such Women is very suspicious For it is true certain rich Women did sometimes follow Christ but this seems neither to have been constant nor ever practised in great Journeys when the longest were from Galilee to Jerusalem and that at the time of the Feasts in which Women otherwise used to go up to that City But that in the journeys which the Apostles made into far distant Countries they had rich Women to accompany them and supply them with necessaries which might otherwise have been more easily and decently done let them believe who use to give credit to all that the Antients affirm without the least appearance of likelihood It were easy to shew the improbability of it and I shall say something to that purpose on 1 Cor. ix 5 Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Christians as I observed on Chap. xii 5 See there Vers 16. Note c. It is uncertain whether St. Paul here had a respect to that Salutation which the Christians us'd to give to one another in their holy Assemblies nay it is very improbable and that for these two reasons First because the Apostle here speaks of such a Salutation as was given by Friends in the room of their Friends to persons whom they desired in a Letter to be saluted in their name which Salutation has nothing common with that Church-salutation Secondly in the Church where Men and Women sat apart from one another the Men were saluted by the Men and the Women by the Women not promiscuously the Men by the Women or the Women by the Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Lib. 2. c. 57. where he sets down the whole order observed in the Christian Assemblies describes that Custom thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let the Men salute one another and the Women one another with a kiss in the Lord. He had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Laicks sit on one side in all quietness and good order and the Women also sit apart by themselves keeping silence I know there were several alterations made in the Order of the Church in the following Age but thus in all probability it was antiently not only because of the decency of it but also because it is certain this was the Custom â—mong the Jews whom in many things the Primitive Church followed as J. Bapt. Cotelerius on this place in the Constit Num. 32. Edit Amst has well observed Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. At the end of the Premonition to this Epistle I said I did not think that the Gnosticks were referred to whereever Dr. Hammond thought so but I did not deny that sometimes the reproofs of the Apostles might belong to them as these do in this place They were subtil crafty Persons who perceiving that a great many had embraced the Christian Religion who were very liberal to the poor of that Profession and ready to hearken to any that made a shew of Piety and Learning took occasion to deceive the simple that they might live idly at their cost and privately indulge themselves in all manner of Sensuality Of which number seems to have been that Peregrinus whose death is related by Lucian if we may give credit to an Epicurean and an Orator And to these Hereticks seem to be owing that multitude of supposititious Writings which were received and used by the Christians ever since the first Ages and those Philosophical Opinions with which Christianity was very early corrupted and were taken by the ignorant and unwary for Apostolical Doctrines See Col. ii 8 and 2 Tim. iii. 2 c. Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase puts several things together to shew the full importance of this Phrase But I believe it has a reference only to the persecuting Jews who waged an irreconcileable War with the Christians as Apostates For these being the instruments of the Devil who is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Satan or an Adversary and by his inspiration endeavouring to oppress the Christian Religion at its first rise could not be destroyed but Satan must be trod under foot as it were at the same time The Heathens had not as yet begun to persecute the Christians for Religions sake but only under the notion of seditious Persons by which name the Jews endeavour'd to defame them amongst the Romans as appears from the History of the Acts. So that the Christians had no Adversaries at that time but the Jews who having some years after become odious themselves to the Romans upon the account of their Seditions were not in a condition to do the Christians any great harm And that seems to be the reason why St. Paul promised the Christians peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shortly from the God of Peace What the Doctor says here besides this is besides the meaning of the Apostle That about the silencing of the Oracles is perhaps false and it is certain Satan ceased not to stir up the Heathens for some Ages after against the Christians ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians CHAP. I. Vers 5. Note b. IT is easily discernible that all Dr. Hammond says in this Annotation are mere Niceties which have no foundation in Grammar but depend upon bare reasoning every part of which almost may be denied Nor is it needful to confute it all particularly It is much more natural both here and in 2 Cor. viii 7 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to understand the knowledg of Religion which the Apostle Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense that the Latins call Learning litteras and the Greeks litteras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as every one knows or if they do not they soon may by the Lexicons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies in all knowledg that which relates for instance to the interpretation of Prophecies that which concerns the speculative part of Religion and that which respects the government of the Life Nor is it any objection against this Interpretation that hereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made to signify the same thing nothing being more common than for synonimous words to be joined together But see also Dr. Hammond's next Annotation Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that they might be called my Disciples or receive a denomination from me and be stiled Paulites See my Note on Mat. xxviii 16 Vers 20. Note f. What our Author says on this place is certainly very ingenious and some things he has transcribed out of Grotius so as to mend and add to them But if we consider we shall find that the Prophet Isaiah is cited as a Witness to the Gospel only in ver 19. out of Chap. xxix 14 and that the following words in ver 20. are taken by St. Paul out of Isa xxxiii 18 not to prove any thing but only express his mind by them as his own words
nevertheless as if they did not and be unwilling that these things should be true because they are overpowered and hurried away by their lusts and knowingly indulge their evil practices with the sweetness of which they are captivated and forsake the paths of virtue the ruggedness whereof offends them For those who are inflamed with a covetous and insatiable desire after riches because they cannot sell or give away those things which they love and be content to live upon a little will doubtless be willing to believe that false which would oblige them to renounce their sinful desires And having instanced in some other sorts of persons he proceeds thus Ii sunt homines qui contra veritatem clausis oculis quoquo modo latrant Qui autem sani erunt id est non ita vitiis immersi ut insanabiles sint credent his libenter accedent quaecunque dicimus aperta plana simplicia quod maxime opus est vera inexpugnabilia illis videbuntur Nemo virtuti favet nisi qui sequi potest sequi autem non est facile omnibus c. These are the men that shut their eyes against the truth and do all they can to oppose it But all unprejudiced persons that is such as are not incurably vitious will easily assent to these things and readily entertain them and whatever we say will seem plain and natural to them and as it is especially requisite they should true and impossible to be confuted No man favours the side of virtue but he that has the heart to practise it and the practice of virtue is not easy to all c. Vers 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not properly to be understood of one that acts sincerely as Grotius speaks that is whose vertue is not counterfeited but of an honest or good man The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truth is taken for righteousness and goodness in 2 Chron. xxxii 1 and so the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in Eph. v. 9. And the opposition that is here made between these persons and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not particularly Hypocrites confirms this Interpretation CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. by his divine knowledg saith Grotius But there is no reason to suppose but he might know it too by the report of others since it is not secret thoughts that are here spoken of Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Jerom it seems read it in his Copies or at least thought that it ought to be read Sichem for in his Epitaph on Paula he has these words Transivit Sichem non ut plerique errantes legunt Sichar quae nunc Neapolis appellatur ex latere montis Garizim exstructam circa puteum Jacob intravit Ecclesiam super quo residens Dominus sitiensque esuriens Samaritanae fide satiatus est She passed through Sichem not Sichar as most erroneously read it which is now called Neapolis and entered into the Church that was built on the side of the mountain Garizim near Jacobs Well on which our Saviour sat and satisfied his hungry and thirst with the faith of the Samaritan Woman But all our Copies and the Antient Interâ—reters agree and possibly Sichar and Sichem might be two different Towns as Eusebius thought who in locis Hebr. speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words are thus rendered by S. Jerom Sychar ante Neapolin juxta agrum quem dedit Jacob filio tuo Joseph in quo Dominus noster atque salvator secundum Evangelium Johannis Samaritanae mulieri ad puteum loquitur ubi nunc Ecclesia fabricata est Sychar before Neapolis near the field which Jacob gave to his son Joseph in which our Lord and Saviour as St. John tells us in his Gospel discoursed with the Samaritan woman sitting upon a Well where there is a Church now built Yet Grotius and other learned men confound these two Cities And doubtless they were near to one another Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond understands this of the mountains of Shiloh which are twelve miles distant from that of Garizim as S. Jerom affirms But Grotius and others more truly think that we are to understand it of the mountain Garizim it self because the discourse is concerning a mountain in which God was at that time publickly worshipped by the Samaritans Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles discourse gave Christ an occasion to make use of this Metaphor by which he intended to shew that the bringing of men to repentance was that which he was most intent upon and could for sometime also neglect eating and drinking for There is such another metaphor in Plautus Cistellar Act. 4. Sc. 2. v. 54. where a Servant to shew that he was attentive to what a Woman said is represented speaking in this manner Istuc ago atque istuc mihi cibus est quod fabulare i. e. I should not eat more heartily when I am hungry than I now listen to what you say So likewise edere sermonem is another phrase made use of by that Comedian in Aulular Act. 3. Sc. 6. v. 1. See Taubmannus upon the place Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he that is come to save or deliver us By the World here is meant only the Circumcised for it is not likely that the Samaritans had any thoughts about the salvation of the Gentiles which the Apostles themselves knew for a long while nothing of Compare Chap. vii 4 with xii 19 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only the Jews And so in our modern languages and particularly in the French the Phrase tout le monde is taken sometimes more strictly and sometimes more comprehensively CHAP. V. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Either the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be understood to signify the time past or else instead of it we must as some Copies do read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was for St. John as the Antients unanimously testify wrote a great many years after the Destruction of Jerusalem See my Animadversions on the beginning of this Gospel Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. If I only affirmed my self to be sent from God and did not prove my self to be so you might justly reject my testimony For he that says he is a Prophet and does nothing at all to confirm such an assertion is certainly no Prophet because God does not leave his Prophets without any testimony from himself that they are so This argument quite overthrows the pretence of Mahomet See Chap. viii 16 Vers 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cambridg Copy reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former indeed seems proper but the Copy is suspected And besides the latter is oftner used by St. John See Chap. xxi 24 I should render it in French by on sait t is known for it is put for the Indefinite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
place does not necessarily signify Devils or evil Spirits for the Heathens did not always sacrifice to evil Spirits if we consider what were their true Thoughts But the greatest part of their Idolatry consisted in this that when they ought to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Heathens also themselves have confessed that they did not offer sacrifice to Gods but to Demons As appears by the words of Porphyry in Lib. 2. de Abstinentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did those who knew the powers of the World offer bloody Sacrifices to the Gods but to Demons and this is affirmed in the Latin it is translated creditur which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divines themselves CHAP. XI Vers 4. Note a. IF it had been the Custom in capital Punishments to cover the Heads only of Men and not of Women our Author would have rightly deduced what St. Paul here says from that practice but seeing there was no difference between Men and Women in this respect why would it have dishonoured the head of a Man to have a Veil cast over him like a condemned Person and not of a Woman I rather think therefore that the Apostle had a respect only to the Custom of the Greeks among whom it had been a disgrace for a Man to speak publickly with his Head covered and a Woman with her Head bare Our Author's distinction between the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will appear to be vain if we compare Mark xiv 3 and Mat. xxvi 7 Vers 7. Note b. Here our learned Author abuses an impropriety in the Septuagint to enlarge our Lexicons with new significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he does also elsewhere I. It is false that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chabod simply taken signifies a Beam tho if it be added to the word Sun it signifies its Splendor and Beams It is false also that because the Septuagint have perhaps somewhere tho I cannot tell where improperly rendred what ought to have been translated a Beam by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Beam To authorize that signification it was requisite they should have frequently and industriously used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that purpose and not rashly before they were aware II. Nor is it true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be metaphorically called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that those words are promiscuous The Doctor should have produced but one example in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Beam or Splendor Besides is this Phrase the Woman is the beam of the Man any thing plainer than this is the glory of the Man which he interprets by the former But the truth is what our Author here says is only a misinterpretation of Grotius's Note upon this place to which I refer the Reader III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Septuagint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that symbolical likeness of God which appeared in the Tabernacle because that used to be so called and not because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any Similitude as well as the Hebrew word There is nothing more deceitful than such sort of reasonings as the Doctor often makes use of in order to find out the signification of words unless at the same time their Use and Analogy be regarded IV. Setting aside what is said about the Glory of God in the Pentateuch which does not at all belong to this place tho Grotius thinks otherwise the Man is called the Glory of God because whoever looks upon a Man will perceive him to be a piece of Workmanship worthy of the divine Majesty and give Glory to him upon that account And the Woman is the glory of the Man because there is some ground for the Man to glory when he considers that the Woman was formed out of his Body and created for his Help and Assistance The following Verse does shew that by being his glory the Apostle means that for which he was made and we need not go any further to understand St. Paul's Mind The sense of the whole place is that the Man indeed ought to have his Head uncovered because God made him as his other Works to be beheld and it is not for the glory of God to have that Work of his hid by a Veil but the Woman which was made for the Man ought to be veiled because she is inferior to the Man who uses her as he pleases and would have her veiled It is for the Man's glory to have his Authority appear over the Woman and as in other instances so in this particularly of having her conceal her self whenever he pleases Solomon has a saying in the xi th Chapter of Proverbs vers 16. which according to the Version of the Septuagint is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so saith Esdras Lib. 3. c. iv 7 of Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But of this whole reasoning and many other such it must be observed that they are not at all demonstrative because they are not grounded upon things that are unchangeable but alterable according to the Custom or Opinion of Men. It was thought by the Greeks to be a token of the Mens Authority over the Women for the Men to appear abroad with their Heads uncovered as being their own Masters and exposing themselves to every ones view and on the contrary an Argument of subjection in Women to go abroad veil'd because that signified them to be but one Man 's who had power to remove their Veil and would not have them publickly beheld But if a contrary Custom had prevailed St. Paul would have reasoned quite otherwise to perswade the Corinthians to what he endeavoured to induce them viz. to do all things decently in the Church and wherever any one prophesied I confess he grounds his Argument also upon the History of the Creation but if we consider the thing who can deny but that the Woman was created after the Image of God and for his Glory as well as the Man See Gen. ii 27 Nor indeed is this denied by St. Paul but only in a certain sense viz. as the Woman is said to have been created after the Man and to be an assistant to him And in this sense only his reasoning is valid and not by a general and if I may so speak mathematical deduction Vers 10. Note d. The Rabbi cited by Schickard was not a Talmudical Doctor but only cited a place out of the Talmud as we may see by the words that Schickard alledges Ibid. Note e. About this difficult place of Scripture I have written two years ago two Letters in answer to a Friend who desired to have my Opinion of it which I shall here propose to the Readers examination declaring my self ready to
alter it whenever I see sufficient reason That part of those Letters which relates to this matter is as follows I. I shall never forget that advice of St. Austin than which nothing in such matters can be more seasonably call'd to mind That in things obscure and remote from our senses if so be we read any thing in Holy Scripture which may without endangering the Faith we profess be made to comply with different Opinions we should not rashly espouse any of them or if we do yet not so as to resolve not to change our Judgment whatever light be offer'd to us afterwards or to contend not so much for the sense of the Holy Scriptures as our own Opinion as the true sense of the Scripture when it is our own whereas we ought rather to make that to be ours which is the assertion of the Scripture I have set down the whole Passage at length to shew you that I am not so wedded to my present Opinion in this matter as to resolve that no reasons shall move me to forsake it Two things must here in the first place he observed First that the Discourse in 1 Cor. xi is about Men and Women praying or prophesying among others at home For the Women among the Greeks did not appear abroad without a Veil nor therefore stand in need of the Apostle's Admonition which no honest Matron ever acted contrary to And that some of their Neighbours or Acquaintance were present with them in those Exercises is manifest because it is absurd for a Woman praying by her self to cover her Head or to prophesy alone Secondly that as far as the fifteenth Verse the chief scope of the Apostle's Discourse is to shew the Corinthian Women they ought not to prophesy or pray when Men were present without being veiled These two things I take here for certain because they offer themselves to the Readers Mind at first view After therefore St. Paul had alledged Reasons to that purpose at the 10 th Verse he concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this cause ought the Woman to have upon her Head what viz. a Veil which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominatus est of which see Dr. Hammond and my Notes on Gen. xxiv 64 If St. Paul had added nothing more there would have appeared no defect in his Discourse but there follow three words which have extremely perplexed Interpreters because they seem to be altogether superfluous and to have no dependence upon what goes before And indeed if in the Conclusion as Logicians speak there ought to be nothing but what is contained in the Premises either it must be shewn that the sense of these words is couched in what went before or we must acknowledg them to be supervacaneous and to me the former seems to be very easy as it is certainly the best if we do but instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is manifestly not contained in the Premises read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is when she declares the Revelations made to her or while she is delivering her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So a prophetical Doctrin which Isaiah Chap xxviii 9 calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schmouha is stiled by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I might add a passage out of Herodotus where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken in the same signification but because it is obscure and St. Paul did not learn from him to speak Greek I shall abstain from it But you will ask me I suppose how it came to pass that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which I answer because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word much more common in Scripture than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which occurs but once in all the New Testament and not often in the Old And many times it happen'd that the Transcribers substituted a more usual and familiar word in the room of one less known as St. Jerom thought of the Name Isaiah which occurs in Mat. xiii 35 The Apostle adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not necessary for the Woman to cover her self with a Veil at home but only when she went abroad unless there was this or the like reason for it They that make the discourse here to refer to the Church do not remember that it was unlawful for Women covered or uncovered to speak in the Church as St. Paul teaches in this same Epistle Chap. xiv 34 But at home amongst their Acquaintance nothing hinder'd but they might prophesy if they had received that Gift from God but they ought to have their Heads covered as when they appeared in publick This is my conjecture about this place which I shall not abandon till I meet with something more probable II. It is a place of that nature that as by its obscurity it opens a door for Conjectures so likewise it leaves room for innumerable Difficulties and it is no wonder that very great ones are objected against this of mine which would not be a conjecture if those who are of another opinion could bring no probability against it Nevertheless what you alledg I shall consider as briefly as I can 1. You suppose the Apostle's Discourse here to refer to publick Assemblies in which all or most of the Christians of the Church of Corinth met But it is plain St. Paul forbids Women to speak in publick Assemblies either covered or uncovered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in private Conversation say you it does not seem probable that the Spirit of Prophecy was given Why so It 's true the principal use of it was in Churches but it might be useful also sometimes in private Conversation amongst familiars for Christians to edify one another privately And it is certain Women had it not to preach that being not allowed them by the Apostle 2. But you say tho it was not lawful for Women to teach others yet they might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is sing in the Church as the learned J. Mede interprets that word I do not deny but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament has that signification and is rendred by the Greek Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the New Testament I do not know of any place wherein that word is so taken and in this disputation of St. Paul I am sure that signification does no where agree to it 3. That the fault of the Corinthian Women lay in their coming to Church with their Hair all loose is no where intimated by St. Paul who would have much more vehemently inveighed against Christian Women that should have imitated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophetesses or Interpreters of impure Spirits He does not say one word about their Hair being loose or bound up but speaks only of a Veil 4. But why did the Apostle call
the pious Discourses of the Corinthian Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or predictions In answer to that I acknowledg that the latter was the most common word but the former also was used as I have shewn And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at least for the most part the thing it self prophesied not the act of prophesying but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only the thing declared but the Action it self or Office of declaring if we believe Eustathius on Iliad Λ. vers 140. where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he thinks that Homer means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in this place I did not say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant the spiritual Gift of Prophecy but either Prophecy or the action it self of prophesying of what kind soever that be which the Apostle has chiefly a reference to tho because of their affinity they may be easily confounded as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken both for the thing it self preached and for the Office or Action of preaching 5. Another thing which you seem very much to stick at is that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but once used in all the New Testament but consider first that it is very common in Homer Xenophon and other Greek Writers and therefore taken from the vulgar use And then secondly there are in St. Paul's Epistles as well as in other Authors words that are but seldom used as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chap. xiii 4 of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Cor. xi 9 and several others which learned Men have taken notice of 6. You add that in vers 16. the Apostle draws an Argument from the Custom of the Churches but that Custom does no more respect publick than private Assemblies for the Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul here has a respect to the Custom of the Jews which the Apostles had introduced into Churches consisting partly of Jews and partly of Greeks together with other Jewish Customs Hear what Tertullian says de Corona Chap. 4. Among the Jews it is so ordinary for the Women to have their Heads covered that they are distinguished by it from others This is what I had to reply to your objections which are so far from satisfying me that they confirm me in my conjecture If we had any Old Copy which instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should have no manner of doubt about this place whatever others thought Vers 14. Note f. I. I have at large shewn in my Ars Critica P. 2. Sect. 1. c. vii § 6. that St. Paul's meaning in Ephes ii 3 is this that the Jews meant by the word us and not the Romans were of as lewd and wicked a Disposition as other Nations II. But in this place to the Corinthians the word Nature does not signify properly a Custom or Disposition but is opposed to Instruction It is just as if the Apostle should have said Do not you know this of your selves Do you want any one to teach it you So the Latin natura is used by Cicero in Lib. 1. Tuscul Quaest where comparing the Romans with the Greeks he saith Illa quae naturâ non litteris adsequuti sunt neque cum Graecis neque ulla cum Gente sunt conferenda As to those things which they have acquired the knowledg of by Nature not by Learning they viz. the Romans incomparably go beyond the Greeks and all other Nations The same Author in Philip. 2. thus bespeaks Antonius An verebare ne non putaremus natura te potuisse tam improbum evadere nisi accessisset etiam disciplina Were you afraid lest we should think you could not have arrived to such a pitch of wickedness by Nature unless you had also been instructed Vers 29. Note g. I. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Book of Joshua manifestly signifies to consecrate the Discourse being about places of Refuge which were esteemed Sacred The Septuagint unnecessarily expressed the sense rather than the proper meaning of the word for the Cities consecrated for places of Refuge were by that Consecration distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from others But hence it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies reciprocally to sanctify II. The Apostle's sense is best interpreted by those who affirm this to be an Elliptical Phrase and the meaning of it to be not discerning the Lord's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from other Bread or not eating the Consecrated more reverently than any common Bread In the 31st verse we have the same expression again for if we did but distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our selves we should not be condemned that is if we distinguished those that were not rightly disposed or qualified from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To look here for any thing else is to seek a knot in a Bulrush CHAP. XII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not often find fault with our Author's Paraphrase tho in a great many places the mind of the Apostles might have been more fitly expressed I am contented if he does but any how interpret the sense But his Paraphrase of this Verse is intolerable for the Heathens did not believe that their Idols spake of themselves or that their Priests answered them of their own Heads but were both moved by the Gods whose Priests and Statues they were So that the two first could not be charged upon them and all that could be objected against them was that it was not any God as they supposed that answered them by their Idols but an evil Spirit But the Apostle does not upbraid them so much as with that in this place but only that they had formerly suffered themselves by their own blindness to be led to the worship of Idols which gave no answers to them that enquired of them either by their Priests or by evil Spirits but were shamefully deceived by their crafty Priests who pretended themselves to be acted by the Spirit of the Gods or by mere human artifice imposed on the credulous so as to perswade them that Images could speak which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such sort of Men were very unfit to distinguish between true Inspiration and feigned which therefore the Apostle here teaches them how to do I confess Dr. Hammond had Grotius to go before him but the thing it self confutes him Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place was imitated by St. Clement in his 1 Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of Grace given unto us and one calling in Christ Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Similitude also is used by the same St. Clement more than once in the forementioned Epistle and among other
10 undoubtedly to perform there the Office of an Evangelist Which Function can hardly consist with the Office of a Bishop watching over the Flock committed to him with that care and diligence he ought The Testimonies of the Antients about this matter who judged rashly of the times of the Apostles by their own and spake of them in the Language of their own Age are of little moment and so do no more prove that Titus was Bishop of the Island of Crete than what Dr. Hammond says proves him to have been dignified with the Title of an Archbishop So the Antients very unanimously affirmed that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome but the more judicious sort of Persons presently discovered them to be in an Error CHAP. I. Vers 2. Note a. IT deserved to be noted that in this one Verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in two several senses for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies eternal Life that is which shall never have any end but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal times is no more than antient times This is a usual thing with St. Paul of which see what I have said in my Ars Critica P. 2. S. 1. c. 6. Vers 12. Note c. I. I do not believe Phavorinus read these words otherwise than we but rather set them down as he remembred them It is an improper Etymology which our Author gives of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein contrary to all Analogy Μ is inserted between two words Clemens Alexandrinus gives us a much better interpretation of it in Paedag. Lib ii c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an intemperance about Food and as the word literally signifies a madness in the Belly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Mad. This Etymology is suggested also by Phavorinus which I wonder our Author did not take notice of II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Epimenides and in St. Paul signifies what it ordinarily signifies that is idle and slothful as Gluttons usually are It 's true Slothfulness and Gluttony are very often attended with Uncleanness but Idleness and Uncleanness are not therefore the same In Ezekiel Idleness does not signify Uncleanness but that which is the cause of it Behold saith he this was the Iniquity of thy Sister Sodom Pride fulness of Bread and abundance of Idleness was in her c. CHAP. II. Vers 2. Note a. BY a comparison of this place with 1 Tim. iii. our Author has well shewn that the Discourse here is about Deacons but there are two things he will hardly perswade those that understand Greek and are exercised in the reading of these Books to believe One is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is distinguished from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both those words being promiscuously used in the Version of the Septuagint as well when they signify Dignity as Age as Kircher's Concordances will shew The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a Judg in Isa iii. 2 Lament ii 21 v. 14. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same in Levit. iv 15 Num. xvi 25 and elsewhere often And so in many places both these words are used for an old Man The degrees of Comparison ought not to be urged against the perpetual use of the Language especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly said with a respect to younger or young As these two last words signify the same so likewise the two former and the two last as Logicians speak are correlates to the two first They are used also indifferently in the New Testament Compare Philem. 9. with 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The other is that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies Believers who have no Office in the Church It signifies only young Men as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies before Women See what I have opposed to Dr. Hammond on Luke xxii 26 Vers 3. Note b. Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to ordain or constitute it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the rank of those who are constituted in any certain Office For nothing is more common than for Derivatives to depart from the signification of their Primitives So that the use of a word must always be joined with Analogy and Etymology unless perhaps it be a singular word or the series of the Discourse shews it must necessarily be understood in a particular sense But neither does the series of the Discourse in this place favour our Author and Use is evidently against him The Deaconesses are commanded to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to go in such a dress and behave themselves in such a manner as became Women consecrated to God This very well agrees with the whole series of the Discourse and Use constantly interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a dress habit or gesture of Body Consult J. C. Suicerus in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus or any other Lexicographer Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Gentleman of great reading who published some years ago Notes and Observations on the Epistle of Polycarp thinks St. Paul here so alludes to the Cabiri or great Gods that were worshipped not only among the Samothracians but also in the Isle of Crete as to oppose Christ to them And it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebir in Arabick signifies great and thence the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been formed as S. Bochart well conjectured Those Gods also were thought by some to be the same with the Corybantes which every one knows were very much worshipped in Crete And there was a mighty talk concerning their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as of other Gods as the learned Gentleman before mentioned has largely proved But I think there is more wit than truth in this Interpretation there being nothing in St. Paul's words that shews he had a respect to the Religion of the Cretes for if there be it must be something else besides the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appearance and of the great God which were often in the mouth of the Jews without any allusion to the Isle of Crete or its Gods See the Greek Index of Kircher's Concordances CHAP. III. Vers 10. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he that follows any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect whether its Doctrins are true or false But the Doctrins of the Apostolical Churches govern'd by the Apostles or by Apostolical Men that agreed with their Teachers being true whoever departed from their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that word being understood in a good sense did by consequence maintain false Doctrins And hence Persons of erroneous Opinions whether they were such as desired to live in the Church provided they might be tolerated or whether they chose to