall rise up against their parents and kill them and verse 35. I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against the mother Now to shew that John was to extinguish all such animosities or at least use the properest means to that end the Prophet made use just of a contrary expression and said he shall turn the heart of the fathers c. This is by two Evangelists called the restoring of all things and here by the Angel turning the disobedient to the sentiments of the just and indeed the Jews could not be reclaimed from their dissensions and disposed to submit to one Master Jesus Christ unless John had been to make it his endeavour to restore the whole Jewish Nation and to bring them over to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind or opinion of the just See Grotius on Malach. and this place in St. Mark The Doctor here takes abundance of pains to interpret this place to little purpose because he had not looked into the words of Malachi He represents the Prophet speaking the same thing over and over like him that said Semivirúmque bovem semibovémque virum For what else but a nauseous Tautology are those words old and young young and old But that which the Prophet says is that John should endeavour to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children i. e. the fathers who were mistaken in their Opinions to the Children who had righter apprehensions of things and the hearts of the children to the fathers or the erroneous Children to the judgment of their Fathers who embraced the true Doctrine of Christ in a word to bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incredulous and disobedient to be of the mind or sentiments of the just II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render mind or sentiment and not Wisdom because that is the most usual signification of the word and agreable to the common acceptation of the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sentire to think or be of such a sentiment as it is used by St. Paul in Phil. ii 2 where the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to think the same thing to be of the same mind And my reason for this is because the Discourse here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consent of the Jews who disagreed among themselves But then it must not be thought that by sententiam sentiment I understand the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speculation or opinion which entertains only the understanding but an affection or disposition of the Soul which discovers it self in external actions and is that vertue which the Latins usually call prudentia as the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the reason it may be why the Evangelist rather made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly neither sententia opinion nor prudentia prudence or wisdom but an affection of the Soul by which we not only think and judg but also love and hate See H. Stephens Thesaur upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note k. I. For the understanding of what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place it must be enquired not what Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and particularly in the New Testament And we find this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Paul in a very clear notion in Eph. i. 6 where he says that God has predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to the praise of the glory of his grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he hath gratified us in the beloved i. e. by which he hath dealt most bountifully with us through Christ And agreably hereto the meaning of the Angel here must be O Virgin who art highly favoured by God Phavorinus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloved blessed II. What our Author quotes out of Hesychius relates rather to the body or to elegancy of speech than to the Mind which certainly we can have nothing to do with here Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he interprets by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretty elegant sayings And the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facetus gratiosus witty pleasant In which sense it is taken in the Son of Sirach Chap. xviii 19 where the discourse is concerning one that was well skilled in the art of speaking or an eloquent man The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius ought not to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old Glosses have that word and render it by gratus gratuitus acceptus grateful freely bestowed acceptable But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is undoubtedly as the Doctor supposes a false print for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prov. xi 16 signifies a handsom Woman for which sense there can be no room here Vers 39. Note m. Of this Phrase in those days see my Notes on Gen. xxxviii 1 Vers 67. Note n. at the end of the third sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 190. lin 24. I. Our Author had done well if he had produced the words of those Grammarians who say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies naturally no more than one that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or in the stead of another And he might have shewn us too at the same time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition is the same sometime with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as pro in Latin in Proconsul For as for me I know of no Grammarian that has proved this but I know of one that thinks them both false When Poets are said to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Muses it is not meant that they speak in the place or stead of the Muses but by their inspiration no less than Prophets by the inspiration of that particular Deity to which they are consecrated For it must be observed that tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who foretels things to come yet when Poets are so stiled it signifies only men inspired by the Muses Which is the reason also why Poets used to invoke them II. Amongst the Heathens the Divines Prophets or Priests did not teach the People how they were to live but only the manner of worshipping and pacifying the Gods And therefore Lactantius Lib. v. c. 3. speaking of the Heathen Divinity very truly saith Nihil ibi
however not agreeing in their Opinions about the day nor so much as the year in which Christ was born one might be ready perhaps to question the Authority of Justin and Tertullian who tell us that the Tables on which this enrolling here spoken of was made were extant in their time For from those Records this whole matter might easily have been known and it would have been an inexcusable neglect in the Christians of that age who could have looked into those publick Registers and transmitted to Posterity what they had there read and yet would not do it But I am afraid that Tertullian and others spake only by guess because it was not certainly known that those Records were lost But this is not a place to treat of this matter Vers 14. Note e. The Alexandrian and Cambridg Copies which are both venerable for their antiquity and the Latin and Gothick Interpreters have that reading which the Doctor here expounds And therefore it is not true as Grotius says that all the Copies consent in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho the greatest part read it so Vers 35. Note f. It is easy to conjecture what was the occasion of that grief that like a sword pierced through the heart of this holy Woman For how could she see without extreme sorrow and trouble almost all the Jews persecuting her Son and that with such implacable fury as to nail him at last to a Cross As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is either Mary her self according to the genius of the Hebrew or if you please her heart which might metaphorically be said to be struck through when she beheld her Son crucified So in Statius Lib. x. Thebaid a Father hearing his Sons life demanded received the sentence Non secus ac torta trajectus cuspide pectus exanimis There was no need of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be the sensitive Soul to give light to an easy phrase used also in other Languages CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor interprets this in his paraphrase thus Governour of that fourth division of the kingdom called Galilee by which words there is no body but would think that Herod was here equal'd with Pilate and was a President sent by Tiberius But the difference between a Governour or President and a Tetrarch he explains in part in his Annotations He should have added that this Herodes Antipas was in possession of this Tetrarchship in pursuance of Herod the Great 's will and did not send the revenue of that territory to Rome as the Roman Presidents did but converted it to his own use He depended indeed upon Caesar against whose will he could not have took possession of his inheritance and who could take it away from him when ever he pleased and at last did so But he was not however the Emperors tributary but his friend and wanted nothing but the title of one to make him a King And upon this account Josephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. 17. Cap. 10. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I make this remark because our Author seems in another place by an intolerable impropriety of speech to give Herod the title of a Roman Governour as if he had not ruled his Principality in his own name but in the Emperors See Note on Matt. xxii 16 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The force of this word is not sufficiently expressed by the Doctor in his Paraphrase St. Luke's words are to be rendred thus And Jesus himself when he began to execute his office or to preach the Gospel was about thirty years old and as was supposed was the Son of Joseph c. In the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a form of passing over to the next words and they who interpret it otherwise make a difficulty where there is none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said in Greek for he began which yet is commonly here supposed tho without producing any such Example I should paraphrase therefore this Passage thus When Jesus first began to preach the Gospel which he did a little after he had been baptized by John he was about thirty years old and was of the Stock of David his Mother being of the same Family and Joseph her Husband who was the Son of c. CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what has been said by Grotius to confirm the truth of this reading it may be farther observed that it is read so in Beza's Cambridg Copy and three others which he mentions besides that which the Authors of the Coptick and Gothick Versions made use of Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting in the Alexandrian and Beza's antient Copy It is not expressed in the 3 d Verse nor in Matth. iv 6 And therefore Beza who uses to render that Article by a demonstrative Pronoun has here omitted it and told us in his Notes that he suspected it It was possible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joseph that Jesus was conceived without the assistance of a Man and by the power of the Holy Ghost and that for that reason the Angel who had foretold his Birth had said that he should be called the Son of God but it was possible also that he might question whether that was true or no and so be willing to tempt our Saviour himself that he might be more fully satisfied about it And accordingly the Temptation may be thus expressed If thou art the Son of God and not of a Man as thy Mother says cast thy self down from hence for since thou may'st put thy trust in God thy Father there is nothing that thou needest to fear because it is written in Psal xci concerning those that trust in God that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them CHAP. V. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke here follows S. Mark but St. Matthew Chap. ix 9 mentions his own name It is supposed by most and by our Author here among the rest that Levi was but another name for S. Matthew but this is confuted by Grotius by divers considerable Arguments in his Notes on Matt. ix which I wonder that Dr. Hammond should take no notice of but follow the common Opinion St. Matthew and Levi were perhaps Companions in the same Custom or Tollhouse and dwelt together And Christ seems to have called them both and to have been entertained at a Feast by them both at their own house But Levi was not chosen to be one of the twelve Apostles And yet why St. Mark and Luke pass by Matthew and make mention of Levi I confess I can give no reason CHAP. VI. Vers 13. Note c. I. THat Christ was commissioned and authorized by God to found and govern the Church
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
he does not fetch that light from the Doctrin of Christ but from Judaism mixed with an opinion of Plato it is all frivolous that he says of it It is only therefore to the Gospel that that Passage of his concerning the Divine Light in Lib. de Humanitate p. 551. agrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as when the Sun rises the darkness is dissipated and all things are filled with Light so when the Sun made by God arises and enlightens the Soul the darkness of Vice and Passion is dispelled and a most pure and amiable form in the Latin it is sanctissima species but it should have been tranâ—lated digna amatu of most shining Vertue appears Vers 5. Shineth in darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. is risen to dispel Mens ignorance Vers 7. Through him might believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that they might by John's Ministry be induced to believe in Christ Grotius's interpretation is harsh that through the Light they might believe in God Vers 8. He was not the Light viz. that excellent Light of which St. John speaks both before and after For otherwise in Chap. v. 35 of this Gospel John the Baptist is called a burning and a shining Light Vers 9. That Light was the true Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Plato and his followers and amongst the rest Philo those things are said to be such or such truly which may be so called in an excellent sense Thus in Lib. de mundi Opificio p. 13. Philo says that in the harmony of the parts of the World there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true Musick And this phrase St. John seems to have taken delight in and frequently makes use of as in 1 Epist. ii 8 where he says again the true Light And so in this Gospel Chap. vi 32 Christ is called the true Bread and his Flesh vers 55. true Meat and Chap. xv 1 he is said to be the true Vine Ibid. Which came into the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This I refer as Grotius does to the Light not to Men. Consult his Notes Ibid. Every Man Not only the Jews as John Baptist and the other Prophets did but all Men of what Nation soever they are of whom vast numbers had received the Christian Faith at that time This is afterwards more clearly explained by St. John Vers 10. Reason was in the World I have supplied the word Reason because the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently follows which is the Relative to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the World here we are to understand men amongst whom Christ conversed Ibid. And the World was made by it i. e. especially mankind whose first Parents were created by the divine Reason Ibid. Knew it not viz. to be the divine Reason when they ought to have collected from the Discourses and Actions of Christ that that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which all things had been created dwelt in him He did not bring Laws that were useful for one Nation and hurtful to others but such as were equally profitable for all mankind and therefore manifestly proceeded from the common Parent of mankind They were Laws becoming the Creator of all things to make and fit for all Nations and all Ages and if the Jews had not been blind Si mens non laeva fuisset as the Poet speaks they might have easily discerned their Author Vers 11. To its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Jews Consult Grotius The Jews are so stiled because they are called the People of God and so of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Received it not For they rejected the Doctrin of Christ by whose Mouth the divine Reason spake and in whom it dwelt Vers 12. As many viz. of what Nation soever because the greatest part of the Jews rejected him Ibid. Received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. as their only Master Ibid. It gave them power to become the Sons of God that is to be called God's Children as well as the Jews and that in a more excellent sense than they Moses Deut. xxxii 6 calls God the Father of the Israelites In Psalm lxxiii 15 the same People are called the Generation of God's Children and Hos i. 10 the Sons of the living God In this Gospel Chap. viii 41 they boast of their having one Father even God Now those are called the Sons of God who worship the true God and living conformably to his Commands have a well-grounded hope of being made partakers of the good things he has promised And this privilege the Jews contended to belong only to themselves and those who embraced their Religion by virtue of the Mosaical Covenant But St. John teaches us that the Divine Reason has conferred this privilege on all that believe the Gospel Perhaps the Apostle designed also in this passage to contradict Philo who distinguishes between the Sons of God and the Sons of Reason in Lib. de confusione Linguarum p. 267. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that make use of knowledg are deservedly called the Sons of one God as Moses also acknowledges saying Ye are the Sons of the Lord God and God who hath begotten thee and is not he himself thy Father If any one be not as yet worthy to be called a Son of God let him endeavour to be adorned by his first-born Reason the most antient Angel For if we are not yet fit to be reputed the Sons of God yet let us strive to be so of most holy Reason his eternal Image Vers 13. Born not of blood· As those who were descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob and thought themselves to be the Sons of God upon that account See Chap. viii 33 seqq Ibid. Nor of the will of the flesh Strange women that were taken Captives in war and married to Jews were look'd upon to be admitted into the number of God's Children that is to be also Jews And of such it is properly said that they became Israelites or Children of God by the will of the flesh that is by fleshly concupiscence see Deut. xxi 11 seqq Ibid. Of the will of man This has a reference to the Children of Proselites who upon their Father and his Family 's turning Jews became if they were little the Sons of God only by the will of one man Yea and an adult Person who embraced the Jewish Religion may be said to have become a Jew by the will of man viz. his own It must be carefully observed that St. John here uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viri and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominis to distinguish that kind of adoption which was made by the will of a Father from the former whereby a strange woman became a Jew by the will of the flesh Ibid. But of God viz. By Regeneration or a change of manners whereby forsaking Heathenism and embracing the Gospel they lived according to the rules of Christianity
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
put for Men or Persons So Ovid. Amor. Lib. 2. El. 1. Heroum clara valete Nomina So Statius lib. 6. Thebaidos Quisnam iste duos fidissima Phoebo Nomina commisit Deus in discrimina Reges So Valerius Flaccus lib. 4. Nomen ait praedulce mihi nomenque sequutus Otreos That is Otreus See vers 225. of the same Book and Lib. 5. vers 61. and 120. Vers 18. Note g. See my Note on the parallel place in St. Matthew and what I have said there in opposition to Dr. Hammond's Opinion Vers 25. Note k. If our Author's Interpretation were true the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have preceded the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will be very modestly said concerning Judas by the Apostles that he went into his proper place if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be meant that State whatsoever it was which he passed into after his Death Such another Phrase Plato makes use of in Phaedone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Soul which has lived purely and soberly dwells in a place sutable to it self CHAP. II. Vers 17. Note b. lin 49. AFter the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi 29 I have shewn in my Notes on Deuteronomy that these words signify only in general after days If they signify the days of the Messias the reason of that is because those days were after-days or days then to come Sometimes the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the last days not of the Messias but of those Writers that made use of it i. e. the days just past or that were near at hand This may easily be applied to the places that Dr. Hammond alledges Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is well translated by the Vulgar circa domos i. e. not in any one House but sometimes in one and sometimes in another for fear of being surprized by the Jews I do not deny but that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be set to signify a Chamber or Room in the Temple but the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can no more signify in one of the Rooms of the Temple than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jerusalem Chap. xv 21 xx 23 Tit. i. 5 Who will ever believe that a vast multitude of Christians did every day eat in the Chambers of the Temple No body besides Dr. Hammond Ibid. It is true indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies often a Benefit as also the Latin gratia but the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only to be in favor with him and not to give any thing to him The case is plain We must not enquire what words signify by themselves but in conjunction with one another Our Author 's arguing here is absurd CHAP. III. Vers 19. Note a. line 15. AFter the words utter ruin Our learned Author's Memory here failed him See my Notes on Gen. v. 29 Vers 21. Note b. This Interpretation which the Doctor here gives us of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not as he pretends most agreeable to the Context but a very harsh one for it is manifest that what is here said concerning Christ viz. that the Heaven must receive him is opposed to the foregoing words And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you St. Peter first exhorts the Jews to repent of their Sins that they might obtain Mercy and Forgiveness when Christ should come from Heaven and then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. whom the Heaven must contain or who must continue in Heaven until the times of the restitution of all things There could be no mention here made of Christ's Government or his having taken upon him the Government of Heaven but only of his staying in Heaven which is the opposite to his returning from thence Our Author out of a desire to propose something new says sometimes such things as none that have any skill in this sort of Learning can admit of Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Syriac and Chaldee word was that St. Peter made use of I cannot tell But St. Luke expressing his sense and meeting with a word proper to his purpose among the Stoicks he used that Thus Numenius in Eusebius Praep. Evang. lib. 15. cap. 19. setting down the Opinion of the Stoicks says that after the Conflagration of the World Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will return to its first as it is called Reason and that Resurrection which will make the great Year in which year the restitution of it self alone into the same will be brought about See Lipsius de Physiol Stoic lib. 2. c. 22. where there is a very remarkable Passage out of Julius Firmicus to this purpose Vers 24. Note c. I wish our Author had given us the Reasons which made him think that Samuel first of all instituted the Schools of the Prophets for I confess I do not know how he could be certain of this It is true Samuel is described the first in the company of the Prophets and going before them 1 Sam. xix 20 But it no where appears that he was the first Institutor of such Schools I should rather say that his Name is here put first because he was indeed the first famous Prophet whose Predictions are extant that succeeded Moses CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was not a Heathen but a Jew the Captain of the Levites of which see my Note on Luke xxii 44 The Priests did not use to walk so close together with Heathens for fear of being polluted Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did you do this by a magical Power or a Power derived from the Devil or from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by whose authority since you had none from the Sanhedrim In whose Name do you pretend to be sent That the invocation of any Name is here intended I do not think Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor in his Paraphrase so as to make the sense of St. Peter's words here to be that Jesus is the only Mediator by whom we can have access or admission to God and that God has sent no other from which it is consequent that those must fall short of Salvation who rejecting him betake themselves to any other Mediator as the Jews did who placed their Confidence in Moses But this is nothing at all to the Heathens who have neither ever heard any thing of Christ nor ever cast him off to substitute any Mediator in his room If God will think fit to pardon some of them who live the most agreeably to right Reason and confer upon them some measure of Happiness out of mere Grace and Mercy do we think that Christ will intercede that he may not Sure he will not and I do not see why we silly Mortals should set bounds to God's Mercy But this belongs to the Theory of Divinity which I have purposed not to meddle with
handle this matter more largely in a Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah Vers 33. Note m. As there are two Passages here in the Prophet Isaiah at a considerable distance from one another put together by the Apostle so there are two Figures also conjoined First Christ is considered as a stone of Offence at which whether it be in walking or running if any one do stumble he is in danger of falling and this refers to the Metaphors the Apostle had before taken from the Grecian Games and particularly that of Running which made him think of a stone of Offence than which in a swift motion nothing can be more dangerous Afterwards in the next words every one that believeth on him shall not be confounded Christ is represented not as a stone of Offence but as a corner stone which he that builds any Wall upon must trust to the firmness of and if he be deceived in his confidence after he has finished his Structure his building falls and that fills him with shame This latter Similitude is in Isa xxviii 16 where God speaks thus I lay in Sion for a foundation a Stone an elect Stone if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behhourah elect for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bohhan a Tower a corner Stone and pretious a most firm foundation He that believeth shall not make hast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is shall never be judged to have made too much hast in choosing it nor ever be ashamed of his choice And the former is in Chap. viii 14 He shall be for a stone of Stumbling and for a rock of Offence to the two Houses of Israel where the Metaphor is quite different and it is no longer a corner Stone that is spoken of but a stone on which a Persons foot or the wheel of a Chariot happens to strike as the following Verse more clearly shews CHAP. X. Vers 5. Note b. THE meaning of St. Paul in this place seems to be only this that the Law promised nothing but to those that observed it so as Moses taught it was to be observed that is unless either all its Precepts were obeyed or the Sacrifices appointed by the Law were offered up for the expiation of some sort of Sins against it Otherwise it promised no Mercy from God to those who had committed such a Sin as the Law threatned with death or allowed no Sacrifice for But on the contrary the Gospel assures us that God will pardon such sins as those if the Sinner does but firmly believe they shall be remitted to him and abstain from them for the future This is all we are here to consider for what our Author says in his Paraphrase that it was impossible the Law should be observed that is so far from being the assertion of Moses that he every where supposes the contrary as appears even by the very next words See my Notes on Deut. xix 9 CHAP. XI Vers 8. Note b. OUR Author truly observes that according to the use of the Atticks or those that spake the purest Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies compunction but he might have added that the Greek Interpreters whether through ignorance or according to the use of the Alexandrians confounded the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of which signifies to prick to pierce and the latter to nod or slumber which made them think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified nodding tho it comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will be worth our while to read Lud. Cappellus about this matter in his Critical Notes on Psalm iv 4 Vers 12. Note d. I have often observed our Author to write so as not to make what he says at last to agree with what he had said at first because I suppose after he had written half an Annotation he changed his Mind and yet was loth to blot out what he had already written And this we have an instance of in this place for after he had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a multitude he alters his opinion and gives it another signification But his second thoughts here were not the best as I shall briefly shew For 1. That this word does sometimes signify a multitude appears also by Hesychius who interprets it among other things by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for collecting but for that which fills up as the Lexicons will shew Neither was a multitude so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a piece of Cloth put into a torn Garment to make it whole again but because it makes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full and complete Assembly or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it fills the places into which it is gathered together Perhaps also there may be a respect here had to the original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is thus set down in the Eâ—ymologicon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Jews who were to come in late to Christ are no more called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their filling up what remained empty in the Church than the Heathens who are called by the same name and made up the greatest part of the Church 4. I wish our learned Author had alledged the Passage he speaks of in Sâ—der Olam in Hebrew or referred to the Page for I have not leisure to read it all through and the words he produces out of it look very suspiciously CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. IT is so manifest that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood only in this last sense that I wonder our learned Author would spoil Paper and lose time in proposing the other Conjectures For they are such as may be reckoned indeed in the number of those things that have no natural repugnancy in them but there is not the least shadow of likelihood in them nor can they be confirmed by any example But unless I am mightily mistaken he had never set them down but only to fill up his Annotations on this Chapter which he found would otherwise be but short And a great many other things there are of the like nature in this Volume which yet I pass by without reprehension Such is what he inserts into his Paraphrase on this Chapter about the Gnosticks without any necessity as if there could have been none corrupted with Vices contrary to the Vertues which the Apostle here commends besides the Gnosticks Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify only knowledg or an opinion conceived in the Mind but an affection of the Soul And thence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not only a change of Judgment or opinion but also of Affections See Beza on Mat. iii. 2 Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we all make one body of Christians or all we Christians are one Body The Phrase 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 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
perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion as to the use of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I shall confirm by these Verses of Virgil wherein he elegantly describes the Mind distracted with variety of Cares and uses the word dividere Aeneid 8. at the beginning Magno curarum fluctuat aestu Atque animum nunc huc celerem nunc DIVIDIT illuc In partesque rapit varias perque omnia versat Nay and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be vexed with Care is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be divided between different Resolutions because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by changing the Letter E into H. See Eustathius on Homer pag. 80. and 1427. Edit Rom. But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to censure The first is his Citation out of the Jerusalem Paraphrase which makes nothing to the purpose it being manifest that those words signify Distrust or Vnbelief not Cares or Distractions And the second is his saying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns whereas nothing is more common in all the best Authors in both Languages than that Construction and which I wonder he did not take notice of it must be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy which he prefers before the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. CHAP. VIII Vers 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a respect to the Hebrew word which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians but to the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self which he here uses and which properly signifies an Image conceived in the Mind which is no where but in our Understanding and afterwards was applied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres And this is the reason why the Jews who spake Greek gave the name of Idols first to the Gods of the Heathens themselves and then to their Statues All which I shall deduce a little more particularly because it will conduce very much to the clear understanding of this Passage And first of all it must be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be like unto in which sense it is often used in Homer as for instance in Iliad B. Vers 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And near to him stood greyeyed Minerva like to a Cryer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast Whence the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came to signify an Image or representation of things such as is formed in the Mind And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as H. Stephanus has shewn out of Plutarch signifies sometimes the same And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin calls an incorporeal thing supposing it appeared in a visible shape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that remarkable Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men would be extreamly in love with Wisdom if it did but present some lively Image of it self to their view And because they thought that the Souls of dead Persons were clothed with a certain airy Form resembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when those Persons were alive that Form they usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of deceased Men. Virgil renders it simulachra figuras which he thus describes in Aeneid 6. Vers 292. speaking of Aeneas who was going to encounter the Ghosts if Sybilla had not diverted him Et ni docta comes tenues sine corpore vitas Admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae Irruat frustra ferro diverberet umbras This was the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks when the Jews first came acquainted with them and therefore when they had learned to speak Greek they fitly called the Gods of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly because they were but meer human Inventions having no real Existence and partly because they generally worshipped dead men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to use the words of Virgil Horum umbras tenues simulachraque luce carentum Which shews likewise the reason why the Apostle says that an Idol is nothing in the World for the Fictions of Men have no real Existence nor are there any such Images or Apparitions of dead Persons as the Poets speak of no more than there is any Horrendum stridens flammisque armata Chimaera Philo Judaeus Lib. de Monarchia affirms that Riches also are called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are but the fading Images of true good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these are the things which the Scripture calleth Idols like Shadows and Phantoms which depend upon nothing firm or certain Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sense of this Verse is not truly expressed by our Author out of Theophylact. It must be rendred for tho there be they which are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as really there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is one God the Father c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels in the Earth Magistrates who are also called the Lords of the World But Christians called only the Father by whom all things were created God and Jesus Christ by whom were all things Lord in the most excellent sense The Apostle has no reference to the false Gods or Idols of the Heathens nor to the common way of speaking among the Jews themselves for he grants that those were truly called Gods and Lords He seems when he wrote this to have had in his mind that passage of Moses in Deut. x. 17 The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords a great God mighty and terrible whom the Jews ought alone to serve And in like manner St. Paul here teaches that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords yet there was but one of those Gods and one of those Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worship Vers 7. Note b. No body will deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Body signifies to be sick and is taken also for a disease of the Mind if the discourse be about the Mind But I don't think St. Paul here has a respect to the general Notion of a distemper of the Mind or of Sin but rather speaks of an infirm purpose in the profession of the Christian Religion and the observation of its Precepts such as is usual in ignorant People who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors This is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiv 1 2. which does not signify sick or diseased in the Faith but Persons whose Faith was not so firm and strong
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
Clay and thence by a Metaphor was applied to Animals covered with a certain Shell which for the hardness of it might be compared to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet I affirm nothing positively but this I affirm that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undoubtedly signifies earthen Vessels because that is the perpetual signification of this Phrase and the other alledged by Dr. Hammond is without example Besides the place it self necessarily requires the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be so understood for it is manifest that St. Paul compares the Apostles to frail and contemptible and not precious or artificial Vessels such as are made of the finest sort of Shells There is a clear opposition here put between the great Excellency of the Gospel and the meanness of its Preachers or between the Power of God which exerted it self in the Gospel and the Infirmity of the Apostles Vers 8. Note c. I fully agree with our learned Author in interpreting St. Paul's words here by the customs of the Heathens in their Agones But there are some things to be observed on this Annotation I. It is strange he should confound the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek with the Latin algeo when the Greek constantly signifies to grieve to be tormented and the Latin to be cold Yet he has elsewhere committed the same mistake lest any one should think it was by mere accident It is manifest that St. Chrysostom interprets the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this latter does no more signify to be cold than the former but to be grieved or afflicted II. In the place of St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not an Agonistical term The words of the Apostle are Let patience have its perfect work that ye may be perfect and entire deficient in nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the thing spoken of is manifestly a defect and not any Victory which might be gained over the Christians III. It would have been worth observing that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition carries a greater emphasis with it than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only to be perplexed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despair utterly So Aristophanes in Nubibus Act. 4. Sc. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith he will destroy and utterly ruin or undo me Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius Habentes communem nobiscum Dei Spiritum qui non datur nisi credentibus Iterum hic genitivus causam significat id est conditionem requisitam Having the common Spirit of God with us which is not given to any but Believers Again here the Genitive Case signifies a Cause that is a necessary Condition But I should rather interpret the Spirit of Faith of a disposition of Mind sutable to what we believe or to the Faith which we profess So the Spirit of Jealousy and the Spirit of Bondage c. are the dispositions of jealous Persons or Servants Which Interpretation agrees better with what follows for because the Apostles were so disposed as Persons who did not doubt of the truth or excellency of the Gospel ought to be therefore they boldly preached it and could not be deterred from so doing by any danger CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't think this is an Hypallage whereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beza supposed and therefore without necessity inverted the words in his Translation But an House of a Tabernacle is a Hebraism for a House which like a Tabernacle is easily dissolved a House that is built of Boards which maybe easily taken asunder in opposition to a House of Stone which abides firm after its Tenant is removed So that the Genitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is equivalent to an Adjective which would signify like a Tabernacle such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were in use for then it might have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if our earthly House like a Tabernacle were dissolved Which the Greek not permitting it is no wonder that St. Paul after the manner of the Hebrews supplied the place of an Adjective by a Substantive Hippocrates in Aphorismis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Soul having left the Tabernacle of the Body Vers 10. Note a. The Vulgar Interpreter read also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by his translating it propria and the sense is not improper but have a care of thinking that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Man himself See what our Author has said about that matter on Rom. vi 6 and what I have there objected against him Vers 11. Note b. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be often joined with a great opinion of the Person who perswades and he that desires to perswade must above all things endeavour to get the approbation and good opinion of his Hearers yet the use of the Greek Language will not permit that word to be taken in the sense which our Author here fixes upon it The Accusative case to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be repeated from what goes before The sense is knowing how much the Judgment of God ought to be feared we perswade others to fear it that we may induce them to a Holy Life of which God is our witness and you also if am not mistaken conscious Nor is it to be expected that the Doctor will any where else prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any thing but to perswade It is common with him to impose significations upon words collected from mere uncertain reasonings whereas Use is that which ought to be principally regarded and nothing else when a word may be conveniently taken in its usual sense Nothing is more dangerous than those kind of reasonings which ought never to be recurred to but when it is impossible to apply the ordinary signification of words to any particular places in which they occur CHAP. VI. Vers 2. Note a. I Have already elsewhere said that out of Judaea the Christians had no reason to fear the Jews in those times and therefore the day of Salvation here cannot reasonably be referred to the Jews the Apostle writing to Persons that lived in Achaia But Grotius and others more fitly understand it of eternal Salvation But I am not against thinking that the Apostle here opposes his own and the rest of the Apostles Life to the ill Manners and Effeminacy of false Teachers provided the 2 d verse be not interpreted of a Deliverance from them by a sudden destruction which was to befal them For what deliverance could this be from Hereticks when the Heathen Persecutions daily encreased from this time throughout all the Roman Empire Vers 14. Note b. Our learned Author who finds fault with Budaeus and Stephanus for taking up with a conjecture rather than attending to the use of the
same word ought to be so taken in Chap. i. 11 of this Epistle as appears by his Paraphrase For St. Paul did not write this Epistle in the name of the Church of Rome so that when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he should be understood to speak of the Christians who dwelt in that City And besides nothing could be said more flat in the name of the Roman Gentiles than among whom also we all had our Conversation c. seeing every body knew that the Romans had lived in the same Vices with other Heathens yea had been worse it may be than their Neighbours as the Inhabitants of great Cities are generally most devoted to the Vices of the Age. But that might very fitly be said of the Jews whom St. Paul would otherwise have seemed to distinguish from other Nations as to the course of their Lives in which as he would not have declared the truth so he might have offended the Gentiles And for this reason he says here we all that is Jews as well as Gentiles Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of this expression I have shewn at large in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. i. cap. 7. to be no more than this that the Jews were a People of as wicked Dispositions and deserved as much the Wrath of God as other Nations Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have set down the whole Verse to shew that the sense of the last words is different from what is vulgarly thought They render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by quae praeparavit which he hath prepared and I do not deny but that according to the Greek Construction it may be so rendred but the thing it self and the Phrase ought to have admonished Interpreters that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rather to be understood and that it should be rendred for which he hath prepared us or made us fit The foregoing words in which Christians are called God's workmanship and said to be created by Christ shew that St. Paul speaks of a change made in Men who of bad and indisposed to good Works were made good and fit for the exercise of Christian Vertues And therefore the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have been referred to them It 's certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There can scarce be a harsher Phrase and more destitute of examples than this to prepare good Works that Men might walk in them But Men themselves are frequently said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in Rom. ix 23 where St. Paul speaks of a like matter God is said to make known the riches of his Glory on the vessels of Mercy which he had before prepared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Glory whom he also hath called not only us of the Jews but also of the Gentiles God is here said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have prepared us to good Works because the knowledg and belief of the Gospel has that influence upon us as to fit us for the performance of vertuous Actions So in the Book of the Son of Sirach Chap. ii 1 all that intend to serve God are exhorted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prepare their Souls for Temptation See vers 18. of the same Chapter and Chap. xvii 25 Vers 14. Note a. The place in Ecclesiasticus is nothing to this business which perhaps our Author did not look into in the Book it self because he quotes it wrong out of Chap. xix 29 whereas it is in Chap. xxix 30 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an honorable Man and the discourse there is about another thing Nor was the stranger commanded to go out of the Sanctuary of Israel but forbidden to enter into it Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here our Author tells us in the Margin that the Kings Manuscript reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders together but to express that St. Paul should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 19. Note b. It is truly observed by Dr. Hammond that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here refers to the Jews but there was no necessity of recurring to Procopius for the reason of their being so called The Jews are stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saints because they were consecrated to the true God and not because their Forefathers were holy in their Lives See Exod. xix 6 and my Notes on that place CHAP. III. Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The same thing which is here said in other Ages not to have been made known to the Sons of Men is said in vers 10. to have been unknown also to Angels Which being so I confess I do not well understand how those who are neither Prophets nor Angels can find out so many places in the Prophets in which the calling of the Gentiles is manifestly and directly foretold For certainly if it was of old revealed to the Prophets they understood it for that which is not understood cannot be thought revealed And if it could have been gathered from the literal sense of any Prophecies the Angels might have understood it by those Prophecies But the event you will say which is the best Interpreter of Prophecies has unfolded the sense of them But I demand whether such an event can be easily supposed to be respected in Prophecies which are so obscure that neither Men nor Angels could before understand them to contain any such sense If that can be supposed I do not see what event may not be found in them But you will say again the Apostles and so the Angels came to know that they had a respect to such an event by divine Revelation But as I said before that cannot be called a Revelation which no body understands and therefore it was of no use to the Prophets See what has been alledged out of the learned H. Dodwell on Mat. ii 2 From hence all that I here infer is that we ought not presently to condemn those who look for other events which happen'd before Christ in the antient Prophecies of which number the great Grotius must be reckon'd the chief otherwise this matter would deserve to be more exactly discussed CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a conjecture of a Friend of mine that by Captivity here is meant the dead bodies of Saints which were held captive by Death but were raised with Christ at his Resurrection and ascended with him into Heaven Mat. xxvii And accordingly he thought that St. Paul says Christ descended into the lower parts of the Earth because he descended into the Grave that he might bring them out from thence And there is nothing in the thing it self nor in the words repugnant to this Interpretation Ibid. Note a. I. Marcus Aurelius gave nothing to the common People of Rome in the time of Triumph nor any thing of his own accord The story is thus related by Xiphilinus out of Dio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
promise as well as they For if God promised to the antient Jews a quiet Habitation in the Land of Canaan he hath promised us eternal Rest in Heaven So that here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in its proper that is in a general sense for receiving of any good tidings as it is often used in the Version of the Septuagint where the Verb in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bisser Nothing can be more flat than what the generality of Interpreters think the sacred Writer here says concerning Christians we have received the Gospel as well as the antient Jews because there can be no comparison made between the knowledg which the Primitive Jews had of the Gospel and ours What our Author says in his Paraphrase agrees neither with the words nor the series of the Discourse Ibid. Note a. It is much more probable that the true reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word of HEARING did not profit them not being mixed by Faith with those that HEARD it that is the words of the Promise concerning a quiet Habitation did not profit those who only heard it without believing it For they who believe the Word of God are nourished by it so as if it were incorporated with them and converted into their substance that is they are no less acted and moved by the things which they receive by revelation from God than those which they have found to be true by reasoning and experience And that which makes this mixture of the Word of God with the hearers of it is Faith for which reason the sacred Writer saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Word is mixed by FAITH with those that hear it Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the words of the xcv th Psalm be here alledged I do not believe the Sacred Writer uses the Authority of the Psalmist to prove what he designs but only expresses an antient Story in his words which is related in Num. xiv and Deut. i. And he interprets Rest in the words of God expressed by Moses and by David in a sublimer sense according to the custom of his Age in which all the places of the Old Testament were explained in a more sublime sense than what the words literally contained And as those who believed in the time of Moses enter'd into the Land of Canaan which then might be called God's Rest so the Souls of pious Christians enter into the mansions of eternal Happiness to which that name more eminently belongs Therefore it is said by the sacred Writer we that believe do enter into Rest Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is into Canaan which was as the shadow of the heavenly Rest I say again there is no mention in the Psalmist of any future Rest but only the Writer of this Epistle deters the Men of his Age from sinning by the example of the antient Jews Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words are to be referred and joined to the 2 d Verse in this sense Seeing therefore we also are to enter into Rest understood in a higher sense as I have already said when the greatest part of those to whom rest in the Land of Canaan was promised fell short of it That this Verse is to be joined with vers 2. may appear by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have a respect to those other in the 2d Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Subintellig 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture which word is often understood in antient Christian Writers The sense of this place is that not only the Primitive Jews should have taken heed of Unbelief but all their Posterity and consequently Christians seeing the Scripture teaches that whenever the Voice of God is heard it is to be obeyed and Rest is no less promised to the Obedient than formerly Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is if no other Rest were to be expected besides that which the believing Jews of old obtained under the conduct of Joshua the Psalmist would have had no reason to admonish the Men of his Age and the following Ages to take heed of imitating the primitive Israelites whom Unbelief excluded out of the promised Rest lest God should punish them after the same manner In interpreting these words two things are necessary to be done First we must consider the scope of the Speaker and by that his words are to be understood rather than by the proper meaning of every particular Phrase The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify literally as they are rendred in the Vulgar nam si eis Jesus quietem praestitisset For if Jesus had given them Rest But if they be so interpreted the Apostle's reasoning will be of no force If Joshua had conducted those antient Jews into a quiet Habitation the Scripture would not speak of another day in which the Voice of God ought to be heard Why not Ought not the Men of the following Ages to be obedient to the Commands of God Yes But the meaning of the Sacred Writer in the words alledged is this which I have expressed in the beginning of this Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly something is to be supplied in the following words for otherwise what opposition could there be between rest and another day If there were no other rest besides that which Joshua gave the antient Israelites it would not thence follow there could not be another day or another time in which the Voice of God could not be despised without danger But we must supply here what I have also before intimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which we shall be excluded out of God's Rest if we do not obey his Voice Yet two things ought to be carefully observed in such Interpretations and Additions First no Interpretation is to be admitted which the design of the Speaker clearly understood does not require and to which design the Writers reasoning makes nothing unless it be otherwise understood than the words properly signify Our Author Dr. Hammond has but little regard to the scope of this place into which he brings his Gnosticks by head and shoulders when the scope requires no such thing I have endeavour'd to make directly towards it and think I have not much erred from it Secondly that which is supplied must be taken if I may so speak out of the very bowels of the Discourse so that what is expressed do naturally and purely arise from propositions that must necessarily be supposed to be understood And what I have supplied seems to me to be such but what Dr. Hammond adds seems altogether foreign to this place of which let the Reader be judg Hence we may infer that the stile of this Writer is far from being formed by the Laws of Rhetorick according to which our first care should be to speak properly and clearly what we would have clearly
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
elsewhere often observable in these Writings viz. that the Apostles frequently begin a sense without continuing it and no otherwise connect their Discourse than with the last words of the former Period and the beginning of the next so as on occasion of the last word to begin a new sense For the better understanding of which I have subjoined some of St. Peter's words in which those are printed in Capital Letters which connect the Discourse Vers 4. To an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in Heaven for YOU 5. WHO are kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation ready to be revealed in the last TIME 6. WHEREIN ye greatly rejoice tho now for a season if need be ye are in heaviness through manifold TEMPTATIONS 7. That the TRIAL of your Faith being much more precious than of Gold that perisheth tho it be tried with Fire might be found unto Praise and Honour and Glory at the appearing of JESUS CHRIST 8. WHOM having not seen ye love 9. Receiving the end of your Faith even the SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS 10. Of WHICH SALVATION the Prophets have enquired and searched diligently Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here St. Peter speaks only of eternal Salvation as the foregoing words manifestly shew See ver 4. Nor was there any Salvation revealed to the Christian Jews scatter'd through Asia Minor by the destruction of Jerusalem Our Author speaks every where as if Proconsuls and Pretors had been sent from Jerusalem not from Rome into the Provinces of the Roman Empire who had persecuted the Christians But certainly the Christians had reason to fear only the Heathen Magistrates not a few contemptible Jews to whom no part of the Administration of the Provinces belonged Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of the Salvation of Souls of which he spake in the Verse before or of eternal Happiness which will then only be conferred when Christ returns from Heaven Of this Salvation the Prophets enquired not of a deliverance of the Christians from the fear of the Jews whom they had no reason to be much afraid of unless perhaps in Judaea Yet some may object in favour of Dr. Hammond the following Verse in which the Discourse is principally about things that happen'd in the time of the Apostles whence he inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Deliverance which happened in the same Age. But the learned Doctor did not observe that the Prophets who desired to know the time of the last Judgment did at once covet to know when were to be the sufferings for the sake of Christ because after them and not before Christ was to come to Judgment And hence St. Peter calls all those things which had already followed and were afterwards to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the glorious things that after them should come to pass not immediately and all together but at several intervals which not only the Apostles but also the Angels themselves were ignorant of Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Beza renders eventuras Christi perpessiones The future Sufferings of Christ which Grotius follows and says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the foregoing Verse But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify your but to you who prophesied of the Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you that is to be conferred on you or which God was about to bestow on you So also in ver 4. Salvation reserved in Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either until you or for your sakes And agreeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify the sufferings of good Men for the sake of Christ which the Prophets obscurely foresaw and the Glory of Believers that should follow but of which they knew not the times only it was revealed to them that they were not to come to pass in their Age. This excellently agrees with the series of St. Peter's Discourse who speaks of the Afflictions which Christians endured for Religion sake Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This I understand of the time of the last Judgment which the Angels do not know Otherwise if St. Peter had spoken of a thing already past he would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desired Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is whom God had purposed in himself before the Creation of the World to send at this time The Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presignified which makes me wonder why Dr. Hammond here speaks of Types and Images At this rate the Apostles may be made to say any thing CHAP. II. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Grotius rightly observes that St. Peter here means those Vices which had been very common among the Jews and with which those to whom he writes had been infected But our Author without reason would have the Vices of the Gnosticks to be intended which yet at that time wherein he supposes this Epistle was written could hardly have infected so many Besides the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lay aside shews that the Discourse here is about Vices with which those to whom St. Peter writes had been corrupted in Judaism it self and not about unknown Vices against which they were only to fortify themselves Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By a Metaphor taken from Plants which stick yet fast to their Roots and are nourished by juice ascending from them Stones which remain still in the Quarry are said to be living By which Epithet here I suppose is meant the firmness of that thing which is signified by the name of a Stone because nothing is firmer than Stones still growing in a Quarry or cleaving fast to a Rock by their Roots For which reason a steddy and inflexible purpose of Mind is compared by Ovid to such a Stone in Metam xiv where he speaks of Anaxaretes Durior ferro quod Noricus excoquit ignis Et saxo quod adhuc VIVUM radice tenetur Hermas in his Vision of the Tower thus describes Christ Lib. iii. Sim. 9. § 2. In medio campo candidam ingentem mihi petram ostendit quae de ipso campo surrexerat In the midst of the Field he shewed me a white and huge Rock which had risen out of the Field it self Vers 12. Note f. I. In St. Peter's words there is an Ellipsis common in all the best Greek Writers who expressing only the Relative Pronoun leave the Demonstrative to be understood Thus therefore we must Grammatically explain this Phrase where the Pronoun to be supplied is expressed in great Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wherein they speak against you as evil doers understanding THIS more throughly by your good Works they may glorify God In the same manner we must resolve the Phrase occurring about the same matter in Chap. iii. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wherein they speak evil of you as of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉