speaking his mind in plain terms which would have been unseasonable at that time that he was about to teach his Disciples a way how they might worship God acceptably without that bodily labour This he teaches the Samaritan woman more clearly Joh. iv 21 to whom he might declare a thing which the Jews were utterly averse to without any present danger The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are persons burden'd with Legal rites and all those things which they were to pay to God the Priests and Levites which were much more inculcated on them than charity or any other vertue And therefore these things are afterwards chap. xxiii 4 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also Luc. xi 46 Those who understand Christ to speak here of vices besides destroying their connexion with what goes before offer violence to the very words for such as serve their vices are not weary or heavy laden which are words that denote persons under trouble or disquiet but they indulge their wicked inclinations with delight and are hardly brought to renounce them Those men do not think themselves to want any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they acquiesce in their vices with abundance of pleasure But the Jews groaned under a yoke of Ceremonies which they were unable to bear as St. Peter declares Act. xv 10 and had need of rest which under the Law it was impossible for them to enjoy because they were forced to make a journey thrice a year at least to Jerusalem Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctors of the Law especially those of the Sacerdotal race were neither meek nor lowly being cruel exactors of those burdensom things that were commanded in the Law and proud of having the common People of the Jews tributary to them But there is nothing of this nature in Christ who requires only a good Life and condescends to the very meanest whoever they be How extreamly haughty and disdainful the Priests in those times were Josephus informs us Lib. xx c. 6. Antiq. Jud. Vers 30. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when spoken of a person signifies good bountiful courteous or merciful but when it is a thing that is spoken of as it is here then it signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable which comes from the same Primitive or else something like it according as the nature of the thing is Jerem. xxiv 3 5. good figs are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Septuagint and Ezek. xxviii 13 a precious stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschylus in Aristophanes Ran. Act. iv Sc. 2. says to Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must by all means speak useful things Whence in following Ages any collections of useful things were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the sentences mark'd in the margin of the Books with the letter X which needs no proof So in Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so it is to be read and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this were not a thing past doubt I would add the words of Suidas and Phavorinus but I must not take up my own or the Readers time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies a profitable yoke which is for the benefit or advantage of those that bear it which the Mosaical was not but as it is opposed to the Gospel yoke was of it self unprofitable For of what use were so many sacrifices so many taxes under the name of First-fruits and Tithes taking so many journeys and so many Purifications if we consider them in themselves All that they served for was only to consume that wealth which was gotten with a great deal of pains and to render Life more troublesome For these things did not of themselves make men good or acceptable to God And therefore they were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to speak in the words of Ezekiel c. xx 25 they were precepts that were not good But the yoke of Christ is useful to him that takes it upon him many times in this Life and always in that which is to come It makes men good and well pleasing to God and confers eternal happiness upon them Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Doctors of the Law which neither the antient Jews nor the men of that Age were able to bear This was a most heavy burden even to good men who were desirous to observe every thing which the Law commanded and yet could not do it but with a very great deal of pain and difficulty but on the other hand nothing is more easy to a good man than obedience to the Gospel which requires nothing but what all that are good must needs approve If any man thinks the precepts of the Gospel to be difficult he is still a bad man and that may be fitly applied to him Nulla est tam facilis res quin difficilis siet Quam invitus faciat It is strange that neither Grotius nor the Doctor should perceive that these things were spoken in opposition to the Jewish rites CHAP. XII V. 8. middle of Note a. OUR learned Author goes about here to confute H. Grotius who thinks that by the Son of Man we must understand Man in common and not Christ The whole strength of the Doctor 's reasoning is from the use of that phrase for all that he says besides is so forced that the bare comparing of it with what is said by Grotius is enough to shew how much he is that great man's inferiour in this debate But however let us examin what he says I. Those words in the 6 Verse one greater than the Temple is here are not connected with the following 8 v. for the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath but with what goes before and therefore it is not necessary that he who was greater than the Temple and the Son of Man should be the same II. In Dan. vii 13 the Son of Man is taken for a Man and not for the name of the Messias whatever was the use of that phrase in Christ's time I saw says the Prophet in the night visions and behold there came with the clouds of heaven one like the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the appearance of a Man This is known to be the constant use of this phrase in the Old Testament and that Christ should sometimes use it in the same signification will not seem strange to any tho at other times he calls himself the Son of Man or a Man III. The phrase for man in St. Mark does certainly signify for the good of Man to wit that Servants might have rest which was the principal end of the Sabbath from whence it follows that man is Lord of the Sabbath in this respect that he may either observe or neglect the Sabbath according as affairs upon which
interpreting the New Testament the etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemed suspicious to me because I had observed that the silly Greeks do often very unhappily pretend to discover the originals of old Names in their Language and afterwards endeavour to confirm those Etymologies by feigned Stories as might be made appear by a hundred instances And therefore searching a little further back it came into my mind that it was a reproach formerly cast upon the Athenians that they came from Ionia into Attica and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Homer of which see Bochart in Phaleg Lib. 3. c. 3. And I knew otherwise that the Language of the Pelasgi the most antient Inhabitants of Greece was a barbarous Language and unknown to those that came after them as the Glory of Great Britain Dr. Stillingfleet in his Origines Sacrae has shewn And hence I made no great difficulty to infer that the Iaones and Pelasgi were the Posterity of Javan or Jon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who spake that Language which they had brought with them out of the East i. e. the Hebrew or one very like it Now in that Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Har-pega signifies a Mountain of violence or incursion or also of slaughter whence it may be conjectured that that Hill was by the first Inhabitants of Attica so called because of some slaughter or fight that had happened in that place of which some footstep remained in the story about the slaying of Halyrrothius Neptune 's Son mentioned by Dr. Hammond and which may be read in those Authors which he alledges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the name of Mars is a Hebrew word for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Mountaineer as Mars was who is said to have had his aboad in the Mountains of Thrace and was made the God of War because as those that live in mountainous places generally are he was a valiant Man and had made himself famous in War Athens also had its name as the Greeks say from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Epithet of Pallas which is the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ethar i. e. valiant And Pallas is feigned to have been the Goddess of War in the same manner as Mars and seems to have been some Amazon or warlike Woman that ruled over Attica in those fabulous times She is called also the Goddess of Wisdom and this seems to be intimated by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if that be derived from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 palas i. e. directed considered examined from whence comes the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peles which signifies Justice Prov. xvi 11 But these things do not belong to this place Vers 22. Note f. Col. 2. lin 32. after the words move for it One that had never read Plutarch's Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and should take strict notice of Dr. Hammond's words would easily perswade himself that what he produces as out of Plutarch were taken out of that Author himself but they are not 1. What he alledges as out of the Life of Alexander is in the forementioned little Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 170. â— Edit Francofurtensis Ann. 1599. which is the Edition that I have and is set down thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. An ingenious thought of Plutarch's is manifestly perverted by him which is in the last lines of the foregoing Page and the beginning of that which I have mentioned Plutarch affirms that superstitious people are worse than Atheists and he subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had rather for my part that men should say of me that there never was nor is any such man as Plutarch than say that Plutarch is an inconstant changeable man one that is easily provoked to anger greedy of revenge upon every slight provocation and melancholy upon the least adversity that befals him 3. The whole passage about the Jews which is also in p. 169. is not set down by him intire for Plutarch justly derides their Superstition who sat still on the Sabbath and let their Enemies scale the walls of the City without making the least opposition against them but lay all tied and bound by their Superstition as in one net However this is not a common practice with our learned Author to cite the Testimonies of the Antients upon the Authority of others Vers 23. Note g. The place referred to by the Doctor in Pausanias is nothing to the purpose for Pausanias does not say that the Lydians sacrificed to a God which they did not themselves know but which was unknown to him It is in pag. 391. Edit Hanov. Ann. 1613. where speaking of a Magus he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He sang an Invocation to any of the Gods in a barbarous Language impossible for the Greeks to understand Besides our Author misrepresents Pausanias as saying the Lydians and Persians whereas his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lydians sirnamed Persian If you would see more Testimonies about the unknown God of the Athenians consult Mâ—ursius de Piraeeo cap. 10. Ibid. The Doctor should have added the name of the Poet or the place where he took those Verses for there will be some that may suspect them to be made by some Christian This passage of St. Paul may be illustrated by the words of Apuleius in Lib. de mundo Vetus opinio est atque cogitationes omnium hominum penitus insedit Deum esse originis haberi auctorem Deumque ipsum salutem esse perseverantiam earum quas effecerit rerum Neque ulla est tam praestantibus viribus quae viduata Dei auxilio sui natura contenta sit Hanc opinionem vates sequuti profiteri ausi sunt omnia Iove plena esse cujus praesentiam non jam cogitatio sola sed oculi aures sensibilis substantia comprehendit It is an antient opinion which has possessed the minds of all men that God is and is accounted the Author of the World and that God himself is the safety and perseverance of those things which he has made And that there is nothing of so great strength as to be self-sufficient and not to stand in need of God's assistance And this opinion the Poets having espoused have not stuck to say that all things were full of God whose presence it seems not our minds only but also our eyes and ears and every sensible substance comprehends He had a respect to the same passage of Aratus as St. Paul CHAP. XVIII Vers 22. Note c. OUR learned Author is mistaken when he says that Caesarea Philippi was not far from that Caesarea which was also called Turris Stratonis between which there was the distance of two days journey which is a great deal in a little Country See the Maps of Judea CHAP. XIX Vers 33. Note g. I Had rather interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poverty or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristophanes in Pluto in an elegant disputation wherein he endeavours to shew that Poverty is advantageous to Men after Chremylus had described the inconvenices of Beggery is brought in speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have not been speaking of my Life but declaring that of Beggers On which words the Scholiast makes this observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a middle sort of indigence when a Man acquires necessaries by Labour and comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to labour and by that to acquire Necessaries but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so called from his begging of every Body See also the following words of Chremylus and Poverty But I dare not insist too much upon the significancy of this word in St. Paul who does not use to be very critical in the choice of his words Further the Galatians who when they knew not God did service unto them which by nature are not Gods are said here by St. Paul upon their defection to Judaism to have turned to the weak and beggarly Elements whereunto they desired again to be in bondage because as I have already suggested they had gone over from Heathenism to Judaism before they became Christians There is no doubt but many of those who first believed the Gospel among the Gentiles were before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Proselytes of the Gate as the Rabbins speak or also of Righteousness Of the former sort were Cornelius the Centurion spoken of in Acts x. and Lydia in Acts xvi And there is no reason to think but the greatest part of the Galatian Christians were such Men who certainly might much more easily relapse to Judaism than embrace it if they had not before known it after their Conversion to the Christian Religion I remark this because Grotius who on vers 5. had observed that St. Paul spake of Proselytes unmindful of what he had there affirmed tells us that the Galatians are said here to return to the elements of Piety non quod Judaizassent antea sed quia multa usurpassent cum Judaeis communia ut ciborum delectum dierum discrimina c. Not because they had judaized before but because whilst they were Heathens they had a great many Customs common to them with the Jews as the distinction of Meats and Days c. But that he is mistaken is evident because it is the Jewish Law that was before called the Elements of the World on which words he has an excellent Annotation and because the following Verse here clearly shews that they are said to return to the Jewish Ceremonies not to say how manifest that is from the whole series of St. Paul's disputation in this place Besides the Religion of the Heathens cannot be said to contain the elements of Piety which taught the most consummate wickedness So that St. Paul would rather have said that they returned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if what Grotius here says were true And therefore we must understand him to speak of the Mosaical Rites which the Galatians who were once Jewish Proselytes before they had embraced Christianity had in part at least observed Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I don't know which to chuse Dr. Hammond's interpretation of these words or Grotius his who makes them to be a Description of St. Paul's extraordinary affection to the Galatians The place in Cicero which Grotius refers to is in Ep. ad Famil Lib. 7. Ep. 5. to which add this Distich out of the Epigram of Zeno the founder of the Sect of the Stoicks which Apuleius sets down in his Apology Hoc modò sim vobis unus sibi quisque quod ipse est Hoc mihi vos eritis quod duo sunt oculi Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I cannot see what reason moved our Author in his Paraphrase of this and the following Verses to make mention of Persecution whereof there is no footstep in St. Paul's words He is as much out of the way too in seeking here for his Gnosticks and the Authority of the Jews out of their own Country Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is do not ye understand the Law or do ye not hearken to it attentively when it is read to you It deserved here to be noted that St. Paul argues from some received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 midrasch vulgarly known For if that Allegory whereof he here speaks had not been before heard of he would have had no reason to wonder that the Galatians had never collected any such thing from the Story which he refers to it being not at all necessary that the words of Scripture should have any such allegorical signification as that is supposed to belong to them And therefore undoubtedly it was a known Allegory tho perhaps somewhat otherwise expressed by the Jews Further seeing this Interpretation could not be urged against those who might deny that the Scripture ought to be so understood and the Apostle does not make use of his Authority to confirm it it is evident that he argues here from what was generally allowed Which kind of things it is not material should be true or well grounded as long as they contain nothing in them prejudical to Piety and are believed by those against whom we dispute So that from St. Paul's using such an Allegory against the Judaizing Galatians it does not follow that we in this Age are bound to admit it as a secret revealed from Heaven to the Apostle For if we throughly consider it we shall find that most which has ever been said by learned Men against this way of interpreting Scripture in general may be objected against this particular Allegory Vers 24. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Participle in the Middle voice as every one knows and as Dr. Hammond himself very well knew tho he said otherwise before he was aware It is to be taken in a Passive sense and rendred thus which things are allegorically explained or use to be so explained that is by a mystical Interpretation applied to signify other things besides those which that History literally contains This kind of Allegories must be carefully distinguished from the Allegories of Homer and other Poets For the Greek Grammarians and especially their Philosophers affirmed that a great many things which were said by their Poets about the Gods were false in a proper sense and never really happened but in another obstruse and secret sense were true Whereas the Jews did not deny but that their Histories were true but from real events deduced Consectaries belonging to other matters as if those events had been as so many representations of other things Heraclides Ponticus in his little Treatise de Allegoriis Homericis gives us this true definition of a Poetical Allegory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Trope wherein one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
all the Annotations of all Interpreters upon it V. In many places indeed St. Peter opposes the Errors which in his time were spread among Christians and the evil Practices of some Men but whether those Errors sprang from Simon Magus and were defended by some particular Sect who were notorious for their Wickedness is to me uncertain Vers 16. Note e. I. The first circumstance from which our Author gathers that the Transfiguration shadowed out the coming of Christ to punish the Jews and deliver the Christians who dwelt in Palestine is altogether vain because there were at least six days interval between the Discourses he mentions and the Transfiguration as will appear by St. Mark Chap. ix 2 if we compare his words with Luke ix 28 It is not likely that Christ spent so many days silently without teaching his Apostles any thing all that while or inculcating upon them what he had already said which if he did there will be no force in Dr. Hammond's reasoning which is grounded only upon this that the forementioned discourses were made by Christ immediately before his Transfiguration II. Secondly what he here says about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ and his comparing it with the Exodus of Moses are mere niceties as easily rejected as they were invented I have shewn on Luke ix 31 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies a warlike expedition against the obstinate Jews Vers 17. Note f. Our learned Author trifles when he subtilly distinguishes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Majesty or Greatness of Christ from the Voice that was heard For that Voice was no small part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ because thereby he was pronounced the Son of God and commanded to be heard This is clear from the very order of the Discourse we were witnesses of his Majesty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FOR he received from God the Father Honor and Glory such a Voice coming to him By this very Voice Majesty Honour and Glory were conferred on Christ St. Peter says they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because in the Transfiguration they had seen some things and heard others I had rather with Grotius after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was than look here for a Hebraism were it only for the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in such an order of words cannot be joined with an absolute Case Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the first place I would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be understood in the Preterimperfect Tense as if St. Peter had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Candle which shined that he may be thought to speak of the Time which preceded the Coming of Christ Secondly I should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vulgar and Beza caliginosum a dark or obseurum locum an obscure place not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies obscure which primarily signifies dry and nasty but because Dungeons which are nasty are also dark therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not nasty but dark And the time which preceded the Coming of Christ is fitly called dark compared with that which succeeded it as the Knowledg which Men had of Religion under the Old Testament is aptly resembled to the light of a Candle in comparison of the Sun of Righteousness Christ Jesus which being then actually risen I should render the words of St. Peter thus Vntil the Day dawned and the morning Star arose in your Hearts St. Peter here tells the Christians they did well that they read the Prophets not as the only Rule of Faith and a perfect and full Revelation of the Will of God but as Books which they formerly when they had nothing more clear and full made use of with great Advantage till Christ came and taught them all things Our Author strains this place in his Paraphrase whilst he applies it to the destruction of Jerusalem Ibid. Note g. I. It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Mind in Scripture but it is not opposed here to Heaven than which nothing could have been said more flat when the thing it self shews to any one of common sense that the morning Star is to be understood in a metaphorical sense The morning Star and the Day here signifie the Doctrin of the Gospel compared with the Old Testament which is said to be risen in our Hearts when it is not only heard but sinks down into our Minds so that we heartily believe it II. To incourage the Christians to bear patiently the Persecutions which they suffer'd in Judaea in expectation that their Persecutors should be destroyed it had been improper to propose to them the Prophecies of the Old Testament about that matter which were very obscure when they had clear ones deliver'd by Christ recorded in Mat. xxiv and the parallel places of the other Evangelists III. Tho I will not deny but the Day of Christ and the Day are used for a time of Vengeance yet wherever these Phrases occur we ought not presently to apply them to that time as our Author too often does Because he had interpreted some places of the New Testament not unhappily about some vile Men whom he calls Gnosticks there is scarce ever any thing said about Impostors or wicked Men where he does not think the same Persons to be spoken of The like fault he commits almost wherever the Discourse is about the Day or about the coming of Christ which he strains to the Vengeance taken upon the Jews overlooking all Circumstances For tho in his Paraphrase the series of the Discourse seems to have a respect thereto that is of no moment because he adds to the words of the Apostles what he pleases In this place the morning Star and the dawning Day are the Gospel until which the Law and the Prophets continued in force which were like a Candle in the greatest darkness wherein Mankind lay Afterwards as the light of a Candle is quite obscured by the light of the Sun they were not of so great use but yet not to be despised The Gospel is often compared to Light as in Mat. iv 16 and John i. 5 seqq The condition also of the Jews before the Gospel is compared to darkness in the same places All which clearly enough shew that the Interpretation commonly received is better than Dr. Hammond's Vers 20. Note h. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the place from whence the Racers started not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sending out and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sending in if he had had a respect to that Agonistical Exercise I had rather interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were a loosing of the Tongue or Mouth for as they are said to have their Tongues tied who cannot speak so the Mouth or Tongue of those that speak are said to be loosed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
those Vices shall never unless a new Gospel be made for him be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven Here I might take leave of my Censurer but because he has thought fit to set such another mark of Infamy upon my Ars Critica I shall briefly shew that he is mightily mistaken and did not diligently read what he was resolved to condemn He says in the first place that my Design in that Treatise was by a new and cunning way to propagate Socinianism But I who know my own mind and purpose a great deal better utterly deny it and there is nothing in the thing it self which argues that I did so undesignedly My intent was to shew how Students might arrive to a solid and useful sort of Learning And therefore I intermixed a great many Examples taken from things of the greatest moment to prove that Criticism was no contemptible Art But my Censurer produces some Passages by which he endeavours to shew that my Design was to clear the way for Socinianism which places I shall briefly consider that every one may see with what Integrity and Modesty he descants upon them I said in Part 1. Chap. 1. § 3. That many things in the Writings of the Antients had a respect to the Opinions of their Times which must therefore be known that we may understand what they mean Ita cum Judaeorum praecipua in divino cultu ceremonia in sacrificio essent sita ideo in Novo Testamento omnia fere pietatis officia sacrificii nomine interdum indigitari So because the chief Ceremony of the Jews in divine Worship was Sacrificing therefore in the New Testament almost all religious duties are sometimes expressed by the name of Sacrifices Then I add Mortem Christi sacrificium quoque vocari quod fuerit praecipua ejus pietatis pars quaedam habeat sacrificiis similia That the death of Christ is called also a Sacrifice because it was the chief part of his Obedience and had some things in it resembling Sacrifices Here my Censurer translated my words so negligently that he renders the Phrase ejus pietatis of that Religion as if I had a respect to the Jewish Religion whereas I manifestly speak of Christ's Piety towards his Father Then hence he infers that I suppose the Sacrifice of Christ was only a metaphorical and improper Sacrifice to side with those that reject Christ's Satisfaction But what kind of Logick is this That action of Christ by which he principally redeemed men is called a Sacrifice by a Phrase taken from the Custom of the Jews tho it did not in all things resemble a Sacrifice therefore Christ did not redeem us By what revelation came my Censurer to know that to the end Christ might redeem men it was requisite he should be slain just like a Victim without any manner of difference And how will he prove that there was every thing in the death of Christ which was observable in a Sacrifice It 's certain the Priest and the Sacrifice was not the same the Sacrifice was slain in a consecrated place the Blood of it was poured out at the foot of an Altar and many other Rites were used none of which properly speaking were observed in Christ's Crucifixion Notwithstanding which the Death of Christ might have all the efficacy of a Sacrifice It is fit for my Censurer's information to observe that we are not to seek for all the circumstances of a Sacrifice in the death of Christ because in so doing men often mix their own rotten Inventions with divine Revelation as for instance some inconsiderately say that the Cross was an Altar whereas there neither was nor could be any Altar in this Oblation upon which the Sacrifice was to be consecrated as it was in the Levitical Sacrifices But this every one knows and I would not have mention'd it but that my Censurer speaks as if he was ignorant of it As for his saying that what I affirm of the word Sacrifice being attributed to the Death of Christ is nothing to the business of which I undertook to treat in that place of my Ars Critica I leave that to the examination of the Reader I have not so much time to spare that I should always be teaching the Elements of Logick or Grammar In Part II. § 1. c. 3. I have put it beyond all doubt that tho the most high God is stiled by the Jews Elohim yet that word signifies God as he is the object of Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not his most perfect Nature I have shewn also that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used by the Jews that spake Greek by the Gentiles and the Christians themselves in the same sense which is of no small use to the understanding of innumerable Passages in antient Writers both sacred and profane which would otherwise be very obscure Nothing can be more evident and the design of the whole Chapter to those who are not wilfully blind is very plain The thing it self is not opposed by my unknown Censurer because it is undeniable and is confirmed by the Consent of the most learned men but he suspects that my design in writing it was to intimate that tho our Saviour might be the object of divine Worship yet that he is not God Whether he speaks as he thinks I cannot tell be that to himself but I beseech him never to treat any other man at the same rate as he has done me For to pretend to know the secret designs of Men is not only immodest but sensless and in this matter I assure him he is utterly mistaken I never thought Christ might be the object of divine Worship tho he was not God that would be mere Idolatry Nay the Socinians themselves do not say that Christ ought to be worshipped as the most high God while they do not think him to be the most high God but only with such a Worship as is due to an Ambassador from the supreme Majesty I would have my Censurer read their Books before he undertakes to oppose them and not attribute to me what neither I nor any man else ever imagin'd It is not the part of a modest Man to cavil at what he does not understand nor of a man of Candor to misrepresent other mens Principles In the following Chap. IV. I said I did not think there was any Emphasis in this Phrase thou shalt die the death Gen. ii 16 but that it signified simply Death and I rejected both the Opinion of S. Austin who looks here for I know not how many kinds of Death and those who interpret it of Mortality which Interpretation I affirmed to be contrary to the constant use of the Hebrew Language What says my Censurer to this Does he shew that Use is against me Does he prove that I was mistaken By no means but he contends that I side with a Party viz. of Socinians as if there were not learned Interpreters of all Parties that reject that
that have the Administration of publick Affairs are stirred up to persecute those that differ from them in matters of Religion However that first Doctrin might be born with because if any Man rashly shuts others out of Heaven and erroneously reflects upon the Goodness and Justice of God provided he does not persecute those that differ from him and force them to profess themselves of his Opinion he does more hurt to himself than others because God is nevertheless Gracious and Merciful But he that is for being cruel to those that differ from him does mischief both to others and to the Truth He makes himself a Beast and forfeits eternal Happiness which is promised to reasonable Creatures not to Savages he persecutes the innocent and exposes them to innumerable Calamities in fine he disparages Truth if he defends it by such Methods and if he opposes it he profanes the most Sacred thing in the World and fights against God who is its Author And this is no vain fear about what perhaps will never be we have reason to be afraid lest St. Austin's Authority should move Christians to persecute one another for differences in Religion The thing is actually come to pass already for a certain great and powerful Monarch in whose Kingdom many thousands of Protestants lately lived was chiefly by that Father's Authority moved to attempt and execute those things for which all Europe has justly rung with the loud Complaints of poor wretches that have been forc'd to fly their Country It 's certain the French King who is otherwise no Tyrant could not by any means have been induced to cancel all his past Edicts in favour of the Reformed and make use of the barbarity of Souldiers to extort from them a confession which none of the Clergy of that Kingdom could by all their false reasonings bring them to unless it were after the foremention'd Letters of St. Austin had been read to him whose Authority being imposed upon by Flatterers he thought he might safely follow Let my Censurer go now and resent my being so hardy as to say the truth of St. Austin I speak in that manner who do not use like many others to calumniate the Living and speak untruths in favour of the Dead My Censurer pretends that in Chap. ix where I said that Philosophers and Divines often use words that have no meaning in them and which if any one desire them to interpret they can give no solid answer for which I instanc'd in the words Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation My Censurer I say pretends that I have a respect also to the Trinity and other particular points belonging to the same matter This forsooth is that modest Censurer otherwise called searcher of Hearts who can divine what other Men think tho they are never so profoundly silent Were I to make a Conjecture from what he has written I should say that he did not only exterminate Charity but even Justice and Truth out of the number of Christian Vertues But I had rather think he erred through I know not what Passion that hurried him to the violation of those Duties of Religion which he himself accounted the most sacred My Interpretation of the words Righteousness of God in Chap. xii 17 for God's righteous Precepts has no affinity with the peculiar Doctrins of the Socinians unless it be in the brains of a Man that sees things where they are not and has conceived such a dreadful Notion of the Socinians that upon the least noise he presently imagins a whole Army of them to be coming upon him I am sure Crellius and Schlictingius their chief Leaders give us a quite different interpretation of this place In Chap. xiv I did not say that St. John had the same thoughts of the eternal Reason as Plato but only called the Divinity which dwelt in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Platonical manner and added that it remained to be enquir'd whether S. John understood that word in a Platonical sense plainly intimating that I thought the same word might be taken in different notions I said also that if that word were to be understood in a Platonical sense in St. John we should be forced to go over to the Arians which according to the opinion my Censurer represents me to be of no Man in his wits would say it were necessary to do But this searcher into Heresies forgot that Platonism or Arianism was very different from Socinianism And he knows not or makes as if he did not know that I have in a particular Dissertation explained the beginning of St. John's Gospel in a sense contrary to Platonism Whereas I said that all Christians do at this day very much differ from the Opinion of the Nicene Council he knows that can be manifestly proved from English Books not to mention Latin He knows very well that the learned Dr. Cudworth has proved that the Nicene Fathers and others thought the three Hypostases to be three equal Gods as we should now express it Let him read also the Life of Gregory Nazianzen which I have written and has been translated into English if he does not understand French and he will find that Gregory was undoubtedly of that Opinion The thing is so clear that it cannot be question'd by those who have consider'd it But of this elsewhere In Chap. xvi I rejected the mystical and high flown interpretations and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Antients which are destitute of reason and I still reject them with all the best Interpreters of Scripture I value Rhetorical Arguments which depend only upon the Speakers fancy and are not to be tried by the rule of right Reason no more than my Censurer's Calumnies which are the products of his own fruitful brain Such is his saying that I rejected the Rhetorical Discourses of the Fathers because I think all things to be clear and plain in Christianity and that no Mystery is to be admitted Of which there is not so much as one word in that Chapter where I speak of vain Rhetorick and not of the obscurity or perspicuity or Religion I never thought we had a clear and perfect Notion of all things revealed as I have sufficiently shewn in the 2 d Part of my Ars Critica where I treat of clear and adequate Notions My Censurer who knows the secret Thoughts of mens Hearts ought to have known what I had written in a Treatise he took upon him to censure But he read it only to find matter of Calumny not to do himself any good by it What I said about Concrete and Abstract Notions in Part. ii c. 5. let my Censurer read over again a little more sedately and he will find I had great reason to say that the names of Synods were names of abstract Ideas because many attributed to them things which rather should have been in them than which really were so to heighten their Authority to the prejudice of Religion The Council of Trent is alone
signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not as to those words to be extended any farther In like manner where it is taken for a Covenant it is not to be inferred that all those things are to be sought for in God's 0economy either Old or New that are observable in Covenants and that every thing must be interpreted according to the Notion of a Covenant From a steddy consideration of the thing it self it appears that God's Dispensations are nothing but Laws And therefore whatever is said about foederal Signs by which God and Men do more closely bind themselves to one another being besides Scripture and not to be certainly concluded from the word Covenant is perhaps to be reckon'd among those things which Divines have more subtilly invented than solidly proved God has no where declared that it was his design to deal with Men so as that all his Dispensations should perfectly resemble Covenants even in the smallest Circumstances But perhaps some may reply that sometimes neither the mind of the Speaker nor things themselves are sufficiently known to us and ask what we are to think then of the signification of words I do not see what else can be done in such a case than to determine nothing rashly as if it were certain It is undoubtedly the part of a wise Man to refrain from judging of what is doubtful and I confess I do not know in this dark state of Mortality what can be safer than laying such a restraint upon our selves But this Doctrin will please but few because most Men love to conceal their Ignorance and had rather seem learned than really be so This may suffice to have been said once for all about an over subtil interpretation of metaphorical words that I may have no occasion to inculcate it Addit to the Remark on the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Title of the first Gospel after these words still remaining to us Barnabas who wrote in the same Age with St. Matthew Ep. Cath. c iii. cites this Gospel in these words Attendamus ergo ne forte sicut scriptum est multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur Let us take heed therefore lest we should be found as it is written many are called but few are chosen These words are twice found in St. Matthew Chap. xx 16. and xxii 14. and in no other place of Scripture For it is observable that St. Matthew is here cited as Scripture as that form of Speech SICVT SCRIPTVM est manifestly shews whence we may infer in how great Esteem this Gospel was as soon as ever it was published Hence it came to pass that when Barnabas his Sepulchre was thought to have been found out by Revelation by Anthemius Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus it was feigned that St. Matthew's Gospel was found also on the breast of Barnabas written in Tables of Thyne wood Thyinis tabulis See Theodor. Lector Lib. 11. at the beginning and Nicephorus Callist Lib. xvi c. 37. and Suidas on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is reported also that the same Gospel was carried by Bartholomew into India that is Aethiopia where it was found by Pantenus Catechist of the Church of Alexandria under the Reign of Commodus see Euseb Hist Eccles Lib. v. c. 10. These things whether true or no shew that the Antients thought this Gospel was written before the others and that the Apostles carried it about with them ADDITIONS To Dr. HAMMOND's ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Matthew CHAP. I. Vers 1. Note a. THO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly to bring forth metaphorically signifies to effect yet it does not thence follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tholedah signifies every event for the Metaphors of derivative words are often different from those of their Primitives In all the places that the Doctor alledges Tholedah plainly signifies the origin of a thing which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Gen. ii 4 v. 1. be examin'd it will appear that the meaning of the sacred Historian is this viz. that that was the origin of the World and Mankind which he had describ'd Chap. xxxvii 2 These are the generations refers to what goes before and the meaning of Moses is nothing but this that the Ancestors of Jacob were the same with those of Esau whose Genealogy he had declared in the Chapter immediately preceding So Numb iii. 1 The Generations of Moses and Aaron signify their origin from the Tribe of Levi. In the same sense we meet with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several times in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ocean from which all things had their origin And elsewhere speaking of the Ocean he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that from which the Gods had their origin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore as Grotius very well interprets it is a description of the Origin which title must be reckon'd prefix'd only to this Chapter Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here are three Kings left out Ahaziah Joas and Amaziah Again St. Luke reckons up nineteen Generations of natural Descendents from Salathiel to Joseph whilst St. Matthew numbers but ten according to legal extraction the later must needs have omitted seven persons likewise in his last class of Generations Concerning these Omissions many make divers Conjectures That of Grotius is generally look'd upon to be the best that St. Matthew kept to the number of Generations in the first class from Abraham to David which was most known for memory sake in the rest and so it was necessary that some Generations should be omitted that there might be just three fourteens But it does not seem probable at all to others that the Evangelist merely for the sake of keeping to the number of fourteen should designedly pass over ten persons and especially in that part of his Computation in which it behov'd him to use the greatest exactness because it was least known for till the time of the Captivity the Genealogical series of the Royal Family of David was very well understood but from that time to Christ it was known but obscurely Besides a person cannot be said to retain any Genealogy in his memory that out of fifty persons or thereabouts omits ten and if the Genealogy of Christ must needs have been divided into certain classes it was not therefore necessary that a fifth part of his Ancestors should be pass'd over to make a division into fourteens when it had been easy to make another division This made a very good Friend of mine think that St. Matthew lighted upon a genealogical book of David's family that was defective and accidentally observing there three classes of fourteen Generations between these three great periods of time viz. before the setting up of the Regal Government during its continuance and after its fall was thereby mov'd to make such a division in his account of Christ's Lineage which he would not so much as have
thought of if he had made use of an entire Book There was no reason he said to wonder at his saying that a genealogical Book might be corrupted since a very great and considerable Error that had formerly perplex'd the Antients and by that appears to be a very old one was crept into the 11 th vers of St. Matthew's Text it self and that notwithstanding his accurate enumeration of persons and indication of their number And hence also he thought it was that there are some persons omitted in 1 Chron. iv 1 as likewise in chap. vi in the recounting of Aaron's Race which Grotius upon this place observes But this is submitted to the Judgment of the learned Reader Yet it looks as if Matthew did in the 1 st verse cite a Book of the origin of Christ from whence he took all that follows as far as vers 16. Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some Manuscripts in which the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are wanting because the Transcribers thought them too languid but in most of 'em and those the oldest they are found as also in the antient Versions That Christian who inserted a Passage concerning Christ into Josephus's Antiquities lib. 20. c. 8. did likewise make use of the same Phrase upon which Origen against Celsus says Josephus wrote that the Jews were oppress'd with so many evils for the hold attempts upon James the brother of Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was call'd Christ lib. 1. p. 37. concerning which place see Tan. Faber in his Critical Epistles Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. it fell out or happen'd that she was big with child So the word is taken in Apollodorus Biblioth lib. 1. c. 4. s 2. where he treats of the strife between Apollo and Marsyas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Apollo had overcome Vers 19. Note g. To the Examples brought by Grotius and our Author add this one more out of Terence Heaut Act. 4. Sc. 1. where the Wife thus bespeaks her Husband Mi Chreme fateor vincor nunc hoc te obsecro Vt meae stultitiae in justitia tua sit aliquid praesidii Ibid. note h. Salmasius seems rather to be in the right who in his Comment de Hellenistâ—â—a Praef. after he had observ'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to punish because Punishments are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examples in which sense it is often met with in the antientest Greeks remarks that among the more modern it has the signification of exposing to shame which he promises to confirm in another place by examples and to shew that it ought to be so taken in St. Matthew He adds that if the Evangelist had meant by it a capital punishment he would rather have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being unwilling she should be punish'd This Remark of Salmiasius is confirm'd by an example out of Plutarch lib. de curiositate p. 520. where he says that a person who is prying and inquisitive into the evils of other men is like one that should have a Book full of Homer's Verses without a beginning of tragical Incongruities of Speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of those things which were indecently and filthily spoken against women by Archilocus by which he traduc'd himself that is made himself infamous because such foul Speeches could come from none but a lewd and impure person CHAP. II. Vers 2. Note c. NEW Stars among the Gentiles were sometimes look'd upon as Omens that the Infants born at the time of their appearance should arrive to great power See my Note upon Num. xxiv 13 But whatever truth there was in such Omens it was only understood and brought to mind after those Infants were actually possess'd of the supreme Authority for no Astrology can assure such a thing any length of time before-hand Suppose a new Star appears upon the birth-day of any one was there no other Child born in all the Country besides that one on that day Or is it written upon the Star in such characters as the rest of Mankind cannot understand but are easily legible by Astrologers that it appear'd in honour of such a particular Infant There is no recurring here therefore to Astrology no more than to Balaam's or any such like prophecy which had been too dark to help the Wise-men upon sight of the Star to divine that there was a King born to the Jews It is much more credible that they had been warn'd of it by a heavenly vision as afterward v. 12. they are admonished to return another way into their own Countrey However this Star was no Comet for Comets are too high to mark out certainly so small a place as a little House It seems to have been a firy meteor that was miraculously so long preserv'd and appear'd in the middle of the Air like one of those we call falling Stars or the like This is the likeliest account of this matter but it may not be unuseful to shew out of a very learned Gentleman of Ireland what Arguments there are to support their opinion who attribute something here to Astrology and the rather because there is something in his Opinion that is very well worth our observation and of special use in the Interpretation of Prophecies It is Mr. Henry Dodwell in his 2 d Letter of Advice His words are these First therefore I suppose that God did intend the Prophecies which were committed to writing and enrolled in the public Canon of the Church should be understood by the Persons concerned in them For otherwise it could not properly be called a Revelation if after the discovery things still remained as intricate as formerly And it is not credible that God should publish Revelations only to exercise and puzzle the industry of human enquiries or as an evidence of his own knowledg of things exceeding ours tho indeed that it self cannot be known by us unless we be able to discern some sense which otherwise could not have been known than by such Prophesies much less to give occasion to Enthusiasts and cunningly designing Persons to practise seditions and innovations under the pretence of fulfilling Prophesies without any possibility of rational confutation by the Orthodox who upon this supposal must be presumed as ignorant of them as themselves and there is no prudent way of avoiding this uselesness and dangerousness but by rendring them intelligible to the Persons concerned And Secondly the Persons concerned in these kinds of Revelations cannot be the Prophets themselves or any other private Persons of the Ages wherein they were delivered but the Church in general also in future Ages For as Prophesie in general is a gratia gratis data and therefore as all others 〈◊〉 that kind given primarily and originally for the publick use of the Church so certainly such of them as were committed to writing and designedly propagated to future ages must needs have been of a general and permanent concernment And Thirdly the Church concerned in those
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the words of a Prediction are so conceiv'd as to respect indeed primarily a certain event but yet so also as to shadow out something that is of greater importance So Hosea spake indeed directly of the Israelites but because the bringing of the People of Israel out of Egypt was a type of Christ's return out of the same Country into Judea therefore in speaking of the type he is to be thought to have spoken concerning the Antitype also But there are a few things to be observed with relation to this matter which the most learned Interpreters have past by First to use the instance of Hosea it must be confess'd that no body living in that Age could have possibly discern'd any prediction in those words of his but by an intimation from the Prophet himself viz. that tho he spake of a thing that was past yet he had his mind upon an event that was to happen at some Ages distant of which the former was a typical representation Otherwise who could in the least suspect that there was any Prediction latent in a simple relation of matter of Fact Israel was a Child and I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt No body sure will say that the Jews who were far from being a subtil People could ever of their own heads without any advertisment have discover'd here a Prophecy The same we are to think of all other Prophecies of this kind 2 dly Since it is no where found in the old Testament that any such Intimation or Advertisment was given either we must acknowledg that no Prophecy being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could be understood by the Jews before the event or else that the Prophets did privately instruct their Disciples if not also admonish the common People that whenever they recounted any of God's past favours or when they spake of themselves they had in their minds a respect to something future Nay it was necessary they should have particularly and severally interpreted every Prediction of that kind and pointed to the event which it had a respect to for otherwise who could be so subtil as between two not much differing events to discern which of 'em was designed in the Prediction But the first of these having been confuted by Mr. Dodwell we must necessarily admit the latter and say that there remained among the Jews in Christ's time several traditions concerning the sense of Prophecies handed down from the Prophets themselves The reason why they did not commit those traditions to writing I confess I do not clearly see but it does not follow from thence that there were no such unwritten Doctrines Nor do I deny but that this way of teaching had its inconveniences and that some false opinions might creep in amongst the true traditions but our enquiry is not what would be most convenient or what we our selves should have done but what was done which is the only thing to be considered in searching into Antiquities 3 dly The same we must think of the types and of typical Predictions for no body that was not first warn'd could ever understand those things that were done or which came to pass to have been representations of things future 4 thly Unless these things be so all the use of those typical Predictions must have been confin'd to those to whom they were explained after the event which how small that is appears from what we have cited out of Mr. Dodwell at the 2 d vers And not to repeat what has been said by him I might at least gather from hence that no Arguments could be brought from that sort of Predictions to convince Infidels by and whatever weight they had among Christians it was intirely owing to the Authority of the Apostles and not to the Evidence of the Arguments For it is manifest to all that understand Hebrew that the Prophet speaks concerning Israel and that he should speaking of their going out of Egypt have had a respect to Christ's return into Judaea would have been impossible for us to know without a Revelation And therefore we must be oblig'd to say that the Prophets left their Disciples a Key q. e. by which to unlock their Predictions which would otherwise have been shut up out of every body's view And had not this been so it is certain the Jews could never have grounded their expectations of a Messias upon some places in the Prophets out of which no such matter could be fetch'd by the mere assistance of Grammar nor would the Apostles have cited them as making for their purpose For both the former had made themselves ridiculous if they had neglected the grammatical sense and recurred without any other reason than their own fancy to a more sublime one and the latter had been but ill Disputants to produce such Passages as might be hiss'd at The Authority of the Apostles ought not here to be objected as that which added strength to their Reasonings for they themselves did not rely upon their own Authority but upon the force of their Arguments You will no where find it said that Prophecies ought so or so to be interpreted because the Apostles who were inspir'd by the Holy Ghost and whose Doctrine God confirm'd by Miracles did in that manner interpret them but this they take every where for granted that they should be so explained as they explain'd them from the receiv'd Opinion amongst the Jews Vers 23. Note l. Many think it strange that the Prophets should here be quoted when no such thing as what is here mentioned can by the help of Grammar be deduc'd from any words of the Prophets for there is no place from whence it can be grammatically gather'd that the Messias was to be called by this name of a Nazarene That which is drawn from the meer similitude between the words Netser and Nezir is harsh and far-fetch'd By what means therefore could this be deduced from the Writings of the Prophets It must be doubtless by an allegorical Interpretation of some place which was vulgarly known in those times but is not now extant And this seems to be the reason why St. Matthew did not produce any one Prophet by name but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets in the plural number as referring rather to some allegorical sense than any Scripture words as Jerom has well observ'd So the Writers of the Apostolical times used to cite a Tradition just as if they were the very words of Scripture as we may see frequently done in the Catholick Epistle of Barnabas Chap. vi and especially where the Discourse is about the Scape-goat He brings us as out of the Scripture these words as they are extant in the antient Version Exspuite in illum omnes pungite imponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius sic in aram ponatur cum ita factum fuerit adducite qui ferat hircum in eremum auferat portet illum in stirpem quae
dicitur rubus cuâ—us fructus in agris adsumus leg adsolemus invenientes c. Spit all upon him and prick him and put scarlet wool about his head and so let him be laid upon the Altar and when you have done that bring some body that may carry the Goat into the wilderness and take him away and bear him to a plant call'd a Black-berry bush the fruit of which we also us'd finding it in the fields c. See also what H. Grotius has upon Matth. xxvii 9 Just so Philo p. 5. de mundi opificio cites these for the words Of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That the invisible and intelligible reason and the reason of God was the image of God and the image of this was that intelligible light which was the image of the divine reason c. But this is no where to be found in Moses And this is a common practice with him That God might deprive the Jews of all pretence for unbelief he would have all those things accomplish'd in Christ which the Jews thought were to be fulfil'd in their Messias which were not contrary to the end for which he sent Jesus into the world viz. the Reformation of Mankind and the making of them happy whether they were allegorically understood from the Scripture or had their rise from somewhat else besides it Thus because the Jews interpreted the lxix Psal 22. of the Messias Jesus knowing that they would give him Vinegar to drink if he said he thirsted said accordingly he thirsted After this Jesus knowing that all things were accomplish'd that the Scripture might be fulfilled said I thirst c. Joh. xix 28 And so likewise at other times he took the occasion of fulfilling certain other Prophecies that otherwise were of no such great moment in themselves which the Apostles have studiously observ'd See afterwards chap. iv 14 CHAP. III. Vers 2. Note c. IMmediately after that Citat Tellus confracta peribit To the Collections that learned men have made that they might shew the meaning of Isaiah to be only that John was to prepare the way for Christ these Verses may be added out of Ovid. lib. 2. Amor. Eleg. xvi At vos qua veniet tumidi subsidite montes Et faciles curvis vallibus este viae The Poet here wishes his Mistress a commodious Passage and expresses his desire by Metaphors taken from what uses sometimes to be done upon the approach of Princes Ibid. at the end of that Note 'T is a mistake in our Author when he says that the Hebrew Judges were so denominated from their inflicting of Punishments i. e. from the most hateful part of their office They were called so from their judging or determining of Strifes between the Jews as appears both by the History of Samuel and also of the other Judges This is the proper signification of the word Judge which has nothing in it to provoke spite or ill-will and from which this term of their Office is more likely to have been deriv'd This needs no ampler proof and nothing could have led our very learned Author into such a mistake but only his earnest desire to illustrate the Subject he was upon by too great a plenty of Examples as his usual custom is Vers 4. Note e. We may add to what Dr. Hammond has here observ'd these Verses of Ovid. Fast iv where he is describing how the first men that spent their days in the Woods liv'd Et modo carpebant vivaci cespite gramen Nunc epulae tenera fronde cacumen erant And a little after Pomaque in teneris aurea mella favis Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 1. relates out of Hellanicus that the most Northern Peoople eat of the tops of trees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interrogation has the force of a Negation for St. John's meaning is this You have not been taught by any body that by my Baptism merely without Repentance you shall avoid the Destruction that hangs over you therefore repent c. Such another Interrogation the Leâ—rned think to be that in Mic. v. 2 which St. Matthew has express'd by a Negation chap. ii 6 See Grotius upon the place Of the same kind is that Interrogation in Virgil Nam quis te juvenum confidentissime nostras Jussit adire domos i. e. no body order'd you but you came of your own accord See Isa i. 11 12. I make this brief Remark not for any difficulty there was in the thing but because our Author has not express'd the negative force of the Interrogation in his Paraphrase and no body else that I know of has taken notice of it Vers 11. Note g. Those that know how very antient the Custom was of purifying by Fire and Water amongst the Heathens will hardly give their consent to what Dr. Hammond here says about the Devil 's imitating the Baptism of John and Christ See what Joh. Lomeiâ—rus de lustrationibus has collected with relation to this matter Cap. xx There being an evident and experienc'd aptitude in Fire and Water to purge away filth it is no wonder that they were by many Nations made Emblems of the purifying of the mind Ibid. Note h. What our Author says here is true but raking together all that seem'd to countenance or support his Opinion he has alledg'd a place out of Luc. xxii 27 that makes nothing to his purpose for Christ's meaning is not that he conversed with his Disciples in the quality of a Disciple but that tho he was their Lord yet he had chosen rather to minister to them than to exact any thing from them in an authoritative way See that place Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Palea Straw is not here intended for that serves for many uses and is never burnt but it is the Husk or that which the Grains of Corn are wrapt up in and the beards or fragments of the ears which by the Greeks are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a husk is the name of that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We meet with it in a Verse of Homer Iliad E. 499. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the wind carries the husks in the sacred floors when men are fanning and when yellow Ceres separates the winds violently rushing in the fruit from the husks whilst the places made to receive the husks wax white The manner of fanning amongst the Greeks is described by Xenophon in Oeconom pag. 863. Edit Wechel where we meet with this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several times both for the straw of Corn and for a husk But the Septuagint distinguish them in Isa xvii 13 where they call the husk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small dust of the straw Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am apt to think there was a
parting of the Clouds and then that a light shone very high out of the Sky as it was in the Gospel of the Nazarenes concerning which matter consult Grotius Plutarch has somewhere this Saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be understood but of a cleaving of the Clouds by their retiring hither and thither CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is here related may more easily be conceived to have happened to Christ in a Vision or Dream than really It looks methinks very odd that an Evil Spirit should be permitted to have such a power over our most holy Saviour as to carry him through the Air and then that prospect of the Kingdoms of the whole World could no more be shewn from a Mountain than upon a Plain for what is there to be seen from a Mountain besides Woods Fields Rivers Villages Towns and the like and those only afar off But these things do not use to be stiled in any Language the Kingdoms of the world and the glory of them That which we call the glory of Kingdoms is rather the splendor of a King which consists partly in his splendid Attire partly in his Guards or Attendents and partly in his costly Edifices and other things of that nature So the glory of a Kingdom is taken 2 Chron. ix 25 where Solomon is the subject of the Discourse as afterwards here in St. Matthew chap. vi 29 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used See also Rev. xxi 25 26. Now it 's true in a Dream the most powerful Kings of the Earth with all their glory might be shewn to Christ in a moment of time as S. Luke says these things were but not if he were awake or from a mountain The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore may be interpreted here as St. Luke does that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Spirit i. e. in a Vision as Rev. i. 10 And so Ezekiel declares himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch ii 2 iii. 12 when being in a Vision he thought the Spirit took him up And chap. xl 2 we find the same person again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he fancy'd caught up into a high mountain And so likewise St. John Rev. xxi 10 But however by this Vision Christ might learn that his Life would not be without Temptations and that he must do really what he seemed to himself to do in a Dream i. e. strive against Unbelief and Ambition Ibid. Note a. As Satan in Hebrew so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek imports a Hater for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify to calumniate but also to hate and to this latter signification the Septuagint seem to have had a respect when they rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Hebrew word signifies to oppose or hate but never to calumniate Of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I mentioned we may see an example out of Strabo in Casaubon's Notes upon p. 545. lib. xviii where he observes that it frequently occurs in the same signification in Philostratus In that sense 1 Mac. i. 38 Antiochus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonimous of which see Grotius upon 2 Thess ii 4 Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the glory and riches which he saw lying in the vast tracts of the earth So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Jews signifies glory and wealth See what I have observed upon Gen. xxxi 1 Apollo in Ovid is represented speaking thus to Phaeton whilst he was looking down from the palace of the Sun upon the Earth Metam l. 2 Quidquid habet dives circumspice mundus Eque tot ac tantis coeli terraeque marisque Posce bonis aliquid nullam patiere repulsam Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Notes upon Chap. ii 23 H. Grotius has observed upon Jam. chap. ii 23 that it was common for the Hebrews to say that such or such a place of Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or was fulfilled whenever any thing came to pass resembling what was mentioned in that place But he gives us no example of it and therefore I shall produce one out of R. Salomon upon Gen. xi 8 where at the words the Lord scattered them abroad he makes this remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As they had said lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth so that Saying of Solomon was verified concerning them What he is afraid of shall come upon him And this way of speaking the Greeks also themselves used upon a like occasion Aelian lib. iii. c. 29. has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Diogenes Sinopensis used continually to be saying that he fulfilled and underwent all the curses of Tragedy for he was a vagabond and had no home c. i. e. that one might see something in his condition resembling that which the Players in Tragedy used to wish when they were in a rage to others So likewise Olympiodorus in the Life of Plato applies to him a Verse out of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As he was lying all along a swarm of bees came and filled his mouth with honey-combs that so that Saying of Homer might prove true of him From whose tongue proceeded a sound sweeter than honey Vers 15. Note e. Our Author should rather have said that several Nations dwelt in this Coast than round about it For there were several Nations that dwelt also round about the rest of Judea We shall be most likely therefore to find out the reason of this Appellation by what Strabo says about the northern parts of Judea lib. xvi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now these Countries lie towards the North and each of them are mostly inhabited by a mixt sort of People made up of Egyptians Arabians and Phaenicians CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note a. THis same History and these very Discourses of Christ are related by St. Luke chap. vi but much more compendiously and not so distinctly whence we may perceive that the Evangelists have not reported the very words of Christ but only the sense of what he said according as their own or others memory suggested it to them And this may teach us that the sense is that which we should principally look to and that we ought not to anatomize or insist too nicely upon every single word Otherwise we shall hardly make the Evangelists to agree with one another As for instance Christ says here in St. Matthew vers 3. blessed are the poor in Spirit but in St. Luke this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting Now if we take these words of St. Matthew in the finest and nicest sense Christ will be found to speak here not of those that are destitute of riches but those who in what condition soever they be are not too
much puff'd up in their minds On the other hand St. Luke's words do not properly import humble-minded persons but persons of mean estate The like we may observe concerning the 6 th verse and abundance of other places in which the Evangelists report the same thing with some variation Vers 8. Note c. That in these words the pure in heart have a blessedness conferred upon them is plain enough but what that blessedness is is not so clear Of old the Jews as well as the Heathens thought they might sometimes have a sight of the Gods By the Gods I do not mean the very divine Nature but corporal Shapes assumed by Angels Yea and so the most high God himself if it was not rather an Angel called by his name that appear'd to the Israelites gave notice of his presence by a cloud or by fire which form the Jews called by the name of God as appears from the Pentateuch They had a conceit also that if any one should see those forms against the will of the Gods they would certainly die or lose their sight See my notes upon Gen. xvi 13 And therefore whoever was admitted by any God to an interview with him was look'd upon to be his special favourite as the Holy Scripture informs us concerning Moses who went near to the Cloud in which the Angel had wrapt himself and talked with him Hence this phrase to see God was used to express some great happiness even amongst the Gentiles which gave occasion to those Verses in Virgil Ille Deûm vitam adspiciet divisque videbit Permistos Heroas ipse videbitur illis and those in Ovid Felices illi qui non simulachra sed ipsos Quique Deûm coram corpora vera vident Add to this that because God was thought not only by the Hebrews but also by most Heathen Nations to have his Habitation in a peculiar manner in Heaven and Heaven was esteemed the seat of blessedness therefore to see God and to be in the seat of supreme happiness came at last to signify one and the same thing And hence it is said of the Saints Heb. xii 14 that they shall see the Lord and 1 Cor. xiii 12 face to face i. e. like Moses they shall be permitted to have an access to the Light it self by which God manifests his presence in Heaven and because they are to see him as he is they shall also as Moses whose countenance was made to shine become like to God 1 Joh. iii. 2 From this it appears that if there be any solidity in what the Schoolmen say about the beatisick vision they must deduce it from metaphysical reasonings and not out of these places of Scripture Vers 17. Note g. The Law being here spoken of I should rather think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand the most simple or that which we commonly call the Grammatical or Literal sense of the Law in which respect there are innumerable external rites enjoined in it and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant the mind of the Lawgiver lying hid under those symbolical Precepts Aristotle in Lib. de repâ—â— often uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for written laws in opposition to the will of the Governour or the interpretation that he puts upon them So Lib. 2. ch 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not the best way to pass sentence according to our own will and pleasure but by the written Statute and Laws And Lib. 3. c. 15. after he had said that the Law speaks of things but in general terms without accommodating it self to particular cases he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is a foolish thing for a Governour to follow strictly the written law and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not the best way of administring a Commonwealth to keep close to the Letter and the Laws So also Cicero opposes the letter of the Law to the intention of the Law-maker Lib. 1. de Inventione cap. 38. Omnes leges ad commodum Reipublicae referre oportet eas ex utilitate communi non ex scriptione quae in literis est interpretari All Laws ought to be directed to the benefit of the State and have such a construction put upon them as the publick interest requires without sticking too close to the letters in which they are written See likewise Lib. 2. cap. 48. And under this consideration the Laws of Moses are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. when they are understood in a Grammatical sense and are opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the design of God in enacting them The word Spirit is used in Scripture to signify any thing that is out of sight in contradistinction to what is apparent and conspicuous as the letters are of the Law But this may be more clearly demonstrated in its due place Vers 18. Note i. Ludovicus Cappellus in Arcano punct Lib. 2. Cap. 14. has said enough about this place and if we consult him and join what Dr. Hammond and he have observed together we shall have as complete a Commentary upon this place as can be desired Christ's meaning is that none no not the least moral precept which did not peculiarly respect the Jews as a Commonwealth but was fitted to all men and all Ages and Places of which kind there were many in the Law should ever be abrogated by God 'T is as if he had said that he would be so far from licensing Men to break any of that sort of Precepts that he would require an exact performance of the very least of them As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an abolishing of a Law so a Law is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continues in its full force and obligation And therefore the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify until all be fulfilled but but all its precepts shall be still obliging for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius has observed has here the force of an Adversative Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase partly makes Christ to speak himself directly and partly insinuates and intermixes his own Remarks with his words But yet I must say that this is harsh and forced as the Doctor 's way of expression no disparagement to his Learning commonly is Besides his Paraphrase upon this period does not make the mind of Christ clear enough which I take to be this 21 22. Ye know that Murder was forbidden by Moses and that this Law of his threatned Death to the Transgressors of it but let me tell you that it is not only those heinous sort of crimes that will be punished by God in another life Whoever shall but indulge his anger and make a custom of carrying himself hastily and morosely to others without reason shall have a punishment inflicted upon him comparable to that capital one to which persons are sentenced by the
found in the ritual Books of the Jews where there are some Prayers so composed as if they thought a particular laying open of their requests necessary to make God understand them On the day before that of the Expiation there are Prayers read wherein in a long series all the kinds of Sins together with the respective Punishments due to them are distinctly enumerated They begin thus Let it please thee O Lord our God and the God of our Fathers to forgive us all our iniquities and pardon all our offences and to purge us from all our sins the sins which we have committed against thee by compulsion and the sins which we have committed against thee voluntarily and of our own accord and the sins which we have committed against thee by uncovering our nakedness c. The whole form as it was taken out of the manuscript Copy was published by Selden de Synedriis lib. 1. c. 12. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates as Xenophon tells us lib. 1. Memor p. 420. Ed. Graecae H. Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayed simply to the Gods that they would bestow good things upon him as knowing themselves best what things were good See what H. Grotius says as to this matter and hence we may conclude that the Heathens did sometimes speak of things more agreeably to the Precepts afterwards given by Christ than many Christians usually do Vers 11. Note f. There is none here but Grotius whose opinion is first laid down by our Author that deserves our regard and the Doctor had done better if he had only endeavour'd to confirm his interpretation Every body knows that the Greeks used the Phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify as well in general the time future as the day immediately ensuing from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to approach or to be at hand So Euripides in his Alcestes v. 171. uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an evil that is future or ready to come to pass So in that place of Solomon Prov. xxvii 1 Boast not thy self of to morrow for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth the Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the time future The meaning of Christ therefore is this Give us every day all the remaining part of our lives as much as may be sufficient for our subsistence Vopiseus has almost such another kind of expression in the Life of Aurelian where he speaks of the loaves that were daily distributed to the People Siligincum suum viz. panem quotidie toto aevo quisque recipiebat posteris suis dimittebat Every one daily received his white loaf as long as he lived and that custom was continued to their posterity Upon this place Salmasius observes out of Chronic. Alexandr that such Loaves were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. such as every one was sure to have during his Life so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify almost the same thing It is likewise truly observed by Grotius that this word comprehends under it both food and raiment i. e. all the necessaries of Life which we pray God we may never want as long as we live Our Author makes it to relate also to the mind or soul but without any necessity for those things which concern the Soul are contained in the foregoing verses In Solomon Prov. xxx 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not properly signify food convenient for me but my allowance or proportion of it 'T is an allusion of the Writer of Proverbs to the custom of those who gave daily to their Servants or others a certain allowance which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhok i. e. as if one should say appointed food See my Notes upon Gen. xlvii 22 Wherefore altho if we consider the thing it self the translating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our proportion of bread may not be much amiss as J. Mercerus upon the Proverbs has observed yet the just force of the Greek word will be far from being thereby expressed Vers 16. Note h. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make any thing become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the contrary of both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bright or shining and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspicuous And hence the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a twofold signification according as it is either opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make bright or to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make conspicuous To begin with the latter a thing becomes inconspicuous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is either quite destroyed or else carried to another place or covered for which sense there seems here to be no room as has been well observed by the Doctor In the former sense of the word a thing is said to lose its brightness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is some how or other defiled Thus the countenance when the face is washed and anointed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shines and when instead of using oil to make it shine we disfigure it with Ashes or Dust then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pollute to defile But the Grammarians observe the signification of polluting to have been more late and that of taking out of sight to be the older of the two Etymol Magn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used by the Antients for to pollute as it is now but for to render wholly inconspicuous Concerning the antient use also of this word Suidas must be thought to speak when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not signify to defile and pollute but to take quite away and out of sight But of this later signification of Greek words discerned by the other which properly belongs to them there are abundance of instances in the New Testament amongst which the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be reckoned one Of this notion of the word the Doctor has given us several examples and one out of Nicostratus whose words he ought to have set down at their full length for he understands them in a sense quite contrary to the intention of the Author He is speaking concerning Women that had too great a passion for Ornaments and brings reasons to disswade and reclaim them from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Far be it from a healthful woman to think she has any need of white paint or red to put under her eyes or any other colour in order to daub and pollute the face not to make it more beautiful for that is against the Writer's design and contrary to what this Verb constantly signifies And that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Christ in the sense of polluting and denotes a purposed endeavour to deform the face is manifest from the manner of the opposition When ye fast be not as the Hypocrites of a sad
countenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may appear unto men to fast but thou when thou fastest anoint thine head and wash thy face It is as plain as the Sun at Noon-day that an anointed head and washed face is opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a dirty unwashed face and one that is not anointed such as theirs used to be who fasted in sackcloth and ashes About anointing the face with oil in order to make it the more shining see Psalm civ 15. and what Interpreters say upon that place But this used to be neglected by Mourners as appears from 2 Sam. xii 20 So that tho what Dr. Hammond says upon this place contains a great many learned things in it and is worth our reading yet he has certainly miss'd the scope of it Vers 22. Note l. Our learned Author is mistaken in the sense he puts upon the words of Hesychius for that which that Grammarian speaks of is the soundness of the body See my Notes upon Levit. xxi 17 It is most true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies liberal but that Virtue as on the contrary an envious and sordid way of giving or also a denying any charitable assistance is imputed to the eye because there is a mighty discernible difference between the looks of a man that gives chearfully and willingly and one that either belies himself in saying he has nothing to give or else gives but sparingly and unwillingly It would be needless to go about to confirm what is plain from the Testimonies of the Antients I shall only observe that oculos dolere was a Latin Phrase applyed to a person who could not without regret behold what another possessed because that Passion chiefly discovers it self in the eyes See Plautus Asinar Act. v. Scen. 1. v. 4. and upon that place Fr. Taubmannus Vers 27. after the words proportionable stature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and Quadratus in Latin does not signify as broad as high which is absurd but a just Stature Consult Constant Lexic CHAP. VII Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius tells us is after the manner of the Hellenists i. e. of the Jews who spake Greek not so correctly as they should have done and produces Examples of it But Salmasius in the Epist Dedic to his Commentar de Hellenist says that he elsewhere proves it to be Alexandrian Where this proof is I cannot tell but it is enough to justify its being called a Hellenism if it be but improper Greek and has something discernible of a Hebraism in it The Hebrews use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which it is no wonder if he that interpreted S. Matthew imitated Now the reason why the Gate that leads to Happiness is said by Christ to be straight is because as men live it lets in but few The same similitude is made use of to intimate this to us by Cebes in his Table where we find these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you see also a certain little gate and a path before that gate which is not much frequented but trodden only by a very few as seeming to be unpassable rugged and uneven And he that was asked making answer that he did see it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This he said was that way that leads to true Learning Vers 23. Note d. Our Author is here mistaken for in all the best Greek Writers there is nothing more common than this Phrase which is a form of turning the Discourse that was before indirect into a direct one or of mixing both those ways of speaking together and it makes the sense to be no other than if all the Sentence was indirectly spoken I will profess to them that I never knew them and will bid all that work Iniquity to depart from me And this way of confounding a direct and indirect Speech together tho it seems I know not how to have something that looks careless in it yet it expresses the thing more to the life than any other way would do There is an instance of this in Theophrastus Charact. cap. iii. de Adulatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As he was on his way to a certain Friend of his the Flatterer overtook him and told him his Friend was coming to him and then returning back I have given him says he notice beforehand of your coming Such Examples as these we may in our reading every where meet with which makes the bare suggesting of it here to be sufficient CHAP. VIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the custom of the Jews says Grotius to give any one they spake to this title yea tho they did not know the person Joh. xx 15 Were it needful I could bring a multitude of proofs of its having been also the custom of the Romans Seneca Ep. iii. says Obvios si nomen non succurrit dominos salutamus If we meet with any one and cannot just then call to mind his name we give him the title of Sir or Lord. So Martial lib. i. Ep. 113. Cum te non nossem dominum regemque vocabam Cum bene te novi jam mihi Priscus eris I rather think nevertheless that there is something more here meant by it and that the Leper gave our Saviour this title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adoni with a design to honour him tho perhaps so great and famous a Prophet's name might not be unknown to him And so the Romans used also to do Sueton. in Claudio cap. xxi Hortando rogandóque ad hilaritatem homines provocabat dominos identidem appellans He used by caresses and intreaties to excite people to chearfulness calling them every now and then Lords So Seneca Epist civ Illud mihi in ore erat Domini mei Gallionis I had in my mouth that saying of my Lord Gallio So the Hebrews use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Gen. xxxiii 8 and xliv where you may meet with this word several times Vers 4. Note b. Besides the reasons which the learned Dr. Hammond has assigned of Christ's unwillingness to have it divulged that he was the Messias there may be two others given of no small importance The first is that Christ had rather this should be gathered from his works than by his Disciples or his own publishing it because the faith that was hereby begotten in Men would be much the firmer as having the true grounds of a solid faith to rely upon And thus when those that were sent to him by John the Baptist desired of him to be satisfied whether he was that person that was to come he made answer Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see The blind receive their sight c. Matt. xi 4 5. The other is because if his Disciples had openly proclaimed him to be the Messias they would have drawn after them a vast multitude of People
any dishonesty And therefore the old Greek and Latin Copy which contains rather a sort of Paraphrase than as is generally but erroneously supposed the bare words of the Evangelists uses here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most simple And thus also Hesychius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unblameable pure without deceit I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies likewise unhurt but there is no room here for that signification It would be nearer the sense if we took it in the notion that it occurs several times in Dionysius Halicarnassaeus for one that is free from making a party either with the Grandees or the common People and meddles with none of their designs But neither does this notion of the word sute this place There is nothing can be objected against the interpretation I have given of it except that Doves may be said indeed to be harmless but not properly sincere But we must not be too critical about such things as these for otherwise we might say in the same manner that a prudent Nature is not so aptly represented by Serpents as one that is treacherous and hurtful These are proverbial Sayings which must not be over narrowly searched into but we must gather their sense very often from Custom rather than the consideration of the things themselves And of this kind of Sayings we may meet with an infinite number in common Speech Vers 27. Note k. Hither perhaps may be aptly referr'd that Passage in Herodotus lib. 3. cap. 24. where it is said that the Magi or learned Philosophers of the Country who had seized upon the Persian Empire would have obliged Prexaspes by whom Smerdis the Son of Cyrus had been killed to proclaim from a high Tower to the Persians in a full Assembly that Smerdis was in the Throne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saying that they would gather together all the Persians under the wall of the palace they commanded him to go up upon a Tower and proclaim to them that they were governed by Smerdis the Son of Cyrus Vers 29. Note l. Tiberius's Assarium which is that here spoken of is said by Doctor Edward Bernard lib. 2. concerning weights and measures sect 2. to have been equivalent to six English grains of Silver CHAP. XI Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It would seem very strange that our Author in his Paraphrase upon this Verse should deny John to have been a Prophet to whom at the 9 th Verse and often elsewhere he gives that Title were it not plain that either he had no manner of desire to express himself clearly or else if he had that how great soever his other excellencies were Perspicuity was not his Talent When therefore he denies John to have been a Prophet he must mean that compared with the Apostles he was to be look'd upon rather as a Disciple than a Master as he shews in his Note upon the 9 th Verse Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of what ill repute the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were among the Greeks our Author informs us in his Notes upon Chap. ix 10 But there were two sorts of Men at that time in the Roman Empire that might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were some Roman Knights Men of Honour and Credit who were Publicans and farm'd the Customs and are often mention'd with Honour by Cicero especially in his Orations pro lege Manilia and pro Plancio This sort of Publicans do not seem to be referred to in the Gospels and that S. Matthew who is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not of this sort is beyond all doubt but then those Roman Gentlemen did not gather the Customs themselves but by their Servants or Freed-men or by other men of a low rank And these also were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were infamous persons because many times they levied the Taxes and Duties by force and as is common in those cases exacted more than was due See Suidas upon this word Upon this account it was that they had an ill name and especially among the Jews who paid Tribute to the Romans very much against the grain and could not without indignation see their Countrymen employed by the Romans to gather it for them These sort would in Latin be better called Portitores if we should trust the old Latin and Greek Glossary in which Portitor is put to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Portitorium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in that wherein the Greek stands before the Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is render'd by Publicanus Vectigalium conductor Vers 23. Note i. I have some things to observe upon this last Note of the Doctor 's which may serve partly to confute and partly to confirm what he says I. It is true indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not as we shall presently see immediately and properly signify among the Gentiles any place but it is a mistake that it was put to denote the State of the dead if we take the word in its proper signification It is the name of a Deity who was believed to be chief Ruler in Hell and was otherwise stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pluto which every child knows And hence the place where the Souls of the dead were thought to be was usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of Hades As in Homer Odyss Κ. 512. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But do you go into Pluto's dark house and up and down elsewhere And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used as a contraction of the same Phrase as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go down into sub the house of Hades Nevertheless afterwards this word was taken for the place over which Pluto was thought to reign as Iliad Θ. v. 16. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much lower than Hades as heaven is distant from the earth The like Examples we may every where meet with That this place was supposed to be under ground no body needs to be told This is the constant acceptation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Greeks it is either Pluto himself or his Kingdom that is signified by it but never the State of the dead II. But Dr. Hammond produces a place out of Phurnutus or Cornutus where he interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not to say that no sort of Writers can be imagined more impertinent than allegorical Interpreters of Fables that Triflemonger never intended to shew what was the common signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what Idea those had in their minds who heard that word pronounced but what sense might be put upon it that those nauseous Fables might be found to have a meaning in them not perfectly absurd But the signification of a word must be drawn from the sense that it is vulgarly taken in and not from an allegorical
where he mentions these three degrees Exhortationes Castigationes Censura Exhortations and Chastisements and then Censure But if he hear not them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he be still refractory either through non-conviction of the Fact or non-contrition for it if this second Admonition be not in event 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. xiii 10 to Edification or Instruction if it work not on him Then tell it to the Church I shall tell you what that is presently And if he hear not the Church continue his Refractoriness still let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican which may possibly signify that in that case thou hast liberty to implead him as thou wouldst do any Heathen in any foreign Heathen Court for that Injury that Trespass done to thee which was at the first mentioned For certainly though it were unlawful for a Christian both here and 1 Cor. vi 1 to implead a Christian for a personal Trespass before a Heathen Tribunal yet to deal thus with a Heathen or Publican which was in account the same was not either by Christ or the Apostle counted unlawful but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Christian with Christian v. 6. and consequently with a perverse refractory Brother whom you see Christ gives leave to account and deal with as with a Heathen or Publican it would not be unlawful also But another Interpretation I shall not doubt to propose and prefer that by Heathen and Publican may be meant a desperate deplored Sinner such as the Rabbins call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sinner as in the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deplored Sinner Thus in Musar If he will not then i. e. when two or three Friends have been taken to be present at his Admonition be reconciled go and leave him to himself for such an one is implacable and is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom again 't is there said Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecerit i. e. adhibitis amicis if this second Admonition do no good debet eum pudefacere coram multis he must be ashamed before many which may be the meaning of Dic Ecclesiae tell it to the Church as will anon appear by 1 Tim. v. 20 And this interpretation of that Phrase will seem most probable if you mark 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Publicans and Sinners are frequently joyned together in the Gospel as once Publicans and Harlots those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinner-women 2. That the Heathen are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sinners as when 't is said that Christ was by the Jews delivered into the hands of Sinners i. e. Romans Heathen and in St. Paul not Sinners of the Gentiles and then those words let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican will sound no more but give him over as a desperate deplored Sinner to whom those Privileges of a Christian viz. of not being impleaded before an Heathen Tribunal c. do not belong i. e. leave him to himself This sure is the simplest rendring of the place and then he that is such that is capable of that Denomination is certainly sit and ripe for the Censures of the Church which follow in the next Verse and are appointed to go out against this refractory incorrigible For so immediately it follows Verily I say unto you who are those you Why 1. In the plural Number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you Disciples the same that were after made Apostles for so in the first verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Disciples came to him with a question and v. 3. he said verily I say to you i. e. to you Disciples and ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do you think asking the Disciples or appealing to their own judgment and so still the same Auditors continued and his Speech addrest to them I say unto you Disciples whatsoever you shall bind on earth c. After this it follows ver 19. again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth c. Many false illations are by men of different perswasions made from these words which will all vanish I conceive and the truth be disinvolv'd if the Reader will not despise this one observation which I shall offer to him and it is this that the method oft-times used in Scripture is when it hath proposed one or two severals to speak of to resume the last first and so orderly to go back till it come to the first to which you may accommodate that expression and description of God's method in other things Many that are last are first the last in proposing first in handling or resuming and the first last Other Examples of this Observation I shall leave the Reader to observe when he reads the Scripture more ponderingly and only proceed to help him to take notice of it in the point in hand Three cases it is apparent are here mention'd orderly by our Saviour in the matter of trespass 1. Telling the Trespasser of his fault between him and thee alone 2. Taking one or two with thee to do it more convincingly and with greater Authority 3. Telling the Church of it Having said somewhat to each of these as he delivered them in the three first Verses 15 16 17. he resumes the matter again and speaks first to the last of them ver 18. telling them what after the not succeeding of the third admonition the Apostles and their Successors are to do when the cognizance of this injury and contumacy comes before them which that in every case of trespass it always should I conceive doth not hence appear to be necessary save only in case that the Magistrate or secular Tribunal be Heathen because that Supposition may perhaps be the ground of the sit tibi Ethnicus on which this other is superstructed viz. excommunicate such a Refractory till reformation and then upon that absolve him again and verily I say unto you whatsoever you shall bind on earth c. From this view it is not irrational to conclude that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church and the Disciples considered prophetically under the notion of Apostles i. e. Founders first then Governours of Churches may in that place signify the same thing So saith St. Chrysostom in Mat. Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tell it to the Church i. e. to the President and Rulers of it and Theoph. in Matt. xviii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Church for the Rulers of the Church To which purpose it is observable what Kimchi a Jewish learned Rabbi hath affirmed that the Governours and Rulers are oft meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Congregation and so the word People Exod. iv 29 doth clearly signify the Elders not all the People Exod. iii. 16 Agreeable to which is the
men by the exercise of his infinite power but because in order to that end he for the most part makes use of Laws Threatnings Promises and such other means he could not possibly have acted otherwise than he did when no Laws could prove effectual to reform the Jews as to this point of the hardness of their hearts He would not therefore require of them what he knew they would never do And this was partly the reason that Solon went upon when he reformed the severe Laws made by Draco as Plutarch in his Life tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that makes Laws must consider the possibility of their being observed if he intends to punish but a few and do good by it and not a great many to no purpose Vers 12. Note a. The place in Aristophanes is in Nub. p. 151. Edit Genev. and needs no Correction no more than S. Matthew did this Rapsody to explain his meaning occasioned by a foolish Etymology of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 24. Note c. lin 10. after the words hole of a needle These words are in Berachoth fol. 55.2 and the foregoing in Babametsia fol. 38.2 as they are rightly cited by J. Buxtorf in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. Lightfoot in h. l. Ibid. at the end of that Note Bochart has treated much more accurately concerning this Proverb in Hieroz Part. 1. l. 11. c. 5. We may learn from him in opposition to what the Doctor thought 1. That there was no need of Christs changing the Elephant into a Camel as the Beast which was most known since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Jews who used the Greek Language might signify a Cable as well as a Camel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Arabians and Syrians signifying both 2. That it was as common with the Jews when they spake of a difficult thing to say that the performing it was like making a Cable to pass through a narrow hole I cannot also but wonder why the Doctor makes Phavorinus the Author of that Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Cable when Phavorinus quotes Theophylact who was much older than himself to the same purpose and without doubt followed him in that Interpretation of it The word Cable as Bochart and others have observed came rather from the Phoenician word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chebel which signifies a rope To conclude we must be cautious how we correct Hesychius in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said to be any part of a ship tho the place where the fire is kindled may fitly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides Phavorinus has both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct whence it appears he did not borrow from Hesychius what he says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note d. It is indeed truly observed by the Doctor that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or regeneration here spoken of is not like that of the Pythagoreans but he might have added that it was of a nearer similitude with that of the Stoicks and that the Stoick Philosophers were the first that used this word to express the Restoration of the World after the burning of it Tho in the circumstances they differ very much in their opinion from the Christians yet in the general they agree as to this that the World shall be first consumed by Fire and then afterwards restored and the Christian Writers who knew the thing more certainly and came another way by their knowledg seem to have borrowed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense from them Philo in his book de Incorruptibilitate mundi p. 728. Ed. Genev. after he had spoken of the conflagration of the World proceeds thus in giving an account of the Stoicks opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which the Stoicks say that there shall be another regeneration of the World brought about by the Providence of its Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now according to these mens opinion it may be said that there is one World which is eternal and another which is corruptible the corruptible one so called because of its Constitution the eternal one that which after its Conflagration will by the perpetual REGENERATIONS and Revolutions of it be render'd immortal And often in that book he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense So Marcus Antoninus Lib. xi Sect. 1. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it perfectly comprehends viz. human Reason the periodical regeneration of all things So Eusebius Praep. Evan. Lib. xv c. 19. shews out of Boethus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Stoicks think about the Regeneration of all things And so likewise others speak of this opinion which puts it out of all doubt that this word was borrowed from the Stoicks who had a great many more of the same kind peculiar to their Sect. Seneca in his Nat. Quaestion Lib. iii. c. ult saith Omne EX INTEGRO animal GENERABITUR dabiturque terris homo inscius scelerum melioribus auspiciis natus Every living creature shall be regenerated and the earth shall have men to inhabit it that shall not know what it is to be vicious and whose birth shall be attended with better tokens About the opinion it self see Just Lipsius Phys Stoicae Lib. ii c. 22. But to pass over this we must observe that tho in some sort the regeneration of Mankind is begun by the preaching of the Gospel yet what is here said cannot in any wise be understood of that initial regeneration for in what sense can the Apostles be said to have sat upon twelve thrones and judged the twelve tribes upon earth And therefore most of the Fathers St. Austin himself not excepted understand the words of Christ of the time after the Resurrection See the Passages which Suicer has collected under this word in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus I wish our Author had warranted by sufficient testimonies what he says in concurrence with Grotius about the authority of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or heads of the tribes among the Jews For tho it be evident from the i ii and vii c. Chapters of Num. that there were such Persons in the Camp of the Jews in the time of Moses as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we find afterwards no mention made of them nor were the heads of the tribes Judges in the Apostles time I rather think that when Christ spake of twelve Thrones he had no regard at all to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but only to the number of the Apostles and that he did not assign each man his own Tribe but made them every one Rulers over them all And that expression of the Thrones I rather think to be an allusion to the Seats of the Sanhedrim the Council of 72 Men who were the chief Judges in Israel than to the Seats of
the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about which the Scripture is wholly silent It is a very unhappy thing that great men do often take things that are doubtful for known and certain and use them as confirmations of what they say for from uncertainties nothing but uncertainties can be concluded and no man is obliged to believe what another says meerly because he says it Vers 29. Note e. Of such fruitfulness as this see my Notes upon Gen. xli 7 CHAP. XX. Vers 15. Note b. I Do not at all doubt but that Christ often made use of Proverbs and Phrases borrowed from the common way of speaking amongst the Jews as learned men and in particular Dr. Lightfoot has shewn but that he borrowed whole parables or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entire discourses I can by no means think It does not seem to be the part of an inspired Teacher to propose to his hearers Parables that were vulgarly used for his own And indeed it does not appear that any body used them before Christ's time for those which are alledged out of the Talmudical or other Jewish Writers were all written some ages after Christ's birth As for instance this Parable of the Housholder and the Labourers which is extant in the Jerusalem Gemara was written an age and a half at least after the Destruction of the Temple And this being so it seems to me a great deal more probable that the Author of the Jerusalem Gemara or whoever it is that is there represented as using this Parable did it in imitation of Christ than that he owed it to any antient tradition The same I say of many others as of that which learned Men produce upon Matt. xviii 17 out of the book Musar and of another Parable like that which we have afterwards in Chap. xxv 1 seqq Or if this conjecture be not approved it would not be perhaps absurd if one should say that sometimes the Jews happened upon the same thoughts with Christ just as we see the Heathen Writers who undoubtedly never read the Scripture did by accident sometimes say much the same things I had rather say so than imagin Christ just like a Rabbi repeating what he had learned from his Masters as if he had not been self taught Let this suffice for what may be said upon this and other the like places in our Author It must be observed here besides by the way that the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not rightly translated by the Doctor he hath received his hire in peace but ought to be render'd he received his whole hire He seems in his haste to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bschalom tho that has no sense in it here Vers 16. Note c. In this long Annotation wherein the Doctor has taken so much pains there are several things fit to be approved of and others that may with good reason be found fault with especially in the first part of it I shall without making any reflection upon so great a man set down those things which seem to need correction I. If it were his design to express and accurately distinguish the proper and figurative significations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he should have begun with the proper signification of the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to call any person by name with a design to speak to him or admonish him of any thing or to obtain something of him Hence by a figure it was used to signify several things For instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to invite to a feast because he that is so invited is called upon by name which there was no need of proving nothing being in all Writers more common And hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put to signify one that is called to a feast as in Homer Odyss p. vers 386. II. The Doctor had not look'd into that place in 1 King i. 41 49. where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called are manifestly those that were invited to a feast See v. 9. of that Chapter Read but the place and you will see that nothing can be more foreign to the sense of it than to interpret the called there to be the Adonijans or those that adhered to Adonijah when the discourse is about Guests and the Hebrew Language will not bear to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the invited that were present with Adonijah understood of such as were called by his name as being of his side or party 'T is a mistake also that those who are stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 2 Sam. xv 11 ought to be understood to be any other than they commonly are They were Absalom's friends whom he called as to a Feast which as he said he was about to make in Hebron at the time that he paid his pretended vow and yet they had no share in his Conspiracy for it is expresly denied by the sacred Writer nor could they be called Absalomians By this it appears that the Observation which Dr. Hammond hereupon makes is vain III. In that place of Aristotle near the end of lib. ii of his Oeconomicks there is no connexion between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these are the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observed all the Governours Satrapae who were expected viz. to come to Babylon and the Soldiers and not a few Embassadors and Artificers leading others that were sent for These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem to have been Fidlers or any other sort of Musicians who carried others along with them to Babylon in order to make a Consort for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that is sent for or chosen out by name So Homer Iliad 1. v. 165. calls the Embassadors which were chosen out of the Captains and sent by Agamemnon to Achilles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as Eustathius interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pitched upon by name or as the Scholiast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IV. The Septuagint cannot be justified from the charge of having barbarously and improperly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since not only the thing it self but Grammar shews that it is a holy Convocation that is there spoken of See my Notes on Exod. xii 16 Their design as it should seem was to say that the days upon which holy Assemblies were kept were called holy days which is indeed true but the place was improper for it and they expressed themselves contrary to the Rules of Grammar for to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is intolerable However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this word signifies called not renowned Nevertheless to speak freely it may perhaps be imagined that where we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must suppose the Substantives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is certainly the meaning of Moses whose words the Doctor manifestly strains A festival day was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there was a holy Convocation or solemn Assembly of the People kept on that day V. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Numb i. 16 are those that were chosen or called by name out of the Congregation The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in chap. xvi v. 2. of the same Book are the called together of the Assembly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the called out of the Assembly or to the Assembly In the former place the Septuagint have and that rightly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were called to the Council and in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to the same sense So Xerxes in Herodotus takes counsel about his flight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Persians called together about him VI. I admire that our learned Author whilst he was inquiring into the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament had no regard almost to its primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which often occurs in the Septuagint and is frequently made use of in the books of the Prophets to signify what God did when he called the People of the Jews to the knowledg of himself See Isa xliii 1 and xlv 3 4. In the same Prophet we might have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense if the Septuagint had pleased Chap. xlviii 12 Hearken unto me O Jacob and thou Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mkoraï my called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is taken for the Exhortation of the Prophets calling the People to the Worship of God Jerem. xxxi 6 And this is the sense in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in the New Testament nor does the difference of Circumstances make any change at all in their signification as appears by what the Doctor has said who is but too curious and accurate in discussing the places where they are found Several of them might from the Signification I have here given be more grammatically and simply interpreted VII I am ready to believe that this Phrase Many are called but few are chosen is a proverbial form of Speech as Grotius remarks which alludes to that more sublime sense in which the words Calling and Election are used in the New Testament but has another different original which if I am not mistaken in my conjecture is from the way of mustering and choosing Soldiers when all that were fit to carry Arms were ordered to present themselves upon such a certain day and so were called to some particular place where when more had met than were necessary to carry on the War they were going to be engaged in the most valiant only were chosen So that there were many called and few chosen Thus when Gideon Judg. vii had called or summoned together many to repulse the Midianites who made War with the People of the Jews there were but few chosen to perform that Service See also Josh viii 3 And so likewise Christ Luk. vi 13 called unto him his Disciples which were many and out of them he chose twelve whom also he named Apostles The meaning therefore of this Proverb Many are called and few are chosen is this that among many that undertake the same thing there are few that excel and deserve to be preferred before others And this sense very well agrees with the scope of the Parable that Christ makes use of which is that there are but a very few of those that believe who are worthy of an extraordinary reward Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpreters here justly insist upon the force of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes a Substitution whereby Christ died not only for our good but in our place or stead And so the Heathens in a matter of this nature understood that Particle Thus Alcestis saith in Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I honouring you and substituting your seeing this light in the room of my life die when I might refuse to die for you And Ovid. de Art Amand. lib. 3. speaking of the same Woman says Fata Pheretiadae conjux Pegasaea redemit Proque viri est uxor funere lata sui The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has also the same signification as appears by the last Verse of that passage of Euripides The Heathens in those first Ages and not only then but also in latter times thought that any one might escape Death if another put himself into his place Aristides who was of the same Age almost with the Emperor Adrian tells us in V. Sacrarum that when he was dangerously sick he was admonish'd by an Oracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Philumena one that was nursed with the same Milk gave Life for Life and Body for Body her 's for his See more Examples to this purpose in Isaac Casaubon upon Suetonius's Caligula cap. xiv and Spartianus's Adrian upon which consult also Salmasius Such Persons as these were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word often us'd by Ignatius in his Epistles concerning which read Dr. Pearson's Vindiciae Part 2. cap. xv Vers 29. Note d. It were to be wish'd that Dr. Hammond as well as others who quote that Greek and Latin Manuscript had given us also the Latin Version out of it or rather that it were published entire But in the mean time the more I consider the various readings of that Manuscript as they are set down both in many places of Beza and in the Oxford Edit of the New Testament the more I am confirmed in the Opinion which I have sometime since made learned Men the Judges of viz. that that Manuscript does not so much contain the words of the Evangelists as of some Paraphrast who now and then fills up what he thought was wanting and where the Greek was not good mended the Language and all that will but examine it with a particular care will be of the same Opinion The Paraphrase of Epictetus's Enchiridion published by Meric Casaubon is much such another in which there are most of Epictetus's words set down but often in a different order and with several Enlargements And therefore I disagree with the Doctor in his suspecting that St. Matthew ought to be supplied out of that one Manuscript which all the rest contradict it being more probable that that Addition is taken out of St. Luke tho with some Alterations But I say again that it were to be wished that that Copy were published entire and those who keep up such things to be burnt by the next Fire are not to be commended Since the writing of this I have happened to see some new Annotations upon the New Testament made by R. Simon who is of the
same Opinion with me viz. that this Copy of Beza is nothing but a Composition made out of the four Gospels compared with one another And this same Addition which Dr. Hammond mentions he found also in those antient Manuscripts which have the Latin Version as it was before it was corrected by S. Jerom. He tells us Part 1. c. 2. that he had read these words in the Latin Manuscript of the four Gospels which is extant in the Jesuits Library at Paris Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere de majore minores esse Intrantes autem rogati ad coenam nolite discumbere in locis eminentioribus ne forte clarior te superveniat accedens qui ad coenam vocavit te dicat tibi adhuc deorsum accede confundaris Si autem in loco inferiori discubueris superveniat humilior dicet tibi qui ad coenam vocavit accede sursum erit tibi hoc utilius The same he tells us Part 2. c. 21. there is in another Copy in the Colbertine Library and likewise in the King's MS. and some others of which he treats CHAP. XXI Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author understands this rightly of the Colt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is improperly put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See what I have said upon this place in my Ars Critica Part 2. Sect. 1. cap. 10. Vers 9. Note a. About the custom of carrying Boughs see my Notes upon Levit. xxiii 40 I cannot readily agree with the Doctor in what he says about the typical signification of the Feast of Tabernacles All the ground that he has for that Conjecture is only S. John's making use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch i. 14 which does not necessarily allude to the Feast of Tabernacles Vers 12. Note b. I cannot imagine what ground our Author had to say that the Jews were bound to go up to Jerusalem to pay their half Shekel it being no where commanded in the Law and the contrary being manifest from Chap. xvii 24 of this Gospel where Christ is said to have paid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those who collected it not far from Capernaum And then supposing them to have been obliged to carry this Tribute to the Temple yet there was no necessity of their using a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pay a quarter of an ounce of Silver But it is certain that all the Males among the Jews were bound by the Law thrice a year to go up to the Temple Exod. xxiii 17 And because the richer sort did not use to go thither without offering Sacrifices and being at great Expences the assistance of the Mony-changers was needful to furnish them for those Expences Vers 25. Note e. I know that the Rabbins used to reckon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heaven amongst the Names of God but they abuse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name for tho Heaven is often set to signify God who dwells in Heaven not only in Hebrew but also in other Languages yet none besides the Rabbins ever said that this is one of God's Names Tho a City is often taken for the Townsmen or Citizens in it yet no body would say that that word is one of the Citizens Titles as for instance that the Inhabitants of Athens were called the Athenian Citizens and the Athenian City Every body knows that it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Synechdoche whereby the Container is put for the thing contained Vers 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Phrase has something proverbial in it in the Greek Language in which an Adverb is elegantly join'd with a Noun that is of a near affinity with it Aristophanes in Pluto has this very Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This could not be expressed the same way in the Syrian and Chaldee Dialect but only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in destroying he will destroy CHAP. XXII Vers 2. Note a. I Do not think that it can be gathered from this Parable that whoever was invited to a Feast and did not come finely enough clothed was therefore thrust out for who could be so inhuman to a Person that he knew and had invited Parables ought not to be so strained as if all that is related in them used really to be done And I am sure Juvenal Sat. v. ver 131. represents to us a poor Man with a ragged Gown as one of the Guests at a rich Mans Feast Quis vestrum temerarius usque adeo quis Perditus ut dicat Regi bibe Plurima sunt quae Non audent homines pertusâ dicere laena About the Garments used at Feasts consult Oct. Ferrarius de Re Vest Part 2. l. 1. cap. ix xi Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See what has been said already upon Chap. xx 16 In that place the called refers only to the Jews but in this it respects also the Gentiles for this saying must be understood as well of those who came to the Supper out of the cross Streets and High-ways as those who were first invited The meaning is God calls a great many both Jews and Gentiles but few answering as they ought his Call are chosen or set apart by him to be his peculiar People So this place is interpreted by Barnabas who was an Apostolical Person Chap. iii. Attendite ne quando quiescentes jam vocati addormiamus in peccatis nostris nequam accipiens potestatem nostrum suscitet excludat a Regno Domini i. e. lest the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that wicked one the Devil as the Minister of God's Displeasure getting us in his power cast us out of the Feast And a little after he says Attendamus ergo ne forte sicut scriptum est multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur Let us therefore take heed lest haply that saying of the Scripture prove true of us Many are called but few are chosen Vers 16. Note b. Our learned Author's Memory has fail'd him as to some things in this place which I shall briefly take notice of I. In his Paraphrase he describes the Herodians thus Others that adhered to Herod the Roman Governor in which words who would not think that he affirmed Herod to have been a Roman sent by Tiberius to govern Judaea than which nothing can be imagined more absurd neither can I conceive that a Man so learned as he could ever be guilty of so gross a Mistake And therefore I rather think that it was his design to say Those that adhered to the Roman Government as Herod See his Note upon Chap. xvi 6 Herodes Antipas who lived in those times and was in favor with Tiberius was the Tetrarch of Galilee not of Judaea of which Pontius Pilate was Procurator II. I do not see what use the Doctor could make of the Syriack Interpreter who does not read Herod's Followers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the People of Herod's House 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
is sufficient if what is said in Parables be not impossible and there be a fitness in them to express the mind of the person that uses them Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other such must be understood and supplied thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Ellipsis before the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest that is very common among the Hebrews Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here I am apt to think we must understand those which the Romans called Liberti rather than Servi or at least Hirelings who were at their own disposal See my Note upon Chap. xviii 23 To this agrees the Saying of Trimalchio in Petronius Postquam coepi plus habere quam tota patria mea habet manum de tabula sustuli me de negotiatione coepi libertos foenerare After I had once gotten more than all my kindred put together I threw by my Accounts left off my Trade and began to put out my money to such as had served for their freedom upon Vsury Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here be understood that he might traffick to the best of his ability Each Servant had a certain sum given him by the Master of the Family that he might trade proportionably to the sum which he received and according to the degree of his Prudence for there are some that can manage prudently a great sum and are fit to engage in much business and there are others whose ability is less and must have less employment given them This has a mystical sense in it and signifies that some have received more light and gifts from God than others and that every one must give an account according to his Receipts This is more natural than what is said by Grotius and is the sense that Dr. Hammond puts upon it in his Paraphrase Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot imagin what our Author's thoughts were taken up with when he wrote his Paraphrase upon these words for it has no agreement at all with the words of Christ. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies a Feast to which a Patron usually invited his Libertus or Client upon his having well executed his Orders The Septuagint in Esther ix 19 render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a feast by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is no wonder that things which do so often accompany one another as joy and a feast are sometimes promiscuously used That the Liberti used to lie down at meat with their Patrons a Privilege not granted to the Servi by their Masters is notorious Demetrius the Libertus of Pompey the Great is particularly branded for his insolence in lying down before his Patron The Patron therefore here in this part of the Parable is represented as ordering his Libertus or Client to come into the Dining-room that he might partake of his Feast Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this part of the Parable there is no decorum at all observed for no Servant or Client would dare to speak at this rate to his Master or Patron But as I said before this is not necessary in a Parable and these words are very fitly made use of to represent to us the idle Excuses that bad Servants are apt to alledg in their own behalf However it must be observed also that this part of the Parable is but as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which serves to fill up in a Picture for there is nothing to answer it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mystical sense All that Christ meant by it is that no Excuse will be admitted for those who do not make a good use of the favours they have received Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes upon Chap. xiii 12 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that our learned Author should interpret this Expression outer darkness of the darkness of a Dungeon which should rather be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inner darkness I have explained this Phrase already in a Note on Ch. viii 12 where the discourse as it is here is about men excluded from the Feast and cast out of the house where it was kept Vers 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author very improperly paraphrases these words before all eternity as if any thing could be prior to eternity This is what I had to observe on this Chapter to which the Doctor has said nothing And I have only touched on those things which others have wholly passed by referring the Reader for a more full Interpretation of it to Grotius CHAP. XXVI Vers 7. Note b. I Don't believe that that is the true original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Grammarians who are very notable men at inventing trifling Etymologies give us of it for if it were that sort of vessel would rather have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than with so little regard had to the analogy of the derivation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides if that vessel had been so called because it had no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 handles it oughts to have been said adjectively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever is destitute of handles which yet the Greek Language will not admit of whence a particular sort of vessels were afterwards called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the words were to be derived from a Greek original I should rather deduce it with Salmasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imponere and so make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Atticism for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Salmas on Ch. xiii of Solinus But the true original of the word is certainly from that sort of Marble which was called Alabaster of which those Vessels that bore that name were commonly made For to say that Marble was so called because out of that were formed Vessels without handles as the Doctor and Salmas himself does is absurd since not only Vessels of all shapes and forms but even Pillars also were made out of it 'T is as if one should say because the word Onyx sometimes signifies a Vessel therefore that sort of stone was so called because it was the matter of which those Vessels were made Now as for the word Alabaster it self it is an Arabian name for that kind of Marble for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 batsraton is the Noun it self in use which by an addition of the Arabian Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albatsraton 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason why I think it had an Arabian name is not only because the Arabian Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes it probable but because it was cut out of the Arabian Mountains and was first brought from thence So Pliny tells us Lib. xxxvi C. 7. Onychem etiam tum in Arabiae montibus nec usquam aliubi nasci putavere Veteres The Antients
also at that time thought that Alabaster grew in the mountains of Arabia and no where else And a little after he says Nascitur circa Thebas Aegyptias Damascum Syriae it grows about Thebes in Egypt and Damascus in Syria And there was a City somewhere between the Nile and the Red sea or in Egyptian Arabia called for that reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mentioned by Pliny Lib. v. c. 9. and by Ptolomy Lib. iv c. 5. who places it in the Province of Cynopolis near to which was the Alabaster Mountain mentioned by the same Author So that the Doctor finds fault with Is Casaubon unjustly for saying that Vessels not made of Marble were but by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or improperly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor can I imagin how a person so extraordinary well versed in the Scriptures could deny that this Vessel was broken by the Woman who poured the Ointment out of it upon Christ this being expresly affirmed by St. Mark Chap. xiv 3 And tho it had not yet our Authors reason against it is of no weight for what ground had he to think that a little Vessel made of thin Marble could not easily be broken As for the Reason of the Womans breaking the vessel that seems to be because the mouth of it was so narrow that the Spikenard which is a thicker ointment than ordinary could not run easily enough out of it Ibid. Note c. I have shewed in a Note on Matt. xxv 21 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there and sometimes the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a feast The French would say une rejouïssance which tho it does not signify properly a feast yet never uses to be made without one What our Author says about the use of ointments in Feasts is very true but who does not know it He had better only have referred us to some Critick who had treated upon that Subject The indignation which Judas expressed against the Woman who poured the oil upon Christ concealed his covetousness the better because none but delicate or voluptuous persons made use of such pretious ointments and Christ was a professed enemy to all sensual pleasures So Aristippus perceiving that he could not anoint himself without incurring peoples censures cried out Male istis effaeminatis eveniat quia rem tam bellam infamaverunt A mischief take those effeminate persons for bringing so good a custom into disgrace See Diog. Laert. Lib. ii S. 76. Vers 26. Note e. I. Concerning the phrase the body of the Passover and the like see Buxtorf in Diss de Instit. Coenae Domin Sect. 25. from whom our Author seems to have borrowed what he here says II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the relative to the ceremony or action but only to the bread for who besides Dr. Hammond would ever have thus explained Christ's words This eating and drinking denotes my body That learned man did not care how he expressed himself provided the skilful Reader could but guess his meaning but the words of Scripture must not be forced in that manner 'T is bread not a ceremony that is called the body of Christ and eating and drinking are only the signs of our spiritual participation of that body And it makes nothing against this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the neuter gender it being usual in all Languages so to demonstrate any thing whatsoever and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being always to be understood in the Greek Language when the name that belongs to the thing intended is not expressed Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be very well referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the sense be the same The words of St. Luke are contrary to the Doctor 's opinion for who would say the eating of bread is the figure of my body In the rest of this Annot. our Author acts the part of a Divine rather than an Interpreter and speaks as if he were making a common place about the Lords supper Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is an old Greek Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that undertakes a thing confidently is generally fearful And to the same purpose is that saying of Epicharmus in the Scholiast upon Homer at ver 93. Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a coward is at first very confident of himself and afterwards runs away And this was just St. Peter's case before he had been confirmed by the Holy Ghost upon Christ's praying for him CHAP. XXVII Vers 5. Note a. OUr learned Author that he might be able to reconcile S. Matthew with S. Luke follows for the most part D. Heinsius who by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understands a suffocation caused by grief But I. There is no place by any one alledged wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such a disease especially in men for those which are cited by the Doctor are nothing to the purpose as I shall presently shew That word is always taken for strangling with a Halter or some other violent way II. The place alledged out of Aelian does not prove that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any thing but strangling with a Halter When he says that Scoffs have not only grieved men but also killed them he does not mean that some who had been scoffed had laid it so to heart as to die only with Grief but that they had been so impatient of Derision as to kill themselves Thus Poliager being jeered hanged himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so Archilochus's Iambicks made Lycambe and her Daughters hang themselves III. The word in Chrysostom is simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes taken metaphorically for the anguish of the mind but never a Suffocation Nor does that place signify any thing to the business as has been well observed by the learned Jac. Gronovius in his Diss de Casu Judae for Chrysostom speaks of wicked men who he tells us at the last day when their Sins shall be made publick and manifest will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffocated and strangled with Conscience which is not the same with what is said here of Judas IV. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Tobit signify so as to think of hanging her self as is plain from what follows where she is represented as blaming her self for entertaining such Thoughts and saying I am my fathers only daughter if I should do this it would be a reproach c. and a little after I said i. e. I thought according to the genius of the Hebrew that I had best free my self from the earth and hear no more reproaches for so we ought to render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not I said free or take me away for it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which does not signify and do not hear me but I ought not to hear or hearken
there are a great many such like Orders in Cod. Theodos where the Jews are not mentioned See the Collections of Sam. Petitus in the place before cited 'T is oftner than once that Dr. Hammond either adds or diminishes the sayings of the Antients which he thought by being a little changed would better illustrate the Writings of the New Testament But yet I do not believe he did it designedly who was so good a Man and so great a lover of Truth but rather was misled by others who were not so faithful as they should have been in their Citations Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is true indeed that the Consuls and Pretors wore Gowns of divers colours or such as were used in Triumphs when they made any publick Shows as has been shewn by Oct. Ferrarius Part ii Lib. 2. cap. 8. but that which is respected here is the Custom of Kings who thought it lawful for no body to wear Purple Robes but themselves Thus it is observed by Hirtius cap. lvii de Bello Africano Cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante Regis adventum uti solitus esset dicitur Juba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem uti vestitu atque ipse uteretur Scipio using to wear a Purple Coat before the King's arrival they say that Juba reproved him and told him that he ought not to wear the same Garment that he wore About this sort of Robe called Chlamys consult Ferrarius Vers 34. Note f. Tho it be very true what our Author observes concerning the abuse of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Translation of the Septuagint yet he perfectly forces the place which he cites out of Rev. xiv 10 as the Reader would easily have perceived if he had set it all down For these are the words The same shall drink of the Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Wrath of God which is mixed with pure Wine in the cup of his Anger See Isa li. 17 Vers 44. Note h. I confess that this latter Interpretation carries no repugnancy in it but yet it has not the least shadow of likelihood For who can conceive that a wicked wretch who had just before reviled Christ should be so changed in a moment of time as to acknowledg him to be the Messias Yes they say because it was effected by a secret divine Power But who reveal'd this to them The Evangelists say no such thing It is much more likely that Thieves being many times punish'd not only for Crimes which they have lately committed but also for old ones this Man had already had some knowledg of Christ and repented and believed on him before he was cast into Prison and then being afterwards apprehended and convicted of Theft was crucified by the Romans without any regard had to his Repentance I do by no means therefore think that this Thief railed at Christ Nor do I think that St. Matthew spake figuratively when he said Thieves for Thief It is a meer Impropriety as the Examples cited by our Author shew to which add those words in Chap. ii 20 where speaking of Herod's being dead it is said they are dead that sought the young Child's Life Vers 15. Note i. I. Whether any such Earthquake is mentioned by Macrobius I do not know but there is mention made of it in Tacitus Annal. lib. 2. cap. 47. and Suetonius in Tiber. cap. 48. See Interpreters upon the place II. Since our Author reckons the Tombs amongst the parts of the Temple he had done well to tell us what persons were ever buried in that Mountain upon which the Temple stood for nothing being more unclean according to the Jewish Statutes than a Sepulchre which polluted those that went over them as has been observed upon Chap. xxiii 27 it is too strange to be true that there were any Sepulchres in a place of the greatest Sanctity I know St. Jerom in Catal. Script Ecclesiast tells us this of St. James who was thrown down by the Jews from the Pinacle of the Temple out of Hegesippus Juxta Templum ubi praecipitatus fuerat sepultus est Titulum usque ad obsidionem Titi ultimam Hadriani notissimum habuit He was buried near the Temple and in the place where he had been thrown down and had a Monument erected for him which continued famous to the siege of Titus and the last of Hadrian Hegesippus's Testimony is extant in Eusebius's Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 23. But this very thing renders the History suspicious as has been well remarked by H. Valesius to pass by others that have very little appearance of truth in them CHAP. XXVIII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is well interpreted by our Author of a concussion in the Air for in the Septuagint also the Whirlwind by which Elijah was caught up into Heaven is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 King xi 11 So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Storm a Whirlwind And thus the Latins also say coelum tonitru concuti to signify the concussion that is made in the Air when it thunders Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by Baptism make them the Disciples of Father Son and Holy Ghost and willing to be so called For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make Disciples and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be baptized that we may be called by that name The Jews might have bin called the Disciples of the Father because they professed themselves his Disciples the Apostles before they had received the Holy Ghost and the rest of Christ's Disciples might properly have bin called the Disciples of the Father and the Son but those who were afterwards baptized by the Apostles were the Disciples of the Father as revealing his Will in the Old Testament and of the Son as speaking in the Gospels and of the Holy Ghost as more clearly explaining the Precepts of the Father and Son by the Apostles The Hebrew Phrase for this would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they were baptized that they might be called by their name That this is the true importance of this form of Speech may appear by 1 Cor. i. 12 and seqq where the Corinthians saying I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ i. e. calling themselves their Disciples and as it were distinguishing themselves from one another by the names of their several Masters or Teachers Paul says Were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius lest any should say that I had baptized IN MY NAME that is that ye might be called my Disciples and distinguished from others by the Title of Paulites So in the Writings of the Rabbins to be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of Servitude is for the Person so baptized to become a Servant and to take that name upon him And on the contrary
to be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the name of a Son of free Men or in the name of Proselytism is to receive Baptism upon condition that the Person baptized be called a Freeman or Proselyte Consult Selden de Jure Nat. Gent. lib. 2. c. 3. Grotuis has committed a mistake in his Translation of the last words but discerned however the import of the Phrase tho just as a Man sees the Moon through the Clouds ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Mark CHAP. 1. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words I rather take to be as an Inscription to this whole Book than a form of introducing what follows as the Doctor does in his Paraphrase For even in the most antient times these Books were called the Gospels as Grotius has observed out of Justin at the beginning of St. Matthew And it is ordinary in Latin Manuscripts to find it written in the front such or such a Book BEGINS that the Reader may know the work to be entire and that there wants nothing at the beginning Such another Inscription as this is that of the Book of the Prophet Hosea i. 2 The beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea I conceive therefore that these words ought to have a full stop made at the end of them Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We must conceive this beginning thus AS it is written in the Prophet Isaiah Behold I send my Messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way before thee A Voice crying in the Desart Prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths streight John BAPTIZED c. The force of the Particle AS belongs to the 4 th Verse where thre is as it were an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Evangelist shews that the Event was answerable to what was foretold Some learned Men have thought that the beginning of Herodotus is just like this but without reason as will appear to any one that compares them Vers 38. Note b. Our learned Author is mistaken when he says that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here adjoining from the use of it in the Septuagint For so all the best Greek Writers who were strangers to the barbarous Dialect of the Septuagint used that word It occurs very often in Herodotus in that signification as the Ionick Lexicon of Aemilius Portus alone will shew CHAP. II. Vers 26. Note b. I Chuse rather to interpret the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by apud at or to according to its usual signification and so the sense will be He went viz. David into the House of God to Abiathar the High-priest The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the House of God is taken here more largely not for the Tabernacle only but also for the house in which the High-priest lived which joined to the Tabernacle or Court For the Loaves which David took away were not any longer in the Sanctuary but had been removed before he came that fresh ones might be put in their place as the sacred Historian informs us 1 Sam. xxi 6 So in the same Book Chap. iii. 3 by the Temple of the Lord we are to understand the House adjoining to the Court in which Samuel slept not far from the place where Eli lay down But you will say why dos not Christ say to Abimelech who was at that time the High-priest but instead of that says to Abiathar who was Abimelech's Son and lived rather in his Father's House than his own The reason is because Abiathar was more known than Abimelech by the Sacred History as the Learned have observed And so the meaning of Christ is this he went to Abiathar who was High-priest tho not at that time CHAP. III. Vers 21. Note c. DAvid le Clerc my Uncle has treated upon this place in his Quaestiones Sacrae Quaest xiii which is worth the reading CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in a little ship at a small distance from the shore Thus Prov. xxiii 34 he that lieth down in the heart of the Sea is one that lies down in a Ship And to the same sense is that of Propertius Lib. 1. Eleg. xiv Tu licet abjectus Tiberinâ molliter unda Lesbia Mentoreo vina bibas opere This would have been a needless remark unless a man of a sharp wit and whose judgment in critical matters is not to be despised viz. Tan. Faber in Epist Crit. Part 2. Epist xvii would have had this place contrary to the Authority of all Copies altered by reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Ship and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sea which would not go down with him Vers 12. Note a. This form of speech has something proverbial in it and is set to signify such Persons as if they made a right use of their faculties would take notice of those things which their folly makes them pass over without attention And in this sense the Greeks also used it Thus Prometheus is represented in Aeschilus as speaking in this manner of the ignorance of men in the first age before he had taught them arts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They at first seeing saw in vain Hearing they did not hear but just As men in dreams for a long time Confounded all things And so Demosthenes Orat. 1. contra Aristogit sect 123. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Proverb that those that see do not see and those that hear do not hear CHAP. V. Vers 22. Note c. SInce a Synagogue does sometimes signify a Consistory of Judges whose Authority related to civil matters it is certain that the person who presided over them might well enough be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying a Consistory or Sanhedrim see our Author's notes upon Matt. vi 5 The Judges and the Presidents of Ecclesiastical assemblies which our Author has forgot to observe were called by the same name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they were the same Persons of which see the learned Camp Vitringa de Synag Lib. 2. c. 9. But Dr. Hammond in what follows seems to confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a School with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a consistory of Judges which are quite different things Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If this Phrase were to be understood properly and literally we should be obliged to think that Christ cured the sick of their Diseases by certain effluvia that proceeded from him which is very difficult to conceive And therefore I rather think with Grotius that this was a vulgar way of speaking by which we are to understand no more than that this Woman was cured by God at the instant in which she touched our Saviour See Luke vi 19 where it will appear that that expression was taken from the use of
the City filled with Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Spirit was stirred up within him which expression denotes the vehemence of the commotion that was in St. Paul's mind The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify barely the mind but the mind moved by some passion as the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which consult Schindler's Lexicon Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of these words is rightly expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase but he tells us in the Margin that the King's MS. and many printed Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet still these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make but harsh construction and I do not know but that the antient reading was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as trees that walk and so the meaning of the blind man will be that two sorts of objects presented themselves to him whereof one stood still viz. Trees and another which were also like Trees to his apprehension walked or were like walking Trees The Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and may as fitly be rendered I see men like walking trees as like trees walking Perhaps the Evangelist wrote as I said but the Transcribers would not endure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 walking trees CHAP. IX Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks that what is said here of the Jews that they had done to John whatsoever they would is said to have been foretold by Malachi because he called him Elias and this very thing says he shewed that he should not want Ahabs and Jezebels But this seems to have too much subtilty in it nor was it necessary that there should be a perfect similitude between John and Elias that he might be intended by the Prophet by his name I chuse rather to make the words as it is written of him to refer only to those Elias is come as if Christ had said Elias is come as it is written of him and they have done to him whatsoever they would the misplacing and cross ordering of words being usual in Scripture See my Notes upon Gen. xiii 10 As for the sense of this whole passage it is in the general well enough expressed by our Author in his Paraphrase but if we read Christ's words and would understand by what Dr. Hammond says the series or connection of his Discourse we shall find our selves disappointed I express it therefore thus 12. But Christ answered them it was requisite indeed that Elias should first come and call all the Jews to their duty that they might entertain the Messias who was suddenly to come amongst them in a fit manner nor was this Prophecy contrary to those by which it was foretold that the Messias should be ill treated by the Jews 13. For Elias also was already come who was John the Baptist intended for certain reasons by that name and had gone about to call the Jews to Repentance that they might be so disposed as persons ought to be who were to receive the Messias but the Jews had refused to hearken to that holy man yea and had killed him The words of the Evangelist must be rendered thus 12. And he answering said unto them Elias indeed must first come and restore all things But how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it written of the Son of Man that he must suffer many things and be set at nought 13. But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto you that both Elias is come and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would For the better understanding of these words there are these three things to be observed First That the Apostles understood the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the event whence they inferred that it was impossible that Christ should be killed by the Jews because he was not to enter upon his Reign till a great Reformation had been made among the People of the Jews by Elias But Christ's answer which is grounded upon matter of fact shews that this ought to be understood of the design of John's preaching and what it would have effected if the Jews had hearkened to it and not of what really came to pass That active Verbs do commonly signify a design and endeavour to do any thing tho it may be the event does not follow is known to every one See my Notes upon Gen. xxxvii 21 Secondly that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how c. contain another Objection which might be made against what Christ had said besides that which was made by the Apostles as the interrogatory Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews Thirdly That the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendered by attamen nevertheless or but yet according to its usual signification See 1 Cor. iv 4 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed as Grotius has observed superfluous in Luke xxii 2 as well as here but the construction in that place is different from what it is in this I know all that is said by others about this Particle but to me nothing seems more probable than that it proceeded from some Transcriber's repeating the last syllable of the foregoing word It is certain it is left out in Beza's antient copy and two others in the Barberine Library and that neither the Vulgar nor Syriack version take any notice of it Vers 49. Note e. I. That Christ's words here may be understood they must first be set down in Hebrew and then it must be shewn how fitly they are turned into Greek The expression in Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for every one shall be consumed by fire and every offering of corn shall be seasoned with salt And in the same manner it may be expressed in Syriack as appears from the Syriack Interpreter All the elegancy of the expression lies in the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jimmaleahh which signifies both salietur shall be seasoned with salt and absumetur shall be consumed which ambiguity cannot be expressed in Latin Nor is the Greek Language more fit for this purpose in which there is no word that signifies both to season with salt and to consume Which the Evangelist perceiving in imitation of the Septuagint and the Jews who spake Greek in Syria and Palestine he abused the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies to be seasoned with salt by putting a new sense upon it And so Symmachus rendered afterwards the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Isai li. 6 for the Heavens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be consumed like smoke by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning therefore of Christ in these words is this that as every Corn-offering according to the Law extant in Levit. ii 13 was seasoned with salt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so likewise every bad man shall at last be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with
fire The conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefixed to the words every sacrifice is of the same import here as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as as it is afterwards Chap. x. 12 and John xiv 〈…〉 That which seems to have occasioned Christ's comparing bad m 〈…〉 sacrifices is partly his having made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order to describe the future condition of the wicked and partly his having mâ—â—â— mention of unquenchable fire such as was the fire of the Altar as Grotius has observed And so because the words by which he had described the Punishments of bad men had led him as it were to it he did not decline the using of such an ambiguity as might easily be understood by persons skilful in the Language he spake in And so likewise God in the books of the Prophets sometimes uses such kind of elegances proceeding from the ambiguity of words See Jer. i. 11 12. and at your leisure Mer. Casaubon in Diss de Lingua Hebraica II. The conjecture of Jos Scaliger is by Grotius and here by our Author deservedly rejected but he might have been more effectually confuted if they had observed that St. Mark did not want a proper Greek word whereby to express the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so that there was no need of his coining that new and unheard of word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which the Hebrews express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering to be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fire the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which often occurs in Euripides and Callimachus to mention no more Aquila who translated words according to their Etymologies could not have rendred the Hebrew word into Greek more fitly it being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fire as the Hebrew from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same signification Hesychius and Phavorinus interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifices which are burnt III. Nevertheless Dr. Hammond is mistaken when he says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take signifies shall be consumed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has that signification but this is not to be confounded with the tenses of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 50. Note f. I do not know whence the Doctor took the passage he speaks of out of Aeschines but he does not seem to have looked into Aeschines himself For it will appear to any one that reads the whole passage that it is to be understood of the provision which was allowed to the Embassadors out of the publick revenue The story in short is this Aeschines and Demosthenes were sent together as Embassadors to King Philip and eat at the same Table with the rest of the Embassadors throughout the whole journey nevertheless Demosthenes accused Aeschines and the rest of the Embassadors of having ill discharged their Commission And hereupon Aeschines p. 31. Ed. Stephani not far from the beginning charges him with practising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such Treachery towards his Companions at the same Table and in the same Embassy as a man would hardly be guilty of to his greatest Enemies And then it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he professes to have a high value for the salt of the City and the publick Table not being a Native of our Country c. So among the Latins the publick Corn that was allowed to the Military Tribunes and others was called Salarium CHAP. X. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being in Beza's antient Copy nor in the Syriack nor in the parallel place in St. Matthew may justly be suspected It is possible that some Transcriber thinking it not to be sufficient to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might add the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that the beginning of the World was spoken of But this was needless the beginning of the World being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence as it were See my Notes upon Gen. i. 1 Vers 12. Note a. See my Notes upon Mat. ix 14 and Grotius upon this place in St. Mark The sense of Christ's words is this Whosoever puts away his Wife and marries another ought to be reputed an Adulterer as a Woman that puts away her Husband and is married to another Man is an Adulteress The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which begins the 12 th Verse is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as as I observed before upon Chap. ix 49 In this respect Christ levels the Husband with the Wife whereas under the Law it was lawful for a Man to put away his Wife tho not for a Woman to put away her Husband Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This whole Passage is explain'd by Clemens Alexandrinus in his Book entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in § 4. he sets it down but not without some alterations substituting synonimous words and correcting some Hebraisms in it which makes it probable to me that tho he did not indeed read the Passage so in his Copy yet thought however that it was all one whether he expressed it in the Evangelist's own words or in a little better Greek in compliance perhaps with critical Ears The beginning of it is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Vers 19. Note b. What our Author says about the sense of the tenth Commandment is I grant true but we shall interpret both Moses and St. Mark more Grammatically if we understand the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those fraudulent methods by which a Person may endeavour to invade another man's Possessions For there are two ways of injuring our Neighbour viz. by Theft whether privately or by force against the will of the Owner and by taking away what belongs to another without any pretence of Right or Justice which is forbidden in the seventh Precept of the Decalogue or else by secret and cunning Devices where the Law and a pretence of Right is made use of to cover the Injury which is prohibited in the tenth Commandment whereby all such Artifices are made unlawful whether they prove successful or unsuccessful And this Christ here calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to defraud So the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privo defraudo abnego to deprive to defraud to deny ones Trust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inficiatur he disowns or denies his Trust or the Debt charged upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fraus abnegatio denegatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fraudator fraudulentus inficiator See my Notes upon the Decalogue Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ here shews what sort of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rich Men they are that cannot heartily entertain his Doctrin viz. such as trust more in their Riches than to
God's Promises And those are said to trust in their Riches who had rather preserve them than obey God who promise themselves a happy Life if they are but rich and think themselves so miserable that no Piety can afford them any Comfort if they are poor CHAP. XI Vers 13. Note a. THat the time of Harvest was earlier in Judaea than ordinary is well proved by our Author of which see my Notes also upon Exod. ix 32 And hence likewise he rightly infers that other Fruits were gathered sooner in that Country than in many other places But I have several Observations to make both with relation to this matter and to what Dr. Hammond says in this Note I. That Aristophanes does ill confound the time of Wheat and Barly Harvest among the Phoenicians which fell out in divers Months See my Notes upon Gen. xxx 14 II. I wonder that the Doctor should speak of the Fruit of Trees in Judaea without any distinction whereas it is certain that all sort of Fruits do no more come to their full growth at the same time in that Country than in other places They have their Summer and Autumn Fruits in Judaea as well as elsewhere Nor does it appear by the Passage cited out of Philo that the Fruits of Trees were gathered at the same time with the Corn as our Author says but only that if the Statue of Caius was set up in the Temple it was to be feared that the Jews would destroy the ripe Corn and then he adds that care was also to be taken for the gathering in of the Fruits which the Country that was planted with Trees brought forth which may be understood not only of the Fruits that were ripe at that time but also of those that were of a later growth and which could not have been gathered if the Trees were destroyed before they came to perfection III. I should not doubt but that the Interpretation given by the Doctor of this place were true if he had but produced any Example to shew that the Greek Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signify what he calls a good Fig year or a kindly seasonable year for Figs and we French Men une saison favorable aux figues i. e. so temperate a year that abundance of Figs came to their perfect ripeness in their proper season Thus in Horace a fruitful year is called pomifer and locuples frugibus annus But the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be confounded for tho the latter do indifferently signify any time whatsoever yet the former is taken only for a particular juncture of time and for opportunity and is therefore capable indeed of being used to signify set seasons in the year but not simply a year Tho this it may be might be observed in favor of Dr. Hammond that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is not meant simply year but as I may say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seasonable year or a fit season to look every where for Figs in But this likewise is something harsh and I want still Examples of the like Phrase having never been able to find or meet with any IV. It had been better if our Author instead of what he says about the time of Harvest had observed that there were two sorts of Figs in Judaea one of which might have been ripe at the time of the Passover but the other not till the height of Summer The former sort are mentioned by Solomon in Cant. ii â—3 where describing the beginning of the Spring he says among other things the Fig-tree hath brought her Figs to perfection And these were called early Figs as we learn from Theophrastus and Pliny and were common in Syria Theophrastus Hist Plant. lib. 4. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as Pliny lib. xiii c. 8. interprets him Quidam Aegyptiam ficum dixere errore manifesto non enim in Aegypto nascitur sed in Syria semper comantibus foliis Some have said that it was the Egyptian Fig but they were manifestly mistaken for it does not grow in Egypt but in Syria and its leaves always flourish And a little after Theophrastus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sense of which is thus expressed again by Pliny Pomo antecedentis anni circa canis ortus detracto statim alterum parit Postea florem per Arcturum hyeme foetus enutriente The last years Fruit being pulled off about the beginning of the dog-days it presently brings forth more Then when the Sun rises with Arcturus it blossoms again the Winter nourishing its Fruit. And that such a sort of Fig-tree as this is meant here appears both by its having Leaves at that time and by Christ's going to look for Fruit upon it This Fruit the Jews called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 biochourah as appears from Hos ix 10 where it is said I found Israel like Grapes in the Wilderness as the first ripe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Fig-tree And these Figs were very much valued as Jeremiah informs us Chap. xxiv 2 One Basket had very good Figs like the Figs that are first ripe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also Isa xxviii 4 and Mich. vii 1 The other sort of Figs were of a later growth and ripened at the same time with Grapes And it is this sort that is mentioned in Numb xiii 24 and which were gathered in the Land of Canaan together with the Grapes by the Spies that were sent by Moses and brought to the Jewish Camp The Trees which bear this sort have no Leaves at the Passover but the time of their first shooting out is at the approach of the Summer as Christ teaches us Matth. xxiv 32 Now learn says he a Parable from the Fig-tree when its branch is yet tender and putteth forth Leaves ye know that Summer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nigh And so likewise afterwards here in St. Mark xiii 28 I could illustrate all these things by a multitude of Citations out of the Antients if it were necessary But I am not ambitious of the useless Copiousness of some learned Men who spend abundance of time in proving what might have been shewn in fewer words and of whom I may say with Callimachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V. Our Author indeed justly rejects the Conjecture of D. Heinsius but he censures too severely the changing of an accent or spirit which it is certain are wanting in the most antient Copies for who can be certain when he sees this Particle OÎ¥ written without an accent whether it is to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where This must necessarily be learned by the sense and when that is obscure the Reader is left in suspence And before ever he had objected to that learned Man that no Example could elsewhere be found of any such form of Speech as he conjectured this here to be
strange Consult also Salmasius in the place before-mentioned Ibid. Note b. I grant the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify always to break when the discourse is about a thing which may be hurt without being broken as about a wounded Man or a bruised Reed but where the discourse is about a Vessel and especially such an one as is made of brittle matter it has ever that signification and whoever says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be rendered to break a Marble or Glass Vessel See Levit. vi 28.xi.33.xv.12 Rev. ii 27 And those that endeavour to put any other sense upon that Phrase here strain it Dr. Hammond's two first Reasons for another Interpretation I have confuted already in a Note upon the parallel place in St. Matthew The third together with the rest are I suppose taken out of Baronius and relie upon a nauseous Fable which is related in the following words by Suidas whom if our Author had but look'd into I believe he would never have made use of this Testimony Thus Suidas tells the story in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of some unknown Fable-maker as he used to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crosses as Aemil. Portus has observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Market-place were buried the two Crosses of the two Thieves and the little Ointment Pot out of which Christ was anointed and many other remarkable things that were laid there by Constantine the Great but taken away by Theodosius the Great Suidas does not give the least intimation that he thought this silly Fable to be true he only tells it as he does many others as he had read it And therefore the Consequences that the Doctor draws from his Authority and Learning are insignificant Nay tho Suidas had said that he believed this Fable yet it would be much more likely that he had either forgot this Passage in St. Mark or that it did not come into his mind than that he thought the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify any thing different from what I have said it does Neither is there any more weight in the Argument which our Author grounds upon a Passage out of Pollux because the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify to open the Cruise and stir the Ointment about with a Spathula or Slice All the rest that he says is manifestly besides the cause because he considers the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstractly not as it is joined with the name of a brittle Vessel nor have I leisure to examine every thing particularly I conclude therefore that this Phrase is rightly translated in the vulgar Latin fracto alabastro See what I have said on the parallel place in St. Matthew Vers 54. Note f. What our Author says about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to have borrowed from Dan. Heinsius who may be consulted by those that have leisure Vers 72. Note i. The Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be separated by a Comma from the following word which is the Verb to that as its Nominative Case The opinion of Grotius which is by our Author mentioned in the second place is the most probable The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone does not signify to see or look upon but only when the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some other like that is added to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part follows I am apt to think that in the place cited out of Phavorinus we ought after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to look upon any one is no Greek Phrase and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also must be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XV. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used to release as it is in St. Matthew Chap. xxvii 15 After this manner the future Tense in Hebrew and the aorist in Greek and the preterperfect in Latin is many times used See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word futurum and Rom. viii 29 30. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some Manuscripts it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reason of which is not as Grotius thought that some Greek Copies of this Gospel were altered to make them agree with the Latin Version for besides the Vatican mentioned by him but omitted in the Oxford Edit of the New Testament and the Manuscript that was sent by Beza to Cambridg the Copy also which those that made the Coptick and Gothick Translations used read it so which it is plain could never have it from the Latin Versions If we admit this reading the sense will not be inconvenient And the multitude going up into the Hall began to desire c. Vers 17. Note a. Concerning those things in this History which relate to the Roman Customs we must read the Philological Notes of that learned Lawyer Edm. Merillus upon the Passion who has treated of this matter on set purpose Add also what I have said about this place in St. Matthew Vers 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is very well expressed by our Author in agreement with the Roman Custom in his Paraphrase For they used as in the night so also in the day time to give notice what hour it was by the sound of a Trumpet This appears from a Passage in Lucan lib. 2. ver 689. where speaking of Pompey's flight he describes him forbidding ne buccina dividat horas that his flight might be the more secret Vers 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added for the sake of the uncircumcised Gentiles who were ignorant of the Jewish Customs Every Friday or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so called as Bochart in concurrence with others before him tells us Hieroz P. 1. lib. 2. cap. 50. p. 567. And not only the Jews but Christians also afterwards made use of that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Grotius upon Luke xviii 11 Vers 43. Note d. I rather think that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand that dignity that Joseph was in among the Jews by being one of the Sanhedrim of LXXII Men or the lesser of xxiii For Arimathaea was not a Roman Colony CHAP. XVI Vers 18. Note c. I Will not undertake here to examine whether those antient and true Sibyls did foretel any thing concerning Christ but I shall observe that no such thing can be inferred from those Verses of Virgil for it is not necessary to suppose that the sense of that Sybil's words are so expressed by Virgil as to have no addition made to them Perhaps the Sybil had prophesied that after the tenth Age which was that of the Sun there should be another Golden Age and that Saying alone gave Virgil occasion
enough to describe that new Age just like that Golden one which was said by the Poets to have been in the Reign of Saturn And it was only in the Silver Age as they tell us that Serpents became poisonous which in the Golden Age had no Poison This we are told to go no farther by Virgil himself Georg. 1. ver 128. Ille viz. Jupiter malum virus serpentibus addidit atris Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius has very well observed that this form of Speech is borrowed from the Custom of Kings who use to command those whom they have a mind to confer the highest Honour upon to sit at their right-hand See his Notes upon Mat. xx 21 The Greek Poets speak also in the same manner concerning the Heathen Gods as that great man has shewed by an Example out of Pindar And if you please you may add this out of Callimachus about Apollo in his Hymn consecrated to that God ver 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollo will honour this Quire because it sings to please him for he is able since he sits at Jupiter's right-hand But this might by the Poets who fancied their Gods to be in the shape of men be understood properly the difficulty is how S. Mark who had quite another Notion of God understood this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpreters tells us that it is a Metaphor and must be understood to signify only the great Glory to which Christ was exalted and nothing more And it is certain that this Expression of the right hand of God if by God we understand the divine Nature considered in it self must needs be metaphorical but is it not something odd that a Christian Historian should in a naked account of things make use of such a Metaphor So it will seem if I am not mistaken to those that attentively consider it And therefore perhaps for I affirm nothing positively we ought rather by the Word God to understand a Light inaccessible to any but Christ which is a Symbol of the divine Presence and on the right side of which he whom the Father hath made King of Heaven and Earth sits And this is that which the Martyr Stephen seems to have seen when he beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God viz. of that inaccessible Light or Glory of which see my Notes upon Exod. xxxiv 18 For without doubt properly speaking he did not see God and to say that when it is affirmed of him that he saw Jesus on the right hand of God the meaning is that he saw him in the enjoyment or possession of the highest Glory is harsh and unnatural See also Matth. xxvi 2 and Mark xiv 62 Let the Learned consider whether this be not what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also intended in Chap. xii 2 where he says that Jesus is set down at the right hand of God I have not time at present to prosecute these things at large Which I mention lest the Reader should think that I had too slightly passed over a Subject which deserves to have a great many Thoughts spent upon it ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. Luke CHAP. I. Vers 1. Note a. I. IT might have been said without any more ado that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to certify or assure and is properly spoken of persons Thus in the collections of Ctesias Cap. xxxviii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having by many words and oaths assured Megabizus So in Socrates Orat. Trapezit pag. 360. Ed. H. Steph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he knew for certain that I had in the hearing of a great many witnesses denied that I had any thing And from hence the word being applied to things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies such things which we are sure are true as in this place in St. Luke as the following words shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no where signifies to come to pass or to be fulfilled where the Discourse is concerning a Prophecy II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to comply with or satisfy a desire for so the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also signifies As in the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 morigero satisfacio Agreable hereto is the Latin phrase explere animum libidinem c. And which is much to the same sense the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to fulfil his trust or office which the Latins express by implere partes officii sui numeros omnes implere III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often of the same signification with the simple verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also is rendred by plenitudo satisfactio fulness satisfaction What is further observable about this word Dr. Hammond has here set down Vers 2. Note b. I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those which have fulfilled their office of preaching the Gospel pursuant to Christ's Command The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken for the Gospel See Act. iv 4 c. In the same phrase almost the office of such Persons is described by St. Luke in Act. vi 4 where he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministry of the word or Gospel II. The reason why St. John calls the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have shewn in my Animadversions upon St. John Chap. i. 1 I cannot tell whether our Author thought that the Chaldee Paraphrasts lived before Christ's time but there are a great many things in them which make it probable that they are of a later date Besides the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord which is so often used by them does not signify a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or subsistence as has been shewn by a learned man in a Discourse intitled de sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldaeos tho I am not in all things of his opinion III. In what sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was known to the antient Heathens I have shewed in the forementioned Animadversions out of older Authors than Amelius Amelius's Testimony is extant in Eusebius Praep. Evang. Lib. xi cap. 9. Vers 27. Note f. Our learned Author trusting too much to his memory vainly contends that the preposition ב in Malachi iv 6 ought to be rendered with not to for it is the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not ב that is used in that place of Malachi and he shall turn the fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon or to the children and the heart of the children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon or to their fathers It seems to be a proverbial form of speech to signify that John was to call the Jews who were at very great variance among themselves to
agreement and concord Our Saviour that he might represent the great dissensions that were occasioned by the variety of mens opinions about matters of Religion speaks in this manner Matt. x. 21 The brother shall deliver up the brother to death and the father the child and the children shall rise up against their parents and kill them and verse 35. I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against the mother Now to shew that John was to extinguish all such animosities or at least use the properest means to that end the Prophet made use just of a contrary expression and said he shall turn the heart of the fathers c. This is by two Evangelists called the restoring of all things and here by the Angel turning the disobedient to the sentiments of the just and indeed the Jews could not be reclaimed from their dissensions and disposed to submit to one Master Jesus Christ unless John had been to make it his endeavour to restore the whole Jewish Nation and to bring them over to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind or opinion of the just See Grotius on Malach. and this place in St. Mark The Doctor here takes abundance of pains to interpret this place to little purpose because he had not looked into the words of Malachi He represents the Prophet speaking the same thing over and over like him that said Semivirúmque bovem semibovémque virum For what else but a nauseous Tautology are those words old and young young and old But that which the Prophet says is that John should endeavour to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children i. e. the fathers who were mistaken in their Opinions to the Children who had righter apprehensions of things and the hearts of the children to the fathers or the erroneous Children to the judgment of their Fathers who embraced the true Doctrine of Christ in a word to bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incredulous and disobedient to be of the mind or sentiments of the just II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render mind or sentiment and not Wisdom because that is the most usual signification of the word and agreable to the common acceptation of the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sentire to think or be of such a sentiment as it is used by St. Paul in Phil. ii 2 where the Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to think the same thing to be of the same mind And my reason for this is because the Discourse here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consent of the Jews who disagreed among themselves But then it must not be thought that by sententiam sentiment I understand the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a speculation or opinion which entertains only the understanding but an affection or disposition of the Soul which discovers it self in external actions and is that vertue which the Latins usually call prudentia as the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this was the reason it may be why the Evangelist rather made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly neither sententia opinion nor prudentia prudence or wisdom but an affection of the Soul by which we not only think and judg but also love and hate See H. Stephens Thesaur upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 28. Note k. I. For the understanding of what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place it must be enquired not what Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and particularly in the New Testament And we find this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by St. Paul in a very clear notion in Eph. i. 6 where he says that God has predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to the praise of the glory of his grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he hath gratified us in the beloved i. e. by which he hath dealt most bountifully with us through Christ And agreably hereto the meaning of the Angel here must be O Virgin who art highly favoured by God Phavorinus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloved blessed II. What our Author quotes out of Hesychius relates rather to the body or to elegancy of speech than to the Mind which certainly we can have nothing to do with here Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he interprets by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretty elegant sayings And the old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facetus gratiosus witty pleasant In which sense it is taken in the Son of Sirach Chap. xviii 19 where the discourse is concerning one that was well skilled in the art of speaking or an eloquent man The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius ought not to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old Glosses have that word and render it by gratus gratuitus acceptus grateful freely bestowed acceptable But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is undoubtedly as the Doctor supposes a false print for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. The Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prov. xi 16 signifies a handsom Woman for which sense there can be no room here Vers 39. Note m. Of this Phrase in those days see my Notes on Gen. xxxviii 1 Vers 67. Note n. at the end of the third sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 190. lin 24. I. Our Author had done well if he had produced the words of those Grammarians who say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies naturally no more than one that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or in the stead of another And he might have shewn us too at the same time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition is the same sometime with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as pro in Latin in Proconsul For as for me I know of no Grammarian that has proved this but I know of one that thinks them both false When Poets are said to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Muses it is not meant that they speak in the place or stead of the Muses but by their inspiration no less than Prophets by the inspiration of that particular Deity to which they are consecrated For it must be observed that tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies one who foretels things to come yet when Poets are so stiled it signifies only men inspired by the Muses Which is the reason also why Poets used to invoke them II. Amongst the Heathens the Divines Prophets or Priests did not teach the People how they were to live but only the manner of worshipping and pacifying the Gods And therefore Lactantius Lib. v. c. 3. speaking of the Heathen Divinity very truly saith Nihil ibi
disseritur quod proficiat ad mores excolendos vitamque formandam nec habet inquisitionem aliquam veritatis sed tantummodò ritum colendi That it does not in the least teach men how to live nor give any rules how to find out the Truth but declares only in what manner and with what ceremonies the Gods are to be worshipped It was the business of the Philosophers to teach those things which related to Peoples Manners as the same Author observes Philosophia says he religio Deorum disjuncta sunt longeque discreta Siquidem alii sunt professores sapientiae per quos utique ad Deos non aditur alii Religionis Antistites per quos sapere non discitur apparet nec illam esse veram sapientiam nec hanc Religionem Philosophy and the worship of the Gods are two very different things among the Heathens For their Professors of Wisdom are one sort of men who teach nothing that relates to divine worship and their Priests another sort which give men no instructions how to grow wiser But it is manifest that neither the former is true Wisdom nor the latter true divine Worship III. As for Epimenides who wrote no books of Ethicks but rather taught the way of purifying or expiating I know not why our Author should deny him to have been a Foreteller of things to come merely because of Aristotle's single Testimony and thereupon argue that he was not for that reason called a Prophet For others do affirm him to have been skilful in the art of Divination and produce some instances to that purpose See Laertius Lib. i. Sect. 114. and his Interpreter And we have no reason to suppose but that St. Paul might rather have a respect to the general Opinion than to Aristotle's Ibid. After the 4 th sense given of that word pag. 190. lin 29. When the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to interpret Scripture or exhort the People to Virtue or both it ought not to be rendered by prophesying or foretelling which is its most usual signification but by preaching or speaking publickly And the reason of this is because the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and does not only signify ante before when it is referred to time but also when the Discourse is about things and Persons i. e. propè or coram nigh to or in the presence of which last signification it manifestly has in many compound words Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is producere provehere to bring forth to carry on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promere proferre to bring out to produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 progredior procedo to go forward to proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promoveo proveho to put forward to lead on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proscriptum a publick order posted up in writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proscribo profiteor to publish to profess with many more which may be had out of any Lexicon I have transcribed these out of the old Glossaries of Philoxenus and others and to transcribe more was needless It cannot therefore seem strange to any if we interpret this verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by proloqui to utter or pronounce which is rendered in the old Onomasticon by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly call him a Prophet who delivers or pronounces a pious discourse in a Church Assembly It is certain that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used thus in Lucian in Auct Vitarum where Diogenes is represented as giving this short Character of himself that he was one who took it to be his province publickly to teach Vertue and inveigh against Vice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in short I am resolved to be a PROPHET of truth and liberty of speech i. e. to speak freely whatever I think to be true and just I confess Diogenes seems here to have taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for two Goddesses by whom he was inspired but then it was only in order to this end that he might boldly speak the truth concerning mens manners and not that he might foretel things to come This is the sense in which the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Aristotle in lib. de mundo where he speaks thus concerning Philosophy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understanding I suppose easily things agreable to her nature and comprehending divine things with the divine eye of her mind and declaring them to men In this place also there is a respect had to inspiration but not such a one as has any relation to the knowledg of things future These two passages were not understood by H. Stephanus Because therefore the Genius and use of the Greek language would admit preachers to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul made use of this word and so much the more willingly because therein he did not depart from the custom of his Country-men the Jews among whom it was a Prophet's office not only to foretel things to come but also to teach the People Piety and Vertue The Egyptians also had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they prophesied or confer'd with the People about their manners is not known Ibid. under the 6 th sense of that word See my Notes upon the passage cited by the Doctor out of Numbers Vers 70. Note p. I. The learned Jac. Rhenferdius has written a Discourse very well worth our reading about this phrase saeculum praesens futurum the present and future age in which he asserts that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the age to come was used in antient times and so in the time of Christ to signify only the next life and not the age of the Messias And indeed all the examples brought by the Doctor do confirm this very thing nor is there any clear place alledged by him out of the New Testament which puts the contrary out of doubt One or two passages in a late Rabbin ought not to be taken for a certain proof of what was the custom and doctrine of the Antient Jews II. The interpretation which the Doctor gives of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears to be ingenious at first sight but if it be narrowly examined it will be found inconsistent with the use of the Hebrew language For as the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to age and to age signifies nothing but to all future ages so the meaning of that other is no more than for ever It is a Hebraism wherein the same word is repeated to express all that such or such a word signifies And thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man man is used to signify every man III. The Gospel is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal because it will never be made void by any other Covenant or Dispensation as the Law had been It has no relation at all to the Phrase the present or future age IV. The Phrase 〈◊〉
however not agreeing in their Opinions about the day nor so much as the year in which Christ was born one might be ready perhaps to question the Authority of Justin and Tertullian who tell us that the Tables on which this enrolling here spoken of was made were extant in their time For from those Records this whole matter might easily have been known and it would have been an inexcusable neglect in the Christians of that age who could have looked into those publick Registers and transmitted to Posterity what they had there read and yet would not do it But I am afraid that Tertullian and others spake only by guess because it was not certainly known that those Records were lost But this is not a place to treat of this matter Vers 14. Note e. The Alexandrian and Cambridg Copies which are both venerable for their antiquity and the Latin and Gothick Interpreters have that reading which the Doctor here expounds And therefore it is not true as Grotius says that all the Copies consent in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho the greatest part read it so Vers 35. Note f. It is easy to conjecture what was the occasion of that grief that like a sword pierced through the heart of this holy Woman For how could she see without extreme sorrow and trouble almost all the Jews persecuting her Son and that with such implacable fury as to nail him at last to a Cross As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is either Mary her self according to the genius of the Hebrew or if you please her heart which might metaphorically be said to be struck through when she beheld her Son crucified So in Statius Lib. x. Thebaid a Father hearing his Sons life demanded received the sentence Non secus ac torta trajectus cuspide pectus exanimis There was no need of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be the sensitive Soul to give light to an easy phrase used also in other Languages CHAP. III. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor interprets this in his paraphrase thus Governour of that fourth division of the kingdom called Galilee by which words there is no body but would think that Herod was here equal'd with Pilate and was a President sent by Tiberius But the difference between a Governour or President and a Tetrarch he explains in part in his Annotations He should have added that this Herodes Antipas was in possession of this Tetrarchship in pursuance of Herod the Great 's will and did not send the revenue of that territory to Rome as the Roman Presidents did but converted it to his own use He depended indeed upon Caesar against whose will he could not have took possession of his inheritance and who could take it away from him when ever he pleased and at last did so But he was not however the Emperors tributary but his friend and wanted nothing but the title of one to make him a King And upon this account Josephus Antiq. Jud. Lib. 17. Cap. 10. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I make this remark because our Author seems in another place by an intolerable impropriety of speech to give Herod the title of a Roman Governour as if he had not ruled his Principality in his own name but in the Emperors See Note on Matt. xxii 16 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The force of this word is not sufficiently expressed by the Doctor in his Paraphrase St. Luke's words are to be rendred thus And Jesus himself when he began to execute his office or to preach the Gospel was about thirty years old and as was supposed was the Son of Joseph c. In the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a form of passing over to the next words and they who interpret it otherwise make a difficulty where there is none 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be said in Greek for he began which yet is commonly here supposed tho without producing any such Example I should paraphrase therefore this Passage thus When Jesus first began to preach the Gospel which he did a little after he had been baptized by John he was about thirty years old and was of the Stock of David his Mother being of the same Family and Joseph her Husband who was the Son of c. CHAP. IV. Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides what has been said by Grotius to confirm the truth of this reading it may be farther observed that it is read so in Beza's Cambridg Copy and three others which he mentions besides that which the Authors of the Coptick and Gothick Versions made use of Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is wanting in the Alexandrian and Beza's antient Copy It is not expressed in the 3 d Verse nor in Matth. iv 6 And therefore Beza who uses to render that Article by a demonstrative Pronoun has here omitted it and told us in his Notes that he suspected it It was possible that the Devil might have known it to have been affirmed by Mary and Joseph that Jesus was conceived without the assistance of a Man and by the power of the Holy Ghost and that for that reason the Angel who had foretold his Birth had said that he should be called the Son of God but it was possible also that he might question whether that was true or no and so be willing to tempt our Saviour himself that he might be more fully satisfied about it And accordingly the Temptation may be thus expressed If thou art the Son of God and not of a Man as thy Mother says cast thy self down from hence for since thou may'st put thy trust in God thy Father there is nothing that thou needest to fear because it is written in Psal xci concerning those that trust in God that he has commanded his Angels to take care of them CHAP. V. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke here follows S. Mark but St. Matthew Chap. ix 9 mentions his own name It is supposed by most and by our Author here among the rest that Levi was but another name for S. Matthew but this is confuted by Grotius by divers considerable Arguments in his Notes on Matt. ix which I wonder that Dr. Hammond should take no notice of but follow the common Opinion St. Matthew and Levi were perhaps Companions in the same Custom or Tollhouse and dwelt together And Christ seems to have called them both and to have been entertained at a Feast by them both at their own house But Levi was not chosen to be one of the twelve Apostles And yet why St. Mark and Luke pass by Matthew and make mention of Levi I confess I can give no reason CHAP. VI. Vers 13. Note c. I. THat Christ was commissioned and authorized by God to found and govern the Church
and the Apostles by Christ cannot be matter of doubt with any Christian but I question whether the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such as that the Authority which belonged to the Apostolical Office can by Grammatical Reasons be thence deduced Mission does not to speak properly signify Authority but only the purpose or action of sending by which there is a greater or lesser Power conferred upon the person sent according as seems good to the person that sends him Nor can the person that is so sent assume to himself the Authority of him that sent him merely because he sent him but only because when he was sent he received such or such a Commission which he is obliged also not to exceed This our Author seems indeed to have perceived tho but obscurely whilst he affirms and denies in the same Annotation that the word Apostle is a Title of Dignity II. The Talmudists term'd them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Messengers of the Congregation that were sent by the Synagogues on any business whatsoever and who among other Offices which they performed offered up Prayers for those who could not pray for themselves in the Synagogue especially at the beginning of the new year and on the day of expiation See Joan. Buxtorf in Lexic Talmud and Camp Vitringa de Synagog Lib. 3. Part 2. c. 11. But there were never any Tithes either due or paid to the Synagogues but only to the Temple as long as it stood to which also it was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of in Philo brought money and not to the Synagogues Thus Philo p. 785. Ed. Gen. saith of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew that they gathered the consecrated moneys under the name of first-fruits and sent them to Jerusalem by those who were going to offer up sacrifices there The like he repeats in p. 801. where he calls those persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 22. Note e. Tho it be true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken for a man yet the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to cast out a man as wicked but to defame as Grotius has evidently proved whom the Reader may consult Vers 30. Note f. It is true that the person here intended is a poor man who makes use of what is anothers but that the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to require Vsury or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self to receive upon use I am not apt to believe if those words be considered conjunctly For it is not all one as to the finding out the signification of words what connexion or relation they have with one another I rather chuse therefore to understand this Precept of Christ thus That those who can be without what another person who absolutely needs it possesses of theirs tho it be unjustly detained from them ought rather to recede from their right than by taking what is their own again reduce a poor distressed man to his last shifts Indeed if a rich man should unjustly keep back what is anothers which he stands in no need of it would not be the part of a liberal Man but a Fool to neglect his right but there cannot be a more generous or liberal Action than to connive at such a fault in a poor man And this being a very good sense of this Precept and agreeable to the usual signification of every word in it I do not see why we should recur to any other CHAP. VII Vers 3. Note a. OUR Author might have added that it was ordinary in Scripture to bring in Messengers speaking in the same words that those would have done who sent them if they had been present See my Index to the Pentateuch upon the word Nuntius Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They acknowledged God to be just and themselves to be guilty and that they deserved the destruction which John had denounced against them Of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see our Notes upon Rom. iii. 4 Vers 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They rejected Gods purpose of reforming them by John's Ministry See Acts xx 27 Vers 44. Note c. See my Notes on Gen. xviii 4 CHAP. VIII Vers 3. Note a. I. IT is true indeed that the meats at Feasts were divided and distributed to the Guests by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring Servants but he is mistaken whoever thinks with Dr. Hammond that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies this particular action rather than any other service nor do the places alledged by him prove it Servants had various employments which were all called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as among the Latins ministeria He that divided the Meats was not called by the general name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and in Latin scissor or carptor See Laur. Pignorius and Aus Popma in Comment de Servis The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Luke xii 37 does not signify only to divide to every one his portion of meat but any errand or employment that used to be given to Servants whilst their Masters were feasting The same I say of Matth. xx 28 and Mark x. 45 which the Doctor puts a forced sense upon when they might be most fitly explained according to the constant signification almost of that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Our Learned Author had not sufficiently examined the passage he speaks of in St. Matthew for it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies to exercise Dominion or Kingly Authority over Subjects and not that of a Master over Servants the Discourse not being about Masters and Servants but about Kings and Subjects Ye know that the Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise Dominion over them It follows and those that are great exercise Authority upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an Authority as belongs to a Vice-Roy or the King's Lieutenant Christ here forbids the Governours of his Church to assume a Regal Power over Christians which they do whensoever they put them to death or persecute such as cannot say just as they say or to take any such Authority upon them which on pretence of acting in the name of the Supreme Governor Jesus Christ they might easily abuse to the destruction of Christians In fine he would have nothing done in an imperious domineering way but all by perswasion and entreaty III. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in John ii are those that served the Guests in all things which they wanted as well as in distributing to them Meat and Drink It is not from this latter that the Deacons of the Church were so called as by a Metaphor taken from a Feast but rather from a borrowed signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken sometimes for
silent he was forced to say a great many far-fetch'd things and now and then intermix Allegories in his Annotations Tho I would not have this taken as an Argument that I have the least undervaluing thought of that incomparable Man CHAP. XVI Vers 9. Note b. IT is most true that there are a great many Verbs used in the Scripture without any Nominative case to them and that therefore we must supply that defect in our own thoughts unless they be impersonal Verbs See my Notes upon Gen. xi 9 and my Index to the Pentat on the word Persona But this Observation can have no place in 1 Sam. xxi 8 because it holds only when the Verb is in the third person masculine and in that place it is in the feminine Vers 12. Note c. This interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the learned Doctor 's leave a mere nicety The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken here in a Philosophical sense for that which does not belong to the Mind and is such as may be taken away from us against our will as Riches And on the other hand that which Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that which pertained to the minds of those whom he spake to and could not be taken away from them against their wills viz. the Truths of the Gospel The meaning of Christ in this place is that those who abused their Riches and could not obtain of themselves to employ them to better purposes were unfit to receive the true Gospel riches as they ought and would not use them better than they did the other Nothing is more common among the Philosophers and especially the Stoicks than this distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pricaeus upon this place has given us some Examples of it and a great many more might be added out of Epictetus only Thus Enchirid. Cap. 1. telling us what things are not in our power he instances in the Body Riches Honours Empires and in a word saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every thing but our own Works And Cap. 2. he says that those things which have their dependence on us cannot by any one be hindered but those which are not in our power are weak obnoxious to servitude and a great many impediments in fine they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cap. 3. he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Remember therefore that if thou thinkest those things which are servile to be free and those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anothers to be thy own thou wilt be hindered but if thou countest that only to be thy own which is thy own and that which is anothers to be as it is another then no body will compel thee c. See likewise his â—â—rger Discourses Lib. 3. c. 24. I have also taken notice of a word borrowed from the Stoicks in a Note on Mat. xix 28 Vers 19. Note d. This Translation which the Doctor gives us of the Parable set down in Gemara Babyl is partly according to the words in the Hebrew and partly according to the Latin Version of R. Sheringamus and taken from thence and this has led our exact Author into a mistake which ought indeed easily to be forgiven him but whereby it appears that Learned Men are overseen sometimes when they seem to be most exact That part of the Parable which there is a mistake in the Doctor 's Translation is word for word according to the Talmudical Dialect thus A King of Flesh and Blood made a great Feast and called to it all the Children of his City There came a certain poor Man and stood at the Gate c. Sheringamus in Praef. ad Cod. Joma sets down this Parable in Hebrew and Latin and with more freedom than ordinary translates the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ought to have been rendred omnes filios urbis suae by multos hospites And Dr. Hammond knowing that the word hospes is sometimes used in the same Notion with exterus or peregrinus and not sufficiently considering that the Discourse here was about Guests translates that by Strangers whereas it is very manifest that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify Citizens i. e. Persons belonging to the same City And this I have thought fit here to take notice of not out of a captious humor but only to warn the Reader that he ought not to be too severe a Judg of those mistakes which the Learned sometimes fall into through want of care since we err sometimes when we are most careful But I have this farther to add that I cannot see any reason why this Parable should be thought to be the same with that here in St. Luke when all the likeness that there is between them is only that the subject of them both is a rich Man and a Beggar But their scope is quite different Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plato in Phaedone S. 41. however he came by the Notion has a Passage much to this purpose for he supposes the Souls of good men to have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods who accompany and conduct them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into their proper place Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Titus Bostrensis Pag. 808. C. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he did not say cruel and inhuman wretch c. but what my Son saith he CHAP. XVII Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word the Doctor in his Paraphrase interprets an hired Servant but the proper Greek word for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the name of a Slave I know the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the New Testament in both these senses but there is no mention made here of any hire or reward due for service and I do not see any reason why we should depart from the most usual signification of the word Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Master whose Authority over his Servant is absolute is not obliged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to thank that Servant who does nothing but what he is commanded for the condition of a Slave is such that he is bound to do whatsoever he is ordered and is able to do But on the other hand a Hireling is not obliged to perform any servile Offices against his will Having agreed with his Master for such a reward for such or such work he cannot be compelled against his will to any other employments and if he voluntarily undertake them he ought to be thanked for it It was the general Notion of Masters that giving attendance was the peculiar office of a Slave whose condition was such that nothing which he did was looked upon as an obligation by his Master They are the words of Seneca Lib. 3. c. 18. de Bâ—nefic who nevertheless contrary to the vulgar opinion affirms that a Master may
generally kept whatever he found because he could not be forced by the Law to restore it And therefore such a man as lays hold of every opportunity which offers it self for his own interest without having any regard to equity is called by St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by St. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hard close-fisted tenacious rough man as Pricaeus upon Mat. xxv 44 has well observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an ambiguous word and signifies both a grave and severe man and one that is rustick and savage Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They call all wise and grave men austere because they neither converse themselves for pleasure nor admit any pleasant discourse from others and there is another sort of men called austere just as Wine is said to be austere which is used in medicinal Potions but never drank because in Comedy a rustick man is called austere In the signification of fierceness or savageness it is used by Diodorus Siculus Lib. 3. p. 168. where speaking of a sort of beast that has a head like a dog he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are exceeding fierce Creatures and impossible to be tamed by any means whatsoever They have a fiercer aspect under the Eyebrows than ordinary I need not tell the Reader that this word is taken here in the worst sense CHAP. XX. Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This is the answer of the Sanhedrim tho their name for brevity sake be here omitted as appears from Mat. xxi 41 See on vers 24. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be rendered thus And when they had understood viz. that these things were spoken against them they said within themselves God forbid for they did not apply the Parable to themselves aloud See Mat. xxi 45 and afterwards ver 19. of this Chapter Thus the omission of a Circumstance often seems to alter a History so that those who tell it large seem to contradict those who relate it more briefly when yet really they agree with one another Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is well observed by learned Men that this Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wait for an opportunity of doing mischief See Chap. xiv 1 of this Gospel and my Notes upon Gen. iii. 15 Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke omits here what St. Matthew expresses and must necessarily be understood viz. And they brought unto him a Penny and he said unto them Mat. xxii 19 Such another omission I have already taken notice of on vers 16. Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our learned Author interprets this word in his Paraphase a future state after this life And indeed the Sadduces did deny not only the resurrection of the Body but also the immortality of the Soul But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies simply a future State and the Argument of the Sadduces opposes nothing but the Resurrection I have elsewhere confuted the Doctor 's opinion about this word see Note on Mat. xxii 31 Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very well known that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as well for a man 's as a woman's Garment tho the Latin stola signifies only a woman's This is more than once proved by Oct. Ferrarius Lib. de Re Vestiaria And yet Epiphanius seems to have understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here of a woman's Garment who Haeres 16. says that the Pharisees were like the Scribes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their apparel and womanish Garments But perhaps he speaks in that manner because amongst the Greeks the men wore short Garments or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coats and the women long Gowns such as were usual among several of the Eastern Nations In antient times also stola talaris a gown reaching down to the Ancles seems to have been a Garment worn by Women among the Assyrians See Oct. Ferrarius in Analectis cap. 23. But it is a good observation that Pope Celestine the first makes concerning Clergymen in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienne and Narbonne Discernendi inquit à plebe vel caeteris sumus doctrinâ non veste conversatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We ought saith he to distinguish our selves from the common people or the rest of mankind by our Doctrin not by our Apparel by our Conversation not by our Habit by the purity of our Minds not by our Dress CHAP. XXI Vers 4. Note a. THO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all one as to the sense yet it is false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same for the latter phrase properly signifies to cast in among the Gifts or Offerings and the former only into a Chest of which there were several in the Temple wherein the Money was deposited that was voluntarily consecrated to the use of the Temple See Lightfoot's Descript of the Temple Chap. 19. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some that add here a note of interrogation as if Christ had said Are these the things which ye look upon as it is in the Cambridg Copy wherein the Gospels are rather paraphrased than the words only variously read and therefore Grotius justly rejects this note of Interrogation The Evangelist expresses himself here just as the best Writers sometimes do The end of the sentence does not answer the beginning but the whole is made up of two different forms of speech mixed together For either he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These things which ye behold shall be quite destroyed for the days will come c. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Of these things which ye behold the days will come in which there shall not be left one stone upon another But the Evangelist begins just as if he was about to express himself the former of these ways and ends with the latter Grotius has given us two examples of the like Syntax and I add this one more out of Terence Phorm Act. 3. Sc. 2. O fortunatissime Antipho qui quod amas domi est He should have said Qui quod amas domi habes or cui quod amas domi est Who hast what thou lovest at home Such phrases as these have something of that impropriety in them which is frequent in ordinary speech Vers 24. Note b. 1. Our Author tells us as out of Eusebius that there died during the Siege of Jerusalem eleven millions of People i. e. ten times more than there did according both to Eusebius and Josephus's account who reckon up but eleven hundred thousand 2. The words in Eusebius which the Doctor translates to be slaves there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Henr. Valesius renders ut metalla exercerent to work in the Mines and so they ought to be interpreted 3. Eusebius is mistaken in
the last Circumstance and disagrees with Josephus whom he professes to follow for that Historian tells us that the number of those that were taken during the whole War was ninety seven thousand Lib. 7. c. 45. de Bell. Jud. which was very ill understood by Eusebius of those that were made Captives after the taking of the City Besides that Euseb reckons but 90000 whereas Josephus reckons 7000 more Ibid. Note c. The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I think much more naturally be understood of the time in which the Heathens i. e. the Idolaters should continue the Governors of the World as if the meaning of Christ's words was this Jerusalem shall be possessed and inhabited by Idolaters until the time during which the Idolaters must govern the World is expired for then it shall be inhabited and possessed for the most part by Christians which came to pass in the time of Constantin who ordered the Temples of the Idols which were in Jerusalem to be destroyed See his Life as it is written by Eusebius Lib. 3. c. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the time during which the Nations were to have the supreme Authority in the World as afterwards Chap. xxii 53 of this Gospel Christ speaking to those who had apprehended him saith This is your Hour i. e. the time in which you may do to me what you please That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should be taken for Idolaters is not strange because all Nations besides Judaea where wholly given up to Idolatry If this conjecture about the sense of this place be not true I am sure Dr. Hammond's interpretation of it is less likely to be so Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sea saith Grotius in the Books of the Prophets signifies the state of the World when it is troubled with various events I do not think it has any reference to that But the Prophets used when they describe any great alteration to speak in the words of Juvenal Miscere coelum terrâ mare coelo i. e. to represent the changes that are made in Mankind by the motions of the Heavens Earth and Sea see Isa xiii For the same reason I should refuse to interpret the powers of Heaven spoken of in the next Verse of the Christian Churches We must take all these Metaphors together and not examin each singly by it self as if there was something particular signified by every one of them CHAP. XXII Vers 6. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he accepted the Reward offered him or he agreed to the Bargain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily taken for a Bargain or Agreement as Stephanus has proved by many examples In the 2 Cor. ix 13 it signifies consent as the same Author observes And the old Glosses render it by stipulatus pactio convenientia covenanting bargaining agreeing the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 includes indeed a Promise and the Greeks used that word in Bargains or Contracts where the Latins used promitto and spondeo After the proposing of the Terms the proposer demanded of the other party whether he would spondere engage or promittere promise to stand to those Terms and the answer was spondeo promitto Thus the Latins used to speak but the Greeks made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not properly indeed I promise but I consent The Cambridg Copy has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is most common and signifies often the same with consenting or agreeing about a price 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the proposal of it as it was here as appears by the foregoing Verse See the Greek Index to Xenophon made by Aemil. Portus and to Dionysius Halicarn Ant. Rom. by F. Sylburgius in which there are a great many examples given of this signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore here signifies he consented to the Price and Dr. Hammond has manifestly missed the sense of it Vers 26. Note d. The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to serve the interests of the rest as young People used to obey the commands of their Seniors Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be a name not only of Age but of Dignity yet I have never seen it demonstrated by any example hitherto that those who are destitute of any Office are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any respect had to their Age. The places which the Doctor refers us to do not in the least prove what he would have them for they may all be very well understood concerning Age. Vers 52. Note g. For the reconciling of Josephus with St. Luke and so the understanding of the Evangelist's words it must be observed that there were two Garisons placed in the Temple which had their several Captains one consisted of Levites who kept guard in the Temple night and day down from the time of David as appears from 2 Chron. viii 14 For that there was a guard kept in the 2 d Temple the Talmudists assure us in Cod. Middoth Chap. 1. § 1 and 2. And the Captain of this Garison was a Jew whom the Talmudists call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Man of the Mountain of the House or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head of the Watch as appears from the forementioned place in the Talmud And this Man might have other inferior Captains under him whom he set over each single Band or Guard which are all called by St. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captains of the Temple who nevertheless calls the chief Captain in the singular Number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. iv 1 v. 24 So that it is not to be wondred at if Josephus gives the same title to Jews this Office belonging only to them And hence we see that the Captain or Captains of the Temple are always by St. Luke joined with the Priests and Princes of the Jews Now it was lawful for the Sanhedrim who might employ for that purpose the Levites which kept watch about the Temple to apprehend any Jew and cast him into Prison if he offended against the Law tho they had no power to put him to death as appears from the History of Christ's Passion and the Acts of the Apostles But besides this there was a Roman Garison put into the Tower called Antonia which had a Roman Tribune for its Captain not a Jew And this St. Luke makes mention of Acts xxi and xxii The Soldiers that were under the command of this Captain are stiled Mat. xxvi 65 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word borrowed from the Romans either because they were themselves Romans or else because they had taken an Oath of Fidelity to the Romans These were under the Procurators Authority and obeyed him and their Tribunes and Centurions only not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was a Jew and commanded only the Levites But it may be demanded perhaps why the Captain of the Guard of Levites is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 which properly signifies a military Captain or Commander whereas the Levites were no Soldiers And this is undoubtedly the reason why Dr. Hammond thought it was the Tribune who was set over the Roman Garison that was called by that name But he and others who have fallen into the same mistake should have remembred that the sacred Functions of the Levites are more than once stiled by Moses a Warfare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Num. viii 24 25. where the Septuag have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore he that was chief over the Levites might very well be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Greek is usually rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the Doctor upon Chap. xxiii 11 Note a. CHAP. XXIII Vers 11. Note a. HAVE a care of thinking that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies to serve or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Servants The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is applied sometimes to the service of the Levites is therefore made use of because it signifies congregari to assemble or gather together as the Levites used to do about the Tabernacle or Temple or because they were God's garison Soldiers who came together for the defence of the Temple not because that word ever signifies to serve Timothy is called a good Soldier not simply as a Servant of God but as a fighter in God's cause tho the thing considered in it self be the same yet the significations of words are various and it is not all one whether we say a Servant or a Soldier tho both may be said sometimes of the same Person Our Author therefore here looked for a knot in a Bulrush when it had been easy to understand the word here used of Herod's guard Vers 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Cambridg Copy here reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in a great many other places there is as great a variation as this between it and other Copies which discovers it to be a sort of a Paraphrase Vers 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He acknowledged the truth he confessed that Jesus was indeed the Person whom he would have himself believed to be That this is the meaning of this Phrase appears by the following words saying truly this was a Just Man and just in the same manner it is used in Chap. v. 26 of this Gospel and in Josh vii 19 And therefore Grotius who interprets it he acknowledged the power of God and our Author who follows him in his Paraphrase are mistaken CHAP. XXIV Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Their Sorrow was so great that they had not sufficiently taken notice nor looked stedfastly enough upon the Man that had joined himself to their Company to know him to be Jesus So Hagar was so overwhelmed with Grief at the thoughts of her Son 's dying that she did not see or did not take notice of the Well of Water that was just by her Gen. xxi 19 And so when it is said afterwards Vers 31. of this Chapter that the same Disciples Eyes were opened 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is nothing but this that looking more stedfastly upon Christ they knew him which very Phrase is used in the story of Hagar in the same sense Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Pious and Eloquent not like the Pharisees who talked very big of Virtue without practising it and were powerful men in words but not works which was the general reproach cast upon the Philosophers among the Heathens Cebes Thebanus in his Table describing a true Philosopher tells us that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prudent Man and mighty in Wisdom both in Word and Deed See Acts vii 22 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These two Disciples of Christ do not seem to have spoken with the Women themselves but only to have heard the report of others by which means they came to know but half the Truth for the Women affirmed that they had also seen Jesus himself Nor can this seem strange since it is evident from the 21 st verse that these Disciples went from Jerusalem the same day that Christ rose from the Dead a very few Hours after his Resurrection and so could not have a perfect knowledg of all the Circumstances of it Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Gen. xix 2 Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. they besought him instantly so 2 Kings v. 16 Naaman the Syrian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 urged or importuned Elisha to take the Gift which he refused for curing him of his Leprosy See note on Chap. xiv 23 Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he went out of the Room on a sudden and they could not possibly understand whether he was gone for it is not necessary to suppose that he became invisible before he went out of the Room Pindar uses the same word of Pelops who had conveyed himself away but certainly without becoming invisible Olympion 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he you disappeared So afterwards vers 36. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he came amongst them on a sudden and before they were aware Vers 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. by his explaining the Scriptures to them whereby they came to perceive that there were several things spoken of Christ which they did not before take notice of For Christ had not as yet given them the Holy Ghost and it appears from Acts i. 6 that after all these Discourses of his they did not understand the nature of Christ's Kingdom In my Ars Critica I have interpreted this Phrase more at large Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Luke who often omits several Circumstances which are related by the other Evangelists joins together several Discourses that were delivered by Christ at different times and here in this place he seems to connect these words with the foregoing tho they were spoken by Christ many days after for he said the former on the very day of his Resurrection but these latter were not spoken till after the Apostles were come back from Galilee Compare these things with the History of the other Evangelists ANNOTATIONS ON THE GOSPEL according to St. John NB. Tho Mr. Le Clerc did not insert this Paraphrase and Animadversions on the 18 first Verses of the first Chapter of this Gospel in his Latin Edition of Dr. Hammond because it had been publish'd twice before yet 't was thought fit for the convenience of English Readers and to make the Work more complete to put it here in its proper place The Author's Preface to the 2 d Edition of his Paraphrase on the first eighteen Verses I Have already in the first Edition of this little Commentary given the Reasons which induced me to publish it and therefore I shall not here repeat them I freely give my consent to the reprinting of it because it is my interest to have
my thoughts concerning the beginning of St. John's Gospel publickly known I have so confuted Socinus as yet sufficiently to intimate that I intend not to publish any Theological Disputations about those things in which I disagree with him and have expresly said so in a former Preface to these Animadversions For that reason I have not affirmed that the Father Son and Holy Ghost do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same manner but that each has his peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor was I under any obligation to do so from the thing it self for Philo to whom St. John seems to have had a respect in the beginning of this his Gospel did not deny that the Father the first begotten Son and the Soul of the World had their several distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Evangelist corrects only what that Alexandrian Philosopher said concerning Reason or the Son Some have been disgusted with my rendering the Greek word which is usually translated Word or Sermo discourse by Reason But I intreat them first throughly to consider the Reasons I have given for that rendring of it and then to remember that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in it self ambiguous and may as well be translated Reason as Word And tho this latter signification obtained in the West because of the unskilfulness of the old Latin Interpreter or if you please the poverty of the Latin Language yet the Greek Fathers do shew when they treat of this matter that they understood Reason by it no less than Word see Dion Petav. Dogm Theolog. T. 2. Lib. 6. c. 1. Nay the Latin Fathers also themselves who examined the Greek word made use of by St. John do acknowledg that we ought rather to understand Reason by it than what the Latins call Verbum when they say that they do not understand by it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum prolatum but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insitum or an internal not an external word for what is an internal word but Reason or reasoning Besides the whole Christian Church both Greek and Latin do frequently confound the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom which is the same with Reason but vastly different from a word uttered or pronounced So that tho I have receded in some measure from the custom of the Latins as to the sound yet not at all as to the thing it self If any object that the word Reason signifies rather a Quality than a Substance let them shew me that the term Word is any fitter than that to signify a Substance and I engage to revoke publickly all that I have said But if any one think he may make use of an improper word because it was generally used by the Latin and those unlearned men let him give me leave to make use of one that is altogether as proper because it was constantly used by the most learned Greek Fathers In the mean time let him permit me to intend by the word Reason that which if he were asked the meaning of the term Word he would be forced to express by internal discourse i. e. reasoning And lastly let him hear what Tertullian says in Lib. adversus Praxeam Cap. 5. where he discourses thus Ceterum ne tunc quidem solus Deus nempe erat habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis etiam Deus Ratio in ipso priùs ita ab ipso omnia Quae Ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis i. e. imperitiam interpretandi Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis Rationem competat antiquiorem haberi quia non Sermonalis à principio sed Rationales Deus etiam ante principium quia ipse quoque sermo Ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suam ostendat c. But neither then was he alone viz. God for he had with him his Reason which he had within himself God is Rational also and Reason was before in him and so all things were of him Which Reason is his Sense This the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word also we use to signify Sermo And therefore it is become the common custom among us through a simplicity of interpretation i. e. an unskilfulness in interpreting to say that Discourse Sermo was in the beginning with God whereas it would be more proper to say that Reason was so which is more antient because God was in the beginning not sermonal but rational even before the beginning and because Discourse it self depending upon Reason does shew that to be prior to it as its substance c. CHAP. I. SOME who have joined the study of the Heathen Philosophy with the Profession of the Jewish or Christian Religion have took upon them to teach a great many things concerning the Divine REASON LIFE and LIGHT and the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God which they have inculcated upon their Disciples as points of Faith of the greatest moment And because what they have asserted is neither all true nor all false that we may know what we are to reject and what we are to admit of I shall in few words set down that which is agreeable to the Doctrin of Jesus Christ before I enter upon his History Verse 1. In the beginning was REASON and that REASON was with GOD and GOD was that REASON 1. It is true before the Creation of the World there was REASON for REASON was then in GOD yea GOD himself since God cannot be without REASON 2. The same was in the beginning with GOD. 2. There was I say REASON in GOD before the World was created 3. All things were made by it and without it was not any thing made that was made 3. For every thing in the World was made with the highest REASON nor can any one thing be instanced in that was created without REASON 4. In it was LIFE and this LIFE was the LIGHT of Men. 4. Heretofore was lodged only in this REASON a full and complete knowledg of the way that leads to Eternal LIFE and this Knowledg wanted only to be communicated to Men to be a sufficient LIGHT to guide them in their pursuit after that LIFE 5. And the LIGHT shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not 5. And now that LIGHT has been brought down upon Earth amongst Men and has shined for many years past upon the way that leads to LIFE but the greatest part of Mankind chuse rather to wander in the darkness of Ignorance than to make use of that LIGHT 6. There was a Man sent by God his name was John 7. The same came for a Witness to bear witness of the LIGHT that all Men through him might believe 6 7. John the Son of Zacharias was sent by
slight conjectures against it should think he had rendered the Authority of that History questionable and because it might possibly have been written by some other pretend that no body ought to produce any testimony out of it ever after And yet this they do who as I understand go about to rob the Apostle John of that Gospel which has always been reckoned his as I shall briefly shew by producing some of the most antient Testimonies to that purpose which are well enough known already to learned Men but it may be not so well to those for whose sake I now write who seldom spend much time in reading the Writings of the Antients The first Testimony I shall mention and the most antient of all is at the end of St. John's Gospel it self Chap. xxi 24 where after a Prediction delivered by Christ concerning the great Age that St. John should live to it is immediately added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. THIS is the Disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things and we KNOW that his Testimony is true We may read what Grotius says in his Notes on Chap. xx 29 and Dr. Hammond on this place it self Where those great men have shewn that this is the Testimony of the Church of Ephesus whereby it appears that from the very first this Gospel was thought to be the Apostle John's even by those who lived and conversed with him which is a certain evidence of its being genuine because this Testimony was given by Persons who lived at the time when it was written and might certainly know who was the Author of it Nor let any one say that this Testimony or this whole Chapter was an addition put in by some other a considerable time afterwards for it is read in all the Copies and all Interpreters acknowledg it Another proof of this may be taken out of Justin Martyr who when a Child might perhaps have seen St. John himself And he in that Apology which is commonly called his second and which he presented to Antoninus Pius in the year of Christ 140. where he describes the sacred Assemblies of the Christians says that in them were read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commentaries of the Apostles pag. 98. Ed. Paris Colon. By which he means the Gospels as appears by what he says a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostles in their Commentaries which are called the Gospels c. And tho he does not very often cite the Apostles words themselves in those Writings of his which are extant yet he frequently alludes to them and particularly to the beginning of St. John's Gospel from whence he took what he says in several places about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its Incarnation and which he every where sets down as points of Faith generally received among Christians Which he durst not to have done unless he had relied upon the Authority of the Apostles for who among the Orthodox would have presumed first to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was commonly abused by the Valentinians and others at that time Who would have ventured to make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might easily by bad or unwary men have been perverted to a wrong sense unless an Apostle had first used it It belonged only to the Apostles who were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspectors of Mysteries and not to the ordinary sort of Mystae to use new words in such kind of matters for they alone might safely impose new names upon things above the reach of human understanding who understood them better than others and so as none ever did without a particular Inspiration I know indeed this was not observed in later times but in those first it unquestionably was Now Justin frequently makes mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all know that have but occasionally read any thing in his Writings I shall produce only one or two passages out of the forementioned Apology In pag. 74. he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Power next to the Father and Lord of all things God and the Son is the Reason which how it became man by being incarnated I shall afterwards shew And hence pag. 83. he affirms that all mankind who follow the direction of Reason are also partakers of Christ And adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who lived according to reason were Christians tho they were thought to be Atheists as among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them And afterwards pag. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ our Saviour was incarnated by the Reason of God and had both flesh and blood for our Salvation Any body may see that these are manifest allusions to the beginning of this Gospel and none but an Ignoramus will deny it But there are extant also in that Book the express words of Christ as they are related by St. John in Chap. iii. 3 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He cites likewise the Apocalypse as that Apostle's Work in Dial. cum Tryphone which yet many have doubted of tho all agreed as to the Gospel Thirdly Among those who acknowledged the Apostle John to be the Writer of this Gospel I might alledg the Testimony of the Valentinians who as Irenaeus tells us endeavoured to pervert it to their own advantage For they pretended that St. John asserted what they called an Ogdoas Pleromatis in the beginning of his Gospel and thought tho erroneously that he very much confirmed their opinions which makes it evident however that before Irenaeus's time this Gospel was vulgarly reputed to be St. John's See what the Valentinians themselves say in Irenaeus Lib 1. c. 1. p. 36. A fourth Testimony may be taken out of Irenaeus himself who lived almost at the same time with Justin his words I shall afterwards produce to avoid repeating them The last shall be out of Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. who relying on the Authority of former Ages and not merely on his own or of the Age in which he lived speaks in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let his viz. St. John's Gospel which is very well known to all the Churches under Heaven be first acknowledged And about the latter end of the same Chapter he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of St. John ' s Writings besides his Gospel the first of the Epistles is and always was acknowledged without dispute See also Chap. xxv I shall not alledg the Testimonies of any other Writers because it is certain that from Irenaeus's time this was the general opinion and if these Testimonies which I have alledged as one said be not sufficient I know not what is But certain Hereticks whom Epiphanius Haeres 51. seems to have called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they denied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same reason rejecting the Authority of all the Antients denied St. John
Being returned from his Banishment tn the Isle of Patmos he composes his Gospel when he was a hundred years old It is no matter to us which of these Oâ—inions be true as long as we are certain that St. John wrote his Gospel about the end of the first Century Epiphanius confessing that St. John wrote it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the ninetieth year of his Age and after his return out of Patmos erroneously makes that to have been in the reign of Claudius as learned Men have observed See his words in Heres Alogorum which is the 51. Sect. 12. III. By these Testimonies it appears that St. John either wrote or published his Gospel at Ephesus which Irenaeus also expresly affirms Lib. 3. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John one of our Lord's Disciples who also leaned upon his Breast and himself published a Gospel dwelling at Ephesus in Asia If it be enquired on what occasion and to what end St. John began his Gospel so as we see he does Irenaeus answers in these words Lib. 3. c. 11. after he had spoken of the other Evangelists St. John the Disciple of our Lord designing to extirpate that error which had been sowed in mens Minds by Cerinthus and a great while before by those that are called Nicolaitans who are a branch of that Heresy which is falsly called Knowledg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence they had the name of Gnosticks that he might confound them and perswade them that there is one God who made all things by his Word c. So that St. John if we believe Irenaeus began his Gospel so as he did on purpose to refute the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Gnosticks as he declares afterwards more at large Eusebius in Hist Eccles Lib. 3. c. 24. affirms that the intention of St. John was to fill up what was wanting in the relation of the other Evangelists In his room I shall substitute St. Jerom who in Catal. Script Eccles has these words Novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium rogatus ab Asiae Episcopis adversus Cerinthum aliósque Haereticos maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse unde compulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edisserere Sed aliam causam hujus scripturae ferunt c. He wrote his Gospel last of all at the desire of the Bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other Hereticks and the Heresy of the Ebionites which began to prevail exceedingly at that time who asserted that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary upon which account also he was forced to declare his Divine Birth But there is another reason likewise given of this writing which is the same I have alledged out of Eusebius and is not to our purpose The same Author in Proaem ad Matthaeum speaks thus Joannes Apostolus Evangelista cum esset in Asia c. St. John the Apostle and Evangelist being in Asia and the Heresies of Cerinthus Ebion and others who denied that Christ was come in the Flesh and whom he also in his Epistle calls Antichrists springing up at that very time he was compelled almost by all the then Bishops of Asia and the Messages of many Churches to write concerning our Saviour's Divinity more particularly Whence it is also related in Church-History that being urged by his Brethren to write he promised that he would provided they would all keep a fast and implore the assistance of God on his behalf which being accordingly performed he was filled with the Holy Ghost and immediately dictated as from Heaven that Proemium In the beginning c. Altho all these Authors had been silent we might easily enough have drawn a conjecture from the thing it self for celebrated Writers and Sects of Hereticks having introduced several Platonick terms into the Jewish and Christian Religion before St. John wrote and the Apostle John being the first Christian Writer that used those terms in a peculiar Sense in the beginning of his Gospel it may be easily conjectured that he alluded to the Doctrin of those Men and that it was his design to teach Christians in what sense those terms might be made use of If the Writings of those antient Hereticks were now extant they would be a great help doubtless to our understanding of this matter but since they are lost we can only make use of their fragments which are extant in Irenaeus the most antient Writer that has related their Opinions There are extant also several Books of the famous Philo Alexandrinus who was contemporary with the Apostles and if we believe some of the Antients familiar with them where the same terms are so often used that I am apt to think St. John has as great a respect to him as the forementioned Hereticks It is certain that all his Writings were published a long while before ever St. John wrote and his eloquence is such that he was justly had in admiration by all who lived in his time and is still read by learned Men with great delight What high Commendations Josephus Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Jerom and others give him I need not say So celebrated a Writer therefore could not be unknown to the Apostle John who dwelt so long at Ephesus in the very eye of Asia That he had been carefully read by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews the great Grotius has observed And therefore being often read by the Christians and having a great many things in him of a near affinity with the Christian Tenets it was possible that many who were taken with his Eloquence might imitate him and mix his Opinions before they were aware with Christianity To prevent which St. John in the beginning of his Gospel made use of those terms which were most likely to impose on the unwary that the Christians might understand in what sense they might be used and how probable this is will by comparing the words of the Apostle with those of Philo sufficiently appear But before I come to that I shall endeavour to strengthen this conjecture by producing some passages out of him parallel to several sayings of Christ himself and his Apostles in this Gospel For the more I shew to be in Philo resembling the Discourses of Christ and his Disciples the more likely it will be that he was frequently read and delighted in by the Christians of that Age and accordingly that St. John had a reference to him in the beginning of his Gospel 1. There is nothing in Christianity that more offends the Jews than our so asserting God to be one as yet to make mention of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose names we are baptized And there is something so like this Tenâ—t in Philo that you would almost think you were reading the words of some Christians He seems indeed to speak more agreeably to the opinion which Arius afterwards espoused than of the Orthodox but he came
nearer the Christians in this matter than the Jews and might easily have imposed upon the unwary His words are these in Lib. de Abrahamo p. 287. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The FATHER is in the middle of all who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar Name stiled the Being and on each side are two most antient Powers next to the Being whereof one is called the effective Power and the other Royal and the Effective GOD for by this the Father made and adorned the Vniverse and the Royal LORD for it is fit he should rule and govern what he has made And in the next words he asserts also that God is Three and One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being therefore attended on both sides with his Powers to a discerning Vnderstanding he appears one while to be ONE and another while to be THREE ONE when the Mind being in the highest degree purified and passing over not only a multitude of numbers but also that which is next to an Vnit the number of two endeavours after a simple and uncompounded Idea perfect of it self and THREE when not as yet sufficiently exercised in great Mysteries it busies it self about lesser and is not able to conceive the Being without any other of it self but by his Works and either as creating or governing This it is certain was thought by learned Men among the Arians to be the very Tenet of the Christians as may be gathered from what Eusebius in Praep. Evangelica says out of Philo. 2. But especially he affirms those things concerning the Divine Reason which as to the words and sometimes also as to the sense are very like the Christian Doctrin of which I shall produce some examples He calls Reason more than once the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Paul Col. i. 15 in Lib. de Agricultura p. 152. where after he had mentioned the parts of the Universe he tells us that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had set over it his right Reason his first born Son who undertook the care of this sacred Flock as some great King's Deputy 3. He describes it as executing the Office of a Mediator between God and Men in his Book entitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres p. 396. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the Prince of Angels and most antient Reason the Father who created all things conferred this excellent gift to stand as a Mediator and divide that which comes to pass from that which he has made And he perpetually intercedes for perishing Mortals with the incorruptible Nature and is the Princes Embassador to his Subjects He is neither unbegotten as God is nor made as we are but of a middle Nature between both extremes acting the part of a Surety or Pledg with both with the Creator by engaging that Mankind shall never all grow corrupt or rebel preferring Confusion to order and with the Creature by giving them good hope that the Merciful God will never overlook or neglect his own Workmanship 4. Upon this account he calls him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a High-Priest in Lib. de somniis p. 463. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God seems to have two Temples whereof one is this World whose High-Priest is the Divine Reason his first begotten Son and the other the reasonable Soul the Priest whereof is he that is truly a Man In like manner St. Paul says that we are the Temples of God 1 Cor. vi 19 and elsewhere 5. In the same Book pag. 461. Philo tells us that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a Divine and a human 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof one i. e. the Divine purifies and cleanses the Soul from Sin 6. The same Author in several places affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Image of God So in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The invisible and intelligible â—ivine Reason and the Reason of God he calls the Image of God viz. Moses So in Lib. de Somniis towards the end he tells us that those who cannot understand God himself yet sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do understand the Image of God his Angel Reason as himself And elsewhere he gives the same description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul also called the Image of the invisible God the First-born of every Creature see Lib. de Profugis p. 363. 7. In his Book inscribed Quod pejus est meliori insidiatur he says that the Lawgiver viz. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls by the name of Manna the most antient of all Beings the divine Reason see also Lib. 2. de Allegoriis Legis p. 70. seqq So in his Book intitled Quis rerum divinarum haeres pag. 784. he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine Reason the celestial and incorruptible Food of a contemplative Soul Which compare with the words of Christ in John vi 31 seqq There are many other things in Philo resembling the Christian Doctrin which I shall not here transcribe for what I have alledged out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is over and above sufficient to shew the possibility of his leading the Christians into an error by his Eloquence if it were not prevented by the Apostles Authority I shall now endeavour to interpret St. John's words and shew that in many things he had a respect to Philo. Vers 1. In the beginning was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in the number of those which signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the language of the Schools relatives it is not therefore to be thought that it refers to the Argument or Subject of this Book which is the Gospel According to all the rules of Grammar we ought rather to regard the signification of the words which immediatly follow and their connexion And here the following words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all things were made by it and the Evangelist says the World was made by it which shews that he speaks of the beginning of all things or of the Creation of the World None of those that made use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense viz. for a Nature which is with God and is God could understand these words otherwise because they attributed as I shall afterwards shew the Creation of the World to Reason And no wise man ought to take uncommon phrases in a quite different sense from that wherein they are understood by those who mostly use them and yet never warn the Reader of his understanding them otherwise Nor is it the part of a skilful Interpreter to understand Phrases in a perfectly new and unusual sense unless it manifestly appears by the Writer whom he interprets that they ought to be so understood Ibid. Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I interpret the Greek word and not by Verbum the Word or Sermo Speech or Discourse because those who first and mostly used it
to signify a divine Mind or God himself did never mean by it a Nature speaking in the Name of God but only understanding and disposing all things into order Timaeus Locrus a Pythagoraean who perhaps first used this word in his description of the Creation of the World speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before therefore the Heaven was made there were in Reason the Idea and Matter and God the Creator of a better So Epicharmus the Comaedian in his Commonwealth as he is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. Lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Grotius interprets thus Est humana ratio hanc praeter est divina altera Ratio humana circa vitam victum semet occupat At divina Ratio est artis opifex comes omnibus Edocens ipsos quid usus maxime facto siet Quippe homo non reperit artem sed dat hanc auctor Deus Ipsaque illa humana ratio nata est ex ratione Dei Plato Timaeus's Interpreter and Epicharmus's Imitator in his Timaeus calls likewise the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoning p. 528. Ed. Gen. of Ficinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All this true reasoning of God being reasoned c. But in his Epinomis he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Stoicks who as Diogenes Laertius tells us in Lib. 7. Sect. 135 136. affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was the same thing which was called God and the Mind and Fate and Jupiter and by a great many other names said also that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did in the beginning being the seminal Reason of the World dispose all things The same Author in Sect. 134. says it was the Doctrin of the Stoicks that there were two Principles of all things viz. an Active and a Passive the latter of which was Matter or Substance without any Quality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the former viz. the Active was REASON which was in it and which was GOD for this being eternal out of all that viz. Matter or Passive principle formed every thing And to this Doctrin of the Stoicks Tertullian in Apol. cap. 21. had a respect when he says Apud vestros quoque sapientes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Sermonem atque Rationem constant artificem videri Vniversitatis Hunc enim Zenon determinat factitatorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundem fatum vocari Deum animum Jovis necessitatem omnium rerum It is well known that also among your wise men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Speech and Reason was thought to have been the maker of the Vniverse For this Zeno affirms to have been the Creator who formed and disposed all things and was called Fate and God and the Mind of Jupiter and the Necessity of all things There was no need of joining the word Sermo to Ratio to render the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what place could there be for Speech in the Creation and Disposition of the Universe But there was for Reason and therefore Seneca setting down the Opinion of Plato and the Stoicks makes frequent mention of that as in Ep. 65. Causa autem saith he id est Ratio materiam format quocunque vult versat Quaerimus quid sit causa Ratio faciens id est Deus c. The cause that is Reason formeth Matter and turns or diversities it how it pleases If you ask what is meant by Cause it is Reason creating that is God And in Lib. de Vita Beata cap. 8. he stiles it incorporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex incorporeal Reason the Author of great Works Consult also Philo wherever he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Creation of the World and we shall see that he never understands Speech by it but only Reason See his Book de mundi opificio where he says that it was the intelligible Pattern of the World and had no other place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the divine Mind or Reason which disposed those things Other Passages out of him I shall produce afterwards I might alledg also the Testimonies of Modern Platonicks and Ecclesiastical Writers to this purpose but that I have determined to shew only how the Antients used this word The Jews who were more antient than Philo himself called Angels both good and bad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same as if they had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers endued with Reason not with Speech which Philo also imitated So the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. xviii 15 16. speaking of the revenging Angel that was sent against the Egyptians says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thine almighty Reason leapt down from Heaven out of thy Royal Throne as an inexorable Warrior into the midst of a land of destruction and brought thine unfeigned Commandment as a sharp Sword and standing up filled all things with Death and it touched the Heaven but it stood upon the Earth c. The Writer of this Book attributes a Throne to this Angel in agreement with the custom of the Eastern Nations who called Angels Thrones Otherwise he imitates Homer who Iliad Δ vers 443. speaking of Iris saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 She fixes her head in the Heaven and walks upon the Earth I know indeed there are some Interpreters who would make St. John to have a respect to the Expression of Moses who represents God as creating the World by speaking or saying But tho Moses teaches us that God made all things as it were by a Command yet it is manifest he does not mean speech properly so called as I have shewn in my Notes on Gen. Ch. i. So that it would be but a dull Allusion to say upon that account that the Word was with God yea God himself nor are there any such Allusions observable in St. John's stile Ibid. And that Reason was with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is said here that Reason was with God by way of antithesis or opposition to what is afterwards said concerning the manifestation of the divine Reason among men Afterwards it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it dwelt in Jesus Christ nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as Christ conversed with men and by the inspiration of the divine Reason called them to a better life I might produce out of Plotinus if he were not a late Author a like expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I shall alledg only the words of Ignatius in his genuin Epistle ad Magnesios concerning Jesus Christ pag. 33. Ed. Voss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who before all Ages was with the Father but in the end appeared Which words allude to this place in St. John and
may serve instead of an interpretation of it as also what he says a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is one God who has revealed himself by Jesus Christ his Son which is his eternal Reason Ibid. God was that Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. John adds this lest it should be thought that there was any thing besides the Divine Nature before the Creation of the World Philo also calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God in Lib. de Somniis p. 465. on these words in Genes xxxi 13 I am the God that appeared to thee in the place of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which the Scripture calls God is his most antient Reason But there is this difference between St. John and Philo that Philo would have the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be called God only abusively or improperly for a little before he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is truly God is one those that are abusively so are many And after the words before alledged he subjoins that the Scripture does not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not superstitious about the imposing of names But St. John teaches us that Reason not only was from the beginning and with God by which word he understands him who is in the most excellent sense so called but adds as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of correction And that Reason was God which according to Philo could only be said improperly And indeed Philo every where makes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inferior to the most high God whereas St. John asserts the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says conversed afterwards with men to have been the one only true God properly so call'd And this he says also in opposition to Cerinthus of whom Irenaeus in Lib. 1. cap. 25. speaks thus But one Cerinthus in Asia affirmed that the World was not made by the supreme God but by a certain Power separate and very distant from that Principality which is over all things and which did not know him who is over all things God See also Lib. 3. c. 11. For if Reason be God even that God with whom it was from the beginning and if Reason made the World as St. John affirms then Cerinthus was manifestly mistaken Vers 2. The same was in the beginning with God These words St. John repeats out of the foregoing Verse for the sake of connexion being about to say that all things were made by Reason Vers 3. All things were made by it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is nothing to Cerinthus who did not deny that all things were made by Reason but it is said that the Christians might understand it to be true what Philo and others before him among the Jews asserted concerning the Creation of the World by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He opposes the Doctrin of the Epicureans who contended that all things were made by Chance and without Reason That this was the opinion of Epicurus contrary to the sentiments of most other Philosophers and particularly of Plato every one knows and it is needless to prove Lucretius also in Lib. 5. expresly denies that the Universe was made by Reason where he affirms that it is senseless to say Deûm quod sit Ratione vetustâ Gentibus humanis fundatum That the World was founded for Mankind by the antient Reason of the Gods In which he has a respect to the Platonists who used so to speak as the following words shew in which he denies that God had exemplum gignundis rebus ullum any Pattern to make the World by So that according to the Opinion of Epicurus the World was produced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Reason or as Plutarch de Philos Placitis Lib. 1. c. 4. speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by indivisible Bodies having an unforeseen and fortuitous motion But Lactantius speaking of this Opinion in Lib. de ira Divina cap. 10. after he had described the beauty of the Universe and proved it to have been created by God against Leucippus and Epicurus very well says Tanta ergo qui videat talia potest existimare nullo effecta esse consilio nulla providentia nulla RATIONE divina sed ex atomis subtilibus exiguis concreta esse tanta miracula Can therefore one that beholds such and so great things think that they were made with no design no foresight no divine REASON but that all these great Miracles were produced by the conjunction of subtil small Atoms And Instit Divin Lib. 1. c. 2. after he had said that Democritus and Epicurus thought all things were made and are governed by Chance he subjoins a little after Quos tamen ceteri Philosophi ac maxime Stoici acerrime retuderunt dicentes nec fieri mundum SINE divina RATIONE potuisse nec constane nisi summâ RATIONE regeretur Whom yet the rest of the Philosophers and particularly the Stoicks did most sharply oppose affirming that the World could neither have been made without the divine REASON nor consist unless it were governed by the highest REASON And Lib. 3. c. 17. he expresses again the Opinion of Epicurus thus Nihil in procreandis animalibus Providentiae RATIO molita est REASON used no foresight in the producing of living Creatures In opposition to which he says a little after Non potest quidquam rationale perficere nisi RATIO Nothing but REASON can make any rational being But let us return now to the Jews and particularly to Philo who speak in the same manner as St. John So the Author of the Book of Wisdom cap. ix 1 addresses himself to God thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hast made ALL THINGS by thy Reason and adorned Man by thy Wisdom And Philo Lib. 2. de Monarchia p. 736. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason is the Image of God by which the whole World was created But there is this difference between St. John and Philo in this matter that whereas St. John affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was God himself viz. the most High Philo would have it said that the World was created by it as God's Instrument So in Lib. de Cherubinis p. 100. after he had said that there must be four things considered in every Production viz. the cause the matter the instrument and end for which it is produced and had applied those things distinctly to an Edifice he adds concerning the World that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will find that the cause of it was God by whom it was made and the instrument the Reason of God by which it was disposed But in St. John all things are said to have been made by Reason in the same manner as if it were said the World was created by the Divine Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words do not signify an instrument distinct from God but God himself Tho it 's true Origen thought it followed from hence that Reason
Of this Regeneration St. John speaks afterwards in Chap. iii. 3 seqq And St. Paul insists upon it very much in his Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere for to this all that he says almost about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or adoption of the Gentiles has a respect Which my design in this place will not permit me at large to shew Vers 14. Was made flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by flesh we are to understand human nature is generally observed by Interpreters who may be consulted But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said to have been made flesh or man in more respects than one and here it is said to have been made flesh in regard that being clothed as it were with the Flesh of Christ it became conspicuous for Flesh sometimes signifies a conspicuous nature in opposition to one that is spiritual or inconspicuous So it is used by St. Paul in 1 Tim. iii. 16 where he tells us that God appeared in Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was justified in Spirit c. i. e. God became as it were conspicuous when all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ in Christ I say who being a Man was conspicuous and visible and in whom God shewed himself to be present I know other Copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the sense is the same That the word Flesh is taken here for human Nature as conspicuous appears by the following words in this and by the 18 th verse Tho when I say that Flesh is considered here by St. John as conspicuous or precisely under that notion that is so far from excluding the other properties as the Schoolmen speak of human nature that on the contrary it supposes them For our Flesh is therefore conspicuous because it is a necessary property of human nature to be conspicuous It is rightly said by Divines that Reason was made Flesh not by a conversion of the divine Nature into a human which is as impossible as for a human to be changed into a divine but by an unexpressible indwelling of God whereby the humanity of Christ became the humanity of God in a singular and extraordinary manner as on the other hand the divine Reason was made the Divinity of Christ by that secret union From that time God might be called Flesh and reciprocally the name of God might be attributed to Flesh or Man And upon the account of this conjunction of two Natures in Christ the Apostles speak of him sometimes as God sometimes as a Man and do not only ascribe to Christ what they had seen done by the man Jesus but also what the divine Reason did before Jesus was born see Col. i. 14 seqq Heb. i. 2 10. Ibid. Dwelt among us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is it dwelt in a man who conversed among us All these things Philo was ignorant of or else resolved to be so if it be true what some of the Antients say that having embraced the Christian Religion he afterwards apostatized from it see Euseb Hist Eccles Lib. 2. c. 17. Photius Cod. 105. Ibid. We beheld its Glory i. e. such Miracles as were never before or in the same manner done by any That Miracles are called the Glory of God I have shewn in my Notes on Exod. xvi 7 Amongst those Miracles which were wrought for the honour of Christ a very eminent one was that of his Transfiguration spoken of by St. Peter in his 2 Epist i. 16 17. whose words give great light to this passage For we have not followed saith he cunningly devised Fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were eye witnesses of his Majesty For be received from God the Father honour and glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there came such a voice to him from the magnificent Glory This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased see Mat. xvii Ibid. As of the only begotten whom he accordingly gave that glory to which he had never before conferred on any or ever will The Prophets who were Brethren and the Sons of God in the same manner as one another had often an equal glory put upon them by the Miracles which God wrought at their request But the Miracles of Jesus Christ were so many and great that they were capable if I may so speak of obscuring all that had been formerly wrought by their multitude and splendor By this word only begotten perhaps St. John might have a secret design to oppose the Doctrin of Philo who generally calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only begotten but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first begotten and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most antient of the Angels Grotius thinks that the Gnosticks are here condemned who made the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be two different persons but it is uncertain whether those frivolous Syzigiae Pleromatis had been invented when St. John wrote see on vers 16. Ibid. Of or from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This must be referred to the word Glory see Grotius Ibid. Full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If these words be referred to the immediatly foregoing we must supply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was viz. the only begotten Otherwise they must be included in a Parenthesis as I have done them Grotius however is of another opinion who may be consulted Grace and Truth that is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhesed veemeth of which phrase I have discoursed in my Notes on Gen. xxiv 27 There is an opposition made here between the Gospel and the Law as appears from the 17 th verse The Mosaical Law appointed Sacrifices for the expiation of some sort of Sins which if they were wilfully and knowingly neglected tho it were but once it denounced death upon the Sinner whatever his Repentance was afterwards For other sins there were no expiatory Sacrifices instituted but they were to be punished with death Neither did God by virtue of that Covenant promise to any one that died for transgressing the Law tho never so penitent any mercy in the life to come And yet these were Sins which by reason of the multitude of the Laws were frequently committed so that God discovered nothing but his inflexible Justice in the Law It 's true he promises Forgiveness to the whole Jewish Nation becoming penitent after the destruction of their Commonwealth in Levit. xxvi and elsewhere But particular Persons as long as the Commonwealth stood sinning in that manner as I have said had no hopes of pardon But it is quite otherwise under the Gospel in which God promises pardon to the greatest Sinner upon repentance and amendment of life and that without the intervention of Sacrifices And in this sense the Gospel alone is full of the grace and mercy of God Vers 15. John bare witness or bears witness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. in
the Gospels But I have preferred the former because it follows in the Preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he cried It is thought by some that this is repeated by the Evangelist because there were some who chose to be the Disciples of John the Baptist rather than of Christ and so gave the preference to him And when the Gospel was first preached it is certain there were such persons as appears by John's having Disciples of his own that went under his name and from Acts xix But that so many years after Christ's ascension into Heaven there remained any such persons is not probable and the words of the Evangelist may respect any of the Jews whatsoever who having a good opinion of John the Baptist because he was of a Sacerdotal Order and uncondemned by the Sanhedrim did yet reject Christ because he was condemned unjustly and did not know that John the Baptist had given a most clear testimony of him Ibid. That is to come viz. In the Name of God to his People Ibid. Was before me That is in dignity or a more eminent Person than I see Grotius And to the passages alledged by that great Man to this purpose add this out of Euripides in Oreste ver 488. where it is said to be the Character of a Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to desire to be above the Laws or superior to the Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Scholiast well explains it Vers 16. Of his fulness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus supposes this to have a reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he attributes not only to the Valentinians but to Cerinthus and such as were antienter than he the Nicolaitans Lib. 3. c. 11. But I cannot perfectly agree with him for the following reasons 1. He himself in Lib. 1. c. 25 27. where he sets down the Doctrin of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans has nothing about this Pleroma which he affirms to have been peculiar to the Valentinians in Chap. 1. of the same Book 2. These words do not confute those who invented that term for all whom it might be said that men do receive Grace from the fulness that is in Reason see Irenaeus himself Cap. 1. lib. 1. 3. Irenaeus might easily confound the Doctrins of various Hereticks as he did the Fooleries of the Millenaries with the Doctrin of the Apostle John He was a very pious man and a great lover of the Christian Religion the truth of which he sealed with his Blood but that he was any great Judg of things or opinions will not be thought by any who shall but carefully read his Writings It were to be wished also that he had rather left us instances of his Charity to the Heterodox than of his Zeal which is often so like Anger that it can hardly be distinguished from it I am sure the innumerable dotages of those men deserved rather pity than anger In fine it is highly probable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into St. John's mind and was therefore used by him because he had said just before that Christ had appeared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he used it the rather because he knew that St. Paul had made use of it in a like sense in his Epistle to the Colossians Chap. ii 9 and elsewhere Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies the fulness of the Godhead as St. Paul speaks which dwells in Christ that is the divine Reason it self from whence issued the Gospel which is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Paul Ibid. Grace for Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words have strangely perplexed Interpreters whose conjectures I shall not here set down They have been collected by J. C. Suicerus in Thesauro on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall only propose my own The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have received from God is as I before said the Gospel it self and all the benefits of it which he bestows upon us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is gratis and with a proviso only that we are thankful to him which comprehends all the duty of a Christian because we cannot heartily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 return thanks to God unless we also obey his Gospel For when God promises us eternal life if we believe on Christ and renounce our former sins and amend our lives How can we be said to be thankful to him if we do not so small a thing for that great benefit God therefore in this sense may be said to give us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When I interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by thankfulness or a thankful disposition of mind I go according to the common use of that word among the Greeks with whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an ordinary phrase So also it is taken by St. Paul in Rom. vi 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks be to God See likewise 1 Cor. xv 57 2 Cor. viii 16 And there is a sort of an elegance in repeating the same word in a different sense of which see Grotius As for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I take that also in its proper and most usual sense whereby it signifies a permutation as in these words which others have cited out of Euripides's Helena 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let benefit come for benefit V. 1250. Not to depart from the words before us or to be laborious in the proof of what is plain it shall suffice to observe that the Greeks call a benefit which is return'd for a benefit received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thence deduce the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to return or repay a benefit So that that passage of Euripides would be almost perfectly parallel to this in St. John if we could but demonstrate our thankfulness to God in the same manner as we can to men Which being unable to do we express our gratitude to him by our words and faithful obedience Summus rerum invisibilium procreator to use the words of Arnobius dignus est verè si modo eum dignum mortali dicendum est ore cui spirans omnis intelligensque natura habere agere nunquam desinat gratias The great Creator of things invisible is worthy is truly worthy if mortal lips are not too mean to say that he is worthy to be incessantly praised and thanked by every living and intelligent nature This is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we give to God What shall I render unto the Lord saith the Psalmist in Psalm cxvi 12 All his benefits are above me I will take the cup of Salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. Vers 17. The Law was given by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often in St. Paul as it is here opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law of Grace which I have observed on vers 14. Vers 18. No man hath seen God at any time That
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Ye have heard and read indeed his word but it has not entered into your hearts so as to be a perpetual rule of life always in your view and never to be forgotten by you When we despise any thing that another says the remembrance of it seldom abides with us long but what we are affected with manet as the Poet says alta mente repostum abides deeply fixed in our mind and upon the next sit occasion it breaks out This is the importance of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and we meet with it in the same sense several times in the 2 d Chap. of the 1 st Epist of St. John and in the 2 d Epist and 2 d verse Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This verb I rather take to be in the Indicative than in the Imperative mood and interpret the words of Christ to this sense You are generally very curious in searching into the abstruse meaning of the Scriptures because ye think and that justly that ye shall derive those instructions from thence which will lead you to eternal Life and these give their Testimony to me which ye do not hearken to because ye suffer your selves to be prejudiced by perverse Affections It is very probably conjectured by a Learned Man that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or searching here spoken of does not refer to the Grammatical but the Mystical sense of the Scriptures It is certain that the Jews at that time neglected the study of Grammar and therefore those Scripture passages which concerned the Messias do not seem to have been understood by them by the assistance of that Art but by the instructions of the antient Prophets See Bruno Dissert de Therapeutis Perhaps Christ used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at that time did not signify simply to inquire but to search into the Allegorical meaning of any Passage Consult Buxtorf in Thesauro if you doubt of it Vers 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. By whose Doctrin which ye profess to believe ye think ye can attain to Salvation for Christ here speaks of what will be at the day of Judgment I do not believe these words are to be understood of Moses making intercession for the Jews tho I know what is alledged by a great Man in favour of that opinion out of the Rabbins The sense will be most commodious if we understand it to be that those who imagined themselves to act consonantly to the Law in rejecting Christ shall be condemned hereafter by the Law it self according to which they were certainly obliged to receive him See Deut. xviii 15 CHAP. VI. Vers 15. Note a. CHRIST avoided the Multitude who took counsel together about making him a King not only because this was a bad design and proceeded from Persons of wicked and carnal Minds but also because he would not give the least occasion for a Sedition and that his enemies might never be able to accuse him with any appearance of Justice of having affected to be an earthly Prince If he had tarried among these Men tho he had opposed them and openly rebuked them and hindred them from executing their designs yet their very attempt alone would have caused suspicious Men to conceive such a bad opinion of the Gospel which was then but in its infancy as it would have been very hard to dispossess them of Christ's enemies would have said that he had plotted a change in the Government and that he was not so much displeased with his followers for their desire to deliver the Kingdom into his hands as for their unseasonable resolution to make him their King before he had brought his Conspiracy to a head and encreased the number of his Followers They would have said that it was dangerous to suffer such a Teacher to live amongst the Jews who might even without his knowledg and consent give the common People an occasion to take up arms against the State It is well known how mistrustful and cautious those to whom the government of the World belonged at that time were in such matters and when I do but mention the name of Tiberius every one will presently apprehend that it was a most dangerous thing then so much as unwillingly to be the cause of a Sedition This seems to be the reason why Christ would not have it divulged that he was the Messias viz. lest the very mention of that name should like the setting up of a Flag occasion a great confluence of People to him See Note on Mat. viii 4 Vers 27. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak properly is neither operari cibum as it is rendred in the Vulgar nor acquirere cibum to acquire Food as by our Author but laborare ut acquiras to acquire it by Labor And so the Greeks say likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for necessaria or victum labore suo lucrari to earn necessaries or a livelihood by ones Labor or as the French call it gagner sa vie to get ones living See only Constantin's Lexicon So in the example brought out of Palaephatus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he got his living by his Labour In the example of the Pounds Luk. xix 16 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies rather peperit genuit it hath produced or brought forth than comparavit it hath acquired Vers 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unless they have been already so affected with God's former benefits as to be ready to follow God whithersoever he leads them which will make them come to me assoon as ever they hear my Doctrin I like what is said by Faustus Regiensis Lib. 1. c. 17. de Lib. Arbitrio Quid est says he attrahere nisi praedicare nisi Scripturarum consolationibus excitare increpationibus deterrere desideranda proponere intentare metuenda judicium comminari praemium polliceri Audi Dominum non duris manibus sed spei nexibus attrahentem dilectionis brachiis invitantem sicut ait Propheta attraxi eos vinculis caritatis Hos xi 4 What is it to draw but to preach but to encourage People by the consolations of the Scriptures and deter them by its Reproofs to propose to Men such things as they should desire and menace them with what they ought to fear to threaten them with Punishments and promise them Rewards Hearken therefore to God who draws not with rough hands but with the ties of Hope and invites with the arms of Love according to that of the Prophet I drew them with the bands of Love Vers 55. Note f. For the understanding of what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies when it is thus metaphorically used we must consider whence such forms of Speech had their rise which in all probability was from the custom of Merchants who used to distinguish true merchandizes from false i. e. those to which
Son whom he sent to men in his Name see Psal cxvi 1 and afterwards Chap. xiii 31 32. of this Gospel CHAP. XIII Vers 26. Note c. THE Doctor 's conjecture is confirmed by Hesychius and Phavorinus who interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to draw in the Lexicons out of the Scholiast on Nicander Vers 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Exod. iv 13 CHAP. XIV Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This phrase deserved in the Paraphrase at least to be expressed in other words for a great many use it every day that do not understand it And therefore I shall here briefly explain it The Jews used to ask God particularly in their solemnest Prayers in the name of their Forefathers and especially the Patriarchs and Prophets i. e. to pray to God that he would grant them their requests because they were their Posterity and called by their Name or Abraham Isaac and Jacob's Posterity This was to call upon God in the name of the Patriarchs But Christ would have his Disciples to pray to God in his Name i. e. to desire what they would have granted to them because they were called and were the Disciples of Christ So the gathered together in the Name of Christ are Christian Assemblies in opposition to an Assembly of Jews see Mat. xviii 20 And so afterwards vers 26. of this Chapter the Holy Ghost is said to be sent in the Name of Christ i. e. as that Spirit which was to be called the Spirit of Christ and to be conferred only on Christ's Disciples A great many Passages may receive light from this Interpretation Vers 16. Note b. What our Author observes about the signification of the Greek words is very true but that Christ used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Talmudists did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phraklita I very much doubt Perhaps he used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mnahhman which in Syriack signifies only a Comforter and if that were out of doubt the Greek were to have no other signification put upon it It is certain that there is no Hebrew word of the same latitude with the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XVI Vers 7. Note a. Col. 2. Lin. 14. THERE is not the least footstep of any mention made of the Devil in this matter by Moses Our learned Author lent the Prophet before he was aware his own conjecture CHAP. XVII Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius conjectures that this Prayer was conceived in the view of the Temple when Christ went into the Garden of Gethsemane But if we carefully read Chap. xiii 21 it will seem rather to have been pronounced in the same Room in which the Passover was celebrated after Judas's departure and that Christ did not go with his Disciples into the Garden till he had said this Prayer because Chap. xviii begins thus When Jesus had spoken these words he went forth with his Disciples over the Brook Cedron Vers 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words must be rendred thus That they may know thee who art the only true God and Jesus who is the Christ that thou hast sent For the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be repeated before the word Christ 'T is as if the sense were expressed by the Infinitive Mood thus That they may know thee to be the only true God and Jesus to be the Messias whom thou hast sent as if it had been said in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ here says that this is eternal Life not because the whole Christian Faith in its greatest extent is comprehended under these two Heads considered in themselves but because these two things are as it were the foundations of all the rest to believe him who is the Father of Jesus Christ to be the only true God and Jesus to be the Messias whom he purposed to send Without these Christianity cannot stand because all the rest of the Truths asserted in it are built upon these and these being admitted as true every one must admit the rest and regulate his Life according to them unless he be mad and resolve to be inconsistent with himself as every body easily perceives See vers 7 8 25. Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies all Men in this Gospel yet in this Chapter it seems to respect principally the Jews as that word is also used elsewhere by St. John as I have observed in a Note on Chap. iv 42 That Christ chose Disciples out of all Mankind is too general a Phrase to signify his choosing some Jews Thus vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World hateth them because they are not of the World by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is meant the wicked Jews who hated the Apostles because they were no longer of their number and not the Heathens to whom they were perfectly unknown Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by a Power derived from thee being present with them and acting as an Embassador in thy Name and taking upon me that Character There seems here to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but do thou keep them in my absence by thy Spirit For there is nothing set to answer the words while I was with them in the World I kept them in thy Name in what comes after which yet the context requires And therefore what Christ did not express in words he made up in his thoughts as the Apostles easily understood for whose sake this Prayer was made And accordingly after Christ's Ascension the Holy Ghost came down to supply his place as Christ had promised Chap. xvi 7 13. Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I do not pray thee to take them away from this wicked Generation of Men and particularly of Jews and within a few days translate them along with me into the regions of Happiness but that thou wouldst preserve them from being corrupted by those evil Customs and Opinions with which Mankind is so universally infected By the World here we are to understand wicked Men whom the Apostles could not avoid conversing with Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Cause them to be so affected with that true Doctrin that I have taught them as to express it in their Lives And indeed whoever understands Christ's Doctrin and thinks it to be true if he suffers that thought to sink deep into his Mind will at length be sanctified by the Truth The Doctor did not understand these words as appears by his Paraphrase There is an expression much to the same purpose in Chap. viii 31 32. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him If ye continue in my word then are ye my Disciples indeed and ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free
It is all one as to the sense whether we say to be made free by the Truth or to be sanctified by it Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I offer up my self a Sacrifice to thee to obtain for them the pardon of their Sins and also the Spirit of Sanctification that they may be so affected with the Truth they are to preach as to regulate their actions according to it as I have done Christ puts up this Petition principally for his Apostles because it was impossible they should preach the Gospel with any success if they did not live according to its Precepts There could not have been a greater prejudice to the success of the Gospel than the ill Life of those that preached it and next to the Apostles were all other Christians upon whose behaviour the success of the Gospel did also depend and for whom Christ therefore prays This is the design of the following words and therein lies that agreement both in Doctrin and sanctity of Life whereby the Apostles would become one among themselves and one with Christ as Christ himself had been one with God These things are not sufficiently expressed in our Author's Paraphrase Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is rightly interpreted by the Doctor of the Power of working Miracles consequent upon which is their obtaining the highest Credit and Authority with those who saw the Miracles which were done by them So likewise in Numb xxvii 20 the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hod which the Septuagint render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that Authority which Moses at his Death conferred upon his Successor Joshua Thou shalt transfer saith God there some of thine Authority to him that all the Congregation of the Israelites may be obedient to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Septuagint Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor renders this in his Paraphrase before all eternity which is an unsufferably improper Phrase elsewhere made use of by him as I have already observed This is what I had to observe upon this Chapter on which our Author has made no Annotations But for a more full explication of it I refer the Reader to H. Grotius whom the Doctor follows in his Paraphrase desiring this may stand only as a Supplement to what Grotius has said CHAP. XVIII Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some who tell us that this name must not be derived from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reign and their reason is because a Servant would never have had such a Name given him as imported authority in it But notwithstanding that reason this was a very usual name and common to Noble Persons with Ignoble Thus Porphyrie who being a Tyrian had a Phoenician name was called Malchus His own words in the Life of Plotinus where he speaks of a Book that was dedicated to him by Amelius are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he dedicated that Book to me under the title of a King and I Porphyrius had this name of King because I was called Malchus in my own Country Dialect which was also the name of my Father for Malchus if it be turned into Greek signifies King There was also one Malchus a Hermit whose Life is written by St. Jerom There was says he there a certain old Man named Malchus whom we in Latin may call Regem a King by Birth and Language a Syrian Whence it appears that this was a very common name in Syria as Luc. Holstenius has also shewn by many examples in the life of Porphyrius Chap. ii Vers 31. Note c. See the words of the Rabbins themselves concerning the power of Judicature in Capital causes being taken away from the Jews as they are set down by Dr. Lightfoot on this place It is no good custom to mention Authors names and words without citing the very place as the Criticks of the last Age generally do Of the manner of hanging consult the Talmudical Book de Synedrio Cap. 6. § 4. CHAP. XIX Vers 14. Note b. WHAT our Author has here is borrowed from Grotius who says the same in his Notes on Mat. xxvii 45 and confirms it by Testimonies But there are several things to be observed in relation to what Grotius there says which I shall briefly set down 1. He produces a passage out of Ignatius as in his Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna which is not in that Epistle but in his Epistle to the Trallians 2. He makes use of an Interpolator instead of the true Ignatius but in this he ought to be excused because Ignatius's true Epistles were not then published by themselves 3. But it is strange that he should alledg that Passage as agreeable to the reading of our Copies both in St. Mark and St. John when if we believe that Interpolator we ought in St. John to read the third and not the sixth Hour and in St. Mark the sixth not the third just contrary to the reading of the Copies For his words in Chap. 9. Ep. ad Trall are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on friday therefore at the third hour he received sentence of Death from Pilate the Father so permitting it at the sixth hour he was crucified at the ninth he expired But St. Mark says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was the third Hour and they crucified him And according to St. John he did not receive the Sentence of Death but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the sixth Hour 4. The Clementine Constitutions which Grotius also quotes say the same Lib. 5. c. 14. and Lib. 8. c. 34. and almost in the same words whereby the Author of them appears to have thought that the Hours of Christ's Condemnation ought to be so distributed as to make that in which he received the Sentence of Death to have been the third and not as it is in our Copies of St. John the sixth and that of his Crucifixion the sixth and not as we read it now in St. Mark the third 5. And yet that Great Man infers from the Authority of Ignatius and the Clementine Constitutions that we ought not to admit any alteration contrary to the Authority of the most antient Copies and of the Metaphrasts But not to say again that the contrary ought to have been inferred I would fain know what Metaphrasts he means Nonnus it is certain who generally goes only by that name expresses himself in his Metaphrasis of St. John so as that he seems to have read in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he says thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The third mortal Hour was lengthened out i. e. was not yet past And it is plain that if the Hours be thus disposed and the Evangelists supposed to have written so there will be no difficulty and it is highly probable that there was a considerable interval of time between Pilate's pronouncing the Sentence and Christ's Crucifixion For there was a
the shore he presently leaped into the water impatient of delay that he might as soon as possible come to the Lord whilst the rest tarried in the Ship till they could step out of it upon Land This occasion St. Peter gave Christ to ask him whether he loved him more than the rest of his Disciples because he came sooner to him than they Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius here has this gloss When thou hast added almost forty years to those which thou hast lived already But out of what Chronology did he learn that from the year of Christ's death to the last of Nero beyond which the death of St. Peter cannot be deferred there was the space of forty years From the year of Christ 33 in which he ascended into Heaven to the 68 th in which Nero died there were only 35 years And supposing St. Peter to have died Anno Christi 65 as the most exact Chronologers think there will be fewer I wonder that Dr. Hammond too should follow Grotius here without any examination Vers 22. Note c. This coming of Christ is very well interpreted by Dr. Hammond who deserves to have almost all the glory of it For few other Interpreters besides him ever discerned the true meaning of it and no body has ever so clearly explained it or so copiously demonstrated it This opinion of his is confirmed by the Church of Ephesus which in vers 24. declares the truth of St. John's Testimony both as to this and all other things If the Christians of that Age had believed the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify till I come to judg the living and the dead as the Apostles had thought they must have judged the testimony of St. John not be true because he was dead and yet that last day was not come Since therefore they thought St. John a faithful Witness both of Christ's Doctrin and Resurrection and knew that he was dead they must have understood this coming of Christ in another sense And nothing happened in all that interval of time which could be called Christ's coming but that remarkable Vengeance which he took upon the Jews Vers 24. Note d. How could the Ephesians say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know that his testimony is true namely not only by those evidences of veracity and prudence which they observed in St. John himself but chiefly by his Doctrin and Miracles the former being a holy Doctrin and the latter God's Seal to the truth of it ANNOTATIONS ON THE ACTS of the Holy Apostles AT the end of the Premon It is much more probable that St. Peter died in the Reign of Nero and that in the year of Christ 65. as A. Pagus has shewn in Baron Epicr ad Ann. 67. CHAP. I. Vers 13. Note d. I Have several Remarks to make on this Interpretation of Dr. Hammond I. That he recurred to this singular Interpretation because he thought that these two Passages of St. Luke could hardly otherwise be reconciled In the last Verse of his Gospel he has not said that the Apostles were always in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And here he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an upper room where they abode and pray'd to God But the Doctor himself acknowledges that the Apostles were not in the Temple the whole day but only at the stated times of publick Prayer At other times therefore they were at their own Houses in which I do not see why there could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which they might retire in order to pray or to spend their time with their Master or in pious Discourses about him And therefore this place may be very well understood thus where they abode when they were not in the Temple or hinder'd by other Affairs where they were for the most part when they kept at home II. It is indeed very true that there were several Chambers or Rooms in the Temple which might be called so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctor might have taken less pains in proving it but he should have given us some Examples to assure us that the common People and especially Strangers did not only pray in the Court of Israel but went up also into the Chambers that lay over the Porches in order to pray with the more secrecy For it is not at all probable that the Apostles who were poor men and Galileans and odious for their Master's sake to the Jews dared to do any thing which others could not in the Temple in which they might have been taken notice of by the Priests and Levites Our Author therefore ought to have shewn that it was the custom of pious Men to retire sometimes into the more secret Chambers of the Temple for their private Devotion which I cannot tell whether any body can prove at least I never met with any footstep of that custom III. He perfectly forces the words in Chap. ii 46 as I shall afterwards shew IV. Epiphanius doth not affirm that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of was where the Temple had been but in Mount Sion upon which as all know was built the Palace or City of David and not the Temple which lay more towards the East and South and stood upon another Hill supposed to be Mount Moriah and commonly called the Mountain of the House He that does not know this let him consult Dr. Lightfoot in Cent. Chorograph premised before St. Matthew Cap. xxii xxiii and xxvii where by Passages taken out of Josephus and the Rabbins he puts this matter out of all doubt It must be acknowledged however that Epiphanius by the inaccurate order of his words gave the Doctor an occasion to mistake For he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He found the whole City demolished and the Temple of God trampled upon except a few Houses The three last words the Doctor makes to refer to the Temple when they ought to be referred to the City It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church of God which was little in the place to which the Disciples returning when our Saviour was caught up from Mount Olivet went up into the upper room for there it was built This Church was not on the ground where the Temple stood but in Mount Sion as Epiphanius tells us in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a part of Sion which was left undestroy'd and some parts of the Houses that were about the same Sion and seven Synagogues which stood alone in Sion Vers 15. Note e. It is true indeed that the Name of God in Scripture is often put for God himself and that the Rabbins call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name with an Emphasis But we never find it set to signify Men or Persons in the Old Testament I am apt to think that it is rather a Latinism than a Hebraism For in Latin Authors nothing is more common than for the word Names to be
received in that Age in which there might have been a mistake than that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to speak as he did because it signified very little whether the year of Abraham's departure were exactly known and the force of St. Stephen's reasoning or the truth of the Christian Religion did not at all depend upon that Chronology And I suppose the reason of this mistake in the common account of the Jews viz. that Abraham set out from Charran not till after his Father was dead was because Moses in Gen. xi made mention of the death of Terah before he spake of Abraham's departure And it is no wonder that the Jews who took little or no care to improve in any sort of Learning were so mistaken in matters of Chronology and overlooked those things which later Writers on Gen. xii 1 have observed Just such another Error I have taken notice of in Josephus on Gen. xxv 20 Those who correct the Mosaical Chronology by St. Stephen's discourse of which number is Lud. Cappellus think that Abraham was born not in the sixtieth but in the hundred and thirtieth year of Terah's Age. But if this were so why did Abraham think it so strange that a man of a hundred years of Age should be able to get Children when he himself had been begotten by his Father when he was thirty years older See Gen. xvii 17 But then they on the other hand ask us whether it is likely that Terah who accompanied Abraham out of Vr should rather chuse to stay five and sixty years at Charran than go to Abraham Why not since he had his Son Nachor there with him who had a numerous Family But at least say they after the miraculous birth of Isaac he should have gone to Abraham This cannot according to them be any such great Miracle and their inference from it is weak For Terah might have a great many reasons for his staying at Charran more than we know of Vers 14. Note g. Col. 2. lin 12. after the words Jacob's going into Egypt Our learned Author is mistaken See my Notes on Gen. xxviii 1 Vers 51. Note i. See my Notes on Exod. xxxii 9 CHAP. VIII Vers 32. Note g. GGrotius justly rejects the Opinion of Beza who thought that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made out of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho there be no great difference between them either in sound or signification Nor is Dr. Hammond's Conjecture any thing more probable which relies upon the same grounds with that of Beza Grotius has shewn out of Cicero that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a genuine Greek word which signifies periodus a Period For it comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contain or comprehend which is used by St. Peter 1 Ep. ii 6 where citing a place of Scripture he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is contained in the Scripture I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has other significations belonging to it but amongst those significations there is one that has a near affinity with this So in the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 argumentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 argumentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tenore leg tenoris all which signify what may be otherwise barbarously called in Latin contentum in French le contenu the Contents Vers 33. Note g. If St. Luke spake Hebrew there is no doubt but that he cited the words of Isaiah as they are in the Hebrew and that therefore his meaning is to be understood by the signification of the Hebrew words But the Septuagint do not differ much from the sense of the Hebrew if their words be but rightly pointed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his humility was his judgment he was taken away That is Christ appearing to be a person of a mean and low condition the Jews and Pilate passed judgment on him as an inconsiderable contemptible man who ought to be put to death to prevent any Seditions being made upon his account And so in effect he was by Pilate's order The words in the Hebrew are to be rendered thus By reason of force and punishment he was taken away or by reason of restraint and punishment for the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to force and to restrain The Prophet's meaning is that Christ suffered that punishment of death by reason the Jews hindered Pilate to pass an equitable judgment upon him or forced him as it were to condemn him It appears by the paraphrase on vers 35. that Dr. Hammond was of Grotius's opinion or one very near it for he thought that this Prophecy was literally fulfilled not long after Isaiah's time I wish he had spoken more plainly It is not as the Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hotser in the Hebrew but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hatsarah that is render'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they may I confess be used promiscuously and therefore I will not quarrel with him about that CHAP. IX Vers 31. Note d. THE 9 th Similitude in the 3 d Book of Herma's Pastor is worth our reading upon this Subject CHAP. X. THE Hebrew word alledged by our Author signifies Incense or Perfume not an Offering See my Notes on Levit. ii 4 Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Cambridg Copy which was formerly Beza's reads this Passage thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is manifestly a Paraphrase on St. Luke's words and not a various reading taken out of any antient Copy for the Greek is purer and the stile more natural and fluent than is usual in the New Testament Writers There are in this Book a great many Passages paraphrased by the Author of that Copy See Chap. xi 1 2 16. and xiii 44 and xiv 1 and xxiii by which places it will evidently appear that the Writer of that Manuscript being more skilful than St. Luke in the Greek Language has every now and then changed the Phrase to make the construction more elegant Those who affirm these notwithstanding the contrariety of them to all the other Copies and the agreement of the most Antient Fathers with those Copies to be various readings and that too older than any in our Copies were certainly never any great masters of Criticks CHAP. XI Vers 30. Note b. COL 1. lin ult after the Cit. out of Deut. xxxi 28 Our Author would have said what was more likely if he had told us that old Men signified Magistrates because publick Trusts were generally committed to aged Persons upon the account of their great experience and the Government which they have over their Passions above the younger sort CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. YEA and which is more than that it signifies to do a thing for in Gen. iii. 22 by putting forth the hand and taking we are to understand taking and not merely an attempt to take Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
There never really happened any thing that was wonderful almost but fanciful Men have feigned something or other like it So Ovid. Metam Lib. 4. Fab. 10. speaking of one Acaetas who had been cast into Prison by Pentheus upon Bacchus's account and was afterwards released says that Sponte sua patuisse fores lapsasque lacertis Sponte sua fama est nullo solvente catenas It was the common report that the Prison doors opened of their own accord and the Chains fell off from his hands of themselves no body loosing them Vers 13. Note d. Tho the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies to answer me that calls as Stephanus before Dr. Hammond had observed and proved at large in his Thesaurus yet when the Discourse is about one whose business it is to keep a Gate it signifies the same as in Latin subauscultare i. e. to hearken from within side to the Voice of them that knock in order to know who they are For the Porter or Portress used to ask who it was that knocked before ever they opened the Door and to hearken to the Voice to see if they knew the Person At Night especially this was requisite lest they should let in Thieves instead of Friends See Stephanus and Pricaeus on this place and there will be no room to doubt but that Erasmus has rightest of all translated this Verb by subauscultare CHAP. XIII Vers 10. Note d. IT is ill supposed by the Doctor that the words last cited by him out of Hesychius are to be read without a comma for the Greeks do never after the English manner heap up three Adjectives without any Conjunction or Noun Substantive no not the Poets themselves in which if there be two that seem to meet together one of them stands for a Substantive as Eustathius has observed on Iliad Γ. Ed. Rom. p. 427. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there are never two and much less three Epithets put together without some Noun proper or appellative The same learned Grammarian in his Notes on Odyss Δ. p. 1506. explains the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first according to Aelius Dionysius signifies mischievous or wicked and the latter saith he carelesness and confidence about all things But there is no signification which will better sute this place where the discourse is about a Magician than that which we meet with in the Old Glosses where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by falsum a cheat or falshood and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falsarius a falsifier or deceiver for it is well known that a Magician is for the most part but another name for an Impostor Dionysius Halicarnass Lib. 1. Antiq. Rom. p. 63 and 64. uses the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of some false Miracles by which a certain lover of the Female Sex was supposed to have deceived a simple young Girl Vers 15. Note e. That it was the Office of an Archisynagogus to appoint one to read in the Synagogue as St. Luke here teaches us the Jews also said See Camp Vitringa in Synag Veteri Lib. 3. P. 1. c. 9. Vers 31. That Christ by his Resurrection received as it were a new birth and so was begotten of God might be properly enough said also according to the way of speaking usual among the Greeks as appears by Hesychius on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of others applied to a Person who having had the funeral Rites performed for him as for one that was dead afterwards appeared alive or who after he was reported to have died in a foreign Country returned again or one who had again passed from between his Mother's Breasts as the custom was among the Athenians was said to be born or begotten again Vers 48. Note m. It is a true Observation of the Doctor that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by a Metaphor taken from military Affairs to signify that course of Life to which we are called by God Thus it is used by Socrates in his Apology extant in Plato whose words for brevity sake shall be set down only in English In whatever place a Person either puts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinking that to be the best or is put by his Commander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that in my judgment he ought to abide and face danger fearing neither death nor any thing else more than baseness Really O Athenians I should be guilty of a very great fault if when the Captains chosen by you to be my Commanders had placed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Potidaea at Amphipolis or at Delius I then kept the post in which they had set me and underwent the danger of Death and yet when God as I thought has set me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I have determined with my self to spend my Life in Philosophizing there fearing Death or any other thing I should forsake my rank 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise Epictetus in Enchirid. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those things thou accountest best adhere to as if placed by God in such a Station CHAP. XIV Vers 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. God did not so entirely conceal himself from the Heathens as to give them no evidences at all of his Providence for every thing in nature was a standing witness of God's Wisdom Power and Goodness Nor were the Heathens altogether deaf to this voice of Nature as appears by many of their sayings which learned Men have collected on this place to which I shall here add these remarkable words out of Cicero Tuscul Lib. 1. Hic autem saith he ubi habitamus non intermittit suo tempore Coelum mitescere arbores frondescere Vites laetificae pampinis pubescere Rami baccarum ubertate incurvescere Segetes largiri fruges florere omnia Fontes scatere herbis prata convestirier Tum multitudinem pecudum partim ad vescendum partim ad vehendum partim ad corpora vestienda hominemque ipsum quasi contemplatorem coeli ac Deorum ipsorumque cultorem atque hominis utilitati agros omnes maria patentia Haec igitur alia innumerabilia cum cernimus possumusne dubitare quin his praesit aliquis aut effector si haec nata sunt ut Platoni videtur vel si semper fuerint ut Aristoteli placet moderator tanti operis muneris And here on this Earth on which we dwell the Sky does not cease to grow calm nor the Trees in their proper season to shoot forth Branches nor the Vines to bud and bring their reviving Fruit to perfection nor the Boughs to hang down with ripe Berries nor the Corn to yield its expected increase but all things flourish
the Springs are constantly running and the Fields are clothed with Grass And then if we consider what a multitude there is of Cattel partly for Food partly for carrying and partly for clothing our Bodies and the nature of Man it self who seems to be formed for contemplating Heaven and the Gods and to adore and worship them and that the whole Earth and Sea lies open for his use When we see I say and consider these and innumerable other things can we doubt whether there is a superior Being who is either the Creator of these things if they were indeed created as Plato thinks or if they always were as Aristotle supposes who is the manager and disposer of so great a work and charge Vers 23. Note b. P. 394. Col. 2. Lin. 42. after the words used of the Apostles If we add what Mr. Selden has observed concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Syned Hebraeorum Lib. 1. c. 14. to what is here said of it by Dr. Hammond there will be nothing material left for us to know either about the various significations of that word or about that particular signification of it for simple constituting which Mr. Selden as well as Dr. Hammond has shewn to belong to it in this place You may add if you please the Testimony of Cicero about the Decrees of the Greeks Orat. pro Flacco Cap. 6. Sunt expressa illa praeclara quae recitantur psephismata non sententiis neque auctoritatibus declarata nec jurejurando constricta sed porrigenda manu profundendoque clamore multitudinis concitatae Those excellent Decrees which are recited among them are expressed not declared by Opinions or Authorities or ratified by Oaths but by the stretching out of the Hand and the loud cries of the heated Multitude By this it appears what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies but it is metaphorically applied to signify any constitution or as Ecclesiastical Writers speak ordination as those learned Men thought and have at large proved CHAP. XVI Vers 13. Note a. I Cannot imagin what took up our Author's Thoughts when he said that the Neapolis here mentioned in vers 11. was the same with that in Epiphanius for St. Luke speaks of a City in Macedonia which was situated upon the Gulph of Strymon and Epiphanius Haeres 80. which is that of the Massalians of the City Sichem in the middle of Palestine But the greatest Men do sometimes commit mistakes through forgetfulness or want of care Of Proseuchae Oratories or places for Prayer consult at leisure the Collections of St. le Moine Var. Sac. p. 74. seqq Vers 16. Note b. 1. What our Author here says about the word Python as a name of the City Delphos he took out of Grotius as he often does other things If you would see more of that matter consult Luc. Holstenius ad Stephanum Byzantinum For my own part I do not think that the Spirit of Python here has any thing common to it with the City Delphos or with Apollo besides the name That name of the City Delphos was grown quite out of date before ever the word Python was in use in this sense nor would the Greeks upon that account have called a divining Spirit Python or the Spirit of Python Apollo himself was not called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in the Phoenician Language as in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 photh or perhaps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phython was used to signify a Womans Privy-parts See Isa 3.17 And hence a Prophetess out of whose Privy-parts the voice proceeded or seemed to come might be called in that Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prophetess by Phython i. e. one that prophesied out of her Privy-parts of which kind she that first of all resided at Delphos seems to have been who having been killed by Apollo gave occasion to that Fable about the killing of the Serpent Python because the Phoenician word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nahhasch signifies both a Serpent and a Prophet and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phython was looked upon as a proper Name Afterwards by a word borrowed from the Tyrians or Sidonians the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Pythons or such as had the Spirit of Python for this word having grown out of use among the Greeks was afterwards brought in again as Plutarch affirms who is cited by Grotius to that purpose And hence the Antients always interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attribute this kind of Divination chiefly to Women Besides the Passages alledged by Grotius add this out of Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man or Woman that speaks or prophesies out of the Belly or a Byzantian by Birth Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. an Orator who was a Byzantian by Birth of whom see Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a divining Spirit or Devil 2. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ob does not signify the Belly but the Womb It is rendered indeed by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not rightly as I have shewn in my Notes on Levit. it being rather to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. XVII Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza has rightly observed that there is a comparison here made between the Jews of Thessalonica and those of Beraea and that by this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand an extraordinary excellency of temper in the Beraeans which was not in those of Thessalonica Thus the Philosophers thought a Person had need of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make him despise pleasure and set himself to the study of Philosophy Zeno in his Epistle to Antigonus extant in Diogenes Laertius Lib. 8. Sect. 8. has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For having a great desire to become a Philosopher and shunning that pleasure which is so much cried up and which effeminates the minds of some young men thou manifestly shewest thy self enclined to generosity not only by nature but by choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a generous disposition with a little exercise and a good Master easily attains to the perfection of Virtue The Beraeans are as certain and noble an example of this as any that can be given The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly nobility of Birth or Descent but it is metaphorically used to signify greatness of Mind Seneca likewise interprets the Latin generosus thus Epist 44. Quis generosus saith he Ad virtutem bene à natura compositus Who is a generous man He that is by nature well disposed and formed for virtue Plato or as others think Speusippus in his Definitions tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The virtue of a generous disposition a pliableness of mind to good thoughts and actions Vers 19. Note e. Long before I had read what the Doctor here says or had any thoughts of
the Vulgar by propellere to push forward or to carry along to Judgment for it did not belong to the Jews to question any man but only to the Judges So this word is taken in that excellent saying of Solon in Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That City is extremely well governed in which those that are not injured as well as those that are carry such as do any injury to judgment and punish them Vers 35. Note i. The title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is common in the Coins of the Cities of Asia but Ephesus gloried in it above the rest For there are some pieces of Ephesian Money to be seen at this day in which Ephesus is not only simply stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or twice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but there is also a piece coined under the reign of Caracalla inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another under Heliagabalus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which they boast that they only of all the Cities of Asia had been four times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See J. Foy-Vaillant in Num. Aer Impp. coined in Colonies and Corporations T. 2. pag. 171. CHAP. XX. Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Alexandrian Copy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted as the Oxford Edition of the New Testament observes I wonder that Dr. Hammond who often sets down the various readings of that Copy should take no notice of this It is observable also that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such variations as these are common in the places heretofore controverted in the time of the Nicene Synod CHAP. XXI Vers 7. Note a. THE Vulgar reading is certainly right and ought not to be changed for no body besides the Doctor ever used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Greek phrase for sailing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very properly made use of to signify the finishing of a Voyage The meaning of St. Luke is clear Having finished our Navigation from Tyre we came to Ptolemais for they had first finished their Navigation before they came to Ptolemais from whence they went on foot to Caesarea Whether a Comma be put between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether it be omitted the thing is the same for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be connected with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having finished or made an end of our Navigation we arrived CHAP. XXII Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God did sometimes shew himself to Persons encompassed with so dazling a light as even blinded the lookers on And hence that saying of Hagar in Gen. xvi 13 where see my Notes as also what I have written on Exod. xxxiv 18 20. Vers 25. Note e. lin 24. after the word such an one 1. Our Author's memory failed him when he said So saith Philo of Agrippa c. for what is there said is spoken by Agrippa of Caligula in Philo de Leg. ad Caium p. 798. Edit Genev. Philo produces a Letter of Agrippa to Caius in which Agrippa writes to him thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is certain that could only be done by the Emperor at that time and not by Agrippa as every one knows He should have said therefore So saith Agrippa of Caligula in Philo. 2. It is strange our Author should produce a passage as out of the 47 th Book of Diodorus Siculus who wrote only 40 as Photius affirms Cod. 70. of which we have only half extant and some fragments But he meant Dion Cocceianus whose words those are in Lib. 47. p. 228. Edit Graec. Rob. Stephani Besides those words of Dion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be translated that from his own name he call'd them Juliopolis but that they changed their name and called themselves from him Juliopolis For it was a piece of flattery in the Inhabitants of Tarsus who afterwards also out of flattery to other Emperors called their City Adriana Antoniniana and Severiana Of which see Luc. Holstenius on Stephanus Byzantinus The words of Dion are no proof at all that Tarsus had the freedom of the City of Rome given to it and it otherwise appears that after Augustus's time that was a free City which was govern'd not by the Roman Laws but by its own and therefore did not enjoy the privileges of the City of Rome Consult on this place H. Grotius whom the Doctor would have more safely followed as being not so well acquainted with antient History Perhaps St. Paul had been made a Roman Citizen because his Father tho a Jew had been made free of Rome such as Philo speaks of in the place quoted by the Doctor in the next Annotation CHAP. XXIII Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul seems at that time to have looked another way so as not to have observed who it was that had commanded him to be smitten So that we must supply out of what goes before the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who had ordered him to be smitten on the mouth There is nothing more natural than this others seek a knot in a bulrush CHAP. XXIV Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctor has hit the true sense of this word in his Paraphrase but only as he now and then does he borrows terms from the present custom to express it by which he should not have done because at that time those who had an accusation against any did not use to bring in the heads of it to the Proconsuls in writing but only to speak what they had to say However 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not comparere to appear or come before as it is rendered by Beza but to accuse to lay open a Crime as it is explained by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agrees Phavorinus who interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shew it you manifestly It comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pricaeus upon this place has well observed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Aristophanes's Scholiast on Equites is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser and one that lays open causes and an informer And the Old Glosses have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 allego intimo to alledg to intimate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declarare to declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimatio an intimation Vers 25. Note a. We may apply those Verses of Juvenal Sat. 13. even to the Heathen Judges of that lewd and wicked Age. Prima est haec ultio quod se Judice nemo nocens absolvitur c. hos tu Evasisse putas quos diri conscia facti Mens habet attonitos surdo verbere caedit Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum Ver. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. To please or gratify the Jews lest they should send Informers to Rome and complain of his
lewd actions to Nero or else that he might appease and silence in some measure the Jews Complaints The Governors of the Provinces used to be particularly cautious how they offended any just before their departure as we may perceive by the Counsel given by Cicero in his first excellent Epistle ad Quintum fratrem Tanquam Poetae boni Actores industrii solent sic tu in extrema parte conclusione muneris diligentissimus sis As good Poets and industrious Actors use to be so be you very careful in the last part and conclusion of your Office And yet for all this Felix could not avoid making himself Enemies for the chief Men among the Jews went to Rome in order to accuse him and he had certainly been punished but that Nero was prevail'd upon by his Brother Pallas whom he had an extraordinary love for at that time to pardon him as Josephus lib. 20. c. 7. informs us CHAP. XXV Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is with a Council of his own Friends such as the Presidents of Provinces used to have with them as Grotius has well observed by not following of whom in such matters as these our Author sometimes falls into Mistakes So in Josephus Ant. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 17. Julius Caesar himself begins an Edict in favour of the Jews thus I Julius Caesar made again Emperor and High-priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have decreed with the advice of my Council It is absurd to represent a Roman President before he passes Judgment conferring with the Accusers at the Judgment-seat and especially when he could not gratify them See Grotius Vers 23. Note b. Instead of Dio where the Doctor alledges the words of Laertius read Bio for those words of Laertius are in the Life of Bio Borysthenites Lib. 4. Sect. 53. Ed. Amstel CHAP. XXVI Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to teach them as the Doctor rightly paraphrases it See my Notes on Gen. xxi 18 Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verbatim that the Messias was passible Examples of this signification of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been given by Budaeus out of Demosthenes Comment L. Gr. p. 978. And so the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chi which for the most part signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for si if see Chr. Noldius num 24. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 im which is si if signifies also quòd that Gen. xxxi 52 Vers 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is certainly an Irony and should have been explain'd as such by our Author in his Paraphrase for it is sufficiently known that Agrippa never became a Christian CHAP. XXVII Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius thinks with St. Jerom that it is Adramyttum a City of Africa that is here intended But I am rather of Beza and Dr. Hammond's Opinion who suppose it to be Adramyttium a Town in Mysia for two reasons First Because St. Luke says that they were to sail by the Coasts of Asia and a Ship in its return out of Palestine to Adramyttium could not avoid coasting Asia as any one that does but look into the Maps will plainly see And secondly Because it seems to have been the Centurion's Resolution to go into that part of Asia and cross over from thence to Thrace or Macedonia the Passage being but short and much frequented And then from Thrace or Macedonia to Epirus and so into Italy It is certain this was the safest way because of the uncertainty of the Wind. And this seems also to be the reason why Aristarchus the Macedonian travell'd in the same Ship because accompanying St. Paul he should have an opportunity of passing through his own Country Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Which in its course to Italy had been driven by a violent South-wind on the Coast of Lycia The Centurion seems to have alter'd his first Resolution upon this occasion because perhaps he thought he should be at less charges if he sailed directly to Italy Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Grotius interprets of an Island that lay over against Caria and was famous for the Image and Worship of Venus And Cnidus indeed properly was a Town situated in a Peninsula but there was before that Peninsula a little Island which the Cnidians possessed and which as Strabo speaks lib. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided in a sort Cnidus into two Cities Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For so the word ought to be read and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius has shewn to whose Reasons add this that whilst that Wind blew the Mariners were afraid of falling into the Quick-sands viz. one of the African Syrtes which was called simply Syrtis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For with such a Wind one might sail directly from Crete thither The letter Λ might easily be changed into Δ and the Greek Transcribers understanding well enough the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in English a Storm but not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Latin it is no wonder they mistook and writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in order to sail into Italy it was necessary they should have a contrary Wind which blew from that quarter of the Heaven that is between the South and the East Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subintell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word signifies not only a Worshipper but a Minister or Servant as appears by the Inscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles Vers 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify any ordinary shore for there is no Gulph or Bay but has some shore but a sandy or gravelly shore as it is interpreted by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it appears that this shore was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sandy by the 41 st Verse Vers 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing Verse must be here repeated and he commanded the rest to get to Land some on boards and some on broken pieces of the Ship i. e. to take pieces of wood to bear themselves up with The Vulgar absurdly renders it ceteros alios in tabulis ferebant as if those that could swim had carried the rest to land upon Planks CHAP. XXVIII Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This place has been largely handled by the learned Bochart in Hieroz Part. 2. Lib. 3. c. 2. But I wonder so diligent a Man as well as Steph. Curcellaeus in Parallelis should overlook that Passage in the Prophet Amos Chap. v. 19. where speaking of wicked Men who endeavoured in vain to escape the Justice of God which pursued them as the Maltees thought St. Paul did he says The day of the Lord is darkness and not light As if a Man did flee from a Lion and a Bear
met him or went into a house and leaned his hand on the wall and a Serpent bit him Vers 4. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the proper Name of a Goddess which was look'd upon by the Heathens as the Revenger of Wickedness and was otherwise stiled Nemesis So saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accusation Justice There is a notable Description given of her in Ammianus Marcellinus lib. 14. cap. 11. which I shall here set down that the reason of this Speech of the Maltees may be the better understood After he had spoken of the Punishments which some wicked Men had suffered for their evil Practices he proceeds thus Haec hujusmodi quaedam innumerabilia ultrix facinorum impiorum c. These and innumerable other such things the Revenger of wicked and villanous Actions and the Rewarder of those that are good Adrastia many times effects and I wish she always did whom we otherwise call Nemesis Some sublime Power of an irresistible Deity plac'd as Men suppose upon the Circle of the Moon or as others define it a substantial Guardianship presiding with a general Power over particular Fates Which the antient Divines feigning to be the Daughter of Justice from some hidden Eternity affirm to inspect all Affairs here on Earth She as the great Mistress on whom the decision of all Causes depends and the Disposer and Determiner of Chances varying the courses of Lots by turns and many times giving our Actions a different issue than it seemed at first they would have works a manifold change in the Purposes and Acts of our Will And by an indissoluble chain of necessity tying up the Haughtiness of Mortals vainly puffing themselves up and as she understands how turning and winding about the Junctures of thriving and decaying in tho World one while she treads upon the Necks of the proud and insolent and quite dispirits them and another while she raises the good from a low and mean to a happy and prosperous condition The fabulous Antients feigned her to have Wings that by her extraordinary swiftness she might be thought present with every one and represented her as holding a Rudder and standing over a Wheel that she might be understood to steer and govern the Vniverse by running over all the Elements On which words see Valesius and Lindenbrochius Vers 15. Note e. To confirm what is said by Jos Scaliger our Author might have alledg'd the Testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus who seems to have been the Writer out of whom he learned it and who in Lib. 16. cap. 11. has these words Conversus hinc Julianus ad reparandas Tres Tabernas munimentum ita cognominatum haud ita dudum obstinatione subversum hostili quo aedificato constabat ad intima Galliarum ut consueverant adire Germanos arceri From hence Julian went and repaired the Tres Tabernae a Fortress so called that not long before had been ruined by the Stubborness of the Enemy which being rebuilt he retired into the innermost parts of Gallia and stayed there in order to hinder the Incursions which the Germans used to make into the Country And the Tabernae having been so called because they consisted of Tabulae Boards or Planks it is probable that there were little Houses built there with Boards for the Souldiers to lodg in because they could not endure to abide always in the Camp Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both by this place and what we find said in Chap. xxii 6 and xxiv 15 and xxvi 6 7. it seems probable that St. Paul's chief Adversaries and Accusers were not the Pharisees but the Sadduces who were most of all offended with his saying that Christ had been raised from the Dead and lived with God in Heaven because they denied the Resurrection And so besides the hatred common to them with the Pharisees there was this peculiar reason of their cruelty towards the Christians It 's true there is no mention made of this either in the Accusation brought against St. Paul or in any other part of St. Luke's History relating to that matter but from the defence which St. Paul makes for himself this may be collected who here mentions a circumstance which St. Luke left out in its proper place and that is no rare thing in the History of the Scripture See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Circumstantia and Note on Vers 5. This is better I think than to say as some others do that it was a stratagem made use of by the Apostle Paul to feign himself accused for asserting the Resurrection of the Dead when the question was about something else that he might get the Pharisees to be more favourable to him Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author did not sufficiently mind who the Persons were that spake this when he interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brethren by Christian Jews For it is clear that they were unbelieving Jews whom these Persons who were also themselves such called Brethren Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It cannot from the foregoing words be inferred that St. Paul was a favourer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the Christian Religion and these Jews having no knowledg of him any other way they could hardly have made this answer if he had said nothing but what St. Luke here relates But St. Luke has not set down all the Circumstances or particulars of St. Paul's Discourse but only the principal part of it and so it cannot seem strange if it be inferred from what follows that there was something done or said which in the foregoing Context is omitted viz. that St. Paul did declare himself to believe that God had raised Christ from the dead or that some others had affirmed this of him See on Vers 20. Vers 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. These words are displaced and for the better understanding of them are to be read in this order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to whom he expounded those things which concerned Jesus bearing Testimony to the Kingdom of God and perswading them both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets I know very well that there are a great many instances to be found of the misplacing of words in the very best Greek Writers and particularly in Aristotle as Is Casaubon in his Notes on Theophrastus's Characters c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has observed But such transpositions sounding very harsh in Latin and much more to those who understand only the Modern Languages this here in St. Luke ought not to have been retained by Interpreters because tho the thing is plain to one that is skilled in the Greek yet it makes the sense very obscure to others Translators ought no more to imitate the Original in such things than the peculiar construction of the Greek Language which it is impossible without altering to turn into other Languages For the clearer perceiving of which I shall here set down the words
there must be all the Attributes as well as the Will of God and when he interprets the eternal Power to be the Promises which shall never fail and thinks he has sufficiently prov'd it because the same Apostle calls the Gospel the Power of God For by this way of Interpretation no Sentence of Scripture can have any certain sense Thus he with a great deal of reason refutes Faust Socinus who in this matter shewed himself neither a Philosopher nor a Grammarian But he is too sharp upon him and at the same time upon Dr. Hammond for understanding the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner as Beza did who renders it jam inde a Creatione mundi ever since the Creation of the World They went according to the proper signification of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which follows being understood in the sense that Dr. Pearson would have it to be proves it the invisible things of God from or ever since the Creation of the World being understood by the things which he has made are seen For if it had been St. Paul's design to say what the learned Bishop would have him he should have expressed it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Creation and his Works and not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Creation by his Works The Examples he brings to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are nothing to the purpose because the Phrases are different He should have given us an Example in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know any one from any thing was put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greeks say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But they say also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Matth. vii 16 20. tho the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more commonly used in this Phrase I could confirm this by the Authority of many Interpreters who are far enough from Socinianism but this way Dr. Pearson himself does not take Further tho it be very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify an Action but the Work it self or thing done yet because there is no Work without an Action nor any Action of God without a Work Dr. Hammond might well enough in his Paraphrase make use of a word which signified an Action being it included also in it the Work it self In fine Dr. Hammond thought that what is here said respected chiefly the Gnosticks in which I think he was mistaken but being of this opinion he was obliged to understand by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much the Works of Creation as of Providence both ordinary and principally such as were extraordinary and made a mighty impression upon the Minds of Men in Christ's time As for Socinus's Interpretation of the words Power and Divinity as it is manifestly forced so it is rejected by his Brethren of the Polish Society Crellius and Slichtingius in their Commentaries on this Epistle Vers 23. Note f. There are some things with relation to what our Author here says about the Gnosticks that deserve to be considered and I shall briefly set them down in this place not designing afterwards to repeat them I. It cannot be deny'd that there were even from the Apostles time pernicious Hereticks to whom there is often a respect had in these Epistles as our Author has shewn Of which number were the followers of Simon if what the Antients say concerning them be true And it is possible likewise that these Men might even at that time boast of their extraordinary Knowledg and call themselves Gnosticks tho that Name came to be more famous afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Christians of that Age did not signify only Knowledg or Learning in general but also some peculiar knowledg of the abstruse Points of Religion and the mystical sense of Scripture in which sense we more than once meet with it in an Epistle of St. Barnabas See in the Greek Chap. 6. not 35. and Chap. 10. not 60. and in the Latin c. 1. not 15. of the Amsterdam Edition and the learned Dr. Pearson's Vindic. Ignat. Part 2. c. 6. But yet that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 21 st Verse has a reference to these Hereticks I do not think nor is it necessary II. The Doctor is rash in following Justin Martyr who erroneously thought that Simon Magus was deified by the Romans because there was a Statue at Rome consecrated to SEMON SANCVS which was an antient Roman Deity Caesar Baronius indeed had gone before Dr. Hammond in this but he had been corrected by Des Heraldus in Comment ad cap. 13. Apolog. Tertul. And his Opinion was afterwards confirmed by Henr. Valesius on Euseb H. E. lib. 2. c. 13. and Ant. Pagus in Epicr Baroniana ad An. 142. I do not think there is any more truth in what is related concerning the Contest between St. Peter and him but if it were true the Romans had undoubtedly pulled down his Statue for how could they have thought him to be a God who was overcome by a Man but Heraldus justly calls this a Fable in his Notes on the second Book of Arnobius III. I do not doubt but the Gnosticks or followers of Simon imitated the Heathens but I am of opinion with most other Interpreters that the Apostle had a respect here to the Heathens themselves and particularly to their Philosophers not those who imitated them See Grotius All that the Apostle here says very fitly agrees to the Heathens but there are some things which cannot commodiously be applied to the Gnosticks IV. I wonder our learned Author should think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to refer to Exod. xxiv and signify that Splendor which appeared on the top of Mount Sinai when the Law was given to the Jews and afterwards say that the Phrase to change the Glory is borrowed from Psalm cvi 20 For it had been sufficient to mention that Passage in the Psalmist to which this here manifestly refers and not to that Splendor or glorious Appearance The Glory of God is God himself or his eternally glorious Nature If by the glory of God in this place were to be understood that glorious appearance before spoken of the crime charged upon the Gentiles would be not that they had represented God by a visible shape but that they had made use of another than that They ought to have expressed that splendor by Fire as the Persians use to do not by figures of living Creatures as the Greeks and Romans In the Psalm it is said they changed their Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chbodam But St. Paul could not call God the glory of the Heathens who knew very little of him and perhaps in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Psalms which was used at that time by the Synagogues the words were read as they are now in ours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the glory
follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without offence However it is most true that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only signify the examining of a thing but also that which is consequent upon it the approbation of it But this may very aptly be said of the Jews compared with the Heathens because the Jews were instructed out of the Law which the Gnosticks were not but were part of them Heathens Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Blind cannot discern the right way from the Path which would lead them out of the Road they desire to take and therefore they need a Guide to discern it for them And in like manner such as cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to those things between which the Will of God makes a difference have need of a Teacher to shew them the difference between what is lawful and unlawful This and what follows plainly confirms the Opinion which I have preferred to Dr. Hammond's Interpretation and agrees exactly to the Jews compared with the Heathens Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not think the Doctor has expressed the Apostle's sense here in his Paraphrase I chuse rather to understand this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of stealing the Vessels that were consecrated to Idols as if the Apostle had said Thou who pretendest to abhor Idols as most polluted things which thou wouldst not so much as touch dost nevertheless if thou hast an opportunity steal the Vessels which are consecrated to them and are as polluted as the Idols themselves In which he has a respect undoubtedly to that Law in Deut. vii 25 The graven Images of their Gods shalt thou burn with fire thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is upon them c. Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is it is advantageous for a Person to profess himself a Jew and to carry about him the sacred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Religion in his body provided he observe its Laws and those especially which relate to a good Life and the Interest of Human Society I know Divines usually call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant in the sense our Author uses those words But see what I have said of that matter in my Notes on Gen. xvii 10 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If those who boast themselves to be circumcised Persons and bear the token of God's Covenant in their Bodies neglect the most holy Laws delivered to them by Moses their Circumcision can be of no use to them which is only a sign of their professing Judaism not the whole Jewish Religion Vers 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as all Interpreters have observed the uncircumcised Circumcision was instituted as a sign of God's Covenant with which all that were marked professed their Resolution to obey the only true God Creator of Heaven and Earth But if there were any among other Nations who without that mark set upon the Jews only obey'd God in those things which they knew to be acceptable to him their Piety was as pleasing to God as that of the circumcised Jews That Sign was instituted only to put the Jews constantly in mind of their Duty and not as a thing in it self grateful to God Ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is whoever observes those Laws that are of eternal Equity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherever he be and what Nation soever he be of shall be accounted by God in the number of his People as much as if he were circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks properly signifies Equity or that which is alledged to shew a Cause to be just or good But in the Septuagint it is used to signify the Laws of God of what kind soever they be But in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those things which God may equitably require of all Nations such as Experience and right Reason dictate to be just Vers 27. Note h. I wonder learned Men did not perceive there was an Ellipsis in this Phrase and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood which is expressed afterwards The meaning of S. Paul is this They that have been hitherto uncircumcised as they are born for so the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and yet observe the Moral Laws are Jews that is in the number of God's People not indeed according to the letter of the Laws themselves but according to the mind of the Lawgiver and accordingly will shew by their Example that you are justly condemned who by the letter of the Law and Circumcision are esteemed the People of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are Jews by the Spirit and Righteousness shall condemn such as are Jews by the Letter and Circumcision Afterwards in Chap. iv 11 the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has another signification to wit among the uncircumcised Nations or whilst they are uncircumcised for the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies distance of place or time See ver 29. in which this Interpretation is confirmed Of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is opposed to the Intention or Mind of the Lawgiver I have already spoken in a Note on Mat. v. 17 Vers 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is that Circumcision is worthy of Praise which is agreeable to the spiritual Intention of God in instituting carnal Circumcision not that which according to the letter of the Law is made in the Flesh which in it self is neither good nor evil So that when the Apostle uses the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the spiritual Intention or Will of God as on the other hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the letters of the Law Whence in the Writings of St. Paul the Law of Moses is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Letter and the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit because this revealed the spiritual Intention of God which was concealed under the letter of the Law See 2 Cor. iii. 6 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To wit the Jews who highly preferred a Person that was circumcised to one that was not having little or no regard to how they both lived They considered the letter of the Law and not the spirit of the Lawgiver and so neglecting Mens internal Qualifications commended chiefly their external CHAP. III. Vers 2. Note a. Col. 3. lin 16. NOthing could have been said more falsly concerning the Original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was commonly used by the Greeks in that signification before ever the Greek Language was spoken in the Land of Canaan It was used by Herodotus and Thucydides who lived whilst the Persian Monarchy stood nor did the Septuagint for any other reason call the Pectoral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho improperly and barbarously than because that
word ordinarily signified in Greek an Oracle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Plural Oracles which were so called because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is audibly pronounced or expressed when otherwise the Gods were supposed to give their Responses by Dreams Intrails Signs or Omens without any Voice This derivation of the word seems to be more proper than that which is given of it by Thucydides's Scholiast in Lib. 2. p. 104. Ed. Aem. Porti where on those words of the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many Oracles or Responses were given many things were sung by the Prophets he makes this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those Responses which are made by God in Prose and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which are given in Verse Hence also the Author of the Book of Wisdom chap. xvi 11 and the Son of Syrach in chap. xxxvi 16 call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Revelations of God by the Prophets And such the Apostle here means and not the Responses given by the High Priest as Grotius has shewn But our Author being deceived by the ambiguity of the word treats of the Pectoral in an improper place Ibid. In the same Col. after the words Judgment of Vrim How foreign all this is to this place in St. Paul I have already shewn But I have one or two things more here to observe First That the Doctor took what he here says out of Rob. Scheringamius in his Notes on cap. 8. Jomae as he has done other things also of that nature Secondly That the Rabbins whose Authority he here alledges were as ignorant of this matter as we only they had the confidence to set down their own Inventions for known and certain Truth which is a very usual thing with them Every one knows that during the second Temple there was no Vrim and Thummim and I would not have any one so silly as to think that the Rabbins who lived some Ages after the destruction of that Temple understood by certain Tradition what Vrim and Thummim were Their Opinion is evidently confuted by Spencer in his Treatise of Vrim and Thummim cap. 3. sect 11. As for me I think quite otherwise of the whole matter as I have declared in my Notes on Exod. xxviii 30 and Numb xxvi 21 Ibid. Col. 4. in that Note lin 10. after the words dead Witnesses I have shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Greek God's Responses without any respect had to the Pectoral and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as has been well observed by H. Grotius are enlivening or quickning words I wonder he did not alledg to that purpose Heb. iv 12 Ibid. lin 20. after the words there consisted Our learned Author heaps Mistakes upon Mistakes for it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has no allusion to the Pectoral and does not signify Letters but the Rudiments or first Principles of Piety Vers 4. Note b. That the Doctrine which our Divine here teaches is very true considered in it self no one can doubt that understands the nature of the Gospel-Covenant But I expected he should have acted the part of a Grammarian rather than a Divine and reasoned not from the Analogy of Faith but the grammatical use of words What our Author therefore has not done shall be briefly done by me And first It must be observ'd that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek are most frequently used in the largest sense to signify a good Man or one that loves Righteousness but are sometimes taken in a more limited notion and signify a Man who is guiltless of any particular Crime Of the first signification we may every where meet with Examples of the latter there is an Instance in Prov. xvii 15 He that justifieth the guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he that condemneth the just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both an Abomination to the Lord. See also Isa v. 23 And agreeably to this twofold sense of the word Just the signification also of the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justify is twofold either for to esteem just that is good or just that is innocent or guiltless of the Crime charged upon him In this latter signification they are used in the Passages before mentioned in the Proverbs and Isaiah but this Notion in this dispute concerning Justification can have no place For God does not justify any Man from all Sin that is account him guiltless because all Men are Sinners But there remains another sense in which God may properly be said to esteem those just that is good Men and acceptable to him who believe in Christ tho their Righteousness be not perfect or sinless because he mercifully accepts of an imperfect Vertue instead of a perfect one upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice And in this sense it is said of Abraham that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was justified that is accounted a just Man not according to strict Justice but the gracious acceptance of God who judged him to be a good and pious Person Whence it is said in Scripture that Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that is that Faith was look'd upon as the Act of a good Man and one that feared God and therefore Abraham was judged by God to be such an one See my Notes on Gen. xv 6 These things if carefully observed will give great light into this whole Disputation of St. Paul which is otherwise hardly intelligible The Jews affirmed that by the bare observation of the Law of Moses as they interpreted it a Man was justified in the sight of God that is accounted just by God and accordingly accepted by him and might expect from him the Reward promised to all good Men. And they thought they could exactly fulfil the Law in all points and so be justified as good Men upon that account meaning by the observation of the Law a Life so regulated that no Charge could by any one be brought against them out of the Law as Transgressors of any of its Precepts which had a threatning of Punishment annexed to it And if they lived so they thought the Reward of pious Men was justly due to them This was the Opinion of the Jews against which St. Paul disputes and shews that Men are not justified by the Works of the Law that is esteemed pious by God but by Faâ—th i. e. upon their believing God's Revelations and for the future obeying them tho they had not before observed the Law or any of its Ceremonies To which purpose he alledges the Example of Abraham who when uncircumcised was accounted just by God upon believing his Promise And he urges that no Man can justly contend with God because all have heinously sinned and therefore stand in need of God's pardoning Mercy in order to their being accounted just With many other Arguments of which as the matter shall
require I shall afterwards speak Two things I will further observe in this place First That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is taken in that sense in which I said a Person was justified who is not esteemed guilty of any unjust or wicked Action for David's meaning in Psalm li. 6. is this that he acknowledged he had committed a very great Sin so that he had no reason to doubt of the Divine Justice in threatning to punish him Secondly That towards the end of the foregoing Annotation Dr. Hammond does ill compare the Phrases to be imputed to Righteousness and to be accounted worthy of a Reward with one another as will appear if we look into St. Paul's words Vers 8. Note d. There is no necessity of any Parenthesis in this place if we do but supply the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from what follows the sense will be plain thus Why yet am I also judged as a Sinner Why do not we do as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say that we will do evil that good may come Vers 25. Note b. lin 13. after the words propitious to the People Our learned Author is mistaken in thinking that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chapporeth is indifferently rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is only one place in Exod. xxvi 34 where the Septuagint can seem to have translated it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if it be more narrowly look'd into it will appear that they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pharocheth which is the name of the Veil that was drawn over against the most Holy-place and thought that Moses was commanded to put the Ark there within that space I have rendered the place impones operculum areae testimonii in sanctissimo adyto Thou shalt put the Covering upon the Ark of the Testimony in the most Holy Place and they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only a Veil which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended in order to hide any thing and so they constantly translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pharocheth which is the name of the Veil or Curtain that hid the most Holy Place But a Covering such as that was which was put upon the Ark would be more fitly called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by another Name I fear our learned Author confounded the Hebrew words alledged because of the similitude there is between them and through want of memory Ibid. Lin. 39. After the words to be performed To speak freely my opinion I am apt to think there is no allusion here to the Covering of the Ark but that Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subintell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifice because immediately there is mention made of Blood which has no affinity with a Covering So the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sacrifice offered up by way of Thanksgiving But I confess I never could meet with that word in this sense save in the old Onomasticon where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred propitiabile which word is to be understood actively for that which is capable of pacifying or rendring God propitious as in like manner impetrabilis signifies one that can easily obtain what he desires So that the vulgar who renders this word Expiationem and Beza who renders it Placamentum i. e. an expiatory Sacrifice have translated it better than others who render it by propitiatorium a propitiatory by which word is generally understood the Covering of the Ark. Ibid. At the end of that Note Tho what our Author here theologically discourses be very true yet it does not much conduce to the understanding of St. Paul's words if the proper signification of them be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here spoken of not for the reasons mentioned by our Author but because the Discourse is about an expiatory Sacrifice whereof the Blood can be of no use to us unless we believe on Christ and hope that by his Sacrifice God will become propitious to us tho we have been great Sinners against him Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Doctrin indeed laid down by our learned Author in the foregoing Annotation I heartily subscribe to but I think it is foreign to this place as depending upon a wrong interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The scope of the Apostle is to shew that there is another kind of Righteousness brought in by Christ which he calls the righteousness of God different from that which results from Works and by which we are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus And for the clearer explaining of that he adds whom God hath set forth as an Atonement through Faith in his Blood that is which Jesus God declares in the Gospel to be an expiatory Sacrifice by whose Blood the Sins of those who believe on him are expiated To make known his Righteousness because of the remission of former Sins under the forbearance of God To shew that those are just in his sight whose past Sins he has remitted and whose Repentance he did not in vain wait for At this time that he might be just and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus which at this time only is manifest to all whence we may conclude that God is both a lover of Righteousness and also accounts those just who have believed in Christ and heartily obey him The whole series of the Discourse does as it were proclaim this to be the scope and sense of the Apostle and I wonder that Grotius himself did not see it tho the Doctor who often gives forced Interpretations of Places might easily not discern it Tho I do not deny that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Righteousness of God is often put for his Goodness and Mercy as Grotius has shewn yet in this dispute it has another signification as appears from Chap. i. 17 and vers 21 24 and 26 of this Chapter where it is manifestly taken for Gospel-Righteousness that is for sanctity of Life consequent upon Repentance And this Righteousness which God accepts upon the account of Christ's Sacrifice is not grounded upon a connivence or taking no notice of past Sins but the remission of them For God accounts those just not whose Sins he overlooks or connives at but those whose Sins he has already pardoned and upon their Repentance takes into his favour contrary to their deserts I contend that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be urged to prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing is more common in the Greek Language than for Prepositions to lose their proper force in compound words as every one
the Body or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be according to the Flesh those Phrases being indifferently used by St. Paul chap. viii 5 8 9. Vers 7. Note e. But the discourse is not about a Jew who could not doubt but that Coveting which was forbidden by the Law was a Sin but one that knew not the Law as those Jews which lived before the Law was given Unless God had prohibited coveting they had not believed it to be a Sin no more than most of the Heathens To seize upon what was anothers by force or secretly take it away they knew to be Theft and a thing manifestly prejudicial to human Society and therefore evil and offensive to God but they did not think it unlawful either to covet what was not their own or to get what was another's by Artifices such as are used by Merchants who think they may lawfully do a great many things either to raise the Price of their own Goods or to buy anothers cheap and the like which are undoubtedly unjust tho very agreeable to the Custom of most Nations But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coveting God forbad and that inward affection from which such Sins proceed as I have shewn on Exod. xx See also on Mat. v. 28 Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is would vellem as Grotius and others have rightly observ'd See 1 Cor. vii 7 So it is used also by Anacreon in the beginning of his first Ode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would speak of the Atridae I would sing also of Cadmus CHAP. VIII Vers 2. Note a. THO it be very true that he who is freed from the Law of Sin is freed from Sin and that the Law of the Spirit is not without the Spirit so that what is said of the Law of the Spirit may be said also of the Spirit yet neither of these Phrases can be properly and literally explained so as our Author interprets them The Law of Sin is properly the Dominion of Sin as appears from the 23 d Verse of the foregoing Chapter namely because it belongs to a Ruler to impose Laws And on the contrary the Law of the Spirit is the Dominion of the Spirit So that St. Paul's meaning is that the Spirit which Christ gives and whose Commands Christians obey does free them from the Dominion which Sin formerly had over them which is so manifest that in his Paraphrase the Doctor has followed this Interpretation Only having no regard to propriety of Speech in his own stile he is as careless of it in interpreting anothers Vers 4. Note c. Grotius in his Notes on Chap. ii 16 interprets this word in a sense quite contrary to Dr. Hammond The Apostle saith he here explains what he means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only by Interpreters but also by Josephus and properly signifies such things as are in their own nature good and just as I have said on Luke i. 6 and in Lib. 1. c. 1.9 de Jure B. P. But they are both in an error for First The distinction which the Rabbins make between the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mitsvoth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hhukkim has no foundation either in their Etymology or Use as I have observ'd on Gen. xxvi 5 Secondly The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by Greek Interpreters to signify the Divine Laws in general and tho they most commonly render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet they use also that word sometimes where the Hebrew has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Deut. xxx 15 and 1 Kings ii 3 Among Attick Writers or the best Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Statute Jus or Record Instrumentum by which the justice of any Cause is determined but in the Old and New Testament God's Ordinances or Institutions of what sort soever they be are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to obey them and sometimes the observation of those Laws it self as in Rev. xix 8 which place our Author forces So that it must be collected from the thing it self and not from the word whether the Discourse be about Moral Precepts or others Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word Spirit here manifestly signifies an affection of the Mind as the Spirit of Jealousy in Numb v. the affection of a jealous Mind and so in many other Phrases of the same kind St. Paul's meaning here therefore is that the manner of God's Behaviour toward the Jews had rather produced in their Minds a slavish Disposition than a filial one But wherein did that servile Temper consist This we are told in the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fear that is that ye should be governed more by fear than by hope for that is the case of Servants who stand in great fear of their Masters but hope for very little from them whereas Children hope much from the bounty of their Parents and fear but little But what was the reason why the Jews fear of God was greater than their hopes Namely because the breach of his Laws excepting Sins of Infirmity and some of less moment was threatned with Temporal Punishments which were unavoidable whilst the Jewish Common-wealth stood and flourished and God had not any where promised Mercy to Persons so offending either in this Life or in the next or allowed any place for Repentance Because he had not appointed any Expiatory Sacrifices in the Law for spiritual Sins such as Pride or Covetousness or the like tho he had denounced no Temporal Punishments against them whereby it came to pass that tho covetous proud or any other such sort of Sinners had nothing to apprehend from the Magistrate yet they were afraid of being punished by God who had made no Promises so much as to the penitent But under the Gospel things are quite otherwise as I need not here at large shew This is what Dr. Hammond ought only to have expressed in his Paraphrase which may be gathered from St. Paul's words themselves and not arbitrarily have inserted foreign things into his Discourse Compare with this place Gal. iv 1 c. Who in reading St. Paul would ever have dream'd that under those things which are signified by the Spirit of Adoption were contained the mild Punishments of the Church Where did Christ where did his Apostles teach any such thing More might be said which I designedly pass over Vers 19. Note f. If ever any thing was written by Dr. Hammond that was harsh and forced and a great many Instances of such things might be given it is certainly what he says in this place as I shall briefly prove I. He confesses that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 18 th Verse is either a deliverance from the Persecutions of the Jews in this
privilege the Sons of God but when Christ comes to separate the Godly from the Wicked this will be plain and manifest See John 1 Ep. iii. 1 2. Vers 20. Note i. Our Author covers one Mistake with another to keep them as one said from leaking This I most of all wonder at that he should produce the Example of a most superstitious Heathen and most malicious and implacable Enemy to the Christian Religion viz. Porphyry as a Philosopher who groaned under the burden of Idolatry Whoever reads his Writings and his Life writ by the learned Luc. Holstenius and understands but the nature of that new Platonick Philosophy will soon perceive that no Men were ever more devoted to Idolatry than Porphyry and the rest of the Philosophers of that Age. Our Author ought rather to have produced the Examples of Socrates Plato and others who in some measure disapproved Idolatry than of such as were its greatest Champions and with all their might defended it against Christianity But there was no need of recurring to that for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify Idolatry nor is the Discourse here about Idolaters For tho I should grant our Author that Idolatry is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not follow that wherever that word is used it must be so interpreted or that it respects the Worship of Idols rather than any other Vanities of the Heathens It may be better understood here of that Emptiness or Vanity which is in all the things of this Life For the Heathens who had embraced the Gospel did earnestly expect that time wherein they knew they should be delivered from the Vanity of this World to wit when Christ should openly acknowledg and declare them to be the Sons of God as I before said Those who have entertained the Christian Religion and seriously considered it do best of all know that those things which relate only to this Life are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect Vanity such only understand the truth of that saying of the Preacher Vanity of Vanities all things are Vanity and of the Poet Heu quantum est in rebus inane And accordingly the Heathens who had been converted to Christianity did groan and as it were travel in pain till they were set free from those vain Occupations which partly necessity and partly the ignorance and weakness of human Understanding has imposed on us That is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. a vain desire or labour for it signifies what is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies frustraneous insignificant and in the old Glosses is rendered by inanis cassus vanus supervacuus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frustratio vanitas Such are most of the Employmenss of this Life designed either to procure what we judg profitable or to redress those Evils which trouble and torment us in which we often find our selves disappointed so that we grow weary of our present Condition and are made to wish for that time wherein being delivered from all these vain distractions we shall enjoy the happiness of the Sons of God Ibid. Note h. Having already overthrown what Dr. Hammond says in the foregoing Annotations what he has here about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs fall to the ground The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is God who has made Men for their Sins subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to vanity that is as I said before the vain employments of Life which the Wise Man in Eccles i. 13 and iii. 10 calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habalim and the Septuagint elegantly render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This sore Travel saith he this vain Labour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it may be rendred in Greek hath GOD given to the Sons of Men to be exercised therewith And to so many vain labours with which humane Life is encumbred we are unwillingly subject and should not patiently undergo them but for God who has subjected us to them and in whose most wise and just Providence it is fit we should acquiesce But in the mean while nothing hinders but we may desire to be delivered from these vexations which will then only be when the Sons of God shall be revealed who now together with the wicked are subject to the same Troubles and Labours and will not be set at Liberty till Christ's return In comparison of this Interpretation to omit the rest Dr. Hammond's is violent and all he says besides is nothing to the purpose Vers 21. Note k. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place signifies nothing but that corruption to which our Body is naturally liable and which in this Life we are unwillingly in Bondage to So it is used in 1 Cor. xv 42 50. It is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanity that being but a consequent of it for the corruptibleness of our Bodies is the reason of our being exercised with so many vain Labours Vers 23. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I before said is that solemn acknowledgment of the Sons of God which will be made at the day of Judgment presently after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Resurrection of the Dead Now we are rather ordained or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Sons of God than actually enjoy that Dignity as Jesus was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined the Son of God after his Resurrection as St. Paul speaks in Chap. i. 2 No one besides Dr. Hammond would say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is delivered from Persecutions Ibid. Note m. Lin. 9. After the words in a different sense Our Author forgot himself when he wrote this for we do not find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the 22 d verse nor any where else in this Chapter or in this Epistle but in Chap. iii. 24 Ibid. At the end of that Note It is much more agreeable to St. Paul's stile and the series of his Discourse in this place to understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the resurrection of the Body after which we shall enter upon that Happiness which is opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vanity of this Life Vers 26. Note n. There was no need of proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament often signifies Diseases that being very well known and to be learned by any Concordance The rest our Author had from Grotius and nothing is his own but his translating the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by labour which in this place ought to have been rendred grief for the Hebrew never signifies labour and the Greek is very often used in the other sense Vers 28. Note o. Col. 1. Lin. 36. After the mention of 1 Kings i. 41 49. 2 Sam. 14.11 Our learned Author is mistaken in his interpretation of these two places as I have shewn on
handle this matter more largely in a Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah Vers 33. Note m. As there are two Passages here in the Prophet Isaiah at a considerable distance from one another put together by the Apostle so there are two Figures also conjoined First Christ is considered as a stone of Offence at which whether it be in walking or running if any one do stumble he is in danger of falling and this refers to the Metaphors the Apostle had before taken from the Grecian Games and particularly that of Running which made him think of a stone of Offence than which in a swift motion nothing can be more dangerous Afterwards in the next words every one that believeth on him shall not be confounded Christ is represented not as a stone of Offence but as a corner stone which he that builds any Wall upon must trust to the firmness of and if he be deceived in his confidence after he has finished his Structure his building falls and that fills him with shame This latter Similitude is in Isa xxviii 16 where God speaks thus I lay in Sion for a foundation a Stone an elect Stone if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behhourah elect for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bohhan a Tower a corner Stone and pretious a most firm foundation He that believeth shall not make hast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is shall never be judged to have made too much hast in choosing it nor ever be ashamed of his choice And the former is in Chap. viii 14 He shall be for a stone of Stumbling and for a rock of Offence to the two Houses of Israel where the Metaphor is quite different and it is no longer a corner Stone that is spoken of but a stone on which a Persons foot or the wheel of a Chariot happens to strike as the following Verse more clearly shews CHAP. X. Vers 5. Note b. THE meaning of St. Paul in this place seems to be only this that the Law promised nothing but to those that observed it so as Moses taught it was to be observed that is unless either all its Precepts were obeyed or the Sacrifices appointed by the Law were offered up for the expiation of some sort of Sins against it Otherwise it promised no Mercy from God to those who had committed such a Sin as the Law threatned with death or allowed no Sacrifice for But on the contrary the Gospel assures us that God will pardon such sins as those if the Sinner does but firmly believe they shall be remitted to him and abstain from them for the future This is all we are here to consider for what our Author says in his Paraphrase that it was impossible the Law should be observed that is so far from being the assertion of Moses that he every where supposes the contrary as appears even by the very next words See my Notes on Deut. xix 9 CHAP. XI Vers 8. Note b. OUR Author truly observes that according to the use of the Atticks or those that spake the purest Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies compunction but he might have added that the Greek Interpreters whether through ignorance or according to the use of the Alexandrians confounded the Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of which signifies to prick to pierce and the latter to nod or slumber which made them think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified nodding tho it comes from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It will be worth our while to read Lud. Cappellus about this matter in his Critical Notes on Psalm iv 4 Vers 12. Note d. I have often observed our Author to write so as not to make what he says at last to agree with what he had said at first because I suppose after he had written half an Annotation he changed his Mind and yet was loth to blot out what he had already written And this we have an instance of in this place for after he had proved that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a multitude he alters his opinion and gives it another signification But his second thoughts here were not the best as I shall briefly shew For 1. That this word does sometimes signify a multitude appears also by Hesychius who interprets it among other things by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used for collecting but for that which fills up as the Lexicons will shew Neither was a multitude so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a piece of Cloth put into a torn Garment to make it whole again but because it makes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full and complete Assembly or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it fills the places into which it is gathered together Perhaps also there may be a respect here had to the original of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is thus set down in the Eâ—ymologicon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Jews who were to come in late to Christ are no more called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their filling up what remained empty in the Church than the Heathens who are called by the same name and made up the greatest part of the Church 4. I wish our learned Author had alledged the Passage he speaks of in Sâ—der Olam in Hebrew or referred to the Page for I have not leisure to read it all through and the words he produces out of it look very suspiciously CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. IT is so manifest that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood only in this last sense that I wonder our learned Author would spoil Paper and lose time in proposing the other Conjectures For they are such as may be reckoned indeed in the number of those things that have no natural repugnancy in them but there is not the least shadow of likelihood in them nor can they be confirmed by any example But unless I am mightily mistaken he had never set them down but only to fill up his Annotations on this Chapter which he found would otherwise be but short And a great many other things there are of the like nature in this Volume which yet I pass by without reprehension Such is what he inserts into his Paraphrase on this Chapter about the Gnosticks without any necessity as if there could have been none corrupted with Vices contrary to the Vertues which the Apostle here commends besides the Gnosticks Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not signify only knowledg or an opinion conceived in the Mind but an affection of the Soul And thence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not only a change of Judgment or opinion but also of Affections See Beza on Mat. iii. 2 Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we all make one body of Christians or all we Christians are one Body The Phrase 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used by St. Paul for being a Christian So Chap. viii 1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that is to Christians See likewise Rom. xvi 3 5 7 9 11 13. and 2 Cor. xii 2 c. This I thought fit to observe because I perceived this expression was not understood by Grotius who says here We are one body in Christ that is by Christ who was the Compactor of that Body for tho that be true yet it is not the meaning of the Phrase Vers 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is let him say no more than what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is entrusted with in which word the Apostle has a reference to the antient Prophets who were to say nothing but what God revealed to them See Vers 3. and Ephes iv 7 and Beza and Grotius on these words whom our Author would have done well to follow and not suffered himself to be imposed on by that which is now ordinarily called the Analogy of Faith I wonder the English Translation did not suggest to him another Interpretation of this Phrase in which it is truly rendered according to the proportion of Faith Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Author in his Notes on Mat. vi 22 has very well shewn to signify liberality or bounty of which interpretation I shall here give this brief account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or simplicity is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting a difference or using too much Caution in distinguishing those that are proper objects of our Charity from those which are not Hence the Wisdom which comes from above is said in James iii. 17 not only to be full of MERCY and good Fruits but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without difference that is not too nice or scrupulous in putting a difference between those which it does good or shews Mercy to To which purpose is that advice in Herma Past Lib. 2. Mand. 2. OMNIBUS in opibus da SIMPLICITER nihil dubitans cui des Omnibus da. Omnibus enim dari vult Deus de suis donis Qui ergo accipiunt reddent rationem Deo quare acceperunt ad quid Qui autem accipiunt ficta necessitate reddent rationem qui autem dat innocens erit Sicut enim accepit à Domino ministerium consummavit nihil dubitando cui daret cui non daret fecit hoc ministerium SIMPLICITER gloriose ad Deum Give to ALL that are poor SIMPLY without scrupling whom you give to Give to all For God will have all to partake of his Gifts Those therefore that receive shall give an account to God why they received it and to what end And such as feigned themselves to be poor that they might receive the Charity of others shall be called to a strict account for it but the giver shall be judged innocent For by giving universally and without difference to all he fulfilled the Trust committed to him by God and did it SIMPLY and to God's Glory The Greek words are thus set down by Antiochus Hom. 98. tho perhaps with some alteration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Several other Passages might be produced out of the Antients to the same purpose See Lib. 3. Constit Apostol cap. 4 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Partly because that chearfulness discovers a truly liberal disposition of Mind it being natural to Men to be chearful in following their own Inclinations and partly because it makes the benefit seem the greater to him that receives it if it be bestowed chearfully See Seneca de Benâ—ficiis Lib. 2. cap. 4. Vers 11. Note b. This conjecture of Dr. Hammond is favoured by the series of the discourse in which it is not probable that among particular Precepts the Apostle would bring in that general one comprehending all the duties of a Christian's Life of serving the Lord. Besides after the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it very aptly follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and both together make up an excellent Precept to this sense In the business of Piety you must be zealous and fervent but yet so as to observe the proper time for it lest by your unseasonable fervor you should bring your selves into danger without doing any body else any good The Apostle here makes use of a known Proverb and ordinary both in Greek and Latin Authors So Phocylides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must serve the season and not blow against the Winds So Cicero de Finibus Lib. 3. num 73. among other Precepts of the antient Sages sets down this tempori parere for one So the Author of the Panegyrick ad Pisonem Temporibus servire decet qui tempora certis Ponderibus pensavit eum si bella vocabunt Miles erit si pax positis toga gestiet armis Hunc fora pacatum bellantem castra decebunt It 's true in St. Paul the sense is something different but it is sufficient if it have but an affinity with that which it is commonly taken in for such sort of sayings have generally more senses than one Which the Transcribers of the New Testament not sufficiently understanding and knowing that this Proverb was sometimes used in an ill sense for hypocritical time serving changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is much more probable than that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Phrase to serve the Lord so very common in these Books into one less usual to serve the time Ver. 15. Note c. Tho Grotius also as well as our Author supposes this Verse to have a reference to the two Gates of the Temple yet I am not of their opinion nor do I think the Apostle had any particular respect here to excommunicated Persons The words are general and contain an excellent general Precept to all Christians to endeavour to get the Love and Friendship of those with whom they live nothing being more pleasing to Men than to see others sympathize with them in their Afflictions and rejoice at their Prosperity I know they are for the most part Flatterers and Hypocrites that practise this but then it is not for that that they are to be condemned but their hypocrisy in pretending to grieve or rejoice at what happens to others when they really do not but have other Ends and Designs But a good Man also not only may but ought to be truly affected with others Prosperity or Adversity I am apt to think also that St. Paul here rather made use of a common proverbial form of Speech than a new phrase not before heard of We meet with the like expression tho to another purpose in Horace de Arte Poetica Vt ridentibus arrident ita flentibus adflent Humani vultus Adflent for so the word must be read according to the opinion of learned Men not adsunt Of the thing it self see
err through a false notion of Wisdom and do mischief to the Christian Church So that what he thought to be manifest seems to me to be plainly false CHAP. IV. Vers 6. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly is to think and does not signify to be proud simply taken but only when there is something else added to it as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is be not lifted up in your Minds beyond what these Instructions will allow which I have already written either in this Chapter or the foregoing but especially in Chap. iii. where St. Paul had taught the Corinthians what they ought to think both of themselves and of their Teachers Vers 13. Note b. I. It is true indeed what our Author says about the signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is another notion given by the same Grammarians of these words which I like better as seeming to be more agreeable to this place for purgamenta filth quisquiliae retrimenta the dregs or refuse of any thing For the Apostles meaning is no more than that he was the Object of every bodies Contempt and so was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look'd upon by all the World as refuse And this notion of the words is agreeable to their Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to purge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe off Hesychius has indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but without any interpretation of it which must be supplied out of Phavorinus who seems to have had the most correct Copy of that Grammarian and tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for filth and as refuse The other word is interpreted in Hesychius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe off and ought not to be alter'd It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the former word was omitted because of its likeness to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which went before In Suidas also it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aemil. Portus observed who ought to have corrected the whole passage by Hesychius For it follows in Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he ridiculously renders ipsa sub vestigiis redemptio when it is manifest the words ought to be read with a Comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or what is under foot also redemption Phavorinus interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abomination but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Towel which wipes the Sweat off one that is tired with work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or refuse which is cast away as useless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Metaphor taken from those who wipe down Tables after eating He adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for that which signifies to purge to wipe off with a sponge but he ought to have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is a Compound of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wipe to shave Whence in an old Onomasticon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred scobs shavings or filings The old Glosses published together render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgamentum And Eustathius in the place alledged Edit Rom. p. 1935. interprets both the words by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is washed and wiped with a Sponge And Apostolius in Cent. 16.3 interprets them also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which every one treads under foot or despises II. I do not think that those Nations who had purifications in some respect like the Jewish imitated therein the Jews to whom most of them were perfect Strangers and some of them more powerful and antient than they as the Egyptians Nor have such Rites considered in themselves any thing Divine in them that they should be referred to God as their first institutor It is much more probable that the Jews had been already accustomed to them whilst they were among other Nations and that God in those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beggarly elements of the World as St. Paul calls them did accommodate himself to their Capacity and Temper Of which matter I have had occasion to speak in many places of my Commentary on the Pentateuch CHAP. V. Vers 1. Note a. THE word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify but two things in this place First it may denote the certainty of the Report and be referred to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so St. Paul's meaning will be that that report had been a long while spread and it was universally affirmed for a certain truth by all that knew the Church of Corinth in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Adverb of affirming Secondly it may be a Particle whereby the Apostle signifies he would tell them briefly and in one word why he should come to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Rod. In both these senses this Particle is used in good Authors but never in Dr. Hammond's that I know of and if it were yet in this Construction that could not be the sense of it It signifies also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wholly or altogether but for that signification of it there can be no room neither here See Mat. v. 34 and afterwards Chap. xv 29 of this Epistle I rather think it is here an Adverb of affirming because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediately follows it Vers 2. Note c. Lin. 13. After the reference to Rom. xii Note c. This passage of St. Clement as also the Citation out of Origen was taken by our Author out of Grotius as is evident by this that Grotius refers us only to Constit 2. without setting down the Chapter which he ought to have done in the quotation of a Book that had been long since divided into Chapters and so does the Doctor Grotius does not truly cite the words of the Constitutions no more does Dr. Hammond The place is in Lib. 2. cap. 41. and the last word of it here alledged is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cut off By this it appears that learned Men are not to be absolutely trusted in citing the Testimonies of the Antients Ibid. At the end of that Note If our learned Author to this passage in St. Paul had added only that in 2 Cor. xii 21 no one would ever have disputed with him about these interpretations But all that he says afterwards is manifestly forced because St. Paul does not speak of that Sorrow which was caused by the censures of the Church or Excommunication but concerning Sorrow which proceeded from a depravation of Manners in the Corinthians for which St. Paul had justly reprehended them For it is apparent that St. Paul speaks to the whole Corinthian Church which no
the word to confirm their Opinion So that upon the whole here is as the Poet speaks Pergula pictorum veri nihil omnia falsa Ibid. Note i. Here is I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mighty flood of Examples but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is true indeed the Solemnities used in the worship of some Deities in some places were accompanied with shameful Lusts as I have shewn my self on Exod. xxxiv 15 But that either every where or for the most part it was so I leave them to believe who are ignorant of the antient Heathen Customs Our Author speaks as if the Greeks and Romans did very freely suffer their Wives and Children to be corrupted and prostituted in their sacred Mysteries and as if that was the general Custom than which nothing can be more false Nay there were severe Decrees sometimes made against Impurities in the worship of their Gods as appears from Livy Lib. 39. and by an order of the Senate it self still extant See also Cicero de Legibus Lib. 2. Cap. 14 15. I do not therefore believe that an Idolater simply is ever taken for a Fornicator or Adulterer as if Idolatry and Uncleanness had always gone together Nor does our Author produce any one Passage to make it probable for tho all the Sins which are joined with Idolatry here and elsewhere respected carnal Pleasures it would in no wise follow that by Idolatry is meant Impurity when neither the proper signification of that word nor its use will admit that sense and it is very common for Sins of various kinds to be joined together And yet upon this only ground almost our learned Author in his Note on Rom. i. 29 endeavoured to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified Luxury against the proper signification of the word and the constant use of all Writers as I have there shewn And the same I shall do here as to the word Idolatry lest any should be deceived by his Authority or multitude of Examples I. The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gilloul signifies Dung properly and Idols are by way of contempt so called not because of those carnal Pollutions that accompanied the Worship of them but because they were made no more account of than Dung by the Jews For Dung did not pollute viz. with any legal Pollution By the Septuagint this word is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as if that were the proper signification of it but because the Jews who spake Greek commonly called Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abominable things not polluted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify to be polluted but to abhor to detest And the same is the signification of the Hebrew root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schakats whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an abominable thing not properly because of carnal Pollution but because it is evil Lyra's Authority is not to be regarded See my Notes on Gen. xxi 7 II. I do not doubt but in the Bacchanalia or night Revels of Bacchus there were horrible Villanies committed but I do not think it was universally known in Greece that those things were done there in honour of that God Our learned Author might have produced a great many fitter Testimonies to shew that the Mysteries of Ceres were secret than those which he alledges out of Horace and Seneca or rather have let them quite alone since every Child knows such things III. That passage in Jerem. xliv 19 is perfectly foreign to this business there being nothing there said about nocturnal Sacrifices For thus the Women who had offered Sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven that is the Moon speak When we burned Incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink Offerings did we make her Images without our Husbands c. IV. I am of opinion indeed with our Author that God by the sacred mark of Circumcision did signify the amputation of inordinate Pleasures but whether he had a particular respect to the shameful practices of the Heathens in their Religious Solemnities which in that Ceremony he condemned I cannot tell nor is it evident from any place of Scripture V. Our Author had not look'd into 2 Kings xxiii 7 for the word there in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laascherah that is in a Grove not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hastheroth which has a different signification But he was deceived by an overhasty reading of what Mr. Selden says about this matter de Diis Syris Synt. ii Cap. 2. who may be consulted and who has also treated at large of Milytta and the rest here spoken of in Syntag. 2. Cap. 7. To me likewise it seems most probable what he conjectures about the original of the names Atergatis and Derceto in cap. 3. of the same Syntagm as if they were the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addir-dag a magnificent Fish because he sets down a story which agrees with his conjecture as he at large shews VI. By a pleasant mistake our Author produces Verses out of the 3 d Book of the Sybillin Oracles as respecting the Roman Lustrations of which there is not in them the least mark or footstep merely if I am not mistaken because Joan. Opsopaeus who turned the Sybillin Oracles into bad Latin Verse had thus translated the two first which Dr. Hammond alledges Masque mari se junget statuentque pudendis In LUSTRIS pueros But these Lustra any one will see to be Bawdy-Houses who observes it to be in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other places prove nothing but only that the Heathens were generally given to inordinate Lusts but not that those Lusts were reckoned by the most of them a part of Religion VII In the Eleusinia Sacra or Rites performed in honour of Ceres there were indeed some indecent things practised as Joannes Meursius in Eleusiniis will inform us but that any horrible Villanies and such as are not to be named were committed in them will not be thought by any that shall read what is said of them by Cicero de Legibus Lib. 2. in the place before cited VIII In Coloss iii. 5 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in its usual and constant signification for Covetousness and not for lustful Idolatry The same I say of Ephes v. 5 The rest of the places alledged prove nothing at all for the Affinity there is between some Vices does not make it necessary that all others should be of the same kind What is produced out of Polycarpus and Beza has been already confuted on Rom. i. 29 The words of the Council of Illiberis are figurative and signify no more than that the Heathen Priests who after they had taken upon them the profession of Christianity did again return to the worship of Idols were as guilty as if they had committed the three Sins there mentioned Vers 11. Our Author did well to add this at last for it is false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
perfectly of Dr. Hammond's opinion as to the use of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I shall confirm by these Verses of Virgil wherein he elegantly describes the Mind distracted with variety of Cares and uses the word dividere Aeneid 8. at the beginning Magno curarum fluctuat aestu Atque animum nunc huc celerem nunc DIVIDIT illuc In partesque rapit varias perque omnia versat Nay and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be vexed with Care is defined by the Greek Grammarians to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be divided between different Resolutions because it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by changing the Letter E into H. See Eustathius on Homer pag. 80. and 1427. Edit Rom. But there are two things in this Annotation of the Doctor liable to censure The first is his Citation out of the Jerusalem Paraphrase which makes nothing to the purpose it being manifest that those words signify Distrust or Vnbelief not Cares or Distractions And the second is his saying that a Verb in the Singular number cannot be applied to two Nouns whereas nothing is more common in all the best Authors in both Languages than that Construction and which I wonder he did not take notice of it must be admitted according to the reading of the Alexandrian Copy which he prefers before the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. CHAP. VIII Vers 4. Note a. I Don't think St. Paul had a respect to the Hebrew word which perhaps was unknown to the Corinthians but to the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self which he here uses and which properly signifies an Image conceived in the Mind which is no where but in our Understanding and afterwards was applied to other things which are look'd upon as vain Spectres And this is the reason why the Jews who spake Greek gave the name of Idols first to the Gods of the Heathens themselves and then to their Statues All which I shall deduce a little more particularly because it will conduce very much to the clear understanding of this Passage And first of all it must be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be like unto in which sense it is often used in Homer as for instance in Iliad B. Vers 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And near to him stood greyeyed Minerva like to a Cryer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Scholiast Whence the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came to signify an Image or representation of things such as is formed in the Mind And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as H. Stephanus has shewn out of Plutarch signifies sometimes the same And therefore Plato in his Phaedrus p. 346. Ed. Gen. Ficin calls an incorporeal thing supposing it appeared in a visible shape 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that remarkable Sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men would be extreamly in love with Wisdom if it did but present some lively Image of it self to their view And because they thought that the Souls of dead Persons were clothed with a certain airy Form resembling outwardly that Body which they inhabited when those Persons were alive that Form they usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We frequently meet in Homer with this half Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images of deceased Men. Virgil renders it simulachra figuras which he thus describes in Aeneid 6. Vers 292. speaking of Aeneas who was going to encounter the Ghosts if Sybilla had not diverted him Et ni docta comes tenues sine corpore vitas Admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae Irruat frustra ferro diverberet umbras This was the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Greeks when the Jews first came acquainted with them and therefore when they had learned to speak Greek they fitly called the Gods of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly because they were but meer human Inventions having no real Existence and partly because they generally worshipped dead men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to use the words of Virgil Horum umbras tenues simulachraque luce carentum Which shews likewise the reason why the Apostle says that an Idol is nothing in the World for the Fictions of Men have no real Existence nor are there any such Images or Apparitions of dead Persons as the Poets speak of no more than there is any Horrendum stridens flammisque armata Chimaera Philo Judaeus Lib. de Monarchia affirms that Riches also are called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are but the fading Images of true good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these are the things which the Scripture calleth Idols like Shadows and Phantoms which depend upon nothing firm or certain Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sense of this Verse is not truly expressed by our Author out of Theophylact. It must be rendred for tho there be they which are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as really there are Gods many and Lords many yet to us there is one God the Father c. By Gods in Heaven are meant God and the Angels in the Earth Magistrates who are also called the Lords of the World But Christians called only the Father by whom all things were created God and Jesus Christ by whom were all things Lord in the most excellent sense The Apostle has no reference to the false Gods or Idols of the Heathens nor to the common way of speaking among the Jews themselves for he grants that those were truly called Gods and Lords He seems when he wrote this to have had in his mind that passage of Moses in Deut. x. 17 The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords a great God mighty and terrible whom the Jews ought alone to serve And in like manner St. Paul here teaches that tho there were many that were called Gods and Lords yet there was but one of those Gods and one of those Lords that were to be made the Objects of divine Worship Vers 7. Note b. No body will deny but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Body signifies to be sick and is taken also for a disease of the Mind if the discourse be about the Mind But I don't think St. Paul here has a respect to the general Notion of a distemper of the Mind or of Sin but rather speaks of an infirm purpose in the profession of the Christian Religion and the observation of its Precepts such as is usual in ignorant People who are hardly brought to an entire renunciation of their former Errors This is the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xiv 1 2. which does not signify sick or diseased in the Faith but Persons whose Faith was not so firm and strong
times and it was not lawful for them to use any other sort of Diet or to eat how and when they pleased but they were bound to follow anothers prescriptions And this is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not to cram themselves per force as the thing it self will afterwards shew Lucian in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes the Athletae or those that often exercised themselves in these sort of Games thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are neither shrivelled or wasted away nor yet so extraordinary big as to be heavy but of a just size the useless and superfluous parts of their Flesh having been consumed in Sweat See also what follows II. Our learned Author seems to owe the greatest part of what he here says to Pet. Faber or Hier. Mercurialis whom he also hastily perhaps looked over and collected as much as he had occasion for about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Grecians out of the works of those Writers For by his citation of some Passages it appears that he did not look into the Authors themselves out of which they are taken The place alledged out of Lucian is in Dialogis mortuorum p. 279. Ed. Amst and it is not Charon but Mercury that is there represented as afraid of letting Damasias with so much Fat about him come into his Boat which yet we are not to understand was so much neither as to hinder his Activity as if he had been a Man that had minded nothing but his Belly The passage cited out of Julian does not shew that the Athletae ate immoderately but only certain Meats in a certain quantity and at a certain time which would be very inconvenient for an Emperor especially when journeying or engaged in important Affairs who must eat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Business will permit III. If our Author had looked into Suidas or at least not read him negligently he would have alledged his definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews what that word properly signifies It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disposition which will not suffer a Man to go in any thing beyond reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Habit which cannot be conquered by Pleasures So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one that has such a power over his Passions as to abstain from those things which he judges hurtful to him notwithstanding the pleasantness of them And accordingly where the discourse is about an Athleta who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is that he is one who in all things is so much his own Master as to eat nothing and do nothing which may impair his Strength Which the Apostle did in another sense who governed his Affections so as not to gratify them in any thing tho lawful that might in the least hinder the propagation of the Gospel IV. The place in Aelian is absurdly thus quoted by our Author So Aelian of the Tarentinus Luctator as if the Luctator's name had been Tarentinus whereas he was called Iccus and Tarentum was the name of his Country I shall set down the words of Aelian entire which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iccus the Tarentinian was a Luctator who lived soberly all the time of his combating and used to eat moderately and abstained to the last from Venery See Joach Kuhnius on the words put in Capital Letters who by other Testimonies proves that the Athletae lived quite differently from what the Doctor imagined V. Our Author erroneously thought that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of St. Paul was governed by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is understood and the words ought to be rendred is temperate in all things or with relation to all things Which all things must be understood according to the subject matter of those things which were capable of weakning if the Discourse be about an Athleta and if about St. Paul of those things which might obstruct the course of the Gospel Vers 26. Note l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was an exercise performed by the Combatants standing whereas they often strove on the Ground as we are told by Lucian in Dial. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fighting both with their Hands and Feet So in that Book Anacharsis after he had described the Combatants in Sand and in Clay represents them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these standing upright and all covered with Dust strike and kick one another And Solon a little after reciting the names of the Exercises which Anacharsis had described is brought in as speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of these Exercises that which is performed in that Clay is called Wrestling And those in the Dust do also wrestle but their striking one another standing upright we call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of these saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they fight with their Hands and Feet in which kind of combat they used to exert all their Strength Ibid. Note m. The place cited out of Eustathius is not in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Iliad Ε but Iliad Υ. pag. 1215. Ed. Rom. and if Dr. Hammond had took it out of the Author himself he would have set it down intire because it may help us to understand St. Paul's words Homer had said of Achilles who had endeavoured thrice to strike Hector to no purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrice he struck the thick darkness with which Apollo had covered Hector 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Eustathius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence the Proverb to beat the Air seems to be taken which is applied to Persons who undertake impracticable things But some think this Proverb was taken from Cuffers who often c. Vers 27. Note n and o. I have confuted Dr. Hammond on Rom. vi 6 where he endeavours to no purpose to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies my self and therefore what he here says upon that Hypothesis is all vain Besides it is refuted by what he himself adds last of all in this place for it is the Body that is subdued by bodily exercises and not the Mind any further than as the Body being once subdued the Mind is no longer infected with those evil Affections which arise from the Body CHAP. X. Vers 1. Note a. Col. 1. Lin. 19. AFTER the words to do them What our Author here says about the symbolical signification of the Wings of the Cherubims he ought to have confirmed by some express Testimony out of Moses or the Prophets for it is not necessary to think that God had a respect to all those things in instituting of the Mosaical Rites which learned Men conjecture he might have a respect to An infinite number of such things were of old fancied by the Fathers who thought they might say what they pleased in this kind tho they had no ground for it and
But first this should be proved out of the Old Testament for if it does not appear that the antient Jews had any such apprehensions of it there is no reason to say that Manna signified or prefigured that which it does not appear the Jews understood by it But it may be proved perhaps out of the New If it be asked where out of John vi 31 seqq where Christ opposes his Doctrin to Manna As if a mere allusion or opposition put by Christ between his Doctrin and Manna did necessarily imply that it was the design of God in giving the Israelites Manna to typify the future promulgation of the Gospel by Christ But I further ask for whose sake were these typical representations made Was it for the sake of the Jews This cannot be pretended for that dull Nation hardly understood the plainest and expressest things tho frequently inculcated upon them and much less such as were obscure and intricate And it is not probable that any thing was instituted by God for the sake of the Jews which they did not at all understand But that those Types were given for the sake of Christians is yet far more unlikely because if they were to be believed by us they were to be deduced from the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority alone would move us in this matter when otherwise we should never have so much as dreamt of them So that in order to our understanding that kind of Predictions the assistance of other Divine Persons would have been necessary whom for other reasons we already believe viz. for the excellency of their Doctrin and the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of it But this being supposed what need is there of Types to those who already believe Christ and his Apostles upon the firmest grounds They illustrate it may be you 'l say the Apostles Doctrin that I deny and say that they would rather obscure it if they occurred in their Writings for the alledged reasons See my Note on Mat. ii 2 Let the Learned judg of these things and consider whether it be not better at last to let all this Doctrin about the Types alone which the Heathens of old derided and the Jews ridicule at this day and only make use of the most convincing Arguments whereby to prove the truth of Christianity But this would be the subject of a whole Volume which I have here but transiently touched intending wherever there is a fit occasion to shew the weakness of all that is alledged in defence of Types out of the Apostles Writings Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of that spiritual Water which God made to proceed out of the Rock which Water followed the Camp So Gen. iii. and elsewhere to eat of the Tree is to eat of the fruit of the Tree Which must be carefully observed lest any one think that the Rock it self is here properly called spiritual that Epithet being to be attributed to the Water which flow'd out of the Rock which tho not expressed is yet to be understood For no one will suppose that the Rock from which the Water proceeded followed the Israelites or was carried about with them through the Wilderness But granting may some say that the Rock is here put by a Metonymy for the Water that came out of it yet how is it said that the Water it self followed the Jews The common opinion is that a little River or current of Water proceeding out of the Rock followed the Jewish Camp whithersoever it moved But there is not one syllable about that in Moses who yet it is not probable would have omitted the mention of so great a Miracle if any such had been for it would have been no small Miracle for God to have made a Channel for that Water to run in and follow the Israelites whithersoever they went But there is no need of feigning here a Miracle in order to explain St. Paul's words which may be very well understood without it to wit by supposing only that this Water was carried about by the Israelites through the Deserts of Arabia in leathern Bottles or any other Vessels that followed them with the rest of their Carriage For thus this Phrase is used by Aelian Var. Hist Lib. 12. Chap. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Convoy that followed Xerxes Which he begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other Provisions full of Magnificence and Ostentation which followed Xerxes WATER also FOLLOWED him out of Choaspes And this was the Custom of all the Kings of Persia if we believe Herodotus Lib. 1. c. 188. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they carry Water with them out of the River Choaspes that runs by Susa of which alone and no other River the King drinks Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Grotius prefigured Christ But it may every whit as well be interpreted And that which might be said of that Rock in a carnal sense may in a spiritual be affirmed of Christ As all the Israelites drank of the Waters of that Rock and yet those among them who rebelled were destroyed in the Wilderness so all are equally enlightned by the Doctrin of Christ but whoever does not regulate his Life according to it shall perish This is the sense of the Apostle which needs no typical Prefiguration to explain it his Discourse not being at all grounded thereon or else this Passage may be rightly paraphrased to the same sense thus And the case was the same of the Water that flowed out of that Rock and those that drank of it and of the Doctrin of Christ and Christians So in the Parables of Christ the parts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are often called the parts of a Parable because they are compared with one another and the case is the same in both As Mat. 13.19 When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom and understandeth it not then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his Heart THIS IS he which received Seed by the way side But he that received the Seed into strong places THIS IS he that heareth the Word c. And it is known that the Jews whom the Apostles followed do very frequently borrow Comparisons from the Old Testament and allude to the stories of it so as often to apply the words of them to their purpose not that they thought those places contained prefigurations of that which they accommodated them to but because they thought it a piece of elegance to appear to take every thing out of the Old Testament See Gal. iv 24 25 16. Ibid. Note b. I. Something but briefly and obscurely there is about this matter in Rabbi Solomon on Numb xx 2 perhaps taken from the Christians for it is not easily to be believed that all the late Rabbins say they owe to antient Tradition It 's certain neither the Paraphrase of Jonathan nor the Jerusalem Targum have any thing about the Water which followed
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 Corinthians See chap. v. But the Doctor thought he could never say enough about Church Censures Ibid. Note h. I. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. Jac. Maussacus has copiously and learnedly treated in a Dissert premised to Harpocration where he has at large shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only Languages in general but strange Languages and words peculiar to certain Dialects for the interpretation of which Glossaries were composed II. Tho it is said in Acts ii 5 that there were at Jerusalem devout Men out of every Nation under Heaven who heard the Apostles speaking in their own Languages yet that expression is not to be taken in the strictest and most comprehensive sense because it is certain universal Phrases are often used for indefinite or particular ones of which see my Notes on Gen. vii 19 and Part. 2. Sect. ii cap. vi § 16. of my Ars Critica And indeed it is not at all probable that the Apostles could speak all the Languages so much as of the Asian People among which were the Scythians who inhabited a great and vast Country towards the North and the Seres and Japanners and divers Indian Nations to which they never went And therefore by all Nations and all Languages must be meant the most and most famous within the Roman Empire and in bordering parts of the World Tho I do not doubt but that if the Providence of God had called the Apostles to the most remote Countries God would have miraculously conferred on them the knowledg of their Languages But it was time enough for that when they had occasion to use them III. There are some things to be observed about the Gift of Tongues which I shall afterwards set down because our Author has past it by CHAP. XIII Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul here seems to speak according to the opinion of the Vulgar who think that the Angels cannot communicate their Thoughts to one another without speech tho Spirits whether pure or clothed with another kind of Body may have other ways to convey their Thoughts to each other And those ways altogether as conceivable as the manner how we understand one anothers Thoughts by Speech which is not at all as I might easily shew if this were a proper place to philosophize in But I shall rather set down a passage out of Michael Psellus in his little Book de operationibus Daemonum where he describes thus the manner of their discoursing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that speaks if he be afar off is forced to speak very loud but if he be near he whispers what he has to say into the Ear of the Person he speaks to And if he could have an immediate access to the spirit of the Mind he would not need so much as to whisper but he might make himself be understood and communicate whatever he had a mind by a secret way without any noise in the same manner as they say Souls do after their separation from the Body who converse without making any sensible impression on each other And this way the Devils also discourse with us Men and wage war with us unperceived And afterwards he saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Demons have any peculiar Language we shall not find for instance Hebrew or Greek or Syriack or any other barbarous Tongue For what occasion have they for Speech who converse together without Speech as I before said But he goes on and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But as among the Demons of the Nations some presided over one and some over another and had each their distinct place of Residence so they severally spake the peculiar Languages of those Nations For which reason those of them that resided in Greece gave their responses in Greek Heroick Verses and those in Chaldea were invoked in the Chaldean Language c. This as it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any examination to be admitted so nor absolutely I think to be rejected wherefore I thought fit to set it down here that the Learned might judg of it Ibid. Note a. There are several things in this Annotation which I cannot assent to and are undoubtedly false I. From the order observed in reckoning up the Consort in Psalm cl it cannot be inferred that the Cymbal was a musical Instrument of a bigger sound than those before named for who told Dr. Hammond that the Discourse ascended Does the Psalmist use to be so exact in placing his words They must have read the Psalm but very carelesly that can think so II. The Cymbal cannot be said to have been a wind Instrument It was made in the form of a Hemisphere hollow within and two Cymbals were shaken and struck one against another to make a sound If any one ask me saith Adr. Turnebus in Advers Lib. 26. c. 33. what sort of Instrument a Cymbal was I will send him to the Herb Cotyledon Pennywort whose Leaves resemble a Cymbal So saith Scribonius Largus Mentastrum vel radicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae herba similia folia Cymbalis habet Wild Mint or the root of the Herb Cotyledon the leaves of which are like Cymbals He might have added that this Herb was for that reason called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by Dioscorides in Lib. 4. c. 92. who gives this description of it and at the same time tells us what was the form of the Cymbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotyledon some call it Scytalium others Cymbalium hath a Leaf like a Sawcer of a round shape and gradually concave That the manner of sounding these Instruments was by dashing or shaking them against one another appears by this Verse of Virgil Georg. Lib. 4. vers 64. where he shews the way how to call back a swarm of Bees Tinnitusque cie matris quate cymbala circum On which place Servius hath this Note by whose words it will more fully appear what was the form of the Cymbal quae viz. cymbala in ejus Matris Deûm tutela sunt quia sunt similia HEMICYCLIS coeli quibus cingitur Terra quae est mater Deorum Which are under her protection because they are like the half Circles of the Heaven by which the Earth is encompassed which is the Mother of the Gods That they were shook together we may learn also from the words of Isidore in Orig. Lib. 2. c. 21. Cymbala acetabula quaedam sunt quae percussa invicem se tangunt sonum faciunt Dicta autem Cymbala quia cum ballematica simul percutiuntur Ita enim Graeci dicunt Cymbala ballematica Cymbals are a sort of Sawcers which being struck against one another make a sound The reason why they were called Cymbals was because c. What the meaning of the word ballematica is I do not understand but the word Cymbal must be derived not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies concave as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence Cymbals are called concave by Lucretius Lib. 2. speaking of Cybele's Priests Tympana tenta sonant palmis cymbala circum Concava Nonius Marcellinus interprets cymbalissare cymbala quatere And it 's certain they were used in Dances as the Timbrels and Tabors as appears by Lampridius in Commodo Praefectum Praetorio suum Julianum saltare etiam nudum ante concubinas suas jussit quatientem Cymbala deformato vultu He commanded his Praefect Julian to dance naked in the Court before his Concubines shaking Cymbals and with his Countenance disfigured But the manner of sounding Cymbals is best of all described by Ausonius in Ep. 25. Cymbala dant flictu sonitum dant pulpita saltu Icta pedum tentis reboant cava tympana tergis Isiacos agitant Mareotica sistra tumultus III. The matter of these semicircular Instruments being Brass they made a tinkling or shrill sound not a loud or big one as the Doctor thought whence they are stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epigram of Alexis Priest of the Mother of the Gods of which I shall here produce these Distichs out of the Anthol Lib. vi p. 416. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The female Alexis bequeaths this to thee the mad tokens of her Fury leaving off her brass striking Rage Her shrill sounding Cymbals and high grave sounding Pipes which are made of the crooked Horns of a Calf And her ecchoing Drums and Swords died with Blood and yellow Hair which she formerly shook IV. Hesychius interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is brazen Kettles Cymbals as Phavorinus also reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brazen Cymbals as it is falsly quoted by our Author And the reason why these Instruments are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is because they were made of Brass not because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wind Instruments V. The Epithet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here proves nothing but that the Cymbal was an Instrument of a shrill sound and indeed two such semicircular Instruments made of Brass could not be beat one against another without making a pretty great Ringing or Tinkling which yet was not so great as to equal the sound of Organs especially if of a large size Hence Xenophon in the beginning of his Book de re Equestri compares the sound of the hollow hoof of a Horse to the sound of a Cymbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hollow Hoof struck upon the ground makes a noise like a Cymbal Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make any sort of confused noise not only for Joy but for Grief as appears even from Mark v. 38 Consult what H. Stephanus says about this word under its primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which what is said here by our Author is nothing to compare So that St. Paul admirably resembles the sound of the words of an unknown Language to the confused noise of a Cymbal or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perhaps Tiberius Caesar had almost the same reason for calling the Grammarian Apio Cymbalum Mundi the Cymbal of the World viz. because he dunned mens ears by his vain and unprofitable talking See Pliny's Pref. to his Nat. Hist VI. The use of the Cymbal does not belong to this place The Apostle does not here respect the occasions or times in which it was made use of but only its confused sound However I shall in a few words here set down the use of that Instrument because our Author had not a true Notion of it It was used whenever any confused noise was to be made either as a signification of Joy or Mourning For the antient Eastern People used that sort of Musick on both those occasions whether in War or Peace It was a token of Mourning in the sacred Solemnities of the Mother of the Gods as we are told by Martial Lib. 14. Epig. in Cymbala 204. Aera Celaenaeos lugentia Matris amores Esuriens Gallus vendere saepe solet Of which see the Additions of T. Demsterus to the Rom. Ant. of Rosinus But in the worship of other Deities they played upon Cymbals for the sake of mirth as appears by Athenaeus's description of the Parilia or Feasts in honour of the Goddess Pales Lib. 8. p. 361. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was heard through all the City the noise of Pipes and the sound of Cymbals and the beating of Drums and singing So Herodian Lib. 5. speaking of Heliogabalus cap. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He danced about the Altars with the sound of all sorts of Instruments and the women of the Country danced with him running round the Altars and carrying Cymbals or Tabers in their bands That there were Cymbals also used in private Meetings for dancing and mirth I have already shewn and could easily prove more at large It is known also that they were used in War but it was only among the Arabians And so saith Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat 2 p. 164. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Egyptians in their Wars use Drums or Tabers and the Arabians Cymbals VII Because I have said so much about the Cymbal I shall add something about its Original tho it contribute nothing to the illustration of St. Paul's meaning in this place It sufficiently appears by the places already alledged that it was neither a Roman nor a Greek Instrument but an Asian because it was principally in use among the Phrygians and Phenicians as we have seen out of Herodotus and the Arabians as we have been told by Clemens And hence saith Apuleius in Lib. de Deo Socratis Gaudent Aegyptia numina ferme plangoribus Graeca plerumque choreis barbara autem strepitu cymbalistarum tympanistarum choraularum The Egyptian Deities are pleased generally with Beatings the Greek for the most part with Dances and the Barbarian with the noise of men playing upon Cymbals or Tabers or Pipes It was very common among the Jews in whose Language it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsiltsel from a Root which signifies to ring or tinkle both among them and the Arabians The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsiltsel is constantly rendered by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except in one or two places which are perhaps corrupt Possibly it signified also Sistrum a Timbrel as I shall have occasion hereafter to observe on Psal cl It is certain both these Instruments might by an Onomatopaea be so called I have been larger than I usually am in treating of the Cymbal partly because Dr. Hammond did not know what it was and partly because two other great Men were as ignorant in this matter as he One is H. Grotius who tells us that for the most part this Instrument was made of Silver which by what
perceived and therefore mollified a little Grotius's Interpretation Vers 16. Note a. I rather think the Apostle means here other acts of Thanksgiving which particular Persons according as it seemed good to them offer'd up to God in the Church in strange Languages to which they who did not understand those Languages could not say Amen For who will believe that there was any Governor of a Church so sensless as when he celebrated the Eucharist a religious Ceremony in which all the Members of the Church were to join to use an unknown Language This is confirmed by the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy which shews the Apostle to speak of Thanksgivings offer'd up in the name of one Man and not of the whole Church Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 15. seems to be but a harsh Phrase to signify that I may be understood yet that that is the meaning of it may appear by the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I might teach others also as also by its being opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words in an unknown Tongue Grotius interprets this also a me ipso cogitata The product of my own Thoughts as if one that had been endued with the Gift of Tongues could not have expressed the product of his own private Thoughts in an unknown Language Or as if he that so unseasonably made ostentation of that Gift spake by Inspiration Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammond follows indeed for the most part Grotius and not without reason as being unquestionably the best of all the Interpreters of Scripture But here he justly forsakes him because that great Man puts such an Interpretation upon this Passage alledged out of Isaiah as makes it to be nothing to the purpose Besides there are other things in his Annotation on this place liable to reprehension As when he saith Haec citari à Paulo ex loco quidem Esaiae xxviii 11 12. non tamen ex versione LXX Intt. sed ex versione Aquilae docet nos Origenes Philocaliae viii For first Origen speaks of this passage not in the viii th but ix th Chapter of his Philocalia Secondly he does not say that St. Paul had cited Isaiah according to the Version of Aquila whom he very well knew to have lived but in the time of the Emperor Adrian All that he says is this after he had set down this place of St. Paul wherein he alledges Isaiah's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I have found what is equivalent to this expression in the interpretation of Aquila St. Paul who understood the Hebrew Language cited these words out of the Hebrew Copy not out of the Version of Aquila which was composed a great many Years after the Apostle's death If Aquila translated them in the same manner the reason of that was because he also carefully follow'd the Hebrew This was an error in Grotius which proceeded not from carelesness or oscitancy and much less from ignorance but from an unavoidable weakness in human Nature which will not bear a perpetual Intention of Mind For I do not doubt but this difficult Chapter kept that great Man's Thoughts a long while employed and so writing this after he was tired with too long Study he fell into a double Mistake which I do not speak to upbraid him far from that but only to caution the Reader CHAP. XV. Vers 8. Note b. WHAT is observed by Baronius out of Suetonius and here since him by Dr. Hammond is vain being grounded upon a corrupt reading of the words of Suetonius where instead of Abortivos the best Copies have orcinos or orcivos which Is Casaubon and Laev Torrentius have shewn to be the true reading The phrase used here by St. Paul is much older than Augustus for the Hebrews metaphorically call any mean or contemptible thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that word the Septuagint very truly render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Job iii. 16 and Eccles vi 3 So any thing whatsoever that is in its kind little might be called abortive as Antonius's Dwarf in Horace Sat. 3. Vers 46. Appellat pater pullum male parvus Si cui filius est ut abortivus fuit olim Sisyphus On which place see the old Interpreter Vers 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Two things St. Paul proves in this Discourse 1. That the Apostles did not falsly pretend themselves to expect a Happiness after this Life from Christ but truly expected it because otherwise they would never have underwent so many Hardships and Dangers for his sake 2. That this their expectation was not vain because it was grounded upon the Resurrection of Christ whereof they were witnesses and therefore credible because they suffer'd so much for being so and it was a thing in which they could not be deceived This arguing has a great deal more strength and certainty in it than that of Cicero in a like matter and grounded in part upon the same Topicks Acad. Quaest iv where saith Lucullus Ille vir bonus qui statuit omnem cruciatum perferre intolerabili dolore lacerari potius quam aut officium prodat aut fidem cur has sibi tam graves leges imposuit cum quamobrem ita oporteret nihil haberet comprehensi percepti constituti Nullo igitur modo fieri potest ut quisquam tanti aestimet aequitatem fidem ut ejus conservandae causâ nullum supplicium recuset nisi iis rebus adsensus sit quae falsae esse non possunt That good Man who resolves to undergo all manner of Torments and to be torn in pieces with unsufferable pain rather than to betray his Duty or Trust why has he imposed upon himself such severe Laws if he did not see sufficient reason for him to do so It is utterly impossible that any Man should put such a value upon Justice and Honesty as to submit to any Tortures rather than act contrary to them unless he have assented to such things as cannot be false And Tuscul Lib. 1. Cicero himself speaks thus Nescio quomodo inhaeret mentibus quasi saeculorum quoddam augurium futurorum idque in maximis ingeniis altissimisque animis exstitit maxime apparet facillime quo quidem demto quis tam esset amens qui semper in laboribus periculis viveret I know not how there abides in the Minds of Men as it were a presage of a future State and especially in Persons of the greatest Capacity and deepest Thoughts in whom it most easily discovers it self and if this apprehension was taken away who would be so mad as to live perpetually in Troubles and Dangers This indeed shews that those Heathens believed another Life after this but does not prove that they were not mistaken For it was possible they might be deceived by an Opinion taken up in their Childhood for which they could produce no sufficient
which Christ often upbraids them with As for instance The Rabbins used as appears by the Version of the Septuagint and the Citations of St. Paul in this place to interpret Deut. xxvii 26 as if the meaning of Moses there was that God required of them the most perfect Holiness which if they did not perform they were to expect to be cursed by him But in reality all that Moses says is only that the People were to curse him that did not confirm the words of the Law to do them as I have shewn in my Notes on that place St. Paul who disputes here against the Jews and endeavours to overcome them with their own Weapons reasons from these Opinions of theirs and shews that supposing the Truth of what they asserted it was manifestly impossible any Man should be accounted just before God by the Law because they acknowledged that all men were Sinners So that it is all one as if the Apostle had said You say O Jews that ye expect Justification from God by the Law and think that the Law is a most perfect Rule of Life From whence it follows that you lie under the Curse of the Law because you have not perfectly kept it for you do not pretend to be absolutely sinless and by your own concession the Law denounces a Curse upon all that do not perfectly obey it So that you cannot hope for Justification by the Law but must seek it from the Gospel If it be enquired how I know St. Paul does not reason here from the thing it self but upon the Jews Principles I answer By his citing the place of Scripture here alledged not as it really is but according to the Interpretation of the Rabbins For the words of Moses are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this Law to do them Which the Septuagint render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these St. Paul follows as far as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but then changes the rest into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But doubtless he would never have alter'd any thing in the words of Moses nor followed the Septuagint at all but render'd the Hebrew himself exactly if he had reasoned from the bare Authority of the Prophet and not from the Opinion of the Jews And it is common with St. Paul to cite the Old Testament so as it was usually alledged by the Doctors of the Jews whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 darschanim that is to say with little regard to the circumstances of the place or the proper signification of the words and to argue from them so alledged because that was the custom of the Jews See but the place cited out of the Prophet Habakkuk Chap. ii 4 in vers 11. Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by perfect Holiness for the Law and a pattern of perfect Holiness was the same in the opinion of the Jews And the thing it self is true tho the Jews had a wrong Notion of the Law 's perfection which truth of the thing it self made St. Paul express himself as the Jews did tho not so accurately as they should have done Vers 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are three things here worth our enquiring into which most other Interpreters securely pass over First who are meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us Secondly what is the Curse of the Law Thirdly how Christ has redeemed us from it By us we are to understand the Apostle himself and his Countrymen the Jews to whom the Law was given not all Mankind This is evident from the thing it self because other Nations were utter Strangers to the Law of Moses which cannot be said to have been given to such as were always ignorant of it Nay it was not given so much as to the Jews themselves who were born after the revelation of the Gospel and much less yet to Christians tho they knew it because it was already abrogated before they came to the knowledg of it yea before ever they had a being The following words also shew that the Jews are opposed to the Heathens in this Verse and therefore what Dr. Hammond here says in his Paraphrase about the redemption of Men in general tho it be true does not belong to this place because the Discourse is not about all Mankind but the Jews only The Curse of the Law here spoken of seems to be that mentioned by Moses in Deut. xxvii and denounced upon those who were guilty of several Impieties and as I before observed who refused to confirm the Law and did not think themselves obliged by it And those who were so cursed could not expiate their Sins by any Sacrifice but ought to be punished with Death which because it could not always be inflicted as in case the Crime or its Author was not known therefore the Person so offending had a Curse denounced upon him or was pronounced worthy of all manner of Evils and Calamities See my Notes on that Chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy It is certain whilst the Law remained in force or before it was abrogated by God all the Jews ought to have engaged to observe it and it was not lawful for them to say that they would not be obliged by it or live otherwise than according to its prescription And if any of them did so they unavoidably subjected themselves to the Curses of the Law Nay those who thought the Law required perfect Holiness and yet did not think themselves perfectly Holy ought if they would be self-consistent to look upon themselves as under the Law 's Curse But Christ having established a New Covenant whereby that old Mosaical one was abolished through his Death did at the same time free the Jews from all the curses contained in the Law for whoever brings in a new Covenant and makes new Laws abrogates the old Only that the Jews might partake of that Redemption or be absolved from the necessity of observing the Mosaical Law and exempted from its Curses it was requisite they should embrace the Gospel-Covenant and keep it And thus the Jews were redeemed from the Curses of the Law but not the Gentiles who were never obnoxious to them and as St. Paul tells us in Rom. i. shall be judged without the Law The Jews might therefore after the New Covenant's being established by the Death of Christ deny that they were any longer obliged by the Law and neglect its prescriptions where they disagreed with the Gospel without any fear of its curses to which God from that time ceased to have any regard Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Namely for us Jews for Christ offering himself a Sacrifice to God the Father for all Mankind and expiating thereby the Sins of all Men died for the Jews as well as others and at once reconciled them to God and freed them from a necessity of observing the Law which denounced a Curse upon those who transgressed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
example of Abraham were accounted just and righteous before God upon the sole observation of the precepts of the Gospel And these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seed of Abraham because they obtain Justification while uncircumcised and the promises made to Abraham at that time uncircumcised are fulfilled in them in a more eminent sense than in the believing Jews as St. Paul himself shews in Rom. iv Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot sufficiently wonder at Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase of this Verse and if he had paraphrased the rest of this Chapter in the same manner I should have quite lost my labour in translating him For who would ever have imagined that the Apostle meant any thing like what he says upon reading only St. Paul's words At this rate of paraphrasing a Man may make any thing what he pleases of any Verse of Scripture This Verse therefore must be better explained It seems to be brought in by way of Parenthesis for the 21 st Verse is manifestly to be joined with the 19 th and so to be consider'd as a digression in which the Apostle upon occasion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonishes the Galatians as he goes along that as the Covenants made by God with Men were more than one so each had their distinct Mediators tho God himself was one The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify is not one as appears from the opposite member of the Sentence but God is one tho they properly signify is not of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some such word being to be understood It is all one as if St. Paul had said I told you that there was a Mediator between God and the Antient Hebrews because tho God be one and the same yet he has not appointed one single Mediator of one Gospel but the Law likewise had its Mediator viz. Moses Which comes to no more than if the Apostle had said there is not one Mediator for to say that the Law had a Mediator appointed it as well as the Gospel is nothing but to say that it is not one only that may be called by that Name If it be asked why St. Paul admonishes the Galatians of this I answer that it is an Exegesis by way of Parenthesis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which kind of Parentheses are very frequent in St. Paul's writings See Ephes ii 5 and iv 9 10. This I thought to be the sense of this obscure place which if not true does however very little depart from the Apostle's words whereas nothing can be more distant from them than Dr. Hammond's Interpretation Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here argues upon the Jews Hypothesis as I have before said who affirmed that God required perfect Holiness in the Law upon which supposition no Man can be justified by it nor consequently attain to Life Otherwise Moses every where supposes and takes it for certain that it was possible to observe the Law but he had not that Notion of the Law which the later Jews had who interpreted every thing mystically And according to these Mens Sentiments St. Paul here disputes and not that of Moses Which unless we observe it will be impossible to reconcile the Prophet with the Apostle Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular St. Paul does not reason from the Sentiments of the Jews but declares his own Mind tho it be a Consectary necessarily following from what went before supposing the truth of the Jews opinion concerning the perfection of the Law But the same also might be inferred from the Nature of the Mosaical Law it self as that which contain'd only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elements of the Christian Religion And those who are taught only the Elements of a thing are still under a Schoolmaster This might be proved by other Arguments if it were necessary So that what in it self was true and relied upon firmer grounds that St. Paul proved also from the Jewish Opinion by this means the more effectually to put the Jews to silence a thing which he often does Such is the perversness of Mankind especially in matters of Religion that they are not moved so much by cogent Reason as by prejudices and opinions taken up in their Childhood Such is the pride of Mens Hearts that they cannot bear to have their Errors confuted or inveigh'd against especially when their mistakes are of a long standing and grown inveterate or when those who are charged with Error have been always judged by their own party to be in the right and look'd upon as learned and judicious Men. And for these reasons Christ and the Apostles reproved as few of the Jews mistakes as they could viz. those only which would not consist with Christianity but their other prejudices that had no very bad consequences attending them and which their obstinacy would not suffer the eradication of to be attempted without manifest danger they chose rather to bear with and to reason against them upon their own principles because they perceived that that way of arguing had the greatest influence upon them But seeing we now live in a time in which we are to search out the Truth more for our own use than for the use of the Jews it is our part after the discovery of it to set it down just as it is Because if we do not we shall never understand the Apostle's Writings nor be able to defend them against the objections of Infidels yea perhaps which God of his infinite Mercy prevent instead of a solid Piety established upon its own Light and Evidence all our Religion may degenerate into but dark and fearful Superstition CHAP. IV. Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we Jews for the Gentiles were never under the discipline of the Jewish Law which they were ignorant of and from which they were excluded by the very nature of the Law For it was a Law given to one Nation living in one Country the Land of Canaan This deserved here to be noted because if it be not observed the whole Discourse of the Apostle in this place will be very obscure Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 9. And there is no doubt but he means the Mosaical Law whence it may be again inferred that St. Paul did not think with the Jews that that Law was a perfect rule of Sanctity For if he had been of that mind how could he have called it the Elements of the World and weak and beggarly Elements The elements are the rude beginnings of any Art or Science and far from containing the whole art in its greatest Extent and utmost Perfection Which being so undoubtedly he thought those Elements might be observed by Men if they were consider'd in themselves as they are in Moses tho perfect Holiness such as the Jews affirmed the Law to be a complete pattern of was
after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are beyond measure fierce and angry at every thing and for every thing which is the reason of their being so called After which he proceeds to the third sort and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are those that are hardly reconciled and are angry a great while for they keep in their Anger and it ceases when they have revenged themselves For revenge extinguishes anger by causing Pleasure where before was Grief But when this is not done they are pressed with an inward weight for because they do not manifest their Anger no one endeavours to appease them And for a Man to digest his Anger within himself requires time Now such Men as these as they are a great torment to themselves so they are most of all to their Friends Lastly those who are vitious in the highest degree in this kind he describes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are angry both for those things which they ought not and more and longer than they ought and are never appeased without Revenge or Punishment By these descriptions it sufficiently appears that St. Paul did not take the several words whereby he describes Anger in this place from the use of Philosophers or dispose them in the same order nor is that his Custom but to take mostly what he says from vulgar use and dispose it without any Philosophical or Rhetorical Artifice CHAP. V. Vers 2. Note a. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I confess be distinguished as Dr. Hammond would have them but they are very often confounded and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly frequently signifies all kind of Oblations in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Korhan or whatever is laid upon the Altar as Kircher's Concordances will inform those who are ignorant In this place they seem to signify the same thing because the scope of the Apostle does not oblige us to distinguish them II. Our Author 's reasoning to this purpose from Heb. x. 5 6. has no validity in it for it is not necessary that these two words occurring in vers 6. should be perfectly synonimous or answerable to those two others in ver 5. Wherefore saith that divine Writer when he cometh into the World he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not but a Body hast thou sitted me in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whole Burnt-offerings and for Sin thou hast had no pleasure If according to Dr. Hammond â—s reasoning a whole Burnt-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be exactly the same an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a sacrifice for Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be literally the same also which yet he would not allow But the words of the sacred Writers must not be reduced to the rules of Rhetoricians Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Note on Rom. i. 29 endeavours all he can to prove that this word signifies a desire not of Riches but of Pleasures tho with what success I leave the Reader to judg by what I have written on that Annotation This is the chief place that gives any countenance to his conjecture And indeed there are two specious reasons which as to this Passage of St. Paul may be alledged on his behalf I. It is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vncleanness OR Covetousness and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seems to join together words of the same signification In answer to which I acknowledg that that is very frequently the use of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or but it is very often also a Disjunctive and connects together words of a different sense And when a Negation follows or goes before it is equivalent to nor as in this place for it is all one as if St. Paul had said Let neither Fornication nor any Uncleanness nor Covetousness be named amongst you II. It may be said that the words not be named among you contain a prohibition which agrees better to Lusts whereof the very names are obscene than to Covetousness or the Sins which proceed from that Vice Which I do not deny nay I think St. Paul spake thus merely because he had before made mention of Fornication and Vncleanness to which that prohibition seems properly to belong But it cannot hence be inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a vice of the same kind with those beforemention'd contrary to the etymology and perpetual use of the word for it is very common for one Verb to be subjoined or prefixed to many Nouns with all which it does not equally well agree See my Index to the Pentateuch on the word Verbum Vers 4. Note b. All that our Author here says is very much to the purpose to which add that Men of debauched Lives use to call their Vices by soft and gentle names Far which reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might properly signify in common use not only light and rash but even obscene and filthy Discourses such as the Jests which we every where meet with especially in antient Comedies This Plutarch has observed with relation to the Athenians in the Life of Solon p. 86. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For what is said of late that the Athenians covering odious things with mild and pleasing Titles to avoid giving offence call Strumpets Companions Taxing Registring Garisons Safeguards of Cities and a Prison a House that seems to have been first the device of Solon who called the forgiving of Debts an Acquittance Other examples to the same purpose may be had out of Helladius Besantinous in Chrestomathiis We may easily conceive how such sort of Men might call their obscene and filthy Discourses by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Note c. This latter Interpretation would very well agree to this place if it were certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever taken in the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies elegancy of Speech as well as of other things The passage cited out of Prov. xi does not at all belong to this matter the Discourse there being about a beautiful not a pious Woman Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture the Apostle here referring to the place in Isaiah alledged by our Author in his Paraphrase tho rather expressing its sense than citing the Prophet's own words Barnabas in Epist Catholica particularly in cap. v. often uses the same term in citing the Scriptures words Scriptum est enim saith he de illo quaedam ad populum Judaeorum quaedam ad nos DICIT autem sic Vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras c. Supergratulari enim debemus Domino quia
praeterita nobis ostendit sapientes fecit de futuris ut non simus sine intellectu DICIT autem Non injuste tenduntur retia avibus For it is written of him some things relate to the People of the Jews and some to us And he SAITH thus He was wounded for our Transgressions c. For we ought to be exceeding thankful to the Lord because he hath both shewed us past things and so made us wise and instructed us also in the knowledg of things Future that we might not be without understanding as to them And he SAITH Not without cause are Nets spread for Birds A great many more examples to the same purpose might be alledged out of that Epistle Vers 16. Note e. It being manifest from the place cited out of Daniel in the beginning of this Annotation that the phrase to redeem the time signifies to delay or put off as long as possible that only Notion of it should have been kept to and not things of an Affinity with it or very distant from it mixed together as they are here by our Author that he might have an occasion to obtrude his Gnosticks upon us See Grotius on this place St. Paul here advises the Ephesians to endeavour by all lawful means to get time allowed them by the Heathens and to take heed lest by their rash fervour they should bring Persecution upon themselves especially in an evil and troublesom time such as that was wherein he wrote this Epistle which was towards the end of Nero's reign or those black and dismal days in which that monster of a Man outdid all that ever went before him in Wickedness and Villany The reason of the Apostle's Admonition is this that there was a time coming wherein the Truth might be defended with less danger And the nature of Truth is such that if it have but time allowed it and is not presently extinguished tho it lie cover'd as it were under Ashes for a while yet afterwards in a fitter time it shines out and makes an universal day So that those who defend it ought never as long as they can avoid it to run all adventures or undergo the last hazard that it may either triumph instantly over Falshood or else unavoidably be oppressed for ever Now I am apt to think that this phrase had its rise from the custom of Debters who when paiment is demanded of them and they cannot restore the whole sum or principal due obtain a longer time to discharge their Debt in either by a present Fee or by advancing the use of the Mony lent them For this is truly to redeem time whence it afterwards came to pass that because the solution of a Debt is thus deferred therefore to defer or delay is sometimes called to redeem the time Parallel to this is the Latin phrase moram acquirere which occurs in Cicero pro Caecina cap. ii or Num. 6. where the Delegates who had after twice hearing the Cause deferred to pass Sentence are said moram ad condemnandum acquisivisse and also to have given the Defendant a space wherein to recollect himself Vers 18. Note f. There was no need here of the Bacchanals or Gnosticks because there were Heathens enough in Asia that loved Wine and whenever they had an opportunity drank to excess and indulged themselves in other Lusts whose example might have had a bad influence upon the Christians if they did not take great heed to themselves Vers 19. Note g. Our Author has shewn indeed here that Songs are called by three several names but that those were so many different kinds no one can prove because they are often confounded as appears by the titles of the Psalms The Greek words might also be referred to several sorts of Songs if the most frequent use of them be respected but those also are often put one for another So that I should rather say that St. Paul here does but express the same thing in three different words Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is so complying with each other as yet to do nothing which may displease God to gratify any one whatsoever That this is here the signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may appear by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that it is a mutual subjection that is compliance which is here spoken of So the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood in Gal. ii 5 where St. Paul speaking of false Brethren saith To whom we did not so much as for an hour give place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by compliance Yet Grotius to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here saith thus nempe secundum ordinem naturalem civilem ecclesiasticum quae omnia nobis servanda propter Christum viz. according to order whether natural civil or ecclesiastical which must all be kept for Christ's sake And this Dr. Hammond follows in his Paraphrase But to signify that it should have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or something to that purpose and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that it is a mutual Duty here intended Vers 30. Note h. Our Author here compares together things that have no agreement with one another for to be of Christ's Flesh and Blood is not to be Christ himself as that which is called the Heaven and Earth is the very Universe but to be very intimately joined to Christ in like manner as Kinsmen by Blood and Man and Wife are to one another See Grotius on this place and my Notes on Gen. ii 34 Vers 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is not a Precept wherein Matrimony is commanded or its Laws enforced but an observation of a Custom begun ever since Adam and propagated to all Mankind See my Note on Gen. ii 24 Vers 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. From vers 23. of this Chapter St. Paul compares the love which does or ought to intercede between Man and Wife with the love of Christ and the Church for which reason he mixes Precepts belonging to married Persons with Precepts which relate to the love of the Church towards Christ And therefore he subjoins vers 31. in which the union of the Husband with the Wife is described immediately and without any transition after the foregoing words whereby he had described the union of the Church with Christ not because they belong to the same Argument but because he so mixes the thing compared with the thing to which it is compared If he had intended to make a perfect Comparison he would first have set down that which relates to Christ and the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards described the conjunction of Man and Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he makes use of an imperfect comparison in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is hardly distinguished from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His meaning may be expressed in this Paraphrase Vers 30. For between us and
Christ there intercedes so near a conjunction that we may be called his Flesh and Bones as it is said of a Woman with relation to her Husband So that as Christ loves his Church as if it were his Wife and so his own Body 31 32. so Husbands having left their Fathers House for the sake of their Wives and become as it were one Flesh with them should look upon it as their Duty to love their Wives as themselves If we carefully read St. Paul's words and consider the scope of his Discourse we shall not doubt but this is his meaning For the Apostle's design here at least primarily and professedly is not to teach any thing concerning Christ but from the noted example of Christ to shew what conjunction and intimacy of Affection there ought to be between Man and Wife So that what he says of Christ is said but by the way and assumed as sufficiently known II. This being supposed it will be easy to perceive that the 32d verse is a Parenthesis inserted between words belonging to the same thing but which make nothing to the series of the Discourse And by this Parenthesis the intention of the Apostle is only to shew that what he had said about that intimate union of Christ with his Church for which he suffer'd Death was hitherto unknown to Mankind This he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in 1 Tim. iii. 16 and so these words are referred not to the mystical sense of the place in Genesis but to the thing it self that is to the love of Christ to his Church which was so great that he did not refuse to die for its sake Away therefore with that mystical sense which is without reason sought for in the words of Moses as by the suggestion here of the Apostle III. But what shall we say then to those Jews whom our Author cites in his Paraphrase as knowing that great Mystery from the secret sense of the words of Moses To speak what I think they are either the words of some Impostor acting the part of a Jew or misconstrued to a wrong sense Our Author took this Testimony from H. Grotius who on this place saith Sic Hebraei aiunt mulierem de latere viri desumtam ad significandum conjugium viri supremi benedicti So the Jews also say that the Woman was taken out of the side of the Man to signify the marriage of the highest blessed Man But where are those Jews who say this Do they with one consent speak thus in any publick form Or is it some Rabbin who proposes his own Conjecture or the Tradition of the Antients Such Citations as these in a matter of no small moment or not universally known should be avoided by learned Men seeing they cannot be relied on unless it be supposed that a vain uncertain report may be so But I know if I am not mistaken whence Grotius took this observation to wit from Camero who himself had it from Sebast Munster the first Author of it in his Annotations on Gen. ii 24 Hebraei magistri saith he docent id quod Paulus docuit c. The Jewish Rabbins teach the same thing which is taught by St. Paul that a Man should love his Wife as his own Body and honour her more than his own Body because of that signification and Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of which Mystery St. Paul also makes mention who teaches that we are espoused to Christ He did not render the Hebrew words which seem to be corrupt but they are rendred by Camero after promising that he took them from Munster thus ad significandum conjugium viri superni qui benedictus est to signify the marriage of the Man on High who is blessed And so they are rendred by Grotius But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not vir but Homo besides what is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Should it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to thee What can be the sense of these words the most high Adam shall be blessed In fine both Mâ—nster ought to have more exactly cited his Witnesses and others been more cautions in believing him For who will not prove any thing from the Jews or others if such Testimonies as these be admitted I know this was the custom of the Philologers of the last Age but it was certainly a very bad one and justly censured by the more exquisite Wits of ours I am apt to think it proceeded either from want of Judgment or unfaithfulness in their not being sensible with what caution and tenderness Testimonies ought to be handled from which any Consectary is to be deduced or being unwilling to have their Citations examined Both which a Man that aims at Accuracy and pursues Truth should be very far from for he that would neither be deceived himself nor deceive others cannot desire to have what he affirms believed rashly and without examination IV. A vast inconvenience arises from the custom of writing out other Mens Citations unless we look into the Authors themselves from whence they are taken because something may easily be added whilst the sense is rather expressed than the words The Hebrew words alledged by Munster can hardly be understood and he dared not translate them Camero has rendred them and added of his own that the Jews confess the creation of a Woman out of the rib of the Man was to signify c. when Munster says nothing of that but only what I have produced out of him Grotius followed Camero and neither added nor changed any thing but Dr. Hammond has changed the highest Man who is blessed into the most High God blessed for ever Perhaps there will come some body afterwards and add to these words that which our Author subjoins out of St. Chrysostom as taken out of some Rabbin from whence he will infer that all the mysteries of the Christian Religion were very well known to the antient Jews As common Fame is magnified the further it goes so Testimonies not looked into in the Authors themselves are many times enlarged as they are deliver'd from hand to hand CHAP. VI. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author here in his Paraphrase adds to Children Subjects and to Parents Princes in which he seems to have committed a double fault First in supposing that the word Children here comprehends under it Subjects and the word Parents in the Decalogue Magistrates which appears by no example nor any reason I do not deny indeed but that according to the most sacred Laws of human Society and consequently of God himself People ought to obey Magistrates as long as they command nothing which is contrary to true Devotion Society or good Manners That Obedience being as necessary and natural a Duty as for Children to obey their Parents because without it Society for which we are formed and born cannot consist But hence it does not follow that when the Scripture speaks of the honour due to Parents we must
light Weapons but the Armour of Legionary Souldiers Vers 12. Note a. I will not deny but that the Devils made use of the assistance of Hereticks whoever they were to destroy the Pious and Orthodox but I do not believe that St. Paul has here a direct reference to any Hereticks For all that is here said immediately at least belongs to evil Spirits as Grotius has shewn and Dr. Hammond acknowledges So that there was no necessity for introducing here the Gnosticks Vers 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle here alludes to Isa xi 5 and at the same time to the Custom of Soldiers The first thing they did was to put a Girdle upon their Coat to keep it fast and hinder it from moving one way or other under their Breastplate but they did not put it over their Armour as Dr. Hammond thought See Ever Feithius Ant. Homeric Lib. iv c. 8. And therefore St. Paul says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it must not be particularly or nicely enquired why St. Paul compares some Vertues with this kind of Armour rather than with any other because he might as well have said that Christians ought to take the girdle of Righteousness and the breastplate of Truth as the girdle of Truth and the breastplate of Righteousness All that he means in this whole Discourse is that Christian Vertues are Arms which good Men may and ought to use both to repel the assaults of their Enemies and to overcome them Nothing else is here to be sought for unless we have a mind to feed our selves with Fancie◠instead of Realities Vers 15. Note b. I. It may be worth our while to read what the learned and diligent Ant. Bynaeus Lib. 1. Cap. 5. de Calceis Hebraeorum has written on this place But I am rather of Dr. Hammond's Opinion which may be confirmed by several places which he alledges or which are to be found in those Authors whom he cites But to give further light to St. Paul's words I shall subjoin here a Passage out of Virgil in which he describes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Aeneas and omits no part of the Armour mention'd by the Apostle but the Girdle nor adds any thing but the Spear in Aeneid viii beginning at vers 619. Miraturque interque manus brachia versat Terribilem cristis galeam flammasque vomentem Fatiferumque ensem loricam ex aere rigentem c. Tum laeves ocreas electro auroque recocto Hastamque clypei non enarrabile textum II. I cannot tell whence our learned Author took this Interpretation of the Egyptian Custom that the Egyptian Virgins were not permitted to wear Shoes lest they should be ready to go abroad I have shewn out of Diodorus Siculus on Exod. xii 11 that it was the Custom not only for Virgins but also for Children to go unshod in Egypt because of the mildness of the Air. Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Paraphrase is of opinion that the Apostle here alludes to poisonous Darts which saith he are called fiery because they inflame the parts that are wounded with them as Serpents with poisonous Stings are called fiery Serpents But I do not think that all sort of poisonous Serpents may be called fiery because the biting of all such Serpents does not hurt by causing an inflammation and there is a peculiar kind of Serpents called by that name I should rather say that the Darts of the Devil are called here fiery by a Metaphor taken from the fiery Darts which the besieged use to fling at the Souldiers and Works of the Besiegers whereof there is frequent mention made in the Histories of the Antients where Sieges are described I shall produce but one example in a matter very well known out of the Writer of the Spanish War cap. xi Noctis saith he tertia vigiliâ in oppido acerrime pugnatum est ignemque multum miserunt sicut omne genus quibus ignis per jactus solitus est mitti In the third watch of the Night they fought in the Town very sharply and threw a great deal of Fire as also all kind of Darts in which Fire uses to be thrown These are fiery Darts properly so called which lighting upon an iron Shield could do no harm to the Souldiers And St. Paul here seems to have called the Darts of the Devil fiery rather than by any other Epithet because they do mischief by inflaming the sensual Appetite Vers 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author as appears by his Paraphrase and the Note in the Margin thought that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should here be understood and so renders this last part of the Verse concerning all Holy things And it is certain that an Ellipsis of that word is very common in the Greek Language but never in such a Phrase as this that I know of And therefore I had rather follow the Vulgar and other Interpreters till an example be alledged in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies evidently Prayers for the obtaining all Holiness ANNOTATIONS On the Epistle Of St. Paul the Apostle to the Philippians AT the end of the Praemon I. I rather refer this Epistle as the foregoing to the Year of Christ LXII with Dr. Pearson whom I desire the Reader to consult in his Annales Paulinae II. Instead of the Gnosticks who had formerly been Heathens and which our Author too easily supposes to have been almost in all places where the Apostles had preached I rather think S. Paul here refers to the Jews who it is certain were dispersed throughout the whole Roman Empire and being tenacious of their own Ceremonies endeavoured to impose them upon all others CHAP. I. Vers 1. Note a. I. WHat Dr. Hammond here says of Philippi may be confirmed by other Arguments by which it will become more manifest It is very true that Philippi was a Roman Colony as appears not only from the express Testimonies of the Antients but also from the Coins of that City There is a piece of Philippian Money coined in honour of Claudius the backside of which has this Inscription COL AVG. JVL. PHILIPP that is Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis And there are other pieces coined in the times of M. Aurelius Commodus and Caracalla that have the like Inscriptions The learned Joan. Foy-Vaillant had reason to think that the name Julia signified that Julius first planted a Colony at Philippi as Augusta that another was afterwards order'd thither by Augustus After which Observation he produces a place out of Dio lib. 51. where he speaks thus about Augustus after the Victory at Actium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having banished those People in Italy which had favoured Antonius he gave their Cities and Territories to his Soldiers But instead of them he gave the greatest part of those
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
Power which he had received from God and whereby he had wrought so many Miracles and with which he was then endued as much as before to defend or deliver himself than if he had quite exhausted it It is known that among the Hebrews those who obey are called Servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habadim and those that are subdued by Power are said to become its Servants They who understand these Words of the Divine Nature interpret them of the Assumption of Humanity because Men are the Servants of God which might be born if any thing in the Context favoured their Opinion Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle does not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being made Man which might intimate his Incarnation and would be the same Phrase with that in Joh. i. 14 but he was made in the likeness of Men that is was like other Men who submit to a Superiour Power because they cannot resist it and suffer themselves to be ill used when they are unable to defend themselves Christ was neither a Servant to the Jewish or Roman Magistrates nor destitute of Power to deliver himself from their Injuries and Cruelty but he behaved himself so as if he were like the rest of the Jews and had nothing in him peculiar or extraordinary The External Appearance of Christ at that time was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of a Servant he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the Jews speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chneged bne adam like the Sons of Men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary Men for so the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adam sometimes signifies I wonder here at Grotius who interprets these Words made like to the first Men i. e. sinless which is a Phrase without Example and very distant from this place where it is manifest the Discourse is about the Humiliation of Christ I know he puts a Diastole after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and makes these Words to begin a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite Member in the Discourse but nothing can be more violent Vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Jews and Romans persecuted him he was just like an ordinary Man in outward Appearance This is the proper Signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Latin it is printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Fiction a Garment Disposition Habit or Ornament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 counterfeiting making a shew or appearance The old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figura cultus habitus gestus gestamen forma And this is extreamly well opposed to the form of God in which tho Christ appeared when he wrought so many and great Miracles yet when he was abused and persecuted by the Jews and Romans he was like one of the Multitude and put on no other appearance than belonged to any ordinary Person Here again I cannot but wonder at Grotius who interprets these Words thus Dignitate talis apparuit qualis Adamus id est Dominio in omnes creaturas in mare ventos panes aquam c. He appeared such in Dignity as Adam that is with Dominion over all Creatures over the Sea Winds Bread Water c. For Adam indeed had the use of all those things which God had made and which were within his reach but he had not a Command over the Sea and the Winds and every thing in Nature like Christ See my Note on Gen. i. 26 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is in obedience to the Will of his Father he subjected himself to all manner of Indignities and Death it self no less than if he had been one of the meanest sort of Persons He who had the command of the whole World suffered himself to be despitefully used and cruelly killed by wicked Men. This cannot in the least be said of the Divine Nature and therefore nor that which went before For such a Discourse as this would be intolerable The Divine Nature of Christ condescended so low as to assume Humanity and humbled it self so as to become obedient to the Death of the Cross The Divinity of Christ was not obedient unto Death but his Humanity only as all agree And all that is in the same compass of Words and the same Antithesis ought to be referred to one and the same Nature unless the undoubted Signification of Words or the things spoken of require the contrary Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this part of his Humiliation which was the greatest Christ might be said in a special manner to have taken upon him the form of a Servant the Cross being among the Romans a servile punishment See Grotius Ver. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the reward of the Humiliation which that Nature underwent that was obedient unto death that is the Humane The Divine Nature cannot have any reward conferred upon it which as it is never lessened so it is never exalted or made greater Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is well interpreted by Grotius of Christ's Dignity for when a new Dignity is conferred there is a new Name also conferred St. Paul who is his own best Interpreter in Eph. i. 20 says He raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every NAME that is NAMED not only in this age but in that which is to come and hath put all things under his feet Where a Name that is named signifies a Dignity as the foregoing words manifestly shew Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is not because he is called Jesus as Dr. Hammond misinterprets it but that all Creatures might reverence the man Jesus exalted to so high a dignity as to be God's Vicegerent By his Redemption indeed he acquired to himself a power over all men whom he made his own but not over other intelligent Natures who receive properly speaking no benefit by the Redemption of Mankind And therefore the Apostle has no reference here to the title of Redeemer but of King and one that was so even of the Angels because it so pleased God no less than of Men. Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord namely of all things excepting him that put all things under him This is the Name above every name which St. Paul before spake of and not the name of Jesus Vers 17. Note e. There is no doubt but St. Paul here has a reference to the pouring out of Wine upon Sacrifices and compares his Blood also to Wine And it is as undeniable that the Faith of the Philippians is here consider'd as a Sacrifice which the Apostle offered up to God But what our Author says here besides are vain Niceties which have no ground either in the use of the Greek Language or the sacred Writers It is false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the slaying of a Sacrifice rather than the Sacrifice
it self or a Sacrifice generally consider'd and as untrue is it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Office or Action of the Priests and Levites in preparing the Sacrifice to be offered rather than any other part of the publick Worship of God So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing but a publick Oblation of the Philippians Faith to God and those two words signify one and the same thing to wit the Action of the Apostle publickly offering up to God the Faith of the Philippians Vers 20. I think the place in Hesychius needs no correction unless perhaps instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is equal in a balance of equal weight for so the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as any Lexicons will shew which I wonder our Author did not consult CHAP. III. Vers 1. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here being subjoined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot otherwise be rendred than is not to me grievous i. e. I do not think it grievous to write the same things It does not appear by any example that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies cowardly or that which is a sign of Fearfulness Dr. Hammond did not well understand Phavorinus whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is It must be observed that tho Homer has put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or not to labour yet the more common use of those who have written since Homer is to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Fear in which sense it is frequently used in Sophocles See about this Eustathius p. 545. Ed. Rom. from whom Phavorinus borrowed this Remark Vers 2. Note b. It is much better to understand these things as spoken of the Jews to whom Grotius applies them who may be consulted For they who proudly called themselves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are with reason stiled here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the cutting or rending because they rent asunder the Church of Christ. I. The passage which our Author cites out of the Apocal. shall be considered in its proper place But from Gal. vi 13 it does not at all appear that those whom the Apostle there blames were not circumcised nay the contrary may be inferred as I have shewn on that place It is strange our learned Author should cite the words of S. Paul so as if he had expresly said that the Gnosticks were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much as circumcised when the Apostle speaks quite otherwise as any one that looks into the place will see II. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to those who were truly Jews because those men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cut asunder the Christian Church whilst they endeavoured to impose the Mosaical Rites upon the Gentiles against their will And such were justly call'd both Dogs and Schismaticks who bark'd and snarl'd at all that refus'd to submit to the Jewish Yoke and kept up Factions in the Church See Rom. xiv Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here tho set simply without any addition must be understood a Resurrection to a blessed life because tho the dead bodies of the wicked are to be restored to their former state yet that Restoration is hardly worth the happy name of a Resurrection which is succeeded by eternal death Thus Polycarpus also speaks in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that raised Christ from the dead will raise us up also if we do his will and walk in his commandments Vers 12. Note d. Tho S. Paul here uses several words taken from the Agones and tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may perhaps signify the most noble and valuable Rewards yet that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Agonistical term I shall not believe till I see some place in an antient Writer who in the description of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uses it in that sense For it is not necessary to think that St. Paul keeps in every thing to the same Metaphor nor can it be inferred from the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to attain to those Rewards unless an example to that purpose be alledged I. I acknowledg that Gregory Nyssen calls the Death of a Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not therefore allude to the Agonistical way of speaking in that word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Writers very often call Martyrs Athletae and the Death of Martyrs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify that they are dead not that those three words are all by the same Metaphor taken from the Agones but because they who had struggled under the Torments inflicted on them by the Heathens were at length consummated by Death that is finished suffering all that they could suffer for the sake of Christ The learned Joan. Casp Suicerus has collected a great many examples of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these Acceptations in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus And the Latin Fathers frequently use the words consummari and consummationem which without doubt are not Agonistical terms II. It is not probable that the Apostle James in c. i. 17 had a reference to the Rewards of the Agones because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not Agonistical names signifying the Rewards of such as overcame Of the passages alledged out of the Epistle to the Hebrews I shall treat in that Epistle III. What our Author says about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is true but S. Chrysostom's Observation does not belong to that but to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nâ—tsahh IV. St. Paul here uses the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a more general sense not for Death but the attainment of Perfection from which men cannot fall into an unhappy condition such as is the Perfection of the Saints admitted into the mansions of eternal Blessedness So that his meaning is this that he had not as yet attained to such a degree of Holiness as was perfect from which he could not fall We meet with this Verb used to signify Perfection in Vertue in Jam. ii 22 1 Joh. ii 5 and iv 12 13 18. See also Vers 15. of this Chap. Ibid. Note f. That which was said of one of the Antients Nâ—scivit manum de tabula tollere may justly be applied to our Author who seldom knew when he had said enough about one thing Because in some places he had some reason to think that the Gnosticks were referred to by the Apostles therefore wherever there was but the least occasion for such a suspicion the Gnosticks must undoubtedly be respected as if all the Hereticks and wicked men that disturbed the Christian Churches at that time had been Gnosticks And so
is not there the Lord of Death but a mortal or deadly Disease In the Civil Law Haeres an Heir does not signify properly Dominus a Lord but Justinian tells us that he who pro Domino gerit represents or manages for a Lord gerit pro Herede does the same for an Heir and then he adds Veteres enim haeredes pro dominis appellabant For the Antients used to say Heirs for Lords But hence it does not follow that because the Heir was the First-born therefore the First-born of an Estate may be put for an Heir and so for the Lord of an Estate II. I think therefore with Beza and others that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant he that was before all Creatures but I interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just in the same manner as if St. Paul had simply said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying no Emphasis at all on the two last Syllables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which come from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bring forth Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a firstborn is before the rest of his Brethren therefore St. Paul calls Christ the first-born of every Creature just in the same sense as if he had called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Interpretation the Apostle himself suggests to us who explaining his own mind says more clearly in vers 17. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all things and in ver 18. calls Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-born from the dead that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that was first raised from the dead St. Paul proves that Christ was before every Creature because by him all things were created But no body in his wits ever dreamt that the Man Jesus was before every Creature and therefore this must be understood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine Reason the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which as St. Paul afterwards speaks it pleased the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should dwell in him See my Notes on John i. III. I know that not only Joan. Crellius and other Vnitarians but also H. Grotius interpret these things of the new Creation and tell us that Christ is called here the first-born of every Creature because he was the first and chief in the new Creation But that is a forced interpretation and remote from tho most usual sense of the words if we consider what follows Besides that in this place it should be said in the praise of Christ that he was before every new Creature that is before the Renovation made by himself and this again proved by that Renovation and repeated in vers 17. is certainly flat and mean when the thing is so evident of it self Compare this place with John i. and see what I have there said Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I acknowledg that things are sometimes said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are constituted or which have acquired a new State as Grotius has shewn in his Prolegomena before the Gospels So Men converted to Christ are called new Creatures and the like I have shewn also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies colonis instruere To furnish with Inhabitants on Gen. i. 1 But if we throughly examin this phrase of St. Paul we shall easily perceive that those interpretations can here have no place Christ is said here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have created all things in Heaven which St. Paul afterwards interprets of Angels Now 1 st This cannot signify to constitute the Angels in Heaven which were already in it and performed the same Offices as before 2 ly Nor can the Angels be said to have been put into a new State because nothing new befel them but their becoming subject to the Man Christ upon which account they can no more be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him than the Romans by Julius Caesar because he ruled over them with the title of Perpetual Dictator that is not without speaking very improperly 3 ly Nor would it be any thing more proper to say that the Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Heaven received new Inhabitants into it That these significations or any of them might be admitted it should have been said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not the Angels because we might then indeed think if there was nothing in the Context to oppose it that things in Heaven were disposed after a new manner or that there was a certain use of it constituted and settled or lastly that it was furnished with Inhabitants but that the Angels themselves who were already in Heaven before the Man Christ and discharged the same Offices should be said to be created or conditi made the use of the Holy Scriptures will not bear nor the genius of the Hebrew or Greek Languages I observe that the Learned do often err in thinking that any signification which belongs to words when they are found separately or in such or such a particular construction may also be attributed to them in any construction whatsoever But if the reading of the Antients did not methinks the very genius of Modern Languages might teach them that there is a great difference between the significations of words according as they are joined with one another and that the sense of Phrases is quite changed by the addition or alteration of one small Particle To understand therefore the Apostle's mind nothing can be here more fitly devised than this Paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who among Men was a visible Image of the invisible God and was with God before all Creatures for by him were all things created c. Ibid. Note b. I do not think the same words can be understood of Angels and Men as if the several Orders among both were intended by the same Names See Grotius on this place Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things were created by him viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the divine Reason and for him that is that the infinite Wisdom of the divine Reason might be made manifest See John i. and my Notes on the first 18 Verses of that Gospel Vers 20. Note c. This Interpretation is violent and forced and tho agreeable enough to Divinity quite contrary to Grammar and therefore I think it is wholly to be rejected For the question is not whether what Dr. Hammond says be true but what the Apostle says in this place I. I acknowledg there is some agreement between Ephes ii 14 seqq and this place for in both the Redemption of Christ is spoken of but that they are perfectly and in all things parallel I utterly deny and so will any one who does but read both places with any Application And therefore this place ought not to be strained to agree exactly with that other II. This reasoning of our Author is inconclusive The Heavens and the Earth signify this lower World this lower World is all one with Men therefore all things in Heaven and Earth signifies all Men
Gentiles as well as Jews The parts of this Argument are false and the consequence illegitimate First it is false that Heaven and Earth does any where signify merely this lower World that is the Earth and the Air lying round about it exclusive of the upper spaces For those words are used to comprehend the whole Universe not excepting the Starry Heaven as appears by Gen. i. I confess Heaven often signifies the Air but then it is not joined with the Earth which must be carefully observed for the usual signification of an entire Phrase is one thing and of single words another Secondly granting that the Phrase Heaven and Earth signifies this inferiour World it will not follow that Men are so called nor indeed are they so ever But thirdly suppose that also were true it must be observed that it is not said here simply that Heaven and Earth were reconciled but all things which are in Heaven or in Earth which is a quite different thing for in this phrase the Heaven and the Earth are clearly distinguished from those who are in them nor can the words Heaven and Earth be here thought synonimous to the name World which often signifies Men. The Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or which being twice repeated is a Disjunctive shews also that those who are in Heaven are not the same with those who are on Earth and therefore that Men only cannot be intended Besides tho the word World signifies all Men and Heaven and Earth is called the World it does not follow that Men may be signified by these words all things which are in Heaven or in Earth In interpreting Languages it must not only be consider'd what may be said without absurdity according to Analogy but with Analogy we must join use Quem penes arbitrium est lex norma loquendi Fourthly hence it may be inferred that what our Author adds about the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Creature is to no purpose for it is certain that is often used to signify all Men but that this other all things both which are in Heaven and on Earth signifies the same appears by no example III. If Eph. ii 16 ought to be corrected to Dr. Hammond's mind we should not change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would here signify nothing but into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the same But there is no need of any correction What follows makes nothing to the purpose and as it does not help Dr. Hammond so it does not hurt me IV. The reconciliation of Angels is not to be understood of a reconciliation with God but with Men who being God's Enemies by evil Works were at the same time Enemies to the Holy Angels which are so intimately allied to God that the Friends and Enemies of the one are the Enemies and Friends of the other But Men being once converted by Christ to a holy and religious Life and made Friends with God they become also Friends to the Angels who love the good as much as they detest the wicked Thus God has reconciled all things into him that is Angels and Men acknowledging and worshipping one Lord Jesus Christ made them Friends with one another and composed one Family of both these orders of Creatures who were before at a vast distance from each other both in their Habitations and Dispositions This is that which is signified in Ephes i. 10 on which place see Grotius It was a Mystery before unknown that the time would come when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all the Nations upon Earth should become one Family with the Angels as well as the Jews that is should own and worship the true God according to his own prescriptions and so be accounted his Children Which being so what our Author alledges as out of that place in St. Paul to confirm his interpretation of this is insignificant Vers 22. Note d. Grotius and others much better interpret this Phrase of a fleshly Body that is obnoxious to the same Infirmities as ours It is not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Body tho our Author has several times affirmed it Vers 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I that formerly persecuted the Church of Christ do now on the contrary suffer many evils for its advantage and go on to suffer with undaunted constancy all that Christ has left me to suffer for his Church So I have interpreted this place in my Ars Critica Part 2. S. 1. C. xii where see what I have said CHAP. II. Vers 8. Note b. I Easily grant that these Words signify Philosophical Doctrines but it does not appear to me that the Gnosticks are here referred to For why may not the Apostle have a respect to the Heathen Philosophers who had not a full and entire knowledg of true Vertue but only some Elements of it No body certainly can doubt but there were Philosophers in all parts of Asia who might oppose the Christian Religion but it is not so easy to prove that the Followers of Simon were so universally dispersed Vers 9. Note c. The Context seeming to require the sense which our Author gives of this place it is probable to me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies here indeed Elements or Rudiments of Vertue but that S. Paul alludes to another Signification of that Word because he opposes to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body of the Deity And that is when it is taken for a Shadow of which Signification we have a clear Instance in these words of Julius Pollux Lib. VI. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they gathered from the Shadow when it was time to go to the Supper which shadow they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it behoved them to make haste if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ten foot long This he took from Aristophanes in whom a Woman is brought in speaking thus in Concionat pag. 744. Ed. Maj. Genev. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take care as soon as the Shadow on the Sundial is ten foot long to go instantly or neatly to the Supper On which place the Scholiast has the same Observation with that I have set down out ot Pollux And hence perhaps the Representations which are made to us in Dreams were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are as the obscure Shadows of things Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Images and Fictions of Dreams which in a shorter or longer time have their exit So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an obscure and â—aint Description of those Duties which Men ought to perform or the gross and rude Elements of Vertue are very fitly here opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ. Vers 16. Note e. Tho I deny not but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet two things hinder my assenting to Dr.
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
Inscription of that Statue At least that St. Peter came to Rome in the time of Claudius there are very important Chronological Reasons to disbelieve tho I do not doubt but he came into that City and suffer'd Matyrdom in it under the Reign of Nero. Justin further adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that almost all the Samaritans worshipped Simon but perhaps he speaks hyperbolically perhaps Justin relates a thing which he was not sure of who wrote all whatsoever he heard without making any difference That which he says about the deifying of Simon is alone enough to shew that he is not an Author whose bare Affirmation may be safely trusted And hence perhaps Irenaeus would not positively affirm a Claudio Caesare statua honoratum propter magiam that Simon was honoured with a Statue by Claudius Cesar for his magick but prefixed to this Story dicitur it is reported What our Authot says about his concealing himself and contending with St. Peter is taken ex Clementinis and unworthy of any credit The rest which he relates concerning his Followers should have bin particularly proved by the testimonies of good Authors because it is the ground of what he says here about the revelation of the Gnosticks and that being uncertain the other must be so too Any one may easily deduce what Interpretations he pleases out of feigned Circumstances II. Now to give my own opinion concerning the Man of Sin seeing I have interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Rebellion of the Jews it follows that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be the rebellious Jews themselves and especially their Ringleader Simon not the Magician but the Son of Giora spoken of by Josephus towards the end of his 2 d Book of the Jewish War and afterwards often Which Simon gathering together a Company of Robbers in the Lordship of Acrabatena began to play the Tyrant but first more secretly till at last despising the Authority of the chief men of the Jewish Nation he violated all Laws both divine and human in Jerusalem it self as Josephus in the following Books declares at large And that such a man or any who were like him should be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not strange Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A son of Perdition is one that deserves to be destroyed or is condemned to Death as our Author well observes and how properly this Title belonged to Simon and his Companions Josephus will inform us who in Lib. vi c. 36. speaking of all the People of the Jews observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was God who had condemned all the People and turned all means of safety into Destruction And in Lib. vii c. 7. speaking of Simon himself after he had related how he shewed himself out of a Vault under ground where the Temple had stood and was taken by the Romans he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God therefore delivered up Simon for the punishment of his Cruelty towards the Citizens over whom he had bitterly tyrannized into the hands of his greatest Enemies not taken by force but throwing himself of his own accord upon punishment God so ordering it because he had cruelly put a great many others to death bringing false Accusations against them of a defection to the Romans For Wickedness can never escape the Vengeance of God nor Justice ever be enfeebled but early or late it overtakes those that bid defiance to it and inflicts a heavier punishment upon the Wicked because they expected to be delivered from it not being presently punished He suffered in the Publick place at Rome as this Writer tells us in Cap. xvii of the same Book according to the division in the Greek By this it appears how fitly those wicked men might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that the rest of the characters contained in the following verse do as well agree to them shall be distinctly shewn on each Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Words express the extream Wickedness of men and their marvelous Insolence towards Governours proceeding from an incredible Zeal for Innovations For he is truly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary viz. of God who has no more regard to his Laws than if he industriously opposed and fought against him with all his might and endeavoured to destroy his Worship and root his Fear out of the minds of men And such were Simon John and Eleazer and the rest of the Captains of the Seditious whose horrible Impieties Josephus often mentions openly charging them with Atheism See the last Chapter of Book vi where he says that that Generation of men was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more impious than any of those who for their Wickedness were swallowed up by the Earth or destroyed by the Flood or perished by Lightning Magistrates or Governours are called also Gods as every one knows And these seditious men rose up in great fury both against the Rulers of the Jews such as were the Priests and against the Romans for they killed the former and waged an obstinate War with the latter as Josephus throughout his whole History relates See particularly about the Priests Cap. xviii Lib. iv Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am apt to think St. Paul added this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Exegesis that the Thessalonians might the better understand what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as coming from the old root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alah which at this very day among the Arabians signifies to honour or reverence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And there could not be a fitter Greek word chosen to express the sense of the Hebrew for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well that Honour which is due to Magistrates as to God So it is used by Charondas in Stobaeus Serm. xlii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We ought to bear as good a will to Rulers as to our Parents submitting our selves to them and reverencing them But the seditious Jews were so far from reverencing the lawful Authority both of their own Countrymen and Strangers that on the contrary they thought themselves superiour to them killing all the chief men among the Jews and acting in a hostile manner against the Romans Ibid. Note g. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the style of St. Paul simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Temple but the Temple of Jerusalem which alone was so called This appears by the doubling of the Article nor can those words in any Jewish Writer be ever understood otherwise The Jews would not allow the Temple of Garizim that title which they look'd upon as no better than a Temple of Idols II. Our learned Author here pays a greater deference to the Authority of Justin Martyr than he need for why might not he be mistaken
in this who erred in so many other things Did not the same man make Herod to be contemporary with Ptolomaeus Philadelphus and the Septuagint Did not he say that the word Satanas was compounded of Sata and nas tho he was disputing with a Jew who could easily refute such a mistake Did not he very unjustly and falsly and yet with no small confidence accuse the Jews of corrupting the Holy Scriptures And could not he who erred so grosly in these things not to mention any more rashly take an occasion from the inscription of a Statue which he misunderstood to say what was not true He was a Martyr what then Are Martyrs infallible or to be believed when they are manifestly mistaken And if they have been deceived in some easy things and are not to be credited in all why might not they be mistaken in matters of greater difficulty Besides this Inscription if it be understood of Simon Magus is contrary both to the use of the Latin Tongue and the Custom of the Romans nor is it at all countenanced by the History of that Age. In Latin there is none so called absolutely Deus Sanctus besides Semon or Simon if we chuse so to write it tho corruptly an unknown God of the Sabins or Hercules as Lilius Giraldus will inform us in Hist Deorum And it was not the custom of the Romans to erect Statues to private men and that before their Death such as Simon the Samaritan as to Gods nor can any one instance to that purpose be produced out of all the Roman History And if so unusual a thing had been done by Claudius whose Folly so many Writers have recorded there would be some mention made of it by the Heathens whereas there is not the least mark or sign of it any where to be found But says our Author if Justin had been mistaken or wrote what he knew to be false the Emperors to whom he wrote would easily have discovered the Cheat. But the Emperors perhaps did not so much as look into the Apologeticks of Justin it may be which was their ignorance or wickedness they laughed at them and despised every thing else that was good in them because of this error And who can doubt if there was ever any Tripho Judaeus in the World that should have read his Dialogue or any other Jew whatsoever but he would have scorned and that justly what Justin upbraids the Jews with as to the corruption of the sacred Writings which in a modern Author would be called a Calumny The bare authority therefore of Justin is not to be regarded III. But it is confirmed by Irenaeus and Tertullian I have answer'd this in part already by observing that Irenaeus premises before this Story the word dicitur it is said which shews he was not confident of the truth of it but only declares what some others reported And Tertullian as those Apologetick Writers used to do did but transcribe those that went before him never minding or examining whether what they said was true and out of him again this Story was taken by the later Writers of the Church of Rome but that these took any great care not to affirm any thing concerning former Ages but what was certain and unquestionable no one will believe that reads their Writings with his eyes open IV. But if Simon Magus be not the Person here described who is it you will say that is thus characterized I answer Those wicked Zelots and Edomites who forcibly possessed themselves of the Temple of Jerusalem and so settled themselves in the place of God's peculiar residence in which they behaved themselves very proudly and insolently despising all the Laws of God filling the Temple with the blood of the Citizens and profanely using the holy things of it as their own as Josephus in many places tells us First the Zelots made themselves Masters of the Temple and used its holy things as their own as we are told in lib. vi cap. 1. Then John with his Edomites entred into it as we may learn from cap. 11. and as little abstained from the holy things being used to say in his own justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those who stood up for God ought boldly to use the consecrated things and they who fought for the Temple be maintained out of it as Josephus informs us in cap. 37. And those that did such things might well enough be said to sit in the Temple of God as God shewing themselves as if they were God Vers 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things here spoken of seem to be taken from Christ's Discourse in Matth. xxiv where the like things are mentioned as forerunners of the Destrustion of Jerusalem and so of his final Coming Whence it might be easily inferred that the last Judgment was not as yet at hand because those things which were as the Harbingers of the excision of Jerusalem had not as yet happen'd Vers 6. Note h. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that which restrained the Jews from breaking out into open Rebellion viz. partly the Reverence of the chief men of the Jewish Nation who were against making War with the Romans because they saw there was no hope of shaking off their Yoke and that the thing could not be attempted without the Ruin of the Jews partly the fear of the Roman Armies which the Jews had not yet laid aside especially while they hoped they might live a quiet life under their Governours As long as these things continued in the minds of the Jews the Counsels of the Seditious rested secret and the number of those that were desirous of Innovations was but small but assoon as the chief Men of the Nation began to be despised by the Conspirators and some hope of Victory appear'd because the greatest part of the People were incensed against the Romans and the President was remiss and cowardly then the Jewish Nation like a swift Torrent that should have broken down its banks rushed headlong into its own Destruction then all the vilest sort of men began openly to put in practice their impious Designs This Josephus relates at large in several places of his History of the Jewish War and particularly in lib. 2. And S. Paul wrote this in the 13 th year of Claudius when Felix had been again sent Procurator into Judea at which time tho the Jews were weary of their Yoke and had raised the last year a Tumult yet they still obeyed as to the main body of the Nation What the chief Men among the Jews thought of engaging in a War with the Romans Josephus in many places shews see but Agrippa's Oration in lib. 2. cap. 28. in which he disswades the Jews from rebelling and endeavours to keep in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seditious And till that time he and the rest of the principal Men of the Jewish Nation had some Authority over the common People but Gessius Florus had so highly injured and
among the Rabbins who often call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melech holamim or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melech holam that is the King of the World as appears by their forms of Prayer It is not probable that St. Paul would use a foolish term of the Gnosticks where he does not dispute against them II. I am apt to think that the Gnosticks called Angels or inferiour Deities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from Ezechiel where they are stiled living Creatures which has no affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ages but as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting as Homer often calls the Gods And so wrested an usual word to a signification which did not belong to it In the mean while what is here said by St. Paul may as well be opposed to the Heathens as the Gnosticks to whom our Author had no reason to suppose the Apostle alluded almost in every word Vers 18. Note f. Our Author here confounds things very different with one another because there is some similitude between them in sound which is a fault he often commits not being sufficiently accustomed to a grammatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor having taken so much pains in studying Criticks as Divinity and Ecclesiastical History I. In Num. iv 3 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be rendred into the host but into the troop or company as I have shewn on that place And a troop or company is so called because any company of men marching in order is in some respect like an Army whether put in array or moving forwards See my Notes on Exod. vi 26 and xii 41 II. In Numb 1.50 This Law is given to the Levites They shall bear the Tabernacle and all the vessels thereof they shall minister unto it and shall encamp round about the Tabernacle which words must be understood in their proper sense for the Levites in the Desart did really encamp about the Tabernacle And therefore they make nothing to the metaphorical signification of an Army tho they gave occasion to it III. Our learned Author had not look'd into the place in Exodus xxxviii 8 for there is no mention there made of Women lately delivered Moses is said to have made the Laver of brass and its foot of brass of the Looking-glasses of women assembling by troops at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation There is no signification here of warring or of sacred Ministration See my Notes on that place IV. In 2 Sam. vi 2 God is called the Lord of Hosts in the same sense as frequently elsewhere not as the Lord of the Ark or Tabernacle which is a Phrase that no where occurs and the Ark and Tabernacle are never called hosts but the Discourse is about conveying the Ark from one place to another to which the title of Lord of hosts that is President of War has no manner of relation But what then Is not God often called by that name in the Prophets where neither War nor the Ministry of the Priests or Levites is spoken of Yes it is a title the Prophets frequently make use of whatever be the subject of the Discourse just as Homer in abundance of places calls Jupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he has nothing at all about Clouds or Rain and Achilles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there is nothing said about running Such as these are perpetual Epithets and as it were Appendages to proper Names or like Sirnames which are used whenever those Names are mention'd without any certain design The Jews called the true God the Lord of Hosts because they look'd upon Victory as one of the chief Favours God could confer upon men in this World and on the contrary a Defeat in War whereby whole Nations were sometimes subjected to Slavery as the greatest evil They saw also often that those whom God favoured obtained the Victory tho they were inferiour both in Policy and Strength to their Enemies and that tho all military Stratagems were used in Battels yet the Event was uncertain and did not depend upon men because unforeseen Accidents tho very small are sometimes the cause of Victories and Defeats Therefore they thought that God did preside in a special manner over War and thence made him a Sirname The Heathens sometimes speak almost in the same manner about their Deities as Hirtius de Bello Alexandr c. 75. where he describes the Battel between Caesar and Pharnaces whom Caesar overcame with much fewer Forces and those not sufficiently prepared to fight Clamore sublato saith he confligitur multum adjuvante natura loci plurimum DEORUM immortalium BENIGNITATE qui cum OMNIBUS CASIBUS BELLI INTERSUNT tum praecipue eis quibus nihil potuit ratione administrari After a great shout on both sides the two Armies engaged one another the situation of the place being a great advantage to Caesar's Party but the FAVOUR of the GODS a much greater who as they are PRESENT in ALL the CHANCES of WAR so especially in those in which there is no room for the exercise of Conduct For these Reasons the Jews attributed to God the title of Lord of hosts which must by no means be urged as if it were never used but where there is a respect had to an Army either properly so called or metaphorically V. The Angels are called Gods Hosts in Psalm ciii 21 because God uses them as Kings and Generals do Armies to assist their Friends in danger and subdue their Enemies and the Stars not the Sun and Moon only because they are like a straggling Army dispersed over all parts of the Heaven VI. Our learned Author had not cast his eyes upon Isa xl 2 where there is no mention of the Priesthood no footstep of the Levites The Prophet speaks thus Comfort ye comfort ye my people saith your God Speak that which may please Jerusalem and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished because her sin is expiated That which the Prophet here calls Jerusalems warfare is the banishment of the Jews and the miseries ensuing thereupon which he foretels would shortly be at an end I cannot conceive by what Engines this can be applied to the Cessation of the Levitical Priesthood VII In 2 Tim. ii 4 there is mention indeed made of fighting but in a proper sense But the place alledged by Dr. Hammond is in the same Epistle chap. iv 7 and the Apostle does not there speak about Warring or make use of a Metaphor taken from War but from the Agones I have strived saith he a good strife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have finished my race 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have kept the faith So that I wonder our Author should alledg that place CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I. THE word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passage of St. Chrysostom alledged in the beginning of this Note is not well rendred Priests for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies any Believers that were present
could rescue him out of all those dangers if he pleased He has a respect to Psalm xvii 7 where the Psalmist speaks thus Make thy loving kindness marvellous O thou Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be rendred of them that believe for to hope and believe when the Discourse is about a thing which is matter of Joy and that yet future signify almost the same thing So as others have observed God is said to save Man and Beast in Psalm xxxvi 6 So the Author of the Book of Wisdom chap. xvi 7 speaking of those who looked up to the brazen Serpent and were healed says he that turned himself was not saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that which was seen but by thee the Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Men. Vers 15. I will not deny but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in an Agonistical sense but there being nothing said here of those Exercises I rather think it ought to be rendered mind or take care of these things so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not neglect which went before So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesiod signifies care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 380. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where saith Proclus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls care And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Poet is used for to take care as in vers 316. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know in Prose the word rarely occurs in this signification but as long as it very well agrees to this place nothing should hinder us to admit I◠Out of this which is the proper signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by its coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resulted that other mention'd by Dr. Hammond for they that exercise themselves in any business are careful and diligent about it CHAP. V. Vers 17. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies unquestionably sometimes Wages or Reward according to the signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to pay or requite and I doubt not too but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must be interpreted double Wages But the other places alledged by our Author to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to reward or something of that kind do not seem to prove it For tho there were Rewards joined with the Honours there spoken of it does not follow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expressive of those Rewards which undoubtedly were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Honour it self but an outward signification of Honour and are joined with Honour as its Consectaries II. It is true also what our Author says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but here it seems to signify not only to receive but also to be judged worthy to receive which is the most usual signification of the word In the place of the Exposition of the Faith printed with the Works of Justin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not simply they have or have had but they have been endued with that dignity or excellency of Nature as to be partakers of the same Divinity That is the perpetual signification of the word which is hardly ever used but in a good sense and to signify that he of whom it is said enjoys that of which he is worthy Vers 22. Note g. Dr. Hammond in this Annotation has ingeniously cleared the order of the Discourse but has omitted one thing which he ought first of all to have proved viz. That the Gnosticks forbad not only Matrimony but the use of Wine For tho the former be universally charged upon them yet I cannot tell whether any did ever accuse them of prohibiting the use of Wine It is certain neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius object any such thing against them and later Writers we need not trouble our selves about who for the most part copy after them Tho those Fathers omit nothing whereby they may render the Gnosticks infamous and odious so that we can scarce believe all they say Nay there is a passage in Epiphanius which if true shews the Gnosticks did not abstain from Wine in Haeres xxvi which is that of the Gnosticks Sect. 5. where he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Night and day sorry Fellows and Wenches employ themselves in taking care of their Bodies anointing washing feasting whoring and making themselves drunk And they curse all that fast saying that People ought not to fast because fasting belongs to the Maker and Prince of this Age and they must feed that their Bodies may be strong and able to bring forth fruit in its proper season There were indeed afterwards other Hereticks who taught it was unlawful to drink Wine as the Eneratites as we are told by Epiphanius in Haeres xlvii But all the Doctrines of all Hereticks cannot be attributed to the single Sect of the Gnosticks unless perhaps the Gnosticks were of several sorts CHAP. VI. Vers 2. Note a. IT is strange that those who have written about the Heresy of the Gnosticks did not upbraid them with this That they attempted to deprive Masters of their Servants and I do not well understand why Dr. Hammond if any Vice be reproved presently imputes it to the Gnosticks without any Authority from the Antients By this way of interpreting a wide door is opened for innumerable Fictions Vers 19. Note h. St. Paul seems to have attributed to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same signification as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lye viz. in a Storehouse unless it is to be read in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a very usual word whereas the former no where occurs in the notion of a Treasure or a pretious thing It is certain there is no great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeks use also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 20. Note i. Seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified Knowledg and such Knowledg as the Jews boasted they had received not from the Scriptures but by Tradition from their Ancestors there is no doubt but Men endued with that sort of Knowledg might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnosticks But it may not without reason be doubted whether even from the Apostles time that name was peculiarly attributed to one particular Sect of Heathens who feigned themselves to have embraced the Christian Religion and that owed its beginning to Simon Magus as it was afterwards Our Author has not said any thing to prove this latter and I have elsewhere observed many things which overthrow his Conjectures I am apt to think the Gnosticks of the Apostles times were Jews either by Birth or Profession who because they conversed among the Greeks mixed a great many things out
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He hath appointed Jesus Heir or Lord of all things by whom also he made the Worlds that is having heretofore by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason or eternal Wisdom which resided in Jesus and was most nearly united to him created all things In the Paraphrase that which distinctly agreed to each of these should have been distinctly expressed that the meaning of the Apostle might be the clearer For want of which our Author's Paraphrase is often obscurer than the Apostle's Text it self Vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there are a great many things common to the Writer of this Epistle with Philo Alexandrinus has been observed by the great Grotius on Chap. iv and elsewhere He might have added these expressions which Philo also has in Lib. de Creatione Mundi pag. 25. Ed. Gen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man in respect of his Vnderstanding is allied to the Divine Reason being an IMPRESSED IMAGE or abstract i. e. a Particle broken off or BRIGHTNESS a Ray of that blessed Nature The expressions in both places are so like one another that hardly any two can be more like The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same in both places and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in sense For as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to engrave and is properly a graven Image so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to impress or express and signifies such an Image as is made by the impression of a Seal And hence these words are joined together as synonimous in the Writer de Mundo who passed under the name of Philo pag. 892. Ed. Gen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whatever each of the senses intromits like a Ring or Seal it impresses its own Image or it viz. the sense retains the impressed Image on it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore being the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be also the same And indeed the Son of God even as Man is the brightness of his Fathers Glory because he expressed the divine Power in the greatness of his Miracles and the impressed Image of his substance because he resembles him in his Perfections And it must be the humane Nature which this sacred Writer spake of that the Jews might understand what he said was true for that alone is visible and nothing but what is such can be called the Image or Brightness of any thing among Men. Other things might be alledged to this purpose which for brevity sake I forbear to mention CHAP. II. Vers 3. Note b. IF these places which our Author here wrests comprehend eternal Salvation it is needless to recur to that temporal Deliverance which they cannot be applied to without Violence For as for his saying that the design of this whole Epistle is to confirm the believing Hebrews in the hopes of a sudden deliverance from the persecutions of their Countrymen if it be denied he will not prove it unless by some wrested places as he too often endeavours to do Vers 7. Note c. I. Tho Men in Psal viii are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those words usually signify the meanest sort of Men yet whoever attentively reads that place will see that all Men without exception are intended who upon the account of their meanness are so called and that they are compared with the Angels than which they are said to be a little less II. I cannot see why Grotius and our Author interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a little while contrary to the signification which it has in Psalm viii For doubtless Jesus was a little less than the Angels whilst he conversed here on Earth because he was liable to death and did actually die to which Infelicity the Angels are not subject But this was but for a short time I grant it but neither the Psalmist nor the Apostle have any respect to that Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word is not well rendred to consummate or make perfect because the Discourse is about a Priest who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he is consecrated for the exercise of his Office The Jews call this to fill the hands implere manus which the Septuagint often render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Exod. xxix 10 33 35. Levit viii 35 xvi 32 xxi 10 Num. iii. 3 The Glosses of Philoxenus have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saâ—ro to consecrate Christ was consecrated a Priest not by any outward Ceremonies but those grievous Sufferings which he constantly endured See afterwards vers 17. and Chap. vii 28 CHAP. III. Vers 3. Note a. THIS observation our Author took out of Grotius and is very true See my Notes on Gen. xvi 1 and Exod. i. 21 Vers 11. Note c. I. In the time of Moses Canaan was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mnouhhah because it was a place in which the Israelites after so many and great Labours were to rest To enter into rest was all one as to enter into a Land where they should be at rest Nothing else is to be look'd for in that word See my Note on Gen. xlix 15 II. Psalm xcv 11 has nothing prophetical in it nor is the Discourse so much as about David's times The Psalmist only relates what had happen'd in the time of Moses and endeavours to disswade the Men of his Age from imitating the Israelites of those times who had provoked God to that degree that he had sworn they should not enter into the Land of Canaan This is so manifest that I wonder our learned Author should study for any thing else for what he adds about the Ark there is no mention of in the Psalm It is a mere guess of our Author who often adds to the sacred Writers what he pleases tho the series of the Discourse requires no such thing III. As the Rest promised to the Jews in the Wilderness was the Land of Canaan so the Rest promised to Christians is Heaven or a place of eternal Happiness Nothing can be more natural nothing more agreable to the Apostles Doctrine on the contrary what our Author here says is forced and far fetch'd nor is it needful to confute it all particularly They are the fancies of a Man looking into the Clouds and seeing what he pleases IV. Of the Halcyon Days which our Author so often repeats we shall see what may be said on the place in the Revelations to which he refers us CHAP. IV. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is into Heaven of which the Land of Canaan was a Representation not the time when the Jews did no longer persecute the Christians who nevertheless were despitefully used by the Heathens Our Author here wrests every thing Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is we have received a gracious
understood that the Reader or Hearer may comprehend what we say without any pain and the second to omit nothing but what any one may easily supply Nobis say the Masters of that Faculty prima sit virtus perspicuitas rectus ordo non in longum dilata conclusio nihil neque desit neque superstuat Ita sermo doctis probabilis planus imperitis erit They are the words of Quintilian Instit Orat. Lib. viii Cap. 2. But the stile of the Jewish Midraschim is nothing less than Rhetorical and them the Writer of this Epistle follows and not without great reason because he spake to a Nation accustomed to such a stile This by the way which it may suffice to have said once tho we must carry it in our eye throughout this whole Epistle Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This inference manifestly shews that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another day spoken of in the foregoing Verse must be understood of a day wherein unless we obey the Voice of God we shall fall short of a Rest which he has promised and therefore that this must necessarily be supplied Otherwise there would be more as the Logicians speak in the Conclusion than in the Premises which it would be a crime to suppose of the Sacred Writer Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Author of this Epistle renders a reason why he called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a name taken from the Sabbath viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely as the day in which God ceased to create or as Moses speaks rested from his Works was called the Sabbath so the time wherein we shall rest from all those Labours and Troubles we are forced to undergo in this Life may be called a Sabbatism What our Author here says in his Paraphrase of a rest from Persecutions and a liberty to worship God is violent Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is said here by Interpreters about the Word of God is harsh to which what the Author of this Epistle affirms concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be applied without violence Can any Man think this to be a tolerable way of speaking the Gospel is living and powerful and more piercing than any two edged Sword reaching even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit and of the Joints and Marrow and is a discerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the Heart nor is there any Creature that is not manifest in his sight Yet I can hardly perswade my self the Discourse is about the Divine Reason which is so much spoken of by Philo. But I am apt to think this Phrase is taken from the Custom of the Jews of that Age who for God and any of the divine Attributes used to say the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Custom there are still frequent instances in Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament wherein many places we find the Word of God set for God not for the Messias as some think This conjecture is confirmed by vers 13. where all things are said to be naked and opened unto his Eyes which cannot be said of the Gospel but only of God See about this matter a Dissertation de Verbo vel Sermone Dei cujus creberrima fit mentio apud Paraphrastas Chaldaeos printed at Irenopolis Ann. M.DC.XLVI So that the meaning of the Sacred Writer is this that God who is displeased with Apostates cannot be deceived for God is living c. Vers 13. Note c. I do not indeed doubt but the Metaphor which the Author of this Epistle here uses is taken from the cutting of the Sacrifices But 1 st it is a mistake that this was the business of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who among the Jews searched only for outward blemishes such as we find mention'd in Levit. xx 22 seqq not for inward defects which were unknown to those who deliver'd the Sacrifice to the Priests 2 dly It is as untrue which our Author says that the Sacrifice after its being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was laid upon the Altar to be searched into for the Altar of Sacrifices had a continual Fire kept in it nor was any thing laid upon it but only the pieces appointed by the Law CHAP. V. Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not to be thought with Dr. Hammond that the Apostolical Writer of this Epistle speaks here so as if no Sacrifices at all were admitted but for Sins that proceeded from mere Ignorance for there were also other Sins committed against Light and Knowledg that were expiated and are mentioned by Moses in Levit. Chap. vi 1 to the 7 th where see my Notes But the Sacred Writer speaks in this manner because the greatest part of those Sinners for which Sacrifices were offer'd up were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. Note b. I. Our Author tells us in the beginning of this Note that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fear coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timuit is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Exod. iii. 6 but it is the Root it self which is used in that place It is strange our learned Author should sometimes cite places of Scripture upon trust II. The words of Isaiah are in Chap. viii 12 13. not in vers 16. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies there that which fears to wit the People of the Jews who are there spoken of and not the terrible thing as will appear to any that look into the place I will not say that in the places of Deuteronomy the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ill translated by the Septuagint because they erroneously derived it from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raah he saw which was to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jare he feared For those places in the Septuagint are nothing at all to the purpose and it is true that fear may be taken for the cause of Fear Vers 9. Note c. It is true what our Author here says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he might have said before on Chap. ii 10 where see my Note But I think he had better have omitted the Dream of Menander which has no agreement with the thing here spoken of but only in the likeness of some words Vers 14. Note d. Solid Food compared with Milk and fitter for grown Men than Babes in that figurative sense which it is here taken in may be understood two ways It may signify either something more excellent that is more useful than first Elements or simply Doctrins hard to be understood and such as cannot be digested but by skilful and judicious Persons In the first sense it cannot here probably be taken for tho all that is here said be useful yet the Doctrins proposed as Principles and Foundations in the beginning of Chap. vi are much more useful than the Allegories we find in Chap. vii seqq For
these were as so many ornaments of the Christian Religion particularly among the Jewish Allegorists which if we had lost we should have missed nothing necessary But on the other hand the Doctrin of Repentance Faith the Resurrection of the Dead and the Judgment to come are so necessary that being unknown the Christian Religion is also unknown as on the contrary being understood nothing necessary escapes our knowledg Nay if any one could write of these things which belong to the nature of Christianity wholly omitting Judaism as if there had never been any such thing in that manner as they deserve nothing could possibly be devised more divine more excellent more sublime We must understand therefore by the name of solid Food some difficult interpretations of the Old Testament which the Jews mightily valued and did not use to propose if I may so speak to Novices or fresh Men. Such is that representation of Christ which the Author of this Epistle finds in the History of Melchisedek Such is also the comparing of the Priesthood of Christ with the Aaronical Priesthood None of these could well be proposed to Men newly initiated because they supposed this viz. that the Priesthood of Christ was already very well known But they are not sublimer than those things which are taught concerning Christ's Sacrifice separately from Judaism or the rest of the Doctrins peculiar to the Christian Religion I am sure as I said before they are not so useful Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words seem to be taken from the use of the Philosophers and especially the Stoicks who defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the avoiding of vain things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a habit reducing Fancies or Visions to right Reason as we are told by Diogenes Laertius in Lib. vii S. 47. The same Men taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Persons who had unexercised Fancies fell into Absurdity and Vanity CHAP. VI. Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this word the Apostle means not a more useful knowledg than of those things which he presently after enumerates but some Doctrins which might be added to them to render Christianity more perfect So a building has several things added to it not necessarily belonging to a Building and without which it cannot stand firm but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make it the more complete such as are several kinds of Ornaments Yet no allegorical Interpretation of whatever sort it be is any wise comparable either for its Usefulness or Wisdom with the elements of Christianity taught by our Saviour in Mat. v vi vii What Dr. Hammond adds in his Paraphrase of this Verse about his Gnosticks he inserts purely of his own head the Sacred Writer did not give him the least occasion for it Vers 6. Note a. I. I acknowledg Baptism is very frequently in the Fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that use of theirs seems to be grounded upon this very place where they thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which because they might be mistaken I do not think the Apostle's Language can be understood by their use And here I had much rather take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be meant of the enlightning of the Mind than the external rite of Baptism See Grotius about this word which I may also here add is to be understood of spiritual illumination in the Old Testament in the version of the Septuagint See Psalm xii 4 xviii 9 cxix 129 according to the Greek distinction II. It is very uncertain whether ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the times of the Messias and tho those may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the latter days yet compared with former they are no where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called And in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more probably signifies the Life to come the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foretasts of which Christians have in this when they are weary of all earthly things and nothing moves them but the expectation of eternal Happiness in which they sweetly acquiesce This is indeed to tast the powers of the World to come when the hope of that only accompanied with a contempt of all other things affects and delights our Minds Of this and the other words consult Grotius Ibid. Note b. I. The signification of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken from the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not from another compound of the same Verb. For all that understand Greek know that the compounds of the same root have sometimes very different significations So that tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to dedicate it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same Besides who but Dr. Hammond that had accustom'd himself to a barbarous and intolerable way of speaking could endure this phrase to dedicate to Repentance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as every one knows new and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make new whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to renew or to make new again They who first took upon them the title of Christians with a sincere resolution to live piously and vertuously were so very much changed from what they were formerly that they are called new Men and new Creatures by the Apostles See 2 Cor. v. 17 Gal. vi 15 Ephes ii 15 iv 24 Consequently those who forsaking these first purposes fell off again to the weak elements of the Jewish Religion or to Heathenism must if they would return to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be made new again or become new Men that they might repent I alledg the Authority of St. Paul for this interpretation who speaks thus in Coloss iii. 10 Lie not one to another putting off the old Man with his Deeds and putting on the new Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is renewed to knowledg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That renovation the same Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. xii 12 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. iii. 3 Nor let it be said that the word here used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify just the same See the former in the Version of the Septuagint Psal cii 5 ciii 31 Lament v. 21 And the Old Glosses have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 innovat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 innovatio So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I believe it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the repetition of like words was the cause why one of them was omitted and the decay of a Letter corrupted the last which is observable in many places of that and other Lexicons II. This being supposed the genuin and proper signification of the Verb the series of the Discourse is clear which otherwise is something intricate The Apostolical Writer saith that the Jews needed to be instructed in that part
by the Jewish Priests What our Author says here in his Paraphrase is besides the scope of this place Vers 9. Note a. I. What Dr. Hammond here says about the mistakes of Transcribers is very true as Lud. Cappellus in his Critica Sacra has shewn in which Mr. Pocock has confuted indeed a few ces but left the foundations untouch'd tho he ever now and then has a stroke at them both in his Notes ad Portam Mosis and elsewhere Yet they cannot be overturned because they are undeniably true But it is true also before any place be thought to have been differently read by the Septuagint the neighbouring Languages ought to be consulted which was not always done by Cappellus In this place our Author might have added that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are one and the same root but differently written the Letters of the same Organ in the Eastern Languages and especially the Guttural being very often confounded II. I wonder our learned Author thought the Septuagint pointed otherwise the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for melammedah is of the Feminine Gender and cannot be joined with what goes before The words may be literally render'd thus Fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timere eorum me praeceptum hominum edoctum their fearing me was a precept taught by men If any thing else were to be changed by the Version of the Septuagint we should read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melammedim teaching But that is needless the sense being the same in the Hebrew words as they are now as it is in the Greek III. Our Author mistranslates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by I have given or sent He confounds this Verb with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath sent in his Explication of Zachar xi 13 CHAP. IX Vers 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here does not seem to signify an Image of the whole World as Grotius and Dr. Hammond explain it but rather earthly for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken both for this lower World and for Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Beza observed whom the learned Doctor and Grotius should have followed in this matter Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is called Holies in the plural number because the most holy place was called the Holies of Holies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by those that spake Greek for in Hebrew the former is called the Sanctuary or Holiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mikdasch or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kodesch never in the plural number the latter the Holiness of Holinesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By this and what I shall observe afterwards of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may seem probable that the Writer of this Epistle was a Grecian or at least one that did not well understand Hebrew and therefore cannot be thought to have been St. Paul Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius understands by this word the Golden Censer which had fire put into it out of the Altar by the High Priest who afterwards threw Incense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into it on the day he entred into the most holy place That Vessel used to be kept in the outward Sanctuary but non est saith he difficile intellectu cur diâ—at hic scriptor interius illud tentorium habuisse batillum non quod ibi semper esset sed quod semper Arcam quae erat in Adyto respiceret in illo die maxime solemni expiationis in tentorium interius id est in Adytum transferretur Habere enim dicimur quod est in nostrum usum It is easy to understand why this Writer says that inward Tabernacle had the Censer not because it was always there but because it always had a respect to the Ark which was in the most holy place and on that most solemn day of Expiation was carried into the inward Tabernacle and into the most holy place For we are said to have what is for our use By the same reason every thing which was in the outward Sanctuary might be said to have been in the most holy place because they had a respect to it It might have been said to have the Fire and the Incense before they were carried into it because they were for its use and were to be carried into it Which things as they cannot be said according to the ordinary use of Speech so they are by no means agreeable to the Stile of this Writer For when he says wherein was the candlestick and the table and the shewbread that must undoubtedly be understood properly and we cannot otherwise understand what is said here which had the golden Censer c. I am apt to think therefore that this was a Jewish Tradition of that Age by which they supposed that the Censer used on the day of Expiation was kept in the most holy place See on the following words Ibid. Note b. It 's certain Isaac Abarbanel on 1 Kin. viii 9 says there is a Tradition to that purpose See what Joan. Buxtorfius has collected about this matter out of the Rabbins and other Interpreters in his Arca Foederis cap. 5. Vers 5. Note d. See also what I have said on Rom. iii. 25 Vers 7. Note e. All the Sins that were expiated by Sacrifices were not involuntary but only the most as appears from Levit. vi 1 seqq and the greater number gave the denomination Vers 13. Note f. In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify washes abluit but lustrat purifies or purges that is according to the Institution of the Law makes one that was before judged unclean with an Uncleanness not properly so called but legal to be accounted clean tho neither his Mind was made more holy nor his Body properly speaking more clean For the sprinkling of Blood and Ashes rather defiles than washes the body It is a plain case Why therefore did the Apostolical Writer say that it sanctified the flesh I answer It is all one as if he had said the Body of such a man was accounted holy or clean and might be touched without Pollution for those that were accounted unclean were thought to pollute every one that touched them Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is as it were a playing with the Ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in these Writers constantly signifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Covenant was used by those that spake the best Greek for a Testament It is true indeed a Testament is ratified by the death of the Testator and Christ is dead But Christ was not the Mediator of a Testament for Testaments do not want Mediators and if it should be granted that he was he could not be thought at once a Mediator and a Testator by whose death alone a Testament was confirmed The Testator here is God the Father whose heirs men are in conjunction with
for the Sons of Men where the Septuagint who yet have very ill translated these words have right enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nor waits for the Sons of Men or puts Confidence in them For those Interpreters must often be understood by the Hebrew words which they endeavour'd to illustrate in their Translation Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signified to subsist III. Our Author in his Paraphrase interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Conviction or Perswasion but he should have brought us an example wherein it appeared that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a certain disposition of Mind and I cannot tell whether any can be found But till such an instance be alledged I chuse rather to interpret this word according to its usual signification that is argumentum an Argument as it is rendred in the Vulgar The firm and constant Faith of wise Men has that weight and influence upon others as to be an Argument for which they believe with them the reality of things which they do not see So St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv to prove the certainty of the Resurrection to those who had not seen it argues from his own and the rest of the Apostles and Christians Faith Else what shall they do saith he who are baptized for the dead If the Dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the Dead And why stand we in jeopardy every hour If after the manner of Men I have fought with Beasts at Ephesus what advantageth it me if the Dead rise not c. These things may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is arguments proving the truth of the Resurrection of the Dead it being not at all probable that wise and good Men would have rashly and without reason submitted to such things The same may be said of those examples of Faith mentioned in this Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Author in his Paraphrase rightly interprets the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the best for this Verse is taken out of the Greek Translation of Genes iv 7 where Cain is said to have offer'd indeed rightly but not to have divided rightly that is to have kept to himself what was Gods See my Notes on that place Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Grotius rightly refers to Jerusalem which our Author interprets in a mystical sense I know not for what reason for if we read Genesis we shall be perfectly of Grotius his Mind nor does the series of the Discourse here require any other interpretation Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words are rightly understood by Grotius and Dr. Hammond so as if the Apostolical Writer had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they desired a better Country which was an antitype of Heaven that is the Land of Canaan For it appears from Gen. xxiii 7 xlvii 9 that the only meaning of the Patriarchs in saying they were strangers and sojourners in the Land was that they had no ground of their own in the Land of Canaan but dwelt in it merely by the courtesy of the Canaanites Vers 20. Note d. What our Author says in this Note is very ingenious and if not true seems highly probable as far as the last period beginning with and this perhaps Because that which follows is plainly forced for who would say that the Edomites were Lords of the Jews because when their Commonwealth was overthrown by the Chaldeans they did no longer obey them Is it all one to be any Mans Lord and not to serve him I think not So that this last remark should have been blotted out or rather not at all written Vers 21. Note e. See my Notes on Gen. xlvii 31 We had better here acknowledg the hand of a Writer who did not understand Hebrew and followed without examination the Septuagint than endeavour to reconcile inconsistencies Our Author commits here another great mistake in seeking in Gen. xlix for that which is in Gen. xlvii and joining the words of Chap. xlix belonging to another Story with the words of Chap. xlvii 21 See the places and you will think it strange that our learned Author who so diligently studied the Scripture should commit such an error Vers 29. Note f. This also is a Dream plainly contrary to the History and owing to the false reasoning of Interpreters as I have shewn in a Dissertation de Maris Idumaei trajectione added to my Commentary on the Pentateuch Numb iv Ibid. Note g. All this is true but had been observed before by Grotius and others See also Davidis Clerici Quaest Sacr. x. Vers 35. Note h. I. Mr. Gataker has treated largely concerning this word in Adversar cap. xlvi who may be consulted From the places by him alledged it sufficiently appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about an instrument of Torment was properly a Club so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to beat and secondarily the place or torment it self of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was deduced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to strike with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Club till the Person accused made Confession or else died which Verb was afterwards used to signify any kind of painful Death But here where there are particular kinds of Death mention'd I think it is to be understood properly of those who were beaten to death with Clubs So that what our Author conjectures of I know not what Engine that was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and on which Malefactors were hanged is vain Mr. Gataker also very truly observes that Lexicographers often attribute to words those significations which either precede or accompany the thing signified and that shews the reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said by Hesychius and Suidas to signify to be flea'd or hanged II. I do not see why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Yoke mention'd in Jerem. xxviii 14 should be reckoned the same For from the beginning of the foregoing Chapter it appears that those Yokes are consider'd as representations of slavery which the Prophet foretold to several Nations not of Torment or a Prison The only similitude between them we have any certain knowledg of is that they were both put upon the Neck III. Tho in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joined together it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho tympanum sometimes signifies a Wheel among Architects It is sufficient that the Wheel was an instrument of Torture as appears by the Fable of Ixion that in the description of Hell there might be mention made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not safe to deduce Consectaries from the order of words See Lucian Tom. i. p. 334. Ed. Amstel IV. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very
fitly be rendred to come to the torment of the Club or if you please to the place in which that Torment was inflicted because that is abusively called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus also improperly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is to die a painful Death nor is it necessary he should have thought of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of hanging as we shall afterwards see on the place in Eusebius which Dr. Hammond last of all alledges V. The pulling off the Skin or cutting off the Members signify nothing to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called nor was it necessary that those who suffer'd this kind of Torment should also have their Skin pulled off or be dismembred But all these severities might improperly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense that this word is taken for any sort of Torment VI. They who have been a long while beaten with Clubs in all the parts of their Body may truly be said as in Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it does not follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so stiled was a capital Punishment for there might be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of fewer or more blows either for Chastisement or to Death as the Judges thought fit or the Crime deserved VII It is a strange citation of Eusebius which we have here in our Author after the place in the Maccabees First there is no such thing in Lib. iv of Eusebius but the passage is in Lib. ix c. 40. Secondly it is not taken out of Polyhistor but out of Berosus himself or rather out of a fragment of his which we find in Josephus out of whom Eusebius cites it as appears by the very Inscription of the Chapter The same fragment has been published by Jos Scaliger out of Josephus So that the comparison the Doctor makes between Alexander Polyhistor out of Eusebius and Berosus is vain because one and the same Writer is cited in both places in whose different Copies especially in a barbarous name there might be a various reading VIII The place in Daniel is in Chap. vii 11 as was well noted by Jos Scaliger in Not. ad Fragm p. 11. and not in Chap. v. But this I should not observe if the foregoing and following things did not shew that our Author in collecting this medly was extreamly careless beyond what he uses to be and did not think it worth while to look into the places in the Writers themselves He says afterwards Megasthenes out of Abydenus calls the King of Babylon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the contrary Abydenus produces the words of Megasthenes in Eusebius Lib. xi c. 41. IX I easily believe the punishment of the Club even to Death was used among the Greeks and Babylonians But our Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he describes it was no where used nor can any thing be alledged in his favour out of Justin who subjoined a synonimous Verb to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinking there was no difference between them after which manner both he and other Fathers often cite the Scripture The place is in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew p. 248. X. Nothing could have been more impertinently alledged by the Doctor to prove that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in use among the Romans than the passage of Eusebius or rather of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons out of Lib. v. c. 1. of Eusebius For after he had said that the Emperor had written word that those who professed the Christian Religion ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describing the manner how the President had executed the Emperors orders he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were judged to have been made free of the City of Rome he cut off their Heads and the rest he sent to the wild Beasts Where is here our Author's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christophorson misled him who had rendred the word tympanis torqueri which is justly censured by H. Valesius with whom yet I should not render it gladio caedi for those who were condemned to be devoured by wild Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as those who were beheaded XI Not only our Author but also the great Grotius did not know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified in this place who on 2 Maccab. vi 19 conjectures that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fidiculae quibus pellis humana ita tendebatur quomodo bubula in tympano qui sic cruciabantur dictos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Cords whereby a Mans skin was stretched so as the Skin of an Ox on a Drum and those who were so tormented were said c. But both the reason of the word and use are plainly against him as will appear to any one that reads Gataker whom I will not transcribe I shall only add that in the Old Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred sirimpio which is a corrupt Writing for scipio a Staff Vers 37. Note i. I wonder our Author here cites Copies which no one else has mention'd I mistrust they are Conjectures which he imposes upon us for various Lections Beza affirms that it is so read in all his Copies and there is no variety of reading observed in the Oxford Edition but of one Copy in which this word is wanting The same Beza conjectures that we might read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were burnt and Tanaquillus Faber in Ep. Crit. Lib. ii Ep. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were maimed or dismembred which kind of punishment was common among the Eastern People The Reader may chuse which of these he pleases either of them being better than the received reading Vers 40. Note k. I. If we should admit the reasonings of Dr. Hammond about the signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to grant they signified tranquillity in this World and the perpetual duration of the Christian Church yet we could not allow him that this may be referred to the times of the Apostles For what tranquillity did the Christians enjoy for three Ages greater than the Jews from the beginning of their Commonwealth to this time It 's true the Jews in so many Ages suffer'd various Calamities but they had also long intervals of Rest and Prosperity such as the Christians for 300 Years never enjoyed as the Scripture informs us as in the reigns of David and Solomon and other Kings Did the Christians enjoy so great tranquillity after the destruction of Jerusalem that there never had been any tranquillity in the Jewish Commonwealth than which that short rest if it were any was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who does not know that the Christians from that time were often grievously persecuted tho not by the Jews yet by the Heathens till the time of Constantine If therefore we would interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a quiet Profession of the Christian Religion that were
not to be referred at least principally to any time which preceded the Reign of Constantine but to his age and the following ages hitherto because since that time the Christian Religion has flourished so that nothing like it was ever seen in the Commonwealth of the Jews See my Note on Luke i. 73 II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the antient Jews had not received I chuse rather with Grotius and others to understand of the resurrection of the Body and the entire and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect Happiness of the whole man which none had yet enjoyed except Enoch and Elias and perhaps Moses and a few others that were risen with Christ That Promise is contained in these words I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Christ shews God provided better for us Christians than to raise them whose Faith is commended in the Old Testament from the dead and make them completely happy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so much to provide better things for us than for the Jews as if we were to receive any thing which they are not to receive as to the substance of the thing but to have a greater regard to us Christians than to the Jews whom God would not raise from the dead and make perfectly happy before the Christians Those are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who are made happy both in Soul and Body when such whose Souls only are made happy enjoy but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfect Happiness in comparison with them CHAP. XII Vers 1. Note a. I. TO understand what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies it must in the first place be observed that the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very often signifies circumstare to stand about and passively circumsisti circumveniri to be surrounded or beset And hence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circa quem statur one who is surrounded So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocrates in his Oration about retribution Jugling tricks that are of no use but are surrounded by a company of Fools For which the spectators stand about in a ring This Harpocration has and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says that in Dinarchus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we add Α privative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be one that no body stands about such as those who have no Friends or Relations nor any to assist them in the management of their Affairs This Hesychius had expressed but his words are corrupted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone not having assistance or means So it must be rendred not as it is by our Author who translates these words absurdly In which sense the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the words of Georgius Alexandrinus alledged by our Author and that Notion ought not to have been confounded with the Rhetorical Notion which Dr. Hammond mentions These things supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be properly one whom others easily stand about or encompass and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies metaphorically to be circumvented that is to be deceived or pressed with difficulties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one that is easily circumvented So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a foolish man who is easily turned or wound about that is deceived He adds the words of the Apostle So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy viz. to be circumvented and overcome Phavorinus also interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her that is easily deceived So that in this place where agonistical words are used I am apt to think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies which is easily circumvented that is overcome because all that ran and suffer'd themselves to be easily circumvented were by that means sure to be overcom for they who had circumvented them came first to the end of the race And Sin is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because those who are infected with it are easily conquer'd and terrified by difficulties from persisting constantly in their Christian Course II. It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes a case wherein a man is in great danger of his life as in the place cited out of Diogenes Laertius and that among Rhetoricians a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or question is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is proposed without any circumstances but all this is nothing to this place and is a mere medly of undigested Learning or rather of a man groping as it were in the dark and seeking for the signification of a word where it was not to be sought for In the place of St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly taken in an Active sense not in a Passive for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has an Active signification as often as a Passive and that an Active one must be assigned to it in this place appears evidently by the following Active Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But St. Chrysostom is mistaken for almost all such Nouns have a Passive signification because they are derived from the third person of the Preterperfect tense Passive So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easily passable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily expanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily subverted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easy to be beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is easily taken away and innumerable others which may be found in any Lexicon St. Chrysostom interpreted this Passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews by Conjecture not by Grammatical Rules Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is on the right side of that inaccessible Light which is a Symbol of the presence of the most high God See Note on Mark xvi 19 Vers 3. Note b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly to be tired and metaphorically to faint or languish because when a man is excessively tired his strength fails him So in the Apopthegm of Coriolanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to have his strength fail him or to do that which fainting persons use to do for when those who stood by him besought him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that being burden'd with labours and Wounds he would retire into the Camp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saying that it was not the part of Conquerors to be overcome by weariness pursued them that fled These Words are found in Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus p. 218. Ed. Wechel T. 1. I cannot tell whether our Author read them in the Writer himself it 's certain he sets down the saying of Coriolanus otherwise than Plutarch However that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as I said to be tired secondarily to do that which tired persons use to do as in this place of the Epistle to the Hebrews as to desist from running to quit the Field that is to betake ones self
to another Course of Life Ibid. Note c. For Jerem. xxxv we must read Isai xxxv which place had bin cited by Grotius and others Vers 4. Note d. Here our Author confounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a vain fighting with ones own Shadow with skirmishing or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are not the same among the antient Greeks Vers 16. Note f. That which is here produced out of the Rabbins I have shewn to be vain on Gen. xxv 31 Esau was certainly profane in this that he despised the last Benediction of his Father as thinking it to be of less value than a Mess of Pottage Vers 23. Note h. There may also be an allusion here to Exod. iv 22 where Israel is said to be God's Firstborn because of the peculiar benefits which God had conferred upon him For the Christian Church succeeded in the place of Israel according to the flesh Ibid. Note i. This is a figurative expression of which I have spoken on Exod. xxxii 32 God is represented to have as it were a Book in which he writes down his peculiar Favourites as Kings have Registers of the names of those whom they imploy in their service or upon whom they confer any benefits Ibid. Note k. I easily believe this phrase was taken from the use of the Jews but our Author who looks here besides for I know not what Agonistical sense ought to have produced at least one place in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Conqueror in the Games which he could not do And therefore he ought to have been contented with what he had borrowed from Grotius about the use of the Jews Vers 24. Note l. I. Our learned Author would have done much better if he had followed Grotius what he here says being either wrested or affirmed without reason To begin with his last words I will not say that the authority of the Writers of Liturgies whoever they be is of little moment to the explication of particular places of Scripture because they had scarce any tincture of Critical Learning as every one knows But I will say that our Author supposes here two things which may be called into question First that a bloody Sacrifice was offer'd up by Abel which is uncertain as I have shewn on Gen. iv 4 Secondly that all the Sacrifices were Types that is in the language of our modern Divines Prefigurations of the Sacrifice of Christ which if denied can be proved by no Argument tho I acknowledg there was some likeness between them in which sense they might be called Types and Shadows of the Sacrifice of Christ because of their Similitude not because of a design to presignify one by the other which no one knew of Yet our Author in his Paraphrase attributes his own opinion to the Writer of this Epistle who has nothing at all here about that matter See my Note on 1 Cor. x. 3 II. The efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice is not compared here with the efficacy of Abel's Sacrifice but the thing which Abel called for whether by his own or the Blood of Sacrifices with the thing which Christ demands And therefore the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 better things which cannot be referred to efficacy and respects nothing but what Christ obtained But it is said the design of this Epistle is to shew the preheminence of the Gospel above the Law I do not deny it but every particular word does not tend to that design for there are also a great many things intermix'd in it foreign to that design So that I had rather with most Interpreters look upon these words as an allusion to what is said of Abel in Chap. xi 4 which opinion is manifestly confirmed by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in both places For as there Abel is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of his Blood which in Gen. iv 10 is said to have cried unto God from the Earth So here the Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Abel or than the Blood of Abel Vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is undoubtedly a Periphrasis of Moses but he is not to be thought to have spoken from Mount Sinai when he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave Oracles from which he himself said nothing but in the Camp when he heard the Responses of God from the Sanctuary which he afterwards declared to the People II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not seem to be Christ who for the most part taught the Gospel upon Earth tho sometimes also but rarely he revealed himself to the Apostles from Heaven after his Resurrection I rather think it is to be understood with Grotius of those Voices which came from Heaven on the behalf of Christ mention'd in Mat. iii. 17 xvii 5 and elsewhere CHAP. XIII Vers 4. Note a. DEs Erasmus and Nicol. Zegerus had gone before our Author in this Interpretation but Beza objects against it the following words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where if that interpretation be allowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this manner Let Marriage be honourable in all and the Bed undefiled for Fornicators and Adulterers God will judg I am of opinion the Antients read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in a Greek and Latin Copy and in the Vulgar Translation which has enim and that this was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by those who did not think these words were an Exhortation Vers 9. Note d. When our Author made this collection he does not seem to have looked into Acts xv 40 where to be commended or deliver'd to the Grace of God is without doubt to be recommended by Prayer to the divine Goodness Besides the words which he produces is following are in Acts xiv 26 But he seems to have fallen into a mistake because there is also the same expression in this latter place of the Acts immediately preceding them And thence sailed to Antioch from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the Work which they fulfilled But here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be sent to preach the Gospel but to be recommended by Prayer to the divine Grace tho this had been done that Paul and Barnabas might preach the Gospel with success Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He alludes to the Sacrifices offer'd up on the day of Expiation as every one sees But to make the series of the Discourse clear he should have expressed what is here to be understood and upon which that which follows depends Christ is an expiatory Sacrifice which we must eat that we may have an interest in the efficacy of it as we are taught by Christ in John vi 50 and seqq But by the Mosaical Rites no Man tasted of such a Sacrifice so that they who desire to
be dealt with by God according to that Law cannot partake of the Expiation made by Christ This is the reasoning of the Writer of this Epistle of which he has only expressed the two last Propositions by which omission the series of the Discourse is made obscure But it will be said perhaps that there is an ambiguity in this reasoning in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Christians did no more eat of the Flesh of Christ properly speaking than the Jews of the expiatory Sacrifices I acknowledg there is that ambiguity but the Sacred Writer did not urge this Argument as a demonstration It is a reasoning which properly proves nothing against Men of other Sentiments but illustrates only the Christian Doctrin after the Jewish manner of which kind there are a great many in this Epistle as I have already elsewhere observed That which follows in this place is of the same kind Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase says that the Jews themselves acknowledged that the expiatory Sacrifices typified or prefigured the Messias I wish he had produced a passage out of some Antient Jew in which that was affirmed for no one will believe him saying this rashly For my part I cannot perswade my self that the Jews had any such Thoughts whose greatest Argument against Jesus his being the Messias was his Death and the Gospels sufficiently shew they imagin'd no such thing of the Messias Vers 15. Note e. I. It being undeniable by all learned Men that the Septuagint very often read the Hebrew otherwise in their Copy than we do now in ours what need is there with Mr. Pocock of inventing forced interpretations rather than acknowledg what is easy and plain There is much more probability in their opinion who think the Septuagint read with a difference in the division of the Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fruit out of our Lips or blotting out מ the fruit of our Lips Nor must it be thought that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are derived from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore those words may be confounded For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are immediately deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is properly to be gathered and is applied to Fruits then because Fruits after they are gathered are consumed it signifies to consume by which signification we are to explain the two former words as also their Compounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are often in the Version of the Septuagint used for whole Burnt-offerings The same Interpreters render the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to eat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Jos v. 12 So also they render the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to burn in Deut. xxvi 12 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify a whole Burnt-offering tho the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not occur in that signification because that word is not deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the two former are II. The Rabbinical reason why some Holocausts should be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 summer Fruit I do not value a rush because it is not certain that it is an antient Phrase For that giving of thanks is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies nothing to the name of Holocausts which elsewhere are always called by other names Besides it is utterly false that Holocausts which were the chief and daily Sacrifices never to be omitted as appears from Num. xxviii could be look'd upon as a Banquet over and above the prescribed Feast In fine who will believe that in this one place of Hos xiv 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for an Holocaust which is constantly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by other names and that this happen'd accidentally in a place where we may reasonably suppose the Septuagint read the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phri which properly signifies Fruit They who can believe such things after due examination must either have spoiled their judgment with a continual reading of Arabick or Rabbinnical Trifles as some have done or else be naturally dull III. And therefore our Author not willing to rely upon Mr. Pococks conjecture turns himself to other things but 1 st he is certainly mistaken in thinking the Septuagint used the single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only because it yielded the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as sufficiently appears by what I have already said 2 dly he is mistaken in thinking that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Praise expressed with the Mouth It was a kind of Sacrifice in which a Victim was offered no less than in others 3 dly It is a mistake that the Septuagint have thrice rendred the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as he says for that word is twice only found in Levit. vii 1 2. Besides our learned Author was deceived by a false distinction of the Chapters in the Version of the Septuagint which do not answer the Hebrew in the Polyglot Bibles The Version of the three first Verses of Chap. vii of Leviticus in the Hebrew is in that Edition of the Septuagint Chap. vi 31 32 33. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred rightly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is in the same Edition in Chap. vii 1 2 3. answers to vers 11 12 13 of Chap. vii in the Hebrew and we do not there find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascham but the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 salutaria celebratio which bring Salvation and celebrating The Septuagint have no where rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IV. The Offerings joined with the celebration of the Eucharist are without doubt pious and the practice of the Christian Church in that particular both heretofore and now very commendable but I do not think there is any reference here had to those Oblations which cannot but very harshly and if I may so speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dialect of Dr. Hammond be called the fruit of the lips But in the following Verse there is mention made of Liberality What then Can't that be a new Precept By all this it appears to how little purpose Dr. Hammond's Collection is in this place ANNOTATIONS ON THE General Epistle of St. James the Apostle AT the end of the Premon I. I am apt to think the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not added to the name of James in the Apostolical times wherein no one was called an Apostle simply and without any addition besides Apostles properly so stiled that is men called by Christ himself as appears by the constant use of St. Paul The use of following Ages I do not regard nor the judgment of Theodoret which is confirmed by no antient Example So that I think
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Our Author in his Paraphrase obtrudes his Gnosticks here upon us of whom there is not the least mention or footstep in St. James So Men see in the Clouds what they please Vers 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again our learned Author forces his Gnosticks upon us as if there were none that could be charged with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Gnosticks St. James alludes to Circumcision in which the filthy and superfluous Skin was cast away not to any peculiar practices of the Gnosticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word which is ingrafted in the Minds of its Hearers that is takes as it were root in them if they receive it with Meekness that is with a teachable Mind This word is used also in the same sense by Barnabas Epist cap. ix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knows who has put into us the ingrafted Gift of his Doctrin Where the old Interpreter mistranslates the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by naturale which he has also in the beginning of that Epistle where the Greek is wanting Vers 23. Note e. Without doubt the former interpretation is the more probable if not also true But I had rather I. Understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a natural Countenance not as it is opposed to a Vizard or Mask but as opposed to a painted face For Maskers do not use to behold their Vizards in a Glass but their Faces I might shew that Dancers and other effeminate Men corrupted the natural colour of their Countenances with Paint but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be taken here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homo as it is often in Poets so as to comprehend also Women II. I do not think St. James speaks as well of that which is usually done as of that which might be done For he compares them who having heard the Word retain the Vices which the Word condemns with those who seeing the stains of their countenance in a Glass should not wash them off which being accounted a piece of Madness and Absurdity they must also necessarily be accounted Fools and Madmen who when they observe their Vices represented and condemned in the Doctrin of the Gospel do not think of forsaking them The former is very seldom done the latter too frequently because Men take more care of their Bodies than of their Souls They are offended with the spots of their Face but they are not offended with the blemishes of their Minds Vers 27. Note f. This might all be admitted if it were certain that none but the Gnosticks thought Religion to consist rather in Faith than in Practice But who told Dr. Hammond that among those who lived in the Apostolical Churches there were none who turned the Grace of God into lasciviousness CHAP. II. Vers 1. Note a. I Do not think there is a respect here had to the Shechinah for the Glory of Christ signifies rather in this place his Kingdom as Dr. Hammond himself seems to have observed So that I take the meaning of this Verse to be this Ye who believe that Christ reigneth in Glory ought not to have respect to Persons because he promised to make the Poor as well as the Rich provided they believed and obeyed him partakers of his Kingdom See vers 5. Vers 2. Note b. I. To begin with this last remark our learned Author ought to have told us where we might find the Jewish Canon he speaks of and alledged the words of it themselves but I am apt to think he had it only from the Mouth of some Jew or learned Man that affirmed he had read it in the writings of the Rabbins Where are the Christians who having Controversies with Jews and those of mean Condition think fit to refer them to the judgment of a Chacham Namely in the Kingdom of Vtopia Yet there is I confess a Jewish Canon to this purpose tho not such as our Author speaks of set down by J. Henr. Hottinger out of R. Levi Barcinonensis in Leg. cxlii Juris Hebraici Let not one sit down and the other stand but let them both stand because when they are before the Council it is fit they should stand as if they were in the presence of the divine Majesty Yet the Rabbins say that if the Council will permit the contending parties to sit down they may which words must be understood of the time during which the Cause is examined but whilst Sentence is pronounced they are obliged to stand But because it became the Custom in all the Consistories of the Israelites that after the decision they were commanded to sit down to avoid contention tho they were only Witnesses they command them now also to sit down Hottinger sets down the Hebrew words and refers the Reader to other places in the Rabbins II. I don't think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vers 6. signifies the seats of Christian Judges or places in which they assembled for a rich Man drawing a poor Christian before Christian Judges could not be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oppress him because it belonged to the Judges to restrain the rich Man's Anger Besides it is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Cor. vi 4 signifies a Tribunal as I have shewn on that place III. What our Author alledges does by no means prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Consistories of Christian Judges For first none were Judges properly so called but Roman Magistrates or those of privileged Cities Secondly respect of Persons may have place not only in publick Judgments but in any other as when we entertain poor Men with scorn whatever Gifts and Vertues they are endued with and treat the rich with all kind of respect because they are rich Thirdly if we suppose that the Controversies which arose between Christians according to the advice of St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi were decided by Christian Judges we must not dream here of Tribunals and Footstools set for those Judges These were the appurtenances of Magistrates not of private Men unless perhaps it should be thought that Bishops in that Age pronounced sentence from some high place like Magistrates which none I suppose who understand these matters will say in good earnest Fourthly we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Judges of the dignity of Men when we assign them Seats as we think their Dignity requires and when we have only a regard to Riches in this matter then we imitate corrupt Judges So that any may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who do something like them Fifthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have said did not belong to Christian Judges but to Heathens and therefore that word does not prove that the Discourse is here about Judges Lastly a variety of Seats does not belong so much to an assembly of Judges as to a Congregation of many private Men such as Ecclesiastical Meetings IV. So that it is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is no wonder that our learned Author whose stile is full of intricacies and windings should make a difficulty where there was none Vers 6. Note c. Our Author here follows Grotius But the Syriack Interpreter seems rather to have rendred the place corrupted as he thought it should be understood than as he read it because all the Copies contradict him Besides he rendred it otherwise than the Doctor says for he has and the Tongue is a Fire and a world of Iniquity is like a Wood. Grotius had not carefully enough look'd into that Interpreter and Dr. Hammond rashly followed him When I read this place I can hardly forbear thinking that a Gloss out of the Margin crept into the Context and if it be cast out both a useless repetition will be avoided and the series of the Discourse very proper thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold how great a matter a little Fire kindleth and so the Tongue is among our Members which defileth the whole Body setting on Fire the wheel of our Generation geniturae nostrae As there is nothing wanting in this sentence so there is nothing superfluous First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews that thence we must begin the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the comparison as in the foregoing Similitudes in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is begun with the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here Secondly the words which signify the same thing and have no coherence with one another being unnecessarily interposed between the parts of the Similitude are cast out for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with the whole Similitude and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly spoils the connexion of the Discourse But how should these words come to be written in the Margin to wit in this manner Some body had expressed the substance of the whole Similitude in these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and added them to the Margin of his Copy as many do who to find out any thing the more easily set down by way of Abridgment the subject spoken of in such or such a place in the Margin of their Books Then as an interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World namely is meant and had subjoined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to explain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understanding the wheel of Generation to signify the wheel of Iniquity that is a wicked and unregenerate Life or such as the Life of Men born but not born again And these things having not without some reason been set down in the Margin were rashly inserted into the Context Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word I render is according to its usual signification in good Authors What a spark of Fire is put among combustible matter that the Tongue is among our Members Ibid. Note d. I have observed on Mat. i. 1 that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify every event and I must not repeat here what I have there said I had rather understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Wheel or Chariot of Life so called because at our Nativity we enter into that Chariot and with restless Wheels run hastily till we come to the Grave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For like the Wheel of a Chariot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life runs rolling They are the words of Anacreon Od. iii. on himself Vers 17. Note f. I. I have shewn on Chap. ii 4 that our learned Author is mistaken in the signification he attributes to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tho what he there says were true it would not follow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to have a signification deduced from the middle Voice because it comes from the third Person of the Preterperfect tense Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as every one knows II. But because the Passive conjugation of this Verb is taken both in a Passive and Active sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken also in either of these senses according as the thing spoken of requires Thus Hesychius first interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has no difference or makes no difference in an active Notion And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is commonly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undistinguished in a Passive signification as it is expounded also in the Old Glosses So Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is taken also for those who do not know what they ought to do or that talk tristingly and foolishly Here it is taken in an Active sense but in a good one for him that does good to all without distinction For that other signification put upon it by Dr. Hammond is without example and has no foundation in any antient Grammarian Vers 18. Note g. I do not think there is here any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is a Greek phrase which may be expressed in Latin thus Qui faciunt pacem illi serunt in pace fructus justitiae those that make Peace sow in Peace the fruits of Righteousness that is they who promote Peace or Christian Concord whilst they follow after Peace sow as it were that Righteousness the fruit of which they shall hereafter reap For to sow the fruit of Righteousness is all one as to do righteous Works which shall be rewarded in their proper time But St. James express'd himself somewhat harshly when he said to sow Fruit for that which is ordinarily called sowing Seed whence a Plant or Tree is produced which afterwards brings forth Fruit. But he could not say to sow Fruit that is a Reward without speaking very improperly CHAP. IV. Vers 5. Note a. HOW forced what our Author here says after other Interpreters is every one sees I had rather say here what is sufficiently evident from several places of the New Testament and of two very antient Writers Barnabas and Clemens that in those times the Jews used to produce as out of Scripture not only the sense of places without regarding the words but also a Jewish Tradition or interpretation of places of Scripture So that I should no more look for what is here said in the Old Testament than what is alledged in Heb. xii 21 as spoken by Moses of himself I exceedingly fear and quake or what is said in Barnabas of the Scape Goat cap. vi or in Clemens cap. xvii Vers 6. Note b. It was a long while since Dr. Hammond had read Virgil when he alledged his words in such a manner He describes the Manners of the Romans and not the part of Kings Aeneid Lib. vi l. 851. seqq Tu regere Imperio populos Romane memento Hae tibi erunt artes pacisque imponere morem Parcere subjectis debellare superbos CHAP. V. Vers 3. Note a. IF this Epistle had been
evil doers IN THIS they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good Conversation in Christ. II. It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to see for it is properly to look into or understand throughly for this Verb is immediately derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Judg or Witness of the more secret Rites used in Holy Mysteries the sight of which not only the profane Multitude but also the Mystae themselves were debarred which we may learn as from others so especially from J. Meursius in his Eleusinia Sacra I shall produce but one Testimony out of Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were those who took part of the Mysteries they were called at first Mystae and the next Year Epoptae and Ephori Afterwards it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which words he seems to intimate that there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to know viz. superficially or externally as between an Epopta and Mysta The same Author hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consideration Therefore I believe we ought to correct the Old Glosses in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred prospicio to look forward whereas it signifies rather perspicio to look through as I suppose it should be read This signification being supposed there results an excellent sense for by the words of the Christians denying that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truth could not be understood which false pretenders to Vertue carefully conceal by deceitful words but by their good Works whereby the thing it self is throughly discerned For it could not but be a good Doctrin which made such good Men. Christ shewing his Disciples how they might distinguish Hypocrites from good Men saith beware of false Prophets which will come unto you in sheeps Clothing but inwardly they are ravenous Wolves Ye shall know them by their Fruits Mat. vii 15 For tho they cunningly dissemble their Wickedness it is not long before it discovers it self But on the other hand when we see any Man live well and that for many Years we easily perceive that Man cannot profess a Doctrin which favours Wickedness III. Our Author therefore without necessity recurs to Hesychius and suspects there is a mistake here committed by some Scribe or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to all Copies and the Analogy of the Greek Language But it is the greatest Absurdity imaginable what he says about the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which never signified suspicere but only suspicari to suspect for which signification there is here no place Besides the Latin suspicere is not to look upon the ground but as it were from some low place to look upon another as above us or reverence him Our Author was scarce awake when he wrote this and it does not seem to have been written by the same hand with the rest of his Annotations Ibid. Note g. I. No Body will doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phkoudah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visitation signifies very often Revenge but it is as well known that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous and signifies also God's Benefits So that we may as fitly understand the day of Visitation of the time in which God favourably visits the Heathens when he converts them to the Christian Religion and so the meaning of St. Peter will be By your Conversation so reconcile the Minds of the Heathens to the Christian Religion as that they may at last acknowledg its truth when God shall more fully set it before their Eyes The day of Visitation signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the time when the Gospel is more fully and clearly revealed as manifestly appears from Luke xix 44 where Christ speaking to Jerusalem foretels all those evils which afterwards came upon her because thou knewest not saith he the time of thy Visitation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is wouldst not understand that God called thee by my Ministry to Salvation II. The fame of the Christians flight out of Jerusalem does not seem to have so much as reached the Ears of the Heathens who lived in Asia Minor or the Roman Magistrates and those that attended them through the Asiatick Provinces much less to have been taken notice of by them as a remarkable Deliverance For a great while after the most learned Men among the Romans did not distinguish Christians from Jews as sufficiently appears by Tacitus and Suetonius The Halcyonian days which our Author tells us the Christians enjoyed throughout the whole Roman Empire after the destruction of Jerusalem are mere Dreams Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschylus in his Seven Captains that went against Thebes says something very much like this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any one suffer evil without infamy well and good for this is only gain among the dead But for wicked and vile Men to suffer cannot be reckon'd any Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies wickedness the punishment of which is suffer'd not without Shame and Infamy by him that commits it Vers 24. Note h. If the Apostles words had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who being upon the Tree bare our Sins there would have been some place for Dr. Hammond's Interpretation But when St. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he took them up with his Body upon the Tree it is clearly not so much the expiation of Sins as the Mortification of them as the Apostles speak that is here signified For St. Peter's meaning is that our Sins were as it were fastened to the Cross that is mortified when Christ was lifted up upon it See Rom. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I render with his Body because as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ב in Hebrew is frequently so taken so the Phrase it self will not bear to be otherwise rendred CHAP. III. Vers 4. Note a. OUR subtil Author sees here two Hebraisms where others cannot see so much as one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said as well in Greek as in Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so true a Greek Phrase that it was used by Plato as Henr. Stephanus in Schediasmatibus has long ago observed Ibid. Note b. I. If St. Peter had made mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perhaps there would have been some place for what our Author here says of the corruption of compounded things but because he mentions no simplicity it is nothing to the purpose Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he should have written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used by Homer Iliad 1. vers 50. on which Verse the Scholiast makes that remark which Dr. Hammond sets down II. The incorruptibleness of a meek and quiet Spirit wherewith St. Peter would have Women to be adorned seems to be opposed to two things
which are easily corrupted viz. to the comeliness of the Body whereof a part is the Hair which the Apostle had mention'd in the foregoing Verse and to Apparel which is a thing much more liable to corruption than Gold and which he likewise makes mention of It 's plain this Verse is oppos'd to all the foregoing Vers 7. Note c. I. If the alledged place of Scripture were said to signify any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should not doubt but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken for some secret Sense which the Jewish Allegorists sought for in the Scripture But it being said that Husbands ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dwell with them according to knowledge giving honour unto the Wife as the weaker Vessel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to manage the dispositions of Women skilfully and prudently II. The examples which our Author produces are nothing to the purpose for they do not contain any mystical interpretation of the places in Genesis but consectâ—ries deduced from the nature of Matrimony it self and the plain words of Moses The place in Ephes v. 31.32 I have interpreted contrary to Dr. Hammond and I shall not repeat what I have there said III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to dwell together or to live in the same House whence it was applied to all the Duties belonging to married Persons whether the Discourse be about Procreation or any other conjugal Office So that the place in Moses concerning multiplying is no more to the purpose than Plato's Fable about the Antient Hermaphrodites Other things here might be corrected which I pass by but shall afterwards touch upon Ibid. Note d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about the Duty of a Husband towards his Wife never signified to afford her Maintenance and tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes comprehends rewarding it does not signify that alone It may much more naturally and truly be interpreted to honour her as who being the weaker Vessel is extreamly offended even with the bare appearance of Neglect Ibid. Note e. There is no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Benefit but some of the places alledged by our Author might a little otherwise be explained as of John i. 14 I have shewed in a particular Dissertation inserted in this Volume In this place also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vivifying Grace or the Gospel of which the Wife is said to have been made partaker no less than the Man as Grotius has observed But I had rather read with the Vulgar Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for here the Apostle extols not the Man but the Woman which in this respect is made equal to the Man This the series of the Discourse seems to require Vers 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is know that God is Holy or a lover of Sanctity For this is often the signification of the Hebrew Conjugation Hiphil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hikdisch which is ordinarily rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See my Notes on Gen. ii 3 This sanctifying God in the Heart is the cause of our Sanctification before Men spoken of in the following Verse whereby we openly shew how Holy we esteem God See Levit. x. 3 and Num. xx 12 and my Notes on those places Vers 19. Note f. I. On this place our learned Author has collected a great many things all which I have neither leisure to examin nor is it worth my while especially having interpreted the place here explained in my Commentary on Genesis And therefore in a few words I shall say that the Apostle does not seem here to have a respect to the place in Genesis cited by our Author It is truly indeed rendred my Spirit shall not abide in man and the thing is to be understood of the Soul of Man as I have shewn on Genesis But the Souls of those that lived before the Flood cannot therefore be called Spirits in prison nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jadin in Hiphil be by any means deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neden which signifies a sheath It should be read jindon to be deduced from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond does not seem to have observed II. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which Christ was raised is truly understood of the Divinity which was afterwards in him and was with God before Abraham was and so in the beginning of all things as St. John teaches us in the beginning of his Gospel But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Spirits keeping guard that is Angels who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep men as we are told in Psal xci 11 The same are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hirim watchers in Dan. iv 13 which may properly be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for watchers and keepers are all one So that the Divinity is said to have called the Men that lived before the Flood to Repentance together with the Angels who admonished Noah to exhort them to a better Life I should render this place thus and being quickned by the Spirit by which he went with the Spirits that watch and preached to the unbelieving c. When God is about to do any thing among men he is represented as coming down from Heaven attended with a guard of Angels of which I have spoken on Gen. i. 27 and xi 7 and Exod. xx 1 For this reason coming down with the Angels to admonish Noah and command him to call men to repentance he is said to have gone with the Spirits that watch and besides to have done that which Noah did in his name and by his command The Example out of St. Paul in Eph. ii 17 clearly shews that St. Peter might speak in this manner Vers 20. Note g. I. All that is here said by our Author are vain Conjectures which have no foundation either in things themselves or in the use of Scripture tho he often repeats them and that as very probable 1 The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not to believe not to obey which is a heinous sin where the thing to be believed or done is of great importance and a small one where it is a matter of little moment Here it signifies a great sin because the men of the old world would not obey God calling them by the Ministry of Noah to a better life 2 Tho we can say nothing particularly of the sins of the men who lived before the Flood yet we may deny that it can be gather'd from the words of Moses that they were corrupted with the sin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sodomy and other such like Tho they are joined with the Sodomites for their wickedness and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not therefore follow that they were both guilty of the same kind of Impieties different sorts of wicked men being often joined together and the same punishments suffered for divers crimes 3 The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
from the use of the Apostles who ordinarily call Christians the body of Christ II. But what Dr. Hammond says afterwards of the Magistracy of the Devil whose Dignity the good Angel reverenced even in an evil Spirit tho Grotius and others say the same that I confess I cannot digest For it 's true among Men not only Subjects honourably bespeak their Rulers but Princes also themselves shew a mutual respect to each other the Law of Nations requiring it should be so for many weighty reasons between Nations enjoying an equal Power lest they should be at perpetual variance among themselves constituted like the Civil Law among Citizens But there seems to be no such Law between good and bad Angels who are irreconcilable Enemies the bad having rebelled against their common Lord by whom being put in Chains they are reserved unto the Judgment of the great Day So that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Angel would not rail at are some others nor does Satan signify the Prince of the Devils If we consult the History of the times to which the Vision seen by Zachariah refers we shall find that the Governors of Persia who had the oversight of the Provinces situated on the West of Euphrates vehemently opposed the design of Joshua about restoring the Temple And of these the chief were the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai whose Enterprises and Calumnies are recorded in Esdr Chap. v. Now these things were represented to Zachary the Prophet in a Vision by which he understood that the Jews had indeed powerful Enemies with the King of Persia but that God by the Ministry of his Angels render'd their Calumnies and Attempts ineffectual So that Satan are the Thatthenai and Schetharboznai and other Adversaries of the Jews that were represented to the Prophet under the person of one Accuser So in Psalm cix 5 Satan standing at his Right hand is manifestly an Accuser and that word often signifies any Adversary who endeavours to frustrate any ones designs The same is meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Septuagint for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as well to resist adversari as to calumniate And the same Persons that are called Satan in the Prophet Zachary and here the Devil were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Magistrates sent from Persia to rule over Syria and other Countries on the West side of Euphrates subject to the King of Persia for which reason the same that are signified in this Verse by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in the foregoing and St. Peter stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the disputation of the Angel with those Men mention'd in Zechariah the Angel being represented as modestly rebuking the enemies of the Jews the Persian Rulers because of their Dignity hence St. Peter and St. Jude with great reason infer that the Jews did very ill in reviling the Roman Governors who stood at that time in the same relation to the Jews as formerly the Persians This interpretation seems to me much more natural and agreable to History and things themselves than any other and I doubt not but the Jews in the Apostles times did so interpret the place in Zachariah Vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do by no means think that the Apostle here has a respect to Angels but to general Notions concerning the necessity of the distinction of Men into Magistrates and Subjects and about the necessity of obeying those whom the divine Providence has set over us tho they do not always behave themselves as they ought lest Wars should ensue which are much more pernicious than that obedience Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is without a Master See my Note on 1 Cor. xi 14 Vers 11. Note f. I should render the words effusi sunt errore Balaami mercedis causa Were poured out in the error of Balaam for Reward which perfectly agrees with the place in St. Peter which is undoubtedly parallel to this not Rom. i. 27 but in the harsh Conjecture of Dr. Hammond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Discourse is about Men signifies to be spread abroad or wander by a Metaphor taken from Liquor poured out So Judith Chap. xv 2 about the flight of the Assyrians which the Jews pursued some running one way and some another and there was not a Man which stayed before the face of his Neighbour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being poured out they fled every way and then the Children of Israel every warlike Man among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were poured out upon them This is what was meant by Hesychius and Phavorinus when they interpreted this word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they that thus fly away run out of others sight nor must any thing be alter'd in Phavorinus of whom we have no Manuscript Copies because he himself first printed his own Lexicon in the time of Leo X. Our Author seems to have thought that he wrote before Printing was found out But in Hesychius we must read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 12. Note g. I prefer the latter interpretation so as to think it is not a Tempest called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the signification of the word that is here referred to which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to corrupt Fruit as it is in the Etymologicon Magnum because tho towards the end of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trees are destitute of Leaves and Fruit yet principally during that Season the fruit of Trees ripen and are gather'd Vers 16. Note i. I. I acknowledg that the Phrase here used by St. Jude is taken from Daniel but it does not therefore follow it must be understood in the same sense for what is more common either among Jewish or Christian Writers than to take Phrases out of the Scripture tho not to be understood just in the same sense It is sufficient if they can but with some fitness be applied to those things which are spoken of Besides when the whole place is not alledged no body will say that the whole place is referred to unless the thing require it II. Therefore by great swelling words I am apt to think is meant the boastings of the wicked Jews who pretended to defend the Cause of God against the Tyranny of the Romans and promised their Associates Victory and declared that they could not be subject to any To these Men and not to the Gnosticks St. Paul seems to have had a respect in 2 Thess ii as I have shewn at large against Dr. Hammond on that place I have shewn also on Rom. viii 20 that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify Idolatry Vers 22. Note m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Participle of the Passive and not of the Middle Voice and must be rendred making a difference namely according to mens Dispositions and Offences For some must be dealt
his Paraphrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barnabas in Ep. Cathol cap. xv calls the eighth For after he had said that the six days of the Week signify six thousand Years during which the World was to continue and the seventh the last thousand in which God would put an end to it he speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mind how he speaks The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me but those which I have made when putting an end to all things I shall begin the eighth day that is another World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore also we spend the eighth day in expressions of Joy in which Jesus both arose from the Dead and having shewn himself ascended into Heaven Vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is before whom no Man ever was that which I am nor ever shall be who neither had any Predecessor nor shall have any to succeed me This is a Phrase taken out of Isa xli 4 where it is used of God the Father It is explained in the same Prophet Chap. xliii 10 in these words before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me and Chap. xliv 6 I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God God seems to have had a respect to the Opinion of the Heathens who feigned Successions of Gods of which some came and dethroned others and reigned in their stead and which seems to have prevailed among the Eastern Nations as it did among the Greeks whose sentiments are thus expressed by Prometheus in Aeschylus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Grotius thus interprets Annon hos duos Ego ipse conspexi evolutos arcibus Brevi videbo tertium faede quidem Et derepente Vers 20. Note h. It were to be wished that our Author had reconciled what he says here of single Bishops in the Churches of Asia with that which he elsewhere says of a twofold Bishop of which one was set over the Jewish and another the Gentile Christians see his Premonition to the 2 d Epistle of St. John Did he think that these Epistles were written only to the Assemblies of the Circumcised CHAP. II. Vers 2. Note a. IT is not necessary we should know who these Impostors were of which St. John speaks there being so many other things in antient Ecclesiastical History of much greater moment as the Travels and Martyrdoms of most of the Apostles altogether unknown to us either because none committed them to writing or because the Records of them are lost And therefore I had rather confess my ignorance in this matter than violently bring in here the Gnosticks I might with more probability say that the Apostle has a respect to some Jewish Deceivers who boasted that they had been familiar with Christ and therefore said that they were Apostles It is not certain that Cerinthus called himself an Apostle or pretended to have received what he asserted from a great Apostle It is said indeed by Gaius in Eusebius Lib. iii. cap. 28. that Cerinthus proposed his Doctrins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by revelations as written by a great Apostle But this may be only the Judgment of Gaius and not Cerinthus his own words Vers 4. Note b. I. What our Author here says about Elxai out of Eusebius shews that some of the Jews for Elxai was a Jew were possessed with an Opinion before the Apostles time that it was lawful to dissemble their Religion yea to renounce it to avoid Persecution So that whenever that Doctrine is opposed by the Apostles we need not presently think they have a respect to the Gnosticks the Followers of Simon Magus as our Author often inculcates not without tiring his Reader II. Our Author seems to have thought that Elxai was a Christian Heretick but he was rather an Essene which was the name of a Jewish Sect as we are told by Epiphanius and took a great many more things from Judaism than from Christianity Dr. Hammond whilst he makes him to be a Christian changes the words of Epiphanius for instead of that which he calls to worship Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he writes in English to abjure the faith and adds as out of the same Author From these came the Helkesaitae c. Which I could not in find him nor do I believe they are Epiphanius his words Vers 13. Note i. I do not commend Mr. Brightman but I wonder Dr. Hammond should so easily assent to the Menology which Grotius has shewn to be unfit to be here credited Vers 26. Note o. I I have shewn on 2 Thess ii 3 that it is erroneously thought that Simon was look'd upon as a God by the Romans I have alledged also on the same place a passage out of Eusebius in which he affirms that the followers of Simon were alive in his time And that we ought to believe him rather than any other the thing it self shews seeing the Valentinians and other Gnosticks flourished under the Antonini and afterward as we are told by the same Eusebius out of Irenaeus Hist Ecclesiast lib. iv cap. 2. II. It is not necessary that the name Jezabel should be thought to signify any Sect whereas it might be the name of some Woman that took upon her the title of a Prophetess at Thyatira Considering the great scarcity of Records of that Age is is no wonder there are many things which we cannot understand in such kind of allusions CHAP. III. Vers 14. Note a c. IS there then any difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none certainly But these are the false and vain subtilties of I know not whom which our Author collected on this Chapter that he might not seem too short See the verses about Antipas alledged by him on chap. ii 13 in which a Bishop is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 15. Note d. I. Tho the Gnosticks might justly be charged with lukewarmness and pride if they were such as the Antients describe them yet we must not therefore think that all the primitive Christians that were guilty of those vices were the Disciples of the Gnosticks I am sorry our Author should recur to those Hereticks without any certain marks of their being here referred to II. Lukewarmness here is not the opposite to gold tryed in the fire or a white garment but to poverty which the Laodiceans are ubpraided with in the verse immediately foregoing But our Author who never took any care to speak properly confounds every thing Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as he entertains me at his house and table when I knock at his door so I will receive him when he comes to me Otherwise it would be an idle tautology if these words were understood of the same Supper for if we sup with any one he cannot but sup with us But he is said to sup with us whom we
conquer from his very going out That which is meant is that the Coming of Christ whether to reform Men or to punish them if they were obstinate was neither vain nor casual Vers 4. Note a. I. It was worth observing that Eusebius makes mention of two Famines under the reign of Claudius one foretold by Agabus and to be referred to the second year of Claudius tho he mentions it on his fourth another in Greece and at Rome which he refers to the ninth and tenth Years of that Emperor I know that Joseph Scaliger thinks that the latter was foretold by Agabus and refers it to the fifth Year of Claudius but he gives no reason for his Affirmation expecting as is common with him to be believed without proof II. Suetonius does not expresly say what our Author attributes to him but only Judaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit The unbelieving Jews endeavour'd to raise a Tumult against the Christians upon the account of Religion for which reason both the Jews and Christians were expelled out of Rome Suetonius says that Christ was impulsor the cause or mover of those Tumults out of Ignorance when he should only have said that he was the occasion of them III. Whereas our Author affirms that those who were by the Emperor's Edict expelled out of Rome were expelled also out of the rest of the Cities of the Roman Empire he ought to have proved it and not have supposed it as certain But it is false as every one knows that has read any thing of the Roman History Of this I have spoken already on the Premonition prefixed to this Book Vers 6. Note b. The learned Dr. Bernard thinks that the Syrian Chaenix when full of Wheat weighed something above four English Pounds and that one of Tiberius his denarii current in the time of John was worth a little more than seven English Farthings By which calculation it appears that Wheat was dear when four Pounds cost seven Farthings but that our Author is mistaken who supposes that a Chaenix of Wheat was spent by one Man in a day But I leave these things to the examination of those who are curious about such matters Vers 8. Note d. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Cattel but only wild Beasts except improperly and therefore I prefer the ordinary reading before that of the Alexandrian Copy II. There are two faults here in the Citations of Josephus one in the Margin where Lib. vi c. 8. Bell. Jud. is set instead of Lib. vi c. 28. and the other where Josephus de Captiv L. vi c. 44. is cited instead of the same Book de Bell. Jud. Lib. vi c. 45. Vers 9. Note e. I. Our learned Author thought St. John here alludes to the fourth as it is called Book of Esdras extant only in Latin But his Publishers knowing this Book to be Apocryphal cited the second of Esdras in which there is no such passage This must be in a different Edition from that which I use where Esdras 4. is referred to In the Epistle of Barnabas Chap. xii there is a place produced out of the same Book But this might also be added in Barnabas his Epistle and he that wrote the 4 th Book of Esdras who seems to have been some Christian imitated this place in the Revelation II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Souls of them that were slain may according to the use of the Hebrew Language which these Writers often follow signify their dead Bodies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soul is frequently taken for a dead Body But tho the Soul is taken for the Life and the Life be in the Blood it does not therefore follow that in the use of Scripture the Blood is ordinarily called the Soul The use of words must be shewn by examples and not by reasonings He might have produced that Passage in Virgil Aeneid ix v. 349. Purpuream vomit ille ANIMAM cum sanguine mista Vina refert moriens But it is better to understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the Souls of Martyrs which being admitted into the heavenly Sanctuary did by their Presence put God in mind of taking Vengeance upon the Jews For the loud Voice here does not signify praying or desiring Revenge but the greatness of the Crime which is said to cry unto God because the thing it self does as much implore the divine Justice as if the injured Person called upon him with a loud Voice This appears by the example of the Blood of Abel and the Story of the Sodomites in Gen. xviii 20 Vers 12. Note g. I. There is no doubt but great numbers of dead Bodies send forth exhalations into the Air but that Clouds have been made by them and visible Meteors whereby the Sun has been made black and the Moon bloody was never I believe by any one observed And therefore the prophetical Expressions in which great Calamities are represented under such Images are not taken from what really is but are rather a Prosopopeia whereby the Sun is said to refuse to behold the impieties of Men and the Moon upon that account to blush and become red with shame when they are very great There are a great many such figurative Expressions in the Poets as in Ovid. Metam v. where speaking of the prodigies that preceded the death of Julius Caesar he says Phoebi quoque tristis imago Lurida sollicitis praebebat lumina terris Sparsi Lunares sanguine currus II. I do not think we ought in the representation of those Miseries that befel Judaea under the Similitude of the Sun becoming black and the Moon red and the Stars falling to consider the several parts distinctly but all these things together which without doubt signify very great Calamities but must not be examin'd particularly as if they had each a special signification which can be proved by no place of Scripture see on the contrary Isa xiii 10 where all these things signify one thing conjunctly and nothing at all separately Add also the place in the same Prophet alledged by our Author Vers 15. Note i. I. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Josephus should not have been rendred the promiscuous Noise or Voice for what is a promiscuous Noise but the sudden Voice as it is translated by Sigism Gelonius The Passage which the Doctor afterwards cites as out of Josephus without naming him in these words the seditious go to the Palace where many had laid up their Wealth drive out the Romans thence kill eight thousand of them four thousand Jews that had gotten thither for Shelter plunder the place is not exactly translated from the Greek which is thus Lib. vii cap. 37. according to the Greek division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Seditious went into the Palace in which because it was a safe place many had laid up their Possessions and put the Romans to flight and killing all the Inhabitants that were there gather'd together
where that Author speaks of Alaricus he immediately adds This being done in the time of Honorius making as the Reader might suppose Bellisarius contemporary with Honorius which he knew to be false but designed by the word THIS tho no body would think so to refer to what he had said before the mention of Totilas and Bellisarius for the burning of part of Rome by Totilas was after the time of Honorius and Innocentius IV. A little after he says that Innocentius was not at Rome after the first taking of it before the second but he would have said Siege of it for he knew that Alaricus twice besieged Rome and took it but once V. I have set down the place cited out of Orosius Lib. vii c. 38. more at large in my Latin Translation than it is in the English because the words which Dr. Hammond omits make more to his purpose than those which he alledges And they are these Rhadagaiso Romanis arcibus imminente fit omnium Paganorum in urbem concursus bostem esse cùm utique virium copia tum maxime praesidio Deorum potentem urbem autem ideo destitutam maturè perituram quia Deos sacra perdiderit Magnis querelis ubique agitur continuo de repetendis sacris celebrandisque tractatur fervent tota urbe blasphemiae vulgo nomen Christi tanquam lues aliqua praesentium temporum probris ingravatur When Rhadagasus drew near the Roman Towers all the Pagans ran together into the City crying out that an Enemy was come against them who besides a powerful Army had also the Gods to assist him and that the City was destitute of all hope and would soon be destroyed because they had lost the Gods and forborn to do sacrifice to them There were heavy Complaints made in all places and presently they enter'd offering them all the City was filled with loud Blasphemies and the name of Christ was reviled and inveighed against as some present Plague CHAP. XVIII Vers 2. Note a. IT is much more natural to think that the Jews groaning under the Roman Tyranny and believing they should be deliver'd from all manner of Evils by the Messias did upon that ground conclude that the Romans should be destroyed by him that being agreable to their most noted sentiments than to suppose against all probability that they learned it from the Revelation For nothing is more certain than that the Christians and their Writings were detested by the Jews So that what is here said of the perswasion of that People being nothing at all to St. John might have been omitted without any loss to the Reader Vers 8. Note b. I. If the desolations that were brought upon Rome by Alaricus Gensericus and Totila be all put together without doubt the misery of that City will be the greater but all these are not comprehended in the Testimony of Palladius who speaks only of the sacking of Rome by Alaricus which happen'd An. Chr. CCCCX when Gensericus took it in An. Chr. CCCCLV and Totila An. Chr. DXLVII Which times our Author should have distinguished and not spoken of them confusedly II. It is true what he says about the sense of prophetical Expressions of which see the Examples I have alledged on Rev. iv 2 and elsewhere But he ought not to have said that after the Prophecies of Jeremiah the Dominion of Babylon was translated to the Medes but to the Persians as every one knows but the confused Memory of the four pretended Monarchies put him out Vers 13. Our Author took almost all this out of H. Grotius as many other things without ever looking into Julius Pollux by whom he would have seen that Grotius his Animadversion was false Pollux in Lib. iii. c. 8. S. 2. where he reckons up the names of Slaves says that those were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed for Money and a little after he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not say Bodies simply but servile Bodies In which he corrects the common but barbarous Custom of those who called a Slave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he does not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Freemen which hire themselves for Money It is true indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of any Man whether a Freeman or a Slave as Lexicographers will shew But when the Discourse is about Wealth or buying or selling Slaves then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Slave not from the proper Notion of the word but because of the Circumstances Examples are alledged by Is Casaubon on Athenaeus Lib. v. c. 10. A hireling was never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore the reason of that Appellation invented by Grotius is groundless But Slaves are stiled Bodies when in reckoning up Possessions men are opposed to other things which do not use to be called by that name They are stiled also Souls by the Jews and by the Greeks because as many Slaves as there are so many Souls there are or as the Lawyers speak Persons Nor is it any thing against this signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there are Souls of Men afterwards mention'd which are Slaves for such repetitions are not avoided by these Writers Vers 23. Note d. As our Author before rashly followed Grotius whom he transcribed without examination so here he rashly forsakes him For it is the wealth of the Romans and not that of Strangers which is extolled in this place Grotius had produced a Passage out of Isa xxiii 8 where there is the like Phrase whom the Reader may consult CHAP. XIX Vers 8. Note a. IT is a mistake that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in these Books for the Ordinances of the Mosaical Law as I have shewn on Rom. viii 4 In this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the Saints righteous Actions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are aptly described by a white Garment whiteness being a Symbol of Innocence Nothing could be devised more violent than Dr. Hammond's interpretation Vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have said in my Dissertation about the destruction of Sodom that these Phrases are taken from the Lake Asphaltites which is a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone Which seems to have been observed also by Dr. Hammond as may be gather'd from his Paraphrase So it is usual with the Rabbins to banish any thing that is abominable and the use of which they think to be profane to the salt Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is observed by Mr. Lightfoot Cent. Chorog on Mat. Cap. v. CHAP. XX. Vers 5. Note b. I Confess indeed ingenuously I do not understand the sense of this Prophecy concerning the Persons here mention'd reigning a thousand Years But notwithstanding that I could if I pleased confute what is here said by Dr. Hammond He will never perswade any one who believes that Christ and his Apostles were the only arbitrary 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founders and interpreters of the Christian Religion that for a thousand Years after Constantin the Church was purer than it was before or that there were fewer false Doctrins by publick Authority establish'd in many Churches In that interval of time there were not only many Heresies which created almost perpetual differences but very great Errors crept in among Christians which were openly approved by the Governors of Churches so that the Church-Discipline which our Author so much boasts of was used only to confirm those Errors and with the consent of Princes to kill or at least abuse those who dared to oppose them So that if this Kingdom be to be extended to the thousand following Years it must not be thought consist in sanctity of Life and purity of Doctrin but only in the Liberty which the Christians should enjoy in the greatest part of the Roman Empire so that they might be good and pious Men without being envied or persecuted by the Heathens Vers 7. Note e. I. I wonder our learned Author here took so much pains to confute very weak Objections and yet took no notice of the Heresies which disturbed the Eastern and Western Churches at the time when he supposes the Christians reigned as I have before observed II. He takes it for certain that not only Alaricus spared the Christians and destroyed none but Heathens but also that Gensericus and Attila did the same which he does not prove This should have been shewn and not that which he proves of Julian in so many words when no one can deny it who has read any thing of the History of those times III. I confess I don't approve of the opinion of the Millenaries but I wonder Dr. Hammond here objects against them the condemnation of the Church and gives them the odious name of Hereticks For as that is but a small Error if the rest of the Doctrins of Christianity be retain'd as they were by Irenaeus so the Church had not received any Revelation about that matter from the times of the Apostles Vers 8. Note f. I. That Gog and Magog signify the People who dwelt about the Mountain Caucasus has been so clearly shewn by Sam. Bochart Geogr. Sacr. Lib. iii. c. 12. that it is impossible to doubt of it And the Turks having invaded Asia from those places our Author might hence have confirmed his Interpretation which I wonder he did not seeing he alledges that Writer elsewhere For what is said here by Grotius cannot in the least be compared with what we may learn from Bochart as to this matter II. It is true indeed that Gyges was sometime Ruler of Lydia but the Kings which succeeded him were not therefore as I remember called Gygae tho it be affirmed by Grotius and after him by Dr. Hammond who absurdly deduces it from this place whereas Gyges and his Posterity were in part antienter than Ezekiel and partly his Contemporaries and therefore sure that name could not be taken from the Revelation III. If the Empire of the Turks be here referred to I had rather interpret the beloved City and the Camp of the Saints of all the Eastern Church than Constantinople alone But vers 9. seems to oppose it in which a sudden Victory over Gog and Magog seems rather to be promised than the taking of that City by those People threatned Yet this and all other things of that kind I leave undetermin'd CHAP. XXI Vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cicero Tuscul Quaest Lib. ii c. 15. having defined labor and dolor Labour and Sorrow adds haec duo Graeci illi quoram copiosior est lingua quam nostra uno nomine appellant These two things the Grecians whose Language is more copious than ours call by one name He means the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what he says afterwards as well as the thing it self shews So in Epictetus Enchir. Cap. xiv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Sorrow present it self you will find patience In this place also Sorrow seems to be intended Vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words seem also to signify the Apostles as may be gather'd both from the number here specified and from this that by them all Nations enter'd into the Church If this and the like things be to be applied to the Church in later times as Dr. Hammond thinks it must be remember'd that the praises here given to it must be understood comparatively so as for that Church to be opposed to the Jews and Heathens in comparison of which it is not unworthy of these Commendations But we must not measure its Doctrins or Practices by the perfect Rule of the Gospel from which Dr. Hammond himself did not think but it had departed tho he would not acknowledg it Vers 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To wit from the bottom of the Mountain on which the City stood to the top of its Walls for the Walls themselves were not so very high It is somewhat uncertain whether all the sides of this Square were twelve thousand Furlongs in length so as that the whole Circuit was forty eight thousand Furlongs as also the height of the Mountain joined with the height of the Walls or whether a fourth part only of that number is to be assigned to each of the sides that is three thousand Furlongs The former is most likely so as that an exceeding great City should be described nothing but what is great and spacious being here to be thought on Vers 17. Note f. By a man's Cubit here I rather understand an ordinary Cubit as in Deut. iii. 11 where without doubt Moses speaks of a Cubit of six handbreadths In Ezekiel also the Discourse is not about a Cubit of a Foot but of six handbreadths as is evident from vers 5. Chap. xl where the Angel is said to have had in his hand a measuring Reed of six Cubits by the Cubit and an handbreadth that is six Jewish not Babylonian Cubits See Dr. Cumberland of the Jewish Measures CHAP. XXII Vers 1. Note a. IT was sufficient to say that by the Authority of the Lamb sitting upon his Throne Baptism was instituted which is very true and is here signified granting that the Water in Baptism is meant by the Water proceeding out of the Throne The rest Dr. Hammond adds of his own Invention to find out here the power of the Keys as he does in other places where no one else would think them referred to The same he does afterwards but being in hast to make an end of this tedious work I shall not particularly examin what he says nor would it be worth while For who but he could here mistake He describes to us for instance the happy Condition of the Christians from Constantin to the Year MCCC living under the Discipline of Church-Governors and a most pure Church during that interval and most worthy of Christ Which that we might believe either the New Testament must have been many
Ages ago lost or no footsteps at all of the History of those times remained Our learned Author was taken up about something else when he wrote this and whilst he served an Hypothesis committed to writing what was inconsistent with his stated Sentiments Vers 3. Note e. If allegorical Divinity were argumentative as the Schoolmen speak possibly some or other might be deceived by these allegorical Interpretations and think that Christ approved of all the Excommunications that were denounced by Church-Governors from the time of Constantin for ten Ages but that Axiom of the Schoolmen being very well known I shall not spend time in confuting our Author's Fictions which the thing it self also abundantly confutes FINIS An INDEX Of the Greek Words and Phrases newly or more largely explained in the Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Annotations A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bountiful Rom. v. 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perhaps for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. xi 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies the state of the Dead or rather a place Mat. xi 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether one that doth not doubt or one that makes no difference Jam. iii. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an Active sense for one that cannot try things 2 Cor. xiii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is very difficult Heb. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reject the Law Heb. x. 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a sandy or gravelly Shore Acts xxvii 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly who Tit. iii. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Ibid. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Phrase borrowed from the Stoicks Heb. v. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gnosticks whence so called 1 Tim. i. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eternal and for antient Tit. i. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the different senses of which that Phrase is capable Mat. xxiv 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to the Heathens signifies their being out of God's Covenant 1 Cor. vii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether one that does no hurt or that is sincere Mat. 10.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that has no command over himself 1 Cor. vii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the uncircumcised Gentiles Rom. ii 27 and iv 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first fruits taken off the tops of spoils or any other things heaped together Heb. vii 4 p. 551. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence derived and what Matt. xxvi 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be cold but to grieve 2 Cor. iv 8 Eph. iv 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be salted and to be consumed in Mar. ix 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a seditious Person 1 Pet. iv 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what cannot always be enjoyed or belongs not to the Mind in a Philosophical sense Luke xvi 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether to be taken actively or passively 2 Pet. ii 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Joh. v. 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to compel by example or entreaty Gal. ii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Athletae what 1 Cor. ix 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to renew not to dedicate Heb. vi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the measure of Faith Rom. xii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to return Philip. i. 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a method so called which Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it ever signifies in Scripture simply a second state or only the resurrection of the Dead Mat. xxii 31 Luke xx 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rom. vi 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Substitution where the Discourse is about the Death of Christ Mat. xx 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to resist not to imitate 1 John ii 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Heb. ix 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies 1 John ii 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies a suffocation arising from Melancholy or only violent strangling Mat. xxvii 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the brightness of the glory of God how Christ is said to be so Heb. i. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disobey applied either to small or heinous Sins 1 Pet. iii. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberality why so called Rom. xii 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberal applied to the Eye Mat. vi 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Rom. i. 29 Eph. iv 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood Gal. i. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Creation of the World Rom. i. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to approve 1 Tim. i. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 approbation Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the expectation of the Gentiles of what kind Rom. viii 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the restitution of all things Acts iii. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a departure a revolt signifies the rebellion of the Jews against the Romans 2 Thess ii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to defraud Mar. x. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether the name imports any Authority or Dignity Luke vi 13 who were so called Prem to James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast out of the Congregation John ix 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word either reproachful or which tends to corrupt the Manners of Men Mat. xii 36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idle not Vnclean Tit. i. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which pleases John viii 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence so called Acts xvii 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to espouse 2 Cor. xi 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who 1 Cor. v. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Phil. ii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Cor. xiii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning of that Phrase John viii 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Mar. v. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Tiberius how much Mat. x. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a Disease of the Mind 1 Cor. viii 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Thess iii. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wicked 2 Thess iii. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 covetous Luke xix 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies except that 2 Pet. iii. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Mat. vi 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke i. 73 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not boasting but imprudence Mar. vii 22 several significations of that word Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the straw of Corn but the Husk Mat. iii. 12 B 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies to be severe 1 Thess ii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why God is so called 1 Tim. i. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an abominable thing 1 Cor. v. 10 p. 316. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signify a little while in Heb. ii 7 Γ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intemperance in eating its derivation Tit. i. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied
to a Law signifies its continuing in force Mat. v. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the origin of a thing not taken for any event Mat. i. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for strange Languages 1 Cor. xii 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a profound sort of Knowledg and in a good sense 2 Pet. i. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it has any reference to the Gnosticks 1 Tim. vi 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prudently or skilfully 1 Pet. iii. 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the literal sense of the Law Mat. v. 17 Δ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not always evil Spirits 1 Cor. x. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jam. i. 9 p. 574. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to assent to 1 Cor. ii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for in 1 Tim. ii 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Disciple of Christ Rom. i. 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary or Hater Mat. iv 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ambigous word Annot. on the Tit. of the New Testament and Heb. ix 16 where there is an Argument grounded on the ambiguity of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who Luke viii 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of a Woman what Rom. xvi 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. xi 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish James ii 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thoughts and Counsels Mat. xv 19 Opinions in Rom. xiv 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to finish a Voyage Act. xxi 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gnash with the Teeth Acts v. 33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to doubt and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man that doubteth James i. 6 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the New Testament who and how they differ'd from Prophets 1 Cor. xii 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Paul's sense of it Rom. iii. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any divine Precept Rom. ii 26 and viii 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rev. xix 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same with Nemesis Acts xxviii 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to examin and approve Rom. ii 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Miracles John i. 14 and the Power of working them Ib. xvii 22 whether taken for a Beam in 1 Cor. xi 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Jude 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Servants of a free Condition in opposition to Slaves Mat. xviii 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prevail with God Luke xviii 5 Ε. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Woman Acts xvi 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Holy things what Heb. vii 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power over a Man's self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is master of his Passions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Temperate 1 Cor. ix 25 p. 319. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in a bad sense by St. Paul Col. ii 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Inhabitants of several Territories in the same Country Mat. xxiv 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gods of the Heathens whence so called 1 Cor. viii 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it signifies to excommunicate Luke vi 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the use of the word in the Primitive Times 1 Cor. xvi 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether taken for a Church 2 John 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare Act. xxviii 23 p. 243. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or from many 2 Cor. i. 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Jud. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Perswasion or an Argument Heb. xi 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a burnt Sacrifice Mark ix 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to accuse Acts xxiv 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which sinks down into the minds of its Hearers Jam. i. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken both Actively and Passively Gal. v. 6 where the Doctor 's Opinion about the use of it in the New Testament is examin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despair utterly 2 Cor. iv 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the Coming of Christ to take Vengeance upon the Jews Luk. ix 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree about the price of a thing Luke xxii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Veil 1 Cor. xi 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether to be rendred sending out or loosing 2 Pet. i. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Lust whatsoever 2 Pet. i. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is necessary for the future Mat. vi 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visitation either in Mercy or in Vengeance 1 Pet. ii 12 p. 589. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look into or understand throughly 1 Pet. ii 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to get his Living by Labour John vi 27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same as hereafter 2 Pet. iii. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 2 Cor. vi 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to receive a gracious Promise Heb. iv 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what disposition of Mind Acts xvii 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is easily circumvented not joined with Temptations Heb. xii 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 happened Mat. i. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts xxvii 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a cleanly word for obscene Discourse Eph. v. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the Devil but a Man in Mat. xiii 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used as an Adversative Mat. v. 18 Z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative case no Elliptical Phrase Mat. xvi 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 1 Cor. v. 10 H. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a Negation goes before it the same as nor Eph. v. 3 Θ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I would Rom. vii 15 for I had rather 1 Cor. vii 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perhaps to be so read 1 Tim. vi 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved by God not one that defends God 1 Tim. ii 1 Ι 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how St. Paul confesses himself to be so 2 Cor. xi 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rom. iii. 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning of that Phrase Mat. xvi 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Cloak Mat. v. 40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made equal with God Phil. ii 6 K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone not properly Excommunication but degrading from Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the destroying a Fence not the excommunicating an obdurate Sinner 2 Cor. x. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Mar. xi 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Luke xxi 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proverb Mat. xxi 41 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Cable Mat. xix 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly to be tired metaphorically to faint or fail Heb. xii 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it ever signifies a Burnt-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether applicable to the Oblations of Christians at the Eucharist Heb. xiii
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
Idiotick That is the Stile which I before described and which is used by St. Paul And it is not opposed only to the painted Eloquence of Rhetoricians but also to the Elegance of Politicians to whose Stile that of the Vulgar is much inferior This as to St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament has been shewn at large by C. Salmasius in Comment de Lingua Hellen. Sect. 2. The other kinds of discourse mention'd by Diogenes I omit because they are not to our present purpose But when I say that a Rhetorical or Political Stile excels that of the Vulgar or Idiotae my meaning is not that it surpassed it only in Ornaments which do not belong to the Matter but also in Disposition and Propriety of words which very much contribute to the perspicuity of any Discourse For which reason one that is skilful in the Greek Language may much more easily understand Demosthenes or Isocrates than St. Paul not only because the stile of this latter has abundance of Hebrew Idioms in it but because the order of his Sentences is many times inverted his Phrases and Terms improper and his Metaphors harsh As Diogenes Laertius also who wrote in an Idiotick Stile and had no great regard to order or choice of words is in many places very hard to understand And such are among the Greek Fathers Epiphanius and the Author Historiae Lausiacae in whose Writings often occur the like difficulties proceeding from negligence of Stile Which being so I cannot sufficiently wonder why Beza was so angry with St. Jerom because he did not admire St. Paul's Eloquence which setting aside his Matter and considering only his Words was certainly none at all But let us hear Beza himself Quid igitur saith he an imperitus loquendi Paulus elinguis ut Hieronimus existimat What then did not St. Paul know how to express himself or had he not the use of his Tongue as St. Jerom thinks No he was not so perfectly tongue-tied neither that the Substance of his Discourse and Doctrine cannot be understood but his Stile is not so clear nor his Expression so elegant as to make every thing that he says easy or pleasant to critical Ears St. Paul did not aim at that disposition in his Words which might facilitate the understanding of a thing in it self obscure or render his Discourse more plain and perspicuous which Beza very well knew and no one can be ignorant of who has read but St. Paul's Epistles in Greek But Beza goes on and saith Imo vero Chrysostomum potius doctissimos quosque ex Graecis ipsam denique rationem sequutus quamvis nativa illa germana masculae facundiae ornamenta ipsi videri possint non defuisse fateor tamen illum fucatae illius rhetorices pigmentis uti noluisse Yea rather following St. Chrysostom and the most learned among the Greeks and Reason it self tho those native and genuin Ornaments of masculine Eloquence seem not to have been wanting in him yet I confess he uses none of those colours of false Rhetorick But a clear way of speaking to begin with his last Words and disposing every thing we say in its right order is no fucus That artifice of those Rhetoricians who endeavor to magnify by words things that are in themselves inconsiderable or skim over those that are base may properly be stiled fucus daubing but not apt Expressions or soft Metaphors and an orderly disposition of every part in a Discourse in which the Speaker has no other end than to make himself easily understood and carefully to avoid all Ambiguity which might lead his Hearers into a mistake And St. Paul's stile is not only without fucus but deficient also in these things which are not discommendable So that if we follow reason we shall never say that St. Paul was eloquent provided it be remembred we are speaking of words or disposition and not of matter That St. Paul's matter is praised by St. Chrysostom and other Greek Fathers and preferred before all the Arguments which the antient Greeks have treated of I know and none but a Mad-man will deny but that they commended his Style or the Order of his Words and Sentences as clear and elegant I do not think and if I did their Authority would not move me because the contrary is so manifest But they were not altogether so void of Understanding as to attribute that Eloquence to St. Paul which he himself disclaims Nor does Beza himself disagree with me in this matter when he adds that St. Paul would not make use of Rhetorick Vt vi spiritus hominum animos ad Christum raperet non autem Sermonis blanditiis adulatorum more alliceret That he might bring men to Christ by the Power of the Spirit and not allure them after the manner of a Flatterer by smoothness of Speech Which is as much as if he had said Those who are affected with what St. Paul says are affected with his Matter not with his Words or Expression as being brought by the Spirit of God to an Enquiry and Love of the Truth tho deliver'd in a rude Stile He adds Cum orationis ipsius totam indolem characterem propius considero c. When I more narrowly consider the whole Strain and Form of his the Apostles Discourse I must needs say I never could see any such Loftiness in Plato himself when ever he undertakes to thunder out the Mysteries of God any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Majesty or Force in Demonsthenes when ever he applies himself either to terrify Men with the fear of the Divine Judgment or to admonish them or to draw them to contemplate the Goodness of God or to exhort them to the Duties of Piety and Mercy or lastly a more exact Method in teaching even in Aristotle or Galen who were otherwise very excellent and skilful Artists If we consider the things themselves I acknowledg all this to be very true but we are speaking now about Stile and Order of Discourse in which as those Authors mentioned by Beza were superior to St. Paul so as to things themselves they are vastly inferior Yet I do not deny but there occur even in St. Paul also some Sentences admirably well expressed but then they are but rare and his Stile is for the most part barbarous as the Speech or Idiotae uses to be But as things of small moment in themselves being set off with Rhetorical Colours are and have been often admired so on the other hand things of the greatest importance have many times made an obscure and ill ordered Discourse to be extolled wheras those two things should be distinguished and separatly consider'd I have been the larger upon these things that I might shew in what sense and how truly the Apostle here calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what I have said may be of exceeding use to direct us in the interpretation of these Books for knowing that they are written
in a rude Stile we muct not go about to anatomize every single Word or Expression in them or examin all that is said with a kind of Geometrical Exactness which the nature of an Idiotic Stile will not bear which regards things only in general and not every minute or particular circumstance nor may we deduce too rigorous Consectaries from any phrases used in these Writings which those who speak rudely never think of We must have always before our Eyes the substance of the Gospel and the main design of the Speaker and by that his expressions must be explained rather than by an over-nice and subtil scanning of every word But this is a Subject which would require a whole Volume to treat of it as it deserves in this place it may suffice to have touched briefly upon the chief heads Vers 9. Note b. It is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be burdensom esse oneri as it is render'd in the Vulgar or something like it that signifies a Man's living upon another's Charity But the only difficulty is how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to have this signification The Doctor conjectures that it is to ask or importune because they that ask any thing of another cause a chilness or numness in those whom they ask But this is harsh and forced The passage which he refers to in Seneca is in Lib. 2. de Beneficiis c. 2. But Seneca does not speak of a Person of whom any thing is asked but that asks and therefore that passage is nothing to the purpose Molestum verbum est saith he onerosum demisso vultu dicendum Rogo I ask is a troublesom and burdensom word and must be spoken with a submissive look I had rather say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be burdensom because those who are benummed with a Disease are much heavier than ordinary whence by a Metaphor it was used to signify to be a burden to others through Poverty Whence St. Paul elsewhere expressing the same thing uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess ii 9 For ye remember Brethren our labour and travel for working night and day because we would not burden any of you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we preached unto you the Gospel of God See likewise 2 Thess iii. 8 This Interpretation is confirmed by the opposition which is made in this very Verse between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep himself from being burdensom Vers 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The false Apostles with wonderful haughtiness boasted that they were Hebrews that they were Israelites that they were the Seed of Abraham the very same thing expressed several ways for Emphasis sake which St. Paul here to shew the vanity of that empty vain-glorious boasting imitates Quanquam eadem ferè sunt unâ sententiâ cooriuntur plura tamen esse existimantur quoniam aures animum saepius feriunt Tho they are almost the same things and come all to one sense yet they are thought to be many because they strike several times upon the ears and mind saith Favorinus in Gellius Lib. 12. c. 24. where he gives us several Examples of such Repetitions out of the best Authors both Greek and Latin Vers 24. Note c. It is manifest that our Author had not look'd into the Passage which he cites out of Josephus in the Historian himself because he alledges it but by halves and translates it absurdly It is in Lib. 4. c. 8. in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For his bold and rash Accusation and Calumny let him suffer punishment receiving forty stripes save one Our Author absurdly renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him extend himself as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be a corrupt reading if it were any where extant because there is nothing that can be referred to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as other Copies read it that is luat let him suffer Vers 25. Note d. Since several other hardships which St. Paul here says he had undergon as his being thrice scourged by the Jews c. are not mentioned by St. Luke I do not doubt but he has omitted also this of his having been in the Deep And hence it may be infer'd that Arguments drawn from St. Luke's silence about any thing are not very strong because he has not written an entire History of St. Paul's Actions even for the time that his History refers to Vers 32. Note e. Mr. Pocock in his Notes on Greg. Abul-Farajius his History of the People and Customs of the Arabians p. 77. acknowledges that many of the Gassanii were called Harethi or Aretae but he tells us he never observed that all the Arabian Chiefs were so stiled by them as Jos Scaliger affirmed But Scaliger does not speak of the Kings of Damascus but of the Hagarens whose strongest Fort was Petra See Lib. 2. de Emend Temp. p. 111. Ed. Roverianae CHAP. XII Vers 2. Note a. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rightly here interpreted by Grotius a Christian whom our Author ought to have followed since there are manifest Instances of this Phrase in that sense as I have shewn on Rom. xii 5 It is a thing to be wonder'd at that Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on Rom. xvi has not once rightly interpreted this Phrase The Examples which he here alledges are perfectly forein to his purpose and all the likeness between them is only in the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers 7. Note b. If St. Paul had said simply that there was given to him a Messenger of Satan that thrust a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twig in his Flesh I should easily believe that this passage were rightly understood by Dr. Hammond and other Expositors of some Persecutions which St. Paul suffered But seeing he says there was given me a Twig in the Flesh a Messenger of Satan to buffet me I rather think a molestation from some particular evil Spirit is here meant who continually afflicted him and put him to as great pain as if he had thrust a Twig into his Flesh and brought as much contempt upon him as if he had been buffeted St. Paul not being ignorant of the cause of his suffering so many Evils And because it is before said Lest the greatness of the Revelations should exalt me or lest I should be lifted up above measure by the excellency of the Revelations I am apt to think that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an allusion to some very sharp piece of Wood not of any sort whatsoever but one which should be placed over a Man stooping ready to prick him grievously when ever he rose up Let us represent to our selves the case of Regulus whom the Carthaginians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 killed by shutting him up in a Cage that had Goads on all sides which are the words of Appian in Lib.