whom he had banished Dyrrachium and Philippi and other Towns to inhabit By this it appears how a little before St. Paul's time Philippi came to be enlarged because that City had twice received a Colony of Romans We may consult Foy-Vaillant on Numismata aerea Coloniarum The same Author testifies that Philippi in pieces of Coin is stiled Metropolis But that there was any regard had in that to Ecclesiastical order or dignity of Bishops even from the very time of St. Paul Dr. Hammond has not proved nor will any other I believe prove tho the thing be undoubtedly more antient than many think The Passage alledged out of the Digest is in lib. 50. tit 15. de censibus leg 8. § 8. and is Paulus's not Vlpian's as is said by our Author who it seems cited him upon trust He might have added that of Celsus in leg 6. Colonia Philippensis juris Italici est II. Our Author affirms that after Vespasian had brought a Colony into Caesarea that City became immediately even in respect of Ecclesiastical Government a Metropolis under which Jerusalem it self was But at that time there was no Jerusalem because it had been razed to the ground and was not rebuilt till under Adrian who put into it a Roman Colony as we are told by Xiphilinus in the Life of Adrian and as appears by a great many Medals in which it is called COL AEL CAP. Colonia Aelia Capitolina And who told our Author there was a Bishop at Caesarea in the time of Vespasian From what marks of Antiquity did he gather that the Caesarean Bishops were reckoned superior in Dignity and Order to those of Jerusalem from the Age of Vespasian If what he says be true that a City which had a Roman Colony brought into it was made a Metropolis Jerusalem enjoyed that Privilege as well as Caesarea tho not quite so soon Vlpian in the foremention'd Tit. lib. 1. § 6. saith Palaestina duae fuerunt Coloniae Caesariensis Aelia Capitolina sed neutra jus Italicum habet But I look upon this also as improbable III. I am ready to think that the reason why the Antients place Philippi sometimes in Thrace and sometimes in Macedonia is not because those Provinces were variously divided which yet I do not deny but because when Cities stand upon the borders of any two Countries it is doubtful to which of them they belong The same I say of Nicopolis What our Author says besides about many Churches and those Episcopal depending upon the Metropolis of Philippi is nothing but Conjecture which I am not wholly for rejecting but which I do not easily believe Learned Men often partly prove things out of the Ancients and partly make up by Guess and Conjecture what they would have to be true then they equal their Conjectures to that which they have proved and from all put together they very easily infer what they please Because St. Paul preached the Gospel first at Philippi does it presently follow that that City was also accounted the Metropolis in respect of Ecclesiastical Order The rest also is very deceitful and uncertain Ibid. Note b. I. The Opinion of Grotius and others seems to be much plainer who think that as the words Presbyter and Bishop are promiscuously used tho' there was one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called so also the word Bishop signifies both Orders first and second which is the reason why we meet with this word in the Plural Number where the Discourse is but of one Church There was a Communion of Names between Ministers of the first and second Rank so that those of the first Rank were sometimes stiled Presbyters and those of the second Bishops not because their Authority was the same and their Office in every respect alike but because there was little or no difference between them as to preaching the Gospel and administring the Sacraments But the particular Power of Ordination might belong to one Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called II. That which our Author says about Metropolitans and by the help of which alone he defends himself against his Adversaries as to those Apostolical Times is very uncertain nor can it be proved by the Authority of the Writers of the following Ages who speak of the Primitive Times according to the Customs of their own and not from any certain Knowledg not to say at present that Bishops or Presbyters aspiring to that Dignity cannot always safely be heard in their own cause It is not probable that there was any Episcopal Church in the Proconsular Asia besides Ephesus at the time spoken of in Acts xx or in Macedonia besides Philippi and Thessalonica But a little while after when the number of Christians was encreased there were other Episcopal Seats constituted in them Ibid. Note c. I. I also have spoken pretty largely of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Luke viii 2 and I shall not repeat what I have there said Our Author in the beginning of this Note uses the word dimensum for demensum tho that it self was not proper to be used in this place because demensum signifies the Portion or Allowance of Servants not of Guests See Frid. Taubmannus on Plautus his Stich Acts i. Sc. ii vers 3. II. I think indeed with Dr. Hammond that the Original or Deacons must be fetched from the Jews and that Deacons were in the Christian Church what the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhazanim were in the Jewish Synagogue But I do not think we have any thing to do here with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schoterim which was the Name only of the Officers that attended upon Magistrates or certain publick Criers See my Note on Exod. ver 8. III. Nor do I think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Juniors ought to be confounded with the Charanitae especially in Acts v. 6 where any of the younger sort who were accidentally then present seem to be meant Tho the Disciples of Doctors are called Juniors in Maimonides it does not therefore follow that that word must be so taken where-ever we meet with it IV. The Saying of the Jews about the decay of Learning among them which our Author speaks of is in Sotae fol. 49.1 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since the second House was destroyed the wise Men began to be as the Scribes and the Scribes as the Minister of the Synagogue and lastly the Minister of the Synagogue as the People of the Earth Which Dr. Hammond mistranslates and inverts the Words themselves They may be found by those that may perhaps have a mind to turn to them in the Editions of Joan. Chr. Wagenseilius in Sotae Cap. ix S. 15. It appears that our Author did not look into this Saying himself but went upon trust for it and that made him render it so ill and not so much as refer to the Book in which it is set down Vers 13. Note e. Some years ago there arose a great Controversy about this place
Inscription of the antient Apostolical Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God that dwells at Rome meaning I conceive by the Title the Church himself who wrote the Epistle and was chief there or Bishop at that time and the other Clergy with him for so the other part of the Inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God at Corinth is after explained by him in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishops and Deacons But if this will not be acknowledged then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall give you leave to understand any meeting or Congregation of pious men either a consessus Presbyterorum a College of Presbyters which were ordinarily assistant to the Bishop in the antient Church or possibly the whole or any part of the People convened whose Authority or consent may work somewhat upon the Offender as S. Paul conceives it were apt to do when he commands Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rebuke the offenders before all men i. e. in the presence of the community of the People 1 Tim. v. 20 and perhaps when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. ii 6 the rebuke that was by or under the many though it be not certain whether that signify the chastisement as our English reads punishment and censure inflicted by the Presbytery or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under them those assisting or joining in the censure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts of Canonical severity which in case of sorrow and relenting of the Offender upon rebuke or admonition before ejection out of the Church were wont to be thought sufficient without excommunication and after excommunication as in this place to the Corinthians if they were submitted to were sufficient tho not presently to restore him to the Communion yet to make him capable of being prayed for by the Church 1 John v. 16 and to be delivered from the stripes of Satan the diseases that the delivering to Satan in the Apostles times brought upon them or whether as the words may be render'd it import the rebuke or reproof viz. the third admonition or the second given by the Bishop which was equivalent to that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under or in the presence of many viz. of the People or Congregation The former of these senses seems more agreeable to the place to the Corinthians the latter rather to belong to that in 1 Tim. and so that which even now in Musar was coram multis before many and in St. Paul if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under many yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the presence of all men Christ may here express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church This Interpretation being admitted or not rejected it then follows commodiously and reasonably in the Text of the Evangelist that after the matter is brought to them i. e. to those many or after this act of reproof or rebuke before them and upon continued refractoriness to these last admonitions then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sure is the Apostles or Governors of the Church the Pastors which cannot be in any reason excluded from under the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church whatsoever it signifies and those already promised this power chap. xvi may or shall bind or excommunicate them And that is the sum of the 18 th verse in reference to the 17 th And then vers 19 c. Thus Dr. Hammond who adds some things like what we have had already upon Chap. vii 6 If any be desirous of more they may turn to the Treatise it self viz. Power of the Keys Chap. ii Sect. 6. seqq We should compare these things with what Grotius says upon this place of S. Matthew which is a great deal more plain and natural The Doctor takes for granted what he ought to have proved that Christ speaks to his Apostles as the Governours of the Church Vers 23. Note c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eastern People used but one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hebed to signify both ministros liberae sortis Servants who were at their own disposal and Mancipia Slaves as I have observed in my Notes upon Gen. xx 8 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Interpreters and Writers of the New Testament has also the same ambiguity in it But when we speak Latin there is no reason why we should not use various words according to the nature of the subject spoken of Thus those whom S. Matthew here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be render'd by Ministri Servants because Slaves or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are never sold by their Master that he may have what is owing him paid Vers 28. Note d. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used here in its proper signification for when we take any man by the Collar and hale him along against his will we almost choak him The Latin Phrase for it is obtorto collo trahere which Erasmus here makes use of So Plautus in Paenulo Act. iii. Sc. 5. ver 45. Priusquà m hinc obtorto collo ad praetorem trahor Which is well interpreted by learned men to take hold of a man's collar and squeeze his jaws together and then drag him along So a Philosopher is represented by Lucian in Hermotimo demanding his pay of one of his Scholars and haling him before the Justice or Praetor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having thrown his cloak about his neck And in the same Author in Lapithis this Stoick Philosopher is reproached with this very thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor do I take my Scholars by the throat and drag them before the Justice if they do not pay me my stipend when it is due See also the Dial. between Aeacus Protesilaus Menelaus and Paris Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every body must perceive that these words cannot be urged to signify that the Justice of God will in its Retributions take notice of every single circumstance in the sins of men We must consider only the main scope of Christ which is no more than that those who do not forgive their Brethren their Offences shall not obtain forgiveness from God for theirs This is all therefore that can be concluded from this place not as the Doctor and Grotius before him says that Sins which are once pardoned in this life may be again charged upon a man If we consider the thing in it self 't is then only that God passes Judgment upon men when after the course of their life is ended they are sent into the place of Rewards or Punishments So that that is the time when persons are pardoned or condemned and there is no need of any previous Sentence CHAP. XIX Vers 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you will say then that to ones thinking God should have changed it True if it were the ordinary way of God to change the dispositions of
of glory and of God resteth with you that is those reproaches are so far from being a sign that the Spirit hitherto bestowed upon you by God and which has brought so much glory to the Gospel departs from you that on the contrary it so much the more resteth or will more constantly abide with you as long as ye stedfastly profess the Christian Religion The Spirit of glory and as it is in the Alexandrian Manuscript of power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Spirit of Miracles which was conferred upon Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies Miracles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same See my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 and John i. 14 Vers 15. Note g. As I do not scruple disagreeing with our Author when the matter seems to require it so I am ready to commend his inventions when they are such as this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in all probability the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is who does or takes care of other mens business by which word the Greeks signify those who usurp other mens offices in a Commonwealth Plato lib. iv de Repub. where he at large proves that all Orders of men in a Political Society have a certain and determinate business which they ought to take care of and that therein consists the justice and peace of a Commonwealth towards the end says that the contrary is injustice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Igitur seditionem quandam horum trium hanc esse oportet affectionem quandam qua nimis multa aggreditur alienaque munera invadit rebellat pars quaepiam animi adversus totum ut in illo imperet id quod non par est quippe quod est ejus naturae ut deceat id servire ei qui est ex prosapia imperantium Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take spiteful counsels Then he produces these words out of an antient Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they observed him not to meddle with other mens business nor to endeavour alterations Budeus in Comment Ling. Graec. gives us also other examples And it is easy to discern that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the chief word of which these names are compounded is the same So that what Dr. Hammond observes is very pertinent in this place Vers 17. Note h. The sense of the Hebrew words is this Behold the righteous use to be punished on earth how much more the unrighteous and the sinner For the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and signifies either to reward or punish But the Septuagint thought Solomon had a respect to that signification of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be safe and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beots which signifies in straits or in hast and which they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they that escape out of any danger by a hasty flight or are brought into great straits hardly save themselves CHAP. V. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus St. Peter calls himself out of modesty not because he executed any where the Office of a Bishop who was invested with a much higher viz. that of an Apostle Bishops or Elders properly so called had the oversight but of one Church from which they were not to depart but the Apostles were Bishops and Elders of all the Churches in the World and could not be confined to one particular place Besides he did not write this Epistle from Rome but from Babylon a City of Egypt as learned men have shewn and I have observed at the end of the Premonition to this Epistle Vers 3. Note b. I. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed is indeed truly here used to signify the Office of a Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 flock to signify the Church but it does not therefore follow that the rest of the words here used are taken from Shepherds No body ever said that Shepherds properly so called are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Sheep when he going before they follow him except Dr. Hammond No body would say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are applicable to Sheep properly so called which belong to reasonable Creatures not at all to Sheep which are forced to follow with blows unless they go along with the rest by natural instinct II. It is true indeed that whilst the Roman Commonwealth stood the Roman Magistrates chose their Provinces by lot which therefore might be called their lots to whom they fell by lot But I can't tell whether among Latin Writers or those Grecians that have written about the Roman Affairs sors or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ever used for a Province at least as I never read any such thing so I could not find any example of it in the Writings of Learned men who do not use to omit such things I dare also affirm that no Greek Writer ever said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is to vex Provinces by Tribute or Extortion III. Our Author seems to have believed a Fable which some Writers of no repute formerly divulged about the division that was made of the World by Lots among the Apostles which even Baronius himself did not absolutely give credit to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts i. 25 is part of the Apostleship not a Province which Matthias obtained by Lot See Dr. Hammond himself on that place He had much better here have followed Grotius whom the Reader may consult Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye younger saith he be subject to the elder and all be subject one to another that is let the younger give way to the elder and comply with their Admonitions and the elder on the other hand shew themselves courteous to the younger not scrupling to yield to them and comply with them when there is a just occasion Here the discourse is about an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a consequent of Meekness and Courteousness and whereby we easily yield and comply with one another not about that Obedience which is due to Church-Governors from those who bear no Office in the Church Therefore the Apostle says ALL be subject one to another which shews him to speak of a thing that belongs to every one and which is a mutual duty See my Note on Jam. v. 16 and Eph. v. 21 Vers 13. Note d. See what I have said about this matter on the Premonition ANNOTATIONS ON THE Second Epistle General of St. Peter AT the end of the Premom For my part as I profess my self to be of Dr. Hammond's Opinion as to the Apostle Peter's being the Writer of this Epistle so I cannot forbear saying that our learned and pious Author deals a little unfairly with Hugo Grotius I. He suspects here and elsewhere without reason that the Posthumous Annotations of Grotius had not
for the Confession made by St. Peter in the Name of all the rest no Grammarian would say that the Apostles Successors were also included and therefore the words of Christ cannot till the thing is first proved by Argument be applied to Bishops as if Christ had by these words alone conferred an equal Power upon the Apostles and their Successors Cyprian it 's true and some other Bishops did so interpret them as if by virtue of these words of Christ they succeeded in the Apostles Rights and Privileges but it were to be wish'd they had given their Grammatical Reasons for such an Interpretation of them Vers 22. Note i. Mr. Fuller is the first that ever explain'd this Phrase right Miscell Sacr. lib. ii c. 2. where he shews that the word GOD must be understood as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God be merciful or favourable to you i. e. God forbid it and not be so angry with you as to suffer you to do such a thing See likewise H. Grotius who has confirm'd this in many places Vers 24. Note l. A Servant who is come to be under another man's power no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. is his own Master as Aristophanes speaks in the beginning of his Plutus He must do not what he might do if he were free or what he thinks most sit to be done but what his Master commands him without any regard to himself He may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he should altogether depend upon the will of another In the same manner Christ here would have his Disciples to resign themselves absolutely to the Will of God renouncing all their former Desires and resolving both to do and suffer whatever God should think fit to require of them To deny ones self therefore is to conform ones self entirely to the Divine Will In the place which the Doctor cites out of Porphyry the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to himself but his own House Vers 26. Note m. Our learned Author is mistaken for nothing is more common with all Writers than to join the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative Case as H. Stephens R. Constantin or any other Lexicographer whatever will inform us Thus St. Paul says Phil. iii. 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have lost all things in which place there is no room at all for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a restrictive Particle for the meaning of the Apostle is that he had abandoned all and every of those things of which he there speaks So likewise Dionysius Halicarnasseus Antiq. Rom. lib. x. p. 675. Edit Sylburg says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer loss by the death reproachful treatment and banishment of famous Men. The Original of this Phrase is from the Attick way of speaking in which Verbs very often govern an Accusative Case in Nouns of a near signification and to speak properly according to that Dialect we must say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which purpose is the Observation of H. Stephens that the Greeks do not use to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be punished with the Punishment of Death but with the Punishment Death Besides the Doctor 's Annotation is manifestly confuted by the parallel place in St. Luke ch ix 25 where the Phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 losing himself not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is past all doubt that as to save Life does not signify in this Discourse of Christ to save those things which concern or belong to Life but Life it self so to suffer the loss of the Soul is to lose the Soul i. e. Life eternal Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning is that there is nothing which is equally valuable with Life This matter is well enough expressed by Achilles in Homer Iliad 1. ver 401. seqq 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For there is nothing seems to me fit to be laid in the Balance with Life no not all the Wealth that they say is contain'd in the populous City of Troy c. CHAP. XVII Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words in Moses Deut. xviii 15 Vnto him ye shall hearken are not a Prediction as the Loctor tells us in his Paraphrase but a Command See the place Vers 24. Note e. It is strange that our Author when he had said that the name of Drachms came to the Jews after the time of the Seleucidae should produce as a proof of it a place out of Ezra ii 69 who lived in the Reign of Cyrus Did he think that the Book of Ezra was written or altered after the time of Alexander I do not believe so It must be therefore an Error occasion'd either through want of care or that common Infirmity to which Human Nature is liable which in so great a Man ought easily to be overlooked Thinking with himself that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drachmon was a Greek word and knowing that the Jews had no Commerce with the Greeks before the time of the Seleucidae he imagined that that word was not before known to the Jews and not taking sufficient heed to Chronological Accounts alledg'd before he was aware that place out of Ezra To the question whether it was a double sacred or common Shekel I have spoken upon Exod. xxx 13 Vers 25. Note f. The Doctor justly rejects the second Opinion mention'd by him both for the reasons alledged by himself and for this also which he passed over that what is said concerning the Praetor of Syria is perfectly false The Publicans never exacted Tithes of the Jews nor is there any mention made of Syria in Cicero's Orations against Verres In his third Book and particularly where he accuses Verres he lays open the whole affair about the Tithes of Sicily but there is not so much as one word about Syria Without doubt the Author of this Opinion was deceiv'd by his Memory which as he was writing suggested Syria to him instead of Sicily CHAP. XVIII Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Jerom upon this place tells us that Christ speaks according to the Custom of the Country and the practice of the antient Jews who used to punish extraordinary Crimes by drowning the guilty Person in the Sea with a Stone tied to him Secundum ritum Provinciae loquitur quo majorum criminum ista apud veteres Judaeos poena fuerit ut in profundum ligato saxo mergerentur He had been more perhaps in the right if he had said apud veteres Sâ—mos the antient Syrians for as Grotius has observ'd we do not any where find that this kind of Punishment was us'd among the Jews About this Punishment see Isaac Casaubon upon the LXVII Chapter of Suetonius's Augustus where he relates how the Tutor and Ministers of Caius Caesar for taking the opportunity of his
to do but also to will in the same sense as he would have said ye have begun not only to will but also to do nor is there any example of such an inversion So that I had rather with Dr. Hammond enquire for some other notion to fix here upon this word Will and because it is common with us to do some things especially in acts of Charity with some kind of regret and not heartily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Homer speaks interpret it of a chearful and liberal Mind and so make the sense to be Ye have not only from a Year ago begun to contribute a sum of Mony but also as to your manner of doing it it was not by compulsion or the bare importunate perswasion of those whom you could not deny but with a ready chearful and charitable Mind Without which qualification the liberality which any Man exercises is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against his Will and becomes unacceptable so that those who receive a Benefit from one who is not hearty in bestowing it had almost rather not receive it at all as esteeming more the Will of the giver than the Gift it self And if it be so sometimes among Men with God it is always so who has ever a greater regard to the Disposition with which a Man gives than what he gives St. Paul therefore might aptly subjoin a word which signified the affection of the Persons who gave to a word which signified their Gifts themselves and his Discourse does not descend but ascend Seneca has a great deal to this purpose in the beginning of his Lib. 2. de Beneficiis and elsewhere in the same Book This interpretation is confirmed by the following Vers and the beginning of the ixth Chapter Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This our Author must needs understand of a Synod and Bishops as if some Churches could not by Letters declarative of their Mind have agreed about sending a particular Person along with St. Paul I should rather have used general words because it in no wise appears that this matter was determin'd in a Synod The same Person that is here intended is afterwards vers 23. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one deputed by the Churches to accompany St. Paul in his Travels and ease him of part of his work Of this see the learned Mr. Dodwell in Dissert Cyprian 6. S. 17. Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is instruments saith Grotius of the glory of Christ viz. in advancing the Gospel saith our Author in his Paraphrase But I think it is much more natural to say that those are here called the glory of Christ who are an honour to Christ by the integrity and sanctity of their Life as bad Christians are a disgrace and reproach to him See what I have said about a like expression on 1 Cor. xi 4 CHAP. IX Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that from a whole year past they had been forward to give and begun already to contribute Our Author here fancies some new act of liberality in the Corinthians as if they had already before sent a sum of Mony to Judaea which is no where intimated by St. Paul This opinion of his proceeded from misunderstanding the 10th verse of Chap. viii on which see my Note St. Paul had not told the Macedonians that the Corinthians had a year ago got ready a sum of Mony to send to Judaea which he knew to be false but that they had begun to contribute from that time and were so forward and chearful in their Contributions that the whole Sum expected from them would easily be completed So that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be referred to a readiness of Mind To which it is very properly applied Gratissima saith Seneca de Beneficiis Lib. 2. c. 1. sunt beneficia PARATA facile occurrentia ubi nulla mora fuit nisi in accipientis verecundia Those Benefits are most grateful which are READILY bestowed that come easily from a Man and as it were of their own accord and if there be any hesitation it is on the part of the bashful receiver Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author interprets what St. Paul here says that God was able to do so as if he had said he would certainly do it and thence he infers that Riches are promised to the liberal even under the Gospel But the promises of the Gospel respecting all of them the Soul and a future State as appears both by the nature of the Evangelical Covenant and innumerable places in the Gospels it is not necessary to represent St. Paul as saying here what he did not say Nay he seems to have on set purpose spoken cautiously when he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he will make to abound because God does not promise or give such things under the Gospel but for certain reasons which are many times unknown to us And if he does not give them we have no cause to complain because he has not promised them and those things which he gives us are infinitely more valuable But does not the Apostle you will say pray to God that he would reward the bounty of the Corinthians by bestowing upon them greater Riches I acknowledg he does but it does not therefore follow that God has promised to make the bountiful always rich but only that this is sometimes done by him and that it is lawful to pray for it because we may desire Riches both for our selves and others on this condition that we make a good use of them So that all that our learned Author says about Riches being promised under the Gospel to the liberal is insignificant and to speak the truth more worthy of those who affirm Riches to be a mark of the true Church than of Dr. Hammond Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words only which are alledged by St. Paul ought to have been urged and not others which he omits For otherwise it is not the Apostle but Dr. Hammond that here reasons who groundlesly infers from hence that Riches are promised in the New Testament The place which he refers to in his Annotation on the foregoing Verse viz. Mat. xix 29 does not prove that good Men shall be made rich in this World or receive again their Kindred and Friends and other things of the same nature which they have forsaken for Christ but only what will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hundred-fold better in the room of them viz. a Mind contented with its present State and the sure hopes of eternal Happiness So that what our Author infers from the Passage alledged here out of the Psalms has no foundation and cannot be attributed to St. Paul Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See before Chap. viii 2 and my Note on Rom. xii 8 CHAP. X. Vers 4. Note b. I. Do not at all doubt but that St.
admonished by the whole Congregation But it may be he was not the Bishop of Colosse but an Evangelist who did not execute his Office so diligently as he ought and lying idle among the Colossians or somewhere in the Neighbourhood was to be admonished by them Which seems the more probable because this Archippus in the Epistle to Philemon ver 2. is called the fellow Souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. Paul On which place see Grotius Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius who is followed therein by our Author thinks there is a Hebraism in these words for see that thou fulfil in the Lord the Ministry which thou hast received so that the phrase in the Lord should signify according to the Precepts of the Lord. But tho I do not deny but this may be the meaning of St. Paul's words they are capable of two other senses first Consider throughly the Office which thou hast received in the Lord in order to a complete discharge of it or else secondly Consider in the Lord that is as in the sight of the Lord or according to the Precepts of the Lord c. So the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken as in 2 John 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See your selves that we lose not those things which we have wrought but that we receive a full Reward that is throughly consider or examin your selves c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one and according to the various significations of the Preposition ב which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and used in a manifold sense signify diverse things I confess I do not know which of these senses is the best Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bare remembring of St. Paul's Bonds being in it self no part of Piety it is consequent the design of the Apostle in these words must be to admonish the Colossians to behave themselves both towards God and towards him as became those that were mindful of his Bonds that is who very well knew that he was cast into those Bonds only for the sake of the Gospel or to be constant in the profession of the Christian Religion as he was and love him and pray to God in his behalf that he might be set at liberty ANNOTATIONS On the First Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians AT the end of the Praemon I. Dr. Pearson and other the most exact Chronologers suppose this Epistle was written in the year of Christ lii or the xii th of Claudius II. I have already several times observed that the Jews were neither so formidable as our Author thought nor the Christians so perfectly set free from persecution by their destruction throughout all the parts of the Roman Empire so as that those who dwelt in Greece found the Heathens more favourable to them after the overthrow of Jerusalem and the excision of the Jews III. I do not easily believe what Eusebius says about the journey of Simon Magus to Rome nor St. Peter's contest with him which seems to be all taken ex Clementinis and out of Justin the former being a feigned History and Justin having run into a mistake through his ignorance in the Latin Tongue as learned Men have long ago observed I wonder our Author in this discerning Age in Quo pueri nasum Rhinocerotis habent should build his Interpretation upon such rotten and nauseous Fables But he produces you will say the Testimonies of Eusebius and St. Jerom and Orosius But this is but one Witness all this while because the two latter only transcribed Eusebius and the single Authority of Eusebius is not much to be regarded because he often affirms things without considering whether they are true or false and some that are manifestly feigned It 's true Justin makes mention of the Statue of Simon in his Apology commonly called the Second but he says nothing at all about St. Peter's Conflict or Victory over him which he would never have omitted if that had been the general opinion of those times because it might be made very great use of against the Heathens whom he upbraids with deifying Simon Irenaeus also mentions the Statue in Lib. 1. c. 20. but says nothing about the contest That was but an invention of the false Clement which other rashly received for truth There being very few if any Historical Records in the first Age excepting the Acts of the Apostles Men that had nothing else to do misemployed their wits in devising Fables which the injudiciousness of Posterity has almost made it a Crime to question the truth of But I am sorry to find Dr. Hammond should so easily give Credit to these Trifles CHAP. I. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are a few things which it may not be amiss to remark upon this Chapter tho Dr. Hammond has passed it over without any Annotations contenting himself to express what he thought to be the meaning of it in his Paraphrase Grotius explaining these words tells us that the Apostle non nominat hic Presbyteros Diaconos quia recens erat Ecclesia nec dum formam plenam acceperat does not name here Presbyters and Deacons because the Church of Thessalonica had been but lately gathered and not yet formed into a regular Church But if this reason be good none of the Churches to which St. Paul wrote except that of Philippi were regularly formed Churches because there is no mention made of Church-Governors Bishops and Deacons in the inscriptions of any of the Epistles but to the Philippians But who will believe that the Ephesian and Corinthian Churches in which St. Paul had for a great while resided were not yet so constituted as to have Rectors in them and yet that the Church of Philippi in which he made a shorter stay had Of the Church of Ephesus the contrary appears from Acts xx 17 28. and of the Corinthian by the Epistles themselves written to that Church So that there must be another reason given for St. Paul's not making mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Inscriptions of all his Epistles And that which seems to me the most probable is that the Governors of the Primitive Churches were modest humble Men who were unwilling to have themselves distinguished from the rest of the People in the front of St. Paul's Epistles that they might not appear to pretend to any magisterial Authority but to look upon themselves only as Ministers instituted for the sake of Order and Christian Society There are a great many signs of this especially in the Epistles to the Corinthians in which the Governors of the Churches of Achaia are no where order'd to use any Authority in the Administration of their Office or in curbing evil Men who broke the Order of the Church St. Paul every where speaks to whole Churches never to the Governors of them apart from the People However I would not be thought
the words are these Inter Pyrrhicarum argumenta Taurus Pasiphaen ligneo juvencae simulacro abditam iniit ut multi spectantium crediderunt Icarus primo statim conatu juxta cubiculum ejus decidit ipsumque cruore respersit Among the Arguments of the Pyrrich Sports which Nero represented to the People a Bull covered Pasiphae inclosed in an Engine of Wood made in the shape of an Heifer One that acted the part of Icarus immediately upon the first attempt fell down near the Emperor's Pavilion and sprinkled him with his blood What is there here about the Contest of Simon with S. Peter Who does not see that Suetonius speaks of a poor miserable Wretch that was forced to attempt flying to make the People a show We may be sure if any such Conflict had passed before Nero and the People in the Amphitheatre the fame of it would have been so great among the Heathens that it would never have been forgotten But these are the Fables of some idle Christians which Posterity greedily took up CHAP. IV. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly said of the Wine which was poured out upon the Head of the Sacrifice yet here I think it ought to be understood metaphorically of the Sacrifice it self upon which the Wine is poured out a little before it is killed So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul uses the Present Tense because of the nearness of the danger as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now shews Our Author forces this place when he interprets it of a past danger Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This indeed is a Verb in the Preterperfect Tense but it is very frequently taken for the Present whence the Vulgar Interpreter and almost all others render it instat is at hand And that it is to be so understood the foregoing words shew So that our Author had no reason to interpret it in the Preterperfect Tense in his Premonition and Paraphrase of this Verse Vers 7. Note a. It is true indeed that St. Paul here uses Agonistical words but as the Crown was due not to him who was yet running but who was come to the end of his race and that before others so also God bestows a Crown not on him that behaves himself manfully in any particular Calamity but during his whole Life So that what St. Paul calls a good Combat is the whole course of his Life which he tells Timothy he had finished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he knew his Death was near as the foregoing Verse sufficiently shews What our Author says in his Note on Acts xxi 7 I have confuted already on that place See 1 Tim. vi 12 and Acts xx 24 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems here to be in the place of an Adjective so as that according to a known Hebraism a Crown of Righteousness should be put for a righteous or just Crown that is a Crown justly due This is confirmed by the Epithet Just added to the word Judg. The places which our Author produces as if the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified in them Felicity I might shew to be improperly alledged if it would contribute any thing to the illustration of St. Paul's words Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is certain indeed that Timothy was present with St. Paul when he made his first Defence but whether he could go again to Rome soon enough to he there before St. Paul's Death is somewhat questionable Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author will not have Demas to have revolted from the Faith but only forsaking his Office of preaching the Gospel to have applied himself to worldly Affairs But to love the present age signifies something worse than that viz. to prefer it before the future which he that forsakes an Office which he finds himself insufficient for does not See Matt. xiii 22 and James iv 4 Vers 13. Note b. The Etymologicon Magnum hath it so as Dr. Hammond thinks the words of Phavorinus should be read but in this matter I neither believe the Writer of the Etymologicon nor Phavorinus because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Greek word and signifies no such thing in the Latin Tongue See Grotius Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond thinks St. Paul here has a reference to the Troubles he endured at Ephesus mention'd in Acts xix but neither is it from that place sufficiently evident what Alexander did against St. Paul and if he did any thing I do not think the Apostle here has a respect to that but something which was done at Rome for this Alexander seems to have gone from Asia to Rome where he fiercely opposed S. Paul and from thence returned to Asia for which reason St. Paul here admonishes Timothy to beware of him Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This cannot be understood of that Defence which St. Paul made for himself when he was first in bonds for undoubtedly he would not have told Timothy a thing which he already very well knew as having been present with him at that time nor have said what was nothing to the purpose He speaks of his pleading before him whom Nero at his departure into Greece left Governour of the City of Rome by whom he was not presently condemned but yet kept still in bonds perhaps till Nero's Return by which means many in the mean time had the Gospel preached to them See Grotius on the following Verse by whom it will appear it was not well understood by our Author in his Premonition to this Epistle Vers 17. Note d. The mouth of the Lion does not it 's true signify Nero who seems at that time to have been in Greece but Helius to whom Nero committed the Government of Rome during his Absence See Dr. Pearson in his Annal. Paulin. ad A. C. LXVII Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words are alledged by our Author in his Premonition to prove that St. Paul here speaks of a Danger he was deliver'd from But the Apostle does not add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Grotius well interprets it from doing any thing unworthy of a Christian or unworthy of an Apostle This is clear from the next words and will preserve me to his heavenly Kingdom as Dr. Pearson also has observed ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to Titus AT the end of the Premon Dr. Pearson with more reason refers the writing of this Epistle to the Year lxv in which also St. Paul wrote his first to Timothy It is probable Titus remained in Crete under the name of an Evangelist rather than of a Bishop or Archbishop a word then unknown as well as the thing it self because St. Paul afterwards commanded him to meet him at Nicopolis as appears from Chap. iii. 12 and after that he went to Dalmatia as St. Paul tells us in 2 Tim. iv
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
Tim. iv 7 Cubit of a Man for an ordinary Cubit Rev. xxi 17 Curse in what sense Christ is said to have been made it Curse Gal. iii. 13 Cymbals their form use and matter 1 Cor. xiii 1 D. Day of Christ not always to be understood of the Destruction of the Jews 2 Pet. i 19. Daily Bread what Mat. vi 11 Darts fiery what and why so called Eph. vi 16 Deacons in the Church whence so called Luke viii 3 Delivering to Satan not to be confounded with the ordinary Censures of the Church 1 Cor. v. 5 2 Cor. vii 8 and x. 4 5. whether it has any reference to Satan's desiring to have Men deliver'd to him 1 Cor. v. 5 To Deny himself what Mat. xvi 24 Devil whether any reverence be due to him as a Prince Jude 9. To Die unto Sin an ambiguous expression 1 Pet. iv 1 Diogenes Cynicus his Character Luke i. 67 To be Drawn of God what John vi 4 Drowning not us'd as a Punishment among the Jews Mat. xviii 6 E. Earnest of the Spirit what 2 Cor. i. 22 and of the Inheritance Eph. i. 14 Ebimites what Hereticks and whence so called Gal. iii. 1 Ellipses many in the Apostles stile Heb. iv 8 how they are to be supplied Ibid. examples of Elliptical expressions Gal. i. 10 Elxai a Jew his Heresy Rev. ii 4 Epimenides why ciced us a Prophet Luke i. 67 Epistles of Recommendation from one Bishop to another their original 2 Cor. iii. 1 Epistle to the Hebrews why rejected for some time but afterwards admitted Heb. v. 6 p. 548. whether written by St. Paul or another Ibid. ix 2 and x. 34. and xi 21 Eternal why the Gospel so called Luke i. 70 Evangelists relate the same thing variously and why Mat. v. 1. Excommunication ordinary not to be confounded with the Punishments inflicted by the Apostles 1 Cor. v. 5 2 Cor. vii 8 and x. 4 5. Excommunicate Persons whether debarred all kind of Commerce with the rest of Christians Gal. i. 8 Eye how said to be evil i. e. covetous or single i. e. liberal Mat. vi 22 opening the Eyes the meaning of that Phrase Luke xxiv 16 F. Faith taken in several Notion Mat. viii 10 the object of it John xxi 29 to ask in Faith what James i. 6 Famine foretold by Agabus when it happen'd Rev. vi 4 Figs at what time ripe in Judaea and of how many sorts Mark xi 13 The First and the last why Christ is so called Rev. i. 11 Flesh according to it what Rom. iv 1 to be in the Flesh what Rom. vii 5 Fulfilled in what sense places of Scripture are sometimes said to be so Mat. iv 14 Future state upon what grounds believed by the Heathens 1 Cor. xv 19 G. Gates of Hell what Mat. xvi 18 Genealogy of Christ why defective in St. Matt. and how St. Matt. came to divide it into three fourteens Chap. i. 8 Genealogies of the Valentinians owing to whom 1 Tim. i. 4 Gentiles their vocation unknown to the Angels before the event Eph. iii. 5 Glory of Kingdoms what Mat. iv 1 glory for miracles Joh. i. 14 glory of God for God himself Rom. i. 23 why the Man is so called and the Woman the glory of the Man 1 Cor. xi 7 To Glorify God is to confess the Truth Luke xxiii 47 Gnosticks whether they had any reason to fear the Jews out of their own Country 1 Cor. iii. 15 and Prem to Galat. whether they were the troublers of the Churches in Galatia Gal. 1.7 whether they were all suddenly destroyed with the rebellious Jews 2 Thess ii 8 whether they abstained from Wine or forbad others the use of it 1 Tim. v. 22 or attemâ—ted to draw away Servants from their Masters Ib. vi 2 whether there was any one Sect in the Apostles times peculiarly so called Ibid. 20. Gog and Magog sigâ—ify the Turk Rev. xx 8 Grace for Grace what John i. 16 Great God whether he be so called with a respect to the Cabiâ—i or great Gods of the Heathens Tit. ii 13 Grotiâ—s his Posthumous Annotations without reason suspected by Dr. Hammond Rom. xiv 23 and Prem to 2 Pet. Guardian Angels see Angels Gygae whether the Kings of Lydia that succeeded Gyges were so called Rev. xx 8 H. Happiness of Heaven why represented under the similitude of a Feast Mat. viii 11 Head the Custom of Mens having it bare when they appeared in publick and Women veil'd 1 Cor. xi 4 7. head of the Beast which had received a deadly wound to be understood of the burning of the Roman Capitol Rev. xiii 3 Heart how the Law is said to be written in it Rom. ii 15 Heaven whether it can be taken for a name of God Mat. xxi 25 how it is said to have opened Mat. iii. 16 to fall from it what Luke x. 18 Rev. xii 10 the Phrase Heaven and Earth whether it signifies only this Earth or sublunary Region 2 Pet. iii. 7 all things in Heaven and Earth whether they signify Men Col. i. 20 Hellenists who Acts vi 1 Heretick properly who Tit. iii. 10 of what fâ—rt to be avoided Ibid. how said to be condemned of himself Tit. iii. 11 Herodes Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee not Procurator of Judaea Mat. xxii 16 Luke iii. 1 Holy why the Infants of Christians are so reputed 1 Cor. vii 14 Hours how counted by the Jews and the Romans John xix 14 Humanely to speak so what Rom. vi 19 Husband of one Wife in what sense it is said a Bishop ought so to be 1 Tim. iii. 2 I. St. James reconciled with St. Paul James ii 24 Idiotick or rude stile what 2 Cor. xi 6 Idle word which Mat. xii 36 Idolatry whether always joined with unnatural Lusts 1 Cor. v. 10 2 Cor. xii 21 Jerusalem when taken Mat. xxiv 17 whether the Destruction of it was so very sudden and unexpected as is supposed by Dr. Hammond 2 Pet. iii. 16 Jezebel whether it need be understood of any Sect of Hereticks Rev. ii 2 Jews their zeal to make Proselytes became a Proverb Mat. xxiii 15 acknowledg'd their Destruction to be from God Mat. xxiv 3 the Vengeance taken on them by Christ represented by his going out to battel against them Luke ix 31 how they hoped for Justification by the Law Gal. iii. 10 whether they were in so great favour with the Roman Magistrates as to be able to put them upon persecuting the Christians 2 Thess i. 5 and Prem to Rev. whether they were so numerous as Josephus affirms Rev. vii 4 Image of the invisible God how Christ is said to be Col. i. 15 and the express Image of his Person Heb. i. 3 Immortality of the Soul believed by the Platonists 1 Cor. xv 29 Impostors how they were to be known in St. John's time 1 John iv 2 Impossible for what is very difficult Heb. vi 6 Interrogation equivalent to a Negation Mat. iii. 7 Joseph of Arimathaea one of the Sanhedrim Mar. xv 43 Joy