S^t Matthew Ch. 1. v. 19.

_ [...]. Then Joseph her husband being a just man, &c. and so accordingly read all Inter­preters. But in my opinion as we ought to speak, so ought we to interpret, if lawfully we may, to the capaci­ty of the vulgar. It being therefore familiar to have recourse to the Idiotisms in the Old Testa­ment for the explanation of words or phrases in the New, as even to prophane Authors al­so, and the involved or complexed sense in this place such as is just in the general signifi­cation, being not so explicit and plain, as that it can be rightly understood of the common sort of people, the particular and specifick one, whose reason the meanest capacity understands at first sight, is surely the more fit and proper, [Page 2] and that is, merciful. For if the Evangelist in this place had intended Joseph as a just man, in the common acception of the word, then ought Joseph as a just man to have made her an ex­ample, and to have divorced her publickly ac­cording to the law, Deut. c. 24. v. 1. but he was not willing to make her an example, but was minded to put her away privily, which plainly argues by that intention that he was merciful rather then just. And therefore the tran­slation were more proper, Then Joseph her husband being a merciful man, Misericors ex­istens, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. And for this Translation we have the Autho­rity of the Old Testament, where the word [...] which properly signifies an affection of piety and mercy, and that in the very places, wherein we commonly render it mercy or mer­ciful, the Greek Translaters render according to the variation of the points, [...], or [...]. As Gen. c. 19. v. 19. [...], Et magnificasti misericordiam tuam, And thou hast magnified thy mercy. c. 20. v. 13. [...], Hanc misericordiam fa­cies mecum, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me. Exod. Ch. 15 v. 13. [...], Dux fuisti in mi­sericordia tua populo quem redemisti, Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast [Page 3] redeemed. Isai. c. 57. v. 1. [...], Et viri misericordiae colliguntur, And merciful men are taken away. And so in ma­ny other places. So Chrysostom [...], i. e. Mitis & benignus. that is meek and courteous. Whom Theophy­lact expresseth yet more plainly, [...], &c. Noluit crudelis esse, &c. He would not be cruel, but used her with all gentleness and mercy.

V. 24, 25. [...]. And he took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son. That is from the time he took her home unto him unto the time she brought forth her first born son he knew her not, to wit, the whole intervenient time, in which she was with child. And all this the Evangelist doth purposely record, that he may take away all pretence of cavil, and fix it for an undeniable truth, that Jesus was not onely conceived of a Virgin, but also of a pure Virgin born. Least any prying inquisitor, by sinisterly interpreting the words of Isaiah go­ing immediately before, might chance to ar­gue Thus, Isaiah truly saith, a Virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, but he saith not, a Virgin shall bring forth a son; For he might say, she was a Virgin when she con­ceived, and yet not when she brought forth. [Page 4] Neither can there be any thing else inge­nuously or fairly drawn from these words.

C. 2. v. 6. [...]. Nequaquam minima, In no wise the least; or, as we tran­slate it, art not the least. This place as to the words doth diametrically fight with that in Micah c. 5. v. 2. out of which nevertheless it was probably cited, it being not to be found in any other Prophet. And thou Bethlehem art not the least, as it is here in Matth. And thou Bethlehem Ephratah art little, as it is in Micah. Though as to the sence all Expositors agree they both mean the same thing. But they say this place in Matt. is the more significant and plain, supposing that he restored it to its original and proper meaning. When as in truth the words are not the words of Matthew, be­ing onely by him historically recited, but pro­perly the words of the high Priest and Scribes, who answered Herod upon his demand, where Christ should be born, In Bethlehem of Ju­dea, for so it is written by the Prophet. And thou Bethlehem in the Land of Juda art not the least among the Princes of Juda, &c. And that they so answered according to the read­ing of the Greek Bibles which were then a­mong them common, I think there is no cause to doubt. But this difference in the reading giving a just occasion to inquire farther into the reason and mystery thereof, I hope it will be an offence to none, at least to move the [Page 5] question, whether it may not be possible that some fault might creep into this place of Micah by the neglect or inadvertency of one of the first Transcribers, (whom afterwards posterity did follow with a well meaning and uninquiring faith) when as it is so prone and easie to mistake in the Hebrew letters, because of the great likeness of the Characters, as that such mistakes have been in many places is not to be denied. And if so, why may there not have been a mistake in this word [...], Lit­tle, which perhaps should have been rather read, [...], Go forth, an errour apt enough to be committed by reason of the similitude of the Characters of [...], and [...]. and [...] and [...]. Neither is this a new thing in the sacred Page, for the Greek Interpreters did certainly mistake in this very word, Gen. c. 49. v. 22. read­ing [...] and rendring [...], adolescentior, younger, instead of [...] incidebat, or discur­rerunt, as in the English, whose branches did run over the wall. And the like errour is al­so as easie between [...] and [...]. And so it hap­peneth in all the four forementioned letters in one and the same word, Ezek. c. 34. v. 16. Where the Greek Interpreters instead of [...], I will destroy, read, [...], [...], I will keep. And if this mistake be granted to be probable, as it is so possible in this place of Micah, then will the sence be with­out all difficulty plain and extreamly suitable [Page 6] to the scope thereof, [...]. Et tu Bethlehem Ephrata pro­gredere, or according to the force of the He­brew, Cum pompâ progredere, ut sis inter Chiliadas Judae, &c. And thou Bethlehem E­phrata go forth or march forth with pomp that thou maist be among the thousands of Ju­da, for out of thee shall he come forth who shall be ruler in Israel. And if I affirm this to be probable, what new thing do I assert, that the most learned and judicious Capellus hath not already abundantly asserted in his Sacred Criticks?

C. 2. v. 10. [...], Subau­di, [...], or [...], But seeing the Star, un­derstand, stand still, or where it stood. For its said in the former verse, And behold the Star which they saw in the East, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When therefore they saw the Star stand still, (for they could not but before see the Star which they followed for their guide) they rejoyced with exceeding great joy.

V. 16. [...], A bimatu & infra, as the Old Latin, a bimulo & infra, as others, From two years old and under, in our own. But read which you will, either [...] substantively, or [...] adjectively under­standing [...], it matters not, whilst all mean the same with the English, [...]. [Page 7] As it is said, Acts c. 24. v. 27. A biennio expleto, From after two years, or from two years and under. Which sence I can by no means think agreeable to this place, but that the words are rather to be rendred and understood according to the manner of speech with both Greeks and Latins, and the very scope and reason of the place, in this manner, Then Herod when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent fortb and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem and all the coast there­of, [...], that is, [...], and not [...], a biennio, or bimatu in­cipiente, and not expleto, or a bimulo & in­fra, From a two yearing child and under, that is, as I suppose Piscator means, incipiendo a bimulis exclusivè & descendendo ad eos qui infra bimatum erant; as if he had said, All the male children of a year old and under, accor­ding to the time he had diligently inquired of the wise men. For from a full whole year and upward a child beginneth to be called with the Hebrews [...], filius duorum annorum, with the Greeks [...], with the Latins, Bimus. In which sence the LXX do I conceive rightly translate [...], secundo anno post diluvium, Gen. c. 11. v. 10. And so reads S^t Augustin, de civit. Dei. lib. 5. so Noah is said to be, [...] Sexcentorum annorum filius, a [Page 8] son of six hundred years [...] in sexcentesimo anno vitae suae, in the six hun­dredth year of his life, Gen. c. 7. v. 6. and 11. So thought Hesychius [...], that is, post annum integrum, after a whole year, as if then a child began to be or to be called [...] being put for [...], which is usually done, cum de interjecto tempore di­citur, as [...], post annos fere quadringentos, Plut. [...], post annum unum & dimidium, Anonym. [...], post plures annos, Act. c. 24. v. 17. And so [...], ought to be ren­dred from after a whole year; so also A­ristotle understood the word lib. 9. c. 5. de hist. Animal. whose words there of the Hart or Stagg are these, [...], bimi primum generant cornua, the two yearings first generate horns. Now there is nothing more certain then that they begin to generate their horns as soon as they are once a full year old, and have entred into the se­cond, at which time they begin to be called [...], and so continue to be called, until in the end of that second year they begin to cast them. And to demonstrate this more plainly, that which with us is called the Calf of a red Deer, or the Fawn of a Fallow, the whole space of the first year, is with him called [...], as also a Lamb in the Scripture is with the Hebrews called [...], with the [Page 9] Greek Interpreters [...], with the Latins, Anniculus, with the English, A lamb of the first year. And what with us is termed a brocket or a pricket, the whole space of the second year of his age, is with him termed [...] or [...], in Latin subulo or bimus, in the beginning of which year he begins to generate his horns, and in the end thereof to cast them. [...], as he saith, that is, as soon as they enter into the third year of their age, [...], bifida gene­rant, they begin to have forked horns, and are called that third year of their age with the Latins, trimi, with the English, spaydes or sorells. Where note that [...], and [...] with him are all one and the same manner of phrase, so as he might have as well said, [...], and [...] as well as [...]. From whence it manifestly appears, that [...] may be taken either à bimatu incipiente, or desinente, from the time a child begins to be two years old, or from the time they cease to be so, the praeposition [...] being exclusive to the one or to the other, to the beginning or to the end; but because the word [...] is here added, I conceive it ought to be taken, à bimo, or bimatu incipiente, from the time the child be­gins to be two years old, or from a two year­ing child and downward, as contrarywise, 2. Chron. c. 31. v. 16. where it is said [...], [Page 10] it cannot but be understood of children of three years of age complete. A nato tres annos & deinceps, as Jun. as if it were said, [...]. So also where Aristotle saith, lib. 2. c. 1. de hist. A­nimal. [...]. Cervus solus singulis annis abjicit cor­nua, incipiens [abjicere] a bimatu, & rursus gene at, The Stagg alone casts his horns every year, beginning to cast them, from two years old, and then again he breedeth new ones; it cannot be otherwise understood, then [...], a bimatu expleto, from two years expired, for until that time they cast not their horns, but then immediately in the en­trance of their third year, [...], they again generate new ones, as was said be­fore, [...]. If there­fore the Evangelist had meant children of two years of age complete, he would surely have said, [...]. A trimatu & infra, from three years old and under, or from a three yearing child and under. For certain­ly there must be a difference between, A bi­matu & infra, and a bimatu & supra. Nei­ther is the Latin manner of speech at all un­like unto the Greeks: For bimus and [...], bimatus and [...], trimus and [...], have one and the same signification. Bimus, com­monly, qui in bimatu est. Bima dies, that [Page 11] is bimatus, tempus biennii, Vall. lib. 4. c. 80. We have also in the vulgar Latin. Isai. c. 15. v. 5. Vitulam conternantem. i. e. as Grammarians expound, quae est in complexione tertii anni, that is in the compass of her third year, which with the LXX is called [...], with the Arabick, vitula trima, as the Latin expounds it. So that from both man­ner of speeches either Greek or Latin, we must necessarily conclude, that not one two yearing child was slain of Herod, but onely those who were one year old complete and under, all who perisht to the Babe that was newly born. And now it remains to demon­strate, how this interpretation is more suita­ble to reason, and the scope of the place. And that especially for this cause, for that Herod slew the children, [...], secundum tempus quod exquisierat a Magis, According to the time which he had inquired out of the wise men. And this was the time wherein the Star appeared to them in the East, according to the computation whereof, supposing that Christ was born about that time he slew the children. Now I do not conceive it agreea­ble to reason to say, that the Star appeared two whole years before the wisemen came to Jerusalem, which notwithstanding some have thought, being I suppose carried away with the Vulgar interpretation. For it is scarce credi­ble, [Page 12] but that the wise men did immediately af­ter the appearing of the Star begin to prepare themselves for their journey, in the expedition whereof they could not have spent two whole years, had they come from the farthest parts of the world, much then surely less if they came no farther then from Arabia, that is conterminous to Judaea. And that they came from thence there are many convincing argu­ments. First, for that the Text saith, that they came to Jerusalem out of the East. Now that Arabia is scited on the Eastern side of Judaea the Scripture witnesseth in divers pla­ces, as Gen. c. 10. v. 30. c. 25. v. 6. and elsewhere. As doth also Tacitus in his de­scription of Judaea, Terra finesque qua ad Ori­entem vergunt Arabia terminantur, and Pto­lomaeus Geograph. lib. 5. c. 16. [...], Palestina Judaea Syria terminatur ab Oriente & Meridie Ara­bia Petraea, &c. Secondly, because there were Magi or Wise men also in Arabia, as Grotius shews by many arguments. Thirdly, They presented gifts singularly proper to that Country, Gold, Frankincense and Myrrhe, of the abundance, pureness and excellency of each whereof in that Country you may see the testimonies of various Authors in Bochart. Geograph. sac. par. 1. Nay Grotius affirms, Myrrha non nisi in Arabia nascitur, nec Thus [Page 13] nisi apud Sabaeos Arabum portionem. Myrrhe also seems to have its denomination from an Arabick primitive [...] mur. Fourthly, because of the prophecies, Psal. 72. v. 10. The Kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts, and v. 15. And there shall be given to him of the gold of Saba; and Isai. c. 60. v. 5. and 6. The riches; or forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee, they shall all come from Sheba, they shall bring gold and incense, and shall shew forth the prayses of the Lord. These things might be possibly spoken typically of David or Solomon, but primarily surely they look't at Christ, in whom they were truely fulfill'd, when the wise men came to wor­ship him. Fifthly, and lastly, the Arabians were doubly Hebrews, descending from Joctan the son of Heber, and from Abraham by Ketura. And for this it is probable enough, that they were better instructed then other Nations con­cerning the expectation of a Messias, or that God had more kindness for them, because of their Original, and therefore gave them a more quick and singular notice of the Birth of a Saviour to be born unto the world, that so they might have the preheminence to wor­ship him before any other of the Gentiles. According whereto they are stiled, Primitiae Gentium, The first fruits of the Nations. If therefore the Wise men came from Arabia, we must fit a time wherein we may deter­mine [Page 14] the Star to have appeared in the East (for that the Star was and appeared locally in the East, and was not only seen at a far distance as far as Jerusalem of the Wise men who were in the East, as some do say, and that they followed it as their guide I do most firmly believe with our most Reverend Pri­mate) from which and in which time the wise men may properly be said to have been in their journey out of Arabia to Jerusalem. Now though Arabia be conterminous to Judaea, yet some parts and regions of it are so far distant from Jerusalem, as that reckoning the Deserts they were to pass, and the preparations and many impediments which use to accom­pany such long voyages, you may fitly and lawfully allow them for the finishing of their journey about forty weeks, from the begin­ning of which time it is not at all absurd to conjecture, (Et qui in hac re bene conjiciet hunc vatem ego perhibebo optimum, And who in this matter shall conjecture well, is to be re­puted the best Prophet.) that the Star might appear to the wise men, to wit about the time of the salutation of the Virgin, and the Con­ception of the Redeemer of the world; A­bout which time, wherein the Son of God de­scended from heaven to become the son of man in the womb of the Virgin, I say again, it is not at all absurd to conjecture that the wise men first saw the Star in the East, and that [Page 15] as soon as ever they had seen it, [...], being warned from above, that the Star portended a King to be born unto the Jews, began forthwith to prepare themselves for their journey to Jerusalem, in the expe­dition whereof when they had spent about the aforesaid forty weeks, they arrived at that city. [...], I say, warned from a­bove, for I do not believe they were so skill'd in Balaams Prophecy or the aspect of the stars, that out of them they could know that that Star did portend a King to be born un­to the Jews, unless they had been warned and instructed from above, no more then they knew that Herod had it in his mind to slay the child, had they not been first warned by a dream. If then we add to these forty weeks twelve days after the birth of Jesus before the day in which the wise men came to wor­ship him, which time its reasonable enough to guess they might spend in inquiring out where the New born King of the Jews might be, and after that, thirty dayes of the Purification of Mary according to the law, and the Presen­tation of her Son in the Temple were past, about which time its probable the wise men returned into their Country, and allowing far­ther for their return from Jerusalem to their own City Nazaret when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, Luk. c. 2. v. 39. and from thence back again [Page 16] into Aegypt, Matth. c. 2. v. 14. and 16. ac­cording to the order of the Chronology of our most reverend Primate, before that Herod saw that he was mocked of the wise men, and be­came exceeding wroth, and sent and slew the children, six weeks more, you will have in the whole fifty and two weeks, from the time wherein we say that the Star first appeared to the wise men in the East, unto the time wherein Herod slew the children; so that it will not be at all besides the scope of the text to say, That Herod slew all the male chil­dren in and about Bethlehem, [...], which were under the second year of their age, or from the second year of their age and under, that is, all who had completed the first year of their age and under, according to the time he had diligently inquired of the wise men. But perhaps it may seem more probable, that Herod did not stay so long, as till the year was expired, because that was beyond the time of life, according to the time which he had inquired of the wise men, but that he rather slew them within the space of a year from the appearing of the Star, about which time he thought the King of the Jews was born, some weeks, that so killing all the male children of a year old, he might be the more sure to kill him whom he so much feared. Though he knew according to the time he had learned of the wise men, [Page 17] that he had not yet attained that age. If a­ny man shall question the distribution of the times, I would have him to know, that it was not in our mind to adjust them so ex­actly, as that there should be no place left for exception or correction, but that it suffi­ced me, if what I have here proposed have in it in summ a shew of truth. Or if any shall contend, as many of the Learned do, that these wise men came from Persia, it is all one to me, whose main design is to demonstrate, [...], that à bimatu, or à bimulo & infra, is not rightly understood but of children who were under the second year of their age. And that the wise men, whereso­ever they were in the East, first saw the Star about forty weeks before the Birth of our Sa­viour, from which and in which time they were coming to Jerusalem, that space of time fitting their journey from some part of Arabia, as well as from some parts of Persia; though for my part I retain the same opinion firmly with Grotius that they came from Arabia. En ve­rò quàm absurdum errorem peperit [...] ille perperam intellectus? But behold how absurd an errour this [...] hath begot being not rightly understood? They are the words of Joseph Scaliger, lib. 6. de Emend. Temp. The Error he understood of those who would have Jesus to be [...], that is, two whole years old when Herod commanded [Page 18] the male children to be slain à Bimatu & infra.

C. 3. v. 2. [...]. Appropinquat enim regnum caelorum, For the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. That is, the time of the Gospel, in which Christ the Messias was to reign. And this kingdom began immediately after the Resurrection of Christ, when God according to his Prophet had raised up Christ in the flesh to sit upon his throne, Act. c. 2. v. 30. Psal. 132. v. 11. From the time he said unto his Apostles, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, &c. Matth. c. 28. v. 18, 19.

V. 4. [...]. What [...] signifieth here is no small dispute among Interpreters. But they generally agree that S^t John did, vesci cibo parabili, feed on such meat or nutriment as nature did offer of herself unto him, without any help of art or cookery, such as was [...], the wild hony he did feed on. And if so, (though for the most part it be translated locusts) surely the tops of the leaves of trees or plants, which some have thought these [...] here to signifie, such as were those [...], siliquae, husks or cods wherewith the Prodigal son desired to fill his belly, Luk. c. 15. v. 16. were a much more Parable food then that of Locusts. Neither have [Page 19] I read that ever any fed on locusts raw, but they were first prepared by some art or cooke­ry, either boyled, or roasted, or dried in the sun, and after that beat to powder, or dried with smoak and salt, or pickled and eaten with oyle; none of which arts or cookeries can we reasonably suppose the Baptist used in the wilderness, where he had no fire to serve his turn, and whether he took the pains to dry them in the sun, or to hunt for them in the fields, there being not like to be ma­ny in the wilderness, they for the most part frequenting those places which abound with corn, I submit to sober judgements. Whereas the [...], siliquae, husks or cods of trees were ready at his hand without the pains of labour, art, or cookery. And that these [...] were not locusts, but [...], the tops of shrubs or trees, was the confident Opinion of Isidor. Pelus. lib. 1. ep. 5. and 132. Of which opi­nion also were Paulinus and Nicephorus, and others whom Euthymius and Theophylactus men­tion, neither did it displease our most Learned D^r Hammond, nor Baronius whose words are these, Haec cum scribat Isidorus, & non nisi majorum authoritate, quid de his sentiendum, definiendum nobis non est, sed totum relin­quimus lectoris arbitrio, Nam constat Graecam dictionem [...], & locustam insecti genus in­firmas alas habens ad volandum, & summitates [Page 20] herbarum significare. When Isodorus writes these things, and that with the Authority of the Ancients, what is to be thought of them, is not for us to determine, but we leave it all to the readers choice, For its apparent that the Greek word [...] signifies both a kind of in­sect, that hath weak wings to flie, and the tops of herbs. Besides, that which moves me much, these [...], which I take to be all one with these [...], and are so called because reflexed like a horn, and interpreted by the Latins si­liquae, either ex silo propter formae similitudi­nem, as some would have, because silus ap­pellatur naso sursum versus repando, and so the tops of these leaves likewise are reversed, or from [...] as others, because they have a wooden tast, are and have been anciently with the Germans called, S^t Johans Brot, that is, S^t Johns bread, as if it were their constant opinion that the Baptist fed on the tops of those trees when he abided in the wilderness. So that for these reasons, what ever is so strong­ly contradicted, I cannot but think that the version with Baronius is equally as good, if not more proper, And his meat was the tops of the leaves of trees or shrubs and wild hony. Neither did Erasmus, when he had spoken what he could for the maintenance of those who would have locusts here to be under­stood, confidently assert it, but modestly con­cluded, Neque haec commemoramus, quod [Page 21] omnino negem hîc [...] accipi posse pro frutice, aut herbae genere, Neither do we speak this, as if I did altogether deny that [...] might not here be taken for some shrub or kind of plant. Now that these [...], husks or cods of the leaves of trees or shrubs in the Countries where they grow, are frequently the food of the poor, and are commonly sold in the streets and Markets in Italy, Spain and A­frica, and elsewhere, is abundantly testified by Authors. Among the rest Lobelius hath it in Advers. Multum haec [nempe siliqua] cog­nita Nicaeae & maris Ligustici accolis, ubi eam esitant pueri etiam & porci, The siliqua is much known to the inhabitants about Nice, and the Ligurian sea, where the boys eat them and al­so the hogs. And Galen. 2. de Aliment. [...], &c. Est autem pravi succi edulium & lignosum. Pro-inde satius est à regionibus Orientalibus in quibus nascitur ad nos non importari, The Keratium is a food of ill juice and wooddy. Wherefore it were better it were not imported to us out of the Eastern Countries where it grows. And he was of Pergamus in the les­ser Asia, on whose side toward the East was Judaea not very far distant, from whence its very probable they might be imported to Per­gamus in the time of Galen, at least from Syria which was conterminous to both, for they were not worth the carriage from far.

[Page 22]C. 4. v. 5. [...], Supra sum­mitatem, Ʋpon the top of the temple. [...], Fastigium or summitas, He­sych. so the Aethiopick Interpreter. Statuit eum in summitate domus sanctae, He set him on the top of the holy house. Neither was it at that time the business of the Lord to shew a miracle, such as is to stand upon the point of a pinacle, but he was carried by the Temp­ter to the top of the Temple there to be set in any part thereof, from whence he might be tempted to cast himself down headlong. The leads or battlements being a sufficient precipice for the Devils purpose.

V. 7. Jesus said unto him, it is written again. But to my apprehension its better distinguished and translated thus. [...], Jesus said again un­to him, it is written. No readier way to stop the Tempters mouth, then with a scriptum est.

C. 5. v. 16. [...]. This word [...] is not in the place of a conjunction causal, as it sounds in the English translation, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, &c. But it is an adverb of likeness, which directly answers to the si­militude which went immediately before, so that properly it is to be rendred as it stands in the Greek, A city that is set on a hill, can­not be hid, Neither do men light a candle and [Page 23] put it under a tub or bushel, but on a candle­stick, and it giveth light to all that are in the room, [...], In like manner, or e­ven so let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorifie your father which is in heaven.

V. 19. [...], Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments. So most interpreters, as if there were some re­markable Emphasis in the expression, these least commandments. But I can by no means think, that Christ did either affect or intend any extraordinary elegance of speech in these words, but that he spake in the common phrase and obvious sence, so as it ought to be ren­dred by a familiar transposition of the words, Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, &c. The very same with that c. 25. v. 40. [...]. Which we translate, Ʋnto one of the least of these my brethren.

V. 42. [...], And from him that would bor­row of thee, turn not thou away. And so accor­dingly is it in most Translations. But how in construction the words can possibly be ren­dred so, I do not see. And therefore sup­pose they should be rather translated thus. Put, or turn him not away that desireth to [Page 24] borrow of thee. For [...], though it be the passive voice, yet may it have, as many other passives have in the New Testament, an Active signification, and so we find it hath, Psal. 132. v. 10. Where Symmachus reads, [...]. Turn not away the face of thine anointed, as our English according to the Hebrew read it.

C. 6. v. 2. [...], They have their reward. Yet in the forego­ing verse tis said, if ye do your alms to be seen before men, [...], Ye have no reward, or rather the present being put for the fu­ture, Ye shall have no reward from your fa­ther which is in heaven. Why then should it be said in the immediately following words, that hypocrites who do the same thing with the same purpose to be seen of men, have their reward? Is not this a contradiction? Surely its more agreeable to the context and to rea­son, that if any do their alms in the streets or Synagogues, that they may have the glo­ry of men, such persons should be said rather not to have, that is to loose, then to have their reward. To reconcile therefore these words in either verse to one and the same sense, I would translate these latter words quite different from the former. Verily I say unto you, [...], They for­bid or hinder their reward. By seeking the praise of men, they forbid their reward from [Page 25] God, from whom its no reason they should expect any, when they did their alms before men to be seen of them, v. 1. I am not ignorant, that the first and common sense is endeavoured to be salved with a proper (as some think) distinction. That is, They have a worldly and perishing reward, but not an heavenly and during one. But what need is there of so faint a sence, or forc't distinction, if the sence be plain without it, and the use of words do lawfully bear it? But certainly the use of words will bear it, for with all Lexicographers, [...], [...], and [...], signifie one and the same thing, that is, to forbid or hinder. And in this sense by the leave of the Learned Beza and Grotius, would Plutarch, who I suppose never dreamed of the distin­ction of a worldly and heavenly reward, have the same word understood in his Solon, where relating something which seemed hard by the sanction of the laws, to wit, that those who were born of harlots were not bound by the law to nourish or relieve their Parents, as they were who were legitimately born. He gives the reason in the words following, [...]. Which words that they may mutually agree, must necessarily be tran­slated [Page 26] thus, For he that despiseth the honour of marriage, doth plainly shew, he used not a woman for childrens sake, but for his lust, and forbids his reward, and hath not left himself the liberty to speak to those he hath begot, whose very being he hath made their shame. In that he hath not left himself the liberty to speak to those he hath begot, he forbids or hinders his reward, to wit, of alimony, the very thing in question, which it was free for the Parents to have required of all their chil­dren that were honestly born. I find the same word likewise in the same Author, in his book of the failing of Oracles, [...], Nothing hinders the spi­rit of divination, &c. As also in Dion. Ha­lic. [...], No fear shall hinder me from speaking what I think. Since therefore there is so good authority for the use of the word in this sense, and that it agrees so well with the context, and needs no strained distinction for its expla­nation, I see no reason, why it should not be so accordingly translated, Verily I say unto you, they hinder their reward. For surely it is a vanity to fly to a mystical sense, where we have a litteral. And thus I suppose 'tis ne­cessary to determine in all the Parallel places where the word is used.

C. 9. v. 5, 6. The common point­ing and inconvenient division of the verses [Page 27] together with the parenthesis do so involve the sense, that it was not without cause that Erasmus said orationem esse duriusculam, That it was a harsh kind of speech. For remedy whereof, it is but pointing and distinguishing thus, v. 5. [...]; v. 6. [...], For which is easier, to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk, but that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins? Then saith he to the sick of the Pal­sie, arise, take up thy bed, and walk. The sense being plainly this, as if he should have said in a few more words, Jesus knowing their thoughts, that they said within them­selves, that he blasphemed because he said to the sick of the Palsie, thy sins are forgiven thee, saith unto them, it is all one to me to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or take up thy bed and walk, but onely that you may know that the Son of man hath power to for­give sins upon earth, therefore I said unto the sick of the Palsie, thy sins are forgiven thee. And then fitly follows, Then saith he to the sick of the Palsie, &c.

V. 18. [...], Filia mea mo­do defuncta est, Vet. and Beza, My daugh­ter [Page 28] is even now dead, in our Own: but I con­ceive the Translation were more proper, My daughter is even or almost dead. For [...] sig­nifies [...], nigh, or [...], that which is presently to come, as well as [...], that which is present, as Phavorinus tells us. So in the parallel pla­ces, Mar. c. 5. v. 23. [...], Extremè habet, or as the Aethiop. and Arab. morti vi­c [...]a est, or as our English, lieth at the point of death, and Luk. c. 8. v. 42. [...], & ea moriebatur, as the Inter­lineary and Old Translation hath it, that is [...], erat moribunda, as the Syriack and Aethiopick have it, or as we interpret it, and she lay a dying. And that she was not al­together dead when the Ruler spake unto Je­sus is abundantly manifest by all three stories.

V. 23. [...], Tibicines, the Min­strells or Players on the Flute or Pipe. That Flutes or Pipes were used in Funerals a­mong the Heathen, we have the testimony of Ovid.

and Artemidorus, [...]. To sound with Pythian Flutes be­tokens mourning. Which custom to be in use among the Jews Jeremy doth seem to inti­mate, in his Lamentation for the destruction of [Page 29] Moab, c. 48. v. 36. [...], My heart shall sound like Pipes for the men of Kirheris, that is with a mourning sound such as the Min­strels make in Funerals. Such you may sup­pose to be [...], the mourners that go about the streets, Eccles. c. 12. v. 5. and [...], the mourning Women, Jerem. c. 9. v. 17. So Joseph. [...] the Jews are said upon the report of his death [...], to have hired Minstrels who began their lamenta­tions to them. As the mourning Women in the forementioned place of Jeremy, were to be called to take up a wailing for them. But that which concerns this place most, is that of Servius upon Virgil, Majoris aetatis funera ad tubam proferebantur, minoris ad tibiam, The Funerals of the Elder sort were ushered with the Trumpet, those of the Younger with the Flute, or that of Statius,

For this Daughter of the Ruler, on whose Funerals the Minstrels were now ready to [Page 30] wait, is called in this place of Matth. [...], a little maid. Mar. c. 5. v. 23. [...], his little daughter. and Luk. c. 8. v. 42. [...], About Twelve years of age.

C. 10. v. 11. [...], Enquire who in it is worthy, and there abide. That is, worthy with whom ye should abide, siletur [...], that which is intended, is supprest, and understood by the words subsequent or preceding. So Matth. 22.8. [...], They which were bidden were not worthy, that is, of the Wedding Feast which was prepared. For they would not come, but went their way one to his Farm another to his Trade. So Apocal. 3.4. They shall walk with me in white Robes, [...]. Because they are worthy so to do for that they have not de­filed their Garments, & 16.6. Thou hast given them Bloud to drink, [...]. For they are worthy to drink Bloud, because they have shed the Bloud of the Saints, &c.

C. 11. v. 19. [...], Et justificata est sapientia à filiis suis, But wisdom is justified of her children. The proper meaning whereof, or at least a good one, having relation to the Context is very difficult to unfold. Why therefore may it not be better Translated thus? And This wisdom is justified of her children, to wit of [Page 31] the Scribes and Pharisees who thought them­selves the only Children or Sons of Wisdom, who sat in the chair of Moses, and loved to be called Rabbi, these were they that justified this Wisdom, that would not attend unto the voice of those that exhorted them to repen­tance, who said that John had a Devil, and that Jesus was a friend of Publicans and sinners. [...] is frequently put for [...], so Hesychius [...], as is, [...], for, [...], [...] or [...]. Examples whereof you may see, c. 15. v. 12. [...], audito isto sermone, when they heard this saying. c. 19. v. 22. the same. Gal. c. 5. v. 8. [...], ista persuasio, this perswasion cometh not from him that calleth you, and so elsewhere.

C. 12. v. 18. [...], &c. And he shall preach judgment unto the Gentiles. The words following, [...] &c. he shall not strive, &c. unto [...], till he bring forth his judgment in victory, being to be included in a Parenthesis, so that the sence and cohae­rence must be this, He shall preach judgment unto the Gentiles, till he bring forth his judg­ment in victory, or for ever, as that phrase doth frequently signifie with the LXX. [...], By judgment he seems to mean his law, [...], the administration of his Church, that is, his Gospel, so Procopius upon Isaiah. The [Page 32] summ whereof is this, that Christ shall cause his Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles, till he exalt it in triumph over Heathenisme; or for ever, that is so that it shall indure for ever, all Nations being converted to the same. The intervenient words, [...], &c. He shall not strive, &c. shewing only his great meekness and tenderness in doing of it.

V. 20. [...], Smoking Flax he shall not quench. But Flax is here put by a Metonymy for a Lamp which is made of Flax. [...] some interpret ex­tinctioni vicinum, near to going out, others, caligans, as we say in English, twinkling, and others moribundum, dying, which all express the same meaning. So that to speak to the capacity of the vulgar, it ought to be Tran­slated thus, He will not extinguish or put out the dying Lamp. Wilt thou break a leaf driven to and fro? and wilt thou pursue the dry stub­ble? Job c. 13. v. 25.

V. 43. [...], Through dry pla­ces, that is, through desart places, and so reads the Aethiopick Interpreter, per desertum through the desert. So the word [...] which properly signifies solitudo, a desart, the Greek Interpreters for the most part render [...], though sometimes [...], as Psal. 106. v. 14. [...], And they tempt­ed God in the desert, and Isai. c. 43. v. 19. [...], I will make a way [Page 33] in the wilderness, and Rivers [...] in the desert. Our Saviour seems to speak this Pa­rable, as many times he doth, to the sence and opinion of the Vulgar, which probably was the same, that Psellus makes mention of in his book of Devils, [...], Quod versentur in locis maxime cae­cis, quae extreme frigida sunt & sicca, That they abide in the most blind places which are extreamly cold and dry: who also saith, that there is a certain kind of Devils cold and dry, which are called [...] lucisugi, haters of the light. Where by the way we must observe that [...] and [...] are synonymous. The Devils also with the Syriacks are called [...], from [...] vastavit, because they abide in wast and desert places, as Schindler observes. And that this opinion was not vain, we may gather from that place of Matthew, where our Saviour is said to be led into the wilderness or desert to be tempted of the Devil.

C. 13. v. 44. [...], Occuluit, Vet. Ab­scondit, Beza. Our English, he hideth. But surely tis more significant to say, The which when a man had found he concealed it. For [...] doth signifie, celo, as well as, abscon­do, to conceal, as well as, to hide. And to be ingenuous the sense requires it. For the Treasure was already hid, which being found the man concealed it, least it should be known [Page 34] to others. And it had been a vain thing to have hid a new, that which was hid before, and therefore he concealed it.

C. 16. v. 28. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not tast of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. This place can scarce mysti­cally be understood, by no means literally, but of the coming of the Son of man to the Destruction of Jerusalem, who then may truly be said to come in his Kingdom, when he came to Triumph over his enemies the Jews, by taking a severe and just vengeance of them. Of his Resurrection, which also is called his Kingdom, it reasonably cannot. For what wonder were it, if some of the standers by should live to see him coming in his Resur­rection, which came to pass in so short a time? But if any of them should live to see the Destruction of Jerusalem, which happened so many years after his Passion, that might de­serve the notice. And that some of the standers by when our Saviour spake those words, did remain alive to that very day is true and known And in this sense it is true, Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled, c. 24. v. 34. Neither before this time of his coming did the Disciples go over all the Cities of Israel, c. 10. v. 23. And in this sense did John among others remain a­live [Page 35] till Christ came, whereof see more, Joh. c. 21. v. 22.

C. 17. v. 11. [...], Et consummabit omnia, And shall finish all things. The words are literally spoken of Elias, but by our Saviour interpreted to be meant of John the Baptist. And this version seems to me more agreeable, then that which is common­ly received, Elias truly shall first come and re­store all things. My reason is, because in John the Law and the Prophets had their end. For the Law and the Prophets were until John, from that time the Kingdom of God is preach­ed, Luk. c. 16. v. 6. and Matth. c. 11. v. 12, 13. so that he may more properly be said to finish all things then to restore. And there­fore tis said in the last forementioned chapter, v. 11. Among them that are born of women there hath not Risen a greater [Prophet] then John Baptist, notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of heaven, is greater then he. That is, the least Apostle or Disciple un­der the Gospel, is greater, [for he knew more of the counsel of God and the mystery of Godliness] then the greatest Rabbi or Pro­phet under the Law. And surely in this sense it is more fit (which is something to the con­firming of our Opinion in this place) to tran­slate the same word, Act. c. 3. v. 21. [...], Quem oportet quidem coelum recipere usque ad tempora con­summationis [Page 36] omnium, Whom the heavens must contain until the times of the consummation of all things, that is, to the end of the world, when he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, [...], consummatio, Hesych. and Phavor. and in both I conceive misprinted, [...], for [...], To finish, perfect, or con­summate.

C. 19. v. 28. This verse may be pointed thus, [...], &c. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have fol­lowed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the Throne of his glory, even ye shall sit upon Twelve Thrones judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. [...], in Renascentia, that is, in Resurrectione, in the Resurrection. So Munster, Haec Secunda generatio est Resurrectio mortuorum. So Au­gustin, Regenerationem quippe hoc loco, ambi­gente nullo, novissimam Resurrectionem vocat. Neither should our Lord himself been stiled [...], The first born from the dead, unless the Resurrection had been accounted a [...], a kind of new Na­tivity. As Philo Judaeus, when the world was as it were born again after the floud, calls it [...].

C. 22. v. 32. God is not the God of the [Page 37] dead but of the living. Our Saviour speaks not this as to the present State of Souls, but he brings it as an argument of the Resur­rection of the dead, which is so certain and to God already present, as in the parallel place of Luk. c. 20. v. 38. For all live unto him, that he is in present called the God of the living, meaning those that are dead, that is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who in the last day and not till then shall rise in glory. So as the words plainly and strongly intimate, that there is but one only proper Resurrection of the Soul and Body, against those who would have the Fathers of the Old Testa­ment to have risen and ascended with Christ.

C. 24. v. 22. And except those days should be shortned, there should no flesh be saved, but for the Elects sake those days shall be shortned. [...], Non servaretur ulla caro. The most received exposition of this place is this. The mutual slaughters in Jerusalem (of which Christ did now forespeak) were so many and so cruel, that unless the siege of the City had been extreamly hastned, there had not been one Person therein left alive, but they had all killed one another, and utterly destroyed themselves. In consideration whereof God having his chosen ones in the City, whom he was willing to save out of the common calamity, or judgment, put it into the hearts of Titus and Vespatian to hasten the siege by all [Page 38] means possible, and so to shorten the days of Jerusalems destruction. But there may be another sense likewise given of the place, not a whit less probable or proper, taking the word [...] in holy Scripture phrase, And ex­cept those days had been shortned, that is, the days of Jerusalems destruction, no flesh, that is not one Jew had been saved, but they had all eternally perished. For as long as their Temple stood, and the Jewish Sacrifices and Ceremonies remained, it was such a stum­bling block to the whole Nation, that al­most all did stumble at it, neither were they few who for that very cause and scruple be­came Apostates from the Christian faith, which they had once imbraced, supposing the Old Religion to be the truer, because God per­mitted their Temple and Sacrifices to con­tinue, of the certain and short destruction and abolishment whereof they had been taught in the Christian faith. For which cause also, as well as for their Persecutions sake, the Au­thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exhort them, c. 10. v. 25. that they would not forsake their Assemblies, as the manner of some was, but that they would exhort one ano­ther [to stand stedfast in the faith] and that so much the more, because they saw the day approaching, that is, the day of decurtation, the day of the destruction of Jerusalem, and de­solation of the Temple drawing nigh; for so [Page 39] that day here and elsewhere, as also the co­ming of the Lord, and the end of all things do all relate unto the Destruction of Jeru­salem. Because therefore God had his Elect among them, whom he would have saved, that this stumbling stone might be taken a­way, it pleased him to hasten the day of his coming, and to cut short the time of the De­struction and desolation of Jerusalem.

V. 28. Wheresoever the Carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered together. You have the same Proverbial speech, Job c. 39. v. 30. Where the slain are there is she, mean­ing the Eagle. And here I cannot but take notice of the happiness of his exposition, who gives this meaning of the place. The Car­case is the Jews who lay dead in their sins, and by the Eagles are meant the Roman Ar­mies, who for every Legion bore two Eagles for their Ensign, so that the word Eagles be­came often used by Poets and Historians for the Roman Armies, Nath. Ward. And in my opinion this seems to agree much more with the scope of the place, then that of o­thers who liken our Saviour to a dead car­case, on which Christians like ravenons Eagles should make their prey. For to speak plain­ly. Quid hoc ad Rhombum? What is this to the purpose? But as it is easie to add to what already is invented, we may perhaps with better reason suppose that by this Car­case [Page 40] may be meant the Jewish State and Go­vernment, which now by reason of the ma­ny distructions among themselves, and their oppression under the Roman power, lay plainly dead as is a Carcase. And so as Eagles and Birds of prey do usually out of a supernatu­ral sagacity follow Armies in expectation of the prey of the dead bodies after the fight, so should the Roman Armies prefigured in those Eagles, whose pourtractures they carried in their Banners, be gathered together in that place, where the Jewish State lay now as dead and helpless as is a Carcase, in hope and expectation of the spoil. And so our Savi­our, Luk. c. 17. v. 37. the Disciples asking where? expresly answers, Where the body is, thither will the Eagles be gathered together. Particularly denoting the place where those things of which he spake before should hap­pen, to wit, the desolation and sudden de­struction of the Jews, which could be no where else but in Jerusalem.

C. 26. v. 12. [...]. Ad sepeliendum me, She did it for my burial. More properly, ad funerandum, she did it for my fu­neral. So Mark c. 14. v. 8. [...], Ante­vertit tempus ungendi corpus mecum ad fu­nus, it should be also rendred, She is come aforehand to Anoint my body to its funeral, and not unto its burying. For in the Glossary, [Page 41] [...], is funero, and [...] doth properly signifie the Rites of funerals, and [...] burial. For in the Rites of funeration they did use to anoint the dead body with Aromatick Spices and Oyntments, before they buried them. And so was it the Jewish cu­stom to perform their funerals, Joh. c. 19. v. 40.

C. 27. v. 3. [...]. This word is u­sed here in the Hebrews Hiphil, for [...], redire fecit, he caused to return, and so in our English dialect might be properly and Signi­ficantly Translated, He returned the Thirty pieces of Silver to the High Priests. In which sense the same word is used before, c. 26. v. 52. [...], Return thy Sword into its place.

V. 9, 10. [...]. As to the name of Jeremy I sup­pose it is a mistake, or slip of oversight or memory. As to the words in General, which as they are commonly Translated, do by no means agree with one another, methinks as now distinguished in the Greek do most per­fectly answer each to other. For our Evan­gelist doth not entirely or precisely cite either Greek or Hebrew, but renders only the sense [Page 42] which perfectly agrees with that of Zachary c. 11. v. 13. The words being expounded according as here the points are varied, with­out disturbing the construction (as it is in all Translations now disturb'd) or common read­ing, and that word for word neither rendring more or less then is in the Greek. Et acce­pi Triginta argenteos (pretium aestimati quem aestimarunt) à filiis Israel, qui vel & illi de­derunt eos pro agro figuli, quemadmodum prae­cepit mihi dominus, And I took [in the first Person and Singular Number] the Thirty pieces of Silver, (the price of him that was prized) of the children of Israel, who, or and they gave them for the potters field, as the Lord commanded me. That is, [to make the con­struction agree] I took, and not as formerly they took the Thirty pieces of Silver of the children of Israel as the Lord commanded me, and they gave them for the potters field. The words in the Parenthesis being only appositive to the words going immediately before. And thus the construction is salved, the incohe­rence avoided, and the sense cleared. Those words, As the Lord commanded me, rightly answering to [...], in the first Person of the Singular Number, as the Prophet Zacha­ry also reads, c. 11. v. 13. And the Lord said unto me, &c. [...], And I took the Thirty pieces of Silver and cast them [as it is here in Matth. said immediately before, that [Page 43] Judas cast them down in the Temple] [...], in domo do­mini pro conflatorio, into the house of the Lord for the Potters Forge, by the same Li­cence that Interpreters Translate [...] by, in this very place, [...], pro agro figuli, for the Potters field, that is, that the Children of Israel, to wit, the Chief Priests might give them for the Potters field, as it is expresly said, they did, v. 7. That the word [...] is and may be thus used and interpreted is abundantly common, though rarely observed. You may take these few examples in this place instead of many, Luk. c. 15. v. 15. [...], that is, [...], as the English ren­der it, And he went and joyned himself to a Citizen of that Country and he sent him into his fields, though Beza Translate it, Qui mi­sit eum, Who sent him. Ruth c. 1. v. 11. [...]; Nunquid ultra mihi filii in ventre meo, qui erunt vobis in viros? Are there yet any more Sons in my womb that, or who may be your husbands? or and shall they be your husbands? In which place it seems to be an Hebraism, for the Hebrew reads, [...]. And you may find the like, 2 Kings c. 23. v. 29. [...]. Et abiit Rex Josiah in occursum ejus qui, or [Page 44] & ille occidit eum in Megiddo, And King Josiah went against him, who, or and he slew him in Megiddo, that is Pharaoh Necho slew him. You may see the same phrase in later writers, [...], Statim enim in proaemio dicis, O viri Latini, quod est in­assuetum, For thou saist immediately in thy proem, O men of Rome, which is unusual, or not familiar, Sgurop. You have it also in Plutarch in his Timoleon, [...], Monstrarunt eas militibus, qui vel & illi ad precandum deos conversi sunt, They shewed them the souldiers, who, or and they turned to supplicate their Gods. See likewise, Mark c. 1. v. 9. and 10. Acts c. 6. v. 6. John c. 15. v. 6.

Ch. 3. v. 19, 20, 21.

[...]. By the most received Translations Jesus is said to be besides him­self. An Interpretation (if it be lawful so to speak) unbeseeming the sacredness of his Per­son, especially when a more probable one may be given. Thus, Et veniunt in domum, & convenit iterum turba, adeo ut ne panem qui­dem edere possent, & audientes quidam ab eo exiverunt, ut eam sisterent, dicebant enim quod insaniret, And they went into an house, and the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread, and some hearing of it went out from him, to stay it, for they said, it was mad. To wit, the mul­titude [Page 46] was mad, which for the vehement de­sire they had to come near to Jesus, did so violently press upon them, that they could not eat their Bread. For [...] is not a relative to [...], as generally it is made, but to [...] , and [...] doth frequently signifie, cohi­bere, or sistere, to restrain or to stay. [...] may be by a common trajection ei­ther [...], some hearing of it, or [...], and some from him when they heard it, that is, that the multitude was so mad to press unto him, went out to stay them, as [...] with the Grammarians are nuncii tui, or abs te missi, Your Messengers or some sent for you. Besides, Jesus was with­in the house, so that it cannot be fitly said, that they who heard it went out of the house to hold Him that was within the house. And to say that his Kindred went out of their dwel­ings to hold him, is neither proper nor pro­bable, for how could the fame of the peoples thronging him, or the news of his being be­sides himself, come so suddenly to them, that they could so soon meet together? And if this perchance might possibly have been, [...], advenerunt, they came, had been much more proper then [...], exiverunt they went out, which is the Genuine signification of the word, notwithstanding the learned Beza in­deavours to maintain the other by examples that truly move not my faith at all, it being [Page 47] more credible with me, that the Evangelist spake in the common dialect rather then in an unwonted phrase, especially when the sense agreeth with the context. And I cannot but extreamly wonder, why Learned men do so much labour to explode this interpretation (when the common one is so deservedly misliked) which agrees with the sense, con­struction, custom of speech, and what is more then all, with the Parallel places in Matth. c. 12. v. 23. and Luke c. 11. v. 14. so perfectly as nothing can do more. For in Matth. it is expresly said in the very word, sence, place and time as all agree, [...], obstupuit tota turba, that is, as Beza interprets it, for admiration were be­sides themselves; or as we render it, were a­mazed. In this place, [...], the multitude was beside it self, or mad. In Luke, [...], Mirata est turba, And the people wondred. When therefore the sense a­grees punctually in all Three Evangelists with all the circumstances relating to the story, as you may there compare, what man can rea­sonably doubt but one and the same word ought to be understood and to relate in Mark as it doth in Matthew, there being only this difference, Matthew hath [...] in the Pas­sive voice in the Plural, and Mark [...] in the Singular Number in the Active voice. Both whom Luke interprets in a word Syno­nymous. [Page 48] For in Hesych. and Phavor. you shall find [...]. So as the one place must in all reason be an Ex­positor to the other, which mention all the same time, place and thing.

V. 29, 30. [...]. [...], the present for the future, as in Matth. c. 26. v. 18. [...] or [...], I will keep the Passover at thy house, [...], is surely more, then, in danger, as it is exprest in the English, for its possible to scape from danger, but he shall never have forgiveness, neither in this world nor in that to come, Matth. 12. v. 32. It were better therefore rendred guilty of, or sub­ject to eternal damnation, [...], Hesych. The sense of the whole is this, Because they said he had an unclean spirit, there­fore our Saviour tells them, that whosoever sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness but is guilty of eternal damnation, that is, bound to suffer eternal judgment. For their sin was therefore unpardonable, because they said it of set malice, who when they could not but acknowledge that the miracles he wrought were done by the operation of the pow­er of the divine spirit, did notwithstanding against the very dictates of the holy Spirit to their conscience say, he did them by the Devil, and [Page 49] by the Prince of the Devils, meerly out of spight, to the end they might turn away the people from following of him. [...], Ob­ligatus, [...], Obligatio, Gloss. Vet.

C. 4. v. 29. [...], Cum autem se tradat fructus, But when the fruit offers or shews it self, that is, ready to be reaped. For it is not properly called fructus, fruit, dum fruendo sit paratus, till it be ready to be reaped and gathered into the barn, as Varro and Donatus observe: Then doth a man immediately put in his sickle, for the harvest is come. [...], Phavor. [...], Fruit, comes of [...], which signifies to dry, which being ripe is so dry as that it will grow no more with any wet. So that properly the corn, is not called fruit, till it be so ripe, that it will grow no more, and then tis time for the Husbandman to put in his Sickle.

C. 7. v. 9. [...], Ye fairly re­ject the commandment of God. It is spoken, [...], abusively, by way of Irony. Or it may be read with an interrogation, [...]; And he said unto them, Do ye well to reject the command­ment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition?

C. 9. v. 12. [...], [Page 50] Elias quidem veniens primo consummat omnia, e­tiam, quomodo scriptum est de filio hominis, ut multa patiatur & pro nihilo habeatur, E­lias verily coming first finisheth all things, even, as it is written of the son of man, that he may suffer many things and be set at nought. Concerning [...], see Matth. c. 17. v. 11.

V. 22, 23, 24. [...]. Interpreters in this place for the most part pass by the article [...], in which methinks there is an Emphasis by no means to be pretermitted. That there­fore the Emphasis may not be lost, neither the Syntax violated, I would have the words distinguished as above and Translated thus, [...], &c. Sed si quid potes, succurre nobis miserescens nostri, Jesus vero dixit ei, [...]; si potes? crede tu, omnia credenti possibilia, But if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us and help us. But Jesus said unto him, If thou canst? do thou believe, all things are possible to him that belie­veth. [...] is here taken materialiter or [...], and supposeth the matter whereof it was spo­ken, and that was a question of the power of Christ. For the Father having before brought his son to his Disciples who could not heal [Page 51] him, [...], because of their unbelief, as our Saviour tells them Matth. c. 17. v. 14. doubted probably whether Christ himself could do it, and therefore put the question to him, [...], if thou canst do any thing, for thy Disciples cannot, have compassion on us. Whereto our Saviour replies shortly by way of objurgation or exprobration, as it were upbraiding his in­credulity with indignation: as if he should say, What dost thou doubt whether I can or no? dost thou say, if thou canst? believe thou, and despair not of my power, for all things are possible to be done for him that be­lieveth. They are the words of our Saviour to the Centurion, As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee, Matth. 8.13. see the like c. 9. v. 22, and 29. and elsewhere. And that this is so; the following words do strongly argue. For immediately the Father of the child being struck with the Reprehen­sion, cried out and said with tears, Lord I be­lieve, help my unbelief. It was the only time that ever question was made to Christ of his power by any who came to be healed of him, whose common address was, [...], Lord if thou wilt thou canst make me clean, Matth. c. 8. v. 2. or as it is v. 8. Speak the word only, and my Ser­vant shall be healed. No question of his power, but they implored his will, and therefore no [Page 52] marvail at all, if Christ upbraided here the Father of the child for his incredulity. [...] according to the accent, may be either the first Aorist of the Imperative mood of the middle voice, or the Infinitive of the Active, understanding [...] or [...], as is often frequent.

C. 11. v. 13. [...], Non­dum enim erat tempus ficuum, For the time of Figs was not yet. If ever that famous Per­son said any thing to the purpose, certainly his emendation here is very opportune, by changing of the accents, the aspirate into a dence (for the accent is not of the Author) and reading, [...], and understanding [...], which is so very frequent, Ubi enim erat, erat tempus Ficuum, For where he was, was the time of Figs. And so this History doth perfectly square, if applied to the Jews, of whom it was reasonable for God to expect some fruit, if from any place in the world, for there, was even an inexcusable time for Fruit. But it had been very hard for Our Saviour to have curst the innocent Tree, if in that place at that time had not been the time of Figs. Surely neither time nor place was wanting to the Jews. Neither can I find in any Author Sacred or Prophane, that [...] ever signified a fruitful year, as some would have it, so as it might be lawfully Translated, Non fuit tempus ferax Ficuum, It was not a fruitful [Page 53] time of Figs, or according to our English phrase, It was not a Fig year. And yet sup­pose this to be granted, it had not been less hard to have cursed the Tree, when it was not a seasonable year, than if it had not yet been the time of Figs.

C. 12. v. 40. [...]. Beza saith, there is a Solaecism in these words, and that to make construction between these and the former words, it ought to have been in the Genitive case, [...]. But surely there is no such cause or necessity. For it is an ordinary Elleipsis, fre­quent almost in every Page, to understand the verb [...]. Thus [...] &c. [...], Beware of the Scribes which love to go in long clothing, who devour widows houses and for a pretence make long prayers. You may find the like Luke c. 6. v. 13. [...], where you must likewise understand [...]. And of them he chose Twelve. And Act. c. 24. v. 5. [...], where [...] is to be understood, For we have found this man. You shall have it likewise in the He­brew, Psal. 4. v. 6. [...], [...], multi dicunt, many say, multi dicen­tes. Pagnin.

C. 14. v. 3. [...], And having shook the cruise together, she pour­ed it on his head. The common version is [Page 54] by no means proper, And having broke the box, &c. For if she had broke the vessel whatever it was, how could she have poured it on his head, but most if not all of it had been spilt? Neither is it said in Matth. that she brake it. Concussit therefore, or conquassa­vit, She took or jogged it together, either that the oyle or oyntment might give the more plea­sing and fragrant smell, or that she might be the surer to pour out all, and let nothing stick to the bottom. For in the old Glossary, [...] is concutio, and in Phavor. [...], [...], conquassat, that is, shakes toge­ther. [...] is [...], A vessel which hath no ears or handle where­by to take hold of it. Such as are at this day our Jars of Oyle: from a privative and [...], To take hold of: or [...], Vas olearium, or Ampulla unguentaria, such as we commonly call a cruise.

Ch. 1. v. 54, 55.

THESE two verses as they are Tran­slated in the English, may pass for good construction, but then, to ex­press the proper meaning of the place, these words, [as he spake to our Fathers] must be included in a Parenthesis alone, the words following [to Abraham and his seed for ever] relating necessarily to [by remem­bring his mercy.] Thus, He hath holpen his servant Israel by remembring his mercy (as he spake to our Fathers) to Abraham and to his seed for ever. That is, by remembring his mercy to Abraham, and to his seed for e­ver, as he spake to our Fathers. And not as he spake to our Fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever. As if [to Abraham] were oppositive to [Fathers] as the Paren­thesis implies in the Greek Edition, and the Translation in the Latin. Which though [Page 56] it seem a very nicety, yet is it such a Solae­cism in all Translations especially in the La­tin, that I cannot but wonder at the inad­vertency of former times, I may say stupidi­ty, that could possibly couple [...] and [...] the Accusative and the Ablative together, as if [...] were oppositive to [...], having little to salve the irregularity of the construction, but by say­ing, that Luke varied his form of speech, that is in plain terms, he writ incongruously, when in truth he is acknowledged by all Exposi­tors too knowing in the Greek to commit such a Solaecism. Infallibly therefore the words must be pointed thus. [...], Et sublevavit fi­lium suum Israel, reminiscendo misericordiam (ut locutus est ad patres nostros) Abrahamo & semini ejus in aeternum. The very words for more abundant confirmation are almost verbatim taken out of the last chapter of Micah the last verse. [...], Dabis veritatem Jacob, misericordiam Abra­ham, quae jurasti patribus nostris à diebus an­tiquis, Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham which thou hast sworn unto our Fathers from the days of old. [Page 57] The very thing is now fulfilled by remem­bring his mercy to Abraham and to his seed for ever, which was before foretold, to wit, the calling of the Gentiles, Psal. 98. v. 3. [...], &c. Recordatus est misericordiae suae Jacobo, &c. He hath re­membred his mercy to Jacob, and his truth toward the house of Israel, all the ends of the earth have seen the Salvation of our God. [...], in Micah, no question was [...], a fault of the Transcriber, for [...] which agreeth with the Hebrew, and the verb [...], Jurasti, in the second per­son, which immediately follows.

C. 2. v. 34, 35. [...], Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken a­gainst (yea a sword shall pierce through thy soul) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And to this reading are confor­mable all Interpreters. But there is no per­fect agreement among them in the meaning of the Parenthesis. Some interpret it of a Sword of sorrow that should pierce the Mo­thers heart, when she saw the bitter passion of her Son; others of a Sword of diffidence, that strook her through the heart, that is, [Page 58] she was overwhelmed with a distrust, that her Son should be the Son of God, when she saw him die, until she was by his Resurrection afterward restored and confirmed in her faith. Others of a Sword of calumny and reproach, which the unbelieving Jews did cast upon her Son, that did pierce her soul. And for the pro­priety of the Metaphor they have each In­terpreter his precedent to his peculiar sense. But take which of the senses you please, they are not easily without some straining applica­ble to the scope of the place, and therefore the words seem to be abruptly interposed, being as it were severed with a Parenthesis from the context. And this hath made me with submission to conceive, there may be another reading and interpretation, which will better reconcile the sense, without any Pa­renthesis at all, in manner, thus, Ecce positus est hic in casum & resurrectionem multorum in Israel, & in signum cui contradicetur, & tui ipsius gladius pertransibit animam, ut re­velentur multorum cordium cogitationes. Be­hold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against, and even thy Sword shall pierce their soul, that the thoughts of many may be revealed. As if it were read by a familiar trajection. [...]. And to speak ingenuously the [Page 59] Translation and the Syntax is as lawfull and as regular as the other, if not more proper. Whether the sense be fitter, I shall leave to indifferent judgments. It plainly and clearly runneth thus, And that the thoughts of the hearts of many may be discovered, even thy Sword shall pierce their soul. That is, the word of God that shall proceed out of thy mouth, which shall be more penetrating then the sharpest Sword, shall pierce through the souls of many, so that it shall reveal the in­most secrets of their hearts. So Heb. c. 4. v. 12. [...], &c. Sermo dei vivus & efficax, & acutior gladio qui binas habet acies, &c. For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper then a two edged Sword, piercing even to the divi­ding asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. So, as we have here in Heb. [...], a two edged Sword, have we, Revel. c. 1. v. 16. A sharp two edged Sword, and c. 19. v. 15. [...], a sharp Sword, the very word used in this place, which as Grotius saith, is Evan­gelicus sermo ex Christi ore proficiscens qui in­timo penetrat, &c. The Evangelical word pro­ceeding out of the mouth of Christ which pe­netrates the inmost parts, and discerns not only our actions, but our very thoughts whether good [Page 60] or evil. So Ephes. c. 6. v. 17. We have the Sword of the spirit which is the word of God. And what marvel if the Mother of our Lord with this Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God proceeding out of her mouth should so pierce the hearts of many, as that they should be forced to disclose the inmost secrets of their hearts, by confessing of their sins and acknowledging the ignorance of their ways? Who can question, but that Divine Canticle of hers, I mean her Mag­nificat, did melt and pierce the souls of all that heard it? And to confirm the propriety of the Metaphor in this sense, We have a Tongue that's like a sharp Raser, Psal. 52. v. 2. and words that were drawn Swords, Psal. 55. v. 21. and a Tongue that's a sharp Sword, Psal. 57. v. 4.

C. 3. v. 19, 20. [...], &c. And beyond all the Evils which Herod had done, he added yet this above all, [...], Prae omnibus cupere, To desire a­bove all things. Dion. Halic.

V. 23. [...] &c. These words seem to me to be rendred most significantly by trajection, as if it were read, [...], &c. And Jesus was about Thirty years of age, he himself beginning, being (as was sup­posed) the Son of Joseph, &c. [...] i. e. [Page 61] [...], beginning his Ge­nealogy, to wit, on his Fathers side by recko­ning upward, as Matthew recounted that on his Mothers side by reckoning downward, where he was [...] the last. For it is not pro­perly or significantly said that Jesus began to be about such an age, it being either tau­tologous or dubious. For, [...], About, signifieth a time indefinite, either above or under such a time. As for such trajections, they are most abundantly frequent, as you may see, Animad. Act. 13.27. 2 Cor. 4.4. 1 Pet. 3.21.

C. 5. v. 14. And he charged him to tell no man, but go and shew thy self, &c. That there is an incoherence in the construction of these words, is evident enough. And yet in the Greek the sense and Syntax are both good, and so may be also rendred in the English. [...], &c. And he charged him, remember, or see thou tell no man, but go and shew thy self to the Priest. By a com­mon Elleipsis the words [...] or [...] are to be understood before, [...]. As it is in the Parallel story, in Math. c. 8. v. 4. [...], or as the same phrase is Translated in the English, Act. c. 23 v. 22. [...], &c. having charged him, see thou tell no man, that thou hast shewed these things unto me. See Act. c. 1. v. 4.

[Page 62]C. 6. v. 35. [...]. Tis true the common version suites well enough with the place. Et mutuum da­te nihil inde sperantes, And lend hoping for nothing again. But tis as true, which Beza saith, that the word [...] in this sig­nification is not to be found in any Author, and therefore I conceive tis fit to use another, which as to the sense suits with the Context well enough, but is much more agreeable to the dialect of the Greeks. With whom [...] doth frequently signifie in the Hebrews Hiphil, desperare facere, to make desperate. In which sense the Syriack, Arabick, and Persian Interpreters seem all to have understood it, whereof the last most properly reads, Ne quem­piam desperabundum faciatis, as if it had been written in the Greek with an Apostrophe, [...], Neminem desperare faci­entes, Love your enemies, and do good and lend causing no man to despair. And in this sense may you find the word, Isai. c. 29. v. 19. [...], Desperati homines im­plebuntur laetitia, Desperate men shall be fill'd with gladness. And Ecclesiast. c. 27. v. 24. [...], Qui au­tem denudavit mysteria desperavit, i. e. de­sperare fecit, He that hath revealed secrets makes men to despair of him, as it is in the Ro­man Edition; and in Stephanus, [...], [Page 63] Desperare faciens Pa­rentes reditum, Causing his Parents to despair of his return. And so we have in Pliny lib. 22. cap. 24. Vulnera desperantia, Wounds that make the Chirurgeon to despair the cure. And this I take to be the proper reading and Ge­nuine signification in this place, [...], Neminem desperare facientes, Cau­sing no man to despair.

C. 7. v. 30. [...], Spreverunt voluntatem dei erga se­metipsos. By a frequent trajection, But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the will of God toward themselves, who would have had them called to repentance by the Preaching and Baptism of John the Baptist. [...], Hesych.

C. 11. v. 41. [...]. I cannot but differ from Interpreters in the Tran­slation and meaning of these words, which I rather render thus, Immo quae insunt date E­leemosynam, & ecce omnia vobis erunt mun­da, But give you the things that are within for alms, and behold all shall be clean unto you, [...], and [...], Phav. And this sense the scope of the place requires. For in allusion to what is said be­fore, [...] and [...] signifie one and the same thing, and so doth [...] in the Parallel place in Matthew c. 23. v. 26. [...], [Page 64] Purga prius quod intus est poculi, ut id quoque quod extra est fiat purum, Clean first that which is within the cup, that is as here, Give you first the things that are within for alms, that the outside may be clean also, that is also as is here, and be­hold all shall be clean unto you, the sense re­quiring the same interpretation in both pla­ces being Parallel. So as [...] must ne­cessarily be Translated here as [...] is there. The meaning of the place being thus, Ye Pharisees make a fair shew without, ye make long Prayers and perhaps ye give alms to the poor openly in the streets, but with­in ye are full of rapine and extortion. If therefore ye will that all ye have be clean in the eyes of God, give to the poor for alms, all the goods you have gotten by ra­pine and extortion, [...] and [...], these secret ill got goods which lye hid within from the eyes of men, this is truly to purge the inside of the pot, and then that which is without shall be clean unto you. Indefi­nitely whatever is within, the inside of the cup is throughly to be cleansed, that is to say, all they had got by rapine and extortion, were to be given to the poor in alms. Yet not so, that the bare restitution of their ill got goods was alone satisfactory: No, but until they did refund in alms (for it was im­possible [Page 65] to make a restitution to every man of his own,) all which they had got by e­vil means, nothing they should give or offer unto God would be accepted of him, but that whatever it were he would account it as un­clean; but as soon as they had bestowed all their ill got goods in alms unto the poor, then [...] and [...] the things without, and all the rest they had should be clean before the Lord, so that whatever they offered to him afterward should be pleasing and acceptable to him. And this I conceive to be the proper meaning of this place; for it were a very faint command for our Saviour to bid them, to give of such things as they had, it matters not how little, in comparison of bestowing all their ill got goods in alms.

C. 12. v. 49. [...], Ignem veni mittere in terram, & quid volo? utinam jam accensus esset, I am come to send fire on the earth, and what would I? O that it were al­ready kindled. But I have a Baptism to be Baptized with, and how am I streightened un­til it be accomplished? It is the speech of a troubled mind, the parallel whereof you may see Joh. 12.27. Now is my soul troubled, [...]; and what shall I say? Father save me from this hour, [...], but for this cause came I to this hour, Father glorifie thy name. He checks himself in either place, [...] [Page 66] with the LXX is of the same force as uti­nam, Num. 22.29. Jos. 7.7. and elsewhere. [...] is the fire of Persecution which began with Jesus.

C. 13. v. 33. [...], &c. For it may not, or cannot be that a Prophet pe­rish out of Jerusalem. And in this acception of the word is [...] very frequent in E­picurus, [...], It may be the Moon hath her light from herself, it may be from the Sun, whom Lucretius in­terpreteth accordingly,

And that it could not be otherwise but all the Prophets must perish in Jerusalem, Dru­sius hath observed, that the Prophets were not judged but by the Judges in the Sanhedrim, who always had their residence in Jerusalem, in a publick house, such as is our Convoca­tion or Chapter house. And so it immediate­ly follows, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem which kill­est the Prophets, &c.

C. 15. v. 4. [...], What man of you ha­ving an hundred Sheep, if he loose one of them, doth not he leave the Ninety and Nine, [Page 67] and goeth after that which is lost in the Wil­derness, until he find it. This trajection is familiar, and so we distinguish and read, Mat. c. 18. v. 12. He leaveth the Ninety and Nine, [...], and goeth into the Moun­tains and seeketh that which is lost. The de­sert wherein John Baptist lived and taught, Mat. c. 3. v. 1. is called [...], and Luk. c. 1. v 39. [...], montana, where­in Zachary did dwell.

C. 18. v. 7. [...]. Understand, [...], as the Old Latin seems to have done, & patientiam habebit? [...], may be Translated two several ways. If you understand the Elect, then it must be Prop­ter illos, & patientiam habebit diu propter illos? And shall he long have patience for them? [...] with a Dative doth sometimes sig­nifie, For, Scot. But if by [...] you un­derstand, their adversaries, as it may well be, for the Widow desired the Judge to avenge her of her Adversary, v. 3. and so I suppose they understood it, who Translate, In lon­gum differet iram in illos? Shall he long de­fer his anger toward them? then must you Translate, And shall he long have patience towards them, that is towards the Adversa­ries of the Elect, as we Translate, Ecclesiast. c. 35. v. 18. [...], Neither will the mighty be pa­tient toward them, meaning the unmerciful and [Page 68] Heathen which are forthwith in the same verse mentioned. That the verb [...] in all its Moods and Tenses is frequently understood, see Ani­mad. on Mar. c. 12. v. 40.

V. 8. [...]; Verum cum filius hominis venerit, inveniet hanc fidem in hac terra? But when the Son of man cometh shall he find this, that is, such a faith in this land [of Judaea?] For so [...] is often understood in Scripture, [...] for [...], and [...] for [...]. As is before observed, Matth. c. 11. v. 9. The sense is, When the Son of man cometh to the destruction of Jerusalem shall he find such a Faith in the Land, as shall importune God with its prayers, as did the troublesome or importunate Widow who never left the un­just Judge till he had avenged her? a faith which shall pray and never faint, according to which he commanded his disciples to pray in the beginning of the chapter. Neither is there any other commodious interpretation of the words. You have likewise, [...] for [...] visibly and expressly, c. 21. v. 23. [...], Erit enim pressura magna in hac terra, & ira in populo isto, For there shall be great distress in this land and wrath upon this peo­ple.

C. 22. v. 20. [...], [Page 69] This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you. But this Tran­slation makes a gross Soloecism in the Greek, whereof I would not willingly allow our E­vangelist to be guilty. For in my bloud which is shed for you implies that [...] relates to [...] the Nominative to the Dative, which in Syntax is by no means to be allowed; nei­ther do I think our Evangelist did more in­tend to joyn [...], and [...], here, then he did to couple [...], and [...], c. 1. v. 55. So that I cannot but admire with admiration, when the Excellent De Dieu is so confident in say­ing, Et si [...] casu differat à [...] dubium tamen non est, quin cum eo sit construendum, neque ullus hic praeterea Solaecis­mus statuendus. And to prove that this con­struction is no Solaecism he produceth these examples following, where an Oblique case may be turned into a Nominative, Eph. c. 3. v. 17, and 18. [...], &c. for [...], &c. But there as Beza rightly tells you, [...], &c. doth most properly agree with the verb [...], [...] being to be con­strued by trajection, Ut in charitate radicati & fundati possitis ass [...]qui, &c. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye be­ing rooted and grounded in love may be able to comprehend, &c. as it is in our English, [Page 70] and Joh. c. 1. v. 14. [...], &c. for [...]. But that con­struction is much better salved by the ordi­nary Parenthesis, as it is in Rob. Steph. Cur­cellaeus, the Old Latin, and our English. And lastly Apoc. c. 1. v. 4, and 5. [...], &c, and [...], &c. For which construction there may be this rea­sonable account, [...], ab eo, qui est nomine, [...], & à Jesu Christo, qui nomine est, [...], From him who is by name, Who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from Jesus Christ, who is by name, The faithful witness, &c. like as when we say according to Drusius, Augustinus in de Civitate dei, for in libris de Civitate dei. Be­sides this is a singular expression in S^t John, and will not serve however to justifie such an irregularity in S^t Luke, who by all is ac­knowledged to be generally learned, and not unskilful in the Greek, [...] Sophron. [...], Theophil. so that if there be any way to reconcile the Con­struction and the Sense I would choose That rather then to fasten such a Barbarism on our Evangelist, which truly I conceive may be done by saying there is a [...], vitium scriptoris, a fault in the tran­scriber, the like fault whereunto we do ad­mit in other places, and that instead of [...], [Page 71] it should have been written, [...], This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you, and this supposition makes the construction regular, and is but a light mistake, unless you will say that [...] is appositive to [...]. And then Translate it thus, This cup which is poured forth for you [in token of my bloud which is to be shed for the remission of your sins] is, or doth signi­fie the New Testament in my bloud. Neither is this exposition or sense so harsh and diffi­cult, but it may be fairly admitted and un­derstood.

V. 32. [...]. I confess that the Passive is of­ten taken for the Active in the New Testa­ment, and sometimes, though much more sel­dom, the Active for the Passive, but why it should be taken in this place I see no ne­cessity at all, especially when the proper interpretation of [...] in the Active sense doth on the contrary better agree with the scope of the place. Thus, The Lord said unto Peter, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired thee to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. And when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. As if he should say, As I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail, when Satan shall tempt thee, so do thou like­wise, [Page 72] when thou hast converted any of thy bre­thren to the faith, pray for them, i. e. con­firm them or strengthen them by thy prayers, that their faith may not fail, when Satan shall tempt them. As if it were read, [...]. which word [...] is to be understood, or [...] to be repeated, a form of speech extreamly frequent. You have it in the ve­ry preceding verse but even now mentioned. [...], i. e. [...], and in the 54. following, [...], for [...], Then took they him and led him, &c. See Animad. Act. 13.27. Ac­cording to the common Translation, it should have been written properly in the Passive voyce, [...], And thou when thou art converted. Neither doth it seem at all fit to say, And thou one day when thou shalt be converted, who was already be­fore converted, though he afterward fell, as our Saviour had foretold him. Neither I think will any man fix the moment of Pe­ters conversion in the crowing of the cock, if any do, [...], One day, is said in vain, for that word intimates a more distant time, then the space of a few hours, or minutes.

Ch. 5. v. 4.

[...], Whoever then first after the troubling of the wa­ters stepped in was healed, or made whole of whatsoever disease he had. Many things concurred saith learned Grotius, that this should not be thought any natural kind of healing by the water. And I conceive this alone to be argument enough, That none was healed but he who first stepped in after the troubling of the waters. One only was hea­led by one only moving of the waters. If the cure had been by a natural cause, why were not more healed then one at the same time? But certainly there was something su­pernatural in this matter, the reason whereof it is not necessary for us to know. It is e­nough for us that we are assured of the truth by Evangelical Authority.

[Page 74]Ch. 7. v. 22. Moses therefore, [...], &c. Certainly these words [...], ought to have been severed by a di­stinction to the former. Thus, [...], &c. U­num opus feci, & omnes miramini propter illud. Moses dedit vobis circumcifionem, &c. I have done one work and ye all wonder because of it. Moses gave you Circumcision, &c. And so is the sense perfect without any Solaecism, nei­ther is there any need of any disquisition con­cerning the unusualness of the phrase or in­consequence of the words. The Verb [...] being familiarly used in our sense with a Praeposition, as Mar. c. 6. v. 6. [...], Et mirabatur propter in­credulitatem eorum, He marvelled because of their unbelief. And so elsewhere.

C. 8. v. 4. [...], This woman was taken in Adultery in the very act. The Syriack reads aperte. But in my opi­nion it should be rather written with an A­postrophe, [...], and Translated thus, Haec mulier deprehensa est in sui ipfius con­spectu Adulterans, This woman was taken com­mitting Adultery in her own very sight. So openly that she cannot with any face deny it. The word cometh from [...] and the Praeterperfect tense of the Verb [...], [...]. So saith Phavorinus, [...], and [...], [Page 75] Qui à seipso redar­guitur, & conspectus est, He who is convin­ced and seen of himself.

C. 11. v. 10. [...], Quia lux non est in eo, that is, in mun­do, Because there is no light in it, that is, in the world. Not, in him, as is commonly rendred, which agreeth not with common sense. But thus it is perfect sense and construction both. If any man walketh in the day he stum­bleth not, [...], Be­cause he seeth the light of the world, but if a man walketh in the night, he stumbleth, [...], because there is no light in it, that is, relating to the foregoing word, in the world. He doth closely reprehend his disciples by a Parable, who stumbled at the mention of his going up to Jerusalem, telling them they ought not to stumble as long as he who was the light of the world was in the world, c. 9. v. 5. but when he should be ta­ken out of the world, it would be no marvel if they stumbled, and therefore he exhorts them, c. 12. v. 35. To walk while they have light, least darkness should come upon them, for yet a little while the light was with them, and he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. Or thus, The disciples stumbled or were offended, when he said let us go up to Jerusalem. The reason was they walked in the night of infidelity and igno­rance, [Page 76] for they would not, or did not under­stand that our Lord should suffer. As it is likewise said Luk. c. 18. v. 34. When Je­sus said unto them, behold we go up to Je­rusalem, and all things shall be perfected which are written by the Prophets of the Son of man, &c. They understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. They dreamed so of a temporal Kingdom, that they could by no means understand that our Lord should suffer, whom they expected to be a King to restore the Kingdom of Israel.

V. 33. [...], He groaned in his spirit, which troubled him. The conjunction [...] is frequent­ly so to be interpreted in the New Testa­ment, as you may see, Animad. 15.6.20.18. Apocal. 1.6. According to the Hebrew I­diotum, as Beza saith, which while Interpre­ters do not observe, they often trouble the Syntax and the sense, as in this very place: for certainly it is not good sense to say, He groaned in the spirit and troubled himself. But to say his spirit troubled him, is all one with that, 13.21. [...], he was troubled in his spirit.

V. 39. [...], For he hath been dead Four days. Rasis the Arabick Physician hath left it written, as I have it from Quistor­pius, That it was ordained by a law, that no [Page 77] Apoplecticks, who foamed about the mouth, should be buried, till after 72 hours, and consi­dering the reason he declares it to be an ex­cellent law, because all the humours had per­fected and finished their motions in Three days, that is in 72 hours, which term of the mo­tion of the humours being once finished, there is no more of life to be expected. And from hence he infers, that Jesus Christ did not raise up Lazarus again to life till he had been Four days dead, that there might be no place of objection left to the speculation of any Na­turalist, who, if he had been raised within the 72 hours, would have denied it to be a Miracle.

C. 13. v. 10. [...], He that is washed needeth not to have even his feet wash't, but is clean every whit. For what need can there be pretended to wash his feet, who hath been before washed all over from head to foot, yet to follow his discourse, which notwithstanding was besides his pur­pose which he intended in the washing of his disciples feet, he farther telleth them, But ye are not all clean, for he knew who it was that should betray him. His principle meaning was to teach them Humility by his example as is evident by the Context.

C. 15. v. 6. [...], Si quis [Page 78] in me non maneat projicitur foras ut palmes qui exaruit, If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch which is withered. And thus it is intire and perfect sense, neither is the construction or Translation at all new or un­usual, though the want of the thought there­of hath puzled most Interpreters in the ren­dring of this place. Our very Evangelist hath the same manner of speech, c. 20. v. 18. [...], Quod vidisset dominum qui ea sibi dixisset, That she had seen the Lord who had spoken these things unto her. And Luk. c. 15. v. 15. [...], Abiit igitur & adhaesit uni ex civibus regionis illius qui misit eum in agrum, And he went and joyned himself to a Citizen of that Country who sent him into his fields to feed swine. And Act. c. 6. v. 6. [...], Quos statuerunt in conspectu Apostolorum qui adhibitis precibus imposuerunt eis manus, Whom they set before the Apostles who when they had prayed layd their hands on them. In all which places Beza renders [...], Qui, bringing on this last place in his Annotations two examples of the same phrase, the one out of Mark c. 1. v. 10. the other out of Plutarch. For more abundant satisfaction, see note on Matth. c. 27. v. 9, 10. and Act. c. 7. v. 10.

V. 20. [...]. [Page 79] The word [...] without doubt in this place ought not to be taken, for to keep or observe, simply, but rather to be understood in the worser sense, and seems to be used for [...] insidiosè observare, that is to watch, with intention to intrap, as it is said, Luk. 14.1. [...], And they watched him, Ut captarent quod in eo repre­henderent, as Stephanus observes. And 20.20. [...], &c. And they watched him and sent forth spies, that they might take hold of his words. And that this is the meaning of [...] and [...] in this place, the joyning of [...] with [...], makes very probable, but the whole sense together beginning from the 18 verse doth e­vince it clearly. [...], &c. If the World hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you, &c. Remember the word that I said unto you, 13.16. the ser­vant is not greater then the Lord, if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you, if they have watched my sayings, they will also watch yours, But all these things will they do unto you for my Name sake. Certainly all in the wor­ser sense, They will persecute you, they will treacherously watch your words for my Names sake, that they may catch somewhat out thereof, whereof to accuse you, as they have done to me, for the Servant is not above the Lord. [Page 80] If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household so? Matth. 10.25. Nei­ther is the use of this word [...] for to watch or to observe in the same sense insolent at all, as you may see in Stephanus. You shall find it bears much the like sense, Ecclesiast. 11.4. [...], He that observes the wind, shall not sow, [...]. In which sense you have the word [...] often in the Old Testament, and somewhat more to our purpose. As Psal. 56.7. [...], They shall watch or observe my steps, Calcaneum me­um observabunt, [...]. A word Synonymous to [...]. And 71.11. [...], Et observationes animae meae, [...], And they that lay wait for my soul consult together. In both which places it might have been law­fully Translated [...] and [...] instead of [...] and [...].

C. 16. v. 26. [...], In that day ye shall ask in my Name, and not, I say unto you, because I will pray the Father for you, for the Father himself loveth you, &c. I say unto you, intervenes by way of Parenthesis, and answers in effect to both members of the speech. As if he should have said, I say un­to you, in that day ye shall ask the Father in [Page 81] my name, and he shall hear you, not because I will pray him for you, but because he himself loved you, for that ye have loved me, and have believed that I came from God.

V. 30. [...], Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee, by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. If any man ask, What means [And needest not that a­ny man should ask thee.] Let him but look back to the 19 verse, where tis said that Je­sus knew his disciples were desirous to ask him, although they inquired only among themselves, what it meant, that he said unto them, Yet a little while and ye shall see me, &c. For this therefore do they now say that they did be­lieve that he came forth from God, because he knew what they intended in their thoughts, and therefore needed not that they should ask him any question. [...], For it is God alone that knoweth the secrets of the heart.

C. 18. v. 17, and 25. [...]; Nonne & tu ex discipulis es homi­nis istius? Art not thou also one of this mans disciples? [...], nonne.

C. 20. v. 17. [...], Jesus said unto Mary, Touch me not. What can be the meaning of that? Matth. c. 28. v. 9. [...], [Page 82] They held his feet. Af­ter the Resurrection. They must needs there­fore touch him, which Thomas also might have done, v. 27. The Old Latin therefore not willing an argument should be drawn from the words next following, that he would not be touch't, doth prudently and very rightly in­clude them in a Parenthesis and so Connects noli me tangere with vade autem ad fratres me­os, &c. Meddle not, as may be more signifi­cantly rendred, with me, (for I am not yet as­cended to my Father.) But go unto my Bre­thren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Fa­ther and your Father, &c. As if he should say, he would not have her stay any longer in em­bracing of him, or medling with him, but that she should forthwith go unto the Disci­ples and comfort them, who no doubt were dismaied, by telling them, that he was not yet ascended, but that he would shortly ascend to their Father and his, and to their God and his. Then which there never was a more com­fortable Message, all circumstances conside­red.

C. 21. v. 22. If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee? And by this speech he did plainly intimate, that John should re­main alive till in truth he should come, as in very deed he did, to wit, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and Thirty years after, if we may believe Historians and Chronologers, in [Page 83] which number also they are to be reckoned, Matth. c. 16. v. 28. who Jesus saith should not tast of death, though then standing by, till they saw the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. The Destruction of Jerusalem being frequently understood by the coming of Christ. Which notwithstanding was not at that time known. For there went out a say­ing among the Brethren that this Disciple should not die. And so Tertullian, misled with this errour, affirmed, That they were deceived in their hope who expected that John should re­main alive until the coming of the Lord; O­biit enim & Johannes, For John was also dead. For he understood not those words of the coming of the Lord in his Kingdom to take vengeance of the Jews by the De­struction of Jerusalem, but of his last coming in the day of Judgment, and in that sense he said they were deceived of their hopes.

Ch. 1. v. 4.

[...]. The proper in­terpretation of this word is to be fetch't out of the parallel place in S^t Lukes Gospel, c. 24. v. 26. &c. Where he relates the same continued story, which immediately preceded the Ascension of our Lord, varying only the circumstances and words. How Jesus after his Resurrection, that he might take away all doubting out of the minds of his Disciples, who believed they saw a spirit, when he appeared to them, after that he had shewed them his hands and feet to feel, and yet they would not believe; for a most cer­tain argument of his Resurrection, that they should no longer think they saw a Vision or Spirit, he ask't them if they had any thing to eat, and when they had given him part of a hony comb and a broiled fish, he did eat before [Page 85] them, and at the very same place and time whilst he was eating with them, he said unto them, Behold I will send the promise of my Father unto you. And by this argument, saith S^t Chry­sostom, the Apostles did always assert the truth of his Resurrection, and therefore Peter, as he hath it, [...], when he would gain faith to the Resurrection, useth the same argument, Act. c. 10. v. 41. How God raised him up the third day, and shewed him to us, who did eat and drink with him after he was risen from the dead. So as I think we may with confidence resolve, that the true inter­pretation of [...] in this place is that of the Old Latin Interpreter, that is, Convescens, whilst he was eating together with them. For he repeateth here all the rest of the same things, which he had commanded in his Gospel at the same place and time. I­bid. [...]. These words as I con­ceive may be more truly Translated being thus distinguished without any supplement or breach of Syntax, and yet with a more commodious sence in this manner, Praecepit eis. Nolite ab Hierosolyma discedere, sed expectate promis­sionem patris, quam audistis, mei, He char­ged them, remember or see ye depart not from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of my Father which ye have heard of me. You have the very [Page 86] same sense, almost the words in the Parallel place in his Gospel, c. 24. v. 49. And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tar­ry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be en­dued with power from above. By a most fa­miliar Elleipsis the Infinitive is put for the Imperative, understanding [...] or [...], or the like before [...] and [...]. Ex­amples whereof are frequent in Heathen Au­thors, especially in Phocylides almost in every verse,

You have the very like in Sacred writ and that often, Act. c. 23. v. 22. [...]. Where the English reads, And charged him, see thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me. And this version the sense and Syntax do in both places necessarily require. So you have Rom. c. 12. v. 14, 15. [...], Benedicite & ne im­precemini, gaudete cum gaudentibus, & flete [Page 87] cum flentibus, Bless and curse not, rejoyc with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. See Ruth c. 1. v. 6. Matth. c. 5. v. 39. Luk. c. 5. v. 14. Act. c. 23. v. 24. And in many other places. As for the par­ticle [...], I conceive it is more suitably, as without doubt it is more regularly, rendred in this place, The promise of my Father which you have heard, because [...], are the very words our Evangelist useth in the Parallel place in his Gospel, much rather then, The promise of the Father which ye have heard of me, as usually they do with a most violent construction. Whereas the trajection is most common and familiar.

V. 25. [...], That is, [...], or [...]. And that [...] may be taken here for [...] Oecumenius teacheth clear­ly in his Exposition on these words, [...], &c. [...]. His proper place, he ei­ther calls the strangling [whereof Judas died] or because Judas being fallen, he had his place who took his Bishoprick, for it cannot be imagined what [...] can possibly signifie in this place of Oecumenius, but [...], locum e­jus, [Page 88] his place into which Matthias was to succeed, that is the Apostleship of Judas from which he was by transgression fallen. As out of this very place Clarius hath animadverted on these words, In locum suum, si ad Judam referas, videtur intelligere laqueum quo se dignnm judicavit ob proditionem, sin ad Mat­thiam, intellige Episcopatum cui successit. Un­to his place, if you look on Judas, it seems to mean the halter whereof he thought him­self worthy for his treachery, if on Matthias, understand the Bishoprick into which he suc­ceeded, that is Judas his Apostleship, for they were not then ordained Bishops. So Cicero doth most frequently use suus instead of ejus, and that in imitation of the Greeks, as Budaeus saith, for, suus, non modò [...], sed etiam [...] significat & utroque modo apud Graecos accipitur ut [...] saepissime pro sibi & pro ei, Bud. Com. pag. 28. So that the Tran­slation is properly this, Thou Lord who know­est the hearts of all, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen to take part of this Ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas is by trans­gression fallen, that he may enter into his place. That is, that he whom thou hast chosen may succeed into the place of Judas his Apostle­ship. [...] is the same phrase with [...] in Demosthenes, which Budaeus interprets Haereditatem adire. For in Cicero, Haereditatem adire is haeredi­tatem [Page 89] subire or suscipere, To enter upon or to take upon one the inheritance, as our Ho­lyoak hath well observed. And this inter­pretation seems to be more reasonable, then that of their's who interpret it of Judas, as if S^t Luke should mean, that he was gone to his own or to his proper place, to wit, as they would have it, unto Hell. Tis true, no man can make other judgment. But I cannot for all that think the Evangelist had any such meaning in these words, I rather with Chry­sostom look upon, [...], &c. The prudence of the man, how he speaks not contumeliously nor insults, &c. Which plainly argues that he thought not, that it was the meaning of S^t Luke in these words to adjudge Judas into Hell, For what could he have said of Judas more contume­lious, then that he was gone to his own place, meaning Hell? Neither was it the busi­ness of an Historian or Evangelist to inter­pose his own opinion, but rather to leave Ju­das to the judgment of God, it being enough for him to have related matter of fact, as he had promised and professed to do in the be­ginning of his Gospel. [...], &c. Even as they had delivered things unto us who were eye-wit­nesses from the beginning, &c. But who will you say was an eye-witness of Judas his going to or being in Hell?

[Page 90]C. 2. v. 27. [...], Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in Hade, neque dabis sanctum tuum vi­dere corruptionem, Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor give thy holy one to see corruption. The first branch of this verse seems to concern his Soul which was not left in the state of death, as other humane Souls. I say, left in the state of death, for it is not one and the same thing to die, or to be dead, and to be or to remain in the state of death, or if you please, as it is v. 24. [...], that is [...] in vinculis, in the bonds of death, as Athanasius and Beza inter­pret the word; and so in the Psalmist, in the LXX [...] and [...] are Synonymous, or in those receptacles where the Souls of the Godly are reserved till they receive their crown, as S^t Augustin; or in the middle of the shadow of death where the Souls of the dead are, as Irenaeus; or in Hades, or in Hell, whither we are taught by the Apostles Creed that he descended, or went into. Where by the way I cannot but observe, that our English Hell, comes from the Saxon HELAN, celare, te­gere, to hide or cover, so as it may be said to have the same signification with Hades, [...], [...], a place that cannot be seen, [...], locus sine luce. Phavor. or else in Pa­radise with the Soul of the Thief. All which [Page 91] several expressions serve but to signifie one and the same thing. For I do not see but Paradise may very lawfully be interpreted a receptacle or separated place for departed Souls, from the Hebrew [...], separavit, locus sepa­ratus, or septum, a close, such as for pleasure and delight our Parks and Gardens are, from which cause this word hath obtained with the Hebrews the meaning of bliss and pleasure. And I cannot but think the Greeks borrowed the word from the Hebrews, and that nei­ther of them owe it to the Persian. For though perchance (which yet is by no means certain) Nehemiah might borrow it from the Persian, who lived in the Persian Court, yet Solomon tis certain, which used the same word in Ecclesiastes and in Canticles many ages before Nehemiah's time, writ in the Hebrew tongue, neither is there any reason at all to think that he ever used the Persian dialect. Nei­ther is such a termination with the Hebrews so unusual, with whom such Anomalous words are frequent, that we should so earnestly dis­own it, as their due. Neither doth the Rab­bins [...] which signifies death, which is a se­paration, differ from our sense. Why should we therefore fly from the Hebrew to the Per­sian, and acknowledge him to be the true owner of the word? I confess I value the Autho­rity of Julius Pollux, but I shall not swear unto it. However in summ I conceive it not [Page 92] unreasonable to say, that the Godly who are in the state of death, are in Paradise, in what ever place secluded, and finally to conclude, that this first branch of the verse concerns only his Soul, as the latter plainly concerns his body, which saw no corruption as other human bodies do. And in this sense doth Peter expressly explain the words, v. 31. [...], Non relicta est anima e­jus in Hade, neque caro ejus vidit corruptio­nem. That his Soul was not left in Hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. Plainly distinguishing between his Soul and Body, as if he did it of set purpose, to the end that none should think this place concerned the Sepulchre or Grave of Christ alone, as some would have, that say, that Hades signifieth nothing else. For Perversissimum est, &c. as Tertullian, saith, lib. de Carne Christi. It is a most perverse thing, that naming the flesh, we should understand the Soul, or naming the Soul we should understand the flesh, The truth of their names is the safety of their properties. Neither doth Athanasius speak less plainly to our purpose. [...], &c. Nei­ther did death prevail to subjugate his human nature so far as to detain it in its bonds, nei­ther could corruption by any tyrannical inva­sion exercise its power to the putrefaction of his body. Humanae ista lex necessitatis, &c. [Page 93] saith Hilary, It is a law of humane necessity, that the bodies being buried, the Souls descend into Hell, which descent the Lord himself did not refuse, to shew the truth of his manhood, or human nature. And doubtless this is the scope of Peters words in this place, of purpose to prove the Resurrection of Christ, and that he was not left in the state of death as other mortals are. And this opinion I hold to be pious and consonant to faith. I believe the immortality of the Soul, I believe the Re­surrection of the body, and its reunition with the Soul, and life everlasting, I am no friend to Purgatory, nor to any prayer, supplication or application to any Saint, save only to our sole Mediator Jesus Christ, who for that par­ticular end ascended into the holy of holies, that is, into the highest heavens, that there he may commend our prayers to our Father which is in heaven; who from hence also conceive may be drawn a cogent argument, that pray­ers ought not to be made to Saints, whom Religion hath not yet placed in that holy of holies, to wit, the highest heavens, and so qua­lified for fitting Mediators. But there are not few and those no mean ones neither, who positively say, there is no receptacle of Souls, but affirm that the Souls of the Godly do immediately after their separation from their bodies go into heaven, that is to say, as I suppose, that heaven which is properly called [Page 94] heaven. One of whose great Arguments is from that of Luke c. 23. v. 43. Hodie eris mecum in Paradiso, Thou shalt be with me this day in Paradise. But that day our Saviour was not in heaven, unless they speak and mean ae­quivocally, for he was not yet ascended either in human Soul or Body, as far as Scripture doth, or reason can inform us. Paradise there­fore must be some other place, namely, this Hades or Hell, as we Translate it, in which for a short time his Soul was held, to which he properly went, or may be said to have de­scended, and in which the same day together with his Soul was also the Soul of the Thief, where together with the rest of the Souls of the Godly that are departed (our Saviours only being delivered or loosened from its bonds the Third day) this Soul of the Thiefs doth rest till the last day of the Resurrection. [...] in horto Eden qui locus est re­ceptaculum animarum post hanc vitam, Dru­sius ad locum, Lucae c. 23. v. 43. He speaks the same lib. praeterit. 3^o. Paradisum à caelo distingui, quod ille sit receptaculum animarum post vitam, caelum autem recipiat omnes post judicium extremum. They urge another ar­gument from S^t Ambrose, Christum introitu suo aperuisse credentibus regnum caelorum, That Christ by his entrance had opened the King­dom of heaven to all believers. Before which time the Fathers were not made partakers of [Page 95] the Promise, but that from the death and as­cension of Christ they also ascended with him into heaven, and were there consummate and made perfect, as to their Souls which then were received into heaven, which before the Ascension of Christ were not ascended. In answer whereunto, I do truly acknowledge, but not in their sense, that Christ by his En­trance or Ascension into heaven did open the Kingdom heaven to all believers, which before was shut to all the world save only to the Jews, but since the time of his Passion and Ascension open to any one that strives to en­ter, so as its now lawful for all persons of all Nations to press into it, who shall believe in his Name. But to meet the argument, I beseech you, where were the Souls of the Fa­thers before they Ascended with Christ into heaven? For where ever they were, reason perswades it, and Scripture doth not deny it, in the same place was the Soul of Christ, and where was the Soul of Christ there was also the Soul of the Thief, They were not yet Ascended, Neither surely were they in a place of torment, for I cannot think it could be any comfort to the Thief, as I suppose, it was intended, if Christ should have told him that he should be that day with him in a place of torment, it must therefore be ratio­nally concluded, that they were in some third place of rest. In which place if we affirm [Page 96] that the Souls of all the Godly departed re­main till the last day, what danger is there, what incommodity? If we believe, I say, and believe no more, that there remains to all a Resurrection in the last day, both Fathers and us, in which day we with them shall be most perfectly consummate, and that in the mean while all the Souls of the Godly are in the hands of God, [...]. In a place due and proper to them, as it is in the Epistle of Polycarpus to the Philippians. And all this while not a moment of time if com­pared with Eternity. Neither were the old Christians wont, as Grotius saith, to call this middle state of place and time between this life and the Resurrection, by the name of heaven. But I contain my self, this question requi­ring a longer and larger disquisition, then to be shut up in so narrow limits. And yet a question, which neither Scripture nor any ge­neral Council or Synod had ever yet explicite­ly determined for an Article of Faith, before the Convocation at Dublin 1615. Which did then indeed so define it. That after the end of this life the Souls of the Sons of God were immediately received into heaven, &c. Perhaps of purpose to meet with the Romish Purgatory. Neither should I have said thus much, but that many persons do so tenaciously maintain this last opinion for an Article of their Faith, that they condemn all who hold otherwise of im­piety [Page 97] and heresie. And that these words seemed to me so plain, that as it were they led me by the hand to the sense and mean­ing which I have here laid down, though rare­ly in that respect observed of any. I am ve­ry much pleased with the modesty of Cal­vin in this very argument, when speaking of the Souls of the faithful, and their place and state after this life, he saith, Valde se tor­quent multi, &c. Many do very much trouble themselves in disputing what place departed Souls possess, and whether they enjoy a heaven­ly glory or not, But tis a rash and foolish thing to enquire farther or deeper of or in things un­known, then God hath permitted us to know. And elsewhere upon that place of the Gos­pel aforementioned concerning the Thief and Paradise, De loco Paradisi curiose & argutè disputandum non est, &c. We must not dispute curiously or subtilly of the place of Paradise, let it suffice us who are ingrafted into the bo­dy of Christ by faith, that we shall be par­takers of his life, and so after death injoy a blessed and chearful rest, till that in the coming of Christ the perfect glory of a heavenly life shall solidly appear unto us. In which opinion I do willingly acquiesce, conceiving that which I hold to be safe, Probable with Peter Mar­tyr, agreeable to reason, and not disagreeable to Scripture.

V. 30. [...] [Page 98] in this place is to be taken, [...], or as they say, materialiter, and denotes the mat­ter of the oath which God sware unto Da­vid, that is, ex fructu lumbi ipsius [...], resurgere facturum Christum, [...], in carne ut sederet super solium ejus, That out of the fruit of his loyns he would raise up Christ in the flesh to sit upon his Throne. And this is the [...], the very thing the A­postle seeks to prove, to wit, that Christ rose in the flesh, which out of the Context is most evident and plain. For he seeing this before spake of the Resurrection of Christ, v. 31. and in the following verse it is positively affirmed, That this Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. So that the word [...], raise up, must not be understood de adventu Christi, of the coming of Christ into the world, as some would have it, but of his Resurrection; and so affirmeth Beza, [...], melius praesenti argumento quadrare, si de Resurrectione Christi accipiatur, quam si ad Adventum referas, That, to raise up Christ, doth better square with the present argument, if it be understood of his Resurrection then if you refer it to his Coming. But if that word alone square better with the scope of the place, then doth it much more to raise him up [...] in the flesh, it being the ve­ry thing which was to be proved. So as it cannot be denied, but it doth much obscure [Page 99] the sense and scope of the words to say, that according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit upon his Throne. [...] doth frequently signifie In, as [...], in Antio­chia. Act. c. 15. v. 23. [...], in tem­pore, in due time. Rom. c. 5. v. 6. [...], Hesych. [...], man­serant in loco, Phavor.

C. 3. v. 18, 19, 20. These three verses I suppose may better be distinguished and Tran­slated thus, [...], &c. Deus autem secundum ea quae praenuntiavit per os omnium prophetarum Christum perpessurum, implevit ita (paenite­mini igitur & convertimini ut deleantur pec­cata vestra) ut venerint tempora refrigerii ab ira domini, & miserit qui vobis praenunciatus est Jesum Christum, quem oportet caelum re­cipere, &c. But God according to what he had foretold by the mouth of all his Prophets that Christ should suffer, hath fulfilled so (repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out) that the days of refreshment from the anger of the Lord are come, and that he hath sent unto you who was before foretold of, Jesus Christ, Whom the heavens must re­ceive, [Page 100] &c. These words by postponing of the Parenthesis to its proper place, according to our common way of speaking, are more clear­ly understood Thus. But God according to what he had foretold by the mouth of all his Pro­phets that Christ should suffer, hath fulfilled so that the days of refreshment or rest from the anger of the Lord are come, and that he hath sent unto you who was before foretold of Jesus Christ, whom the heaven must receive until the times of the consummation of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets, since the world began. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. You have the like in­tervenient Parentheses in many places, as Joh. c. 1. v. 14. Luk. c. 1. v. 55. c. 2. v. 34, 35. and elsewhere, [...], for [...], a common Gre­cism, and so read the Syriack, and the Aethiop. [...], Bud. and so is it Tran­slated often, as Matth. c. 6. v. 5. [...], Ut appareant, That they may appear. Luk. c. 2. v. 35. [...], Ut revelentur, and elsewhere. [...], lawfully, ab ira domini, for [...] in Hebrew sig­nifies faciem and iram. [...], Hesych. [...], praenuntiatum, right­ly. [...], tempora consum­mationis. [...], Hesych. and Phav. And so Oecumenius, [...], [Page 101] It behooves all things to be finished and brought to an end. See Matth. c. 17. v. 11.

C. 7. v. 4. [...], &c. Et inde postquam mortuus est pa­ter ejus, transtulit illum in hanc terram in qua vos nunc habitatis, And from thence after his Father was dead, he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell. It hath not a lit­tle troubled Interpreters, that Stephen should here say, that God removed Abraham out of Charran after the death of his Father, because it is said, Gen. c. 12. v. 4. That Abraham went out of Charran in the 75 year of his age, and c. 11. v. 26. that he was born in the 70 year of Terah his age, and v. 32. that Terah was 205 years old when he died. For from hence it follows that Terah overlived the departure of Abraham out of Charran 60 years. Therefore to untie this knot almost all our late Chronologers and Interpreters, all o­ther opinions exploded, will have Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terahs age, and not in the 70, as others of Ancient times have thought, for if to 130 years you add 75 which was the age of Abraham when he went out of Charran, you fall just into the true year of the death of Terah. And to make this opinion good, they say, it is not necessary that from Gen. c. 11. v. 26. it should be un­derstood that Abraham was born in the 70 [Page 102] year of Terah, but that in that year Terah began to be a Father. For that it is not ex­presly said that Abraham was born in that year, but that Terah lived 70 years and be­gat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, from whence they will not have it concluded that Abraham was the Eldest Brother, because first named, but say they, it is more likely he was the Youngest, and that for preheminencies sake only he was first named of Moses. And that they may make this opinion yet surer, they frame an argument out of their own supposita, whereby they think to fasten an absurdity up­on those of another judgment. Thus, If A­braham were the Eldest Son, then Sarah his wife the Daughter to his Brother Haran, and but Ten years Younger then Abraham, Gen. c. 17. v. 17. must necessarily be born to Ha­ran in the Eighth year of his age, which would be ridiculous to affirm But to answer this argument in the first place. First, I see no cause to grant that Sarah was the Daughter of Haran. For that question is not yet re­solv'd. For who that reads Gen. c. 20. v. 12. Indeed she is my sister, she is the daughter of my Father, but not the daughter of my Mo­ther, will not confidently conclude that Sarah was the Sister of Abraham and the Daugh­ter of Terah, but not by one and the same wife? especially such a Solemn asseveration being added, as if he had spoke it purposely [Page 103] to free himself from the suspicion of speak­ing falsly. Whereupon Hierome, after ano­ther Exposition of the words first, addeth, Sed quia in Hebraeo habet, Verè soror mea est, filia Patris mei, sed non filia Matris meae, magis sonat quod Abrahae soror fuit. In excusationem ejus dicimus, nec dum illo tempore tales nuptias esse prohibitas. But be­cause it is in the Hebrew, Indeed she is my sister, she is the daughter of my Father, but not the daughter of my Mother, it sounds ra­ther that she was Abrahams sister. We say for his excuse, that as yet such marriages were not prohibited. As also the Hebrew Doctors, among the six sorts of unjust copulations, reckon that for one, cum sorore uterina, with the sister by the Mother. Nay Musculus is yet more plain, Omnia haec commenta simplicitas Hebraica respuit, quid est enim necesse tor­queri in re tam clare expressa? &c. The He­brew simplicity rejects all these devices, for what necessity is there to be troubled in a thing so clearly expressed? He saith, Indeed she is my sister, the daughter of my Father, and that she might not be thought to be of one and the same belly, he adds, and not the daughter of my Mother, so that it is manifest, that Sarah was born to Terah by another wife, then that of whom he had Abraham. To this may be added out of Eusebius, [...], [Page 104] Abrahamus verò à Patre accipit uxorem suam Saram, Abraham taketh his wife Sarah from his Father, not from Haran. And by this appears that this question is not yet deter­mined But be it granted that Sarah was Ischah and the daughter of Haran, what hin­ders but Abraham might be born when Ha­ran was Forty years of age? And then how easily might Sarah be the Daughter of Haran, and but Ten years Younger then Abraham, and no absurdity follow that Haran was but Eight years old when Sarah was born? For though the Scripture say, That Terah lived 70 years and begat Abraham, Nahor and Ha­ran, it doth not therefore necessarily follow, that Terah at that time began to be a Fa­ther, no more then that Terah begat them all in that year, which I suppose no man will affirm; or that Noah began to be a Father, when he is said to have been Five hundred years old, and to have begotten, Shem, Ham and Japhet. But certainly it is much more probable, that Terah began to be a Father about the 30^th year of his age, and about that time begat Haran, about which time his Progenitors began to be Fathers, and about which time our late Chronologers would have Cainan (whom Luke interposeth in his Genealogy) begin to be a Father. I say Haran, because he seemeth to be the Eldest Brother, if both Nahor and A­braham married his Daughters. But if Ha­ran [Page 105] were born to Terah in his Thirtieth year, it behooved him to be 40 years old when Abraham was born to Terah in his 70^th, and if Sarah were born to Haran in the 50^th year of his age, which it is lawful and fit enough to guess, then must she be Ninety years old when Abraham was an Hundred. So that the argument which would fix an absurdity upon Dissenters, falls to the ground either way. And of this opinion, which to me seems ve­ry probable and equal, Josephus gave me the hint, Antiq. Jud. lib. 1. where he expressly affirms that Abraham was born in the 70^th year of Terah, and afterwards apart, that he had to his brothers Nahor and Haran, without having any regard to their age, as being not material, and as if they might have been born at any other time, even before the 70^th of their Father. For there is mention made of them only because they are named in the se­quent History. And the same with Submis­sion I suppose may in the like manner be un­derstood of the Patriarch Noah, that is to say, that he begot Shem in the 500 year of his age, neither in that year began to be a Father, but that Shem had Brothers, Japhet and Cham, who might likewise have been born many years before the 500 year of Noah, named only Gen, c. 5. v. 32. because there is mention made of them in the follow­ing Story, as in the same manner are named [Page 106] Nahor and Haran, Gen. c. 11. v. 26. My arguments for either opinion are these. First, It argues, that Shem was born in the 500 year of Noah, because it behooveth his age, as also that of Abraham to be fix't, in whose off-spring, Tendens ad Abrahamum civitatis dei ordo dirigitur, The line of the City of God [that is of his Church] was to be directed down to Abraham. As it is in titulo c. 10. lib. 15. August. de Civit. Dei. But it is objected, that Shem could not be born in the 500 year of Noah, because its said, Gen. c. 11. v. 10. That Shem was an Hundred years old, and be­gat Arphaxad Two years after the Floud, from whence they gather that Noah begat Shem in the Five Hundred and Second year of his age. Whereof Scaliger gave warning, Can. Isag. lib. 3. Sciant verò Studiosi quosdam biennium plus quam nos ab Adam ad Exodum putare, idque propter Natalem Arphaxad, qui conti­gerat anno secundo Diluvii. Nos non omi­simus quidem illum annum, sed annum Quin­gentesimum Noae, & Millesimum Sexcentesi­mum Quinquagesimum Sextum Diluvii curren­tes accipimus, But let Schollars know, that some do reckon two years more then we do from A­dam to the going out of Aegypt, and that be­cause of the Birth time of Arphaxad, which happened the second year of the Floud. We have not omitted that year, but we take the Five Hundreth year of Noah, and the Thousand, Six [Page 107] Hundred Fifty and Sixth year of the Floud from the Creation of the World both current. For demonstration sake suppose, that Noah was born the first day of the first month (as all agree that he was born in the beginning of the year) and that in the Five Hundreth year of his age he begat Shem, perhaps Fourteen days before the year was fully ended, and then must Shem be an Hundred years old fourteen days before the Six Hundreth year of Noah's age was expired. So that when the Floud was dried up and Noah went out of the Ark in the Six Hundred and first year of his age, in the second month and the Seven and Twen­tieth day of the month, Gen. c. 8. v. 13, 14. then was Shem an Hundred years old, 14 days, one month and 27 days, that is, one Hundred years and 71 days old, on which Se­ven and Twentieth day if Shem did first begin (as it is reasonable and lawful enough to con­jecture) to give his mind to the duty of Marriage after the Floud, then from that day within the space of 280 days, according to the time of life, might Arphaxad be born, unto which if you add 71, the remainder of the age of Shem after the Hundreth already reckoned, there will be in the whole 351, so that there will be still remaining of the Hundreth year of the age of Shem yet cur­rent, taking out 351 out of 365 days the whole space of a year, 14 days. And there­fore [Page 108] did not Scaliger unfitly take the 500 year of Noah current, and it is rightly said according to the plain letter of the Scripture, Et Semus erat Centum annorum filius & ge­nuit Arphaxad secundo anno post Diluvium, And Shem was an Hundred years old and be­gat Arphaxad the second year after the Floud. But here they further object, that Arphaxad was born [...], which they interpret, duobus annis, two years after the Floud. But what [...] means, I conceive the LXX did more rightly interpret [...], as also did Augustin and Scaliger, secundo anno Diluvii, or post Diluvium. For if from the Creation of the World to the Floud be reckoned 1656 years, as all confess according to Hebrew ac­count, and from the Floud to the Birth of Abraham, suppose him to be born in the 70 year of Terah, 292, it is necessary, that the first year of those 292 years begin from the Floud beginning, or the beginning of the Floud, and consequently the 1657 year from the Creation of the World, in which we say Arphaxad was born, must of necessity be the second after the Floud. As to this proof it is the same though you admit Abra­ham to be born in the 130 year of Terah. So that Scaliger did neither unfitly take the year of the Floud also current. If any shall yet cavil at the interpretation of [...], be­sides the very demonstration, he calls the [Page 109] judgment of the LXX, as also the judgement of those persons whom all ages must acknow­ledge to be learned, and the very use of speech with the Hebrew into question, with whom [...] is filius secundi anni, that is a son who is in the compass of the second year of his age, with the Latins termed bimus, and with the Greeks [...], whereof you may see note on Matth. c. 2. v. 16. But suppose the word be taken in the strict sence as they would have it, and be Translated two years after the Floud, why may not Moses, though Arphaxad was born within the space of two years complete, speak [...] sed [...] numero completo fortè posito pro fracto, using a complete number perhaps for a broken one, ut etiam apud Demosthenem & Plautum talentum numerari videmus ubi non exiguus drachmarum numerus deest vel superest. Et vulgatissima est haec numerandi [...]. And this is a common abuse of numbring, as Scaliger hath observed. And surely very fre­quent with Moses himself, for who can ima­gin that all the Fathers lived precisely whole years, no months, nor days over or under? What end is there then in so troubling the Chronology of the Church of God, and the distracting the letter of his Word, when it is so easie to demonstrate, that what the Scrip­ture saith, might lawfully be done, and pro­bably also was so? And if these things be [Page 110] so, how in the second place can it be said, that Noah began to be a Father in the 500 year of his age? For if Shem were born to Noah in his 500 year, and Japhet were the Eldest Brother, as do rightly Translate Pag­nin, the LXX, and the Chald. Paraph. Gen. c. 10. v. 24. (rightly I say, for if Moses had intended Shem for the Elder Brother, he would surely have said [...], and not [...]) and Cham also the Younger Son, as for the most part he is said to be, that is younger then Japhet, for Shem was the Youngest of all, which also a­mong many others, Josephus doth confirm, Antiq. Jud. lib. 1. c. 7. Where he calleth Shem, [...], the Third son of Noah. And Schindler also, a man of no vulgar judgment in holy matters, who saith in his Pentagl. in the word [...], that Cham was the second son of Noah, and Shem the youngest. How as I said before, can Noah be said to have began to be a Father in the 500 year of his age, when it appears so manifestly that Japhet and Cham must be born before? Neither is it cre­dible, at least not probable, that he began not to be a Father, till his age began to decrease, and that he was made a Preacher of righteous­ness unto the perishing World; But it sounds much more likely, that he began to be a Father about the same time that his Progenitors began also to beget Sons, perhaps about the Hun­dreth [Page 111] and Eightieth year of his age, about which time Methuselah begat Lamech, and Lamech begat Noah, or perhaps inlarging the time, about the Two Hundreth or Three Hundreth year of his age. Neither, if Noah had begun to be a Father in the 500 year of his age, and Shem were his Third son, can it in any sense be said that Shem begat Ar­phaxad in the Hundreth year of his age, two years or the second year after the Floud, but Three years or in the third, unless we will say that all Three were born in the space of Two years, which were a strange thing to affirm. But to return to the matter it self. Their reasoning seems to me so far from rea­son, that I can by no means rest satisfied in it. For, first, whereas they would have A­braham to be born in the 130 year of Te­rah, hath little probability in it. For why should Abraham wonder so, as if his reason strove with his faith, that a child should be born to him that was an Hundred years old, if he had been born to his Father in the Hun­dreth and Thirtieth year of his age? But this objection they value not a straw, (although it be indeed [...].) They tell you the wonder of the Patriarch is not rightly understood. For he had a respect only to his wife, and not to himself, when he spake thus within him, It ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women, There was the won­der, [Page 112] as for Abraham, he had sons by a young wife Thirty and Seven years afterward. Say they so? But how then will they answer Paul, Rom. c. 4. v. 12. [...], Non consideravit cor­pus suum jam emortuum, And he considered not his own body being dead, and Heb. c. 11. v. 12. [...], &c. Quocirca & ab uno orti sunt eoque emortuo, tanquam sidera coeli, There­fore sprang there even of one and him as good as dead, as the stars of the sky in multitude. Out of which places compared together Estius concludes, Satis ex his liquere scripturam non solum in Sara ponere miraculum sed etiam in Abraham. What to Musculus? Certe negari non potest ista verba Abrahami exprimere quan­dam senilis & emortui corporis considerationem tam in Abrahamo quam in Sara. What to Am­brose? Non dubito quod facias, ut & centum an­norum seni dones filium, & Naturae auctor Na­turae metas relaxes. What to Chrysostom? [...], Supra humanam naturam promissa; erat enim Patriarcha prae senectute pro­pe impotens & ad filiorum procreationem omni­no inutilis. As to his having of sons by his young wife 37 years after, Why should not the Author of Nature inlarge the bounds of Nature? Why should not he by divine mi­racle [Page 113] repair and restore the strength of him that was almost dead, and make him to wax young again, whom he had foretold should be the Father of many Nations? Secondly, It doth not agree with reason, that Moses should leave the age of Abraham, on which depends the whole Chronology of the Church of God, in such uncertainty, that either we must fish it out or extort it by conjecture. They are the words of Langius upon another matter but of the same nature, Quem quaeso in fi­nem haec à Mose proscripta sunt, nisi ut tem­porum constaret ratio? Propter hoc ergo Mo­ses tempora apposuit, ut veritas manifestior esset, To what end were these things written of Moses, but that there might appear a clear account of the times? For this reason there­fore Moses set to the times, that the truth of them might be the more manifest. But that the truth of them might be the more ma­nifest as to the Chronology of the Church of God, whose age I beseech you ought to be more accurately certain, Abrahams, or Terah's? The knowledge truly of the time of the Birth of Abraham was absolutely necessary, but so was not the knowledge of the time of the death of Terah. How shall there appear a certain account of times, if it depend wholly upon conjecture, and that so improbable, most certainly disputable? But when you have the time of Abrahams Birth, and of his depar­ture [Page 114] out of Charran, you have a most sure account of the times, in which you may safely rest. Thirdly, That Abraham was not born in the Seventieth year of Terah, is a­gainst the most general opinion of the An­cients, to whom some reverence is due. Where­of I shall produce some Testimonies. The first shall be that I mentioned before out of Josephus, [...], Thara 70 genuit Abrahamum, and a little after [...], Abrahamus vero habuit fra­tres Nachorem & Haranem. From whence it manifestly appears what was the Jews o­pinion in Josephus his time, whatsoever they have written of that matter since, and that he thought it his business to determine the age of Abraham certain separately by it self, being not at all solicitous for the age of Na­hor or Haran. There is another Testimony of the Patriarch Nicephorus before Eusebius his time, [...], Thara septuagenarius genuit Abraha­mum. Besides the judgment of Eusebius him­self frequent in his Chronicles, as also of the Latins, as is to be collected out of August. de Civit. Dei lib. 16. c. 10, and 15. and in Quest. super Genesim. Neither is the Testi­mony and judgment of that learned Arab. Gre­gorius Abul Pharaiius in his Hist. dinast. to be despised. Tareh filius Nahor. Natus est [Page 115] illi Abraham cum esset secundum utramque simul sententiam 70 annorum, & ab hoc tem­pore convenit inter duos computos LXX & Hebraeorum, Terah was the son of Nahor. To him was Abraham born when he was accor­ding to both opinions joyntly of the age of 70 years, and from this time there is an agree­ment between the two accounts of the LXX and the Hebrews. And this Testimony serves to shew the general opinion of the world. But how can there be said to be an agreement, if still they differ 60 years concerning the time of the Birth of Abraham? For these rea­sons therefore and Testimonies I cannot con­sent to the judgment of those that would have Abraham to be born in the 130 year of Terah. What then remains? If Abraham were born to Terah according to the letter of the Scripture in the 70 year of his age, and went out of Charran after the death of his Father in the 75 year of his own age, then must Terah die but 145 years old, for 70 and 75 make 145. And this is much more agreeable to reason, then the Hebrew read­ing. For it can scarcely be believed, that Terah should live 57 years longer then his Father Nahor, who lived but 148, when now the age of man began to decrease, nei­ther did any of the succeeding Patriarchs e­ver attain that age, to wit, of 205 years, al­though they all received the blessing and the [Page 116] Promises, whereas Terah is said to have ser­ved other Gods, Jos. c. 24. v. 2. And if you will believe Suidas he was himself [...], A maker of Images; neither doth the Scripture say any thing explicitly of his con­version. Though notwithstanding Charity and even reason it self perswade us to believe that he did not persist in his Idolatry unto the time of his death, because he went out of Ʋr of the Chaldees with Abraham to go into the land of Chanaan, and abode together with him in Charran until the day of his death. Yet notwithstanding I cannot think he deserved from God the favour of an age so much longer then that of his Fathers, or of any of his successors. And why may it not be lawful by the same licence, whereby they deny that Abraham was born in the 70 year of Terah according to the letter of the Scrip­ture and the opinion of the Ancients, for us to collect, and as confidently to affirm, that Terah was but 145 years old when he died, especially having for our more abundant credit a witness in Eusebius of more then 1300 years Antiquity, the Samaritan Chronology. [...], Thara cum esset 70 annorum genuit Abrahamum & supervixit 75 usque ad 75 annum Abrahami, Terah being 70 years of age begat Abraham and lived af­ter 75 years until the 75 of Abraham. And [Page 117] with this doth the Samaritan Pentateuch per­fectly agree, Gen. c. 11. v. 32. And the days of Terah were 145 years, and Terah died in Haran, Et fuerunt dies Tharae Centum & quadraginta quinque anni, postea mortuus est Thara in Haran. And why should not this Samaritical witness be a witness of good credit, especially in a matter that is of it self so probable? What danger is there if we admit a fault or lapse in the Hebrew copy? We admit various readings in it, and why should not this difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew be reputed a various or divers reading? It was the opinion of incomparable Capellus in his Sacred Cri­ticks, Diversitatem inter Cod. Heb. & Sa­mar. non alio referri videri quam ad variam quae inter describendum solet accidere lectio­nem, That the diversity which is between the Hebrew and Samaritan books, seem's not to be referred to any other cause, then to the va­rious reading which doth often happen in the copying of them. Nay, if I mistake not, we meet with as gross a fault (if it be lawful to say so) and not less to be observed, and that likewise in point of number, Gen. c. 2. v. 2. Complevitque deus [...] in die sep­timo opus suum quod secerat, And on the seventh day God finished the work which he had made. And who is so tenacious of the Jew­ish Masora who will not acknowledge an er­rour [Page 118] or mistake in this place, and confess it ought to be read, Et perfecit Deus [...] in die Sexto opus suum quod fecerat, & re­quievit in die Septimo ab omni opere suo quod fecerat, And in the Sixth day God finished the work which he had made, and he rested (as it fol­loweth) on the Seventh day from all his work which he had made. As the Samaritan, the Syriack and all the Greek Interpreters do read? If then it be equal to mend the reading in this place, why should it not be lawful to mend it in the age of Terah, the sense requiring an emendation in both places? They are the words of the same Capellus, Non pauca esse [...] quae vix alia ratione solvi aut conciliari possunt quam admittendo le­vem in sacro codice lapsum emendandum, That there are not a few irreconcileable doubts in the Scripture, which are scarce by any other means to be solved or reconciled, then by admitting some light fault to be amended in the holy Bible. Which why it should not be done here in this very place of the age of Terah, when as the Samaritan reading doth so han­somly reconcile Stephen with Moses, and Mo­ses with himself, I see one only obstacle, which also that incomparable man observed, Reli­gio est vel latum pilum à codicibus Hebraeis ut Rabbinorum curâ nobis transmittuntur re­cedere vel ipsorum lectionem vitii arguere, We count it a scruple of conscience to depart [Page 119] but a hairs breadth from the Hebrew Copies as they are transmitted to us by the care of the Rabbins [our professed enemies] or to find the least fault with their reading. And if we be so resolved, the best way is, with Scali­ger, to leave this knot to be untied till Elias comes.

V. 15, 16. [...], Et descendit Jacob in Ae­gyptum & defunctus est ipse & patres nostri, & translati sunt in Sichem, & positi sunt in sepulchro quod emit Abraham pretio argenti à filiis Emmor Patris Sichem, So Jacob went down into Aegypt, and died he and our Fathers, and were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought for a summ of mony of the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem. This Translation makes this place subject to many mistakes and diffi­culties out of which we are not yet fairly delivered. For first it implies by the con­nexion of the conjunction copulative, that Ja­cob as well as the Fathers were carried over into Sichem, &c. Whereas Jacob was buried long before the coming up out of Aegypt by Joseph and the Elders of Israel, in the cave of the field of Macpelah which Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite, Gen. c. 50. v. 13. [Page 120] Next it avoweth a positive contradiction to the letter of the Old Testament, in saying that Abraham bought a burying place of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, when as that which he bought was of Ephron the Hittite, and Jacob the purchaser of the Sons of Emmor. Lastly it necessarily implies that the Fathers were buried in Sichem, whereas in all reason and probability they were buried in the same place where their Fathers were, to wit, in Hebron. For as I said before Ja­cob was surely buried in the cave of the field of Macpelah which Abraham bought with the field for a possession for a burying place (que­stionless for his Family) of Ephron the Hit­tite, Gen. c. 49. v. 30. As he sware his son Joseph to bury him in the burying place of his Fathers, Gen. c. 47. v 30. Where they bu­ried Abraham and Sarah his wife, where they buried Isaac and Rebecca his wife, and where he buried Leah, Gen. c. 49. v. 31. And where Jacob and Leah were both buried, (and their Fathers and Mothers also) its more then probable, that all their Family was also bu­ried, Joseph being only buried in Sichem (and probably his Family,) according to the oath which he took of the Children of Israel, Gen. c. 50. v. 25. In a parcel of ground which Ja­cob bought of Emmor and gave his son Joseph for a portion above his Brethren, and which afterwards became the inheritance of his Chil­dren, [Page 121] Jos. c. 24. v. 32. And to this con­jecture, if it be not more, there is nothing to object (besides this place which I shall in­deavour to reconcile) but the testimony of S^t Hierome who in his Epitaph upon Paula saith, that the brothers of Joseph were buried in Sichem. But with reverence to so great a Father, I suppose I may without offence op­pose to his the Testimony of Josephus, who in his second book of Jewish Antiquities ex­pressly saith, [...] &c. And the bodies of these, that is, of the brethren of Joseph, were carried back by their Children and Grandchildren and buried in Hebron, But Josephs bones were carried by the Hebrews in­to Chanaan when they departed out of Aegypt, as he had bound them by an oath, Gen c. 50. v. 25. Exod. c. 13. v. 19. According to which they were buried in Sichem, Jos. c. 24. v. 32. Neither was this at all abhorring from reason or duty, that they should first bury the bones of Joseph in Sichem, for honours sake, he having been the President of Aegypt, and from thence carry over the bones of the rest of the Fathers to be buried in Hebron. And truly if we weigh the Testimonies, I know not why Josephus may not be credited in a matter of Story which concerns his own Na­tion, also of whom he writ of purpose, espe­cially coming nearest to reason and the sense of Scripture. To rectifie therefore the first [Page 122] possible mistake, I would have it rendred thus, Et descendit Jacob in Aegyptum, & defun­ctus est ipse, & Patres nostri, [...], & ipsi translati sunt in Sichem, understanding [...], or qui translati sunt, as Beza interprets [...], Act. c. 6. v. 6. and elsewhere. Whereof you may see examples in note on Matth. c. 27. v. 9, 10. and on Joh. c. 15. v. 6. So Jacob went down into Aegypt, and he died, and our Fathers, and they were carried, or who were carried over into Sichem. That is, our Fa­thers and not Jacob. And to reconcile the two latter difficulties, I would have it Tran­slated and pointed thus, [...], Et ipsi, or Qui translati sunt in Sichem, & positi in sepulchro (quod emerat Abraham pretio argenti) à filiis Emmor Pa­tris Sichem, And they, or Who were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre (which Abraham had bought with a price of mony) from the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem. That is by a frequent metathesis, And they were carried over into Sichem, and from the sons of Emmor the Father of Sichem, or from Sichem, which in effect is all one, they were laid in the Sepulchere which Abra­ham had bought with a price of mony. And by this Translation, which in its self is law­ful, as to the Grammar or use of speech, [Page 123] there is no violence at all to the truth of the History, for hereby it is not affirmed that they were laid in the sepulchre, which Abra­ham had bought of the sons of Emmor, which doth so grossly contradict the letter of the Old Testament, or that they were buried all in Sichem, it implying quite otherwise that from Sichem they were laid in the sepulchre which Abraham had bought with a price of mony, to wit in Hebron according to the say­ing of Josephus, probability of reason and sense of Scripture. Neither is this Transla­tion forc't at all. For [...] doth as well nay more properly signifie, From, then, Of, for it properly signifies motum à persona, the motion from a person, nay sometimes from things inanimate, as [...], from the ships, in Homer; so as I know not why if need were it might not by a familiar transposition be rendred thus, [...], From Sichem that is [...], from the field of Sichem, as it is called in the Old Testament, which was the sons of Emmor. Neither am I altogether without a witness, Learned De Dieu agreeth with us, when he saith [...] non esse construendum cum [...] sed cum [...], which opinion he thought was the best because of the Authority of Josephus.

V. 19. [...]. [Page 124] These words under favour are not aptly Translated by any Interpreter that I ever yet read. For I cannot be perswaded that the Hebrews could possibly be so barbarous and inhumane, though forc't with never so much cruelty, as to cast forth their own Infants to the end they might not live, as the Translations do generally im­ply. Neither doth Moses tell us of any such thing in Exodus, but that Pharaoh command­ed his own people (the Hebrew Midwives re­fusing to execute his commands because they feared God) expressly in these words, Eve­ry Son that is born to the Hebrews ye shall cast into the river, Exod. c. 1 v. 22. So that to bring these words to a more proper and truer sense, I conceive they may be more rightly Translated, and that without force in this manner, Hic circumveniens genus nostrum, afflixit Patres nostros faciendo projici infantes eorum, ne servarentur vivi, The same dealing subtilly with our kindred, evilly intreated our Fathers by causing their children to be cast forth, to the end that they might not live. [...] with Suidas, [...], projecta, exposed or cast forth, [...], is all one with [...] and may by good Autho­rity be Translated, faciendo projici, by cau­sing to be cast forth. You may read the same phrase purely in the same sense, 1 King. c. 17. v. 20. [...], [Page 125] Tu afflixisti viduam faciendo mori filium ejus, or as the Latin Interpreter of the LXX, interficiendo filium ejus, or as our late Interpreter, mortem afferendo filio e­jus, Thou hast also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn by slaying of her son. The like you have in Ruth c. 1. v. 6. [...], Quod visitaverat dominus po­pulum ejus dando eis panem. As Pagnin right­ly renders it. That the Lord had visited his people by giving them bread. And Psal. 78. v. 18. [...], Et tentarunt deum in corde suo petendo ci­bum, &c. And they tempted God in their hearts by asking meat for their lusts.

V. 30. [...]. Et expletis annis quadraginta, And when For­ty years were expired. That is, From the time that Moses was said to be full Forty years old, v. 23. for now he was Fourscore, when the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in the bush. v. 35. [...], By the hand of the Angel which appeared un­to him in the bush. But that Angel was God himself, Exod. c. 3. v. 6, and 13. and so be­neath, v. 38. [...], Who was with the Angel who spake to him in mount Sina. But that Angel is several times called God, Exod. c. 19. and so again it follows, v. 53. [Page 126] [...], Who have received the law by the disposition of Angels, the same with that, Gal. c. 3. v. 19. [...], The Law was ordained by Angels. When yet tis expressly said, Exod. c. 20. v. 1. Et locutus est Elohim, And God spake these words and said. So also it is said, Gen. c. 48. v. 15. [...], &c. [...], &c. The God of Abraham and Isaac, the God which did feed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads. And Judg. c. 13. v. 21, 22. Manoah calleth the Angel of God, God, for he knew that he was an Angel of God, and yet immediately saith, we shall surely die because we have seen God. So Luk. c. 2. v. 9. The Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, that is of the Angel of the Lord. From which examples it is manifest, That it is no strange thing, to have that ascribed unto Angels, which God doth by their ministry, and that sometimes Angels are called by the name of God, and God, sometime by the name of an Angel. The reason is because all the out­ward works of God are done by the mini­stry of Angels. For God cannot properly be said to have a mouth or hands or feet, to speak or go before, or to appear. With or by his will he doth all things, putting it in [Page 127] execution by his ministring spirits, who are his intermediate Messengers and Actors. Which very order is observed also by earthly Prin­ces, who for the most part execute all pub­lick matters by their Ministers.

V. 45. [...], Quod etiam introduxerunt Patres nostri accipientes successivè alius ab alio cum Jesu in possessionem Gentium, Which also our Fathers receiving successively one from another brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles. [...], Phav.

C. 10. v. 36, 37, 38. [...], &c. [...] is here to be taken [...], or appositively. Be­fore [...] I conceive with the Syriack Inter­preter you are to understand [...], then which nothing is more frequent. Verbum quod mi­sit filiis Israel annuncians pacem per Jesum Christum (hic est omnium dominus) vos no­stis, verbum scilicet quod fuit per totam Ju­daeam, initium sumens à Galilaea post bap­tisma quod praedicavit Johannes de Jesu Na­zareno, quomodo unxerit eum Deus spiritu [Page 128] sancto, &c. The word which he sent to the children of Israel preaching peace through Je­sus Christ (he is Lord of all) ye know, to wit, the word which was through all Judaea be­ginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the holy Ghost, &c. Ye know, that is, ye have heard of, ye cannot be ignorant of a discourse or talk that hath been so common through all Judaea, how the holy Ghost descended upon him when he was baptized of John in the River Jordan, and how afterward he went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil.

C. 13. v. 20. [...], &c. And after that he gave them Judges the space of 450 years until Samuel the Pro­phet. This place, saith Scaliger, is crux Chro­nologorum. The truth is, Interpreters also have not been a little vexed with it. A­mong whom there are not few, who main­tain this reading and interpretation, which our English here have used. And this is ve­ry plausibly made good by Beroaldus Chron. lib. 3. c. 4. by adding in his computation the years of the Oppressers to the number of those of the Judges, which beginning from the time that Cushanrishathaim began to op­press Israel, Judg. c. 3. v. 8. do make up the just number of 450 years until Samuel. [Page 129] But besides the just exceptions which may be taken to this account, as that the time of the Elders who judged Israel immediately after Jo­shua is not mentioned nor comprized in it, who cannot be denied to have been Judges, though how long, it is not evident in Scrip­ture. Eusebius saith, Tradition gave them 18 years, Africanus allowed them 30, but how long or short so ever, it adds to the ac­count of 450 years, so that the number can­not be so precise as he would have it: And besides that the 20 years of Sampson, in which he Judged Israel in the days of the Philistins, into whose hands God gave the Israelites the space of 40 years, are to be deducted out of those days, which must necessarily make the account not to be so exact. Beroaldus hath made himself an unanswerable objection. And that is this. Putting or supposing that the time from the coming out of Aegypt to the building of the Temple may not be que­stioned to be other then 480 years, as it is punctually set down, 1 King. c. 6. v. 1. which account himself and Beza do both maintain is precisely to be observed, if we allow 450 years to the Judges, adding 40 to Moses in the wilderness, 18 to Joshua, (and none allow him fewer) 40 to Samuel and Saul, 30 to Da­vid, and 4 to Solomon before the beginning of the building of the Temple, the whole will be (not reckoning the Elders) 582 years, [Page 130] so as observing his own rule, it is impossible that 450 years can be allowed to the times of the Judges. Tis true he tells you, That it is to be noted for the better understanding of the Apostle, That some years are repeated twice, as the years of the Israelites oppression are said to be comprehended in and referred to that summ of years, in which its said there was peace, and that the land had rest from war. Whereof the Apostle being not at all solicitous, did nominate that summ, which all the several summs [of Judges and Oppressors] made up together. But that the Apostle had these con­siderations, the times of the Elders and the 20 years of Sampson making also the account so imperfect and uncertain, or that he had none at all, is not probable. Neither is it credible, that against the light of his own and com­mon knowledge he would have mentioned a summ of years which was not reconcileable with the letter of holy Scripture. For that had been an egregious scandal to the Jews. who were neither ignorant, nor inobservant of the computation of the Times. This read­ing and interpretation therefore being subject to so just exceptions, I suppose we may with­out injury inquire into some other, and truly I meet with none less liable to exception then that of those, who would not have it here meant, how long God gave them Judges, but when he gave them, and for that cause distin­guish [Page 131] and refer those words, [...], to the words going before, v. 17. that is to the time when the God of the children of Israel chose their Fathers, so as the words ought to be pointed, and rendred otherwise then commonly they are in most Translations, in English thus, And afterwards about 450 years, that is by a fami­liar Metathesis, [...], &c. And a­bout 450 years afterwards he gave them Jud­ges, &c. according to which sense read the Old Latin and the Aethiopick Interpreters. Now this time wherein God may properly be said to have chosen their Fathers, about 450 years before he gave them Judges, is by them computed from the Birth of Isaac, in whom God may properly be said to have chosen their Fathers. For God who had chosen Abra­ham out of all the people of the earth, out of the children of Abraham at this time chose Isaac, in whose Family the Covenant was to rest. And to make this computation evident; From the Birth of Isaac they say, to the Birth of Jacob are 60 years, from thence to their going into Aegypt 130, from thence to their coming out 210, from thence to their entrance into the land of Canaan 40, and from thence to the division of the Land, the time wherein it had rest, about which time its probable they be­gan to settle their Government by Judges, 7 [Page 132] years, which altogether make up 447. And if it should be reckoned from the year before when God established his Covenant between himself and Abraham and Isaac, even before he was born, and all his seed after him, Gen. c. 17. v. 19. at which time God may be said as properly to have chosen their Fathers if not more, then it will be 448 years, which comes one year nearer to our number of 450. But our Learned and Judicious Ʋsher makes it from the Birth of Isaac to the division of the Land (which he saith was about 450 years after the election of the Fathers) 452 years. And others almost if not just 450. From whence we may conjecture that by reason of this uncertainty of computation, The Apostle did express the circumstance of the time with an [...], a circiter, an about 450 years. So as Scaliger saith, it was very wisely said of Eu­sebius, [...], &c. That the A­postle spake not according to exact account, but with a common exception, that is, so as it be a number according to ordinary speaking, where­by we pronounce any summ totally, but not ex­actly. So with Demosthenes and Plautus we see that called a Talent, where notwithstanding some dramms are wanting or abounding. And this, saith he, is vulgatissima numerandi [...], as was mentioned before.

V. 27. [...]. [Page 133] The En­glish Translator hath exprest the sence, but not Translated strictly to the words, which by reason of the Synchysis, and involved and perplext trajection being not well distinguished, are not for the most part so rightly rendred as they ought. And from hence it is, as Heinsius hath observed, that the force and em­phasis of the reprehension is quite lost, by which the Apostle most elegantly seems to reprove the blind ignorance and stupidity of the Jews, who when they pored altogether on the Scrip­tures, did yet do the very same thing of which they were in them forewarn'd, that is, they went about to take him away who in them was to the Eye pointed out their Messias, the very Person whom they expected. The words therefore may in my opinion be more lively rendred, as they are before distinguished, Thus, Qui enim habitabant in Jerusalem, & principes eorum, hunc condemnantes, ignoran­tes etiam voces Prophetarum quae unoquoque legebantur Sabbato impleverunt, For they which dwelt in Jerusalem, and their Rulers, con­demning him, not understanding even the voices of the Prophets which were read every Sabbath, fulfilled them. That is, by condemning of Jesus, they fulfilled the Scriptures although they were duly read unto them every Sab­bath. [Page 134] The like implicite and perplext tra­jections you may find in Demosthenes, whom Stephanus affirms to have used them. Ad ve­nustutem sermoni conciliandam, To gain a grace unto his speech. And in Plato, such as is that in his Phaedras, [...], Vera, inquit, dicis, Socra­tes, O Cebes. For, [...], Vera dicis O Cebes, inquit Socrates. Which kind of speech Cicero seems to have imitated and affected. As, Noli, inquit, mi­rari, Africanus. And O magnam, inquit, ar­tem, Brutus. See Beza his Exposition upon Act. c. 24. v. 22. and Joh. c. 13. v. 8. [...], Nunquam lavabis pedes meos. See also Luk. c. 8. v. 14. 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 27. Philp. c. 1. v. 21. [...], Mihi enim Christus est in vita, & in morte lucrum, understanding [...] before [...], and [...]. See James also, c. 2. v. 1. c. 3. v. 3. and Pet. 1 Ep. c. 3. v. 21. and 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19.

V. 41. [...], &c. The Apostle cites neither Greek nor Hebrew strictly, but comes nearest to the Greek, whom saving the sense he hath contracted, For with them Habak. c. 1. v. 5. tis read, [...], but in the Hebrew, [...] [Page 135] Videte intergentes & aspicite, & obstupescite, obstupescite, as some Translate it, one and the same word being twice repeated. But the LXX whose custom it is to render one and the same word diversly according to the possi­ble diversity of the points or letters, after they had according to the common reading rendred the words suitably, [...], supposing the ingemination of the He­brew meant some intenceness in the act, as if you should say, mire miremini, be ye wonderfully astonisht, suspecting still the word [...], might possibly and ought to be read [...] rather then the other word twice, the mistake also being so easie by reason of the likeness of the letters, especially if blurred or blotted, or any corner of a letter at all o­mitted in the copy, added likewise [...], which aptly suites with [...], that signifies, [...], latibulum quaerite, or tegimini, seek ye a hiding place, or hide your selves. In which sense you may see it Translated, Psal. 60. v. 4. and Isai. c 30. v. 2. And so [...] with Hesychius is [...], tegere or abscondere, to hide or cover. So Plut. de Pyth. Orac. [...], Non vult ab­scondere veritatem, He will not conceal or hide the truth. And elsewhere, [...], Cervi quando decidit cornu defodiunt & ab­scondunt in terrâ, Stags when their Horns fall off [Page 136] dig and hide them in the earth. So Job c. 22. v. 20. the word [...] which signifies to hide, the LXX render [...]. And in this sense this word may possibly be more aptly and more significantly rendred here, Videte Con­temptores, & obstupescite & adscondimini, Be­hold ye Despisers, and be amazed, and hide your selves, or seek ye hiding places. And that this may be so, I believe the rather because of the similitude of the Hebrew Characters, which makes them so prone to be mistaken, and that we may almost infallibly conclude the same hath happened in another word in this very place of Habak. where instead of [...], as it is now read in the Hebrew, and accordingly Translated, inter gentes, among the nations, the Greek Interpreters did surely read [...] and accordingly Translated, [...], Contemptores, Despisers. And so they fre­quently Translate the same word, as Prov. c. 13. v. 16. [...], [...], Viae contemnentium in perditione, The way of Despisers is in de­struction. Zeph. c. 3. v. 4. [...], Prophetae ejus portantes spiritum, viri contemp­tores, Her Prophets carry the spirit, men that are despisers. You shall find the same word in this very chapter of Habak. v. 13. And in truth these words seem not to be spoken to the Gentiles, but to the Jews, whom alone the [Page 137] Prophets immediate discourse did totally con­cern, upon whom even in their days was to come that great devastation of the Babylonish Captivity, of which he here surely Prophe­cied (and not against Nebuchadnessar and the Chaldeans, as Expositors do generally con­clude, led thereunto by the misreading of these very words [...] inter Gentes.) For it is the common opinion Habakkuk prophecied in the days of Manasseh, and it suits well with the matter of his Prophecy and the circum­stance of time, For in Manasseh his days for the abominable wickedness which was committed in the same did the Lord speak by his Pro­phet saying, Behold I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah that whosoever heareth of it both his ears shall tingle, and I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hands of their enemies, and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 2 King. c. 21. v. 12, 14. The very subject matter of our Prophets prophecy, so that Habakkuk might probably enough be that very Prophet, who here comes with an Ecce to them, because they perverted judgment, despised the Law of God and were full of vio­lence, [...], &c. Behold ye despi­sers and be amazed, and hide your selves, for I will work a work in your days which ye will not believe, though it be told you, For Lo, I will raise up the Chaldaeans, &c. and they shall [Page 138] gather the captivity as the sand, v. 9. So as without question this denuntiation of the Pro­phet was here directed to the Jews, whom he here calls [...], despisers, that they should behold and with astonishment admire the work of the Lord which he was to do in their days, so as for very amazement and consternation they should seek to hide them­selves, and wish the very hills would come down and cover them from the dreadful wrath which was to come. And least this fate should now come again upon the Jews, the Apostle bids them in this place beware, in the foregoing verse, foresignifying the fearful Destruction of Jerusalem, then near at hand.

V. 48. [...], Et crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam, as the Old Latin: Ordinati, as Beza, but in the same sense as we Translate it also. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. But this is but a harsh and unusual version of [...], the word [...] or [...] being no where to be found in that sense, neither doth it a­gree with the sense of Scripture, as many are of opinion. And truly I for my part doubt whether all that then believed were praeor­dained to eternal life [might there not be some Apostates?] I am sure there is nothing to oblige my faith thereto, I conceive no more then those which in Corinth are called Saints, [Page 139] who surely believed also, otherwise the A­postle would never have called them Saints, neither had they been reputed part of the Church which was in Corinth, who I suppose there is no man will affirm, were all saved, as are in their sense, those who were preor­dained to eternal life. That therefore this place may bring no weight to the establishing of so controverted a sense, of which there will never be an end of disputing till Elias comes, why may not these words be better distinguished and Translated, thus? [...], Et crediderunt, quotquot convenerunt, in vi­tam aeternam, And as many as were met to­gether, believed in eternal life. The Jews held themselves unworthy of eternal life, by putting the word of God from them, v. 46. But the Gentiles when they heard it, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were met together believed in eternal life. [...] being taken in the same sense with [...], which word was used, v. 44. [...], is one of the articles of our Creed, the very sub­ject of the Apostles preaching, Joh. c. 17. v. 3. And as for the interpretation of [...], as it is not unsuitable to the place, no more is it new without Authority. For the Hebrew [...], which is frequently by the LXX Tran­slated, [...], and [...], convenio, and [Page 140] congrego, is also by them Translated, [...], Exod. c. 29. v. 43. [...], Et conve­niam ibi filiis Israel, Pagnin. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, as in our own Translation. And though some perhaps may say that this was a mistake in the Seventy Interpreters, which yet is but spoken of free cost, for Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotio Translated so likewise, or that they meant [praecipiam] as their Latin Interpreter would have it, certainly the genuine sence of [...] hath in it something near of kin to our In­terpretation. For [...] is properly [...], in ordine colloco, to place in order, so as it aborreth not from our sence to say, And as many as were placed in order, [to hear the word of God] believed in eternal life, or as many as were instructed, according to the force of the word, praecipiam, that is, as many as were instructed in what the A­postle taught them. Nor can I be otherwise perswaded, but that [...], must necessarily be construed with [...], what sense soever is put upon [...].

C. 14. v. 23. [...], &c. That is, as some, [...], And when they had appointed them Elders, or as others, When they had ordained them Elders, in the Ecclesiastical sense as it is at this day used. But which of these two is the truer or more [Page 141] proper in this place, is no small question. If I may speak with liberty, after a serious disquisition, I cannot but profess, I totally assent to them who would have Luke here mean [...], having appointed, and not Ordained, in the other sense. For I am not con­vinced with Argument or Testimony, so as to believe, that [...] did by it self a­lone at that time, or many years after signi­fie either [...], Imposition of hands, or [...], Consecration. So that all which Zonaras affirms concerning the true acception of this word in the beginning of his Scholia upon the first Canon of the Apostles, (to what end or by what impulse soever) I think is very really right and true. Whose words, because they fully express my meaning, and that they may be better understood by other Authorities, which I shall alledge, I have thought fit here to set down. [...], &c. Now adays a course of prayers, and invocation on the holy Spirit, when one is initiated into the Priesthood, and receiveth consecration, is called Cheirotonia, from thence so termed, because the Bishop ex­tends his hand over him whom he blesseth, when he is chosen into holy orders, But An­ciently the choice or suffrage was called Chei­rotonia, For when it was lawful for the mul­titude in their Cities to choose their Priests or Bishops, the multitude met together, and [Page 142] some chose one man, some another, but that it might appear, whose suffrage won, they say the Electors did use [...], to stretch forth their hands, and by their hands so stretched forth or up, they were numbred who chose the one and who the other. And him who was Elected by the most suffrages or voices, they placed in the high Priesthood, that is, made him Bishop. And from hence was the name of Chierotonia taken, which also the Fa­thers of the Councils are found so to have used, calling their suffrage, Cheirotonia. An example whereof he bringeth out of the fifth Canon of the Council of Laodicea. And thus far Zo­varas. From whom it manifestly appears, that the word Cheirotonia in the Ecclesiastical sense, as it is now used of Ordination, was then new and borrowed long after the Apostles times. And to prove this yet more fully, laying a­side and barring all suspected and questionable Authorities, let us do it with such Testi­monies of Primitive writers, whose Autho­rity is sound and received of all. Beginning first with Paul himself, 2 Cor. c. 8. v. 19. Where the brother whose praise is in the Gos­pel, and that was questionless S^t Luke, is said to be [...], appoint­ed by the Churches, a companion to travel with S^t Paul. And I cannot think that any man will soberly and seriously affirm, that he was ordained by the Churches in the sense of [Page 143] Ordination as it is now understood, by Invo­cation, Imposition of hands, and Consecration. And from him let us descend to the next Writers who are universally counted genuine. In which rank in the first place is Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, where you have these words, [...], Ye ought as a Church of God to choose or appoint a Bishop, to wit, for or to the Church of Antioch in Syria. Where I suppose likewise no body can soberly say that the Bishops are there un­derstood, as if he had written to the Church Representative, when he writes indefinitely to all the Philadelphians, whom he calls col­lectively the Church, and to whom he gives particular instructions, not proper to the Bishops if alone. And from him let us come to the Ecclesiastical Historians, Among whom for the most part, if not altogether the words [...], and [...] do signifie or import election or constitution, to choose or to appoint. Nay in some places it must be necessarily Translated, and I believe it may be lawfully so in all. So we read, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib 6. c. 29. [...], All the brethren being gathered togetber in the Church for the election of a Bishop. So Socrat. lib. 2. c. 6. Alexander the Bishop of Constantinople is said to have died, [Page 144] [...], not ha­ving appointed any body in his place. And c. 26. [...], &c. There was a great contention about the election of a Bishop, some desiring one and some another. So Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 6. [...], I gave a voice with others to thy election. There are many more examples in the same Authors to the same purpose, as in Zozomen, also, lib. 3. c. 7. and elsewhere, and in Evagr. lib. 3. c. 13. Pergamius is said to be [...], Appointed President of Aegypt. And so we have in Philo. in leg. ad Caium. [...], To those who were appointed Governours of Provinces. Not to speak of Prophane Authors, among whom Maximus Tyrius hath a notable ex­ample of Darius his wanton Horse, who [...], chose his Master to be King. So that as far as I can collect from the Testimonies of the Antient, [...] with them did signifie to elect or to appoint. Tis true, we find the word in the other sense of Ordination, in several Books which pretend to great Antiquity, as in the Canons of the Apostles, the Constitutions of Clemens, and Respons. ad Orthodoxos, which passeth under the name of Justin Martyr, but there being just cause of suspicion among the Learned of the Authors and Antiquities of every one of [Page 145] them, it is not reasonable that their suspected Authority should impose a law for the use of a word, on the Testimony of others whose truth or credit was never yet call'd in que­stion. I shall only add an argument or two. It is not likely that Luke whom all acknow­ledge skilful in the language of the Greeks, would use a word in a sense not known unto them, nor possible to be known Neither is it probable that none of the Ancient Lexi­cographers should make any mention at all of any such sense as is that of Zonaras his Ordi­nation, with Invocation of the spirit and Impo­sition of hands, who generally say [...]. Be­ing therefore convinced with these Testi­monies and arguments I cannot but believe, that in Antient times [...] did signifie no more then to elect or appoint, and con­sequently that [...] in this place de­notes no more then the bare appointing of Elders by Paul and Barnabas, and not Impo­sition of hands or Consecration, or, which we call now a days, Ordination. The first notion of that sense in express words in an approved Author is in Hierome upon Isaiah c. 58. where he saith [...] esse ordinationem cleri­corum, quae non solum ad imprecationem vo­cis sed ad impositionem impletur manus, That Cheirotonia was the Ordination of Clerks, which [Page 146] is accomplish't not only by the prayer of the voice, but also by the Imposition of hands. Which acception of the word in that sense seems first about those times to have been taken notice of, about those days when sundry tumults happening between the people them­selves, and the people and the Clergy about the choice of Bishops, the people by the de­cree of the Bishops were prudently excluded from having or giving any voice any more in election of their Bishop. But the word [...] remained still, being by them assumed, and in tract of time substituted and accomo­dated to their use in the sense of Consecra­tion, or as we now call it, Ordination. In summ least any should wrest my meaning, I have only to do with those, who would have [...] in this individual place proper­ly and by it self to signifie [...], that is solemn Ordination, by prayer, fasting and Im­position of hands. This only I deny [...] to signifie in this place. That these Elders whom the Apostles had chosen or ap­pointed in several distant places were all con­secrated with prayer and fasting in the seve­ral places where they were chosen, I do not deny but verily believe. Though these words in this place do not evince so much, as some have thought, who by [...] of blessed S^t Chrysostom, do not imprudently or incogi­tantly refer the prayers and fasting to the va­lediction [Page 147] of Paul and Barnabas, and not to the constitution or appointing of Elders, as if that were only mentioned by the by, and that the sense should be according to the right construction, Thus, [...], Et cum con­stituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyte­ros, precati cum jejunio commendarunt eos domino, And when they had appointed them Elders in every Church, having prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. As if the prayers and fasting belonged to the farewel of the Apostles. Neither was such a farewel at all incongruous or unusual. Act. c. 20. v. 36. Paul being to take leave of the Ephesians, prayed with them all, and c. 21. v. 5. taking leave of the disciples in Tyre, he prayed with them kneeling on the shore. If they did also sometime at parting fast, it is a thing probable enough in a business which always was so solemn. Neither could the Ordination of Elders with prayers and fasting in every Church at Derbe, Lystra, Antioch and Iconium possibly be the work of one day and time, as is necessarily implied, if immediately after the Ordination, the A­postles commended them to the Lord and took their leaves, and so departed.

C. 15. v. 10. [...], &c. Nunc ergo quid tentatis [Page 148] Deum imponendo jugum cervici discipulorum? Now therefore why tempt ye God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples? The same manner of speech as is, [...], Act. c. 7. v. 19.

V. 14. [...], Symeon narravit quomodo Deus primo visitaverat, sumendo ex gentibus popu­lum nomini suo, Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit them, by taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name. You must understand after [...], them, that is the Gentiles mentioned, v. 7. [...] is the same phrase with that immediately before. It is an elleiptical kind of speech, and is to be supplied with some Praeposition and the ar­ticle [...] as is most congruous to the sense, sometimes [...] sometimes [...], as Act. c. 27. v. 1. [...], &c. That is [...], Ʋt autem decretum est de navigatione nostrâ in Italiam. Or the like.

C. 16 v. 13. [...], Ubi domus orationis lege sancita est esse, Where a house of prayer was by the law appointed to be. For [...] is properly, lege sancio. As for [...] it signifies in all probability in this place, an oratory, or place of prayer, as the Syriack and Arabick both interpret it, which was allowed it seems by the Magistrates of Phil­lippi [Page 149] to the Jews that dwelt thereabout for the exercise of their devotions. So Josephus who was not long after Luke, if not con­tempo [...]ary with him, calls [...], in his life, [...], A great room capable to receive a multitude of people, wherein they used to pray as is evident by the History. So you read in Philo against Flaccus, that the people of A­lexandria cried out with one consent that the Images of Caesar were to be set up [...], in the Oratories of the Jews: and in his Embassadge to Caius, that the people being gathered together in great multitudes [...], of the Jewish Oratories cut down some, demolish't others, and others burn't, and [...], as many Oratories as they could not burn, they vex't another way, by setting up in them the Statues of Caius. And in­deed the word is familiar with him in this sense.

C. 17. v. 15. [...], Qui curam habebant Pauli, But they who had the care of Paul. [...], Phavor. or Qui disponebant Paulum, [...], dispono, Gloss. Vet.

C. 18. v. 5. [...], Constringebatur spiritu, i. e. Intus apud se aestuabat prae zeli ardore, Beza. But its nearer to the letter, to say, Tenebatur ani­mo [Page 150] testificari Judaeis Jesum esse ipsum Chri­stum, Paul was earnestly minded to testife un­to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. As [...], and [...] in Chrysostom, and teneri desiderio and teneri me­tu with the Latins, [...], for [...]. The Particle is put for the In­finitive with words signifying any affection of the mind.

C. 19. v. 9. [...]. So reads Rob. Steph. and [...], with a great letter, as others. In Schola alicujis civitatis principis, Disputing dayly in the school of one of the Rulers of the city. [...], Princeps Civitatis, Phavor. And in this sense the Aethiop. and Arab. Interpre­ters seem to have understood it. The word is often used by the Chald. Paraph. Jos. c. 13. v. 3. and Judg. c. 16. in several places, in­stead of the Hebrew, [...], which the LXX render [...], reading [...]. We have the same very word likewise in the LXX, Dan. c. 3. v. 2. Esth. c. 9. v. 3. Habak. c. 1. v. 10. Neither if it were a proper name, is the word [...], proper to be added. Si nomen est pro­prium cur addit [...], Eras. Yet see Zeger. and Grot.

V. 21. [...], &c. Paul resolved in his mind passing through Ma­cedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem, [...], Statui dicere, I was resolved to speak. [Page 151] Aelian, de Animal. lib. 2. c. 11. [...] is sometimes animus, as Ezek. c. 20. v. 32. [...], And if this come into your mind. So c. 20. v. 22. [...], Et ecce ego nunc obstrictus animo proficiscor in Jerusalem, And behold I am now bound in my mind to go unto Jerusalem, that is, I am throughly resolved to go unto Jeru­salem, though I know not the things that shall befal me there.

C. 20. v. 8. [...], In the upper Chamber, In caenaculo, In the Room wherein they usually supped. In the Hebrew [...]. From the verb [...], Ascendit. So [...] with Schind­ler is Superior pars domus, &c. The upper part of the house unto which they went by stairs, in which Anciently they were wont to sup, [...]. And so tis frequently Translated in the Old Testament by the Greek Interpreters, and caena­culum by the Latins, Caenacula dicuntur ad quae scalis ascenditur, Fest.

C. 21. v. 16. [...]. You must necessarily understand [...] or [...] to agree with [...] and [...]. Venerunt simul cum nobis quidam ex discipulis à Caesareâ du­centes ad Mnasonem quendam Cyprium, an­tiquum discipulum apud quem hospitaremur, And there came also together with us certain [Page 152] of the disciples from Caesarea who conducted us to one Mnason a Cyprian an old disciple with whom we should lodge, [...] for [...], That is, to Mnasons house. To words that fignisie motion to a place, the Dative is oftentimes put for the Accusative with a praeposition. As, [...], for [...]. In the mean time I can­not but wonder that most Interpreters Tran­slate adducentes secum Mnasonem, and brought with them one Mnason, when as it agrees nei­ther with sense nor Grammar, It being much more probable that Mnason with whom they meant to lodge was at that time at Rome.

C. 24. v. 18. [...], properly, Inter quae, The which whilst I was doing, certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the Temple. You have the same phrase in the same sense, c. 26. v. 12. [...], The which whilst I was doing, that is, whilst he was per­secuting the Jews, v. 11. As he went to Da­mascus, &c. He saw a light from heaven, &c.

C. 26. v. 23. [...], &c. Saying nothing other then what the Prophets and Moses said should come to pass, if Christ was subject for to suffer, if he was the first from the Resurrection of the dead, &c. Si passibilis Christus, is the Translation of the Interlineary and the vulgar Latin, neither [Page 153] can the Greek words admit any other. The Jews expected then, as still to this very day they do expect, a Messias whose Kingdom should be of this world, and so did the A­postles also at the first before his Resurrection, and therefore could by no means believe, that he could be subject unto Death or Passion. To root out which opinion out of their thoughts, S^t Paul would not have them perswaded bare­ly by his word, but convinceth them by the Testimony of their own very Prophets; be­fore [...] is to be understood.

C. 27. v. 21. [...], Hanc in­juriam, commonly, This harm, but why not better, this storm, if it be true that Suidas saith, [...], Eo quod pluat pondus, or graviter, Because it raineth heavily, or grievously. And we have in Ju­lius Pollux, [...], Ventus insolens or procellosus, A boisterous or stormy wind. And thus Translated the sense is altogether as good if not better, Oportuit auscultasse mi­hi, & non solvisse à Creta, vitasse hanc tem­pestatem & jacturam, Ye ought to have hark­ned unto me, and not to have loosed from Crete, and to have avoided this storm and loss.

Ch. 1. v. 17.

[...]. These words seem to be expounded with most significancy by trajection, For the righteousness of God by Faith is in it revealed for Faith, that is to be believed. As if it were written, [...]. That such trajections are very frequent I have shewed in sundry places, it is called, c. 3.22. [...], The righteousness of God by Faith of or in Jesus Christ. And in truth is the main purpose of this Epistle. As for the phrase [...], it is used in the same sence immediately before, v. 5. [...], To or for the obedience of Faith, that is, that the Faith may be obeyed among all Nations, as also, c. 15.18. [...], For the [Page 155] obedience of the Gentiles, that is, that the Gentiles may be made obedient. [...], For the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth, [there is [...]] to the Jew first and al­so to the Greek, v. 16. So that it most fitly followes, For therein is the righteousness of God by Faith revealed that it may be believed, as it is written, Justus autem ex fide vivet, That he that is just by Faith, shall live, to wit, he shall inherit eternal life. For the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth in his Son. You may see the like trajections, Act. 13.27. 2 Cor. 4.4. 1 Pet. 3.21.

C. 2. v. 15. [...], Opus legis, The work of the law. The work or business of the law, is to accuse, or to excuse, and this is that conscience which is written in the hearts of all.

C. 3. v. 5, 6, 7. [...], Si vero iniquitas nostra [Page 156] justitiam dei commendat, quid dicemus? Non­ne injustus est Deus qui infert iram? (se­cundum hominem loquor, absit. Tum enim quomodo Deus judicabit mundum?) Si enim veritas dei in meo mendacio abundavit ad glo­riam ipsius, quid ego tanquam peccator adhuc judicor & non (sicut blasphemamur, & sicut quidam nos aiunt dicere) quoniam fecerimus mala ut venirent bona? quorum judicium justum est, But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? is not God unjust who inflicteth punishment? (I speak as a man, far be it. For then how shall God judge the world?) for if the truth of God through my falsness hath more abounded unto his glory, why am I yet judged as a sin­ner and not (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say) because we have done evil, that good might follow? whose judg­ment is just. Most Interpreters do here omit the conjunction [...], as redundant. But I con­ceive it is by no means to be pretermitted, for that it is the very word that explains the whole sense, which hitherto is very perplext and obscure. The word [...], which is commonly rendred in the Imperative, Facia­mus, Let us do, I have Translated in the sub­junctive Aorist in its proper sense together with the conjunction [...], quoniam fecerimus, because we have done. The particle [...] I have Translated with Grotius in the Interrogative [Page 157] Negative, Nonne, is not? for so the sense requires, it being spoken carnally, or like a man, to charge God with injustice, and so you shall find the word to be taken, Matth. c. 12. v. 23. Joh. c. 4. v. 29. and elsewhere. Those words, [...], &c. which divide the coherence, I have distinguished with a larger Parenthesis, that the connexion and inference of the sense may more easily appear, which is plainly thus, For if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God what shall we say? is not God unjust who inflicteth pu­nishment? for if the truth of God through my falsness hath more abounded unto his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner, and not ra­ther judged, because we have done evil that good might come, whose judgment that so judge is just. For if they were called into judg­ment because they had done evil that good might come, [...], according to man they might say, that God was unjust for pu­nishing them as sinners, who had done no­thing but what tended to his glory, and this judgment in their opinion is just. But if this should be granted, how should God judge the world? if with this plea the wicked might avoid his judgment, there would be none left to punish. And therefore the Apostle adds, I speak as a man, according to the Sophisti­cal argumentation of the Jews, or as Hierome saith, Secundum te qui talia sentis, According [Page 158] to thee who so thinkest. But far be it from our thoughts, for God cannot be unjust.

C. 5. v. 7. [...], For a righteous man scarce a­ny man will die, but for a good man peradventure some will dare to die. [...] in the Old Glos­sary is benignus, and [...] with Sui­das are [...], ad miseri­cordiam propensi, such as are very prone to mercy. And in Phavorinus [...], is [...], Qui non rogatus bona sua largitur citra in­vidiam, Who bestows his goods unaskt without grudging. [...], as Theocritus saith of Menalcas. So that, Good, is a complex word that hath several meanings, it signifieth, Courteous or kind, merciful or li­beral, and such is a friend in all respects, and for such a friend perhaps some would dare to die, as some rare examples tell us; or per­haps Good may be taken here as personally good to such a man, and such a one is pro­perly a friend. Let a man be never so just or righteous, there's none will lay down his life for him, but for such a one as hath been good to me, as my friend hath been, perhaps for such a one I shall dare to die, and far­ther reacheth not the love of man. [...], &c. No man hath Greater love then this, that he lay down his life for his friend, Joh. c. 15. v. 13. But [Page 159] God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, that is enemies, Christ died for us. This is the love which exceedeth know­ledge, Eph. c. 3. v. 19.

V. 12, 13, 14. &c. [...]. In most Interpreters you have in this place an Anantopodoton, that is a deficiency in the reddition of the sense, a sicut without a sic, which ought by all means to be avoided, if without violence to the Text it possibly may. Nor can I assent to those who to prevent the inconvenience of an Anantopodosis would have the 18 and 19 verses answer to the 12. which seems to me too constrainedly forc't. I rather approve their judgments who Translate [...], by a frequent Metathesis, ita quoque, so also, as the Old Latin Interpreter of Chrysostom; the Syriack and Arabick read, or etiam ita, even so, by which version there is no wrong either to the construction or the sense, but all is whole taking [...] only in the reddi­tive and not in the copulative sense, as it is [Page 160] in the Lords prayer, [...], Ut in coelo etiam in terra. [...], &c. [...], &c. Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum introiit, & per peccatum mors, etiam ita mors in omnes homines per­transiit eo quòd omnes peccaverunt, There­fore as by one man sin entred into the world, and by sin death, even so death passeth upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until the Law, that is, before the Law sin was in the world. That sin was in the world before the Law, seems to be the main thing that the Apostle here laboureth to prove, that he might meet with the tacite or implied ob­jection of those who probably did deny that all men were sinners and the enemies of God, as he had before affirmed, v. 8. and therefore did Sophistically argue, that Christ died not for all, because sin is the transgression of the Law, but they which had no Law, could not trans­gress that which they had not, for the Law was from Moses, Joh. c. 1. v. 17. To meet therefore with their objection, he useth this argument, As by one man sin entred into the world and by sin death, [...], For this very reason, Even so is death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, none excepted. So that it appears most certainly true that from the fall of Adam to the Law given by Moses, for he speaks of no other Law through­out [Page 161] the whole Epistle, sin was in the world. But it is farther objected, that sin is not im­puted where there is no Law, for the Law worketh wrath, c. 4. v. 5. To which he gives no other answer, but an implicit one, the same in effect which he gave before, Immo, for so [...] I conceive is to be rendred here, Reg­navit mors ab Adam, &c. Yea death reigned from Adam to Moses, therefore was sin not only in the world before the Law, but also imputed before the Law. Their dying was an argument not only that they had sinned, but that also their sin was imputed, for the wages of sin is death, and therefore because death hath passed on all men, its necessarily determined that all have sinned, and so be­come obnoxious to the punishment of death, even they who had not sinned after the simi­litude of Adams transgression, for death reigned on very Infants, who sinned not actually, as Adam did, [...], that is, [...], who is the type of man to come, to wit, of all mankind. For Adam did in his person represent all the Race of men which were to spring from his loyns. And in this regard and sense Adam seems to me most fit­ly to be stiled in this place, [...], The type of man which is to come. I acknowledge all Interpreters elder and later understand Christ to be him that was to come, but I see no cogency in the Text to bind [Page 162] my Faith to that interpretation, but rather argu­ments to disswade it. For truly if we speak in a proper sense, Adam cannot be said to be the type of Christ. For a type is the express Image or Figure of the thing it represents, [...] respondet [...], ut sigillo cera, the type answereth to the antitype, as the wax unto the seal. It is absolutely necessary that the type of that which is good be good it self, and the type of that which is evil must be evil, otherwise it cannot be a type. It is the sence of Chrysostom in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, c. 9. v. 23. Neither is there any will say that Adam is a true and proper type of Christ, but that he is so only per antithesim, or analogiam, by opposition of contraries, or proportion, or by some intricate distinction, such as is that of Origen's, Juxta genus constare similitudinem, juxta speciem re­pugnantiam esse, That there is a similitude as to the Genus, a repugnancy as to the species. Whereas Adam is properly, truly and signi­ficantly, I may add aptly and appositly to this place, said to be the type of his off-spring which was to come from his loins, and which he did so virtually represent in his person, as that by his sin they all became obnoxious to sin and death. And from these words thus expounded is formed as strong an argument for Original sin as from any Text of Scripture. Neither do I seem to be altogether without witness, [Page 163] I have the Aethiopick Version or Paraphrase for me. The words whereof in Latin are these. Ve­runtamen dominata est mors propterea ab A­damo usque ad Mosem, tam in iis qui peccave­runt, quem in iis qui non peccaverunt, per illud peccatum Adami, eo quod unusquisque in simi­litudine Adami creatus est, & quia Adamus typus fuit illius qui erat venturus, Nevertheless death reigned therefore from Adam to Moses, as well in those that sinned, as also in those that sin­ned not, by that sin of Adam, because that every one is born in the likeness of Adam, and because Adam was the type of him that was to come. From which words I could make no other construction, but that he plain­ly means that death did reign over all by the sin of Adam, for these two causes, because every one was born, in the likeness of Adam, and because Adam was the type of him who was to come. Both which reasons seem to me one and the same, the one being a red­dition or explication only of the other, it be­ing all one to say, that Adam was a type of his Posterity, and that Adam's Posterity was born in his likeness. But to say that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam because Adam was the type of Christ, is surely an in­consequent argument. Whereas to affirm, that death reigned over all by the sin of Adam, because Adam was a type that represented all his Posterity, methinks, answers fitly to the [Page 164] place, and is very easie for the lowest capa­city at first sight to apprehend.

C. 6. v. 4. Christ is said to be raised from the dead, [...], By the glory of the Father, as it is commonly rendred. Be­za would have it, In gloriam Patris, [...] be­ing put for [...], For the glory of the Father. The Translation either way is harsh. Why may it not be much better rendred by a fa­miliar trajection? Per Patrem gloriae, By the Father of glory, which is significant and apt, as he is elsewhere called Dominus gloriae, and Deus gloriae, The Lord of glory, and the God of glory. And so is he expresly called, Eph. c. 1. v. 17. [...], Pater gloriae, The Father of glory.

C 7. v. 24. [...], O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Or as it is in our margin from this body of death? And why not, O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the death of this body? that is thus cap­tivated under the Law of sin which is in its members, v. 23. And so the sense without any Metaphor is plain and sutable to the scope of the place. There being nothing more fa­miliar then such trajections. Examples whereof you may see, Heb. c. 7. v. 4. Jam. c. 2. v. 1. c. 3. v. 3. 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 21. 2 Pet. c. 1. v. 19. You have one in the margin of this very place.

[Page 165]V. 25. [...]. These words are to be supplied out of the former, whereto they are a perfect answer. The Apostles trembling question was, Who shall deliver me from the death of this body, that is such a slave to sin? to which he forthwith answers, I thank God he will deli­ver me, through Jesus Christ, [...], being to be understood, as a reddition to the question.

C. 8. v. 3. [...], &c. I cannot see how there can be construction here but by a Metathesis, [...], &c. Eo enim quod impotentia legis debi­lis erat propter carnem, Deus filium suum mittens, &c. For in that the weakness of the Law was impotent because of the flesh, God sending his own Son, &c.

C. 9. v. 10, 11. [...], &c. [...], &c. To recon­cile the sense and construction of these words wherein there hath been so much labour, you must understand the verb [...] before the par­ticiple [...], by an Hebraism or Graecism fre­quent in every Page almost in Holy Writ. Whereof see note on Mar. c. 12. v. 40. Pro­missionis enim verbum hoc est, secundum tem­pus [Page 166] hoc veniam & erit Sarae filius, non solum vero, sed & Rebecca ex altero erat gravida ex Isaac patre nostro, nondum enim natis, &c. Dictum est ei, major serviet minori, For this is the word of promise. At this time I will come, and Sara shall have a son, and not on­ly so, but Rebecca also by another was with child by our Father Isaac, For the children be­ing not yet born, &c. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As much as to say, that Rebecca was with child also by another word of promise, [...], relating to [...]. [...], I conceive to be a more proper phrase, then [...], For if a man be said [...], Numb. c. 5. v. 20. then is it rightly said [...], Rebecca retinuit semen pa­tris nostri Isaac, that is, concepit, she was with child by her Father Isaac. So that there was not such necessity for the learned Beza to pronounce so positively, Est itaque depra­vatus hic locus a quopiam Graecae linguae pror­sus ignaro, This place is depraved by some per­son ignorant of the Greek tongue. When as so easie and frequent a remedy is at hand. [...], According to this time, are the words of the LXX, whom Paul it seems did follow, and they questionless read [...] instead of [...], and so rendred it [...], this time, for [...], the [Page 167] time of life, accoding as it is Gen. c. 18. v. 10. and 14. [...], Secundum or circa tempus vitae, At or about the time of life I will return unto thee. And I suspect it is not rightly read in the Hebrew it self, Gen. c. 17. v. 21. [...], at this time, which should have been rather written conformably with the o­ther places, relating to this story, [...], at the time of life. As for the word [...] in our sense, it is abundantly familiar, The LXX use it for, [...] altero, another, Gen. c. 43. v. 13. Psal. 108. v. 14. You shall find it likewise in the same sence, 1 Cor. c. 4. v. 6. and in Dioscor. and Greg. Nazian. take but the pains to look in Steph. Thes.

V. 22. [...], &c. Here is no necessity for Anantopodosis, the coherence of the place is plain and ready, distinguish but the words aright. Nay but O man who art thou that repliest against God, if God being willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known hath endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction? The intervenient words, Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and ano­ther to dishonour? being all to be included in a Parenthesis. Thus [...]; [Page 168] &c. The Conjun­ction [...] before [...], is expletive, as is u­sual.

C. 10. v. 16. [...], Sed nulli obedierunt Evangelio, But none have obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Who hath believed our report? plainly intimating not any, or scarce any had believed. The phrase is familiar, Act. c. 10. v. 25. [...], None of you shall see my face any more. 1 Cor. c. 1. v. 29. [...], &c. That no flesh should glory. And so frequently in the Old Testament, and else­where in the New.

C. 11. v. 21. [...]. What need is there of any supplement? For it is [...] rightly spoken according to the use of speaking with the LXX [...] forte, perhaps. For if God spared not the natural branches perhaps he will neither spare thee. See 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 25.

C. 12. v. 19. [...], But give place unto vengeance, that is to the minister of God who is [...], the avenger to punish him that doeth evil, c. 13. [Page 169] v. 4. So frequently in the Old Testament, where God is meant to be avenged of his peo­ple, it is said [...], And the wrath, that is, the vengeance of God came upon them, Psal. 78. v. 31. So Rom. c. 3. v. 5. [...], we Tran­slate, Who taketh vengeance. But we ought by no means to give place unto anger, Eph. c. 4. v. 26. Be ye angry and sin not, let not the sun go down upon your wrath, [...], Neither give place to the Devil, that is, to the passion of anger. So Plu­tarch, [...], We ought not to give place to wrath no not in jest or play.

C. 14. v. 1. [...], In­firmum fide assumite non ad dijudicationes cogi­tationum, Him that is weak in the Faith receive, not to judge of his inward thoughts. By a frequent phrase, such as is [...], c. 1. v. 5. and [...], c. 15. v. 18. In which sense that these words are to be understood the following declare. Tu quis es qui judicas alienum servum? Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? Temera­rias censuras prohibet Apostolus, The Apostle forbids rash censures, saith S^t Hierome. As if he should say, Him that is weak in the Faith receive into your fellowship, but not to dis­criminate or judge his private opinions, if perhaps out of the weakness of his judgment [Page 170] he thinketh otherwise then ye do. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth. Neither is that Translation, which renders, To doubtful disputations, very significant, be­sides that it is unusual. For [...] in the Old and New Testament is for the most part taken, Pro cogitatione hominis secum ratiocinantis, For the thought of a man rea­soning within himself. As Stephanus hath well observed.

C. 16. v. 25. [...], &c. But to him that is of power to establish you accor­ding to my Gospel, &c. Why this Doxology is annexed now a days to the end of this Chapter, I cannot but wonder at, when tis confest almost by all, that these verses, to wit, the 25, 26, 27, are found in all an­cient copies, as they do also remain in the Greek Fathers, written in the end of the 14 chapter, after those words, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, except the Alexandrian transcript, which (perhaps out of abundant caution) reads it in both places. As far as I can conjecture of this matter, it seems to me to be thus. There was a common opinion which possibly from Hieroms words upon this place was derived to posterity, that Marcion the Haeretique did rase or cut out all the 15 [Page 171] and 16 Chapters because they thwarted his opinion, and that he might the better cover his fraud, placed this Doxology at the end of c. 14. because he would have had the E­pistle to end there. But I do very much doubt that this was ever done by him, though I will not question but he endeavoured to rase out all the rest. I rather believe that the Orthodox Christians of those times and their followers, induced with this opinion out of their zeal to meet with Marcion, did purpose­ly remove this Doxology from the end of c. 14. where it was not fixed by the fraud of Marcion, but by the Apostle himself, to the end of c. 16. that so they might include all which Marcion would have rased out. I say they removed it from its proper place for this cause, for I cannot conjecture for what other reason they should do it. Was it because Doxologies were more commodious in the end of an Epistle? surely no. For Eph. c. 3. v. 20, 21. there is the same Doxo­logy in the middle, and Gal. c. 1. v. 5. and 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 17. there is the like in the beginning, and so in divers other places scat­tering through Pauls Epistles, but none in the end of any, where it was his solemn custom to use another Epilogue, which was his signe in every Epistle, So I write, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen. Or was it because this Doxology was more ex­traordinarily [Page 172] fit and proper for the end of the Epistle? surely no. For it hath no cohe­rence at all with the precedent matter, but it suits and agreeth most exactly well with the end of c. 14. where when the Apostle had through the whole chapter almost dis­coursed of the danger of a doubting mind, most fitly follows this Doxology, [...], &c. But to him that hath power to esta­blish you, &c. be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. So Chrysostom and other Greek Inter­preters have observed on this place, [...], It was the custom of Paul to close his exhortations with prayers and Doxologies. Since therefore the cause is cea­sed, and almost all knowledge at least re­membrance of it, for which these verses were perhaps with a pious zeal at first removed to the end of c. 16. that they might reinclude all that Marcion would have expung'd, I con­ceive he shall commit no offence, but rather do a grateful service, who ever shall remit them to their proper place at the end of c. 14. After those words, [...].

Ch. 2. v. 2.

[...], &c. Non enim decreveram scire quicquam inter vos nisi Jesum Christum eumque cru­cifixum, For I determined not to know any thing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified. But to confess my ignorance, I profess, I do not comprehend the meaning of this expres­sion, I had rather thought the Apostle in­tended to tell the Corinthians, what was ne­cessary for them to know, and not for him­self. Some therefore seeking to avoid the inconvenience of this phrase, would have [...], to signifie, [...], to preach or to de­clare, but that signification is surely strain'd too far from the genuine sense and common use of the word to deserve acceptance. That the interpretation may be fitted to a better [Page 174] sense, the use of words and Grammatical construction, I think we may more rightly say, that [...] is an elleiptical expression instead of, [...], like to that in the Hebrew, Habak. c. 1. v. 5. as it is usually read and Translated [...], Videte inter­gentes, Behold among the Heathen, that is, ye who are among the Heathen, or behold ye Hea­then. Or in Luk. c. 21. v. 16. [...], And some of you shall they cause to be put to death. Or Joh. c. 6. v. 17. [...], Dixerunt ergo discipuli, as the Old Latin, Then said some of his dis­ciples. And so we may render it with very good sense, Non enim decrevi eos qui inter vos sunt aliquid scire, nisi Jesum Christum eùmque crucifixum, For I determined not, that you or those that are among you should know any thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. And therefore he saith, He came not with excellency of speech, or wisdom, but in weakness and in fear, not with the perswasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power.

V. 6. [...], Sapientiam loquimur in perfectis, We speak wisdom in things that are perfect. He speaks not of persons, meaning the Corinthians, whom in the following chapter v. 1. he calls babes in Christ, so far were they distant from per­fection, but rather in things that are holy [Page 175] or sacred. For [...] are [...], and [...], Hesych. and Phavor. So Heb. c. 2. v. 10. [...] and [...], to make perfect and to sanctifie or consecrate, are all one. It is a manner of speech peculiar to this place. My speech and my preaching was not [...] in the perswasive words of humane wisdom, but [...] in the demonstration of the spirit. We speak wisdom [...] in things sacred or holy, [...], in a myste­ry, [...], in words taught of the holy spirit. Through the whole series of his discourse in this chapter there is no mention of to whom he spake, but of what or how he spake, to wit of things sa­cred and mysterious, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entred into the heart of man, v. 9. [...] à Dionysio vo­catur vis divina operans in sacris Ecclesiasticis. [...], sacro & consecro, [...] Greg. Naz. appellat baptismum, [...], Idem. [...] etiam [...] dicebant eximia vel san­ctiora vel Justa, Bud. com. ling. Grae. p. 624. 625. [...], was with the Athe­nians, [...], the lawful oath, An­docides in the same place.

C. 3. v. 12, 13, &c. [...], &c. The sense of this place is this. If any Mi­nister of the Gospel shall build upon this foun­dation, which is Jesus Christ, gold, silver, or pretious stones, that is, a pure, solid, and [Page 176] stable doctrine, concerning the Faith of Christ, or hay, wood, and stubble, that is, a frail, fading and temporary doctrine, what ever it be, the day shall declare it, when the fire of trial cometh, what every mans work is, [...], the fire of persecution shall try. In that day they who were builded on the pure and solid doctrine of Faith, shall remain sted­fast, and so the Minister shall receive his re­ward, to wit, the perseverance of his disciples, but they who were faintly rooted in the Faith, when the trial of persecution cometh, imme­diately fall away and become Apostates from the Faith, and so that Minister shall suffer loss, he shall lose his labour and the reward of his pains, but he himself shall be saved, [...], But so as he pass through the fire of persecution with constancy and steddiness to the Faith himself. Upon this account it was, that S^t John, after he had forewarned the Elect Lady and her Children, of the deceivers and the Antichrist who were entred into the world, gives them this far­ther caution, 2 Ep. v. 8. [...], Videte vosmetipsos, ne per­damus quae operati sumus, sed ut mercedem plenam accipiamus, Look to your selves, that we loose not those things which we have wrought, but that we may receive a full reward. Not as in the Vulgar Latin and some Greek co­pies, [Page 177] [...], [...], and [...], Vi­dete vosmetipsos, ne perdatis quae operati estis, sed ut mercedem plenam accipiatis. Where­by the allusion to S^t Paul is wholly lost. See Philip. c. 2. v. 16. [...], Ver­bum vitae firmiter tenentes, Holding fast the word of life, Ut gloriari possim in die Christi, That I may glory in the day of Christ. Be­hold the reward of Paul, the perseverance of the Philippians in the word of life.

C. 4. v. 3. [...]. Litteral­ly, of mans day, but the sense is the Judgment of man. In our language we call him a Days man, that is chosen an Ʋmpire to judge be­tween party and party, probably from the La­tin phrase, à dicendo diem, from appointing a day in which the Days man was to give his judgement.

C. 5. v. 13. [...], Quid enim mihi de iis qui foris sunt judicare? Nonne de iis qui intus sunt vos judicatis? eos vero qui foris sunt judicat Deus. Tol­lite ergo sceleratum istum ex vobis ipsis. For what have I to do to judge them that are with­out? Do not ye judge them that are with­in? but them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among you that wicked person. This reading and Translation do nei­ther agree with the context nor with the scope [Page 178] of the Apostle, whose main business is in this Chapter to reprove the Corinthians because they had not judged the incestuous person, who was a brother and within the Church, as they ought to have done; and in the next, because they had no Judgment seats at all, Whereas by this question [do ye not judge those that are within?] is implicitly granted, that they were not to be blamed at all for their slackness in this duty. That therefore we may reconcile the coherence of the Text, and the Apostle to himself, and the meaning of the place may be made somewhat plainer then hitherto it is, We must first alter the points, as Theophylact doth witness some did before his time, and then the reading in a letter, and an accent, and that not without Autho­rity, for so Theodoret did read, [...], the evil, for [...], the evil person, and [...] shall judge, for [...] judgeth. And so reads the Greek edition of Aldus prepared by Asulanus and set out in print 1518. And so doth the Old Latin read judicabit for ju­dicat, and malum I suppose in the Neuter gender. Thus, [...], Quid enim mihi eos qui foris sunt judicare [...] Non omnino. Eos qui intus sunt judica [...] vos, eos vero qui extra sunt judicabit De [...], & tolletis malum è vobis, For what have [...] [Page 179] to do to judge them that are without? Not at all. Judge ye those that are within, but those that are without God will judge, and ye shall take away the evil from among you. As if he should say, It concerns not us at all to judge those that are without the Church, do ye your duty in judging those that are with­in it, and so doing ye shall take away the evil from among your selves, that is, ye shall not be guilty of the evil; but as for those that are out of the Church, its fitting for you to leave them to the Judgment of God. And to speak the truth, as [...], the evil, in the Neuter gender, doth very well suit with the scope of this place, so doth it with the use of the phrase in the Old Testa­ment, from whence without doubt the A­postle borrowed it. So Chrysostom on the place, [...], Meminit dictionis in Veteri, He remembred the phrase in the Old Testament, and so Theodoret, [...], Mosaicum apposuit Testimonium, He put to the Testimony of Mo­ses. But that this phrase will bear no other reading or sense in the Old Testament, but in the Neuter gender, will evidently appear to those who shall diligently examine the cir­cumstances of the places, wherever they find it. For example, where is mention made of the Damosel on whom her virginity was not found, Deut. c. 22. v. 21. She shall be stoned [Page 180] with stones that she die, [...], So shalt thou put away the evil from among you, that is, the guilt of the evil, as Deut. c. 21. v. 9. And he that is but a smatterer in Greek, will presently dis­cern it to be a fault in the Roman edition of the LXX, which renders in this place [...] in the Masculine gender, as also in the 22. and 24. verses of the same chapter, in both which places the same reading is alto­gether as incongruous, though it was prudent­ly forborn in our new Poliglott Bibles from the emendation of it, least the Romanists should from thence have taken occasion to ca­vil with our Edition for corrupting of their copy.

C. 6. v. 1. [...], Negotium ha­bens, Having a matter, that is, litem, a con­troversie, suite or action against another, so as it might more properly and significantly be rendred, having a suite or action against ano­ther, in which sense [...] is frequently un­derstood with the Greeks, as is negotium al­so with the Latins.

V. 2. [...]; In­digni estis ut de minimis judicetis? As the vulgar Latin. Are ye unworthy to judge of the smallest matters? But this Translation is not adequate to the words. Beza seems to go somewhat nearer. Indigni estis minimis ju­diciis? But neither is that plain. For the A­postle [Page 181] intends not the act of Judgment, but the place. And therefore it would be more fitly rendred according to the force of the word, Indigni estis minimis fubselliis? Are ye unworthy of the least places of judicature? For [...] in no Author signifies the act of Judgment, but the Bench or Seat where Judg­ment is given, the same with [...], in which sense tis used, Jud. c. 5. v. 9. Dan. c. 7. V. 10. Susan v. 49. Jam. c. 2. v. 6. As if he should have said, What? Are ye who shall sit on Thrones (as it is in another place) judging the Twelve tribes of Israel, unworthy of the smallest seats of Judgment here? Subsellia are called the seats of Judi­cature, in which Judgments are given of the smallest matters, according to Asconius.

V. 4. [...], &c. The commmon version suites neither with the cu­stom of speech among the Greeks, with con­struction, or with sense. Secularia igitur ju­dicia si habeatis, contemptibiles qui sunt in Ecclesiâ, illos constituite ad judicandum, If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed of the Church. Where by the word [...], judicia, judgments, the Interpreters seem to understand suits at Law, but as I told you in the former animadversion, [...], in no Author signifies any such thing as a suit at Law. If they say, they mean Judgment seats, [Page 182] their language is not clear, and besides they then plainly affirm, that which the Apostle positive­ly denies, who reproves them for that very cause, for that they had none, but would be judged rather by Infidels. And if this were grant­ed the inference is not so suitable to sense and reason, but that there may be cause enough [...], to suspend a mans assent, and to en­quire further into the truth of the Transla­tion. Which I conceive with the leave of An­tiquity may be very easily restored into a more commodious sense and Syntax, thus, only va­rying the points, [...], Secularia igitur subsellia, si ha­beatis hos contemptibiles in Ecclesiâ, consti­tuite, Set ye up therefore secular Judgment seats, if ye account these persons contemptible in the Church. As if he should say, What will ye go to Law before the Infidels, who cannot but be despicable to the Church, in that they are no part of it? Will ye suffer the unjust and wicked to judge between you, whom ye your selves shall one day judge? Are ye ignorant that ye shall Judge the very Angels? How much more worthy then are ye of these petty seats of Judgment? Ap­point ye therefore Judges among your selves, set up some Judgment seats, I speak unto your shame, is it so, that there is not a wise man a­mong you, not one who can judge between bro­ther [Page 183] and brother, but that you go to Law with one another and that before the unbelievers? Far is it from the Apostle to bid them place con­temptible Persons in the seat of Judgment. Nothing less, He reproves and checks them, that they should think so meanly of them­selves, as to appeal to the Courts of Infidels, as though there were not a wise man among themselves, who might be judge among them. Surely by that very speech severely intimating, that he ought to be a wise man and no con­temptible person, who should have the Au­thority to be Judge in the Church. And in contradiction to this Interpretation there is not one thing can be properly objected, the sense, the grammar, and form of speech so perfectly agreeing, whereas there are so apparent Sole­cismes in the other, as are not to be by any art reconciled. For besides that [...] was never used in that sense, as it is here com­monly taken, the phrase [...], is extreamly harsh and insolent, not to be salved with an Hebraism. For if it were a true Hebraism, it should be read, [...], and not [...]. As to the phrase, [...], it is the same with [...] in Aristophanes and Libanius. But the invete­rate opinion is more deeply rooted, then to be removed without some Magisterial Autho­rity, or else a supine negligence hath pre­vailed [Page 184] over us. And indeed the same fate is common to prophane Authors, else how is it possible, so stupid or irrational a version should still pass unobserved by Interpreters to this very day, and that in a place of moment, in the very entrance of Ptolomy, in the very definition of Geography, unless men were blind­ed by some fate, seduced into errour by the unhappy connexion of two words together, by reading of [...], in one word, for [...], in two. [...], Geo­grophia est imitatio picturae totius partis terrae cognitae, Geography is an imitation of the picture of all that part of the earth which is known. A definition surely absurd and insig­nificant. Whereas it ought without all que­stion to be read and Translated, Thus, [...], &c. Geographia est imitatio totius partis terrae cognitae per picturam, per descrip­tionem, or in tabula, Geography is an imita­tion of all that part of the earth which is known, by picture, description, or map. The very name of Geography, signifying nothing else but a description of the earth.

C. 7. v. 14. [...], For the unbelieving hus­band is sanctified by the wife, [that is the be­lieving [Page 185] wife] and the unbelieving wife is san­ctified by the husband [that is the believing husband] else, unless one of the Parents were a believer, your children were unclean, that is remain heathen, as [...] is in other pla­ces understood; but now [because one of the Parents is a believer] are your children holy, that is reputed members of the Christian Church. And in this sense doth the Apostle often use the word [...], as in the beginning of this Epistle, [...], To the Church of God which is in Corinth, that are called Saints, Not that all who were in the Church of Co­rinth were real Saints, but because they were reputed members of the Church, therefore were they called Saints. And for that cause the children of that Parent that was [...], called a Saint, or reputed a believer, were reputed Saints and holy also, and con­sequently admitted to the participation of Baptism, as the son of a Proselite was capa­ble of Circumcision, and thereby admitted a member of the Jewish Church. The unbe­lieving Parent is said to be sanctified by the believing wife or husband, only to this pur­pose, to the making of the children holy, that is, capable of being members of Gods visi­ble Church, as appeareth by the connexion and consequence of the words.

V. 17. [...], [Page 186] But as God hath distributed to every one, &c. To Translate, [...], but, in this place is some­what harsh, and besides it marr's the sense. For remedy whereof the Greek Scholiast reads, [...], fitly joyning the words to the verse before, [...], &c. Or what knowest thou O man whether thou shalt save thy wife, or not? But there is no need to alter the reading at all, the common one with this distinction is e­nough, [...], &c. What knowest thou O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife, whether not? As God hath distributed to every one so let him walk.

V. 23. [...], Pretio empti estis nolite fieri servi hominum, Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. This reading and Translation seems to respect our redemption by Christ, and litterally implies a strange doctrine contrary to what he had taught im­mediately before, As if because they were re­deemed by the bloud of Christ, they should no more be servants, whereas before he bad them not to care if they were called being servants, but to remain in the same calling wherein they were called. So that I conceive there is some other sense more proper to the place, which possibly reading the first words with an interrogation may be this, [...], [Page 187] Pretio redempti estis? Nolite fieri servi hominum, Are ye redeemed with a price? Become not the servants of men. He speaks not here, of a redemption from the captivity of sin or the bondage of Satan, but from the service of man, as is to be gathered from the context which hath nothing relating or common to or with a spiritual redemption. The coherence be­ing plainly thus. Art thou called being a servant, care not for it, Are ye redeemed with a price? that is, are ye bought out and made free by a summ of mony? Why then, become not again the servants of men. If thou mayst be made free, use it rather, otherwise, let every man abide in the calling wherein he was called [to be a Christian.] But for a more perfect under­standing of the place, These, [...], men, whose servants he would have them no more become, are to be supposed [...], unbelievers; As before, v. 14. where the unbelieving hus­band is said to be sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife to be sanctified by the husband, you are to understand [...], the wife that is a believer, and [...], the husband that is a believer, as it is in some Greek copies and in the Old Latin, so here in like manner is to be understood, [...], Become not again the ser­vants of men who are unbelievers. As before he advised in impari conjugio, so here he ad­viseth [Page 188] in impari servitio. As if he should say, Art thou called to the Faith of Christ being a servant to an unbeliever? Care not for it, it is no matter, continue thou still so, and be content, That the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, 1 Tim. c. 6. v. 1. Never­theless if thou canst be made free and redeemed with a summ of mony, choose that rather, and become no more again a servant to any man that is an unbeliever. He doth not advise him for ever to decline all manner of service, from being a servant to all manner of persons. But in case he may have a believer to his Master, surely it was not the Apostles meaning to for­bid such service. Who in the place afore­mentioned of Timothy, adviseth, that the ser­vants who had [...], believing Ma­sters, should by no means despise them because they were brethren, but to serve them so much the rather because they were believers. For service surely is not only necessary, but in some cases commendable.

V. 26. [...]. These words some would have to refer to the De­solation spoken of by Luke 21.23. But that [...], great distress, whereof our Sa­viour did there foretel, was to be [...], In this land and in this people, that is, in the land of Judea and a­mong the people of the Jews where then our Saviour spake. So that it is not probable that [Page 189] Paul should write to the Corinthians to ab­stain from Marriage for that distress or tribu­lation, which was so far distant from their borders, neither did personally concern them. Others I confess with more reason understand it of the Persecutions which were then at hand. But if you compare the context, there seems more reason to say, it was for the immi­nent pressure of the incommodities which for the most part accompany Wedlock, and are after mentioned by the Apostle, [...], For the difficulties and troubles of Marriage, Theo­phylact.

V. 29. [...], &c. [...], But I say this, [because that which is remaining is but a short time,] that both they that have wives be as though they had none, and they that weep, as those that do not weep, and they that re­joyce, as those that rejoyce not, &c. For the form of this world passeth away, After [...], is probably to be understood, [...], the remainder of their lives. As if he should have said, Because the time of life is so short upon earth, and the world passeth so suddenly a­way, neither have we here an abiding City, Heb. 13.14. I tell you this, that ye be not [Page 190] too sollicitous, as he forthwith admonisheth them not to be, either for the miseries or pleasures of the world, as in some mens sense virginity and marriage, joy and weeping are accounted, but to be of an even temper in both estates.

V. 35. [...], Hoc vero dico ad utilitatem vestram, non ut vinculum vobis imponam, sed ad id quod honestum est & decorum domino, sine violentâ abstractione, But this I say for your own profit, not that I should put an obligation or bond upon you, but for that which is comely and well befitting the Lord, without any forci­ble withdrawing or wresting of you. [...], with Suidas is [...], Vi aliquid abripere, To wrest a thing away by force. So as the sense is this, I tell you this for your own good, for that which is becoming you, and well befitting the Lord, not that I go about under the pretence of my Authority to impose a bond of necessity upon you to do the thing I commend unto you, [...], Not that I should compel you to continue in virginity whether ye will or no. [...], For he calls necessity a bond, as the Greek Scholiast hath it, [...], But without any compulsion, or [Page 191] forcible wresting of you to my opinion. For, for what I now say, I have no commandment from the Lord, &c. v. 25. [...], He­sych. [...], in the French tongue is, bi­enseant, well befitting, quod bene assidet, word for word. How the common Translations, either that of the vulgar Latin, Sed ad id quod honestum est, & quod facultatem praebeat sine impedimento dominum obsecrandi, or that of Beza, Sed ut decenter & aptè adhaerescatis domino absque ullâ distractione, or that of the Interlineary, Sed ad decens & bene adhaerens domino indistracte, or that of our English, But for that which is comely, and that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction, may or possibly can be reconciled in any lawfull construction to any of the senses imposed by them, I do by no means perceive or under­stand.

C. 11. v. 7. [...], But the woman is the glory of her husband. The meaning whereof is certainly extreamly diffi­cult. Why not rather, the Image of her hus­band? A man indeed ought not to cover his head, [...], Quoniam sit figura & Imago Dei, Because he is the figure and Image of God, but the woman is the I­mage of man. She is properly termed the I­mage of man, because she was taken out of him, as properly as Seth may be termed the Image of Adam who begot him in his like­ness, [Page 192] Gen. c. 5. v. 3. So [...] which with the Hebrew signifies the Image, Figure or Si­militude which is drawn from another thing, the LXX Translate, [...], Numb. c. 12. v. 8. and Psal. 17. v. 15. and so Phavorinus, [...], Effigies, Imago.

V. 10. [...]. I was ne­ver yet satisfied with any Interpretation or Ex­position upon this place, and therefore must crave leave to venture on a new one, resol­ving not to swerve from rules of Grammar, the use of words, or the scope of the place. Thus, Propter hoc debet mulier potestatem ha­bere in capite per Angelos, For this cause ought the woman to account the power to be in her head by the Angels. So doth [...] often sig­nifie with the Greeks, and habere with the Latins, [...], in capite, in her head, is, in viro, in her husband, as he is called, v. 3. And Ephes. c. 5. v. 23. [...] is properly enough Translated per, by, as [...], Per Deos servatus sum, five à Diis, I was saved by the Gods, Demost. Or be it Tran­slated propter Angelos, because of the Angels, the sense will be the same. For the confir­mation of this sense and Interpretation I shall borrow two arguments, the one from the words immediately preceding, the other from those which immediately follow. The force of the argument from the words preceding is this, [Page 193] For the man is not of the woman but the wo­man of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. v. 8, 9. Ergo, Therefore ought the woman to acknowledge or account the power to be in her husband, who is her head. You have the same argument, 1 Tim. c. 2. v. 11, 12, 13. Let the woman be in silence in all subjection, for I suf­fer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp Autho­rity over the man, but to be in silence. And why so? For Adam was first made, then Eve. So as for this very cause she ought to acknow­ledge the power in her husband, to whom she ought to be in subjection, and over whom she ought not to usurp Authority. When there­fore the arguments are both the same, why should we question, but the Apostle intends the same direct sense in the one place, as in the other, when construction and the use of words do bear it? Why should we fly to violent notions and remedies when there is no need? The force of the other argument from the words that follow, v. 11, 12. is this, because they are a qualification or mitigation of the rigour of the injunction, least it might be taken by the husband in too strict and severe a sense. As if he should say, Although a woman ought to acknowledge the power in her husband by the Law of their creation which was delive­red by the Angels, Gen. c. 3. v. 16. Never­theless, neither is the man without the woman, [Page 194] nor the woman without the man by the Lord, for as the woman is of the man, even so al­so is the man by the woman, but all things are of God. From whence is necessarily inti­mated, that such is the mutual bond of re­lation between the man and the woman, that because one cannot be without the other, and because whatever they be, they are all of God, the man ought not to indulge, challenge or assume by any means too much to his own power, though given him by the Law of his creation by God himself, but to use it with modesty and sobriety, without the admission of which supplemental exposition, these latter verses for ought I know have no coherence with the former. And thus I suppose we rightly take these words as arguments of the womans subjection, nor deny we, but her sub­jection was an argument why she should be covered But others who eagerly contend for a Forreign and unusual Interpretation of the word [...], that they may expedite their business, pass by or rather reject this argument from the reason of the womans subjection, which is the most rational and certain, and frame another of their own, as we say per sal­tum, by a leap, or at least admit it. The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, &c. Therefore ought the woman to wear a hood or covering on her head, and therefore [...] in this place doth signifie velamen or [Page 195] signum potestatis viri, a covering or sign of the husbands power. To defend which opi­nion, some would have [...], the power, by a Metonymy to be put for a covering, the sign of power. But this I take to be spoken of free cost, till I hear some more cogent Authori­ties. Others say, that the Apostle put [...] here, pro velo, for a covering or a veil, be­cause the Hebrew word [...], peplum, or ve­lum, comes from the root, [...] which signi­fies subjecit, to subject. But [...], which sig­nifies peplum, a veil, comes not from that root that signifies to subject, but from [...], which signifies extendit or expandit, to extend or spread, and therefore, [...], is expansum ali­quid, something spread, as is, velum or lami­na, a veil or plate of metal, but hath no­thing common with the former sense, but the sound, and therefore indeed hath no relation to [...]. It is frequent with the Hebrews who have no such abundance of words, for one and the same root as to the letters, to have divers significations, according to the pricks, and according to the divers significa­tions to have divers yet proper derivatives, which I suppose are not promiscuously com­municated one to another; or perhaps the same root or word written with the very same let­ters may be Hebrew, Syriack and Arabick. And so if we may believe Schindler, this very word [...] which signifies peplum a veil, is [Page 196] an Arabick word, and not an Hebrew one, so that I cannot possibly think, that this notion ever came into the Apostles thoughts, but that he rather indeavoured to express what he meant in the most vulgar speech and common phrase. And truly this argument of theirs seems to me very preposterous, as if they meant to tie two extreams together without a medium. For who with reason can affirm, Because a man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, &c. Therefore ought a wo­man to wear a veil or a hood on her head, by an argument fetcht from the moral Law of their creation? truly I have often heard that the whole Law of God was to be known by the discourse of reason, and was called moral, except the Sabbath, which some will not have therefore counted moral, because it is not to be known by the discourse of reason. But whoever could from the dictate of reason know, that a woman because she was made of man and for man, ought therefore to wear a veil or hood on her head especially in the Church? That she is therefore inferiour to her husband, and that therefore she ought to be subject unto him, is not abhorrent from the discourse of reason, and because she is for that cause subject to her husband, reason di­ctates she ought to acknowledge it, but by what means or sign she should do it in the Church or elsewhere, custom seems only to [Page 197] have taught, especially in Christian Churches, as the Apostle intimates in this place. For we read not of any such custom in the Old Testament. Rebecca truly might [which they instance for an example] when she came near to Isaac, Gen. c. 24. v. 65. take a veil, and cover herself as well for modesty as for reve­rence. But Judah thought Thamar to be an Harlot, because she covered herself with a veil, Gen. c. 38. v. 14.15. So that from the be­ginning the covering of a veil was no cer­tain sign of subjection. And therefore I can­not but be still of the same opinion, that it is rightly interpreted according to the order of the arguments. Because the woman is of the man, and the man not of the woman, &c. For this cause ought a woman to acknowledge the power in her head, that is, her husband, according to the legitimate and known accep­tion of the word, [...]. That is, ought to be subject to her husband, and because she is subject, ought in sign of her subjection to be covered in the Church, because it was comely and according to the institute of na­ture, v. 13, 14. As for the following words, [...], I conceive they are proper­ly expounded, either by or because of the An­gels, that is, by or because of the Law of their creation or the ordinance of God, who in the first creation did create them in that order by the Ministery of Angels, and at the same time by [Page 198] the same Ministery of Angels did impose this Law of subjection upon the woman, of which the Apostle maketh mention 1 Cor. c. 14. v. 34. where the woman is commanded to be under obedience, [...], as the Law saith. Which Law all Expositors agree to be that in Gen. c. 3. v. 16. [...], And he shall rule over thee. And this was most certainly given by the Ministery of Angels, as was that of Moses, Act. c. 7. v. 53. Gal. c. 3. v. 19. Heb. c. 2. v. 2. For all the external works of God are done and execu­ted by the Ministery of Angels, whereof you may see more at large in Note on Acts c. 7. v. 35. In conclusion, this Interpretation doth flow so naturally from the words, and hath so little need of any Forreign help for its explication, that I have a very strong pre­sumption, its the true and genuine.

V. 21. [...]. In most books, if not in all, the com­ma is after [...], and accordingly Transla­ted. But that reading and version, [...], Propriam caenam praesumit in edendo, In eating every one taketh before other his own supper, is sure­ly not only harsh unto the ear, but incom­modious also as to the sense. For remedy whereof I have thought it better to distin­guish after [...], and it being, as to [Page 199] the trajection of the copulative, [...], so frequent in the New Testament, I cannot but wonder at those that make any scruple of it, espe­cially if it help us to an apter sense, and pre­vent an insolence of speech, as it doth in this very place, Unusquisque enim praesumit caenam propriam, & in edendo hic quidem esurit, ille vero satur est, For every one taketh his own supper before hand, and in eating one is hun­gry, and another full. So as the sense and co­herence with the verse next going before and following after, and with v. 33, 34. is plain­ly this, When therefore ye come together in one place, that is into the Church, it is not to eat the Lords supper [that which ye do] for every one taketh and eateth his own supper first, before others are come together, and so when ye eat, one is hungry and another full. The rich are full, but the poor [...] (un­derstand [...]) who have no supper of their own, are hungry. It seems there was a cu­stom among the richer sort of the Corinthians to anticipate the Lords supper by eating eve­ry one their own which they brought with them privately, before the poorer sort were come together, But this he tells them was not to eat the Lords supper, and therefore he goeth on to reprove them, What have ye not houses to eat and drink in, but you must surfeit and debauch [...] here? or despise you the Church of God and shame [...], [Page 200] them that have no suppers? What shall I say unto you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not; And so at length after a di­gression to another discourse concerning the Lords supper, to v. 33. he returneth again to this, which he concludes with a short mo­nition, Wherefore my brethren when ye come together to eat, that is, the Lords Supper, tarry ye one for another, and if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together [...], for your condemnation, that is, so as you may be blamed for so doing.

C. 12. v. 11. [...]. The Arabick Interpreter seems to have read [...]. Distribuens unicuique quod ei proprium est, prout vult, Dividing to every one what is proper to him as he will. Rather, Dividens propria, i. e. sua unicuique, &c. Di­stributing his own [gifts] to every one as he will, which is more suitable to the sense, and to propriety of speech, [...], for its said, v. 4. [...]. There are diversities of Gifts but the same spirit, And immediately before, [...], Haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, But all these worketh that one and the self same spirit, dividing his own to every one as he will. [...], Ut domi­nus & Deus, Theophylact. They are called [...], [Page 201] the Distributions, or as we Translate it, the Gifts of the holy Ghost according to his will, Heb. 2.4. See Joh. 3.8.

V. 29. [...]; These words are better conjoyned and distinguished with those that follow, v. 30. [...]; Have all the pow­er of working Miracles, have all the gifts of healing? repeating the word [...], have, [...], as common to both. For surely it is not proper to say, are all powers to work Miracles? as necessarily we must, if we re­fer the words, to those that went before.

C. 13. v. 13. [...]. Certainly these words are rendred best by a vulgar Metathesis. And now abide these three, Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity. [...] for [...], as [...], for [...], and [...] for [...], which happens very frequently, to wit, that Comparatives are taken instead of the Superlatives, as [...], Socrates was the wisest of all men, and so you have, c. 15.19. [...] for [...], The most miserable of all men.

C. 14. v. 2. [...], Qui loquitur lin­guâ [exoticâ] non loquitur hominibus sed Deo, nemo enim intelligit, spiritu vero loqui­tur [Page 202] mysteria, For he that speaketh in an un­known tongue, speaketh not unto men but to God, for no man understandeth him, but with his breath he speaketh mysteries. That with his voice he speaketh hidden things which are not un­derstood of them who are but Ideots and un­derstand no other then their mother tongue. [...] in this place, as spiritus likewise, is ta­ken as [...] is often taken in the Hebrew, for halitus, breath, the organ of the voice, Me­tonymically for the voice, [...], the voice is from the lungs, as Hippo­crates, yet not immediately, but by the me­diation of the breath which is caused by the lungs, and so Hesychius. [...], Spiritús causa est pulmo. But the next cause of the voice is [...], spiri­tus, the breath, and from thence it is that Phavorinus saith, [...], Spi­ritus elatio dictionis, Breath is the bringing forth or the conveyance of the speech, which differs not from the very voice, For without breath the principal organ of the voice its impossi­ble to utter any sound. And that this is the Apostles meaning in this place, appears by the whole series of his discourse in this present Chapter. For it followeth, v. 13. [...], Quaprop­ter qui loquitur lingua peregrina precetur ita ut interpretur, Wherefore let him that speaketh [that is, that prayeth] in an unknown tongue, [Page 203] pray so as he may interpret, that is, that him­self or some body else may interpret so that others may understand, as it is, v. 27. And of this use of the word [...] you may see Bu­daeus, which also must be necessarily taken in the same sense, Joh. c. 10. v. 17. Because I lay down my life, [...], so as I may take it up again. He laid not his life down, to the end he might take it up again, but in such a manner so as he might take it up again, for as it immediately follows, He had power to lay it down, and he had power to take it up again. And thus it follows still in the same phrase and manner of speech, [...], Si enim pre­cer lingua peregrina, spiritus meus precatur, mens vero mea est infructuosa, For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my breath [that is, my voice] prayeth, but my meaning is of no benefit to others, because they understand not what I say. What therefore is to be done? v. 15. [...], Precabor spiritu, precabor etiam cum intellectu, I will pray with my breath or voice, and I will pray with understanding also, that is, so as I may be understood of others. [...] with Aristophanes and in the Glossary is sensus, meaning, as [...]; Quis est horum verborum sensus? What is the meaning of these words? And with this key its easie [Page 204] to open the mysteries of this Chapter, which otherwise are hard to be understood.

V. 27. [...], Sive quis loquatur lingua peregrina, dua­bus vel ad maximum tribus [scilicet linguis] fiat, idque singulatim, & unus interpretetur, quod si non sit Interpres, sileto, Or if a man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be in two or three [tongues] at the most, and let one interpret, But if there be no Interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church. It is ve­ry probable, that there might be divers in the Church, who could speak in many tongues, but [...], for orders sake he permit­ted them to use but two or three tongues at most, and that by turns and not confusedly, nor without an Interpreter. But whereas most interpret those words [...] of the persons, seems to me by no means to agree with the sense or Syntax. For how one man should speak by another man according to the scope of this place is beyond my comprehension, [...], fiat, is familiarly under­stood.

V. 30. [...], &c. But if any thing be revealed unto another that sit­teth by, let the first hold his peace, that is, be­fore that other speak, to whom it is revealed, as much as to say, Let not him to whom a­ny thing is revealed, offer to speak, till the [Page 205] other who was first speaking, hath made an end. For ye may all prophecy one after ano­ther, that all may learn and all be comforted, or exhorted, [...], The meaning of which words is, either, the spirits of the Prophets are subor­dinate to the Prophets, that is, they are so mutually subordinate one to another, that they ought not to confound one another, or their hearers by unseasonable speaking two or more together, but to keep order in the Churches. For God, as it follows, is not the Author of confusion, but of peace in all the Churches of the Saints. [...], Let all things be done in order, Or thus, The spirits of the Prophets whereby any thing is revea­led to them, are subject to those Prophets, to be guided by them, to be supprest and uttered when they please, so that to prevent confusion in the Church, he to whom any thing is revealed, ought for a while to sup­press his Spirit of revelation, till he who was first speaking hath made an end. Nor can I by any means think that out of these words there can be any argument raised for the trial of mens spirits or doctrines, a sense so gene­rally imposed.

C. 15. v. 29. [...], Alioquinquid facient qui Baptizantur pro mor­tuis [Page 206] si omnino mortui non resurgunt? Quid etiam Baptizantur pro mortuis, Else what shall they do who are Baptized for dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then Baptized for dead? Here is as it were a gemination of the question to make the matter of it the more observed. As if he should say What do men do or mean when they are Baptized? or why are men dipped under water as if dead [...], Buried with Christ in Baptism, Rom. c. 6. v. 4. Col. c. 2. v. 12. if by rising out of the water, which is a type of the Resurrection after death, they be not ascertained, that Christ is risen from the dead, and that they also, if they rise from the death of sin to newness of life, shall likewise rise again with Christ after death to glory? In vain doth the Church use this sign of Baptism, if there be not a Resur­rection. For Baptism is the lively type of the death and Resurrection of Christ, and con­sequently of all the faithful. And so hath it been received always by the Ancients, where­of you may see in note 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 23. And this doctrine Zonaras calls [...], Vim mysterii Religionis Christianae, The very life and virtue of Chri­stian Religion, plainly affirming that they do, [...], loose their labour, who are Bap­tized if they doubt of the Resurrection, in that that they demonstrate or set forth by their Bap­tism, [Page 207] that is, by their immersion into the wa­ter, and their emersion out of the same, their death, and Resurrection, but doubt or not believe it in their hearts. And who so do, what they do, they do in vain. From whence you may conclude it was the opinion of those times, that the act of immersion in the water, in which the body is buried for dead, or as if it were dead, and the emersion again out of the same did lively represent the real death and Resurrection of the body, both in Infants, that could not confess the same, as also in grown persons, though they confessed not with their mouths what they acted in their bodies. The sign was still the same. Though it be like­wise true, that those who were grown to the years of discretion when they were Baptized, as S^t Chrysostom tells us, did publickly confess, that they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and were Baptized in that Faith, adding farther in the same place, that for the better explain­ing of, [...] was to be understood, that they were Baptized for dead bodies, adding yet for farther confirma­tion, Thou art therefore Baptized because thou believest the Resurrection of the body, that is, that it remains not for ever dead. And thou by word of mouth confessest the Resurrection of the dead, and the Priest as it were in a certain fi­gure or representative doth manifest unto thee by the things themselves, what thou dost believe [Page 208] and hast confessed, &c. In like manner Tertul­lian, Pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tin­gui, mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, To be dipt for dead is to be dipt for dead bodies, for thereby we shew our bodies to be dead. Then which I think there can be nothing spoken plainer. And to this opinion agrees Theodoret also upon this place, [...], He who is Baptized is buried with the Lord, that when he hath been partaker with him of death, he may with him be also partaker of the Resurrection. But if our body die and rise not again why is it then Baptized? And this I hold to be the proper exposition on this place and the scope of the Apostles meaning.

C. 16. v. 3. [...]. And when I shall be with you, whomsoever ye shall approve, I will send by letter to carry your liberality to Jerusa­lem. In Translating of which words, I conceive under favour there are two mistakes in the Eng­glish Interpreter, First in saying, whom ye shall approve by your letters, when Paul was come un­to them, and secondly, in Translating to bring your liberality to Jerusalem, whereas Paul was not at Jerusalem, but at Philippi, when he wrote this Epistle to the Corinthians. Beside that, [...] doth properly signifie, auferre, to carry away.

Ch. 1. v. 9.

[...], Immo habui­mus in nobis or in nos condemnatio­nem mortis, Yea we had the sen­tence of death upon us. As if he should say, Yea we were so far in despair of life, as even the sentence of death was past upon us, that we should not trust in our selves, but in him who raiseth the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, [...], Hesych. Phavor. and Suid. And to this so great a death its reasonable to suppose he was adjud­ged by some sentence or conspiracy of the Jews.

C. 2. v. 12. [...], &c. Quum venissem au­tem Troadem, & ostium mihi apertum esset [Page 210] per Dominum ad Evangelium Christi, non ha­bui requiem spiritui meo, But when I was come to Troas, and there was a door opened to me by the Lord to the Gospel of Christ, I had no rest to my spirit, not finding my brother Titus there, who if present would have eased me of a great part of my burden, which lay so heavily upon me being all alone, that I had no refreshment to my spirit, but taking leave of them I went into Macedonia. There is no­thing more familiar then the trajection.

C. 4. v. 4. [...], &c. To make a fitting sense and a true construction, you must Translate, the Praeposition [...], among (as commonly it is,) both in this and the preceding verse, and the words that follow by trajection. If our Gos­pel be hid, it is hid, [...], among those that are lost, among whom God hath blind­ed the minds of the unbelievers of this age, least the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, should shine unto them, that is, so shine, as that they should see and understand. And that this is the proper rendring and meaning of the words, I am much induced to believe, because the Apostle seems to have a direct eye to that of Isaiah 6.10. Where the Lord bids them go and make the ears of this people heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, [Page 211] and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and be converted. Besides [...] is properly an age, saeculum, and not the world. The unbelievers of this age are meant, espe­cially the Jews. As for the trajection, besides that divers of the Ancients did use the same in the exposition of these words, it is so fa­miliar in the New Testament, that I cannot but wonder that any should scruple at it. And yet for better confirmation I shall alledge an Example or two, as Joh. 11.54. [...], for [...], He went unto a city called Ephraim. Act. 13.1. [...], for [...], Now there were certain Prophets and teachers in the Church that was in Antioch, and c. 25.22. [...], for [...], And he said, to morrow thou shalt hear him. Whereas tis li­terally, And he to morrow said thou shalt hear him. And there were some in Antioch in the Church that was Prophets and teachers. And he went unto Ephraim which is called a City.

C. 5. v. 1. [...], Trajectio insignis, pro [...], If the earthly house of our Tabernacle were dissolved.

[Page 212]C. 6. v. 13. [...]. Before [...] you are to understand [...], Then which no­thing more familiar. Now according to the same compensation, (I speak to you as my chil­dren) be ye also inlarged. As if he should have said, O ye Corinthians our mouth is open to you, our heart is inlarged, Ye are not streight­ned in us, but ye are streightned in your own bowels [towards us,] ye have not the like affection for us as we have for you, As my heart therefore is inlarged toward you, so be ye also in like manner mutually inlarged in your bowels towards us.

C. 8. v. 1. [...]. Moreover we do you to wit, or we would have you take notice of the great gift that hath been given by the Churches of Macedonia to the Saints. He stirreth up the Corinthians to the like li­beral contribution by the example of the Ma­cedonians. [...], Hesych. [...], Phavor. [...], a goodly gift, as we Translate [...], the goodly Ce­dars, Psal. 80. v. 10. and [...], the high or great mountains, Psal. 36. v. 6. See note on, c. 10. v. 4. So Beza Translates [...], beneficentiam, v. 6. And so might he have done also, v. 7.

V. 18, 19. [...], [Page 213] And we have sent with him the brother (whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches, and not so only, but who was also appointed of the Churches our fellow traveller) with this charge which is administred by us for the glory of him who is our Lord, and your incourage­ment. In the first place I thought fit to make this large Parenthesis that the coherence might appear the better. For I thought it more rational to say, that this Brother was sent with this charge of Ministring to the Saints, then to say he was appointed or chosen with it. In the next place tis manifest that [...] in this place can signifie nothing but gra­tiam Ministerii in Sanctos, the charge or office of Ministery to the Saints, committed to Ti­tus and this Brother, and to Paul himself. And so do Theophylact and the Greek Scholiast both interpret it. As concerning [...] you may see note on Act. c. 14. v. 23. Lastly follows [...], which I have not doubted to render, and for your encouragement, for [...], alacritatem injicere, is to incourage. That is, that ye may be more cheerful in giving, more forward in your be­neficence, when you see they are honest and creditable persons, who are to collect and dis­pence your mony, so that no man can blame [Page 214] us in this abundance which is administred by us, or conceive the least suspicion of us, as if we made any private use to our own gain of the monies committed to us. Persons of integrity and fidelity, and that not only one, but two or three, that the honour of God may be preserved and not blasphemed among the Gentiles. For we provide for honest things not only in the sight of the Lord but in the sight of men.

C. 9. v. 5. [...], Your bounty or liberal collection, from [...], colligo, to collect. So [...] in Phavorinus is [...], An abundance of good things freely given.

V. 8, 9, 10. [...], &c. Qui vero potens est Deus omnem gra­tiam faciat abundare in vobis, ut in omnibus [Page 215] semper omnem sufficientiam habentes abun­detis in omne opus bonum (sicut scriptum est, dispersit, dedit pauperibus, misericordia ejus manet, in aeternum. Qui suppeditat semen se­minanti & panem ad escam, suppeditet & mul­tiplicet sementem vestram, & augeat fructus misericordiae vestrae) in omni divites facti ad omnem liberalitatem, (quae adoperatur per nos gratiarum actionem deo, quoniam ministe­rium oblationis hujus non solum est adsupplens inopias sanctorum, sed etiam redundans per multas gratiarum actiones deo) per probatio­nem hujus ministerii glorificantes deum in vestra subjectione, &c. But God who is able make all grace to abound toward you, that ye always ha­ving all sufficiency in all things may abound to every good work, (as it is written, he hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor, his mercy endureth for ever. Let him that Mi­nistreth seed to the sower and bread for his food, Minister and multiply your seed, and increase the fruits of your mercy) being inriched in e­very thing to all bountifulness (which worketh through us thanksgiving unto God, because the ministration of this service doth not only sup­ply the want of the Saints, but doth also su­perabound by many thanksgivings unto God) by the experiment of this ministration glory­fying God in your blessed subjection to the Gos­pel of Christ, and your liberal distribution, &c. I see no need of Hebraism or Atticism to salve [Page 216] the sense and construction in this place, for if the two Parentheses as they are here distin­guished be duly observed, the sense and Syn­tax is so plain that he that runs may read and understand, the participles [...] and [...] being to be governed of the verb [...], v. 8. I have chose to render the words in the form of a prayer, because it is usual with S^t Paul, as the Fathers have observed, to conclude his exhortations with a prayer. [...] I suppose is in this place properly Tran­slated mercy, as also in the Psalm from whence the words are cited. So Theophylact inter­prets it on this place, [...], Misericors ab omnibus diligitur, The mer­cyful man is beloved of all. And so the LXX do frequently render [...], as you may see in note on Matth. c. 1 19. [...] be­fore [...] is in this place redundant.

C. 10. v. 4. [...] Exceedingly powerful, just such another phrase, as [...], exceeding fair, Act. c. 7. v. 20. It is Beza his animadversion, and that it is to be expounded by an Hebraism, so [...], [...], Magna deo, magna civitas, Now Niniveh was an ex­ceeding great City, Jon. c. 3. v. 3. So c. 11. v. 2. [...], that is, as the Greek Scholiast saith, [...], ardenter amo vos, for I love with an exceeding zeal. So Psal. 80. v. 10. you have [...], [...], [Page 217] Cedros dei, The goodly Cedars, and Psal. 36. v. 6. [...], [...], Sicut montes dei, As the great mountains. For the Scripture when it denotes any thing to be excellent, it adds one of the names of God. As Gen. c. 30. v. 8. Colluctationes dei colluctata sum cum sorore mea, [...]. With great wrestlings have I wrestled. And 1 Sam. c. 14. v. 16. Et factum est in trepi­dationem dei, [...], So it was a very great trembling. So Jud. c. 13. v. 6. The Angel of the Lord that appeared unto the wife of Manoah is by her termed [...], [...], in the LXX. which I conceive by the context may be in the same manner best Translated, A goodly man, whose countenance was very terrible, cujus species e­rat augustior quam hominum communiter, who had a more noble aspect then commonly men have, as Drusius; or Qui mirum in modum e­rat facie veneranda, That had a wonderful ve­nerable face, [...], which word [...] signifies what ever excels in quantity or qua­lity. And so perhaps those words Pro. c. 20. v. 27. [...], &c. [...], &c. may be better Translated Spiritus hominis lumen valde excellens investigans omnia penetralia ventris, The spirit of a man is a most excellent light that searcheth the inward parts of the belly, that is, the secrets of the heart. Whereas the common Translation [the [Page 218] spirit of man is the candle of the Lord] is an odd expression, and somewhat difficult sure­ly to make a good sense of.

C. 11. v. 4. [...]. Seems to be spoken sarcasticè, or illusoriè, bitingly or taunt­ingly, the word [...] being to be under­stood here, as I conceive it ought to be Mar. c. 7. v. 9. [...], Ye fairly reject the commandment of God, that ye may observe your own tradition. And so here, For if a man come, and preach unto you another Jesus, whom we have not preached, &c. Ye would fairly suf­fer him, For ye suffer a man to bring you in­to bondage, &c. v. 20. He reprehends their le­vity, and shews them how their minds were corrupted from the simplicity or sincerity which is in Christ, v. 3.

C. 12. v. 21. [...], Ne rursus quando venero Deus meus me vilem reddat apud vos, Least my God when I come again make me vile among you, or in your eyes, as before c. 10. v. 1. [...], Qui coram vilis, Who in presence am base among you. As [...] is base or vile, so [...] is vilem reddo, to make base or vile. As if he should say, I am afraid that as I was base and contemptible in your eyes when I was with you before, so also when I come again God will suffer me to be reputed vile in your eyes, and so I shall be forced to bewail many [Page 219] of you who have sinned and not yet repented. He was afraid they would slight him, and therefore take no care to repent.

C. 13. v. 5. [...], Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith, prove your own selves (or do ye not know your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you or among you?) whether ye be not void of this proof [which ye seek in me.] This verse and the next following verses do perfectly answer to the Apostles words in the beginning of v. 3. The sense following ne­cessarily, Thus, [...] ( [...] &c.) [...], &c. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me (who toward you is not weak, &c.) exa­mine your selves whether ye be in the Faith, prove your own selves whether ye be not without the proof [of Christ in you,] But I hope ye shall know that we are not without the proof of Christ speaking in us. [...] is compounded of, α, privative, and [...], Without proof. The Apostle playes upon the word through the whole discourse. The scope whereof to make more clear, I shall in a short Paraphrase run through the whole dis­course [Page 220] of the Apostle upon this subject. He had heard that there were some among them who did not esteem him according to the dig­nity of his Apostleship, but held him for a man that walked after the flesh, c. 10. v. 2. and did not stick to say among themselves that though his letters were weighty and powerful, yet his bodily presence was but weak, and his speech contemptible, and from hence assumed unto themselves a liberty of sinning more free­ly, not believing that he would come at all, and therefore puffed up, 1 Cor. c. 4. v. 18, or if he did come, that he would not come with a rod and terrour, yea that were not a­fraid to call his very Apostleship into question, who required [...], a proof of Christ speak­ing in him. To meet therefore with the boldness of these men, and yet not be com­pelled to use (which by all means he avoid­ed) his power, with severity, which God had given him for edification, and not for de­struction, he being absent writes thus unto them, This third time come I unto you, [in this Epistle] because every word may be estab­lished by the mouth of two or three witnesses, that ye may be sure without all doubt that I will come, and that with a rod, for as I told you before when I was present with you, and as I being absent likewise told you in my former Epistle, so do I now write again unto you, and to those that have sinned, and to [Page 221] all others, that when I come again I will not spare. But, as I hear, ye do not be­lieve that God hath committed this power unto me, but ye account me as some con­temptible person, and therefore, [...], ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, whom ye shall find when I come not weak, but powerful enough, for though he was cruci­fied because of his weakness by being man, he liveth yet by the power of his Godhead; and though we also be infirm and weak, as he was, ye yet shall feel, that we also live by the same power of his Godhead, when we come unto you. But since you require [...] a proof of Christ speaking in me, I pray first prove your own selves, whether ye be not your selves without this proof, [...], (or is it possible when I have preached and written to you so many times that ye should not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in or among you?) but I hope ye shall know however, that we are not [...], without the proof of Christ in us. But I am loath to use it, and therefore pray that ye may do no evil, [...] understand [...], [ [...]] I do not pray that we may appear with this proof of Christ speaking in us with power, but that ye may do that which is good, and that we our selves may be [...], as without this proof, not having need to use our power with seve­rity, [Page 222] which God hath given for edification and not for destruction, &c. And thus I sup­pose I have sufficiently explained the pro­per meaning of [...] and [...] in this place. In the explication whereof under favour in my weak opinion Interpreters have very much laboured besides the meaning of the Apostle.

Ch. 2. v. 2, 3, 4. &c.

[...]. Inter­preters generally would have this place under­stood, as if [...], &c. because of the false brethren who were brought in un­awares and came in privily, &c. Titus were not compelled to be circumcised, and as if these false brethren were they, [...], [Page 224] &c. to whom he writes he would not give place no not for an hour. Neither of which do I conceive to be the meaning of the Apostle. But rather, that he communicated his Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles privately to those of reputation, that is, to those [...] who were reputed pillars, because of the false brethren, [...], who used to creep in privily, (for so may [...] being a tense indefinite be lawfully interpreted) that they might spy out the liberty they took upon them in Christ Je­sus, And that for maintenance of the truth of his Gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles that the Mosaical Law was abro­gated, least he might seem to preach or to have preached and laboured in vain, and for no other cause was Titus not compelled to be circumcised. And therefore doth Estius right­ly conclude in the voice of Paul. Quod si A­postoli, &c. If the Apostles to whom I com­municated my Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles had thought the Mosaical Law, whereof Circumcision is a principal part had been necessary for the Christians, they would cer­tainly have caused Titus whom I brought with me to be circumcised, atqui id factum non est, but that was not done, &c. Whereby he clear­ly intimates his opinion, that the reason why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised was, that the truth of Pauls Gospel might [Page 225] remain. And as this reason suites best with the coherence of the Text, so doth it like­wise best agree, That the Apostle did commu­nicate his Gospel to those who were reputed pillars in the Church [...], privately a­part from the rest, of purpose, because the false brethren who used to creep in privily in­to their assemblies, might not be present to spy their debates and actions, and consequently it is to be presumed they were not present, for whose sake the meeting was purposely appointed private. And then how can it pro­perly be with reason said, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised for their sakes, who were not at all present, their company being purposely declined. And if this be so, then must we without farther dispute con­clude, that [...], the persons to whom, v. 5. the Apostle thought not fit to give place no not for an hour, must be those of reputation, the [...], v. 2. that is, to the chief Apostles, Peter, James and John. Between whom and Paul, we may gather from the discourse of the place, there was no small contention, pro­bably about the circumcision of Titus, Paul producing that to the Galatians in the first place, as it were by way of triumph, to let them know he had the better of it. I com­municated my Gospel to them which I preach among the Gentiles. But, they were so far from having any thing to find fault with in [Page 226] my preaching, [...], as Theophylact hath it, that nei­ther was Titus who was with me being a Gen­tile compelled to be circumcised. And sure­ly there was some heat between Paul and them, concerning the observation of Moses Law, and its possible they might be too much [...], servants to the time, they might possibly connive at some things, least the faithful among the Jews, (who being Ze­lots of the Law. Act. c. 21. v. 20. thought they were bound to hold it fast) might chance to be offended, and so fly back from the Chri­stian Faith. For which their prudence Paul, as the Greek Scholiast hath observed in his praise, hath not stuck to call them, [...], persons of reputation, or of great e­steem, worthy of reprehension, and dissemblers who walked not aright, so that he may estab­lish the Gospel of Christ. Now to these chief Apostles who were reputed Pillars, it was, that Paul thought not fit to yield, as he after saith, that he resisted Peter to the face, v. 11. Neither ought we to think so meanly of our Apostle, as if he would on any terms have yielded to the false brethren, though possibly he might have done it to the chief Apostles, whom he knew to be at least [...], of equal honour, and Ministers of the same Spirit and Gospel with him. In summ, [Page 227] Transpose but (for your present understand­ing) those words, [...], af­ter the word, [...], and I conceive the sense runs most perfectly clear. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gen­tiles, least by any means I should run, or had run in vain, Yea neither was Titus who was with me being a Gentile compelled to be cir­cumcised, but privately to them of reputation, and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus that they might bring us into bondage. To whom we gave place by subjection no not for an hour, that the truth of the [or my] Gospel might con­tinue with you. To whom, relating, to them of reputation, and not, to the proximum ante­cedens, which is not at all times necessary. If any demand what means [...], by, or according to revelation. For my part I think there's no necessity to run to any vi­sion by day or night, but that [...] doth here signifie some Revelation or Manifestation which had been made unto him either by fame or word or Letter, that there was a rumour at Jerusalem that he taught a doctrine differing from the Apostles, of which James gave him notice in express words, Act. c. 21. v. 21. [...], &c. They have heard of thee, that thou teachest all the [Page 228] Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to Circum­cise their children, neither to walk after the customs of their Fathers. For which rumours sake perhaps it is said, Act. c. 20. v. 22. Be­hold I am [...], obstrictus a­nimo, resolved in my mind to go to Jerusa­lem, what ever becometh of me to testifie (as follows) the grace of God, but whether that journey and this were [...] at one and the same time I cannot determine, but tis cer­tain he went for one and the same cause to testifie and vindicate his Gospel which he had preached among the Gentiles. In the last place come to be considered the words that follow; [...]. In the explica­tion of which words there is no need of any figure or other supplement then is common in the Testament. Understanding [...] before [...], the like whereto you have Joh. c. 16. v. 17. [...], for [...], Dixerunt discipuli, as the vulgar La­tin, Then said some of the disciples, And Act. c. 21. v. 16. [...], for [...], Then came with us some of the disciples. The same construction Beza and Grotius both allow, Matth. c. 27. v. 9. [...], for [...], Filii Is­rael. The phrase it self is frequent, as [...], The Platonicks, [...], [Page 229] The Plebeians, [...], Those that are of the Faith, Gal. c. 3. v. 7. And [...], Certain of the sect of the Pharisees, &c. So as you may very lawfully Translate, Qui vero videbantur esse aliquid, qualescunque tandem illi fuerint, nihil meâ interest, But what ever they were, who seemed to be something, it is no matter to me, God accepteth no mans person. Or it may be Translated thus with regularity and sense enough, distinguishing only after [...]. Nihil vero ab iis, qui videbantur esse aliquid, qualescunque illi fuerint, meâ interest, But nothing from those who seemed to be some­thing, what ever they were, concerneth me at all. That is, nothing that they either said or did concerns me, for as it follow, [...], They that seem­ed to be something added nothing to me.

V. 19. [...], For I through the Law am dead to the Law, that is, by the knowledge of the Law do know that by the Law there is no life, and therefore to the Law acknowledge my self dead, that I may live unto God.

C. 3. v. 20. [...]. The best Expositor of these words without comparison is the Aethiopick Interpreter. Deus tamen u­nus est duorum, But God is one of the two. Wherefore then is the Law that was ordained by the Angels by the hand of a Mediatour? [Page 230] But a Mediatour is not a Mediatour of one party alone, it being necessary that there be two parties between whom there is a Mediatour. Now one of these two parties (between whom there was a Mediatour to convey the Law) is God. Neither can there be any other intelligible sense rendred of the words. What is the unity or simplicity of the essence of God to the scope of the place, or the Apostles purpose? But if he say that God is [...] one of the two be­tween whom Moses was a Mediatour, the sense is obvious, do not the promises of that very God which he gave to Abraham, fight with the Law, he gave by the hand of Moses? God forbid, &c. How Moses was this Mediatour between God and the children of Israel you may find punctually recorded, Levit. c. 26. v. 46. [...], &c. Haec sunt lex quam dedit Dominus inter se & filios Israel in monte Sina per manum Mosis, These are the Law which the Lord gave between him and the children of Israel in mount Sina [...] by the hand of Moses, the very phrase used in this place.

Ch. 1. v. 7, 8.

[...], Secundum di­vitias gratiae ipsius quam abundare fecit in nobis, According to the riches of his grace which he hath made to abound in us in all wisdom and prudence. [...] is to be understood here in the Hebrews Hi­phil, as [...] is 2 Cor. c. 9. v. 8. [...], is a common phrase with the Greeks, who according to the Atticks do put the Relative in the same case with the An­tecedent, as, [...], and [...], Coram Deo cui cre­didit, Before God whom he believed, Rom. c. 4. v. 17.

C. 2. v. 1. [...]. Of what word, [...], you, should be governed, I con­ceive, there hath been a long mistake by rea­son [Page 232] of the incommodious distinction of the Chapters. Most Interpreters after [...], vos, you, add of their own the verb, vivificavit, hath he quickned to supply the sense. One affirms that this Accusative, [...], you, is governed of [...], hath he quickned, v. 5. by a chain of figures. For he saith, there is in this place an Hyperbaton, and a Synchysis, an Apocope, or cutting short of the Period, which is a kind of an Anantopodoton, the cause of which ano­maly or irregularity, is the interjection of some long sentence. But to what end serves all this pomp of figures? What need is there of them in a matter which if duly observed, is not at all obscure? For look but back to the Nineteenth verse of the foregoing Chapter, and you shall find, sense, coherence and con­struction extreamly plain and safe without sup­plement or figure, [...], &c. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe ( ) and toward you who were dead in trespasses and sins. The intervenient words, [...], &c. Ac­cording to the working of his mighty power, &c. to the end of that Chapter being all proper­ly included in a Parenthesis. To this I can­not imagin any thing to be objected but the length of the Parenthesis, it being of it self not only plain but extreamly fit and proper, [Page 233] not to say, necessary. But I beseech you is not the Parenthesis altogether as long, if [...], you, be governed of [...], hath he quickned, v. 5. and the construction much more harsh? see also, Rom. c. 1. v. 1. &c. un­to the 7, and c. 2. where, v. 13, 14, 15, are all included in one Parenthesis, not much shorter then this. Besides many other places in which you may find Parentheses well near as long, but much more perplext and intri­cate. Nay no less then a whole Chapter hath been allowed to a Parenthesis by no mean Judgement. In the mean while you may observe, what obscurity this importune division of the Chapters causeth to the Text. And where it bringeth not obscurity, it is yet an unhansom fraction dividing matter that is coherent. As you may see in Colos. c. 4. v. 1. which in all reason should have been joyned to the foregoing Chapter. Coherent cum superioribus neque scindenda fuere, Grot.

C. 3. v. 10. [...], That now may be known to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God in heavenly things throughout the Church. Things that pertain to the leading of an eternal life in heaven, Joh. c. 3. v. 12. Eph. c. 1. v. 3. They are cal­led [...], hea­venly things though done on earth, as Chry­sostom [Page 234] observes in another place. Whereas some interpret the Principalities and Powers to be the Angels, methinks is far from the scope of the place. For to what intent or advantage were it, if perhaps by the preach­ing of the Gospel many mysteries of Chri­stianity might be made known unto the An­gels, which to them were hid before? This grace v. 8. was given to Paul to make known these things. But Paul had no Commission to preach unto the Angels, neither did he but to the Princes of the Gentiles. Others ob­ject that the Gospel was not known to the Princes of the Gentiles, or to earthly Powers till the days of Constantine, and that there­fore the [...], now Prin­cipalities and Powers must be meant the Angels. But if it were not known, surely it might have been. I beseech you who were Herod, Faelix, Festus and Agrippa, the Ma­gistrates at Philippi, Thessalonica and Athens? were they not all [...], Principa­lities and Powers? of whom speaketh Paul when he admonisheth Titus to be subject [...], to Principalities and Powers? were not these earthly Magistrates? Could not then the Gospel be known to all? Nay was it not preached to all, and was it not known to all though some rejected it?

C. 4. v. 26. [...], Be angry and sin not. There is no doubt [Page 235] but the Apostle borrowed these words of the Psalmist, from the Greek Interpreters, Psal. 4. v. 4. though Beza and our English Interpre­ter have made no reference thereto in the margin. The reason whereof I suppose is, because they did otherwise interpret the He­brew, as have many others, reading, Contre­miscite & nolite peccare, Stand in awe and sin not. But I rather assent to Musculus who re­tains the vulgar reading in the Psalm, Irasci­mini & nolite peccare, Be ye angry and sin not, ductus Autoritate Pauli, being thereunto led by the Authority of S^t Paul. Besides that the Hebrew [...], signifies not only to stand in awe but also to be angry, a mans passion is as well moved for anger as for fear, for e­ven anger makes a man to tremble. Neither have we Pauls Authority alone for the read­ing but his exposition of the sense. For the words following of S^t Paul are meer Para­phrase on the words following in the Psal­mist, both agreeing in one and the same sense, [...], Let not the Sun go down upon your wrath, neither give place to the Devil, saith the Apostle, [...], Dicite in cordibus vestris super cubilia vestra, quieto esto­te animo, Commune with your hearts upon your beds, and be still, saith the Psalmist. As if the meaning of both were this, If perhaps it happen that ye are angry, neither is any passion quicker, [Page 236] take heed ye sin not by being angry longer then is fit, let not your anger abide till the going down of the Sun, neither make ye that Devil a nightly guest, suffering him to lodge with you, but chase him away, let him vanish before ye go to bed, that on your beds ye may be still and quiet, in a posture to commune with your selves, to say your prayers in your hearts, as the Chaldee hath it, plainly shewing how comforta­ble, how necessary a thing it is for our thoughts to be free for our pious meditation, when we are newly laid in our beds, to which nothing is a greater enemy then to have any exacerbation rest upon our spirits. The vulgar and Greek Transla­tion render [...] compungimini in this place. For the Hebrew is [...], which Pagnin and o­thers Translate, Et tacete, And hold your peace, but [...], signifies to be quiet, as well as to hold ones peace, and so reads Aquila, [...], quieti estote, and be still, as we render it. So with He­sychius, [...].

C. 6. v. 20. [...], Pro quo legatione fungor in vinculis, For which I am an Ambassadour in bonds. But why may it not be more properly translated, Pro quo senesco in vin­culis, For which I wax old in bonds. So Paul stiles himself Philem. v. 9. [...], Paulus senex & vinctus, Paul the aged and a prisoner of Jesus Christ. According to the most proper signification of the word.

Ch. 2. v. 16.

[...], Verbum vi­tae firmiter tenentes, Holding fast the word of life, that I may rejoyce in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, nor laboured in vain. [...], Hesych. [...], Phavor. See 1 Cor. c. 3. v. 14, 15. Joh. Ep. 2. v. 8.

C. 3. v. 5. [...]. I never yet met with Interpreter, that made a Gramma­tical construction of these words, when tis not easier to set an egg on the end, then to construe them according to rule, without force or figure, only understanding, what is fre­quent in every Page, the verb [...]. [...], &c. Cir­cumcisio erat octiduana, My circumcision was the eight day, ut pateat, as Chrysostom saith, Non fuisse Proselytum, That it may appear [Page 238] he was no Proselyte, Ex gente fui Israelis, I was of the stock of Israel, Ut pateat neque à parentibus quidem natum Proselytis, That it may appear that he was neither born of Pro­sylite parents, &c. So that if any had cause to have confidence in the flesh, Paul had.

V. 15, 16. [...], Quot­quot ergo perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus, & si quid aliter sentitis, & hoc quoque revela­bit vel revelet vobis Deus (praeter ad quod pervasimus) eâdem incedere regulâ, idem sentire, As many therefore as be perfect, let us be thus minded, and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God will reveal, or God reveal this also to you (besides what ye have already attained unto) to walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing. The Future Indicative for the Imperative is a frequent He­braism. But whereas Interpreters do gene­rally Translate [...] and [...] in the Im­perative in the first person plural, Eâdem in­cedamus regulâ, idem sentiamus, Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, alledging it to be an Atticism, truly when I cannot find such another Atticism in all the New Testament, and when I see no necessity at all for pretending such a figure in this place nor advantage to the mending of the sense [Page 239] thereby, I thought it better to Translate them in the Infinitive according to the usual manner of speech, it being as I conceive, not only more Grammatical, but more agreeable also to the Apostles purpose. For as I have heretofore more then once observed out of the Fathers, that it is the Apostles custom, to conclude his exhortations with a wish or pray­er, so when he had exhorted them here to be so minded as he himself was, he presently prays or wishes that God would reveal this also to them, besides the knowledge they had already attained to, to walk all by the same rule that he himself walked, and to be of the same mind that he was, that they might be followers of him, and observe those who took him for their example, whose con­versation was already in heaven, &c.

Ch. 1. v. 23.

[...], Which was preached in or through the whole creation under heaven.

C. 2. v. 14. [...], Ex­pungens quod adversum nos erat chirogra­phum, in traditionibus nobis contrarium, Wipe­ing out the hand writing that was against us, which was contrary to us in Traditions.

V. 18. [...], Let no man deceive you with subtile arguments who pleaseth himself in humility and the worshiping of Angels, curiously prying into or ventring on those things which he hath not seen. That is, venturing to de­termine or judge of things whereof he hath no [Page 241] knowledge, [...], Phav. [...], Mar. c. 12. v. 38. Psal. 147. v. 10. [...], Phavor. But properly [...] is ingredior or pedem pono, to put or set ones foot.

V. 23. [...]. After [...], understand [...], which is so frequent as I have often observed. Which things truly have a shew of wisdom, in super­stition and humility, and afflicting of the body which is in no esteem for the pampering of the flesh.

C. 3. v. 7. [...], When ye lived a­mong them, that is, the children of disobe­dience.

V. 8. [...], &c. It is not so fitly Translated in the English in the Present tense, in the Indicative mood: its better as it is in the Old Latin Deponite, in the Im­perative, But now also put ye off all these, &c. [...], ly not one to another, as it follows in the next verse.

C. 4. v 5. [...], In sa­pientia ambulate erga eos qui foris sunt lu­crantes tempus, Walk in wisdom toward them that are without gaining time. As if he should say, Offend not the Gentiles by any unseaso­nable deportment, but as far as in religion [Page 242] you may in all things submit unto them, gain­ing as much time as you can to do good in. To that end let your speech, as it follows, be seasoned with salt. Ʋndertake not unseaso­nable contentions, but give to every one the re­verence which to him is due, so as you injure not your own souls. Hear Paul himself speak­ing to Agrippa: I think my self happy because I shall answer for my self before thee this day. And truly you may generally observe Paul not doing any thing rashly whereby he might loose the opportunity to draw any to the Faith. You meet the same phrase in Daniel c. 2. v. 8. [...], Certe no­vi quod tempus lucramini, that is, diem diffin­ditis ut consumatur tempus & vobis detur ef­fugiendi occasio, as Junius, I know of a cer­tain that ye would gain time, ye spin it out, that ye may get an opportunity to escape.

V. 16. [...]. There is no need with Grotius to vary the reading by leaving out [...] contrary to the testimony of all copies, when as it is [...] dictum rightly said as it is in the Old Latin, Et eam quae est Laodicensium vos legatis, And read ye that of Laodicea, not that which was written from Laodicea to them, but which was written from the Apostle to the Laodiceans, which why or how it is lost as is that other to the Corin­thians, and another to the Ephesians, as also other books of Scripture, is known to God a­lone. [Page 243] For the phrase is frequent, as, [...], some of the Synagogue, [...], the Faithful, [...], the Stoicks, [...], the night winds are grievous.

Ch. 2. v. 16.

[...], But the wrath of God is come upon them in the end. They have killed Jesus and their own Prophets, and they have persecuted us, neither care they for God, but are contrary to all, forbidding us to preach unto you that ye might be saved, but the vengeance of God is come upon them in the end. Their measure was full, and the De­struction of Jerusalem was at hand.

Ch. 2. v. 3.

[...]. It is in all copies di­stinguish't after [...], which doth so confound the Grammatical construction, that no true interpretation can be given of the words, which is easily reconciled by this di­stinction after [...], plainly thus, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, [...], as that the day of Christ is at hand, [...], understand [...] by a common repetition. Let no man deceive you by any means, that it is at hand, [...], unless there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Tis true Interpreters make a shift to [Page 245] make out the sense, but they take no thought of the Syntax. For what can be the mean­ing of, [...], I must confess is beyond my Fathom.

V. 7. [...]. After [...] understand [...]. Jam enim mysterium operatur iniquitatis; tantum est qui ad praesens obstat, vel impedit, donec è medio fiat, For the mystery of ini­quity worketh already, only there is one who hindreth, [that is, the working of it,] till he be taken out of the way. Tantum est qui nunc obstat, Only there is one who hindreth. Quis nisi Romanus status? Who but the Ro­man state? Tertullian. Non absurdè de Ro­mano imperio creditur dictum, Tis not unfit­ly thought to be spoken of the Roman Empire, August. Hunc locum exponunt de Imperio Romano, quo soluto fit venturus Antichri­stus, Erasm. and many others.

Ch. 1. v. 3.

[...], &c. [...] being accented with a Circum­flex in the middle syllable, the Imperative [...] or [...] is to be understood, for by a fami­liar Elleipsis the Infinitive is frequently put for the Imperative, as you may see, Act. c. 1. v. 4. and elsewhere. But if it be accented with an Acute in the third from the end, [...], as perhaps it ought, for the ac­cents are not the Authors, then is it the Imperative Aorist of the middle voice, which is frequently used in the Old Testament, so that either of these two ways the Anantapo­dosis is taken away, neither is any supplement necessary of our own, such as is that vide ut denunties, or so do, in the English. The Syn­tax [Page 247] being plain, As I besought, or advised thee, abide thou a while at Ephesus as thou goest into Macedonia, that thou mayst charge some that they teach no other doctrine, &c.

C. 2. v. 6, 7. [...]. It is a wonder to consider, how the unhappy pointing of the words, and the unseasonable division of the verses hath made Interpreters destroy the sense and meaning of this place, and yet make no good construction neither, whenas pointed and distinguisht as they ought, the sense is excellently good and the constru­ction plain and easie, thus, [...], &c. The sense running intirely thus, [...], v. 5. &c. Unus enim est Deus, unus etiam mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus Jesus, qui dedit semetipsum redemptionis precium pro omnibus, ipsum testimonium, cujus ego proprio tempore constitutus sum praedicator & Apostolus, &c. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave him­self a ransome for all, the very Gospel, unto which in due time I was ordained a Preacher and an Apostle, &c. [...] is doubt­less here Appositive, taken as they call it, [...], or materialiter. As if he should say, the summ or whole matter of the Gospel, [Page 248] [for so [...] is often used by our Apostle, as 1 Cor. c. 1. v. 6. c. 2. v. 1. 2 Tim. c. 1. v. 8, 10, 11. and elsewhere] whereof I am ordain­ed a Preacher, consisteth in the knowledge of one God, and one Mediatour Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all. [...] is applied in the very same sense, Tit. c. 1. v. 3. As for the trajection of the words there is nothing more familiar.

V. 10. [...]. The Paren­thesis is best pretermitted as in Stephanus, be­fore [...] is [...] to be understood. Sed quemad­modum decet mulieres quae pietatem spondent per bona opera, But as it becometh women who promise or profess piety by their good works. It is neither proper sense or Greek to say, [...], which should have been rather written with the Prepo­sition [...] and the Dative case, as in the fore­going words, with which according to that in­terpretation it ought to agree, [...], &c, [...]. The whole context running thus, I will therefore that men pray, &c. In like manner that women adorn themselves in mo­dest apparel, with shamefaceness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls or costly array, but as it becometh women pro­fessing Godliness by their good works.

V. 15. [...]. In­terpreters [Page 249] for the most part render it, Salva­bitur vero per liberorum generationem, But she shall be saved by the Generation of chil­dren, our own Translation saith, by child bear­ing. But what thereby they mean I compre­hend not, unless they understand the Gene­ration of the Son, the seed of the woman that shall bruise the serpents head, by which both Adam and Eve and all their off-spring shall be saved, if they continue in Faith and Charity. He begins in the Singular number, and con­cludes in the Plural, the like changes of num­ber being very frequent. You may see in par­ticular, 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 12.

C. 4. v. 1, 2. [...], &c. Attendentes spiri­tibus erroris & doctrinis daemoniorum in hy­pochrysi loquentium mendacium, &c. Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils speaking lies in hypocrisie, having their con­science seared with a hot iron. But the Syntax of the words cannot bear these Translations. For [...] is in casu recto as M^r Mede hath excellently observed, but [...], &c. in the Geni­tive, so that they cannot be governed one of another and so construed without breach of Grammar unsampled in Pauls Epistles as that Author saith. Though learned Beza faintly salves it by conniving at it as a Solaecism, with a, Major est habita sententiae quam con­structionis [Page 250] ratio, The Apostle had more regard to the sense then to the construction, whenas in truth there is no sense without the true construction. For if you shall say they must refer to [...], daemoniorum, devils, what a strange sense is that to say that devils should speak lies in hypocrisie, and have their conscience seared? And therefore to salve these irregu­larities and absurdities, he undeniably con­cludes, that the Genitives [...], [...], [...] are all governed by [...], and that [...] here doth signifie cau­sam or modum actionis, the cause or manner of the action, so that the proper and genuine Translation must be thus, Attendentes Spiri­tibus erroris & doctrinis daemoniorum, per hy­pochrysim falsiloquorum, &c. Giving heed to seducing Spirits and doctrines of devils through or by the hypocrisie of such as tell lies, that have their conscience seared with a hot iron, and forbid to marry, &c. The Aethiopick reads, Doctrinae Satanicae, Devilish doctrines, as we Translate [...], Injustus Oe­conomus, The unjust Steward and the like, or it may be in the sense of M^r Mede, doctrines concerning daemons, as [...], The doctrine of baptismes, that is, concerning bap­tismes, Heb. c. 6. v. 2. and [...], The Faith of the Son of God, that is, concerning the Son of God, Gal. c. 2. v. 20. Or if you will, Concerning Idols, For so [...] [Page 251] is put for Idola, Idols, Psal. 96. v. 5. in the LXX. And so perhaps it might be well interpreted, 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 20. and else­where. The meaning being this, that through the hypocrisie of lying teachers, that have sear­ed consciences, &c. Many shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to spirits of errour, and devilish doctrines, or doctrines concerning daemons or Idols, such as are worshipping of Saints, &c. Castalio had probably the same observation concerning the inconvenience of the construction, as the words are commonly Translated, and therefore renders them in the same manner as M^r Mede, Per simulationem hominum falsiloquorum, Through the hypocrisie of men that speak lies, and have their con­science seared. His note upon this place be­ing this, Hominum, addidi, ne falsiloquorum & sequentia referrentur ad daemonia, I have added, men, least speaking lies and that which follows, might be referred to devils.

V. 3. [...], &c. I marvail that our late Interpre­ters take no heed at all to what the Greek Scholiast hath observed on these words. To wit, that there is in them no [...], fault in the copy as some would have it, nor [...], slip or oversight of the Apostle, as others, but that they were spoken [...], properly according to a genuine Atticism, such as is, [...], [Page 252] Prohibuit furari, He forbad to steal, [...], Vetuit actum nefando­rum, He forbad the doing of what was unfit to speak, [...] in this place being to be repeated [...], Forbidding mar­riage, forbidding meats, For to words which are in themselves negative Atticks add a ne­gation, as [...]; Quis est mendax nisi qui negat Jesum esse Christum? Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? 1 Joh. c. 2. v. 12. Whereas the literal interpretation is, Who is a liar but he who denieth, [...], that Jesus is not the Christ? So that we may with modesty say, that though the word [commanding] as it is supplied, doth express the meaning of the place sufficiently, yet is it not according to rules of Grammar.

C. 5. v. 4. [...], But if a­ny widow hath children or nephews, let them first learn to be pious to their own house, and to requite their parents. [...] is all one with, parentes revereri, to reverence their parents, for as Stephanus tells us [...] doth sometime signifie pie­tatis officio fungi erga parentes, to perform the duties of piety to ones parents. For there [Page 153] is a piety towards parents, as well as toward God. And in that sense, tis said in Virgil, Sum pius Aeneas, he was called pious Aeneas, for his piety to his Father Anchises, in that he carried him away being aged on his back at the firing and destruction of Troy. And so you have in Cicero 3. Offic. Ipsi patriae conducit pios habere cives in parentes, It is behoveful for the common wealth to have citizens pious to their parents. And in Quintil. Praestanda pietas parentibus, Piety is to be perform'd to parents.

V. 13. [...], &c. The Old Latin Traslates it right, Simul autem & otiosae discunt circumire do­mos, And withall being idle they learn to wan­der about from house to house. Though Be­za is pleased to blame this version, saying it was an harsh Enallage, forgetting himself I suppose that with the Greeks the participle is frequently put for the Infinitive with words that signifie any affection of the mind, as [...], Memini vidisse, I remember that I saw it. And I hope it cannot be denied but [...], to learn, doth signifie an affection of the mind as well as [...], to remember.

V. 23. [...], &c. Drink no lon­ger water, &c. This verse seems to have crept into this place besides the meaning of the A­postle, by some accident. Perhaps it was ad­ded [Page 254] in the margent, and by the inadvertency of the Transcriber inserted in its wrong place. For the 22 and 24 v. cohere punctually together. [...], &c. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other mens sin, keep thy self clear, that is, be not guilty of their sin, for some mens sins are manifest before hand, preceding to Judgment, that is which go be­fore the laying on of hands, of which he may possibly judge who layeth on his hands, wherefore he cannot be excused from the guilt of those sins if he layeth on his hands: and some they follow after, that is, their sins are not manifest till after Judgment or laying on of hands, and of these there can be no cer­tain Judgment, and therefore he shall not be guilty or partaker of them, who layeth on his hands, and this is the sense of Chrysostom. So as the 23. v. seems to have been inserted by some mistake, [...], Phavor, Purus, inscius, Pure, or ignorant of.

C. 6. v. 2. [...], They who are to partake of their well doing, or honest labour. The sense running thus, They that have believing Masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but let them rather serve them, because they who are to partake, or have the benefit, of their work, are believers and beloved. Or [...] may be taken in the common acception [Page 255] of the word, that is, beneficii, who are to par­take of the benefit, to wit, of their service.

V. 5. [...], Existimantium pietatem esse quaestum or mercaturam, as the Arabick Translater ren­ders it. Supposing that Godliness is a trade to get by, or a way or means to get a living. He speaks of those that profess Religion that they may thereby grow rich or get a living. Yet Godliness with contentment is mer­catura magna [...], a great or sure way to get by. Whereas they who make hast to be rich, by the pretence of Religion, fall into temptations and a snare, for the love of mony is the root of all evils, v. 10. [...], ipsa actio comparandi & acquirendi. Modus victus quaerendi seu quaestus faciendi, Steph. [...], Dicunt enim duobus tantum uti mo­dis faciendi quaestum, agriculturâ & parsimo­niâ, Plut. They used but two ways of getting, tillage and patrimony or thrift. So quaestus is a craft or trade to get by, Vall. Cicer. Plaut. &c.

Ch. 2. v. 25.

[...], &c. Cum modestia eos cor­ripientem qui resistunt, forte da­bit eis paenitentiam, In meekness instructing or rebuking those who oppose them­selves, perhaps God may give them repentance. So Theophylact, [...], Fortasse, inquit, erit aliqua emendatio, Perhaps, he saith, there may be some amendment, for­tasse dederit Dominus paenitentiam, perhaps the Lord may give them repentance. So the Greek Interpreters Translate [...], where the Chal­dee, Samaritan and English render forte, per­haps, Gen. c. 24. v. 5. and 29. c. 43. v. 12. c. 50. v. 15. And Gen. c. 32. v. 20. They Translate the same word, [...], which else­where they render [...].

C. 3. v. 6. [...], Qui [Page 257] sese immergunt in familias, Emphatically with us, Who dive into Families, more properly than, Who creep into Families.

Ch. 1. v. 2, 3.

[...], In hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised before the world began, but hath made manifest in due time by or according to his word in or by preaching, wherewith I have been instructed, &c. Before [...], understand, [...], so in Aristo­phanes you have [...], for [...], Acording to my meaning. Whereof there are numerous examples in the New Testament. See likewise, 2 Tim. c. 1. v. 9, 10, 11. where is the same sense and expression in effect, Only in­stead of [...], there is [...].

Ch. 1. v. 3. [...], &c. Cer­tainly [...] in this place is somewhat more then single [...], as it is commonly Transla­ted, Splendor ejus gloriae, The brightness of his glory. For [...] is as it were [...], A brightness shining from the glory of God, relucentia or refulgentia, quod ex alio resplendet, as Erasmus and Vatablus; so with Phavorinus [...] is [...], Ful­gor vel splendor emicans, A brightness springing or darting from another body, radius gloriae dei, as the Syriack Interpreter hath it. A beam of the glory of God, the very character of his per­son, [...], light of light, as the Greek Scholiast observes upon the place. [...], Reful­gentia [Page 259] aeternae lucis, speculum sine macula virtutis dei, & Imago bonitatis ejus, The re­fulgence of the eternal light, the unspotted mir­rour of the power of God, and the Image of his goodness, as wisdom is stiled, Wisd. of Sol. c. 7. v. 26. or as it is there immediately be­fore, [...], Emanatio gloriae omnipotentis, A pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty, as we read it in the English.

V. 4. [...], Tanto superior factus Angelis, Being made so much superiour then the Angels. [...], Minus seu inferius à superiore benedicitur, The lesser or the inferiour is blessed of the superiour, c. 7. v. 7. So we read in Philemon

Bonam uxorem decet non superiorem esse vi­ro, sed obedientem, A good wife must not be superiour but obedient to her husband.

V. 7. [...], Who makes his Angels, his spirits and his ministers, a flame of fire. The scope of these words is to shew how much Christ was superiour to the Angels, in setting forth the inferiority of their office, in that they were but the Spi­rits and Messengers of God. Whereas Christ [Page 260] his Throne was from everlasting for ever and ever, God was to him a Father, and he to God a Son. But as concerning the Angels he saith, Qui facit Angelos suos, Spiritus & Mi­nistros suos, flammam ignis, Who makes his Angels, his Spirits and his Messengers, a flame of fire. That the words should be thus Transla­ted, I gather from this, In that the Apostle calls them, v. 14. [...], Mi­nistring Spirits joyntly, whom he here calls [...], his Spirits and his Ministers dividedly. [...], a flame of fire, I conceive to be Appositive to the foregoing words. As if he should say, That he made his Angels his Ministers sometimes in the shape of a flame of fire, as Exod. c. 3. v. 2 [...], And the Angel of the Lord appeared un­to him in a flame of fire. It being frequent in the Scripture for the Angels to put on divers shapes and forms according to the na­ture of the imployment which God commands them.

C. 2. v. 5. [...], For un­to the Angels hath he not put in subjection the [or rather this] world to come, whereof we now speak, [...] for [...]. The world to come whereof he now speaketh cannot be mean't to be other, then the age of the world where­in the dispensation of Salvation v. 3. began [Page 261] by Christ and his Apostles, which was not now subject or committed to the Ministration of An­gels, as was the Law in former time, which was ordained by Angels, Act. c. 7. v. 53. Gal. 3. v. 19. For before Faith came, [...], We were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which was to come [in this world whereof he now speaks] to be revealed. But now the admi­nistration thereof is subject to the Kingdom of Christ by the preaching of the Gospel, in the latter times with signs and wonders, [...], and divers powers, which he calleth, c. 6. v. 5 [...], the powers of the world or age to come, which as I said before, can be no other then, Saeculum salutis, and mundus Evangelii, The age of Sal­vation, and the world of the Gospel.

C. 5. v. 7. [...], Et exauditus est à metu suo, i. e. servatus à me­tu suo, And was saved from his fear. So heard that he was freed from the same. So Psal. 55. v. 16. Where the Hebrew is [...], The Greek Interpreters have, [...], I will call upon God and the Lord shall save me. And so the Arabick, and Aethio­pick both Translate it, Et dominus exaudivit me. As also, 2 Chron. c. 18. v. 31. The word [...], which signifies in Hebrew opitu­latus [Page 262] est, he hath holpen me, the LXX Translate [...], as it is in Wechelus his edition. And Jehosaphat cried unto the Lord, and the Lord helped him, [...], The Lord heard him so that he saved him. So the Roman edition reads, [...], And the Lord saved him. The phrase is not unlike in our own Translation, Psal. 22. v. 21. For thou hast heard me from the horns of the Ʋnicorn, that is, thou hast or wilt save me from the horns of the Ʋnicorn.

C. 6. v. 1, 2. &c. [...], &c. Quapropter linquentes prima elementa Christi provehamur ad perfectionem, non rursum jacientes funda­mentum resipiscentiae ab operibus mortuis & fidei in Deum, &c. Therefore leaving the prin­ciples of the doctrine of Christ, let us be car­ried on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of Faith in God, of the doctrine of baptism, and laying on of hands, and of the Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this will we do, or let us do if God permit, for it is impossible to renew again unto Repentance those who have been once inlightned, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and been partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and [Page 263] shall fall away, crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, as much as in them lyes, and putting him to open shame. He reprehends them in the former Chapter, v. 12, 13. For that when for the time they ought to have been teachers, they had need that one should teach them again which were the first principles of the Oracles of God, that they were become babes again and had need of milk. In these words therefore he exhorts them, that they should not return again to learn the funda­mentals of Religion, such as were the doctrines of Repentance, of Faith in God, and of bap­tism, &c. But that they should strive forward to perfection, perfection which consisted in perseverance. For this he saith he urgeth to no other end, v. 11, 12. but that they should show their diligence ad pleniorem spei certio­rationem, to the fuller assurance of their hope unto the end, and that they be not slothful, but followers of them who through Faith and patience inherit the promises, he would not have them Apostatize from the Faith, and fall away crucifying againg the Son of God, &c. For then how hard it will be to restore such again, the following words sufficiently declare, [...], &c. For it is impossible to re­new them again unto Repentance, &c. In which place impossible is put for extreamly difficult, as Christ saith in the Gospel, It is impossible, [...], for a rich man to enter into the king­dom [Page 264] of heaven, that is, [...] in the opinion of men, or with men it may seem im­possible. And from this impossibility or diffi­culty of restoring such a one, it is worth the observing, that Apostates were always the most implacable and deadly enemies of the Chri­stian Religion. But he adds a reason of this impossibility, Nam terra quae generat her­bam, &c. For the earth which brings forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed re­ceiveth blessing from God, but that which beareth thorns and briars is [...], inuti­lis, unprofitable, without any shew of its fructi­fication, and therefore, [...] and [...], as Hesychius, [...], as the Fig tree, Luk. c. 13. v. 9. nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. But from this similitude one may gather, that it is not plainly impossi­ble to renew such persons to repentance, but it notes a labour or difficulty in doing of it, for if the husbandman shall with care and di­ligence throughly weed these thorns and bry­ars out of his ground, it is not to be despai­red but that this [...] unprofitable ground, may yet in due time bring forth herbs meet for the use of man. It denotes a difficulty scarce to be conquered, yet conquerable, it is not [...] or [...], extremo sensu, to be rejected in the utmost sense, it is only vicina ad interitum, nigh unto destruction, if the grace of God intervene, it is of power to [Page 265] deliver it from the fire, it can extirpate the sinful corruptions of the flesh, it can change the hardness and barrenness of the heart, and make it fruitful to good works, it can give place for Repentance, and give the thing itself. And that this is the proper meaning of this place, the scope of the Epistle argues, which principally intends or makes it its whole bu­siness to stablish the Hebrews firm and per­severing in the Faith, and to keep them from Apostacy, to which they were too prone, not only because of persecution, but also for that they had been so long accusto­med to the Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law, which they saw God suffered still to remain in his holy Temple, that they could not to­tally without reluctance free themselves from observance of them, and rely on Christ alone. And for this cause he so often exhorts them in this Epistle, that they hold the beginning of their confidence stedfast unto the end, c. 3. v. 14. that they hold fast their profession, c. 4. v. 14. that they hold fast the profession of their Faith without wavering, c. 10. v. 23. And this exhortation he strengthens with arguments from the excellency of the promise, and the credit of the promiser. Whatever he in­largeth in this Epistle of the Law, of its types and ceremonies, of their invalidity and abro­gation, of the excellency of Christ, and Faith in him, so frequently and so sublimely, tends [Page 266] all unto this one end, that he may fix their Faith stedfastly in Christ, that they might run with perseverance the race which was set before them, c. 12. v. 1. that they might not be wea­ried and faint in their minds, v. 3. &c. Here is one thing more observable, and that is, an eminent trajection in the words, as we have before Translated them, neither can they be regularly Translated any other way. [...], &c. [...], &c. For it is impossible to renew them again to repen­tance who have been once enlightened, &c. and shall fall away, crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, &c. The division of the verses having made the Translation not so proper and Grammatical, though yet it hath generally exprest the sense.

C. 7. v. 1. [...], &c. Whilst I was long sticking in the interpreta­tion of this place, I by chance happened at length upon Cunaeus, who treats purposely of Melchizedec, lib. 3. c. 3. de Rep. Heb. from whom (being a person of so eminent a name) I expected to be satisfied in all my doubts; But when I had attentively read him over, I became more incertain then before, or at least not at all edified in my judgment: For he confidently determines contrary to the ge­neral opinion of the Fathers, and of all later Interpreters, that Jesus the Son of God was [Page 267] the very same Melchizedec who met Abra­ham, &c. Gen. c. 14. being cloathed in a hu­mane shape, with a habit of a high Priest and King. His opinion being fixt in this founda­tion, Melchisedeci Sacerdotium à D. Paulo perpetuum atque infinitum constitui, That the Priesthood of Melchizedec was by S^t Paul de­termined to be infinite and perpetual, because its said, v. 3. that he remains a Priest for e­ver, and v. 8. that it is witnessed of him that he liveth. From whence he necessarily con­cludes, Si Messiam atque Melchisedecum non esse unum eundemque sed duos credimus, &c. If we believe that the Messias and Melchize­dec were not one and the same, but two per­sons, then must there be two Priests, whose function, circumscribed with no space of years, indures for ever. Which certainly none of the Ancient nor later Interpreters yet ever so much as dreamed of. And if this be not the true and genuine meaning of the words of S^t Paul, there's an end of interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews, Thus Cunaeus. But when this opinion hath been exploded from all Anti­quity unto Cunaeus his time, so that learned Beza stuck not to pronounce them that held it, apertè Fanaticos, notorious Fanaticks, I shall use no other argument to refute it, but what Epiphanius used of old, [...], Neque enim sibi ip­si similis appellari quisquam potest, For no man [Page 268] can be said to be like himself. For to say, that the Son of God was made like unto the Son of God, as it is said, v. 3. or that the Son of God ariseth an high Priest after the likeness of the Son of God, as it is, v. 15. or that God should swear Thou (my Son) art a Priest for ever according to the order or similitude of my Son, as v. 21. Which necessarily follows, if we make Jesus and Mel­chizedec one and the same person, is to me so altogether unconceiveable, that I cannot but admire the confidence of the person, when I consider his reputation. And therefore I cannot but dissent from his opinion though never so highly priz'd, Confessing my self prone toward the sense of them, who make Melchizedec a Type of Christ, although I must ingenuously profess I do not understand, how­ever they salve the matter, how it can be said of Melchizedec, who as they confess, was a mortal man, in one place, that he remains a Priest for ever, and in another, that it is witnessed of him (by the Scripture for so I understand the word [...] in the A­postles phrase) that he liveth. I may perhaps apprehend their meaning who refer these words by way of Allegory unto the Son of God, and it may be consonant to my Faith, that it should be so, but it is not so to my sense and reason how it can be so, which it is not just should be led captive without shew of demon­stration, [Page 269] how the thing is done which they say is done, except it be in matters of ex­tream necessity. For it is a safe rule and per­petually good, Proprie semper sumenda sunt vocabula, nisi quid aliter accipere cogat, alio­qui nihil firmum erit in Scriptura, Words are always to be taken in their proper sense, unless something necessitate to take them otherwise, else nothing will be firm in Scripture. Riber. in Heb. But here is no such necessity in this place. For if I be not extreamly mistaken, there is yet an interpretation left, which doth reconcile these apparent difficulties in the Text fairly enough, and also overthrow Cunaeus his opinion, by rendring and distinguishing the words in another manner, then ever yet they have been, and that without any force to Grammar or use of speech among the holy Penmen. To demonstrate this, I must in the first place tell you, that these words, [...], &c. Hic enim Melchisedec, &c. unto the end of v. 8. cannot be rightly con­strued and expounded but jointly with the words foregoing, beginning, c. 6. v. 19, 20. [...], &c. Et ingredientem usque in interiora velami­nis, &c. And which entreth into the inner part of the vail, where the forerunner for us is en­tred [Page 270] Jesus, or, where Jesus the forerunner for us is entred, being made an high Priest for e­ver after the order or similitude of Melchize­dec, &c. In the farther explaining whereof you are to observe, that the word [...] is not a Relative to [...], nor to be con­strued with it, but to [...], preceding imme­diately before, as also that [...] is Ap­positive to [...], and ought to be construed separately in a Parenthesis with the words fol­lowing, unto [...], in this manner, [...]. Hic enim (ipse Mel­chisedec rex Salem, &c.) manet Sacerdos in perpetuum, For this Jesus (the Melchizedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave the tenth part of all, first be­ing by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that King of Salem, which is King of peace, without Father, without Mother, with­out descent, having neither beginning of days, [Page 271] nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God) abideth a Priest continually. [...] word for word, is This, that is, This man, or [...], Jesus may be repeated, or un­derstood. Either lawfully. In summ the mean­ing of the words is this, For this Jesus, who is entred into the inner part of the vail, &c. c. 6. v. 19, 20. being the Melchizedec (as it is elsewhere said, I am the true vine, and that rock was Christ) that is, prefigured in Mel­chizedec, who was made like unto him, in that he is called the Priest of the most high God, King of righteousness and peace, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, at­tributes congruous only to the Son of God, I say, this Jesus, according to the true and ge­nuine interpretation of the words, abideth a Priest continually, but not Melchizedec. But because Melchizedec is by Moses stiled the Priest of the most high God, and the King of righteousness and peace, and because nei­ther his Genealogy, nor Birth, nor Death are recorded in Scripture, therefore was he a most fit and proper type and figure of the eternal Priesthood and Royalty of Christ, and for that cause said to be [...], made like unto the Son of God. My arguments for this interpretation are these, First, its lawful according to the rules of Syn­tax. Secondly, because it accommodates the sense, and renders that place interpretable, which the [Page 272] Apostle was pleased to call [...], Sermonem difficilem explicatu, A speech hard to be interpreted, c. 5. v. 11. Thirdly, because the Article [...], may be as well demon­strative, as expletive, and in this place rather, for if it were to be rendred, For this Mel­chizedec, the Article [...] had been more signi­ficantly omitted, reading, [...], but because the Article is added, it seems to intimate, that [...] is a Relative to [...] and that the Article [...] is to be construed with Melchizedec, [...], or [...], The Melchizedec. As our learned Abbot upon Psal. 110. v. 4. For Jesus Christ indeed is the true Melchizedec. In which place he also reads, Thou art the Priest for ever, as if it were read, [...], which reading in it self is law­ful, and doth more eminently set forth his sin­gular right to the eternal Priesthood, with ex­clusion to any other competitor whatsoever. Fourthly and Lastly, this interpretation avoids two egregious contradictions, the one in na­ture, that a mortal man should live for ever, the other in Faith, that there should be two high Priests that should remain for ever. And now follows the other difficulty which a­riseth from, v. 8. [...], Et hic quidem decimas acci­piunt morientes homines, ibi vero (accipit) de quo testatum est quod vivit, And here [Page 273] men that die receive tythes, but there he that receiveth them, lives for ever. From whence it is concluded without contradiction, that Melchizedec is there said to live, because he who receiveth tythes is said to live, but no bo­dy in the foregoing words is said to have re­ceived tythes but Melchizedec who received them from Abraham, and therefore it must be Melchizedec, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Whereto it is briefly answered, First, that the word [accipit, receiveth] is not in the Greek Text. Secondly, that the Scripture doth no where say that Melchizedec liveth. What then? is the sense deficient? by no means. It perfectly and formally agrees with the whole order of the Apostles discourse both in this Chapter, and the foregoing Chapter and the following, but especially with v. 23, 24, 25. of this instant Chapter, Where we have the self same sense as to the matter, the words only varied. [...], &c. And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered by death for to continue, But this man because he continueth for ever, hath an ever­lasting Priesthood, by reason whereof he is al­so able evermore to save them that come unto God by him, [...], always living to make intercession for them. So that they who re­ceive [Page 274] tythes and die, v. 8. cannot be other then the many Priests who were not suffered by death to remain, v. 23. And he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, v. 8. cannot be other then the very Jesus who is said, v. 24. to remain for ever, and v. 25. [...], always living, to make intercession for them. And truly Heinsius as to the [...], certainty of the thing, did positively affirm, that ne­cessarily those in v. 8. and those in v. 23, 24, 25. were all one and the same persons, and for confirmation cites S^t Ambrose upon v. 8. Quis est qui vivit? ille etiam qui secundum ordinem Melchisedec factus est Sacerdos in per­petuum, Who is he that liveth? Even he who according to the order of Melchizedec is made a Priest for ever. But he shews not the [...] manner how the thing is so according to the ordinary way of speech, so that the ob­jection still remains, that howsoever, we may strongly guess that the words, v. 8. are pro­perly meant of Christ, yet are they so lite­rally [in common acception] spoken of Mel­chizedec, that they cannot regularly be con­strued with any other. But to this objection, to clear the matter, I answer, that those words [...], in the common way of Syntax properly without any Allegory, ought to relate to Jesus the Son of God, the Analogy and order of the whole discourse unani­mously consenting thereunto. As for example, [Page 275] [...], Here, i. e. that is, in this world, [...]. Men that die receive tythes, that is, are Priests, for none but Priests received tythes, so as the terms are clearly Synonymous, [...], but there, that is, in heaven, [...], in the inner part of the vail, where Jesus is for us entred, c. 6. v. 19, 20. is, [understand [...]] he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, to wit, Jesus, of whom it is witnessed according as it is there cited out of Psal. 110. v. 4. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec, or as the Syriack and Arabick read, and the Apostle in this very Chapter, v. 15. according to the si­militude of Melchizedec. The arguments to confirm this interpretation are these. First, there is nothing in the New Testament more frequent then to understand the verb, [...], is, you may observe it by the change of the cha­racter of the letter in our English books al­most in every Page, and therefore it is law­fully expounded, [...], But there is he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Secondly, it is not always necessary that a word or sentence relate to the next antecedent, but often by reason of some di­gression or intervenient Parentheses to some remoter antecedent. Whereof you may see examples many, as Matth. c. 3. v. 16. the word, [...], him, doth not answer to the next [Page 276] antecedent, that is, to Jesus, in the same verse, but to John, v. 14. And Gal. c. 2. the Re­lative [...], to whom, v. 5. is not a Relative to [...], the false brethren, next preceding, v. 4. (as is commonly con­ceived) but to, [...], those of reputa­tion, v. 2. whereof you may see Animad. up­on that place. So Rom. c. 1. the seventh verse answereth to the first, whilst in the interim betwixt, there are three Parentheses. And 1 Cor. c. 11. the words v. 33. do perfectly answer to v. 22. the rest of the discourse be­tween being a kind of digression. And such a digression we have in this very Epistle, nay, in this very place and matter, for when he had began his discourse concerning Melchizedec, c. 5. v. 10. he suddenly diverts into another, which when he had continued unto, c. 6. v. 20. he returns again to that of Melchizedec, Non abrupte [as Estius] sed molli & artificioso nexu orationis, Not abruptly but with a smooth and artificial closing of his speech. The which very thing he seems to have done in this ve­ry place whereof we now speak, so that [...] doth not unlawfully answer to [...] in the former Chapter, the discourse between intervening by digression or Parenthesis, which would appear much more plain, did not the troublesome division of the Chapters hinder. Thirdly the Adverb of Place, [...] there doth most fitly answer to its Cor­relative, [Page 277] [...], where, as [...], For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, Matth, c. 6. v. 21. And, [...], For where the carcase is there will the Eagles be gathe­red together, Matth. c. 24. v. 28. So here, [...], Where Jesus is entred, there is he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Fourthly, as we must acknowledge, that it is most certainly true of the word of God, what John saith of himself c. 19. v. 35. [...], His Testimony is true, so may we no less confidently affirm, whatsoever is not to be found in it, neither can by consequence deduced from it, can in no sense be said to have its Testimony from it; from whence it necessarily follows, that it cannot in this place be understood that the Scripture beareth wit­ness of Melchizedec, that he liveth, when no such thing is to be found in Scripture, or to be deduced from it by lawful consequence. And to speak the truth, the common argu­ment which they use to maintain their expo­sition, to wit, Silentium de morte pro vitae Testimonio accipit, The silence of his death he takes for a Testimony of his life, I say the ar­gument wherewith they endeavour to defend this exposition, and that is, Non valeret hoc quidem in aliis, sed in Melchisedeco quatenus [Page 278] est imago Christi, valere debet, This were not of validity in any else, but in Melchizedec it must be so, because he is the type of Christ, hath more presumption in it then reason or Authority; And certainly the concession of this interpretation as rational and lawful, indu­ced Cunaeus into that vain (in my judgment) opinion, that Jesus and Melchizedec were one and the same person, and that, as he thought, out of a necessary consequence, that there might not be said to be two high Priests, who would remain for ever. Fiftly, because this very Chapter doth so often testifie that the meaning of the words is so, as you may see, v. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken was evidently Jesus, our Lord of the tribe of Juda, v. 14. But what are the things are spoken of him? to wit, that he is entred into the inner vail, that he remains a Priest for ever, and that of him it is witnessed that he liveth, which is also farther testified, v. 16. v. 23 24 25. and v. 28. So that it is more manifest then the Noon day, that, [of whom it is witnessed that he liveth] cannot possibly be understood of any other then of Jesus. Sixth­ly and lastly, our interpretation so perfectly accommodates the sense, and reconciles all the difficulties which rise out of the common ex­position, that I see no reason why it should not be accepted, especially having nothing in it contrary to Syntax, reason or Scripture, but [Page 279] agreeing to them all, and there being no o­ther way whatever, that can accord the construction and the sense, as far as yet ap­pears.

V. 4. [...]. Here is likewise an observable trajection, for [...], Ʋnto whom even the Pa­triarch Abraham gave the Tenth of the spoils.

C. 9. v. 1. [...], And a worldly sanctuary. It being so here called in Antithesis to the heavenly, as it is an anti­type of the true one into which Christ is entred. And that was heaven it self, not [...], A Sanctuary made with hands the figure of the true one, v. 24. The Antithesis standing thus, The first Taber­nacle had its ordinances of divine service, and a worldly Sanctuary, &c. But Christ is become an high Priest of the good things to come, through a greater and more perfect Taberna­cle, [...], not made with hands, that is to say, of this creation, v. 11. not a worldly Sanctuary made with hands, or of an earthly building, but an eternal Sanctuary in the heavens, into which he is entred by his own bloud once for all. So that [...], and [...], Worldly, made with hands, and of this building or creation, signifie all one and the same. Whereas some interpret a Tabernacle [Page 280] not made with hands, that is, of this creation, to be meant of the body or humane nature of Christ, because a body is sometime metapho­rically called [...], a Tabernacle, I conceive is not suitable to the scope of the place, nor to the doctrine of our Faith. For first, the Tabernacle here mentioned seems rather to be the heavens into or through which Christ is said to be entred to appear in the presence of God for us, v. 24. as also he is called our high Priest which is passed into the heavens, c. 4. v. 14. And Secondly, as it is improper to say, that any humane body, was or was not, [...], made with hands, so neither can it be truly said, that Christ his body or humane nature was not [...], of this crea­tion or world: For to say that Christ his bo­dy was not of this world, because it was con­ceived in a supernatural manner, is absurd and frivolous, For Christ had his whole humane nature body and soul from his Mother, and she from Adam, that is, of his creation. Else what becomes of Athanasius his Creed? [...], Man of the substance of his Mother. [...], Perfect man of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting. Nay if Christs humane nature were not [...], of this world, then are we still in our sins, neither doth his passion at all avail us. We are still more miserable, [...], For what was not [Page 281] [by Christ] assumed, was by him never hea­led, as Nazianzen most rightly tells us. But to return, a worldly Sanctuary is a Sanctuary made by the work of man, [...], which man pitched, and not the true Sanctuary which God pitched in the heavens, c. 8. v. 2. He distinguisheth between the hea­venly Sanctuary which God made and not man, of which Christ is the Minister or high Priest, and the Sanctuary that Solomon built by the hand of man, of which those were high Priests that were after the order of Aaron. Neither was Atrium Gentium, The court of the Gen­tiles, ever called [...], the Sanctuary or the holy place, which some would have [...] to signifie in this place. Nay the persons to whom the court of the Gentiles was permitted, were expresly forbidden by a publick writing in Greek and Latin [...], To come within the Sanctua­ry or holy place, Josep. de bell. Jud. l. 6. c. 6.

C. 11. v. 1. [...], Est autem fides firma expectatio rerum sperandarum, But Faith is the assured expecta­tion of things to be hoped for. In which sense the word [...] is often used in holy Scrip­ture. As in this Epistle, c. 3. v. 14. 2 Cor. c. 9. v. 4. Ruth c. 1. v. 12. Ezek. c. 19. v. 5. Lam. c. 3. v. 18. Psal. 39. v. 7. So Schind­ler, Fides est sperandorum substantia, h. e. ex­pectatio, [Page 282] Faith is the substance of things ho­ped for, that is, the expectation, Or, Faith is the ground or foundation of things hoped for. For [...] is, quo quid fulcitur, wherewith any thing is supported. And so hope is truly supported by Faith. For what we do not confidently believe shall ever be, we can ne­ver hope to injoy, and therefore Faith is far­ther called [...], The evidence or certain proof of things not seen, yea so certain as if they were already seen. For [...] in the Old Glossary, is, indicium or probatio, a demonstration or ar­gument so sure as cannot be refuted.

V. 4. [...]. After [...] understand [...], by an Elleip­sis frequent in every Page, as I have often ob­served. Et propter eam adhuc dicitur esse mortuus, And for it, that is, for his Faith is he still said to be dead, or, to have died. [...], praedicatur, Seal. Is yet spoken of, in our Margin. For we to this hour say, that Cain kill'd his brother Abel for his Faith, for which Abel obtained witness that he was righte­ous, v. 4. So 1 Joh. c. 3. v. 12. [...]; Wherefore did Cain kill his brother but because his works were righteous? But how were they righteous, but by his Faith in Christ to come, in assurance whereof he offered of the first­lings of his flock? For his Faith therefore is Abel still said to have died.

[Page 283]V. 11. [...], Virtu­tem accepit ad fundationem seminis, Through Faith even Sarah also received strength for the foundation of a Seed, &c. which was to be as it follows in the next verse, As the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable, in which all the families of the earth were to be blessed, for of that Seed wherewith she became then with Child, came Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world. [...], as [...], The Foundation of the world, Revel. c. 13. v. 8. and c. 17. v. 8. and elsewhere, [...], dicitur, cum res aliqua sumit ex­ordium, &c. Hieron. it is called, [...], when any thing takes its beginning. But by what Phylosophy, Logick, Grammar or Dictio­nary, it can be possibly Translated, that she received strength to conceive a Seed, I confess is beyond my learning or capacity. Why it should be therefore so universally accepted, I cannot but wonder, whenas the sense as now Translated, is so proper, and the use of the word so fit and common.

V. 37. [...], Tentati sunt, Were tempted. As Job, Schol. Graec. as Abraham and Isaac, Theodoret. But our late Writers, as also some of the Ancient are of another opi­nion, and therefore say, that the word is crept into the Text imperitia amanuensis, by the un­skilfulness of the Transcriber, or that it is [Page 284] not written as it should be, either by the oversight of the Apostle, or the Scribe. For because it would be a Tautology to say [...], they were tempted, when immediately before tis said, [...], they had trials or temptations of cruel mockings and scourg­ings, &c. and because there are words of each hand denoting some kind of death, they think it probable, either that the word should not be read at all, as it is omitted by Chrysostom, the Syriack and Aethiopick Interpreters, and others; or that, if it be read, it ought to be understood in some notion whereof there was no mention made before, and which signifies some kind of death. And from hence some have been moved to read [...], others [...], were burned. But if there be a­ny leave for conjecture, perhaps it should have been rather written, [...], They were sto­ned, they were sawn asunder, they were pierced through, a kind of death so known in those days, either by Spear or Stake, that it is scarce to be believed that the Apostle in this place could possibly escape it, when he reckons up so many several kinds of death, which the Christians in those times, and the Prophets of old suffered for the Faith; among which Ni­cephorus and Eusebius out of the Writings of Dionysius of the Martyrs of Alexandria, men­tion the transverberation or piercing through [Page 285] of the bowels with stakes, which with Phavori­nus is called [...], For anciently they thrust or pierced through malefactors, striking a sharp stake through the back bone, as they do fishes which are roasted on a spit. [...], Hesyc. and Suid. [...], ut transfigam turdos, Aristoph. and so verubus transfixa exta, Ovid. and perhaps so meant Homer, [...], transfixit verubus.

C. 12 v. 24. [...], And to the bloud of sprinkling which speaketh better things, then Abel, as some, or then that of Abel, as others, mean­ing the sprinkling; or as some copies read, [...], and then is meant the bloud of Abel, or as the Interlineary in our Polyglot Bible, San­guine aspersionis, in the Ablative. And then the meaning's thus, And to Jesus the Medi­atour of the new covenant, and who by his bloud of sprinkling speaketh better things then Abel. But read you which way you please, the sense is still the same. And that is this, That the Sacrifice or Oblation which Christ offered on the Cross by the sprinkling or effusion of his bloud, did speak better things to the pacify­ing or atonement of the wrath of God, then did the Sacrifice or Offering of Abel, or then [Page 286] the bloud spake, which Abel offered unto God for a Sacrifice, which was a true type, and of all the first, of that Sacrifice which in the ful­ness of time Christ offered on the Cross by the effusion of his bloud, and for this very thing, because Abel the first of all men living offered an offering to the Lord of the first­lings of his flock, whereby he testified his Faith in Christ to come and offer himself an oblation for the sins of the whole world, doth God altogether seem to have respect to Abel and to his offering. For by Faith is Abel said to have offered unto God a better Sacrifice then Cain, c 11. v. 4. and for this Faiths sake did he obtain a Testimony that he was righteous. When therefore that Sacrifice of Abel was but a type or shadow of that great sprinkling of bloud which taketh away the sins of the world, it is no more to be compared with it which is the substance of the shadow, then is a picture to be compared with the living per­son whom it represents. Concerning which disproportion you may observe more, c. 9. v. 13, 14. and 23. So that [...] or [...] in this place denotes nothing else but the rites and offerings of the Old Testament, one ex­ample being put for all. As if he should say, The bloud of Christ speaks better things, that is, more available to the appeasing of the wrath of God for our sins, then either Abel, or Mo­ses, or all the Sacrifices and Oblations of all [Page 287] the Patriarchs. That Christ his bloud was praefigured in the Sacrifice of Abel, to be shed for the sins of all mankind, and that the Pa­triarchs before the Law was given, when they Sacrificed the bloud of beasts, had a respect to the Saviour of the world, I think, there's no Divine but doth assent to, Modern or Ancient. Instead of all, I shall use but one Testimony thereto out of Eusebius, Demonst. lib 1. c. 10. where speaking of Noah and the rest of the Patriarchs before Moses, he hath these words, [...], &c. The Anciently beloved of God foreseeing by a divine spirit that some extraordinary Sacrifice pretious in the sight of God would one day come to men, that should expiate the sins of the whole world, did in the mean while perform or act its signs and figures, as Prophets typically expressing that which was to come, But to say that the bloud of Christ speaks better things then the bloud of Abel which cries to heaven for vengeance, to speak mo­destly, agrees not with the scope of the place, it having been the Apostles great labour to demonstrate how invalid the Ceremonies of the old Law were to acquire eternal life, and how much in that respect the covenant of the New Testament was beyond that of the Old, as is evidently apparent by the whole series of his discourse, c. 9, and 10. But to speak the ve­ry truth, with reverence to Antiquity, that ex­position is contrary to the very rules of Logick. [Page 288] For Comparata oportet esse secundum majus & ejusdem speciei & naturae, Things compared ought to be according to more or less, of the same species and nature. So as in a comparison of betterness, the one may be said in some mea­sure to be good for that end for which the other is said to be better. So Chrysostom, al­though he hit not the meaning in this place so luckily, upon those words [...], better Sacrifices then these. c. 9. v. 23. saith, [...], &c. That which is better, is better then that which is good, therefore the types of those things which are in heaven are good, for if the types were evil, then would those things whereof they are a type be evil also. But to cry for vengeance, and to cry for grace, are the whole heavens different and contrary natures. Neither can the bloud of Christ be said to be better then the proper bloud of Abel, which was not at all good, no not typically to that intent and purpose to which Christ his bloud was, to wit, for the redemp­tion of mankind, and the expiation of the sins of the whole world. That therefore this com­parison may agree with it self, it is unavoida­bly necessary, that here be meant the Sacri­fice of Abel, which through Faith he offered unto God, which with the Sacrifice of Christ is not to be compared.

Ch. 3. v. 1.

[...], Nolite multi fieri doctores, Do not many of you become teachers. That is, do not many of you affect the gift of preaching, knowing that we, [who are so] shall receive the greater judgment. A fa­miliar trajection, for [...].

V. 3. [...]. Here is another trajection likewise, for [...], Fraena immittimus in ora equorum, We put bits into the mouths of horses, as if it were purposely affected for the elegance. You have also the like observable trajection, c. 2. v. 1. [...], for [...], Have not the Faith of [Page 290] Jesus Christ our Lord of Glory with respect of persons.

C. 4. v. 5, 6. [...]. From the consideration of the construction of these words it seems to me necessarily to fol­low, that the first [...], and [...] next fol­lowing, can agree with no other word then [...], and that they must be therefore ren­dred thus, Or do you think the Scripture saith in vain, That the spirit which dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But it giveth a greater grace, for that it saith, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. The sense and coherence being thus, He adviseth them a­gainst strife and envying, against wars and fight­ings, which he tells them proceed from their lusts, for confirmation whereof he produceth a Testimony of Scripture. Do you think the Scripture saith in vain, the Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? as if it had said, these bitter envyings come from the lusts of the spirit that is within us. Surely no. The Scrip­ture saith it not in vain. The spirit of man is carried on with passion unto envy, and from thence it comes, because he cannot enjoy what the lust of his eye desires, he endeavours to satisfie his lust by obtaining his desires by force. But the Scripture tendereth a more gracious [Page 291] comfort, when it saith that God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace, that is, sheweth fa­vour to the humble. Intimating thereby, that though we be naturally prone to strife and envy, yet if we humble our selves before God, to which he exhorts us in the following words, he will shew favour to us. Where this Scrip­ture is in express words, I cannot tell, but a­mong the Writings of the Prophets which are lost. As elsewhere the Apostle Paul citeth words of our Saviours, which we no where read that he ever spake, It is more blessed to give then to receive, Act. c. 20. v. 35.

C. 5. v. 9. [...], No­lite ingemiscere in alterutrum, as the Old La­tin, Ne lugete invicem, Bemoan not one ano­ther. He bids them in the former verses to be patient and to establish their hearts, be­cause the coming of the Lord was at hand. And here he again exhorts them, not to lose their courage, and to bemoan one another, least for their impatience they might be bla­med. For behold the Judge is before the doors, the Lord is at hand. Take ye there­fore the Prophets for examples of suffering affliction and patience. [...], is cum ge­mitu deploro, to bewail with lamentation. As, [...], I bewail my own Soul, Basil. in which sense you have [...] in Euripides. [...], is all one as if he had said, [...]. [Page 292] For [...] with a Genitive, signifieth super, over. Bewail or lament not one over another. As for the common reading, Grudge not one against another, methinks, it agrees not at all with the scope of the place.

Ch. 3. v. 20, 21.

[...]. As the words are thus commonly pointed and distinguish't, it is very hard to give them a commodious sense and a Grammatical constru­ction. For which cause Beza would have this place amended out of the Complutense Edi­tion, affirming that in other copies, [...] or [...], is corruptly read for [...] as it is [Page 293] in that. And him for a great part our late Expositors do follow, though there be an old copy also in Oxford that readeth [...] instead of [...], which our Learned D^r Hammond is pleased to follow. The Syriack, to salve the doubt, before [...] understood [...], according to which, perhaps lawfully enough. But there may be no less question in another phrase of this pe­riod, for according to the common use of words, it is not properly said, Octo animas servatas esse per aquam, That eight Souls were saved by water, as the word [...] was con­stantly understood by the Greeks. Though Beza to remedy this difficulty also, will have [...] in this place to signifie, In, that is, in his Country language, parmi le'au, in or amidst the water. And to confirm his Judgment he cites a precedent, Rom. c. 4. v. 11. where he would have [...] to signifie, in prae­putio, in uncircumcision, whereas [...] is three times used by the Apostle in the same and the foregoing verse, but truly I see no such urgency in that place to alter the pro­per signification of the Praeposition, it being as good if not much better sense to Translate it, as the Old Latin doth, Per praeputium, By his un­circumsion, according to the common acception of the word. The meaning of the place be­ing this, That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of Faith in uncircumcision, that [...], by his [Page 294] uncircumcision he might be the Father of all be­lievers, righteousness also being imputed unto them. [...], being to be Transpo­sed thus, [...], and not to be con­strued with [...], as commonly it is, to the obscuring of the Emphasis of the sense. Which is surely this, His circumcision was the seal of his Faith when he was yet uncircum­cised, for a sign, that by his uncircumcision, that is, by his Faith when he was yet not circumcised, he might become the Father of all believers throughout the world that are not circumcised. However, this interpretation of Beza's is not only rare, but likewise not much suitable to this place. Let us there­fore with leave inquire, whether these very words without altering at all the common reading (for neither, [...], nor [...], nor [...] being all of the Masculine or Neuter gender do or can a­gree with [...] which is of the Faeminine, as in their sense who would so read they ought to do) only varying the points, and under­standing, [...], which is so frequent, and taking away the latter Parenthesis, may not yield a truer and better sense then they did before. [...], In diebus Noae, cum fabricaretur Arca [Page 295] in qua paucae (id est Octo) animae servatae sunt. Per aquam etiam quod est antitypum nos nunc servat Baptisma, non depositio sor­dium carnis sed bonae conscientiae stipulatio in Deum per Resurrectionem Jesu Christi, In the days of Noah when the Ark was preparing, wherein few (that is Eight) Souls were saved. By water also Baptism which is the Antitype doth now save us. Not the doing away the filth of the flesh, but the covenant of a good con­science toward God by the Resurrection of Je­sus Christ. And thus by this Translation the unwonted use of [...] in the former sense is avoided, and the Article [...] doth fitly answer to the word, [...]. Neither is the tra­jection harsh at all, as some perhaps may ob­ject, [...], for [...], By water also Baptism which is the Antitype [to the Ark of Noah wherein Eight Souls were saved] doth now save us. Is there not the same trejection, if you read [...] or [...]? Nay it is so far from being insolent, as it rather seem­eth elegant and pleasing, for as Stephanus af­firms, Demosthenes the great Oratour was wont to use such trajections ad venustatem sermoni conciliandam, to gain a grace unto his speech. That others also of the Greeks, and the Latins also for the same cause did the like, as you may see, Animad. on Act. c. 13. v. 17. And perhaps the very Apostles themselves, is not [Page 296] strange at all. You have one in this very place, [...], for, [...], and another in the same A­postle, 2 Ep. c. 1. v. 19. [...], for [...]. But if you would see more perplext and involv'd trajections, you may consult as I said before, Act. c. 13. v. 17. In summ the sense is this, Baptism which doth now save us by water, and is an Antitype to the Ark of Noah, is not the doing away of the filth of the flesh [...], By water, but the covenant or promise of a good conscience toward God [...], By the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so as there is a clear Analogy be­tween [...], and [...], a due propor­tion between, By water, and By the Resurrection. As if he should have said, That the Ark of Noah (not the floud) was a type of Baptism, and Baptism an antitype to the Ark, but not because that Baptism was a cleansing of the filth of the flesh by water, in which respect it had no resemblance with the Ark, but in that it was the stipulation of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the Faith whereof and a life proportionable toward God, we are now saved, as they of old time were in the Ark of Noah. For the Ark of Noah and Baptism are both types and figures of the Resurrection. So that the proper end of Bap­tism is not to be understood as if it were a [Page 297] washing away of our sins, which is signified by the doing away the filth of the flesh, (al­though it necessarily follows and is so often Metonymically taken by the Fathers) but [...] properly it is the sign of Resurrection from death in sin to newness of life by a true and lively Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, whereof Baptism was a most Empha­tick figure, as was also the Ark of Noah, out of which he returned as it were from the Se­pulchre of death to a new life, and therefore is of Philo not unfitly termed [...], The Captain or Leader of regeneration, and so was the Whales belly out of which Jo­nas rose after a three days burial, and the Cloud, and the Red Sea in which the people of Israel were all Baptised, 1 Cor c. 10. v. 2. All which were types and figures of the same thing with Baptism, to wit, of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it being reputed an Apostolique constitution, [...], &c. Demersio in aquâ denotat mortem, emersio ex aquâ Resurrectionem Christi simul & nostram, The demersion in the water signifies the death, the emersion out of it the Resurrection of Christ and also of us. So as by the leave of In­terpreters who are of another Judgment, I for my part think, that in these words is more Emphatically and expresly set forth what Bap­tism meaneth, both negatively and affirma­tively, then in any other place of Scripture, [Page 298] as if our Apostle did it of purpose to rectifie our Judgments concerning the true notion of Baptism. I say negatively and affirmatively. Negatively, that it is not doing away the filth of the flesh [...], by the efficacy of wa­ter, the outward sign of the inward thing, to wit, the mystical washing away of sin, in­to which sense very obvious for the near affi­nity of the use of water we are so prone to run into. For it is a cold exposition of them who say, that the doing away the filth of the flesh doth signifie the outward act of washing only, as if any man could be saved by the outward act, unless the inward thing be ap­plied by Faith, to wit, the remission or do­ing away of sin. Affirmatively and positively, that it is the stipulation or promise of a good conscience toward God by the virtue of the Re­surrection of Jesus Christ. And I conceive this sense concerning Baptism to be most con­sonant and agreeable to the Judgment of the Fathers, who if they notwithstanding did ap­ply Baptism to that other notion of washing, they did it accidently, and by the by, because of the Allegorical allusion of the element of water to the bloud of Christ, which is said to cleanse us from our sins, 1 Joh. c. 1. v. 7. But more surely there is in this word of Bap­tism according to Athanasius, [...], a deeper mystery then that of washing, a mystery known and common to the very Heathen, as [Page 299] their frequent lustrations do sufficiently wit­ness. But as concerning the Resurrection of the body, it was a thing to them unknown and incredible, if not altogether imperceptible, [nay some of the Jews themselves did not be­lieve it.] It was the speech of one of their great Philosophers, Seneca by name, Hora illa decretoria non est animo suprema sed corpori, The determinate hour, of death, is not the last to the soul, but to the body. It was no small matter to reach the immortality of the Soul, the top of their knowledge, but of the Resurrection of the body Philosophers scarce ever dreamed of. Mornaeus tells us of Zo­roastres, who is of some reported to have held this opinion, Quod animae immortales sunt, & quod corporum Resurrectio universalis futura, That Souls are immortal, and that there shall be a universal Resurrection of bodies. But this, but, à plerisque profertur, many say so, but no certainty thereof. And Lactantius tells us of Chrysippus who had an imperfect notion of it, the summ whereof was this. That af­ter death within some period of time, [...], we should be re­stored into the same form wherein we now are. But who knows whether he meant the same Numerical body, or whether by this same form he mean not the Soul, as the rest of the Phi­losophers did, or whether he meant not rather the Pythagorean Metempsychosis? But this I say [Page 300] was a greater mystery then that Allegorical washing of the Soul by which its said to be cleansed by the bloud of Christ. The notion of Resurrection was far higher, the very life and mystery of Christian Religion, as Zonaras calls it. It is indeed the stupendious mystery of mysteries, wherein to believe consists the foundation of eternal happiness. That Christ the Mediatour should become [...], God and man, to be declared man in that he died, and to be declared God in that he rose again from the dead, Rom. c. 1. v. 4. This I say again was a mystery beyond all Philosophical Speculation, and therefore there was need of some significant type or figure, which might make so impenetrable a notion familiar and perceptable to the sense of man, to which purpose nothing seemed more fit and easie in the wisdom of God, then the burying of our bodies in water by Baptism, from whence they receive an immediate Resurrection. So that in conclusion we may positively affirm that Bap­tism is properly and solely a type of the Resur­rection. And to this truth do give their suf­frage, The Apostles, Fathers, Schoolmen, all­most all Interpreters, Ancient and Modern, and even our English Church it self, its Judg­ment being manifest in the Rubrick of the Com­mon Prayer, which injoyns the dipping of In­fants in Baptism, allowing only in some cases the liberty of sprinkling, or perfusion. The [Page 301] thing of it self is so manifest, that there is no need of Testimonies to confirm it; but be­cause there be not few who teach otherwise, led thereunto by example and vulgar errour, it will not be amiss, if but to free my self from the imputation of too much confidence, out of innumerable Testimonies, to cite some few, And we first begin from the Apostle Paul, [...], &c. Know ye not that so many as were Baptised into Jesus Christ, were Baptised into his death? There­fore we are buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father of Glory, even so we also should walk in newness of life, &c. Rom. c. 6. v. 3, 4. &c. [...], &c. Being buried with him in Bap­tism, wherein you are also risen with him through Faith of the working of God who hath raised him from the dead, Col. c. 2. v. 12. [...], &c. Else what shall they do who are Baptised for dead [bodies] if the dead rise not? 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 29. As much as if he had said, In vain doth the Church use the sign of Baptism if there be no Resurrection. You have it abundantly proved also in the Primitive and later Writers. For example, That believing on his death, [...], By his Baptism ye may be made partakers of his Resurrection, Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. [...], [Page 302] Baptism was given to set forth the death of the Lord, Ep. ad Philadel. in the name of Ignatius. The death of Christ, Const. Apost. [...], In Baptism we perform the signs of his Passion and Resurrection, Just. Mar. We know one saving Baptism, since there is but one death for the world and one Resurrection, [...], whereof Baptism is the type, &c. Basil. Mag. Hear what S^t Paul saith, They were all Baptised in the cloud and in the sea, [...], He calleth their passage through the sea, Baptism, for it was an escape from death, &c. Basil. Se­leuc. [...], When we go about to Baptize, we bid to say, I believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and in this Faith are we Baptized, Chrysost. Baptismus Resur­rectionis pignus, & imago, Baptism is a pledge and figure of the Resurrection, Ambr. Bap­tismus arrhabo Resurrectionis, Baptism is an earnest of the Resurrection, Lactant. Aqua­rum elemento sepelimur, We are buried in the element of water, Anselm. Mersio mortis & sepulturae formam gerit, Immersion bears the form of death and burial, Bernard. Laudabilius, & tutius, & communius, &c. Baptism is per­formed more laudably, more safely and more commonly by dipping, for by dipping the figure of Christ his burial is represented, Tho. Aquin. [Page 303] Ipsum Baptizandi verbum mergere significat, &c. The word Baptism doth signifie dipping under the water, and it is evident the Ancient Church used the Ceremony of dipping, Calv. Baptis­mus Graeca vox est, &c. Baptism is a Greek word and signifies properly, immersion into the water, and this signification doth properly agree with our Baptism, and hath Analogy to the thing signified, for by Baptism we are buried together and as it were drowned with Christ being dead to sin, &c. Zanch. I could add to these an innumerable heap of Testimonies, but these I think are enough to prove two irrefragable doctrines, First, that Baptism is pro­perly and solely, the type of the death and Resur­rection of Jesus Christ, by Faith wherein we are assured of the humanity and Godhead of our Saviour, the very foundation of our Chri­stian Faith. And Secondly, of the Resurrection of all true Christians, who are Baptized in, and live according to that Faith, knowing that if they shall rise from the death of sin to new­ness of life, they shall also after death with Christ arise to glory. I shall only add the Judgment of an ingenuous and learned man, whose Testimony in this matter is not to be suspected or refused. His words are these, Por­ro quamvis immersionis Caeremonia & olim fuit communior, &c. Though the Ceremony of im­mersion was anciently more common, as appears by the unanimous discourse of the Fathers when [Page 304] they speak of this matter, and doth more live­ly represent the death, burial, and Resurrection of the Lord and us, which are mystically done in Baptism. The which signification of immer­sion the Fathers do often urge, &c. From whence S^t Thomas affirms that the Ceremony or rite of dipping is the most commendable, Yet there have been many reasons for which sometimes it was convenient to change this custom of dipping into some other kind of Ceremony near unto it, &c. From hence therefore the Ceremony of perfusion or pouring on of water as middle be­tween sprinkling and dipping was much in use, which custom Bonaventure saith was in his time much observed in the French Churches and some others, though he confess the Ceremony of dip­ping was the more common, the more fit, and the more secure, as S^t Thomas teacheth. How­ever where the custom of perfusion, or asper­sion, sprinkling of, or pouring on of the water is now in use, it ought not to be altered by private Authority. Nay since now it is so ge­nerally in practise throughout the Church, it ought by no means to be call'd in question. Thus far Estius. In whose words we have a manifest and ingenious concession, that dipping was the Ancient Ceremony, which constantly the Fa­thers taught, as more lively representing the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ and us, that the Schoolmen held the same for the most secure and commendable custom, that [Page 305] the custom of perfusion crept in unawares into the Church, for what causes he mentions not. But because the custom hath been long in use, he doth not think it fit it should be called into question whether it be lawful or no. And to this Judgment I willingly subscribe, so as the Ministers of Baptism would teach the true and genuine reason of its institution, which by the change of the Ceremony is almost lost, so that they for the most part teach now a days that Allegorical one of washing, occasioned by the now constant custom of perfusion, which I will not yet deny may be piously and pro­fitably taught sometimes, for the Fathers and the Apostles themselves did sometimes do it. Though, with leave be it spoken, I am still of opinion, that it would be more for the ho­nour of the Church, and for the peace and se­curity of Religion, if the old custom could con­veniently be restored, which surely it might safely enough in respect of indangering the health of the Infants, if Baptism were only to be administred at set times in the year, as it was Antiently in the Church. Which custom what should hinder to be revived I do not see, but the opinion of those, who hold Baptism so necessary to Salvation, as that without it there's none to be hoped for, and yet in danger of death, there might be a liberty al­lowed for it at other times. The case then being thus, I beseech you what so visible affi­nity [Page 306] is there between burial and washing, that Christian Baptism should be thought to draw its Original from the lotions or washings of the Jews? If it were true that our Baptism did signifie washing or ablution, or were it true that the Jews did Anciently admit into their Church either their Own or Proselytes by colla­tion of Baptism, which hath been so much urged by Learned men, they might be proba­ble arguments, that the institution of our Bap­tism was fetch't from the Baptismes or wash­ings of the Jews. But when the contrary is made so evident concerning the first, and there appears no certainty for the second, I conceive there is little reason to adhere to this new and uncertain doctrine which the Fathers never heard or dreamed of. For that our Baptism is truly a type of burial, and Resurrection, lit­teral and mystical, and not of washing, hath been already sufficiently declared. And as for the other argument, as it is far off from any cogency in it to force the assent, so is it lia­ble to very much question, it having so lit­tle help of the Authority of Scripture to de­fend it, that I can scarce find any footsteps of it in the Old Testament. They would derive its Original from the word [...], lavit or pur­gavit, to wash or cleanse, Exod. c. 19. v. 10. But as I take it the Rabbins use for Baptism the word [...], which signifies dipping or im­mersion, thereby notably shewing that they [Page 307] owe the notion of the word to the Greeks, or rather to the Christians. For what affinity is there so near between purgation, and immer­sion, cleansing and dipping? But the thing of it self was so uncertain that the Masters them­selves did disagree about it. For in the very Text they urge which is cited out of the Tal­mud, Rabbi Eliezer doth expresly contradict Rabbi Joshua, who was the first as far as I can learn that ever did assert this kind of Baptism among the Jews. For Rabbi Eliezer who was at least coetaneous if not elder to Rabbi Joshua, expresly saith, Proselytum circumcisum & non Baptizatum verum esse Proselytum, nam fic legimus de patribus, Abrahamo, Isaaco, & Jacobo, qui circumcisi erant & non Bapti­zati, That a Proselyte circumcised and not Bap­tized was a true Proselyte, for so we read of our Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were Circumcised and not Baptized. On the o­ther side Rabbi Joshua affirms, Eum qui Bap­tizatus est & non circumcisus esse Proselytum, That he was a Proselyte who was Baptized and not circumcised, But to which of these shall I yield my belief? To Eliezer who affirms that which the Scripture affirms, or to Joshua who affirms that which the Scripture no where mentions? Tis true the Masters stood all for Rabbi Joshua, it was their interest so to do, it was for the honour of their Religion, that the Christians might be said to borrow their [Page 308] Ceremonies from them. But when I see learn­ed and judicious persons in these times fetch the foundations of truth from the Rabbins, and that to establish a new opinion, I cannot but wonder at it. Unde nobis missus est Tal­mudus, &c. They are the words of Buxtor­fius in his Synag. Jud. From whence was the Talmud sent us, that we should give it so much credit, as to believe that the Law of Moses could or ought to be understood by it? And if not the Law of Moses, much less the Law of the Gospel to which they were professed ene­mies. The Talmud is called by the same Au­thor, Errorum Labyrinthus, & fabularum Judai­carum fundamentum, The Labyrinth of errours, and the foundation of Jewish Fables, and it was first perfected and acknowledged to be Authentick Five Hundred years after Christ, and out of it Maimonides and all the rest did suck their learning. Surely therefore there's little reason to acquiesce in its Authority, or Testimony. But what was the matter that this old Rabbin should so constantly deny that which was like to advance the honour of his Religion, but that his conscience was throughly convinc'd of his assertion? I cannot but ad­mire the ingenuity of the man who maintained the light of this truth so firmly against and amidst so many Impostours of his Nation, who perhaps thought it a Glorious Triumph to ob­trude a counterfit opinion upon the innocent [Page 309] world not yet solicitous of their machina­tions. And that which moves me more, Jo­sephus himself [not to speak of all the Fa­thers before the Talmud] who was likewise a Jew and of the same age with Rabbi Elie­zer, who writ also purposely of the customs and Ceremonies of his Nation, is totally si­lent in this matter, so that it is an argument to me next to demonstration, that two persons of such eminency, both Jews, and coeval, the one should expresly deny, the other in all his History make no mention of this Baptism. Be­sides if Baptism in the sense of our days had been in use among the Jews in former times, wherefore did the Pharisees say to John the Baptist, Joh. c. 1. v. 25. Why then Baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Do they not plainly intimate thereby, that there was no use nor practise of Baptism before, and that it was a received opi­nion among them, that there was none to be used till Elias, or that Prophet came? Such a solemn and publick mersation was altogether un­usual with the Jews till that time, as Grotius saith upon the words aforementioned. How then there can be any such affinity between our Baptism and the washings of the Jews, that the one should therefore by any pretext or right be said to succeed the other, I confess I understand not, it is beyond my Faith. But they say that Arrian calls the Jew, [...], [Page 310] that is, one that's dipt, but I rather think with his Commentator, Ipsum confuse loqui, & velle potius Christianum Judaeum, That he [being a Heathen] spake confusedly or pro­miscuously, and that he rather meant a Chri­stian Jew, as Lubin also upon that of Ju­venal,

will have the Jews there to be meant the Christians, Qui edicto Domitiani urbe pulsi sylvas illas habitare cogebantur, Who being by Domitians Edict expell'd the City, were forc'd to inhabit those woods which were sacred to the Heathenish devotions. But to put an end to this discourse, I do affirm with Alexander de Halys, Tinctio est formalis causa Baptismi, That dipping is the formal cause of Baptism. There remaineth only to resolve what [...] is. Concerning which word I conceive with Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, that in this place it properly signifies, stipulatio, a covenant or promise. As it is interpreted by the Glossaries, [...], and [...], stipu­latio, [...], Promitto spondeo, stipulor. In which sense I conceive [...] is also to be taken, Sirac. c. 33. v. 3. [...], Homo sensatus credet legi, & lex ei fidelis, sicut sponsio vel stipulatio justo­rum, [Page 311] A man of understanding will trust the Law, and the Law will be Faithful unto him, as the promise or covenant of the Just. Tis true, It properly signifies, rogatio, but as ro­gatio legis among the Latins was used for le­gis latio, and for the Law it self, and rogare legem, for legem ferre or statuere, because it was the custom that the Magistrate when at any time a Law was to be enacted, did ask the people, Rogaret populum, Velitis, jubea­tis ne Quirites hoc fieri? Do you desire or will, that this be a Law? upon whose answer that they did, the Law was publish't, and this was called rogatio legis, or the enacting of a Law, so was [...] and [...] with the Greeks, though properly it signifies rogatio, for the same reasons taken for stipulatio, or a cove­nant, nay we have in our Holy-okes Etymolo­gical Dictionary, rogare, stipulari, and surely the Law it self is nothing but a covenant. I say for the same reasons; for as Pomponius tells us, Stipulatio, was, Verborum conceptio quibus is qui interrogatur dicturum facturumve se quod interrogatus est, responderit, A concep­tion of words wherewith he that was asked, did answer that he would say or do the thing which he was asked; and that it took its name from the Interrogator, as the worthier person, was the opinion of Accursius and other Interpreters of the Law. All which doth suit very well in our present case. For in Ancient times, [Page 312] when the Catechumeni, who were to be Bap­tized, were interrogated by the Priest, whe­ther they did believe in the Resurrection of the dead, and the life to come, upon their answer that they did, the covenant was ac­cepted, and they were by him immediately Baptized in that Faith, as you may see in Chry­sostom and others, the like custom whereunto is still retained in our Church when in time of Baptism, to the question of the Minister, Wilt thou be Baptized in this Faith? the Spon­sors or Sureties forthwith answer, it is our de­sire. And this I take to be the Apostles mean­ing of [...] in this place. I have insisted the longer on these words, that I might more evidently shew, that the proper end of Bap­tism is to represent the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and our Faith in it, and not properly a sign of washing from the filth of sin, which the Apostle seems expresly in these words to deny, though many think or at least speak otherwise.

C. 4. v. 4. [...]. By a familiar trajection, In quo hospitantur blaspemantes, non concurrentibus vobis in eandem luxuriae confusionem, Where­in they abide continue or rest or lodge themselves blaspheming, you not running together with them into the same excess of riot. [...], hospi­tatur, Act. c. 10. v. 6.

[Page 313]V. 6. [...]. I suppose in this place, to make the construction and the sense agree, you must understand the article, [...], before [...], and before [...], a thing very frequent; or resume the Participle [...] in the third verse, altering onely the case. And then render it, For to this end was the Gospel preached to them that are dead, that they may be condemned who were according to men in the flesh, but that those who were according to God in the spi­rit may live. Or thus, that they may be con­demned who walked after men in the flesh, and they live who walked after God in the spirit.

Ch. 1. v. 5. &c.

[...], &c. Before [...] understand [...], Ubique locus est accusativo si intelligas [...], is a common rule, Et hoc ipsum cum omni diligentia introducentes, i. e. pro­moventes, jungite invicem cum fide virtutem, cum virtute scientiam, &c. And promoting this very thing [to wit that ye may be partakers of the divine nature, v. 4.] with all diligence, join hand in hand with your Faith virtue, with your vertue knowledge, with your knowledge tem­perance, with your temperance patience, with your patience godliness, with your godliness brotherly kindness, and with your brotherly kindness charity. [...] is frequently put for [...]. I cannot but think that the Apostle in this [Page 315] place had some reflection on the Ancient cu­stoms of the Heathen, when they lead their Chorus. For [...] doth properly sig­nifie, Chorum ducere, or in Choro ducere, To lead a Chorus, or in a Chorus, Now in their Chorus, [...], they were com­plicated together, Steph. or as in Homer,

They danced holding one anothers hands by the palm, waiting each on other, or Ministring each to other, from whence this word seemeth to have obtained these several significations. But behold here a goodly Chorus of Graces, where Faith leads the Chorus, and the rest of the Graces wait all upon her, as it were mutually joyned by the hands, and sustaining each the other. And this sense I suppose may well fit [...], Col. c. 2. v. 19. and [...], Eph. c. 4. v. 16.

V. 20. [...], Quod omnis Prophetia Scrip­turae propria interpretatione non fit. Thus the Interlineary and the Old Latin Interpreter. That every Prophesie of Scripture is not ful­filled in the proper interpretation, or that eve­ry Prophecy is not fulfilled in the proper inter­pretation of the writing, or of what is written, taking [...], for Scriptio, or Scriptum, as it often is in humane Authors, [...], Phavor. Though o­thers [Page 316] think it more Grammatical to Translate it thus, Quod omnis Prophetia Scripture pro­priae interpretationis non est, That every Pro­phecy of Scripture is not of its proper interpre­tation. But Translate it which way you will the sense is still the same, all one as if he had said, That every Prophecy was not accomplished according to the litteral, that is the proper meaning of the Scripture. For Prophesies have for the most part a typical, mystical, or analogical sense, though some time, some Prophesie hath a literal one, as that concerning Josiah, 1 King, c. 13. v. 2. and some time a literal and mysti­cal, Isai. c. 7. v. 14. and that of the Son of the Prophetess, Isai. c. 8. v. 3, 4. As many of the Fathers do expound it. And this sense doth fitly agree with the context, v. 19. We have also a more sure word of Prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shi­neth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. What I beseech you is this light that shineth in a dark place, but the Prophesies of Christ, in the proper interpretation of the Scripture, that is in the letter obscure and wrapped up in darkeness, until the day star of the Gospel do manifest and declare the type and my­stery in their hearts, and therefore he tells them, that they ought to know this chiefly, and to take heed that they stuck not too much in the naked letter, but that they should rather turn their minds to the meaning of the Prophecy, to [Page 317] the mystery which was covered in the letter, or written word. For, as it follows, v. 21. Prophe­sie came not of old time by the will of man, that is, they did not Prophesie in old time of their own head according to their own will, but holy men of God spake as they were inspired, and acted by the holy spirit, in figures, riddles, types and myste­ries, that those who saw [...], the letter of the Scripture, or the written word, might not see [...], the solution, or interpretation of it, un­less to whom the day star of the Gospel was risen in their hearts.

Ch. 2. v. 22.

[...], To words that are in themselves negative the Atticks add a negation, whereof you may see Animad. on 1 Tim. c. 4. v. 3. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? he is Antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son, Whosoever denieth the Son hath [Page 318] not the Father. It is unseasonable and need­less to add those words which follow in the English, and are restored by them and Beza out of the Syriack and Latin copies, they be­ing wanting in the Greek. To wit. He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, Which words are indeed altogether superfluous, and serve to no use, but rather destroy the sense. For those words, Who ever denieth the Son, hath not the Father, are a meer proof of the antecedent proposition, That he is An­tichrist who denieth the Father and the Son, by an answer to a tacit objection. As if, if any should object, I am not Antichrist, for I do not Deny the Father and the Son, for I ac­knowledge the Father, it should be imme­diately replied, Yea, but thou art Antichrist, whoever thou art and sayest so, and deniest the Son, for he who denieth the Son, hath not the Father. For every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him that is begotten of him, c. 5. v. 1. And he who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him, Joh. c. 5. v. 23.

Ch. 2. v. 22.

[...], Behold I will cast her and those that commit fornication with her on the bed into great affliction. This trajection is so fa­miliar, that I cannot but wonder that any should scruple at it. Especially the common version being so insignificant. The Alexandrian copy reads [...] for [...]. And I will cast her into prison, but because its single, I think we are not to acquiesce in it, neither is the read­ing altogether so pleasing that I am much de­lighted with it.

C. 13. v. 8. [...]. If these words be under­stood of the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world, as many think, then [Page 320] are they to be understood of Christ exhibited in the type of the Lamb which from the be­ginning of the world was slain by Abel for a Sacrifice, whereby he testified his Faith in Christ to come, and offer'd himself a Sacrifice for the sins of the world. But perhaps we may better say with the Greek Scholiast, [...], It is an Hyperbaton, as if we were to read, Whose names are not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. As were theirs which did not worship the Dra­gon, such as were in the Greek Scholiast, [...], All those that were Martyrs for their piety in the Old Testament, as also Luke saith in his Gospel, c. 10. v. 20. Rejoyce that your names are written in heaven. And for con­firmation of this Hyperbaton, we read c. 17. v. 8. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, [...], Whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, Where no mention at all is made of the Lamb that was slain. Which is a kind of demonstration, that the words are to be understood as they are be­fore rendred according to the Scholiast.